Comments on: US Plans for New ICBM-Killer Take Shape http://defensetech.org/2009/12/23/us-plans-for-new-icbm-killer-take-shape/ The Future of the Military, Law Enforcement and National Security Sat, 26 May 2012 02:10:56 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Cosby http://defensetech.org/2009/12/23/us-plans-for-new-icbm-killer-take-shape/#comment-192269 Cosby Fri, 08 Jan 2010 08:30:27 +0000 http://defensetech.org/?p=5283#comment-192269 Why wont raytheon consider a combination of both solid and liquid propellants in the same missile, methinks this is a good alternative. consider the versatility of a sea based platform, it portends all sorts of possibility for BMD. Why wont raytheon consider a combination of both solid and liquid propellants in the same missile, methinks this is a good alternative. consider the versatility of a sea based platform, it portends all sorts of possibility for BMD.

]]> By: Vijayan Chomatil http://defensetech.org/2009/12/23/us-plans-for-new-icbm-killer-take-shape/#comment-191552 Vijayan Chomatil Tue, 29 Dec 2009 03:12:55 +0000 http://defensetech.org/?p=5283#comment-191552 It wouldn't be too small as a space based solution. It wouldn’t be too small as a space based solution.

]]> By: Chris Flavin http://defensetech.org/2009/12/23/us-plans-for-new-icbm-killer-take-shape/#comment-191539 Chris Flavin Mon, 28 Dec 2009 15:15:11 +0000 http://defensetech.org/?p=5283#comment-191539 Why do we need a missile defense shield, with the "Annointed One" in the Oval Office, our old "enemies" will start fawning all over us and peace will come to this troubled world. Sorry, I almost puked up my breakfast. Why do we need a missile defense shield, with the “Annointed One” in the Oval Office, our old “enemies” will start fawning all over us and peace will come to this troubled world. Sorry, I almost puked up my breakfast.

]]> By: KA5S http://defensetech.org/2009/12/23/us-plans-for-new-icbm-killer-take-shape/#comment-191537 KA5S Mon, 28 Dec 2009 15:04:53 +0000 http://defensetech.org/?p=5283#comment-191537 Right. As far back as the 1960's a means had been found to shut off solid propellant rockets, and was written up in open source publications citing its use on Polaris missiles. It involved detonating a charge whose shock wave disrupted the combustion layer and put it out. Right. As far back as the 1960’s a means had been found to shut off solid propellant rockets, and was written up in open source publications citing its use on Polaris missiles. It involved detonating a charge whose shock wave disrupted the combustion layer and put it out.

]]> By: Bill - FBM '68-'00 http://defensetech.org/2009/12/23/us-plans-for-new-icbm-killer-take-shape/#comment-191530 Bill - FBM '68-'00 Sun, 27 Dec 2009 21:53:59 +0000 http://defensetech.org/?p=5283#comment-191530 Author of article apparently never heard of Polaris, Poseidon, or Trident I or II as to its ability to terminate solid fuel thrust. Author of article apparently never heard of Polaris, Poseidon, or Trident I or II as to its ability to terminate solid fuel thrust.

]]> By: Osher Doctorow http://defensetech.org/2009/12/23/us-plans-for-new-icbm-killer-take-shape/#comment-191494 Osher Doctorow Fri, 25 Dec 2009 00:03:01 +0000 http://defensetech.org/?p=5283#comment-191494 Rasheri, West, bdwilcox, super posts! Keep this up, and we may have to charge admissions :>) Osher Doctorow Rasheri, West, bdwilcox, super posts! Keep this up, and we may have to charge admissions :>)

Osher Doctorow

]]> By: rasheri http://defensetech.org/2009/12/23/us-plans-for-new-icbm-killer-take-shape/#comment-191484 rasheri Thu, 24 Dec 2009 16:15:02 +0000 http://defensetech.org/?p=5283#comment-191484 I have to agree with Wes & bdwilcox. Obama would rather stimulate the White Flag industry. I have to agree with Wes & bdwilcox. Obama would rather stimulate the White Flag industry.

]]> By: Will http://defensetech.org/2009/12/23/us-plans-for-new-icbm-killer-take-shape/#comment-191470 Will Thu, 24 Dec 2009 09:30:56 +0000 http://defensetech.org/?p=5283#comment-191470 Byron, if you mean the Patriot PAC-3, it is in no way a direct competitor to the Standard SM-3. You can read up on it in Wiki. The short version is that it is a relatively short ranged "tactical" missile. The Japanese already use Patriot so that would not be a likely reason, by itself, to hold off buying Aegis Ashore. Byron, if you mean the Patriot PAC-3, it is in no way a direct competitor to the Standard SM-3. You can read up on it in Wiki. The short version is that it is a relatively short ranged “tactical” missile. The Japanese already use Patriot so that would not be a likely reason, by itself, to hold off buying Aegis Ashore.

]]> By: Nick http://defensetech.org/2009/12/23/us-plans-for-new-icbm-killer-take-shape/#comment-191468 Nick Thu, 24 Dec 2009 07:43:57 +0000 http://defensetech.org/?p=5283#comment-191468 Japan has a new pacifist government in place / budget issues. SM-3 / BMD there is to defend against North Korea, that would work well. That was my basic understanding of that hold. The Patriot only works against tactical threats in the terminal phase(when the missile has fully arched and is coming down). *Completely Speculating* but it could probably hit an ICBM that was aimed for its coverage zone. So unless you put hundreds / thousands of patriots in interlocking coverage zones you are in trouble. Patriot was designed to shoot down aircraft, it does that and shooting down short range missiles well. SM-3 is somewhat better off and can take out threats in the mid-course range. Doesn't really work if ICBMs fly high in the atmosphere out of range. Japan has a new pacifist government in place / budget issues. SM-3 / BMD there is to defend against North Korea, that would work well. That was my basic understanding of that hold.

The Patriot only works against tactical threats in the terminal phase(when the missile has fully arched and is coming down). *Completely Speculating* but it could probably hit an ICBM that was aimed for its coverage zone. So unless you put hundreds / thousands of patriots in interlocking coverage zones you are in trouble.

Patriot was designed to shoot down aircraft, it does that and shooting down short range missiles well.

SM-3 is somewhat better off and can take out threats in the mid-course range. Doesn’t really work if ICBMs fly high in the atmosphere out of range.

]]> By: Tom http://defensetech.org/2009/12/23/us-plans-for-new-icbm-killer-take-shape/#comment-191458 Tom Wed, 23 Dec 2009 21:45:26 +0000 http://defensetech.org/?p=5283#comment-191458 This is all a R&D racket. The SM-3 is far too small to reach ICBMs, and they know that. Tweaking the engines will help little, but it will enrich insiders. This is all a R&D racket. The SM-3 is far too small to reach ICBMs, and they know that. Tweaking the engines will help little, but it will enrich insiders.

]]>