Missile Defense (General thread)

[American Patriot]

Common Sense Of Missile Defense Continues To Elude Policymakers
Investors Business Daily ^ | Juy 21, 2006 | Brian T. Kennedy



On the Fourth of July, North Korea's Kim Jong Il tested a series of ballistic missiles. Two days later, when questioned about the test, President Bush acknowledged that America's missile defenses were "modest and new."

That they are new is understandable, since only in the last year has America begun to field missile defenses. The modest part, however, is of greater concern, since they are likely to remain modest by design throughout the administration's tenure.

(Excerpt) Read more at investors.com ...

[American Patriot]

Experts debate space-based BMD assets


[Coyle Takes Aim At Brilliant Pebbles]
United Press International ^ | July 21, 2006 | Jessica Taylor



Experts debate space-based BMD assets


By JESSICA TAYLOR
UPI, July 25, 2006

WASHINGTON, July 21 (UPI) -- A new report claims U.S. anti-ballistic missile defenses must be deployed in space to be effective, but critics disagree.


Several analysts say the study is based on false pretenses and the deployment of defense mechanisms into space is not in national security interests.


The Institute for Foreign Policy Analysis, a Washington think tank, has issued a study saying the implementation of plans for space missile defense is critical for U.S. national security and an effective system against at least some intercontinental ballistic missiles from so-called rogue states should be in place no later than 2010.


"The absence of a space strategy is a gap in national security," said Robert Pfaltzgraff, president of the IFPA, during a roundtable on the new report hosted by the American Foreign Policy Council, a small conservative Washington think tank, last Friday on Capitol Hill. "Only space can give us a global missile defense."


The threat is even more immediate, many fear, following several missile tests on July 4 by North Korea. While their long range Taepodong-2 ICBM was unsuccessful, several short range No Dong missiles appeared to work effectively in the tests. One of North Korea's main exports is weapons, and Pfaltzgraff said the United States should be increasingly concerned that these short range missiles could end up in the hands of terrorists aiming to launch them from domestic shores.


The IFPA analysts claimed that U.S. ballistic missile defense must be revaluated in light of these developments. However, other analysts said the Bush administration has failed so far in adequately developing its BMD programs.


"This won't do anything for security and will blow the defense budget," said Craig Eisendrath, board chairman for the Project of Nuclear Awareness and a former State Department analyst who dealt with space and nuclear policy.


Similar criticisms were prevalent following President Ronald Reagan's proposal of a Strategic Defense Initiative, also known as "Star Wars," that originally conceptualized deploying nuclear missile defenses in space.
The suggestion was revived again under the current Bush administration with the idea of "Brilliant Pebbles."


"The idea was that a small satellite with good brain that would see enemy missiles and dash off after it, hit it and knock it down," said Philip Coyle, senior advisor at the Center for Defense Information.
However, this concept would have required multiple satellites, perhaps as many as 1,000, in orbit to be effective.


"You can't have one interceptor parked over North Korea," said Coyle. "You need another to take its place."


Coyle also questioned the monetary feasibility of the program.
"It would be, by all measures, very expensive. And it's still problematic as to whether would work," Coyle said. "They've been projecting [costs] for at least 20 years and it doesn't seem to happen."


Pfaltzgraff said that U.S. withdrawal from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty in 2001 opened up additional options in the use of space-based weapons for missile defense. However, the Bush administration had not adequately explored these options and current U.S. missile defense policies remained virtually unchanged since the Clinton administration, he said.
"Bush will eventually be judged by what he does in the next two years" of his waning presidency, he said.


Eisendraft said U.S.withdrawal from the ABM treaty had been a negative move for the United States and that many of America's missile defense challenges today stemmed from that pullout.


Current ABM defense systems deployed in California and Alaska were inadequate, he said. Should a missile be launched, the 11 ground-based midcourse interceptors currently deployed would probably be unable to distinguish between an actual threat and a decoy.


The United States has also refused to join in a treaty banning the use of space for missile defense. China, Japan, and the European Union are all willing signatories, Eisendraft said, who helped draft the original treaty.
"This is crazy when the rest of the world is completely willing to sign on and kick the rest of this out," he said. "The United States is acting in a completely irresponsible manner."


But the biggest factor in the push for space weaponry is corporate interests rather than economic and security sensibility, said Eisendraft.
"We're dealing with a situation not driven by security aspects but money," said Eisendraft. "Across the board, we're not dealing with anything that's looking promising" in the use of space.

[American Patriot]

The Claremont Institute at its Missile Threat site has already pinpointed some of the flaws in the critics analysis:

Coyle Takes Aim at Brilliant Pebbles

July 26, 2006
UPI


Philip Coyle, senior advisor at the Center for Defense Information, was recently quoted in the UPI on the issue of space-based missile defenses and in particular, the Brilliant Pebbles defense system. “The idea was that a small satellite with good brain [sic] that would see enemy missiles and dash off after it, hit it and knock it down,” he said, but noted that such a concept would have required numerous satellites, perhaps as many as 1,000 to be effective. “You can’t have one interceptor parked over North Korea,” he argued. “You need another to take its place.” Coyle also questioned the monetary feasibility of the program. “It would be, by all measures, very expensive. And it’s still problematic as to whether it would work. They’ve been projecting [costs] for at least 20 years and it doesn’t seem to happen.”


Would Brilliant Pebbles work? Coyle does not mention that Brilliant Pebbles had successfully completed its simulation stage and was ready to move to the proof-of-concept, prototype, and performance testing stages when it was effectively starved of funding as the Clinton administration came to power. Nor does he mention that in 1994 NASA launched a deep-space probe mission known as “Clementine,” constructed with first-generation Brilliant Pebbles hardware. The mission, which cost $80 million, effectively “space-qualified” Brilliant Pebbles technology, even though the missile defense program had already been eliminated.


Would Brilliant Pebbles be too expensive? The newly released report by the Independent Working Group entitled Missile Defense, the Space Relationship and the Twenty-First Century—the report cited by the UPI piece—puts the total cost of a 1,000-satellite constellation of Brilliant Pebbles at $16 billion, based on the fully approved Defense Acquisition Board plan from 1991. The figure includes the costs of developing, testing, deploying, and operating Brilliant Pebbles over a 20-year period using a low-to-moderate risk, event-driven acquisition schedule. Many would agree that $16 billion dollars is a small price to pay for the protection of the U.S. and its allies from ballistic missile attack and nuclear devastation.


(Article, Link)
» Read the 2007 report: The Independent Working Group on Missile Defense, the Space Relationship, and the Twenty-First Century (8 MB)
» More stories on: Analysis, Policy and Space-Based Systems
» Missile system details for: Brilliant Pebbles

[American Patriot]

Going on Offense for Missile Defense


Defending ourselves has never made more sense.
by Fred Barnes
08/07/2006, Volume 011, Issue 44


SENATOR CARL LEVIN of Michigan had a grim and unhappy look on his face. For years, he had led Democrats in an effort to slash funding for missile defense. He had planned to seek a cut of $68 million. But with North Korea poised to launch missiles and Iran's relentless drive to go nuclear, the situation had changed. So much so that Senator Jeff Sessions of Alabama proposed to boost spending on the missile defense program, now more than two decades old, by an extra $45 million. Even Levin voted yes as it passed 98-0 in late June.


There are two lessons here. One is that Democrats, having kept spending for missile defense at anemic levels during the Clinton years, and having sought to block deployment of an effective system under President Bush, are vulnerable on the issue. And this is an election year in which Republicans, embattled and minimally popular, need every issue they can find. The other lesson is that an election campaign, with the American people paying attention, is the perfect time to debate missile defense and generate national support for a system on land, at sea, and in space. At the least, Democrats would be put on the defensive.


There's no doubt about either the popularity of missile defense or the urgency in deploying a full-blown system to protect America. In a 2004 poll by Princeton Survey Research, 62 percent approved of President Bush's plan to build a missile defense system. A year earlier, in a Gallup Poll, 61 percent said they would be "upset" if money were not being spent on such a system. And in a survey last year sponsored by a pro-missile defense group, 79 percent voiced support for missile defense and 70 percent said it is an "important part" of homeland security.


The need for an antimissile shield was underscored this summer not only by North Korea's missile tests and Iran's race to build nuclear weapons, but by the potential emergence of a worldwide threat. North Korea is believed to have a small nuclear arsenal and is an exporter of weapons. Iran, the world's leading sponsor of terrorists, is developing long-range missiles as well as nukes. If it produces a nuclear weapon, other Middle Eastern nations are likely to follow. Pakistan, an Islamic country with a fragile pro-West government, plans to build more nuclear weapons. And the United States would have no defense in the unlikely event that China or Russia, onetime enemies, unleashed a missile attack.


Bush boldly cleared the way for deploying a missile defense system by withdrawing, in December 2001, from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty with Russia. A year later, he ordered Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld "to proceed with fielding an initial set of missile defense capabilities" by 2004 or 2005. These, the president said, "will include ground-based interceptors, sea-based interceptors, additional Patriot (PAC-3) units, and sensors based on land, at sea, and in space."


In 2004, a handful of antimissile missiles were deployed in Alaska. And six Navy ships have been equipped to bring down missiles. The head of the missile defense program at the Pentagon, Lieutenant General Henry Obering, insists these systems would have been able to destroy the one long-range missile fired by the North Koreans on July 4. That missile failed and fell in to the Sea of Japan.



But Obering is only guessing. And the widely held view in the defense community is that the deployment of anti-missile assets by the United States is not keeping pace with the growing missile threat. The war in Iraq, for one thing, has forced serious cuts in funding for missile defense. Planned deployments were delayed and the number of actual antimissile units was reduced. This year, House Republicans have sought to cut spending further.


There's a compelling case for re-engaging missile defense as a top priority of the Bush administration. A comprehensive upgrading of the ship-based Aegis system, which has been successful in eight out of nine tests, makes enormous sense, as ships can be deployed off the Korean coast and near Iran. Expanding the number of antimissile ships would be the fastest way to get near-global coverage at the least cost. Destroyers could probably be equipped for $100 million or less.


For many Americans, ground-based interceptors are the heart of missile defense. But these interceptors have not performed as well in tests as the ship-based ones. The next ground-based test will be crucial in gaining congressional support for missile defense in general.


But the future of missile defense is in space. And Senator John Kyl of Arizona, the savviest advocate of missile defense, is ready to lead an effort next year in Congress to add this strategic element. It would have global reach and not depend, for instance, on where a ship was deployed.
Critics claim this would bring about the militarization of space, but their argument is specious. Space is already militarized. Intercontinental missiles, such as the one North Korea tested, travel through space. Military satellites are already in space.


The midterm election on November 7 will play a critical role in the advancement of missile defense. If Democrats capture either the House or Senate, funding may be dangerously curtailed and deployments postponed. Kyl says Democrats favor a policy of "test forever, deploy never." Democrats have voted to cut spending nine times in the past five years. When they controlled Congress, they slashed billions from missile defense.
To avert this, missile defense must become a major issue in the campaign, addressed by Republican candidates and, especially, the president. The issue can be laid out very simply: We need robust missile defense for the safety of America; Democrats are standing in the way; vote Republican. Under pressure, Democrats might cave and endorse a vigorous missile defense program. But, given their record, don't hold your breath.


Fred Barnes is executive editor at THE WEEKLY STANDARD.

[American Patriot]

Defense Agency
Press Release
Pentagon

06-NEWS-0020
1 September 2006

Missile Defense Exercise and Flight Test Successfully Completed
Air Force Lieutenant General Henry “Trey” Obering III, Missile Defense Agency (MDA) director, announced today it has successfully completed an important exercise and flight test involving the launch of an improved ground-based interceptor missile designed to protect the United States against a limited long-range ballistic missile attack. The flight test results will help to further improve and refine the performance of numerous Ground-based Midcourse Defense (GMD) elements that will be used to provide a defense against the type of long-range ballistic missile that could be used to attack an American city with a weapon of mass destruction.
The interceptor missile was launched at 10:39 am PDT (1: 39 pm EDT) from the Ronald W. Reagan Missile Defense Site, located at Vandenberg Air Force Base, Calif. For this exercise, a threat-representative target missile was launched from the Kodiak Launch Complex, Kodiak, Alaska.

The exercise was designed to evaluate the performance of several elements of the Ballistic Missile Defense System (BMDS), and mission objectives included demonstrating the ability of the Upgraded Early Warning Radar at Beale Air Force Base, Calif., to acquire, track and report the target warhead, and also to assess the performance of the interceptor missile’s rocket motor system and exoatmospheric kill vehicle, which is the component that collides directly with a target warhead in space to perform a “hit to kill” intercept using only the force of the collision to totally destroy the target warhead. Initial indications are that the rocket motor system and kill vehicle performed as designed. Program officials will evaluate system performance based upon telemetry and other data obtained during the test. Although not a primary objective for the data collection flight test, an intercept of the target warhead was achieved.

The test also successfully exercised a wide variety of components and subcomponents as part of the evaluation of system performance, including improved missile silo support equipment, booster/kill vehicle separation, kill vehicle sensor cooling, kill vehicle orientation and positioning and several more.

The Ground-based Midcourse Defense system currently has interceptor missiles deployed at Ft. Greely, Alaska, and at Vandenberg AFB, Calif. Other components of the Ground-based Midcourse Defense include the upgraded Cobra Dane radar in the Aleutian Island chain of Alaska and the upgraded early warning radar at Beale AFB, Calif. A forward deployed air-transportable X-band radar is currently stationed in Japan, and several U.S. Navy Aegis-class cruisers and destroyers with the advanced SPY-1 radar have been modified for integration into the command control, battle management and communication element of the ground-based interceptor system. The new Sea Based X-band radar mounted aboard a large sea-going platform will be integrated into the system later this year, and for this exercise it was used to track the target missile as part of its on-going radar calibration process.

News media point of contact is Rick Lehner, Missile Defense Agency, at 703-501-9157.

Video and still photos will be available to the television network pool in Washington, DC. Point of contact is Chris Taylor at (703) 697-8001. Video and still photos will also be available through the Office of the Secretary of Defense (Public Affairs) in Washington. Point of contact is Cheryl Irwin at (703) 697-5331.

[American Patriot]

Defence: A Special Report: AWDs are a defensive taskforce shield
The Australian ^ | 25th November 2006 | Daniel Cotterill


REPELLING a bomb or missile attack on a naval taskforce is precisely what ships such as air warfare destroyers are designed for.

However, changed strategic circumstances and emerging threats may see the level of defensive capability fitted to our AWDs taken to a whole new level.

It's no secret that the United States has been actively seeking to develop a ballistic missile defence shield to protect North America from attack by a rogue state.

Progress on this ambitious, expensive and diplomatically sensitive project has been solid rather than spectacular, but don't expect the US to give up on the idea any time soon.

With nuclear posturing on the Korean peninsula likely to trigger a regional arms race, the issue of missile defence will become of more direct interest to Australia -- and that's where our new AWDs come in.

Their powerful radars and sophisticated Aegis combat systems, if combined with the appropriate interceptor missile, could prove to be very effective against ballistic missiles.

A small fleet of AWDs, such as the three vessels Defence plans to bring into service progressively from 2013, could provide some protection against ballistic missiles for continental Australia. The concept is under active evaluation in the US, though it has yet to be decided how far Australia is willing to go at this stage towards acquiring such a capability.

According to Defence Minister Brendan Nelson "missile defence is something that we are focussed on. We are certainly working on some missile defence research, internally and also with the US. I believe that Australia does need to consider all options in this regard and I have asked Defence to do some work on it.

(Excerpt) Read more at theaustralian.news.com.au ...

[American Patriot]

US Defends Its Opposition To Ban On Weapons In Space
Spacewar.com ^


The United States defended Wednesday its opposition to a new ban on weapons in space, saying it needed to keep its options open amid threats from nations seeking ways to attack US space systems. Robert Joseph, under secretary of state for arms control and security, said he was unaware of plans to deploy weapons in space but that the new National Space Policy does not preclude that option in the future.


Joseph also said terrorism had emerged as a new potential threat to US space operations on the ground.


"Ensuring the freedom of space and protecting our interests in this medium are priorities for US national security and for the US economy," Joseph said in a speech here on the new US space policy made public in October.
"But not all countries can be relied upon to pursue exclusively peaceful goals in space," he said.


"A number of countries are exploring and acquiring capabilities to counter, attack, and defeat US space systems," he said, without naming the nations.


The growing threats require the United States to boost its ability to protect its space assets, he said.


"To achieve this end, the United States needs to remain at the forefront in space, technologically and operationally, as we have in the air, on land, and at sea," he said.


"Specifically, the United States must have the means to employ space assets as an integral part of its ability to manage crises, deter conflicts and, if deterrence fails, prevail in conflict," Joseph added.


While the United States sees "no value" in setting new agreements to ban weapons in space, it will continue abiding "scrupulously" to the 1967 Outer Space Treaty, which forbids placing nuclear weapons in space, he said.


Joseph rejected arguments that the weapons ban was needed to prevent an arms race, saying there were "no signs of one emerging."


"Given the vital importance of our space assets, foreclosing technical options to defend those space assets in order to forestall a hypothetical future arms race in space, is not in the national security interest of the United States," he said.


While the US space policy does not direct the development or deployment of weapons in space, it does not close that option, Joseph said after the speech.


"There are no programs that I'm aware of in terms of development and deployment for those types of capabilities," he said in response to a question.


"But the policy itself, while calling for a full range of capabilities to protect our interests and to deny others the use of space for hostile purposes, does not preclude us from moving in that direction at some point in the future," Joseph said

[American Patriot]

U.S. to defend space with military force
The Washington Times ^ | 12/14/06 | Bill Gertz




The United States will use military force in space to protect satellites and other space systems from attack by hostile states or terrorists, the Bush administration's senior arms-control official said yesterday.



The United States will "oppose others who wish to use their military capabilities to impede or deny our access to and use of space," (Robert Joseph) said. "We will seek the best capabilities to protect our space assets by active or passive means."


"No nation, no non-state actor, should be under the illusion that the United States will tolerate a denial of our right to the use of space for peaceful purposes," he said. "We reserve the right to defend ourselves against hostile attacks and interference with our space assets," he said.

Mr. Joseph said yesterday that a number of nations are developing weapons to "counter, attack and defeat U.S. space systems." He did not name the countries. Asked after the speech about the Chinese laser incident, he declined to comment.


"In view of these growing threats, our space policy requires us to increase our ability to protect our critical space capabilities and to continue to protect our interests from being harmed through the hostile use of space," he said.



The White House announced in October that President Bush authorized a new national space policy, the first since 1996, that states that the United States is committed to the peaceful use of space and rejects any nation's attempts to claim sovereignty over it.


The policy also views any attempt to interfere with space systems as an infringement on the right of free passage in space, and describes space capabilities as "vital" to national interests.


(Excerpt) Read more at washtimes.com ...

[American Patriot]

This will impact the space weaponization debate
Space Politics ^ | January 18, 2007 | Jeff Foust



Remember all the debate in the weeks and months following the release of the new national space policy that the US was opening the door to the weaponization of space—and perhaps imperiling the security of its own space assets—by appearing to go down the road of space weaponization? Now comes work from Aviation Week that


China tested, apparently successfully, an anti-satellite weapon earlier this month. The ASAT, fired from a Chinese spaceport, hit and apparently destroyed an aging Chinese polar-orbiting weather satellite on January 11.


(ArmsControlWonk also had some discussion about the ASAT test shortly before the Aviation Week article was published Wednesday evening.)



It will be interesting to see how people on both sides of the space weaponization debate spin this. Is it a sign that the Chinese were not sincere in their opposition to space weaponization, and that therefore the US need to step up its defensive and offensive counterspace efforts, or does it reflect a failure of US policy (including claims that there is no "arms race in space")? Or both?

[American Patriot]

U.S. tells China concerned by satellite-killer test
Reuters via Yahooooo ^ | 1/18/07 | Jim Wolf (Reuters)




WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The United States, Australia and Canada have voiced concerns to China over a test in space of a satellite-killing weapon last week, the White House said on Thursday.


"The U.S. believes China's development and testing of such weapons is inconsistent with the spirit of cooperation that both countries aspire to in the civil space area," National Security Council spokesman Gordon Johndroe said. "We and other countries have expressed our concern regarding this action to the Chinese."


Using a ground-based medium-range ballistic missile, the test knocked out an aging Chinese weather satellite about 537 miles above the earth on January 11 through "kinetic impact," or by slamming into it, Johndroe said.
Canada and Australia had joined in voicing concern, he said.
Britain, South Korea and Japan were expected to follow suit, an administration official added.


A key concern is debris that could interfere with civilian and military satellite operations on which the West increasingly relies.


On the day of the test, a U.S. defense official said the United States was unable to communicate with an experimental spy satellite launched last year by the Pentagon's National Reconnaissance Office. But there was no immediate indication that this was a result of the Chinese test.


No such publicized destruction of a satellite in space has occurred in at least 15 years, said Marco Caceres, a space expert at the Teal Group, an aerospace consulting firm in Fairfax, Virginia.


SATELLITE-KILLING CAPABILITY


Aviation Week & Space Technology, the first to report the test, cited space sources as saying a Chinese Feng Yun 1C polar orbit weather satellite, launched in 1999, was destroyed by an antisatellite system launched from or near China's Xichang Space Center in Sichuan Province.


The satellite-killing capability demonstrated by China was no surprise to the Bush administration, which revised U.S. national space policy in October with an eye on boosting protection of U.S. civilian and military satellites.
In a major speech about the policy last month, Robert Joseph, the State Department's point man for arms control and international security, said other nations and possibly terrorist groups were "acquiring capabilities to counter, attack and defeat U.S. space systems."


"No nation, no non-state actor, should be under the illusion that the United States will tolerate a denial of our right to the use of space for peaceful purposes," Joseph said on December 13.


In classified projects shielded from public debate, the United States has been widely reported to be developing satellite-killers of its own, using more advanced technologies, including lasers.


Caceres said he expected the test to strengthen the Pentagon's hand in seeking funds from Congress to press a host of costly military space programs, almost all of which are over budget and behind schedule.


"They are going to use this for as much as they can," he said, referring to Pentagon officials. Major corporate beneficiaries could be Lockheed Martin Corp., Boeing Co. and Northrop Grumman Corp., which build U.S. communications, surveillance and early-warning satellites, Caceres added.

[American Patriot]

Good news: China stuns U.S. intel by testing anti-satellite missile; Update: No defense

posted at 12:27 pm on January 18, 2007 by Allahpundit
Send to a Friend | printer-friendly

And the race to militarize space is on!

If the test is verified it will signify a major new Chinese military capability.
Neither the Office of the U. S. Secretary of Defense nor Air Force Space Command would comment on the attack, which followed by several months the alleged illumination of a U. S. military spacecraft by a Chinese ground based laser.
China’s growing military space capability is one major reason the Bush Administration last year formed the nation’s first new National Space Policy in ten years, Aviation Week will report.

It gets worse, says Defense Tech:

[I]f this anti-sat weapon was really “kinetic” — i.e., hit-to-kill, non-explosive — instead of a plain ol’ exploding weapon, that’s extremely bad news. That means the booster rocket has to be very accurate “in order to deliver the kill vehicle to the desired initial trajectory…. Then the kill vehicle needs to tweak its trajectory into a precise collision course using on-board propulsion and either on-board target tracking or… command guidance from the ground.” That’s no mean task.

DT wrote about another Chinese experiment in space warfare back in September involving anti-satellite lasers. That wasn’t really a “test,” though — allegedly, the lasers were fired at American orbiters.
It’s worth reading the whole post at Arms Control Wonk by Dr. Jeffrey Lewis, an expert in this area who’s calling this “a very disappointing day”:

In my forthcoming book, Minimum Means of Reprisal, I warned that China might move toward ASATs as a counter to the development of US missile defense and conventional strike capabilities—although I thought we might have more time than this…
If China has conducted an ASAT test, this is extremely bad. I had been hoping that the Bush Administration would push for a ban on anti-satellite testing, either in the form of a code of conduct. The Bush folks, however, have been fond of saying that wasn’t necessary, because “there is no arms race in space.”
Well, we have one now, instigated by an incredibly short-sighted Chinese government.

Update: Noah Schachtman of Defense Tech e-mails with a link to DT’s latest post and a pithy warning that “this [development] is REALLY bad.”
There’s nothing we can do to defend our eyes in the sky as of this moment, and there won’t be for years to come. And every new test, of which more are expected, complicates things further:

The Chinese trial could “lead to nearly 800 debris fragments of size 10 cm or larger, nearly 40,000 debris fragments with size between 1 and 10 cm, and roughly 2 million fragments of size 1 mm or larger,” the Union of Concerned Scientists’ David Wright notes on the Arms Control Wonk blog. “Roughly half of the debris fragments with size 1 cm or larger would stay in orbit for more than a decade.”

Update: Canada, South Korea, Australia, and Japan are all expected to lodge protests. This is a seriously big deal.

[American Patriot]

Russians say China's reports a LOAD OF HOOEY..... Doubled posted this in both China Threat thread and here, because it is an issue of Missile Defense... and China appears to be lying.

Russia - Reports that China missile hits satellite are rumors - Ivanov
Interfax.ru ^ | January 19, 2007

MOSCOW. Jan 19 (Interfax) - Reports that a Chinese ballistic missile has hit a satellite are "highly exaggerated rumors," Russian Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov said.

"I have heard reports to that effect, and they are quite abstract. I'm afraid they don't have such an anti-satellite basis. The rumors are highly exaggerated," Ivanov told reporters in Moscow.

[American Patriot]

http://en.rian.ru/russia/20070119/59365283.html

MOSCOW, January 19 (RIA Novosti) - The Russian defense minister denied Friday allegations that China launched a ballistic missile January 11 that destroyed a satellite.

CNN, a U.S.-based global television network, earlier said that a U.S. National Security Council spokesman confirmed a report in the magazine American Aviation Week and Space Technology that China last week destroyed one of its old meteorological satellites with a medium-range ballistic missile.

"I have heard such rather unsubstantiated reports, and I am afraid they are unfounded," Sergei Ivanov said. "There is nothing to comment on. The rumors are largely exaggerated."

However, Japan, Australia and the United States have already expressed concern over the alleged weapons test and the theoretical possibility that China could shoot down satellites operated by other countries.

China has yet to confirm the destruction of its satellite, but is likely to face stern criticism for an attempt to spread an arms race into space.

Ivanov, who is also deputy prime minister, said Russia has always opposed the militarization of space and will continue to do so.

[American Patriot]

Navy Tests High-Tech Railgun in Virginia
AP ^ | 18 Jan 2007 | AP



DAHLGREN, Va. — Normally, new weaponry tends to make defense more expensive. But the Navy likes to say its new railgun delivers the punch of a missile at bullet prices.


A flashy demonstration of the futuristic and comparatively inexpensive railgun weapon Tuesday at the Naval Surface Warfare Center had Navy brass smiling.


The weapon, which was successfully tested in October at the King George County base, fires nonexplosive projectiles at incredible speeds, using electricity rather than gun powder.
The technology could increase the striking range of U.S. Navy ships more than tenfold by the year 2020.


"It's pretty amazing capability, and it went off without a hitch," said Capt. Joseph McGettigan, commander of NSWC Dahlgren Division.


"The biggest thing is it's real not just something on the drawing board," he said. "It could go to the field right now. We just want to improve it, to make it better."


The railgun works by sending electric current along parallel rails, creating an electromagnetic force so powerful it can fire a metal projectile at tremendous speed.


Because the gun uses electricity and not gunpowder to fire projectiles, it's safer, eliminating the possibility of explosions on ships and vehicles equipped with it. Instead, a powerful pulse generator is used.


The prototype fired at Dahlgren is only an 8-megajoule electromagnetic device, but the one to be used on Navy ships will generate a massive 64 megajoules. Current Navy guns generate about 9 megajoules of muzzle energy.


(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...

[American Patriot]

'Star Wars' missile test heralds new arms race in space
The Times ^ | January 19, 2007 | Tim Reid




The White House reacted with alarm and anger last night after China successfully destroyed a satellite with a ballistic missile, the first space test of such offensive military technology by any nation in more than 20 years.

Using a ground-based medium-range ballistic missile, the test knocked out an ageing Chinese weather satellite 537 miles above the Earth on January 11 through “kinetic impact”, or by slamming into it, Gordon Johndroe, President Bush’s national security spokesman, said.


The test comes amid increasing fears within the Bush Administration over potentially hostile nations and terrorist groups acquiring technology to destroy crucial US space systems on which the country — and particularly its military — heavily depends. It will inevitably stoke fears in Washington of a potentially dangerous new arms race in space.


The last US anti-satellite test took place in 1985. But Washington halted such Cold War-era testing, concerned by debris that could harm civilian and military satellite operations on which the West increasingly relies for everything from guiding warplanes to internet access.


“The US believes China’s development and testing of such weapons is inconsistent with the spirit of co-operation that both countries aspire to in the civil space area,” Mr Johndroe said. “We and other countries have expressed our concern regarding this action to the Chinese.”


Chinese military experts say that the country’s military capabilities lag about 20 years behind developed nations. Official Chinese figures show that defence spending has been rising by more than 10 per cent a year since 1990.


Aviation Week & Space Technology, the first to report the test, cited sources saying that a Chinese Feng Yun 1C polar orbit weather satellite, launched in 1999, was destroyed by an anti-satellite system launched from or near China’s Xichang Space Centre in Sichuan province.


David Wright, of the US-based Union of Concerned Scientists, said that the satellite pulverised by China could have broken into 40,000 fragments from 1cm to 10cm, or up to 4in, roughly half of which would stay in orbit for more than a decade. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office said last night:


“The UK raised this issue with the Chinese authorities on Wednesday. Our concern is the possible effects of debris in outer space caused by the break-up of the satellite.”


Washington’s concerns over the threat to its satellites as China embarks on its “Star Wars” programme triggered an aggressive revision of its national space policy in October that asserted America’s right to deny access to space to anyone hostile to its interests. In a speech about the policy last month, Robert Joseph, the State Department’s chief arms control and international security official, said that other nations and possibly terrorist groups were “acquiring capabilities to counter, attack and defeat US space systems”.


He added: “No nation, no non-state actor, should be under the illusion that the United States will tolerate a denial of our right to the use of space for peaceful purposes.”


China insists that its military policy is purely defensive, but its repetitions appear intended to allay fears among its neighbours that it is developing an increasingly formidable array of weaponry.


Less than two weeks ago, military manufacturers unveiled China’s home-made fighter jet, the Jian-10. China has just released its first defence White Paper in two years that sets out ambitious goals for the People’s Liberation Army. The paper focused heavily on the need for technological modernisation.


The US has been researching “satellite-killing” technology of its own, experimenting with lasers on the ground that could disable and destroy spacecraft.

[American Patriot]

China anti-satellite test sparks space junk outcry

Jan 19 6:16 AM US/Eastern


China's test of an anti-satellite weapon has sparked concerns that the trial had caused dangerous debris to scatter into orbit, potentially threatening commercial and military satellites of other nations.

The website space.com, quoting sources that it did not identify, said the January 1 strike against the old Chinese weather satellite had caused it to smash up into "hundreds of pieces, fluttering through low Earth orbit."



"The mess of space junk does put other satellites, including the International Space Station, at some risk," space.com's Leonard David said, adding though that the chances of a strike were "very small."


The main repercussion of the Chinese test has been fears of an arms race in space -- but debris is another big source of concern.


The space age reaches 50 years on October 4 this year -- the anniversary of the launch of the Soviet satellite Sputnik -- and there are hundreds of thousands of pieces whirling in orbit, the result mainly of exploded rocket stages and broken-up satellites.


David Wright, co-director of the Global Security Programme at the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS), a US private advocacy group, said the satellite that was destroyed had a mass of 750 kilogrammes (1,650 pounds) and was orbiting at an altitude of 850 kilometers (520 miles).


Many commercial, military and navigational satellites orbit in the region of 900 kilometers (560 miles), he said. The maximum altitude of the International Space Station is around 450 kilometers (280 miles).


"The collision would be expected to completely fragment the satellite into millions of pieces of debris -- nearly 800 debris fragments of size 10 centimeters (four inches) or larger, nearly 40,000 debris fragments with size between one and 10 centimeters (half to four inches) and some two million fragments of size one millimeter (0.04 inch) or larger," said Wright.


"At the very high speeds these debris particles would have, particles as small as one millimeter (0.04 inch) can be very destructive."


Most satellites do not carry sufficient shielding for even tiny particles like this, and in any case shielding is ineffective against any debris larger than about one centimetre (half an inch) in size," said Wright in a statement.


The orbital region "is very heavily used by satellites for both civil and military uses, which are threatened by the added debris," he warned
Among those who voiced fears was Australia, which said on Friday that, in addition to worries about the militarisation of space, "we're concerned about the impact that debris from destroyed satellites could have on other satellites, which are very expensive pieces of equipment."


The danger from debris comes from the enormous speeds at which they travel, which means even very small pieces impact with high energy.

[American Patriot]

Questions deepen over satellite-killer test

Russia doubts it happened...China is mum about it....

MSNBC ^ | Jan19,2006 Updated: 35 minutes ago | MSNBC staff and news service reports



The uproar over claims of a Chinese anti-satellite weapon test rose on Friday, but China's foreign ministry said it had no information about the test — and Russia's defense minister said he doubted it even took place as reported.


Reports of the Jan. 11 test, in which a Chinese missile firing took down one of its own aging weather satellites, sharpened a long-running controversy over space weapons. If the test took place as reported, the incident would stand as the first time a ground-based missile destroyed an orbiting satellite, and would raise a significant new threat for a U.S. military that is becoming increasingly dependent on satellite surveillance communications.


On Friday, Britain and Japan joined the United States, Canada and Australia in voicing concern. Deputy White House press secretary Dana Perino said China had not yet responded to Washington's inquiries. "We do want cooperation on a civil space strategy, so until we hear back from them or have more information, I don't have any more to add," she said.


(Excerpt) Read more at msnbc.msn.com ...

[Ryan Ruck]

I don't really believe the word coming out of Russia on this. My gut tells me it is more TAA shenanigans to sow confusion.

After all, the US government came out and admitted this happened.

Perhaps Russia is playing the doubt card to make the US look hawkish and paint us as the war-hungry bad guy trying to pick a fight with China.

[American Patriot]

China Confirms It Has Shot Down Satellite
AllHeadlineNews ^ | 1/23/07 | Jacob Cherian

Beijing, China (AHN) - China confirmed Tuesday that it had tested anti-satellite weapon.

However, it added that the nation does not have intentions of an arms race in space.

Beijing said it had officially told the governments of the U.S., and Japan about the missile test.

The Foreign Ministry spokesman Liu Jianchao said China was interested only in "peaceful development of outer space."

The satellite intercept test is said to be the first of its kind in well over 20 years and there are concerns that it may give rise to a space arms race.

An article in the American Aviation Week and Space Technology was one of the first to report that the test had taken place.

In the report, it was said that the Chinese Feng Yun 1C polar orbit weather satellite was obliterated by an anti-satellite system launched from or near Xichang Space Center in China on January 11.

The test is believed to have taken place approximately 537 miles above the earth.

U.S. National Security Council spokesman Gordon Johndroe, who confirmed the report last Thursday said at the time, "(the U.S.) believes China's development and testing of such weapons is inconsistent with the spirit of co-operation that both countries aspire to in the civil space area".

The U.S. space policy, revised in October, says Washington reserves the right to freedom of action in space, and the U.S. itself is said to be working on research on "satellite-killing" weapons, reports BBC.

[Jag]

U.S. missile defense maturing, latest test a success

Mon Jan 29, 2007 8:14pm ET


WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Within a year, the U.S. missile defense system should be able to guard against enemy attacks, while testing new technologies, the deputy director of the U.S. Missile Defense Agency said on Monday.

The United States activated the ground-based system last summer when North Korea launched one long-range and six short-range missiles.
North Korea's intercontinental Taepodong 2 missile fell into the Sea of Japan shortly after launch but the short-range tests appeared successful, said Brig. Gen. Patrick O'Reilly, deputy director of the Pentagon's Missile Defense Agency.


O'Reilly said there would be no formal announcement that the system was operational. He predicted the capability to defend against enemy missiles and to continue testing and development work would be achieved within a year.

"It's just a matter of maturation," he told reporters after a speech hosted by the George C. Marshall Institute, a public policy group.

O'Reilly said work by North Korea and Iran on long-range ballistic missiles underscored the need for a viable U.S. missile defense system.
The war between Israel and Lebanon's Hezbollah militants last summer also highlighted the dangers of ballistic missiles and their use by non-state actors, he said. "We know we must be prepared for all contingencies."


O'Reilly said the missile defense system, which includes sea-based and ground-based interceptors, and powerful X-Band radar systems, achieved success in 14 of 15 flight tests.

Through the end of 2007, the program will focus on protecting the United States from threats from the Middle East and North Korea, expanding coverage to U.S. allies and boosting protection against shorter-range threats.
In 2008 and beyond, there would be increased focus on countering unconventional attacks and increasing the U.S. inventory of interceptors and sensors, O'Reilly said.

RUSSIA IS WARY


On Saturday, the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD), built by Lockheed Martin Corp, intercepted a target shot from a barge. It was the first test of THAAD since its move to the Pacific Missile Range Facility in Hawaii.

Two more THAAD intercept tests are planned for 2007, along with three tests of the Aegis Standard Missile-3 interceptors against short- and medium-range targets, O'Reilly said.

The agency also plans two tests of long-range ground-based interceptors in late spring and early fall.
The United States has 14 interceptors in Alaska and two in California, primarily to counter North Korea. O'Reilly said the number in Alaska would grow to 21 within eight months.


By 2011, plans call for some 40 interceptors in Alaska and four at Vandenberg Air Force Base in California, he said.

He said negotiations were just beginning with Poland to host up to 10 ground-based interceptors and with the Czech Republic about fielding an advanced radar station.

Asked about the concerns of Russian officials, O'Reilly said the United States was talking with Moscow and hoped to convince it that placing U.S. missile defenses in eastern Europe could also enhance Russia's security as well.
He gave no timeline for completing negotiations with Poland and the Czechs, but said the United States was "always looking at all our options" if either country chose not to proceed.

http://today.reuters.com/news/articl...1-ArticlePage2

Jag