Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Strategic Nuclear Weapons Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Rude awakening to missile-defense dream
GBU28    1/5/2005 7:55:17 AM
Rude awakening to missile-defense dream By Scott Ritter http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0104/p09s02-coop.html DELMAR, N.Y. ? On Christmas Eve 2004, the Russian Strategic Missile Force test fired an advanced SS-27 Topol-M road-mobile intercontinental ballistic Missile (ICBM). This test probably invalidated the entire premise and technology used in the National Missile Defense (NMD) system currently being developed and deployed by the Bush administration, and at the same time called into question the validity of the administration's entire approach to arms control and disarmament. From 1988 to 1990, I served as one of the American weapons inspectors at the Votkinsk Machine Building Plant in Russia, where the SS-27 and its predecessor, the SS-25, were assembled. When I started my work in Votkinsk, the SS-25 missile was viewed by many in the US intelligence community as the primary ICBM threat facing the United States. A great deal of effort was placed on learning as much as possible about this missile and its capabilities. Through the work of the inspectors at Votkinsk, as well as several related inspections where US experts were able to view the SS-25 missile system in its operating bases in Siberia, a great deal of data was collected that assisted the US intelligence community in refining its understanding of how the SS-25 operated. This understanding was translated into several countermissile strategies, including aerial interdiction operations and missile-defense concepts. The abysmal performance of American counter-SCUD operations during the Gulf War in 1991 highlighted the deficiencies of the US military regarding the aerial interdiction of road-mobile missiles. Iraqi Al-Hussein mobile missiles were virtually impossible to detect and interdict, even with total American air supremacy. Despite all the effort put into counter-SCUD operations during that war, not a single Iraqi mobile missile launcher was destroyed by hostile fire, a fact I can certify not only as a participant in the counter-SCUD effort, but also as a chief inspector in Iraq, where I led the United Nations investigations into the Iraqi missile program. The rapid collapse of the Soviet Union did not leave much time for reflection on the American counter-mobile missile launcher deficiencies. In mid-1993, the Department of Defense conducted a comprehensive review to select the strategy and force structure for the post-cold war era. With the dissolution of the Soviet Union, the threat to the US from a deliberate or accidental ballistic missile attack by former Soviet states or by China was judged highly unlikely. In Votkinsk, US inspectors observed a Soviet-era defense industry in decline. SS-25 missiles were produced at a greatly reduced rate, and the next generation missile, a joint Russian-Ukrainian design, was scrapped after a few prototypes were produced, but never launched. After the resounding Republican victory in the midterm 1994 congressional elections, a new program for missile defense was proposed covering three distinct "threat" capabilities ranging from "unsophisticated threats" (an attack of five single-warhead missiles with simple decoys), to highly sophisticated threats (an attack of 20 single-warhead SS-25 type missiles, each with decoys or other defensive countermeasures). Funding for this program ran to some $10.8 billion from 1993 to 2000. When President Bush came to power in 2001, there was a dramatic change in posture regarding ballistic missile defense. The administration announced it was withdrawing from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, clearing away development and operational constraints. At the same time, the administration laid out a comprehensive plan that envisioned a layered missile-defense system. After studying the SS-25 missile for years, the US military believed it finally had a solution in the form of a multitiered antiballistic missile system that focused on boost-phase intercept (firing antimissile missiles that would home in on an ICBM shortly after launch), space-based laser systems designed to knock out a missile in flight, and terminal missile intercept systems, which would destroy a missile as it reentered the earth's atmosphere. The NMD system being fielded to counter the SS-25, and any similar or less sophisticated threats that may emerge from China, Iran, North Korea, and elsewhere, will probably have cumulative costs between $800 billion and $1.2 trillion by the time it reaches completion in 2015. However, the Bush administration's dream of a viable NMD has been rendered fantasy by the Russian test of the SS-27 Topol-M. According to the Russians, the Topol-M has high-speed solid-fuel boosters that rapidly lift the missile into the atmosphere, making boost-phase interception impossible unless one is located practically next door to the launcher. The SS-27 has been hardened against laser weapons and has a highly maneuverable post-boost vehicle that can defeat any int
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: PREV  1 2 3   NEXT
jhaley    RE:NMD was never meant to work   6/4/2005 12:45:32 PM
for a anti ballistic missle system to be effective, all you need is for the other guy to believe that it works....What price is to high; the cost of one rouge ICBM landing in the US would be in billions or 100's of billions...The technical hurdle is not in tracking ICBM's but in vectoring a missle into close enough range for a kinetic kill. In the late 60's early 70's nuke tipped interceptors "could" intercept 70% of income missles(if deployed)...A small nuke tipped interceptor today could knock out better than 99% (if fielded, with very little radiation fallout)still 1% of a major strike would get through...The current anti ICBM system is designed to make ICBM's worthless to countries like Iran and North Korea.....Who can afford a few at most.
 
Quote    Reply

919    RE:Rude awakening to missile-defense dream   6/16/2005 11:12:55 AM
Scott Ritter is a proven liar, a terrorist stooge and an American traitor. Norice he doesn't have a shred of evidence to back up his claims. I have rwo questions for Scott 'Benidict' Ritter; HOw do you harden anything against a Laser? A Laser works by the raising the temperature of a target. From baseline to just over 300,000 F. in less then nanosecond. Nothing made by humans can withstand that. Second, how much was he paid for this how wash?
 
Quote    Reply

MadRat    RE:NMD was never meant to work   6/16/2005 11:24:54 PM
Nuclear warheads on interceptors were never proven in concept and hardening of the missile bus was theoretically all it took to evade destruction from the EMP radiation. The Soviets did harden their nuclear buses and therefore their MIRV systems were (likely) largely invulnerable to the Safeguard\Nike ABM system. There can never be a valid BMD. The laws of physics prevents it from becoming workable but for a small niche. That niche would not prevent a surprise "rogue state" attack from getting through. The parameters of the launch must by mostly known prior to launch of the interceptor or all of it is pointless. They've known this since the 1960's. Its rocket science folks, not political science. The Bush administration knowingly blew billions on a pipe dream. Perhaps they knew it and all of the spending was a cover for some other research program.
 
Quote    Reply

MadRat    RE:Lasers   6/16/2005 11:30:09 PM
Lasers do not vaporize the target with heat, they use harmonics to disrupt the skin of the projectile. The Russians have not made their missiles shinier, they made them stronger to prevent harmonic imbalances caused by the push force of the laser. There isn't enough power output from a single nuclear powerplant that would provide enough energy to vaporize a missile. The technology simply isn't there. The Star Wars program went so far as to maximize x-ray energy and learnt how to focus these energies and that proved feeble, too. The laws of physics (again) thwarts a laser-based BMD from being the end-all do-all.
 
Quote    Reply

Counterpoint    It doesn't have to be reliable   8/9/2005 2:51:43 AM
Let's assume a potential adversary has some single-warhead ICBMs that can hit a target with 70% reliability (30% chance of a booster failure, dud, or complete miss). So if they launch three ICBMs at a single target there is a 97% chance at least one will hit. Now what happens if the target area is defended by an ABM system that is only marginally effective and can only cut an incoming ICBM's hit probability from 70% to 55%? Now the adversary has to launch five ICBMs to get a 96% chance of destroying the target. That by itself is an extremely effective deterrent against an adversary who is poor or has limited supplies of weapons-grade fissionable material. It tremendously complicates their strike planning. By the way, in order to be an effective deterrent the ABM system doesn't actually have to be able to cut the hit rate from 70% to 55% (or whatever) under real-world conditions. It just has to create a little bit of doubt in the enemy's mind and make him hesitate before escalating.
 
Quote    Reply

   RE:Lasers   6/4/2006 12:25:41 AM
"Lasers do not vaporize the target with heat, they use harmonics to disrupt the skin of the projectile. The Russians have not made their missiles shinier, they made them stronger to prevent harmonic imbalances caused by the push force of the laser." Absolutely ridiculous. A laser doesn't push; it transfers heat energy. A ballistic missile is fundamentally a paper tube packed with extremely volatile rocket fuel. Heat it up enough, and it explodes. Laser-based ABMs couldn't be based on simpler principles. I think you have amplified light and amplified sonics confused.
 
Quote    Reply

lightningtest    RE:Lasers   6/5/2006 5:50:06 AM
When a lot of photons hit something that isn't perfectly reflective the upper layers of atoms/molecules get hot, so when you say "it transfers heat energy" I agree. What happens to these hot atoms/molecules then? In my (limited) experience they leave the material pronto as vapour. As they leave they exert a equal and oposite reaction force on the panel they just left. So in effect the laser spot does exert a force where it dwells. How this phenomena affects a tube full of hot gas I'll leave to the experts to comment on. Just a note of how lasers cook meat. At my lab we played with some CO2 lasers which were built to cut 1" thick steel plate (shipbuilding). Now the UK didn't need these in the end (no need to build ships it seems) so we put it to good use cooking meat. The outer layer chars and emits steam. The steam absorbs alot of the light and gets super heated. The depth of damage wasn't that great. So if your facing storm troopers wear a wet, wet suit!
 
Quote    Reply

arb    RE:Rude awakening to missile-defense dream   6/12/2006 3:12:14 AM
I am new to the discussion board, so please excuse any faux-pas. My father was an officer in the Indian Navy for 24 years, and has seen many live firing exercises. Several of these exercises involved using a SAM to try and shoot down an anti-ship missile, both of Russian origin, of late 70's vintage, subject to limited upgrades. My assumption is that both missiles were of comparatively 'equal' quality. The fact is, that a 'hit' was NEVER scored by the SAM unless the launch point and flight pattern were known beforehand. I realise that it's probably impossible to extrapolate this outcome up to a ballistic missile defence system, but I thought that it might be of some interest.
 
Quote    Reply

VelocityVector    RE:Rude awakening to missile-defense dream - arb   6/12/2006 2:05:08 PM
I do not casually dismiss your father?s experiential base. Still I feel bound to say, ?welcome to the multi-sensor/digital signals processing/rules-driven/object-oriented/distributed systems holographic era!? This is not your father?s Oldsmobile: flight patterns can become sufficiently established within inverse second partitions and not the multi-whole number base 10 sweeps of the yester-years. Burden is on the maneuvering aerial platform. I claim our currently-fielded technology allows us to reliably counter slick ramjets TODAY; of course, at some date prior I also had stated here that SM-2s can be ?handed-off.? So according to my lowly Midwestern perch, launch currently represents the greatest delay variable, getting the darn interceptor on an optimal course is downright painful from my seat in the house. .02 v^2
 
Quote    Reply

Thomas3    RE:Rude awakening to missile-defense dream - arb   6/12/2006 3:38:17 PM
The launch point of an ICBM is know with centimeters precision, as you know the exact position of the siloes. The flight pattern of an ICBM is known when it has passed its apogee - or it isn't ballistic. The Danish Prime minister has had dinner at Camp David with George - they are such good freinds. Condi was there as well. Before Georges last visit Bill Clinton visited. This means the former US president has prepared the meeting (former presidents are practical as errand boys, as you don't have to disperse highly classified information to new persons). This means Iraq was a subject under "also ran", as Iraq was after Bill Clingon. Subject - I mean real subject - was in my personal estimate: MDS as they need Thule for that one. And to Georges relief his new weapon is assured support. We might have to pay off a handfull of Greenlandic politcians; but their asking price should not be prohibitive. And Condi didn't even have to air her french underwear.
 
Quote    Reply
PREV  1 2 3   NEXT



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics