US Missile Defence System is a Joke

[gdansk]

Aegis' SM-3 and THAAD have been tested quite successfully. The SM-3 missile is adequate for IRBM too but THAAD is a much faster interceptor. The faster SM-3 Block IIA variant will start deployment in 2018 but they still have difficulty accelerating in time if the missile launch is nearby. Aegis is not a good fit for Korea where the hostile launch site is nearby. But is a good match for US/Europe where the potential launch sites are a great distance away and the flight times longer.

The GMD component has a poor (about 50%) success rate. But we're only spending about $900 million a year on it. The reason it attracts an article now, despite most spending on the GMD stopping in 2008, is because of deployment of THAAD to Korea. Maybe some kind of timed FUD, criticizing the whole program for failures of a part. But most likely it's simply the result of public interest.

 

[Eli]

$40B ?

Should have given it to NASA instead.

 

[Ajay]

Russia's best defense is their nukes.

Russia's best defense is their proximity to Western Europe.

 

[JTsyo]

We were shooting down SUCDs in the first Gulf War, does NK have anything more advanced that that currently?

Against Russia, we have to rely on MAD.

 

[Spungo]

We were shooting down SUCDs in the first Gulf War, does NK have anything more advanced that that currently?

Against Russia, we have to rely on MAD.

Am I the only person who pictures a really slow moving missile? That might be a video game thing. Big missiles were always slow for some reason.

I'm not sure what you mean by more advanced. I don't even think scuds have any guidance. They're basically WW1 artillery shells that look a little weird. A toy helicopter from Walmart is more advanced than a scud missile.

 

[jman19]

Am I the only person who pictures a really slow moving missile? That might be a video game thing. Big missiles were always slow for some reason.

I'm not sure what you mean by more advanced. I don't even think scuds have any guidance. They're basically WW1 artillery shells that look a little weird. A toy helicopter from Walmart is more advanced than a scud missile.

When it comes to thermonuclear war... how slow is too slow?

 

[brycejones]

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.

Rail gun

 

[werepossum]

We were shooting down SUCDs in the first Gulf War, does NK have anything more advanced that that currently?

Against Russia, we have to rely on MAD.

The SCUD is a purely tactical or theater missile. The North Koreans have at least two true Chinese ICBMs, the KN-08 and the newer KN-14.

EDIT: Shit, at least three - I forgot the Taepodong-2.

http://freebeacon.com/national-security/pentagon-confirms-new-north-korean-icbm/

 

[Brovane]

The article makes a lot of confusion over missile defense system's but it is a typical hit piece on missile defense.

With missiles, as your range of the missile goes up so does the speed of the payload coming back into the atmosphere to hit it's target. So you have simple rockets (Which is what Iron Dome intercepts) that their warheads are fairly slow and you have ICBM's which can come in at over 6+ km's.

Missile Defense is more of computing problem than anything else. You just have to put something into the oncoming path of a warhead and the two objects collide and destroy each other. As your speed goes up the intercept becomes harder. Also you need a good radar system to detect the warhead, discriminate decoys from real targets good enough to plot a intercept. As computing power increases, the ability to compute the problem improves and discriminate a decoy from the real thing on radar.

The GMD which the article references is the Ground-Based Midcourse Defense sytem which has interceptors at Greely Alaska and Vandenburg CA and is built to intercept ICBM's that are outside the atmosphere and protect the entire west coast. However this is the most difficult type of intercept because of the speed of the target involved and the ranges involved. So it isn't a surprise that this system has had the most issues during development and development costs a lot.

The picture in the article shows a THAAD which is a theater level defensive system which is built to intercept medium-range ballistic missiles. This system has performed well in tests.

You also have the Aegis BMD which is mounted on ships the Arleigh Burke class Destroyers. It has been proposed to mount shore based systems to intercept missiles. Russia had a fit when it was proposed to mount a system in Poland and Romania.

You then have the Patriot PAC-3 which is built to defend targets against short range ballistic missiles like the SCUD.

All these systems are built to engage various range of missiles but a system like the PAC-3 cannot handle the in-bound speed of a ICBM. Even a Aegis BMD and THAAD system would have marginal capability against a ICBM.

What a BMD system does is introduce variability in your targeting of nuclear weapons. I a known target has a ABM system you cannot be assured of the destruction of the target.

For some reason the press has decided to attack ABM as if it isn't fair that we have a way to shield ourselves against nuclear attack. Just listen to the whining about about Israeli's Iron Dome system. Realistically we should continually deploying systems and eventually build a multi-layered ABM system to cover the US. Probably in the future we will eventually see rail-gun ABM systems that can essentially shoot-down incoming missiles with projectiles that will eventually make ICBM's useless.

 

[werepossum]

The article makes a lot of confusion over missile defense system's but it is a typical hit piece on missile defense.

With missiles, as your range of the missile goes up so does the speed of the payload coming back into the atmosphere to hit it's target. So you have simple rockets (Which is what Iron Dome intercepts) that their warheads are fairly slow and you have ICBM's which can come in at over 6+ km's.

Missile Defense is more of computing problem than anything else. You just have to put something into the oncoming path of a warhead and the two objects collide and destroy each other. As your speed goes up the intercept becomes harder. Also you need a good radar system to detect the warhead, discriminate decoys from real targets good enough to plot a intercept. As computing power increases, the ability to compute the problem improves and discriminate a decoy from the real thing on radar.

The GMD which the article references is the Ground-Based Midcourse Defense sytem which has interceptors at Greely Alaska and Vandenburg CA and is built to intercept ICBM's that are outside the atmosphere and protect the entire west coast. However this is the most difficult type of intercept because of the speed of the target involved and the ranges involved. So it isn't a surprise that this system has had the most issues during development and development costs a lot.

The picture in the article shows a THAAD which is a theater level defensive system which is built to intercept medium-range ballistic missiles. This system has performed well in tests.

You also have the Aegis BMD which is mounted on ships the Arleigh Burke class Destroyers. It has been proposed to mount shore based systems to intercept missiles. Russia had a fit when it was proposed to mount a system in Poland and Romania.

You then have the Patriot PAC-3 which is built to defend targets against short range ballistic missiles like the SCUD.

All these systems are built to engage various range of missiles but a system like the PAC-3 cannot handle the in-bound speed of a ICBM. Even a Aegis BMD and THAAD system would have marginal capability against a ICBM.

What a BMD system does is introduce variability in your targeting of nuclear weapons. I a known target has a ABM system you cannot be assured of the destruction of the target.

For some reason the press has decided to attack ABM as if it isn't fair that we have a way to shield ourselves against nuclear attack. Just listen to the whining about about Israeli's Iron Dome system. Realistically we should continually deploying systems and eventually build a multi-layered ABM system to cover the US. Probably in the future we will eventually see rail-gun ABM systems that can essentially shoot-down incoming missiles with projectiles that will eventually make ICBM's useless.

Well said, thanks.

 

[MongGrel]

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.

Missile defense systems are tiered, there are always Aegis systems in that area also as far as I know.

SCUDs had Patriots launched at them, is the lower tier. THAADS is a different critter.

 

[MongGrel]

$40B ?

Should have given it to NASA instead.

Most of the companies producing things like THAADS also work in conjunction with NASA on a lot of projects.