0
ChasingBlueSky

U.S. Missile Defense Test Fails

By ChasingBlueSky, in Speakers Corner

Recommended Posts

ChasingBlueSky    0

ChasingBlueSky
10 billion a year on this???[:/]

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=7098539

By Jim Wolf
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The first test in nearly two years of a multibillion-dollar U.S. anti-missile shield failed on Wednesday when the interceptor missile shut down as it prepared to launch in the central Pacific, the Pentagon said.

About 16 minutes earlier, a target missile carrying a mock warhead had been successfully fired from Kodiak Island, Alaska, according to a statement from the Missile Defense Agency.

The aborted $85 million test appeared likely to set back plans for activation of a rudimentary bulwark against long-range ballistic missiles that could be fired by countries like North Korea.

In 2002, President Bush pledged to have initial elements of the program up and running by the end of this year while testing and development continued.

An "anomaly" of unknown origin caused the interceptor to shut down automatically in its silo at the Kwajalein Test Range in the Marshall Islands, said Richard Lehner, a spokesman for the Pentagon's missile agency.

The test followed a week of delays caused by weather and technical glitches, including malfunction of an internal battery aboard the target missile on Tuesday, he said.

"This is a serious setback for a program that had not attempted a flight intercept test for two years," Philip Coyle, the Pentagon's chief weapons tester under late President Ronald Reagan, said in an e-mail exchange.

The system is a scaled-down version of a ballistic missile shield first outlined in March 1983 by Reagan and derided by critics as "Star Wars."

'NOT CONSTRAINED BY TIMING'

Pentagon officials had hoped the test would set the stage for any decision by Bush to put the system on alert in coming weeks. Initially, the system is designed to counter North Korean missiles that could be fired at the United States and tipped with nuclear, chemical or germ weapons.

"I'm not constrained by timing, exactly," Michael Wynne, the Pentagon's chief weapons buyer, said on Dec. 8 in reply to a question about switching the system on. "But we'll see how (the test) goes and then we'll see from there."

Because the mission was supposed to have exercised new hardware, software and engagement scenarios, it was officially described as a "flyby" rather than an attempted intercept. This meant gathering data was the primary goal, not downing the target, according to the Missile Defense Agency.
When a shootdown has been the chief test objective, the system so far has succeeded five of eight times in highly scripted conditions.

The last test, in December 2002, misfired when the warhead -- a 120-pound "kill vehicle" of sensors, chips and thrusters designed to pulverize its target on collision -- failed to separate from its booster rocket.

Boeing Co., as prime contractor, put together the ground-based shield, which is to be folded into a system involving airborne, sea- and space-based elements. All told, the Pentagon is spending $10 billion a year on the project.

Key subcontractors are Northrop Grumman Corp., for battle management; Raytheon Co., for the kill vehicle; and Lockheed Martin Corp. and Orbital Sciences Corp., which build the booster rockets.
_________________________________________
you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me....
I WILL fly again.....

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

ChasingBlueSky    0

ChasingBlueSky
Quote

It's not that easy. See some of BikerBabe's postings in the Armored Humvee thread about the clusterfuck that is the DoD acquisitions/test & eval process...



With $20 billion you should be able to afford to fix some of the fuckups or hire the right individuals. And how much has been spent on this idea since 1983 and they still can't get it to work????

Should we even start with the debate over the fact that the shield probably won't work? Putin announced recently that Russia has a new non-linear missle and a bit more new technology that would make the shield useless. At this point it wouldn't matter since we can't get the missle off the ground or to get it to hit a target that hasn't been painted or has a tracking chip in it.
_________________________________________
you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me....
I WILL fly again.....

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

DrunkMonkey    0

DrunkMonkey
Quote

Quote

It's not that easy. See some of BikerBabe's postings in the Armored Humvee thread about the clusterfuck that is the DoD acquisitions/test & eval process...



With $20 billion you should be able to afford to fix some of the fuckups or hire the right individuals. And how much has been spent on this idea since 1983 and they still can't get it to work????

Should we even start with the debate over the fact that the shield probably won't work? Putin announced recently that Russia has a new non-linear missle and a bit more new technology that would make the shield useless. At this point it wouldn't matter since we can't get the missle off the ground or to get it to hit a target that hasn't been painted or has a tracking chip in it.



I'm not an engineer, but I do know Acq/Test & Eval. This technology is getting invented as they go, to meet specs. That's gonna be expensive. I dunno.

I have no position on the work/won't work debate. That's the obligation of the System Program Office, or "SPO." Add their influence, plus that of the Congresscritters whose district the work is in, and you are more likely to find the moneypit/culprits.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

jcd11235    0

jcd11235
Quote

I bet you can buy a lot of Humvee armor with $10 billion.

Or train and hire a whole bunch of Federal air marshals.



How about doubling Pell Grant funding? The Pentagon is wasting the money anyway, they can do without it. Why not invest in educating the poulation?
Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

DrunkMonkey    0

DrunkMonkey
Quote

Quote

I bet you can buy a lot of Humvee armor with $10 billion.

Or train and hire a whole bunch of Federal air marshals.



How about doubling Pell Grant funding? The Pentagon is wasting the money anyway, they can do without it. Why not invest in educating the poulation?



With that all-or-nothing mentality, you'd be right. You'd need the $ for mandatory Arabic and Islam classes.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

jcd11235    0

jcd11235
While Shrub may want you to believe otherwise, so you'll be scared and easy to control, we are not in danger of being taken over by Muslims or Arabs. All they want is America to implement a foreign policy that is respectful and responsible to the rest of the world, even the poor countries.

Nations are not bad or unimportant just because they are Communist.
Nations are not bad or unimportant just because they are Muslim.
Nations are not bad or unimportant just because they are poor.

Our "national interests" should not be defended at the expense of the well being of the world.
Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

BikerBabe    0

BikerBabe
Quote

With $20 billion you should be able to afford to fix some of the fuckups or hire the right individuals. And how much has been spent on this idea since 1983 and they still can't get it to work????



heh...it's really not that easy. Don't get me wrong. It SHOULD be that easy.

OK, we talked briefly about a sole-source award process in my post in the armor thread. And that's sole-source! You want competition to supposedly get the "right" people and company for the job, as well as costing less, then you have to do the entire bidding process! Which from initial request for proposals from the gov't to actual contract award can take over a year. You want to know why all of the systems that work and are tried and true are old things? Because they were all developed before CNN and Fox News and Tom Brokaw with his stupid "fleecing of america" bullshit. The government was allowed (by the people) to spend as much as they needed to get the job done right.

Now let's talk about test and evaluation. Wait, that's another whole post...
Never meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup!

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

kallend    1,647

kallend
Quote

Quote

With $20 billion you should be able to afford to fix some of the fuckups or hire the right individuals. And how much has been spent on this idea since 1983 and they still can't get it to work????



heh...it's really not that easy. Don't get me wrong. It SHOULD be that easy.

OK, we talked briefly about a sole-source award process in my post in the armor thread. And that's sole-source! You want competition to supposedly get the "right" people and company for the job, as well as costing less, then you have to do the entire bidding process! Which from initial request for proposals from the gov't to actual contract award can take over a year. You want to know why all of the systems that work and are tried and true are old things? Because they were all developed before CNN and Fox News and Tom Brokaw with his stupid "fleecing of america" bullshit. The government was allowed (by the people) to spend as much as they needed to get the job done right.

Now let's talk about test and evaluation. Wait, that's another whole post...



The concept of mid course interception is fundamentally flawed. Even if they fix the engineering (which another $20billion or so will probably manage) the fundamental issue remains that mid course interception is almost trivially easy to overcome by any adversary smart enough to build ICBMs in the first place. Nothing to do with procurement or paperwork.

Cannons were far cheaper than castles - castles became obsolete.

"Bodkin head" arrows were way cheaper than suits of armor - armored knights became obsolete.

Bombers were far cheaper than battleships - battleships became obsolete.

ICBMs are cheaper than missile defense systems.
...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

BikerBabe    0

BikerBabe
Oh, I totally agree with you. I'm an engineer.

I'm still trying to get blood from a turnip, I guess, by trying to explain why DoD acquisition is so flawed. I give.

The "people" want missile defense (obviously they do, they re-elected Bush), so Congress forces money at it. So the engineers try to do what they can with what they have (which still isn't enough to overcome the laws of physics, mind you). Then when it doesn't work, the "people" blame the engineers.

Damn those laws of physics! :D:D

Here's another one in the same boat: The Airborne Laser. Heh. Yeah, Air Force. Good luck with that one.
Never meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup!

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

kelpdiver    2

kelpdiver
Quote


Should we even start with the debate over the fact that the shield probably won't work? Putin announced recently that Russia has a new non-linear missle and a bit more new technology that would make the shield useless. At this point it wouldn't matter since we can't get the missle off the ground or to get it to hit a target that hasn't been painted or has a tracking chip in it.



Missile defense was never going to work in the cold war with the scale of an attack the USSR could send, with tens of thousands of real and dummy warheads.

If a country was nice enough to send just one, or even five to ten, missiles, it might be workable, if pretty expensive. But hey, a city is worth a lot of money. But it totally ignores those without missiles, who would instead import the bomb the same way drugs are.

It is the prime specimen for defense Pork today. I love how each successive test has made the parameters easier to meet then the prior trial.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

dorbie    0

dorbie
Quote



I bet you can buy a lot of Humvee armor with $10 billion.

Or train and hire a whole bunch of Federal air marshals.



Is that armor going to stop the North Korean missile before it reaches San Francisco? Maybe we could all climb inside a HMMWV when the shockwave hits. Better yet we could fill a passenger jet with air marshalls, fly them up there and they could take pot shots at any warheads as it zipped past them.

It's a contingency, think of it as a $multi-billion cypress for nuclear war. They can't make it work right now but one day it might and the USA has voted for a President who's said he'll try to. You wouldn't want him to break a promise would you?

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

kallend    1,647

kallend
Quote

Quote



I bet you can buy a lot of Humvee armor with $10 billion.

Or train and hire a whole bunch of Federal air marshals.



Is that armor going to stop the North Korean missile before it reaches San Francisco? ?



No, and neither is the so-called "Missile Shield" for reasons that have already been adequately explained.
...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

dorbie    0

dorbie
Quote

Quote

Quote



I bet you can buy a lot of Humvee armor with $10 billion.

Or train and hire a whole bunch of Federal air marshals.



Is that armor going to stop the North Korean missile before it reaches San Francisco? ?



No, and neither is the so-called "Missile Shield" for reasons that have already been adequately explained.



Your crystal ball of pessimism is in fine working order. A development system under test on a launch pad performs an automatic shutdown for reasons not yet known and you say it'll never work. Automatic shutdowns are there to save the vehicle for future tests if something is out of kilter. All that was lost is some time and a test target.

The people have spoken, they want the administration to set this as a goal. :)

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

downwardspiral    0

downwardspiral
Less than a century ago some people had the same mentality.


Quote

On the eve of the World War I, no country was prepared for using aircraft or had even admitted they would make an effective weapon of war. Several had experimented with dropping bombs from aircraft, firing guns, and taking off and landing from aircraft carriers, but no country had designed or built aircraft specifically for war functions. Limited bombing operations had been carried out before 1914, but most thought that aircraft use was limited to reconnaissance or scouting missions. An October 1910 editorial in Scientific American, a respected publication, denigrated the airplane as a war weapon: "Outside of scouting duties, we are inclined to think that the field of usefulness of the aeroplane will be rather limited. Because of its small carrying capacity, and the necessity for its operating at great altitude, if it is to escape hostile fire, the amount of damage it will do by dropping explosives upon cities, forts, hostile camps, or bodies of troops in the field to say nothing of battleships at sea, will be so limited as to have no material effects on the issues of a campaign...."



http://www.centennialofflight.gov/essay/Air_Power/mitchell/AP12.htm ;)
www.FourWheelerHB.com

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
0
Go To Topic Listing