You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Submit your comments on this article
Home Front: WoT
US military to test new missile defence system
2006-08-29
Fort Greely, Alaska: The US military will test its missile defence system on Thursday, the fullest demonstration since a pair of tests grounded the programme 18 months ago. Military officials sought to lower expectations, though. Although a target missile will be fired from Kodiak Island, Alaska, and an interceptor rocket topped with a "kill vehicle" will launch from California's Vandenberg Air Force Base, both military and industry officials say they are not actually trying to shoot down the missile. "We are not going to try to hit the target," said Scott Fancher, head of Boeing Corp's ground-based missile defence programme. "It is not a primary or secondary test objective to hit the target."

After a tour of the missile interceptor silos on Sunday, Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said that although he wanted to see a "full end-to-end test,'' he was patient and rejected suggestions that the system should try to hit the target this time. "Why not proceed in an orderly way with the kind of the test expert people want to do?" Rumsfeld told reporters. "They do not have to do it to demonstrate to you."
Posted by:Fred

#13  Thank you, Frank. Actually, fusion and missile defense both have decent prospects for success. The only difference is that progress in fusion has been largely driven by advances in materials science (e.g., preventing hydrogen embrittlement and improved magnetic bottling), while missile defence benefits more from increased computing power (e.g., vehicle guidance and target acquisition)
Posted by: Zenster   2006-08-29 16:01  

#12  gotta peel off the www.rantburg.com....
Posted by: Frank G   2006-08-29 15:48  

#11  Your link doesn't work, Nimble Spemble.
Posted by: Zenster   2006-08-29 15:13  

#10  Funny as it sounds, there really are intermediate tests that require ramping up a system in order to do certain measurements.

Quite correct, lotp. Telemetry tests, target acquisition and verification, end-path guidance stability, clean stage separations and kill-vehicle deployment must all occur successfully before testing for the final objective of crippling an incoming warhead.
Posted by: Zenster   2006-08-29 15:12  

#9  Wouldn't controlled nuclear fusion be nice too? That's why it was called Project Sherwood.
Posted by: Nimble Spemble   2006-08-29 11:16  

#8  Air Force Lt Gen Henry "Trey" Obering III, director of the Missile Defence Agency, said although it is not one of the goals of the test, it is "possible'' that the kill vehicle will take out the missile. But the military, he said, is focused on making sure a redesigned kill vehicle is able to spot the target missile, distinguish between its booster stage and warhead, and communicate with the control centres on the ground.

Makes sense to me. But it'd be nice if it also hit (or destroyed)the incoming missile.... Unless this test will not have a 'warhead'.
Posted by: Bobby   2006-08-29 11:09  

#7  An overview of the test objectives would reveal rather too much about engineering design and performance specs, I think.

Funny as it sounds, there really are intermediate tests that require ramping up a system in order to do certain measurements. When you do that, the naysayers watching from outside say the test "failed". I read Rummie's comment to mean this is one of those tests, designed to establish important parameters or test intermediate performance of critical subsystems.
Posted by: lotp   2006-08-29 10:33  

#6  "It is not a primary or secondary test objective to hit the target"

That may all be true, but it still sounds dumb. Perhaps a brief overview of what the test objectives ARE might help.
Posted by: Ulaiting Sluck3320   2006-08-29 10:28  

#5  "It is not a primary or secondary test objective to hit the target"

Sounds like a Fwench general.
Posted by: DarthVader   2006-08-29 09:21  

#4  "We are not going to try to hit the target"

"It is not a primary or secondary test objective to hit the target"

You sure that was a guy from Boeing? I thought I heard that from the Pentagon.
Posted by: mcsegeek1   2006-08-29 08:50  

#3  That's comforting, JosephM. Thanks!
Posted by: trailing wife   2006-08-29 07:59  

#2  Deafening silence from the peanut gallery this time it seems!
Posted by: gorb   2006-08-29 00:50  

#1  Iff the tests around and over Guam + PACOA is any meausure, the USA does not have to do it, i.e. hit the target, becuz they already know the answer, which is THEY CAN HIT IT. HIT IT, AND HIT IT GOOD.
Posted by: JosephMendiola   2006-08-29 00:41  

00:00