| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front |
| LA Times: Missile Defense System Doubts |
| 2004-01-25 |
| EFL The Defense Department won’t know whether its multibillion-dollar missile defense system will be able to accomplish its mission when it becomes operational in Alaska in September. In a report to Congress, Thomas P. Christie said that because of a limited testing schedule that had been hampered by engineering setbacks, "it is not clear what mission capability will be demonstrated prior to initial defense operations." How long did it take for us to put a man on the moon? The fledgling system is to be based in Alaska, with a second component in California, and is intended to help protect against a long-range missile attack from North Korea. After years of debate over the wisdom of building such a complex and expensive system, President Bush vowed early in his term to have a system built before the end of his first term. Defense officials maintain that it is better to start with a rudimentary defensive system than to have none at all. They say that a continuing series of tests and upgrades will improve the capability of the system, which is now being erected at Ft. Greely, Alaska, and Vandenberg Air Force Base in California. But critics seized on the report by the Pentagon’s own expert. How unsurprising. "We won’t know what this system can do, if anything," said Sen. Jack Reed (D-R.I.), a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee. "This is a rather severe indictment." He said the system’s capabilities would be unproven even if two flight tests scheduled to be held before September were successful. You know sentator we have never really proved the viability of the MOAB either. What is your home address? John Isaacs, president of Council for a Livable World, an arms-control group in Washington, I imagine that the cost overcoming this system to the PRC will be economically crippling and lead to regime deatbilization -Snip- Strong endorsement of an O-5 in the military which was obviously immaterial to the issue. In his report, Christie said assessments of the system’s capabilities were based primarily on modeling and simulation and developmental testing of components, rather than on testing of a complete system. He said that because of "the immature nature of the systems they emulate, models and simulations 
cannot be adequately validated at this time." Says a missile expert, Dr. Tim Conway, "we thought that the juche-enhanced minions of the evil Mr. Kim may have taken time out from their current project, creating fire by rubbing to sticks together, and come up with an innovative way to defeat our state-of-art scientific modeling." His esteemed compatriot and fellow rocket scientist, Dr. Harvey Korman, proved unable to read his well prepared comments as he turned red-faced from the cameras in an attempt to cover the sound on snickering. He also said additional tests of the Cobra Dane radar that would be critical to the system were "currently not planned." One of two booster rockets is on schedule for development and production, but a second has encountered problems and is behind schedule. Sounds like every innovative project in history I am familiar with. Christie has previously voiced concerns about the schedule |
| Posted by:Super Hose |
| #5 another reason the security has been stepped up at Vandenberg. Recall that the head of security told the last batch of goofballs threatening to get on the base to do mischief that deadly force was authorized |
| Posted by: Frank G 2004-1-25 5:39:26 PM |
| #4 So DoD is trying to kill all the baby ducks? Fox news isn't reporting that yet, I'll check ABC. |
| Posted by: Lucky 2004-1-25 5:14:28 PM |
| #3 Ship- Honestly not sure. I THINK that Cobra Dane will handle tracking for the CA site as well. That makes a fair amount of sense to me, insofar as it doesn't require building of new radars, clearing large areas of land, and charges of irradiating baby ducks. Mike |
| Posted by: Mike Kozlowski 2004-1-25 3:49:30 PM |
| #2 with a second component in California, ? Whoa... I thought the system was a a single beta brand launch system based in Alaska. Another Cobra Dane radar? |
| Posted by: Shipman 2004-1-25 3:33:22 PM |
| #1 ...What I love the most about idiot reports like this is that they never give you the true story, and the writers frequently lie awake nights hoping you aren't smart enough to check up on things. First off, let's look at what Dr. Christie does, from http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Jul2001/b07232001_bt331-01.html Thomas P. Christie was sworn in July 17 as the director of Operational Test and Evaluation. In this capacity, he serves as the principal staff assistant and primary advisor to the Secretary of Defense on testing of DoD weapon systems. He will prescribe policies and procedures for the conduct of operational test and evaluation, live-fire test and evaluation, the composition and operations of the major range and test facility base, and the configuration of the test and evaluation infrastructure within the Defense Department. As he performs these duties, Christie will issue guidance to and consult with Pentagon leadership. He isn't the chief weapons tester. His job is to make sure that when we test things, we don't hurt ourselves or others. His job is also to lay down the parameters under which such tests will be judged. They say that a continuing series of tests and upgrades will improve the capability of the system, which is now being erected at Ft. Greely, Alaska, and Vandenberg Air Force Base in California. The system - as it stands now - is the result of more than forty years of continuous research into anti-missile systems. We have continually refined and improved the technology. Yes, we've had tests where the missile didn't hit the incoming. No one ever seems to consider the possibility that the function of the test might not BE to hit the missile. He also said additional tests of the Cobra Dane radar that would be critical to the system were "currently not planned." Cobra Dane went operational in 1977, and its primary function since has been to track - surprise - ICBM and SLBM launches. I think we can safely assume it will work. Now, is he referring to an interface problem, a hardware problem, a software problem, or is he simply saying that they haven't done as many integrated tests with Cobra Dane as they'd like? We don't know, and this article would happily have you believe it means the worst. John Isaacs, president of Council for a Livable World, an arms-control group in Washington, who?s negative oppinion was easier to obtain than one from a real scientist said the report is "essentially confirmation that the deployment is essentially a sham, and that there?s no evidence it will work. He called it a political deployment." We have a winnah...I'm not even going to hazard a guess at Mr. Isaacs' politics nor those of his organization. I believe they are obvious. It also doesn't say much for Mr Isaacs' analytical powers - the report most certainly does NOT confirm anything other than the fact that it is a new, state of the art weapons system with some bugs. I notice that apparently neither Mr Issacs nor this article's author has a very good memory. Anybody remember the wind up to Desert Storm? The disastrous, 'won't work' weapons we deployed to the Gulf, like the Apache, the M1, the M2 the Patriot, and the ALCM/SLCM? I am convinced to this day that the stories about how bad these weapons were were at the very least tolerated by the leadership in order to mislead the bad guys. One last thing - there will be some truly spectacular fireworks when we try to install the system at Vandy. Look for the nutcases to pull out all the stops on that one. Mike |
| Posted by: Mike Kozlowski 2004-1-25 3:32:07 PM |