NationStates Jolt Archive

The United States Missile Defense Agency has announced (http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=topNews&storyid=2006-09-01T184244Z_01_WBT005892_RTRUKOC_0_US-ARMS-MISSILE-USA.xml&src=rss&rpc=22)a successful intercept with its ground-based missile intercept system. Score one for the good guys!


WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. military shot down a target ballistic missile over the Pacific on Friday in the widest test of its emerging antimissile shield in 18 months, the Defense Department announced.

The Pentagon's Missile Defense Agency said it had successfully completed an important exercise involving the launch of an improved ground-based interceptor missile designed to protect the United States against a limited long-range ballistic missile attack.


http://d.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/afp/20060901/capt.sge.jmv25.010906184206.photo00.photo.default-512x393.jpg?x=380&y=291&sig=P3EJ8s.JobtJs9TFa37veQ--

Is it using Patriot missiles or Arrow missiles?

OH NO!

That looks like THAAD?

Please tell me it wasn't. Please please tell me it wasn't.

If they can repeat the exercise, it will be a very good thing.

I don't hold out much hope though, since most projections were that an effective missile defense system was at least a decade away.

OH NO!

That looks like THAAD?

Please tell me it wasn't. Please please tell me it wasn't.

No, that's not THAAD. It's the Ground Based Interceptor.

THAAD is another system, as is PAC-3, as is Standard SM-3.

All use the same hit-to-kill technology, but different boosters, radars, and computer networks, and work at different parts of an incoming missile's flight.

Is it using Patriot missiles or Arrow missiles?

Neither. Boeing developed the kill vehicle and the target is a stock 'representative' threat.

I don't know what Boeing calls its interceptor.

My main interest is in the antenna systems that track the target. We gather the telemetry data that proves or disproves the effectiveness of the interceptor.

This is the Boeing GMD system
http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/space/gmd/images/FT1-053_300x375.jpg

If they can repeat the exercise, it will be a very good thing.

I don't hold out much hope though, since most projections were that an effective missile defense system was at least a decade away.

I guess that's why you love being wrong. PAC-3 was proven in combat in ripple-fire against multiple incoming ballistic missiles during OIF. Standard SM-3 has been proven for mid-course and late stage intercepts (a plethora of intercepts, including one at the last seconds of an incoming missile's flight).

THAAD has had a recent success, and the GBI, which the OP is about, is only doing integration testing now - the actual interceptor works, provided that the radars and computers supplying it the mid-course information work.

Hit-to-kill is a proven technology.

No, that's not THAAD. It's the Ground Based Interceptor.

THAAD is another system, as is PAC-3, as is Standard SM-3.

All use the same hit-to-kill technology, but different boosters, radars, and computer networks, and work at different parts of an incoming missile's flight.


Good. THAAD was a great big boondoggle. I would be rather stunned if THAAD could hit something. But laws of chance do allow for it.

Unless of course they did a complete redesign. ;)

Good. THAAD was a great big boondoggle. I would be rather stunned if THAAD could hit something. But laws of chance do allow for it.

Unless of course they did a complete redesign. ;)
I find it incredible that every expensive weapons system is expected to work perfectly on the first or second try. Hi-tech just isn't like that, but the expectations have doomed us to more and more expensive weapons systems.

Good. THAAD was a great big boondoggle. I would be rather stunned if THAAD could hit something. But laws of chance do allow for it.

Unless of course they did a complete redesign. ;)

THAAD was redesigned.

BTW, there were some prominent physicists who stated in the early 1990s that "hit to kill" was an absolute, physical impossibility.

The performance of PAC-3 in the OIF in fully automated ripple fire under no human control against simultaneous incoming ballistic missiles proved that the "expert physicists" were talking out of their goatse asses.

THAAD was redesigned.

BTW, there were some prominent physicists who stated in the early 1990s that "hit to kill" was an absolute, physical impossibility.

The performance of PAC-3 in the OIF in fully automated ripple fire under no human control against simultaneous incoming ballistic missiles proved that the "expert physicists" were talking out of their goatse asses.

I have to admit I stopped following THAAD when I left the government.

I remember the early days. :eek:

You have to wonder when you see the engineers had drawings in the cubes which were

1) THAAD homing in on Santa while a Nuke goes flying by.
2) Testing the missile: You see a count down; a few guys with one ready to press the button and then the next cell the guys are panic running for a shelter as you see the vehicle closing in on them.
3) A big booster with the interceptor welded on to it.

There were many more but those are the ones I remember. :D

I figured it would eventually die or most likely get redesigned especially with the amount of money that was dumped into it.

THAAD was redesigned.

BTW, there were some prominent physicists who stated in the early 1990s that "hit to kill" was an absolute, physical impossibility.

The performance of PAC-3 in the OIF in fully automated ripple fire under no human control against simultaneous incoming ballistic missiles proved that the "expert physicists" were talking out of their goatse asses.

This is why I don't believe every "expert" scientist that the media trots out. The issue that comes to mind immediately is global temperature changes. If an "expert" can be wrong about simple kinematics, certainly other "experts" can make mistakes about things more vague.

This is why I don't believe every "expert" scientist that the media trots out. The issue that comes to mind immediately is global temperature changes. If an "expert" can be wrong about simple kinematics, certainly other "experts" can make mistakes about things more vague.

Wouldn't it been simpler to write:

If the expert is against what I believe, I don't believe them?

Wouldn't it been simpler to write:

If the expert is against what I believe, I don't believe them?

Because it's easier to pretend that the small minority made up primarily of quacks that claims that there is either no Global Warming, or that it is not man made, are a scientific authority.

Wouldn't it been simpler to write:

If the expert is against what I believe, I don't believe them?

Sure, but it wouldn't have been accurate. I've certainly yielded to real experts, but they're usually not the ones that the media likes to quote. I see more of them at design reviews, professional conferences, and college football games.

now nukes wont hurt the US! YAY!

now nukes wont hurt the US! YAY!

Correction. Now more primative balistically launched nukes won't hurt the USA. :p

now nukes wont hurt the US! YAY!

Now we can mess with North Korea and not have to deal with any bad consequences! Take that Lil' Kim Jong Il.

Score one for the good guys!
I don't understand. Please explain this concept. :confused:

I don't understand. Please explain this concept. :confused:

US = Good guys.

Russians = Oh wait ahm The Terrorists are the bad guys. Wait they don't have ICBMs do they? :confused:

Now we can mess with North Korea and not have to deal with any bad consequences! Take that Lil' Kim Jong Il.

never mind South Korea and Japan though :p

I think this will prove a big waste in the long run the nations with small nuclear arsenals can’t hit the U.S and the nations with large nuclear arsenals (Russia really) will still hit the U.S with sheer numbers

and who is going to launch an ICBM at the U.S you may as well just smuggle a suitcase nuke into the country so much cheaper and easier (not to mention safer)

never mind South Korea and Japan though :p

I think this will prove a big waste in the long run the nations with small nuclear arsenals can’t hit the U.S and the nations with large nuclear arsenals (Russia really) will still hit the U.S with sheer numbers

and who is going to launch an ICBM at the U.S you may as well just smuggle a suitcase nuke into the country so much cheaper and easier (not to mention safer)

We can sell South Korea and Japan missile defense technology. More jobs and money for us. War and the threat of war are great for business!

never mind South Korea and Japan though :p

I think this will prove a big waste in the long run the nations with small nuclear arsenals can’t hit the U.S and the nations with large nuclear arsenals (Russia really) will still hit the U.S with sheer numbers

and who is going to launch an ICBM at the U.S you may as well just smuggle a suitcase nuke into the country so much cheaper and easier (not to mention safer)

We can sell South Korea and Japan missile defense technology. More jobs and money for us. War and the threat of war are great for business!

I don't understand. Please explain this concept. :confused:

The nature of your request isn't entirely clear. Could you try to form a question that is more specific?

The nature of your request isn't entirely clear. Could you try to form a question that is more specific?
Who are the 'good guys', what is the nature of a 'good guy', how have they become such, who or what has declared them such, are they self-assessed, is the integrity of the rating highly resistant to dumbassery, is there independent evidence to this effect, and what are the principal current challenges to this status?

Cheers kthx.

Who are the 'good guys', what is the nature of a 'good guy', how have they become such, who or what has declared them such, are they self-assessed, is the integrity of the rating highly resistant to dumbassery, is there independent evidence to this effect, and what are the principal current challenges to this status?

Cheers kthx.

It's kind of interesting to see this much agony and indecision about what's good and what's bad. I'm not going to answer the question because it's facetious and frivilous.

What I will do is claim that there will always be a dominant nation in the world. Right now, that nation is the United States. Whether you like it or not, it's fact. Out of the likely contenders for that mantle, which would you prefer to see replace the United States in that role?

[edit]
Incidentally, I believe an ISO 9001 audit confirmed that the United States was one of the good guys because a procedure documenting the fact was produced.

One step closer to the obsolescence of nuclear weaponry!

We can sell South Korea and Japan missile defense technology. More jobs and money for us. War and the threat of war are great for business!

Not only that, but the Japanese are working at developing the PAC-3 further, because they feel it is promising technology. Hell, I've heard rumors that they're actually getting it sufficiently fine tuned that they can hit a falling bomb. And the Japanese are quite willing to share too. International cooperation to eliminate nukes by making nukes useless!

hell yes! i love the US military and the ballistic missile defense system. but they have had several successful tests already. dont mean to burst your bubble, but i guess that its a good bubble burst.