Ground-Based Midcourse Defense

! Name

! date

! Result

! class="unsortable" |Description{{cite web |url=http://www.cdi.org/pdfs/gmd%20ift2.pdf |title=Missile Defense Integrated Test Flights |work=Center for Defense Information |date=18 June 2007 |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20120414164509/http://www.cdi.org/pdfs/gmd%20ift2.pdf |archive-date=14 April 2012}}{{cite web |url=https://www.mda.mil/global/documents/pdf/testrecord.pdf |title=Ballistic Missile Defense Intercept Flight Test Record |work=Missile Defense Agency |date=8 July 2013 |access-date= 8 July 2013 |archive-date= 27 September 2017 |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20170927155243/https://www.mda.mil/global/documents/pdf/testrecord.pdf |url-status= dead}}

|{{dts|format=dmy|1999|Oct|2}}

|{{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.

|{{dts|format=dmy|2000|Jan|18}}

|{{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.

|{{dts|format=dmy|2000|Jul|8}}

|{{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.

|{{dts|format=dmy|2001|Jul|14}}

|{{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.

|{{dts|format=dmy|2001|Dec|3}}

|{{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.

|{{dts|format=dmy|2002|Mar|15}}

|{{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.

|{{dts|format=dmy|2002|Oct|14}}

|{{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.

|{{dts|format=dmy|2002|Dec|11}}

|{{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.

|{{dts|format=dmy|2004|Dec|15}}

|{{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.

|{{dts|format=dmy|2005|Feb|13}}

|{{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.

|{{dts|format=dmy|2006|Sep|1}}

|{{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.{{cite web |url=https://mda.mil/global/documents/pdf/06news0020.pdf |title=Missile Defense Exercise and Flight Test Successfully Completed |publisher=Missile Defense Agency |date=1 September 2006 |access-date= 18 January 2019 |archive-date= 17 October 2020 |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20201017125839/https://mda.mil/global/documents/pdf/06news0020.pdf |url-status= dead}}

|{{dts|format=dmy|2007|May|25}}

|{{failure}}

|With the same setup as FTG-02, the test target flew off-course and an intercept did not occur.

|{{dts|format=dmy|2007|Sep|28}}

|{{success}}

|This test was scheduled in response to the failure of FTG-03, this time with a successful intercept.

|{{dts|format=dmy|2008|Dec|5}}

|{{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.{{cite web |url=https://www.mda.mil/global/documents/pdf/08news0090.pdf |title=Missile Defense Flight Test Results in Successful Intercept |work=Missile Defense Agency |access-date= 6 December 2008 |date=5 December 2008}}

|{{dts|format=dmy|2010|Jan|31}}

|{{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.{{cite web |url=http://www.gao.gov/htext/d09403t.html |title=Defense Acquisitions: Charting a Course for Improved Missile Defense Testing |work=Government Accountability Office |date=25 February 2009 |access-date=1 January 2010 |archive-date=7 January 2010 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100107112907/http://www.gao.gov/htext/d09403t.html |url-status=dead}} 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.{{cite web |url=https://www.mda.mil/news/10news0001.html |title=Missile Defense Test Conducted |work=Missile Defense Agency |date=31 January 2010 |access-date= 18 January 2019}}

|{{dts|format=dmy|2010|Dec|15}}

|{{failure}}

|This test was similar to FTG-06, over a distance of 4,200 miles.{{cite web |url=http://www.lompocrecord.com/news/local/military/vandenberg/article_0d0c3b92-04fb-11e0-a862-001cc4c03286.html |title=Missile Defense Test Conducted |work=Lompoc Record |date=10 December 2010 |access-date= 15 December 2010}} 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.{{cite web |url=https://www.mda.mil/news/10news0019.html |title=Draft Environmental Assessment for Maintenance and Repair of the Sea-Based X-Band Radar Vessel Available for Public Comment |work=Missile Defense Agency |date=13 December 2010 |access-date= 15 December 2010}}

|{{dts|format=dmy|2013|Jul|5}}

|{{failure}}{{cite press release |url=http://www.defense.gov/releases/release.aspx?releaseid=16140 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130712184618/http://www.defense.gov/releases/release.aspx?releaseid=16140 |url-status=dead |archive-date=12 July 2013 |title=Missile Defense Test Conducted |publisher=U.S. Department of Defense |date=5 July 2013}}{{cite press release |url=https://www.mda.mil/news/13news0006.html |title=Missile Defense Test Conducted |date=5 July 2013 |access-date= 18 January 2019}}

|This intercept test used an improved CE-I EKV.{{cite web |url=https://www.mda.mil/global/documents/pdf/ps_syring_050913_SASC.PDF |title=Unclassified Statement of Vice Admiral James D. Syring Director, Missile Defense Agency |publisher=United States Senate via MDA.mil |pages=5–6 |access-date= 7 July 2013}}

|{{dts|format=dmy|2014|Jun|22}}

|{{success}}{{cite news |url=https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-military-boeing-idUSKBN0EX11Y20140623 |title=U.S. missile defense system destroys target in key test |publisher=Reuters |date=22 June 2014 |access-date= 18 January 2019}}

|This test is designed to demonstrate an intercept and meet the unmet objectives of FTG-06a.{{cite web |url=http://www.dote.osd.mil/pub/reports/FY2012/pdf/bmds/2012gmd.pdf |title=Ground-Based Midcourse Defense (GMD) |publisher=U.S. Office of the Director, Operational Test & Evaluation |page=288 |date=2012 |access-date= 7 July 2013 |archive-date= 4 March 2016 |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20160304091204/http://www.dote.osd.mil/pub/reports/FY2012/pdf/bmds/2012gmd.pdf |url-status= dead}}

|{{dts|format=dmy|2017|May|30}}

|{{success}}{{cite web |url=https://abcnews.go.com/US/pentagon-conduct-intercontinental-ballistic-missile-intercept-test-heels/story?id=47724129 |title=US successfully intercepts ICBM in historic test |date=30 May 2017 |website=ABC News}}

|The test involved the new CE-II Block-I version of the EKV, which executed a direct collision with the ICBM target.{{cite web |url=https://mostlymissiledefense.com/2017/02/02/could-ftg-15-delays-prevent-the-deployment-of-44-gbis-by-the-end-of-2017-february-2-2017 |title=Could FTG-15 Delays Prevent the Deployment of 44 GBIs by the End of 2017? |date=2 February 2017}}{{cite news |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/checkpoint/wp/2017/05/30/with-eyes-on-north-korea-u-s-successfully-destroys-mock-icbm-over-pacific/ |title=With eyes on North Korea, U.S. successfully destroys mock ICBM over Pacific |access-date= 30 May 2017}}{{cite web |url=https://www.defensenews.com/space/2017/05/30/missile-takedown-historic-icbm-intercept-test-sends-strong-message-to-north-korea/ |title=Missile takedown: Historic ICBM intercept test sends strong message to North Korea |first=Jen |last=Judson |date=8 August 2017 |website=Defense News}}

|25 Mar 2019

|{{success}}{{cite news |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/pentagon-missile-defense-test-succeeds-in-shootdown/2019/03/25/ca7db760-4f4c-11e9-bdb7-44f948cc0605_story.html |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20190326024303/https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/pentagon-missile-defense-test-succeeds-in-shootdown/2019/03/25/ca7db760-4f4c-11e9-bdb7-44f948cc0605_story.html |url-status= dead |archive-date= 26 March 2019 |title=Pentagon: missile defense test succeeds in shootdown |date=25 March 2019 |access-date= 25 March 2019 |agency=Associated Press |first=Robert |last=Burns |via=The Washington Post}}

|This test used two interceptors,{{cite web |url=https://www.army.mil/article/219788/national_guard_soldiers_at_forefront_of_most_significant_test_in_missile_defense_history |first1=Zachary |last1=Sheely |date=5 April 2019 |title=National Guard Soldiers at forefront of most significant test in missile defense history |access-date= 22 April 2019 |website=army.mil |publisher=United States Army}} one to crash into a dummy target representing an incoming ICBM and another to use sensors to detect another ICBM or other countermeasures.{{cite news |url=https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-pentagon-missiledefense-idUSKCN1R62SE |title=U.S. military says it conducts successful missile defense test |date=25 March 2019 |work=Reuters |access-date= 25 March 2019 |last=Zargham |first=Mohammad |editor1-last= Reese |editor1-first= Chris}}{{cite web |url=https://www.straitstimes.com/world/united-states/trickiest-us-missile-defence-test-is-finally-ready-to-launch |title=Trickiest U.S. Missile Defense Test Is Finally Ready to Launch |last=Capaccio |first=Anthony |date=24 March 2019 |work=Bloomberg |access-date= 25 March 2019}}

|11 Dec 2023

|{{success}}{{cite web |url=https://www.mda.mil/news/23news0006.html |title=Homeland Missile Defense System Conducts Successful Intercept Of Target |date=11 December 2023 |access-date=12 December 2023 |work=Missile Defense Agency}}

|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. It was launched from Vandenberg Space Force Base and successfully intercepted an IRBM deployed from a C-17 aircraft over the Pacific Ocean.[https://www.defensenews.com/land/2023/12/11/homeland-defense-interceptor-defeats-ballistic-missile-in-test/ Homeland defense interceptor defeats ballistic missile in test], Jen Judson, Defense News, 2023-12-12

! Name

! date

! Result

! class="unsortable" |Description{{cite web |url=http://www.cdi.org/news/missile-defense/gmd-booster.pdf |title=Missile Defense BV Test Flights |work=Center for Defense Information |date=5 May 2005 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120414164522/http://www.cdi.org/news/missile-defense/gmd-booster.pdf |archive-date= 14 April 2012}}{{cite web |last1=Parsch |first1=Andreas |title=Boeing Ground-Based Interceptor (GBI) |url=http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/app4/gbi.html |website=Directory of U.S. Military Rockets and Missiles |access-date= 25 June 2014 |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20060904060255/http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/app4/gbi.html |archive-date= 4 September 2006 |url-status= dead}}

|{{dts|format=dmy|1997|Jun|24}}

|{{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.

|{{dts|format=dmy|1998|Jan|16}}

|{{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.

|{{dts|format=dmy|2001|Apr|28}}

|{{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.

|{{dts|format=dmy|2001|Aug|31}}

|{{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.

|{{dts|format=dmy|2001|Dec|13}}

|{{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.

|{{dts|format=dmy|2003|Aug|16}}

|{{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.

|{{dts|format=dmy|2004|Jan|9}}

|{{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.

|{{dts|format=dmy|2004|Jan|26}}

|{{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.

|{{dts|format=dmy|2005|Apr|8}}

|{{success}}

|This test featured a C-17 dropping a medium-range target from its rear, {{convert|800|mi|km}} northwest of the Pacific Missile Range Facility in Hawaii.

|{{dts|format=dmy|2005|Aug|4}}

|{{success}}

|This test was the first of two medium-range target vehicles.

|{{dts|format=dmy|2005|Aug|18}}

|{{success}}

|This test was the second of two medium-range target vehicles.{{cite web |url=http://www.businesswire.com/portal/site/google/?ndmViewId=news_view&newsId=20050823005496&newsLang=en |title=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 |work=Business Wire |date=23 August 2005}}

|{{dts|format=dmy|2005|Sep|26}}

|{{success}}

|This test was an apparent variant of IFT-19 and featured an air-launched long-range target tracked by Cobra Dane radar.

|{{dts|format=dmy|2005|Dec|13}}

|{{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.

|{{dts|format=dmy|2006|Feb|23}}

|{{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.

|{{dts|format=dmy|2006|Apr|13}}

|{{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.

|{{dts|format=dmy|2006|Apr|28}}

|{{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.

|{{dts|format=dmy|2007|Mar|27}}

|{{partial success}}

|This test of the Sea-Based X-Band Radar revealed "anomalous behavior", and demonstrated a need for software modifications to improve performance.

|{{dts|format=dmy|2008|Jul|18}}

|{{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.{{cite web |url=http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2008/07/18/state/n190106D92.DTL |title=U.S. missile defense sensor test called successful |agency=Associated Press |date=18 July 2008}}

|{{dts|format=dmy|2010|Jun|6}}

|{{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.{{cite web |url=https://www.mda.mil/news/10news0006.html |title=Modified Ground-Based Interceptor Completes Successful Flight Test |work=Missile Defense Agency |date=6 June 2010 |access-date= 15 December 2010}}

|{{dts|format=dmy|2013|Jan|26}}

|{{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.{{cite web |url=https://www.mda.mil/news/13news0001.html |title=Ground-Based Interceptor Completes Successful Flight Test |work=Missile Defense Agency |date=26 January 2013 |access-date= 18 January 2019}}

|{{dts|format=dmy|2016|Jan|28}}

|{{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.{{cite web |url=https://www.mda.mil/news/16news0002.html |title=Ground-based Midcourse Defense System Conducts Successful Flight Test |work=Missile Defense Agency |date=28 January 2016 |access-date= 28 January 2016}}

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.{{cite news |title=A test of America's homeland missile defense system found a problem. Why did the Pentagon call it a success? |url=http://www.latimes.com/projects/la-na-missile-defense/#nt=oft09a-5gp1 |newspaper=Los Angeles Times |date=6 July 2016}} 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."