Analyzing the Aegis Intercept Test

Real Clear Defense ^ | 23 Jun, 2017 | Thomas Karako

[MtnClimber]

The Missile Defense Agency yesterday conducted an intercept test of the Standard Missile-3 Block IIA (SM-3 IIA), a relatively new interceptor designed for use in the Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD) program. Something appears to have gone wrong, however, and the interceptor did not destroy its target. The type or cause of failure is not yet known, nor will it likely be known for some time. The June 21 test was the fourth flight test and the second intercept attempt of the SM-3 IIA configuration. The previous intercept test in February 2017, by contrast, had been successful in intercepting a medium-range ballistic missile target.

Q1: What is Aegis BMD?

A1: Aegis BMD represents the sea-based component of the Ballistic Missile Defense System. The U.S. Navy currently deploys Aegis BMD on 28 of its Arleigh Burke-class destroyers and 5 of its Ticonderoga-class cruisers. In 2016, the United States activated Aegis BMD capability at a land-based Aegis Ashore site in Devesulu, Romania. A second Aegis Ashore site is under construction in Poland and is scheduled to be completed in 2018.

Like all air and missile defense systems, Aegis includes a mix of interceptors, sensors, and command and control. The primary sensor for the missile defense mission is the SPY-1D radar, an S-band radar housed on the deckhouse. This radar is colocated with the interceptors, meaning that it can support updates to the interceptor within line-of-sight. Some past testing has included longer-range intercept by passing information to Aegis interceptors from external sensors like ground-based TPY-2 radars and space-based Space Tracking and Surveillance System (STSS) satellites............ Besides Aegis, other U.S. missile defense systems include Patriot, Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD), and Ground-based Midcourse Defense.

[MtnClimber]

Interesting article. Looks like there is still more work to do.

[grobdriver]

And this is being made known why?

Having a credible deterrence against Korea's missiles is a good thing.

Fake it 'til you make it!

[Darteaus94025]

Yes, AND if you don’t have a credible defense: maintain deterrence with credible offense, i.e. YUGE nukes and the willingness to use them. That seems to be working.

[MichaelRDanger]

I worked for a couple years at the AEGIS CSEDS outside of Philadelphia in the 80’s. The article suggests a 81% kill probability based upon prior testing. It is extremely unlikely a single missile would be tasked with destroying an incoming nuclear ballistic missile. Even with the occasionally miss “if it flies it dies” with AEGIS.

[shanover]

Put a “simple” Scud on a container ship and sneak it into a harbor will render billion dollar technology worthless.

[MtnClimber]

We still have Aedis SM-2, THADD, Patriot and Midcourse Interceptor.

[fella]

Re,#3;

Considering how infiltrated we are by by those who sympathize with our enemies it’s a wonder they don’t build our stuff before we do. Unless it’s because they want us to pay for their R&D.

[Chode]

cause in a real live incoming missile event we'd only launch ONE SM to intercept it... right???

please, i'm sure there'd be at least a salvo of at least three

[MtnClimber]

This was the new prototype of the 3rd generation Aegis so still lots of testing and modification still to go.

[Chode]

agreed, but you know we’d never send up a single interceptor so what the first one doesn’t hit one of the rest will...

then again it may all be propaganda saying we missed too

[MtnClimber]

Agree. It could be a fake story to get third fatty fat to try something so we can flatten his portion of earth.

[Chode]

100%... Casus belli