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.

"It's okay. The scenarios aren't that clear. But it's good looking. [Steve Jobs] does good design, and [the iPad] is absolutely a good example of that." -- Bill Gates on the Apple iPad
Related Articles

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