DefenseTech Military.com
  • Categories
  • Full Archives
  • Monthly Archives
  • About Defense Tech
Subscribe to RSS

About Defense Tech

Defense Tech exam­ines the inter­sec­tion of tech­nol­ogy and defense from every angle and pro­vides analy­sis on what’s ahead.

Tip Us Off

Tip for Defense Tech?

SEND IT!

It’s Confidential!

Categories

  • 'Canes
  • Afghan Update
  • Ammo and Munitions
  • Armor
  • Around the Globe
  • Av Week Extra
  • Axe in Iraq (and Elsewhere)
  • Bizarro
  • Blimps
  • Blog Bidness
  • Body Armor Blues
  • Bomb Squad
  • Brownshoes in Action
  • Bubbleheads, etc.
  • Cammo Green
  • Catch the "Buzz"
  • Chem-Bio
  • Civilian Apps
  • Cloak and Dagger
  • Commandos
  • Comms
  • Contingency Ops
  • Cops and Robbers
  • Cyber-warfare
  • Data Diving
  • Defense Tech Poll
  • Defense Tech Radio
  • Dissent Tech
  • Door Kickers
  • Drones
  • DT Administrivia
  • Eat DT's Dust
  • Extra! Extra!
  • Eye on China
  • Fast Movers
  • FCS Watch
  • Fire for Effect
  • FOS Files
  • Friday Funnies
  • Gadgets and Gear
  • Going Green
  • Grand Ole Osprey
  • Ground Vehicles
  • Guns
  • Homeland Security
  • In the Weeds with Eric
  • Info War
  • Iraq Diary
  • Jarhead Jazz
  • JSF Watch
  • Just War Theories
  • Lasers and Ray Guns
  • Less-lethal
  • Logistics
  • Los Alamos and Labs
  • M4 Monopoly
  • Medic!
  • Mercs
  • Missiles
  • Money Money Money
  • Most Wanted
  • MRAP Edge
  • Net-Centric
  • Nukes
  • Old Skool
  • Our Shrinking Planet
  • PEO Soldier
  • Planes, Copters, Blimps
  • Podcast
  • Politricks
  • Polmar's Perspective
  • Popular Mechanics
  • Rapid Fire
  • Raptor Watch
  • Red Team
  • Retro-Futuro
  • Robots
  • Roll Your Own
  • Sabra Tech
  • Ships and Subs
  • Snipertech
  • Soldier Systems
  • Space
  • Special Ops
  • Star Wars
  • Strategery
  • Stray Trons
  • Tactical Development
  • Terror Tech
  • The Deadlies
  • The Defense Biz
  • The Peoples' Site
  • The Sunday Paper
  • The Tanker Tango
  • The View from Av Week
  • Those Nutty Norks
  • Training and Sims
  • Trimble on the Case
  • Uncategorized
  • Video Lounge
  • War Update
  • Ward'z Wonderz
  • You can run…

Archives

  • November 2009
  • October 2009
  • September 2009
  • August 2009
  • July 2009
  • June 2009
  • May 2009
  • April 2009
  • March 2009
  • February 2009
  • January 2009
  • December 2008
  • November 2008
  • October 2008
  • September 2008
  • August 2008
  • July 2008
  • June 2008
  • May 2008
  • April 2008
  • March 2008
  • February 2008
  • January 2008
  • December 2007
  • November 2007
  • October 2007
  • September 2007
  • August 2007
  • July 2007
  • June 2007
  • May 2007
  • April 2007
  • March 2007
  • February 2007
  • January 2007
  • December 2006
  • November 2006
  • October 2006
  • September 2006
  • August 2006
  • July 2006
  • June 2006
  • May 2006
  • April 2006
  • March 2006
  • February 2006
  • January 2006
  • December 2005
  • November 2005
  • October 2005
  • September 2005
  • August 2005
  • July 2005
  • June 2005
  • May 2005
  • April 2005
  • March 2005
  • February 2005
  • January 2005
  • December 2004
  • November 2004
  • October 2004
  • September 2004
  • August 2004
  • July 2004
  • June 2004
  • May 2004
  • April 2004
  • March 2004
  • February 2004
  • January 2004
  • December 2003
  • November 2003
  • October 2003
  • September 2003
  • August 2003
  • July 2003
  • June 2003
  • May 2003
  • April 2003
  • March 2003
  • February 2003
  • January 2003

Home » Missiles » Agency: Anti-​​Missile Tests = Bad

Agency: Anti-​​Missile Tests = Bad

The American mis­sile defense sys­tem is so lame that more tests may only under­mine its value as a deter­rent.
taurus3.jpgThat’s the word from the Final Report of the Missile Defense Agency’s Independent Review Team (IRT). The Washington Post first noted the report on Thursday. But Arms Control Wonk Jeffrey Lewis has combed through the doc­u­ment, and dis­cov­ered its most con­tro­ver­sial con­clu­sions.
The IRT rec­om­mends five changes, the cumu­la­tive effect of which will be to make test­ing less likely:
1. Establish a More Rigorous Flight Readiness Certification Process
2. Strengthen Systems Engineering
3. Perform addi­tional ground-​​based qual­i­fi­ca­tion test­ing as a require­ment for flight test­ing
4. Hold con­trac­tor func­tional orga­ni­za­tions account­able for sup­port­ing prime con­tract man­age­ment
5. Assure that the GMD [ground-​​based mid­course defense] pro­gram is exe­cutable
The gen­eral effect of these rec­om­men­da­tions is to cre­ate a pre­sump­tion
against con­duct­ing any sched­uled flight test­what the IRT calls “Prove why should fly.” For good mea­sure, the IRT rec­om­mends mak­ing the next inte­grated flight test a “non-​​intercept” test.
Imagine that: First, MDA rushes a defense that wont defend to meet a dead­line that just hap­pens to coin­cide with a Presidential elec­tion. Then, MDA scales way back on nec­es­sary test­ing, lest the bad guys fig­ure out the damn thing doesnt work.

THERE’S MORE: “IRT is totally going to deny this is their pur­pose,” the Wonk adds in an e-​​mail. But the team’s asser­tion, that “‘suc­cess­ful flight test­ing is a strate­gic issue’ is so damn­ing.” As IRT notes…

The dis­sua­sion and deter­rence value of these assets will be:
* Increased by suc­cess­ful flight tests
* Decreased by unsuc­cess­ful flight tests

‘Nuff said.

Share |

June 12th, 2005 | Missiles | 163648 Comments »http://defensetech.org/2005/06/12/agency-anti-missile-tests-bad/Agency%3A+Anti-Missile+Tests+%3D+Bad2005-06-12+22%3A44%3A11noahmax You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.

« « Weak Standard for Space Rods | Rapid Fire 6/​13/​05 » »

This website uses IntenseDebate comments, but they are not currently loaded because either your browser doesn't support JavaScript, or they didn't load fast enough.

  1. Kyle says:
    June 12, 2005 at 8:50 pm

    Independent coun­cils. Such buz­zkills!
    You would think Ken Starr was head­ing this one up, too. He seems to have a thing against gov­ern­ment mis­siles shoot­ing where they shouldn’t.

    Reply
  2. Larry says:
    June 13, 2005 at 12:27 pm

    “Any suf­fi­ciently advanced tech­nol­ogy is indis­tin­guish­able from a rigged demo.”

    Reply
  3. Andy says:
    November 20, 2005 at 5:57 pm

    Proof of con­cept has already been deter­mined by mul­ti­ple suc­cess­ful mis­sile inter­cepts. To be quoted as lame is un-​​intelligent and nar­row minded at its best.
    The MDA can not be expected to deploy a 100% effec­tive ABS sys­tem at this time. It is designed to be deployed and improved as new tech­nol­ogy comes to bear and improve­ments to cur­rent tech­nol­ogy are made. Why should it be any other way?
    Using this the­ory you could say cops with bul­let proof vests are lame.
    ABS is not 100% yet how­ever if only a few Nuclear mis­siles can be inter­cepted why should we not inter­cept them? Add to that the ABS is designed to be a laired defense. It does not rely entirely on one sys­tem or flight phase of a Ballistic Missile. This is a redun­dantly lay­ered defense sys­tem designed to take mul­ti­ple shots at the missile(s).
    Its worth was proved in Iraq twice with the Patriots Missile sys­tem. The Patriot is also not 100% effec­tive how­ever each mis­sile it shot down in Iraq poten­tially saved a num­ber of lives. Once again Proof of con­cept was made in GW 1 and GW 2. By the way valu­able data was gained in GW 2 and incor­po­rated into the cur­rent Patriots PAC-​​3.
    “Nuff Said“
    Indeed.

    Reply
  4. binh1 says:
    September 9, 2009 at 10:58 pm

    ??
    ????
    ??
    ???? ??
    ????
    ??????
    ?? ??????
    ???
    ???
    ????
    ???? ?????
    ?
    ?? ??????
    ?? ??????
    ?? ??????
    ??? ??????
    ?? ??????
    sod
    ???
    ???? ???
    ?? ????? ?????
    ????
    ?? ??
    ?? ??
    ?? ??
    ?DVD
    ?DVD
    ?? ??
    ?? ??
    ???? ??
    ???? ??
    ???? ????
    ??? ????
    ??? ????
    ??? ????

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Click here to cancel reply.

Spam Protection by WP-SpamFree

By commenting on this topic you agree to the terms and conditions of our User Agreement

    Today's Hottest Topics
    Recent Comments
    • Army Launches Examination of Armor Testing
      Yeah, I don't get it. The "Dragon...
      Ptsfp
    • Pinnacle’s New Armor
      Should wikipedia Ned Kelly.He used armour that worked in...
      Nick
    • UPDATED: Details on Army’s New Afghanistan Duds
      Marines win agin hoo rur
      greg
    • VTOL JSF Arrives at Pax River
      To the poster "batvette" : You wrote:...
      freefallingbomb
    • BREAK-BREAK: Units to Get New Camo Revealed
      gee lets forget about winning a war as long...
      greg stocks
    • New Camo Pattern on the Block
      Time to bring military clothing into the 21st century. I...
      bobbymike
    • Zapping Drones from a Truck
      Part IV : …………...
      freefallingbomb
    • Zapping Drones from a Truck
      Part III : …………...
      freefallingbomb
    • Zapping Drones from a Truck
      Part II : But beam-riding isn't used by bombers...
      freefallingbomb
    • Zapping Drones from a Truck
      To the poster "Charles" : Part I :...
      freefallingbomb
    Recent Articles
    • Army Launches Examination of Armor Testing
    • New Camo Pattern on the Block
    • BAE to Market Mantis UAV to North America
    • Pinnacle’s New Armor
    • Zapping Drones from a Truck
    • Northrop Invests Own Money In Fire Scout
    • IMINT: French Fashion Mavens Model MultiCam
    • VTOL JSF Arrives at Pax River
    • Super Cavitation and the Truth
    • Mantis Begins Search For Prey
    Recent Hot Topics
    • Marines Quiet About Brutal New Weapon
    • The Osprey has Landed
    • UPDATED: Details on Army's New Afghanistan Duds
    • Iraq Cyber Attack and the DigiSEALs
    • VTOL JSF Arrives at Pax River
    • Pinnacle's New Armor
    • (Proof) The Osprey Has Landed
    • Grim Wanat Footage
    • REPLACEMENT ARM, GOOD AS NEW
    • IMINT: French Fashion Mavens Model MultiCam
  • Channels: Military.com | Military Benefits | Military News | Off Duty | Join the Military | Military Education | Veteran Jobs | Military Money | Military Deals | Military Family | Military Community
  • Military.com Network: Military.com | MilBlogging | Defense Tech | DoD Buzz | SpouseBuzz | Fred's Place | GI Bill Express
  • Services: Army | Navy | Air Force | Marine Corps | Coast Guard | National Guard | Military Spouse
  • About Military.com About Us | Advertise With Us | Press | Affiliate Program | Monster Network | Help | Feedback | Privacy Policy | User Agreement | © 2009 Military Advantage