Guided Missiles Strange Technology

[BankaTuyo]

@RasCanjero @BankaTuyo

I was talking about offensive missiles only, what about defensive missiles systems. What's the strategy? is t to send the same type of missile up in the air and explode an offensive missile in mid-air? if so you would need a good radar system with coordinate precision of your whole air space, quick response systems and plans, get a missile up in the air following the coordinate(you would need sophisticated computery to guide the missile to the coordinate) and then apply a strike to the offensive missile to disable it in the air above your nation.

The other possible defence mechanism I can envision is sending a missile with a shield towards the offensive missile and following it where-ever the offensive missile is in the air and then attacking it and making sure it is destroyed in the air and the explosion and the pieces of the missiles all fall and captured within a sheild like system that deploys itself before attacking the missile to avoid debris falling over the city.

Your estimation are almost to the point, an ati icbm utilizes many radars to gather information (early detection systems), and then go up and intercept/destroy the incoming target, en example is the Russian S-500 anti-missile which can stop icbms travelling at 7km/s (mach 7), although it is accuracy and efficiency is questioned among the experts.

we (Somalis) are decades if not a century away from developing such systems.

 

[DR OSMAN]

Your estimation are almost to the point, an ati icbm utilizes many radars to gather information (early detection systems), and then go up and intercept/destroy the incoming target, en example is the Russian S-500 anti-missile which can stop icbms travelling at 7km/s (mach 7), although it is accuracy and efficiency is questioned among the experts.

we (Somalis) are decades if not a century away from developing such systems.

Why is it so hard? Why can't we send a team to learn about Radar systems and conquer the first part of the problem with air defence, which is to map your airspace and monitor any suspicious movements. For example how would we identify missiles in comparison to other friendly airborne technology like planes and helicopters? The first thing is the speed it's travelling, as you said 7 kilometer a second is pretty vicious niyahow. You know that means it covers 7 kilometer under a second, not a minute. Consider a car how fast would you need to know to go in order to cover those distances? For example the fastest car on earth drives at 435 km/h that's speed is divided by the hour because it can't travel that speed in 1 second.

Anything speed wise that cannot cover a certain distance below 1 second, is thrown into the hour category and that's slow as hell and that's still very fast in somali eyes. Can you imagine something travelling 435 kilometers on land in Somalia and the look on the face of those maryaloleys?

The sad thing is they have no clue that is still slow speed in the civilized world, their talking about covering 7 kilometers under a second, a blink of an eye. 7 km per second x 60, it's covered 420 kilometers. In 600 seconds it has travelled 4200 kilometers. They could deploy a missile from 4200 kilometers away from Somalia and reach it in 10 minutes(600 seconds). That's crazy velocity speeds.

 

[BankaTuyo]

Thanks for clearing that up.

For some reason I assumed it was even less manoeuvrable than ICBMs.

If it's a faster cruise missile than I could understand its place in warfare.


Btw

If Somalia were to invest in any future tech then I would pick Railguns.

Only thing that could defend against most the new hardware being developed.

The concept of railguns is very promising, although those systems are not operational as of yet; but major global powers are all developing their versions of it. the other day i was reading an article on the subject where china is the leading country in implementing such missiles.

as a sci-fi reader, i like the railgun concept more than any other missile out there, because it has ties to the --hypothetical but may be practical in the near future-- Relativistic Kill Vehicle. the premise is you get enough dense object to 20-30% speed of light and hit targets with it. the amount of kinetic energy such a weapon delivers is mind boggling and extremely destructive.

 

[DR OSMAN]

The concept of railguns is very promising, although those systems are not operational as of yet; but major global powers are all developing their versions of it. the other day i was reading an article on the subject where china is the leading country in implementing such missiles.

as a sci-fi reader, i like the railgun concept more than any other missile out there, because it has ties to the --hypothetical but may be practical in the near future-- Relativistic Kill Vehicle. the premise is you get enough dense object to 20-30% speed of light and hit targets with it. the amount of kinetic energy such a weapon delivers is mind boggling and extremely destructive.

They can achieve 20-30% of 299792 km/s? I am highly skeptical if we have enough power for such speed for centuries to come, unless a break-through happens on power and velocity or some short cut to avoid the delays that happen. I highly doubt were reaching 30% of 300,000 kilometers per second. That's covering the world 10 times over in the blink of an eye.

 

[BankaTuyo]

Why is it so hard? Why can't we send a team to learn about Radar systems and conquer the first part of the problem with air defence, which is to map your airspace and monitor any suspicious movements. For example how would we identify missiles in comparison to other friendly airborne technology like planes and helicopters? The first thing is the speed it's travelling, as you said 7 kilometer a second is pretty vicious niyahow. You know that means it covers 7 kilometer under a second, not a minute. Consider a car how fast would you need to know to go in order to cover those distances? For example the fastest car on earth drives at 435 km/h that's speed is divided by the hour because it can't travel that speed in 1 second.

Anything speed wise that cannot cover a certain distance below 1 second, is thrown into the hour category and that's slow as hell and that's still very fast in somali eyes. Can you imagine something travelling 435 kilometers on land in Somalia and the look on the face of those maryaloleys?

The sad thing is they have no clue that is still slow speed in the civilized world, their talking about covering 7 kilometers under a second, a blink of an eye. 7 km per second x 60, it's covered 420 kilometers. In 600 seconds it has travelled 4200 kilometers. They could deploy a missile from 4200 kilometers away from Somalia and reach it in 10 minutes(600 seconds). That's crazy velocity speeds.

Hahahah, you made me laugh.... now, getting the education on radars and deploying them is not the hard part, but building your icbms and testing them in secrecy is very hard. as emerging nation from decades of war and depravity we cannot weather sanctions and collective punishments associated with obtaining a working ICBM system or anything close to it. we should first concentrate on building a decent conventional army, then the bigger toys.

on the subject of speeds, and velocities, ... i tried explaining the speed of the only interstellar human made object (the voyager-1 spacecraft which was launched back in 1977) to some friends of mine, they couldn't grasp/believe what 17km/s means. then i went -- to my peril-- explaining simple relativity concepts. i gave up pretty fast, i was afraid they might say i was borderline mad. lol.

 

[BankaTuyo]

They can achieve 20-30% of 299792 km/s? I am highly skeptical if we have enough power for such speed for centuries to come, unless a break-through happens on power and velocity or some short cut to avoid the delays that happen. I highly doubt were reaching 30% of 300,000 kilometers per second. That's covering the world 10 times over in the blink of an eye.

it is just a concept, as of yet humans are no where near writing actual codes (simulations) or drawing engineering aspects of such a missile. but it never hurts to dream.

 

[DR OSMAN]

Hahahah, you made me laugh.... now, getting the education on radars and deploying them is not the hard part, but building your icbms and testing them in secrecy is very hard. as emerging nation from decades of war and depravity we cannot weather sanctions and collective punishments associated with obtaining a working ICBM system or anything close to it. we should first concentrate on building a decent conventional army, then the bigger toys.

on the subject of speeds, and velocities, ... i tried explaining the speed of the only interstellar human made object (the voyager-1 spacecraft which was launched back in 1977) to some friends of mine, they couldn't grasp/believe what 17km/s means. then i went -- to my peril-- explaining simple relativity concepts. i gave up pretty fast, i was afraid they might say i was borderline mad. lol.

Just tell them in easy terms what it means in relative terms. Tell them how long does a flight from India to Somalia take? Direct flight taking the shortest path is about 4 hours according to google. Tell them a high velocity missile that is covering 7 km per second can arrive in Somalia in 10 minutes from India. Look at the stunned look on their face. It's because a passenger plane doesn't travel velocity speeds, it's travelling cruising speed and doing only triple the speed of your average conventional car. an Average car can reach 200 kilometers per hour, a passenger plane 600 kilometers. It's only doing around triple the speed of your car so it will get there only quicker 3 times over.

 

[DR OSMAN]

it is just a concept, as of yet humans are no where near writing actual codes (simulations) or drawing engineering aspects of such a missile. but it never hurts to dream.

Why do missiles look so small, you would think with the speeds they travel which is much faster then passenger planes, it would look far bigger and have far larger motors. Maybe it's weight and mass, it carrying a lesser payload then 300 people in a passenger plane, so that could be a reason? The lighter the mass the less power you need on it. So those amazon drones could technically travel those speeds depending obviously on the mass it's crazy. The Mass of an object affects it's speed. That's why einstein equation of energy=mass is squared off below the speed of light due to light having no mass, anything with weight will always travel slower then the speed of light. Except Electricity, there is no mass on electricity. It's got no real measurable weight electricity because it just sparks of energy. That's why it takes less then a second to travel this message to you from the other part of the world. But it's still not travelling at the speed of light even internet due to the pipes I assume it has to travel through undersea and then the routers which are mechanical that could slow it down. Light just travels through space there is no mechanical parts interfering to slow it down or apply mass to it.

 

[BankaTuyo]

Just tell them in easy terms what it means in relative terms. Tell them how long does a flight from India to Somalia take? Direct flight taking the shortest path is about 4 hours according to google. Tell them a high velocity missile that is covering 7 km per second can arrive in Somalia in 10 minutes from India. Look at the stunned look on their face. It's because a passenger plane doesn't travel velocity speeds, it's travelling cruising speed and doing only triple the speed of your average conventional car. an Average car can reach 200 kilometers per hour, a passenger plane 600 kilometers. It's only doing around triple the speed of your car so it will get there only quicker 3 times over.

problem is when the person doesn't go beyond their curriculum and has no curiosity whatsoever, it is hard to make them interested in what information you might wanna share with them, gathering information comes from the person the person first and for most then discussion and pondering follows.

i blame our education system, it teaches students to cram for later and vomit info on exam papers without understating what is being discussed, it is rare to see a schoolchild student in Somalia doing their own extracurricular activities or carrying out their own research.

 

[DR OSMAN]

problem is when the person doesn't go beyond their curriculum and has no curiosity whatsoever, it is hard to make them interested in what information you might wanna share with them, gathering information comes from the person the person first and for most then discussion and pondering follows.

i blame our education system, it teaches students to cram for later and vomit info on exam papers without understating what is being discussed, it is rare to see a schoolchild student in Somalia doing their own extracurricular activities or carrying out their own research.

They are just rinse and repeat type, they are taught to memorize from early age that's why not so much understand due to the koranic schools so I guess they apply that type of learning also into earthly education and apply memory. Indians do the same thing, they just memorize things not really understand it because if you ask an Indian an in-depth question around his expertise and if it's a question that isn't 'taught' to him, he will be stuck.

 

[BankaTuyo]

Why do missiles look so small, you would think with the speeds they travel which is much faster then passenger planes, it would look far bigger and have far larger motors. Maybe it's weight and mass, it carrying a lesser payload then 300 people in a passenger plane, so that could be a reason? The lighter the mass the less power you need on it. So those amazon drones could technically travel those speeds depending obviously on the mass it's crazy. The Mass of an object affects it's speed. That's why einstein equation of energy=mass is squared off below the speed of light due to light having no mass, anything with weight will always travel slower then the speed of light. Except Electricity, there is no mass on electricity. It's got no real measurable weight electricity because it just sparks of energy. That's why it takes less then a second to travel this message to you from the other part of the world.

when it comes to relativistic weapons size does't actually matter, what matter is the density. a dense enough material can have the size of a football to the onlookers eye but with the density of a Metric ton. what matter here is the speed the object is travelling at, if an object with the density of ton and the size of football traveling at 5% C hits a target, you can imagine the devastation it causes by imparting all that kinetic energy to the doomed object it hits. subxaanaka yaa cadiim.

 

[BankaTuyo]

They are just rinse and repeat type, they are taught to memorize from early age that's why not so much understand due to the koranic schools so I guess they apply that type of learning also into earthly education and apply memory. Indians do the same thing, they just memorize things not really understand it because if you ask an Indian an in-depth question around his expertise and if it's a question that isn't 'taught' to him, he will be stuck.

i don't think dugsi quraan has anything to do with it, our most prominent scholars have all been through Quranic school yet they have an in-depth understanding in their field of expertise and other fields as well.

our failed status on the other hand has caused this cram/vomit system as the nation descended in to chaos and the education apparatus/quality control went to shit.

 

[DR OSMAN]

when it comes to relativistic weapons size does't actually matter, what matter is the density. a dense enough material can have the size of a football to the onlookers eye but with the density of a Metric ton. what matter here is the speed the object is travelling at, if an object with the density of ton and the size of football traveling at 5% C hits a target, you can imagine the devastation it causes by imparting all that kinetic energy to the doomed object it hits. subxaanaka yaa cadiim.

Interesting. So you say it's the density of energy that is contained into the object matters more then its's actual physical size. So what type of energy is stored in a missle warhead? is there anything stored in the warhead or is it just a matter of how fast it's travelling that causes kinetic energy to store up into the missile warhead? Is the warhead just velocity speed? If you travel 7 kilometer/s you store more kinetic energy then say 3 kilometer/second? Or is there some actual fumable explosives stored in the warhead and then it used in conjunction with velocity speed attained? For example place a small firecracker in a warhead is it possible from the velocity of speed attained the fire-cracker will collect up kinetic energy and become explosive?

Or do you actually need more firepower in the warhead then a fire cracker? Say would you need to store TNT or something with higher explosive payload and then combine velocity speed and tranfer that kinetic energy to the TNT and voila, you got a pretty devastating outcome for the receiving end.

 

[BankaTuyo]

Interesting. So you say it's the density of energy that is contained into the object matters more then its's actual physical size. So what type of energy is stored in a missle warhead? is there anything stored in the warhead or is it just a matter of how fast it's travelling that causes kinetic energy to store up into the missile warhead? Is the warhead just velocity speed? If you travel 7 kilometer/s you store more kinetic energy then say 3 kilometer/second? Or is there some actual fumable explosives stored in the warhead and then it used in conjunction with velocity speed attained? For example place a small firecracker in a warhead is it possible from the velocity of speed attained the fire-cracker will collect up kinetic energy and become explosive?

Or do you actually need more firepower in the warhead then a fire cracker? Say would you need to store TNT or something with higher explosive payload and then combine velocity speed and tranfer that kinetic energy to the TNT and voila, you got a pretty devastating outcome for the receiving end.

There is no need for a warhead on relativistic weapon, what does the damage is in the name itself. RELATIVITY.

the concept capitalizes on the kinetic energy the object is carrying and hitting it with the target; which produces and immense explosion (plasma) in relativistic speeds. the actual missile does't carry any type of warhead; chemical or otherwise.

 

[DR OSMAN]

@BankaTuyo these warheads what the hell do they contain? it's always usually raw materials. For example uranium is a core raw material for nuclear warheads but uranium alone isn't useful, they apply cooking methods and I would seem heat and other chemistries to get it to become explosive. Similar to what they do to steel and metals. They apply heat at a very high rate in order to change iron ore into metal and steels.

Plus what effects or non effects would we need to consider when storing an explosive payload, after it is prepared, it would need to be stored somewhere. For example if the missile warhead storage container is to big for the payload, what effect will that have? does the storage process need to be exact? For example you know when u store pasta into a container, you can either store it into a very large container or a right size fit container for the amount you cooked. But you can never store it into a smaller container then the amount of pasta because it will spill and hit the ground. Could the same be possible in the storage process for explosive payloads in warheads where the storage process needs to be exact for the amount of payload it will be carrying?

 

[DR OSMAN]

There is no need for a warhead on relativistic weapon, what does the damage is in the name itself. RELATIVITY.

the concept capitalizes on the kinetic energy the object is carrying and hitting it with the target; which produces and immense explosion (plasma) in relativistic speeds. the actual missile does't carry any type of warhead; chemical or otherwise.

So if it contains no actual explosive, are you saying just very fast speed and collision is enough to create a reaction kinetic energy and cause an explosion to happen? so the actual weapon in this case is the velocity speed and how fast it travels not so much any explosive it carries? Is this applicable to jet fighters and anything dropping missiles? it's just a matter of the speed it travels to the target and thru the speed and force of the missile is enough to cause an explosive reaction?

For example bullets are useless and travels at a fast speed and hits our body, but what it does when it hits our body is explode lead and burns inside of us and basically burns away body parts or else it would be no different to getting stabbed if it didn't release that lead into our inside. There is some release that is happening in those missiles is my best bet, just speed isn't enough, something must be released upon impact.

Take a gun, shoot it at an object and examine the hole it leaves behind, it's usually very hot and burning after-wards because it leaked the lead upon impact. It responds by opening up and leaking what it stores inside upon impact. A bullet looks very similar to a missile don't you think if you take away the size difference?

 

[BankaTuyo]

@DR OSMAN just imagine you being able to throw a rock at 10% the speed of light, what sort of damage can you do with that rock when it hits the object you are throwing it at. relativistic missiles use the same concept but with higher density objects and faster speeds.

i am not very sure about the size/core material relationship, it is beyond the scope of what i know/read. warheads are usually categorized in to Chemical (moab), Nuclear (fusion/fission warheads) and biological (Anthrax). and i would assume each has a completely different storage/delivery mechanisms.

 

[BankaTuyo]

So if it contains no actual explosive, are you saying just very fast speed and collision is enough to create a reaction kinetic energy and cause an explosion to happen? so the actual weapon in this case is the velocity speed and how fast it travels not so much any explosive it carries? Is this applicable to jet fighters and anything dropping missiles? it's just a matter of the speed it travels to the target and thru the speed and force of the missile is enough to cause an explosive reaction?

For example bullets are useless and travels at a fast speed and hits our body, but what it does when it hits our body is explode lead and burns inside of us and basically burns away body parts or else it would be no different to getting stabbed if it didn't release that lead into our inside. There is some release that is happening in those missiles is my best bet, just speed isn't enough, something must be released upon impact.

Take a gun, shoot it at an object and examine the hole it leaves behind, it's usually very hot and burning after-wards because it leaked the lead upon impact. It responds by opening up and leaking what it stores inside upon impact. A bullet looks very similar to a missile don't you think if you take away the size difference?

bullets kill because of the speed they are traveling at, the kinetic energy is concentrated in to the tiny head of the bullet then it enters the body and wreaks havoc, from cutting through tissues, blood vessels to extreme cavitations where the expanding air traveling with the bullet does alot of damage within the body.

bullets never kill because of any associated chemical reaction.

 

[DR OSMAN]

bullets kill because of the speed they are traveling at, the kinetic energy is concentrated in to the tiny head of the bullet then it enters the body and wreaks havoc, from cutting through tissues, blood vessels to extreme cavitations where the expanding air traveling with the bullet does alot of damage within the body.

bullets never kill because of any associated chemical reaction.

Why do people report burning sensation if there isn't some burning chemical agent in the bullet head?

 

[BankaTuyo]

Why do people report burning sensation if there isn't some burning chemical agent in the bullet head?

the burning sensation comes from the heat of the bullet because of the firing mechanism from the gun to propel the bullet in the air, once the trigger is pulled, the back of the shell/case sparks which in turn ignites chemical reactions within the material in the case of the bullet (gun powder) to only and strictly propel the bullet through the air, but what does the damage is the kinetic energy the bullet packs and tear through the human tissue is what kills, not any chemical reaction on or after impact.