37 ms·
US Navy destroyer shoots down an ICBM in milestone test
- pqoek 6y agoReading the book Rage at the moment, it seems like a lot of governments are scared of a nuclear war because of N Korea
- TylerE 6y agoI'm curious...has a true ICBM _ever_ been fired under actual combat conditions? (Not counting mid-range stuff like the Scud)
- pqoek 6y agonope
- iaw 6y agoIf you take Command and Control[0] to be an authoritative source, then no I don't believe so. We've come close to accidentally launching on both sides but no combat deployment has occurred, if it did it would likely be the end of our current civilization. [0] https://www.amazon.com/Command-Control-Damascus-Accident-Illusion/dp/0143125788 https://www.amazon.com/Command-Control-Damascus-Accident-Ill...
- chiph 6y agoNo. The Soviets were pretty much oriented towards "Launch on Warning" in the 80's so the US made sure to notify them for tests. And then only fired from places like Vandenberg on the coast of California. Any launch from a silo out in the middle of Kansas would be a war launch (or a really really unfortunate accident.) There have also been test firings from missile subs. But again, lots of notification, and done from a latitude/longitude that made it obvious it was a test.
- dboreham 6y agoYes-ish. IRBM not an ICBM: https://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/the-only-full-scale-test-of-a-nuclear-missile-was-57-ye-1834564615 https://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/the-only-full-scale-test-o...
- stevecalifornia 6y agoTwice a year an active ICBM is picked at random from the mid-west, the nuclear warhead is removed, and the rocket is taken to VAFB where it is launched at Kwaj. The entire purpose of this very common event is to make sure that ICBM's work as expected. I live in the area and am woken up by these tests. If you live on the West Coast, you can see them. You can also Youtube them (VAFB missle test).
- fuoqi 6y agoI am not sure that you mean by "actual combat conditions", but Russia quite regularly tests its ICBMs by launching them to the Kura test range [0] in Kamchatka. Tests usually have distance of 5-6 thousand kilometers and often include tests of MIRVs [1] with mass-equivalents of nuclear warheads. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kura_Missile_Test_Range https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kura_Missile_Test_Range [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple_independently_targetable_reentry_vehicle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple_independently_targeta...
- boomboomsubban 6y agoSo 1/6 success rate under optimal conditions where you are prepared for an ICMB. Seems worth spending the entire GDP of Hawaii on.
- alexpotato 6y agoWith a 1/6 chance of success, you can deploy multiple destroyers with ICMB intercept capabilities to defend a key target and get much better odds. e.g. Having just three raises your odds to 50/50. (1-((1-1/6)^3) = .51 That essentially halves your opponents nuclear strike capability (at least for that target).
- alacritas0 6y agoYour math is off. The actual chance assuming they're each independent is 42.1%. I'm usure how much the assumption they're independent holds up in this case.
- SEJeff 6y agoModern nuclear missiles (from the US, Russia, and China at least) are all MIRV[1] designs. Each missile might contain, as an example, 10 independent micro-warheads each capable of mass casualties. That means for every single offensive missile fired, the defender has to be 100% effective at countering 10 separate threats. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple_independently_targetable_reentry_vehicle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple_independently_targeta...
- inglor_cz 6y agoThis calculation only holds if the failures are random, not if the missiles exploit some weakness in the system to get through.
- Raphmedia 6y agoIt's not as if they shot 6 missiles at once and it only caught one. They did 6 tests, likely tuning the system every time and the current configuration is able to catch shoot down the missile.
- staunch 6y agoThe progress of human civilization may rely on the U.S. nuclear triad being invulnerable to a sneak attack. The problem is that the triad has been left to rot. The ground-based ICBMs haven't been upgraded in decades and probably don't work well. The subs were supposed to be replaced but were not and there aren't that many of them at sea at any given time. And the bomber fleet is out-of-date as well and way overdue for an upgrade. It's questionable whether or not it cannot be defeated with some kind of sneaky first strike. Which leaves room for an adversary to find (or think they found) an opening. This could end up being the biggest mistake in history. A good option seems to be to pay SpaceX to create a fourth prong of floating platform ICBMs in the ocean, or whatever Musk & co can come up with. Of course the U.S. gov should have full command of it. SpaceX could also work on a redundant anti-North Korea missile defense system. I don't think there's much reason to work on a missile defense system against the major powers, since a solid M.A.D. system makes an attack from them highly unlikely. SpaceX should put the Assured back in Mutually Assured Destruction. And they can use the profits from these projects to make life multi-planetary, which would provide another level of insurance for humanity.
- ETHisso2017 6y ago> The progress of human civilization may rely on the U.S. nuclear triad being invulnerable to a sneak attack. Please don't use this as a forum for nationalistic flamebait
- laverya 6y agoHow about this, then - the progress of human civilization relies on MAD being solid for all involved. The US is one of the groups involved, and thus human civilization relies on the US nuclear triad being taken seriously.
- La1n 6y ago>relies on MAD being solid for all involved And MAD would not work if the US would be "invulnerable" to an attack.
- 6y ago
- hikerclimb 6y agoHopefully this doesn’t work...
- dewlinedew2 6y agoShould we dismantle the DEW Line or is it still needed?
- etimberg 6y agoThe DEW line has been partially gone for a while.[0] I do recall driving to visit my grandparents in northern Ontario in the 90s and we'd pass one of the old Pinetree Line radar stations. You could see it off on a hill from the highway. I think [1] was it and I think it's finally been cleaned up. 0. https://en.wikipedia.org https://en.wikipedia.org /wiki/Distant_Early_Warning_Line#Deactivation_and_clean-up 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CFS_Ramore https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CFS_Ramore
- tomatotomato37 6y agoIs a launch from the marshall islands to hawaii really representative of a ICBM strike? Seems to be more similar to a IRBM strike, which is going to have a different flight arc and re-entry speed than an ICBM that actually has to build up enough energy to arc from a continent away.
- jasonwatkinspdx 6y agoIt wasn't from Marshall islands at Hawaii as the target. The simulated target was the west coast, with it flying out roughly near Hawaii. There's a open source intelligence blog that confirmed this by noting where the navigation warning areas were announced during the test: https://sattrackcam.blogspot.com/2020/11/sm-3-block-iia-missile-defense-test-ftm.html https://sattrackcam.blogspot.com/2020/11/sm-3-block-iia-miss...
- vmh1928 6y agoGreat for sub-orbital ICBMs. Now we just need something for the hypersonic cruise missiles Russia and China are fielding.
- trhway 6y agothere is no good chances to stop Russia's, China's or US' missiles - there are just too many of them, so any percentage getting through makes the whole effort meaningless. NK's and Iran's (and others to join the club in the near future) missiles are the ones which one can do something about - until the time of course when those countries get to the numbers where the missile defense would stop making sense again.
- dirtyid 6y agoChinese arsenal is only estimated at around 300 (soon to be doubled). 68 DDGs have 90 VLS tubes each, so theoretical limit of 6120 shots, practically much less. But I think this development, if also proven on more realistic conditions (midphase decoys etc) would spurn China to further ramp up nuclearization.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- PostThisTooFast 6y agoExactly. This seems like another huge waste of time and especially money.
- herendin2 6y agoContext: China very recently claimed to have struck a ship at sea over a thousand miles away with an ICBM fired from the interior of China. That's an obvious threat to US carrier group-based force projection So this demonstration looks likely a response to that, not specifically about WMD threats this time Probably both these tests were under ideal conditions, as usual, but they're about sending a message as much as anything practical
- PostThisTooFast 6y agoYeah, these things always seem to be fragile, impractical demonstrations of how much money we can waste on overcomplicated technology that can be easily circumvented by doing basic things like... zigzagging.
- dirtyid 6y agoThis test (FTM-44) was a long planned test that got pushed back several times, congress had to mandate it to occur before end of 2020. Was scheduled for Q3 back in Feb [0]. But timing certainly serendipitous in response to Chinese tests. [0] https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2020/02/sm-3-block-iia-set-for-first-ever-icbm-intercept-test/ https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2020/02/sm-3-block-iia-...
- nitrobeast 6y agoI think the context in the article is more plausible i.e. defending Hawaii from NK. Anti ship missles are not ICBM.
- herendin2 6y agoThe Chinese test was very specifically with extremely long range (2500 miles) ballistic missiles, not conventional anti-ship missiles https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/37662/chinese-long-range-ballistic-missiles-struck-moving-ship-in-south-china-sea-report https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/37662/chinese-long-ran...
- DenverCode 6y agoDuring my time in the Navy, there was a paper being passed around the officers concerning removing aircraft carriers from the fleet. Reason being that a single shot to the flight deck would render them useless in the aspect of air warfare and defense.
- exabrial 6y agoThey admit it was a the edge of the engagement envelope which I think is correct not to exaggerate the capabilities. I actually find this stuff interesting. There is a proposed ER (extended range) upgrade for landed based THAAD batteries, and I believe I saw a booster upgrade for sm3 too
- edgyquant 6y ago>I actually find this stuff interesting. Imo missile defense is the only thing that ranks higher than stuxnet in terms of badass/sexiest programs one can write.
- zozin 6y agoThe F35 is just a stealth movable radar and the Navy is just transport for vertical launch cells that are used to shoot offensive missiles like the Tomahawk and defensive missiles like the referenced SM-3. The future of warfare is crazy. If war ever breaks out in the Pacific you’ll probably have the combatants launch all of their missiles at each other in the initial days of the fight and whoever has ships/planes/missiles remaining at the end “wins”.
- cmurf 6y agoThis is bureaucratic inertia. It starts with Reagan's SDI program, repackaged by each of the Bush's. It's like a booger we just can't flick off. So they keep spending money without any real idea of how it fits into a deterrence policy. It isn't going to alter the strategy of an all out attack by China. And it won't alter the outcome. It's nonsensical to consider this worth the money without protecting specific targets. It's not good enough to just randomly save a few cities. If this is about DPRK, it's an announcement in advance that your diplomatic strategy has a decent chance of failing. If this is about giving a president defensive options, it's not going to do that because they will just say "these are really bad odds" and go for a preventative/preemptive strike instead. They know that too so you've just invited your adversary into a surprise first attack scenario as possibly their best chance. It's a nonsense program, and even more ridiculous to tweet about it.
- onepointsixC 6y agoYou seem to be very confidence in the lack of viability of ballistic missile defense in an age when American forces are threatened by hundreds of Chinese conventional ballistic missiles.
- scandox 6y agoCan we change headline to prefix "In milestone test...' I nearly dropped my coffee.
- binarycodedhex 6y agoBTW, Whatever happened to DARPA's EXACTO?
- tibbydudeza 6y agoIs nuclear suitcase bombs still a thing ???. I recall the Soviets threatening to place pre-positioned bombs on US soil if Reagan ever deployed the "Star Wars" missile defense shield which make their response and a first strike option way more viable for an American leader. MAD has worked well so for a very good reason.
- openasocket 6y agoThe US had their own version of this in the 1960s: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_Atomic_Demolition_Munition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_Atomic_Demolition_Muni...
- pseudolus 6y agoThe article is a little thin on the details of the test. Is anyone aware as to how these tests are performed? Is the tracking station informed that a missile will be inbound from a particular area at a particular time and day or is there some randomness injected into the scenario to mimic real life?
- mensetmanusman 6y agoDoes anyone seriously believe this would work in a war. To me this is the military’s Mac Pro: “look general public, we are awesome, here is something no one can afford, etc.” Meanwhile leaders know the future of warfare is decentralized swarms of force units that converge when needed. E.g. this technology is cheap using open cv and mass manufacturing: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=stHLrBs-_iE https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=stHLrBs-_iE
- AtlasBarfed 6y agoYes I remember many a canned peashoot demonstration for missile interception defense projects. And really I don't want to waste my time trying to parse if this is yet another bait and switch to keep the funding rolling. I'm not saying it's not possible, but our surface navy is a bunch of sitting ducks to a semi-modern state military like China. Missile guidance can seemingly be adapted in so many ways to bypass point defenses, from raw speed, pop and drop, decoys, swarms, and other techniques. Finally, I bet cruise missile tech can be adapted quickly to drop torpedo warheads for the "last mile" if the aerial point defense is that effective and a 40-50mph ship actually is that hard for guidance to target. RE: swarms, I still remember the... was it the Millenium war exercise where a general used swarms to defeat the "good guys" and they basically stopped the exercise and forced them to restart and not use swarms? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennium_Challenge_2002 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennium_Challenge_2002
- lm28469 6y agoYou gotta keep the military industrial complex running, there is a lot of people making a lot of money from it. Not much changed since the end of ww2, the US is constantly on the look for enemies to keep the machine running, it's all a spectacle. They lost Vietnam and Afghanistan fighting literal farmers equipped with soviet era guns, what do you think will happen if they ever go against China and it ends up in an ICBM war, can they stop one ? ten ? fifty ?
- jsilence 6y agoFinally! Those intercontinental missile were really killing me! /sarcasm World is burning and hundreds of thousands are dying from a pandemic. Pretty sure those ressourses could easily be spent in a much more beneficial way.
- onion2k 6y agoIf you're at the point of mounting a weapon on a ship and testing it the majority of the resources were spent a long time ago.
- jsilence 6y agoDoes not make it better. If we had started to allocate more funds to solving real problems instead of develipong more weapons that are hopefully nerver going to be use, the world would be better off.
- JoeAltmaier 6y agoSo, we're safe against cities attacked by enemies! Unless they use UPS and a biological agent, or something. Or get sick and fly here for legitimate business reasons. Or mail the parts for a missile to a bungalow in Burbank and put it together there.
- minikites 6y agoThe purpose of a system is what it does; the purpose of the military industrial complex is to funnel government funds into the hands of large private firms. Actual military/defense outcomes are secondary.
- snth 6y agoSurely defense against one vector is progress.
- JoeAltmaier 6y agoThe modern threat is nothing like the threats of the past. These old solutions are expensive and questionable.
- snth 6y agoDo you not think ICBMs are a current threat?
- throwaway894345 6y agoTo the extent that they're "an outdated threat", it's precisely because of systems like Aegis.
- JoeAltmaier 6y agoCount on your fingers how many such threats there are. And they can largely be dealt with diplomatically. The number of potential human threats is nearly uncountable. And they are often irrational, unpredictable and invisible. The new threat. I know where I'd put my money.
- caycep 6y agoGeopolitical considerations aside, how is tech development on big projects like AEGIS (or, the other counterexample is how the air forces develop things like the JSF systems electronics, airborne command and control systems/AWACS, etc). It would seem just isolating on the problems needing to be solved that this would be as intriguing as, say, Space X developing autonomously landing first stage rocket boosters and drone ships...but I'd imagine the development process and culture to be dramatically different.
- blackrock 6y agoIs it possible to launch two ICBM missiles simultaneously, where both are side by side, so that it looks like only one missile on radar. Or three missiles. Then, the United States launches one missile defense to knock out one ICBM, but only to discover that there was another hidden missile flying next to it. Boom. Secondary missile hits its target. Mission Accomplished. Also, most ICBM are MIRV. So this defense missile must hit the ICBM before it splits up into 10 different warheads. Ask a friend: ICBM physicist