US activates missile defense amid N.Korea dispute

[Suzie]

US activates missile defense amid N.Korea dispute <!-- END HEADLINE --><!-- BEGIN STORY BODY -->By Will Dunham 57 minutes ago


WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The United States has activated its ground-based interceptor missile-defense system amid concerns over an expected North Korean missile launch, a U.S. defense official said on Tuesday. MORE HERE (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060620/ts_nm/korea_missile_dc;_ylt=AmlDoc_Yfz1mq9Jm24o36K.s0NUE ;_ylu=X3oDMTA2Z2szazkxBHNlYwN0bQ--)

That's more than just a little scary.

[Lazarus]

One wonders why we dont adapt a missile defense platform to a Sub and float it off the coast of N. Korea... When they "test fire" their new toy we could shoot it down before it even starts it arc - A nice message there, dontcha think?

[Suzie]

Or find a way to "return to sender" to complete it's task.

[Lazarus]

Or find a way to "return to sender" to complete it's task.Oh I like this plan... Sounds like something from an old James Bond movie... :D

[Rhino]

One wonders why we dont adapt a missile defense platform to a Sub and float it off the coast of N. Korea... When they "test fire" their new toy we could shoot it down before it even starts it arc - A nice message there, dontcha think?
Boost phase intercept is much more difficult, and it eliminates the ability to protect against multiple threats.

[Patriot Heart]

Interesting scenes from North Korea I found on another board

http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?t=82755

[Pendragon_6]

http://www.freeconservatives.com/vb/showthread.php?t=36980

[Lazarus]

Boost phase intercept is much more difficult, and it eliminates the ability to protect against multiple threats.But it would make a nice statement for these single missile test firings...

[cerberus]

Boost phase intercept is much more difficult, and it eliminates the ability to protect against multiple threats.
Boost phase intercept is easier (slower moving target, larger radar cross-section, HUGE heat sig etc). Prob is it has to be deployed close to the launch area so it won't give protection over a wide area.

[Lazarus]

Boost phase intercept is easier (slower moving target, larger radar cross-section, HUGE heat sig etc). Prob is it has to be deployed close to the launch area so it won't give protection over a wide area.All that may be entirely true but my point was that it wouldnt need to be used to give protection over a wide area... Since we know precisely where the launch is to take place, it need only be deployed close to that site for the purpose of making a point to the N Koreans as they launch their missile...

Besides its also not intended to be an all-eggs-in-one-basket application... Its meant to be used on special occasions to make a specific geo-political statement...

[cerberus]

All that may be entirely true but my point was that it wouldnt need to be used to give protection over a wide area... Since we know precisely where the launch is to take place, it need only be deployed close to that site for the purpose of making a point to the N Koreans as they launch their missile...

Besides its also not intended to be an all-eggs-in-one-basket application... Its meant to be used on special occasions to make a specific geo-political statement...
Exactly. Very good Laz. That's actually what we would like to do with AEGIS cruisers though, not subs (they have the sophisticated radar you need for the job). I was just responding to Rhino's point.

[Rhino]

But it would make a nice statement for these single missile test firings...True, but unfortunately, it's illegal.

Boost phase intercept is easier (slower moving target, larger radar cross-section, HUGE heat sig etc). No, boost detection is easier, as you demonstrated. Intercept is a different matter entirely, and is much more difficult. Slant ranges increase dramatically, there is far less time to generate firing solutions, and the interceptor has to play 'catch-up', expending far more fuel. ABMs don't use infrared for tracking. We had similar problems intercepting the SCUDs. Post-boost is much easier, and more accurate.

Prob is it has to be deployed close to the launch area so it won't give protection over a wide area.Yep.

[Lazarus]

True, but unfortunately, it's illegal...Illegal?!!! Wha... Hold de bus..! Illegal by what law? Did Congress pass a law that says we are no longer able to excercise our sovereignty when we are threatened?

[Rhino]

You said for missile tests. Those are allowed by international law. They don't threaten us, at least not directly. I didn't say I wouldn't like to.

[Lazarus]

Lazarus does not recognize international law... International law is a farce... Light em up...

[Rhino]

Got my finger on the button.......

[Lazarus]

Wait... Lemme get comfy...

:Couchplus: :munch:

Ok cut 'er loose...

[Rhino]

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/images/ORD_SM-2_Launch_lg.jpg

[DesertFox]

That ain´t under the control of Cyberdyne Systems and Cybernet, izzit? :question:

[Rhino]

Nah. I lost the chip.

[DesertFox]

*Whew*

For a minute there I´s worried, Miles.

[cerberus]

No, boost detection is easier, as you demonstrated. Intercept is a different matter entirely, and is much more difficult. Slant ranges increase dramatically, there is far less time to generate firing solutions, and the interceptor has to play 'catch-up', expending far more fuel. ABMs don't use infrared for tracking. We had similar problems intercepting the SCUDs. Post-boost is much easier, and more accurate.

Do you have data on this? I'm very interested. All the pieces I've read in the past state, or at least imply, that boost-phase interception is easier for the reasons I mentioned (slower, lower, bigger, easier to spot, etc), while terminal phase is the hardest (small, cold, very very fast). Post-boost was supposed to be hard (for long rang missiles) because of the large airspace coverage necessary and exo-atmospheric interception. This is why the USAF's ABL is boost-interceptor.

[Rhino]

The big difference is between detection and intercept. Detection is far easier in boost phase, and boost phase intercept is preferred for short or medium range missiles due to the lower trajectory. If you could get up right next to them and be on constant track, boost phase intercept would be easier. Unfortunately, in the scenario Laz suggested, we wouldn't have those luxuries. ABL is an entirely different story.

http://www.lamonitor.com/articles/2006/06/08/headline_news/news03.txt

[Lazarus]

...Unfortunately, in the scenario Laz suggested, we wouldn't have those luxuries. ABL is an entirely different story...Well?!!! Get workin on it!!!

[Rhino]

I was wurkin on da photon torpedoes, but it's tough with Scotty gone.

[Lazarus]

:biggrin:

[aaron11]

Cool.

[Naturalized-Texan]

Maybe we should revive the Safeguard ABM system where nuclear weapons were to be exploded in space to destroy incoming missiles.

[Rhino]

But what would that do to the ozone layer?

[Lazarus]

Maybe we should revive the Safeguard ABM system where nuclear weapons were to be exploded in space to destroy incoming missiles.Revive? You mean we stopped doing this? Awww hell!!!!

[Naturalized-Texan]

Revive? You mean we stopped doing this? Awww hell!!!!
Yep, Safeguard was cancelled by Congress at about the same time that Congress defunded the Vietnam War. I worked on that project from 1968 to 1972. As near as I can tell, the only part of the project that became operational was the long-range, early-warning radar - Perimeter Acquisition Radar (PAR) - still located in North Dakota. I don't know if it is still in operation, however. I managed the department that produced the radar management software for PAR.

[Rhino]

They're having a reunion this summer.

http://srmsc.org/

The installation at Grand Forks reached initial operational condition in April 1975 with 28 Sprint and 8 Spartan missiles. It was declared fully operational on 1 October 1975 with 70 Sprint and 30 Spartan missiles.http://www.paineless.id.au/missiles/HSafeguard.html

[Lazarus]

Yep, Safeguard was cancelled by Congress at about the same time that Congress defunded the Vietnam War. I worked on that project from 1968 to 1972. As near as I can tell, the only part of the project that became operational was the long-range, early-warning radar - Perimeter Acquisition Radar (PAR) - still located in North Dakota. I don't know if it is still in operation, however. I managed the department that produced the radar management software for PAR.Well hell, lets run up there and fire it up and see if it still works... You work the radar and I'll light the fuses... :D

[MichaelS]

I'm just happy we're slated to spend another $10.4 billion in '07 for a hit-or-miss system (http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/front/la-fg-missile22jun22,1,5397279.story?coll=la-headlines-frontpage&track=crosspromo) that has had a 50% success rate under very controlled conditions.

Confidence inspiring indeed.

[Naturalized-Texan]

Well hell, lets run up there and fire it up and see if it still works... You work the radar and I'll light the fuses... :D
Prior to the time I managed the dept. that produced the PAR radar management (RM) software, I managed the dept. that produced the Sprint missile guidance software.

I transferred out of the Safeguard program in 1972 to work on a proposal to build an ABM early warning radar way out on the tip of the Aleutian Islands. We didn't get the contract.

My lead programmer on the PAR RM software went to ND to help activate the system. The day after they turned it on for the first time, he called me at my new location to tell me that when they turned on the PAR, our software worked perfectly. He was particularly happy about that because early in the software design phase, he and my lead hardware guy came to me and told me that the software requirements we got from the prime contractor, Bell Labs, were completely wrong and wouldn't work. I told them to work up a presentation to give to the Bell Labs people telling them what was wrong with their requirements and what we needed to do to fix them. We came out of that meeting bloody and battered, but Bell Labs adopted almost everything we proposed. We were probably the only group who ever told those Bell Labs people that they were full of sh*t and got away with it.