Article

2007-12-05 Home Front: WoT

US jet intercepts ballistic missile for first time: officials

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 BrerRabbit 2007-12-05 05:47|| || Front Page|| [7 views ] Top

#1 Yikes! Rather hard on the jet, to intercept a missile like that. Usually, they use antimissiles...

(yes I know it's the retarded headline writer...journalists aren't the sharpest knives in the drawer)

Posted by gromky 2007-12-05 07:49|| 2007-12-05 07:49|| Front Page Top

#2 Of course in the small print is -

"So it does give us an initial boost phase capability even though it is a much shorter range missile, and you have to be in the area of the missile launch to be effective," Lehner said.

Think about it. If you have enough air superiority to be 'on station' to begin with, why wait till initial boost stage to hit it rather than just take out the launch facility to begin with before there is even a launch.

Posted by Procopius2k 2007-12-05 08:50|| 2007-12-05 08:50|| Front Page Top

#3 I think because a "hot" missile in the boost phase is a lot easier to target than a "cold", camouflaged launch pad.

Posted by mrp 2007-12-05 09:02|| 2007-12-05 09:02|| Front Page Top

#4 Well, for one thing, if the launch facility is in a country that has not quite declared war. I am in favor of radical preemption starting with burning every copy of the Quran on Earth. But seeing as others look at the situation differently than me there can be legal impediments to attacking launch sites.

Posted by Excalibur 2007-12-05 09:02|| 2007-12-05 09:02|| Front Page Top

#5 It's a proof of concept. Talk was of putting this tech into an air launched PAC3 missile.

Posted by ed 2007-12-05 09:56|| 2007-12-05 09:56|| Front Page Top

#6 If the launcher is mobile, and well-camoflauged enough, you might not know where it is well enough to take out the launch facility. Nice to have another option to work with.

Posted by Mike 2007-12-05 10:50|| 2007-12-05 10:50|| Front Page Top

#7 Just speculating, but there may be some utility in forcing the launch site to be moved 100 miles away from the coast. It buys time for the ABM system when the missile target is not far away (e.g., A NorK missile fired at Japan or a Chinese missile fired at Taiwan).

Posted by Darrell 2007-12-05 11:13|| 2007-12-05 11:13|| Front Page Top

#8 What mrp wrote - if they put up enough dummies and camouflage the real sites well enough, it's conceivable that you might not be able to find the launch sites. Until a launch occurs.

Posted by Zhang Fei 2007-12-05 11:18|| http://timurileng.blogspot.com]">[http://timurileng.blogspot.com] 2007-12-05 11:18|| Front Page Top

#9 This is good. Even if the fighter doesn't get to the launcher or can't find it in time, it sure as hell can shoot it down still. Just park some F-22s off NKOR about 70 miles and shoot down all their Scuds the next time they want to fire some into the sea as a test.

Posted by DarthVader">DarthVader 2007-12-05 11:37|| 2007-12-05 11:37|| Front Page Top

#10 From an F-16. I'm no expert on the area, but perhaps a continued use for the F-14; that is something like an aim-9x guidence system on a phoenix missile or a modern missile with the same basic physical size specs of?

Posted by swksvolFF 2007-12-05 11:49|| 2007-12-05 11:49|| Front Page Top

#11 I would love to see Tomcats pulled out of the desert, but it ain't a'gonna happen; F15's-16's ad -22's stationed in SKOR and Japan mainland would be the way to go. SUppose modifying the USN's Lawn Darts for yet again another mission would involve more porkdollars going to the Lazy B......

Posted by USN,Ret. 2007-12-05 12:24|| 2007-12-05 12:24|| Front Page Top

#12 No boneyard for the Tomcats. Last I heard, they were running F-14's through the shredders to keep the parts away from Iran.

Posted by tu3031 2007-12-05 12:32|| 2007-12-05 12:32|| Front Page Top

#13 tu is correct, i forgot about that political decision. not counting those that are 'gate guards' at various military bases. those are already rendered unflyable through various means.

Posted by USN,Ret. 2007-12-05 14:40|| 2007-12-05 14:40|| Front Page Top

#14 Heh, does kinda extend the range of the AIM-9.

Posted by Thomas Woof 2007-12-05 14:47|| 2007-12-05 14:47|| Front Page Top

#15 Three letters come to mind: U.A.V.
Hang AIM-9xx instead of Hellfires and let it loiter at high altitude... Not as sexy as a manned fighter, but the pilot can get up from the console to get a cuppa coffee when needed.

Posted by Butch Omesh2231 2007-12-05 15:22|| 2007-12-05 15:22|| Front Page Top

#16 another reason I love the Burg: I'm a "civil" Engineer, no aviator, but I love seeing the back and forth among those who've had to fly/service/love various airframes. Thanks, and continue on :-)

Posted by Frank G">Frank G 2007-12-05 18:25|| 2007-12-05 18:25|| Front Page Top

#17 Frank redefines the word civil. That's why we like 'im.

Posted by Mike N. 2007-12-05 22:16|| 2007-12-05 22:16|| Front Page Top

#18 See also DEFENSETECH >ORG article on what often/ routinely successful TRIDENT D-5 SLBM TESTING and like means for LT USA = US strategic-geopol policies + US confidence. NUTSHELL > OURS WORKS versus ONLY OURS WORKS.

Posted by JosephMendiola 2007-12-05 23:46|| 2007-12-05 23:46|| Front Page Top

23:56 JosephMendiola
23:46 JosephMendiola
22:21 Old Patriot
22:20 mrp
22:16 Mike N.
22:11 Barbara Skolaut
22:09 Barbara Skolaut
22:09 Alaska Paul
22:07 Alaska Paul
21:37 Alaska Paul
21:35 Alaska Paul
21:35 mrp
21:33 Alaska Paul
21:30 Geoffro
21:29 Mike
21:23 Procopius2k
21:22 Barbara Skolaut
21:18 DMFD
20:56 Barbara Skolaut
20:47 Barbara Skolaut
20:45 DoDo
20:43 J. Thaddeus Toad
20:38 ryuge
20:37 Eric Jablow