Ballistic Missile Defense System Demonstrates Layered Defense

sferrin

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
15,340
Reaction score
4,632
"The test, designated Flight Test Operational-02 Event 2a, was conducted in the vicinity of Wake Island and surrounding areas of the western Pacific Ocean. The test stressed the ability of Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD) and Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) weapon systems to negate two ballistic missile threats while Aegis BMD simultaneously conducted an anti-air warfare operation.

This was a highly complex operational test of the BMDS which required all elements to work together in an integrated layered defense design to detect, track, discriminate, engage, and negate the ballistic missile threats. "

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articles-view/release/3/168400/sm_3-misses%2C-thaad-shoots-down-target-in-latest-bmd-test.html

A couple things in particular caught my interest with this test. Both targets were air-launched ballistic missiles. SRALT and eMRBM

http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/app4/sralt.html
(eMRBM is apparently LRALT)
http://space.skyrocket.de/doc_lau_fam/sr19.htm


The second thing I thought interesting is that the eMRBM was intended as the SM-3's target but when it missed they just used another THAAD to hit it.
 

TomS

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
5,635
Reaction score
3,781
That does suggest this was pretty close to a real-world test -- in more limited test, they've have used a range-safety destruct on the missed target.

I liked that they showed the transition from a BMD engagement to an air-breathing engagement. Early AEGIS BMD builds were "either-or", so you had to have an air-defense ship riding shotgun on the BMD asset.
 

sferrin

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
15,340
Reaction score
4,632
"ACS"? ??? Is that an acronym for "the nose"? (Apparently I need to brush up on my TLAs.)
 

marauder2048

"I should really just relax"
Joined
Nov 19, 2013
Messages
3,158
Reaction score
546
sferrin said:
"ACS"? ??? Is that an acronym for "the nose"? (Apparently I need to brush up on my TLAs.)

I was thinking they were censoring the attitude control system on the nose though I guess a look at the design of the RV (I don't believe its shrouded) might give you a sense of the re-entry speeds THAAD/SM-3 could cope with.
 

sferrin

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
15,340
Reaction score
4,632
marauder2048 said:
sferrin said:
"ACS"? ??? Is that an acronym for "the nose"? (Apparently I need to brush up on my TLAs.)

I was thinking they were censoring the attitude control system on the nose though I guess a look at the design of the RV (I don't believe its shrouded) might give you a sense of the re-entry speeds THAAD/SM-3 could cope with.

Except SM-3 pretty much demonstrated to the world that it can handle anything one could throw at it. It did take down a satellite after all. There is some evidence it might be the same with THAAD. In either case, if there is enough notice to get the KKV in position in time, they could probably hit ICBMs.
 

marauder2048

"I should really just relax"
Joined
Nov 19, 2013
Messages
3,158
Reaction score
546
sferrin said:
marauder2048 said:
sferrin said:
"ACS"? ??? Is that an acronym for "the nose"? (Apparently I need to brush up on my TLAs.)

I was thinking they were censoring the attitude control system on the nose though I guess a look at the design of the RV (I don't believe its shrouded) might give you a sense of the re-entry speeds THAAD/SM-3 could cope with.

Except SM-3 pretty much demonstrated to the world that it can handle anything one could throw at it. It did take down a satellite after all. There is some evidence it might be the same with THAAD. In either case, if there is enough notice to get the KKV in position in time, they could probably hit ICBMs.

Happy to hear your explanation for the Witness Relocation Program treatment of the nose.
 

sferrin

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
15,340
Reaction score
4,632
marauder2048 said:
sferrin said:
marauder2048 said:
sferrin said:
"ACS"? ??? Is that an acronym for "the nose"? (Apparently I need to brush up on my TLAs.)

I was thinking they were censoring the attitude control system on the nose though I guess a look at the design of the RV (I don't believe its shrouded) might give you a sense of the re-entry speeds THAAD/SM-3 could cope with.

Except SM-3 pretty much demonstrated to the world that it can handle anything one could throw at it. It did take down a satellite after all. There is some evidence it might be the same with THAAD. In either case, if there is enough notice to get the KKV in position in time, they could probably hit ICBMs.

Happy to hear your explanation for the Witness Relocation Program treatment of the nose.

I don't have one. The only one I can think of is if they were using maneuvering RVs and wanted to hide that. Probably something much more mundane though.
 

AN/AWW-14(V)

ACCESS: Granted
Senior Member
Joined
May 18, 2019
Messages
634
Reaction score
1,307
Pentagon delays until 2028 flight test of engagement coordination among Aegis BMD, THAAD, Patriot

The U.S. military has delayed until 2028 plans for a major flight test to demonstrate the ability of three major ballistic missile defense systems to collaborate, a goal that if not further postponed will be 15 years after the Pentagon's top weapon tester called for the Navy and Army systems to establish rudimentary engagement coordination for theater-level threats.

 

sferrin

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
15,340
Reaction score
4,632
Shocker. If it were up to me, I'd launch 3 RVs on a MM3 from Vandenberg and try to hit one with SM-3, one with THAAD in the atmosphere, and one with PAC-3 MSE.
 

jsport

what do you know about surfing Major? you're from-
Joined
Jul 27, 2011
Messages
4,318
Reaction score
1,915
 

muttly

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Jun 15, 2020
Messages
279
Reaction score
140
No us missile defense system proven capable against realistic ICBM threats would
suggest that who fires first wins. So with no defense, are we sitting ducks to missile
attack.
 

Desertfox

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Feb 26, 2007
Messages
351
Reaction score
203
US BMD was never meant to defend against a massed ICBM attack. It was specifically designed to go against a single "rogue" launch or say a single NK ICBM. It might be able to handle a handful, but anthihng Russian or Chinese is getting thru.
 

publiusr

The Anti-Proxmire
Joined
Sep 24, 2011
Messages
932
Reaction score
481
The DPRK is still my big worry, even with all that has gone on. Iron Dome…on a small scale…does show that missile defense can save lives.
 

sferrin

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
15,340
Reaction score
4,632
The DPRK is still my big worry, even with all that has gone on. Iron Dome…on a small scale…does show that missile defense can save lives.
I'm not sure what NK hopes to achieve. Blackmail? Nobody wants to take them over and I don't see them having any desire to try to take anybody else over. Maybe they just want to be left in peace to starve?
 

sferrin

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
15,340
Reaction score
4,632

skyblue

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Sep 20, 2009
Messages
70
Reaction score
61
Would be nice if they could slap cheap, networked, sensors on Starlink satellites. ;)
It would be even nicer if Starlink satellites could form the basis of Brilliant Pebbles 2.0, both space borne sensors and interceptors.

Twenty years ago Brilliant Pebbles was projected to cost $55 billion. With the recent, almost miraculous advent of reusable space launch culminating in Starship in combination with stupendous progress in AI and Starlink, it seems to me that we have all the ingredients to finally make Brilliant Pebbles possible. Maybe its not pie in the sky anymore, and surely we can do it for less than $55 billion.

Biden just signed a bill to send $13.6 Billion in aid to Ukraine, and rightly so. Certainly more will be on the way, especially if the war drags on. Imagine if we had Brilliant Pebbles overhead all this while. Would Putin dare play chicken knowing that NATO has no fear of his nuclear arsenal?
 

Desertfox

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Feb 26, 2007
Messages
351
Reaction score
203
The problem is that missile defense has to either be 100% or 0% effective. If you want Brilliant Pebbles, you gotta launch all the ones you need all at once without Russian being tipped off. If you do it say 5% per year, you enter a destabilizing situation where Russia's strategic nuclear forces enter into a "use it or lose it" scenario.
 

uk 75

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 27, 2006
Messages
4,134
Reaction score
3,361
North Korea's well educated despot has studied the fate of similar regimes with and without nuclear weapons. Those in Tripoli, Belgrade and Baghdad had no nukes and are no longer with us. Those in Beijing, Islamabad and Moscow have thrived (a cynical Kim might add UK, France and US to the list). Simples!
 

Forest Green

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Jun 11, 2019
Messages
1,045
Reaction score
846
It would be even nicer if Starlink satellites could form the basis of Brilliant Pebbles 2.0, both space borne sensors and interceptors.

Twenty years ago Brilliant Pebbles was projected to cost $55 billion. With the recent, almost miraculous advent of reusable space launch culminating in Starship in combination with stupendous progress in AI and Starlink, it seems to me that we have all the ingredients to finally make Brilliant Pebbles possible. Maybe its not pie in the sky anymore, and surely we can do it for less than $55 billion.

Biden just signed a bill to send $13.6 Billion in aid to Ukraine, and rightly so. Certainly more will be on the way, especially if the war drags on. Imagine if we had Brilliant Pebbles overhead all this while. Would Putin dare play chicken knowing that NATO has no fear of his nuclear arsenal?
Even at the time there was the DC-X being developed for a reusable LV.

The problem is that missile defense has to either be 100% or 0% effective. If you want Brilliant Pebbles, you gotta launch all the ones you need all at once without Russian being tipped off. If you do it say 5% per year, you enter a destabilizing situation where Russia's strategic nuclear forces enter into a "use it or lose it" scenario.
I don't think that's the case. A country is not going to launch a nuclear attack just because you are building a shield. They will however try and design a mitigation, as the Russians did with Skif-DM, but that would cost them a lot of money. Right now there are plenty of emerging threats like the DPRK, so missile defence doesn't need to be 100% effective against a Russian/Chinese-level threat to be valuable.

The dangers of not developing a good missile defence system is that one day DPRK might/will actually build enough working missiles such that it can invade ROK and simply tell the US to f'off. Although hopefully the current state of affairs in Ukraine will dissuade China and The DPRK from fiddling with Taiwan and the ROK respectively.
 
Last edited:

Desertfox

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Feb 26, 2007
Messages
351
Reaction score
203
Except Russia is exceedingly paranoid and as Ukraine has shown, willing to go to extreme lengths to eliminate threats (whether or not they are real threats is a different question). Russia is absolutely willing to go nuclear if they feel their sovereignty is threatened and a missile defense system that goes after their most critical military deterrence force is a threat to their sovereignty (or at least they fell it is). China might be willing to explore other measures, North Korea can't do anything, but Russia... they are very capable of going nuclear over a missile defense shield.
 

Forest Green

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Jun 11, 2019
Messages
1,045
Reaction score
846
Except Russia is exceedingly paranoid and as Ukraine has shown, willing to go to extreme lengths to eliminate threats (whether or not they are real threats is a different question). Russia is absolutely willing to go nuclear if they feel their sovereignty is threatened and a missile defense system that goes after their most critical military deterrence force is a threat to their sovereignty (or at least they fell it is). China might be willing to explore other measures, North Korea can't do anything, but Russia... they are very capable of going nuclear over a missile defense shield.
No country is going to voluntarily wipe themselves out unless they're actually going to get wiped out anyway, i.e. missiles have been fired at them, or someone has invaded them. It's just not a sensible option whilst any other options remain, one of which would be acting to mitigate the defence, e.g. different flight profiles, methods of destroying the brilliant pebbles grid, decoys, other countermeasures, more warheads etc.

Well my adversary is building a missile defence, so I'm going to torch my country. Not going to happen.
 

Desertfox

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Feb 26, 2007
Messages
351
Reaction score
203
Well Ukraine is doing... nothing? So I'm going to torch my economy.

You assume a rational Russia, and yes they are rational, just not in how we think of rational.
 

Forest Green

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Jun 11, 2019
Messages
1,045
Reaction score
846
Well Ukraine is doing... nothing? So I'm going to torch my economy.

You assume a rational Russia, and yes they are rational, just not in how we think of rational.
We're getting off topic here. Ukraine is dumb, but it's not start WWIII dumb, it's just I've failed to diversify my economy for 20 years and now nearly everyone has left my orbit for the EU, so I'm going to try and stop one of them and hurt my own economy even more in the process and oops I've miscalculated dumb.
 

skyblue

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Sep 20, 2009
Messages
70
Reaction score
61
The problem is that missile defense has to either be 100% or 0% effective. If you want Brilliant Pebbles, you gotta launch all the ones you need all at once without Russian being tipped off. If you do it say 5% per year, you enter a destabilizing situation where Russia's strategic nuclear forces enter into a "use it or lose it" scenario.
Are a few initial satellites really any less destabilizing than the GBI already deployed? Russia and China have pouted and whined for years and yet GMD is up and operational. Ostensibly they're purposed to defeat missiles from North Korea and Iran, both of whom are racing ahead with the build up of their nuclear forces. Denuclearization hasn't progressed well lately. Making lemonade out of lemons, isn't it a convenient cover for the need to add more and more Pebbles?

Give China a taste of its own medicine; if they are going to salami slice us in the South China Seas, we can salami slice them in space.
 

Desertfox

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Feb 26, 2007
Messages
351
Reaction score
203
Russia and China haven't just complained, they have also dumped money into many different ways of defeating missile defense, see hypersonics, nuclear cruise missiles, and nuclear torpedoes. Note that GBI is also incapable of stopping either a Russian or Chinese nuclear strike, and they know it. Its not GBI that concerns them but what comes next and Brilliant Pebbles would be a significant step up from GBI.

If it was only China we would be concerned with, we could go with a limited Brilliant Pebbles deployment, since China wont be threatened by limited missile defense, but Russia is a whole other story and I would not be surprised one bit if Russia went nuclear over something like Brilliant Pebbles.
 

Forest Green

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Jun 11, 2019
Messages
1,045
Reaction score
846
No one will go nuclear over a defensive system and it's not like Russia and China don't produce their own ABMs anyway. Deliberately getting yourself nuked just in case anyone else beats you to the punch is no strategy at all.
 
Last edited:

Desertfox

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Feb 26, 2007
Messages
351
Reaction score
203
"Defensive" is relative, Russia believes that a strong missile defense shield would allow the US to conduct a first strike and survive the retaliatory strike. In that sense BMD is an "offensive" weapon since it allows a nuclear state to use its nuclear arsenal offensively. And what you believe is "defense" or "offense" does not matter, what matters is what the other side believes.
 

Forest Green

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Jun 11, 2019
Messages
1,045
Reaction score
846
"Defensive" is relative, Russia believes that a strong missile defense shield would allow the US to conduct a first strike and survive the retaliatory strike. In that sense BMD is an "offensive" weapon since it allows a nuclear state to use its nuclear arsenal offensively. And what you believe is "defense" or "offense" does not matter, what matters is what the other side believes.
'Would allow' does not balance against 'will definitely'. If Russia launches nuclear weapons, they will definitely get nuked. It's like taking out a £400m loan at 25% interest because you might win Euromillions. You're balancing probabilities of 1.0 against probabilities of 0.000...000FA. I.e.:

Option 1: I have a 0.000...000FA chance that I might get nuked without nuking my enemy very well if, for some reason I can't even think of right now he decides to launch a full-scale nuclear attack, and if his missile shield works with 99+% efficacy, and if I can't find a way of defeating it.

Option 2: It is an absolute certainly that I will be nuked but I might also be able to nuke my enemy if they don't already have a secret missile shield of some kind, and my ICBMs work much better than whatever sh*t I'm using in Ukraine right now.

It's option 1 every time. With option 2 there's still a small chance that you don't get to nuke your enemy but it's definite that you get nuked.
 
Last edited:

Desertfox

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Feb 26, 2007
Messages
351
Reaction score
203
I'm sorry but just because you think that way doesn't mean everyone does. Russian mentality is far different than Western mentality and has lead to blunder after blunder when dealing with Russia over the last 30 years. Russia WILL go nuclear first if they feel its necessary for their survivable. What that red line is, is a very good question to ask, but Russian statements over the years have made it quite clear that they consider BMD an existential threat and at some point it could be that red line.
 

Forest Green

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Jun 11, 2019
Messages
1,045
Reaction score
846
I'm sorry but just because you think that way doesn't mean everyone does. Russian mentality is far different than Western mentality and has lead to blunder after blunder when dealing with Russia over the last 30 years. Russia WILL go nuclear first if they feel its necessary for their survivable. What that red line is, is a very good question to ask, but Russian statements over the years have made it quite clear that they consider BMD an existential threat and at some point it could be that red line.
People not thinking that way aren't thinking.

Bit in bold doesn't even make sense. Ensuring that you get nuked is the last thing necessary for your survivability.
 

Desertfox

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Feb 26, 2007
Messages
351
Reaction score
203
"The goal of Russia’s special military operation is to stop any war that could take place on Ukrainian territory or that could start from there." -Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov
Source
 

Forest Green

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Jun 11, 2019
Messages
1,045
Reaction score
846
"The goal of Russia’s special military operation is to stop any war that could take place on Ukrainian territory or that could start from there." -Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov
Source
Gigantic red herring(s). One minute it's about Nazis, then the fear of NATO tank invasions from Ukraine, then BMD in Ukraine, then MRBMs in Ukraine. There are already 2 Baltic states in NATO on the Russian border, so these herrings don't even make sense, and there's the fact that if NATO was likely to invade Russia with tanks, it would be currently kicking their backside in Ukraine since Putin just handed them the best pretext ever, but no because MAD. It's about preventing the EU becoming independent of Russian oil and gas, same as Syria was.

1647629617979.png


1647629728899.png
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

Top