Ground Based Interceptor (GBI)

marauder2048

"I should really just relax"
Joined
Nov 19, 2013
Messages
2,165
Reaction score
0
Grey Havoc said:
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/29/us/politics/north-koreas-missiles-us-defense.html
Relevance? Timeliness?
 

Arjen

It's turtles all the way down
Senior Member
Joined
Nov 6, 2010
Messages
2,221
Reaction score
0
As far as I'm concerned - yes to both. Perspective. Thanks, GH.
 

fredymac

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Dec 14, 2009
Messages
1,334
Reaction score
1
Video of intercept. I wonder if presidential release authority is required in an actual event.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bAjUM_hf8DE
 

_Del_

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jan 4, 2012
Messages
348
Reaction score
0
At the moment, I would hope not.
 

marauder2048

"I should really just relax"
Joined
Nov 19, 2013
Messages
2,165
Reaction score
0
Arjen said:
As far as I'm concerned - yes to both. Perspective. Thanks, GH.
I'm not disputing that a political, non-technical and dated article provides perspective.
Just not one that belongs in this particular topic.
 

_Del_

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jan 4, 2012
Messages
348
Reaction score
0
sferrin said:
_Del_ said:
At the moment, I would hope not.
Why?
I'd hope a battery commander would have that discretion in the event of something particularly exciting?
 

Airplane

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
Oct 3, 2015
Messages
432
Reaction score
0
_Del_ said:
sferrin said:
_Del_ said:
At the moment, I would hope not.
Why?
I'd hope a battery commander would have that discretion in the event of something particularly exciting?
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?

You can be certain however that if an interceptor was fired, the president would have learned before the launch that there was an inbound ICBM heading towards the homeland. Putting release authority with the president for a defensive weapon against an incoming nuke doesn't make sense.
 

_Del_

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jan 4, 2012
Messages
348
Reaction score
0
Right. Does an Aegis cruiser require presidential authority to release on an incoming missile? I'd certainly hope not.

With young Kim acting squirrelly, in particular, I rather hope we don't have release authority tied to someone over the battery commander for an event window measured in minutes.
 

marauder2048

"I should really just relax"
Joined
Nov 19, 2013
Messages
2,165
Reaction score
0
The Combatant Commanders have weapons release authority. In practice for GMD it's USNORTHCOM
 

seruriermarshal

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
May 4, 2008
Messages
868
Reaction score
0
:eek:

discriminated between the target and countermeasures, maneuvered into the target's path and destroyed it using "hit-to-kill" technology.
 

seruriermarshal

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
May 4, 2008
Messages
868
Reaction score
0
from raytheon releases :

http://www.raytheon.com/news/feature/ekv_icbm_intercept.html
 

Flyaway

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Jan 21, 2015
Messages
1,770
Reaction score
0
Missile Defense Test 'Realistic', Syring Insists

“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.
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.”
http://breakingdefense.com/2017/05/missile-defense-test-realistic-syring-insists/
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
11,340
Reaction score
1
Looking at the picture released of the ICBM analog I notice the nose section had a LOT of cooling piped to it. A foreign operational ICBM would not be cooled as such. Perhaps this was to make it more difficult for the KKV to detect? Maybe they were trying to anticipate an enemy trying to sneak by by cooling their bus/RV? ???

"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."

Tinfoil hat lunacy there. ::) I'm amazed that anybody could have the patience to deal with that kind of stupidity.
 

Flyaway

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Jan 21, 2015
Messages
1,770
Reaction score
0
Maybe I am naive but people were really suggesting the stuff he's having to refute there?
 

TomS

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
2,967
Reaction score
0
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.
 

fredymac

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Dec 14, 2009
Messages
1,334
Reaction score
1
If my memory serves me, when the Homing Overlay Experiment was conducted 33 years ago, the charge of a rigged test with a radio homing beacon planted in the target was so fervently believed by the majority Democrats in Congress they actually called in the FBI to conduct a criminal investigation.
 

marauder2048

"I should really just relax"
Joined
Nov 19, 2013
Messages
2,165
Reaction score
0
Flyaway said:
Maybe I am naive but people were really suggesting the stuff he's having to refute there?
We shouldn't be linking to it but that NYTimes article has those notions.

sferrin said:
Tinfoil hat lunacy there. ::) I'm amazed that anybody could have the patience to deal with that kind of stupidity.
Recall, Syring successfuly deflected a rabid AvWeek journalist who later had to be put down.
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
11,340
Reaction score
1
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.
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.
 
Top