Experimental interceptor downs missile

[Rose Siding]

WASHINGTON -- An experimental naval interceptor shot down a short-range ballistic missile target during a test over the Pacific Ocean on Thursday, missile defense officials said.

It is the fifth kill in six tries for the interceptor, called a Standard Missile-3, said Rick Lehner, a spokesman for the Pentagon's Missile Defense Agency.

During the test, a target ballistic missile, similar to a Scud, was launched from the island of Kauai at 4 p.m. Eastern Standard Time. The USS Lake Erie, a cruiser equipped with the Aegis radar system and stationed 100 miles offshore, tracked the ballistic missile and then fired the interceptor to shoot it down. Two minutes later, the missiles collided.

The SM-3 interceptor will be deployed on ships later this year, Lehner said.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2005/02/24/experimental_interceptor_downs_missile/

[oasis]

1. Somebody tell Canada they can sign up now, we got it working.

[Maple]

8. Er ....thank you, no

We've been told they plan to shoot the incoming missiles down in OUR airspace...which would mean we have both of them landing on us!

Doesn't strike me as much of a plan, frankly. :D

[whistle]

2. Great, now the arms merchants can sell short-range ballistic missiles

...to the enemy and we can defend ourselves against them being shot at us five out of six times! If we merchandise say one hundred thousand of these short-range ballistic missiles at $1 million each, that will add $100 billion to our GDP and we will only be actually hit by 16,667 of them. :wtf:

[bemildred]

3. So we can protect our ships from SCUDs?

What is this for?

[Sweet Pea]

4. TBMD...

Theater Ballistic Missile Defense. For example, North Korea launches scud missiles toward Japan. The SM-3 variant talked about in the article can provide a credible defense against such threats.

[Warren Stupidity]

10. well sort of a credible defense

as long as the enemy plays nice and does nothing to mess with the interceptors ability to track/identify/destroy. On the other hand, as has been pointed out repeatedly, counter measures to missile intercept are generally way cheaper to implement than the interceptors. So this is a losing game. But what the heck the real goal is to completely bankrupt the nation so that we cant afford any basic social services and are completely dependent on our corporate masters.

[BillZBubb]

11. Yeah, right, credible. Uh huh.

The North Koreans will, naturally, be nice enough to give us the date and time of their launch as well as the general area of the launch. They will also be kind enough to give us the exact trajectory. And only one launch per customer!

Plus, no nice North Korean would ever think of using a massive launch or other countermeasures--that just wouldn't be sporting.

LOL

[bemildred]

13. Thanks. That makes sense, more or less.

I suppose the lower velocity of SRBM helps too.
I'll bet these suckers really move.
Not much help with cruise missiles though, I suppose.

[Babel_17]

5. Woops! Please ignore.

Edit: I didn't take the time to read more carefully and responded thinking we were talking about a system to defend the ships. Sorry about that.

[IndianaGreen]

6. Let me guess, the target missile had a transpondent aboard

and it carried an explosive charge to blow up the warhead whenever an interceptor missile approached within 500 miles of it.

Testing is a success!

[Sweet Pea]

21. Transpondent?

I think you mean "transponder". And no, these targets do not have transponders. They are easy to track due to the absence of radar clutter in the background.

There are also no warheads. These are kinetic hit-to-kill vehicles. The speeds involved preclude any sort of target-detection-device that could detonate a warhead in time to impact the target. Skin-to-skin contact for this type of defense is how all ballistic (short or long range) defenses work (Patriot II as well). The only other missile defense that does not use skin-to-skin contact would be the airborne laser but that needs to be employed early in a missile's launch/ascent stage when pressures are growing and speed is relatively slow - a targeted laser can do wonders to a pressurized, slow, cumbersome aluminum tube full of either solid propellant or a different kind of fuel.

:)

[BiggJawn]

7. Is this different from Chimpy's POS system...

That couldn't hit a missle if it had a beacon and the co-ordinates were programed in...Oh, wait, that's how they test it....

Anyway, this is another system? one that's hitting better than 80%?

[Massacure]

17. Yes this is different.

This one uses the the AEGIS system which is much more proven than the patriot.

It'll shoot down scuds but isn't meant down to shoot down ICBMs which reach high orbit. Hitting a stupid scud at 3,000 miles per hour and hitting a ICBM with decoys at 26,000 miles an hour are two entirely different ballgames.

[mbperrin]

9. Well, great, now we can stop a modified V-2 if anybody has one.

http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/russia/theater/r-11.htm

" The SCUD-A is also known as SS-1b. The SCUD-B replaced the JS-3-mounted SCUD-A, which had been in service since the mid-1950s.
# The longer range SCUD B, also known as SS-1c, can be distinguished by the one meter greater length of the missile and the presence of two air bottles on the side of the superstructure in place of the single bottle used for the "SCUD A" missile. The SCUD B used unsymmetrical dimethylhydrazine (UDMH), a more powerful (and toxic) fuel than the kerosene used on the SCUD A, which required an engine redesign. They were transported originally on a heavy-tracked vehicle based on the JS heavy-tank chassis. This vehicle serves also as an erector and launcher for the missiles. The SCUD-B was introduced on the JS-3 tracked chassis in 1961 and appeared on the MAZ-543 wheeled chassis in 1965. The "SCUD B" missile has appeared on a new transporter-erector-launcher based on the MAZ-543 (8x8) truck. The introduction of this new powerful cross-country wheeled vehicle gave this missile system greater road mobility, reduces the number of support vehicles required, and still preserves a great choice in selecting off-road firing positions. The same basic chassis also has been used for the transporter-erector-launcher for the "SCALEBOARD" surface-to-surface guided missile. In the early 1980s, the SCUD-B was replaced by the SS-23, which has greatly improved range (500 km), increased accuracy, and reduced reaction and refire times.
# The SCUD-C SS-1d achieved an initial operational capability with Soviet forces around 1965. It had a longer range, though lower accuracy, than the SCUD B, and was deployed in smaller numbers. As of the late 1990s some remained in service in Russian ground forces.
# The SCUD-D SS-1e featured an improved guidance system, possibly incorporating active radar terminal homing, and a wider choice of warheads than its predecessors. This missile has a range of about 700 km. Initially operational in the 1980s, it may not have been deployed by former Soviet ground forces."

Looks long, but just 4 paragraphs...so the SCUD is either a 50s or 60s model or perhaps an early 80s or maybe one that was never deployed later in the 80s...WOOOPPPEEEEEE!!!

Next time try to hit something hard...like guys with boxcutters before they get on the plane........

[EVDebs]

12. I saw a PBS show the other night on WWII Proximity Fuses

You'd think that instead of trying to perfectly hit each incoming missle (which often have multiple entry warheads) that incoming missles could be located after being fired, a missle fired at it while in the vicinity-- the proximity fuses of WWII worked by radio wave to go off within 75 feet of a target-- and then go off.

No need to 'collide' with an incoming missle at all, just get within its range with a projectile and large enough shrapnel field when it explodes.

What 'Star Wars' is looking for is a ballistic missile version of the artillery proximity fuze

"Radio Proximity Fuzes"
http://www.smecc.org/radio_proximity_fuzes.htm

A big Homer Simpson Duh Oh....!

[Jack_DeLeon]

18. You know there is a reason we are trying hit to kill...

It doesnt do much good to knock a missile out of the sky if it leaves the warhead intact.

During the 1st Gulf War, Isreal shot down many a scud, but since they were being shot down on the inbound part of thier ballistic trajectory the warheads still came down and exploded in Israeli cities.

You need to hit the warhead to guarentee you destroy it.

[EVDebs]

23. It seems more logical (and easier) to fire a missile in proximity

to the MIRVed target and take out all the warheads while they're still in the warhead of the incoming missile--preferably while its over the ocean. The earlier the better.

Also, with 'drones' fake warheads...the enemy can overwhelm defenses if too long in flight. These arguments were made during the StarWars debates.

Furthermore, with Iran and China and N. Korea to some extent, the fact that those missiles would be travelling over other countries actually makes diplomacy much easier for Bush & co now. It it to Europe and Canada's advantage to want to have NO missiles shot at the US at all...being's there is the potential of hit missles by the US falling into their airspace and ground !

[Endangered Specie]

14. "fifth kill in six tries"

thats like putting 5 bullets in a revolver.

[Zerex71]

15. News flash:

In wartime, the conditions are never perfect for such a setup.

Just reminder number 9,672 that your tax dollars are being wasted every hour.

[Zerex71]

16. And al Qaeda used what again?

Oh, that's right...they didn't use MISSILES. Box cutters was all it took.

Real good use of tax money, I'd say. If anyone wants to say Reagan had a legacy, that's it right there, Star Wars Redux.

[tinanator]

19. equally effective agains Sunburns?

hello?

[ConcernedCanuk]

20. The PNACers are just playing a game for the Taxpayers $$$$$

.
.
.

and doin a good feckin' job of it too!

'Tween China and Russia, nevermind about India and Pakistan - there's over 3,000(I've read somewhere that it was over 10,000) nukes aimed at the USA mainland.

Why doesn't SOMEONE in the WH try to figure out a way to behave that the whole world is not scared shitless of what they'll do next?

You bet ur ass, that if the US manages to perfect this anti-missile thing, that before they ever get enough quantity to "kill" a massive attack - the East will "pre-empt"

If the US can "pre-empt" what they call a "clear and present danger"

- on a country that had NO WMD's . .

AND GET AWAY WITH IT??

- - :shrug: !!

Well sorry to say, but the USA is riddled with WMD's, and not just on their own soil

So put quite frankly,

Europe and Asia have more reason and legitimacy to bomb the shit out of the USA than the USA did to destroy Iraq.

Sumthin' to think about ..

[Charles19]

22. This just in, DOD nominated for Best Screen Play and

best director for the propaganda campaign called "Missile Defense Works!"

While it may not do that well with the academy judges, the strength the movie had with the uneducated pulls a lot of weight.