Quote:
Originally Posted by Phoenix_Dragon
Something like the modern SM-3 is designed to take out de-orbiting threats such as ballistic missiles
|
Yes. Remember that a modern ballistic missile is a remarkably fragile target, and that's what an SM-3 is designed to kill.
Quote:
|
and would probably find this TL10 reentry vehicle an average target
|
To hit, likely. But hitting something isn't necessarily sufficient to kill it (as we already saw with Patriots intercepting SCUDs way back in the first Gulf War).
Quote:
|
Further, being a solid kinetic-kill warhead provides no benefit here; most intercepting missiles would probably be kinetic-kill as well
|
The first point isn't true, nor follows from the second. If both missiles are kinetic kill, then factors like relative mass and energy come into play, as well as the structure of the impactors. The SM-3 LEAP warhead is designed to have about 130 MJ of energy at impact, or 31 kg of TNT equivalent, and itself masses about 23 kg. An 8000 kg solid tungsten rod, a la Project Thor, isn't going to be discomfited in the slightest by something that tiny. You could set off 31 kg explosions next to it all day without bothering it. The energy just from hitting the atmosphere is worse, and that's not enough to stop the bombardment (unless the bombarding weapon is simply terribly designed). A 31 kg explosion (or the equivalent energy in the form of several tiny tungsten rods, a la the LEAP) is bad for a ballistic missile that has internal structure, a fragile skin, and vulnerable electronics, but not for a "rod from God" or deorbiting asteroid rock sort of kinetic-kill weapon, which is essentially a solid lump of armor.
There might well be ways to stop massive KE bombardment projectiles or at least render them mission-ineffective, but they won't look like an SM-3.