Obama's 'Proven' SM-3 Missile Interceptor May Only Succeed 20 Percent of the Time, Say Physicists

Aegis is all well and good, but the number of ships needed to knock out a missile in the launch stage from Iran alone is more than we actually have. So even if we had a suitably effective ICBM-killer - which we don't - covering all possible launch vectors would be impossible. Current missile defense approaches are just a waste of taxpayer dollars, so at least Obama is spending less on them than Bush did.

Deterrence and defence are two different things. You can deter a sane nuclear armed enemy by the knowledge that you can do more harm to him than he to you. This is just a numb ers game. If you have 10 for every 1 nuke the enemy has, you succeed in this. If you have 5 for every 1 and you can knock down 50% of those, the potential damage ratio remains the same and so does the deterrence ability.

But while deterrence works on a large political machine with a lot to protect, it won't work against a small groupp of madmen who simply don't care if their country is wiped off the map as long as they take out the enemy at the same time - even if you have 10,000 nukes for every one of theirs.

This is where missile defense is critical.The nature of the enemy has changed. Nuclear and missile technology can't be kept out of the hands of rogue nation-states forever. In time, they will figure it all out. If the defense system is flawed, then it needs more work. But even flawed, some defense along with deterrence is better than deterrence alone.

If that's all we have right now it's better than nothing.

I was a gunners mate missile tech in 90-94 on an old cruiser with 70's tech. We used terrier SM2 missiles and I'd have to say 80% of the time or better we could nail anything out of the sky within 60 miles. Today's SM3's would better this by a lot. Understand this too, if your thinking accuracy, there are different types of payloads these missiles carry. Continuous rods(think shotgun blast before target)and even low yield nukes(can neither confirm or deny the presence) to name a few. VLS systems can also fire more than a dozen missiles in rapid succession, tracking them all to the targets. It's a pretty impressive system, heck it has even shot down low earth orbit targets(satellites) Of course there will be better down the road, but for now the US has the best. -Go Navy!-

That's great! Just launch 5 each time and you will have 100% success! Yay!

Wylie Coyote Physics

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2010/05/pentagon-missile-defense-critics-use-wile-e-coyote-physics/

@ almondtlent
5 shots with 20% each is 67%.
That said, I think that missiles can't efficiently be shot down by other missiles... at least not as efficiently as the Boeing 747 with the laser, can't remember the name. If they would just give that a bit more funding and this a little less...

With all this progress in ABM tech, one can't help but wonder if it will inspire anti-ABM measures. What if MIRV descent phase strategy was augmented with a booster dividing into multiple small launchers for the independent warheads? In other words, a big booster launches the warheads, but at a high altitude (where an ABM would take notice), the main booster splits into multiple small boosters. The ABM would have to choose a target, a smaller target, perhaps even a decoy!

well. the only way to solve this is to shoot 100 into the sky and hope that the twenty percent holds up, and if it dosent we can also use obamas ears for protection

By the one and only.........

HatisBig

@scramjetter
Decoys do indeed exist and the SM-3 does have to and is quite capable of discrimination between targets. It incorporates an amazing amount of ingenuity, science and quality but the discrimination algorithms are quite dependable.

@Dustin2127
The SM-3 in my opinion is actually much more applicable and effective than the airborne laser could ever be. The AL is a boost phase only weapon due to what it targets, meaning you need a jumbo jet (only size plane that can carry necessary equipment as of now) close enough to the ICBM pretty much while it is being launched. Even over a span of several hundred miles this is not only (again, in my opinion) unsafe in wartime but also impractical as you would be a massive target especially with a 747's radar cross section. It already takes a crazy amount of engineering to keep an F-22 underweight just considering the radar system so I don't see it getting mounted on a Raptor any time soon. Keep an eye out for the UAV called Avenger though over the next few years =)

All, keep in mind the cross-sectional size of a .50 cal bullet vs the size of a human arm or leg. Now at the speed that tiny little bullet is going, it can usually remove an entire limb from a person just from its kinetic energy. Consider the same scenario now with a larger, heaver and ridiculously faster bullet; I have complete faith in the kill vehicle having seen what it can do firsthand. Also, kill assessments are performed after launch events to determine what remains of the target. Even if the government is embellishing the test results as a deterrent, the above scenario still applies. The SM-3 success rate is drastically over 20%

In the end though 'kfreels' is correct. Any war is a numbers game and the adversary's will to destroy themselves in an effort to kill you must be taken into account. That being said, our ballistic defense efforts coupled with those of our allies yields a drastically improved result than without. And that's what it's all about, saving lives.