NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/02/25/aegis_missile_test/
http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/050224/neth026_1.html

Not to be confused with the Ground Based Interceptor (GBI) which is still under development and has had some test failures.

The SM-3 Standard is currently operational with the USS Curtis Wilbur on patrol off of the coast of North Korea.

This is the fifth successful test of the SM-3. It has a significant advantage over the GBI in terms of development successes, primarily because the AEGIS combat system and radar already existed, and did not need to be developed - it only took the development of the SM-3 and the integration with AEGIS to become a success.

GBI has problems - not with its missile, but with its combat system software - the glue that connects the missile with its radars and battle management algorithms.

It's nice to know that there's a working missile system off the coast of North Korea.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/02/25/aegis_missile_test/
http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/050224/neth026_1.html

Not to be confused with the Ground Based Interceptor (GBI) which is still under development and has had some test failures.

The SM-3 Standard is currently operational with the USS Curtis Wilbur on patrol off of the coast of North Korea.

This is the fifth successful test of the SM-3. It has a significant advantage over the GBI in terms of development successes, primarily because the AEGIS combat system and radar already existed, and did not need to be developed - it only took the development of the SM-3 and the integration with AEGIS to become a success.

GBI has problems - not with its missile, but with its combat system software - the glue that connects the missile with its radars and battle management algorithms.

It's nice to know that there's a working missile system off the coast of North Korea.


Now does this missle system figure out where the "enemy" missles are going? I think it should be able to ask the outgoing missle. That way we dont destroy anything aimed at non-paying missle defense allies. I mean its only fair right?

The LEAP system is truly unique. It's roots are not for ICBM interception as THAAD and other units. The LEAP system actually came out of the North Korean situation from way back when. North Korean No-Dong missiles have the capability to strike into Japan. AEGIS ships carrying the LEAP will be able to defend Japan and most of South Korea from the thread of North Korean weapons. In addition, they serve to defend Taiwan as well, from Chinese launched missiles. The LEAP system is perhaps the most promising of all the systems and was in development since about 1992. Only recently, with the NMD program, has it taken significant leaps & bounds. It originally was to be a modification on the Standard SM-2 but advancements in the past decade led to the SM-3.

Now does this missle system figure out where the "enemy" missles are going? I think it should be able to ask the outgoing missle. That way we dont destroy anything aimed at non-paying missle defense allies. I mean its only fair right?

Good that you ask that.

The AEGIS radar does not ask, neither does the radar for the PAC-3 (the Army's operational ABM system which was successful in Operation Iraqi Freedom).

The battle management system for the GBI does ask. It, along with systems at NORAD, will give predicted impact points.

But, given the reaction time necessary for SM-3 and PAC-3, they will probably fire at anything that takes off.

Even the GBI, although it has more time to react, is still run by a computer program - humans do not take the fire/don't fire decision.

I would bet that it has parameters - that it is assigned only to defend certain areas, or that certain areas have a much higher priority than others.

Other than a North Korean missile that's just flying wild (ballistic missiles are, with the exception of the Mark 12 warhead and the Pershing II warhead, unguided weapons), I don't see anything landing in Canada.

If that's the only place the missiles are going, I would bet the US would try to stop them. Politically expedient.

If, however, the missile system has to choose between the three going to Seattle, and one veering way off course to land in Yellowknife, I don't believe for a second that the people in Yellowknife would have a chance to survive.

Besides, most of Canada outside the urban areas is uninhabited - thinner in most areas than Montana. Probably a safe bet that nothing bad would happen with a single errant nuke.