Sea-based ballistic missile defense works, again -- sorry, naysayers!

[AndrewR]

I'm not even in the Navy, and I think AEGIS is one of the best systems in the U.S. military.

Sea-based missile
shield passes a test

Interceptor fired from U.S. Navy ship
hits dummy warhead over the Pacific

WASHINGTON, Dec. 10 ? A missile from a U.S. Navy Aegis cruiser knocked out a dummy warhead over the Pacific on Thursday, the fourth intercept in five such tests of a sea-based missile shield, the Pentagon said.

THE STANDARD 3 missile fired from the Lake Erie off Kauai in the Hawaiian islands ?successfully engaged the target with hit-to-kill technology? about four minutes after the target was launched, said Chris Taylor, a spokesman for the Pentagon?s Missile Defense Agency.
The last such test, on June 18, failed when the interceptor missile missed its target. The sea-based defense is to be integrated into a multilayered missile shield. President Bush wants an initial operating capability to be fielded by next Sept. 30, notably to defend against a perceived threat from North Korea.

SIMULTANEOUS OPERATION
Lockheed Martin, based in Bethesda, Md., is the prime contractor for the Aegis weapon system and vertical launch system installed in Aegis cruisers and destroyers. It is described as capable of simultaneous operation defending against advanced air, surface, subsurface and ballistic missile threats.
Raytheon Co., based in Waltham, Mass., builds the Standard 3 missile.
Lockheed said the intercept took place outside Earth?s atmosphere during the target missile?s descent. The Pentagon is seeking to build defenses that would also go after warheads in their boost and midcourse flight paths.
The Aegis weapons system is deployed on 67 U.S. Navy cruisers and destroyers, and at least 22 more ships are planned, Lockheed said in a statement.

INTERNATIONAL PARTICIPATION
Aegis is the primary weapon system on the Japanese Kongo-class destroyers, which could also join in a missile shield. It is part of two European ship construction programs ? the Spanish F-100 and the Norwegian New Frigate ? and South Korea has selected Aegis for its newest class of destroyers.
The test on Thursday was designed to evaluate long-range surveillance and track functions of the Aegis system, the Missile Defense Agency said.
The Pentagon plans to spend $50 billion over the next five years to develop the shield, including components based on land, at sea, in the air on laser-firing Boeing 747 aircraft, and in space.

 

[Gravity]

Gotta love it!! About the time there's a rogue missle in the hands of one of these terrorists, we'll all be glad that this system is functional.

 

[AnImuS]

awesome stuff!

50Billion sure is alot of money

 

[CanOWorms]

Originally posted by: AnImuS
awesome stuff!

50Billion sure is alot of money

50 billion in 5 years sounds ok to me... especially since we'll probably get a lot of new technological know-how out of it.

 

[MovingTarget]

Originally posted by: CanOWorms

Originally posted by: AnImuS
awesome stuff!

50Billion sure is alot of money

50 billion in 5 years sounds ok to me... especially since we'll probably get a lot of new technological know-how out of it.

While it is true that anti-missile systems have had successes in teh past, with this new system(s) being developed also having limited success, I see the knowledge gained from the development of such systems to be the real payoff. Any project this complex is bound to contribute greatly in that fasion.

 

[ReiAyanami]

the total missile defense shield project will cost atleast $200 billion, much like the JSF.

sure it can hit *dummy* warheads, but how about the smart warheads?...

they should focus on stuff that works 110%, like raytheon/northrup/lockheed's laser trials. u'd know instantly to the speed of light if u got a hit instead of having to meet halfway each time..

 

[Jhhnn]

"notably to defend against a perceived threat from North Korea."

Uh-huh. And if you believe that the DPRK will actually pose a nuclear threat to the US within the next 50 years, I've got some really nice Arizona oceanfront...

The current administration has built up the DPRK as an all purpose boogeyman, a mythical adversary with ruthless intentions and vast resources with which to destroy us. Pure malarkey.

The real threat of nuclear terrorism is much more likely to be delivered in a container ship or a commercial cargo jet, or even as a conventional explosion carrying a plutonium fallout payload.

Shee-it, Sherlock, the American public couldn't identify a pig while it was eating off their kitchen table, and this is a big one, a very large porker. Oink!

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Be interesting to know what the parameters are. There has been much concern about the fact that the tests in the past were designed to fit the capabilities of the missles, and not the reverse. I will reserve judgement on this "success" until I know more.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: AndrewR
I'm not even in the Navy, and I think AEGIS is one of the best systems in the U.S. military.

Sea-based missile
shield passes a test

Interceptor fired from U.S. Navy ship
hits dummy warhead over the Pacific

WASHINGTON, Dec. 10 ? A missile from a U.S. Navy Aegis cruiser knocked out a dummy warhead over the Pacific on Thursday, the fourth intercept in five such tests of a sea-based missile shield, the Pentagon said.

THE STANDARD 3 missile fired from the Lake Erie off Kauai in the Hawaiian islands ?successfully engaged the target with hit-to-kill technology? about four minutes after the target was launched, said Chris Taylor, a spokesman for the Pentagon?s Missile Defense Agency.
The last such test, on June 18, failed when the interceptor missile missed its target. The sea-based defense is to be integrated into a multilayered missile shield. President Bush wants an initial operating capability to be fielded by next Sept. 30, notably to defend against a perceived threat from North Korea.

SIMULTANEOUS OPERATION
Lockheed Martin, based in Bethesda, Md., is the prime contractor for the Aegis weapon system and vertical launch system installed in Aegis cruisers and destroyers. It is described as capable of simultaneous operation defending against advanced air, surface, subsurface and ballistic missile threats.
Raytheon Co., based in Waltham, Mass., builds the Standard 3 missile.
Lockheed said the intercept took place outside Earth?s atmosphere during the target missile?s descent. The Pentagon is seeking to build defenses that would also go after warheads in their boost and midcourse flight paths.
The Aegis weapons system is deployed on 67 U.S. Navy cruisers and destroyers, and at least 22 more ships are planned, Lockheed said in a statement.

INTERNATIONAL PARTICIPATION
Aegis is the primary weapon system on the Japanese Kongo-class destroyers, which could also join in a missile shield. It is part of two European ship construction programs ? the Spanish F-100 and the Norwegian New Frigate ? and South Korea has selected Aegis for its newest class of destroyers.
The test on Thursday was designed to evaluate long-range surveillance and track functions of the Aegis system, the Missile Defense Agency said.
The Pentagon plans to spend $50 billion over the next five years to develop the shield, including components based on land, at sea, in the air on laser-firing Boeing 747 aircraft, and in space.

Sounds great to me!

 

[AndrewR]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
"notably to defend against a perceived threat from North Korea."

Uh-huh. And if you believe that the DPRK will actually pose a nuclear threat to the US within the next 50 years, I've got some really nice Arizona oceanfront...

The current administration has built up the DPRK as an all purpose boogeyman, a mythical adversary with ruthless intentions and vast resources with which to destroy us. Pure malarkey.

The real threat of nuclear terrorism is much more likely to be delivered in a container ship or a commercial cargo jet, or even as a conventional explosion carrying a plutonium fallout payload.

Shee-it, Sherlock, the American public couldn't identify a pig while it was eating off their kitchen table, and this is a big one, a very large porker. Oink!

Thanks but I am exceptionally familiar with the threat posed by North Korea, and I can easily say that you have no fscking idea what you are talking about. So, please, shut the hell up because you are only making yourself look stupid. Of course, if that is your aim, job well done!

If the container ship or smuggling route was so easy, why hasn't it happened? Regardless, simply because there exist other avenues of attack, it doesn't mean you ignore the others. That's like an Army soldier only wearing a helmet because it's the easiest way to die -- no sense wearing the body armor as well.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: AndrewR

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
"notably to defend against a perceived threat from North Korea."

Uh-huh. And if you believe that the DPRK will actually pose a nuclear threat to the US within the next 50 years, I've got some really nice Arizona oceanfront...

The current administration has built up the DPRK as an all purpose boogeyman, a mythical adversary with ruthless intentions and vast resources with which to destroy us. Pure malarkey.

The real threat of nuclear terrorism is much more likely to be delivered in a container ship or a commercial cargo jet, or even as a conventional explosion carrying a plutonium fallout payload.

Shee-it, Sherlock, the American public couldn't identify a pig while it was eating off their kitchen table, and this is a big one, a very large porker. Oink!

Thanks but I am exceptionally familiar with the threat posed by North Korea, and I can easily say that you have no fscking idea what you are talking about. So, please, shut the hell up because you are only making yourself look stupid. Of course, if that is your aim, job well done!

If the container ship or smuggling route was so easy, why hasn't it happened? Regardless, simply because there exist other avenues of attack, it doesn't mean you ignore the others. That's like an Army soldier only wearing a helmet because it's the easiest way to die -- no sense wearing the body armor as well.

Instead of telling him he has no clue and telling him to shut up why don't you explain to him why NK is a legit threat based on your knowledge and experience. I know being stationed over in Japan with the AF you might have a perspective that many of us don't regarding that area.

 

[Jhhnn]

Thanks but I am exceptionally familiar with the threat posed by North Korea, and I can easily say that you have no fscking idea what you are talking about

If you say so. I'd suggest that you're probably more familiar with the deception and agitprop emanating from the Whitehouse and Pentagon, and that you actually believe it.

So, please, shut the hell up because you are only making yourself look stupid.

Generally speaking, reducing an argument to ad homs is normally a tactic of somebody who's losing, and doesn't have the wherewithall to back up their POV with actual evidence or reasoning.

If the container ship or smuggling route was so easy, why hasn't it happened?

For a variety of reasons outside the paranoid fear-mongering from the Bush Administration, the inaccessibility of such weapons being the largest deterrent.

I'll grant theat the DPRK is a brutal regime, which is not to imply that they're incredibly stupid, which is what it would take for any state to attack the US with nuclear means, or to knowingly supply terrorists with those means. The whole "crisis" is an invention of the Bush Admin, a deliberate provocation of the DPRK, a false attribution of motive and means to a regime barely able to hold on. The Administration needs "enemies" to promote their policies of fear, justify huge and pointless expenditures to protect us from non-threats, glorify their military ambitions, enrich their corporate allies. The DPRK is being setup as a strawman, an illusion, part of the smoke and mirrors display...

 

[Moonbeam]

We went through a consentration camp as children, a deep and profound terror. We don't remember that we died there. Today we walk in terror that something will cause us to remember what happened to us back there. So we build our walls and our armies and our weapons to defend against our inner terror. We are all going to die before we even ever start to live. That is our terror.

For these reasons we gloat over missles and anti missles and anti anti anti missles. We don't know who we are or why we act the way we do. For that reason we will back into extinction. So sad too, cause there is nothing to fear. We are really OK and more. If we ever become so fed up and disgusted with ourselves we are willing to die, we'll know. Everything we fear has already happened.

 

[ReiAyanami]

yeah stop messing with the military industrial complex's iron triangle, the pentagon needs its toys, lockheed needs money and congressmen need compaign contributions. see, everybody's happier as long as the voter is none the wiser...

 

[CanOWorms]

Originally posted by: ReiAyanami
yeah stop messing with the military industrial complex's iron triangle, the pentagon needs its toys, lockheed needs money and congressmen need compaign contributions. see, everybody's happier as long as the voter is none the wiser...

Tons of companies besides Lockheed work on missile defense. Even small one-man companies that I know of. Several companies that aren't even defense companies work on it.

 

[kage69]

Cool stuff no doubt, but I'd still rather see the military securing our porous borders. Terrorists don't have access to too many ICBMs, but a couple backpacks and some hiking boots could render the same result.

 

[oreagan]

Originally posted by: kage69
Cool stuff no doubt, but I'd still rather see the military securing our porous borders. Terrorists don't have access to too many ICBMs, but a couple backpacks and some hiking boots could render the same result.

Right, or, find a way to attack the root of the problem. Whether being nicer to the Middle East and China or blowing them up is your solution, both seem more practical to me than putting pulling a "this is my half of the room, that's your half" with the world.

 

[biostud]

Does in intercept bombs carried in suitcases? Onboard Ships, Trucks trains..........No?
I guess that Mr. (Trash)Bin will have one of those before he'll have an intercontinental MIRV-based ballistic missile.....but what do I know.

 

[Witling]

ReiAyanami. The idea of lasers is a nice one until you start to look at it a little. First, the laser does not destroy the warhead on contact. It needs to stay focused on the warhead for a while. The amount of energy that has to be dumped into a pulse is phenomonal. Think about how you would generate that and sustain it. Or, if you want to go to the multiple pulse model, how are you going to pump out pulse after pulse.I don't believe we have any feasible way of engaging in more than one shot. Finally, when the laser goes off, it immediately starts to heat the air, which induces turbulence and vastly disipates the effectiveness of the laser. This isn't a problem with small lasers used to transmit information. It is a giant problem with any laser powerful enough to possibly destroy a missle over a multi-mile distance away. Since the laser has to stay focused on the warhead for a period of time, what happens if the enemy causes the warhead to spin or tumble? The answer is, no destruction. Then there's the possibility of polishing the warhead. Don't forget dummy warheads on MIRVs -- or real warheads for that matter. Then, there's the weather. Clouds, fog, smoke, rain, snow -- forget using a laser operating in the visible light range. Most physical scientists think that effective laser weapons for missle destruction are beyond the limits of our current understanding of physics.

And Jhhnn is right about the level of threat that North Korea poses to us. I doubt that you will ever seemthem capable of firing a missle at the U.S. At least not within the next 20 years. I wonder if AndrewR's fount of information is the same one that produced the intelligence on the Iraqi WMD and welcoming committees.

 

[kage69]

You don't have to target the warhead, you only need to do enough damage to the missile to interfere with it reaching it's intended target. Burning a hole in it large enough to alter it's flight path would work, or better yet, ignite the fuel onboard causing it to explode. Think Special Forces popping a hole into a SCUD with a .50 rifle. It might not explode, but it's more than enough to render the weapon useless. I believe we do currently have the laser technology to do that.
The program I watched on the military's 747-mounted laser plan (want to say History Channel, but that might not have been it) said that the plane will operate above inclement weather, and the iodine-whatever cells onboard would have enough juice for a dozen or so shots.
Just the presence of those planes might be enough to deter a launch - who would want to send it up if it could come right back down on top of them?

 

[CanOWorms]

Originally posted by: Whitling
Most physical scientists think that effective laser weapons for missle destruction are beyond the limits of our current understanding of physics.

That's the point of research, to advance the limits of our understanding.

 

[Witling]

Kage69. You are correct in saying that the missle is much more vulnerable than the warhead. Now, all you have to do is get one of those slow-flying 747's within range of the missle fired from the Middle of Iran and have the 747 there in time to shoot but avoid the local air force -- already knocked out the airforce -- then why not get the missle at the same time.

CanOWorms. I disagree with you about the purpose of research. I think it's corporate welfare. 1. Who's gonna launch a missle at us -- and thoughtfully give us anough time to get the 747 in place. I don't think you've adequately dealt with the spinning polished missle body. You can't burn through metal instantaneously

2. The people who propose a comprehensive missle protection system estimate that the code for the program to control the weapons would be an order or magnitude -- 10x -- larger than any piece of code written to date, with no opportunity to test it under real world conditions. How fault free is your operating system, want one ten times as big. Even the Aegis Weapons System, much touted, has never been tested under field conditions.

If the military would park the shooting ship somewhere in the Pacific and say, "We'll be launching an ICBM at you sometime within the next five days. Good luck." Five days should be enough to fatigue and lull the crew.

EDITED. I wish someone knew more about the conditions of the test. The missle was hit "four minutes after launch" according to the article. That's either a rising missle (not moving as fast as a reentering missle) or a reentering missle that wasn't fired over the same type of trajectory as an ICBM. Just think about it a minute. You've been on watch for 3 hours. All of a sudden you get notice that a missle's been launched. That's four minutes you got to get ready to fire. You throw down your cards and Tim throws down his girly magazine and you bring the radar out of standby. Whoops, we're at sea level, the whole point of the test is sea-based missles. Damn, it's raining. How are you going to aim the laser, radar? The jamming systems that I've seen in operation make the fire control radar leap off the target. There are ways to reacquire but it's not like the movies. And then, it's raining outside.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Whitling
Kage69. You are correct in saying that the missle is much more vulnerable than the warhead. Now, all you have to do is get one of those slow-flying 747's within range of the missle fired from the Middle of Iran and have the 747 there in time to shoot but avoid the local air force -- already knocked out the airforce -- then why not get the missle at the same time.

CanOWorms. I disagree with you about the purpose of research. I think it's corporate welfare. 1. Who's gonna launch a missle at us -- and thoughtfully give us anough time to get the 747 in place. I don't think you've adequately dealt with the spinning polished missle body. You can't burn through metal instantaneously

2. The people who propose a comprehensive missle protection system estimate that the code for the program to control the weapons would be an order or magnitude -- 10x -- larger than any piece of code written to date, with no opportunity to test it under real world conditions. How fault free is your operating system, want one ten times as big. Even the Aegis Weapons System, much touted, has never been tested under field conditions.

If the military would park the shooting ship somewhere in the Pacific and say, "We'll be launching an ICBM at you sometime within the next five days. Good luck." Five days should be enough to fatigue and lull the crew.

EDITED. I wish someone knew more about the conditions of the test. The missle was hit "four minutes after launch" according to the article. That's either a rising missle (not moving as fast as a reentering missle) or a reentering missle that wasn't fired over the same type of trajectory as an ICBM. Just think about it a minute. You've been on watch for 3 hours. All of a sudden you get notice that a missle's been launched. That's four minutes you got to get ready to fire. You throw down your cards and Tim throws down his girly magazine and you bring the radar out of standby. Whoops, we're at sea level, the whole point of the test is sea-based missles. Damn, it's raining. How are you going to aim the laser, radar? The jamming systems that I've seen in operation make the fire control radar leap off the target. There are ways to reacquire but it's not like the movies. And then, it's raining outside.

So to sum this post up.

When things are difficult, we are better off not doing them.

 

[kage69]

I agree totally, early warning and effective deployment are half the challenge. One of the Air Force's main claims was that the gameplan would be to hit the missile before the warheads deploy, thus eliminating the MIRV threat - my first thought was, Ok, what happens if they're late intercepting? A plane has a dozen shots which may or may not hit the mark and just might be expected to handle multiple launch threats, each with multiple warheads?! (not including dummies)
Granted the strategy calls for several 747s monitoring the same area, but still...just seems chancy to me.

 

[myusername]

Originally posted by: CanOWorms

Originally posted by: Whitling
Most physical scientists think that effective laser weapons for missle destruction are beyond the limits of our current understanding of physics.

That's the point of research, to advance the limits of our understanding.

That's a beautiful concept. I really mean that. What liberal, what human being doesn't wish for humanity to strive to it's full potential.

Unfortunately it's not a defense of the system, as it is the ends of the goals of this struggle as well as the means that have divided the parties in this country (kind of odd for the division to be so close to 50/50). Anyway, while I think you intended to support the effort (from the conservative side), it's hardly a suitable defense when the man you have in office(and want again, for chrissakes?) isn't even interested in reading the newspaper.