Shooting down a satellite or a free-falling ballistic missile is relatively easy - the trajectory is predictable.
The article talks about maneuvering ballistic missiles - this task is a lot harder, similar to shooting a static vs. erratically moving target on the target range. According to the Navy report the problem is not currently solved.
It's not just Chinese who figured it out either, two decades ago Russians started re-arming their strategic nuclear arsenal with Topol-M which in its latest versions is also a maneuvering ballistic missile.
And then of course there is the very old trick of multiple warheads per missile (some decoy) - these are impossible to shoot down as there are far too may of them at once. Chinese have demonstrated to world their ability to do this when they launched multiple satellites with one rocket - the same technology. This particular missile may not be using it though.
Due to both maneuvering and multiple warheads the entire missile-defense thinking has moved from intercepting missiles at target to intercepting missiles at launch or in flight.
Obviously at 2000km away the AC is not in a position to intercept the launch of the missile.
It is not a solved problem you make it out to be. And the article's meta-point is that in the arms race of armor vs bullet, the bullet seems to be winning in the historical perspective.
The local active sensing capability required to out-maneuver one or more interceptors would negate any low-observable qualities of the kill vehicle.
The likelihood of the kill vehicle possessing a passive tracking capability sufficient to outmaneuver the active sensing and tracking system aboard an interceptor is clearly very low.
My point is that neither maneuverability nor low observability are guarantees of success due to compromising other aspects of the vehicle; which may ultimately make it more vulnerable to defensive measures than is apparent at first glance.
The article talks about maneuvering ballistic missiles - this task is a lot harder, similar to shooting a static vs. erratically moving target on the target range. According to the Navy report the problem is not currently solved.
It's not just Chinese who figured it out either, two decades ago Russians started re-arming their strategic nuclear arsenal with Topol-M which in its latest versions is also a maneuvering ballistic missile.
And then of course there is the very old trick of multiple warheads per missile (some decoy) - these are impossible to shoot down as there are far too may of them at once. Chinese have demonstrated to world their ability to do this when they launched multiple satellites with one rocket - the same technology. This particular missile may not be using it though.
Due to both maneuvering and multiple warheads the entire missile-defense thinking has moved from intercepting missiles at target to intercepting missiles at launch or in flight.
Obviously at 2000km away the AC is not in a position to intercept the launch of the missile.
It is not a solved problem you make it out to be. And the article's meta-point is that in the arms race of armor vs bullet, the bullet seems to be winning in the historical perspective.