Interceptor Missile Test Fails

[Keneke]

For it to work, it has to be automated, there is not enough time for human intervention.

How automated? How much HIL (Human in the loop) do you think there is in this system? How long do you think it takes for a missile to go from Asia to North America?

It is located in Alaska, presumably to defend against attacks from the USSR.

The straightest line between any point in Asia and America will seem to veer north on a 2D map. Connect a piece of string from North Korea to the lower 48. You will see the string run northward, well within striking distance of Alaska silos.

 

[aerocontrols]

We did have earlier tests where our radars merely tracked the transponders, but the purpose of those tests were to cover other areas, such as the real-time effects of a missile interception. (boom!)

Isolating variables, remember?

I was under the impression that this was more an artifact that the tracking radars in use now were illegal according to the terms of the ABM treaty, thus while we were still constrained by its terms, we couldn't test missile interception without using the transponders. Now that the formerly illegal radars have been built, the transponders are no longer needed by the kill vehicle. (That is, there was no attempt to isolate variables - we would have liked to test the tracking system, but the ABM treaty was designed to prohibit such a tracking system from being built, so we couldn't.)

I heard that the actual problem during the most recent test was that monitoring equipment on the kill vehicle (as opposed to some element of the kill vehicle's own systems) was malfunctioning before the test. Have you heard anything similar, or disimilar?

MattJ

 

[Keneke]

I was under the impression that this was more an artifact that the tracking radars in use now were illegal according to the terms of the ABM treaty, thus while we were still constrained by its terms, we couldn't test missile interception without using the transponders. Now that the formerly illegal radars have been built, the transponders are no longer needed by the kill vehicle.

I forgot about that part. Thanks.

edit: In fact, conferring with a co-worker who has been here longer, he says that the beacon was never part of the detection exercises, but only there as part of the ABM requirements. That is to say, the beacon signal in no way affected test data. I was very mistaken on that, my apologies.

Have you heard anything similar, or disimilar?

I think you are right.

 

[webfusion]

incoming!!!!

from the non-interceptions of Scuds in GW1 (the success rate was much lower than percieved)

In fact, at least one of the launched Patriots from the batteries placed on the North Tel Aviv coast actually flew in an arc trajectory right back into the ground a few miles away and caused extensive damage!!! The footage of this was shown live on CNN, and then quickly suppressed. Many people thought the SCUDs had landed and exploded, although in reality, the outgoing missiles had malfunctioned and crashed into the Israeli neighborhoods.

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2003/feb2003/cbc-f07.shtml

 

[AWPrime]

No to mention that when the patriots hit that they often hit the aft section of the scud (leaving the warhead intact) and shower the target area with deadly debri.

 

[fishbob]

the first actual working base (with presumably the same equipment as is being validated (or not) is up and running in Alaska.

Not really actually working working, just sort of there and looking like it might be working.

I know several people that were involved with the construction of the missile silos at Ft Greely and the radar at Shemya. Bechtel and Fluor contracted by the Corps of Engineers have spent many millions of our tax dollars in a manner that is somewhere between inefficient and criminally fraudulent.

 

[Crossbow]

This whole SDI, Brilliant Pebbles, ABM (or whatever they are calling it these days) is just another "Duck & Cover" drill.

Both systems have little real value, but it does serve to show the public that the government is trying to solve the problem while providing a hope of surviviabilty.

Ugh! At least "Duck & Cover" was alot cheaper.

 

[TillEulenspiegel]

I'll say this as susinctly as I can.

The people who engineer these systems are experts in their respective fields and approach the problem from a scientific standpoint. That being said, the compulsion of Washington is if at first it don't work , throw more money at it. Science by political bent is not science. The folks that work on this project are trying to turn a political idea in to a technical reality. The criteria of testing is also skewed to realize the best possible outcome.

The trajectory of the target vehicle is known beforehand and is programmed in to the interceptor's missiles trajectory.. So as some have mentioned theres a crib sheet and a nebulous application ( in view of the real threat being smuggling of weapons on ships). The damn thing still didn't work....so much for the reducibility of complex systems.

Daddy wants Sci-Fi feel good coat of many colors to make him stop sucking his thumb.. Praise cheebus and pass the graft.

This doesn't mean that we shouldn't research into interceptor missile systems , only that with 19 Yr. old kids in Iraq need that money a hell of a lot more then dry research

 

[Nikk]

Not really actually working working, just sort of there and looking like it might be working.

I know several people that were involved with the construction of the missile silos at Ft Greely and the radar at Shemya. Bechtel and Fluor contracted by the Corps of Engineers have spent many millions of our tax dollars in a manner that is somewhere between inefficient and criminally fraudulent.

Or to put it another way. US defence budget $400billion plus, deficit $500 billion plus.

Thus you are spending money you haven't got on weapons that don't work as a defence againgst missiles that don't exist.

Oh the wonders of a faith based society!

 

[Frank Newgent]

I was under the impression that this was more an artifact that the tracking radars in use now were illegal according to the terms of the ABM treaty, thus while we were still constrained by its terms, we couldn't test missile interception without using the transponders. Now that the formerly illegal radars have been built, the transponders are no longer needed by the kill vehicle. (That is, there was no attempt to isolate variables - we would have liked to test the tracking system, but the ABM treaty was designed to prohibit such a tracking system from being built, so we couldn't.)

I heard that the actual problem during the most recent test was that monitoring equipment on the kill vehicle (as opposed to some element of the kill vehicle's own systems) was malfunctioning before the test. Have you heard anything similar, or disimilar?

MattJ

I was aware that the transponders were there to provided GPS data until some new phased array X-band radars could be built to figure out the whats-its once they'd been detected. Having some fun...

But from what I read the only new radars that have actually been built are ones for testing the system on Kwajalein Island. They're not meant to discriminate anything detected coming in from Asia.

So far (from what I've read) only an upgraded Shemya, Alaska, 1970's non X-band radar built originally to observe Soviet missile tests - with a fixed orientation and very marginal capability to observe missiles launched by North Korea against Hawaii or the West Coast, much less be able to discriminate a actual warhead from kim chee - will be part of the system being rushed into deployment.

Our tax dollars are paying for this as a replacement which Boeing says will be ready soon.

Or do I have it wrong?

 

[a_unique_person]

OMG, she said we should look into missile defense as well as protection from terrorists using WMD, that totally substantiates everything in the other article!

They have been doing their best to bury that speech, because there were plenty of warning about what Al Qaeda were capable of and planning to do.

National security adviser Condoleeza Rice planned to deliver a speech on September 11, 2001, about national security that said nothing about Osama bin Laden, al Qaeda or Islamic fundamentalist groups.

I think the persistence with the missile defense system, the money that's been poured into it, the lies about it being operational, all indicate an administration with it's head in the clouds about what security really requires, and persistence in what it isn't.

 

[varwoche]

Thus you are spending money you haven't got on weapons that don't work as a defence againgst missiles that don't exist.

Oh the wonders of a faith based society!

Indeed.

It seems almost a given that the nuke will be sent via cargo ship, seeing as anyone who fires a missile at the US would cease to exist in a matter of minutes. To spend money (not) securing the sky while at the same time only a small percentage of cargo is inspected is inanity of biblical proportion.

 

[Keneke]

The trajectory of the target vehicle is known beforehand and is programmed in to the interceptor's missiles trajectory..

Please read my previous entries. The "cribbing" of certain aspects of a scenario (pre-determined trajectories, waiting for clear skies, no decoys) in no way affects the usability of the system. It only affects the public's view of it.

Let's say you are designing a new tire for cars. Do you take the prototypes out on the road in traffic during test runs? Or do you run them into the ground in your lab or on a test track first?

 

[Keneke]

But from what I read the only new radars that have actually been built are ones for testing the system on Kwajalein Island. They're not meant to discriminate anything detected coming in from Asia.

So far (from what I've read) only an upgraded Shemya, Alaska, 1970's non X-band radar built originally to observe Soviet missile tests - with a fixed orientation and very marginal capability to observe missiles launched by North Korea against Hawaii or the West Coast, much less be able to discriminate a actual warhead from kim chee - will be part of the system being rushed into deployment.

Our tax dollars are paying for this as a replacement which Boeing says will be ready soon.

Or do I have it wrong?

Y'see, that's the problem with the politicians releasing it too early. The SBX's (we just call it Aegis, for the ship it will be on) are coming out soon, for multiple purposes. But did Bush wait on them? Noooooo. So people are saying that because these old GBR's (Ground Based Radars) are totally outdated, (though they work really well, and have a function similar to XBR and SBX) the entire system won't work.

For the record: The fixed position radars still have a broad swath they detect. Can't remember (or maybe even say?) the exact angle, but I remember it being an obtuse angle. There's enough coverage that we'd detect anything coming from SE Asia well before the apex of the flight.

Also, there are other radars in the tests. SBIRS (Space Based IR Sensor) is in play, for an early-warning lo-res detection. Occasionally we play with Hawaii too.

 

[Keneke]

Indeed.

It seems almost a given that the nuke will be sent via cargo ship, seeing as anyone who fires a missile at the US would cease to exist in a matter of minutes.

From this line of logic, the Cold War was a bunch of worry over nothing. However, we have seen how illogical some of our enemies can be. Is North Korea more suicidal as a country as, say, Iraq?

Indeed, money should be spent on stricter borders. However, the need for money over there and the need for money over here in missile defense are two separate issues. We might as well be talking about money for social security, the war effort, of Congressmans' salaries.

 

[a_unique_person]

From this line of logic, the Cold War was a bunch of worry over nothing. However, we have seen how illogical some of our enemies can be. Is North Korea more suicidal as a country as, say, Iraq?

Indeed, money should be spent on stricter borders. However, the need for money over there and the need for money over here in missile defense are two separate issues. We might as well be talking about money for social security, the war effort, of Congressmans' salaries.

As I said before, even if you get 99% accuracy, it's still not good enough.

 

[Keneke]

As I said before, even if you get 99% accuracy, it's still not good enough.

Why is that?

 

[a_unique_person]

Why is that?

I'll leave that for you to work out.

 

[Keneke]

I'll leave that for you to work out.

Stop being snarky and answer the question. The reason I asked is that I know of several arguments that people have brought up, and am just wondering which of them you will use.

edit: Plus, I looked back at your previous entries and didn't find any mention of 99%. I need to know what you are specifically referring to.

 

[a_unique_person]

Stop being snarky and answer the question. The reason I asked is that I know of several arguments that people have brought up, and am just wondering which of them you will use.

edit: Plus, I looked back at your previous entries and didn't find any mention of 99%. I need to know what you are specifically referring to.

I have made reference to the current stand off with NK compared to Iraq. It's like the joke I saw in the paper. "How come we invaded Iraq? Because they might have WMD. How come we don't invade NK? Because they do".

The missile defense shield is only ever going to be something that might work to a certain extent. There is no way to really test it.

What is the purpose of it? It can never be relied on to achieve anything useful. Only to reduce the disastrous. Maybe that is a useful achievement. So sell it for what it is. The current administration is making out that this will make america safe. It won't.