Register here

Author Topic: Air-launched missile defence concept  (Read 24185 times)

Offline flateric

  • Deputy Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 8560
Air-launched missile defence concept
« on: April 02, 2008, 02:14:31 am »
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_channel.jsp?channel=defense&id=news/ASAT040108.xml

General: AMRAAM Derivative Could Target Sats

Apr 1, 2008

David A. Fulghum/Aerospace Daily & Defense Report
 
The F-22 could be carrying an anti-satellite (ASAT) missile, costing less than $1 million, in a few years if the military and the Missile Defense Agency (MDA) decide to hone the capabilities of a new missile defense weapon from Raytheon.

A derivative of the Aim-120 AMRAAM, the Pentagon’s established long-range air-to-air missile, is once again being tailored for a new mission – this time the interception of Scud-type short and medium-range ballistic missiles.

But a senior U.S. Air Force official confides that the capability is inherently that of a cheap, rapidly-deployed, air-launched weapon for shooting down satellites in low-Earth orbit if the service or Missile Defense Agency were to order its further refinement and development.

Raytheon officials say they haven’t researched the ASAT mission and have no opinion about its feasibility. They do note that the AMRAAM derivative isn’t as large or nearly as energetic as the Raytheon Standard Missile-3 (SM-3) that shot down an errant National Reconnaissance Office (NRO) satellite earlier this year (Aerospace DAILY, Feb. 22). However, they note that if launched at Mach 0.85 at 30,000-40,000 feet, the new, 358-pound missile becomes much more capable against objects at altitudes of 30 kilometers (19 miles) or more.

The Air Force general was much more blunt. “If you put the missile in an F-22 and launch it at Mach 2 and 60,000 feet while in a zoom and at a 45-degree angle, you’ve got an ASAT capability against spacecraft in low-Earth orbit,” he says.

Raytheon officials gave Aviation Week a look at the latest test video of the sensor capability of this new, air-launched, missile-defense weapon they’re developing. The AMRAAM-derivative is called the NCADE, for Network-Centric Airborne Defense Element. For this test, smaller Aim-9 air-to-air missiles were used.

Two F-16s, each carrying an Aim-9 equipped with the NCADE’s highly specialized infrared seeker, attacked a 14-inch diameter target missile over the White Sands Missile Range, N.M. The first missile grazed the target missile’s body and took off two fins. The second came within about a yard of the target missile, which is good enough to validate the system, according to Mike Booen, Raytheon’s vice president of advanced missile defense. Future testing will involve the missile’s divert and attitude control system.

For the present, NCADE is being developed as a boost-phase interceptor with seekers that can distinguish between the rocket plume and hard body from launch. That avoids inaccuracies or last-minute course changes caused by seekers having to shift from the plume’s heat as an aiming point to the much cooler target missile’s body.

Raytheon planners originally looked at unmanned platforms to carry the NCADE for long-endurance missions. Candidates include the Predator B and perhaps an even higher-performance UAV that could offer added speed and altitude. It might even bring the long-envisioned Predator C back to life, a program that was put on the back burner as Predator A production and development of the Predator B accelerated. Another option could be the 2018 future bomber.

However, Booen says Air Force planners are adamant that the missile be on forward deployed, manned fighters like the F-22. They bring up the frustration in the 1991 Gulf War when pilots could see Scuds ascending but had no way to attack them.

“NCADE could make almost any platform multimission,” Booen says. He also contends that 20 missiles could be on the ramp, ready for operations in as little as four years at a cost of less than $1 million each in four years from a given start date. More demonstrations are proposed for 2009 that could lead to a program start in 2010.

 
"There are many disbelievers in
stealth, more than a few of them truly technically ignorant and proud of it." Sherm Mullin, Skunk Works

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 10943
Re: Air-launched missile defence concept
« Reply #1 on: April 02, 2008, 05:36:14 am »
1234567890
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline flateric

  • Deputy Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 8560
Re: Air-launched missile defence concept
« Reply #2 on: April 02, 2008, 06:04:03 am »
From one of 2007 AFA presentations
"There are many disbelievers in
stealth, more than a few of them truly technically ignorant and proud of it." Sherm Mullin, Skunk Works

Offline KJ_Lesnick

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1010
Re: Air-launched missile defence concept
« Reply #3 on: April 02, 2008, 08:39:31 am »
flateric,

The AMRAAM's a two-staged missile?  I thought it was a single stager 

Offline flateric

  • Deputy Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 8560
Re: Air-launched missile defence concept
« Reply #4 on: April 02, 2008, 09:32:27 am »
KJ, who was talking that there's an AMRAAM on the picture? This is AMRAAM derivative ASAT missile.
« Last Edit: April 02, 2008, 09:34:18 am by flateric »
"There are many disbelievers in
stealth, more than a few of them truly technically ignorant and proud of it." Sherm Mullin, Skunk Works

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 10943
Re: Air-launched missile defence concept
« Reply #5 on: April 02, 2008, 10:29:31 am »
To be more accurate it's designed for boost phase intercept of SRBMs (though I imagine it would work against ANY ballistic missile in boost phase) with ONE general claiming it would have ASAT capability if launched from high speed and altitude from an F-22.  He could be uninformed however.  There's no reason the SM-3 sans booster couldn't do so if modified for air-carriage/launch HOWEVER it has a much more capable upper stage/KKV.  I tend to think the general is over stating things in this case.
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline flateric

  • Deputy Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 8560
Re: Air-launched missile defence concept
« Reply #6 on: April 02, 2008, 10:51:03 am »
Sferrin, you are absolutely correct.
"There are many disbelievers in
stealth, more than a few of them truly technically ignorant and proud of it." Sherm Mullin, Skunk Works

Offline CammNut

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 296
Re: Air-launched missile defence concept
« Reply #7 on: September 18, 2008, 12:12:49 pm »
Cool picture of Lockheed Martin's concept for an air-launched boost-phase ballictic missile interceptor based on the improved MSE version of the PAC-3 missile developed for the Patriot air-defence system.

It was on the cover of the latest Aviation Week. You can read Amy Butler's story on the MSE here:

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_generic.jsp?channel=awst&id=news/aw091508p1.xml&headline=New%20PAC-3%20Missile%20Faces%20First%20Intercept%20Test%20in%202009

The relevant bit of the story says:

Meanwhile, Lockheed Martin is designing MSE variants for an air-launch boost-phase interceptor and a sea-based hit-to-kill terminal defense system. The air-launched MSE would be pitted against Raytheon's modified advanced medium-range air-to-air missile (Amraam), the Network-Centric Airborne Defense Element (NCADE). The MDA is considering a competition for the capability. Funding is expected in the Fiscal 2010 budget request.

The air-launched MSE would be housed inside a pod under the wing of an aircraft. Upon launch, a clamshell door on the pod would open, the weapon would drop and ignite, engaging the target. The mission set includes homeland defense against a boosting target; in one scenario, a cruise or ballistic missile would be launched from a ship offshore.

Intercepting a boosting ballistic missile is generally easier because the target is traveling in a straighter trajectory and is slower than in the terminal phase. Lockheed Martin is working with Boeing in its design lab to begin integrating the air-launched MSE onto the F-15C, which is used for combat air patrols in North America. The company is also beginning to explore integration onto the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter and F-22.


You can watch a video (no sound) of the "Air-Launched Hit-to-Kill" concept at:

http://www.aviationweek.com/media/video/ALHTK.MPG

Offline XP67_Moonbat

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2151
Re: Air-launched missile defence concept
« Reply #8 on: September 18, 2008, 12:55:01 pm »
Outstanding!  ;D
In God we trust, all others we monitor. :-p

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8494
Re: Air-launched missile defence concept
« Reply #9 on: September 03, 2010, 05:42:42 pm »
Air-Launched BMD Enjoys Renewed Popularity

Sep 3, 2010
 
By David A. Fulghum

An air-launched, missile defense system is being advocated by two veterans of the Pentagon’s Star Wars era and a 1990s program to mate unmanned aircraft and long-range air-to-air weapons.

Len Caveny, former director of science and technology, and Dale Tietz, a retired U.S. Air Force officer who focused on unmanned aircraft, were part of the Pentagon’s ballistic missile defense organization. They are offering a new concept — backed up with a couple of decades of research — to kill ballistic missiles soon after launch when they are slow, bright targets.

Its basic idea is to use Global Hawk (with its 60,000 ft. operational altitude) as a dedicated sensor aircraft and the turbo-prop powered Predator B/Reaper or jet-powered Predator C (flying at 40,000 ft. and capable of carrying more interceptor missiles) as the flying components of a restructured boost-phase intercept (BPI) system.

The U.S. Missile Defense Agency (MDA) is already looking for an unmanned aircraft that can detect boosting missiles and has focused on a sensor pod that can fly on a number of existing platforms (Aerospace DAILY, Aug. 20). A Reaper carrying a Raytheon MTS-B electro-optical/IR/full-motion video sensor was able to detect and track a boosting missile from greater than 1,000 km. (621 mi.), says MDA’s director, Army Lt. Gen. Patrick O’Reilly. One of the mods has been a part of each major MDA flight test since December.

They also are pushing rocket-motor firms and missile designers to come up with more powerful boosters and repackage them as missiles that are small and light enough to be carried internally. They have to be fast enough — 2.5-5 km./sec. (6,000-11,000 mph.) or faster — to catch heavy ballistic missiles during boost and ascent at ranges of 300 km. or greater. The longer the range, the faster and more heavy the interceptor becomes.

“In the 1990s, under the Raptor/Talon program, the [plan] was to use a custom-designed, high-altitude [more than 20 km.], long-endurance [more than 24-hr.] unmanned aerial system carrying ultra-lightweight sensors and weapons based on Brilliant Pebbles technology,” Tietz says. “The UASs would fly very close or sometimes over enemy territory hunting for Scuds as a networked wolf pack. The concept was designed to push the enemy back and destroy his [theater ballistic missiles] within two minutes.”

From 65,000 ft., sensors can see a missile launch plume at a range of about 480 km. That would make the defense of South Korea and Japan relatively easy. Iran is far more complicated because of the country’s size, which demands a technology penalty.

“Korea can be defended with a 3-3.5 kilometer per second interceptor,” Caveny says. “For Iran you would need about 5 kilometers per second. The kill vehicle technology is pretty advanced. What we don’t have is the low-mass, two-stage solid rocket that is more aggressive than Raytheon’s Network-Centric Air Defense Element. We need NCADE on steroids. It also is going to require a very agile missile because you need short time-to-target at standoff ranges up to 300 miles.”

Even with that kind of missile performance, in times of heightened tension, the missile-carrying UASs would have to move into Iranian air space, which in turn would require it to carry additional weapons to protect itself against surface-to-air missiles.

“The show-stopper right now is the size of rocket motors,” Caveny says. He sees three key methods to compensate: using small kill vehicles, taking inert mass out of the system or using higher-energy propellants.
___________________________________________________________________________________________
Interesting story. What I am intrigued with is the high energy propellants able to accelerate a missile to 5 km/sec. sferrin what were some of the fly out speeds of Spartan and Sprint and some of the other early BMD interceptor iterations?
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: 8494
Re: Air-launched missile defence concept
« Reply #10 on: September 04, 2010, 10:53:09 am »
If my calculations are correct the Aerojet Super Roadrunner (current sled rocket speed record holder) traveled at around 9500 ft/sec or 3km/sec. So 5 km/sec is 15,800 ft/sec. Does anyone know of any system that has traveled this fast (obviously boosting not a re-entry system)  ???

It is curious in the article that it doesn't include any caveats that this speed is a problem just what sized booster/warhead you would need. Doesn't "detcord" travel at around 15,000 ft/sec?
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: 8494
Re: Air-launched missile defence concept
« Reply #11 on: September 23, 2010, 02:50:38 pm »
Missile-Killing Interceptors Eyed By Israel, U.S.
Sep 23, 2010
 
By David A. Fulghum
Tel Aviv and Washington

Killing tactical ballistic missiles so that explosive, biological or radioactive debris fall near a foe’s launch sites is a key problem for those mapping out defenses in an era of proliferating, short-range missiles and long-range rockets.

New concepts are taking two forms—striking enemy missiles while they are still in space, or destroying them in the first minute or two after launch. And it is becoming glaringly apparent that the solutions are different if the foe is nearby or far away.

Israel, for example, does not have a weapon that can be launched from an aircraft to catch enemy missiles when they are most vulnerable as slow and very bright targets during the first few minutes of flight.

The Israelis flirted with air-launched boost-phase intercept (BPI) in their MOAB UAV/missile program of the 1990s, and the U.S. had a parallel Raptor/Talon project. But both projects were shelved to await technology advances, including more energetic rocket motors, satellite-based battle management and smaller, lighter missile designs.

However, operational introduction into the Israeli arsenal of the advanced Arrow 3 interceptor missile and the Stunner interceptor for the David’s Sling system may open the door to a period of rapid development for air-launched weapons that can be carried by unmanned aircraft.

The Stunner interceptor, designed and built by Rafael in a cooperative program with Raytheon, is a low-cost design that targets threats such as cruise missiles, medium- and long-range artillery rockets and short-range ballistic missiles. It has two stages: The first is a solid-fuel, rocket motor booster; the second is a curious asymmetrical kill vehicle with advanced steering for increased agility. A three-pulse motor provides additional thrust at critical moments of flight. A multi-mode sensor package—electro-optical and millimeter wave, electronically scanned array radar—provides all-weather performance against small, maneuvering targets. The Stunner is larger than Raytheon’s AIM-120 medium-range air-to-air missile but smaller than the Arrow 3 interceptor.

As for Israel Aerospace Industries’ (IAI) Arrow 3, it now forms the longest-range, highest-altitude (exoatmos­pheric) layer of Israel’s ballistic missile defenses. It is “half the size of Arrow 2 and 21 in. in diameter, [and] no other interceptor has the same kinetic capability or agility,” says a senior Israeli official with insight into the Arrow program. While Arrow 3 is a big step toward developing BPI, Israeli planners say they still need better unmanned aerial systems and much smaller, longer-range interceptor missiles.

“It could be used from aircraft, ships and submarines, but the obstacles are not small,” he says. “The main challenge is time-of-flight [from the orbiting aircraft to the boosting missile],” the official says. “It has to be faster and more agile so that it can divert to another target or change the interception point. Iran is 2,000 km. away. How fast can you predict its path? BPI is not that realistic right now.”

The rest of the story http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_generic.jsp?channel=defense&id=news/awst/2010/09/20/AW_09_20_2010_p71-253575.xml&headline=Missile-Killing%20Interceptors%20Eyed%20By%20Israel,%20U.S.
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 RanulfC

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 418
Re: Air-launched missile defence concept
« Reply #12 on: September 28, 2010, 11:19:07 am »
If my calculations are correct the Aerojet Super Roadrunner (current sled rocket speed record holder) traveled at around 9500 ft/sec or 3km/sec. So 5 km/sec is 15,800 ft/sec. Does anyone know of any system that has traveled this fast (obviously boosting not a re-entry system)  ???

It is curious in the article that it doesn't include any caveats that this speed is a problem just what sized booster/warhead you would need. Doesn't "detcord" travel at around 15,000 ft/sec?
Sprint?

Randy

Offline Sea Skimmer

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 394
Re: Air-launched missile defence concept
« Reply #13 on: September 29, 2010, 07:21:41 pm »
Sprint burned out at about 3.1km/s but it was also at a very low altitude as its burn time was only four seconds. THAAD has a similar burnout speed but at a much higher altitude, which is why it leaves the launcher so much slower in comparison. Burnout isn’t everything. A bigger 21in booster THAAD is entering production as of Block 2010, I don’t know how much that will increase performance but it’s going to be very considerable.

GBI burn’s out somewhere around 8km/s, though I’ve heard people claim that on paper you could have a lightweight kill vehicle release from a GBI size booster and get it going as fast as 15km/s. At that point you could engage a target outside of earth’s gravitation pull. More realistically you could turn some of that velocity into divert velocity to hit a maneuvering target like a hypersonic glider.

 KEI was aiming for 7km/s before it got canceled. SM-3 Block II+ seems to be estimated at anywhere from 4.5-6km/s depending on how heavy its new kill vehicle will be. SM-3 Block IIB is now being bid on as an all new missile so its performance is an unknown but certain the be superior to any previous variant.

Air launching THAAD or SM-3 would work very well for boost phased defense; the military just doesn’t want to take the easy road like that because those missiles cost over 10 million USD each.

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8494
Re: Air-launched missile defence concept
« Reply #14 on: September 29, 2010, 11:56:29 pm »
Thanks Sea Skimmer good information. 
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 Colonial-Marine

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 571
  • Fighting the UAV mafia.
Re: Air-launched missile defence concept
« Reply #15 on: September 30, 2010, 09:44:00 pm »
Correct me if I am wrong, but doesn't the PAC-3 MSE still contain a blast-fragmentation warhead unlike the NCADE? I wonder if this would allow a PAC-3 MSE based missile to have more of a dual-role capability.
"Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it whether it exists or not, diagnosing it incorrectly, and applying the wrong remedy."

Offline Sea Skimmer

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 394
Re: Air-launched missile defence concept
« Reply #16 on: October 03, 2010, 03:59:19 pm »
Yes the PAC-3 missile still has an explosive warhead, and apparently one which is gimbaled to actually aim at the target should the missile not achieve a direct hit, a feature also reported on some of the missiles used by S-300/400 and possibly earlier Patriot missiles. THAAD also has a small cluster of rods it ejects just before impact, as a means of making its ‘hit to kill’ footprint slightly wider. But unlike PAC-3 it was never intended to kill targets it misses to the sides.

However PAC-3 also costs about 3.8 million dollars with the launch canister. Air launch would not require the launch canister (course you need a storage canister instead, the missile has to live somewhere when not in use), but it would require other changes and new hardware on the launch platform all of which costs money. PAC-3 is also unlikely to be as effective at very high ceilings because it just was never designed to operate up high or take advantage of being launched from 500-600mph. It has a very short burn time for rapid reaction and a relatively big heavy missile frame. It’s in the same vein as Sprint, just not quite as absurdly aggressive.

AMRAAM meanwhile is around 350,000 USD, and NCADE is estimated at about 1 million dollars. It would have a liquid fuel upper stage so it’d have a considerable effective range and work well at high ceilings to the point that the USAF has said it could do ASAT from an F-22.  Just as importantly AMRAAM and NCADE are about half the weight of PAC-3 at roughly 350lb vs. 700lb.

 So for 1.3 million dollars and the same weight you could have 1 AMRAAM and 1 NCADE vs. spending 2 million dollars extra to have a single PAC-3 to fire. Sometimes duel role capability isn’t the best value!

The main reason to consider PAC-3 for air launch ABM is simply that PAC-3 already exists and is proven. NCADE is mostly new, though it would recycle certain key AMRAAM technology like the two way datalink from AIM-120D. 

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 10943
Re: Air-launched missile defence concept
« Reply #17 on: October 03, 2010, 04:30:26 pm »
Liquid upper stage for NCADE was already cancelled.
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline Sea Skimmer

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 394
Re: Air-launched missile defence concept
« Reply #18 on: October 03, 2010, 05:34:21 pm »
Do you have a link for that? Last I heard the upper stage and the guidance system had been split into separate developmental efforts in 2009, but with a mighty 3.5 million split between them for FY2010 its hard to see how any real work could be done.

If the upper stage is dead then that probably means the death of the program sooner then later, since it will certainly loose its ASAT and space launch capability as a result, which was a major attraction of the system. Its not like it ever got any real money anyway, about 10 million in total and it actually got less this year then last after asking for a major increase. I can't find anything on FY2011 funding at the moment, not enough spare time to scan the budget documents.
« Last Edit: October 03, 2010, 05:36:27 pm by Sea Skimmer »

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 10943
Re: Air-launched missile defence concept
« Reply #19 on: October 03, 2010, 05:40:00 pm »
Do you have a link for that? Last I heard the upper stage and the guidance system had been split into separate developmental efforts in 2009, but with a mighty 3.5 million split between them for FY2010 its hard to see how any real work could be done.

If the upper stage is dead then that probably means the death of the program sooner then later, since it will certainly loose its ASAT and space launch capability as a result, which was a major attraction of the system. Its not like it ever got any real money anyway, about 10 million in total and it actually got less this year then last after asking for a major increase. I can't find anything on FY2011 funding at the moment, not enough spare time to scan the budget documents.


It was in AvWeek months ago.  I don't recall the specific issue.  They switched to a solid propellant upper stage.

Raytheon's data NCADE data sheet confirms it.

http://www.raytheon.com/newsroom/rtnwcm/groups/rms/documents/content/rtn_rms_ncade_07-09_datasheet.pdf

« Last Edit: October 03, 2010, 05:41:48 pm by sferrin »
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline Sea Skimmer

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 394
Re: Air-launched missile defence concept
« Reply #20 on: October 03, 2010, 06:35:57 pm »
I notice they also now show a navy UAV as a launch platform, so maybe liquid propellent died out to try to suck the navy into the project. Course that doesn't much sense when the Navy is going to get SM-3 Block IIB as a long range ascent phase interceptor anyhow and has a more pressing requirement for terminal ABM coverage, but far dumber things have been funded.

Offline Mr London 24/7

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 356
Re: Air-launched missile defence concept
« Reply #21 on: June 23, 2013, 02:03:26 pm »

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 10943
Re: Air-launched missile defence concept
« Reply #22 on: June 23, 2013, 03:08:05 pm »
Imagine that as an AAM against a plane.  Not much time to evade.
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline Triton

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9687
  • Donald McKelvy
    • Deep Blue to Wild Blue
Re: Air-launched missile defence concept
« Reply #23 on: December 10, 2013, 05:46:34 pm »
Models of Lockheed Martin ALHTK (Air Launched Hit To Kill) by Azle Models

Source:
http://www.azlemodels.com/slideshow/photos-5/photos-11/page15.html

Offline Triton

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9687
  • Donald McKelvy
    • Deep Blue to Wild Blue
Re: Air-launched missile defence concept
« Reply #24 on: December 10, 2013, 05:49:45 pm »
Uploaded on Sep 19, 2008

Lockheed Martin 2008 video animation showing its Air-Launched Hit-to-Kill (ALHTK) concept. A Patriot PAC-3 MSE missile would be launched from inside a fuel-tank-shaped pod under the wing of an F-15 to intercept a ballistic missile in its vulnerable boost stage.



Offline Triton

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9687
  • Donald McKelvy
    • Deep Blue to Wild Blue
Re: Air-launched missile defence concept
« Reply #25 on: December 10, 2013, 05:54:31 pm »
Uploaded on Sep 27, 2009


Offline Triton

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9687
  • Donald McKelvy
    • Deep Blue to Wild Blue
Re: Air-launched missile defence concept
« Reply #26 on: December 10, 2013, 06:13:40 pm »
« Last Edit: December 10, 2013, 06:15:32 pm by Triton »

Offline donnage99

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 951
  • "Robert Gates, is that you??" sublight
Re: Air-launched missile defence concept
« Reply #27 on: January 28, 2014, 11:07:37 pm »
The f-23 if built would have been perfect for this system.  A deeper long range missile bay that is adjacent to the short range missile bay can be modified to carry this internally.  The superior rear end of the airframe and higher speed would allow the f-23 to go deep into enemy airspace to take down ascending ballistic missiles.  This could have been a much much much cheaper alternative to sea based or land based missile defense system. 

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 10943
Re: Air-launched missile defence concept
« Reply #28 on: January 29, 2014, 05:20:20 am »
The f-23 if built would have been perfect for this system.  A deeper long range missile bay that is adjacent to the short range missile bay can be modified to carry this internally.  The superior rear end of the airframe and higher speed would allow the f-23 to go deep into enemy airspace to take down ascending ballistic missiles.  This could have been a much much much cheaper alternative to sea based or land based missile defense system.

PAC-3 is 17 feet long.  (5 more than AIM-120.)  Was the YF-23's bay that long?
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline donnage99

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 951
  • "Robert Gates, is that you??" sublight
Re: Air-launched missile defence concept
« Reply #29 on: January 29, 2014, 04:52:46 pm »
PAC-3 is 17 feet long.  (5 more than AIM-120.)  Was the YF-23's bay that long?

The air launched version that we are talking about here is a shortened version (makes sense given that being air launched within enemy's air space, it doesn't need the range).  Don't know exactly length, but doesn't look more than twice the length of aim-9

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8494
Re: Air-launched missile defence concept
« Reply #30 on: April 05, 2015, 09:24:17 am »
While I think I either saw this or posted it myself I cannot find it searching the applicable terms so;

American Physical Society Boost Phase Intercept Report from 2003 downloadable at the link

http://www.aps.org/about/pressreleases/boosts2.cfm

Sorry if the report has been previously posted.
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 pathology_doc

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 789
Re: Air-launched missile defence concept
« Reply #31 on: April 07, 2015, 08:47:05 am »
They bring up the frustration in the 1991 Gulf War when pilots could see Scuds ascending but had no way to attack them.
.


You'd think SOMEONE would have given it a go with AIM-7, surely? What is it about a slowly-rising, non-stealthy, non-manoeuvring target that's acquired visually which isn't fish-in-a-barrel territory for even a 90's-vintage AAM? Granted, terminal phase is a b*****d with the missile heading downwards and towards you, but boost phase should give you a far less challenging shot.

I guess range at acquisition does come into it - those things could probably be seen a long way off - but I still have to wonder.

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 10943
Re: Air-launched missile defence concept
« Reply #32 on: April 07, 2015, 08:50:45 am »
Probably being in the right place at the right time to take a shot.
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline Void

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • *
  • Posts: 127
Re: Air-launched missile defence concept
« Reply #33 on: April 08, 2015, 02:19:05 pm »
They bring up the frustration in the 1991 Gulf War when pilots could see Scuds ascending but had no way to attack them.
.


You'd think SOMEONE would have given it a go with AIM-7, surely? What is it about a slowly-rising, non-stealthy, non-manoeuvring target that's acquired visually which isn't fish-in-a-barrel territory for even a 90's-vintage AAM? Granted, terminal phase is a b*****d with the missile heading downwards and towards you, but boost phase should give you a far less challenging shot.

I guess range at acquisition does come into it - those things could probably be seen a long way off - but I still have to wonder.

It wouldn't be able to catch it.

A scud may look "slow" but it is continuously accelerating in a vertical climb. That takes a LOT more energy than the shallow boast-coast trajectory of an AAM. With a normal proportional navigation guidance law the Sparrow would end up trying to chase the scud vertically to keep a continuous lead angle - almost guaranteed to fail.

A modified guidance law that can anticipate the future acceleration of the Scud and give the interceptor a much larger lead at the beginning of the engagement would help a lot - but that wasn't a feature of AAMs during ODS.

Offline pathology_doc

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 789
Re: Air-launched missile defence concept
« Reply #34 on: April 21, 2015, 09:30:16 am »
Sferrin and Void, I think in combination you've got it right. Void in particular, the parameters are duly noted, with thanks.

Offline marauder2048

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2058
  • "I should really just relax"
Re: Air-launched missile defence concept
« Reply #35 on: April 25, 2015, 06:40:32 pm »
Void is dead on with his discussion of guidance issues. More below:

The lead author was the guy behind ALHTK/NCADE while at MDA; he was recently interviewed in that LA Times article on MDA.



Offline marauder2048

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2058
  • "I should really just relax"
Re: Air-launched missile defence concept
« Reply #36 on: November 02, 2017, 02:37:14 pm »
Congressman says F-35s could take down North Korea’s missiles in boost phase
November 02, 2017 |Justin Doubleday


A congressman on the House Armed Services Committee claimed today F-35 Joint Strike Fighters could shoot down North Korea’s ballistic missiles in their boost phase
and faulted the Missile Defense Agency and the Pentagon for failing to come up with a timely solution to Kim Jong Un’s nuclear warhead program. Rep. Duncan Hunter
(R-CA) said he has seen analysis from Los Alamos National Laboratories and other research outfits to support his claim that an F-35 could take out a ballistic...

https://insidedefense.com/daily-news/congressman-says-f-35s-could-take-down-north-korea%E2%80%99s-missiles-boost-phase


Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 10943
Re: Air-launched missile defence concept
« Reply #37 on: November 02, 2017, 02:43:09 pm »
Congressman says F-35s could take down North Korea’s missiles in boost phase
November 02, 2017 |Justin Doubleday


A congressman on the House Armed Services Committee claimed today F-35 Joint Strike Fighters could shoot down North Korea’s ballistic missiles in their boost phase
and faulted the Missile Defense Agency and the Pentagon for failing to come up with a timely solution to Kim Jong Un’s nuclear warhead program. Rep. Duncan Hunter
(R-CA) said he has seen analysis from Los Alamos National Laboratories and other research outfits to support his claim that an F-35 could take out a ballistic...

https://insidedefense.com/daily-news/congressman-says-f-35s-could-take-down-north-korea%E2%80%99s-missiles-boost-phase

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

Offline DrRansom

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 495
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: Air-launched missile defence concept
« Reply #38 on: November 02, 2017, 05:42:31 pm »
Congressman says F-35s could take down North Korea’s missiles in boost phase
November 02, 2017 |Justin Doubleday


A congressman on the House Armed Services Committee claimed today F-35 Joint Strike Fighters could shoot down North Korea’s ballistic missiles in their boost phase
and faulted the Missile Defense Agency and the Pentagon for failing to come up with a timely solution to Kim Jong Un’s nuclear warhead program. Rep. Duncan Hunter
(R-CA) said he has seen analysis from Los Alamos National Laboratories and other research outfits to support his claim that an F-35 could take out a ballistic...

https://insidedefense.com/daily-news/congressman-says-f-35s-could-take-down-north-korea%E2%80%99s-missiles-boost-phase

This article sounds like a Representative looking for a cheap technical fix to a long-term strategic problem.

Offline marauder2048

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2058
  • "I should really just relax"
Re: Air-launched missile defence concept
« Reply #39 on: November 02, 2017, 06:16:50 pm »
This article sounds like a Representative looking for a cheap technical fix to a long-term strategic problem.

Which is funny given the previous administration's view that boost phase interceptors carried by stealthy
aircraft were strategically destabilizing.

I was hoping that since MKV was cancelled and then resurrected as MOKV
that the AWL would be resurrected as AOWL..but alas it's still AWOL.

Offline DrRansom

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 495
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: Air-launched missile defence concept
« Reply #40 on: November 02, 2017, 06:33:33 pm »
Which is funny given the previous administration's view that boost phase interceptors carried by stealthy
aircraft were strategically destabilizing.

I was hoping that since MKV was cancelled and then resurrected as MOKV
that the AWL would be resurrected as AOWL..but alas it's still AWOL.

The Representative is from another party. In either case, I agree that the potential deployment of boost-phase interceptors by ULO stratospheric UAVs would be potentially massively destabilizing.

But... the best platform for a boost-phase interceptor is a super high-altitude ULO UAV. Not the F-35.

Edit: there is another part of the conversation conspicuously missing here. The Representative, following the line of the DoD and most analysts, has focused on defending against North Korean missiles. There has been very little emphasis on destroying North Korean missiles before they launch.

Imagine if the convseration was not just about defense, but about developing the capability to launch a counter-force attack at a moment's notice.

North Korean can build enough missiles to stress any reasonable missile defense system. (44 GBI rounds, at 4 rounds per target, makes for an easily overwhelmed system.)

Rather than single-mindedly focusing on defense, there should talk about what offensive systems can help.


« Last Edit: November 02, 2017, 07:22:32 pm by DrRansom »

Offline marauder2048

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2058
  • "I should really just relax"
Re: Air-launched missile defence concept
« Reply #41 on: November 02, 2017, 07:42:58 pm »
There's been lots of discussion about left-of-launch approaches to BMD. If you think BPI is hard...

Not suggesting that the F-35 was the best platform but given the difficulty in locating TELs
you'd want a higher density asset as well as your HALE LO UAV.

More importantly, we really need to crash-course a BPI interceptor; maybe (hopefully) LREW is more than just air dominance.
« Last Edit: November 02, 2017, 07:46:31 pm by marauder2048 »

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 10943
Re: Air-launched missile defence concept
« Reply #42 on: November 08, 2017, 05:16:46 am »
In either case, I agree that the potential deployment of boost-phase interceptors by ULO stratospheric UAVs would be potentially massively destabilizing.

Wouldn't really be useful against a larger country like Russia or China as they could locate their ICBMs further back and just lob them over these UAVs.
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline marauder2048

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2058
  • "I should really just relax"
Re: Air-launched missile defence concept
« Reply #43 on: December 01, 2017, 02:15:05 pm »
Senate authorizers ask appropriators to fund boost-phase missile defense project

December 01, 2017 | Justin Doubleday

Two lawmakers on the Senate Armed Services Committee are urging Senate appropriators to include funding in
their fiscal year 2018 spending bill for a Defense Department project that promises to deliver a boost-phase
missile defense solution in 18 months or less.

In a Dec. 1 letter, Sens. James Inhofe (R-OK) and Dan Sullivan (R-AK) ask top Senate appropriators to designate
$100 million for the "rapid development and deployment of a new kinetic boost phase missile defense
technology" in their FY-18 spending bill. The letter was sent to Senate Appropriations Committee Chairman Thad
Cochran (R-MS) and Ranking Member Dick Durbin (D-IL).

Cochran released his chairman's mark of the FY-18 bill last week. The legislation, which busts mandatory
spending caps by $32 billion, includes $9.3 billion for missile defense.

Inhofe and Sullivan want the appropriators to set aside $100 million for a project known as the High Altitude Long
Endurance Kinetic Boost Phase Intercept, according to their letter. The system would make use of remotely
piloted unmanned vehicles loitering in international airspace at a safe standoff distance over international
waters, the letter states.

"When fielded, this system could detect and engage North Korean missiles in their boost phase and potentially
confine North Korean ICBMs to airspace over (or close to) North Korea -- protecting American families and our
allies," it continues.

They claim the system can be built within 12 to 18 months. The unmanned aerial vehicles and detection
technology already exist, while the missile interceptor would be developed by making "minor technical
modifications of already existing missiles," according to the letter.

The funding for the project was initially identified by DOD as part of a $6 billion supplemental spending request
sent over to Congress last month. The supplemental request included an extra $4 billion for missile defense
and defeat projects.

https://insidedefense.com/insider/senate-authorizers-ask-appropriators-fund-boost-phase-missile-defense-project

Offline marauder2048

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2058
  • "I should really just relax"
Re: Air-launched missile defence concept
« Reply #44 on: December 11, 2017, 02:32:26 pm »
Northrop Grumman FTX-20 Experiment 2014

Northrop Grumman’s Distributed Aperture System demonstrates the ability to detect and track ballistic missile threats
and share the trajectory information across the battlespace via an airborne gateway.


Offline marauder2048

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2058
  • "I should really just relax"
Re: Air-launched missile defence concept
« Reply #45 on: January 18, 2018, 01:58:56 pm »
Griffin interested in airborne missile defense
By: Aaron Mehta 

WASHINGTON – The man poised to become the first ever undersecretary of defense for
research and engineering supports investing heavily in airborne missile defense and directed
energy weapons, as well as new ways of moving technology from theory to production.

Michael Griffin, the former NASA administrator up for the R&E job, faced few tough questions
during his nomination hearing Thursday, but did give insight into some of the areas he may
focus on after what appears to be an inevitable confirmation.

Asked about the feasibility of airborne boost-phase missile defense, Griffin expressed strong
support for the idea, calling it “very feasible” to develop the technology, which he said would
be particularly useful against a country like North Korea.

“It was feasible many years ago to do it. What we have lacked in the missile defense arena
until recently was the will, not the technology, not the means,” Griffin said.


The idea of airborne missile defense systems has become more popular in recent months,
with members of Congress pushing the Pentagon on such ideas as arming drones with lasers
that, in theory, could take out a just-launched ICBM. Analysts have questioned how feasible
such technology is, and the Pentagon appears to be in just the early stages of experimenting
with the concept.

Griffin acknowledged that interest from the Hill outstrips that from inside the Pentagon,
saying  “Congress is leading the department, ahead of the department on this. And if confirmed
you will not be ahead of me in your advocacy for this capability. I strongly support such [technology].”

He also showed support for directed energy weapons, saying that laser technology has been
“given that less priority, by far, than I think it deserves.”

...

https://www.defensenews.com/pentagon/2018/01/18/griffin-interested-in-airborne-missile-defense/

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 10943
Re: Air-launched missile defence concept
« Reply #46 on: January 18, 2018, 04:27:18 pm »
"he idea of airborne missile defense systems has become more popular in recent months,
with members of Congress pushing the Pentagon on such ideas as arming drones with lasers
that, in theory, could take out a just-launched ICBM. "

When I read this I can't help but think, "if a 747, with it's megawatt+ laser and giant beam director couldn't make the case, what hope does a Reaper-esque drone have?"
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8494
Re: Air-launched missile defence concept
« Reply #47 on: January 18, 2018, 08:55:27 pm »
"he idea of airborne missile defense systems has become more popular in recent months,
with members of Congress pushing the Pentagon on such ideas as arming drones with lasers
that, in theory, could take out a just-launched ICBM. "

When I read this I can't help but think, "if a 747, with it's megawatt+ laser and giant beam director couldn't make the case, what hope does a Reaper-esque drone have?"
Scott, has there been any studies on 'tail chase' missile technologies from an air launched platform that includes missile size, weight, speed, etc. requirements. I know a lot would depend on range from target and many other factors but curious if you've seen anything?
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: 10943
Re: Air-launched missile defence concept
« Reply #48 on: January 19, 2018, 10:41:07 am »
"he idea of airborne missile defense systems has become more popular in recent months,
with members of Congress pushing the Pentagon on such ideas as arming drones with lasers
that, in theory, could take out a just-launched ICBM. "

When I read this I can't help but think, "if a 747, with it's megawatt+ laser and giant beam director couldn't make the case, what hope does a Reaper-esque drone have?"
Scott, has there been any studies on 'tail chase' missile technologies from an air launched platform that includes missile size, weight, speed, etc. requirements. I know a lot would depend on range from target and many other factors but curious if you've seen anything?

I've seen very little in the way of actual hardware concepts for air-launched boost phase intercept.  NCADE wasn't meant for launching against large ballistic missiles (mostly because it's range was relatively short and the targets would be too far away at launch).  Then this one but I don't know if it went anywhere:


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

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8494
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 DrRansom

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 495
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: Air-launched missile defence concept
« Reply #50 on: January 25, 2018, 11:43:24 am »
"he idea of airborne missile defense systems has become more popular in recent months,
with members of Congress pushing the Pentagon on such ideas as arming drones with lasers
that, in theory, could take out a just-launched ICBM. "

When I read this I can't help but think, "if a 747, with it's megawatt+ laser and giant beam director couldn't make the case, what hope does a Reaper-esque drone have?"

I think the theory is a largish missile, perhaps PAC-3 size, but mounted on a stealth aircraft orbiting above the mobile missile operating region. I suspect the CONOPs is to surge Boost-Phase-Intercept drones into the enemy airspace while ground attack aircraft seek out the launchers. The missile interceptors give some protection against any launchers that escape the TEL hunt.

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 10943
Re: Air-launched missile defence concept
« Reply #51 on: January 25, 2018, 12:14:05 pm »
"he idea of airborne missile defense systems has become more popular in recent months,
with members of Congress pushing the Pentagon on such ideas as arming drones with lasers
that, in theory, could take out a just-launched ICBM. "

When I read this I can't help but think, "if a 747, with it's megawatt+ laser and giant beam director couldn't make the case, what hope does a Reaper-esque drone have?"

I think the theory is a largish missile, perhaps PAC-3 size, but mounted on a stealth aircraft orbiting above the mobile missile operating region. I suspect the CONOPs is to surge Boost-Phase-Intercept drones into the enemy airspace while ground attack aircraft seek out the launchers. The missile interceptors give some protection against any launchers that escape the TEL hunt.

Except that by the time the decision to even move drones out of their hangars is made the missiles in question will be GONE.
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline marauder2048

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2058
  • "I should really just relax"
Re: Air-launched missile defence concept
« Reply #52 on: January 25, 2018, 12:29:25 pm »
Except that by the time the decision to even move drones out of their hangars is made the missiles in question will be GONE.

The mobile missile threat was so acute in the 80's that the Regan administration authorized overflight of the Soviet Union
prior to the outbreak of hostilities; no reason that authorization couldn't make a comeback.
« Last Edit: January 25, 2018, 12:32:53 pm by marauder2048 »

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 10943
Re: Air-launched missile defence concept
« Reply #53 on: January 25, 2018, 01:43:07 pm »
Except that by the time the decision to even move drones out of their hangars is made the missiles in question will be GONE.

The mobile missile threat was so acute in the 80's that the Regan administration authorized overflight of the Soviet Union
prior to the outbreak of hostilities; no reason that authorization couldn't make a comeback.

You'd need something with a lot of stealth and very high speed weapons.  And a lot of them.
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline DrRansom

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 495
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: Air-launched missile defence concept
« Reply #54 on: January 25, 2018, 01:45:41 pm »
You'd need something with a lot of stealth and very high speed weapons.  And a lot of them.

Something like the Skunk Works Persistor? Mach 2 flight into enemy airspace and then high altitude stealthy loiter. That's a wildly expensive program.

The BPI drone use case is, I think, a counter-force strike launched in an escalating crisis against North Korea. The problem is that such a system only increases the pressure on KJU to launch earlier.

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 10943
Re: Air-launched missile defence concept
« Reply #55 on: January 25, 2018, 03:54:44 pm »
I never really understood the notion of B-2s flying over the USSR looking for ICBM-carrying trains.  The missiles would be long gone before the B-2s arrived, and how much endurance would they have overhead anyway?  IMO you either need a long-endurance drone with very high speed, long range AAMs operating at the edge of the country's airspace (and it needs to be a SMALL country), or lasers in space. 
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline marauder2048

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2058
  • "I should really just relax"
Re: Air-launched missile defence concept
« Reply #56 on: January 25, 2018, 04:20:23 pm »
I never really understood the notion of B-2s flying over the USSR looking for ICBM-carrying trains.  The missiles would be long gone before the B-2s arrived, and how much endurance would they have overhead anyway?  IMO you either need a long-endurance drone with very high speed, long range AAMs operating at the edge of the country's airspace (and it needs to be a SMALL country), or lasers in space.

Wasn't AARS supposed to provide targeting data for depressed trajectory SLBMs (possibly with a terminally guided MaRV) ?

We can add to that the other ICBM-based counter-strategic relocatable target weapons
which IIRC, were PBV bi-static radar guided MarV and an ICBM deliverable cruise missile .
« Last Edit: January 25, 2018, 04:32:32 pm by marauder2048 »

Offline DrRansom

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 495
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: Air-launched missile defence concept
« Reply #57 on: January 25, 2018, 05:49:37 pm »
I never really understood the notion of B-2s flying over the USSR looking for ICBM-carrying trains.  The missiles would be long gone before the B-2s arrived, and how much endurance would they have overhead anyway?  IMO you either need a long-endurance drone with very high speed, long range AAMs operating at the edge of the country's airspace (and it needs to be a SMALL country), or lasers in space.

Or a Mach 3 air launched cruise missile...

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 10943
Re: Air-launched missile defence concept
« Reply #58 on: January 26, 2018, 04:31:46 am »
Or a Mach 3 air launched cruise missile...

Doubt even that would make a difference. 
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline George Allegrezza

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 764
Re: Air-launched missile defence concept
« Reply #59 on: April 11, 2018, 09:00:53 am »
https://www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/201804/north-korea.cfm

Long (12,000 word) treatise by Ted Postol on North Korean ballistic missile capabilities and a potential BPI system using Reapers equipped with 600 Kg, 4 km/s interceptors with an additional 2 km/s divert capability in the KV.

Scroll to the end for the BPI info.  In terms of preamble, there's a lot on rocket science, the potential sources of the North Korean technological advancements that underpinned the 2017 ICBM "breakout", and a discussion of how those various technologies were combined and adapted, plus some characteristic shade for GMD and, delightfully, the Grey Lady.

Offline quellish

  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2037
  • I am not actually here.

Offline Maury Markowitz

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • *
  • Posts: 71
  • From the Great White North!
Re: Air-launched missile defence concept
« Reply #61 on: April 12, 2018, 04:52:28 pm »
Wasn't AARS supposed to provide targeting data for depressed trajectory SLBMs (possibly with a terminally guided MaRV) ?
No, AARS was meant to do long-range MTI against Topol TELs.

I never saw a reference to it being used against SLBMs.

And how would it help against MARV anyway? MARV is a problem for the interceptor and terminal radars, not detection.

Offline marauder2048

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2058
  • "I should really just relax"
Re: Air-launched missile defence concept
« Reply #62 on: April 12, 2018, 05:48:22 pm »
Wasn't AARS supposed to provide targeting data for depressed trajectory SLBMs (possibly with a terminally guided MaRV) ?
No, AARS was meant to do long-range MTI against Topol TELs.

I never saw a reference to it being used against SLBMs.

And how would it help against MARV anyway? MARV is a problem for the interceptor and terminal radars, not detection.

I think we are in violent agreement as to what AARS was intended to do. 

The question is which weapons would be used to prosecute the attacks against the TELs that AARS was tracking.


Offline quellish

  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2037
  • I am not actually here.
Re: Air-launched missile defence concept
« Reply #63 on: April 14, 2018, 12:22:08 pm »

I think we are in violent agreement as to what AARS was intended to do. 

The question is which weapons would be used to prosecute the attacks against the TELs that AARS was tracking.

SRAMs launched from B-2s. AARS and the B-2s used MILSTAR to move data. No way to get AARS data to SLBMs in a timely fashion (SSBNs would have to be waiting for the data at periscope depth anyway and reprogramming the missiles may not be a quick process).

Offline marauder2048

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2058
  • "I should really just relax"
Re: Air-launched missile defence concept
« Reply #64 on: April 16, 2018, 02:25:50 pm »
Quick-retargeting of ICBMs (REACT) and SLBMs (SRS) began in the mid-80's.
I would think that it any crisis that motivated the launch of AARS, communications with SSBNs
would be easier.

Was the "mobile missile hunting B-2" concept anything more than a fanciful "Save the B-2" effort?

While the Regan administration was willing to permit ISR overflights of the Soviet Union
in peacetime (which made AARS viable) I don't think it extended to nuclear armed bombers.

Short of a US first-strike (or the mother-of-all tanker chains), I don't see how the the B-2 has much
more than residual capability in the mobile-missile hunting role.

Offline quellish

  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2037
  • I am not actually here.
Re: Air-launched missile defence concept
« Reply #65 on: April 29, 2018, 09:19:44 pm »
Quick-retargeting of ICBMs (REACT) and SLBMs (SRS) began in the mid-80's.
I would think that it any crisis that motivated the launch of AARS, communications with SSBNs
would be easier.

SSBNs have (long range) communications when at periscope depth and when submerged. The submerged system is very very low bandwidth. Targets can be sent from STRATCOM over the high bandwidth system. The low bandwidth system can be used to tell the SSBN to go to periscope depth for new orders/targets/pizza/whatever. AARS would be unable to use the low bandwidth system for technical and practical reasons.

When SLBMs are retargetted imagine it as loading a new program into the system. The program isn't (and can't be) created on the SSBN.

Was the "mobile missile hunting B-2" concept anything more than a fanciful "Save the B-2" effort?

It was a primary mission of the B-2 from 81-89. The mission justified much of the stealth, the DMS and ESM, and in particular the radar. The B-2 can hang out for a long, long time over defended territory without much support. That was the idea, and that drove many of the more interesting requirements.

The plan looked something like this:
SS-20, -24, -25 are continuously monitored using national assets in peacetime (SIGINT, COMINT, overhead radar).
When hostilities are initiated AARS uses radar and SIGINT to search the areas where mobile targets are likely to be based on the peacetime monitoring. This narrows the search area and hopefully identifies precise target locations.
B-2s follow in and track the mobile targets using the strike radar. SRAMs are launched to destory them. MILSTAR is how the B-2s communicate with AARS and STRATCOM.

That was the plan as these systems were being developed and funded, and how USAF and STRATCOM were sold on participating in AARS. AARS was originally a CIA/NRO program but, you know, money.
USAF/STRATCOM needs added/changed requirements. AARS had to do much more than just be a persistent eye to satisfy SIOP needs and that drove costs up further.

There was never an actual SIOP that incorporated these elements. The world changed, programs were canceled (AARS, MILSTAR(?), SRAM-II, B-2) etc. and even the nature of the SIOP itself changed.


While the Regan administration was willing to permit ISR overflights of the Soviet Union
in peacetime (which made AARS viable) I don't think it extended to nuclear armed bombers.

There are many flaws in the above plan. What if national assets did not know the (general) locations of all the mobile missiles at the start of hostilities? How would AARS get in place in time? How many AARS would be needed to cover SIOP, Trans-SIOP, and post-SIOP needs?
How would AARS lift off the ground with the weight of all the computers it would need? They were trying to automate like.... all of NPIC. Into the aircraft.

Would it not make a little more sense if AARS was a high speed aircraft rather than a persistent subsonic one?

Short of a US first-strike (or the mother-of-all tanker chains), I don't see how the the B-2 has much
more than residual capability in the mobile-missile hunting role.

This is how the B-2 and AARS were sold to the people who funded them. Whether this would have worked in practice is another thing.

Offline jsport

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1096
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: Air-launched missile defence concept
« Reply #66 on: April 30, 2018, 12:51:51 pm »
"There are many flaws in the above plan. What if national assets did not know the (general) locations of all the mobile missiles at the start of hostilities? How would AARS get in place in time? How many AARS would be needed to cover SIOP, Trans-SIOP, and post-SIOP needs?
How would AARS lift off the ground with the weight of all the computers it would need? They were trying to automate like.... all of NPIC. Into the aircraft.

Would it not make a little more sense if AARS was a high speed aircraft rather than a persistent subsonic one?"

yes these are now contemporary issues.

Offline marauder2048

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2058
  • "I should really just relax"
Re: Air-launched missile defence concept
« Reply #67 on: April 30, 2018, 05:29:04 pm »

SSBNs have (long range) communications when at periscope depth and when submerged. The submerged system is very very low bandwidth. Targets can be sent from STRATCOM over the high bandwidth system. The low bandwidth system can be used to tell the SSBN to go to periscope depth for new orders/targets/pizza/whatever. AARS would be unable to use the low bandwidth system for technical and practical reasons.

The submerged system was not particularly low bandwidth since the BALPARS data set was not small and was sent twice a day.
Indeed, GAO in 1992 said that C3 to SSBNs is about a prompt as ICBMs silos and there was no operationally meaningful
difference in time to target for SLBMs.

In any event, the crisis that prompted the launch of AARS would have prompted SSBNs to come shallow.



When SLBMs are retargetted imagine it as loading a new program into the system. The program isn't (and can't be) created on the SSBN.

It's interpolation or extrapolation from the existing target set which they have to do anyway to accommodate the BALPARS data.

Was the "mobile missile hunting B-2" concept anything more than a fanciful "Save the B-2" effort?

It was a primary mission of the B-2 from 81-89.

Which is contradicted by:
 
Welch's congressional testimony in 1989:  “finding and striking highly mobile targets is neither the reason for the B-2...."
GAO, which said in 1992 for the B-2 vis-a-vis SRTs that "no special capability exists or is foreseen" 
and the declassified NSDD 178 (July 10, 1985) which says that:

"During the development of the ATB, design options will be preserved to ensure that the ATB could ultimately have the capability in conjunction
with other national assets to locate and attack relocatable targets within the Soviet Union and other potential adversaries"

That's pretty far from a primary mission. Had it in fact been ATB's primary mission there would be no need to mention this.

I can't find any evidence that any of the counter-SRT warheads that were studied were envisioned for SRAM II.


The mission justified much of the stealth, the DMS and ESM, and in particular the radar. The B-2 can hang out for a long, long time over defended territory without much support. That was the idea, and that drove many of the more interesting requirements.

You would have needed all of the above and SRAM II just to survive against the mobile SAM systems and to prosecute attacks
against the existing stationary target set protected by terminal defenses. 


There was never an actual SIOP that incorporated these elements.

Agreed.


While the Regan administration was willing to permit ISR overflights of the Soviet Union
in peacetime (which made AARS viable) I don't think it extended to nuclear armed bombers.

There are many flaws in the above plan.

Who claimed it was flawless? But it is well attested to in the declassified documents.
It's clear that there were no flawless plans or concepts for countering the SRT threat.

Would it not make a little more sense if AARS was a high speed aircraft rather than a persistent subsonic one?

No. Because EO/IR and particularly SAR/ESM/GMTI all like long dwells and low platform speed.
That leads you to persistent subsonic platforms or ICBM/SLBM rapid delivery of subsonic platforms like MSTART
which is of course consistent with REACT and the other SRT targeting system the US actually funded and pursued.

Short of a US first-strike (or the mother-of-all tanker chains), I don't see how the the B-2 has much
more than residual capability in the mobile-missile hunting role.
This is how the B-2 and AARS were sold to the people who funded them. Whether this would have worked in practice is another thing.

It's clear from all of the declassified documents that the Reagan administration wanted at least residual capabiltiy
against SRTs from all of the elements of the Triad.

Offline quellish

  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2037
  • I am not actually here.
Re: Air-launched missile defence concept
« Reply #68 on: April 30, 2018, 11:29:31 pm »
The submerged system was not particularly low bandwidth since the BALPARS data set was not small and was sent twice a day.

ELF - particularly as used by the US Navy - has a bandwidth of about a word per minute. And we are talking about very short words here. That is low bandwidth.

The Navy "fast retargeting" systems introduced in the 90s and 00s are intended to shift missiles to existing fixed targets, not new ones. When a target is missed by a missile the retargeting system can shift a subsequent missile to that (already programmed) target.
Regardless, fast retargeting systems were not deployed at the time.

Indeed, GAO in 1992 said that C3 to SSBNs is about a prompt as ICBMs silos and there was no operationally meaningful
difference in time to target for SLBMs.

In any event, the crisis that prompted the launch of AARS would have prompted SSBNs to come shallow.

They would not be hanging out at periscope depth for the duration of a crisis.

Which is contradicted by:

Welch's congressional testimony in 1989:  “finding and striking highly mobile targets is neither the reason for the B-2...."
[/qupte]

Which continued:
"...nor are we likely to accomplish that in the near to mid term with great efficiency unless we make a further big commitment to some other system."

The big commitment to some other system being AARS. This was at the time when USAF was gaining a larger responsibility for that program.

GAO, which said in 1992 for the B-2 vis-a-vis SRTs that "no special capability exists or is foreseen" 

By 1992 the B-2 mission had changed. Again, the world had changed. STRATCOM had changed. SIOP, as we knew it, was dead.

and the declassified NSDD 178 (July 10, 1985) which says that:

"During the development of the ATB, design options will be preserved to ensure that the ATB could ultimately have the capability in conjunction
with other national assets to locate and attack relocatable targets within the Soviet Union and other potential adversaries"
[/qupte]

"Other national assets" here being the very systems we are talking about. AARS and satellites.

As far as the B-2 SRT mission, see attached from "Testing and operational requirements for the B-2" testimony. There are many other examples in the public record of the B-2 SRT mission.

You would have needed all of the above and SRAM II just to survive against the mobile SAM systems and to prosecute attacks
against the existing stationary target set protected by terminal defenses. 

As you might imagine this problem was studied to death at the time and the outcomes did not agree with that position. The B-2 was more than capable of accomplishing its mission given the current and projected threats at the time.

No. Because EO/IR and particularly SAR/ESM/GMTI all like long dwells and low platform speed.

A few SR-71 RSOs would disagree with that.
There is nothing inherent to, say, SAR that dictates a low platform speed.

It's clear from all of the declassified documents that the Reagan administration wanted at least residual capabiltiy
against SRTs from all of the elements of the Triad.

STRATCOM had a strategy of cross-targeting at the time. For some targets this was not practical. Not every target was vulnerable to multiple capabilities. Arms control agreements put additional pressure on STRATCOM targeting.

Offline marauder2048

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2058
  • "I should really just relax"
Re: Air-launched missile defence concept
« Reply #69 on: May 01, 2018, 01:49:46 am »
BALPARS was VLF anyway so the submarine had to come (relatively) shallow to get the wind/atmospheric data
to ensure that its very expensive SLBM RBs weren't scattered. Plus, Trident D5 was supposed to be
MILSTAR compatible.

I've love to see some actual evidence that the B-2's primary mission since 1981 was counter SRT.
The 1985 document pre-dates and contradicts what you provided and was at a much higher classification level.
GAO's 1992 analysis is still valid because as they say: "Our analysis of the B-2 focused on its originally intended
strategic-nuclear mission."

Fast retargeting would have been suitable for the SS-25 threat since most of
the studies during the period considered attacks on the dispersal regions around their garrisons.

"Fast retargeting systems were not deployed at this time." Well neither was the B-2.
But I think it's clear these programs all got their counter-SRT start after 1985 per the presidential directive.
And many of the counter-SRT efforts the Air Force actually funded were not built around the penetrating bomber.

The SR-71 was retired (in part) because it wasn't a very good SAR platform; for SAR, platform velocity is in the denominator for SNR.
That's why the U-2 continued since ideally you want high, slow and good endurance.

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8494
Re: Air-launched missile defence concept
« Reply #70 on: May 02, 2018, 06:55:20 am »
https://twitter.com/MIL_STD

MDA is seeking tech across the Hypersonic Defense ‘kill chain’ including early ID and persistent sensor technology, low-latency comms and processing tech., and advanced technologies supporting future components for weapon systems."

https://www.fbo.gov/index.php?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=cb4a2ed31c089499d981c0530ba8b014&tab=core&_cview=0
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