Ground-Based Midcourse Defense

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Template:Short description Template:DMCA Template:DMCA

File:OBV GBI 1.jpg
A Ground-Based Interceptor loaded into a silo at Fort Greely, Alaska in July 2004.

Ground-Based Midcourse Defense (GMD), previously National Missile Defense (NMD), is an anti-ballistic missile system implemented by the United States of America for defense against ballistic missiles, during the midcourse phase of ballistic trajectory flight. It is a major component of the American missile defense strategy to counter ballistic missiles, including intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) carrying nuclear, chemical, biological or conventional warheads.[1]

As of 2018, the system is composed of two interceptor staging bases in the states of Alaska and California, with 40 staged in the former, 4 staged in the latter, for a total of 44 interceptors, as well as the component early warning and targeting sensors based on land, sea, and in orbit.[2][3] As of 2019, a Missile Defense Review has requested 20 additional interceptors to be based in Fort Greely, Alaska, though their delivery has not materialized.[4]

GMD is administered by the U.S. Missile Defense Agency (MDA), while operational control is provided by the U.S. Army, with support functions provided by the U.S. Air Force and U.S. Space Force.

Background

Script error: No such module "Labelled list hatnote". GMD after its renaming in 2002 remains a limited defense system, intended to protect the continental United States from limited launches of ballistic missiles.[5] Examples given in the past have included countries such as North Korea.[6]

GMD has undergone some controversy over its operational lifetime, such as with a study in 2000 by the Union of Concerned Scientists and the Security Studies Program at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology concluding that "[a]ny country capable of deploying a long-range missile would also be able to deploy countermeasures that would defeat the planned NMD system." Countermeasures studied in detail were bomblets containing biological or chemical agents, aluminized balloons to serve as decoys and to disguise warheads, and cooling warheads to reduce the kill vehicle's ability to detect them.[7] Currently, the Union of Concerned Scientists maintains that GMD is "unproven, unaccountable, and unhelpful for reducing the nuclear threat."[8]

More recently, questions have been asked about the Pentagon characterizing the January 28 test in 2016 as a success, when LA Times reported that the EKV suffered a fault in its reaction control system thrusters, which resulted in "a distance 20 times greater than what was expected" according to an anonymous Pentagon scientist.[9]

Under the Missile Defense Agency, GMD has conducted multiple test exercises, with mixed results. Early testing revealed deficiencies in the Ground Based Interceptor missile, as well as the Exoatmospheric Kill Vehicle. However, with time, success rates increased, marred by the occasional technical failure such as in 2010's FTG-06 (Flight Test Ground-Based Interceptor) where the Sea-based X Band Radar failed to perform as expected,[10] and the subsequent FTG-06a where despite all elements performing correctly, intercept failed to occur.[11]

Description

File:Exoatmospheric Kill Vehicle prototype.jpg
Prototype of the Exoatmospheric Kill Vehicle
File:X band radar platform entering Pearl on Heavy lift Marlin.jpg
Sea-based X-band Radar platform arriving in Pearl Harbor in January 2006.

GMD is tied into existing United States missile warning infrastructure, as well as purpose-built radar sites. It also encompasses 44 ground-based missile interceptors housed at two military bases.

Boeing Defense, Space & Security is the prime contractor of the program, tasked to oversee and integrate systems from other major defense sub-contractors, such as Computer Sciences Corporation and Raytheon.

The key sub-systems of the GMD system are:

Interceptor sites are at Fort Greely, Alaska[12][13][14] and Vandenberg Space Force Base, California. A third site was planned for a proposed US missile defense complex in Poland,[15] but was canceled in September 2009.

In late 2013, there were plans for a proposed Eastern United States site to house a battery of these missiles.[16] Four sites were shortlisted in January 2014 for an East Coast site - SERE Remote Training Site in Maine (Rangeley), Fort Drum in New York, Camp James A. Garfield in Ohio, and Fort Custer Training Center in Michigan. Camp Ethan Allen Training Site in Vermont was dropped from consideration in late 2013.[17]

In January 2014 the Pentagon announced they were starting a two-year environmental impact study under the 2013 defense authorization bill, which required two missile-defense sites to be identified on the East Coast.[17] The CBO has estimated that a site would cost US$3.5bn.[17]

In June 2019, Fort Drum in New York was chosen as the location for the potential East Coast missile defense site.[18]

In December 2008, the U.S. Missile Defense Agency awarded Boeing a $397.9 million contract to continue development of the program.[19]

In March 2013, the Obama administration announced plans to add 14 interceptors to the current 26 at Fort Greely in response to North Korean threats.[20] The deployment of a second TPY-2 radar to Japan was announced at the same time.[21] While President Obama said that the additional deployment was a hedge against unexpected capabilities, Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs spokesman Hong Lei complained that the additional defenses would affect the global strategic balance and strategic trust.[22]

On 30 April 2014, the Government Accountability Office issued a report stating that the system may not be operational any time soon because "its development was flawed". It said the GBI missile was at that point "capable of intercepting a simple threat in a limited way".[23] On 12 August 2015, Lt. General David L. Mann (commanding general USASMDC/ARSTRAT) characterized GMD as the nation's only ground-based defense against limited ICBM attacks.[23]

Issues with the EKV prompted the MDA to work with Raytheon, Boeing, and Lockheed Martin on a new Redesigned Kill Vehicle (RKV), scheduled to debut in 2025.[24] In 2019, the government issued a stop work order for the RKV after recent test results indicated that the current RKV plan is not viable. The government "initiated an analysis of alternative courses of action";[25] on 21 August the MDA cancelled the $5.8 billion contract for the RKV.[26] This initiates new work on bids for the successor to the Exo-Atmospheric Kill Vehicle (EKV) to 2025.[26][27] The current GMD programs continue per plan, with up to 64 GBIs (meaning an additional 20) in the missile fields for 2019.[28]

Program costs

Expenditures on the Ground-Based Midcourse Defense program were estimated to be US$30.7 billion by 2007.[29] In 2013, it was estimated that the program would cost $40.926 billion from inception through fiscal year 2017; in 2013–17 spending was to total $4.46 billion, an average of $892 million per year.[30]

Flight tests

File:Ground-Based Interceptor Successful Test 2019.webp
A US Exoatmospheric Kill Vehicle from a Ground-Based Interceptor missile destroys a high-altitude target, 2019
BV: Booster Verification Test
CMCM: Critical Measurements and Countermeasures
CTV: Control Test Vehicle
FTG: Flight Test Ground-Based Interceptor
FTX: Flight Test Other[31]
IFT: Integrated Flight Test

Intercept tests

After the FTG-12 test on 11 December 2023, 12 of the 21 (57%) hit-to-kill intercept tests have succeeded. No flight intercept tests from 2010 to 2013 were successful.[32] In response the Pentagon asked for a budget increase and another test for the fielded program.[33] The successful intercept FTG-15 was accomplished by an operational team of the 100th Missile Defense Brigade using their standard operating procedures (round-the-clock 24/7).[34] Although they knew in advance that there would be a test launch, they did not know exactly when it would occur or its exact nature.[34]

Name date Result Description[35][36][37]
IFT-3 Template:Dts Template:Success This was an element test of the EKV that relied on a surrogate booster vehicle. Because the Inertial Measurement Unit malfunctioned, the EKV used a backup acquisition mode to acquire the target.
IFT-4 Template:Dts Failure This was the first end-to-end system test, again relying on a surrogate booster vehicle. The test was designed to target a mock warhead, transmitting its location by GPS, and ignore a single large decoy balloon. The failure to intercept was traced to an obstructed cooling line on the EKV that disrupted the IR sensors' ability to cool down to their operating temperatures in time, leaving the EKV unable to detect its target.
IFT-5 Template:Dts Failure This was the second end-to-end system test. The test was designed to target a mock warhead, transmitting its location by C-band, and ignore a single large decoy balloon. The failure to intercept occurred because the EKV did not separate from the boost vehicle due to an apparent failure of the 1553 data bus in the booster.
IFT-6 Template:Dts Template:Success This test repeated IFT-5. The prototype X-Band radar falsely reported a missed target but was confirmed by a satellite, jet, and ground stations.
IFT-7 Template:Dts Template:Success This test repeated IFT-6 except that the target booster used Orbital's Target Launch Vehicle instead of Lockheed Martin's Multi-Service Launch System.
IFT-8 Template:Dts Template:Success The test was designed to target a mock warhead, transmitting its location by C-band, and ignore both a large decoy balloon and two small decoy balloons.
IFT-9 Template:Dts Template:Success Twice delayed from August, this was the first test to use the Aegis SPY-1 radar, although it was not used to achieve the intercept. After the classification of decoys since May 2002, no information is known on their details.
IFT-10 Template:Dts Failure The failure to intercept occurred because the EKV did not separate from the boost vehicle because a pin broke that should have activated a laser to release the boost vehicle's restraining units.
IFT-13C Template:Dts Failure Delayed several times from December 2003 due to bad circuitry, this test was designed to use the Orbital Sciences booster from Kwajalein to hit a target from Kodiak, Alaska. The target flew as planned but the booster failed to leave the ground. The failure was traced to a software problem on the 1553 communications data bus, which may be incapable of processing messages at a rate that is fast enough for the GMD system to work effectively.
IFT-14 Template:Dts Failure This test repeated IFT-13C, with a booster from Kwajalein designed to hit a target from Kodiak, Alaska. Again, the target flew as planned but the booster failed to leave the ground. The failure was traced to the arms that hold the interceptor up in the silo. When they failed to fully retract, the launch was automatically aborted.
FTG-02 Template:Dts Template:Success This test involved the first ground-based interceptor launched from Vandenberg Air Force Base to intercept a "threat-representative" target from Kodiak, Alaska. This was the first time that operational radar was used to capture targeting information. Not officially an intercept test, this was originally designed to collect data on the phenomenology of the intercept and act as a radar certification test. No decoys were used.[38]
FTG-03 Template:Dts Failure With the same setup as FTG-02, the test target flew off-course and an intercept did not occur.
FTG-03A Template:Dts Template:Success This test was scheduled in response to the failure of FTG-03, this time with a successful intercept.
FTG-05 Template:Dts Template:Success This test launched a threat-representative mock warhead from Kodiak Launch Complex, Alaska followed by a Ground-Based Interceptor from Vandenberg AFB. All components performed as designed.[39]
FTG-06 Template:Dts Failure This test was to be the first to assess both a CE-II EKV and a complex target scene and the first test to use a newly developed FTF LV-2 target.[40] While the target missile and interceptor launched and performed nominally, the Sea Based X-Band Radar did not perform as expected, and an investigation will explain the failure to intercept.[10]
FTG-06a Template:Dts Failure This test was similar to FTG-06, over a distance of 4,200 miles.[41] While the Sea Based X-Band radar and all sensors performed as planned, the test was unable to achieve the planned intercept of a ballistic missile target.[11]
FTG-07 Template:Dts Failure[42][43] This intercept test used an improved CE-I EKV.[44]
FTG-06b Template:Dts Template:Success[45] This test is designed to demonstrate an intercept and meet the unmet objectives of FTG-06a.[36][44]
FTG-15 Template:Dts Template:Success[46] The test involved the new CE-II Block-I version of the EKV, which executed a direct collision with the ICBM target.[47][48][49]
FTG-11 25 Mar 2019 Template:Success[50] This test used two interceptors,[51] one to crash into a dummy target representing an incoming ICBM and another to use sensors to detect another ICBM or other countermeasures.[52][53]
FTG-12 11 Dec 2023 Template:Success[54] This test used a CE-II EKV and was the first test of a three-stage GBI operating in a two-stage mode—releasing its kill vehicle earlier by not igniting the GBI's third stage.[54] It was launched from Vandenberg Space Force Base and successfully intercepted an IRBM deployed from a C-17 aircraft over the Pacific Ocean.[55]

Non-intercept tests

Name date Result Description[35][56][57]
IFT-1A Template:Dts Template:Success This test allowed the program to assess the Boeing EKV seeker's ability to collect target phenomenological data, and evaluate target modeling and discrimination algorithms for a cluster of 10 objects.
IFT-2 Template:Dts Template:Success This test allowed the program to assess the Raytheon EKV seeker's ability to collect target phenomenological data, and evaluate target modeling and discrimination algorithms for a cluster of 10 objects. As a result, Raytheon was selected over Boeing and was awarded the EKV contract.
BV-1 Template:Dts Template:Success This was a ground test to certify the procedures that lead to an actual flight test, including all ground and safety checks as well as launch and safety steps. The missile was not launched.
BV-2 Template:Dts Template:Success This was a flight test of three-stage Boeing Booster Vehicle with a mass-simulated kill vehicle payload. An anomaly occurred in the first-stage vehicle roll control, but the second- and third-stage motors performed normally.
BV-3 Template:Dts Failure This flight test resulted in failure when the Boeing Booster Vehicle steered off course 30 seconds after launch and was then ordered to self-destruct off the coast of California.
BV-6 Template:Dts Template:Success This was a flight test of the three-stage Orbital Sciences Booster Vehicle with a mass-simulated kill vehicle payload. The launch from Vandenberg Air Force Base proceeded normally over the Pacific Ocean.
BV-5 Template:Dts Failure This flight test of the Lockheed Martin Booster Vehicle with a mass-simulated kill vehicle payload resulted in failure due to an apparent power drop that prevented the mock EKV from separating from the booster. The flight was delayed by the third-stage rocket motor's circuit boards.
IFT-13B Template:Dts Template:Success This was a system-level test of the Orbital Sciences booster carrying a simulated EKV from Kwajalein Atoll against a simulated target from Vandenberg AFB in California.
Medium-range air-launch target Template:Dts Template:Success This test featured a C-17 dropping a medium-range target from its rear, 800 miles (1,300 km) northwest of the Pacific Missile Range Facility in Hawaii.
CMCM-1A/FT 04-2A Template:Dts Template:Success This test was the first of two medium-range target vehicles.
CMCM-1B/FT 04-2B Template:Dts Template:Success This test was the second of two medium-range target vehicles.[58]
FT 04-5/FTG 04-5 Template:Dts Template:Success This test was an apparent variant of IFT-19 and featured an air-launched long-range target tracked by Cobra Dane radar.
FT-1 Template:Dts Template:Success Originally designed as IFT-13A, this test featured an interceptor missile from the Ronald Reagan test site in the Marshall Islands to hit a target from Kodiak, Alaska. The operationally configured warhead and its booster left the ground successfully.
FTX-01/FT 04-1 Template:Dts Template:Success Originally designed as IFT-16, then changed to a radar characterization flight test as IFT-16A, then FT 04-1, then FTX-01. This test incorporated radar and targets testing.
CMCM-2B/FTC-02B Template:Dts Template:Success This test was a radar certification flight and featured a missile system powered by a two-stage SR-19 rocket flown from the Kauai Test Facility in the Pacific Missile Range Facility. The payload included complex countermeasures, a mock reentry vehicle, and on-board sensor package.
CMCM-2A/FTC-02A Template:Dts Template:Success This test repeated FTC-02B to test its radars in the Pacific Missile Range Facility in Hawaii against a target missile that carried countermeasures, a mock warhead, and an on-board sensor package.
FTX-02 Template:Dts Template:Partial success This test of the Sea-Based X-Band Radar revealed "anomalous behavior", and demonstrated a need for software modifications to improve performance.
FTX-03 Template:Dts Template:Success This test demonstrated the integration of missile defense sensors to support an interceptor engagement. This revealed the success of the Sea-Based X-Band Radar to be used in future missions.[59]
BVT-01 Template:Dts Template:Success A two-stage Ground-Based Interceptor successfully launched from Vandenberg Air Force Base, and after separating from the second-stage booster, the exoatmospheric kill vehicle executed a variety of maneuvers to collect data to further prove its performance in space. All components performed as designed.[60]
GM CTV-01 Template:Dts Template:Success The three-stage booster deployed the Exoatmospheric Kill Vehicle to a point in space and executed a variety of pre-planned maneuvers to collect performance data. Initial indications are that all components performed as designed.[36][61]
GM CTV-02 Template:Dts Failure A long-range ground-based interceptor was launched from Vandenberg Air Force Base to evaluate performance of alternate divert thrusters for the system's Exoatmospheric Kill Vehicle. The test had planned for the interceptor to fly within a narrow "miss distance" of its target to test the new thrusters' effectiveness. The U.S. military initially stated the test had been a success.[62]

But the closest the interceptor came to the target was a distance 20 times greater than what was expected. One of the four thrusters stopped working during the maneuvers, and the interceptor peeled away from its intended course, according to the Pentagon scientists. One of them said the thruster remained inoperable through the final, "homing phase" of the test, when the kill vehicle was supposed to make a close fly-by of the target.[63] MDA acknowledged that a problem surfaced during 28 January exercise: "There was an observation unrelated to the new thruster hardware that has been investigated and successfully root-caused," the agency said in a written response to questions. "Any necessary corrective actions will be taken for the next flight test."[63]

Canceled tests

Throughout the program's history, multiple test flights have been canceled, including BV-4, IFT-11, −12, −13, −13A, −15, FTC-03, and, most recently, FTG-04.[64][65]

Estimated effectiveness

The system has a "single shot probability of kill" of its interceptors calculated at 56%,[2] with the claimed total probability of intercepting a single target, if four interceptors are launched, at 97%.[2] Each interceptor costs approximately $75 million.[2]

The claim of "97% kill probability" has been dismissed by some experts as a flawed application of basic statistical methods. Said James M. Acton, co-director of the Nuclear Policy Program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, "It assumes that the failure modes of the interceptors are independent of one another. But, in practice, if one interceptor fails because of a design flaw, say, it's much more likely that others will do so too for the same reason."[66]

See also

References

Page Template:Reflist/styles.css has no content.

  1. ^ Page Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css has no content."MDA - The Ballistic Missile Defense System". www.mda.mil. Retrieved 14 April 2024.
  2. ^ a b c d Page Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css has no content."There is no guaranteed defence against ballistic missiles—yet". The Economist. Retrieved 28 January 2018.
  3. ^ Page Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css has no content."Ground-based Midcourse Defense (GMD) System". Missile Threat.
  4. ^ Page Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css has no content."President Trump's Plans to Boost Missile Defense Could Spark Arms Race". Time. 17 January 2019. Retrieved 18 January 2019.
  5. ^ Page Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css has no content."Ground-based Midcourse Defense (GMD) System". Missile Threat. Retrieved 14 April 2024.
  6. ^ Page Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css has no content.Vergun, David (19 April 2023). "Official Discusses Steps to Deter, Defeat Missile Threats". U.S. Department of Defense. Retrieved 9 May 2025.
  7. ^ Union of Concerned Scientists/MIT Security Studies Program. Countermeasures: A Technical Evaluation of the Operational Effectiveness of the Planned U.S. National Missile Defense System(Executive Summary and full text) Script error: No such module "webarchive".(PDF). UCS-MIT Study, A.M. Sessler (Chair of the Study Group), J.M. Cornwall, R. Dietz, S.A. Fetter, S. Frankel, R.L. Garwin, K. Gottfried, L. Gronlund, G.N. Lewis, T.A. Postol, and D.C. Wright, April 2000.
  8. ^ Page Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css has no content."US Missile Defense | Union of Concerned Scientists". www.ucsusa.org. Retrieved 14 April 2024.
  9. ^ Page Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css has no content.Willman, David (6 July 2016). "A test of America's homeland missile defense system found a problem. Why did the Pentagon call it a success?". www.latimes.com. Retrieved 14 April 2024.
  10. ^ a b Page Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css has no content."Missile Defense Test Conducted". Missile Defense Agency. 31 January 2010. Retrieved 18 January 2019.
  11. ^ a b Page Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css has no content."Draft Environmental Assessment for Maintenance and Repair of the Sea-Based X-Band Radar Vessel Available for Public Comment". Missile Defense Agency. 13 December 2010. Retrieved 15 December 2010.
  12. ^ Page Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css has no content.Bradner, Tim (5 June 2009). "Begich, Gates visit Alaska missile defense base". Alaska Journal of Commerce. Archived from the original on 29 November 2010.
  13. ^ Page Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css has no content."Northrop Grumman Contribution to Support Missile Defense Workforce in Alaska". reuters.com. 30 October 2009. Archived from the original on 4 November 2009.
  14. ^ Page Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css has no content."Commanding Alaska's Guard w/ 24/7 missile defense". BlackFive. 31 August 2008. Archived from the original on 19 January 2019. Retrieved 18 January 2019.
  15. ^ Page Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css has no content."Missile Defense Agency (MDA) Exhibit R-2 RDT&E Budget Item Justification" (PDF). dtic.mil. Defense Technical Information Center. Archived (PDF) from the original on 6 September 2007.
  16. ^ Page Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css has no content.Shalal-Esa, Andrea (12 September 2013). "Maine among candidates named for possible East Coast missile defense sites". Bangor Daily News. Retrieved 19 November 2013.
  17. ^ a b c Page Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css has no content.Shalal-Esa, Andrea (31 January 2014). "Pentagon to further study four possible East Coast missile defense sites". Reuters. Retrieved 16 March 2014.
  18. ^ Page Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css has no content.Atkinson, Scott (26 June 2019). "Fort Drum picked as site for east coast missile defense". WWNY. Retrieved 18 January 2020.
  19. ^ Page Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css has no content."Boeing Wins Missile Deal". The Washington Post. 31 December 2008. p. D2.
  20. ^ Page Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css has no content."US to beef up missile defense against NKorea".{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: deprecated archival service (link)
  21. ^ Page Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css has no content.Eshel, Tamir (16 March 2013). "Alaska's Ground Based Interceptors to Pivot US Defenses Against North Korea". Defense Update.
  22. ^ Page Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css has no content.Mullen, Jethro (18 March 2013). "China: U.S. risks antagonizing North Korea". CNN.
  23. ^ a b Page Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css has no content."Mann addresses missile defense future during symposium". army.mil. 12 August 2015.
  24. ^ Page Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css has no content.Wichner, David (26 March 2019). "ICBM target downed in key test of missile defense, Raytheon Warhead". Arizona Daily Star. Retrieved 26 March 2019 – via tucson.com.
  25. ^ Page Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css has no content.Capaccio, Anthony (6 June 2019). "As North Korea Threat Grows, U.S. Anti-Missile Warhead Stumbles". Retrieved 14 July 2019.
  26. ^ a b Page Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css has no content.Insinna, Valerie (21 August 2019). "Pentagon Cancels Multi-Billion $ Boeing Missile Defense Program".
  27. ^ Loren Thompson (8 Oct 2019) Inside The U.S. Missile Defense Agency's Secret Next Generation Interceptor
    • 50 threat scenarios have been defined (Classified)
    • The GBIs will be Hit-to-kill
    • Each GBI will have multiple warheads (multiple kill vehicles)
    • The GBIs will fit in existing silos
    • The GBIs are expected by 2026
    • The interim GBI solution until then is to be determined
  28. ^ Page Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css has no content.Judson, Jen (23 July 2020). "Cost tripled for missile defense warhead, despite prior warnings, GAO finds". Defense News.
  29. ^ "More Dollars, Less Sense, Individual Contract Report: Ground-Based Midcourse Defense (Missile Defense)" Script error: No such module "webarchive".. United States House of Representatives, Committee on Oversight And Government Reform, June 2007.
  30. ^ Page Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css has no content."GAO-13-294SP, DEFENSE ACQUISITIONS Assessments of Selected Weapon Programs" (PDF). US Government Accountability Office. 26 March 2013. p. 51. Retrieved 26 May 2013.
  31. ^ Page Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css has no content.Lehner, Rick (20 December 2008). "Missile Defense Agency Successfully Completes Ground Test for Data Collection to Improve Modeling and Simulation" (PDF). Retrieved 8 July 2013.
  32. ^ Page Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css has no content.Reif, Kingston (11 February 2014). "The Defense That Does not Defend: More problems for national missile defense". armscontrolcenter.org. Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation. Archived from the original on 21 February 2014. Retrieved 12 February 2014.
  33. ^ Page Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css has no content.Hills, Amy (14 February 2014). "2015 MDA Request Ignite Old Debate On the Cost of Success". aviationweek.com. Penton. Archived from the original on 31 August 2014. Retrieved 14 February 2014.
  34. ^ a b Page Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css has no content."In Their Words: Missile defense crew recounts intercontinental ballistic missile target flight test". army.mil. 18 December 2017. Flight Test Ground-based Interceptor-15, or FTG-15, showcased the system's capabilities, as it was the first successful interception of a simulated intercontinental ballistic missile target by a ground-based interceptor launched by the GMD system. [] while the crew was aware there would be a test launch, they were not privy to the exact nature of what they would face and when.
  35. ^ a b Page Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css has no content."Missile Defense Integrated Test Flights" (PDF). Center for Defense Information. 18 June 2007. Archived from the original (PDF) on 14 April 2012.
  36. ^ a b c Page Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css has no content."Ground-Based Midcourse Defense (GMD)" (PDF). U.S. Office of the Director, Operational Test & Evaluation. 2012. p. 288. Archived from the original (PDF) on 4 March 2016. Retrieved 7 July 2013.
  37. ^ Page Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css has no content."Ballistic Missile Defense Intercept Flight Test Record" (PDF). Missile Defense Agency. 8 July 2013. Archived from the original (PDF) on 27 September 2017. Retrieved 8 July 2013.
  38. ^ Page Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css has no content."Missile Defense Exercise and Flight Test Successfully Completed" (PDF). Missile Defense Agency. 1 September 2006. Archived from the original (PDF) on 17 October 2020. Retrieved 18 January 2019.
  39. ^ Page Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css has no content."Missile Defense Flight Test Results in Successful Intercept" (PDF). Missile Defense Agency. 5 December 2008. Retrieved 6 December 2008.
  40. ^ Page Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css has no content."Defense Acquisitions: Charting a Course for Improved Missile Defense Testing". Government Accountability Office. 25 February 2009. Archived from the original on 7 January 2010. Retrieved 1 January 2010.
  41. ^ Page Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css has no content."Missile Defense Test Conducted". Lompoc Record. 10 December 2010. Retrieved 15 December 2010.
  42. ^ Page Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css has no content."Missile Defense Test Conducted" (Press release). U.S. Department of Defense. 5 July 2013. Archived from the original on 12 July 2013.
  43. ^ Page Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css has no content."Missile Defense Test Conducted" (Press release). 5 July 2013. Retrieved 18 January 2019.
  44. ^ a b Page Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css has no content."Unclassified Statement of Vice Admiral James D. Syring Director, Missile Defense Agency" (PDF). United States Senate via MDA.mil. pp. 5–6. Retrieved 7 July 2013.
  45. ^ Page Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css has no content."U.S. missile defense system destroys target in key test". Reuters. 22 June 2014. Retrieved 18 January 2019.
  46. ^ Page Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css has no content."US successfully intercepts ICBM in historic test". ABC News. 30 May 2017.
  47. ^ Page Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css has no content."Could FTG-15 Delays Prevent the Deployment of 44 GBIs by the End of 2017?". 2 February 2017.
  48. ^ Page Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css has no content."With eyes on North Korea, U.S. successfully destroys mock ICBM over Pacific". Retrieved 30 May 2017.
  49. ^ Page Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css has no content.Judson, Jen (8 August 2017). "Missile takedown: Historic ICBM intercept test sends strong message to North Korea". Defense News.
  50. ^ Page Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css has no content.Burns, Robert (25 March 2019). "Pentagon: missile defense test succeeds in shootdown". Associated Press. Archived from the original on 26 March 2019. Retrieved 25 March 2019 – via The Washington Post.
  51. ^ Page Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css has no content.Sheely, Zachary (5 April 2019). "National Guard Soldiers at forefront of most significant test in missile defense history". army.mil. United States Army. Retrieved 22 April 2019.
  52. ^ Page Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css has no content.Zargham, Mohammad (25 March 2019). Reese, Chris (ed.). "U.S. military says it conducts successful missile defense test". Reuters. Retrieved 25 March 2019.
  53. ^ Page Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css has no content.Capaccio, Anthony (24 March 2019). "Trickiest U.S. Missile Defense Test Is Finally Ready to Launch". Bloomberg. Retrieved 25 March 2019.
  54. ^ a b Page Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css has no content."Homeland Missile Defense System Conducts Successful Intercept Of Target". Missile Defense Agency. 11 December 2023. Retrieved 12 December 2023.
  55. ^ Homeland defense interceptor defeats ballistic missile in test, Jen Judson, Defense News, 2023-12-12
  56. ^ Page Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css has no content."Missile Defense BV Test Flights" (PDF). Center for Defense Information. 5 May 2005. Archived from the original (PDF) on 14 April 2012.
  57. ^ Page Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css has no content.Parsch, Andreas. "Boeing Ground-Based Interceptor (GBI)". Directory of U.S. Military Rockets and Missiles. Archived from the original on 4 September 2006. Retrieved 25 June 2014.
  58. ^ Page Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css has no content."Orbital Successfully Launches Second Target Rocket for U.S. Missile Defense Agency's CMCM-1 Program; Two Launches in Two Weeks Conducted at Hawaii's Pacific Missile Site". Business Wire. 23 August 2005.
  59. ^ Page Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css has no content."U.S. missile defense sensor test called successful". Associated Press. 18 July 2008. Archived from the original on 28 February 2009.
  60. ^ Page Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css has no content."Modified Ground-Based Interceptor Completes Successful Flight Test". Missile Defense Agency. 6 June 2010. Retrieved 15 December 2010.
  61. ^ Page Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css has no content."Ground-Based Interceptor Completes Successful Flight Test". Missile Defense Agency. 26 January 2013. Retrieved 18 January 2019.
  62. ^ Page Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css has no content."Ground-based Midcourse Defense System Conducts Successful Flight Test". Missile Defense Agency. 28 January 2016. Retrieved 28 January 2016.
  63. ^ a b Page Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css has no content."A test of America's homeland missile defense system found a problem. Why did the Pentagon call it a success?". Los Angeles Times. 6 July 2016.
  64. ^ Page Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css has no content."GMD Test Cancelled by MDA". Center for Defense Information. 16 June 2008. Archived from the original on 10 December 2008.
  65. ^ Page Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css has no content.Samson, Victoria (16 June 2008). "GMD Test Cancelled by MDA". Archived from the original on 28 August 2009. Retrieved 15 July 2009.
  66. ^ Page Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css has no content."Fact Check: Trump's claim that a U.S. interceptor can knock out ICBMs '97 percent of the time'". Washington Post.

Page Module:Side box/styles.css has no content.Page Template:Sister project/styles.css has no content.

Page Template:Plainlist/styles.css has no content.
Script error: No such module "Sister project logo".
Wikimedia Commons has media related to Ground-Based Midcourse Defense.Template:Preview warning

Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'Module:Navbox/configuration' not found.

Retrieved from "https://cosmopedia.co/index.php?title=Ground-Based_Midcourse_Defense&oldid=466559"