backtop

Print 18 comment(s) - last by Paj.. on Jan 5 at 7:27 AM

Missile Defense Shield contract awarded for continued development and testing
The two firms have been on the project for many years

The U.S. has been working with military contractors to build a missile defense shield for years. The defense shield targets and destroys an incoming missile before it can strike a target. A joint Japanese and U.S. test in 2008 was a success.
 
Boeing has announced that it and partner Northrop Grumman have been awarded a contact from the U.S. Missile Defense Agency for the sustainment and development of the Ground-based Midcourse Defense (GMD) element of the ballistic missile defense system.
 
"Today's award is the culmination of a two-year proposal process that brought together a broad industry group committed to delivering innovative solutions and a cost-effective approach to program management and execution," said Dennis Muilenburg, president and CEO of Boeing Defense, Space & Security. "We are privileged to have been partners with the Missile Defense Agency through development and deployment of the GMD system, and now with Northrop Grumman, we are honored to continue that partnership in this next phase of the program."
 
The contract will see Boeing continuing to lead the team that is developing the GMD system. The team will handle the development, integration, testing, operations, and sustainment activities for the GMD. Boeing has been the prime contractor on the system since 2001. Northrop Grumman will handle the ground system elements. It will provide sustainment, system engineering, testing of systems, and more.
 
The GMD uses radars, sensors, and C&C facilities along with communications terminals and a fiber optic communications network spanning 20,000 miles of cable in its operations. Boeing notes that there are 20 operational interceptors at Vandenberg AFB in California and Fort Greely in Alaska ready to protect the nation against missiles.

Source: Boeing


Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
dangerous project
By chromal on 1/2/12, Rating: 0
RE: dangerous project
By lucyfek on 1/2/2012 12:31:44 PM , Rating: 1
it's also good recipe for wasting (funneling to corporate supporters) tax money. and with "proper" accounting this money does not go against our deficit (for now).


RE: dangerous project
By danjw1 on 1/2/2012 1:01:34 PM , Rating: 1
I believe this is intended as a much smaller system then what Bush had planned. It is supposed to defend against rogue regimes, ie. North Korea and Iran. But, with using these companies it will be way more expensive then it should be. They are typical defense contractors and drive up costs and way under bid the real price to get the contract.

It seems like there should be other companies that actually know how to innovate and keep costs down. This is typical government insanity, use the same old players and hope they don't do what they always do.


RE: dangerous project
By Obujuwami on 1/2/2012 1:14:04 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
I believe this is intended as a much smaller system then what Bush had planned. It is supposed to defend against rogue regimes, ie. North Korea and Iran.


North Korea is at least a decade away from producing a functioning AND accurate ballistic missile with even one nuclear warhead on it, let alone several that can reach the US. They could BUY one, but who in their right mind would sell that kind of tech to a country that is knowingly going to bring about another major war. China won't do it because it doesn't trust N. Korea, Russia won't do it for the exact same reasons.

In reality, Japan and S. Korea are the only viable targets for them and we would have to install the defenses there, not here. As for Iran, they have a better chance of smuggling in a nuke via a small power boat or by land via the Florida Keys. Our current precautions that are in place do offer increase protected against those things, but not complete, which makes this missile defense thing only useful if China gets pissed enough to end the world and pray that some percentage of the 1.5B people it has will survive.


RE: dangerous project
By gamerk2 on 1/2/2012 2:21:46 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
North Korea is at least a decade away from producing a functioning AND accurate ballistic missile with even one nuclear warhead on it, let alone several that can reach the US. They could BUY one, but who in their right mind would sell that kind of tech to a country that is knowingly going to bring about another major war


Iran?


RE: dangerous project
By Solandri on 1/2/2012 3:02:59 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
North Korea is at least a decade away from producing a functioning AND accurate ballistic missile with even one nuclear warhead on it, let alone several that can reach the US.

What do you propose then? Wait until North Korea and Iran have that capability, then begin working on this technology?

Personally, like the original missile defense program, I think this probably is a fiscal boondoggle. But your argument doesn't work. They're going about this the right way - projecting what threats will exist in 10 years time, think up defense systems to counter those threats, and begin R&D on those systems today so they'll be ready in 10 years.


RE: dangerous project
By Solandri on 1/2/2012 2:56:40 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
I believe this is intended as a much smaller system then what Bush had planned. It is supposed to defend against rogue regimes, ie. North Korea and Iran.

Yeah, I don't think anyone really thinks you can build a missile defense system which can shoot down thousands or even hundreds of incoming ICBM warheads with a high enough success rate to avert nuclear catastrophe. The Russians and Chinese have nothing to fear - MAD is still intact.

This is aimed more at shooting down a few to maybe a dozen warheads with a fair chance of success. I'm skeptical that the cost is worth it, but technically it should be feasible. Fiscally it probably is a boondoggle, but the motivation is genuine. I think it was Reagan who asked his Joint Chiefs of Staff what we could do if a rogue Russian commander launched a single nuke at a major U.S. city. The answer - "nothing" - does not sit well with Presidents.


RE: dangerous project
By ekv on 1/3/2012 2:19:05 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
This is aimed more at shooting down a few to maybe a dozen warheads with a fair chance of success. I'm skeptical that the cost is worth it, but technically it should be feasible.
The article did state that there are 20 interceptors deployed. I'll stop short of saying "fully armed and operational." I believe their last test in late 2008 (?) was a success, of course that meant the following Administration had to defund the program.

A limited development program like this keeps the ball moving forward at a somewhat reasonable cost.


RE: dangerous project
By MozeeToby on 1/3/2012 11:16:33 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
The Russians and Chinese have nothing to fear - MAD is still intact.
Actually, most military estimates say the Chinese have only a couple hundred nukes, a missile shield could be effective against them.

Russia, on the other hand, has more than 10,000. There is no way any conceivable missile shield could prevent a coordinated, all out attack from being effective. What it could do is reduce the effectiveness of an uncoordinated, limited attack.

And that is why, in cold war terms, a Missile Shield is an offensive weapon, because it makes a first strike a viable option by reducing or eliminating the effectiveness of the inevitable counter attack. First you attack with the weapons that can't be detected until far too late, take out as many launchers as possible, disrupt command and control, and blanket the entire country in EMPs. The Russian response is going to be disorganized, staggered, and limited in scope, which a missile shield could possibly deal with. By the time the Russians start to get C&C back together, the second wave of the attack is landing on Russian soil, and this time its several thousand ICBMS.

These days that scenario isn't true anymore; C&C is more robust and harder to disrupt and computers can coordinate a response in seconds, before even first strike weapons land. More importantly, a purely defensive shield makes sense, since it could effectively stop an attack from the everyone but Russia. The two things combined are why you don't hear as much from Russia about our anti-balistic missile research.

quote:
I think it was Reagan who asked his Joint Chiefs of Staff what we could do if a rogue Russian commander launched a single nuke at a major U.S. city. The answer - "nothing" - does not sit well with Presidents.
What we do is promise to perform a proportional response if the attack isn't aborted. It would be up to the non-rogue Russian military to abort the attack before lives were lost, and I'd be willing to bet the success rate for them would be higher than any 1980's era missile shield.


RE: dangerous project
By Just Tom on 1/4/2012 3:44:10 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
"I would like to say openly that over the next decade we are facing the following alternatives: either we reach an agreement on missile defense and create a fully fledged joint mechanism of cooperation or, if we fail to reach a constructive agreement, a new round of the arms race will start "
quote:
Actually, most military estimates say the Chinese have only a couple hundred nukes, a missile shield could be effective against them.

Russia, on the other hand, has more than 10,000. There is no way any conceivable missile shield could prevent a coordinated, all out attack from being effective. What it could do is reduce the effectiveness of an uncoordinated, limited attack.


Where did you get your numbers from? Unless they are severely cheating Russia has less than 3,000 strategic warheads. They have only 375 ICBMs. The Chinese are estimated to have less than 100 ICBMs. As nuclear arsenals decrease the utility of a missile shield increases which decreases the cost of any first strike. Even with improved hardening of C^3 the net effect might be an increase in the possibility of a nuclear strike.

quote:
More importantly, a purely defensive shield makes sense, since it could effectively stop an attack from the everyone but Russia. The two things combined are why you don't hear as much from Russia about our anti-balistic missile research.


Now that is just not true. Russia is vehemently opposed to American interceptors in Europe. A couple of quotes from Russian President Medvedev :

quote:
"ABM in Europe may either include Russia or be against it. Tertium non datur. If we find ABMs at the North-West of our borders we’ll have to develop our forces in response to resist the threat. We don’t like this scenario, and would like to stick to the Lisbon summit strategies of cooperation and strategic partnership."


quote:
"I would like to say openly that over the next decade we are facing the following alternatives: either we reach an agreement on missile defense and create a fully fledged joint mechanism of cooperation or, if we fail to reach a constructive agreement, a new round of the arms race will start "


RE: dangerous project
By Reclaimer77 on 1/2/2012 4:19:46 PM , Rating: 1
Since the 1980's when Reagan proposed "Star Wars", fools like you gotten it all wrong. The exact OPPOSITE of everything you said would happen if ICBM's were rendered technologically inert. They would become obsolete entirely. That's what we're trying to do here.

quote:
It will encourage the development of more capable ABM countermeasures on ICBM delivery packages


That's not even possible, so nice try. There is no "ABM Countermeasures" that would work on a device of this nature. ICBM's have inherent flaws that can be exploited.

quote:
It will encourage the development of more capable ABM countermeasures on ICBM delivery packages, as well as off-the-coast delivery systems from submarines and/or concealed devices hidden on commercial cargo ships.


So listed to you. What you're telling us is that there are people SO determined to launch nukes, that they would develop and invest in all these things you've listed here; and yet by the same hand we shouldn't do anything to protect ourselves and our allies.

Did you mean to pose such a dramatic contradiction in logic?


RE: dangerous project
By tng on 1/3/2012 10:18:04 AM , Rating: 2
Really, it is the short range missiles that we have to worry about, launched off the coast from a cargo vessel or sub.

There doesn't need to be an accurate targeting system on it, just enough control to get it to 600 miles over Kansas, then set it off. The resulting EMP will kill almost all the electronics (cell phones, computers) and destroy the power grid for most of North America, in effect, taking the US out with one bomb and it does not have to be very sophisticated at that.


RE: dangerous project
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 1/4/2012 7:13:49 PM , Rating: 1
With EMP range as it is, you would need more than one over kansas, but the possibility does exist for a dozen well placed nukes of appropriate yield to send us to the stone age. However, whoever did it will be nuked back. Most of our critical military infrastructure to nuke back and bomb the shit out of someone is #1 distributed world wide, and #2 a lot of it is hardened against EMP bursts. Yes you could wreck the country but total annihilation awaits the poor sucker that does it.


RE: dangerous project
By tng on 1/4/2012 7:58:37 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Most of our critical military infrastructure to nuke back and bomb the shit out of someone is #1 distributed world wide, and #2 a lot of it is hardened against EMP bursts.
Well, yes and no. It would only take one nuke, that has already been proven by a congressional panel that had hearings on the subject 3 years ago.

The point is that if let say that 70% of the country has no power, no computers, no cell phones, TVs, and of course your car is dead as well, everything stops. How much food do you have available at home in case of emergency or your neighbors? How long do you think that it will take to get regular deliveries of food and water? How long until our civilized society breaks down into every man for themselves?

Face it, weeks and probably months would go by before there was any help. At that point, how many people have died due to starvation or at the hands of their fellow man?

As for annihilation of the "poor sucker" who does it, well if it is launched off of a cargo vessel off the coast, it might be a while until they really do know who was responsible and knowing does not help the people who's lives have just turned into a nightmare.

You also make it sound like the military will not be impacted by something like this. The same nuke would take out almost all of the comm satellites and many military as well. Also not all military equipment is protected against EMPs and it would be hit and miss as far as what and where things were still working. Also many military in affected areas would make sure that their families are safe first, so I would expect a slow local response.


The Real Threat
By FDisk City on 1/2/2012 12:57:31 PM , Rating: 4
How about we fund more urgent needs like securing our borders, particularity the one to the south?




RE: The Real Threat
By DoctorBeer on 1/2/12, Rating: 0
RE: The Real Threat
By FITCamaro on 1/2/2012 11:23:04 PM , Rating: 4
Because then Democrats get less votes.


RE: The Real Threat
By Paj on 1/5/2012 7:27:39 AM , Rating: 2
Yeah, and spending less on Cold War relics when you already have the largest deficit in history.

"Hey we have no money! Seems like the perfect time to kickstart this missile shield thing again!"

Mind = boggled


"Can anyone tell me what MobileMe is supposed to do?... So why the f*** doesn't it do that?" -- Steve Jobs











botimage
Copyright 2012 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki