US intercepts ICBM in first ever test

[LeGenD]

Angle 1 of intercept:

Angle 2 of intercept:

Hope this clears the confusion.

 

[Cookie Monster]

The number one goal of Kim and his regime is to stay in power (and alive) at all costs.

Launching a nuclear first strike against the United States would be the quickest way his regime would be obliterated. And he knows this.

This is not specifically directed at you, but only a completely delusional person would think The United States would call China and ask permission to retaliate against Kim for nuking Los Angeles.

Like the United States would call and beg China and say something like "oh please please China, let us retaliate against Kim for nuking Los Angeles and potentially killing millions of people"

That would be as delusional as someone assuming China would call the United States and ask permission to retaliate against Japan or South Korea if Beijing got nuked by either of those countries.

Obviously Japan and South Korea do not have nuclear weapons, just making a point is all.

Now NK is attacked first? Well that's an entirely different scenario. To which Kim would most likely launch everything he had to take everyone down with him.

R u high? Where did I say that US would ask for China's permission to attack? Did u read what I said?

I was replying to Jetray's post where he said that the US should "prove" it's BMD system worked by shooting down a North Korean missile. To this I replied that it would start a war, where SK/NK and possibly Japan(to a lesser extent) will be destroyed.

There is no need for US to do such a stupid provocative thing bcuz US is safe for now...and even in the foreseeable future NK will not be able to hit the mainland US.

Don't quote and respond to me again if u can't comprehend what is being said.

I don't think those maneuvers can throw off a modern EKV with electro-optical infrared seeker. Even decoys cannot fool it.

My knowledge lacks in the current developments and the new tech emerging in Ballistic Missile Defense systems. Thanks for the info...I'll be sure to read up on that

 

[Muhammad Omar]

don't take US lightly they have already tested and made many things just didn't made them public...

Weapons of surprise

 

[Safriz]

This ABM is too sophisticated for poor little Kim's missiles.
It's certainly for Russia/ China.

 

[alimobin memon]

what about the missiles that are cruise or change course while in flight ? How would usa counter that or has already did that ?

 

[LeGenD]

what about the missiles that are cruise or change course while in flight ? How would usa counter that or has already did that ?

American ABM systems can intercept any kind of missile at the moment.

 

[Hamza913]

Can you elaborate why America is unjust?

This is a joke right?

 

[KAL-EL]

R u high? Where did I say that US would ask for China's permission to attack? Did u read what I said?

I was replying to Jetray's post where he said that the US should "prove" it's BMD system worked by shooting down a North Korean missile.

Well first off, you edited your post much later and corrected the fact (which is good and I appreciate) that it was another member who said those things regarding the u.s. proving its bmd and shooting down a North Korean missile.

you were originally addressing me as if I said that

And if you go back and look at my post again, you will see that I said "this is not specifically directed at you" when I remarked about the fact that only a delusional person would think the US would call China to ask permission to retaliate after one of its cities was nuked.

So there was no need for you to get on your high horse attitude and lecture me like I did something wrong.

In the future, I will quote something (just like you or any other member) if I wish to. Okay? Thanks!

 

[Cookie Monster]

Well first off, you edited your post much later and corrected the fact (which is good and I appreciate) that it was another member who said those things regarding the u.s. proving its bmd and shooting down a North Korean missile.

you were originally addressing me as if I said that

And if you go back and look at my post again, you will see that I said "this is not specifically directed at you" when I remarked about the fact that only a delusional person would think the US would call China to ask permission to retaliate after one of its cities was nuked.

So there was no need for you to get on your high horse attitude and lecture me like I did something wrong.

In the future, I will quote something (just like you or any other member) if I wish to. Okay? Thanks!

So basically u quoted me...had nothing relevant to say about what u had quoted...went off on this rant that had nothing to do with what Jetray and I were talking about...and then u r gonna say that I got on my high horse?

On a separate note about the editing part. I was using my phone while driving...read ur response and couldn't properly see the flow of conversation, hence the wrong assessment in thinking that it was u and not that other member. This was later corrected when I realized my error.

 

[F-22Raptor]

Missile Defense Test 'Realistic', Syring Insists


PENTAGON: Yesterday’s $244 million missile defense test didn’t just hit an IBCM-like target for the first time in the history of the system: It hit a cutting-edge IBCM modeled on future North Korean weapons, complete with decoys to confuse defenders.

“It actually replicated — without getting into classified details — an operational scenario that we’re concerned about,” Vice Adm. James Syring, currently at NORTHCOM HQ in Colorado Springs, told reporters gathered here around a speaker phone. While the Missile Defense Agency director didn’t explicitly say the threat yesterday emulated a North Korean missile, he did say tests replicate threats “from North Korea or Iran. In this case it was a Pacific scenario.” (Protip: Iran is not in the Pacific).

In fact, MDA tests against the intelligence community’s best estimate of where the North Korean and Iranian missile programs will be “three years” from now. “What we see in 2020…was very well replicated in the tests that we conducted yesterday,” Syring said.

That cutting-edge threat includes a high-performance target. “It flew at a higher altitude and a longer range and a higher velocity” than any target in previous tests, said Syring. It’s the first time the US missile defense system has actually been tested against a target with the performance characteristics of an ICBM, which is the threat that inspired its creation in the first place, three decades and at least 123 billion dollars ago.

The threat also included decoy warheads, splitting off from the rocket booster alongside the real one and designed to look as identical as possible on radar and infra-red. Adding just one decoy per live warhead doubles the number of interceptors defenders have to launch to ensure a kill — unless they can tell real and fake apart as they coast through the vacuum of space. This “discrimination” challenge is more demanding than detecting the missile launch in the first place, since the rocket’s red-hot exhaust is visible from orbit. Syring said this is not the first time MDA has tested the system against decoys and defeated them.

With a twinge of exasperation, Syring also refuted suggestions that the test was a set-up, with the defenders knowing exactly when to fire and where to aim. “The target absolutely does not have a homing beacon on it, despite what some have written,” he said. The missile defense system “was not notified when the target was launched,” instead having to rely on radars and satellites to detect the missile’s take-off and compute its path, just as they would in a real-war scenario.

The missile defense crews did know the test was happening yesterday and the rough time window when it would occur, Syring said, but such things have to be scheduled and made public well in advance for safety reasons: “We’re launching an interceptor hundreds of miles north of LAX (Los Angeles airport, to) Hawaii,” he said. “That requires us to shut down large parts of the ocean (to) ship traffic and air traffic.”

In a real-life attack, obviously, keeping Hawaii, Los Angeles, or Seattle from being obliterated would override the risk of a wayward interceptor hitting a jetliner or falling on a ship. The sensors involved would also be different, Syring acknowledged, but mainly because we have more sensors watching North Korea and the Western Pacific than we have in the peaceful Eastern Pacific where tests take place. Army AN/TPY-2 radars in Japan and Air Force radars in Clear, Alaska would play a major role against any incoming from North Korea, he said, whereas a target firing from the Kwajalein test site in the Marshall Islands is tracked instead by a lone TPY-2 on Wake and the Sea-Based X-band radar (SBX). That said, Syring emphasized, the system can detect the target and discriminate between warheads and decoys without using the SBX.

These future technologies should help missile defense stay ahead of the threat for at least a decade, just as the technology tested today is intended to defeat the threats of 2020. “I was confident before the test that we had the capability to defeat any threat that they would throw at us,” Syring said, “and I’m even more confident today.”

http://breakingdefense.com/2017/05/missile-defense-test-realistic-syring-insists/

 

[LeGenD]

Missile Defense Test 'Realistic', Syring Insists


PENTAGON: Yesterday’s $244 million missile defense test didn’t just hit an IBCM-like target for the first time in the history of the system: It hit a cutting-edge IBCM modeled on future North Korean weapons, complete with decoys to confuse defenders.

“It actually replicated — without getting into classified details — an operational scenario that we’re concerned about,” Vice Adm. James Syring, currently at NORTHCOM HQ in Colorado Springs, told reporters gathered here around a speaker phone. While the Missile Defense Agency director didn’t explicitly say the threat yesterday emulated a North Korean missile, he did say tests replicate threats “from North Korea or Iran. In this case it was a Pacific scenario.” (Protip: Iran is not in the Pacific).

In fact, MDA tests against the intelligence community’s best estimate of where the North Korean and Iranian missile programs will be “three years” from now. “What we see in 2020…was very well replicated in the tests that we conducted yesterday,” Syring said.

That cutting-edge threat includes a high-performance target. “It flew at a higher altitude and a longer range and a higher velocity” than any target in previous tests, said Syring. It’s the first time the US missile defense system has actually been tested against a target with the performance characteristics of an ICBM, which is the threat that inspired its creation in the first place, three decades and at least 123 billion dollars ago.

The threat also included decoy warheads, splitting off from the rocket booster alongside the real one and designed to look as identical as possible on radar and infra-red. Adding just one decoy per live warhead doubles the number of interceptors defenders have to launch to ensure a kill — unless they can tell real and fake apart as they coast through the vacuum of space. This “discrimination” challenge is more demanding than detecting the missile launch in the first place, since the rocket’s red-hot exhaust is visible from orbit. Syring said this is not the first time MDA has tested the system against decoys and defeated them.

With a twinge of exasperation, Syring also refuted suggestions that the test was a set-up, with the defenders knowing exactly when to fire and where to aim. “The target absolutely does not have a homing beacon on it, despite what some have written,” he said. The missile defense system “was not notified when the target was launched,” instead having to rely on radars and satellites to detect the missile’s take-off and compute its path, just as they would in a real-war scenario.

The missile defense crews did know the test was happening yesterday and the rough time window when it would occur, Syring said, but such things have to be scheduled and made public well in advance for safety reasons: “We’re launching an interceptor hundreds of miles north of LAX (Los Angeles airport, to) Hawaii,” he said. “That requires us to shut down large parts of the ocean (to) ship traffic and air traffic.”

In a real-life attack, obviously, keeping Hawaii, Los Angeles, or Seattle from being obliterated would override the risk of a wayward interceptor hitting a jetliner or falling on a ship. The sensors involved would also be different, Syring acknowledged, but mainly because we have more sensors watching North Korea and the Western Pacific than we have in the peaceful Eastern Pacific where tests take place. Army AN/TPY-2 radars in Japan and Air Force radars in Clear, Alaska would play a major role against any incoming from North Korea, he said, whereas a target firing from the Kwajalein test site in the Marshall Islands is tracked instead by a lone TPY-2 on Wake and the Sea-Based X-band radar (SBX). That said, Syring emphasized, the system can detect the target and discriminate between warheads and decoys without using the SBX.

These future technologies should help missile defense stay ahead of the threat for at least a decade, just as the technology tested today is intended to defeat the threats of 2020. “I was confident before the test that we had the capability to defeat any threat that they would throw at us,” Syring said, “and I’m even more confident today.”

http://breakingdefense.com/2017/05/missile-defense-test-realistic-syring-insists/

Now this is even more of a breaking news.

Critics will have a hard time digesting this development. Russians are already feeling insecure, mind you.

Angle 2 of intercept:

If you look closely, you will notice another object glowing at the bottom. That might be one of the decoys.

Looks like the ICBM had separated its warheads during the course of its flight and GMD interceptor was able to distinguish real warhead from the decoys, eliminating the right target.

When I took this screenshot from the video, 2nd object confused me. Now it is clear.

This ABM is too sophisticated for poor little Kim's missiles.
It's certainly for Russia/ China.

Looks like you were right.

 

[Safriz]

Now this is even more of a breaking news.

Critics will have a hard time digesting this development. Russians are already feeling insecure, mind you.

Angle 2 of intercept:

If you look closely, you will notice another object glowing at the bottom. That might be one of the decoys.

Looks like the ICBM had separated its warheads during the course of its flight and GMD interceptor was able to distinguish real warhead from the decoys, eliminating the right target.

When I took this screenshot from the video, 2nd object confused me. Now it is clear.


Looks like you were right.

No that's camera noise , not decoy.

 

[Sipahi]

US already had that capability.

 

[LeGenD]

No that's camera noise , not decoy.

Only an object glows like that on the Heat Vision Image. Noise is mostly blue and black pixels forming all over the screen.

 

[Safriz]