Sprint & HiBEX ABM

[KJ_Lesnick]

Everybody

Why is the Army responsible for handling ABM's?  Not that I really object to it, I'm just curious


RLBH

If deployed to defend cities, it would go hand-in-hand with a large-scale shelter program, since you'd be relying on low-altitude bursts in any case.

And considering the sprint would race downrange to some degree the radiation exposure would progressively dip-off if everybody was in a massive bomb-shelter.  Still, I have a feeling there'd still be a lot of people out in the open as it's very difficult to build a shelter enough to hold a whole city in it.

Not at all.

I had a hunch...

The Soviets broke it in reality, the US knew they'd broken it, and nobody could do anything about it. Any SAM system capable of dealing with an aircraft in the B-70 or SR-71 class is automatically capable of dealing with ICBMs

True enough... a good question I'm wondering is (assuming it's not classified) did we have a missile system that could deal with a B-70/SR-71 type threat (I doubt we'd face it but...)

provided that the command and control network is up to it.

That's a good question, I'm unsure if it was or not: I'd probably assume it was because I'm very optimistic as a person (J/K -- I operate under the premise that if it can go wrong, it will; if it does, it will do so spectacularly).

[RLBH]

Everybody

Why is the Army responsible for handling ABM's?  Not that I really object to it, I'm just curious

In the US, ground-based air defence is the duty of the Army thanks to interservice politics. In countries that have a properly functioning defence establishment (I jest. Mostly.) it tends to be the responsibility of the Air Force or Air Defence Forces. ABM is just an extension of the principle.

RLBH

If deployed to defend cities, it would go hand-in-hand with a large-scale shelter program, since you'd be relying on low-altitude bursts in any case.

And considering the sprint would race downrange to some degree the radiation exposure would progressively dip-off if everybody was in a massive bomb-shelter.  Still, I have a feeling there'd still be a lot of people out in the open as it's very difficult to build a shelter enough to hold a whole city in it.

It was perfectly feasible to shelter everyone in New York City, if the money was there. Expensive, but feasible. Realistically, you'd use a long-range screen of Spartan missiles to cover the country, and only use Sprint for high-value targets that needed point defence.

The Soviets broke it in reality, the US knew they'd broken it, and nobody could do anything about it. Any SAM system capable of dealing with an aircraft in the B-70 or SR-71 class is automatically capable of dealing with ICBMs

True enough... a good question I'm wondering is (assuming it's not classified) did we have a missile system that could deal with a B-70/SR-71 type threat (I doubt we'd face it but...)

No - in fact, the US deliberately crippled the capability of what became the Patriot missile system in order that it wouldn't be effective as an ABM and thus breach the ABM treaties.

[KJ_Lesnick]

RLBH

In the US, ground-based air defence is the duty of the Army thanks to interservice politics.

1. I thought the BOMARC was USAF controlled?

2. If I may ask, what inter-service politics?

It was perfectly feasible to shelter everyone in New York City, if the money was there. Expensive, but feasible.

Feasible is one thing, but was there actual plans to actually do it?  One thing I'm very aware of is that there is a fundamental difference between being able to do something, and having the will to do it.

Realistically, you'd use a long-range screen of Spartan missiles to cover the country, and only use Sprint for high-value targets that needed point defence.

True enough

[KJ_Lesnick]

General Question

Was the Sprint going supersonic the instant it left the silo, or was it going supersonic only after the motor fired?

[Gondor]

General Question

Was the Sprint going supersonic the instant it left the silo, or was it going supersonic only after the motor fired?

Think about it!

How on earth can an item that was in a silo become supersonic the instant its engine is fired?

Gondor

[rickshaw]

2. If I may ask, what inter-service politics?

This US military interservice politics perhaps?   

[KJ_Lesnick]

Rickshaw,

I know what it means, I'm curious as to exactly why...

[rickshaw]

Rickshaw,

I know what it means, I'm curious as to exactly why...

Why is the sky blue?

"Empire building", Robyn/Kendra.   The definition of a good bureaucrat is he/she who can amass the most resources to his/her control.  Interservice rivalry is exactly the same.  "I have it, you want it, you can't have it.  I believe that should be under my control and I will fight you for it."  These conflicts have existed ever since the first kingdom was created and delegation of control of resources was used to organise it.

Stop asking fatuous questions.   

[KJ_Lesnick]

It wasn't a fatuous question: I was curious why it ended up under the Army's control especially with the USAF controlling air defense.

[rickshaw]

It wasn't a fatuous question: I was curious why it ended up under the Army's control especially with the USAF controlling air defense.

Who controlled AAA, Robyn/Kendra?

SAMs were seen as an extension and natural successor to that so control would have remained with Army.  Army would have fought tooth and nail to keep it, in order to remain "relevant" in the "Atomic age".

Any history the US military would mention that.

[scooter]

Who controlled AAA, Robyn/Kendra?

SAMs were seen as an extension and natural successor to that so control would have remained with Army.  Army would have fought tooth and nail to keep it, in order to remain "relevant" in the "Atomic age".

The only reason the USAF controlled BOMARC was that it was initially classified as a "fighter", like they did with AAMs in their inventory.  Therefore, even though the BOMARC was a SAM, it was controlled by the boys in blue.

[KJ_Lesnick]

Rickshaw

Who controlled AAA, Robyn/Kendra?

Army

SAMs were seen as an extension and natural successor to that so control would have remained with Army.

Well, protection of Army bases and stuff like that make sense: However theater defense of bombers and missiles would make more sense under the USAF's control -- especially since the Army doesn't operate ballistic missiles.

Army would have fought tooth and nail to keep it, in order to remain "relevant" in the "Atomic age".

Yeah, that sort of makes sense -- as well as ideas like nuclear-cannon.


Scooter

The only reason the USAF controlled BOMARC was that it was initially classified as a "fighter", like they did with AAMs in their inventory.

That's why they did that?  Smart move...

[RLBH]

Rickshaw

Who controlled AAA, Robyn/Kendra?

Army

SAMs were seen as an extension and natural successor to that so control would have remained with Army.

Well, protection of Army bases and stuff like that make sense: However theater defense of bombers and missiles would make more sense under the USAF's control -- especially since the Army doesn't operate ballistic missiles.

The US Army also operated the air defence artillery around US cities - and for that matter coastal defence artillery.  It was well established that ground-based air defence was an Army responsibility, whether they happened to be doing so with guns or missiles. One of the reasons BOMARC died (other than being a real pain to integrate into the defence system) was that it offended the Army by intruding on their turf.

[KJ_Lesnick]

Gondor

How on earth can an item that was in a silo become supersonic the instant its engine is fired?

The Sprint used a powder charge to blast the rocket out of the silo before the rocket motor engaged...


RLBH

No - in fact, the US deliberately crippled the capability of what became the Patriot missile system in order that it wouldn't be effective as an ABM and thus breach the ABM treaties.

1. Why did the US do this, when the USSR did not?

2. Is there any modern counterpart, Russian or otherwise that would mirror the performance of the intended missile system if its capabilities were not deliberately hampered?

The US Army also operated the air defence artillery around US cities - and for that matter coastal defence artillery.

I knew about coastal-defense artillery; the air-defense artillery around US cities also seemed logical in WW2 as the USAAF and US Army were the same service.  

It was well established that ground-based air defence was an Army responsibility, whether they happened to be doing so with guns or missiles.

Why was a limit of 200 miles imposed?

One of the reasons BOMARC died (other than being a real pain to integrate into the defence system) was that it offended the Army by intruding on their turf.

Fascinating, but didn't the BOMARC serve over a decade?  That sounds like a decent timetable...

[rickshaw]

RLBH

No - in fact, the US deliberately crippled the capability of what became the Patriot missile system in order that it wouldn't be effective as an ABM and thus breach the ABM treaties.

1. Why did the US do this, when the USSR did not?

You have evidence that the fUSSR evaded the ABM Treaty and it's limitations?