Slashdot Mirror
US Missle Interceptor Tests a Success
An anonymous reader writes to mention that the U.S. Missile Defense Agency and Lockheed Martin recently reported success in the test flight of the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) missile system. "THAAD is designed to defend U.S. troops, allied forces, population centers and critical infrastructure against short- to intermediate range ballistic missiles. THAAD comprises a fire control and communications system, interceptors, launchers and a radar. The THAAD interceptor uses hit-to-kill technology to destroy targets, and is the only weapon system that engages threat ballistic missiles at both endo- and exo-atmospheric altitudes."
Obligatory.
The THAAD interceptor uses hit-to-kill technology to destroy targets
This is far superior to the "miss-to-kill" technology they were employing in previous models.
The theory of relativity doesn't work right in Arkansas.
download Firefox and you'll see the big fucking red line /spelling nazi
THAAD is RAADical!!
Sorry, very poor taste in pun choices there.
Good. Cheap. Fast. Pick Two.
This is perfect for my collection of anti-terrorist paraphernalia.
The dangers of knowledge trigger emotional distress in human beings.
Now the question is whether this will just be a defense against missile threats from rogue states, or the start of another arms race. How long before we start to see missiles with the kind of sophisticated countermeasures against interception that military aircraft have against missile threats?
Anti-US rhetoric in 3... 2... 1...
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
...how many tracking devices was the "target" running so that the projectile could find it and hit it? I really don't think enemy missiles will do the equivalent of waving a banner and screaming "Hey defense system! I'm right here!"
They strapped a thirty ton magnet to the missile with bright flashing light and had it fly 40 mph? Naaaah. I'm sure the test wasn't rigged. The military would NEVER do that.
the major advances in civilization are processes which all but wreck the societies in which they occur - A.N. White
It used to be Theater High Altitude Area Defense.
Is that better than THAC0?
Proud member of the American Non Sequitur Society. We might not make much sense, but boy do we love pizza!
It uses kinetic energy to destroy a target (1/2 * m * v**2), no explosives onboard.
At first, I was thinking "Great, now all we can defend ourselves against all of those ICBMs that Al-Queda has laying around". But then I realized that there are countries that don't have the luxury of having a few thousand miles of ocean between them and their enemies. I think this technology would be great if deployed to South Korea, Japan, Tiawan, or Isreal. Nothing says "Screw you, Kim" like a system to completely nullify the technology that he's spent years and an equivalent of about his entire country's GDP to develop. Or a note from the IDF to hezbollah: "Can you please stop shooting missiles at us? I'm getting tired of re-loading the launcher".
Is that the American word for "missile" or something ?
Hezbollah has announced they have developed an anti-anti-missile missile. "Take that, you zionist pigs!" said one spokesman. Currently Lockheed Martin is developing an anti-anti-anti-missile-missile missile to counter this new threat.
From TFA:
'Lockheed Martin's program manager and vice president for the THAAD program... "On the expansive range at PMRF, the THAAD missile can fly greater distances, increasing our testing options and creating a realistic tactical environment"'
The article seems to indicate that this testing is not to allow for use, but to allow for further testing. This wasn't the "prove it works" test, but rather the "we could possibly get it to work" test.
I'm personally against the political use of such systems - it defeats the progress we've made in terms of MAD over the REAL threats to humanity in terms of nuclear weapons - politicians are already eager enough to justify use of weapons when in "this new terrorist era" or whatnot. But if it DOES work, and it does save lives, then it's development is still a net good - I'd just still be against deployment until we have direct evidence it would be necessary to save humanity. I'd much rather put 10000 times the effort into not needing such a tool, rather than spend all our efforts on a new arms race.
Ryan Fenton
old news...I watched it in action on "Future Weapons" on Discovery Channel last night....and that was a rerun (it aired last Monday night as a new episode).
But that's as opposed to proximity detonation.
well, that actually happened at the *after* party celebrating the success. So your worries are aleviated ;-)
People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people
So Ronald Reagan finally got his Star Wars technology eh? Queue the Star Wars music!
sri
whether or not the system can defend against the recently developed random-trajectory missile developed by Russia.
I thought that the President had basically annulled that treaty, by saying that it was with a country that no longer exists, and thus is not in force anymore (or something like that).
If you look on the top of the page you linked to, it says "The State Department web site below is a permanent electronic archive of information released prior to January 20, 2001. Please see www.state.gov for material released since President George W. Bush took office on that date."
A quick Google search reveals that the U.S. dumped the 1972 ABM treaty in December of 2001.
There are a lot of things that I take issue with Bush for, but this frankly isn't one of them; I've always been of a mind that it's lunacy to prevent nations from defending themselves. If the world is getting dangerous because of ICBMs, maybe that should be the focus of restrictions, not systems that protect from them. But then again, I've never been down with the whole "MAD" concept in general.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
A few quibbles with this "test":
Look at any similar development. The air-to-air missile, for instance. The standard AIM-9 has gone through many, many improvements over the years. None worked perfectly, in all realms, against all countermeasures, the very first shot.
Get it to actually 'hit' the target first, then work on the other parts.
No... it's just a typo. I'm tagging this article "typo".
It seems like cruise missiles (which aren't ballistic) do a lot of damage. This would not bother a cruise missile.
This post climbed Mt. Washington.
why is it ok for us to have these missiles, but not ok for other countries?
Who says they can't?
engages threat ballistic missiles at both endo- and exo-atmospheric altitudes
... and would NOT describe the "Cruise Missile", which depends on lifting surfaces for most of its flight.
N EWS.php
This is marketing speak for "it's steerable as a rocket, not just with flight surfaces." Note that this would describe most ballistic missiles of all sorts.
Link about the Dec 11 test...
http://www.missiledefenseadvocacy.org/index/THAAD
And you can look up THAAD on wikipedia yourself...
In the next few years, there are more countries than just Russia that we will have to be worried about defending ourselves from ... the treaty covered our whole ABM defense system, regardless of the fact that other threats might emerge.
That was in the 2nd edition. THAAD is the "to hit numner" using a one sided die...
My other SIG is a Sauer.
* Was there just one incoming target? Why? Even KJI can afford a few dozen missles.
d e_Area_Defense
One target, one missile. Why use more than one when you are still testing 1:1 first?
* Was the approximate time and direction of the threat known?
The humans knew it, the computer didn't until after launch.
* Any decoys deployed by the intruder? Why not?
Does any missile currently use a decoy?
* How large an area can it protect before the angle-off becomes unmanageable?
That's called the "range" of the defense system. Anymore "angle-off" and the target is out of range. One would presumably have an overlapping system of these.
* Any jamming from the intruder? Why not?
Placing a jamming system on the target is just making it easier to hit. It is easy to home in on the radio waves emitted by anything with a jammer.>
* How does this help against low-trajectory ICBM's, sub-launched IRBM's, or cruise missles, all capable of carrying sizeable WMD's?
"Theater High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) system is the only core Theater Missile Defense (TMD) system which will be capable of engaging the full spectrum of theater class ballistic missile threats."
http://fas.org/spp/starwars/program/thaad.htm
"The THAAD system was designed to handle short and medium range ballistic missiles; such as Scuds and derived weapons. However, a limited incidental capability against ICBMs exists."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terminal_High_Altitu
Fly me to the moon Let me sing among those stars Let me see what spring is like On jupiter and mars
Originally the System was "My name is Earl"..but NBC filed suit... Next was the "iThaad" but Apple had that... (And I think Cisco had that first...depending on what lawyer you talk to).. So now we are stuck with Thaad. They were going to paint it Brown and call it "Thune"... but the marketing folks at Lockheed thought a Brown "Thune" would be fiscal disaster even the pentagon wouldn't go for...
THAAD
While technically it's attractive -- even to a die-hard peacenik like me -- I would much rather see more positive efforts. Besides, an inceptor -- expensive -- will be easy to foil with duds and dummies -- cheap. All "the enemy" on a shoestring budget needs to do is launch a bunch of duds along with the real missile, and the intecptors will waste their time, letting the real one slip through.
Yet another fine example of "military intelligence".
Ruby Neural Evolution of Augmenting Topologies
You never really know how close to the edge you can go until you fall off.
Who do you get to be an expert to tell you something's not obvious? The least insightful person you can find? -J Roberts
You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
instead launch hundreds of missiles, overwhelming any possible defense.
Correction. Overwhelm and current defense. Ideally (realistically?), once the system is developed the cost of the individual interceptor missiles would be cheap enough such that one could have one (or more) for each incoming missile.
Fly me to the moon Let me sing among those stars Let me see what spring is like On jupiter and mars
I suggest you review the entire program before you ask further irrelevant questions about the THAAD test. THAAD is just one part of the entire program. Specifically, look at Medium Extended Air Defense System (MEADS).
I happen to have $500 billion sitting in my bank account, and now I have something worthwhile to spend it on! I was going to buy healthcare for everyone in my country, but, um, nah!
This sort of reasoning always bugs me with missile defense. The "it's a waste of money if it doesnt stop every possible thing in the world right now, oh and slice and dice and juelienne." Its about building a capability over time, you start with one capability and then add more. You integrate additional systems, like the PAC3, Aegis, X-Band radar in the Adac etc. And you gain a capability over time. For instance we already shoot down theater missiles very well, its called a PAC3. We right now have the POTENTIAL to shoot down an ICBMs from NKorea with inteceptors in California and Alaska, I'll take the POTENTIAL over nothing. Aegis ships have a theater intercept capability and their tracking data can be uploaded and used by other systems. Its about defense in depth. Right now ICBM missile defense has a limited capability, that we are continuously expanding and increasing. And there are additional systems, upgraded inteceptors, the airborne laser, all these individual components will build into a bigger more robust system. Is it expensive, yes, take a lot of time, yes, a lot of R and D, yes. But we now have a POTENTIAL of shooting down a crazy rogue nations ICBMs, decreasing their blackmailing options, I'll take that any day of the week.
Here's a link for information on MEADS
Clearly there's a reason[maybe 'cause I'm a big dumb Canuck] why no one else seems to worry about it, so why don't one of you supersmart slashdotters explain this to me...
How expensive is a civilian-type ship, capable of crossing the pacific ocean? Something big enough that it could carry a medium-sized nuke. I'm not talking something able to take out LA or San Francisco in one hit, but big enough to do some serious dirty damage to those capitalist pigs? I'd think that LA would be a good target for this sort of thing. Right next to the Big Pond, and it's pretty full of freaks(*insincere apologies to those of you from there*).
Is it really the case that one couldn't drive a ship from NK to the states, maybe with fabricated ID saying you're Japanese/South Korean/Whatever? I just
Sure, it's a slower delivery mechanism, but why aren't we worried about this too? Just too annoying/expensive to bother with? Not as showy a show of power and technological awesomeness?
Who says they can't?
No one does. It's just that they are hideously expensive to develop and twenty years on we still don't have all that much to show for it. Faced with an effective ABM system, one answer is to simply overwhelm it with massive numbers of real and decoy missiles. The sheer weight of missiles that the Soviets could throw at us made even developing an ABM system a fairly crazy thing to do. Someone like Kim Jong Il isn't going to have huge numbers of missiles for quite a long time. A fairly effective ABM system would make attacking such a nuclear state without nuclear retaliation to yourself seem at least plausible since the political reality is that even one of your cities getting nuked is unthinkable.Thing is, I'd sure hate to see that system fail if it emboldened us enough to attack them...........
True. The idea is to have multiple opportunities at any threat. The flight of a missile is broken into three phases. Boost, Midcourse, and Terminal. There are missile defense systems being designed and tested for each of the phases and for different types of missiles (ICBM, cruise, scud).
Comment removed based on user account deletion
You just have to set the right expectations.
thegodmovie.com - watch it
It's supposed to be "mistle", referring to the new defense system for women at office christmas parties.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
This is far superior to the "miss-to-kill" technology they were employing in previous models
Joke all you want, but that's what we've actually been doing. Didn't anybody ever tell you that close counts with hand grenades?
And nuclear weapons.
Which, unfortunately, was exactly the "big boom" "kinda close" that had been contemplated in some previous ABM designs.
After all, if it has blossomed, MIRV style, into a cloud of decoys and multiple real nuclear bombs on independent trajectories, spread out by quite a bit by the time your missile gets there, you need a BIG boom to disable all of them that matter. And without an atmosphere to carry a shockwave it helps if you can irradiate with heat, gammas, and neutrons, and can vaporize the whole antimissile and hit the targets with the vapor.
Problem with that is you're setting off your OWN nukes above your OWN targets - and high enough above the atmosphere to do a major electromagnetic pulse when the gamma burst makes a sheet of electrons the size of a continent jump upward by a few miles. (With defenses like that who needs an enemy missile with a real warhead? Other than to provoke the defense.)
So, yes, "hit to kill" is a BIG improvement over the "miss-to-kill technology they were using in previous models". (Assuming you have at least as many anti-missiles as they sent warheads and convincing decoys.)
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
What party has intermediate missiles and has no fear of massive retaliation?
North Korea, you say?
If you study their behavior, you'll see that they may be erratic. But the
"beloved leader" is MOST consistent in terms of protecting his own live - Witness the miles and miles of underground dwelling that they have built.
IOW, he may be as eccentric as many western celebrities, but certainly NOT a suicide bomber. So who is this system really going to be used against?
But what about the migrating birds? Some with gastrointestinal problems?
.
This is the 3rd new weapons tech announcement in so many days. First the US Navies Electromagnetic Rail Gun, then the Heat Ray & now this. You don't think they are planning something do you?
* Game Over * High Score: 264,846,927 -- Your Score: 14
The dwindling number of countries which still suck up to the US (like the Czech Republic) are already interested in having such a system on their soil. Everyone with a brain knows it can't work as designated, but there are other uses. The missiles can target airplanes or cars, or be refitted, quickly and quietly, to carry any sort of warhead.
When you increasingly rely on bully strategies that involve large numbers of individual actions that blatantly disregard local laws or human rights, such a system is exceedingly useful. IMNSHO, the primary use of MEADS (which this is a part of) will be the power to blow up any target in the Middle East reliably, at any time, within minutes, with no air force involved and possibly in a difficult-to-trace way. If there was no CNN effect, they might as well deploy Katyushas, like the Hezbollah does.
blow your mind already
Obviously, someone managed to shoot an i out with the thing.
Get off my launchpad!
This was featured on Future Weapons on Jan 22nd: http://dsc.discovery.com/fansites/future-weapons/e pisodes/episode-guides.html
The episode was very interesting. If you aren't familiar with the show it is very good, and the host is one heck of a sniper. He drums it up a bit, and is a little over the top, but the guy can shoot so you have to show some respect.
So this thing can shoot down a missile when its controllers know one is on the way. How well does it work against a whole fleet of unexpected incoming missiles along with decoys,chaff and multiple warheads? Or, to be a little more up to date, how well does it work against a handful of fanatics in a stolen jumbo jet, or with a mini-van loaded with fertalizer? "Missile defense" is a gigantic, money sucking hole. How much did this thing cost and how much safer would we be if we had spent the same amount on diplomacy or on improving conditions for our own countrymen rather than fattening the wallets of a handful of defense contractors?
You are so boring that when I see you my feet go to sleep.
You've got to learn to understand this administration. In the first instance, "Mission Accomplished" meant that the mission of making sure that a forever war had been created that would enrich military contractors for decades to come, to give back what had been taken from them when the Soviet Union went belly-up in such an unexpected manner. That, and protecting Americans from having to get their hair mussed up trying to figure out alternatives to fossil fuels. And never mind that Bush and Co. were all in the oil business. That's not in the least bit relevant. Just more crazy hippie talk.
This time, "Mission Accomplished" means that they can now justify (sort of) another few trillion keeping those same friendly contractors busy building [drumroll, please] MISSILE DEFENSE, the Star Wars of the new millennium.
Problem is, the enemy du jour (Islamonazifascistliberals) don't really have much in the way of missiles. But far be it from the guys in charge to let that stop them. It's easier to sign a check than actually get a clue. And much easier to light a fuse than tell someone who's poured millions into your campaigns that they're going to have to start working for a living.
You are welcome on my lawn.
;-)
--Phillip
Can you say BIRTH TAX
I was actually trained to misspell this word. The problem is that in high school, someone (very roughly) cloned "Missile Command" on the high school computer, and many of us would sometimes play it.
But the computer was a PDP-11 running RSTS/E. Filenames had the 6+3 constraint. So the game was called "MISSLE" (plus an extension depending on source or compiled). Since I got used to typing it that way, my brain got used to spelling it that way.
I like to think I'm a fully recovered missile speller now, but it has been a tough journey.
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
Treaties must be ratified to have the force of law. The ABM treaty was not. Therefore, it was never a treaty.
Slashdot "libertarians": Small government for me, big government for those I disagree with. -1, I disagree with you
I don't see anything in the article to indicate THAAD works against ICBM's that can behave more like cruise missiles and zigzag to their targets. Check the following:
USB Missile Interceptor? Oh.
ICBM, or even Balistic or even simple missile is one thing. A city buster transported by conventional means (hidden in a truck, in a wood crate, in a car, or in a plane or whatever does not look like a threat) is another. THAAD might be interresting for theater of operation, or even zone like israel where hezbollah terrorist use katuschia rocket daily (used to?), but a determined nation with nuclear capability, can certainly in an insane moment flatten any city in the world with a bit of time and a conventional method. HECK, the wood-crate with lead lining method has another big advantage : you can't easily trace back from where it came, on the contrary to a balistic missile. If you all US-ian quake in fear at NK nuke capability then instead of such anti balistic system, I would recommend searching through all goods coming in your seaport.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
Am I the only one here that watches FutureWeapons on the Discovery Channel?
Get a piece of depleted uranium (or tungsten) the size and shape of a telephone pole. Drop it from space.
For bonus points, slingshot it around Jupiter. It then travels in the direction of the bunker, helped by both Earth and Sun gravity.
? informative? Um... the article was a press release from LockheedMartin. Got stock in them or something?
Choosing just one option would be suicidal.
We can use hit-to-kill like THAAD. We can use ground lasers, orbiting lasers, and airborne lasers. We can use sabotage of the enemy equiment, physically or by screwing up the software. We can use diplomacy. We can use the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. We can have a sneaky sniper on enemy territory shoot an ICBM right at launch -- a hole in the boost rocket will do the job. We can use an X-ray laser. We can use economics as both carrot and stick. We can export out culture to reduce misunderstanding and general hatred in the long term. We can use radar-controlled heavy machine guns to stop incoming devices.
As a final protection, there is always the cave 10 feet underground stocked with calcium and iodine supplements.
Nothing is 100% perfect. Every little bit helps.
-sniiiiiiiiif- ahhhhhh! nothing like fresh, regurgitated propaganda! ahhhhhh!
Remember, the Patriot missile was an anti-aircraft system. In the anti-missile role it's like the dancing bear or the piano-playing dog; we are delighted that it works at all.
A recent upgrade to the Patriot system provides more THAAD-like missiles and better software, but it's still a system originally designed to take down slower-moving aircraft.
Now we have THAAD, supposedly for short-range and medium-range missiles. It'll probably do a decent job on the ICBMs as well, which is better than we had before. Like the Patriot system, it will get upgrades. Like the Patriot system, the lessons learned (hopefully not via cratered cities) will help us to design the next generation.
You can sometimes use missiles for boost phase. That depends on geography.
Launch from center of Russia or China: no.
Launch from North Korea: yes. (from ship, plane, Japan, South Korea, etc.)
BTW, only a fool would want to rely on one single intercept method. Numerous anti-missile ideas are worth implementing.
There is now a laser-based system that nicely takes out artillery shells, morters, and small rockets.
...called THUD if its a hit-to-kill weapon?
Have gnu, will travel.
Impact with a large bird would probably wipe out the ICBM. Maybe even a very small bird would do.
Imagine it the other way around if it helps you. Imagine the ICBM is motionless, and the bird is at mach 20. (equivalent, by relativity) Remember what a chunk of foam did to the space shuttle.
Hey, that would do the job nicely. We can use space shuttle foam.
I remember the host saying that it did that intentionally to burn off some energy. I'm thinking but not sure that may be because of the controlled test because he said that it specifically wouldn't go past White Sands borders?
That which does not kill me only postpones the inevitable.
In separate news, the Dutch institute of technology just announced a fishing net made of superfibre to protect troops in *stan against RPGs. Does this fall under low tech (it is a regular fishing net producer that makes these things) or high tech (it is still a superfibre)?
Babelfish translation here: http://babelfish.altavista.com/babelfish/trurl_pag econtent?lp=nl_en&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.volkskrant. nl%2Fwetenschap%2Farticle392325.ece%2FVisnet_van_s upervezel_smoort_antitankgranaat
But that will need some extra translation:
visnet = fishing net
granaatwurger = grenade strangler
wachttorens = guard towers
You are welcome on my lawn.
It's so nice to to touch base with the latest bleeding-edge technologies in the field of top-down, user-centred, interpersonal solutions. This bespoke methodology is bound to give proactive leaverage to next-level paradigm shifts in our operating model and incentivise the rationalization process across the enterprise.
Endo-atmospherically yours,
A. T. Bun
Snoop Dogg? Or because it's 'nucular' driven?
-.-
These aren't intended to protect the US from a massive missile attack, they're intended to protect deployed US and allied forces from short and intermediate range missile attacks. Think South Korea or Japan defending against North Korean attacks, or US forces in Saudi Arabia defending against Iranian missiles.
Best Slashdot Co
Yes they did "knock it down". http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-434281424 2402397718&q=thaad&hl=en
You know, Custer had a plan.
Hahaha it's so true. Apparently the pres and vp earning dividends off a company they give multibillion dollar no-bid contracts to doesn't bother some people.
Although I will say that the missile defense shield shouldn't just be abandoned because the enemy du jour is a bunch of international drug-dealing, murderous, criminal organizations. I think there is merit to realizing that there are still thousands of ICBMs aimed at this country. And the THAAD is also very useful against short to intermediate-range missiles, which is helpful against rogue nations who would like to shoot some of those at our troops or allies. And if they're tipped with nuclear warheads, that could get ugly.
But then again I work for Lockheed Martin, so maybe my view is a bit skewed. [i kid]
Decoys are a reasonably effective strategy but it comes at a significant cost.
1. Even decoys require launchers and lift vehicles (rockets). The decoys need everything that the armed ICBM needs, absent a warhead. Otherwise the difference in flight characteristics will be obvious and the decoys can be ignored.
2. Proportionate response. If we see twenty missiles coming at us from North Korea we will respond proportionately with twenty missiles. This happens as soon as a launch is confirmed, before THAAD has intercepted any missiles and before the fraction of decoys - if any - is known. Since we do not know any of this information, our proportionate response will assume that all their missiles are armed, so all of ours will be armed. While we lose a city, the DPRK is obliterated.
Short and intermediate range ballistic missiles are not typically launched from submarines. The only ballistic missiles launched from US subs are no-kidding ICBMs - Trident II's. With a few exceptions (the Brits, Russians, maybe a few others), no one else has a subsurface ballistic missile capability at all. And the THAAD system would not be capable of intercepting that kind of missile (if I understand it correctly).
Actually, short and intermediate range ballistic missiles are pretty much always land-based. Think Pershing II in the US, or SCUD overseas. These are the kinds of systems THAAD is meant to counter.
Sean