Article

2006-08-29 Home Front: WoT

US military to test new missile defence system

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Fred 2006-08-29 00:00|| || Front Page|| [11132 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 Iff the tests around and over Guam + PACOA is any meausure, the USA does not have to do it, i.e. hit the target, becuz they already know the answer, which is THEY CAN HIT IT. HIT IT, AND HIT IT GOOD.

Posted by JosephMendiola 2006-08-29 00:41|| 2006-08-29 00:41|| Front Page Top

#2 Deafening silence from the peanut gallery this time it seems!

Posted by gorb 2006-08-29 00:50|| 2006-08-29 00:50|| Front Page Top

#3 That's comforting, JosephM. Thanks!

Posted by trailing wife 2006-08-29 07:59|| 2006-08-29 07:59|| Front Page Top

#4 "We are not going to try to hit the target"

"It is not a primary or secondary test objective to hit the target"

You sure that was a guy from Boeing? I thought I heard that from the Pentagon.

Posted by mcsegeek1 2006-08-29 08:50|| 2006-08-29 08:50|| Front Page Top

#5 "It is not a primary or secondary test objective to hit the target"

Sounds like a Fwench general.

Posted by DarthVader">DarthVader 2006-08-29 09:21|| 2006-08-29 09:21|| Front Page Top

#6 "It is not a primary or secondary test objective to hit the target"

That may all be true, but it still sounds dumb. Perhaps a brief overview of what the test objectives ARE might help.

Posted by Ulaiting Sluck3320 2006-08-29 10:28|| 2006-08-29 10:28|| Front Page Top

#7 An overview of the test objectives would reveal rather too much about engineering design and performance specs, I think.

Funny as it sounds, there really are intermediate tests that require ramping up a system in order to do certain measurements. When you do that, the naysayers watching from outside say the test "failed". I read Rummie's comment to mean this is one of those tests, designed to establish important parameters or test intermediate performance of critical subsystems.

Posted by lotp 2006-08-29 10:33|| 2006-08-29 10:33|| Front Page Top

#8 Air Force Lt Gen Henry "Trey" Obering III, director of the Missile Defence Agency, said although it is not one of the goals of the test, it is "possible'' that the kill vehicle will take out the missile. But the military, he said, is focused on making sure a redesigned kill vehicle is able to spot the target missile, distinguish between its booster stage and warhead, and communicate with the control centres on the ground.

Makes sense to me. But it'd be nice if it also hit (or destroyed)the incoming missile.... Unless this test will not have a 'warhead'.

Posted by Bobby 2006-08-29 11:09|| 2006-08-29 11:09|| Front Page Top

#9 Wouldn't controlled nuclear fusion be nice too? That's why it was called Project Sherwood.

Posted by Nimble Spemble 2006-08-29 11:16|| 2006-08-29 11:16|| Front Page Top

#10 Funny as it sounds, there really are intermediate tests that require ramping up a system in order to do certain measurements.

Quite correct, lotp. Telemetry tests, target acquisition and verification, end-path guidance stability, clean stage separations and kill-vehicle deployment must all occur successfully before testing for the final objective of crippling an incoming warhead.

Posted by Zenster 2006-08-29 15:12|| 2006-08-29 15:12|| Front Page Top

#11 Your link doesn't work, Nimble Spemble.

Posted by Zenster 2006-08-29 15:13|| 2006-08-29 15:13|| Front Page Top

#12 gotta peel off the www.rantburg.com....

Posted by Frank G">Frank G 2006-08-29 15:48|| 2006-08-29 15:48|| Front Page Top

#13 Thank you, Frank. Actually, fusion and missile defense both have decent prospects for success. The only difference is that progress in fusion has been largely driven by advances in materials science (e.g., preventing hydrogen embrittlement and improved magnetic bottling), while missile defence benefits more from increased computing power (e.g., vehicle guidance and target acquisition)

Posted by Zenster 2006-08-29 16:01|| 2006-08-29 16:01|| Front Page Top

23:58 Zenster
23:55 Phil
23:55 Thoth
23:54 JosephMendiola
23:52 Zenster
23:49 Zenster
23:46 Thoth
23:46 Phil
23:46 JosephMendiola
23:46 anonymous2u
23:45 Phil
23:44 Thoth
23:43 JosephMendiola
23:42 RD
23:39 Thoth
23:38 Phil
23:34 ed
23:34 Thoth
23:30 Thoth
23:30 Zenster
23:29 john
23:29 ed
23:24 Zenster
23:18 ed