Got a tip for Noah?
SEND IT!
(Guaranteed Confidential)
Subscribe

Subscribe via RSS

Archives by Date
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006

See all Archives
Archives by Category
'Canes
Ammo and Munitions
Armor
Axe in Iraq (and Elsewhere)
Bizarro
Blimps
Blog Bidness
Bomb Squad
Cammo Green
Chem-Bio
Cloak and Dagger
Comms
Cops and Robbers
Data Diving
Dissent Tech
Drones
Eat My Dust
Eye on China
FCS Watch
FOS Files
Gadgets and Gear
Ground Vehicles
Guns
Homeland Security
Info War
Iraq Diary
Lasers and Ray Guns
Less-lethal
Logistics
Los Alamos and Labs
Medic!
Mercs
Missiles
Money Money Money
Net-Centric
Nukes
Planes, Copters, Blimps
Politricks
Rapid Fire
Raptor Watch
Red Team
Retro-Futuro
Roll Your Own
Sabra Tech
Ships and Subs
Space
Strategery
Terror Tech
The Deadlies
Those Nutty Norks
Training and Sims
War Update
You can run...

See all Archives
Related Links
News and Intel
Military.com News
Aviation Week
Natl Defense Mag
Strategy Page
Global Security Newswire
Soldiers for the Truth
Security News
Defense Review
Fed Comp Week

Security Sources
GlobalSecurity.Org
Fed Am Sci
CSIS
Ctr for Defense Info
Defense & Natl Interest
Instit for Sci & Intl Secy
Secrecy News
POGO
Cryptome
The Memory Hole
Natl Security Archive

Geeks and Mad Scientists
Slashdot
Wired News
Security Focus
The Register
Gizmodo
Geek Press
Robots.Net
Cosmic Log
Space Daily
New Scientist
TechCentralStation
Engadget
Space.Com
Technology Review
Gyre
Near Near Future
Fed Dev Blog

Bloggers and Buddies
Phil Carter
Global Guerillas
Jeffrey Lewis
Milblogging
OPFOR
Laura Rozen
Larisa Alexandrovna
Juan Cole
Ryan Singel
Josh Marshall
Cursor
Boing Boing
InstaPundit
Winds of Change
Tapped
TalkLeft
Brad DeLong
Mountain Runner
Gene Healy
Clive Thompson
Greg Djerejian
Jeff Quinton
Workbench
Electrolite
Jim Henley
War in Context
Kathryn Cramer
Wash Park Prophet
Blogs of War
Tom Shachtman

Official Dispatches
DARPA
AF Research Lab
Marine War Lab
Soldier Systems Ctr
Naval Research
Army Research Lab
UK Def Sci Lab
NASA News
DoJ Cybercrime

Military Network
Military Benefits
Veteran Employment
GI Bill Express
Personnel Locator
Free ASVAB
The Few
Fred's Place
Army Insider
Navy Insider
Air Force Insider
Marine Corps Insider
Coast Guard Insider



Edited by Noah Shachtman | Contact

Score One for Missile Defense

At long last, there's some good news for the most troubled part of the ballistic missile defense system. In testing this afternoon, an interceptor launched from Vandenberg Air Force Base in California caught up to a target warhead, and destroyed it.

gmd_interceptor.jpg"This was the first intercept of [an] operationally-configured warhead and booster, and the first intercept overall in nearly four years," Victoria Samson, the ordinarily uber-skeptical missile defense analyst, told Defense Tech. She called the test "progress" after repeated failures in previous tests of the Ground-Based Midcourse Defense system to get an interceptor off of the launch pad. (Other anti-missile systems, including the shorter-range Terminal High-Altitude Air Defense and the sea-based Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense, have been performing much better.)

Interestingly, an intercept wasn't even the main goal in this trial. Instead, it was designed to gauge the system's "ability to successfully detect, track, [and] discriminate... a target in space," a Raytheon statement observed.

The system appeared to do just that. "A key radar collected target information and shared it with an operationally configured interceptor, the interceptor used that data to zero in on a target in space, and battle managers oversaw this activity in real time from thousands of miles away," added a Boeing statement. "The team is energized."

The successful test was, not, however, the "full end-to-end" demonstration that Defense Secretary Don Rumsfeld said he wanted to see of the system.

"It's missing key components - the sea-based X-band radar (which was used in the test, but only for the radar's calibrations), the satellite network system needed to track the missiles (STSS), [and] threat-representative countermeasures for the target missile." Samson noted.

Most importantly, the missile defenders knew where their target was going to fly before they shot off their interceptor. The real test will come when they don't get that info beforehand.

Latest Comments

Press releases from Boeing, the Pentagon and Raytheon hardly amount to evidence of a successful unbiased test.

Posted by: Noah (the other one) at September 6, 2006 7:38 PM


About time we get something right. we must of got some new engineers or something because we couldn't even hit a stationary target with those before.

Posted by: Kolin at September 5, 2006 8:39 PM


EMP is a non-starter. An electrical utility clearing house did a study on the effects of EMP on the power grid, and found that at the altitudes required for a very far-reaching EMP effect, by the time the energy reaches the ground, through the inverse square law, the effect will be the same as a lightning strike some seven miles away.

Posted by: MKSheppard at September 2, 2006 9:25 PM


Reading through the briefings, this sounded like a very good and encouraging test. Basically real life. And this is the weakest of the 3 legs of MD.

The Sea based X band radar was addressed in the briefings. Apparently, it was involved in the test though its input wasn't fully integrated. It will most likely be fully integrated for the December test - and it will be off Alaska.

As Reagan said, this will be a long and difficult process. That is why we have to start early and keep working on it. Our enemies are not asleep.

If you are concerned about decoys or "cooling shrouds", you should read the briefing and some of the links - smart minds have been addressing these issues for along time.

As for whether San Fransisco should be saved or if we are breaking treaties - well, reading does take a lot of time away from TV.

Posted by: atgnatus at September 2, 2006 4:49 PM


Neither the DPRK or Iran have missiles that can reach the US. Recent DPRK Taep'o-dong-2 tests failed, and in any case, the maximum projected range is about 4,000 mi., less than half the distance from Wonsan to San Francisco. The Iranian variant, the Shahab-4 (based on the Taep'o-dong-1) has a max. range of 1,800 mi. - far less than the 7,600 distance from Tehran to New York (maximum range = minimum payload).

Additionally, neither of these countries has a demonstrated nuclear capability. So before we talk about implementing SDI / NMD, we need to understand that these threats are non-existent. As for superpowers such as Russia and China, MAD persists as an effective deterrent.

A missile defense system can be easily and inexpensively countered with dummies, multiple or dispersing warheads, cooling shrouds (to defeat heat detection), etc. Other factors such as weather, reliability, overstated capability, cost, etc. will severely cripple the theoretical effectiveness of anti-missile systems. The much heralded ‘successful’ test has yet to be validated – a number of previous tests have been rigged in advance for success.

Finally, warfare has evolved to a point where massive state-to-state conflicts are obsolete because no one can even contemplate parity with the US. The preferred alternatives to facing a regional or superpower head on are currently being developed and tested in Lebanon and Iraq (courtesy of George II). An intercontinental ballistic missile defense is simply obsolete before it is built. As to the politically destabilizing effects of a missile defense, this is clearly intended to a) provoke an arms race with China and b) create domestic support and foreign markets for these systems.

Posted by: Noah (the other one) at September 2, 2006 2:39 PM


» View All 12 Comments

» Post a Comment