It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
The US Navy reportedly conducted a failed ballistic missile intercept test on Wednesday, the second failed test involving a SM-3 Block IIA in a year.
If confirmed, the test would be the second time this year that the missile, made by Raytheon, failed to intercept its target during tests. The last failure happened in July of last year, and was blamed on a sailor accidentally entering data that identified the target as a friendly, causing the missile to self-destruct.
The failure comes amid high tensions between the US and North Korea. Defense officials told CNN that they would not publicly discuss the failed launch, in part because of "sensitivities surrounding North Korea."
originally posted by: shawmanfromny
"The failure comes amid high tensions between the US and North Korea. Defense officials told CNN that they would not publicly discuss the failed launch, in part because of "sensitivities surrounding North Korea."
originally posted by: AndyFromMichigan
I suspect the system isn't nearly as reliable as they'd like us to believe.
or they're limping in. faking incompetance to tempt enemies to strike. the dumber enemies, anyway. then we would be "justified" in obliterating some chumps. that's how i would do it, anyway
originally posted by: AndyFromMichigan
I suspect the system isn't nearly as reliable as they'd like us to believe.
originally posted by: TreetopControl
Even with a 50% reliability, if you launched three interceptors at one actual target, you would have a 100% chance of intercepting and destroying it (statistically). The actual success rate is much higher, so I personally am not to worried about it. Plus, the systems will get better and better after each test, whether they are successful or not. You learn more about a system by examining the failures than you do with a success. The more shots the better... lol
How reliable would our missile defense system be in real world situations? Do we have alternative measures to protect this nation from enemy missile threats?
originally posted by: TreetopControl
a reply to: ParkerCramer
Hi ParkerCramer... nice to meet you! You're correct... technically, with a 50% success rate you could launch 100 missiles and every one would fail. I was thinking more of every other missile hitting it's target. In that case, you would only need 2 rockets to successfully intercept. I should have spent more time crafting my comment! Thanks...
originally posted by: intrptr
Hell we couldn't stop three airliners...
originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: shawmanfromny
It depends on which system you're talking about. The Aegis system, seen here, is damn good, with an average success rate somewhere around 85-90%, including some really hard tests involving decoys and multiple targets. The previous failure was the result of someone on the ship sending the self destruct command to the SM-3. Not really a valid failure, but still a failure. The only problem with the Aegis system is that it can't target an ICBM.
Now if you're talking about the Ground Based Midcourse Defense, then we're screwed. In relatively simple tests, they have a less than 60% success rate in their kill tests. They even have some pretty bad failures in non kill tests. That's with one target, no decoys.
originally posted by: grey580
a reply to: shawmanfromny
From what I've read.
It's like trying to stop a bullet with another bullet.
Pretty dam hard to do. But they are working on it.