I'm not disputing that a political, non-technical and dated article provides perspective.Arjen said:As far as I'm concerned - yes to both. Perspective. Thanks, GH.
Considering how little the time there is in a window of opportunity to have a successful launch, there can't be presidential authority involved. And why would there be in firing a defensive weapon at a potential inbound ICBM?_Del_ said:
“It actually replicated — without getting into classified details — an operational scenario that we’re concerned about,” Vice Adm. James Syring, currently at NORTHCOM HQ in Colorado Springs, told reporters gathered here around a speaker phone. While the Missile Defense Agency director didn’t explicitly say the threat yesterday emulated a North Korean missile, he did say tests replicate threats “from North Korea or Iran. In this case it was a Pacific scenario.” (Protip: Iran is not in the Pacific).
In fact, MDA tests against the intelligence community’s best estimate of where the North Korean and Iranian missile programs will be “three years” from now. “What we see in 2020…was very well replicated in the tests that we conducted yesterday,” Syring said.
That cutting-edge threat includes a high-performance target. “It flew at a higher altitude and a longer range and a higher velocity” than any target in previous tests, said Syring. It’s the first time the US missile defense system has actually been tested against a target with the performance characteristics of an ICBM, which is the threat that inspired its creation in the first place, three decades and at least 123 billion dollars ago.
http://breakingdefense.com/2017/05/missile-defense-test-realistic-syring-insists/With a twinge of exasperation, Syring also refuted suggestions that the test was a set-up, with the defenders knowing exactly when to fire and where to aim. “The target absolutely does not have a homing beacon on it, despite what some have written,” he said. The missile defense system “was not notified when the target was launched,” instead having to rely on radars and satellites to detect the missile’s take-off and compute its path, just as they would in a real-war scenario.
The missile defense crews did know the test was happening yesterday and the rough time window when it would occur, Syring said, but such things have to be scheduled and made public well in advance for safety reasons: “We’re launching an interceptor hundreds of miles north of LAX (Los Angeles airport, to) Hawaii,” he said. “That requires us to shut down large parts of the ocean (to) ship traffic and air traffic.”
We shouldn't be linking to it but that NYTimes article has those notions.Flyaway said:Maybe I am naive but people were really suggesting the stuff he's having to refute there?
Recall, Syring successfuly deflected a rabid AvWeek journalist who later had to be put down.sferrin said:Tinfoil hat lunacy there. : I'm amazed that anybody could have the patience to deal with that kind of stupidity.
Imagine the media s--t storm if there were no coordination whatsoever and the GBI operators were out to lunch when the target launch occurred.TomS said:I've seen enough testing to know that these events aren't exactly unscripted. The specific refutation Syring gave is certainly true -- no homing beacon and no signal into the GBI system when the target fires.
But that doesn't mean that the system operators didn't know a test was imminent or the parameters of the test in some detail. (There are only so many launch sites available for example.) That colors their actions as they respond to the test launch. It also means that they've been over the interceptor and systems with a fine toothed comb to make sure they're in good condition, which may not be true in a bolt-from-the-blue operational scenario.