Skip to comments.
Successful Missile Defense Intercept Test Takes Place Off Hawaii
MDA.MIL ^
| April 6, 2007
| MDA
Posted on 04/06/2007 8:55:11 AM PDT by RDTF
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-45 next last
To: RobbyS
“Somewhere Ronald Reagan is smiling.”
You betcha!
21
posted on
04/06/2007 10:41:35 AM PDT
by
RDTF
(They should have put down Barbarella instead of Barbaro)
To: freemike
The thing is,, we need enough of these to shoot down waves of thousands of missiles.That's not what we are doing. We are building a system that can take down a handfull of missiles shot in our direction by a 'rougue nation'. Russia, & increasingly China, could very cheaply saturate any system that we could build with ballistic hit-to-kill technology.
You'd have to build something like the orbiting "Brilliant Pebbles" system to take out a larger attack. The technology for that is still largely on the drawing boards from what I understand.
22
posted on
04/06/2007 10:44:54 AM PDT
by
Tallguy
To: RDTF
This is a really big deal for the nation!
In the past, treaties prohibited missile defense systems from using satellite acquisition, tracking, and targeting data.
It sounds stupid, but all of those treaties were in fact stupid.
In each case they handcuffed the U.S., while our enemies ignored the agreements with impunity.
23
posted on
04/06/2007 10:49:04 AM PDT
by
G Larry
(Only strict constructionists on the Supreme Court!)
To: GrandEagle
Like I said, a head on shot against a target as small and fast as an incoming missile is extremely difficult. Given the right technology it's not difficult at all.
Like you say, They got much better as time and technology advanced.
24
posted on
04/06/2007 10:57:18 AM PDT
by
Moonman62
(The issue of whether cheap labor makes America great should have been settled by the Civil War.)
To: Tallguy
I got in at the very end and worked a bit with the 9E and the 7E on the F4's. I believe my original post I got them mixed up - your right. The 7E was fairly pathetic.
I then moved on the the F15's and the 9 J/J1. The F15 also moved up to the 7F. In theory the 7F had a much better kill ratio. The 9J1 was a vast improvement over the 9E but had a tendency for the influence to come unscrewed in a rapid, hi-G turn on the F-15.
The 9L solved this problem by changing the way the missile parts mated together. The 9L was the hot thing when I got out. It, among other things, changed the way the reticule was cooled to an argon gas cooling system. This dramatically increased it's sensitivity and it's ability to pick out what it was actually locked on to from the background. There were also significant changes made to the influance fuce so that the 9L was the first 9 that you had much chance at all of making a head on shot (again in theory). In theory they claimed it would hit 8.5 out of 10 targets if the pilot had a good lock on at launch.
Since the Israelis were the only folks that had drawn much blood in combat with the F15 at the time - and they flew their own version of the heat seeker, there were not many combat related firings to back that claim up.
Many times we would fire them at radio controlled F-100's in training with a TM pack instead of the warhead. In those situations, the data seemed to support the claim, but since neither the 9 or the 7 were designed specifically for a direct hit, the results were derived from data on how close it came that was sent back by the TM pack. Not nearly as accurate as watching the target fall out of the sky.
We actually did hit one once - that was cool.
Cordially,GE
To: RobbyS
26
posted on
04/06/2007 11:18:54 AM PDT
by
Frapster
(Don't mind me - I'm distracted by the pretty lights.)
To: Tallguy
Due to its reputation for “no-guiding”, pilots would shoot an AIM-7 (Sparrow) to get the MIG to turn tail, then would launch an AIM-9 (Sidewinder) to get the kill.
27
posted on
04/06/2007 11:22:47 AM PDT
by
RightWingConspirator
(Glad that Ted the Boorish Drunk, Hitlery the Witch and John Fonda/Fraud Kerry are not my senators.)
To: RightWingConspirator
I was cleaning out my garage a few months ago and found an old cargo box I built for my motorcycle gee... must be 30 years ago. Inside it I found a couple of Sidwinder PR Stickers. I stuck one on the back of my pickup - it still stuck!
To: GrandEagle
You participated in some fascinating work!
It's really amazing that they put that much faith in early guided missiles -- so much so that they took the guns out of the aircraft. Imagine the feeling of helplessness when you lockup a MiG on Radar & your AIM-7 won't even ignite, or you manage to get a Sidewinder tone only to have the missle defeated by a background heatsource or a modest High-Gee turn? On top of that the other guy is shooting guns at you!
29
posted on
04/06/2007 11:46:42 AM PDT
by
Tallguy
To: RightWingConspirator
Due to its reputation for no-guiding, pilots would shoot an AIM-7 (Sparrow) to get the MIG to turn tail, then would launch an AIM-9 (Sidewinder) to get the kill.
I'd never heard that, but I find it completely plausible. Kinda the dogfighting equivalent of 'suppressing fire'. Kinda hurts the stats, though. If you're not maintaining the radar lock (because you have no expectation of success) then some missiles 'failed to track' for reasons other than the ones that the manufacturer was aware of.
30
posted on
04/06/2007 11:51:48 AM PDT
by
Tallguy
To: freemike; Tallguy; MrB
What would happen should they lob hundreds hour after hourThen NORAD is a complete failure in that case.
After the initial attack wave, you're in a hot war and we'd better be saturating targets in the attacker's backyard before "hour after hour"
31
posted on
04/06/2007 12:03:32 PM PDT
by
sam_paine
(X .................................)
To: Robert A. Cook, PE
I like to prepare for the worse. I figure,, if I can think it, so can the enemy. Yes,, these tests are centered on shooting down a missile from a rogue nation. That is the main threat we face today. And certainly, something is better than nothing. But, in the long term,, we need to prepare for a massive major attack from the likes of China or Russia. And we can and should deploy these interceptors, or whatever other defenses we can imagine, in millions around our nation or in space.
32
posted on
04/06/2007 12:14:41 PM PDT
by
freemike
To: sam_paine
Well, without massive defenses that can keep the threat away from our silos,, would we be able to successfully make counter launches in an atmosphere filled with nuclear explosions?? I really think that China or Russia,, should they ever consider a nuclear war, will not waste sending over just 20 or 30 ICBMs in this stupid “first strike,, second strike” scenario. I think they will go for broke, lobbing them by the hundreds or thousands hour after hour, and we need to have defenses to prepare for that. Why has this possibility never been talked about? Most likely, as well, they have far more missiles than we even think.
33
posted on
04/06/2007 12:26:25 PM PDT
by
freemike
To: sam_paine
Reminds me of the story about when Eisenhower sent his science advisor to meet with Gen. Curtis LeMay, Commander Strategic Air Command.
Science Advisor: How much warning prior to a Soviet nuclear attact do you anticipate?
LeMay: Considering that I’m overflying them almost daily, I should have around 5 - 6 Days warning.
Science Advisor: Then what?
LeMay: Then I’m going to knock the sh— out of them before they can attack.
Science Advisor: ... you mean after you get presidential authoization?
LeMay: (silence)
34
posted on
04/06/2007 12:28:46 PM PDT
by
Tallguy
To: Tallguy
Our guys sure had great big brass ones for sure!
They still managed to stay ahead of the MIG 21's even without a gun!
I guess that's what happend (taking the gun out) when those who don't fight make decidions for those who do.
It sure was a lot of fun and I met men who were taller than life.
Cordially,
GE
To: freemike
Why has this possibility never been talked about?Are you out of your mind? " Never been talked about?" LOL. Did you sleep through the entire Cold War/Mutually Assured Destruction thing?
A) Missile Defense IS NOT FOR DETERRING MASSIVE STRIKES
B) Missile defense is for catching limited rogue strikes and suckerpunches that cannot be deterred by MAD stratgies!
There will not ever be a scenario of "hour upon hour" of launches against the US, no matter the actors. If a large strike begins, a large retaliation will launch before the attack missiles even reenter. If not, then all the money spent on missile command was worthless.
36
posted on
04/06/2007 12:49:54 PM PDT
by
sam_paine
(X .................................)
To: freemike
I really think that China or Russia,, should they ever consider a nuclear war, will not waste sending over just 20 or 30 ICBMs in this stupid first strike,, second strike scenario. I think they will go for broke, lobbing them by the hundreds or thousands hour after hour, and we need to have defenses to prepare for that. Why has this possibility never been talked about? Most likely, as well, they have far more missiles than we even think.Not necessarily so... one of the 'unknowables' in a nuclear war is called 'fratricide' -- or the tendency of the first nuclear detonation to disable warheads coming in close behind. There's know way to know for sure if a mass first-strike would be as effective as a smaller strike (or a series of smaller attacks).
Then you have to consider the effects of fallout. A larger strike will have considerably greater blowback on the attacker.
Bottom line: an all-out strike is usually a final (retaliatory) action.
37
posted on
04/06/2007 12:50:53 PM PDT
by
Tallguy
To: Tallguy
Bottom line: an all-out strike is usually a final (retaliatory) action. Usually??? We are talking about something that has never happened yet. So,, we really have no idea what an all out nuclear war would become. Only that it would be very , very bad. We need a defense that will allow us plenty of time to retaliate. With margins of error in minutes,, we should have as much defense as possible.
38
posted on
04/06/2007 1:18:24 PM PDT
by
freemike
To: sam_paine
A) Missile Defense IS NOT FOR DETERRING MASSIVE STRIKES Why not?? Maybe missile defense should and could be a deterrent. Sorry,, but the usual scenarios during the cold war were "first strike,, second strike." In other words, they fire 20 or 30 ICBMs at us,, we then launch 20 or 30 at them, or whatever number, and so on. Make it a hundred for each strike, if you want. The whole premise behind MAD was we had the ability to strike them after they struck us. Yes, I realize we have the ability to launch before a single missile lands on our nation. My point is,, has anyone considered the possibility that once the missiles begin to fall, they might not stop for several days? Why not make a defense based on that possibility. I think this whole concept of MAD was a mistake. We ought to have the mind to win a nuclear war. Our defenses should be massive. We are talking about the survival of the nation. A missile defense should consider the possibility of thousands of missiles raining down on us for hours or days.
39
posted on
04/06/2007 1:40:40 PM PDT
by
freemike
To: freemike
The thing is,, we need enough of these to shoot down waves of thousands of missilesWhich country is preparing a wave of thousands of missiles?
40
posted on
04/06/2007 2:45:01 PM PDT
by
Ernest_at_the_Beach
(The DemonicRATS believe ....that the best decisions are always made after the fact.)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-45 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson