OT: Hit-to-kill warhead interception systems
 

Not that I've thought especially hard about it in the past, but I'd assumed that because the US government has been building GMD interceptor missiles and launch facilities for some years now, they must have a reasonable success rate in testing. Then I read the article below. I'm simultaneously stunned, amused and horrified. Why is such a huge amount of money being spent on full production and deployment of a system that has to this point never worked?

Here's why the US missile defense system is utterly broken

I think saying it NEVER worked is an exaggeration. Four tests since 2008 have failed but there were numerous successes before that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ground-...e#Flight_tests

I won't comment on the viability of the system after such scathing reviews, but given it has a "chance" to stop something, I can't see anyone canceling it.

Can you imagine if a DPRK missile was launched the day after the defenses were removed.

A couple of years ago, I saw a compelling piece on the national news about the Israeli Iron Dome system. It's apparently shot down dozens (maybe more , by now) of unguided rockets launched from Lebanon and the Palestinian territories. Why can't something like Iron Dome which, from what I've read/seen about it, has achieved a remarkable success rate against unguided rockets, be adapted to counter ballistic missile warheads and such?

Iron Dome has to be the most effective air defence system in the world. The US is helping to fund it and India and South Korea are interested in using it. The Israelis are working on increasing its range from 70km to 250km.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_Dome

Israel is also developing a laser air defence system for projectiles to small for Iron Dome.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_Beam

For the same reason the DoD won't just buy (or license build) the active-kill ATGM/ATRL defense system the Israelis are using and have used successfully in combat. For the same reason the Roland missile system was never adopted fully. For the same reason ADATS was never adopted. For the same reason the 120mm main gun of the Abrams *barely* made it through acquisition, and the L7/M67 105mm before it barely did:

Not. Made. Here.

Congressman Porkbarrel is worried that JERBS MERT BE LERST in Muckasoogie Co. or Northeast Bumblefuck if we *gasp* dared to buy foreign equipment.

Meanwhile we're the #1 exporter of arms on the planet, and will shut down our close "allies" projects through diplomatic means if they endanger US military projects that might get sold (See: CF105 Avro Arrow, UK ICBM projects, W. German Lamprydae stealth fighter/bomber)

Gawkersphere left-slant (and I mean hard left) bullshit.

Our "utterly broken" TMD system has had many, many successes before recent no-passes. But that doesn't play well to Gawker's audience, so.

Fair enough. So you're comfortable with the system not having had any successful hit-to-kill tests even though it's now well into the deployment phase?

I'm assuming that there's nothing particularly wrong with the theory, or the main boost section of the system, so the existing missiles and launch facilities can continue to be used and it's just the interceptor warheads that need work?

Hit-to-kill technology of such is going to be difficult to mature. I think we've all heard it being compared to hitting a bullet with a bullet.

Which makes me think of something else, so I'm going to engage in threadjacking. What's the word (as far as we know) about the guided sniper rounds that DARPA was supposedly working on?

I'm comfortable that the system continues under development, that it will mature, and honestly even if it stops 1 in 5 warheads that's something. Better than to tell someone down the line "We could've stopped some of them, but we decided it'd be better to stop none."