SpaceX's Dragon capsule captured by ISS

[Joseph Chikva]

Even if you have a independent warhead, you still have a limited number of trajectories from point A to point B. Once an ICBM is going somewhere, it's on one road, and once a radar or other tracking system sees it, you'll know where it is well enough to put a terminally guided munition in it's path. It's just calculus after all.

All of the decoys and junk they talk about making it harder were thought up in the 50s and 60s as well, and the only decoy that can defeat an ABM system is another actual warhead. MRVs and MIRVs were dealt with too, this isn't some mystical science, you just have to study a bit.

I am afraid to surprise you but every additional false target will be visible on the radar screen as real and will demand additional (not one) missile for its interception.
Also Russians claim that their two newest missiles (tactical Iscander and IRBM TOPOL) do not fly at ballistic trajectory but make maneuvrs with high-g (claimed that 30g for Iscander). And for interception with acceptable probability of such agile object you nead that your interceptor would provide at least 60g. As I know patriot PAC-3 provides 40g.

[kunkmiester]

Anything less than another warhead will fly different. You still have atmosphere up by the space station, balloons will drag, pieces of missile will tumble, etc. Anything short of the size, shape and weight of an RV will be easily distinguished from a real warhead, and ignored. And if you have something the same size, shape and weight, you might as well have another warhead.

Besides which, how much do decoys cost in weight and money? Your new missiles are nice, and it's rather clear that they're not exactly "ballistic" missiles, but still, they cost a lot more I'm sure, which is part of the point. You're adding cost, complexity, and numbers to what's needed to accomplish the mission. Can you still afford the mission?

[Joseph Chikva]

Anything less than another warhead will fly different.

I did not hear about missile defence system selecting warhead from false target. As I know what flies at about 5000 m/s, "+" and "-" and predicting falling point of which is US terrytory have to be destroied.

Besides which, how much do decoys cost in weight and money? Your new missiles are nice, and it's rather clear that they're not exactly "ballistic" missiles, but still, they cost a lot more I'm sure, which is part of the point.

I didn't weigh and didn't pay for these missiles. And those are not mine. As I am Georgian and not Russian.
Today Russians are enemies of my country and so my enemies. But statement that they do not know how to make accurate missiles is wrong.
Though General Designer of SS-20 ICBM and predecessor of a present TOPOL-M the missile SS-25 TOPOL was Georgian. His name was Alex Nadiradze: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Nadiradze

[ladajo]

Oh Joseph. Noone said they could not make "accurate" missiles. Just that they were not as "accurate" as other non-russian systems. Particularly those of the US.
Your extremely simplistic and uniformed view of ICBM guidance limits any ability to discuss your misconceptions. You really have no idea how they guide. I will also add that your proposed "guidance" methodology is frought with complexity that you do not understand. Again, tossing something to the other side of the world to a point target at sub-orbital or almost orbital speeds is not the same as tossing a short range round 20 or so miles.

As far as maneuverability and decoys. They are not all they are cracked up to be. One consideration not already mentioned is the concept that you must boost a single package. And, that package stays single until it reches a certain point in its arc exo-atmospheric. Achieving 30G manuevers in vacuum and near vacuum is pretty darn impressive. I'd like to see the system that can sustain that.
As already pointed out, decoys are great until you think of them as a multispectral object. And, once you make a decoy that is fully equal in all spectrums to a real item, you may as well toss a real item. I not speak further on this item as once again, you are way out of your depth.

Missile defense is currently operated in the mid-course and terminal phases of the targets. Boost phase is still being worked on, but at least one functional option was demonstrated, and that was ABL. Mid-course and terminal has been demo'd succesfully a number of times.
Enough that any shooter looking to toss only a few weapons (because that may be all he has), knows his mission is at a significant increased risk. This is the entire point that seems to escape you. It is not about an imprenable magical shield, it is all about complicating his math outcomes to the point he determines he must commit siginificantly higher levels of resources that he may not be able to achieve or sustain.

As far as hitting silos before they launch. Another point of the final stages of the cold war that seems to have escaped you is the entire concept of SLCM, Surface LCM and ALCM. This particular capability was way ahead of they soviet systems and they knew it. The SLCM in particular was one that they had no realistic defense against other than the hope that it was picked up in time to launch. It was also the primary thing they bitched about at every arms meeting. They considering it a viable first strike decapitation system and it gave them great fits for planning. The fact that essentially any and every US warship could be equipped with multiple cruise missles that had the ability to evade air defense radars and were equipped with pin-point accuracy and strike timing control was frightening if you were on the other end of this large bundle of nuclear tipped spears. They really tried to catch up with their own but never really got there.

Now also consider the fielding of Ohio class submarines and the Trident D-5 MIRV system around 1990. The D-5 is capable of up to 12 W76s, giving a single submarine the ability to hit 288 targets. D-5 flight times and CEP are sufficient to cause great worry about the counter-force/first strike success rates. Now tie that with a timed CM stealth strike, and you have a big headache. That headache translates into ever more requirements for more systems, more weapons, more resource expenditure that the Soviets finally admitted they could not sustain resource expenditures (publically) nor meet performance requirements (not so publically). There is a rumor floating around that in the midst of pressuring the Soviets, that Reagan handed them copies of their own test and development data on significant systems that showed much higher failure rates and lack of performance than advertised. It was basically a, "we know you aren't what you say you are, but be assured we are what we say we are..." moment.

[Joseph Chikva]

Your extremely simplistic and uniformed view of ICBM guidance limits any ability to discuss your misconceptions. You really have no idea how they guide.

Is ICBM guidance not inertial?
If yes, and that is inertial on what accuracy is dependent? Not on perfomance of inertial sensors?

Achieving 30G manuevers in vacuum and near vacuum is pretty darn impressive. I'd like to see the system that can sustain that.

Very similar to how high g is achieved e.g. in ERINT (Extended Range Interceptor) anti-missile of Patriot PAC-3 system.
Diagrame is in Russian, so "Газодинамические рули" is translated as "Gasodynamic steers"

I found that in English this is called Attitude Control Motors
And this system will work well independently to where is the missile - in atmosphere or in vacuum

Attitude Control Motors
The ERINT-1 missile uses an array of small,
radially positioned, rapid firing, solid
propellant motors for terminal agility. The
Attitude Control Section (ACS) for the ERINT-1
missile is illustrated in Figure 6. The ACS
contains 180 solid propellant Attitude Control
Motors (ACMs) that thrust perpendicular to the
centerline of the missile to provide pitch and yaw
control during the homing phase. The ACMs are
spaced evenly around the centerline of the missile
in rings containing 18 motors. There are 10 rings
in the ACS in the longitudinal direction for a
total of 180 motors. The ACMs are commanded by
the Motor Fire Circuit (MFC). The MFC is
fabricated on flexprint and encapsulated within
the inner core of the ACS. The impulse of the
ERINT-1 ACM is 51.15 N-S (11.5 lb-sec) with a
maximum thrust of 6000 N (1350 lbs).
A cross section of the ERINT-1 ACM is also
illustrated in Figure 6. The propellant for the
ERINT-1 ACM is the same as the FLAGE ACM, but the
amount is increased and the motor case is
graphite/epoxy instead of titanium to reduce motor
weight and production costs. The motor is
fabricated by casting the propellant in an
aluminum motor cone and winding the graphite/epoxy
composite around the motor cone.

[ltgbrown]

the fielding of Ohio class submarines and the Trident D-5 MIRV system around 1990

I was on that first deployment as a midshipmen. Earned my sub pin and stood Diving Officer of the Watch for the surfacing at the end of the deployment.

Everyone on the crew was very excited about the missile and what it brought to the game. What was really interesting was all the navigation systems on the ship to support the missiles. Impressive for 1990. Much simpler today.

Joseph, you don't know what you are talking about.

[Joseph Chikva]

the fielding of Ohio class submarines and the Trident D-5 MIRV system around 1990

I was on that first deployment as a midshipmen. Earned my sub pin and stood Diving Officer of the Watch for the surfacing at the end of the deployment.

Everyone on the crew was very excited about the missile and what it brought to the game. What was really interesting was all the navigation systems on the ship to support the missiles. Impressive for 1990. Much simpler today.

Joseph, you don't know what you are talking about.

Less interesting for me are your feelings.
I believe that to see on all those man's big toys would be impressively. But this is only phallic symbols.
I am asking once again. Guidance system and submarine navigation inertial or not inertial?

[Joseph Chikva]

Joseph, you don't know what you are talking about.

I am talking about this:

The intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) and submarine-launched strategic missiles developed over the past 50 years have employed successive generations of increasingly accurate inertial guidance systems. The comparatively short time of guided flight and high acceleration levels characteristic of the ballistic missile application place a premium on accelerometer performance to achieve desired weapon system accuracy. Currently, the U.S. strategic missile arsenal relies on variants of the pendulous integrating gyro accelerometer (PIGA) to meet the high-performance, radiation-hard requirements of the weapon system.
Likewise, precision navigation systems such as the currently deployed SSBN ship inertial navigation systems (SINS) employ highly specialized and complex electromechanical instruments that, like the PIGA, present a system life-cycle cost and maintenance challenge.
The PIGA and the electromagnetic accelerometer (EMA) demonstrate unsurpassed performance, however, their life-cycle cost has motivated a search for a high-performance, solid-state, strategic accelerometer.

And stating that missile's accuracy depends on sensors' perfomance.
Also I am stating that by dramatic improvement of technology (especcially electronics) in several last decades very likely that perfomance of unattainable to others became available to all. At least Russians claim very high accuracy of their newest two ballistic missiles and they produce e.g. PIGA accelerometers themselves.
So, "our CEP was never beatten" is BS statement. As well as your feelings. I am sure that Russian sailors launching bigger in size missiles feel the same. But that means nothing, perfomance - everything.
Give Pakistanis the same sensors and they will upgrade their missiles to your accuracy.

[ladajo]

Joseph, you are pressing on things I will not answer.
I remain comfortable to say that the US CEP remains unchallenged.
Your internet snippet is dated and innaccurate. But what do you expect? It is off the internet.
A small amount of further internet research would indicate to you that US long range systems use several methods to navigate. And, if you were really a critical thinker (as demonstrated to date - not) you may even ask yourself if all the methods used were listed in the public domain.

You do not know what you are talking about.

[Joseph Chikva]

you may even ask yourself if all the methods used were listed in the public domain

This is also the restriction of thinking of every military man. Very often referring to mythical secrets they thoughtfully inflate cheeks.
Yes, my knowledge is from several special cource I have got in Polytechnical Univercity, internet and also from books. You are right I didn't feel them by hands. But for ICBM I know about inertial navigation and stellar aided inertial navigation. And about nothing else. As there is not anything else. And very long time this is not a secret.
And where and when championship for ICBM was conducted?
As if you would speak Russian and would hear their e.g. "Voennaia taina - Military Secret" you would find out about many Russian "no analogs in the world" weapon systems.
Simetimes internet is very helpful. At least when you think to strike their silos you would find from internet that not all their missiles are in silos.
And I do not agree with your analize of reasons why USSR has failed.
Imagine two KENDO fighters. They stand against each other with swords, do each other terrible ugly faces and suddenly one falls dead. Another tells that is because he ground his sword well. But in reality there was a heart attack or blood clot or urine broke rushed to the head. Organism was sick. In case of good health of Empire that would not decay without physical attack.

[ladajo]

Think as you wish Joseph.

You are wrong, and do not know what you are talking about.

It matters not to me that you can not accept that I know something you do not. You may interpret what I have said as you wish.

I am also glad you are such an internet expert on US ICBM systems. Georgia must be proud to have you. A man that can create his own personal reality at will is a very powerful one indeed. Especially if he is one that has no need of any other person's reality.

[Joseph Chikva]

Think as you wish Joseph.

You are wrong, and do not know what you are talking about.

It matters not to me that you can not accept that I know something you do not. You may interpret what I have said as you wish.

I am also glad you are such an internet expert on US ICBM systems. Georgia must be proud to have you. A man that can create his own personal reality at will is a very powerful one indeed. Especially if he is one that has no need of any other person's reality.

What is my personal reality?
Opinion that the Space Shuttle program didn't sustain the competition? That may be Shuttle is better than Buran but both they are worse than old Souz. As Souz, Arian, etc. carry 1 kg to the same orbit with less cost.
What reason of program cancellation was given by you? Not intrigues of politicians? Do you believe that there in USA are such politicians who would stop the good program in favor of the bad?

You did not see what was the last my quote:
http://www.draper.com/Documents/tech_digest_06.pdf

The intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) and submarine-launched strategic missiles developed over the past 50 years have employed successive generations of increasingly accurate inertial guidance systems. The comparatively short time of guided flight and high acceleration levels characteristic of the ballistic missile application place a premium on accelerometer performance to achieve desired weapon system accuracy. Currently, the U.S. strategic missile arsenal relies on variants of the pendulous integrating gyro accelerometer (PIGA) to meet the high-performance, radiation-hard requirements of the weapon system.
Likewise, precision navigation systems such as the currently deployed SSBN ship inertial navigation systems (SINS) employ highly specialized and complex electromechanical instruments that, like the PIGA, present a system life-cycle cost and maintenance challenge.
The PIGA and the electromagnetic accelerometer (EMA) demonstrate unsurpassed performance, however, their life-cycle cost has motivated a search for a high-performance, solid-state, strategic accelerometer.

This is quote taken from Draper Laboratory, the lab that is responsible for guidance systems development in USA. The article from which the quote taken is called "Technology Digest".
From internet I know that Dr. Draper – the founder of this Lab studied broken guidance blocks of Nazi V-2 missile during WW2. So, even that time he was an expert in guidance.
Whose information should be more credible for the man like me: the Draper’s statement who really develops products (yes taken from internet) or your opinion, the man who read manuals (push that button and do not push another)? Recall that information provided by you goes to me also through internet.

I am not an expert in ICBM, Georgia need not ICBM at all, but I really got special coerces in guidance. And have “simplistic belief” that inertial guidance accuracy depends only on inertial sensors (three gyros and three accelerometers) performance. Do you have another information?

[kunkmiester]

His information, Joseph, is probably in what we call "finger breaking territory." Information like this, especially modern information, is highly classified. Public numbers for such have always been suspect. I doubt the Russians release true numbers either, but there is a little space for making certain claims.

Missiles CAN get other guidance for most of the journey BTW. IIRC some used stellar guidance while coasting at the top of the trajectory, and it's possible to receive other telemetry data up until the reentry blackout. It would be stupid to not use these methods where and when possible.

I recall being told that even now INS is never used alone, there's always something part way through to check how it's doing, otherwise you have limits on how accurate you can be, no matter how good your INS is.

[Joseph Chikva]

IIRC some used stellar guidance while coasting at the top of the trajectory, and it's possible to receive other telemetry data up until the reentry blackout. It would be stupid to not use these methods where and when possible.

I recall being told that even now INS is never used alone, there's always something part way through to check how it's doing, otherwise you have limits on how accurate you can be, no matter how good your INS is.

INS is used alone at least for example in submarine navigation. But that is the highets perfomance sensors. And extremally costly. And only very few countries have such sensors. Russia is in that narrow siciety. Though I believe that US sensors may have better perfomance but this is alos is not obvious.

Stellar aid for ICBMs was used in old missiles. But stellar navigation also provides errors, and by the development of new inertial sensors there is not a need of stellar aid for INS today. As if errors of stellar positioning is capmparable or worse for what you need them?
Very common for modern uS "smart" minition is the use of GPS aid of INS. You take so called "tactical grade" sensors that have lower cost and periodically update position data provided by integrator after IMU. There are also more costly "navigation grade" IMUs.
USA uses widely uses GPS aid, while for example Russia and China by very clear reasons do not.
See here: http://ftp.rta.nato.int/public//PubFull ... 11)-03.pdf what requirements should meet sensors for various type applications without any aid: page 12, table 4. Surface-surface - this is tactical application projectiles/rockets while "long range" that is what we talk about here.

[KitemanSA]

Line 4 of that old Arab proverb:

"He who knows not, and knows not that he knows not, is a fool; shun him".

Joe ain't a student. You can't teach him. He is a fool. Shun him.