CNN/Reuters: Pentagon: Missile interceptor test successful

[DeepModem Mom]

Pentagon: Missile interceptor test successful
September 1, 2006

WASHINGTON (Reuters) -- The U.S. military shot down a target ballistic missile over the Pacific Friday in the widest test of its emerging antimissile shield in 18 months, the Defense Department announced.

The Pentagon's Missile Defense Agency said it had successfully completed an important exercise involving the launch of an improved ground-based interceptor missile designed to protect the United States against a limited long-range ballistic missile attack.

The test results will help improve the performance of a multibillion-dollar shield against the type of long-range ballistic missile that could be used to attack a U.S. city with a weapon of mass destruction, the agency said in a statement.

Officially, the $85 million test was designed to collect data rather than shoot down the target.

It was the first involving a live target since interceptor rockets failed to leave their silos during tests in December 2004 and February 2005....

http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/09/01/missile.test.reut/index.html

[daleo]

1. I guess the fog must have lifted. n/t

[seasat]

2. The sad thing is this boondoggle system is already obsolete.

To be intercept the missile, they have to lock on it early in its trajectory. Russia has already devoloped missles that change course several times mid-flight. We're no safer with this system but Boeing and other defense contractors are certainly richer.

[OldSiouxWarrior]

11. It isn't intended for Russian missiles.

It is intended to be a protection against a nation that may be crazy enough to launch only a few missiles.

Russia and China, at this time, are not a war threat to the US. They are busy developing their economies.

[seasat]

15. Who would that be?

North Korea's missiles barely have enough range to reach the US and are terribly inaccurate (if they finally get one that doesn't blow up just after launch). Lets see who else. I know, France. Those sissy French guys are pretty tricky. :D

Seriously, once a nation develops the level of technology to have accurate intercontinental ballistic missiles, they probably have an industry base more like Russia or China and are more interested in expanding their economy and increasing trade. They'd probably also able to develop a missile that changes course. The only way for one of those crazies to really accurately strike the US is by loading it into a container ship. Therefore, to really protect the US, the money for Star Wars the sequel should have gone into measures to improve port security not wasted on padding the pockets of defense contractors.

Added on edit: There's also the PAD concept (personally assured destruction) if a rogue country managed somehow to launch a nuke at the US, our military would turn them into a parking lot. The only way they could get away with it is to launch 1000's and that only leaves Russia as a possibility. Most dictators like Kim Jung Il are too concerned with their own butts to risk getting them blown away.

[krispos42]

18. No country is crazy enough to launch at us

We would nuke them back at a rate of literally a hundred to one. The attacking country would look like the lunar surface and be about as sterile.

The real threat of a nation with "only a few" nukes is terrorism, followed by a desperate counter-attack in a losing war.

Another possiblity is a strike on cities vital enough cause a worldwide economic. For example, if North Korea decides to nuke Taipei, Tokyo, Kuala Lumpur, and Seoul, the worldwide economic impact would almost certainly be devestating and could make the Great Depression look like a one-day dip in the Dow.

[OldSiouxWarrior]

23. One hopes that no country will launch at us.

However, that is a different discussion. I mainly wanted to comment on more technical aspects.

[FormerDittoHead]

3. Guess we don't have to worry about Iran, then?

I suppose they want their war in Iran AND Star Wars...

[gratuitous]

4. They shot down the missile?

I thought they were planning to miss it. How does that qualify as a successful test?

But I'll tell you, if we ever go toe-to-toe with the Rooskies in an all-out nuclear exchange of 1960s-vintage missiles, we'll by golly have the upper hand. God bless America, baby!

What's that you say about planning to win the last war?

[NOLADEM]

7. I think their stated goal was an ass-cover

So, they said they didn't mean to hit it in the first place so when they missed it, it would seem according to plan, and if they did manage to hit it, HEY, BONUS.

And as a post above said, the Ruskies have changed their delivery systems already to evade this boondoggle of a system.

Sad thing to me is that a laser based system seems much more plausible if we just HAD to have a missle defense shield. They could be directed to multiple targets instantaneously, and could take multiple shots at a single missle.

I guess they need to bleed us for the full price of this one BEFORE they start in earnest on the laser shield.

What boobs.

I still love the fact that they can know when and where a missle is incoming and still call it a success with a straight face. Hope our enemies are courteous enough to call first before launching a nuclear strike.

[OldSiouxWarrior]

10. Airborne Laser, Like this?

You said: Sad thing to me is that a laser based system seems much more plausible if we just HAD to have a missle defense shield. They could be directed to multiple targets instantaneously, and could take multiple shots at a single missle.

You may be interested in this: http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/military/abl/ It is expected to have it's first full scale shoot-down test in early 2008.



Airborne Laser Antimissile system in development

[krispos42]

17. Not intended for ICBMs, though

I read about it in Popular Mechanics. It's suppose to be a regional air-defense weapon, able to take out cruise missiles, short-range ballistic missiles, and aircraft over a range of a couple hundred miles.

Probably could also be used against ground and sea targets as well.

This kind of thing I support because we can fly the things wherever they're needed, don't cost hundreds of billions of (wasted) dollars, and can actually be used in a conventional war and peacekeeping role.

[OldSiouxWarrior]

21. Yes, ICBM's also.

It does have to be withing a few hundred miles of the ICBM during boost phase. There is a ground attack version that is being worked on. The laser fires from the belly of the plane instead of the nose.

The disadvantage of these is that they can't be on station 24/7. The advantage is that they can be deployed to crisis areas very quickly.

There has already been a signifigant civilian application of some of the technology. The system uses a laser to measure the atmospheric distortion, then the mirror is "bent" at hundreds of pressure points so that it exactly counter matches the distortion. The system is being used in astronomy for ground based pictures that rival the hubble for sharpness.

[krispos42]

25. That's true

I was thinking incoming or mid-flight trajectories.

I assume that is would only be useful for soft-skinned ground targets like jeeps and such, maybe transformer stations and fuel tanks.

[ConcernedCanuk]

5. I bet the ocean critters just love all this toxic stuff dumped on them

.
.
.

sonar driving the fish insane, oil spills ( now THERE's a Weapon of Mass Destruction to the ocean critters), human waste dumped at sea - and so on and so on

Heck, it only took the white man about one century to pollute the great lakes in North America (Gee - we can't drink the water we been shitting in!)

We may be at the top of the food chain,

but we sure as heck ain't at the top in the survival game . . .

We are destroying that which keeps us alive

s'ok tho

Momma Nature won't miss us . .

[GregW]

6. So did the target missile contain a transponder?

You know, like ALL the incoming missiles will have.

:eyes:

[Vidar]

26. More likely than not.

[Bucky]

8. I really don't think they're fooling anybody at this point.

My, what interesting timing.

[heliarc]

9. 1 for 532

Oh well... That kind of batting average doesn't get you into the majors.

[OldSiouxWarrior]

12. Actually, this system if 5 for 10.

There have only been ten tests of this system. They claim five hits. These are tests whose purpose is to find problems so they can be corrected. The system is not yet ready for deployment. Whether it ever will be is a different question.

[Paulie]

14. atleast 3 of the hits

were because they put a HOMING BEACON on the TARGET. Seriously.

[OldSiouxWarrior]

22. That is because different tests are for different aspects of the systems.

When you want to test out one part of a system, you try to hold the other aspects constant. If you are trying to test the "steering" you don't want to compound the problem by making the target hard to find. So you "light up the target" and so that you know the missile will see it, and you can see how the steering works. Then when you are satisfied with the steering, you proceed to the next phase of testing. So a homing beacon isn't cheating if it is the steering and not the radar that is being tested.

That's how development testing works. Only at the end of the test string do you put it all together for a total systems test.

Back in the 80's there was an anti-aircraft gun that was being heavily critized because one of the test was against a stationary helicopter on a pole. But the guns target tracking and aiming wasn't what was being tested. The test was for the proximity fuzes. For that, a stationary helo gave the best test, because you were sure that the round was on target, so if it didn't blow up it was because of the fuses and not because it missed. But the critics couldn't seem to understand that.

Please remember I am only speaking of the technical aspects. Whether making and deploying the system is a wise idea is a different discussion.

[heliarc]

16. Please...

You want me to concentrate on one system when so many have failed so miserably?

[KittyWampus]

13. Ah, the soft bigotry of low expectations

[DemInDistress]

19. our skies are now protected but what about our ports?

millions of cargo containers come here yearly through our unprotected ports are we safe from a hidden nuke?

so how much did this cost us? hundreds of billions of badly needed dollars..

thanks mom...

[Eugene]

20. Reuters: N.Korea slams U.S. anti-missile test

N.Korea slams U.S. anti-missile test

Reuters
Saturday, September 2, 2006; 2:24 AM

SEOUL (Reuters) - North Korea accused the United States on Saturday
of provoking war by carrying out an anti-missile test over the Pacific
and holding military drills with South Korean forces on the divided
peninsula.

The U.S. military shot down a dummy warhead over the Pacific on Friday
in what it called a "huge step" in the development of an anti-missile
shield activated in July to guard against missiles test-fired by North
Korea.

The North's Committee for Peaceful Reunification of the Fatherland said
the joint exercise was the most provocative yet and, given its scale and
content, a virtual declaration of war against the communist state.

-snip-

Full article: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/02/AR2006090200180.html

[leesa]

24. Couple days later the article will come out how they 'fixed' the test to

make it successful. They have had to rig them all so far.