Register here

Author Topic: Ground Based Interceptor (GBI)  (Read 19668 times)

Offline RyanC

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 830
  • Crazy Researcher
    • Alternate Wars
Ground Based Interceptor (GBI)
« on: January 29, 2013, 12:13:59 pm »
CTV-01 test just occurred on 27 January 2013.

No target involved.

The EKV separated from the booster, and carried out a series of preprogrammed manouvers to validate that the problem which caused the last test in December 2010 to fail had been correctly identified and fixed.

The test was apparently a success; which validates the CE-II (Capability II) EKV that has been sidelined from being deployed for the last two years due to the FTG-06a failure.
« Last Edit: January 29, 2013, 12:16:44 pm by RyanCrierie »

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8509
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline Grey Havoc

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 8032
  • The path not taken.
The sole imperative of a government, once instituted, is to survive.

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8509
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8509
Re: Ground Based Interceptor (GBI)
« Reply #4 on: January 28, 2016, 03:57:02 pm »
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline fredymac

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1274
Re: Ground Based Interceptor (GBI)
« Reply #5 on: January 29, 2016, 02:33:48 am »
http://missiledefenseadvocacy.org/alert/on-the-offense/

GBI test

Raytheon press release.
http://raytheon.mediaroom.com/2016-01-28-Raytheon-kill-vehicle-succeeds-in-developmental-flight-test

Raytheon kill vehicle succeeds in developmental flight test
Mission validates thruster redesign for enhanced ballistic missile defense
VANDENBERG AIR FORCE BASE, Calif., Jan. 28, 2016 /PRNewswire/ -- A Raytheon Company (NYSE: RTN) Exoatmospheric Kill Vehicle (EKV) successfully completed a data-gathering mission during a Missile Defense Agency flight test. The mission's objective was to observe in-flight performance of redesigned components and gain valuable information on evolving threat classes.

EKVs are designed to destroy incoming ballistic threats while they are still in space. As part of the MDA test of the Ground-based Midcourse Defense system, a ballistic missile target was launched and purposely not intercepted to demonstrate for maximum maneuvering and data collection.

The successful mission proved the effectiveness of a recent redesign of the EKV thrusters, which provides the control necessary for lethal impact with incoming threats while safely outside of the Earth's atmosphere. The testing was supported by Raytheon's sea-based X-band radar (SBX) and AN/TPY-2 radar – both play critical roles in supporting the Ground-based Midcourse Defense system. 

"This was a remarkable data-collection opportunity," said Dr. Taylor W. Lawrence, president of Raytheon Missile Systems. "These are among our industry's most complex systems. Testing is critically important to ensuring the advancement of reliable kill vehicles for the protection of the U.S. homeland."

Offline DrRansom

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 499
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: Ground Based Interceptor (GBI)
« Reply #6 on: January 29, 2016, 08:33:45 pm »
The Missile Defense Advocacy website should find a better writer, their articles are borderline incoherent.

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8509
Re: Ground Based Interceptor (GBI)
« Reply #7 on: April 28, 2016, 09:22:32 pm »
MDA seeks industry ideas for new GBI booster upgrade

The Missile Defense Agency is seeking ideas from industry on new booster designs for the Ground-based Interceptor, and is signaling plans for the government to be the lead systems integrator  -- supplanting an industry prime contractor -- in a project to upgrade the entire Ground-based Midcourse Defense guided missile fleet with nearly 80 booster stacks beginning in 2023.
-----------------------------------
Good news for the solid rocket motor industry along with the GBSD.
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline Grey Havoc

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 8032
  • The path not taken.
Re: Ground Based Interceptor (GBI)
« Reply #8 on: April 29, 2016, 02:57:49 am »
Unfortunately, this could be considered to be yet another case of too little, too late.
The sole imperative of a government, once instituted, is to survive.

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11069
Re: Ground Based Interceptor (GBI)
« Reply #9 on: April 29, 2016, 04:45:42 am »
Unfortunately, this could be considered to be yet another case of too little, too late.

Better late than never.  Still, I think we both know this is nothing but talk.  One hears of all this new plans for speeding up carrier acquisition, restarting the F-22 line, etc. etc. etc. and all the while they cut the defense budget.  Putin and Xi must wake each day wondering what new gift the idiotic West will lay at their feet.
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8509
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8509
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline bring_it_on

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1812
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: Ground Based Interceptor (GBI)
« Reply #12 on: April 20, 2017, 12:48:59 pm »
MDA approves preliminary design, 'dual-pol' tech for Long Range Discrimination Radar

Quote
The Missile Defense Agency has approved Lockheed Martin's preliminary design for the Long Range Discrimination Radar -- a program central to Pentagon plans to improve homeland defense by bolstering the Ground-based Midcourse Defense program with an unprecedented ability to detect ballistic missile threats by the end of this decade.

The LRDR is a nearly $1 billion project to emplace a new radar in Alaska by 2020 as part of the agency's plans to upgrade the GMD program to what it calls the Robust Homeland Defense configuration by providing an improved persistent view of long-range ballistic missiles -- particularly those launched from North Korea -- during the midcourse of flight.

Following a March 21-22 review chaired by two senior MDA officials -- Keith Englander, director for engineering, and Rich Ritter, director for command, control, communications, computers, intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance -- the government approved the development project to proceed with further design efforts, according to Chandra Marshall, Lockheed Martin program director for LRDR.

The two-day assessment, at Lockheed's Moorestown, NJ, facility, included assessments of a prototype LRDR system.

"Lockheed Martin utilized a scaled LRDR system to successfully demonstrate Critical Technology Elements in a relevant end-to-end environment," according to an April 20 company statement.

Marshall, in an April 20 interview with reporters, declined to identify specific technologies assessed during the review, citing classification sensitivities.

"But I can tell you that one of the key areas, one of the technology upgrades we made . . . is introducing dual-pol technology," Marshall said, using the shorthand for "dual-polarized." This technology -- used today by weather-forecasting radar -- "improves the ability to maximize discrimination," she said.

By incorporating dual-pol technology, the LRDR promises to provide a two-dimensional view of a ballistic missile's track. The two-face radar will send both horizontally and vertically polarized electromagnetic waves; when these bounce off a threatening ballistic missile and are received back, each wave is separately processed and then synthesized to produce a two-dimensional view.

During the review, Lockheed persuaded MDA officials that key technologies for the new radar are Technology Readiness Level 6, meaning a system or subsystem prototype was demonstrated in a relevant environment, according to Marshall. The program also demonstrated Manufacturing Level Readiness 6, which indicates ability to proceed into engineering and manufacturing development.

Next month, MDA will review Lockheed's design proposal for the equipment shelter that will house the new radar, due to eventually be installed at Clear Air Force Station, AK. In September, MDA plans a critical design review of the new radar followed by a final design review in November; a production decision is expected in the spring of 2018, according to Marshall.

Lockheed is due to deliver the radar to MDA in 2020, she said.

The high-powered S-band radar incorporates gallium-nitride components and is similar to the Space Fence radar system Lockheed is building for the Air Force “but is additionally capable of discriminating threats at extreme distances using the inherent sideband capability of the hardware coupled with advanced software algorithms,” according to the company statement.

"The key part of this radar is the ability to do precise, long-distance detection and characterization of ballistic missiles," said Marshall. "This radar can do that better than any radar fielded today."

Gen. John Hyten, head of U.S. Strategic Command, told the Senate Armed Services Committee on April 4 that the LRDR is a top priority.

Along with the LRDR, MDA plans other enhancements as part of the Robust Homeland Defense modernization phase of the GMD program, including the Upgraded Early Warning Radar, a redesigned kill vehicle, a new ground-based interceptor booster design -- the C3 -- to outfit the fleet with new 50-inch-diameter boost vehicles to lift the exoatmospheric kill vehicle in a position to intercept an incoming ballistic missile warhead, and other ground system improvements.

In October 2015, MDA awarded Lockheed a contract potentially worth $784 million to develop, deploy, test, and operate the LRDR. MDA's fiscal year 2017 budget request outlines plans to spend $896 million on the new radar between 2015 and 2021.
Old radar types never die; they just phased array - Unknown

Offline fredymac

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1274
Re: Ground Based Interceptor (GBI)
« Reply #13 on: April 20, 2017, 04:05:09 pm »
I would guess that some of the impetus for an upgraded booster is to accommodate the MIRV'd interceptors from the MOKV program.

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8509
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline r3mu511

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • *
  • Posts: 26
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: Ground Based Interceptor (GBI)
« Reply #15 on: April 20, 2017, 08:43:42 pm »
^this line from the article made me laugh:

Quote
The “discrimination” in the name doesn’t mean the radar’s racist.

:P the day is going to come when SJWs will be clamping down on all the technical terminology we use in our engineering work, I sure as hell hope I'll be retired from the industry by then, lol...

Offline GTX

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2547
  • All hail the God of Frustration!!!
    • Beyond The Sprues
Re: Ground Based Interceptor (GBI)
« Reply #16 on: April 21, 2017, 02:16:20 pm »

Offline marauder2048

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2089
  • "I should really just relax"
Re: Ground Based Interceptor (GBI)
« Reply #17 on: April 21, 2017, 03:23:27 pm »
I would guess that some of the impetus for an upgraded booster is to accommodate the MIRV'd interceptors from the MOKV program.

My impression was the software selectable 2 or 3 stage burn would facilitate (along with the improved sensors) Shoot-look-shoot.

Offline DrRansom

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 499
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: Ground Based Interceptor (GBI)
« Reply #18 on: April 21, 2017, 08:27:08 pm »
MDA seeks industry ideas for new GBI booster upgrade

The Missile Defense Agency is seeking ideas from industry on new booster designs for the Ground-based Interceptor, and is signaling plans for the government to be the lead systems integrator  -- supplanting an industry prime contractor -- in a project to upgrade the entire Ground-based Midcourse Defense guided missile fleet with nearly 80 booster stacks beginning in 2023.
-----------------------------------
Good news for the solid rocket motor industry along with the GBSD.

The 2012 NAS study of missile defense suggested using the KEI first stage for the missile interceptor launch. The KEI first stage would give the overall architecture a Shoot-Look-Shook ability and allow a heavier kill vehicle with better sensors.

It is sad that, only now, the missile defense agency is looking at that advice. Worse that they just aren't using the existing technology to get something done soon.

Offline bring_it_on

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1812
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: Ground Based Interceptor (GBI)
« Reply #19 on: April 22, 2017, 03:32:28 am »
The latest DSB report concluded that the MDA would require approximately $2 Billion in additional annual funding to keep up with the advances in the threat. The burden of buying intercepters needs to be shifted to the services that operate the equipment and the MDA needs to concentrate on improving systems, developing capability and R&D/S&T efforts.
Old radar types never die; they just phased array - Unknown

Offline marauder2048

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2089
  • "I should really just relax"
Re: Ground Based Interceptor (GBI)
« Reply #20 on: April 23, 2017, 06:33:15 pm »


The 2012 NAS study of missile defense suggested using the KEI first stage for the missile interceptor launch. The KEI first stage would give the overall architecture a Shoot-Look-Shook ability and allow a heavier kill vehicle with better sensors.

It is sad that, only now, the missile defense agency is looking at that advice. Worse that they just aren't using the existing technology to get something done soon.

IIRC, the range penalty for the two-stage KEI version of GBI necessitated (at a minimum) four CONUS sites.
Then there was the cost of maintaining (in the interim) a split inventory.

I think MDA is getting most of what they need from the 2/3 stage selectable booster stack and improved discrimination.



Offline DrRansom

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 499
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: Ground Based Interceptor (GBI)
« Reply #21 on: April 24, 2017, 07:37:39 pm »
IIRC, the range penalty for the two-stage KEI version of GBI necessitated (at a minimum) four CONUS sites.
Then there was the cost of maintaining (in the interim) a split inventory.

I think MDA is getting most of what they need from the 2/3 stage selectable booster stack and improved discrimination.

From what I remember of the NAS study, they said a two stage KEI would enable Shoot-Look-Shoot from Iranian and North Korean missiles, using two / three launch points. Also, do you know if the new sensor will be networked? A key point of the NAS study was that the infrared sensor of the first missile was critical to enable high quality target discrimination.

Offline marauder2048

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2089
  • "I should really just relax"
Re: Ground Based Interceptor (GBI)
« Reply #22 on: April 24, 2017, 09:54:26 pm »
IIRC, the range penalty for the two-stage KEI version of GBI necessitated (at a minimum) four CONUS sites.
Then there was the cost of maintaining (in the interim) a split inventory.

I think MDA is getting most of what they need from the 2/3 stage selectable booster stack and improved discrimination.

From what I remember of the NAS study, they said a two stage KEI would enable Shoot-Look-Shoot from Iranian and North Korean missiles, using two / three launch points. Also, do you know if the new sensor will be networked? A key point of the NAS study was that the infrared sensor of the first missile was critical to enable high quality target discrimination.

IIRC, imaging LADAR returns would be downlinked via dual-band (X and S band) datalink. 

Offline bring_it_on

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1812
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: Ground Based Interceptor (GBI)
« Reply #23 on: April 29, 2017, 03:59:47 am »
MDA soliciting industry ideas for a 'transportable' Ground-based Interceptor


Quote
The Missile Defense Agency is soliciting ideas for a new variant of the Ground-based Interceptor -- one that would not be emplaced in a silo as currently utilized by the Ground-based Midcourse Defense system, but moved around, presumably on the back of a heavy truck, in an effort to give commanders more flexible options to defend the nation.

On April 28, MDA published a request for information seeking industry ideas for a "transportable Ground-based Interceptor," an initiative that aims to satisfy a statutory directive for the agency to assess options for a version of the guided-missile interceptor that could be launched from multiple locations. The agency is seeking industry ideas in the form of white papers by June 2.

"MDA will use industry's technical responses to support 'evaluation of alternative GBI deployments' as directed in Fiscal Year 2017 National Defense Authorization Act," the solicitation, published in Federal Business Opportunities, states. MDA makes clear that the government has no plan to develop or procure such a system, and is exploring the concept because of a statutory requirement.

MDA is required to prepare a report that outlines a potential transportable GBI capability, including a "detailed program development production and deployment cost and schedule for the earliest  technically possible deployment," and comparative cost to the fixed-based GBI, according to the FY-17 act. The report is also to address technical readiness and "feasibility of a transportable ground-based interceptor as a means to deploy additional ground-based interceptors" to defend the nation against a limited ballistic missile attack.

MDA, according to the notice, will focus on "transportable" capability, not "mobile" capability, seeking ideas for a GBI that could reposition, emplace and be ready to launch "within days" as opposed to be able to do the same "within minutes."

"A 'mobile' capability also tends to drive complex operations concepts, special security requirements, mobile command, control, communications, and a level of launcher sophistication that pushes costs to unsustainable levels," MDA notes.

MDA seeks industry ideas to address questions set forth in the defense authorization act, including deployment and operating concepts; technical descriptions, enabling technologies, technical risks and relevant technical readiness levels.

MDA also wants a "rough order of magnitude" cost estimate for such a capability.

Proposed concepts "must show tangible benefits" to the Ballistic Missile Defense System and either the "potential to significantly reduce costs over fixed-site acquisition in order to increase projected GBI inventory with no loss in GMD system effectiveness" or the potential to "significantly increase effectiveness or operational utility over fixed-site capability," according to the notice.

The GMD program is designed to defend the nation against a limited attack from North Korean- or Iranian-launched intermediate- and long-range ballistic missiles by intercepting the incoming warheads midway through their flight path. In response to North Korean technical advances and provocations in 2013, the Pentagon set a goal to expand the number of fielded GBIs at Ft. Greely, AK, and Vandenberg Air Force Base, CA, from 30 to 44 by the end of 2017.

MDA, also in response to congressional direction, is exploring the idea of an East Coast GBI site as a hedge against a potential, future Iranian long-range ballistic missile threat.

Boeing is the lead industry team for GMD development, integration, testing, operation and sustainment and Northrop Grumman oversees ground system elements and supports operation and sustainment and system engineering test support. Boeing, as prime contractor, integrates a Raytheon-built exoatmospheric kill vehicle on a booster stack built by Orbital Sciences Corp.
Old radar types never die; they just phased array - Unknown

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8509
Re: Ground Based Interceptor (GBI)
« Reply #24 on: April 29, 2017, 06:25:55 am »
Was hoping 'mobile' as an easy conversion to a future IRBM prompt strike missile
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11069
Re: Ground Based Interceptor (GBI)
« Reply #25 on: April 29, 2017, 12:08:58 pm »
Was hoping 'mobile' as an easy conversion to a future IRBM prompt strike missile

"MDA, according to the notice, will focus on "transportable" capability, not "mobile" capability, seeking ideas for a GBI that could reposition, emplace and be ready to launch "within days" as opposed to be able to do the same "within minutes."

Why not just do it right?   ::)

"A 'mobile' capability also tends to drive complex operations concepts, special security requirements, mobile command, control, communications, and a level of launcher sophistication that pushes costs to unsustainable levels," MDA notes.

Funny, Russia, China, India, and even North Korea manage to make mobile missiles doable.  What is it about the North American continent that makes it unpossible?
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline bring_it_on

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1812
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: Ground Based Interceptor (GBI)
« Reply #26 on: April 29, 2017, 12:40:56 pm »
I assume they want to look at this for the East coast site(s) that the Congress wants them to work on next. I think mobile vs transportable comes down to cost and the trades that entails (would you want to pay for mobility at the expense of greater number of interceptors for a finite budget for example). Wouldn't/shouldn't they look to put an LRDR on the East coast before they place interceptors there if indeed this is still the direction the Congress wants MDA to focus on?
Old radar types never die; they just phased array - Unknown

Offline marauder2048

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2089
  • "I should really just relax"
Re: Ground Based Interceptor (GBI)
« Reply #27 on: April 29, 2017, 04:20:15 pm »
KEI (as originally envisioned) would have split the difference with about a three hour emplacement time.

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8509
Re: Ground Based Interceptor (GBI)
« Reply #28 on: April 29, 2017, 04:36:25 pm »
KEI (as originally envisioned) would have split the difference with about a three hour emplacement time.
A couple hundred on Guam with a SWERVE on top in a super hardened 'dense pack' would work for me.......  :o
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8509
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline Mark S.

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • *
  • Posts: 71
Re: Ground Based Interceptor (GBI)
« Reply #30 on: April 30, 2017, 07:51:13 pm »
There is a difference between road mobile and air transportable.  For the size missile in question if you work the numbers you'll see that the vehicle weight increases significantly if you require it to absorb the loads attributable to the jet efflux or even gas generator developed thrust at launch. You need mass to resist that force and provide a stable launch platform thanks to a gent named Newton.  A TEL for this size missile could very well be too large and heavy to transport in a C-17.  Making it transportable allows you to use the vehicle to erect the launch tube (I'm assuming a gas generator cold launch) and move away after suitable bracing is installed.  We're talking hours not days but certainly more than minutes of a mobile system.  The C-17 can get into short runways much like a C-130 opening up a lot more potential launch sites.  So if you want to protect Hawaii, Guam, or our Allies in the Pacific or elsewhere as long as you have radar covering the enemy's launch sites you got a system that can protect them.

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8509
Re: Ground Based Interceptor (GBI)
« Reply #31 on: May 03, 2017, 04:19:17 pm »
Transportable?
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot


Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8509
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline marauder2048

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2089
  • "I should really just relax"
Re: Ground Based Interceptor (GBI)
« Reply #34 on: May 30, 2017, 05:23:18 pm »
Homeland Missile Defense System Successfully Intercepts ICBM Target
17-NEWS-0003
May 30, 2017

The U.S. Missile Defense Agency, in cooperation with the U.S. Air Force 30th Space Wing, the Joint Functional Component Command for Integrated Missile Defense and U.S. Northern Command, today successfully intercepted an intercontinental ballistic missile target during a test of the Ground-based Midcourse Defense (GMD) element of the nation's ballistic missile defense system.

This was the first live-fire test event against an ICBM-class target for GMD and the U.S. ballistic missile defense system.

During the test, an ICBM-class target was launched from the Reagan Test Site on Kwajalein Atoll in the Republic of the Marshall Islands. Multiple sensors provided target acquisition and tracking data to the Command, Control, Battle Management and Communication (C2BMC) system. The Sea-Based X-band radar, positioned in the Pacific Ocean, also acquired and tracked the target. The GMD system received the target tracking data and developed a fire control solution to intercept the target.

A ground-based interceptor was launched from Vandenberg Air Force Base, California, and its exo-atmospheric kill vehicle intercepted and destroyed the target in a direct collision.

"The intercept of a complex, threat-representative ICBM target is an incredible accomplishment for the GMD system and a critical milestone for
this program," said MDA Director Vice Adm. Jim Syring. "This system is vitally important to the defense of our homeland, and this test demonstrates that we have a capable, credible deterrent against a very real threat. I am incredibly proud of the warfighters who executed this test and who operate this system every day."

Initial indications are that the test met its primary objective, but program officials will continue to evaluate system performance based upon telemetry and other data obtained during the test.

The test, designated Flight Test Ground-Based Interceptor (FTG)-15, will provide the data necessary to assess the performance of the GMD system and provide enhanced homeland defense capabilities.

The GMD element of the ballistic missile defense system provides combatant commanders the capability to engage and destroy intermediate and long-range ballistic missile threats to protect the U.S. The mission of the Missile Defense Agency is to develop and deploy a layered ballistic missile defense system to defend the United States, its deployed forces, allies and friends from limited ballistic missile attacks of all ranges in all phases of flight.

Additional information about all elements of the ballistic missile defense system can be found at www.mda.mil.

https://www.mda.mil/news/17news0003.html
-------------


Hopefully, they'll post images of Orbital ATK's ICBM target.

Offline seruriermarshal

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 859
Re: Ground Based Interceptor (GBI)
« Reply #35 on: May 30, 2017, 08:05:44 pm »
 ;D

FTG-15

Offline seruriermarshal

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 859
Re: Ground Based Interceptor (GBI)
« Reply #36 on: May 30, 2017, 08:08:58 pm »
Hopefully, they'll post images of Orbital ATK's ICBM target.

what ICBM target which they used ?

Offline marauder2048

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2089
  • "I should really just relax"
Re: Ground Based Interceptor (GBI)
« Reply #37 on: May 30, 2017, 09:26:03 pm »
Orbital ATK's IRBM target with a booster.

Offline fredymac

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1274
Re: Ground Based Interceptor (GBI)
« Reply #38 on: May 30, 2017, 10:02:01 pm »
What distinguishes a "live fire" test from the previous intercepts?  For Aegis/THAAD, they have launched targets without notification to the interceptor crew so they had to rely upon detection and identification on their own.  However, I haven't seen that defined as "live fire".

Offline Grey Havoc

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 8032
  • The path not taken.
The sole imperative of a government, once instituted, is to survive.

Offline marauder2048

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2089
  • "I should really just relax"

Online Arjen

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2165
  • It's turtles all the way down
Re: Ground Based Interceptor (GBI)
« Reply #41 on: May 31, 2017, 02:10:56 am »
As far as I'm concerned - yes to both. Perspective. Thanks, GH.

Offline FighterJock

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 880
Re: Ground Based Interceptor (GBI)
« Reply #42 on: May 31, 2017, 02:58:09 am »
Anyone know the maximum range of this new missile?

Offline fredymac

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1274
Re: Ground Based Interceptor (GBI)
« Reply #43 on: May 31, 2017, 08:51:22 am »
Video of intercept.  I wonder if presidential release authority is required in an actual event.


Offline _Del_

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 315
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: Ground Based Interceptor (GBI)
« Reply #44 on: May 31, 2017, 09:38:11 am »
At the moment, I would hope not.

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11069
Re: Ground Based Interceptor (GBI)
« Reply #45 on: May 31, 2017, 10:38:23 am »
At the moment, I would hope not.

Why?
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline marauder2048

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2089
  • "I should really just relax"
Re: Ground Based Interceptor (GBI)
« Reply #46 on: May 31, 2017, 11:31:17 am »
As far as I'm concerned - yes to both. Perspective. Thanks, GH.

I'm not disputing that a political, non-technical and dated article provides perspective.
Just not one that belongs in this particular topic.

Offline _Del_

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 315
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: Ground Based Interceptor (GBI)
« Reply #47 on: May 31, 2017, 04:18:28 pm »
At the moment, I would hope not.

Why?

I'd hope a battery commander would have that discretion in the event of something particularly exciting?

Offline Airplane

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 432
Re: Ground Based Interceptor (GBI)
« Reply #48 on: May 31, 2017, 04:38:57 pm »
At the moment, I would hope not.

Why?

I'd hope a battery commander would have that discretion in the event of something particularly exciting?

Considering how little the time there is in a window of opportunity to have a successful launch, there can't be presidential authority involved. And why would there be in firing a defensive weapon at a potential inbound ICBM?

You can be certain however that if an interceptor was fired, the president would have learned before the launch that there was an inbound ICBM heading towards the homeland. Putting release authority with the president for a defensive weapon against an incoming nuke doesn't make sense.
"The test of success is not what you do when your on top. Success is how high you bounce when you hit bottom.”
– General George S. Patton

Offline _Del_

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 315
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: Ground Based Interceptor (GBI)
« Reply #49 on: May 31, 2017, 07:21:58 pm »
Right. Does an Aegis cruiser require presidential authority to release on an incoming missile? I'd certainly hope not.

With young Kim acting squirrelly, in particular,  I rather hope we don't have release authority tied to someone over the battery commander for an event window measured in minutes.

Offline marauder2048

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2089
  • "I should really just relax"
Re: Ground Based Interceptor (GBI)
« Reply #50 on: May 31, 2017, 07:41:19 pm »
The Combatant Commanders have weapons release authority. In practice for GMD it's USNORTHCOM

Offline seruriermarshal

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 859
Re: Ground Based Interceptor (GBI)
« Reply #51 on: June 01, 2017, 02:35:37 am »
 :o

discriminated between the target and countermeasures, maneuvered into the target's path and destroyed it using "hit-to-kill" technology.

Offline seruriermarshal

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 859
Re: Ground Based Interceptor (GBI)
« Reply #52 on: June 01, 2017, 02:36:35 am »

Offline Flyaway

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1591
Re: Ground Based Interceptor (GBI)
« Reply #53 on: June 01, 2017, 08:41:39 am »
Missile Defense Test 'Realistic', Syring Insists

Quote
“It actually replicated — without getting into classified details — an operational scenario that we’re concerned about,” Vice Adm. James Syring, currently at NORTHCOM HQ in Colorado Springs, told reporters gathered here around a speaker phone. While the Missile Defense Agency director didn’t explicitly say the threat yesterday emulated a North Korean missile, he did say tests replicate threats “from North Korea or Iran. In this case it was a Pacific scenario.” (Protip: Iran is not in the Pacific).

In fact, MDA tests against the intelligence community’s best estimate of where the North Korean and Iranian missile programs will be “three years” from now. “What we see in 2020…was very well replicated in the tests that we conducted yesterday,” Syring said.

That cutting-edge threat includes a high-performance target. “It flew at a higher altitude and a longer range and a higher velocity” than any target in previous tests, said Syring. It’s the first time the US missile defense system has actually been tested against a target with the performance characteristics of an ICBM, which is the threat that inspired its creation in the first place, three decades and at least 123 billion dollars ago.

Quote
With a twinge of exasperation, Syring also refuted suggestions that the test was a set-up, with the defenders knowing exactly when to fire and where to aim. “The target absolutely does not have a homing beacon on it, despite what some have written,” he said. The missile defense system “was not notified when the target was launched,” instead having to rely on radars and satellites to detect the missile’s take-off and compute its path, just as they would in a real-war scenario.

The missile defense crews did know the test was happening yesterday and the rough time window when it would occur, Syring said, but such things have to be scheduled and made public well in advance for safety reasons: “We’re launching an interceptor hundreds of miles north of LAX (Los Angeles airport, to) Hawaii,” he said. “That requires us to shut down large parts of the ocean (to) ship traffic and air traffic.”

http://breakingdefense.com/2017/05/missile-defense-test-realistic-syring-insists/

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11069
Re: Ground Based Interceptor (GBI)
« Reply #54 on: June 01, 2017, 08:47:30 am »
Looking at the picture released of the ICBM analog I notice the nose section had a LOT of cooling piped to it.  A foreign operational ICBM would not be cooled as such.  Perhaps this was to make it more difficult for the KKV to detect?  Maybe they were trying to anticipate an enemy trying to sneak by by cooling their bus/RV?  ???

"With a twinge of exasperation, Syring also refuted suggestions that the test was a set-up, with the defenders knowing exactly when to fire and where to aim. “The target absolutely does not have a homing beacon on it, despite what some have written,” he said. The missile defense system “was not notified when the target was launched,” instead having to rely on radars and satellites to detect the missile’s take-off and compute its path, just as they would in a real-war scenario."

Tinfoil hat lunacy there.  ::)  I'm amazed that anybody could have the patience to deal with that kind of stupidity.
« Last Edit: June 01, 2017, 08:50:37 am by sferrin »
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline Flyaway

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1591
Re: Ground Based Interceptor (GBI)
« Reply #55 on: June 01, 2017, 11:59:48 am »
Maybe I am naive but people were really suggesting the stuff he's having to refute there?

Offline TomS

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2860
Re: Ground Based Interceptor (GBI)
« Reply #56 on: June 01, 2017, 12:48:36 pm »
I've seen enough testing to know that these events aren't exactly unscripted. The specific refutation Syring gave is certainly true -- no homing beacon and no signal into the GBI system when the target fires. 

But that doesn't mean that the system operators didn't know a test was imminent or the parameters of the test in some detail. (There are only so many launch sites available for example.)  That colors their actions as they respond to the test launch.  It also means that they've been over the interceptor and systems with a fine toothed comb to make sure they're in good condition, which may not be true in a bolt-from-the-blue operational scenario.

Offline fredymac

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1274
Re: Ground Based Interceptor (GBI)
« Reply #57 on: June 01, 2017, 12:52:16 pm »
If my memory serves me, when the Homing Overlay Experiment was conducted 33 years ago, the charge of a rigged test with a radio homing beacon planted in the target was so fervently believed by the majority Democrats in Congress they actually called in the FBI to conduct a criminal investigation.

Offline marauder2048

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2089
  • "I should really just relax"
Re: Ground Based Interceptor (GBI)
« Reply #58 on: June 01, 2017, 12:53:48 pm »
Maybe I am naive but people were really suggesting the stuff he's having to refute there?

We shouldn't be linking to it but that NYTimes article has those notions.

Tinfoil hat lunacy there.  ::)  I'm amazed that anybody could have the patience to deal with that kind of stupidity.

Recall, Syring successfuly deflected a rabid AvWeek journalist  who later had to be put down.

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11069
Re: Ground Based Interceptor (GBI)
« Reply #59 on: June 01, 2017, 01:14:03 pm »
I've seen enough testing to know that these events aren't exactly unscripted. The specific refutation Syring gave is certainly true -- no homing beacon and no signal into the GBI system when the target fires. 

But that doesn't mean that the system operators didn't know a test was imminent or the parameters of the test in some detail. (There are only so many launch sites available for example.)  That colors their actions as they respond to the test launch.  It also means that they've been over the interceptor and systems with a fine toothed comb to make sure they're in good condition, which may not be true in a bolt-from-the-blue operational scenario.

Imagine the media s--t storm if there were no coordination whatsoever and the GBI operators were out to lunch when the target launch occurred.
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline marauder2048

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2089
  • "I should really just relax"
Re: Ground Based Interceptor (GBI)
« Reply #60 on: June 01, 2017, 01:19:24 pm »
It also means that they've been over the interceptor and systems with a fine toothed comb to make sure they're in good condition, which may not be true in a bolt-from-the-blue operational scenario.

But the same is also true for the test target.

Offline Mark S.

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • *
  • Posts: 71
Re: Ground Based Interceptor (GBI)
« Reply #61 on: June 01, 2017, 03:40:29 pm »
Would assume that those GBI's in Alaska have the systems monitored and corrective action taken when various parameters tested fall below required values.  I don't think they are  a completely wooden round.  That's what Built-In-Test systems are for.

Offline DrRansom

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 499
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: Ground Based Interceptor (GBI)
« Reply #62 on: June 01, 2017, 04:46:06 pm »
The question of pre-shot round testing is extremely relevant. The present GBI has serious and inherent reliability issues, which was recognized when it was viewed as a stop-gap system with a replacement to shortly follow. (Guess what never happened...)

If the test has a substantial EKV work-over before the flight, compared to annual maintenance for the rest of the GBI fleet, then the test is not representative.

In either case, one success is far below the reliability required for a national BMD system and the EKV should be replaced ASAP with an improved and more reliable model.

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11069
Re: Ground Based Interceptor (GBI)
« Reply #63 on: June 01, 2017, 04:47:58 pm »
The question of pre-shot round testing is extremely relevant. The present GBI has serious and inherent reliability issues, which was recognized when it was viewed as a stop-gap system with a replacement to shortly follow. (Guess what never happened...)

If the test has a substantial EKV work-over before the flight, compared to annual maintenance for the rest of the GBI fleet, then the test is not representative.

In either case, one success is far below the reliability required for a national BMD system and the EKV should be replaced ASAP with an improved and more reliable model.

I would say it's a HELL of a lot better than nothing at all.
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline DrRansom

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 499
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: Ground Based Interceptor (GBI)
« Reply #64 on: June 01, 2017, 05:16:12 pm »
I would say it's a HELL of a lot better than nothing at all.

As an applied R&D project, the BMD system is great. As an actual tool of policy, it is nowhere near good enough to be significant. Thankfully, the conditions don't exist yet which require it to be good.

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11069
Re: Ground Based Interceptor (GBI)
« Reply #65 on: June 01, 2017, 05:32:23 pm »
I would say it's a HELL of a lot better than nothing at all.

As an applied R&D project, the BMD system is great. As an actual tool of policy, it is nowhere near good enough to be significant. Thankfully, the conditions don't exist yet which require it to be good.

Against a North Korea or Iran it certainly is.  Of course there are certain schools of thought who think even demonstrating 100% effectiveness over a thousand tests would still be "unproven" and "nowhere near good enough to be significant".  I'd prefer to stick to practical realities.  A North Korea or Iran won't be able to blackmail. 
« Last Edit: June 01, 2017, 05:42:52 pm by sferrin »
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline starviking

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 917
Re: Ground Based Interceptor (GBI)
« Reply #66 on: June 01, 2017, 05:50:38 pm »
The Combatant Commanders have weapons release authority. In practice for GMD it's USNORTHCOM

We had quite the political tussle over that in Japan a few years back: constittional scholars arguing that the military would be suborning the civil adminstration, the government saying that it needed to be done. Then NK fired a missile over Japan with the military operationally ready to fire if necessary, but the authorization time-lag preventing them from taking any action. THEN the rules were changed. However, in Japan, both sides must give and take - so the military only have that latitude when an emergency is declared... ::)

Offline marauder2048

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2089
  • "I should really just relax"
Re: Ground Based Interceptor (GBI)
« Reply #67 on: June 01, 2017, 07:11:54 pm »
Maybe I am naive but people were really suggesting the stuff he's having to refute there?

In fact, such things were suggested during Syring's press briefing

https://www.defense.gov/News/Transcripts/Transcript-View/Article/1198464/department-of-defense-off-camera-press-briefing-by-vice-admiral-james-syring-on/

Offline TomS

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2860
Re: Ground Based Interceptor (GBI)
« Reply #68 on: June 01, 2017, 07:37:19 pm »
Notice who asked about homing beacons. Not the regular defense pool reporters, it was the gal from Breitbart.  The regulars seemed to be asking fairly reasonable questions about ways that the test might not be entirely representative. Except for that SBX question, which seemed weird.  SBX is a deployed asset; it's pretty likely to be in position during a period of tension where a launch is possible.  Having it play is not unrealistic at all.

Offline Kadija_Man

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1837
Re: Ground Based Interceptor (GBI)
« Reply #69 on: June 01, 2017, 09:21:07 pm »
The problem with ABM defences is that they are relatively easily overcome, without having to fire a shot.   All that is required is for the aggressor to develop MRV bus carrying ICBMs.   Once that happens, the ABM defence is reduced in effectiveness and suddenly you have to explain to the victims of the missile warheads why their city was hit and why those other cities weren't.   North Korea is well on the way to developing single warhead ICBMs.   Whats the betting that Kim Jung Un has instructed his scientists to work on MRV warheaded ICBMs?   Iran is apparently stalled at the moment but is unlikely to develop anything longer ranged than IRBMs.   

Offline fredymac

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1274
Re: Ground Based Interceptor (GBI)
« Reply #70 on: June 01, 2017, 10:10:12 pm »
MIRV'd warheads are countered by MIRV'd interceptors.  The MOKV was originally couched in terms of redundancy to handle decoys but I am now seeing some acknowledgement that they indeed are able to be used for MIRV'd warheads.

The key to a large scale attack is effective discrimination and/or boost phase interception prior to bus deployment.  No decoy will ever be able to counter discrimination based on mass.  Mass affects motion behavior in response to non-uniform gravitational perturbations, response to active probes from atomic particles or high frequency EM (X-ray or Gamma ray), wideband blackbody emission profile (especially when the mass is radioactive), and LIDAR velocity signatures (wobble components in 3 axes).  There are probably others but the use of cheap/dumb/lightweight decoys will become less effective over time.

Offline Kadija_Man

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1837
Re: Ground Based Interceptor (GBI)
« Reply #71 on: June 02, 2017, 09:10:04 pm »
MIRV'd warheads are countered by MIRV'd interceptors.  The MOKV was originally couched in terms of redundancy to handle decoys but I am now seeing some acknowledgement that they indeed are able to be used for MIRV'd warheads.

The key to a large scale attack is effective discrimination and/or boost phase interception prior to bus deployment.  No decoy will ever be able to counter discrimination based on mass.  Mass affects motion behavior in response to non-uniform gravitational perturbations, response to active probes from atomic particles or high frequency EM (X-ray or Gamma ray), wideband blackbody emission profile (especially when the mass is radioactive), and LIDAR velocity signatures (wobble components in 3 axes).  There are probably others but the use of cheap/dumb/lightweight decoys will become less effective over time.

The point is that it is cheaper to build multiple IRV bused ICBMs than it is to build ABMs and their associated guidance radars.   The IRV bused ICBMs will overwhelm the ABM systems and saturate them.   ABMs are technically difficult enough, let alone have sufficient to deal with thousands of IRVs.   Not all the IRVs will be warheads but there is in theory, nothing stopping them all being warheads.    The present US ABMs are fine for dealing with a limited number of single warhead missiles.  They may even be able to counter a small number of IRVs.   Hundreds?  Thousands?  No way.  This is what defeated the Safeguard system back in the 1960s-70s.   

As for boost phase interception, there are ways to overcome that as well, with densepack basing (it limits the number of interceptors overhead at any point in time) and the increased use of submarine launched missiles, spread out over a larger region.   Then there is the deployment of interceptor interceptors.   Either way, the US is suddenly required to field a very expensive system even more extensively.   

Offline marauder2048

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2089
  • "I should really just relax"
Re: Ground Based Interceptor (GBI)
« Reply #72 on: June 03, 2017, 01:29:34 am »
The point is that it is cheaper to build multiple IRV bused ICBMs than it is to build ABMs and their associated guidance radars. 

I'm not sure I buy this premise with respect to hit-to-kill based interceptors since the MiRV'ed ICBMs
use very expensive strategic materials for their warheads and aeroshells.

And the associated guidance radars are mostly dual-use (AEGIS, TPY-2) anyway and are
thus able to ride some beneficial cost curves as do many of the components used in the
kill vehicles.

But I tend to think the real challenge is kill assessment which is a corollary to discrimination
as a means of conserving interceptor inventory.



Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11069
Re: Ground Based Interceptor (GBI)
« Reply #73 on: June 03, 2017, 08:32:24 am »
It also assumes one needs a 100% kill ratio.  Entirely wrong calculation.  Against a rational actor (Russia and ,usually, China for example) a defensive system adds a great deal of uncertainty to an attack.  How many more warheads do you need to toss at each target to ensure that at least one gets through?  Where is the defender going to concentrate his defenses?  Add enough uncertainty and the appeal of launching a 1st strike gets less and less.  That's the whole point.  You want enough to intercept an attack by a nut job and enough to make a larger actor have second thoughts by FORCING them into the position of having to launch a full scale strike if they're going to launch at all.  "Oh, you want to "deescalate" now do you Russia?  Well we're going to intercept those missiles and "deescalate" right back."  You DON'T need 1,000 ABMs to intercept the 1,000 ICBMs the other guy has. 
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline kaiserd

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 509
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: Ground Based Interceptor (GBI)
« Reply #74 on: June 03, 2017, 10:48:18 am »
It also assumes one needs a 100% kill ratio.  Entirely wrong calculation.  Against a rational actor (Russia and ,usually, China for example) a defensive system adds a great deal of uncertainty to an attack.  How many more warheads do you need to toss at each target to ensure that at least one gets through?  Where is the defender going to concentrate his defenses?  Add enough uncertainty and the appeal of launching a 1st strike gets less and less.  That's the whole point.  You want enough to intercept an attack by a nut job and enough to make a larger actor have second thoughts by FORCING them into the position of having to launch a full scale strike if they're going to launch at all.  "Oh, you want to "deescalate" now do you Russia?  Well we're going to intercept those missiles and "deescalate" right back."  You DON'T need 1,000 ABMs to intercept the 1,000 ICBMs the other guy has.

So in what remotely likely scenario would a rationale state actor such as China or Russia launch a "limited" nuclear strike on the contential US and not expect the most likely consequence to be a rapid escalation to a full scale nuclear exchange nuclear in which they themselves would be destroyed?

And in what scenario would any one (politicians, the general public etc.) support a larger scale missile defence project that went beyond the limited defense against the very limited numbers and capabilities of a rouge nation such as might emerge from North Korea or potentially Iran, but which still would be relatively easily overcome by the opposing peer power state actor increasing missiles (and especially MPVs) numbers at considerable lower cost than the (now rather ineffective) missile defense project.

In this context the only point of having of having a missile defense against incoming nuclear tipped missiles is to either shoot down all your opponents missiles or potentially just to buy time to allow your counter strike to be launched (thereby maintaining the effectiveness of your deterrent that would otherwise be lost).

Again the reappearing but deeply deluded fantasy of being able fight and win a nuclear war rears its head in these discussion rooms.....
 
« Last Edit: June 03, 2017, 10:57:09 am by kaiserd »

Offline marauder2048

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2089
  • "I should really just relax"
Re: Ground Based Interceptor (GBI)
« Reply #75 on: June 03, 2017, 12:59:18 pm »

So in what remotely likely scenario would a rationale state actor such as China or Russia launch a "limited" nuclear strike on the contential US and not expect the most likely consequence to be a rapid escalation to a full scale nuclear exchange nuclear in which they themselves would be destroyed?

A plausibly deniable decapitation strike. It's always militarily tempting. 

And in what scenario would any one (politicians, the general public etc.) support a larger scale missile defence project that went beyond the limited defense against the very limited numbers and capabilities of a rouge nation such as might emerge from North Korea or potentially Iran, but which still would be relatively easily overcome by the opposing peer power state actor increasing missiles (and especially MPVs) numbers at considerable lower cost than the (now rather ineffective) missile defense project.

US Domestic public opposition to regional defenses in Europe and Asia has been pretty muted.
Those regional defenses have the ability to evolve to the point where they can contend (potentially boost or post-boost) against
ICBMs and thus potentially preserve GBI inventory.

There is an irrational but durable "out of sight, out of mind" element to a lot of the opposition to offensive and defensive strategic systems.

Again the reappearing but deeply deluded fantasy of being able fight and win a nuclear war rears its head in these discussion rooms.....

Delusion or not, it was Soviet doctrine (which influenced Chinese doctrine) during the Cold War; the young officers steeped in it
are now in leadership positions.

Offline fredymac

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1274
Re: Ground Based Interceptor (GBI)
« Reply #76 on: June 03, 2017, 01:23:09 pm »
The US is now starting the process of replacing 50 year old Minuteman ICBM's.  The relative costs for an ICBM vs an interceptor will be better established when pricing information becomes better defined.  I suspect the costs will not show a significant advantage for building ICBM's (especially when including all the associated costs in the building and maintenance of nuclear warheads).  If the cost of a MIRV'd ICBM is anywhere equivalent to an MOKV interceptor, then the technical/financial aspects of deterrence are open to reassessment.

The premise behind this is a desire to transform an offensive based deterrence to a defensive one.  I personally would be more at ease if Russia was relying on 40 year old ICBM's and had largely dismantled their nuclear weapons production infrastructure to the same degree the US has.  A defensively oriented deterrence where progressively more capable interceptors and sensors backed by a much reduced but credible offensive capability would de-emphasize the "threat based" psychology of offensive deterrence.  Moreover, it is a system which is inherently more effective when addressing a nuclear threat posed from state actors whose leadership raise questions as to their ability to rationally respond on the basis of "MAD".  It is ironic, but MAD should not be expected to work on a madman.

Offline Airplane

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 432
Re: Ground Based Interceptor (GBI)
« Reply #77 on: June 03, 2017, 06:25:35 pm »
Not entirely true. The US has the Trident which is newer than the Minuteman. The Minuteman may also be old, but it has been modernized over the years. The USAF hasn't let the Minuteman languish in those silos over the decades.

I just hope when they start fielding the new missile that they actually build it in real numbers. I don't want to hear that we are buying 15 missiles a year for 25 years!
"The test of success is not what you do when your on top. Success is how high you bounce when you hit bottom.”
– General George S. Patton

Offline Kadija_Man

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1837
Re: Ground Based Interceptor (GBI)
« Reply #78 on: June 03, 2017, 09:22:26 pm »
Again the reappearing but deeply deluded fantasy of being able fight and win a nuclear war rears its head in these discussion rooms.....

Delusion or not, it was Soviet doctrine (which influenced Chinese doctrine) during the Cold War; the young officers steeped in it are now in leadership positions.

Another delusional claim?  You appear to have forgotten that those young officers have been exposed to the reality of what fighting a nuclear war would entail to their homeland.  They will have seen Threads, The Day After, When the Wind Blows, they will have read the equivalent literature in the last 15+ years.  They will not have been isolated, they will not have been prevented from accessing that information.   Always remember, US Presidents were unaware of the real consequences of fighting a nuclear war until Reagan admitted he had seen The Day After for the first time in 1983.  There were no excuses for any fantasy ideals about being able to effectively win a nuclear exchange after that.   The Day After was first shown in Russia in 1987.   If they were indeed rational they would know, there was no benefit to using nuclear weapons, except in response to the use of nuclear weapons by the other side,  just as American policy makers hopefully know that (in the present President's case, it is an unknown).

If it ever comes down to a massed, nuclear exchange, how well will those 40+ ground based interceptors perform against the hundreds, if not thousands of warhead headed towards the US?    Let us be realistic about this, please.   Considering the high rate of failures displayed thus far in tests of the system, it doesn't look like money well spent IMHO.

"Rational" actors don't contemplate the use of nuclear weapons.  They definitely don't contemplate the limited use of nuclear warheads against a word superpower.   Only fools believe in such myths.

Offline marauder2048

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2089
  • "I should really just relax"
Re: Ground Based Interceptor (GBI)
« Reply #79 on: June 03, 2017, 11:23:55 pm »
Another delusional claim?  You appear to have forgotten that those young officers have been exposed to the reality of what fighting a nuclear war would entail to their homeland.  They will have seen Threads, The Day After, When the Wind Blows, they will have read the equivalent literature in the last 15+ years.  They will not have been isolated, they will not have been prevented from accessing that information.   Always remember, US Presidents were unaware of the real consequences of fighting a nuclear war until Reagan admitted he had seen The Day After for the first time in 1983.  There were no excuses for any fantasy ideals about being able to effectively win a nuclear exchange after that.   The Day After was first shown in Russia in 1987.   If they were indeed rational they would know, there was no benefit to using nuclear weapons, except in response to the use of nuclear weapons by the other side,  just as American policy makers hopefully know that (in the present President's case, it is an unknown).


"Rational" actors don't contemplate the use of nuclear weapons.  They definitely don't contemplate the limited use of nuclear warheads against a word superpower.   Only fools believe in such myths.

Sadly, none of these tender sentiments can be reconciled with actual Soviet and Warsaw Pact war planning
documents nor the post Cold War interviews with the officers who developed and would have executed them.

It's been extensively documented:

Odom's                                     "The Collapse of the Soviet Military"
John A. Battilega's chapter in      "Getting MAD : a nuclear mutual assured destruction, its origins and practice"
Vojtech Mastny, Malcolm Byrne  "A Cardboard Castle?: An Inside History of the Warsaw Pact, 1955-1991"

Offline UpForce

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • *
  • Posts: 119
Re: Ground Based Interceptor (GBI)
« Reply #80 on: June 03, 2017, 11:37:04 pm »

... [snip] ...

If it ever comes down to a massed, nuclear exchange, how well will those 40+ ground based interceptors perform against the hundreds, if not thousands of warhead headed towards the US? Let us be realistic about this, please. Considering the high rate of failures displayed thus far in tests of the system, it doesn't look like money well spent IMHO.

"Rational" actors don't contemplate the use of nuclear weapons. They definitely don't contemplate the limited use of nuclear warheads against a word superpower. Only fools believe in such myths.

Apart from what effect

movies and other popularizations of nuclear conflicts may have on actual strategy, tactics or policy (baseless speculation very much beside the point here, really), your reasoning seems to be well and truly steeped in the kind of barely veiled threats, disdain and obfuscation in which effects driven state run media such as "RT" and "Sputnik" (and their online acolytes, foreign collusionists and botnets to boot) specialize in - known as "reflexive control" in the trade. I have not (re-)read the entirety of this discussion solely to answer your latest message but even so I believe it safe (and indeed prudent) to point out here that Russia's strategy to "de-escalate" conflicts with nuclear weapons (i.e. test adversaries' will) is not lost on anyone worth their salt within NATO countries (and other US allies) - be they politicians, activists, academics, thinktankers of both pacifist and hawkish leanings or core military professionals. There is ample data on this available online from all these (reputable) sources and also directly from published Russian military doctrine, theory and a plethora of belligerent diplomatic statements toward such jingoists as ... Denmark.

These purportedly de-escalatory strikes may involve tactical, unconventional (e.g. Status-6) or strategic use of nuclear weapons, the strategic dimension of course directly motivating the development and implementation of GBI as a believable, robust and also reproducible system. Russian scenarios of "winnable nuclear exchanges" have been actively developed and comprehensively rehearsed (on an increasing pace) during Putin's regime. These designs sometimes bear more than passing resemblance to Warsaw Pact (i.e. Soviet) designs on first use of nuclear weapons during the Cold War. One worrying side-effect of all this is the re-emergence of low yield nuclear weaponry developed exactly for de-escalation and coercion purposes, recently coupled with Russian willingness to publicly flaunt breaches of missile arms control conventions. Also notable: whenever any kind of (NATO, other US aligned) regional missile defense has been brought up under any auspices we've heard pointedly loud howls of protest from the Kremlin (and their reference groups all around), most often coupled with the laugh-out loud claim that we somehow impinge on Russia's "right" to unimpededly threaten the use of nuclear weapons by our practicing any kind of dedicated missile defense (however limited or ineffectual) at all.

By your own account then, current Russian military doctrine and leadership is not rational.

Frankly I've seen enough of this to not take seriously anyone not convinced of the need for missile defenses. Of course there's a lead time in any endeavor, successes and failures but given the already existing realities and visible trendlines inaction is not an option (and this coming from someone who reserves judgement on all defense spending and does in no way, manner or form subscribe to some "more is always better" doctrine). It's an evolution, a process and every action does have a reaction down the line. But going without GBI and all the other layers of dedicated missile defense has become unthinkable and we've got to look forward to a World with this and beyond that as well.

So, yes, let us be realistic about this, in deed.

---

Edit: marauder2048 beat me to commenting, but as I believe our messages are not entirely mutually exclusive, I'll post as is.
« Last Edit: June 03, 2017, 11:46:59 pm by UpForce »

Offline kaiserd

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 509
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: Ground Based Interceptor (GBI)
« Reply #81 on: June 04, 2017, 02:19:16 am »
I would repeat that I am not against limited missile defences against limited capability limited "rouge nation" levels of threat nor do I see there would necessarily be much public opposition to these type of systems and the associated level of expenditure.

It's when you start scaling these type of systems up in terms of numbers and aimed for capabilities that it becomes such a dubious proposition and the "ifs" start piling up;
- IF such a system will actually be effective at countering a peer powers balistic missile nuclear first strike, initially and after the peer has undertaken the relatively straightforward enhancements of their balistic missile first strike capability as mentioned above.
- IF associated defense systems against alternative delivery systems (for example sub & bomber launched cruise missiles) can similarly be enhanced against encreased peer power concentration of resources on these alternative delivery systems, both as a straight forward alternative to ballistic missiles and as a means of degrading your new missile defended to the point of being ineffective.
- IF you can also strengthen your security and defences against potential "unconventional" methods of delivery of nuclear weapons ("on the back of truck" etc.) given the potential capabilities and resources a peer power could develop in this area.
- IF you can simultaneously upgrade your own offensive capabilities to keep up with your peer opponents upgrade their own defensive capabilities in line with yours.
- IF you can afford all of this at all, or afford all of this while not massively cutting all other defense spending (including, but not limited to the entire "war on terror")
- IF you can obtain the continued consent and buy in of politicians and the public for all of this, given that this all could drawf hight of Cold War expenditures on such systems.

This is were the fantastical nature of what is being proposed becomes clear.

Undoubtedly apects of current Russian nuclear doctrine is troubling and potentially destabilising but it has been up to this point a product of their actual and perceived weakness versus the US/ NATO re: conventional weapons.

However as stated above there needs to be realistic achievable solutions, not fantasies of a security that can never be achieved.
« Last Edit: June 04, 2017, 02:21:35 am by kaiserd »

Offline Kadija_Man

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1837
Re: Ground Based Interceptor (GBI)
« Reply #82 on: June 04, 2017, 08:05:00 am »
Another delusional claim?  You appear to have forgotten that those young officers have been exposed to the reality of what fighting a nuclear war would entail to their homeland.  They will have seen Threads, The Day After, When the Wind Blows, they will have read the equivalent literature in the last 15+ years.  They will not have been isolated, they will not have been prevented from accessing that information.   Always remember, US Presidents were unaware of the real consequences of fighting a nuclear war until Reagan admitted he had seen The Day After for the first time in 1983.  There were no excuses for any fantasy ideals about being able to effectively win a nuclear exchange after that.   The Day After was first shown in Russia in 1987.   If they were indeed rational they would know, there was no benefit to using nuclear weapons, except in response to the use of nuclear weapons by the other side,  just as American policy makers hopefully know that (in the present President's case, it is an unknown).


"Rational" actors don't contemplate the use of nuclear weapons.  They definitely don't contemplate the limited use of nuclear warheads against a word superpower.   Only fools believe in such myths.

Sadly, none of these tender sentiments can be reconciled with actual Soviet and Warsaw Pact war planning
documents nor the post Cold War interviews with the officers who developed and would have executed them.

That was then, now is now.  The Cold War ended in 1990.   You appear to live in the past, not the present.

Provide us with a link to the present Russian thinking on nuclear war, please, if you can.  Not stuff that was published 25+ years ago.   Then, think about this,  as the song goes, "don't they love their children too?"

The thinking of both sides during the Cold War were divorced from reality.  Yet, each time the US and the fUSSR went, "head to head" it was the leadership of the fUSSR which blinked, which backed down.   Americans believed they could win a nuclear war it appears, the Soviets did not.  If, as you claim, the Soviets believed the reverse, why then weren't they willing to carry it through and actually undertake such a conflict?

The Soviet Leadership was under no illusion as to what the effects a nuclear exchange would create.  Washington, on the other hand?  It appears not,  not until Reagan came along.

That though, was then.  Today?  The world has moved on, except in the imaginations of some people it appears.   Does anybody here seriously believe that a nuclear exchange is going to be beneficial to anybody?  Really?


Offline fredymac

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1274
Re: Ground Based Interceptor (GBI)
« Reply #83 on: June 04, 2017, 10:24:04 am »
For those who believe that it is principally the US which keeps the world from being a better place, it is strange to see such angst against a project which would, in their own estimations, be a wholly useless endeavor while wasting a significant percentage of the military budget.  Moreover, this project would serve as a foundation to reduce reliance upon nuclear retaliation. This is truly a "twofer" in the category of win-win.

Anyone who considers US military spending to be "obscene" and principally employed to further imperialistic goals should applaud such an opportunity to hobble US military effectiveness.

Offline marauder2048

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2089
  • "I should really just relax"
Re: Ground Based Interceptor (GBI)
« Reply #84 on: June 04, 2017, 04:27:08 pm »

That was then, now is now.  The Cold War ended in 1990.   You appear to live in the past, not the present.

Provide us with a link to the present Russian thinking on nuclear war, please, if you can.  Not stuff that was published 25+ years ago.   Then, think about this,  as the song goes, "don't they love their children too?"

The current leadership was steeped in a the very comprehensive and well articulated
nuclear doctrine of the late Soviet period.

Schnedier's presentation to the Defense Science Board (obtained under FOIA)
and his recent, updated article describe Russian nuclear doctrine in terms that look very
much like evolved Soviet nuclear doctrine: highly flexible employment
down to the tactical level with a strong emphasis on preemption and escalate-to-deescalate. 

http://www.realcleardefense.com/articles/2017/04/28/russian_nuclear_weapons_policy_111261.html

Absent a major defection from the Russian side along with documents to corroborate it's probably
the best argument that can be marshalled given the evidence and given Soviet/Russian military
history/tradition and known nuclear doctrine.
 

The thinking of both sides during the Cold War were divorced from reality.  Yet, each time the US and the fUSSR went, "head to head" it was the leadership of the fUSSR which blinked, which backed down.   Americans believed they could win a nuclear war it appears, the Soviets did not.  If, as you claim, the Soviets believed the reverse, why then weren't they willing to carry it through and actually undertake such a conflict?

This really betrays a misunderstanding of Soviet nuclear doctrine; it was based on preemption and towards
the very end of the Soviet period, partially on launch-on-warning.   The Soviets did not carry it through
because none of the intelligence sources could ever point to convincing evidence of
US/NATO preparation for a first strike.

This was at the strategic level. At the tactical or theatre level, just about every Warsaw Pact war plan
envisioned an initial Red offensive with an opening nuclear barrage (of the tactical variety) initiated by Red.

But there was flexibility: the Soviet General Staff believed that Warsaw Pact forces, by the mid-80's,
could fight their way to the English Channel quickly enough that when combined with the SS-20
as a deterrent would restrict NATO to small tactical, defensive employment of nuclear weapons only.


The Soviet Leadership was under no illusion as to what the effects a nuclear exchange would create.  Washington, on the other hand?  It appears not,  not until Reagan came along.

More misunderstanding: The Soviet political leadership was not much involved in crafting nuclear doctrine and after 1972,
did not participate in nuclear exercises at all. The Soviet military was running the show in terms of doctrine and
the material to support it. Their view was that they could fight and survive a nuclear war. 

That though, was then.  Today?  The world has moved on, except in the imaginations of some people it appears.   Does anybody here seriously believe that a nuclear exchange is going to be beneficial to anybody?  Really?

There's no evidence the Russian have moved on. On the contrary, they and the Chinese have doubled down
on nuclear modernization and improvement. And this in an era where NATO and allied conventional exercises
rarely exceed Brigade size and nuclear weapons release drills are practically non-existent.

Offline Jemiba

  • Global Moderator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 7896
Re: Ground Based Interceptor (GBI)
« Reply #85 on: June 05, 2017, 02:58:21 am »
This thread is very near to be closed !
If you want it to stay, please come back to a reasonable discussion.

That means, dealing with the arguments, not with those, who posted them !
It takes a long time, before all mistakes are made ...

Offline moonbeamsts

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • *
  • Posts: 38
Re: Ground Based Interceptor (GBI)
« Reply #86 on: June 05, 2017, 11:16:53 am »
Are there plans to activate  shore based agegis in Hawaii ?

Offline marauder2048

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2089
  • "I should really just relax"
Re: Ground Based Interceptor (GBI)
« Reply #87 on: June 06, 2017, 03:36:26 pm »
Are there plans to activate  shore based agegis in Hawaii ?

I didn't see any money in the FY18 budget for operationalizing the Aegis Ashore Missile Defense Test Complex.

But there's money for a new, medium range discrimination radar in Hawaii (HDR-H/Pacific Radar) that's described
as being between AN/TPY-2 and LRDR.  Perhaps they'll revive the stacked AN/TPY-2s on a turntable concept.

Offline bring_it_on

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1812
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: Ground Based Interceptor (GBI)
« Reply #88 on: June 06, 2017, 04:27:14 pm »
There are a few options on the table from what I see..A stacked TPY-2 as has been proposed earlier, or a scaled down LRDR (MRDR), or a scaled up SPY-6.
Old radar types never die; they just phased array - Unknown

Offline DrRansom

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 499
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: Ground Based Interceptor (GBI)
« Reply #89 on: June 06, 2017, 04:42:12 pm »
According to a new article about the test, the Kill Vehicle used is a new design, which has not been fielded on the majority of the launchers. Ignoring all politics, this would make the test useful for the future but not indicative of the present state of the GBI fleet.

Article: http://thediplomat.com/2017/06/try-as-it-might-ballistic-missile-defense-wont-solve-the-united-states-north-korea-problem/

Offline fredymac

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1274
Re: Ground Based Interceptor (GBI)
« Reply #90 on: June 07, 2017, 05:30:31 am »
The GMD Combatant Commander is General Robinson and she has testified she is confident the deployed units are able to intercept anything launched out of North Korea.  As far as kill vehicles go, this latest test was a final check of the most recent version of the original kill vehicle developed by Raytheon and 8 units will be deployed by the end of the year.  Each version of the kill vehicle underwent its own series of validating tests.  A totally new design built by a consortium of Boeing/Lockheed/Raytheon is already in development for deployment starting around 2022 and will replace most of the older units.  This may be the last unitary kill vehicle as the MOKV phases in only a little later unless something like KEI gets resurrected pending the missile defense review that started on May 5th.

Offline marauder2048

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2089
  • "I should really just relax"
Re: Ground Based Interceptor (GBI)
« Reply #91 on: June 07, 2017, 07:07:21 pm »
As far as kill vehicles go, this latest test was a final check of the most recent version of the original kill vehicle developed by Raytheon and 8 units will be deployed by the end of the year. 

Nine CE-II Block 1 EKVs according to VADM Syring's testimony today.

https://www.mda.mil/global/documents/pdf/FY18_WrittenStatement_HASC_SFS.PDF

Offline Airplane

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 432
Re: Ground Based Interceptor (GBI)
« Reply #92 on: June 08, 2017, 05:51:59 pm »
Wasn't Japan asking for a land based Aegis basing?
"The test of success is not what you do when your on top. Success is how high you bounce when you hit bottom.”
– General George S. Patton

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8509
Re: Ground Based Interceptor (GBI)
« Reply #93 on: August 31, 2017, 06:16:56 am »
From Inside Defense:

Missile Defense Agency researching possibility of 'common boost vehicle' for interceptors

The Missile Defense Agency is exploring the possibility of developing a "next-generation" common boost vehicle for Ground-based Interceptors defending the United States from intercontinental ballistic missiles.
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11069
Re: Ground Based Interceptor (GBI)
« Reply #94 on: August 31, 2017, 06:35:41 am »
From Inside Defense:

Missile Defense Agency researching possibility of 'common boost vehicle' for interceptors

The Missile Defense Agency is exploring the possibility of developing a "next-generation" common boost vehicle for Ground-based Interceptors defending the United States from intercontinental ballistic missiles.

That's what KEI was suppose to transition to. 
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8509
Re: Ground Based Interceptor (GBI)
« Reply #95 on: August 31, 2017, 06:42:03 am »
From Inside Defense:

Missile Defense Agency researching possibility of 'common boost vehicle' for interceptors

The Missile Defense Agency is exploring the possibility of developing a "next-generation" common boost vehicle for Ground-based Interceptors defending the United States from intercontinental ballistic missiles.

That's what KEI was suppose to transition to.
AND make a nice intermediate range prompt strike missile IIRC.
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11069
Re: Ground Based Interceptor (GBI)
« Reply #96 on: August 31, 2017, 07:00:24 am »
From Inside Defense:

Missile Defense Agency researching possibility of 'common boost vehicle' for interceptors

The Missile Defense Agency is exploring the possibility of developing a "next-generation" common boost vehicle for Ground-based Interceptors defending the United States from intercontinental ballistic missiles.

That's what KEI was suppose to transition to.
AND make a nice intermediate range prompt strike missile IIRC.

Yep.  We'd have our own Shaurya but better.
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline marauder2048

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2089
  • "I should really just relax"
Re: Ground Based Interceptor (GBI)
« Reply #97 on: June 18, 2018, 08:59:09 pm »

Offline marauder2048

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2089
  • "I should really just relax"
Re: Ground Based Interceptor (GBI)
« Reply #98 on: July 17, 2018, 09:49:29 pm »
https://www.forbes.com/sites/lorenthompson/2018/07/16/putting-interceptors-on-trucks-is-the-fastest-way-trump-can-bolster-missile-defense-of-america/#58d99f347491

LT anticipating the rollout of the Missile Defense Review?

Always thought the GMD-E derived from KEI would have lent itself more readily to mobile basing modes.

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8509
Re: Ground Based Interceptor (GBI)
« Reply #99 on: July 18, 2018, 06:25:13 am »
https://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/2018-07/upgrade-national-missile-defense

Quote
Policymakers in some countries promote the idea of limited nuclear strikes to force favorable outcomes in a conventional war. Other regimes want nuclear weapons and delivery systems to gain advantage, deter great powers, or simply survive. U.S. policymakers know that the United States fields porous and arguably unreliable antiballistic-missile (ABM) systems and are fettered by this diplomatically and militarily. Such systems are unworthy of the country’s economic, military, and political power, and they threaten stability by permitting weaker powers to bluff and intimidate.

While the threat of retaliation—mutually assured destruction—deters most rational actors from contemplating a massive first strike against the United States, irrational actors—including otherwise rational actors who find themselves cornered—may not be deterred. Further, brinksmanship or a failed bluff might lead to small-scale initial strikes, and the lack of reliable defenses could encourage foolhardy enemy decisions.

There are countless potential scenarios that might result in a limited nuclear ballistic-missile strike against the United States. Should deterrence fail and an adversary initiate a limited launch, current national missile defense (NMD) architecture is insufficient to assure interception. This fact makes U.S. foreign policy self-restricted. Therefore, the United States must accelerate upgrading its NMD.
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8509
Re: Ground Based Interceptor (GBI)
« Reply #100 on: July 29, 2018, 06:48:42 pm »
Space based kill assessment

http://missiledefenseadvocacy.org/missile-defense-systems-2/future-bmd-systems-2/space-based-kill-assessment-ska-experiment/

Quote
Space-based Kill Assessment (SKA) sensors are currently in development at the John Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory in Laurel, Maryland. These sensors will be hosted aboard commercial satellites and placed into orbit to provide improved hit and kill assessment, the determination of whether a threat missile has been eliminated by a missile defense interceptor, for the Ballistic Missile Defense System (BMDS). Current plans call for deployment of numerous SKA sensors to create a space-based sensor network that will improve kill assessment and increase the efficiency of the BMDS.[1]

Once in orbit, SKA sensors will provide accurate and timely kill assessment data to missile defense command and control nodes. Ultimately, this improved kill assessment capability will reduce the number of interceptors needed to neutralize a ballistic missile threat, cutting costs for interceptors and improving situational awareness regarding an incoming threat.

Each SKA sensor consists of three single-pixel photodiode detectors that measure electro-optical signatures emitted during collisions between ballistic missiles and missile defense interceptors.[2] Using information provided by command and control, SKA sensors will point towards an expected intercept point to observe the visible and infrared light produced by the collision of intercept.[3] Information attained during intercept include kill assessment, type of threat warhead (i.e. nuclear, high-explosive, chemical, or biological), and post-collision lethality of threat warhead.[4]
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline fredymac

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1274
Re: Ground Based Interceptor (GBI)
« Reply #101 on: July 30, 2018, 06:29:44 am »
Quote
Each SKA sensor consists of three single-pixel photodiode detectors that measure electro-optical signatures emitted during collisions between ballistic missiles and missile defense interceptors.

3 single pixel (ie, nonimaging) sensors to assess kill probability might try to measure total energy of collision, impact power (heat generated), and temporal profile of energy release.  Using multiple wavelengths you could estimate impact heat.  Radiometry along with observation geometry could estimate total energy.  Temporal profile of the thermal decay might also give some estimate of the thermal mass involved in the collision.  I’m guessing collision mass is the quantity of most interest.  I'm not sure how you get details of warhead type (nuclear/chemical/etc) unless you have some kind of spectrometer and linear array.

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8509
Re: Ground Based Interceptor (GBI)
« Reply #102 on: August 08, 2018, 09:15:26 pm »
https://breakingdefense.com/2018/08/space-based-missile-defense-is-doable-dod-rd-chief-griffin/

Quote
SPACE & MISSILE DEFENSE SYMPOSIUM.: Some 35 years after Ronald Reagan’s famous Star Wars speech, the Pentagon’s R&D chief said that space-based missile defenses are technically feasible and reasonably affordable. Since Reagan’s day, technology has advanced enough that putting both sensors and shooters in space is not only possible but “relatively easy,” Undersecretary for Research & Engineering Mike Griffin said. What’s more, past estimates of the cost of space-based interceptors have been “unrealistically,” even “naively” high.

Specifically, Griffin told reporters here,

The US “absolutely” needs space-based sensors to detect low-flying hypersonic cruise missiles, a new threat that’s much harder to spot from orbit than ICBMs; and We probably need space-based interceptors to shoot down high-flying ballistic missiles during the boost phase, the period before the warheads separate from the rocket.

Note these are two different functions with two different types of targets. Space-based interceptors would not work against hypersonic cruise missiles, Griffin said. They fly too low, deep in the atmosphere, so any munition you shoot at them from space would have to be hardened against the heat of atmospheric reentry, which he called prohibitively difficult. “It may not be a bridge too far, but it’s a pretty far away bridge.” Ballistic missiles, by contrast, ascend rapidly out of the atmosphere into space, so space-based interceptors would only have to travel through vacuum, which is much easier.
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline Grey Havoc

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 8032
  • The path not taken.
The sole imperative of a government, once instituted, is to survive.

Offline marauder2048

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2089
  • "I should really just relax"
Re: Ground Based Interceptor (GBI)
« Reply #104 on: December 18, 2018, 02:27:15 pm »
An LRDR derivative.

Quote
Lockheed Martin Corp., Moorestown, New Jersey, is being awarded a $585,206,351
fixed-price incentive delivery order for the Homeland Defense Radar - Hawaii (HDR-H).
The contractor will design, develop, and deliver the HDR-H radar providing
autonomous acquisition and persistent precision tracking and discrimination
to optimize the defensive capability of the Ballistic Missile Defense System (BMDS) and
counter evolving threats. This award is the result of a competitively
awarded acquisition in which one offer was received.  Fiscal 2018 and 2019 research
development test and evaluation funds in the amount of $51,389,757 are being
obligated at time of award.  The work will be performed in Moorestown, New Jersey;
and Oahu, Hawaii.  The exact location in Oahu, Hawaii, will be determined at the
conclusion of the ongoing site selection and National Environmental Policy Act processes. 
The period of performance is from Dec. 18, 2018, through  Dec. 17, 2023.
The Missile Defense Agency, Redstone Arsenal, Alabama, is the contracting activity (HQ0147-19-F-0018).

Offline marauder2048

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2089
  • "I should really just relax"

Offline bring_it_on

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1812
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: Ground Based Interceptor (GBI)
« Reply #106 on: December 19, 2018, 01:58:50 pm »
Wasn't there a 2 face version planned at one time? Also fascinating to read that RTN didn't bid.
Old radar types never die; they just phased array - Unknown

Offline marauder2048

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2089
  • "I should really just relax"
Re: Ground Based Interceptor (GBI)
« Reply #107 on: December 19, 2018, 03:13:34 pm »
Wasn't there a 2 face version planned at one time? Also fascinating to read that RTN didn't bid.

HDR-P will have multiple array faces; I only recall seeing HDR-H depictions with a single face.

https://smdsymposium.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/Wed-1530-3-NexGen-Panel-Ritter-.pdf

Offline bring_it_on

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1812
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: Ground Based Interceptor (GBI)
« Reply #108 on: December 19, 2018, 03:28:09 pm »
Quote
HDR-P will have multiple array faces; I only recall seeing HDR-H depictions with a single face.

Thanks! I had confused HDR-H with HDR-P from those slides.

Old radar types never die; they just phased array - Unknown

Offline bring_it_on

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1812
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: Ground Based Interceptor (GBI)
« Reply #109 on: December 21, 2018, 12:06:17 pm »
Systems Engineering and Integration Support Services


Quote
The Missile Defense Agency (MDA) intends to award a sole source research and development contract to the Boeing Company for performance of complex and highly technical systems engineering and integration (SE&I) efforts to provide MDA with specialized subject matter expertise that is needed for the Agency to achieve mandated capability enhancements to the Ballistic Missile Defense System (BMDS).  The Boeing Company will act as the prime contractor, with participation by all five BMDS major defense contractors (known collectively as the National Team - Engineering, to continue providing specialized system engineering guidance, integration, system development and data products that are currently being delivered by this same team under contract HQ0147-14-D-0001.  The effort herein will include requirements related to the Agency's on-going mission to refine the layered BMDS Architecture to include incorporation of Homeland Defense Radars, Mobile Sensors, Space Sensors, Defense against the Hypersonic Threat, and meet presidentially directed Missile Defense and Defeat Enhancement (MDDE) and United States Forces Korea (USFK) Joint Emergent Operational Need (JEON) BMDS capability enhancement commitments.
Old radar types never die; they just phased array - Unknown

Offline marauder2048

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2089
  • "I should really just relax"
Re: Ground Based Interceptor (GBI)
« Reply #110 on: January 07, 2019, 10:40:08 pm »
HDR-H rendering from Lockheed's release.

https://news.lockheedmartin.com/2018-12-18-Missile-Defense-Agency-Awards-Lockheed-Martin-Contract-to-Design-Manufacture-and-Construct-Homeland-Defense-Radar-Hawaii#assets_all

Quote
***In the original version of this release, Lockheed Martin published a rendering of the Homeland Defense Radar – Hawaii (HDR-H).
Lockheed Martin was not authorized by the Missile Defense Agency to publish the rendering, and it should not be considered
an accurate representation of the final project. The future site of HDR-H has not been chosen. The rendering has been removed
and Lockheed Martin regrets the error.***

Bumped into the above while looking for the local power plant output requirements for HDR-H (18 MWe) vs. LRDR (28 MWe).

Offline marauder2048

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2089
  • "I should really just relax"
Re: Ground Based Interceptor (GBI)
« Reply #111 on: January 07, 2019, 11:14:21 pm »

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11069
Re: Ground Based Interceptor (GBI)
« Reply #112 on: January 08, 2019, 05:42:43 am »
Would make a nice mobile IRBM/ BGV carrier too.
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8509
Re: Ground Based Interceptor (GBI)
« Reply #113 on: January 09, 2019, 12:57:37 am »
Would make a nice mobile IRBM/ BGV carrier too.
A few dozen on Guam for starters  :D
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline Grey Havoc

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 8032
  • The path not taken.
Re: Ground Based Interceptor (GBI)
« Reply #114 on: January 09, 2019, 02:16:15 am »
Would make a nice mobile IRBM/ BGV carrier too.

I had much the same thought.

A few dozen on Guam for starters  :D

Could prove quite handy indeed the way things are going.
The sole imperative of a government, once instituted, is to survive.