US officials have confirmed that a test of the advanced SM-3 Block IIA missile defense system in Hawaii on Wednesday has failed, proving unable to intercept test intermediate-range missiles out of the air.
Failures are not uncommon given the difficulty of intercepting missiles in mid-air. This failure, however, comes with the Pentagon unusually tight-lipped, admitting only that the test took place and refusing to say what went wrong. Other administration officials confirmed the failure but had no further details.
The second straight failure of the system is particularly embarrassing as the US has been working hard to try to sell more such defensive systems abroad. That’s a tough sell for costly systems that have proven little success.
Even the success rate of such tests by the Pentagon is misleadingly high, as the interceptors are given all flight data on the targeted missiles, something they wouldn’t have in a real-life situation, making a square interception much harder.
We got a good look at U.S. interception capabilities on nine…11!!!
Our “interception capabilities” were just fine. Dozens of planes that were off course got a visit from an F-16 in the years before 9/11. The Pentagon’s willingness to intercept those particular planes on that particular day… not so much.
Yes, Thomas, our “interception capabilities” were just fine on 9/11; dozens of planes that went off course got a visit from an F-16 in the years before .. The Pentagon’s unwillingness to intercept those particular planes on that particular day? Vice-President Dick Cheney, acting as President while G. W. Bush was inside a Florida classroom reading “My Pet Goat” to 1st and 2nd graders, ordered NORAD to stand down.
Now, if that isn’t high treason and murder (nearly 3,000 people perished when the Twin Towers were demolished), I don’t know what is.
You don’t intercept what you don’t want to intercept.
“ll flight data on the targeted missiles, something they wouldn’t have in a real-life situation”
Well, they are supposed to have systems providing exactly that, the type, course and expected flight patterns, like with SBIRS, which is detecting IR signatures from space, all combined with databases of what is known about the launch location and IR signature — and directly provide this information to missile defense computers.
Of course it’s not a system tested much in real life either… one can assume the actual behavior upon re-entrance will remain the best-kept secret.
It most likely doesn’t work either. Similarly, another Lockheed Martin scam, the F-35 also doesn’t work as promised. But hey, their stock is doing quite well, thank you very much.
Israel is opting out of making the F-35 Turkey their top line fighter.
The much vaunted Patriot missiles couldn’t even intercept a 40 year old reverse engineered Yemeni SCUD, so what’s so surprising?
Why don’t we just buy an Iron Dome from the Israelis and scale it up, since it seems to *cough* work so well.
Against slow wobbly home-made rockets, not Mach 15 ICBM re-entry.
First of all, a determined enemy wouldn’t need an ICBM to deliver a nuke to the USA. It could come on something as simple as a container ship or a fishing boat. This is all posturing, just so the venal Congress will vote giving more of our national treasure to the MIC.
You described a method used by terrorists, not an enemy state combatant.
Nukes are terror weapons, regardless of whether they are used by “state combatants” or not.
Of course they are, but in this context “terrorist” is construed as non-State actors.
What enemy state combatant is really likely to do this? The new policy of the USA is encouraging it, but other countries are less belligerent against the greatest military power the world has ever known.
spend billions of dollars deploying a weapon system that does not work, ra ra ra we’re number one!
Worked perfectly for those who got the billions now didn’t it???
There are three target categories: boost phase, mid course, and terminal.
We can do boost against all missiles, if we can get into position, but mostly we can’t.
We can do mid course against shorter range missiles, because the shorter range means they don’t go so high or so fast. That is what we did against those Scuds that we did hit (we did not hit as many as we claimed, but some).
We frequently fail the bullet hitting a bullet problem of terminal intercept, with the incoming bullet at Mach 15 and the intercepting bullet at 1/5 that speed. That should be no surprise to anyone who understands what is really being attempted.
This article is not clear even which phase was being attempted. I suspect the ship was attempting something between boost and mid course against a target much more difficult than a relatively slow moving Scud. That would be somewhat like what a ship might attempt from close off the North Korean coast. But it isn’t clear. If so, the failure is worse than otherwise, since that is the sort of target we are supposed to be able to hit.
Never will “get in position” for submarine launched missiles.
Another example of the wisdom of trying to avoid making more and more enemies who have the desire to attack you. Will the USA ever try this approach?
No money in it for the MIC.
Hawaii’s best defense is declaring independence. Nobody’s bombing Tonga or Fiji. Ditch the stars and stripes and join the free world.
And the sound of money being flushed down the toilet continues unabated.