Wow, I am getting old. We thought we were superbad when we got the SM-2 on my old ship.
Naw.. It'll never work. What, it works? Never mind.
This will raise eyebrows in Beijing.
Staff and news reports
BARKING SANDS, Kauai » For the first time, a Pearl Harbor-based ship launched a missile yesterday that successfully destroyed a dummy warhead from a medium-range missile.
The launch, the seventh test for Aegis, the maritime component of the Ballistic Missile Defense System, was the first time a multistage rocket was used. The previous tests, six of which were successful, all involved single-structure targets representative of Scud-type ballistic missiles.
Cont'd at LINK.
A 3 (SM-3) missile is launched from the Pearl Harbor-based Aegis cruiser USS Lake Erie (CG 70), during a joint Missile Defense Agency, U.S. Navy ballistic missile flight test November 17, 2005. Minutes later, the SM-3 intercepted a separating ballistic missile threat target, launched from the Pacific Missile Range Facility, Barking Sands, Kauai, Hawaii. The test was the sixth intercept, in seven flight tests, by the Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense, the maritime component of the 'Hit-to-Kill' Ballistic Missile Defense System, being developed by the Missile Defense Agency. FOR EDITORIAL USE ONLY REUTERS/U.S. Navy Photo/Handout
This photo provided by the U.S. Navy shows a Standard Missile - 3 or SM-3, as it is launched from the guided-missile cruiser USS Lake Erie during a joint Missile Defense Agency, U.S. Navy ballistic missile flight test Thursday, Nov. 17, 2005, off Hawaii. Minutes later, the SM-3 intercepted a separating ballistic missile threat target, launched from the Pacific Missile Range Facility, Barking Sands, Kauai, Hawaii. The launch was part of a test by the Navy to intercept and destroy a warhead as it separated from its booster rocket. This is the first time a ship at sea has shot down a multi-stage missile. (AP Photo/U.S. Navy)
Posted 19 July, 2004
What About the Other Missile Threat?
Ballistic missile defense is a hot topic these days. The U.S. Missile Defense Agency, responsible for building a missile defense shield, gets copious funding (nearly $10 billion this year) and lots of attention. The threat is real. Eighty-eight Scud missiles were fired at coalition forces and Israel during the first Persian Gulf War. One of them killed 28 U.S. soldiers and wounded 97 more in a barracks at Dhahran, Saudi Arabia.
But cruise missiles, the poor cousins of ballistic missiles like the Scud, are a growing and far more serious threat. Unfortunately, little is being done about it.
The focus on ballistic missiles is understandable, especially if they are armed with weapons of mass destruction (WMD). Although these missiles are still a concern, the United States is devising technologies to deal with them.
Last year in Iraq, Saddam's forces launched nine ballistic missiles against coalition forces; all were detected by U.S. space-based sensors and then intercepted by Patriot missiles.
Efforts against cruise missiles were not as successful.
The Iraqis launched five cruise missiles against the coalition — one of them hit a hotel in Kuwait City. None of these missiles was even detected, much less intercepted, by U.S. defensive systems.
What if these cruise missiles had been armed with anthrax?
Hard to Spot
Cruise missiles are difficult to detect on the ground because of their small size and lack of extensive support equipment. When launched, they don't generate the dramatic fire plume like ballistic missiles that can be detected by satellites.
In the air, they fly slowly at low altitude, hiding behind terrain and following an irregular and unpredictable path. Normal "look-down" radar cannot distinguish them from ground clutter, and Patriot's radar would not pick these low flyers up until it was too late.
Today there are more than 75,000 cruise missiles — some with ranges of 300 miles — located in 70 countries. Several dozen nations manufacture these missiles, and many are in the export business. The United States, for example, has sold its Harpoon missile to 23 countries.
But it's not friends and allies the United States worries about.
Russia and China export cruise missiles, which have been acquired by North Korea, Iran, Libya and Syria. Have any ended up in the hands of al-Qaida?
There are international agreements in place to prevent the proliferation of such weapons, but they are of limited effectiveness. At least half of the countries that export cruise missiles are not signatories to these agreements.
Moreover, the relative simplicity and low cost of cruise missile technology makes it easy for the required components to "slip beneath the radar" of intelligence agencies that attempt to monitor their proliferation.
One enterprising New Zealander built a cruise missile, using components obtained commercially, that can deliver a 22-pound payload over 100 miles away — for only $5,000.
This entrepreneur has his own Web site that gives advice on how to obtain the guidance systems and the light but powerful engines needed for cruise missiles. He has been contacted by people in Iran, Pakistan, Lebanon and China.
Because of their low costs and simplicity, an adversary could buy thousands of these weapons to use against U.S. forces, making it difficult for them to deploy to a trouble spot. If U.S. bases were in their range, would we run the risk of another Dhahran-like disaster, especially if these weapons were armed with WMD?
If the United States can't deploy its forces overseas safely, fighting the global war on terror becomes problematic. An even more frightening scenario is for these weapons to fall into the hands of terrorists.
Al-Qaida reportedly has 15 cargo ships at its disposal. On any give day, there are hundreds of such ships off our coast. A Chinese-made Silkworm cruise missile could easily be concealed in, and then launched from, a standard-size cargo container on one of these freighters. If it contained a biological agent, the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11 would pale in comparison.
The technology necessary to detect and track cruise missiles is available but not yet fielded. To make that happen, cruise missile defense needs to be given a higher priority. The 2005 U.S. defense budget allocates a paltry $239 million to cruise missile defense.
It's a good thing that the ballistic missile threat is being seriously addressed. But we cannot continue to ignore the cruise missiles that are potentially even more dangerous.
The Departments of Defense and Homeland Security must join together to develop the airborne sensors needed to detect, identify and track cruise missiles and then destroy them. We must not allow another Dhahran or a repeat of Sept. 11.
By Phillip Meilinger, a senior analyst with Northrop Grumman's Analysis Center and a retired Air Force colonel and pilot. These views are his own and do not represent those of Northrop Grumman.