Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    US ABM Systems

    Share

    Austin

    Posts : 6233
    Points : 6639
    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 : 5672
    Points : 6321
    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 : 3452
    Points : 3570
    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 : 6233
    Points : 6639
    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 : 16302
    Points : 16933
    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 : 1945
    Points : 2066
    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.

    Austin

    Posts : 6233
    Points : 6639
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Location : India

    $40-billion missile defense system proves unreliable

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

    $40-billion missile defense system proves unreliable
    avatar
    max steel

    Posts : 2979
    Points : 3011
    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 : 5672
    Points : 6321
    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 : 10222
    Points : 10710
    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

    Austin

    Posts : 6233
    Points : 6639
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Location : India

    Re: US ABM Systems

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

    FUTURE MISSILE DEFENSE SYSTEMS

    http://missiledefenseadvocacy.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/System-Brief-3-Future-BMD.pdf
    avatar
    sepheronx

    Posts : 7255
    Points : 7555
    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 : 2979
    Points : 3011
    Join date : 2015-02-12
    Location : South Pole

    FUTURE MISSILE DEFENSE SYSTEMS

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

    Austin wrote:FUTURE MISSILE DEFENSE SYSTEMS

    http://missiledefenseadvocacy.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/System-Brief-3-Future-BMD.pdf

    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 : 704
    Points : 767
    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 : 10222
    Points : 10710
    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 : 10222
    Points : 10710
    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 : 2979
    Points : 3011
    Join date : 2015-02-12
    Location : South Pole

    Re: US ABM Systems

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

    The Pentagon’s
    $10-billion bet gone bad

    -multiple kill vehicle is a bust , ineffective system .


    $40-BILLION MISSILE DEFENSE SYSTEM PROVES UNRELIABLE
    avatar
    George1

    Posts : 10222
    Points : 10710
    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 : 2979
    Points : 3011
    Join date : 2015-02-12
    Location : South Pole

    Re: US ABM Systems

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

    'PROVEN' SM-3 MISSILE INTERCEPTOR MAY ONLY SUCCEED 20 PERCENT OF THE TIME, SAY PHYSICISTS confused
    avatar
    Werewolf

    Posts : 5361
    Points : 5598
    Join date : 2012-10-24

    SM-3 MISSILE INTERCEPTOR

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

    max steel wrote: 'PROVEN' SM-3 MISSILE INTERCEPTOR MAY ONLY SUCCEED 20 PERCENT OF THE TIME, SAY PHYSICISTS    confused

    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 : 2979
    Points : 3011
    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 .
    avatar
    max steel

    Posts : 2979
    Points : 3011
    Join date : 2015-02-12
    Location : South Pole

    Re: US ABM Systems

    Post  max steel on Mon Sep 28, 2015 11:45 pm

    New Missile Killer Performs Test Flight, on Schedule for 2018 Deployment



    The United States and Japan have conducted the first flight test of a new version of the Standard Missile-3 (SM-3 Block IIA).

    This new missile interceptor is designed to extend the reach of current AEGIS Ballistic Missile defense systems deployed on naval ships and ashore. It is being developed jointly by the two countries at a combined cost of $2 billion. When deployed, the new missile will extend the defensive capability of AEGIS BMD systems to intercept intermediate-range ballistic missiles (missiles capable of attacking targets at ranges of up to 5,500 km.). The current SM-3 Block IB can only engage short- and medium-range ballistic missiles (with attack ranges of up to 3,000 km.). The SM-3 block IIA, has a maximum speed of roughly 4.5 km/s.

    Saturday’s test evaluated the performance of the missile’s nose cone, steering control, booster separation, and the performance of second- and third-stage propulsion. “The success of this test keeps the program on track for a 2018 deployment at sea and ashore,” said Taylor Lawrence, president of Raytheon’s missile systems section.

    The flight test, from the Point Mugu Sea Range, San Nicolas Island, California, was performed by The Technical Research and Development Institute (TRDI), Japan’s Ministry of Defense (MOD), and the U.S. Missile Defense Agency (MDA), in cooperation with the U.S. Navy.






    Must Read and comments also : Why Russia Keeps Moving The Football On European Missile Defense


    Last edited by max steel on Tue Sep 29, 2015 12:10 am; edited 1 time in total
    avatar
    sepheronx

    Posts : 7255
    Points : 7555
    Join date : 2009-08-06
    Age : 28
    Location : Canada

    Re: US ABM Systems

    Post  sepheronx on Tue Sep 29, 2015 12:05 am

    Please don't post American propaganda news claims in Russian boards.
    avatar
    max steel

    Posts : 2979
    Points : 3011
    Join date : 2015-02-12
    Location : South Pole

    Re: US ABM Systems

    Post  max steel on Tue Sep 29, 2015 12:11 am

    sepheronx wrote:Please don't post American propaganda news claims in Russian boards.


    read the second link
    avatar
    sepheronx

    Posts : 7255
    Points : 7555
    Join date : 2009-08-06
    Age : 28
    Location : Canada

    US ABM systems

    Post  sepheronx on Tue Sep 29, 2015 12:26 am

    max steel wrote:
    sepheronx wrote:Please don't post American propaganda news claims in Russian boards.


    read the second link

    Hmm.

    After reading it, I can also counter with saying "Well, it isn't just the parameters. But we have evidence of modern PAC-3 missiles performing really, really poorly against scud missiles, as shown in Yemen.

    Sponsored content

    Re: US ABM Systems

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Sat Aug 19, 2017 1:05 pm