F-35s Could Shoot Down North Korean Missiles

kimjongnumbaun · by **kimjongnumbaun** » 05 Dec 2017, 21:48

wrightwing wrote:
kimjongnumbaun wrote:
I find this claim to be a bit skeptical. The speed a rocket needs to break earth orbit is mach 11, well beyond that of the AIM-120. And that's assuming an F-35 is in the air and in position to target the ballistic missile. While theoretically possible, it's not probable.

Ballistic missiles don't leave the launch pad at Mach 11. There's a window while they're still accelerating, where they're vulnerable to being shot down.

They don't start at mach 11, but they accelerate VERY quickly. Here is the space shuttle, and while not a ballistic missile, did need to break orbit. By the first minute it's already breaking mach 1, and by the second minute it's at mach 3 and at 120,000 feet MSL. There is a very small window to intercept a ballistic missile in the launch phase.

https://www.nasa.gov/pdf/466711main_AP_ ... Ascent.pdf

kimjongnumbaun · by **kimjongnumbaun** » 05 Dec 2017, 21:53

vilters wrote:How many ICBM's have been shot down during a "real" conflict?

Ok?

Go in before launch, hope for a technical failure, or start building body-bags.

THAAD has completed it's 14th intercept in a row.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/us-co ... le/2628246

spazsinbad · by **spazsinbad** » 05 Dec 2017, 21:54

Screenshot from the NG DAS video from over the page: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OCasCuncTpc

Northrop Grumman's F-35 Distributed Aperture System Tested Against Ballistic Missile Targets

vilters · by **vilters** » 05 Dec 2017, 21:55

Did you get it?

I don't believe in slide shows.

And I truly hope that the future will prove me wrong.

vilters · by **vilters** » 05 Dec 2017, 22:05

Thaad 14 succesfull test?

Did you read my first comment?
Did you read the question at all?

Tests are tests and prove NOTHING.
a) you know what (you know the tech spec of your target better then the manufacturer.)
b) you know when
c) you know from where
d) you are prepared and have all the solutions properly planned AND X-checked months before the "test"
e) manuals and manuals of ROE's.

Our clown is completely unpredictable and he has no ROE's.

AGAIN, the DAZ "slideshow".
Nice, and with what are you gonna shoot and when?

Shooting during the launch phase is excluded. There simply is NO time.

Shooting at a multi-mach re-entry?
Wanna put your "hope" on that?
Tell your population that you are "hoping".

juretrn · by **juretrn** » 05 Dec 2017, 22:07

vilters wrote:What was the answer?? ?
How many ICBM's have been shot down in real conflict?
How many??

All an F-35 (that would have to be accidently in the air and looking in the right direction) could do?

Is detect the launch, turn all radio's ON and YELL : "INCOMING".

Then look at its nav and search for a deversion base.

How many Su-35, F-35, F-22, Gripens... have been shot down so far?
Is the number in any way relevant? Does that mean they literally can't be shot down?
Having 0 statistics to judge one way or another is basically making sh*t up.
The F-35 doesn't have to be "looking the right way", that's the whole idea of DAS, FFS. And then it can, as already proven, guide an SM-6 toward the launched ballistic missile. Even if it can't, it still provides early warning and track of said missile-for others to act upon that information.
Much more than running away with its tail between its legs.

SpudmanWP · by **SpudmanWP** » 05 Dec 2017, 22:09

vilters wrote:All an (that would have to be accidently in the air and looking in the right direction) could do?

You seem to forget that an is ALWAYS looking in EVERY direction.

Obviously the scenario being talked about is when the countries involved are on a "war footing" or are actually at war so the likelihood of having them (or another DAS enabled asset) up in the air is much higher. Think of the Scud Hunting of GW1. The would have been able to hunt them down much more effectively than the jets of GW1.

The has already demonstrated its ability ti detect a target & guide an off-board asset into an intercept (ie SM-3, THAAD, etc).

Tests are tests and prove NOTHING.

kimjongnumbaun · by **kimjongnumbaun** » 05 Dec 2017, 22:11

vilters wrote:Thaad 14 succesfull test?

Did you read my first comment?
Did you read the question at all?

Tests are tests and prove NOTHING.
a) you know what (you know the tech spec of your target better then the manufacturer.)
b) you know when
c) you know from where
d) you are prepared and have all the solutions properly planned AND X-checked months before the "test"
e) manuals and manuals of ROE's.

Our clown is completely unpredictable and he has no ROE's.

AGAIN, the DAZ "slideshow".
Nice, and with what are you gonna shoot and when?

Shooting during the launch phase is excluded. There simply is NO time.

Shooting at a multi-mach re-entry?
Wanna put your "hope" on that?
Tell your population that you are "hoping".

Tests prove nothing? I guess all that testing they did on the F-15 and F-16 didn't translate to real life performance, either...

And using the same logic we can say that the F-22 cannot perform because it hasn't shot down a plane. Obviously neither are the case and you don't have a point. "Combat proven" has never been a requirement and never will be.

vilters · by **vilters** » 05 Dec 2017, 22:30

Decades ago, there were great slideshows about the Patriot and other systems too.

Gents, testing has its purposes; but in this case?

An "unknown" missile, with unconfirmed range, unknown tech specs, with unknown warhead but could be atomic.

At launch, presume you "see" the launch, you even have no idea about the target until re-entry.

At long distance?
Is it gonna be San Francisco or LA?
Less then 0.5 degree difference.
Wanna gamble?
Be my guest.

When there is even the slightest hint?
Take out the missile capability BEFORE launch. It's your ONLY option.

XanderCrews · by **XanderCrews** » 05 Dec 2017, 22:41

vilters wrote:Did you get it?

I don't believe in slide shows.

And I truly hope that the future will prove me wrong.

That you'll believe In slideshows?

Your the guy who tells us P-47s can end Isis but a missile killing a missile is impossible

XanderCrews · by **XanderCrews** » 05 Dec 2017, 22:57

vilters wrote:
Tests are tests and prove NOTHING.

Then ICBMs also don't work. Since they've only ever been used in tests.

Tests prove nothing is a bit of a stretch. Tests actually do prove things. Crazy though that may seem.

Science is based on repeatable tests.

Again your original post was silly. And now you are trying to bail your way out.

nutshell · by **nutshell** » 05 Dec 2017, 23:14

"Tests prove nothing" is as brillant as "AoA is irrelevant".

Masterpieces.

Let's all sit here with Vilters, talking about F35 in NK pretending they wouldnt act with impunity...

sferrin · by **sferrin** » 05 Dec 2017, 23:50

vilters wrote:How many ICBM's have been shot down during a "real" conflict?

How many ICBMs have been launched during a "real" conflict? HOW MANY??? :roll:

sferrin · by **sferrin** » 05 Dec 2017, 23:53

XanderCrews wrote:
vilters wrote:
Tests are tests and prove NOTHING.

Then ICBMs also don't work. Since they've only ever been used in tests.

Tests prove nothing is a bit of a stretch. Tests actually do prove things. Crazy though that may seem.

Science is based on repeatable tests.

Again your original post was silly. And now you are trying to bail your way out.

I think his tinfoil hat has sprung a leak.

juretrn · by **juretrn** » 05 Dec 2017, 23:54

XanderCrews wrote:
vilters wrote:
Tests are tests and prove NOTHING.

Then ICBMs also don't work. Since they've only ever been used in tests.

Tests prove nothing is a bit of a stretch. Tests actually do prove things. Crazy though that may seem.

Science is based on repeatable tests.

Again your original post was silly. And now you are trying to bail your way out.

Well, I guess I can quit my job now, v. proved it's pointless!