China Ballistic Missiles and Nuclear Arms Thread

[FairAndUnbiased]

boost phase interception depends on the large IR signature of a booster, not its radar cross section on any plasma sheath around an object in reentry.

Great, how is the onboard sensor of any reentry vehicle at 2000+ C degrees going to see a much smaller plume hidden behind the rest of a rocket, with no way to correct for distance since it is looking top down and IR sensors don't get to benefit from Doppler shift measurements like radar?

Even if it could what material is IR transparent and yet can survive 2000+ C? While understanding that IR transparency applies to the sensor as well, which means sensor is exposed to 2000+ C IR radiation?

Simple answer - it can't.

 

[Richard Santos]

You seem fixated on a homing device that attempts to physically intercept the missile. many concepts of boost phase interception envision lasers to target the booster from orbit, or aircraft. A booster that can accelerate fast enough to complete main phases of its burn before leaving the stratosphere, or even troposphere, would be difficult for many laser weapon to engage in any but very good weather.

solid fuel missiles airframes able to accelerate at 100Gs have been demonstrated in the 1970s. such a missile booster would only need to burn for 7 seconds to send an ICBM on its intended trajectory. Booster cut out would occur at 24km altitude, about a third of the way into stratosphere. This missile would be susceptible to IR guided interception that targets the plume for only 1/20 as long as a typical liquid fuel booster attempting to follow the same trajectory,

 

[FairAndUnbiased]

You seem fixated on a homing device that attempts to physically intercept the missile. many concepts of boost phase interception envision lasers to target the booster from orbit, or aircraft. A booster that can accelerate fast enough to complete main phases of its burn before leaving the stratosphere, or even troposphere, would be difficult for many laser weapon to engage in any but very good weather.

solid fuel missiles airframes able to accelerate at 100Gs have been demonstrated in the 1970s. such a missile booster would only need to burn for 7 seconds to send an ICBM on its intended trajectory. Booster cut out would occur at 24km altitude. This missile would be susceptible to IR guided interception that targets the plume for only 1/20 as long as a typical liquid fuel booster attempting to follow the same trajectory,

So you tell me why doesn't this system exist yet.

You tell me, what orbital lasers currently exist or even are in conceptual design stage.

You tell me, how those orbital sensors target a rocket with only a bearing, not range.

You can't, none of this exists. It is physically possible just as it is physically possible to add shielding and all that as countermeasures, but nobody does, because these systems don't exist.

 

[Richard Santos]

So you tell me why doesn't this system exist yet.

You tell me, what orbital lasers currently exist or even are in conceptual design stage.

You tell me, how those orbital sensors target a rocket with only a bearing, not range.

You can't, none of this exists. It is physically possible just as it is physically possible to add shielding and all that as countermeasures, but nobody does, because these systems don't exist.

prototype system based on aircraft certainly exist and has existed for some time. The barrier to deployment of such a system has as much to do with political problems of deploying an outright weapon system that can just as easily pluck aircraft out of sky as missile boosters into orbit as the technical challenges. but an ICBM system’s service life be 25-50 years, and how the system is conceived should account for perspective technologies that can arise during this period to degrade its effectiveness.

 

[taxiya]

The Pentagon has tweeted about the silos

I don't take words from social media seriously regardless who own the account.

 

[AssassinsMace]

Weapons in space... yes, America... open that Pandora's Box.

 

[FairAndUnbiased]

prototype system based on aircraft certainly exist and has existed for some time. The barrier to deployment of such a system has as much to do with political problems of deploying an outright weapon system that can just as easily pluck aircraft out of sky as missile boosters into orbit as the technical challenges. but an ICBM system’s service life be 25-50 years, and how the system is conceived should account for perspective technologies that can arise during this period to degrade its effectiveness.

Aircraft don't have the range. Space based and aircraft based are totally different due to their line of sight, distance, persistence, etc.

Space based laser ABM systems do not exist and are physically unrealistic due to the sensor issues I mentioned and that's just the sensors, there's also mechanical issues like persistence, dispersion, atmospheric distortion, etc. And it can be beaten with reflective paint.

 

[Richard Santos]

Weapons in space... yes, America... open that Pandora's Box.

it’s not only inevitable, but during the next decade or so it is actually sensible for the US to initiate it if no one else does first.

 

[AssassinsMace]

it’s not only inevitable, but during the next decade or so it is actually sensible for the US to initiate it if no one else does first.

Then the US shouldn't whine when China does it.

 

[Richard Santos]

Then the US shouldn't whine when China does it.

of course it should. it is a easy political point to score to whine when someone else does something that looks bad, but which you yourself would have done in their place. This is not a fair structured game. you don’t win by holding back from scoring points unless you get something concrete for holding back.