Iran fires rockets at Iraq base hosting American troops

Discussion in 'Current Events' started by After-Hour Prowler, Jan 7, 2020.

  1. Mushroom

    Mushroom Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2009
    Messages:
    12,496
    Likes Received:
    2,421
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I know, and I said that.

    However, they have no defenses against this type of rocket. I would actually be moderately surprised if they did not have say SHORAD, which is useful against other classes of rockets (but useless against these).

    And transversely, PATRIOT is great against threats like this, but almost useless against short range rockets.

    Once again, what was within range to stop it?

    Nothing.

    Right back at my first paragraph. And once again, range.

    Most short range rockets have a very low and flat trajectory. Hence, the love that Hamas has for rockets like they (Katyusha). For rockets of this class, the larger and longer range air defense systems are actually rather poor in intercepting them. For that you use something like the US SHORAD system. Very short range, point defense for a specific location.

    In order to match weapon and defense, you have to have the right system to take out the threat. That is why major bases have multiple layers of defense, with differing systems. THAAD, PATRIOT, AVENGER, SHORAD, and even AEGIS class ships off-shore and a CAP flying overhead. Each is part of a web that targets specific threats.

    But no one is able to eliminate all of them.

    Israel has concentrated their defenses in taking out the larger missiles, not the smallest ones. There they actually rely upon either point defense systems for critical targets, or the simple poor quality of them and knowing that they are horribly inaccurate, and at most might find the parking lot of a major sporting stadium if it was aiming at the center line of the playing field.
     
    US Conservative likes this.
  2. Mushroom

    Mushroom Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2009
    Messages:
    12,496
    Likes Received:
    2,421
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    And I am going to take it yet a step further.

    Air Defense systems do not even try to shoot down all threats. Only those threats that are targeted to land in their designated area of defense. And if they are say tasked to defend a major command post and a motor pool or barracks is outside of that defensive area, they will actually just let it land.

    They are already defending someplace, and the last thing the defenders want is to use up all of their defensive firepower to shoot down targets that are outside of that area. And I have participated in wargames where the enemy tried exactly that tactic. They knew our ammunition capacity, and how long it took us to reload. So they would send a salvo of missiles at a lesser target, in the hopes we would shoot them down and expend all of our missiles.

    Then the second salvo would actually be directed at the actual target we were defending. And they would hope we had already expended all of our missiles defending places of low importance, and then the actual defended location could get plastered with little risk of intercept.

    This is why at sea, Destroyers are considered "expendable". We do not waste valuable missiles to defend them, they rely upon their own short range defenses. That is because they are defending a capitol ship, like an aircraft carrier. And we will gladly throw away a few destroyers or frigates, so long as our carrier remains intact.

    We do the same thing on land. I was tasked with defending an air base. And if we saw the missiles inbound were going to hit the housing areas (where I lived by the way), well that just sucks. We have bunkers and defensive positions we ran to in that event, but the runway, fuel and ammo points, and plane storage areas were of critical importance and must be defended at all costs.
     
    US Conservative likes this.
  3. notme

    notme Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2013
    Messages:
    42,019
    Likes Received:
    5,395
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Great?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIM-104_Patriot#Success_rate_vs._accuracy
    It has a 50% success rate against scuds. And Iranian missiles go a heck of a lot faster which makes them very much harder to shoot down.



    That's like saying some little girl throwing a ball to a pro baseball player has a lesser chance of hitting that ball than a fastball from a pro. There is a reason why Russia made an ever faster missile recently. Didn't you get that memo?
     
  4. Mushroom

    Mushroom Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2009
    Messages:
    12,496
    Likes Received:
    2,421
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    In 1990-1991. With prototype software that had yet to be fully tested. And with a missile that was never intended to be used to shoot down other missiles, only aircraft.

    Now let's fast-forward a decade, shall we? And I will use your exact same reference, just a single bullet point down.

    In fact, in 2003 every single missile targeted by PATRIOT was successfully intercepted and destroyed.

    Here, let me say that one more time.

    In fact, in 2003 every single missile targeted by PATRIOT was successfully intercepted and destroyed.

    This is what I mean by cherry picking. And notice, I used your own reference against you there. Maybe next time you will actually read your own reference, and not simply pick out one point you like that defends your claim, yet completely ignore one further down that destroys it.

    I readily admit that the use in 1990-1991 was not that great. But once again, at that time the very idea it might even intercept a missile in the first place was a brand new concept. And the missile they fired was designed for intercepting soft targets like aircraft. Using a proximity fuse that was never intended for use against a more hardened target like another missile.

    And we know that most of the missiles in 1990-1991 were hit, the missile fired simply was not up to the task of shooting down a missile. Many were found to have damage from the impact of the missile, which was basically like shotgun pellets.

    [​IMG]

    This is why the PAC-2 was designed, as well as more specialized missiles like the GEM-T (TBM threats) and GEM-C (Aircraft and cruise missiles) were developed. The GEM-T used a solid core penetrator to deliver the damage, while the GEM-C used the more conventional proximity fuse with a shotgun effect to damage the target.

    The old school PATRIOT missiles are long retired. Even PAC-2 is barely used anymore, out of 12 launchers we only had PAC-2 on a single launcher in each battery of 6 launchers. The rest were all loaded with a mixture of GEM-T and GEM-C. And of course the 2 PAC-3 launchers were always loaded with PAC-3 missiles.

    That means in general, 8 PAC-2 missiles. 32 missiles, mixed between GEM-T and GEM-C. And 32 PAC-3 missiles.

    And the newer systems that are more specifically designed to take out missiles (THAAD and PATRIOT PAC-3) have almost exclusively solid rod penetrators to deliver their entire force kinetically.

    Nice try there though. Using a conflict almost 3 decades ago, while completely ignoring one less than 2 decades ago.
     
    US Conservative likes this.
  5. notme

    notme Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2013
    Messages:
    42,019
    Likes Received:
    5,395
    Trophy Points:
    113


    Again. That's against scud missiles. My argument stands that these are slow moving targets, not in the same ballpark of fast moving targets. The reason that Russia goes even faster (27 times the speed of sound) and claims it's unstoppable. Didn't you get the memo over that one?
     
  6. Mushroom

    Mushroom Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2009
    Messages:
    12,496
    Likes Received:
    2,421
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    OK, first lesson about ballistic missiles.

    The speed is determined ballistically. Based upon altitude primarily, then to a lesser degree on distance.

    And here is the really hilarious about your statement. I give you 3 guesses as to who made the SCUD missile. And any guesses other than the Soviet Union are wrong.

    And you wanna know something? This is the first time I have ever heard of an object going at MACH 5 as being "slow moving".

    ICBMs move faster than IRBMs. IRBMs move faster than MRBMs. And MRBMs move faster than SRBM-TBMs. And the SCUD is a TBM, the slowest of all ballistic missiles.

    Tell you what. Let me find you an online class on the different kinds of Ballistic Missiles. Including how they actually operate. And here is lesson 1. They are unpowered once they finish their ascent phase. Yep, that's right. They take off and achieve their maximum altitude, and then they are essentially guided rocks.

    Nothing is provided to make any one faster than another. They are given their speed entirely by gravity, that is why they are called "ballistic" in the first place.

    Oh, and those hypersonic missiles like you are talking about? Let me say this one time very clearly, in it's own bolded line.

    Those are not ballistic missiles.

    There, got that? There is no such thing as a MACH 27 ballistic missile. It simply does not exist, it is impossible. You are not only talking about a completely different missile, you are talking about a completely different class of missile entirely, that operates on a radically different principal.

    But please, feel free to return with some kind of facts that validate your claim.
     
    Badaboom and US Conservative like this.
  7. Mushroom

    Mushroom Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2009
    Messages:
    12,496
    Likes Received:
    2,421
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Oh, and the fact they are "unstoppable" is much less about speed than it is about trajectory.

    Ballistic missiles are relatively easy to shoot down, because they follow a very predictable arc. Like a baseball thrown up into the air at an 80 degree angle. Simple geometry. If you know where it left at what speed and angle, you can easily predict where it will land. This here is not even really "rocket science", it is basic math.

    These are also high altitude delivery systems. That makes them very easy to shoot down, all you need is a system able to reach them.

    Flat trajectory missiles are completely different, because of their low altitude. And really nothing else, just their low altitude. There is nothing short of point defense that can target such low flying threats, no matter how fast it is going. I do not care if it is a suicide pilot in a Cessna, or a MACH 27 cruise missile. They simply operate at altitudes that most conventional air defense systems were never designed to operate at.

    Take that same MACH 27 missile and throw it up to 20,000 feet, and it becomes as vulnerable as any other inbound target. Intercepting it is nothing special or magical. Speed does not make it any different to hit. It is still a matter of math, and putting the inbound missile into it's path.
     
    Badaboom likes this.
  8. Iranian Monitor

    Iranian Monitor Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2015
    Messages:
    6,504
    Likes Received:
    1,646
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Iran has already proven its point regarding its missiles to the people who count, regardless of what 'Mushroom" and "US Conservative" might like to pretend. I will make my points here with the applicable citations. The rest is up to each reader to conclude on his own.

    First, Iran has a diverse group of missiles. The best of them are purely indigenous Iranian designs, such as the Fateh (Fateh 110, Fateh 313, as well as land to sea derivatives such as "Khalij Fars) missile or, when it comes to longer range missiles, Iran's Sejjil missile. These are the models Iran's foes need to worry about the most. They have no relationship to any Scuds or to any other systems such as the ones built by N.Korea. This is something already shown over a decade ago when Iran showed the Sejjil missile. (If someone doesn't like Wikipedia, the footnotes for these assessments will lead you to the original sources behind them).
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sejjil
    Second, when it comes to the accuracy of the Fateh missile in particular, this has now been proven. In terms of articles which support what I have said, I already cited the Economist (no friend of Iran!), citing actual experts discussing the CEP of the Fateh missiles, once estimated at 250 meters, then estimates at 100 meters, and now as low as 5 meters Here is another article that discusses the issue more generally. In the context of established facts, not expert estimates and opinions about a system they have no real clue about.
    http://www.lowyinterpreter.org/the-interpreter/impact-accuracy
    Third, Iran also has missiles which are in a distant way related to derived from Scuds and others based on North Korean designs. The Qiam 1 is one example. But even here, there is a difference: Iran has conversion kits that allow even these cruder designs to be a lot more accurate. Those conversion kits are also indigenous designs by Iran.
    https://www.timesofisrael.com/iran-unveils-kit-to-convert-artillery-rockets-into-guided-missiles/

    Fourth, the Patriot has never been viewed as a reliable enough system against the type of ballistic missiles Iran has. In fact, experts have long maintained that that a multi-layered system will be required to defend against Iranian ballistic missiles, allowing each layer to try to interdict them at different points from above the atmosphere and such. While the Israelis are now claiming that the Arrow 3 gives the US/Israel such capabilities (allowing for over the atmosphere interception) that is not been established independently or shown in any real battle. Other systems being worked on involve lasers. But ultimately, you can get the gist of the limitations of the current systems reading between the lines of this article from the Military Times, both quantitatively (US has only 15 patriot batteries altogether, spread across the globe) and qualitatively.
    https://www.militarytimes.com/flash...es-to-the-middle-east-in-wake-of-iran-strike/
    Finally, the Patriot missile batteries were sufficient protection against Iranian missiles, the US wouldn't be moving the headquarters of Central Command from the region back to America. Which points to another fact: besides Iran's ballistic missiles and their capabilities, Iran also has cruise missile which can attack US forces with precision without even being detected. And Patriots are certainly not designed to counter these cruise missiles.
    https://www.businessinsider.com/us-...mmand-south-carolina-sitting-duck-iran-2019-9
    The US military is practicing moving its Middle Eastern command base to South Carolina because its Qatar base is a 'sitting duck' for Iran
     
    Last edited: Jan 18, 2020
  9. Mushroom

    Mushroom Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2009
    Messages:
    12,496
    Likes Received:
    2,421
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Well,your entire post was pure nonsense, but I am really going to concentrate on this last one.

    Central Command has always been based at McDill Air Force Base, in Florida.
    Ever since it was founded in 1983. It has never been located anywhere else.

    It has however many times established a forward command post. Which in 2002 was located at Camp As Sayliyah, on the Eastern side of Doha. And in 2009 it was moved to Al Udeid Air Force Base. It is still there, and it is not moving any time soon.

    The military practices moving it's major commands regularly, it is nothing unusual or special. I have taken part in a great many of these operations myself over the decades, they are entirely routine.

    And please, "Business Insider"? You are aware that they have an absolutely horrid reputation in covering stories like this, right? This is not Jane's, or any other reputable military reporting source. In fact, quite often we on the inside laugh at them, seeing them as little more reputable than say DuffleBlog.

    And to give an idea, in the event something like this happened they would not "relocate" anywhere. They would simply shut down their remote command post. Because that is all it is, a remote command post. CentCom is, has been, and likely will remain in Florida for decades to come. And just like in 1990 when a command post was established in Saudi Arabia for the liberation of Kuwait. Then in 1992 that command post was closed. It was only a regional one, for more local control in a regional area.

    And yet once again you refuse to provide anything to back up your claims, you simply deflect and confuse by trying to drag it into something entirely different.

    Simply the fact that you read about an exercise moving a unit to South Carolina means that an element actually is moving is the utmost in your lack of comprehension. That does not even make any sense, especially since McDill is only a few hundred miles from where that exercise was conducted.

    And let's now look critically at this "report". Their "source" is an "unnamed NATO officer". Well gee, that is really critical information. It might be the Officer in charge of painting latrines in the Danish Army for all we know. The entire article is complete speculation, with absolutely no hard evidence of any of it's claims (and there are a lto of them, this is only one).

    And Mitch Prothero? Well, there is an interesting character. All of his articles for Business Insider are either praising Iran, or attacking President Trump. Not exactly unbiased it appears.

    Other articles?

    Well, he was an "on the scene" reporter for ForeignPolicy.com in 2012, writing about the Syrian Civil War and it's effects in Lebanon. He wrote 3 articles for them from 2011=2012 and nothing since.

    And in looking at Much Rack (a great source of finding articles by individuals), this guy has been working for BI for a while now. And over 90% of his articles are either attacking President Trump, praising Russia, praising Iran, praising North Korea, or attacking Turkey.

    Then he will turn around and discuss how protestors in Hong Kong are using sign language, the Internet making it hard for Turkish hit squads top operate overseas, Muslim terrorists in Europe are because of prisons, and many hundreds of other such "articles" in the last year since he started working for BI.

    And BTW, he was writing similar articles that were all over the map back when he worked at Buzzfeed prior to that. He seemed to work for them for about 4 years before he got the gig at BI.

    Yea, this guy is not a "military insider". He writes biased political articles that nobody ever seems to be able to validate, and are more politics and speculation than they are news.

    This is why I tell people to "Vette their sources". When you do not, you end up believing nonsense like Mitch Prothero at Business Insider for accurate military news. And it's even more hilarious when you can not even get this correct.
     
    US Conservative likes this.
  10. Iranian Monitor

    Iranian Monitor Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2015
    Messages:
    6,504
    Likes Received:
    1,646
    Trophy Points:
    113
    i like this saying: 'facts you check out in the library; ideas you debate". The capabilities of Iranian missiles are facts, not 'ideas'.

    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]

    The land-to-sea version of the Fateh missile is dubbed Khalj Fars. As far back as 2013, even before Iran proved the accuracy of the Fateh missile in strikes against the headquarters of a Kurdish terrorist group inside Iraq, the CEP of the Fateh missile (under 10 meters) was already clear to anyone who wasn't interested in propaganda.

    https://www.armyrecognition.com/jun...upersonic_ballistic_missile_to_8.5_meter.html
    Iran increases precision of the Khalij Fars Persian Gulf supersonic ballistic missile to 8.5 meter

    The video below, incidentally, was from 2011 when the Khalij Fars ballistic missile was used to hit a naval vessel in the Persian Gulf in Iranian naval drills.
     
  11. Iranian Monitor

    Iranian Monitor Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2015
    Messages:
    6,504
    Likes Received:
    1,646
    Trophy Points:
    113
    On sources, from my perspective, no American source is ultimately all that knowledgeable when it comes to Iran's capabilities. But I find the desperate attempts to shoot down the messenger as opposed to the message a typical tactic of those who engage in propaganda. The "Economist"? Bad: "a single source, behind a pay-wall" :) Business Insider: Bad (partisan political polemics then follows). As for the experts I have quoted, including Uzi Rubin (the father of Israel's Arrow 3 system), no comment. Instead, attacking the credentials of a journalist here or there.

    Anyway, on the subject of the article in the Business Insider (quoting anonymous NATO officers), you have a less colorful headline from the US military's "Stars and Stripes".

    https://www.stripes.com/news/air-fo...-center-from-qatar-to-south-carolina-1.601074
    Air Force shifts Middle East command center from Qatar to South Carolina


    p.s.
    I am not interested in going back and forth on the main issue that started this whole round of nonsense. I feel I have made my point already, regarding the CEP, design and capabilities of Iran's missiles. If not 'good enough' for our self-styles experts, then they can hold the views they prefer to hold.
     
  12. notme

    notme Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2013
    Messages:
    42,019
    Likes Received:
    5,395
    Trophy Points:
    113
    My point. The patriot system did "great" against the slowest kind of missiles.
    My point. The faster a missile goes, the harder it becomes to it knock out.
    The success rate against scuds, is not that great. Irans missiles go a lot faster.
    And none of your rantings is about that.

    Russia’s new hypersonic missile ‘can travel 27 times faster than the speed of sound
    https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...on-putin-hypersonic-speed-sound-a9262006.html
     
  13. notme

    notme Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2013
    Messages:
    42,019
    Likes Received:
    5,395
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Nope... it's about speed. Them Russian made it so fast, that currently we can not shoot it down. It's not unstoppable because it can outmaneuver counter weapons.

    It is indeed like baseball. If some little girl tosses you a ball, than you probably have no hard time hitting it. When a pro player throws you a fast ball with no iffy effects, than only by pure luck would you be able to hit it well. It's all about speed that the missiles travel many miles in a split second, where the detonation of a patriot only covers a small area. The Russians would not otherwise be that proud of their missiles who can fly up to 27 times the speed of sound.
     
  14. Iranian Monitor

    Iranian Monitor Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2015
    Messages:
    6,504
    Likes Received:
    1,646
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Regarding the Patriot missile system, I like the title of this article which appeared in Foreign Policy in 2018. I post it mostly for fun, as the real points I wanted to make, I have already made previously.
    https://foreignpolicy.com/2018/03/28/patriot-missiles-are-made-in-america-and-fail-everywhere/
    Patriot Missiles Are Made in America and Fail Everywhere
    The evidence is in: the missile defense system that the United States and its allies rely on is a lemon.
    BY JEFFREY LEWIS | MARCH 28, 2018, 3:10 PM
     
  15. Mushroom

    Mushroom Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2009
    Messages:
    12,496
    Likes Received:
    2,421
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    No, it is not. It is all geometry and physics. If you know the speed, and you know the trajectory, it is no different if it is faster or slower.

    And success rate, over 30 years ago. I already discussed this, ballistic missiles are limited by the terminal velocity as determined by gravity. No ballistic missile in a class is faster than any other, this is determined by physics and gravity.

    And I will say this one more time.

    THAT IS NOT A BALLISTIC MISSILE!

    Do I have to repeat this like 20 times? What part of "THIS IS NOT A BALLISTIC MISSILE" can some of you not comprehend?
     
    US Conservative likes this.
  16. Mushroom

    Mushroom Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2009
    Messages:
    12,496
    Likes Received:
    2,421
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    It is hard to shoot down because it operates at a very low altitude. This is true no matter what speed the missile is operating at.

    What is easier to hit, a fast flying bird at 100 feet above you, or a fast moving bird coming at you at 10 feet altitude?

    What is easier to catch, a high lobbing pop fly,or a line drive hit directly at you?

    What about this is so freaking hard to understand?

    And you still keep skipping back and forth between cruise and ballistic missiles.

    They are not the same thing. Oh, sure they still have "missile" in the name, but that is as much of a similarity as they have.
     
    Badaboom and US Conservative like this.
  17. Mushroom

    Mushroom Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2009
    Messages:
    12,496
    Likes Received:
    2,421
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I am going to say this in as stupid-simple a way as I can. This is talking about Ballistic Missiles. No other missiles need apply.

    Ballistic missiles all travel at a set speed. And this is determined entirely by gravity. When they launch (be it a TBM or an ICBM), the entire thrust of the rocket is expended in getting it up to it's maximum altitude. From that point on, it is unpowered.

    This is a long arc, known as a "Ballistic Path". It is the same for a cannon ball as it is for a ballistic missile. This is known as a "Ballistic Path". It is the exact same if it is a bullet, a cannon ball, an artillery shell, or a ballistic missile.

    None in the same class are any faster than any other. So claiming Russia, or Iran, or the US, or anybody else has made a "faster ballistic missile" is stupidity in the extreme. The speed is entirely determined by the apogee of the missile (maximum altitude) and gravity. Yes aerodynamics does play a very minor role in this, but not much. When you are talking about an object descending at MACH 5, 100 mph more or less is insignificant.

    This is known as the "Terminal Velocity". So if you are comparing a TBM against another TBM, they are all going to be fairly close in speed, no matter who made it. No matter when it was made. The formula used to determine speed based upon the altitude it falls from is a constant and does not care who made it.

    Now as you move up through other classes of ballistic missiles, the speed increases because their apogee is at a higher altitude. MRBM, LRBM, IRBM, all the way up to ICBM. Each of these is faster because it reaches it's maximum altitude at a higher elevation above sea level, so can gather even more speed during it's descent (both using the lighter density of the upper atmosphere combined with the greater distance it falls).

    [​IMG]

    And when the discussion is ballistic missiles, trying to inject any other kind of missile is simply retarded. That is like if somebody is discussing the 0 to 60 mph performance of various sports cars, and somebody jumps in that motorcycles accelerate faster.

    Well big whoop-de-doo, we are discussing cars. So that does not belong in the conversation at all.

    It is getting to the point where I can only assume 2 things at this point. Either people are purposefully trying to disrupt and confuse the discussion because they have absolutely no foundation to their claim. So they are constantly trying to disrupt it by throwing in things that do not apply in the hopes that they will somehow "win".

    Either that, or they are simply to stupid to understand the differences, and are speaking from their failure to comprehend basic science.

    The missiles used were ballistic missiles, so no other missile belongs in this discussion.

    [​IMG]
     
    US Conservative likes this.
  18. notme

    notme Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2013
    Messages:
    42,019
    Likes Received:
    5,395
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Trying to hit a bullet that is shot with an other bullet is hard.
    Trying to hit a bullet lying still is easy.

    When things fly a mile a second, than timing the explosion 0,1 second off means the missile is over 500 feet flying somewhere else and won't be hit. The slower it the missile goes, the bigger smaller the distance it is away from the original calculation... and so will be hit.

    When things fly over 5 miles a second -as what goes on with mach 27- means if the blast of is 0,02 seconds off, than the missile is flying well over 500 feet somewhere else. Do you understand that speed matters a heck of a lot now?


    It doesn't just go up and than drop down dead. It's a freaking guided missile that is adjusting it's projectory all the time, to counter all gushes of air that otherwise would blow that missile off it's course.
     
    Last edited: Jan 19, 2020
  19. notme

    notme Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2013
    Messages:
    42,019
    Likes Received:
    5,395
    Trophy Points:
    113
    As the model even says... it doesn't take into account drag and thrust. A gush of air can blow a missile of it's course. A guided missile puts it back on it's course. They can also alter the amount of thrust it has during the flight. It's not a drop dead piece of weight that drops out of the sky. Your entire idea about how easy it is, is just never minding all of this. This is just so juvenile.
     
    Last edited: Jan 19, 2020
  20. Mushroom

    Mushroom Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2009
    Messages:
    12,496
    Likes Received:
    2,421
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Not for a computer. We have advanced computers and RADAR to handle that for us. What, do you think some guy is sitting on top of the launcher with a telescope and crosshairs? Lighting a fuse with a cigarette lighter?

    Here is a basic idea. The RADAR detects the inbound target long before it is within firing range. It then tracks it, constantly updating it's location hundreds of thousands of times per second. Then as it gets to within range, all control is handed off to the computer. General ADA tactics are to ripple-fire 2 missiles within 3 seconds (automatically by the computer) at the edge of range, then to ripple fire 2 more if needed. Then to continue to fire until it is destroyed or engagement is no longer possible.

    Now for a target like a ballistic missile, that means at most 4 missiles. 2 are fired before it even reaches range, the computers can calculate where the inbound missile will be and fire to intercept just as it gets within range. Then fire 2 more shortly before impact. And yes, I am talking about firing the last 2 missiles within the 5 seconds between initial possible impact and a last minute attempt if the miss. They ascend at MACH 4 after all.

    Computers, the most amazing things you know.

    Trying to hit a bullet in the air with another bullet is amazingly easy. If you use computers.

    Uhhh, what? Do you even understand how these work?

    In ABM warheads, there is no "explosion". They destroy their target by kinetic energy. They literally run right into it. Once again, you have absolutely no idea how these work. And I know for a fact I have mentioned that these kill via kinetic energy many times. GEM+, GEM-T, PAC-3 and THAAD all use kinetic kill to destroy the target, there is no explosion.

    Let me say this one more time since you seem to keep missing it, no matter how many times I explain it. In an ABM missile there is no explosion. They destroy their target via kinetic energy.

    And as for those that explode, that is what the proximity fuse is for. These were developed way back in WWII, and they work the same way today. They have a small transmitter that emits a signal, and when it is close enough it uses the Doppler Effect to determine range and explode before contact is made. But for ABM, this does not apply. We only use this type of missile (PAC-2, GEM-C) against aircraft and cruise missiles. These we call "ABT" or "Air Breathing Threats". These are amazingly fragile, it does not take much to destroy a fuel or guidance line, severely damage a wing or other control surface, or to detonate any unused fuel in the tanks. In these targets, kinetic kill can actually be a disadvantage since there is a risk it might just punch through it and do no significant damage.

    But as I said, these are not used against missiles anymore. They rely upon kinetic force. There is no explosion.

    Yes, they are guided. This means small changes in direction. This does not mean acceleration however. And because it is in free-fall, these are very small adjustments once it enters it's final descent phase. And in fact, any adjustment in trajectory actually decreases it's speed fractionally. As velocity is exchanged for lateral distance.

    OK, now I want you to think about this very slowly and very carefully. Ready?

    I want you to imagine you are taking a 5 pound cannon ball to the top of the Tower of Pisa. But we are going to take it up there many different ways. First, we are going to run up the stairs with it. Then we are going to walk up the stairs with it. Then I want you to tie a bunch of balloons to it and float it up to the top at the rate of 10 feet per minute. Then finally, I want to use a very powerful air gun to shoot it up to the top in a matter of seconds. And each is to be held. That is the apogee, the maximum height.

    Now, I want you to release each of these cannon balls. Guess which one hits the ground first? In fact, feel free to have multiple people involved, so each ball hits apogee at the exact same instant if you like then starts it's descent.

    Guess what? Due to the Magic of Gravity, and because of the magic injected by Saint Newton and Saint da Vinci, each of the cannon balls will strike the ground at the same time!

    When you are discussing items in free-fall, velocity to reach the apogee of flight does not matter. I can hardly believe I am explaining such a basic thing yet again. The amount of thrust during flight does not matter at all, as once it passes apogee and starts it's descent phase it is only gravity that is pulling it down.

    IT IS A BALLISTIC ARC!

    Look, I know that technically this stuff is "rocket science", but I am trying to make it as stupid-simple as I can. If you can not understand that an object at apogee has almost zero downward momentum no matter how fast it was going before then, I really can not help you.
     
    US Conservative likes this.
  21. notme

    notme Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2013
    Messages:
    42,019
    Likes Received:
    5,395
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I already sourced that Russia claims their mach 27 missiles are not able to be hit.

    A computer can calculate all it wants. It can not physically move a missile to it's newest calculation.

    If that were so, than you're random 3rd world country would be able to knock out them missiles that countries like the US shoots at them. Truth is... it doesn't happen. It just doesn't.

    I showed you perfectly fine how that being a split second off means you missed the target by 100's of feet.

    It seems you do not understand the entire idea of propulsion and still think a missile is a thing that just drops out of the sky.

    I'm discussing missiles going up to mach 27.... that are laser guided or guided one way or an other, so NO FREE FALL. lol
    It seems you do not grasp that idea.
     
  22. Giftedone

    Giftedone Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2010
    Messages:
    63,708
    Likes Received:
    13,464
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Just annex the region like was done with Kosovo - or Russia with Crimea ..
     
  23. Mushroom

    Mushroom Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2009
    Messages:
    12,496
    Likes Received:
    2,421
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Which is not a ballistic missile, so does not apply. PATRIOT is not even designed to take out this kind of missile, so why you keep bringing it up over and over again makes absolutely no sense.

    Are you not aware that PATRIOT and other ABM systems use guided missile? So once again, big time fail.

    Sure they can, if they had access to these systems. At this time, only PATRIOT, THAAD, SM-2/3, S-300 and S-400 (with the newest updates) have that capability. And guess what? Some of them do have that capability. UAE, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Kuwait, China, Egypt, and a great many other countries do have that capability. Iran may have it, because although Russia did indeed sell them the S-300 system (and they have made copies of it themselves), they were not sold them the ABM package to go with it. So while the system is capable of intercepting ballistic missiles, unless they are able to develop their own software upgrades it will be unable to do so.

    However, that also brings up another factor. Iran does have 4 batteries of the S-300, for a total of 32 launchers. There are reports they have obtained some equipment from other sources, but it is thought that they do not have complete operating batteries, simply the launchers and control vehicles.

    That means a maximum of 4 locations they can defend, with 4 launchers each. Each location has a total of 8 launchers and 32 missiles. And after they expend those missiles, they then have to go down for between 1.5-6 hours to replace them. Yes they can double up launchers at an area, but that means leaving another area undefended.

    And here it becomes a chess game on both sides. For the US this is less of a problem, because each battery has 6 launchers with a total of 36 missiles. And the first launcher replaced is always the PAC-3 with it's full load-out of 16 missiles in less than an hour. Hence, it is much easier to sink a location defended by the S-300/400 than it is a location defended by PATRIOT. Total missiles on launchers and reload times are greatly reduced.

    But a country without those systems like S-400 or PATRIOT? Nope. But there is nothing preventing them from buying such systems. Most simply do not feel they need such systems as their potential adversaries are not likely to launch ballistic missiles at them. That is why say Brazil and Argentina do not have them. Neither of them feels like they need them. But nothing is stopping either of those nations from buying them.

    This also brings us to the final piece of the fail puzzle that you are attempting to build. And that is that the US does not use conventional ballistic missiles. We have not used them for decades (our last one was retired in 1989). So if a nation was considering building a missile defense system to use against the US, they do not even have to consider ABM defense. However, we are heavily invested in cruise missiles. And those types of missiles are the most difficult for ABM systems to target. They are designed to shoot up, not out. The systems and missiles have a hell of a time trying to hit a low flying threat.

    BTW, are you even aware of what a "Third World" country even is? Or that nations like Ireland, Switzerland, and Finland are all "Third World Nations", South Africa is a First World Nation, and China is a Second World Nation?

    Wow, yet again. Propulsion is used to get the missile and warhead to the apogee of it's trajectory. At that time the missile body falls away, and the warhead falls entirely via gravity. It no longer even has a propulsion system. By that time it is simply empty mass that adds drag and reduces the range.

    And the fail keeps on going.

    WHICH IS NOT A BALLISTIC MISSILE!

    Look, pick one or the other. You can not just switch back and forth at random. Apparently you seem to think they are both the same thing, because you keep interchanging them back and forth whenever it suits you. They are not the same thing, they are not even close. So stop already with this insane bouncing between the two and stick to just one or the other.

    No more than the German V-1 is the same as the V-2. The V-1 was a cruise missile, the V-2 was a ballistic missile. Until you understand that they are not the same thing, you will continue to come off as you have been. Somebody pointlessly arguing for the sake of arguing, with zero comprehension of what you are even trying to discuss.
     
    Badaboom and US Conservative like this.
  24. notme

    notme Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2013
    Messages:
    42,019
    Likes Received:
    5,395
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Does it look like I care.

    My point stands that your idea about missiles is that they just drop down without any trust or drag.

    I am well aware that Arab countries just buy their equipment. My point stands that if it would indeed be so easy, that any 3rd world country would be able to achieve this. And we all know it's not the case. And yeah... they have access to computers to calculate ballistics.

    Again... you claim it's easy, but about no country managed to develop such a system. We all know that. We also know that countries like Iran and NK keep on developing bigger faster weapons. That proves my point that such things matter to pierce through that shield.


    All you got now is that the US managed to shoot down Iraqi slow missiles with 1980 technology with their technology from 2000.
    "bravo".
     
  25. Dutch

    Dutch Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2010
    Messages:
    46,383
    Likes Received:
    15,488
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Yea, well. Every time I hear fables about Iranian might, I can't help but to picture this cute Persian in my head :D

    [​IMG]
     
    Last edited: Jan 20, 2020
    Mushroom and US Conservative like this.

Share This Page