US Missile Defense test fails in Alaska, first in over 2 yrs, missile can't even follow script

[Genx87]

Excuses, excuses. The time to improve border security is now and address the threat of global nuclear terrorism is now. This isn't the time to throw away billions of a missile defense system that is never going to work at sufficient levels to defend against incoming missiles while we ignore the much more immediate threat of nuclear terrorism.

Excuses? lol it is called reality. Do you think it is wise to develope such a system after we get hit or before it? Do you think in the early to mid 1990s after we got hit with multiple terrorist attacks the intelligence community should have been redesigned and refocused?!?!?

The border security is a real problem and I agree it needs to be addressed. However that doesnt mean we should negate other defense systems just because we are focusing on 1 path.

P.S. I find your characterization -- quote, "pissing and moaning" -- innacurate and offensive.

The truth hurts.

if you can fit half a dozen missiles in a single shipping container, you can fit a single nuke or single dirty bomb.

You might but you wont probably be able to simply carry it down the street. As for a dirty bomb. That is an entirely different subject.

so in you opinion anybody who doesn't agree with the administration is automatically a liberal? less than 12 months ago i was a republican until i saw the truth. what i am against is wasteful spending.

Yeah right, nobody carries beliefs like you do and was a republican. Especially just 12 months ago.

that is why i said, republicans don't care about the ocean anyway. there are no houses there, hence they went about testing atomic bombs on atoll island and such for decades. its really the dolphins and 3 eyed fish that pay the price.

ok and what does this have to do with your foolish plan to detonate 9 nuclear weapons to take out one threat?

but what is more probably and cost effective? to hit a missile with another missile both travelling 5,000-10,000MPH. or to nuke a missile where the nuke only has to be within a mile or quarter mile radius. by far 1000x easier.

Depends on what you consider costly. Personally I think detonating 10 nuclear devices and having the fallout affect possibly millions is alot more costly than spending billions to knock the missile out of the sky and possibly even keep it from detonating.

Easier sure, but since when is easy path the best path? I can go rob somebodies house to make money. But I prefer the tougher method of working for my money.

don't have a house floating in the middle of the ocean.

let me guess, when you look at a map on the wall you think everything travels in a straight line right?

Look at a globe and tell me if you think missiles will be going the long way around the earth or over the top of the poles. Chances are most will be coming down from the artic and the fallout will affect many in Canada.

the supposed scenario entails that a single incoming missile is a nuke, therefore if it hits, we have nuclear fallout over our heads vs having nuclear fallout in the middle of the ocean, much like an atomic test.

to top it off, russians say they already have a missile that can defeat NMD, (most likely by zig zagging). hence the only way to destroy that is to nuke it. NK can figure out how to make their missiles zip zag if they can figure out how to make nukes

Amazing Russian technology. They have a system that can beat a system that isnt even fully developed yet. Of course you buy it like a fat kid buys an extra large value meal after a workout.

 

[arsbanned]

Originally posted by: DanJ
More useless spending on failure. The Bush M.O.

yep. you nailed it.

 

[SuperTool]

It's the US equivalent of Maginot Line. The enemy will just go around these systems.
What else is new? Keep the cash coming to our defense companies here in CA though. I know some engineers working there, and they appreciate your cash, they really do.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: jahawkin

Originally posted by: charrison

A couple missed. The last 4 or 5 tests worked.

Do you have any links for these successful tests??

link from the recent test

The first test of a national missile defense system in two years failed Wednesday when the "kill vehicle" never got off the ground.

So the last test was sometime in 2002. Where are these 4 or 5 tests in 2001 and 2002 that were:
a) more complex than the test in 2001 where everything had a homing beacon
b) successful - by any objective standard.
Note the pentagon claims this most recent test was a not a "setback of any kind," despite the fact that nothing worked.

Too much effort to read the OP link?

In earlier testing of tracking and targeting systems, which critics derided as highly scripted, missile interceptors went five-for-eight in hitting target missiles.

 

[SuperTool]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: jahawkin

Originally posted by: charrison

A couple missed. The last 4 or 5 tests worked.

Do you have any links for these successful tests??

link from the recent test

The first test of a national missile defense system in two years failed Wednesday when the "kill vehicle" never got off the ground.

So the last test was sometime in 2002. Where are these 4 or 5 tests in 2001 and 2002 that were:
a) more complex than the test in 2001 where everything had a homing beacon
b) successful - by any objective standard.
Note the pentagon claims this most recent test was a not a "setback of any kind," despite the fact that nothing worked.

Too much effort to read the OP link?

In earlier testing of tracking and targeting systems, which critics derided as highly scripted, missile interceptors went five-for-eight in hitting target missiles.

Yes, if the attacker follows the Pentagon script, we have only a 3/8 chance of getting hit. Nothing to worry about.

 

[Gaard]

If you are assuming that "interceptors went five-for-eight in hitting target missiles" means that "the last 4 or 5 tests worked", does that mean that the first 3 or 4 were failures?

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: jahawkin

Originally posted by: charrison

A couple missed. The last 4 or 5 tests worked.

Do you have any links for these successful tests??

link from the recent test

The first test of a national missile defense system in two years failed Wednesday when the "kill vehicle" never got off the ground.

So the last test was sometime in 2002. Where are these 4 or 5 tests in 2001 and 2002 that were:
a) more complex than the test in 2001 where everything had a homing beacon
b) successful - by any objective standard.
Note the pentagon claims this most recent test was a not a "setback of any kind," despite the fact that nothing worked.

Too much effort to read the OP link?

In earlier testing of tracking and targeting systems, which critics derided as highly scripted, missile interceptors went five-for-eight in hitting target missiles.

Yes, if the attacker follows the Pentagon script, we have only a 3/8 chance of getting hit. Nothing to worry about.

Have you ever been involved in testing anything?

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Gaard
If you are assuming that "interceptors went five-for-eight in hitting target missiles" means that "the last 4 or 5 tests worked", does that mean that the first 3 or 4 were failures?

I beleive that is the case, which is why you test things....

 

[jahawkin]

Originally posted by: charrison
Too much effort to read the OP link?

In earlier testing of tracking and targeting systems, which critics derided as highly scripted, missile interceptors went five-for-eight in hitting target missiles.

You're claiming, in this thread, that there were tests conducted that were successful and "more difficult as time passed" (your words) than the test in 2001 where everything has a radio beacon.
So, provide some evidence of these tests.
The only evidence you provide is a quote from the article which itself admits that the tests were rigged. Even this latest failure was delayed five times because of bad weather (link)

This system doesn't work, isn't close to working, yet it is in the process of being deployed. Its nothing but welfare for the defense industry.

 

[SuperTool]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: jahawkin

Originally posted by: charrison

A couple missed. The last 4 or 5 tests worked.

Do you have any links for these successful tests??

link from the recent test

The first test of a national missile defense system in two years failed Wednesday when the "kill vehicle" never got off the ground.

So the last test was sometime in 2002. Where are these 4 or 5 tests in 2001 and 2002 that were:
a) more complex than the test in 2001 where everything had a homing beacon
b) successful - by any objective standard.
Note the pentagon claims this most recent test was a not a "setback of any kind," despite the fact that nothing worked.

Too much effort to read the OP link?

In earlier testing of tracking and targeting systems, which critics derided as highly scripted, missile interceptors went five-for-eight in hitting target missiles.

Yes, if the attacker follows the Pentagon script, we have only a 3/8 chance of getting hit. Nothing to worry about.

Have you ever been involved in testing anything?

I sure have. And 5/8 aint gonna cut it. That means we need 5 missiles for every enemy one to reduce the probability of a hit to 1%, even assuming the enemy follows the pentagon script and does not use MIRV.
An enemy with sufficient number of missiles, and using MIRV to increase warheads per missile, and you quickly get into a situation where the numbers and reliability of countermissiles are unrealistic.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: jahawkin

Originally posted by: charrison
Too much effort to read the OP link?

In earlier testing of tracking and targeting systems, which critics derided as highly scripted, missile interceptors went five-for-eight in hitting target missiles.

You're claiming, in this thread, that there were tests conducted that were successful and "more difficult as time passed" (your words) than the test in 2001 where everything has a radio beacon.
So, provide some evidence of these tests.
The only evidence you provide is a quote from the article which itself admits that the tests were rigged. Even this latest failure was delayed five times because of bad weather (link)

This system doesn't work, isn't close to working, yet it is in the process of being deployed. Its nothing but welfare for the defense industry.

linkage

The Pentagon's Missile Defense Agency said its sixth test of its missile defense system Friday was a success, meaning it intercepted an intercontinental ballistic missile in space about 30 minutes after it was launched.

The Ground-based Midcourse Defense system was formerly known as the National Missile Defense system. Pentagon officials called Friday night's test a "major step" in the U.S. Missile Defense Agency's test program.

They said this test was similar to a December 3 test, which resulted in a successful missile intercept. But in this case, the latest ballistic missile carried three decoy balloons designed to confuse the "exoatmospheric kill vehicle," the device that seeks out the ballistic missile. In the December test, only one decoy was deployed.

"The test successfully demonstrated EKV flight performance and 'hit to kill' technology to intercept and destroy a long-range ballistic missile target," a Pentagon statement said.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: jahawkin

Originally posted by: charrison

A couple missed. The last 4 or 5 tests worked.

Do you have any links for these successful tests??

link from the recent test

The first test of a national missile defense system in two years failed Wednesday when the "kill vehicle" never got off the ground.

So the last test was sometime in 2002. Where are these 4 or 5 tests in 2001 and 2002 that were:
a) more complex than the test in 2001 where everything had a homing beacon
b) successful - by any objective standard.
Note the pentagon claims this most recent test was a not a "setback of any kind," despite the fact that nothing worked.

Too much effort to read the OP link?

In earlier testing of tracking and targeting systems, which critics derided as highly scripted, missile interceptors went five-for-eight in hitting target missiles.

Yes, if the attacker follows the Pentagon script, we have only a 3/8 chance of getting hit. Nothing to worry about.

Have you ever been involved in testing anything?

I sure have. And 5/8 aint gonna cut it. That means we need 5 missiles for every enemy one to reduce the probability of a hit to 1%, even assuming the enemy follows the pentagon script and does not use MIRV.
An enemy with sufficient number of missiles, and using MIRV to increase warheads per missile, and you quickly get into a situation where the numbers and reliability of countermissiles are unrealistic.

I
First, there will always be countermeasures no matter what system you build, but I beleive this is designed to hit before MIRV.


2nd, reliability increases as testing continues.