3 ms·
> At the time they were doing things like including a transmitter with the missile Yes. The included a transmitter in the missile so they could conduct separat
by chipsa 4y ago
> At the time they were doing things like including a transmitter with the missile
Yes. The included a transmitter in the missile so they could conduct separate tests for the radar versus the interceptor. These are expensive tests. We don't want to conduct it, and find it failed because the radar was bad, when everything else went well. So long as the radar continues to give data that matches the transmitter in the target, it's still a good test of the radar, however.
- eesmith 4y agoThe issue, as I recall, was how "success" was promoted as if it were against an realistic target, when it wasn't. At this point it's been too long, and I can no longer find my source material. I did find https://web.mit.edu/stgs/pdfs/White_Paper_Associated_With_May_2010_Arms_Control_Today_Article.pdf https://web.mit.edu/stgs/pdfs/White_Paper_Associated_With_Ma... , pointing out various flaws in the testing procedures, such as: 1) counting a "kill" as hitting the rocket, when it should be hitting the warhead. ("If the kill vehicle instead hits the body of the rocket, it will tend to shatter and pass through the rocket body much like a bullet hitting a thin-walled drinking glass or an empty soda can, leaving the warhead undamaged and still falling towards its target") 2) Ineffective/non-realistic decoys ("Following these experiments, the Missile Defense Agency removed all the decoys that it determined could defeat the missile defense from all follow-on experiments")