Could a Lockheed Martin Multiple Kill Vehicle (MKV-L) work?

What are the chances that we have one or more of these in orbit and they will work successfully when needed to intercept a nuclear warhead?

youtube.com/watch?v=KBMU6l6GsdM

Attached: Deployed Multiples - MOKV.jpg (694x463, 259.77K)

Space Force, niggers!

The physics are solid. A anti-ballistic missile in orbit would be able to respond way faster, assuming it was in the right place. (i.e you'd have to put like 20 of them in different places in the orbit to guarantee success) That being said, how effective would it really be against a nuclear strike? A nuclear strike would probably involve a significant percentage of the available warheads, i.e hundreds of bombs if not thousands. I doubt any such system would have the capacity to deal with that many missiles.

bump

thats what i was thinking, you would need to place them in suspected orbits the warheads would take. This does not include missiles launched from subs which can take very unpredictable paths because they can pop up anywhere in the world

Has anybody told you that nukes will travel against the US on hypersonic missiles ?

Hypersonic isn't magic, it doesn't mean impossible to intercept. A kill vehicle in space would have a much better chance to intercept, because it would intercept the missile in its slowest phase (during the highest point in the orbit) and it wouldn't need all that time to get to that place like a land-based missile would. It's a solid concept, as long as you can spend trillions of dollars on hundreds of those things on different orbits and in sufficient numbers.

Yeah good luck lol

Attached: rod of god.jpg (656x222, 31.62K)

That's a pretty cool one, but keep in mind that a intercepting missile could still take it out by destroying or degrading the (probably quite fragile) aerodynamic control surfaces. It would still hit the earth mostly intact, but not the target.

You are forgetting that these weapons are deigned to evade intercept. ICBMs carry dummy warheads that will confuse the kill vehicles. Hypersonic missiles flown at low altitude are very difficult to counter because by the time it shows up on radar you don't have time to deploy counter measures. Not to mention tracking something that fast is a challenge for any targeting system.

not to hard to build.

fake and gay this is from late 1990's they were just cyber punk fags and wanted to make cyber punk hover vehicles. electric drones replaced this idea.

this is a good point, most missiles will carry multiple warheads along with dummies making it very difficult to intercept all projectiles
we would need kill vehicles in a starlink constellation pattern for it to have a chance to be a solid concept i think

Yeah, good point I was talking about ballistic missiles. What you're referring to is cruise missiles. Theoretically, you could even have a sea-skimming nuclear cruise missile, which wouldn't show on radar until a minute or two before impact. However I'm not sure those could be made to have intercontinental range with current tech. Too much fuel. It would be the perfect submarine-launched medium-range nuclear weapon though.

fake and gay still takes 30 mins for hyper sonic to reach the west. also they will just use subs that are like 50 kms from usa shore line. ICBM are not even needed

I'd prefer pic related.

Attached: get_beam_angled!.jpg (600x515, 126.45K)

No. Not enough of them, not enough time to launch them in time unless you'd be doing the first strike.

how the fuck are they going to incercept nuclear subs?
also the moment these get deployed you are pretty much giving carte blanche to countries to shoot down satellites
I wouldn't put it past modern day mutts to try to "cancel" space exploration in the name of sanctions

This concept is moronic. Stuff doesn't fall down from orbit. Only the clueless think this is a good idea. If you separate stuff in orbit it doesn't fall from orbit. You have to decelerate stuff for it to fall from orbit. And it wouldn't fall straight down. Moreover, you'd have to expend a lot of energy to get those things into orbit in the first place. And to keep them there for decades despite the stratospheric drag. And the amount of energy released can't be more than it took to get them up there. Which would probably be the equivalent of one or several thermobaric bombs.

what is this

Shut up, nerd.

Attached: missile.png (1589x1319, 2.11M)

>Hypersonic isn't magic, it doesn't mean impossible to intercept. A kill vehicle in space would have a much better chance to intercept


i dont think you understand, the chink hypersonic drone they shot from Canada into Michigan in December 2020, was launched from the belly of a plane, it flew 70,000-90,000ft across its path at mach4+. Nothing in space is going to come down and get that... Nothing from earth land based will catch up to it. You would need to know it was coming, and launch land based stuff in the air 500 miles ahead of it to intercept it, if you are lucky....

Attached: 1643205355290.png (699x518, 324.75K)

hes right you know

they might stop 50 out of 3000 flying towards you

>volcanoes don't exist

>MKV-L
won't work against anything that skims lower in the atmosphere, like many hypersonic missiles

Nobody will believe this, but I've spoken to an engineer who worked on this. It works, political issues led to it being "cancelled". Most likely, you can't exactly hide them. Some Chinese conspiracy theorists think Starlink is related, who knows

Fuck did I have a stroke or something, basically it works but it probably got cancelled as you can't hide them

that would kinda make sense to what I said earlier that we would need them deployed like starlink to effectively get most projectiles

the first thing a MKV would do is kill itself if it knew it was working for NATO