High Seas
 
  1  
Reply Thu 29 Oct, 2009 05:04 pm
@oralloy,
Oralloy - you're the first poster on this site ever (to my knowledge) to claim infallibility. Where, pray, do you get your information? If it dawns on you via divine intervention, please don't bother answering that part, but at least tell me, if Sec. Gates is clueless and Prof. Postol senile, whom do you trust in this field?!
High Seas
 
  1  
Reply Thu 29 Oct, 2009 05:13 pm
@oralloy,
oralloy wrote:
..........
High Seas wrote:
Before you post nonsense on decoys again, though, consider that each incoming warhead can contain thousands of decoys;


Nope. A couple dozen at most....

Source, please?
High Seas
 
  1  
Reply Thu 29 Oct, 2009 05:15 pm
@oralloy,
oralloy wrote:
....Protecting Europe from Iranian missiles is hardly a boondoggle.....
You do realize that we are still putting ABM systems in Poland -- just not ones with enough range to protect Paris and London??

LOL, just keep it confidential, the Russians might hear about it <G>
oralloy
 
  1  
Reply Thu 29 Oct, 2009 09:20 pm
@High Seas,
High Seas wrote:
oralloy wrote:
..........
High Seas wrote:
Before you post nonsense on decoys again, though, consider that each incoming warhead can contain thousands of decoys;


Nope. A couple dozen at most....

Source, please?


Theodor Postol's study on countermeasures against missile defense. I remembered reading it back in 2000.

I should have simply said "dozens" however, and not limited it to two dozen. He suggests that one missile could deploy up to a hundred of the lightest balloons (however balloons that light would not be effective decoys once they encountered drag in the upper atmosphere).

It's still online: http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/nwgs/cm_all.pdf

Here is a quote from page 63 (page 87 as the PDF document measures it):

Quote:
A simple nuclear weapon would weigh perhaps
1000 kilograms, and it is reasonable to assume that the
attacker could use about 10 percent of the payload, or
roughly 100 kilograms, for countermeasures. Thus, if
the attacker is satisfied with a relatively small number
of decoys (15 or less) per missile, then a weight of
6 kilograms per decoy is acceptable, and the heavy balloon
decoys could be used. However, if the attacker
prefers to use a larger number per missile, then lighter
decoys would be needed. It is reasonable to expect that
an attacker could deploy as many as 100 of the lightweight
(0.5 kilogram) balloon decoys we describe above
on a missile along with a nuclear warhead. An emerging
missile state with tens of missiles might not have
enough nuclear warheads to arm each missile, in which
case it could have several missiles whose entire payloads
were devoted to balloons of various weights. (The
attacker would probably not want to use the entire payload
to deploy light balloons because the defense might
well conclude that the missile could not carry hundreds
of decoys and a warhead. Instead, the attacker would
likely choose to deploy perhaps 25 to 50 heavy balloon
decoys.)
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  1  
Reply Thu 29 Oct, 2009 09:20 pm
@High Seas,
High Seas wrote:
Oralloy - you're the first poster on this site ever (to my knowledge) to claim infallibility. Where, pray, do you get your information? If it dawns on you via divine intervention, please don't bother answering that part, but at least tell me, if Sec. Gates is clueless and Prof. Postol senile, whom do you trust in this field?!


I get my information from a wide variety of reputable sources.

Globalsecurity.org seems a good place to trust (that is John Pike's site -- he consults with the media on weapons so reporters don't look like complete buffoons when they try to talk about weapons).

As for my derision of that stealth drone idea that Postol was rambling on about, stealth is hardly a completely undetectable invisibility potion. And unmanned drones are slow moving and easily shot down.

The very idea of such a system operating continuously over an unfriendly country is ludicrous.


My claim to be right in that one post was not intended to be a blanket claim of total infallibility.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  1  
Reply Thu 29 Oct, 2009 09:22 pm
@High Seas,
High Seas wrote:
oralloy wrote:
....Protecting Europe from Iranian missiles is hardly a boondoggle.....
You do realize that we are still putting ABM systems in Poland -- just not ones with enough range to protect Paris and London??

LOL, just keep it confidential, the Russians might hear about it <G>


Russia already knows about it. They don't seem to object to us basing an ABM system in Poland so long as it lacks the range to protect London and Paris.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 09/29/2022 at 05:08:51