Re: ICBM warheads
From: john-locke (john-locke_at_ntlworld.com)
Date: 12/02/04
- Next message: sanman: "Bipedal Locomotive Vehicle"
- Previous message: Abrigon Gusiq: "Re: Telepresence Android Scout/Commando"
- In reply to: George: "Re: ICBM warheads"
- Next in thread: Paul F Austin: "Re: ICBM warheads"
- Reply: Paul F Austin: "Re: ICBM warheads"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
To: sci-military-moderated@moderators.isc.org Date: Thu, 02 Dec 2004 13:19:21 GMT
"George" <Geodanah@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:7c28d4ba.0411222210.7bd78b23@posting.google.com...
> "john-locke" <john-locke@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:<5iRnd.478$%92.427@newsfe1-gui.ntli.net>...
> > "Ian Stirling" <root@mauve.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> > news:419df3f7$0$557$ed2619ec@ptn-nntp-reader03.plus.net...
> > > Dirk Bruere at Neopax <dirk@neopax.com> wrote:
> > > > How are the warheads of ICBMs triggered for an air burst?
> > > > Presumably they are coming in at several thousand mph and are plasma
> > sheathed so
> > > > radar won't work.
> > >
> > > Inertial navigation.
> > > Basically just measuring the accellerations that the warhead
undergoes,
> > and
> > > working out the position from these accellerations.
> > > Because of the short time that the warhead is in the atmosphere,
> > > (10-20 seconds?) this bit of guidance does not need to be very
accurate.
> > > I suspect even a $2 car airbag type sensor (50G +-0.5G) might do, with
a
> > > LEP of around 1Km.
> > > That's probably a bit much, but you're only looking at maybe an order
and
> > > a half of magnitude better than that, nothing challenging compared to
the
> > > navigational accuracy needed for the bus.
> >
> > This is all very well, however, with fail-safe measures such a
presidential
> > counter command facilities, I would have given some thought that this
> > detonation or device burst would have been implimented via satellite
relay
> > through GPS sats to the missile warhead on-board computer to greet it,
then
> > give it correct orders. I would have thought that sats would have more
> > input, than in previous (Cold War era) times.
> >
> > John Locke.
>
>
> Satellites are too vulnerable, especially in a nuclear war. A high
> powered laser, Soviet ASAT satellites, high altitude nuclear bursts,
> there are a lot of ways to kill them, so you don't want to depend on
> them for your doomsday weapon like an ICBM.
That might make sense, but I was always told by folks inside military &
electronic circles, that ICBM vehicles were specially designed to take a
"fail safe" command to "disarm" to the last few seconds of final descent arc
were imminent to the target GZ - that it was possible to either block the
initiating charge or U 238 block from being sent towards the core of the
device to initiate its burst. These people seemed adament that they would
not have any problem in sending a counter-command of the "fail-safe" type to
the ICBM vehicle en route. I can understand that someone could try to block
such a command, but the same counter - command would effect the burst of a
small nuke munitions device (a.k.a. "Samsonite" bombs), as it takes a
Presidential authorisation for both to start.
John :Locke.
- Next message: sanman: "Bipedal Locomotive Vehicle"
- Previous message: Abrigon Gusiq: "Re: Telepresence Android Scout/Commando"
- In reply to: George: "Re: ICBM warheads"
- Next in thread: Paul F Austin: "Re: ICBM warheads"
- Reply: Paul F Austin: "Re: ICBM warheads"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
