Wait, you're saying a KKV doesn't need a high t/w ratio? Dude, you might want to think on that a little. That KKV is doing exactly what it's supposed to do.
No, it is launched by a missile to hit a warhead--not hover in place over a net really. It is supposed to have enough precision in its thrusters to hit a very small target. That it could hover is a plus.
Now there was a rumor that the R-36M SATAN (Dnepr) derived from the SS-( (Cyclone) was an armored ICBM with an agile bus, so the kinetic kill vehicle itself would have to manuver more--rather like two people trying to side step each other in a hall(right to right, left to left) and colliding anyway, like Stockholm and Andrea Doria
The KKV is just a payload. It is coasting up when released and thrusting a bit out the sides to line up with the target. If the missile that launched it was itself agile, then the KKV doesn't need enough thrust to support its own weight really, if things are lined up well from the start.
I'm thinking the guys who did this net test expected the actual KKV to use less thrust during an intercept than it did doing this hover. This was a way to show how precise their product was. I really doubt Armadillo could replicate it myself. BMDO has such a head-start and all. I seem to remember a similar test back in the 1980's
Now the anti-missile defense arguements puzzle me a bit. They say striking a warhead with a KKV is all but impossible, and yet there are very complex Mars sample return missions that rely on a bus to scoop up a sample return package smaller than most any warhead--and in space near another planet even. So if I hear someone poo-poo missile defense then talk Mars sample return--its pretty much the same problem.
Now if you can mass produce KKVs as easily as warheads, then you have effective missile defense against a smaller country at least.
But that's an arguement for another time. My point was sometimes it's the little things that can cause the most trouble.