Subscribe via RSS

Archives by Date
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009

See all Archives
Archives by Category
'Canes
Afghan Update
Ammo and Munitions
Armor
Around the Globe
Av Week Extra
Axe in Iraq (and Elsewhere)
Bizarro
Blimps
Blog Bidness
Body Armor Blues
Bomb Squad
Brownshoes in Action
Bubbleheads, etc.
Cammo Green
Catch the "Buzz"
Chem-Bio
Civilian Apps
Cloak and Dagger
Commandos
Comms
Contingency Ops
Cops and Robbers
Cyber-warfare
Data Diving
Defense Tech Poll
Defense Tech Radio
Dissent Tech
Door Kickers
Drones
DT Administrivia
Eat DT's Dust
Extra! Extra!
Eye on China
Fast Movers
FCS Watch
Fire for Effect
FOS Files
Friday Funnies
Gadgets and Gear
Going Green
Grand Ole Osprey
Ground Vehicles
Guns
Homeland Security
In the Weeds with Eric
Info War
Iraq Diary
Jarhead Jazz
JSF Watch
Just War Theories
Lasers and Ray Guns
Less-lethal
Logistics
Los Alamos and Labs
M4 Monopoly
Medic!
Mercs
Missiles
Money Money Money
Most Wanted
MRAP Edge
Net-Centric
Nukes
Old Skool
Our Shrinking Planet
Planes, Copters, Blimps
Podcast
Politricks
Polmar's Perspective
Popular Mechanics
Rapid Fire
Raptor Watch
Red Team
Retro-Futuro
Robots
Roll Your Own
Sabra Tech
Ships and Subs
Snipertech
Soldier Systems
Space
Special Ops
Star Wars
Strategery
Stray Trons
Tactical Development
Terror Tech
The Deadlies
The Defense Biz
The Peoples' Site
The Sunday Paper
The Tanker Tango
The View from Av Week
Those Nutty Norks
Training and Sims
Trimble on the Case
Video Lounge
War Update
Ward'z Wonderz
You can run...

See all Archives
Newsletters

Edited by Christian Lowe | Contact

Missile Defense Scores ... Finally

After several failed test shots and a seven-year flight hiatus, the Army's Terminal High-Altitude Air Defense missile system (THAAD) hit a Hera target this morning over the White Sands range in New Mexico.

THAAD FTT-03 Launch.jpgA Lockheed Martin press release expounds:

Specific test objectives included demonstrating the integration of the radar, launcher, fire control and communications and interceptor operations; demonstrating kill vehicle control in response to in-flight uplinks; and target acquisition and tracking by the interceptor’s seeker.

“The entire THAAD team has been focused on proving THAAD’s ability to detect, track and engage a live target,” said Tom McGrath, program manager and vice president for THAAD at Lockheed Martin.

This is the third successful THAAD developmental flight test conducted since flight testing resumed for the program in November 2005. A successful controlled flight test was conducted last year, followed by a successful integrated test of the entire THAAD system in May of 2006.

THAAD is expected to complement the PAC-3 (Patriot) interceptor in providing terminal-phase defense against short- and intermediate-range ballistic missiles. In other words, it might take out Scuds and maybe even Taepodongs, but don't expect to knock down ICBMs. THAAD has a longer range and more energy than PAC-3, meaning it can hit targets much higher.

But don't get too excited. Today's test included just one non-maneuvering target with no decoys and no debris. So this was about as easy as a test can get. Now the $10-billion THAAD moves to a missile range off of Hawaii for several more test flights at longer and shorter ranges. Hopefully some of these tests will be more realistic.

If all goes well, THAAD will be operational in "a few years", according to McGrath.

Read more at Military.com.

--David Axe

UPDATE 4:37 PM: "MDA's accomplishment today is a real one," adds Victoria Samson, the resident missile guru at the Center for Defense Information -- and a frequent critic of the missile defense program.

THAAD was the first missile defense system to be called a "rush to failure" (but apparently not the last one to earn that moniker). THAAD has been reorganized, revamped, and basically renewed. However, today's test intercept is just one step among many - THAAD has a long way to go before it has proven itself to be reliable and worthy of ramping up production and deployment.

Also, note that an intercept was officially not the primary objective - seeker characterization of the target was. This could be seen as MDA trying to walk before it can run - a good thing. Or it can be what we're seeing in the GMD program: an attempt to downplay expectations so that any news is good news.

Comments

Defence contracts - nice work if you can get it!

Posted by: Bruce at September 2, 2006 11:26 PM


Wrong again people! "The Patriot Act" is the best ABM defense there is. I have been living under it for years and no Missiles have hit me yet!True story!

Posted by: Jaye at July 25, 2006 07:29 AM


Correction: THAAD hit twice in 1999. Odd that I should have forgotten, given that I observed the second one.

Posted by: Slartibartfast at July 24, 2006 04:03 PM


Oh, and regarding "finally": THAAD hit twice back in 1998, after which they decided to move on to the objective system design.

Posted by: Slartibartfast at July 24, 2006 02:02 PM


"Byron, those homing devices were utilized because there was no radar integrated with the system. This test involved radar, so there was no homing device."

More correctly, there never was a homing device. Ever. Early in the flight test program, before there was a GBR available, the target vehicle had a beacon that made it more visible to range radars. The range radars tracked the beacon and computed a fire control solution for the missile, and also computed updates to that solution that were uplinked to the missile. So until GBR came online, those THAAD tests were test of the missile segment and not the GBR. AFter GBR came online, the C-band track was not used to aid in the mission.

Also on the target was a GPS translator to aid in trajectory reconstruction. The GPS translator data was only converted to trajectory after the flight test and was never used to aid in the intercept.

Neither of these things would be useful in the mission after acquisition, anyways, as they both introduce excessive lag in the homing guidance loop.

Posted by: Slartibartfast at July 24, 2006 01:59 PM


if THADD is acousin to Patriot we all might as well dig our holes a littel deeper. Patriot could not get out the tube consistely,or go where it was to go. why should we trust THADD?

Posted by: david petree at July 20, 2006 01:25 AM


The movie "Spys like us" deals with the real Star Wars. So big deal, if North Korea launches a few large missiles at Japan as long as no Americans are hurt so what? We still owe Japan for our WW2 POWs and for Unit 731 in China and the Bataan Death March and my TV/VCR Combo that went bad in less then a year! Saki it up Tokyo, kind of feels like Pearl Harbor don't it? You no likey huh?

Posted by: Jaye at July 13, 2006 04:42 PM


"I would like to know how an ICBM is somehow so different a target than a medium range ballistic missile? They both do the same things, once just goes farther."

And higher. Higher = greater reentry speed. In the order of 6 km/s (Mach 17) for ICBMs. Add full scale decoys, chaff, multiple warheads, etc. and it's like trying to hit a needle in a haystack with another needle while the haystack is speeding towards you at 17 times the speed of sound.

Posted by: Oz at July 12, 2006 08:55 PM


"THAAD is expected to complement the PAC-3 (Patriot) interceptor in providing terminal-phase defense against short- and intermediate-range ballistic missiles. In other words, it might take out Scuds and maybe even Taepodongs, but don't expect to knock down ICBMs."

WHAT? The THAAD has been designed to knock down ICBMs, the only reason shorter range missile are discussed is that the MILITARY requirement for missile defense is against these short/medium range missiles and not ICBMs. Defense against ICBMs is a more controversial political subject.

I would like to know how an ICBM is somehow so different a target than a medium range ballistic missile? They both do the same things, once just goes farther. The THAAD was never designed to stop an all-out cold war style nuclear attack, it was designed to provide missile defense against the "rouge nations", the nations who are only capable of firing a limited number of single warhead missiles.

I am glad that THAAD was not killed in its crib as many so-called "experts" have wanted. Same with the Osprey. Yet time and time again the so-called (anti) defense experts are proven wrong.

Posted by: Kaltes at July 12, 2006 05:18 PM


Byron, those homing devices were utilized because there was no radar integrated with the system. This test involved radar, so there was no homing device.

Posted by: Evan at July 12, 2006 01:56 PM


It's just a matter of time before any accurate information about these test results will be unobtainable. Would you want the enemy knowing the limits of your homeleand defense mechanism? Who knows, the cover-ups may have already begun. Not that I have a problem with that...as long as money for that project is being spent on THAT project.

Posted by: DS at July 12, 2006 01:41 PM


Good Morning David,

You forgot to mention David, did the Hera target missile have it's usual homing devive in it?

ALLONS,
Byron Skinner

Posted by: Byron Skinner at July 12, 2006 01:10 PM


Post a comment




Remember Me?


Please enter the code as seen in the image below to post your comment.