2012 Elections Part I: All Politics is Yokel

[Bakunin]

Re: 2012 Elections Part I: All Politics is Yokel

Apparently, we have a few ships capable of intercepting ballistic missiles (how reliable the system is, I have no idea).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aegis_Ballistic_Missile_Defense_System
U.S. Navy Aegis BMD Vessels
A total of five US Navy Ticonderoga class cruisers and 16 Arleigh Burke class destroyers have BMD capability as of November 2010. [1] [16] In 2010, all remaining Ticonderoga class cruisers that have SPY 1B systems (CG-59–CG-73) will be refitted with TBMD engagement technology.
Ticonderoga class cruisers equipped with anti-ballistic missile capability include the USS Lake Erie, USS Shiloh and USS Port Royal. Arleigh Burke class destroyers so equipped include the USS Wilbur, USS Stout, USS John S. McCain, USS Russell, USS Paul Hamilton, USS Ramage, USS Fitzgerald, USS Stethem, USS Benfold, USS Milius, USS Decatur, USS O'Kane.
An additional three ships have been refitted for Long Range Surveillance and Tracking (LRST): USS John Paul Jones, USS Hopper, and USS Higgins, with plans to add engagement capabilities by 2010.
On November 12, 2009, the Missile Defense Agency announced that six additional US Navy destroyers would be upgraded to participate in the program. In fiscal 2012, USS Carney, USS Ross, and USS Donald Cook will be upgraded. USS Cole, USS McFaul and USS Porter will be upgraded in fiscal 2013. The goal of the program is to have 21 ships upgraded by the end of 2010; 24 in 2012; 27 around 2013 and 38 at the end of FY 2015.[17][18]

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: 2012 Elections Part I: All Politics is Yokel

China is trillions of dollars in military spending away from being on par with the US technologically, and once they get to that point, they will suffer the same problems that we are suffering: insane cost overruns to build their planes et al, and very costly maintenance to keep the high tech gizmos working.

Lynah, what about the AEGIS system? Isn't that designed to protect against such things? Or does that only work against non-ballistic missiles?

They don't have to be on par with us to create significant problems for a flotilla sitting on the South China Sea.

 

[LynahFan]

Re: 2012 Elections Part I: All Politics is Yokel

Apparently, we have a few ships capable of intercepting ballistic missiles (how reliable the system is, I have no idea).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aegis_Ballistic_Missile_Defense_System
U.S. Navy Aegis BMD Vessels
A total of five US Navy Ticonderoga class cruisers and 16 Arleigh Burke class destroyers have BMD capability as of November 2010. [1] [16] In 2010, all remaining Ticonderoga class cruisers that have SPY 1B systems (CG-59–CG-73) will be refitted with TBMD engagement technology.
Ticonderoga class cruisers equipped with anti-ballistic missile capability include the USS Lake Erie, USS Shiloh and USS Port Royal. Arleigh Burke class destroyers so equipped include the USS Wilbur, USS Stout, USS John S. McCain, USS Russell, USS Paul Hamilton, USS Ramage, USS Fitzgerald, USS Stethem, USS Benfold, USS Milius, USS Decatur, USS O'Kane.
An additional three ships have been refitted for Long Range Surveillance and Tracking (LRST): USS John Paul Jones, USS Hopper, and USS Higgins, with plans to add engagement capabilities by 2010.
On November 12, 2009, the Missile Defense Agency announced that six additional US Navy destroyers would be upgraded to participate in the program. In fiscal 2012, USS Carney, USS Ross, and USS Donald Cook will be upgraded. USS Cole, USS McFaul and USS Porter will be upgraded in fiscal 2013. The goal of the program is to have 21 ships upgraded by the end of 2010; 24 in 2012; 27 around 2013 and 38 at the end of FY 2015.[17][18]

Wow - okay. That is a new one to me - looks like I'm a year out of date. (traditional) Aegis is good against aircraft and aircraft-launched missiles, but those are generally down in the (relatively) pokey Mach 5 range. Shipboard ABM is much tougher, but it looks like we're trying to start moving in that direction. Thanks for the info!

 

[Old Pio]

Re: 2012 Elections Part I: All Politics is Yokel

Apparently, we have a few ships capable of intercepting ballistic missiles (how reliable the system is, I have no idea).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aegis_Ballistic_Missile_Defense_System
U.S. Navy Aegis BMD Vessels
A total of five US Navy Ticonderoga class cruisers and 16 Arleigh Burke class destroyers have BMD capability as of November 2010. [1] [16] In 2010, all remaining Ticonderoga class cruisers that have SPY 1B systems (CG-59–CG-73) will be refitted with TBMD engagement technology.
Ticonderoga class cruisers equipped with anti-ballistic missile capability include the USS Lake Erie, USS Shiloh and USS Port Royal. Arleigh Burke class destroyers so equipped include the USS Wilbur, USS Stout, USS John S. McCain, USS Russell, USS Paul Hamilton, USS Ramage, USS Fitzgerald, USS Stethem, USS Benfold, USS Milius, USS Decatur, USS O'Kane.
An additional three ships have been refitted for Long Range Surveillance and Tracking (LRST): USS John Paul Jones, USS Hopper, and USS Higgins, with plans to add engagement capabilities by 2010.
On November 12, 2009, the Missile Defense Agency announced that six additional US Navy destroyers would be upgraded to participate in the program. In fiscal 2012, USS Carney, USS Ross, and USS Donald Cook will be upgraded. USS Cole, USS McFaul and USS Porter will be upgraded in fiscal 2013. The goal of the program is to have 21 ships upgraded by the end of 2010; 24 in 2012; 27 around 2013 and 38 at the end of FY 2015.[17][18]

While not downplaying the potential danger from this Chinese system, we should remind ourselves that a ballistic missile is not "guided" it is "aimed," hence "ballistic." They're giant bullets and once they're fired there's no more control over where they go. One thing that sounds like it could be a good idea is the development of new ICBM's, with conventional warheads, capable of hitting any target, anywhere in the world, in less than an hour. Highly accurate, capable of being MIRVED. Sounds like a good idea to me. So we could potentially shower the sites of the Chinese missile with highlly accurate warheads before they pull the trigger.

 

[bronconick]

Re: 2012 Elections Part I: All Politics is Yokel

They don't have to be on par with us to create significant problems for a flotilla sitting on the South China Sea.

That would really be their objective. I would think their assumption is that we wouldn't be interested in spending a lot of blood to defend Taiwan.

 

[Bakunin]

Re: 2012 Elections Part I: All Politics is Yokel

Wow - okay. That is a new one to me - looks like I'm a year out of date. (traditional) Aegis is good against aircraft and aircraft-launched missiles, but those are generally down in the (relatively) pokey Mach 5 range. Shipboard ABM is much tougher, but it looks like we're trying to start moving in that direction. Thanks for the info!

Here's some more info on it: http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/Land-Based-SM-3s-for-Israel-04986/

If I read that right, it looks like they'll be making the land-based part of the system more like the AEGIS part.

 

[joecct]

Re: 2012 Elections Part I: All Politics is Yokel

Rail guns. But still a few years away.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: 2012 Elections Part I: All Politics is Yokel

That would really be their objective. I would think their assumption is that we wouldn't be interested in spending a lot of blood to defend Taiwan.

Agreed.

 

[Kepler]

Re: 2012 Elections Part I: All Politics is Yokel

This is the next iteration, to be fitted on the Ford class carriers which will replace the Nimitz. (Source: Wikipedia, so fair warning)

 

[LynahFan]

Re: 2012 Elections Part I: All Politics is Yokel

While not downplaying the potential danger from this Chinese system, we should remind ourselves that a ballistic missile is not "guided" it is "aimed," hence "ballistic." They're giant bullets and once they're fired there's no more control over where they go.

This is not true. They are "ballistic" in the sense that their propulsion system (rocket) shuts down long before they reach their target, and from then on the only forces acting on them are gravity and aerodynamics (after re-entry). However, they are most definitely guided all the way to the target (using their tail fins to steer as they "glide" through the atmosphere). From MissileThreat.com (whoever they are):

"Modern U.S. ballistic missiles have a high probability of putting their payload into a fifty-yard circle from intercontinental distances."

With an truly unguided projectile (e.g. artillery shell), you'd be lucky to get that kind of accuracy at a 10 mile range - forget about 10,000.

 

[Handyman]

Re: 2012 Elections Part I: All Politics is Yokel

Rail guns. But still a few years away.

The Governator is all we need...give him two rail guns and China will be ERASED!!

 

[Rover]

Re: 2012 Elections Part I: All Politics is Yokel

The balance will gradually tip so that China isn't so far behind us and may at some point actually catch up with us. They are putting a good chunk of money into developing a navy of some significance, though not likely to rival ours in the foreseeable future. But, if we were ever to get in a fight with them, it'd likely be in/near their turf (Taiwan for example), given them some significant homefield advantages. The ability for us to clearly and effectively defend Taiwan will inevitably erode over time unless China somehow has a major economic/political meltdown.

Makes you long for the days when President Clinton sent the fleet through the Taiwan Strait to give the Chinese a not so subtle warning the last time they started blathering about taking Taiwan over doesn't it Bob?

 

[Old Pio]

Re: 2012 Elections Part I: All Politics is Yokel

This is not true. They are "ballistic" in the sense that their propulsion system (rocket) shuts down long before they reach their target, and from then on the only forces acting on them are gravity and aerodynamics (after re-entry). However, they are most definitely guided all the way to the target (using their tail fins to steer as they "glide" through the atmosphere). From MissileThreat.com (whoever they are):

"Modern U.S. ballistic missiles have a high probability of putting their payload into a fifty-yard circle from intercontinental distances."

With an truly unguided projectile (e.g. artillery shell), you'd be lucky to get that kind of accuracy at a 10 mile range - forget about 10,000.

Really? Do you mean to say targets can be adjusted or changed after launch? Are these adjustments made from the ground or internally? Because if they can be made from the ground can't an enemy make those adjustments too, and send the thing badly off course? These adjustments are relatively minor, especially when you're talking about nuclear warheads. They can't be effectively controlled from the ground after they're launched, which is my point. But that high degree of accuracy surely would be a selling point for new ICBM's with conventional warheads.

 

[Old Pio]

Re: 2012 Elections Part I: All Politics is Yokel

Makes you long for the days when President Clinton sent the fleet through the Taiwan Strait to give the Chinese a not so subtle warning the last time they started blathering about taking Taiwan over doesn't it Bob?

Or when Reagan sent the fleet across Gadaffi's "line of death" in the Gulf of Sidra. Maneuvers which Carter had cancelled to avoid controntation.

 

[LynahFan]

Re: 2012 Elections Part I: All Politics is Yokel

Really? Do you mean to say targets can be adjusted or changed after launch? Are these adjustments made from the ground or internally? Because if they can be made from the ground can't an enemy make those adjustments too, and send the thing badly off course? These adjustments are relatively minor, especially when you're talking about nuclear warheads. They can't be effectively controlled from the ground after they're launched, which is my point. But that high degree of accuracy surely would be a selling point for new ICBM's with conventional warheads.

The "guidance" I'm talking about loading is lat/long coordinates into the missile before launch, and then the on-board computer tracks its location throughout the flight and adjusts the tail fins as necessary to guide it to that exact point without any communication the ground. The lat/long of the destination doesn't change, but the missile continually moves its control surfaces (fins) throughout the flight to guide itself to that final location. It's considered ballistic because it has no thrust - it's just falling through the atmosphere, but it is (self-) guided.

It's certainly not "flown" from the ground by a remote pilot - at the speeds we're talking about, a human pilot wouldn't be able to land it within miles of the target. Even the SR-71 (Mach 3+) had to have a stellar (as in, relying on the stars) navigation system installed to be able to reach its intended destinations. In a book I read, one pilot decided to try it himself, so he headed west from CA over the Pacific, and then was just going to do a 180-deg turn and attempt to cross back over the coastline at a particular location a few hundred miles north of where he started. With the navigation system turned off, he missed it by many miles (can't remember exactly how far, but I'm pretty sure it was double digits).

As for re-targeting, I don't know for sure if ICBMs can be re-targeted in flight, but I would assume, "yes." We clearly would design in a signal to be able to tell the missile to abort or self-destruct, so once the communication link is there, you may as well add the capability to upload new coordinates. I think guys who are a lot smarter than I can figure out a way to encrypt those signals securely enough that they can't be hacked.

 

[Old Pio]

Re: 2012 Elections Part I: All Politics is Yokel

The "guidance" I'm talking about loading is lat/long coordinates into the missile before launch, and then the on-board computer tracks its location throughout the flight and adjusts the tail fins as necessary to guide it to that exact point without any communication the ground. The lat/long of the destination doesn't change, but the missile continually moves its control surfaces (fins) throughout the flight to guide itself to that final location. It's considered ballistic because it has no thrust - it's just falling through the atmosphere, but it is (self-) guided.

It's certainly not "flown" from the ground by a remote pilot - at the speeds we're talking about, a human pilot wouldn't be able to land it within miles of the target. Even the SR-71 (Mach 3+) had to have a stellar (as in, relying on the stars) navigation system installed to be able to reach its intended destinations. In a book I read, one pilot decided to try it himself, so he headed west from CA over the Pacific, and then was just going to do a 180-deg turn and attempt to cross back over the coastline at a particular location a few hundred miles north of where he started. With the navigation system turned off, he missed it by many miles (can't remember exactly how far, but I'm pretty sure it was double digits).

As for re-targeting, I don't know for sure if ICBMs can be re-targeted in flight, but I would assume, "yes." We clearly would design in a signal to be able to tell the missile to abort or self-destruct, so once the communication link is there, you may as well add the capability to upload new coordinates. I think guys who are a lot smarter than I can figure out a way to encrypt those signals securely enough that they can't be hacked.

Thanks for that website. I infer those corrections it referred to are absolutely last second so that no potential enemy can reprogram or alter the path. The retargeting I'm referring to is instead of Smolensk the north pole. Under any circumstances, that accuracy is mind boggling and surely would make a conventional tipped ICBM that much more lethal. Think about the raid Reagan sent to get Gadaffi, FB111's, a good plane for its day (maybe, remember the TFX scandal) but not nearly so lethal as a MIRVd ICBM showering Gadaffi's compound with warheads. Byeeee.

I had one tertiary experience with an SR71 when I was at Hill AFB near Ogden, UT. One of those bad boys had an inflight and put down at Hill. I was working 9 miles from the flightline, and the sonic boom shook our building like a rag doll. It was only later in the day that we learned what happend. They rolled him into a hangar. Posted sentries. Flew in a tech rep or two or three. And he was outta there the next morning. Remember that book "October Surprise" which posited a plot by the Reagan campaign to work a deal with Iran to delay the release of our hostages 'til after Carter was defeated? To make their time line work they had George H. W. Bush flying somewhere in an SR71. Yeah, like anybody would put a 61 year old with no training in that thing. And like we'd actually land one at a foreign base in the Middle East.

I assume we've got self destruct capability. But I've never thought about last minute destruct capability. That would be under the heading of "we made a mistake" and plan to make it all good. I suppose with satellites we could do it if we had to. But that's surely the world's diciest back up plan.

Remember in Fail Safe, Henry Fonda gets on the blower to tell the pilot (character acter Edward Binns) to turn back. The pilot says the rules won't let him. I would have suggested a verbal recall code that anyone near the top of the chain of command could issue. The idea that you're in radio contact with a relatively slow moving aircraft and can't call him back is a little far fetched. Today's recall code is: Tootsie Roll.*

*Binns is the juror in "12 Angry Men" who tells Lee J. Cobb if you keep talking to the old man that way "I'm going to lay you out."

 

[5mn_Major]

Re: 2012 Elections Part I: All Politics is Yokel

So from board conservatives, we have heard consistent negative commentary about Obama...since before he even entered office.

Do any board conservatives really like the GOPs front runner candidates? If so, who and why? Serious question.

 

[Bakunin]

Re: 2012 Elections Part I: All Politics is Yokel

The nominee is almost certainly going to be a delusional religious wackjob that doesn't think climate change is happening and believes either creationism or ID is on par with evolution and should be taught alongside it in the nation's schools, thus guaranteeing tomorrow's leaders are every bit as cloaked in ignorance as this batch is.

So in the end, does it really matter who a few college hockey nerds like among a group that is mostly bat****?

 

[joecct]

Re: 2012 Elections Part I: All Politics is Yokel

So from board conservatives, we have heard consistent negative commentary about Obama...since before he even entered office.

Do any board conservatives really like the GOPs front runner candidates? If so, who and why? Serious question.

Mitt should open a waffle house.
Perry - too early to tell, but he's not Obama. His problem is that the MSM will make him GWB reincarnate.
Newt is smart as a whip (or Speaker), but the baggage is too much. He's probably the smartest of the bunch and maybe as polarizing as El Presidente.
The rest are for pure entertainment value

As for liberals,
What's wrong with a man/women who is comfortable with their faith, attends church regularly, and has a strong sense of Judeo-Christian morality?
Is climate change man-made or is it a natural part of the world's evolution? .
As to evolution, why can't you say that things change within a set of rules set up by the Supreme Referee?

 

[walrus]

Re: 2012 Elections Part I: All Politics is Yokel

Do any board conservatives really like the GOPs front runner candidates? If so, who and why? Serious question.

No