Flaws found in U.S. missile shield

average american

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 28, 2012
Messages
1,540
Likes
440
The american indians could not adapt from a hunter gathering culture to a manfacturing farming culture. Rule of nature, adap or change or you die.
Being human being does not change that as many Muslims are finding out. I can speak for a lot of americans and I know of no one that things the missile defenses the USA has would defend the USA from nuclear attack by Russia that have too many nuclear weapns and too many delivery systems to be stopped. Perhaps it might stop some rogue attack from Pakistan or Iran. though I highly doubt it, but as long as that possibility is there it might make some enemy hesitate as even the attemp would be massive and certain death in return;.
 

Razor

STABLE GENIUS
Senior Member
Joined
Feb 7, 2011
Messages
7,701
Likes
9,099
Country flag
As for Native Americans, these were different times, different standards, and really it was more fault of Native Americans, they too much wanted to stick with their traditions instead of assimilating with stronger "neighbours". Sometimes assymilations does not need loosing heritage, it can also strenghten it.

And currently their situation is not that bad, and will probably improve.
:tsk: So hypothetically, if the Muslims wipe out the European population, it would be the fault of the Europeans as they did not assimilate to Muslim culture. I expect better from Damian of the tank threads.
What I was saying is that nations act, not out of love for other nations, but out of desire to maintain dominance.

For example, the US has a nuclear sharing agreement w/ several European nations. What do you think, this is out of love for Europe ? :)
Granted it does provide a certain degree of deterrence to those European nations w/o nukes. But suppose there is a war b/w the US and Russia or the US and PRC, then the latter nations will be forced to take out the nukes in these Europeans nations too, and thereby unnecessarily involving these European nations in the war. A clever strategy imo. The fact is Europe (and its 600 million people) is just a chunk of buffer for the US on the Eastern side, just like Canada on the northern side.

But I agree, a military pact w/ the US is favorable to Europe. But the US is more benefited by the pact, than Europe.
Also I think this missile shield affects the balance of power from the viewpoint of the Russians, so no wonder they oppose it.
 

Damian

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 20, 2011
Messages
4,836
Likes
2,202
So hypothetically, if the Muslims wipe out the European population, it would be the fault of the Europeans as they did not assimilate to Muslim culture.
You can't compare two different and very specific situations.

Colonysts were not directly hostile to the natives culture, their religions etc. In fact as far as I know, natives also had support from many colonysts. I do not say that what happend was the best solutions, but if natives would be assimilated in to the new nations structure on the same rules like new imigrants were, then they could preserve their culture and in fact contribute in to the creation process of the new nation.

The fault in reality falls on both sides, that they pursued a short sighted desires instead of more progresive approach.

Muslims are other thing, they do not accept any minorities in reality, or rarely do and do not treat them equaly, this is mostly because of how fundamentally important is religion for them, that this is not only religion but also it is culture, law, everything.

But you are right, this is our, Europeans fault that we let so many Muslims to come to us, and that due to political correctness we do not keep an eye on them so they will respect and obey our laws.

What I was saying is that nations act, not out of love for other nations, but out of desire to maintain dominance.
Of course, just like in nature, a form of natural selection, however take a notice that mechanism in case of our civilization are more comples and sometimes subtle.

For example, the US has a nuclear sharing agreement w/ several European nations. What do you think, this is out of love for Europe ?
Granted it does provide a certain degree of deterrence to those European nations w/o nukes. But suppose there is a war b/w the US and Russia or the US and PRC, then the latter nations will be forced to take out the nukes in these Europeans nations too, and thereby unnecessarily involving these European nations in the war. A clever strategy imo. The fact is Europe (and its 600 million people) is just a chunk of buffer for the US on the Eastern side, just like Canada on the northern side.

But I agree w/ a military pact w/ the US is favorable to Europe, but the US is more benefited by the pact, than Europe.
USA is the strongest country in this pact, it is natural that they having decisive word, have the biggest benefits, also notice that the contribute to the pact most resources both human and material, IMHO they have a right to decide, especially that many countries in NATO does not provide sufficent contribution, in my opinion some of these nations are just ridiculous with their reductions and cuts only to feed hordes of parasites, mostly not even Europeans but just imigrants from Africa or Middle East.

Also I think this missile shield affects the balance of power from the viewpoint of the Russians, so no wonder they oppose it.
Of course it affects the balance, for several reasons, first conventional arms, NATO have advantage here, mainly because USA's contribution, so nuclear weapons were the only factor on the Russian side to keep the balance, Russians perfectly know, that they can't keep up due to financial problems mostly in terms of BMD systems with USA and it's allies, especially that USA try to build a global or semi global system, and this despite economic problems, so compare what NATO can do with economic problems and what Russians can't do now with their rather stable economical situation because of their natural resources exports.

Now imagine what would happen if European countries, USA and Canada would not have economic problems and their economy would record a significant growth.
 

Razor

STABLE GENIUS
Senior Member
Joined
Feb 7, 2011
Messages
7,701
Likes
9,099
Country flag
You can't compare two different and very specific situations.

Colonysts were not directly hostile to the natives culture, their religions etc. In fact as far as I know, natives also had support from many colonysts. I do not say that what happend was the best solutions, but if natives would be assimilated in to the new nations structure on the same rules like new imigrants were, then they could preserve their culture and in fact contribute in to the creation process of the new nation.

The fault in reality falls on both sides, that they pursued a short sighted desires instead of more progresive approach.

Muslims are other thing, they do not accept any minorities in reality, or rarely do and do not treat them equaly, this is mostly because of how fundamentally important is religion for them, that this is not only religion but also it is culture, law, everything.

But you are right, this is our, Europeans fault that we let so many Muslims to come to us, and that due to political correctness we do not keep an eye on them so they will respect and obey our laws.

USA is the strongest country in this pact, it is natural that they having decisive word, have the biggest benefits, also notice that the contribute to the pact most resources both human and material, IMHO they have a right to decide, especially that many countries in NATO does not provide sufficent contribution, in my opinion some of these nations are just ridiculous with their reductions and cuts only to feed hordes of parasites, mostly not even Europeans but just imigrants from Africa or Middle East.
Just to clarify: Have nothing against Muslim people, but I do have problems w/ religions that interfere with day-to-day life and which tries to control what happens in bed at night. Anyway, will stop posting on this as it will probably soon go in different directions which is not my intention. Religion and immigration can be discussed elsewhere. Note: This doesn't mean I completely concur w/ you. :)


Of course it affects the balance, for several reasons, first conventional arms, NATO have advantage here, mainly because USA's contribution, so nuclear weapons were the only factor on the Russian side to keep the balance, Russians perfectly know, that they can't keep up due to financial problems mostly in terms of BMD systems with USA and it's allies, especially that USA try to build a global or semi global system, and this despite economic problems, so compare what NATO can do with economic problems and what Russians can't do now with their rather stable economical situation because of their natural resources exports.

Now imagine what would happen if European countries, USA and Canada would not have economic problems and their economy would record a significant growth.
So in effect, you agree that the missile shield's purpose is to upset the balance and antagonize and provoke Russia.
 
Last edited:

Damian

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 20, 2011
Messages
4,836
Likes
2,202
So in effect, you agree that the missile shield's purpose is to upset the balance and antagonize and provoke Russia.
No, not at all, the reality is that Ballistic Missile Defense original purpose was to be a defensive system against possible missile attacks from countries like Iran or North Korea. However the BMD system have a potential to grow up in to something bigger, Russians know this, and I am sure that Americans are well aware of the systems potential.

The fundamental question is if Americans want and are financially capable in a long term to fully increase capabilities of BMD system close to this potential. It is obvious that Americans will not say it openly, and Russians assume that they will pursue such capabilities thus affecting the balance.
 

p2prada

Senior Member
Joined
May 25, 2009
Messages
10,234
Likes
4,015
The Russians have superior BMD capability. However BMD is at a nascent stage and the scope of growth in this field is limitless.

Americans are at the same level as India is at, with capability to engage 3Km/s targets. PAC 3 and AAD are at the same level whereas THAAD and PDV will be of similar levels. The detection and tracking capability by India will be the best there is and there is further room for growth here, thanks to Israel. The Russians will be testing capability against 5Km/s and higher with the S-500.

When it comes to Naval systems, India has none officially, not a major priority since we share land borders with our enemies. The US is at the numero uno position with Aegis for mid course interception with SM-3 followed by the Chinese with their KKV tests. Not sure if the Chinese one will be deployed anytime soon.

Both India and Russia will probably be developing missiles for mid course interception.

India will have the phase 2 of the BMD program after Phase 1 was completed. In phase 2 we will aim at stopping missiles moving at 5Km/s and will be ready for deployment by 2016. Russia will have 3 or 4 new missiles in the S-500 system.

Currently the Americans are hoping India can have a JV with them.

Except for Russia, all other countries (including the US) may take another decade to make their BMD systems fully operational. The Russians are already planning to develop and sell the export version of the S-400 by 2017, by then the S-500 would be developed and will surpass ABM treaty specifications by a decent margin.

Boost phase interception - US leads the race. Others are currently not interested.

Mid course interception - US leads the race with AEGIS. The Chinese have demonstrated capability, but not deployed. Indian and Russian plans are sketchy. Europe will see a lot of AEGIS based SM-3 missiles for the NATO BMD.

Terminal phase interception - The most important phase. Russia leads the race and are one step ahead of all. They have the old A-135 system running in Moscow since 2 decades now. US/India seem to be tied with the US (PAC-3/THAAD) already deploying while India (AAD/PDV) is in the process of deploying this capability. Chinese capability is based on older Russian BMD like the S-300. They are planning on buying the export version of the S-400. So, not impressive.

Israel has the Arrow program and are already developing the PDV equivalent called Arrow-3, to be inducted by 2014. So, they are nearly at par with India and the US.

The French Aster 30 is at the level of Arrow-2, PAC-3 and AAD. They don't have a Arrow-3/PDV/THAAD equivalent program.

So there are a lot of ongoing programs for terminal phase interception.
 

asianobserve

Tihar Jail
Banned
Joined
May 5, 2011
Messages
12,846
Likes
8,556
Country flag
So there are a lot of ongoing programs for terminal phase interception.

I think there may be a reason why the US has not prioritised terminal phase interception, in fact most of their research now are still on boost phase. I think the reason there is that it's very hard to defeat a BM in its terminal phase and if you fail intercepting in that phase then there's no layer beneath that anymore. So far the US has failed in its quest for the holy grail, an ABM defense system for boost phase. US strategy has always been to do the defense close to enemy's shores than American shores. I think this is a very sound strategy.
 

spikey360

Crusader
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 19, 2011
Messages
3,453
Likes
6,381
Country flag
I think there may be a reason why the US has not prioritised terminal phase interception, in fact most of their research now are still on boost phase. I think the reason there is that it's very hard to defeat a BM in its terminal phase and if you fail intercepting in that phase then there's no layer beneath that anymore. So far the US has failed in its quest for the holy grail, an ABM defense system for boost phase. US strategy has always been to do the defense close to enemy's shores than American shores. I think this is a very sound strategy.
You'd be saying just the opposite if US had mastered terminal phase interception.
But we understand, after all, those grapes hanging high up there, those are sour. :laugh:
You should talk about what the Mighty Nation of Malaysia is doing to save itself from the tiny red dragon.
 

asianobserve

Tihar Jail
Banned
Joined
May 5, 2011
Messages
12,846
Likes
8,556
Country flag
You'd be saying just the opposite if US had mastered terminal phase interception.
But we understand, after all, those grapes hanging high up there, those are sour. :laugh:
You should talk about what the Mighty Nation of Malaysia is doing to save itself from the tiny red dragon.

Sour grapes? There are no grapes here. I highlighted the capability gaps of the US but it should be put into context, ie. their defense strategy which is mainly offensive and to fight close to enemies territory rather than within US territory. The US is not going to fight based on Russian doctrines (the Russians also have their own doctrines where their weapons are based on).
 

asianobserve

Tihar Jail
Banned
Joined
May 5, 2011
Messages
12,846
Likes
8,556
Country flag
Oye dipshit. Contribute to the debate or lay off.

Yeah, cow dung. That was my contribution, or to be more precise my response to the usual "Americans are so stupid" line. The Americans are putting in place a shield or at least a working mechanism for a shield (not yet perfect) in preparation to the capabilities that Iran is developing and will surely develop and field in the next decade. Maybe Russia is partly in the equation to appease Eastern European countries that are still weary of Russia (you can't blame these countries). Although it is doubtful that these handful of ABM batteries will be enough to take on from a saturated Russian attack (so from here you can already infer who is the primary object of this system).
 
Last edited:

Razor

STABLE GENIUS
Senior Member
Joined
Feb 7, 2011
Messages
7,701
Likes
9,099
Country flag
Boost phase interception - US leads the race. Others are currently not interested.

Mid course interception - US leads the race with AEGIS. The Chinese have demonstrated capability, but not deployed. Indian and Russian plans are sketchy. Europe will see a lot of AEGIS based SM-3 missiles for the NATO BMD.

Terminal phase interception - The most important phase. Russia leads the race and are one step ahead of all. They have the old A-135 system running in Moscow since 2 decades now. US/India seem to be tied with the US (PAC-3/THAAD) already deploying while India (AAD/PDV) is in the process of deploying this capability. Chinese capability is based on older Russian BMD like the S-300. They are planning on buying the export version of the S-400. So, not impressive.

Israel has the Arrow program and are already developing the PDV equivalent called Arrow-3, to be inducted by 2014. So, they are nearly at par with India and the US.

The French Aster 30 is at the level of Arrow-2, PAC-3 and AAD. They don't have a Arrow-3/PDV/THAAD equivalent program.

So there are a lot of ongoing programs for terminal phase interception.
Hi.
Why do you say that Terminal Phase Interception is the most important ?
I would imagine Boost P.I. is the most important as the missile is most easily detectable and also debris will fall in the nation of missile origin. But it is the most difficult as interceptor missiles will need to be placed very near to the enemy missile sites. And only the US with its several hundred overseas bases and with its encirclement of major adversaries can put in place a proper Boost phase interception capability, I suppose.
 
Last edited:

trackwhack

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 20, 2011
Messages
3,757
Likes
2,589
Yeah, cow dung. That was my contribution, or to be more precise my response to the usual "Americans are so stupid" line. The Americans are putting in place a shield or at least a working mechanism for a shield (not yet perfect) in preparation to the capabilities that Iran is developing and will surely develop and field in the next decade. Maybe Russia is partly in the equation to appease Eastern European countries that are still weary of Russia (you can't blame these countries). Although it is doubtful that these handful of ABM batteries will be enough to take on from a saturated Russian attack (so from here you can already infer who is the primary object of this system).
You just said

"Yeah, cow dung. That was my contribution"

Need I say more?
 

p2prada

Senior Member
Joined
May 25, 2009
Messages
10,234
Likes
4,015
I think there may be a reason why the US has not prioritised terminal phase interception, in fact most of their research now are still on boost phase. I think the reason there is that it's very hard to defeat a BM in its terminal phase and if you fail intercepting in that phase then there's no layer beneath that anymore. So far the US has failed in its quest for the holy grail, an ABM defense system for boost phase. US strategy has always been to do the defense close to enemy's shores than American shores. I think this is a very sound strategy.
Even the US is still a decade away from operationalizing anything remotely to do with boost phase interception. 7-8 Km from YAL-1, some limited SM-3 capability at 40Km. Air to air missiles from fighters. That's about it.

The best US technology is AEGIS based SM-3 for mid course interception. A 500Km+ range missile, capable of leaving the earth's atmosphere and uses a kinetic kill vehicle with hit to kill capability. The best there is.

Americans programs for terminal phase interception is progressing really fast. PAC-3 and THAAD are well known systems.

They have too much money and hence can spend on a lot off such programs.

Hi.
Why do you say that Terminal Phase Interception is the most important ?
I would imagine Boost P.I. is the most important as the missile is most easily detectable and also debris will fall in the nation of missile origin. But it is the most difficult as interceptor missiles will need to be placed very near to the enemy missile sites. And only the US with its several hundred overseas bases and with its encirclement of major adversaries can put in place a proper Boost phase interception capability, I suppose.
Terminal phase is the part where the warhead separates from the missile and drops to the earth. That's when the warhead is the fastest, but also follows a predictable flight path, hence the most vulnerable. Meaning you can achieve guaranteed results if your systems are working fine. With a combination of AAD and PAD India has achieved a 99.8% kill probability.

Boost phase is when the missile is just taking off, be it a submarine, silo or road/rail launcher. In order to kill a missile during boost phase you need to be around during the time of the launch. Being present at the right time and right place isn't guaranteed. While the missile itself is vulnerable, it will still be surrounded by a host of air defense systems belonging to the enemy. So, can you position a passenger aircraft 200Km from the launch site inside enemy territory? Nearly impossible. Also, there will be too many missiles taking off at once. Say there are 2000 missiles taking off from different places, lets say 300 different places. You will need at least 300-400 passenger aircraft based YAL-1 lasers within the vicinity to stop the missile.

Also, I am just saying 200-300Km since that is the goal, today's technology has only allowed a range of 7-8 Km. So, even the Americans are decades away from this level of technology.

Boeing YAL-1 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Advanced Tactical Laser - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

There are too many uncertainties when it comes to boost phase interception and the technology levels alone are too primitive.

Mid course interception is when the missile is headed towards the target and is yet to release the warhead, or even warheads (MIRV). While this is an excellent capability to have, it is not worthwhile to India because we don't have the kind of geographical advantage that can use this capability to its maximum effect. For eg: We cannot place ships in the Pacific and Arctic like the Americans can to stop the missiles, we have soft borders with our enemies and need only terminal phase BMD as of today.
 

asianobserve

Tihar Jail
Banned
Joined
May 5, 2011
Messages
12,846
Likes
8,556
Country flag
Terminal phase is the part where the warhead separates from the missile and drops to the earth. That's when the warhead is the fastest, but also follows a predictable flight path, hence the most vulnerable. Meaning you can achieve guaranteed results if your systems are working fine. With a combination of AAD and PAD India has achieved a 99.8% kill probability.

This is for ballisitic missiles with non-maneuvering reentry vehicles. But the new line of strategic ballistic missiles already have maneuvering reentry vehicles capabilities. This new reentry vehicles makes it even harder for terminal phase ABM to intercept.

Here are some list of ballistic missiles with capabilities for maneuvering reentry vehicles: Maneuverable reentry vehicle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Then you have reentry decoys...
 
Last edited:

asianobserve

Tihar Jail
Banned
Joined
May 5, 2011
Messages
12,846
Likes
8,556
Country flag
Here's a diagram of American ABM defense umbrella (some components are not operational).



Here's another diagram...

 

p2prada

Senior Member
Joined
May 25, 2009
Messages
10,234
Likes
4,015
This is for ballisitic missiles with non-maneuvering reentry vehicles. But the new line of strategic ballistic missiles already have maneuvering reentry vehicles capabilities. This new reentry vehicles makes it even harder for terminal phase ABM to intercept.

Here are some list of ballistic missiles with capabilities for maneuvering reentry vehicles: Maneuverable reentry vehicle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Then you have reentry decoys...
In the end, the warhead will still fall down in a predictable path.

Maneuverable warheads have been talked about, they zig zag their way into the atmosphere, but maneuverable RVs don't necessarily stop terminal defences.

Detecting RVs and identifying them has always been a problem, here Indian and Israeli AESA systems have the upper hand compared to American and Russian PESA systems.

Decoys or not, BMD has always been about having more missile systems than your enemy has warheads.

So, you have 50 missiles capable of firing 10 warheads, decoys or not, we need to have a minimum of 500-1000 ABMs for fool proof penetration.

Even with advances in RV technology, terminal phase is the most sure shot way of protecting yourself, simply because the uncertainties in other phases don't exist.

In boost phase, you need to be very close to the launch site, tactically impossible. In mid course you need to be between the launch point and the target, very difficult to predict where the enemy may be located in order to position yourself. In terminal phase, you are the target and you need your BMD at your position. This is a factor that is completely in your control. Hence the most safe of all phases.

Boost phase has so many problems, starting from technology to tactical employment. It is simply not feasible today. Maybe when countries start exploiting space, with satellite based BMD, then we will see.

Mid course systems need a lot of investments in terms of very large radars (MW range power), capable of scanning space, and large and expensive missiles, capable of reaching space. Along with moving platforms (like ships) capable of carrying and employing them. You need enough numbers, spread out over a large area. That's why the Americans have 40 or 50 SM-3 capable ships. Not many countries can afford this.

Terminal phase systems can double up as a BMD shield and an air defence system. The missiles have shorter range, are lighter, easier to store, easier to maintain, easier to position and employ. Terminal phase itself has a two tier system that gives a greater kill probability compared to other phases. At the same time, the terminal phase BMD is nearly immune from attack whereas you can always end up bringing down the less defensible aircraft or ship while conducting boost phase or mid course interception.
 

Global Defence

New threads

Articles

Top