Page 4 of 7 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 62

Thread: U.S. successfully tests airborne laser on missile

  1. #31
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Ft. Campbell, KY
    Last Seen
    12-31-14 @ 08:37 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    12,177

    Re: U.S. successfully tests airborne laser on missile

    And of course they would consider that possibility and build more nukes to compensate if they ever felt their deterrent was being undermined.

  2. #32
    Outer space potato man

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:13 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    51,845

    Re: U.S. successfully tests airborne laser on missile

    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Tammerlain View Post
    I dont know the specifics, but I think ICBM under boost phase are going to be easier to hit ( much larger radar and heat signature) and most likely far more vunerable. ( all that fuel aboard).

    But if it can be used against warheads under reentry I can not say, the article only mention that it was tested agaist a boost phase missile
    In the boost phase they are also going far, far slower. Terminal speed is like 4km/second on the big intercontinental rockets. Smaller missiles are slower, but they all go really, really fast. Tracking gets harder as speed increases, because the laser has to stay right on the same spot for heat buildup to destroy the rocket.

    And once the rocket is out of fuel, it's not nearly as explosive, especially in the case of a nuclear weapon. A conventional weapon you could theoretically overheat the payload and detonate the weapon, but that's impossible with a nuke.

    Quote Originally Posted by Wiseone View Post
    Anti ballistic missile systems should be built but NO ONE should think they are protection against Russian or Chinese missiles. And a system intended to protect against those two should never be built.

    States like Russia and China have too many missiles, decoys and evasion systems for one of our defensive systems to work, its just going to increase the proliferation. They can build more weapons to overwhelm a defensive system faster than we can build defensive systems to counter it. Not to mention the cost ratio between build new missiles and building defensive systems.

    But a defensive system to shoot down a couple is needed in case one of the smaller nuclear states or god forbid some time in the future a non-state player goes bonkers and shoots one or two at us.
    This is very true. Russia can make any defensive system statistically irrelevant. Defenses have to be 100% when up against nukes, and 100% just isn't possible against that sort of volume.
    He touched her over her bra and underpants, she says, and guided her hand to touch him over his underwear
    Quote Originally Posted by Lutherf View Post
    We’ll say what? Something like “nothing happened” ... Yeah, we might say something like that.

  3. #33
    In a house by the river
    MetalGear's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Denmark, Grena
    Last Seen
    05-16-11 @ 04:09 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    1,233

    Re: U.S. successfully tests airborne laser on missile

    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Tammerlain View Post
    I dont know the specifics, but I think ICBM under boost phase are going to be easier to hit ( much larger radar and heat signature) and most likely far more vunerable. ( all that fuel aboard).

    But if it can be used against warheads under reentry I can not say, the article only mention that it was tested agaist a boost phase missile
    Considering the technology implemented which highly increases its accuracy, i think its a possibility, but as you said the article says nothing on the matter.

  4. #34
    Outer space potato man

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:13 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    51,845

    Re: U.S. successfully tests airborne laser on missile

    Quote Originally Posted by MetalGear View Post
    Considering the technology implemented which highly increases its accuracy, i think its a possibility, but as you said the article says nothing on the matter.
    We can hit them on re-entry, but it may not do any good. Fuel is spent by then, and nuclear payloads don't detonate via heat of any magnitude. Theoretically enough heat could warp the nose cone causing structural failure via aerodynamic forces or maybe disable the trigger mechanism, but remember that these weapons are designed to enter the atmosphere at a couple thousand miles per hour. They aren't going to melt very easily.

    Fuel explodes. Hit them when they still have fuel
    He touched her over her bra and underpants, she says, and guided her hand to touch him over his underwear
    Quote Originally Posted by Lutherf View Post
    We’ll say what? Something like “nothing happened” ... Yeah, we might say something like that.

  5. #35
    In a house by the river
    MetalGear's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Denmark, Grena
    Last Seen
    05-16-11 @ 04:09 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    1,233

    Re: U.S. successfully tests airborne laser on missile

    Quote Originally Posted by Deuce View Post
    We can hit them on re-entry, but it may not do any good. Fuel is spent by then, and nuclear payloads don't detonate via heat of any magnitude. Theoretically enough heat could warp the nose cone causing structural failure via aerodynamic forces or maybe disable the trigger mechanism, but remember that these weapons are designed to enter the atmosphere at a couple thousand miles per hour. They aren't going to melt very easily.

    Fuel explodes. Hit them when they still have fuel
    Cant you just use this thing to hit the nuclear warhead and explode it on impact in the air?
    ICBM's don't have to knock out a warhead on boost phase to work, but it certainly increases the chances of it working as you said. Technically this would render the entire Northern American defence shield pointless if the case was it only worked on boost phase of a nuclear warhead.
    Last edited by MetalGear; 02-14-10 at 01:14 PM.

  6. #36
    Sage
    Lord Tammerlain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:42 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    10,432

    Re: U.S. successfully tests airborne laser on missile

    Quote Originally Posted by MetalGear View Post
    Cant you just use this thing to hit the nuclear warhead and explode it on impact in the air?
    ICBM's don't have to knock out a warhead on boost phase to work, but it certainly increases the chances of it working as you said. Technically this would render the entire Northern American defence shield pointless if the case was it only worked on boost phase of a nuclear warhead.
    Kinetic impact weapons or those that explode in the area of the warhead if they hit could destroy the warhead, by destroying the electronics and containment fields

    That is the point of the missile shields generally trying to use missiles to take out the warheads. The station in Alaska would be to hit the warheads long after the boost phase, same with the potential station in Bulgaria

  7. #37
    Meh...
    MSgt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Colorado
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:08 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    18,051

    Re: U.S. successfully tests airborne laser on missile

    Quote Originally Posted by Councilman View Post
    I don't mean to rain on anyone's parade but remember when the Patriot system was said to be so very effective and it turned out that they fudged all the data to make it look better than it was until they worked out the kinks?

    Did any of you notice that the story said :"Instruments on the missile verified the system had hit its mark, Boeing said."

    It did not say they effectively shot the target out of the sky. I think it's great that they can get the beam on target but until it actually shoots a missile down I'm not going be dancing in the streets over it.
    Invention and technology is a process. We are leaps and bounds from the Patriot system of the Gulf War. Even after it shoots a missile down there will be imperfections to be continually corrected. We have gone from creating nuclear bombs of devistation to attempting to perfect systems meant to attack the bombs.

    Some would argue that we are walking in the right direction in terms of true "peace."

    MSgt
    Semper Fidelis
    USMC

  8. #38
    Outer space potato man

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:13 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    51,845

    Re: U.S. successfully tests airborne laser on missile

    Quote Originally Posted by MetalGear View Post
    Cant you just use this thing to hit the nuclear warhead and explode it on impact in the air?
    ICBM's don't have to knock out a warhead on boost phase to work, but it certainly increases the chances of it working as you said. Technically this would render the entire Northern American defence shield pointless if the case was it only worked on boost phase of a nuclear warhead.
    Lasers destroy their target by applying heat. There isn't any "impact." The fissile material in a thermonuclear weapon isn't flammable.

    Our current missile defense system is a kinetic weapon, we shoot a big ass rocket and try to hit another big ass rocket mid-flight. It's a pretty futile exercise, the closure rate of an incoming ICBM and its interceptor can be as high as 8km/sec, and you pretty much have to hit it directly. (at that speed the target can literally outrun an explosion)
    He touched her over her bra and underpants, she says, and guided her hand to touch him over his underwear
    Quote Originally Posted by Lutherf View Post
    We’ll say what? Something like “nothing happened” ... Yeah, we might say something like that.

  9. #39
    Outer space potato man

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:13 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    51,845

    Re: U.S. successfully tests airborne laser on missile

    Quote Originally Posted by MSgt View Post
    Invention and technology is a process. We are leaps and bounds from the Patriot system of the Gulf War. Even after it shoots a missile down there will be imperfections to be continually corrected. We have gone from creating nuclear bombs of devistation to attempting to perfect systems meant to attack the bombs.

    Some would argue that we are walking in the right direction in terms of true "peace."
    Some would argue that this sort of thing is destabilizing and threatens the balance of mutually assured destruction, which actually increases the likelihood of these weapons being used.
    He touched her over her bra and underpants, she says, and guided her hand to touch him over his underwear
    Quote Originally Posted by Lutherf View Post
    We’ll say what? Something like “nothing happened” ... Yeah, we might say something like that.

  10. #40
    Meh...
    MSgt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Colorado
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:08 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    18,051

    Re: U.S. successfully tests airborne laser on missile

    Quote Originally Posted by Arch Enemy View Post
    If you, and only you, had the responsibility to spend the Defense/Military budget for 2010 how would you spend it?
    Oh I don't know nearly enough about budgetting or planning to assume wisdom here. I would however point out the BS and redirect the funds towards the troop and small unit effectiveness. The Air Force got caught trying to scam a multi-billion dollar plan for new refeulers they didn't need in 2004. Thanks to a few Senators, who understood the military, jail sentences were handed out. Instead the money was sent to the Navy for upgraded nuclear submarines (you know...just in case the Middle East got into the nuclear sub business or in case China's vast naval fleet threatens the oceans). The Air Force's F/A-22 is more than good enough to face off with any foe in the world and then some, yet it took President Obama to pull the reigns in on the dreamers who think our foes are going to be flying Tie Fighters.

    Despite my complaining about it, they have done an excellent job in supplying the troop equipment recently considering the history of neglect. We have gotten new gun and rifle upgrades. New aiming systms (ACOG) for the M16s. A new pistol is on the way. A new grenade launcher is being issued. A new helmet meant to ricochet better has been issued. New camouflage technology has been appied to our uniforms. Body armor (which stops 7.62 before a plate cracks) has replaced our fragmentation vests (which merely protected against fragments from explosions). New boots.

    * But just a portion of those billions of dollars towards systems we do not need could have been applied towards personal radio systems for the troops. Hand and arm signals only work if you can see your team members and the urban environment of today's conflicts are not too friendly to this. The demand for greater personal communications forced the PRR (Personal Role Radio), but there wasn't enough and it was extremely limited to range. Further, they were too weak to pass comms through walls (concrete kills frequencies from weak sources).

    * Democrats complaining about body armor in 2002 (as if we had it in Somalia and Bosnia under Clinton or in the Gulf War under Bush.....etc.) got us new vests, but it exposed our kidneys (which our fragmentation vests of old did not). The fix was some attachments that are cumbersome and awkward but forever in development.

    * The demand for a better pack system has seen a few different designs and systems come through our supply since the late 90s. All of which have been great pains in the asses and weak, which is why they continually force something new upon us.

    * The road trip to Baghdad in 2003 proved two things to us. One, our new SMART-T system allowed us to move faster and further than ever before, but two, our maintenace and supply systems could not keep us with the maneuvering forces. because we got bogged down into camps shortly after and the need to update these systems were not demanded, little has been done. The next "invasion" will show the same problems.

    * The Blue Force Tracker (BFT) proved to save lives in 2003 in regards to fratricide, but to this day it has not seen a single significant upgrade. In a world of twitter, e-mails, and webcam, the 13 year old teenager has better contact with a guy in Cambodia than a MSgt has with a Colonel 10 miles away.

    * IEDs were kicking our asses at one point. The Democratic complaint for protection brought us the UpArmor system, which totally screwed up our vehicles. because it made it difficult for the troop to get in and out of the vehicle and to effectively aim his weapon around it was common to see UpArmor stacked on the side of the road instead of on the vehicles. The fix to this was the MRAP. While the MRAP saved lives, it causes long term damage to the troop inside. Imagine being thrown around a metal can while bleeding from your ears because the explosive sound gets contained within. It's greatest danger is its potential for roll over. It is far too heavy and hardly expeditious.


    These are just off the top of my head. But notice the trend? No matter the subject, it is always in need of improvement? One of the reasons we have had upgrades at all since this whole desert effort began was because politicians decided to use us as a tool. But the reason we have gone through so many trials in our upgrades at the troop level (body armor, helmets, BFT, UpArmor,packs, etc.) is because there is no return in it. And since there is no return in it, the bare minimum suffices. Nobody makes money by producing a final good body armor product or a final good pack product. How much money would it actually take to actually develop a good body armor system or pack for the lowly troop? I guarantee that civilian campers or civilian police departments have better equipment than the military. More focus is given to toys like the F/A-22 or a nuclear submarine that seem to forever need more money shoveled towards it and in the end they has no support value to the guy actually facing the enemy. While contractors receive checks for billions of dollars just to keep working on the next toy, the troop gets shotty equipment meant to appease the public, but not too invested.


    Quote Originally Posted by Arch Enemy View Post
    Call me a conspiracy theorist, but I believe the $$ put in the FA-22 was less about internal profit, and more about international profit. Shock and Awe was like the Military-Industrial complex's version of the Apple Keynote session with Steve Jobs, or the E3 summit for Electronic Arts.
    Well, it is a fact that most of the society changing technology has come from military investment. Even the Bronze Age saw invention come out of the need to supply weapons to warriors. Medicines and pesticides came out of the experimentation of military biological weapons. The Jet engine. Computers. Synthetic materials. Etc. In a globalizing world, the profit is becoming an international thing.

    MSgt
    Semper Fidelis
    USMC

Page 4 of 7 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •