Talking bollocks thread #2

jhelb wrote:

GarryB wrote:Most MARVs reenter the atmosphere and start manouvering quite early in their flight profile, which is likely to be based on where known fixed ABM sites are... once they start to manouver interception becomes very very problematic because they are no longer flying on a predictable ballistic path but are still travelling at enormous speeds so getting to where they are going before they get there is still tricky.

Why do they start maneuvering so early in the flight profile ? They are loosing a lot of energy in the process.

GarryB wrote:once they start to manouver interception becomes very very problematic because they are no longer flying on a predictable ballistic path

Interception won't be a problem. At least 2 - 3 interceptor missiles will be fired. MARVs can manoeuvre slightly (unlike fighter jets) because MARVs don't have sensors. So if one missile misses the other 2 will surely strike the MARV.

Means that they need 2-3 interceptor for each warhead : )

interceptor missiles don't operate just on their own. They need continuous guidance from ground radar and even if fired in seconds apart, it makes no difference. They rely on basic trajectory, and when the trajectory changes for the missile, it becomes a problem for the missile interceptors. I have no idea what jhelb is even commenting about 3 interceptor missiles because adding 3 interceptor missiles will not make interception more likely. Just means you wasted 3 interceptor missiles because the ballistic missile is still changing trajectory.

Singular_Transform wrote:...............
Means that they need 2-3 interceptor for each warhead : )

And if you miss just one that's half a million people dead now plus that many more until weekend

Any you will definitely miss way more than one

PapaDragon wrote:

Singular_Transform wrote:...............
Means that they need 2-3 interceptor for each warhead : )

And if you miss just one that's half a million people dead now plus that many more until weekend

Any you will definitely miss way more than one

Judging by lack of capabilities of THAAD and SM3 in intercepting old SCUD missiles, I have significant less faith in it being able to take out a Topol Warhead. Topol-M, Yars, Rubezh. Sineva, etc is completely out of the question.

miketheterrible wrote:................
Judging by lack of capabilities of THAAD and SM3 in intercepting old SCUD missiles, I have significant less faith in it being able to take out a Topol Warhead. Topol-M, Yars, Rubezh. Sineva, etc is completely out of the question.

And with that we are back to ye' good old Mutually Assured Destruction

Thank you for dedication to sports but better not to play the match....

It was a typo, I meant 20000 m/s, my fault.

And yes, RVs loose speed because air attrition, but the point is it is an exponential deceleration, growing with loss of altitude and the Atmosphere getting denser.

When RVs start their dives, they have so much speed it is actually hard to intercept them.

It is of course possible, at least in theory, but the chances are really low.

Again, Arrow-3 approach to the problem is quite interesting.

Its extremely long range is likely meant to engage an incoming or traversing ICBM well outside the Atmosphere, and rely in final stage that's fully powered.

It could be, my opinion, that the missile actually reach a trajectory intersecting the estimated ICBM's one, release its final stage that scan toward the last estimated ICBM's course, as it lock it start modifying its trajectory to actually make it colliding  against the ICBM.

The real selling point should be obviously the final stage, that together with its onboard sensors act as the warhead as well.

Having the ability to get and move along the trajectory followed by the ICBM should already be quite a feat, but being able to effectively change course fully autonomously up to impact with enough kinetic energy to destroy the ICBM is the real stunt.

So again, evasive changes of course on the ICBM are the only effective countermeasure.

Obviously, they are not performed every two or three seconds, it is enough to make some pseudo-random change along the whole of the path, in function of   the likely time of flight needed by an interceptor. if an interceptor need one minute from the start to reach the ICBM, already a single course change performed around a little less than that time would make the interceptor's life really hard.

A a last note, I do not think is possible to make a RV in any way similar to a decoy. A RV has strict requirements coming from its payload, its reentry characteristics and so on.

But future decoys would have to be real multi-spectrum decoys. even if being by physical size's point of view smaller, they will have to have the same radar echo against several different wavelengths, the same thermal spectrum, the same light brighteness, and they will have to dive the same exact way a real RV does.

Even against UV sensors, or whatever other EM wavelength could be exploited to realize a sensor either active or passive, they should have the same footprint as a real RV.

Sensors, electronics and algorithms will develop always way faster than rockets and the likes: a decoy to field tomorrow should be designed today to fully and totally fool whatever could be fielded to counter it ten or more years from now.

miketheterrible wrote:interceptor missiles don't operate just on their own. They need continuous guidance from ground radar and even if fired in seconds apart, it makes no difference. They rely on basic trajectory, and when the trajectory changes for the missile, it becomes a problem for the missile interceptors. I have no idea what jhelb is even commenting about 3 interceptor missiles because adding 3 interceptor missiles will not make interception more likely. Just means you wasted 3 interceptor missiles because the ballistic missile is still changing trajectory.

That is the point, they try to cover all possible trajectory with the missiles.

Singular_Transform wrote:

miketheterrible wrote:interceptor missiles don't operate just on their own.  They need continuous guidance from ground radar and even if fired in seconds apart, it makes no difference.  They rely on basic trajectory, and when the trajectory changes for the missile, it becomes a problem for the missile interceptors.  I have no idea what jhelb is even commenting about 3 interceptor missiles because adding 3 interceptor missiles will not make interception more likely.  Just means you wasted 3 interceptor missiles because the ballistic missile is still changing trajectory.

That is the point, they try to cover all possible trajectory with the missiles.

But when launched, at the process of when it was launched vs the time it is going to reach the target, all 3 of the missiles will be basing it off of an older trajectory. They will not have a different span of the trajectory any different from the previous missiles fired at it, at the given time the warheads trajectory has changed.

The new generation of glider warheads is basically the final nail in the ABM coffin. No interceptor can afford to chase gliders in
vast horizontal pathway excursions at high altitude. The premise of an ABM warhead is rapid interception and not target chasing.

kvs wrote:The new generation of glider warheads is basically the final nail in the ABM coffin.   No interceptor can afford to chase gliders in
vast horizontal pathway excursions at high altitude.   The premise of an ABM warhead is rapid interception and not target chasing.

Not entirely true. You talk about 1 interceptor vs one warhead if i am correct. then what if you got 10or 20 interceptors? trajectory? you can actually calculate all possibl evariants og trajectories in advance and just adopt situational awareness parameters accordingly in calculations (Boyd's loop).

ABM also will evolve develop for example: into either small autonomous rockets/drones carried into orbit to intercept warheads or will be also completed with weapons "based on new principles" .

Eventually one ASAT carrier will have many sub-munitions to cover all possibe variations of glider in close range?

Peŕrier wrote:It was a typo, I meant 20000 m/s, my fault.

And yes, RVs loose speed because air attrition, but the point is it is an exponential deceleration, growing with loss of altitude and the Atmosphere getting denser.

and how you suppose to have "exponential acceleration" without engine running? or conversion of potential vs kinetic energy doesn't apply anymore? Yeah there is one acceleration called standard acceleration of free fall (g)

When RVs start their dives, they have so much speed it is actually hard to intercept them.
It is of course possible, at least in theory, but the chances are really low.

The question is the price of so many interceptors vs 1 warhead.

Again, Arrow-3 approach to the problem is quite interesting.
Its extremely long range is likely meant to engage an incoming or traversing ICBM well outside the Atmosphere, and rely in final stage that's fully powered.

It could be, my opinion, that the missile actually reach a trajectory intersecting the estimated ICBM's one, release its final stage that scan toward the last estimated ICBM's course, as it lock it start modifying its trajectory to actually make it colliding  against the ICBM.

The real selling point should be obviously the final stage, that together with its onboard sensors act as the warhead as well.

As long as ICBM didn't release warheads it is required t send less. This is IMHO the reason to build long range interceptors.

So again, evasive changes of course on the ICBM are the only effective countermeasure.

Obviously, they are not performed every two or three seconds, it is enough to make some pseudo-random change along the whole of the path, in function of   the likely time of flight needed by an interceptor. if an interceptor need one minute from the start to reach the ICBM, already a single course change performed around a little less than that time would make the interceptor's life really hard.

knowing about mass and energy of warhead you can calculate all possible trajectories it can fly. Depending on which moment you want to hit the ICBM (ideally when it is in active phase
- all warheads in one place) you know where it potentially can send you warheads. The business is how to optimize number of ABM interceptors not having to build 50 for every warhead.

Why do they start maneuvering so early in the flight profile ? They are loosing a lot of energy in the process.

The target location is pretty fixed, as is the areas where ABMs can be located, so you get the MARV to start manuovering at the point where is could start to be intercepted with manouverings calculated to allow the target to still be hit, but to maximise the chances of the warhead surviving to target.

Interception won't be a problem. At least 2 - 3 interceptor missiles will be fired. MARVs can manoeuvre slightly (unlike fighter jets) because MARVs don't have sensors. So if one missile misses the other 2 will surely strike the MARV.

Really... it is that easy is it? So if it starts to climb and turn will all three adapt to that manouver or just one? If it changes direction 3 times then all three will miss... once they have perfected scramjet engines they could fit one to each warhead so they could accelerate inside the atmosphere and manouver freely... a 5 degree turn will take a while for the tracking system to detect and recalculate an intercept point for... the interception point could have shifted hundreds of kms... it would only take a few seconds for the interceptor to change course but if it then turns back 10 degrees then the interceptor might have to turn and move 500km the other way... is there time for that? Does the inteceptor have that much fuel?

Remember a mid course interceptor in Alaska might not be within 1,000km of the flight path of the target going over the north pole on its way to New York, so you might have to launch as soon as the target is detected coming over the pole... it might be heading for middle America and then over Canada turn to target new york... will your interceptor be able to move that far that fast after already travelled 2,000km from where it was launched from?

And what about the fact that there are 20,000 targets of which perhaps 600 are actually warheads and the rest are decoys... by the time they re enter the atmosphere it is too late because it will be only seconds to detonation...

How about making things fun by launching a satellite before the full scale attack... it fails and is dead in orbit... but as it passes over the US it detonates... a 100MT nuclear bomb blocks out all radar and radio waves for hours and the EMP pulse damages electronics over the whole US of A... and then Russia launches its missiles to attack...

It was a typo, I meant 20000 m/s, my fault.

I thought as much but it is still wrong... 11000m/s is escape velocity...

When RVs start their dives, they have so much speed it is actually hard to intercept them.

No it isn't... satellites in orbit move faster... that space craft that landed on that comet was moving faster than anything that is man made and falls back from space.

A a last note, I do not think is possible to make a RV in any way similar to a decoy. A RV has strict requirements coming from its payload, its reentry characteristics and so on.

By the time they are reentering the atmosphere it is too late to intercept them... perhaps 60-70kms max of real atmosphere... well who am I kidding... there is fuck all above about 30km... so moving at about 6 or 7km/s they have about 5 or 6 seconds to impact with the ground... so 3-4 seconds to detonation for an air burst...

The new generation of glider warheads is basically the final nail in the ABM coffin. No interceptor can afford to chase gliders in
vast horizontal pathway excursions at high altitude. The premise of an ABM warhead is rapid interception and not target chasing.

Gliders that skip across the atmosphere will be tricky, but if they add scramjet engines to allow them to actually fly and accelerate inside the atmosphere then the defenders are in trouble... really only lasers and beam weapons are an option...

The question is the price of so many interceptors vs 1 warhead.

And the amusing problem... the large missile they were going to deploy in eastern europe had a range of 2,500km which means it would violate the INF treaty... the size of the weapon would mean its cost was likely a very large fraction of that of an ICBM if not more...

Eventually one ASAT carrier will have many sub-munitions to cover all possibe variations of glider in close range?

With a scramjet engine the warhead could dip into the atmosphere and accelerate to a high enough speed to climb back out of the atmosphere and into partial orbit... there is no upper flight speed for a scramjet engine...

knowing about mass and energy of warhead you can calculate all possible trajectories it can fly. Depending on which moment you want to hit the ICBM (ideally when it is in active phase
- all warheads in one place) you know where it potentially can send you warheads. The business is how to optimize number of ABM interceptors not having to build 50 for every warhead.

That is like trying to calculate all the possible flight paths of a helicopter from a helo pad to its destination... it is not infinite, but it is variable enough to result in too many alternatives to conceivably cover.

It is like the Serbian shoot down of the F-117 some claim it was never tracked or detected and the only reason they shot it down was because it repeated its flight path over and over... well even if you got a precise bus time table and took a rifle and fired 10 shots where you expected it to be the chances of actually hitting the bus would be zero... even if you launched 122mm grad rockets by the thousands you still would not hit it.

Obviously they detected it and got enough of a lock to shoot it down.

the real problem in this case is that the warhead has tons of energy... it is after all falling... and also moving very very fast.

Even a small angular change in trajectory in three dimensions means an intercept point can change by hundreds of kms in seconds... but more importantly change back or even further the other way seconds later... even with multiple interceptors such changes would be hard to manage and counter... and is it a warhead or a decoy?

How about this... decoys are very light so only make the decoys manouver in the mid course phase... being very light it would not take very much fuel at all... and only move some of them... MARVs separate from the warhead bus after final stage burn out, so warheads and decoys deploy very very early...

GarryB wrote: ed to allow the target to still be hit, but to maximise the chances of the warhead surviving to target.

Interception won't be a problem. At least 2 - 3 interceptor missiles will be fired. MARVs can manoeuvre slightly (unlike fighter jets) because MARVs don't have sensors. So if one missile misses the other 2 will surely strike the MARV.

Last time  I have listened to a Russian military he mentioned something like 50 interceptors per warhead.

GarryB wrote:

It was a typo, I meant 20000 m/s, my fault.

I thought as much but it is still wrong... 11000m/s is escape velocity...


.

11,2 actually if you dont take into consideration latitude  or not and rotating body effect

GarryB wrote:

The question is the price of so many interceptors vs 1 warhead.

And the amusing problem... the large missile they were going to deploy in eastern europe had a range of 2,500km which means it would violate the INF treaty... the size of the weapon would mean its cost was likely a very large fraction of that of an ICBM if not more...

That's exactly why IMHO they say Russian warheads can overcome ABM. Too costly build enough interceptors to cover all possible paths.

GarryB wrote:

Eventually one ASAT carrier will have many sub-munitions to cover all possibe variations of glider in close range?

With a scramjet engine the warhead could dip into the atmosphere and accelerate to a high enough speed to climb back out of the atmosphere and into partial orbit... there is no upper flight speed for a scramjet engine...

it would be  definitely complicate interception process but so far it is not yet technically solved problem its it?

GarryB wrote:

knowing about mass and energy of warhead you can calculate all possible trajectories it can fly. Depending on which moment you want to hit the ICBM (ideally when it is in active phase
- all warheads in one place) you know where it potentially can send you warheads. The business is how to optimize number of ABM interceptors not having to build 50 for every warhead.

That is like trying to calculate all the possible flight paths of a helicopter from a helo pad to its destination... it is not infinite, but it is variable enough to result in too  many alternatives to conceivably cover.

The next step would be to move "mother" interceptors as close as possible before releasing its (interceptors' ) multiple targetable warheads  And of course nobody says it's "piss of kaka"   but this is exactly where supercomputer simulations and AI algorithms enter the game.

GarryB wrote:Really... it is that easy is it? So if it starts to climb and turn will all three adapt to that manouver or just one?

Garry, how will a falling object like a [MARV] warhead start to climb ?

GunshipDemocracy wrote:Last time  I have listened to a Russian military he mentioned something like 50 interceptors per warhead.

This is interesting because I've checked every single Russian source that I could find but never found anything close to 50 interceptors per warhead.

Never mind. Did he provide any explanation as to why 50 interceptors need to be fired per warhead. For instance if a Minuteman III is heading towards Moscow will the S-500, S-400 systems fire 50 interceptors towards the Minuteman's MARVs ?

jhelb wrote:

GarryB wrote:Really... it is that easy is it? So if it starts to climb and turn will all three adapt to that manouver or just one?

Garry, how will a falling object like a [MARV] warhead start to climb ?

GunshipDemocracy wrote:Last time  I have listened to a Russian military he mentioned something like 50 interceptors per warhead.

This is interesting because I've checked every single Russian source that I could find but never found anything close to 50 interceptors per warhead.

Never mind. Did he provide any explanation as to why 50 interceptors need to be fired per warhead. For instance if a Minuteman III is heading towards Moscow will the S-500, S-400 systems fire 50 interceptors towards the Minuteman's MARVs ?

It can be assessment of the minimum required interceptors from a certain kind against a certain warhead.


There can be case when you need 50 interceptors to have chance to kill one warhead.

GarryB wrote:

I thought as much but it is still wrong... 11000m/s is escape velocity...

That's right, but when RVs are reentering Atmosphere they are aiming at Earth's surface, and speeds in excess of 20000 m/s have been recorded during test launches of MIRVs.

But anyway it is almost an academic point: whether 11000 m/s or 20000+ m/s, RVs are an hell of a target to track and engage before they detonate.

Peŕrier wrote:

That's right, but when RVs are reentering Atmosphere they are aiming at Earth's surface, and speeds in excess of 20000 m/s have been recorded during test launches of MIRVs.

But anyway it is almost an academic point: whether 11000 m/s or 20000+ m/s, RVs are an hell of a target to track and engage before they detonate.

Oh mind if I kindly ask about sources of that info? of course it doesnt matter then 25Ma is reenrty speed not 20,000 m/s right?

Singular_Transform wrote:

Never mind. Did he provide any explanation as to why 50 interceptors need to be fired per warhead. For instance if a Minuteman III is heading towards Moscow will the S-500, S-400 systems fire 50 interceptors towards the Minuteman's MARVs ?

It can be assessment of the minimum required interceptors from a certain kind against a certain warhead.
There can be case when you need 50 interceptors to have chance to kill one warhead.

It was more less like that.  Assumption: kinetic interceptor and maneuvering WH. Of course what happens when interceptor number increases or its technology gets better?

jhelb wrote:

GunshipDemocracy wrote:Last time  I have listened to a Russian military he mentioned something like 50 interceptors per warhead.

This is interesting because I've checked every single Russian source that I could find but never found anything close to 50 interceptors per warhead.

Never mind. Did he provide any explanation as to why 50 interceptors need to be fired per warhead. For instance if a Minuteman III is heading towards Moscow will the S-500, S-400 systems fire 50 interceptors towards the Minuteman's MARVs ?

This was last year either Iz or Tass interview about ABM  weather Russians can just not afraid of it. The guy said the if you need enough probability to take down 1 maneuvering WH you need ~50 interceptors thus with number of Russian implemented warheads this makes no economical sense now. But dont take my word just neglect it if you prefer

BTW I dont know if all S-500 missiles have hit-to-kill WH.

Can you guys continue this chat on missile tread?

This one is about Boreis and nobody is posting about them...

PapaDragon wrote:
Can you guys continue this chat on missile tread?

This one is about Boreis and nobody is posting about them...

Boreis are missile subs you know

Kimppis wrote:Miketheterrible:

Russian car ownership per capita is considerably lower than in Finland, and even its population density is lower...

There was of course the communism thing as well: widespread car ownership is a relatively new thing in Russia.

You obviously seem to have some... may I say weird ideas about Russian living standards. It's not propaganda or Russophobia to say that Russian living standards are still quite a bit lower than in the West. It's an obvious fact. Sure, most people have no idea about Russian living standards and Russia-haters love to exaggerate those differences. And certainly the gap is much smaller than it was 10 or 20 years, but it still very clearly exists.

So there are some things:

1. The "driving culture" is less developed, as I mentioned above. It takes time
2. Alcohol consumption is still higher in Russia
3. Infrastructure is worse on average
4. Finland is like one of the most egalitarian, orderly and developed countries in the world. Comparing it to Russia less than 20 years after... well, Yeltsin, is not exactly fair (of course, it depends on the indicator)

As I pointed out in my previous comment: even South Korea rate is over 20, Chile is at 50, China at over 100... So sure Russia looks bad compared to Finland, but much less so when compared to the global average.

We can move this to Russia section or offtopic, ok?

Russian car ownership is not new thing, it's not Africa.
Russian living standards are very low compared even to very low living standards of eastern Europe. As soon you leave Moscow you stumble across poverty left and right. For some people living standards didn't change in 20 years. If they were living in shitty Kuzminka town with unpaved roads they are still living in same place MINUS soviet legacies.

1. Driving culture is part of mentality. Also, russian laws are weak af to deter people from driving like cunts.
2. Well fins have nothing to write home about as they are drunkards too
3. Infrastructure is not being developed with any grandiose plan, but rather ad hoc and sporadically.
4. Also, fins didn't have to live under commie rule.

Russia doesn't look bad to those countries, but again, Russian can be so much more with right people in power.
Putin brings stability, but there's that. Communism was stable, but it was stagnating

Whatever the kremlin ,Russia military is  doing with their aviation safety is not working..
Some heads needs to Roll. Russia have lost more soldiers in planes -helicopters accidents due to crashing in Russia ,
than in combats in the Syrian warzone.  If you look for example at the safety record of Big Airliners, Americans
and Europeans.. they measure crashes in the millions flights . For example latest models of Boeing have 3-5 crashed
for every million flights.. This are far more complex planes ,far bigger with a lot more difficult to maintain. yet Russian planes crash almost every month due to "Accidents". in Russia. So today is March 7 2018.. wait for April 8 ,and you will see another pilot killed ,transport plane crashing.  This is not supposed to happen ,if you had good quality controls
and proper repair/maintainance facilities.  Russia is very careless for the safety of their equipment.. they leave their
planes not only in Syria but in Russia territory too.. in the Open Air.. taking dust ,rush ,water ,birds poo, and Rats or other rodents in such conditions could damage planes hardware ,cables ,electrical circuits.  Birds are allowed to  freely
Fly in Russian military bases.. Simply a major reform will be need in Russia military ,this time not about buying weapons..but instead about significantly raising their poor quality controls. of their military airports and maintainance of their facilities.  Only Russia most advanced stealth planes get a hangar.. the others are left to Rust in the open ,or exposed to bad weather or rodents.

Military helicopter with nine special forces officers onboard crashes in Russia. At least five dead: https://sputniknews.com/russia/201803071062309641-helicopter-crash-chechnya/

This is getting ridiculous.

Another helicopter MI-8 crashed today killing 7-8 more..in Chechnya.

Now helicopter crashes, Peskov is getting ready, Putin writing some more condolences. It's even worse if these are not terror attacks because it means that the Russian leadership is treating russian people like cockroaches. Like they ere worthless. So who cares if a 100 people died, we have another hundred to die just around the corner. Children, man, woman, elderly, military, generals, fuck them all, most important thing is that I have my little super weapons. That's all you have you little midget. Russian people, army, security services need to move Putin and his gang from power before west does it and put their own people. It's clear that situation is getting out of control even if everyone is trying to pretend that it's not.