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
  • 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 » Star Wars » Navy 1, Hydrazine tank 0

Navy 1, Hydrazine tank 0

The lead story at Military​.com cov­ers the Navy’s shoot down of the errant spy satel­lite and by all indi­ca­tions, it appears the shot went off with­out a hitch. Here’s the AP video news coverage:

Noteworthy is the fact that the mis­sile didn’t have a war­head. Now whether it was about the hydrazine or the pos­si­ble com­pro­mise of spy tech is another mat­ter … and one that seems some­what moot now. In any case, a DT high five to the Pacific Fleet black­shoes who pulled this feat off.

– Ward

Share |

February 21st, 2008 | Star Wars | 384934 Comments »http://defensetech.org/2008/02/21/navy-1-hydrazine-tank-0/Navy+1%2C+Hydrazine+tank+02008-02-21+14%3A23%3A10paisley You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.

« « AF Has KC-​​X Backup Plan | Analyzing the Threat of Cyber Attack » »

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. stephen russell says:
    February 21, 2008 at 9:33 am

    Now we know it works, lets expand on this.
    Great job, kudos to mis­sile ship crew & Missile Team.
    Great job.

    Reply
  2. Jim says:
    February 21, 2008 at 10:20 am

    Ward -
    Most mis­sile defense inter­cep­tors don’t have war­heads. When your col­li­sion veloc­ity is in the high sin­gle dig­its of kilo­me­ters per sec­ond, momen­tum does all the work. Kinetic energy of this impact was equiv­a­lent to ~200lbs of TNT. Who needs an extra 10 pounds of explo­sive tak­ing up valu­able pay­load mass?

    Reply
  3. psece says:
    February 21, 2008 at 11:01 am

    Great Job to the Contractors and Defense Companies too.…

    Reply
  4. Joe says:
    February 21, 2008 at 11:04 am

    The space weapons race is on. I now believe that the chi­nese only attacked that sat because they knew the US was mod­i­fy­ing SM-​​3 mis­siles for the same task.
    Just like the rus­sians and the space race. Our tech is bet­ter, but their spies are bet­terthan ours.

    Reply
  5. Grandjester says:
    February 21, 2008 at 11:06 am

    Hey man, Nice shot!

    Reply
  6. slntax says:
    February 21, 2008 at 12:03 pm

    HAHA now the chicoms want data on the navy strike.
    http://​www​.bre​it​bart​.com/​a​r​t​i​c​l​e​.​p​h​p​?​i​d​=​0​8​0​2​2​1​0​7​3​8​0​0​.​t​g​g​0​6​o​z​y​&​a​m​p​;​s​h​o​w​_​a​r​t​i​c​l​e=1
    like they would every give up infor­ma­tion on their asat strike. im sure if bilary was in charge she would sell it to them for the cam­paign coffers.

    Reply
  7. Foreign.Boy says:
    February 21, 2008 at 12:06 pm

    Shouldn’t this title be
    China 1, US 1?
    Since they both smacked down both their own satellites?

    Reply
  8. Patron Vectras says:
    February 21, 2008 at 12:07 pm

    I like how he named the ves­sel, pride of the sailors and all. — plus that’s where I live so it’s kinda cool.
    The good thing about the US here is that we don’t know just how Good our spies really are –they might be great!
    The bad thing about the US here is that we don’t know just how Bad our spies really are — they might suck!
    So maybe our spies are bet­ter… maybe not. But you just never really hear about it at my (low) level.

    Reply
  9. FoxThree says:
    February 21, 2008 at 12:14 pm

    Actually Foreign Boy if you count it that way it would be China 1 US 2 since we already destroyed one in the 1980s

    Reply
  10. thereisnorule6 says:
    February 21, 2008 at 12:27 pm

    you guys are amaz­ing. kudos for shoot­ing down a bil­lion dol­lar fail­ure? And chicoms? wel­come to 1956, sintax.

    Reply
  11. Dan says:
    February 21, 2008 at 1:01 pm

    Space race is on? I think China basi­cally launched Sputnik last year, and we — by com­par­i­son — just put the fin­ish­ing touches on the ISS.
    I’d argue that our sea-​​launched, 10-​​second launch win­dow, direct-​​hit of an object in decay­ing orbit, with a stan­dard mis­sile with only soft­ware mods EASILY trumps China’s ground-​​based, 24-​​hour launch win­dow, direct-​​hit of a object in sta­tionery orbit, with a ded­i­cated ASAT weapon.
    In fact, I think we just proved that our bil­lions of dol­lars in the mis­sile shield has suc­cess­fully devel­oped … a mis­sile shield.
    Given the dynam­ics, what’s the dif­fer­ence between that satel­lite and an ICBM?

    Reply
  12. John says:
    February 21, 2008 at 1:22 pm

    How can this be? As we’ve been told time and time again by DefenseTech, mis­sile defense spend­ing is an utter waste of time and money.

    Reply
  13. NTV says:
    February 21, 2008 at 2:16 pm

    Politics aside, Thats gonna be a heck of a bat­tle star on the side of the USS Lake Erie. I won­der if the crew will attach a broom to her mast when she sails into Pearl?

    Reply
  14. Blake says:
    February 21, 2008 at 2:57 pm

    This is just great! Why can’t we take all this wasted money on this suc­cess­ful defense tech­nol­ogy project that make offen­sive nuclear weapons ques­tion­ably use­ful and dump the bil­lions of dol­lars into fail­ure social pro­grams and wealth redis­tri­b­u­tion schemes? I for one want to know why can’t we just learn to stick our heads in the sand with dig­nity and like our intel­lec­tu­ally supe­rior friends. (falling­dumb­bomb­bucket or what­ever) After all it would be less offen­sive to every­one. Maybe the Chinese won’t be forced to steal our tech­nol­ogy and we won’t have to con­tinue to finance the rebuild­ing of Russia’s Northern fleet through mis­ap­pro­pri­ated treaty funds. That’s it, a new treaty. That will fix every­thing!
    You know, its just these kinds of in-​​your-​​face suc­cesses that turns every­one again us Americans. If we defend our­selves it will only make mat­ters worse?
    2 ways to min­i­mize this suc­cess:
    1. The SM3 is only one small suc­cess in the on-​​going arms race that existed long before the cold war.
    2. Considering the SM3 is only one piece of the multi-​​layered ABM sys­tems now in devel­op­ment, our foes should take com­fort in the fact that we haven’t been able to shrink the anti-​​matter death ray to a usable plat­form, yet.

    Reply
  15. FOARP says:
    February 21, 2008 at 3:40 pm

    Didn’t they orig­i­nally have to post­pone the launch because of a rough sea state?

    Reply
  16. Ward says:
    February 21, 2008 at 4:00 pm

    Thanks for the detail, Jim. And dig the Filter ref­er­ence, Grandjester. Rock on.

    Reply
  17. syntax says:
    February 21, 2008 at 9:19 pm

    What’s the need for an expen­sive & exten­sive GMD net­work when the Aegis equipped destroy­ers can do the same?
    What can the GMD do that the Aegis sys­tem cannot?

    Reply
  18. slntax says:
    February 21, 2008 at 10:32 pm

    freefalling­bomb
    you are right. how­ever just because the chi­nese are capi­tial­ist. doesnt mean that all the sud­den we are best friends. i mean the nazis embraced capi­tial­ism. the real­ity is that the chi­nese are using every method pos­si­ble to steal amer­i­can mil­i­tary tech for a future war for taw­ian. dont believe me? check this out.
    http://​www​.youtube​.com/​w​a​t​c​h​?​v​=​1​1​R​5​P​g​r​i​vko
    story on feb 8 chi­nese spy tries to steal tech from a c-​​17
    http://​www​.ocre​g​is​ter​.com/​m​o​n​e​y​/​c​h​u​n​g​-​c​h​i​n​a​-​c​h​i​n​e​s​e​-​1​9​8​3​4​9​4​-​s​p​a​c​e​-​t​e​c​h​n​o​l​ogy
    peo­ple say that have prob­lems under­stand­ing chi­nas long term mil­i­tary and polit­cal goals. i say actions speak louder then words.

    Reply
  19. Takeo says:
    February 22, 2008 at 1:40 am

    Congrats to a job well done to the US Navy.

    Reply
  20. Okach says:
    February 22, 2008 at 3:10 am

    Good shot, good kill. I worked on that project back in the late ‘90s and knew we had some­thing that was going to work, even with the usual fits and starts.
    As for the America as Chinese province com­men­tary, I’d point out the obvi­ous — if there was no America to rail against, it’d be hard to whip the pro­le­tariat into shape with visions of tak­ing on the Great American boogey­man. Same deal with Russia. Anyways, gonna be a mighty inter­est­ing Summer Olympics. Kinda hard to white­wash the streets with that many for­eign­ers around…

    Reply
  21. freefallingbomb says:
    February 22, 2008 at 9:26 pm

    To the poster “slntax”: You wrote: “The real­ity is that the Chinese are using every method pos­si­ble to steal American mil­i­tary tech for a future war with Taiwan. Dont believe me?“
    and
    “I say actions speak louder then words“
    You’re a clas­si­cal vic­tim of what I call “the chicken-​​thief syn­drome”: If you spot a typ­i­cal bum reach­ing into a fine dressed shopper’s pock­ets (want­ing money for food) you reflex­ively howl “Grab that thief!”, but if you read for exam­ple a head­line in a shop-​​window say­ing that your company’s or your bank’s etc. famous W.A.S.P. C.E.O. retired, quit or even got fired for incom­pe­tence, with a 100 mil­lion dol­lar pen­sion (“com­pen­sa­tion”), you don’t even think a sin­gle sec­ond about it and stroll on leisurely, mind­ing your own life.
    Your revolt against “Chinese spies” only reveals the same grass-​​root per­spec­tive:
    1) In the ‘60s the U.S.A. kick-​​started Japan’s post-​​War eco­nom­i­cal ascent (cre­at­ing a chimera in the process) by plac­ing large orders to the ooz­ing Japanese heavy indus­try (ammu­ni­tion and other items for the Vietnam War, because of their favourable geo­graph­i­cal loca­tion and low wages, back then). In the fol­low­ing decades, the Japanese were ini­tially accused of man­u­fac­tur­ing only cheap­ish, kitschy, sloppy, short-​​lived goods, espe­cially of being “copy cats” of every pos­si­ble Western gad­get. Today, I believe, the U.S.A. wouldn’t really mind trad­ing all their indus­trial secrets and patents for the Japanese ones. Do the Japanese spy on the U.S.A. or… the other way around? Things change…
    Lesson learned, les­son for­got­ten, now the U.S.A. insist on repeat­ing the same mis­take with China too. Their eco­nom­i­cal mir­a­cle is still only 20 years young, there­fore China STILL can’t com­pete hon­estly with U.S. American, European or even with Japanese qual­ity prod­ucts (which include, as you pointed out, weapons = top tech­nol­ogy), rely­ing on huge out­puts of cheap goods instead, exploit­ing espe­cially the “advan­tage” of their own ultra-​​low wages. That’s why it still makes ( EXTREMELY short-​​sighted…) sense for the U.S.A., for Europe and for Japan to out­source the pro­duc­tion of all labour-​​intensive, low-​​tech stuff (“slave work”) to China, retain­ing only the design bureaus and labs in their coun­tries of ori­gin. But Chinese genes are the same as Japanese genes, their per­fec­tion­ism is the same, only their History was dif­fer­ent. The Chinese are also 10,4 times more peo­ple (= a larger inter­nal mar­ket that helps national com­pa­nies grow and evolve before going abroad) and China itself is 25,4 times big­ger than Japan (= more mate­r­ial autarky = more polit­i­cal inde­pen­dence + more price sta­bil­ity, etc.). And on the day the Chinese know exactly as much as the Japanese do, they’ll be even MORE advanced and richer than the Japanese, because their big­ger crit­i­cal mass allows them to engage in MORE large national projects of ANY nature! In sim­ple words: Having the same knowl­edge, the Chinese will have the same QUALITY , but simul­ta­ne­ously MORE QUANTITY OF IT than the Japanese!
    Maybe that explains too how the first Chinese A.S.A.T. test-​​shot was an imme­di­ate suc­cess…
    But who is foment­ing = wors­en­ing this “game”, help­ing the Chinese to become that very mon­ster that’s going to destroy all our descen­dants’ — even the Japanese’s! — life-​​styles and per­spec­tives, in the next two or three gen­er­a­tions?
    Mainly YOU U.S. Americans (again…), YOUR OWN elected, “lov­ing”, “patri­otic”, “impec­ca­ble”, “born again” politi­cians to be pre­cise (“the people’s demo­c­ra­tic rep­re­sen­ta­tives, throb­bing with Fatherland Love”), each time they give the Chinese unfair trade advan­tages: From con­stantly par­don­ing instead of con­fis­cat­ing imports in excess of the agreed quo­tas to agree­ing to trade IMbalances and dif­fer­ent trade rules in the first place to not forc­ing them to reduce highly CO2-​​emitting indus­tries the way we do, etc. etc. etc., and all this under the immutable spell of the “sanc­tity, infal­li­bil­ity and untouch­a­bil­ity of Capitalism”!
    I can’t even MENTALLY CONCEIVE what dri­ves your politi­cians to deprive their own nation, even their own per­sonal kids and every­body else too poten­tially of a future (of a sur­vival?), when every small man on the street already under­stood the absur­dity of this course!!!
    (Same goes for that other open secret called the “North American Union” too…)
    What, do you think, is this all lead­ing up to?
    So, before (unjustly or impul­sively) accus­ing any Chinese Commerce Attach

    Reply
  22. Old Crusty Chief says:
    February 23, 2008 at 6:32 am

    Can some­one please help me remem­ber why it was that we saved the French (twice) last cen­tury?
    If the French would stick to their strengths: food, wine, and love­mak­ing we’d be far bet­ter off as a whole than when they fid­dle with things they are just so demon­stra­bly awful: engi­neer­ing, pol­i­tics, and warfight­ing. (Veuillez me par­don­ner, Byron.)
    Freefallingbomb is a per­fect exam­ple of why I love France but so often just can’t stand the French. He/​She is likely just a clac­qeur for the PCF; IOW just a use­ful idiot for the Communist Party in France.
    Are you are any­thing like the KKE (Communist Party of Greece) stooges I knew when I lived in Greece? Arrogant lit­tle gob­shites whose pri­mary achieve­ments were plas­ter­ing the towns with snazzy posters, spray paint­ing the hammer-​​and-​​sickle every­where, and being gen­er­ally unciv­i­lized at ral­lies and marches. Mind you, among all the invec­tive about the hor­rors of cap­i­tal­ist soci­ety, the evil that is America, and the promise of a Worker’s Paradise, among all these these things what stands out is the image of youths singing the Internationale in their designer clothes, smok­ing Marlboros, and dri­ving BMWs.
    Cheers Comrades,
    Chief B.

    Reply
  23. Old Crusty Chief says:
    February 24, 2008 at 3:14 pm

    re: Freefallingbomb
    Your rather a bit mouthy for a cit­i­zen of a post-​​colonial has-​​been coun­try that hasn’t won a bat­tle since Napoleon, builds crappy cars, has the WORST air­port in the world (CDG), and lives in fear of Arab bran­leurs.
    On top of all this the French are rude and do not shower fre­quently!
    Vous p

    Reply
  24. freefallingbomb says:
    February 24, 2008 at 8:04 pm

    A (lit­er­ally?) CRUSTY U.S. American just scorned my impec­ca­ble French hygienic habits and refined toi­let­terie acces­sories, say­ing: “On top of all this the French are rude and do not shower fre­quently!”. Now I’m miffed:
    http://​www​.live​science​.com/​s​t​r​a​n​g​e​n​e​w​s​/​0​5​0​9​2​1​_​d​i​r​t​y​_​h​a​n​d​s​.​h​tml
    http://​www​.webmd​.com/​n​e​w​s​/​2​0​0​6​0​8​2​8​/​2​-​o​u​t​-​o​f​-​3​-​a​m​e​r​i​c​a​n​s​-​d​o​n​t​-​w​a​s​h​-​h​a​nds
    Son, don’t go near the Cowboys
    Please stay away.
    Son, don’t go near the Cowboys.
    Please do what I say…

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Click here to cancel reply.

Spam Protection by WP-SpamFree

    Most Popular Posts
    • What Does this Handle Do?
    • Marines Quiet About Brutal New Weapon
    • Starship Troopers Meets G.I. Joe
    • Semi-auto Grenade Thrower
    • Dowd's Bogus Grief Deficit
    • Adapting Women to Subs
    • Fort Hood Rampage
    • Keep it Simple
    • Mystery Drone Revealed
    • REPLACEMENT ARM, GOOD AS NEW
    Recent Comments
    • New Army PEO on the way
      To get our AAA quality shoes at reasonable price, Your...
      nike air force ones
    • Fort Hood Rampage
      "And no, the Koran does not say anything about killing...
      bdwilcox
    • Fort Hood Rampage
      When the Lord your God brings you into the land you are entering to...
      DualityOfMan
    • Fort Hood Rampage
      Fascism? Last time I heard, the fascists promoted christianity. Or,...
      DualityOfMan
    • Semi-auto Grenade Thrower
      I see an M16 firing, and I see a 40 mm grenade launcher...
      DualityOfMan
    • Fort Hood Rampage
      "I'd say go read some history on fascist ideology and then compare...
      Sam
    • Semi-auto Grenade Thrower
      No. I am not saying a grenade launcher on a rifle is a hoax. I...
      Zandor
    • Semi-auto Grenade Thrower
      For someone who trashes all the readers of the blog you sure do...
      a1189
    • Market for Acoustic Defense Systems Heats Up
      These devices vibrate tissue and bone not just...
      WJS
    • Semi-auto Grenade Thrower
      So are you saying the grenade launcher is a hoax or the M-16?...
      WJS
    Recent Articles
    • Semi-​​auto Grenade Thrower
    • Market for Acoustic Defense Systems Heats Up
    • Fort Hood Rampage
    • Keep it Simple
    • Airbag Defense
    • Dowd’s Bogus Grief Deficit
    • Did Someone Move the Furniture Around?
    • Lockheed Says Sbirs Still on Track For 2010
    • What Does this Handle Do?
    • Adapting Women to Subs
  • 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