Ah, thanks for the respect. As I said, there's a reason I generally don't post here. Ok, I'll add an external source to provide some evidence for you to consider:
Missile Defense Testing May Be Inadequate
Quote:
[...]In his report, Christie said trying to take early advantage of some of the antimissile capabilities under development was "prudent." But he warned that little real basis existed for judging the actual worth of those capabilities. Much of the current assessment, he said, must be "based primarily on modeling and simulation" and tests of subsystems, "not end-to-end operational testing of a mature integrated system."
In eight flight tests since 1999, interceptors have scored five hits. But the tests have involved a number of substitute elements, including a surrogate booster and a prototype tracking radar, while the actual parts for the planned system have remained in development. Additionally, all the tests have run on the same course, with the target missile soaring west over the Pacific Ocean from an Air Force base in California and the interceptor launching from the Marshall Islands.
The last flight test, which resulted in failure of the interceptor vehicle to separate from its booster, occurred 13 months ago. Problems with a new booster, being designed specifically for the system by Lockheed Martin Corp., prompted the Pentagon last year to suspend further intercept attempts. The next attempt is scheduled for May using an alternate booster developed by Orbital Sciences Corp.
Christie called the testing suspension "reasonable," given the risk of further failure with the surrogate booster and the limited amount of new information that could be gained from flying essentially the same scenario. But the move, he added, has left "very limited time for demonstration" of the performance of the new booster and the rest of the system.
Delays in producing both the Lockheed and Orbital Sciences boosters "have put tremendous pressure on the test schedule immediately prior to fielding," Christie said. Noting that flight tests so far have involved only "simple target complexes," he urged conditions "more closely matching the projected threat."
Plans for the two tests this year call for more challenging targets and flight geometries, including a target launch from Alaska and an interceptor launch from California. But "even with successful intercepts in both of these attempts," Christie said, "the small number of tests would limit confidence" in the system's performance.
|
Maybe if this could actually be tested on various paths without us knowing that its coming, the viability of it working eventually could actually be tested. As it is, 5/8 with a lot of help of external sources and plenty of time to prepare isn't very promising. Nevermind the international relations fallout from this with China and Japan... (or corporate handouts) I'm just very frustrated by this because it is so expensive and I think it makes us less safe rather than safer.
In any event, you might as well close this thread down, I doubt this changes anything for you. I understand your side, I've heard this same argument before, and this is the last piece of information to support my side that I have to share. Take of it what you will.