US SM-3 system fails

For those intertested in the recent discussion about aircraft carriers and their viability....
one point failure sees a $3 billion nuclear powered coffin sunk.

I'll be watching closely for further test results...

US-Japan missile defence shield 'fails'

www.telegraph.co.uk... ldnews/northamerica/usa/3488402/US-Japan-missile-defence-shield-fails.html

A Japanese warship failed to shoot down a dummy missile in a test of a defence shield being developed with the United States to protect against a possible North Korean attack, officials said on Thursday.


Last Updated: 8:02PM GMT 20 Nov 2008

The Chokai destroyer tested the US-developed sea-to-air Standard Missile 3 (SM-3) off Hawaii on Wednesday but "failed to shoot down a dummy ballistic missile", the defence ministry said in a statement.

Washington and Tokyo have been working jointly to install a shield against possible attacks from North Korea, which fired a missile over Japan's main island in 1998 and tested an atom bomb in 2006.

Japan successfully tested the SM-3 interceptor in December from the Kongou destroyer in waters off Hawaii, becoming the first US ally to intercept a target using the system.

In September, Japan successfully tested the new US-developed Patriot Advanced Capability 3 (PAC-3), a surface-to-air missile that tracks and hits incoming targets.

Japan plans to complete its missile shield by early 2011, deploying the PAC-3 missiles at 11 bases and setting up SM-3 missiles on four Aegis warships.

[edit on 24-11-2008 by Unknown Perpetrator]

more proof that US ABM system is crap and useless ,


I wonder why US invests in such junk

Originally posted by sadchild01
more proof that US ABM system is crap and useless ,


I wonder why US invests in such junk

Seriously, I'd rather be sitting under a Russian ABM system than a US one. I think the MIC has become so corrupt that system tests are as good as bogus. If it be backhanders, pork barrelling or fear of losing abolsute power I think something doesn't smell right.

Strange that system failures are more prominent when rolling this stuff out to export buyers.

For example the Patriot perfromance against 70's tech Scuds in the gulf war, many dead and injured Israelis. A few months ago, the star spangled blinded attacked many on the Sunburn/Bramhos thread on carrier defence.

Who is holding the high ground now ?

We just had to sit and wait to be vindicated..... US Navy $6 billion down and how many lost lives? All for the cost of a North Korean paper mache warhead ??

The armchair generals round here really need to re-evaluate the 'reported' effectiveness of US systems and the limitations of tech advances.

reply to post by Unknown Perpetrator


actually , USA should halt the military buildup , this will stop the stupid arms race , happening on the globe ..

this will halt the global arms race ... anyways USA is heading the way of USSR (like how it collapsed)

sooner or later USA will be bankrupt

Originally posted by Unknown Perpetrator

Originally posted by sadchild01
more proof that US ABM system is crap and useless ,


I wonder why US invests in such junk

Seriously, I'd rather be sitting under a Russian ABM system than a US one. I think the MIC has become so corrupt that system tests are as good as bogus. If it be backhanders, pork barrelling or fear of losing abolsute power I think something doesn't smell right.

You would and why is that, because of the handful of 'successful' tests the Russians have conduction against very simple, short range ballistic targets over the last 15 years? Kind of funny your opinion about that.

Who is holding the high ground now ?

You obviously seem to have an axe to grind. Of course someone as 'knowledgeable' as you would no there is know such think as a weapons system which is reliable 100% of the time. I would posit that this being the only failure of the SM-III makes it a very effective weapon system.


The armchair generals round here really need to re-evaluate the 'reported' effectiveness of US systems and the limitations of tech advances.

I would have to say look in the mirror, you seem to take one news article and claim to be an armchair expert. You are claiming the Russian system is more effective than the US one, without even know anything about the Russian system. I think a greater understanding of military technology is warranted on your part.

PS. It is always interesting how the US is held to a higher standard of proof of their systems being effective whilst Russian supporters require that Russia's word is all that is sufficient. Kind of interesting how the Russians claim successful tests but never release the parameters of these tests. Gotta be nice for a government running a semi-dictatorship and not having to answer to the people.



[edit on 24-11-2008 by mad scientist]

Originally posted by Unknown Perpetrator
For those intertested in the recent discussion about aircraft carriers and their viability....
one point failure sees a $3 billion nuclear powered coffin sunk.

Please link me to the scores of successful tests, by any nation, concerning ballistic missiles which target warships. I'll wait...

This test was carried out by a JSDF warship, their second test. Overall the SM-3 has had a very positive test record, and in its one and only operational use it performed successfully. The issue at hand could be any number of things, software, hardware or even human error. Things go wrong, kind of the idea behind testing systems to iron out most of the kinks. Any further extrapolation and one is not basing that conclusion on facts and rational thought, most likely emotional opinion instead.

Originally posted by sadchild01
more proof that US ABM system is crap and useless ,


I wonder why US invests in such junk

Aha, a real expert here So I assume that the vast majority of successful tests mean nothing. Please troll somewhere else.

Yes, it's total crap, and we should scrap it. Oh wait.... let's look at how many SUCCESSFUL tests there have been, and the reasons why they didn't hit.......

Although both this year's and last year's targets were medium-range missiles, this year the target's booster and warhead were designed to separate more slowly. That gave the interceptor missile less time to distinguish between the booster and the warhead when it was homing in on the target.

U.S. Navy ships and the Missile Defense Agency have together conducted over a dozen successful ballistic missile intercepts in tests off Hawaii. Wednesday's test was a chance for the MSDF to verify the technology on board its own ship.

"This is a test for our allies to help build their confidence and understanding of their system," Mary Keifer, Lockheed Martin's director for international ballistic missile defense programs, said before the test.

search.japantimes.co.jp...

The JFTM-1 test event on 18 December 2007 verified the new engagement capability of the Aegis BMD configuration of the recently upgraded Japanese destroyer, JS KONGO (DDG-173). At approximately 12:05 pm (HST), 7:05 am Tokyo time on Dec. 18, 2007, a ballistic missile target was launched from the Pacific Missile Range Facility, Barking Sands, Kauai, Hawaii. JS KONGO crew members detected and tracked the target. The Aegis Weapon System then developed a fire control solution and at approximately 12:08 pm (HST), 7:08 am Tokyo time, a Standard Missile -3 (SM-3) Block IA was launched. Approximately 3 minutes later, the SM-3 successfully intercepted the target approximately 100 miles above the Pacific Ocean. FTM-1 was the first time that a Japanese ship was designated to launch the interceptor missile, and marked eleven intercepts in twelve attempts.

www.globalsecurity.org...

The last link is a list of every SM-3 shot up until they shot down the satellite in Feb of this year. Read each one of those and sit there and tell me what crap it is. Until then, I suggest you retire your armchair general status because you really need to go to school for it.

This system is a waste of money. It did not help the Israelites during the Gulf War and it will not help the Americans. If America was to be attacked, there would be missile swarms from enemies using real and cheaper dummy missiles.

Even if you hit a missile successfully using the current technology, it could have been an dummy missile, letting the real missiles a few seconds or minutes behind it easily pass by the 'defenses' and onto American cities.

I read somewhere that even 5-10% of the American military budget could help end world hunger and provide birth control supplies, and that's a big step in securing America's respect at the court of public opinion, and ultimately, its security.

Indeed a far cheaper opinion than to prop up the incredibly profitable war industry. When the war industry is that profitable, we will see a whole lot more wars.

reply to post by star in a jar


Uhm, how could a system that had just started testing back then help the Israeli's in the Gulf War? Flight Mission 4 was held in November of 2002. That was the first REAL test of the system.

If you did any research into this the system can track and tell which are dummies, and which aren't. It ties into the SBX which can track anything in orbit, and can tell you all sorts of things about each target.

This is proof that the Russians have nothing to worry about and should just shut up and let Americans spend on useless junk as one of the posters here said. Unless...

I like the relationship between the fact that a missile that is designed to stop ballistic missiles, is going to be useless against the brahmos and sunburn. Really now? Do you think that the carrier is going to be sitting there relying solely on sm-3's to protect them? I think were forgetting about things like Phalanx, and sea ram missiles. Plus as it has been stated this is one failure out of how many successful tests. Yes, because of this we should fear the russian shield, and the rest of their highly sophisticated systems. While were at it, how many US sailors have died on US subs due to system failure, to say a hypothetical situation such as fire system going off? Oh yeah, theres youre reason why we spend so much on our stuff.

11 successful tests, ONE failure, 11 carriers alfoat, ONE SUNK!

Depends which carrier you are on.

It's been discussed already the failures of CIWS and other naval defence systems and the american die hards here talking about 'layered systems' and so on in 'simulated tests'

If you are seeing this sort of failure rate in 'testing' in the real theatre of war it's going to be much much higher, carry on I say. Iran isn't going to SMS you I'm launching one missile today.

Again, I reiterate... I'd rather be sitting under a Russian Military dogma of numerical superiority.... the US systems put too much emphasis on low numbers and high tech..... the Russian military set up would see you ringed by loads of S-400 batteries and numerous TOR-1s..... the american dependency and more critically the 'papal infalibility' of tech, one patriot battery of immense cost and keep your fingers crossed... no thanks.

America for being the top of the technology tree seem to fail to get a lot of these basic systems to work well.... yet they put 11 men on the moon with a less processing power than your avergare micorwave oven. Got to question it.

reply to post by Unknown Perpetrator


Landing on the moon is alot easier to do then hitting a bullet with another bullet like principle with missiles.

However, it seems to disturb the Russians with just 10 American interceptors in Poland. Why?

Originally posted by Unknown Perpetrator

If you are seeing this sort of failure rate in 'testing' in the real theatre of war it's going to be much much higher, carry on I say. Iran isn't going to SMS you I'm launching one missile today.

Once again how can you expound your position without any fact? You seem to be taking an aggressive stance towards people here shoeing you up with real facts not your imagination. I would assume by your reasoning every navy in the world is using obsolete and useless CIWS, oh but wait they keep on spending money on them. I guess maybe there might be a few more people more qualified than you who think they are worth the expense.

Again, I reiterate... I'd rather be sitting under a Russian Military dogma of numerical superiority.... the US systems put too much emphasis on low numbers and high tech..... the Russian military set up would see you ringed by loads of S-400 batteries and numerous TOR-1s..... the american dependency and more critically the 'papal infalibility' of tech, one patriot battery of immense cost and keep your fingers crossed... no thanks.

Erm how many S-400's have been deployed? fewer than the SM-III. How many successful exoatmospheric interceptions have they performed? ZERO. So having many missiles unproven to be able to hit anything is better than having a few that have Provide some proof for once, you have shown yourself far from an expert so we are hardly going to settle for your rantings as fact.

America for being the top of the technology tree seem to fail to get a lot of these basic systems to work well.... yet they put 11 men on the moon with a less processing power than your avergare micorwave oven. Got to question it.

Basic systems No offense but it is obvious you don't know the first thing about these systems. Oh yeah BTW has anyone else been to the moon?

To "Mad Scientist" Well for starters we do know that the U.S. claims (till this day) on T.V. that the Patriot system shot down most of Iraq's missiles in DesertStorm, but here's the real truth:1. www.cdi.org... 2. www.cdi.org... 3. www.fas.org...

I would have to say look in the mirror, you seem to take one news article and claim to be an armchair expert. You are claiming the Russian system is more effective than the US one, without even know anything about the Russian system. I think a greater understanding of military technology is warranted on your part.

Actually your very wrong it is the West for 40 years that have been telling it's people and the world that Russia's systems are pethetic campared to U.S.A.'s, but we now know it's not true, here's some info that goes back 40 years on Russian ABM capabilites:
1. www.heritage.org...
2. www.opinionjournal.com...
3. www.heritage.org...
4. www.cato.org...
5. everything2.com...
6. www.missilethreat.com...

[edit on 24-11-2008 by 121200]

[edit on 24-11-2008 by 121200]

[edit on 24-11-2008 by 121200]

[edit on 24-11-2008 by 121200]

[edit on 24-11-2008 by 121200]

reply to post by Unknown Perpetrator


the money for developing this project OBVIOUSLY went somewhere else, like it always does or they simply found a good reason to ask for more money (since it's not working properly )
Just like the bailout money and every other penny that comes out of taxpayers pockets. Or the project is awesome and they will use it in covert ops. and we'll never hear about it again...



Knowledge is POWER!

[edit on 24-11-2008 by br0oce]

[edit on 24-11-2008 by br0oce]

Originally posted by Unknown Perpetrator
11 successful tests, ONE failure, 11 carriers alfoat, ONE SUNK!

Depends which carrier you are on.

It's been discussed already the failures of CIWS and other naval defence systems and the american die hards here talking about 'layered systems' and so on in 'simulated tests'

If you are seeing this sort of failure rate in 'testing' in the real theatre of war it's going to be much much higher, carry on I say. Iran isn't going to SMS you I'm launching one missile today.

Again, I reiterate... I'd rather be sitting under a Russian Military dogma of numerical superiority.... the US systems put too much emphasis on low numbers and high tech..... the Russian military set up would see you ringed by loads of S-400 batteries and numerous TOR-1s..... the american dependency and more critically the 'papal infalibility' of tech, one patriot battery of immense cost and keep your fingers crossed... no thanks.

America for being the top of the technology tree seem to fail to get a lot of these basic systems to work well.... yet they put 11 men on the moon with a less processing power than your avergare micorwave oven. Got to question it.

Russia doesn't reliey on numbers over tech, the S-300/400 ARE more advanced in tech than the PAC-1/2/3, and you need rings oF SAM's both in the U.S. and Rus in order to stop an attack from a 1 world power.



[edit on 24-11-2008 by 121200]

reply to post by Unknown Perpetrator


And you are treating this as if there is going to be ONE Aegis out there with only a handful of SM-3s on board. Eventually almost ALL of the Aegis ships will have them, and they will carry at least one entire VLS pod of SM-3s. There are a handful of ships right now (I think 8) that have the full up SM-3 package, and more that have received the radar upgrade but don't have the missiles yet.

Originally posted by Unknown Perpetrator

Seriously, I'd rather be sitting under a Russian ABM system than a US one.

SH-11 ABM-4 Gorgon
Warhead: Nuclear (1 Mt)

warfare.ru...

Wouldn't be that wise to sit underneath it should the system ever be used. Hope it never comes to that!