Is there any particular reason this isn't feasible?

Is there any particular reason this isn't feasible?

Other urls found in this thread:

fas.org/nuke/guide/usa/icbm/lgm-30_3.htm
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

>time to reach formation
>fuel to stay in position
>power to predict path of missile

by the theory of anonymous, you can't have all 3

Why don't we just build a really tall wall? That'll stop any missiles and we won't have to deal with the difficulties of troubleshooting those machines.

With 20 minutes early warning, you could deploy them by rocket to the approximate impact zone, with half an hour's worth of power to hover. Guide them to more precise coordinates with ground-based radar.

heisenberg uncertainty principal says you can't know both the momentum and position of a missile. You can either know where it is or how fast its going but never both

My cock is positioned in your mom, and it's moving really fast.

The existing anti-missile hardware is exactly this concept except better. Why have homing drones when you can have a high-speed homing rocket that detonates on proximity to the other missile.

it's faster, doesn't require lifting large amounts of mass into the air, just enough explosives/shrapnel to fuck with an incoming device, the process of guiding singular missiles to moving targets is already a huge research field in the army rather than swarms which is less explored and considerably more difficult, it can correct for wind/weather easier, it can be housed in a singe location rather than many, etc. etc. etc.

What problem exactly are you solving here? Getting significant mass airborne to reliably destroy a cruise missile wouldn't be cheaper than another missile, or have any other benefit

Uncertainty principle doesn't apply to Newtonian mechanics

Yes but in which direction is your cock moving? If you're going very quickly, it's difficult to predict whether your cock is thrusting inward or outward. That is why there's uncertainty.

The missile knows where it is at all times. It knows this because it knows where it isn't. By subtracting where it is from where it isn't, or where it isn't from where it is (whichever is greater) it obtains a difference, or deviation. The guidance subsystem uses deviations to generate corrective commands to drive the missile from a position where it is to a position where it isn't, and arriving at a position where it wasn't, and now is. Consequently, the position it now is, is now the position that it wasn't, and it follows that the position that it was, is now the position that it isn't.

In the event that the position that it is in is not the position that it wasn't, the system has acquired a variation, the variation being the difference between where the missile is and where it wasn't. If variation is considered to be a significant factor, it too may be corrected by the GEA. However, the missile must also know where it was. The missile guidance computer scenario works as follows. Because a variation has modified some of the information the missile has obtained, it is not sure just where it is. However, it is sure where it isn't, within reason, and it knows where it was. It now subtracts where it should be from where it wasn't, or vice versa, and by differentiating this from the algebraic sum of where it shouldn't be, and where it was, it is able to produce the deviation and its variation, which is called error.

>What problem exactly are you solving here?

Two problems; firstly the problem of accuracy, secondly the problem of cost.

The accuracy problem with rocket interceptors is that you have to have the guidance and tracking exactly right to the millisecond, as well as your approach vector, speed, etc. Both objects are approaching each other at ridiculous speeds, and the slightest mistake, stray air current, anything, causes you to miss. It's like trying to hit a flying javelin with another javelin. With this system, the size of the blocks can account for a relatively enormous margin of error, since being a third of a degree off at the apex can be compensated both in the breadth of the shield and the fact you have twice as much time to make course corrections.

The second is cost. A weight attached to rotors, plus a battery, basic guidance computer and a radio receiver, is a shit ton cheaper than a one-time-use rocket. You could also use a very cheap rocket to launch them, since it barely needs any targeting capability; launch in an approximate location and let the blocks be guided by the surface radar. No nose radar, no need for billions of dollars of engineering in rocketry. You could repurpose a chemical weapons rocket to disperse them.

...

There's actually a third problem solved. It's a function of cost, but with a system so very cheap, you could effectively shield against an indefinite number of incoming missiles.

Instead of firing five $20 million interceptors at a single $200k ICBM, you can launch 5000 $500 blocks at 50 incoming ICBMs.

It's nearly impossible to hit something falling to earth at mach 7 to mach 8. Furthermore, something that seperates into 7-14 objects falling to earth at mach 7 to mach 8.

You don't want to hit it, you want to let it hit the shield. Twice as much time to allow for correct positioning.

What do you propose you build this mobile shield of that is strong enough and agile enough to stop an 80,000 lb missile travelling at mach 23?

Source: fas.org/nuke/guide/usa/icbm/lgm-30_3.htm

A 2 pound block of iron? At that speed, just about anything it hits will slice through the missile like butter. It just needs to be hovering in the right place.

Just use an anti missile rocket

ICBMs tend to release multiple warheads that go in random directions

So target them all.

But they are all moving faster than a bullet and you cant predict their trajectory

Also, is it possible for the drones to survive the EMP that comes before the re entry of the icbm?

You can't predict it with the precision required to aim an anti-missile missile at it. You could predict it with a slightly larger margin for error, which having multiple flying objects in the path could compensate for.

interceptors need to hit the missile either while it's still ascending on the launch trajectory or while it's just starting its descent, otherwise there's too much momentum built up and even if it somehow is stopped the air burst devastates the target anyway.

also an ICBM warhead on reentry moves way too fast to accurately track.

if anyone's interested, Scientific American had a really good article on ballistic missile interceptors and their problems, back in August 1999. Pic related.

also

>an ICBM warhead on reentry moves way too fast to accurately track.

Keyword is "accurately." If you know the rough trajectory based on early warning, you know roughly the path it will take. With a cheap shield system like this, you could afford to throw up a massive wall of objects for it to run into.

The variance isn't that enormous. It's just impossible to track it to the degree of accuracy required for an interceptor in the terminal phase. It's still trackable.

A possible counter to this could be to have the multiple war heads explode at different altitudes to clear the way

Sure. It wouldn't change the strategic balance of power with major nuclear powers like Russia or China.

It would give us effective defense from a few potato North Korean ICBMs though.

Ah yes I agree.

the fuck would you make a retarded mobile wall for? just make an automated turret of various kinds, like they already do.

>several MIRV warheads flying at you at mach 10+
>lmao just send the helicopter blocks at them XXDDDD
Stay in school kid.

so you want ti cover the whole country with billions of expensive floating drones?
can you really not see why its retarded?

kek

The joke
Your head

The number of units required, the control needed to keep them orderly, and the reaction time.
The system wouldn't be able to be secret, with thousands of units deployed and enemy could steal one and analyze it to counteract it.
Also emp.

The combined problems listed above make such a system non-feasible at this time.

this guy gets it

What if we built an inflatable dome? Do you know there are those inflatable castles and shit in kids' parties, right? What if we made an inflatable dome that would protect a whole city or country from missles? Before you say it the dome would have an AC system so we don't run out of air.

an effective drone wall will only feasibly stop a trajectory that goes through where the drone wall is already established

you'll need a separate shield block system for every square mile of the country

not an economic solution.
Requires constant refueling

your argument died here

Bait, kys

The game
You
(Just lost)

works great in 2D

counter - counter measures for missiles are infinitely easier to develop than just counter measures against missiles.

you know what stops anti ballistic missiles systems?

multi balloon decoys and a balloon around the warhead. now you don't know which is the real warhead and must hit every balloon to be sure you got it.

each ABM missile is just as expensive as the thing its trying to hit.

missile defense in itself is not an economical solution.

the missile could just go around the wall.

It's mobile, and terminal phase ICBMs are ballistic.

It doesn't though. You don't have to keep it in the air 24/7. Early warning systems provide at least a few minutes' warning. With 2 minutes to launch a rocket, you can have them all in position within 3.