Anti-missile test sucessful...

[GNEP]

p.s. Not to threadjack or anything, but I googled the word "negligible" to check the spelling and this was at the top of the search results. Facinating! (And these guys are NOT quacks!)

Off Topic:

---

That's Aubrey de Grey - undoubtedly a very clever guy, but also one of those scientists to whom the technical term "Media Whore" (TM) is pretty apt

---

[GT98]

We were not talking about tank-style armour. We were talking about small weight increase, which could be easily countered by other decisions in design of warhead/missile (for some cost...). Overall: about how one change in construction, which is good generally but causes one negative effect, can be countered in other areas.

But it costs more $$$ to do that....it would cost more money to develop a stronger engine to overcome the wieght added to tanks on the boost stage. Not to mention that range would be shortend due to more weight.

[Nowhere]

As I've said, "for some cost". If one could build thanks to this warhead that's much more resistant to interception, it would be probably worth it. And...why would range be shortened in any significant way if the speed of whole, bigger, missile at engine shutdown (in the same point in space) would be the same, thanks to it beeing more powerfull?

[Dr Mordrid]

Missile + armor = more mass = slower acceleration = a better target.

Add a bigger motor to increase acceleration and you get even more of an IR heat signature, making it easier to lock the weapon on the missile earlier and impart even more energy on it.

Basically it's a no-win situation.

Dr. Mordrid

[Nowhere]

Oh I'm not sure...

IR signature could be no big deal in case of big (really big) attack (as I've said, this is discussing opponents which are on par, so one or few missile launches are unlikely), thanks to sheer number of missiles. Yes, you could track them more easily, but you wouldn't have enough lasers to knock large part of them. LIDARs would be simmilarly at disadvantage, since I guess they can track extremelly limited number of targets (in practice, if warheads manuevered, could this number be limited to "one"?), and you wouldn't have a lot of them. And the only weapon available in large enough numbers, anti-missiles, would have trouble locking in on targets using radars, because of stealth features of warhead.

Anyway, just toying with possible (plausible?) scenario, please tell me if I'm missing something

[Dr Mordrid]

The current systems aren't meant to be a strategic defense system, which is the situation you're presenting ie: a massed attack, presumably by a power such as Russia. That isn't what it's intended to do.

It's a theater defense for use against a smaller number of incomings, such as by terrorists or a nation like NK or Iran.

Still the defense systems under discussion are fully capable of targeting multiple incomings, particularly the ABL (a megawatt class COIL laser mounted in a 747-400).

The first ABL, YAL-1a, has already been built and has been undergoing flight and software tests since about 2002. It's shooting laser gets installed soon, if it hasn't been already, and it should go operational soon after.

In 1998 tests the COIL had already achieved 110% of its designed power requirement. Wonder where it is now?

ABL flies in a figure 8 outside a theater engagement with targeting being done by its own internal systems and the AWACS being used in the same region. When it sees launches it waits for them to get over the cloud cover then hammers 'em from ranges of at least 300 miles.

Dr. Mordrid

[Nowhere]

Yes, I'm perfectly aware of that (besides, terrorists or NK probably won't be capable for a long time of obtaining some higher grade missiles/warheads, in the sense which I envision).

But one could wonder how effective against massive attack those systems are really (I guess nobody will reveal that )

BTW, do you have some interesting stuff about anti-missile system that's around Moscow? AFAIK, the deals in the 70's permitted one place to be defended, which Russians did. Unfortunatelly info is scarse, so I know only that and that presumably Moscow is now the only city safe from ballistic rocket attack...

[Dr Mordrid]

Russia installed a 70's tech facility around Moscow but the US never finished its Safeguard system.

AFAIK Washington DC is protected by PAC-3 batteries, which are effective against tactical ballistic missiles, cruise missiles and advanced aircraft. Each PAC-3 battery carries 16 missiles.

PAC-3's have also been delivered to other nations and were used to shoot down several missiles during the early Iraq war.

Dr. Mordrid

[KRSESQ]

I wonder how effective encasing the warhead in something like a high-temperature aerogel would be in diffusing the beam or boiling away under the beam while protecting the warhead until it reached its target?

'course it would not be able to protect the booster at all...

Kevin

[Dr Mordrid]

Prob. last about a picosecond in a megawatt beam.

Dr. Mordrid

[Nowhere]

How about this idea: something like aerogel, chosen that it will directly go from solid state to gas (I'm not sure how this phase change is called in English) once hit by laser/heat sufficiently. Now here's the fun part: it will contain, let us say, millions ofmicroscopic, extremelly reflective mirrors - that way they'll be secured at low weight expense. And who knows how worse or...better would it work overally.

I think I'll stop posting this stuff here, and instead to my notebook "How to take over the world"

[Dr Mordrid]

That positions already taken by OBL.

Dr. Mordrid