Quote from: Downix on 10/05/2011 07:45 pmQuote from: spaceStalker on 10/05/2011 07:12 pmWell inside the nuke there is some active material - plutonium? Will it burn or will salt the ground bellow? burn up on re-entry. These intercepts are not re-entry tests, just ballistic. Also, the interceptors do not appear large enough to reach the altitude before re-entry.
Quote from: spaceStalker on 10/05/2011 07:12 pmWell inside the nuke there is some active material - plutonium? Will it burn or will salt the ground bellow? burn up on re-entry.
Well inside the nuke there is some active material - plutonium? Will it burn or will salt the ground bellow?
Interesting. The THAADs appear to have been launched from the same truck, at least10 s apart (but probably much more as there was an edit in the video).Presumably the two targets were launched from two different platforms? They have been using the ship launch (MLP) and the C-17 air launch platform, AFAIKthey only have one of each and I don't know if the MLP can do two launches at once.I don't think they have any land based pads they can use except at Kauai itselfwhich would be a bit *too* short-range :-).edit: http://www.businessweek.com/news/2011-10-05/lockheed-s-thaad-missile-defense-hits-two-targets-in-test.html reports indeed that the first target was air-launched and the second one sea-launched. No reports I can see of how close together the launches were.
The launches were a few minutes apart. The air-dropped target was longer range than the one launched from the MLP.
It was a salvo engagement. I can't talk about the interceptor spacing beyond the fact it was "simultaneous" though.TPY-2 is located on the PMRF facility but not co-located with the launcher. Can't get any more specific than that.
If you were in a tank hit by a sabot round with a DU penetrator AND you had your head in at the point of penetration AND you deeply inhaled before it took your head off, you would suffer the amount of radiation you get from a radium wristwatch in a year. ...
Quote from: mike robel on 10/05/2011 11:27 pmIf you were in a tank hit by a sabot round with a DU penetrator AND you had your head in at the point of penetration AND you deeply inhaled before it took your head off, you would suffer the amount of radiation you get from a radium wristwatch in a year. ...Well, that doesn't sound so bad, does it?
Correct me if I am wrong, but the THAAD system is not capable of shooting down an artillery round, talking about a capability it is not designed or used for is off topic?This isn't the Israeli Iron dome system...
Quote from: kevin-rf on 10/11/2011 02:57 pmCorrect me if I am wrong, but the THAAD system is not capable of shooting down an artillery round, talking about a capability it is not designed or used for is off topic?This isn't the Israeli Iron dome system... It's never been tested for it, but I honestly would not be surprised if the system could track and with some consistency make contact with an artillery round sized target. However, THAAD is probably too long-range to actually hit an artillery round...it would likely reach the target before the booster had burned out and separated and not be able to maneuver.To reduce the minimum engagement range (while still having a sizable maximum range), THAAD actually flies a corkscrew during the boost phase for some intercepts to use up excess energy. Wikipedia has a picture of this:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/THAAD#Production_and_deployment
Quote from: N45deg on 10/06/2011 01:08 amQuote from: Downix on 10/05/2011 07:45 pmQuote from: spaceStalker on 10/05/2011 07:12 pmWell inside the nuke there is some active material - plutonium? Will it burn or will salt the ground bellow? burn up on re-entry. These intercepts are not re-entry tests, just ballistic. Also, the interceptors do not appear large enough to reach the altitude before re-entry.THAAD is capable of exo-atmospheric intercepts and we have conducted them in the past. Don't know if I can say whether this one was or not.Quote from: jcm on 10/06/2011 02:05 amInteresting. The THAADs appear to have been launched from the same truck, at least10 s apart (but probably much more as there was an edit in the video).Presumably the two targets were launched from two different platforms? They have been using the ship launch (MLP) and the C-17 air launch platform, AFAIKthey only have one of each and I don't know if the MLP can do two launches at once.I don't think they have any land based pads they can use except at Kauai itselfwhich would be a bit *too* short-range :-).edit: http://www.businessweek.com/news/2011-10-05/lockheed-s-thaad-missile-defense-hits-two-targets-in-test.html reports indeed that the first target was air-launched and the second one sea-launched. No reports I can see of how close together the launches were.The launches were a few minutes apart. The air-dropped target was longer range than the one launched from the MLP.I watched this one from the airstrip at PMRF. We were able to see both intercepts from the ground which surprised all of us. We were figuring they would be too faint to be visible. It was awesome to finally see hardware performance that validates the simulations I work on. Being paid to go to Kaua'i for a week was also a perk.
Quote from: Torlek on 10/07/2011 11:22 pmQuote from: N45deg on 10/06/2011 01:08 amQuote from: Downix on 10/05/2011 07:45 pmQuote from: spaceStalker on 10/05/2011 07:12 pmWell inside the nuke there is some active material - plutonium? Will it burn or will salt the ground bellow? burn up on re-entry. These intercepts are not re-entry tests, just ballistic. Also, the interceptors do not appear large enough to reach the altitude before re-entry.THAAD is capable of exo-atmospheric intercepts and we have conducted them in the past. Don't know if I can say whether this one was or not.Quote from: jcm on 10/06/2011 02:05 amInteresting. The THAADs appear to have been launched from the same truck, at least10 s apart (but probably much more as there was an edit in the video).Presumably the two targets were launched from two different platforms? They have been using the ship launch (MLP) and the C-17 air launch platform, AFAIKthey only have one of each and I don't know if the MLP can do two launches at once.I don't think they have any land based pads they can use except at Kauai itselfwhich would be a bit *too* short-range :-).edit: http://www.businessweek.com/news/2011-10-05/lockheed-s-thaad-missile-defense-hits-two-targets-in-test.html reports indeed that the first target was air-launched and the second one sea-launched. No reports I can see of how close together the launches were.The launches were a few minutes apart. The air-dropped target was longer range than the one launched from the MLP.I watched this one from the airstrip at PMRF. We were able to see both intercepts from the ground which surprised all of us. We were figuring they would be too faint to be visible. It was awesome to finally see hardware performance that validates the simulations I work on. Being paid to go to Kaua'i for a week was also a perk.Thanks for sharing what you can.As to the question of burnup on reentry, it's not just whether the intercept isexoatmospheric, but the overall velocity. A lot of these tests would not be going fast enough for the sort of reentry heating you get on a long range missile.
Just to tamp it down a little, the latest test is the first to actually intercept an IRBM class target. All other tests have been against shorter range targets. That said, THAAD is a bit of overkill for South Korea since North Korea would use shorter range missiles against it. Something the Patriot missiles are better suited for. A THAAD in Japan would make sense since the distance requires IRBM's.Also worth noting that this spring is the first time the GDI system in Alaska and Vandenberg was tested a representitive ICBM class target. Again all previous tests had been against shorter range missiles.Now for both to be truly effective the entire kill chain from launch detection to interceptmust be finished.