RCD op-ed on future missile defence
Stopping the Unstoppable: How will the U.S. Defeat Missiles of the Future? | RealClearDefense
Stopping the Unstoppable: How will the U.S. Defeat Missiles of the Future? | RealClearDefense
yep, as I've said before, they are flying comms bearers as a single platform - as a hive they become a virtual arrayUntil the day arrives when UAVs roam the stratosphere swatting ascending BMs with lasers, they apparently can help extend the reach of AEGIS ships on station in some convenient patch of water.
https://www.mda.mil/system/potential_new_technologies.html
Early Intercept
By leveraging Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) and space assets for pervasive over-the-horizon Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) image.sensor netting, the engagement zone of current Standard Missile-3 interceptors can be extended to the pre-apogee portion of a missile's trajectory...
Interesting article, though it manages to gloss over quite a few stumbling blocks which could limit the usefulness of the technology, or render it useless outright.This article discusses a technique to allow neutrons to be directed in a beam. Neutrons are useful for detecting dense things like explosives. Currently neutron detection is effective for buried IEDs but this new technique may allow for the detection of nukes at ranges measured in kms and thus would be able to sort decoys from real nukes.
Detect Nukes In Flight With Electron Beam Technology
I agree the article is pretty vague on details which is understandable given the topic. As far as detection is concerned, the gamma burst detection should be dependent on the material I would think. Perhaps some kind of MCA analysis of the resulting gamma burst could be performed in order to identify the materials in the object of interest.The second thought has to do with how practical detecting a gamma burst would actually be, in terms of identifying a nuclear warhead. From my POV, I think it would be of limited use, as a decoy should be fairly easy (and cheaply, compared to an actual warhead) to manufacture which should still contain enough dense material to trigger a gamma burst from the neutron beam. I would expect that a 'real' nuclear warhead would contain an amount of shielding to contain the radiation from the fissionable material in the warhead, both to protect personnel that would be doing maintenance or handling of the ordnance, as well as to protect the electronics which would make up the guidance and trigger/fuse systems. I would expect a good decoy would be made to approximate the dimensions and weight of an actual warhead, which would likely include a dense material to replicate the shielding normally found in a warhead, and then a material which substitutes for the fissionable material. Materials like tungsten or lead come immediately to mind as potential candidates for shielding and/or a fissionable substitute, and I would strongly suspect either/both such materials would be dense enough to trigger a gamma burst if hit with a neutron beam.
I agree, this proposed neutron beam is unlikely to be effective at frying electronics, especially at extended ranges unless something about its output is being kept secret.The third thought is that, while a neutron beam might be able to be used as a directed energy weapon to disrupt electronics, the article seemed a bit dismissive IMO of extant capabilities and in turn the protections against directed energy weapons and EW. The hardening of electronics to provide protection from EMP's comes to mind, as does TEMPEST shielding.
The potential issue I see with this is that, unless the neutron beam is capable of penetrating the shielding material of a nuclear warhead so that the beam can interact directly with the warhead material (U-235 or Pu-239), the beam would be incapable of providing information other than it encountered something sufficiently dense to trigger the gamma burst. As a side note, and being deliberately vague for what I hope are rather obvious reasons, nuclear warheads typically contain materials to block or absorb neutrons specifically to prevent them from interacting with the fissile core.I agree the article is pretty vague on details which is understandable given the topic. As far as detection is concerned, the gamma burst detection should be dependent on the material I would think. Perhaps some kind of MCA analysis of the resulting gamma burst could be performed in order to identify the materials in the object of interest.
Again, much is going to depend on what the electronics are designed to do, and if they are hardened or shielded in some fashion. Disrupting electronics is not particularly hard to do if one has certain technical backgrounds, nor does it even require significant or hard to acquire resources. I could likely assemble such a system for less than USD$1,000. Managing to accomplish it at range would likely present a significantly greater challenge and I have a couple of ideas on how it could be accomplished, however I am not going to attempt to test the ideas because it would require violating FCC regulations,I agree, this proposed neutron beam is unlikely to be effective at frying electronics, especially at extended ranges unless something about its output is being kept secret.