The US Navy conducted a failed test missiles RIM-161 Standard Missile 3 for missile defense system

The US Navy conducted a failed test of an interceptor missile, which should become one of the elements of the missile defense system (PRO), Reuters reports. "The new version of the interceptor missile RIM-161 Standard Missile 3 (SM-3) was launched from the board of the missile cruiser Lake Erie, but it was never able to hit the target missile launched from the Hawaiian island of Kauai," - said in a statement. This was the first test of the new version of the interceptor. According to representatives of the US Missile Defense Agency, following the results of today's tests, an investigation will be conducted that will help to establish the reasons for the unsuccessful launch.

The interceptor missile, which today was unable to hit the target, is designed to destroy short-range ballistic missiles. She will be based on warships.

The previous version of the rocket - SM-3 Block 1A is already in service. In addition, it was this rocket that destroyed the US-193 American satellite that descended from orbit. On board, it was 454 kg of poisonous fuel and the US authorities were afraid that it could cause serious environmental damage if it fell to the ground.
Recall 21 February 2008, the SM-3 rocket was launched from the same Lake Erie and at the height of 247 km destroyed the satellite, which was the size of a large bus. The Russian government then accused the United States of testing weapons in the interests of creating a missile defense system capable, including, of destroying foreign satellites.

Comments

[BOSS]

On board were 454 kg of toxic fuel and the US authorities were afraid that it could cause serious environmental damage if it fell to the ground.


And if in the ocean? Everything will be normal or something.

[zczczc]

If in the ocean, then there will be no claim.

[Varnaga]

Expected and unsurprising.

[figwam]

We have problems with the mace, and they have missile defense.

[Varnaga]

With the P-30, the problem is only in your head.

[AleksUkr]

That's what they need. The later they will make an acceptable missile - the interceptor, the better for us. Considering our modest successes in the issues of rearmament of our army. Not all the time, we are the laughing stock of the whole world, breaking one test after another. So, all is well, a beautiful marquise.

[Varnaga]

Where did you see the test fail?

[AleksUkr]

Have you forgotten "Bulava"? But in vain. Almost 50x50. Jokes about her are already being composed.

[Varnaga]

We do not know how to think logically, or little by little troll?

[Varnaga]

Here's how to judge the readiness of the complex by the percentage of the launches?
Regarding the launch history. For example, R-39 (Google to help), 17 missiles were launched from joint ground tests at a joint flight test. More than half of the launches were unsuccessful due to a defect in the engines of the first and second stages. Or RSM-54, which used the backlog from the R-29R, of which only 16 out of 10 launches were successful, and the development of which lasted 7 years and this was at the peak of the power of the USSR.
Test runs are carried out in order to identify all the shortcomings and the correctness of design solutions. Considering the state of the military-industrial complex, "Bulava" has passed almost all tests with flying colors. A few more extreme salvo launches will be put into service.
Regarding jokes. If in the days of the USSR noobs would have access to information on SLBM launches, then we would have much more jokes.

[Foamas]

How was the issue of breeding warheads resolved on the R-30? It means, what exactly is maneuvering: the RFG platform or each block separately?

[Varnaga]

Consistently passive breeding scheme ("bus") Equipping the individual breeding in the ROC stage and waiting for it on the ground complexes.
PRBB has the ability to make maneuvers on the trajectory, but there are many nuances.

[Foamas]

But doesn’t the possibility of maneuvering the PRBB lead to a loss of hypersonic speed, which will facilitate the possibility of interception in the final section?

[Varnaga]

the question is incorrect, because the dilution step in the second section of the trajectory moves at a speed approximately equal to the speed at the end of the ATF, moreover, in the extra-atmospheric section of the trajectory after dilution, the BB velocity decreases.

[Foamas]

At what stage then will the effective maneuvering of the BB take place? If, after separation from the MIRV platform (according to the "bus" system), they move by inertia (i.e. free fall + are gradually slowed down and the enemy can determine and intercept their trajectories in advance) in the variant of active anti-missile maneuvers with high overloads, will lead to further loss of speed + another entry into the atmosphere and, as a result, a possible loss of hypersound, which again will facilitate interception. Or am I confusing something?

[Varnaga]

You probably mean a selective-pulse circuit, in which a BR gives the BB an impulse of a certain wind and amplitude. Probably, it is precisely on this principle that OCD is conducted, about which I wrote above. I do not have information on this topic, because it is most likely under the bar, so I'm sorry, I can’t help with anything and I don’t see the point in building hypotheses.