Government

‘It’s a Kill Vehicle’: Pentagon Completes Successful Ballistic Missile Interceptor Test

U.S. Missile Defense Agency Successfully Took Out Test Missile With Interceptor

A Standard Missile – 3 (SM-3) Block 1B interceptor was launched from the USS LAKE ERIE during a Missile Defense Agency test and successfully intercepted a ballistic missile. (Photo: Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense/DOD)

HONOLULU (The Blaze/AP) — The military shot down a short-range ballistic missile off Hawaii with a new, more sensitive interceptor missile.

The Missile Defense Agency says the USS Lake Erie detected and tracked the short-range missile launched from the Pacific Missile Range Facility on Kauai on Wednesday night.

The Pearl Harbor-based guided missile cruiser then fired the interceptor, which took out the missile. Watch the interceptor launch from multiple views in this footage:

The agency says the new interceptor has a two-color infrared seeker, which allows it to detect targets further away.

The agency says the test was the 22nd time its Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense system, which is operated from ships, has successfully intercepted a target. The Aegis program has attempted intercepts 27 times.

Wired’s Danger Room has more details about the interceptor and its successful test from its manufacturer Raytheon:

“The [interceptor] does not have a warhead. It’s a kill vehicle, and it maneuvers into the path of the threat, and the threat is destroyed by the kinetic energy of the impact,” Wes Kremer, vice president of Air and Missile Defense Systems for Raytheon, told Danger Room. “So there’s no warhead, it can’t be a near miss, and then it blows up; so it’s literally a skin-to-skin contact between the kill vehicle and the target.”

But an open question is whether interceptor, called the Standard Missile-3 Block 1B, could have made contact with the missile’s warhead. Skeptics of the Block 1B’s predecessor, the Block 1A, raised concerns several years ago that by striking the body of incoming missiles and not the warheads, the missiles might remain intact and continue on their way to impact. In other words, the interceptor could (potentially) blast a hole through the missile’s body so fast, the missile wouldn’t even notice. Either way, wherever the interceptor hit Wednesday’s test missile didn’t seem to matter. “We know precisely where it hit,” Kremer said “I can’t go into details other than to say it was a lethal intercept.”

With the recent success of this test, which Wired reports was a repeat of a failed test in September, Kremer said it is on track to “deploy this in time for 2015.”

Wired also points out that the technology of this interceptor is good enough to take out medium-range missiles but not necessarily intercontinental ballistic missiles. It also is designed to hit missiles mid-course, not during take off or just before hitting their target.

Two more tests of this interceptor are planned for later this year.

Comments (19)

  • Sniper48
    Posted on May 14, 2012 at 3:20am

    Great missle, but Obama‘s handlers won’t allow him to use it to defend America.

    Report Post »  
  • lukerw
    Posted on May 11, 2012 at 3:47pm

    When you do the Math: It looks Impossible… unless you are monitoring every variable of the incoming object!

    Report Post » lukerw  
    • judyaz
      Posted on May 12, 2012 at 11:52am

      Remember, we’ve had guided missiles and bombs a long time that you just key in the target and it seeks and finds it no matter how it flies with diversions. Once the target has been programmed in by a pilot, for instance, the sensor-bearing bomb just finds its target, and probably recognizes when to detonate automatically. No problem.

      Report Post » judyaz  
  • RedDirtTexas
    Posted on May 11, 2012 at 12:12pm

    North Korea says “curses, foiled again by sneaky round eye Americans”! Iran says “Dang!”

    Report Post » RedDirtTexas  
  • FromSeaToSea
    Posted on May 11, 2012 at 12:10pm

    NATO ARMIES MASSED ON THE SYRIAN BORDER —– one question ………why?

    To The UN! To The US! Why do we need to kill more people in their sovereign nations?

    When You look at Your present and past President, You are looking at MASS MURDERERS. No different than Hitler.

    As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice. Adolf Hitler

    I believe today that my conduct is in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator. Adolf Hitler

    In 1996 “Lesley Stahl asked the previous U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Madeleine Albright about the half million Iraqi children that died. … “That is more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it?” Albright answered: “I think this is a very hard choice, but the price, we think the price is worth it. [i]“THE PRICE IS WORTH IT?” Killing other people’s children should certainly provoke outrage and compassion. Apparently Albright and Powell, who were not concerned with civilian body counts, have much in common.” [ii] In 1998, Albright said: “I am willing to make a bet to anyone here that we care more about the Iraqi people than Saddam Hussein does.”

    Report Post »  
  • raderby
    Posted on May 11, 2012 at 11:33am

    Aegis- hmmm- wasn’t there an episode of NCIS that centered around a missile systems called that?

    Putin wants to bully people, and a missile shield to protect our new friends in Eastern Europe blocks him…… Go ahead, America, vote our dear leader in for another 4 years- high gas prices and no employment is the least of our worries, as king Zero sells the USA out to Putin. Watch for Georgia and Ukraine to be invaded in some way this year by Putin.

    Report Post » raderby  
  • mtorres20
    Posted on May 11, 2012 at 11:31am

    Liberals like playing victims and want all of us to be victims of their insanity.

    Report Post » mtorres20  
  • flsnipe
    Posted on May 11, 2012 at 11:26am

    Thank Ron its all from SDI

    Report Post » flsnipe  
  • tzion
    Posted on May 11, 2012 at 10:42am

    And now you understand why Putin is so upset by the Aegis Ashore program to place ground-based versions of these missiles in eastern European countries. Unlike what comes out of communist Russia, these missiles actually work. There’s a very good reason why Aegis radar systems are used on US naval vessels.

    Report Post »  
  • Henrys_Ghost
    Posted on May 11, 2012 at 10:21am

    Oh and Go Navy!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Report Post » Henrys_Ghost  
  • sndrman
    Posted on May 11, 2012 at 10:14am

    and they called Reagan a dunce. this can be traced directly back to star wars where we would have the ability to knock down or blow up incoming russian missiles. but now-a-days it would be north korean,iranian russia and the rest of our enemies….correction the socialist media told us that the world hated us because of Bush and if we elected O’kenyan we would once again be loved by the world(hasn‘t happened yet and it won’t) as long as we are AMERICA there are people or countries who are jealous or envious and not to mention liberals who hate success unless it’s theirs…

    Report Post »  
    • Gonzo
      Posted on May 11, 2012 at 10:26am

      Yes, they mocked the Gipper unapologetically for years over “Star Wars”. They were as forward thinkng then as they are today.

      Report Post » Gonzo  
    • JRook
      Posted on May 11, 2012 at 10:29am

      Right and history shows us how accurate and credible the Russian missile threat was. This plain and simple all about Guns or Butter. And the wealthy and our military decided after JFK that Guns were much more profitable than Butter. It’s not because of Bush it is because of our 60 years of fabricating wars that support the our continued overspending on the military. Ron Paul has it right.

      Report Post »  
    • Gonzo
      Posted on May 11, 2012 at 11:02am

      So, you maintain the there was no missile threat from the Soviets?

      Report Post » Gonzo  
  • Walkabout
    Posted on May 11, 2012 at 9:56am

    “the missiles might remain intact and continue on their way to impact. In other words, the interceptor could (potentially) blast a hole through the missile’s body so fast, the missile wouldn’t even not”

    Getting hit has got to change its’ course some. Better an incoming nuke hit miles & miles from a city than city center unless someone is going to cry there is nothing we can do as the wring their hands yet again.

    Report Post »  
    • Henrys_Ghost
      Posted on May 11, 2012 at 10:20am

      Most missiles bodies contain their fuel supply, whether it is solid or liquid propellant. If you “pierce” one with a fast moving projectile like oh another missile,( and a rather large one at that) I would think it would have at least some effect on the rest of its trajectory if not result in the termination of its planned flight.

      Not to mention if the fuel supply, solid or liquid, while in hte process of being used is essentially under an extreme amount of pressure, a penetration, however slight will result in catastrophic flight failure. See Shuttle solid rocket failure for an example.

      Report Post » Henrys_Ghost  
    • Walkabout
      Posted on May 11, 2012 at 1:44pm

      Henrys_Ghost

      You explained it better than I did.

      I just had to speak up because detractors pretend that a hit of anything but the warhead is the same as a miss.

      Report Post »  
  • Gonzo
    Posted on May 11, 2012 at 9:52am

    When sequestration kicks in, we won’t be able to afford them.

    Report Post » Gonzo  

Sign In To Post Comments! Sign In

Sign Up For Our Newsletter!

Glenn Beck Radio

Listen to Glenn Beck 24/7 Listen Now
Restoring Love