USS Lake Erie to destroy failed spy satellite

[Werner]

The USS Lake Erie has been ordered to shoot down the failed spy satellite which is scheduled to reenter the atmosphere sometime next month... this ought to be a convincing demonstration of the efficacy of the technology and the vision of Ronald Reagan, who brought this program into being over the protests of (American Liberal) scientists and politicians.

[Seasick]

Shooting down a satellite not the same as stopping an inward bound rentery vehicle. To be effective a missile defense system you need space based lasers and ball bearing guns to be effective. Any ground based system can be overwhelmed if it can't fire against missiles durring the ascent stage. Some of Bush's ABM bases are very vulnerable to attack from cruise missiles and aircraft.

I hope they get it with the first shot.

They should have concentrated on Bin Ladan and Al-Quida in Afganistan. Iran has a nuclear program mainly to yank WBush's chain. North Korea is a serious threat. Kim Sung will incure the wrath of China if he attacks their main trading partner.

[RNfanDan]

Shooting down a satellite not the same as stopping an inward bound rentery vehicle.

I can so attest--an Avis rentery vehicle with bad brakes was inbound for my trunk at a 4-way stop a few years ago, and came to rest only after causing some $ 5,800 worth of damage.

[Werner]

The SM-3 is a theatre defense weapon designed to protect a well-dispersed task group from multiple inbound missiles traveling at high-Mach from sea level to orbital altitudes.

Seasick, your thoughts may be marginally true where the Army ground-based interceptor is concerned, but the SM-3/AEgis is a proven, all aspect theatre defensive system which achieves the vision Reagan set out in March, 1983.

There are slick countermeasures which ICBMs may be able to deploy to increase their chances against an ABM system, but since the end of the Cold War we have learned how most of these were so much hot air, and it would have been simpler,cheaper and more useful to merely loft more warheads. These deceptive or other countermeasures are still out of reach for all nuclear powers but the USA in any event.

[Werner]

Shooting down a satellite not the same as stopping an inward bound rentery vehicle.

I can so attest--an Avis rentery vehicle with bad brakes was inbound for my trunk at a 4-way stop a few years ago, and came to rest only after causing some $ 5,800 worth of damage.

I suspect the red-light countermeasure you deployed was insufficient to disintegrate or deflect the inbound warhead.

[bengtsson]

Mr. Putin got the message. He started a huge modernization of Russian ICBMs. With special attention to defeating the ABM systems. This is a quite simple and easy task. Much cheaper to defeat and ABM system than to create an ABM system. This also has encouraged Russia to plan and develop effective first strike capabilities against ABM radar sites and missile sites. They will be the first to go when the balloon goes up. And not necessarily via Ballistic Missile Attack. There are lots of ways to get in a nuclear first strike of the size needed to take out a link in the ABM system.
The fact that we are even talking nuclear war in the year 2008 is proof that a huge mistake has been made by all concerned. The end of communism didn't end history as the neo-cons claimed. In fact it put History right back into play. The cold war froze the world into unatural conditions. Now history is rolling again just like before WWI and I think a whole lot of people are gonna die someday sooner than we think.
Still, I will watch with great interest to see if the first shot is a hit.

Bob B.

[Werner]

I'm afraid most of the press regarding the ability to defeat ABM systems is so much hot air. Ballistic missiles are vulnerable because they are - ballistic. They have very limited opportunity to evade destruction by any one of the layers of defensive systems.

The Anti ABM measures discussed in the 1980s and 1990s in the pacifist supporting magazines like Scientific American were never viable in the least. To implement them required as much effort as simply to loft another warhead or warhead bus.

[Seasick]

The Air Force figured it out in the 1970s. More smaller warheads on top of exsisting ICBMs. Decoys can easily be developed. A heat source to fool IR and transponder to advertize its presence. To that add a faster ascent and you make the job of the ABM system far more difficult. Its easier than swamping an Aegis system at sea. You only have to fool the ABM system for less than 5 minutes to get enough warheads through. Another tactic is to fire laser beams from the Earth's surface at the early warning satellites and disrupt their operation for a few minutes. Launch a nuetron bomb into space ahead of the attack disguised as a satellite explode it and use the EMP to blind the early warning system. These are all solutions come up with while Nixon was president.

[Werner]

The Air Force figured it out in the 1970s. More smaller warheads on top of exsisting ICBMs. Decoys can easily be developed. A heat source to fool IR and transponder to advertize its presence. To that add a faster ascent and you make the job of the ABM system far more difficult. Its easier than swamping an Aegis system at sea. You only have to fool the ABM system for less than 5 minutes to get enough warheads through. Another tactic is to fire laser beams from the Earth's surface at the early warning satellites and disrupt their operation for a few minutes. Launch a nuetron bomb into space ahead of the attack disguised as a satellite explode it and use the EMP to blind the early warning system. These are all solutions come up with while Nixon was president.

These efforts may thwart a few early generation systems such as may have existed in 1970, but they would have the unintended side effect of causing the opposing party to generate his MAD strike with plenty of warning.

The concept of the ABM system is to render the first strike impotent. Note that they have decided to abandon the part of Reagan's dream which would have protected civilians; instead ABMs protect response assets and non-nuclear military or strategic targets like a Marine landing force or a carrier task group. The interceptors in Alaska and Poland are a publicity stunt to diminish the stature of Kim and the Iranians.

[Devin]

It's nice to credit Regan with all of this, but that's hardly the reality. Him saying "we're going to develop Star Wars" in the 1980's, with the technology on hand even in the mid 1990's, was a pipe dream. Those evil liberal scientists weren't out to help the enemy by making it easier to attack the US, they were simply pointing out that at that time, and for a decade or two past, we didn't have anything that would fulfill the vision. Regan's claims were akin to Orvil and Wilbur, in 1903, drawing up plans for an aircraft carrier. The technology wasn't there, and the money would have been better spent elsewhere in the real world, with something on the side for R&D. As a Tarter and then AEGIS puke in the Navy during the late 80's and early 90's, I saw a lot of data, tests, and a few missile shoots first hand. It wasn't happening.

That being said, I'm interested in seeing what will come of this test. Hopefully some of the money put into Star Wars did more than line pockets and some real-world proof of that will be shown. I think the last thing we need is more space debris from this intervention, but it's better than whatever they happen to have on this satellite to come crashing into someone's living room. Hazardous fuel on board? I'll bet that's just the tip of the iceberg.

[Werner]

It's nice to credit Regan with all of this, but that's hardly the reality. Him saying "we're going to develop Star Wars" in the 1980's, with the technology on hand even in the mid 1990's, was a pipe dream. Those evil liberal scientists weren't out to help the enemy by making it easier to attack the US, they were simply pointing out that at that time, and for a decade or two past, we didn't have anything that would fulfill the vision. Regan's claims were akin to Orvil and Wilbur, in 1903, drawing up plans for an aircraft carrier. The technology wasn't there, and the money would have been better spent elsewhere in the real world, with something on the side for R&D. As a Tarter and then AEGIS puke in the Navy during the late 80's and early 90's, I saw a lot of data, tests, and a few missile shoots first hand. It wasn't happening.

It's all well and good to revise history in this way if it makes you feel good. The truth is the "3-T" missiles were marginally effective by the late 1960s and ineffective prior to that time. John F. Kennedy, seeing the USS Long Beach fail to shoot down an F4U Corsair drone in straight and level flight suggested perhaps they might mount some AA guns aboard ship.

The NTU program of the 1980s made the older ships truly effective for the first time. Has the USSR not collapsed the NTU ships were expected to soldier on for another 15 years or so. With the end of the Russian threat, the twin arm launchers and rotating Radars were just too expensive. Their capabilities transferred to the cheaper to operate VLS ships.

Reagan ordered up the SDI program. It was on nobody's wish list before March 1983. He didn't build the missiles and Radars with his own hands, but his action was as much a turning point as the decision to build the atom bomb, or the Atlantic Alliance. The fruits of SDI weren't really visible before 1995.

"Star Wars" was a massive R&D program on the scale of the space program, and it has had far reaching benefits within and without the military.

[Seasick]

I said:

The Air Force figured it out in the 1970s. More smaller warheads on top of exsisting ICBMs. Decoys can easily be developed. A heat source to fool IR and transponder to advertize its presence. To that add a faster ascent and you make the job of the ABM system far more difficult. Its easier than swamping an Aegis system at sea. You only have to fool the ABM system for less than 5 minutes to get enough warheads through. Another tactic is to fire laser beams from the Earth's surface at the early warning satellites and disrupt their operation for a few minutes. Launch a nuetron bomb into space ahead of the attack disguised as a satellite explode it and use the EMP to blind the early warning system. These are all solutions come up with while Nixon was president.

Werner:

These efforts may thwart a few early generation systems such as may have existed in 1970, but they would have the unintended side effect of causing the opposing party to generate his MAD strike with plenty of warning.

The concept of the ABM system is to render the first strike impotent. Note that they have decided to abandon the part of Reagan's dream which would have protected civilians; instead ABMs protect response assets and non-nuclear military or strategic targets like a Marine landing force or a carrier task group. The interceptors in Alaska and Poland are a publicity stunt to diminish the stature of Kim and the Iranians.

Werner attack technology has progressed as well as defense. The missile defense system Bush is pouring resources that really need to be used for Iraq and Afganistan in to is hardly adquate. The advantage in a balistic missile attack is always on the attacker. The attacker can build more powerful boosters and go to more smaller warheads. Instead of hitting a target with one 2 megaton warhead you fire 20 ten kiloton warheads from seperate boosters. Two or three getting through will be enough if they are accurate enough, and its inexpensive to go this route. Right now the system is like trying to defend against a Soviet 1980s style saturation attack with the USN AAW weapons of the early 1950s.

By the way the PRC is right now developing long ranged bombers with low observable characteristics and air launched cruise missiles with a 1000km range, they are also working on a submarine launched cruise missile. None of this will be stopped by the missile defense system.

[Werner]

he attacker can build more powerful boosters and go to more smaller warheads. Instead of hitting a target with one 2 megaton warhead you fire 20 ten kiloton warheads from seperate boosters.

Of course. However, since the SM-3 is a hit-to-kill weapon, the size of the weapon is a minor factor in it's flight controls. The terminal phase of the missile employs multiple technologies to detect, track and engage the warhead with Mach 6 to Mach 8 weapon speeds. Separate boosters are still vulnerable before the warhead bus detaches, and as far as I know, MIRV warheads are the province of Russia, China, France, The UK and China; none of these countries are likely to attack the US or it's allies with nuclear weapons any time soon, especially since they would immediately be wiped off the face of the Earth by US retaliation.

It is an iron law of military technology that the defensive and offensive abilities are normally never very far apart. If anything, offensive strategic ICBM weapons have been more or less static since the 1970s, but the defensive abilities have been expanding rapidly in multiple areas since the 1980s.

This is one of those unique periods when strategic rocket forces are seen as passe, and the development of anti aircraft, anti cruise missile and anti ICBM weapons has been a high priority item on the front burner.

In the ten years following Reagan's proposal of "Star Wars", Scientific American's authors (who were well known for their anti-military pacifist stance) published a series of articles condemning the idea. First, they decried it as a sheer impossibility and a waste of research dollars better spent determining why bonobo monkeys enjoyed particular diets. A year later, they attempted to quantitatively demonstrate that the several million lines of computer code needed to control such a system would contain a statistically significantly number of errors which would, of course, cause the missiles to miss (they must have been using Microsoft as their example). Still later, they made their only accurate prediction: the implementation of the system would seriously destabilize the status quo and lead to a new diplomatic paradigm for the world. Of course, the fall of Communism was this shift. I wonder if these later-day Lysenkoists understood the shift would be against their beloved Soviet model and in favor of the capitalist system. At least we can credit them with a solid vision and determination to derail Reagan's proposal and maintain the status quo for the USSR and it's satellites. This was the most blatant example of the abuse of scientific reasoning and scholarly discourse based on defective ideas and shoddy research combined with unsupportable conclusions up to the time of the current debate on anthropogenic climate change.

[Andy G]

...pacifist supporting magazines like Scientific American...

Some days I really need a dose of Werner's point-of-view. Today's one of them. It really reminds myself how some Americans can interpret history and modern life so differently to me.

You're a hoot, Werner! More please!

Andy

[bb-56]

Mr. Putin got the message. He started a huge modernization of Russian ICBMs. With special attention to defeating the ABM systems. This is a quite simple and easy task. Much cheaper to defeat and ABM system than to create an ABM system. This also has encouraged Russia to plan and develop effective first strike capabilities against ABM radar sites and missile sites. They will be the first to go when the balloon goes up. And not necessarily via Ballistic Missile Attack. There are lots of ways to get in a nuclear first strike of the size needed to take out a link in the ABM system.
The fact that we are even talking nuclear war in the year 2008 is proof that a huge mistake has been made by all concerned. The end of communism didn't end history as the neo-cons claimed. In fact it put History right back into play. The cold war froze the world into unatural conditions. Now history is rolling again just like before WWI and I think a whole lot of people are gonna die someday sooner than we think.
Still, I will watch with great interest to see if the first shot is a hit.

Bob B.

-it was the clintons who used that song "right here right now" and only uneducated ppl would hope history was over. it just keeps repeating itself!
-the system has nothing to do with putin hes just using this to beat his chest and war drums for internal nationalism reasons it was always intended to stop rougue missile strikes from Korea or similar axis powers. his real enemy is china they are going to need lebensraum someday.

[Devin]

It's all well and good to revise history in this way if it makes you feel good. The truth is the "3-T" missiles were marginally effective by the late 1960s and ineffective prior to that time. John F. Kennedy, seeing the USS Long Beach fail to shoot down an F4U Corsair drone in straight and level flight suggested perhaps they might mount some AA guns aboard ship.

Depending on who you believe, this is incorrect. The 5" guns were ordered by Kennedy due to the threats from surface boats. That's according to a chief of mine who was on board the Long Beach when she was attacked by said small boat, and training I received from the Navy regarding using SAM's against surface targets. Maybe you have better info from the internet.

The NTU program of the 1980s made the older ships truly effective for the first time. Has the USSR not collapsed the NTU ships were expected to soldier on for another 15 years or so.

Not realistic. The hulls of those ships would not last another 15 years. I decommed an Adams class DDG in 1990; that rust wasn't lasting another 15 years in service. The nuke cruisers and the Ayatollah class DDG's would have lasted, but that's a dozen hulls at most; nowhere near the necessary number to put the required missiles in the air to make Star Wars work.

Reagan ordered up the SDI program.

I do not dispute that. What I dispute is the common claim that "everyone was against him and we're worse off for it". As you said, the R&D happened, that was the important component, but "Star Wars", as he envisioned it at that time, could not work. This system will not fully function with just missiles, not even today with the SM-3. They aren't fast enough, accurate enough, and you simply can't put enough of them into the air. And honestly, who knows how many of them would even hit their targets? The pure saturation doctrine that the missiles and AEGIS were built to support, both for ballistic and anti-ship, missiles, was simply never tested real-world.

[Werner]

My reference from JFK is a quote from Arleigh Burke in his autobiography.

The NTU was not offered to the Adams class. It was intended for Leahy, Belknap and the nuclear cruisers. Arkansas was only 18 years old when she was struck from the list. (My impression of Adams is that they were loved for their speed and shiphandling abilities, as well as their gorgeous lines, but their warfighting abilities were actually quite modest, and they were slated for retirement in the early 1980s as a waste of manpower and maintenance resources).

I'm sure your knowledge of the single stage Standard Missile 1 gives you a rather low estimation of it's abilities. There have been a few changes since the Vietnam War. though. The four-stage SM-3 and SM-6 are rated for about five times the speed of SM-1MR - 10,000 Km/H (M6), and ranges around 2,500Km, with plenty of reserve for active terminal guidance and maneuver. There is an unconfirmed report that the first intercept with SM-2ER 4+ came around 1992 with a satellite shoot-down in the South Atlantic. Of course, this would have been a violation of treaty, so it has been disavowed;

http://www.missiledefenseadvocacy.org/n ... icleid=820

Not the missile of your father's generation any more than my VW is like the one Hitler helped design.

Tempus Fugit.

[Devin]

SM-1 is not the only missile I worked on, I mentioned it as you brought up Kennedy and the Vietnam war. Why, I'm not sure. I was an AEGIS missile tech for much longer. I worked with the SM-2, and also the first SM-3's, when they were initially conceived as low level interceptors, mainly to counter the design failure of the AEGIS system to work for high-level intercepts at the cost of everything else.

My mistake on NTU and the Adams class. It was tested on two hulls of the class - can't recall which - and some of them were slated to receive the upgrade. Again, what I was told while working on the systems is contrary to the published record. How odd. That class, however, wasn't slated for the chopping blocks until the late 80's. I have vivid memories of when the word came down they were going away, I was in Tartar school in 1989 and the entire staff was dumbfounded to say the least.

I can neither confirm nor deny that I know anything about that missile intercept in 1992. What I do know is that it's great when a single test like that works. Real world implementation is another matter: see U.S. torpedoes in early WWII, aircraft missile systems in Vietnam, and the Patriot system during Desert Storm. Human error is also a killer: see the Iranian airliner incident. I can guarantee you that even as I type this officers on Lake Erie are sweating bullets, and the crew is running firing drills two, three, maybe even four times a day to make sure they don't mess up something simple. Great preparation and useful in a one-shot deal like this. Useless in a real world situation with dozens or even hundreds of targets showing up at a moment's notice.

[Werner]

There have been literally dozens of successful ICBM intercepts with the SM-3, mostly of Minutemen missiles launched from Kwajelein and intercepted about 1,000 miles from the PMRF in Kauai. The last was by a Japanese heavy destroyer or cruiser. This is an operational system, and I guess there would be a minimum of sweat aboard USS Lake Erie.

[Devin]

There have been literally dozens of successful ICBM intercepts with the SM-3, mostly of Minutemen missiles launched from Kwajelein and intercepted about 1,000 miles from the PMRF in Kauai. The last was by a Japanese heavy destroyer or cruiser. This is an operational system, and I guess there would be a minimum of sweat aboard USS Lake Erie.

And given that you would assume that there would be minimum sweat aboard the USS Normandy during a missile test in 1993, using two missiles, an SM-2 and SM-3, to shoot down an old Talos missile used as a simple high-altitude drone. You would be incorrect. We practiced at least once a day for a week, and everyone was on-edge and freaking out during the entire time. The Normandy and the Monterey shot at the drone, and the Monterey completely failed the shoot/test. Their single SM-2 smacked the launch cell door on the way out and self-destructed 5 seconds after launch. Our two shots were "close enough to be probable" kills.

Just because a system is "operational" does not mean that it will all go smooth. Again, see early WWII torpedoes, Vietnam era aircraft missiles, Desert Storm Patriot system, and the mistaken downing of the Iranian Airbus.