/k/ - Weapons

>>547245

>Is it even possible to make a functional ABM

Russian have no problems doing it, Israeli and French have no problem doing it.

Did you know the US DOD spends billions to create target missiles (which is a whole program on it's own since the US doesn't have ground missiles that aren't ICBMs) to be shot down, when Russia just rig the crap they have lying around and fires it at the AA systems (IRC SA-1 for the slow ones, SA-3 for the fast ones).

Meanwhile the jews use their brains and use modified air launched cruise missile to mimic ballistic ones…

>>547252

>Meanwhile the jews use their brains and use modified air launched cruise missile to mimic ballistic ones…

How can cruise missiles imitate warheads reentering at mach20+ speeds?

>>547252

Anon, if it actually works how can we continue bilking the federal budget?

>>547245

Missiles require you to know trajectoy to accurately shoot down because whatdver you shoot is inevitably slower than the missile. It's simple physics.

>>547252

Don't the Russians and Israelis practice with short-range missiles that wouldn't actually mimic true missile speeds?

>>547260

SRBM/IRBM are much slower than ICBMs.

You take your modified cruise missile you put it on a plane you make the plane fly at the it's maximum altitude then you fire the missile upward which is going to give it a much shorter range but on a ballistic trajectory, it's much much easier than launching it from the ground especially if you don't have missile that go high in the first place.

>>547276

>Anon, if it actually works how can we continue bilking the federal budget?

My point exactly.

>>547280

>Don't the Russians and Israelis practice with short-range missiles that wouldn't actually mimic true missile speeds?

Most Russian systems are tested to go against Mach 3+ cruise missiles (which don't even exist in NATO arsenal) and therefore can stop short range ballistic missile warhead like a scud (which only comes down at Mach 1.something) easily, their anti ICBM systems (A-135 which comes with tactical nuclear warheads so they don't have to hit just be close enough, and the newer A-235) are classified up the ass, I have no clue what they use as target but supposedly they did make a successful test hitting something going at Mach 20, they probably used an old ICBM.

These tests are known about in advance. They can't hit a missile they know is coming, let alone if one gets launched from out of the blue.

>>547292

Britbong, I was defending you on lasers the other day because I agree. Don't you know? Lasers are hundreds of years off because ballistics are better. :^)

>>547292

I can guarantee you that there will never be a laser big enough to intercept an ICBM.

>>547328

What makes you say that?

>the government would ever admit to having tech

I'd join all of you in shitting on my country but daily reminder that the NRO donated a 70s era satellite to NASA in 2012 that blew everything they had out of the water

>>547371

Because it won't work on rainy days…

>>547326

When they were first built lasers were described as 'a wonderful solution, without a problem'. I think that (if we can get enough power through them) missile intercepts would be one of the very few problems that a laser would be the perfect solution for - aiming, trajectories, and travel times are completely irrelevant. If it's above the horizon you can hit it. If you can hit it then it's just a point of building your gimbaling the weapon well enough to track the missile over time and you have a pretty much certain kill, up until the point that the enemy attaches an inch or two of wet cork to the missile. Then again increasing the power could solve that, and Japan built a 2 petawatt laser they compared to the Death Star back in 2015 …

There should be a law that if a defense contractor overruns the original contract and their shit still doesn't work, all the C-level executives get a bullet in the back of the head.

>>547395

Sure hope the norks don't think of waiting for a cloudy day before they nuke everyone.

>>547371

because it would be MAZER then

>>547387

>Because it won't work on rainy days…

Are you trolling or just stupid?

https://newatlas.com/boeing-laser-directed-energy-weapon-fog/33672/

I'm glad I live in a tactically irrelevant area on the East Coast

>>547400

>>547387

>Rainy day

For the love of god, lasers at the power necessary to be weaponized instantly vaporize pretty much all matter in their path short of a lead brick. Water is a non-issue unless you're shooting the thing at a submarine. Also see hydrogen in a gold cylinder if there are laser defense mechanisms- no bomb will survive a mini nuke.

>>547404

>Boeing makes the claim that they can bend the laws of physics without providing any proof whatsoever.

>Burger immediately sucks their cock.

>Then wonder why their army is costing so much and has such a shitty gear.

Every.

Single.

Time.

>>547409

>For the love of god, lasers at the power necessary to be weaponized instantly vaporize pretty much all matter in their path short of a lead brick.

Yeah you clearly have a fine grasp on how that shit works.

Hey you guys want a video from FIFTEEN YEARS AGO promising exactly the same shit (well the program was first showcased in 1996)? Here have some.

It was supposed to be the original Iron Dome.

Until they found out… that nope, it doesn't work because no, US companies can't bend the laws of physics. So the DoD stopped funding it (January 2006).

So Boeing bought the project from Northrop when. Rebranded it and got it funded again…

In the typical never ending pork barrel scheme you guys like so much.

You are aware that the HEL thing "can shoot drones".

In 20s.

Of uninterrupted constant hit on the same surface

Hitting where the metal is the thinest

at a maximum distance of 1200m

on a day with ideal meteorological conditions.

You take an twin M2HB you hook it to the same system radar turret optronic thing: you have a much much better weapon.

>>547454

The US has a bomb shortage and can't produce enough bombs. The US Navy is recommissioning decommissioned torpedoes because they have nothing to shoot at shit. The airforce doesn't want to provide air support because their pilots are whiny bitches at least in part because they lack missiles to fire since they are becoming such a precious resource. People think of missiles as a thruster with a thing that goes boom at the end without realizing that the internal navigation systems (typically fiberoptic gyroscopes) cost tens of thousands of dollars each. Lasers aren't the future because they're better, they're the future because energy weapons are cheaper than ballistics.

>>547462

When do they start using rocks like the French Air Force?

>>547450

im really not so sure, i think it depends on how well an incoming warhead is tracked, and the cloud ceiling on a given day. So long as the incoming warhead can be destroyed quickly enough after becoming visible then the laser can still achieve mission success, even if the surrounding landscape and personnel dont end up being protected. the problem is, like many people have pointed out, that people think missile defence is about gaining full protection for a country.

>>547395

i suppose if nukes are used as missile defence, it could be justified using the same materiel to build reactors to power laser defences. although it would probably only ever be done to expand warhead count without violating proliferation treaties, since no one has as many nukes as they could need.

I am 100% convinced the US has had a reliable ABM system (or at least reliable enough to make a revenge strike questionably effective) in place since the late 80's and all the testing since is just for show. I only started considering this after the Hawaiian and Japanese "fake" emergency declarations but it does make some sense if you think about the geopolitical situation of the USSR's collapse in the early 90's.

AFAIK, nothing changed in regard to Russia's ability to fulfill the mission of all three parts of their nuclear triad, yet they rolled over for ever Western opportunist and foreign oligarch to rape the corpse of their broken nation. Just think of all the myriad scenarios proposed for the collapse of the US and try and tell me any of them end without the control of our nuclear arsenal becoming the primary means of power. Somehow, Russia's nuclear threat was deemed politically irrelevant until recently (and only in a facetious manner) and we're expected to believe the principle of Mutually Assured Destruction hadn't been fundamentally broken?

>>547245

>a test for an experimental missile still in development and not in service was unsuccessful

Its nothing.

>>547492

The US military has been pretty incompetent since about WWII (1960s is when it really began to become obvious), so I find that claim questionable at best. Pretty much there's something known as the "whistleblower coefficient" or "conspiracy number" (don't bother looking it up as "whistleblower coefficient," because I don't remember the official name) where as the more people you have in a given project, the more likely details are to be leaked. In the age of the internet where mass communication is easier than ever, short of mass killing the people you have working on those projects, it's extremely hard to keep information secret. Doubly so when you have to bring in foreigners to work on your shit. American Soldiers aren't exactly known for being tight-lipped. The exact specifications might not be known, but the general parameters behind such devices become common knowledge and spread into civilian life fairly quickly even if they're "officially" treated as a secret.

The problem of missile defense is that it's much cheaper and easier to build more missiles and warheads than it is to build interceptors of a high enough quality to stop them and in great enough numbers to prevent saturation.

ICBMs will be obsolete before they can be reasonably defended against.

>>547498

I don't deny that the US military has been woefully incompetent post WWII (even if their acquisitions arm became marginally better by requiring private contracters). However,

>whistleblower coefficient

Sure, something's bound to get out on large enough projects, but get out to whom? Knowledge of shit like Arkancide, lefty cultural subversion, what really happened in Rhodesia, and so on is common enough around places like this, but most normies have been trained to auto-reject information that doesn't come from their "approved" sources. Even if whatever White Elephant dumpster fire the Pentagon is working on now got leaked, chances are most people won't listen to the person that leaked it.

>>547245

There are two US ABM in current deployment, the issue is the trajectory phase they intercept at.

Something like the Ground-Based Midcourse Defense, is only capable of intercepting an ICBM/SLBM during it's "mid-course" trajectory phase once the missile is in space after engine burn out. (The GMD is also extensively larger, with a much more powerful radar suite, and better designed kill vehicle. However, it's weakness is the inability to intercept multiple launch vehicles.)

The SM-3 is a point defense system designed off the RIM-165 chassis to intercept a missile during terminal phase, the most crucial interception phase. The issue that is being faced is pushing a light weight surface-to-air platform designed based-off of an even lighter-weight SAM initially designed to intercept AShM, not IRBM, let alone ICBM/SLBM. If the SM-3 can't intercept an IRBM like a SCUD, it sure as fuck isn't intercepting an ICBM.

Since the abandonment of the Nike Zeus & Nike-X Projects in 64', and the decommissioning of Project Safeguard/ABM Spartan, we've been left with a massive gap in our ABM defense. Take a look at the SM-3, then take a gander at the Zeus B, Nike-X, and Spartan systems. All three latter systems had nuclear warheads, all three were massive systems with the means to intercept legitimate ICBM target sets, all with decent intercept ranges for the time (for fucks sake the Zeus B and Spartan are both 30 fucking feet longer than the SM-3, most of it booster). Had we kept up with ABM development like the Russians did, we have an equivalent for their A-135 and A-235 systems, but rather here we are having one of the most bloated MIC contractors try to force a fucking modified AShM interceptor to chase ballistic missiles.

tl;dr, yes this is the 'Murican MIC shitting out the usual trash.

>>547492

I thought that NATO nuclear doctrine was that a guaranteed second strike was your ABM, no point in wrecking USA, UK & Europe (France won't have an independent nuclear capability for much longer, sorry Frankbros) with nukes if all it will achieve is NATO Nuke Subs wrecking your country after your launch.

>>547498

> since about WWII

Wait are you trying to say that the US military was competent DURING WWII?

Because it really wasn't. The US industry (once nationalized) was competent at arming and equipping millions of men but the US military, even with that insane advantage, constantly struggled and fucked up against opponents both less numerous, less well equipped and taken by surprise…

>>547252

>supposedly they did make a successful test hitting something

Somehow I have a hard time believing unsubstantiated "Russia stronk" propaganda, but maybe that's just because I'm a Ukranian shill.

>>547560

That's why I'm saying supposedly.

But those tests can't be kept secret because long range ICBM radars are tracking them, if the test had failed and the Russian had said it succeeded you would have had the typical "leak from a defense source" that to them, it didn't look it succeeded.

In fact from public data there was two other tests prior that failed (and two more that succeeded since).

Also that's the second gen of something we know worked (and was similar to some US existing missile, even if it never left prototyping).

And they did provide a video of something both really big and really really fast.

So yeah maybe they're lying, but it doesn't look that way.

>>547560

The R-71 was 2 decades ahead of anything the West had at that point, since the cancellation of the AIM-95, even though they started their homing air to air missile technology by reverse engineering a defective Sidewinder stuck on a Chinese' ass in the 60s. The R-77 came at the same time and was deemed slightly superior to the AIM-120B. And these atop of sending a man to space and a man-made object to the moon first.

It's not so far-fetched to claim that the Russians are ahead of the West in applied missile tech, especially since the West deemed Tomahawks, Harpoons, Exocets and Patriots as "good enough" back in the 90s. Even the most advanced or second most advanced heat-seeking AA missile in western inventory is at its base a Sidewinder.

>>547462

>they're the future because energy weapons are cheaper than ballistics.

In what world do you live where 2 browning M2 which the DoD has maybe hundreds of thousands in stocks, are pricier than a 50 kW high intensity complex focusing laser?

Hell I'm willing to fucking bet the 500 .50 cal bullets cost less that the fuel you need to poor in it to power it's generator…

>>547454

bout that dutch goalkeeper thing?

I think that has promise.

>>547717

Anon, your refrigerator, a well pump, and a water heater requires a 6.5kW backup generator to power it running on diesel fuel. One gallon of gas produces 33.3kW. Assuming an efficiency of about 20% (about a car diesel engine), you end up with 6.66kW of energy and after accounting for the alternator you end up with ~5kW of energy. If you want to be an ecofag about it, a windmill or handful of solar panels could power the whole damn thing since we're dealing in raw energy, not constant use over the course of a year. Just use a transformer to transfer the energy if you're worried about amperage and store it in a high-energy battery. A battery capable of storing 50kW is about 400lbs and costs less than $1,000 (no more than $10,000 since this is the government). That one time investment is a lot cheaper than the large munitions (which the DoD is running out of) and requires about the same level of maintenance as said munitions.

>>547735

I mean, the price of a laser (other than the laser itself) is pretty much a civilian truck to carry it and its battery around, and the gasoline to power it.

>>547735

That's still means 10 gallons so around 24$ (retail price) every-time you use 50kW (so every-time you fire? Every pulse? I'm not entirely sure what they mean by 50kW laser since it can vary, I'm assuming it's what the 20s burst is)…

10 rounds of .50 cal is 36$ (retail).

Ok the laser ammo is cheaper…

But not by a degree of magnitude that will ever make the price of the high power laser with it's micrometric lenses to compensate real time diffraction due to the atmosphere, etc… competitive with two M2HB (that have already been payed for when Kennedy was president to begin with).

It can intercept MRBMs, has major problems with IRBMs, and cant touch ICBM.

In other words about a generation behind Russkies.

>>547404

>60mm mortarts

>cheapo drone

>5-10km range in good weather

What do you want to bet is the range for an ICBM wargead with its ablative reentry shield in foggy conditions???

5 inches??

Moron.

>>547810

May 2016

The anti-ISIS coalition has dropped more than 41,500 bombs, leading the Pentagon to borrow from stockpiles in other regions.

https://archive.fo/Tfsyx

March, 2017

The U.S. Army's deputy chief of staff for logistics said he is concerned about the service's shrinking munitions stockpile.

https://archive.fo/iSMXT

October 2017

While maintaining the most powerful armed forces in the world, the United States military is struggling to deal with shortages, out-of-date equipment and personnel issues, according to a new report by a conservative think tank.

https://archive.fo/vHsaz

I know I said price, but it's a matter of logistics in general. Munitions have to be manufactured. Manufacturing munitions takes both time and money. We're talking half a year to get out like 20 missiles per subcontractor working on them. A Tomahawk cruise missile costs roughly $1.5 million, an ICBM costs roughly $400 million, a Mk48 torpedo costs roughly $900,000 each, but the current rendition of the project is currently $500,000 over budget and we've only gotten maybe a few dozen of them prepared from the total contract. Are you going to shoot down a missile traveling faster than the speed of sound with a .50 cal machine gun?

>>547883

>Are you going to shoot down a missile traveling faster than the speed of sound with a .50 cal machine gun?

No I would use a 30 or 35mm at short range with a cheap missile to add another range layer… like everyone else does and does perfectly fine.

Except the US army can't into into basic air defense.

And why would they when you can have stuff in R&D that you can bill BILLIONS without having anything to show for it than a prototype every 10 years?

Do you want to know when was the last close air-defense system the US army has properly developed and properly adopted and not some jury rigged contraption made out of spare parts scavenged here or there?

Never.

Hey did you know that after realizing their laser would never work Raython got scare and quickly whipped up something to save their land air defense contract by quickly modifying Avenger mounts using a much cheaper AIM 9X (AI3) but still very potent and was and to top it off rendering the Avenger capable of firing Stingers, AI3, AIM-9X, AMRAAM for the same price…

So you would have the already existing vehicle park capable of firing point defense, close air defense and medium air defense rolled into one.

C-RAM, anti-UAV, anti-low flying, anti-cruise missile, anti-high flying, modular capacity air defense.

Because yes they are PERFECTLY CAPABLE of doing something like that in around a year of R&D, with their available tech catalog and the genius level brains they have on payroll…

Thing passed all the tests… and the army killed it (nearly all the sources have been purged, it's amazing):

https://web.archive.org/web/20141006084312/http://www.janes.com/article/28563/ausa-2013-us-army-halts-ai3-c-ram-buy-despite-successful-tests

And instead is funding "next gen" bullshit that will never pass prototyping.

That is what is wrong with the US military.

>>547905

>And instead is funding "next gen" bullshit that will never pass prototyping.

>That is what is wrong with the US military.

The US military is a complicated money laundering scheme, allowing American politicians to bribe major defence contractors with public money.

>If you bankroll my R&D project (that makes me millions of dollars and improves my companies share prices) then we'll help fund your next election bid.

It's amazing how much American politicians spend on getting reelected. It's basically a very profitable industry in its own right. The only thing more amazing than the amount US politicians spend on their election campaigns is where the money came from.

>>547245

>not knowing a AMDS doesn't stop all the missiles

superpower 2 lies to you. the accuracy of a AMDS is about 10%. why do you think the star wars program was beloved? american AMDS still threaten other countries that take that countermeasure very seriously. AMDS are surrounding russia and they hate it.

>>547744

You do know that thing is yet another retarded way to pay billions something simple?

Everyone else just uses rails systems from assembly hall to launchpads…

>>548805

Sure, that works for rockets, but what if you really need a way to move a gigantic space alien corpse around and it happens to die in Cape Canaveral, Florida?

You frenchies never look at the big picture.

>>547744

>You don't have static targets is the only way.

Try to run a bureau that changes its position every other day for a decade. Nearly nobody would want to work there for more than a month.

>Even if you had your capital set in a giant field with each building on it's own NASA Crawler (which are not known for breaking land speed records) would be a far better option than an underground bunker

That's why I advocate for a series of bunkers to switch between during a war.

In their defense it is really fucking hard. You will see people here compare ABMs to simple air defense while ignoring that ~mach 12 speed increase.

The only realistic option is to hit an ICBM early in the climb phase when it's moving slow and doesn't have the energy to evade. Once it's in coast in space it takes fuck all fuel and thrust for it to evade and once it's re-entering it's going so fast and has so much maneuver energy it's a near impossible target.

The best option is always going to be hitting it during climbout or keeping a network of KKV satellites up at all times ready to intercept before coast.

>>551033

>In their defense it is really fucking hard. You will see people here compare ABMs to simple air defense while ignoring that ~mach 12 speed increase.

This depends on a variety of factors other than reentry speed.

>The only realistic option is to hit an ICBM early in the climb phase when it's moving slow and doesn't have the energy to evade.

There are only a few issues with you assertions, my emu friend. During the boost phase the window for intercept is EXTREMELY small, typically around 180 seconds. Another hurdle is geographic factors tat complicate intercept, like how nations tend to place their ICBM fields in the dead center of largest geographic regions to force aggressor interceptors a longer flight time. It also requires sophisticated radar (such as OTH-R or BMEWS), both of which is debilitatingly expensive to build and maintain. These exceptions, while few, rate too great on a risk vs reward ratio. The easiest phase of intercept is by far the terminal phase, as an ICBM reenters the atmosphere, the negative aspect in a terminal phase intercept is if you're unsuccessful. It's why the US and Russians haven't put any serious effort into boost phase interception over the past 40 years.

>Once it's in coast in space it takes fuck all fuel and thrust for it to evade and once it's re-entering it's going so fast and has so much maneuver energy it's a near impossible target.

SIRV/MIRV don't coast in space, boost phase places the warhead at the proper altitude and on-board pulse adjusters put the warhead into the proper trajectory and begin the reentry process. What makes the mid-course phase is the required hardware, SERIOUSLY powerful radar and space-based sensors (like MiDAS) and an intercept ABM on a seriously beefy platform, like GMD or S-300.

>The best option is always going to be hitting it during climbout or keeping a network of KKV satellites up at all times ready to intercept before coast.

Both of which aren't monetarily or geographically feasible.

>>551033

Yeah potential energy is a factor, as its falling it can bleed its speed doing massive 100km wide changes in direction, whereas the SAM is boosting upwards and has to fight gravity.

But also the damn thing is shrouded in plasma, which makes it damn hard to spot on radar.

That's why Russians have a few hundred missile for midcourse intercept, yet thousands for reentry intercept.

What ever happened to that classified project to use a Casaba Howitzer to blow up nukes?

>>551033

If it weren't for international treaties, missile defense would be easy because you could just put up fucking defensive satellites in space to intercept.

>>551107

Yes but if Russia tried to launch an anti nuke sat, we would have to launch all of our nukes immediately irrespective of if we wanted to. The only way to prevent being checkmated by ABM is to launch everything you have before it goes operational.

Russians came thiiiiiiis close to launching during Star Wars program.

>>551063

>the window for intercept is EXTREMELY small, typically around 180 seconds

Yes, this is why extreme acceleration made possible by mechanically hardened electronics is vital.

>geographic factors

Depends who you are worried about, if you are thinking China or Russian then it's a major issue, if you are thinking North Korea then not so much.

>The easiest phase of intercept is by far the terminal phase

How did you come to that conclusion? If it was purely ballistic and MIRV's weren't a thing then I would agree but these days you are going to have multiple warheads making high Gee turns. I can't see how this is easier than intercepting before one target turns into many.

>SIRV/MIRV don't coast in space

I legitimately want to know more about this, I get the basics of orbital mechanics and can't see how you aren't going to have and extended period of low vertical velocity even if you start burning anti-radial before apogee.

>Both of which aren't monetarily or geographically feasible

Depends on doctrine and geology, if the US put every cent they spent on civil defense into a sat-net they could have had something decent.

>>551107

Easier but not easy, also those same treaties keep nukes out of orbit so there is that.