Posted on 04/06/2007 8:55:11 AM PDT by RDTF
Lieutenant General Henry “Trey” Obering, Missile Defense Agency director, announced today the completion of a successful intercept test for the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) ballistic missile defense element at the Pacific Missile Range Facility off the island of Kauai in Hawaii. This test involved the successful intercept of a “mid endo-atmospheric” (inside earth’s atmosphere) unitary (non-separating) target representing a “SCUD”-type ballistic missile launched from a mobile platform positioned off Kauai in the Pacific Ocean. The interceptor was launched from the THAAD launch complex at the Pacific Missile Range Facility. This was the 26th successful “hit to kill” intercept for elements of the Ballistic Missile Defense System since 2001, and the third successful THAAD intercept in the current program phase. The target missile was launched at approximately 8:42 p.m. Hawaii Time, April 5 (2:42 a.m. EDT April 6). Approximately three minutes later the THAAD interceptor missile was launched and approximately two minutes later the intercept occurred over the Pacific Ocean. Soldiers of the U.S. Army’s 6th Air Defense Artillery Brigade stationed at Fort Bliss, Texas operated all THAAD equipment during the test, conducting operations of the launcher, fire control and communications and radar. Their interaction with the complete THAAD system provided valuable test and operations experience for the soldiers and enhanced the operational realism of the test. This was the first THAAD interceptor mission that was considered a Ballistic Missile Defense System (BMDS) test, meaning that more than one element of the BMDS participated in the test. One of the objectives of this test was demonstrating successful beyond-line-of-sight communications with a radar aboard a U.S. Navy Aegis ship, as well as communications links with the Command, Control, Battle Management and Communications (C2BMC) system and the U.S. Air Force Space-Based Infrared Sensors (SBIRS) system.
-snip-
(Excerpt) Read more at mda.mil ...
“Somewhere Ronald Reagan is smiling.”
You betcha!
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.
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.
Given the right technology it's not difficult at all.
Like you say, They got much better as time and technology advanced.
I miss Mr. Reagan.
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 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!
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!
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.
Then 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"
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.
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.
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)
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.
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.
Which country is preparing a wave of thousands of missiles?
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.