This is a belated re-start of the Multi Kill Vehicle program. That program was cancelled by Obama right after taking office. Whether or not he kills this second attempt will depend on how distracted he is with other things. The idea of MIRVing interceptors has been around for a long time. The final evolution was to park the interceptor in space and was called Brilliant Pebbles. Keeping the interceptor on the ground gets around some political sensitivities.
US Military News, Reports, Data, etc.
- Thread starter tphuang
- Start date
This is a belated re-start of the Multi Kill Vehicle program. That program was cancelled by Obama right after taking office. Whether or not he kills this second attempt will depend on how distracted he is with other things. The idea of MIRVing interceptors has been around for a long time. The final evolution was to park the interceptor in space and was called Brilliant Pebbles. Keeping the interceptor on the ground gets around some political sensitivities.
Well of course they are going to have to "sell" it. Any project competing for funding has to have someone who believes in it and presents its capabilities and the value of spending the money to do it.
But, this particular plan and technology have been around quite some time.
The value of having a system for a single (or each) vehicle launch can now deploy multiple kill vehicles against multiple re-entry vehicles is self apparent. Depending on the nature of the attack, it is also very achievable.
The idea of doing this, either from a ground based launch or from points pre stationed in orbit has been around since the 1980s.
Jura The idiot
General
I asked about LM's plan "to design a missile defense component that can take out multiple warheads" because I was aware of the issues of the Ground-based Midcourse Defense system, another quote from that dodbuzz.com article: "Lawmakers in recent years have raised doubts about the technology, which hit targets in only 8 of 15 attempts through mid-July 2013; the high cost of testing, which runs more than $215 million per exercise; and the fact that many of the interceptors aren’t operational."
(I think some of those "lawmakers" worked on April 30, 2014 GAO report
here:
is journalists' view from last year)
So I wondered why would somebody worked on so called "multi-tasking" system in the current situation, I mean when it's not that certain if the "single-tasking" system works reliably.
Jura, like all other technologies that are cutting edge, you have to test the, improve them, test them again, and so forth to show that they can do what you want.
The Mid-Course interceptors are coming along. Yes, they have had some failures...but they are improving. I believe the percentages have been improving too as time has on.
So, the technology now may be able to hit 70% of the time.
If you have nuclear warheads coming at you, hitting 70% of them is far better than hitting none. And if it is a low number of warheads, if you miss at the mid-course, you may be able t engage a second time, or then your closer in defenses may take them out.
ABMD is meant to be a layered system.
There are people, including law makers who do not want to spend any money on this. They would always rather spend money on their bottomless social programs. There are others who are skeptical of the technology itself. That's why they are thougoughly debated in the Congress and then either funded or not...it is also why sometimes under one administration something will lose funding, but then get it back under another.
With Bush I, Cliinton, Bush II, and now Obama we have seen that numerous times on these very programs.
The Mid-Course interceptors are coming along. Yes, they have had some failures...but they are improving. I believe the percentages have been improving too as time has on.
So, the technology now may be able to hit 70% of the time.
If you have nuclear warheads coming at you, hitting 70% of them is far better than hitting none. And if it is a low number of warheads, if you miss at the mid-course, you may be able t engage a second time, or then your closer in defenses may take them out.
ABMD is meant to be a layered system.
There are people, including law makers who do not want to spend any money on this. They would always rather spend money on their bottomless social programs. There are others who are skeptical of the technology itself. That's why they are thougoughly debated in the Congress and then either funded or not...it is also why sometimes under one administration something will lose funding, but then get it back under another.
With Bush I, Cliinton, Bush II, and now Obama we have seen that numerous times on these very programs.
Last edited:
The KC-46 is ultimately going to turn out to be a very good program.
Jura The idiot
General
Jeff, I'm a supporter of ABMD! heck, I still can hear the whining of 1980s Communists here about "star wars" LOL!
I was puzzled, though, by the LM plan I quoted, as I think the current system should be made as reliable as possible first, and only later attempt “multi-tasking” they talked about ... but this is just my kibitzing and I'm going to leave it at that.
I was involved in those programs in the 80s, particularly the original THAAADS program...which Clinton canceled, and then later Bush II pushed through.
I agree that the initial system has to be as reliable as possible...but they can also test the elements of the second program in parallel. There are a lot of elements of that program that can be tested...then fit the perfected terminal targeting onto both.
kwaigonegin
Colonel
This will delay CVN 78 and the USN may exacerbate the cuurrent 'carrier gap' further however I think this is the right thing to do.
Well, it is certainly something that can be done on the first in class. But is is not necessarily something that HAS to be done on the first in class.
The US Navy has been building carriers and testing them for a long time. The US learned particularly in World War II that near misses by large bombs or explosions can burst hull seams/welds and cause drastic flooding, which could threaten the vessel itself.
USS Ticonderoga, CV-14, and a near miss by a Kamikaze loaded with explosives.
So, the US learned its lessons and began significantly strengthening hull design and then performing the shock and survivability tests to ensure that they worked.
Though there have been some changes to the flight deck, the positioning of the island and elevators, the essentials of the super-carrier hull design and strengthening have remained essentially the same since the Forestalls and the Enterprise.
The Nimitz class, which itself was an all-new nuclear powered super carrier class aircraft carrier did not perform these tests on the 1st in Class, USS Nimitz. I am pretty sure that the first shock test was actually carried out on the USS Teddy Roosevelt, CVN-71, the 4th in class
Shock and survivability test on USS Theodore Roosevelt, CVN-71Other new classes have not had the shock tests performed on the 1st in class. for example, the new, Flight I Burke class used the second ship. The big change to the Flight IIA Burke vessels starting with DDG-79, the USS Oscar Austin, meant a new shock and survivability test, but it was not done until, DDG-81, the 3rd one built.
Shock and survivability test on USS Winston Churchill, DDG-81
So, I believe that the designers have been getting this right for a long time. The testing plan for the Ford class had been in place and approved for some time. I think they should have stuck with what was planned and approved myself. Doing it on the 2nd in class, the JFK, would have kept things on schedule, which given the current issues, was a good thing...and one that had already been planned for and approved.
I personally think that would have been preferable and certainly would not have been the "wrong" thing to do. This admin sees it differently and so has the right and authority to change it...but I think the decision to do so was not the best thing to do.
As it is...we will now see it on the Ford...with the schedule slippages it will cause.