Back to General

Missile intercept test successful...

Historical capture recovered from the Wayback Machine · captured 2002-12-01 · 1 of 2 pages survived · 21 posts
This thread had 2 pages; 1 page was never captured by the Wayback Machine — some replies are missing.
From here.

The Missile Defense Agency (MDA) announced today it has successfully completed a flight test of the ground-based midcourse defense (GMD) development program, intercepting an intercontinental ballistic missile target. The test took place over the central Pacific Ocean in the Western Test Range. A modified Minuteman intercontinental ballistic missile target vehicle was launched from Vandenberg Air Force Base, Calif., at 10 p.m. EDT, and a prototype interceptor was launched 22 minutes later and 4,800 miles away from the Ronald Reagan Missile Site Kwajalein Atoll in the Republic of the Marshall Islands. The intercept took place approximately six minutes after the interceptor was launched, at an altitude in excess of 140 miles above the earth, and during the midcourse phase of the target warhead's flight. This was the fifth successful intercept--and the fourth consecutive--in seven flight tests since October 1999 for the GMD program.

This test involved for the first time the participation of a U.S. Navy Aegis destroyer, the USS John Paul Jones, using its SPY-1 radar system. Although the radar was not integrated into the battle management system for the intercept, it did gather important data on the capabilities of the radar against a long-range ballistic missile. Future tests will include direct participation of the radar in order to determine its potential capability against long-range missiles.

This system-level test successfully demonstrated "hit to kill" technology to intercept and destroy a long-range ballistic missile target. In addition to the exoatmospheric kill vehicle (EKV) locating, tracking, and intercepting the target resulting in its destruction using only body-to-body impact, this test also demonstrated the successful integrated operation of space and ground-based sensors and radars, as well as the Battle Management, Command, Control and Communications System (BMC3) function to detect the launch of the target missile, cue an early warning radar to provide more detailed target location data; and integration of a prototype X-Band radar (based at Kwajalein) to provide precise target data to the EKV, which received the target updates from the In-Flight Interceptor Communications Systems (IFICS) at Kwajalein.

The EKV separated from its rocket booster more than 1,400 miles from the target warhead. After separation, it used its on-board infrared and visual sensors, augmented with the X-Band radar data provided by BMC3 via the In-flight Interceptor Communications System, to locate and track the target. Sensors aboard the EKV also successfully selected the mock warhead from among the five objects in the target array, including three decoys. Only system-generated data was used for the intercept after the EKV separated from its booster rocket.

This test is a major step in an aggressive developmental test program, and we will continue to pursue this testing regime to achieve a layered approach to missile defense, using different architectures to deter the growing threat of ballistic missiles carrying weapons of mass destruction.

Over the next several weeks, government and industry program officials will conduct an extensive analysis of the data received during the flight test to determine whether anomalies or malfunctions occurred during the test, evaluate system performance and determine whether or not all flight test objectives were met. Since the system is in the developmental phase of design and testing, performance of individual elements and the overall system integration was as important as the actual intercept.

News media points of contact are Cheryl Irwin, Defense Department Public Affairs, at (703) 697-5331, and Lt. Col. Rick Lehner, MDA External Affairs, at (703) 697-8997.

cool,

but wheres the 747 with an onboard laser that burns a small hole in the missle detonating it in the air i've been hearing about?
...............................
Trap¥

proud member ofSLAML
hehe trapy i heard about that too. something tells me it will be implemented in naval escort wings or such. something seriously worth protecting from missiles. They also have ground based versions of it, and i'm looking forward to seeing it on ships and on next generation stealth air superiority fighters

as for the missile defense program....cool Any debris from the destroyed missile would likely burn up on its way back down. Only question left is is it cheaper and easier to use than the ICBM it shoots down?

Post edited by Skedar103 at 10/15/2002 5:00:55 PM

Originally posted by: Skedar103

Only question left is is it cheaper and easier to use than the ICBM it shoots down?


If the ICBM is heading for, say New York, I'd say the cost of the device is far less than the total cost that the ICBM will exact. And I don't even know how much they cost

-pheirce
I'll be impressed when they can turn those things around and point it back at its place of origin
Originally posted by: Coba|t

I'll be impressed when they can turn those things around and point it back at its place of origin

or at the countries's ruler's house
...............................
Trap¥

proud member ofSLAML
Originally posted by: Trap¥

Originally posted by: Coba|t

I'll be impressed when they can turn those things around and point it back at its place of origin

or at the countries's ruler's house

lol, are they supposed to leave a forwarding adress when they move?
Originally posted by: Coba|t

Originally posted by: Trap¥

Originally posted by: Coba|t

I'll be impressed when they can turn those things around and point it back at its place of origin

or at the countries's ruler's house

lol, are they supposed to leave a forwarding adress when they move?

dunno, lets see what happens to Sadam or whoever gunna try n nuke us
...............................
Trap¥

proud member ofSLAML
only way they could get a home-made nuke over here is by B52 if they were gona drop it on us, its too heavy to put on an ICBM.
Unless that is, if they buy a warhead from another country.

Only other way i can think of is by shipping crates, but they scan em for radioactive materials now.
God we live in a fucked up world :/

Faken

Originally posted by: Coba|t

Only other way i can think of is by shipping crates, but they scan em for radioactive materials now.



lol did you see that 60 minutes episode a few weeks ago where the reporter went to Turkey bought some nuclear material and had it shipped to the USA (New York city to be exact)in a crate and it made it through to its destination without being spotted. Granted the nuclear materail he bought was NOT bomb making quality but it gave off the same signature. During the report , after he bought it they smuggled it through 5 different countries in Europe before getting it here. Kind of scary if you ask me
Post edited by Juzfugen at 10/16/2002 1:54:05 PM

sh!t
...............................
Trap¥

proud member ofSLAML
Originally posted by: pheirce

Originally posted by: Skedar103

Only question left is is it cheaper and easier to use than the ICBM it shoots down?


If the ICBM is heading for, say New York, I'd say the cost of the device is far less than the total cost that the ICBM will exact. And I don't even know how much they cost

-pheirce


Totally agreed, but that wasn't what i was thinking... more like, if Country X aims 1,000,000 ICBMs at the US (exaggerated number to make the point), can we produce 1,000,000 interceptors?

Post edited by Skedar103 at 10/16/2002 3:26:03 PM

i havnt read you post forgive me for any ignorance, but:

they have been testing this thing for a freaking long time. this might be the second time it was succesful. usually there are ballons that are released with the nuke missles that travel inbetween our earths atmosphere and space, these ballons cause major problems with this thing and has cause a 95%failure when it comes to this type of missle(consiquently, these are the kind that other countries would use from their own soil, while shooting at us)


i put no faith in any of these devices. its nice if they have to be used and work, but i dont get my hopes up.

like i said forgive any ignorance.




Originally posted by: spamtheman

i havnt read you post forgive me for any ignorance, but:

they have been testing this thing for a freaking long time. this might be the second time it was succesful. usually there are ballons that are released with the nuke missles that travel inbetween our earths atmosphere and space, these ballons cause major problems with this thing and has cause a 95%failure when it comes to this type of missle(consiquently, these are the kind that other countries would use from their own soil, while shooting at us)


i put no faith in any of these devices. its nice if they have to be used and work, but i dont get my hopes up.

like i said forgive any ignorance.


Here are some relevant quotes from the article to your questions:

1) "This was the fifth successful intercept--and the fourth consecutive--in seven flight tests since October 1999 for the GMD program"

2) "Sensors aboard the EKV also successfully selected the mock warhead from among the five objects in the target array, including three decoys."

3) "The EKV separated from its rocket booster more than 1,400 miles from the target warhead."

4) "The intercept took place approximately six minutes after the interceptor was launched, at an altitude in excess of 140 miles above the earth, and during the midcourse phase of the target warhead's flight."

While I do think we shouldn't put too much trust in early technology , I think this is pretty encouraging.

-pheirce
5 targets is not realistic. from what i have seen its more like 12+ that a warhead will deploy.
secondly, the goverment goes easy on itself when doing these tests, example is only 3 deployables.
these tests are some of the most expensive that the gov. does, so that is why they are easy on themself, if it fails too many times the ones who are responsible for them lose their job.

as said before, this is what i saw. as a matter of fact it was on TLC about 5 months ago.




well spam you gotta start somewhere. how long did it take us to get to the moon,9 years from start to finish? Its a developing technology and these small successes are good for the program.
dont get me wrong, if it works great. im only relaying info i saw from a report on tv. just playing the devils advocate.




Originally posted by: spamtheman

if it fails too many times the ones who are responsible for them lose their job.



If they cook the data and people lose their lives, they will go to prison (and the scientists will lose their credibiilty, which is much worse than losing their job).

I think the test show promise and I'm highly encouraged.

-pheirce
how long after this is implemented will it take for someone to develop an ICBM with a single missile attached to it to intercept the intercepter?
Originally posted by: Skedar103

how long after this is implemented will it take for someone to develop an ICBM with a single missile attached to it to intercept the intercepter?


You just described the arms race.

21 posts recovered