Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

US Missle Interceptor Tests a Success

Posted by ScuttleMonkey on from the pull! dept.

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."

38 of 391 comments (clear)

  1. Mission Accomplished? by cashman73 · · Score: 5, Funny

    Obligatory.

    1. Re:Mission Accomplished? by mi · · Score: 3, Interesting

      How about the mission defined in the Authorization for Use of Military Force in Iraq, defend the security interests of the US from the threat in Iraq?

      That's done too. Iraqi Army, which used to threaten our aircraft patrolling North (Kurds) and South (Shia) of the country, is disbanded. The threat to our allies in the region (Kuwait, Israel, Saudi Arabia) is gone too, thank you very much...

      ... hottest threat center in the world, probably part of Greater Iran.

      Iran now has 100+K American troops next to it, which is good if we want to contain it. USSR (so contained earlier) is gone — America's decades-long presence in Western Europe accomplished its purpose. Now it is Middle East's turn...

      We have the most effective military in the world, pointed at our own head.

      Only if "your head" is somewhere in Najaf's orchards plotting to kill prominent Iraqis or US soldiers...

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    2. Re:Mission Accomplished? by CajunArson · · Score: 4, Insightful

      > independent event, therefore they have nothing to do with each other and you can't add up their probablities.

      Take a coin with a 50/50 chance of turning up heads. Each flip is independent of all the others. Now, what is the chance that for 100 flips EVERY flip will come up tails with 0 flips coming up heads?
          (0.5) ^ 100 = 7.8 * 10^-31 (0 for any chance this side of hell of not getting a heads)

      If the chance of a hit is only 5% (meaning a miss is 95%):
            (0.95) ^ 100 = 0.0059205292203339975 (0.59% chance of a miss, or about a 99.4% chance of a hit)

      Killing the missile only requires 1 hit. The parent may be optimistic in some ways, but he is completely right with his figures, and you need to go back to probability 101.

      --
      AntiFA: An abbreviation for Anti First Amendment.
    3. Re:Mission Accomplished? by SnowZero · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Dear statistically challenged: 1-(1-0.05)^100 ~= 0.994 = 99.4%

      because each defensive rocket they fire is an indepedent event, therefore they have nothing to do with each other and you can't add up their probablities.
      Yeah, that's why you multiply them.

      The likelihood of each of those rockets successfully destroy the incoming missile is 5%, and they can all fail at the same point as each other.
      So, now you are saying they aren't independent? A sentence earlier you claimed they were.

      So, in the end, the chance to stop the incoming missile is only 5%.
      I await your assumptions and calculation that comes up with this result. Then we can discuss it.

      There's nothing wrong with not knowing something, but there is something wrong when you try to spread your incorrect view. I suggest taking a stats class, or sitting down with a book, and learning.
    4. Re:Mission Accomplished? by Danse · · Score: 4, Insightful

      but -- I repeat -- the original military mission of defeating the enemy's armed forces was accomplished...
      That's just semantics. We rolled in and defeated their military in a matter of days. Except we actually didn't since a bunch of them ran off and became part of an insurgency that has hooked up with other like-minded folks and has been wreaking havoc for the last couple of years now, and which we are no closer to defeating now than we were then. Saying we defeated their military is absolutely meaningless when our people are getting blown up daily by guys with guns and bombs. So what if their formal military is gone, they have something much more effective now, obviously.
      --
      It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
  2. it's an advancement, by User+956 · · Score: 5, Funny

    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.
  3. Whoa, Dude! by DittoBox · · Score: 3, Funny

    THAAD is RAADical!!

    Sorry, very poor taste in pun choices there.

    --
    Good. Cheap. Fast. Pick Two.
  4. New arms race? by caitriona81 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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?

    1. Re:New arms race? by Dunbal · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Now the question is whether this will just be a defense against missile threats from rogue states

            The system works on short and intermediate range missiles - the kind presumably launched from submarines.

            The arms race isn't new - it's an ongoing thing if you have an army. The only option is to do away with it to get out of the race. But if you're a large nation with many useful resources - stuff other people might want - you're stuck in the race.

            Still the danger here is if you (temporarily) have a way to avoid taking damage from an enemy, that makes it MORE likely that you will strike with less hesitation. Frankly I look forward to the day that this technology can be defeated. A little fear and hesitation is good for foreign policy once in a while. It begets respect.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    2. Re:New arms race? by megaditto · · Score: 3, Interesting

      No, this is convincingly aimed at the rogue states (with 1-2 missiles), and not at, say Russia or China.

      That's because the system is nearly impossible to scale up or upgrade effectively, and it is very vulnerable to countermeasures.

      Therefore, there's simply no reason for the arms race.

      --
      Obama likes poor people so much, he wants to make more of them.
    3. Re:New arms race? by Jack9 · · Score: 4, Informative

      There is no question as the technology is perhaps the worst kind. A lucrative defense contract that produced a system that doesnt work in real world scenarios. Are you so misled by a defense contractor's press release to ask a followup question or are you being sarcastic?

      http://www.davidsuzuki.org/about_us/Dr_David_Suzuk i/Article_Archives/weekly07250301.asp to give you a high school primer on the physics of distance vs speed, which is noticeably independent of the targetting concerns. We wont hear about this until the system " unfortunately fails to counter" a simple rocket launched from a truck somewhere near Washington D.C.

      "If you build a missile defense that is so fragile almost anything an adversary does will cause it to collapse, then you invite a weak adversary to (attack)" - Theodore A. Postol

      --

      Often wrong but never in doubt.
      I am Jack9.
      Everyone knows me.
    4. Re:New arms race? by jfengel · · Score: 5, Insightful

      That may have been true with respect to Mutually Assured Destruction, but I think that this is aimed more at modern asymmetrical warfare. These days the US doesn't really fear massive barrages from the Soviet Union or China as much as it fears a single missile from North Korea or Iran with a nuclear warhead. Something which can inflict tens of thousands of casualties.

      Response to such an event would be difficult. To prevent it from happening again we'd have to inflict massive, disproportionate damage on the enemy, thus incurring truly epic international hatred. We wouldn't even be 100% certain of being able to identify the enemy.

      This throws the balances of MAD out of whack. I can actually believe North Korea would try such a thing and believe they could get away with it. It knows that the first thing China would do is insist that the US take no retaliation, and back it up with real MAD. Shooting down that one missile (or at least making North Korea believe we could) dramatically reduces the risk.

      (Note: I'm not an expert in international relations. There are plenty of people who would say that the US is busily making the world a more dangerous place, and has been since before our latest Iraq debacle. I'm just trying to explain the actions in terms of our own perceptions. "Truth", if there is such a thing, may well differ.)

    5. Re:New arms race? by Martin+Blank · · Score: 3, Informative

      Submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SLBMs) are not intermediate-range ballistic missiles (IRBMs) from a technical sense, and usually not from a practical sense, either. Trident missiles used by the US and UK have a range of 12,000km, more than double the maximum range used by the State Department when describing IRBMs. Russia has used SLBMs with ranges of 7000km or more (up to about 8000km) since the early 1960s). Only the French and Chinese field SLBMs with ranges that fall within the State Dept's definition of an IRBM (3000km-5500km).

      THAAD is intended for use against tactical weapons, such as those that might be deployed over a theater. Mixing eras, it would be used against weapons with V-1 and V-2 missile ranges. It's also far less expensive (and apparently far more effective within its given role) than the more well-known ABM system, and will be complementary to the eventual deployment of the ABL, which itself sort of straddles the divide, being dependent more on the curvature of the earth than anything else for its range.

      --
      You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
  5. Sounds great but... by common+middle+name · · Score: 3, Insightful

    ...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!"

    1. Re:Sounds great but... by kaiser423 · · Score: 5, Informative

      That's actually how the THAAD tests work. Same with Aegis, and the GMD (ground-based on the coast).

      They use nothing but the actual hardware that's in the field. No special stuff to track the target. This is actually a working, real-world style system. Typically, they put the operator on alert for a couple of days or a week (at least in Aegis tests), and they fire it sometime during that window without notifying anyone. They also usually fire a couple of other missiles at the cruiser (well, near misses) that the crew also has to destroy while launching their interceptor.

      It's a neat, nearly totally mature capability and it is currently a real deterrent.

  6. THAAD? by brouski · · Score: 5, Funny

    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!
  7. Translation by everphilski · · Score: 5, Informative

    It uses kinetic energy to destroy a target (1/2 * m * v**2), no explosives onboard.

  8. Whew... by Lord_Slepnir · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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".

    1. Re:Whew... by kfg · · Score: 4, Funny

      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.

      Tell me about it. I can damn near see Canada from here.

      KFG

    2. Re:Whew... by YrWrstNtmr · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The threat from North Korea TO South Korea, yes.
      The threat to Japan, Hawaii, or maybe even Alaska or Seattle is another matter. Why do you think Kim has been trying to shoot those missiles out into the Pacific? Not much success so far, but he may get it to work eventually.

    3. Re:Whew... by Lord_Slepnir · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Conventional artillery takes a while to do it's work. Not to mention that South Korea probably has a ton of counter-battery artillery trained on every known artillery park within range of Seoul. A nuclear tipped missile, however, can flatten a city with only a few minutes notice, and it's likely that (If the North Korean military is smart) there are no stationary launch sites; When the word comes, a tractor-trailer will drive out of a mountain tunnel somewhere north near the border with China, shoot, and then retreat.

      On top of that, there's a huge psychological effect that a nuclear bomb carrys that conventional attacks don't. Every schoolchild knows about the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Few know about the fire bombings on Dresden, even though more people were killed that night than in both Atomic bombings combined.

  9. Missle ??? by Salsaman · · Score: 5, Funny

    Is that the American word for "missile" or something ?

  10. Next up.... by Lord_Slepnir · · Score: 5, Funny

    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.

  11. Testing for more testing, not for use... by RyanFenton · · Score: 3, Informative

    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

    1. Re:Testing for more testing, not for use... by kaiser423 · · Score: 3, Informative

      No, it actually means that out on white Sands they could only shoot short-range targets. They hit those regularly. Out in the ocean by Hawaii they can shoot much longer range missiles since it's not flying over land, so they're testing the mid-range capabilities and those are working also.

      White Sands proved that they could shoot down short range missiles, and the PMRF testing is ensuring that they can hit medium range missiles. It's just another step. Now they'll try more complex geometries. But the test was nearly 100% valid as a real-world training exercise. The system works now; they're not saying "we could make it work." They're saying that it just did.

    2. Re:Testing for more testing, not for use... by Ironsides · · Score: 4, Insightful

      it defeats the progress we've made in terms of MAD over the REAL threats to humanity in terms of nuclear weapons

      MAD became obsolete the moment an opponent showed up that didn't care whether they lived or died so long as you didn't survive. It was useful against the USSR and China, but not against anyone that we would not qualify as 'sane'.

      --
      Fly me to the moon Let me sing among those stars Let me see what spring is like On jupiter and mars
    3. Re:Testing for more testing, not for use... by frogstar_robot · · Score: 3, Insightful

      MAD became obsolete the moment an opponent showed up that didn't care whether they lived or died so long as you didn't survive. It was useful against the USSR and China, but not against anyone that we would not qualify as 'sane'.

      These people who blow up themselves up in markets and crash airplanes are mostly sexually frustrated, indoctrinated young hotheads. The older ones writing the checks and ranting and raving in these madrassas can damn well be threatened. Anyone who has enough loot to develop or buy nukes doesn't want to die either. Those who would sell nukes are also accessible to threats. I think we are being faked out by the militant muslim world to some extent. If they can get us thinking of them as maddog bomb throwing lunatics who could do anything then they've more than half won already. Look how much milage they got out of that stupid cartoon. Incidentally, Old Yeller tells us what the correct answer is when faced with a mad dog.

      All that said, I'm not some jingoistic idiot. We were incorrect to invade Iraq but we were correct to attack the Taliban. Notice the lengths Osama goes to stay alive or at least indeterminately dead? That hosebag doesn't want to die. I have no doubt that the Ayatollah of Iran has plenty of kamikazes just itching to man the planes but the leadership of that country doesn't want to die either.
  12. Re:did they change the name? by User+956 · · Score: 4, Funny

    It used to be Theater High Altitude Area Defense.

    When President Camacho is elected, it will be changed to "Totally Huge Awesome Area Defense".

    Brought to you by Carl's Jr.

    --
    The theory of relativity doesn't work right in Arkansas.
  13. The article fails to mention... by Codename46 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    whether or not the system can defend against the recently developed random-trajectory missile developed by Russia.

  14. Not anymore. by Kadin2048 · · Score: 4, Informative

    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."
    1. Re:Not anymore. by Martin+Blank · · Score: 4, Informative
      You should read your own link more carefully.

      President Bush said Thursday the United States has notified Russia that it intends to pull out of the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, starting a six-month timetable for withdrawal and opening the way for the creation of an anti-missile defense system.
      He did not annul the treaty, but rather went through the process detailed in the treaty for withdrawing from it by providing six months of notice to the president of Russia. He went on to say that the Soviet Union and the hostility that it had towards the United States no longer existed, and so the ABM had become a hindrance to new threats, losing its value.
      --
      You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
    2. Re:Not anymore. by s20451 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Of course the united states would never go for this as nuclear weapons are big business. so basically we're screwed.

      Yes. Only the United States is to blame. India, Israel, the UK, and France would gladly give up their nukes because the only thing they are afraid of is an American attack.

      --
      Toronto-area transit rider? Rate your ride.
    3. Re:Not anymore. by mi · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The current nuclear powers should disarm and the united nations should resolve that the mere development, construction or preperation to construct or develop nuclear weapons is itself a crime against humanity. Nuclear weapons should be utterly understood by all concerned to be off the table.

      Why? They have their uses and are not that inhumane — supposedly, the Hiroshima and Nagasaki nuclear bombings have taken less lives, than the weeks of conventional bombings before them (something like 150K lives per night is allegedly attributable to the latter).

      And they ended the war, possibly several months earlier...

      Today, for another example, using "tactical" nukes to bust Iran's nuclear-research bunkers would, likely, be quite efficient and kill fewer people than any alternative... It would, of course, be a political barrel of worms with anti-Americans world wide screaming their heads off (I wish they did!), but in cold blooded objectivity, it would be rather beneficial for all concerned, including Iranians (tough love and all).

      It should be patently obvious to virtually anyone that a nuclear arms race is utterly immoral.

      Arms race is just a part of the general race (technological, cultural, scientific). There is nothing particularly immoral about it. Killing people sucks (and is often immoral), but it sucks even more to be killed — or seeing someone dear being killed...

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    4. Re:Not anymore. by that+this+is+not+und · · Score: 3, Insightful

      That isn't actually how it started. The really 'big' shooting started after this leader you speak of reached a mutual non-aggression treaty with Russia in which the two parties essentially agreed to divide Poland between them. Then this leader invaded Poland, which drew the Allies into war in defense of Poland.

      (Later, Russia became one of the 'good guys' kinda-sorta. But they kept Poland in the end. And they got away with a lot more. Since they were among the 'winners,' camera crews didn't roll into their territory to film the crimes-against-humanity which they were committing, which were on the order of ten times worse than those the 'loser' had committed)

      Katyn, dude. (homework assignment)

    5. Re:Not anymore. by baldass_newbie · · Score: 3, Interesting

      not if you are from palestine

      Bull. Palestinians have been on the Knesset (whereas the PLO didn't even have an elected body until after Arafat died.)
      Also, the Palis had trade and stores, etc. until the homicidal amongst them got them removed from most of Israeli society.
      But Palis could vote and own land. In fact, until Iraq the only place Arabs had ever been democratically elected in the Middle East was in Israel.

      --
      The opposite of progress is congress
  15. New Name.. by rjpear · · Score: 3, Funny

    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...

  16. Missle? by Artifex · · Score: 5, Funny

    Obviously, someone managed to shoot an i out with the thing.

    --
    Get off my launchpad!
  17. Re:And nuclear weapons by Rommsey · · Score: 3, Interesting

    There are multiple stages in the flight of a ballistic missile for which you can target it. The layered system the US is working towards designing and implementing aims to cover launch, boost, orbit, and re-entry phases of flight.