Spy Sat Sharpshooter Apparently Now On The Front Lines

Very interesting news on that spectacular Iranian satellite launch failure:

Iran's flight test of a space launch vehicle failed Aug. 17, according to radar tracking by a U.S. Navy destroyer and infrared data from U.S. Air Force Defense Support Program (DSP) missile warning spacecraft.

Key data on the failure were provided by the USS Russell, an Arleigh Burke-class destroyer patrolling the Persian Gulf.

Other U.S. intelligence assets gave the Russell and missile warning satellite system advanced notice of the test, enabling extra preparation for tracking its outcome.

The Russell also was one of three destroyers involved in the final radar tracking of the derelict National Reconnaissance Office USA 193 intelligence satellite that was destroyed by a Standard Missile-3 fired by another destroyer in the Persian Gulf group.

So our toxic spy sat was "destroyed by a Standard Missile-3 fired by another destroyer in the Persian Gulf group"?

Not to get all loose-lips-sink-ships on AviationWeek (or worse, the Navy press relations flack that gave AW all this info) but, er, loose lips can indeed sink ships, dumbasses!

Though unnamed in the article, the spy sat shooter can be readily identified by anyone with a passing interest in missile defense and Simple Jack Google skills --- and no, I'm not ratting out the name of our most experienced missile defense ship and crew which is now apparently deployed in a WARZONE and no, the pic above is not that ship (that's the USS Cole up there).

I'll report on the loose lips of AW/Navy, but you'll find no additional info here. Beware of the comment section, though...

Now that it's public knowledge (thanks again, AW!), I suppose it's heartening to know that this exceptional boat is Where It Needs To Be.

And to end on a good note, it's great news that we got to give our DSP early warning satellites a live-fire workout. These are the birds that give us the tripwire alert for ballistic missile launches:

More than one DSP is used to monitor that region of the Middle East and it is likely data from the Iranian launch obtained from at least two DSPs are being analyzed. U.S. signal intelligence and imaging spacecraft also monitored preparations for the launch.

It's one thing to test our DSP's by tracking our own target missiles during flight tests, quite another to get the rare opportunity to track actual enemy hardware launched from enemy territory. Nice. That'll come in handy when they really start throwing heavy stuff.

(h/t: result of a long link trail from a headline at Ace's)

UPDATE: Instalanche! (thanks, Glenn).  Also, thanks Greyhawk at MilBlogs.

Several commenters have said that perhaps the Navy's lips are loose for a reason, i.e. we're sending a loud message to the Iranians and Russians. While I certainly appreciate the value of gunboat diplomacy, I was surprised that the Navy would publicly disclose the perilous location of one of our most uniquely trained crews. Yes, there are several Aegis-equipped ships at sea, but none have the missile intercept trackrecord of this ship. And again, maybe that's the whole point of the leak.

Anyway, my own security clearance is too valuable to discard over a little blog post, but you commenters are free to pontificate. I'm just glad several components of our ballistic missile defense system (BMDS) got an unscripted drill. Thanks for the exercise, Mahmoud.

PS: Obligatory posters.

UPDATE: Web managing editor of AviationWeek.com, Christopher Fotos responds in the comment section:

After following the link from InstaGlenn I, too, thought you were referring to the mere identity of the [ship], whose role in the shootdown is so well known as to have been explained in detail by its commanding officer. But now that I understand what you're saying, I still don't see a problem. When I was running my now-retired PostWatch blog, I complained about occasions when the Post and other media recklessly disclosed defense secrets. But I don't think this is a good example of that, for reasons already covered by other commenters.

I'm giving the benefit of the doubt to the Big Stickers here --- the US wanted this info out there. But the tactician in me can't help but cringe at the worst-case scenario, an asymmetric and/or Silkworm attack on what is essentially our current BMDS flagship:

Of course, Aegis ships were originally designed for fleet defense, popping anti-ship missiles bound for the supercarriers, so Iranian Silkworms shouldn't be an issue. Still, the USS Cole is an Aegis boat...

Comments

[EC]

It was the Lake Erie that took the shot. A buddy of mine is a Master Chief specializing in the CIWS and all sorts of other fire control stuff. We call him "Mr. Blow Shit Up".

[Cuffy Meigs]

Loose lips, EC! Ehhh, AviationWeek already let the cat out of the bag anyway.

[Tushar]

Whoa! An Instalanche! Way to go, Cuffy.

[JRB]

That's why it's long been popularly known as Aviation LEAK.

[rix]

The navy has already posted pictures with the name of the ship on them.

[EC]

Not sure why the Lake Erie's identity is a big secret. They've been known for years as the lead ship for all sorts of advanced missile tech stuff. And it's not that hard to google "spy sat shootdown" and get a billion hits about the whole incident.

Enough about missile boats, the USN needs to mount that railgun on the Lake Erie for some truly badass pimp-hand technique.

QUAD DAMAGE!!!

[M. Simon]

Another nice job the US Navy is working on:

Fusion Report 13 June 008

[Josh]

ummmm.... did you ever consider that we WANT them to know that the ship is there in order to rattle them?

TR made this sort of thing famous (and successful) with his Great White Fleet. It's called gunboat diplomacy.

Just in the last couple of days it was announced that several Aegis ships have already had their computers updated and were loaded with the ABM SM3 missiles and that many more ships were in the process of being updated and moved to cover trouble spots. That was a message for Mr. Putin.

[The Snob]

Your derision assumes someone on our team isn't trying to make sure someone on the other team knows something about us.

[Michael]

Have we offered to shoot their satellite down for them?

[Navytech]

This info is no big deal. 18 BURKE/TICONDEROGA class ships are currently equipped to do this kind of thing. Here's the thing though: For the cost of ONE(1) DDX, you could outfit each and every BURKE and TICO with this equipment. That's over 80 ships that could monitor launches and act as necessary. Or you could have a 14,000 ton ship with a pair of 155mm cannon on it.

[ronbo]

Is publicizing this necessarily a bad idea? Especially when linked with the tracking and shoot-down of the satellite this sends a strong message to Iran: We know what you are up to, and we know well enough in advance to do something about it.

I certainly can see the value in keeping that information away from the Iranians, but if our strategy is to deter them this might be sound tactics.

[NukemHill]

Do we know the source of the Iranian missile failure?

Just askin'....

[mcgruder]

think.
we have little in the way of a military hand to play if things go that route, and our diplomatic corps is not what you would call "complelling." So strategic leaks of this nature to a publication that is studied talmudically by the Iranians, and which is sure to be picked up by the "friendlies" in the blogosphere, is good business.

this is 4% military and 96% information ops. though i'd be willing to cut into the info ops to assign a % to psyops as well.

[XBradTC]

Here's the thing. Even if the Navy didn't publicize the presence of a certain Tico, the Iranians would know she was there. Those are relatively restricted waters and at the same time, just about the busiest in the world. It's hard to hide a ship there.

That's one reason why the DDG-1000 program pushing stealth was so stupid. Sure it can evade radar, but all the bad guys have to do is put out a screen of fishing boats to keep track of it.

[Ron Reagan]

I agree; too much stuff is pouring out via tv specials on weapons, and now this: those people need to learn that every scrap of intelligence is vital and there was no need to release this.

[sleeperg]

Loose lips? Good grief. There was an entire Military Channel show on how it was done and who was involved, including interviews with USS Lake Erie's crew. They had to make special mods to the SM-3 that they now state "have been removed."

Maybe yes, maybe no.

[Jim Oberg]

Maybe we're preparing the ground for an Iranian claim that we shot down their missile? Delicious development!

Look, Ahmadinejad was at the launch, he ordered the launch to occur on the 12th Imam's birthday, no matter how well (or not) prepared it was, and if he's in trouble with other elements of the government now for rushing the launch and leading to the debacle, what better 'way out' for him than to declare a US attack on Iran has already occurred, requiring retaliation.

Only he's the one bringing the box cutter to the gun fight. What an opportunity!

[George]

For those of us who are old enough to have read AW when it was only a paper-bound magazine, the intell types used to refer to it as "Aviation Leak."

[Cuffy Meigs]

sleeperg, the point wasn't that the spy sat shooter is unknown. In relation to the sat shootdown and BMDS tests, it's one of the most public ships in the fleet. I've blogged extensively about it and all of its previous missile intercepts.

Disclosing that it is *currently deployed in a WARZONE* is the sticky point.

I'm not going to identify it in relation to THIS deployment, lose my clearance and hence my job.

[R. Ford Mashburn]

They will know we are serious when the Vincennes shows up.

[Christopher Fotos]

After following the link from InstaGlenn I, too, thought you were referring to the mere identity of the USS Lake Erie, whose role in the shootdown is so well known as to have been explained in detail by its commanding officer. But now that I understand what you're saying, I still don't see a problem. When I was running my now-retired PostWatch blog, I complained about occasions when the Post and other media recklessly disclosed defense secrets. But I don't think this is a good example of that, for reasons already covered by other commenters.

I have bad news for mcgruder, though; at least one more DDG-1000 may be in our future. On April 20 in our by-subscription AWIN service, we reported:

After facing strenuous protestations on the Hill over the halting of the U.S. Navy’s DDG-1000 destroyer procurement, Navy Secretary Donald Winter now says he will pursue funding for a third DDG-1000.

The House Appropriations defense subcommittee redistributed Navy funds, trimming $2.5 billion for the third DDG-1000 (DAILY, Aug. 4). But Winter told Senator Susan Collins (R-Maine) Aug. 18 he would seek funding for the third ship, to be built at Bath Iron Works (BIW), as well as reprogrammed funds to potentially restart the DDG-51.

The Navy’s most recent change of heart will require Congressional funding approval. The Senate version of the bill supports the full funding cut by the House’s version....

Who knows what will happen in the end but there you go.

--Christopher Fotos, web managing editor, AviationWeek.com

[Harry Eagar]

Well, anyhow, it's nice to know the Aegis radars work now.