"MARK INDIA!" = Mark Intercept: GBI Successfully Kills Inbound ICBM In Landmark Test

That Ground-Based Interceptor (GBI) flight test I was so worried about yesterday? Success (PDF):

For this exercise, a threat-representative target missile was launched from Kodiak, Alaska at 3:04pm (EST). This long-range ballistic target was tracked by several land- and sea-based radars, which sent targeting information to the interceptor missile. At 3:23pm (EST)the Ground-Based Interceptor was launched from the Ronald W. Reagan Missile Defense Site, located at Vandenberg Air Force Base, Calif. The interceptor’s exoatmospheric kill vehicle was carried into the target’s predicted trajectory in space, maneuvered to the target, performed discrimination, and intercepted the threat warhead.

As I mentioned yesterday, this test was tremendously important for several reasons:

• It was the first flight test of the GBI since Sept. 2007.
• GBI's are the interceptors we plan to install in Poland. The US-based GBI tested today is a 3-stage interceptor, while the European-based GBI will be a simpler 2-stage version (basically just the upper 2 stages of today's GBI).
• President-elect Obama has repeatedly said he would only support deploying "proven" missile defense technology to Europe. Okie-freakin-dokie.

Other important achievements of this landmark flight test:

Multiple Sensors Fed the Fire Control:

The target was successfully tracked by a transportable AN/TPY-2 radar located in Juneau, Alaska, a U.S. Navy Aegis BMD ship with SPY-1 radar, the Upgraded Early Warning Radar at Beale Air Force Base, Calif., and the Sea-Based X-band radar. Each sensor sent information to the fire control system, which integrated the data together to provide the most accurate target trajectory for the interceptor.

That's a trucked radar in Juneau (just like the one we just deployed to Israel), an Aegis ship (just like the one that shot down that toxic spy satellite), the massive SBX Sea-Based X-Band radar, and a huge permanent radar in CA (older than the planned Czech radar) --- all working together and feeding the fire control. And speaking of fire control, get this...

Remote Fire Control From Our OTHER Missile Defense Base:

This was the first time an operational crew located at the alternate fire control center at Ft. Greely, Alaska remotely launched the interceptor from Vandenberg AFB.

You know what that means? Any future Polish interceptor base can be networked into our global fire control process in the same way.

So today, the entire West Coast of North America was a massive test range. Naval units, an Army tactical radar, and a huge Air Force radar all supplying targeting data to two interceptor batteries thousands of miles apart with one of those batteries remotely commanding the other as our largest interceptor takes out a hostile ICBM. In space. Ho. Ly. Crap.

And at the end of the day, our hit-to-kill record improves to 37 out of 47 since 2001.

Unproven...

UPDATE: Welcome, Little Green Footballs and Ace of Spades. Be sure to check back later --- video of the intercept should be posted tonight. Someone in the LGF comments pointed to the cool MKV "hover" video --- the middle part with the MKV in the netted cage? All actual footage from this week's test.

UPDATE: Like clockwork, the skeptics descend.

UPDATE: CNN has some initial video of the test ... but you're gonna have to suffer their slant.

UPDATE (12-6-08): FULL VIDEO FOOTAGE directly from MDA, YouTubefied by McKittrick.

Comments

[Ryan Crierie]

Excellent. Don't forget that the interceptor also performed discrimination and successfully picked out the correct target from within a cloud of decoys...but remember, decoys can overwhelm any defense!

[Craig]

...but remember, decoys can overwhelm any defense!

True, but no defense is 100% effective, nor does it need to be to be a big win politically, tactically and strategically. This is great news.

[Jeff]

Careful with the prowords - the enemy is reading....

[USC]

Yet another success to tally along with the prior intercepts achieved with the THAAD and SM3-based sysytems (Show us the money, Barack!). Any information as to if the 2nd and 3rd stages and stage separation systems for this flight set were those built by United Technologies? I had some involvement in the GMD program, and as we had provided multiple 'BV' flight sets worth of motors and separation systems, I was wondering if it might have been our hardware onboard.

[Kevin]

"...predicted trajectory in space, maneuvered to the target, performed discrimination, and intercepted the threat warhead."

That warhead was RACIST!

[Ryan Crierie]

Whats even more awesome about this test is.....the target missile FAILED to deploy it's decoy and countermeasures barriage....

And this from a missile built by the US specifically to test Missile defenses...

Yet, Missile Defense Opponents say that turd world nations like North Korea, etc can somehow successfully deploy a reliable decoy system

[Ryan Crierie]

I love this line from missile defense opponents:

"The "test" was very tightly controlled - everybody knew when the interceptor would be launched and its probable path (they've launched targets from KLC before)"

Of course they know where things are going to go!

This is a BALLISTIC missile defense system!

Once you get a couple of firm radar tracks, you will know with high certainity where the target is going to be at all times, and the track will only firm up more the longer you track it!

[Ryan Crierie]

By the way, the reliability (or lack thereof) of Decoys and Penetration Aids -- they either get hung up when being deployed, don't deploy at all, or their batteries run dead, is why we only deployed them on a single Polaris SSBN Deterrence patrol back in the day.

[John McKittrick]

re: countermeasures in this test

oh man, Ryan, I'm drafting my next post about that very topic! The immediate spin from BMD critics is sadly predictable...

[rs]

cool blog. (love the quote on top.) however i think missile defense is an illusory shield

[Ryan Crierie]

Actually, Missile defense is not an illusory shield.

Let us do a hypothetical excercise on targeting one hundred Minuteman Silos.

For the purposes of this deal, we'll assume that the Re-Entry vehicles have perfect accuracy, meaning all of them will hit a Minuteman Silo dead on, ensuing it's destruction, and that each missile carries ten MIRVs, ala SS-18 SATAN.

Assuming a 90% missile readiness rate (out of 10 ICBMs in a field, 9 will be ready at any one time to launch, one will be down for various repairs, upgrades, etc), a launch reliability of 90%, and an inflight reliability rating of 90%, the total reliability of the missile itself will be 72.9%.

(0.9 x 0.9 x 0.9) = 72.9%

If we assume that the Post-Boost Vehicle separates successfully and releases it's warheads on the mark 90% of the time, and that each warhead has a 95% chance of initating; the total system reliability of each individual warhead is:

(0.72 x 0.90 x 0.95) = 61.5%

So, if we want to be assured of destroying an individual silo, you will have to target two warheads, instead of one, to assure it's destruction, thus:

10 ICBMs with 10 MIRVs each (100) to kill 100 silos with perfect reliability and perfect accuracy
20 ICBMs with 10 MIRVs each to (200) kill 100 silos with imperfect reliability and perfect accuracy

If you add in the complication of imperfect accuracy, as in for example, only 75% of the warheads will land close enough to destroy a silo, the number of warheads needed goes up to:

35 ICBMs with 10 MIRVs each (350) to kill 100 silos with imperfect reliability and imperfect accuracy.

This astronomical increase in warheads needed is without ABM.

Adding ABM just makes your task as a targeteer nightmarishly complex; because in addition having to take into account the facts of imperfect reliability and imperfect accuracy, you now have to take into consideration the fact that a not insignificant number of Post-Boost Vehicles will be destroyed by long ranged mid-course interceptors before they can release any or all of their warheads. You don't know WHICH missiles will fail, or WHICH missiles will be shot down before they can accomplish MIRV release. It's enough to make you tear your hair out.

The only solution is to target an absurd number of warheads and missiles at each target that MUST be destroyed, and even with absurd numbers like 1,000 missiles carrying 10,000 warheads, you rapidly run out of warheads.

This by the way, puts the arms controller fallacy of "why do you need 26,500 nuclear weapons? You have enough to kill the world X times over?" into perspective. Many of those 26,500 weapons will be the tenth weapon to fall on an already destroyed missile silo from an earlier wave, but got targeted onto it to assure the silo's destruction.

[charles]

check mate

[Davod]

"UPDATE: CNN has VIDEO of the intercept ... but you're gonna have to suffer."

Only if you do not turn down the volume.

[Davod]

PS:

How much of BMD static equipment can you aford to lose and still operate effectively.

[2Hotel9]

Good shoot!

And the anti crowd is already poopooing this test as a gimmick. Typical and predictable.

[Ryan Crierie]

Davod; that's the beauty of ABM -- your static equipment on the ground only has to work for the first 30 minutes of a nuclear war. After that, it's done it's job. The only hardening you need to do is to protect against random special forces attack (spetsnaz etc) so that someone can't knock out your complex to "kick down the door" for an ICBM attack.

Now for my speculation:

I suspect the reason we are developing the various homing kill vehicles and the mini-me sized versions, is so that we can dramatically shrink the equipment required for BMD and make it truly portable.

All of our previous attempts at BMD were command guided vehicles -- you needed a decently large radar to track both the outgoing interceptor and incoming missile, a decent computer to calculate when the two would intersect, and a transmitter to transmit course correction commands to the interceptor. This meant that if the enemy managed to somehow take out your ground based sites, or SOMEHOW jam the communication between the ground site and the interceptor, the interceptor would go ballistic -- it was just a big dumb rocket carrying a nuclear warhead, with a radio set to control it's fins.

EKV, THAAD, and the soon to be MKV get around this by being able to once they're lofted into the general trajectory cone of the incoming missile, independently discriminate and attack targets without any guidance from the ground station, making the equipment much more portable; you only need a truck big enough to transport the missile and it's launch box, and a radio capable of receiving digital data; to feed the initial trajectory data into the interceptor from a higher HQ.

[rs]

ryan - wanted to reply to your thoughtful post. I should have been more clear - missile defense is a real shield but I think our danger lies on other fronts

[Kodiak Rocket Launch Information Group]

How Do We Define Success?

On December 5, a rocket launched from Vandenburg AFB in California intercepted a rocket launched from Kodiak, Alaska

1. It wasn't a resounding "success": According to Lt. Gen. Patrick O'Reilly, head of the Missile Defense Agency, "...the target did not release planned countermeasures designed to try to confuse the interceptor missile. O'Reilly did not say what those countermeasures were, but they often include decoys or chaff to throw off shoot-down attempts." Apparently the technology to shoot down a real enemy missile, which would have countermeasures, is not yet working.

2.It wasn't a truly realistic test: The "test" was very tightly controlled - everybody knew when the interceptor would be launched and its probable path (they've launched targets from KLC before). Furthermore, the velocity of the target drone is about 40% less than that of an actual “enemy” missile. One wonders what would happen if they actually had to scramble an interceptor with no prior warning. Now that would be a TRUE test.

3. If the U.S. can't launch an ICBM that works the way it should, why do we think other countries can? Neither North Korea or Iran has ever successfully fired a missile that had any chance of landing anywhere near the U.S. Right now, if North Korea got really lucky, they might be able to hit the tip of the Aleutians. We are sure the folks out there appreciate the expenditure of ten billion dollars a year to help them sleep more soundly.

4. It's ALL about the money: Roughly $10 billion is spent per year on the program, which is run by defense contractor Boeing Co. but includes work by most of the nation's largest weapons makers. It is spread across three branches of the military and is composed of missiles, radar and satellites designed to intercept missiles during different stages of flight. While it might help the economy to keep all those defense contractors in business, the money could be spend more wisely on our nation’s crumbling infrastructure and to aid people being evicted from their homes.

5. Fortunately, President-elect Barack Obama expressed skepticism about the capabilities of the system during his campaign, leading to speculation he may reduce the program's scope. Russia has strongly objected to plans to install missile interceptors in Eastern Europe.

6. At least the true character of the KLC has finally been admitted. According to the AP: "WASHINGTON - The Defense Department said today it shot down a missile launched from a military base in Alaska..."

7. Finally, Kodiak, Alaska desperately needs a new high school and a new police station and jail. Our roads are a mess and infrastructure in Kodiak, Alaska and all across the United States is crumbling. Take a drive down the badly disintegrating Mission Road past the Salvation Army and ask yourself: Is Missile Defense worth it? Friday's test cost between $120 million to $150 million.

Kodiak Rejects Missile Defense - Overwhelmingly
Results from the Kodiak Daily Mirror online poll, December 5 through December 12:

The U.S. missile shield...

is unnecessary - 67.17%

is important for the nation's defense - 21.59%

will never work - (5.1%)

will ramp up a new arms race - (6.15%)

[percentages based on 667 responses]

Over 78% of the respondents voted anti missile defense. While online polls are generally considered "unscientific", it seems clear a community that is home to a facility used in missile defense tests rejects the notion that it is actually needed.

Coupled with another poll from 26 February 2005, it appears that the KLC is not only unneeded, but also unwanted. We have copied the post from that date below:

Poll Proves Local Opposition to Kodiak Launch Complex

Results of the Kodiak Daily Mirror online poll (17-24 February 2005) 839 responses
Published 24 Feb 2006 in the Kodiak Daily Mirror, page 4
"Why Should the Kodiak Launch Complex exist, or not exist?"

41% - It's waste of taxpayer money and useless in national defense
15.85% - It could potentially damage the environment.

56.85% - Anti-Kodiak Launch Complex

27.41% - It's crucial for national defense
15.71% - It's good for the local economy

43.12% - pro-KLC

The poll clearly indicates local attitudes toward Space Pork Kodiak. We suspect the numbers opposing the KLC would be even higher if there hadn't been the large number of out-of-state workers in town to support the latest MDA launch. The poll was running over 50% for "It's a waste..." until somebody alerted the KLC staff around Feb 22 causing a huge spike in the pro percentages. Despite this anomaly, the unmistakable community opposition is undeniable and prevailed in the overall results.

http://kodiaklaunchcomplex.blogspot.com

[John McKittrick]

Dear Kodiak Rocket Launch Information Group (if that is your real name...):

I welcome debate about missile defense here at Closing Velocity.

However, you simply copy-pasted TWO entire blog posts from your own blog into the comments here on my blog --- your point could have been easily made by saying "oh yeah?" and linking to whatever supported your argument. Instead you subjected my readers to two screens worth of your blog.

This is not your blog.

Consider this your one and only warning not to spam my blog.

Banned.

PS: Your "comment" stands as a monument to others of unacceptable comment behavior here.

[John McKittrick]

fyi readers, I left a polite comment over at the mysterious Kodiak Rocket Launch Information Awareness Community Activist Organization Coalition Grassroots Workshop (KRLIACAOCGW) informing it of its new status here.

Their comments are moderated... Nice.

[geoff]

You're very charitable, JM, since the KRLIACAOCGW comment is poorly researched and poorly thought out. Look at:

1. ...Apparently the technology to shoot down a real enemy missile, which would have countermeasures, is not yet working.

??? What an idiot. The only conclusion you might possibly draw is that the technology to deploy countermeasures is not yet working. And that would be wrong, too.

2. ...The "test" was very tightly controlled - everybody knew when the interceptor would be launched and its probable path

Hey, guess what? Every ICBM test has been just as tightly controlled. I'm not sure that I can explain the implications of that without violating classification guidelines, so I'll leave it at that.

3. ...If the U.S. can't launch an ICBM that works the way it should, why do we think other countries can?

??? What an idiot. The US launches an ICBM that fails to deploy chaff, and somehow that means that other people can't hit anything? Not to mention that unlike the US, which carefully picks targets and strives for precision to avoid collateral damage, countries like North Korea are content with hitting anything at all. Can't talk about the accuracies, but let's just say that if the enemy missiles were 100 times less accurate than ours, they could still successfully target urban centers.

4. It's ALL about the money

What an idiot. Or didn't he notice that Russia and China are very, very unhappy with the notion of a competent missile defense system? It changes the geopolitical landscape, which is the point.

5. Fortunately, President-elect Barack Obama expressed skepticism...

What an idiot. Somehow Obama's skepticism has a bearing on the success of a missile launch? Or the merits of a missile defense system? And, in fact, despite his title, only his first 2 points actually address the success of the missile test. Everything else is just his political biases put to page.

6. At least the true character of the KLC has finally been admitted.

Was it a secret? Not that being a missile launch facility is all that nefarious, anyway. It's not like they're part of an operational missile field.

7. ...Alaska desperately needs a new high school and a new police station and jail.

What an idiot. Or didn't he know that there is a difference between federal, state, county, and city funds?