Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: rpm on December 16, 2004, 06:01:02 AM
-
source (http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=7106702)
Test Failure Sets Back U.S. Missile Defense Plan
Wed Dec 15, 2004 05:43 PM ET
By Jim Wolf
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Bush's drive to deploy a multibillion-dollar shield against ballistic missiles was set back on Wednesday by what critics called a stunning failure of its first full flight test in two years.
The abortive $85 million exercise raised fresh questions about the reliability of the first elements of the plan, an heir to former president Ronald Reagan's vision of an space-based missile defense that critics dubbed "Star Wars."
The interceptor missile never left its silo at Kwajalein Atoll in the Pacific Ocean, shutting itself down automatically because of an "anomaly" of unknown origin, the Pentagon's Missile Defense Agency said.
About 16 minutes earlier, a target missile had been fired from Kodiak, Alaska, in what was to have been a fly-by test chiefly designed to gather data on new hardware, software and engagement angles, said Richard Lehner, a spokesman.
For instance, a booster built by Orbital Sciences Corp. was to have been exercised for the first time in the way it would actually be fielded. One of the test's goals was to show it was ready for production.
"Obviously it isn't," said Philip Coyle, who was the Pentagon's chief weapons tester under President Bill Clinton, "and now they also will have to fix the boosters that have been installed in silos in Alaska and Vandenberg" Air Force Base, California.
DOUBTS ABOUT SYSTEM
The Pentagon plans to spend more than $50 billion over the next five years on all aspects of missile defense, aiming to weave in airborne, ship- and space-based assets. The system that failed on Wednesday is known as the ground-based midcourse system, or GMD. By some estimates, the Pentagon has already spent $130 billion on missile defense efforts.
Despite widespread doubts among physicists about the technical readiness of the system, Bush had sought to have a rudimentary capability against North Korean missiles on alert by the end of this month.
"We say to those tyrants who believe they can blackmail America and the free world - you fire, we're going to shoot it down," he said at a campaign stop in Ridley, Pennsylvania, on Aug. 17.
But all eight of the system's intercept tests, the last of which failed in December 2002, have fallen far short of replicating realistic war scenarios, experts inside and outside the government have said. Of the total, five have succeeded in highly scripted conditions, never at night or in severe weather.
Wade Boese, research director of the Arms Control Association, a private Washington-based group that favors reduced spending on the project, said: "The more one thinks about the test, the more incredible it is that it failed."
"The Pentagon had two years essentially to prepare ... and publicly described it in a way to guard against any chance that it could be deemed a failure," he said.
Unlike the botched mission early Wednesday, the last full flight test had as its chief goal to shoot down its target. It misfired on Dec. 11, 2002, when the warhead -- a "kill vehicle" meant to obliterate a mock warhead by slamming into it -- failed to separate from its booster rocket.
Neither the Missile Defense Agency nor the Pentagon responded to questions about the failure's impact on the deployment timetable.
Boeing Co., the Pentagon's prime contractor on the project, referred comment to the Missile Defense Agency.
-
I having the trouble to understand:(
Why rocket have be smart enough to find nuclare bomb rocket in air? Rocket only have be smart enough to find Southi Arabia, and Southi Arabia not even flying in air??!!
How many dollar to make rocket to hit Southi Arabia? If too expensive, I have the cousin with license for the real aeroplane--he say he will throw the nuclare bomb in bookbag from the window when flying. He say only needing money for the bookbag--$29.95.
Oh yes, he needing nuclare bomb as well too, and the dollars for gas. The rest he do.
When he return, he requesting one night with the Rene Zellwinger--large, shiny-face actoress from the Rene Zellwinger character Diary movie.
-
"We say to those tyrants who believe they can blackmail America and the free world - you fire, we're going to shoot it down," he said at a campaign stop in Ridley, Pennsylvania, on Aug. 17.
This kind of rhetoric, to which Bush seems to be prone, does not make us safer. Its the same "bring it on" mentality we saw early on in the Iraq invasion. I wouldn't fault him so much if he was taking the same chances as the people he puts in harm's way.
$85 million is pocket change anyway. $10 billion annually on this program is a hefty sum, at least to me, but we already spent more than $450 billion/year than we take in, so its small potatos. Besides, its borrowed money - not like its real or anything, right?
-
It is the policy of the United States to deploy as soon as is technologically possible an effective National Missile Defense system capable of defending the territory of the United States against limited ballistic missile attack (whether accidental, unauthorized, or deliberate) with funding subject to the annual authorization of appropriations and the annual appropriation of funds for National Missile Defense.
--National Missile Defense Act of 1999 (Public Law 106-38)
-
The only way to make it work is to go Russian and use nuclear warheads in the intercepting missiles.
-
Thanks Holden, I was going to say wasn't this latest round of missile defensism a Clintonian initiative? Liberals, pfffft. My my what short attention spans. It's a damn shame the test failed just the same. In a few years when the bugs are ironed out of the system and we have a reliable system operating, further reducing our need to deploy our young people into harm's way these same misguided libertines will have something else to "chicken little" us about. It's genetically coded. They can't help it. Why not move to europe and leave America to the free and the brave?
-
isnt the chanse of a suitcase bomb beeing brought in a far bigger real threat?
A nation that sends a missile agains america or any other place will be identified witin seconds, and the leaders of that nation will have to much to lose by doing so.
Money is better spent on technology and manpower to check shipping containers and other means of transportation + intel.
Dont remember the figures, but the ammount of goods that are actually checked when arriving to america is very very low.
-
Of course their ultimate goal is a defence against Russians.
-
I would have to agree with Nilsen..
-
Nilsen's point makes way too much sense.
Reagan, Bush, Clinton - it doens't matter. Spending money like trailer trash with a new credit card is not a sign of strength or intelligence.
-
Originally posted by rpm
Bush's $85 Million Dollar FUBAR
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
It is the policy of the United States to deploy as soon as is technologically possible an effective National Missile Defense system capable of defending the territory of the United States against limited ballistic missile attack (whether accidental, unauthorized, or deliberate) with funding subject to the annual authorization of appropriations and the annual appropriation of funds for National Missile Defense.
--National Missile Defense Act of 1999 (Public Law 106-38)
(http://home.comcast.net/~ripsnort60/owned.jpg)
-
what do these suitcase bombs look like and how many people have em?
lazs
-
They look like seagulls, and millions of people have them.
-SW
-
Originally posted by lazs2
what do these suitcase bombs look like and how many people have em?
lazs
Hehe, I don't think you are the only one wanting to know that, but one can asume that they may...... or may not be suitcase shaped thingies with buttons and stuff.
-
Are they like a carry on or like a steamer trunk or....as SW says... likek seagulls? How many people you know have one nilesen? I don't know anyone who has one...
Apparently they are very stealthy tho since we have never cautght anyone with one in our country.
lazs
-
Here's a picture Lazs:
(http://www.armageddononline.org/images/suitcase.JPG)
-SW
-
Originally posted by AKS\/\/ulfe
Here's a picture Lazs:
(http://www.armageddononline.org/images/suitcase.JPG)
-SW
(http://home.comcast.net/~ripsnort60/oops.jpg)
-
Originally posted by lazs2
Are they like a carry on or like a steamer trunk or....as SW says... likek seagulls? How many people you know have one nilesen? I don't know anyone who has one...
Apparently they are very stealthy tho since we have never cautght anyone with one in our country.
lazs
lol, i assume you question their excistanse. The russians have lost quite a few, but when talking aobut these kinds of threats then one normally mean handeld / portable / small devices.
If you want to know what a suitcase looks like then the closest thing i can think of that you would recogise is a box with handle that you would normally use to carry your guns around in :D
-
Lazs.. everyone knows they are about 2 cubic feet in volume and have a red digital timer on them that runs backwards with a small script below the timer in bright letters stating...'Do not be withing 5 miles of this package when above timer reaches 00:00'
They are the latest craze!
-
Ok nilesen... I will settle for the pictures you have of the Russian ones.
lazs
-
Sorry, Rip. This was a Republican initiative that Clinton opposed.
When President Clinton announced on September 1, 2000,4 that he would delay construction, his decision was not due to any unexpected or unavoidable technological limitations in the program, though this is clearly the impression he conveyed in his speech at Georgetown University. In reality, the President and his Administration inherited an NMD program from the Bush Administration that enjoyed congressional support and--had it been allowed to progress--already would have provided Americans with several years of limited defense. The President chose to scuttle that program and leave Americans completely vulnerable to missile attack for an indefinite period of time.
Conclusion
President Clinton's announcement that he is deferring the initial construction activities for fielding a national missile defense should remove any remaining doubt about his position on missile defense for America.
The President has opposed missile defense ever since coming into office. He terminated the GPALS program he inherited from the Bush Administration. He slashed funding for research and development. He vetoed an entire Department of Defense authorization bill over a provision on missile defense. He sought to circumvent both the Constitution and the United States Senate in reviving the ABM Treaty with the former Soviet Union, which prohibits a territorial NMD system. Finally, he ignored the requirements of the law regarding the deployment of an NMD system. This decision most definitely was not the result of any technological barriers to deployment. Rather, it is the logical result of his long-standing hostility to missile defense for America.
President Clinton's failure to address the threat of ballistic missile attack is perhaps the single greatest national security failure of his Administration. It is a policy that leaves the American people vulnerable to a threat that is clear, real, and growing according to government and other expert assessments. America's NMD program is seriously trailing the escalating threat, and the nation's vulnerability becomes graver by the day. This need not be the case.
Baker Spring is a Research Fellow in the Kathryn and Shelby Cullom Davis Institute for International Studies at The Heritage Foundation.
(http://www.gilbertv.com/coppermine/albums/06042004/owned_jc.jpg)
-
President Clinton's failure to address the threat of ballistic missile attack is perhaps the single greatest national security failure of his Administration. It is a policy that leaves the American people vulnerable to a threat that is clear, real, and growing according to government and other expert assessments. America's NMD program is seriously trailing the escalating threat, and the nation's vulnerability becomes graver by the day. This need not be the case.
So you are agreeing with this missile program? Good. Glad to see you are on board!
-
Not hardly. Read the whole article. (http://www.heritage.org/Research/MissileDefense/BG1396.cfm) They slam Clinton for not being on board.
-
The hell are you talking about Ripsnort? That image was used as to what a suitcase bomb could look like.
I guess that image won't show up, but since it was cached for me - it did.
http://www.armageddononline.org/images/suitcase.JPG
-SW
-
Originally posted by AKS\/\/ulfe
The hell are you talking about Ripsnort?
We've been asking that for years.
-
Laz check eBay... I think they have some slightly used ones that may be in good condition.
:D
-
we really should show pictures of em so that every citizen can be on the lookout for em and help the police.
I did see one in a movie but I think it was just a prop.
lazs
-
Here you go lazs :D
(http://orlingrabbe.com/suitecase_bomb.jpg)
-
It will be a Coke machine at the Super Bowl.
-
WASHINGTON (Reuters) -… was set ….critics called a stunning failure…
And the CRITICS would have said what? something positive?
….Shutting itself down automatically because of an "anomaly" of unknown origin,…
Sounds like the fail safe worked perfectly to me.
….One of the test's goals was to show it was ready for production. ….
I work in research, do you have any idea of how many Failures we have before bringing something to market?
We will make it work, in spite of the Liberals crying about the US defending it's self.
Did you read that NK is now testing LONG range rockets, as in California coast range?
-
rpm, shall we talk of Clinton's Titan IV's? The Titan boosters have had six major failures. President Clinton had ordered an investigation a few days prior to this launch. Would you like to take a stab at how much that cost? Do you think Clinton was directly responsible for these mishaps as you think Bush is for this latest Missile Defense failure?
Its pretty funny, they actually blamed the Titan IV failures on on engineering, workmanship, no where was there a report by some idiot saying "Its Clintons fault" ;)
Now please...
(http://home.comcast.net/~ripsnort60/santa.jpg)
-
No Rip. Let's talk about the program itself. It's a failure and waste of money. It always has been, no matter who was in charge. Clinton was blasted for recognizing this and cutting funding. Granted, you have an interest at stake since it's Boeing's baby and all.
-
Originally posted by rpm
No Rip. Let's talk about the program itself. It's a failure and waste of money. It always has been, no matter who was in charge. Granted, you have an interest at stake since it's Boeing's baby and all.
Was Titan IV a waste of money, rpm?
Was SAC a waste of money, rpm?
FWIW: Why would you assume I have a stake interest in it? I do not own Boeing stock nor are my customers military.
-
From what I can find Titan IV has a better success rate. We have a SAC type defense in place now in the form of boomers off the Korean shore.
-
Originally posted by rpm
From what I can find Titan IV has a better success rate. We have a SAC type defense in place now in the form of boomers off the Korean shore.
The Titan IV was financially a technological failure, in the cost of billions, not millions as this incident was.
Can a boomer shoot down a enemy missile once its fired or are you suggesting pre-emptive strike?
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
The Titan IV was financially a technological failure, in the cost of billions, not millions as this incident was.
Can a boomer shoot down a enemy missile once its fired or are you suggesting pre-emptive strike?
If they can build a laser that shoots down incoming mortar shells (http://www.spacedaily.com/news/laser-04r.html) then I'd have confidence that they can build something to shoot down ballistic missiles. It's probably not more than 5 to 10 years off. (http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/abl/) They say 2008, but the military isn't exactly known for effeciency. Oh, and bombers shooting down ICBM's isn't a sound plan... you gotta convert people movers! :)
-
Nice try Rip. Boomers fill the SAC role. Did SAC shoot down incoming missles?
The $85M was just for this test alone, not the entire program.
-
Originally posted by rpm
Nice try Rip. Boomers fill the SAC role. Did SAC shoot down incoming missles?
The $85M was just for this test alone, not the entire program.
So whats your complaint again? Many tests fail during the testing phase in our military's national defense.
Obviously your hate for bush pinpoints this to BOOSH FAULT mentality. If you look at the bigger picture historically of all failed attempts in different programs attempted in the defense of our nation since 1945 you'll find much more costly programs than this dinky little test. 85 Mil is a drop in the bucket when your talking missile technology. Bush isn't the first president in office when something has failed, and he won't be the last.
And the title is misleading, it is not FUBAR, its simple a set back.
-
You may well have a missile defence system in 2008. You just don't know if it's worth a **** before the **** hits the fan! But if it makes you sleep better it's all good.:aok
-
Originally posted by mora
You may well have a missile defence system in 2008. You just don't know if it's worth a **** before the **** hits the fan! But if it makes you sleep better it's all good.:aok
Most Missile Defense programs be it nuclear or otherwise have R&D working in a parallel course with deployment...kinda scarey if you think about it, but that's how its been since I can remember...
some of its money well spent, some of it is not, you have try it first, which we are doing. You can only go so far with mathematical models and static tests before you have to actually build one and test the theory. The latter is the stage this particular program is at.
It very well might fail, but if we don't try it, someone else might, the U.S. has a tendency to be on the leading edge of technology if you haven't noticed (;) ) and National Defense is the primary driver for it.
-
I agree this is not Bush’s fault, although I don’t like how he’s handled it.
First, it’s a tough little problem to solve. Provided the attack is from someone with fairly advanced technology, each missile will have multiple warheads and several decoy warheads (along with various countermeasures). You will need one missile to intercept each warhead, provided you can hit 100%. And because they chose not to use an explosive warhead (a poor decision IMO) close isn’t good enough – you have to actually hit the inbound warhead to destroy it with kinetic energy. Repeat this for each missile. And you have to bat 1.000 -- one miss and it’s going to get real warm somewhere.
Secondly, I’m not at all convinced that the people working on this, including the prime, are up to the task. The problem is there aren’t a lot of rocket scientists left. Herds of computer guys, radar guys, engineers, etc. but hardly anyone that knows which end the smoke comes out. For example, in some of the early tests they had problems with the stages separating. That’s just rocket science 101 --- if you can’t do that, you need to turn in your slide rule.
Finally, the fact is that Bush shut down many of the planned tests. Computer simulations are fine, but there comes a time when you just have to run the test. For political reasons, we’ll have a missile in the ground by the end of the year. But let’s hope we never have to find out if it works – because I doubt it will.
-
I like the idea of the missle defence system. but it seems like there is less and less need for one. At least for the cost.
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
rpm, shall we talk of Clinton's Titan IV's?
That would be a great idea eh? That way to can try hijack the tread away from it's intended topic and you can shoot the **** about your strawman. :aok
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
So whats your complaint again? Many tests fail during the testing phase in our military's national defense.
Obviously your hate for bush pinpoints this to BOOSH FAULT mentality. If you look at the bigger picture historically of all failed attempts in different programs attempted in the defense of our nation since 1945 you'll find much more costly programs than this dinky little test. 85 Mil is a drop in the bucket when your talking missile technology. Bush isn't the first president in office when something has failed, and he won't be the last.
And the title is misleading, it is not FUBAR, its simple a set back.
Originally posted by RPM
It's a failure and waste of money. It always has been, no matter who was in charge.
Sorry, I did'nt realise you had A.D.D.
-
Didnt the report say that 3 out of 5 missiles hit target (or failed to ) in earlier tests?
Imo thats a damn good ratio for firing 1 missile vs 1 target. Once deployed the system would fire a dozen or so at 1 missile to guarantee interception. So statistically the system works a-ok.
Nilsen has a point though, ,not many nations can lob a missile with warheads BUT that doesnt mean it wont happen.
Theres a big difference between a suitcase nuke (say, 1 kiloton) that will wipe out half a city and a single MIRV missile that drops multiple megaton-yield warheads at multiple cities...wiping htem out completely.
Protection against both is needed.
-
Originally posted by OIO
Didnt the report say that 3 out of 5 missiles hit target (or failed to ) in earlier tests?
Imo thats a damn good ratio for firing 1 missile vs 1 target. Once deployed the system would fire a dozen or so at 1 missile to guarantee interception. So statistically the system works a-ok.
True, but what kind of targets were they using? It's a totally different thing to hit a Scud than a re-entry vehicle of an ICBM.
-
Before 911 the same people that are screaming about missle defense would have laughed about Terrorists using Airliners as Missles. After 911 they screamed WHY DIDNT YOU KNOW YOU COULD HAVE SAVED 3000 LIVES.
Now it's the same story different content. No one has ever fired a rough missle at the US.......BUT if somone did drop 100megatons on Los Angels these same people would be screaming WHY COULDNT YOU SHOOT IT DOWN YOU COULD HAVE SAVED 10 MILLION LIVES.
as I tell our safety NCO at work......Just because statistically it's never happened doesn't mean it won't. If the outcome does not outweigh the risk it's not worth it.
What you gotta ask yourself is this....."is the juice worth the squeeze?"
-
As far as I have read, they have never had an actual 'real' intercept.. At every 'real' test situation, something has failed costing millions.. I understand they have had many simulated intercepts.. So OIO I dont understand your 3 of 5 worked statement.. So is it 3 of 5 failed to?
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
That would be a great idea eh? That way to can try hijack the tread away from it's intended topic and you can shoot the **** about your strawman. :aok
The thread was "hijacked" from the beginning by connecting Bush to defense R&D. If we go back in history, you'll find many more cases where huge amounts of money was spent in the name of National Defense. You won't find me blaming Clinton for Titan IV. It was money approved for R&D and as the saying goes..."Chit happens".
Now if Bush gave away missile secrets to the Chinese, I would side with rpm. ;)
-
Originally posted by RPM
It's a failure and waste of money. It always has been, no matter who was in charge.
The same has been said about many successful programs in Defense spending prior to their success. One of the top of my bald head is the nay-sayers in the Mercury program ;)
-
(http://1000aircraftphotos.com/APS/OtherSources/2316L.jpg)
-
rpm, do you think we should cease in spending any taxpayer money on National Defense spending?
-
Of course not. But there is such a thing as throwing good money after bad.