US Missile Defence System is a Joke

[NAC4EV]

http://nypost.com/2016/07/14/the-us-missile-defense-system-is-a-joke/

The US missile defense system to counter attacks from rogue states like North Korea has no proven capability to protect the United States and is not on a credible path to achieve that goal, a science advocacy group said on Thursday.
The ground-based midcourse missile defense system, which has deployed 30 interceptors in Alaska and California, has been tested under highly scripted conditions only nine times since being deployed in 2004, and failed to destroy its target two-thirds of the time, the Union of Concerned Scientists said in a report.
“After nearly 15 years of effort to build the GMD homeland missile defense system, it still has no demonstrated real-world capability to defend the United States,” said Laura Grego, a UCS physicist who co-authored the report.
Deficiencies in the program, which has cost $40 billion so far and is being expanded to include 44 interceptors by 2017, are due largely to a Bush administration decision to exempt the system from normal oversight and accountability, to rush it into service by 2004, Grego said in an interview.
“Instead of getting something out to the field that worked well or worked adequately, in fact this has been a disaster. It’s done the opposite,” she said.

 

[MajinCry]

To be fair, missiles are kinda fast.

 

[Spungo]

Defending the whole country might be difficult, but we can defend cities fairly well. Israel's Iron Dome system works great.

 

[Art&Science]

This article is putting the cart before the horse.

In the tests (some of which the interceptor did not impact the target), we had a single projectile and fired a single interceptor at it. The system is capable of putting thousands and thousands of interceptors in the air, but this would be prohibitively expensive to test. The tests that were conducted prove the workability of the system.

Should North Korea, or Russia, or whomever send missiles our way, the full capability of the system would be utilized. Anyone who has studied this or worked in this field understands this. The system is fully capable.

 

[gdansk]

The tests of Aegis & THAAD at Wake Island seemed a success. It might not be as successful as we want but it is able to intercept some missiles from third-rate powers (e.g. North Korea). The planned deployment at Seongju seems logical. However, it might not be worth it given Russia and China's opposition.

 

[Subyman]

NK can barely get them off the launch pad consistently let alone blanket the sky with enough to get through.

 

[Scarpozzi]

To be fair, missiles are kinda fast.

But why do they call them miss-iles if they're supposed to be so damned accurate?

 

[MongGrel]

http://nypost.com/2016/07/14/the-us-missile-defense-system-is-a-joke/

Sorry, you are clueless on this one.

And wrong. These guys are quoting even what was publicly released over a decade ago.

 

[dainthomas]

To be fair, missiles are kinda fast.

Hitting a bullet with another bullet is probably as difficult as it sounds.

 

[MongGrel]

Hitting a bullet with another bullet is probably as difficult as it sounds.

A missile isn't a bullet though.

Now when they start dropping them from orbit at ridiculous speeds like they are working on, will be another shift.

You could do it with an ICBM all ready I suppose, but you'd get a launch indication then.

 

[dainthomas]

A missile isn't a bullet though.

Good point. It's more than an order of magnitude faster.

 

[MongGrel]

Good point. It's more than an order of magnitude faster.

Really ?

()

 

[WHAMPOM]

Does any one besides me think it would not be an advantage to advertise a 100% accurate anti-missile system? In other words not to let the enemy know your strong points.

 

[WHAMPOM]

Good point. It's more than an order of magnitude faster.

You appear to have no idea of the workings of a ballistic missile. Power up, gravity down.

 

[Spungo]

Does any one besides me think it would not be an advantage to advertise a 100% accurate anti-missile system? In other words not to let the enemy know your strong points.

Wouldn't it be better, defensively, to overstate the military capabilities?

I think support for war against Russia would be a lot more popular if Americans had a better sense of how powerful our military really is. Russia's best defense at this time is perception. They really try to sell the idea of their jets being better than the F-15, that their missiles can shoot down a B2, that their helicopters rival the Apache, that their soldiers are better trained than our soldiers, and that their military is less corrupt than ours.

 

[kage69]

It's not a coincidence Seoul went with the S-400 as well as THAAD.

Maybe they'll give us a peek at the targeting software.

 

[kage69]

Does any one besides me think it would not be an advantage to advertise a 100% accurate anti-missile system? In other words not to let the enemy know your strong points.

Don't worry, foreign intelligence services hold our news outlets in even more contempt than we do. Someone using them as a 3rd party indicator of military tech and strength isn't going to rely on them for decision making. That's what spies and hacking are for.

 

[Victorian Gray]

http://nypost.com/2016/07/14/the-us-missile-defense-system-is-a-joke/

The only way a "rogue state" like N. Korea is gonna get a missile to the US is by parcel post.

 

[repoman0]

I think support for war against Russia would be a lot more popular if Americans had a better sense of how powerful our military really is. Russia's best defense at this time is perception. They really try to sell the idea of their jets being better than the F-15, that their missiles can shoot down a B2, that their helicopters rival the Apache, that their soldiers are better trained than our soldiers, and that their military is less corrupt than ours.

Russia's best defense is their nukes.

 

[Spungo]

Russia's best defense is their nukes.

Not if Americans truly believe that we have a perfect missile defense system, which is why we're building SAMs around Russia.

It was a disaster when Napoleon and Hitler tried to take Russia, but it's different this time

 

[kage69]

Not if Americans truly believe that we have a perfect missile defense system, which is why we're building SAMs around Russia.

It was a disaster when Napoleon and Hitler tried to take Russia, but it's different this time

Taking Russia != preventing Russia from invading and absorbing more countries.

 

[werepossum]

Hitting a bullet with another bullet is probably as difficult as it sounds.

This. Hitting one in three times is phenomenal, and as MongGrel points out, even that was a decade ago.

 

[theeedude]

I wish I had a joke to sell for $40B :|

 

[Londo_Jowo]

They need to make an oversize Phalanx CIWS and make it long range. Without a doubt a Phalanx CIWS can take missiles out of the sky.

 

[dawheat]

The tests of Aegis & THAAD at Wake Island seemed a success. It might not be as successful as we want but it is able to intercept some missiles from third-rate powers (e.g. North Korea). The planned deployment at Seongju seems logical. However, it might not be worth it given Russia and China's opposition.

Is this report referring to THAAD or some other program as they use the term GMD which I've never heard?

And I thought the Aegis tests were consistently good? Seems like it'd be easier to park a cruiser off the coast of any hot spots (like Incheon) and they'd have like 100 missiles. Fire off a dozen if needed for each NK missile.