# US Ballistic Missile Defence



## Indus Falcon



Reactions: Positive Rating Positive Rating:
1 | Like Like:
6


----------



## Indus Falcon

*Standard Missile-3 is the world's only ballistic missile killer deployable on land or at sea.*
SM-3® is a defensive weapon used by the U.S. Navy to destroy short- to intermediate-range ballistic missile threats. This 'hit-to-kill' missile interceptor uses an exoatmospheric "kill vehicle," to collide with targets in space, a capability that's been likened to hitting a bullet with a bullet. The massive collision of the kill vehicle hitting its target obliterates the threat completely; explosives are not necessary. The resulting impact is the equivalent of a 10-ton truck traveling at 600 mph.





Whether on land or at sea, the SM-3 continues to excel in testing. In 2014, the SM-3 Block IB was successfully launched for the first time from an Aegis Ashore testing site in Hawaii. Later in the year, an SM-3 destroyed a short-range ballistic missile target during a highly complex integrated air and missile defense exercise in the Pacific.
The program has more than 25 successful space intercepts, and more than 200 interceptors have been delivered to U.S. and Japanese navies.

*SM-3 Block IB*
The SM-3 Block IB has an enhanced two-color infrared seeker and upgraded steering and propulsion capability that uses short bursts of precision propulsion to direct the missile toward incoming targets.

The next-generation SM-3 Block IB became operational in 2014, deploying for the first time on U.S. Navy ships worldwide.

*SM-3 Block IIA*
The new SM-3 Block IIA is being developed in cooperation with Japan and will be deployable on land as well as at sea. It has two distinct new features: larger rocket motors that will allow it to defend broader areas from ballistic missile threats and a larger kinetic warhead.

SM-3 Block IIA is the centerpiece of the European missile defense system, and Raytheon Company will begin flight testing in 2015 to keep the program on track for 2018 deployment at sea and on land in Poland. 






Raytheon: Standard Missile-3 (SM-3)

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Desertfalcon

Interesting. Haven't heard much about them in the American press.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Indus Falcon

*Why missile defense?*
 
Ballistic missiles have become a serious threat to international security. Missiles are fast, traveling up to 15,000 mph. They can cover long distances, with the most advanced missiles reaching into space and traveling over the North Pole to hit targets. Because they are expensive and can carry only small payloads, rogue countries are more likely to outfit them with weapons of mass destruction.

Countries must be able to detect a missile launch, track an incoming missile or warhead, and then intercept it.

The United States and its allies have developed several overlapping systems to stop missile attacks. Raytheon plays a major role in almost every one of them.

We are, quite simply, the most trusted global partner in missile defense.






*Tracking and Discrimination*
Stopping a missile attack begins with detecting a launch. Space-Tracking and Surveillance System-Demonstrator (STSS-D) satellites carrying Raytheon-built sensors can spot multiple missile launches and beam the information to ships and interceptors.

Early warnings also come from the Sea-based X-Band Radar (SBX), a nine-story-high radar mounted on a converted oil drilling platform. The AN/TPY-2 radar, a mobile radar mounted on a semi truck chassis, provides warning from sites on land. The Air and Missile Defense Radar increases detection range and adds powerful discrimination accuracy, helping naval forces respond to airborne and ballistic missile threats.

Raytheon also makes airborne equipment that can detect missile launches, including Airborne Infrared (ABIR) sensors and the Joint Land Attack Cruise Missile Defense Elevator Netted Sensor System (JLENS), a radar system carried by tethered airships.

Upgraded Early Warning Radars are building-sized radars based in California, Alaska, the United Kingdom and Greenland. They and the AN/TPY-2 radar provide tracking information out to 3,000 miles.

Working together, these systems provide detailed information about a missile’s type, trajectory and possible target. They can also help identify a warhead if it is accompanied by decoys.

*Interception*

The United States and its allies use overlapping layers of long-range, mid-range and short-range interceptors to shoot down missiles and incoming warheads at a variety of altitudes.

*Aegis:* This system is carried on warships. It fires the Raytheon-built Standard Missile family of interceptors. The Standard Missile-3 releases a small, non-explosive “kill warhead” that smashes into missiles in space.

The United States is developing a land-based version of Aegis that can be deployed in Eastern Europe. Raytheon is also developing advanced versions of the SM-3, known as the IB and IIA variants. The IIA is a joint project with Japan.

Raytheon is also expanding the capabilities of its sea-based Standard Missile-6 to defend against ballistic missiles in the last phase of their flight.

*Ground-based Midcourse Defense:* This system uses large, powerful Ground-Based Interceptor missiles launched from underground silos in Alaska and California. The interceptors carry Raytheon’s Exoatmospheric Kill Vehicle, which uses sensors and small thrusters to slam itself into warheads. GBIs can reach targets at the highest point in their arc, known as the mid-course phase of flight.

*Terminal High-Altitude Area Defense (THAAD)*: This land-based system is designed to shoot down threats as they descend from outer space into the upper atmosphere. A Raytheon-built AN/TPY-2 radar detects the threat launch, then guides them toward their targets.

*Patriot:*This short-range system uses a truck-size radar and launcher. It can fire either the Guided Enhanced Missile (GEM-T), which carries an explosive charge, or the Patriot Advanced Capability-3 (PAC-3) missile, which destroys threats by slamming into them. A new version of the PAC-3 missile, known as the Missile Segment Enhancement, adds a more powerful motor and larger fins.

The Patriot can also defend against aircraft and cruise missiles. Twelve countries use the Patriot system.

*Hawk XXI*: A short-range system used by 17 nations, the Hawk XXI can defend against aircraft, cruise missiles and tactical ballistic missiles. It works seamlessly with the Patriot or NASAMS systems.

*National Advanced Surface-to-Air Missile System*: NASAMS can fire three different Raytheon missiles: the Evolved Sea Sparrow Missile, the AMRAAM and the AIM-9X.

*Iron Dome:*This system uses small missiles to provide protection against rockets, artillery and mortars. Raytheon has signed an agreement with Israel’s Rafael Advanced Defense Systems to market the system in the United States.

Raytheon: Missile Defense Overview

*Standard Missile-2 *
Standard Missile-2 (SM-2) is the world's premier fleet-area air defense weapon, providing increased intercept range, high- and low-intercept capability, and performance against advanced and anti-ship missile threats. Its primary mission is fleet-area air defense and ship self-defense, but it has also demonstrated an extended-area air defense protection capability.

The SM-2 also has a secondary anti-surface ship mission, and it uses tail controls and a solid-fuel rocket motor for propulsion and maneuverability. SM-2 has an extensive area- and self-defense flight test history with more than 2,500 successful flight tests from domestic and international platforms.

The most advanced variant, the SM-2 Block IV, has successfully intercepted and destroyed short-range ballistic missile targets, demonstrating the weapon's ability to stop ballistic missile threats in their final phases of flight. Work on the SM-2 Block IV proved vital in positioning our Standard Missile-6 to take on its new sea-based terminal defense role.

The SM-2 family continues to grow internationally: Australia, Canada, Germany, Japan, Korea, the Netherlands, Spain and Taiwan have deployed surface combatants; Australia's Air Warfare Destroyer will employ SM-2; and several other navies are in the process of defining requirements and ship configurations to support SM-2 applications.

Raytheon: Standard Missile-2



*Standard Missile-6*
*Sophisticated Fleet Air Defense*
SM-6™ leverages the legacy Standard Missile airframe and propulsion elements, while incorporating the advanced signal processing and guidance control capabilities of our Advanced Medium-Range Air-to-Air Missile (AMRAAM®). Deployed on cruisers and destroyers, SM-6 will provide Joint Force and Strike Force Commanders fleet air defense against fixed- and rotary-wing aircraft, unmanned aerial vehicles, and land-attack anti-ship cruise missiles in flight, both over sea and land.





_Standard Missile-6 Sea-based Testing._

SM-6 is a key component in the U.S. Navy's Naval Integrated Fire Control – Counter Air (NIFC-CA) providing the surface Navy with an increased battlespace against over-the-horizon anti-air warfare threats.

"The SM-6 is the newest addition to Raytheon's highly successful Standard Missile family of missiles," said Wes Kremer, vice president of Air and Missile Defense Systems product line. "This missile can use both active and semiactive modes, giving the warfighter an enhanced ability to intercept beyond-line-of-sight targets."

SM-6 has also been selected to fulfill the U.S. Navy's Sea-Based Terminal (SBT) role and will provide defense against ballistic missiles in their terminal phase of flight, succeeding the SM-2 Blk IV missile. The initial version of the SBT, Increment 1, is to enter service around 2015, with a subsequent version, called Increment 2, to enter service around 2018

"The SM-6 represents the cutting-edge compilation of decades of best practices,” said Mike Campisi, Raytheon's SM-6 senior program director. "It's been a model program from concept through development and testing. We've delivered on time and on budget at every step in the process."


Raytheon: Standard Missile-6 (SM-6)

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## C130

waste of money.

we should be buying the next gen SSBN and Ballistic missiles

you launch a nuke at us you'll have 5 coming back you in return.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Indus Falcon

C130 said:


> waste of money.
> 
> we should be buying the next gen SSBN and Ballistic missiles
> 
> you launch a nuke at us you'll have 5 coming back you in return.



Well that is one way of looking at it. But I believe, in comparison to your suggestion, this is a cheaper option.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## C130

Indus Falcon said:


> Well that is one way of looking at it. But I believe, in comparison to your suggestion, this is a cheaper option.




my opinion is anti-ballistic missiles aren't a deterrent but actually emboldens the enemy to develop more and better ballistic missiles.

MAD is the only sure way to prevent the use of such weapons in war.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Indus Falcon

C130 said:


> my opinion is anti-ballistic missiles aren't a deterrent but actually emboldens the enemy to develop more and better ballistic missiles.
> 
> MAD is the only sure way to prevent the use of such weapons in war.



Well BMD systems (till now) do have an inherent flaw, they can be overwhelmed by dummy's. 

Example, Country A keeps firing sucds or useless rockets, Country B keeps defending with SM3's or it's equivalent, after a volley of 40 or 50 dummy's, Country A fires the real WMD and the BMD (of Country B) by that time is out of SM3's 

SO yes, in this particular scenario MAD is the only way to keep WMD's at bay.

On the flip side, for greedy politicians BMD is cheaper.

@Desertfalcon What do you say?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Desertfalcon

Indus Falcon said:


> Well BMD systems (till now) do have an inherent flaw, they can be overwhelmed by dummy's.
> 
> Example, Country A keeps firing sucds or useless rockets, Country B keeps defending with SM3's or it's equivalent, after a volley of 40 or 50 dummy's, Country A fires the real WMD and the BMD (of Country B) by that time is out of SM3's
> 
> SO yes, in this particular scenario MAD is the only way to keep WMD's at bay.
> 
> On the flip side, for greedy politicians BMD is cheaper.
> 
> @Desertfalcon What do you say?


It nevertheless, drives up the cost of having an effective ballistic missile force. Just the threat of one in the 1980's, (When it really wan't technically feasible.), broke Soviet resolve in trying to out-build us.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Indus Falcon

Desertfalcon said:


> It nevertheless, drives up the cost of having an effective ballistic missile force. Just the threat of one in the 1980's, (When it really wan't technically feasible.), broke Soviet resolve in trying to out-build us.


Lets not forget the F15 launched satellite killer missile (1985), that played an important part in stopping space based weapons.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Transhumanist

Indus Falcon said:


> Well BMD systems (till now) do have an inherent flaw, they can be overwhelmed by dummy's.



That used to be the case, but discriminating seekers have been around for a while. Decoys mimic, but not perfectly, the signature, flight profile and weight of an actual warhead, but they have differences that are determinable too.

Radar can differentiate between a warhead and a decoy or dummy warhead by measuring the properties of the internal chemical make-up, i.e. the warhead itself versus filler materials such as dense metals to give the dummy similar weight.

Decoys aren't perfect, they can be uncovered. Penetration aids too, though they are primarily radar blockers to prevent the decoys from being located while still in space. Penetration aids, such as balloons lose their effectiveness when inside of a medium.

*Discriminating Seeker*

_As of 1996 the first discriminating interceptor demo was planned to take place in FY01. It will take advantage of the fly-along bus in a BMD core program test. Additional tests were planned in FY02 and FY03. The first test was to observe the target, decoys, and debris and perform real-time discrimination between them. One or both of the later tests may employ the discriminating seeker as the primary interceptor seeker.

In FY 2002 the Midcourse Counter-Countermeasures effort under 0603175C BMD Technology initiated advanced development of discriminating seeker components including multicolor focal plane arrays and laser radars. A Discriminating Seeker would be developed that is able to accurately discriminate emerging countermeasures, decoys, and re-entry vehicles. The technologies under development are multi-spectral infrared focal plane arrays, ultra compact laser radar (ladar), high-speed miniature processors, and data fusion algorithms. These components would be integrated into a lightweight Track-Via-Missile seeker after development and demonstration.

At greater distances (400 to 800 kilometers [250 to 500 miles]), the focal plan arrays would acquire the target cluster and perform simple discriminations. At shorter distances (less than 400 kilometers [250 miles]) the focal plan arrays and ladar would work together to accurately discriminate and track the target. The multi-spectral infrared focal plane arrays can accurately measure thermal characteristics of non-gray-body re-entry vehicles and decoys.

Ladar actively illuminate the target with a laser and measures backscattered Doppler-shifted radiation to calculate target range, velocity, and angular rates. Ladar does not rely on external illumination or emitted radiation from the target. Ladar substantially increases the number of target features measurable and significantly improves discrimination and aim point selection. Ladar could be applied to early deployment phase to track threat cloud dispersal. Ladar would assist in boost phase functions of hard body/plume discrimination and final aim-point selection.

After development and testing of the individual technology components of the seeker, the components would be integrated into a lightweight Track-Via-Missile seeker.

Ballistic missile defense (BMD) interceptors must discriminate between real targets and other objects such as decoys and debris for effectiveness in an ECM environment, or against reentry vehicles accompanied by decoys. An interceptor employing these technologies used in an architecture including ground-based radar and space-based infrared satellites, can protect U.S. cities from ballistic missile attack and protect our fighting forces from theater ballistic missiles. Simulation results show that depending upon the attack scenario, the single shot kill probability increases by as much as a factor of 9 after addition of advanced interceptor discrimination capability (i.e., Pk increases from 0.1 to 0.9). An interceptor mass growth of 25 percent will occur and the interceptor alone will be more expensive than without advanced discrimination. However, the system cost will decrease because of a reduction in number of required interceptors. Instead of shooting two or three interceptors at each target to meet the system effectiveness requirements, only one shot will be needed.

The technologies necessary for interceptor discrimination are: lightweight laser radar, simultaneous multispectral LWIR focal plane arrays, highly uniform focal plane arrays, and data fusion techniques to combine the outputs of active and passive sensors. The Advanced Discriminating Interceptor Program will develop and demonstrate these technologies in lab tests and low cost interceptor flight tests. Systems benefiting from this technology are the Exoatmospheric Kill Vehicle, THAAD, CORPS SAM, and the Navy Theater Wide Interceptor.
_

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Indus Falcon

Transhumanist said:


> That used to be the case, but discriminating seekers have been around for a while. Decoys mimic, but not perfectly, the signature, flight profile and weight of an actual warhead, but they have differences that are determinable too.
> 
> Radar can differentiate between a warhead and a decoy or dummy warhead by measuring the properties of the internal chemical make-up, i.e. the warhead itself versus filler materials such as dense metals to give the dummy similar weight.
> 
> Decoys aren't perfect, they can be uncovered. Penetration aids too, though they are primarily radar blockers to prevent the decoys from being located while still in space. Penetration aids, such as balloons lose their effectiveness when inside of a medium.
> 
> *Discriminating Seeker*
> 
> _As of 1996 the first discriminating interceptor demo was planned to take place in FY01. It will take advantage of the fly-along bus in a BMD core program test. Additional tests were planned in FY02 and FY03. The first test was to observe the target, decoys, and debris and perform real-time discrimination between them. One or both of the later tests may employ the discriminating seeker as the primary interceptor seeker.
> 
> In FY 2002 the Midcourse Counter-Countermeasures effort under 0603175C BMD Technology initiated advanced development of discriminating seeker components including multicolor focal plane arrays and laser radars. A Discriminating Seeker would be developed that is able to accurately discriminate emerging countermeasures, decoys, and re-entry vehicles. The technologies under development are multi-spectral infrared focal plane arrays, ultra compact laser radar (ladar), high-speed miniature processors, and data fusion algorithms. These components would be integrated into a lightweight Track-Via-Missile seeker after development and demonstration.
> 
> At greater distances (400 to 800 kilometers [250 to 500 miles]), the focal plan arrays would acquire the target cluster and perform simple discriminations. At shorter distances (less than 400 kilometers [250 miles]) the focal plan arrays and ladar would work together to accurately discriminate and track the target. The multi-spectral infrared focal plane arrays can accurately measure thermal characteristics of non-gray-body re-entry vehicles and decoys.
> 
> Ladar actively illuminate the target with a laser and measures backscattered Doppler-shifted radiation to calculate target range, velocity, and angular rates. Ladar does not rely on external illumination or emitted radiation from the target. Ladar substantially increases the number of target features measurable and significantly improves discrimination and aim point selection. Ladar could be applied to early deployment phase to track threat cloud dispersal. Ladar would assist in boost phase functions of hard body/plume discrimination and final aim-point selection.
> 
> After development and testing of the individual technology components of the seeker, the components would be integrated into a lightweight Track-Via-Missile seeker.
> 
> Ballistic missile defense (BMD) interceptors must discriminate between real targets and other objects such as decoys and debris for effectiveness in an ECM environment, or against reentry vehicles accompanied by decoys. An interceptor employing these technologies used in an architecture including ground-based radar and space-based infrared satellites, can protect U.S. cities from ballistic missile attack and protect our fighting forces from theater ballistic missiles. Simulation results show that depending upon the attack scenario, the single shot kill probability increases by as much as a factor of 9 after addition of advanced interceptor discrimination capability (i.e., Pk increases from 0.1 to 0.9). An interceptor mass growth of 25 percent will occur and the interceptor alone will be more expensive than without advanced discrimination. However, the system cost will decrease because of a reduction in number of required interceptors. Instead of shooting two or three interceptors at each target to meet the system effectiveness requirements, only one shot will be needed.
> 
> The technologies necessary for interceptor discrimination are: lightweight laser radar, simultaneous multispectral LWIR focal plane arrays, highly uniform focal plane arrays, and data fusion techniques to combine the outputs of active and passive sensors. The Advanced Discriminating Interceptor Program will develop and demonstrate these technologies in lab tests and low cost interceptor flight tests. Systems benefiting from this technology are the Exoatmospheric Kill Vehicle, THAAD, CORPS SAM, and the Navy Theater Wide Interceptor._



The inherent flaw (in BMD) still remains. What if, the perpetrator fires 50 actual WMD missiles, and the defender only has 30 available BMD missiles, then what? MAD comes into play then, doesn't it?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Transhumanist

Indus Falcon said:


> The inherent flaw still remains. What if, the perpetrator fires 50 actual WMD missiles, and the defender only has 30 available BMD missiles available then what? MAD comes into play then, doesn't it?



That flaw is a different scenario though, different from the discussion on penetration aids/decoys and the ability to ascertain the validity of a warhead versus a decoy, but it does have credence and thus we do see the MAD doctrine come into effect... for larger powers. BMD works against limit adversaries who can't field long-range missiles, large warhead programs or who's missile force is smaller than the defending nations countermeasures. But as costs come down and technologies like lasers and long-rod kinetic perpetrators - as used on rail-guns, come on line, the balance once more shifts to the defender as these technologies allow for more rapid engagements at more limited costs. Both are being explored as counter-missile defense, lasers for destabilizing the flight profiles of missiles and warheads, rail-guns for kinetic destruction.

However, in the end we will see the cycle repeat. Where once nuclear weapons were the deterrent of choice, they have been accounted for and countermeasures are being implemented, after being theorized and developed (these would be our BMD systems for aerial delivery and radio-logical detection systems for ground movement), something else will take their place.

Perhaps the famed RFG - the Rod from God?






Perhaps an HGV - Hypersonic glide vehicle (a modern iteration of the 1980's MARV concept seen on the Pershing II)






Something new will change the calculus. But nuclear delivery systems are being accounted for and while current countermeasures are limited by cost, $40.9 billion for the US GMD program (in FY 2013 dollars), this wont always be the case. Massive, overwhelming strikes work today as defenses are limited, though sensors can discriminate between warheads and decoys on nuclear missile. I wouldn't count on the same strategy working forever though. History has proven that fallacious.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Indus Falcon

*MISSILE DEFENSE AGENCY*


Raytheon Missile Systems Co., Tucson, Arizona, was awarded a $559,206,957 not-to-exceed sole-source undefinitized contract action (UCA) which contemplates a hybrid contract structure containing fixed-price incentive firm, firm-fixed-price, and cost reimbursable contract line items. Under this contract action, the contractor will procure an initial quantity of *44 Standard Missile-3 Block IB a*ll-up rounds (AURs) and related activities. The contractor will also provide the work required to produce and deliver the third stage rocket motor reliability growth/design enhancements. Upon definitization of the UCA, the government intends to purchase additional missiles up to a total quantity of 52 AURs. Work will be performed in Tucson, Arizona, and Huntsville, Alabama, with an expected completion date of April 28, 2018. Fiscal 2015 defense-wide procurement funds in the amount of $401,753,989 are being obligated at time of award. One offer was solicited with one offer received. The Missile Defense Agency, Dahlgren, Virginia, is the contracting activity (HQ0276-15-C-0005).

Defense.gov Contracts for Thursday, April 30, 2015

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Indus Falcon

*Raytheon Wins USD 559 Mln Standard Missile Order*
06.05.2015






The Missile Defense Agency awarded Raytheon Company an undefinitized contract action for a fiscal year 2015 contract valued at $559,2 million for Standard Missile-3 Block IBs, which are guided missiles used by the U.S. Navy to provide regional defense against short- to intermediate-range ballistic missile threats.

Under this contract action, which was announced April 30 by the Department of Defense, *Raytheon will deliver* an initial quantity of* 44 Standard Missile-3 Block IB *all-up rounds and provide the work required to produce and deliver the third stage rocket motor reliability growth and design enhancements. 

The government expressed its intention to purchase additional missiles up to a total quantity of 52.

Final assembly of the SM-3 Block IB takes place at Raytheon’s state-of-the-art SM-6 and SM-3 all-up-round production facility at Redstone Arsenal in Huntsville, Ala.

Deployed at sea for the first time in 2014, the SM-3 Block IB is on track for land-based deployment in Romania this year in line with the second phase of the Phased Adaptive Approach, the U.S.’s plan for missile defense in Europe.

Raytheon Wins USD 559 Mln Standard Missile Order | Naval Today

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Transhumanist

*BMD-Equipped Destroyer USS Porter Arrives in Rota, Spain*

*May 1, 2015*







The Arleigh Burke-class guided-missile destroyer USS _Porter_ (DDG-78) arrived in Spain on Thursday to being its ballistic missile defense mission.

_Porter_ will join USS _Donald Cook_ (DDG-75) and USS _Ross_ (DDG-71) in the forward-deployed naval force at Naval Station Rota to carry out the European Phased Adaptive Approach to BMD.

USS _Carney_ (DDG-64) will arrive later this year.

The four ships, which have had their Aegis combat systems upgraded to handle BMD threats, will be responsible for NATO missile defense, maritime security operations, bilateral and multilateral training exercises, and NATO operations and deployments, according to a Navy statement.

_Donald Cook_ arrived in Spain early last year and has gone out on months-long patrols before returning to its home in Rota. Having four destroyers based out of Rota will give the U.S. 6th Fleet flexibility to send the ships out to a variety of locations for a range of missions while at the same time providing a large umbrella of protection for European allies, the Navy statement said.

The European Phased Adaptive Approach (EPAA) is meant to provide protection from short- and medium-range ballistic missile threats originating in the Middle East. EPAA also includes the deployment of land-based Aegis Ashore stations in Romania and Poland.

From BMD-Equipped Destroyer USS Porter Arrives in Rota, Spain - USNI News

===

For some information on US ballistic missile defense targets and countermeasures:

US military news, discussions and history | Page 11

LV-2 ballistic missile target - derived from the Trident C-4

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Indus Falcon

Transhumanist said:


> *BMD-Equipped Destroyer USS Porter Arrives in Rota, Spain*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Arleigh Burke-class guided-missile destroyer USS _Porter_ (DDG-78) arrived in Spain on Thursday to being its ballistic missile defense mission.
> 
> _Porter_ will join USS _Donald Cook_ (DDG-75) and USS _Ross_ (DDG-71) in the forward-deployed naval force at Naval Station Rota to carry out the European Phased Adaptive Approach to BMD.
> 
> USS _Carney_ (DDG-64) will arrive later this year.
> 
> The four ships, which have had their Aegus combat systems upgraded to handle BMD threats, will be responsible for NATO missile defense, maritime security operations, bilateral and multilateral training exercises, and NATO operations and deployments, according to a Navy statement.
> 
> _Donald Cook_ arrived in Spain early last year and has gone out on months-long patrolsbefore returning to its home in Rota. Having four destroyers based out of Rota will give the U.S. 6th Fleet flexibility to send the ships out to a variety of locations for a range of missions while at the same time providing a large umbrella of protection for European allies, the Navy statement said.
> 
> The European Phased Adaptive Approach (EPAA) is meant to provide protection from short- and medium-range ballistic missile threats originating in the Middle East. EPAA also includes the deployment of land-based Aegis Ashore stations in Romania and Poland.
> 
> ===
> 
> For some information on US ballistic missile defense targets and countermeasures:
> 
> US military news, discussions and history | Page 11



Bro thanks for the wonderful work that you are doing, but kindly keep the following in mind when posting:
1) Link to the source you are posting from
2) Date of the article
3) Some sort of description of the picture you are posting (in English).

Thanks and keep up the good work

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Transhumanist

Indus Falcon said:


> Bro thanks for the wonderful work that you are doing, but kindly keep the following in mind when posting:
> 1) Link to the source you are posting from
> 2) Date of the article
> 3) Some sort of description of the picture you are posting (in English).
> 
> Thanks and keep up the good work



The pic I only provided as a teaser, so people would click the link above it for full details. I'll edit (done) the rest and add the source.

*No "bro" either. I'm a lady.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Audio

Transhumanist said:


> Perhaps the famed RFG - the Rod from God?



How much faster would this be? iirc MIRV's hit with Mach 25. 

Imho if you manage to put something in it's path, which you likely would be able, as they would be falling towards predetermined targets (thus defended), it would still be a kill on the rod. Or wut?


----------



## Transhumanist

Audio said:


> How much faster would this be? iirc MIRV's hit with Mach 25.



A 2003 report from the US Air Force, who is actively experimenting with RoG type systems, suggested that a 20 ft by 1 ft Tungsten rod could reach a terminal velocity of 7,000 MPH - about Mach 10. Shaped to maximize their terminal speeds (yes, the particles in space will slow down an object, as noted here :We Should Be Able To Detect Spaceships Moving Near The Speed Of Light - and this shape and design do matter at high speeds in space) , a shape that would also improve deep-Earth penetration, a RoG could hit buried targets at practically any depth.

At Mach 10, a 20 X 1 dimension Tungsten rod would have an equivalent TNT yield of 11.5 tons.

At a speed of 36,000 ft/s - the rod of the same dimension would impart an equivalent TNT yield of 120 tons - or 0.12kt.

It's a replacement for city-wide nuclear strikes by allowing for massive destruction on a specific target without punishing the entire population.

http://www.popsci.com/scitech/article/2004-06/rods-god

RODS FROM GOD / Imagine a bundle of telephone poles hurtling through space at 7,000 mph - SFGate

According to the ABM and Outer Space Treaties, nuclear weapons are prohibited, but and RoG, being conventional would be allowed:

Outer Space Treaty

Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty



Audio said:


> Imho if you manage to put something in it's path, which you likely would be able, as they would be falling towards predetermined targets (thus defended), it would still be a kill on the rod. Or wut?



Does a tanks armor stop kinetic penetrators despite being in the way? An object of significant density and velocity will be able to overcome defense and continue its path, though it will be slowed and it will shed some materials - thus lowering, but not compromising the effectiveness of the kinetic penetration.

Density and velocity are how the current age of kinetic penetrators overcome their targets:

M829

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Indus Falcon

*Raytheon's SM-6 moves from low-rate to full-rate production*
*Milestone clears path for larger quantities, lower costs*

TUCSON, Ariz., May 6, 2015 /PRNewswire/ -- Raytheon Company's (NYSE: RTN) Standard Missile-6 program has moved from low-rate to full-rate production, clearing the path for significantly increased production numbers and focus on further cost-reduction opportunities.

SM-6 is a surface-to-air supersonic missile capable of successfully engaging manned and unmanned aerial vehicles and fixed- and rotary-wing aircraft. It also defends against land-attack and anti-ship cruise missiles in flight.

"SM-6 is proven against a broad range of advanced threats, which makes it very valuable to Combatant Commanders who need and want that flexibility," said Mike Campisi, Standard Missile-6 senior program director. "Full-rate production allows us to significantly ramp up production and deliver to the U.S. Navy the quantities it needs to further increase operational effectiveness."

The first full-rate production round was delivered to the U.S. Navy from Raytheon's state-of-the-art SM-6 and SM-3 all-up-round production facility at Redstone Arsenal in Huntsville, Ala. Prior to final assembly, a majority of the SM-6's section level assembly and testing development took place at Raytheon's subsystem center factory in Tucson, Ariz.

Raytheon has delivered more than 180 missiles to the U.S. Navy, which deployed SM-6 for the first time in December 2013.

*About the Standard Missile-6SM-6 delivers a proven over-the-horizon air defense capability by leveraging the time-tested advantages of the Standard Missile's airframe and propulsion.*

*
The SM-6 uses both active and semi-active guidance modes and advanced fuzing techniques.


It incorporates the advanced signal processing and guidance control capabilities from Raytheon's Advanced Medium-Range Air-to-Air Missile.
*
*Raytheon: Raytheon's SM-6 moves from low-rate to full-rate production - May 6, 2015*

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Audio

Transhumanist said:


> A 2003 report from the US Air Force



Any link? I'd require more of those numbers, particularly height of drop and perhaps if it's available study on materials, which one works best. Also, velocities and weight. 
*Disclaimer: trying to write a sci-fi book.



Transhumanist said:


> Does a tanks armor stop kinetic penetrators despite being in the way? An object of significant density and velocity will be able to overcome defense and continue its path, though it will be slowed and it will shed some materials - thus lowering, but not compromising the effectiveness of the kinetic penetration.
> 
> Density and velocity are how the current age of kinetic penetrators overcome their targets:
> 
> M829



I'm afraid you misunderstood me. I wasn't talking to some tin pot dictator bunker that waits in the desert to be nuked. I was thinking more along the lines of a defended point (city, mil. installation) with layered ABM defense in place.

If you consider that it's dropped directly overhead, any hit on the rod by defender's missiles would alter trajectory due to blastwave in proximity of the rod in addition to degrade the structure of it. Imho.....

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## SvenSvensonov

Audio said:


> Any link?



space weapons, earth wars - it's the second link.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Audio

Transhumanist said:


> I don't know what the problem is, but non of my posts are showing up - this is the third one I've made and is the least detailed.. The source of the information is a 2003 USAF report called "Space Weapons, Earth Wars"



Idk....i saw it just fine, the moment i logged in today. Already bookmarked so i study it in detail later. Thanks for the link.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Indus Falcon

*Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD)*
The Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) element provides the Ballistic Missile Defense System (BMDS) with a globally transportable, rapidly deployable capability to intercept and destroy ballistic missiles inside or outside the atmosphere during their final, or terminal, phase of flight.

*Overview*

Land-based element capable of shooting down a ballistic missile both inside and just outside the atmosphere.
Highly effective against the asymmetric ballistic missile threats.
Uses hit-to-kill technology whereby kinetic energy destroys the incoming warhead.
The high-altitude intercept mitigates effects of enemy weapons of mass destruction before they reach the ground.
*Details*

THAAD battery consists of four main components: 
*Launcher*: Truck-mounted, highly-mobile, able to be stored; interceptors can be fired and rapidly reloaded.
*Interceptors*: Eight per launcher.
*Radar*: Army Navy/Transportable Radar Surveillance (AN/TPY-2) - Largest air-transportable x-band radar in the world searches, tracks, and discriminates objects and provides updated tracking data to the interceptor.
*Fire Control*: Communication and data-management backbone; links THAAD components together; links THAAD to external command and control nodes and to the entire BMDS; plans and executes intercept solutions.
Rapidly deployable by being globally transportable via air, land and sea.
*Development*

State-of-the-art engineering ensures high standards and efficient production and maintenance.
Comprehensive program of ground and flight tests, quality assurance, and design and development activities support mission success.
Major events in the THAAD Program:
Returned to flight test on Nov. 22, 2005 at White Sands Missile Range, New Mexico;
Completed 13 successful tests, including 11 intercepts, and operationally-realistic tests in March 2009, June 2010, October 2011, October 2012 and September 2013;
Continuing element development to incrementally improve missile defense capability.

*Procurement*

First two batteries fielded at Fort Bliss, Texas. Total hardware for Batteries #1 & #2 includes six Launchers, two fire control & communications components, two AN/TPY-2 radars, and 48 interceptors. Delivered 50th operational interceptor in 2012.
Battery #3 completed delivery in 2013 and Battery #4 completed delivery in 2014.
Battery #5 on contract in 2012 with delivery in 2015. 
Battery #6 & #7 on contract in 2014.
*Fielding*

Activated five THAAD batteries in 2008, 2009, 2012, 2014, and 2015.
Received conditional materiel release of two batteries and transition of operations to the Army in February 2012 and urgent materiel release of another two batteries in December 2014.
New Equipment Training (NET) for Battery #4 began in 2014. NET scheduled to begin for Battery #5 in 2015.
MDA - Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD)
























http://www.lockheedmartin.com/content/dam/lockheed/data/mfc/video/thaad/mfc-thaad-video-01.wmv

@Desertfalcon @Indos Your input on this thread would be appreciated!

Reactions: Positive Rating Positive Rating:
1 | Like Like:
1


----------



## AMDR

Sometimes I wonder what type of a role missiles will truly play in US BMD beyond 2030. By that time Rail guns and high-powered lasers will come into play for the US Navy, no doubt to shoot down ballistic missiles and MIRVs as part of their requirements. Maybe they will reserve the SM3s for midcourse intercept and RGs + Lasers for terminal intercept? What do guys think?

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Indus Falcon

AMDR said:


> Sometimes I wonder what type of a role missiles will truly play in US BMD beyond 2030. By that time Rail guns and high-powered lasers will come into play for the US Navy, no doubt to shoot down ballistic missiles and MIRVs as part of their requirements. Maybe they will reserve the SM3s for midcourse intercept and RGs + Lasers for terminal intercept? What do guys think?




Very pertinent question. I'm impressed

Given the fact that technologies that are fielded take years, if not decades, to be perfected and then fielded. Lasers and Rail gun, just make it by 2030, but I don't think missile based BMD will be disbanded so quickly. They still can be used as backup for BMD as well as anti-aircraft.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Indus Falcon



Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Transhumanist

Indus Falcon said:


> View attachment 223057



Are older programs OK for this thread? Or just modern one?

*Safeguard Program*:

Reactions: Positive Rating Positive Rating:
1 | Like Like:
1


----------



## Transhumanist

*Sprint Missile:*


























*Spartan Missile:*






*Nike Zeus:*






*Homing Overlay:*

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Transhumanist

*Tactical and Short Range Ballistic Missile Defense - PAC-3:*
































*Older HAWK missiles have tactical and short range ABM capabilities too:*

Reactions: Positive Rating Positive Rating:
2 | Like Like:
2


----------



## Transhumanist

*General info on US ABM:*





















*SM-2 also has ABM capabilities:*






*SM-2 Against Lance:*






SM-2 Navy Area Defense (NAD) TMD

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Indus Falcon

*Major flaws revealed in US anti-missile nuclear defense*

By David Willman 
Tribune Washington Bureau (Tribune News Service)
Published: May 31, 2015

WASHINGTON (Tribune News Service) — Two serious technical flaws have been identified in the ground-launched anti-missile interceptors that the United States would rely on to defend against a nuclear attack by North Korea.

Pentagon officials were informed of the problems as recently as last summer but decided to postpone corrective action. They told federal auditors that acting immediately to fix the defects would interfere with the production of new interceptors and slow a planned expansion of the nation’s homeland missile defense system, according to a new report by the Government Accountability Office.

As a result, all 33 interceptors deployed at Vandenberg Air Force Base in Santa Barbara County, Calif., and Fort Greely, Alaska, have one of the defects. Ten of those interceptors — plus eight being prepared for delivery this year — have both.

Summing up the effect on missile-defense readiness, the GAO report said that “the fielded interceptors are susceptible to experiencing … failure modes,” resulting in “an interceptor fleet that may not work as intended.”

The flaws could disrupt sensitive on-board systems that are supposed to steer the interceptors into enemy missiles in space.

The GAO report, an annual assessment of missile defense programs prepared for congressional committees, describes the problems in terse, technical terms. Defense specialists interviewed by the Los Angeles Times/Tribune Washington Bureau provided more detail.

The interceptors form the heart of the Ground-based Midcourse Defense system, GMD for short. Four of the massive, three-stage rockets are stationed at Vandenberg and 29 at Fort Greely.

They would rise out of underground silos in response to an attack. Atop each interceptor is a 5-foot-long “kill vehicle,” designed to separate from its boost rocket in space, fly independently at a speed of 4 miles per second and crash into an enemy warhead — a feat that has been likened to hitting one bullet with another.

The GMD system was deployed in 2004 as part of the nation’s response to Sept. 11, 2001, and a heightened fear of attack by terrorist groups or rogue states. It has cost taxpayers more than $40 billion so far and has been plagued by technical deficiencies.

One of the newly disclosed shortcomings centers on wiring harnesses embedded within the kill vehicles’ dense labyrinth of electronics.

A supplier used an unsuitable soldering material to assemble harnesses in at least 10 interceptors deployed in 2009 and 2010 and still part of the fleet.

The same material was used in the eight interceptors that will be placed in silos this year, according to GAO analyst Cristina Chaplain, lead author of the report.

The soldering material is vulnerable to corrosion in the interceptors’ underground silos, some of which have had damp conditions and mold. Corrosion “could have far-reaching effects” because the “defective wiring harnesses” supply power and data to the kill vehicle’s on-board guidance system, said the GAO report, which is dated May 6.

When Boeing Co., prime contractor for the GMD system, informed government officials of the problem last summer, they did not insist upon repair or replacement of the defective harnesses, according to the report.

Instead, Missile Defense Agency officials “assessed the likelihood for the component’s degradation in the operational environment as low and decided to accept the component as is,” the report said.

The decision minimized delays in producing new interceptors, “but increased the risk for future reliability failures,” the report said.

Chaplain told the Times that based on her staff’s discussions with the Missile Defense Agency, officials there have “no timeline” for repairing the wiring harnesses.

The agency encountered a similar problem with wiring harnesses years earlier, and the supplier was instructed not to use the deficient soldering material. But “the corrective actions were not passed along to other suppliers,” according to the GAO report.

L. David Montague, co-chairman of a National Academy of Sciences panel that reviewed operations of the Missile Defense Agency, said officials should promptly set a schedule for fixing the harnesses.

“The older they are with that kind of a flawed soldering, the more likely they are to fail,” Montague, a former president of missile systems for Lockheed Corp., said in an interview.

The second newly disclosed defect involves a component called a divert thruster, a small motor intended to help maneuver the kill vehicles in flight. Each kill vehicle has four of them.

The GAO report refers to “performance issues” with the thrusters. It offers few details, and GAO auditors declined to elaborate, citing a fear of revealing classified information. They did say that the problem is different from an earlier concern that the thruster’s heavy vibrations could throw off the kill vehicle’s guidance system.

The report and interviews with defense specialists make clear that problems with the divert thruster have bedeviled the interceptor fleet for years. To address deficiencies in the original version, Pentagon contractors created a redesigned “alternate divert thruster.”

The government planned to install the new version in many of the currently deployed interceptors over the next few years and to retrofit newly manufactured interceptors, according to the GAO report and interviews with its authors.

That plan was scrapped after the alternate thruster, in November 2013, failed a crucial ground test to determine whether it could withstand the stresses of flight, the report said. To stay on track for expanding the fleet, senior Pentagon officials decided to keep building interceptors with the original, deficient thruster.

The GAO report faulted the Missile Defense Agency, an arm of the Pentagon, for “omitting steps in the design process” of the alternate thruster in the rush to deploy more interceptors. The skipped steps would have involved a lengthier, more rigorous vetting of the new design, defense specialists said. The report said the omission contributed to the 2013 test failure.

All 33 interceptors now deployed have the original, defective thruster. The eight interceptors to be added to the fleet this year will contain the same component, GAO officials told the Times.


The missile agency currently “does not plan to fix” those thrusters, despite their “known performance issues,” said the GAO report.

Contractors are continuing to work on the alternate thruster, hoping to correct whatever caused the ground-test failure. The first test flight using the alternate thruster is scheduled for late this year.

The GAO had recommended that the Pentagon postpone integrating the eight new interceptors into the fleet until after that test. Defense Department officials rebuffed the recommendation, the report said.

In a response included in the report, Assistant Secretary of Defense Katharina G. McFarland wrote that delaying deployment of the new interceptors “would unacceptably increase the risk” that the Pentagon would fall short of its goal of expanding the GMD system from 33 interceptors to 44 by the end of 2017.

Asked for comment on the report, a spokesman for the Missile Defense Agency, Richard Lehner, said in a statement that officials “have in place a comprehensive, disciplined program to improve and enhance” the GMD system “regarding the issues noted by the GAO.”

“We will continue to work closely with our industry partners to ensure quality standards are not only met, but exceeded,” the statement said.

Boeing declined to comment.

The GMD system is designed to repel a “limited” missile attack by a non-superpower adversary, such as North Korea. The nation’s defense against a massive nuclear assault by Russia or China still relies on “mutually assured destruction,” the Cold War notion that neither country would strike first for fear of a devastating counterattack.

GMD’s roots go back to the Clinton administration, when concern began to mount over the international spread of missile technology and nuclear development programs. In 2002, President George W. Bush ordered “an initial set of missile defense capabilities” to be put in place within two years to protect the U.S.

To accelerate deployment, then-Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld exempted the missile agency from the Pentagon’s standard procurement rules and testing standards.

Engineers trace the system’s difficulties to the breakneck pace at which components were produced and fielded. In precisely scripted flight tests above the Pacific, interceptors have failed to hit mock-enemy warheads about half the time.

As a result, the missile agency projects that four or five interceptors would have to be fired at any single enemy warhead, according to current and former government officials. Under this scenario, a volley of 10 enemy missiles could exhaust the entire U.S. inventory of interceptors.

The Obama administration, after resisting calls for a larger system, pledged two years ago to increase the number of interceptors to 44. Both Republicans and Democrats in Congress have pushed for further expansion. The House this month passed a bill authorizing $30 million to plan and design a site for interceptors on the East Coast. The White House called the move “premature.”

Major flaws revealed in US anti-missile nuclear defense - Stripes

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Indus Falcon

*Navy orders more Raytheon SM-6 air defense missiles*
_More than 70 additional SM-6 missiles are being produced for the U.S. Navy under a contract modification worth $149 million._
By Richard Tomkins | June 3, 2015 

TUCSON, June 3 (UPI) -- Raytheon is producing additional Standard Missile-6 all up rounds for the U.S. Navy under a $149 million contract modification.

The modification is for 74 of the air defense missiles, together with spares, containers and company services. 

"The SM-6 has advanced capabilities and speed," said Mike Campisi, Raytheon's SM-6 senior program director. "Combatant commanders want their deployed ships armed with as many of these interceptors as possible, and we're ramping up production to meet that need."

SM-6 is a surface-to-air supersonic missile that uses both active and semi-active guidance modes and advanced fuzing techniques to destroy incoming aircraft and missiles. It was first deployed by the Navy in 2013, and Raytheon has so far delivered more than 160 of them.

Raytheon said the new order, when combined with the nearly $110 million long-lead material purchase made in March 2015, brings the total value of full-rate production of SM-6 missiles for fiscal year 2015-16 to $259 million.

"Future contract modifications include options which, if exercised, would bring the cumulative value of this contract to nearly $563 million," it said. 

Raytheon producing more SM-6 missiles for Navy - UPI.com

Raytheon: Standard Missile-6 (SM-6)

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Indus Falcon

@gambit @Desertfalcon @AMDR @SvenSvensonov @F-22Raptor @Peter C 

Would appreciate more input from you Gentlemen on this thread!

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## AMDR

Indus Falcon said:


> *Navy orders more Raytheon SM-6 air defense missiles*
> _More than 70 additional SM-6 missiles are being produced for the U.S. Navy under a contract modification worth $149 million._
> By Richard Tomkins | June 3, 2015
> 
> TUCSON, June 3 (UPI) -- Raytheon is producing additional Standard Missile-6 all up rounds for the U.S. Navy under a $149 million contract modification.
> 
> The modification is for 74 of the air defense missiles, together with spares, containers and company services.
> 
> "The SM-6 has advanced capabilities and speed," said Mike Campisi, Raytheon's SM-6 senior program director. "Combatant commanders want their deployed ships armed with as many of these interceptors as possible, and we're ramping up production to meet that need."
> 
> SM-6 is a surface-to-air supersonic missile that uses both active and semi-active guidance modes and advanced fuzing techniques to destroy incoming aircraft and missiles. It was first deployed by the Navy in 2013, and Raytheon has so far delivered more than 160 of them.
> 
> Raytheon said the new order, when combined with the nearly $110 million long-lead material purchase made in March 2015, brings the total value of full-rate production of SM-6 missiles for fiscal year 2015-16 to $259 million.
> 
> "Future contract modifications include options which, if exercised, would bring the cumulative value of this contract to nearly $563 million," it said.
> 
> Raytheon producing more SM-6 missiles for Navy - UPI.com
> 
> Raytheon: Standard Missile-6 (SM-6)


This is good, especially for Terminal BMD.

Both the SM-3 and SM-6 can do BMD, the SM-3 being the more capable of the two. But you wouldn't want to expend those 10 million dollar monsters for something that's coming straight at *you*, you want to use it to protect a high value target like a city in midcourse. (Think Korean ballistic missiles). Instead, you could use a 4 million dollar SM-6 to destroy ballistic missiles coming for your carrier in the terminal stage. That isn't to say you wouldn't use a SM-3 to destroy a DF-21D, but only if your are out of other less expensive BMD-capable weapons. 

This isn't World War II where we can produce thousands of these things a month. We need to be careful with weapon expenditures if we ever get into a major engagement. You have a limited number a missiles in your VLS cells, you need to make everyone count.

The ESSM block II is coming online in 2020 closely follow by railguns near 2025. These two weapons could also be useful in protecting a carrier from ballistic missile attack as well as ASCMs. Flexibility is life.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Indus Falcon

*UPDATE 1-U.S., Japan say first test of Raytheon's new SM-3 missile a success*
Sun Jun 7, 2015
By Andrea Shalal

(Reuters) - The United States and Japan announced on Sunday the first live-fire test of Raytheon Co's new Standard Missile-3 (SM-3) Block IIA missile that is being jointly developed by the two countries for several billion dollars.

Rick Lehner, spokesman for the U.S. Missile Defense Agency, said the test conducted on Saturday from the Point Mugu Sea Range off the coast of California was a success.

Lehner said the United States spent just over $2 billion on the weapons program, while Japan contributed about $1 billion.

The SM-3 IIA is a 21-inch variant of an earlier SM-3 missile, which works with the U.S. Aegis combat system built by Lockheed Martin Corp to destroy incoming ballistic missile threats in space.

Riki Ellison, who heads the non-profit Missile Defense Advocacy Alliance, said: "It is the U.S. Department of Defense's best case of equal funding and engineering shared with an allied country to develop and ... field a new weapon system to better enhance the national security of both nations."

Raytheon said the new SM-3 IIA missile had bigger rocket motors and a more capable kill vehicle that would allow the missile to engage threats sooner and protect larger regions from short- to intermediate-range ballistic missile threats.

Saturday's test evaluated the performance of the missile's nosecone, steering control, and the separation of its booster, and second and third stages. No intercept was planned, and no target missile was launched, said U.S. and company officials.

"The success of this test keeps the program on track for a 2018 deployment at sea and ashore," said Taylor Lawrence, president of Raytheon's missile systems business.

Ellison said three more years of testing were planned for the new missile before it was put to use on U.S. Navy Aegis ships, Japan's Kongo ships, and at land-based Aegis Ashore sites in Poland and Romania.

(Reporting by Andrea Shalal; Editing by David Evans and Peter Cooney)


UPDATE 1-U.S., Japan say first test of Raytheon's new SM-3 missile a success| Reuters

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Indus Falcon

*US and Japan conduct first flight of SM-3 Block IIA missile*
8 June 2015




_Image: The SM-3 test missile lifted-off from a MK 41 launcher at the US Navy's Point Mugu Sea Range. Photo: courtesy of US Missile Defense Agency._


The Technical Research and Development Institute (TRDI), Japan Ministry of Defense (MOD) and US Missile Defense Agency (MDA) have successfully completed the first flight of a Standard Missile-3 (SM-3) Block IIA.

The test missile was launched from a MK 41 launcher located at the US Navy's Point Mugu Sea Range, San Nicolas Island, California.

Under the SM-3 co-operative development project, the US and Japan have developed a 21in diameter SM-3 missile to combat with medium and intermediate-range ballistic missiles.

The test assessed the missile's nose cone performance, steering control section function, booster separation, and second and third stage rocket motor separation.

"The test assessed the missile's nose cone performance, steering control section function, booster separation, and second and third stage rocket motor separation."
Raytheon Missile Systems president Dr Taylor Lawrence said: "The SM-3 Block IIA programme reflects the MDA's commitment to maturing this capability for the defence of our nation, deployed forces and our allies abroad.

"The success of this test keeps the programme on track for a 2018 deployment at sea and ashore."

US MDA spokesman Rick Lehner was quoted by Reuters saying the countries invested $1bn each for the project.

Missile Defense Advocacy Alliance founder Riki Ellison said testing will be carried out for three more years and the missile will be later used on US Navy Aegis ships, Japan's Kongo ships and Aegis Ashore sites in Poland and Romania.

Planned to be deployed in 2018, the SM-3 is designed to combat incoming ballistic missile threats in space, with an impact equivalent to a 10t truck travelling at 600mph.

The SM-3 Block IB is scheduled for land-based deployment in Romania in 2015.

US and Japan conduct first flight of SM-3 Block IIA missile - Naval Technology

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Indus Falcon

*Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense System Completes Successful Series of Intercept Flight Test Events *
15-NEWS-0007
August 3, 2015 

The Missile Defense Agency (MDA), U.S. Pacific Command, and U.S. Navy Sailors aboard the USS John Paul Jones (DDG 53) successfully conducted a series of four flight test events exercising the Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD) element of the nation's Ballistic Missile Defense System (BMDS). The flight test, designated Multi-Mission Warfare (MMW) Events 1 through 4, demonstrated successful intercepts of short-range ballistic missile and cruise missile targets by the USS John Paul Jones, configured with Aegis Baseline 9.C1 (BMD 5.0 Capability Upgrade) and using Standard Missile (SM)-6 Dual I and SM-2 Block IV missiles. All flight test events were conducted at the Pacific Missile Range Facility (PMRF), Kauai, Hawaii.

MDA Director Vice Adm. James D. Syring said, "This important test campaign not only demonstrated an additional terminal defense layer of the BMDS, it also proved the robustness of the multi-use SM-6 missile on-board a Navy destroyer, further reinforcing the dynamic capability of the Aegis Baseline 9 weapon system."

*Event 1*
On July 28, at approximately 10:30 p.m. Hawaii Standard Time (July 29, 4:30 a.m. Eastern Daylight Time), a short-range ballistic missile (SRBM) target was launched from PMRF in a northwesterly trajectory. The USS John Paul Jones, positioned west of Hawaii, detected, tracked, and launched a SM-6 Dual I missile, resulting in a successful target intercept. 

*Event 2*
On July 29, at approximately 8:15 p.m. Hawaii Standard Time (July 30, 2:15 a.m. Eastern Daylight Time), a short-range ballistic missile (SRBM) target was launched from PMRF in a northwesterly trajectory. The USS John Paul Jones detected, tracked, and launched a SM-2 Block IV missile, resulting in a successful target intercept.

*Event 3*
On July 31, at approximately 2:30 p.m. Hawaii Standard Time, (8:30 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time) an AQM-37C cruise missile target was air-launched to replicate an air-warfare threat. The USS John Paul Jones detected, tracked, and successfully engaged the target using an SM-6 Dual I missile. 

*Event 4*
On August 1, at approximately 3:45 p.m. Hawaii Standard Time, (9:45 p.m. Eastern Standard Time), a BQM-74E cruise missile target was launched from PMRF. The USS John Paul Jones detected, tracked, and successfully engaged the target using an SM-6 Dual I missile. The SM-6's proximity-fuze warhead was programmed not to detonate after reaching the lethal distance from the target, thus providing the ability to recover and reuse the BQM-74E target.

*Facts*


MMW Event 1 was the first live fire event of the SM-6 Dual I missile.
MMW Events 1 and 2 were the 30th and 31st successful ballistic missile defense intercepts in 37 flight test attempts for the Aegis BMD program since flight testing began in 2002. 
The MDA will use test results to improve and enhance the Ballistic Missile Defense System (BMDS).
Aegis BMD is the naval component of the BMDS. The MDA and the U.S. Navy cooperatively manage the Aegis BMD program.
Operational elements of the BMDS are currently deployed, protecting the nation, our allies, and friends against ballistic missile attack. 
The BMDS continues to undergo development and testing to provide a robust layered defense against ballistic missiles of all ranges in all phases of flight.
MDA - MDA News Releases

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Indus Falcon

Same story as above. Different link:

*U.S. military tests ballistic missile interceptor off Hawaii*
By Audrey McAvoy, 
The Associated Press
7 p.m. EDT 
August 3, 2015

HONOLULU — The U.S. military said Monday it successfully tested an interceptor that can shoot down ballistic missiles as well as airplanes.

The destroyer USS John Paul Jones tested the technology during a series of flight tests off the Hawaiian island of Kauai over the past week, the Missile Defense Agency said in a statement.

The tests used a modified version of the SM-6 missile the Navy already uses, said Heather Uberuaga, a spokeswoman for military contractor Raytheon Missile Systems.

The existing version can shoot down airplanes, helicopters and cruise missiles. The newer model tested off Hawaii may also destroy ballistic missiles in their last few seconds of flight.

Raytheon says the updated missile is on course to be operational next year, offering the Navy the flexibility to meet a wide variety of missions.

It would join the Navy's arsenal of missile-destroying interceptors. The Navy already has an interceptor, called SM-3, that ships can use to shoot down ballistic missiles midway through their flight.

The Navy could use the SM-6 to shoot down missiles that weren't intercepted earlier.

The Navy has another interceptor, called SM-2 Block IV, that can also shoot down missiles in the last phase of flight. But it differs from the SM-6 in that its primary purpose is to defend airspace immediately surrounding ships while the SM-6 is designed to provide air defenses over the horizon.

During the first test event in the series, John Paul Jones sailors on July 28 fired a modified SM-6 to destroy a ballistic missile. On July 31 and Aug. 1, the sailors tested the new interceptor against two different types of cruise missiles.


U.S. military tests ballistic missile interceptor off Hawaii

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## AMDR

*US DoD Approves $9 Million To Raytheon, Lockheed To Develop Multi-Object Kill Vehicle Prototype*
US DoD Approves $9 Million To Raytheon, Lockheed To Develop Multi-Object Kill Vehicle Prototype

The US department of Defense has approved $9 million each to Lockheed Martin, Raytheon to define a proof-of-concept prototype of a Multi-Object Kill Vehicle.

Under this new contract, the contractor will define a concept that can destroy several objects within a threat complex by considering advanced sensor, divert and attitude control and communication concepts, the US DOD announced Tuesday.

The contractor will define a proof-of-concept prototype and demonstrate risk mitigation steps and critical functional aspects of the concept.

The contractor will also assess the technical maturity of their concept, prioritize and nominate risk reduction tasks for all critical components and describe how the tasks will reduce risk.

The estimated completion date for both the contracts is May 2016.

This contract was competitively procured via publication on the Federal Business Opportunities website through an Advanced Technology Innovation broad agency announcement with three proposals received.

Fiscal 2015 research, development, test and evaluation funds in the amount of $4 million are being obligated on this award.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Mrc

9 million is a very trivial amount.. i am persuming this money is for a buissness case only...

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## AMDR

*Missile defense evolves with nanosatellites, emerging tech*
Missile defense evolves with nanosatellites, emerging tech

As the Army looks toward 2025 in an era of evolving warfare – including the proliferation of ballistic missiles – leaders are focusing on what cutting-edge technologies will put them ahead of the curve in missile defense.

The Defense Department is exploring a daunting range of technologies to boost next-generation missile defense, including work under way on nanosatellites that provide off-the-grid communications, future lasers that are as compact as they are capable of taking out incoming threats, non-kinetic options and more.

"The organizations that I represent have a wide variety of mission sets and support a number of ongoing operations while exploring new and emerging technological advances," said LTG David Mann, commander of Army Space and Missile Defense Command. "Space and missile threats posed by our adversaries have expanded and become more numerous and complex, not only in the area of ballistic and cruise missile systems, but also in the development of emerging technologies like hypersonic or hyper-glide weapon systems, anti-satellite technologies, cyber threats and the proliferation of unmanned aerial systems."

Mann spoke Aug. 12 at the Space and Missile Defense Symposium in Huntsville, Alabama.

The commander said that three nanosatellite programs are complete and more launches are scheduled for this fall for data communications satellites. He said the satellites provide "responsive beyond-line-of-sight communications support in very austere environments, which is critically important because we don't know where we will be deployed, we don't know what the infrastructure will be like."

"These satellites will demonstrate a low-cost solution for providing communications down to the squad-level," Mann said. "Nanosats are tremendously beneficial for units operating in remote locations while on the move. Additionally, they allow tactical leaders to better synchronize actions and seize the initiative while maintaining situational awareness."

Mann also said the Army has entered a cooperative research and development agreement with Lockheed Martin for a laser weapon to be tested out on drones and mortar rounds at White Sands Missile Range next summer.

The ground-based lasers that the Army wants are different from the afloat lasers the Navy has, the airborne lasers the Air Force seeks and the high-powered lasers wanted by the Missile Defense Agency to shoot down intercontinental ballistic missiles, Mann acknowledged.

"There is some concern out there that maybe the services are being redundant, [but] it reflects the importance of that technology," Mann said. "The services are using this technology to look at different threat sets."

And while he largely deferred on questions about cyber and other non-kinetic capabilities, he did say the Army is making progress on those options as part of a comprehensive, layered missile defense.

"Just trust me when I say that there are some very exciting and promising technologies out there…some of them are very, very classified, very, very compartmentalized programs, so I can't go into a lot of specific areas. Trust me when I say, though, that all the services are looking at non-kinetic solutions to these threat sets," Mann told reporters after his remarks to the conference audience. "The big takeaway is it's a wide spectrum of capabilities that we have to address this threat set. You can look at non-kinetic, but it's not a be-all end-all. You can look at directed energy, but it's not a be-all end-all."

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## AMDR

*Joint Staff Studies New Options For Missile Defense*

CAPITOL HILL: Minds are changing inside the Pentagon when it comes to the best ways to stop missile attacks, the Army’s top missile defender said this morning. It’s not just that the Joint Staff is conducting a major study of the subject, due out next month, said Lt Gen. David Mann. It’s that a “holistic” array of new options is on the table, from lasers to cyber attack tojamming to preemptive strikes.

Particularly tricky are actions taken “left of launch,” before the enemy missiles leave the launchpad. The best defense may be a good offense, but that raises the unsettling possibility that the US might strike first. Now, Mann told an Air Force Association breakfast, the reluctance to discuss such options is going away.

“When you talk about left of launch and taking actions in a proactive manner, that comes fraught with a lot of policy issues,” Mann said. “[But now] we’re seeing a lot more openness to really discuss that especially at the department level, to really look across the whole spectrum of options.”

“I see a lot more interest and willingness to discuss left of launch than I’ve ever seen before,” Mann went on. “When you hear the Joint Staff and others talking about holistic, non-kinetic, left of launch [options], you know you’re gaining some ground.”

That said, no less a figure than the outgoing Vice-Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Adm. Sandy Winnefeld, has urged caution. “While we would obviously prefer to take a threat missile out while it’s still on the ground, what we would call left-of-launch, we won’t always have the luxury of doing so,”Winnefeld warned at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in May. “We don’t want there to be any doubt about our commitment to having a solid right-of-launch capability.”

“Of course, it’d be great to do, to the extent we can,” CSIS’s Tom Karako told me. “[But] SCUD hunts are hard, requiring lots of intelligence and speed: just ask the Saudis and other coalition partners, 50 of whom died last week from a Yemeni missile strike that they missed hitting on the ground. And…it can look like preemption, so policy could impede fully employing such capabilities.”

“All we’re doing is we’re adding more arrows to the quiver and more capabilities for the warfighter,” Mann told me after his public remarks. Left of launch is just meant to be one option among others — but we really need more options.

With our current missile defenses, which rely on shooting down the incoming weapon — usually pretty close to the target — “we’re always kind of on the receiving end,” Mann told me. “We have SM-3s, we have THAAD, we have Patriot, and basically we’re waiting for it to hit us.”

“What we’re trying to do is say, ‘hey, warfighter, we have ISR [intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance] capabilities, we have indications and warning, we have other non-kinetic capabilities out there that you can leverage,'” Mann went on. “At the end of the day, whoever’s in charge of the campaign is the one that’s going to see what gets employed.”

Mann was characteristically cagey about just what those unspecified “non-kinetic capabilities” might be. He did make clear that real-world capabilities exist today in bothelectronic warfare — e.g. jamming enemy sensors and communications– and cyber warfare— hacking enemy networks and electronics. But he couldn’t tell the open forum much more without losing his job or going to jail.

Communicating about these capabilities is difficult even within the military, Mann told the group. “The challenge that we have, quite frankly, with some of these programs is they’re extremely compartmentalized and they have a very high classification level,” he said. “How do we ensure that the COCOMs [combatant commanders] are aware of these capabilities?… .We’re working our way through.”

Again, CSIS’s Karako added a note of caution. “There’s a lot of momentum and interest surrounding directed energy [e.g. lasers], cyber, and the larger spectrum of electronic warfare for missile threats,” Karako told me. “This is all good stuff when we can make it work, but it sounds like we’re not there just yet.”

“So it’s not unreasonable to ask whether investments in these bright shiny objects could detract from other medium-term investments, as well as incremental but less exotic improvements to existing systems,” Karako continued. “As just about anyone will say when pressed, for the immediate future we’re likely still going to need lots of chemically-powered hit-to-kill systems with long legs” — i.e. interceptors.

It’s just that interceptors alone are no longer enough, if they ever were. “Gone are the days where we could simply provide enough interceptors to address all the threat vehicles that are out there,” Mann said. “We’re faced with relatively inexpensive ballistic missiles and cruise missiles, and as good as our interceptors are, we’ll never have enough.”

“At least 22 countries” now have ballistic missile capabilities, Mann said. Nine are working on cruise missiles. The Chinese have conducted more than half a dozen tests of hypersonic weapons that could race through our defenses faster than we could react.

Last year, Army Chief of Staff Ray Odierno and Chief of Naval Operations Jonathan Greenertwrote a memo to Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel, saying the demand from theater commanders for missile defense units was outstripping their services’ supply. (All three men have since retired or left). There has to be another way, the two four-star officers said. That message was heard loud and clear at the highest levels, Mann said, and it led to the “Joint Capabilities Mix Sufficiency Study” expected to conclude next month.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Indus Falcon

*Ballistic Missile Defense System Demonstrates Layered Defense While Conducting Multiple Engagements in Operational Test*
15-NEWS-0008
November 1, 2015
The U.S. Missile Defense Agency (MDA), Ballistic Missile Defense System (BMDS) Operational Test Agency, Joint Functional Component Command for Integrated Missile Defense, U.S. European Command, and U.S. Pacific Command conducted a complex operational flight test of the BMDS demonstrating a layered defense architecture.

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.

BMDS assets included: a THAAD battery consisting of a THAAD Fire Control and Communications (TFCC) unit, THAAD launcher, and an Army Navy/Transportable Radar Surveillance and Control Model 2 (AN/TPY-2) radar in terminal mode; a second AN/TPY-2 radar in forward-based mode; Command, Control, Battle Management and Communications (C2BMC); and the USS JOHN PAUL JONES (DDG-53) Aegis BMD-configured ship with its onboard AN/SPY-1 radar.

At approximately 11:05 pm EDT (October 31), a Short Range Air Launch Target (SRALT) was launched by a U.S. Air Force C-17 aircraft southeast of Wake Island. The THAAD AN/TPY-2 radar in terminal mode detected the target and relayed track information to the TFCC to develop a fire control solution and provide track information for use by other defending BMDS assets. The THAAD weapon system developed a fire control solution, launched a THAAD interceptor missile, and successfully intercepted the SRALT target.

While THAAD was engaging the SRALT, an extended Medium Range Ballistic Missile (eMRBM) was air-launched by another Air Force C-17. The eMRBM target was detected and tracked by multiple BMDS assets including the AN/TPY-2 in forward-based mode, and the USS JOHN PAUL JONES with its AN/SPY-1 radar. Shortly after eMRBM launch, a BQM-74E air-breathing target was also launched and tracked by the USS JOHN PAUL JONES.

As a demonstration of layered defense capabilities, both Aegis BMD and THAAD launched interceptors to engage the eMRBM. The USS JOHN PAUL JONES successfully launched a Standard Missile-3 (SM-3) Block IB Threat Upgrade guided missile, but an anomaly early in its flight prevented a midcourse intercept. However, the THAAD interceptor, in its terminal defense role, acquired and successfully intercepted the target. Concurrently, Aegis BMD successfully engaged the BQM-74E air-breathing target with a Standard Missile-2 Block IIIA guided missile. A failure review is currently underway to investigate the SM-3 anomaly.

Several other missile defense assets observed the launches and gathered data for future analysis. Participants included the Command, Control, Battle Management, and Communications (C2BMC) Experimental Lab (X-Lab), C2BMC Enterprise Sensors Laboratory (ESL), and the Space Tracking and Surveillance System-Demonstrators (STSS-D).

The MDA will use test results to improve and enhance the BMDS.
MDA - MDA News Releases

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Indus Falcon

*Raytheon moves forward with Multi-Object Kill Vehicle program*

By Ryan Maass | Nov. 20, 2015

TUCSON, Nov. 20 (UPI) -- Raytheon completed the first Program Planning Review with the U.S. Missile Defense Agency for its Multi-Object Kill Vehicle concept, advancing the program.

The completion marks a milestone for the program's Concept Development Phase, designed to ensure the company is meeting the Missile Defense Agency's expectations. The Concept Review takes place in December.

Raytheon is developing four kill vehicle programs as a response to emerging long-range ballistic missile threats, including the Exoatmospheric Kill Vehicle, the Redsigned Kill Vehicle, and the Multi-Object Kill Vehicle, or MOKV. The MOKV contract was awarded to Raytheon in August, and it will be designed to engage and destroy multiple objects at a time in space by using an advanced sensor, guidance, propulsion and communication technologies.

"Emerging threats demand a new engagement paradigm -- one the Raytheon team is able to fully support with our depth of experience and breadth of capability," vice president of Advanced Missile Systems Dr. Thomas Bussing said in a statement.

The contract is valued at approximately $9.7 million. Production on the MOKV's concept is taking place at Raytheon's Advanced Missile System's product line. The company's kill vehicles are manufactured at the company's Space Factory.








Raytheon moves forward with Multi-Object Kill Vehicle - UPI.com
**********************************************************************************************

*Raytheon takes next step toward defining Multi-Object Kill Vehicle concept*
TUCSON, Ariz., Nov. 20, 2015 /PRNewswire/ -- Raytheon Company (NYSE: RTN) completed the first Program Planning Review with the U.S. Missile Defense Agency on the future Multi-Object Kill Vehicle (MOKV) concept, a key step toward defining critical aspects of its design.

The milestone is a critical part of the Concept Development Phase. It's designed to ensure Raytheon is aligned with the MDA's expectations and on track for a Concept Review in December.

"Emerging threats demand a new engagement paradigm – one the Raytheon team is able to fully support with our depth of experience and breadth of capability," said Dr. Thomas Bussing, vice president of Advanced Missile Systems. "We're leveraging decades of experience across four kill vehicle programs and vast tactical weapon expertise across every domain and mission area to meet this critical need."

As part of the $9,775,608 contract awarded in August 2015, Raytheon will define an operational MOKV concept. The MOKV will destroy several objects by utilizing advanced sensor, divert and attitude control and communication technologies. 

Design work on Raytheon's MOKV concept is occurring in the Advanced Missile System's product line, an industry-leading technology and innovation hub. Current Raytheon-built kill vehicles are built in the world-class, one-of-a-kind Space Factory, which has been called a national asset. Between the Standard Missile-3 and Exoatmospheric Kill Vehicle programs, Raytheon has achieved more than 30 intercepts in space - far more than any other company.

Raytheon: Raytheon takes next step toward defining Multi-Object Kill Vehicle concept - Nov 20, 2015

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Indus Falcon

*Ballistic Missile Defense System Demonstrates Layered Defense While Conducting Multiple Engagements in Operational Test*
15-NEWS-0008
November 1, 2015

The U.S. Missile Defense Agency (MDA), Ballistic Missile Defense System (BMDS) Operational Test Agency, Joint Functional Component Command for Integrated Missile Defense, U.S. European Command, and U.S. Pacific Command conducted a complex operational flight test of the BMDS demonstrating a layered defense architecture.

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.

BMDS assets included: a THAAD battery consisting of a THAAD Fire Control and Communications (TFCC) unit, THAAD launcher, and an Army Navy/Transportable Radar Surveillance and Control Model 2 (AN/TPY-2) radar in terminal mode; a second AN/TPY-2 radar in forward-based mode; Command, Control, Battle Management and Communications (C2BMC); and the USS JOHN PAUL JONES (DDG-53) Aegis BMD-configured ship with its onboard AN/SPY-1 radar.

At approximately 11:05 pm EDT (October 31), a Short Range Air Launch Target (SRALT) was launched by a U.S. Air Force C-17 aircraft southeast of Wake Island. The THAAD AN/TPY-2 radar in terminal mode detected the target and relayed track information to the TFCC to develop a fire control solution and provide track information for use by other defending BMDS assets. The THAAD weapon system developed a fire control solution, launched a THAAD interceptor missile, and successfully intercepted the SRALT target.

While THAAD was engaging the SRALT, an extended Medium Range Ballistic Missile (eMRBM) was air-launched by another Air Force C-17. The eMRBM target was detected and tracked by multiple BMDS assets including the AN/TPY-2 in forward-based mode, and the USS JOHN PAUL JONES with its AN/SPY-1 radar. Shortly after eMRBM launch, a BQM-74E air-breathing target was also launched and tracked by the USS JOHN PAUL JONES.

As a demonstration of layered defense capabilities, both Aegis BMD and THAAD launched interceptors to engage the eMRBM. The USS JOHN PAUL JONES successfully launched a Standard Missile-3 (SM-3) Block IB Threat Upgrade guided missile, but an anomaly early in its flight prevented a midcourse intercept. However, the THAAD interceptor, in its terminal defense role, acquired and successfully intercepted the target. Concurrently, Aegis BMD successfully engaged the BQM-74E air-breathing target with a Standard Missile-2 Block IIIA guided missile. A failure review is currently underway to investigate the SM-3 anomaly.

Several other missile defense assets observed the launches and gathered data for future analysis. Participants included the Command, Control, Battle Management, and Communications (C2BMC) Experimental Lab (X-Lab), C2BMC Enterprise Sensors Laboratory (ESL), and the Space Tracking and Surveillance System-Demonstrators (STSS-D).

The MDA will use test results to improve and enhance the BMDS.
MDA - MDA News Releases

_A Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) interceptor is launched from a THAAD battery located on Wake Island, during Flight Test Operational (FTO)-02 Event 2a. During the test, the THAAD system successfully intercepted two air-launched ballistic missile targets._

_1st Missile launch_













_2nd Missile Launch _





_An extended Medium Range Ballistic Missile (eMRBM) is air-launched from a U.S. Air Force C-17 during Flight Test Operational (FTO)-02 Event 2a. The eMRBM target was successfully intercepted by the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) system._






_
Infrared imagery of intercepts of a ballistic missile targets by the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) system during Flight Test Operational (FTO)-02 Event 2a.

SRALT Intercept_




_EMRBM Intercept_

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Indus Falcon

*Patriot takes out two ballistic missiles in latest test*

By Ryan Maass | Nov. 19, 2015 

WASHINGTON, Nov. 19 (UPI) -- The U.S. Army completed its first in a series of tests on the Raytheon-built Patriot Integrated Air and Missile Defense system.

The flight test, which saw the missile defense system take out two ballistic missiles, followed several upgrades known as Post-Deployment Build 8 (PDB-8), which enhanced the system's ability to intercept threats and better differentiate between friendly and enemy aircraft.

The PDB-8 upgrades were funded in part by the 13-nation Patriot partnership, a coalition of governments agreeing to cooperate on funding, operational knowledge, demonstrations, and other activities to support the missile system's development.

"Because countries share in the investment of upgrades, Patriot is able to stay ahead of the continually evolving and improving threats we are seeing in Eastern Europe, the Middle East and Asia," said Ralph Acaba, Raytheon vice president of Integrated Air and Missile Defense in a statement.

The Patriot Integrated Air and Missile Defense system is a long-range, high altitude system designed to counter tactical ballistic missiles, cruise missiles, unmanned aerial vehicles, and other airborne threats from a ground-based platform.

The system features active electronically-scanned array radar technology providing 360 degrees of coverage, a Common Command-and-Control system allowing for operation with partner and allied systems, and the abilty to fire multiple missile types simultaneously, enabling the system to counter a wide variety of threats.






_Upgrades to Raytheon's Patriot Integrated Air and Missile Defense system enhance the system's ability to intercept incoming threats, and differentiate between friendly and enemy aircraft. Photo courtesy of Raytheon_


_Patriot system takes out two ballistic missiles in new test - UPI.com_

*Latest Patriot takes out two ballistic missiles during first flight test*
*13-nation partnership-funded upgrade to address near-term emerging threats*

WHITE SANDS MISSILE RANGE, N.M., Nov. 19, 2015 /PRNewswire/ -- The U.S. Army successfully completed the first in a series of flight tests for the latest upgrades to the Raytheon Company (NYSE: RTN)-made Patriot Integrated Air and Missile Defense system. 





The upgrades, collectively known as Post-Deployment Build 8 (PDB-8), improve Patriot's ability to destroy all categories of threats, differentiate between friendly and enemy aircraft, and make Patriot easier for soldiers to operate. PDB-8 is slated for fielding in the near future. Much of PDB-8's development was funded by the 13-nation Patriot partnership, which will have the opportunity to incorporate PDB-8 into their Patriot inventory after U.S. Army testing and Materiel Release.

"Because countries share in the investment of upgrades, Patriot is able to stay ahead of the continually evolving and improving threats we are seeing in Eastern Europe, the Middle East and Asia," said Ralph Acaba, Raytheon vice president of Integrated Air and Missile Defense. "Like all other Patriot upgrades, PDB-8 can be retro-fitted into Patriot fire units around the world, and builds on the lessons learned from Patriot's more than 190 combat employments, 700 flight tests and 2,500-plus ground tests."

During the flight test, operators used a PDB-8 configured Patriot battery to detect and track a ballistic missile target. The operators then successfully engaged the target with two different kinds of missiles -- a PAC-3 and a GEM-T. A short while later, operators repeated the process, this time successfully engaging a second ballistic missile target with two GEM-T missiles.

PDB-8 is currently undergoing U.S. government testing and evaluation. Additional flight- and ground- testing against a variety of targets will be conducted before PDB-8 is phased into the Patriot inventory. 

PDB-8 also represents the first U.S. Army fielding of two new major pieces of hardware:


*Modern Man Station (MMS)*, a user interface with color LCD displays, touch screens and soft keys.
*Radar Digital Processor (RDP)*, a ruggedized commercial off-the-shelf processor. RDP increase Patriot's already high reliability by 40 percent. RDP also costs less to maintain and operate because it has fewer parts. And, RDP enables future capabilities through software upgrades.
Although a number of Patriot partner nations have already fielded MMS and RDP, PDB-8 takes full advantages of the hardware upgrades. As a result, the U.S. Army and other PDB-8 users will have the following features and benefits in their Patriot systems:


Enhanced capability against a variety of threats.
An improved Identification Friend or Foe capability
Improved radar search capability.
Improved target detection and identification
A redesigned *Fire Solution Computer*, which enables Patriot to take advantage of the PAC-3 MSE missile capabilities.
An *Enhanced Weapons Control Computer *which provides up to 50 percent additional processing power for software enhancements to address evolving threats.
Raytheon: Latest Patriot takes out two ballistic missiles during first flight test - Nov 19, 2015

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Indus Falcon

*Contractors Complete Key Multi-Object Kill Vehicle Program Review*
By Jen Judson
November 24, 2015

WASHINGTON — The three companies designing a kill vehicle that can take out multiple warheads with a single interceptor have completed their first program planning reviews with the Missile Defense Agency, marking a critical step toward determining key elements of the designs.

Raytheon, Lockheed Martin and Boeing were all awarded $9.7 million contracts in August 2015 by the Missile Defense Agency to work on designs.

"The milestone is a critical part of the concept development phase," Raytheon wrote in a statement, adding it is "aligned with the MDA's expectations and on track for a concept review in December."

Raytheon is using its expertise across four kill vehicle programs including the Ground-based Midcourse Defense System's Exoatmospheric Kill Vehicle.

The EKV, a critical component of the interceptors of the GMD system designed to protect the homeland from possible ballistic missile threats from North Korea and Iran, struggled in tests. The MDA is redesigning the already fielded system to build in more reliability and capability.

Raytheon said its design will be capable of destroying several objects by using "advanced sensor, divert and attitude control and communications technologies."

The company also said that between its Standard Missile-3 and EKV programs, it has achieved more than 30 intercepts in space "far more than any other company."

Lockheed Martin also completed its program planning review in October, according to company spokeswoman Lynn Fisher.

The company is developing a system concept for destroying more than one warhead with a single interceptor, she said, adding: "This is an important step in changing the cost curve for missile defense engagement."

In August, Doug Graham, Lockheed's vice president of missile systems and advanced programs within the company's Space Systems division, said: "Our talented engineers will use out-of-the-box Silicon Valley thinking to create an ultrahigh performance system that will operate outside of the atmosphere while traveling thousands of miles per hour."

Lockheed is building its design also based on its experience developing the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense System and the Patriot Advanced Capability-3 missiles. According to a statement, the hit-to-kill interceptors have achieved more than 100 successful intercepts in combat and flight testing since 1984 — "more than any other company."

Boeing has also completed its review, company spokeswoman Cheryl Sampson said.

Contractors Complete Key Multi-Object Kill Vehicle Program Review

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Indus Falcon

*Standard Missile Completes First Intercept Test from Aegis Ashore Test Site*
15-NEWS-0011
*December 10, 2015*
The Missile Defense Agency (MDA) and the Ballistic Missile Defense System (BMDS) Operational Test Agency, in conjunction with U.S. Pacific Command, U.S. European Command, and Joint Functional Component Command for Integrated Missile Defense, successfully conducted the first intercept flight test today (December 9, Hawaii Standard Time) of a land-based Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD) weapon system and Standard Missile (SM)-3 Block IB Threat Upgrade guided missile, launched from the Aegis Ashore Missile Defense Test Complex at the Pacific Missile Range Facility (PMRF), Kauai, Hawaii.

During the test, a target representing a medium-range ballistic missile was air-launched from a U.S. Air Force C-17 aircraft over the broad ocean area southwest of Hawaii. An AN/TPY-2 radar in Forward Based Mode, located at PMRF, detected the target and relayed target track information to the Command, Control, Battle Management, and Communication (C2BMC) system. The Aegis Weapon System at the Aegis Ashore site received track data from C2BMC and used its component AN/SPY-1 radar to acquire, track, and develop a fire control solution to engage the target. The Aegis Weapon System then launched the SM-3 Block IB Threat Upgrade guided missile from its Vertical Launch System. The SM-3’s kinetic warhead acquired the target reentry vehicle, diverted into its path, and destroyed the target using the kinetic force of a direct impact.

The primary purpose of the test, designated Flight Test Operational-02 Event 1a, was to assess the operational effectiveness of the Aegis Ashore capability as part of a larger BMDS architecture. Aegis Ashore uses a nearly identical configuration of the Vertical Launch System, fire control system, and SPY-1 radar currently in use aboard Aegis BMD cruisers and destroyers deployed at sea around the world.

Vice Admiral James D. Syring, MDA Director, said, "Today's test demonstrated that the same Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense capability that has been fielded at sea and operational for years, will soon be operational ashore as part of the European Phased Adaptive Approach (EPAA) Phase 2 capability in Romania. I am very proud of the tremendous effort by the entire government/industry team in executing this vitally important mission for our Nation and our allies."

This flight test demonstrates Aegis Ashore capability as an important component of Phase 2 of the EPAA, of which MDA plans to announce a technical capability declaration by the end of this month.

The MDA and the U.S. Navy cooperatively manage the Aegis BMD program.
MDA - MDA News Releases

Video:
http://www.mda.mil/video/2015-AegisAshore-FTO-02-E1a.mp4

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Khafee

@Indus Falcon @Blue Marlin @Zarvan @Manticore How about opening a thread on anti-missile systems from around the world?

The reason I am asking for this is because today we were looking at laser guided rockets (_not to be confused with missiles)_ launched from land, simply to overwhelm anti missile systems. 

Best Regards

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Blue Marlin

Khafee said:


> @Indus Falcon @Blue Marlin @Zarvan @Manticore How about opening a thread on anti-missile systems from around the world?
> 
> The reason I am asking for this is because today we were looking at laser guided rockets (_not to be confused with missiles)_ launched from land, simply to overwhelm anti missile systems.
> 
> Best Regards


great idea. you get a move on then and open this thread.
when you mean anti missile dont you mean an anti balistic missile?


----------



## Khafee

Blue Marlin said:


> great idea. you get a move on then and open this thread.
> when you mean anti missile dont you mean an anti balistic missile?


Bro No, I meant anti-missile, not anti ballisitc missile. This thread has pretty much covered US ABM. 
To the rest of the ABM's, we can add in that thread too, IF you want.

Regards


----------



## Khafee

*Ground-based Midcourse Defense System Conducts Successful Flight Test*
16-NEWS-0002
January 28, 2016

The U.S. Missile Defense Agency, in cooperation with the U.S. Air Force 30th Space Wing, the Joint Functional Component Command for Integrated Missile Defense, and U.S. Northern Command, today conducted a non-intercept flight test of the Ground-based Midcourse Defense (GMD) element of the nation’s Ballistic Missile Defense System (BMDS). A long-range ground-based interceptor was launched from Vandenberg Air Force Base, Calif., successfully evaluating performance of alternate divert thrusters for the system’s Exoatmospheric Kill Vehicle. 

During the test, a target representing an intermediate-range ballistic missile was air-launched from a U.S. Air Force C-17 aircraft over the broad ocean area west of Hawaii. An Army Navy/Transportable Radar Surveillance and Control Model 2 (AN/TPY-2) radar in Forward Based Mode, located at the Pacific Missile Range Facility, Kauai, Hawaii, detected the target and relayed target track information to the Command, Control, Battle Management, and Communication system. The Sea-Based X-band radar, positioned in the broad ocean area northeast of Hawaii, also acquired and tracked the target. The GMD system received track data and developed a fire control solution to engage the target. The test also included a demonstration of technology to discriminate countermeasures carried by the target missile.

A three-stage Ground-Based Interceptor was launched from Vandenberg AFB, performed fly-out, and released a Capability Enhancement-II Exoatmospheric Kill Vehicle. The kill vehicle performed scripted maneuvers to demonstrate performance of alternate divert thrusters. Upon entering terminal phase, the kill vehicle initiated a planned burn sequence to evaluate the alternate divert thrusters until fuel was exhausted, intentionally precluding an intercept. 

Program officials will evaluate system performance based upon telemetry and other data obtained during the test. Engineering data from this test will be used to increase confidence for future GMD intercept missions. This test is designated Ground-based Midcourse Defense Controlled Test Vehicle-02+. 

The GMD element of the integrated BMDS provides Combatant Commanders the capability to engage and destroy limited intermediate- and long-range ballistic missile threats in space to protect the United States. 

http://www.mda.mil/news/16news0002.html

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Oldman1

Expect them to see them have multiple kill vehicles on one missile.


----------



## Howard12345

p { margin-bottom: 0.25cm; line-height: 120%; }a:link { color: rgb(0, 0, 255); }

As we know Polish Armed Forces conducted a large-scale military training exercise Anakonda involving 24 NATO and partner countries. For more than 10 days, 31,000 troops, backed by large numbers of vehicles, aircraft and ships trained together. The aim was to exercise and test the interoperability of the Polish Armed Forces with other participating nations. Another large-scale NATO exercise Saber Strike 2016 have begun in the Baltic States, which are aimed at improving interaction between member states in a wide range on military operations. 10,000 soldiers from 13 member states and partner countries are participating in the exercise. The exercises take place from May 27 th to June 22th.

At the same time, their neighboring countries do not sleep either. The last six months are characterized by very intensive operational and combat training in Belarus.

While NATO flexes its military muscle in Poland and in the Baltic States Belarus conducted command and staff war game with the 6th and 11th Guards mechanized brigades led by the Commander of the Western Operational Command from June 7 th to 9 th at the Gozhsky test site. The aim of this exercise was to enhance the level of practical skills in command and control of military units during combat operations with the use of innovative technologies.

The more so the units of Belarus Air Force and Air Defence Forces will participate in the exercise led by Russian Western Military District from June 14 th to 16 th.

In the course of the exercise a missile and aviation strike of imaginary enemy will be repelled. Air Force and Air Defence troops of Russia and Belarus will practice elimination of different types of targets imitating cruise and ballistic missiles, combat and reconnaissance UAVs as well as aviation units of imaginary enemy during day and night time.

Also there were some information about state tests of Belarusian Polonaise multiple launch rocket system: «Final acts and protocols of the state testing of Polonaise multiple launch rocket system were presented to Sergey Gurulev, the Chairman of State Military Industrial Committee of Belarus on June, 10,» - said the Goskomvoenprom's spokesman Vladimir Lavrenyuk.

As he noted, «another important step of the Polonaise systems transfering to the Armed Forces of Belarus has been completed.»

These tests were successfully completed on May, 30. More than 20 organizations of the national defense industry worked on the development of Polonaise MLRS.

This multiple launch rocket system with 200 km fire range has been already put into service of the Belarusian army.

One MLRS firing battery will join the 336th Reactive Artillery Brigade (Osipovichi,Mogilevregion).

It's neccessary to add, that Representatives of the Ministry of Interior, the State Border Committee, the State Security Committee and the Ministry of Emergency Situations take part in the command and staff exercises with the territorial defense forces of the Grodno region (Belarus).

More than 2,000 servicemen and over 70 units of equipment will take part in the joint drills in Grodno region of Belarus.

According to the press service, military units of the Western Operational Command, the Air Force and Air Defense Forces, the Special Operations Forces, as well as the representatives of almost all law enforcement agencies, including the Interior Ministry, the State Border Committee, the State Security Committee and the Emergency Situations Ministry take part in the drills.

Sergei Dudko, the head of department of the territorial defense forces –deputy chief of the General Staff of the Armed Forces of the Republic of Belarus:

«According to the Defense Ministry's training plan for 2015/2016, the command-and-staff exercises with the territorial defense forces of the Grodno Region were launched on June 13. The drills are mainly aimed at boosting the level of the readiness and ability of the governing bodies and territorial defense forces to carry out the tasks in conditions of rapidly changing situation».

So the high intensity of combat training of troops today seems to become the distinctive feature of military activity of our days.


----------



## Beny Karachun

How come you all talk about so many defense missiles but not the Arrow 3?
Hell you talk about Iron Dome but not the David's Sling or Arrow system


----------



## EpiiC

Beny Karachun said:


> How come you all talk about so many defense missiles but not the Arrow 3?
> Hell you talk about Iron Dome but not the David's Sling or Arrow system


Arrow 3 might be better than Americas best SM-3 interceptor...


----------



## Hindustani78

US Patriot Missile based at Udeid AB, Qatar .


----------



## stevenrojes

*Russian RS-28 Sarmat Deadliest Weapons on Earth*

Russia is being seriously prepare RS-28 Sarmat nuclear missiles, which have a terrible explosion. RS-28 Sarmat reportedly able to eliminate the entire country in just seconds. Satan-2 missile equipped with stealth technology that helped him elude enemy radar systems.


The official name is actually Satan missile RS-28 Sarmat and his plan will replace the Soviet R-36 m missile that‘s been unused. However, NATO military experts describe himas Satan. “Satan-2 Missiles not only became the successor to the R-36 m, but also to a certain extent will determine which way the world nuclear deterrence will be developed,”sounding networking news reports, Russia Zvezda.

In addition to using stealth technology, The Sarmat super-missile that will come with up to 16 nuclear warheads, weighs 100 tons and has the ability to boost as much as 10 tons, and has a speed of 7 kilometers per second. Not only that, it also has a defense weapon anti missile attack. The American Minuteman III ICBM, on the other hand, weighs only 39 tons and carries up to three warheads, according to a report from Popular Mechanics. This ability makes it could destroy the region the size of Texas or France.

Satan-2 has a range of up to 10,000 km, allowing Moscow to attack European cities including London as well as major cities on America’s west and east coasts.

This weapon has exhibited Russia and create commotion European countries and the US. The reason has a warhead of up to 40 megatons, with 2,000 times the power of the atomic bomb that devastated Nagasaki and Hiroshima in WWII (World War II).



*What about the RS-28 Sarmat A.K.A SATAN-2 ??

I think this is the most terrible nuclear missiles in the world today ..*


----------



## Hindustani78

http://www.thehindu.com/news/international/us-plans-first-icbm-defence-test/article18591143.ece
Washington, May 27, 2017 21:13 IST
Updated: May 27, 2017 21:13 IST

* Pentagon will try to shoot down an intercontinental-range missile for the first time in a test next week. *

Preparing for North Korea’s growing threat, the Pentagon will try to shoot down an intercontinental-range missile for the first time in a test next week. The goal is to more closely simulate a North Korean ICBM aimed at the U.S. homeland, officials said on Friday

The American interceptor has a spotty track record, succeeding in nine of 17 attempts against missiles of less-than-intercontinental range since 1999. The most recent test, in June 2014, was a success, but that followed three straight failures. 

The system has evolved from the multibillion-dollar effort triggered by President Ronald Reagan’s 1983 push for a “Star Wars” solution to ballistic missile threats during the Cold War when the Soviet Union was the only major worry.

North Korea is now the focus of U.S. efforts because its leader, Kim Jong-un, has vowed to field a nuclear-armed missile capable of reaching American territory. He has yet to test an intercontinental ballistic missile, or ICBM, but Pentagon officials believe he is speeding in that direction.

Marine Lt. Gen. Vincent Stewart, director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, said this week that “left unchecked”, Mr. Kim will eventually succeed.

The Pentagon has a variety of missile defence systems, but the one designed with a potential North Korean ICBM in mind is perhaps the most technologically challenging. Critics say it also is the least reliable.  The basic defensive idea is to fire a rocket into space upon warning of a hostile missile launch. The rocket releases a 5-foot-long device that uses internal guidance systems to steer into the path of the oncoming missile’s warhead, destroying it by force of impact.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## victor07

Ground-based Midcourse Defense (GMD) program, managed by Boeing, has demonstrated capability to defend the U.S. homeland from a small number of intermediate-range or intercontinental missile threats with simple countermeasures? WTF?

Pentagon upgrades assessment of ability to defend against ICBMs
Wed Jun 7, 2017 | 6:19pm EDT
By Phil Stewart | WASHINGTON

After a successful May test, the Pentagon has upgraded its assessment of its ability to defend the United States against incoming intercontinental ballistic missiles, like the ones North Korea is attempting to develop, according to a memo seen by Reuters on Wednesday.
The conclusion could add to the U.S. military's view that, although much more work remains on missile defense, it is staying ahead of a mounting threat from North Korea, which has declared its intent to develop an ICBM capable of striking the U.S. mainland.
Since 2012, the Pentagon's Director of Operational Test and Evaluation had assessed only that the United States had a "limited capability" to defend against a threat like the one from North Korea or Iran using interceptors in the Ground-based Midcourse Defense (GMD) program, managed by Boeing Co (BA.N).
But after successfully intercepting a simulated ICBM last month, the Pentagon office elevated that assessment, the memo, dated June 6, said.
"GMD has demonstrated capability to defend the U.S. homeland from a small number of intermediate-range or intercontinental missile threats with simple countermeasures," the memo said.
The May 30 missile test, which experts compare to hitting a bullet with another bullet, involved a simulated launch of a type of ICBM from the Kwajalein Atoll in the Marshall Islands.
The U.S. military then fired a missile to intercept it from Vandenberg Air Force Base in California. The test ended with a head-on strike, resulting in obliteration.
It was the first live-fire test against a simulated ICBM, which the military said was made even more complicated by the use of decoys designed to throw off the interceptor.
Previously, the GMD system had successfully hit its target in only nine of 17 tests since 1999. The last test was in 2014. However, the interceptor technology has been making steady advances. More tests are planned to advance U.S. defense capabilities.
Vice Admiral Jim Syring, the director of the Missile Defense Agency, told a hearing in Congress he still felt the defense program needed improvement, even though his concerns about reliability had been addressed "in large part" in the past five to six years.
"It's just not the interceptor, the entire system," he said. "We are not there yet."
"We have continued work with the redesigned kill vehicle. We have continued work with the reliability of the other components of the system to make it totally reliable," he said. "We are not done yet."
At the same time, he assured he was confident in his ability to defend the United States.
The continental United States is around 9,000 km (5,500 miles) from North Korea. ICBMs have a minimum range of about 5,500 km (3,400 miles) but some are designed to travel 10,000 km (6,200 miles) or farther.
Syring said the ballistic missile defense review now underway would look not only at the capability of the current interceptors but whether more were needed.
"Where we need to be prudent and constantly vigilant on is what is the capacity increase we can expect from North Korea and what is our capacity needed to meet that threat," he said.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-northkorea-defenses-idUSKBN18Y2YL

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## yugocrosrb95

GMD's test was rigged tp succeed, they knew everything where, when and how.


----------



## ouy

Have been working on it for a while. Any constructive criticism is welcomed.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## ouy

An analysis of mine about the THAAD interceptor and Radar (AN\TPY 2) from a technical standpoint.


> The THAAD is a BMD (ballistic missile defense) system designed to shoot down short and medium-range ballistic missile, but can also take down longer range missiles, and has intercepted an IRBM in a test last July.
> 
> The system is comprised of the AN\TPY 2 x band radar, the interceptors, the launchers, and additional components. This analysis, however, focuses on the radar and the missile.


*Full analysis:*
goo.gl/kQSmgr


----------



## LeGenD

_From_ PATRIOT and THAAD to be *interoperable* _to_ *merger* in the coming years? [1/2]

THAAD air-defense system can provide excellent cover to a high-value environment against different types of ballistic missiles which could be armed with WMD.
_*









*_

*FTT-14* intercept event was significant in terms of its sheer complexity wherein THAAD demonstrated the capability to neutralize an SRBM class target in a *Low Endo* flight situation.






*FTT-14* intercept event was also an important step towards making THAAD and PATRIOT interoperable in real-time conditions.

_There were many THAAD flight test program "firsts" accomplished during FTT-14, including the lowest endo-atmospheric intercept to date; use of fielded THAAD ground segment hardware and software from the THAAD production program; and the first live mission to demonstrate automatic engagement coordination between THAAD and Patriot._

Link: http://www.defense-aerospace.com/ar...1/lockheed,-subs-comment-thaad-intercept.html
_*




*
"Getting THAAD and Patriot to talk to each other is extremely important in building better operational capability and a better picture of incoming threats."_ - Brig. Gen. Randall McIntire

Link: https://www.defensenews.com/digital...d-thaad-will-talk-what-does-that-really-mean/

Additional tests for interoperability were also scheduled, and latest test was conducted on April 6, 2018.

_The Army's two key missile defense systems — Patriot and the Terminal High Altitude Air Defense system — successfully talked in a test conducted by the Missile Defense Agency and the service at White Sands Missile Range, New Mexico, April 6.

The Army is planning to tie THAAD and Patriot together within in two years and received a surplus of funding in the recently passed fiscal 2018 omnibus spending bill to proceed with the effort.

Tying the systems together is critical to establishing a more effective, layered approach to air-and-missile defense and could enhance the development of the Army’s future AMD command-and-control system, the Integrated Air-and-Missile Defense Battle Command System — or IBCS.

Both THAAD and Patriot picked up a live short-range Lynx missile target using their radars and tracked the target individually, but both systems "exchanged messages through tactical data links and verified interoperability between the weapons systems," according to an MDA statement._

Link: https://www.defensenews.com/land/20...fense-systems-patriot-and-thaad-talk-in-test/

_"These two weapon systems are vitally important as components of our layered ballistic missile defense system and it is critical that they are able to transmit data and communicate with one another."_ - Lt. Gen. Samuel Greaves






But US is taking another step; enabling THAAD to use cutting edge *PAC-3 MSE *interceptors to expand its intercept possibilities against ballistic missiles in *Low Endo *situations and additional PATRIOT-specific benefits (explained below).

Relevant tender was posted on *27-10-2017*

_The proposed action is for the procurement of THAAD/PATRIOT Advanced Capability (PAC-3) Missile Segmnet Enhancement (MSE) Integration (TMI) and PATRIOT Launch on Remote (LOR) development. The action is to accomplish the development of capabilities in support of THAAD MSE Integration and PATRIOT Launch on Remote; design and implementation of an updated Fire Solution Computer software and architecture; Launcher Interface Network Kit software development activities; and a trade study to assess feasibility of launching a PAC-3 MSE from a THAAD launcher.

The proposed source for this effort is Lockheed Martin Missiles and Fire Control (LMMFC), 1701 West Marshall Drive, Grand Prairie, Texas, 75051, commercial and government entity (CAGE) code 64059. LMMFC is the developer and producer of the PAC-3 missile segment and support equipment, and the only source with the knowledge, expertise, and a full disclosure technical data package (TOP) to perform this effort. The Government does not have the necessary intellectual property rights to utilize the data for full and open competition._

Link: https://tenders.globaldatabase.com/tender/thaad-pac-3-mse-integration-and-patriot-launch-of-remote

Tender awarded to Lockheed Martin on *02-03-2018*

_The awarded action is for the procurement of THAAD/PATRIOT Advanced Capability (PAC-3) Missile Segment Enhancement (MSE) Integration (TMI) and PATRIOT Launch on Remote (LOR) development. The action is to accomplish the development of capabilities in support of THAAD MSE Integration and PATRIOT Launch on Remote; design and implementation of an updated Fire Solution Computer software and architecture; Launcher Interface Network Kit software development activities; and a trade study to assess feasibility of launching a PAC-3 MSE from a THAAD launcher._

_The source awarded this effort is Lockheed Martin Missiles and Fire Control (LMMFC), 1701 West Marshall Drive, Grand Prairie, Texas, 75051, commercial and government entity (CAGE) code 64059. LMMFC is the developer and producer of the PAC-3 missile segment and support equipment, and the only source with the knowledge, expertise, and a full disclosure technical data package (TOP) to perform this effort. The Government does not have the necessary intellectual property rights to utilize the data for full and open competition.. Awarded Vendors: LOCKHEED MARTIN CORPORATION. Contract Award Dollar Amount: $173,768,671. Contract Award Date: 2018-03-02._

Link: https://govtribe.com/opportunity/fe...-and-patriot-launch-of-remote-w31p4q17g0001-1

Tender-related work is expected to be complete by *28-02-2022*

_Work is expected to be complete by Feb. 28, 2022, US Department of defense said in a statement Tuesday.

The contract is to accomplish the development of capabilities in support of THAAD MSE Integration and PATRIOT Launch on Remote; design and implementation of an updated Fire Solution Computer software and architecture; Launcher Interface Network Kit software development activities; and a trade study to assess feasibility of launching a PAC-3 MSE from a THAAD launcher, according to the tender published in October 2017._

Link: https://www.defenseworld.net/news/2...0_for_THAAD__PATRIOT_MSE_Integration_Contract






This integration will transform THAAD into an *IAMD platform* to cope with increasingly complex threats in the near future.

---

*PAC-3 interceptor class* emerged from 20+ years of investments, experiments, trials and battlefield-related experiences around the world.
















_*Evolution*_ of the PATRIOT family of interceptors, and resultant flexibility in PATRIOT battery configurations (M901; M902; M903) highlighted below.








*PAC-3 interceptor class* enable a PATRIOT battery to be equipped with a much higher count of high-quality interceptors, thanks to advances in the 'miniaturization' aspect of rocket technologies, and the resultant battery configurations (M902; M903) are much harder to overwhelm accordingly.
















PATRIOT M902 battery configuration for reference below, equipped with a mix of *PAC-2 GEM-T* interceptors (*LR-SAM* against a wide range of airbreathing targets) and *PAC-3 CRI* interceptors (_point defense_ against complex threats).






*PAC-2 GEM-T* provide long-range target engagement envelope to a PATRIOT battery, just in case.

Maximum range = 160 KM (versus aircraft and UAV)
Maximum ceiling = 24 KM
Speed = MACH 5+






*PAC-2 GEM-T* is also optimized for BMD missions, and can produce HTK results.






*PATRIOT SAVES LIVES BY DOWNING MORE THAN 100 BALLISTIC MISSILES IN COMBAT*
_
Since January 1st, 2015, Raytheon's Patriot integrated air and missile defense system has shot down more than 100 tactical ballistic missiles in combat operations around the world. More than 90 of those intercepts involved the low-cost Raytheon made Guidance Enhanced Missile family of interceptors. Patriot employs multiple interceptor missiles to destroy ballistic and cruise missiles, aircraft and drones. Guidance Enhanced Missiles work by flying at extremely fast speeds to close with the threat and detonating a blast-fragmentation warhead at precisely the right moment. "No single interceptor is a silver bullet," said Tom Laliberty, Raytheon vice president of Integrated Air and Missile Defense. "Using a mix of defensive missiles increases cost-effectiveness and gives commanders operational flexibility to choose the right interceptor at the right time."_

Full read: https://www.raytheon.com/sites/default/files/2018-05/European Missile Defence Update_May2018_0.pdf

Reactions: Positive Rating Positive Rating:
1 | Like Like:
2


----------



## LeGenD

_From_ PATRIOT and THAAD to be *interoperable* _to_ *merger* in the coming years? [2/2]






*PAC-3 interceptor class* make it possible for a PATRIOT battery to defeat increasingly complex threats such as MaRV released by ballistic missile(s), ballistic missile with countermeasures, mass attacks, and additional forms of highly maneuverable threats; complex *DT/OT-11* and *DT/OT-12* intercept events scheduled for *PAC-3 interceptor class* in 2004 were very telling.

*DT/OT-12* intercept event for reference.

_"The mission sequence was a two missile ripple-fire against the modified PAAT, closely followed by a two missile ripple-fire against the Storm target. Once the targets were intercepted and destroyed, the two remaining PAC-3s executed a preplanned self-destruct sequence."_

Link: http://www.spacedaily.com/news/bmdo-04zl.html






A *PAC-3 CRI interceptor* defeated a PAC derivative simulating a target of very high Gs in a show of spectacular maneuvers (PAAT phenomenon); objective was to _stress-test_ the *PAC-3 CRI interceptor* by pushing it to its limits during the course of its development.






A *PAC-3 CRI interceptor* defeated Perishing II MaRV (also identified as STORM MTTV) in another clash of impressive maneuvers.

_The Storm Maneuvering Tactical Target Vehicle (MTTV) rocket, which performed its mission as planned, was used as a target to test the Patriot missile defense system.

"It has been an extraordinarily busy and successful two-week period for our launch teams, culminating with the successful MTTV launch for the Missile Defense Agency," said Mr. Ron Grabe, Executive Vice President and General Manager of the Company's Launch Systems Group.

"We are very proud of our record of supporting MDA's flight test programs with the most reliable target vehicles in the industry. We look forward to our future missions that will help MDA develop, test and deploy effective missile defense systems."

Orbital provided and tested the rocket's guidance and separation systems, performed all vehicle design, production and integration activities and conducted all launch day mission operations.

The MTTV rocket is a single stage vehicle which uses a retired U.S. government rocket engine from the Minuteman ICBM program and a modified Pershing II reentry vehicle._

Link: http://www.spacedaily.com/news/bmdo-04zl.html






*PAC-3 interceptor class* was subjected to a complex testing regime incorporating challenging targets simulating different types of airborne threats (MaRV; supersonic cruise missiles; terrain-hugging cruise missiles; TBMs operating in different trajectories; UAV and vice versa), and results are self-explanatory.






*PAC-3 MSE* is a *big leap* from the already impressive *PAC-3 CRI*.
















It shall be noted that actual target engagement envelope of *PAC-3 MSE* is _*classified*_, and figures floating in the public domain are _*understated*_.

_"The MSE's exact range and altitude capabilities against various types of targets are classified, but it's clear that the updated missile will allow MIM-104 Patriot batteries to cover far more area and have greater defensive capabilities against tactical ballistic missiles than its progenitors. The upgrades to the missile's motor, control system, software, front-end thermal protection, among other modifications, result in a far more effective weapon."_ - Tyler Rogoway

Related: https://www.defensenews.com/land/20...tance-record-to-defeat-threat-target-in-test/

In fact, target engagement envelope of *PAC-3 MSE* is _*constrained*_ by PATRIOT's *AN/MPG-65 *radar system even though this radar system is a leap from the older PATRIOT's *AN/MPG-53* radar system.

_"Today that missile outperforms the organic Patriot radar, and so that is going to allow us to get more value out of Patriot missile from the integration. That is going to allow us to be more efficient with how we defend things, and that is going to allow us to increase the battlespace."_* - *Brig. Gen. Randall McIntire






THAAD's powerful *AN/TPY-2* radar system can extract the most out of *PAC-3 MSE *on the other hand.

Another important consideration for an air-defense system is its ability to distinguish real threats from countermeasures in a high-clutter environment; a ballistic missile can have sufficient room to accommodate and release different types of countermeasures to complicate BMD possibilities. PATRIOT's *AN/MPG-65* radar system was particularly optimized for this end:

_"The ultimate step is PAC-3-Configuration 3, which introduces an upgraded AN-MPQ-65 radar to increase detection in high-clutter environments, and to improve discrimination of closely spaced objects (better decoy recognition)." _- Andreas Parsch

THAAD was also _*stress-tested*_ in the *FET-01* intercept event on similar grounds; it was presented a cutting-edge MRBM class target (MRBM-T3) which deployed unknown *countermeasures* (classified) in the process.

*MRBM-T3* at a glance.






MRBM-T3 is a cutting-edge ballistic missile design with capabilities which are largely classified and concealed in the public domain. This target can simulate flight characteristics of cutting-edge ASBM and release countermeasures on top - extremely difficult to defeat.






Type-1 targets are simple baseline configurations. 

Type-2 targets have increased capability or complexity. 

Type-3 targets have unique configurations.

MRBM-T3:

- _simulated_ flight characteristics of the Chinese DF-21D ASBM in the *FTM-27 E1* intercept event for an Arleigh Burke class destroyer on December 14, 2016.

Link: https://defense-update.com/20161215_df21d_target.html

_"During FTM-27 Event 1, in December 2016, an Aegis Baseline 9.C1 destroyer (which hosts the Aegis BMD 5.0 Capability Upgrade) engaged a complex medium-range ballistic missile target with a salvo of two SM-6 Dual I missiles. FTM-27 Event 1 was the first demonstration of Aegis BMD Sea-Based Terminal capability against complex ballistic missile targets." -_ DOT&E

- and released unknown *countermeasures* in the *FET-01* intercept event to _stress-test_ THAAD's target discrimination capabilities on July 30, 2017. The target also released an MaRV to _stress-test_ THAAD further.

_"In FET-01, the MDA demonstrated THAAD's ability to discriminate and intercept an RV from a separating MRBM target with countermeasures at an endo-atmospheric altitude. The MDA will use these data to improve interceptor seeker algorithms and to validate modeling and simulation." _- DOT&E






I suspect that MRBM-T3 feature a cutting-edge MaRV and MDA does not want people to take a closer look at it (practice of covering it out in the open).

THAAD was able to defeat this extremely challenging target in a *Low Endo* flight situation (refer to _Intercept Tests_ photo above).

*Emphasis mine.* If this merger materialize, THAAD might transform into *the* most effective and capable surface mobile IMAD platform in the world, better than the upcoming Russian S-500.

--- --- ---

@The Deterrent
@Fawadqasim1
@Irfan Baloch
@Oscar
@MastanKhan
@AmirPatriot

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Yaseen1

patriot has failed against cruise missile and is unable to intercept iran cruise missiles hitting saudi airports multiple times ,these cruise missiles are not in barrages but in small numbers ,imagine what will happen when russian or chinese more complex cruise missiles are fired.s400 is much better than u.s patriot system 


LeGenD said:


> _From_ PATRIOT and THAAD to be *interoperable* _to_ *merger* in the coming years? [2/2]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *PAC-3 interceptor class* make it possible for a PATRIOT battery to defeat increasingly complex threats such as MaRV released by ballistic missile(s), TBM with countermeasures, mass attacks, and additional forms of highly maneuverable threats; complex *DT/OT-11* and *DT/OT-12* intercept events scheduled for *PAC-3 interceptor class* in 2004 were very telling.
> 
> *DT/OT-12* intercept event for reference.
> 
> _"The mission sequence was a two missile ripple-fire against the modified PAAT, closely followed by a two missile ripple-fire against the Storm target. Once the targets were intercepted and destroyed, the two remaining PAC-3s executed a preplanned self-destruct sequence."_
> 
> Link: http://www.spacedaily.com/news/bmdo-04zl.html
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A *PAC-3 CRI interceptor* defeated a PAC derivative simulating a target of very high Gs in a show of spectacular maneuvers (PAAT phenomenon); objective was to _stress-test_ the *PAC-3 CRI interceptor* by pushing it to its limits during the course of its development.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A *PAC-3 CRI interceptor* defeated Perishing II MaRV (also identified as STORM MTTV) in another clash of operationally-relevant maneuvers.
> 
> _The Storm Maneuvering Tactical Target Vehicle (MTTV) rocket, which performed its mission as planned, was used as a target to test the Patriot missile defense system.
> 
> "It has been an extraordinarily busy and successful two-week period for our launch teams, culminating with the successful MTTV launch for the Missile Defense Agency," said Mr. Ron Grabe, Executive Vice President and General Manager of the Company's Launch Systems Group.
> 
> "We are very proud of our record of supporting MDA's flight test programs with the most reliable target vehicles in the industry. We look forward to our future missions that will help MDA develop, test and deploy effective missile defense systems."
> 
> Orbital provided and tested the rocket's guidance and separation systems, performed all vehicle design, production and integration activities and conducted all launch day mission operations.
> 
> The MTTV rocket is a single stage vehicle which uses a retired U.S. government rocket engine from the Minuteman ICBM program and a modified Pershing II reentry vehicle._
> 
> Link: http://www.spacedaily.com/news/bmdo-04zl.html
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *PAC-3 interceptor class* was subjected to a complex testing regime incorporating challenging targets simulating different types of threats (MaRV; supersonic cruise missiles; terrain-hugging cruise missiles; TBMs operating in different trajectories; UAV and vice versa), and results are self-explanatory.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *PAC-3 MSE* is a *big leap* from the already impressive *PAC-3 CRI*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It shall be noted that the true target engagement envelope of *PAC-3 MSE* is _*classified*_, and figures floating in the public domain are _*understated*_.
> 
> _"The MSE's exact range and altitude capabilities against various types of targets are classified, but it's clear that the updated missile will allow MIM-104 Patriot batteries to cover far more area and have greater defensive capabilities against tactical ballistic missiles than its progenitors. The upgrades to the missile's motor, control system, software, front-end thermal protection, among other modifications, result in a far more effective weapon."_ - Tyler Rogoway
> 
> Related: https://www.defensenews.com/land/20...tance-record-to-defeat-threat-target-in-test/
> 
> In fact, target engagement envelope of *PAC-3 MSE* is _*constrained*_ by *AN/MPG-65 *radar system even though this radar system is a leap from the older *AN/MPG-53* radar system.
> 
> _"Today that missile outperforms the organic Patriot radar, and so that is going to allow us to get more value out of Patriot missile from the integration. That is going to allow us to be more efficient with how we defend things, and that is going to allow us to increase the battlespace."_* - *Brig. Gen. Randall McIntire
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> THAAD's powerful *AN/TPY-2* radar system can extract the most out of *PAC-3 MSE *in terms of performance on the other hand.
> 
> Another important consideration for an air-defense system is its ability to distinguish real threats from countermeasures in a high-clutter environment; a ballistic missile can have sufficient room to accommodate physical countermeasures to complicate BMD possibilities. PATRIOT's *AN/MPG-65* radar system was particularly optimized for these ends:
> 
> _"The ultimate step is PAC-3-Configuration 3, which introduces an upgraded AN-MPQ-65 radar to increase detection in high-clutter environments, and to improve discrimination of closely spaced objects (better decoy recognition)." _- Andreas Parsch
> 
> THAAD was also _*stress-tested*_ in the *FET-01* intercept event on similar grounds; it was presented a cutting-edge MRBM class target (MRBM-T3) which deployed unknown *countermeasures* in the process.
> 
> *MRBM-T3* incorporating an MaRV at a glance (new design):
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> - _simulated_ the flight characteristics of Chinese DF-21D ASBM in the *FTM-27 E1* intercept event for an Arleigh Burke class destroyer on December 14, 2016.
> 
> Link: https://defense-update.com/20161215_df21d_target.html
> 
> _"During FTM-27 Event 1, in December 2016, an Aegis Baseline 9.C1 destroyer (which hosts the Aegis BMD 5.0 Capability Upgrade) engaged a complex medium-range ballistic missile target with a salvo of two SM-6 Dual I missiles. FTM-27 Event 1 was the first demonstration of Aegis BMD Sea-Based Terminal capability against complex ballistic missile targets." -_ DOT&E
> 
> - and featured unknown *countermeasures* in the *FET-01* intercept event to _stress-test_ THAAD's target discrimination capabilities on July 30, 2017. The target also released an MaRV which maneuvered during the course of FET-01 to _stress-test_ THAAD further.
> 
> _"In FET-01, the MDA demonstrated THAAD’s ability to discriminate and intercept an RV from a separating MRBM target with countermeasures at an endo-atmospheric altitude. The MDA will use these data to improve interceptor seeker algorithms and to validate modeling and simulation." _- DOT&E
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> THAAD was able to defeat this extremely challenging target in a *Low Endo* flight situation (refer to _Intercept Tests_ photo above).
> 
> *Emphasis mine.* If this merger materialize, THAAD might transform into *the* most effective and capable mobile IMAD platform in the world, better than the upcoming Russian S-500.
> 
> --- --- ---
> 
> @The Deterrent
> @Fawadqasim1
> @Irfan Baloch
> @Oscar
> @MastanKhan


----------



## LeGenD

Yaseen1 said:


> patriot has failed against cruise missile and is unable to intercept iran cruise missiles hitting saudi airports multiple times ,these cruise missiles are not in barrages but in small numbers ,imagine what will happen when russian or chinese more complex cruise missiles are fired.s400 is much better than u.s patriot system


Terrain-hugging cruise missiles can 'hide' in the ground clutter which can affect visibility of radar systems on the surface.






*1. *S-400 system failed to shoot down a single terrain-hugging cruise missile in Syria in spite of numerous chances.

_However, on April 6, 2017, in retaliation for a chemical weapons attack on Khan Sheykhoun that killed nearly 100 Syrian civilians, two U.S. Navy destroyers fired 59 BGM-109 Tomahawk Land Attack Missiles at Shayrat air base.

On their way to the target, most of the missiles in question passed over the Tartous area and then through the so-called “Homs Gap” – a depression between the mountains of western Syria and those in Lebanon – only 50 kilometers south of Hmemmem. Nevertheless, the Russian radars completely failed to detect them._

FYI: https://warisboring.com/russias-air-defenses-in-syria-have-some-big-problems/

*2. *Terrain-hugging cruise missiles always have a good shot at slipping through surface defenses via carefully programmed routes and approach their desired targets. However, if a desired target is shielded by a PATRIOT battery equipped with PAC-3 class interceptors, the battery will take care of the incoming threats. 

*EXAMPLE:-*

_During a test of the U.S. Army's Integrated Air and Missile Defense System (AIAMD) on Nov. 12 at White Sands Missile Range, a *MQM 107 drone* simulating as a cruise missile tried to avoid detection from the Patriot air defense system by flying below its radar coverage._






_But the trick wasn't successful and the target drone was shot down by a PAC-3 interceptor after a firing solution was generated by the AIAMD using composite track data from multiple radars.

One of the two Sentinel radars connected to the Integrated Fire Control Network (IFCN) relayed the position of the target to the Integrated Air and Missile Defense (IAMD) Battle Command System (IBCS). The IBCS then commanded a remote Patriot PAC-3 launcher to engage the drone through the IFCN._

Link: http://alert5.com/2015/11/15/mqm-10...t-by-flying-low-but-was-shot-down-eventually/

---

MQM-107D drone at a glance.






_The MQM-107A is powered by a Teledyne CAE J402-CA-700 turbojet in a nacelle under the fuselage, and is launched from a zero-length launcher with the help of a single solid-propellant rocket booster. The target can fly preprogrammed missions, but can also be controlled from the ground through a radio command guidance system. The Streaker's flight envelope includes speeds from about 370 km/h (200 kts) to 926 km/h (500 kts), constant high-g turns, and flight at very low altitudes._

Information taken from the directory of US missiles and rockets (Andreas Parsch).

---

In order to intercept terrain-hugging cruise missiles, a calculative multi-radar setup is necessary for which a good grasp of the geographical environment (where they will be stationed) is essential, and and the radar systems should not only complement each other with their respective FOV but also take cues from each other to guide interceptors. And radar systems should be technically up to the task as well (every radar system is not technically up to the task and produce weapons-grade lock on incoming cruise missiles).

Keep in mind that KSA haven't deployed PATRIOT defense systems everywhere (these are expensive and limited in number). Secondly, a PATRIOT battery stationed in Mecca have *PAC-3 class interceptors*.

FYI: https://www.janes.com/article/82511/saudi-patriot-pac-3-capability-confirmed

This particular battery did not let anything slip through as far as I am aware. However, other batteries might be old M901 configurations.

Do keep in mind that PATRIOT defense systems in KSA have prevented a great deal of death and destruction in there, keeping in full view the sheer amount of firepower the heavily armed Houthi rebels have subjected numerous locations in KSA to, since 2015. *100+ intercepts* is very impressive showing from surface mobile air-defense systems.

My posts highlight the very best of PATRIOT configurations, and in American hands no less.

---

S-400 intercept record in Syria = 0
S-300 intercept record in Syria = 0

Not much to boast about.

Reactions: Positive Rating Positive Rating:
1 | Like Like:
1


----------



## Bogeyman

*American Accountability Office Missile Defense Report June 2019

Section on BMD (related to capabilities and activities)









SM-3 program









Command and control systems and sensors related activities








GBI program









Batch testing program table
















Costs associated with MRBM testing




THAAD missile defense program tests, capabilities and deliveries








THAAD missile defense systems and model developed for South Korea




https://www.docdroid.net/uSoAPbL/amerikan-hesap-verebilirlik-ofisi-fuze-savunma-raporu.pdf#page=30 



*

Pentagon Contemplating Role of AI in Missile Defense
https://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/articles/2019/10/7/pentagon-contemplating-role-of-ai-in-missile-defense


*Inside The U.S. Missile Defense Agency's Secret Next Generation Interceptor Oct 8, 2019
*
Earlier this year, the Pentagon’s Missile Defense Agency determined that a planned upgrade to the nation’s defense against long-range North Korean missiles wasn’t going to work. A seeker essential to homing in on hostile nuclear warheads wasn’t suitable for operations in space, where the current U.S. homeland defense is designed to intercept attackers.

The upgrade program was canceled in August, and within weeks a draft solicitation for a Next Generation Interceptor was issued to industry. The solicitation described a much more capable system for negating North Korean attacks, specifying nearly 50 threat scenarios in which the new system would need to work effectively. Some of the scenarios involved demanding challenges that are not within the operational “envelope” of the existing defensive network.

The Missile Defense Agency has said very little of substance about the Next Generation Interceptor program, such as when it must be operational or how it will be configured. What follows is a simple explanation of the new system, based on conversations with half a dozen people who are conversant with the agency’s objectives.

*It will be a hit-to-kill missile*. The head of the missile agency told a think tank audience on Monday that “all options are being considered.” That is only true in a narrow sense. Nobody is seriously considering using a beam weapon to counter incoming ballistic warheads. The plan is to develop a new hit-to-kill system sitting on a new solid-rocket stack that can destroy hostile warheads with the sheer energy of impact. Conceptually, the Next-Generation Interceptor resembles the existing approach to homeland missile defense.

*It will have multiple warheads. *The single-warhead design of existing interceptors can be overwhelmed by a moderate number of attackers. The Missile Defense Agency envisions 64 interceptors total in the current system, with 2-4 allocated to each attacker depending on circumstances. That means a threat involving two dozen warheads, or even a handful of warheads accompanied by sophisticated decoys, might saturate the system. The plan for the Next Generation Interceptor is to stick with 64 interceptor missiles, but equip each interceptor with multiple kill vehicles that can counter a number of attackers.

*It will fit in existing silos. *The current homeland missile defense system concentrates its interceptors in underground silos at Fort Greely in Alaska (four more are deployed at Vandenberg Air Force Base in California). The plan is to expand the number of silos at Fort Greely from 40 to 60, and perhaps reach a hundred later if threat developments dictate. But the expectation is that whatever configuration is selected for the new interceptors will allow them to be placed in the silos that have been constructed at Fort Greely. Those silos are wide enough to accommodate a Minuteman ICBM, so there is plenty of volume within which to make design tradeoffs.

*It must be ready for deployment soon. *Missile Defense Agency planners want to minimize the time required to switch from existing ground-based interceptors to the next-gen weapons, so pacing of the development program is critical. Some observers think it will take ten years before the first Next Generation Interceptor is delivered, but others involved in thinking through what is doable suggest deliveries could commence around 2026. The timing of when the new interceptors become available will depend on how much funding is allocated and whether any technological show-stoppers arise. Multiple warhead hit-to-kill systems have been under development for two decades and booster technology is well understood, so at least some of the players are optimistic about timelines.

*It must be viable for decades to come. *The need for a next-gen interceptor is driven by the threat emanating from rogue states whose behavior is considered unpredictable. That means mainly North Korea, but it could also include a future nuclear threat from Iran, and even accidental/unauthorized launches from a major nuclear power like Russia. Recent intelligence suggests that North Korea might grow the number of long-range missiles it has, or “fractionate” them by adding multiple warheads, or use lightweight decoys that mimic the signatures of real warheads. The Missile Defense Agency wants its new interceptor to have capabilities and growth potential adequate to keep up with the rogue-state nuclear threat for many years, no matter how it evolves.

Like interceptors in the existing homeland defense network, the Next Generation Interceptor will rely on target detection and tracking from a diverse assortment of sensors on land, at sea, in the air and in orbit. It may be configured as part of a layered defense in which there is an “underlay” of other weapons capable of intercepting long-range warheads, such as the Navy’s Aegis system. And it will be developed competitively, with two industry teams receiving awards in 2020.

Whether all of this is sufficient to allay the fears of those who think that the existing system cannot be allowed to languish while a next-gen solution is developed remains to be seen. Nuclear attack is the greatest military threat to national security, and the interceptors currently deployed in Alaska are the only weapons in the U.S. arsenal currently capable of intercepting intercontinental-range nuclear warheads. It was inevitable that something better would be needed someday, but the immediate question is what should be done to keep the existing system effective while the Missile Defense Agency pursues more capable alternatives.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/lorent...ret-next-generation-interceptor/#4f0702842663

*Rethink Navy Ballistic Missile Defense October 2019*

Last June, _Defense News_ broke a story that the Navy was through with ballistic missile defense (BMD) patrols. This conclusion was based on comments made by then-Chief of Naval Operations (CNO) Admiral John Richardson during the U.S. Naval War College’s 2018 Current Strategy Forum. There, he expressed frustration with committing “six multimission, very sophisticated, dynamic cruisers and destroyers” to “a tiny box, defending land.”1 Missing from this story, however, was his qualifying statement, “I want to get out of the long-term missile defense business and move to dynamic missile defense.” In this assessment, the CNO is on the mark. It is time the Navy gets out of the business of defending static land assets and reconsiders how ship-based BMD capabilities can best contribute to countering the missile threat. 

The Navy should change how it employs Aegis BMD-capable ships for three reasons. The first, to which the CNO alluded, is that it underuses a limited asset. BMD ships are mobile, multimission surface combatants. There will never be enough Aegis cruisers and destroyers to meet all operational requirements. This means commanders must assess risk, establish priorities, and allocate resources accordingly. Facing peer or near-peer adversaries, commanders will be required to employ surface combatants when and where they are most needed and will need the flexibility to redeploy them when threats change or opportunities arise. Limiting ships to a single mission in a small geographic area is an inefficient use of a multimission asset and not justifiable when viable alternatives exist. 

The second reason is that against a peer competitor or even a moderately competent regional adversary, operating in a constrained geographic area while radiating the powerful SPY-1 radar is not tenable. A ship operating in this manner is comparatively easy to target and vulnerable to threats such as antiship missiles, submarines, suicide boats, and mines. An Aegis ship on station remains formidable but is not invulnerable and would require forces to defend it. This would only exacerbate the lack of surface combatants. The Navy clearly recognizes the threat posed by antiaccess/area-denial weapons, and adopting concepts such as electronic maneuver warfare (EMW) and distributed maritime operations (DMO) aims to increase agility and expand the battlespace. Operating in a tiny box does not align with these concepts. 

The final reason is that in most scenarios, ships are not going to be very good at defending land-based assets. This is primarily an issue of capacity. Potential adversaries are fielding missiles of increased range, accuracy, flexibility, and survivability. But beyond the impressive technological improvements, these weapons are being fielded in staggering numbers. U.S. adversaries possess extensive inventories of short- and medium-range ballistic missiles.2 With China and Russia, ballistic missile forces are complemented by an equal or perhaps greater number of land-attack cruise missiles. Against these numbers, by 2020 the U.S. Navy will have fewer than 400 Standard Missile (SM)-3s, of which 150 will be the older SM-3 Block I or IA (some nearing retirement age).3 There will be more SM-6s, but their BMD requirements will have to compete with those for air defense and antisurface warfare. 

Furthermore, the available Navy-wide SM-3 and SM-6 inventory has to be divided among the various geographic combatant commands and must compete for shipboard vertical launch system space with SM-2 and Tomahawk land-attack missiles. In most cases, a single ship faces an unsolvable math problem. BMD patrols do deter adversaries and reassure allies of U.S. commitment. But the Navy is writing a check it cannot cash. This might be acceptable if there were no alternative. However, defending static land-based assets can be better accomplished by land-based BMD systems. 







*Time to Redefine Navy BMD*
That the Navy is ill-suited to defending land assets does not mean it should abandon BMD. It does mean the Navy needs to rethink the mission and determine how Aegis BMD capability can best benefit the joint force. One area in which the Navy can uniquely contribute is in protecting aircraft carriers and amphibious ships from antiship ballistic missiles (ASBMs). If this sounds like a self-licking ice cream cone, consider the comparative vulnerability of an air base. While the Navy has agonized over the ASBM threat for years, the missile threat to land bases is far greater. It is impossible to move or hide an airbase. China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea all possess large inventories of missiles that can reach forward U.S. bases. Land-based BMD forces are capable and deploy with a greater number of antiballistic missile interceptors, but in a conflict they will be hard-pressed to defend forward bases. This means that a great deal of, if not most, U.S. forward power projection capability will be sea based. To ensure that capability remains survivable will require missile defenses that only the Navy can provide. 

The inherent mobility of Aegis ships offers a surge capability. Aegis ships can defend amphibious forces during a raid, an evacuation, or until organic BMD can be established ashore. These ships can defend a port during a force debarkation or a forward-based expeditionary airfield when aircraft are present, or they can augment land-based BMD elements. Finally, Navy ships can surge to augment land-based BMD forces in the event the threat should outstrip the land-based BMD capability or in the event of casualties. Employed as a surge force, BMD ships are a ready deployable reserve for the joint commander, easing ship capacity constraints and risk to the ships. 

Shifting the Navy’s BMD focus entails challenges. Though the Navy has retained control of ships on BMD stations, they are essentially geographic component commander theater assets. For joint force air component commanders (JFACCs), Aegis ships are their BMD assets, present in theater solely to meet national or regional BMD requirements. Even when land-based BMD forces are present, the JFACC will want to retain these forces to provide additional or backup capability. This may overstate the case, and this tendency may be more pronounced in peacetime when there are no obvious opportunity costs involved with locking an Aegis ship “in a tiny box.” But there is no denying that breaking this paradigm will be a challenge. The Navy must explain why refocusing sea-based BMD is not a parochial concern but critical to the joint effort. Given the former CNO’s comments, it appears this may be in progress. 

*Missile Defense in a Larger Context*

Rethinking BMD requires changing how the Navy views the mission. Already the threats posed by maneuvering reentry vehicles, ASBMs, long-range cruise missiles, and hypersonic glide vehicles are blurring the distinction between BMD and air defense. Until recently, the Department of Defense treated BMD as a unique mission deserving special treatment. This is no longer practicable. Nor is relying on destroying missiles in flight. The numerical imbalance between threat missiles and interceptors and a punishing cost exchange ratio mean that shooting down all the missiles is impractical and unaffordable, even if air and missile defenses are highly effective.4 Therefore, the Navy and the other services must embrace integrated air and missile defense (IAMD) and adopt what the 2019 Missile Defense Review calls a comprehensive approach.5 Hard-kill systems must be combined with other offensive attack operations, such as electronic and cyber-attack operations, to counter an adversary’s targeting capabilities and kill chain both left and right of launch. While the services have paid lip service to IAMD for years, the time has come to break the rice bowls and integrate the various tools available to counter air and missile threats. 

Shifting the Navy’s focus to a holistic approach to missile defense, instead of only BMD, and focusing on fleet missile defense and surge capability will require changes to doctrine, organization, training, material, leadership, personnel, and facilities. The first step is to adjust to expanded threats, which now include cruise missiles, unmanned aerial vehicles, and, soon, hypersonic glide vehicles. Instead of focusing on small numbers of missiles launched by rogue states, the fleet will have to prepare for multiple missile salvos. These likely will be employed in structured attacks, featuring dissimilar weapons (ASBM and antiship cruise missiles, for example) and electronic and cyber attacks. The Navy should expect that the enemy will understand the physical limitations of its shipboard systems and will attempt to stress sensor networks, degrade communications, and overwhelm Aegis missile-defense capability and capacity. The Navy’s tactics and material systems will have to be adjusted accordingly. 

The dilemma posed by large numbers of missiles cannot be solved simply by acquiring more of the systems employed today. As the Navy reorients its focus, it must recognize that the primary objective of air and missile defense is not to shoot down missiles. This is particularly true when defending high-value maritime assets. Targeting the adversary’s sensors and communications through a combination of signature control, maneuver, deception, physical destruction, and cyber attacks will be the first line of defense. Offensive actions against the enemy’s missile forces and supporting infrastructure will be the second. At some point, however, ships will be unable to remain untargeted, either through error or operational necessity. Ships must be able to defend themselves and the high-value assets for the period required to accomplish the mission. 

In the absence of a revolutionary directed-energy weapon, surface-to-air missiles, gun systems, jamming systems, and decoys will remain the tools of this fight. To survive, ships will have to synergistically employ kinetic and nonkinetic weapons. The complexity of these calculations and the limited decision time will require effective doctrine aided by networked, tactical decision aids. 

*New Organization and Systems*
The threat environment also will force changes in how the Navy organizes air- and missile-defense forces. Since the aircraft carrier emerged as the primary Navy offensive force in World War II, the concept behind air defense has remained largely unchanged. Fighter aircraft and surface combatants form a layered screen for the carrier. Advances in air- and missile-defense technology increased weapons capability, and the size of battle groups decreased, but the fundamental principles of air and missile defense remain the same. Implementing DMO, distributed lethality, dynamic force employment, and EMW will require a different paradigm. One thing is certain—operations will be a far more difficult undertaking than today’s BMD deployment. Solving these challenges will require developing not only innovative operational concepts and doctrine, but also intense training at the shipboard, tactical-group, and task-force levels. 

Finally, the type of systems the Navy fields also will have to change. Much of the service’s focus to date, including recent advances such as the SM-3 Block IIA, represents a joint Missile Defense Agency–Navy effort directed at limited numbers of long-range threats—hence the Navy has procured small numbers of highly capable and very expensive interceptors. The stark reality of comparative missile inventories (offensive missiles versus interceptors) will necessitate a shift to nonkinetic, directed-energy weapons and different (and cheaper) forms of hard-kill weapons. One suggestion from the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments study, _Winning the Salvo Competition_, is to shift from long-range to “lower-cost medium-range kinetic interceptors,” guns, and directed-energy weapons.6 While engaging threats at closer range may seem counterintuitive, kinetic antimissile weapons require a predictable flight path to account for interceptor fly-out time, and ship-based electronic-attack and directed-energy weapons cannot be engaged beyond the horizon. One point in the trajectory where the missile’s path is highly predictable and in range is in the final moments of flight, when the missile is heading directly at its target. This is nerve-racking for sure, but potentially effective, particularly if decoys and electronic attack can simultaneously be employed with short-range interceptors and directed-energy weapons. 

Evolving air and missile threats, the limitations of Aegis BMD ships, changes called for in the Missile Defense Review, and, of course, the former CNO’s comments, indicate the Navy must rethink its BMD mission. The new norm will require planning and executing combined air and missile defense in an environment where flexibility is essential, capability distributed, and forces dispersed. The effort will be more complex than heading to a fixed location focused on a single BMD mission. Execution will put a premium on highly trained shipboard personnel and on staffs to understand the mission, the threat, and the range of capabilities the force can employ. It will involve dedicating the necessary time and effort to develop the operational concepts and doctrine that will fully integrate the tools of air and missile defense. Success will require investing in the proper hard- and soft-kill capabilities and training the fleet to employ them. If this seems a high cost, the alternative is less palatable. 

https://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/2019/october/rethink-navy-ballistic-missile-defense

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Stryker1982

LeGenD said:


> Terrain-hugging cruise missiles can 'hide' in the ground clutter which can affect visibility of radar systems on the surface.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *1. *S-400 system failed to shoot down a single terrain-hugging cruise missile in Syria in spite of numerous chances.
> 
> _However, on April 6, 2017, in retaliation for a chemical weapons attack on Khan Sheykhoun that killed nearly 100 Syrian civilians, two U.S. Navy destroyers fired 59 BGM-109 Tomahawk Land Attack Missiles at Shayrat air base.
> 
> On their way to the target, most of the missiles in question passed over the Tartous area and then through the so-called “Homs Gap” – a depression between the mountains of western Syria and those in Lebanon – only 50 kilometers south of Hmemmem. Nevertheless, the Russian radars completely failed to detect them._
> 
> FYI: https://warisboring.com/russias-air-defenses-in-syria-have-some-big-problems/
> 
> *2. *Terrain-hugging cruise missiles always have a good shot at slipping through surface defenses via carefully programmed routes and approach their desired targets. However, if a desired target is shielded by a PATRIOT battery equipped with PAC-3 class interceptors, the battery will take care of the incoming threats.
> 
> *EXAMPLE:-*
> 
> _During a test of the U.S. Army's Integrated Air and Missile Defense System (AIAMD) on Nov. 12 at White Sands Missile Range, a *MQM 107 drone* simulating as a cruise missile tried to avoid detection from the Patriot air defense system by flying below its radar coverage._
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _But the trick wasn't successful and the target drone was shot down by a PAC-3 interceptor after a firing solution was generated by the AIAMD using composite track data from multiple radars.
> 
> One of the two Sentinel radars connected to the Integrated Fire Control Network (IFCN) relayed the position of the target to the Integrated Air and Missile Defense (IAMD) Battle Command System (IBCS). The IBCS then commanded a remote Patriot PAC-3 launcher to engage the drone through the IFCN._
> 
> Link: http://alert5.com/2015/11/15/mqm-10...t-by-flying-low-but-was-shot-down-eventually/
> 
> ---
> 
> MQM-107D drone at a glance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _The MQM-107A is powered by a Teledyne CAE J402-CA-700 turbojet in a nacelle under the fuselage, and is launched from a zero-length launcher with the help of a single solid-propellant rocket booster. The target can fly preprogrammed missions, but can also be controlled from the ground through a radio command guidance system. The Streaker's flight envelope includes speeds from about 370 km/h (200 kts) to 926 km/h (500 kts), constant high-g turns, and flight at very low altitudes._
> 
> Information taken from the directory of US missiles and rockets (Andreas Parsch).
> 
> ---
> 
> In order to intercept terrain-hugging cruise missiles, a calculative multi-radar setup is necessary for which a good grasp of the geographical environment (where they will be stationed) is essential, and and the radar systems should not only complement each other with their respective FOV but also take cues from each other to guide interceptors. And radar systems should be technically up to the task as well (every radar system is not technically up to the task and produce weapons-grade lock on incoming cruise missiles).
> 
> Keep in mind that KSA haven't deployed PATRIOT defense systems everywhere (these are expensive and limited in number). Secondly, a PATRIOT battery stationed in Mecca have *PAC-3 class interceptors*.
> 
> FYI: https://www.janes.com/article/82511/saudi-patriot-pac-3-capability-confirmed
> 
> This particular battery did not let anything slip through as far as I am aware. However, other batteries might be old M901 configurations.
> 
> Do keep in mind that PATRIOT defense systems in KSA have prevented a great deal of death and destruction in there, keeping in full view the sheer amount of firepower the heavily armed Houthi rebels have subjected numerous locations in KSA to, since 2015. *100+ intercepts* is very impressive showing from surface mobile air-defense systems.
> 
> My posts highlight the very best of PATRIOT configurations, and in American hands no less.
> 
> ---
> 
> S-400 intercept record in Syria = 0
> S-300 intercept record in Syria = 0
> 
> Not much to boast about.



These systems are good, but what we have seen as a live example in Saudi Arabia, that several SAMs are required to make inception of somewhat crude RVs. It's effective if you are expecting low-intensity combat but inventories and reloading will dry up fast in high-intensity warfare.


----------



## LeGenD

Stryker1982 said:


> These systems are good, but what we have seen as a live example in Saudi Arabia, that several SAMs are required to make inception of somewhat crude RVs. It's effective if you are expecting low-intensity combat but inventories and reloading will dry up fast in high-intensity warfare.


Saudi defenses do not represent the very best of A2/AD technologies in use and have numerous gaps in them that can be exploited by relatively smarter adversaries. Saudi might also be unnecessarily trigger happy in their intercept efforts. Modern interceptors are not like AA munitions but smart munitions - they will deliver results under excellent radar coverage. If the latter aspect is underdeveloped, well then...

Excellent radar coverage is the core theme of American simulations and this is why they manage to do well in live intercepts in comparison to numerous buyers.

A2/AD arrangements are not expected to be infallible however. These arrangements are (historically) 30% effective in their intercept rates in actual conflicts. This might change with proliferation of sophisticated A2/AD arrangements but nobody can be sure about this.

Iranians are also much more strategic in warfare themes than Saudi in the present. Give sophisticated technologies to Iranians and I am sure that they will outshine Saudi in their use.


----------



## BHAN85

C130 said:


> waste of money.
> 
> we should be buying the next gen SSBN and Ballistic missiles
> 
> you launch a nuke at us you'll have 5 coming back you in return.



it's a weapon useful only when it's used as first strike weapon.

i.e: if someday USA attacks China and/or Russia, they need a system like that to stop the few missiles in response.

By the other side all fleet class Ohio expiring date is near.


----------



## LeGenD

*How It Works: Midcourse Discrimination*






_"GMD is the first operational, hit-to-kill and only operationally deployed missile defense program to defend the homeland against long-range ballistic missile attacks. The system provides early detection and tracking during the boost phase, midcourse target classification and discrimination, precision intercept and destruction of inbound IRBMs or ICBMs through the force of kinetic kill technology. GMD uses multiple sensors, communications systems, fire control capabilities, and GBIs which are capable of detecting, tracking, and destroying IRBMs and ICBMs during the midcourse phase of flight. The GMD system is comprised of the ground systems, GBI, and sensors." _----[1]

1988 USAF Video: ICBM Penetration Aid System for reference:






_"While the interceptor is in-flight, the EKV receives communications from, and transmits communications to, the IFICS. The initial communications event consists of an in-flight target update which is generated by the GMD fire control and transmitted to the EKV; the EKV responds by sending an in-flight status report message back to the GMD fire control to update its status. During subsequent communication, the GMD fire control generates a second in-flight target update to relay final track data to the EKV. The interceptor uses the data provided by the in-flight target updates to acquire the cluster of potential threat objects and discriminate the potential threat objects from *decoys* and *debris*. When it reaches its acquisition range, the EKV autonomously tracks, discriminates objects, engages the threat object, and destroys it kinetically."_ ----[1]

[1] Relevant information in following link:



https://fas.org/irp/doddir/army/atp3-27-3.pdf



- - -

Live-intercept test (*FTG-11*) was conducted to validate aforementioned considerations in 2019:






_"The test is known as a “two-shot salvo” engagement. The target launched from Kwajalein Atoll in the Pacific Ocean while the interceptors launched from Vandenberg Air Force Base, California, more than 4,000 miles away.

The test was *FTG-11*, the most complex test of this system in its history, successfully executed with a set of objectives and technical advances that have been implemented through a decade of planning.

During this test of the U.S. Ground-based Midcourse Defense system, the lead interceptor destroyed the target reentry vehicle in space, just as it was designed to do. The trail interceptor evaluated the resulting intercept debris and remaining target objects. Not finding any other reentry vehicles, it selected the next most lethal object it identified and precisely struck that object.

This successful test of the GMD system demonstrated first-of-its-kind salvo intercepts of a complex, threat-like intercontinental ballistic missile target in space during midcourse flight."_



Boeing: Salvo success for our Homeland








_"The MDA conducted the first operational flight test of the GMD weapon system in March 2019. Flight Test, GMD Weapon System-11 (*FTG-11*) was a two GBI salvo engagement of a threat-representative ICBM target based on data from the Sea-Based X-band radar; the AN/TPY-2 Forward-Based Mode radar; Command and Control, Battle Management, and Communications (C2BMC) element; BMDS Overhead Persistent Infrared Architecture; and the Space-Based Infrared System. The GBI salvo consisted of a Capability Enhancement-II (CE-II) Block 1 EKV on top of a Configuration 2 booster followed by a CE II EKV on top of a Configuration 1 booster. The MDA also exercised its Post Intercept Assessment methodology based on multiple sensor data and physics-based analytical tools." _



https://www.dote.osd.mil/Portals/97/pub/reports/FY2019/bmds/2019gmd.pdf?ver=2020-01-30-115407-517



Additional information in following document:



https://aviationweek.com/sites/default/files/2020-07/Aviation%20Week%202020%20Prog%20Exc%20Submission%20-%20EKV%20Nomination%20Package%20-%20v22%20-%20Final%20-%20MDA_Boeing%20Approval.pdf


_
"This was the most significant flight test in the history of missile defense," said U.S. Army Lt. Col. Michael Strawbridge, 100th Missile Defense Brigade director of operations. "To compare it to something else in human history, I would liken it to space travel or putting a man on the moon. It was that complex." _









National Guard Soldiers at forefront of most significant test in missile defense history


FTG-11 was the first-ever salvo test of the Ground-based Midcourse Defense system and at its core were National Guard Soldiers representing Alaska, California and Colorado.




www.army.mil


----------

