Russians, Chinese, North Koreans, Iranians, better what yourselves. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ock-icbm-over-pacific/?utm_term=.2312bebe1e3f
IMO opinion, the Zumwalt Destroyer Program was a complete waste of money, Burke Class Destroyers could already fill the job of Missile Defense. I wouldn't mind reducing some Army bases in Europe, a slight decrease of the total number of F-35(scrapping Trump's increase buy and cutting around 500 F-35A from the 1,700 F-35A buy) and only limiting the buy to only 100 LRS-B to save more money for Ground Based Interceptors and the SM-3 Block IIA.
Mostly from the Marines along with older Hornets for the Navy. The F/A-18C Hornet is rusting away that USMC had to go to Museums to buy get more parts. That and the Harrier. The USMC was the most enthusiastic about the F-35. The US plans around 2,400 F-35s. 1700 for the USAF, 420 for the Marines, and 260 for the US Navy. The Marines should absolutely go full buy as the future of amphbious assault relies more on air power. The Navy although not to happy on the F-35C should definetly go full buy since the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet is only 4th Gen and the Navy really needs a next generation Fighter. The USAF currently operates around 900 F-16s which need replacement. Theoretically a reduced buy of 1,400 is good enough, however this is my own opinion. What interests me is the F-35 has a system known as EODAS which surrounds 360 around the fighter. Recent tests have shown the F-35 using it's sensors to give guidance to AEGIS cruiser for missile defense. With the rise of anti-sattelites missiles and jamming, the F-35 fleet can supplement has a backup sensor.
We had better hope they don't. Forcing our enemies into a use then or lose them situation increases the likelihood of nuclear war.
That is ridiculous. If deterrence prevents our enemies from launching nuclear weapons now, deterrence won't stop simply because we are building and perfecting ballistic missile defense.
Our deterrence stops working when we put our enemies in a place where their weapons must be used or else we can launch a disarming first strike with impunity. If we ever developed a comprehensive ABM system a la SDI, we would put the Russians and Chinese in a place where it would be in their interests to launch a nuclear first strike on us before said system could come online and render their deterrent useless.
Look at it this way: You are in an armed standoff with another person. Neither of you are certain you will be able to kill the other guy before he gets off a lethal shot on you. Then you see the other guy start putting on body armor which will make him immune to you weapon. Once he is done putting it on, he will be able to kill you and you won't be able to hurt him. So do you let him finish putting on his armor and just hope he doesn't kill you or use his new found power to coerce you? Or do you shoot him now and take your chances with his possible retaliatory fire before he can finish putting the armor on?
No major nuclear power is going to launch a first strike based on "perhaps" or a "maybe". Even the most effective ballistic missile defense by the U.S. would leave the possibility of several nuclear weapons getting through and striking the United States. The Chinese and Russians know full well that the casualty adverse United States would never risk losing a couple of cities and hundreds of thousands of peope. .
No major power has ever been put into a situation where their deterrent becomes useless. Would you wait for the other guy in the standoff to finish putting on his armor and hope he doesn't disarm/decapitate you at will?
Missile Defense does deescalate the balance of power. However the enemy won't ICBM strike you before it's built, they aren't that suicidal. They will likely bankrupt themselves building nukes or building their missile defense(like what Russia is doing right now with the S-500) Missile defense doesn't end deterrence. Nobody is going to nuke somebody if they have a system that you don't know even works. However missile defense makes more defined engagements more thinkable.
ever wonder if the Soviet reaction might've been different in 1983 when they (falsely) thought 5 American Minuteman ICBMs had been launched their way.......if they had not had the thirty or so ABMs operational around Moscow?
This is like success number 20 out of like nearly 40 tries right? Almost 50% hit rate is better than nothing I guess.
For a surface to air missile, it is nothing short of outstanding. Historically hit rates of 3% to 10% are more the norm for SAMs.
Believe me, I'm not cracking wise. More resources need to be brought online to further this. I'm impressed it hit the ICBM. It's just let's not get too fired up over it, & think that Teh answer is here.... The hit rate needs improvement.
The standard procedure of MBDA is to fire more than one interceptor per enemy missile so that 50 percent success rate can get a more likely result. The future is different. The US plans to carry multiple interceptor kill vehicles per interceptor missile. So one interceptor missile can take out one ICBM and all it's MIRV warheads. The ABM around Moscow can deal with only 2 ICBMs and 38 MRBMs. The problem is the Soviets didn't have the technology to really see through chaff and discriminate decoys. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A-135_anti-ballistic_missile_system The US system of the time known as Sentinel and Safeguard was just as bad, so the US didn't even bother deploying it due to it's costs.
From what I've read about U.S. missle defense doctrine, in case of an ICBM attack the U.S. would launch 3-5 ABMs at each incoming missile which means the U.S. with 30-40 operational ABMs could (theoretically) shoot down from 8-12 incoming nuclear missiles.
The problem with the interceptors currently is they carry only one kill vehicle per interceptor. The future ABM will carry the Raytheon MOKV. The newer system will carry judging by the picture six kill vehicles per interceptor missile. So 6 targets could be engaged with 1 interceptor missile.
I assume this is meant to engage incoming ICBMs carrying multiple independent reentry vehicles (MIRVs) as the multiple warheads would be relatively close to their missile bus until fairly low in the atmosphere.
Yes it can engage MIRVs. I believe the Russian Yars ICM only carries 4 MIRVs, so that extra 2 kill vehicles can be used for extra kill probability. The missile that is hard to get is the SS-18 Satan carries 10 MIRVs, and can carry up to 40 decoys. Whether or not these are light decoys which can be distinguished by size or actual warhead sized decoys, I don't know. US Minuteman III can probably only carry 2 actual Heavy decoys, or lots of mini-balloon decoys. There may be tech to distinguish a heavy decoy from a real warhead such as looking at the texture of the warhead. Modern IR tech can also look at skin texture rather than just heat. Most Reentry vehicles are very expensive and need special coatings and decoys, being cheap lack such textures. Also RVs have little thrusters in the rear to spin the vehicle. The MOKV will also go on the AEGIS SM-3. Since it's a sea based system it could potentially hide in the Arctic and the Pacific and kill the incoming ICBM before it releases the MIRVs from it's bus. Of course there are risks of jamming and chaff, along with radar blackout. Having multiple radars in every area is important and the TPY-2 and the SPY-1 all around could all provided could fire support to the main Missile Defense command.
