| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Tech |
| U.S. to Test Its Missile Defense System |
| 2004-12-09 |
| WASHINGTON - The military planned to conduct the first full flight test of its national missile defense system in nearly two years, with the test coming possibly as early as Wednesday evening. Weather conditions at an Alaska launch site would determine when the test will go forward, said Rick Lehner, a spokesman for the Missile Defense Agency. The $85 million test comes as the military is in final preparations to activate missile defenses designed to protect against an intercontinental ballistic missile attack from North Korea (news - web sites) or elsewhere in eastern Asia. During the test, a target missile will be launched from Kodiak Island, Alaska, and an interceptor missile will fire from Kwajalein Island in the central Pacific Ocean. Because the launches will test several new aspects of the missile defense system, Lehner said the interceptor actually shooting down the target is not a primary goal of the mission. The test is the first in which the interceptor uses the same booster rocket that the operational system uses, Lehner said. It is also the first in which a target missile is launched from Kodiak. In earlier testing, which critics deride as highly scripted, the interceptors went five-for-eight when launched with the goal of hitting target missiles. Two previous tests scheduled for this year were delayed due to technical problems. The next test, which will attempt to hit a target missile, is scheduled for early 2005. In April, the then-chief of missile defense programs, Air Force Lt. Gen. Ron Kadish, said failures in upcoming tests could mean "big problems" for the controversial program. Sometime this month, the military expects to announce the missile defense system is operational. It is initially built around six interceptors at Fort Greely, Alaska, as well as radars in the Aleutians, in California, and on warships at sea. In addition, two more interceptors will be placed at Vandenberg Air Force Base, Calif. The Kwajalein interceptor site is for testing only. The first Vandenberg missile was scheduled to go in its silo Tuesday, but Lehner said that was delayed, and that it is now expected to be in place on Thursday. Lehner said the missile defense system it technically functional except for mechanical blocks that prevent interceptors from being fired. Senior military officials are still working out chain-of-command authorities over who could order an interceptor launch during an attack, he said. |
| Posted by:Steve White |
| #14 Not to worry Jackal..... we're still gonna have to put a complete 12 shooter at Ice Station Larry. |
| Posted by: Shipman 2004-12-09 6:53:54 PM |
| #13 What's the frequency, jackal? |
| Posted by: Danbo 2004-12-09 6:32:42 PM |
| #12 Um, ignore that last. I don't know what happened, but I got everything all backwards. |
| Posted by: jackal 2004-12-09 6:06:40 PM |
| #11 Mainly it's because these are midcourse or terminal interceptors, so the missile has to go a ways. If we did it the other way around, certain countries might be concerned if we shot an ICBM from California headed westward across the Pacific. I suppose we could launch from Florida and shoot it down over China Lake... |
| Posted by: jackal 2004-12-09 6:00:14 PM |
| #10 Hey, that's actually a good idea. I've noticed that all the tests seem to be targets fired from the US and interceptors from an island in the Pacific. Is this so that any debris comes down in the Pacific (rather than California)? |
| Posted by: Laurence of the Rats 2004-12-09 5:36:57 PM |
| #9 LOL LOR! Perhaps we could launch a Jupiter from Japan as a target, to get idea of what a NORK attack would look like. |
| Posted by: Shipman 2004-12-09 5:27:07 PM |
| #8 Perhaps we should instead announce that we are going to test North Korea's ABM system. |
| Posted by: Laurence of the Rats 2004-12-09 4:41:50 PM |
| #7 As a rocket scientist (though not this kind), I can state that most of the special conditions are necessary for the test and evaluation equipment. Remember that horrible NYT story about the "rigged" test with a beacon placed on a target for an EKV launch? In fact, the beacon was so that our instrumentation could monitor the target independently of what the EKV or the target was reporting back. Sometime in a test we lose telemetry from the weapon or the target. Having visual and radar tracks helps reconstruct the event so we don't have to spend mucho bucks to do it all over again. If you look at the reports of tests of weapons, you'll see quite a few scrubbed because the drone acted funny, the launch plane had an engine problem, a tracking radar went down, or some #$%^&* hikers wandered onto the test range. Similarly, for this test we want clear weather so that ground and satellite monitors can see as much as possible of the test so there's a visual record to go along with radar and TM. Storms can mess up TM. (especially if lightning strikes your antenna...) |
| Posted by: jackal 2004-12-09 2:30:19 PM |
| #6 Could we use it in bad weather if needed? Weapons systems are tested at increasing levels of difficulty, on the principle that you need to learn how to walk before you learn how to run. This is the clear weather test. The rough weather test will happen - just not this time around. |
| Posted by: Zhang Fei 2004-12-09 10:43:44 AM |
| #5 All tests are photographed]filmed]recorded from multiple angles. If there is a failure, you may need visual evidence of the cause. Hard to get that through clouds. |
| Posted by: PBMcL 2004-12-09 10:04:53 AM |
| #4 You can launch any time. But when you test, weather can be the cause of the test being unsuccessful. This doesn't imply that the test would otherwise have been sucessful. Sooting on a clear day means any failure is more likely due to the system rather than an exogenous variable. After you can make it work in good weather, you should test it in bad, but it is hard to control weather conditions for a test. |
| Posted by: Mrs. Davis 2004-12-09 9:37:17 AM |
| #3 Can you launch the strike missile in bad weather? Missles must experiecne turbulence and lighting strikes just like any other object flying through the sky... Any rocket scientist on the board? |
| Posted by: domingo 2004-12-09 9:26:07 AM |
| #2 Could we use it in bad weather if needed? Most likely, yes. When you are doing a test, you don't want any outside elements to mess up your data. Plus, you have the luxury of waiting till conditions are right. In case of a real attack, they'd launch right through a howling blizzard. Plus they'd ripple fire multiple interceptors, just to make sure. Is it 100% fool proof? No, but it's better than laying back and taking it. |
| Posted by: Steve 2004-12-09 9:18:04 AM |
| #1 If we can't test it in bad weather... Could we use it in bad weather if needed? |
| Posted by: ----------<<<<- 2004-12-09 8:43:57 AM |