Military Review

Los Angeles Times: Pentagon rate in 10 billions lost

Over the past years, the controversy surrounding the US missile defense system has not abated. The complex currently being built, consisting of various technical means, both receives positive reviews and is criticized. Meanwhile, the Missile Defense Agency continues to implement its projects, trying to ensure the security of the country, and almost does not pay attention to criticism. The development of new systems and the production of existing ones is continuing.

Nevertheless, some of the successes are unlikely to justify all costs, which is the reason for regular critical articles in the press. Not so long ago, on April 5, the Los Angeles Times published the article The Pentagon's $ 10-billion bet gone bad (“The Pentagon’s bet on 10 billions was lost”). Post author David Willman analyzed the successes and failures of the United States in the field of missile defense and came to the sad conclusions, the main thesis of which was put in the title. The journalist found that the activities of the Agency on missile defense leads to unnecessary spending of the military budget. First of all, the SBX floating radar has been criticized.

SBX complex issues

At the beginning of his article, D. Willman recalls how promising the new project was. The leaders of the Agency for missile defense argued that the promising radar will be the most powerful in the world. It was said that she would be able to detect a baseball ball over San Francisco from the other side of the country. It was assumed that the radar Sea Based X-band Radar or SBX ("Radar sea-based X-band") will monitor potentially dangerous regions. She could have noticed the launch of the North Korean missiles, calculate their trajectories, separate the missiles from false targets, and target other missile defense elements.

In the 2007 year, speaking at the Senate subcommittee, the head of the ABM Agency claimed that the SBX station had no equal. Nevertheless, the Los Angeles Times staff managed to establish that the SBX project was not a revolution in its field, but a real failure. The failure cost 2,2 billion dollars.

D. Willman notes that the SBX system is really capable of performing the tasks assigned to it. However, its real capabilities are limited by the fact that its field of view is not enough to work under the conditions of the most real attack. Experts believe that in the event of a conflict with the use of nuclear arsenals, missile defense systems will have to deal with a large number of missiles, warheads and false targets. The SBX radar does not fully meet the requirements of such a scenario of war.

SBX floating radar was planned to be commissioned in the middle of the last decade. The station was really built, but it is still not in full operation. Most of the time, the radar station is idle at the base at Pearl Harbor. From this D. Willman makes a simple but sad conclusion. The SBX project, having “eaten” quite a lot of money, “bit through” a solid hole in the defense of the United States. The money spent on SBX could be used to create other projects. In particular, the missile defense system could be replenished with ground-based radar warning of a missile attack with higher performance than the SBX.

Other expenses

The author of the publication recalls that excessive spending and useless projects have already become a real visiting card of the Missile Defense Agency, which is responsible for creating systems to protect against a missile attack. Over the past ten years, this organization, as calculated by journalists, has spent about 10 billions of dollars on four projects of promising systems, including SBX, which did not produce the expected results.

The dubious programs mentioned were designed to solve one of the most serious problems encountered when creating a missile defense. Modern ballistic missiles in addition to warheads carry a set of means to overcome missile defense in the form of a large number of false targets. It is assumed that the false targets will be able to “deceive” the radar stations, forcing them to issue incorrect target designation. As a result, interceptor missiles will attempt to destroy false targets, while real warheads will continue flying. In recent years, the ABM Agency has been actively engaged in creating systems that will avoid such a situation during a possible nuclear missile strike.

In addition to the sea-based radar already mentioned, D. Willman mentions other projects of promising anti-missile systems designed to find or destroy enemy ballistic missiles. All four complexes, described in the article The Pentagon's $ 10-billion bet gone bad, cannot yet perform the tasks assigned to them, which accordingly affects the combat capability of the entire missile defense system.

The ABL (Airborne Laser) or Boeing YAL-1 system was considered a promising and promising means of destroying enemy ballistic missiles in the early stages of flight. Boeing, Northrop Grumman and Lockheed Martin have installed a number of new equipment, including three lasers, on a specially converted Boeing 747 aircraft. With the help of the main laser system it was supposed to destroy the missiles, literally burning them in flight. At one time, the ABL project was presented as a real revolution in the field of armaments and military equipment.

Later tests showed that the Boeing YAL-1 aircraft in its existing or modified form cannot perform all the tasks assigned to it. So, for the timely destruction of missiles, the aircraft would have to fly near the borders of a potential enemy, being an easy target for enemy air defense. In addition, for the reliable destruction of targets, a laser with a power of 20-30 times larger than the existing one was required. Finally, laser-used reagents were too expensive and unsafe for personnel.

By the end of the last decade, the leadership of the Pentagon began to doubt the need to continue the ABL project, not to mention the advisability of deploying such a system as part of the missile defense system. In 2012, against the background of regular cuts in the military budget, the project was closed. It cost the war department 5,3 a billion dollars.

Another promising development is the Kinetic Energy Interceptor (KEI) rocket, designed for kinetic interception of targets. Initially it was assumed that such missiles, developed by Northrrop Grumman and Raytheon, will be launched from land or ship launchers. After this, KEI missiles should be aimed at the specified targets and destroy them with a direct collision. When hit by an enemy rocket on the active leg of the flight, such an interceptor could guaranteedly destroy all combat units.

As the project was developed, experts identified an increasing number of tasks that would have to be solved to ensure the required characteristics. So, the missile turned out to be too large, because of which it could not be launched from existing ships. Necessary modernization fleet could cost several billion dollars. In addition, KEI products had a relatively short flight range, which did not allow to hit missiles of potential adversaries in the active area when starting from a ground launcher.

As a result, the experts came to the conclusion that there are no prospects and the inexpediency of continuing the work. In 2009, the KEI project was closed. The development of a kinetic interceptor took about 1,7 billion.

In the middle of the past decade, Raytheon and Lockheed Martin received an order to develop the Multiple Kill Vehicle project. They were required to create a platform that carries a large number of small antimissiles. It was expected that it would be possible to fit in the required dimensions up to 20 interceptors. The platform was supposed to deliver interceptors to the target area, after which the enemy missile was destroyed. The launch of a large number of miniature antimissiles made it possible to attack the missile warheads with false targets.

The Multiple Kill Vehicle project faced great difficulties already at the stage of preliminary research and development of the appearance. Creating a compact missile, capable of aiming at the target and destroy it, proved to be an extremely difficult task. In addition, there were serious problems with the delivery of such interceptors to the target area.

Los Angeles Times: Pentagon rate in 10 billions lost

Numerous difficulties of a technical nature led to the fact that the promising project did not seem to have been developed. The original proposal was so difficult to implement that in 2009, it was abandoned. During the preliminary work on the project 700 million dollars was spent.

Search guilty

D. Willman believes that such excessive spending, as well as an increased interest in missile defense in general, is due to the anxiety sentiment that has spread in Washington after 11 September 2001. Then the American "hawks" warned the country's leadership about a possible threat from Iran and North Korea, which, in their opinion, would soon have missiles capable of reaching the United States.

The response to these warnings was George W. Bush’s order from 2002. The President of the United States ordered that work be accelerated and the country’s anti-missile defense system be built over the next two years. Specialists of the Agency on missile defense, being limited in time, began to take into consideration all more or less promising proposals, not paying due attention to checking their viability and economic feasibility. In addition, its role in this stories Congressmen also played. Some officials actively defended even those projects that have already shown their worthlessness.

The former head of the missile direction of the company Lockheed L. David Montague describes the situation as follows. The leaders responsible for the creation of new anti-missile systems did not fully understand a number of critical issues. As a result, programs appeared that "defy the laws of physics and economic logic." In addition, Montague believes that the SBX floating radar should not have been built at all.

The author of the publication, “The Pentagon Rate at 10 Billions Lost” also quotes the former head of the US strategic command, General Eugene E. Hebiger. The retired general believes that the missile defense missile defense agencies demonstrate the inability of this organization to analyze alternatives and their reluctance to contact specialists to conduct an independent assessment of the cost of new projects.

Officials responsible for creating useless projects provide some arguments in their own defense. He claims that their main task was to create a new anti-missile defense system architecture. Construction of the SBX radar station is justified by the fact that the deployment of a network of ground-based radars would be much more expensive and would take longer.

Of great interest are the words of Henry A. Obering, who previously held the post of head of the ABM Agency. He believes that all the failures in the field of missile defense are a direct consequence of the decisions of the administration of President Barack Obama and Congress. The country's leadership refused to increase funding for promising projects, which is why they could not be completed. At the same time, the former director of the ABM Agency notes that the successful interception of just one missile aimed at a city in the United States will make it possible to fully and repeatedly recoup all costs by preventing enormous damage.

The current director of the ABM Agency, James D. Syring, in turn, refused to answer questions from journalists Los Angeles Times. At the same time, the organization, in its response to the request, spoke in defense of ambiguous projects. It is argued that the constructed missile defense system can perform the duties assigned to it. As for the SBX radar, it was called a successful investment of money.

D. Willman also managed to get a comment from Boeing, an active participant in the creation of floating radar. Representatives of the "Boeing" claim that the new station has all the capabilities to perform the tasks with the required speed and accuracy. Raytheon, also involved in the SBX project, declined to comment.

On the structure of US missile defense

Further, the author of the publication recalled the role and features of the work of the Agency on missile defense. This organization was founded under Ronald Reagan. Currently, it employs 8800 people, the organization’s annual budget is about 8 billion dollars. The Agency manages several systems that are already on duty. These are shipborne missile defense systems based on the Aegis system, land systems THAAD, as well as GMD (Ground-Based Midcourse Defense) systems with the GBI antimissile system. It should be noted that the four programs mentioned above were designed to complement the GMD system.

The state of anti-missile systems is such that the defense of the United States against a possible nuclear missile strike is primarily based on deterrence. It is understood that Russia and China will not attack the United States because of the danger of a retaliatory strike with corresponding disastrous consequences. The GBI anti-missiles, in turn, are designed to protect against other threats - from the DPRK and Iran’s missiles, due to the limited strike potential of these states.

GMD complexes deployed at Vandenberg (California) and Fort Greeley (Alaska) airbases. GBI missiles are designed to hit enemy missiles on the cruise flight. There are 4 rockets in California now, 26 in Alaska. Destruction of the target is due to the kinetic energy from a direct hit of the striking element.

The development of the GMD project began in the nineties. Work intensified after the orders of G. Bush, issued in 2002 year. Deployment of the first complexes was required to complete in two years. In order to complete all work on time, the Minister of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld, allowed the ABM Agency to bypass the standard procurement rules and technology checks. Such an approach really reduced the project implementation time, however, it negatively affected the quality of work and the final product.

Despite the presence of a large variety of problems, the GMD complex was officially adopted as early as 2004. Since then, nine GBI missile test launches have been conducted. Only four launches resulted in a successful interception of the training target. For this reason, notes D. Willman, the capabilities of the complex to intercept missiles in a difficult jamming environment are still cause for concern.

For effective use of antimissiles, a modern radar station is needed, which can detect and track targets, as well as distinguish real missiles or warheads from false targets. Without such surveillance tools, missile defense systems cannot distinguish a real threat from a false one with corresponding consequences. In addition, the radar assigned the task of monitoring the results of the use of antimissiles. Experts believe that without detecting a target’s defeat, GMD complexes can quickly use all available anti-missiles, the number of which leaves much to be desired.

Currently, the United States missile defense system has a network of missile attack warning radar stations. Similar properties exist in California, Alaska, the United Kingdom and Greenland. Ground-based radar stations are complemented by ship-based stations. The existing network of stations is able to efficiently perform its functions, however, some measures need to be taken to improve its performance. In particular, the detection range of objects is limited by the curvature of the Earth, which is why land or sea radars, as well as spacecraft, cannot always correctly determine the type of object detected and the risks associated with it.

SBX project

Back in the nineties, the ABM Agency intended to build nine new X-band ground radars (frequency 8-12 GHz, wavelength 2,5-3,75 cm). The main advantage of using this frequency range is a sufficiently high resolution, which, as expected, will increase the likelihood of correct target identification. By building nine new stations, it was planned to completely cover the Pacific and Atlantic oceans with the review sectors. In the 2002 year, in view of the reduction in the timing of the deployment of new systems, it was decided to abandon the construction of ground stations. Instead, they decided to build one sea-based radar.

The base for a promising floating radar was to be a special port on one of the Aleutian Islands. From there, the station could monitor the activities of the DPRK and other countries in the region. If necessary, it could be transferred to other areas of the world ocean. It is from these ideas that the SBX project, which is now the subject of criticism, emerged.

At the suggestion of the company Boeing, they decided to build a radar of a new type based on the units of the offshore drilling platform. In 2003, such a platform was purchased in Norway and sent to one of the American shipyards. There, the platform was equipped with a power plant, residential and working premises, a set of special equipment and a characteristic spherical antenna cover. The result was a construction about 400 feet long (122 m) and weighing about 50 thousand tons. Previous missile defense agency executives have argued that the SBX service will start before the end of 2005.

In developing the floating station, the SBX did not take into account one crucial point. It was planned to be operated near the Aleutian Islands, in an area with frequent strong winds and strong waves. Because of this, the platform had to be refined. Changing the design and installation of some new objects on the future base cost several tens of millions of dollars and lasted until the autumn of 2007.

The Missile Defense Agency strongly praised the new complex and spoke of its highest characteristics. In particular, it was mentioned that the SBX, while in the Chesapeake Bay, can detect a baseball over San Francisco. However, experts note that due to the curvature of the planet's surface, this ball must be at a height of about 870 miles. This is about 200 miles more than the maximum altitude of intercontinental ballistic missiles. D. Willman cites the words of space engineer S. U. Mead, who claimed that in the real world with intercontinental ballistic missiles, the analogy with a baseball ball does not make sense.

The author of the article The Pentagon's $ 10-billion bet gone bad also mentions the characteristic flaw of the SBX radar in the form of a relatively narrow field of view. This station can monitor a sector just 25 ° wide. Because of this, a sufficiently powerful equipment, in theory capable of performing the assigned tasks, in fact will not be able to detect targets in time. It was assumed that the missile attack warning system would work as follows. Ground radars detect a suspicious object and transmit information about it to the SBX. This station, in turn, is aimed at the target and produces identification. Further, the target data is transmitted to the missile complexes. In a combat situation, when a large number of marks appear on the screens, such a multi-level system may not have time to handle all possible threats.

Thus, the SBX station, located near the Aleutian Islands, cannot cover the entire Pacific Ocean and track missile launches in its area of ​​responsibility. All this does not allow us to consider this radar as a full-fledged element of the missile defense system.

Nevertheless, Ronald T. Kadish, at the beginning of the two thousandth who headed the Missile Defense Agency, argues that the main advantages of the SBX complex are low cost compared to ground stations, as well as the possibility of moving to the required area. In addition, he argues that the SBX has sufficient characteristics to perform the assigned tasks.

Apparently, the leadership of the Pentagon understood the seriousness of the problems associated with the new project. In addition, there was an understanding of the need to use an "intermediate" radar between early detection stations and elements of the GMD complex. To supplement and replace the SBX in 2006 and 2014, two X-band stations were commissioned in Japan and South Korea.

Also in the Los Angeles Times raised the issue of persistent problems with various equipment complex SBX. This system was used in tests of the GMD missile complex. During 2007 testing, some of the radar systems behaved in the wrong way, which led the specialists to develop updated software. Problems were also fixed during the 2010 test of the year, when SBX was used as the only target detection tool. Due to some malfunctions, the station was unable to direct the GBI antimissile on the target, and it was not hit. In June, 2014, SBX found a target and fired a missile at it, but was unable to detect its destruction.

Expensive and useless

A few years ago, the command of the US armed forces became disillusioned with the SBX project. During the years of testing, the radar platform burned tons of fuel for engines and power systems, and various factors influenced the state of the structure and instruments. Back in 2009, it was decided not to send the SBX platform to the shores of the Korean Peninsula to monitor the testing of North Korean missiles. The Pentagon leadership found such a mission too expensive and unnecessary.

In 2011, the SBX radar was handed over to the naval forces. Specialists of the naval forces argued that in order to work effectively in the fleet, it was necessary to modify the complex to meet the existing requirements for marine engineering. However, such work will lead to additional costs of tens of millions of dollars.

At the end of his article D. Willman talks about the current state of the project SBX. The platform with the SBX radar station was built in the middle of the last decade, but so far it has not reached the intended base in the Aleutian Islands. In 2012, the status of the complex was changed to limited test support (“limited test support”). In the 2013 platform, it was transferred to Pearl Harbor, where it remains to this day. The SBX program cost taxpayers 2,2 billion dollars. To perform the tasks previously assigned to the SBX, it is planned to build a new ground-based radar in Alaska. The completion date is 2020 year. Estimated cost is about 1 billion.


As we see, the United States continues to reap the benefits of haste in the construction of a missile defense system. The acceleration of work at the beginning of the last decade made it possible to quickly put on duty several new complexes. However, the adoption was only formal, since the specialists had to continue testing and fine-tuning all new systems. Due to its complexity, all new complexes still do not fully meet the requirements. As a result - the Pentagon is forced to spend money on projects with dubious prospects.

The American journalist from the Los Angeles Times estimated that only four unsuccessful projects, already closed or suspended, resulted in 10 wasting up billions of dollars. In the future, the United States will have to develop the remaining systems and build new ones, which will result in additional costs. It can be assumed that because of all these problems, over the next few years, the United States will have a relatively weak missile defense, which will be able to repel only a few attacks from countries with developing rocket technology. A full-scale nuclear missile strike by Russia and China will not withstand such a system, which is why a large number of warheads will be able to reach their targets. Thus, one can agree with David Hillman: 10 billion dollars were really wasted.

The Pentagon's $ 10-billion article bet gone bad:
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Tatar 174
    Tatar 174 April 17 2015 06: 23
    Their mistakes make life easier for our developers. wink
    We will eventually make it cheaper and more efficient.
    1. Very smart
      Very smart April 17 2015 11: 50
      Quote: Tatar 174
      We will eventually make it cheaper and more efficient.

      I agree with you, colleague. Amerikosov do not have a "smart" (according to Zadornov). All their projects are quite banal and, basically, are based on outdated technical solutions that are varnished with new technologies. All breakthrough ideas were brought to America by people from outside. I will not even mention classic examples such as TV, helicopter, rocket, etc. And now the core of programmers are former Russians, Indians and Chinese. Although the Chinese, it seems to me, take perseverance. And sawing the dough, as it turned out, is not only a favorite Russian game, but also an American one! Although in military production, overhead costs are often officially up to 1000%.
      1. Sirocco
        Sirocco April 17 2015 12: 56
        Quote: Very smart
        I agree with you, colleague. Amerikosov do not have a "smart" (according to Zadornov).

        Do not underestimate the enemy, while there is an information war. We are already accustomed to the fact that when we are praised, it means we are doing something wrong (in the field of security and economics), and when we turn around, then we are on the right track.
        There are no fools in the USA, although I get deja vu in recent political decisions, and US Policies
        I think the main deja vu is the US political elite, but it is like in the early 80s in the USSR, when mainly pensioners were in power, there was no young "blood". In the State Department as in a home for the elderly and insane. request
        1. Very smart
          Very smart April 17 2015 14: 45
          Quote: Sirocco
          Do not underestimate the enemy,

          It seemed to me that we are discussing an article in which 4 specific scientific and technical projects in the field of weapons are considered. And that's all. Where is anyone sitting, whether they are fools or not, what kind of war is going on - this is not a topic of discussion! Do you want to say something specifically about these projects? Or the general development of R&D in the United States? I propose to discuss. And if in the style of the Captain "Obvious" to hang words ... This is not for me - this is in the first-aid post.
          Quote: Sirocco
          as in a nursing home, and demented.
          You know everything and yourself described! request
          And regarding these projects: 1. Obviously, the desire to put forward radar observations closer to the territory of the likely enemy and to place in the ocean ...
          2. It is obvious that a laser gun is placed on an airplane, since atmospheric phenomena completely level its positive qualities when placed on the ground ....
          3. Obviously, the desire to knock out an enemy’s rockets or warheads with a direct kinetic strike is similar to sub-caliber anti-tank shells. Only difficulties arise due to the difference in the speeds of tanks and warheads - warheads are a little faster ....
          4. Obviously, the desire to deliver a large number of striking elements closer to the target. A direct analogy to this is cluster munitions. Only because of the high speed of the target, these elements must get the same, or greater, speed, independently go over and maneuver at the target. Here the slip came out ...
          Do you disagree with Sirocco? recourse
          T.O. in all the proposed works there is no novelty, and the achievement of the goal was planned by technological breakthroughs. It did not work out .... What the mattresses themselves are telling about.
          1. Sirocco
            Sirocco April 18 2015 13: 59
            Quote: Very smart
            It seemed to me,

            When it seems, you need to be baptized.
            Then you do not have a place on this forum, but somewhere on the religious "front".
            I look, you correspond to your nickname, you are very smart, if I am not mistaken then this is a forum for discussions raised by those, if not so what does your phrase mean ???
            Amerikosov do not have "thinking" (according to Zadornov), classic examples such as a TV, helicopter, rocket, etc.
            I think you didn’t notice the log in your own eye, so this is your sir, to the doctors. I see you are admiring yourself, and your "smart" words, comments))))))))))))))))) So you definitely need to go to doctors with a wide specialization, so that you can reduce your megalomania.
            You yourself read your first post, and the post to me ????? Are you just bifurcated sir?
            For you, I repeat that the radio station is on an armored train)))) I think you will understand this quote of mine if you are familiar with this joke.
            And once again I will note my opinion, based on your CAPPY-EXPRESSING quote.
            I agree with you, colleague. Amerikosov do not have a "smart" (according to Zadornov). All of their projects are quite banal and are mainly based on outdated technical solutions,

            You Andryusha with something do not agree with me regarding your quotes ?????
            Or do you disagree with A. V. Suvorov?
            Once again for you. Do not underestimate the enemy.

            And lastly, in the future, your shibkumnye conclusions, send in a personal, Or in a personal one will not appreciate your shybokumnost? )))) I will not communicate with you, you are ignoring.
  2. aszzz888
    aszzz888 April 17 2015 06: 57
    The more Merikatos spend on "dummies", the better up to us.
    We, their budget, do not mind.
    More unnecessary projects! Give merit collapse!
  3. Circuit breaker
    Circuit breaker April 17 2015 07: 53
    In fact, for amers, the cost of the project does not matter - they can always start the printing press and print still killed raccoons. Cost is the second thing. Their new design should look cool, bang loudly or sparkle brightly. In the laboratory. And of course OOOOOO is very expensive. Budgeting in Matrasia takes place on an epic scale as in Raschke. Drank the budget has long become their Olympic discipline. So when they think about creating their next wunderwaffe, many have doubts about the practicality and advisability of its use. And the purpose of creating another bun may be the usual sawing of the people's dough. One story with the Raptor is worth something.

    Py Sy. A cultured person should not say "We are sawing the people's loot." He should say "We are developing nanotechnology"))))
  4. The comment was deleted.
  5. Bongo
    Bongo April 17 2015 08: 36
    Something lately in our media, including on "VO", there have been too many publications in the style: "All American weapons, Mr." and "Sawing attendants in the US Defense Ministry." At the same time, as a rule, they refer to critical articles in the American press. From there, materials are taken about how strong our Army is and how American soldiers who do not have enough diapers are afraid of it. Perhaps it is worth considering what is the purpose of these publications in the American press? Be that as it may, the creation of a mobile missile defense radar is a great achievement that increases the capabilities of missile defense.
    In the satellite image of the SBX radar.
    1. Ascetic
      Ascetic April 17 2015 10: 51
      Quote: Bongo
      Something lately in our media, including on "VO", there have been too many publications in the style: "All American weapons, Mr." and "Sawing attendants in the US Defense Ministry." At the same time, as a rule, they refer to critical articles in the American press. From there, materials are taken about how strong our Army is and how American soldiers who do not have enough diapers are afraid of it. Perhaps it is worth considering what is the purpose of these publications in the American press? Be that as it may, the creation of a mobile missile defense radar is a great achievement that increases the capabilities of missile defense.
      In the satellite image of the SBX radar.

      These are echoes of the information war. Any system has its advantages and, accordingly, vulnerabilities. There is no absolute wunderfaff, and there cannot be. There are two extremes in this information war. On the one hand, there is an active propaganda of "magic" American missiles, radars, airplanes, invincible ji-ai and Israeli "brilliant" developments that have no analogues in the world. The goal, if briefly, is to fight against them is useless and meaningless, because it is better to immediately raise your hands and surrender. A typical representative at VO is Mr. Kaptsov with magical American destroyers and invincible missiles on the one hand and with "kremlyadyami" in power who have ruined everything. On the other hand, we will win all of them. We will fill up with vigorous loaves and the Americans urgently need to buy diapers. The truth naturally lies somewhere in between.
      here there are two approaches. The first. A technical expert or a specialist in operation is always looking for shortcomings and vulnerabilities, evaluates primarily the effectiveness and modernization reserve. Suppose during my service at the complex a lot of complaints and rationalization proposals were filed, many of which were embodied in further developments. For example, incomplete hanging APU on quicksand ..
      The second approach, let's call it the position of the project manager. the task of which is to promote your project by all means while minimizing the dignity of competitors.
      It is this approach that prevails in the media in the main.
      In any case, even the most unsuccessful and expensive project gives invaluable experience to designers and developers and is a catalyst for innovative technologies.
      1. Ascetic
        Ascetic April 17 2015 11: 08
        Recently, there have been reports that Americans are testing a carbon smokescreen on the URO destroyers, which, in their opinion, should successfully protect objects from the impact of low-flying supersonic anti-ship missiles, which the Aegis system cannot cope with. This fog is saturated with carbon particles that absorb radio waves. That's why radar homing heads lose their target and missiles fly by.

        As part of the tests, code-named Pandarra Fog, the missile destroyers Mustin (DDG 89) and Wayne E. Meyer (DDG 108) of the Arleigh Burke type “defended” from cruise missile attacks the Frank Cable submarine base (AS 40), which simulated an aircraft carrier or any or another large warship (universal landing ship, dock landing ship, etc.).

        When RCC was detected by means of special generators, they released puffs of carbon in saturated fog and thereby saved the attacked object from defeat.

        used tools placed on other ships, planes and helicopters. Their radars operating in the frequency ranges used by anti-ship missiles "did not see" the targets in a dense cloud.

        Of course, all this has a bunch of vulnerabilities and shortcomings that lie on the surface, for example, what about the missiles equipped with combined GOS? How will their own radars behave in fog? How will it work not in calm weather, as it was during the tests at Guam, but in a strong wind and storm, rain and snowfall in our northern parts?

        There are many questions. The fact that the Aegis system is vulnerable is known initially, but this does not mean that it is a complete guano and should not be reckoned with. The same can be said about mobile marine radar.
    2. Ricard
      Ricard April 17 2015 22: 13
      Yes, everything is simple, the meat which in which case should believe that they will stop the division of the Abrams in one piece and the F35 will fall themselves, it is easier to send for slaughter. And the fact that such a power as the USSR in arms was catching up, and they always lagged behind the generation, well, why remember, about today's developments that do not correspond at all, it’s better not to mention ...
      1. Was mammoth
        Was mammoth April 17 2015 22: 18
        Quote: Ricard
        Yes, everything is simple, meat ...

        From meat minus
  6. kursk87
    kursk87 April 17 2015 08: 38
    Americans love to put sand in their eyes. Corruption in the field of defense is not worse than ours. Given that the US military budget is the largest in the world, you can only imagine what amounts are deposited in the pockets of US military officials
  7. kosmos1980
    kosmos1980 April 17 2015 08: 45
    The SDI experience taught no one. More precisely someone taught - to cut money. There is one small BUT technology obtained during the development of such systems remain with the mattresses. And even if they are not perfect and not polished somewhere, negative experience is also an experience. And so let them spend, and as in that joke, we will use a pencil in space as usual. tongue
    1. Mother Theresa
      Mother Theresa April 17 2015 13: 06
      There is one small but. US officials do not buy real estate and yachts in Russia.
  8. UzRus
    UzRus April 17 2015 10: 03
    Such a system will not be able to withstand the full-scale nuclear missile strike of Russia and China, because of which a large number of warheads can reach their goals - And cho, someone already has a missile defense system that can protect against a massive missile strike? No one has. Each goes its own way, trial and error. Taking into account the tight deadlines that were set for the development of a missile defense system, and what has been done over these periods, we can say that sufficient success has been achieved. I agree with the above comrade Bongo in the part of publications that shower FSA's achievements in the field of missile defense with impurities.
  9. Dan Slav
    Dan Slav April 17 2015 10: 28
    I wonder what is going on with us?
    What critical articles could we read in our esteemed magazines and newspapers?
    Which of our experts reviewed our super-successful new military equipment buildings?
    Everything is quiet and smooth! They even forgot about Taburetkin. About Vasiliev and grill is not worth it.
    People do business. Very normal. There is an accumulation of experience, elaboration of concepts.
    And what do we have besides polite green men and hidden under the tarpaulin of Almaty? What are we proud of?
    Would you like to read?
    Spending in Russia? But Rogozin, already impressed by the spending on the new cosmodrome, offers just to shoot the embezzlers. Hard workers run away from a construction site, but capital money disappears there. Where and who is pumping them?
    Well, the launch of the cosmodrome is postponed for several years, and it will be prepared for the launch of modern technology, and not outdated Progresses and Unions.
    Probably from there superlight rockets will fly to the stars. While their projects are not yet ready, here you should not hurry with the spaceport!
    And you can and must steal! )
  10. abrakadabre
    abrakadabre April 17 2015 10: 45
    GBI missiles are designed to destroy enemy missiles on a marching flight area. In California, there are now 4 missiles, in Alaska - 26. Destruction of the target is carried out due to kinetic energy with the direct hit of an attacking element.
    Somehow does not grow together. Or I got sick with geography. At what distance is the breeding of warheads possible? Although what am I talking about, Iran and the DPRK do not have multi-unit ICBMs.
    However, the adoption was only formal, as the specialists had to continue testing and refinement of all new systems.
    Everywhere they have it in business.
    At least with the F-35, at least with Windows, at least in a different way - first quickly make a go-but and quickly sell it more expensive, and then patch it for decades, bringing it to a normal product.
    1. Doctorleg
      Doctorleg April 17 2015 11: 27
      The United States is not alone in this. And the matter is not in the state. In the USSR and Russia as well. A classic example is the builders. The main thing is to hand over the house, and there we will finish five years and m. finish
      1. Circuit breaker
        Circuit breaker 17 February 2017 17: 57
        Do not drive the builders!))) The truth is that the ghoul who allowed to build residential buildings from the foam block, you need to break the point
  11. kirgudu
    kirgudu April 17 2015 11: 21
    Much more bucks have been spent on democracy in Ukraine than on these developments. So do not impoverish countries that buy US debt.
  12. voyaka uh
    voyaka uh April 17 2015 11: 43
    The listed projects (3 of 4) are only partially unsuccessful:
    characteristics less conceived. BR laser only
    can be considered unsuccessful. But even that, it is successfully used for less ambitious tasks.
    Kinetic killers are complex but successful development, although not 100%
    effective. But after all, even on an ordinary plane, 2 ZV missiles are launched "for
    reliability ".
  13. Gomunkul
    Gomunkul April 17 2015 12: 53
    The leaders responsible for the creation of new missile defense systems did not fully understand a number of critical issues. As a result, programs appeared that "challenged the laws of physics and economic logic."
    Yes, Chubais - they are everywhere. laughing
  14. Sergey Sitnikov
    Sergey Sitnikov April 17 2015 15: 24
    I even feel sorry for them sometimes - PR, advertising, shows, grandmas in the wind ... have seen enough of Lucas and the whole country have gone to the Jedi!
  15. Generator
    Generator April 17 2015 16: 54
    And what is her detection radius?
  16. sergo1914
    sergo1914 April 17 2015 20: 22
    She could notice the launch of missiles by North Korea, calculate their trajectories, separate the missiles from false targets and give target designation to other elements of missile defense

    One "But".
    The flight time of a North Korean missile to the United States is several times less than the time of the above procedures. Technically, it’s possible. But after the warhead hits the target. Legally, everything is competent. But pointless.