Raytheon Multiple Kill Vehicle Contract

The Lockheed concept (the one in the video) is on the left. The one in the test had 12 KKVs (not including the carrier vehicle which may or may not be an additional kill vehicle) but there appears to be spots for 16 small KKVs. GBI could carry this and likely KEI as well. SM-3 would appear to be out in the cold with this concept.

The Raytheon concept is on the right. The larger missile shown is GBI and the smaller KEI. As you can see KEI carries more than six (haven’t had luck yet in tracking down the article that had specific numbers).

The Lockheed carrier vehicle has a 512 x 512 sensor array. Don’t know what it’s smaller KKVs have but then they don’t need a big array because the carrier vehicle will get them close before their own arrays take over. The Raytheon KKV has a 256 x 256 array so it won’t be as capable as the one on the Lockheed carrier vehicle.

It is going to be very interesting to see who wins this!

Excellent thanks, I was under the impression that KEI would take six?

The Lockheed concept (the one in the video) is on the left. The one in the test had 12 KKVs (not including the carrier vehicle which may or may not be an additional kill vehicle) but there appears to be spots for 16 small KKVs. GBI could carry this and likely KEI as well. SM-3 would appear to be out in the cold with this concept.

The Raytheon concept is on the right. The larger missile shown is GBI and the smaller KEI. As you can see KEI carries more than six (haven’t had luck yet in tracking down the article that had specific numbers).

The Lockheed carrier vehicle has a 512 x 512 sensor array. Don’t know what it’s smaller KKVs have but then they don’t need a big array because the carrier vehicle will get them close before their own arrays take over. The Raytheon KKV has a 256 x 256 array so it won’t be as capable as the one on the Lockheed carrier vehicle.

Lockheed and Raytheon use different concepts. The video, photo, etc. is about Lockheed’s. It has a “mother ship” and 12 small KKVs (don’t know if the mother ship acts as a 13th KKV). The video of the hover test shows the Lockheed version and 9 of the 12 KKVs are visible as shown in the photo. The second photo is a guy holding a actual size model of one of those smaller KKVs. Raytheon uses a different concept altogether. Their’s doesn’t have a mother ship/carrier vehicle but simply has a cluster of identical KKVs. The following video shows the two different concepts.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hsPKYDcfw4k

IIRC SM-3 Block II would carry 3 of the Raytheon KKVs, KEI would carry 7-9 and GBI something like 12-20. I don’t have the doc in front of me but the 3 is a for sure and the other two are about what I remember.

Excellent thanks, I was under the impression that KEI would take six?

That is awesomely impressive, the KKV’s in this prototype look tiny. The Raytheon images do show a mothership but ‘simply’ have six ‘conventional’ KKV’s stacked in threes on a launch vehicle.

Lockheed and Raytheon use different concepts. The video, photo, etc. is about Lockheed’s. It has a “mother ship” and 12 small KKVs (don’t know if the mother ship acts as a 13th KKV). The video of the hover test shows the Lockheed version and 9 of the 12 KKVs are visible as shown in the photo. The second photo is a guy holding a actual size model of one of those smaller KKVs. Raytheon uses a different concept altogether. Their’s doesn’t have a mother ship/carrier vehicle but simply has a cluster of identical KKVs. The following video shows the two different concepts.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hsPKYDcfw4k

IIRC SM-3 Block II would carry 3 of the Raytheon KKVs, KEI would carry 7-9 and GBI something like 12-20. I don’t have the doc in front of me but the 3 is a for sure and the other two are about what I remember.

Yes.

That is awesomely impressive, the KKV’s in this prototype look tiny. The Raytheon images do show a mothership but ‘simply’ have six ‘conventional’ KKV’s stacked in threes on a launch vehicle.

Watching those things hover never ceases to amaze me, thanks for posting sferrin. Am I correct in assuming that each of the KKV’s would also be manoeuvrable?

Yes.

Watching those things hover never ceases to amaze me, thanks for posting sferrin. Am I correct in assuming that each of the KKV’s would also be manoeuvrable?

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/defense/index.jsp?plckController=Blog&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&plckPostId=Blog%3a27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%3a42972656-7ffa-468a-a09a-67cd322fad0f

Lockheed’s MKV hovering. (That’s 12 KKVs you see on the bus there.)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oPFj8kGXnwk

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OO67Yha_03g

Missile-shield shootdown test is success, Pentagon says

WASHINGTON (CNN) — The Pentagon conducted a successful test Friday of a missile shield system designed to protect the United States against attack, spokesman Bryan Whitman said.

An official said the target missile launched in Friday’s test would have countermeasures. The test involved the interception of a long-range ballistic missile launched from Kodiak, Alaska, with a ground-based interceptor launched from Vandenberg Air Force Base in California.

Officials said Thursday that this would be the most realistic of the 13 missile shield system tests conducted to date. So far, the U.S. military has shot down a mock warhead in space with an interceptor missile in seven tests. The interceptor carries a “kill vehicle,” which is designed to destroy the target missile by crashing into it.

The Pentagon said this week that in Friday’s test, the target would be a mock warhead accompanied by “countermeasures similar to what Iran or North Korea could deploy,” according to a U.S. Missile Defense Agency official. Critics have long complained that the from tests are not realistic because they don’t involve balloons or other decoys that, they argue, could easily fool the interceptor.

The official could not give details of the types of decoys, because that information is classified, he said. The test, which has been delayed several times, comes at a crucial time for the $100 billion system, as President-elect Barack Obama is about to take office.

Early in his campaign, Obama pledged to “cut investments in unproven missile defense systems.” But later he said he would support missile defense systems if they work. “The biggest threat to the United States is a terrorist getting their hands on nuclear weapons,” Obama said in the September 26 presidential debate. “And we … are spending billions of dollars on missile defense. And I actually believe that we need missile defense, because of Iran and North Korea and the potential for them to obtain or to launch nuclear weapons.”

Last month, the outgoing head of the U.S. Missile Defense Agency said that not only are U.S. missile defenses workable, they are up and running. “Our testing has shown not only can we hit a bullet with a bullet, we can hit a spot on the bullet with a bullet. The technology has caught up,” Lt. Gen. Trey Obering said in November. Friday’s test was designed to produce voluminous data with which to evaluate the operation of the missiles, radars and other systems.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/12/05/us.missile.test/index.html

_____________________________________________________________

I would like to hear if any of you could perhaps speak to the details of this test and how realistic is the MDA making these sorts of tests?

Cheers

There is nothing wrong with that. It’s the way it should be. Did not Hitler and Japan have plans to attack the US with dirty bombs; and if we would’ve allowed them enough time fission bombs. During the Cuban missile crisis Castro was having a hissy fit trying to get the Soviet commander in Cuba to launch his tactical nuclear missiles.

A missile does not have to hit the mainland US to be an attack on the US. An attack on our embassies; overseas military bases and craft and our allies and our interests; any of those can be considered an attack on the US.

For people that are too narrow minded to accept that; and insist an attack on the mainland North America or Europe is necessary for threat to be worthy of confronting.: take for instance Iran that many shallow minded people think cannot threaten Europe or American soil with their missiles, therefore like fools they scoff at any threat from Iran. Iran has practiced launching ballistic missiles from barges; therefore a country like Iran or North Korea can threaten any nation that is coastal or near the coast of any ocean.

People need to start thinking with more depth and start thinking outside of the box; the enemy is not going always going to be so stupid or ignorant. Using the shallow minded logic; Al Qaeda was no threat to the twin towers. Cast aside the shallow minded rhetoric: think deeper, take an honest look at history; think outside of the box. The threat is real. There is more threats and more danger than most can comprehend.

Even poor technologically primitive countries/organizations can be a threat. Here is an animation that may help some of you understand.

THAAD Interception of Ship-Launched SCUD
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dz1-qAjWIm8

There was over 500 WMDs documented in Iraq. There was enough highly refined uranium to make a nuclear bomb. They had and concealed centrifuge(s) for enrichment (we even have them on tape trying to hide a centrifuge from inspectors). They had hundreds of tons of raw uranium. They concealed and hidden components, information, materials and programs to be revived at later dates. The Iraqis even fired so-called “SCUDs” at the coalition. There was even one cruise missile that struck a shopping mall. There was even coalition soldiers that got sick from chemical weapons that were being used as IEDs. Yet some people are such pathological liars that they say that there wasn’t any WMDs. Some people completely ignore what the experts have told us and the UN findings and instead choose to believe the incompetent biased fascist liberal media.

In the first Gulf War Saddam Hussein used a scorched earth policy with the Kuwaiti oil fields; he did that using conventional weapons. It decimated much of the Kuwaiti industry and disrupted the world oil supply.

Now imagine that with oil shortage there is nowadays; if Saddam Hussein attacked other Arab countries and decimated the oil fields using much more powerful WMDs, that have a much longer lifespan. What do you think would happen to the world’s economy and to the state of peace if all of the Arab oil fields were put out of production for several decades? Do you think there might be worldwide starvation, that might trigger instability and even more war? I think it’s guaranteed, if something like that was to happen.

Saddam’s scorched earth policy was one of the biggest financial and environmental disasters in history.
.
Why would one assume that only conventional ballistic missiles would be used. That would even more reckless than assuming OBL couldn’t threaten the twin towers.

If someone is threatening you with ballistic missiles; I think it’s wiser to assume or plan for the worst; rather than being weak and idealistic. I would rather overestimate a threat then underestimate it.

It may have done much more; it may have prevented a nuclear war that may have escalated into the Apocalypse.

That’s clearly not true. Actually they have been threatening the United States for decades; you just haven’t woke up and smelled the coffee. Whether it be ignorance or denial.

Using your logic someone like OBL is/was even less of a threat and couldn’t possibly threaten the continental United States. Never forget 9/11. Never forget Pearl Harbor. Be careful not to underestimate a potential enemy.

Another issue that BMD opponents never mention is that MAD only works if one’s opponent has a strong sense of self-preservation. If you’re dealing with some radical extremist regime, that doesn’t place a lot of value on life(including their fellow countrymen), its deterrent value is marginalized. There’s also the possibility that a missile may be fired by an group/organization, rather than a state, that doesn’t have to worry about retaliation.

You very well know that this is being sold to the public as a tool to prevent nuclear warheads to be used against America or Europe.

There is nothing wrong with that. It’s the way it should be. Did not Hitler and Japan have plans to attack the US with dirty bombs; and if we would’ve allowed them enough time fission bombs. During the Cuban missile crisis Castro was having a hissy fit trying to get the Soviet commander in Cuba to launch his tactical nuclear missiles.

A missile does not have to hit the mainland US to be an attack on the US. An attack on our embassies; overseas military bases and craft and our allies and our interests; any of those can be considered an attack on the US.

For people that are too narrow minded to accept that; and insist an attack on the mainland North America or Europe is necessary for threat to be worthy of confronting.: take for instance Iran that many shallow minded people think cannot threaten Europe or American soil with their missiles, therefore like fools they scoff at any threat from Iran. Iran has practiced launching ballistic missiles from barges; therefore a country like Iran or North Korea can threaten any nation that is coastal or near the coast of any ocean.

People need to start thinking with more depth and start thinking outside of the box; the enemy is not going always going to be so stupid or ignorant. Using the shallow minded logic; Al Qaeda was no threat to the twin towers. Cast aside the shallow minded rhetoric: think deeper, take an honest look at history; think outside of the box. The threat is real. There is more threats and more danger than most can comprehend.

Even poor technologically primitive countries/organizations can be a threat. Here is an animation that may help some of you understand.

THAAD Interception of Ship-Launched SCUD
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dz1-qAjWIm8

In fact this reminds me of how Bush “sold” America on the Iraq War. An over-reaction to a threat that did not exist. Let me guess…You supported that misadventure as well.

There was over 500 WMDs documented in Iraq. There was enough highly refined uranium to make a nuclear bomb. They had and concealed centrifuge(s) for enrichment (we even have them on tape trying to hide a centrifuge from inspectors). They had hundreds of tons of raw uranium. They concealed and hidden components, information, materials and programs to be revived at later dates. The Iraqis even fired so-called “SCUDs” at the coalition. There was even one cruise missile that struck a shopping mall. There was even coalition soldiers that got sick from chemical weapons that were being used as IEDs. Yet some people are such pathological liars that they say that there wasn’t any WMDs. Some people completely ignore what the experts have told us and the UN findings and instead choose to believe the incompetent biased fascist liberal media.

In the first Gulf War Saddam Hussein used a scorched earth policy with the Kuwaiti oil fields; he did that using conventional weapons. It decimated much of the Kuwaiti industry and disrupted the world oil supply.

Now imagine that with oil shortage there is nowadays; if Saddam Hussein attacked other Arab countries and decimated the oil fields using much more powerful WMDs, that have a much longer lifespan. What do you think would happen to the world’s economy and to the state of peace if all of the Arab oil fields were put out of production for several decades? Do you think there might be worldwide starvation, that might trigger instability and even more war? I think it’s guaranteed, if something like that was to happen.

Saddam’s scorched earth policy was one of the biggest financial and environmental disasters in history.
.

Oh so its not worth defending cities against conventionally armed ballistic missiles then? Because Such weapons have never killed anyone?:rolleyes:

Again I agree with you

Why would one assume that only conventional ballistic missiles would be used. That would even more reckless than assuming OBL couldn’t threaten the twin towers.

If someone is threatening you with ballistic missiles; I think it’s wiser to assume or plan for the worst; rather than being weak and idealistic. I would rather overestimate a threat then underestimate it.

You do realise that the existence of a BMD system actually prevented the launching of ICBM missiles on at least one occasion?

It may have done much more; it may have prevented a nuclear war that may have escalated into the Apocalypse.

And still decades away from actualy threatening continental USA.

That’s clearly not true. Actually they have been threatening the United States for decades; you just haven’t woke up and smelled the coffee. Whether it be ignorance or denial.

Using your logic someone like OBL is/was even less of a threat and couldn’t possibly threaten the continental United States. Never forget 9/11. Never forget Pearl Harbor. Be careful not to underestimate a potential enemy.

I dont have a problem with this.. how ever even you can see how such capability will shift balance of MAD, hence you can expect an answer from Russian or China.

Now what i do have problem with is when west starts jumping up and down and using such words as “new cold war” and “back to soviet days”, when Russia and China do answer the legitimate threat they see.. like they way everybody got worked up about Iskanders at Kalingrad.. which was a hardly anything worth getting worked up about.

Absolute nonsense, Russia will still have far more warheads than the US has KKV’s, the US interceptors will still be poorly located to intercept missiles coming out of Russia. There is no threat to Russia and MAD.

Over a very long time frame the US intends to develop the ability to intercept MIRV’s. Perfectly reasonable given that those powers currently developing missile forces could deploy them and countermeasures.

I dont have a problem with this.. how ever even you can see how such capability will shift balance of MAD, hence you can expect an answer from Russian or China.

Now what i do have problem with is when west starts jumping up and down and using such words as “new cold war” and “back to soviet days”, when Russia and China do answer the legitimate threat they see.. like they way everybody got worked up about Iskanders at Kalingrad.. which was a hardly anything worth getting worked up about.

Ok smarty pants, short-medium ranged balisitc missile (in my ayes still fall into category of Scuds.. but have it your way) …still rather primitive compared to what other powers are fielding. And still decades away from actualy threatening continental USA.

In that case you dont know what a scud is.

Content of that article begs to differ and capability it describes (providing that US seeks/intends to achieve such capability)

Over a very long time frame the US intends to develop the ability to intercept MIRV’s. Perfectly reasonable given that those powers currently developing missile forces could deploy them and countermeasures.

[COLOR=”DeepSkyBlue”]And still decades away from actualy threatening continental USA.

ROFL!!!

Since when was a Scud a solid fuelled missile with a range in excess of 2000km?:rolleyes:

Ok smarty pants, short-medium ranged balisitc missile (in my ayes still fall into category of Scuds.. but have it your way) …still rather primitive compared to what other powers are fielding. And still decades away from actualy threatening continental USA.

Russia and China can do what the hell they like, the missile shield is not pointed at them, as long as they stick to their treaty obligations or withdraw from them through the proper channels.

Content of that article begs to differ and capability it describes (providing that US seeks/intends to achieve such capability)

Geography is not your stronger side…

PS: Well this completely blows US position that Missile shield is not aimed at Russia (China)… since every other country they claim shield is aimed at, is more less at SCUD level of missile technology … and decades away from any type of sophicticated ICBMs… let alone MRV capability.

If one day (distant day) US does develop shield capable of “significantly increasing defense capability ” against lager number of ICBMs with MRVs… Logical step for Russia (China) is to mount Warheads on satellite like platforms in geosynchronous orbit above continental North America and Europe, and the MAD continues.

Oh dear, someone else with no knowledge about what they are talking about.

Since when was a Scud a solid fuelled missile with a range in excess of 2000km?:rolleyes:

Russia and China can do what the hell they like, the missile shield is not pointed at them, as long as they stick to their treaty obligations or withdraw from them through the proper channels.

PS: Well this completely blows US position that Missile shield is not aimed at Russia (China)… since every other country they claim shield is aimed at, is more less at SCUD level of missile technology … and decades away from any type of sophicticated ICBMs… let alone MRV capability.

Agreed

If one day (distant day) US does develop shield capable of “significantly increasing defense capability ” against lager number of ICBMs with MRVs… Logical step for Russia (China) is to mount Warheads on satellite like platforms in geosynchronous orbit above continental North America and Europe, and the MAD continues.

The good-old FOBS is simpler, cheaper but still effective.

Technically, i have to disagree. Russia used 9K79 SRBM in both Czechnya (also Scuds, at Itum Vale) and Georgia. Other than that, it depends on whether you’d see Lampedusa as part of Europe or Africa (Scuds in 1986).

Geography is not your stronger side…

PS: Well this completely blows US position that Missile shield is not aimed at Russia (China)… since every other country they claim shield is aimed at, is more less at SCUD level of missile technology … and decades away from any type of sophicticated ICBMs… let alone MRV capability.

If one day (distant day) US does develop shield capable of “significantly increasing defense capability ” against lager number of ICBMs with MRVs… Logical step for Russia (China) is to mount Warheads on satellite like platforms in geosynchronous orbit above continental North America and Europe, and the MAD continues.

“bgnewf” looks like a good candidate for the ignore feature. 😉