Thoughts on the military and military activities of a diverse nature. Free-ranging and eclectic.

Monday, February 25, 2008


This is coolbert:

In response to the comment of John Bolton regarding my blog entry on the intercept and destruction of the errant American satellite:

[Please keep in my that I HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO INSIDE INFORMATION OF ANY NATURE ON THIS MATERIAL. My response is best characterized as informed speculation!]

"Does all this mean that the instant orbit, or should I say the immediate trajectory prior to firing, had to be ascertained within 30 seconds?" - - J. Bolton.

Well, that is a good question. I am assuming that the U.S. military brought all the assets available to it, civilian and military both, to bear upon this problem. That would include instantaneous information from a variety of ground-based and spaced-based radars? According to the reports in the media, the Lake Erie task force consisted of the two Aegis cruisers AND some sort of ship that supplied independent trajectory data . This was a Cobra Judy or similar type ship? An ocean-going vessel designed specifically to track space vehicles for intelligence purposes!

A mobilization of so many assets at once is unique and would not be possible except during a crisis situation?

AND telescopic cameras with large mirrors capable of amazing resolution? Both space and land based, tracking the intercept and destruction of the wayward recon satellite from a variety of angles, from multitude of locations?

"If so, the ICBM's allow 15 minutes or thereabouts to determine their trajectories, so that anti-missile defense is now feasible?" - - J. Bolton.

The concept of a sea-based anti-ballistic system NORMALLY would allow for intercept and destruction of enemy missiles during the BOOST PHASE OF LAUNCH! The Standard Missile - 3 is a "tactical" weapon NOT capable of shooting down an INCOMING ICBM? OR is this no longer so?

"In general short-range tactical ABMs [such as the Standard Missile - 3] cannot intercept ICBMs, even if within range. The tactical ABM radar and performance characteristics do not allow it, as an incoming ICBM warhead moves much faster than a tactical missile warhead."

Again, we are talking about an incoming intercontinental missile warhead, and not a missile during the BOOST phase of launch! The Standard Missile - 3 CAN shoot down a tactical ballistic missile, BUT NOT an incoming ICBM warhead!

"Also aren't the targets of ICBM's predictable, such that part of their trajectories could be in memory, sufficient for targeting?" - - J. Bolton.

That would seem to be exactly the type of "thing" the Russians have in mind as they develop and field their recently tested hypersonic, maneuverable re-entry vehicle. Able to make mid-course maneuvers to avoid being shot-down during the terminal stage of weapons delivery. This would seem to suggest that the Russians "believer" that a successful anti-ballistic system is much more feasible that is normally assumed?

Again, all speculation on my part!

Indeed the "shoot-down" of this errant American satellite is being blown all out of proportion?!




Blogger John S. Bolton said... has an article about the satellite shootdown, by H.Cooper and Weyrich. They say 'inherent' ICBM defense capacity has now been demonstrated, that satellites in that orbit move faster than incoming ICBM's, and that further deployments should be supported.

8:56 PM


Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home