/k/ - Weapons

and that is supposed to impress who exactly?

>US missile defenses work perfectly on the first try

Either the missile crew got very, very lucky or this test was rigged.

>>662965

Iirc middle state ICBM interception has about a 50% success rate per missile, and they launched 2. So it isn't inconceivable, although I wouldn't be surprised if there was finagling just to avoid a potential embarrassment.

>>662931

1963 called they want their achievements back.

>>662975

I assume you're talking about Nike. I'm not too familiar with it, but wasn't the general layout that they would dedicate the exospheric missiles to high confidence targets, and they'd have to wait until everything entered the atmosphere before they could start targeting and firing individual missiles at individual targets? This sounds like they combined the early-intercept of the Spartan with the multi-targeting of the Sprint, and enhanced it to recalculate mid-flight.

>>662965

Absolute fuckloads of money go into pork projects like this, so of course the tests are rigged; either to show that it works, or to fail on purpose so that they can ask for more money to "fix" it.

>>662931

Any "test" that's publicized is propaganda for both the public and any potential aggressor states, pure fucking fluff. Nearly half of GMD's intercept tests have been failures, the past three tests (FTG-06b, FTG-15, and FTG-11) have been "successful" because they met the testing parameters (which were minimal), this system and is supporting systems are a FAR, FAR cry from being operationally sustainable. The claim is GMD "intercepted" an ICBM, but the press release states GMD intercepted a "complex, threat-representative ICBM target", meaning it wasn't an actual ICBM. We also have no idea if the "complex, threat-representative ICBM target" was also made to act and react in the manner that an actual ICBM would and testing of GMD has been under ideal conditions and the support systems like radar and tracking has it's own reliability issues.

After 20 years we finally have managed to get the system that's been the only measure protecting CONUS from an attack to intercept an "complex, threat-representative ICBM target".

This country is so fucking boned.

>>662968

Yes, that's correct. The GMD kill probability is 56%, to obtain a 97% kill probability, four GMD interceptors are required. Not a very comforting ratio; they only have 44 GDI launch silos built, providing 44 interceptors with a 50% kill probability against 44 separate targets or a 97% kill probability against 11 targets.

>>663018

It doesn't even specify that the target was representative of an ICBM, just that it represented an ICBM target which modelled some kind of threat.

For all we know, it was a blimp filled with computers with ICBM target written on the side to represent of muslims hijacking the Goodyear blimp.

This won't do anything against sub or aircraft launched weapons.

>>662965

>Either the missile crew got very, very lucky or this test was rigged.

It's an American military exercise - even if they were trying to throw the missile crew a curve ball they would still make sure that they had the altitude, course, and airspeed of the missile (from launch to projected impact) before anything started. Shit like this is just there so that they can tell you "Don't worry citizen, the Federal Government has your back and is doing everything it can to keep you safe. Just continue obeying your owne … representatives and paying your taxes and everything will turn out for the best, pinky promise. You'd only disagree if you were [insert negative accusation here]".

>>663018

>>663019

>>663053

>>663057

There's a video in the OP showing the target launching from the silo. Looks like a pretty fancy drone.

>>663019

At least they trotted something out and blew it up, THAAD is claimed to be capable of intercepting ICBMs because it managed to catch one during a simulation.

>>663027

No shit, it can barely track, let alone intercept a big, fat ICBM in it's mid-course phase. Needs four missiles to even obtain a supposed 97% probability and even then the ratio is heavily skewed because it's support systems (BMC3, SBX-1, ect..) themselves are still experimental or testbeds. The entire GMD has been "in development" since 1999..and they JUST managed to actual intercept something. We could be on some serious level shit (near, if not peer to A-135/A-235) had the Safeguard, Sentinel, and SDI not be short-dicked by Congress.

>>663084

What are the projected intercept rates on the A-135? I found one test from the 90's saying that it "reach it's goals."

>>663056

>Why didn't they fire an old surplus ICBM with no warhead at some testing range instead?

Sometime they do.

>>663057

>I seriously doubt they created a target drone

>It was probably a jayhawk target drone or something similar.

Oh, you of little faith in the PORK.

Of course the US military industry is making PURPOSE BUILD target drones for the ABM tests.

There are SEVERAL programs that costs BILLIONS (and are of course all that money is well spent just looting the already owned and billed missiles and parts from the military own stockpiles to make flying trashcans) that are solely dedicated to it.

Coleman Hera/SRALT/LRALT (Minuteman parts)

Sandia STARS (Polaris parts)

OCS Storm (Pershing parts)

OCS Castor (Minuteman parts)

OCS SR-19 (Minuteman parts + M26 rockets as boosters)

>>662931

Let me guess, it shot down a 1960s missile leaking oxidizer and barely gliding through the air.

Meanwhile 20 years from now Russia will probably have a Project PLUTO that carries S-500s instead of nukes to buttfuck air forces all around the globe.

>>663129

The days of reading are dead, all you need on /k/ now is deductive reasoning: Start with premise "America can't succeed in anything", add statement "America succeeded in doing something", draw conclusion "America either faked it" or "It's not something that actually matters."

>>663129

Well, we now have it confirmed that the kill probability is at the claimed 56%, albeit against defunct missiles lacking modern on-board evasive systems and coming from a known launch point.

>>663143

That's enough for North Korea, they don't want to use this against Russia since it would destabilize MAD.

>>663144

MAD is a theory, not a doctrine. For all practical purpose it doesn't exist. It requires mutual foes with equal execution capabilities…the US does not have equal execution capabilities with that Russia. Additionally, the theory also omits the very real possibility of limit exchange or sole counter-force exchange. Our doctrine, offensive and defenses systems are woefully archaic to put it bluntly (primarily due to the greed and power lust of politicians). What is stopping nuclear exchange is everyone's unwillingness to plunge themselves needlessly into an inescapable hellscape. As unhinged ideological tensions rise and unstable, power hungry sociopaths gain access, eventually some birds will fly, because their ideologies dictate it; just look at the Left and their continual cult-like attitude with hostility towards Russia and their absolute insistence that Trump not only colluded with Russia, but that he is a Russian puppet…if in power those people would not hesitate to initiate hostile actions against Russia that could result in the release of nukes.

Give this some thought; the INF limited intermediate weapons deployment and use, the Russians aren't morons, they can see the writing on the wall. Only the US is stupid enough to think a nation isn't going to act in it best interests and ignore a treaty to ensure it's national survival and maintain it's global/regional sphere of influence.

>>663143

>>664377

It seems to me the higher-ups seriously dont expect to able to take out a meaningful amount of missiles in a MAD scenario and its inevitable outcome and are instead trying to protect against a single crazy/panic attacked nork/russian sub captain.

Or maybe they are relying on the thought of a MAD scenario happening keeping any state actors from launching, limiting any potential threats to a single or perhaps couple launches from a panic-crazed sub captain, which we can defend against between land and sea ICBM defenses, and thus hopefully wont escalate to a full-blown MAD exchange.

>>664377

It's like >>664387 said the US military probably doubts it can sufficiently defend in a nuclear war so cancelling INF would be part of that to allow the deployment of more nukes. If they can't actually protect the threat might as well be massive retaliation, the Russians are already deploying Status-6 anyway.

As far as full-on nuclear attacks go, missile defense is meaningless. Actual attack will have countermeasures in it, and will have a lot more than a single vehicle per target. It's extremely unlikely that none of the nukes will make it to the target, and if any of them did, it's as good as if all of them did. Missile defense is meaningful against an individual stray missile, launched outside of a proper attack plan.

>>664387

>>664394

>>664398

I can appreciate all your points, but like I said MAD isn't doctrine, it's a theory. The Hollywood "full-scale" exchange is just fear mongering, no nuclear power is going to loose every bird in it's arsenal in some kind of bizarre Dr. Stangelove scenario. It's why SIOPs and OPLANs exist, operational and situational plans designed to utilize the least amount of warheads while attempting to inflict the most impact damage against an aggressors assets and still be capable of maintaining a sizable arsenal to deter follow-on secondary-strike threats and be capable of deterring future exchanges with other state actors. Nuclear exchange and missile defense isn't a scenario of absolutes, as with any violent exchange mitigation exists, there is no "total defense" only the ability to reduce effectiveness and impact.

Even in a large scale counter-value exchange, if only a small percentage of warheads can be intercepted, there is an overall net gain, the more you can intercept the better. An ABM system isn't an impenetrable shield, it's purpose is to reduce the effective impact of an incoming strike. It's why BMEWS track flight path vectors for incoming warheads, that data is fed to STRATCOM whom acts to reduce strike impact against specific target sets for their interceptors neutralize.

US ABM is so lacking, because our entire missile develop complex is lacking. The Russians have maintained a superior missile development complex and have maintained an ABM system since the early 60's and regularly improved it. The US has repeatedly reinstated multiple ABM programs since the early 60's for them to only be scuttled or completed defunded before completion every other decade.

The INF applies to counter-force doctrinal strategy, the US revoked it's signature of the INF because Russia has developed and maintains systems that would allow the use on nuclear-armed intermediate missiles. The US would be unable to respond to any kind of regionally-based tactical counter-force action by the Russians because the only forward deployed nukes are B-61s which are only air-deliverable and with systems like the S-300 and S-400, it would make it near impossible for US aircraft to strike Russian force assets in return.

>>664469

The US military has been retooled to be world police anyway so getting into a tactical exchange with the Russians (or a conventional war with anyone) would be retarded and only considered by out of touch (actual) baby boomers.

>>664469

>our entire missile developement complex is lacking

in my opinion, spacex proves this point nicely. Spacex has been putting the military industrial complex to shame when it comes to r&d time. They developed a CIVILIAN-human-rated rocket in about a decade, to the highest standards NASA has ever set, in less than the time it took to develop the shuttle, the Apollo rocket, or the f-35. and the military should just internalize all r&d, adopt elons r&d philosophy or however the fuck he does it(probably using civilian contractors just like the army corps of engineers) and then set out competitions/standards for manufacturers to produce the product. It could allow for multiple manufacturers producing the same rockets/planes and stuff like that. Too bad politics will never let this happen.

ever since i saw the dragon 2 propulsive landing tests i thought it would be the first vehicle used for orbital drop troops, but then i realized stationing even 10 spec-op soldiers in a combat-ready state in space would require artificial gravity for training and drills

>>662948

The Chinese and the Russians, meant to scare Iran and North Korea