Missile Defenders Blast Critics After Interceptor Attack
-
By Nathan Hodge
- May 18, 2010 |
- 11:24 am |
- Categories: Info War
The Missile Defense Agency, the Pentagon directorate charged with developing anti-missile technology, might want to consider a new line of defense: Intercepting articles by critic Theodore Postol before they land in reporters’ inboxes.
Postol’s record as a missile-defense skeptic is well established: The MIT professor famously — and correctly — questioned the Army’s claims about the effectiveness of the Patriot air defense system, and he’s punched holes in a lot of assumptions about how things like Ground-based Midcourse Defense would work. Now he and a colleague are taking aim at the Standard Missile-3 (SM-3), the centerpiece of the Obama administration’s revamped missile defense plan.
Last week, Postol and George Lewis, a physicist who is the associate director of the Peace Studies program at Cornell, published a piece in Arms Control Today that questioned the effectiveness and the flight-test record of the SM-3. The pair suggesting that an adversary could easily thwart the interceptor with some simple countermeasures. The critique was picked up by reporters (including my wife) last week, but when the New York Times wrote it up today, it ended up as the top story in the Early Bird, the Pentagon’s clipping service. Ouch!
Richard Lehner, MDA’s chief spokesman, has now responded with a lengthy blog post that attempts to rebut Postol and Lewis. The main thrust of the argument? The physicists don’t know what we know. “Postol and Lewis apparently based their assessment on publicly released photos gleaned from a sensor mounted aboard the SM-3 and postulated what they perceived to be the interceptor’s impact point although they had no access to classified telemetry data showing the complete destruction of the target missiles, or subsequent sensor views of the intercept that were not publicly released so as not to reveal to potential adversaries exactly where the target missile was struck,” he wrote.
Lehner also pointed to the system’s most famous success: the use of a modified SM-3 system to shoot down a malfunctioning U.S. satellite.
Timing is everything, however. Back when the administration of George W. Bush was trying to sell a scheme to station missile-defense interceptors in Europe, Postol issued a technical critique that suggested that the system could be used to knock down Russian missiles. MDA scrambled to rebut the physicists’ claims. But the plan was eventually tabled. This latest article comes as the Obama administration rejiggers the whole approach to missile defense. MDA’s main focus is now on blocking short- and medium-range ballistic missiles, and it is pouring more money into SM-3 as well as the Army’s Terminal High Altitude Area Defense.
It’s worth pointing out here that Postol is not categorically opposed to missile defense. Last year, he proposed putting missile-defense interceptors on long-range, stealthy drones as part of a “boost-phase” defense.
[PHOTO: U.S. Navy]
See Also:
With short range missiles with conventional warheads knocking them off target should be good enough for most missions. With nukes it could damage the warhead enough so that it will not detonate.
Prefect probably not. Good enough maybe. Better than nothing yes.
If you really want to be sure there are only two solutions.
1. Use a much bigger missile with a big warhead.
2. Use a nuclear warhead.
If you hit the missile and blow up a big fragmentation warhead you have a better chance of taking out the missile.
A nuke if you can use it will do an even better job.
Nathan that is not exactly right: while the pair did suggest that “an adversary could easily thwart the interceptor with some simple countermeasures.”
That is old hat — everyone knows the system can be tricked by decoys and countermeasures. Nothing new there
What is important in Postol and Lewis new piece is what your wife said:
“To support their conclusions, the authors analyzed publicly released photos of the tests, which they say shows that the interceptor may not have hit the warhead where it was intended.”
If the (nonexplosive) interceptor hits the rocket body it goes thru it like a bullet goes thru a soda can — rocket bodies HAVE to be as light as possible, making them quite flimsy, except in near-uniform compression.
That is why SM3 does not work — it does not hit the warhead. Unless it gets lucky.
I think that instead of shutting the whole program down, the opponents should argue for making it more effective and efficient.
If what sir_mixxalot is true, then we can use a fragmentation warhead atop an SM-3 missile, spraying the intercepted missile with shrapnel to disable the warhead.
Anyway, even if the warhead is not destroyed, a hit from kill vehicle will be enough to reduce the accuracy of the warhead, so that it misses it’s target.
There is also one thing to remember – the missile defense is not supposed to deal with a massive spray of thousands of warheads. That is simply too expensive and the proper way of defense from such an attack is to ensure, that offender will also be sprayed with thousands of nuclear warheads. That strategy worked well in the Cold War, and so far, we are all alive.
The problem is not Russia. Russians want to live and won’t take the risk of a retaliatory strike. The problem are some nut jobs who get hold on few missiles and decide to attack the US even if they will be wiped our later. Those people do not follow western, or Russian’s logic, they have their own way. If they are OK with small scale suicide bombing, they will be OK with a large scale suicide bombing (suicide by retaliatory strike).
So what do we do, if retaliatory strike won’t stop them? Well, have to shoot down their missiles. There is no other way around and no matter what it takes, we must shoot down offending missiles. It is technically doable. The warheads are moving only at Ma<23 and they can be tracked. Sooner or later, they must reenter the atmosphere and heat up. As soon as they heat up, they can be detected. At this stage, decoys won’t be an issue, because something that heats up less on reentry i.e. is lighter, must be a decoy. A full weight decoy will cost as much to launch as a full live warhead, so it will probably be a live warhead.
The only problem is chaff and decoys before reentry, but advanced sensors can recognize chaff. Decoys perfectly simulating a warhead will again reduce the missile payload.
I realize, that someone might say that at this point SM-3 does not shoot down warhead which are already reentering, but that does not mean that it can not be improved to do that later.
To summarize, if someone says that the missile defense system can not cope with some king of threat, that does not mean that we should shut down the whose program. That mean that we shall improve the system, so that it will be able to cope with the threat.
Stoffer,
I am not sure it can ever be made foolproof enough to give us a real level of comfort.
Either you are comfortable w/ an activated missile defense or you are not: if you are not what is the point? If you are — well, you shouldn’t be — it may be dangerous to your health to thing missile defense has got us protected. There was an article in foreign policy (or foreign affairs?) magazine a while back on the subject — I’ll try to dig it out….
As the article says there is ton of information about the SM-3 test that is not released. Plus the SM-3 is constantly evolving, what was used on these past testes will not be anywhere close to what we are going to be using in the next test. The software and even mechanical parts are constantly being changed on this missile make it more capable. We have proved this, in a few short months we added an entirely new capability to the SM-3 missile in order for it to intercept the satellite. A lot of people came in during our winter break, myself included, in order to help with that task so who is to say that we can’t reconfigure this missile to do anything we need it to. So you people just regurgitating information that you read maybe you should just shut your mouths because I guarantee that you don’t have even a fraction of the information that is actually going on in the development for SM-3 because I know you haven’t been aboard an AEGIS destroyer during a test flight but I have. You people need to know that SM-3 is still in the development phase, it is not a production missile yet and it even if it was we would still be making changes to it just look at SM-2, AIM-9X and AMRAAM just to name a few of our amazing combat proven, production products. We are constantly adding new capabilities to all of our product lines and finding was to reduce production cost to all of our products. If you haven’t figured it out I’m not just some person trying to spit spin on these systems but actually a person who has spent years on the above systems and more helping with there design and I am very proud of the work I do. So tell me this even if the missile didn’t hit the warhead like people seem to think what would you rather have nothing or a interceptor hitting the rocket which would alter the trajectory of the warhead? Or let me put this in another way if your house is on fire and you are trapped inside would you rather have the fire department at least try to help you or just leave you alone and hope for the best?
I find it laughably tragic to sink $10B/yr into this. Did all these people grow up having nightmares of monsters under the bed and zombies in the closet?
It’s called diplomacy, DIPLOMACY. Just as the Pentagon joke revealed when Perry negotiated with Pyongyang in 1999. “There goes the threat!”
http://www.niemanwatchdog.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=ask_this.view&askthisid=163
Yes, this is a wonderful technical problem we can try to fix with billions of taxpayer dollars and engineers and fear-based news stories, but it’s only a statist transfer of cash into defense contractor coffers. Always was, always will be. Meanwhile, as Eisenhower mentioned, all this weaponry takes away from what the country really needs for its people & us…
Dru –
great, o knowing one, thank you for telling us all what we plebes are ignorant of — but the problem is that we ARE going to fielding these interceptors.
It is not at all clear that even the architecture is the best (ie AEGIS) or boost phase.
You are in the weeds — the problem is much MUCH bigger.
btw, because you are involved with it is a good reason to be skeptical of your opinion.
I suggest you scurry back to your lovely AEGIS ship that will not protect the US in a REAL attack…a satellite’s orbit is PRECISELY known ahead of time — it is MUCH easier to hit a sat than a ICBM.
The point is simple: BEFORE fielding and making any of this operation — test it.
So far the tests are a huge failure, ok?
Good luck next time, but I want to keep my tax dollars — go make a KV with your own damn money, not mine.
btw, Iran does not have nukes, or ICBMs.
@sir_mixalot
1. How good does it have to be to make it worth while?
Well lets say it is only 20% accurate. So with the SM3 and an attack by NK on the US the nuke San Diego, Portland, Seattle, and San Fransisco but we save LA. A terrible tragedy but how much for a few million lives?
And that is with it only being 20% accurate. Odds are that it would be more accurate. You has such strong opinions but at the same time I sense a large shortage of real data. As to your comment about what happens when it hits the body of missile the body will act as fragments and can actually be an effective kill system.
Also it will without a doubt impart a tumble to what structure is left which is likely to cause an in flight breakup or at least enough damage to cause a malfunction in a nuclear weapon.
Also what everybody seems to be forgetting is that if the SM-3 is engagingly a missile in the terminal stage must modern missiles separate the warhead from the missile to present a faster, smaller target and to gain range. With almost any medium range missile all that will be in the terminal stage will be the warhead. Only primitive short range missile like the Scud keep the warhead attached to the missile body.
So, the Peace institute says that missle defense is both ineffective and destabilizing? Can’t be both. It can only be destabilizing if it is effective. Peace? Really, you mean surrender. Just like they were during the cold war, now they just want to surrender to Iran.
No twatcdr,
if Iran wants to blow up LA, NYC etc. they will sail the nuke over in a boat.
Nukes on ICBMs are for deterrence. Your warfighting scenario is implausible.
Yes Federale: they CAN be both ineffective (i.e. low probability of hit, say 30% effective) and destabilising: since it forces China and Russia to go X+ 0.3 X of their stockpile to compensate.
Given that China and Russia would err on the side of caution, they would be smart to go to 2X.
Is this really bloody complicated?
Stop the douchebaggery. Please.
Stop stealing money from taxpayers for stupid games.
@Sir_mixxalot: You know I as going to do some big drawn out argument to you oh so witty replay but it’s obvious it doesn’t matter. You say my “opinion” should be called into to question so what do you think I view your opinions as. You can barely comprehend what you read so I think it might be worthless to say much back to you. You say we should test this stuff but my comment and the above article all say we are in the testing phase, which we do for all projects. My other point was that I have been to the tests and they haven’t been failures, we have had some but that is expected with anything that is being developed. Also to say that hitting a sat is different then hitting a missile, wow another big insight on your part! Seriously my comment about the sat shoot down was to highlight that in a few short months we altered the capabilities of this missile in order to allow it to do something it was not intended to do. The point was that the missile is constantly changing that was my main point and you fail completely to even pick that up. In my entire response I never said that SM-3 is the end all solution, it’s not but it’s good to know that there is things and people trying to protect us even if it does mean saving people like you. Lastly stop the complaining about your tax dollars they are my tax dollars too! Saying that goes to show you know nothing about the way the world works. So try to follow this, our government spends our tax dollars to develop weapons then they turn around and sell those weapons to foreign governments in return for billions of dollars. The US government is one of the largest exporter of military technology and to think that they lose money on that is just plain dumb, our tax dollars are made back and then some. Seriously grow up, learn how to actually read, go learn some actual first hand information about a subject then come back with your own argument instead of just spewing what someone else said.
Oh, and none, I mean NONE of the systems MDA is proposing to field have been successfully tested against realistic decoys and countermeasures.
And no surprise tests. EVER.
F that.
Give me my money back!
Dru –
you will be in testing phase for the next 5-7 years according to Dr. Gilmore’s testimony before the senate.
Get a clue.
Yeah DRU, you are right I don’t know crap.
But Dr. Gilmore does know his shit:
http://armed-services.senate.gov/statemnt/2010/04%20April/Gilmore%2004-20-10.pdf
“Realistic BMDS testing is difficult. Assessing the
capability of each phase of the PAA will require some of the most complex testing
ever attempted by the Department of Defense. The majority of the testing is
planned to be conducted on the Pacific test ranges. The MDA will be challenged
to replicate realistic radar acquisition and intercept geometries in the Pacific. In
addition, testing of the command and control linkages and systems to be used for
11
the first phase of European missile defense will have to be conducted using ground
testing in the theater and surrogate testing elsewhere concurrent with development
and implementation. Executing the first operationally-realistic combined test of
Aegis BMD, THAAD, and Patriot in 2012 will tax MDA’s capabilities for test
planning and execution. In particular, performing the planning and marshalling
the resources necessary to handle the safety requirements associated with what
could be as many as ten missiles—both targets and interceptors—in flight nearly
simultaneously will be a substantial challenge, as will executing the actual test.
*********
Conclusion.
The ability to conduct comprehensive and objective assessments of BMDS
capability is still a number of years away. If the MDA can execute the revised IMTP, the data needed to validate models and perform quantitative assessments of BMDS performance will become available. However, it will take as many as five to seven years to collect those data.
This concludes my remarks and I welcome your questions.”
DRU, Come back after 5-7 years, and we will talk.
Stop selling crap to foreigners with “Made in USA” painted on it — its embarrassing.
Really.
Goldman Sachs was bad enough we don’t need MDA.
“Back when the administration of George W. Bush was trying to sell a scheme to station missile-defense interceptors in Europe, Postol issued a technical critique that suggested that the system could be used to knock down Russian missiles”
.
Sooo… Postol argues that the missiles *will* work against the Russians, but *won’t* work against anyone else?
.
Huh??
What will missile defense do against a nuke in a boat?
Why would Iran want to tell us the return address of its nuke? (If and when it ever makes ICBMs and if and when it ever makes nukes……….)
Douchebaggery, my friends, DOUCHEBAGGERY!
Yes daveinva,
they CAN be both ineffective against Iran (i.e. low probability of hit, say 30% effective) and destabilising with respect to Russia: since it forces China and Russia to go X+ 0.3 X of their stockpile to compensate.
Given that China and Russia would err on the side of caution, they would be smart to go to 2X.
The Bush system COULD hit Russian ICBMs, unlike what Bushies claimed — that was the point Nathan is making. Bushies said — dont worry Russia, these little interceptors CANNOT be used against your stockpile….but they were wrong: they COULD. Not that they would be 100% effective at it.
Is this really bloody complicated?
Postol is so full of shit. Do you realize the methodology of his “analysis”? Taking the final (public, unclassified) frame of SM-3 intercept video … and putting a red “x” in the center of the photo. If the “x” isn’t on the warhead, then Postol says it’s a “miss.” WTF? Is he a blogger or something?
***
And let’s not even get to the cherry-picking of tests he does. Postol says not one word about all the successful SM-3 tests against separating targets. Indeed, he classifies the VERY FIRST THREE tests as “misses” when the only goal was to hit the freakin missile. More here: http://is.gd/cf16v
“The Bush system COULD hit Russian ICBMs”
I thought you said it didn’t work.
@Sir_mixxalot: at least you finally admit you don’t know anything and that is the first step. Next you need to stop just repeating what one guy is saying. I read the entire thing that you linked most of talked about the success of the interceptors, the failures were the targets. This is only an assessment of one man, there are a number of other people similar to his position that will tell you that it will take less time and some might say more, again that is there assessment of the data they have. I’m positive in 5-7 years we will still be testing SM-3 but we will also be testing SM-2, SM-6, AMRAAM, AIM-9X….. and those missiles listed are already in production! Testing is never finished because we never stop adding capabilities to our missiles. We constantly are trying to improve them, make them last longer and find more cost effective ways to build them. ICBM’s are not the biggest threat anyways, nuclear armed cruise missiles will pose a bigger threat and guess what has the capabilities to stop those, SM-2, SM-3, SM-6…. So just like lwatcdr said even if there was only a 20% chance that one of these incoming threats was taken down, wouldn’t you want those odds? I know I would because personally I like the whole being alive thing. Your argument is you would rather have some of “your” tax money going somewhere else and just die later because even you admit that there chance of threat coming from Iran. Also if you are so worried about your tax money not going to things that our country needs, see just how much debt our government would be in if they were not exporting are tech to our allies. Now please pack your bags and move to some other country because for as much as you don’t like the USA, trust me, we don’t like you either!
How sure are we of the interceptor going THROUGH the rocket body?
Given the velocities of the two objects, it seems the collision would produce some significant force. Exceeding what could be done with a fragmenting warhead.
I’ll defer to someone with a better background in physics though.
Interesting – the ship bears the message ‘Don’t give up the ship’. This vessel is obviously not The Liberty.
There is a little problem that people have forgotten, we can quite using the SM-3 for ABM defense right now it is still the primary long range surface to air missile in the USN. In addition at least three other countries have bought it and will use it for ABM defense along with its primary mission.
Foo