-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- U.S. TO TEST ANTI-MISSILE DEFENSE WEAPON THIS WEEK January 17, 2000 CNN reported: The United States will attempt again this week to shoot down a missile in space in a key test of whether it could soon begin building a national missile defense system despite bitter objections from Russia. A missile with a dummy warhead will be fired from California late Tuesday and a revolutionary U.S. hit-to-kill weapon will be launched from Kwajalein Atoll 4,300 miles away shortly afterward to try and hit the warhead 140 miles above the Pacific Ocean. If the weapon pulverizes the warhead into space dust at a speed of 15,000 mph, it would be the second successful U.S. hit in three months. Its success or failure would likely affect President Clinton's decision this summer on whether to begin building a limited U.S. missile defense..."

-- Johnny (jljtm@bellsouth.net), January 17, 2000

Answers

Correction to above: I read somewhere, maybe on this forum, that that first test was not an unqualified success-that the rocket was insisting on blowing up a weather balloon until the last second. CNN needs to dig a little deeper-The feds themselves admitted this little gaff-though they minimized it.

-- futureshock (gray@matter.com), January 17, 2000.

I have to be all for this. Having an adequate defense is better than just nuking each other or whoever. You have to be able to block punches, not just punch all the time.

-- Larry (cobol.programmer@usa.net), January 17, 2000.

This could be the answer. I'm pleased.

-- Cin (Cinlooo@aol.com), January 17, 2000.

CORRECTION to futureshock

http://hv.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=001h49

Although this isn't what I'm looking Nyquist clearly states the missle test was a success.

futureshockmaybe you should research or provide a link instead of " I read somewhere"

-- Johnny (jljtm@bellsouth.net), January 17, 2000.

futureshock, I'm not so certain that the first test wasn't a bigger success than the published.

1. The Kill Vehicle (KV) locked onto the decoy balloon, then decided that it was a decoy and should go looking for something else (that's success number 1, recognizing that it had the wrong target and getting off of it).

2. It searched for the warhead.........success number 2.

3. It didn't find the target because the target was not in the field of view (FOV). Not the fault of the KV.

4. It finally decided that it had to lock onto something, and did so. That decision would be due to the internal computer logic. And, yes, it's good logic, since if the interceptor can't destroy the warhead, it can make the job easier for the next interceptor by knocking out the decoy. [And don't ever think that it might not take more than one interceptor to knock out a missile.] Success number 3.

5. Finally, the warhead moved into the FOV. The interceptor recognized this and locked onto it. Success number 4.

The next test will use ground based radars to help the interceptor. That means the KV should have a better idea of where the warhead is, relative to any decoy, so that lockup should be much EASIER. ("should be" does not mean "will be.")

-- rocky (rknolls@no.spam), January 17, 2000.

Yahoo! Asia - News World

Saturday, January 15 9:25 AM SGT

Pentagon to try for second interception in National Missile Defense test WASHINGTON, Jan 14 (AFP) - The Pentagon will try to intercept and destroy an intercontinental ballistic missile in space next week in a high stakes test as the administration approaches a decision on deployment of a national missile defense system, officials said Friday.

The test, planned for 0200 GMT Wednesday, comes on the heels of a successful intercept in October that showed that the interceptor's "kill vehicle" was able to seek out and destroy a dummy warhead released by a target missile fired from 4,300 nautical miles (7,900 kilometers) away.

Like the last time, an interceptor missile will be fired from Kwajalein atoll in the Pacific at a Minuteman II missile launched from Vandenburg Air Force Base in California.

Unlike the last time, however, the interceptor missile will be guided into place by battle management computers processing and relaying tracking data from early warning satellites and ground based radars in Hawaii and Kwajalein.

"This is a complex test," said a senior defense official. "There are a lot of elements, a lot of players that have to communicate and coordinate in real time, and ... in less than 30 minutes."

The stakes are also high because President Bill Clinton has said he will decide this summer whether to deploy a national missile defense system to counter what the US military and CIA sees as a growing ballistic missile threat from so-called rogue states.

The military managers of the NMD program have been told they must have two "metal-to-metal" hits and one of them has to be part of an integrated test of the system to pass a defense readiness review in April or May ahead of the president's decision.

Pentagon spokesman Kenneth Bacon was unable to say, however, what technical criteria must ultimately be met for the Pentagon to declare the system ready for deployment.

"There's going to be a lot of room for definition here," he said. "What is clear to me is that this is a very high priority program. We are working very hard in this building to give the president the information he needs, from the technical side, to make a decision sometime this summer."

Besides technical considerations, Clinton will have to weigh the political consequences of ordering the deployment of a national defensive shield capable of intercepting a limited attack by ICBMs with only unsophisticated decoys.

The proposed system has aroused vehement opposition in Russia, which refuses to allow changes to the 1972 Anti Ballistic Missile treaty, and even among some European allies. They argue it will weaken nuclear deterrence and unravel existing arms control regimes.

The technical challenges facing NMD remain daunting, however.

The interceptor missile is fired 20 minutes after the target missile is launched. Two and a half minutes later a "kill vehicle" is released by the interceptor. Closing on the ICBM at a speed of 15,000 mileskilometers) per hour, the "kill vehicle" has about six minutes to seek out, identify and destroy the warhead.

"The one thing I would like to impress is this is hard to do," said the senior defense official.

In the last test, the "kill vehicle" failed to calibrate its position by the stars, officials said.

Nevertheless, it was able to maneuver into the path of its target with an onboard inertial navigational system. Using an infrared seeker, it then distinguished between a decoy balloon and the warhead, destroying the warhead.

The test next week will determine whether it can accomplish the same feat using real-time data relayed by a ground-based battle management computer system.

-- Johnny (jljtm@bellsouth.net), January 17, 2000.

This has me worried

"Besides technical considerations, Clinton will have to weigh the political consequences of ordering the deployment of a national defensive shield capable of intercepting a limited attack by ICBMs with only unsophisticated decoys."

But at least if he makes the cowardly decision he'll only be in office for 6 more months.

-- Johnny (jljtm@bellsouth.net), January 17, 2000.

LOL, CNN is sooo lame! Fat and lazy, heh. I never thought I would see the day that more accurate info came outta the pentagon than the news, what with all the cloak-and-dagger stuff. Crazy days!

Least we know that the proverbial "fat lady" must work at CNN. Now we just gotta wait for her to sing.

-- Hokie (Hokie_@hotmail.com), January 17, 2000.

This is not new stuff. We first did it under the HOE (Homing Overlay Experiment) on June 10, 1984. I was the Lockheed Chief Scientist on that project. Other successful intercepts were done later under a follow-on project, the ERIS (Eox-atmosperhic Interceptor Sub-system) project, also at Lockheed. I continue to be mystifed at our re- invention of the wheel in gov/aerospace. Our experiments were virutally identical to the ones described in this thread.

When I chaired the R&D projects at Lockheed Sunnyvale, I noticed an incredible repetition rate for projects. It seems corporate and national memory forget things done 10+ years earlier and are doomed to repeat the efforts.

Michael Munn, PhD Retired Lockheed Chief Scientist

-- Michael Munn (kuti@theriver.com), January 17, 2000.

This is not new stuff. We first did it under the HOE (Homing Overlay Experiment) on June 10, 1984. I was the Lockheed Chief Scientist on that project. Other successful intercepts were done later under a follow-on project, the ERIS (Exo-atmosperhic Interceptor Sub-system) project, also at Lockheed. I continue to be mystifed at our re- invention of the wheel in gov/aerospace. Our experiments were virutally identical to the ones described in this thread.

When I chaired the R&D projects at Lockheed Sunnyvale, I noticed an incredible repetition rate for projects. It seems corporate and national memory forget things done 10+ years earlier and are doomed to repeat the efforts.

Michael Munn, PhD Retired Lockheed Chief Scientist

-- Michael Munn (kuti@theriver.com), January 17, 2000.

LOL, Michael.

I think both corporate and national memories are from Missouri and require demonstration in their presence -- show me! (It goes with the ego?)

rocky, who spent a few years watching warheads,balloons, and other stuff break horizon on radar screens at Kwajalein.

-- (rknolls@no.spam), January 17, 2000.

wake up people. all of the shite you see on abcnbccbscnnfoxetc is all just dog and pony stuff.

we currently have weapons that make all of this missile bs utterly obsolete. try directed energy weapons (dew's), electromagnetic pulse weapons (empw's), tectonic weapons (that's right, controlled earthquakes thru directed subsurface nuclear detonations)blah, blah blah. the list goes on and on.

the soviets were working on much of this technology at the same time as we were during the cold war (the first one). the technology is now old. who knows what the real secret stuff is these days.

telling the braindead population that this is new technology that'might' get implemented is a joke. we need a missile to shoot down another missile like we need another hole in our asses.

do some research. you will see for yourself

-- mike (mike@knuckledragger.com), January 17, 2000.

uh Mike until you can provide a link I have to say you are full of bs.

-- Johnny (jljtm@bellsouth.net), January 17, 2000.

Want something to pray for?

Ok... do you want me to pray that it works, or pray that it doesn't?

-- - (We @ll love you.really), January 17, 2000.

I thought I had read that the balloon was not an intended decoy-Oh well-I will bemore careful with documentation-If indeed the post is correct concerning the 4 steps of the test with the balloon as an in tended decoy-I stand corrected.

-- futureshock (gray@matter.com), January 17, 2000.

Let's face it, if the test goes well and Clinton decides it's full steam ahead for Anti Missile Defence, Putin will go postal. Remember the emphasis on which way their nukes are pointing? Saber rattling or not, the guy terrifies me.

-- Gia (laureltree7@hotmail.com), January 18, 2000.

(UK Guardian, Monday January 17, 2000)

US 'KILL VEHICLE' PUT TO THE TEST: A reassessment of external threats has made Washington keen to develop new missiles and reluctant to give teeth to arms control treaties.

The United States military hopes to demonstrate this week that its anti-ballistic interceptor system is adept at downing missiles carrying nuclear, chemical or biological weapons, rather than at destroying decoy balloons. The latest tests are being conducted during a time of shifting perceptions about external threats to the US. The acting president of Russia, Vladimir Putin, last week lowered the threshold for using nuclear weapons; George W Bush, the leading Republican candidate for the presidency has warned of threats posed by China; and the US fears that North Korea might be able to reach its shores with a ballistic missile within 15 years, to say nothing of a "rogue attack" from a country such as Iraq.

But confidence in US interceptors designed to destroy ballistic warheads has been undermined by the disclosure that their previous performance was not the complete success it appeared to be three months ago.

While an interceptor did hit a mock warhead as planned, proving to the satisfaction of its supporters that the system worked, it turned out that this had happened only after the interceptor had drifted off course and homed in on a decoy balloon.

"What this says to me is, if that balloon hadn't been there, then they wouldn't have hit the target," said Tom Collina, director of the Arms Control and International Security Programme at the Union of Concerned Scientists. "They got lucky."

In a real attack, the number of decoys in space would be unlimited and the warheads would probably be more difficult to see.

"The only thing they demonstrated in this test is that if they can see the warhead, then they can home in with enough precision to hit it," said Theodore Postol, a professor of science, technology and national security policy at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. It had been a useful demonstration that "has very little to do with a real world defence", he said.

The interceptor is a 55kg "kill vehicle" launched on a rocket and steered with thrusters towards enemy missiles. It took off from Kwajalein Atoll in the Marshall Islands for the last test at the beginning of October, while the mock warhead and decoy were launched from Vandenburg Air Force Base in California.

The interception - reported as a UFO sighting - happened 140 miles above the Pacific and all was said to have gone well. But, in fact, an incorrect map had been loaded into the interceptor's computer so that it was unable to navigate by the stars and started to drift. However, it was still able to find the bright metallic decoy balloon and use that as a reference point to seek out and destroy the mock warhead.

Rick Lehner, a spokesman for the Ballistic Missile Defence Organisation, said: "I didn't know about it all, so obviously it wasn't of much concern at the programme office. It wasn't like they said: 'Oh my God, we had a malfunction'."

The Strategic Defence Initiative, under which the interceptor was created, was the brainchild of the Reagan administration. A year ago the defence department committed $6.6bn (#4bn) to developing the system during the next five years.

The Pentagon has until the summer to ascertain whether the system is ready to use and to present its findings to President Clinton. He is thought likely to leave a decision to the man who succeeds him in a year's time.

Mr Bush, favourite to be in that position, said recently: "At the earliest possible date, my administration will deploy anti-ballistic missile systems to guard America and our allies against attack and blackmail.

"I will work to persuade Russia that it is in both our nations' best interests to amend the anti-ballistic missile treaty to allow these defence systems to protect our people from rogue attack. If Russia refuses, we will withdraw from the treaty."

-- Risteard Mac Thomais (uachtaran@ireland.com), January 18, 2000.

Agence France Presse reported: Moscow and Beijing slammed moves by the United States to fund research into an anti-ballistic missile shield, warning Monday it would trigger a new arms race and undermine global security. Such a system will trigger a new arms race, and that is dangerous for the world, visiting Chinese Defence Minister Chi Haotian said, the ITAR-TASS news agency reported. The United States accepts the shield would breach the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty which bans the deployment of nationwide anti-missile defence systems, although it allows signatories to protect one named site. Washington wants to deploy a hi-tech missile system, which would be able to shoot down ballistic rockets in flight, to counter the perceived threat from states like Iran, Iraq and North Korea..."

-- Johnny (jljtm@bellsouth.net), January 18, 2000.

Well, they failed again ...

Missile fails to intercept warhead in setback for program

-- Risteard Mac Thomais (uachtaran@ireland.com), January 19, 2000.