U.S. Missile Defense Test Fails...again

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The first test in nearly two years of a multibillion-dollar U.S. anti-missile shield failed on Wednesday when the interceptor missile shut down as it prepared to launch in the central Pacific, the Pentagon said.

About 16 minutes earlier, a target missile carrying a mock warhead had been successfully fired from Kodiak Island, Alaska, according to a statement from the Missile Defense Agency.

The aborted $85 million test appeared likely to set back plans for activation of a rudimentary bulwark against long-range ballistic missiles that could be fired by countries like North Korea.

In 2002, President Bush pledged to have initial elements of the program up and running by the end of this year while testing and development continued.

An "anomaly" of unknown origin caused the interceptor to shut down automatically in its silo at the Kwajalein Test Range in the Marshall Islands, said Richard Lehner, a spokesman for the Pentagon's missile agency.

The test followed a week of delays caused by weather and technical glitches, including malfunction of an internal battery aboard the target missile on Tuesday, he said.

"This is a serious setback for a program that had not attempted a flight intercept test for two years," Philip Coyle, the Pentagon's chief weapons tester under late President Ronald Reagan, said in an e-mail exchange.

The system is a scaled-down version of a ballistic missile shield first outlined in March 1983 by Reagan and derided by critics as "Star Wars."

'NOT CONSTRAINED BY TIMING'

Pentagon officials had hoped the test would set the stage for any decision by Bush to put the system on alert in coming weeks. Initially, the system is designed to counter North Korean missiles that could be fired at the United States and tipped with nuclear, chemical or germ weapons.

"I'm not constrained by timing, exactly," Michael Wynne, the Pentagon's chief weapons buyer, said on Dec. 8 in reply to a question about switching the system on. "But we'll see how (the test) goes and then we'll see from there."

Do you think that this is the only technology available to shoot down missles or do you think that this is just a cover for something that may already exist? Star Wars (SDI) was actually started at the beginning of the 1980's. Do you believe in 24 years that the US has made no progress, or is this just what they report??

It doesn't make any sense to fire a rocket to intercept another rocket. Wouldn't it be easier to find a way to jam an incoming missile which probably uses satelites to target?

Just does not make any sense and a big waste of money.

I think this project is a cover up for the appropriation of funds for another black project.....maybe the stealth satellite deployment....but $10billion dollars a year for a project that doesnt even work in minor test situations is a criminally negligent waste of money and resources at a tme when the US is in more debt than it ever has been since the inception of the United States.........can the peolpe working on such a highly funded project really be that inept at getting it right? just seems extermely fishy to me.

Originally posted by radiant_obsidian
I think this project is a cover up for the appropriation of funds for another black project.....maybe the stealth satellite deployment....but $10billion dollars a year for a project that doesnt even work in minor test situations is a criminally negligent waste of money and resources at a tme when the US is in more debt than it ever has been since the inception of the United States.........can the peolpe working on such a highly funded project really be that inept at getting it right? just seems extermely fishy to me.

Agreed. Considering there were many technologies unknown to the public that existed like stealth, and how long ago that was (and the atomic bomb) there's a good chance that there is weaponry beyond our wildest nightmares.

I read an article in American Scientist about a month ago. It stated that the sheild would be ineffective at doing its job. It stated the only type of missles it would stand a chance of knocking down would be ones fired from off shore boats.

Wow, I used to live in Kodiak... Not much there but a USCG base and a fishing city, hehe... Where the heck did they fire a missile from? Well, that Coast Guard base was used as a cover for all kinds of things, so not too surprising....

Personally, I think these "public" tests are pure disinfo to our enemies, and that we've had a "missile shield" of sorts in place since the mid 80's, but hey, that's just me...

justanotherperson says:

"It doesn't make any sense to fire a rocket to intercept another rocket. Wouldn't it be easier to find a way to jam an incoming missile which probably uses satelites to target?"

Incoming missiles do not use satellites to target; they have the information they need on board. Once they lift off, they are completely autonomous.

The only option I can think of is to fire a laser beam at the missile while it's still in boost phase. That is what the Air Force's ABL program is about; it uses a modified Boeing 747-400 carrying a very high-powered chemical laser, as well as acquisition and targeting equipment. The ABL has already been tested and flown, although it is not operational yet.

Just another thought on this subject......wouldnt EMP weapons be able to fry the electronic components of any incoming missiles...hence rendering them useless against intended targets. Do the US military even have any EMP weaponary capable of targeting a designated area and something such as a ICBM or smaller?

radiant_obsidian says:

"wouldnt EMP weapons be able to fry the electronic components of any incoming missiles...hence rendering them useless against intended targets."

You could probably do it, at least theoretically; but it wouldn't be cost-effective for several reasons.

1. You can make some electronics less sensitive to electro-magnetic pulse (EMP) to the point that your EMP source would have to be close to the target, and there's a good chance that even a pulse with a couple of km wouldn't do the trick.

2. The only way we have right now to generate enough energy to progpagate a big EMP is to set off a nuclear or thermonuclear warhead at an altitude of between 50 and 100 km above the earth's surface. That might impact the missile, but it would be pretty dicey, because you only have about a couple of minutes to track the missile if it's on re-entry phase, and how are you going to loft a hydrogen bomb up to suborbital altitudes to stop it in time?

3. Finally, even if you could get it to work, it'd probably fry all of our unprotected stuff on the ground.

To my mind, the best approach is for the Bad Guys to realize that they're faced with a three-layer defense.

First layer is that we blast the missile with an ABL (airborne laser mounted on a modified Boeing 747) while it's still in boost phase, then we turn their country into a glass-lined parking lot.

Second layer is a kinetic kill vehicle during the beginning of the enemy missile's re-entry phase, then we turn their country into a glass-lined parking lot.

Third layer is that we lose a couple of cities and missile silos, then we turn their country into a glass-lined parking lot.

[edit on 15-12-2004 by Off_The_Street]

This shouldn't be a problem, Rocket launches have problems from time to time, but they will fix it. I real problem will be that when they redo this test is if it lifts off perfectly but misses the incoming missile, now that would be a problem.

But never-the-less, If your getting this much money and having the whole world staring at you, and each one of these little tests cost 100 million I dont think you should faulter.

just wanted to make a comment about your 3 layers: you left out the pre-emptive strike and shooting it with one of our ships

I for one am glad this was only a test and not the real thing.

As far as the delays: I think it may have been due to the fact that they wanted optimal conditions for data analysis. I would delay it for that reason, it is a "test".

Think you guys can throw together anything more reliable?

Give it time... It wasn�t meant to work when it was first installed. It was meant to evolve with ever advancing computer systems and software tweaks.
It�s a hell-of-allot better detourant then sitting on ones ass and building more nukes when you already have enough to destroy death.

Here is a little info on the systems at work.

I had a few slides of what exactly was to be in place, Agies cruisers, ABL, PAC-3s and eventually space based systems. Each one working independently and together� One or the other is almost guaranteed to be a real defensive shield.

I know of a couple of people whom never stopped working on the shield in the nineties while the rest of us all thought star wars was closed down.

It annoys me to read this bull crap put out about the missle shield failing.
It's a money scam. Look at what happens. Those in charge can say it failed, cost millions, and they will need millions more to try and make it work.
In the end, they will be rich from the scam they are pulling on us.

We can knock missles out of the sky with such an extreme accuracy that it would blow your mind.

I know a guy worked at the lab, on the lasers for the projects in the nineties, another guy who spent a lot of time at site 300, behind LLNL, and another guy in the Air force who swears that the shield is so amazing and that what you hear on TV is a load of crap. The government, in his opinion, doesn't want others to know how advanced it is. He's a company man and is ignorant to the fact that where there is money, there are lies and corruption in the highest ranks.

wow,
I hope you are both right and wrong.
I do think there are capabilities we don't know about, and I don't doubt that there is corruption. I have wondered if there is any possiblility of a land based air defense laser in operation anywhere. I know the Isrealies have one that can hit artillery rockets,

Well one other possibility is the govt. is saying the missile defense system is not working to garner support for a pre-emptive strike against north korea. Bush has clearly identified north korea as part of the axis of evil so who knows????

But I am sure both the US and Russia have very capable defense systems by now. Building a solid defense system is just as agressive as building more nukes IMO.