BREAKING: Another Reportedly Failed Ballistic Missile Intercept Test. How Dependable Is It?

How can we reassure Americans that our military is capable of shooting down enemy ballistic missiles, if we keep hearing about these failed tests? First, the Hawaiian missile warning debacle and now another failed ballistic missile intercept test at the Aegis Ashore missile defense station in Hawaii. It has been reported in the past, that since 2002, we've spent nearly $40 billion dollars on our nation's missile defense system. For 2018, Trump's administration authorized $10.5 billion dollars for the Missile Defense Agency, an increase of $2.6 billion above the Pentagon's initial request. How reliable would our missile defense system be in real world situations? Do we have alternative measures to protect this nation from enemy missile theats?

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."

www.businessinsider.com... &utm_campaign=Feed%3A+businessinsider+%28Business+Insider%29

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."

Even in the absence of immediate tensions, public discussion of weapon flaws is a bad idea. It gives useful information to potential enemies.

I suspect the system isn't nearly as reliable as they'd like us to believe.

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.

a reply to: AndyFromMichigan

Neither technolgy nor humanity is 100% reliable. Space shuttles explode, defense systems fail, planes fall. Most of us are just rolling the dice day after day, sometimes you roll a 20 and sometimes a 1. There is no mystery or conspiracy here.

originally posted by: AndyFromMichigan
I suspect the system isn't nearly as reliable as they'd like us to believe.

We agree wholeheartedly!!

However, it is in the interest of weapons manufacturers, lobbyists and politicians to keep us anxious, so as to never question the spending, without sounding UnAmerican or UnPatriotic!!

MTUBY

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

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

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

I disagree.

You would have a good chance, however, not 100%.

If I flip a coin, I most certainly can land heads or tails three times consecutively, which would seem to dispute the 100% accuracy with only three interceptors, wouldn't you agree?

MTUBY

Remember in the Art of War you pretend to be weak when you are strong and you pretend to be strong when you're weak. I would think if we really had as bad of an issue as its made out to be that would be extremely classified and none of us would be the wiser. Just my take on it.

lol like telling me a nuke is coming is going to save my life.

a reply to: shawmanfromny

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?

Not very reliable. First of all, a fleet of ICBMs past apogee heading US is going to be trailing multiple decoys, actively jamming homing warheads, etc.

For anyone who remembers the doctrine from the earlier Cold Wars, the Nike Defense system was to detonate a cloud of nuclear airbursts in the oncoming path of warheads, hoping to disrupt enough of them to foil an attack.

It probably would have worked, except all the fallout from dozens of Nike Air bursts would have drifted ashore on the west coast of America with the prevailing sea breeze. Those who lived there will recognize the landmarks...

Images of Nike missile defense sites

This type of missile defense was probably as dangerous as it was defensive. It was also ready now, hair trigger and devastating. What a show that would have been. As cruise missile tech developed this kind of system became obsolete. How do you shoot down dozens of cruise missiles appearing off the coast , hopping waves, ten minutes from target? ICBMs would be redundant at that point, pounding the rubble.

Hell we couldn't stop three airliners...

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: 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...

And then, you could hit it on the first one!!!

Statistics are as unpredictable as human nature.

Pleasure to meet you as well...

MTUBY

Of course the claims are exaggerated.

The reality of missile defense on incoming warheads, Patriot v. Scud, Gulf War One.

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.

originally posted by: intrptr

Hell we couldn't stop three airliners...

OUCH!

Not sure we even contemplated that approach?
Although we certainly should have.

MTUBY

This is disturbing. I thought we could do it, no problem.

Well. Problem.

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.

How is that 'screwed'? If it's even 50-50, one only has to fire off three at it and you'll get your hit. Expensive, but hardly screwed.

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.

"Trying to hit a bullet with another bullet". Wow.

I was just looking for how long it would take for a missile to get to the U.S. from NK. The answer was 5 minutes; no, 20 minutes, no 40 minutes, no, an hour, and I heard on a news program it was 11 minutes.

We don't even know that.