[Diogenesis]

Obama weaponized terrorists and frees criminals
and TERRORIZES Americans using the IR”S”, DO”J” and N”S”A.

The EXEMPT Congress laughs, and
remains silent and EXEMPT.

[G Larry]

First we would need an administration who gave a damn about American security and defense.

[skeeter]

I'm not sure what to think of this article - does the writer have a point about the SM3-IIB or is this another hack who never met a weapons system he liked in favor of more social spending?

Missile defense by its nature has to be cutting edge on the other hand the entrenched interests in the defense industry are legendary.

[ThunderSleeps]

I think the author has a vested interest in the GBI program of some sort. He praises the SM-3 program, then says we should focus on the GBIs rather than the block SM-3 IIBs?

Let's compare... GBIs - fixed land based silos requiring lots of infrastructure and protection. IIBs - "Aegis Ashore" capable, but also mobile in dozens of Aegis/VLS equipped cruisers and destroyers. GBIs - $90 million each (one source said $400 million each with development costs amortized). IIBs - I could not find a source for this, but other SM-3 variants are running around $24 to $30 million. Even if the IIB doubles the cost, at $60 million each they are still cheaper.

I would also compare their respective track records at intercept tests - which would support the point I'm trying to make. However I feel that would be unfair as the GBI and current SM-3s have been doing different kinds of testing. GBIs are intended to go after ICBM class (high speed & altitude) targets. The current versions of SM-3 are intended to intercept short to medium range targets. (generally not as much altitude nor speed) So the tests they have undergone are similar, but different in some key areas. Also, because of the costs of the missiles the SM-3s have been able to be test fired more often. The more you test (successful intercept or not), the more you learn and the more you advance. (something to keep in mind as we laugh at NK's missile failures - they are learning even as they fail)

So the upshot is, I don't understand why the author is promoting the GBIs over the SM-3 IIBs. Seems to me (from my Monday morning QB position) the SM-3s offer similar capabilities, more deployment options, and lower costs. Why wouldn't we push forward with their development?

[Kodos the Executioner]

The problems that first came up in the 70s when ABM defenses were first seriously discussed, and in the 80s when SDI came about, are STILL with us!

- Tracking: Can we reliably track an ICBM/SLBM and its MIRVed warheads? Is what we’re seeing REALLY a missile?

- Choice of weapon: Kinetic-energy weapons (bullet hitting a bullet) are not the best choice for a really reliable system. At orbital velocities, if you miss by six inches, you might as well have missed by a mile. Beam/energy weapons are better, which leads us to...

- Power requirements: To run your computers/trackers, and to run your beam weapons. Chemical lasers don’t last long. Do you really want to lift tons upon tons of power generators into orbit?

- the “kill window”; Mid-course and terminal phase of a ballistic missile’s flight are the WORST time to intercept it. Small, fast, and manuvering. BEST time is launch and boost phase. Big, slow, easy to see. Is an enemy really going to let you park a defense platform right over their head?

Could our missile-killer be mobile, penetrating enemy territory in time of conflict?

Jeez, I been reading too many techno-thrillers lately...

(and of course this does little to nothing for cruise missles.. just sayin’)