This article first appeared in Aerospace Daily & Defense Report.
The U.S. Missile Defense Agency is refining some advanced concepts for the SM-3 interceptor to attack intercontinental ballistic missiles.
These include designs for lighter weight kill vehicles, and possibly a new propulsion system for the kill vehicle as well as the missile’s upper stage.
MDA is looking at introducing liquid propulsion into the kill vehicle design, partly because the plan to move the SM-3 to land for the Aegis Ashore European defense architecture would allow the use of hypergolic propellants, which are banned for ship-based usage.
“We know from past work on the EKV [Exoatmospheric Kill Vehicle] that liquid propulsion gives us all sorts of flexibility. We can turn it on when we need it and we can turn it off when we want to shut it off,” says Rich Matlock, MDA director of advanced programs. The EKV is the kill vehicle built by Raytheon and used for the Ground-Based Midcourse Defense (GMD) interceptors at Ft. Greely, Alaska, and Vandenberg Air Force Base, Calif. EKV would be the kill vehicle today that would be used if an ICBM were launched at the United States. The SM-3 lacks the range and speed needed to kill a long-range missile.
A solid propellant such as that used in the SM-3 kill vehicle design burns steadily until it is expended, limiting its flexibility. With a liquid fuel “if we have got to put some thrust into the system right now, we can put it in and shut it off and save some thrust for later … We can wait for a long period of time between those pulses,” Matlock says.
Read the rest of this story, see how the US and its allies up north are planning for Aghanistan, see how wacky the Polar Kiwis are and ride the bubble with Spanish subs from our friends at Aviation Week, exclusively on Military.com.
– Christian
{ 15 comments… read them below or add one }
No worries, enemies of Freedom….Obama will soon kill this ICBM killer.
I thought Obama was developing it to shoot down our own ICBMs.
Oh, I'm sorry. I thought, "You can't hit a bullet with bullet !!!!1!!" Guess that's only true with a Republican in the White House. Douchebags.
I like Raytheon even though they're a member of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR – the billionaire supporters of Obama and Hillary group that networks with Secretaries of State, Defense, Treasury, Commerce, Presidents, Big Corporations, Prime Ministers, etc.). Most CFR Corporations are for the birds and into Civilian rather than Military Strategy and the U.N. and World Government, but Raytheon is better as of now.
Osher Doctorow
Good Morning Folks,
Just a question for now, is Raytheon competing with itself, how about the Patriot 3 system that Raytheon is trying to market internationally? Is this the reason that last week Japan put its Ages 4 program BMD and SM-3 missile buy on hold?
ALLONS,
Byron Skinner
Japan has a new pacifist government in place / budget issues. SM-3 / BMD there is to defend against North Korea, that would work well. That was my basic understanding of that hold.
The Patriot only works against tactical threats in the terminal phase(when the missile has fully arched and is coming down). *Completely Speculating* but it could probably hit an ICBM that was aimed for its coverage zone. So unless you put hundreds / thousands of patriots in interlocking coverage zones you are in trouble.
Patriot was designed to shoot down aircraft, it does that and shooting down short range missiles well.
SM-3 is somewhat better off and can take out threats in the mid-course range. Doesn't really work if ICBMs fly high in the atmosphere out of range.
This is all a R&D racket. The SM-3 is far too small to reach ICBMs, and they know that. Tweaking the engines will help little, but it will enrich insiders.
Byron, if you mean the Patriot PAC-3, it is in no way a direct competitor to the Standard SM-3. You can read up on it in Wiki. The short version is that it is a relatively short ranged "tactical" missile. The Japanese already use Patriot so that would not be a likely reason, by itself, to hold off buying Aegis Ashore.
I have to agree with Wes & bdwilcox. Obama would rather stimulate the White Flag industry.
Rasheri, West, bdwilcox, super posts! Keep this up, and we may have to charge admissions :>)
Osher Doctorow
Author of article apparently never heard of Polaris, Poseidon, or Trident I or II as to its ability to terminate solid fuel thrust.
Right. As far back as the 1960's a means had been found to shut off solid propellant rockets, and was written up in open source publications citing its use on Polaris missiles. It involved detonating a charge whose shock wave disrupted the combustion layer and put it out.
Why do we need a missile defense shield, with the "Annointed One" in the Oval Office, our old "enemies" will start fawning all over us and peace will come to this troubled world. Sorry, I almost puked up my breakfast.
It wouldn't be too small as a space based solution.
Why wont raytheon consider a combination of both solid and liquid propellants in the same missile, methinks this is a good alternative. consider the versatility of a sea based platform, it portends all sorts of possibility for BMD.