Not only did they have to get the ship in place, but they basically had a week to design their methodology for this shot from scratch. The Aegis ABM system is designed to shoot down live reentry vehicles that can be tracked by IR, not cold dead satellites that can only be tracked by radar. The wonder was not that the bear danced well, but that it danced at all. If you want to call it in shooting terms, imagine making a 200 yard shot in good daylight with a great scope on your rifle. That's the normal SM-3 performance level. Now, imagine making a 200 yard shot at night with the same rifle, with iron sights only. That's roughly the difference between the normal use of the SM-3 missile, and what happened with the satellite.
I'd like to see a specific source for this, please. Every other source I've seen claims that they postponed shooting down the satellite because they weren't sure they'd hit it in bad weather. Which would mean again, that this is a nice success, but not for missile defense. If you turn it into a test case for missile defense, it becomes a failure, because missiles don't wait for good weather, and missile attacks don't come in single missiles.
Well intercepting somethings orbit with a rocket isn't exactly new, it has been done since the 60's...it's hitting something you don't know the exact location of, and which can vary its trajectory which is a problem.
I'm not seeing where there was an actual postponement. There was one 35 second window for Wednesday, and they took it. They couldn't take the shot BEFORE Wednesday because they had to bring the shuttle down first. Any postponement would have been for sea state and clouded skies. Sea state is an issue because Navy ships are restricted from using Vertical Launch systems in heavy seas except in combat. The clouded skies would have been an issue because a shot like this would have required full documentation.
From Reuters: Source It's pretty clear he's talking about postponement. You're saying it's not an "actual" postponement because it depends on sea conditions and weather conditions. Without arguing about "actual", what I would like to see is a source that verifies the claim that they could have easily shot down their target in bad weather and rough seas, only they didn't to get nice pics. Which is plausible; I just haven't seen any source that says so, and many that imply the opposite.
Do you know what happens to a ship in bad weather? It's not exactly a stable platform from which to fire weapons. Especially at that small of a target that high in altitude. So it's a big DUH of course they'd cancel the first attempt if there was bad weather.
So we agree it's not just for good pics, but there are other problems involved. What you want to show is that this cannot happen when they're doing missile defense.
I love the Naysayers. I can see you guys back at the beginning of the last century: "Heavier than air flight!? Pfah! Those Wright Brothers barely managed 200 feet, 20 feet above the ground! What's the point in that? "
Again, in heavy seas, Navy ships aren't ALLOWED to do missile launches using the VLS system except when in combat or in combat rating tests. It's a regulations issue. It's also a matter of regulations that you don't do launches like this without being able to fully document what you're doing.
If the United States pitched its foreign policy on perfecting supersonic flight 5 years after the first Wright lift-off, you'd have a comparison. And I'd still like to see that source.
My god you types are desperate to paint this as a failure. You all realize that: #1 The Missile defense system also exists on land. Don't have to worry about rough seas or clouds in a real scenario. Navy ships don't have to worry about clouds but yes rough seas will make it difficult for them. They can still shoot the missile though and at least try instead of letting a city go up in a mushroom cloud. #2 They didn't want to try a shot in potential bad weather. They wanted to see if the Navy version of the missile defense system was capable of reaching high enough to hit this satellite. They also wanted clear skies so they could see what happened. If this was for real and they were trying to take out a actual missile then even in bad weather they would have taken the shot. #3 The Navy has been using missiles to shoot down missiles for years. They are quite good at it. Yes it is more difficult to shoot one coming out of orbit but it can be done and we have the know how and the determination, not withstanding your pessimistic and pathetic view of American technology and know how, to do it.
Another thing they just aren't getting is that the SM-3 isn't DESIGNED to do this and that it performed WAY outside the design envelope. The thing that was proven in this is that the system has far more capability than it was designed for.
Well, I guess it's good you didn't say 10 years, since aeroplanes played a pretty big role in WWII. But I guess since you said 5, there IS no comparison. Because obviously, there was no research or development conducted regarding aviation from 1903-1913.
Nope. I clearly pointed out that this was a success, only that it was a very different thing from what the missile defense shield is supposed to do. You and Bear have now come round to defending your position by listing the many things that indeed set this apart from the MDS. So I take it we are now in complete agreement, plus some empty posturing from you two.
So first it's criticized as obviously being provocative and obviously being a test of MDS to now it's being a failure because they didn't launch in bad weather? First, duh. If it's a test, you have to control the variables and you have to document the results. Second, as has been pointed out, the launch did happen at the first available opportunity when all reasonable precautions had been taken. Waiting for the shuttle to come down somehow proves that it was a failure? You've got to be kidding. There was a concern, certainly, about weather. But again, if it was a test, it wouldn't be a fair one to throw in adverse weather when there were so many other unknowns in the mission profile. All this is just more anti-US ranting. And, forgive me for this but, if we have to worry about world opinion when it's so obviously unreasonable then it's just good sense to do what you need to and ignore it - or at least the loons.
Geez. Do you guys read your own posts? No one here has suggested that the missile launch constitutes a failure of MDS. We're just not seeing it as some giant proof of concept. The variables between a multi-vector, multi-war-head ballistic missile and a satellite the size of a bus in a decaying but stable orbit are significant. And the inability of the launch system to work in rough seas is another question mark. Sorry, but applauding something we've been able to do for a couple of decades doesn't prove anything, positive or negative, relative to the MDS.
The system works in rough seas! My god what is wrong with you people? You assume because the Navy wants to do a TEST in calm seas that means the they can't shoot in rough seas? The Navy is more then capable of shooting at things during rough weather! The system has already been proven to work. This isn't a new Navy system that just started. They've had this thing for years. This is the first time however they've gone after a dead satellite where the missile was guided in by the ships radar the whole way. They proved that they can do more with the missile then originally designed. Under normal circumstances the missiles flight package will lock on to any heat source of the enemy missile to guide it in. This dead satellite had no heat source and since it was still in orbit (even though it was a decaying one) it wasn't generating heat from reentry yet. The ships radar guided the missile all the way to the target. This was a good test for the Navy.
I certainly haven't criticized shooting down your own satellite over the sea as a provocative action. I have criticized rhetorical attempts to turn this harmless, technologically successful operation into part of the MDS program. If it were part of the MDS program, it would indeed be needlessly and stupidly provocative, and it would be a failure. In response, you first claimed that the conditions were a good test of RL MDS scenarios, and that the operation was not postponed. As a second theory, you claimed that it was indeed postponed, but only for documentation. You failed to find any sources to back this up. So as a third theory, you claimed that while it was postponed for technical reasons, none of those technical reasons apply to the MDS, because the situation is vastly different from a MDS scenario. Which would coincide with the original criticism -- not of the operation, but of the rhetoric that turns the operation into part of the MDS program. So now as a fourth theory, you have -- in direct contradiction to your first three theories -- started to claim that If you're going to stick with this theory, you should explain (1) why coping with bad weather is an unfair expectation of the MDS, and (2) why shooting down a single one your own satellites, with pretty exact knowledge of its composition, trajectory, and timing, would have "so many" more unknowns in the mission profile than shooting down one or several missiles of various and partly unknown types fired from a previously unknown location at a previously unknown time. Or alternatively, you could just accept the truth, which is that this is a success, and not connected to the challenges of building a MDS.
^ I wasn't advocating anything specifically. I was trying to sum up the arguments I'd heard against this being successful and show the contradictions. I do appreciate all your hard work, though...
I don't see how rough seas could possibly have any adverse effect on a wartime shot of this nature. It's not like the Navy's "aiming" the missile at the target and only shooting when it gets a good steady sight picture. It's basically just a computer telling the missile, "You're here at X, and the target's over there at Y. Go kill it." How could rough seas have any functional effect on that, whatsoever? Also, someone tell me a little more about "multi-vector" warheads. Have they been deployed?
Well, that -- as opposed to the operation that shot down the satellite -- certainly was an epic failure.
A better question in regards to this board would be, "I didn't have a double post again? :flow2: How'd that happen?"
It is good to see how well our technology works. Hitting a bullet with a bullet, particularly one loaded with explosive fuel, is a sight to behold!
It wasn't aiming at a satellite the size of a bus. It was aiming at a 30 inch wide gas tank mounted on a satellite the size of a bus. ...and how fast was the satellite moving? How fast was the missile moving?
