Five SM-3s delivered to USN

[SirNitram]

Given what I've seen about other components, I can see why it was delayed. So little seems to work reliably.

Well, some of the early test failures were simple mistakes -- in one case, they forgot to close the valve for the sensor coolant. I doubt that'll happen again. Also, there were a couple of booster-related failures, but we're not using those boosters for the production ABM. Remember, when testing you don't neccessarily care if you get a hit. They usually test out specific components, and if it works the test is a success. Sea Skimmer once gave the example about how the vast majority of TOW tests never hit the target, yet it is one of the most succesful ATGMs ever.

One does not test by expecting it to work perfectly on the first attempt. Heck, the first time they made an intercept, BMDO cautioned everyone not to read too much into it.

That's really why my initial question included the phrase 'And made sure it was working', but that got lost in Primus' need to rail and scream against me. But seriously. Because they forgot to close the valve?

I am pretty confident in SM-3 -- the Navy has an excellent track record on SAM development and it ain't that hard to shoot down an SRBM/MRBM. If we can hit supersonic and/or maneuvering ASMs we can deal with a ballistic missile's parabolic trajectory.

You have a good point there.

This is really one of my pet peeves -- if you can take down an airplane or missile that is maneuvering like mad then why is it so hard to take down an SRBM or MRBM? Those suckers don't maneuver at all.

Probably distance and speed; huge problems in the earlier decades before a computer could do the calculations in seconds, plot an intercept, and fire. Though I suppose boosters would be an issue.

[SirNitram]

In any case, I had checked there, under Navy and Munitions, found nothing, and thus decided to ask. Because there are people who know more than me about subjects. Unfortunately, as you demonstrate, getting anything out of you is like pulling hen's teeth.

Most ABM stuff on globalsecurity is under the WMD section. But SM-3 is listed under Munitions-Missile and is quite near the top of that page. Target Air: Ship Launched, to be more specific.

Was looking for anti-missile munitions...

[phongn]

The really funny thing about Patriot in the Gulf War is that it's a demonstration that ABM can be worthwhile and effective even if it can't shoot down a single warhead. The two batteries deployed to Israel essentially kept the nation out of the war and thus totally defeated the purpose of the SCUD attacks on Israel, which was to bring it into the war and collapse the collation.

That I didn't know. Neat.

One of the issues I've discovered in the ABM Debates is that both sides have wildly different definitions of "success." For example, many called PAC-2 a failure because it didn't knock down SCUDs, but it succeeded it ensuring the IDF didnt' start bombing Iraq.

Similarly, if NMD forces nations to start using decoys, MARVs or smuggling in nukes that is considered a success by the pro-ABM side. Essentially, the offense must now use fewer nukes or spend more money for the same number of nukes (MARV or decoys). In the last case they'd have to risk trying to smuggle a nuke in which may well have a far lower probability of success than chucking an ICBM at a unprotected nation. B

Finally, if, say, NMD has a pK = 0.9 and we get 1000 RVs thrown at us (and have 1000 ABMs) and 100 RVs get through, the pro-ABM side would consider that a fantastic success (900 mushrooms prevented); the anti-ABM side would see that has a horrible failure (100 mushrooms sprouted). Some extend that so even if one nuke gets through (even out of 1000) the whole system has failed, which I think patently absurd.

[MKSheppard]

I lack trust in the ABM project, due to it's track record since the Wonder Monkey started it.

It was Slick Willie who started the project to look tough on defense to
steal the issue from a republican congress, he delayed implementation
of theprogram past 2000 to hand off the decision to his successor.

[phongn]

That's really why my initial question included the phrase 'And made sure it was working', but that got lost in Primus' need to rail and scream against me. But seriously. Because they forgot to close the valve?

I'm serious. Open valve == leaking coolent == nonfunctional sensor on the kill vehicle. Now, in combat if that happened they'd shrug and shoot off another one, hopefully working. But in a test when you only have single missiles you don't have that option.

Probably distance and speed; huge problems in the earlier decades before a computer could do the calculations in seconds, plot an intercept, and fire. Though I suppose boosters would be an issue.

However, those kinds of calculations could (and were) done with computers in the late 1950s. In fact, the prime US SAM of the time (Hercules) did make SRBM intercepts and was able to shoot down another Hercules missile as well. This with the conventional warhead, not the nuclear one (most Hercules batteries in the US were nuclear-tipped).

Going back to previous programs, Zeus was capable (and in fact did so in 1960) of making a kinetic kill.

[SirNitram]

I lack trust in the ABM project, due to it's track record since the Wonder Monkey started it.

It was Slick Willie who started the project to look tough on defense to
steal the issue from a republican congress, he delayed implementation
of theprogram past 2000 to hand off the decision to his successor.

I wouldn't give that much of a damn whether it was being deployed or not right now if it wasn't for the fact it's sucking money away from the deployed troops. Of course, with the Pentagon that created the Strykker, perhaps it wouldn't make much difference...

[SirNitram]

Going back to previous programs, Zeus was capable (and in fact did so in 1960) of making a kinetic kill.

So... Why haven't we gone back to that and upgraded it? Surely a 60s missile would be cheaper and give us a leg up. Or have they done that?

[MKSheppard]

I wouldn't give that much of a damn whether it was being deployed or not right now if it wasn't for the fact it's sucking money away from the deployed troops.

Despite the fact that 550 armored humvees are being built a month right now?

Before the Iraq war, it was 50 a month. Yes, 500 extra humvees a month
is "sucking money away from the troops"

[SirNitram]

I wouldn't give that much of a damn whether it was being deployed or not right now if it wasn't for the fact it's sucking money away from the deployed troops.

Despite the fact that 550 armored humvees are being built a month right now?

Before the Iraq war, it was 50 a month. Yes, 500 extra humvees a month
is "sucking money away from the troops"

More referring to the fact there aren't enough troops there, the troops there don't all have Interceptor vests with the inserts, etc. No, I'm not going on about the Humvees. If you'd like, I could go on about the trucks.

[phongn]

So... Why haven't we gone back to that and upgraded it? Surely a 60s missile would be cheaper and give us a leg up. Or have they done that?

The ABMs of the 1960s and 70s had nuclear warheads on them. Unfortunately, that meant that any satellite up in orbit would be fried when they went off and that cost was considered unacceptable. Furthermore, all those missiles are really old technology and to rebuild them probably would cost an extraordinary amount of money -- nearly as much as, say, our present program.

Before the defensive programs cuts of the 1960s there were plans to emplace huge numbers of ABMs around the US, which would have complemented the existing air-defense system. As you can probably tell from the controversy in the news, those programs were cancelled.

[Sea Skimmer]

Going back to previous programs, Zeus was capable (and in fact did so in 1960) of making a kinetic kill.

So... Why haven't we gone back to that and upgraded it? Surely a 60s missile would be cheaper and give us a leg up. Or have they done that?

Upgrading that missile design to work with modern computers, radars and data links would easily end up costing more then developing an all-new missile. Its also decades out of production so we'd have to completely rebuild that basis. And if we didn't upgrade it and just threw it into production as it was, then we'd have some rather major issues regarding finding anyone still producing the required 1960's vacuum tube electronics. Not to mention all the maintenance and training issues that would also bring along.

[SirNitram]

So... Why haven't we gone back to that and upgraded it? Surely a 60s missile would be cheaper and give us a leg up. Or have they done that?

The ABMs of the 1960s and 70s had nuclear warheads on them. Unfortunately, that meant that any satellite up in orbit would be fried when they went off and that cost was considered unacceptable. Furthermore, all those missiles are really old technology and to rebuild them probably would cost an extraordinary amount of money -- nearly as much as, say, our present program.

Before the defensive programs cuts of the 1960s there were plans to emplace huge numbers of ABMs around the US, which would have complemented the existing air-defense system. As you can probably tell from the controversy in the news, those programs were cancelled.

I was more referring to the Zeus, which you stated could do a kinetic kill. Are the plans just lost when the project was cancelled?

[SirNitram]

Going back to previous programs, Zeus was capable (and in fact did so in 1960) of making a kinetic kill.

So... Why haven't we gone back to that and upgraded it? Surely a 60s missile would be cheaper and give us a leg up. Or have they done that?

Upgrading that missile design to work with modern computers, radars and data links would easily end up costing more then developing an all-new missile. Its also decades out of production so we'd have to completely rebuild that basis. And if we didn't upgrade it and just threw it into production as it was, then we'd have some rather major issues regarding finding anyone still producing the required 1960's vacuum tube electronics. Not to mention all the maintenance and training issues that would also bring along.

Point... I really should have thought of that. Oh well. Mind didn't actually click between 1960's and Vacuum Tubes.

[MKSheppard]

More referring to the fact there aren't enough troops there, the troops there don't all have Interceptor vests with the inserts, etc. No, I'm not going on about the Humvees. If you'd like, I could go on about the trucks.

In Martin-land, factories can insantly gear up to inrease their production
a thousand times overnight.

The truth is, we were in the cycle of replacing all of our body armor with
interceptor vests with inserts, and the Iraq war caught us at IIRC, midpoint
in the program.

And for the troops, it's just full of shit, just mobilize a national guard division
that hasn't been mobilized since 1950 or so to provide more troops instead
of rotating the same people in and out in and out of the war zone...

[Illuminatus Primus]

I was more referring to the Zeus, which you stated could do a kinetic kill. Are the plans just lost when the project was cancelled?

Zeus was also nuclearly-armed and similarly abandoned. Its too old to rebuild the tooling and upgrade for modern compatability without costing more than a brand new kill vehicle.

The midcourse interceptors are not new missiles. They're modified Minuteman III ICBMs.

[SirNitram]

More referring to the fact there aren't enough troops there, the troops there don't all have Interceptor vests with the inserts, etc. No, I'm not going on about the Humvees. If you'd like, I could go on about the trucks.

In Martin-land, factories can insantly gear up to inrease their production
a thousand times overnight.

You'll have to tell me about this place sometime. I've never heard of it. I come from a place where, if you weren't deploying an ABM system already when you decided to bang the drums for Iraq, you could prepare for it better by getting the groundwork laid out for larger orders...

The truth is, we were in the cycle of replacing all of our body armor with
interceptor vests with inserts, and the Iraq war caught us at IIRC, midpoint
in the program.

My opinion here is obvious. An unnecessary war we initiate should never 'catch us' with our pants down, so to speak.

And for the troops, it's just full of shit, just mobilize a national guard division
that hasn't been mobilized since 1950 or so to provide more troops instead
of rotating the same people in and out in and out of the war zone...

Whatever actually gets the job done instead of flowery rhetoric.

[phongn]

I was more referring to the Zeus, which you stated could do a kinetic kill. Are the plans just lost when the project was cancelled?

They could do a kinetic kill but weren't really designed for it. First and foremest they were intended to get close and nuke the incoming RVs. Sea Skimmer gave the other reasons, as you noted.

The midcourse interceptors are not new missiles. They're modified Minuteman III ICBMs.

Only the test-launch vehicles were modified Minutemans. The production missiles are new-builds.

[MKSheppard]

You'll have to tell me about this place sometime. I've never heard of it. I come from a place where, if you weren't deploying an ABM system already when you decided to bang the drums for Iraq, you could prepare for it better by getting the groundwork laid out for larger orders...

There was only one factory producing Interceptor vests prewar, and
it was running flat out from the moment the first vest rolled off the
production line.

Somehow, overnight, you expect a dramatic increase of vests to come
pouring off already maxed-out production lines because you say so?

My opinion here is obvious. An unnecessary war we initiate should never 'catch us' with our pants down, so to speak.

Once again, Martin lives in a fantasy land where we know everything
before it happens. Do I have to direct you to Eisenhower turning
US Forces away from their drive East towards Berlin to go after the
mythical "Alpine Redoubt" full of fanatical SS troops where the Nazis
would hold out, which of course, turned out to be non-existent?

Remember, pre-war intelligence held that Saddam was in stock of
WMDs, and had them ready to deploy. Delaying further would have
increased his hand further, according to intelligence available at the
time, which was used in the war planning.

[SirNitram]

You'll have to tell me about this place sometime. I've never heard of it. I come from a place where, if you weren't deploying an ABM system already when you decided to bang the drums for Iraq, you could prepare for it better by getting the groundwork laid out for larger orders...

There was only one factory producing Interceptor vests prewar, and
it was running flat out from the moment the first vest rolled off the
production line.

Somehow, overnight, you expect a dramatic increase of vests to come
pouring off already maxed-out production lines because you say so?

Excuse me, are you actually reading what was wrote? It's not like Iraq leapt out of the shadows one day and we instantly raced there. Nor has there been no time since.

My opinion here is obvious. An unnecessary war we initiate should never 'catch us' with our pants down, so to speak.

Once again, Martin lives in a fantasy land where we know everything
before it happens. Do I have to direct you to Eisenhower turning
US Forces away from their drive East towards Berlin to go after the
mythical "Alpine Redoubt" full of fanatical SS troops where the Nazis
would hold out, which of course, turned out to be non-existent?

Yep, not actually reading a damn word I wrote.

Remember, pre-war intelligence held that Saddam was in stock of
WMDs, and had them ready to deploy. Delaying further would have
increased his hand further, according to intelligence available at the
time, which was used in the war planning.

And nothing could have been done since that time to the present, Shep? Again, anytime you're ready to stop strawmanning me, that'll be juuuuust grand.

[kheegster]

I may be missing something here, but how much of a coverage are FIVE SM-3 rounds going to be (considering that they provide defense SRBMs and IRBMs)? How are they going to distribute them among vessels? All five on one single Tico, or spread out among the fleet?

[HemlockGrey]

Out of curiosity, Nitram, what exactly causes your lack of memory?

[Vympel]

PAC-3 performed better in OIF in terms of ABM than PAC-2, but it's IFF abilities were a total fiasco- when deployed it clearly was not ready for prime time.

[Ma Deuce]

I may be missing something here, but how much of a coverage are FIVE SM-3 rounds going to be (considering that they provide defense SRBMs and IRBMs)? How are they going to distribute them among vessels? All five on one single Tico, or spread out among the fleet?

Those five SM-3s are just the first delivery...

[Stormbringer]

PAC-3 performed better in OIF in terms of ABM than PAC-2, but it's IFF abilities were a total fiasco- when deployed it clearly was not ready for prime time.

All bitching aside, was the Patriot really worse than other missles? Becuase I've seen a lot of people damning the missle but given the numbers of it, aren't some incidents going to happen regardless of the missle?

[Guardsman Bass]

This may be a stupid question, but when they referred to the missiles as an ABM system, were they thinking of nuclear-tipped missiles, or just ballistic missiles a la cruise missiles? It seems like it would be the latter, as the threat of a nuclear missile hit on a fleet seems kind of low.