Register here

Author Topic: Multi-Object Kill Vehicle (MOKV)  (Read 5732 times)

Offline marauder2048

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1743
  • "I should really just relax"
Multi-Object Kill Vehicle (MOKV)
« on: November 20, 2015, 01:13:26 pm »
Quote
Tucson-based Raytheon Missile Systems has reached a key milestone in developing a a new missile interceptor designed to simultaneously destroy several objects in one threat.

Raytheon said Friday it has completed the first program planning review with the U.S. Missile Defense Agency on the future Multi-Object Kill Vehicle (MOKV) concept.

The latest progress keeps the program on track for a concept review in December, the company said.

In August, Raytheon and Lockheed Martin each were awarded contracts worth about $10 million to develop concepts for the multi-object kill vehicle, which is designed to destroy target missiles in space by sheer impact.

Raytheon also released the first renderings of the new kill vehicle, which show a design that releases six separate kill vehicles in space. The new system will use advanced sensor, divert-and-attitude flight control and communication technologies, the company said.

Raytheon already makes single-target kill vehicles for the Missile Defense Agency痴 Ground-based Missile Defense system and its Standard Missile-3, part of the sea-based Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense system.

The company also is working on a redesigned kill vehicle to replace its Exoatmospheric Kill Vehicle, a part of the ground-based system that suffered three failed intercepts in a row before a successful test last year.

Raytheon and Lockheed were competing to develop a multiple-warhead missile interceptor concept called the Multiple Kill Vehicle, before it was canceled as part budget cuts in 2009.

The MOKV development work is being performed in Tucson, where the company also produces its current kill vehicles in a specialized factory.


http://tucson.com/business/local/raytheon-multi-kill-interceptor-reaches-milestone/article_4dc23d66-2f5a-5782-b955-36aa0e4c4e74.html

Offline fredymac

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 941
Re: Multi-Object Kill Vehicle (MOKV)
« Reply #1 on: November 21, 2015, 03:37:53 am »
MIRV'ed interceptors is an idea that keeps resurrecting itself no matter how many times it gets canceled.
Brilliant Pebbles was the final iteration of this concept in SDI.  Lockheed and Raytheon had gotten pretty far along on the Multi Kill Vehicle before Obama killed the program.  It will be interesting to see what if any differences will distinguish the MOKV from the MKV.




Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 7679
的 judge civilization by simple tests What is the degree of freedom possessed by citizen or subject Can he think speak & act freely under well established well known laws? Judging by these standards Great Britain & the United States can claim to be in the forefront of civilized communities Churchill

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9831
Re: Multi-Object Kill Vehicle (MOKV)
« Reply #3 on: November 22, 2015, 07:36:06 pm »
MIRV'ed interceptors is an idea that keeps resurrecting itself no matter how many times it gets canceled.
Brilliant Pebbles was the final iteration of this concept in SDI.  Lockheed and Raytheon had gotten pretty far along on the Multi Kill Vehicle before Obama killed the program.  It will be interesting to see what if any differences will distinguish the MOKV from the MKV.


Well they did add the "O" to avoid any embarrassing questions.  Multiple kill vehicles is such a sweet idea they were forbidden by the ABM Treaty.  Imagine a Spartan with a nose full of those things.  Like an SM-3 on steroids.
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 7679
的 judge civilization by simple tests What is the degree of freedom possessed by citizen or subject Can he think speak & act freely under well established well known laws? Judging by these standards Great Britain & the United States can claim to be in the forefront of civilized communities Churchill

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 7679
的 judge civilization by simple tests What is the degree of freedom possessed by citizen or subject Can he think speak & act freely under well established well known laws? Judging by these standards Great Britain & the United States can claim to be in the forefront of civilized communities Churchill

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 7679
的 judge civilization by simple tests What is the degree of freedom possessed by citizen or subject Can he think speak & act freely under well established well known laws? Judging by these standards Great Britain & the United States can claim to be in the forefront of civilized communities Churchill

Offline bring_it_on

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1430
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: Multi-Object Kill Vehicle (MOKV)
« Reply #7 on: April 04, 2017, 03:11:30 am »
Quote
Raytheon Co., Tucson, Arizona, was awarded a competitive cost-plus-fixed-fee contract up to $59,608,722 with an estimated completion date of April 2, 2020, for the Multi-Object Kill Vehicle (KV) technology risk reduction (TRR) effort. No options are contemplated.  This contract represents part of the Missile Defense Agency's technology risk reduction strategy to improve performance and reduce risk for secure communications systems, high sensitivity multi-band sensor, survivable processor, KV divert and attitude control system, bus sensor and sensor pointing, and the engagement management. The work will be performed in Tucson, Arizona. This contract was competitively procured via publication on the Federal Business Opportunities website through an Advanced Technology Innovation broad agency announcement.  Fiscal 2016 research, development, test and engineering funds in the amount of $3,590,000; and fiscal 2017 research, development, test and engineering funds in the amount of $5,232,000, for a total of $8,822,000 being obligated at the time of award. The Missile Defense Agency, Huntsville, Alabama, is the contracting activity (HQ0147-17-C-0003).

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

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 7679
的 judge civilization by simple tests What is the degree of freedom possessed by citizen or subject Can he think speak & act freely under well established well known laws? Judging by these standards Great Britain & the United States can claim to be in the forefront of civilized communities Churchill

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 7679
Re: Multi-Object Kill Vehicle (MOKV)
« Reply #9 on: September 14, 2017, 03:25:09 pm »
的 judge civilization by simple tests What is the degree of freedom possessed by citizen or subject Can he think speak & act freely under well established well known laws? Judging by these standards Great Britain & the United States can claim to be in the forefront of civilized communities Churchill

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9831
Re: Multi-Object Kill Vehicle (MOKV)
« Reply #10 on: September 14, 2017, 08:17:24 pm »
2030?? Do we have any sense of urgency with key defense programs?

http://scout.com/military/warrior/Article/US-ICBM-Intercept-Paves-the-Way-Toward-High-Tech-Defenses-For-Th-101452534

Nope.  Some days I think even if somebody nuked us the politicians would just wring their hands and whine.
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline Maury Markowitz

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • *
  • Posts: 49
  • From the Great White North!
Re: Multi-Object Kill Vehicle (MOKV)
« Reply #11 on: September 15, 2017, 12:11:38 pm »
key defense programs?
Key defense program? This is not one of those.

This is a weapon who's only purpose is to shoot down NK warheads. There is a greater possibility that NK won't exist in 2030 than there is this system will work by then and remain funded through that period.

Offline DrRansom

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 419
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: Multi-Object Kill Vehicle (MOKV)
« Reply #12 on: September 15, 2017, 01:30:57 pm »
2030?? Do we have any sense of urgency with key defense programs?

http://scout.com/military/warrior/Article/US-ICBM-Intercept-Paves-the-Way-Toward-High-Tech-Defenses-For-Th-101452534

It isn't as if North Korean has just developed almost all the hard bits of a thermonuclear ICBM.

I've seen several sources say that re-entry vehicle technology proved to be surprisingly easy, probably the only hard thing left is guidance.

Offline RyanC

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 815
  • Crazy Researcher
    • Alternate Wars
Re: Multi-Object Kill Vehicle (MOKV)
« Reply #13 on: September 15, 2017, 04:19:51 pm »
This is a weapon who's only purpose is to shoot down NK warheads. There is a greater possibility that NK won't exist in 2030 than there is this system will work by then and remain funded through that period.

NIKE ZEUS worked, SPARTAN worked, and GBI works.

And North Korea isn't going away by 2030 unless we invade/nuke them.

Offline fredymac

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 941
Re: Multi-Object Kill Vehicle (MOKV)
« Reply #14 on: September 15, 2017, 04:22:08 pm »

Key defense program? This is not one of those.

This is a weapon who's only purpose is to shoot down NK warheads. There is a greater possibility that NK won't exist in 2030 than there is this system will work by then and remain funded through that period.

I rather doubt the CONOPS of this system is limited to North Korea.  If you have documentation stating otherwise I would be interested in reading it unless you think it's a physics phenomenon specific to North Korean missiles.

As for North Korea not existing by 2030,  I will side with Yogi Berra and his observation on predictions being hard and especially so when concerning the future.

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9831
Re: Multi-Object Kill Vehicle (MOKV)
« Reply #15 on: September 15, 2017, 06:33:09 pm »
key defense programs?
Key defense program? This is not one of those.

This is a weapon who's only purpose is to shoot down NK warheads. There is a greater possibility that NK won't exist in 2030 than there is this system will work by then and remain funded through that period.

Actually, it's purpose is to upgrade GBI and SM-3 against ANY target.  You should educate yourself on the program before deriding it.
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline Maury Markowitz

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • *
  • Posts: 49
  • From the Great White North!
Re: Multi-Object Kill Vehicle (MOKV)
« Reply #16 on: October 12, 2017, 01:07:16 pm »
Actually, it's purpose is to upgrade GBI and SM-3 against ANY target.  You should educate yourself on the program before deriding it.
And what might those "any" targets be, exactly? Can you name another country with the (at least potential) capability of attacking CONUS with such a small number of missiles that GBI could counter it?

North Korea, yes.
Russia, no.
China, no.
Everyone else on the planet, no.

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9831
Re: Multi-Object Kill Vehicle (MOKV)
« Reply #17 on: October 12, 2017, 01:19:05 pm »
North Korea, yes.
Russia, yes. 

See, "escalate to de-escalate"

China, yes. 

While not called "escalate to de-escalate" I could easily see them being tempted to initiate a limited nuclear strike if they thought it would serve their purpose, and they're a lot more willing to go there than the U.S.  If they thought they could nuke Seattle and L.A., without the US launching a full scale nuclear strike in response, they might be tempted to do it. 

China: Nukes Seattle and L.A. then tells the US, "we won't hit anymore targets if you completely pull out of East Asia. If you retaliate we will launch the rest of our strategic nuclear weapons and destroy the rest of your major cities".  What does the US do?  That's right - not a damn thing.  On the other hand, if we had the capability to deal with a limited strike, meaning China would be limited to large scale strikes - which WOULD elicit a full scale response -  they might be tempted to cool their jets.

And why NOT have MKV to reduce the chances of an NK or Iranian success?  Do you think their ICBM tests will fail forever?
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 7679
Re: Multi-Object Kill Vehicle (MOKV)
« Reply #18 on: October 12, 2017, 04:12:31 pm »
North Korea, yes.
Russia, yes. 

See, "escalate to de-escalate"

China, yes. 

While not called "escalate to de-escalate" I could easily see them being tempted to initiate a limited nuclear strike if they thought it would serve their purpose, and they're a lot more willing to go there than the U.S.  If they thought they could nuke Seattle and L.A., without the US launching a full scale nuclear strike in response, they might be tempted to do it. 

China: Nukes Seattle and L.A. then tells the US, "we won't hit anymore targets if you completely pull out of East Asia. If you retaliate we will launch the rest of our strategic nuclear weapons and destroy the rest of your major cities".  What does the US do?  That's right - not a damn thing.  On the other hand, if we had the capability to deal with a limited strike, meaning China would be limited to large scale strikes - which WOULD elicit a full scale response -  they might be tempted to cool their jets.

And why NOT have MKV to reduce the chances of an NK or Iranian success?  Do you think their ICBM tests will fail forever?
A recall a quote from the Chinese general in charge of their 3rd Artillery Force (nukes at the time) having stated "Want to trade a few hundred million citizens, we'd still have over a billion people left you'd be wiped out"
的 judge civilization by simple tests What is the degree of freedom possessed by citizen or subject Can he think speak & act freely under well established well known laws? Judging by these standards Great Britain & the United States can claim to be in the forefront of civilized communities Churchill

Offline fredymac

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 941
Re: Multi-Object Kill Vehicle (MOKV)
« Reply #19 on: October 12, 2017, 04:41:27 pm »
If North Korea becomes a de facto nuclear power, the nonproliferation treaty is reduced to a sham.  If the guy who runs the famine ridden dark patch above South Korea can have nukes, there is no argument for anyone else not having them.  In that case, the list of small nuclear powers will grow starting with Iran and Saudi Arabia (you won't have one without the other).

A nuclear North Korea popping ICBM's over Japan will eventually push that country to create a guaranteed, non-ambiguous deterrent of its' own.  Again, as a linked reaction, that means South Korea and maybe Taiwan join the club.  As more countries join, the less restraint remains for those thinking about it.

With regards to their territorial waters, Vietnam, Indonesia, Malaysia, and the Philippines would also be candidates using the same rationale as Mr Kim .  Interestingly, for most of these countries, the US would not be first on their targeting list.  That doesn't seem to register for some people.

Offline kcran567

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 510
Re: Multi-Object Kill Vehicle (MOKV)
« Reply #20 on: October 12, 2017, 07:19:35 pm »
What if N Korea uses a lower trajectory simpler strike method i.e. nuclear armed scud launched from a freighter near coastland area. What system would counter that type of threat? Existing Thaad? Not likely to have those on mainland US?
« Last Edit: October 13, 2017, 03:03:38 am by kcran567 »

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9831
Re: Multi-Object Kill Vehicle (MOKV)
« Reply #21 on: October 13, 2017, 03:54:09 am »
What if N Korea uses a lower trajectory simpler strike method i.e. nuclear armed scud launched from a freighter near coastland area. What system would counter that type of threat? Existing Thaad? Not likely to have those on mainland US?

We'd be SOL.  THAAD (preferably THAAD-ER) could do it but it would require a lot of units to cover the US.  (Though not nearly as many as the Nike Hercules batteries we had back in the 60s - 134.)
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline bring_it_on

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1430
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: Multi-Object Kill Vehicle (MOKV)
« Reply #22 on: October 16, 2017, 08:40:55 am »
The cost of defending the mainland US against such an act would likely eat up a budget many times that of the MDA even if no new systems are developed  . Money likely better spent at making sure they never get that close and on offensive capability.
Old radar types never die; they just phased array - Unknown

Offline marauder2048

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1743
  • "I should really just relax"
Re: Multi-Object Kill Vehicle (MOKV)
« Reply #23 on: October 16, 2017, 01:04:15 pm »
What if N Korea uses a lower trajectory simpler strike method i.e. nuclear armed scud launched from a freighter near coastland area. What system would counter that type of threat? Existing Thaad? Not likely to have those on mainland US?

We'd be SOL.  THAAD (preferably THAAD-ER) could do it but it would require a lot of units to cover the US.  (Though not nearly as many as the Nike Hercules batteries we had back in the 60s - 134.)

 :'(


« Last Edit: October 16, 2017, 01:05:59 pm by marauder2048 »

Offline Maury Markowitz

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • *
  • Posts: 49
  • From the Great White North!
Re: Multi-Object Kill Vehicle (MOKV)
« Reply #24 on: November 28, 2017, 01:14:37 pm »
China: Nukes Seattle and L.A. then tells the US, "we won't hit anymore targets if you completely pull out of East Asia. If you retaliate we will launch the rest of our strategic nuclear weapons and destroy the rest of your major cities".  What does the US do?  That's right - not a damn thing.
Chinese military bases would be vaporizing even before their warhead made it halfway across the Pacific. In such an exchange, the entire Chinese military is beheaded and the civilian losses are less than what their warhead caused in the US.

Go ahead, suggest another scenario - the Snowcroft report already ran through them all so it's not like we haven't considered all of these.

And why NOT have MKV to reduce the chances of an NK or Iranian success?  Do you think their ICBM tests will fail forever?
Neither of those countries is willing to commit suicide. If you don't agree with that, why have a deterrent at all?

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9831
Re: Multi-Object Kill Vehicle (MOKV)
« Reply #25 on: November 28, 2017, 02:01:14 pm »
China: Nukes Seattle and L.A. then tells the US, "we won't hit anymore targets if you completely pull out of East Asia. If you retaliate we will launch the rest of our strategic nuclear weapons and destroy the rest of your major cities".  What does the US do?  That's right - not a damn thing.
Chinese military bases would be vaporizing even before their warhead made it halfway across the Pacific. In such an exchange, the entire Chinese military is beheaded and the civilian losses are less than what their warhead caused in the US.

Go ahead, suggest another scenario - the Snowcroft report already ran through them all so it's not like we haven't considered all of these.

It's one thing to consider the bear in it's den from the classroom.  Quite another to confront it knife in hand.

And why NOT have MKV to reduce the chances of an NK or Iranian success?  Do you think their ICBM tests will fail forever?
Neither of those countries is willing to commit suicide. If you don't agree with that, why have a deterrent at all?

Uhm...what?  Deterrent is for rational actors.  Defense is for when that fails.  And, as I'm sure you know, deterrent has to be credible, both in hardware and in political will.  Uncertainty is also a factor when discussing deterrent.  If the other guy thinks he might not be able to get them all, (because of defenses and other factors) that will increase the deterrent value.  In this an ABM has more value than a mobile ICBM as it can not only prevent the ICBM from getting hit but it can also prevent the surrounding countryside from getting fried.  I'm puzzled as to why you think that's a BAD thing.  Presumably you have locks on your doors and wear seat belts when driving?
« Last Edit: November 28, 2017, 02:05:47 pm by sferrin »
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.