ShortNews
+ + + 3 BRANDNEW NewsTickers for your Website! + + + easy configurable in less than 1 Minute + + + GET'EM NOW! + + +

   Home | Join | Submit News | MyShortNews | HighScores | FAQ'S | Forums Chat | 0 Users Online   
   
                 04/25/2014 07:02 AM  
  ShortNews Search
search all Channels
RSS feeds
   Top News Current Events
Possible Debris of Malaysia Airlines Flight Spotted on Australian Coast
Girl Captures Black Ring UFO on iPhone
Criminal Arrested After Asking Police If He Should Be Arrested
Boxer Rubin "Hurricane" Carter Dead at 76
Avalanche on Mount Everest, at Least 12 Dead
Woman Sues Walmart, Claims Shampoo Tangled Hair So Much She Had to Cut It
Florida Man Named Edward Cocaine Arrested on Drug Possession Charges
Missing Boy Found Playing Happily With Stuffed Animals in "Bear Claw" Toy Machine
Man Who Harrassed Neighbors Ordered to Hold "I Am a Bully" Sign
Police Officer Delivers Own Baby in Squad Car
more News
out of this Channel...
  ShortNews User Poll
Do you think marriages between same-sex couples should be legally recognized?
  Latest Events
04/24/2014 08:55 AM
maricelclint receives 100 Points for News Submission of 'Westhill Consulting Travel And Tours Guide: Experience Spa In Jakarta'
  2.305 Visits   3 Assessments  Show users who Rated this:
Quality: Good
Back to Overview  
01/19/2006 06:28 PM ID: 52370 Permalink   

$100 Billion on US Missile Defense. Results? A 55% Failure Rate

 

And that figure is based on tests that are rigged to succeed, some critics claim. In Fort Greely, Alaska, only 8 of some 16 planned interceptor missiles are installed though the program has run since 1983. $7.8 Billion is earmarked for this year.

Two independent panels looked at the program after the 2004 and 2005 test failures when the interceptors failed to leave their silos. More testing was suggested. The US military responded by slowing the interceptor deployment.

A former chief of testing for the Pentagon and a critic said if highly scripted tests fail how could they succeed in a surprise attack. "Hitting an enemy missile out in space, at 15,000 mph, is like a hole-in-one with the hole moving at 15,000 mph."

 
  Source: hosted.ap.org  
    WebReporter: MmmMan Show Calling Card      
  Recommendation:  
ASSESS this news: BLOCK this news. Reason:
   
  11 Comments
  
  Results not reults  
 
aaaaaaaaaaaaaa
 
  by: MmmMan     01/19/2006 06:37 PM     
  yeah  
 
But if you have the advanced maths of all the best people in the world, and that amount of money, surely you should be able to get a hole in one every time?
 
  by: jimhaddon   01/19/2006 06:47 PM     
  first  
 
Off the patriot should b dropped, they had more success with the new laser weapon the army is working on, missiles have to be faster then there target to catch up in time, SEAram which is on most naval ships only works at a dangerous range and only works by spewing 100,000 rounds in moments to shred it apart, cause anti-ship missiles hug the sea level, anyway if u remember during the gulf war, israel deployed partriot missles(which lead the government inquiry why they aren't work which lead to mass lying) the missles couldn't hit cause it only scanned the projected range the missle is gonna head,not other area's. And saddam had info about the patrio so when he launched scud attacks on israel this is what he did

He had his scientists take some of the warhead weigh out of the tip so when fired the missle would not travel straight, and would wobble its way up and smash down, doesn't matter where cause a scud takes out a square block, and that why the patriot failed cause iraqi's took 600 lbs of explosives out of the damn warhead and the fear is the same thing now, mortars can be modded to wobble cause it doesn't matter where the mortar lands the whole affect of a mortar landing in iraq is enough to scare troops and ppl to ger cover and also makes tracing it aweful. They r trying test runs of SEAram in iraq but it still comes with the price of collateral damage of scrapnel landing straight down where SEAram blows up the mortar in mid-air.

I don't understand why missle tech. The military wanted lasers mounted under planes and tank to melt them as they r shot at them so why waste more money on ballistics? And instead of a aggressive mean to blow it up why not a cheaper laser-ish affect by blinding the missle with a laser to throw it off course,make the missle go straight up or microwaves to fry the onboard hard drive.

Then hopefully a new tech is to melt tank shells as they come at 1.4 klicks a second at u. GL or A-T-A missles at a pilot. Or rpg-7 comming at a squad of soldiers.
 
  by: DREKK   01/19/2006 09:03 PM     
  @jimhaddon  
 
It's not just math that you need... Well, it is, but it's not possible to know all the possible variables..

The ballistic path and velocity are the obvious and major calcs you need done. But how about air density at varying levels of elevation? How about cross current wind gusts? Imperfections in your (or the target) rocket's external structure?

You can't know every variable, which makes hitting a ballistic object with another ballistic object (even a guided one) a real tough challenge. You only get one intercept chance, there is no turning around and trying again.

That makes the laser a much better option. You can retarget and refire if you miss and there are less environmental variables you have to worry about.
 
  by: Dedolito     01/20/2006 12:18 AM     
  pointless  
 
What a waste of money, i reckon the tech is still 15 - 20 years away from any kind of practical success. Although i bet the idea of being able to harrass any other country without fear of respite would make dubya wet himself.
 
  by: lachs     01/20/2006 06:33 AM     
  @DREKK  
 
If soldiers with lasers were viable, I think we'd be using them already. As stunning as this may sound, we are a long way off from puting soldiers into a MagiMechTech MechaMech.
 
  by: CrisW   01/20/2006 03:26 PM     
  @chrisw  
 
Actually if u look up the us army has a new exo suit that allows a soldier to carry an extra 100 lbs without feeling the weigh of it and that a 100 extra over the the 39 pounds the suit weighs, its loud and isn't meant for combat, just if a soldier has to hump gear to a certain point this exo-suit can do it. All the other cyborg crap is only the old land warrior system, which all it is, is an eye piece near his right eye, a 12 hr battery, a mouse on his gun with a heavy ass camera mounted on it to see around corners and a pda that lets him see other solders near by but its too bulky and he has to deploy the pda in order to see troop movement and to lase a target for planes so he has to do all of this without being seen and also the chip has to be in every soldiers BDU which requires power so all it does mean each soldier costs more now via this system
 
  by: DREKK   01/20/2006 08:30 PM     
  @chrisw  
 
the lasers being developed as part of a missile shield are not troop carried, their are aircraft mounted.

http://www.boeing.com/...
 
  by: Dedolito     01/20/2006 08:44 PM     
  ugh  
 
"they're" not "their"

anyhoo, these military videos always crack me up. I can't help but imagine a bunch of generals sitting around a long table veiwing these things & drooling like little boys with new bb rifle, imagining what mayham they can cause.

http://video.boeing.com:8080/...

Metal Storm technologies were also being considered for use in the missile shield systems at one time, but looks like they have shifted focus.

early prototype firing system
http://www.metalstorm.com/...

 
  by: Dedolito     01/20/2006 09:12 PM     
  Who Cares.. as long as...  
 
Who cares... as long as the military industrial complex grows fatter with tax-dollars... the failures are insignificant.

Nothing to see here.. move along folks.. just keep paying your taxes, everything will be cool.. evidently we need to pump billions more into the companies involved to get this right.. nothing to see.. move along.. etc..

Yes.. that was an attempt at sarcasm.
 
  by: method_uk   01/21/2006 03:53 PM     
  Latest Airborn Laser defense vdeos  
   
  by: MmmMan     03/21/2006 04:35 PM     
 
 
Copyright ©2014 ShortNews GmbH & Co. KG, Contact: info@shortnews.com