Missiles For The Masses

The Strategy Page ^ | 03/03/2010 | The Strategy Page

[ErnstStavroBlofeld]

The U.S. Army is becoming a major buyer, and user, of guided missiles. In the next year, the army will spend nearly $2 billion on development and procurement of missile systems. Most of this is for missile systems that are not needed right now, but would be if the right foe were encountered. For example, $480 million is being spent on Patriot Pac 3 anti-missile missiles. The $3.3 million PAC 3 missile is smaller than the cheaper anti-aircraft version (PAC 2), thus a Patriot launcher can hold sixteen PAC 3 missiles, versus four PAC 2s. A PAC 2 missile weighs about a ton, a PAC 3 weighs about a third of that. The PAC 3 has a shorter range (about 20 kilometers) versus 70 kilometers for the anti-aircraft version. The heavy investment in PAC 3 is justified because these are combat proven, and would be useful against the many SCUD type ballistic missiles owned by Iran, North Korea and Iran. The army is spending $117 million on SLAMRAAM, a mobile anti-aircraft missile system using AMRAAM air-to-air missiles (another combat proven system). Seems simple enough, but SLAMRAAM has been in development for nine years. The army has been criticized for taking so long, especially since the Norwegians put together such a system in the late 1990s. This is what inspired the U.S. Army and Marines to do the same. But it was not a high priority project. The main technical problem with these systems is integrating the missiles control system into an air defense radar network. The Norwegians simply used the older HAWK missile system (which Patriot replaced). The U.S. Department of Defense was supposed to just adapt the Norwegian system for American use. The Norwegian version of SLAMRAAM has been adopted by several other countries (including Spain and Kuwait).

[bayareablues]

Gives me a warm, fuzzy feeling inside...

[prophetic]

The IDF has developed an fully automated active anti-missile system to protect their armor against the likes of the many RPG's in the hands of their local terrorists. It uses computer guided rockets that intercepts the incoming RPG's and detonate them before they gets withing 30 yards of the vehicle.

Similarly the USA is trying to make a version of it howbeit our system will create a "Blast Curtain" within the last foot of the vehicle so as to deflect the incoming rocket/rpg!!

I would personally have the incoming rocket destroyed at 30 yards out from my vehicle rather than with 12 inches of my door!!

Similarly I would rather they destroy all incoming rockets or ICBM's at a further distance than within the lower atmosphere!! Something has really gone wrong with our military thinking in the last years....

[ErnstStavroBlofeld]

I agree. We should destroy all missiles before they seperate the body from the warhead called the Boost Phase Intercept.During boost phase, a missile is a relatively large and vulnerable target,it does not maneuver, and its exhaust plume presents a very high infrared signature. Boost Phase Intercept concept is the only means of destroying hostile missiles in enemy territory. We have been thinking along the lines(as you mentioned)of getting the target at the end.

[arthurus]

I bet the compassionate PC thinking is that the missile is not dangerous in boost phase because it is still over the other country’s territory and we don’t really know at that point whether it is aimed at us. Actually we should wait for the first one to hit then give them a call and make sure they are serious and it wasn’t just an unfortunate mistake. Then, of course, we have to consult with the JD attorneys. To be really correct about it we shouldn’t intercept until the target missile touches the ground, then destroy it before it explodes.