What's new

'Most challenging' US missile defence test a success

rockstarIN

SENIOR MEMBER
Joined
Aug 17, 2010
Messages
6,168
Reaction score
-2
Country
India
Location
United Arab Emirates
WASHINGTON (AFP): The US military has successfully conducted its "most challenging test to date" of a ballistic missile defence system it will deploy in Europe to counter an Iran missile threat, officials said.

"Initial indications are that all components performed as designed," said the Pentagon's Missile Defence Agency in a statement of the test over the Pacific Ocean in which the latest Aegis ballistic missile defence weapon system successfully intercepted an intermediate-range threat missile.

"The two demonstrations Space Tracking and Surveillance Satellites, launched by MDA in 2009, successfully acquired the target missile, providing stereo 'birth to death' tracking of the target," the agency added.

The ground- and sea-based defence system is meant to shield the United States and its European allies from a potential ballistic missile attack, possibly from North Korea or Iran.

The defence agency said the test "demonstrated the capability of the first phase of the European Phased Adaptive Approach announced by the president in September, 2009."

The plan put forward by President Barack Obama 19 months ago envisions a mobile system of sea-based interceptors that would protect against short- and medium-range missiles from Iran, rather than Tehran's yet-to-be-developed long-range arsenal.

The Pentagon scrapped an earlier plan -- strongly opposed by Moscow -- that would have seen US missile defence facilities deployed in Eastern Europe.

The Aegis system has suffered some high-profile setbacks in the form of multiple failed tests, including in December when an interceptor rocket meant to knock out incoming ballistic missiles failed its second test in a row.

Out of 15 tests of ground-based interceptors since 1999, seven have failed, the defence department noted at the time.

Today's test saw the ballistic missile target launched from an atoll in the Marshall Islands, some 2,300 miles (3,700 kilometers) southwest of Hawaii at 6:52 pm (0652 GMT).

20724632504da9359f195c1.jpg


US Navy sailors on the destroyer USS O'Kane launched an SM-3 Block IA missile approximately 11 minutes later, which released a kinetic warhead at target.

"The kinetic warhead acquired the target, diverted into its path, and, using only force of a direct impact, destroyed the threat in a 'hit-to-kill' intercept," the agency said.
 
. . . .
Another US rigged test. No independent agency verified there was no emitter inside the target. US loves using fake test "successes" and covering up weaknesses to attract funding.
Looks like someone is getting nervous...That China's military is about to be knocked back a notch or two...:lol:
 
. . . .
Not when the failure rate is close to 50% in controlled environments.
:lol: Spoken by someone who has no experience in R/D, may be? In testing, we control the environmental factors, or at least as best as we can. If a particularly testing stage require daytime in clear weather, obviously we cannot control the weather so we wait until we have that clear day. If a particular testing stage require supposedly human influences then we inject those influences in increments. Failures at any point in any particular test narrow our investigation and perhaps even isolate a design or other types of flaws in the product. We neither need to impress nor do we take seriously...errr...'criticisms'...from a bunch of conscript rejects.
 
.
:lol: Spoken by someone who has no experience in R/D, may be? In testing, we control the environmental factors, or at least as best as we can. If a particularly testing stage require daytime in clear weather, obviously we cannot control the weather so we wait until we have that clear day. If a particular testing stage require supposedly human influences then we inject those influences in increments. Failures at any point in any particular test narrow our investigation and perhaps even isolate a design or other types of flaws in the product. We neither need to impress nor do we take seriously...errr...'criticisms'...from a bunch of conscript rejects.

And you have no idea that after a product has been tested in enough controlled environments they should be tested against real scenarios. We can't expect the weather to be nice or it too be a sunny day when a ballistic missile is actually fired from a hostile source. I don't need to take crap from a Vietnamese reject that tries to act white.
 
.
Another US rigged test. No independent agency verified there was no emitter inside the target. US loves using fake test "successes" and covering up weaknesses to attract funding.
So your point is US should invite china for verification?
The reason he said that, meaning he believe it is a 'rigged test', is because he is used to being deceived by his Chinese government and guilty of being gullible to Photochopped crap of Chinese weaponry.
 
.
And you have no idea that after a product has been tested in enough controlled environments they should be tested against real scenarios. We can't expect the weather to be nice or it too be a sunny day when a ballistic missile is actually fired from a hostile source. I don't need to take crap from a Vietnamese reject that tries to act white.

lol oh no, don't remind him
 
.
And you have no idea that after a product has been tested in enough controlled environments they should be tested against real scenarios. We can't expect the weather to be nice or it too be a sunny day when a ballistic missile is actually fired from a hostile source.
And what make you think we should test these products in any less controlled in an open environment? It is obvious to me that you do not know what the hell you are talking about simply because you have no such experience. A 'real scenario' comes only after we managed to pass these incremental testing stages, inside and outside of the laboratory condition.

I don't need to take crap from a Vietnamese reject that tries to act white.
Had to inject race into the issue, eh? Shows everyone how pathetic you Chinese boys here really are.
 
.
And what make you think we should test these products in any less controlled in an open environment? It is obvious to me that you do not know what the hell you are talking about simply because you have no such experience. A 'real scenario' comes only after we managed to pass these incremental testing stages, inside and outside of the laboratory condition.

Its been twelve years since the first tests, and fifteen tests in total. How long do you propose they wait?

Had to inject race into the issue, eh? Shows everyone how pathetic you Chinese boys here really are.

Don't F**king start. You've been calling me Chinese boy since the start. Doesn't feel to good when someone else does it?
 
.
Its been twelve years since the first tests, and fifteen tests in total. How long do you propose they wait?
Not very smart and observant, are you? But I guess I can excuse you Chinese boys, at least for being conscript rejects in the beginning. Unlike other products, weapons testings are very much destructive testing regimes, especially for missiles, which are essentially throw-away weapons. Each test, therefore, is costly and the amount of environmental and 'battlefield' influences should be tightly controlled for injections. A success is no less demanding of analysis, if not more, than if a particular test failed because sometimes the injection of an influence was improperly done, thereby skewing the test towards success.

Don't F**king start. You've been calling me Chinese boy since the start. Doesn't feel to good when someone else does it?
Calling you a 'boy' is not a racist insult, kid.
 
.
Back
Top Bottom