Assuming we didn't manage to destroy them all, is it feasible to park a CAP over a nation like the DPRK to shoot down their ICBMs in the boost phase with AAMs?
>>64726284That was essentially the YAL-1, where once you’ve raped enemy AD and air assets you have a couple of jumbo jets with turbolaser as a nose cone. But iirc the chemical laser in that thing was just too inefficient back in the 2000’s, I’m sure locksneed will cook up something again in the next decade or so.
>>64726284No need. That's what the US/Jap/Korean AEGIS destroyers are literally for.
>>64727300SM-3 can't hit ICBMs in the boost phase or at apogee, they're for theater defense. In other words, an Aegis cruiser around Korea couldn't protect the continental US from a nork ICBM, but one off the west coast or in the north Atlantic could protect most of the country. GBI is probably fast enough for boost phase interception of most ICBMs, but it's too long to fit in the Navy's Trident-derived hypersonic payload tubes.
>>64726284The old multi-stage liquid fuel ICBMs lifted off the pad extremely slowly and built speed slowly. Height was best use of fuel not early velocity because the designs were max Q (dynamic air pressure) limited. Wobbling jelly tower of fuel was best design compromise. Solids aren't the same they're strongly built to hold chamber pressure and don't throttle down at Q. Its obvious from how fast solid satellite launchers boost. Compare Vega C to a liquid fueled its totally different tempo.
>>64727300that's fine but i didn't ask about standard missiles
