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.

 

Was the T-2 Shot Down by the U.S. Missile Defense?

page: 5
0
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 6 2006 @ 09:39 AM
link   
Intelgurl thanks for the correction. I was just going by what the article said. It was late when I read it.

As far as the SM-3, no way was it used to shoot down this missile. The fastest time an Aegis was able to track/id/shoot/hit an incoming missile in tests was several minutes.




posted on Jul, 6 2006 @ 09:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
Actually the SM-3 can take out a missile in its boost/ascend phase if it is very close to the launch site, although even then 40 seconds still seems like a bit too fast. That’s why we have to know the altitude and range the missile failed to make more precise judgments.


Just a thought, what if the US or Japan has submarines stationed off-shore and close to the launch site?

NK wouldnt have a clue they were there.



posted on Jul, 6 2006 @ 09:53 AM
link   
Yeah but Zaphod at what ranges are usual SM-3 tests conducted? They’re not usually very close test (in terms of range to target). And in this case I would image any AEGIS ship would have multiple outside radars and sensors to help in tracking and targeting. Still, even then I have a hard time believing that we could have done all the tracking/targeting/decision making/flying/ in 40 seconds. So I’m not entirely ruling it out but its HIGHLY unlikely.


----------


As far as I’m aware no US or Japanese subs are configured to launch SM-3 interceptors. Again, I don’t have a hard time picturing a DDG/CG in an electronic blackout sailing very close to the Korean shoreline I just have a hard time seeing how the missile/electronics/and humans could have acted that quickly.

Here is a image showing where the Taepodong-2 fell and where the other short range missiles fell, as you can see it did travel quite a distance.



[edit on 6-7-2006 by WestPoint23]



posted on Jul, 6 2006 @ 02:27 PM
link   
How about 7 min. as this artical reads?
Could 40 seconds be a cover?
english.yna.co.kr...



posted on Jul, 6 2006 @ 02:37 PM
link   
Sorry try this


english.yna.co.kr...



posted on Jul, 6 2006 @ 02:54 PM
link   
Now that you’ve mentioned it it does seem like a lot of ground to cover in 40 seconds, that landing zone is about 300-400 miles away from the launch site.



posted on Jul, 6 2006 @ 04:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
Yeah but Zaphod at what ranges are usual SM-3 tests conducted? They’re not usually very close test (in terms of range to target). And in this case I would image any AEGIS ship would have multiple outside radars and sensors to help in tracking and targeting. Still, even then I have a hard time believing that we could have done all the tracking/targeting/decision making/flying/ in 40 seconds. So I’m not entirely ruling it out but its HIGHLY unlikely.


That's the time it took them to LAUNCH, not the time it took them to IMPACT.



posted on Jul, 6 2006 @ 07:36 PM
link   
Has anyone heard of the term "golden bucket of sunshine" I'm listening to the july 4th Q files...mp3 and Quayle said it's a code name for nuclear. and he's speculating if that T 2 wasn't loaded with a golden bucket of sunshine...and thinks we shot it down...here's the link. Starts talking about that around 18 min.

www.stevequayle.com... Click on the July 4th Q files



posted on Jul, 6 2006 @ 09:08 PM
link   
HAHAHAHA! OK... let's look at this situation logically. DPRK fires their missile, however, before firing, I bet they did not call the USN to say "get ready" to launch your interceptor. SO...missile away. Some seaman looking on a radar screen sees the launch. What happens next? Do you think the missile fires itself? No. The radar operator calls his fire control officer who has to confirm the launch (15 seconds at best), then the authorization to launch must be given (according to weapon control status... I'm betting on Yellow Tight) (15 seconds). Then, the missile has a spin up and cool down cycle, if you really want it to hit something with a seeker head functional (15 seconds). Now the order can be given to fire.... after approximatley 45 seconds, but oops...dang thing blew up after 42 seconds.

Conclusion...to intercept from a comfortable distance on a missile cruiser, somewhere outside NK territorial waters, the missile launch authorization was given prior to the NK launch (improbable), the interceptor was "hot" (spun up)(impossible), and the radar operator instantly gave the fire command himself (non-existant). Still leaves at best 35 seconds of flight.

The NK missile didn't need help in crashing, I say.

"First to fire both night and day...we're the ADA!"



posted on Jul, 6 2006 @ 09:38 PM
link   
Shadow, not that I’m arguing that they could shoot it down in 40 seconds but the US had everything you can name focused upon that missile site and its surrounding area. We would have had several minutes, if not more, time of warning before the launch, activity around the missile site would give away an imminent launch. Then of course we had DSP satellites in orbit around the area, EW radars focused on it, forward based X-band radars and the ship’s own radars, when combined it gives you a precise real time detection and tracking capability.

BTW, I hope you don't mind me asking but just out of personal curiosity (its a long story) why did you put 266 in your name?

-------------


Originally posted by Zaphod58
That's the time it took them to LAUNCH, not the time it took them to IMPACT.



The mock warhead was launched over the Pacific atop a medium range missile and destroyed in a direct hit six minutes later with an SM-3 missile fired by the Aegis cruiser USS Shiloh, the agency said.

"The missile successfully intercepted the target warhead outside the earths atmosphere more than 100 miles above the Pacific Ocean and 250 miles northwest of Kauai," the agency said in a statement.

Link


Zap did you forget about the very recent test where the USS Shiloh shot down a mock warhead within minutes of launch?



posted on Jul, 6 2006 @ 09:55 PM
link   
Yeah, and in a scramble test it STILL took 4 minutes.



posted on Jul, 7 2006 @ 12:01 AM
link   
In all likelyhood, NK's T-2 simply self-destructed.

Move along, nothing to see.

But, in the ATS spirit of never accepting anything we're told at "face value", I submit the following:

I think it might be safe to assume that NK's level of technological development, especially in the area of electronics (as might be employed for missle guidance and control) trails that of the US by a considerable margin. We do know that this launch was "observed" (surveilled, probed, eavesdropped on, etc) by US forces in the immediate area, and that those assets were in place long before the launch took place.

Am I crazy to assume that at least some of the US ships/planes in the area would be able to descern and detect the electronic signature of an "engine start" command being transmited to the T-2?

Given the known (and assumed) Electronic Counter-Measures (ECM) capabilities of the US military, am I way off base to consider the possiblity that the US could have forced the self-destruction of the T-2 simply by electronically over-ridding NK's control of the missle the moment it switched to internal systems (ie., just at lift-off)?

Would not such a termination "look" just like a mid-flight break-up?

The advantage(s) being that there would be no "smoking gun" (or, smoking missle, as would be the case) to point back to the US; no "super-secret" technology would necessarily be revealed. Russia and China are quite aware of electronic warfare and its technologies (consider that the vast majority of internet "hack attacks" against the US originate in China!).

Lacking the ability to distinguish an ECM "hack" from a true failure, NK stands in the public view with egg on its face and no one to credibly blame but itself.



posted on Jul, 7 2006 @ 12:31 AM
link   

N.K. long-range missile flew for 7 minutes, not 42 seconds: S.Korean military of
SEOUL, July 6 (Yonhap) -- North Korea's long-range Taepodong-2 missile travelled for about 7 minutes after liftoff before it plunged into the East Sea, a top South Korean military officer said Thursday.

The North's multistage missile was initially believed to have gone down 42 seconds after it blasted off from its launching pad in the reclusive country on Wednesday, sparking questions over whether the flight was a technical failure or was aborted.





[edit on 7/7/2006 by jensouth31]



posted on Jul, 7 2006 @ 03:19 AM
link   
"This may signal the end of N. Korea's "test firing" of missiles. We must now assume that any launch of a long-range missile is meant as a potential strike against the US. And we must seriously consider the option of neutralizing these missiles on the launch pad."

Well, if the US hasnt shot down any yet, they certainly will now.

Then again, they probably did and when they shoot down the next one there will be footage and then a couple weeks down the line they will admit they origianally did shoot it down in the first place



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join