• Hi Guest! Forum rules have been updated. All users please read here.

Ground Based Interceptor (GBI)

fredymac

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Dec 14, 2009
Messages
2,157
Reaction score
710
Don't know if this link has been posted before. It is a pretty detailed look at missile defense with about 240 slides of info. Makes for a good reference source (for example the scaled drawings of missiles and interceptors or the engagement arcs of interceptors).

https://www.slideshare.net/solohermelin/anti-ballistic-missiles-i

Part II

https://www.slideshare.net/solohermelin/anti-ballistic-missiles-ii-51591489


He has a lot of presentations on various technical subjects. One of them contains a large collection of aircraft cutaway drawings from various sources:

https://www.slideshare.net/solohermelin/3-modern-aircraft-cutaway
 

sferrin

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
14,027
Reaction score
2,456
Perhaps most significant is Sun’s involvement with the Redesigned Kill Vehicle (RKV) program, an effort to replace the interceptor used by US air defense systems to shoot down incoming ballistic missiles.

The Pentagon cancelled the program last year because of technical problems, but information about the project would still be useful to China to understand what the US might do to defend from conventional or nuclear missiles. Missile technology has become central to Beijing’s strategy to deter US power (Quartz member exclusive) in the Pacific, making up for deficiencies and a lack of experience with weapons systems like jet fighters.
A shame they don't still execute people for this $hit.
 

AN/AWW-14(V)

ACCESS: Granted
Senior Member
Joined
May 18, 2019
Messages
421
Reaction score
841
Boeing submitted its proposal for the US Missile Defense Agency (MDA) Next-Generation Interceptor (NGI) programme on 12 August. The NGI will be used to maintain ready deterrence and ensure continued protection of US territory from intercontinental ballistic missiles. A contract award is expected later this year.

 

bobbymike

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
10,971
Reaction score
2,230

AN/AWW-14(V)

ACCESS: Granted
Senior Member
Joined
May 18, 2019
Messages
421
Reaction score
841
at the construction site missile fields №4, 5 (Fort Greely)


FGA-Missile-Fields.jpg
 

bobbymike

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
10,971
Reaction score
2,230

Grey Havoc

The path not taken.
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2009
Messages
15,085
Reaction score
4,826
Very interesting indeed. Fallout from the disaster in Alaska?
 

bobbymike

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
10,971
Reaction score
2,230

Grey Havoc

The path not taken.
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2009
Messages
15,085
Reaction score
4,826
The lawmakers highlight INDOPACOM’s top priority, a missile defense system to protect Guam, for which the Biden budget offers half the $350 million INDOPACOM proposed.
They also emphasize funding for the Homeland Defense Radar – Hawaii, a $1.9 billion project omitted from the Missile Agency’s latest budget request. The agency is reportedly seeking public feedback on potential sites for the array, meant to quickly identify missile threats to Hawaii.


:rolleyes:
 

Trident

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
May 8, 2006
Messages
1,156
Reaction score
497
Well, not sure whether that summit is necessarily the right venue, but this will have to be addressed sooner rather than later. There is never going to be another strategic nuclear arms control treaty including Russia without doing so. Additionally, the next agreement needs to include the PRC (which by extension likely means also France and the UK), making the 5 years available for negotiating it a tight schedule.

That said, GMD seems the least of the problems in this regard, SM-3 in its various forms is liable to prove a far thornier issue. WAY more numerous, extraordinarily mobile aboard the USN destroyer/cruiser fleet and permanently forward deployed far outside US territory.

Heinrichs argued that there’s nothing provocative about building a defensive system, meant to focus on threats from rogue states like North Korea.

I don't see how anybody can tenably claim this, it is completely at odds with the essential facts of the matter - the Russians (rightly or wrongly) simply aren't buying it, never have really. The notion that the US missile defence was aimed solely and exclusively at North Korea and Iran was always predicated on Russian trust in assurances of a strictly informal nature. That premise demonstrably failed from the outset, and rhetoric by influential figures in the US political establishment as well as certain real world testing later dealt its credibility irreparable damage.

Does anybody seriously believe Putin would rather spend money on stuff like Avangard, Poseidon and Burevestnik rather than another Black Sea palace? There is one glaringly obvious fact which unites all of them: they are aimed squarely at outflanking ballistic missile defences. I wonder why that is?
 
Last edited:

tequilashooter

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Jan 2, 2021
Messages
348
Reaction score
355
Does anybody seriously believe Putin would rather spend money on stuff like Avangard, Poseidon and Burevestnik rather than another Black Sea palace? There is one glaringly obvious fact which unites all of them: they are aimed squarely at outflanking ballistic missile defences. I wonder why that is?
Some of our latest ships were incapable of reliably taking down a single medium-range BM flying at known time and at predetermined trajectory even when using a dual salvo of interceptors and rather if those ballistic missiles have maneuvering capabilities similar to Yars is questionable until recently. The way I look at it right now, I think it is always best to always stay steps ahead or as the saying goes better to overestimate than underestimate. Release public info now like scramjets but don't let the adversary know you have other classified projects like weapons using MPD thrusters or detonation engines to have better aerodynamic performance based on new material that can withstand above 4000 Celsius for better creativity, etc. I am looking forward to new future scientists or engineers the U.S. will make us of to deal with these threats or come up with better weapons for deterrence.
 

kaiserd

I really should change my personal text
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 25, 2013
Messages
1,111
Reaction score
485
The is a weird disconnect/ lack of understanding/ potential pretence re: cause and effect shared between some contributors here and potentially with some parts of the US military and political establishment.
The US pursues missile defence technology, as strongly advocated for by these “hawks, and the US’s “strategic competitors” (Russia, China) then pursue counters/ ways around that missile defence, not trusting that current US systems (or future US systems building on that technology) won’t end up degrading the effectiveness of their deterrent.
Then the same “hawks” are shocked by (and often just plain jealous of) these counter movies which they don’t recognize (or just pretend not to see) as counter moves, and advocate for unfundable developments of new offensive systems (for example way beyond what is planned for the recapitalisation of the US triad).
And for many of the same “hawks” Putins Russia, despite still representing re: nuclear weapons a far far larger threat, appears to be looked at with barely disguised envy, while the real enmity appears to be reserved for China, whose current ability to target the US with nuclear weapons is massively dwarfed by the US’s ability to do the same to China.
Putins Russia and the PR China are both terrible untrustworthy regimes and this is absolutely no defence of them in any way. But they have no monopoly on dishonesty and deceit or the ability to trap their perceived range of decision making/ policy options within paranoid and/or not entirely rational blinders.
 

overscan (PaulMM)

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 27, 2005
Messages
12,983
Reaction score
5,327
The is a weird disconnect/ lack of understanding/ potential pretence re: cause and effect shared between some contributors here and potentially with some parts of the US military and political establishment.
The US pursues missile defence technology, as strongly advocated for by these “hawks, and the US’s “strategic competitors” (Russia, China) then pursue counters/ ways around that missile defence, not trusting that current US systems (or future US systems building on that technology) won’t end up degrading the effectiveness of their deterrent.
Then the same “hawks” are shocked by (and often just plain jealous of) these counter movies which they don’t recognize (or just pretend not to see) as counter moves, and advocate for unfundable developments of new offensive systems (for example way beyond what is planned for the recapitalisation of the US triad).
And for many of the same “hawks” Putins Russia, despite still representing re: nuclear weapons a far far larger threat, appears to be looked at with barely disguised envy, while the real enmity appears to be reserved for China, whose current ability to target the US with nuclear weapons is massively dwarfed by the US’s ability to do the same to China.
Putins Russia and the PR China are both terrible untrustworthy regimes and this is absolutely no defence of them in any way. But they have no monopoly on dishonesty and deceit or the ability to trap their perceived range of decision making/ policy options within paranoid and/or not entirely rational blinders.
Not sure why you felt reopening this can of worms was a good idea, considering the topic was almost locked last time.

I'm fed up with constant sniping and reported posts from repeat offenders. If you don't like someone, ignore them. There's a built in feature for that.
 

sferrin

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
14,027
Reaction score
2,456
Well, not sure whether that summit is necessarily the right venue, but this will have to be addressed sooner rather than later. There is never going to be another strategic nuclear arms control treaty including Russia without doing so.
So be it. Bargaining away defenses is insanity. And it's not like they haven't built defenses of their own.
 

Trident

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
May 8, 2006
Messages
1,156
Reaction score
497
So be it. Bargaining away defenses is insanity. And it's not like they haven't built defenses of their own.

Not when it enables marked reductions in offensive nuclear potential, as has happened in the past. SALT & START I were only possible in connection with the ABM Treaty - START I slashed the strategic nuclear threat from Russia by over 70%. START II, which collapsed over the US leaving ABM, would have seen stricter limitations than its replacements SORT & New START. What percentage of the Russian arsenal can US BMD hope to knock down? Isn't the surest defence one which takes hundreds of warheads out of existence without firing a shot (and saves billions of dollars on top)?

The defences Russia already has would be treaty compliant, the future S-500 (which could become something of a road-mobile Aegis-BMD with ASAT & A-ICBM capability) is a response. SM-3 has been around for more than 15 years at this point!

Now, with the economic parameters as lopsided as they are, simply hanging Russia out to dry is a viable course of action in theory. In the short to mid term it would be a rough ride, but long term the US should prevail. Problem is, arms control does not happen in a vacuum: Russia is not the only threat and an opponent with considerably more economic clout is watching US interactions on this subject closely.

The PRC has always been reserved on this topic, and US credibility in arms control has been dealt a number of fresh blows in the past 5 years. Never mind Russia, what do you think the chances are of ever entering into arms control measures with Beijing if they see the US treat the Russians like that?
 

sferrin

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
14,027
Reaction score
2,456
So be it. Bargaining away defenses is insanity. And it's not like they haven't built defenses of their own.

Not when it enables marked reductions in offensive nuclear potential, as has happened in the past. SALT & START I were only possible in connection with the ABM Treaty - START I slashed the strategic nuclear threat from Russia by over 70%. START II, which collapsed over the US leaving ABM, would have seen stricter limitations than its replacements SORT & New START. What percentage of the Russian arsenal can US BMD hope to knock down? Isn't the surest defence one which takes hundreds of warheads out of existence without firing a shot (and saves billions of dollars on top)?

The defences Russia already has would be treaty compliant, the future S-500 (which could become something of a road-mobile Aegis-BMD with ASAT & A-ICBM capability) is a response. SM-3 has been around for more than 15 years at this point!

Now, with the economic parameters as lopsided as they are, simply hanging Russia out to dry is a viable course of action in theory. In the short to mid term it would be a rough ride, but long term the US should prevail. Problem is, arms control does not happen in a vacuum: Russia is not the only threat and an opponent with considerably more economic clout is watching US interactions on this subject closely.

The PRC has always been reserved on this topic, and US credibility in arms control has been dealt a number of fresh blows in the past 5 years. Never mind Russia, what do you think the chances are of ever entering into arms control measures with Beijing if they see the US treat the Russians like that?
Are you really going to try to argue that leaving oneself completely vulnerable is a GOOD idea? The only way getting rid of defenses might make sense is if both sides gave up ALL nuclear weapons, and had air-tight mutual inspections.
 

Trident

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
May 8, 2006
Messages
1,156
Reaction score
497
Are you really going to try to argue that leaving oneself completely vulnerable is a GOOD idea?

Not quite - as the vulnerability is mutual and your own offence thus forms the defence. It's an admittedly somewhat scary, but tried & tested posture. There's really no argument to make - it's a concept that has proven stable.

Besides, *treaty-limited* defences are entirely compatible with it. The argument has never been about abolishing BMD altogether but ensuring that it comes under binding limits.

The only way getting rid of defenses might make sense is if both sides gave up ALL nuclear weapons, and had air-tight mutual inspections.

Which should be the end-goal. Insisting that it has to be realized in one fell swoop however is the surest way to guarantee it will never happen at all - that's just a pretext for not even trying.
 

sferrin

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
14,027
Reaction score
2,456
Are you really going to try to argue that leaving oneself completely vulnerable is a GOOD idea?

Not quite - as the vulnerability is mutual and your own offence thus forms the defence. It's an admittedly somewhat scary, but tried & tested posture. There's really no argument to make - it's a concept that has proven stable.

Besides, *treaty-limited* defences are entirely compatible with it. The argument has never been about abolishing BMD altogether but ensuring that it comes under binding limits.

The only way getting rid of defenses might make sense is if both sides gave up ALL nuclear weapons, and had air-tight mutual inspections.

Which should be the end-goal. Insisting that it has to be realized in one fell swoop however is the surest way to guarantee it will never happen at all - that's just a pretext for not even trying.
We already tried it the other way. Where'd that get us?
 

Similar threads

Top