Another Missile Shield First: Double Hit In Space

Last night in space over the Pacific, interceptor missiles from the Aegis cruiser USS Lake Erie met yet another successful milestone, destroying a salvo of multiple incoming ballistic missiles:

The event marked the 10th and 11th successful ballistic missile intercepts for Lockheed Martin Corp's sea-based Aegis system in 13 attempts, the Pentagon's Missile Defense Agency, or MDA, said.

"We consider it a simultaneous engagement," said Richard Lehner, an agency spokesman, on Wednesday. "That means both targets were in flight at the same time even though they were not intercepted at precisely the same moment."

Here is very raw footage (skip the first few seconds if you can) of the test from the Missile Defense Agency:

UPDATE: Hi, Acers. Here's yet another successful intercept from just over a month ago. Ballistic missile defense clearly does not work kicks ass.

UPDATE: Welcome, fellow Instapundit readers (thanks, Glenn).

Comments

[Outlaw_Wizard]

Target looked a lot like SM-2(ER) Block 2.

[Cuffy Meigs]

Yeah, those black-white seeker images at the very end are cool as shit.

[Tushar D]

Whoa! An Instalanche!

[Professor Blather]

Coolest thing ever.

Now how come I have to follow a link from a moron like Ace to your wonderful blog to find this info ... that should be on my nightly news broadcast?

[Math_Mage]

So does that mean that we won't have to worry about MAD anymore? Lol...just kidding. Esp. b/c of possibility of terrorist-related nuke. Still, totally totally awesome.

[notarocketscientist]

IANARS (I am not a rocket scientist) however, the video of SM-3 #2 Launch appears to show a solid fuel engine failure at -3:46 (non-designed black puff of smoke in the trail moments after launch), followed by two very clearly visible hot glowing parts and contrails at -3:44 and onward.

The video itself does not characterize what it is, so, we're only left with your characterization of what it is. I'm not sure I agree with your characterization.

The video of the intercept of target #1 looks correct (i.e., it clearly shows two targets in the vicinity, with the intercepter missile taking out one of the two targets.)

The video of target #2 being taken out, however, looks faked, since it clearly also shows two targets still in the vicinity. Pay particular interest to frames -:57 and -:56. In frame -:57, there are two heat signatures visible. The interceptor takes out the upper signature at -:56. But there shouldn't be two signatures, since the first target missile theoretically has already been taken out.

It is also odd that the agency chose the peculiar order of the footage. They chose to show the Aegos-based response salvos to the "ballistic missile launch" first, then showing the land-based launch of the target missiles. For $8.7 billion, you'd think they could get the video straight.

There are enough anomolies in this video to call the representation into some question.

I'm not a critic of the program (just some schmuck on the internet), but this video left me unconvinced.

I'd say the program has some explaining to do.

[armilnov]

hey Math_Mage,

The Ballistic Missile Defense Shield program (BMDS) is an *experimental* program. It is not expected to work right away perfectly. You do know the meaning of word *experimental*, do you not?

Many people very recently denied that this hit-to-kill could be done at all, or that we ever would need a system like that. These tests prove conclusively that the concept works, and the political situation in my home country - Russia - as well as in Pakistan and Iran shows that we (USA) need this defense badly.

Is this system ready for deployment? Is it perfect - definitely not. Nobody claims it is. However, THIS WORKS! It can be improved further, but it WORKS!

That is why Putin is so pissed off -- and I am talking here as a Russian.

[Cuffy Meigs]

The video itself does not characterize what it is, so, we're only left with your characterization of what it is. I'm not sure I agree with your characterization.

nota, it is not my characterization---it is MDA's. I'm just reporting here.

I agree the video is poor quality, and I gave fair warning in the post. Indeed, it looks like it was shot with camera-phone.

[Cuffy Meigs]

And regarding your "two targets still around for intercept #2", keep in mind the targets were both single-stage ballistic missiles.

I suggest the 2 targets you see in each intercept are actually one target with 2 hot spots: the hot cone (friction) and a very hot nozzle. Remember, these intercepts occur exo-atmosphere. It is extremely cold there so any heat will be picked up on IR images.

[Quality Weenie]

Came over from Instapundit.

BIL works is the Project Manager for this program for the defense contractor that is working on this with the Navy.

I have the offical press release from the Navy at my site.

[submandave]

NARS, my interpretation of the launch video for #2 was that the apparent dual "hot glowing parts and contrails" was a result of video issues, as the two would merge into a single artifact and then split apart again, as if it were a double exposure. I suspect poor video tracking resulted in the camera slightly oscilating between two positions rapidly, creating this double exposure like effect. I haven't done it, but if you looked frame-by-frame you'd probably only see on trail on each frame, but the position on successive frames would be slightly different. Achieving proper dampening to avoid seeking and over compensation is always a problem in fast response feedback control systems. Similar to the effect of riding a poppet on a turbine for the more mechanically inclined.

[NotARocketScientist2]

notarocketscientist,
I am not a rocket scientist either (they don't exist any more), but I am an aerospace engineer working Ballistic Missile Defense. Though not Aegis, I still have an understanding of what is going on. I don't think that the program has any explaining to do because this video is just some bragging about the capability, which is made for quick look reports to people who understand what is going on, not to thoroughly explain the system to the general public. But, more importantly the problems you site, and not what you think they are.

First, the black puff of smoke is not a motor failure, and it is by design. It is the separation of the MK72 terrier booster from the vehicle, and the ignition of the sustainer. The booster still glows after burnout, and may have been broken during ignition of the sustainer, or a nozzle environmental baffle for the sustainer may be burning after ejection. They track them with the video to know impact points for safety.

Second, your characterization of the two intercepts is mistaken. The two targets were launched 2 minutes apart and would not be visible in the same video. Cuffy is correct. There are two spots in the image due to the hot nose cone (aeroheating), relatively cool missile body (not visible), and then the hot nozzle. The interceptor is designed to hit the payload and not the booster, which is why it appears to hit the upper hot spot. This is true for both intercepts. A nose and a nozzle in IR, not two targets in the same image.

Finally, the footage is not intended to follow the timeline; it is in order of importance for the test. The target is expected to launch (especially from a land based rail). They are reliable. The interceptor is more important in the test series, with questions about how well it exits the launch tube, separates the booster, etc. This is common in test videos.

I know you said "I'm not a critic of the program (just some schmuck on the internet), but this video left me unconvinced," so I am not attacking you. I just like to stop rumors due to misunderstandings.

[sherlock]

Am I correct in assuming these interceptors are carrying explosive warheads, not the hit-to-kill type vehicles that the ground-based ICBM interceptors use?

I was particularly impressed with the video of the target as taken from the interceptor, and how it suddenly grew from a spot into what was obviously a missile, just before impact.

[Cuffy Meigs]

sherlock, all kill vehicles (KVs) in use today are hit-to-kill, regardless of platform. Bullet with a bullet, baby.

[notarocketscientist]

To submandave:

Here's an idea (perhaps you can mention it to the actual rocket scientists) how the program could improve its credibility:

1) These tests can be performed at any time. Since we're trying to convince a skeptical public about the effectiveness of the program ... maybe it would be a good idea to do the test during the daytime in clear weather, so we can get some decent footage.

2) While we're at it ... since we have billions of dollars to spend, maybe we should invest in some tripods, and not have some swabbie be the guy trying to hold the cell phone shooting the video.

3) Head on over to nasa.org. Believe it or not, they figured out how to put some cameras on the actual rocket itself. (They apparently do have some rocket scientists about.) Do we really need video from 3,000 miles away, showing something I can produce on my Mac with Photoshop?

4) Let's spend 5 minutes and think about how we can edit our footage linearly. Imagine it: a storyline!

We need a ballistic missile system that works. We need to sell it to the public. Let's hire a few video experts who know how to tell a story along with our rocket scientists.

After all, we have BILLIONS to spend.

[flunky]

NARS,
The professional videos you wish for exist, the targets have cameras on them, and the "tripods" are high-tech. The results have simply not been approved for public release. In fact I was amazed to see that there was *any* video of this test available on the 'net. I was ready to say it was unprecedented, but then I noticed that last month's THAAD test video was also out there.

This seems to be a new policy on MDA's part, so maybe you'll see more and better in the future.