The United States recently concluded an ambitious exercise named “Sling Stone” in Guam, combining joint military capabilities with missile defence testing to enhance readiness and reinforce the defence of the Pacific island.
The event, held from 4–10 December, involved the U.S. Indo-Pacific Command and coincided with the Missile Defense Agency’s Flight Experiment Mission-02 (FEM-02) on 10 December.
The exercise utilised FEM-02—a missile intercept test involving the Aegis Guam System—as a tactical training event to refine interoperability and coordination among the Air Force, Army, Navy, and allied forces.
Rear Adm. Greg Huffman, commander of Joint Task Force-Micronesia, praised the exercise, stating: “The success of Sling Stone is a testament to the incredible work our joint-service team does every day to maintain a strong defensive posture in the Indo-Pacific region. Leveraging MDA’s missile intercept test to train how we fight just made sense.”
During Sling Stone, a Standard Missile-3 Block IIA launched from Andersen Air Force Base successfully intercepted a Medium Range Ballistic Missile target more than 200 nautical miles northeast of Guam.
The test also involved multi-domain coordination, with the Navy’s guided-missile destroyer USS Milius (DDG 69) providing air defence coverage from the sea and Japan’s JS Haguro (DDG 180) contributing to air defence interoperability. Task Force Talon, the Army’s Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) unit, tracked the missile, showcasing Guam’s layered missile defence capabilities.
The exercise was divided into two phases. The first phase focused on live, virtual, and constructive simulations of multi-domain operations, while the second phase incorporated MDA’s live missile intercept, allowing forces to detect, track, and simulate engagements.
The success of these drills underscores efforts to establish the Guam Defense System, a persistent and layered defence initiative combining Army, Navy, Air Force, and MDA components.
Rear Adm. Huffman noted: “We will take lessons learned and continue to strengthen the architecture of Guam’s defence against evolving adversary missile threats.”
Well thats useful..they can shoot down medium range ballistic missiles fired at Guam. So if china ever invades and takes the Philippines they will be able to protect from medium range ballistic missiles that china bases there..if china shoots at Guam it will be with dongfeng 26 missiles, conventionally armed intermediate range ballistic missiles..as medium range ballistic missiles will not reach from china to Gaum…
Because the US demonstrated that they can take out a medium range ballistic missile does not mean they could not take out an IRBM.
Yes, I theory Aster 30 on the T45 was not rated to shoot down a ballistic missile but it managed it, Patriot in Ukraine should not have been able to intercept Iskandar but it also did it.
The purpose of such interception systems is as much to act as a deterrent than anything else.
Yes but it’s intercepted a missile type in Guam that will never attack Guam..for it to be a deterrent they needed to test it against an analog of the threat. which in the case of Guam is IRBMs…may possibly be able to is not a deterrent..a deterrent has to be shown to have the capability to be effective.
It’s already been demonstrated that the SM-3 Block IIA can do better than IRBMs though, USS John Finn (DDG 113) took out an ICBM representative target with an SM-3 Block IIA back in 2020 during the congressionally mandated FTM 44 “Stellar Lancer” test. There are official press releases about it, and there is video coverage on the Missile Defense Agency’s YouTube page.
To add further to Paul’s reply below. The SM3 has now been successfully used operationally, to defeat exoatmospheric ballistic missiles fired from Iran at Israel. Therefore in essence it doesn’t matter if this is an ICBM or IRBM. What does matter is that the SM3 after a long development has demonstrated that it can take out targets in low earth orbit.
Admittedly ICBMs do reach a higher altitude than IRBMs. However the tracking and targeting of the threat from the ground based radar and command system, until the SM3 takes over. Has shown that the kill chain process for SM3 works. This is the key part of the message the Guam test delivers.
To conclude, Guam I believe also has a THAAD battery along with Patriot. Which along with the USN destroyers/cruisers provides a very high level of ballistic missile defence.
You realize Guam is a missile test range right? You don’t just shoot off live bases without an instrumented test range.
jeez
My first reaction was similar to yours I must admit, but I think arguments others have put forward has put the other side of the story quite well. The information gathered will help generate real time information about the defence platforms true capabilities and I assume it’s easier and probably safer to demonstrate the capability against a representative medium range missile yet can still extrapolate much from that beyond its specific characteristics. Or maybe, if needs be, having learnt from this they will move up to further tests.
One presumes also there may be threats from surface ships and submarines that this test has mirrored, an intermediate range ballistic missile from China could easily propel matters into the nuclear realm surely.
@chris
The article specifically states the test was for the defence of Guam, if it was just a random test that occurred at Guam I would not have made the comment, context is everything.
The PAC2 version of Patriot was designed from the start to be capable of defeating ballistic missile threats. The earlier PAC1 version was predominantly focused to defend against aircraft and cruise missiles.
Ukraine has been given the PAC2 system. However they have been firing both the PAC2 and PAC3 missiles. PAC2 uses a PESA radar for searching for and tracking targets, whilst PAC3 uses an AESA radar. Normally a PAC2 will fire two missiles per target, PAC3 is one or more per target.
The PAC2 missile is wider in diameter than the PAC3, where a launcher carries 8 missiles and a launcher with PAC3 missiles now carries 16. The reason PAC2 fires two missiles at a target is that the missile seeker uses semi-active radar homing. By firing two missiles separated by a distance, allows for target’s erratic maneuvers, that can reduce the radar return to the missile. By firing two it allows at least one of the missiles to get a good return off the target. The PAC3 missile now has an active radar seeker.
When the requirements for PAAMS were set down, anti-ship ballistic missiles were not a threat, at that point only a concept. Sea skimming and high diving supersonic missiles were seen as the main threats. The PAAMS combat management system (CMS) along with the Sampson radar allowed it do ballistic missile interceptions. As the algorithm for predicting the target path and interception point that is used to counter a supersonic high diving missile is very similar to that of a ballistic missile.
I’d imagine the CMS has had a software tweak or two, to enable the Block 0 Aster to have a better chance of intercepting a ballistic missile, since they have now become a threat. The Block 1 upgrade will enhance this further. With the phase 2 of Sea Viper Evolution and the introduction of the Block 1NT Aster, this will improve the chances of a ballistic missile interception further still.
The SAMP/T SAM system was designed to counter aircraft, cruise missiles and tactical (short range) ballistic missiles. From the outset it was going to use the Block 1 Aster. Then Italy and France wanted a better missile to counter ballistic threats from further away, which is where the Block 1NT requirement came from.
DaveyB, I think you are one of the most knowledgeable bods on this board. What do you think the UK should do, both short-term and then long-term, to put in place a National Air Defence System that can counter ICBM-type attacks and long-range drone/cruise missile scenarios?
Yes but if your doing a deterrent type test, would you not shoot down the missile type that is a threat to Guam..the point would be to prove they could protect Guam from attack..proving you can protect it from a missile type that will never attack it seems to be a bit short on deterrent impact.
This was not a demonstration it was a showcase of where they want the public to believe what is capable, their actual ICBM countermeasure is by far superior, but I guess you’ll have to wait 11 years for that media showcase.
Suddenly I feel really safe in the UK now, glowing and safe.
Good old.managed tests to get.more.money for development, then they fail in the real world
Umm, you do know that this year, SM3 fired from Arleigh Burke destroyers, has now on two separate occasions been used to successfully defend Israel from Iranian ballistic missile attack. I think that’s a pretty good endorsement for an air defence missile system.
If there is a war with China. Which President Xi has pretty much guaranteed with his assertion that by 2030 Taiwan will be reunited with his dictatorship in the CCP, then Guam is likely high up on the list of military sites the Chinese will try to take out on day one with a saturation ballistic missiles strike.
The USA needs thousands of SM3 but when they cost $4.5-10 million dollars each, then that rapidly becomes a very expensive option.
Directed energy weapons might be the answer but intercepting an IRBM coming in at Mach 14 is not going to leave long for a direct energy weapons to put it’s power down onto the target, so the amperage and power rating will have to be very high.