Posted on 11/05/2018 12:17:49 PM PST by ETL
A U.S.-Japanese interceptor successfully shot down a test ballistic missile over Hawaii. It was the second-ever success for the joint missile defense program, and a stunning technological accomplishment. Also, the whole thing was captured on video.
The interceptor, called the Standard Missile-3 Block IIA, destroys targets with sheer force, rather than an explosive warhead, and according to its manufacturer Raytheon, the interceptor's "kill vehicle" (a projectile) rams into a ballistic missile with the force of a 10-ton truck traveling 600 mph (965 km/h).
But does any of this make the U.S. (or Japan) any safer? Are American cities less likely to be struck by nuclear missiles now?
That's a much tougher question to answer.
This second-ever success for the SM-3 missile interceptor follows two public (and embarrassing) failures for the program, during which the interceptors failed to hit their targets. As Defense News reported, the first test in February 2017 was successful, but a second test in June 2017 failed after a sailor "accidentally triggered the missile’s self-destruct feature." A third test, in January, failed to hit the target.
As Jefferey Lewis, a nuclear expert and Director of the East Asia Nonproliferation Program at the Middlebury Institute of International Studies at Monterey, has noted several times on his podcast, this track record isn't particularly inspiring for a program tasked with protecting cities from nuclear fireballs.
The task of hitting a nuclear missile that's shooting through space with an interceptor is incredibly difficult. The missile itself moves at blistering speeds and is relatively tiny in the vastness of space. The SM-3 must move even faster, and travel at a near-perfect trajectory, to smash into its target. It's often compared to shooting a bullet with a bullet. The interceptor, theoretically capable of being launched from sea or land, uses radar data transmitted to it from land to home in on its target.
Lewis has noted previously that even the low success rate of defense systems like the SM-3 makes them look more capable than they may really be. In the real world, a nuclear attack probably wouldn't involve just one missile. It probably wouldn't occur in the ideal weather conditions during which these tests are scheduled. And it might come from an unexpected location or travel along an unexpected trajectory. It's unclear how an interceptor that has a 50-percent or so success rate during tests would perform in that sort of real-world scenario.
Folks involved with the SM-3 program have a more optimistic take on the tests. Missile Defense Agency Director Lt. Gen. Sam Greaves told reporters in March that even failures represent learning opportunities for the program, and that it will ultimately make the U.S. safer. The goal is to eventually station SM-3s in Poland, Romania and Japan. A May 2018 report from the Government Accountability Office put the interceptor's price tag at $39 million.
Meanwhile, as Live Science has reported previously, some experts believe that efforts to expand U.S. missile defenses have triggered Russian investment into bizarre new forms of nuclear weapons designed to avoid such defenses.
Originally published on Live Science.
Spartan
There are currently 400 Minuteman III ICBMs sitting on Alert and ready to fly at a moments notice. Another 50 Launch facilities can be loaded and ready to go in a very short time.
“The old (obsolete?) Minuteman III missile had a re-entry speed of around 17,000 mph (almost 8 km/s)...
Fast missiles aren’t new.
“steering” ANYTHING moving at that speed isn’t done.”
Sure about that? Something tells me you are only guessing and have no credentials to make such a statement.
We do not have the capability with both the technology, coupled with the decision-making process, to intercept during the boost phase.
I know this, FRiend. 90 SMW.
Something tells me you are only guessing and have no credentials to make such a statement.
See #12
...until you find out that in such a situation the Metalstorm-like box will only have some of the first layer of rounds go even vaguely towards the target as the recoil will push it out of line. Remember, it’s only attached to a missile.
To be fair, we do if the enemy is stupid enough to drive the launcher onto the beach and launch it over the ocean with an Aegis BMD cruiser watching from international waters.
“So what’s your concern with my “credentials”?
Is it my years of service in missileering, or my multi-decade engineering career, or my PhD that you consider sub-par? You just don’t know me, FRiend.”
Don’t hide the above comments by sending them via FReepmail. That’s just creepy. If you’ve got something to say then publicly say it.
Total amateur nonsense. Since we do have maneuverable warheads, all you nonsense is just silly “look at me” attention seeking.
381st SMW, 321st SMW.
No interest in “hiding” anything, but I do choose what I share about myself.
This one’s a freebie though: I also am an honorable man. Too bad you aren’t.
Live and learn, I suppose.
Thank you sir, for your service and commitment.
“This one’s a freebie though: I also am an honorable man. Too bad you aren’t.”
How is anything I have done not honorable, Sunshine?
You tried to hide via FReepermail and I didn’t let you, so now you’re upset? Is that it?
Don’t try to BS on FreeRepublic. There’s far too many expert on here for you to get away with it.
True. But you might use an off-center recoil to position it for the followup shots and spray the area.
I sent you a greenmail to answer your question. It was a private response because I do not choose to boast about my accomplishments or my military service publicly. The fact that you confuse this with “hiding” tells far more about you than it does about me.
Nothing I said is untrue. I served in the United States Air Force, 90th Strategic Missile Wing (at that time) Frances E. Warren AFB, Wyoming. 12 years of my life, committed to the defense of this nation and quite a bit immersed in ICBM technology.
Since leaving the service, I’ve been an engineer in both title and in practice.
Also noteworthy, I do hold a doctorate degree, that I earned in 2009.
If this doesn’t please you, I don’t care. You are (in my humble opinion) a dishonorable piece of crap for taking this public, when it was clearly intended as an aside to the forum discussion.
Like I said, Live and Learn.
Also, don’t “warn” me about the experts on FR.... You don’t even know who we are.
“a dishonorable piece of crap for taking this public”
So, your supposed life is crap? OK by me, but I call BS to your entire story.
“Also, don’t “warn” me about the experts on FR.... You don’t even know who we are.”
It’s obvious you’re not one of those I referred to.
QED
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.