Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Pentagon to take next step in building missile defense program
Bakersfield Californian ^ | 12/3/04 | AP - Washington

Posted on 12/03/2004 5:31:04 PM PST by NormsRevenge

WASHINGTON (AP) - The military will install a long-range missile interceptor in a silo at Vandenberg Air Force Base, Calif., next Tuesday, the Pentagon said.

The interceptor is part of the Bush administration's missile defense program, designed to shoot down incoming ballistic missiles fired from North Korea or elsewhere in eastern Asia.

It is the first interceptor to be placed at Vandenberg. Six other interceptors are already in place at the primary site in Fort Greely, Alaska; the Vandenberg site will receive a second missile this month.

The multibillion-dollar system is still being tested. The military has no date set to activate the missile defenses, but says it intends to put them on alert by the end of the year.

The system includes a tracking radar on the Aleutian island of Shemya in Alaska, an early warning radar at Beale Air Force Base, Calif., and command centers at Colorado Springs, Colo., and Fort Greely. It also will rely on early warning satellites to detect missile launches.

A Navy destroyer has begun patrolling the Sea of Japan with an upgraded Aegis radar capable of tracking North Korean missile launches and feeding information to the missile defense network.

Critics say the system has not been tested properly and has yet to prove it would work in a crisis. Military officials describe the system as still experimental but insist it will be ready to function in a crisis.


TOPICS: Foreign Affairs; Government; Politics/Elections; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: building; interceptor; missile; missiledefense; nextstep; pentagon; program

1 posted on 12/03/2004 5:31:05 PM PST by NormsRevenge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge

Greeley construction was $380 million this year.


2 posted on 12/03/2004 5:32:25 PM PST by RightWhale (Destroy the dark; restore the light)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RightWhale

foot warmers and ear muffs aren't cheap these days .. ;-)


3 posted on 12/03/2004 5:37:31 PM PST by NormsRevenge (Semper Fi ...... The War on Terrorism is the ultimate 'faith-based' initiative.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge

We're not happy unless our cuffs are full of snow. The only good thing about when it warms up is that it will probably snow some more and then get really cold.


4 posted on 12/03/2004 5:39:39 PM PST by RightWhale (Destroy the dark; restore the light)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge

Between this and the Navy's SM Block IV capabilities...we may start actually getting past MAD.


5 posted on 12/03/2004 5:44:43 PM PST by Jeff Head (www.dragonsfuryseries.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge
Critics say the system has not been tested properly and has yet to prove it would work in a crisis.

Yeah? Well, that's what critics do all right! What to the folks that know say?

6 posted on 12/03/2004 5:50:30 PM PST by Coyoteman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Head
The SM-3 has already been installed on a few Aegis vessels. This was done just about the time we started patrolling the Sea of Japan.
7 posted on 12/03/2004 5:51:18 PM PST by ProudVet77 (Just say NO to blue states.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge

Does this thing even work?

What happens if the enemy tries to knock out the radar system first?


8 posted on 12/03/2004 5:52:15 PM PST by Fishing-guy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman

Why does every story seem to include the critics? The critics did nothing but run their mouths.


9 posted on 12/03/2004 5:52:59 PM PST by RightWhale (Destroy the dark; restore the light)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Fishing-guy

The attacker has to hit the defenses first, and then the surprise is over. Surprise has been the big deal since Sputnik. End of the era.


10 posted on 12/03/2004 5:55:08 PM PST by RightWhale (Destroy the dark; restore the light)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Fishing-guy
Does it work? In test environments , Yes.

In the initial tests , there were some failures, but keep in mind, it utilizes a lot of new technologies to do the job and there are a lot of variables involved.

Will it work when 'needed'?

Here's some issues raised by the Union of Concerned Scientists web site re: Countermeasures: The Achilles Heel of Missile Defenses

11 posted on 12/03/2004 6:06:01 PM PST by NormsRevenge (Semper Fi ...... The War on Terrorism is the ultimate 'faith-based' initiative.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: ProudVet77
Between the SM-2 Block IVA's and the SM-3 Block IVA's, operating in the Area-Wide and Theater-Wide modes, we're going to continually build up our defenses. I believe some of both are already deployed...and they have had successful tests.

Just need to build more missiles. One downside is that when operating in the BMD mode, their normal AEGIS mode operations are impacted. Most CBG's are deployed with 2-3 Aegis escorts now anyway so that will work for the CBG's...I imagine the BMD pickets in the Sea of Japan, and later eslewhere, will have a Burke close by just in case.

The LEAP technology is awesome.

12 posted on 12/03/2004 6:14:30 PM PST by Jeff Head (www.dragonsfuryseries.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge
"Will it work when 'needed'?"

It will work a whole lot better than 'Plan B'.

13 posted on 12/03/2004 6:20:13 PM PST by norwaypinesavage
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: norwaypinesavage

Yeah, Plan B. Put your head between your legs and kiss your butt goodbye.


14 posted on 12/03/2004 6:26:11 PM PST by sd-joe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

I'm afraid this missile defense won't pass the global test. What do we do then?


15 posted on 12/03/2004 6:36:41 PM PST by sullivan-fan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge

"Critics say the system has not been tested properly and has yet to prove it would work in a crisis."

Better to do nothing, eh.

Of course one thing we do know for sure: A missile attack on the US is going to occur. Don't know when. Don't know from what quarter. But sooner or later some whacko(s) will take a shot. When it happens I prefer to have an interception system that might work rather than having to rely on stacking a bunch of liberals on my roof to buffer the blow.


16 posted on 12/05/2004 9:10:58 AM PST by hauerf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge

Yup, those concerned scientists may as well tell the enemy how to build effective countermeasures.

The systems are designed to detect and terminate simple balistic missiles. In small numbers. Reagan tried to explain to Russia that the anti missile system was not directed against them, and maybe they finally got that message.

The system can detect and engage a large number of attacing missiles, (Provided there are an equal number of defensive missiles in place), but there is a number beyond which the defense will be overwhelmed. (The number is of course "classified" so the concerned scientists, if they know it cannot say it.)

The system is designed to detect a "real" warhead in the sky with a number of other bodies nearby--the first stage motor, separation debris, etc. But it does look with radar and IR. The combination weeds out items that don't have enough mass to be a warhead. Sending decoy warheads causes the attacker to reduce the size of the real warhead. Likewise, complicated cooling systems that deny the atmospheric heating of ascent reduce the size of the potential warhead. So the system is designed to be in place upgradeable with new software to exploit the features of the next enemy design. Well, this is a lot of work, and implies a team of software prople standing by. But this could be done if needed.

So will it work? Yes. Can it be defeated by a determined enemy? Yes, but at high cost. Does it cost too much? No, saving one target justifies the cost, especially if you live it it.


17 posted on 12/05/2004 9:25:14 AM PST by KC_for_Freedom (Sailing the highways of America, and loving it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson