Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

US missile intercept test fails
Washington Post ^

Posted on 12/16/2010 11:19:31 AM PST by FromLori

VANDENBERG AIR FORCE BASE, Calif. -- An interceptor missile launched from California on Wednesday failed to hit a target fired from a Pacific atoll 4,000 miles away during a test of an anti-ballistic missile defense system, the Air Force announced.

The missile, called a ground-based interceptor, lifted off from coastal Vandenberg Air Force Base at 12:03 a.m. and released a device called an Exoatmospheric Kill Vehicle, or EKV, that was to plow into a target missile fired from the Kwajalein Atoll in the Marshall Islands.

The interceptor's sensors worked and the EKV was deployed, but it missed, according to a statement from Rick Lehner, a spokesman for the U.S. Missile Defense Agency.

(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...


TOPICS: Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: interceptmissile; missle; start; test
Oh oh we need these with the N. Korea threat
1 posted on 12/16/2010 11:19:33 AM PST by FromLori
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: FromLori

It’s a difficult task. I’d also like to point out that they do real-world testing because they don’t know if the technology will really work in the real-world: sometimes it needs to be tweaked. This is one of those times. No big deal.


2 posted on 12/16/2010 11:22:19 AM PST by ClearCase_guy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FromLori; tx_eggman

So did the sub-launched one off the coast a few weeks back...


3 posted on 12/16/2010 11:23:13 AM PST by SpinnerWebb (In 2012 you will awaken from your HOPEnosis and have no recollection of this... "Constitution")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ClearCase_guy

Good point I guess I’ve been reading too much about N. Korea lately.


4 posted on 12/16/2010 11:24:55 AM PST by FromLori (FromLori)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: ClearCase_guy
This is one of those times. No big deal.

It might be a big deal politically, though. Congress has been looking at this system as something worth canceling.

5 posted on 12/16/2010 11:25:18 AM PST by r9etb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: SpinnerWebb

“So did the sub-launched one off the coast a few weeks back...”

There were TWO. The camera guy said the one he filmed was just like the one he saw the day before, but did not film.


6 posted on 12/16/2010 11:26:36 AM PST by DBrow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: r9etb
Congress has been looking at this system as something worth canceling.

Don't think they would cancel it if it fails. If it SUCCEEDS, THEN they might cancel it...

7 posted on 12/16/2010 11:27:15 AM PST by Izzy Dunne (Hello, I'm a TAGLINE virus. Please help me spread by copying me into YOUR tag line.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: FromLori

doesn’t matter since they can fire missles from 35 miles of our coast anyways and we don’t know they are there....


8 posted on 12/16/2010 11:27:19 AM PST by tatsinfla
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FromLori

IIRC, START will do away with missle defense(for us) any way.

another brilliant Obungler idea.


9 posted on 12/16/2010 11:28:47 AM PST by WOBBLY BOB ( "I don't want the majority if we don't stand for something"- Jim Demint)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ClearCase_guy

“No big deal.”

One of 0bama’s campaign promises was to stop development of “unproven missile defense systems”.

I think we need this capability, but if The Man decides it’s “unproven” he can cut it. Even if it was Jeff Baxter’s idea.


10 posted on 12/16/2010 11:28:47 AM PST by DBrow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: FromLori

We need beam weapons.


11 posted on 12/16/2010 11:32:18 AM PST by swain_forkbeard (Rationality may not be sufficient, but it is necessary.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FromLori

Damn it.

We’re running out of time.

Sometimes they work sometimes they don’t, I’ll take that chance over getting nuked though. At least there is something to try. I hope they keep working on it and Obama doesn’t try to kill it.


12 posted on 12/16/2010 11:35:53 AM PST by Names Ash Housewares ( Refusing to kneel before the "messiah".)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tatsinfla

Well, Active Sonar is bad for whales. We know who Obama backs in that fight.


13 posted on 12/16/2010 11:36:49 AM PST by massgopguy (I owe everything to George Bailey)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: FromLori

So if half the missiles miss, that means you need more than 2 launches at each inbound to insure successful interception. Lets call it five launches to be safe. That’s easy - you just install 5X number of launchers for each suspected inbound. If we discount Russia (MAD) then for china we need about 120 interceptor launchers to cover ground and sea based missiles.
That should easily cover the stray N Korean or Iranian launch. Still cheaper than the effect of one nuke hitting any American city. What’s the problem?


14 posted on 12/16/2010 11:40:42 AM PST by Waverunner (I'd like to welcome our new overlords, say hello to my little friend)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FromLori

Failures are rare but they do happen. That said they could do this back in the mid 60s according to my dad who worked at the missle base on the Marshall Islands at the time. He didn’t go into detail.


15 posted on 12/16/2010 11:40:51 AM PST by Peter from Rutland
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FromLori

No, for NK & Iran we need the courage to whack their threats pre-emptively.


16 posted on 12/16/2010 11:41:36 AM PST by G Larry (When you're right, avoid compromise!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DBrow
“So did the sub-launched one off the coast a few weeks back...”

There were TWO. The camera guy said the one he filmed was just like the one he saw the day before, but did not film.


THREE - One was spotted at the exact same time on the following day...:^)

17 posted on 12/16/2010 11:43:24 AM PST by az_gila
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: FromLori

A NK launch would be somewhat limited, since they don’t have a large number of the type of missile that could reach US territory. In a case like that, I would expect at least two interceptors would be launched against the inbound target. Also, if tensions built up beforehand, I would hope that the test aircraft with the high powered laser would be deployed also to help stop an inbound warhead. After that, let a Trident empty it’s tubes on North Korea!


18 posted on 12/16/2010 11:44:21 AM PST by The Sons of Liberty (Psalm 109:8 Let his days be few and let another take his office. - Mene, Mene, Tekel, Upharsin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: G Larry

But we have obama so that’s not going to happen.


19 posted on 12/16/2010 11:49:39 AM PST by FromLori (FromLori)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: az_gila

Three, wow. I wonder if someone has been watching for more?


20 posted on 12/16/2010 11:50:02 AM PST by DBrow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Peter from Rutland

From what I understand, the Russians had a nuclear ABM battery protecting Moscow which could have destroyed incoming warheads through the brutally simple expedient of taking it out with another nuclear explosion. Obviously, this would have caused its own problems, but it would have been preferable to allowing a direct hit on a major city...


21 posted on 12/16/2010 11:50:19 AM PST by sinsofsolarempirefan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: FromLori

Why is the US even letting on that these test even happened, let along report their success or failures?

Could you imagine 65+ years ago reading “Tests on the Mark VI torpedo found it to have defects in it’s depth setting”.

Or if the Trinity test had been a dud “Today in Alamogordo, NM, the Army’s first test of an atomic weapon was a failure”.


22 posted on 12/16/2010 12:01:21 PM PST by Rebelbase
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Waverunner

We need to use the AIR-2 Genie for the projectile.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIR-2_Genie


23 posted on 12/16/2010 12:02:59 PM PST by mbynack (Retired USAF SMSgt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: sinsofsolarempirefan

“the Russians had a nuclear ABM battery protecting Moscow “

I think this was called the Galosh system. It was like our Nike-Ajax systems we had here and there. Yes it was nuclear, as was Nike and Ajax. We got rid of ours to comply with some treaty, the treaty allowed Russia to keep galosh in place.

Both systems were more anti-bomber than anti-missile.


24 posted on 12/16/2010 12:10:16 PM PST by DBrow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: FromLori
The interceptor's sensors worked and the EKV was deployed, but it missed

Well, it was a missile, after all...

25 posted on 12/16/2010 12:25:39 PM PST by Nervous Tick (Trust in God, but row away from the rocks!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Peter from Rutland

The interceptor system from back in the 60’s or so was called Sprint.


26 posted on 12/16/2010 12:28:20 PM PST by MtnClimber (Osama and Obama both hate freedom and have friends that bombed the Pentagon)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: FromLori
"No Big Deal, 'We Can Absorb An Attack', Says Kenyan"


Frowning takes 68 muscles.
Smiling takes 6.
Pulling this trigger takes 2.
I'm lazy.

27 posted on 12/16/2010 12:31:25 PM PST by The Comedian (Government: Saving people from freedom since time immemorial.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ClearCase_guy

>> No big deal.

Exactly right.

In the late ‘70s I was part of the crew of the submarine that was the test platform for the Tomahawk cruise missile.

We had some spectacular failures. I remember one where we were going to fire a Tomahawk while submerged. It was a big production — lots of military and civilian brass, including SecDef, and the press also, in bleachers, waiting for it to break the surface and fly away.

Ha ha! It never did. Engine failure. You talk about egg on the face (not the crew’s faces as much as the contractors’).

Around then there was a lot of talk about the sub-launched cruise missile concept being a waste of time and money, a bad idea, never work, should be canceled, yadda yadda yadda.

We all know how that one turned out in the end.

R&D is R&D. Failures are part of the process. It’s not like they don’t learn from them.

And frankly... if you REALLY want government stimulus that REALLY WORKS to create lots of GOOD jobs — pump money into defense R&D.

FRegards


28 posted on 12/16/2010 12:33:35 PM PST by Nervous Tick (Trust in God, but row away from the rocks!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Peter from Rutland

There were actually two interceptors that were probably in development and test during the 60’s and were deployed in the mid 70’s before the programs were cancelled. The high altitude interceptor was Spartan, a 3-stage missile. The low altitude interceptor was Sprint, a 2-stage interceptor that was intended to intercept warheads not hit by Spartan. Both had nuclear warheads.


29 posted on 12/16/2010 12:34:30 PM PST by MtnClimber (Osama and Obama both hate freedom and have friends that bombed the Pentagon)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: MtnClimber

>> The interceptor system from back in the 60’s or so was called Sprint.

Did Sprint’s coverage suck as bad then as is does now? :-)


30 posted on 12/16/2010 12:37:29 PM PST by Nervous Tick (Trust in God, but row away from the rocks!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: DBrow
Both systems were more anti-bomber than anti-missile.

Kind of makes flack jackets a little obsolete...

31 posted on 12/16/2010 12:38:12 PM PST by frithguild (The Democrat Party Brand - Big Government protecting Entrenched Interests from Competition)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Peter from Rutland
He didn’t go into detail. The internet does go into detail ... search "Project Nike" or "Nike Zeus".
32 posted on 12/16/2010 12:43:59 PM PST by ArrogantBustard (Western Civilization is Aborting, Buggering, and Contracepting itself out of existence.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: DBrow

GALOSH is designated ABM-1b (Anti-Ballistic Missile). They have other systems for manned and unmanned air-breathers.


33 posted on 12/16/2010 12:44:57 PM PST by PLMerite (Fix the FR clock. It's time.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: FromLori

No one today would consider the AIM-9X Sidewinder a failure; but even today it does not have a 100% success rate. Early on the Sidewinder was selected not because it was such a killer, but because the Navy Sidewinder FAR exceeded the performance of the USAF radar-guided competitor.

My point is that this exo-atmospheric kinetic kill device is NEVER going to have 100% kill ratios, even when out of development and initially deployed. To expect otherwise is only the expected territory of our politicians.


34 posted on 12/16/2010 12:49:48 PM PST by Blueflag (Res ipsa loquitur)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PLMerite

Thanks, PLMerite.


35 posted on 12/16/2010 1:08:50 PM PST by DBrow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: 4mer Liberal

Kwaj ping


36 posted on 12/16/2010 1:16:21 PM PST by T Minus Four (Duh. We were talking about in the old days or not-so-distant old days)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Peter from Rutland

“That said they could do this back in the mid 60s according to my dad who worked at the missle base on the Marshall Islands at the time. He didn’t go into detail.”

Probably because the ABM warhead was a nuke.

That’s why those old ones “worked.”

The new ones are just a perpetual boondoggle, Star Wars Part Deux.


37 posted on 12/16/2010 1:29:30 PM PST by Shermy (The Constitution is a Greek and Roman Polytheistic document. Get over it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: FromLori

Why the heck does the gubmint announce to the world every time one of these tests fails? Seems counterproductive, unless it didn’t really fail and this is misinformation.


38 posted on 12/16/2010 1:49:28 PM PST by Boogieman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FromLori

Just as it was intended to with START pending before the Senate (see, guys. you aren’t really giving away anything valuable here)


39 posted on 12/16/2010 1:49:43 PM PST by Buckeye McFrog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Buckeye McFrog

need more quarters!!!!


40 posted on 12/16/2010 2:33:59 PM PST by ak267
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: mbynack

See the original ICBM interceptor with a nuke warhead.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nike-Hercules


41 posted on 12/16/2010 6:20:25 PM PST by Waverunner (I'd like to welcome our new overlords, say hello to my little friend)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: FromLori

It’s no secret that the Russians do not want the United States or her allies to be protected by missile defense, and believe that New START forbids further development of missile defense. Last December, in the midst of the treaty’s negotiations, Prime Minister Vladimir Putin said, “By building such an umbrella over themselves, our partners [the U.S.] could feel themselves fully secure and will do whatever they want, which upsets the balance and the aggressiveness immediately increases in real politics and economics.” After the treaty was signed, the Russians effectively declared victory on the matter. Their government issued a statement that the treaty “can operate and be viable only if the United States refrains from developing its missile defense capabilities quantitatively or qualitatively.”


42 posted on 12/16/2010 6:33:17 PM PST by WOBBLY BOB ( "I don't want the majority if we don't stand for something"- Jim Demint)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DBrow

‘-}


43 posted on 12/16/2010 10:53:31 PM PST by TXnMA (Hooptidoodle!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson