Flash-man: what a drudge you must have been to fly with ... i.e., are you EVER positive re: ANYTHING??? Or is it just that Hoser influence oozing through, eh??? (smiles, smiles, smiles .... )
I think this is really impressive from all aspects. It was a great engineering triumph to modify the missile in the relatively small time frame to meet a real-world challenge and definately another triumph for the Lake Erie and her crew. I have not been onboard (other than to run aloft chits) but my ship is homeported with the Lake Erie. That ship is kind of a glory hog but I personally think it's justified.
I'm sorry, but I fail to see how hitting two similarly sized ballistic targets is more difficult simply because one is an ICBM. I think the most difficult part of getting an ICBM would be ensuring that the launch platform is in the proper place for an intercept. Given an excellent radar combined with a capable missile, I think the chances are in our favor. Note: If I were the CO of the LE I'd definitely be putting a satalite on my bridge wing
If LE(actual) does that, he will get upgraded to "coolest SWO", which is still somewhere south of NFO. I wonder if other boats have airliners painted on the bridge....
The higher alcohol content in Canadian beer has killed too many of the 'happy' brain cells....... And I am positive, occasionally.....Remember, I thought it would work....... P.S. BZ to the Captain and crew of the USS Lake Erie, damn fine job!
You need to expand your thinking a little bit.......An ICBM comes in a much higher altitude and much faster than a SRBM and a MRBM and can cover a much wider area in terms of targets. Also, an ICBM would be launched from a much further distance away (around 10,000 miles) than an SRBM/MRBM (300-1500 miles) and getting a targeting solution is many times more complex. A very rough analogy would be using a ZSU-23 against a helo flying at 200ft and 100kts vs a ZSU-23 against a F/A-18 at 10,00ft and 600kts. They are both aircraft that can be hit by the ZSU-23, but drastically different targets. If you just look at the basics, the launch site or platform would probably be launching their interceptor blind to make a successful intercept because of the great distances invloved, cued from an off-site sensor, giving them mere seconds to react an launch on what may or may not be an ICBM. With a lot of SRBM's and MRBM's, the launchers might be cued from off site sensors but they would still be able to get their own targeting solutions before firing. It is also great when you know from where and when something is coming, like a satellite, but you are probably not going to know that when it comes to a surprise ICBM attack, with multiple targets (MIRV's) inbound. The SM-3 was not designed for that type of scenario, that is what the Ground Based Interceptors (GBI's) in Alaska and California are supposed to take care of, and which have not had the very good testing history of the SM-3's. I have dealt quite a bit with this issue in the recent past and I still keep very up to date with it. Missile defense is an incredibly complex problem that has many more moving parts, and a much more complex target set, than people realize. Some of the work that has been done has been very good, like the SM-3 and the PAC-3, but that does not make the massive investment in some of the MDA work (the SM-3, PAC-3 and THAAD only take up so much of the MDA budget) on the bigger problem of ICBM's is tilting at windmills. It is not an impossible problem to solve, but I don't think it is worth the investment necessary for the limited number of targets.
I'm to the point that I'd rather support the MDA than the vast collection of Baltimore crack whores that must live off my tax dollars. We bitch about technology capability leaving the US here's one are we can lead in. Software that can process the high speed complex calculations that are required for the task. Materials science to make it work, radars that can be linked to portray accurately large volumes of airspace and non-squaking targets. Then follow it up to make this stuff move to civilian better mousetraps. If it's complex there's always spin-offs.
Crack whores aren't using $10 billion in government funding every year. As for technological advances, I don't think that many would come from the the MDA effort that would help the US as a whole. Sure, we would have better tracking of space stuff but most of the other stuff is just too specialized to transfer to other uses. I would rather see much of the $10 billion go to other defense uses, like more ships for the Navy, more helos for the Marines or even a C-2A replacement.
I can't imagine the pressure those guys were under given the media attention. I'm sure some FC1 was just promoted to Ensign somewhere!
Here is the guy "activating the SM-3". Petty Officer Andrew Jackson LCDR Andrew Bates operating the radar system control in CIC......MB, any relation?
My Dad is a contractor at MDA, and is involved with all the C4I architecture in getting all these different systems that Flash talked about, (PAC3, THAAD, Aegis, GBI, and eventually the 747 ABL) to interface with NORTHCOM in Co Springs....my argument that I have with him is that the next nuclear event that occurs on U.S. soil, God forbid, the delivery device will not be an ICBM, but in the back of a U-haul or in a container on a merchant ship, which would obviate the need for BMD.
So, does that mean the US should stop developing BMD? It is precisely the capability the US is developing that will mitigate the most likely threat which several nations openly admit to pursuing. I understand your argument, but while Flash argues that hitting an RV(not the Puma kind) at apogee is difficult, it is equally if not more difficult to construct a device and smuggle something like it into CONUS. I don't know much about Stratcom, or astrophysics/missile engineering, but I know something about Homeland Defense and CBP's extensive ability to, well...you know.
The media made a big deal about how much the shootdown cost, but why hasn't anybody mentioned the fact that a multi-million dollar "spy" satellite never worked from day one? Who paid for it? Did the govt get it's $$ back? also, I'd be curious to know how much ELINT the commies got from this? oh well, good job SWO's, bronze stars for all my friends ... S/F
Just because they admit it to trying doesn't mean they can make it work. Only four countries have proved capable of making ICBM's, with one more that could probably do it. Two of them are enemies, one has way too many ICBM's to intercept without spending our entire defense budget on BMD and the other could easily build a lot more. We have expelicitly claimed, backed up by the numbers of GBI's we have built, that we are not targeting their missiles. So who are we defending against again?
According to this we are trying to prevent "rogue" nations from blackmailing us with ballistic missiles.
Admiral Keating speaks out on intercept COMPACOM gives his views on intercept: Transparency of Satellite Shootdown Offers Model By Jim Garamone American Forces Press Service CAMP H.M. SMITH, Hawaii, Feb. 21, 2008 – The way the United States handled the shootdown of a dead reconnaissance satellite last night offers a model of the transparency it encourages other countries more secretive about their military operations to adopt, the commander of U.S. Pacific Command said today. Navy Adm. Timothy J. Keating pointed to the huge difference between last night’s mission, aimed at destroying a satellite hurtling toward Earth, and the secret anti-satellite weapons test the Chinese conducted in January 2007. “We’ve told people what we’re going to do; we’ve told them how we’re going to do it, and it’s very open,” Keating said. The rationale behind the two missions was distinctly different, as well. President Bush decided to shoot down the satellite to preclude a danger to humans from hydrazine, a toxic fuel that would have been used to steer the satellite had it worked. The Chinese test, in contrast, was designed to test an anti-satellite weapon. To carry out its mission, the U.S. fired a modified Standard Missile 3. The Chinese, in contrast, fired a specially designed anti-satellite weapon. Keating told reporters he hopes the Chinese will learn from the U.S. model. “We would hope that they can see how to do an operation like this, emphasizing the transparency, emphasizing clear intentions, realizing --that while we don’t have press embedded on the ship -- everybody knows what’s going on,” he said. “The Chinese did not do that when they launched their anti-satellite test. We hope there are some lessons that become apparent to them.” U.S. defense officials have long encouraged China and other nations around the world to be more transparent about their military operations. Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates encouraged more openness during his visit to China in November. Keating visited China in January in an effort to bolster the two countries’ military relationship and promote improved communication. He told Pentagon reporters in November that solid communication between the United States and China will help reduce the potential for misunderstanding. This will leave “less room for confusion that could lead to confrontation, to crisis,” he said. “That’s our goal,” he said. “To get there, we reduce the chance for misunderstanding.”
And the official word from DC with video Navy Missile Likely Hit Fuel Tank on Disabled Satellite By Gerry J. Gilmore American Forces Press Service WASHINGTON, Feb. 21, 2008 – The missile fired from a U.S. Navy ship in the Pacific Ocean that hit a malfunctioning U.S. reconnaissance satellite late yesterday likely accomplished its goal of destroying the satellite’s toxic fuel tank, a senior U.S. military officer said here today. See video Preliminary reports indicate the SM-3 missile struck its primary target, which was a tank full of toxic hydrazine rocket fuel carried aboard the 5,000-pound satellite, Marine Gen. James E. Cartwright, vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told reporters at a Pentagon news conference. “The intercept occurred. … We’re very confident that we hit the satellite,” Cartwright said. “We also have a high degree of confidence that we got the tank.” Video shown to reporters depicts the satellite exploding at the point of contact with the missile. Cartwright said the visible fireball and the vapor cloud or plume around it suggest that the fuel tank was hit and the hydrazine had burned up. “The high-definition imagery that we have indicates that we hit the spacecraft right in the area of the tank,” Cartwright said. However, he added, it probably would take another 24 to 48 hours of sifting through data “to get to a point where we are very comfortable with our analysis that we indeed breached the tank.” Radar sweeps of the satellite’s debris field thus far show that no parts larger than a football survived the strike, Cartwright said. Post-strike surveillance shows satellite debris falling into the atmosphere above the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans, he said. Small remnants are likely to burn up in the atmosphere, never making it to the Earth’s surface. The U.S. State Department has provided updates on the situation to its embassies around the world, Cartwright noted. There are no reports of debris reaching the Earth, he said, adding that consequence-management crews are on standby to respond to such a circumstance, if required. The SM-3 missile was launched by the USS Lake Erie, positioned northwest of Hawaii, at 10:26 p.m. EST yesterday, Cartwright said. Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates, who is on an overseas trip, gave the go-ahead to fire, Cartwright said. The missile intercepted the satellite about 153 miles above the Earth, just before it began to enter the atmosphere, Cartwright said. Joint Space Operations Center technicians at Vandenberg Air Force Base, Calif, confirmed the satalitte’s breakup about 24 minutes later. The National Reconnaissance Office-managed satellite malfunctioned soon after it was launched in 2006, making it unresponsive to ground control. The satellite, orbiting Earth every 90 minutes or so, was expected to fall to Earth in February or March with its tank of hydrazine intact, possibly endangering human populations. President Bush directed the Defense Department to engage the satellite just before it entered the atmosphere. U.S. officials decided to shoot down the satellite because of the danger posed by the hazardous hydrazine, Cartwright explained, noting the goal was for the missile to hit and rupture the tank of rocket fuel, causing the hydrazine to burn up harmlessly in the atmosphere, along with debris from the stricken satellite. “So, you can imagine at the point of intercept last night there were a few cheers from people who have spent many days working on this project,” Cartwright said.
SECDEF takes time during trip to comment Missile Defense System Works, Gates Says By Fred W. Baker III American Forces Press Service Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates talks to members of the press after touring the USS Russell in Pearl Harbor, Hawaii, Feb. 21, 2008. Defense Dept. photo by U.S. Air Force Tech. Sgt. Jerry Morrison EN ROUTE TO CANBERRA, Australia, Feb. 21, 2008 – The Navy’s outer-atmosphere blasting of an ailing U.S. spy satellite this week proves that the nation’s missile defense systems work, Secretary Robert M. Gates said today. “I think, actually, the question of whether this capability works has been settled. The question is: Against what kind of a threat (do we employ the technology)? How large a threat? How sophisticated a threat?” Gates said during a meeting with press after a tour of the Navy’s USS Russell, used as back-up for the shootdown. Gates toured the destroyer at U.S. Naval Station Pearl Harbor, Hawaii, during a stop on his way to Canberra, Australia, for the Australia-United States Ministerial Consultations. Gates said there have been several successful attempts of the defense system, and the fact that it works also is validated by Congress’ continued funding of the program for the past several years. In its beginnings, the program struggled for funding, and that is what many people remember about missile defense, he said. “I think that people remember a time some years ago when missile defense was extremely controversial and a lot of people questioned whether it would work or not, and there was always a struggle in the Congress to get money for missile defense,” Gates said in an interview with media traveling with him. “One of the significant changes that has taken place in Washington over the past few years has been a general recognition that the development of the system has proceeded, that it does have capability, and that it is increasingly sophisticated in terms of the kind of challenges that it may be able to beat -- although it still (is) very much designed for a very limited kind of threat.” While Congress and other leaders likely were aware of the missile defense system’s capabilities, the general public still was not, Gates said. He said that a side benefit of the satellite shootdown was that the American public got to see a demonstration of the missile defense capabilities. “Completely a side benefit of yesterday’s action was to underscore the money that the Congress has been voting for this has resulted in a very real capability,” Gates said. “I think the issue of whether it will work is behind us, and we just need to keep improving this capability.”
