anti-missile defense system cloaked in fraud?

The Patriot was not designed as an anti-missle-missle. Its design mission was to serve as Medium-to-Close-Range Tactical Air Defense against targets such as Fighter-Bombers and Cruise Missles. That it acheived any success at all in the Anti-Missle role was pleasantly surprising. Over the past dozen years, it has been upgraded tremendously in capability and has performed well against tactical missles in recent tests. These upgrades have been primarily in the area of RADAR, with substantial improvements in target acquisition, tracking and prediction, and significant increase of accuracy; the previous Patriots were steered to the nearest practical vicinity of the target and detonated in expectation the blast itself or explosion's expanding debris cloud would destroy the target. Evidence suggests that the Gulf War Patriots frequently blew Scuds apart, without destroying them; large chunks, including relatively intact warheads, and fuel tanks often plummetted to the ground causing great damage. Current-Issue Patriots appear relatively likely to score a direct hit on a target, with much greater likelyhood of desired effect. The Israeli Arrow and the current US Patriot use very similar target acquisition and engagement systems.



timber

U.S. Seeks Dismissal of Suit by Critic of Missile Defense

By WILLIAM J. BROAD

The government has moved to dismiss the lawsuit of a vocal critic of antimissile technology, saying her case will jeopardize military secrets.
The critic, Dr. Nira Schwartz, has long argued that the heart of the nation's main antimissile system is faulty but that industry and the government have conspired to cover up its flaws. Dr. Schwartz, who became familiar with the system when she worked at TRW, a company involved in the work, said the administration hoped to quash her suit because it was "afraid that if it goes to trial the truth will come out ; that the technology doesn't work."


http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/03/politics/03MISS.html?th

http://query.nytimes.com/search/article-page.html?res=9C0DE5D91338F934A35750C0A9669C8B63


(emphasis added)

1) TRW, the firm at the center of Dr. Schwartz's complaint, is not the Prime Contractor for the Missile Defense System; that would be Raytheon, not mentioned in Dr. Schwartz's action. TRW was involved in initial developmental work, in which Dr. Schwartz was involved. Probelems related to the area of research in which Dr. Schwartz worked caused TRW to lose The Contract to Raytheon. TRW remains a parallel, "Back-up" contractor, but is not the entity charged with developing and producing The Missile Shield.

2) Dr. Schwartz has attempted to bring action against The Government and against TRW several times since her having been fired from TRW almost 5 years ago. Previous attempts have, for lack of demonstrated merit, not been admitted to litigation. The current matter is a continuation of Dr. Schwartz's ongoing effort to bring the matter to trial. Dr. Schwartz is not now, nor since her firing from TRW has she been, employed by any Aerospace or other Defense Contractor.


3) Dr. Schwartz bases her claim on the apparent failure of a developing subsystem to achieve performance within intended design parameters early on in the Design and Testing phase. The subsystem to which she refers is a software, not a hardware, matter. The sub-system to which she objects was subsequently abandoned by TRW, which cited as reason for abandoning that subsystem numerous concerns similar or related to the concerns raised by Dr. Schwartz's contentions.

4) It is not to be expected that a bleeding-edge technology will prove out absent difficulty. Many initially promising approaches never reach production. That, chief among other factors, is the purpose of field testing. Failures on The Test Bed lessen the possibility of failures on The Battlefield.


In short, Dr. Schwartz's allegation that "The US Anti-Missile System is flawed" does not apply to the anti-missle system on-track for further development and possible future production, Dr. Schwartz stands to realize personal financial gain from successful conclusion of her action, and many of Dr. Schwartz's allegations are either not borne out by relevant considerations or have been rendered moot by developments subsequent to the onset of her litigation.


As I recall, the M-16 Rifle, the M-1 Tank, The Bradley Fighting Vehicle, and The Blackhawk Helicopter, among many other currently successful weapons systems, were subject to very similar criticism during their own developmental phases. It would appear "The Bugs" have been pretty well worked out of those. Raytheon purports to be making progress on the Missile Shield, and the concerns voiced by ex-TRW employee Dr, Schwartz are of no application to the current developmental system.

As do most stories, this one has "Another Side". I think that needs mention.


timber

from the Christain Science Monitor Sept 8, 1997;
Even though the Gulf war ended over six years ago, the issue of Patriot's effectiveness in the war is not moot. It remains our only experience with ballistic missile defense, and must necessarily influence subsequent thinking and decisions on missile defense. One perspective is that of the Army (with which Raytheon agrees) that Patriot was over 60 percent effective - leading to the conclusion that the problem is well in hand. Our analysis leads to a dramatically different conclusion: Patriot was a total or near-total failure during the war, and following the war the Army and Raytheon sought to cover up this failure, even while the Army sought funding, and Raytheon lobbied Congress, to upgrade the system

dyslexia, I refer you to my earlier post in this thread: http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=92091#92091

which I believe addresses the concern you raise in your most recent post.



timber

If they can succeed in sending a rocket to mars, I'm sure it's just a matter of time before they will be able to shoot down missiles with missiles. c.i.