Major Flight Test *Fails to Intercept Target* as US Expands Missile System in Gulf

[bigtree]

from Global Security Newswire: http://www.globalsecuritynewswire.org/gsn/nw_20100202_8712.php


Tuesday, Feb. 2, 2010

WASHINGTON -- Just one day after the Missile Defense Agency failed to achieve an intercept in a major flight test of its Ground-based Midcourse Defense system, its executive director took broad aim at defense contractors for chronic quality-control lapses (see GSN, Feb. 1).

"I'm not going to name names today, but I'm going to tell you we continue to be disappointed in the quality that we are receiving from our prime contractors and their subs -- very, very disappointed," David Altwegg, the MDA executive director, told reporters at a budget briefing yesterday.

He stopped short of blaming quality control for the problems during Sunday's flight test, which began at about 3:40 p.m. local time when a dummy target missile was launched from the Kwajalein Atoll in the Marshall Islands. Roughly six minutes later, a silo-based interceptor was fired from Vandenberg Air Force Base in California, but it failed to hit the target.

A Missile Defense Agency spokesman said this week the target missile was intended to mimic the kind of technology that a nation like North Korea or Iran could develop that might someday threaten the United States.

In six of 16 GMD intercept flight tests since 1999, the missile has failed to hit its target. There have been eight such tests that ended with a successful intercept. In another two, target or missile-decoy failures made it impossible for the main test objectives to be met.

read more: http://www.globalsecuritynewswire.org/gsn/nw_20100202_8712.php

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2010/02/missile-defense-test-flops-as-pentagon-unveils-interceptor-strategy/


U.S. expanding missile defenses in Gulf

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The United States has expanded land- and sea-based missile defense systems in and around the Gulf to counter what it sees as Iran's growing missile threat, U.S. officials said.

The deployments include expanded land-based Patriot defensive missile installations in Kuwait, Qatar, UAE and Bahrain, as well as Navy ships with missile defense systems in and around the Mediterranean, officials said.

The chairman of the U.S. military's Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Mike Mullen, said last month the Pentagon must have military options ready to counter Iran should Obama call for them.

"The chairman has made it clear many times that he remains concerned about the ballistic missile threat posed by Iran, but it would be inappropriate to discuss any mitigation or defense measures we might have in place to deter/defeat that threat," a spokesman for Mullen said.

read more: http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE60U18R20100201?type=politicsNews

[ixion]

1. that stupid thing never has had REAL success in any test

at least that I've read about.

[M155Y_A1CH]

7. Yep,

the successful tests were the result of enabling the interceptor with a radio beacon from the "enemy" missile. If we can get our enemies to radio tag their missiles so we can hit them, this system will work great.

[Statistical]

14. Got any evidence of that nonesense?

[no limit]

2. Yup, but lets just keep pumping billions in to this for another decade or 2

Im sure it will eventually work.

[Statistical]

3. Kinda bad timing but they are unrelated technologies.

The ground based interceptor is a terminal phase interceptor. The most challenging and least likely to succeed phase. It attempts to hit an incoming missile at speeds in excess of Mach 5 with a margin of error measured in seconds. Basically like trying to hit a bullet in the sky with another bullet and you are only given 3 seconds to prepare. The only advantage of terminal phase intercept is that you can (if ever successful) stop a missile from hitting the US no matter where or when it is launched.

The patriot batteries and ships in Middle East have boost phase intercept mission. In boost phase the target missile in generally going straight up, is relatively slow, and is very hot. Much easier to hit. The disadvantage is you must be in range of the missile's launching site (not destination) and thus in a surprise launch there may be no boost phase interceptors in range.

[bigtree]

5. so no actual 'shield'

. . . yet. This just reeks of posturing, something which the Iranians constantly do with their forces as a matter of course. It's hard to see what purpose this actually serves when there isn't any overt threat from Iran against any of these nations, and the risk from a prospective nuke doesn't seem to be addressed by this hodgepodge of launchers scattered about. It just serves as provocation, in my view. I guess that's why there's this endless search for a blanket of protection with the ability to detect missiles sooner and more effectively target them. It's just a waste of time to spend all this energy and resource on defending against Iran, though. No weapon, no threat. This just makes no sense, to me.

[ddeclue]

4. The system is not as BAD as WE claim NOR as GOOD as THEY claim.

It can sometimes shoot down some missiles.

It's worth spending some money on.

It's not something that will knock down every missile and should NOT be something we pin all our hopes on. Better to think of it as a last resort desperation defense in the case that something gets launched at us one day and keep on working on diplomacy.

[Statistical]

6. Well said.

If I had a nuke hurtling towards my home town at 20 times the speed of sound I would rather have a 50/50 chance of stopping it than a 0% but I would even more rather no nuke was every launched to begin with.

[county worker]

11. They don't launch one nuke at a time.

You will be killed no matter whether one missile was hit or not. This is just a waste of money.

[bigtree]

8. you think China or Russia might launch one?

. . . or Iran might attack Alaska with their imagined nuke?

[county worker]

10. It has never shot down a missile on it own without help.

I live near Vandenberg and we use to watch the launches then go listen to the results. Sometimes the test was delayed do to bad weather. The target usually has a homing device on it and a near miss is considered a success. There has never been a successful hit of the kind it would take to defend this nation with a missile defense.

[Statistical]

12. That is just nonesense. The track record is bad but your is pure fantasy

There have only been 5 launches since all the components were assembled into the Ground Based Interceptor. Tests prior to that were individual component tests.

Of the 5 full system tests 3 of 5 have been hits. The system is hit-to-kill. It has no proximity sensor, it has no explosive warhead it basically causes a traffic accident in space. When you have two objects traveling that fast a lot of kinetic energy is released when they collide.

FTG-02 (September 1, 2006 - Hit to kill target missile)
FTG-03A (September 28, 2007 - Hit to kill target missile)
FTG-05 (December 5, 2008 - Hit to kill target missile)

http://www.mda.mil/global/documents/pdf/08news0090.pdf

The most recent test FTG-06 the sea-based X band radar essentially sent the interceptor to the wrong part of the sky. The interceptor detected no threat because it was in the completely wrong part of the sky.

[county worker]

17. The reports of success are not the type of success that it would take to defend against an incoming

missile.

[county worker]

9. When the target is hit it us usually because the interceptor is helped to find the target.

[Statistical]

13. Why wouldn't the interceptor be helped?

The system is designed such that the X-band radar, early warning radar, and ground based radars all provide location data to the interceptor.

The interceptor has a windows of a couple seconds to find, identify, close, and hit the target missile.

[county worker]

16. The target had a homing device that a real target would not have.

[hack89]

15. Different system, different technologies - apples and oranges.

AEGIS is very effective with many successful test shots - that's what is in the Gulf. The failed test involved Ground Base Interceptors - based only in Alaska and nothing to do with the systems in the Gulf.