Hypothetical question.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Sep 25, 2004
Messages
9,852
Location
Marshfield , MA
ok,CountryX is on the move. Activity among their missile launching stuff has been detected. How far up ,out, sideways does a missile have to travel, before it is out side of X's air space? Once beyond X's air space, how long before the target can be acquired and neutralized?
Not out for war talk, just a discussion about capabilities. TIA
 
Very early on provided the counter fires and radar are in the appropriate positions. If not we can catch them up higher or near reentry depending on the profile.

What some don't realize is we collect a lot of data from those launches. If we launch to counter one of country "X's" ICBM or TBM's, we are giving away potential missile data that can also be used against us by them or near peer adversary's. That's not even considering the political, (READ: aggressive) ramifications of countering a missile launch from a sovereign nation.
 
Last edited:
Hitting an ICBM on the way up really hasn't been considered practical because it is only possible to catch up to it by launching an anti-missile missile from nearly the same place and at the same time as the hostile missile was fired.

So ABM systems are based on intercepting it on the way down. That requires firing the ABM from near the hostile missile's intended target. Which implies that you know where the intended target is.

Early ABM's could not be sure of a direct hit, so they were armed with nuclear warheads which would destroy the incoming missile even at a distance of a few miles. That meant that any attempt to shoot down a missile would be nuclear war regardless of the intent of the original misslie.
 
If the US were to say "we will shoot down all future North Korea missiles launched" and we did, we would deny them the knowledge gained from each missile launch. Its a gamble for sure. But we have ships in place that could do it. The question for the US is would we be 100% effective?
 
All countries have a right to fly peacefully through international airspace, including missile test flights. To say that we will shoot down missiles of a particular country, or even actually shoot them down, would be an act of war.
 
Last edited:
Donald ! no names, Please! This is merely a hypothetical question. The point about giving away technology by using it against a blank, hadn't occurred to me. Thank you Timo. Next question, can a real time assessment be made as to whether the launched missile is carrying a nuclear warhead or just a dud?
 
If you want to do some reading, look into the Aegis based Ballistic Missile Defense System.Keep in mind the capabilities of the system are better than what is common knowledge.
The technology is not so much in the intercept missile, but how it gets there.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: andyd
Next question, can a real time assessment be made as to whether the launched missile is carrying a nuclear warhead or just a dud?

That can't be determined just by observing the missile in flight. You would need intelligence from the ground of what was loaded into the missile. Unexploded nuclear bombs are actually rather difficult to detect remotely.

It is possible from tracking the early flight to predict exactly where an ICBM is going to land. The "B" is for Ballistic flight. Once the rocket burns out the missile flies / falls to the target in a predictable way, using the same math that predicts where an artillery shell is going to hit as soon as it leaves the gun (we have radars that can do that too). If the expected impact were in friendly territory instead of the middle of the ocean the missile should be assumed to be making an attack.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: andyd
ok,CountryX is on the move. Activity among their missile launching stuff has been detected. How far up ,out, sideways does a missile have to travel, before it is out side of X's air space? Once beyond X's air space, how long before the target can be acquired and neutralized?
Not out for war talk, just a discussion about capabilities. TIA


Way too many variables that can be factors.
 
Next question, can a real time assessment be made as to whether the launched missile is carrying a nuclear warhead or just a dud?

Not sure what is and isn't open source on this.

I will say some countries actions are closely monitored and we have systems that can detect isotope,and and other specific materials. Additionally there are a variety of intelligence sources that are used not just one or two methods that show the specific indicators that analysts are looking for.

---

It's certainly not my place to tell you what to be concerned about.. I will tell you that I'm not very concerned about it living here in country "Y" right now. We have a variety of very large fixed and mobile tracking stations around the world and they are very good. We have better radars and missiles coming online for the Navy as well. Though I do wish that the "Y's" Navy would scale the AMDR up to the amphib sized ships, and turn some into ballistic missile cruisers. They would add a lot of capability and be a decent replacement for the older cruisers getting ready to retire..

GMD is in place and more are on order. GMD alone can handle what country "X" has as of 2017. In fact it was purposely tested with some of the ballistic profiles of what country "X's missiles are capable of.
 
I believe ABM isn't that accurate, there's some that says it's only 50%, but the counter to that would be to fire multiple missiles to make sure you hit it. The problem with that is that if multiple ones are fired at you, you run out of ABM missiles at some point.
 
If each missile has a 50% chance of a hit, it would require five missiles to have a 97% chance of a hit.

As an example, an enemy fires 100 missiles at you, you use 500 ABMs, and still 3 of the enemy missiles will get through. The accuracy of each ABM needs to be much better than 50% to say that they offer complete protection.
 
Last edited:
Never considered air space as "owned." There may be no limit though. For the ocean it's 12 nautical miles...or nearly 73,000 feet.

Sophisticated satellites and radars can track the missile right from the point it leaves the silo.
 
Thank you again Timo. Before this discussion, I was wondering why X's noise was being tolerated. Mostly because, it is just noise, I guess
smile.gif
 
Originally Posted By: mk378
All countries have a right to fly peacefully through international airspace, including missile test flights. To say that we will shoot down missiles of a particular country, or even actually shoot them down, would be an act of war.


Not actually an "act of war". That would be more an opinion than a given fact.

As for all nations having "a right to fly peacefully through international airspace, including missile test flights"? Depends upon what those nations are. The recent history of those nations as well as self described intent is to be taken into account. The world is not simply about everybody having rights. Behaviors and actions come into play.
 
Last edited:
For any missile to fly intended for a warhead, it needs to fly with a dummy weight or
the centre of gravity will be wrong and it won't fly right! Don't tell NK, LOL
smile.gif
 
A country's military shooting at something that belongs to another country's military without their permission is the definition of war.

There are rules as to when such action is justifiable national defense. An unarmed test missile flying to the middle of an ocean is not one of those cases.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: mk378
A country's military shooting at something that belongs to another country's military without their permission is the definition of war.

There are rules as to when such action is justifiable national defense. An unarmed test missile flying to the middle of an ocean is not one of those cases.


You make your opinion sound like some world 'rule' decided by the United Nations or something.

This is your opinion and not a defined act of war whatsoever. If it was, we'd have been in wars far more frequently and so would the rest of the world because this has happened numerous times in recent history. It does not automatically justify an act of war.

Now IF you are talking about attacking and killing PEOPLE....then I may agree with you.
 
Why not just target the missile with a laser from a ship or a satellite ? There's probably several ships and several satellites around the globe. Which one is used depends on the direct relationship between the curvature of the Earth, the ship or satellite, and the missile to be apprehended.
 
Originally Posted By: mk378
A country's military shooting at something that belongs to another country's military without their permission is the definition of war.

There are rules as to when such action is justifiable national defense. An unarmed test missile flying to the middle of an ocean is not one of those cases.


that's pretty much how it normally goes.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top