Japan Deploys Ship Amid N. Korea Report (Aegis Destroyer)

I think the Aegis missile system can shoot the North Korean missile down. I hope they do.

Good for them! I hope they demonstrate the Aegis capabilities as well.

This is going to get interesting especially with the U.S. resuming surveillance flights.

Just how big are Kim's hangy-downy-things?

It's good to have Japan as an ally. If they feel a threat to their security, they have the ability to greatly expand their military. And, they are friendly to the U.S.

It would be interesting to see how Japan would react if someone tried a "suicide" bombing mission on a building in Tokyo.

"It would be interesting to see how Japan would react if someone tried a "suicide" bombing mission on a building in Tokyo."

I don't expect the UN would be involved in their reaction.

I believe I saw something to the effect that their already the fourth highest defence spenders in the world. What they lack in numbers is more than made up by professionalism.

"battleship"

?

So, is it a Battleship or a Destroyer? Stupid AP.

It is a destroyer. Japan's Aegis ships are DDGs (guided missile destroyers).

Yes, Aegis can shoot down missles, even theater based missles are taken out. Shooting down their missle would should quit down NK saber rattling.

> I think the Aegis missile system can shoot the
> North Korean missile down.

The current software and missiles installed on US
Aegis cruisers might be capable of that, but I
wouldn't assume that we've upgraded the Japanese
Aegis ships to that level of capability.

Nonetheless, these PRK provocations do seem like an
ideal opportunity to test ABM systems.

It's under development in the US, requires a specific STANDARD missle, and I'm fairly sure they can't shoot it down currently. Or would have very little chance of doing so.

There are no battleships in service anywhere in the World. The last two were the New Jersey and Iowa, now out of service (almost certainly for the last time.)

A battleship refers to a specific type of vessel that has to be a specific size or larger, be heavily armored, have guns 11" or larger.

Aegis is the group of combat weapons on board. Can be put on lots of different ships. Our latest is the Arle Burke destroyers. They are fitted with aegis weapons pack.

Good for tracking missiles, but doubt they can shoot them down.

Note how important missile defense is getting. Better put the pedal down on the development RSN.

snooker

This is a Japanese Battleship:

"A battleship refers to a specific type of vessel that has to be a specific size or larger, be heavily armored, have guns 11" or larger."

We have a battleship (USS Alabama) here in Mobile Bay.

Yes, I understand the difference between battleships and destroyers. I just found it exasperating that the AP doesn't.

Aviation Week & Space Technology:
February 4, 2002

Intercept Starts Long Road
To Sea-Based Missile Defense
ROBERT WALL/WASHINGTON

The successful hit-to-kill intercept by the U.S. Navy's ballistic missile defense system marks the first step in what is being billed as a meticulous process to deploy a sea-based anti-missile shield.

The USS Lake Erie fired the three-stage Standard Missile SM-3 interceptor with the kinetic-energy kill vehicle about 8 min. after launch of the Aries target.

The intercept of an Aries ballistic missile target came in the fourth of a nine-test series. The Jan. 25 mission (FM-2) was billed as merely a "fly-by," but the Pentagon and contractors expected to hit the target.All the key components were involved--from the Aegis radar to the kill vehicle, known as the Lightweight Exoatmospheric Projectile (Leap).

This was the first time the kill vehicle flew beyond the atmosphere. The test's main goal was to "characterize" the kill vehicle to determine whether its navigation and control mechanisms worked properly, said Navy Capt. P.M. (Mac) Grant, the project director. Those objectives were "achieved quite handily" and, he added, "the initial perception is it was a pretty nominal flight."

It marked the second consecutive success for the sea-based midcourse project--formerly known as Theater Wide.However, the Navy has been slow to test. The prior success--a non-intercept checkout of the missile--occurred a year ago.

One reason the program progressed slowly was due to development difficulties with Leap's solid divert-attitude control system. But those problems have now been overcome, and the missile and kill vehicle needed for the next trial are already being readied in ground testing, according to Ed Miyashiro, Raytheon's vice president for Surface Navy Air Defense Systems. He noted that there should be little problem in achieving the Missile Defense Agency's goal of three tests this year. In fact, he says more may be possible.

Despite the recent boost, the Navy would like to avoid increasing complexity in flight testing. Instead, it will opt for a more cautious approach. "We want to go slow. This is new technology that we're breaking in," Grant stressed, adding that "we are on the first steps of a long path."

The Aries target was launched at 9 p.m. EST from Kauai, Hawaii, which is part of the Navy's Pacific Missile Range Facility. The missile was detected and tracked by the S-band SPY-1B Aegis radar on the USS Lake Erie that was about 300 naut. mi. from the launch site. The Aegis combat system then determined the proper time to launch the Standard Missile SM-3 interceptor, which was fired about 8 min. after the target. Intercept occurred at 9:18 p.m. EST.

In the event, the kill vehicle had a relatively easy task. The radar and SM-3 interceptor placed the kill vehicle in a position so it spotted the Aries immediately when it activated the imaging infrared seeker, Miyashiro said. An initial read-out from the test indicated the performance of the three-stage SM-3 and the kill vehicle was nominal, he added. Closing velocity at the time of impact was around 4 km. per second.

The test success comes at an opportune time for the main parties involved--the Navy, Lockheed Martin and Raytheon. All three were still licking their wounds following the demise of the shorter range Area Wide ballistic missile defense program, which the Pentagon canceled late last year. Miyashiro contends that the project had been on track to achieve a similar intercept success later this year. The Pentagon cited major cost increases as the reason for the termination.

THE NAVY WANTS to achieve at least two intercepts in the Aegis Leap Intercept (ALI) series, which essentially consists of repeats of the same engagement to build confidence in the system. If a second intercept is achieved before all nine tests are completed, the Pentagon may abandon the current set of tests and move to more complex targets. There are five more ALI tests planned, which would conclude in 2003. Grant stresses that he first wants to prove the system works reliably before making the task more difficult.

One of the problems with moving beyond the ALI tests is that there is not enough money for the follow-on program in which the missile defense system would be pitted against more complex scenarios, including countermeasures. If success early in the program prompts the Pentagon to cut ALI testing short and move on, the remaining money and hardware could be applied to the follow-on efforts, Grant said.

Either way, much hard work remains. For instance, the Navy is still investigating design changes to the kill vehicle, particularly when it comes to the divert-attitude control system. Grant also noted that the full capabilities of the system haven't been tested yet, so more changes may loom.

Additionally, the software used to run the Aegis system in the last test was designed for ballistic missile defense and has not been fully integrated with the code used to run Aegis' traditional anti-air warfare mission. However, Chris Myer, who oversees Lockheed Martin's Aegis weapon system efforts, noted that there was some anti-air warfare capability on the Lake Erie. To underscore the point, Grant added that the Lake Erie, which is the designated test ship, has remained combat capable and exercises with battle groups when it isn't needed to support testing.

A further challenge lies ahead when the Navy and Missile Defense Agency move toward engaging targets that use decoys. The Pentagon has been slow to increase the complexity of the tests for its missile defense programs, trying to prove first the basic functioning of its systems.

For instance, on the land-based midcourse system, the Missile Defense Agency waited to achieve several successful intercepts before making the target set more complex for the next intercept. In that test, slated for this month, the agency plans to add two small decoy balloons to the single, larger balloon used solely so far.

The Navy success also comes at a time when the sea-based project has taken on a higher profile in the Defense Dept.'s overall missile defense architecture. The U.S. decision to pull out of the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty opens the door for a much larger role for ship-based defense. Failure would have merely inflamed critics who already charged that the Bush Administration prematurely abandoned the 30-year-old arms-control agreement before technology was ready. Tests will continue to be ABM-compliant until June, when the required six months will have passed since the U.S. initiated the treaty-withdrawal process.

The Defense Dept. also no longer views the Navy project as merely a theater ballistic missile defense effort. While the Pentagon in general has blurred the lines between theater and national systems, that has been the case in particular with the Navy system.

However, Miyashiro notes it would be a mistake to slow the theater defense capabilities to develop a more capable, national defense system. One concern is that rather than fielding hardware that could be put into users' hands, planners will continuously redefine what they want and never field anything.

Moreover, the existing design already incorporates a lot of features that lend themselves to quickly deploying a contingency capability, Miyashiro said. Among them are multi-pulse motors in the second stage and the kill vehicle. Last month's intercept was not even needed in this test for the kill vehicle.

One of the goals of a "rigorous flight test program" is to demonstrate that in case of a crisis the system could be deployed, Grant said. The first intercept was "the first step in proving that," but more tests are needed, he added.

The Pentagon and contractors also are keeping their eyes on the longer range mission, though. For Raytheon, that means exploring ideas such as expanding the range of the SM-3 to be able to engage ICBMs. One possible solution would be to enlarge the second-stage motor from 13.7 in. in diameter to 21 in., matching the first stage.

LOCKHEED MARTIN ALSO is devising plans for a more capable radar system, which will be needed both for the high-end portion of the theater defense mission and, in particular, if the sea-based system is targeted against ICBMs. The more powerful system will come in the form of a solid-state S-band, termed the SPY-1E, said Myer. The radar will deliver more power and be able to better discriminate targets.

The company has been working on the new radar since 1999. An initial hardware demonstration is planned for later this year, with the first prototype slated to be ready around 2004-05.

Moreover, the demise of the ABM Treaty will enable the Pentagon to use ship-based radar to cue ground-based or other missile defenses. Such a command-and-control scheme was specifically proscribed under the arms control arrangement.

There are no battleships in service anywhere in the World.

It is interesting to note, battleships were used in the first Gulf War.