![]() ![]() |
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
In Reply to: Didn't they've have two successful tests in a row this year. posted by shipguy on November 06, 2002 at 08:37:52:
was dumbed down so much that there was no way to fail.
Something like feeding the intercepter prior info on the position of the target instead of letting the interceptor find it with its own sensors.
Before they took that step, only failures.
Follow Ups:
OK, so you have no clue about how technical things work... then let those who do judge.
![]()
![]()
than mine allegedly was (as usual!).
.
![]()
I thought we had missiles which can strike pre-determined stationary targets for decades.
Conducting an intercept at the closing velocities of the ICBM and the high speed interceptor is a new level of performance. That kind of progress doesn't happen just by itself.This is not like striking Saddam's bunker with a cruise missile.
Next test is going to represent another increase in complexity.
This is normal development process taking place.
![]()
![]()
> > Conducting an intercept at the closing velocities of the ICBM and the high speed interceptor is a new level of performance. That kind of progress doesn't happen just by itself.
because the world has changed: a box cutter interceptor would make more sense. Besides, launches from submarines (China, I would guess is the next real heavyweight challenger) would be quite un-preventable by an iteration of Star Wars now envisioined.
Multiple warheads would also defeat Star Wars, as you well know, unless we're talking another twenty years of "development." By then, as with the Maginot Line, the target will have moved on. But, hey, it is a wonderful employment opportunity!
![]()
by their own time standards, money standards, or performance standards. The only thing that changed was the definition of a success.
They can't even get close to sorting out decoys or chaff.Murf
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: