/dev/null Posted July 5, 2006 Share Posted July 5, 2006 http://today.reuters.com/news/newsarticle....&src=rss&rpc=22 Looks like Fearless Leader couldn't keep his Taepodong up Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UConn James Posted July 5, 2006 Share Posted July 5, 2006 Well, you learn more from a failure than you do from a success. Meanwhile, his country can't grow friggin' rice b/c everyone's busy goose-stepping to scare the Bogeyman in KJI's mind. Had the missile stayed up, if it were me I would have given an order to shoot it down (as it was ABC was reporting that a finger was on the button) even if it wasn't headed toward our mainland. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted July 5, 2006 Share Posted July 5, 2006 Had the missile stayed up, if it were me I would have given an order to shoot it down (as it was ABC was reporting that a finger was on the button) even if it wasn't headed toward our mainland. 718431[/snapback] It was a good test of the ABM system nonetheless. Because I guarantee you there was at least one (probably more like three) Aegis-equipped ships in the Sea of Japan tracking the launches. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted July 5, 2006 Author Share Posted July 5, 2006 It was a good test of the ABM system nonetheless. Because I guarantee you there was at least one (probably more like three) Aegis-equipped ships in the Sea of Japan tracking the launches. 718437[/snapback] which means now we prolly understand their missles better than they do Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted July 5, 2006 Share Posted July 5, 2006 which means now we prolly understand their missles better than they do 718448[/snapback] No. They go up, they fail catastrophically. I'm pretty sure both sides here have achieved the same level of understanding. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ch19079 Posted July 5, 2006 Share Posted July 5, 2006 the fact that the US allowed them to launch the missiles in the first place can be taken as a success by the N. Koreans. The US should have destroyed them before they were launched. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ch19079 Posted July 5, 2006 Share Posted July 5, 2006 Had the missile stayed up, if it were me I would have given an order to shoot it down (as it was ABC was reporting that a finger was on the button) even if it wasn't headed toward our mainland. 718431[/snapback] And what if we missed? i have read several things online which say our missiles are not exactly 100% accurate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted July 5, 2006 Share Posted July 5, 2006 And what if we missed? i have read several things online which say our missiles are not exactly 100% accurate. 718503[/snapback] No missile is 100% accurate. Standard doctrine - almost worldwide, be it a US ABM, a Russian SA-N-6, or a British Sea Dart - is to launch 2 missiles to "guarantee" a kill for that very reason. The ABMs out of Alaska probably have a PK rate of about 60% per successful launch...which is really !@#$ing good, considering the engagement parameters. Ditto the SM-3 off Aegis ships. So IF an intercept were attempted, the practice would be to launch two missiles at the incoming as standard procedure, making it reasonably likely one would hit...and the media would harp on the one that missed as a "failure" of the system. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chilly Posted July 5, 2006 Share Posted July 5, 2006 No missile is 100% accurate. Standard doctrine - almost worldwide, be it a US ABM, a Russian SA-N-6, or a British Sea Dart - is to launch 2 missiles to "guarantee" a kill for that very reason. The ABMs out of Alaska probably have a PK rate of about 60% per successful launch...which is really !@#$ing good, considering the engagement parameters. Ditto the SM-3 off Aegis ships. So IF an intercept were attempted, the practice would be to launch two missiles at the incoming as standard procedure, making it reasonably likely one would hit...and the media would harp on the one that missed as a "failure" of the system. 718537[/snapback] But... But... But... GPS!!!!!!!!!!!11111111111111 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted July 5, 2006 Share Posted July 5, 2006 But... But... But... GPS!!!!!!!!!!!11111111111111 718543[/snapback] "But I'm telling you...if it takes you less than an hour, you're not cooking your retatta right!" Yeah, what the !@#$ do I know? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chilly Posted July 5, 2006 Share Posted July 5, 2006 "But I'm telling you...if it takes you less than an hour, you're not cooking your retatta right!" Yeah, what the !@#$ do I know? 718545[/snapback] I lol'd Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cromagnum Posted July 5, 2006 Share Posted July 5, 2006 No missile is 100% accurate. Standard doctrine - almost worldwide, be it a US ABM, a Russian SA-N-6, or a British Sea Dart - is to launch 2 missiles to "guarantee" a kill for that very reason. The ABMs out of Alaska probably have a PK rate of about 60% per successful launch...which is really !@#$ing good, considering the engagement parameters. Ditto the SM-3 off Aegis ships. So IF an intercept were attempted, the practice would be to launch two missiles at the incoming as standard procedure, making it reasonably likely one would hit...and the media would harp on the one that missed as a "failure" of the system. 718537[/snapback] That's interesting. CTM is their a link that's worth reading on ABM? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted July 5, 2006 Share Posted July 5, 2006 That's interesting. CTM is their a link that's worth reading on ABM? 718748[/snapback] A good start is http://www.mda.mil/mdalink/pdf/bmdsbook.pdf. It's chock full of "rah-rah" public relations stuff...but it at least gives a good overview of the depth and complexity of the missile defense system as a whole...and demonstrates that the budgetary facts of missile defense are NOT $10B on ten missiles in holes in Alaska. http://www.marshall.org/pdf/materials/57.pdf An interesting technical discussion. Not terribly germane (he discusses quite a few older ideas against defeating massed Russian nuclear strikes), but has some interesting insight into what is and is not capable. Defense News has had some good articles over the past few years. I'll see if I can link to some articles...it's a paid site, though, so no promises, as I ain't giving out my login to it. Other than that...I don't really know one public media site that's ever really demonstrated any real knowledge of the ABM system (which, as a system, is a hell of a lot more than interceptors in silos in Alaska - there's a reason, for example, that the Navy recently tested an SM-3 launch jointly with Japan.) Lots of what I posted is "ear to the ground" "common knowledge" type stuff. The test results on the ABMs (sanitized for unclassification) are readily available off the net; to anyone with a scientific or engineering background they're pretty clear, without any of the wesealy "Well, it was a success even though it failed" nonsense public reports usually ascribe to it. I believe I've seen overal schematic diagrams (i.e. diagramming assets responsible for a successful warhead intercept - it's just a little less complex than a moon launch) suitable for the "PowerPoint warrior" on the net, too. A lot of it, though, is just based on common sense and the knowledge I've collected over the past quarter-century. SAMs tend to be ripple-fired - in Kuwait in '03, for example, it was standard practice to launch more than one Patriot at a detected incoming warhead, despite the system not being checked out for such (all previous tests had been single shots; multiple shots were not written into the procedure formally, but doctrine overrode written procedure, basically). A 60% kill rate is a reasonably good guess based on the performance of roughly comparable systems (though the GMD interceptors are so bleeding edge - by design, they can't avoid being so - that the PK could be anywhere from 30% to 90%. Most of the realistic statements on performance fall within a 40% to 70% range. I've heard the number quoted as anywhere from 0% to 100%, both of which are obvious horseshit. Like I said, 60% is pretty reasonable, maybe a touch high, but I'm a technical optimist. ) The observation on the media...well, come on. It's the media. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cromagnum Posted July 5, 2006 Share Posted July 5, 2006 Thank's for the link's and info and your time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted July 5, 2006 Author Share Posted July 5, 2006 No. They go up, they fail catastrophically. I'm pretty sure both sides here have achieved the same level of understanding. 718454[/snapback] i beg to differ. Missle goes up and fails catastrophically. US collects and analyzes data North Korea executes scientists Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stuckincincy Posted July 6, 2006 Share Posted July 6, 2006 Depending on your risk tolerance, this might be a good time to consider a Hyundai or Kia vehicle, Samsung electronics, or appliances from the recently "premium" marketed LG (formerly the bottom-dwelling brand GoldStar) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted July 6, 2006 Share Posted July 6, 2006 Depending on your risk tolerance, this might be a good time to consider a Hyundai or Kia vehicle, Samsung electronics, or appliances from the recently "premium" marketed LG (formerly the bottom-dwelling brand GoldStar) 719160[/snapback] LG is a chinese company, isn't it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SilverNRed Posted July 6, 2006 Share Posted July 6, 2006 i beg to differ. Missle goes up and fails catastrophically. US collects and analyzes data North Korea executes scientists 718850[/snapback] And now the whole world knows Kim Jong-Il suffers from premature detonation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stuckincincy Posted July 6, 2006 Share Posted July 6, 2006 LG is a chinese company, isn't it? 719165[/snapback] No. S. Korean. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts