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: SM-3 Block 1B Anti-Missile Missile
   Next Article → AIR TRANSPORTATION: Russia Seeks A Miracle
April 8, 2011: The U.S. Missile Defense Agency (MDA) is buying twenty SM-3 Block 1B anti-missile missiles. This will include research and development work on the Block 1B improvements. At the moment, Aegis anti-missile systems are hot. The U.S. government, encouraged by the high success rate (83 percent) of Aegis SM-3 missiles fired at incoming ballistic missiles, has been expanding the number of SM-3 equipped ships. With 18 Aegis anti-missile equipped ships in service now, and plans to have more than twice as many in the next few years.

Converting Aegis ships to fire anti-missile missiles 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, an Aegis equipped ship uses two similar models of the U.S. Navy Standard anti-aircraft missile, in addition to a modified version of the Aegis radar system, tweaked to also track incoming ballistic missiles.

Now the government wants to use Aegis more aggressively to block Iranian or North Korean ballistic missiles. This means buying over a thousand SM-3 missiles. These currently cost about $10 million each, and the next upgrade (which will deliver more accuracy and reliability) will raise that to $15 million each. While the expanded Aegis program will cost about $20 billion, it's seen as the cheapest way to provide reliable anti-missile defense against Iran and North Korea.

The basic anti-missile missile 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 200 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 ballistic missile warheads that are closer to their target. 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 ten times higher. 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 that Israel is interested in buying.

 

 

Next Article → AIR TRANSPORTATION: Russia Seeks A Miracle
  

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Gerry       4/8/2011 8:58:59 PM
I believe there was significant progress also being made on up to six kill vehicles per missle until the current administration cancelled it. Please tell me I'm wrong.
 
Quote    Reply

heraldabc       4/8/2011 9:14:06 PM

I believe there was significant progress also being made on up to six kill vehicles per missle until the current administration cancelled it. Please tell me I'm wrong.

Thanks to the Thug, and that no-good sob, Gates, that is entirely true.  Neither idiot understood the MKV or how it made all the difference against a MIRV.
 
H.   
 
Quote    Reply

Gerry       4/9/2011 8:16:45 PM








Thanks to the Thug, and that no-good sob, Gates, that is entirely true.  Neither idiot understood the MKV or how it made all the difference against a MIRV.
 
Not to mention decoys which are much easier than MIRVs. But they saved money needed for cash for clunkers, so my government tells me thats more important.

 

H.   


 
Quote    Reply