I was looking into the demise of the politics forum and I think I've found a pattern

[gsvol]

Glad you're feeling better. :hi:

gsvol almost took over the politics forum, but the rest of us are making headway again.

See there Bham, I saved your place. :angel:

Likewise I am glad you're feeling better.

I don't know what you consider progress rjd, you make the same tired old arguments over and over.

I suppose the one thing we share is an interest in military aircraft.

You know we are going to upgrade our submarine detecting aircraft, the first real upgrade since 1947.

 

[TennTradition]

Once the boost phase is over the threat goes ballistic and its trajectory (and position along the trajectory) can be predicted with great accuracy, using basic Newtonian physics.

Hit to kill isn't the problem, like you said before, it is everything else it has to deal with once the kill vehicle gets close.

I agree that a trajectory can be easily calculated once the missile is in its ballistic trajectory, however that is still only part of the problem. Radars and computers can guide the missile to the general intercept area, but the IR sensors have to detect the right body to hit if you are actually employing hit-to-kill. In a field where chaff can confuse radars and balloons/decoys can confuse IR sensors, making those adjustments to find the "right" body to hit is difficult (particularly since you are approaching at such a high relative rate of speed with both bodies moving). That is why I say hit-to-kill can be an issue. If you are disrupting the entire missile field, then that becomes less of a concern....that is, if you can truly disrupt/destroy the entire field.

 

[gsvol]

I agree that a trajectory can be easily calculated once the missile is in its ballistic trajectory, however that is still only part of the problem. Radars and computers can guide the missile to the general intercept area, but the IR sensors have to detect the right body to hit if you are actually employing hit-to-kill. In a field where chaff can confuse radars and balloons/decoys can confuse IR sensors, making those adjustments to find the "right" body to hit is difficult (particularly since you are approaching at such a high relative rate of speed with both bodies moving). That is why I say hit-to-kill can be an issue. If you are disrupting the entire missile field, then that becomes less of a concern....that is, if you can truly disrupt/destroy the entire field.

Using the technology furnished by Clinton to repay campaign contributions, the Chinese were able to 'hit to kill' an obsolete orbiting satlelite (sp?).

I seriously doubt anyone posting here would have enough classified information to talk inteligently on the topic.

Maybe we should research the 'proton cannon' idea as presented by Nicolai Tesla???

 

[MontereyVol]

I agree that a trajectory can be easily calculated once the missile is in its ballistic trajectory, however that is still only part of the problem. Radars and computers can guide the missile to the general intercept area, but the IR sensors have to detect the right body to hit if you are actually employing hit-to-kill. In a field where chaff can confuse radars and balloons/decoys can confuse IR sensors, making those adjustments to find the "right" body to hit is difficult (particularly since you are approaching at such a high relative rate of speed with both bodies moving). That is why I say hit-to-kill can be an issue. If you are disrupting the entire missile field, then that becomes less of a concern....that is, if you can truly disrupt/destroy the entire field.

Where is the chaff or balloons coming from? The missile itself?

 

[MontereyVol]

Using the technology furnished by Clinton to repay campaign contributions, the Chinese were able to 'hit to kill' an obsolete orbiting satlelite (sp?).

I seriously doubt anyone posting here would have enough classified information to talk inteligently on the topic.

Maybe we should research the 'proton cannon' idea as presented by Nicolai Tesla???

You would be surprised at how much stuff that is classified is out in public view.

 

[rjd970]

You would be surprised at how much stuff that is classified is out in public view.

Yep.

And if anybody was in the know they wouldn't be stupid enough to divulge it here.

 

[gsvol]

You would be surprised at how much stuff that is classified is out in public view.

(Not to mention the NY Times?)

Not really, one Secretary of the Navy addressed the graduating class at Annapolis saying;

"Gentlemen, congratulations on you graduation, soon you will receive your next assignment, many of you will be embarking on your first real cruise and will see the best of what American technology has to offer, unfortunately much of that will be aboard Soviet ships."

Jimmy Carter made great treasonous advances in the field of American intelligence, if one cosiders giving information to enemies progress, by opening up what had been traditionally an executive branch exclusive to congressional scrutiny concerning intelligence activity.

Once, one morning a long time ago, a big muck-a-muck snatched the daily CIA report from my hand and went and waved it under the nose of my boss saying I wasn't supposed to be reading it.

Technically he was right, everything was need to know and of all those reports I read there never was one that even remotely came close to mentioning what I was doing, but it was interesting reading.

My boss (who was one of the must humble and soft spoken guys I've ever encountered even among those who have held a position of authority) snatched it out of the guy's hand and handed it back to me and in a loud voice that carried throughout the whole department said; "I'll run this damned department the way I see fit and if you can't accept that then relieve me of duty right now and while you're at it you can sign my retirement papers!!!"

My boss was essentially working for no compensation since he was elligible for retirement at full pay, he only came to work because he loved his country, he loved the work he was doing and he loved the peole who worked for him.

Mr big wheel retired to his office without a word and wasn't seen again by me for almost a year outside his little domain.

Big muck-a-muck I suppose did get the last laugh in that we had an intelligence library and he kept a book checked out that I wanted to read for over nine months and he had to have been one of the slowest readers in history or just a small minded snit, I'm guessing the latter.

I should have complained but I just don't have that whine gene in me that so many are so willing to expose so often.

 

[gsvol]

Yep.

And if anybody was in the know they wouldn't be stupid enough to divulge it here.

It seems ludicrous to me that with the ever rapidly advancing technoloty we have that we can't effectively intercept and destroy ICBMs and even shorter range missiles.

Absurd idea.

 

[TennTradition]

Where is the chaff or balloons coming from? The missile itself?

The overall warhead package...so, yes, part of the initial missile, I guess. They will all bear a similar trajectory and travel together. I should say these only really matter if we continue to seek exoatmospheric hit-to-kill. The doppler effect would buy us a lot of discrimination capability endoatmospheric (but of course that's later in the game and that has its own consequences).

 

[TennTradition]

Using the technology furnished by Clinton to repay campaign contributions, the Chinese were able to 'hit to kill' an obsolete orbiting satlelite (sp?).

I seriously doubt anyone posting here would have enough classified information to talk inteligently on the topic.

Maybe we should research the 'proton cannon' idea as presented by Nicolai Tesla???

I'm sensitive to the classification points, of course. That's why I've decided to be more fair in my opinion. I've seen some very capable people lay the argument out from a basic physics standpoint and make it seem extremely daunting...but maybe there are some even more capable folks changing the nature of the game and bending physics a bit.

 

[TennTradition]

You would be surprised at how much stuff that is classified is out in public view.

For sure. Actually, I've heard it argued and can agree in principle that people who are not "in" on the classified information sometimes have a more complete view of the technology/systems than those who are because they aren't subject to need to know and peruse available information at will. The catch is that there is correct and wrong stuff out there, and you have to be very good to be able to sort it out properly. Of course, people could just guess a lot, put the information out there, and end up hitting some and missing others.

 

[TennTradition]

It seems ludicrous to me that with the ever rapidly advancing technoloty we have that we can't effectively intercept and destroy ICBMs and even shorter range missiles.

Absurd idea.

Well, the integrated flight tests certainly failed early on. We have had published success since then, but with most complexity (such as chaff, balloons, or background interference) removed from the test. The plan, I'm sure, is to add that complexity in and continue testing, but the tests are off the public books now, so I don't know where it stands. There are some very serious technical challenges with exoatmospheric hit to kill. I hope we've figured them out....that's where I'll have some faith and try not to be so skeptical, but it's difficult .

 

[gsvol]

I'm sensitive to the classification points, of course. That's why I've decided to be more fair in my opinion. I've seen some very capable people lay the argument out from a basic physics standpoint and make it seem extremely daunting...but maybe there are some even more capable folks changing the nature of the game and bending physics a bit.

Funny thing, we once discussed the education/carreer of one of my children who has done fairly well.

In order to decide whether physics or engineering would be a better carreer choice we went to visit the head of a university physics department that I knew and ended up discussing Budhist philosophy.

I really wanted to also visit another friend who was associated with the Redstone Arsenel but you know how teenagers are, they get one educated opinion and there they go!

(the same might be said of graduate students who are only one notch removed from teenagehood.)

Don't get me wrong, I still adhere to an oath among some compatriots from long ago called ATT!! (all time teenaged) :rock:

 

[gsvol]

Well, the integrated flight tests certainly failed early on. We have had published success since then, but with most complexity (such as chaff, balloons, or background interference) removed from the test. The plan, I'm sure, is to add that complexity in and continue testing, but the tests are off the public books now, so I don't know where it stands. There are some very serious technical challenges with exoatmospheric hit to kill. I hope we've figured them out....that's where I'll have some faith and try not to be so skeptical, but it's difficult .

I could give you some actual facts on that topic, both theoretical and functional, but they would be very dated and suffice it to say interception of exoatmospheric projectiles isn't that huge a problem, mathematically or technologically.

The real problem is about philosophy when it comes to the polical arena. (remind me sometime and I'll give you a funny story about the origin of the question; "wouldn't that not be intuitively obvious to the most casual of observers." it had to do with ICBMs)

Pity you are not so skeptical about AGW.

You say your position is unchanged.

Therefore you must still be in support of international control of carbon emissions.

I can only say; "stupid is as stupid does."

 

[TennTradition]

It seems to me that the difference isn't my level of skepticism at all, but rather that I tend to acknowledge a relatively high degree of complexity and uncertainty in these issues (rather it be exoatmospheric hit to kill WITH decoys and less than ideal conditions or AGW).

 

[MontereyVol]

The overall warhead package...so, yes, part of the initial missile, I guess. They will all bear a similar trajectory and travel together. I should say these only really matter if we continue to seek exoatmospheric hit-to-kill. The doppler effect would buy us a lot of discrimination capability endoatmospheric (but of course that's later in the game and that has its own consequences).

Well then we would be placed in a never ending argument. since a missile body itself does not launch chaff or balloons and there is some technology issues to argue about that as well.
Missile defense technology is in its infant stages compared to all other missile launching technology and there will be failures, I know without a doubt one of the tests you are probably referring to was meant to fail on purpose.
There will always be a back and forth with missile capability and the defense ring capability. If we are competing with Russia and China over who has the better system you are leaving countries like NK and Iran in the dust.

 

[WA_Vol]

This is good example of why we dont want China as our major trading partner, they have gotten access to equipment they were not suppose to have. For instance, 5 axis machines. That technology was developed for the defense industry, now they have it.

 

[WA_Vol]

In Nov. 2001, the Bush administration imposed one of the largest civil penalties ever in an export-control case over the 5-axis machine sent to China. The Commerce Department fined McDonnell Douglas Corp. $2.1 million for selling CATIC equipment that wound up inside a military jet fighter manufacturing plant. U.S. spy satellite photos confirmed the machines sold to CATIC for "civilian" use were diverted to the Nanchang facility for making jet fighters and missiles. Federal investigators charged the Chinese company never had any intention of purchasing the equipment for civilian use because the facility constructed to house the giant machine was put inside the Nanchang military aircraft plant.
Chinese Army Firms Accused of Selling Weapons to Iran

 

[MG1968]

This is good example of why we dont want China as our major trading partner, they have gotten access to equipment they were not suppose to have. For instance, 5 axis machines. That technology was developed for the defense industry, now they have it.

Thank you Clinton administration

 

[gsvol]

rather that I tend to acknowledge a relatively high degree of complexity and uncertainty in these issues

Reminds me of a song written by a guy from Idaho (not to be confused and Imus ho which is one of the other 57 states, either new or old Jersey I think) who has a PHD and a wife who is working on her third doctorate and the song goes sort of like this as I disremember;

"It's almost impossible to overestimate the insignificance of almost everything, it might seem incredible but nothing is indelible, the sweeping sands of time erase most everything, I know it's inconceiveable, most improbable, highly dubious and damned hard to believe but if you just consider it, you'll find you must admit that nothing is quite as bad as it first seems to be."

A large old time can be had with those two on a weekly basis on "big word Wednesdays" and if one uses a big word in a normal sentence they get a free beer but soliloquies don't count.

 

[lawgator1]

I once again say a quick prayer of thanks for the ignore feature.

 

[TennTradition]

Well then we would be placed in a never ending argument. since a missile body itself does not launch chaff or balloons and there is some technology issues to argue about that as well.
Missile defense technology is in its infant stages compared to all other missile launching technology and there will be failures, I know without a doubt one of the tests you are probably referring to was meant to fail on purpose.
There will always be a back and forth with missile capability and the defense ring capability. If we are competing with Russia and China over who has the better system you are leaving countries like NK and Iran in the dust.

Is the missile only defined as the boost stages? The weapons package can hold those to my understanding. Of course, I don't do this stuff so that idea is only second hand.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[gsvol]

I once again say a quick prayer of thanks for the ignore feature.

And I thought all along you had no religion. hmy:

What color is your prayer rug??
















Here is a picture of mine

I ordered it from Denmark.