Correct. “Golden Dome” is THE NAME very much like the “SDI” called “Star Wars” in Reagan era.
The Golden Dome DoD Proposal just put out was completed in 2022. The existing “layered defense” is being supplemented with additional layers and technologies. It is managed by MDA setup by Reagan in 1983: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missile_Defense_Agency
There are at least two “new” technologies being added that appear “magical”. These are likely space-based lasers and remote hacking/reprogram of the missile control/targeting system. Theoretically, any nuke launched can be reprogrammed real-time with the target coordinates of the launch origin (or nearby). Can you say MEGA-DETERRENT?
You’ve killed us, Captain. -First Officer of Konovalov (Hunt for Red October)
They are not likely to be space-based lasers. We worked on them during SDI. Too big and having dubious effect. Only good during boost phase. Easier job with an interceptor. Now, as an anti-satellite weapon, the game is more favorable. But there are sneakier methods (I was involved in devising them).
I don't have much belief in remote hacking. Once a bird is underway, the portal for communication is gone. I don't get where your "theory" is coming from. It's not true. My education in the business is that the weapon is entirely self-contained. The early ICBM radio launch guidance method was abandoned in favor of inertial guidance out of concern for EMP, jamming, or other electronic measures.
Unverified report of US military having some sort of “piggyback” hacking drone that can intercept and attach itself to an enemy missile in order to alter its trajectory or impair its booster in some way (shaped charge on booster sidewall?). This was being talked about in 1990s (circa 1996?) in Popular Science and other quasi-Sci-Fi circles as a “potential weapon” and then it disappeared, indicating to me that they probably actually built it.
THAAD was demonstrating “kinetic kill” in late 80s/early 90s. Next iteration (much harder) of that may have been “kinetic capture” if that is the correct terminology.
I will bet it is unverified, all right. It sounds completely bogus. Bad ideas are also dropped because they are bad ideas. How far away is the missile from the drone launch site? Is the missile under boost? That's too difficult a problem to solve, because we generally get notice of a missile after it is launched, and after it is finished boosting. It also depends on whether it is a tactical, intermediate, or intercontinental ballistic missile. The last can be dealt with by an orbital interceptor constellation, while in boost phase (long enough boost, high enough altitude).
First launch of THAAD was in 2005, and it wasn't ready for deployment until 2008. But kinetic kill as a mechanism was demonstrated dramatically by the Delta 180 experiment, with the complete disintegration of the target vehicle. Apparently, the high-speed shock created compression waves in the structure that resulted in total spallation of the target. We were in those days completing work on a space-based satellite defender using a large "flyswatter" as the kill mechanism. Our work then shifted to the desired development of a 1-kg projectile, the Flying Brick. I invented an approach, which later won a development contract, which later became the world's first solid-propellant 3-axis-stabiiized kinetic kill vehicle, which we tried to sell to the Air Force and failed. Hughes picked up the propulsion work we had contracted with Thiokol, developed their version, was bought by Raytheon, and the end of that genealogy is currently the kill vehicle warhead of the Standard 3 missile, in service since 2004. They used it to kill an old satellite in 2008 to see if it was possible. Kill vehicle warheads have been standard for the Ground-Based Interceptor missile, deployed since 2004.
There is no point to "kinetic capture," whatever that could be. KEW improvement is mostly along the lines of reliability and accuracy.
Possibly “space-reflected/directed” lasers rather than “space-based”? That seems to be what we do with radio waves, so maybe that is analogous for different freq/wavelengths used as weapons?
Even more difficult. I designed a laser beam reflector constellation to deal with (e.g.) Scud missiles in the Persian Gulf. Very huge satellites and it requires redundancy of the ground laser to cope with cloud-free line-of-sight requirements (probably 3 sites). Multi-megawatt power levels. Expensive. Interesting sensitivity to the number of reflector nodes available in orbit, and orbital altitude.
There is very little operational comparison between lasers and radio. Lasers require very high intensity on target (50-100 watts/cm2) but radio requires maybe milliwatts/cm2. Laser is stopped by clouds; radio isn't. Conversion efficiency for production of laser radiation is poor; for radio, not so bad.
Remote-hacking of modern nav/control systems of missiles has supposedly been demonstrated using “tight beam laser infiltration” by US Army, whatever that means. Location of guidance computer within the system as well as correct laser frequency/wavelength must be known from what I’ve read. Range of effectiveness (laser to target) may be an issue as well as maintaining target lock while in flight. Probably level 11 challenge to do it on hypersonic missile. Could be a misdirect from something else as you are observing.
I would have to see more about this. I don't understand how a laser beam can "infiltrate" electrical technology, unless you are trying to hack a laser-guided missile.
A hypersonic missile will have a serious boundary-layer refraction problem, and I don't think it will have any external communication ports to exploit.
Correct. “Golden Dome” is THE NAME very much like the “SDI” called “Star Wars” in Reagan era.
The Golden Dome DoD Proposal just put out was completed in 2022. The existing “layered defense” is being supplemented with additional layers and technologies. It is managed by MDA setup by Reagan in 1983: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missile_Defense_Agency
NGI, a component of the current GD had initial proposal engineering work completed in 2020 under Trump I with a downselect in late 2020 or early 2021: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ground-Based_Interceptor#Next_generation_interceptor_(NGI)
There are at least two “new” technologies being added that appear “magical”. These are likely space-based lasers and remote hacking/reprogram of the missile control/targeting system. Theoretically, any nuke launched can be reprogrammed real-time with the target coordinates of the launch origin (or nearby). Can you say MEGA-DETERRENT?
They are not likely to be space-based lasers. We worked on them during SDI. Too big and having dubious effect. Only good during boost phase. Easier job with an interceptor. Now, as an anti-satellite weapon, the game is more favorable. But there are sneakier methods (I was involved in devising them).
I don't have much belief in remote hacking. Once a bird is underway, the portal for communication is gone. I don't get where your "theory" is coming from. It's not true. My education in the business is that the weapon is entirely self-contained. The early ICBM radio launch guidance method was abandoned in favor of inertial guidance out of concern for EMP, jamming, or other electronic measures.
Unverified report of US military having some sort of “piggyback” hacking drone that can intercept and attach itself to an enemy missile in order to alter its trajectory or impair its booster in some way (shaped charge on booster sidewall?). This was being talked about in 1990s (circa 1996?) in Popular Science and other quasi-Sci-Fi circles as a “potential weapon” and then it disappeared, indicating to me that they probably actually built it.
THAAD was demonstrating “kinetic kill” in late 80s/early 90s. Next iteration (much harder) of that may have been “kinetic capture” if that is the correct terminology.
I will bet it is unverified, all right. It sounds completely bogus. Bad ideas are also dropped because they are bad ideas. How far away is the missile from the drone launch site? Is the missile under boost? That's too difficult a problem to solve, because we generally get notice of a missile after it is launched, and after it is finished boosting. It also depends on whether it is a tactical, intermediate, or intercontinental ballistic missile. The last can be dealt with by an orbital interceptor constellation, while in boost phase (long enough boost, high enough altitude).
First launch of THAAD was in 2005, and it wasn't ready for deployment until 2008. But kinetic kill as a mechanism was demonstrated dramatically by the Delta 180 experiment, with the complete disintegration of the target vehicle. Apparently, the high-speed shock created compression waves in the structure that resulted in total spallation of the target. We were in those days completing work on a space-based satellite defender using a large "flyswatter" as the kill mechanism. Our work then shifted to the desired development of a 1-kg projectile, the Flying Brick. I invented an approach, which later won a development contract, which later became the world's first solid-propellant 3-axis-stabiiized kinetic kill vehicle, which we tried to sell to the Air Force and failed. Hughes picked up the propulsion work we had contracted with Thiokol, developed their version, was bought by Raytheon, and the end of that genealogy is currently the kill vehicle warhead of the Standard 3 missile, in service since 2004. They used it to kill an old satellite in 2008 to see if it was possible. Kill vehicle warheads have been standard for the Ground-Based Interceptor missile, deployed since 2004.
There is no point to "kinetic capture," whatever that could be. KEW improvement is mostly along the lines of reliability and accuracy.
Interesting.
Possibly “space-reflected/directed” lasers rather than “space-based”? That seems to be what we do with radio waves, so maybe that is analogous for different freq/wavelengths used as weapons?
Even more difficult. I designed a laser beam reflector constellation to deal with (e.g.) Scud missiles in the Persian Gulf. Very huge satellites and it requires redundancy of the ground laser to cope with cloud-free line-of-sight requirements (probably 3 sites). Multi-megawatt power levels. Expensive. Interesting sensitivity to the number of reflector nodes available in orbit, and orbital altitude.
There is very little operational comparison between lasers and radio. Lasers require very high intensity on target (50-100 watts/cm2) but radio requires maybe milliwatts/cm2. Laser is stopped by clouds; radio isn't. Conversion efficiency for production of laser radiation is poor; for radio, not so bad.
Proof that frequency matters.
Remote-hacking of modern nav/control systems of missiles has supposedly been demonstrated using “tight beam laser infiltration” by US Army, whatever that means. Location of guidance computer within the system as well as correct laser frequency/wavelength must be known from what I’ve read. Range of effectiveness (laser to target) may be an issue as well as maintaining target lock while in flight. Probably level 11 challenge to do it on hypersonic missile. Could be a misdirect from something else as you are observing.
I would have to see more about this. I don't understand how a laser beam can "infiltrate" electrical technology, unless you are trying to hack a laser-guided missile.
A hypersonic missile will have a serious boundary-layer refraction problem, and I don't think it will have any external communication ports to exploit.