AEGIS ICBM defense thread

With V-man looking a little serious lately lets get a thread started to talk about the AEGIS ICBM defense program that is ran by the United States. What is PrepHole's thoughts on it, i think that it can help as a bit of a deterrent but at least some missiles will make it through regardless and you don't hear a lot about it because they haven't seemed to invest heavily into it.

  1. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Nobody has a clue about how thorough our ICBM defense systems are

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      /thread
      why anyone pretends they know any details on what is probably the most classified project in the black budget is beyond me

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Using high altitude nukes as an ABM defence always seemed like a good way to go (as long as you hardened civilian infrastructure to withstand the resulting EMP).

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        It doesn’t make sense to classify how effective missile defense systems are if there entire point is to deter nuclear attack.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          If you're confident that the enemy can't hit you, then there's no reason not to launch a first strike.

  2. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    ABM would only make a difference if most of the vatnik missiles fail to launch. We just don't have enough deployed interceptors to make a big difference.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      smoothbrain take

      the point of ABMs isn't to defeat every warhead, but to lower Pk enough that multiple warheads need to be used to reliably destroy a target that would otherwise only need one - meaning that you now have to target your limited number of warheads onto a smaller number of targets to ensure the high value targets are destroyed resulting in other targets not being serviced by any warhead and thus surviving

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        That would indeed work with the Chinese at the current time, as they only have a few hundred ICBM's, the Russians though have just shy of 6000 (that they are willing to admit to having), and even if vatnik conscript incompetence results in only 25% of those working you are still talking about thousands of warheads coming down.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >6000
          pk doesn't change, and neither do delivery vehicles. treaty limits have been in place for decades and if the us really thought russia was trying to pull a fast one they'd just pull out of the latest agreement like they did INF. it actually affects russia's strategic position far more as they always had a larger number of targets they would want to strike than china's explicit countervalue deterrent

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Russians have 6000 warheads, maybe 1200 in deployed, most of which are on their subs.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >most of which are on their subs.
            bro what if MOST of them are on their subs then by fucking cthulu did the russians built 130 more subs that we dont know about?

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >vatnik conscript incompetence
          or the economic inability to afford maintaining peak soviet union nuclear weapon stockpiles. you can't just stack nooks like they're boxes of 5.56 they cost fabulous amounts of money to maintain, money Russia hasn't had for decades.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >the Russians though have just shy of 6000
          they only have 1500 loaded in to launchers or bombs. the rest are verified in storage by US inspectors (in the 1990's there are stories of US weapons inspectors finding russian ICBM silos full of water, the missile completely submerged.) its the same for the US. about 1500 out of 5000 in total.
          ~1000 of russia's warheads are required to destroy the US silos. that leaves ~500 for all other US and NATO targets, really only 250 because you need at least 2 warheads to ensure a kill on a target, and 2-5 to ensure a kill on a large city.

          The reverse is not true however. the US has been deploying fully modern targeting hardware from experience with smart bombs and software that makes it possible to ensure a direct hit on a hard target thus on requiring one warhead.

          as it stands today, a nuclear war would not destroy the USA or NATO at all, and its likely that US and allies would retain enough warheads in a launch ready state to maintain deterrence with china.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Anon, if even 3-4 major u.s cities get turned into a crater there is going to be worldwide pandemonium and complete collapse. Russia will no longer exist, but no one is getting out of this unscathed. “Winning” a nuclear exchange is the definition of pyrrhic victory

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              >if even 3-4 major u.s cities get turned into a crater
              it would be a great depression to be sure but the nation would come out the other side. COG plans ensure that the government would not collapse and the EMP threat is overblown.
              and no city would be a "crater" Nukes have much better effect on soft targets like cities when they detonate in the air. the upside of this is that its relatively clean. reconstruction could start after a month, but its unlikely that cities would be directly targeted outside of DC. most damage incurred to cities would be ones with major naval bases or air bases.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            the new fusing system on american nuclear ballistic missiles are a huge lethality upgrade.
            we'd blow their silos
            >captcha: APART

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I think it's also important to remember that while the US continued to replace aging early warning satellites with newer and more modern systems (all sats have a fairly short operational window of 10-15 years), Russia didn't replace any satellites throughout the 90s to 2010s and the first satellites they put up to start patching up their constellation were leftover from the Soviet days. They only recently began creating a new constellation as the previous one had finally reached a point where it's failure was imminent and it's only 4 operational sats. Having such a lackluster detection force against a country with over 1000 warheads at sea capable of depressed trajectory shots is a very serious problem that cannot be handwaved away.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Some nerd could probably count the amount of fixed ground-based interceptor installations and then add to that a hypothetical amount of Aegis cruisers to make guesses on the amount of available interceptors. Midcourse ICBM interception has been demo'd, but the numbers game is quite poor since the interception happens after MIRV deployment, so you have a bunch of warheads and penaids to choose from. I think Russians also have a fairly free choice of attack trajectories and there aren't going to be cruisers in the north pole ready to intercept.

            >have 1500 warheads
            >have a reasonable chance of destroying a target, lets say 90%
            >can hit 1500 targets (realistically less as you double up on hardened targets like missile fields)
            >suddenly have to add in the chance that one of the high value targets won't be destroyed because of a warhead (or worse, a bus) is intercepted by a relatively small number of interceptors
            >you now have to allocate more warheads to those high value targets to ensure their destruction
            >meaning you have to pull warheads away from other secondary or tertiary targets that will now not be struck at all
            >you've effectively decreased the total number of warheads your opponent can use by simply adding a few interceptors to your force
            >WOW ABM DOES NOTHING
            smoothbrain indeed

            The math doesn't work out in your favor if the enemy doesn't commit to counterforce. If Russians choose to not attack missile silos and instead go for economic and population targets the amount of warheads that you can accept getting through is reduced. This would be sound strategy for Russians since a nuclear war is unwinnable for them either way, if they hypothetically manage to severely damage the US nuclear capacity, they are still vastly outmatched in a conventional war.

            In my opinion, nuclear war against Russia might be winnable, but would require NATO first strike. Depressed trajectory SLBM launches coupled with first strike from stealth aircraft could probably cripple Russian ICBMs. The only way I see this happening is if there's serious escalation and then glowies discover Russians are filling up their liquid fueled Satans

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              pretty decent take here, nobody ever takes into account the absolute ass raping russia would suffer given sufficient indications and warnings of an actual first strike. even if the initial preemptive strike were to be entirely conventional using cruise missiles and attack aircraft.

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              >Some nerd could probably count the amount of fixed ground-based interceptor installations and then add to that a hypothetical amount of Aegis cruisers to make guesses on the amount of available interceptors
              You also need to decide how much you want to make sure you take out an ICBM.

              For example, the GMD interceptors have only a 57% probability of kill with a single interceptor, so they plan to intercept a single ICBM with 4 interceptors, which increases the kill probability to 97%.

              We only have 44 GMD interceptors. That means we can hit 11 ICBMs with a 97% kill probability.

              I don't know the kill probability on SM-3 IIA, and we also have no idea how many SM-3 IIA they've manufactured to date, or where they're deployed for obvious security reasons. So it's basically impossible to say how many Aegis could intercept, but for the moment assume, not many.

              SM-3 has been tested against an ICBM simulation once, i can guarantee it isnt deployed

              I can basically 100% guarantee you that it is deployed.

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              You also wont be able to detect and track most of the missiles in time to launch an interceptor in the event of a full scale strike, its going to overwhelm everything

              This thread is full of copium

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >your massive international surveillance and intelligence apparatus won't know a strike is coming before the silos do
                >your massive constellations of surveillance sats won't see the giant IR signature of an ICBM launch vehicle.
                Copium indeed.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Whatever helps you sleep at night. If nuclear war happens, everyone is going to get hit, badly

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                no shit, the idea is to tip the scales enough that nobody feels good about trying some dumb shit.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >This thread is full of copium

                This isnt copium, its american self idolizing masturbatorium. Another case of mutt masturbatorium are those threads claiming that triangle ufos are american spacecraft.

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              >If Russians choose to not attack missile silos and instead go for economic and population targets the amount of warheads that you can accept getting through is reduced.

              >do a full counter value attack
              >leave your opponents forces completely unscathed
              >you now have no delivery systems as you just used them all while your opponent has everything and now has a reason to utterly destroy your population with zero fear of retaliation
              >btw your warheads still got intercepted and they have survivors while you have no interceptors to do the same for you

              5 billion IQ play

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Most of those are in storage. Treaties limit then far below that. Then you have to consider that every launch vehicle is at or past retirement date and they've been maintaining these on a tiny budget. Russian nuclear spending is 1.8% of US spending before you get into the theft or C&C issues with a launch

          I would guess a few dozen functional missiles could be launched during a first strike before counter fire begins to destroy their arsenal.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >Russians though have just shy of 6000 (that they are willing to admit to having)
          Not that I don't think we should plane for ridiculous worst case numbers and hope for the best, but honestly I'm starting to think that 6000 number is like the 10000 (nondescript) tanks they supposedly had before this war.

          How much of that number is functional? How much of that number are ones that are theoretically useable but in actuality aren't in any state of readiness because we only had so much fuel and oxidizer and fewer crews to deliver them to sites? How many are actually non-functional but are being reported as functional on a piece of paper so that someone doesn't get fired and Moscow can still bludgeon people with a number? How many have been retired and scrapped but again are kept on the books so that no one makes a stink? How many are new missiles that have installations assigned but have yet to actually deploy to those facilities, let alone be put into a state of readiness? How many warheads have actually been maintained?

          I don't doubt Russia has ICBMs but I really, really, really doubt they have 6000 ready to go at a moments notice when their budget is way smaller than the US missile command's is (and the US maintains fewer missiles, so that's another warning flag).

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Russia doesn't have 6,000 missiles lol, they have like 466, with 1,985 deployed warheads. 6,000 includes weapons in storage, nonstrategic, and defensive weapons. That said, I'm pretty certain their active stuff works; if any part of the Russian army actually works its that.

            https://thebulletin.org/premium/2022-02/nuclear-notebook-how-many-nuclear-weapons-does-russia-have-in-2022/

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              >defensive weapons
              defensive nuclear weapons?

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Many early ABMs used nuclear warheads rather than hit-to-kill systems. Russia's A-135 system, which protects Moscow, still has at least 12 nuclear-armed interceptors.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >A-135
                https://russianforces.org/blog/2012/10/very_modest_expectations_sovie.shtml
                don't rely on it

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Meant 68, not 12 lol

                >A-135
                https://russianforces.org/blog/2012/10/very_modest_expectations_sovie.shtml
                don't rely on it

                Even if they're removed from the interceptors, they're still warheads intended for defense, not on ICBMs, which was the point.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                The missile that system claims Mach 17 performance.

                Seems like bullshit though cause if they had that capability why aren't any of their offensive missiles using rockets that good?

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Most ICBMs hit Mach 25 upon reentry Anon. Ballistic missiles and cruise missiles are not the same.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                ...anon, the missile that defense system uses to shoot DOWN incoming ICBMs is claiming performance of Mach 17 and +210 G loads.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Yeah, that's not super unbelievable for a missile flying a ballistic trajectory (Which is what ABMs do). Energy is energy, if it's dispersed on the way up rather than on the way down, that's not a huge problem for rocket engines. It's expensive, but certainly believable, particularly since it's intended to intercept in the upper atmosphere. Soyuz is certainly capable of hitting mach 30 in flight, and while 210 g is large, it certainly isn't outside of the realm of possibility. Things are much simpler when you carry your own oxidizer and don't need to generate aerodynamic lift.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >Yeah, that's not super unbelievable for a missile flying a ballistic trajectory
                It's not a ballistic missile though. It's a 2-stage solid rocket interceptor with an 80-100km range, it clearly isn't a ballistic missile.

                Again, if they have a 2-stage rocket capable of Mach 17 going straight up, capable of intercepting an ICBM and pulling massive G loads, why the fuck has it never been implemented in an offensive rocket or air-to-air missiles?

                It's just not believable.

                An ICBM re-entering the atmosphere hitting Mach 20+ I can see, but a missile shooting straight up to intercept that Mach 20+ ICBM is capable of Mach 17? I fucking doubt it.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                A 2-stage rocket like this is flying a ballistic trajectory, even if it isn't a ballistic missile. This is different from something like an air-to-air missile, SAM, or a cruise missile, which need to generate aerodynamic lift or breathe air. It's most similar to ballistic missiles or other ABMs. For example, the American SM 3 IIA discussed elsewhere in this thread is billed as hitting mach 13 while fitting in a Mk 41 cell. There is no need to generate any aerodynamic lift or take in any air, this means that you can just use a stokes body and some fins, and go as fast as possible. As a non-military example, object placed in low earth orbit need to hit around mach 30, and objects going into interplanetary space need to get to around mach 35. I don't doubt that the Russians can launch satellites or missions to Venus, so this also seems reasonable to me.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                They tend to hit those speeds above the atmosphere though.

                In atmosphere they're not going anywhere near that fast.

                SpaceX rockets for example are only doing like 3-6km/s when they do main engine cut-off and booster separation.

                most of their actual speed comes later when they're above the atmosphere and can use a more efficient rocket without any atmosphere drag.

                A missile that is supposedly capable of intercepting an ICBM coming from orbit AND accurate enough to make precise high speed and high G load manoeuvres to intercept just seems outside of the realm of possibility for current rocket tech. I have to doubt it's performance in SOME aspects, if it is that fast, it probably isn't super manoeuvrable, and it's probably got a terrible probability of kill for an actual ICBM intercept.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                6 km/s is mach 18, and most rockets going to LEO never really "leave the atmosphere" per say, aerodynamic drag is still a significant factor on satellites in LEO and the principle cause of orbital decay. The Karman line is pretty arbitrary. ICBMs never make orbit, they're suborbital the whole way. Nuclear armed interceptors like the A-135 (And Nike Zeus, which was similar) aren't designed to get anywhere near "hit to kill"; IIRC they aren't even proxy fused and have no in-flight guidance; a Kalman filter sets the fuse and flight path on the ground and that's it. That works because the path of ballistic missiles is perfectly predictable, and once again, nuclear armed means anywhere near. Can't speak to centripetal acceleration in material terms, but it's pretty easily aerodynamically possible at those speeds. Yeah, Soviet expected Pk was very low, they expected only 7 MX missiles would be needed to overwhelm the system.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                > only 7 MX missiles would be needed to overwhelm the system.
                You have a source for this ? Thanks anon.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >A-135
                https://russianforces.org/blog/2012/10/very_modest_expectations_sovie.shtml
                don't rely on it

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >As a non-military example, object placed in low earth orbit need to hit around mach 30,

                Low earth orbit velocity at about 120 kilometers height is 7900 meters per second, or about mach 23. Escape velocity is about 12 000 meters per second (IIRC) or mach 35 (mach 1 at sea level is ~ 340 m/s).

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                A 2-stage rocket like this is flying a ballistic trajectory, even if it isn't a ballistic missile. This is different from something like an air-to-air missile, SAM, or a cruise missile, which need to generate aerodynamic lift or breathe air. It's most similar to ballistic missiles or other ABMs. For example, the American SM 3 IIA discussed elsewhere in this thread is billed as hitting mach 13 while fitting in a Mk 41 cell. There is no need to generate any aerodynamic lift or take in any air, this means that you can just use a stokes body and some fins, and go as fast as possible. As a non-military example, object placed in low earth orbit need to hit around mach 30, and objects going into interplanetary space need to get to around mach 35. I don't doubt that the Russians can launch satellites or missions to Venus, so this also seems reasonable to me.

                As a note here, the reason why ABMs can fly purely ballistically rather than aerodynamically is because ballistic missiles can't maneuver and have to follow a fixed trajectory, which means you don't have to do any sort of proportional navigation and can just kalman filter your way into an intercept.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >Again, if they have a 2-stage rocket capable of Mach 17 going straight up, capable of intercepting an ICBM and pulling massive G loads, why the fuck has it never been implemented in an offensive rocket or air-to-air missiles?

                It has a mass of 10 000 kilograms and you want to make an air 2 air missile out of it? A B-52 would be capable of carrying 2 or perhaps 3 of these missiles. Its designed to fit one purpouse only, terminal phase intercept of an incoming ICBM warhead, and its designed for that and only that. You clearly lack any form of engineering or natural science background.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Are you retarded? The Nike SPRINT abm could do zero to Mach 10 in 4 seconds with 1960s tech. Mach 17 isn't that ridiculous.

                That video isn't sped up

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                They shut this program down and retried all the SPRING missiles the day the missiles were deployed because the Russians just added more decoys to their MIRV payload rendering the entire project USELESS.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                What utter nonsense. It was canceled because the US wanted to stop another costly arms race so they signed the ABM treaty with the USSR which limited ABM deployment to a single site while also capping the number of ABMs to 100. The US kept their site where they were testing and the USSR put theirs around Moscow. The US finally got rid of their ABM arsenal because it was deemed to be meaningless simply due to the number of potential warheads both sides could launch rendered any ABM restricted to 100 missiles obsolete.

                It had nothing to do with the "spring" missile being made "USELESS" because of decoys.

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              No one expects to use it. It's a great target for theft and they've also be drastically underfunding it based on official figures. It's using all delivery systems at retirement date. I would think it's actually one of the least functional parts of the Russian military.

              We know for a fact that the US arsenal was in absolute shambles in the mid-2000s and its funding is close to the size of the entire Russian defense budget.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          1200 deployed at a time, half don't work so that makes 600
          Not that I want to entertain the thought of nuclear war but I know which side of the fence I'd rather be on

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Congratulations, 80 of the 100 largest cities and 100% of military bases are smoking craters.
        Good work ABMs.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          when the alternative is 200/100 of the largest cities, unironically yes, good job ABMs

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            you literally have no idea about the scales and magnitude of things regarding a potential nuke exchange between usa and russia...
            it doesnt matter how many abms gmds you have in order to ensure an actual interception you probably gonna launch 2-4 for each icbm and thats in a good day ...
            simply put if the first doesnt make it on target there are probably 30 more going on the same target and 10 more just to be sure
            thats just how much of a difference doesnt make

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              >there are probably 30 more going on the same target and 10 more just to be sure
              For the most priority targets, probably true, but there are certainly not enough warheads to paint EVERY target with multiple warheads to that extent.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                i mean warheads not actual icbms
                for anyone wondering how a direct attack will look alike and just how fast everthing will end

                25 seconds from re entry to target thats literally all you have to say your goodbyes

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              >just send 40 more warheads to the same target
              >it's a good thing i don't have a finite number of warheads that are deliverable via ballistic missile and don't have to sacrifice striking forty other targets just to ensure this single target is killed

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >have 1500 warheads
          >have a reasonable chance of destroying a target, lets say 90%
          >can hit 1500 targets (realistically less as you double up on hardened targets like missile fields)
          >suddenly have to add in the chance that one of the high value targets won't be destroyed because of a warhead (or worse, a bus) is intercepted by a relatively small number of interceptors
          >you now have to allocate more warheads to those high value targets to ensure their destruction
          >meaning you have to pull warheads away from other secondary or tertiary targets that will now not be struck at all
          >you've effectively decreased the total number of warheads your opponent can use by simply adding a few interceptors to your force
          >WOW ABM DOES NOTHING
          smoothbrain indeed

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            don't concern yourself with these takes, they're essentially the same as
            >stealth is useless because they aren't literally invisible to all radar at all ranges.

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              Patting yourself on the back for intercepting 40 missiles while 100 million + people die is effectively useless. Stop overdosing on copium

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                1/10, you got a reply, this will be the last one.

                btw, I'm keeping the (You).

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                those 40 missiles could have killed a lot more.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >those 40 missiles could have killed a lot more.

                A more likely outcome is that most of these 40 missiles will be spent on blowing up a decoy instead of a warhead.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            You have the smoothest brain of all. Counterforce isn't practical, it was dismissed by Mcnamara decades ago. Here's the truth: the official doctrine of nuclear powers is to commit mass genocide in a nuclear war. The psychological basis of MAD is an unthinkable loss. So even if say, 20, warheads get through, that's enough to wipe out Washington DC, New York, Austin, Houston, LA, Chicago, San Francisco, Philly, Phoenix etc.

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              Correct. Nuclear weapons are terror weapons

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              >it was dismissed by Mcnamara
              Lol

              >the official doctrine of nuclear powers is to commit mass genocide
              Lmao

              >an unthinkable loss
              >wipe out Washington DC, New York, Austin, Houston, LA, Chicago, San Francisco, Philly, Phoenix etc.
              Rofl

              Conclusion: roflmao post

  3. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Aegis as it stands currently is not capable of defending the entire US against ICBMs.

    GMD in Alaska/California similarly isn't capable of intercepting more than a dozen or two dozen ICBMs at most realistically.

    At best with both systems we could probably intercept ~30-40 ICBMs but we'd still likely miss a few.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Stopping few ICBMs save lots of lives.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >30-40 ICBMs
      against Russia, given their performance and the state of their material readiness, 30-40 intercepts might be enough to blunt the majority of the attack.

  4. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    the ICBM test intercept passing was interesting, sadly threads on PrepHole about ABM systems rarely make it past 40 posts since most people don't know much about them
    ABM systems also get in the way of the common prepper/LARPer's fantasy of nukes bringing the apocalypse they've been praying for, so the threads are always muddied by a group of posters so delusionally insistent on missile defense being outright useless that you'd think they were foreign posters if their english was any worse

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Those posters are right. ICBM interceptors are incredibly inadequate and the only one thats actually been proven (under heavily favorable test conditions) is only deployed in about 30-40 locations. You simply cannot cover a landmass the size of the u.s or europe with them

      If nuclear weapons start flying, a lot of people are going to die.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Right on time with the cringeposting.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous
    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      I did heaps of research on ABM systems and my conclusion is that they don't really work. Too easy to chuck more decoys into a MIRV'd ICBMs payload and that's that. Maneverable re-entry vehicles. Etc.

      There is no defence against nuclear weapons. The posters that claim that US ABM would stop a large portion of incoming strikes (lol) seem keen to ignore the damage just one or two weapons getting through would cause. And realistically I think most of them are getting through.

  5. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    If we managed to sink all the Borei and Delta subs on patrol (which I doubt we have tabs on all of them) and eliminate a sizeable number of Russian silos in a first strike it's conceivable that ICBM defenses could be sufficent to put a dent in whatever is launched. However it turns out intercepting something flying at 10 times the speed of sound is really it difficult, and intercepting 100 or 500 of them is essentially impossible.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >borei and delta
      >on patrol

      since 2020, russia ramped up their SSBN deployment to 1 deployment per year, meaning that outside of dock there's roughly 2-3 at sea at any time. this is actually a huge step up considering that prior to that is was only a single boat out of dock at any time and in the 90s and 2000s it was 2 at sea per year. russia is not even a shadow of what the soviet union was

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      if you use the 1200 deployed number 100 intercepts would only be about an 8% intercept rate. I don't think that is entirely unbelievable.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >subs on patrol
      they dont patrol. they do sorties. its part of the reason the US could always track them in the cold war.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >However it turns out intercepting something flying at 10 times the speed of sound is really it difficult,

      An ICBM warhead approaches at just short of 8000 meters per second, which is over 20 times the speed of sound. With conventional warheads it takes several defending missiles to reliably take down one warhead and since its not feasible to distinguish between decoys and real warheads until they have started to enter the atmosphere MIRV and MRV interception will have to be handled in the last 30 seconds of warhead approach and it has to be done from relatively near the intended target.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Only for terminal phase attack. If you get it in boost phase you only need one interceptor.

  6. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Aegis (which is not an acronym) is not currently capable on intercepting ICBMs. The current anti-ballistic missile used by the Aegis system, the RIM 161 Standard Missile 3 Block II (RIM-161D), is only capable of interception of up to intermediate-range ballistic missiles. This means that it's capable of theater missile defense, capable of intercepting Russian missiles like Tochka and Iskander, or the cavalcade of various Chinese short, medium, and intermediate range missiles (B-611, DF-11, DF-12, DF-15, DF-16, DF-17, DF-21, and DF-26) including the DF-21D anti-ship ballistic missile. It is not at present capable of intercepting any ICBMs, though testing for the next interceptor variant (RIM 161 Standard Missile 3 Block IIA, presumably designated RIM-161E), adds anti-ICBM capability and has been successfully tested, it has not yet been deployed.

    The actual ICBM-capable ABM system currently used by the United States, the Ground-Based Midcourse Defense system has only 44 interceptors active, with a 56% intercept rate. It is intended not to deter foes like Russia or China with many missiles, but ones like North Korea and Iran, which have only one or two. This system should provide little to no deterrence to Russia (Which is what I assume you're asking about), which currently fields 1,985 warheads on 466 ICBMs and SLBMs. Optimistically, GMD can only intercept 2% of these.

    In summary, current US missile defense systems are not designed to defend from a peer or near-peer adversary, only from nuclear blackmail from rogue states. While Aegis may eventually develop into a BMD system that can deter China and Russia, at present it has no anti-ICBM capability.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >Aegis (which is not an acronym) is not currently capable on intercepting ICBMs.
      That's incorrect, it's designed to be used against ICBMs in the mid course phase.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        No it isnt. Youre thinking of IRBMs

        ICBMs are unique in that they leave the atmosphere, aim, and then send meter long warheads hurtling back down at you at mach 23. Thats what makes them so incredibly difficult to kill

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >ICBMs are unique in that they leave the atmosphere
          Do you know what "exoatmospheric interceptor" means?

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Powerpoint flows right to left
            >English speaking audience
            Only in the DOD

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          sm-3 does contain a exoatmospheric interceptor

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Your own image disagrees with you, but if you want to maintain this argument go for it.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Aegis can certainly track ICBMs, it just at present has no interceptor capable of intercepting them. SM 3 IIA is the first capable of intercepting ICBMs, and it isn't deployed yet.
        https://www.defensenews.com/opinion/commentary/2020/11/21/successful-sm-3-weapons-test-offers-missile-defense-opportunity/

        your picrel literally depicts aegis targeting an ICBM.

        The image literally says block IIA, which is the forthcoming interceptor I talked about in the post.

        The SM-3 IIA has not officially been confirmed to have been deployed or in service, but it almost certainly has been, they just don't want to talk about it for obvious reasons.

        If I had to guess we probably have ~200-300 SM-3 IIA spread between Europe, Japan, and the various US Aegis DDGs.

        Per GAO only 3 were delivered last year out of 7, testing is incomplete

        https://www.gao.gov/assets/730/721348.pdf#page=21

        block 2a were designed to kill icbms - successful test was conducted in 2020 - but keeping in mind that aegis is pretty widespread (there are around 100 systems deployed) each sporting multiple tubes its possible that US has or will have hundreds or more icbm interceptors in near future

        This is likely true, but again, IIA is not in service yet

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >IIA is not in service yet
          why would they advertise if it was?

          This would be black-budget shit for at least the first few years until we have enough interceptors in the field that it doesn't matter if it's public or not.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            It's literally not a black project, it has an open GAO report about delivery and testing status that I linked in the above post

            https://www.gao.gov/assets/730/721348.pdf#page=21

            3 of 7 planned interceptors delivered in 2021, behind schedule. 7 more tests are scheduled before acceptance. IB is in service, though deployment is also delayed.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          > MDA officials said SM-3 Block IIA deliveries are in progress.

          Literally, the sentence after discussing the various SM-3 IIA production issues and the production halt specifically talks about delivers are in progress. And the report ends in 2021, we've had 9 months of 2022 now where deliveries were possible. And this is also assuming the GAO report isn't bullshit in the first place, it wouldn't be the first time government reports have covered up shit like this.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            > MDA officials said SM-3 Block IIA deliveries are in progress.

            4 of the 7 scheduled lol, with 7 flight tests and 6 ground tests outstanding before acceptance. Pretty sure they haven't delivered the test missiles, gotten a CtF, and fielded any significant quantity of missiles in the last 9 months. Obviously the report ends at the end of 2021; they're annual. It takes significantly longer than 6 months to bring a new weapon system of this size from testing to full rate production. Pretty confident it's legit; not certain how familiar you are with the defense acquisition process but project that are fielded on a large scale like the SM 3 (Requiring deployment on ~60 sites with plenty of uncleared personnel running around, requiring maintenance from not necessarily cleared personnel) are going to be unclass, with CUI on actual deployments and class on processes.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      your picrel literally depicts aegis targeting an ICBM.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      The SM-3 IIA has not officially been confirmed to have been deployed or in service, but it almost certainly has been, they just don't want to talk about it for obvious reasons.

      If I had to guess we probably have ~200-300 SM-3 IIA spread between Europe, Japan, and the various US Aegis DDGs.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        SM-3 has been tested against an ICBM simulation once, i can guarantee it isnt deployed

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >i can guarantee SM-3 isnt deployed
          you have absolutely zero idea what you're talking about

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >source: my ass

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      block 2a were designed to kill icbms - successful test was conducted in 2020 - but keeping in mind that aegis is pretty widespread (there are around 100 systems deployed) each sporting multiple tubes its possible that US has or will have hundreds or more icbm interceptors in near future

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      just look at the cope in response to this detailed analysis. People refuse to accept that USA is just as vulnerable to nuclear holocaust as anyone else. And russia has the weapons pointed at you.

      Cope cope cope... it's sad really. And this has been the case for US mentality since Russians developed the bomb I guess. A century of cope. Good thing our leaders know better.

  7. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    so.....Aegis good? or bad

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Good, we just need SM-3 IIA to be brought into service and mass-produced, which should happen within the next ~10 years.

      Japan believes it is good enough to build two 20,000-ton Aegis ships.

  8. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Don't let the thread die, its almost to 100 replies and no hohol/vatnik retards shitting it up. Give me more missile defense babe.

  9. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >ABM systems utterly shit the bed with anything but the most rigged of interception tests
    >"heh, nuclear war is no big deal goyim, we should first strike russia!"

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Neutron bomb abms work great, they just create almost as much fallout as the nuke they're intercepting. See: SPRINT

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Isn't part of the ABM system around Moscow nuclear interceptors? Or am I confused

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Maybe? I think nuclear ABM systems might have been banned by treaty, actually. They use simple low yield fission warheads though so it's not like it would be hard to hide their production. American ABM systems supposedly rely on kinetic kill of the missile before the MIRVs separate but it would also be really easy to strap a small warhead to one so who fucking knows. American and Russian ABM tests are some of the most secret stuff that our respective militaries do.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Maybe? I think nuclear ABM systems might have been banned by treaty, actually. They use simple low yield fission warheads though so it's not like it would be hard to hide their production. American ABM systems supposedly rely on kinetic kill of the missile before the MIRVs separate but it would also be really easy to strap a small warhead to one so who fucking knows. American and Russian ABM tests are some of the most secret stuff that our respective militaries do.

          Here's some videos of american kinetic kill vehicle tests. Even if they don't work they're cool as fuck

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      so why is russia seething at it then

  10. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Isn't the US Navy working on a laser defence system that can shoot down ICBMs and SLBMs?

  11. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Helpful text on US BMD performance from a similarly-themed thread not too long ago:

    AEGIS:

    Raytheon's Ballistic Missile Defense Systems: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ae5VmVwfWmk

    Aegis Ashore Missile Intercept(SM-3 Block IIA): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e9BJ_3uklVk&t

    USS John Finn (DDG-113) Missile Intercept(SM-3 Block IIA): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gwJ9c6ZSyqI

    USS LAKE ERIE (CG 70) Missile Intercept(SM-3 Block IIA): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tpX0EwO5SkE

    USS LAKE ERIE (CG 70) Satellite shoot down(SM-3 Block IB): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UahioUnMHHc

    Here take your pick, we have many: https://www.youtube.com/user/AegisBMD/videos

    THAAD:

    A THAAD in Alaska intercepted a missile launched just north of Hawaii. Flight Test THAAD (FTT)-18: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WGEdLW5ddcE

    THAAD Terminal High Altitude Area Defense missile system 14th TEST: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S65JESDwUTU

    The U.S. Missile Defense Agency, Ballistic Missile Defense System Operational Test Agency, and U.S. Army soldiers of the E-62 Battery, 11th Air Defense Artillery Brigade, conducted an intercept test of the THAAD. This was flight test THAAD-23 on August 30, 2019: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D0zqSUqUuCI

    Ground Based Interceptor (GBI)

    MDA video of their test of the Ground-Based Midcourse Defense's (GMD) Ground Based Interceptor (GBI) upgraded booster vehicle: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mtzVC4LXtsE

    Anti-Ballistic Ground Based Interceptor Missile Knocks Out Intercontinental Ballistic Missile: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S5dXTUhPwB8

    FTG 06b Missile Defense Test GBI Test 2014: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-2r_ZKTBmcQ

    Two-Stage GBI Test, June 6, 2010: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IE_1_Wd5fa8

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Too bad SM-3 IIA isn't operational and THAAD wasn't designed for ICBM intercepts.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      You're the first person to bring up Aegis ashore. It's got to be concerning for Russia that Poland just came online.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Until they have SM-3 IIA/B what does it matter?

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          You can keep telling yourself that they don't have them but they do, hundreds of them right on your doorstep in Romania and Poland. Mach 8 out of the launcher, ready to intercept in minutes.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            They don't.

            Even in the best case scenario and they ARE deploying pre-production SM-3 IIA, they can't have more than a few dozen at MOST.

            And frankly, I doubt they have them deployed at all.

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              >they don't have them

              >they have a few dozen

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                IF they have any, it's a few dozen at MOST.

                According to public record they made like 3 or 4 of a planned 7 in 2021.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Block IIA is supposed to be Mach 13 lol, you’re definitely thinking of IB.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Russia is likely not planning all out strategic nuclear war against the west, but tactical nuclear war against Ukraine. Aegis ashore is capable of intercepting Russia’s nuclear-armed Iskander IRBMs if it comes to that. While escalation is an obvious risk, neither we nor the Russians have ever intended to jump straight to global nuclear war since the late ’60’s, preceding it with tactical and theatre use.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Defense contractor youtube channels have a lot of kino content on them

  12. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >you don't hear a lot about it because they haven't seemed to invest heavily into it.
    Both Japan and the US seem to be happy with Aegis BMD ships. The US as of 2017 had 33 Aegis BMD ships, the long term 30 year strategic plan the navy did in 2015 called for ~80-97 Aegis BMD ships by 2043. We already know the next Destroyer class will likely focus on this role.
    Japan operates I believe 8 Aegis BMD ships; the four Kongo-class, two Atago-class, and two Maya-class, though the Maya-class is the only to have Aegis BMD from day 1, the other were upgraded after the fact.
    Japan also announced plans for two 20,000-ton Aegis BMD ships in 2027/28.

    It's probably just not talked about by the public because talking about a system designed to intercept nuclear missiles gets people thinking about nuclear missiles which isn't very fun for most people.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >33 Aegis ships

      Lolwut? Every Burke class ship has Aegis. The US fields 89 Aegis ships

      I did heaps of research on ABM systems and my conclusion is that they don't really work. Too easy to chuck more decoys into a MIRV'd ICBMs payload and that's that. Maneverable re-entry vehicles. Etc.

      There is no defence against nuclear weapons. The posters that claim that US ABM would stop a large portion of incoming strikes (lol) seem keen to ignore the damage just one or two weapons getting through would cause. And realistically I think most of them are getting through.

      This analysis is retarded. "Decoys" other than lightweight geometric deflectors make no sense, since the expensive part is the missile, not the nuke. Geometric deflectors have been easy to discriminate against for literally thirty years using IIR terminal guidance. Maneuverable re-entry vehicles are not only not fielded on the vast majority of ballistic missiles, but impractical to install for countries like Russia. Current ABM is insufficient to defend from major ballistic missile attacks, but prospective systems like the multiple kill vehicle or even a modern Brilliant Pebbles make sense as large-scale ABM concepts.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Not every Aegis ship is equipped for Aegis BMD.

  13. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    something about men in a room awash with gasolene arguing whom holds the most matches

    americans are truly retarded beyond saving. "we would stop most of the missiles, then russia would pay!" they would sacrifice a dozen populated cities just to strike at some 3rd world shithole? Pathetic, retarded..

Your email address will not be published.