SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Bald Eagle who wrote (228060)2/18/2002 1:19:15 PM
From: TigerPaw  Respond to of 769670
 
I searched the site for "missle" and found only one article.

an interesting excerpt.
Nevertheless, recent political developments may undermine the sense of urgency behind the tactical missile defense initiatives. The political rapprochement between North and South Korea, if it lasts, should reduce North Korea's incentive to export ballistic missiles. North Korea has been the major source of missile technology of concern to the U.S., with extensive sales and technical support to Iran, Syria and Pakistan. Without this technical support, a number of ballistic missile programs in the developing world will collapse or be significantly delayed. Iran's missile programs have not proceeded as quickly as some had anticipated, with yet another launch failure this past year. The wild card in all of this is Russia. Leakage of Russian technology to Iran has been a source of concern to the U.S. government. Russia is beginning an export drive on a new Scud follow-on, the Iskander, which if successful, could dramatically change the nature of the threat. Iskander is a modern solid-fuel missile using a highly automated and survivable launcher.



Maybe Russia should be put in the axis and North Korea dropped.
aviationnow.com

The test article has an interesting paragraph.
Pentagon acquisition chief Pete Aldridge last month canceled a terminal-phase missile program, Navy Area Missile Defense, citing budget overruns, and said that whatever replaced it would rely on "proven technology, such as hit-to-kill." But much of the Navy's missile-defense community favors a blast-warhead approach as a kind of insurance policy, just in case the hit-to-kill intercept only comes close to scoring a direct hit.

I am reminded of the old WWII "pom-pom" guns. That is apparently what is proposed, long range missle based "pom pom" guns with perhaps a nuclear "pom". It's conceivable that it would require the entire state of California to hold enough "pom-pom" missles to fire at a modest incomming launch from N.Korea.

aviationnow.com



To: Bald Eagle who wrote (228060)2/18/2002 1:38:38 PM
From: TigerPaw  Respond to of 769670
 
Also from aviation now.
aviationnow.com

But proponents of hit-to-kill claim that a blast warhead, by not focusing on a precise hit, could strike various pieces of an incoming missile and allow the warhead itself to fall to the ground more or less intact.


Which leads to these types of results.
Iraq launched one Scud toward Dhahran early in the evening of February 25th. One Patriot battery on Dhahran airfield was not operational and another nearby did not track the Scud, apparently because of a software problem. The Scud broke up on reentry showering a United States housing compound with debris, and the warhead hit a warehouse serving as a United States barracks in Aujan compound in the Dhahran suburb of Al Khobar. .... ] A press briefing attributed the lack of Patriot engagement to a combination of the warehouse location (housing) and debris trajectory from a disintegrating Scud. The media quoted another senior officer as explaining that "because it [the Scud] had gone into a tumble … it wasn’t within the parameters of where it would be attacked by our missile defense system."
Just the type of environment left by the "pom-pom" missles.
gulflink.osd.mil

TP