Missile Defense Exercise and Flight test Successfully Completed (1 Viewer)

[Goobieman]

http://www.mda.mil/mdalink/pdf/06news0020.pdf

Missile Defense Exercise and Flight Test Successfully Completed
Air Force Lieutenant General Henry “Trey” Obering III, Missile Defense Agency (MDA) director, announced today it has successfully completed an important exercise and flight test 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 exercise was designed to evaluate the performance of several elements of the Ballistic Missile Defense System (BMDS), and mission objectives included demonstrating the ability of the Upgraded Early Warning Radar at Beale Air Force Base, Calif., to acquire, track and report the target warhead, and also to assess the performance of the interceptor missile’s rocket motor system and exoatmospheric kill vehicle, which is the component that collides directly with a target warhead in space to perform a “hit to kill” intercept using only the force of the collision to totally destroy the target warhead. Initial indications are that the rocket motor system and kill vehicle performed as designed. Program officials will evaluate system performance based upon telemetry and other data obtained during the test. Although not a primary objective for the data collection flight test, an intercept of the target warhead was achieved.

Lets see:
11 tests.
6 kills.
4 misses due to failures in surrogates.
1 miss due to a failure in a system component

Oh, but it will never work.

 

[faithful_servant]

This is one of the best testings ever done for a new piece of armament. Most go through dozens of tests before they actually do what they're designed to do with a decent rate of success. But for the left to admit that the MDF has great potential for success would mean saying something that isn't derogatory towards something the President supports.

 

[Deegan]

This is certainly good news, especially now that such dangerous regimes are so close to a bomb!:shock:

 

[26 X World Champs]

http://www.mda.mil/mdalink/pdf/06news0020.pdf



Lets see:
11 tests.
6 kills.
4 misses due to failures in surrogates.
1 miss due to a failure in a system component

Oh, but it will never work.

And whom are we going to use this against? What are the odds that this would ever have to be used? Do you think Terrorists are going to use convential missiles to attack us?

BTW - Can anyone tell us what the cost of this system is?

 

[Deegan]

And whom are we going to use this against? What are the odds that this would ever have to be used? Do you think Terrorists are going to use convential missiles to attack us?

BTW - Can anyone tell us what the cost of this system is?

Ummmm, Russia for one, how about N.Korea, or even more dangerous, Iran, please, this is the best spending we have ever undertaken. Just because we all sit here and assume no one will ever attack us, is the very reason that the 9/11 attacks were allowed to see the light of day, this is a great program, I'm damn glad we have it!

 

[jfuh]

http://www.mda.mil/mdalink/pdf/06news0020.pdf



Lets see:
11 tests.
6 kills.
4 misses due to failures in surrogates.
1 miss due to a failure in a system component

Oh, but it will never work.

Yes knowing which one is a warhead, knowing when the missile will fire, knowing what the trajectory of the incoming missle is. All these factors known and only 6 "kills". The missle defense is a total waste of money.
You think that these "rogue" nations are going to use an ICBM as a delivery vehicle? think again, 9/11 prooved you don't need elaborate weaponry or high sophistication to bring about maximum damage. This program is nothing but a total waste of money.

 

[26 X World Champs]

Ummmm, Russia for one, how about N.Korea, or even more dangerous, Iran, please, this is the best spending we have ever undertaken. Just because we all sit here and assume no one will ever attack us, is the very reason that the 9/11 attacks were allowed to see the light of day, this is a great program, I'm damn glad we have it!

Russia? C'mon! Get real! N. Korea? They have nothing close to that sort of capability and they surely know that if one of their warheads ever made it here they would be permanently wiped off the face of the Earth. Iran? Ditto!

So that leaves borderless enemies that would use the suitcase type weapon or the 9-11 type weapon to get to us which means this system has very little value...and I would still like to know what it's costing?

How does this system prevent bombs at our ports or at airports in luggage or our nuclear power plants?

 

[jfuh]

Russia? C'mon! Get real! N. Korea? They have nothing close to that sort of capability and they surely know that if one of their warheads ever made it here they would be permanently wiped off the face of the Earth. Iran? Ditto!

So that leaves borderless enemies that would use the suitcase type weapon or the 9-11 type weapon to get to us which means this system has very little value...and I would still like to know what it's costing?

How does this system prevent bombs at our ports or at airports in luggage or our nuclear power plants?

I agree with the Russia bit, but disagree with trigger happy N. Korea.
Do not think for a moment that N. Korea would not do anything of the sort. Kim Jun Ill indeed would.
However, again, this is N. Korea, and communist China has a firm grasp in controlling N. Korea. If NK were to launch an assault on the US the immediate impact would be the trillion dollar trade between the US and CHina and neither side wants that. Thus China keeps a tight collar around NK but allows for it's dog to bark once in a while just to say hey, don't forget me here.

To China, NK is the US's kryptonite. To the US, Taiwan is China's kryptonite. Kinda a strange thing going on there.

 

[Goobieman]

Yes knowing which one is a warhead, knowing when the missile will fire, knowing what the trajectory of the incoming missle is. All these factors known and only 6 "kills".

In an operational scenario:
-The time and place of missile launch will be known within seconds of launch
-The trajectory of the missile will be known as soon as the booster burns out
-If the actual warhead cannot be determined, an interceptor will be launched at all possible warhead target.

Aside from the fact that in the tests that involved decoys, the warhead was NOT known - why do you think knowing these things ahead of time matter?

And 6 kills out of 7 legitimate tests? You REALLY think that's a failing record?

The missle defense is a total waste of money.

Right up to the point that we need it - and as soon as we do, and it isnt there becaue people that think like you do carry the day, you'll be the first to whine about the hole in the ground that used to be Seattle -- and that we didn't have a defense in place. You'll blame everyone but yourselves.

You think that these "rogue" nations are going to use an ICBM as a delivery vehicle? think again, 9/11 prooved you don't need elaborate weaponry or high sophistication to bring about maximum damage.

Threat A necessitates Defense A
Threat B necessitates Defense B
That defense A does not defend against threat B is in no way an argument agaonts Defense A.

Fact of the matter is there ARE countries that have or will have nucelar capabilities that ARE developing missiles than can reach us. they are --deliberately- developing these missiles with the range and abilit to hit US cities. You ASSUME they will never launch their nuclear-tipped missiles; your assumption is nothing more than a uninformed, politically biased gamble, with potentially millions of lives hanging in the balance.

This program is nothing but a total waste of money.

Repeating yourself doesnt make it true.

 

[Goobieman]

I agree with the Russia bit, but disagree with trigger happy N. Korea.
Do not think for a moment that N. Korea would not do anything of the sort. Kim Jun Ill indeed would.

Dinlt you just ask, out loud, You think that these "rogue" nations are going to use an ICBM as a delivery vehicle?

Arent you saying, above, that NK WOULD launch a missile at us?

 

[Goobieman]

Ummmm, Russia for one, how about N.Korea, or even more dangerous, Iran, please, this is the best spending we have ever undertaken. Just because we all sit here and assume no one will ever attack us, is the very reason that the 9/11 attacks were allowed to see the light of day, this is a great program, I'm damn glad we have it!

The NMD has cost roughly $8B/yr since its inception in 1996.
This year, the spending was boosted to $10B.
Thats $82B over the last 10 years.

 

[jfuh]

Dinlt you just ask, out loud, You think that these "rogue" nations are going to use an ICBM as a delivery vehicle?

Arent you saying, above, that NK WOULD launch a missile at us?

Read the whole post.

 

[jfuh]

In an operational scenario:
-The time and place of missile launch will be known within seconds of launch
-The trajectory of the missile will be known as soon as the booster burns out
-If the actual warhead cannot be determined, an interceptor will be launched at all possible warhead target.

50% probability for all the decoys and warhead (not to mention multiple warheads). Sure launch multiple interceptors, but you are aware that asside from the booster stage, the warheads themselves have abilities to change trajectory while in orbit right? Hear or thrusters?

Aside from the fact that in the tests that involved decoys, the warhead was NOT known - why do you think knowing these things ahead of time matter?

Why would these things matter? You are not seriously asking this question. Hmm let's think, maybe because all that matters is the warhead and not the decoys.

And 6 kills out of 7 legitimate tests? You REALLY think that's a failing record?

funny, you're source said 6 out of 11. Seems about as high a probability as a coin toss.

Right up to the point that we need it - and as soon as we do, and it isnt there becaue people that think like you do carry the day, you'll be the first to whine about the hole in the ground that used to be Seattle -- and that we didn't have a defense in place. You'll blame everyone but yourselves.


Threat A necessitates Defense A
Threat B necessitates Defense B
That defense A does not defend against threat B is in no way an argument agaonts Defense A.

Fact of the matter is there ARE countries that have or will have nucelar capabilities that ARE developing missiles than can reach us. they are --deliberately- developing these missiles with the range and abilit to hit US cities. You ASSUME they will never launch their nuclear-tipped missiles; your assumption is nothing more than a uninformed, politically biased gamble, with potentially millions of lives hanging in the balance.

Those "countries" would never launch missles because of fear of retaliation. Should Russia have launched, we'd have launched. MAD look into it.
The only ppl that would launch nukes against us are nationless groups such as AQ. However, they needn't even bother with an ICBM or missle. There are many more effective means - see 9/11

 

[faithful_servant]

Ummmm, Russia for one, how about N.Korea, or even more dangerous, Iran, please, this is the best spending we have ever undertaken. Just because we all sit here and assume no one will ever attack us, is the very reason that the 9/11 attacks were allowed to see the light of day, this is a great program, I'm damn glad we have it!

Left out China...

 

[Kushinator]

I may sound like a ultra conservative military wacko, but the effects of a MDS would be helpful to say the least. If they can complete a fool proof MDS in the next ten years....

1.) It would make it seem like nobody has the bomb.

2.) The economic sanctions that should be used to keep fanatical regimes from starting any nuclear/balistic missil program would have double the effect. Not only does a nation pay dearly for a weapon that is in essence obsolete to all but us, the economic sanctions would in turn create a state of financial disorder.

3.) We could really go play with our toys in the sand.

4.) It would create a whole new financial industry considering a fully operational MDS would probably cost triple what we are paying now.

5.) We could call any nations bluff...

 

[Goobieman]

50% probability for all the decoys and warhead (not to mention multiple warheads).

50% probability...based on... what?
NK doesnt have MIRV technology. China just now has it, and NK is at least a generation behind China.

Sure launch multiple interceptors, but you are aware that asside from the booster stage, the warheads themselves have abilities to change trajectory while in orbit right? Hear or thrusters?

Once the booster burns out, and unless you have a steerable RV, your course is set -- that why they're called ballistic missiles.
Steerable RVs (MARVs) are very high-tech, and only the US and Russia (maybe the UK and France?) have them. China does not, and China is at least generation ahead of NK.

Why would these things matter? You are not seriously asking this question. Hmm let's think, maybe because all that matters is the warhead and not the decoys.

Yes - I am asking. Why? Because in the tests, the real warhead was not known to the IKV before the IKV picked its target. The IKV and its attending sensors picked the real warhead out from the decoys. Note that in the tests, the IKV and its attending sensors were able to pick out the real warheads from the decoys.

Its fairly plain that you arent very well versed on the testing or the NMD.
The NMD is designed to sniff out as many decoys as possible before interceptors are committed, and then every possible real target gets an interceptor launched at it.

Translation: The system is designed around the idea that you dont initially know what targets are real, and so you launch at everything you cant tell for sure is a decoy.

funny, you're source said 6 out of 11. Seems about as high a probability as a coin toss.

You obviously dont understand the significance of 'failure due to surrogate systems'. These failures mean that the test flight didnt actually get to test anyting related to the NMD, and so while they resulted in a miss, its impossible to say that said miss indicates that the NMD systems being tested arent able to reliably hit an incoming missile. In effect, its a "no test".

But, when the surrogates DONT fail, the NMD is 6 for 7.

Again:
6 kills out of 7 legitimate tests? You REALLY think that's a failing record?

Those "countries" would never launch missles because of fear of retaliation.

You, yourself, said you believe that NK would.

Should Russia have launched, we'd have launched. MAD look into it.
The only ppl that would launch nukes against us are nationless groups such as AQ. However, they needn't even bother with an ICBM or missle. There are many more effective means - see 9/11

You're arguing Defense A v Threat B.
Either you dont understand the concept here, or you do and you dont care.

 

[jfuh]

50% probability...based on... what?
NK doesnt have MIRV technology. China just now has it, and NK is at least a generation behind China.

6 out of 11 tests. Your own stats.

Once the booster burns out, and unless you have a steerable RV, your course is set -- that why they're called ballistic missiles.
Steerable RVs (MARVs) are very high-tech, and only the US and Russia (maybe the UK and France?) have them. China does not, and China is at least generation ahead of NK.

Yet decoys will do the same - you know, the whole loosing mass tid bit causing an alteration of trajectory? Ballistic missle states nothing of manuverability.

Yes - I am asking. Why? Because in the tests, the real warhead was not known to the IKV before the IKV picked its target. The IKV and its attending sensors picked the real warhead out from the decoys. Note that in the tests, the IKV and its attending sensors were able to pick out the real warheads from the decoys.

Its fairly plain that you arent very well versed on the testing or the NMD.
The NMD is designed to sniff out as many decoys as possible before interceptors are committed, and then every possible real target gets an interceptor launched at it.

Translation: The system is designed around the idea that you dont initially know what targets are real, and so you launch at everything you cant tell for sure is a decoy.

Lol, yep, ignore the actual warhead. Go ahead and try to "sniff" in space.

You obviously dont understand the significance of 'failure due to surrogate systems'. These failures mean that the test flight didnt actually get to test anyting related to the NMD, and so while they resulted in a miss, its impossible to say that said miss indicates that the NMD systems being tested arent able to reliably hit an incoming missile. In effect, its a "no test".

Un huh

But, when the surrogates DONT fail, the NMD is 6 for 7.

Nope, still 6/11 How do you launch if your surrogate systems fail. I'm sorry Mr. Kim Jun Ill, can you cancel that war head, we're having surrogate system troubles

Again:
6 kills out of 7 legitimate tests? You REALLY think that's a failing record?

It's not 6/7 it's 6/11

You, yourself, said you believe that NK would.

NK would but China keeps quite a leash on thier dog. Thus NK won't.

You're arguing Defense A v Threat B.
Either you dont understand the concept here, or you do and you dont care.

Because threat A is irrelevent. No nation would ever launch against the US. Threat B is all that matters.

 

[Goobieman]

6 out of 11 tests. Your own stats.

I see. You really don't understand.
Because you cannot or you refuse to? I don't know.

Yet decoys will do the same - you know, the whole loosing mass tid bit causing an alteration of trajectory? Ballistic missle states nothing of manuverability.

You dont have a clue as to what you're talking about.
How do I know that?
Manuverable warheads dont use thrusters to change their trajectory, as you intimated.

Lol, yep, ignore the actual warhead. Go ahead and try to "sniff" in space.

Again, you dont know what you;re talking about.
You dont have the first idea of how the NMD discerns between decoys and real warheads, and so rather than respond with something reasonable or intelligent, you post 'yep, ignore the actual warhead'.

Why dont you tell me how I am wrong -- if you can, that is.

Un huh

I'll take that as either you dont understand or you do and you dont care.
How about you tell me how I am wrong -- if you can, that is.

Nope, still 6/11 How do you launch if your surrogate systems fail.

Its plainly escaped you that the surrogate systems, by definition, are not part of the operational NMD. Your question reaks of intentional ignorance.

It's not 6/7 it's 6/11

Only if you inexplicably include tests that didnt actually get to test what was being tested.

NK would but China keeps quite a leash on thier dog. Thus NK won't.

And yet, you said they would.
Make up your mind.

Because threat A is irrelevent. No nation would ever launch against the US.

And yet, YOU said NK would - because Kim is a loon.

Tell me why the're developing missiles that can hit us if they dont everr plan to launch them.

 

[jfuh]

I see. You really don't understand.
Because you cannot or you refuse to? I don't know.

I think you answered it yourself, you don't know. Thank you for fessing up to that.

You dont have a clue as to what you're talking about.
How do I know that?
Manuverable warheads dont use thrusters to change their trajectory, as you intimated.

:roll:

Again, you dont know what you;re talking about.
You dont have the first idea of how the NMD discerns between decoys and real warheads, and so rather than respond with something reasonable or intelligent, you post 'yep, ignore the actual warhead'.

Why dont you tell me how I am wrong -- if you can, that is.

it was your statment that it doesn't matter. So yep, go and ignore the actual warhead.

I'll take that as either you dont understand or you do and you dont care.
How about you tell me how I am wrong -- if you can, that is.

Or that I think you're not worth getting serious with.

Its plainly escaped you that the surrogate systems, by definition, are not part of the operational NMD. Your question reaks of intentional ignorance.

Only if you inexplicably include tests that didnt actually get to test what was being tested.

And yet, you said they would.
Make up your mind.

Try reading the full argument before you make such rediculous assertions.

And yet, YOU said NK would - because Kim is a loon.

Tell me why the're developing missiles that can hit us if they dont everr plan to launch them.

This is completely rediculous. Hey goobie, WE have nukes that can strike anywhere any place. What's the purpose of having such weaponry if we're never going to use them.

If you want to have debate seriously, read up some more. All you have here is but a simple set that prooves nothing of your premise. You want data and ability of the NMD here you go, come back to me when you're up to par.

http://www.fas.org/spp/starwars/program/nmd/
Launching multiple kv against a single warhead? Funny seems to be it's systems trying to decipher between decoys and the warhead - somehow your argument just doesn't support itself.
Each of the test, we already knew when it was launched, where it was being launched to and more importantly how many decoys there were and what thier trajectory was. Sorry but any "nation" that attempts to strike with ICBM's is not going to say, I have this missle coming in here and these decoys shooting in these directions with these warheads going there.
The emminent threat is from those not using ICBM's but instead using a dirty nuke or biological weapons.

 

[Goobieman]

If you want to have debate seriously, read up some more. All you have here is but a simple set that prooves nothing of your premise.

Pot, meet kettle.

You either will not or can not respond to what I post with anything of substance -- whichever you choose, I guess -- and so there's no sense in contoinuing this discussion.

 

[Harshaw]

It astounds me the number of people who are actually opposed to the entire idea of developing a defense against missiles on general principles, as I see in this thread.

Everything is impossible until it's not. We're a country which went from 0 to a man on the moon in 12 years. There is no technical problem we can't lick. But you people would have us not even try.

Why? Do you simply not want us to be able to defend ourselves? Is it somehow "unfair" that we can do this and other nations cannot? Is that even our problem?

 

[Goobieman]

It astounds me the number of people who are actually opposed to the entire idea of developing a defense against missiles on general principles, as I see in this thread.

Everything is impossible until it's not. We're a country which went from 0 to a man on the moon in 12 years. There is no technical problem we can't lick. But you people would have us not even try.

Why? Do you simply not want us to be able to defend ourselves? Is it somehow "unfair" that we can do this and other nations cannot? Is that even our problem?

That's exactly what it is -- they dont want us to be able to shoot these things down.

The threat clearly exists and the technical capability is there, thus their arguments to that end arent sound; that they continue to rely on these arguments indicates that they are trying to disguise their true position on the matter.

Why they dont want this is capability is beyond me -- clearly, these people are true patriots. :roll:

 

[python416]

It astounds me the number of people who are actually opposed to the entire idea of developing a defense against missiles on general principles, as I see in this thread.

Everything is impossible until it's not. We're a country which went from 0 to a man on the moon in 12 years. There is no technical problem we can't lick. But you people would have us not even try.

Why? Do you simply not want us to be able to defend ourselves? Is it somehow "unfair" that we can do this and other nations cannot? Is that even our problem?

The main reason I oppose NMD is because it is against the spirit of Article IV of the NPT. That article is there for a reason, so that nuclear weapon races can't progess past the the point of Mutulally Assured Destruction - which is a progresion that advances the use of nuclear weapons. You may not agree with it, but I hope you can understand the reasoning behind the position.

 

[Goobieman]

The main reason I oppose NMD is because it is against the spirit of Article IV of the NPT.

First:
How?

Article IV
1. Nothing in this Treaty shall be interpreted as affecting the inalienable right of all the Parties to the Treaty to develop research, production and use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes without discrimination and in conformity with articles I and II of this Treaty.

2. All the Parties to the Treaty undertake to facilitate, and have the right to participate in, the fullest possible exchange of equipment, materials and scientific and technological information for the peaceful uses of nuclear energy. Parties to the Treaty in a position to do so shall also cooperate in contributing alone or together with other States or international organizations to the further development of the applications of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes, especially in the territories of non-nuclear-weapon States Party to the Treaty, with due consideration for the needs of the developing areas of the world.

http://www.fas.org/nuke/control/npt/text/npt2.htm

Second:
The NMD was covered by the ABM treaty, which is now defunct.
The NPT doesnt cover ABMs by any stretch, especially given that the ABM treaty was signed after the NPT.

You may not agree with it, but I hope you can understand the reasoning behind the position.

No. I dont.

 

[Harshaw]

The NPT doesn't even touch it. That being the case, will you revise your opinion?