Article Archive: Current 1999 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics
Air Defense: Aegis Ascendant and Amphibious
   Next Article → WARPLANES: Japan Resists The Growing Russian Intrusion
November 13, 2010: In late October, a Japanese Kongo class destroyer shot down a ballistic missile off Hawaii, using its Aegis anti-missile system. That makes three successful Aegis tests for Japan's Aegis equipped destroyers, out of four attempts. Overall, Aegis has been successful in 85 percent of its test firings.

Currently, the U.S. Navy has 20 ships with the Aegis anti-missile system. Within three years, the navy will have 27 such ships. But in the meantime, the Aegis ABM (Anti-Ballistic Missile)s are in high demand by U.S. commanders, seeking some protection from hostile missiles in their area of operation. Japan has six Aegis ABM equipped warships, and these are used to provide protection from any North Korean mischief. But six isn't enough, and some American ships are doing ABM patrols off Korea as well. However, the navy needs these Aegis ABM ships for other work as well, and this is causing problems when the Department of Defense and the president come seeking some instant ABM protection. Aegis is usually the quickest way of providing it. The navy is a victim of its own success.

Converting an Aegis ship to Aegis ABM costs about $12 million a ship, mainly for new software and a few new hardware items. This is seen as a safe investment. To knock down ballistic missiles, Aegis uses two similar models of the U.S. Navy Standard anti-aircraft missile, in addition to a modified version of the Aegis radar system, which has been modified to track incoming ballistic missiles.

The anti-missile missile is the RIM-161A, also known as 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 missile 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 20 pound LEAP kill vehicle, which uses infrared sensors to close on the target and ram it. The Aegis system was designed to operate aboard warships (cruisers and destroyers that have been equipped with the special software that enables the AEGIS radar system to detect and track incoming ballistic missiles).

However, there is also a land based version, which is being installed in Poland, Romania and Israel. There has long been a land based version, it's the one originally used to develop the Aegis hardware and software.

 

Next Article → WARPLANES: Japan Resists The Growing Russian Intrusion
  

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
newjarheaddean    help, thanks!   11/13/2010 5:28:22 PM
AHOY,
 
M3 is only good for anti missile work?
 
is this a regulation/budget limit or is there a real hardware difference, maybe the warhead?
 
the ground version used to develop the software, was that the patriot?

G-day!
 
Quote    Reply

warpig       11/13/2010 8:46:28 PM
The SM-2, even the SM-2 Block 4, is a very different missile from the SM-3.  They have different stages, different seekers, different warheads, pretty much different everything.  The SM-3 is much too expensive and worst of all, much too uncommon (we have only about 100 of them) to waste on air defense.
 
Quote    Reply

newjarheaddean    THANKS    11/14/2010 12:12:56 AM
AHOY,
 
I've selected the notify me when someone replies function box, but i never have gotten any emails. Anyways, I'm glad i caught your post, my first response since my return, previously back in 2008 i believe my call sign was spelled with only one D. warpig i just finished explaining on another site the other day how, under my living conditions i go years sometimes without seeing my few friends and when we meet its always about me, i end up sounding like a "Madman".
 
we call my bother, pig, pigs worth, etc since we were kids.
 
G-day! 
 
Quote    Reply

WarNerd       11/14/2010 2:17:28 AM

The SM-2, even the SM-2 Block 4, is a very different missile from the SM-3.  They have different stages, different seekers, different warheads, pretty much different everything.  The SM-3 is much too expensive and worst of all, much too uncommon (we have only about 100 of them) to waste on air defense.

The 4th stage of the SM-3 in the "Lightweight Exo-Atmospheric Projectile" or LEAP.  The key word here is "Exo-atmospheric", the LEAP is not aerodynamic and will not survive in the atmosphere long enough for an intercept.
 
Quote    Reply

newjarheaddean    near space   11/14/2010 4:45:08 PM
AHOY,
 
U.S. only has about 100 or so,
IMO numbers possibly a political marker more than anything. the cost would be the signal/measure of seriousness and time table, to the foreign adversary.
 
LEAP  is not aerodynamic,
 I'm guessing its the weight imbalance, i.e. center of gravity that is the problem in the atmosphere.
 
speaking of atmospheres, i once read an article in time about company operating craft in "near space" the statement that stuck with me was, "it surprised us just how many folks (people) were up there". 12-62 mile limit.
 
point; Military wont admit using near space. but when you look at all the benefits to near space, loitering time, low cost etc. compared to satellites. Maybe near space is like the "green tech" of the MICC, just don't cost enough. http://www.strategypage.com/CuteSoft_Client/CuteEditor/Images/emmoon.gif" align="absmiddle" border="0" alt="" /> 
 
IMO the chips to provide the accuracy have long been operational. I mean all along we were told, that it was like hitting a bullet with another bullet (as if the points had to hit), now after all the R&D time and money, we get proximity fuses and sophisticated expensive yet ultimately cavemen coalitions. 
 
by the way my guess about the so called California missile plum is that it was a near space lunch, i.e. just putting the antennas in place, perhaps a small Frisbee design that was flung out from the last stage at some point. or it could have been the latest centennial spotting of the daily flights contrails.   
 
G-day!
 
 

 

 

 
Quote    Reply

WarNerd       11/15/2010 6:18:05 AM

LEAP  is not aerodynamic,
I'm guessing its the weight imbalance, i.e. center of gravity that is the problem in the atmosphere.

Center of gravity is fine, the shape (it looks like a 3# coffee can with 6 beer cans attached) and center of pressure are not.  Of course, when operating out of the atmosphere the center of pressure is a meaningless concept and shape is unimportant.  Inside the atmosphere at 9600 km/hr (~2700m/sec) it would be shredded.
 
Quote    Reply

newjarheaddean    outstanding   11/15/2010 4:02:13 PM
AHOY,
 
okay, yeah i,m trying to get my head around that aerodynamics, I've got to get to the air section of SP and find some articles discussing this sort of thing. I've read and I'm trying to study my "fighter combat" by shaw.
 
the low wing loading vs. high wing loading i get, but with the aspect ratio mixed in with lo or hi wing loading i get confused.
 
ex; hi wing loading makes for better brake turns, producing less drag thus less loss of energy for a given degree, however then they say low wing loading produces quicker/more response thus rides ruffler in turbulence. you know less air needed for use/control. but I'm thinking it should be able to brake better, no? and besides the brake turn and cruse at high alt. what benefit is high wing loading?
 
G-day!

 
Quote    Reply

newjarheaddean    anyways   11/15/2010 4:05:41 PM
AHOY,
 
and high wing loading dose better at low alt. with turbulence too. 
 
G-day!
 
Quote    Reply

mabie       11/16/2010 5:55:48 AM
THAAD uses hit-to-kill technology and is effective outside/inside the earth's athmosphere which is a unique capability among the US anti-missile options. 
 
Quote    Reply

newjarheaddean       11/16/2010 1:05:30 PM
AHOY,
AHOY,
   the ground version used to develop the software, was that the patriot?


so was the THAAD the ground system the software developed from?
 
And I'm thinking with all the software writing softwares and tools, and hearing so much about constant changes in security code, ex; google having to change codes all the time to stay ahead of the so called black hat hackers. And with ABM you must have your own everything, word program (lol, i can here you) you know all the basics, i don't think you would even use a standard hard drive.
 
So why besides all the cost that have been attached to this, would there be only one software? I understand they would have back ups. IMO its unwritten/unspoken rules.
 
G-day!
 
Quote    Reply