broadsword
Brigadier
Can I take "breathtaking" as a fact and not one to stoke the call for a bigger budget for the MIC?
China Ballistic Missiles and Nuclear Arms Thread
- Thread starter peace_lover
- Start date
- Status
Can I take "breathtaking" as a fact and not one to stoke the call for a bigger budget for the MIC?
Soon it won't matter how much money they put in. They physically won't be able to keep up in production and any further injection of currency into a sector will only serve to fuel inflation in said sector.
Hendrik_2000
Lieutenant General
Good article Said everything that I said But now it is no longer Theoretical Chinese FOB it is reality
Where a traditional ICBM briefly escapes the atmosphere as it predictably arcs toward its target—over the North Pole, in the case of a Soviet or Chinese rocket heading for the United States—a FOBS actually stays in orbit just long enough that, depending on its trajectory, it can streak toward a target from any of several directions.
As many of the most powerful strategic radars are fixed, and thus point in just one direction, a FOBS has great potential for an atomic sneak-attack. The less warning a target country has of an incoming nuclear strike, the less likely its anti-missile defenses are to work.
It’s an open question whether a Chinese FOBS—assuming Beijing opted to develop and deploy one—would change minds in the U.S. government and bring presidents and diplomats back to the negotiating table in good faith.
In this hypothetical scenario, the Chinese surely would give up a theoretical FOBS only in exchange for an end to U.S. ABM development. Would the Americans be willing to discard missile-killing missiles in exchange for the Chinese abandoning their own (again, theoretical) missile-defense-dodging orbital nukes?
The yanks will definately say no, because their minset always wants to be in a superior position, regardless. The zero sum mentality.
THAAD, SM-3, SM-6, PAC-3, GBI, none of these including the old Ajax program BMDs can intercept HGVs. It's simple geometry and physics. A Mach 5 or even Mach 10 interceptor vehicle cannot intercept a Mach 10 + moving object. It's physically impossible unless you are in ideal position and the BMD is in between HGV path and its target... even then as long as the HGV turns even a little it'll make the interceptor's job exponentially harder. In reality the HGV turns A LOT with 100km wide arcs or 1000km radius circling around to attack a target from unexpected directions. That's the entire point of HGVs... not just pulling some terminal phase YJ-12 or YJ-18 snaking turns. FOBS can help with making it much harder to tell where HGVs may be coming from. We're also talking hundreds of those at the same time.
An interceptor that wants to intercept a Mach 10 vehicle may require a minimum sustained speed averaging at least Mach 10 and no such thing is even close to existence. It would need a massive booster rocket and several stages. Now go build 1000 of those and position them everywhere.
The whole point of HGV delivered nukes is to ensure absolute guaranteed MAD. This makes nukes out of the question unless an entire nation is either attacked first or suicidal.
An interceptor that wants to intercept a Mach 10 vehicle may require a minimum sustained speed averaging at least Mach 10 and no such thing is even close to existence. It would need a massive booster rocket and several stages. Now go build 1000 of those and position them everywhere.
The whole point of HGV delivered nukes is to ensure absolute guaranteed MAD. This makes nukes out of the question unless an entire nation is either attacked first or suicidal.
Another reason HGV is hard to intercept is that all current midcourse interceptor are ballistic, they travel on a hyperbolic path towards a predicted interception point with the target.
If the target change course the interceptor will have to match it, this works in HGV's favor because it uses aerodynamic force to change direction while the interceptor have to expend propellent to do so, the interceptor can easily run out of juice.
Maybe in the future we'll see HGV intercepting HGV....
broadsword
Brigadier
I think I remember reading the US has guided artillery 155mm munition that could intercept missiles. Do you think it could be improved to intercept HGVs by knocking them off course? If the guidance is accurate, the interceptor does not need to be as fast as the HGV or ballistic missile, is that right?
let's say that you even have a rocket propelled railgun round that doesn't even use control surfaces and only uses reaction control thrusters (FAR FAR FAR beyond the capability of anything today, would be a gigantic and extremely expensive round)
Rocket: sustains it against air resistance at best.
Mach 10: 3.4 km/s.
Muzzle velocity of standard 155 mm shell?
It's as realistic as a high quality Tesla cybertruck being used for freight in a loop tunnel.
In theory if you are perfectly accurate you can place a static brick on the flight path of a HGV and it will absolutely destroy it....
In practice, no I don't think 155 can cut it, not even close.....
By 155 I assume you mean for terminal defense? The range of 155 is like 60 something km, against high altitude target it would be like 30km. Since gun accuracy is obviously not enough we are talking about guided munition Yes? A 155mm shell reaching high altitude would be extremely slow, not aerodynamic maneuverable at all.
However missile terminal defense against HGV is still viable (although midcourse interception is rubbish now...)
- Status