Comparing anti-missile systems in the world
- Thread starter Viktor
- Start date
Flying ABL is still very immature concept... and it is not clear if it will ever be good enouth. Reflective material will work good enouth UNTIL temperature melts it - and it could give enouth time for warhead to survive. Ablative material is DESIGNED to melt under heavy load - again, giving warhead enouth time to survive. Also, keep in mind what modern warheads (and even some modern missiles) rotate itself in flight, making impossible to concentrate beam on one spot. Plus, ABM defence what work ONLY when installed on flying unit is very expencive and slow to responce (need to take off, need airfield nearby, etc.)
Space BASED INTERCEPTOR? Will not work as interceptor need to orbit the earth. You will need millions of interceptors to cover all areas lol. Space based laser could theoreticaly work but it will suffer the very same problem - reflective/ablative material, rotating warhead, decreasing beam focusing at large distances, etc. Plus, it is even more expencive than air-based ABM (MUCH MORE expencive).
Is it not possible to place such an interceptor system on a geostationary orbit near say, iran? An ABM system's realistic (so to speak) goal would be to neutralize threats from particular countries that have limited ICBM numbers; the objective isn't (yet?) to neutralize an ICBM threat the size of Russia's for example. Iran or NK don't have SLBMs anyway so they do know where the missiles would be launched from.
DoC_FouALieR
New Member
Geostationary orbit are about 36 000 km away from earth. Maximum apogee for long range ICBM is about 1600 km, and is at middle distance from the target, not above the launching point.
Besides this, and fortunatly, there is still the 1967 treaty that bans weapons in space.
The target of the ABL is not the warhead. There is far too much shielding there for a long distance shot to do any good. The target is the fuesalage where the most combustable fuels make it the easiest point of failure. The goal of the ABL is not a total KE kill like the SM-3 or THAADS, all they care about is knocking it out of the sky over the launch pad. If it falls back to earth that's the enemies problem as it will be over their territory. The ABL is the first component of the ABM defence network and is slated to be quite effective at what it is supposed to do.
There have been some interesting concepts to deal with this problem. Some have included atmospheric blimps that would carry ABLs. As you pointed out the ranges for geosync orbit are far too great for lasers. One concept has something so simple as a large piece of tungesten with a thruster pack on it. As the ICBM reaches it's apogee the ball will collide with the rocket at 60,000 mph. Reloads for this system would be cheap, it came as part of the meteor bombardment program.
Let's say a space base laser could be deployed it might have problems (not easy to upgrade/modify). A ground based laser (sea based) is the ideal, as it could be moved around, serviced, upgraded, make the laser more powerful every week, the system smaller and more mobile, etc... If the technology is attained to go from space to earth, the opposite would be true.
My understanding is that GBLs has become the top priority (when it comes to Laser Defense) and ABL is secondary due to the size of the equipment, power needed, and toxic chemicals used to fire the laser. It's been tested and the results are sketchy (i don't know what the truth is). I believe the the laser system works somewhat like this (e.g. ABL):
1) missle launch detected
2) 1 tracking laser is immediately sent from plane to missile.
3a) Computer computations are made adusting for everything in the "atmosphere" temp, reflection/refration, and all the other factors... so that the laser that might have been "bent" when reaching its target is compensated for so it becomes a "straight beam." This is computer processing power.
3b) "Millions" of "small" mirrors are continuely adjusted based upon computer...
4) Second Powerful Laser is sent from plane to missile, which follows the tracking laser but it basically is meant to "burn a hole/tunnel through the atmosphere"--before turing atmosphere into plasma-- creating something like vacuum.
5) Most powerful laser is fired from plane. It follows the missile tracking laser, through "the tunnel" to the missile, which is destroyed basically on contact (I believe from all I've read, .2ms-- don't hold me to it).
6) Ideally system is reset within seconds as more missles will most likely follow.
I definitely don't think any ABL system can get passed the 6th step today.
This makes the case for GBL where one could use (in theory) 3 GBLs with 1/3 the ideal power, and aim/fire "as one unit."
High powered GBLs (if deployed) could immdiately eliminate satellites of unfriendly countries--blinding them-- and take out incoming missiles.
Again, I believe the main problem today, is the size of "equipment" needed to "power" a single laser that is itself "powerful" enough to destroy a missile over and over again.:unknown
This is not realistic in absolutely most cases as it will require positioning ABL very close to enemy launch area. Any country capable of lauching 8000+km ICBM will be most likely capable of launching 200+km SAM, ESPECEALLY in 10-20 years when such ABL could appear. Moreover, IF laser science manage to reach that level - when ABL become effective - then the flying ABL will become first victim of its own success as it will be very easy to shot it down with ground-based laser. All in all, the money for ABL development is good spend but dont hold breath about any success soon.
All these steps are much easer said than done. Right now there are no sign what ABL reach any usefull status in the next 20 years.
P.S. Right now i see much bigger potencial in lasers as anti-sat weapon. That could work in near future.
well, definitely, i would also go for the arrow1/2. the arrow anti-missile has a has a speed of more than 3km/s; as opposed to purely kinetic weapons,it has its own explosive warhead allowing it to miss the target by 40-50m and still kill. Though it has never really been proven in combat, for all we know, the tests carried out by the israelis have proven that this missile is indeed capable. i would rate this missile 10/10 while the patriot a 9.5/10. 
Well, you said that in your opinion its the best all purpose air defense, but how sure are you???
Theres no evidence to support....Well,after reading up about it....i would say that its impressive, but it has to be proven in combat to actually see how capable it is(patriot), or it has to go through a series of thorough testing(arrow).... Hope you would support your opinion with evidences. Thanks dude...
of course it has been tested and because it passed its trials it will enter service by this summer with certain PVO units.
Listen theres a really good source on the s-400 triumf with its variants and is one of the best sources I found for the s-400 right here :
http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-Grumble-Gargoyle.html
Heres a photo of the s-400 triumf tests
https://www.vtunnel.com/nph-info.mp...s383433352s6174746163686q656r747376322r6n7067
Ive got countless books on the topic of the Russian and other world militaries and so I normally use them.
Listen theres a really good source on the s-400 triumf with its variants and is one of the best sources I found for the s-400 right here :
http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-Grumble-Gargoyle.html
Heres a photo of the s-400 triumf tests
https://www.vtunnel.com/nph-info.mp...s383433352s6174746163686q656r747376322r6n7067
Ive got countless books on the topic of the Russian and other world militaries and so I normally use them.
Okay...thanks for the evidence dude...sure did appreciate it...But are Russian missiles really that capable??? Are they able to operate in all night and weather to counter any threats??? Especially if its in placed in the sub-artic regions...are you sure that it will be able to operate there?
Yes they are and many defence professionals and military personnel I know serving in the Russian military rate the S-300 and its sucessors as the best overall air defense system. They are indeed capable of operating in all weather conditions but the main drawback is they are expensive and rely upon highly trained crews. About 16 countries use the S-300 and even the United States purchased a limited number of the S-300V gladiator to help upgrade its patriots. I hope that helps.
There is no such thing as a 100% achievement even for the Arrow or other BMD /SAM systems. The S-300 and the S-300V have excellent probability of kills (what you were reffering to 100%) achievement. So far alot of interest has been generated for the S-400 Triumf by certain nations I cant remember which ones exactly at the top of my head. The Patriot has a way lower probability of interception than the basic S-300 series (PAC-3 and modernizations). The S-400 is estimated by Western intelligence experts as having a 0.9 PK (90%) probability of kill against manned aircraft , 0.8 for UAV's etc... (USING 9M96 missile). I hope this has been informative.
Btw heres some more information.
Btw heres some more information.
Will it be able to beat the Israeli's arrow?