Tweet
Unless we know the nature of the decoys we don't have any idea how well the system would handle a real decoy. Chaff is the absolutely most primitive type of decoy that could be used and it has always been assumed that nations that have ICBMs will employ sophisticated decoys and a variety of them at that.
The kill vehicles being used now are not explosive, they simply collide with their target. They would not damage another object traveling through space only a few meters away so its not necessary for warheads and decoys to spread out over a large area, this means you don't need much propulsion or mass on each decoy and it should be possible to put many in each missile.
To truly develop effective counter-counter measures you would need two have a second independent research program developing the interceptor and the decoys. Then test the two opposing designs in a blind trial neither side knowing just what the other had developed.
If the interceptor design team can consistently win these competitions then it would show that interception is viable. A continual process of refinement could be created from this and would keep us one step ahead of our opponents countermeasures while also ensuring that our own missiles have the best countermeasures.
On the other hand if the decoy team consistently defeats the intercept building team it shows that interception is not at all viable and is a waste of research dollars. As it is now any 'test' done in which the same people design and build the interceptor and the countermeasures is worthless.
All that's been established is the ability to hit a ballistic object with another object, a huge technological achievement in itself but not one which proves the viability of defeating expected countermeasures.
The kill vehicles being used now are not explosive, they simply collide with their target. They would not damage another object traveling through space only a few meters away so its not necessary for warheads and decoys to spread out over a large area, this means you don't need much propulsion or mass on each decoy and it should be possible to put many in each missile.
To truly develop effective counter-counter measures you would need two have a second independent research program developing the interceptor and the decoys. Then test the two opposing designs in a blind trial neither side knowing just what the other had developed.
If the interceptor design team can consistently win these competitions then it would show that interception is viable. A continual process of refinement could be created from this and would keep us one step ahead of our opponents countermeasures while also ensuring that our own missiles have the best countermeasures.
On the other hand if the decoy team consistently defeats the intercept building team it shows that interception is not at all viable and is a waste of research dollars. As it is now any 'test' done in which the same people design and build the interceptor and the countermeasures is worthless.
All that's been established is the ability to hit a ballistic object with another object, a huge technological achievement in itself but not one which proves the viability of defeating expected countermeasures.
Comment