Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 26
  1. #1
    Joined
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Go Colts & Pacers!
    Posts
    1,889

    $100 Billion anti-missile system effectiveness is doubted

    Anti-missile system
    set, but doubts remain
    Interceptor network hasn't
    been realistically tested

    At a newly constructed launch site on a tree-shorn plain in central Alaska, a large crane crawls from silo to silo, gently lowering missiles into their holes. The sleek white rockets, each about five stories tall, are designed to soar into space and intercept warheads headed toward the United States.

    With five installed so far and one more due by mid-October, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld is preparing to activate the site sometime this autumn. President Bush already has begun to claim fulfillment of a 2000 presidential campaign pledge -- and longtime Republican Party goal -- to build a nationwide missile defense.

    But what the administration had hoped would be a triumphant achievement is clouded by doubts, even within the Pentagon, about whether a system that is on its way to costing more than $100 billion will work. Several key components have fallen years behind schedule and will not be available until later. Flight tests, plagued by delays, have yet to advance beyond elementary, highly scripted events.

    The paucity of realistic test data has caused the Pentagon's chief weapons evaluator to conclude that he cannot offer a confident judgment about the system's viability. He estimated its likely effectiveness to be as low as 20 percent.

    "A system is being deployed that doesn't have any credible capability," said retired Gen. Eugene Habiger, who headed the U.S. Strategic Command in the mid-1990s. "I cannot recall any military system being deployed in such a manner."

    Senior officials at the Pentagon and the White House insist the system will provide protection, although they use terms such as "rudimentary" and "limited" to describe its initial capabilities. Some missile defense, they say, is better than none, and what is deployed this year will be improved over time.

    "Did we have perfection with our first airplane, our first rifle, our first ship?" Rumsfeld said in an interview last month. "I mean, they'd still be testing at Kitty Hawk, for God's sake, if you wanted perfection."

    This notion of building first and improving later lies at the heart of the administration's approach, which defense officials have dubbed "evolutionary acquisition" or "spiral development." Bush has scaled back President Ronald Reagan's vision of a vast anti-missile network and pursued a less ambitious system. At the outset, the system will be aimed only at countering a small number of missiles that would be fired by North Korea, which is 6,000 miles from the West Coast of the United States.

    But Bush also has funded an expanded array of missile defense projects, including land- and sea-launched interceptors, an airborne laser, and space-based weapons. So far, he has spent $31 billion on missile defense research and development, and his plans call for an additional $9 billion to $10 billion a year for the next five years. Beyond that, the administration has provided no final price tag. In 2005, the cost of missile defense will consume nearly 14 percent of the Pentagon's entire research-and-development budget.

    While more money has gone into missile defense under Bush than into any other military R&D project, the Pentagon has exempted the missile defense program from the traditional oversight rules meant to ensure that new weapons serve the needs of military commanders.

    Administration officials say the procedural shortcuts and the increased spending have yielded record gains in record time. The urgency, they say, is justified by a growing U.S. vulnerability to attack from hostile states pursuing long-range missiles -- most notably North Korea and Iran.

    Critics warn that such haste has made waste -- and is unnecessary. The urgency, they suspect, has been more a reflection of politics than concerns about the missile programs of North Korea and Iran, which still face significant technical hurdles. The deployment is being timed, they contend, to help Bush's reelection campaign.

    They also caution that fielding a U.S. anti-missile system before it has undergone realistic testing risks inducing a false sense of security and locking the United States into flawed technology.

    "The design gets frozen in order to build something, so development is stopped," said Philip E. Coyle III, the Pentagon's chief weapons evaluator during the Clinton administration. "You can't be building a house and changing the floor plan at the same time."

    Out with the old

    Normally, when a weapons system is conceived, the Pentagon sets specific requirements that must be approved by a committee of senior military officers. The project is then assessed periodically by the Defense Acquisition Board, a group of high-ranking defense officials from various offices.

    This accountability apparatus has been shunted aside in the case of missile defense. No requirements document was drawn up, and the traditional reviews and assessments have been bypassed. Instead, the Missile Defense Agency (MDA), which is responsible for developing the system, has been allowed to devise its own goals, test schedules and program reviews.

    When Rumsfeld authorized this extraordinary autonomy in January 2002, he said that technological challenges and urgent national security concerns justified it. As a former executive in the pharmaceutical industry, Rumsfeld by his own account was influenced by the vigorous trial-and-error competition that often precedes the creation of new drugs.

    Other historical models also inspired Pentagon authorities. One was the National Reconnaissance Office, established in great secrecy in the 1960s to develop and operate spy satellites. The other was Israel's decision, in 2000, to declare its Arrow anti-missile system operational after just one successful intercept test.

    "Since we have urgent needs, we sometimes cut corners in developing systems, meaning we field them before we've developed everything," said Arieh Herzog, director of the Israeli Missile Defense Organization. He said he held "many talks" about Israel's approach with Lt. Gen. Ronald T. Kadish, MDA director at the time.

    Opponents in Congress and elsewhere say this approach has been taken too far in the case of the U.S. system. They warn that the lack of established baselines for the missile defense program has made it difficult to hold the Pentagon accountable for performance and cost.

    "We're in this hugely expensive race to build something, but we don't know how much it'll cost in the end or what it'll do," said Sen. Jack Reed (D-R.I.), a member of the Armed Services Committee.

    An audit by the Government Accountability Office, released in April, cited an absence of reliable, complete baseline estimates of system performance and cost. Without this information, the GAO said, policymakers in the Pentagon and Congress "do not have a full understanding" of the system's overall cost and actual capabilities. The audit concluded that the system being fielded this year remains "largely unproven."

    Supporting cast

    Pentagon officials say the program remains subject to extensive internal supervision, even with the departure from traditional procedures. Michael W. Wynne, the Pentagon's acting head of acquisitions, told a Senate committee in March that he meets weekly with the MDA's director. In contrast with other programs he oversees from a distance, Wynne described his contacts with top MDA officials -- and with Rumsfeld -- as "more direct and generally carried out in face-to-face discussions."

    Wynne said other senior Pentagon officials also have had a say in shaping and scrutinizing the program. He pointed to the Missile Defense Support Group, which consists of mid-level representatives from Rumseld's office, the Joint Staff and each of the military services. The group has met 47 times since its creation in March 2002.

    "No program in the department receives more scrutiny -- either in level or frequency -- than the Missile Defense Program," Wynne testified to the Senate Armed Services Committee.

    But interviews with support group members revealed they have played only an advisory role. Several said the group often learned of some important decisions after the fact.

    "We're not a critical-decision review group," said Glenn F. Lamartin, a senior Pentagon acquisition official who chairs the group. "We're a support group. We provide advice. Our engagement is different than if we were operating under the old system of review and oversight."

    Lately, some senior military commanders have signaled an interest in shifting back toward some sort of formal requirement process. The Strategic Command, which will oversee operation of the missile defense system, has proposed a "warfighter involvement program" to give commanders a greater voice in the system's development.

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6126469/

    More boondoggle crap!
    A7N8X Dlx./2500 Barton/Bios 1007 10.5x 215mhz @2.3Ghz
    PC3200 Kingston VR 512MG, 2.5t,3,3,8 v2.7, v2.75 vcore
    Silent Boost HSF/CPU 19c+ambient@idle
    Gainward GF3 Ti200 Mk2001SE 10237 (245/500)/SB Live
    80 & 120 Gig WDse
    BenQ DW1620 DVD-R, Lite-on 52x CD-R


  2. #2
    Joined
    May 2002
    Location
    kansas city area, MO
    Posts
    523

    Re: $100 Billion anti-missile system effectiveness is doubted

    i always felt that this was more of a feel good thing rather than really effective.just another waist of taxes.we could cut defence by several billion and still outspend our nearest rival.

  3. #3
    Joined
    Jun 2001
    Posts
    4,385

    Re: $100 Billion anti-missile system effectiveness is doubted

    Something in place to be able to stop a missile sent by a rogue state or a terrorist group who take over a missile silo isn't a bad idea. This may just cause countries like China to build more missiles however. The US and Europe have floundered in dealing with that country as they are all paranoid about losing out on a trading partner with 1 billion + ppl.

  4. #4
    Joined
    May 2002
    Location
    Connecticut
    Age
    68
    Posts
    12,900

    Re: $100 Billion anti-missile system effectiveness is doubted

    Do we really KNOW what is going on with the development of high tech systems, that could be already on thier way to the space station? Some of this tech has already been displayed to the general public, and many fail to see how it could easily be adapted to a military application.Think about that CNN famous picture. A bomb dropped down a 10" smokestack, from 40,000ft? That wasn't luck, that was hi tech at work. How about weather satellites? are all they carrying is the instruments to do thier job? Think about our little robot guys ,prowling around on other planets. What kind of job could they hold in the military?GPS yet another tech that is fast becoming ordinary, and used even in cellphones. GPS tech is used every day in mapping the entire world. It is now used every day by surveyors that are surveying property for huge subdivisions, so there can be no mistake years down the road. Hell, Iwouldn't be surprised to find out that MS software has a gps program running in the background to .... This post has been terminated, for failure to comply with Gov regulations concerning freedom of speech Welcome to the goldfish bowl. BD51
    http://forums.pcper.com/trading.php TRADING RULEZ!! BIGDADDY51 I've joined the QUAD CROWD! ASUS M3A78 & a 9850

  5. #5
    Joined
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Plainfield, IL
    Posts
    5,177

    Re: $100 Billion anti-missile system effectiveness is doubted

    Yep. We had the stealth planes in 1970. Think about that.

  6. #6
    Joined
    May 2002
    Location
    Connecticut
    Age
    68
    Posts
    12,900

    Re: $100 Billion anti-missile system effectiveness is doubted

    Quote Originally Posted by mostholycerebus
    Yep. We had the stealth planes in 1970. Think about that.
    THAT'S where all those UFO sitings came from near Area51. It was the Gov. secretly testing the new stealth fighters. Some pics that were captured by UFO nuts, clearly showed the distinctive triangular shape when viewed from under a stealth.It wasn't until the project was in serious trouble financially, that the stealth was made public, to gain financial support necessary to continue the project. I still think that that is one groovey plane. Nust be quite a thrill to fly one. Sometimes, I wish I passed my physical way back when ,for the draft. The USAF would have been my home for quite a while, but I probably would have washed out, I can't stand anybody in my face. I have a bad habit of moving them out of it. BD51
    http://forums.pcper.com/trading.php TRADING RULEZ!! BIGDADDY51 I've joined the QUAD CROWD! ASUS M3A78 & a 9850

  7. #7
    Joined
    May 2002
    Location
    Twain Harte, CA
    Posts
    20,453

    Re: $100 Billion anti-missile system effectiveness is doubted

    Its a friggin' missile system that's operational capacity is obviously top secret. The article is just as obviously written with a political slant.

    When I was in the aerospace industry, one thing could be counted on... anything written about new systems, new planes and new weapons would be full of bull dung or watered down to the minimum. What's to lead us to believe any of this article is any different?

    Proof that this article is full of crap:

    The deployment is being timed, they contend, to help Bush's reelection campaign.
    Might they tell us then, why this system has hardly been mentioned in the campaign?

    Here's another line of bull dung:

    While more money has gone into missile defense under Bush than into any other military R&D project, the Pentagon has exempted the missile defense program from the traditional oversight rules meant to ensure that new weapons serve the needs of military commanders.
    The $31 billion spent during Bush's tenure for missile defense is not on a single missile project, its an entire program. They aren't lumping all the fixed wing projects together, or all the sea based projects together... in other words, they're feeding you a red herring.

    And, to say they are exempting them from traditional oversight rules is nothing more than standard procedure for development of high tech, secret systems. There is nothing wrong with it. The same was done on the B-1, B-2, SICBM and F-117. Those are only a few I worked on and am sure there were many, many more.

    Rather than posting an entire article and just saying, "more boondoggle crap", why don't you tell us why you think that. Or is it that you believe every thing you read? What's boondoggle about it?

    I suggest you loose the hvball junior style of posting or get a bit more informed.

  8. #8
    Joined
    Nov 2001
    Location
    E n g l a n d
    Posts
    10,978

    Re: $100 Billion anti-missile system effectiveness is doubted

    Quote Originally Posted by mostholycerebus
    Yep. We had the stealth planes in 1970. Think about that.
    The Northrop flying wings in the late 1940's were pretty stealthy. With their minimal vertical superstructure and engines hidden inside the plane's body, they had a much smaller radar cross section that a conventional plane of the same size. Not that it was realised at the time sadly. Check out the movie 'War of the Worlds' for the jet version's starring role nuking aliens.

    http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/fta/fta198.htm

    These were the grandparents of the modern B2 stealth bomber. Exact same wing span too I think.

  9. #9
    Joined
    May 2002
    Location
    Twain Harte, CA
    Posts
    20,453

    Re: $100 Billion anti-missile system effectiveness is doubted

    Quote Originally Posted by Enmore
    These were the grandparents of the modern B2 stealth bomber. Exact same wing span too I think.
    I think you're right about the wingspan. Ole' man Northrop would have been proud.

  10. #10
    Joined
    May 2002
    Location
    Connecticut
    Age
    68
    Posts
    12,900

    Re: $100 Billion anti-missile system effectiveness is doubted

    Quote Originally Posted by Dutchcedar
    I think you're right about the wingspan. Ole' man Northrop would have been proud.
    Poor old Howard, he NEVER gets any credit for the Spruce Gooose BD51 www.sprucegoose.org
    Last edited by BIGDADDY51; 09-29-2004 at 03:31 PM.
    http://forums.pcper.com/trading.php TRADING RULEZ!! BIGDADDY51 I've joined the QUAD CROWD! ASUS M3A78 & a 9850

  11. #11
    Joined
    Nov 2001
    Location
    E n g l a n d
    Posts
    10,978

    Re: $100 Billion anti-missile system effectiveness is doubted

    Quote Originally Posted by Dutchcedar
    I think you're right about the wingspan. Ole' man Northrop would have been proud.
    Yes, I'm sure he was. They showed him the B2 prototype just before he died.

  12. #12
    Joined
    May 2002
    Location
    A Little South of Sanity
    Posts
    12,925

    Re: $100 Billion anti-missile system effectiveness is doubted

    Quote Originally Posted by R. Vanderlow
    Anti-missile system set, but doubts remain
    Interceptor network hasn't been realistically tested....... More boondoggle crap!
    You can do a simple Google search and find out how many US weapon systems won't work.

    To name a few:

    Partiot missile defense system
    B-2 bomber
    B-1 bomber
    M1A1 Abrams tank
    F-117 stealth bomber

    Just look around 1990 and very early 1991 when all the "Experts" made their claims about the hardware the US military "was going" into Desert Storm with - to face the legendary "Elite Republican Guard" with their greatly feared and respected "Combat Seasoned/Hardened" troops.

    Now, I ask you to produce an actual list of deployed US weapon systems over the past 40 years that actually didn't meet or greatly exceed design specifications.

    Hint: It's going to be a very short list.

    Next, produce a list of deployed US weapon systems over the past 40 years that have not at one time or another been attacked in the House/Senate as "Unnecessary", "Pork Barrel" or "Too Costly". Addioionally, show the ones that were actually produced in the original numbers that the government had the contractors actually bid to. i.e. the ones that were not scaled back like the F/A-22 from 750 units to 339 units - to include all support elements. (this contract is still floundering in total numbers to be produced due to cost caps)

    HInt: This will be a long list and probably include the ALL of them.

    Next, show a solution for the contractors to keep per unit costs from rising for a weapon system originally bid and contracted for 750 units that has been scaled back to 339 units like the F/A-22 Raptor has.
    Last edited by SteveW; 09-30-2004 at 03:30 PM.

  13. #13
    Joined
    May 2002
    Location
    Connecticut
    Age
    68
    Posts
    12,900

    Re: $100 Billion anti-missile system effectiveness is doubted

    All I know ,is the bomb they dropped down that smokestack worked quite well BD51
    http://forums.pcper.com/trading.php TRADING RULEZ!! BIGDADDY51 I've joined the QUAD CROWD! ASUS M3A78 & a 9850

  14. #14
    Joined
    May 2002
    Location
    A Little South of Sanity
    Posts
    12,925

    Re: $100 Billion anti-missile system effectiveness is doubted

    Quote Originally Posted by BIGDADDY51
    All I know ,is the bomb they dropped down that smokestack worked quite well BD51
    Right you are BD.

    The majority of these types of articles are written by the clueless just to fill space.

    Bump.
    Last edited by SteveW; 09-30-2004 at 03:28 PM.

  15. #15
    Joined
    May 2002
    Location
    A Little South of Sanity
    Posts
    12,925

    Re: $100 Billion anti-missile system effectiveness is doubted

    Bump again.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •