&w=3840&q=100)
US tests missile radar for Golden Dome integration to track threats from China, Russia
The Pentagon has successfully tested a long-range radar system in Alaska capable of detecting missile threats from Russia or China, with potential future integration into the Golden Dome missile defence shield read more
US Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth speaks about the Golden Dome missile defence shield, in the Oval Office of the White House in Washington, D.C., US, on May 20, 2025. Reuters File
The Pentagon has successfully tested a long-range radar system in Alaska capable of detecting missile threats from Russia or China, with potential future integration into the Golden Dome missile defence shield.
According to a Reuters report, citing Pentagon on Tuesday, the Long Range Discrimination Radar successfully acquired, tracked, and reported missile target data.
These are key tasks for Golden Dome, a $175 billion programme aimed at protecting the US and possibly allies from ballistic missiles, added the report.
The US Defence Department's long-range radar in central Alaska, developed by Lockheed Martin, is part of the Ground-Based Midcourse Defence system aimed at enhancing the performance of missile interceptors stationed in Alaska and California.
These interceptors are tasked with neutralising potential threats from Iran or North Korea.
STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
The US Missile Defense Agency, in coordination with the US Space Force and US Northern Command, carried out a flight test of the radar on Monday at Clear Space Force Station in Alaska.
During this test, a target developed by MDA was air-launched over the Northern Pacific Ocean and flew over 2,000 kilometers (1,243 miles) off the southern coast of Alaska where it was tracked by LRDR.
The Golden Dome missile defence shield is designed to establish a satellite-based network capable of detecting, tracking, and intercepting incoming missiles.
Modeled after Israel's Iron Dome, the programme has come under political scrutiny and faces funding challenges due to its high projected costs.
While it is slated to become operational by January 2029, experts have raised doubts about the feasibility of both the timeline and the budget.
With inputs from agencies
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
44 minutes ago
- Time of India
Trump's bunker-buster claims challenged by Pentagon report as Israel–Iran ceasefire begins with nuclear secrets still buried
The United States airstrikes on Iran's nuclear facilities have only set the country's programme back by months, not destroyed it, according to an early Pentagon intelligence review . This contradicts President Donald Trump's claim that the strikes 'completely and totally obliterated' Iran's key enrichment sites. The assessment, prepared by the US Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), was shared with Reuters and CNN by sources familiar with the matter, all speaking anonymously. It found that while damage was substantial at Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan, much of Iran's nuclear infrastructure—including stockpiled uranium and underground centrifuges—remained intact or had been relocated before the strikes. 'The strikes were a spectacular military success. Iran's key nuclear enrichment facilities have been completely and totally obliterated,' Trump said in a televised address. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like 모공각화증, 집에서 결국 이렇게 하니 해결되더라구요 현명한소비자 Undo DIA warns of Iran's nuclear recovery According to the DIA, Iran's programme might be delayed only by one to three months. The agency also noted that Iran's highly enriched uranium—400kg of it at 60% purity—was likely shifted in advance and could now be at unknown sites. Vice President JD Vance admitted, 'We are going to work in the coming weeks to ensure that we do something with that fuel.' Live Events Meanwhile, the International Atomic Energy Agency 's director general Rafael Grossi said, 'The IAEA can no longer account for Iran's stockpile.' Military Strikes: Big bombs, limited impact The US mission included 12 GBU-57 bunker-buster bombs dropped on Fordow and two more on Natanz by B-2 bombers. A US submarine also launched around 30 Tomahawk missiles at Isfahan. Despite this, much of the damage remained above ground. Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, General Dan Caine, said, 'All three of the nuclear sites had sustained severe damage and destruction,' but added that it was 'way too early' to determine whether Iran's core nuclear capabilities were neutralised. The Pentagon had already been briefed earlier this year that bunker busters might not fully destroy the heavily fortified Fordow, buried beneath 45 to 90 metres of bedrock. Weapons expert Jeffrey Lewis concluded, 'The ceasefire came without either Israel or the United States being able to destroy several key underground nuclear facilities.' White House rejects report, stands by Trump The White House dismissed the DIA assessment. Spokesperson Karoline Leavitt called it 'flat-out wrong' and said, 'Everyone knows what happens when you drop fourteen 30,000-pound bombs perfectly on their targets: total obliteration.' At a press conference, Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth echoed Trump: 'Based on everything we have seen—and I've seen it all—our bombing campaign obliterated Iran's ability to create nuclear weapons.' Ceasefire brokered, but tempers flared Following 12 days of war, both Israel and Iran signalled that the fighting had paused. President Trump brokered the ceasefire with help from Qatar's Prime Minister Sheikh Mohammed bin Abdulrahman Al Thani. Still, tensions ran high. Trump lashed out at both parties, saying, 'They don't know what the fuck they're doing.' He added, 'I've got to get Israel to calm down now.' Israel confirmed it hit a radar site near Tehran in retaliation for an alleged Iranian missile barrage after the ceasefire had begun. Iran denied violating the ceasefire and said Israeli attacks continued an hour and a half beyond the agreed time. Civilians feel the cost, Markets react In both countries, there was widespread exhaustion. 'The war is over. It never should have started in the first place,' said Reza Sharifi, a resident returning to Tehran. In Tel Aviv, software engineer Arik Daimant said, 'It's a bit too late for me and my family, because our house was totally destroyed. But… I hope this ceasefire is a new beginning.' The war left 610 Iranians dead and nearly 5,000 injured. In Israel, 28 people died, marking the first time that Iranian missiles overwhelmed its air defence. Oil prices tumbled and global stock markets rallied as fears of regional escalation eased. Classified briefings in Washington were cancelled, raising further questions about the credibility of the official narrative. 'Trump just cancelled a classified House briefing on the Iran strikes with zero explanation,' Rep. Pat Ryan posted online. 'His team knows they can't back up his bluster.' Sources inside the US intelligence community say it's too early for a final judgment. But with enriched uranium unaccounted for and fortified nuclear sites still standing, the picture remains murky. Whether the ceasefire holds or not, experts say Iran could restart its programme from hardened facilities like Parchin and Isfahan at any time. As one official summarised: 'The US set them back maybe a few months, tops.'
Hindustan Times
an hour ago
- Hindustan Times
Iran Israel's fragile ceasefire in place - What's next? Explained
Iran and Israel continue to hold their fragile ceasefire on Wednesday, especially after US President Donald Trump's warning to both countries. However, despite this warning, explosions and drone interceptions continue to be reported in Tel Aviv and Tehran. People attend a gathering to support Iran's Armed Forces, after U.S. President Donald Trump announced a ceasefire between Israel and Iran, in Tehran, Iran(via REUTERS) As the fragile ceasefire holds in place for now, the world now asks once question - what is next? As per Trump's special envoy Steve Witkoff, the next obvious step is to bring Iran back on the table for negotiations for a nuclear deal with the United States. 'Now it's time for us to sit down with the Iranians and get to a comprehensive peace agreement,' he told Fox News. Follow LIVE updates on the Iran Israel conflict here Iran and the US signed a key nuclear deal in 2015, which called on Iran to limit its nuclear programme in return for sanctions relief. Introduced under the Obama administration, the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) was signed by the US, and other global powers - China, Russia, Germany, France and the UK. However, in 2018, Trump withdrew the US from the deal, after citing it to be a 'terrible, one-sided deal.' Fast forward to 2025 and his second administration, Trump is now working to get Iran back to the table to negotiate a "better" nuclear deal. The US return to the deal came after Iran kept working on its nuclear programme and, as per the IAEA, had achieved around 60 percent uranium enrichment. One of the key reasons behind the Iran-Israel 12-day war was Netanyahu's claim that Iran was "weeks away" from developing a nuclear bomb. Netanyahu's claim amped up pressure on the US, despite American intelligence stating Tehran was "years away" from a nuclear bomb. With the ceasefire now in place, Witkoff told Fox news that the US is "hopeful" as it engages in direct talks with Iran over its nuclear programme. Meanwhile, Ray Takeyh, a former State Department official and senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, believes that Iranian leadership is at a moment of disarray, which makes it difficult for a return to the table. 'The country's leadership and the regime is not cohesive enough to be able to come to some sort of negotiations at this point, especially negotiations from the American perspective, whose conclusion is predetermined, namely, zero enrichment,' he told AP. Assessing 'damage' caused to Iran's nuclear plant Trump has stated the US "obliterated and destroyed" Iran's nuclear programme, a claim echoed by Israel as well. However, satellite images and intelligence reports have stated otherwise. As per the Pentagon's intelligence wing, US strikes on Fordow, Isfahan and Natanz may have set back Iran's nuclear programme "by a few months." The intel report confirmed Iran's claim regarding the safeguarding of its nuclear supplies and uranium stockpile. Experts believe the Iranian facilities will require months or longer to be repaired or reconstructed. However, as per Trump and Witkoff, the strikes have set back Iran's ability to enrich uranium to weapons-grade by years. Focus on diplomacy After US' attack on Iran, Tehran and its allies accused Washington of "destroying and blowing up" the paths of diplomacy to bring an end to the conflict. However, as per Vice President JD Vance and Secretary of State Marco Rubio, the US did not "blow up diplomacy," rather it was the Iranians who never gave it a chance. "We didn't blow up the diplomacy. The diplomacy never was given a real chance by the Iranians. And our hope … is that this maybe can reset here. The Iranians have a choice. They can go down the path of peace or they can go down the path of this ridiculous brinksmanship," JD Vance told NBC's 'Meet the Press' on Sunday. Rubio echoed the sentiment and said - 'We're prepared right now, if they call right now and say we want to meet, let's talk about this, we're prepared to do that," he said. "The president's made that clear from the very beginning: His preference is to deal with this issue diplomatically," the top US diplomat added. Trump to continue peacemaker role The ceasefire between Iran and Israel will give Trump another chance to continue his role as a "peacemaker." The US president has already claimed he brought an end to the India-Pakistan conflict in May 2025 and is working towards a ceasefire deal between Russia and Ukraine as well as Israel and Gaza. If the fragile truce continues to hold, Trump is expected to shift his focus to ending the Ukraine war, which is in its fourth year with no end in sight. As per an AP report, Trump is also expected to enhance US cooperation with Syria and Lebanon after "weakening" Iran, which could aide in a pause in hostilities the two nations have with Israel.
Hindustan Times
an hour ago
- Hindustan Times
Feckless Europe accepts Trump's Lone Ranger diplomacy
IF EUROPE CANNOT have America as a global policeman, it will settle for Donald Trump as the Lone Ranger. That, in effect, is the message from the leaders of Britain, France and Germany. All three have come close to endorsing strikes on Iran's nuclear programme by Israel and America. Many will welcome his imposition of a ceasefire and his imperious order to Israeli warplanes to 'turn around' rather than punish an apparent Iranian breach of it. The contrast with the American-led invasion of Iraq in 2003 is jarring. Back then, the West was split by debates about international law. For a camp led by France and Germany, only the UN Security Council—the governing body of the post-1945 order—could authorise attacks on Saddam Hussein. American talk of preventive strikes was dismissed as cowboy justice. Today, though, the initial response of Sir Keir Starmer, Britain's prime minister, was as clinical as a Pentagon press release. 'Iran can never be allowed to develop a nuclear weapon and the US has taken action to alleviate that threat,' declared the man who had previously made his name as a human-rights lawyer. In post-war Europe, crafting elegant rationales for impotence is a prized skill. France's president, Emmanuel Macron, showed mastery of the form after Israel's initial raids on Iran. He told the Elysée press corps that an Iranian bomb would be an 'existential' threat to the world, and that—though France favoured a diplomatic solution—Israel's strikes had set back Iran's nuclear-enrichment and ballistic-missile capabilities, and so were steps 'in the right direction'. After America joined Israel in striking Iran, Mr Macron toughened his stance a bit. On June 23rd he spoke of the 'legitimacy' of efforts to neutralise Iran's nuclear structures, but added that America's actions lack 'a legal framework'. Winning the prize for bluntness, Germany's chancellor, Friedrich Merz, told German television that Israel is doing 'the dirty work' for 'all of us'. Geopolitics help explain European meekness. Western governments fear power vacuums in the Middle East. They were thus glad to hear Mr Trump forswear regime change in Iran. Selfishly, it is also a relief for Western governments to be spared Trumpian lectures about free-riding allies. Mr Trump is proud that only America's bombs can curb Iran. Before ordering his raid, he scoffed at European offers to engage with Iranian diplomats, saying: 'Iran doesn't want to speak to Europe. They want to speak to us. Europe is not going to be able to help in this one.' Europe's response is rational, but revealing. In foreign policy a useful principle is: that which cannot be changed must be welcomed, says Steven Everts, the director of the EU Institute for Security Studies, an EU policy-planning agency. Even so, he concedes, Europe's response 'speaks to our weakness'. For their part, non-Western powers have demanded that America and Israel heed international law. After Israel began bombing, China's supreme leader, Xi Jinping, telephoned a counterpart to agree that: 'The use of force is not a right way to resolve international disputes.' In particular, 'the red line of protecting civilians in armed conflicts must not be crossed,' declared Mr Xi. His lofty words were undercut only by the civilian-killing record of the other president on the line, his friend Vladimir Putin of Russia. China wants regional stability and fears higher energy prices, says a Chinese scholar in Beijing. As for playing a more active role, that depends on whether warring parties want China's help and 'whether China has any real leverage over the matter'. For now neither condition applies, adds the scholar. State-funded Chinese analysts signal that China, the largest buyer of Iranian oil, would be displeased if Iran closed the Strait of Hormuz to shipping. Should Iran try a nuclear breakout, a prominent Chinese commentator suggested, China might allow the imposition of new sanctions on Iran, by abstaining at the UN rather than casting a veto. Europe could come back into the picture as a diplomatic player, suggests João Vale de Almeida, a former EU ambassador to America and the UN during the gruelling years of nuclear talks between Iran and the five permanent members of the UN Security Council (the so-called P5), plus Germany and the EU. He predicts that any new pact with Iran, even one backed by America's hard power, may rather resemble the JCPOA, the multilateral agreement generated by those talks that Mr Trump quit in 2018. He laments the past seven years as 'a big detour' of lost time and credibility. No cowboy sunsets in the real world A big change since 2018 involves the splintering of the P5, whose members—America, Britain, China, France and Russia—were remarkably unified in their opposition to an Iranian bomb, says Catherine Ashton, who as EU foreign-policy chief from 2009 to 2014 chaired nuclear negotiations with Iran. The assembled envoys felt a sense of historic common purpose, says Baroness Ashton. That survived even crises like the political protests that swept Ukraine in 2013. She recalls leaving the Iran meetings in Vienna and flying to Kyiv to denounce Russian meddling in Ukrainian politics. Russia's lead negotiator would fly to Moscow to condemn the West. Then both would return to Vienna for constructive talks. She remembers China as 'a team player' on Iran nukes, too. Today Mr Trump seems interested in bilateral dealmaking, observes Lady Ashton. That approach raises hard questions about Iran's incentives to disarm. America acting alone can apply coercion. But given Iranian distrust of Mr Trump, only an international coalition can credibly offer the reward that Iran seeks: a long-term economic reopening to the world. The Lone Ranger was not big on commitment. After dispensing vigilante justice he would ride into the sunset. Western leaders know the limits of that approach. Alas, they must deal with the American president they have. Subscribers to The Economist can sign up to our Opinion newsletter, which brings together the best of our leaders, columns, guest essays and reader correspondence.
