US ABM Systems

George1 wrote:George Lewis' Mostly Missile Defense blog has lots of useful information and analysis:

https://mostlymissiledefense.com/2016/04/20/update-on-future-ground-based-midcourse-gmd-flight-tests-april-20-2016/


Summary of test intercepts


https://www.ucsusa.org/nuclear-weapons/us-missile-defense/missile-defense-timeline#intercepts

So a failure rate of 50%, that's a failing grade in most grade books, and as already stated no real 'X-factors' were probably used.

First successful interception of an ICBM simulator by two US GBI antimissiles

As reported by the US Missile Defense Agency of the US Department of Defense, on March 25, 2019, for the first time, a successful kinetic interception of an intercontinental ballistic missile imitator target was conducted for the first time by the national missile defense system of the United States. (ICBM) salvo launch of two GBI interceptors.


The launch of the first of the two GBI antimissiles of the GMD missile defense system of the US national missile defense system from the Vandenberg airbase during the FTG-11 test for the kinetic interception of an intercontinental ballistic missile imitator target by launching two missile interceptors, 03/25/2019 (c) US Missile Defense Agency


  It is reported that during the test, conventionally designated FTG-11, the launch of two GBI interceptors, conventionally designated GBI-Lead and GBI-Trail, equipped with EKV interceptors (Exo-atmospheric Kill Vehicle - modification is not reported, but, apparently, EKV CE-II Block 1) was produced from Vandenberg (California) airbase at an ICBM simulator target launched from the Kwajalein Atoll range on the Marshall Islands in the Pacific Ocean, more than 4,000 nautical miles away. The first interceptor with the GBI-Lead successfully hit the target, and then the second interceptor with the GBI-Trail struck the largest of the target fragments.

   “This was the first interception with the help of GBI with a complex and threatening target in the form of an ICBM, and it was a critical milestone,” said the US Air Force Lt.-Gen. Samuel A. Greaves, Director General of the Missile Defense Agency, “the system worked exactly like was conceived, and the results of this test indicate the practical use of the salvo launch method in missile defense. The GMD system is vital to protect our homeland, and this test demonstrates that we have a reliable and effective means against a very real threat. ”

   Recall that the previous test of the GMD national missile defense system was made on May 30, 2017, when the first successful kinetic interception of a GBI missile equipped with an EKV CE-II Block 1 interceptor, an ICBM simulator, was carried out.

   Currently, the GMD complex of the national US missile defense system has 44 deployed GBI antimissiles (of which, presumably, 18 are equipped with EKV CE-I modification interceptors, 16 with EKV CE-II modification interceptors and EKV CE-II modification interceptors 1) deployed on missile defense facilities in Vandenberg (four anti-missile missiles) and in Fort Greely (Alaska) (40 anti-missile missiles).

   Before the test on March 25, a total of 18 field tests of GBI interceptors with interception of ballistic targets (simulators of medium-range ballistic missiles or ICBMs) were carried out since 1999, and only ten interceptions were deemed successful.





https://bmpd.livejournal.com/3584858.html

Developing New NGI Interceptor for US National Missile Defense System

The Missile Defense Agency (MDA) on April 24, 2020 published a request for proposals for the industry to create a promising Next-Generation Interceptor (NGI) kinetic interceptor as a warhead for the GBI anti-missile systems of ground-based Midcourse Defense (GMD) US National Missile Defense System.

Applications must be submitted by July 31 (although the possibility of extending this period due to the coronavirus pandemic is stipulated), after which it is planned to award contracts to two companies for the development of competing NGI projects. In the draft US defense budget for fiscal year 2021, $ 664.1 million was allocated for the program, and $ 4.9 billion is planned for five years.

Currently, there are 44 deployed GBI missiles deployed at missile defense facilities in Vandenburg (California, four missiles) and Fort Greeley (Alaska) (40 missiles) as part of the GMD complex of the US national missile defense system. In 2019, the MDA requested an allocation of 20 more GBI missile defense deployments at Fort Greeley in Alaska by the end of 2023.

Now GBI missiles are equipped as warheads with the kinetic interceptors of the EKV series (Exo-atmospheric Kill Vehicle manufactured by Raytheon Corporation, modifications of the EKV CE-I/CE-II/CE-II Block 1). To equip the new 20 GBI anti-ballistic missiles planned for deployment, and then replace the EKV interceptors, a program was launched in 2010 to create the new kinetic interceptor Redesigned Kill Vehicle (RKV), which was carried out by Boeing (Raytheon was the actual developer on a subcontracting basis). However, in August 2019, the RKV program was discontinued by the MDA due to the non-compliance of the results obtained during the R&D with the requirements. Now, in exchange, a program has been launched to create the “new generation NGI interceptor to counter advanced threats.” NGI interceptors should be equipped with all 64 planned GBI missiles.

However, the decision to develop a new NGI interceptor, according to American observers, postpones the deployment of an additional 20 GBI missiles approximately until 2030.

https://bmpd.livejournal.com/4007913.html

Successful interception of an ICBM-type target by the American shipborne anti-missile SM-3 Block IIA

Missile Defense Agency ( a Missile Defense Agency - the MDA), Ministry of Defense of the United States November 17, 2020 for the first time carried out a successful test interception simulator intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) shipboard antimissile Standard SM-3 Block IIA. The launch of the Standard SM-3 Block IIA ship-borne anti-missile missile from the US Navy DDG 113 John Finn destroyer (of the Arleigh Burke Flight IIA series) during the FTM-44 test to intercept an intercontinental ballistic missile simulator, 11/17/2020 (c) US Missile Defense Agency.



https://bmpd.livejournal.com/4190707.html

Hole wrote:Now they can shot down there own Minutemen III but nothing more modern.

They already said that

China and Russia are 'aggressively pursuing' hypersonic weapons — and the US doesn't have any defenses

Hole wrote:Now they can shot down there own Minutemen III but nothing more modern.

Seems politically contrived. Your govt. pulls out of the INF Treaty, is set to kill the START-3 Treaty, and is rumored to eventually pull out of the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty and now all of sudden they're capable of 'defeating' ICBM's? They've struggled for years to consistently defeat Scud-B ballistic missiles. It's been 20 years and PAC-3 cannot be modified to even consistently defeat Scuds, and you have esteemed physicists professors such as Theodore Postol from MIT who have completely discredited, even to the point of utterly eviscerating all the 'evidence' of the Pentagram's capability of defeating ballistic missiles. Keep in mind that the Pentagram/NORAD was completely helpless in preventing Boeing 747's from hitting the Twin Towers on 9/11. But believe them, they can defeat ICBM's now?!?!    

The Pentagram: "We struggle in defeating Scuds, and even defeating 747's (several orders of magnitude easier than ICBM's), but please trust us....we can defeat ICBM's now...honest!!!"

And they decided to leave the ABM and INF Treaty lmao!!!

Tests of the missile interception system failed twice in the United States

They tested the Patriot using the THADD radar AN/TPY-2 to increase the coverage area of the Patriot batteries

The next tests of the American shipborne system Aegis using SM-6 anti-aircraft missiles ended in failure. As stated in the widespread statement of the Pentagon's Missile Defense Agency, the anti-missile systems were unable to intercept the targets.

https://en.topwar.ru/183512-vms-ssha-proveli-neudachnye-ispytanija-protivoraket-sm-6-sistemy-aegis.html

US Navy deploys SM-6 land-based mobile missile launcher

On September 18, 2023, the US Navy, during joint exercises with the Danish Navy, for the first time carried out the deployment to the Danish island of Bornholm in the Baltic Sea and the deployment of a ground-based mobile launcher of multi-purpose (anti-aircraft) quasi-ballistic missiles Raytheon Standard SM-6, which can be used to destroy both air, ground and surface targets. It is reported that the “convoy protection” exercise with the deployment of this launcher (“modular launch system SM-6”) on Bornholm will last about a week.

https://bmpd.livejournal.com/4755160.html

Arrow wrote:Can SM 3 Block IIA pose any threat to ICBMs? The US boasts that it can also intercept ICBM missiles?

US also said that they were able to intercept drones and jets and what not with their Patriot systems.

See Saudi Arabia and Ukraine as examples of the horrible failure the Patriot system is.

I recall how they tested the so called interceptor.  They required:

-Multiple ships and all its radar systems
-pre determined path of the launch of the ballistic missile (US does not have any that fly in a quasi ballistic state so its a standard ballistic path)
-multiple missiles to hit 1 BM.
-Be within the path of the fired BM

Issue is, if Russia or China or whomever decides to launch their BM's, the US wont know at first hand where it initially launched and headed to.  That is tracked then determined.  In that period, the flight time is low so how would they move their assets to the path range in time?  And if it can change direction and fly in a quasi ballistic state like: Yars, Topol-M, Iskander, Avangard, Bulava, Sineva, etc - then how do you intercept that?

Reason why Russia's ABM systems are the way they are, is to intercept the BM in a shorter range and path - S-500, A-135, S-300V series - is that the goal is to hit the missile before it hits the key targeted site but within the range of it.  So hence why they place many of these systems around key cities and bases.  To be able to hit the incoming missile when its in the entry stage. Patriots, THAAD, etc are similar in that they are placed in key areas to protect the near area from a BM attack. These systems do work to a certain degree but they are susceptible to other systems like cruise missiles and once again, Quasi Ballistic.

But your question isn't relevant to this thread.