Russia says new ICBM can beat any system

[Member2019]

Yes! The Russians drop the rhetoric! Put together good move ... (1/3)

First off, I want to comment on today's development ...

ProfVoluptuary has been saying that this system is more about the sensors than the anti-missiles. i mostly come here for the naked ladies, so to comment on world affairs and military hardware etc would just be a different kind of masturbation.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/07/world/europe/07cnd-Russia.html?hp

Most of the "popular media" stories have focused on the negative. That could not be farther from the truth! In reality, anyone involved with not only TMD, but NMD, would consider Azerbaijan to be the ultimate ideal location for southern and eastern Asia sensory!

Now it's not going to happen overnight. Putin's idea of using the existing radar -- while very wide ranged and a great, general air defense system -- is not up to the snuff of modern US X-band TMD and, even more so, NMD capabilities. Putin's insistence of not deploying the interceptors is a "show stopper," because when you have the capability, you don't leave it in the warehouse. But those can be "worked through" and I believe they will.

It's a great start because ...
1. Putin ended the rhetoric, and put forth a damn good location
2. Putin and W. both "challenged" each other to "make good on working together" -- and that's always a good thing!
3. Azerbaijan is not Russia, but unlike some former Soviet Republics, it still has strong ties to Russia, so it puts the Russians more at ease
4. At the same time, it is a true, neutral location for both NATO and Russian interests alike, especially since Azerbaijan is open to it
5. The Russians can guarantee the system is "facing away" from it all while, again, providing a more ideal location for NATO (and Russian) defense anyway

People say the move was political by Putin, and I won't deny that. But has W.'s moves been any less at times, admittedly? Better yet, how many times do political moves turn into good ideas, when it's actually in the interest of defusing a situation and talking about "common defense"? I for one am very glad to see this! Especially since there is a clear focus to work towards a technical solution, instead of continuing the non-technical, 0% applicable, 100% political-based rhetoric.

Putin did good, damn good, even if he hit W. by surprise and some people think it's little more than a political ploy that he won't follow through on. Frankly, I believe the Russians will, after negotiations to ensure the US removes many of its plans for Eastern Europe. Because we can get far better sensory capability from the location than in Eastern Europe. You've hit it 100% on the head Negotiator!

i think MAD as a strategy only applies when 2 discrete enemies are involved, like india and pakistan, or the former soviet bloc and nato. the rest of eurasia is more complex now.

MAD is about the ability of two countries to utterly destroy each other. Although the US and Russia are not direct enemies, they are still capable "MAD" level capability. In other words, 10 interceptors does nothing to harm the Russians.

:rofl: Prof, I swear, sometimes talking to you is like talking to a wall.

Yes, because I base my views on technical and economic aspects, not the political ones. To me, politics is an unnecessary distraction from the reality of what should be done. But I'm an idealist -- as most engineers are -- which is why we make poor politicians (although I like to think we make good leaders, which is not the same).

Anyway, thanx for a detailed description of the system. You may not be the most pleasant man on the board at times, but you are certainly one of the most interesting. Al right, seeing that mods are becoming aggravated I'll try to keep this to a minimum.

U.S. in this instance acts as O.J. Simpson: it gets away on a technicality.

Understand I am the first American to fully admit we are HARDLY "benign" at times. But despite the regular "unilateral" comments, we are thinking of our allies -- like NATO and the like. Yes, not the UN, I fully agree. But we're not always thinking of only ourselves either.

Here is how it looks across the pond: U.S., with its commitments in Iraq, slowly brewing hostilities with Iran and massive budget deficit starts to finance the build up of NATO presence near Russian borders. JUST BEFORE THE BLOODY ELECTION YEAR IN RUSSIA
Do you realise that the U.S. is willingly giving fodder to our radicals at home? Do you honestly expect the Russian government to exlain all these technicalities to our population or do you simply think that we will post a link to Freeones board wherever we can?

I can't apologize for the ignorance of the average American, European or Russian on "air defense" as well as the greater TMD and, ultimately, NMD aspects. I just can't. I can only do my best to educate as best as I can, in the hope everyone will learn the realities. If people want to listen to the rhetoric and play politics, then that's on them, not anyone else.

With that said, yes, I do see your point. But the US has developed more advanced "air defense" -- at a cost of over $10B -- and it will be deployed. Not to do so is like saying we won't deploy the F-22 or F-35, and stick with the F-15 and F-16/AV-8. But unlike aircraft, which are capable of offensive strikes, TMD and even NMD are 100% pure defensive capability and cannot be used to "attack" anyone.

At most its sensory capability can only be used to "spy" on other countries -- and that has 0 to do with the interceptors themselves anyway. Which is why I have repeatedly stated, the issue has never been the interceptor, but the advanced sensory equipment that comes alone with it. No one fears PAC-3, THAAD or the NMD ground-based interceptor at all -- it's 100% defensive -- other than a rogue state that wants to "blackmail" the US by aiming something at its allies.

Countries like Russia don't like the fact that the US can detect anything that flies -- especially such an advanced air defense sensory system that comes with these capabilities. That's why Putin made the move he did today -- and it's a damn good one, but also a very constructive and ideal one even for the US. That's why I'm very happy to see it, especially since it pushes the rhetoric about "the missiles" aside. The Russian military could care less about the missiles, they are ineffective against their capability.

You still haven't given me a valid reason WHY the U.S. needs it at this time at least.

Just as many argue there is no reason for the F-15 -- or even the B-2 for that matter -- many argue there is no reason for PAC-3, THAAD -- or even the NMD ground-based interceptor. In fact, the B-2 is clearly an offensive weapon, as is the F-22 and the proposed F-35 VSTOLs that will go on US Navy LHDs.

But the reality is that no deterrent was ever achieved by assuming what a potential enemy was capable of -- especially when it comes to defensive capability. Even the original Patriot -- which many argued was "unnecessary" -- showed that we still didn't have a system that was "good enough" for general air defense.

 

[Member2019]

Yes! The Russians drop the rhetoric! Put together good move ... (2/3)

At least, we are being very honest about our response. So why does Europe need a new anti-air system?

Why does Europe need new F-35 fighters? Why does Europe need new body armor? Why does Europe need any, new military -- especially 100% defense and 0% offensive -- capability?

Or better yet, why does Russia need the Su-47? Why does Russia need its radar installations on the European front? Why does Russia need a new ICBM to counter TMD?

It goes both ways.

To most Russians it looks like it is anticipating a Russian strike.

But what about a rogue SS-20 captured by a terrorist organization? Unlike the US, you Russians operate mobile, ground-based ICBMs! They are much easier to capture than any fixed, underground or submarine-based ICBMs!

TMD is about providing the best air defense possible, to counter previously unforseen threats that instantly crop up. The ideal system is an option that effective renders any threat useless -- especially a technology that is 100% defensive and harms no one when deployed, only removes the offensive threat. Not merely to protect US interests, but those of its allies, or even "friends" -- Russia included.

NMD then does this on an exo-atmospheric level -- such as a rogue state who decides to space-burst a thermonuclear weapon over a major US city -- killing no one, but causing tens of trillions of dollars of damage to the US economy.

As far as rogue nations are concerned, well, there are only two at the moment: North Korea and Iran. If they choose to attack Europe they will have to deliver the payload via our territory. I highly doubt that anyone within Russia would allow that.

But that consideration would still happen after the event! Who cares if Russia retaliates after it happens? The rogue nation would be toast anyway.

It's more about the "blackmail" that countries -- such as North Korea -- constantly throws at not only the US, but our allies -- such South Korea and Japan. It's about making that "blackmail" completely ineffective -- such as a "multi-layered" missile defense like TMD+NMD.

If anything we will be very cynical about this and will simply interpret this as an assault and will obliterate these states on our own, without European involvement.

But after the event already occurred! Trust me, MAD doesn't work for some countries! And what about the scenario where a country that explodes a nuke outside the atmosphere, and kills no one, but causes a level of financial harm to the US that cannot be reciprocated in kind because they are a 3rd world country?

Those are the "real world" scenarios that those of us who worked years in missile defense were tasked to prevent!

I hear your argument about this being merely an upgrade, but its not like you are changing a car or a mobile phone. Thats how the arms race starts in the first place.

There is no "arms" -- there is no "threat" to the Russia arsenal. That's the reality and technical fact. Everyone involved knows this, and everything else is based on 100% rhetoric.

As far as our dislike of NATO is concerned, we pretty much see it as the same problem as EU at the moment. You have probably heard about Poland vetoing the Russo-European Energy talks. Simply because we have banned the import of their meat.

Yes, it's "politics as usual" everywhere -- and I can undersatnd that.

The validity of that ban aside, Russians are pretty concerned how only one member within such an organisation can actively promote an anti-Russian policy. Same with NATO.

Then NATO needs to better address the Russian concerns. I think Putin opened that door effectively today -- at least far better than prior -- and it should come to some level of fruitition in the coming years.

Furthermore, its not just the unwillingness to be a US crony (or cronie) that makes us unwilling to cooperate with NATO. Its not just pride. YOU DO NOT SHARE A BORDER WITH IRAN OR CHINA. We do. We have to keep a balance between US and other countries. If we choose an actively pro-US policy we automatically spoil our relations with these countries. And we have enough trouble keeping the Chinese out of our Far East as it is.

Agreed. Everything is calculated. Even the French are very easy for an American to understand when you consider such things. At the same time, we are very strong allies with France, and there's no reason we can't be with Russia -- even if most people only see the "rhetoric" between France and the US regularly, just like Russia and the US now.

Anyways, enough of that. I am extremely pleased to see so many Americans and Europeans actually seeing our point of view. I have a newfound respect for the intelligence of many members of this board.

Trust me, I know all the concerns. I'm not some ignorant American who doesn't understand the complexities of the Russia positions on many things -- let alone those non-American or greater non-NATO.

 

[Member2019]

"Defense in Depth" -- and why we still have AA guns too (3/3)

It is so cool that a Russian is in this discussion.

Very much agreed. I saw his points, and I hope he saw mine.

Unlike a lot of people here, I don't like the political viewpoints, only the real, technical ones. I believe political stances and rhetoric do nothing, and if people want to listen to them, then that's their fault, not the real, technical specifics. Because the technical realities are the situation, not the political statements about them. But I'm an engineer, an idealist, and we make horrible US Presidents.

I have done some reading on this and I realize that Prof Voluptuary is right in that the THAAD systems are not at present designed to shoot down ICBM's.

PAC-3 and THAAD are general air defense improvements. The original Patriot (and the PAC-2 improvement) showed that general air defense can provide a "last resort" defense against anything that flies -- including high-speed, incoming re-entry vehicles. THAAD also flies high and just fast enough that if close to a launch vehicle, it can intercept during early boost too -- but that's hardly its design or a common capability.

TMD capabilities like PAC-3 and THAAD -- therefore -- become the "lower-tier" of general missile defense. They must be complemented by not only other, similar systems -- including sea-based Navy Theater Wide (NTW) air defense, Block II and Standard Missile III -- but a true, more global system of intercept. That is namely NMD. It's called "defense in depth" -- a concept as common to both the combination of tactical battlefield and strategic military actions as both the combination of computer system security and computer network defense.

Deploying NMD without TMD and TMD without NMD is incomplete. And deploying TMD without battlefield systems is also one without the necessary other. There is no sense in deploying a capability if you don't intend to provide defense against any and all threats possible -- or at least feasible to defend against. That's why not deploy improved air defense is like not deploying the B-2, F-22 or F-35 after they were developed. We need TMD in the small regions to best complement NMD, as well other forces to complement those.

However, according to this Wikipedia article:
'THAAD was designed to hit Scuds and similar weapons, but has a limited capability against ICBMs.'

Yes! As I've long argued!

THAAD, and even to a lesser extent, PAC-3 are the "last two lines of defense" in missile defense -- with the ground-based NMD interceptor being the best against ICBMs. They complement each other well -- based on what the incoming, offensive capability is -- aircraft, cruise missile, short-ranged or other surface-to-surface ballistic missile, MRBM, IRBM or ICBM. Their "kill capability" varies with each threat -- so one system alone isn't capable.

THAAD and PAC-3 are TMD systems, so they have to be deployed in proximity. Hence why the US is deploying them everywhere they can. NMD can be more centralized, like in Kodiak. At the same time, we're hoping the Russians will work with us (and NATO) at deploying them elsewhere too, on the other side of the world. It sounds like the Russians have partially opened that door -- even if Putin is playing down the importance of deploying any TMD or NMD until Iran shows it has the capability to hit Europe.

BTW, the US Navy has a similar approach -- Standard Missile III, then Block II then the good'ole guns for the "last mile." You don't rely on 1 system that has a limited area of capability, but an overlapping system of capabilies. "Defense in depth." It's a common phrase in computer security as it is in military defense. Corporations deploy more than merely firewalls and anti-virus on systems, but advanced, application-level filtering, intrusion detection and prevention on networks as well.

I was in error and I regret that I was wrong, even though it seems THAAD does have a limited ICBM shoot down capability. It is clearly not what it is designed for as Prof Voluptuary stated all along.

And I truly appreciate this admission.

However there is this:
'On 16 February 2005 Vice Admiral Lowell E. Jacoby, U.S. Navy, Director, Defense Intelligence Agency, testified that "We judge Iran will have the technical capability to develop an ICBM by 2015. It is not clear whether Iran has decided to field such a missile." '
This is located at:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/iran/shahab-6.htm 2'nd paragraph from the bottom of the page.
That means that Iran could deploy ICBM's 6 years after American deployment of THAAD in Europe. And assuming THAAD is relatively ineffective against ICBM's, then the point of deploying the system there is rather suspect.

Again, "defense in depth." There is a "window" where NMD will work most effectively. If NMD fails to detect/locate/track or the NMD interceptor fails, then it falls to TMD or NTW. THAAD is the next, ground-based defense. PAC-3 is the "last resort" after that.

Here's another analogy ...
Not deploying THAAD and using it against an ICBM because we have NMD capability is like saying we don't do need anti-aircraft (AA) guns because we have interceptor aircraft that should be able to take out bombers and attack aircraft before they reach the area with the AA guns. "Defense in depth."

Also, according to the following GlobalSecurity.org report:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/dprk/td-2.htm
North Korea is close to or may already have a working Taep'o-dong 2 ICBM.
In addition there is this report:
'Reports: North Korean Taep’o-dong Exploded 1.5 km from Launch Site
July 30, 2006 :: Reuters :: News
U.S. military sources report today that the Taep’o-dong 2 long-range ballistic missile test fired by North Korea on July 5 exploded in midair within some 1.5 kilometers of its launch site. The new information contradicts earlier claims by the Japanese government, which had estimated that the Taep’o-dong 2 had reached the Sea of Japan 400-600 km away from the Musudanri missile base in North Hamgyong Province. (Article, Link) '
located at:
http://www.missilethreat.com/archives/id.59,page.3/subject_detail.asp
Which confirms that North Korea is already testing a version of this missile.
And since Iran's ICBM (Shahab-6) is a direct development of North Korea's Taep'o-dong 2. Then it is logical to assume that once the latter comes on line - the former cannot be too far behind.
Then it is possible that the North Koreans will have a working ICBM in operation by the time of the US THAAD deployment in Europe. And, by America's own admittance, Iran could have one 6 years later - if not sooner.

Correct. Which is why we're not only getting Kodiak operational, but we're pushing hard to get the Russians to work with us on deploying the ground-based NMD interceptor somewhere on the other side of the world as well.

So this deployment to stop the rogue nations of Iran and North Korea from launching strikes on Europe looks at the very least, suspect; if as stated, the THAAD system is not capable of shooting down ICBM's.

Just like Patriot wasn't capable of shooting down SCUDS either. But we still deployed them to Israel and Saudia Arabia, and we still had some, limited success with them in that role. And better yet, we learned a lot on how to improve air defense with that added capability -- resulting the PAC-2 and, ultimately, the hit-to-kill PAC-3 and THAAD systems.

But we don't rely solely on NMD, even though it's better than TMD for knocking down ICBMs, just like we still have AA guns, even though interceptor aircraft and missiles are better at shooting down bombers before they reach our base.

Also remember that PAC-3 and THAAD are mobile missiles of much smaller diameter -- 8-16 per truck -- whereas NMD interceptors are much, much bigger than a truck and go into a silo.

They are "battlefield units" that provide both the "first line of defense in general, theater air defense" and the "last line of defense in long-range, missile defense."

At least, that is how I see it.

You see it correct. But we still deploy AA guns too. Even on US carriers, despite all of the DDGs and CGs that surround them. Even the DDGs and CGs themselves have guns dedicated to 100% air defense, and are not used for pelting other ships at all.

Hell, the US Navy recently commissioned several studies showing how their reliance on missiles and bombs and moving away from anything larger than 5" guns has been the most monumental mistake. That's why we're coming up with a new Destroyer design and larger guns again. There are also 6-6.5" electro-magnetic designs that give a much bigger bunch, and go much farther than even our biggest battleship guns ever designed.

 

[Member2019]

"Agree" on what point?

I kinda agree with your post mcrocket.

That the US doesn't need TMD in Eastern Europe because it doesn't best address ICBM intercept?

If that's the case, then why do we still have AA guns? Surely we don't need them to take out bombers -- interceptor aircraft, let alone PAC-3 -- can deal with them well before they reach our basis. AA guns are then redundant.

Why does the US Navy -- with its SM3s and Block IIs -- mount MK 15 Phalanx Close-In Weapons System (CIWS) on its ships? Not just aircraft carriers, but its DDGs and CGs as well? It's virtually an "air defense only" weapon not used to attack other ships or other things except -- essentially -- incoming missiles or aircraft? Is it not redundant as well?

And why do people load anti-virus software and personal firewalls if they have a network firewall, let alone advanced network filtering and intrusion detection/prevention systems? After all, the latter should make the former redundant too, correct?

It's all about "defense-in-depth."

NMD is better against ICBMs, but NMD can still miss an intercept, or even fail to detect and track a missile, because of its location or sensory limitations. Things that the PAC-3 and THAAD and other TMD systems, as well as NTW systems -- which can be moved -- will detect by the time NMD is no longer even an option, or failed to be an option.

That's all in addition to PAC-3 and THAAD serving their greater role as "general air defense" and replacing existing Patriot and PAC-2 systems in NATO units. The added capability that they have an improved chance of taking out ICBMs, and even more so, MRBM/IRBM and other surface-to-surface or cruise or air-launched missiles, better than PAC-2 (let alone Patriot) are why they are being deployed.

PAC-3 and THAAD ground-based TMD systems are being deployed in NATO, along with NTW systems with SM3s and Block II interceptors in the oceans, like it or not. It's the same reason we have deployed the B-2, F-22 and will soon deploy the F-35, including many, other nations also fielding the F-35 as well (including the VSTOL versions). It's added capability -- let alone it's purely defensive, unlike the aforementioned aircraft.

If there is any "unnecessary, offensive" system in the US arsenal now that the Cold War is over, it's the B-2. It regularly flies around the world to bomb Iraq and Afganistan. It's designed to purposely by-pass detection and is a "first strike" capability. Why don't people bitch about that more than TMD or NMD, I don't know?

 

[McRocket]

I believe that the U.S. is SO gung ho on this weapon system because there are hundreds of thousands of American jobs that directly or indirectly depend on it.

And I bleieve that Eastern Europe is SO gung ho for these systems is because they heither like nor trust Russia and any American base on their soil makes them feel more secure.

And this latest proposal by Putin will never be agreed to by this administration.
Because they have ABSOLUTELY no intention of leting the RUssians get their hands on this anti missile weapon system.
Bush was polite about it. But they will never take up the offer - IMO.

And other people's opinion as well...

http://www.hamiltonspectator.com/NA...e&cid=1181364149574&call_pageid=1014656316146

 

[negator]

And this latest proposal by Putin will never be agreed to by this administration.
Because they have ABSOLUTELY no intention of leting the RUssians get their hands on this anti missile weapon system.
Bush was polite about it. But they will never take up the offer - IMO.

and the iron triangle will have none of it

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20070615/D8PP47I00.html

 

[McRocket]

All this crap being stirred up for 10 stinking lousy missiles that will not (apparently) be able to shoot down long range ICBM's of both Iran and North Korea when they are deployed somewhere in the next 5 to 10 years anyway.

All it does is piss off the Russians (and indirectly the Chinese) so they start targeting Europe with ICBM's again. And get Iran and North Korea to develop their ICBM's faster so they can beat this new system.
It seems to be hurting world peace, not helping it.

Is the Bush Administration incredbibly inept or monumentally arrogant or ridiculously corrupt? I really do not know.

 

[Friday on my mind]

All this crap being stirred up for 10 stinking lousy missiles that will not (apparently) be able to shoot down long range ICBM's of both Iran and North Korea when they are deployed somewhere in the next 5 to 10 years anyway.

All it does is piss off the Russians (and indirectly the Chinese) so they start targeting Europe with ICBM's again. And get Iran and North Korea to develop their ICBM's faster so they can beat this new system.
It seems to be hurting world peace, not helping it.

Is the Bush Administration incredbibly inept or monumentally arrogant or ridiculously corrupt? I really do not know.

Personally I will go with all three.You know everybody is so worried about Iran and its nukes but as I'm sure you know McRocket the real thing is delivery systems.I remember when the Indians first tested a nuke the Joke was their delivey system would be strapping one to the back of an elephant.We keep this up and someday we are bound to find out if these things really work.I for some reason just think somehow these defensive systems will never really be able to keep up with spme easy way of defeating them.I remember that actually there were people who after the Gulf war claimed the patriot missles never hit any scuds,I don't know the truth of this but I do know that even if that were true there is so much money to made from building such things that lying about their effectiveness would not shock me.

 

[Member2019]

Again, what about general air and space defense?

Personally I will go with all three.You know everybody is so worried about Iran and its nukes

No, NATO and many other US allies are worried about nuclear blackmail, as well as a rogue launch.
Bitch all you want guys, but NATO is all for these systems and their deployments.
If Russia wants to join us in cooperation, both the US and NATO are all for it -- including using any Russian controlled bases for augmenting the detection and tracking capabilities.
But NATO will still control the actual interceptors, and they will be on NATO soil.

but as I'm sure you know McRocket the real thing is delivery systems.I remember when the Indians first tested a nuke the Joke was their delivey system would be strapping one to the back of an elephant.

True, it doesn't do anything to prevent many other forms of WMD attack other than from air or space, which requires additional intelligence and defensive systems.
But just because you can be attacked from other avenues than just air and space doesn't mean you neglect air and space.

Same goes for computer, network, etc... defenses.
And any type of system that requires multiple layers of defenses, some not always overlapping.

We keep this up and someday we are bound to find out if these things really work. I for some reason just think somehow these defensive systems will never really be able to keep up with spme easy way of defeating them.

Isn't the that reality of anything offensive v. defensive?
This isn't any different than missile v. counter-measure, radar v. stealth, and countless other technological battles.
Most offensive v. defensive systems are fought on the battlefield of deterrence, not actual deployment.

I remember that actually there were people who after the Gulf war claimed the patriot missles never hit any scuds,I don't know the truth of this but I do know that even if that were true there is so much money to made from building such things that lying about their effectiveness would not shock me.

Spoken like a true person who gets their information from only the media, who doesn't bother to state anything but their scientifically ignorant analysis.
Honestly, I can't watch the media, because they make such completely false statements on the matter!

I've covered this a dozen times now, but here's once more ...

Original proximity-fuse Patriot missiles did hit Scuds in the first Iraq war.
But how "effective" they were at actually "taking them out" is what has been criticized immensely.
Hence why H. Bush, then Bill Clinton, put forth billions of dollars to develop hit-to-kill.
Patriot Advanced Capability (PAC-3) -- which is hit-to-kill -- had a 100% hit and 100% effective neutralization in the Second Iraq war.

But what do I know?
I was just a sensory/telemetry engineer for 3 years in the late '90s charged with analyzing the effective neutralization of a target by PAC-3 and THAAD.
Believe whether I was or not, I don't care -- but throwing around general ignorance is not the way to be taken seriously by engineers.

It's one thing to track a launch, let alone the re-entry vehicle of a ballistic missile.
It's another to hit the actual re-entry vehicle.
And it's yet another to actually and effectively neutralize it.

Patriot proxity-fuse, which included PAC-2, could hit -- even targets it was never designed for like long-range Scuds.
But neutralizing them was an entirely different matter -- something the US put the funds towards changing with the hit-to-kill we now have with PAC-3 and THAAD.
And we built some pretty damn good tracking systems to go with them too.

But I can't comment about those, or what I had to do with them.

 

[Member2019]

The US is more than willing to share and integrate our sensor network with Russia ...

I believe that the U.S. is SO gung ho on this weapon system because there are hundreds of thousands of American jobs that directly or indirectly depend on it.

Nope, not true at all.
All the R&D on it was virtually spend in the '90s -- that's when I was employed.
It's now more about not letting tens of billions of dollars of R&D spent not go to utter waste.
There is so little money in deploying such systems -- it's the R&D where 99% of the cost is at.

It's one thing to just drop all that expense an offensive system, we've done that many times -- Pershing II and the Minute Man III (aka MX/Peacekeeper) for example.
That's because we introduced those systems to get rid of other offensive systems in kind.
But not for a purely defensive system -- it is just stupid not to deploy such a capability -- especially when it does not threaten Russia (and does not upset MAD) at all!

And this latest proposal by Putin will never be agreed to by this administration.

Huh?
The US -- including NATO -- is very much interested in folding the Russian radar installation into the network -- for the protection of all nations, including Russia.
But until Russia develops our level of sensory capability, we will have to deploy our added sensor capability for the system to be effective.

Because they have ABSOLUTELY no intention of leting the RUssians get their hands on this anti missile weapon system.

You have repeatedly claimed and complained I've overstated what I could not know.
So how do you know this is true?

The US has openly stated that we are interested in putting our sensor systems on neutral, Russian-leased, ground!
We just don't want to use only the Russian installation on its own, as it is quite inadequate!
That would remove the fears the Russians have of the advanced, US sensory technology being used to spy on the Russians.

I'm really tiring of people not getting their facts straight in this thread.
Especially the comments about Patriot and utter disregard for the specifics of how different types of air and air-space -- such as older proximity-fuse air defense v. modern hit-to-kill air-space defense -- work.
I'm about to ask the moderators to close it because the gross ignorance is just too damn thick.

 

[McRocket]

Re: Again, what about general air and space defense?

Spoken like a true person who gets their information from only the media, who doesn't bother to state anything but their scientifically ignorant analysis.
Honestly, I can't watch the media, because they make such completely false statements on the matter!

I've covered this a dozen times now, but here's once more ...
But what do I know?
I was just a sensory/telemetry engineer for 3 years in the late '90s charged with analyzing the effective neutralization of a target by PAC-3 and THAAD.
Believe whether I was or not, I don't care -- but throwing around general ignorance is not the way to be taken seriously by engineers.

Which, if true, explains why you get so touchy about this subject. Me thinks your perspective has been clouded.
Which is probably why you would call someone whose scientific background you know nothing about scientifically ignorant.
I would guess that my brother (who got his physics degree from Cal Berkley) would probably think that it is bad science to reach conclusions about things when most of the facts are not available - which you just did about Friday on my mi's scientific ignorance or lack there of.

And we built some pretty damn good tracking systems to go with them too.

But I can't comment about those, or what I had to do with them.

Thank GOODNESS for that!!!

 

[Member2019]

This thread needs to be closed ...

Which, if true, explains why you get so touchy about this subject. Me thinks your perspective has been clouded.

Yes, clouded by technical and physical reality!
Just like in the "Moon Landings where Faked" thread -- some really, really basic engineering mechanics disagrees!
But as I said before, don't take my word for it, ask an experienced engineer you trust!

I'd do the same in another area too -- like the tax code, I'll ask an accountant I trust before I'd believe someone else.
I supposed the accountant is clouded in the same regard?

Dude, just like NASA, I have plenty of things to bitch about on missile defense.
But that it "never worked" or "we don't know if it works" is not one of them -- just like the Moon landings were not faked.
Not because I'm "biased," but because every God damn argument you guys thrown out VIOLATES BASIC ENGINEERING MECHANICS!

Yes, I'm "touchy" on that!

Which is probably why you would call someone whose scientific background you know nothing about scientifically ignorant.

Based on their statements, yes!
If they merely spew what the TV media says, yes!
I've covered the whole thing over and over and over again, and we keep coming back to it.

I would guess that my brother (who got his physics degree from Cal Berkley) would probably think that it is bad science to reach conclusions about things when most of the facts are not available - which you just did about Friday on my mi's scientific ignorance or lack there of.

Then why don't you ask your brother about the differences between the effectiveness of proximity-fuse and hit-to-kill and hypersonic intercept velocities?
At least do that instead of constantly meta-arguing about things well outside the technical specifics of threads like this.

Thank GOODNESS for that!!!

You are an argumentative fool to the end.
I'm asking the mods to close this thread because we keep re-covering extremely elementary, technical and engineering facts over and over and over again.
Some of you guys don't want to learn at all, you just want to argue.

 

[McRocket]

Re: The US is more than willing to share and integrate our sensor network with Russia

Nope, not true at all.
All the R&D on it was virtually spend in the '90s -- that's when I was employed.
It's now more about not letting tens of billions of dollars of R&D spent not go to utter waste.
There is so little money in deploying such systems -- it's the R&D where 99% of the cost is at.

Fine. If you can prove to me with facts/links that there is no longer 'several hundred thousand jobs in the U.S. military and defence industry that depend directly or indirectly on BMD' (from Gwynn Dyer's article I linked to above in post #85) then I will change my position on this.

 

[Roughneck]

A quick question I'd like to squeeze in if possible:

To a mudfoot line animal ("plain old" 'infantry soldier' to you non-mil folks) like me ---

What does TMD/THAAD offer that is not covered under the existing umbrella of SAM/AA systems?

I understand the whole "proximity fuse" Vs "Hit to kill" difference - so kinda pointless to go over that again. Let us assume that "hit to kill" is better than "proximity fuse".


Proceed.....

 

[Member2019]

Why don't fragmentation grenades work on tanks?

A quick question I'd like to squeeze in if possible:
To a mudfoot line animal ("plain old" 'infantry soldier' to you non-mil folks) like me ---
What does TMD/THAAD offer that is not covered under the existing umbrella of SAM/AA systems?
I understand the whole "proximity fuse" Vs "Hit to kill" difference - so kinda pointless to go over that again. Let us assume that "hit to kill" is better than "proximity fuse".
Proceed.....

It's the difference between an aircraft or re-entry vehicle being "just dinged" or "knocked off course" or "partially damaged" and an aircraft or re-entry vehicle being utterly gutted.

Oh, Patriot hit alright, and most SCUDs still came down, partially intact, because Patriot only got close before blowing.
It's like the difference between using a fragmentation grenade on trunk and that of a tank -- the tank is fairly solid and isn't damaged nearly as easily.
And even in the case of the truck, if you don't blow up inside of the truck, a fragmentation grenade isn't a guaranteed kill either!

Now take a depleted uranium sabot against that tank!
Or even a truck! Pure, kenetic destruction!

PAC-3 and THAAD can still take out aircraft, just like a sabot can take out a truck.
But they are a crapload better at taking out re-entry vehicles, just like a sabot on a tank!
I mean, multiply the velocity by an order of magnitude (Mach 10+ combined) -- and you can see what it does against an aircraft, as well as a re-entry vehicle.

PAC-3 is a 7 fingered cat -- 1 big claw with 6 smaller ones that "fang out" nearby.
It's neat to see all the thermalcouplings and sensors go off-line in your telemetry feed in real-time, or even analyze the feed with time slowed down to microseconds afterwards.
But nothing beats seeing the actual fragments left of that hunk of steel completely gutted later.

No payload in a re-entry vehicle will survive PAC-3, much less THAAD.
And the split-second kenetic, imploding inferno pretty much neutralizes anything inside.
Unlike something that merely "blast-fragments near-by" and is lucky enough to somehow penetrate the outer hull of the re-entry vehicle.

 

[Friday on my mind]

Re: Again, what about general air and space defense?

Which, if true, explains why you get so touchy about this subject. Me thinks your perspective has been clouded.
Which is probably why you would call someone whose scientific background you know nothing about scientifically ignorant.
I would guess that my brother (who got his physics degree from Cal Berkley) would probably think that it is bad science to reach conclusions about things when most of the facts are not available - which you just did about Friday on my mi's scientific ignorance or lack there of.




Thank GOODNESS for that!!!

While I have resisted responding in kind to the Prof who routinely makes total mistatement of facts as in,

http://board.freeones.com/showthread.php?t=139593
In this thread he claimed no one went to jail in the 50s for being a communist and communist party was never outlawed.I knew different but it took wikepedia to convince the professor.
Then there's this which he has not resonded to from his American Capitalist thread.
http://board.freeones.com/showthread.php?t=139606&page=2
Re: American Libertarian[-Capitalist]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

.
Labor unions thrive and do well, along with their employers, in US states where the states are not "closed shop."
Many of them are some of the US' biggest producers, like Toyota.

My Question about above quote to prof:
Before I say anything about closed shop vs right to work issue I want to be sure I have this on the record.Are you saying in your above quote prof that the UAW has organized any of the Toyota factories it has in the US?

He has not answered cause he probably went and did research and found he again is wrong, not one foreign owned car factory is unionized.
The point being that unions are not thriving in these states that allow whats known as right to work laws,in fact as most know union membership as % is way down in US.I won't debate this subject here I'm just making the point that you can be against unions but don't make up stuff to back up your position.
McRocket said same thing I said post some evidence for your claims.I'm ignorant and yet not once have you been able to show a fact I have put up is incorrect.The mis-representations you put up were fundamental lack of knowledge of Communism and Unions and while I know the facts won't get in your way others were owed the truth so that they make informed conclusions.Not that free-ones talk is important but truth always is.

 

[Member2019]

The R&D jobs are pretty much gone ...

Fine. If you can prove to me with facts/links that there is no longer 'several hundred thousand jobs in the U.S. military and defence industry that depend directly or indirectly on BMD' (from Gwynn Dyer's article I linked to above in post #85) then I will change my position on this.

If you didn't notice in your quoted article -- which also references the BMDO, a JPO which no longer exists -- that comment was at the time when W. just got into office -- back in 2001.

Most of my fellow engineers -- like I -- moved outside of the industry, as it moved into the deployment phase in 2002+ -- I saw it much earlier than most.
That's hardly the time where lots of engineers are working, and lower-paid technicians (and heavily enlisted military men) actually deploy the units.
There's no R&D money for TMD anymore, and the NMD scope is far more limited as the EKV was developed 20 years ago.

This is all basic engineering lifecycle and microeconomics -- the R&D is over, which is the major cost in any product.
Now it's fixed X dollars for Y units -- profit margins are scamp.
The technical market for engineers in the central Florida area for that industry is far less than it ever was in the '90s -- even NASA downsized around the same time (2001).

But you go right ahead and assume what you want.
I'm not going to discuss the entire micro and macronomics of the aerospace industry, and various, select companies in the area (among other parts of the nation), just to prove my point further.
I honestly tire of trying to explain basic things -- from engineering mechanics to the engineering lifecycle.
And that including my pointing out mistakes that even NASA has made with regards to them -- showing I'm no "NASA apologist" like you've claimed I'm "biased" towards NASA before (trust me, I'm against the new Orion program which I think is a waste!).

I choose to be critical of missile defense, NASA, etc... from a standpoint of actually caring, instead of just whatever political alignment I want to take.
At least my stance is based on technical statements, not what I hear from the media or continually assume (and you are shown you are wrong over and over).
Americans spent tens of billions of dollars on R&D developing these capabilities -- so saying they don't want to spend the few tens of millions to deploy them is beyond my simple, microeconomics I guess.

 

[Member2019]

Putting words in my mouth and not agreeing I have admitted I was wrong in 1 thread ..

While I have resisted responding in kind to the Prof who routinely makes total mistatement of facts as in,
http://board.freeones.com/showthread.php?t=139593
In this thread he claimed no one went to jail in the 50s for being a communist and communist party was never outlawed.I knew different but it took wikepedia to convince the professor.

And I was wrong!
But I am not a formally educated historian nor do I remotely work in that field!

Then there's this which he has not resonded to from his American Capitalist thread.
http://board.freeones.com/showthread.php?t=139606&page=2
Re: American Libertarian[-Capitalist]

Of which you and I just seem to be presenting "conflicting facts."
One Wikipedia article says one person to another, and another says another person to that same media person!
That's why it's not considered an "authoritative" source! Because different articles actually conflict in detail!
I can only present the "evidence" that difference articles from the same "source" conflict, and we can't seem to get past that!

My Question about above quote to prof:
Before I say anything about closed shop vs right to work issue I want to be sure I have this on the record.Are you saying in your above quote prof that the UAW has organized any of the Toyota factories it has in the US?

He has not answered cause he probably went and did research and found he again is wrong, not one foreign owned car factory is unionized.

Sigh, there are unions but you do not have to belong to one to work there!

Sigh, it's one thing to say I'm wrong about politics and history, I have been at times.
But it's another to say I'm wrong about engineering -- when it's been my job and I deal with it every day!
At least I admit when I'm wrong!

Unfortunately, neither of you two do -- and I'm sorry, the "leak" is one place where various Wikipedia pages have conflicting information!

The point being that unions are not thriving in these states that allow whats known as right to work laws,in fact as most know union membership as % is way down in US.

I don't get this -- you basically just agreed with me!

I won't debate this subject here I'm just making the point that you can be against unions but don't make up stuff to back up your position.

I never said I was against unions!
Man, you are putting down words I never stated, reading into things I never claimed!

McRocket said same thing I said post some evidence for your claims.I'm ignorant and yet not once have you been able to show a fact I have put up is incorrect.

Dude, now this stuff is elementary physics -- even other people get it!
We had the same issue during the "Moon Landings were faked" when I talked about the particle physics of engine thrust striking a flag as well as the wobble of Shepard's golf ball due to angular momentum.
You guys argued it was impossible due to lack of an atmosphere on the moon -- just like the media (video) stated -- and we engineers just laugh!

But don't take my word for it, ask another engineer you trust -- someone who has had basic engineering mechanics -- if I am correct or not.

The mis-representations you put up were fundamental lack of knowledge of Communism and Unions and while I know the facts won't get in your way others were owed the truth so that they make informed conclusions.Not that free-ones talk is important but truth always is.

Dude, I was not wrong about unions -- you read what you wanted to read into my statements!
As far as no one being jailed in the Communist party for merely being a member, I was wrong, and you were right! 100% admission!

How this applies to basic engineering mechanics is beyond me.
Research the statistics on the Patriot in 1991 -- the info is there, the military does not cover it up.
Why? Because it was the major justification for hit-to-kill!

I might have not been around for the Communist scare of the 1950s, much less educated in the matters of politics.
But I do know my engineering mechanics, microeconomics and I was there to see all these problems, and helped solve them, first hand!

 

[McRocket]

Well, as usual, Prof Voluptuary you did not prove it with facts or links...just your own words.

Sorry that does not qualify.

And since I respect Gwynne Dyer more in these matters then you then I will take his word for it until I see facts/proof to the contrary. And btw, his statement was in the present tense, not the past tense.

Have a nice day.

Oh...I think you should know that I do not read your posts, I just skim through them. And if something catches my eye I will read it. No offense but they are just too long winded and rambling - IMO.
I just thought you should know.

 

[Member2019]

Oh...I think you should know that I do not read your posts, I just skim through them. And if something catches my eye I will read it. No offense but they are just too long winded and rambling - IMO.
I just thought you should know.

Which explains why you miss several points only to agree with me later acting as if it was the first time I explained them.
Sigh, I'm a fool.