Does Ballistic Missile Can Attack Aircraft Carrier Successfully?

Originally posted by COWlan
these anti ship warheads have a reentry boost rocket accelerating it to well beyond mach 10 during the terminal phase where the active seeker goes off.

They do ? What is the name of this rocket ?
You know warheads actually separate from the booster, they don't remain attached, therefore where does all this extra boost come from.

Also, with a conventional warhead, I doubt the CHinese have solved the problems associated with fuzing and guidance at those speeds.

The point of this is not to hit a carrier but explode and send sharpnel or small metal pellets over the area of the fleet in a large area destroying electric equipment planes or people on deck effectivly giving china a mission kill. These little metal balls and the former missile will be traveling at over mach 3 when they hit a object so your radars sensors will be damaged giving planes a advantge in the area.

What is effective about this is the extreme speeds it hits at and the difficulty to track and destroy a Ballistic missile. A CEP of 20 or even 50 metres would be effective. ICBM missiels or chinas DF-21 is esitmated to have a re-entry speed of 7 and mach 5 respectivly

Originally posted by chinawhite
The point of this is not to hit a carrier but explode and send sharpnel or small metal pellets over the area of the fleet in a large area destroying electric equipment planes or people on deck effectivly giving china a mission kill. These little metal balls and the former missile will be traveling at over mach 3 when they hit a object so your radars sensors will be damaged giving planes a advantge in the area.

So you're saying this missile is a ballistic anti-radiation missile ? Do you have any specifications or information about this warhead or is this just speculation ?
I have seen a patent for a chinese ABM missile warhead using tungsten pellets which are scattered in a dense circular pattern in front of an incoming warhead.

What is effective about this is the extreme speeds it hits at and the difficulty to track and destroy a Ballistic missile. A CEP of 20 or even 50 metres would be effective. ICBM missiels or chinas DF-21 is esitmated to have a re-entry speed of 7 and mach 5 respectivly

I don't think the US SPY radars wouldn't have any problems tracking an incoming warhead, after all they have been successful 6 from 7 times in interecepting ICBM warheads during testing ( using the SM-III missile ), which move much faster than IRBM warheads.

Originally posted by mad scientist
So you're saying this missile is a ballistic anti-radiation missile ? Do you have any specifications or information about this warhead or is this just speculation ? I have seen a patent for a chinese ABM missile warhead using tungsten pellets which are scattered in a dense circular pattern in front of an incoming warhead.

Chinese ABM? what the

This is comng from a report in chinese about the use of ballistic missiles attacking aircraft carriers. The brief run down is a ballistic missile using the guidence of a Anti-ship missile and the normal warhead combined with TVM guidence used on SAMs or a similar method. Using your infra-red scanners then the data links getting information from aircraft or ground based radars give you a pretty precise place. Ballistic missiles were using inertial guidence and still got with-in 50 CEP for a missile aiming 10,000km away. imagine a shorter missile with a lot better technology. Again you dont need to be spot on the money. 50 meters 100 meters is not a long distance for weapons and espically one which explodes and heads of little bullet like balls come out

I don't think the US SPY radars wouldn't have any problems tracking an incoming warhead, after all they have been successful 6 from 7 times in interecepting ICBM warheads during testing ( using the SM-III missile ), which move much faster than IRBM warheads.

Spy sateillites tracking missiles in space?. It might see a lanuch by hell no tracking a 22k/s missile or even guidening a missile towards it

"Navy Theater Wide (NTW)
[e]The United States Navy is developing STANDARD Missile-3 (SM-3) as part of the Navy Theater Wide (NTW) system that will provide allied forces and U.S. protection from theater ballistic missiles"

Tested on a ICBM?. the SM-III is being designed for a regional conflict like the middle east where americas forces would be concentrated and its military gear would be there to watch over the area. This is quite stupid since the small number of american sateillites could not covered all of chinas east coast nor all the counter measures china is building(refer to china-defence.com for information). This will not be one missile but more than one to achieve a higher goal. The basis of the NTW is for the sateillies or other systems to actually see the lanuch and if it didn't bye bye carrier.


MIRV wouldn't make sense in this scenario. it doesn't need to be accurate but just there and overwhelm the defences. MRV is much more logical

A MRV is a bunch of warheads in one missile. It is used as a area attack weapon for targets which are spread out of larger because they attack a large area. This one can only attack one area at a time and is mostly used because it can attack a much larger area than the largest possibl yeild warhead. and only needs one missile. China definatly has this technology because it can launch multiple satellites with just one rocket which is basicly this technology.

SPY is the radar used by the Aegis. SPY-1D is the standard radar in the USN.

Originally posted by chinawhite
This is comng from a report in chinese about the use of ballistic missiles attacking aircraft carriers. The brief run down is a ballistic missile using the guidence of a Anti-ship missile and the normal warhead combined with TVM guidence used on SAMs or a similar method.

Guidance used on SAM's and ASM's, isn't really that compatible for a ballistic warhead. The flight parameters are completely different. The computing power needed would be far greater due to the increased speeds. A

Using your infra-red scanners then the data links getting information from aircraft or ground based radars give you a pretty precise place. Ballistic missiles were using inertial guidence and still got with-in 50 CEP for a missile aiming 10,000km away.

What bollocks, China hasn't tested a ballistic missile to 10 000 km much less be able to claim 50m accuracy. I don't think any ICBM has an accuracy of 50m just using inertial guidance. Got anyhthing to back you up ?
So, yo're now saying as well, that the Chinese are going to use ICBM's to attack carriers ? Highly unlikely, especially by the time the missile arrived at the target a carrier would be miles away.

imagine a shorter missile with a lot better technology. Again you dont need to be spot on the money. 50 meters 100 meters is not a long distance for weapons and espically one which explodes and heads of little bullet like balls come out

LOL, well IRBM's and shorter range missiles are easy meat for the AEGIS SPY-1 radar and the SM-III missile.

I don't think the US SPY radars wouldn't have any problems tracking an incoming warhead, after all they have been successful 6 from 7 times in interecepting ICBM warheads during testing ( using the SM-III missile ), which move much faster than IRBM warheads.

Spy sateillites tracking missiles in space?. It might see a lanuch by hell no tracking a 22k/s missile or even guidening a missile towards it

As has been pointed out PSY radar stands for Surface Phased Array. It can easily track ballistic targets, whgat did you think that a RV could outrun radar waves lol.

Tested on a ICBM?. the SM-III is being designed for a regional conflict like the middle east where americas forces would be concentrated and its military gear would be there to watch over the area.

Duh, this supposed chinese anti-ship ballistic missile isn't going to be mounted on an ICBM, as you've claimed. So it is well within the SM-III's kill envelope. AEGIS ships are always stationed with carriers, so they would always have an protective umbrella against ballistic threats.

This is quite stupid since the small number of american sateillites could not covered all of chinas east coast nor all the counter measures china is building(refer to china-defence.com for information)

LOL, the US has well over 100 spy satellites in space. It would only need 2 maybe 3 DSP satellites to cover the entirety of China. DSP satellites use passive infra-red detectors to spot missile launches and are considered very reliable.

This will not be one missile but more than one to achieve a higher goal. The basis of the NTW is for the sateillies or other systems to actually see the lanuch and if it didn't bye bye carrier.

So what ? AEGIS ships hvae very large missile magazines. As has been already said, sthe SPY radar can easily pick up tiny targets in space and guide missiles towards them, they already have 6 times.

However, the PLA would need to make substantial advances in missile guidance and countermeasures in order to achieve the very high precision required to attack a moving target. To do so, the US Office of Naval Intelligence noted: "The current TBM force would be modified by changing some to the current missiles' re-entry vehicles to manoeuvring re-entry vehicles with radar or infra-red seekers to provide the accuracy needed to attack ships at sea

To do this, the PLA would have to accomplish significant miniaturisation and stress hardening for RV-sized radar packages. In addition, the PLA would have to significantly improve its surveillance system in order to adequately target its anti-ship ballistic missiles.

www.janes.com...

Actually, the SM-3 has killed a ballistic missile outside the atmosphere, so theoretically, even an ICBM is within its kill envelope if it's in the right place.

Raytheon's next hit-to-kill success with the sea-based STANDARD Missile-3 occurred on 11 December 2003. Between January 2002 and late 2004, the Aegis BMD system had successfully intercepted targets in space four times with SM-3. In all the flight tests, the SM-3 was launched from a US Navy cruiser under increasingly realistic, operational conditions.

On 24 February 2005 the Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD) Weapon System and Standard Missile-3 (SM-3) destroyed a ballistic missile outside the earth's atmosphere during an Aegis BMD Program flight test over the Pacific Ocean. The Feb. 24 mission -- the fifth successful intercept for SM-3 -- was the first firing of the Aegis BMD "Emergency Deployment" capability using operational versions of the SM-3 Block I missile and Aegis BMD Weapon System. This was also the first test to exercise SM-3's third stage rocket motor (TSRM) single-pulse mode. The TSRM has two pulses, which can be ignited independently, providing expansion of the ballistic missile engagement battlespace. The SM-3 was launched from the Aegis BMD cruiser USS Lake Erie (CG 70) and hit a target missile that had been launched from the U.S. Navy's Pacific Missile Range Facility on Kauai, Hawaii.

www.globalsecurity.org...

[edit on 2/8/2006 by Zaphod58]

Originally posted by mad scientist
Guidance used on SAM's and ASM's, isn't really that compatible for a ballistic warhead. The flight parameters are completely different. The computing power needed would be far greater due to the increased speeds.

While CPU speeds on normal Sams and ASM are around the 10-20mhz mark(russian). and TVM was deployed in late 80s and early 90s so technology wise wouldn't be that advanced or need as much computer power as a commerical CPU chip s in reailty very possible. This technology has already been implemented in the BrahMos missile. Its not something impossle or very advanced

What bollocks, China hasn't tested a ballistic missile to 10 000 km much less be able to claim 50m accuracy. So, yo're now saying as well, that the Chinese are going to use ICBM's to attack carriers ?

Nope made no referene to chinese missiles. but when i was thinking about it i was thinking about the american miuteman which is claimed to have 50CEP. My original comment by the way was

" Ballistic missiles were using inertial guidence and still got with-in 50 CEP for a missile aiming 10,000km away."

This was meaning that if a ICBM could achieve a 50m CEP from 10,000 away than a shorter range one could get under 50CEP

well IRBM's and shorter range missiles are easy meat for the AEGIS SPY-1 radar

Well this system is developed to defeat Scud missiles or scud missile devaritives. Chinese short range missiles are completely different offering counter measures and quicker speeds. The SM-III (from memory) was tested againest a simulated scud missile which doesn't go anywhere near the altitude chinese MRBM get to.

The Aegis BMD flight test program has achieved four successful intercepts in five attempts. These flight tests have demonstrated the capability to intercept short-range, simple unitary targets in both descent and ascent phases of flight, and in the case of FM-6, have shown the capability to destroy the target warhead.

I highlighted the above bits.

1)Four out of five.
2)Short-range simple unitary targets.
3)have shown capability to shot warheads.

While the first one is self explaintary.
It has not been tested on a ICBM and even a medium range missile(scuds dont go to medium range)
The main capability is to shoot at missiles and only in one test has it hit a warhead

As has been pointed out PSY radar stands for Surface Phased Array. It can easily track ballistic targets, whgat did you think that a RV could outrun radar waves

Easily?. Five simulated test is now easily? Im not aware of the test conditions but dinfinaty a scud missile or an other missile based on the scud. Like i said before china does not use scub missiles and chinas MRBM or SRBM have more pulling power and comes with counter measures

Duh, this supposed chinese anti-ship ballistic missile isn't going to be mounted on an ICBM, as you've claimed.

I never said china would use ICBMS nor did i say claimed missile. Go around a chinese forum and look for something like "how to kill a carrier" or something similar. This was publised along with stats by the authors of unrestricted warfare which is a chinese white power on how to win in the taiwan strait

the US has well over 100 spy satellites in space.

100?. Im not sure what your basing this on but the KH-11 or KH-12 have not been lanuched in these numbers. CIA sateillies probaly?

The AEGIS was designed to shoot down cruise and sntiship missiles. NOT Scud missiles.

The Aegis weapons system is a surface-to-air integrated weapons system. It is designed to defend the fleet against any airborne threat. The heart of the Aegis system is the AN/SPY-1 Phased-array radar system coupled with the AN/UYK-1 high-speed computer system. This combination is able to detect incoming missiles or aircraft, sort them by assigning a threat value, assign on-board Standard surface-to-air missiles, and guide the missiles to their targets. Aegis can track up to 100 targets at any given time. The radar panels are flat structures, mounted to give 360 degree coverage around the ship. These are an improvement over the old rotating type of radar in that there are no moving parts. The old rotating radar covered ONLY the area they were scanning. Phased arrays switch rapidly and cover the entire range around the ship in milliseconds.

navysite.de...

Uh, no. It MISSED in one attempt because there was a faulty valve on the missile itself. If you read the full text it said the tests were beciming increasingly difficult and more real world typse situations. Also note that these were tests performed in 2003/2004. There is only record of one 2005 test on the page.

Aegis BMD testbed initiated a series of increasingly complex missions to evaluate SM-3 design capability while the program prepares for potential emergency tactical availability. The first mission of this test series, Flight Mission Four (FM-4), was flown on 21 November 2002 resulting in a third successful intercept for the program. This mission demonstrated the ship’s crew and system response times necessary to track, engage, and intercept a ballistic missile target early in flight during its ascent phase (prior to apogee). FM-4 also provided a key verification of SM-3’s capability to accurately hit the target at a predefined point for lethality which, for this test, was forward of the target center. The KW impacted within centimeters of the aimpoint, completely destroying the target avionics section.

In FY03, two intercept attempts of a unitary target in its ascent phase were conducted. In the first test, the Aegis BMD element successfully intercepted the target. Using a newly designed divert system onboard the SM-3 missile, the Aegis BMD failed to intercept the target in the second FY03 test. The cause of the failed intercept has been attributed to a malfunction in a divert valve in the attitude control system onboard the kinetic warhead. Testing continued based on the consistent performance of the sustained pulse mode, while mitigation options were evaluated.

In FY03, the operational robustness of the Aegis BMD Block 2004 test program was enhanced by increased operational realism in the test strategy. Efforts to add operational realism as part of the developmental test strategy provide significant risk reduction in advance of operational testing and potential deployment of the element. The planned growth in flight test realism is consistent with the maturity of the system. Although the Block 2004 flight test plan include many operationally realistic aspects, some important operational scenarios remain untested by the end of the Block 2004 test program. These include multiple simultaneous engagements and separating targets. Development and integration of critical technologies pertaining to threat discrimination (e.g., AWS discrimination logic, radar and infrared seeker upgrades) and missile propulsion (e.g., kinetic warhead divert system, SM-3 booster propulsion) could improve operational capability as they are introduced in Block 2004 and subsequent upgrades.

www.globalsecurity.org...

[edit on 2/8/2006 by Zaphod58]

Originally posted by chinawhite
While CPU speeds on normal Sams and ASM are around the 10-20mhz mark(russian). and TVM was deployed in late 80s and early 90s so technology wise wouldn't be that advanced or need as much computer power as a commerical CPU chip s in reailty very possible. This technology has already been implemented in the BrahMos missile. Its not something impossle or very advanced.

CPU clock speeds mean nothing, that is only one very basic indictaor of a CPU's power. The Brahmos or any other non ballistic missile doesn't even come close to the speeds a RV achieves.
The guidance system on this alleged ASBM, has to process information from it's sensors far far more quickly than and terrestial ASM.

Nope made no referene to chinese missiles. but when i was thinking about it i was thinking about the american miuteman which is claimed to have 50CEP. My original comment by the way was

" Ballistic missiles were using inertial guidence and still got with-in 50 CEP for a missile aiming 10,000km away."

This was meaning that if a ICBM could achieve a 50m CEP from 10,000 away than a shorter range one could get under 50CEP

The minuteman warheads use GPS, not just inertial guidance, earlier versions also used stellar/inertial guidance. BTW, you're talking about US missiles not Chinese.

Well this system is developed to defeat Scud missiles or scud missile devaritives. Chinese short range missiles are completely different offering counter measures and quicker speeds. The SM-III (from memory) was tested againest a simulated scud missile which doesn't go anywhere near the altitude chinese MRBM get to.

The SM-III LEAP is designed to take out anything from IRBM's to shorter range ballistic targets. As has been shown in information already posted in previous posts.

Easily?. Five simulated test is now easily? Im not aware of the test conditions but dinfinaty a scud missile or an other missile based on the scud. Like i said before china does not use scub missiles and chinas MRBM or SRBM have more pulling power and comes with counter measures

As above.

BTW, the Chinese haven't even tested any Anti-ship ballistic missiles So teh SM-III doesn't even have to face the threat atm. The very earliest the Chinese could possibly deploy a ASBM is 2009, providing they can actually build enough surveillance assets.

100?. Im not sure what your basing this on but the KH-11 or KH-12 have not been lanuched in these numbers. CIA sateillies probaly?

Ahem, the KH series of satellites do not look for the launch of ballistic missiles, DSP satellites do. What KH satellites have to do with this, I have no idea, maybe you'd care to elaborate.

Pi In The Sky

Originally posted by mad scientist
LOL, the US has well over 100 spy satellites in space.

Not that I'm an expert, but I'm pretty sure the exact number of surveillance satellites the U.S. has in space is probably not a figure made readily available for public consumption.

Well up until recently they've been really hard to hide doncha know Those darned solar panels light em up like a Christmas tree. Just check a database that lists the commercial sats and do it via process of elimination. If amatuer Sat watchers can do it so can governments.

Also theres the fact that actually sending them up isn't a stealthy affair either and people DO notice unannounced lauches.

[edit on 9-2-2006 by sardion2000]

Originally posted by chinawhite
The point of this is not to hit a carrier but explode and send sharpnel or small metal pellets over the area of the fleet in a large area destroying electric equipment planes or people on deck effectivly giving china a mission kill. These little metal balls and the former missile will be traveling at over mach 3 when they hit a object so your radars sensors will be damaged giving planes a advantge in the area.

What is effective about this is the extreme speeds it hits at and the difficulty to track and destroy a Ballistic missile. A CEP of 20 or even 50 metres would be effective. ICBM missiels or chinas DF-21 is esitmated to have a re-entry speed of 7 and mach 5 respectivly

Not that this isn't actually a pretty good idea(no sarcasm intended), unfortunately, ballistic systems are not the best delivery systems.

A single MRBM RV simply does not provide enough "coverage" so to speak to guarantee that it will hit its targets.
Even more difficult, at reentry speeds, I have serious doubts about the ability to create small warheads capable of surviving reentry.

Second issue, terminal guidance. How are you going to target the ships? It's pretty clear you cannot generate enough "dumb shrapnel" to cover the large territory a CSF can traverse.

Personally, I believe a better approach is to use a high flying stealthy cruise missile to fly over the battle group's path and sprinkle it with something like the BAT which has already proven itself in tests. This provides a means of delivery that gives the submunitions survivability and time to respond to targeting information.

The point is, ballistic trajectories are not the best for pinpoint accuracy, as they come in too hard, too fast for exact course corrections. And GPS is not something you want to rely on using against the US...same goes for Galileo which Europe most likely would also turn off for China in the event of war.

However, ship designers are not completely unaware of these threats. You see, submunitions, due to space issues, can at best rely on IR targeting systems to fire the "skeets" at targets. And designers of new ships such as DDX(and I believe Type 45 as well) understand this which is why the crosssections of the fore and aft of the vessels are greater than those of the center...meaning that relatively dumb IR based systems will NOT hit the superstructure with the delicate sensors.

OTOH, it may be possible to "teach" a system using more modern IIR to go for images matching superstructures, but I don't have the background to talk knowledgably about that.

Originally posted by mad scientist
The Brahmos or any other non ballistic missile doesn't even come close to the speeds a RV achieves.
The guidance system on this alleged ASBM, has to process information from it's sensors far far more quickly than and terrestial ASM.

Well im no computer expert but i know 14mhz compared to 3000mhz is a lot more processing power, I think this is the only way raw processing power is measured. increased processing power is what programs our computers. What in your opinoin would be needed to increasing the processing speed of the missile?

You said in this thread somewhere that a MRBM travels at mach three and a ICBM travels at mach 7. the Brahmos is a mach 3 missile is is roughly comparable in the need of processing power. The brahmos is also different because with its sensors it will also manuver to the target which will also need more processing power and other missiles like the moskit also have that capability

In reality the weapons most armies are using are obsolete compared to what the commerical market has access to. Someone siad ATS claimed the F-22 is working from a 14mhz CPU or a link to somewhere stated that

The minuteman warheads use GPS, not just inertial guidance, earlier versions also used stellar/inertial guidance. BTW, you're talking about US missiles not Chinese.

According to FAS it uses inertial guidance only while i couldn't find plans where it would be fitting GPS to it. But i was wrong off the mark it was 100m max with a improved inertial guidance system. But thats what you get for getting it off your head.

The actual test was conducted with a D-15A which has a CEP of 30~50m. If you think about a explosion and the distance a bullet can go 30~50m CEP is not bad for that type of situation. Imagine a massive claymore mine attached to the top of a 1 ton warhead filled with tungsten pellets. Massive circle

The SM-III LEAP is designed to take out anything from IRBM's to shorter range ballistic targets. As has been shown in information already posted in previous posts.

IRBM and SRBM are the same?. Yes i was reading the links posted before. But i highly doubt the missiles the US were thinking about were more than scub missiles or enlarged scud missiles without any countermeasures but bumb missiles which fly in a strait path that dont have flares or anything else

The very earliest the Chinese could possibly deploy a ASBM is 2009, providing they can actually build enough surveillance assets.

While china has two spy sateillies up and half a dozen ELINT AWACS in building and testing. Like i said before it states in the chinese white paper that a system has been tested already and thats where the conclusion about ASBM comes from

What KH satellites have to do with this, I have no idea, maybe you'd care to elaborate.

You said spy satellites and i thought you were thinking of the KH-11. How many DSP satellites are there in orbit anyway?

The CURRENT Aegis missile defense takes on one missile with no decoys. As the tests go on, and the technology develops they will be test shooting at multiple missiles, with decoys and countermeasures.

Originally posted by ORIEguy
A single MRBM RV simply does not provide enough "coverage" so to speak to guarantee that it will hit its targets. Even more difficult, at reentry speeds, I have serious doubts about the ability to create small warheads capable of surviving reentry. Personally, I believe a better approach is to use a high flying stealthy cruise missile to fly over the battle group's path and sprinkle it with something like the BAT which has already proven itself in tests.

ORIEguy,

This is not just ment to send one or a couple of SRBM or MRBMs to attack a carrier fleet its about flooding the defenses combined with air lanuched anti-ship missiles and submarine lanuched anti-ship missiles. The russians in the cold war would hook up their backfires with mach three kitchens to saturate the US carrier defense which were meant to be effective

chinas doctrime is a little similar to the saturating bit but doing that with stealthy missile attacks. Chinas purchases of Kilo submarines with the Klub cruise missile system. china has 12 of them right now. 2 877 and the rest 636 ones armed with the klub system. and producing the Song class with chinese missiles with about one dozen in service or sea trials. But im not saying all of them will be concentrated on a carrier group but the figure of 24 modern submarines kind of hits you in the face pretty hard

The surface fleet is the soverny class with moskit missiles. the first ones 956 has the 120km moskit missiles and the improved 956EM has the improved moskit with a range of about 200km. Plus chinas own destroyers with 280km range YJ-62 missiles and a lot of other missiles but i cant be bother going over all of them at this momment.

Chinas air component is the Su-30MK2 which is a Su-30MKK optimized for naval combat with the N001VEP radar firing KP-31 missiles. Fly low and fly fast to the target. Chinas JH-7/A fighters which are purpose built for naval strikes along with ground strikes but anyway was built to go low and fire their missiles. then there are the the H-6 missiles which are also being equiped with cruise missiles. old but still flying

Anyway what im getting at is china is not going to just throw some missiles at them and hpe the problem goes away but a co-ordinated assult involing all arms of chinas military. Most probaly chinas submarines will fire the first shots then all of a sudden a hail of pellets come from the sky then some low flying aircraft. all assuming america enters within 200km of chinas coast or first interfers in the taiwan strait

-------------

Bottom line is chinas SRBM or MRBM will be fitted with improved guidence to allow them to see and hit a moving carrier. Its been tried and called a "sucess" according to a chinese white paper about chinas military moderizationa and effects on the region by the authors of "unresticted warfare"

Originally posted by Zaphod58
The CURRENT Aegis missile defense takes on one missile with no decoys. As the tests go on, and the technology develops they will be test shooting at multiple missiles, with decoys and countermeasures.

But i thought we were talking about the current systems?. Not many systems follows the path of a development schedule. Maybe it will finish eariler and maybe it will finish later. But mabye the fad will be manuvering missiles in the future like the Topl-M which is claimed to beat the project US program

It MISSED in one attempt because there was a faulty valve on the missile itself. If you read the full text it said the tests were beciming increasingly difficult and more real world typse situations

And the figures still stands at 4:5. point being?. They seem to have fixed the problem but a fail attempt is still a fail attempt no matter how it failed. I have no doubt with time the US will deploy a good ABM system but i am talking about the current capabilites which someone claimed could easily intercept a missile. difference?

This is slightly off-topic, but I think it relates to this thread.

Technologically superior countries like America are in love with Sattelite capabilities, but consider for a moment how vulnerable they really are. Mostly composed of brittle circuitry and gold foil, right? What beats sats? Rocks and dirt. I suppose if you wanted to get crazy you could use an acid mist or something nutty like that, but I should think rocks would work just fine.

Couldn't some nation like China theoretically launch a few tons of crushed gravel into orbit, depositing 'screens' at various altitudes to catch the passing sats and shred them? Seems a lot more cost effective than any other methods of neutralizing the eyes in the sky.

That was an actual proposal for an ASAT/Antispace station weapon. It's a missile that explodes before impact and sends out a cone of shrapnel.

WyrdeOne,

I like your thinking. Paper beats rock, rock beats scissors, scissors beats paper . Gravel beats satillite .Cost effective maybe, but other systems are being developed like lasers electric jammers and other things like that mini killer satillites which just attach themselves and disables a sateillite. But if there are 100+ satillites that were claimed it would be very difficult throwing dirt up in sapce

[edit on 9-2-2006 by chinawhite]