Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    US ABM Systems

    Share

    Austin

    Posts : 6327
    Points : 6727
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Location : India

    Re: US ABM Systems

    Post  Austin on Sun Sep 22, 2013 4:36 pm

    A nice video of recent Aegis/SM-3 ABM test



    Lockheed Martin’s Second Generation Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense System Successfully Intercepts Most Sophisticated Target To Date


    This test seems to intercept the RV some where in Midcourse or close to reentry but in Space , Although in all the recent video I have seen there were no decoys used not even basic decoys like balloons or Metals to make it complicated.

    It would be interesting if Russia too releases test video of S-300VM or S-400 intercepting Ballistic Targets.
    avatar
    Viktor

    Posts : 5669
    Points : 6312
    Join date : 2009-08-25
    Age : 36
    Location : Croatia

    Re: US ABM Systems

    Post  Viktor on Sun Sep 22, 2013 6:27 pm

    Austin wrote:This test seems to intercept the RV some where in Midcourse or close to reentry but in Space , Although in all the recent video I have seen there were no decoys used not even basic decoys like balloons or Metals to make it complicated.

    It would be interesting if Russia too releases test video of S-300VM or S-400 intercepting Ballistic Targets.
    SM-3 can act in space only. It is not meant for aerodynamic targets at all. For that USN needs SM-2.

    Vann7

    Posts : 3472
    Points : 3584
    Join date : 2012-05-16

    A nice video of recent Aegis/SM-3 ABM test

    Post  Vann7 on Tue Sep 24, 2013 9:30 am

    Austin wrote:A nice video of recent Aegis/SM-3 ABM test



    Lockheed Martin’s Second Generation Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense System Successfully Intercepts Most Sophisticated Target To Date


    This test seems to intercept the RV some where in Midcourse or close to reentry but in Space , Although in all the recent video I have seen there were no decoys used not even basic decoys like balloons or Metals to make it complicated.

    It would be interesting if Russia too releases test video of S-300VM or S-400 intercepting Ballistic Targets.
    Don't get too much excited. The aegis defense system today will be as effective (or even less),than Patriots were in Iraq war against Scuds.that is ,total failure.  SM-3 test are done in very controlled ,ideal and unrealistic conditions..The aegis Sm-3 is only aimed to intercept Low altitude to medium ballistic missiles ,According to Raytheon own website. So is a system that in practice will only be dealing against conventional weapons like soviet Scuds missiles or perhaps Iskanders or more likely with chinesse DF-21D aircraft carriers killers as they call it. Raytheon test was against a low altitude ballistic.The ''sophisticated'' part was that they intercepted more that one NATO made missiles at the same time. Probably a group of like 3-5 ballistic missiles or else they will have mentioned it was massive.

    SM-3 missiles speed is mach ~8 ,will be a serious disadvantage to intercept Russian ballistic missiles ,like Topol or bulava that fly at Mach 24 speeds at high altitudes that the Raytheon never designed its SM-3 system to work.

    here an interesting article..

    http://www.crazedfanboy.com/roth/missiledefense.html

    Show how unprepared US defenses are to defend against nuclear threats of High altitude high-hypersonic ballistic missiles ,like ICBM, that deploys lots of decoys ,have maneuverabilities capabilities and multi entry warheads. What the article miss however.. is that US strategy to counter nuclear ballistic missiles is an Offensive strategy. That is a massive first strike ,by deploying hundreds of missiles close to Russian borders .And with hopes to neutralize most Russian nuclear capabilities.

    Austin

    Posts : 6327
    Points : 6727
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Location : India

    Re: US ABM Systems

    Post  Austin on Tue Feb 18, 2014 1:51 pm

    Looks like US GMD is come in for sharp criticism from DTO&E and a redesign of Kill Vehical is recommended .......this after spending $40 billion on exisiting system !

    http://armscontrolcenter.org/issues/missiledefense/articles/the_defense_that_does_not_defend_more_problems_for_national_missile_defense/


    Check the RFI for common kill vehical now proposed for GMD and SM-3

    https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=bca3c6eaf32e1fe7dae207955d6d4323&tab=core&_cview=1
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16510
    Points : 17116
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: US ABM Systems

    Post  GarryB on Sat Feb 22, 2014 8:19 am


    The vehicle shown was a test vehicle (I think called GLA). As such, the scamjet wasn’t even provided with a nozzle to produce any meaningful thrust, not that it couldn’t be provided with one; it just wasn’t needed for this test. Due to this fact, the delta V provided by the fully functioning scramjet was around zero.

    My understanding of the results was that the round intake was too hard to adjust in flight to control combustion so although it only operated for about 133 seconds and accelerated the missile from mach 5 to just over mach 6 and travelling 180km the main result was that they would change from a round variable intake to a more controllable square one.

    The main solid rocket boosters fell away just after launch but the main body remained attached to the scramjet motor so it was pulling a significant mass from mach 5 to mach 6, and it did so for just over a minute and a half so I think it was rather successful, but they decided a dead end in technology for the moment. Maybe in 10-20 years time our understanding might allow curved intakes, but simpler square ones are needed for now.


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order
    avatar
    Morpheus Eberhardt

    Posts : 1942
    Points : 2059
    Join date : 2013-05-20

    Zircon missile

    Post  Morpheus Eberhardt on Sat Feb 22, 2014 11:03 am

    GarryB wrote:

    The vehicle shown was a test vehicle (I think called GLA). As such, the scamjet wasn’t even provided with a nozzle to produce any meaningful thrust, not that it couldn’t be provided with one; it just wasn’t needed for this test. Due to this fact, the delta V provided by the fully functioning scramjet was around zero.

    My understanding of the results was that the round intake was too hard to  adjust in flight to control combustion so although it only operated for about 133 seconds and accelerated the missile from mach 5 to just over mach 6 and travelling 180km the main result was that they would change from a round variable intake to a more controllable square one.

    The main solid rocket boosters fell away just after launch but the main body remained attached to the scramjet motor so it was pulling a significant mass from mach 5 to mach 6, and it did so for just over a minute and a half so I think it was rather successful, but they decided a dead end in technology for the moment. Maybe in 10-20 years time our understanding might allow curved intakes, but simpler square ones are needed for now.

    Garry, obviously I didn’t do a good job with my explanation.

    What I was trying to say is that the tests of the scramjet in the picture you provided were very successful, but that doesn’t mean that, in those tests, the scramjet developed much thrust.

    That is because, in those tests there was no intention of developing much of a thrust; therefore, they hadn’t provided the engine with a full nozzle; there was only a vestigial nozzle (of course, a divergent one). An engine needs a proper nozzle to be able to develop its rated thrust.

    Those tests were the tests of the intake and the “supersonic combustion” combustion chamber, not the tests of the nozzle.

    To expect much thrust from a situation were no real nozzle is provided is like expecting for a static test stand used for testing a rocket engine to develop high velocity and fly!

    From a technical point of view, it is similar to removing the nozzle from the end of an RPG-7 launcher. If you do that, the launcher wouldn’t work.

    Also due to technical and historical reasons the relatively low speeds of Mach 5 to Mach 6 aren’t correct (vide supra).

    All of this discussion is pretty academic though; it’s quite obvious to me that the Russians routinely use extremely advanced scramjets (not the old test device that we are talking about) in all kind of applications, like all kinds of hypersonic ICBM warheads and also in many other kinds of weapon systems.
    avatar
    magnumcromagnon

    Posts : 4489
    Points : 4662
    Join date : 2013-12-05
    Location : Pindos ave., Pindosville, Pindosylvania, Pindostan

    US Ballistic Missile Defense Systems

    Post  magnumcromagnon on Tue Jun 17, 2014 7:30 pm

    $40-BILLION MISSILE DEFENSE SYSTEM PROVES UNRELIABLE

    th a convulsive rumble, followed by billowing flames and exhaust, a sleek 60-foot rocket emerged from its silo at California's Vandenberg Air Force Base.

    It was a test of the backbone of the nation's missile defense system. If North Korea or Iran ever launched nuclear weapons against the United States, the interceptors at Vandenberg and remote Ft. Greely, Alaska, would be called on to destroy the incoming warheads.

    Scientists conducting the test at Vandenberg on Sunday, Jan. 31, 2010, had left little to chance. They knew exactly when the target missile would be launched from an atoll in the Marshall Islands 4,900 miles away. They knew its precise dimensions, expected trajectory and speed.

    Based on this and other data, they had estimated the route the interceptor's heat-seeking "kill vehicle" would have to follow to destroy the target.



    Within minutes, the interceptor's three boosters had burned out and fallen away, and the kill vehicle was hurtling through space at 4 miles per second. It was supposed to crash into the mock enemy warhead and obliterate it.

    It missed.

    At a cost of about $200 million, the mission had failed.

    Eleven months later, when the U.S. Missile Defense Agency staged a repeat of the test, it failed, too.

    The next attempted intercept, launched from Vandenberg on July 5, 2013, also ended in failure.

    The Ground-based Midcourse Defense system, or GMD, was supposed to protect Americans against a chilling new threat from "rogue states" such as North Korea and Iran. But a decade after it was declared operational, and after $40 billion in spending, the missile shield cannot be relied on, even in carefully scripted tests that are much less challenging than an actual attack would be, a Los Angeles Times investigation has found.

    The Missile Defense Agency has conducted 16 tests of the system's ability to intercept a mock enemy warhead. It has failed in eight of them, government records show.

    Despite years of tinkering and vows to fix technical shortcomings, the system's performance has gotten worse, not better, since testing began in 1999. Of the eight tests held since GMD became operational in 2004, five have been failures. The last successful intercept was on Dec. 5, 2008. Another test is planned at Vandenberg, on the Santa Barbara County coast, later this month.

    The GMD system was rushed into the field after President George W. Bush, in 2002, ordered a crash effort to deploy "an initial set of missile defense capabilities." The hurried deployment has compromised its effectiveness in myriad ways.

    "The system is not reliable," said a recently retired senior military official who served under Presidents Obama and Bush. "We took a system that was still in development — it was a prototype — and it was declared to be 'operational' for political reasons.

    "At that point, you couldn't argue anymore that you still needed to develop and change things. You just needed to build them."

    Dean A. Wilkening, a physicist at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in Livermore, Calif., offered a similar assessment. Wilkening served on a National Academy of Sciences panel that issued a 2011 report on missile defense.

    GMD remains a "prototype system" that "has performed less well than people had hoped," he said at a May 28 policy conference in Washington, D.C. "If you're going to rely on that as an operational system, one shouldn't be too surprised that it does tend to fail more than you'd like."

    At a separate conference this month, Wilkening called the system's test record "abysmal."

    The Times interviewed missile defense scientists and current and former Defense Department officials, and reviewed thousands of pages of congressional testimony and reports by the Government Accountability Office, the Pentagon's independent testing office, the National Academy of Sciences and the Defense Science Board.

    Official pronouncements about the GMD system, The Times found, have overstated its reliability.

    Early on, the Pentagon's chief weapons buyer told Congress he had high confidence an attack could be foiled by firing one to three missiles at each enemy warhead.

    Under that scenario, "the effectiveness would be in the 90% range," Defense Undersecretary Edward C. "Pete" Aldridge Jr. told the House Armed Services Committee in 2003.

    Navy Adm. Timothy J. Keating, then head of the U.S. Northern Command, was even more emphatic when he told the Senate Armed Services Committee in 2007: "I appear before you today as confident as I know how to be in the employability and efficacy of that system."

    But given GMD's record in flight tests, four or five interceptors probably would have to be launched to take out a single enemy warhead, according to current and former government officials familiar with the Missile Defense Agency's projections.

    The system's 30 interceptors — four at Vandenberg and 26 at Ft. Greely — could be overwhelmed by an attack with multiple missiles.

    The threat would be even greater if enemy missiles were outfitted with decoys or shed metal debris, which could confuse GMD's radar and sensors.

    Despite GMD's problems, influential members of Congress have protected its funding and are pushing to add silos and interceptors in the Eastern U.S. at a potential cost of billions of dollars.

    Boeing Co. manages the system for the Pentagon. Raytheon Co. manufactures the kill vehicles. Thousands of jobs in five states, mostly in Alabama and Arizona, depend directly or indirectly on the program.

    The Obama administration, after signaling that it would keep the number of interceptors at the current 30, now supports expanding the system. Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel has called for deploying 14 new interceptors at Ft. Greely by late 2017.

    Missile Defense Agency officials declined to be interviewed for this article. A spokesman, Richard Lehner, said in a statement that the agency was working "to conduct component testing and refurbishment of the interceptors currently deployed to ... improve their reliability."

    The agency's director, Vice Adm. James D. Syring, told a Senate subcommittee Wednesday that officials had identified the causes of the two most recent flight-test failures, and that the underlying problems had been fixed, or would be by the end of this year.

    Asked about the system's ability to defend against an attack with multiple missiles, Syring said his goal was to "greatly improve where we are today in terms of the number of interceptors that we fly at each threat."

    Raytheon referred questions about GMD to Boeing, the prime contractor for the system.

    A Boeing spokesman, Dexter Q. Henson, said the company "remains confident in the system's ability to defeat potential adversaries."

    ::

    Missiles launched from North Korea or Iran probably would fly over the Arctic Circle on their way to the U.S., the most direct route. The GMD system is designed to destroy incoming warheads at roughly the midpoint of their arcing journey, as they begin their descent toward Earth — hence the term "midcourse."

    Intercepting a ballistic missile is a supreme technical challenge. Scientists liken it to hitting one speeding bullet with another.

    The GMD system's bullet is the 5-foot-long, 150-pound kill vehicle. During flight, it is subjected to extreme stresses: blazing heat and violent vibrations, followed by frigid temperatures outside Earth's atmosphere. Each kill vehicle has more than 1,000 components. The slightest glitch can foil an attempted intercept.

    "Fly, then buy" is a maxim in the defense and aerospace fields, meaning that customers should wait until a complicated new system has been rigorously tested before purchasing.

    With GMD, the government's approach was the opposite: "Buy, then fly."

    Then-Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld exempted the Missile Defense Agency from standard procurement rules and testing standards, freeing it to use research and development money to buy and deploy a system quickly.

    The rocket interceptors were essentially prototypes rather than finished products when put in the field. The first model of kill vehicle was not flight-tested against a mock warhead until September 2006 — two years after the vehicles had been placed in the silos.

    Because each of the kill vehicles is handmade, no two are identical. A fix that works with one interceptor might not solve problems with others. The piecemeal approach has left the system short of spare parts for critical components.

    Pressure to produce and deploy the interceptors at a breakneck pace made it difficult to revise engineering drawings to correct shortcomings exposed in flight tests or keep up with technological advances.

    One senior official involved in the system described his frustration at learning that some computers aboard the kill vehicles lacked the processing power of common cellphones.

    About a third of the kill vehicles now in use — the exact number is classified — are the same model that failed in the 2010 tests, according to people familiar with the system who spoke on condition of anonymity. That model has yet to intercept a target.

    Because interceptors used in test flights burn up when they reenter the atmosphere or are lost in the ocean, scientists have been hard-pressed to pinpoint the causes of the failures.

    But some of the system's problems can be traced to the kill vehicles' internal guidance center — the electronic brain that dictates final speed and trajectory.

    This crucial component, called the "inertial measurement unit," malfunctioned in preliminary factory testing and during seven subsequent flight tests, according to interviews with missile defense scientists and federal auditors and reports by the GAO and the Pentagon's testing and evaluation office.

    Scientists suspect that intense vibration during the interceptors' ascent is the cause of some of the test failures. A GAO report in April described vibration as a "systemic problem."

    It could take years of additional engineering work to solve this and other technical problems in the kill vehicles, scientists said.

    Lehner, the Missile Defense Agency spokesman, said vibrations were successfully dampened in a January 2013 flight test. The test did not involve an attempt to intercept a target.

    Philip E. Coyle III, who oversaw several early test flights as the Pentagon's director of operational testing and evaluation from 1994 to 2001, said that even the system's eight successful interceptions should be viewed skeptically because of the staged conditions.

    "The tests are scripted for success," said Coyle, who has also served as a science advisor in the Obama White House. "What's amazing to me is that they still fail."

    Engineers who have worked with the system acknowledge that because each kill vehicle is unique, even a successful test might not predict the performance of interceptors launched in combat.

    ::

    For decades, America's defense against the nuclear threat was based on the Cold War doctrine of "mutually assured destruction," which held that the prospect of massive retaliation would deter both the U.S. and the Soviet Union from striking first.

    The 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty entrenched this doctrine by prohibiting either side from fielding systems to intercept intercontinental missiles. The idea was that the prospect of mutual annihilation had proved effective and missile defense would undermine it; if either side thought it could block a retaliatory response, the temptation to attack would be greater.

    After taking office in 2001, Bush withdrew from the treaty, which he said was outmoded and prevented the U.S. from protecting itself against new threats from the world's "least responsible states," notably North Korea.

    Bush was not the first president to see promise in missile defense technology. In 1983, President Reagan launched the Strategic Defense Initiative, which envisioned ground- and space-based systems that would render nuclear weapons "impotent and obsolete." An estimated $30billion was spent on the effort, but no system was ever deployed.

    The nation's defense against a massive attack by Russia or China continues to be based on mutually assured destruction. The GMD system was conceived as a safeguard against a "limited nuclear attack" by a less imposing adversary.

    In 1995, Congress attached to the Defense Department budget a provision requiring deployment of such a system by 2003.

    President Clinton vetoed the bill, saying it "would waste billions of dollars" on a negligible threat. But the administration said it would test elements of a missile defense system for three years before deciding whether the technology was reliable enough to deploy.

    Missile defense proponents in Congress responded by appointing an advisory commission chaired by Rumsfeld. In a 1998 report, the commission said U.S. intelligence agencies had failed to recognize the threat posed by North Korea, which it said had the "capability to deploy chemical or biological warheads on missiles."

    The panel suggested that Iran, Iraq and North Korea were developing nuclear weapons. Perhaps most ominous, it said a country committed to developing long-range missiles would need only about five years to do so.

    In July 1999, Clinton signed the National Missile Defense Act, which called for a system to defend against limited ballistic missile attack. The law said an "effective" system should be deployed "as soon as is technologically possible."

    Two of the first three flight tests of rocket interceptors, conducted in 1999 and 2000, failed. The Clinton administration supported continued research but declined to deploy a system.

    That policy changed when Bush took office in 2001 and appointed Rumsfeld secretary of Defense. On Dec. 16, 2002, Bush signed a presidential directive requiring "deployment of a set of missile defense capabilities in 2004."

    The week before, two flight tests of the fledgling system had failed. At that point, its performance record stood at five successful intercepts in nine attempts. Bush's directive called the results "impressive."

    Instead of delaying deployment until the system had been rigorously tested, the Missile Defense Agency, beginning in 2004, placed interceptors in silos at Vandenberg and Ft. Greely and declared the system operational.

    Rumsfeld and his aides said it made more sense to improve the system over time rather than to try to field a finished version at the start.

    "The way this program is evolving, every one of the new missiles will be better than the one that previously was produced," Michael W. Wynne, acting undersecretary for acquisition, technology and logistics, told the Senate Armed Services Committee on March 11, 2004. "Each one of the missiles will add to the reliability of the system."

    Appearing before a Senate subcommittee a month later, the Missile Defense Agency's director, Air Force Lt. Gen. Ronald T. Kadish, acknowledged some "technical challenges" but said: "Things are going all in the right direction."

    Signs of trouble soon emerged.

    Launches planned for Dec. 15, 2004, and Feb. 14, 2005, were scrubbed when the interceptors remained stuck in their silos. Officials attributed the first failure to a "problematic software configuration" and the second to a silo support arm that "did not retract, triggering an automatic abort."

    By then, a dozen interceptors had been placed in silos. The system's proponents maintained that this skeletal shield provided unprecedented protection.

    "If we didn't have this … we would be absolutely naked, given an unexpected attack," said Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) at an April 7, 2005, Armed Services Committee hearing.

    A new Missile Defense Agency director, Lt. Gen. Henry A. Obering III, told the senators that day: "We maintain our confidence in the system's basic design, its hit-to-kill effectiveness and its inherent operational capability."

    Obering conceded, however, that 38% of the software and 33% of other components in the kill vehicles had not been validated through flight testing.

    "I am confident that the kill vehicle will work," he said under questioning. "But we have yet to prove that."

    Project engineers were concerned that some components of the kill vehicles, known as CE-1 models, were already outdated. Spare parts, including replacements for the vehicles' guidance system, were out of stock. This prompted development of a partly redesigned kill vehicle, designated CE-2.

    "The CE-2 was going to be the salvation of the program," recalled a Defense Department engineer.

    Yet neither the original kill vehicle nor the CE-2 featured modular designs that would enable technicians to swiftly remove and replace suspect components. It typically takes a year or more to disassemble and restore a kill vehicle.

    Defense officials bought the CE-2 models from 2008 to 2010 knowing that preliminary factory testing had found problems with the inertial measurement units, according to federal auditors. Though the design of those units was tweaked and they were ultimately cleared as acceptable at the factory, malfunctions arose during flight testing.

    Some of those working on the GMD system believed it was time to stop buying more interceptors and embark on a comprehensive redesign.

    "But the pressures did not allow that to happen," said a former high-ranking Pentagon official, referring to lobbying by contractors and demands from members of Congress. "There was a drive — we had to keep going to more and more" interceptors.

    Boeing and Raytheon are among the top four defense contractors worldwide in revenue. From 1999 through March of this year, Boeing spent $261.6 million on general lobbying of the federal government and Raytheon spent $144.4 million, public records show.

    Raytheon referred questions to Boeing, which offered no comment on its lobbying.

    One of the staunchest advocates for speedily expanding the system has been Sen. Jeff Sessions, a Republican from Alabama, where missile-defense jobs are heavily concentrated.

    Sessions, the senior Republican on the Senate subcommittee responsible for missile defense, has fought moves to slow the production of the rockets and has warned repeatedly about what North Korea or Iran might do.

    Alabama's other senator, Richard C. Shelby — the ranking Republican on the Appropriations Committee — has also sought to deflect concerns about the test

    failures and the program's cost.

    "We're interested in cost," Shelby said at an appropriations subcommittee hearing on July 17, 2013. "We're also interested in defending this country."

    Though both North Korea and Iran have launched crude unarmed missiles, U.S. intelligence assessments provided to Congress indicate that neither country has the capability to deliver a long-range, nuclear-tipped missile to the United States.

    ::

    In late 2008, Bush appointed an experienced physicist to lead the Missile Defense Agency.

    Army Lt. Gen. Patrick J. O'Reilly discovered that the agency was spending more to prepare the harsh terrain at Ft. Greely for a planned third field of interceptors than to improve the problem-plagued kill vehicles.

    O'Reilly persuaded Defense Department officials to support postponing the new field so the money could be used for design and engineering fixes to the interceptors, according to people familiar with the matter.

    Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates agreed to delay the work.

    A group of senators, including Sessions, privately complained to Gates about the decision. Others in Congress, including Rep. Michael R. Turner (R-Ohio), suggested that O'Reilly was looking past the North Korean threat.

    At a House Armed Services subcommittee hearing on May 21, 2009, Turner told O'Reilly that not deploying more interceptors would undermine "our industrial base," adding: "There's concerns in second- and third-tier suppliers who, reports indicate, could be without work at the end of this year."

    O'Reilly replied that his priority was to "ensure that we are addressing the obsolescence" of the electronics in the interceptors.

    He soon learned that Gates was planning to visit Ft. Greely. O'Reilly voiced interest in joining Gates but said he was blocked by the Defense secretary's aides and never got the chance to explain personally his rationale for postponing the expansion.

    Gates later ordered the third field of silos built. In his book "Duty: Memoirs of a Secretary at War," Gates said he reversed his earlier decision after "seeing how close they were to completion." Gates did not respond to messages seeking comment for this article.

    As O'Reilly and his staff focused on the next test flight, new concerns arose about the CE-2 kill vehicle.

    In March 2009, the GAO reported that the test was being delayed, partly because of problems with the CE-2's guidance center, the inertial measurement unit. The office also noted that 10 of the kill vehicles "will have been manufactured and delivered before that first flight test demonstrates the CE-2 capability."

    Ten months later, the CE-2 was at last scheduled for its first flight test.

    Preparations were elaborate. Commercial air and shipping traffic was warned to stay out of a wide swath of the Pacific on the day of the test.

    At 3:46 p.m. Sunday, Jan. 31, 2010 — six minutes after a target missile was launched from Kwajalein Atoll in the Marshall Islands — the rocket rose from its silo at Vandenberg. The attempted intercept failed.

    After a months-long review, the Missile Defense Agency attributed the failure in part to "kill vehicle and system sensor" malfunctions.

    The review also faulted a contractor for failing to install a lock wire — described by engineers as a "twist-tie" device — when assembling the kill vehicle.

    Federal auditors reported that the sea-based radar used to track the target missile had become confused by pieces of metal that sloughed off the projectile, underscoring the system's potential vulnerability to decoys.

    Sessions continued to press the Pentagon to buy and deploy more interceptors.

    "This administration, to me, is penny-wise, pound-foolish," Sessions told O'Reilly at a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing on April 20, 2010. "I'm concerned about whether or not we're building enough, we're deploying enough, of these missiles."

    On Dec. 15, 2010, engineers once again launched a CE-2 kill vehicle from Vandenberg toward a target missile.

    This time the sea-based radar "performed as planned," the missile agency said, but the kill vehicle missed the target.

    O'Reilly told a Senate subcommittee on April 13, 2011, that he wanted to halt the planned purchase of seven interceptors and use the savings "to do more refurbishments" and conduct additional testing.

    "That looks to me like you're robbing Peter to pay Paul," Sessions replied, adding: "We don't need to stop short of the number of interceptors we need in the ground and prepared."

    Asked for comment, Sessions' office said the senator's advocacy for the GMD system was motivated by concern for national security.

    Shelby said in a statement that the work done on GMD in Alabama helped "protect the U.S. and our allies from rogue and unpredictable countries.... Given the increasingly dangerous world we live in, I will continue to advocate for missile defense to deter and defend against our enemies."

    ::

    In his first round of congressional appearances as O'Reilly's successor, Syring said he had "great confidence we have addressed the causes" of the failed December 2010 test.

    Appearing before a House Armed Services subcommittee on May 8, 2013, Syring said the next flight test would "demonstrate the improvements made" to the fleet of interceptors. For this test, the missile agency would use one of the original CE-1 kill vehicles.

    The test was held July 5, 2013 — 31 months after the last attempted intercept, which failed.

    After burning its boosters to reach space, the interceptor failed to separate from the rocket, preventing it from striking the target.

    Syring is asking Congress for $99.5 million to begin what he described Wednesday as a "redesign improvement" of the kill vehicle. The work would stop short of a complete redesign, according to people familiar with the matter.

    Frank Kendall III, undersecretary of Defense for acquisition, technology and logistics, broke ranks recently with those who have given upbeat assessments of GMD.

    "We recognize the problems we have had with all the currently fielded interceptors," Kendall told a defense industry conference in Washington in February. "The root cause was a desire to field these things very quickly and very cheaply.... We are seeing a lot of bad engineering, frankly, and it was because there was a rush."


    http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-missile-defense-20140615-story.html#page=4

    Austin

    Posts : 6327
    Points : 6727
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Location : India

    $40-billion missile defense system proves unreliable

    Post  Austin on Tue Jun 17, 2014 7:50 pm

    avatar
    max steel

    Posts : 2968
    Points : 2999
    Join date : 2015-02-12
    Location : South Pole

    1) US SM-3 AEGIS BMD has shown sucessful tests

    Post  max steel on Wed Apr 15, 2015 1:48 pm

    1) US SM-3 AEGIS BMD has shown sucessful tests . But they've recently developed SM-6 , which will replace SM-3 from aegis BMD . You got any info on SM-6 ?

    SM-6 or RIM-174 Standard ERAM , which first became operational in December of last year, is engineered with both an active and semi-active seeker, giving it an increased ability to discern and discriminate targets when compared to other missiles . It has capabilities to go over-the-horizon . In addition to missile defense and defense against fixed and rotary wing aircraft, the SM-6 can also defend against land-attack and anti-ship cruise missiles in flight. Having an over-the-horizon ability against anti-ship cruise missiles could prove extremely advantageous as it brings the possibility of destroying them at much greater ranges.
    Neutral


    SM-6 is in the same class as PAC-3/S300-S400/Arrow-2 . By having active guidance technology engineered into the missile, the SM-6 extends the range of the ship’s radar and also frees up the ship’s radar to focus on additional potential targets. Semi-Active mode means the radar has to see what it’s shooting at and guide in the missile. A ship’s radar won’t see over the horizon and won’t be able to guide in to anything that is beyond the horizon. Active mode is not tied to radar

    Garry B look what i found ( teaching fanboys and ignorants since 2005 ) : http://forum.keypublishing.com/archive/index.php/t-43201.html Very Happy
    avatar
    Viktor

    Posts : 5669
    Points : 6312
    Join date : 2009-08-25
    Age : 36
    Location : Croatia

    1) US SM-3 AEGIS BMD has shown sucessful tests . But they've recently developed SM-6 , which will replace SM-3 from aegis BMD . You got any info on SM-6 ?

    Post  Viktor on Wed Apr 15, 2015 1:57 pm

    max steel wrote:1) US SM-3 AEGIS BMD has shown sucessful tests . But they've recently developed SM-6 , which will replace SM-3 from aegis BMD . You got any info on SM-6 ?


    SM-3 like THAAD can not shoot at anything that flys within earth atmosphere. Meaning no cruise missiles, no fighters, no AWACS, no tankers no PGM antiship-missiles no nothing.
    Its purely anti-ballistic missile system.

    The gap within the atmoshpere fills in SM-6. On the other hand SM-6 will not be able to cope with BM. SM class of missiles are a far the most successful class of AD missiles US has

    developed.






    avatar
    George1

    Posts : 10509
    Points : 10986
    Join date : 2011-12-22
    Location : Greece

    US ABM Systems [Missile Defense Agency]

    Post  George1 on Mon Jun 08, 2015 12:41 pm

    The current US NMD system consists of several components.

    1. One major component is Ground-Based Midcourse Defense (GMD), consisting of ground-based interceptor (GBI) missiles and radar in the United States in Alaska, which would intercept incoming warheads in space. Currently some GBI missiles are located at Vandenberg AFB in California.

    2. Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense System. A major component is a ship-based system called the Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense System. several US Navy ships were fitted with SM-3 missiles to serve this function, which complements the Patriot systems already deployed by American units. Also, warships of Japan and Australia have been given weapons and technology to enable them to participate in the American defense plan as well.

    3. Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) is a program of the US Army, utilizing ground-based interceptor missiles which can intercept missiles in the upper part of the atmosphere and outside the atmosphere.


    Last edited by George1 on Mon Oct 26, 2015 11:20 pm; edited 1 time in total
    avatar
    George1

    Posts : 10509
    Points : 10986
    Join date : 2011-12-22
    Location : Greece

    Re: US ABM Systems

    Post  George1 on Mon Jun 08, 2015 12:42 pm

    US Defense Contractor Raytheon Launches State-of-the-Art SM-3 Missile

    The first live-fire test of Raytheon's new Standard Missile-3 (SM-3) Block IIA missile has been announced by US and Japanese officials; the multi-billion-dollar project is currently being jointly developed by the two countries.

    Last weekend saw the first live-fire test of Raytheon Company's new Standard Missile-3 (SM-3) Block IIA missile, which is being jointly developed by the United States and Japan, news reports said.

    The test, which was carried out from the Point Mugu Sea Range off the coast of California, was a success, according to Rick Lehner, a spokesman for the US Missile Defense Agency.

    His praise was echoed by Taylor Lawrence, president of Raytheon's missile systems business, who said that "the success of this test keeps the program on track for a 2018 deployment at sea and ashore."

    The United States reportedly spent more than two billion on the program, while Japan contributed around one billion dollars to the project.

    The SM-3 IIA is a modified version of an earlier SM-3 missile, which is compatible with the US Aegis combat system designed to destroy incoming ballistic missile threats in space.

    More powerful rocket motors and key technology improvements will allow the new missile to protect larger regions from short- to intermediate-range ballistic missile threats.

    The goal of Saturday's non-intercept test was to analyze performance of the missile's nosecone, steering control section and booster separation, US officials said.

    According to Riki Ellison, head of the non-profit Missile Defense Advocacy Alliance, three more years of testing for the new missile are planned before it is slated to be put on service on US Navy Aegis ships, aboard Japan's Kongo-class destroyers, and at land-based Aegis Ashore sites in Poland and Romania.

    On June 3, Raytheon published its 2014 Corporate Responsibility Report, which stressed the company's commitment to enriching the lives of people, strengthening its performance and reducing its impact on the planet. The report highlighted Raytheon's third consecutive recognition by The Civic 50, an NGO, as one of "the nation's most community-minded companies." Raytheon sells missiles to the United States as well as countries such as Japan, Israel, and Saudi Arabia.

    Read more: http://sputniknews.com/world/20150608/1023071234.html#ixzz3cSwq4MEE
    avatar
    George1

    Posts : 10509
    Points : 10986
    Join date : 2011-12-22
    Location : Greece

    US Missile defence

    Post  George1 on Wed Jul 15, 2015 10:18 pm



    _________________
    "There's no smoke without fire.", Georgy Zhukov

    avatar
    George1

    Posts : 10509
    Points : 10986
    Join date : 2011-12-22
    Location : Greece

    Re: US ABM Systems

    Post  George1 on Sat Jul 25, 2015 1:42 pm



    _________________
    "There's no smoke without fire.", Georgy Zhukov


    Austin

    Posts : 6327
    Points : 6727
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Location : India

    Re: US ABM Systems

    Post  Austin on Wed Aug 05, 2015 8:22 pm

    avatar
    sepheronx

    Posts : 7252
    Points : 7546
    Join date : 2009-08-06
    Age : 28
    Location : Canada

    Re: US ABM Systems

    Post  sepheronx on Wed Aug 05, 2015 8:27 pm

    Thats US advertisement. What does that have to do with S-300 and 400?
    avatar
    max steel

    Posts : 2968
    Points : 2999
    Join date : 2015-02-12
    Location : South Pole

    FUTURE MISSILE DEFENSE SYSTEMS

    Post  max steel on Wed Aug 05, 2015 8:47 pm


    Crap. They are thinking of lasers to destroy incoming ballistic missiles both from sir land and sea.  Not possible.

    S-Band Radar station is there in Alaska already which is being used to track missiles coming from asia pacific at usa. Nothing new.

    Redesigned Kill vehicle for their Ground based interceptors in alaska. Well usa interceptors using ce-1&2 kill vehicle are purely unreliable. I ve shared a link on this forim somewhere exposing usa interceptors flaws.

    Space based radars to overcome geostrategic limit isnt a problem. Russia can do it too.

    Kill vehicle in space to destroy decoys well as far as I know militarization of space isnt allowed under a treaty. Though If usa wants to militarize space better for russia to drop start and inf treaty. It would be interesting to see if murikans will make new nuclear icbms or not. Their nuclear force is all 80s.

    THAAD-ER to kill hypersonic gliding vehicles in future. lol!

    Boost Phase missile defense system to target russian icbms before they release their decoys and mirvs. Sounds like a wishful thinking more of a wet dream.

    My opinion on your linked pdf.
    avatar
    Book.

    Posts : 699
    Points : 760
    Join date : 2015-05-08
    Location : Oregon, USA

    Aegis BMD "SM-6 & SM-2" Intercept Test

    Post  Book. on Sat Aug 08, 2015 10:15 pm

    イージス・ミサイル防衛 「SM-6 & SM-2」 迎撃試験 - Aegis BMD "SM-6 & SM-2" Intercept Test
    Published on Aug 8, 2015

    Aegis ballistic missile defense system (Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense System, Aegis BMD) over the four days of July 28 to August 1, 2015 and was conducted off the coast of Hawaii, Standard missile "SM-6 Dual I" (RIM -174 Standard ERAM) and "SM-2 Block IV "of (RIM-156), short-range ballistic missiles and cruise missile intercept test SM-6 dual I and SM-2 Block IV, from the SM-3 is currently in deployment atmosphere of low-altitude interceptor missile to shoot down a ballistic missile in a test the United States Navy's Arleigh Burke-class destroyer "John Paul Jones "(Aegis baseline 9.C1) went Multi-Mission Warfare ( MMW)

    Event 1: July 28 intercept the SM-6 dual-I in the short-range ballistic missile (SRBM)
    Event 2: July 29 intercept the SM-2 block short-range ballistic missile in IV (SRBM)
    Event 3: 7 month the 31st and hit the SM-6 dual-I in the cruise missile (target machine · AQM-37C) (the proximity fuze warhead program so that it does not explode)
    Event 4: August 1 SM-6 dual-I in the cruise missile (target machine · BQM-74E) to hit (the proximity fuze warhead program so that it does not explode)



    Note missing Question Question
    Event 0: July 18 intercept SM2 missle go boom! lol1

    I luv the cut...save face! pwnd
    avatar
    George1

    Posts : 10509
    Points : 10986
    Join date : 2011-12-22
    Location : Greece

    Re: US ABM Systems

    Post  George1 on Thu Aug 13, 2015 2:01 am

    NORAD Commander: Our Missile Defense Strategy Won’t Work

    Despite spending billions on a state-of-the-art missile defense system, North American Aerospace Defense commanders have admitted that it would be largely ineffective in preventing an incoming attack. The solution? Adding an offensive element to that defense.

    "We’ve made incredible strides in missile defense," Admiral Bill Gortney, head of NORAD and US Northern Command, said during a recent Space and Missile Defense conference, according to Breaking Defense.

    Those successes include the development of an SM-6 interceptor capable of shooting down both cruise and ballistic missiles.

    But those defense systems are expensive, which lead Gortney to another conclusion.

    "Not only is it unaffordable, it will not work," he said. "We are going to lose this fight on our current strategy."

    That’s because no matter how many pricey defense systems are purchased, it would never be enough to counter every potential threat.

    So what’s a defense department to do? According to earlier assessments by outgoing Army Chief of Staff Gen. Ray Odierno and Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Jonathan Greenert, the solution is two-fold.

    Firstly, NORAD could consider organizing a global network for quickly transmitting targeting data across various militaries and branches. That type of grid has been in the works for the past decade, with little to show for it. But a renewed interest could push the project forward.
    The United States has plans to ask Canada to install a new missile sensor system in that country's part of the Arctic, in order to upgrade old sensors and be able to detect multiple types of missile threats.

    "That was one of the things we think we need to really invest in [to] get firing-quality track data…for all the domains," Gortney. "We need to do that across DoD."

    Such a network may not be far beyond the realm of possibility.

    "We have the technology. The technologies are probably all out there," Gortney said, according to Breaking Defense. "It’s getting it aligned."

    The second phase involves a strategy known as “left of launch.” Using targeting data, NORAD could identify incoming missiles before they’re launched, and initiate a preemptive attack on launch installations.

    "When you really look at 'left of launch,' it does involve having a rather deep understanding of your adversary first and foremost…even before it [the missile] is on the launch pad," Gortney said. "If it’s going upright and it has a target that we care about in its system, to me we’re a bit late to the problem."

    "And that’s why the offensive capability of our whole military apparatus is important," he added.

    While Gortney does not specify a threat that could potentially overwhelm NORAD’s capabilities, he did allude to growing Russian capabilities during a testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee in March.

    "Should these trends continue over time,” he said, “NORAD will face increased risk in our ability to defend North America against Russian air, maritime and cruise missile threats."

    Read more: http://sputniknews.com/us/20150812/1025680080/Losing-NORAD-Missile-Defense-Strategy.html#ixzz3ieFjZPUq


    _________________
    "There's no smoke without fire.", Georgy Zhukov

    avatar
    George1

    Posts : 10509
    Points : 10986
    Join date : 2011-12-22
    Location : Greece

    Re: US ABM Systems

    Post  George1 on Sat Sep 12, 2015 2:00 am

    US Moving Ahead With Regional Missile Defense Systems Despite Iran Deal

    The United States will keep working on a missile defense system in the Gulf, despite the nuclear deal with Iran, which has the largest inventory of short- and medium-range cruise and ballistic missiles in the region.

    In July, the United States and five other major world powers reached a deal aimed at curbing Iran's nuclear program in exchange for lifting of sanctions.

    On Thursday, Senate democrats blocked a Republican-backed effort to kill the agreement, giving President Barack Obama a major victory and clearing the way for the deal's implementation.

    Because the deal does not cover Iran's work on ballistic missiles, the Pentagon will continue to push for cooperative missile defense programs, Robert Scher, assistant defense secretary for strategy, plans and capabilities, told lawmakers, according to Reuters.

    "There is no doubt in my mind that Iran's ballistic missile activities continue to pose a risk to the United States and our allies and partners in Europe, Israel, and the Gulf," he told the House Armed Services Committee's strategic forces subcommittee.

    US Air Force Brigadier General Kenneth Todorov, the former deputy director of the US Missile Defense Agency, said he saw growing momentum for a Gulf missile shield, Reuters reported.

    "The worst mistake we could make if the deal happens is to say, 'We can let our guard down,'" he told an event hosted by the Missile Defense Advocacy Alliance, a non-profit group that lobbies for missile defense programs.

    In May, President Obama met with Gulf allies and the group underscored their commitment to the defense system, as Washington tried to relieve uneasiness in the Gulf over a more powerful Iran once sanctions are lifted.

    Gulf countries will have to cooperate more to create a truly integrated system, Todorov said. One feasible option would be to integrate missile systems that are already in use by individual countries.

    Read more: http://sputniknews.com/middleeast/20150911/1026895203.html#ixzz3lTgAeDw9


    _________________
    "There's no smoke without fire.", Georgy Zhukov

    avatar
    max steel

    Posts : 2968
    Points : 2999
    Join date : 2015-02-12
    Location : South Pole

    Re: US ABM Systems

    Post  max steel on Fri Sep 25, 2015 11:58 am

    avatar
    George1

    Posts : 10509
    Points : 10986
    Join date : 2011-12-22
    Location : Greece

    Re: US ABM Systems

    Post  George1 on Fri Sep 25, 2015 12:30 pm

    max steel wrote:The Pentagon’s
    $10-billion bet gone bad


    -multiple kill vehicle is a bust , ineffective system .


    $40-BILLION MISSILE DEFENSE SYSTEM PROVES UNRELIABLE

    Nice, good news..


    _________________
    "There's no smoke without fire.", Georgy Zhukov

    avatar
    max steel

    Posts : 2968
    Points : 2999
    Join date : 2015-02-12
    Location : South Pole

    Re: US ABM Systems

    Post  max steel on Fri Sep 25, 2015 9:15 pm

    avatar
    Werewolf

    Posts : 5358
    Points : 5589
    Join date : 2012-10-24

    SM-3 MISSILE INTERCEPTOR

    Post  Werewolf on Fri Sep 25, 2015 11:23 pm


    That is already 2.5 times better than what Patriot achieved in Iraq against old ass Scuds. Progress, it's something...
    avatar
    max steel

    Posts : 2968
    Points : 2999
    Join date : 2015-02-12
    Location : South Pole

    Re: US ABM Systems

    Post  max steel on Sat Sep 26, 2015 11:37 pm

    More good news


     
    How a $2.7 billion air-defense system became a 'zombie' program JLENS failed to perform as promised



    I was discussing about it on another thread and now i got all my answers.Quite revealing actually , once again thanks to LA Times . These guys do authentic and real journalism .

    Sponsored content

    Re: US ABM Systems

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Tue Oct 17, 2017 1:34 pm