US attempting to hit an ICBM today mid-flight for the first time

[Core]

Will know results tomorrow. I'm surprised it's not all a big state secret but here it is.

They keep calling it hitting a bullet from a bullet but I think in many ways it's much harder (magnitudes greater speeds and distances for one thing). This truly is an incredibly difficult thing to do, but whether it fails tomorrow or not I do think it's an achievable goal. If this works I wouldn't be surprised to see China push back on THAAD even more.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/05/30/north-korea-eyed-as-us-readies-missile-defense-test.html

Does anyone know why this thing uses kinetic energy? That requires truly hitting the other missile. If on the other hand the interceptor had a warhead it could tolerate far less accuracy; get in front of the incoming missile with perhaps dozens or hundreds of feet of slack in where it has to be and then set a blast, which the incoming missile is then moving toward.

[Core]

Success!

[NFA-ADK]

Hope we never need it!!!

Probably a faster payload to hit the target with no bomb in it.  Two object at that speed will impact enough to demo both, if it hits!

Edited May 30, 2017 by NFA-ADK

[philoshop]

Kinetic missiles are hundreds of times cheaper than warheads. You can literally shoot a thousand of them at a target for the cost of one warhead. The results are the same in the end.

[Adkhunter1590]

USA! USA! USA!

[Five Seasons]

Surprised it wasn't a secret as well, however they may have downplayed the success odds with a goal of sending our friends overseas a reminder of whose dicks biggest round here.

[Core]

Apparently the vehicle is indeed very light so I suppose that lets it get up to speed very quickly vs one with a warhead.

It occurs to me now that the reason this was publicized was because it had to be; if the US Is sneakily shooting off ICBMs without warning everyone it could lead to some concerns by Russia, China. 

[Steve D]

It is probably better than nothing but we had better hope it works when & if we need it:

The Missile Defense Agency says the test of what’s officially known as the Ground-based Midcourse Defense (GMD) “will involve launching a threat-representative intercontinental ballistic missile-class target from the Reagan Test Site on Kwajalein Atoll in the Marshall Islands, and a ground-based interceptor from Vandenberg Air Force Base, California.” This is the first intercept test since 2014, which was reported to be a success, following two failures, giving the GMD program an overall record of nine hits out of 17 attempts, a success rate of just over 50 percent. Today’s test will cost an estimated $244 million, and according to the MDA, the U.S. has spent $28 billion on anti-missile systems through fiscal 2106.

[NFA-ADK]

Yea I read what Steve D. Posted and thought "50% !!!"  Like I said hope we never need it.  Against a few rockets we would have a chance but if all out war happened we would be in trouble if only 5% hit.

[Core]

You better believe they have very good ways to simulate this, though, so they do most of their testing in code. In other words, it's certainly continuing to get better over time.

[Doc]

12 hours ago, Core said:

You better believe they have very good ways to simulate this, though, so they do most of their testing in code. In other words, it's certainly continuing to get better over time.

Why do they have to "simulate" when they have real moving targets whenever North Korea fires off their test missiles. That would be funny if we routinely shot down every test they fired.

[Adkhunter1590]

Why do they have to "simulate" when they have real moving targets whenever North Korea fires off their test missiles. That would be funny if we routinely shot down every test they fired.

I wondered the same thing. I figured it would be a pretty humiliating blow to N. Korea if we blasted their junk rockets out of the sky every week.

[Core]

On 6/1/2017 at 5:50 AM, Adkhunter1590 said:

 

I wondered the same thing. I figured it would be a pretty humiliating blow to N. Korea if we blasted their junk rockets out of the sky every week.

 

This begs the observation that it would be pretty humiliating if we tried to blast their rocket out and missed, and I do believe that's one of the key reasons the US doesn't try. Moreover, every time the US does something like this other nuclear powers are able to study what's going on. If the US is intercepting missiles from NK, China and Russia are able to monitor response times and impact points and trajectories of the kill vehicle, etc. It's lots of info the US surely doesn't want potential adversaries to have.

[Adkhunter1590]

This begs the observation that it would be pretty humiliating if we tried to blast their rocket out and missed, and I do believe that's one of the key reasons the US doesn't try. Moreover, every time the US does something like this other nuclear powers are able to study what's going on. If the US is intercepting missiles from NK, China and Russia are able to monitor response times and impact points and trajectories of the kill vehicle, etc. It's lots of info the US surely doesn't want potential adversaries to have.

Good points. But come on Uncle Sam...just blow ONE rocket of theirs out of the sky! Pretty please! Lol

[Core]

I know it would be sweet As long as they are 99% sure they can do it and use one of their lower-grade anti-missile attacks so as not to show the military's best hand.

[Core]

Turns out that indeed China and Russia don't like this. http://www.cnbc.com/2017/06/03/us-missile-defense-triggers-alarm-from-russia-china.html


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[fasteddie]

Wouldn't you think that if we shot down one of their "test rockets" that it could be construed as an act of aggression .....

[Doc]

9 hours ago, fasteddie said:

Wouldn't you think that if we shot down one of their "test rockets" that it could be construed as an act of aggression .....

If it happened in their national waters, perhaps. But as I understand it their tests are going into international waters. It's all fair out there. Plus there is the thought that it may serve as a smart preemptive strike to be a bit on the aggressive side in the name of self preservation and the preservation of our allies. Perhaps the answer is that it is better to engage now rather than wait until they have a stocked arsenal of improved and capable nukes. It wouldn't bother my conscience any if we were to take on an act of aggression against a budding nuclear power that is determined to use them when they finally get them developed.

 

[philoshop]

Pertinent anecdote:

In Junior High School the class bully wanted some verification of his prowess in martial arts and picked on a friend of mine, a kid known to be a tough SOB, to instigate a fight. The date and time were set and a hundred people showed up, When the bully turned his back on me I hit him in the head with a tree branch I was carrying. The bully wasn't happy, my friend wasn't happy, and the spectators weren't happy, but it sent a clear message that you don't f***k with people who have friends. The North Koreans currently have no friends. That's the point.

[Core]

On 6/4/2017 at 10:12 AM, philoshop said:

Pertinent anecdote:

In Junior High School the class bully wanted some verification of his prowess in martial arts and picked on a friend of mine, a kid known to be a tough SOB, to instigate a fight. The date and time were set and a hundred people showed up, When the bully turned his back on me I hit him in the head with a tree branch I was carrying. The bully wasn't happy, my friend wasn't happy, and the spectators weren't happy, but it sent a clear message that you don't f***k with people who have friends. The North Koreans currently have no friends. That's the point.

Love it.

[The_Field_Ager]