This article first appeared in AviationWeek.com.
Because of budget constraints, the U.S. should invest in just a single boost-phase missile defense system, the former director of the Missile Defense Agency (MDA) says.
“I don’t believe we need to carry dual boost phase missile defense capability,” “I think we need to have either an operationally effective Airborne Laser [ABL] or an operationally effective Kinetic Energy Interceptor [KEI],” retired Air Force Lt. Gen. Henry “Trey” Obering said April 3. “I would go with one of those, not both,” he told a news conference organized by an advocacy group ahead of an announced rocket launch by North Korea.
Obering, who joined the Missile Defense Advocacy Alliance shortly after retiring from the military, said he favored the ABL, a modified Boeing 747-400F equipped with a powerful chemical laser, “if it proves to be operationally affordable.” Otherwise, “KEI is the only alternative,” although it is still in development and not expected to be effective against missiles in all phases of their flight path. Obering noted Northrop Grumman’s KEI was developed as an alternative to ABL because the flying laser was considered a high-risk technology. ABL is slated for a test of the entire weapon system against a ballistic missile later this year.
Obering also said he strongly favored investment in a satellite sensor system, like Northrop’s Space Tracking and Surveillance System (STSS), to track ballistic missiles from launch to destruction or impact. “That’s critically important in being able to deal with more complex threats,” Obering said. For the same reason he favored funding the Multiple Kill Vehicle, calling it a good path to follow in the near term “even in a resource-constrained environment.” Obering favors combining the ABL and STSS with the proven shipborne Aegis missile system and ground-based midcourse interceptors as part of a layered approach to missile defense.
Boost-phase defensive weapons that can destroy an attacking missile shortly after its launch, or boost, phase should be part of that layered approach, according to other missile defense advocates. At a gathering on Capitol Hill, defense contractors promoted their respective companies’ answer to boost-phase missile defense.
Read the rest of this story, read about the NLOS-C’s biggest defender and see how LockMart is pushing for Lightnings in Oz from our friends at Aviation Week, exclusively on Military.com.
– Christian
{ 16 comments… read them below or add one }
I think the bigger question should be what systems can get within range of the missile site, and be relatively safe from enemy action.
Agreed.
I think both these projects should continue to run… if not then there should be new projects started.
If we want to get out of this economic problem… cutting back in the areas where new inventions come from is illogical and just stupid!
Sure you will reduce the size of the hole, but the ship will still sink… unlike if you leave the hole, but you learn how to reverse the flow! Essentially the first (i think it was… not 100% sure) economics computer calculated it’s money flow in this way, using liquid.
I have not yet heard a good argument against the fact that our current plans for dealing with a missile threat is to bomb the launch sites before it is launched. Iran and North Korea have primitive missiles that take time to position and fuel. If they ever readied them in anger, its doubtful we would wait so long to attack them that we’d have to intercept them mid air. So why do we need these systems again?
I agree. If we can have one system that’s 75% or 80% effective – isn’t that good enough?
Between LA, Sacramento, San Diego and San Francisco – 3 out of 4 cities would probably survive an attack.
It is probably too expensive to save all four.
@James M – taking it out on the launch pad would be the wisest course of action but would equate to “pre-emption” and that has become a four letter word the last few years.
Countries like Iran know our precision strike capabilities so I’m sure would start a long disinformation campaign about “peaceful satellites” prior to any launch making it very difficult to strike the missile.
I far as I could tell by watching the news and reading the blogs no one knew what sat atop of the North Korean missile. Unless we have perfect intelligence that WMD’s are loaded a president would find taking preemptive action a tough call, not an impossible call but ready to vigorously defend taking it out prior to launch.
I have not yet heard a good argument against the fact that our current plans for dealing with a missile threat is to bomb the launch sites before it is launched. Iran and North Korea have primitive missiles that take time to position and fuel. If they ever readied them in anger, its doubtful we would wait so long to attack them that we’d have to intercept them mid air. So why do we need these systems again?
Posted by: James M. at April 8, 2009 02:10 PM
……….because its too easy to put a theatre sized missle in a shipping container on a boat and fire it from a shorter distance.also sub launched missles abound in todays world.
I think most of us on this form are stuck in the now with regards to missile defense.
First, yes it does take time to fuel the missiles currently, but if left to continue to develop, they may be able to refine the engineering processes rather quickly after they have the bugs worked out. Lets say around 2012 – 2015 they may be able to fuel discretely or silo these missiles, especially if they are helping each other. Would we preemptively destroy silos too? If not for fueling a missile then definitely not for silo construction.
Second, Lets be real here the layered defense approach I think is more to protect from mass attack. We aren’t talking about today, but with the abl and the ke you would be much more capable of stopping a mass attack. It seems some think that MAD is going to work forever on China and Russia, but it seems that they are trying to get around this, seeing how they are teaming up and hacking us, doesn’t give me to good of a feeling about the next few years. I especially don’t trust the Start negotiations, I think they are double dealing. If we aren’t going to keep the nukes it only makes sense to defend against it.
RIGHT NOW would be a good time to test fire that ABL. What the hell is taking so long. Isn’t it all assembled and everything? Jesus, just fly it around and shoot a ground target or something.
I’ve always wondered the max range of the SM-3. I think it’d be the “first line of defense” for America’s anti-missile system (assuming your enemy does not just launch by surprise).
Pro: International waters. American sea dominance.
Con: Sunburn missiles, ineffective against inland targets. Can this engage boost phase?
Airborne Laser
Pros: Quicker to deploy than ships. Smaller, easier to make lots of; more can be in more places.
Con: Limited range? Different engagement window (laser in nose, would it have to point at targets, at least to a degree?)
Easy to shoot down, cannot penetrate too far into enemy country without SEAD (which limits its effectiveness).
KEI works in boost phase but it’d have to be deployed nearby to exploit this boost phase ability…basically right in their backyard? When is THAT gonna happen?
I suppose a laser-based platform is the best bet when it comes to engaging enemy missiles pre-emptively…go high altitude and it’s easier to “shoot down”…combine with a tag team of SM-3 shooting vessels shooting up, both near the target and during terminal descent.
Hell, we need ground-mounted SM-3s (or equivalent). Unsure how Patriot does in comparison to SM-3/THAAD etc.
I can’t believe the ABL is still hanging on, even Gates has so much as said it’s a non-starter. One of the dumbest most expensive ideas ever to come out of the Air Force.
So let’s see we’re going to know about when a ‘rogue state’ is going to launch. maybe, maybe not but in the case of the NK launch we did.
So we deploy the ABL. And its backup (what if something goes wrong with the primary?). Then of course you’ll need at least one more ABL so you can rotate an airborne one out due to crew fatigue. And the tanker fleet to support it. And the fighters to protect the ABLs and tankers. And more tankers for the fighters.
All in the hopes that you’re going to get that magic shot.
Sweet, a debate.
Answer 2 “……….because its too easy to put a theatre sized missle in a shipping container on a boat and fire it from a shorter distance.also sub launched missles abound in todays world.”
1) Neither of these systems would stop either of these kinds of attacks anyway. You can’t afford to have a 747 with a laser circling each city, and KEI is not designed to stop rockets launched from a ships off the coast.
Answer 2
“@James M – taking it out on the launch pad would be the wisest course of action but would equate to “pre-emption” and that has become a four letter word the last few years.
Countries like Iran know our precision strike capabilities so I’m sure would start a long disinformation campaign about “peaceful satellites” prior to any launch making it very difficult to strike the missile.
I far as I could tell by watching the news and reading the blogs no one knew what sat atop of the North Korean missile. Unless we have perfect intelligence that WMD’s are loaded a president would find taking preemptive action a tough call, not an impossible call but ready to vigorously defend taking it out prior to launch.”
1) This argument is right only for the particularly strange scenario of North Korea launches a single surprise nuclear attack against a U.S. city without first being in crisis negotiations. North Korea has nukes to 1) Deter attack and 2) get better bargaining leverage during negotiations. A surprise attack would use up its bargaining chip, and guarantee certain annihilation.
2) So the more likely case is there is a crisis, U.S. forces are on alert, and the North Koreans wheel out their missile as a costly signal of resolve. Satellite, warhead, or cotton candy, we’d blow it up on the pad.
Answer 2
“First, yes it does take time to fuel the missiles currently, but if left to continue to develop, they may be able to refine the engineering processes rather quickly after they have the bugs worked out. Lets say around 2012 – 2015 they may be able to fuel discretely or silo these missiles, especially if they are helping each other. Would we preemptively destroy silos too? If not for fueling a missile then definitely not for silo construction.”
1) Yes, we’d destroy their silos too.
2) They’re probably further away than this on solid fueled rockets and miniaturizing nuclear warheads to sit on top of them.
3) Worst case scenario, we’re in a position of mutual deterrence, and they get a little more bargaining leverage. What ever we’d give them in concessions would be much cheaper than a large worthless NMD system.
The ABL don’t work, which is why they will not test it. They’ve known since the beginning that the laser beam loses strength and an aircraft if not stable enough to keep the beam focused, not to mention it is worthless in clouds.
The SM3 can reach 100 miles max. An ICBM flies an arc around 200 miles high, so it can only get it in the boost phase. If the missile is fired 100 miles from the coast, forget it. Even near the coast, the ship must be very close. Its all bogus, except for theater defense where the missiles fly lower. G2mil had articles about this.
@Roger: your numbers are wrong… ICBM max altitude is around 1200km (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intercontinental_ballistic_missile) which is about 750miles.
As for the SM-3, I don’t know what the max is, but it’s above 100 miles (it hit the satellite at ~150 miles: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SM-3).
Awful close for a satellite?
Then again, that satellite was going to re-enter and burn up anyways…
So yeah, SM-3 is only good if they launch near the coast or the missiles land near coastal targets. Otherwise some sort of ABM using something similar to SM-3 must defend every valuable target from attack (groan).
I thought that they had developed an air to air missile that could be fired from F-15s at ICBMs…don’t recall specifics (last ditch?)
I love my new Uggs. I ordered a size seven since I wear a 7