CBS News took a peek last night at our favorite giant golf ball, er, missile defense radar.
With documents obtained by the Project on Government Oversight the CBS News Investigative Unit found a host of issues with the Sea-Based X-Band Radar SBX for short that still remain unresolved, just ahead of its activation in the waters off Adak Island, Alaska.
– Beyond questions raised in our CBS Evening News story about plans to stick it in some of the most unforgiving weather in the world, if the SBX has a single point of failure, according to sources within Missile Defense, it is The Dove. The Dove is the large support vessel, 279 feet long, which travels with the SBX, delivers personnel, supplies and fuel to the radar platform. Though the SBX has a helicopter platform, military and Coast Guard helicopters wont land there. So the SBX uses a single crane to lift people and material off the Dove. According to the Coast Guard letter obtained by CBS News, there are regularly waves as high as 30 feet many days out of the year. There are concerns that the Dove will not be able to maneuver close enough to the SBX to re-supply without colliding or injuring crew men in those conditions.
Other potential problems include:
–Fuel spills: the Dove carries 600,000 gallons of diesel fuel and the SBX carries 1.2 million gallons. If both vessels spilled their fuel in the pristine waters off Adak Island, it would be the second largest fuel spill in Alaskan history. Second only to the Exxon Valdez. How likely is a fuel spill? According to incident reports obtained by the Investigative Unit, the Dove spilled 3–5 gallons of diesel during fueling operations on December 9th. It happened near Hawaii and the system was shut down when crewmembers saw a growing oil slick. Thats not a lot of fuel by Exxon Valdez standards but the spill occurred in ocean conditions with 12-foot swells, relatively calm compared to conditions in the Bering Sea.
–Security: As a source within the Missile Defense Agency said, Trying to defend a billion dollar asset with rifles, shotguns and 50 cals is ridiculous. The SBX will be protected around the clock by about a dozen lightly armed security contractors. Can the SBX defend itself from a direct attack by a bomb-laden boat?
|
Missile Radar Still AdriftLeave a Reply |
|
why dont they power this with a small nuclear reactor?
Good Morning Folks,
Did we not dicuss the sanity or insanity of this last Summer when this contraption was laying about in Pearl Harbor waiting for the Artic Winner to set in before being transported up into the Gulf of Alaska.
Enough.
ALLONS,
Byron Skinner
@mike:
Hmm. If their two problems are that they’re worried about 1) its structural integrity and 2) its security, then putting a nuclear reactor in may not be a good idea.
Mike, see also:
http://www.defensetech.org/archives/002627.html
for some of the reasons a floating nuclear reactor is probably a very bad idea.
As for security, why not a CIWS or two?
Why won’t choppers land???
This what I do for a living. I deliver supplies, people, water and fuel to offshore oil platforms.
I’m a supply boat Captain working in the Gulf of Mexico.
In a 280 footer, depending on wind etc, you can SAFELY pump fuel and water in 8–10 foot seas. Above that you are asking for trouble. And possible serious injury.
SAFELY transferring people in anything above 10 to 12 foot seas is NUTS!
Any links on the Dove. Hopefully, it’s DP2 (dynamic positioning) equipped.
Thats ALOT of fuel capacity on that rig. Why???
Ok..it’s not certified to land big helos. Dumb!!
I can power a small house for about 30 gallons per day. That radar must really suck power.
One BIG question…If the wanted that location, why the heck didn’t they just build it on top of Adak island?????????
Nope. I was talking about a 40kw 4–71 Detroit Diesel Generator. And 30 gal per day is about what it burns.
I still wonder why they didn’t just build it on Adak island
You people ARE aware that this thing is mobile right? It doesn’t use all the fuel to power the frickin’ radar. And they spilled 3 to 5 gallons? My god that’s an ecological disaster of biblical proportions. And POGO wonders why nobody with more than two brain cells firing takes them seriously.
POGO first released this info in August. Chicago Tribune and Inside Missile Defense, among others, reported on it.
I still wonder why they didn’t just build it on Adak island??????
Because it needs to be mobile off Japan and DPRK. 2 acres of real estate in the middle of the ocean. I hope they build 8 or 10 of them. Not so expensive — old oil rigs, the modifications and the radars. Nukes are expensive and complex. This is realiable, cost-effective and probably very quiet. If they’re in patrolled waters, assign an SSN to them.
RTLM — I agree, being able to put X-Band radars everywhere is a definite plus, but sea-basing isn’t the only option. Last time I check, MDA has at least two truck-mounted X-Band systems, one of which is already looking at the DPRK from Japanese soil.
Nixer6 does have a point though. If the intent is to deploy the SBX around Adak, why didn’t we just build a X-Band site on the island? Aren’t Alaskan waters some of the roughest chop in the world?
The SBX is definitely interesting idea, but its probably more practical in calmer waters, like the Med or over by the Arabian Peninsula.
Also worth mentioning, Sen. Stevens even wondered whether SBX is a good idea. From, “A Radar Unit’s Journey Reflects Hopes, Snafus In Missile Defense,” a recent Wall Street Journal article by Jonathan Karp:
Republican Sen. Ted Stevens of Alaska, a staunch advocate of missile defense, nevertheless questioned the wisdom of having such a valuable sensor floating in the treacherous North Pacific. “I hope your people are nautical enough to know what you’re doing,” he told Air Force Lt. Gen. Ronald Kadish, then Missile Defense Agency director, at a Senate hearing. The general replied that he had reviewed a century’s worth of local wave patterns and had confidence in SBX’s naval architects and Boeing.
>“If the intent is to deploy the SBX around Adak,
why didn’t we just build a X-Band site on the >island? Aren’t Alaskan waters some of the roughest chop in the world?“
The advantage of this is mobility and the ability to operate at international waters. In such cases, building sites on islands owned by other countries is always at risk for uncertainity of change in diplomacy such as anti-American government gaining power. Parking these mobile bases at international waters will eliminate risks from such government bodies moving toward to remove bases from their territories where such sites are built on their islands. Just park these bases north of Canada at international water, and you won’t need to worry the risks that NORAD faces for Liberal Party taking charge of the government in Canada.
Another advantage is the ability to move certain amount of these bases where ever, and whenever needed around the world, especially in crisis. Bases on ground does not have that advantages, leaving certain bases idle. Mobile base has the flexibility for the ability to “shift” a concentration of military presence where ever the danger is predicted. Airstrips and aircraft carrier both allow aircrafts to land, but both have advantages and disadvatages each do not have, and the advantage of aircraft carrier is its mobility to “shift” the military presence around the world when needed.
The disadvantage of parking these SBX at sea is waves and weather hazards. The SBX could have been operating better for redesigning of landing space of helicopter, and if possible, dumper units that will stabilize the upper portion of the SBX which will allow more flexibility to obtain supplies by ships via the crane unit, or if possible, a dry dock that will let supply ships to park within the SBX. However, that will still be a challenge more than landing a jet on an airstrip with ships facing waves to get within the dry dock where waters will be removed by water pumps allowing ships to park below the SBX.
pedestrian — I have no quarrel with the notion of an SBX, it just seems like we’re deploying the wrong system to the wrong environment. Why use a floating radar in some of the roughest seas in the world when you could easily deploy a stronger system on a nearby island?
Like I said before, the SBX would probably be more useful in calmer waters, like the Sea of Japan, the Med or the eastern Indian Ocean. Planning doesn’t seem to be the MDA’s strong suit sometimes. I guess that’s what happens when the legislative and executive branches constantly throw money at your organization, but exercise very little oversight.
Robot Economist,
“I have no quarrel with the notion of an SBX, it just seems like we’re deploying the wrong system to the wrong environment”.
You are correct — it just SEEMS that way. You have posed and answered your own question. The Sea of Japan, the Med and the Eastern Indian Ocean are exactly where we need this station and the likely destination for them.
And that pad is bigger than it looks — plenty big enough for a CH-47 or Osprey.
Why is the government allowing this system to travel. The system still need to be inspected for possible malfunctions. Why send the system to the severe weather conditions like Alaska.
This system should be placed somewhere between
Korea and the United States.
No one has directly addressed the question as to “Why wasn’t the SBX built on Adak”?
Answer: It is true that “mobility” is a positive factor for placing the X-band radar on a floating platform, but only indirectly. The SBX is designed to defend the United States from ballistic warheads that are deployed from a missile launched from the DPRK. For such a purpose, putting the SBX in or around the Sea of Japan is a waste of effort (remember the SBX is designed to “see a softball at 4,000 km”). The United States has been able to detect the launch of missiles for many years (launching an ICBM requires a lot of energy
Sounds foolhardy and expensive at best. Not knowing the basics of this platform and knowing radar — is it possible for a moving platform to acquire a target and track that target while the target is also moving through space at an accelerated rate of speed. This platform is early warning and nothing else. Early warning simply alerts remote controlling activities of an impending threat. History of this type of military activity is knee-deep in archives. It would appear PR was deeply at work here instead of common sense.
g
Art,
Regarding your question, “is it possible for a moving platform to acquire a target and track that target while the target is also moving?” The answer is yes — see the movie “Top Gun,” for example. Of course, the maximum speed of the SBX will be several orders of magnitude less than an aircraft.
Regarding the rest of your question, “…through space at an accelerated rate of speed.” The answer is also yes, and the SBX could do so, but in any envisioned scenario of a ballistic warhead from the PDRK, the SBX will never have to do so. That is, “ballistic” means the warhead is traveling at whatever velocity it had when it was deployed, and its path is determined (and set) by classical Newtonian physics.
Hitting a bullet (the warhead or target) with another bullet (the interceptor) that can change direction (as is the case here; the interceptor can maneuver as it approaches the ballistic warhead) is difficult. Hitting a bullet that can change direction with another bullet that can change direction is more difficult (though theoretically not impossible).
Regarding your assertion that, “This platform is early warning and nothing else. Early warning simply alerts remote controlling activities of an impending threat,” is simply incorrect. This is an X-band radar (very short wavelength). An X-band radar has the capability to detect, of course, but no one would build an X-band radar for the sole purpose of detecting something (its “eyesight” is too narrow for that; an “early warning” radar uses electromagnetic radiation with a much longer wavelength which can “sweep” much larger volumes of space per unit time). Far more importantly, however, for the people who live on the west coast of the United States, a powerful X-band radar can track objects. In this particular case, the SBX can track objects as small as a softball at 4,000 km distance.
Prior to about 1990 (that is, prior to the collapse of the former Soviet Union) and the days of “mutually assured destruction,” neither the Soviet Union nor the United States needed to know precisely where a ballistic warhead was located in space nor where it was precisely going to land, because there was no defense against a ballistic warhead (in fact, there was a treaty to INSURE that neither country had such a defense). Each country just needed enough warning and a rough estimation of impact points to “flush their bombers and their missiles” before the “counterforce” warheads destroyed the other country’s countering ability. This military capability was generally known as having a “launch on warning” capability. Nuclear warheads targeted either other nuclear weapons (“counterforce”) or population centers and other places of high value (“countervalue”). Hence, “early warning radars” were needed to avoid giving the adversary a “first strike capability” against its nuclear weapons — “early warning radars” provided the “launch on warning” capability. The advent of very difficult to detect submarines that could launch nuclear weapons provided the capability of an “assured second strike,” as did mobile land-based nuclear weapons.
Today, however, the FSU is not a threat to launch nuclear weapons at the United States (or probably anyone else for that matter). But rogue states, which are not deterred by “mutually assured destruction” are a threat. Hence, the need for a missile defense system that can protect the United States from the DPRK (and the need for an X-band radar somewhere along the straightline trajectory — the closer to the midpoint of that trajectory, the better — between the DPRK and the United States). In the not too distant future, additional radars (and interceptor sites) will probably be needed to defend against ballistic nuclear warheads headed into the east coast of the United States (launched, say, from the vicinity of Iran).
I was stationed in the Aleutians some years ago (actually two dif–
ferent tours). Why anyone believes that the area is the place to
locate a structure the size of the XBR is beyond belief. Odds are
that it’ll spend more time being towed back to Pearl for mainten–
ance than it will be “on station” in Adak’s Kuluk Bay. By the way,
the people at the Honolulu newspaper who have written so much
about the XBR need to understand that Adak is not, repeat, not
at the “end of the Aleutian chain.”
Well,
Greetings from the sbx-1. All I have to say is:
A. You guys are bickering about things you have no say in at all.
B. It was designed by more than just old military retirees.
C. This thing sucks a ton of juice.
D. Its all classified.
HAHA I know you won
The simple fact is, it’s useless. No one is launching ICBMs when all you need is a sub launched mach 2.5 cruise missile to do the job. Cheaper, almost impossible to spot when launched, impossible to spot when flying VERY low, and very accurate, destructive and threatening. ICBM’s are good for inducing fear and little else. Do you really think North Korea is planning to attack the US with an ICBM? How nuts and paranoid is that? Iran? What’s to gain for them? Smuggled suitcase nukes is where it’s at. It is recognized that the single biggest hazard in the world are the “loose” nukes of the old Soviet Union. Yet, we’re spending nothing to recover, protect or purchase them. That’s because no one makes billions off doing that. The point of modern warfare is profit. NEVER FORGET THAT. It’s the basis for all the wars going on right now. PROFIT. Period. After all, who is on the Board of Directors of the biggest arms dealers in the world…the Bush families, the bin Ladin families and the Tony Blair group. Sound familiar? Check it out yourself. PROFIT is the goal of 9–11, the invasion of Iraq, Afghanistan, etc. (Ahmed Karzai was the UNOCAL oil company representative who was negotiating with the Taliban for the oil pipeline he immediately signed on for after being put in as the US puppet.) What does this have to do with the SBX? This system is the most expensive they could come up with. That’s the whole reason for it.