PAC-3 Missile Successfully Destroys Tactical Ballistic Missile in Test

A client announcement I got via company email...
It is possible that this is on the Lockheed website somewhere and I honestly have not taken the time to find it for a link. Sorry~


Thu, 8 Sep 2005, 14:54

"DALLAS, TX: Lockheed Martin's Patriot Advanced Capability-3 (PAC-3) Missile successfully intercepted and destroyed an incoming tactical ballistic missile (TBM) today during a flight test at White Sands Missile Range, NM. The battle-proven PAC-3 Missile is the world's only fielded hit-to-kill, kinetic energy air defense missile."

It sounds like PAC-3 is continuing to improve in the anti-missile role.
Incidently, I understand that over 70% of europeans would like to have a missile defense. Interesting...

Good news, but work still needs to be done, and it will take almost impossible scores to convince some people of its value. Everyone wants a ballistic missile defense, but it is easier said than done.

What about the Arrow 2 TMD? Its it also tested, and deployed..
Its not battle proven like the PAC-3 but I doubt he PAC-3 was battle-proven against ballistic targets, was it?

Surprisingly there's a lot of american infusion into the ARRow2+green pine radar TMD system, even though they (americans) are investing in the PAC-3 and THAAD.
ITs like investnig in many ventures, to make sure at least one of them go all the way.
Though, all seem to be doing good here..

here are some arrow pics:
The first pic's inset looks like a mid-air kill, but the article doen't specify..
The 4th pic also looks like a mid-air explosion..






Here are all the successful arrow 2 tests..
Again no specification on whether any of those missiles were ballistic..

Test 3 (August 20th, 1996): Successful interception. The Arrow successfully destroyed the target missile.

Test 4: (March 11th, 1997): Another successful interception. The Arrow destroyed the target missile this time as well.

Test 5 (August 20th, 1997): The missile was destroyed by ground orders due to malfunction in the missile's steering system.

Test 6 (September 14th, 1998): The missile was launched towards a virtual target created by a simulator. The test was successful.

Test 7 (November 1st, 1999): Full systems test. The missile was launched towards a virtual Scud target and successfully managed to hit and destroy it.

Test 8 (September 14th, 2000): The Arrow was launched towards the target missile Black Sparrow launched from an F-15 fighter jet simulating a Scud. The Arrow hit and destroyed the target.

Test 9 (August 28th, 2001): Full systems test wherein the Arrow was launched towards a Black Sparrow target missile, simulating a ballistic missile flight. The interception was conducted at a range larger than 100 kilometers at higher altitudes than before. The Arrow hit its target and destroyed it.

www.israeli-weapons.com...

[edit on 9-9-2005 by Daedalus3]

She just said they tested it against a tactical ballistic missile, which im not sure how it differs from an ICBM, however it is good news. and IMO to the 70% of europe who want to get their hands on it, build your own you backstabbing bastards!

Well, I suppose taht it's always good when a test is completed succesfully...

Originally posted by Rikimaru
She just said they tested it against a tactical ballistic missile, which im not sure how it differs from an ICBM, however it is good news. and IMO to the 70% of europe who want to get their hands on it, build your own you backstabbing bastards!

She said they would like to have A missile defence.. not necessarily this one..
I don't think France and Germany would want an american ABM..they'd rather build their own..

Maybe this 70% of Europe is the "new Europe"..

How many countries in Europe are working on ANY kind of ABM program? Have you followed how long the US has been working on ANY sort of ABM defense, just to get THIS far? With the exception of the USS Lake Eerie and her tests out here at the Pacific Missile Range, the sucesses have been few and far between. ABM is NOT something you just wake up one morning and say "I think we'll build one." If Europe is going to have some sort of missile defense they're either gonna have to get up off their butts and start working on it, or they're buying a US system.

A tactical ballistic missile is moving at maybe mach 5-7.

An ICBM is going about mach 15.

It's much easier to hit an SRBM than an ICBM (even without the decoys an incoming ICBM will be releasing) - TMD is quite practical at this point, NMD is still a pipe dream IMHO.

see thats the thing with the euros they use more theory than application, and it's usually the US taking theory and putting it into use.

Originally posted by Zaphod58
How many countries in Europe are working on ANY kind of ABM program? Have you followed how long the US has been working on ANY sort of ABM defense, just to get THIS far? With the exception of the USS Lake Eerie and her tests out here at the Pacific Missile Range, the sucesses have been few and far between. ABM is NOT something you just wake up one morning and say "I think we'll build one." If Europe is going to have some sort of missile defense they're either gonna have to get up off their butts and start working on it, or they're buying a US system.

Well, we'll just have to wait and watch aye?

I did'nt particpate in this but heard about it later.

The website is listed below:
MDA

I thought the Gorgon had allready done this (SRBM) about 15 years ago?

The missle defense should come in layers I believe. The first would be satelites with high yield nuclear bombs in them in geosync orbit over the areas likely to be launch sites. just detonate them when the ICBMs are in there boost phase. If any missles made it past that line kinetic weapons(brilliant pebbles) and "star wars" type lasers hopefully would take them out. The last phase would consist of lasers mounted on planes( probably jumbo jets), the arrow missle system and finally patriot missles.

The Difference between an Theatre ballistic missile(Such as SCUDS) and ICBMs, is that a Theatre Ballistic Missile is launched from a platform and lands on a target a few hundred miles away and moves slower than an ICBM and closer to the ground.

An ICBM when it's in orbit phase, it untouchable by Theatre Battlistic Missile Defenses such as PAC-3, and is even more untouchable during reentry when it's moving at close to Mach 25 coming straight down on the target, not to mention possible Anti-Missile Defenses aboard the ICBM. So you could imagine the difficulty of hitting an ICBM over a Theatre ballistic Missile.

I may be wrong on the Mach 25, but the Orbital Shuttle Reenters at mach 25, so I'm guessing an object coming in straight down from the atmosphere would have close to the same velocity. Maybe Mach 15 is more realistic.

Shattered OUT...