Missiles.

This is coolbert:

From the comment to the blog by John Bolton:

"Frontpagemagazine.com has an article about the satellite shoot down, by H.Cooper and Weyrich. They say 'inherent' ICBM defense capacity has now been demonstrated, that satellites in that orbit move faster than incoming ICBM's, and that further deployments should be supported."

Here is the specific URL for the article by Cooper and Weyrich:

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=C4B0933C-B0F4-4A1C-8418-8202E00D1318

The Aegis cruiser deployed as an anti-ballistic missile [ABM] system, replete with IMPROVED Standard Missile - 3, is more flexible, responsive, do-able than a land based ABM system? Intercept of an INCOMING, DOWNWARD TRAJECTORY WARHEAD is inherently more difficult than a shoot-down of a MISSILE before warhead final separation.

Of course, all these "shoot-downs" have involved SINGLE ballistic missiles? NOT multiple incoming enemy missiles deploying decoys and various counter-measures! That is what critics would say!

coolbert.

Cobra?

This is coolbert:

In response to the comment of John Bolton regarding my blog entry on the intercept and destruction of the errant American satellite:

[Please keep in my that I HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO INSIDE INFORMATION OF ANY NATURE ON THIS MATERIAL. My response is best characterized as informed speculation!]

"Does all this mean that the instant orbit, or should I say the immediate trajectory prior to firing, had to be ascertained within 30 seconds?" - - J. Bolton.

Well, that is a good question. I am assuming that the U.S. military brought all the assets available to it, civilian and military both, to bear upon this problem. That would include instantaneous information from a variety of ground-based and spaced-based radars? According to the reports in the media, the Lake Erie task force consisted of the two Aegis cruisers AND some sort of ship that supplied independent trajectory data . This was a Cobra Judy or similar type ship? An ocean-going vessel designed specifically to track space vehicles for intelligence purposes!

A mobilization of so many assets at once is unique and would not be possible except during a crisis situation?

AND telescopic cameras with large mirrors capable of amazing resolution? Both space and land based, tracking the intercept and destruction of the wayward recon satellite from a variety of angles, from multitude of locations?

"If so, the ICBM's allow 15 minutes or thereabouts to determine their trajectories, so that anti-missile defense is now feasible?" - - J. Bolton.

The concept of a sea-based anti-ballistic system NORMALLY would allow for intercept and destruction of enemy missiles during the BOOST PHASE OF LAUNCH! The Standard Missile - 3 is a "tactical" weapon NOT capable of shooting down an INCOMING ICBM? OR is this no longer so?

"In general short-range tactical ABMs [such as the Standard Missile - 3] cannot intercept ICBMs, even if within range. The tactical ABM radar and performance characteristics do not allow it, as an incoming ICBM warhead moves much faster than a tactical missile warhead."

Again, we are talking about an incoming intercontinental missile warhead, and not a missile during the BOOST phase of launch! The Standard Missile - 3 CAN shoot down a tactical ballistic missile, BUT NOT an incoming ICBM warhead!

"Also aren't the targets of ICBM's predictable, such that part of their trajectories could be in memory, sufficient for targeting?" - - J. Bolton.

That would seem to be exactly the type of "thing" the Russians have in mind as they develop and field their recently tested hypersonic, maneuverable re-entry vehicle. Able to make mid-course maneuvers to avoid being shot-down during the terminal stage of weapons delivery. This would seem to suggest that the Russians "believer" that a successful anti-ballistic system is much more feasible that is normally assumed?

Again, all speculation on my part!

Indeed the "shoot-down" of this errant American satellite is being blown all out of proportion?!

coolbert.

Satellite!

This is coolbert:

The wayward, errant American satellite has been destroyed! Shot-down [well, not exactly shot-down, as the satellite was on a course to crash into the earth anyhow] or blasted into minute fragments that are harmless to humans on the ground!

The test is a success without qualification?! So the Pentagon wants us to believe. Seems to be so too. The task at hand was carried out with an expertise that seemed almost casual in nature. The comments coming out of Washington are all positive:

* "U.S. will share some information on shoot down with China"

* "'High degree of confidence' missile scored direct hit on fuel tank"

* "Officials see no debris larger than a football, general says"

* "Most debris will burn up on re-entry within two days"

The cost is $60 million dollars to bust this "thing" up? Software and missile modification was necessary, so it is alleged.

Well, the Pentagon is happy. We should be too!

In this particular case, a bullet was able to hit a bullet? Something that was not deemed feasible, practical, or EVEN "moral" not so long ago now?

"But hitting a bullet with a bullet has become almost routine. On Sept. 28, 2007, also high above the Pacific Ocean (75 miles), another 'Star Wars fantasy' vehicle successfully destroyed the mock warhead of a long-range missile. Many other recent tests have shown similar success. In fact, the U.S. is joined by 30 other nations who are working on missile defense systems. For those whose delicate constitutions forbid them to take comfort in military strength, they may consider that this same technology may one day save Earth from a catastrophic meteor strike"

And concerning the Chinese satellite shoot-down of January 2007:

"In January 2007, China used a land-based missile to destroy a 2,200-pound satellite that was orbiting 528 miles above the Earth. The impact left more than 100,000 pieces of debris orbiting the planet, NASA estimated -- 2,600 of them more than 4 inches across. The U.S. agency called the breakup of the Fengyun-C satellite the worst in history."

And here, a comment to the CNN news report from an obviously informed observer:

"The THAAD missile tests have been going on here on Kaua'i [Hawaii] for a couple of years, in full public view and disclosure...and have been very successful in shooting down other missiles in flight. What's so new about this?"

And for the assertion that:

"this same technology may one day save Earth from a catastrophic meteor strike"

If we are talking about ONE large meteor striking the earth, well, then this technology WILL work. If we are talking about the more likely event of a meteor shower striking the earth, then we cannot expect dozens or hundreds of large meteoric objects to be intercepted and "destroyed" as has been the American satellite. Too many objects would have to be targeted at once and intercepted. NOT feasible for a shower. FOR one aberrant meteor, asteroid, etc. - - YES - - possible!!!

Consider, however, lastly, what Suvorov would have to say about all this: [regarding Soviet development of an anti-ballistic missile system]

"'We [Soviets] have been working on this question for a long time and we have had some success'. Then, casually, they [Soviets] showed the whole world some lengths of film one rocket destroying another. A very primitive trick. A circus clown who knows the precise trajectory characteristics of a rocket and it's launch-time could hit it with an airgun."

Needless to say, Suvorov is skeptical and being sarcastic in this case.

But the point is well taken.

The U.S. Navy was dealing with an object in space, the orbit of which was well established [even if in a decaying mode], time being allowed to study and recommend a solution, and time allowed to implement that solution [modified missile and software required]. You know where and when the object will be in space when you shoot at it. You have a much higher confidence level of success in such circumstances.

The Aegis cruiser Lake Erie probably also - - moved into a position that would more or less guarantee a favorable outcome for the "shoot-down"?

A chaotic situation as would be in wartime or if a rogue nation launched a surprise missile attack aimed at the U.S. is not present here [satellite shoot-down].

Since Suvorov wrote those words - - 1982 - - times have changed??!!

coolbert.

Anti-Satellite II. [Conclusion]

This is coolbert:

Here is the full and complete dope on the missile that will shoot-down the errant American satellite.

"Inside America's Satellite-Killing Missile"

"Today, the U.S. Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense system uses the Standard Missile (SM)-3 to make what are known as 'direct intercepts.' That means there's no explosion in space. Instead, the SM-3 destroys its target by ramming into with lots and lots of sheer kinetic energy [this is the bullet hitting a bullet concept]"

The Standard Missile - 3 with improved software for guidance is aboard the Aegis missile cruiser for this "test". The missile has too been modified [with regard to software] in some manner?

"Launch details: A Standard Missile 3 (SM-3) missile, with an anti-satellite payload will be launched from the USS Lake Erie by the US Navy to intercept the USA-193 satellite. Launch will occur no earlier than 20 February 2008, and no later than early March. Most reports suggest sometime between 20-25 February."

Read about the U.S. Navy anti-missile capability here.

This is not necessarily the first time that the Standard Missile - 3 has been used in the capacity for which it is now intended. Actually has been used "routinely" for such tests and has been successful MOST of the time?

"Right now, the SM-3 has tested against short- and medium-range ballistic missiles, and has made twelve intercepts out of fourteen attempts during testing. These intercepts have been made while the target is in space"

Go U.S. Navy! I have a hunch a lot is riding on a successful intercept and destruction of that satellite.

coolbert.

Anti-satellite I.

This is coolbert:

It seems that whole lot of "experts" are looking at the proposed "shoot-down" of the wayward American satellite with a fair degree of skepticism.

There is more to this than meets the eye? Like what I have said in my previous blog entry on the same subject.

Here from the Danger Room of Wired.com.

"Experts Scoff at Sat Shoot-Down Rationale (Updated)"

"The Pentagon says it has to shoot down a malfunctioning spy satellite because of the threat of a toxic gas cloud. Space security experts are calling the rationale highly unlikely."

"Which leads one military satellite observer to tell DANGER ROOM, 'Everything they said made sense except for the reason for doing the intercept in the first place.'"

"There has to be another reason behind this," said Michael Krepon, co-founder of the Henry L. Stimson Center, tells the Washington Post. "In the history of the space age, there has not been a single human being who has been harmed by man-made objects falling from space."

"Our [Danger Room] veteran space security specialist believes there are several [reasons for conducting the "shoot-down"]:

* "the satellite shot is a chance for the military to try out its missile defense capabilities"

* "a way to keep secret material out of the wrong hands"

* "and a warning to the Chinese"

* "it would be a clear signal that the US can possess an active ASAT capability at any time if it so desires. That is a serious development as the previous US ASAT system using F-15s was mothballed in the 1980's."

The U.S. mothballed the F-15 based anti-satellite system in the 1980's? That is news to me. A F-15 in an almost vertical "zoom" climb fires an anti-satellite missile at an enemy satellite. The ballistic motion of the F-15 allows for the missile to achieve altitude and speed with much greater ease. A very good idea, versatile and flexible. Was mothballed?

"UPDATE: Regardless of the central rationale for the anticipated intercept of a dying satellite, the action almost certainly would offer the Pentagon useful data on conducting anti-satellite missions"

Right, exactly. An excellent opportunity for testing, gathering data, refining anti-missile systems. A rare real-world "experiment" that may prove to be extremely useful.

coolbert.

Shoot!

This is coolbert:

Here is a big time headline in the news today:

"Officials: U.S. to try to shoot down errant satellite"

NOT quite correct, however.

NOT trying to shoot it down. The satellite is going to crash into earth anyhow. Whatever is done at this point, the satellite will still come out of errant orbit and slam somewhere into the earth.

NOT shooting it down as much as destroying elements aboard that are dangerous to humans. "toxic hydrazine propellant". This is the problem?

"While much space trash and debris have safely crashed to Earth after burning up in the atmosphere on re-entry, authorities said what makes this 5,000-pound satellite different is the approximately 1,000 pounds of frozen toxic hydrazine propellant it carries."

A hit near a populated area and the spew of toxic propellants could kill or maim a lot of folks? NOT to mention falling debris.

I had originally thought the problems was more than likely radioactive junk aboard the satellite used as a power source. Heat from nuclear reaction used to power the "bird", such as plutonium, could also be released near a populated area, reason for a massive clean-up. This is NOT the case?

"The goal is to hit the satellite just before it enters Earth's atmosphere and blast it apart so that the hydrazine tank explodes. The smaller debris would be more likely to burn up in the atmosphere."

"There will be three Navy ships involved in the operation. The USS Lake Erie, an Aegis cruiser, will fire the missile, while trajectory information comes from a second ship. The third ship will be used as a backup, U.S. Navy officials said."

"The Lake Erie has long been used as the platform for the sea-based missile defense program."

This is going to be a U.S. Navy operation. Aegis class ship used previously as an experimental platform for missile defense!

Additionally, a chance to test, in a real-world environment, the software, the hardware, the concept of missile defense? NOT an exercise-out-of-the-can.

Advocates have for a long time now promoted the concept of sea-borne anti-ballistic missile defense. U.S. Navy warships of an improved-Aegis variety with improved ABM [anti-ballistic missiles] aboard, cruising near the coastline of a hostile power, are more suited to provide a boost phase intercept and shoot-down capability of missiles fired at the U.S. [presumably carrying a nuke]!!

I hope this goes well. A success will be a big plus for the U.S. military! Go for it and good hunting!!

coolbert.