| >Hence, for one warhead, a defender can launch 4 interceptors and have a 96% chance of successfully intercepting the incoming warhead.
>Unfortunately, those numbers are optimistic. This part worth stressing, ceiling for more performant missiles, i.e. faster, terminal maneuvering, decoys are geometrically harder to intercept. Past mach ~10 terminal and functionally impossible because intercept kinematics will break interceptor airframes apart. AFAIK there hasn't been tests (i.e. FTM series) done on anything but staged/choreographed "icbm representative" targets. Iran arsenal charitably pretty shit, including high end. Hypothetical high end missile with 10%-20% single shot probability of kill requires 20-40 interceptors for 98% confidence, before decoys, i.e. 40x6=240 interceptors for 1 missile with 5 credible decoys. The math / economics breaks HARD with offensive missile improvements. |
| |
| ▲ | gpderetta 10 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | I doubt a MW laser can reliably intercept a reentry vehicle. A lot of energy is lost through the atmosphere when intercepting a warhead in space, from a land based laser. Once it reenters the atmosphere there might not be enough time. You also need to burn through the heatshield that the warhead is equipped with for reentry. Even if you can can deliver enough energy for long enough, there is no fuel to burn and it might not be easy to detonate or disable the warhead. For ICBMs, one idea was to use orbital, nuclear powered lasers to hit the missile on the boost phase. But that's very much not near-future. Lasers might still be useful for rockets, drones and cruise missiles of course. | | |
| ▲ | O3marchnative 10 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > For ICBMs, one idea was to use orbital, nuclear powered lasers to hit the missile on the boost phase. Author here. Thank you for your insight. I took some time to read about the recently proposed "Golden Dome" defense system, and what you laid out seems to be the end goal [0]. It's difficult to tell how realistic this actually is. The size of the constellation of satellites needed seems prohibitive, to say the least. [0] https://armscontrolcenter.org/fact-sheet-golden-dome/ [1] https://www.defenseone.com/ideas/2026/02/space-based-interce... | |
| ▲ | Voultapher 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | I get the impression you didn't read the linked post. It goes into the details, atmospheric absorption for different wavelength, weather conditions, tracking time, interception time based on warhead hardness ratings and many more details. It's paper based, so in practice it will be more complicated and there are things it will have missed, and things we don't even know yet as being operational challenges for such systems. At the same time, it does present a compelling narrative and I'd much rather discuss individual assumptions or sources than dismiss it entirely based on a gut feeling. |
| |
| ▲ | maxglute 10 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Maybe for subsonic, high end missiles I'm extremely skeptical. Need 5-10MW to get useful dwell power on high end hypersonic inherently shielded against reentry thermals. Speculative laser defense are infra size defense, not mobile trailer size. Factor in duty cycles (i.e. shots per minute) and it seems dead end. Half of economics of missile defense is mobility - building density relative to threats by moving platforms. Last 2 parts real constraints, high-end adversaries coordinate salvos to arrive in time. Interceptor magazine depth limited = still throw 100s of interceptors to engage multiple targets if required. Lasers = serial visual range engagement. Figure out dwell time + duty cycle to saturate. Hypersonic can go from over horizonal to hit target in 10 seconds, a laser couldn't engage more than 1-2 missiles in that time. Technically 1, because by the time you fried 1st target the 2nd is so close the shrapnel will hit on momentum. | |
| ▲ | consumer451 10 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Lasers are not "all weather" weapons as far as I am aware. Clouds, snow, fog, rain, and just humidity all degrade their performance greatly. | | |
| ▲ | O3marchnative 10 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | The recently announced "Golden Dome" project intends to get around this issue by putting a vast constellation of satellites into orbit. Each satellite would likely need a serious source of power in order to use its laser. Assuming that's just an engineering problem, then the issue becomes coverage. That is, depending on the adversary's capabilities, you'd need an absolutely massive constellation in orbit [0]. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Dome_(missile_defense_s... | | | |
| ▲ | Voultapher 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | The linked article covers that in depth, it's not implausible to punch a hole through a storm with pulsed laser of that class. Honestly we don't know enough about these systems to know their operational limits but we know weather will play a role. |
| |
| ▲ | apt-apt-apt-apt 10 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Try that on my spinning, mirror-coated missile! |
|