Bill Nourse, manager of the Extended Area Protection and Survivability Program, explains the concept behind an interceptor missile to John McHugh, secretary of the Army; John Rogers, civilian aide to the secretary of the Army; Gen. Ann Dunwoody, commander of Army Materiel Command; and Steve Cornelius, director for Missile Development, AMRDEC. Nourse holds in his hand the system's interceptor bullet, which is designed to be compact and lightweight. (Source: Army)
This technology seems like it could really save a lot of lives. Heartening to hear that initial tests show it hits its mark. What's the time gap between subsequent rounds of testing and when it can actually hit the battlefield?
Elizabeth, this is an amazing feat. I worked on SDI many years ago and we were developing technology like this to intercept ICBMs. The fact that such small and extensive systems can be developed to protect from things like artillery shells is truly taking that technology to the next level.
Come to think of it, if we can do this, maybe SDI is not such a stretch after all.
1999 - Mars Climate Orbiter lost because of a metric / US units mixup.
2003 - NOAA N-Prime weathe satellite dropped because one team borrowed retaining bolts without telling the other.
2011 - F22 Raptor pilots losing consciousness due to an as yet repaired oxygen generator problem.
What do these three things have in common?
Lockheed Martin and its culture of lack of procedural discipline. The first two incidents should NEVER have occurred. It will be interesting to learn what is really wrong with the F22 oxygen generators.
The company has a history that they can't seem to shake, and it costs taxpayers. I want this rocket intercept system to work; it's a bloody good concept. But I don't want design bugs fixed when the Army purchases the next upgrade.
"Bloody typical. They've gone back to metric without telling us." I think of this quote from Bob Hoskins' character from the 1985 movie Brazil every time I see Lockeed Martin in a headline now. They've earned it.
The headline and lead paragraph are somewhat misleading. The rest of the article explains that the targets hit so far are theoretical and programmatic. They haven't actually launched any ordnance yet. SDI is pretty old school by now but I'm sure that looked good in simulation too. The proof comes when you have an actual missile in the air and the system shoots it down. Somebody else said that we're talking smaller distances but we're also talking about smaller targets and maybe higher speeds.
Artillery ammunition isn't currently that sophisticated.It is unlikely that an adversary would waste time trying on-projectile counter measures as any additional payload would require a reduction in warhead size. Ultimately an arms race in this niche would result in expensive artillery rounds that were less effective than they were originally - a win-win for us!
Yes, if you read the article it has only been successful as a simulation. Until real-life targets and real-life countermeasures work it is still pie-in-the-sky. And collateral damage has to be zero = no non-targets destroyed. It's too early for the posted enthusiasm.
Closing speed in this application is an order of magnitude less than BMD (the current progeny of SDI), and BMD has proven fairly successful.
Current systems like the CIWS can detect, track, and intercept artillery rounds with unguided 20mm DU or tungsten rounds.Although it shoots 3000 rnds/min to accomplish the task, this new system uses a guided interceptor to reduce the amount of ammo expended for defense.
Lock Mart has had some issues in other areas in the past, but also a long line of successes in the missile realm (PAC-3, THAAD, ATACMS, GMLRS, Hellfire...).Although it is ballistically launched, a guided weapon is a guided weapon.
In many engineering workplaces, there’s a generational conflict between recent engineering graduates and older, more experienced engineers. However, a recent study published in the psychology journal Cognition suggests that both may have something to learn from another group: 4 year olds.
Conventional wisdom holds that MIT, Cal Tech, and Stanford are three of the country’s best undergraduate engineering schools. Unfortunately, when conventional wisdom visits the topic of best engineering schools, it too often leaves out some of the most distinguished programs that don’t happen to offer PhD-level degrees.
Focus on Fundamentals consists of 45-minute on-line classes that cover a host of technologies. You learn without leaving the comfort of your desk. All classes are taught by subject-matter experts and all are archived. So if you can't attend live, attend at your convenience.