Home » News » Video Lounge » Multiple Kill Vehicle

Multiple Kill Vehicle

– Christian

Share |

December 10th, 2008 | Video Lounge | 423316 CommentsMultiple+Kill+Vehicle2008-12-10+16%3A30%3A37Ward

{ 15 comments… read them below or add one }

Coco December 10, 2008 at 1:13 pm: This footage was shown over ten years ago on discovery channel I do not think it had the small missiles on it.

Reply
Tom Billings December 10, 2008 at 2:05 pm: Sorry. The scale of the LEAP vehicle of the 1980s and 1990s SDIO program was much larger. I remember the video, and this is *not* the same vehicle. Unless I *badly* misjudge the scale, it is several times smaller than LEAP, which gave us the technology the present SM-3/Aegis Naval ABM system uses for final targeting. LEAP had an entire hangar to fly in, and the test setup here looked no more than 10 X 20m at most.
LEAP seemed about 1.5m tall, and about .5m wide. This vehicle seems *much* smaller to me. It would be the basis for putting as many as 10 interceptors on each present GBI Booster, so that only the most ambitious decoy program could suceed. Perhaps the new Russian missiles carry enough decoys to do that. Nothing Iran is making even comes close.
The Clinton Administration did its best to tear apart the research teams that produced LEAP and other smaller “brilliant pebbles” technology from 1987-93. Let us hope that the Obama administration does not do the same with MKV. The religious abomination of the dominant wing of the new Party in power, for ABM, dates from at least 1969, and has its academic roots as early as 1958. It will be hard for Obama to *not* give them something on this, seeing as how he allowed them to destroy his prospective CIA Director.
Regards,
Tom Billings

Reply
Valcan December 10, 2008 at 2:06 pm: wait………..how big is that thing?
and what retard thinks missile defense is stupid or not needed seriously….oh…wait..

Reply
bdwilcox December 10, 2008 at 6:08 pm: “The Clinton Administration did its best to tear apart the research teams that produced LEAP and other smaller “brilliant pebbles” technology from 1987-93.”
-And did its best to arm our enemies through Loral and Zvezda-Strela. I wonder how much more damage the Obama will do.

Reply
TB December 10, 2008 at 9:58 pm: This damn thing again? didn’t work then, isn’t working now – nice theory for contractor welfare though.
Waste more money on stuff that doesn’t work, yeah that’ll keep us safer.
BTW, how many ICBMs does Osama have?
Nice touch using Fox, now THERE’S an unimpeachable source.

Reply
Ed Otto Pernotto December 10, 2008 at 9:58 pm: Ward Carroll! You maniac! When your buddies stole the cow, and you tried to make it with the cow, man I want to party with you!
Ward, you sold out! You used to be a crazy, anti-establishment, blogger writer and now you are looking like Joe Establishment Commentary dude! Is this the same rock and roller I knew who used to stick it to the man?!?
Ward, that was good stuff and I congratulate you on the interview. It’s good to see folks that can discuss military subjects and not look like either fools or shills.

Reply
Drake December 11, 2008 at 12:47 am: Not sure what to make of this demonstration? I have a whole bunch on missile defense bookmarks waiting for me to read through, but I dread doing so. Missile defense is so wrapped up in politics, that getting straight unbiased opinion answers is almost impossible.

Reply
Drake December 11, 2008 at 12:49 am: Not sure what to make of this demonstration? I have a whole bunch on missile defense bookmarks waiting for me to read through, but I dread doing so. Missile defense is so mired in politics, that getting straight unbiased opinion answers is almost impossible.

Reply
FONZIE December 11, 2008 at 8:35 am: I REALLY don’t like that Fox anchorman. What’s his name?
He interrupts constantly, feels he has to “dumb-down” the conversation for the viewers and doesn’t allow the guest to say more than 3 seconds of material.

Reply
Wes December 11, 2008 at 11:07 am: Careful, Tom Billings.
Criticize The Messiah and the Obamaretards will swarm the site and try to silence you.
Blagojevich, lol!
What kind of intelectual cripples are against Missile Defence?
Liberalism is indeed a Mental Disorder.

Reply
Fl December 11, 2008 at 11:41 am: Lol FONZIE, you are so right, espiecially with your interpretation of dumbing it down! I think Fox’s executive have had important reason for it!

Reply
Fl December 11, 2008 at 11:41 am: Lol FONZIE, you are so right, espiecially with your interpretation of dumbing it down! I think Fox’s executive have had important reason for it!

Reply
M. J. Keenan December 11, 2008 at 5:15 pm: For missile defense to work, it has to be 100% effective. If one warhead gets through, the system has failed. The “hit a bullet with a bullet” concept is insane. Ber sure; use a nuke. The only real chance of success is to shoot the booster rocket before the warheads deploy. Put your money there. Don’t worry about decoys; no one who engages in thermonuclear war will ever employ them–waste of time and money. Once you cross the nuclear threshold, every warhead has to count. That’s why we and the Soviets had multiple warheads aimed at the same targets. If you want to stop a madman from launching at you, do whatever it takes to make sure he never gets that capability. There are lots of other ways besides missiles to use nuclear weapons to hurt a country. Some of them don’t even require detonation within the target country.

Reply
stephen russell December 13, 2008 at 11:14 pm: PLace this in Orbit alone for Incoming SLBMs & ICBMs & on battlefield for Tac Defense.
Add 100 rockets with multiple warheads to shoot down 1K missiles incoming.
Build & test this.

Reply
Pepo January 16, 2009 at 2:41 pm: For Missile Defense to work it has to be 100% effective?
LOL — what weapons system is 100% effective? The development of missile defense tech and sys will allow the USA to have more surviable units in the field — it will help protect CVN and MARFs.
the libs set an impossible benchmark. So, heart surgery should be 100% effective or we should not allow it. So cars should be 100% safe or taken off the road. Yeah, right. Heck, why use a 9mm? its not 100% effective.

Reply