Posted on 02/24/2005 5:55:22 PM PST by familyop
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A missile fired from a U.S. Navy ship off Kauai, Hawaii, intercepted and destroyed a mock warhead on Thursday, the fifth success in six such test of the fledgling U.S. anti-missile shield's sea-based leg, the Pentagon announced.
"We had a successful hit-to-kill intercept," said Richard Lehner, a spokesman for the Pentagon's Missile Defense Agency.
The target was tracked from the cruiser Lake Erie using the Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense Weapon System developed by Lockheed Martin Corp. It was launched from the U.S. Pacific Missile Range Facility at Barking Sands, Kauai.
The ship fired a Standard Missile (SM)-3 at the target outside the earth's atmosphere during the descent phase of flight, Lockheed said. Raytheon Co. is developing the SM-3.
The Defense Department plans to field up to 30 SM-3 missiles on Aegis-equipped ships by 2007 to destroy short- and medium-range ballistic missiles in mid-flight. Other systems are being developed to defend at different stages.
For the ground-based mid-course leg of ballistic missile defense, managed for the Pentagon by Boeing Co., five of eight shoot down tests have been completed successfully.
Interceptor missiles failed to launch from their silos in the last two ground-based tests because of hardware and software glitches.
The Pentagon plans to spend roughly $10 billion a year over the next five years on all aspects of missile defense. The initial "layered" shield is designed to thwart missiles that could be fired from North Korea, possibly tipped with nuclear, chemical or germ warheads.
Last fall, the Japan-based Arleigh Burke-class destroyer Curtis Wilbur became the first component of the anti-missile shield to be put on patrol in the Sea of Japan to guard against North Korean attack.
Bethesda, Maryland-based Lockheed, the Pentagon's No. 1 supplier, calls Aegis the world's premier naval defense system, capable of defending against air, surface and underwater threats.
Currently deployed on 68 U.S. Navy cruisers and destroyers, the Aegis system is also being supplied to Spain, Japan, South Korea, Norway and Australia.
I searched johnkerry.com, and I believe that following is representative of Senator Kerry's disregard for missile defense:
As President, Kerry Will Build a Realistic, Effective Defense Against Ballistic Missiles. Regarding a sensible missile defense system, John Kerry has stated: “I support the development of an effective defense against ballistic missiles that is deployed with maximum transparency and consultation with U.S. allies and other major powers. If there is a real potential of a rogue nation firing missiles at any city in the United States, responsible leadership requires that we make our best, most thoughtful efforts to defend against that threat. The same is true of accidental launch. If it were to happen, no leader could ever explain not having chosen to defend against the disaster when doing so made sense. I opposed the Bush Administration’s decisions to proceed with early deployment of a national missile defense system and to abrogate the ABM treaty, destroying an important arms control achievement while also doing damage to important international relationships.”Kerry Will Streamline Large Weapons Programs Such as Missile Defense To Pay For Larger Army—Will Add 40,000 Troops to Active Duty, Not Iraq. John Kerry will add 40,000 troops to the active duty Army to prevent and prepare for other possible conflicts. Kerry will also emphasize electronics, advanced sensors and munitions in a ‘systems of systems’ approach to transformation, reducing total expenditures on missile defense, and further reforming the acquisition process, this proposal can be made budget neutral. [www.JohnKerry.com/issues/national_security/newthreats.html]
Kerry Wants to Shape National Defense to Defend Against Modern Battles—Not Unproven Missile Defense Systems. “Instead of over-relying on weapons and tactics to fight the battles of the past, against enemies out in the desert or on open seas, we must build mobile and modern forces to prevail against terrorists hiding in caves or in the heart of a city. We must broaden our capabilities to create a military ready for any mission, from armored battle to urban warfare to homeland security. Yes, we must invest in missile defense. But not at the cost of other pressing priorities. We cannot afford to spend billions to deploy an unproven missile defense system. Not only is it not ready, but it’s the wrong priority for a war on terror where the enemy strikes with a bomb in the back of a truck, or a vial of anthrax in a briefcase.” [Remarks at the Truman Presidential Library, Independence, MO; AP, 6/3/04]
The above comes from here. The underlining is my own emphasis.
A Kerry Presidency would have been a foreign policy disaster of the first water.
It's a hit !
Fascinating.
Yeah...how was it on the McCloy? My dad was a destroyer man...WWII and Korea. When I was up in the North Atlantic in 1976, I remember seeing one of our escorts, the bow was taking green water, then you could see the screws come out, and the whole time, the ship was rolling and yawing. The water was so whipped up that the surface was white and frothy.
Nobody was allowed on deck, all the planes had 24 point tiedowns. Me and two of my buddies wanted to see what it looked like at the bow, so we went out in the catwalk (keeping our heads down so they couldn't see us from the bridge)
We watched the big, bulbous bow of the carrier come ponderously up out of the water, and TONS and TONS of water cascaded off of it...it was stunningly unbelievable! Then the ship paused, and that bow went back into the water...the only thing I can compare it to is that picture of the North Sea lighthouse with the wave crashing around it....
It looked like the whole bow of the carrier was going to submerge the way the bow entered the water and kept going...the three off us nearly killed each other leaving footprints on each others backs trying to get through the hatch!
Needless to say, we weren't in any danger. No way the bow was even close to going under, but it sure didn't look that way to us. Without a doubt, that was the most vivid memory I have of all the time I spent at sea.
I think some of the successes are being reported as failures to keep our adversaries guessing if it will work or not.
This was helpful, but not a very meaningful or demanding test. The launch target and interceptor were in close proximity, possibly just past the boost phase. More impressive would be an intercept at the beginning of reentry. Lets hope for that soon--then some real cheering should be directed the Chicom way.
You probably nailed that bang on but it will be of no consequence up here. The CBC, Toronto Star and other liberal media will utterly ignore it, and I fully expect to see all manner of smarmy columns in the liberal press shortly about how wise a decison this was...it will never work...weapons in space will harm women and children...you name it.
I'm 42 years old. This is the most stupid, short sighted and cynical decision I've ever seen made by any government. I'm glad I'm a sane man, 'cause I'm really PO'd today. I really didn't think Martin would do this.
We must be getting old. I remember when we were the leading edge of the sword because we had the NEW SM-2's onboard. I am proud to say that I was on the fire-control system for 3 ASROC shots. "Standby, SHOOT!", then a big whoosh. What a blast!
Sure, it's easy to shoot down a dummy missle. What about one that went to college?
The honorable Mr. Ronald Reagan. Thank you for your fearless and bold leadership that helped to bring this vision to reality.
To the honorable Mr. George W. Bush. For upholding the legacy of Americanism, as espoused by President Reagan, and recognizing a good idea when your presented with one.
"Although I consider the decision short-sighted and obtuse (yes, I am Canadian), the government of Canada officially turned down an invitation to involve itself with missle defense today."
I don't know why Canadians are opposed to being involved in this thing. I don't know if there will ever be a realistic defence against large scale missile attacks, but it looks as if there's a realistic chance that this can protect us from smaller attacks. Not that I see anyone flinging missiles at Canada anytime soon, but you never know. Stupid decision, in my opinion.
Now if just one of Pakistan or India were to get hold of this technology in working form some day ...
Just like Jeff Gannon was a fake reporter, this was only a dummy missle according to Reuters.
There was nothing dummy about the missle. It was a genuine ballistic missle, with an inert warhead of course. The dummy description was to minimize the accomplishment.
I don't know why the Canadiens aren't board with this concept either. After all, it is a purely DEFENSIVE undertaking. Seems to me like any nation in the world that doesn't have evil designs in mind would enthusiastically support the development.
I had a top rack on the Berkeley, DDG-15, port side waterline forward. To get into it I had to grab a pipe, swing my legs up, switch to another pipe to swing my butt in, then grab another pipe to slide the rest of my skinny bod into the rack, sliding up under the pipe. When an alarm sounded, I'd bolt up and smack my head on that last pipe, every time.
That said, sleeping on the waterline forward was great. My head was about a foot from the hull. The water rushing by past my head, the gentle rocking of the boat; I've never slept like that before or since. Then again when the boat wasn't "gently" rocking, but was behaving more like a giant was using it in a cruel game of badmitten, well, it would throw me up into that third pipe over my head. Heck of a way to wake up. BAM! OW! (expletives deleted).
Another WLR-1 jockey. :-) I'm probably one of a very few people here that knows what that is. I was an EW on the Berkeley, '80-'81.
Boy, did I ever have that wrong, '81-'83, not '80-'81. Wow. How did I do that?
Subheading: DU swallowed up in a descending ball of fire
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.