Het NAVO raketschild

[jurrien visser (JuVi op Twitter)]

The Failures of Missile Defense

Philip Coyle, July 26, 2012

Two recent scientific assessments of U.S. missile-defense efforts show that these programs are chasing scientific dead ends, unworkable concepts and a flawed overall architecture.

One assessment is the "Defense Science Board (DSB) Task Force Report on the Science and Technology Issues of Early Intercept Missile Defense Feasibility"; the other is a report by the National Research Council (NRC) of the National Academy of Sciences, "Making Sense of Missile Defense."

In some cases, the gap between what the Missile Defense Agency (MDA) has been touting and the scientific facts is astonishing. For example, in an August 2011 handout, the MDA says "We will achieve early intercept capability against MRBMs, IRBMs, and ICBMs from today's regional threats by 2020 or sooner."

But one month later, the DSB concluded that early intercept in and of itself "is not a useful objective for missile defense." In other words, DOD's own scientists had to point out how far MDA has strayed from the basic physics of its systems.

In a March 6, 2012, hearing of the Strategic Force Subcommittee of the House Committee on Armed Services, Rep. Loretta Sanchez (D-CA) noted that the DSB and the NRC had expressed concern about the overall effectiveness of U.S. missile defenses. In response, MDA chief Lt. Gen. Patrick O'Reilly referred to the Precision Tracking Space System (PTSS) as the solution to improve reliability and discrimination capabilities.

Presumably Lt. Gen. O'Reilly already knew that the NAS study had concluded that PTSS should be cancelled. The study noted that the PTSS "is too far away from the threat to provide useful discrimination data, does not avoid the need for overhead persistent infrared (OPIR) cueing, and is very expensive."

Once again, MDA's plans were at odds with practical physics.

MDA and its prime contractors, supported by many in Congress, are focused on producing and fielding hardware rather than facing up to the physical realities of missile defense.

In 2002, President Bush directed early deployment of the Ground-Based Midcourse Defense (GMD) system in Alaska and California by the end of 2004, allowing just two years for deployment. Subsequent flight tests showed this interim deployment was hardly even a scarecrow. Of seven flight-intercept tests since November 2004, five failed.

At its recent summit meeting in Chicago, NATO also succumbed to the imperative for early hardware deployment and resolved to "try to achieve initial operational capability by 2015" of the European Phased Adaptive Approach (EPAA) to "defend" Europe. But the DSB reports that the Aegis SPY-1 radar "is inadequate to support the objective needs of the EPAA mission," that the TPY-2 land-based radar currently deployed in Turkey is in the wrong location, needs to be twice as big and mounted on a turntable so it can see in more than one direction.

Achieving effective missile-defense capability requires proven science. Without it, the current systems cannot overcome the fog and confusion of battle. Without it, deploying expensive hardware is throwing good money after bad.

The NRC recommends termination of Phase IV of the EPAA, which is intended to intercept longer-range Iranian missiles, assuming Iran ever develops such missiles. The NRC also reports on the shortcomings of the GMD system in Alaska and California. To overcome these problems, it recommends smaller, faster interceptors and a new East Coast site, perhaps in locations such as Fort Drum, New York, or Maine.

Perhaps most importantly, both studies point out that without the ability to discriminate enemy threat missiles from missile junk, chaff or decoys, U.S. missile defenses will not be effective.

Together, these studies make it clear that the current architecture of America's missile-defense systems needs to be rethought to be effective. MDA's plans are in turmoil, adding to costs and schedule delays and perpetuating the lack of physics integrity that has plagued these systems.

Nevertheless, the administration has announced plans for two new regional missile-defense systems (in addition to the EPAA), one to defend Iran's neighbors and another to defend North Korea's neighbors.

The administration and Congress need to take a deep breath and reexamine where the country is going with missile defense, applying the best science along the way. In the meantime, buying more flawed hardware won't help.

The Hon. Philip Coyle is the senior science fellow at the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation in Washington, DC. Previously, he was associate director for national security and international affairs at the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy under President Barack Obama.

http://nationalinterest.org/commentary/the-failures-missile-defense-7248

[jurrien visser (JuVi op Twitter)]

Raytheon awarded $925 million for advanced Standard Missile-3

TUCSON, Ariz., July 25, 2012 /PRNewswire via COMTEX/ -- The Missile Defense Agency awarded Raytheon Company /quotes/zigman/283276/quotes/nls/rtn RTN -0.42% a $925 million contract for development of the Standard Missile-3 Block IIA missile, which is a co-development effort between the U.S. and Japan.

"As the threat continues to evolve, so does our ability to counter that threat," said Dr. Taylor W. Lawrence, president of Raytheon Missile Systems. "We're honored to work with our Japanese allies to bring this next-generation defensive capability to the world."

Used by the U.S. and Japanese navies to destroy short- to intermediate-range ballistic missiles, the SM-3 is the only defensive weapon of its kind. The SM-3 Block IIA will have a 21-inch 2nd and 3rd stage rocket motor and a larger, more capable kinetic warhead.

On track for a 2018 deployment date, the missile is the third evolution of the SM-3 family of missiles and builds on the successful legacy of the first two variants: SM-3 Block IA and SM-3 Block IB. The SM-3 program has achieved 21 successful intercepts.

"The SM-3 IIA's larger rocket motors will allow for a greater defended area, which is an important factor when it comes to protecting both the U.S. and our NATO allies," said Wes Kremer, vice president of the Air and Missile Defense Systems product line for Raytheon Missile Systems.

SM-3 Block IA missiles are currently employed on Japan's Kongo-class ships. Raytheon has delivered more than 130 SM-3 variants to the U.S. and Japanese navies on time and on budget.

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/raytheon-awarded-925-million-for-advanced-standard-missile-3-2012-07-25

[jurrien visser (JuVi op Twitter)]

Aegis Gets A European Translation

July 1, 2012:

The Netherlands has hired defense contractor Thales to modify the radar and fire control systems on one of its De Zeven Provinciën class frigates so that it can fire SM-3 Block IB anti-missile missiles. The frigate's SMART-L and APAR radars would, like their Aegis counterparts on American warships, spot incoming missiles and guide the SM-3 to an interception. This project would produce the first European warship equipped to knock down ballistic missiles.
The 6,000 ton De Zeven Provinciën class frigates normally carry 32 SM-2 Block III anti-aircraft missiles. Some of these can be replaced with SM-3s. This anti-missile missile is also known as the RIM-161A. Usually it is just called the Standard Missile 3 (or SM-3). It has a range of over 500 kilometers and max altitude of over 160 kilometers. The Standard 3 is based on the anti-missile version of the Standard 2 (SM-2 Block IV). This SM-2 version turned out to be effective against shorter range ballistic missiles. One test saw a SM-2 Block IV missile destroy a warhead that was only 19 kilometers up. An SM-3 missile can destroy a warhead that is more than 200 kilometers up. But the SM-3 is only good for anti-missile work, while the SM-2 Block IV can be used against both ballistic missiles and aircraft. The SM-2 Block IV also costs less than half what an SM-3 costs.

The SM-3 has four stages. The first two boost the interceptor out of the atmosphere. The third stage fires twice to boost the interceptor farther beyond the earth's atmosphere. Prior to each motor firing it takes a GPS reading to correct course for approaching the target. The fourth stage is the 9 kg (20 pound) LEAP kill vehicle, which uses infrared sensors to close on the target and ram it.

The SM-3 was originally developed to operate on warships using the American Aegis radar and fire control system. To use the SM-3, the Aegis warships were equipped with the special software that enabled the AEGIS radar system to detect and track incoming ballistic missiles. Thales, which designed and installed similar (to Aegis) radar and fire control systems in European warships was able to modify these systems to handle the longer range SM-3 anti-missile missiles.

http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htada/articles/20120701.aspx

[jurrien visser (JuVi op Twitter)]

U.S. Missile Defense Plans Hinder New Arms Cuts - Russia

WASHINGTON, June 30 (RIA Novosti)
Russia will not start a new round of talks on further arms reductions until Washington changes its stance on the global deployment of U.S. missile defenses, especially in Europe, a senior Russian diplomat said.

U.S. officials have repeatedly urged Russia to continue discussions on arms cuts, including in conventional weapons, following the ratification of a new strategic arms reduction treaty (New START) in 2011.

"Our position is that in order to move forward [in nuclear and conventional arms cuts] we should implement the existing agreements [especially in the framework of the New START treaty]," Grigory Berdennikov, the Russian envoy to the International Atomic Energy Agency, said on Friday.

"But how are we supposed to move forward if the United States refuses to curb its missile defenses?" he said.

The missile defense issue has become a major stumbling block in the announced "reset" of relations between Moscow and Washington.

Russia retains staunch opposition to the planned deployment of U.S. missile defense systems near its borders, claiming they would be a security threat. The United States and NATO insist that the so-called "missile shield" would defend NATO members against missiles from North Korea and Iran and would not be directed at Russia.

Moscow insists it should receive legal guarantees from Washington that its European missile defense shield will not target Russia's strategic nuclear forces.

"We are certainly hoping that they [the Americans] will change their stance on missile defense, because at this point there is no progress [in missile defense talks] whatsoever," Berdennikov said. "We cannot do anything else while there is no clarity on missile defense issues."

The five Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT) nuclear-weapon states, or "P5," met in Washington on June 27-29 to continue discussions on issues related to nonproliferation, the peaceful uses of nuclear energy and disarmament, including confidence-building, transparency, and verification experiences.

http://en.ria.ru/russia/20120630/174322372.html

[KapiteinRob]

art. is opgeschoond.

[jurrien visser (JuVi op Twitter)]

Jurrien,

Ik wil je verzoeken om bij het kopieren van een artikel wel de rommel achterwege te laten.

Rob
Forumbeheerder

Helemaal overheen gelezen (er stond nog veel meer bagger). art. is opgeschoond.

[KapiteinRob]

Jurrien,

Ik wil je verzoeken om bij het kopieren van een artikel wel de rommel achterwege te laten.

Rob
Forumbeheerder

Buurt Dating BrabantDuizenden Leuke Singles met Foto. Meld Gratis aan en maak Nu je Date! Denbosch.StedenDating.nl/Chat+Date
Single Polish LadiesThousands of beautiful Polish women are looking for love now. Single-Baltic-Lady.com/Polish

[jurrien visser (JuVi op Twitter)]

Sea missiles being placed across Europe

WASHINGTON – As Russia continues to voice vehement opposition to a European anti-ballistic missile defense system, the United States has continued with work on the defensive shield by installing an Aegis Ashore system which normally goes onto ships, according to a report in Joseph Farah's G2 Bulletin.

The shield has been adapted for land-based use and will be deployed in Romania and Poland. It is looked upon as providing yet another level in a multi-layer defense system that protects against an attack from Iran. It also includes the Theater High-Altitude Area Defense system, or THAAD, and Patriot missile batteries.

With the Aegis system, Gen. Patrick O'Reilly, director of the Pentagon's Missile Defense Agency, said that a multi-layered effect can be achieved.

Russia, however, isn't standing still and intends to deploy its latest mobile S-400 missile defense system in the Baltic enclave of Kaliningrad. Russia may upgrade its own ballistic missiles with more advanced warheads.

The Russians also have issued a stark warning of a pre-emptive strike on the European facilities, even though analysts don't believe the Russians would carry out such a threat.

Such a warning, however, recently was made by Russian Chief of Defense Staff Gen. Nikolai Markarov, and many are taking it seriously.

http://www.wnd.com/2012/06/sea-missiles-being-placed-across-europe/

[Tanker]

Je kunt weer van alles uit zo'n filmpje halen...interesting...

Het zou mooi zijn als het werkend te krijgen is zoals op het filmpje, ben ook wel benieuwd wat het daadwerkelijke interceptie percentage is van inkomende vijandelijke raketten.
In de film is het natuurlijk altijd 100%....

[Elzenga]

Je kunt weer van alles uit zo'n filmpje halen...interesting...

[Ace1]

Zo zou dat raketschild moeten gaan werken.

[Nikehercules]

Ik denk terechte kritiek....en weer een punt waarmee bij "het publiek" de indruk ontstaat dat er bij defensie miljoenen "over de balk" worden gesmeten en daar dus bezuinigd kan worden.

Flauwekul, of je er nu tanks, 11 nieuwe chinooks of een raketschild voor aanschaft maakt niet uit. De aversie die je veelal hoort is totaal niet gebaseerd op ratio.

Je denk tocht niet dat de gemiddelde Nederlander na gedegen onderzoek voor zichzelf bepaald welke defensie uitgaven er al dan niet door de beugel kunnen?
De gemiddelde Nederlander ziet zijn inkomsten slinken en de rekeningen opstapelen, kijkt vervolgens nog eens naar buiten en denk ''nee geen oorlog''.

er zijn meer zinvolle bestemmingen dan dit zogenaamde "schild". Enige voordeel is dat de radarsystemen verder kunnen kijken...mogelijk handig bij de gewone oorlogsvoering.

Van het nut of noodzaak van dat raketschild ben ik nog niet overtuigd, maar de LCF'en zijn na modificatie prima inzetbaar voor theater defense. (als die sm-3 er tenmiste nog ooit komt)
Dus los van het raketschild lijkt mij het een prima modificatie.

[Lex]

Oke maar hoe zit dat dan met Spanje die 5 F100 Alvaro de Bazan Fregatten heeft die uitgerust zijn met  Aegis Combat System  en AN/SPY-1 radar? en hoever zijn de Britse Type 45 Destroyers en de Franse-Italiaanse Horizon Destroyer die uitgerust zijn met de Thales S1850M een gemodifceerde versie van Smart L bedoeld voor de Aster 30 missile de europese tegenhanger van SM 2/3?

Hebben die landen toezeggingen gedaan tav het raketschild?

[Ace1]

Of zou het meer te maken hebben met het dekkingsgebied welke door de LCF'n gegeven kunnen worden?
De VS stationeren hiervoor een aantal eenheden extra in Rota, om de zuidflank te bewaken.

Oke maar hoe zit dat dan met Spanje die 5 F100 Alvaro de Bazan Fregatten heeft die uitgerust zijn met  Aegis Combat System  en AN/SPY-1 radar? en hoever zijn de Britse Type 45 Destroyers en de Franse-Italiaanse Horizon Destroyer die uitgerust zijn met de Thales S1850M een gemodifceerde versie van Smart L bedoeld voor de Aster 30 missile de europese tegenhanger van SM 2/3?

[Lex]

Het dikgedrukte (door mij) verwondert me nogal....Noordflank Navo-gebied? Ik dacht dat de Iraanse dreiging vanuit het Zuid-Oosten komt...of is dit tegen Noord-Korea gericht?! of toch Rusland? of foutje Han ten Broeke?

Of zou het meer te maken hebben met het dekkingsgebied welke door de LCF'n gegeven kunnen worden?
De VS stationeren hiervoor een aantal eenheden extra in Rota, om de zuidflank te bewaken.