Article Archive: Current 1999 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics
Air Defense: Defending Hawaii From North Korean Attack
   Next Article → PROCUREMENT: Super UAV Turrets
June 22, 2009: American officials have responded to North Korea's preparations for a new IRBM (Intermediate Range Ballistic Missile) test by announcing that sufficient anti-missile systems are being sent to Hawaii to deal with any potential North Korea success with their Taepodong 2 missile. Actually, the U.S. already has anti-missile systems in Hawaii (AEGIS SM-3 and THAAD (Terminal High Altitude Area Defense), and it's unlikely that North Korea has a working IRBM that could travel 7,300 kilometers and hit something in Hawaii.

North Korea has been working on Taepodong 2 for over a decade. An earlier model, launched in1998, went about 1,500 kilometers. A 2006 test barely got off the ground before crashing. A test two months ago only went about 3,000 kilometers. The Taepodong 2 being readied for launch now might make it out to 7,000 kilometers or more. But that's unlikely. So it's a good American PR move to point out that Hawaii is being made safe.

The anti-missile system already in Hawaii are some THAAD systems at the Pacific Missile Range Facility. Last year, the U.S. Army began forming the first of four THAAD batteries. This unit will be ready for combat next year. The other three batteries will be in service within four years. Two years ago, there was a successful test of THAAD (a SCUD type target was destroyed in flight) using a crew of soldiers for the first time, and not manufacturer technicians, to operate the system.

 Each THAAD battery will have 24 missiles, three launchers and a fire control communications system. This will include an X-Band radar. The gear for each battery will cost $310 million. The 18 foot long THAAD missiles weigh 1,400 pounds. The range of THAAD is 200 kilometers, max altitude is 150 kilometers, and it is intended for short (like SCUD) or medium range (up to 2,000 kilometer) range ballistic missiles. Tweaks to the system are supposed to make it capable of handling something like the Taepodong 2. THAAD has been in development for two decades. Ultimately, the army would like to buy at least 18 launchers, 1,400 missiles, and 18 radars.

 The navy has also modified its Standard anti-aircraft missile system to take down something like the Taepodong 2. This system, the RIM-161A, also known as the Standard Missile 3 (or SM-3), has a longer range than THAAD (over 500 kilometers) and max altitude of 160 kilometers. The SM 3 missiles cost over three million dollars each. The SM 3 has four stages. The first two stages boost the interceptor out of the atmosphere. The third stage fires twice to boost the interceptor farther beyond the earth's atmosphere. Prior to each motor firing it takes a GPS reading to correct course for approaching the target. The fourth stage is the 20 pound LEAP kill vehicle, which uses infrared sensors to close on the target and ram it. The AEGIS/SM-3 combination has had numerous successful tests, and recently shot down a low orbit satellite.

The SM-3 operates from warships (cruisers and destroyers that have been equipped with the special software that enables the AEGIS radar system to detect and track incoming ballistic missiles.) There are several AEGIS equipped ships either near Hawaii, or close enough to reach the islands in less than a week.

Next Article → PROCUREMENT: Super UAV Turrets
  

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
enomosiki       6/22/2009 8:25:44 AM
The main problem with the PR is that the media, attempting to be as dramatic as possible, is simply exaggerating the threat of Taepodong 2 while labeling the THAAD and SBX as being "unproven".
 
Quote    Reply

Headlock       6/22/2009 11:53:00 AM
I completely agree.

There is continuous, unsubstantiated bollocks in the media in general abotu the systems being unproven. This is a seriously doubtfrul claim, as there has been a consistent run of usccessful tests, and not jsut one, but ALL 3 services are installing, procuring or further developing ABM systems. The odds of all 3 services falling hook line and sinker for a fake, useless or rickety, unreliable system are simply lucicrous.

Some basic common sense needs to be used, and not just regurgitating inaccurate crap from unprofessional, unrelaible and sensationalist sources.

Im no media hater, I think a free press is absolutely vital, but the laziness exhibited in regard to ABM systems is just pathetic.

Do your jobs, dammit.

HDK 


 
 
 
Quote    Reply

WarNerd    re:Headlock   6/23/2009 1:52:16 AM

I completely agree.

There is continuous, unsubstantiated bollocks in the media in general abotu the systems being unproven. This is a seriously doubtfrul claim, as there has been a consistent run of usccessful tests, and not jsut one, but ALL 3 services are installing, procuring or further developing ABM systems. The odds of all 3 services falling hook line and sinker for a fake, useless or rickety, unreliable system are simply lucicrous.
 
Some basic common sense needs to be used, and not just regurgitating inaccurate crap from unprofessional, unrelaible and sensationalist sources.
 
Im no media hater, I think a free press is absolutely vital, but the laziness exhibited in regard to ABM systems is just pathetic.
 
Do your jobs, dammit.

I am curious, just why do you think that the media should do any better at reporting military items than any other technical issue, like scientific studies, new laws in Congress, or legal proceedings?
 
The best reporting is for important items, like sports, society, paid political speeches, et cetera.  http://www.strategypage.com/CuteSoft_Client/CuteEditor/Images/face19.gif" alt="" />
 
[Yes, I am being sarcastic, but there is more truth to it than I like to contemplate.]
 
Quote    Reply

mabie       6/23/2009 8:20:11 PM
In the media's eyes its going to take a THAAD or SM-3 shooting down an actual Taepodong before it can be considered "proven".
 
Quote    Reply

JFKY    Guess What   6/23/2009 8:37:10 PM
UNTIL a THAAD shoots down a Taepo Dong, it IS unproven...See testing and exercises aren't  the real thing.  Just like the Spitfire was an UNPROVEN a/c or the British Air Defense System was UNPROVEN, in 1940.  They both passed the tests, but until someone shot at them in anger they were unproven....and if you'd like to risk YOUR life on THAAD, feel free....but until we absolutely have to rely on it, I'd prefer to not find out....because though it may simulate well, in combat it could be a complete bust.
 
So until the THAAD or any of the interceptor's actually make a war shot we won't know if they are Supermarine Spitfires or Bolton-Paul Defiants.  And I'm hoping we never have to find out which they are....
 
Quote    Reply

Nanheyangrouchuan       6/23/2009 10:07:52 PM

In the media's eyes its going to take a THAAD or SM-3 shooting down an actual Taepodong before it can be considered "proven".

In scientific eyes that holds true as well.  The test against the dying satellite was impressive and no doubt shook the boots of the Russians, Chinese, Norks, etc.  But the route was pretty predictable, the target was much larger than a warhead and there were no counter measures on the satellite.  The Nork warhead is small, of unknown telemetry and may have countermeasures installed.  A dud warhead getting through would have more negative impact than a live one because we'd have no reason to flatten NK and the defense system would have shown a flaw that the PRC and Russians could capitalize on (any countermeasure came from one of these two countries).
 
Quote    Reply

Nanheyangrouchuan       6/23/2009 10:24:51 PM

In the media's eyes its going to take a THAAD or SM-3 shooting down an actual Taepodong before it can be considered "proven".

In scientific eyes that holds true as well.  The test against the dying satellite was impressive and no doubt shook the boots of the Russians, Chinese, Norks, etc.  But the route was pretty predictable, the target was much larger than a warhead and there were no counter measures on the satellite.  The Nork warhead is small, of unknown telemetry and may have countermeasures installed.  A dud warhead getting through would have more negative impact than a live one because we'd have no reason to flatten NK and the defense system would have shown a flaw that the PRC and Russians could capitalize on (any countermeasure came from one of these two countries).
 
Quote    Reply

mabie       6/24/2009 5:18:40 AM
By that definition then the Trident Missile is also unproven. The Seawolf submarine also. And any other weapons system which hasn't seen actual combat. 
 
Quote    Reply