I am looking for records of training that I attended 1968-1969 at Ft BLISS Texas, Nike hercules Launcher area Electronic Technician,belive the MOS was 24U20. Can you help.

Posted by: vanetten, robert j at September 2, 2008 09:40 AM

I think by merging an Electromagnetic railgun with ramjet technology you can develop a missile that can shoot down the topol M. Upon destruction the missile would act as a shot gun dispersing ballbearings. The missile would use radar but would also use an onboard laser or whatever technology is out there to acquire its target and not be fooled. Of course it would have to use it similtaneously and inconjunction so as to not be fooled. The missle should use together optical, radar, infrared, laser, plasma detection and other targeting technologies and use a process of trial an error as to not become fooled. The missile should have vents on its side to give it exceptional agility.

Posted by: Joe Shmoe at January 28, 2006 07:22 PM

Byron,
SM-3 hasn't been cancelled. In fact, it just had a very successful test on the 17th. It would, of course, still have to be tested against a long-range threat.

Posted by: rocket at November 30, 2005 01:41 PM

For another analysis of the Topol-M, check out this page:

http://cns.miis.edu/pubs/week/051109.htm

Posted by: Juan-John at November 28, 2005 02:38 PM

If the Russian decoys have the same mass and configuration as real Reentry vehicles (RVs), why don't they just add more real ones? The missile is carrying the same payload, regrdless.

The jinking RV sounds like some of the stuff we have tried since the late 1970s -1980s.

Posted by: Orval Fairbairn at November 27, 2005 11:55 PM

Good Morning Folks,

I think "mputtre" pretty much said all that needs to be said about the Topol-M, it is at heart a tactical threatre level weapon. The irony here is that the weapon that was most likely be the most effectine in countering the Topol-M was the Navy's Standard-3 Missile which as we all know was cancelled a couple of weeks ago.

The reason that this article is even seeing the light of day is "The Missile Defense System" that everyday is losing more of it's reason for existence.

With the lessing of any, if it existed in the first place threats from North Korea and Iran, Bush can forget about Iraq in his "Axis of Evil" the $Billions being spent on this public works project for Sen. Ted Stevens (R.Alaska) and Boeing seems more and more an unjustified waste of DoD money especially in the current deficient enviroment.

Senator Stevens already has got his M-1126 "Striker" BCT and who knoes how many $253Million bridges to nowhere, I think it's time to pull the pulg on "The Missile Defense System" and take our loses. Maybe there is some oil under the sites, that could help refund back a little.

ALLON,
Byron Skinner

Posted by: Byron Skinner at November 24, 2005 02:45 PM

I guess that "probably voted democrat" was meant as irony. Repulicans think the world is out to get them, and they should after 8 years with Bush.

Posted by: wheels at November 24, 2005 11:51 AM

There would be no way I would vote democrat. So the answer is no, I voted for Bush who is a Republican. But either decision is a bad decision because both sides spit on the Constitution.

So go end yourself quietly. I am not an expert on loud noises/concussions for the sky, so how the hell would I know. In fact an ICBM probably sounds exactly like one of the "noises" I heard and I was pretty sure at least someones house probably fell over, although nothing was damaged.

So how about in addition to ending yourself quietly, you STFU too.

Posted by: jtw at November 23, 2005 05:00 PM

That comment @ ...must have voted democrat..., just shows the added divisions in our country, which begs the question, how do "they" beat us?
Divide and conquer, eg, blue states vs. red states, etc.

Posted by: emilio aragon at November 23, 2005 12:48 PM

> Did Russia test flight these things over the
> United States?

Where do these people come from?

Probably voted Democrat, eh?

> Interceptors are not for Russian junk but junk
> of the "third world"

Uh, so... you mean... like China, right? Oh wait, maybe you mean India. No? Ok, so you must mean North Korea (aka South China). oh. Pakistan? (you know, it's not PC these days to refer to them as "Third World"... they much prefer the term "Emerging Economy")

What you need to remember is that a lot of the Russian missle technology has transfered and new developments are probably easily transfered as well. So, you may want to tone down the "Third World" rhetoric a bit.

Also, by definition, a nuclear missle/warhead that can reach its target without being shot down is not "junk". Would you like to find out if it's junk or not? Me neither. I think that's called "deterrence" or "peace through superior firepower" or "thor has big stick with stone tied to end" or whatever colorful name you'd like to give it.

My take on missle defense is that we've probably become really good (ok, well, maybe just mediocre) at shooting down our missles, but when the real thing happens, all bets are off (what's the average flight time (sub launched)? 8 minutes? Support missle defense? I guess PT Barnum was right.)

Posted by: atroll at November 23, 2005 07:22 AM

All this is meaningless with repsect to Russia, dodge or no dodge we both still have enough hardware to annihiliate the entire world population. Interceptors are not for Russian junk but junk of the "third world" kind. Oh and by the way it's not reliable enough to depend on, but deployed in Alaska anyway.

Eisenhower warned about the "Military Industrial Complex". Here's a perfect example of how your tax dollars get wasted.

Posted by: Alexp at November 22, 2005 07:22 PM

Did Russia test flight these things over the United States?

I live on the East Coast and I hear alot of sonic booms which I always assumed were low flying jet's.

I wouldnt rule out a 3 mile per second ICBM missile flying overhead. There are fairly substantial booms with concussions that you can feel.

Maybe there is some kind of "cold war" going on still.

Else it would be appreciated if the US Military would stop with Military flights over residential neighborhoods when it is going to make it sound like a form of apocalypse.

I live in Rhode Island btw. Newport County.

Posted by: jtw at November 22, 2005 05:11 PM

Actually the additional expense of the Topal-M system to defeat missile defenses is negligable because it builds on technology developed for tactical ballistic missiles, such as the Tochka, which also flies a flatter trajectory, is maneuvering, and incorporates RAM. The Tochka was developed to smear NATO airbases and other sites defensed by Nike Hercules and Patriot. The Topol-M is a similar concept on a larger scale. Plus, the Russians are withdrawing obsolescent systems to offset cost, fielding a smaller, more modern ICBM force.

Tracking is a much, much, much easier proposition than shooting. Shooting is really hard. Only slightly less hard is discriminating advanced decoys from real warheads. It's one thing to identify a balloon-type IR decoy or radar reflector by fusing electrooptical sensors and radar data, but its another thing entirely to identify a decoy that for all intents and purposes is the same thing as a warhead except for the nuclear stuff. The Russians just want to maintain their deterrent capability, which the Pentagon says is fine by them. We've got deterrence, too, you see.

C-Low has it right that the US Ground-Based Midcourse Defense system using interceptor missiles deployed in Alaska and California is a point defense against a very specific threat: North Korea launching a small number of basic ICBMs that employ only rudimentary countermeasures. The system capabilities will grow over time to cover attacks from other quarters and more sophisticated ICBM threats. But at no point is it supposed to defend against a strike from Russia or even one from China. At least, that's what the US Missile Defense Agency says.

The problem is not so much the Topol-M per se, but if the countermeasures technologies it employes are made available on a widespread basis. There's no indication that the Russians are eager for this to happen, but as the warrior-poet said, military secrets are the most fleeting...

Posted by: mputtre at November 22, 2005 11:34 AM

What we are missing here is the fact that the missle was tracked by radar station in Japan the whole way. I would say if they can track it they can shoot it. Besides the BMD insnt intended to stop the Russian or even Chineese assault just a Nork, rougue take over or maybe a Iran or such limited strike maybe at most a dozen.

Posted by: C-Low at November 22, 2005 10:04 AM

Result: Russians will be paying more for their missiles to dodge the missile defense systems. That means they will be producing less for the increase of cost.

Posted by: Pedestrian at November 22, 2005 09:56 AM

Developing weapons in our direction while China nibbles them to death in the east...

Posted by: JSAllison at November 22, 2005 09:27 AM

A few months ago President Poetin made a comment about "a new missile system" that no one else would have for quite some time. I had guessed that it was Russia flexing its biceps to make sure we haddent forgotten about them, but it now seems they do have somthing impressive.

Posted by: Bob NL at November 22, 2005 08:46 AM

Hmm. It's interesting, but then there's the Gertz-factor to consider. Remember his "RDX taken to Iran by the Russian army" scoop, single sourced to John A. Shaw, that came right at the peak of the vanishing RDX furore? No evidence at all, and comprehensively debunked in days. Shaw was vanished from the administration immediately post-election.

Posted by: Alex at November 22, 2005 08:39 AM