Print 55 comment(s) - last by AntDX316.. on Jan 17 at 4:39 PM

JS Myoko Refuels at Sea Next to the USS Ronald Reagan  (Source:
Third Japanese destroyer outfitted with Aegis missile defense system

The missile defense shield is a defense screen that the United States and its allies have been working on for a long time now. Only recently have sections of the missile defense shield began to come online.

Lockheed Martin recently announced that it received $40.4 million USD to provide Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense upgrades the Japanese destroyer JS Myoko. The JS Myoko is the third of four Japanese destroyers scheduled to receive upgrades to their Aegis shipboard radars.

Other Japanese destroyers that will use the Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD) radar include the JS Kongo, the JS Chokai and a fourth ship that is unnamed at this time. DailyTech reported earlier this month that the JS Kongo had a successful test of its BMD system in a joint exercise with U.S. forces.

The JS Chokai is currently having the Aegis BMD system installed in Nagasaki, Japan. The Aegis BMD system is the primary component in the sea-based portion of the U.S. missile defense shield. According to Lockheed Martin, the Aegis BMD system was able to defeat twelve ballistic missiles in fourteen attempts.

Three components make up the Aegis BMD system: the SPY-1 radar, MK 41 vertical launching system, and the SM-3 missile along with the Aegis command and control system. The shipboard system also provides information and takes cues for other elements of the ballistic missile defense shield.

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Not So Good
By bhieb on 1/15/2008 10:09:01 AM , Rating: 2
the Aegis BMD system was able to defeat twelve ballistic missiles in fourteen attempts

Isn't 2 nukes making it through still catastrophic. Don't get me wrong the physics involved in hitting a balistic missle are amazing, and it is a great feat. However if you miss 2 out of 14 times in test environments where you know when and where the missle is coming from, how accurate can it be in the real world.

Not saying we should not try jus that there is quite a ways to go.

RE: Not So Good
By bhieb on 1/15/2008 10:17:55 AM , Rating: 3
Just realized the 2 were probably early test, but still I would like to see a more realistic test. Instead of launching a missle from Hawaii @ 2pm and seeing if you can shoot it down. How about firing 10 from the Phillipeens (spelling??) and another 10 from Hawaii at a random time. After all once you decide to launch a nuke you probably aren't goint to send just one.

RE: Not So Good
By SandmanWN on 1/15/2008 10:21:48 AM , Rating: 5
As it has been said about a thousand times now...


RE: Not So Good
By bhieb on 1/15/2008 1:26:06 PM , Rating: 2

See I can type in all caps and bold too. Are we no longer allowed to make observations any more without a holes like you jumping my ass. Never did I say we should not be doing it or it was a bad idea. In fact I praised the effort so stop trolling prick.

RE: Not So Good
By SlyNine on 1/15/2008 6:09:31 PM , Rating: 2
Ok. Because if the system did not hold up too that test in its current software/ hardware/ whatever the limiter maybe. That could kill funding.

They do not want a test like that until they are sure it can succeed.

At least that's my opinion.

RE: Not So Good
By SandmanWN on 1/15/2008 7:32:31 PM , Rating: 2
Just take a look at all the similar topics discussed here about this. Your point has been brought up way more than just a few times.

Take this into consideration...
-The accuracy of this system will only get better with time.
-The amount of Aegis systems added to the defense layer will only increase over time.
-The amount of anti-ICMB missiles will only increase over time.

Yeah yeah, at the early stages there will be gaps and possibilities, but with each and every STEP in the process the gaps will steadily get smaller and smaller until there is nothing left to fear. When its all said and done there will be literally hundreds of missiles per ICBM. The ICBM will become a worthless relic of the past. ICBM's will be dismantled and the world will become a better place.

RE: Not So Good
By MatthiasF on 1/15/2008 8:16:34 PM , Rating: 2
Only one side has an anti-missile shield, so the world will only become a better place for one side. As many have said, the bigger the system becomes the less likely the threat of an attack succeeding, yet Russia and maybe China would fight to keep the system below a certain limit so their arsenals are still lethal.

That said, there will not be hundreds of missiles per ICBM. Maybe a dozen per ICBM site in North Korea or Iran at most, which totals less than half a dozen at most. Which would be less than a hundred missiles at most. So, maybe an extra half hour of sleep a night at most.

RE: Not So Good
By SandmanWN on 1/16/2008 12:51:07 AM , Rating: 2
Not likely. Russia is already up in arms about the missile defense shield. Doesn't look like its slowing the US down one bit to me! After the laughable radar station proposal I haven't heard a peep out of them since then. Do you really believe the US military wont push the system to its utter limits in every way imaginable?

A hundred missiles??? Your theory doesn't match up to past history. If the US builds a defense shield its a little far fetched to believe they will stop at a hundred missiles. The system is planned to be layered. I imagine there will be launchers in Japan, the Japanese navy, the US Pacific fleet, Midway, Hawaiian Islands, Alaska, US west coast, the Caribbean, Canada, US east coast, Atlantic fleet, Eastern Europe, Israel, etc etc etc. They will all likely receive the platform. There are 84 Aegis cruisers in the US fleet alone as of last years count. A hundred missiles is spreading it awfully thin don't you think?

Lets be realistic here. Most likely they will have several missiles for each estimated target in the given area and at every line of defense along the ICBM or long range carrying device's flight path. Don't you think?

Seriously though, they went ballistic on building enough nukes to blow up the entire world several times over. What makes you think they will skimp on their only realistic line of defense?

RE: Not So Good
By AntDX316 on 1/17/2008 4:39:23 PM , Rating: 2
no one knows unless its war in real time and the victory at the end will be analyzed by the whole world

its like watching the super bowl 2 equally matched teams but 1 has to lose but at the beginning u cant tell who will win

RE: Not So Good
By qwertyz on 1/16/2008 5:21:52 PM , Rating: 1
Who do these guys fight against with such big destroyers against global warming, seagulls, seals, polar bears ? they are just ridiculous

RE: Not So Good
By headbox on 1/15/2008 1:36:55 PM , Rating: 3
This shield is the difference between some of the population dying and all of the population dying. Just because it isn't 100% effective doesn't mean we shouldn't build it.

Your seatbelt won't protect you from 100% of injuries, but you still wear it right?

RE: Not So Good
By ImSpartacus on 1/15/2008 7:47:17 PM , Rating: 2
Excellent analogy.

Nothing can be accomplished all at once. Technology adoption is another good one. Not everyone had a cell phone when they were developed (1980's i believe), but now, much of the adult population has a cell phone. You could argue that cell phones were large, and unreliable at the time, but you had to start somewhere, and look where we are now. Do you think any cell phone companies would have the funding to research better ways to improve their phones if no one had bought generation one?

These missiles are acceptably effective, and that's better than nothing.

RE: Not So Good
By Oscarine on 1/15/2008 10:20:41 AM , Rating: 2

I never read any detailed reports about the tests, but I would guess it is 1 interceptor vs 1 test nuke.

However you can fire quite a bit more than 1 interceptor vs a incoming target in the typical engagement envelope of an incoming ballistic track.

RE: Not So Good
By Master Kenobi on 1/15/2008 10:42:28 AM , Rating: 4
Indeed. They could always fire off 2 or 3 interceptors to cut down on the failure probability. Because all the systems are tied together, this gives us greater coverage of missile launch areas in China, Russia, and N. Korea. Without necessarily having to have U.S. ships on patrol in that area.

The U.S. and it's allies are very interested in the everything is connected model of warfare. Full Spectrum Dominance they call it. Land, Air, Sea, Space all linked together, all on the same page, all able to respond to anything detected by anyone.

RE: Not So Good
By Bagom on 1/15/2008 11:20:04 AM , Rating: 2
One step closer to Skynet...

RE: Not So Good
By Master Kenobi on 1/15/2008 11:34:29 AM , Rating: 4
Ah, give it up. The whole Skynet thing is rather old.

RE: Not So Good
By Flunk on 1/15/2008 12:13:38 PM , Rating: 1
Once again, Skynet is a real military satellite system and the idea of strong AI is ridiculous.

RE: Not So Good
By Ringold on 1/15/2008 10:37:49 AM , Rating: 5
I believe we would refer to this as "beta testing"

RE: Not So Good
By mcturkey on 1/15/2008 12:32:11 PM , Rating: 5
Well, the nations that currently possess the ability to launch nuclear-tipped ballistic missiles either have sufficient numbers to totally overwhelm any feasible defensive system, or can't come close to affording enough nuclear material to build more than a dozen or so nuclear devices.

Now of course if a missile does get through, our response would be to change the name of the launching nation to "Radioactive Wasteland #1". But the point isn't so much to actually have to stop the missile, as have the very publicly stated and demonstrated ability to do so. Nations like North Korea or Iran, who have leaders that might not be entirely stable won't bother pursuing ICBM capability precisely because this system makes the costs of doing so entirely too prohibitive, as you would need several dozen or a couple hundred for it to become a credible military deterrent. And that is all nukes really are - a deterrent. Yes, there are non-ballistic methods of distribution, but they are not a military option for deterrence. Sure, North Korea could sell/give terrorists a nuke, which they would then find a way to smuggle into the US and blow up LA, but the ability to do that isn't going to be something that would deter us from military action. On the other hand, if they had 300 ICBMs, we wouldn't even pretend to be thinking about invasion plans.

So, much like the Star Wars program, it's not about 100% success so much as it is about credible deterrence that can prevent nations from investing heavily in their nuclear arsenal.

RE: Not So Good
By Zoomer on 1/15/2008 5:44:32 PM , Rating: 2
I don't think anyone would be crazy or stupid enough to slip a nuke to any terrorist. Their capital would be crawling with US troops so quickly / nuked that it wouldn't make sense.

Unless they are crazy. That would present a problem.

And the trade defict took a step back
By PAPutzback on 1/15/2008 9:43:48 AM , Rating: 5
No, wait. It's going up again.

RE: And the trade defict took a step back
By Fnoob on 1/15/2008 9:53:43 AM , Rating: 5
We just need to sell about 1000 of these to China. Good for the trade deficit - bad for logic. Logic is out of fashion these days anyhow...

RE: And the trade defict took a step back
By TITAN1080 on 1/15/08, Rating: -1
By spluurfg on 1/15/2008 11:33:32 AM , Rating: 2
Are you sure? I understand China (and many others) have an equivalent to the Aegis air defense component, but not to my knowledge a ballistic missile defense program of any sort.

Unless you are humorously referring to the ability of the Chinese to produce knock-offs very rapidly...

By Captain Orgazmo on 1/16/2008 8:06:25 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah but the missiles have lead paint on 'em, so if the crews are into rocket licking, they will go crazy and possibly die. American missiles, on the other hand, are baby-friendly.

RE: And the trade defict took a step back
By amanojaku on 1/15/2008 9:53:57 AM , Rating: 2
I'm guessing you were being funny, because $40M USD is chump change for our government. That's less than one third of the price of ONE F-22 Raptor.

By cleco on 1/15/2008 9:58:45 AM , Rating: 2
I'm sure this is an International Funding with U.S. and Allies. Lockeheed is just the winning bidder

RE: And the trade defict took a step back
By mdogs444 on 1/15/2008 11:09:29 AM , Rating: 1
$40 million dollars is not even going to made a nudge in the trade deficits or GDP. The US governement wipes it's a$$ with $40 million dollar bills ;-)

By amanojaku on 1/15/2008 11:15:39 AM , Rating: 2
So does the movie industry. Spider-Man 3 cost over $250 million USD. I'll bet the catering bill was almost as much as the ballistic missile price tag! lol

By Noya on 1/15/2008 11:51:13 AM , Rating: 4
You mean to say, wipes its ass with yours, your childrens and your grandchildrens futures...

By erwos on 1/15/2008 10:27:43 AM , Rating: 2
We desperately need to get the Japanese military up to speed. They're the second largest economy in the world, they're our allies, and they're near a couple of communist nations that aren't as friendly as they could be. I'm sure writing that "no militarization!" clause in their constitution seemed like a great idea at the time, but it's really biting us in the ass now. Decent ABM defense is a good start - plus they've done good stuff with their navy lately, which is certainly helpful.

If we didn't have to be buddy-buddy with the Pakistanis to catch Bin Laden, I'd propose we do the same thing for the Indians.

RE: Good.
By Master Kenobi on 1/15/2008 10:44:47 AM , Rating: 2
We can do the same thing. To keep the balance of power in the region, arm both India and Pakistan, that way they are both happy, and we get what we want. That has typically been our strategy over there anyways. What one gets, the other gets.

RE: Good.
By mdogs444 on 1/15/2008 11:04:26 AM , Rating: 2
We desperately need to get the Japanese military up to speed

Uh no. Japan cannot have an organized "military", they can only have organized Defense in case they are attacked.
but it's really biting us in the ass now.

No is not. Have they attacked since?
and they're near a couple of communist nations that aren't as friendly as they could be

What communist nations ARE friendly? lol
If we didn't have to be buddy-buddy with the Pakistanis to catch Bin Laden

I hope you know that it's not JUST to catch Bin Laden. In fact, he is probably the least of our concerns with regards to maintaining out ally status with Pakistan. Its because Pakistan is in the middle of the arab countries, and they have nuclear warheads. Its all about keeping those warheads into the hands of a leader that we "trust".

RE: Good.
By erwos on 1/15/2008 11:49:15 AM , Rating: 2
Uh no. Japan cannot have an organized "military", they can only have organized Defense in case they are attacked.

Military doesn't necessarily connote offensive tendencies. But defending yourself and doing offensives are basically the same thing. Purely defensive systems are not a viable strategy for a modern military.

No is not. Have they attacked since?

Are you more worried about the Japanese than the Chinese or North Koreans? If you are, you may need to re-assess your world view. They're our friends now, like the Germans and Italians. Only difference is that the Germans don't have to worry about Russian invasion (for now, I guess).

I'm not particularly happy about what the Axis did during WWII, but let's face it: you don't deal with today's problems by focusing on yesterday's.

Seriously, if the Chinese start a war in the region, do you want a well-armed Japan on your side or a badly-armed one? That's essentially the choice here.

RE: Good.
By Min Jia on 1/15/2008 8:29:50 PM , Rating: 2
Don't frigging compare Germany to Japan. Germany paid several billion D-Marks in reparations, but Japan paid absolutely nothing, not apologized even... refuses to acknowledge its war guilt and atrocities, changes history textbooks to cover up evidence of the war crimes they commit. LAMO, Japan what a sick country.

RE: Good.
By javiergf on 1/15/2008 11:26:19 AM , Rating: 2
Pearl Harbor anyone?

RE: Good.
By Yongsta on 1/15/2008 11:50:48 AM , Rating: 3
If you replaced Japan with Germany would you say Hitler anyone?

Missles to shoot down missles?
By HighWing on 1/15/2008 1:19:22 PM , Rating: 1
Ok am I the only one that sees a problem with this? Seriously it occurs to me that if I know my enemy is going to attempt to shoot down my missile with another missile, then wouldn't I just research how to make my missiles faster then the one that would be chasing it? Granted I know in most cases the intercepting missile is being fired ahead of the oncoming missile, but if the oncoming one IS faster, it would only take a easy bit of logic to have the oncoming missile adjust it's course slightly shortly before it's intercepted. And with it being faster, that would give the intercepting missile less time to readjust.

Plus if the oncoming missile IS faster, then your goal would only be to get it past the BMD line and your home free. That part I'm sure could easily be accomplished just by finding holes in the defense line where the sheer speed of the missile would enable it to zip pass the defense system.

Hell at the least I'm sure it would be possible to equip a missile with some sort of booster system where either by remote or it's on board systems could be triggered to fire shortly before interception to give the oncoming missile a boost of speed in another direction to avoid interception. This kind of tech might not exist now, but I'm sure it is possible if it doesn't already exist.

By saiga6360 on 1/15/2008 2:28:28 PM , Rating: 2
Escalation is a wonderful thing. We not only get to create more wonderful toys that can vaporize cities in one go, we can also make them smarter, faster and stealthier.

The best defense is still a good offense so I imagine whatever they can dish out, our military already has it.

RE: Missles to shoot down missles?
By ChronoReverse on 1/15/2008 2:28:48 PM , Rating: 2
It's pretty hard to get any faster than an ICBM. The speeds these things move at is beyond merely "hypersonic"

RE: Missles to shoot down missles?
By HighWing on 1/15/2008 5:12:20 PM , Rating: 1
yeah I think I read somewhere a few years ago that it's possible to send an ICBM from here to Russia in about 12 min. I could be mistaken, but thats what I seem to remember.

but even speed not being an issue, something just feels wrong about the idea of using missiles to shoot down missiles. It just seems like there are too many variables that could cause a miss, and it's not like the missile could turn around afterwards and try again. And then thats another missile going down that you hope is not over any populated areas to cause more damage. Yeah I know it's probably designed to not explode or anything, but that doesn't matter if it falls through someone's roof or hits the base of a multistory building. Plus the cost per missile, vs re usability of say lasers or auto machine gun turrets has gotta be much higher.

I guess it's just my own opinion, but it feels like this is destined to fail when it's needed most.

By diego10arg on 1/15/2008 7:13:12 PM , Rating: 2
If you want to launch a Nuke you may need some sort of missile with certain speed limit and size. In the other hand, if you want just to blow it up, maybe with a 10x smaller missile you could accomplish that.

If the "defensive" missile is smaller than the Nuke or whatever they launch, then you probably have more speed in your favor to do so.

I don't know if this is 100% accurate, but seems pretty logical though.

RE: Missles to shoot down missles?
By Min Jia on 1/15/2008 8:33:31 PM , Rating: 2
New arms race, sure.

and that's why....
By inperfectdarkness on 1/15/2008 10:03:23 AM , Rating: 2
that's why we have a layered missile defense.

and that's why we outfit our allies...because they're a "buffer" of sorts to provide additional defense that we don't have to actually pay for ourselves. (oh wait...maybe we do anyways)

RE: and that's why....
By sdifox on 1/15/2008 10:28:50 AM , Rating: 3
That's what Canada is for. Back in the Cold War days, the plan was to splash ICBMs over Canada.

RE: and that's why....
By elessar1 on 1/15/2008 10:35:48 AM , Rating: 2
Actually...Japan need's them to protect themselves against they two friendly neigbhors: China and North Korea...

Other than that...theres is not much that an SM3 could do if fired from japan against a missile launched from North Korea or Russia agiants de UUSS...because of geographics...they just don't get there fast enough...or they just don't get there at all (to long of a distance to go from japan to the missiles routes)...

RE: and that's why....
By mdogs444 on 1/15/2008 11:07:33 AM , Rating: 2
Japan need's them to protect themselves against they two friendly neigbhors: China and North Korea...

Thats funny. China & N. Korea in the same sentence as "freindly neighbors". The point is, that Japan, nor the US, trust either China or N. Korea. China is manufacturing new warplanes for Iran, and N. Korea is selling its ICBM technology to other countries. The other country you left out is the tip of the three headed monster: Russia. Russia, who is helping Iran build its nuclear facilities.

Protect the ports, not the skies
By Micah on 1/15/2008 12:05:43 PM , Rating: 3
BMD is a waste of time. The first nuke to hit an American city will be delivered in a shipping container or semi-truck.

By mcturkey on 1/15/2008 12:37:45 PM , Rating: 3
As I stated in another post, though, this isn't the point at all. ICBMs are a military deterrent against invasion. Nukes delivered via the method you suggest are a terrorist-style action. Shipping container nukes are not something that could be used as a threat by any nation, simply because doing so would result in an almost instant international embargo against that country, as all shipping containers from them would have to be thoroughly checked and inspected before getting near any other country.

BMD isn't a strictly technical or military solution - it's political too. Just like the solution to ending terrorism isn't just technical or military (though that is part of it).

Missiles for Japan
By twnorows on 1/15/2008 12:09:06 PM , Rating: 4
In the 'big picture' scheme, nobody seems to be concerned about taking Chin-a to task for all their counterfeiting activities.

Further, to have a totalitarian regime (i.e., chin-a) cop a whine "we can't eliminate all the copying" just doesn't fly. This is the same government that suppresses freedom of speech, freedom of the press and freedom of religion - but can't supress counterfeiting? Ha-roo?

If I were the President of a company victimized by counterfeits from Chin-a, here's what I would do: I'd hire the absolute best counterfeit plate maker to make several common denominations of current chin-eeze currency. Then I'd print about 20 TRILLION DOLLARS worth of their currency and hire a plane to scatter it across their totalitarian-infested country.

It would be interesting to see how the chin-eeze government likes being on the receiving end of counterfeiting - especially if it has the potential to topple their government financially. I have learned that there's no U.S. law that prohibits counterfeiting currency of totalitarian regimes (i.e., for "educational purposes"). Of course our government would probably issue a canned response that would "sternly object to this type of behavior from its citizens."

Gee, for about twenty thousand dollars, these CEOs could get even (instead of getting mad) and have the added bonus of perhaps financially toppling an evil empire.

To the CEOs of companies victimized by chin-eeze counterfeiting: So what are you waiting for??? Get even!!!

RE: Missiles for Japan
By Urkis on 1/15/2008 3:02:57 PM , Rating: 2
For each dollar lost due to this problem, most companies probably save twice that amount by doing business with China (selling and manufacturing there, etc). This may be why CEOs are not flocking to those plate makers you mentioned! :D

By Alpha4 on 1/15/2008 2:25:04 PM , Rating: 3
Isn't it ironic that American Interests are now in favour of preventing powerful warheads from striking Japan?

Maybe its just me ;)

The two that missed
By mdigerat on 1/15/2008 11:57:55 AM , Rating: 2
The two that missed probably would have hit... due to sailor/operator error both were splashed by accident... It was a single test shot of two missiles. Still, the exercise provided valid data.

On the other hand... a previous poster is correct... as with terrorists, we must be successful 100% of the time --- they only have to be successful once...

oh dear
By sporr on 1/15/2008 1:11:53 PM , Rating: 2
The cold war never ended in December 1991. It is still ongoing.

By BruceEdwardsNZ on 1/15/2008 6:24:55 PM , Rating: 2
To those nitpicking the success rate, and the uselessness of the system in the face of a full Ballistic Missile launch from Russia or China, it seems clear to me that this system is not designed to prevent a major attack from a nuclear power.

Rather, it seems designed to deflect 'rogue launches' - i.e. missile launches that take place because of terrorist action or a 'Fail Safe' style malfunction.

If this system was designed to be capable of deflecting a large Chinese or Russian attack, this would actually be more dangerous for America as it would prompt a new nuclear arms race.

"Paying an extra $500 for a computer in this environment -- same piece of hardware -- paying $500 more to get a logo on it? I think that's a more challenging proposition for the average person than it used to be." -- Steve Ballmer
Related Articles

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki