Aiming

So there’s this guy, he things he’s smart. He writes a report,the paper picks it up and he waves around like a mad man.

Mr. Obama’s announcement of his new antimissile plan in September was based on the Pentagon’s assessment that the SM-3, or Standard Missile 3, had intercepted 84 percent of incoming targets in tests. But a re-examination of results from 10 of those apparently successful tests by Theodore A. Postol and George N. Lewis, being published this month, finds only one or two successful intercepts — for a success rate of 10 to 20 percent.
Review Cites Flaws in U.S. Antimissile Program
By WILLIAM J. BROAD and DAVID E. SANGER
Published: May 17, 2010, NYT.

But, the rest of the world see a lunatic who’s got his facts wrong.

The methodology of Postol’s “analysis”? Looking at the final — and I should note, UNCLASSIFIED — frame of the various SM-3 intercept videos released by MDA and determining that the center of that freeze-frame represented the precise intercept point (Postol’s graphic here). Sounds like rigorous rocket science, huh?
Ted Postol: Aegis SM-3 Only 20% Successful; MDA: Postol Is 100% Full Of Shit, Closing Velocity.

Classified sensors are many, many times better than UNCLASSIFIED pictures. Many though that the Patriot system missed judging by TV images. But those images are captured at 60 frames per second. AVATION films use 500 fps. They captured hits.

Official US govt smackdown here.

Decoys: done and done (countermeasures are in place)

MIRVs: We test against them

Hit to kill: proven

AGEIS BDM, THAAD, Patriot, GMCD: made of win

Theodore A. Postol : made of fail

This man is an idiot and will be forgotten.

He should be made to apologize to the sailors who defend is right to be a nimrod.

H/T: XbradTC

Advertisements

One Response to “Aiming”

  1. It would almost sound as if TP and the likes are getting more and more nervous for an eventually successful block IB development result and would hope to discourage further development?

    Nah…

    Rather, I’m sure he is only being critical of block 1A and cautious for being over-confident and satisfied with the existing system… thus promoting continued/accelerated development on the 1B so as to increase utlimate cababilities for USN and allies in this bmd capacity?

    In the meanwhile, expanding on an interim, reduced-profile layered tactical defense system… I’d favor a high mobile system based perhaps on the HIMARS unit, incorporating a couple IRIS-T SL rounds and one SM-6 per launch system. The existing point defense IRIS-T SLS variant deployed on it’s independent HTV vehicle, could reinforce this high mobile battery. The hypothetical combined mobile tactical defense battery could jointly operate within the area of PAC-3 SME units and/or THAAD units providing more cooperative, supportive and survivable layered defense, albeit with limited or no strategic provocation or unsettling balance of power, etc.

    In short, it would enable a carefully balanced, ‘proportional’ and non-provocative air-defense portfolio, while achieving alliance requirements.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: