“WASHINGTON — The future of missile defense requires a new way of thinking that will benefit the American taxpayer and allow the United States to stay ahead of foreign threats, the vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff said today.
“As you look toward the future, it is a time, because of the economy, that we have to make some pretty significant decisions” regarding missile defense and related programs, Marine Gen. James E. Cartwright said during the 7th Annual U.S. Missile Defense Conference at the Ronald Reagan Building and International Trade Center here.
Speaking to an audience of more than 300 missile defense experts, Cartwright said that keeping up with the rate of change in technology and accurately guessing the enemy has never been a forte of the military and missile defense community. And that trend must change, he noted.
“A perfect solution after the fact doesn’t do us much good,” the general said, addressing ballistic missile defense capabilities as an example. “Ballistic missiles are about as passé as sea mail. Nobody does it anymore.”
Ballistic missile threats aren’t as significant today as they once were, he explained, adding that “even countries who we consider ‘Third World’ have gone beyond that.”
The Pentagon’s focus on missile defense is shifting away from developing and improving individual weapons, such as ballistic missiles. Today and future programs must have flexibility, which is more attainable by enhancing other aspects of missile defense, he said.
“When you think about the sensors, command and control and the weapon, it’s always been about the weapon,” he explained. “The flexibility for the unknown lies in the sensors and the command and control.”
Acquiring data and intelligence through satellite interceptor and sensory systems, as well as the command and control element of identifying and prioritizing strategic and tactical objectives will provide better defense for deployed forces and allies in the long term, he continued. These facets of missile defense tie into other national security missions, such as space and cyberspace, which will bring together a more unified, cost-effective and consolidated effort.
“With the range of threats this nation will face over the next 20 years … if we’re going to do something over the next couple of years to address the unknown, then my dollars are going to go to sensor and command and control,” Cartwright said.
As the Defense Department tailors its fiscal 2010 budget, decisions for missile defense will be among the most scrutinized areas. But, the Pentagon hopes to procure the aspects that provide the most opportunity to address “the unknown” and stay ahead of the threat to protect the nation, he said.
“What it is that we really have to be doing is thinking about how to build capabilities during these hard times,” he said. “When we’re dealing with a global capability like missile defense, we’re trying to put together an architecture that will serve this nation 20 years into the future.” “
I guess that’s one way of solving the missile defense problem- simply declare that it’s not a problem anymore. So simple. :rolleyes: Where do they dig these people up?
By: Distiller - 12th May 2009 at 19:34
A space-based platform is always going to be better for that role. An airborne laser will have limits to the amount of power it can put out, and you will have to deal with atmospheric attenuation and loss. Put the laser in space and you’re better off.
A big fat reactor in orbit? Happy cooling! A big fat solar concentrator? Not very survivable.
A cloud of sneaky VLO suicide nano-sats would be my choice for orbital positioning.
If YAL-1 can nail a missile across hundreds of miles of atmosphere it sure can nail a satellite with almost nothing in between.
By: SOC - 12th May 2009 at 16:52
Agree with the angle that ABL would be best against satellites AND as mid-course defence against other (sub)orbital things, like busses and warheads.
A space-based platform is always going to be better for that role. An airborne laser will have limits to the amount of power it can put out, and you will have to deal with atmospheric attenuation and loss. Put the laser in space and you’re better off.
By: sferrin - 10th May 2009 at 02:36
KEI is the most promising ABM program. I think it is conceptually the rigth approach. It’s confusing to see the “new priorities”: continue with GBI is expensive and senseless. The growing potential of KEI is much higher.
As I recall it was the first designed from the ground up without ABM Treaty restrictions. It really is a shame. They cancel something that’s pushing technology so they can flush the money down a rathole. Ah well.
By: Rodolfo - 9th May 2009 at 23:44
KEI is the most promising ABM program. I think it is conceptually the rigth approach. It’s confusing to see the “new priorities”: continue with GBI is expensive and senseless. The growing potential of KEI is much higher.
By: sferrin - 9th May 2009 at 15:41
Correctly described in the quoted text. A rocket doesn’t stop ascending when the boost finishes. “Ascent” lasts longer than boost phase.
Still makes no sense as KEI was designed for Boost to Midcourse and obviously “ascent” is in there.
By: swerve - 9th May 2009 at 14:43
Great. Could someone describe the difference between boost-phase and “ascent” or does it require a lawyer to do that? …
Correctly described in the quoted text. A rocket doesn’t stop ascending when the boost finishes. “Ascent” lasts longer than boost phase.
By: sferrin - 9th May 2009 at 13:21
Great. Could someone describe the difference between boost-phase and “ascent” or does it require a lawyer to do that? I guess they were unaware that KEI is capable of intercepting a target anywhere from boost phase to midcourse. Then again I suppose that’s expecting too much from The Messiah’s team of amatuers.
By: Austin - 9th May 2009 at 05:41
MDA Request Kills KEI, Focuses on Ascent Phase
By JOHN T. BENNETT
Published: 7 May 2009 19:25
The Obama administration is seeking to slash missile defense spending by $1.2 billion in fiscal 2010, and will focus the Missile Defense Agency (MDA) on taking out enemy missiles in the ascent phase of flight.
In its 2010 defense spending request, submitted to Congress May 7, the administration proposes $7.8 billion in MDA spending for 2010, according to Pentagon documents released May 7.
The topline might be lower than 2009, but the 2010 plan “does not cut missile defense capabilities,” David Altwegg, MDA executive director, told reporters during a Pentagon briefing the same day.
The missile defense plan features several surprises, including one for the program manager of the Kinetic Energy Interceptor (KEI). The 2010 defense budget plan calls for termination of KEI, Altwegg said.
Because of the budget non-disclosure agreements the White House required most defense officials to sign earlier this year, agency officials could not inform the KEI program manager the effort had been killed until Altwegg ascended to the podium in the Pentagon briefing room at 3:30 p.m. EST, he said.
Defense officials said they also terminated KEI because of technological issues and because it had become too pricey, Altwegg said.
The move was not a part of Defense Secretary Robert Gates’ April 6 announcement of about 50 other program kills or changes. Altwegg called that “an oversight.”
The other surprise was Altwegg’s announcement that the agency has shed its years-long focus on intercepting missiles in the boost phase and now will seek to take them out in the ascent phase. The change centers on “new ideas fostered in the last few months,” and officials want to field the ascent-phase capability “in 2013 or 2014,” he added.
Officials made the shift because developing the necessary technologies for the ascent phase should be easier and cheaper than targeting the boost phase.
“We are exploring new applications of technologies and innovative architectures to defeat launched missiles in their ascent phase, after the threat missile’s boost phase and prior to its apogee,” according to agency budget documents. “Ascent phase intercept will allow us to intercept as early as possible in the battlespace and optimize our ability to execute a shoot-look-shoot tactic to defeat a threat before countermeasures are deployed, minimize the potential impact of debris, and reduce the number of interceptors required to defeat a raid of threat missiles.”
Altwegg said the new ascent phase program is undergoing a mandatory security review, but promised the agency will release more details in coming months.
The still-secret ascent-phase program, he said, is not a start-from-scratch development program aimed at fielding one system.
Rather, it will be composed of “several” systems, he said, and will “leverage” already available technologies.
Funds for that mix of systems are included in the 2010 plan, but he declined to say how many dollars are being sought. If and when the new ascent-phase effort is declassified, such details will be made public, he said.
Program Shake-Ups
Also in its 2010 defense budget submission, the administration is seeking to buy only a single Airborne Laser aircraft due to “affordability and technology problems,” according to Pentagon documents.
In a cryptic comment, Altwegg advised – with a grin – that reporters avoid writing the ABL program’s obituary just yet. Observers should avoid making a judgment on the future of the program until after a fall airborne test during which the 747-mounted laser system will attempt to take out a missile.
Additionally, the spending plan also calls for termination of the Multiple Kill Vehicle (MKV) effort “because of significant technical challenges,” according to the documents. The administration, in budget documents, states it will “take a fresh look at the requirements.”
The idea to propose capping the Airborne Laser effort at one plane, as well as killing the KEI and MKV programs, Altwegg told Defense News, originated inside the Missile Defense Agency. They were not ordered to make any of the moves by Gates, he said.
Further, the request features several other program-specific moves:
* It requests $200 million for six additional Aegis-equipped Navy ships, aiming for a total of 27. Altwegg noted that as ships over the next 10-15 years are fielded with completely open architecture capability, “everyone could do [missile defense missions], if we’re willing to spend the money.”
* The plan seeks $700 million “to field more of our most capable theater missile defense systems, specifically the ground-based transportable Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) system and sea-based Standard Missile-3 programs,” according to MDA budget documents.
* It proposes to hold at 30 the number of ground-based interceptor silos located at Fort Greely, Alaska, and Vandenberg Air Force Base, Calif.
Altwegg said the agency also will, beginning in 2010, seek to develop a land-based version of the SM-3 missile with a goal of fielding it by 2014. He mentioned only Israel as a potential home for such a missile system, but quickly added MDA officials see a “global requirement for a land-based SM-3.”
Rogue Focus
From a strategic standpoint, Pentagon Comptroller Robert Hale said a few hours earlier that the administration’s budget plan is the first step in refocusing the military’s missile defense efforts “on rogue threats.” During several briefings throughout the day, Pentagon officials repeatedly mentioned Iran and North Korea as two examples of “rogue” nations with long-range missile programs and inventories.
To deal with such threats, the Obama administration is holding the line on plans to field a radar suite and missile interceptor system in the Czech Republic and Poland.
MDA still has at its disposal for that controversial effort – to which Moscow is opposed – unspent 2009 dollars, and the 2010 request seeks another $50 billion for the European sites.
There is a caveat, according to officials and documents. As Altwegg made clear, if Iran shutters its missile program, the administration would nix the European missile interceptor and radar plans.
By: Distiller - 29th April 2009 at 20:26
This might interest some:
http://www.marshall.org/article.php?id=653
The PDF there at the bottom is titled: “Boost-Phase Missile Defense: Present Challenges, Future Prospects”
It has some good stuff in there on ABL and NCADE among the usual stuff.
Thanks for the link!
Couple of things in the first parts I don’t agree with, but no point to discuss them here.
Taking about the need for mobility and scalability, and how good ABL is in that, and then talking about a *land-based* KEI! They would keep the ABL loitering, so what is the problem having a launch platform with airborne KEI also loitering? In addition nobody seems to take the relatively greater vulnerability of land- and sea-based KEI vs the airborne option seriously.
What Booen and Haskins are saying is much more in line with what I think. Boost-phase NCADE is almost there, but I feel its range is too short for a strategic system when based on AMRAAM. Go for a PAC-3 or THAAD version! Range is needed to counter a mass launch event from a suboptimal position – zoom capability alone is not enough.
Hanging it under a F-15 is the easy way, but I would still say B-52, or a version of the new P-8.
In hard cases take a B-2, which could at the same time execute E- and K-attacks on the enemy launch complex.
By: sferrin - 29th April 2009 at 18:57
This might interest some:
http://www.marshall.org/article.php?id=653
The PDF there at the bottom is titled: “Boost-Phase Missile Defense: Present Challenges, Future Prospects”
It has some good stuff in there on ABL and NCADE among the usual stuff.
By: Rodolfo - 29th April 2009 at 15:52
Parts 2 and 3:
By: sferrin - 29th April 2009 at 14:01
Re Mixelplic post #47
Agree with the angle that ABL would be best against satellites AND as mid-course defence against other (sub)orbital things, like busses and warheads.
Against aerial targets I don’t have a clue about the influence of snow and heavy rain, but a system potetnially needing nice weather (best at night and with little thermal layering) is not something I would base my defensive setup on.
I also think that on a strategic level the focus should not be on terminal defense, but on mid-course (with pro-active defense being a political minefield and not viable against a nuclear-armed tier-one/two enemy. MAD works!). If for no other reason than boost-phase being out of reach, and terminal phase being too short (and maneuvering RVs could do all kind of stunts, like coming down early and fly parallel for hundreds of kilometers > see SNL’s project SWERVE.
For regional or point defense something like a battery of Sprints would be the way. A re-modeled anti-airbreather SAM is sure a first step but will not go too far.
KEI was mentioned in that link. They say it’s the fastest missile ever developed by MDA. Yeah, sure. But Sprint was still way faster. And all in all it sucks to do a ground-based KEI the size of a Midgetman.
Fastest or quickest? 😉 GBI, KEI, and SM-3 all top out faster than Sprint. Sprint just gets up to speed a whole lot faster. 🙂 BTW KEI is actually middle-range compared to some of the concepts considered. Imagine one that produced 2 million pounds of thrust at liftoff and went zero to 22,000mph in 45 seconds. 😮
By: Distiller - 29th April 2009 at 06:33
Re Mixelplic post #47
Agree with the angle that ABL would be best against satellites AND as mid-course defence against other (sub)orbital things, like busses and warheads.
Against aerial targets I don’t have a clue about the influence of snow and heavy rain, but a system potetnially needing nice weather (best at night and with little thermal layering) is not something I would base my defensive setup on.
I also think that on a strategic level the focus should not be on terminal defense, but on mid-course (with pro-active defense being a political minefield and not viable against a nuclear-armed tier-one/two enemy. MAD works!). If for no other reason than boost-phase being out of reach, and terminal phase being too short (and maneuvering RVs could do all kind of stunts, like coming down early and fly parallel for hundreds of kilometers > see SNL’s project SWERVE.
For regional or point defense something like a battery of Sprints would be the way. A re-modeled anti-airbreather SAM is sure a first step but will not go too far.
KEI was mentioned in that link. They say it’s the fastest missile ever developed by MDA. Yeah, sure. But Sprint was still way faster. And all in all it sucks to do a ground-based KEI the size of a Midgetman. Airborne is the only way to go!
And I would say not only in this case, but a real strategic missile defense should try to have as few as possible elements that could be taken out by other means (like anti-ship missiles and torpedoes against a shiped-launched KEI, or fixed-based effectors like the Alaskan GBIs). Even the sensors should be as mobile as possible (and spatial flexible, which cancels out a Zeppelin as early-warning base).
By: YourFather - 29th April 2009 at 03:17
Lasers and the USAF are thus at cross purposes and until broken apart under separate program control the former will do anything they can to monkey up the works on the latter. Just like they did with Nautilus/MTHEL. Just like they did J-UCAS.
Not true. There was genuine support for the ABL. I remember someone (Gen Jumper?) calling the ABL alongside the F-22 as the most revolutionary platforms in the works for the AF. It’s Gates that reduced the prog to a tech demo, not the USAF.
By: sferrin - 29th April 2009 at 00:32
:confused: :confused: :confused: :confused:
http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=92727§ionid=351020204
Sounds like they rolled the “missile defense” dice and threw it on paper. That’s about the only conclusion I can come up with that accounts for the nonsensical tale at that link. 🙂
By: Rodolfo - 28th April 2009 at 21:34
:confused: :confused: :confused: :confused:
http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=92727§ionid=351020204
By: Rodolfo - 28th April 2009 at 21:31
http://www.spacewar.com/reports/University_Research_Shaping_Sea_based_Missile_Defense_999.html
By: Rodolfo - 28th April 2009 at 21:20
The Laser is quite capable of attacking falling RV, you just need to induce turbulence as shock perturbation of the hypersonic flow that alters the half angle shape high enough to get the weapon to tumble in exo transition and it will blow itself apart under building dynamic load. Whether you want to wait that long is of course another matter.
Ooops. :confused: I assumed high power microwaves were better suited than laser for such a task. May you explain us better?
By: Mixelplic - 28th April 2009 at 20:37
The Laser is dead because it’s best use is in killing airframes and satellites.
Lasers and the USAF are thus at cross purposes and until broken apart under separate program control the former will do anything they can to monkey up the works on the latter. Just like they did with Nautilus/MTHEL. Just like they did J-UCAS.
‘Cheap F-35s’ (115 million each, 370 billion over all) will then be set against DF-21 or later threats off a Formosa Strait environment and we will see whose vision of national defense is most capable.
An SM-3 equipped shooter off the coast of Israel is for Israel, not Europe. The cross track intercept variables on even a 4.5kms Shahab V are just ridiculous for assuming there will be anything like a rise intercept.
The Laser is quite capable of attacking falling RV, you just need to induce turbulence as shock perturbation of the hypersonic flow that alters the half angle shape high enough to get the weapon to tumble in exo transition and it will blow itself apart under building dynamic load. Whether you want to wait that long is of course another matter.
Coatings and other crap is also ridiculous and will or would be proven so if they ever get their full power kill capabilities demo.
Remember, before they hushed it all up, AvLeak was ‘casually mentioning’ that targets /behind/ the fast rise plume had to be clean-sky checked. That’s not a 250km weapon, that’s not a 400km weapon. That’s a 1,000km weapon and more. The ABL is a monster and with diode pumping and the proper (Cobra/AOA) optics package would become even more so, well able to act as a four engine, million pound, air dominance fighter against any threat that could possibly rise up to high-fast on our stealth forces.
Of course, ten years later, other nations would follow but that’s a pretty much a fixed timescale certainty now anyway as we are being out-graduated as much as anything and everyone knows that effective DEWS technology is the event horizon point beyond projective wars become endurant ones.
The entire ‘architecture semantics’ rigamarole sounds like another exercise in hollow system design for it’s own sake. Theater Wide/Upper Tier/NCW, all the same paper chase.
It’s also ridiculous to look at the defensive game and not contemplate the offensive one which in this case means aeroballistic cruise and other fast response optioned smack down of the TELs where they live. Again, the ‘failure to mention this’ amounts to Airpower Uber Alles and a head-vacant idea that smart weapons mean much if you cannot sustain presence overhead long enough, deep enough, to kill the launcher when the launcher itself is hostaging your basing mode, land or sea.
In this, the real cost of evading high capability defensive answers to ballistics threats is one of escalation anyway. Most of these fools are using technology baselines that go back to Thor if not the V-2 but you start showing them 800nm in 10 minutes in a package the size of a Tomahawk and suddenly I guarantee you that we WILL be thinking about the freighter with covered crate deck cargo off our shores.
It will also put paid to any kind of conventional mechanical (and particularly airborne) CMD intercept defense as saturation will rule the day and threats will come too fast to be taken out VSHORADS or THAAD type weapons.
MPlic.
By: sferrin - 22nd April 2009 at 04:21
Should I speculate? Back in September it was half a dozen of C-5 and C-17 flying into Nevatim to deliver the AN/TPY-2. There were some questions in the House whether there is a deal that Isreal won’t do anything rash aginst Persia in exchange for TPY with JTAGS integration plus …. And they say PAC-3 is also there.
And they were really pissed when we said “uh, we’ll be the ones watching the scopes thanks”. 😉
Sign In
March 24, 2009 at 1:52 pm