0 for 2. U.S. long-range missile defense test fails again.

[Thomas]

You are comparing a software glitch with a full system fail. The issue is not a small software "bug", but innefectiveness of the whole system, from poor rocket performance to radar fail, wich is not found on russian systems like in this case. The S-400 is not exported because Russia has a priority on arming with these systems.



If you have look at American interceptors, they´re all quite crappy. None meets the performance of russian systems. The S-300 is decades ahead of any US SAM, thought this is caused by the rocket tech gap between US and Russia, wich invested massively on these weapons.




It´s spelled "most effective", not "more effective" LOL, Now I´m questioning your age. In resume, This forum is not a self consolation site, go to post this garbage to another place.

You might want to do a little more research before you start attacking people. The test wasn't a full system fail.
With failed test, questions about U.S. missile defense - CNN.com

"Rick Lehner, a spokesman for the Missile Defense Agency, said the launches of the kill vehicle and the target missile were successful. In addition, the radars that track the target worked as planned, which is important because radar failure was the reason the last test of the system in January failed.

And Lehner pointed out that three tests prior to this year's two failures were successful."

And seriously! Do you really have to resort to attacks on grammar which can vary depending on where you live in the world? If so then you condemn 80% of the people on this website. Take your elitist attitude elsewhere please.

 

[mnd]

You might want to do a little more research before you start attacking people. The test wasn't a full system fail.
With failed test, questions about U.S. missile defense - CNN.com

"Rick Lehner, a spokesman for the Missile Defense Agency, said the launches of the kill vehicle and the target missile were successful. In addition, the radars that track the target worked as planned, which is important because radar failure was the reason the last test of the system in January failed.

And Lehner pointed out that three tests prior to this year's two failures were successful."

And seriously! Do you really have to resort to attacks on grammar which can vary depending on where you live in the world? If so then you condemn 80% of the people on this website. Take your elitist attitude elsewhere please.

You know I´m not gonna believe this, and we both know that it was a complete failure. Remember, you post this for yourself, not for me. Now don´t try to get out of this, look at all that garbage of posts you have written, and know trying to desviate from the subject. I´m not gonna play this game. Tell this to someone else.

 

[tallboy123]

Failures are common when u try something new..
They will learn from the failure and make right and test it again..
Good luck

 

[Thomas]

You know I´m not gonna believe this, and we both know that it was a complete failure. Remember, you post this for yourself, not for me. Now don´t try to get out of this, look at all that garbage of posts you have written, and know trying to desviate from the subject. I´m not gonna play this game. Tell this to someone else.

It does not matter if you believe it. People can research it themselves and form thier own opinion. And you might want to practice what you preach and corrct your grammer and spelling mistakes in the previous post.

 

[gambit]

How about a kill cloud instead of a direct contact kill vehicle?
We all know that ICBMs are re entry missiles and upon re entry at roundabout mach 20 the warhead is surrounded by plasma which on its own can kill the warhead,only if it can breach the protective heat shield,be it ceramic or any other type.
Now if there was a way of breaching the heat shield? Something similar happened to a space shuttle(i don't remember the name),the heat shield was breached,Plasma found its way into the vehicle and blasted it into smithereens.

If an ICBM's path can be predicted accurately,we can fill missile defense missiles with some sort of chaff? May be Tungsten carbide or synthetic diamond? which is hard enough to breach any surface on impact? A shrapnel cloud of many hundred meters across can be created in the predicted path of the incoming missile. As the missile passes through the chaff cloud,the heat protection is breached and plasma will do the rest?

Well,just an idea.

There is no 'if' about the predictability of an ICBM's trajectory. A ballistic trajectory is predictable as long as the missile is under constant surveillance.

About the reentry plasma field...

http://www.columbiassacrifice.com/$C_hypersonic.htm

Angle of attack plays the most significant role in how plasma forms around the shuttle and where heat is concentrated. The shuttle's extreme Angle of Attack of 40° is difficult to maintain but helps to slow the rate of descent more than any other method.

Another problem caused by hypersonic flight and ionized plasma was the10 minute blackout period that spacecraft traditionally went through during the early part of reentry.

This EM blackout period is dependent upon the approach angle that a vehicle uses to reenter the atmosphere.

The Apollo command module (CM) and the Space Shuttle has nowhere to steep angle as that of a ballistic warhead. Both are also shaped considerably different.

For both the Apollo CM and the Space Shuttle, the plasma stagnation region is where EM blackouts occurs. In the Space Shuttle source above, the communication antennas are located in the vehicle's top half. Communication are routed 'up' to a satellite where the comm signals are rerouted back to ground. See figures C11 through C12.

Piercing the Plasma: Ideas to Beat the Communications Blackout of Reentry: Scientific American

The space shuttle avoids the blackout because the craft’s broad underside leaves an open area in the plasma plume trailing behind, enabling communications and telemetry data to be relayed to Earth through a network of satellites. But smaller craft are completely engulfed by the plasma.

This is why the Space Shuttle can communicate with ground controllers during reentry but not the Apollo CM.

A ballistic missile's warhead descent angle is much steeper than the Space Shuttle's or the Apollo CM's. The intention for this vehicle is the opposite of manned vehicles. The intention of a ballistic missile warhead is to 'land' as soon as possible. This vehicle's shape is also considerably different...

The stagnation region for this vehicle is considerably smaller. Of all the plasma regions, it is the stagnation region that will prevent communication and radar operations if the vehicle is equipped with radar. Stagnation region plasma has the highest pressure and temperature.

Because of the warhead's much steeper descent angle and there is no deliberate throttling back of descent velocity, this plasma field around the warhead will not last for long, not even one minute. So if the intention is to compromise the vehicle's heat protection shield so that plasma gases can destroy it, this compromise attempt must occur very soon after the warhead begin its descent while the plasma field is still active. This mean the missile must be under surveillance from launch and the interceptor should be launched before the ICBM enter orbit to increase the odds of an interception.

 

[gambit]

You are comparing a software glitch with a full system fail. The issue is not a small software "bug", but innefectiveness of the whole system, from poor rocket performance to radar fail, wich is not found on russian systems like in this case. The S-400 is not exported because Russia has a priority on arming with these systems.

Looks like you get a lot of exercise jumping to conclusions. The article reads...

The Pentagon's Missile Defense Agency said both the intermediate-range ballistic missile target and the long-range interceptor missile launched successfully, radar and sensors worked properly and the "kill vehicle" deployed. But the "kill vehicle" didn't hit the target.

Unlike the S-400, which uses fragmentation blast to destroy its target, a kinetic kill interceptor must actually impact the target. This method require much more sophisticated flight controls and sensor integration, hence more rigorous test regimes. If the interceptor did not impact the target, two important questions are:

- Did the interceptor received all requisite guidance from the parent launcher?

- How wide was the miss?

The article contain nothing about those two questions, naturally leaving it to the readers to use their imagination and reveal their biased opinions. Previous tests were successful at having the interceptor impact the target...

The $100 billion missile shield program has had numerous problems. In December 2008, an interceptor launched from Vandenburg "killed" a target launched from Kodiak, Alaska. But the test wasn't able to determine a key aspect -- whether the interceptor could tell the difference between a decoy and a real missile -- because the decoy failed to launch.

Decoys have slightly different flight behaviors than the real warhead and the Dec 2008 test was supposed to test the system's ability to discriminate among multiple targets where at least one exhibit the behavior of a real warhead. If the decoy failed to launch for whatever reason, then at least we have another confirmation that the system's kinetic kill capability is real.

You sound like someone who has no experience in manufacturing. The more sophisticated the vehicle, and a kinetic kill interceptor is the most sophisticated, the more rigorous the testing regime, and the more failures will occur. In testing, we control as much of the variables as possible. If the meteorologist predict rain but the car is not at the inclement weather testing stage, then we wait for a sunny day. Next we test the car under water spray strips, but not rain. Then we wait for an actual rainy day. The more stages are there in a testing regime, if there is a lot of data collection, if there is a fail at any stage, we do not need to regress as much into previous stages.

There is nothing wrong with being a fanboy. But if you are going to act like one, at least have some experience, sources, and logical thinking to back up your biases.

If you have look at American interceptors, they´re all quite crappy. None meets the performance of russian systems. The S-300 is decades ahead of any US SAM, thought this is caused by the rocket tech gap between US and Russia, wich invested massively on these weapons.

Do not confuse first deployment with superiority. Am willing to be generous and credit the S-400 with %75 of the Russian's claims. Am willing to be even more generous and give %99. But not the claim to be able to detect F-117 class low radar observable bodies. The American missile defense program must compete with all the other programs for finance and manpower. We do not see Russia with several aircraft carriers at sea, do we? We do not see the Russian air force with anything near the F-117 class, do we? So if the Russians are able to deploy a missile defense system with the generously allowed %99 of claims, that does not mean the developing American program is somehow inherently inferior. The PAC-3 system, for what is known from publicly available information, seems to be a much more sophisticated overall system than the S-400. Each PAC-3 battery is smaller than the S-400, hence more mobile and easier to conceal.

It´s spelled "most effective", not "more effective" LOL, Now I´m questioning your age. In resume, This forum is not a self consolation site, go to post this garbage to another place.

If you have to include criticizing people's language in an environment where English seems to be most people's second or third language, it should be us who should be wondering about your age and maturity. Your spelling ain't that great, pal.

 

[mnd]

Son, don´t pretend to be a smartass here. Skipping the whole point and writing dozens of lines around the same will not make you look intelligent as you think. That´s a stupid game you are playing.

There is nothing wrong with being a fanboy.

Now you admit that you´re a noob with no life.

At least have some experience, sources, and logical thinking to back up your biases.

ROFL, What experience? like yours? LOGICAL THINKING? LOL LOL LOL, What did you pretend with writing this sentence? Did you feel inteligent, and realized when writing this?

And look at this:

Do not confuse first deployment with superiority. Am willing to be generous and credit the S-400 with %75 of the Russian's claims. Am willing to be even more generous and give %99. But not the claim to be able to detect F-117 class low radar observable bodies.

Fanboism, not, stupid fanboism.

We do not see Russia with several aircraft carriers at sea, do we?

Just stupid

We do not see the Russian air force with anything near the F-117 class, do we?

Near what? cost? poor performance? erroneous concept?

So if the Russians are able to deploy a missile defense system with the generously allowed %99 of claims, that does not mean the developing American program is somehow inherently inferior. The PAC-3 system, for what is known from publicly available information, seems to be a much more sophisticated overall system than the S-400. Each PAC-3 battery is smaller than the S-400, hence more mobile and easier to conceal.

Fanboism again.

You contradict yourself. I´d better remit you to your previous post:

There is nothing wrong with being a fanboy, but if you are acting like one, At least have some experience, sources, and logical thinking to back up your biases.

Also, you are comparing two different systems. The PAC-3 is essentially an ABM system, wich intercepts them in the mid-flight. PAC missilles are primitive at least, and have been proven innacurrate in the past. The S-400 destroys them at the terminal phase, hence you can´t compare them. As a SAM, the PAC has poor performance.

If you have to include criticizing people's language in an environment where English seems to be most people's second or third language, it should be us who should be wondering about your age and maturity. Your spelling ain't that great, pal.

Again, This won´t make you look intelligent, neither all that copy-paste and wording job. I´m not american, nor english is my mother tongue. That was my response to him, he writes lines and lines of garbage, acts like a smartass, but can´t even spell correctly, despite being english born.

 

[Martian2]

Gambit, are you picking on a new member again with your fancy charts and diagrams? You do realize that is not conducive to expanding the community of military enthusiasts, right?

By the way, you forgot to post your favorite "accuracy vs. precision" illustration. Somehow, you always manage to work that angle into a discussion.

Anyway, happy holidays to you; you old crusty warhorse. Also, happy holidays to you Thomas and fellow forum members as well.

Best regards,

Martin

 

[gambit]

Son, don´t pretend to be a smartass here. Skipping the whole point and writing dozens of lines around the same will not make you look intelligent as you think. That´s a stupid game you are playing.

Son...Am probably old enough to be your father. I skipped no point but debunked yours.

Now you admit that you´re a noob with no life.

Me a noob? Use the Search feature and learning something here.

ROFL, What experience? like yours? LOGICAL THINKING? LOL LOL LOL, What did you pretend with writing this sentence? Did you feel inteligent, and realized when writing this?

Now I know am talking to a noob. Come back when you have something more substantive, technically speaking, of course. Else you are nothing but an ignorant fanboy.