Golden Dome for America

exclaimedleech8 said:
The beauty of the debris cloud method is that the speed at which the target is traveling is turned into an advantage. At Mach 20, even the smallest piece of debris will be highly destructive.
Click to expand...
It's highly destructive at half that speed but in practice it just isn't all that effective, e.g. PAC-2 vs PAC-3 against Kinzhal. And PAC-2s are guided missiles with terminal guidance, what you propose is a bunch of unguided rockets where a ground radar decides when to launch and burst them. It's a complete Hail Mary. The other problem is if the radar gets jammed from space.

exclaimedleech8 said:
Orbiting interceptors can be shot down for far less than they can be put up
Click to expand...
Not if they were put up on an RLV and no, the cost and job would be equal anyway. Such a move would also be a handy forewarning that a strike was imminent also. If the space-based interceptor is a beam weapon, then the interceptor also gets shot down very cheaply.
 
Last edited:
exclaimedleech8 said:
Orbiting interceptors can be shot down for far less than they can be put up
Click to expand...
Such attack would by definition need to preclude nuclear strike significantly - which would disclose the opponent intentions, and would make him vulnerable for first strike.
 
Dilandu said:
Such attack would by definition need to preclude nuclear strike significantly - which would disclose the opponent intentions, and would make him vulnerable for first strike.
Click to expand...
Exactly.

exclaimedleech8 said:
So it would just be a very expensive sacrificial lamb?
Click to expand...
No, because the people who don't think getting nuked is a bad thing are stopped from successfully attacking.
 
exclaimedleech8 said:
So it would just be a very expensive sacrificial lamb?
Click to expand...
Looking at space launch statistics, the US puts up more satellites than Russia and China together, so it would be the same with interceptors. The opposing interceptor would be shot down with many spare and then potential first strike for the attempt.
 
Here's another problem with space based interceptors: How can Russia and China be sure that the missiles are only for defense and not a way to launch a decapitating strike?
 
exclaimedleech8 said:
Here's another problem with space based interceptors: How can Russia and China be sure that the missiles are only for defense and not a way to launch a decapitating strike?
Click to expand...
I'm sure there are ways of detecting a nuclear warhead. Arms control treaties usually have inspections too but they'd both need to sign up to it.

I'm not really bothered that they're not sure though.
 
exclaimedleech8 said:
Here's another problem with space based interceptors: How can Russia and China be sure that the missiles are only for defense and not a way to launch a decapitating strike?
Click to expand...
by making them too small to hold a nuclear warhead. You could legitimately take out a warhead with a soda can sized item that is basically guidance plus divert thrusters inside said soda can.

You'd need a bigger item to drop down onto hypersonics, but still too small in diameter to hold a nuke.
 
Forest Green said:
I'm sure there are ways of detecting a nuclear warhead. Arms control treaties usually have inspections too but they'd both need to sign up to it.

I'm not really bothered that they're not sure though.
Click to expand...
You should be bothered when you consider the scenario we went over where the destruction of one of these battle stations would immediately result in us assuming they were preparing a nuclear strike.
 
exclaimedleech8 said:
You should be bothered when you consider the scenario we went over where the destruction of one of these battle stations would immediately result in us assuming they were preparing a nuclear strike.
Click to expand...
Exactly.

You do not want ambiguity about nukes in space. Not to mention that it would be a violation of the Outer Space Treaty. Of course, at the rate the US is going, we're going to withdraw from the UN before the end of the decade.
 
exclaimedleech8 said:
You should be bothered when you consider the scenario we went over where the destruction of one of these battle stations would immediately result in us assuming they were preparing a nuclear strike.
Click to expand...
Any missile launched at it would also be shot down by said system and then the launcher prosecuted as a minimum.
 
Forest Green said:
Any missile launched at it would also be shot down by said system and then the launcher prosecuted as a minimum.
Click to expand...
But that just brings us back to the cost-exchange ratio problem. We could add more missiles to fend off ASAT attacks, but if an interceptor costs more than another ASAT, the enemy will just buy more ASATs and we'll be no better off
 
exclaimedleech8 said:
But that just brings us back to the cost-exchange ratio problem. We could add more missiles to fend off ASAT attacks, but if an interceptor costs more than another ASAT, the enemy will just buy more ASATs and we'll be no better off
Click to expand...
No it wouldn't, it is already in orbit and therefore there is no requirement to have as large a booster and the garage would initially be put up by an RLV.
 
SDI allowed the civilian Clementine type missions. I just hope some space advocates infiltrate USSF and use some BS milspeak to have Space Force funds support NASA projects that were killed.

VIPER should get lunar camo...I wonder what that might look like? Remember--from now on--we call it an assault rover.

Somebody get some phoney AI art of it on the cover of Guns and Ammo to put on Heg's desk.
 
Ironically most WWII GIs weren't SEAL material.

Since VCs cannot be trusted to invest in space (ask Dream Chaser) Golden Dome will wind up being NewSpace's pork --which won't be mentioned by those who want to BRAC half of NASA.
 
Forest Green said:
Just like firing the first shot, or annexing a country. Actually no, it's a defensive system, only those who attack it are aggressors.
Click to expand...
That's the thing, how can Russia and China be sure that it is a defensive system and not the Rods from God thing that they know the Pentagon has expressed interest in?
 
Same with R-7 flights.

I just want whatever is spent to have a dual use.
Scott had art for an orbital mass driver.

That's good, in that it could shoot a cube-sat probe and not just KKVs. The Russian TEM I was looking forward to. Tug, Rorsat, etc.

Drones get all the attention now.
 
publiusr said:
Same with R-7 flights.
Click to expand...

While the SS-6 Sapwood may've had a very short military career in the Soviet Strategic Rocket Force it has had a very long (And still going strong) career as the SL-6 satellite launcher.
 
Just catching up on the conversation regarding putting interceptors in space.

Come to think of it, how large would a shooter satellite equipped with interceptors be (thinking in terms of relative size to starlink sats and how many you could cram on a falcon 9)?

It would be sustainable if you have shooter satellites that can be readily de-orbited and recoverable within US waters. That way they can either be reused, or possibly made cheap enough that you can send up 10 of them on a single launch. Given the current rate of SpaceX launches, it might be feasible alternative to have satellites that require refueling in space.
 
Reddington777 said:
Just catching up on the conversation regarding putting interceptors in space.

Come to think of it, how large would a shooter satellite equipped with interceptors be (thinking in terms of relative size to starlink sats and how many you could cram on a falcon 9)?

It would be sustainable if you have shooter satellites that can be readily de-orbited and recoverable within US waters. That way they can either be reused, or possibly made cheap enough that you can send up 10 of them on a single launch. Given the current rate of SpaceX launches, it might be feasible alternative to have satellites that require refueling in space.
Click to expand...
They would not have to be very large at all. The SM3 KKV is about 12" in diameter and ~18" long (not counting the 3rd stage booster, ~36" long including the booster). The Brilliant Pebbles "Garage" would be a bit bigger than that.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom