US Plans to Shoot Down ICBM

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: randomthoughts12

The system, prior to the kill vehicle redesign and SBX changes had a 50% success rate.

That's what makes North Korea ICBM's dangerous if they play to use them as a first strike weapon instead of defensive.

50 percent aren't very good odds.

a reply to: randomthoughts12

It's incredibly hard. But the test results aren't straightforward. Not all the tests were intercept tests, even though they may have launched an Interceptor. Some tests were to test the maneuvering system, or the radar, or other parts of the whole system.

originally posted by: Xeven
Imagine the success rate if the kill vehicle were tactical nukes.

imagine the EMP from the nuke kill vehicle.

This is why they killed the old Nike Hercules (MIM-14)missile system.
en.wikipedia.org...

originally posted by: LogicalGraphitti
Sounds like a good test. I think this is the best message we can send to lil Kim.

Of course, if the US's crappy old technology fails to drop the missile, it will send a completely different 'message'! *__-

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: randomthoughts12

It's incredibly hard. But the test results aren't straightforward. Not all the tests were intercept tests, even though they may have launched an Interceptor. Some tests were to test the maneuvering system, or the radar, or other parts of the whole system.

This makes sense and I can take your word for it as I only know what I have read so far.. This could be why the tests were perfectly successful as reported without a successful intercept even.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: randomthoughts12

It's incredibly hard. But the test results aren't straightforward. Not all the tests were intercept tests, even though they may have launched an Interceptor. Some tests were to test the maneuvering system, or the radar, or other parts of the whole system.

I think there are weapons that we know nothing about in the US arsenal.....

originally posted by: jimmyx

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: randomthoughts12

It's incredibly hard. But the test results aren't straightforward. Not all the tests were intercept tests, even though they may have launched an Interceptor. Some tests were to test the maneuvering system, or the radar, or other parts of the whole system.

I think there are weapons that we know nothing about in the US arsenal.....

After TRILLIONS of dollars in military spending since WWII, there had better be! What do you think is the most likely type of "secret" weapon in our arsenal?

a reply to: jimmyx

There are quite a few. But anti missile systems have never been high on the list of priorities. Most of the weapons we don't know about are logical advancements of existing systems.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: randomthoughts12

The system, prior to the kill vehicle redesign and SBX changes had a 50% success rate.

So what odds do you give for successful test today,Zaph?

Since the US still considers the USS Pueblo as its property and the Pueblo is docked in North Korea, I've always felt that we should launch a missile with an inert warhead and take out the Pueblo. Then send a message to North Korea saying "Our missiles already work."

originally posted by: AnonyMason
The test shot will have a self destruct on it.

We can't set up a test like this in front of the world's stage while the DPRK is watching and risk it's failure. The test shot will explode regardless of our ability to shoot it after it takes off. No matter what the publicly acknowledged narrative will be successful. The only ones who will know whether it actually passes or fails will be the Pentagon.

This test is likely a backup in case they don't get the missile in the boost phase.

a reply to: pteridine

They aren't planning on hitting it in the bost phase. The headline is misleading as it's a US missile being launched and targeted.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: pteridine

They aren't planning on hitting it in the bost phase. The headline is misleading as it's a US missile being launched and targeted.

I understand that. I should have been more clear. An intercept during a mid- or terminal-phase is a backup in case a boost phase intercept fails. Further, a demonstration of such capability may divert attention away from abilities to intercept an NK ballistic missile in the boost phase with other types of weapons.

a reply to: pteridine

We currently don't have a way of intercepting in the boost phase though. Our only system is the mid course interceptor.

a reply to: LogicalGraphitti

People I don't think realize how difficult it is to hit an incoming missile. It's like trying to shoot a quarter from a mile away and hitting dead center. He accuracy needed is astounding. Intercepting ICBMS may never get over 50 percent

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: pteridine

We currently don't have a way of intercepting in the boost phase though. Our only system is the mid course interceptor.

YAL-1 follow on.

a reply to: pteridine

Isn't even on the drawing board because of the problems they had with the YAL-1 program.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: pteridine

Isn't even on the drawing board because of the problems they had with the YAL-1 program.

You are probably right. The LWSD contract is only a year along.

a reply to: LogicalGraphitti

I'm thinking a better alternative would be to have the Russians hack the ICBM mid flight to send it back to its origin of launch....

LOL!

originally posted by: Vasa Croe
a reply to: LogicalGraphitti

I'm thinking a better alternative would be to have the Russians hack the ICBM mid flight to send it back to its origin of launch....

LOL!

It can't be sent back. It is a ballistic missile. A better alternative would be for the Chinese to convince the NK generals to depose Kim.