The GMs Court

[Zoot Zoot]

No fizzy, you can not.

the bomb was detonated at half yield, its design and mechanic enabled a 100 megaton detonation.

Be content with a 500kt detonation, thats still stupid huge.

the ones that crippled me were only 30kt detonated at 30 miles above ground.

[iamthey]

[quote name='BaronUberstein' date='21 May 2010 - 01:38 AM' timestamp='1274402293' post='2306128']
If you have multiple nukes, can you trade them in for one bigger one?
[/quote]

Not really, previous attempts at modifying the rules to allow more flexibility have yet to bear fruit.

I personally liked the idea put forward several months back to give everyone a base line of 1MT to each Nuke allowing one to customize the distribution within that parameter. So if you have 25 nukes you have 25 MT to work with. If you want to make that one big bomb, or many smaller ones such is permissible.

WRC would be worked in by doubling total allowed yield, so each IG nuke is rated as 2 MT's.


[quote name='Zoot Zoot' date='21 May 2010 - 02:57 AM' timestamp='1274407018' post='2306255']
No fizzy, you can not.

the bomb was detonated at half yield, its design and mechanic enabled a 100 megaton detonation.

Be content with a 500kt detonation, thats still stupid huge.

the ones that crippled me were only 30kt detonated at 30 miles above ground.
[/quote]

I think it has less to do with the actual strategic value of such a weapon as much as it is a matter of story. As a matter of strategy one massive 50 MT nuke is significantly less useful than many 10-20 smaller 100Kt, or even 30Kt nuclear devices mounted to an MiRV ICMBs.One massive nuke could flatten the core of a city and cause significant damage all the way to its outskirts, while a well placed series of comparatively smaller warheads could more efficiently distribute the power of the weapon.

Despite this there is something appealing, almost romantic, about the idea of a single massive weapon. Its the same reason no one really finds anything particularly horrifying about small arms, despite the financial and human cost they extract.

Edited May 21, 2010 by iamthey

[SpacingOutMan]

[quote name='Executive Minister' date='20 May 2010 - 06:50 PM' timestamp='1274395796' post='2305876']
When someone says Ballistic missile, I think of missiles like [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R-36_%28missile%29"]this[/url], not glorified cruise missiles
[/quote]

Well, ICBMs are simply glorified cruise missiles.

[quote name='Fizzydog' date='20 May 2010 - 08:30 PM' timestamp='1274401816' post='2306114']
Okay, but the Tsar Bomba IS realistic. They tested it. I, of course, would only create one. Is that fine? Because this project took many years and only one was made, it was so powerful it was tested on that huge russian island above the middle of Russia and could be seen even from Finland. I would kill to RP launching that.
[/quote]

Yes, they tested it. You must have nuclear capability AND a Weapons Research Complex to even begin working on a fusion bomb. Moreover, it's a misnomer to even call it a fusion bomb since it is actually a multi-stage bomb; it is a Teller-Ulam design, which is essentially a Fission-Fusion-Fission stage nuclear warhead.

[quote name='Zoot Zoot' date='20 May 2010 - 09:57 PM' timestamp='1274407018' post='2306255']
No fizzy, you can not.

the bomb was detonated at half yield, its design and mechanic enabled a 100 megaton detonation.

Be content with a 500kt detonation, thats still stupid huge.

the ones that crippled me were only 30kt detonated at 30 miles above ground.
[/quote]

No it was not enabled to be a 100 mT detonation. It was reduced by casing the interior with a lead tamper instead of a fusion-based tamper with fissile material. The point of the tamper is to continue the chain reaction. One could argue, as many nuclear post-revisionist historians, that the dominant reason why the blast yield had to be reduced was because the U-238 tamper was inefficient in allowing the neutrons to reach critical mass for optimal fission and fusion. Likewise, the initiator mechanism within the nuclear warhead would have gone off premature with such high temperatures, blasting it midair at an inefficient vector, thus rendering its blast yield to a minimal yield.

[quote name='iamthey' date='20 May 2010 - 10:00 PM' timestamp='1274407232' post='2306262']
Not really, previous attempts at modifying the rules to allow more flexibility have yet to bear fruit.

I personally liked the idea put forward several months back to give everyone a base line of 1MT to each Nuke allowing one to customize the distribution within that parameter. So if you have 25 nukes you have 25 MT to work with. If you want to make that one big bomb, or many smaller ones such is permissible.

WRC would be worked in by doubling total allowed yield, so each IG nuke is rated as 2 MT's.[/quote]

Except that idea was shot down because there is too much room for abuse. With that logic, if I have 25 mT, I could have more than 2,500 10 kT nuclear artillery shells that I could use to bombard people with.

[king of cochin]

No ICBMs are not glorious cruise missiles. ICBMs specifically use part of its trajectory in exo atmosphere for its speed and short duration of flight, where as cruise missiles spend all their time in atmosphere, especially thicker lower atmosphere.

The very trajectory of Ballistic Missiles are different from that of cruise missiles. Also Brahmos though it has Mach 6 speeds does not follow a ballistic trajectory, it is terminally projected by its own power, and that is the major difference between BMs and CMs.

Beyond the Stage three or Stage 4 of BMs the reentry Vehicle has extremely loss cross section for impact even for the massive thermal bloom caused by re-entry. The speed also being phenomenal it also depends on pure gravity for its final flight. So even an attempt to knock off its propulsion systems wont work. An ICBM's RV provides far lesser target area than the smallest strategic CMs, once detected. Also even Mach 6 less than certain velocities of detonation waves, it is easier to destroy them once targeted than RVs.

Even if a targeting system manages to bring the ABM warhead explode adjacent to an RV, the RV wont be taken down as its terminal velocity would be higher than that of the detonation shock wave, which means it would outrun the shrapnels.

So only method of taking down a Reentry vehicle would be to compute the trajectory and detonate the missile warhead a certain time and distance away from the RV so that the shrapnel cone generated could knock off the RV. And though the momentum question remains, RV skins are designed more for thermal insulation rather than brute physical force like that caused by an impacting shrapnel and such an impact could destroy its relatively brittle skin and damage the internal components.

[Centurius]

[quote name='SpacingOutMan' date='21 May 2010 - 06:24 AM' timestamp='1274415829' post='2306466']
Except that idea was shot down because there is too much room for abuse. With that logic, if I have 25 mT, I could have more than 2,500 10 kT nuclear artillery shells that I could use to bombard people with.
[/quote]

Counters to that were proposed as well, namely where rather than having each nuke rolled on the SDI roll would go for a series of nukes of 1MT(2 with WRC).

[SpacingOutMan]

[quote name='king of cochin' date='21 May 2010 - 02:04 AM' timestamp='1274421852' post='2306611']
No ICBMs are not glorious cruise missiles. ICBMs specifically use part of its trajectory in exo atmosphere for its speed and short duration of flight, where as cruise missiles spend all their time in atmosphere, especially thicker lower atmosphere.[/quote]

I think you are missing the point of the conjectural metaphor, but I digress.

[quote]The very trajectory of Ballistic Missiles are different from that of cruise missiles. Also Brahmos though it has Mach 6 speeds does not follow a ballistic trajectory, it is terminally projected by its own power, and that is the major difference between BMs and CMs.[/quote]

But of course. I was strictly talking about hypersonic missiles in my post just to point out that speed is rather irrelevant given the proper tools and techniques used as counter-measures. Is it easy? No. Is it doable? Very.

[quote]Beyond the Stage three or Stage 4 of BMs the reentry Vehicle has extremely loss cross section for impact even for the massive thermal bloom caused by re-entry. The speed also being phenomenal it also depends on pure gravity for its final flight. So even an attempt to knock off its propulsion systems wont work. An ICBM's RV provides far lesser target area than the smallest strategic CMs, once detected. Also even Mach 6 less than certain velocities of detonation waves, it is easier to destroy them once targeted than RVs.[/quote]

Yes, that is Stage 3 of the Ballistic Missile: the reentry vehicle. That is also why I said knocking the Ballistic Missile, moving at Mach 10, off of its trajectory is null in void since it will have so much momentum, you need an incredible mass just to veer it by a single tangential degree. By the time of impact, you are looking at speeds of over 2 miles/s due to even [i]more[/i] acceleration due to gravity (assuming g = 9.81 m/s[sup]2[/sup]). Despite having a lesser target area, though, ICBMs are [i]generally[/i] constructed with a blunt nose as a complement to its reentry vehicle (perhaps that note is irrelevant). It still going to show up on RADAR regardless, though I'm not sure how a Mach 10 missile would do chaffing to throw off counter-measure RADAR systems.

Assuming the missile does not have general maneuverability in its reentry phase, you are looking at a projectile motion problem, added with momentum, kinetic and potential energy, (real) atmospheric gas equilibrium, the kinetic and static coefficients for gaseous friction (air), and augmented vector-based kinematics. This all can be computed by a computer as long as it is being fed with accurate information, which poses the biggest problem in most ABM systems. How does one predict the trajectory of such a fast object? Hence why missile shields are multi-layers because looking at the odds, you are not likely to hit the incoming missile on the first shot. On that note, though, with the angled velocity these missiles are moving at, you don't have many chances; you may even have only one chance if the missile in question has a capable chaffing system and the RADAR equipment being used as a counter-measure is either taken out or is inadequate to even keep up with the object.

[quote]Even if a targeting system manages to bring the ABM warhead explode adjacent to an RV, the RV wont be taken down as its terminal velocity would be higher than that of the detonation shock wave, which means it would outrun the shrapnels.[/quote]

Assuming a targeting system managed to target the RV, you would be looking at 'leading' the shrapnel explosions. As we said earlier, though, with the speed these missiles are moving at, the likelihood of you changing the trajectory of the missile is almost 0. And to add insult to injury, by changing the trajectory, you aren't guaranteed that the new trajectory will be 'safer'. In fact, changing even the slightest degree could lead to devastating (and unforeseen) consequences in where the thing actual lands.

Now for 'shrapnel', I presume you mean the ones that penetrate? If you are, then there is a possible counter to that in terms of taking out the missile. Newton's Second Law of Motion tells us that the force is equal to the mass multiplied by acceleration, but also that the sum of the forces equal zero. In other words, the net force will be 0 because of Newton's Third Law of Motion: the law of reciprocal actions. For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.

To give an example, if a bee and car collide with each other, the force that the car hits the bee at is equal to the force that the bee hits the car at. So if you hit a bee at 45 mph, that bee is technically hitting the car at 45 mph with an equal amount of force. We all know, though, that the car wins. This is because of its mass. If the bee was three tons, then we would be seeing an (in)elastic collision occurring between the bee and the car, but that is not the case. And looking at angular momentum, of which momentum can be said to derive from the law of reciprocal actions, it is possible to shoot shrapnel into the air as 'pre-fire' and from there hope that it hits the missile.

Should it hit the missile, and assuming that its mass would not be rendered negligible in this given scenario, and also assuming that it does possess armor-piercing qualities, it should be able to use the force of the missile against it. For instance, take a push pin and place it on your desk: this represents the shrapnel. The normal forces supporting it (F[sub]N[/sub]) consist of the counter-force to gravity, and are derived from the desk, your floor, etc. We are assuming that this push pin has enough force so that it isn't rendered negligible. Now take your index finger and point it downward; the finger is now the ICBM or missile in question. Press it toward the push pin and watch what happens (do not press too far please, of course). The push pin does little to nothing while the finger (missile) is doing all of the work.

Assuming that the shrapnel, or counter-missile, or whatever else may have you, has enough force to be shot into the air, you could reasonably counter an ICBM despite its terminal velocity. Now in this scenario, you are looking for a direct head-on collision. This is, of course, unreliable to hope that this would even approach a 25% success yield.

Another alternative is angular 'pre-fire', where instead of trying to hit the object straight on, you hit it from the sides (which is the more common practice in shield defenses today). Assuming that the shrapnel has the right amount of force, it would be able to penetrate and detonate the missile assuming that its timing is impeccably perfect. It would have to surpass the amount of force (naturally) being exerted by the missile on a vector level, notably the very static metal that defends it since you are essentially breaking the molecular bonds of the metal when you pierce any type of metal. Likewise, if the missile is rotating, you also have to take into account the forces created by both angular momentum and centripetal acceleration and forces.

At the moment, the best Anti-Ballistic Missile system utilized by the U.S in terms of counter-measure metallurgy is the SM-3, or the RIM-161 Standard Missile 3. It utilizes a surmountable number of systems that provides it with such successes proven in its tests. It uses both a kinetic warhead (KW) and a Lightweight Exo-Atmospheric Projectile (LEAP) to take out potential missile threats. As much as I dislike Wikipedia, I quote:

[center][quote]The ship's AN/SPY-1 radar finds the ballistic missile target and the Aegis weapon system calculates a solution on the target. When the missile is ordered to launch, the Aerojet MK 72 solid-fuel rocket booster launches the SM-3 out of the ship's Mark 41 vertical launching system (VLS). The missile then establishes communication with the launching ship. Once the booster burns out, it detaches, and the Aerojet MK 104 solid-fuel dual thrust rocket motor (DTRM) takes over propulsion through the atmosphere. The missile continues to receive mid-course guidance information from the launching ship and is aided by GPS data. The ATK MK 136 solid-fueled third stage rocket motor (TSRM) fires after the second stage burns out, and it takes the missile above the atmosphere (if needed). The TSRM is pulse fired and provides propulsion for the SM-3 until 30 seconds to intercept. At that point the third stage separates, and the Lightweight Exo-Atmospheric Projectile (LEAP) kinetic warhead (KW) begins to search for the target using pointing data from the launching ship. The ATK solid divert and attitude control system (SDACS) allows the kinetic warhead to maneuver in the final phase of the engagement. The KW's sensors identify the target, attempt to identify the most lethal part of the target and steers the KW to that point. If the KW intercepts the target, it provides 130 megajoules (96,000,000 ft·lbf, 31 kg TNT equivalent) of kinetic energy at the point of impact.[4][/quote][/center]

In short: the only way you are going to be able to take out a ballistic missile is (hopefully) before its reentry phase. If you can't take out it before then, then the only option you have is using computer-guided counter-measures, which is plausible, but the likelihood of success once the RV enters the atmosphere plummets to what I'd surmise to be "duck and cover" chances.

[quote]So only method of taking down a Reentry vehicle would be to compute the trajectory and detonate the missile warhead a certain time and distance away from the RV so that the shrapnel cone generated could knock off the RV. And though the momentum question remains, RV skins are designed more for thermal insulation rather than brute physical force like that caused by an impacting shrapnel and such an impact could destroy its relatively brittle skin and damage the internal components.
[/quote]

I'm so glad I do what I do when responding to posts to people like you. I purposely do not read the entire thing in hopes that I can prove to myself that I have an inkling about what to do about the problem. It seems we came to the same conclusion. As to the thermal insulation, you are correct but to an extent, which brings me to the point of lasers.

They have brittle metal exoskeletons which make them very prone to penetration. However, they also use the thermal insulation (a rehash of what you said) in order to reenter the atmosphere without being chewed apart by the intense heat generated by gaseous (air, ozone, etc.) friction. However, these insulation panels can only observe so much heat until they begin to wear down, especially after use. They have to penetrate the atmosphere on two separate occasions, and I can assure you that the thermal plating's efficiency will not be optimal by the time it is in free fall in Stage 3. I can't provide actual numbers on that because I simply do not know the calculation for that.

At any rate, the purpose of the THEL laser is to lock on to the incoming target and 'defeat' it by super-heating the exterior, causing the components of the warhead to break down and self-detonate prematurely. As I said, the main drawback of the THEL is reflective plating and thermal plating will show signs of the greatest resistance to this kind of laser, so to rely on it as the sole layer of ABM is rather idiotic.

The FEL system, though, works by actually penetrating the warhead. Unfortunately we cannot apply Newton's Third Law of Motion to particles since they, and the rest of quantum mechanics, work outside the realm of the Laws of Motion, so it's hard to explain why a free electron laser would be able to penetrate a warhead with such an intense terminal velocity. Essentially, you would be punching a hole into the warhead (obviously) via practically instantaneous melting due to the incredible energy produced by free electron lasers. The point of a free electron is to, as to my knowledge, is to break apart the hybridizations of the material they are being fired at.

[b]That is, at least, where my head is at. If I misspoke about any of the physics above (I might have since I am tired as Hell), feel free to correct me on such. Regardless, logically, I believe my argument is sound. We pretty much agree, just keep that in mind, though we approached our conclusions from two different directions I'd surmise.[/b]

[SpacingOutMan]

[quote name='Centurius' date='21 May 2010 - 02:19 AM' timestamp='1274422775' post='2306630']
Counters to that were proposed as well, namely where rather than having each nuke rolled on the SDI roll would go for a series of nukes of 1MT(2 with WRC).
[/quote]

So "this roll covers 1,200 of the shots"? That's fine and dandy, but what happens when someone shoots regular artillery? C-RAM doesn't discriminate; yet realistically in CNRP, you can't block 1,200 of the 2,400 regular artillery shots, but you have a chance to block 1,200 of the 2,400 nuclear artillery shots? I don't know, I guess it's a matter of semantics perhaps?

[king of cochin]

SOM, no objections to your premise at all, You covered the physics and engineering of it to the letter,

[SpacingOutMan]

[quote name='king of cochin' date='21 May 2010 - 01:56 PM' timestamp='1274464557' post='2307079']
SOM, no objections to your premise at all, You covered the physics and engineering of it to the letter,
[/quote]

I'm visiting my uncle who has an expertise in rocketry as he was a metallurgy chemist for a while. I'll talk to him about chaffing when I see him and try to get some "uses" for it out of him.

[Fizzydog]

Mmmk. I'll tone it down to 1 MT. How is that?

[Centurius]

You'll need a Weapons Research Complex in-game for anything above 550kt

[Triyun]

[quote name='Fizzydog' date='21 May 2010 - 01:30 AM' timestamp='1274401816' post='2306114']
Okay, but the Tsar Bomba IS realistic. They tested it. I, of course, would only create one. Is that fine? Because this project took many years and only one was made, it was so powerful it was tested on that huge russian island above the middle of Russia and could be seen even from Finland. I would kill to RP launching that.
[/quote]

The Tsar Bomba was tested but it was decided it was impractical as a deployable weapon.

[Zoot Zoot]

yeah fizzy, you need a WRC to make hydrogen bombs (megaton weaponry)

On a side note.

Requesting spy rolls.
50% odds

thankyou in advance whoever does it.

[IMG]http://i211.photobucket.com/albums/bb144/zoot_zoot/spyrolls-1.jpg[/IMG]

Edit, image from IAT's request

Edited May 22, 2010 by Zoot Zoot

[iamthey]

[quote name='Zoot Zoot' date='22 May 2010 - 10:38 AM' timestamp='1274521099' post='2307869']
yeah fizzy, you need a WRC to make hydrogen bombs (megaton weaponry)

On a side note.

Requesting spy rolls.
50% odds

thankyou in advance whoever does it.
[/quote]


Need to see some proof of those odds and the name of who you are targeting. (Screen shot please)

[SpacingOutMan]

[quote name='Triyun' date='21 May 2010 - 07:10 PM' timestamp='1274483407' post='2307384']
The Tsar Bomba was tested but it was decided it was impractical as a deployable weapon.
[/quote]

So there is a voice of reason amongst the drowning crowd who think bigger is better. The fact is to make such a large bomb, you need to have a rather massive launch system, which is done via aircraft. The bombers were specifically modified to drop this particular payload and they were limited to a relatively shallow maximum ceiling along with a rather slow cruising speed.

[Malatose]

The size of a Nuclear warhead doesn't matter. The Soviet SS-18 R-36M2 Voivode (SS-18 Mod 6) carried a single warhead (SS-18 Mod 6) with a yield of 20 MT.

[Zoot Zoot]

any news on the spy rolls i asked for?

[Fizzydog]

Wait...Zooters said I'm off with tnaks. I may be, but i thought the formula was ig citizens x .8 x10 adn then that divided by .08 = tnkas. I am probably wrong, but wouldn't this make your tanks not be you maximum IG but whatever it is when you finish da math.

Now remember, I'm not good at math because it siad I got 8000 tnaks, btu I thought that 10,000 citizens = 1000 tanks. amirite?

[Voodoo Nova]

[quote name='Fizzydog' date='23 May 2010 - 07:42 PM' timestamp='1274658112' post='2309605']
Wait...Zooters said I'm off with tnaks. I may be, but i thought the formula was ig citizens x .8 x10 adn then that divided by .08 = tnkas. I am probably wrong, but wouldn't this make your tanks not be you maximum IG but whatever it is when you finish da math.

Now remember, I'm not good at math because it siad I got 8000 tnaks, btu I thought that 10,000 citizens = 1000 tanks. amirite?
[/quote]

No.


Tanks are max in game.

[SpacingOutMan]

[quote name='Malatose' date='22 May 2010 - 07:18 PM' timestamp='1274570266' post='2308511']
The size of a Nuclear warhead doesn't matter. The Soviet SS-18 R-36M2 Voivode (SS-18 Mod 6) carried a single warhead (SS-18 Mod 6) with a yield of 20 MT.
[/quote]

Wrong; it's not the warhead that is the sizable part of the bomb, but rather the exterior of the tamper. Why do you think Project Silverplate was put into play during the Manhattan Project? It was designed to create a payload carrying system that could drop the atomic bombs because of their shear and massive size. The Tsar Bomba was a massive bomb and required a modified heavy bomber in order to drop it, similar to how the Enola Gay and its counterpart were modified B-29 bombers. They had a lower maximum ceiling capacity along with limited range due to additional weight and equipment to maintain the initiation (initiator) systems. The SS-18 Mod 6 is a missile, not a bomb, which has entirely different payload and upkeep mechanisms on board the plane.

[SpacingOutMan]

[quote name='SpacingOutMan' date='21 May 2010 - 01:57 PM' timestamp='1274464628' post='2307080']
I'm visiting my uncle who has an expertise in rocketry as he was a metallurgy chemist for a while. I'll talk to him about chaffing when I see him and try to get some "uses" for it out of him.
[/quote]

Upon talking with my uncle, we did a bunch of calculations looking at an ABM system that uses an ABM counter-missile that is approximately one-third the mass of the actual incoming ICBM. To keep the numbers simple, we used 100 kg and 300 kg and if one is savvy with the area of physics regarding momentum and conservation of energy, the units for mass always cancel out, therefore rendering a ratio of 1:3 (or 1/3) as a multiplier to the overall reaction.

To be honest, after talking to him, I have serious doubts about anyone who uses ICBMs in general, and especially ABM systems because I had never taken into account real-equilibrium (non-STP) fluid dynamics. I was talking with a friend of the family who is a nuclear naval engineer who designs computer models for hydrodynamic models in which renders "pre-testing" unnecessary. In other words, he is designing a computer model based on empirical data in which can be used to predict the dynamics of water rushing through a nuclear reactor. In terms of implication, it is much like what they used to do when designing nuclear reactors. They would use a 'test reactor' to see what would happen with the turbines and other mechanisms, but now that near-100% models have been created on computers for these reactors, they no longer carry out 'test reactor' methods.

So we grabbed him as well for this stuff and we just talked it over. The likelihood of anyone actually understanding the proper techniques required for counter-measure and counter-counter-measure modeling on CNRP is, I promise you, 0%. Because of the volatility of real-equilibrium fluid dynamics, it is [b]extremely[/b] difficult to plot designated trajectory patterns for even free-fall missiles because of varying pressures in the various "spheres" that comprise of the ultra-terrestrial layers of earth.

What is currently used today via RADAR are predictive mechanisms that take previously recorded flight-trajectory patterns in various databases along with comparable simulations. So in reality, these predictive mechanisms cannot take into account random maneuverability and variation without having some sort of super-processor and/or some sort of AI.

That isn't to say, however, I am backtracking on my statement regarding modern ABM systems. In fact, although I am more cynical about the success yield of ICBMs and counter-measures, I am more confident in what I believe would work as proper ABM systems, especially with random maneuverability models presented by the DF-21 ICBM missile. Despite being considered "highly maneuverable", due to its terminal velocity it can only move within a certain "range" of coordinates within its proximity. This is largely because the missile, during its RV phase, is at free-fall. The only way for it to be maneuverable is to take into account the gaseous fluid dynamics that comprise of the endoatmosphere. If an ICBM has particularly fine waved grooves, for instance, it will spin in a longitudinal pattern, thus creating a variation in its free-fall phase.

Another method of maneuverability is adding either small charges or "boosters" that propel the missile out of its pre-designated trajectory into a secondary trajectory preconceived before its launch in order to either launch a "surprise attack" or enter a trajectory that presents a far greater success yield. This method, though, isn't as suitable for ICBMs due to their brittle and light nature. It's remarkable in of itself that the missile survives the reentry phase due to the extreme heat due to friction.

The way to counter this is to attempt to predict the possible end-point coordinates via terminal velocity integration. After a strenuous process of calculus that seems like the Rosetta Stone to me, the rocket, per se, only has a limited range in its overall maneuverability range. So an effective system, in this regard, would be something similar to an airburst system that would be a preemptive explosion that would meet the object in its overall vicinity. An equally probable option would be to apply more predictive measures, though it would be riskier due to the wide range of plausible position-changing mechanisms and abilities.

The reason for its limitations is because of the fluid dynamics that comprises of air stream mechanics, or wind tunnels. It is because of the fluid dynamics that allows the ICBM system to work: as per Bernoulli's modified equation for velocity (v in terms of meters per second), as the length of an object increases, the liquid moving in or around it will move faster. This is because the velocity is directly proportional (along with other variables) to the change in its x-coordinate. If you change the surface area, however, it would be plausible to manipulate the amount of exposure there is to the gaseous fluids that comprises (ad dominance) mostly of air. So going back to our initial calculation of this problem: we originally rendered fluid friction negligible, along with a few mechanisms (that are beyond me) in fluid dynamics.

Given certain stipulations (this is all dependent on the vector angles you are using), under the assumption that pressure remains constant, the angle of free-fall of the reentry vehicle is 30 degrees and the angle of approach of the ABM missile is 30 degrees, it would require approximately 7,500N of force from the ABM missile to obliterate the reentry vehicle phase missile. Or, in other words, 7,500 kg*m/s[sup]2[/sup] of force is required to bring the final terminal velocity of the reentry vehicle to zero, where v[sub]f[/sub]=0 denotes a complete exothermic reaction and destruction of the warhead.

Upon applying friction and the actual specs of an example ABM missile (the Arrow missile), the amount of energy required was decreased by quite a bit to approximately 5,400N, largely because the length of the ABM missile helped it retain velocity due to its slender nature. It also helped because the incoming RV had a faster terminal velocity, meaning that it is going to accelerate faster and faster, allowing the counter-measure to use less energy since the amount of energy exerted by the RV would be rendered back upon itself.

The last part added was adding the polar coordinates for the maximum integrated range for the ABM system itself, which in this case was approximately (deemed at least) 92 km. So we looked at an integral between 0 and 92km and brought the problem into a differential process, which looks at all of the possible graphs and coordinates plausible in the scenario. Upon looking at the 92km maximum range, and applying derived kinematics and conservation of momentum and angular momentum, it was rendered that the ABM missile would require less than 2,000N of force to pre-detonate the RV under the sole circumstance of Newton's Third Law of Motion. Likewise, although this is stipulated under strict conditions (as are most things in science regarding mathematical equations for conceptual problems), it was seen that the mass of the reentry vehicle worked against itself. So if you were to remove the 1:3 ratio used altogether, the actual amount of force would be different after calculated, but the same result would arrive.

This is why ICBMs are designed to be light as a means to limit their exposure to exerting too much force on themselves as they bounce off of the atmosphere and deal with fluid friction. However, it works against them because not only are they moving at an incredibly initial terminal velocity (M10 = 10 x ~320 m/s = ~3200 m/s, under the assumption that the speed of sound in this quadrant is 320 m/s; the speed of sound varies, though Mach 1 refers to 343 m/s, so its terminal velocity would indeed be 3430 m/s, but that is variant because it doesn't actually move at that speed, adding an additional twist to the equation), which means they are already moving at a certain acceleration. Adding the additional effect of acceleration due to gravity in the y-coordinate, it increases the force since F and acceleration are directly proportional since mass will be rendered constant in many scenarios. To note here: chaff was considered to be rather impotent and useless due to the speed of the reentry vehicle.

So yea, that's what I got out of it.

[Zoot Zoot]

Three days now and IM still waiting for the rolls.
Not to be pushy GM's, but I need the roll to continue the RP.

[Lynneth]

1-50 fail
51-100 win

[IMG]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v284/Lynneth_del_Serpentas/AE/Thing208.png[/IMG]

Zee fail, unfortunately.

[king of cochin]

Thanks Spacingoutman, for that very descriptive explanation. It would take me a couple more reads to fully comprehend what you have said but thanks for the explanation,

From the first read what I have understood is that my perception of a shrapnel cone created by the ABM missile predicting an estimated flight path is the way ABM works. Due to the immense velocity, the RV would be unable to maneuver a lot without creating extremely large stress to its lateral sides, which would cause it to break apart.

So within that maneuverability range, the ABM could create a shrapnel cone by detonating at a calculated distance in the predicted flight path of the RV and then hoping that the shrapnel causes some distortions or damage to the flight surface of the RV and that way cause its own extreme speed to destroy it. A direct kinetic energy penetration would be extremely improbable.

[SpacingOutMan]

[quote name='king of cochin' date='24 May 2010 - 11:16 AM' timestamp='1274714143' post='2310250']
Thanks Spacingoutman, for that very descriptive explanation. It would take me a couple more reads to fully comprehend what you have said but thanks for the explanation, [/quote]

Any time, and trust me, I was [i]there[/i] and I got lost once my uncle started talking about the fluid equilibrium at the edge of the atmosphere and how gaseous friction actually works.

[quote]From the first read what I have understood is that my perception of a shrapnel cone created by the ABM missile predicting an estimated flight path is the way ABM works. Due to the immense velocity, the RV would be unable to maneuver a lot without creating extremely large stress to its lateral sides, which would cause it to break apart.[/quote]

That is one plausible system in which an ABM could work, though today we are relying practically solely on penetrating ABM systems due to the ranges and velocities required. You'd also have to have an extremely penetrative shrapnel such as depleted uranium, diamond, or something as sharp (but not as brittle) as obsidian. And you are spot on with your assessment from what I know. The RV cannot maneuver at extreme angles because should it move out of its coned axis of movement, it will immediately be subject to a new vector of gaseous friction. This friction also reacts with the missile's inertia because it is in an excited state (on a molecular level) due to the extreme heat. So with a combination of inertia, angular momentum, and friction, the missile would be caught in a new vector and be thrown in a variety of different angles that would render it useless. This is why most reentry vehicles have conical heads like reentry vehicles used by NASA in many regards. This allows a greater degree of variability in axis tilting, but not much more.

[quote]So within that maneuverability range, the ABM could create a shrapnel cone by detonating at a calculated distance in the predicted flight path of the RV and then hoping that the shrapnel causes some distortions or damage to the flight surface of the RV and that way cause its own extreme speed to destroy it. A direct kinetic energy penetration would be extremely improbable.
[/quote]

From what I gather, this is correct. Of course the shrapnel would have to have a tremendous payload system because of their minuscule mass, so they'd have to match the force being rendered by the free-fall reentry vehicle. An option to wrestle this issue is the use of shaped charges, thus adding velocity to the already present momentum of the shrapnel within their payload carrier.

A direct kinetic energy penetration, at this time, is improbable with reentry vehicles with high maneuverability because the chances of 'missing' is that much greater. This is why lasers and rail guns, which have astronomical terminal velocities, would be a better choice due to their additional rates of fire, interception velocities, and more energy to guarantee counter-measure success.