au1929 wrote:The missile defense system is a myth.
That is incorrect. They are really developing a system.
au1929 wrote:The government is pouring money into a system that does not work.
Very few systems work when they are still being developed.
oralloy wrote:old europe wrote:Well, the test happened. The ballistic missile did launch. The interceptor didn't. A failure. Duh.
That is incorrect. The test didn't happen.
An unrelated problem prevented the interceptor from launching, and without the launch there was no test.
If I write a computer program, and have a test run, and the computer program does not what it was supposed to do due to an unrelated problem, or even fails to start due to an unrelated problem, then it is still a failure.
Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but: in this test, the ballistic missile did start. The interceptor was
supposed to start, but didn't. Hence, a failure.
If you can show me a source that says that the KV was not supposed to launch, then I'll concede that it wasn't a failed test run.
I am reminded of Winston, 1984 and double-think . . . how long before a thought police is instituted?
old europe wrote:oralloy wrote:old europe wrote:Well, the test happened. The ballistic missile did launch. The interceptor didn't. A failure. Duh.
That is incorrect. The test didn't happen.
An unrelated problem prevented the interceptor from launching, and without the launch there was no test.
If I write a computer program, and have a test run, and the computer program does not what it was supposed to do due to an unrelated problem, or even fails to start due to an unrelated problem, then it is still a failure.
That is incorrect. If you write a computer program, and the power supply for the computer stopped working in the middle of testing your program, there would be no failure.
You would have just been unable to test your program due to an unrelated problem.
That's gross absurdity. There could have been no unrelated problem, because if the same problem occured during a real-life situation in which the interceptor was expected to protect the nation, the effect could be disasterous. How can a problem which prevents the launch of the interceptor be "unrelated?"
Winston, re-writing history for Big Brother . . .
old europe wrote:Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but: in this test, the ballistic missile did start. The interceptor was supposed to start, but didn't. Hence, a failure.
If you can show me a source that says that the KV was not supposed to launch, then I'll concede that it wasn't a failed test run.
There are plenty of NASA launches where the computer scrubs the launch because it doesn't like something.
I guess the space program is a failure?
As long as the NASA probes/shuttles/satellites finally launch and do what they're supposed to do, I wouldn't call it a failure.
And as long as the MDS intercepts a ballistic missile, I wouldn't call that a failure. I would call it a failure when it fails to do so.
Setanta wrote:That's gross absurdity. There could have been no unrelated problem, because if the same problem occured during a real-life situation in which the interceptor was expected to protect the nation, the effect could be disasterous. How can a problem which prevents the launch of the interceptor be "unrelated?"
If they were making a test of the complete system to make sure everything works together, that would have been a failure.
However, I think it is likely that they were only testing the latest refinement they made to help the interceptor distinguish between warheads and decoys, and were not doing a test to make sure everything works together.
That is the problem they've been working on lately.
Also, in an actual fielded system I don't think they would have had a safety computer to scrub the launch if everything didn't look quite right.
I'm sure they don't have such computers poised to block the launch of the ICBMs.
old europe wrote:As long as the NASA probes/shuttles/satellites finally launch and do what they're supposed to do, I wouldn't call it a failure.
And as long as the MDS intercepts a ballistic missile, I wouldn't call that a failure. I would call it a failure when it fails to do so.
And you would be incorrect to call it a failure.
I don't think you understand what is being tested here, or how the tests are run.
Well, don't hold back! Tell us what they are testing, and how the tests are run! And then let us know why you wouldn't call it a failure, even if the MDA does.
oralloy
The truth of the matter they have yet to have had a successful test of the system. And why because they have not developed the technology necessary.
old europe wrote:Well, don't hold back! Tell us what they are testing, and how the tests are run! And then let us know why you wouldn't call it a failure, even if the MDA does.
The actual test was probably classified, but they've been working on trying to discriminate decoys from warheads. It is reasonable to think that they were trying so see how their latest warhead discrimination system worked.
The tests are run by getting the kinetic kill vehicle as close to the incoming warhead as it would if the system had been working for real, and seeing how it discriminates between warheads and decoys.
The reason I wouldn't call it a failure, is because we never got a chance to see how well the latest attempt to discriminate warheads from decoys actually works.
au1929 wrote:oralloy
The truth of the matter they have yet to have had a successful test of the system. And why because they have not developed the technology necessary.
Yes.
I don't see why this is a problem though.
I don't expect anyone to conduct a test of a system that hasn't been built yet, much less conduct a successful test.
But the tests that they are trying to conduct
are geared towards developing that system.
And once it is developed, it will be tested.
And if that test is a failure, they'll find the problem and solve it. And that may happen more than once.
But eventually they'll have a working system.
CORRECTED - U.S. stages missile defense "war games" for Congress
Sat Jan 28, 2006 8:12 PM IST
In Washington item "U.S. stages missile defense 'war games' for Congress," dated Jan. 24, please correct final paragraph to read ... MDA hoped to have up to 16 interceptors in place at Fort Greely, Alaska, by now, but only half of those have been deployed. It has also deployed two at California's Vandenberg Air Force Base. ... instead of ... MDA hoped to have up to 16 interceptors in place at Fort Greely, Alaska, by now, and eight at California's Vandenberg Air Force Base, but only half those have been deployed. ...
A corrected repetition follows.
By Andrea Shalal-Esa
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. missile defense shield is still under construction for around $9 billion a year but lawmakers can play this week on a simulation of the single most expensive U.S. weapons program.
The U.S. Missile Defense Agency (MDA) is hosting war games in Congress to help lawmakers better understand the missile shield as the Feb. 6 unveiling of President George W. Bush's budget plan approaches.
Agency spokesman Rick Lehner said he expected program funding to remain basically stable in the fiscal 2007 budget, after spending $8.8 billion in fiscal 2006.
Boeing Co. is prime contractor for the Ground-based Midcourse Defense System, and Lockheed Martin Corp. is leading development of the battle management control system.
Raytheon Co., General Dynamics Corp. and Northrop Grumman Corp. also have key roles.
The missile defense system, which has not staged any intercept tests for almost a year following two failures, has faced criticism from some lawmakers and government watchdogs, who worry the system has not been adequately tested.
In a new report to Congress, the Pentagon's testing office last week concluded there was "insufficient evidence to support a confident assessment of limited defensive operations," although it added that development test data suggested the "system may have some inherent defensive capability."
"This is tough technology," said Sen. Wayne Allard, a Colorado Republican. He said he was not unduly concerned about intercept test failures in February 2005 and December 2004, saying they helped officials understand the system's limits.
Allard said he continued to support development of a missile defense system, citing concern about efforts by Iran and North Korea to develop nuclear capabilities.
The Bush administration remains strongly wedded to the program, a scaled-down version of the missile defense shield known as "Star Wars" first envisioned by former President Ronald Reagan in 1983.
John Isaacs, policy director at the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation, said the war games were intended to pump up support for a "program that is seriously in trouble."
"If the war games were realistic, an awful lot of the missiles would not get off the ground," said Isaacs. "The program has suffered serious setbacks in recent years, and there's absolutely no evidence whether it will work."
LAUNCH FAILURE
On Tuesday, one war game simulated the U.S. response to medium- and long-range missile attacks by a fictional country named "Midland" on South Korea, Japan, and the United States.
One of nine U.S. interceptors failed to launch, allowing a nuclear-tipped enemy missile to hit Alaska's Aleutian Islands.
Retired Vice Adm. Dave Frost said the simulation was meant to show the complex elements of missile defense, including a battle management system that links data around the globe.
Lehner said a decision on declaring the system ready for military use, which had been expected last year, would be made by U.S. Strategic Command, but he had no idea when it was due.
"It could be available in the event of an emergency, but until all the training and procedures are completed, it's not ready for 24/7 alert status," he said.
Lehner said the agency planned four tests of the system this year, including two intercept tests in the second half of 2006, fulfilling another recommendation in the new Pentagon report.
The report said the battle management system was "making progress, but has not yet demonstrated engagement control."
MDA hoped to have up to 16 interceptors in place at Fort Greely, Alaska, by now, but only half of those have been deployed. It has also deployed two at California's Vandenberg Air Force Base.
oralloy wrote:au1929 wrote:oralloy
The truth of the matter they have yet to have had a successful test of the system. And why because they have not developed the technology necessary.
Yes.
I don't see why this is a problem though.
I don't expect anyone to conduct a test of a system that hasn't been built yet, much less conduct a successful test.
But the tests that they are trying to conduct
are geared towards developing that system.
And once it is developed, it will be tested.
And if that test is a failure, they'll find the problem and solve it. And that may happen more than once.
But eventually they'll have a working system.
Didn't they want to have a fully operational system by September 2004? It's not really a problem, I admit. They are 16 months late, and the system is
still not working. I'd say that the system won't be working another 16 months from now. But no, no problem.
Oh, and this is what the military/MDA said about that one specific test:
Quote:A test of the national missile defense system failed Monday when an interceptor missile did not launch from its island base in the Pacific Ocean, the military said. It was the second failure in months for the experimental program.
A statement from the Missile Defense Agency said the cause of the failure was under investigation.
A spokesman for the agency, Rick Lehner, said the early indications was that there was a malfunction with the ground support equipment at the test range on Kwajalein Island, not with the interceptor missile itself.
It's interesting that they did, indeed call the test a failure. Don't you think so?
au1929 wrote:John Isaacs, policy director at the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation, said the war games were intended to pump up support for a "program that is seriously in trouble."
"If the war games were realistic, an awful lot of the missiles would not get off the ground," said Isaacs.
Anti-war/anti-weapons groups almost always bend the truth to the breaking point.
Does he really think that a fielded system would have safety systems set to scrub the launch if everything didn't look perfect?
oralloy,
why have they been fiddling with the internal safety system of the interceptor rockets for several YEARS if they would know that it wasn't part of the fielded version? And why didn't they just switch it off for the next couple of tests after the first time an interceptor failed to launch in a test due to problems with that system? Wouldn't they rather want to test the KV than go "well, we're not at war, better we leave the safety on"? You do know that one single test costs between 85 and 100 million dollars, don't you? So isn't it outright stupid to repeat the same test over and over again, having the interceptor fail to launch again and again, and all that due to a problem in a system that wouldn't be contained in the fielded version?
oralloy
You are correct everyone is lying except the bunch in the White House. Hey do I have a bridge to sell you.
Isn't it time to wake up and smell the roses.
old europe wrote:Didn't they want to have a fully operational system by September 2004? It's not really a problem, I admit. They are 16 months late, and the system is still not working. I'd say that the system won't be working another 16 months from now. But no, no problem.
I'd also say the system probably won't be working in 16 months.
And I'm sure they wanted the system to be fully operational by now.
You don't always get what you want.
So long as they keep working on it, I don't see the problem.
old europe wrote:Oh, and this is what the military/MDA said about that one specific test:
Quote:A test of the national missile defense system failed Monday when an interceptor missile did not launch from its island base in the Pacific Ocean, the military said. It was the second failure in months for the experimental program.
A statement from the Missile Defense Agency said the cause of the failure was under investigation.
A spokesman for the agency, Rick Lehner, said the early indications was that there was a malfunction with the ground support equipment at the test range on Kwajalein Island, not with the interceptor missile itself.
It's interesting that they did, indeed call the test a failure. Don't you think so?
I don't think they called
the test a failure. The statement only referred to "the failure".
And then in the next line, they clarified that the failure was in systems that were not even being tested.
