A Giant Step Forward For Missile Defense
Yes We Can
By Dan McLaughlin Posted in Anti-Ballistic Missile Defense Systems | Liberals | Missile Defense | National Security — Comments (60) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
25 years ago next month, President Reagan made this bold proposal to the nation:
What if free people could live secure in the knowledge that their security did not rest upon the threat of instant U.S. retaliation to deter a Soviet attack, that we could intercept and destroy strategic ballistic missiles before they reached our own soil or that of our allies?
I know this is a formidable, technical task, one that may not be accomplished before the end of this century.
Yet, current technology has attained a level of sophistication where it's reasonable for us to begin this effort. It will take years, probably decades of effort on many fronts. There will be failures and setbacks, just as there will be successes and breakthroughs. And as we proceed, we must remain constant in preserving the nuclear deterrent and maintaining a solid capability for flexible response. But isn't it worth every investment necessary to free the world from the threat of nuclear war? We know it is.
Reagan's proposal was immediately derided by Ted Kennedy as "Star Wars"; ever since, liberal critics have been arguing that it was impossible for such a system to work, or at a minimum arguing that it was not worth developing the technology if it could not be shown that it was already a workable system before development and testing were commenced (pretty much the opposite of how your usual R&D works). Slate.com defense critic Fred Kaplan, for example, has mocked the missile defense system as "bunk" and a "fantasy," while Greenpeace contends that "Missile Defense Does Not Work." Of course, these arguments have often been stalking horses for a variety of other ideological concerns about restraining U.S. "bullying," tying us more closely to international treaties, or not "militarizing space" (as if the worst imaginable place for war is a vacuum containing no civilians). Much as in the debate over coercive interrogation techniques, liberal critics prefer to pretend that things they dislike can never, ever work, so they can avoid the debate over the kinds of tradeoffs involved in defending the nation.
This week's successful effort to shoot a malfunctioning satellite out of the sky showed the world quite vividly how far these technologies have come:
(Hat tip to Congressman Eric Cantor for the video).
I await the response from the critics:
Read On...
A Giant Step Forward For Missile Defense 60 Comments (0 topical, 60 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
But I don't think it was just liberals that noted that a successful missile defense system was very likely undoable. I remember reading comments to that effect in scientific journals years back.
For this successful intercept (of a satellite of known trajectory) weeks of planning were required and the intercept had to be timed for acceptable weather conditions, etc... I don't think the Ruskies will give us that kind of warning before they deploy missiles our way. In fact, they may even go out of their way to defeat our multi-billion dollar systems should they ever get close to working on the old-style ICBMs.
"The partisan, when he is engaged in a dispute, cares nothing about the rights of the question, but is anxious only to convince his hearers of his own assertions." - Plato
Didn't they almost have to postpone the shoot-down because the water was too choppy? Also, didn't they have to reprogram the kill vehicle in advance to detect the heat signature of the defunct satellite?
This is a technical achievement to be sure but is a long way from a robust workable anti-missle system.
With so much time to get ready for this shot, I really would have been more surprised if they managed to miss it.
One, you have to crawl before you walk, Two, when things go right, it is a success, Three, when environment is bad, it still has to work (and it did). The "Star Wars" technology has been proven much to your dismay! Get over it (and be proud for a change).
Formally known as Deagle... "Golf is a way of life..."
___________________________________
Two thirds of the world is covered by water,
the other third is covered by Champ Bailey.
When it was originally proposed. Since I am a software developer, one argument in particular stuck in my mind: The need to develop over 100 million lines of code for the system, and how that's just impossible - give up!! (Apparently, according to the linked article, that was a wild over-estimate of the actual needs; interesting that it came from the Democrat-controlled OTA, hmm?) But what was really funny to me was comparing those statements with more recent items I've seen about size of the bloated Windows codebase. Vista is apparently hitting about 50M LOC; and while it's a disgraceful mess (for reasons that would not apply to clean-slate design like SDI), they seem to be managing to develop and ship it.
It is a wild over-estimate. Vista is a mess because lazy programmers take advantage of storage and processing power to overcome the effects of sloppy code. Five Burroughs engineers developed the first virtual-memory operating system (MVS) for mainframes; IBM used 300 to develop OS/370 years later (the model for OS/2); I've no idea how many Microsoft keeps busy, but their code is inefficient, at best.
During the Y2K "crisis," I reviewed (with computer assistance) all the application code (operating on dozens of operating systems and hundreds of small and large computers) that drove a major medical center ... it was less than 100 million lines (albeit, not much less) ... I'm sure it takes far less to run SDI (unless the contractors were paid by the line).
Just how effective does it need to be a success.
Even a system that can protect just our counterforce options against a soviet or chicom preemptive strike is immensely valuable. It introduces elements of uncertainty that can and should cause our enemies to pause before attempting a strike.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
a system that imposes significant attrition costs on the enemy's offensive capabilities is still a major addition to our defenses. It's ludicrous to argue that missile defense is worthless unless and until it reaches 100% effectiveness.
"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill
Scientific American, right? Along with the obligatory lead article about nuclear disarmament, right? SciAm has wandered way left for years. Can't be trusted with these issues (nor with AGW, for that matter.)
1. Our interceptors have worked against ICBMs, ours.
2. You don't seem to grasp that the Navy approached this in a fairly measured way because there was no urgency. This does not imply that it can't be done with little to no warning. Just because you drive your car at 55 doesn't mean it can't do 110.
3. This was never a "scientific" problem. It has always been an engineering problem. Funny how the various physicists who were most vocal in the 1980s have found other occupations and left this cause to intellectual midgets.
"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." -- Rudyard Kipling
"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill
Well said. Also remember that the Sovs have more missles than we have interceptors. Even if our system was 100% effective, they could get one through. Even if we had an unlimited number of interceptors, there are a finite number of launch sites that take a finite amount of time to cycle. By launching numerous missles so that they hit different targets simultaneously or launching numerous missles spaced so that they will hit the same target with only a short interval in between, someone could probably get one through. I think you see where this is going...
That said, missle defense is a wonderful welfare program for the defense industry. One of these days we'll get some really cool stuff in return (nano-swarms of robots, genetically engineered chimpanzee rocketship pilots, etc.)
The next generation Russian weapons systems are supposed to be able to jink but there is very little information on the effectiveness of the system.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
Of course from the country that brought us the Ekronoplan who knows.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
have adjusted for that eventuality I'm sure... If it wasn't for the Russians, we would be behind the Chinese in development of counter defenses (for sure!).
Formally known as Deagle... "Golf is a way of life..."
The satellite was not in an orbit, harder to hit, moving faster than missiles, moving much faster than a potential rocket attack, okay, much, less likely to change orbit. Lets see if we can hit it anyway...
Hit it...! Okay, that removes several problems to the pre-launch. Now that it was successful, what are the problems?
Formally known as Deagle... "Golf is a way of life..."
A normal ICBM attack would be much more predictable than the unstable orbit of this satellite! And just when (except very lately) have ICBM's been designed to avoid attack (Hello Russia)? The only thing that has been implemented is the multiple warhead scenario and that has already been already accounted for.
Yes, this was a grand example of America's advanced capabilities in this area... The shield is almost there whether you like it or not...
Formally known as Deagle... "Golf is a way of life..."
The fact that it was a satellite makes it harder not easier for a number of reasons.
1. The thing is cold. An icbm is warm.
2. The sat. is higher, and there is no chance at an ascending shot or an apex shot when the missile reaches a slow speed.
Most icbms almost stop at the top of the apex. Newer ones can power through but still must lose speed at that altitude or they will drift into space with the velocity increase.
ICBM means ballistic. That means like a bullet. Their guidance is based on a hyperbolic arc. Otherwise, they would be about the same speed as our fastest air to air missile, and would have to have some form of level flight ability.
This type of missile is much more easy to shoot down. A Patriot 3 battery is quite capable.
This test was simply a "shot across the bow" to any countries that have visions of missile hegemony. It is a great accomplishment and the Russians and Chinese know it. (hence their load protestations)
That the Navy waited for perfect conditions is normal in a show/test like this. Failure would be quite damaging.
The fact that an Aegis cruiser has them and a destroyer means the actual deployment is much more advanced than anyone had known. It was a real eyeopener.
Up to now,we were lead to believe that the big stuff was land based mostly in Alaska. Not.
This is a really big deal, and I guess most people missed the
subtle nuances of the revelation.
We are way ahead of the critics.
Not sure what your NOT a fan of...but you comments are right on! I do disagree a bit with the Navy waiting for perfect conditions...the waves were fairly rough and they shot anyway! Agree that most (US) missed the significance of this hit (seems that the US citizens are always the last to understand sometimes).
Formally known as Deagle... "Golf is a way of life..."
But as to the ICBM being Hot vs the Bird being cold.
The Bird is big as to a warhead being small.
The bird was at an altitude of 130 miles. This is well within the orbital parameters of an ICBM. A Maximum height of somewhere around a thousand miles at apogee.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
I'm glad we've had some success, but "Star Wars" has been a boondogle for some time ... I used to call it The Defense Contractor Relief Act of 1996.
[from 1996, under Clinton]: Through 2010, the system would cost between $31 billion and $60 billion. None of the estimates include the cost to operate and support the defense after it is deployed.
Just seven years later,
[from 2003, under Bush]: A selected acquisition report (SAR) sent to Congress on April 13 indicated that the total missile defense development cost for 2002 through 2009 will be $62.9 billion, not $47.2 billion as was projected last year.
I seem to recall that folks like Boeing and Raytheon were getting as much as $8 billion/year in "subsidies" for "R&D."
I'm not a critic of their success, but Eisenhower was right:
In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.
are, sadly, a part of pretty much any government operation. Chesterton once said that "if a thing is worth doing, it's worth doing badly." A corollary to this is that if a thing is worth the government doing, it's worth the government doing with the cost-efficiency at which government usually operates. I'd like to see us get a better deal, sure, but if the overall benefits justify the bottom-line financial costs, then we live with the dollars that fall through the cracks.
"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill
between a satellite in low earth orbit and an ICBM. The only difference is the payload. And generally speaking, ICBMs don't maneuver. Maneuvering at 17,000 miles per hour tends to play hell with your targeting algorithms.
Go ahead and complain about the cost. I believe the point of the article was, "hey, it worked." And if you jot the fall of the Soviet Union onto the assets side of the ledger, I'd say we're in the black.
As far as crawling before you walk is concerned, this is actually running without having crawled. Hitting a satellite with a single projectile is much more difficult than other ways of dealing with the problem; we could have gone with a much simpler shotgun approach, but I believe it was the Clinton administration that blocked research efforts in that direction. As a matter of fact, constraints and restraints put in place by that administration complicated what was already considered an impossible task (I think that was the point.) and certainly added dramatically to the cost.
So in spite of limitations on testing, and the addition of obstacles just for the sake of adding obstacles, we have a system that works.
There's nothing quite so exhilerating as being shot at... and missed. Winston Churchill
the crap out of the opposition is fine by me...
Formally known as Deagle... "Golf is a way of life..."
n/t
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
the satellite travels much faster than a missile and although the trajectory is possibly more known (if in a stable orbit), the trajoricity of a missile is also known (physics)! So just what is the difference?
I doubt that you are taking all of the circumstances into consideration. Actually, I thought that hitting this faster traveling satellite was harder than hitting a missile.
Formally known as Deagle... "Golf is a way of life..."
You have several points that determine its trajectory
1. Boost phase
2. Midcourse
3. terminal guidance
In, any mirv system the warheads will have their own terminal guidance. (so there can be a need to plot quite a few solutions)
If you add in that you have less than about 1/2 hour for to find the weapon and determine your kill solution its not that easy.
With the satellite unless its maneuvering its pretty predictable. You might even say almost Newtonian
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
consideration as you know... otherwise, we would be dead ducks...heh. I'm not saying that our solution is perfect, but it is predicable in most instances (small launches). Obviously, a massive release of atomic weapons would be disastrous for all mankind. If that occurs, grap your ankles...
Formally known as Deagle... "Golf is a way of life..."
for a few minutes.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
I had to Google AGW to understand you point. Heh, yes, you are right! Of course that would only apply as you said, "for a few minutes"...
Formally known as Deagle... "Golf is a way of life..."
You don't need all those to determine point of impact.
Calculating MIRV trajectory is sort of a moral victory. MIRVs only deploy at tip over and they are engaged by point defense systems like THAAD.
The time of flight of a ballistic missile was about 35 minutes from the USSR over the polar cap to the US. I don't know what the TOF is from DPRK or Iran. But regardless if you can't come up with the firing solution within seconds you're wasting your time.
I reiterate. You know point of impact when the missile breaks your radar horizon because it is a ballistic not a guided weapon.
"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." -- Rudyard Kipling
"You don't need all those to determine point of impact.
Calculating MIRV trajectory is sort of a moral victory. MIRVs only deploy at tip over and they are engaged by point defense systems like THAAD. "
Mirv trajectory is what determines point of impact.
When you say point of impact are you talking about general area ? Or the theoretical impact point that would occur if the missile continued with its midcourse trajectory ?
Also you aren't going to get a boost phase trajectory from radar unless its satellite based as it will be an over the horizon event. Radar usually only provides midcourse and terminal information. IIRC correctly the DEW line provided 7 minutes advance notice for over the pole launches. The exception being sea based battle management systems (A nice sidestep to the ABM treaty btw. Thanks to the people at the pentagon and the Navy that noticed that). The downside is that they are only good if you have ships off the coast.
P.S. why are we arguing ? I just said it was easier for a satellite because they had extremely regular orbits and you had months to determine the elements. Heck guys with binoculars spot and plot them as a hobby.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
time to respond to a nuclear threat...the odds have gone up in our favor considerable. You need to read up on the latest technology involving anti-missile defense. You do seem to be quoting statements way in the past (20-30 years ago)...
Formally known as Deagle... "Golf is a way of life..."
and the only reason that I keep up with this is for the "fun" science...
Formally known as Deagle... "Golf is a way of life..."
that since this was a decaying orbit (tumbling), and the known position was not so "known" with an orbital satellite, this was a great achievement!
Formally known as Deagle... "Golf is a way of life..."
the B in ICBM stands for "ballistic". You can predict their trajectory and point of impact within moments of launch. Like when it breaks your radar horizon.
"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." -- Rudyard Kipling
Its not ballistic until its burn phase is complete. Even then its only ballistic until the warheads separate from the bus and terminal guidance kicks in.
P.S. You can only predict the general area of impact. If you could predict the exact points of impact for a mirv what would be the point ?
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
Streiff. Our missile defense system depends upon varying the trajectory depending upon the threat... Where have you been lately?
Formally known as Deagle... "Golf is a way of life..."
the M3 rocket has 4 positional rockets to change direction as needed.
Formally known as Deagle... "Golf is a way of life..."
what an 'M3 Rocket' is and how it relates to an ICBM?
"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." -- Rudyard Kipling
reading up on the latest Star Wars technology. The M3 missile is the version that is used for anti-missile defense. It was designed to counter the Russian ICBM missile threat. They have continued to make advances in the detection and destruction of incoming missiles during the testing of this prototype. That includes both multiple warheads and last minute changes in direction. Today, it is the preeminent missile for both the US and Israeli defense against incoming missiles. Of course, the Patriot is still the prominent anti-missile answer for short range defense.
Formally known as Deagle... "Golf is a way of life..."
17,000 mpg...just satellites in order to stay in orbit.
Formally known as Deagle... "Golf is a way of life..."
A satellite, by its nature, has been traveling the same orbit for months, if not years, at pretty much the same speed. Whether it is going 17,000 mph (and falling) or 24,000 mph (and geo-stationary), it is a relatively simple calculation to determine that, at some point in time, it is going to be at this point. And get a missile to that point.
An ICBM accelerates from an effectively random point for a few minutes (from zero to thousands mph), stays in a predictable sub-orbit trajectory for no more than twenty minutes, and then decelerates. The dynamics of ICBMs are a bit more complicated than satellites.
I give our missile contractors great credit for getting a very small missile to a very small satellite in a teeny-tiny time frame at a really great distance.
You are right: Clinton shut down the "Brilliant Pebbles" projects ... they would have been cheaper.
But there is still time for my solution:: issue every Congress-critter a shotgun and a space-suit ... place them in geo-stationary orbit ... and tell 'em: watch out!
Kaplan is so anti military IT HURTS.
I enjoyed sticking it to Kaplan. I didn't call him a "defense critic" for nothing.
"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill
ABM defense is an insurance policy for the day the US proper or our friends are attacked by some rogue regime.No ABM defense gives the US zero options to a massive response. With an ABM we have a reasonable chance to shoot down attacking ballistic missiles which gives the President alot of options.The money is well spent if it acts as a deterrent.After this successful intercept many countries will now have to take our ABM defense seriously.
...though still unworkable, provides an out and an incentive to nations participating in ABM treaties to exempt themselves (we going first). It produces an incentive for all sides to produce a viable first-strike capability, and keeps the threat of nuclear war potent, while doing nothing to protect against non-ICBM delivered nuclear weapons. If that is "insurance", I hope we don't ever have "mandates" for it.
"The partisan, when he is engaged in a dispute, cares nothing about the rights of the question, but is anxious only to convince his hearers of his own assertions." - Plato
an additional sink for deficit spending on the military budget without providing any additional defensive capabilities.
"The partisan, when he is engaged in a dispute, cares nothing about the rights of the question, but is anxious only to convince his hearers of his own assertions." - Plato
This was a huge plus for missile defense shield and yet something that will protect all Americans that the Dems are once again against.
was much more "scary" to the rest of the world than it was to the US. we tend to take these things for granted. It was a grand achievement though...
Formally known as Deagle... "Golf is a way of life..."
The realization of Reagan's vision.
For those who wish to make their own intellectual assessment of where we stand:
Sea-Based Ballistic Missile Defense —
Background and Issues for Congress
***
“Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they are ignorant, but that they know so much that isn't so.” – Ronald Reagan
and the fallout continues...heh. (Bless those idiotic Democrats - well not!).
Formally known as Deagle... "Golf is a way of life..."
a great day for the USA!!
We are still the greatest country in the world, and continue to lead the way with our achievements.
Who cares what any whine-bags have to say...
Other countries still do whatever they want, even if the USA may have a problem with any such issue.
Why shouldn't WE/USA do whats best for USA?
Proud to be an American!!!!
Who cares if the anti-missile job description of this SM-3 wasn't tested properly?
1.) The military said it was going to shoot down a bus-sized satellite and it did it!
2.) Who knows if the seas were really rough out there West of Hawaii? If they were, kudos to the guys for managing the delivery with the increased difficulty factor. If they were as smooth as glass, kudos to the military for that little deflection "Aw, we might not shoot the missle today, we may wait till tomorrow and smoother seas". Wonderful.
3.) The Chinese very convincingly told us last year with their land based missle shot that they could shoot down all our GPS and spy satellites. We have very convincingly shouted back that we can do the same job and we can do it from dry land and from above and possibly below the ocean. We also didn't have to launch explosives into space as the Chinese did to make their spectacular kill - we did it with a sledge hammer.
So in the decline of our empire (yes, our 200 years are up)and in the beginnings of the Chinese and Indian empires, we have temporarily placed a "don't tread on me" flag. We aren't going to have $60B to throw around on military technologies anymore. The Chinese are going to spend many multiples of that figure to keep control of their empire as they gain control. So we should enjoy what little victories we can.
And a final word - I know the Discovery Channel and that Military Channel on cable make things look oh so easy - A navy vessel sailing in the Pacific Ocean shot a very expensive cannon ball and hit a 60ft target over 100 miles away with perfect accuracy - bulls eye! Tell Robin Hood, tell Teddy Roosevelt and his Rough Riders, tell General George Patton, tell General Douglas MacArthur that you have a weapon that can do that. As the Brits would say - bloody marvelous!
This was a satellite and not an ICBM. It was not designed to avoid or counter an attack like this. This was a great display of superior American technology, but it is not an example of how well an missile shield would work (or not work if it had missed).