Boost phase interceptor. . .

[Scott Ferrin]

I think it's kindof interesting that they've already got mockups of
the launcher and the missile. Until the last couple days, publicly at
least, it seemed like a paper idea.

[Tarver Engineering]

"Scott Ferrin" > wrote in message
...
>
>
>
> I think it's kindof interesting that they've already got mockups of
> the launcher and the missile. Until the last couple days, publicly at
> least, it seemed like a paper idea.

Nope, we were working on plume detectors at RPL in 1983.

[Orval Fairbairn]

In article >,
"Tarver Engineering" > wrote:

> "Scott Ferrin" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> >
> >
> > I think it's kindof interesting that they've already got mockups of
> > the launcher and the missile. Until the last couple days, publicly at
> > least, it seemed like a paper idea.
>
> Nope, we were working on plume detectors at RPL in 1983.
>
>

They're going to have to get pretty close to the launch site to be
effective during boost phase, which can last from only 20 or so seconds
to 120 sec -- not much time to detect, track. launch and intercept!

[Tarver Engineering]

"Orval Fairbairn" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote:
>
> > "Scott Ferrin" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > I think it's kindof interesting that they've already got mockups of
> > > the launcher and the missile. Until the last couple days, publicly at
> > > least, it seemed like a paper idea.
> >
> > Nope, we were working on plume detectors at RPL in 1983.
> >
> >
>
> They're going to have to get pretty close to the launch site to be
> effective during boost phase, which can last from only 20 or so seconds
> to 120 sec -- not much time to detect, track. launch and intercept!

Once you know the vehicle is a rocket launch, it is not problematic to
track. (ie not an airliner) The boost phase interceptor is expected to
destroy missiles within the first 5 minutes from launch.

[Scott Ferrin]

On Thu, 4 Dec 2003 18:02:27 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
> wrote:

>
>"Orval Fairbairn" > wrote in message
...
>> In article >,
>> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote:
>>
>> > "Scott Ferrin" > wrote in message
>> > ...
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > I think it's kindof interesting that they've already got mockups of
>> > > the launcher and the missile. Until the last couple days, publicly at
>> > > least, it seemed like a paper idea.
>> >
>> > Nope, we were working on plume detectors at RPL in 1983.
>> >
>> >
>>
>> They're going to have to get pretty close to the launch site to be
>> effective during boost phase, which can last from only 20 or so seconds
>> to 120 sec -- not much time to detect, track. launch and intercept!
>
>Once you know the vehicle is a rocket launch, it is not problematic to
>track. (ie not an airliner) The boost phase interceptor is expected to
>destroy missiles within the first 5 minutes from launch.
>


The interceptor they're building is one that's actually on the small
end too. That report that was released a few months back suggested a
booster that was bigger than a Minuteman, could go from 0 to 10km /
sec in 45 seconds and had a range of thousands of miles. In very
simple terms, if it takes 20 seconds to detect and determine it's a
missile (just pulled that number out of the air) and 45 seconds to get
up to speed, and the ICBM is boosting for 300 seconds (ISTR SS-18 is
300, Peacekeeper is 150) that gives it a range of roughly 235 * 10 or
2350km that it has a chance to hit the missile while in boost phase.
Of course if you were on the other side and wanted to minimize this
you could just take something like this interceptor, replace the
current 3rd stage with multiple parallel 3rd stages, accept a slightly
lower speed, and split at third stage. At second stage burnout the
missile becomes three or four missiles. The Russians actually kicked
something like this around (the multiple third stages) as part of a
FOBS system but to my knowledge they never tested it.