Posted on 11/02/2005 12:32:53 PM PST by RDTF
That's nice. How many can they afford to build, three?
DOD burns through that in 4 months.
"That said, Russia is not the country we are worried about."
On the contrary. Russia already knows we have a very solid defense against a Russian ICBM attack - 1) We know that Russians, unlike jihadis, are not suicidal. 2) We possess a very large arsenal of nuclear ICBM's with which we woulc counter-attack. Russia is developing these weapons so that, at the very least, there will exist the threat that they will sell them to some third party who would be less constrained by practical matters such as surviving a counter-attack, etc. There is no other reason to develop them other than to undermine U.S. efforts to secure itself against non-democratic rouge regimes hell-bent on obtaining WMD's. It is an ugly game that Pootie-Poot is playing.
I would think you could merely have the booster turn on and off --- still keeping a "straight" line, but changing the predicted arc from what was predicted early on (which admittedly would be longer than doing it right the first time) (looks like it would hit Chicago, but goes for Houston).
OR, have the re-entry warhead come down at a steeper-than-free-fall angle by the reverse --- e.g., a missle looking like it would hit Houston, hit Chicago (comes over the NP).
Missle defense will need to be improved so that it can deal with ICBM's that can change course. It may not be possible to hit them but it may be possible to force them to change course to such an extent that they miss the intended target. Also, if a warhead coming toward the U.S., it is very doubtful that we would rely on a single hit-to-kill unit or even a single method to try to take it out. We'd probably fire off everything we had. If this is done in the correct manner, at the various stages, then it become even more difficult for the warhead to evade and still be able to hit the intended target.
There is a really good website about Russia's nuclear forces. http://www.russianforces.org/eng/
The companion book is also a must read for anyone interested in the topic. I've had a copy since it came out.
The comet impact mission a few months ago used similar technology. The warhead has rockets on it to move it side to side as well as forward and back during the coast phase, and enough fuel to give it some crossrange capability. This happens after the booster is done and the warhead has separated and is on its own. The ABM interceptors also use this technology. Whether an ABM impactor can hit the warhead depends on which has more fuel and stronger rockets.
The Russian military command was keeping the entire flight data under control during the launch of the missile.
Maybe, but I'll wager we got all of the telemetry on the launch and impact...
and what the heck does...
Colonel Alexander Vovk, stated after the test launch that the missile successfully hit the conditional target on the Balkhash range ground in Kazakhstan.
"Conditional target," mean?
Methinks Ivan is trying to manipulate the test data to show a success.
It is good to see the Bear scared. Keeps them honest (relatively speaking).
5.56mm
I guess it boils down to what the Russians think that "we" think when a misslie looks like its headed someplace predictable...
Oh, you mean Russia's military customers.
In other words about half the ANNUAL US Defense budget. Anyone notice something? All this based on what the Russians CLAIM. They have not actually tested it against OUR systems. Funny how we know about a supposedly BRAND NEW Russian system then we do about our OWN defense capablities. For all we know are guys are laughing their butts off about what the Russians THINK they can do.
Do they have their missiles controlled by a playstation?
Walk into a Moscow market on Friday afternoon, drop a vial of Ebola on the ground.
Will kill more in one weekend than a nuclear blast.
Wonder how that would work in Gaza?
Remember that the Russians can do alot of weapons development for a lot less than we can do it here.
Remember what Russian weapons turned out being in 99 out of a 100 times. Junk.
Junk... Hmmmm, then why does Russia have new fighters and a plasma stealth system?
Just a guess, but likely the missile's hard maneuverability depends on air reentry. In which case, a combination of side thrusters diverting exhaust and large fins would do it.
Even in space, diverting the exhaust would help a lot.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.