Did we shoot down Kim Jong Il's missile, when will we read about it in the NYT?

[stevepaa]

They have not launched enough to find all the bugs: it really is rocket science. Some poor solder joint vibrated loose, or a large wire was too close to another in a connector and arced. All sorts of stuff happens even with all the engineering and quality control in the US. To expect NK to have success on these missiles is unrealistic. I'm sure some program manger over there has gotten a new job by now. The failure was a loss of face.

[ronin]

so why then all the hubbub about the Bush admin not being in an uproar?

[techweenie]

AFAIK, we've never been able to shoot down an ICBM in simulations without 'cheating.'

It's theoretically possible, and we've thrown 20+ years and billions at it, but in all practicality, it's a long shot.

We have enough trouble shooting down the descendents of the German V2 -- Scuds. It's still not clear if the Patriot missiles ever hit one.

If NK sent an ICBM toward Hawaii, we would be justified in shooting it down.

If we succeeded, the Bush administration would (and should) make a huge deal out of it. If we failed, the loss of 'face' with NK would be too big a price.

So the only alternative, should the taep o dong (gotta love the name) be fired toward any US territory would be to attempt to intercept it in secret and reveal the attempt only if it were successful (not that anyone could prove it one way or another).

[ChemMan]

Anyone watch The Daily Show's "coverage"f this missile?
Mike

[techweenie]

Originally posted by Michael Pillay
Anyone watch The Daily Show's "coverage"f this missile?
Mike

Classic.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=0KRzT-smOE8&search=daily%20show%20dong

[stevepaa]

Originally posted by ronin
so why then all the hubbub about the Bush admin not being in an uproar?

actually I thought the admin overplayed this from the start.

But I think you are asking why some say the Bush admin is not doing enough to stop NK as one of the axis of evil compared to what we did to Iraq. It always seemed to me that NK is more of a threat to the US than Iraq could ever have hoped to be, but that neither them nor Iran should have been raised up in stature as part of an axis of evil.

The war on terrrorism is valid and worthwhile, but I guess there was a need by the admin to put a name to the terrorist enemy. Much easier for the public to point at and scorn than nebulous terrorists all over the world.

[sammyg2]

Tech, you are basing your statement on what you see on TV.
the patriot system was obsolete in 1991. We had much better systems to shoot down the scuds but we chose not to use them. I got that information straight from a man who helped design and test them.

The tests you refer to that have not been successful fit into one of two categories, either they are testing a new unproven system that is not part of the operational systems already deployed, or they could possibly be a charade meant to confuse and discredit foreign intelligence. Yep, it really does happen occasionally. Sometimes rig a test, but often they rig it to fail.
Suppose a certail technology is stolen by a foreign country. Maybe it is part of a new system, maybe it is an entire system. For the sake of argument we'll say the plans for a new guidance system is stolen.
We can't really get it back, so we make it look like it is worthless hoping the other government will give up on it.
I am the last person to go for the tin foil hat conspiracy stuff but sometimes................. example as follows:

I remember when the media were talking about the first published cruise missle tests. They were not sucessful.
We had a good laugh about it because we knew the cruise missles had been sucessfully tested and proven almost ten years earlier. Hell I saw one being tested and it worked slicker than owl snot.
the ones that were failing in the news were using a landscape and landmark recognition guidance system that really didn't work very well at first.
They were trying something new that didn't work, at the time I didn't understand why they would show the world a failed test but keep secret the sucessful tests. that was when it was explained to me.

The systems that came before and were working just fine were based on a primitive GPS style system that was accurate to 50 feet.
both systems underwent further development and at one time the landscape recognition system was more accurate but required a great deal of programming and recon.
By the time we had filled the skys with GPS sattelites the GPS guided cruise missles took over and the other style were deemed obsolete. Guess which system we were shotting at Badgad in the desert shield? Hint: it wasn't the good stuff.

BTW, our cruise missles are all subsonic, right?
Ummmmmmm wouldn't it be cool if we had supersonic stealth cruise missles with almost zero detectable cross section and minimal infra-red signature. Don't hear it, don't see it, can't shoot it down, boom. Supposed to be for nukes but can be used with conventional war heads.

Imagine a supersonic torpedo..............
Visualize a torpedo that goes underwater but doesn't touch the water. Imagine the polaris initial launch sequence but on a horizontal plane and an effective range of over 100 miles.
These are not secrets that the other guys don't know about, but I will get a kick out of it when they anounce this "brand new" technology in 15 years. By that time they will have something better and will be looking for a way to at least get some use from this older stuff.

If your enemies think your technology is 15 years behind, he only has to stay 10 years behind to beat you.
That means you are net 10 year ahead at all times.

[techweenie]

Originally posted by sammyg2
Tech, you are basing your statement on what you see on TV.
the patriot system was obsolete in 1991. We had much better systems to shoot down the scuds but we chose not to use them. I got that information straight from a man who helped design and test them.

Well, that's pretty credible then. I'm sure the families of soldiers killed in Scud attacks will be relieved we didn't use "the good stuff."

Honestly, your post makes no sense at all.

EDIT:
BTW, what we all saw on TV was Bush1 praising the Patriot missile builders at their factory for their incredible accuracy. Oh, and of course, se sold Patriot batteries to Israel.

[sammyg2]

My post makes no sense TO YOU.
Read it again.
The US government holds back our latest and greatest, just in case.
The patriot missle defence system was not the latest and greatest, it had been replaced by something that was.

As for the families of the soldiers?
I will pray for them but I have to say this:
soldiers are trained to fight and sometimes die. They are brave volunteers who understand that they may die while defending our country and accept that. Their families should do the same.

Not like that b!tch Sheehan who keeps running around bad mouthing the president because her son got killed in Iraq. Last I checked there is no draft. If her son got killed in Iraq and she has to blame someone, why not blame the guy who volunteered for it, her son. Nooooooo, that would make too much sense. What a nutcase.

[IROC]

Originally posted by sammyg2
The US government holds back our latest and greatest, just in case.
The patriot missle defence system was not the latest and greatest, it had been replaced by something that was.

Actually, I don't think this is totally true. The government doesn't really "hold back" anything. They might not advertise their capabilities to the average citizen, but they're using what they've got.

The Patriot system was the "latest and the greatest", but it was not initially designed to intercept missiles - it was designed to intercept aircraft IIRC.

The "latest and greatest" now is called....wait for it...the Patriot! Patriot Advanced Capability or PAC-3 to be exact. We build the seekers at our facility.

Here's a question - what is our current defense against cruise missiles?

Mike

[scottmandue]

Originally posted by stevepaa
They have not launched enough to find all the bugs: it really is rocket science. Some poor solder joint vibrated loose, or a large wire was too close to another in a connector and arced. All sorts of stuff happens even with all the engineering and quality control in the US. To expect NK to have success on these missiles is unrealistic. I'm sure some program manger over there has gotten a new job by now. The failure was a loss of face.

Let's just hope they don't get the idea to have Hyundai build the missiles.

[Seahawk]

Originally posted by IROC
Here's a question - what is our current defense against cruise missiles?

Mike

Believe it ou not, radar guided guns, in the terminal phase. Simple is better.

[IROC]

Originally posted by Seahawk
Believe it ou not, radar guided guns, in the terminal phase. Simple is better.

Well, I think the real answer is that we have no defense against them. At least according to the Army. That's the program I am working on now...

Mike

[dd74]

Originally posted by Seahawk
Believe it ou not, radar guided guns, in the terminal phase. Simple is better.

Hmmm...was it back in the '80s something like that shot down a low-flying Iranian passenger jet; or did it shoot up a cruise ship. I can't remember. The gun was on the back of a destroyer. A Phalanx, I think it was called. - I'd search it out, but it doesn't matter: we can't shoot down their missiles (no tech) and their missiles can't reach us (no tech), so it's a wash.

[wrecktech]

I have posted this before, you might want to check it out.

http://www.hedfud.com/media/displayimage.php?album=2&pos=114

[Seahawk]

Originally posted by IROC
Well, I think the real answer is that we have no defense against them. At least according to the Army. That's the program I am working on now...

Mike

The Navy has decided that the only defense is in the terminal phase. We equip all our ships for that threat.

[Seahawk]

Originally posted by dd74
Hmmm...was it back in the '80s something like that shot down a low-flying Iranian passenger jet; or did it shoot up a cruise ship. I can't remember. The gun was on the back of a destroyer. A Phalanx, I think it was called. - I'd search it out, but it doesn't matter: we can't shoot down their missiles (no tech) and their missiles can't reach us (no tech), so it's a wash.

The Iranian Airliner was shot down by an Aegis class cruiser with a surface to air missile.. Phalanx is the close in missile defense system for navy ships.

We can shot down their missiles. For goodness sake, do some homework.

[fintstone]

As I posted earlier, there is a lot out there that is not even known to folks in the business...and certainly not civilians. Many systems and capabilities are compartmented or "special access" and even people with the proper clearance are not allowed access unless they are "read into" the program. This is especially true for new capabilities or systems in R&D. The "latest and greatest" production systems are far from the newest experimental technology.

[rcecale]

Originally posted by Seahawk
...Phalanx is the close in missile defense system for navy ships.

We can shot down their missiles. For goodness sake, do some homework.

Click here.

Randy

[RoninLB]

Originally posted by sammyg2


Imagine a supersonic torpedo..............
Visualize a torpedo that goes underwater but doesn't touch the water.

when i read about 5yrs ago the Russians had the best ones. Great story of it's dynamics.