Effect of X-ray laser

[Seggybop]

Assuming you made the nuclear bomb pumped X-ray laser that everyone likes so much, what kind of damage does it do? Assuming the bomb that powered it was 1kt. If it's fired from orbit at an empty field on the Earth, is there a massive explosion? Does it burn into the ground? What if you shoot a tank on Earth, or instead some target in space?

[SyntaxVorlon]

All that's left is dental records.
*prepares for inevitable flaming by the pun police.

[Joe]

The technology isn't feasible. I doubt it's even possible.

As far as NMD type stuff goes, the only thing that looks like it could possibly work is interceptors, and even that is questionable.

[Arrow]

Durran, can expand on that? A few weeks ago we had another thread about nuke pumped X-Ray lasers, and from the sound of it, the technology sounded be at least possible.

[Joe]

I had a book called Voodoo Science by Robert Park that explained this stuff pretty well, but I sold it, I wish I hadn't now. I think the theory is, aluminum particles are excited by a nuclear blast, emitting excited photons that are focused by a lens to destroy a target. This didn't work out in reality; the one test (in 1987) performed did not generate enough light to knock much of anything out of the sky. The Xray laser has been all but abandoned by the government, replaced by space-based interceptors missiles which have actually had some, but not much, success in reality. There have been three successful tests of such interceptor missiles, but when contrasted with the much larger number of failures that is not an impressive number. Even if such a system could be effectively developed, it could easily be overwhelmed by multiple warheads, advanced thruster technology, or submunitions breaking off from the main missile, carrying biological or chemical agents. The only practical application of missile defense technology seems to be knocking accidentally launched Russian missiles from the sky, and unless the success/failure ratio of these tests increases reasonably, that doesn't seem like much of a possibility, either.

[ClaysGhost]

X-ray lasers are certainly not impossible, but they are not bomb-pumped. Instead, free-electron devices are used, eg.

http://www.globaltechnoscan.com/11thDec ... _laser.htm

X-ray wavelength free electron lasers are quite a recent development.

[NecronLord]

The only practical application of missile defense technology seems to be knocking accidentally launched Russian missiles from the sky,

Wouldn't the Russians be able to remote destroy them en route in such a scenario anyway?

[Joe]

The only practical application of missile defense technology seems to be knocking accidentally launched Russian missiles from the sky,

Wouldn't the Russians be able to remote destroy them en route in such a scenario anyway?

Perhaps, I'm not too familiar with Russia's nuclear arsenal.

[phongn]

There have been three successful tests of such interceptor missiles, but when contrasted with the much larger number of failures that is not an impressive number.

The record is 5/7. If you want to go back further, Spartan and Sprint had high pKs as well. One failure was caused by a coolant leak and the second was caused by separation failure. Both issues appear to have been resolved.

For TBM defense, PAC-3 was successful in OIF and recent test runs have been good. I have no numbers as to the successes of THAAD and SM3 tests.

Even if such a system could be effectively developed, it could easily be overwhelmed by multiple warheads, advanced thruster technology, or submunitions breaking off from the main missile, carrying biological or chemical agents.

ABM grossly increases the complexity of a strike plan. You could overwhelm it on your first strike, but the cost of all those missiles is very expensive. (If you have n targets to kill on the first strike and the enemy has x ABMs, to ensure destruction, you need at minimum n*x RVs, and that's ignoring factors like reliability of your own missiles)

MARVs reduce the payload that each missile may fire (virtual attrition), active countermeasures reduce the payload (virtual attrition) and there are more effective ways to carry CBW agents than shoving it on top of an ICBM. Either the opfor deploys more missiles ($$) or fewer missiles with penetration aids - either way it's a win for the defender.

The only practical application of missile defense technology seems to be knocking accidentally launched Russian missiles from the sky, and unless the success/failure ratio of these tests increases reasonably, that doesn't seem like much of a possibility, either.

It seems like a very great possibility. In addition, it buys time for the NCA to decide whether to strike back or not - currently we have 20-odd minutes, which isn't much time at all. Furthermore, such a defensive system means that any potential aggressor might decided that it's not such a good idea to attack since the chance for success is much lower - an additional layer to deterrance.

[phongn]

Wouldn't the Russians be able to remote destroy them en route in such a scenario anyway?

Perhaps, I'm not too familiar with Russia's nuclear arsenal.

I find it unlikely that there's such a self-destruct mechanism on their warheads.

[Sea Skimmer]

Even if such a system could be effectively developed, it could easily be overwhelmed by multiple warheads, advanced thruster technology, or submunitions breaking off from the main missile, carrying biological or chemical agents.

Each of which eats up lots of weight that would otherwsie be payload. Victory for the defence without firing a shot.

[Joe]

The record is 5/7. If you want to go back further, Spartan and Sprint had high pKs as well. One failure was caused by a coolant leak and the second was caused by separation failure. Both issues appear to have been resolved.

For TBM defense, PAC-3 was successful in OIF and recent test runs have been good. I have no numbers as to the successes of THAAD and SM3 tests.

Are these tests recent, like post-2000? Only 3 of the 17 interception tests prior to 2000 were successful; most of these tests occured in the late 90's, after the Clinton administration reestablished funding for NMD.

[phongn]

Are these tests recent, like post-2000? Only 3 of the 17 interception tests prior to 2000 were successful; most of these tests occured in the late 90's, after the Clinton administration reestablished funding for NMD.

There have been seven tests for the NMD interceptor, total. Of that, five succeeded.

Where on Earth did you get the seventeen number from?

EDIT: Shit shit shit! I'm sorry, I missed something. There have been eight tests, not seven. Here's the relevant information

[Joe]

Visual (will screw up format if posted directly)

From here.

[phongn]

That image is blatantly misleading. It includes tests for other systems - we're talking NMD here (specifically the GMD component), and that's 5/8 (not 5/7 as I noted earlier - sorry, my mistake!). The current EKV didn't even have it's first flight test until 1997!

[Joe]

The image lists all U.S. tests of hit-to-kill missile defense systems prior to 2000; the fact that they weren't carried out under the name NMD is not relevant. Besides, even if every single test carried out was successful, that would not automatically translate over to being successful in reality. There's also the issue of decoy missiles, which could seriously impair the ability of a system to actually identify and destroy the true missile.

[phongn]

The image lists all U.S. tests of hit-to-kill missile defense systems prior to 2000; the fact that they weren't carried out under the name NMD is not relevant.

It is relevant, because we have no idea as to their seeker systems, boosters, warheads or anything else - only that the image claims 'hit-to-kill.' There's a huge difference between GMD, THAAD and PAC-3 and you can't simply do a 1:1 comparison.

Should I say that AIM-9X is a lousy missile if the R-73E does poorly in tests? After all, they're both heat-seeking thrust-vectored missiles - just like those tests are all hit-to-kill, right?

For that matter, why doesn't the image put in systems prior to 1980? Spartan was more than capable of hit-to-kill despite its 5MT warhead it carried aboard. Or for that matter, it may be listing a bunch of Patriot test failures which have been ironed out - PAC3 performed quite well in Operation Iraqi Freedom despite having numerous problems in testing.

Besides, even if every single test carried out was successful, that would not automatically translate over to being successful in reality. There's also the issue of decoy missiles, which could seriously impair the ability of a system to actually identify and destroy the true missile.

Decoy missiles are not cheap to come and cannot simply be procured in great numbers. Furthermore, the NMD does not intercept missiles, it intercepts warheads, and the US is quite apt at determining what is real from what is not. I also noticed that you ignored the issue of virtual attrition entirely regarding decoys.

[Joe]

Hmm, OK, you seem to know your shit pretty well on this. I withdraw my criticism.

[phongn]

Hmm, OK, you seem to know your shit pretty well on this. I withdraw my criticism.

There are some valid concerns - the production booster for the GMD appears to be badly behind schedule and it'll need some testing to iron out any kinks it may have - we're currently using modified Minutemans to boost the EKV up.