ICBM Lifting Off - Naval Air Target?

Group...
While stuck in traffic, bad traffic, I began wondering: how difficult would it
be to intercept an ICBM lifting off out of somewhere like North Korea? Seems
like it would be an 'easy' target: slow, going up, not evading. Or, would it
be more effective to have a cruiser wait off shore to intercept with surface to
air?
Thx,
Sks
Humble Cessna Driver

Group...
While stuck in traffic, bad traffic, I began wondering: how difficult
would it
be to intercept an ICBM lifting off out of somewhere like North Korea?
Seems
like it would be an 'easy' target: slow, going up, not evading. Or, would
it
be more effective to have a cruiser wait off shore to intercept with
surface to
air?
Thx,
Sks
Humble Cessna Driver

Or you could do something really futuristic and shoot it with a laser from a
747.

(SKSvilich) wrote in message ...
Group...
While stuck in traffic, bad traffic, I began wondering: how difficult would it
be to intercept an ICBM lifting off out of somewhere like North Korea? Seems
like it would be an 'easy' target: slow, going up, not evading. Or, would it
be more effective to have a cruiser wait off shore to intercept with surface to
air?
Thx,
Sks
Humble Cessna Driver

Off the shore of the target or the launch site? My guess is that it
would be easier to hit a missile on its way up, as long as you knew
when and where it was launching from.

In article ,
(rottenberg) wrote:

(SKSvilich) wrote in message
...
Group...
While stuck in traffic, bad traffic, I began wondering: how difficult would
it
be to intercept an ICBM lifting off out of somewhere like North Korea?
Seems
like it would be an 'easy' target: slow, going up, not evading. Or, would
it
be more effective to have a cruiser wait off shore to intercept with
surface to
air?
Thx,
Sks
Humble Cessna Driver

Off the shore of the target or the launch site? My guess is that it
would be easier to hit a missile on its way up, as long as you knew
when and where it was launching from.



The problem is getting close enough to the missile to be able to hit it
effectively. Remember, an ICBM-class missile boost phase is only about
three minutes from liftoff to final separation, so any counter-boost
measures have to be able to detect, identify, aim, shoot and intercept
within that timeframe. Since most launch sites are located well inland,
only speed-of-light means have any real chance of success.

Those are all good ideas! Your tax money has been working each and every one
of them for decades! So keep thinking of more good ideas while stuck in
traffic!

WDA

end'
"SKSvilich" wrote in message
...
Group...
While stuck in traffic, bad traffic, I began wondering: how difficult
would it
be to intercept an ICBM lifting off out of somewhere like North Korea?
Seems
like it would be an 'easy' target: slow, going up, not evading. Or, would
it
be more effective to have a cruiser wait off shore to intercept with
surface to
air?
Thx,
Sks
Humble Cessna Driver

SSSSHHHHHHHHHH!

Fox Hound wrote:
Group...
While stuck in traffic, bad traffic, I began wondering: how difficult

would it

be to intercept an ICBM lifting off out of somewhere like North Korea?

Seems

like it would be an 'easy' target: slow, going up, not evading. Or, would

it

be more effective to have a cruiser wait off shore to intercept with

surface to

air?
Thx,
Sks
Humble Cessna Driver


Or you could do something really futuristic and shoot it with a laser from a
747.

Seems
like it would be an 'easy' target: slow, going up, not evading.

You need to see a launch up close (around 2nm), they aren't going "slow" from
the moment they clear the silo. I was very surprised the first launch I saw.
Film/video footage from several miles back in wide mode doesn't do justice to
just how fast those things are moving.


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

I know this thread has been dead, but I thought I could add a little info.

The idea of using an interceptor aircraft to shoot down a ballistic missile
in boost phase was evaluated by the USAF back in the early 1990s. I think
this happened after the first Gulf War. The USAF considered developing a
very long range AAM to fit underneath an F-15. It would be cued by other
sensors off the aircraft, such as AWACs or even satellites that detected the
missile launch.

The problem was that such a mission really requires around the clock
coverage of a large area. They would have to put many aircraft in the air
and keep them up for long periods of time. Expensive and not easy on
aircraft or crews.

The plan was dropped and the Air Force then evaluated the possibility of
fitting the missiles to long-endurance UAVs. I think that this too was soon
dropped, but am not sure why. One possibility is that UAVs at the time (and
still) lack payload capability and they would have to carry a couple of
heavy missiles, bigger than the AIM-54 Phoenix.

You can find a couple of articles in Aviation Week in the early 1990s
dealing with this subject.

After abandoning this method, they turned to the Air-Borne Laser (ABL)
approach using a big laser onboard a 747. You can look this up on the net.
The program has run into a lot of problems--cost overruns and delays. There
have been rumors of its cancellation, but it is currently limping along.




D

An additional comment, if anybody cares. There was a small blurb in
Aviation Week recently saying that the USAF is conducting a 1-year study to
see if it is possible to carry THAAD or Patriot PAC-3 missiles on F-15s to
attack ICBMs in boost phase. It's a small, $3 million study.




D