Navy: another successful missile shoot-down

[docm]

<p><font size="3">The USS Lake Erie strikes again;</font></p><p><font size="3">Link....</font></p><p><td colspan="2">&nbsp;

 

[l3p3r]

<p>I was under the impression this had already been done? </p><p>Is there some aspect of this that is new/groundbreaking? I would have thought shooting down a satellite would be more difficult...</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>Not to say it isn't a remarkable technical achievement, I'm just curious </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[docm]

<font size="3">One of a continuing series of tests.&nbsp; The satellite shootdown was a flyer - not in the plan.</font> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[Mee_n_Mac]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I was under the impression this had already been done? Is there some aspect of this that is new/groundbreaking? I would have thought shooting down a satellite would be more difficult...&nbsp;Not to say it isn't a remarkable technical achievement, I'm just curious <br />Posted by <strong>l3p3r</strong></DIV></p><p>The satellite shootdown used an SM-3, a variant of the Navy's <strong>S</strong>tandard <strong>M</strong>issile line. This test used shorter range, in the atmosphere SM-2 Block IV missile. The Block IV variant being an extended range version of an SM-2, primarily intended as a defense against planes and anti-ship cruise missiles.&nbsp;The SM-3 does exo-atmospheric intercepts using an IR sensor in a KKV. The SM-2's used in this test are radar guided with a proximity fuze, more analogous to a Patriot PAC-2 Missile in the ground based Army world.&nbsp; SM-3's are more like a THAAD interceptor.&nbsp; </p><p>Aren't you glad you asked ?&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;<img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/content/scripts/tinymce/plugins/emotions/images/smiley-wink.gif" border="0" alt="Wink" title="Wink" /></p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>Link to an MDA press release.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>-----------------------------------------------------</p><p><font color="#ff0000">Ask not what your Forum Software can do do on you,</font></p><p><font color="#ff0000">Ask it to, please for the love of all that's Holy, <strong>STOP</strong> !</font></p> </div>

 

[DrRocket]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I was under the impression this had already been done? Is there some aspect of this that is new/groundbreaking? I would have thought shooting down a satellite would be more difficult...&nbsp;Not to say it isn't a remarkable technical achievement, I'm just curious <br />Posted by l3p3r</DIV></p><p>I would expect that shooting down the satellite would be the easier task.&nbsp; With the satellite you know exactly where the satellite will be and when it will be there.&nbsp; You know there will be no decoys.&nbsp; You have all the time in the world to plan the hit.&nbsp; The satellite shoot-down did provide a nice demonstration of SM-3 range and precisioin guidance of the kill vehicle, a very visible demonstration&nbsp;to some of the bad guys out there (like Korea) that the&nbsp;Navy can put an effective interceptor at their doorstep.&nbsp; </p><p>In the case of a missile intercept the test is as much a test of the radar detection system and command and control as it is of the missile itself and the intercept following launch.&nbsp; SM-3 has also been shown to work in missile intercepts.&nbsp; The difference is that SM-3 is designed to be more of a mid-course intercept at higher altitude while this intercept was a terminal phase mission.</p><p>There has been tremendous progress in the U.S. interceptor capability in the last 3 years or so.&nbsp; <br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[l3p3r]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Aren't you glad you asked ? </DIV> Haha yes I am! </p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>Thanks for the replies everyone.</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>Was the detection of the target done by the ship itself or was it instructed by other components of the network? That is; was this a test of the overall capability of the system or just the ordinance? &nbsp; </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[SpaceKiwi]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'><font color="#3366ff">I would expect that shooting down the satellite would be the easier task.&nbsp; With the satellite you know exactly where the satellite will be and when it will be there.&nbsp; You know there will be no decoys.&nbsp; You have all the time in the world to plan the hit.<br /></font><strong>Posted by DrRocket</strong></DIV></p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>Probably, though I couldn't see anywhere within the press release whether the Erie had some of those same advantages.&nbsp; I assume they at least knew the test was on, when the target missile would be launched and from where.&nbsp; Still, good job them.</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>SK&nbsp; <img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/Content/images/store/6/9/5651a494-719f-426b-997d-aabc316c3f80.Medium.gif" alt="" /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em><font size="2" color="#ff0000">Who is this superhero?  Henry, the mild-mannered janitor ... could be!</font></em></p><p><em><font size="2">-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------</font></em></p><p><font size="5">Bring Back The Black!</font></p> </div>