U.S. Missile Defense Capability a Mystery (armscontrol.org)

[Up2Late]

(What ever happened to all the boasting about this $100,000,000,000.00+ program? Let's read the Trade paper.)
Arms Control Today April 2006

U.S. Missile Defense Capability a Mystery

Wade Boese

Is the fledgling ground-based midcourse defense (GMD) system deployed nearly 18 months ago by the Pentagon capable of destroying an incoming long-range ballistic missile? In March, lawmakers discovered that the answer depends on who you ask.

Pentagon officials responsible for the system say the answer is yes. But the Pentagon’s independent weapons tester says insufficient proof exists to draw a conclusion. A March report by the Government Accountability Office (GAO), which conducts studies for Congress, comes down on the side of the weapons tester.

The GMD system currently comprises eight missile interceptors embedded in Alaska and another two in California. They are designed to collide with enemy missile warheads in space and are primarily supported by an aging missile-launch-detection satellite system, two upgraded early-warning radars, and an extensive battle-management command and control system. By the end of this year, the Missile Defense Agency (MDA) hopes to add to the sensors mix a sea-based X-band radar; an upgraded early-warning radar based in Fylingdales, United Kingdom; and a forward-based X-band radar in Japan (see page 36).

Despite the system’s evolving status and the fact that it has yet to be declared operational, top Pentagon officials indicated March 9 to the House Armed Services Strategic Forces Subcommittee that it is ready to perform it's mission. In his prepared testimony, MDA Director Lieutenant General Henry Obering described the initial 2004 deployment as making “history by establishing a limited defensive capability…against a possible long-range ballistic missile attack.” At a March 20 briefing with reporters, the general asserted that the system’s ground and flight testing gave him confidence that it could “shoot down an incoming missile” and that testing had not revealed any problems that would be “showstoppers.”

(more at link below)

<http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2006_04/usmissiledefensemystery.asp>

[rwenos]

1. Life Can Be a Dream

On Thorazine.

Translation: "We've shot down a lot of TRAINING missiles."

The technology guys are no doubt doing their best. But the military people are ( ( ( spinning ) ) ).

[Up2Late]

2. I love this quote from the near the end...

...GAO found the agency has “unusual flexibility to modify its strategies and goals, make trade-offs, and report on its progress.”:crazy: :argh:

[ixion]

5. There has been no successful tests of this

they've shot down a couple targets (and missed far more) that were carefully impeded to allow the test to succeed.

Basically, the problem is that the concept of this system is, in essence, to hit a bullet with a bullet. In a real-time scenario, the chances of this being successful are minute, at best.

But that hasn't stopped the wackos from dumping billions of our tax dollars into it. :grr:

[ContraBass Black]

3. So, what happens if the enemy launches 5 missles,

each with 10 decoys and 50 flares?

[Up2Late]

4. Exactly, and check out this little slip, though I'm not sure who said it.

"...David Duma, who heads the Pentagon’s Office of Operational Test and Evaluation, concurred that “we have all the pieces in place” to try to intercept an incoming missile. But, he added, “the testing to date has not confirmed that you could count on that.”

Sounds like he's only talking about Trying to shoot down one (1) missile.

[ContraBass Black]

6. As I remember, all of the tests were one-on-one

Because of course, war happens one missile at a time.

[Up2Late]

7. kick n/t

:kick: