SCI/TECH: U.S. Navy Defense Missile Shoots Down Target, page 1

posted on Feb, 25 2005 @ 02:12 AM

link

A theater ballistic missile similar to a SCUD was shot down during a test of the Navies newest missile. The Standard Missile-3, which is expected to be in fleet service later this year has intercepted 5 out of 6 test target. The test involved a missile fired from island of Kauai, Hawaii and was shot down by the USS Lake Erie more than 100 miles away.

www.foxnews.com
WASHINGTON — An experimental naval interceptor shot down a short-range ballistic missile target during a test over the Pacific Ocean on Thursday, missile defense officials said.

It is the fifth kill in six tries for the interceptor, called a Standard Missile-3, said Rick Lehner, a spokesman for the Pentagon's Missile Defense Agency.

During the test, a target ballistic missile, similar to a Scud, was launched from the island of Kauai at 4 p.m. Eastern Standard Time. The USS Lake Erie, a cruiser equipped with the Aegis radar system and stationed 100 miles offshore, tracked the ballistic missile and then fired the interceptor to shoot it down. Two minutes later, the missiles collided.

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.

This system does not have the capacity that the interceptors at Ft. Greely have at this time. That is the ability to intercept an ICBM. However, over time the naval system may be upgraded for that. For now, a few of these systems in say Taiwan could shield the island nation from Chinese aggression. As with the national Missile Defense System, it takes time to perfect these weapons. However, given the likes of Kim et al, they make more and more sense every day.

The Vagabond

posted on Feb, 25 2005 @ 03:09 AM

link

I'm not going to call it useless, or a tremendous waste of money, but I really want to. It may be necessary as a stop-gap, but the truth is that these things are only going to be narrowly useful. I'm more than a little curious just what they have done to improve this over the PAC3 as well, and what would the relative costs have been between instituing the SM-3 and upgrading or expanding our supply of PAC-3s?

In the end, all these things are good for is limited TMD, basically as a stopgap until airborne lasers are viable, at least as far as I understand. If we're that far off then fine, but being a subscriber to the theory that we're a lot farther ahead than we claim to be, it disturbs me that we're putting money into the SM-3 instead of other things.

Luckily I also subscribe to the idea that the military is lying about where the money goes often. For all we know we've had the SM-3 for 20 years and now we're making it public and using the funding to produce a next generation defense.

mwm1331

posted on Feb, 25 2005 @ 03:28 AM

link

Very very cool. I am all for missile defense and am very happy to hear some postive news.

soficrow

posted on Feb, 25 2005 @ 07:42 AM

link

.
.
.
"U.S. Navy Defense Missile Shoots Down Target"

Now that is news.