US Satellite / Star Wars

[nixonsupreme]

so, its been flying around the news for some time now, and thought id just bring it up here.

The American satellite that is about to crash land somewhere (most likely the UK) is hurtling down to Earth, the US plan to blow it out of the sky with a missile.
What if they miss? it's not like US military is known for it's targeting skills...
Some folks are thinking that they will more likely employ the DPS-4 039 / Project Woodpecker. Seems like they have been playing around with HAARP off and on for a while now, take the New York / East Coast blackout a few years ago. DPS-4 039 turned on at 4pm, August 14th, 03 and just 11 mins before the blackout occurred. Canada militarized its border just three hours before this too.. odd


also looks like russia have their own version of DPS-4 039 HAARP, called Sura: wiki/Sura_Ionospheric_Heating_Facility


seems a big divide between people thinking HAARP is capable of being a weapon, or purely research.

Thoughts?

[Sword_Of_Truth]

so, its been flying around the news for some time now, and thought id just bring it up here.

The American satellite that is about to crash land somewhere (most likely the UK) is hurtling down to Earth, the US plan to blow it out of the sky with a missile.
What if they miss? it's not like US military is known for it's targeting skills...
Some folks are thinking that they will more likely employ the DPS-4 039 / Project Woodpecker. Seems like they have been playing around with HAARP off and on for a while now, take the New York / East Coast blackout a few years ago. DPS-4 039 turned on at 4pm, August 14th, 03 and just 11 mins before the blackout occurred. Canada militarized its border just three hours before this too.. odd


also looks like russia have their own version of DPS-4 039 HAARP, called Sura: wiki/Sura_Ionospheric_Heating_Facility


seems a big divide between people thinking HAARP is capable of being a weapon, or purely research.

Thoughts?

I think this is an unfair characterization (US military is plenty accurate, thanks) followed by a lot of whackiness.

[beachnut]

so, its been flying around the news for some time now, and thought id just bring it up here.

The American satellite that is about to crash land somewhere (most likely the UK) is hurtling down to Earth, the US plan to blow it out of the sky with a missile.
What if they miss? it's not like US military is known for it's targeting skills...
Some folks are thinking that they will more likely employ the DPS-4 039 / Project Woodpecker. Seems like they have been playing around with HAARP off and on for a while now, take the New York / East Coast blackout a few years ago. DPS-4 039 turned on at 4pm, August 14th, 03 and just 11 mins before the blackout occurred. Canada militarized its border just three hours before this too.. odd


also looks like russia have their own version of DPS-4 039 HAARP, called Sura: wiki/Sura_Ionospheric_Heating_Facility


seems a big divide between people thinking HAARP is capable of being a weapon, or purely research.

Thoughts?
LOL

"it's not like US military is known for it's targeting skills..." you are a poor researcher.

[ElMondoHummus]

What if they miss? it's not like US military is known for it's targeting skills...


Huh? Forgive the surprise, and lack of addressing the questions in the OP, but: Where do you get that idea from?

[jproudj]

Do you think they would be doing this if China didn't already do it? Does that make me woo?

[GStan]

so, its been flying around the news for some time now, and thought id just bring it up here.

The American satellite that is about to crash land somewhere (most likely the UK) is hurtling down to Earth, the US plan to blow it out of the sky with a missile.
What if they miss? it's not like US military is known for it's targeting skills...
Some folks are thinking that they will more likely employ the DPS-4 039 / Project Woodpecker. Seems like they have been playing around with HAARP off and on for a while now, take the New York / East Coast blackout a few years ago. DPS-4 039 turned on at 4pm, August 14th, 03 and just 11 mins before the blackout occurred. Canada militarized its border just three hours before this too.. odd


also looks like russia have their own version of DPS-4 039 HAARP, called Sura: wiki/Sura_Ionospheric_Heating_Facility


seems a big divide between people thinking HAARP is capable of being a weapon, or purely research.

Thoughts?

This probably a bit off topic from what you are really getting at but, speaking from a complete laymen's perspective, is there really a need to blow up a satellite destined to re-enter the atmosphere and fall to earth? I assume that satellites, unlike shuttles and other manned space-craft, are not built to withstand a return trip to earth. The intense heat of re-entry and the 'hurtling' back to earth would just burn-up most of the satellite before it ever posed a danger on the ground, wouldn't it?

Is this the conspiracy? That there is no real need to blow up a satellite yet the military is going to use this opportunity to test out some fancy new weaponry?

R. Mackey, thanks in advance for any expertise you can add to (or correct) my uninformed opinion.

[AZCat]

so, its been flying around the news for some time now, and thought id just bring it up here.

The American satellite that is about to crash land somewhere (most likely the UK) is hurtling down to Earth, the US plan to blow it out of the sky with a missile.
What if they miss? it's not like US military is known for it's targeting skills...
Some folks are thinking that they will more likely employ the DPS-4 039 / Project Woodpecker. Seems like they have been playing around with HAARP off and on for a while now, take the New York / East Coast blackout a few years ago. DPS-4 039 turned on at 4pm, August 14th, 03 and just 11 mins before the blackout occurred. Canada militarized its border just three hours before this too.. odd


also looks like russia have their own version of DPS-4 039 HAARP, called Sura: wiki/Sura_Ionospheric_Heating_Facility


seems a big divide between people thinking HAARP is capable of being a weapon, or purely research.

Thoughts?

I think HARP (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_HARP) would be a lot more effective than HAARP (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haarp).

[Reality Believer]

So many errors, so little time.

They are going to have 3 chances at shooting it down with a kinetic kill missile, so chances and consequences of failure are near zero.

The orbital path takes it nowhere near the UK, unless you still consider Canada part of the UK.

[twinstead]

I think HARP (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_HARP) would be a lot more effective than HAARP (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haarp).

No. In my mind Harp (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harp_%28lager%29) does the trick just fine.

[JoeEllison]

I think this is an unfair characterization (US military is plenty accurate, thanks) followed by a lot of whackiness.

Personally, I thought it was a fair characterization, followed by a lot of wackiness. :D

[Cuddles]

This probably a bit off topic from what you are really getting at but, speaking from a complete laymen's perspective, is there really a need to blow up a satellite destined to re-enter the atmosphere and fall to earth? I assume that satellites, unlike shuttles and other manned space-craft, are not built to withstand a return trip to earth. The intense heat of re-entry and the 'hurtling' back to earth would just burn-up most of the satellite before it ever posed a danger on the ground, wouldn't it?

It depends somewhat on the size. The biggest thing ever to make an uncontrolled re-entry was Skylab, which scattered parts across a large portion of the Australian desert and the Pacific ocean. Theoretically it could have caused a fair bit of damage if it had broken up over populated areas. However, there is (almost certainly) nothing close to this size currently in orbit other than the ISS. Someone could get incredibly unlucky, but it will mostly just be small pieces of debris falling in mostly unpopulated areas.

The only real excuse for destroying it is that it is a spy satellite and they want to prevent any possibility of the technology or any information falling into unfriendly hands.

Is this the conspiracy? That there is no real need to blow up a satellite yet the military is going to use this opportunity to test out some fancy new weaponry?

As jproudj says, the real reason they're doing it is almost certainly that the Chinese did it first. The trouble with this is that it is really a lose-lose situation. If they are successful and shoot it down, they will be criticised for escalating a space arms race, while if they miss, it will be a major embarassment.

[AZCat]

No. In my mind Harp (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harp_%28lager%29) does the trick just fine.

Let's not harp on the subject. To each his or her own.

[Reality Believer]

This probably a bit off topic from what you are really getting at but, speaking from a complete laymen's perspective, is there really a need to blow up a satellite destined to re-enter the atmosphere and fall to earth? I assume that satellites, unlike shuttles and other manned space-craft, are not built to withstand a return trip to earth. The intense heat of re-entry and the 'hurtling' back to earth would just burn-up most of the satellite before it ever posed a danger on the ground, wouldn't it?

Is this the conspiracy? That there is no real need to blow up a satellite yet the military is going to use this opportunity to test out some fancy new weaponry?

R. Mackey, thanks in advance for any expertise you can add to (or correct) my uninformed opinion.
The largest threat is the 1000 gallons of hydrazine fuel. It is in a very robust cylindrical tank that is likely to survive reentry. In the small chance it lands in a populated area, it could cause problems.

[GStan]

Thanks cuddles and reality believer. That helps.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Personally, I thought it was a fair characterization, followed by a lot of wackiness. :D

Firing a 105mm field artillery piece out the side of a 4 engine turboprop (defniately not "good vibrations") and taking out single cars and trucks from several thousand feet up. (http://youtube.com/watch?v=rAUpk0XLHK8)

Let's see you do better, hotshot.

[Bikewer]

We've been discussing this over at (of all places) the Mythbusters forum. The fact that this is a spy sattelite with "sensitive" technology on board is cited as a good reason to ensure it's destruction. The hydrazine fuel is the second. There was initial skepticism about the ability of the fuel tank to survive re-entry, but a couple of members assure us that they are quite robust.
This hardly seems to be an exercise in anti-satellite shooting, as the orbit is now so low. As I recall, the Chinese effort was to attack a satellite some 450 miles up, as opposed to this at around 150....

[madurobob]

Firing a 105mm field artillery piece out the side of a 4 engine turboprop (defniately not "good vibrations") and taking out single cars and trucks from several thousand feet up. (http://youtube.com/watch?v=rAUpk0XLHK8)

Let's see you do better, hotshot.

Thats quite a bit different that shooting a satellite out of the sky. I remember a string of miserable failures a few years ago when the US Military was testing missile defense systems. They ended up having to put a targeting beacon in the test missile to be shot down, and even then the defense missile missed more than once.

I'm sure they are much better now, otherwise they would never make the public claim that they are planning to shoot this spy satellite down. But, their history in such endeavors is questionable.

As cuddles points out, though, this could be a lose/lose scenario. Quite embarrassing if they miss with the whole world watching.

[Complexity]

The lying Bush administration simply wants an opportunity to try out some weaponry - the decision to smash the satellite into pieces has nothing to do with any damage it might cause or the fuel that is on board.

[Policenaut]

They don't want it being reverse engineered. Is this really all conspiracy theorists can come up with?

[Darth Rotor]

The American satellite that is about to crash land somewhere (most likely the UK) is hurtling down to Earth, the US plan to blow it out of the sky with a missile.
What if they miss? it's not like US military is known for it's targeting skills...
Wrong.
Some folks are thinking that they will more likely employ the DPS-4 039 / Project Woodpecker. Seems like they have been playing around with HAARP off and on for a while now, take the New York / East Coast blackout a few years ago. DPS-4 039 turned on at 4pm, August 14th, 03 and just 11 mins before the blackout occurred. Canada militarized its border just three hours before this too.. odd
What? Ever heard of the SM-2 Block IV (and subsequent versions) and the Aegis weapons system? After a rough start, they had a string of successful test firings. Now, SM-3 seems to have taken in those lessons learned, and is approaching IOC.
Standard Missile-3 (SM-3) is being developed as part of the US Navy’s sea-based ballistic missile defense system and will provide theater-wide defense against medium and long range ballistic missiles. In 1992, the Terrier LEAP (Lightweight Exo-Atmospheric Projectile) demonstration program culminated in four flight tests and demonstrated the feasibility of theater-wide ballistic missile defense. This program evolved into today’s SM-3 development program which is based on the SM-2 Block IV airframe and propulsion stack, but incorporates a Third Stage Rocket Motor, a GPS/INS Guidance Section and the SM-3 Kinetic Warhead.
From Navy.mil http://www.navy.mil/search/display.asp?story_id=35015
The Navy has modified three SM-3 missiles aboard Aegis ships to strike the satellite, Cartwright said. The Navy wants to intercept the satellite at a point just above the atmosphere so there would be a high likelihood of bringing it down in an unpopulated area. An intercept also would rupture the hydrazine tank. The vice chairman would not say exactly where the ships would fire from, only saying it will be from the northern hemisphere and the Pacific Ocean.

Intercepting the satellite at about 130 nautical miles altitude will reduce the risk of debris in space. Once the satellite is hit, officials hope 50 percent of the debris will come to Earth in the first two orbits and the rest shortly thereafter, Cartwright said.

Three SM-3 missiles were modified to intercept the satellite as it passes over the Pacific Ocean. USS Lake Erie (CG 70) and USS Decatur (DDG 73) are currently at sea preparing for the mission.
The Russian complaint that this is a weapons test is an interesting position to consider. The US, and some allied, BMD efforts have been working since the Gulf War, 1991, to perfect BMD engagement success rates. Methinks the Japanese are very keen to see how this works out.
also looks like russia have their own version of DPS-4 039 HAARP, called Sura: wiki/Sura_Ionospheric_Heating_Facility


Ah, so that's where global warming is coming from. Thanks for the tip! :rolleyes:
seems a big divide between people thinking HAARP is capable of being a weapon, or purely research.
It's a scam meant to increase sales of tin headwear.

DR

[Darth Rotor]

Personally, I thought it was a fair characterization, followed by a lot of wackiness. :D
Given the number of GBU-31's I have seen hit precisely where they were targeted, I'd ask you to reconsider that position.

DR

[ponderingturtle]

Given the number of GBU-31's I have seen hit precisely where they were targeted, I'd ask you to reconsider that position.

DR

So the air force ment to strafe Little Egg Harbor Intermediate School in New Jersey?

[Darth Rotor]

So the air force ment to strafe Little Egg Harbor Intermediate School in New Jersey?
WTF are you talking about? Are you another 'zero defects or nothing' idiot, or are you simply playing devils advocate with a case of a FUBAR?

Oh, wait, I get it, "use the exception as a substitute for the general rule." Stupid game, PT, but if you want to play it, play on. Neither you, nor I, nor any taxpayer, can afford to buy a weapons system with a pK of 1.0. That weapons system includes the human in it. When you get a pK in the range of .91 to .99, you are doing pretty good. That's reality, not sure what you are referring to.

Pro Tip: A GBU-31 is not a gun. One strafes with a gun.

DR

[ponderingturtle]

WTF are you talking about? Are you another 'zero defects or nothing' idiot, or are you simply playing devils advocate with a case of a FUBAR?

Oh, wait, I get it, "use the exception as a substitute for the general rule." Stupid game, PT, but if you want to play it, play on. Neither you, nor I, nor any taxpayer, can afford to buy a weapons system with a pK of 1.0. That weapons system includes the human in it. When you get a pK in the range of .91 to .99, you are doing pretty good. That's reality, not sure what you are referring to.

Pro Tip: A GBU-31 is not a gun. One strafes with a gun.

DR


The Air Force strafed a school in New Jersey, it used guns so it was strafeing.

So the pilots might not know where they are or what they are shooting at, as the case was in this one(blamed partialy on the f 16 he was flying).

Now strafeing a public middle school is I guess just a small mistake.

[Crossbow]

Well now,

after about 25 years of work and a few hundred billion dollars of effort they will finally get something to shoot at. If successful, it will help show what all of this effort has been for.

[Complexity]

Didn't Bush and his cronies recently blast China for the same thing he's about to do, or something very similar?

[Travis]

Slight derail.....but a funny story. Back when I was in high school we were supposed to have two F-16's do a flyover of the school. We had an Air Force ROTC program on campus and they arranged it with the California Air National Guard out of Fresno. The fly over was supposed to happen during our second break of the day and as a result the bulk of the student body was outside expectantly watching the sky.

Thing is that nothing happened.

Then my friend, who had a girlfriend at Sonora High School (which was in the next town over), got a call from his girlfriend about how that school was in pandemonium because two jets had just unexpectedly flown over it at just above tree top level.

They'd flown over the wrong school in the wrong town.

So there was a quick call to Fresno and we (the students) were assured that the flyover would be at the beginning of our lunch break. So lunch comes.......and is going by when we get word that Sonora High was flown over again.

So, two tries, one school, wrong school in the wrong town.

Finally about an hour after that we were all let out class and began scanning the skies before, at long last, we saw two gray specks approaching from the haze in the east. In a couple of seconds they were on us and with a deafening roar zipped over our heads at just under two hundred feet of clearance--so low that the jets had to go into a climb to clear Buckhorn Mountain just to the west of the school.

On that day it was third times a charm just to flyover the right school.

Oh, and am I missing something or did the OP claim the northeast blackout was caused by project HARP? How does that work, I mean even in wacko conspiracy land how does that work?

[cow_cat]

On the satellite - keep in mind that, should there be any sensitive* electronics on board, they would be shielded against 10 or so years of solar radiation. That would give them a better chance of surviving a re-entry.

Four years ago, there was going to be a flyby at the Farnborough Air Show by a B-17. The pilot duly contacted Farnborough tower, then performed its flyby...

... over nearby Blackbushe airport.


*as in classified and surceptible to damage

[Rob Lister]

I watched a cspan news conference wherein big-wigs doing this explained it all in great detail.

They stated (from memory)

the only reason they are doing it is because of the Hydrazine fuel; it is NOT a maybe that it will survive re-entry, it is a certainty because of the ruggedness of the tank and the frozen state of the fuel.

they are NOT concerned with any of the technology surviving the re-entry as they are more than confident those pieces will not survive intact. There will be little or nothing worth inspecting.

they had accomplished a satellite shoot-down two decades ago -- old hat. No need for china oneupmanship

that if they miss, no biggie: they're no worse off for having tried.

The missle will be from a ship but danged if i can remember what it was...none of the ones so far cited though. it's right on the tip of my...

[Darth Rotor]

Well now,

after about 25 years of work and a few hundred billion dollars of effort they will finally get something to shoot at. If successful, it will help show what all of this effort has been for.
The Scuds in Desert Storm were not chopped liver.

DR

[Soapy Sam]

"The best laid schemes o' mice and men gang aft agley
and leave us naught but grief and pain for promised joy" - Burns.
http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?t=66598
Precision bombing, 1945 style.

[President Bush]

... after about 25 years of work and a few hundred billion dollars of effort they will finally get something to shoot at. If successful, it will help show what all of this effort has been for.
High seas in the north Pacific may force the Navy to wait another day before launching a heat-seeking missile on a mission to shoot down a wayward U.S. spy satellite, the Pentagon said Wednesday.

http://www.physorg.com/news122733361.html


Bill Richardson tells me Kim Jong Il is "crazy like a fox"... for weatherunderground (http://www.wunderground.com/radar/radblast.asp?zoommode=zoom&num=1&delay=15&scale=0.750&noclutter=0&ID=HMO&type=N0R&lat=21.32780075&lon=-157.82940674&label=Honolulu,%20HI&showstorms=0&map.x=198&map.y=234&centerx=477&centery=269&lightning=0&showlabels=1&rainsnow=0).

[Kopji]

We're actually pretty good shots, it's just that the targets are sometimes wedding parties or picnics.

The ship was the USS Lake Erie, which I kept finding amusingly confusing. It sounded like Lake Erie was in the Pacific Ocean.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23265613/

The USS Lake Erie, armed with an SM-3 missile designed to knock down incoming missiles — not orbiting satellites — launched the attack at 10:26 p.m. ET (0326 GMT Thursday), according to the Pentagon. It hit the satellite as the spacecraft traveled at more than 17,000 mph (27,000 kilometers per hour).


There was some professor guy from MIT on PBS today saying something crazy like the tank would have disintegrated on its own with no trouble - going from thousands of miles an hour to almost a dead stop. Spoilsport.

[Travis]

We're actually pretty good shots, it's just that the targets are sometimes wedding parties or picnics.

The ship was the USS Lake Erie, which I kept finding amusingly confusing. It sounded like Lake Erie was in the Pacific Ocean.


There was some professor guy from MIT on PBS today saying something crazy like the tank would have disintegrated on its own with no trouble - going from thousands of miles an hour to almost a dead stop. Spoilsport.

That is crazy. I mean what is this "disintegration" thing he's talking about? Next thing you know he'll be using other made up words like "conflagration" or "immolation."

[ohms]

Looks like a successful hit with an SM-3.

Link (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7254540.stm)

[gtc]

Please don't look at the debris as it passes through the atmosphere. It will just send you blind and let the plants take over.

It's true. I read a report about it from the 1960s.

[Crossbow]

The Scuds in Desert Storm were not chopped liver.

DR

Unlike the Patriot system, at least chopped liver is worth something.

The first Bush claimed vast success for the Patriot system in the Gulf War, and later it was shown that the Patriot system actually worked very poorly, if at all.

[beachnut]

Unlike the Patriot system, at least chopped liver is worth something.

The first Bush claimed vast success for the Patriot system in the Gulf War, and later it was shown that the Patriot system actually worked very poorly, if at all.
Oops. I watch many successful engagements with my eyes, but they were hit over us; if the warhead broke off it would blow up in the desert anyway. If the warhead went off, the damn missile would still land in the street. The system must be used during boost phase, not over the target area.

If you study aiming, we have some of the best in the world. Oops, we hit the satellite. Darn, there goes the bad aim stuff. I worked with engineers who thesis work was in the open one day, and gone the next! Study how to aim weapons and hit targets and you get into very complex systems.

The Patriot was better than 99 percent by design at hitting what it aimed at; it uses two missiles to do that; but you do not understand we did hit them when it worked, but the damn SCUDs were breaking up as they came down. But the SCUD is like a whole truck coming down at 4,000 mph (the missile would fill a flat bed truck, and the whole thing is coming! The damn thing can be hit but the missile is still there. The pieces rain down all over the place. Do you want some pieces? What I am saying is if a Patriot was aimed at your car, you would be hit; will your car still go, maybe, but you would be tagged by shrapnel. Anyone want to take me up on it? Did the system take out all the SCUDs? The big flaw is intercepting the SCUD in the terminal phase! But watching million dollar fireworks and having a SCUD go off and blow out all your windows and rumble your gut is priceless; and opens up opportunities for the Frank Burns’ Purple Heart if you jump in the glass pile.

Hint; if someone is aim SCUD at you, give him your location exactly, he will miss 5 miles any direction as likely as you. lol, the only weapon you want to be aimed right at you! Ensure a miss, tell them were you are; they shot at us all the time.

Why does anyone care if you think the Patriot is good? Do we need anyone to know how good we are at hitting things? But hitting things is relative! Sure when I was 110 pounds I could hit the 200 pound bully very accurately, but then what?

But for those who want to bad mouth the military, do not worry; there are mistakes and bad people to make you feel good about hating something.

And yes, do not criticize others (china) when you kind of do the same! But we have been able to shoot down (i mean hit) satellites a long time if you pay attention to current events, and we have been doing it better than most due to research.

[Soapy Sam]

This echoes what I saw around Dhahran and Dammam at the time. The Patriots hit (or got close enough to blow up) the Scuds, but the shrapnel then fell on the Scud's target anyway. As you say, the need is to hit the missile over it's home territory, not when it is forty seconds from impact.

[Rob Lister]

We're actually pretty good shots, it's just that the targets are sometimes wedding parties or picnics.

The ship was the USS Lake Erie, which I kept finding amusingly confusing. It sounded like Lake Erie was in the Pacific Ocean.


There was some professor guy from MIT on PBS today saying something crazy like the tank would have disintegrated on its own with no trouble - going from thousands of miles an hour to almost a dead stop. Spoilsport.

I would have used a different word. What was he a professor of? I'm betting it was neither engineering or physics.

[Crossbow]

Oops. I watch many successful engagements with my eyes, but they were hit over us; if the warhead broke off it would blow up in the desert anyway. If the warhead went off, the damn missile would still land in the street. The system must be used during boost phase, not over the target area.

If you study aiming, we have some of the best in the world. Oops, we hit the satellite. Darn, there goes the bad aim stuff. I worked with engineers who thesis work was in the open one day, and gone the next! Study how to aim weapons and hit targets and you get into very complex systems.

The Patriot was better than 99 percent by design at hitting what it aimed at; it uses two missiles to do that; but you do not understand we did hit them when it worked, but the damn SCUDs were breaking up as they came down. But the SCUD is like a whole truck coming down at 4,000 mph (the missile would fill a flat bed truck, and the whole thing is coming! The damn thing can be hit but the missile is still there. The pieces rain down all over the place. Do you want some pieces? What I am saying is if a Patriot was aimed at your car, you would be hit; will your car still go, maybe, but you would be tagged by shrapnel. Anyone want to take me up on it? Did the system take out all the SCUDs? The big flaw is intercepting the SCUD in the terminal phase! But watching million dollar fireworks and having a SCUD go off and blow out all your windows and rumble your gut is priceless; and opens up opportunities for the Frank Burns’ Purple Heart if you jump in the glass pile.

Hint; if someone is aim SCUD at you, give him your location exactly, he will miss 5 miles any direction as likely as you. lol, the only weapon you want to be aimed right at you! Ensure a miss, tell them were you are; they shot at us all the time.

Why does anyone care if you think the Patriot is good? Do we need anyone to know how good we are at hitting things? But hitting things is relative! Sure when I was 110 pounds I could hit the 200 pound bully very accurately, but then what?

But for those who want to bad mouth the military, do not worry; there are mistakes and bad people to make you feel good about hating something.

And yes, do not criticize others (china) when you kind of do the same! But we have been able to shoot down (i mean hit) satellites a long time if you pay attention to current events, and we have been doing it better than most due to research.

True enough!

When a Patriot missile was shot at an incoming Scud missile, the Patriot missile normally hit something. However, that something was seldom, if ever, the warhead incoming missile.

In fact, the Government Accounting Office was so skeptical of how well the Patriot system worked that they commissioned a study to look in to the matter. They examined every case of video evidence and could not find even one instance of a Patriot missile destroying a Scud warhead.


http://www.fas.org/spp/starwars/docops/pl920908.htm

Postol/Lewis Review of Army's
Study on Patriot Effectiveness

...

We found no convincing evidence in the video that any Scud warhead was destroyed by a Patriot. We have strong evidence that Patriots hit Scuds on two occasions, but in both cases the videos also show that the Scud warheads fell to the ground and exploded. These clips provide strong evidence that even when Patriots could hit Scuds they were still not able to destroy Scud warheads.

...

In order to better quantify information from the Desert Storm press video, we have made estimates of minimum miss distances for all cases where we could clearly observe Patriots missing Scuds. That data is summarized in tabular and graphical form in figures 8, 9, and 10 in our report and it is also attached to this letter. We found that the median minimum miss distance was roughly 600 meters. This is much larger than the press video minimum resolvable miss distance of 35 to 70 meters.

To achieve lethality against Scud targets, a system like the Patriot must routinely achieve miss distances of meters to tens of meters, not hundreds to thousands of meters as observed in the video. This result of the video review by itself indicates unambiguously that there was a serious system problem with Patriot during the Gulf War.

...

http://archive.gao.gov/d38t12/146350.pdf

Project Manager's Assessment of Patriot Missile's Overall Performance Is Not Supported

[ponderingturtle]

Oops. I watch many successful engagements with my eyes, but they were hit over us; if the warhead broke off it would blow up in the desert anyway. If the warhead went off, the damn missile would still land in the street. The system must be used during boost phase, not over the target area.

If you study aiming, we have some of the best in the world. Oops, we hit the satellite. Darn, there goes the bad aim stuff. I worked with engineers who thesis work was in the open one day, and gone the next! Study how to aim weapons and hit targets and you get into very complex systems.

The Patriot was better than 99 percent by design at hitting what it aimed at; it uses two missiles to do that; but you do not understand we did hit them when it worked, but the damn SCUDs were breaking up as they came down. But the SCUD is like a whole truck coming down at 4,000 mph (the missile would fill a flat bed truck, and the whole thing is coming! The damn thing can be hit but the missile is still there. The pieces rain down all over the place. Do you want some pieces? What I am saying is if a Patriot was aimed at your car, you would be hit; will your car still go, maybe, but you would be tagged by shrapnel. Anyone want to take me up on it? Did the system take out all the SCUDs? The big flaw is intercepting the SCUD in the terminal phase! But watching million dollar fireworks and having a SCUD go off and blow out all your windows and rumble your gut is priceless; and opens up opportunities for the Frank Burns’ Purple Heart if you jump in the glass pile.

Hint; if someone is aim SCUD at you, give him your location exactly, he will miss 5 miles any direction as likely as you. lol, the only weapon you want to be aimed right at you! Ensure a miss, tell them were you are; they shot at us all the time.

Why does anyone care if you think the Patriot is good? Do we need anyone to know how good we are at hitting things? But hitting things is relative! Sure when I was 110 pounds I could hit the 200 pound bully very accurately, but then what?

But for those who want to bad mouth the military, do not worry; there are mistakes and bad people to make you feel good about hating something.

And yes, do not criticize others (china) when you kind of do the same! But we have been able to shoot down (i mean hit) satellites a long time if you pay attention to current events, and we have been doing it better than most due to research.

Wow this is a truely strange rant.

Here is the issue, did they make a significant impact on the effectiveness of the scud missles or not? If they did not then they where not effective. It is really that simple

[ARubberChickenWithAPulley]

True enough!

When a Patriot missile was shot at an incoming Scud missile, the Patriot missile normally hit something. However, that something was seldom, if ever, the warhead incoming missile.

In fact, the Government Accounting Office was so skeptical of how well the Patriot system worked that they commissioned a study to look in to the matter. They examined every case of video evidence and could not find even one instance of a Patriot missile destroying a Scud warhead.


If we're talking "Patriot Missile," it's probably wise to clarify which missile we are talking about. The Patriot Missile system used in the first Gulf War was essentially an Air Defense System (e.g. its main function was shooting down incoming enemy aircraft) that had a secondary and rather rudimentary function of trying to shoot down ballistic missiles. Had it not been for all the hype over the Patriot, it probably would have gone down as a "nice try."

The current PAC-3, which is a very different system, performed considerably better during OIF (http://www.globalsecurity.org/space/library/news/2004/space-041210-army01.htm).

[Darth Rotor]

Unlike the Patriot system, at least chopped liver is worth something.

The first Bush claimed vast success for the Patriot system in the Gulf War, and later it was shown that the Patriot system actually worked very poorly, if at all.
What is your criterion for "working" " working well" "worked poorly" or "working at all. The success rates reported of 70% and 50% in Saudi and Israel aren't bad, when you consider an Anti Air Missile (designed to hit aircraft, not ballistic missiles) using blast frag warhead was being used in a new manner. I note that a lot of people felt that was not a high enough success rate. (Given the chance of a NBC warhead, I don't blame them.) However, if you ignore doctrine (shoot2, 3, or 4 to get a hit, depending on engagement geometry) you can attempt to classify the success rate per missile (wrong criterion, you are using a system) as between 15-25 % for Saudi and 12-17% per missile for Israel. Once again, that misses the point of how army Air Defense Doctrine (and for that matter Navy Air Defense doctrine, typically shoot look shoot) is exercised to ensure a good pK.

That some scuds were not successfully (Daharan) engaged demonstrates, once again, that the pK (even with a shoot look shoot doctrine) is < 1.0 (Yes, it was a clock problem, but at those target speeds, such things have to work.)

PAC II (which has since been replace by a far better PAC III) worked well enough. If you were hoping that Patriot is a silver bullet, sorry, we can't afford that. (Note that on this relatively benign target, the satellite, they had three missiles prepped. Shoot look shoot look shoot, is my guess, was the plan. )

In summary: PAC 2 shortcomings, or shall we say imperfections, led to PAC 3, which is HTK.

How did PAC 3 do in GW 2?

Patriot batteries had at least eight independently confirmed TBM kills during the campaign, and Patriot batteries themselves reported successfully shooting down all eleven Iraqi TBMs that threatened coalition assets, including one TBM that would have struck the headquarters of the 101st Airborne Division and another that would have struck the Combined Land Forces Command Center, the highest echelon command location in Iraq at the time.
It works, Crossbow. Does it have a pK of 1.0?

Nope.

Is it a silver bullet?

Nope.

Why?

Ultimately, physics.

DR

[bigred]

Oops. I watch many successful engagements with my eyes, but they were hit over us; if the warhead broke off it would blow up in the desert anyway. If the warhead went off, the damn missile would still land in the street. The system must be used during boost phase, not over the target area.

If you study aiming, we have some of the best in the world. Oops, we hit the satellite. Darn, there goes the bad aim stuff. I worked with engineers who thesis work was in the open one day, and gone the next! Study how to aim weapons and hit targets and you get into very complex systems.

The Patriot was better than 99 percent by design at hitting what it aimed at; it uses two missiles to do that; but you do not understand we did hit them when it worked, but the damn SCUDs were breaking up as they came down. But the SCUD is like a whole truck coming down at 4,000 mph (the missile would fill a flat bed truck, and the whole thing is coming! The damn thing can be hit but the missile is still there. The pieces rain down all over the place. Do you want some pieces? What I am saying is if a Patriot was aimed at your car, you would be hit; will your car still go, maybe, but you would be tagged by shrapnel. Anyone want to take me up on it? Did the system take out all the SCUDs? The big flaw is intercepting the SCUD in the terminal phase! But watching million dollar fireworks and having a SCUD go off and blow out all your windows and rumble your gut is priceless; and opens up opportunities for the Frank Burns’ Purple Heart if you jump in the glass pile.

Hint; if someone is aim SCUD at you, give him your location exactly, he will miss 5 miles any direction as likely as you. lol, the only weapon you want to be aimed right at you! Ensure a miss, tell them were you are; they shot at us all the time.

Why does anyone care if you think the Patriot is good? Do we need anyone to know how good we are at hitting things? But hitting things is relative! Sure when I was 110 pounds I could hit the 200 pound bully very accurately, but then what?

But for those who want to bad mouth the military, do not worry; there are mistakes and bad people to make you feel good about hating something.

And yes, do not criticize others (china) when you kind of do the same! But we have been able to shoot down (i mean hit) satellites a long time if you pay attention to current events, and we have been doing it better than most due to research.
Great post on a variety of levels. :applause:


I would have used a different word. What was he a professor of? I'm betting it was neither engineering or physics.So? Don't know you that if a college professor says something it must be true? sheesh



Here is the issue, did they make a significant impact on the effectiveness of the scud missles or not? If they did not then they where not effective. It is really that simple:rolleyes: They did, and they were. Simple enough for you?

[ponderingturtle]

:rolleyes: They did, and they were. Simple enough for you?

So we have 3 for worked and it seems 2 for didn't work.

Sounds like a great opportunity for a poll.

[Travis]

Yeah the Patriot Missile System is worthless. Let's just throw them away. After all if they are truly worthless then we'd be just as well off with nothing for air defense.

[Kopji]

I was being facetious on the 'crazy'. He sounded like a physics professor, and felt that this was probably the US mostly making some kind of point, and so what?

I note we offered China detailed information on the launch. Who says we don't have a sense of humor? :D

[nixonsupreme]

woweee.

hi again all, i must apologise for my sarcastic comments regarding US military and aiming, was only try to stir up debate, but i must say sorry as when i read it back, it just looks unfounded! some great debate... im still wondering personally about HAARP/DPS-4 039 and the debate between weapon/research facility. trying to find out more now..

[Darth Rotor]

woweee.

hi again all, i must apologise for my sarcastic comments regarding US military and aiming, was only try to stir up debate, but i must say sorry as when i read it back, it just looks unfounded! some great debate... im still wondering personally about HAARP/DPS-4 039 and the debate between weapon/research facility. trying to find out more now..
Putting the E into JREF is a thankless task. :eek: I am so glad I was tipped off to the Russians causing global warming with that ionosphere device . . .

DR