U.S. missile defense test successful

[M14 Shooter]

The Associated Press

VANDENBERG AIR FORCE BASE, Calif. (AP) — A ground-based missile successfully intercepted a target missile Friday in a test of the nation's defense system, the Missile Defense Agency said.

An intercontinental ballistic missile interceptor blasted out of an underground silo at Vandenberg Air Force Base shortly after 1:15 p.m., and tracked a target missile that had lifted off from the Kodiak Launch Complex in Alaska, the Boeing Co. said in a statement.

The Missile Defense Agency said initial results show the interceptor's rocket motor system and kill vehicle performed as planned. Boeing said the warhead was tracked, intercepted and destroyed.

http://www.oregonlive.com/newsflash...l-93/119102340098440.xml&storylist=ornational

The NMD is 9 kills for 12 attempts, with two of the misses due to malfunctions in surrogate systems not part of the NMD design.

That's a 75-90% success rate.

Who still thinks the NMD will never work? Why?

 

[doniston]

http://www.oregonlive.com/newsflash...l-93/119102340098440.xml&storylist=ornational

The NMD is 9 kills for 12 attempts, with two of the misses due to malfunctions in surrogate systems not part of the NMD design.

That's a 75-90% success rate.

Who still thinks the NMD will never work? Why?

I have never sid threy couldn't work, but I have said they were a waste, and not necessary.

Any Nukes which cross into our territories, will be carried in, NOT rocketed in

 

[M14 Shooter]

I have never sid threy couldn't work, but I have said they were a waste, and not necessary.
Any Nukes which cross into our territories, will be carried in, NOT rocketed in

Threat A necessitates Defense A
Threat B necessitates Defense B

NK and Iran and others are all developing ICBMs that, eventually, can reach the US. Assuming that deterrence will work against these countries is rather imprudent.

 

[roomy]

Seems to work fine if the threat was to come from Alaska.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Seems to work fine if the threat was to come from Alaska.

Not sure what that is supposed to mean.

 

[roomy]

Not sure what that is supposed to mean.

The new missile defense system shot down 1 target which was sent from Alaska at a predetermined time.Would it work if 50 missiles rained down from all directions without prior knowledge of their arrival other than conventional methods?

 

[M14 Shooter]

The new missile defense system shot down 1 target which was sent from Alaska at a predetermined time.Would it work if 50 missiles rained down from all directions without prior knowledge of their arrival other than conventional methods?

Given the test results and operating paramteters of the NMD - why wouldn't it? Once fully deployed, its designed to shoot down up to 50 missiles.

 

[roomy]

Given the test results and operating paramteters of the NMD - why wouldn't it? Once fully deployed, its designed to shoot down up to 50 missiles.

I hope it is never tested for real.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I hope it is never tested for real.

So does everyone else.

 

[jasendorf]

Who still thinks the NMD will never work? Why?

Because... as with all "great defenses" those who want to usurp them will find a way. Only those ignorant of history believe that a missile defense system is anything other than a waste of money.

Historical points:
Great Wall - Mongols went around it
Walls of the Bastille - Peasants burst through them
Maginot Line - Germans went through it
Atlantic Wall - Allies went through it
Sony Piracy Encryption - Killed by a Sharpie

Point is simple... not a single one of these tests has incorporated even the simplest of EXISTING evasive tactics (such as chaff)... and, once a missile defense is in place... there will be plenty of work for scientists to figure out ways to defeat it (hell, we're probably already developing ways around it as we develop it in case other countries try to build one). It will be obsolete within a year or two of its completion if not sooner.

I am capable of scoring a perfect round of 18 on mini golf if every hole is a foot from the tee and there aren't any distractions or obstacles... that's pretty much what these tests are. They've made the tests easier and easier and easier every time in the hopes that someone will eventually buy that they have some great success rate. I'll be the first one to admit that hitting a missile with another missile is an incredible feat of technology... but these tests so completely ignore reality that they can hardly be called "proof" of anything other than a lot of money down the drain.

 

[jasendorf]

Given the test results and operating paramteters of the NMD - why wouldn't it? Once fully deployed, its designed to shoot down up to 50 missiles.

Ask Sony why their piracy defense didn't work after they poured millions into it... a 99¢ Sharpie ended up being better.

Star Wars = Waste of Money

 

[M14 Shooter]

Because... as with all "great defenses" those who want to usurp them will find a way. Only those ignorant of history believe that a missile defense system is anything other than a waste of money.

Threat A necessitates Defense A
Threat B necessitates Defense B
That Defense A does not defend against Threat B is not an argument against Defense A.

Point is simple... not a single one of these tests has incorporated even the simplest of EXISTING evasive tactics (such as chaff)

Wrong. Several of them involved the use of decoys. The NMD does what it can to distinguish decors from real warheads, and intercepts everything that's left, under the assumption that its better to hit a few decoys rather than guess wrong and let a warhead get thru.

They've made the tests easier and easier and easier every time in the hopes that someone will eventually buy that they have some great success rate.

There are 12 intercept tests total; show that they got progressively easier.

I am capable of scoring a perfect round of 18 on mini golf if every hole is a foot from the tee and there aren't any distractions or obstacles... that's pretty much what these tests are.

Based on... what?
The HARD part is getting the bullet to hit the other bullet, the rest is a question of target acqusition. The HARD part is proven to work.

 

[jasendorf]

Threat A necessitates Defense A
Threat B necessitates Defense B
That Defense A does not defend against Threat B is not an argument against Defense A.

That's just babbling. Are you actually saying that we have to develop a whole new system in two years when they've developed evasive tactics that can beat these missiles? We're going to have to do this every couple years pouring billions and billions into endless "missile defense" programs? Only an employ of a defense contractor could see that as a "good thing."

Wrong. Several of them involved the use of decoys. The NMD does what it can to distinguish decors from real warheads, and intercepts everything that's left, under the assumption that its better to hit a few decoys rather than guess wrong and let a warhead get thru.

A decoy is the least of such a system's worries. Speed variance, chaff, ECM jamming, flares... all of these techniques are already used to evade missiles. And, any country that can build an ICBM can add one or many of these evasion technologies into their missiles.

There are 12 intercept tests total; show that they got progressively easier.

You're right... they waffle back and forth between insanely easy to really easy... many of these tests (even ones with "decoys" (ballons)) have had positioning beacons in them used to aid the interceptor!! So, you're right... they go from insanely easy to really easy (which they fail) and back to insanely easy... rinse, repeat.

And, I'm not really sure where you're getting your "12 interceptor tests total" from... it's not in the story you posted. And, from what I can find... there have been scores of interceptor tests over the past two decades...

(This list ends in 2002 and there are doxens there alone)
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_security/missile_defense/chronology-of-missile-defense-tests.html

Based on... what?
The HARD part is getting the bullet to hit the other bullet, the rest is a question of target acqusition. The HARD part is proven to work.

You're right... in the most ideal situations with the aid of the target and without any special circumstance or any evasion from the target... they can hit a bullet with a bullet. Let's hope the ICBMs thrown at us come from really, really nice people who will help our interceptors down them.

Missile Defense = Waste of Money

 

[M14 Shooter]

That's just babbling.

No, its not.
That you cannot use a SAM against torpedoes isn't an argument against building SAMs.

A decoy is the least of such a system's worries. Speed variance, chaff, ECM jamming, flares... all of these techniques are already used to evade missiles.

Yes. By aircraft. Not ICBM warhead RVs.
Disagree? Show where RVs use these things.

You're right... they waffle back and forth between insanely easy to really easy...

Show this to be true.

many of these tests (even ones with "decoys" (ballons)) have had positioning beacons in them used to aid the interceptor!!

Ah. The "homing beacon" myth.

The targets carried C-band transponders so C-band radars could fill in for the yet-unbuilt X-band radars. The C-band radars, taking the place of the x-band radars told the BMS where the target was, and the BMS told the IKV to "look over there" -- exactly as the x-band radars would. The IKV looked in the right direction, acquired the target with its own IR sensors and homed in for the kill.

At no time did the IKV receive target information from the C-band transponder.

Hope that clears up the myth.

And, I'm not really sure where you're getting your "12 interceptor tests total" from... it's not in the story you posted. And, from what I can find... there have been scores of interceptor tests over the past two decades...

Sigh. The first IFT was in 1999. There have been 12.

• IFT-3 (2 Oct 1999) was intended as an element test of the EKV, not an end-to-end system test. The flight resulted in an intercept. At least one failure on the EKV forced the EKV into a backup acquisition mode.
• IFT-4 (18 Jan 2000) was the first system end-to-end test. The Raytheon built EKV failed to detect the mock warhead. This resulted in a missed intercept. The failure to intercept is directly traceable to the cryogenic cooling system of the EKV, which failed to cool the IR sensors down to their operating temperatures in time because of an obstructed cooling line.
• IFT-5 (8 Jul 2000) suffered a flight test failure. The Raytheon build EKV did not separate from the boost vehicle, a modified Minuteman ICBM. The failure was caused by a 1553B data bus failure in the booster, Lockheed Martin’s Multi-Service Launch System.
• IFT-6 (14 Jul 2001) resulted in a successful intercept. This was the second end-to-end system test using NMD prototype elements.
• IFT-7 (3 Dec 2001) resulted in a successful intercept. This test was a repeat of the IFT-6 test except that the target booster used Orbital’s Target Launch Vehicle instead of Lockheed Martin’s Multi-Service Launch System.
• IFT-8 (15 Mar 2002) resulted in a successful intercept. The EKV was fed the location of the mock warhead to assist and tracking and intercept. The mock warhead contained a C-band transponder for early flight trajectory and location data
• IFT-9 (14 Oct 2002) resulted in a successful intercept. This was the first IFT to use the Aegis SPY-1 radar for GMD. The mock warhead contained a C-band transponder for early flight trajectory and location data.
• IFT-10 (11 Dec 2002) suffered a flight test failure. The Raytheon-built EKV did not separate from the boost vehicle, a modified Minuteman ICBM. The failure was caused an activator pin which broke and did not activate a laser which was to release the EKV.
• IFT-15 (13 Dec 2005) was a successful flight test. The interceptor missile was launched from the Ronald Reagan test site, located on the Marshall Islands in the Pacific Ocean.
• IFT-16 (01 Sep 2006) was a successful flight test. The interceptor successfully intercepted a target ballistic missile over the Pacific in the widest test in 18 months of the Ground Based Interceptors. The interceptor was launched from Vandenberg AFB, with a threat-representative missile launched from Kodiak Launch Complex. No decoys were used, but the EKV successfully acquired and impacted the 4 foot representative target warhead.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ground-Based_Midcourse_Defense

There have been 2 since the last one here. Both kills.
12 tests, 9 kills. 2 misses due to failures in surrogate systems.
75-90% effective.

You're right... in the most ideal situations with the aid of the target and without any special circumstance or any evasion from the target... they can hit a bullet with a bullet.

Which is, as I said, the hard part.

[/quote]Missile Defense = Waste of Money[/QUOTE]
Not that you have shown.

 

[jasendorf]

No, its not.
That you cannot use a SAM against torpedoes isn't an argument against building SAMs.

Who said anything about torpedoes? Are you arguing with yourself now? I'm talking about ICBM's fitted with simple evasive technology. If these things are IR... all we're talking about are flares.

Yes. By aircraft. Not ICBM warhead RVs.
Disagree? Show where RVs use these things.

So, you're saying it's impossible to put these technologies on a missile? You're right... they haven't been put on any missiles... because they're haven't been any missiles capable of targeting the missiles. But, as soon as they're needed on missiles, they'll be ready. The technology is already there.

Show this to be true.

Already did.

Ah. The "homing beacon" myth.

The targets carried C-band transponders so C-band radars could fill in for the yet-unbuilt X-band radars. The C-band radars, taking the place of the x-band radars told the BMS where the target was, and the BMS told the IKV to "look over there" -- exactly as the x-band radars would. The IKV looked in the right direction, acquired the target with its own IR sensors and homed in for the kill.

At no time did the IKV receive target information from the C-band transponder.

Hope that clears up the myth.

How does that clear up any myth? If anything you just explained the truth of the story.

Sigh. The first IFT was in 1999. There have been 12.

....

There have been 2 since the last one here. Both kills.
12 tests, 9 kills. 2 misses due to failures in surrogate systems.
75-90% effective.

Oh, so you're looking SOLELY at these particular tests... not the dozens of failures that led up to them... ok, fair enough... I guess the numbers would look pretty bad if you included ALL the tests... it would really kill your percentages. Better to make the percentages look good than to tell the truth. Thanks for the statistics!

So, Shooter, are you a lobbyist for a DoD contractor or just an employee?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Who said anything about torpedoes?

That's what the Threat A / Defense B argumeht comes down to - different threats require different countermeasures. That a particular countermeasure doesnt protect us against a threat its not designed to counter doesnt invalidate that countermeasure.

Machineguns wont stop tanks -- according to you, we should not build machineguns.

So, you're saying it's impossible to put these technologies on a missile? You're right... they haven't been put on any missiles... because they're haven't been any missiles capable of targeting the missiles.

ABMs have been around since the late 50s.

Already did.

Hardly. To support your claim that the tests were 'progressively easier' you need to describe each test sand show how each test was made simpler than the previous test.

How does that clear up any myth? If anything you just explained the truth of the story.

Yes -- the truth how the IKV did not home in on a beacon. Given the truth, I'd be interested to see how you still think "the beacon" myth means anything.

Oh, so you're looking SOLELY at these particular tests... not the dozens of failures that led up to them...

Because these are the flight tests that attempted to hit an incoming warhead.
Please show the "dozens" of failures in that regard.

Why are you so opposed to the US having the ability to shoot down incoming ICBMs?

 

[jasendorf]

That's what the Threat A / Defense B argumeht comes down to - different threats require different countermeasures. That a particular countermeasure doesnt protect us against a threat its not designed to counter doesnt invalidate that countermeasure.

Machineguns wont stop tanks -- according to you, we should not build machineguns.

You're analogy is wrong. If humans (the most common target of machine guns) could find a way to become impervious to machine guns within a couple years, then I'd be against spending billions of dollars to develop the same old machine gun... I'm simply saying that, like all defensive measures throughout history, any missile defense system will be obsolete within a short couple years making them a huge waste of money.

ABMs have been around since the late 50s.

So now you're going to start comparing these to Patriots? If an IFT is simply just another Patriot missile... why are we bothering to develop it? In general, militaries protect their nuclear weapons' capabilities to a greater degree than their conventional weaponry... just because Saddam didn't put evasive technologies on his SCUDs doesn't mean China won't put them on their nuclear ICBMs.

Hardly. To support your claim that the tests were 'progressively easier' you need to describe each test sand show how each test was made simpler than the previous test.

I've already agreed with you that they didn't get progressively easier... learn to read.

Yes -- the truth how the IKV did not home in on a beacon. Given the truth, I'd be interested to see how you still think "the beacon" myth means anything.

Although very high-tech, when the target aids the firer we call that "shooting fish in a barrel."

Because these are the flight tests that attempted to hit an incoming warhead.
Please show the "dozens" of failures in that regard.

Although I've already posted the link once before...
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_security/missile_defense/chronology-of-missile-defense-tests.html

Why are you so opposed to the US having the ability to shoot down incoming ICBMs?

I'm not. I'm all for it. If it was feasible that defensive measures could exist for long enough to recoup our money from them I'd say go ahead and do it. What I'm opposed to is wasting money... which is what any large-scale defensive structure is.

 

[M14 Shooter]

You're analogy is wrong.

No. Its completely correct. Threat A Threat B, Defense A Defense B.

So now you're going to start comparing these to Patriots?

No. I'm not. I'm talking about systems designed to shoot down ICBMs.
Nike-Hercules. Nike-X. Sentinel. Safeguard.
Obviously you weren't aware that the US had operational BMD systems 1958-1976.

I've already agreed with you that they didn't get progressively easier... learn to read.

Oh, - well OK. So you admit your claim to that effect was in error.

Although very high-tech, when the target aids the firer we call that "shooting fish in a barrel."

You obviously dont understand what the C-band beacon did, or you dont WANT to understand.
Please tell me:
In terms of fire control information fed to the BMS, what did the C-band beacon/radar do that the X-band radar, alone, does not do?

Although I've already posted the link once before...
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_security/missile_defense/chronology-of-missile-defense-tests.html

Did you even LOOK at this source?
It lists IFT-1A to IFT-10.
Thats not even a dozen tests, total -- how does this support your contention that there have been "dozens" of failures?

I'm not. I'm all for it. If it was feasible that defensive measures could exist for long enough to recoup our money from them I'd say go ahead and do it.

Your posts indicate that you're dead-set against the system, regardless how misinforme dyou are about it.

 

[Shogun]

with the expansion of nuclear powers I would not be against a missle dif. system located in the US. I think putting one in eastern europe is going to start shit with russia mush like we would react if they put on in cuba...

...but it's probably a good idea to have a domestic defense against ICBMs.

 

[jasendorf]

No. Its completely correct. Threat A Threat B, Defense A Defense B.

So, you don't mind spending billions of dollars on a system which will be useless in a couple years? You're welcome to have that view, I do not. You're calling Threat A "Today's ICBMs" and Threat B "Tomorrow's ICBMs" then no defensive program can ever be considered useless. Which, I might say, is a great position to be debating from. If every couple years there's a "new threat" in your eyes, then all systems are justifiable... self-fulfilling prophecies are always useful in debate.

No. I'm not. I'm talking about systems designed to shoot down ICBMs.
Nike-Hercules. Nike-X. Sentinel. Safeguard.
Obviously you weren't aware that the US had operational BMD systems 1958-1976.

Let me see... three failed systems and a shutdown system... good history lesson there. Glad we shut Safeguard down though... not a single missile got through even without it! (30 years of saving $$$)

Oh, - well OK. So you admit your claim to that effect was in error.

Yep. As I said, they didn't get progressively easier... they vacillated between insanely easy to kinda easy and back again as they reached the limits of the system.

You obviously dont understand what the C-band beacon did, or you dont WANT to understand.
Please tell me:
In terms of fire control information fed to the BMS, what did the C-band beacon/radar do that the X-band radar, alone, does not do?

Why are you changing the subject? Did the c-band transponder (beacon) feed information to the targeting system or not? Simple question. A yes or no will suffice.

Did you even LOOK at this source?
It lists IFT-1A to IFT-10.
Thats not even a dozen tests, total -- how does this support your contention that there have been "dozens" of failures?

So, in the tiny realm of infrared missiles... there are 12... that list, as is quite clear, shows all the other attempts at hitting missiles with missiles. There's a little scroller on the right of your browser window... try using it... it's a long page.

Your posts indicate that you're dead-set against the system, regardless how misinforme dyou are about it.

Of course I'm dead set against it... it's a waste of money. Just because you're either A) ignorant of the military history of defensive systems or B) a DoD contractors whose job depends on, while technologically interesting and engaging, bloated and expensive systems with a very short life-span doesn't mean you have a corner on the market of information.