Article

2008-02-21 -Short Attention Span Theater-

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Sherry 2008-02-21 00:00|| || Front Page|| [7 views ] Top

#1 Go NAVY! Beat SATELLITES!

(psst. link is b0rked)

Posted by SteveS 2008-02-21 00:04|| 2008-02-21 00:04|| Front Page Top

#2 -- was no link when posted.... I was bouncing between PIPs and stations... wanting word..... Here's the link

Posted by Sherry">Sherry 2008-02-21 00:10|| 2008-02-21 00:10|| Front Page Top

#3 The initial view of missile strike indicates it probably did hit the spacecraft's fuel tank, a defense official said, but whether or not the threat was completely eliminated is unknown at this time.

Slow link at space.com

Posted by 3dc 2008-02-21 00:10|| 2008-02-21 00:10|| Front Page Top

#4 LOL @ SteveS

Posted by Seafarious 2008-02-21 00:17|| 2008-02-21 00:17|| Front Page Top

#5 #1 My second choice was NAVY 1, HAL 0 [2001: A Space Odyssey]

Posted by JosephMendiola 2008-02-21 00:17|| 2008-02-21 00:17|| Front Page Top

#6 ION, BIGNEWSNETWORK > C NEWS [Canada] > SCIENTISTS SAY METEOR SEEN STREAKING ACROSS PACIFIC NW LIKELY NEVER HIT THE EARTH. "Canada versus USA" as various US Netters claim something did strike terra firma on the US side, plus RUMORMILLNEWS Poster claims was possib witness to TWO SEPARATE STREAK/FIREBALL EVENTS [AM + PM].

Also from BIGNEWNETWORK + C NEWS [MACKENZIE LAND] > BIG SPACE DEBRIS HITS EARTH REGULARLY BUT NO ONE IS HURT.

Looks like SADE - SPECIAL ALIEN/ASTEROID DEFENSE EXECUTIVE - is in SMOOTH OPERATOR = OPERATION mode
D *** NG IT, she's a "SMOOTH OPERATOR...SMOOOTH OPERAAATOR, SMOOTH OPERATOR...".

Posted by JosephMendiola 2008-02-21 00:35|| 2008-02-21 00:35|| Front Page Top

#7 FYI, initial reports on the SM-3 say large flash observed, therefore they think the tank was hit directly and flash vaporized the hydrazine.

5000Kg mass hits a 10 Kg mass going close to 16 Km/s closure (roughly same speed each, combined = 16)

KE in this comes out to 640 Megajoule, roughly 1.5 tons of TNT if its a direct hit and all the momentum energy is transferred.

(FYI thats an old Cold war measure KT = 4.184E+12 Joules)

Posted by OldSpook 2008-02-21 00:36|| 2008-02-21 00:36|| Front Page Top

#8 Uh -- OldSpook, thanks for all you do and say here.... but a little help here. Could you maybe do a "Charlie" from CBS's Number, and give us a "civilian" version of this explosion. A comparison, something like a twenty-thirty story building destroyed in downtown Las Vegas description.

Surely, surely, there will be pics for us!

Posted by Sherry">Sherry 2008-02-21 00:47|| 2008-02-21 00:47|| Front Page Top

#9 Its roughly the energy released by McVeigh's ANFO bomb in Oklahoma city, give or take.

Posted by OldSpook 2008-02-21 01:02|| 2008-02-21 01:02|| Front Page Top

#10 OS... Thanks, now I have a visible.

Posted by Sherry">Sherry 2008-02-21 01:04|| 2008-02-21 01:04|| Front Page Top

#11 A lot depends on how "square" the hit was, how much "crumple" there was to impart the impact throughout the spacecraft, how much torsion and rotational energy was added (spin hard tear itself apart), how much of the hydrazine (if any) detonated etc.

Too many variables. At worst as small as a car wreck, at best, the McVeigh truck bomb.

Posted by OldSpook 2008-02-21 01:05|| 2008-02-21 01:05|| Front Page Top

#12 I take it Ripley made it out ok and the egg-laying Queen has been destroyed?

Posted by Besoeker 2008-02-21 01:07|| 2008-02-21 01:07|| Front Page Top

#13 Nah - the queen reentered on the later orbit that went over Saudi. They'll convert it to a Wahabbist.

Posted by OldSpook 2008-02-21 01:23|| 2008-02-21 01:23|| Front Page Top

#14 Splash one ~~bandit~~ satellite!

Posted by Mike 2008-02-21 06:42|| 2008-02-21 06:42|| Front Page Top

#15 Now when the Mad Mullahs launch their satellite, they'll have an excuse when it fails -

"It was shot down by the Great Satan's Navy"

Posted by Bobby 2008-02-21 07:05|| 2008-02-21 07:05|| Front Page Top

#16 Kimmie's gonads just retracted into his body cavity.

Posted by Procopius2k 2008-02-21 07:18|| 2008-02-21 07:18|| Front Page Top

#17 More proof the anti-missile system works. So, the question is Iran and Korea, do you feel lucky? Well? Do ya, punks?

Posted by DarthVader">DarthVader 2008-02-21 07:41|| 2008-02-21 07:41|| Front Page Top

#18 More proof the anti-missile system works. So the question is Pelosi and Reid and others trying to kill this procurement -

do ya feel lucky? Well, do ya?

Posted by lotp 2008-02-21 08:24|| 2008-02-21 08:24|| Front Page Top

#19 Punks.

Posted by Seafarious 2008-02-21 08:55|| 2008-02-21 08:55|| Front Page Top

#20 FYI.

Sat was 500 Kg, 5m x 5m by almost 10m.

Now? "Nothing larger than a football" remains.

Good job Navy!

That put the "pucker factor" into effect from Tehran to Pyong Yang to the libs in Congress who had repeatedly tried to cut funding for BMD.

Posted by OldSpook 2008-02-21 09:14|| 2008-02-21 09:14|| Front Page Top

#21 It scares the Russians and Chinese a lot worse. This just proved that their SLBMs are vulnerable to interception.

Posted by ed 2008-02-21 09:16|| 2008-02-21 09:16|| Front Page Top

#22 correction 5000 Kg. (typo).

For you non-science folks thats 5 and a half Tons

So roughly 5 .5 tons of metal and fuel and electronics, over 50 feet around and over 90 feet long.

Nothing larger than a football is left.

That should give you a picture.

Highly unlikely anything will survive reentry.

And the shot has been likened to standing on one side of a house while someone throws a pea over the house from the other side, and you have to throw a bb to hit it.

Posted by OldSpook 2008-02-21 09:20|| 2008-02-21 09:20|| Front Page Top

#23 US Navy Viking #11 was fired at White Sands Proving Ground on May 24, 1954 and soared to an altitude of 158 miles and attained a speed of 4,000 miles per hour.

Posted by Crazyhorse 2008-02-21 09:21|| 2008-02-21 09:21|| Front Page Top

#24 THIS makes me proud to be an American!

Posted by DarthVader">DarthVader 2008-02-21 09:22|| 2008-02-21 09:22|| Front Page Top

#25 The reports I saw say the satellite weighed 5000 pounds. I take it would be the size of a minivan.

Posted by ed 2008-02-21 09:24|| 2008-02-21 09:24|| Front Page Top

#26 not to be a wet blanket, but this was something that was planned for days (weeks?) not like a Russian or Chinese ICBM attack with 90 minutes to respond - and it was one target, not hundreds of warheads accompanied by hundreds of decoys.

That said, this is as good a result as could have been achieved in this instance, IIUC, and is still a milestone. Congrats to the Navy.

Posted by liberalhawk 2008-02-21 09:24|| 2008-02-21 09:24|| Front Page Top

#27 GEN Cartwright's briefing online here

Posted by lotp 2008-02-21 09:29|| 2008-02-21 09:29|| Front Page Top

#28 If I were running for President I would immediately announce plans for an obital battle station with a giant tri-laser focus thingy and no exhaust ports located anywhere near the power source.

Posted by mhw">mhw 2008-02-21 09:29|| http://hypocrisy-incorporated.blogspot.com/]">[http://hypocrisy-incorporated.blogspot.com/] 2008-02-21 09:29|| Front Page Top

#29 not to be a wet blanket, but this was something that was planned for days (weeks?) not like a Russian or Chinese ICBM attack with 90 minutes to respond - and it was one target, not hundreds of warheads accompanied by hundreds of decoys

You understate the achievement a bit, liberalhawk.

In particular this was a cold, dark object, not a missile in boost phase. Much harder to find and hit accurately, much less in the way of sensor data which would allow mid-flight adjustments.

Posted by lotp 2008-02-21 09:32|| 2008-02-21 09:32|| Front Page Top

#30 The missile and combat systems perform the intercept computations in real time. As long as the launch was detected in time and within the missile's intercept window, it has a good chance.

Decoys are not deployed while the boosters are firing (the preferred SM-3 intercept scenario) nor are they effective once entering the atmosphere (the other intercept scenario). During midcourse, ICBMs and SLBMs are too high up for the SM-3 (as far as we know). What this intercept showed was that the Aegis and SM-3 can intercept something going 15,000mph, far outside the scope of the medium range missiles the SM-3 was advertised against.

Posted by ed 2008-02-21 09:34|| 2008-02-21 09:34|| Front Page Top

#31 Plus, of course, the SM-3 is normally pre-programmed to hit ballistic missile attacks.

The preparation for this hit, beyond deciding where to make the attempt and positioning the ships, came in reprogramming the system to find and destroy a dark cold object.

Posted by lotp 2008-02-21 09:34|| 2008-02-21 09:34|| Front Page Top

#32 The peace lobby and its media allies will have to re-double their long-running campaign against missile defense, to ensure that we are still vulnerable when Iran finally develops an ICBM.
It was a stroke of luck for the treason industry that the Chinese and the Islamists stepped in when their original client, the USSR, went out of business.

New York Times:

"LAST NIGHT THE NAVY BRUTALLY ATTACKED AND DESTROYED AN UNARMED CIVILIAN SATELLITE COSTING TAXPAYERS MILLIONS"

(H/T "stocktrader" at Free Republic)

Posted by Atomic Conspiracy 2008-02-21 09:40|| 2008-02-21 09:40|| Front Page Top

#33 It also was going a hell of a lot faster than the targets the SM3 is intended for - orbital velocities are higher than suborbital boost and reentry velocity of typical MRBM.

In short, although the target was well known, this was a remarkable "change of mission" for the equipment and software - and very rapidly done.

Anyone else care to take that many lines of code and that complex a system with that many interdependent components, change several of the requirements and functional parameters in the design, then make all those code changes, test them and then have it go live in less than a week with a very public unveiling?

Hell of a job by the entire BMD team.

Posted by OldSpook 2008-02-21 09:43|| 2008-02-21 09:43|| Front Page Top

#34 Even with advance notice, this is a huge milestone in the anti-missile technology race. This is more than proof of concept, this was a live fire. The fact that the missile and tracking software is flexible enough to change and seek a cold target, engage it an kill it, shows that just about anything coming into re-entry can be shot down.

It also neuters any argument the dhimocrats have about killing funding.

Posted by DarthVader">DarthVader 2008-02-21 09:45|| 2008-02-21 09:45|| Front Page Top

#35 the egg-laying Queen has been destroyed?

Last I heard, she was off campaigning in Texas.

Posted by SteveS 2008-02-21 09:53|| 2008-02-21 09:53|| Front Page Top

#36 not to be a wet blanket, but this was something that was planned for days

Yeah, you are a wet blanket. It took days to get mother-may-I's from various government offices with their usual 'reviews'. Not going to happen in the top threatcon. You go weapons free and there is no mother-may-I. Second, the plan had to include the largest possible debris field in a non-occupied area to minimize potential hazards to those on the ground. I doubt very much that if the real thing was incoming that people are going to be concerned with debris as much as what's on the tip of the sucker. The biggest delay in the process will be State's interference in obstructing the operational positioning of our military because they all fear 'antagonizing' those who are a clear and immediate danger.

Of course if the Russkies launch everything, it won't make much difference any way will it, because the system was never designed to address that, but feel free to move the goal posts. The Russkies were always rational about MAD. It's the irrationals that we are concerned with.

Posted by Procopius2k 2008-02-21 09:55|| 2008-02-21 09:55|| Front Page Top

#37 Even if NASA could provide the exact cubic inch an object would be in at an exact instant, for the Navy to put their missle there then is indeed application beyond the capability of other nations. Believe me, they are in awe.

Posted by wxjames 2008-02-21 10:04|| 2008-02-21 10:04|| Front Page Top

#38 Prox, do a bit of "back of the envelope" math.

Figure the numbers of ballistic missiles the Norks, and Iranians (and/or Chinese have who have a surprisingly small number of ICBM compared to the US and Russia). Figure the warheads and decoys per launcher.

Also figure in the probability of failure of the launcher, and the warhead bus, and the warheads themselves - they don't have the decades of testing and research that we have in terms of reliability of complex nuclear weapons.

that gives you the numbers they feel they need to launch to successfully hit the US.

Now count the number of SM3 that each of the Aegis class ships generally carry in "ready" state in their VLS - and that they can be ripple launched at multiple targets in a matter of seconds, if needs be.

Then factor in that there are mutlipel ships on patrol at any given time, including a few Japanese models.

Figure the odds of intercept, and that multiple launches can be made by different ships against each target, in the boost, mid-course (those interceptors in Alaska, and USAF assets), and terminal phase.

Basically, what we have done is demonstrate to the Iranians and Koreans (and to a lesser degree, the Chinese) that their nuclear ballistic missile arsenal is now capable of being countered 100% (and a substantial portion for the Chinese).

Posted by OldSpook 2008-02-21 10:09|| 2008-02-21 10:09|| Front Page Top

#39 And that we can do it anywhere in the world, to defend allies as well as ourselves.

Posted by lotp 2008-02-21 10:13|| 2008-02-21 10:13|| Front Page Top

#40 Michelle Obama is still not proud.

Posted by charger 2008-02-21 10:22|| 2008-02-21 10:22|| Front Page Top

#41 Here's the video. I'd say they got it...

http://cosmos.bcst.yahoo.com/up/player/popup/?rn=3906861&cl=6535269&ch=4226721&src=news

Posted by tu3031 2008-02-21 10:25|| 2008-02-21 10:25|| Front Page Top

#42 It will be a cold day in teahrun as there was a successful BMD test from a US Navy Ship during a full lunar eclipse.

Posted by swksvolFF 2008-02-21 10:31|| 2008-02-21 10:31|| Front Page Top

#43 not to be a wet blanket, but this was something that was planned for days (weeks?) not like a Russian or Chinese ICBM attack with 90 minutes to respond - and it was one target, not hundreds of warheads accompanied by hundreds of decoys

The following, regarding the flights at Kitty Hawk is copied from Wikipedia:

The first flight, by Orville, of 120 feet (36.5 m) in 12 seconds, at a speed of only 6.8 mph over the ground, was recorded in a famous photograph.

The next two flights covered approximately 175 and 200 feet (60 m), by Wilbur and Orville respectively. Their altitude was about ten feet above the ground.[34] Here is Orville Wright's account of the final flight of the day:

Wilbur started the fourth and last flight at just about 12 o'clock. The first few hundred feet were up and down, as before, but by the time three hundred feet had been covered, the machine was under much better control.

The course for the next four or five hundred feet had but little undulation. However, when out about eight hundred feet the machine began pitching again, and, in one of its darts downward, struck the ground.

The distance over the ground was measured to be 852 feet (260 m); the time of the flight was 59 seconds. The frame supporting the front rudder was badly broken, but the main part of the machine was not injured at all...[35]

I'd say this early effort of our BMD capability is at least as successful as the Wright brothers first attempt at flight.

Posted by charger 2008-02-21 10:34|| 2008-02-21 10:34|| Front Page Top

#44 OS in #38 makes a nice point. My only caution is that just as the Norks, Chinese, Iranians, etc are going to have some failures at various points (launch, warhead, bus, etc), we'll also have a few. What we have is very cool but also very new. It's possible that some of the SM-3's won't launch properly, or won't get vectored properly, or won't hit the target, or won't kill the target.

So what it really comes down to is two sets of probabilities: one for their side, one for our side. That's really important for this reason: the satellite kill today is not just an impressive demonstration, it also forces potential bad guys to readjust their thinking on OUR set of probabilities. No longer can they say tht the US BMD is experimental, untested, never tried, phoney, etc. No longer can they say to themselves that our BMD can only hit a target in a carefully-defined test. Now they have to admit that our BMD can hit something it wasn't originally designed to hit.

While there are many who will try to minimize this, the smart ones amongst the bad guys are doing the calculations right now, and they don't like what they see. Now they understand that while our system still might have problems, still isn't 100%, still could fail us -- it's a lot better than they thought.

Posted by Steve White">Steve White 2008-02-21 10:35|| 2008-02-21 10:35|| Front Page Top

#45 Yep - thats a hit. And see the fl;ash and then the "cloud" around the target?

Thats what I was talking about last night that a friend passed along before they released that video- that's the hydrazine venting and igniting at the beginning. Look closely and you can see the thing literally falling to pieces.

And FYI, the Chinese do not have "hundreds" of of missiles and warheads (and the Chinese do not have decoys as far as I know - they cannot afford to loft the weight without removing warheads from any MIRV bus they may have). Neither do the Norks or Iranians. So, red herring - and incorrect on the facts.

Posted by OldSpook 2008-02-21 10:38|| 2008-02-21 10:38|| Front Page Top

#46 Steve White - thats what I was pointing out - especially in the case of the Norks and Iranians, we have several dozen shots that can be taken per platform, and several platforms available at any given time.

That means even if we have a series of bad luck, we have several dozen shots. The fact is we have lots of SM3, far more than the opponent has warheads. And then add in the terminal defense, and the boost phase close-in intercept.

Truth is, the equation is firmly in our favor now - SM3 are far cheaper (in constnant dollars and in relative costs as a pct of GNP) for us than their missiles and warheads are for them. For what it costs them to make and maintain a missile wiht a deliverable payload, we can field dozens of SM3 and other systems to counter.

We simply can throw numbers at them now that the technology investment has been made - its all about production capacity and our ability to operate our Navy at sea, and the land based stuff continuously. And the airborne laser components are coming on line as well, which will add even more to the probability of a kill over the flight of the missile.

Its good that the liberals and doubters were unable to derail the basic BMD research that grew into this - its bearing fruit quite well now.

Posted by OldSpook 2008-02-21 11:03|| 2008-02-21 11:03|| Front Page Top

#47 Seriously, that FUCKING AWESOME.

Posted by Anon4021 2008-02-21 11:13|| 2008-02-21 11:13|| Front Page Top

#48 For the first time in my adult life I am proud of my country because it feels like hope is finally making a comeback.

Posted by Michelle Obama 2008-02-21 11:17|| 2008-02-21 11:17|| Front Page Top

#49 Some in the Navy are saying we are gonna have to add a verse to the national anthem.

And the SM3's glare,
The satellite bursting in air
Gave proof through the night
That we kick your a$$ from anywhere

(Stolen from Hotair posts)

Posted by OldSpook 2008-02-21 11:27|| 2008-02-21 11:27|| Front Page Top

#50 'Spook, I'll say it again, I really appreciate you sharing your expertise with the rest of us on this topic.

You're right--SM3s are 'way cheaper than nukes, both in absolute terms and in relative terms. We can build more interceptors than they can weapons, and build them faster.

Posted by Mike 2008-02-21 11:34|| 2008-02-21 11:34|| Front Page Top

#51 Fitting that Ronald Reagan's "star wars" speech in March of 1983 should come to this almost exactly 25 years later. Stick it, China. You too, NYT.

Posted by Darrell 2008-02-21 11:47|| 2008-02-21 11:47|| Front Page Top

#52 Lovin' Spook's comments.

IIRC, during the Cold War each side pointed 2 or 3 warheads toward each target. The idea was that anything worth nuking you had better make sure you actually hit, and there were too many variables to guarantee a hit with a single warhead. Some missile would fail, some would miss, etc.

BMD, to my mind, plays off this uncertainty. You don't have to knock down every missile, and that was never the goal. You just have to demonstrate that you can kill enough missiles that the other side can't be sure they'll knock you out.

If they can't kill you on the first strike, then they have to expect a response. No sane country would invite that, so they never shoot in the first place. Deterrence, as enhanced by BMD.

As for the insane countries, I kind of favor the Iraq approach.

Posted by Iblis 2008-02-21 12:09|| 2008-02-21 12:09|| Front Page Top

#53 Why not vote for a democrat so he or she can give China the technology ? After all, we can't trust Imperial United States to govern the world in a fair way. Let there be hope.
/snark

Posted by wxjames 2008-02-21 12:42|| 2008-02-21 12:42|| Front Page Top

#54 LOL AC about NYTs headline.
New York Times:

"LAST NIGHT THE NAVY BRUTALLY ATTACKED AND DESTROYED AN UNARMED CIVILIAN SATELLITE COSTING TAXPAYERS MILLIONS"

Unfortunately, it is close to the truth.

Posted by JohnQC 2008-02-21 12:55|| 2008-02-21 12:55|| Front Page Top

#55 "Civilian" satellite?

Posted by Kelly 2008-02-21 13:17|| 2008-02-21 13:17|| Front Page Top

#56 Considering the type of satellite it was, the hydrazine tank may have been a decoy. The real mission may have been to make sure that no hostile country "recovered" any useful pieces of the satellite, if they made it to the ground without burning up. The Navy may not only have been trying to keep anyone from being hurt on the ground, they may also have been trying to ensure that some very classified technology didn't fall into the wrong hands. Either way, it's a major achievement, and well worth celebrating. Now we have to convince Congress and the Navy to add another 30-40 AEGIS cruisers to its inventory. We might also look into a ground-based version, since it's proven so successful. Wouldn't THAT put the Ruskies in a dither!

Posted by Old Patriot">Old Patriot 2008-02-21 13:36|| http://oldpatriot.blogspot.com/]">[http://oldpatriot.blogspot.com/] 2008-02-21 13:36|| Front Page Top

#57 I recall a "look at it this way" twist to the BMD argument: Let's go ahead and assume we can only take out 50% of the incoming warheads. Compare that with a treaty in which the Soviet Union gives up and mothballs 50% of its launchers.

Of course, such a "reduction" in the soviet arsenal is being unilaterally imposed, which is what the real beef was.

Posted by Ptah">Ptah 2008-02-21 13:51|| http://www.crusaderwarcollege.org]">[http://www.crusaderwarcollege.org] 2008-02-21 13:51|| Front Page Top

#58 I like the part in the briefing about the High Image photography we have studied shows we hit it in the area of the fuel tank.

Not just exploding in the near proximity but in the fuel tank. WOW I'd like to see those high image photos.

Posted by GolfBravoUSMC 2008-02-21 14:00|| 2008-02-21 14:00|| Front Page Top

#59 The shot was dead on, and regardless of what the thing was, or was not carrying, the technology demonstration was enough to cause a serious rethink in a lot of different countries.
The discussion about number of warheads, launchers, decoys, etc is all good, but ( and while i don't want to share a wet blanket with anybody) the bad guys ( primarily Chicoms) would be better off if rather than try to devise a system to shoot down the SM-3s, they instead ensure that they have targeting data on all the Cruisers. They have already demonstrated they can get a sub to well within striking distance of a CV ( with a lot more AWS assets than a 'small boy') so if you sink the mother ship prior to launch, then there is no need to worry about anything getting airborne.
Just another dimension to think about, is all I'm sayin.....

Posted by USN,Ret. 2008-02-21 14:03|| 2008-02-21 14:03|| Front Page Top

#60 To all the commenters who whine that "we can't stop them all..." a standard liberal trope is: "If it saves one child." I guess that doesn't apply in the case of stopping a nuke tipped ICBM. Another standard liberal trope is to snivel, "It won't stop a smuggled in suitcase nuke." That can be rephrased as "Your cancer cure is useless, as it does nothing about the flu, bad breath or acne."

Chumps.

Posted by M. Murcek">M. Murcek 2008-02-21 14:33|| 2008-02-21 14:33|| Front Page Top

#61 The comments on this over the last couple of days have been Rantburg U at its best. Thanks to the professionals out there especially OS for taking the time to 'splain it to me.

Posted by Matt 2008-02-21 14:38|| 2008-02-21 14:38|| Front Page Top

#62 If they can't kill you on the first strike, then they have to expect a response. No sane country would invite that, so they never shoot in the first place. Deterrence, as enhanced by BMD.

Yeah, but we're talking Iran and NorK. And I trust Iran less than I trust NorK.

All this is great news for ICBMs (if you're a Westerner, anyway!), but AlQ likes to move their stuff around via donkey express. We still have to secure the borders. And what's to stop another country from bringing nukes (or anything else, for that matter) in this way, too? The "upside" of this approach is that it would be difficult for AlQ at least to smuggle in enough bombs to cripple the country.

Posted by gorb 2008-02-21 14:43|| 2008-02-21 14:43|| Front Page Top

#63 Funny thing never discussed about a smuggled in nuke is that it would probably be exploded in NYC or DC. Can you just hear the dems whining "You have to spot us 8 million votes in the next 22 elections." Can ya?

Posted by M. Murcek">M. Murcek 2008-02-21 14:48|| 2008-02-21 14:48|| Front Page Top

#64 #60 To all the commenters who whine that "we can't stop them all..." a standard liberal trope is: "If it saves one child." I guess that doesn't apply in the case of stopping a nuke tipped ICBM. Another standard liberal trope is to snivel, "It won't stop a smuggled in suitcase nuke." That can be rephrased as "Your cancer cure is useless, as it does nothing about the flu, bad breath or acne."

Chumps.

I'd like to associate myself with those remarks!

Posted by RD">RD 2008-02-21 15:31|| 2008-02-21 15:31|| Front Page Top

#65 A day to remember! Yea Navy, for this pic! And Mods, I know rules about pics, but this young man earned this... (I would size smaller, but I don't know how!)

Feb. 20: U.S. Navy Petty Officer 2nd Class Andrew Jackson activates a modified tactical Standard Missile-3 from the Combat Information Center of the USS Lake Erie as the ship operates in the Pacific Ocean.

Posted by Sherry">Sherry 2008-02-21 15:59|| 2008-02-21 15:59|| Front Page Top

#66 Some Rantburgians are giving the left too much credit.

It will be a long time, if eve, before they get to the "yes but it doesn't cure acne" trope.

They are still stuck on various conspiracy tropes (e.g., chimp wants to use flight suit, had to shoot something, help McCain in election, etc.) for why it was done. To get to the "... it doesn't cure acne" stage they would have to reconcile get by these issues and a few others.

Posted by mhw">mhw 2008-02-21 15:59|| http://hypocrisy-incorporated.blogspot.com/]">[http://hypocrisy-incorporated.blogspot.com/] 2008-02-21 15:59|| Front Page Top

#67 look you guys misunderstand me - I congratulate the team on the technical achievement. Like the Wrights first flight and all that.

And Im quite aware that the NORKS and Iranians dont have the same capabilities as the USSR. But that refocus WAS moving the goal posts - when the whole concept was first proposed, and when serious Dems critixcized it, the USSR WAS the adversary that was envisioned. So the jump from this to "it did all Ron W Reagan said it would do" is, AFAICT, unjustified. I do approve of development of a system to counter NORK and Iran. Though even so Im not convinced it will make nuclear weapons in those hands safe or acceptable.

Re:China - Does China really not have hundreds of warheads? I thought they did.

Posted by liberalhawk 2008-02-21 16:09|| 2008-02-21 16:09|| Front Page Top

#68 ...I'm not convinced it will make nuclear weapons in those hands safe or acceptable.

Amen

Posted by DarthVader">DarthVader 2008-02-21 16:31|| 2008-02-21 16:31|| Front Page Top

#69 liberalhawk,

China has hundreds of nuclear weapons but little more than a handful of ICBMs.
China-ICBMs at Global Security
Chinese SLBMS are similarly scarce. Their bomber force is a relic from the 1950s and lacks the range for intercontinental strikes.
Chinese strategic weapons development has been plagued with delay and technical failure for decades.

Posted by Atomic Conspiracy 2008-02-21 16:32|| 2008-02-21 16:32|| Front Page Top

#70 Damn--it's another fine day to be an American when one can witness another impressive accomplishment like this!

I'd like to add my Kudos to OS and others who helped explain the sci & tech behind this. It only adds to the awe I feel.

Nice shooting, Navy!

Posted by Dar">Dar 2008-02-21 16:33|| 2008-02-21 16:33|| Front Page Top

#71 LiberalHawk: in defense of Reagan, BMD to stop the USSR was the ultimate goal but Reagan knew we couldn't get there all at once.

I wouldn't call this moving the goal posts, I'd call it adapting to changes in history and politics. The real concerns today, as opposed to 30 years ago, are Iran and North Korea, not the USSR. The SM3/Aegis system is admirably suited to meet that concern.

An adversary that has > 500 missiles can beat SM3/Aegis (today). But logistics favors Aegis, since, as Old Spook points out, it's cheaper for us to turn out a hundred SM3s than it is for China to turn out 10 ICBMs.

Sherry: the pic is welcome and appropriately sized. What I love about this is Aegis is a system that gives a PO2 the shot. Love it!

Posted by Steve White">Steve White 2008-02-21 17:38|| 2008-02-21 17:38|| Front Page Top

#72 Libhawk, re: Chinese.

I posted to the other thread about the Chinese throwing a tantrum, but essentially China at this moment has 4 MIRVD (6 RV) missiles and 20 single RV missiles. All 70's vintage and liquid fueled. Takes them 30-60 minutes minimum to prep for launch, and longer than that if the RVs are not mated to the launch vehicle, as is rumored to be the case. They have an 8 percent (some say hihger) failure rate with those launchers, and approximately 5 percent RV/warhead failure (higher for the MIRVs due to complexities of the bus). And these missiles have a CEP that may be as large as 3000m. Aim at LA, and splash it 2 miles offshore. WOudlnt want to be near it, but it woudl tend to mess with Catalina Island more than LA (outside of EMP and fallout).

They have a ballistic Missile Sub, hosting the equivalent of a 5000km range old US SLBM, single warhead. High trajectory low speed (easier intercept)

All from open sources and "RUMINT".

So the Chinese 42 land based RV tops, and another 12 shipboard. Thats 54 ICBM/SLBM total.

If you throw 2 waves of 88% (current success rate) SM3 (1 per RV, takes maybe 3 ships to launch them, ont unreasonable given the amount of prep time thier launchers take) and another layer of the interceptors in Alaska, and final fire in CA, you're talking having less than 1% chance of getting just one warhead to detonate on target.

They are trying to remedy this with the Dong Feng 41 (DF-41), which will have up to 4 RV of 0.3-1 MT yield each. Those are expected to be 2-3 years away from initial operating capability.

But until then, this pretty much makes it possible to defend the US from an Alpha Strike by China.

And as for North Korea and Iran? Well, 1 or 2 missiles with a single RV/warhead each would be less even that chance.

This does assume that the SM3 and other systems work under wartime mass repeated launch as they do in the tests so far.

Still even a worst case for the US and best case for China gives then a 1 in 6 chance of getting a single warhead to detonate in the US, in exchange for their entire ICBM arsenal.

Posted by OldSpook 2008-02-21 18:14|| 2008-02-21 18:14|| Front Page Top

#73 FYI, the ORIGINAL intent of BMD under Reagan was to stop the "lone madman" type of strike, and only when it was obvious that it might do more, did things balloon.

And Lib, the argument I made in the other trhead was this;

Compare the cost in comparative dollars, or in percentage of GNP of an ICBM with MIRV and RVs, to the cost of the dozen SM3 that it takes to shoot it down.

And the problem for the ICBM side is that as the SM3 get more effective, there is nothing they can realistically do to aid penetration past a given point (US ICBM designers faced this issue a long time ago). And we cna make so many more for less effort and cost. The equation is really on our side unless China wants to build out a lot more ICBMs and sink money into MIRV , RV and decoy technology.

I say this may knock some sense into them - because if they go uparming, the Russians and Indians will be forced to reply in kind, enlarging their arsenals. Money better spent elsewhere

Posted by OldSpook 2008-02-21 18:23|| 2008-02-21 18:23|| Front Page Top

#74 The country that may be taking the biggest gulp is Pakistan. They are now sitting on lots of conventionally undeliverable nukes with plenty of terrorists ready to deliver them unconventionally opening Pakistan to retaliation.

If Bush were smart, he'd offer the newly elected secularized Pak government a de-nuclearized India and lots of $ in exchange for the Pak nukes and give India Aegis/SM3 open kimono and mutual defence treaty in exchange for de-nuclearizing.

Posted by Nimble Spemble 2008-02-21 18:55|| 2008-02-21 18:55|| Front Page Top

#75 you have to read this comment at Slashdot
heh heh

Posted by 3dc 2008-02-21 20:01|| 2008-02-21 20:01|| Front Page Top

#76 If this was like an early Wright Brothers flight, then in not many years the system will be able to defend the planet against a wayward asteroid.

Posted by Glenmore">Glenmore 2008-02-21 22:28|| 2008-02-21 22:28|| Front Page Top

23:50 JosephMendiola
23:47 JosephMendiola
23:37 JosephMendiola
23:34 Zhang Fei
23:21 JosephMendiola
23:04 tkat
22:28 Glenmore
22:23 JosephMendiola
22:11 JosephMendiola
22:03 John fn Kerry
21:59 SteveS
21:50 Abdominal Snowman
21:37 regular joe
21:35 Alaska Paul
21:34 JosephMendiola
21:31 Seafarious
21:30 SteveS
21:28 SteveS
21:25 JosephMendiola
21:18 Theresa Heinz Kerry
21:14 DMFD
21:11 Darrell
21:10 John fn Kerry
21:06 sinse