Shipbucket

So instead of 20 targets you can hit one set of 7. Do you know how many bombers it takes to hit 7 targets? Less than 10. And if you only have three launchers, the unit costs are going to be sky high. ICBMs have an estimated failure rate of around 50%. This means that you MIGHT get 10 targets taken out by the force, even without ABM. With a thin ABM shield you might get 2 or 3 through, and with a thick multi-layered shield, you'll be lucky to get one target killed, and you don't get to pick the target.
That Bus is going to be heavy. It's also carrying 7 mini buses, which are going to be even more weight. I'm really questioning if that thing can throw that much into even low orbit.

Take a look at this image of MX warheads coming in, and do some basic extrapolation to figure out where they are discharged, and if you look at open source images of warhead buses you will see that they are released sequentially, not in parallel. You're not going to have time to discharge all 7 V-1s in time You might get a few off, but then I'm going to kill the rest with more GBIs, KEIs, and SM-3s

_________________
𝐌𝐀𝐓𝐇𝐍𝐄𝐓- 𝑻𝒐 𝑪𝒐𝒈𝒊𝒕𝒂𝒕𝒆 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝒕𝒐 𝑺𝒐𝒍𝒗𝒆

Most ABMs are going after relatively predictable RVs, V-1 maneuvers to throw those off. As for bombers, SAMs & Fighters will kill them before they get near the target.
The V-2 can get it up in orbit. The First stage is a modified SRB from the Space Shuttle, 2nd stage has a Titan II-class engine with more fuel, and the third stage I'm still working on. So if that ain't enough to get the bus up there, tell me what can.

V-1 aren't released coming down, they're released up in orbit all at the same time outwards from the bus.

_________________
95% of my drawings are destined for NS, 4.9% for fun, & .1% serious.
Worklist:
Space Shuttle
Atlas V
Delta II/III
Project Constellation
Soyuz series

That is going to be heavy. Very, very heavy, and of only marginal effectiveness
Nope. A Mach-3+ bomber at 80,000+ feet is very hard to kill. Even before countermeasures (passive and active) come into play the most advanced SAM to date - the Russian S-400 - would only have a pk of .15 . Figure that going down to .03 after ECM and DAMS are used. So 20 SAMs per bomber (for a 50% chance at a kill), only in the time from when you have a lock to when the SAM site is a crater is less than the time needed to volley the missiles up that high, and I can always turn to avoid sites that are not next to targets. I'm going to be able to carry Everything from Skybolt to gravity bombs.
Well With say 7500 kg per V-1 (low-ball) that's 52500 kg for the V-1s. Figure another 20000 kg for the bus, and you're in the 75000 kg bracket. That means you're down to: Ares V. Saturn V, N-1, or Energia. All liquid fueled (and thus can't be kept fueled constantly), all very big. All very 'soft' targets. A good friend of mine, Eric has a name for something like that: IPBM InterPlanetary Ballistic Missile. After talking it over with him, Eric says [T]there is no way you're keeping the launch site for something the size of a Saturn V hard enough to survive an attack from the Galm Team."
That's going to be a bitch to configure and keep accurate

_________________
𝐌𝐀𝐓𝐇𝐍𝐄𝐓- 𝑻𝒐 𝑪𝒐𝒈𝒊𝒕𝒂𝒕𝒆 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝒕𝒐 𝑺𝒐𝒍𝒗𝒆

MiG-25/31s deal with Mach 3 bombers, that's why the XB-70 got canned.
It is big. I'd say something about the Ace Combat comment, but I'm too damn tired.
Why?

_________________
95% of my drawings are destined for NS, 4.9% for fun, & .1% serious.
Worklist:
Space Shuttle
Atlas V
Delta II/III
Project Constellation
Soyuz series

Newton's Third Law, I presume. (Note, I'm the pizza guy, not the engineer...but Newton does seem to be right about the third law.)

_________________
World's Best Okayest Author and Artist

Nope. The MiG-25 was designed to combat the B-52 and the B-58. It doesn't have the legs or the speed to intercept the B-70. To get a MiG-25 up to B-70 height and speed you destroy the engines. The MiG-31 is a better proposition, but is still marginal, and you can only make an intercept from head-on due to the kinetics of the situation (it would be very very hard for an AAM to close on a B-70 inside it's range even when launched from the same height and speed). The B-70 got canned because McNamara wanted his Missiles and Kennedy wanted his big army. To quote Stuart Slade:
It's possible to have such a missile in a silo, but you are stuck with liquid fuel. Because you can't keep missiles fueled all the time you've got giant tank farms that are next to impossible to harden. Your missile's response time is going to be measured in hours, or long enough for me to blow the tank farms and keep it from launching.
Because to drop RVs on a target requires a lot of precision. The current method allows for minor adjustments to be made between releases. Your system doesn't, and means that if you have issues with one of the RVs not releasing properly, you can't just skip it and go to the next one, you've potentially screwed up all of the trajectories. So now your super expensive deterrence system is going to have the accuracy of Snark.

Don't think weapons, think systems

_________________
𝐌𝐀𝐓𝐇𝐍𝐄𝐓- 𝑻𝒐 𝑪𝒐𝒈𝒊𝒕𝒂𝒕𝒆 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝒕𝒐 𝑺𝒐𝒍𝒗𝒆

<_< Then why does everything I read states that the MiG-25 was designed to deal with the XB-70? As for Slade, I'm not if I have the right guy, but isn't he the one that those in the Defense Reporting field states is insane?

Storable liquid fuels & underground storage tanks solves the fuel protection problem.

And you need to remember that my RV can correct their course themselves as they have engines in them.

_________________
95% of my drawings are destined for NS, 4.9% for fun, & .1% serious.
Worklist:
Space Shuttle
Atlas V
Delta II/III
Project Constellation
Soyuz series

Belkaland? As in, Belka from the old video game Ace Combat 5? Just curious.

EDIT: seeing as your name is Demon Lord Razgriz, I'm going to assume the answer to my question is yes. That was a great game.

Because it was the only system that had even a remote shot against a B-70. Important distinction here: When I say 'B-70' I mean the performance specs that would have been achieved by the YB-70A and B-70A. 90% of the data for a 'B-70' out there is for AV-1, the first prototype, which like all prototypes had issues. Until it crashed AV-2 was a much better plane, and came damn close to meeting the B-70A specs. They were even able to solve the tank leakage issue. now clue how they did, but there are no reports of fuel leakage with that plane at all.
I'm talking about The last guy on this list.

1. You don't store liquid fuel missile fueled. I think you know that, but I need to make sure
2. All of the Rockets that I listed that are in the super heavy size bracket use LOX, and either RP-1 (Kerosene) [Technically Energia used RP-1 in the boosters only, and H2 for the main core] or H2.
3. #2 means that you need a cryogenic plant on site, and hardened. These sites are getting very very big, very very quickly.

And ΔV is finite. Every m/s you spend on fixing the launch angle is one less to use to avoid my IADS.

_________________
𝐌𝐀𝐓𝐇𝐍𝐄𝐓- 𝑻𝒐 𝑪𝒐𝒈𝒊𝒕𝒂𝒕𝒆 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝒕𝒐 𝑺𝒐𝒍𝒗𝒆

OK, who is Stuart Slade, and why is he so controversial?

_________________
USN components, camouflage colors, & reference links (World War II only)