Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
Posted: 10/15/2002 2:40:13 PM EDT
Remember the chicken little anti Reagan morons who shrieked incessantly about how this would never work? Well, well, well. [url]http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Oct2002/b10142002_bt520-02.html[/url] "MISSILE INTERCEPT TEST SUCCESSFUL The Missile Defense Agency (MDA) announced today it has successfully completed a flight test of the ground-based midcourse defense (GMD) development program, intercepting an intercontinental ballistic missile target. The test took place over the central Pacific Ocean in the Western Test Range. A modified Minuteman intercontinental ballistic missile target vehicle was launched from Vandenberg Air Force Base, Calif., at 10 p.m. EDT, and a prototype interceptor was launched 22 minutes later and 4,800 miles away from the Ronald Reagan Missile Site Kwajalein Atoll in the Republic of the Marshall Islands. The intercept took place approximately six minutes after the interceptor was launched, at an altitude in excess of 140 miles above the earth, and during the midcourse phase of the target warhead's flight. This was the fifth successful intercept--and the fourth consecutive--in seven flight tests since October 1999 for the GMD program. This test involved for the first time the participation of a U.S. Navy Aegis destroyer, the USS John Paul Jones, using its SPY-1 radar system. Although the radar was not integrated into the battle management system for the intercept, it did gather important data on the capabilities of the radar against a long-range ballistic missile. Future tests will include direct participation of the radar in order to determine its potential capability against long-range missiles. This system-level test successfully demonstrated "hit to kill" technology to intercept and destroy a long-range ballistic missile target. In addition to the exoatmospheric kill vehicle (EKV) locating, tracking, and intercepting the target resulting in its destruction using only body-to-body impact, this test also demonstrated the successful integrated operation of space and ground-based sensors and radars, as well as the Battle Management, Command, Control and Communications System (BMC3) function to detect the launch of the target missile, cue an early warning radar to provide more detailed target location data; and integration of a prototype X-Band radar (based at Kwajalein) to provide precise target data to the EKV, which received the target updates from the In-Flight Interceptor Communications Systems (IFICS) at Kwajalein. The EKV separated from its rocket booster more than 1,400 miles from the target warhead. After separation, it used its on-board infrared and visual sensors, augmented with the X-Band radar data provided by BMC3 via the In-flight Interceptor Communications System, to locate and track the target. Sensors aboard the EKV also successfully selected the mock warhead from among the five objects in the target array, including three decoys. Only system-generated data was used for the intercept after the EKV separated from its booster rocket. This test is a major step in an aggressive developmental test program, and we will continue to pursue this testing regime to achieve a layered approach to missile defense, using different architectures to deter the growing threat of ballistic missiles carrying weapons of mass destruction. Over the next several weeks, government and industry program officials will conduct an extensive analysis of the data received during the flight test to determine whether anomalies or malfunctions occurred during the test, evaluate system performance and determine whether or not all flight test objectives were met. Since the system is in the developmental phase of design and testing, performance of individual elements and the overall system integration was as important as the actual intercept. News media points of contact are Cheryl Irwin, Defense Department Public Affairs, at (703) 697-5331, and Lt. Col. Rick Lehner, MDA External Affairs, at (703) 697-8997. " Still may have some bugs to work out, obviously still in testing phase, but I believe the phrase "This will NEVER work" was bandied about rather openly in Washington. Welfare should work so well.
Link Posted: 10/15/2002 2:49:04 PM EDT
Yeah, but [i][b]The Phantom Menace[/i][/b] really sucked.[:D]
Link Posted: 10/15/2002 2:50:16 PM EDT
Originally Posted By KBaker: Yeah, but [i][b]The Phantom Menace[/i][/b] really sucked.[:D]
View Quote
Ok, you got me there.
Link Posted: 10/15/2002 2:53:15 PM EDT
[b]go raytheon![/b]
Link Posted: 10/15/2002 3:16:13 PM EDT
Two questions: 1. How many billions were spent to hit 5 of the 7 test targets? 2. Can I watch the next one? [:D]
Link Posted: 10/15/2002 3:19:23 PM EDT
Originally Posted By DScott: Two questions: 1. How many billions were spent to hit 5 of the 7 test targets?
View Quote
THAT is a fair question, this is undoubtedly expensive. THe critics, however, were adamant that this could NEVER be made to work, which is false.
2. Can I watch the next one? [:D]
View Quote
Sure, you're in Kali, look West during the next launch. I have seen several rockets out of Vandenberg. Ifthey launch at dusk/seconds after sunset, the contrails are extremely well lit and easy to see.
Link Posted: 10/15/2002 3:20:07 PM EDT
i think the future of this will be chemical lasers, they are BAD ASS and very accurate. i saw it on the discovery channel. i dont have a link for info but they said it wont be long before they have one in the air.
Link Posted: 10/15/2002 3:20:09 PM EDT
More questions: Was this rigged a la the DIVAD AKA the Sergeant York? Was there any human guidance to aid the machine? How will this defend the US from some raghead with a sailboat holding a 10 MT nuke coming in to San Diego or King's Bay or Cincinnati, etc?
Link Posted: 10/15/2002 3:26:26 PM EDT
Originally Posted By soylent_green: More questions: Was this rigged a la the DIVAD AKA the Sergeant York?
View Quote
I do not know.
Was there any human guidance to aid the machine?
View Quote
I do not know, but if so, such guidance could be used in actual operation as well.
How will this defend the US from some raghead with a sailboat holding a 10 MT nuke coming in to San Diego or King's Bay or Cincinnati, etc?
View Quote
Forgive me, but what the HELL does that have to do with ANYTHING?!?!?! That's like saying "How's this fire extinguisher going to help me hammer nails? It CAN'T?!?! Then get rid of it." Total non sequitor, many aspects of national defense have little if anything to offer in other areas of concern. Big picture and all that.
Link Posted: 10/15/2002 3:33:19 PM EDT
Originally Posted By soylent_green: More questions: Was this rigged a la the DIVAD AKA the Sergeant York? Was there any human guidance to aid the machine? How will this defend the US from some raghead with a sailboat holding a 10 MT nuke coming in to San Diego or King's Bay or Cincinnati, etc?
View Quote
During the development of the Pershing II theater ballistic missile, radar reflectors were placed around the target area to improve the chances of success certain phases of testing. Early tests of this latest anti missile system used beacons on the target warhead and modified decoys to test specific components of the system. It's quite possible that they have achieved success without tweaking the system. 40 years and $200 billion later, they may have a workable missile defense system. Just proves the Democrats are right: "If you throw enough money at it, any problem can be solved."
Link Posted: 10/15/2002 3:35:08 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 10/15/2002 3:35:29 PM EDT by Yankee1911]
Chinese official in Beijing was quoted as saying: "Where de hell Crinton at? We need new prans make large boom-boom. Al Gore lie to us. We pay good money!! Stinking capitalist round-eye!!!"
Link Posted: 10/15/2002 3:38:37 PM EDT
Talbalos, To bad the democrats said that no matter how much money was spent, it wouldn't work. Guess they were wrong, as always.
Link Posted: 10/15/2002 3:40:13 PM EDT
Originally Posted By CITADELGRAD87: Forgive me, but what the HELL does that have to do with ANYTHING?!?!?! That's like saying "How's this fire extinguisher going to help me hammer nails? It CAN'T?!?! Then get rid of it." Total non sequitor, many aspects of national defense have little if anything to offer in other areas of concern. Big picture and all that.
View Quote
Hardly a non sequitor. And my statement is more of a big picture kind of thing than yours. I think, and I may be wrong, that they only folks we have to worry about lobbing nukes via ICBM is the Chinese and the Russians, and both aren't very likely. The real threat is the raghead with a rowboat theory. We are diverting funds that could be used for something useful to a project that is at best a relic of the cold war. We need better detection systems in orbit to pick up potential nukes in transit, not a gee whiz new weapons system that costs a bundle to defend us from a threat that no longer exists. Get it? And yes, I would discard a fire extinguisher in favor of a hammer if I was building a house. You get and use the right tools for the job. This missile may be the right tool for ICBM warfare, but that probably won't happen. We need a better, different tool.
Link Posted: 10/15/2002 3:46:36 PM EDT
Originally Posted By soylent_green:
Originally Posted By CITADELGRAD87: Forgive me, but what the HELL does that have to do with ANYTHING?!?!?! That's like saying "How's this fire extinguisher going to help me hammer nails? It CAN'T?!?! Then get rid of it." Total non sequitor, many aspects of national defense have little if anything to offer in other areas of concern. Big picture and all that.
View Quote
Hardly a non sequitor. And my statement is more of a big picture kind of thing than yours. I think, and I may be wrong, that they only folks we have to worry about lobbing nukes via ICBM is the Chinese and the Russians, and both aren't very likely. The real threat is the raghead with a rowboat theory. We are diverting funds that could be used for something useful to a project that is at best a relic of the cold war. We need better detection systems in orbit to pick up potential nukes in transit, not a gee whiz new weapons system that costs a bundle to defend us from a threat that no longer exists. Get it? And yes, I would discard a fire extinguisher in favor of a hammer if I was building a house. You get and use the right tools for the job. This missile may be the right tool for ICBM warfare, but that probably won't happen. We need a better, different tool.
View Quote
Our toolbox is bigger than yours. There is room for both a fire extinguisher AND a hammer, which was my point. I disagree that there is not and never will be a threat calling for such defense. First, there is a school that believes that as soon as China can asure itself of victory, it will attack us. Second, the only reason rowboats are a consideration is because they haven't got their hands on a launch/delivery system. With the collapse of the Sovs, and the corresponding total unemployment of their technical people, and the limitless wealth of those supporting terrorism, well, do the math. The point is it works. Also, please explain how money has been "diverted," as when this system was funded, there was no percieved threat of suitcase nukes.
Link Posted: 10/15/2002 3:48:05 PM EDT
Originally Posted By soylent_green: I think, and I may be wrong, that they only folks we have to worry about lobbing nukes via ICBM is the Chinese and the Russians, and both aren't very likely. The real threat is the raghead with a rowboat theory. We are diverting funds that could be used for something useful to a project that is at best a relic of the cold war. We need better detection systems in orbit to pick up potential nukes in transit, not a gee whiz new weapons system that costs a bundle to defend us from a threat that no longer exists.
View Quote
Um, nope. Iraq has ballistic missles. Pakistan has ballistic missles. North Korea has ballistic missles. Thanks to Bill Clinton, China has ballistic missles. Lots of former Soviet client states still have some ballistic missles. Actually, the "Star Wars" system makes [i]better[/i] sense now, as the likely threat is a single or small number of launches rather than an overwhelming nuclear strike. Three nines accuracy against 2,000 missles means two missles get through. Three nines accuracy against a single lauch means a one-in-a thousand chance of a miss. You're right, we run a significant risk of a bomb in a shipping container, but the missle threat hardly "no longer exists."
Link Posted: 10/15/2002 4:34:47 PM EDT
Originally Posted By DigDug: Talbalos, To bad the democrats said that no matter how much money was spent, it wouldn't work. Guess they were wrong, as always.
View Quote
Of course. It isn't one of their pet projects.
Link Posted: 10/15/2002 7:41:57 PM EDT
Originally Posted By DScott: Two questions: 1. How many billions were spent to hit 5 of the 7 test targets?
View Quote
That reminds me of one of the things that so pisses me off about this project in general. Pundits, scientists, and the media, screamed and cried about how much of a failure early tests were because they 'didn't hit the target'. None of those pundits, scientists, or media morons bothered to listen to the people actually running the tests explaining 'um....read the overview....it was NEVER supposed to hit'. So what goes down in the developers books as a success in testing the tracking system, or the redesigned separation system, goes to the press and Capitol Hill as a failure.....grrr...
2. Can I watch the next one? [:D]
View Quote
What's really fun is getting the camera view from the kill vehicle all the way to impact. Less boom, but a lot more 'freaky-cool' factor.
Link Posted: 10/15/2002 7:49:58 PM EDT
Do people actually eat crows? I know in some states there is a "crow season."
Top Top