Eng-Tips is the largest engineering community on the Internet

Intelligent Work Forums for Engineering Professionals

Register Log in

ABM types

Status
Not open for further replies.
amorrison

amorrison

Mechanical
Dec 21, 2000
605
0
0
CA
1. The standard ABM seems to be the ABM coming toward the incoming missile at a high velocity (vector) difference.

Another option

2. Upon detection of missile, an ABM is launched and controlled via thrust to FOLLOW the missile and catch up to it. Eventually with no velocity difference the warhead can be easily destroyed.

Maybe an less difficult option than 1.
 
Replies continue below

Recommended for you

Sort by date Sort by votes
IR stuff,
Isn't this why they try to kill an ICBM in the ascent stage before it has a chance to do all of that stuff?
B.E.

You are judged not by what you know, but by what you can do.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
That's certainly the goal, but that requires a 747 loaded with a gigantic laser on station 24/7, and that only works if the 747 is where the launch occurs. The end result of that is a truckload of 747s flying 24/7, which is a non-trivial cost. Moreover, that's using a laser weapon, not an ABM.

TTFN (ta ta for now)
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert! faq731-376 forum1529 Entire Forum list
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
time to first stage separation for a North Korea ICBM would only be about T+96 seconds and 2nd stage separation at T+130 seconds. At this point, the ICBM is no longer burning any fuel, and by T+220 seconds, the RVs are deployed, meaning they'll have little signature to track, other than by radar.

TTFN (ta ta for now)
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert! faq731-376 forum1529 Entire Forum list
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
If I understand the original post right, there's an issue with "trailing" rockets - you need significantly more energy to chase than to intercept head-on. We're talking longer intercept times (due to chasing rather than having the target fly towards you) and as a result more fuel. But you also have to be faster than the rocket itself, so add even more fuel. The end result is a very beefy rocket, so maybe add one more booster stage to it just so all that fuel can lift off the ground.

Also as mentioned earlier, plasma exhaust from the target (while it's on active portion of flight) will prevent radar detection of the target. Presence of hot exhaust will also prevent IR sensors from getting confident readings from behind the target.

It would be more interesting to ask - on the unpowered trajectory portion, should we try to shoot down each (non-decoy/decoy) warhead with individual rockets, or just send a moderate sized nuke loosely into the direction of incoming warheads and detonate it, hopefully destroying a handful of warheads, burning out electronics in others and maybe introducing sufficiently enough atmospheric disturbance that warheads would not reach the targets reliably.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
The argument against decoys is that they only work briefly. Soon after they are deployed they will behave differently to a real warhead. If they have the same ballistic performance and other characteristics as a real warhead, you might as well use a warhead. MIRVs are the logical end game of that line of development. They are also much more effective, kg for kg, than a single big warhead, against typical targets.

Cheers

Greg Locock


New here? Try reading these, they might help FAQ731-376
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
The argument for decoys is the discrimination has to wait for the terminal/reentry phase, loosing the full time within the suborbital phase. The most value is for events where the promise is the maximum civilian disruption, such as targeting vast cities.

Obviously this works better when point defenses aren't excellent in stopping terminal phase warheads at short range, but it's not clear that there are such defenses that are excellent. Even the Iron Dome system in Israel seems to be pretty miserable at disabling warheads; the greatest benefit has been the early warning to get civilians to cover with the warheads typically making it to their initial (loosely guided) target.

I believe the latest development in ICBM tech was mid-course and terminal phase maneuverability. One thing that does seem clear is that access to large rocket capacity has exceeded access to large amounts of fissionable materials, so a small actor adding full weight fake warheads would be effective.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
"so a small actor adding full weight fake warheads would be effective."

Moreover, lobbing a large conventional warhead with a dirty payload might do a more than adequate job in wiping out someone's financial centers or capitals.

Why this is crazy talk, we're locked in a room with a lot of crazy people. Actually, I think it's worse now, because there appears to be more crazies, and they have access to more hardware.

TTFN (ta ta for now)
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert! faq731-376 forum1529 Entire Forum list
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Nike Sprint ABM missile tests.

SPRINT ABM - Zero to Mach 10 in 5 Seconds! SPRINT missile from Martin Marietta - Florida
NOTE.
After just a few seconds into 'flight' the missile's upper-stage skin turns 'white-hot' from air-friction.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Also, For grins!

747 Airborne Laser [ABL] humor...





Regards, Wil Taylor

o Trust - But Verify!
o We believe to be true what we prefer to be true. [Unknown]
o For those who believe, no proof is required; for those who cannot believe, no proof is possible. [variation,Stuart Chase]
o Unfortunately, in science what You 'believe' is irrelevant. ["Orion", Homebuiltairplanes.com forum]
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top