Kinda combines elements of both Tom Sawyer and Uncle Remus.

Good God, this isn't rocket sci... oh, wait.

The mda.mil site doesn't provide detailed test data, so that's not the place to go. BTW, any detailed telemetry data would be, and is, classified.

Yes, homing beacons were used earlier this decade prior to our development of the layered acquisition sensor network that we currently employ. This was a sustainable argument, oh, about 5 years ago. Time to go find another "gotcha".

The majority of my information comes from my personal experience with BMD, both in the AEGIS program and staff duty at a couple of major fleet HQs; I was on site when we shot down the satellite last year. Though now retired from active duty, I continue to work in the field; I welcome well-informed discussions on the subject.

Anyway, you have to wade through a lot of Google searches to pull down the data. It's there, but there is no current, open source, compilation of current test info of which I am aware. Recommend that you search by BMD component (i.e., THAAD, EKV, ABL, etc) as opposed to concept.

Yes, the one you linked that proves the case you were trying to refute but in no way proves your own. THAT report.

I must have missed that part of the report, could you provide an excerpt?
MC's care rests on much of the progress having been made during or after the assembly of the linked report. I haven't had time to wade through the link MC provided.

MC could you provide a more specific link to support your argument to save me some of that wading? Is there one report that gives both results and more data on type of test? The few I have scanned gave some results but no specifics on the tests. Were there homing beacons? How much trajectory info was pre-provided vs calculated after launch etc?

Yes, the one you linked that proves the case you were trying to refute but in no way proves your own. THAT report.

Try again, this time try and prove your own point.

It's especially nice how you blatantly refuse to acknowlede any evidence pointing out how badly misinformed you are on this subject while ignorantly bunkering down with assertations that you are on "the side with all the evidence." How terribly dishonest and pathetic.

The CRS report from 2007 is almost 2 and a half years old and the underlying data (which, btw, is "mixed and ambiguous") is most assuredly much older than that. In fact, I would argue that 90% of the real progress in BMD has been made since 2005.

That strikes me as very convenient. Feel free to back up your statement with some evidence.

As I said earlier, complain about the money and make your case on CBA grounds if you must, but bring a mo' betta' game if you're gonna' criticize technical merit and attempt to re-define "FAILURE."

*shrug*
Actually I'm pretty okay sitting on the side with all the evidence. Wait... no, yeah I'm fine with that.

BTW you are correct about the Apollo timing, I was mistakenly thinking of the span from the first orbital flight to the moon landing.

You keep bringing up the FAILURE with no proof other than what you alone know and some report that in no way refuted the assertion you were trying to refute. THAT'S a "FAILURE."

"Some report"? You mean the report by the Congressional Research Service for congress that summed up the advances made (or in this case not made) by two decades of work on the Missile Defense program? Is that the report you mean?

Well, you know, actually that seems like kind of substantial support for my argument. By the way, where's the supporting evidence of yours that you seem to feel out weighs it? I seem to have missed it.

Actually, and more accurately, PATRIOT is one component of the Terminal Phase Defense element of BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE. It provides for point defense of high value targets (i.e., population centers, critical infrastructure and military installations, etc). This TPD role is essentially the same in both National (U.S.) and Theater (forward deployed) defense roles.

Please, look it up. In the interest of "intellectual honesty" and all that.

Okay I looked, and I couldn't find anything that backed up what you said. You should probably provide some support links.

The CRS report from 2007 is almost 2 and a half years old and the underlying data (which, btw, is "mixed and ambiguous") is most assuredly much older than that. In fact, I would argue that 90% of the real progress in BMD has been made since 2005. One year, at best, of this significant progress was captured in the 2007 CRS report. The shootdown of the Russian satellite last year by a sea-based SM-3 is one example of undocumented progress.

Multiple, successful tests in all phases (Boost, Mid-course and Terminal) of BMD. We continue to refine both solutions and products.

Progress is rarely ever linear in nature, as technological breakthroughs allow for exponential advances. So it was with manned flight and the development of the atomic bomb. So it is with BMD.

As I said earlier, complain about the money and make your case on CBA grounds if you must, but bring a mo' betta' game if you're gonna' criticize technical merit and attempt to re-define "FAILURE."

Actually, it was only 4 years ('65-'69) from Ed White to Neil Armstrong.

You're welcome.

The commenter you were replying to said the tests had failures in "2004 or 2005" and there had been more recent tests that were successful. You cited a report that was RELEASED in JANUARY 2007. Which more than likely used a lot of the 2004-2005 data, along with some 2006 data, depending on when the drafts were completed. Hence, it was a report that AT BEST proved the commenters admission about failures and did nothing to address his assertion that more recent tests have been a success.

"They're nothing to brag about. But again here's a program where it has worked sometimes in the real world, maybe not enough. We can hash out the cost vs benefit."

They've actually gone through the testing phase and made it TO the real world, how long did that take? How much was spent? You do realize that their objectiven is much easier to achieve, right? Progress has been made and the program has has successes, so it continues. In your own words "[w]e can hash out the cost vs benefit." If you don't like the outsome of that discussion, TS.

You keep bringing up the FAILURE with no proof other than what you alone know and some report that in no way refuted the assertion you were trying to refute. THAT'S a "FAILURE."

And we all noted the complete lack of any comment on the article I linked that actully makes my case, as in the program has worked successfully. You can argue that its not as successful as it should be for the money, but not that it's a FAILURE. Well, not and be intellectually honest.

Actually, and more accurately, PATRIOT is one component of the Terminal Phase Defense element of BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE. It provides for point defense of high value targets (i.e., population centers, critical infrastructure and military installations, etc). This TPD role is essentially the same in both National (U.S.) and Theater (forward deployed) defense roles.

Please, look it up. In the interest of "intellectual honesty" and all that.

"This is really one of those times you should have kept the mouth shut and merely been thought a fool."

Touche', my condescending friend.

You speak in absolutes ("Actually it's a FAILURE in all caps," remember?), yet the report that you cite: "The data on the U.S. flight test effort to develop a national missile defense (NMD) system is mixed and ambiguous" is, well, ambiguous.

Where is the "FAILURE" in that?

The failure is that this isn't a 6 month report on a test program. After two decades and 100 billion dollars the evaluation is "mixed and ambiguous." That most definitely equals fail unless you plan to give the project several centuries to really get up to speed.

Actually, it was a RAF Tornado F/B and that incident was ultimately attributed to an IFF failure on the British plane. This isn't any where near a legitimate indictment of the PATRIOT missile or it's point ballistic missile defense capabilities; It had a near-perfect kill record against Iraqi SRBMs during OIF.

Neat.