Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
With a lot of recent talk about missile defense shields being employed to counter various types of missiles and in differing environments, I got to looking through a few publications. One sure conclusion I can come to is cost, they are damned expensive.
Now Missiles cost a great deal of money, but the ballistics employed in sending a single missile to a ground or naval based target with the use of GPS and radar is amazing effective an accurate. You really get your monies worth, bang for the buck so to speak.
However when it comes to defending against a missile attack by using other missiles, things get more expensive and effectiveness drops off the cliff. The complex ballistics, gps, radar required to shoot a missile moving at extreme high rates of speeds at another relatively small object which is also moving at a very high rate of speed, and either hitting it or detonating close enough to effectively render this missile inert is no small feat.
In the following link, some various calculations are shown to get an accurate depiction of a missile defense platforms effectiveness.
No decoys are included in this calculation and a high level of technical
performance has been assumed, i.e., each NMD interceptor has an SSPK of 0.70 against
warheads and a probability of successfully detecting and tracking incoming targets,
P(track), equal to 0.990 (solid line) or 0.999 (dashed line). In this case, approximately 113 NMD interceptors are required to destroy 20 out of 20 warheads with a probability of
0.80 if the defense operates in a barrage mode (for P(track) = 0.99), but only 47
interceptors are required if the defense operates in shoot-look-shoot mode. If the defense
is ABM Treaty compliant, i.e., contains no more than 100 interceptors at a single site
So it takes a lot of missiles to effectively shoot down other missiles. Additionally, after Desert Storm, when the effectiveness of the Patriot Missile defense system was looked at more carefully, there arose a lot of controversy over its capabilities. Granted that was 1991 and systems have improved, but what should be noted also in various Congressional testimony was that even when missiles were hit, this didn't mean that it became inert or destroyed the target. The Patriot Missile. Performance in the Gulf War Reviewed
In the end, missile defense shields are outrageously expensive and only marginally effective, even when deployed in large numbers which some treaties, like the Salt Treaty prevent.
This faith that some people seem to have in shield technology often seems as though they are describing Star Trek, but that is not the reality of our current level of technology. What is even more odd is that these are often the same people who bemoan government spending habits, so I have to wonder if it is just a desire for the illusion of nighty blankie to keep one safe?
I never believed in missile shields... a waste of money and a waste of time... I seem to remember something about the creation of missile shields as being illegal... something about it during the treaty to end the nuclear arms race... that no nation could build a defense system against warheads... that is unless you are the US and can violate whatever rules you want... what's the point of military treaties anymore? Its sort of hypocritical of the US to create them and admonish other countries for violating them when we do it on a regular basis...
Hey, if the US is making them and selling them to other countries, then by all means, let the sales commence.
Makes one wonder what the US defense budget would be if it was more focused on actual defense of the US instead of defense of US and allied interests. As we all know, when it comes to "US interests", this term can be made to mean anything and everything we see.
I also can't help but chuckle seeing how many folks will fall over frothing at the mouth about socialism in the US, yet at the same time won't raise an eyebrow to the US forking over billions for other nations and their people.
I have always wanted to end most of the overseas "aid" programs... to me most of these programs are meant to curry favor and influence over the politics in other countries... but what the hell, nobody listens to me... I would never allow US to sell military arsenal to other countries... who the heck wants to arm a potential enemy in the future... just cause you are friends today doesn't mean you'll be "BFF"...
With a lot of recent talk about missile defense shields being employed to counter various types of missiles and in differing environments, I got to looking through a few publications. One sure conclusion I can come to is cost, they are damned expensive.
Now Missiles cost a great deal of money, but the ballistics employed in sending a single missile to a ground or naval based target with the use of GPS and radar is amazing effective an accurate. You really get your monies worth, bang for the buck so to speak.
However when it comes to defending against a missile attack by using other missiles, things get more expensive and effectiveness drops off the cliff. The complex ballistics, gps, radar required to shoot a missile moving at extreme high rates of speeds at another relatively small object which is also moving at a very high rate of speed, and either hitting it or detonating close enough to effectively render this missile inert is no small feat.
In the following link, some various calculations are shown to get an accurate depiction of a missile defense platforms effectiveness.
So it takes a lot of missiles to effectively shoot down other missiles. Additionally, after Desert Storm, when the effectiveness of the Patriot Missile defense system was looked at more carefully, there arose a lot of controversy over its capabilities. Granted that was 1991 and systems have improved, but what should be noted also in various Congressional testimony was that even when missiles were hit, this didn't mean that it became inert or destroyed the target. The Patriot Missile. Performance in the Gulf War Reviewed
In the end, missile defense shields are outrageously expensive and only marginally effective, even when deployed in large numbers which some treaties, like the Salt Treaty prevent.
This faith that some people seem to have in shield technology often seems as though they are describing Star Trek, but that is not the reality of our current level of technology. What is even more odd is that these are often the same people who bemoan government spending habits, so I have to wonder if it is just a desire for the illusion of nighty blankie to keep one safe?
Your linked article was published in 1998, technology has significantly evolved the past dozen years. The entire AEGIS SM-3 program has been in place since that paper:
I think lasers are a better way to go, there have been a few tested in the last few years that have been effective at shooting down missiles. High initial cost but no rearming, plus you don't really have to worry about sending too few to a host country.
I would say that like all tho9ngs missle defnse has come a long ways really.In a world such has we now have IMO is is stuipd to not pursue such a defense the same as it would have been not to pursue misslke offense in the past. Many were for abandoning offensive misslies worldwide in the past but there is also those who say with some authority that we would have already seen WWIII if not for the deterent of atomic missles.The threat now is much different than the past and the world is pretty much a global thing even beyond the economy.This is one reason for a strong NATO well beyond the deabte of the UN same as in the past.
Your linked article was published in 1998, technology has significantly evolved the past dozen years. The entire AEGIS SM-3 program has been in place since that paper:
Fact Sheet on U.S. Missile Defense Policy -- latimes.com (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-obama-missiles-text18-2009sep18,0,2298424.story - broken link)
The first link I provided was more about ways to compute the effectiveness of missile defense systems and I think I pointed out that technology has since been improved. Even still, missile defense is one of the most costly military programs to institute and there is very little evidence as to its effectiveness in the real world.
The reason I added the discussion and Congressional testimony on the Patriot Missile system was simply to offer evidence that even post Desert Storm, a review of the Patriot system's effectiveness is very much disputed.
I have yet to find any test reports on multiple intercepts as the only test results I have found are based upon a single target vs a single counter measure. As pointed out in my first link, once targets go beyond 4 simultaneous, then the effectiveness rate begins to drop significantly. (based upon patriot tests) I'm sure the Aegis is superior but I have no data to confirm this as of yet.
I'm not suggesting that this technology be abandoned, quite the contrary. However it seems as those who are proponents that view missile defense as Star Trek, where a button is pushed and everyone is safe and that just isn't the case as it is not that effective.
The first link I provided was more about ways to compute the effectiveness of missile defense systems and I think I pointed out that technology has since been improved. Even still, missile defense is one of the most costly military programs to institute and there is very little evidence as to its effectiveness in the real world.
The reason I added the discussion and Congressional testimony on the Patriot Missile system was simply to offer evidence that even post Desert Storm, a review of the Patriot system's effectiveness is very much disputed.
I have yet to find any test reports on multiple intercepts as the only test results I have found are based upon a single target vs a single counter measure. As pointed out in my first link, once targets go beyond 4 simultaneous, then the effectiveness rate begins to drop significantly. (based upon patriot tests) I'm sure the Aegis is superior but I have no data to confirm this as of yet.
I'm not suggesting that this technology be abandoned, quite the contrary. However it seems as those who are proponents that view missile defense as Star Trek, where a button is pushed and everyone is safe and that just isn't the case as it is not that effective.
I don't think many of us "in the business" have a overestimation of the capability. Though it is rather sophisticated and impressive, it also has some limitations and could stand a more rigorous operational testing and evaluation. It has been strenuously tested, and pretty successfully, against limited targets, but you need to keep in mind that multiple launches are anticipated against multiple targets. But, it is nothing like the system as imagined by Ronald Reagan when setting up the Star Wars initiative. Nonetheless, we have made significant progress over the past couple of decades.
Given the lack of viable alternatives, it is pretty good considering technological challenges and cost considerations.
Much of the problem isn't the shortfalls in the technology (though everything can be improved), rather the logistics, cost and complexity of executing such sophisticated operational testing against live multiple targets.
Last edited by NewToCA; 09-19-2009 at 08:57 PM..
Reason: can't spel
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
