Successful Anti-Ballistic Missile Test

US Missile Defense Agency scored a hit today when it successfully intercepted a 5 foot long target missile traveling at 15,000 miles an hour launched from Kodiak, Alaska with an Boeing intereceptor missile launched from Vandenberg AFB. The intercept happened at an altitude somewhere between 100 and 200 miles high.
The missile test cost $85 million and was the first such test in 18 months.


Sources:
Interceptor downs missile in test over Pacific; Reuters, Fri Sep 1, 2006 2:42pm ET

Vandy tests interceptor missile; KSBY, Tues, Aug 29, 2006

*I dont mean to hijack your thread, intelgurl, but yesterday also saw a succesful BMD test:

Lockheed Martin's PAC-3 Missile Successfully Destroys Tactical Ballistic Missile in Test

Lockheed Martin's Patriot Advanced Capability-3 (PAC-3) Missile successfully intercepted and destroyed an incoming Tactical Ballistic Missile (TBM) target yesterday during a flight test at White Sands Missile Range, NM. This was the 19th successful flight test out of 22 conducted to date.

During the flight test, two PAC-3 Missiles were "ripple-fired" at an incoming Patriot-As-A-Target, a legacy Patriot missile modified to represent a TBM. Preliminary data indicates the target was destroyed and all test objectives were achieved.
Source: Yahoo (LMT press release)

They're really getting some good results lately, the Navy's AEGIS system also performs very well. I'm not a great fan of a BMDS with all the overhyped threats, but it's good to see all that money isn't spend for nothing.

Originally posted by Zion Mainframe
*I dont mean to hijack your thread, intelgurl, but ...

No problem there - it's all the same subject.

It sounds to me like the missile shield is actually coming together, I just wish they would get the problems sorted out with that giant beach ball radar sitting on that floating oil rig platform just off the coast of Alaska.

Originally posted by intelgurl
The missile test cost $85 million and was the first such test in 18 months.

"ripple-fired"

whats this?

www.missilesandfirecontrol.com...
this website suggests that the pac 3 patriot is the best intercept missile at long range, medium to high altitude. and while i understand that this is the lockheed martin website so it is biased, the missile intercept that intelgurl mentions also sounds like a long range high high altitude interceptor. so are these missiles working against each other as a competition or together but covering different areas and if so which missile covers which area.

justin

ps. could someone u2u me and tell me how to put in a link like zion mainframe and intelgurl have done not how ive done it. the only places i could find that show how to do this said you have to use the little world button which isnt there anymore as im sure you know.

cheers

just read this. thought you might find it amusing, i did.
www.military.com...

the north koreans start lobbing nuclear capable missiles around and then claim that the us are threatening war when they hold missile defense tests.

justin

[edit on 2-9-2006 by justin_barton3]

Originally posted by justin_barton3
www.missilesandfirecontrol.com...
this website suggests that the pac 3 patriot is the best intercept missile at long range, medium to high altitude. and while i understand that this is the lockheed martin website so it is biased, the missile intercept that intelgurl mentions also sounds like a long range high high altitude interceptor.

Lockheed marketing... sigh.

The Vandenberg AFB launch was against a simulated intercontinental ballistic missile, while the Patriot test at White Sands was against an incoming tactical ballistic missile.

Originally posted by intelgurl
Lockheed marketing... sigh.

The Vandenberg AFB launch was against a simulated intercontinental ballistic missile, while the Patriot test at White Sands was against an incoming tactical ballistic missile.

so the test you mentioned was of the type of interceptor missile that will be stationed in the us and will shoot down icbm's where as the interceptor missile that zionmainframe mentioned will be stationed in places like south korea and will shoot down short and medium range missiles?

justin

Originally posted by justin_barton3
so the test you mentioned was of the type of interceptor missile that will be stationed in the us and will shoot down icbm's where as the interceptor missile that zionmainframe mentioned will be stationed in places like south korea and will shoot down short and medium range missiles?

justin

Yes, right now the PAC3's are theater defense and the Boeing missile from Vandy is most likely to be stationed in the CONUS.

sounds like nukes are not going to be easy to handle by intercepting them from 100 to 200 miles high.so irans theats are going to go down to zero soon huh?

~~~~~~~~~

nobody can read your posts but staff because you are on global ignore

You have a U2U

[edit on 3-9-2006 by masqua]

I would wait a while before getting too carried away over this.

I wonder just what "test" actually means and exactly how "successful" it was?

Did they have advanced knowledge of the altitudes, flight path, speed, timing and positioning of the 'target' (as I think has certainly been the case in previous tests).

In fact at one point I am sure I recall that they were actually putting beacons on the target to help the intercepting missile(s) home in.

No doubt the full facts will emerge in time......it's not like there hasn't been a history of gross exaggeration and wild unsubstantiated claims made in this field before, right?

[edit on 3-9-2006 by sminkeypinkey]

The target was simulating the most likely course for a North Korean ICBM coming up thru 60 degree lat. And all the things you listed above can be found by radar and sat's so I don't know what your trying to say there. And as for the GPS, as far as I'm aware its only there for safety reason, lets ground control know where it is even if we had a systems failure, but according to MDA its not used to guide the GBI to the target missile.

Spin it whatever way you like Westy but the facts remain that on previous 'tests' the intercepting missiles had the kind of advance knowledge (even a homing beacon for goodnes sakes!) that no 'real' scenario would or could ever have had.

.....and usually missed.

I am merely asking the question as to whether this 'test' was similarly unrealistic.

I shall take that as a don't know from you then ,eh?

This test was a hit, but that's not what the goal of the test was. They were testing the tracking system and some changes they made to it. That was the only goal of this test.

Originally posted by sminkeypinkey
...on previous 'tests' the intercepting missiles had the kind of advance knowledge (even a homing beacon for goodnes sakes!) that no 'real' scenario would or could ever have had.

Perhaps, but you have to look at the objective of such tests, was it to test the complete systems against as realistic a scenario as possible, or to tests a specific part of the systems such as the KE warhead for example?

Originally posted by sminkeypinkey
I am merely asking the question as to whether this 'test' was similarly unrealistic.

I shall take that as a don't know from you then ,eh?

According to MDA it was not, in fact it was the most realistic test they've done to date, the target missile had a similar flight path a NK ICBM would take and the GBI was launched form Vandenberg AFB.