If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Chron)   Excuses deployed for expected missile-defense system failure   (chron.com) divider line 148
    More: Obvious  
•       •       •

9817 clicks; posted to Main » on 22 Jun 2006 at 10:53 AM (8 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



148 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2006-06-22 10:28:27 AM
basically a research, development, training, test kind of system

And to think, it only cost billions of dollars so far.
 
2006-06-22 10:34:35 AM
Excuses, beyond the fact that hitting a missle with another missle is like two people shooting at each other with guns and hoping the bullets deflect off one another, are not so much needed.
 
2006-06-22 10:38:04 AM
PastorofMuppets: "Excuses, beyond the fact that hitting a missle with another missle is like two people shooting at each other with guns and hoping the bullets deflect off one another, are not so much needed."

Excuses for having believed it would work are needed.
 
2006-06-22 10:44:10 AM
I remain confident that North Korea will put homing devices on their ICBMs, which they will fire on a clear, sunny day.
 
2006-06-22 10:57:13 AM
kronicfeld: "I remain confident that North Korea will put homing devices on their ICBMs, which they will fire on a clear, sunny day."

Wasn't that what the US was doing to pretend they had a working X-Band radar?
 
2006-06-22 10:57:14 AM
Speaking facts is "excuses".
 
2006-06-22 10:59:10 AM
"We have a missile defense system ... what we call a long-range missile defense system that is basically a research, development, training, test kind of system," Hadley said.

LOL
 
2006-06-22 10:59:15 AM
Time put out a good article a year or so ago explaining why this was so difficult. It's not just one missle going after another..

The ICBM travelling a few thousand mph hits low earth orbit..then it blasts apart and releases over a dozen basketball-sized bombs. It's those bombs that travel above the earth and rain down to deliver payload.

So it's not like one giant missle just lumbering across the globe. Once in orbit the entire game changes. You're going after a basketball-sized object in space, travelling extremely fast.
 
2006-06-22 10:59:59 AM
Jesus will guide our ABMs. Let's get some Amens out there.
 
2006-06-22 11:00:33 AM
Pastor: Not exactly true. Missiles are actually pretty fragile and (relatively) lightweight. Breaking up their aerodynamic shape will cause them to crash, and it doesn't take much to do this.


The US Navy uses CIWS (a 20mm gatling cannon attached to a radar) and 76mm HE-VT (High-Explosive Variable Timed) to shoot down missiles. Many other countries use Goalkeeper (30mm gatling cannon to do the same thing). The same principle is used with the Patriot missile. You throw as much shiat in the air as you can (bullets, fragmenting metal, etc) and the missile shreds itself running through it.


Missile defense is do-able. The problem is how much it will cost compared to the likelyhood of said attack. The US already has a missile defense system--Aegis cruisers stationed off the coasts. Why we "need" another type of missile defense is beyond me, but I'm sure someone (probably Raytheon) is planning on getting rich off of it.


"The way out of this is for North Korea to decide not to test this missile," Hadley said.


Frankly, this weak-sister approach pisses me off. What happened to American ingenuity in solving problems? It probably got off-shored.

 
2006-06-22 11:00:36 AM
Considering that the last time they tested the system, they couldn't even get the test rocket up.

//I'm not holding my breath.
 
2006-06-22 11:01:09 AM
"Telling lies" is "excuses". Particularly when it is done to continue wasting money on a boondoggle for your rich buddies.
 
2006-06-22 11:01:24 AM
The GFB* module worked fine, though.

*GIANT FARKING BOONDOGGLE
 
2006-06-22 11:01:30 AM
Aren't most excuses "facts"?
 
2006-06-22 11:04:18 AM
I'm trying to come up with a headline that would actually make Major Thomb happy.

How about this:

"Our Glorious Leader President Bush Saves 30 Evangelical Christian Orphans from a Fire Set by Satan-Worshiping Islamic Democrats in the Holy Haliburton Shrine of the Everlasting Windfall Profits"

How's that? That work for you?

/Snarky? You betcha.
 
2006-06-22 11:05:07 AM
That's one freaky-looking map...

images.chron.com

So much for "up" being "north" :^P
 
2006-06-22 11:07:36 AM
Richard_M_Nixon: How's that? That work for you?

And you probably even think you're being clever. Very sad.
 
2006-06-22 11:08:35 AM
So rational people have been saying for years that shoting down a missle with another missle is going to be far to compilictaed and won't work the way the Star-Wars fans think it will. Now that reality has caught up with everyone and people have to admit that after spending wasts sums of money on a system that they claimed would work they use the arguments of their long time critics as a defense.


You know if it goes like that than I have a working free energy perpetum mobile that you might want to invest in. I will scoff at anyone who claims that it can't possible work because of the laws of thermodynamics and gladly take the money of fools who believe me. Then years later when people complain about the lack of results I will explain that what I have is basically a research, development, training, test kind of system and tell them that the whole thing is really dificulr because of the laws of thermodynamics. Maybe I will get people to invest in my lead to gold project next.
 
2006-06-22 11:11:26 AM
Phalanx, Exocet, Falklands.

Oh boy, I am showing my age here.
 
2006-06-22 11:12:01 AM
I hope they aim for Alaska and hit a moose or something. Maybe get a no fly zone over Korea going. maybe five years down the line they see the military thingy not the money and they go capitalistic.

I wonder how they are retraining their citizens that work for South Korean firms along the DMZ> I mean ideological wise.
 
2006-06-22 11:12:08 AM
Loki-L: So rational people have been saying for years that shoting down a missle with another missle is going to be far to compilictaed...

Actually, Patriot has been there, done that.
 
2006-06-22 11:12:45 AM
i love liberal america. we know what they are going to say before they say it - "we are going to fail! we will never prevail! all is lost! oh, the huge manatee!"

here's a quick thought to ponder - if you are in charge of national defense, do you want your adversaries to know exactly what your capabilities are or do you want to play your cards close to the vest? think about it.

take the time to learn who billy mitchell was. he was a forward looking individual who saw the possibilities of technological advancement changing warfare. he was derided for his "follies" but was eventually vindicated by history.

those who are so sure america will face failure and defeat in everyting we do (including missile defense) have not and will not be vindicated by history. those who understand histro and who have seen this before laugh at you. remember - thomas watson was absolutely positive that there was a market for five computers at most. those who saw otherwise were ridiculed.
 
2006-06-22 11:14:00 AM
Major Thomb

And you probably even think you're being clever. Very sad.

Hmm...now he's sad.
Let me try again:

"Hillary Clinton admits in Gonzales Torture Chamber She's Really A Transvestite Communist Atheist Al Qaeda Sleeper Agent Who Was Driving Ted Kennedy's Car in Chappaquiddick"

That's much more upbeat. I bet Hannity would throw a party with cake, ice cream, and bald male prostitutes, eh?

/(snark)
 
2006-06-22 11:14:02 AM
img73.imageshack.us

hmmmm...concern possibly justified?
 
2006-06-22 11:15:08 AM
Skwidd: The US already has a missile defense system--Aegis cruisers stationed off the coasts. Why we "need" another type of missile defense is beyond me, but I'm sure someone (probably Raytheon) is planning on getting rich off of it.


How is an Aegis cruiser going to take out an ICBM?
 
2006-06-22 11:16:10 AM
lasers. duh.
 
2006-06-22 11:16:12 AM
Frankly, this weak-sister approach pisses me off. What happened to American ingenuity in solving problems?


You mean the ingenuity behind attempting to develop something as complex as a system designed to shoot down something like a small warhead hurtling at mach 20 in low earth orbit before it starts reentry?
 
2006-06-22 11:16:48 AM
Major Thomb

How is an Aegis cruiser going to take out an ICBM?

How is their existing "missile defense system" going to take out an ICBM?
 
2006-06-22 11:17:07 AM
Wait a minute!! WTF is Hadley talking about!?! I thought the Administration was crowing about ramming this system into "operational" status by 2003, especially when people EVERYWHERE said this system was nowhere close to being even effective.

Now he's saying we built this big ass base in Alaska because "it's a training, R&D, and test" tool? WTF!?!?! Aren't you supposed to test, R&D and train BEFORE YOU DEPLOY THE WEAPONS SYSTEM, let alone build a base for it?

Now they are saying, basically admitting, the crap doesn't work and won't if NK launches, so they can play the blame game.
 
2006-06-22 11:18:57 AM
Richard_M_Nixon: How is their existing "missile defense system" going to take out an ICBM?


Okay...let me quickly post a few thousand pages of engineering documents. Do people actually think before they post a question? Or was that post just someone trying to be a dick?
 
2006-06-22 11:19:28 AM
You know whats even more pathetic? Not that this gov't spent tens of billions of dollars on this dibacle of a "defense" system, but the fact that their publicly announcing its limited abilities. Why not just send an email to N. Korea saying what this defense system can't do. That would be so much easier and less time watsed.
 
2006-06-22 11:19:39 AM
Major Thomb: How is an Aegis cruiser going to take out an ICBM?

Exactly. It could possibly hit shorter ones like scuds, but not the bigger ones like they're testing. For that a larger land-based missile is needed, or they could possibly deploy them from subs or even the new missile cruisers being tested, but not an Aegis.

The success of our missile "shield" is directly proportional to the number of missiles we fire at each incoming missile. It'll work, it'll just end up being like that part of the Tom Clany book where Jack Ryan is shooting missile after missile at the incoming round.
 
2006-06-22 11:20:54 AM
Devin172: You mean the ingenuity behind attempting to develop something as complex as a system designed to shoot down something like a small warhead hurtling at mach 20 in low earth orbit before it starts reentry?

Not to mention multiple targets, MIRV's, and dummy warheads.
 
2006-06-22 11:21:12 AM
vanity:

The ICBM travelling a few thousand mph hits low earth orbit..then it blasts apart and releases over a dozen basketball-sized bombs. It's those bombs that travel above the earth and rain down to deliver payload.

MIRVs. But that's not the real problem. Suppose instead of a dozen warheads, it releases a dozen warheads and a bunch of decoys. Then you're wasting time trying to figure out which is which, or wasting effort and resources trying to destroy a bunch of decoys. Worse, suppose that you put the warheads into a bunch of opaque and radar-reflecting balloons, and release a bunch of empty balloons with them. Now nothing looks like a warhead. Cheap and effective: you can't see inside to tell which is which.

That's why a bunch of people have concluded that ballistic missile defense is not feasible, except maybe if you do boost-phase intercept: shoot them down before they reach space and can deploy warheads/decoys. The problem with that is that your interceptors have to be very close to the launch sites, and you don't have much time to make the decision to intercept.
 
2006-06-22 11:24:07 AM
The First: Why not just send an email to N. Korea saying what this defense system can't do. That would be so much easier and less time watsed.

You're assuming they're telling the truth? System capabilities are a primary thing they keep classified. A lot of the published speeds, ranges, and whatever are considerably less than the actual capability.
 
2006-06-22 11:26:15 AM
Major Thomb, so you think this is more like someone "covering their ass" when/if something goes wrong? I'd like to believe that.
 
2006-06-22 11:26:39 AM
When it's the end of the world as we know it:
upload.wikimedia.org
/ MIRVy goodness
// and I feel fine
 
2006-06-22 11:27:02 AM
Skwidd Not exactly true. Missiles are actually pretty fragile and (relatively) lightweight. Breaking up their aerodynamic shape will cause them to crash, and it doesn't take much to do this.

Sounds true enough, but correctly me if I'm wrong but the missile shield they've been working on isn't designed to shoot down missiles but rather reentry vehicles?
 
2006-06-22 11:27:05 AM
Ambitwistor: That's why a bunch of people have concluded that ballistic missile defense is not feasible, except maybe if you do boost-phase intercept: shoot them down before they reach space and can deploy warheads/decoys. The problem with that is that your interceptors have to be very close to the launch sites, and you don't have much time to make the decision to intercept.

This is the whole concept behind the 747 with friggin laser beams.

Problem is that we'll have to have several patrolling the borders of each rogue state with missiles.
 
2006-06-22 11:27:15 AM
The Taepodong 2 is estimated to have a terminal velocity of Mach 12 or almost 8000 mph. The closest missle defense battery is 3700 miles away - do the math...
 
2006-06-22 11:28:41 AM
2006-06-22 10:34:35 AM PastorofMuppets

Excuses, beyond the fact that hitting a missle with another missle is like two people shooting at each other with guns and hoping the bullets deflect off one another, are not so much needed.

Funny you should mention that, because anti-bullet bullets are being developed. They are small, guided bullets that detonate in proximity to an incoming bullet causing it to tumble.
 
2006-06-22 11:29:10 AM
The First: so you think this is more like someone "covering their ass" when/if something goes wrong? I'd like to believe that.


No, I think they're saying exactly what it is. It's a development system that maybe could be useful in an emergency. Complex technology takes a long time to engineer.
 
2006-06-22 11:29:49 AM
This NK missle is such a piece of crap. It uses liquid propellant for chrissakes. That's a pretty worthless ICBM when it takes a couple days to get the thing prepped for launch. We could easily see from our satellites if they were fueling for a launch. Our solid ICBMs can launch in about 2 minutes.

So can we hit a warhead reentering the atmosphere? Possibly, but at 1km/s for an NK warhead or 5km/s for a Russian warhead I doubt it. In about 20 years we may have the capability. Still, we might as try it for practice.
 
2006-06-22 11:29:55 AM
So, if it is hard to do, then we shouldn't try?
 
2006-06-22 11:30:36 AM
I think some people here are confusing ICBMs with AGMs and and short-range missiles. The Aegis system is great for ship defense... somehow I don't think there is a high likelihood of someone aiming an ICBM at a ship anyways though.... ships tend to move.

I also think some people who are crying about how the liberals want us to fail and the administration is just playing it's cards close to the vest are forgetting a few things. The testing statistics, though not the tech data, is public... so far in hitting missiles not broadcasting their location, we are 1 for 28. I think missile defense is a sham, mostly because I think the odds of us getting hit by WMDs at soft targets via other means of entry is much more likely. Missiles cost a lot of money, a shipping container doesn't cost much at all. That said, I'd be quite pleased if missile defense actually worked. Aside from all of that, it's not liberals deflating expectations of the functionality of the system, Stephen Hadley is arguably one of the most hawkish and neo-conservative voices in the administration.
 
2006-06-22 11:30:46 AM
Despite the fact that this defense system is prolly a big turd, whats the guarantee that our own missiles will even launch out of the silos if we have to launch a retaliatory(?) strike? They've been sitting there rotting for 35+ years. Whats saying fuel pumps and hoses and computer systems are even still operational?
 
2006-06-22 11:34:01 AM
"A lot of the published speeds, ranges, and whatever are considerably less than the actual capability."

I'm sure that's true in some cases; but from my 20 years experience I'd say the exact opposite is much more common. Our weapons and fire control systems rarely work as advertised. I can only think of maybe one system I had contact with where that wasn't the case...
 
2006-06-22 11:34:09 AM
sylaak:Funny you should mention that, because anti-bullet bullets are being developed. They are small, guided bullets that detonate in proximity to an incoming bullet causing it to tumble.


That sounds pretty cool...links?
 
2006-06-22 11:34:31 AM
trippdogg: - do the math...

Trajectories are know fairly quickly. It's not like you fire when they launch and hope to get there over its own territory, they fire, you see where it's headed, then fire a bunch at it to knock down the entry vehicles close to your own borders.

I can do the math. Can you do the common sense?
 
2006-06-22 11:34:52 AM
www.speccy.org

They should hire me. I had the high score at Pizza Hut until they closed for the night. Jerkoffs.
 
Displayed 50 of 148 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report