“”This past Saturday, off the coast of Hawaii, the United States Navy conducted their own live test of their ballistic missile defense systems with full operating crews of U.S. sailors on the USS Paul Hamilton (DDG -60) and USS Hopper (DDG-70). The Japanese ship JS CHOKAI (DDG-176), who later this month will be outfitted with defensive SM-3 ballistic missiles observed, tracked and simulated a defensive engagement with the target missiles. Two target missiles were fired from the Pacific Range Missile Facility, in Barking Sands, Kauai simulating a regional missile attack as the two U.S. destroyers were defending an area representing the country that the target missiles were fired at.”
“The Aegis destroyers and their systems tracked and discriminated the two targets independent of other systems and put together a firing solution which fired the two separate defensive missiles from separate ships at their perspective targets. Just as important was that the U.S. Aegis destroyers were able to send and coordinate the same information to their Japanese ally, the JS CHOKAI (DDG-176) who if armed could have engaged as well. This latter concept is called “interoperability” and it was effectively proven with the Japanese on this test.”
“One of the two fired SM-3s hit the target missile and destroyed it, the other SM-3 missile failed to engage as its sensor which is cooled to be effective in its ability to “heat” seek did not cool and thus could not track and engage the second target missile. Both of the SM-3 missiles that were used were at the end of their life cycle and there was most likely a leak of coolant caused by aging. However, if this scenario was a real situation, multiple shots of SM-3s from multiple ships could have been fired at each attacking missile to increase the success of engaging and destroying the warheads. Each Aegis missile defense equipped ship is more than capable of firing three or more missiles at one incoming target missile to have close to 99% protection on a defended populated area.”
Ellison closed his report with this statement: “This test by the United States Navy validates an already successful system and demonstrates to those countries like North Korea, Iran and Syria that the United States’ National Security, the U.S. Armed Forces and her allies will be protected and defended.”
Interesting but I don’t know how smart it is to throw multiple SM-3s at EACH target as suggested at the end of the article as those things don’t grow on trees and there never will be as many of those as there are targets. Maybe one at each target and let the lower tier get the leakers? Thoughts anybody?
By: sferrin - 10th November 2008 at 23:57
Well what you have read is dreaming, its not just direct attacks against the battle group but also sea base defence of near shore assets, amphibious assaults and the like. Sure you could try and use against a chinese assault if you wanted, and you might take out a few incoming missiles, but such a thing is beyond the current remit.
Nobody said it was just to defend the fleet. I said that that was one of it’s primary purposes.
By: sealordlawrence - 10th November 2008 at 21:16
I often wonder what has happened to you, as it appears that you are regressing more and more intellectually and in terms of maturity with every passing post. I want to give you the benefit of the doubt, but your posts are fast becoming little more then the kind of angry, shamelessly self gratifying online garbage that a pre-puberty child would be embarrassed to admit responsibility for.
If ‘USA is better then China’ is your response to everything, then I’m happy to leave you in your simplified world and wish you the best of luck in the real world, since it appears you would need it if the above is anything representative of your attitude and intellectual capacity.
Now that is hypocrisy.:rolleyes:
By: plawolf - 10th November 2008 at 19:49
BS post from someone who can not accept that the US is better than China.:p
I often wonder what has happened to you, as it appears that you are regressing more and more intellectually and in terms of maturity with every passing post. I want to give you the benefit of the doubt, but your posts are fast becoming little more then the kind of angry, shamelessly self gratifying online garbage that a pre-puberty child would be embarrassed to admit responsibility for.
If ‘USA is better then China’ is your response to everything, then I’m happy to leave you in your simplified world and wish you the best of luck in the real world, since it appears you would need it if the above is anything representative of your attitude and intellectual capacity.
By: sealordlawrence - 10th November 2008 at 19:05
Because historically, America has almost always been the one doing the attacking, and that one of the chief considerations in deciding whether or not to bomb someone is how costly that endeavor is likely to be? And that America has constantly implied or even overtly threatened military action if others do not ‘play ball’?
In the eyes of many a ‘loser’ country, as you so maturely puts it, :rolleyes: saying ‘you can’t attack me’ is pretty much synonymous with America saying, ‘I can smack you up as much as I want whenever I want, so behave biaach’.
If you think trying to prevent yourself from being attacked by developing the means of taking out strike assets that potentially might be used against you with hostile intent is not provocation, then the US should not get into such a huff about China developing means to sinking its aircraft carriers around China then. After all, who seriously think China wants to invade the US? All China wants is to develop the means of being able to say ‘you can’t attack me’ to the US. According to you, that should be perfectly acceptable then.
BS post from someone who can not accept that the US is better than China.:p
By: sealordlawrence - 10th November 2008 at 19:04
From what I’ve read it’s the China thing. Think about the number of missiles being deployed and the number of types (SM-3 Blocks I & II, SM-2 Block IV, SM-6, and talk of PAC-3). That’s WAY overkill for one or two that might land in the vicinity of a CVBG from NK. It’s with China in mind. Both to defend forward deployed assets and the CVBG itself.
Well what you have read is dreaming, its not just direct attacks against the battle group but also sea base defence of near shore assets, amphibious assaults and the like. Sure you could try and use against a chinese assault if you wanted, and you might take out a few incoming missiles, but such a thing is beyond the current remit.
By: plawolf - 10th November 2008 at 18:20
How is saying ‘you cant attack me’ provocation?:rolleyes:
Because historically, America has almost always been the one doing the attacking, and that one of the chief considerations in deciding whether or not to bomb someone is how costly that endeavor is likely to be? And that America has constantly implied or even overtly threatened military action if others do not ‘play ball’?
In the eyes of many a ‘loser’ country, as you so maturely puts it, :rolleyes: saying ‘you can’t attack me’ is pretty much synonymous with America saying, ‘I can smack you up as much as I want whenever I want, so behave biaach’.
If you think trying to prevent yourself from being attacked by developing the means of taking out strike assets that potentially might be used against you with hostile intent is not provocation, then the US should not get into such a huff about China developing means to sinking its aircraft carriers around China then. After all, who seriously think China wants to invade the US? All China wants is to develop the means of being able to say ‘you can’t attack me’ to the US. According to you, that should be perfectly acceptable then.
By: sferrin - 10th November 2008 at 17:52
The question is against whos ballistic missiles, there is a distinct difference between China firing a mass of guided precision. EMP equipped dedicated AShBM’s and North Korea lobbing a nuclear tipped scud into the general area of a battlegroup.;)
From what I’ve read it’s the China thing. Think about the number of missiles being deployed and the number of types (SM-3 Blocks I & II, SM-2 Block IV, SM-6, and talk of PAC-3). That’s WAY overkill for one or two that might land in the vicinity of a CVBG from NK. It’s with China in mind. Both to defend forward deployed assets and the CVBG itself.
By: sealordlawrence - 10th November 2008 at 17:18
One of the missions SM-2 Block IV (modified), SM-3, and SM-6, are intended for is to protect the fleet against ballistic missiles. Why do you think the urgent SM-2 Block IV mods?
The question is against whos ballistic missiles, there is a distinct difference between China firing a mass of guided precision. EMP equipped dedicated AShBM’s and North Korea lobbing a nuclear tipped scud into the general area of a battlegroup.;)
By: sferrin - 10th November 2008 at 16:42
No need, they are well aware of it.
One of the missions SM-2 Block IV (modified), SM-3, and SM-6, are intended for is to protect the fleet against ballistic missiles. Why do you think the urgent SM-2 Block IV mods?
By: sealordlawrence - 10th November 2008 at 15:16
You might want to let the USN in on that.
No need, they are well aware of it.
By: sferrin - 10th November 2008 at 02:29
No, the entire missile defence exercise is orientated against loser countries, that goes for both GBI and the rest of the package. Nobody in this prgram has any fantasies about using it to prevent a mass regional Chinese missile attack.
You might want to let the USN in on that.
By: sferrin - 10th November 2008 at 02:28
If china is launching long range balistic antiship missiles at USN vessels … we are pretty much all screwed regardless of the outcome… do you get off at dreaming these doomsday scenarios up???
No, do you get off sticking your head in the sand? :rolleyes:
By: Arkali106 - 10th November 2008 at 01:23
If china is launching long range balistic antiship missiles at USN vessels … we are pretty much all screwed regardless of the outcome… do you get off at dreaming these doomsday scenarios up???
It’s been strongly rumored that China has developed conventionally armed, radar/IR/optically targeted anti-ship version of medium range ballistic missiles. When a US Navy admiral testified to Congress about a new Chinese capability for which the Navy had no defense, it was either missiles like this, or the Sizzler cruise missile.
By: DJ. - 10th November 2008 at 00:41
I’m thinking of the case of China launching long range ballistic antiship missiles. They won’t be throwing just one or two.
If china is launching long range balistic antiship missiles at USN vessels … we are pretty much all screwed regardless of the outcome… do you get off at dreaming these doomsday scenarios up???
By: sealordlawrence - 8th November 2008 at 11:27
I think you might be confusing the two. That’s EXACTLY the kind of thing SM-3 is designed for. GBI is to be used against ICBMs, THAAD and PAC-3 against short and medium range ballistic missiles. SM-3 is there to defend the fleet against ballistic missiles and to defend nearby shore installations in the case of places like Japan. Block I’s footprint is such that unless it’s practically in port it’s not going to be protecting much terrain. Block II is another matter.
No, the entire missile defence exercise is orientated against loser countries, that goes for both GBI and the rest of the package. Nobody in this prgram has any fantasies about using it to prevent a mass regional Chinese missile attack.
By: YourFather - 8th November 2008 at 02:07
Interesting but I don’t know how smart it is to throw multiple SM-3s at EACH target as suggested at the end of the article as those things don’t grow on trees and there never will be as many of those as there are targets. Maybe one at each target and let the lower tier get the leakers? Thoughts anybody?
He just mentioned the possibility of multiple shots at each target, he didn’t say it is standard doctrine to do so. The number of shots fired, whether it is shoot-look-shoot, or shoot-shoot-look, partly depends on how how much time the system has left available for subsequent shots and the Pk of each shot. Notice this test (which is an operational test) involved one missile per target. On the other hand the SM-2 Blk 4A involved 2 per target due to the lack of another chance to reengage would the first miss.
By: sferrin - 8th November 2008 at 00:59
Not in the mission statement, if China is lobbing missiles at US forces we have crossed the line whereby the current ABM system is intended to function.
I think you might be confusing the two. That’s EXACTLY the kind of thing SM-3 is designed for. GBI is to be used against ICBMs, THAAD and PAC-3 against short and medium range ballistic missiles. SM-3 is there to defend the fleet against ballistic missiles and to defend nearby shore installations in the case of places like Japan. Block I’s footprint is such that unless it’s practically in port it’s not going to be protecting much terrain. Block II is another matter.
By: sealordlawrence - 7th November 2008 at 22:43
I’m thinking of the case of China launching long range ballistic antiship missiles. They won’t be throwing just one or two.
Not in the mission statement, if China is lobbing missiles at US forces we have crossed the line whereby the current ABM system is intended to function.
By: sferrin - 7th November 2008 at 22:14
Similarly, wouldn’t it be stupid to have a city obliterated or the ship sunk with half its SM-3s still onboard, because you missed the first missile?
We aren’t looking at a soviet aggression, where multiple ICBMs would be fired, but at most likely a scenario with one or 2 missiles.
I’m thinking of the case of China launching long range ballistic antiship missiles. They won’t be throwing just one or two.
By: frankvw - 7th November 2008 at 21:21
And I can see the point of that. But what happens when the next salvo comes in and you’ve used up your supply of SM-3s?
Similarly, wouldn’t it be stupid to have a city obliterated or the ship sunk with half its SM-3s still onboard, because you missed the first missile?
We aren’t looking at a soviet aggression, where multiple ICBMs would be fired, but at most likely a scenario with one or 2 missiles.
Sign In
November 7, 2008 at 3:40 pm