US downs missile with new interceptor

This is very cool, and exciting. If this interceptor proves reliable and accurate, it gives the US and its allies a huge advantage.

specklebang said:

Ah, you say, but what if they really have thousands of weapons? Won't we need this missile shield that still hasn't been able to work after 20 some years and hundreds of billions?

We are hardly defenseless and this is just another boondoggle to make a few people rich.

Click to expand...

"Hasn't been able to work?" Seems to me the SM-3 has been successful since 2002 (working for the last 9 years).

Since 2002, a total of 19 SM-3 missiles have been fired in 16 different test events resulting in 16 intercepts against threat-representative full-size and more challenging subscale unitary and full-size targets with separating warheads. In addition, a modified Aegis BMD/SM-3 system successfully destroyed a malfunctioning U.S. satellite by hitting the satellite in the right spot to negate the hazardous fuel tank at the highest closure rate of any ballistic missile defense technology ever attempted.

The authors of the SM-3 study cited only tests involving unitary targets, and chose not to cite the five successful intercepts in six attempts against separating targets, which, because of their increased speed and small size, pose a much more challenging target for the SM-3 than a much larger unitary target missile. They also did not mention the fact the system is successfully intercepting targets much smaller than probable threat missiles on a routine basis, and have attained test scores that many other Defense Department programs aspire to attain.

Click to expand...

RIM-161 Standard Missile 3 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Is this another of those tests where the interceptor "knows" where the missile is headed, the missile is designed to be recognized, and there are no decoys to confuse the interceptor?

Mya said:

Video released by the Department of Defence shows what it claims to be the first successful test of the Navy's newest anti-missile interceptor,designed to protect allies from attacks by countries like North Korea and Iran.
10 May 2012



Video: US downs missile with new interceptor - Telegraph

Click to expand...

what causes you to believe that iran is a missile threat

I remember the anti-sat shot. It came after tracking the flight path for hundreds of orbits, and the 'kill' was iffy at best, the tank wasn't a real danger, even a glancing blow would be called a 'kill'.

I remember the Patriot 'successes' a hit but not a kill.

This latest test would have been better if first the target wasn't a Scud type, and the 'kill' given a more detail than, 'take our word for it'. Not knocking the idea of spending so much for so long in the hope of.... just I remember how successful the Sgt. York system was, until it was a failure.

But what the hey, if we get a new Tang out of it, then all is good...

justabubba said:

what causes you to believe that iran is a missile threat

Click to expand...

justabubba... I am not the right person to be asked this question. I am only posting a breaking news.

The USA Department of Defence is the entity to ask.

Honestly it is cool that we have this capability, now that we can automate yet another thing in the government, let us roll back cost like they did within the IRS with automation.

Mya said:

Video released by the Department of Defence shows what it claims to be the first successful test of the Navy's newest anti-missile interceptor,designed to protect allies from attacks by countries like North Korea and Iran

Click to expand...

Waste of tax dollars.

A nuclear attack from Iran or North Korea (which won't actually happen) will not come via missile. It will come via panel van.

Anti-ICBM defense is nothing more than corporate welfare.

EagleAye said:

"Hasn't been able to work?" Seems to me the SM-3 has been successful since 2002 (working for the last 9 years).

RIM-161 Standard Missile 3 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Click to expand...

How many of these tests were against multiple launches with MRVs equipped with decoys?

Missile defense is a corporate handout. Short of constantly nuking the atmosphere, we cannot stop a large nuclear salvo that is properly equipped with decoys. Hell, all they have to do actually detonate a missile before the rest of them causing massive interference and jamming our systems. It's why we stopped using nuclear interceptors. It blinds us entirely to anything coming in. It doesn't matter if one or two missiles undergoing MRV separation who aren't armed with decoys. No test we've conducted comes anywhere close to what we'd face against an actual massive salvo.

And the idea that Iran or North Korea would use a missile is insane. Why waste billions on a single missile when you can build dozens of nukes, smuggle them into the US, rent a few panel vans and then use them to kill millions? And that also buys you time as it's far harder to trace then an incoming ICMB.

donsutherland1 said:

Complacency is a dangerous strategy. There's no assurance that today's advantages won't be wiped out by some breakthrough. While a risk-free goal is not realistic, investments in defensive and offensive capabilities can mitigate risk and they can deter would-be enemies. A comprehensive approach that effectively deters conflict and its associated human and financial costs is a good national security investment.

Click to expand...

While that is indeed true, it makes no sense to spend money on a system designed to stop an attack that will either never come or will come in such force that it is completely unstoppable. I STILL don't get how we haven't gotten nuked by a smuggled device as our ports and borders were (and in some cases still are) horribly equipped to prevent the smuggling of nuclear material into the country. It is far easier, practical and more likely to succeed for a nation to smuggle weapons into the country and deliver them by van then it is on top of a questionable missile.

obvious Child said:

Waste of tax dollars.

A nuclear attack from Iran or North Korea (which won't actually happen) will not come via missile. It will come via panel van.

Anti-ICBM defense is nothing more than corporate welfare.

Click to expand...

Obviously that's your opinion, not the opinion of the USA Department of Defence.

And so ... I will take your opinion with a grain of salt, of course, if you don't mind.

Mya said:

Obviously that's your opinion, not the opinion of the USA Department of Defence.

And so ... I will take your opinion with a grain of salt, of course, if you don't mind.

Click to expand...

Do you have anything of substance to say?

Why exactly would a country choose to spend more money on a likely to fail and likely to get themselves immediate nuked method of delivery when it can deliver dozens more weapons, reliably and far more discreetly for less outflow?

And my opinion is hardly my own.

Do the names Sagan and Graham mean anything to you in terms of nuclear weapons proliferation?

^^^

Go ask the USA Department of Defence.

And by the way, whatever they answer you ( if you ever ask them) I agree with.

That is all I have to say to you.

Mya said:

^^^

Go ask the USA Department of Defence.

And by the way, whatever they answer you ( if you ever ask them) I agree with.

That is all I have to say to you.

Click to expand...

So no, those don't ring any bells and no, you aren't capable (or willing) of doing an economic analysis comparing cost to benefits. Thanks for making that clear to me. I will cease requesting answers to complex issues from you.

obvious Child said:

So no, those don't ring any bells and no, you aren't capable (or willing) of doing an economic analysis comparing cost to benefits. Thanks for making that clear to me. I will cease requesting answers to complex issues from you.

Click to expand...

You are right I don't have the desire or time to do an economic analysis with you.

May be somebody else does. Good luck anyway.

obvious Child said:

How many of these tests were against multiple launches with MRVs equipped with decoys?

Click to expand...

How many countries have that capability? Us and Russia? I don't think we're trying to destabilize our relations with Russia.

Multiple Re-entry Vehicles are not complex, infact most are spoofs. One excellent spoof for high orbit is a mylar balloon with a eqiv to 60 watt heat source. Once the spoof is found out, ie as it re-enters the atmosphere, the real warhead's terminal dive is ridiculously fast, no chase kinetic warhead will catch it. As far as accuracy, it is a nuke not a J-Dam, no need to hit a window or air shaft, just get close enough to any city as the majority of civilians live in the surrounding communities anyway.

Cluster launch is another low tech way to saturate an area, the ship launched missile can't chase a ballistic missile across the Pacific Ocean, the intercept window is limited.

But again what nation, as it will take considerable resources to build, test, and arm such a missile will consider a gnat attack knowing full well the reciprocal fly swatter will end that nation as more than the world's night light?

obvious Child said:

While that is indeed true, it makes no sense to spend money on a system designed to stop an attack that will either never come or will come in such force that it is completely unstoppable. I STILL don't get how we haven't gotten nuked by a smuggled device as our ports and borders were (and in some cases still are) horribly equipped to prevent the smuggling of nuclear material into the country. It is far easier, practical and more likely to succeed for a nation to smuggle weapons into the country and deliver them by van then it is on top of a questionable missile.

Click to expand...

Several quick points:

1. As far as I know, this system is aimed at addressing a narrower issue (potential small-scale missile attack), not dramatically transforming the global balance of power by making larger nuclear arsenals e.g., Russia's, irrelevant.

2. The system is aimed at reducing the risk of a small-scale attack, not eliminating all risk.

3. If the system is effective, it will be more difficult--not impossible--for a rogue state to attack the U.S. or U.S. allies. The U.S. has the geographic depth to absorb the kind of attacks you describe. Although areas hit by such attacks would suffer catastrophic damage/casualties, national survival would not be threatened.

4. The logistics involved with the kinds of attacks you describe are not seamless. Arguably, missile attacks might be easier to pull off, as one doesn't have to worry about smuggling and assembly, all of which create opportunities for detection. Indeed, the complex logistics involved with such attacks have likely contributed to the lack of such attacks even with the widely-documented security flaws you described.

In short, far from seeking to transform the global balance of power, the system is intended to provide some additional insurance against a small-scale missile attack (intentional or accidental). Investing some resources in defensive capabilities, rather than relying strictly on offensive ones, gives the nation greater flexibility and enhances its security. Nothing the nation does can eliminate all risk.

Hare said:

Our military advantage over the two countries in question is so insurmountable at this point, our progress and research could likely remain stagnant for years to come without worry. Not that it would be advisable mind you, but new developments such as these are hardly necessary at the given moment.

Click to expand...

New developments are always necessary; otherwise you may end up with something similar to a French WWII Maginot Line defense that is ineffective and outdated.

sangha said:

Is this another of those tests where the interceptor "knows" where the missile is headed, the missile is designed to be recognized, and there are no decoys to confuse the interceptor?

Click to expand...

No, they put explosives in the target and blew it up to make the interceptor look good.

Sent from my blasted phone.

iguanaman said:

As long as it is only to protect against a few missiles from a "rouge nation" and not other world "super powers" it's a good thing.. Deploying anti-missile systems in large numbers to defend against a major attack is no longer a defensive move and will ignite a new arms race. China only has a few dozen ICBM's now but watch those numbers climb if we ramp up this system. Mutually Assured Destruction has worked quite well at preventing a nuclear Holocaust for 75 years and we are mutually reducing our numbers of warheads even. I would not want to mess with it now.
Any missile defense system can be overpowered by sheer numbers so it is pointless to try and make us unbombable.

Click to expand...

A missile defense system is similar to a bullet proof vest. When a law enforcement officer wears a bullet proof vest, it is known that it will not stop all bullets and it doesn't cover everywhere, but it is a bad choice not to wear one.

Missile attacks are the increasing threat (short range and long range), missiles are relatively cheap and that is what we have to design systems to defend against both for short range and long range missiles. Additionally, I have always found it somewhat sickening that if nuclear missiles were launched at the United States, there is very little we can do to defend ourselves. So an anti-missile shield would be a good thing.

Albert Di Salvo said:

The SM-3 is a clear improvement in addressing missile defense during the boost phase of an ICBM. Missile defenses become much more important as the world enters the era of proliferation of nuclear weapons technology and ballistic missile technology. The alternative to missile defenses is to absorb and accept the vaporization of NYC and Washington, DC.

Click to expand...

If these missiles use radio guidance, what's to stop someone from just making the warhead more stealthier, making it invisible to radar?

It still amazes me sometimes how some people think. Yeah, I know, after all this time, it shoud not be surprising.

There are those that argue that the money is better spent elsewhere. However, no nation can survive for long without the ability to defend itself. America would in no way be worse off finacially or functionally if all of welfare and most, if not all, social programs are removed, it would be in very dire straits if all of Defence is removed.

Then there are the "it doesn't really work, so we shouldn't pursue it" crowd. There has never been nor will there ever be anything that works at 100% the first time it is tried. But, we know, that no matter what field you want to apply it to, that you cannot reach your goal without first starting down a path leading to it. Karl Benz was not sucessful the first time he tried to make an automobile. Robert Goddard was not sucessful the firsttime he tried to make a rocket. The Wright Bro. were not sucessful the firsttime they tried to fly an airplane. Etc... Where would the world be if these and others had simply said "it doesn't work" after earlier attempts and chose not to continue?

And there are the "we don't really need that crowd". It cost far more if we wait until we need it to even start to develope it. America, to date, has never entered a war that it was prepared to fight at the beginning of hostilities. Due to increased power, range and effectiveness of modern weapons, when the next big one starts, we very well may not have the time to ramp up to meet the challenge.

Any costs that increases our capabilites to be more accurate, better equiped, reduces the amount of time necessary to sucessfully win a war and increases the chances of our Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen and Marines will come home alive is beyond any reasonable doubt worth it. Especially when compared to something like Welfare. Every Senator and Congressman should vote on military projects as if it is their children's lives at stake.

We can greatly decrease our military costs, while maintaining capabilites and even increasing them, if we redo how the military is funded and how it is forced to do business.

obvious Child said:

Waste of tax dollars.

A nuclear attack from Iran or North Korea (which won't actually happen) will not come via missile. It will come via panel van.

Anti-ICBM defense is nothing more than corporate welfare.

Click to expand...

Yeah, all they need to do is spend several weeks sneaking a nuclear weapon the size of a person onto hostile foreign soil without being detected. Way easier and far more effective than just firing a missile from thousands of miles away that will reach its target in less than twenty minutes. :roll: If you don't have intercontinental ballistic missiles that can travel at hypersonic speeds through the upper atmosphere the "panel van" might be a useful technique. There are about a dozen other good reasons why what you are suggesting is completely absurd for countries with the capability to deliver nuclear weapons by ballistic missile.

Μολὼν λαβέ;1060485285 said:

Like entitlements?

Click to expand...

Yes.

54321