I think there's been enough exposure to reports from two respected reports now to support my claim that the tests were a failure. You're free to disagree, but I'm going to drop it. If you want a last word, be my guest.
Dan R Allen wrote: > Marc: > You didn't. As I said, this is from my understanding of the technology > involved, > which has come from other sources than the two articles we both cited. > > It's not hard to destroy a balloon with a shock wave. Even a bit of > shrapnel > would puncture it. > > Dan: > Your understanding of the technology involved then is flawed. These tests > were of a "hit-to-kill" vehicle. A shock-wave was never designed, planned, > or expected in the test results. Destroying a decoy is a failure, > destroying the booster interface is a failure, only striking the target is > considered a success. > > Marc: > It's not the visual aspects that are the issue, but the aerodynamical ones, > and > balloons behave differently than cones. > > Dan: > In the environment that these intercepts are taking place aerodynamics are > not an issue. The intercept is taking place _before_ the MIRV goes > atmospheric. That's why the aerodynamic differences between the target and > decoys are irrelevant. > > Marc: > I didn't get that in either article -- I saw all the references to decoys > and > assumed that the MIRV had already released its payload. You don't have to > wait to > get to exoatmospheric levels to establish a good trajectory. The first few > minutes are the critical ones, and it's at that point that you need this > 3rd > party information asap. > > Dan: > Yes, I finally figured out that we were talking about two different things > too. And you're right that you don't need to get to the coast phase to > establish a good trajectory, but you can use that time to get your defenses > in place. > A missile attack involves three basic phases: boost, coast, and drop. > Ideally you destroy a missile during the boost phase, before anything is > deployed. The problem is that you might have destroyed a legitimate > payload. The next phase is better because you now know exactly where that > payload is headed, and where it will come down. It's also better because > you can still catch it while all of the warheads are still in the same > basket. The drop phase is the most difficult because not only do you have > multiple warheads, but you also have to find these multiple, _small_ items > against an increasingly "noisy" background. > Just knowing the point of origin, and the type of booster provides an awful > lot of intel without needing to know specifics about the payload. The > trajectory will provide other types of knowledge. > > Marc: > I realized that -- it works on infrared. But it still has to distinguish > between > a valid target and decoys. > > Dan: > But you don't need a cone-shaped decoy to fool an IR sensor, it doesn't > even need to _look_ like the target; it just has to have the same IR > signature - the actual physical shape is irrelevant to that task. That was > the point of my contention with that part of the article. > And the seeker head being tested is consistently showing that it can > distinguish between multiple objects and the target. > > > Dan: > > It _is_ biased. I attempted to show where the bias is with the ALL CAPS > > parts, but I guess it didn't work, sorry. > > > > Marc: > No, it didn't work. I didn't see that as bias at all. > > Dan: > Straight from the article followed by my interpretations. > > "THIS time, nobody could accuse the Pentagon of building up unrealistic > expectations." - The insinuation is that the Pentagon has built up > "unrealistic" expectations before. > > "But politically, of course, it was a pleasure to hit the target,..." - So > it was politically expedient that the test succeed - technical success was > secondary. > > "In any case, the promotion of a "culture of failure" has a purpose which > goes far beyond this month's experiment." - I'm still trying to understand > what (s)he's trying to say here, but it sounds like (s)he's trying to > suggest that someone is attempting to justify repeated failures as success. > What's your take on that sentence? > > "And if the Pentagon is sincere in saying that its main concern..." - > Suggests that statements by the Pentagon is somehow untrustworthy. > > >From top to bottom the author has challenged the Pentagons' statements, > suggesting that there is an ulterior motive behind them to hide continued > failure. > > "Simultaneously, a decoy balloon was fired in a similar direction." - This > sentence was injected in the middle of the paragraph describing the test. > It is a complete fabrication on the part of the author, whether intentional > or not, and suggests a radically different situation than what actually > occurred. > > "Should American taxpayers be concerned, then, that not enough risks are > being taken or envelopes pushed? In one sense, yes." - The taxpayer isn't > their monies worth apparently. > "The target was cone-shaped...and they would be identical in shape to the > real target." - As I've stated, this is not a requirement for a successful > decoy to function; particularly for an IR sensor. I think that (s)he might > be confused as to where the intercept is actually taking place in these > tests; as you were. This also speaks to the 'doctored test' you had implied > earlier. > > Also, using the quotes from Mr. Coyle, they suggest that the test schedule > published by the Pentagon is unrealistic. > The more I read this, the more it appears to be an editorial piece with one > intent; to suggest to the reader that it is _impossible_ to build a > realistic anti-missile system that can hit a "real" warhead, and especially > not in the time allotted. > > It is biased Marc, whether you can see it or not. > > ///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// > /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// > /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// > ///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// > -- Marc A. Schindler Spruce Grove, Alberta, Canada -- Gateway to the Boreal Parkland "The greater danger for most of us lies not in setting our aim too high and falling short; but in setting our aim too low, and achieving our mark." --Michelangelo Buonarroti Note: This communication represents the informal personal views of the author solely; its contents do not necessarily reflect those of the author’s employer, nor those of any organization with which the author may be associated. ///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// ///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// ==^^=============================================================== This email was sent to: archive@jab.org EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register ==^^===============================================================
