US missile Defense Shield !!!

[Nihat]

Missile shield test to be most realistic yet, officials say



WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The Pentagon is set to conduct the 13th and most realistic test of its missile shield system to date, officials told CNN.
An official says the target missile launched in the upcoming test will have countermeasures.

An official says the target missile launched in the upcoming test will have countermeasures.

The first "window," or opportunity, for the test opens at 3 p.m. ET Friday and runs through Tuesday.

Although the anti-missile system can work in any weather, the Missile Defense Agency needs a clear sky to monitor the $115 million test.

So far, the U.S. military has successfully shot down a mock warhead in space with an interceptor missile in seven tests. The interceptor carries a "kill vehicle," which is designed to destroy the target missile by crashing into it.

But critics have long complained the tests are not realistic, because they don't involve balloons or other decoys that, they argue, could easily fool the interceptor.

In the upcoming test, the target will be a mock warhead accompanied by "countermeasures similar to what Iran or North Korea could deploy," according to a missile defense agency official.

The official could not give details of the types of decoys because that information is classified, he told CNN.

The test, which has been delayed several times, comes at a critical time for the $100 billion system, as President-elect Barack Obama is about to take office.


Early in his campaign, Obama pledged to "cut investments in unproven missile defense systems." But later he said he would support missile defense systems if they work.

"The biggest threat to the United States is a terrorist getting their hands on nuclear weapons," Obama said in the September 26 presidential debate. "And we ... are spending billions of dollars on missile defense. And I actually believe that we need missile defense, because of Iran and North Korea and the potential for them to obtain or to launch nuclear weapons."

Last month, the outgoing head of the U.S. Missile Defense Agency said that not only are U.S. missile defenses workable, they are up and running.

"Our testing has shown not only can we hit a bullet with a bullet, we can hit a spot on the bullet with a bullet. The technology has caught up," Lt. Gen. Trey Obering said in a November conference call with reporters.

The upcoming test is designed to produce voluminous data with which to evaluate the operation of the missiles, radars and other systems.

CNN.com

Does anyone believe in the US hype , can they really have achieved that cutting edge technology to shield from any hostile incoming missile or maybe multiple warheads along with Fakes heading in the same direction.











P.S. - Please don't use flames and comparisons from teenage war mongers , can we have a techo-centric discussion , otherwise , please no one bother to Reply.

Thanks !!

 

[nitesh]

Intercepting a missile depends on a lot of factors the most crucial ones being the time to react. It includes that you should be able to calculate the path. today's missiles are made maneuverable keeping intercepts in mind. Plus the MIRV makes the task more difficult hence no body can guarantee a 100% kill. Hence multiple tires of missile defense shield are needed. And some low level quick reaction missiles which can hit the MIRV if it is able to get released from the original missiles.

Just my 2 cents

 

[TruthSeeker]

Also, the R&D spending on the US missile defense program may have fallout for other circumstances, such as the improvement of the detection and killing of much more short range missiles (e.g., Scud-like missiles). I think that the US Defense Department likes to pursue such programs not only to achieve the stated goals, but also to fund the development of subsystems and techniques that can be used in other situations. If you can perfect the detection and high speed software calculations that are necessary for an incoming ballistic missile, then as time goes on, and electronic computation cost come down, these approaches may flow down to "battlefield" countermeasures. For example, extremely accurate determination of where enemy fire is coming from. So, I think that some part of what is going on here is the funding of generic R&D for finding ways to counter incoming kinetic projectiles of all kinds.

 

[Rafael]

I think it wont be that effective...not atleast at this point of time... it needs some time to get mature.. just my personal observation.

 

[KRLIG]

Today a rocket launched from Kodiak was intercepted by a rocket launched from Vandenburg AFB in California. As the champagne celebratory haze clears, keep a few things in mind:

1. It wasn't a resounding "success": According to Lt. Gen. Patrick O'Reilly, head of the Missile Defense Agency, "...the target did not release planned countermeasures designed to try to confuse the interceptor missile. O'Reilly did not say what those countermeasures were, but they often include decoys or chaff to throw off shoot-down attempts." Apparently the technology to shoot down a real enemy missile which would have countermeasures is not yet working.

2.It wasn't a truly realistic test: The "test" was very tightly controlled - everybody knew when the interceptor would be launched and its probable path (they've launched targets from KLC before). One wonders what would happen if they actually had to scramble an interceptor with no prior warning. Now that would be a true test.

3.Neither North Korea or Iran has ever successfully fired a missile that had any chance of landing anywhere near the U.S. Right now, if North Korea got really lucky, they might be able to hit the tip of the Aleutians. We are sure the folks out there appreciate the expenditure of ten billion dollars a year to help them sleep more soundly.

4. It's ALL about the money: Roughly $10 billion is spent per year on the program, which is run by defense contractor Boeing Co. but includes work by most of the nation's largest weapons makers. It is spread across three branches of the military and is composed of missiles, radar and satellites designed to intercept missiles during different stages of flight.

5. Fortunately, President-elect Barack Obama expressed skepticism about the capabilities of the system during his campaign, leading to speculation he may reduce the program's scope. Russia has strongly objected to plans to install missile interceptors in Eastern Europe.

6. At least the true character of the KLC has finally been admitted. According to the AP: "WASHINGTON - The Defense Department said today it shot down a missile launched from a military base in Alaska..."

7. Finally, Kodiak desperately needs a new high school and a new police station and jail. Our roads are a mess and infrastructure in Kodiak, Alaska and all across the United States is crumbling. Take a drive down Mission Road past the Salvation Army and ask yourself: Is Missile Defense worth it? Friday's test cost between $120 million to $150 million.

 

[Nihat]

Decoy fails to deploy, but missile test called 'success'


WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A missile shield test was a "smashing success," Pentagon officials said Friday, despite the failure of the test to put to rest concerns that the interceptor might not be able to differentiate between real missiles and decoys.
Eight of the United States' 13 missile defense tests have been deemed a success.

Eight of the United States' 13 missile defense tests have been deemed a success.

The ground-based interceptor missile, launched from Vandenberg Air Force Base in California, destroyed a long-range ballistic missile launched from Kodiak, Alaska, the Defense Department's Missile Defense Agency said.

But one key aspect of the test -- to see whether the system could tell the difference between a missile and a decoy aimed at confounding its "seek" systems -- failed because the decoy did not deploy.

Officials told CNN on Thursday that Friday's test would be the most realistic of 13 missile shield system tests conducted to date. Eight of the 13 tests have now been deemed a success by the Pentagon. Video Watch a Pentagon spokesman explain the Friday's problem »

This was the first test in which a crew at an alternate fire control center in Alaska remotely launched the interceptor missile from California.

The "initial indications," according to the Defense Department, are that all components of Friday's test performed as designed.

Critics have long complained that the tests are not realistic because they don't involve balloons or other simple decoys that, they argue, could easily fool the interceptor. Video Watch a report on the defense system »
Don't Miss


In Friday's test, however, the target was a mock warhead and was supposed to be accompanied by "countermeasures similar to what Iran or North Korea could deploy," according to a missile defense agency official. The intention was for the interceptor's kill vehicle to distinguish the target from the decoys.

But the decoy that was supposed to deploy to test the system did not. The Pentagon blamed a 40-year-old target system.

"Countermeasures are very difficult to deploy. We have had trouble deploying them in the past," said Lt. Gen. Patrick J. O'Reilly, director for the Missile Defense Agency. But O'Reilly said that the interceptor did differentiate between the actual missile target and the upper stage of the missile it had detached from.

The test, which had been delayed several times, comes at a crucial time for the $100 billion system, as President-elect Barack Obama is about to take office.

Early in his campaign, Obama pledged to "cut investments in unproven missile defense systems." But he later said he would support missile defense systems if they work.

"The biggest threat to the United States is a terrorist getting their hands on nuclear weapons," Obama said in the September 26 presidential debate.

"And we are spending billions of dollars on missile defense. And I actually believe that we need missile defense, because of Iran and North Korea and the potential for them to obtain or to launch nuclear weapons."

Friday's test also showed the Pentagon that multiple sensor systems were able to network together and hone in on a single object, O'Reilly said.

"All those sensors working together, at any one time the system knew which sensor was reporting what and tracking it and gave the war fighter one presentation of a target," O'Reilly said soon after the test was finished. "That was one tremendous accomplishment for us."
advertisement

Last month, the outgoing head of the Missile Defense Agency said that not only are U.S. missile defenses workable, they are up and running.

"Our testing has shown not only can we hit a bullet with a bullet, we can hit a spot on the bullet with a bullet. The technology has caught up," Lt. Gen. Trey Obering said.

Well , I do hope that this can be perfected soon - redering Ballistic missiles uselss.

It has many obstacles to go through still.

-- It has to differentiate chaff and other distractions from real target.

-- Guard against multiple missiles heading in the same direction , just marginally different locations.

-- Ability to trace an MIRV'ed missile and strike all warheads.

To prevent a missile attack on cities of high value , maybe a 4 level system could be made operational , if it's not there already. First one to trace and destroy Missiles in Space , another to trace the remainders in Intermediate atmosphere , third one to detect and snap up warheads about 10 Km below Intermediate Atmosphere and a 4th manually controlled air defenses with Radar , in case everything else fails.

Definalty won't be a surprise if within 10 years the likes of Chicago and New york have this sort of an air defense.

 

[Evil Flare]

What abt Cruise Missiles ???

 

[nitesh]

^^
Cruise missiles can be intercepted by medium and low range SAM. They key here is detecting them because they are mostly terrain hugging. Hence a good low level radar coverage coupled with good quick reaction missiles will ensure a great probability of kill.

 

[KRLIG]

Results from the Kodiak Daily Mirror online poll, December 5 through December 12:

The U.S. missile shield...

is unnecessary - 67.17%

is important for the nation's defense - 21.59%

will never work - (5.1%)

will ramp up a new arms race - (6.15%)

[percentages based on 667 responses]

Over 78% of the respondents voted anti missile defense. While online polls are generally considered "unscientific", it seems clear that a community that is home to a facility used in missile defense tests rejects the notion that it is actually needed.

Coupled with another poll from 26 February 2005, it appears to be time for the KLC is not only unneeded, but also unwanted. We have copied the post from that date below:

Poll Proves Local Opposition to Kodiak Launch Complex

Results of the Kodiak Daily Mirror online poll (17-24 February 2005) 839 responses
Published 24 Feb 2006 in the Kodiak Daily Mirror, page 4
"Why Should the Kodiak Launch Complex exist, or not exist?"

41% - It's waste of taxpayer money and useless in national defense
15.85% - It could potentially damage the environment.

56.85% - Anti-Kodiak Launch Complex

27.41% - It's crucial for national defense
15.71% - It's good for the local economy

43.12% - pro-KLC

The poll clearly indicates local attitudes toward Space Pork Kodiak. We suspect the numbers opposing the KLC would be even higher if there hadn't been the large number of out-of-state workers in town to support the latest MDA launch. The poll was running over 50% for "It's a waste..." until somebody alerted the KLC staff around Feb 22 causing a huge spike in the pro percentages. Despite this anomaly, the unmistakable community opposition is undeniable and prevailed in the overall results.

 

[maximus]

I think it wont be that effective...not atleast at this point of time... it needs some time to get mature.. just my personal observation.

I agree. It's just a precautionary measure coupled with many fundamental flaws. It's the old idea of trying to stop a bullet with another bullet. Whether the project will repay the billions (if not trillions) it's going to cost, let alone provide a fail-safe defence against incoming warheads is one of the many riddles. Testing a missile defence shield in an orchestrated manner as opposed to a real-time scenario should be another concern. Another major obstacle for this defence shield are MIRVs. It's a great idea, but will never be effective against the number superiority of missiles. Especially new gen missiles that are getting smarter and more accurate. In essence, the missile defence shield is nothing more than a political gesture aimed towards Russia.