U.S. shoots down missile in test near Hawaii

[docta seuss]

CBC News

WASHINGTON - The American military has successfully shot down a missile in a test of its missile defence system conducted off Hawaii.

The USS Lake Erie launched its Standard Missile SM-3 interceptor to knock down a mock warhead fired from a missile range on the island of Kauai, 160 kilometres away, the Pentagon said Thursday.

"We had a successful hit-to-kill intercept," said Richard Lehner, a spokesperson for the U.S. Missile Defense Agency.

This week's test marked the fifth success in a series of six similar tests conducted over oceans.

Land-based ballistic missile defence tests have also been conducted, with five out of eight tests considered a success.

In two of the ground-based tests, interceptors failed to launch from their silos.

By 2007, the U.S. military wants to have 30 SM-3 interceptors based on its ships to shoot down short-range and medium-range ballistic weapons before they can reach North American targets.

The military wants to be prepared should North Korea or another aggressor launch missiles tipped with nuclear, chemical or biological warheads.

The Pentagon is asking for a 20-per-cent boost in funding for the ballistic missile defence program, from $7.7 billion US this year to more than $9 billion US next year.

 

[docta seuss]

i don't even know what to think of this. what exactly is required for a test to be considered a success?

 

[~atp~]

I don't even really care (sorry docta seuss). I mean, for the sake of argument, let's just suppose the U.S. has a 97% success rate with their missile defense systems. Then what? Does that make missile defense more desirable? Do I get to feel safer? Um, no.

 

[docta seuss]

haha, it's not like i'm saying i've done the classic about-face and am suddenly in support of the system, nor do i really care. no apologies necessary.

it's just that all i've heard around here is that the system doesn't work, when in fact the truth it would seem, could possibly be quite to the contrary.

a lot of garbage is thrown around in here by lefties of the extreme variety, so i thought it worth mentioning. if one does not advocate something, even if said something is as rediculous as missile defence, or as morally wrong as the weaponization of space, this is no excuse for the spread of mis/disinformation.

 

[docta seuss]

..and yes, i can be a big hypocrite. shut up.

 

[Subsonic Chronic]

I don't know the circumstances of this particular test, however, in past tests, the U.S. military has done a lot to "help" the interceptor missiles reach their target. They've set tracker beacons in the warheads so that interceptor missiles can more easily find their target, and they are also fully aware of the incomming missile's trajectory before it's even fired.

I would seriously doubt that this test took into account ALL possible variables when a foreign nation lauches an ICBM in our direction.

 

[Bass-Invader]

Do note that this test was part of the Aegis defense system used for Carrier Battle groups. This isn't the same thing as the Ballistic missile defense that the US wants us to help them with.

BMD has the much more difficult task of defending an entire country, where as Aegis just needs to protect a carrier battle group(smaller than countries) at sea.

 

[docta seuss]

i was under the impression that the Aegis' were an integral part of BMD...

 

[docta seuss]

The Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD) Weapon System with its Standard Missile (SM)-3 successfully intercepted a ballistic missile target outside the earth's atmosphere during its descent phase of flight today. The Aegis Weapon System, aboard the guided missile cruiser USS Lake Erie (CG 70), and range sensors confirmed a direct hit of the missile target over the Pacific Ocean. Lockheed Martin develops the Aegis BMD Weapon System and serves as the Combat System Engineering Agent for Aegis BMD. Raytheon Company develops the SM-3.

In addition to USS Lake Erie, the guided missile destroyer USS Russell (DDG 59) participated in today's test. A new Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense Signal Processor (Aegis BSP), installed on the destroyer, conducted real-time detection, tracking and discrimination of the target, as well as analysis of target interception. This is the first time the Aegis BSP was used in an at- sea flight test mission.

This test, Flight Test Mission 04-1, marks the fifth time the Lockheed Martin Aegis BMD Weapon System successfully guided its SM-3 to a ballistic missile target intercept. The test was sponsored by the Missile Defense Agency.

"This was another extraordinary achievement for the Missile Defense Agency and the U.S. Navy," said Fred Moosally, president of Lockheed Martin's Maritime Systems & Sensors business unit. "The Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense team is committed to successfully completing each milestone, and has once again proven the surveillance, tracking and fire control capability of the Aegis BMD Weapon System to meet every new challenge."

The Aegis Weapon System is the world's premier naval surface defense system and is the basis for Aegis BMD, the primary component of the sea-based element of the United States' Ballistic Missile Defense System.

 

[Bass-Invader]

Originally posted by Bass-Invader

BMD has the much more difficult task of defending an entire country, where as Aegis just needs to protect a carrier battle group(smaller than countries) at sea.

 

[Boss Hog]

what an amazing feat, and what a timely, awesome coincidence.

 

[docta seuss]

Originally posted by Bass-Invader
BMD has the much more difficult task of defending an entire country, where as Aegis just needs to protect a carrier battle group(smaller than countries) at sea.

yes, you already said that.

you're totally wrong.

they carry SAM's capable of destoying incoming ICBM's outside the earth's atmosphere. carrier battle groups don't much have to worry about being attacked by ICBM's.

The Missile Defense Agency’s (MDA’s) Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense (Aegis BMD) element of the Ballistic Missile Defense System (BMDS) will, as part of its Initial Defensive Operations, concurrently provide: 1) long range surveillance and track (LRS&T) external sensor capability to the Ground Based Midcourse Defense (GMD) element and the BMDS against Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles (ICBM), 2) hit to kill capability to intercept and destroy short and medium range ballistic missiles in the 2004-2006 timeframe, 3) utilizing technology insertion efforts to expand the Aegis BMD Battlespace to intercept and destroy intermediate range ballistic missiles in the Block 2006 timeframe. Additionally, Aegis BMD will expand the battlespace further by addressing the capability to intercept ballistic missiles lower outside of earth’s atmosphere (exoatmospheric). The Aegis BMD LRS&T capability will be provided via modification to 15 Aegis equipped destroyers while the engagement capability in Block 2004 will be provided via modification to three Aegis BMD cruisers. All will retain their multi-mission warfare capability in addition to the ballistic missile.

 

[AdRiaN]

Originally posted by ~atp~
I don't even really care (sorry docta seuss). I mean, for the sake of argument, let's just suppose the U.S. has a 97% success rate with their missile defense systems. Then what? Does that make missile defense more desirable? Do I get to feel safer? Um, no.

That would be roughly the same success rate as the birth control pill.

 

[Bass-Invader]

Originally posted by docta seuss
yes, you already said that.

you're totally wrong.

they carry SAM's capable of destoying incoming ICBM's outside the earth's atmosphere. carrier battle groups don't much have to worry about being attacked by ICBM's.

Oh really? I'm totally wrong?
Aegis defense cruisers carry literally hundreds of SM-3 , and SM-2 ballistic interceptor missiles to defend a carrier battle group against incoming ballistic missile threats.

Hundreds. For a very small area of sea.

Now tell me how many missiles will be needed to have that sort of saturation coverage for a whole country.

fake edit: your little quote in your last post even says its for a carrier battle group.

The Aegis BMD LRS&T capability will be provided via modification to 15 Aegis equipped destroyers while the engagement capability in Block 2004 will be provided via modification to three Aegis BMD cruisers

 

[Bass-Invader]

Oh lol, that(^^) and the SM-3 isn't even the same missile being used for Ground based missile defence.

 

[docta seuss]

ha, stop it already man. you're making yourself look like quite the knob.

do you know what ballistic means? it means unguided. ICBM's don't have half the accuracy required to hit something as small as a ship, especially as they're moving targets.
in order to hit a moving taget with a ballistic missile, said target would have to be following an absoluely set-course, at a set-speed, with no deviation, you'd need to calculate the exact location of the ship at the estimated(<-impossible to estimate given all the variables) time of interception, and you'd still need one hell of an accurate missile.

with regards to CBG defense, the worry is exocet, skua, and other such guided asm's

originally posted by Bass-Invader
and the SM-3 isn't even the same missile being used for Ground based missile defence.

uh... firstly, they don't have one specific BMD-brand surface to air missile you know, and secondly, you're partially correct; the sm-3 is not the primary sam used by the ground-based BMD system, because they're sea-based. what's your point? the BMD system is not solely ground-based. it's land, see, and air-based.

Standard Missile-3 (SM-3) is being developed as part of the US Navy’s sea-based ballistic missile defense system and will provide theater-wide defense against medium and long range ballistic missiles. In 1992, the Terrier LEAP (Lightweight Exo-Atmospheric Projectile) demonstration program culminated in four flight tests and demonstrated the feasibility of theater-wide ballistic missile defense. This program evolved into today’s SM-3 development program which is based on the SM-2 Block IV airframe and propulsion stack, but incorporates a Third Stage Rocket Motor, a GPS/INS Guidance Section and the SM-3 Kinetic Warhead. The SM-3 community has proven itself with three direct hits during the 2002 testing program.

originally posted by Bass-Invader
SM-2 ballistic interceptor missiles

..and what the fuck dude, now you're totally just making shit up. ballistic interceptor missiles? hahaha... well that's a very choosey missile.

originally posted by Bass-Invader
Hundreds. For a very small area of sea.

thanks, i am aware of how many sam's are typically outfitted to ships with an Aegis platform, but i fail to see how you have come to the conclusion that all these missiles are for a small area.. the sm-3 is basically an sm-2 with an extra stage to make it an intermediate/long-range sam.

just stop arguing this man, it's no big deal, you're incorrect.

here's a link for you... perhaps read it before arguing further.

http://www.missilethreat.com/systems/aegis_usa.html

Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense (Aegis BMD) will provide an efficient and highly mobile sea-based defense against short- and medium-range (and soon long-range) ballistic missiles in their midcourse phase.

The system will integrate the U.S. Navy’s existing fleet of Aegis cruisers (Ticonderoga class) and Aegis destroyers (Arleigh Burke class) with the Standard Missile-3 (SM-3) interceptor currently under development. The system will allow the Missile Defense Agency (MDA) to move its defense capabilities close to enemy launch sites, thus providing a critical “layer†to the broader Ballistic Missile Defense System.

At present, each Aegis cruiser and destroyer is outfitted with the Aegis Weapon System—the heart of which is the AN/SPY-1 radar system. AN/SPY-1 sends out beams of electromagnetic energy in all directions, thus allowing Aegis ships to track up to 100 targets simultaneously, while still retaining the ability to counter other air, surface, and submarine threats. AN/SPY-1 will be able to detect ballistic missiles as they rise above the horizon.

Once a hostile missile has been detected, Aegis BMD will launch its Standard Missile-3 interceptor from its MK41 Vertical Launching System (currently deployed on Aegis cruisers and destroyers). An evolution of the SM-2 Block IV interceptor, the SM-3 is a hit-to-kill missile comprised of a three-stage booster with a kill vehicle. As the SM-3 burns through its three stages, its GPS-Aided Inertial Navigation System will set it on an intercept trajectory with the hostile missile. SM-3 will also receive target updates from the Aegis destroyer.

Once close enough to the ballistic missile, the SM-3 will fire its kill vehicle, the Kinetic Warhead (KW), from its nosecone. The KW will immediately begin to search for its target. It will acquire the ballistic missile using a high-resolution seeker, and maintain an accurate trajectory using its internal navigational system. As it closes on its target, the KW will identify the missile’s payload, and shift its aimpoint to ensure a lethal hit. When the KW finally slams into the enemy warhead, the kinetic energy of the high velocity impact will ensure complete destruction of the threat.

Since 1999, MDA has conducted five SM-3 flight tests. Four have been successful. The most recent test was on December 11, 2003, when a SM-3 from the Aegis cruiser USS Lake Erie tracked, targeted, and destroyed a short-range target missile launched from the Pacific Missile Range Facility in Kauai, Hawaii. Impact occurred at an altitude of 137 kilometers and a closing speed of approximately 3.7 kilometers per second. The entire operation, from detection to destruction, took four minutes.

President George W. Bush recently called on MDA to deploy a preliminary defense shield—including sea-based assets. In September 2004, the Navy will deploy an Aegis destroyer in the Sea of Japan capable of detecting and tracking missile launches from North Korea and China. In the event of a hostile launch, the destroyer will be able to transmit data to ten ground-based interceptors located in Fort Greely in Alaska and Vandenberg Air Force Base in California (also scheduled for deployment in September 2004).

 

[Bass-Invader]

Originally posted by docta seuss
ha, stop it already man. you're making yourself look like quite the knob.

What the hell is this shit? Keep it for the general forum or go to torontoraves or something.

do you know what ballistic means? it means unguided. ICBM's don't have half the accuracy required to hit something as small as a ship, especially as they're moving targets.
in order to hit a moving taget with a ballistic missile, said target would have to be following an absoluely set-course, at a set-speed, with no deviation, you'd need to calculate the exact location of the ship at the estimated(<-impossible to estimate given all the variables) time of interception, and you'd still need one hell of an accurate missile.

with regards to CBG defense, the worry is exocet, skua, and other such guided asm's


uh... firstly, they don't have one specific BMD-brand surface to air missile you know, and secondly, you're partially correct; the sm-3 is not the primary sam used by the ground-based BMD system, because they're sea-based. what's your point? the BMD system is not solely ground-based. it's land, see, and air-based.

The SM-3 has a range of about 500 km. Not enough to cover the continental united states. If they are planning to saturate the coast of their country with Aegis cruisers then this is news to me. If they actually think they can sit cruisers all around the world within 500 km of every launch site then they are pretty silly as well. I don't think China or Russia would allow them to be near their shores. The carrier based missile defense is not the decider of success of the ABM system most Canadians give a shit about.

..and what the fuck dude, now you're totally just making shit up. ballistic interceptor missiles? hahaha... well that's a very choosey missile.

They were being used to intercept ballistic missiles in the test, what is your issue, that it was a descriptive term not a technical one?

thanks, i am aware of how many sam's are typically outfitted to ships with an Aegis platform, but i fail to see how you have come to the conclusion that all these missiles are for a small area.. the sm-3 is basically an sm-2 with an extra stage to make it an intermediate/long-range sam.

Yes! The SM-3 is a missile based on a long line of missiles made based on a tried and true design that started in 1944. These are not the same missiles that you are reading articles about the tests failing miserably and Paul Martin denying support for. The missiles in question are of a totally different platform and must cover a much larger range.

You appear to be missing my point. My point was not that this has no effect proper on BMD as a whole. My point is that this five-out-of-six successful interception news is not the clash and clamour of success of the continental ballistic missile defense system (for lack of a better name). This might be useful in containing a NK attack versus Japan but that's not the program we here in Canada have been struggling with over the last year. The land-based system is the ultimate decider of whether this system will have any hope of defending our country or not, and whether it will have enough value for us to support its deployment on our soil.

 

[Sporty Dan]

Originally posted by Bass-Invader
The SM-3 has a range of about 500 km. Not enough to cover the continental united states. If they are planning to saturate the coast of their country with Aegis cruisers then this is news to me. If they actually think they can sit cruisers all around the world within 500 km of every launch site then they are pretty silly as well. I don't think China or Russia would allow them to be near their shores. The carrier based missile defense is not the decider of success of the ABM system most Canadians give a shit about.

The SM-3 is for hitting the missile on the way up. The ground based missiles are for hitting them on the way down.

They will be be putting the Aegis crousers off the coast of Korea. They;re mainly for protecting Japan, in exchange most likely for Japanese participation in the rest of the program.

And I still maintain that any actual intercepter missiles will be nuclear.

Is anyone else addicted to peanut butter smarties/?


dan.

 

[Spinsah]

Originally posted by AdRiaN
That would be roughly the same success rate as the birth control pill.

The consequences of failed contraception aren't quite so analogous, are they?

 

[Bass-Invader]

Originally posted by Sporty Dan
The SM-3 is for hitting the missile on the way up. The ground based missiles are for hitting them on the way down.

They will be be putting the Aegis crousers off the coast of Korea. They;re mainly for protecting Japan, in exchange most likely for Japanese participation in the rest of the program.



dan.

yeah I covered that. Sorry, my sentence "If they are planning to saturate the coast of their country with Aegis cruisers then this is news to me." was poorly constructed and confusing. I tend to have to interleave sentences in posts in between when my boss sits down next to me and when he leaves.

 

[AdRiaN]

Originally posted by Spinsah
The consequences of failed contraception aren't quite so analogous, are they?

Hey, cut me some slack. The "missile as penis" metaphor is a classic comedic tool.

 

[OTIS]

Originally posted by AdRiaN
That would be roughly the same success rate as the birth control pill.

Yeah, but the point of an error rate with a defense system is that you're essentially given the key to circumventing it. 3% fail rate = fire 100 missiles to get 3 through. Simple enough.

 

[lok]

its such a crap shoot. The real question to ask is why the US feels so adamant about creating a system to defeat a large nuclear strike when 99% of their recent conflicts have nothing to do with opposing countries.


... unless of course they're just thinking 'ahead'.

 

[~atp~]

Originally posted by lok
its such a crap shoot. The real question to ask is why the US feels so adamant about creating a system to defeat a large nuclear strike when 99% of their recent conflicts have nothing to do with opposing countries.


... unless of course they're just thinking 'ahead'.

They're marking their territory by pissing on it. It's that simple.