sealordlawrenceThat is insulting and out of line. I disagree with you but I do not think you are a liar. All I am stating is that feasability and effectiveness are two very different things.
Were interceptors launched to hit these weapons launched by North Korea? No they were not. Tracking a warhead and running a few simulations are not enough to show the feasability of this scheme. The head of the MDA says as much.
Again insults are the refuge of persons unwilling to engage in debating the facts. I understand “Clausewitzian friction” sir and I understand how it applies to modern conflict studies and how it can be applied to potential future conflicts. I also understand that of course 100% effectiveness is not within the realm of possibility. But you state that it “works”. How well does it work? 20% maybe??? How about 50-50??? You do not know and I submit neither does the US Missile Defense Agency. You cite an example of North Korea and a few interceptors hitting some targets to date. You state with no lack of conviction (and vitriol I might add for anybody who dares question your opinions) based on this example and a few other definitive statments without attribution, that this system works.
Already produced a working system…You just do not get it sir. There has yet to be a rigorous operational testing regime for this technology. The MDA says it needs more operational testing. Congress says it needs more operational testing. The SecDef says it needs more operational testing. The GAO says it needs more operational testing, but because sealordlawrence says it is not so, we must all believe him over all of them.
Grow up and stop insulting fellow posters. Agreeing or in this case disagreeing with a fellow poster is not enough reason to be hateful and spiteful. And I submit it is you sir who is denying reality. Experts who will know more about this technology than outside observers such as ourselves ever can, have already made the determination that you are wrong and that this technology can not be considered as operational by any conventional standards.
Until it is a deployment of these weapons to Eastern Europe is not wise. The American taxpayer would be as well served by Congress wheeling $150 Billion out to the front of the Capitol Building and having a bonfire with it.
Again you produce lots of word and no actual evidence. Of course more testing is required its a continually developing system. You do not understand clausewitzian friction as shown by the rather bizzare phrase you attached to it. But then you have repeatedly shown that you have no knowledge of this subject.
You are so desperate and pathetic that you seem to be suggesting that the US start a war with North Korea to prove to you that a system that has already intercepted ballistic missiles can intercept ballistic missiles.
sealordlawrenceThe technology is feasable. I have never disputed that. Read closer.
Yes you have, now you are a liar as well.
But feasable and operationally effective are two completely seperate and two vastly different things. Somebody of your apparent knowledge about this topic should see the difference between possible and practical.
The system has already been used to track North Korean Missile tests not to mention yet again the numerable successful tests.
Saying that the technology is feasable is like saying that Minuteman’s warhead WILL hit within 100 metres of a target versus saying it has a circular error probable of 100 meters, where it has a probability of hitting within said distance. The first claim is a wild boast. Sure you might get lucky and hit the bullseye so to speak. The second example comes from rigorous independent testing proven under operational conditions using representative kit. The Director of the MDA himself states that they still need to do this kind of testing in order to confirm that this whole thing will work.
Now you are talking about clausewitzian friction (clearly you have insufficient education to understand that), it effects all weapon systems but it does not effect all. One can never expect 100% effectiveness from anything but if it works the majority of the time it is sufficient. Will a rifle achieve 1MOA? Will an AShM aquire its target? will a AT missile motor fail? etc etc etc.
ABM is undergoing a constant process of testing and development that has already produced a working system yet you continue to deny reality.
sealordlawrenceGreat comeback. Articulate analysis of the issues.
Shall I continue???
…Testing under operationally realistic conditions is an important part of maturing the system. We have been fielding test assets in increasingly operational configurations in order to conduct increasingly complex and end-to-end tests of the system. Comprehensive ground tests of the elements and components precede each flight test. Our flight tests increasingly introduce operational realism, limited by environmental and safety concerns….
Testimony of Lieutenant General Henry A. Obering III, USAF, Director, Missile Defense Agency Before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, National Security and Foreign Affairs Subcommittee, April 30, 2008
Acknowledgement by the director of the program that it has had not enough operational testing.
None of your boasting about this , using your words here, “proven technology” assure anybody that it will work. How about adressing that question?
You can carry on until you are blue in the face but it is completely meaningless unless you can demonstrate that a technology that has already intercepted ballistic missile targets does not work. And you can not do that, hence why you make posts that state that testing is important………well duh.
sealordlawrenceAmerican Forces Press Service
WASHINGTON, Dec. 17, 2008 – Anticipated budget constraints and the growing threat posed by rogue nations make it more important than ever that future U.S. missile defense tests be operationally focused, the commander of U.S. Northern Command and North American Aerospace Defense Command, General Renuart said today.This implies previous tests were not operationally focused….from the horses mouth.
Daryl G. Kimball, the executive director of the Arms Control Association, which publishes the monthly journal Arms Control Today.
He states in the Washington Times on November 20th 2008:
“…The interceptors since 1999 have only scored seven hits against targets in 12 highly scripted tests; only two of those successes have occurred since the initial deployment of the three stage inteceptors…”
and he goes on to state:”… A decision on new deployments of strategic missile interceptors can be deferred until the system is proven effective through realistic tests and has the full support of U.S. allies. Meanwhile, the Obama administration should engage in serious talks with Russia’s leaders to explore alternatives or, at a minimum, achieve a mutual understanding on the eventual size and capability of U.S. strategic missile defenses. The two sides also should launch a joint diplomatic strategy to curb global missile proliferation. A more balanced, nonideological approach to U.S. missile defense policy is long overdue….”
The Government Accountability Office report number GAO-08-467 SP, “Defense Acquisitions: Assessments of Selected Weapon Programs,” was released on March 31, 2008.
It stated that only 1 of the 16 KKV critical technologies is mature.
And in Government Accountability Office Report Number GAO-08-506T, “Defense Acquisitions: Assessment of DOD Efforts to Enhance Missile Defense Capabilities and Oversight” was released on February 26, 2008, it was stated that:
In the past year, MDA has fielded additional and new assets, enhanced the capability of some existing assets, and achieved most test objectives. However, MDA did not meet the goals it originally set for the block. Ultimately, MDA fielded fewer assets, increased costs by about $1 billion and conducted fewer tests. Even with the cost increase, MDA deferred work to keep costs from increasing further, as some contractors overran their fiscal year 2007 budgets. Deferring work obscures the cost of the block because such work is no longer counted as part of Block 2006. The cost of the block may have been further obscured by a way of planning work used by several contractors that could underestimate the actual work completed. If more work has to be done, MDA could incur additional costs that are not yet recognized. MDA also sets goals for determining the overall performance of the BMDS. Similar to other DOD programs, MDA uses models and simulations to predict BMDS performance. We were unable to assess whether MDA met its overall performance goal because there have not been enough flight tests to provide a high confidence that the models and simulations accurately predict BMDS performance. Moreover, the tests done to date have been developmental in nature, and do not provide sufficient realism for DOD’s test and evaluation Director to determine whether BMDS is suitable and effective for battle. GAO has previously reported that MDA has been given unprecedented funding and decision-making flexibility. While this flexibility has expedited BMDS fielding, it has also made MDA less accountable and transparent in its decisions than other major programs, making oversight more challenging.
Numerable successful tests you say? Your own government states that they are too few in number and the General in charge of the program overtly states that many of the tests to date have not been reasonably realistic and need to be more so going forward.
At the end of the day it is America’s money, security and credibility. If you wish to deploy something that has not been operationally certified to any significant degree admitted to by even the General in charge of the program, it’s all good.
And none of that says the technology does not work.:rolleyes:
sealordlawrenceThe fact is that we do not know. They may have given the missiles already and they do not want to publicize it. Not all deals are done openly. A recent BBC exposure of Chinese Arms in Sudan is an example for this.
Small Arms to an African tin pot hell hole is one thing, modern strategic SAM’s to Iran is quite another.
sealordlawrenceDebunked by whom??? You??? Spare me…..
Two stages from three and integrating new radars for a start are not a “…relatively minor change…”. And when have the Fort Greeley missiles suddenly become “…already proven technology…”??? Proven because they are deployed? You simply do not get where the skeptics are coming from. The original technology was deployed in lieu of proper testing and threat assessments for ideological reasons. Try as you might it can’t be spun any other way. This is the least tested and proven significant weapons system to be deployed by the American military in a generation. And because you so love the last word sealordlawrence I await your slagging with baited breath.
Your rubbish has been debunked by multiple members of this forum. The technology is proven as is shown by the numerable successful tests.:rolleyes:
Silly troll.
sealordlawrenceThe RAF was created for a reason, and service infighting aside, its role as an independent service is as valid today as it was 90 years ago. You may disagree, and I don’t have a problem with that.
And that reasoning was flawed and it has resulted in a force that is wasteful and has rarely been properly equipped for the roles it actually has to undertake. This is proven by your inability to provide a single viable argument to defend the organisation.
sealordlawrenceSecond the motion on this one.
I understand philosophical differences between people when it comes to the need for this system, the threat assessment and whether the deployment will or will not help the US become safer.
But I do not understand how people on either side of this contentions issue would be against adequate testing of exceedingly expensive & technologically challenging kit. Putting aside everything else, without proper testing how can the American taxpayer be able to understand if they are being sold a bill of goods by an unscrupulous contractor or not? It has certainly happened before and the testing regime is there to at least provide some oversight to the work of the contractors. I would submit that right now every other argument for and against this deployment is moot until the testing issue is addressed.
Because you have yet to make any reasonable suggestion why a relatively minor change to already proven technology will fail. All you have is your own repeatedly debunked nonsense.
sealordlawrenceThe sources do not contradict each other. One says an agreement was signed the other says delivery beginning soon.
RIA Novosti is usually a very reliant source. And we had an article on a news paper here today saying how the S-300 delivery will act as a deterrent, from the same source.
Except exactly the same reports have been recycled for years now and no S-300’s have appeared in Tehran. The same reports can be found in RIA Novosti over five years ago.
sealordlawrence“This is not 1988. Get over the all the fantasy wannabe wars, they are not going to happen.”
I bet the people in Georgia thought that last year.
The Georgians started the war in one of the greatest acts of foreign and military policy stupidity the world has ever seen. thus as an example it is as ridiculous as one can get.
Look at how many conflicts there have been on Russia’s borders and Eastern Europe since the end of the coldwar.
Most of which have now been resolved without any great military effort or are of the sort about which the UK is unlikely to decide to intervene.
How long can I sit here being heated by Russian gas, and typing on a Chinese computer and fueling my car with middle east oil.
Makes me laugh, people in the west expect a good quality of life, all of it from imports and at the expense of exploitation in places like China. What happens when the average Chinaman expects the same quality of life?
Ignoring you racist remark:mad: He gets it, I advise you pull your racist head out of your racist **** and got to any coastal chinese city (and for that matter increasingly the inland ones as well) to see that.
The UK is surrounded by water. It lives off imports, that get here everyday on ships – the UK could never sustain it’s 60 million people by itself.
And? What out there is threateing those imports?
The RN should have 6 carriers, yet alone 2.
Yeah thats right, and the UK should also have a million man army and a thousand combat aircraft. The UK should definately destroy its own economy to be prepared for your fantasy threats.
I also demand that you immediately retract and apologise for your racist remark.
sealordlawrenceSince the political idea resulting in the famous decision from 1966 that the Royal Navy doesn’t need attack carriers, only ASW carriers to fight Soviet subs in the North Atlantic, the Royal Navy has used their carriers in an attack “power projection” role on at least a dozen occasions but has never used them in the role which those awfully nice gentlemen in suits wanted them to.
Who knows what a day may bring forth.
In time of peace, prepare for war.
Virtually all post cold war and the carriers have long since been adapted to undertake such a role. Compare Ark Royal now to how she was configured in 1988 for that. When the foreign policy situation changes doctrine changes and when they change procurement changes.
sealordlawrenceIf Argentina is no threat, why bother with the flight of Tornado F3s? If they were not there, what would Argentina do? Invade again? Or just leave it alone?
Flag waving and internal UK politics. The argentine armed forces are a mess.
The people of Argentina probably still think the Maldives should be part of Argentina. The people of the Falklands want to remain part of the UK. As long as this tension is there, you can’t rule out the possibilty of another conflict, no matter what the state of Argentina’s armed forces – what happens if they have backing and support from another country?
It does not matter what they want if they can not do anything about it.
Also unrelated to the Falklands, How long can the nuclear stalemate exist? How is it the “nuclear 5” dictate who can have and who can not have nuclear weapons? As time goes by, the ability to aquire nuclear weapons will become simplier. I think tensions is eastern europe could quickly turn into war. What happens if Russia spreads it’s influence towards the West.
There is not going to be a war with Russia, if there is it will either go nuclear in which case everyone dies or it will stay conventional and there will be little left of the Russian Army by the time it makes it to the German border let alone the English channel. This is not 1988. Get over the all the fantasy wannabe wars, they are not going to happen.
sealordlawrenceBut the realities are always different to the perceived perception – it could well just become another “push” factor. Armed forces retention is bad enough as it is (although the current credit crunch is probably helping), without messing people about even further, telling people to ditch the customs, traditions and (relative) stability they value in their service, and asking them to adopt those of a service they didn’t particularly want to join the the first place.
People join the Armed Forces to be messed about, thats why they travel all over the world and switch bases on biannual basis.:rolleyes:
And the phrase ‘perceived perception’ is poor English. You were obviously using it in an attempt to try and suggest that you have some sort of background knowledge that I lack but as you know absolutely nothing about me I would advise you against that course in the strongest possible terms.
As I said, each of the services has its own ways of working, and the reality is a lot of people wouldn’t want to make the change, and when the opportunity arose, may well vote with their feet.
And? Again if you wish to join an organisation just to cling to it irrelevant of its practicality then become either a politician or a priest. Trying to avoid upsetting a minority that have the wrong mindset for being in the military anyway is no reason not to improve a force structure. Anyway I would hope under my suggestion that people would lose their jobs anyway as part of a general streamlining.
sealordlawrenceAs an aside, one also has to consider the retention rates amongst personnel should changes occur. If you “disbanded the RAF”, I suspect half the people would be out the door before you could say Army! Even transferring some elements of forces would be disastrous IMO. Three separate forces, well separated in their ways of operating and lifestyle.
Not at all. I have already addressed this, service in the Armed Forces is about loyalty to state and the sense of duty and comradeship. If someone states they will leave the armed forces because a decision is taken to create a more rational force structure it suggests that they do not have the correct mindset to be a soldier, sailor or airmen in the first place. If you wish to join an institution and then cling to it irrelevant of its practicality then become a politician.
sealordlawrenceIndeed if manpower isn’t a deciding issue, there’s nothing wrong with a perfectly serviceable steam powered ship. India is in a different position than a Western navy and can afford the additional manning. Moreover, the Indians have maintained experience with steam propulsion and were still completing steam powered frigates in the 90s.
So an Austin-class is hardly out of place in Indian service…..although I think it is likely that a new built replacement will be procured at some point.
Steam is not just manpower intensive, it is more unreliable and thus reduces overall ship availability. The procurement of steam frigates in the 90s was part of a desire to procure local vessels, the end result was ships whose design origins lay in the 1950s. However Indian procurement is now moving headlong towards Diesel, and Gas Turbine Propulsion combined with Integrated Platform Management Systems.
Sign In
