Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    United States Missile Defense

    Share
    avatar
    sepheronx

    Posts : 7252
    Points : 7546
    Join date : 2009-08-06
    Age : 28
    Location : Canada

    Re: United States Missile Defense

    Post  sepheronx on Tue Jun 09, 2015 8:41 pm

    You guys need to remember that Russias radar and satellite coverage in terms of detecting missile launches of various types, is world renound. In other words, Russia sees the launches. Much like how they detected Israeli missile launches. If they see a launch and already know trajectory, they will retaliate.

    They will also see cruise missiles as that is what various low/med altitude radars look for besides choppers.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16882
    Points : 17490
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: United States Missile Defense

    Post  GarryB on Wed Jun 10, 2015 4:08 am

    are these  american PGSS JLENS blimps act like russian  manpad igla and verba radars ?

    Don't know much about them to be honest... in comparison the radars that operate with MANPADS teams in Russia are integrated into the IADS and would share and receive information with other assets within the network.

    Clearly they are intending to use airships to reduce costs while maximise loiter time and offer excellent low altitude coverage with an airborne platform... the Russian models sold to china could operate unmanned for about 3 months at a time.

    so it means russians did use such blimps for cruise missiles detection ?

    To cover inaccessible mountainous regions they are ideal and much cheaper than a fixed wing aircraft...

    well, my assumption is that US is preparing to strike first. So thye know when PGS missiles are to strike. The whole concept is based on reaching any point of planet with less then hour. So more less 20,000km/s if my math is correct. PGS are supposed to be cheaper then ICBMs otherwise why to change? In such case you to not need really to know which train is missile one. You cut tracks with explosions in area where train can be and bomb every train you spot. Stil lgood tradeoff if you can eliminate 6x10 nuclear warheads.

    A million kms of tracks why should it matter if a few hundred kms are cut... that wont stop the trains from launching their missiles... the problem is not just to find the missile trains amongst the hundreds of thousands of other trains on the tracks, but you also have to kill those trains before those trains can launch their missiles... which takes less than an hour BTW...


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order
    avatar
    max steel

    Posts : 2967
    Points : 2998
    Join date : 2015-02-12
    Location : South Pole

    Re: United States Missile Defense

    Post  max steel on Fri Jun 19, 2015 6:23 pm

    I got more info on this Blimp thing , it might help you to clear my doubt as : how Russian cruise missiles can evade them?


    Pentagon Building Cruise Missile Shield To Defend US Cities From Russia

    The military moves to set up an expensive sensor-and-shooter network, but is the threat real ?

    The Pentagon is quietly working yes sir to set up an elaborate network of defenses to protect American cities from a barrage of Russian cruise missiles.

    idea : The plan calls for buying radars that would enable National Guard F-16 fighter jets to spot and shoot down fast and low-flying missiles. Top generals want to network those radars with sensor-laden aerostat balloons hovering over U.S. cities and with coastal warships equipped with sensors and interceptor missiles of their own.

    One of those generals is Adm. William Gortney, who leads U.S. Northern Command, or NORTHCOM, and North American Aerospace Defense Command, or NORAD.



    Earlier this year, Gortney submitted an “urgent need” request to put AESA radars on the F-16s that patrol the airspace around Washington. Such a request allows a project to circumvent the normal procurement process.

    While no one will talk openly about the Pentagon’s overall cruise missile defense plans, much of which remain classified, senior military officials have provided clues in speeches, congressional hearings and other public forums over the past year. The statements reveal the Pentagon’s concern about advanced cruise missiles being developed by Russia.

    “We’re devoting a good deal of attention to ensuring we’re properly configured against such an attack in the homeland, and we need to continue to do so,” Adm. Sandy Winnefeld, vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said during a May 19 speech at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, in Washington.

    In recent years, the Pentagon has invested heavily, with mixed results, in ballistic missile defense: preparations to shoot down long-range rockets that touch the edge of space and then fall toward targets on Earth. Experts say North Korea and Iran are the countries most likely to strike the U.S. or its allies with such missiles, although neither arsenal has missiles of sufficient range so far.

    But the effort to defend the U.S. mainland against smaller, shorter-range cruise missiles has gone largely unnoticed.

    “While ballistic missile defense has now become established as a key military capability, the corresponding counters to cruise missiles have been prioritized far more slowly,” said Thomas Karako, a senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, in Washington. “In some ways, this is understandable, in terms of the complexity of the threat, but sophisticated cruise missile technologies now out there are just not going away and we are going to have to find a way to deal with this — for the homeland, for allies and partners abroad, and for regional combatant commanders.”

    Intercepting cruise missiles is far different from shooting down a missile of the ballistic variety. Launched by ships, submarines, or even trailer-mounted launchers, cruise missiles are powered throughout their entire flight. This allows them to fly close to the ground and maneuver throughout flight, making them difficult for radar to spot.

    “A handful of senior military officials, including several current or past NORTHCOM commanders, have been among those quietly dinging the bell about cruise missile threats, and it’s beginning to be heard,” Karako said.

    While many of the combatant commanders — the 4-star generals and admirals who command forces in various geographic regions of the world — believe cruise missiles pose a threat to the United States, they have had trouble convincing their counterparts in the military services who decide what arms to buy.


    Fast-track requests like Gortney’s demand for new radars on F-16s have been used over the past decade to quickly get equipment to troops on the battlefield. Other urgent operational needs have included putting a laser seeker on a Maverick missile to strike fast-moving vehicles and to buy tens of thousands of MRAP vehicles that were rushed to Iraq to protect soldiers from roadside bomb attacks.

    Last August, at a missile defense conference in Huntsville, Ala., then-NORTHCOM and NORAD commander Gen. Charles Jacoby criticized the Army and other services for failing to fund cruise missile defense projects. NORTHCOM, based in Colorado, is responsible for defending the United States from such attacks.

    “I’m trying to get a service to grab hold of it … but so far we’re not having a lot of success with that,” Jacoby said when asked by an attendee about the Pentagon’s cruise missile defense plans. “I’m glad you brought that up and gave me a chance to rail against my service for not doing the cruise missile work that I need them to do.”

    But since then, NORTHCOM has been able to muster support in Congress and at the Pentagon for various related projects. “We’ve made a case that growing cruise missile technology in our state adversaries, like Russia and China, present a real problem for our current defenses,” Jacoby said.

    One item at the center of these plans is a giant aerostat called JLENS, short for the Joint Land Attack Cruise Missile Defense Elevated Netted Sensor System. The Pentagon is testing the system at Maryland’s Aberdeen Proving Ground, a sprawling military complex north of Baltimore. Reporters have even been invited to see the tethered airship, which hovers 10,000 feet in the air.


    WORKING: JLENS carries a powerful radar on its belly that Pentagon officials say can spot small moving objects – including cruise missiles – from Boston to Norfolk, Va., headquarters of the U.S. Navy’s Atlantic Fleet. Since it’s so high in the air, it can see farther than ground radars.

    JLENS is in the early stages of a three-year test phase, but comments by senior military officials indicate the Pentagon in considering expanding this use of aerostats far beyond the military’s National Capital Region district.

    “This is a big country and we probably couldn’t protect the entire place from cruise missile attack unless we want to break the bank,” Winnefeld said. “But there are important areas in this country we need to make sure are defended from that kind of attack.”

    New missile interceptors could also play a role in the network too.

    “We’re also looking at the changing-out of the kinds of systems that we would use to knock down any cruise missiles headed towards our nation’s capital,” Winnefeld said.

    Ground-launched versions of ship- and air-launched interceptors could be installed around major cities or infrastructure, experts say. Raytheon, which makes shipborne SM-6 interceptors, announced earlier this year that it was working on a ground-launched, long-range version of the AMRAAM air-to-air missile.

    The improvements make the missiles “even faster and more maneuverable,” the company said in a statement when the announcement was made at the IDEX international arms show in Abu Dhabi in February.



    The Threat

    Driving the concern at the Pentagon is Russia’s development of the Kh-101, an air-launched cruise missile with a reported range of more than 1,200 miles.


    The only nation that has an effective cruise missile capability is Russia,” Gortney said at a March 19 House Armed Services strategic forces subcommittee hearing.

    Russian cruise missiles can also be fired from ships and submarines. Moscow has also developed containers that could potentially conceal a cruise missile on a cargo ship, meaning it wouldn’t take a large nation’s trained military to strike American shores.

    “Cruise missile technology is available and it’s exportable and it’s transferrable,” Jacoby said. “So it won’t be just state actors that present that threat to us.”

    During the 2003 U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, American and Kuwaiti Patriot missiles intercepted a number of Iraqi ballistic missiles, Karako said. But they missed all five cruise missiles fired, including one fired at Marine headquarters in Kuwait. In 2006, Hezbollah hit an Israeli corvette ship with an Iranian-supplied, Chinese-designed, anti-ship cruise missile, Karako said.

    Shooting down the missiles themselves is a pricy proposition, which has led Pentagon officials to focus on the delivery platform.

    “The best way to defeat the cruise missile threat is to shoot down the archer, or sink the archer, that’s out there,”
    Gortney said at an April news briefing at the Pentagon.

    An existing network of radars, including the JLENS, and interceptors make defending Washington easier than the rest of the country.

    “[T]he national capital region is the easier part in terms of the entire kill chain,” Maj. Gen. Timothy Ray, director of Global Power Programs in the Air Force acquisition directorate, said in March at a House Armed Services Tactical Air and Land Forces Subcommittee hearing. “We remain concerned about the coverage for the rest of the country and the rest of the F-16 fleet.”

    Winnefeld said that the JLENS and “other systems we are putting in place” would “greatly enhance our early warning around the National Capital Region.”

    In an exercise last year, the Pentagon used a JLENS, an F-15, and an air-to-air missile to shoot down a simulated cruise missile. In the test, the JLENS locked on to the cruise missile and passed targeting data to the F-15, which fired an AMRAAM missile. The JLENS then steered the AMRAAM into the mock cruise missile.


    But there are many wild cards in the plans, experts say. While the JLENS has worked well in testing, it is not tied into the NORTHCOM’s computer network.
    It was also tested in Utah where there was far less commercial and civil air traffic than East Coast, some of the most congested airspace in the world. At a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing in March, Gortney acknowledged the project is “not without challenges,” but said that’s to be expected in any test program.

    It is also unclear whether the JLENS over Maryland spotted a Florida mailman who flew a small gyrocopter from Gettysburg, Penn., to the U.S. Capitol lawn in Washington, an hour-long flight through some of the most restricted airspace in the country. The JLENS has been long touted by its makers as being ideal for this tracking these types of slow-moving aircraft.

    Gortney, in an April 29 House Oversight and Government Reform Committee hearing about the gyrocopter, told lawmakers the JLENS “has more promise” than other aerostat-mounted radars used by the Department of Homeland Security along the border with Mexico and in South Florida. He deferred his explanation to the classified session after the public hearing.

    Experts say JLENS can not just spot but track and target objects like cruise missiles, making it better than other radars used for border security.

    Raytheon has built two JLENS, the one at Aberdeen and another in storage and ready for deployment.

    If a cruise missile were fired toward Washington, leaders would not have much time to react.

    Solving the cruise missile problem even for Washington requires not just interceptors to be put in place, but also redundant and persistent sensors and planning for what to do, given very short response times ", Karako said .


    http://www.defenseone.com/threats/2015/06/pentagon-building-cruise-missile-shield-defend-us-cities-russia/115723/

    avatar
    max steel

    Posts : 2967
    Points : 2998
    Join date : 2015-02-12
    Location : South Pole

    Re: United States Missile Defense

    Post  max steel on Fri Jun 19, 2015 11:18 pm

    THIS IS HOW THEY ARE EXPECTING JLENS TO WORK AGAINST RUSSIAN CRUISE MISSILES : to counter that threat, the Pentagon is working to install a high-tech radar system that would track incoming, low-flying missiles. Installed in aerostat balloons over major cities, as well as onboard warships off the coast, the radar would transmit warning signals to F-16 fighter jets if an enemy missile were detected.

    The Pentagon has remained fairly quiet about the details of the missile defense shield, giving little indication of what the total cost would be to the taxpayer. But the cost of other failed defense shield attempts could provide some idea.



    "While ballistic missile defense has now become established as a key military capability, the corresponding counters to cruise missiles have been prioritized far more slowly," Karako said.

      US NOW CAN SHOOT DOWN ALL SRBMS , IRBMS AND MRBMS . NOW THEY ARE GOING FOR
     CRUISE MISSILES .


    http://sputniknews.com/us/20150619/1023606597.html


    Last edited by max steel on Sat Jun 20, 2015 12:00 am; edited 1 time in total
    avatar
    Mike E

    Posts : 2760
    Points : 2806
    Join date : 2014-06-19
    Location : Bay Area, CA

    Re: United States Missile Defense

    Post  Mike E on Fri Jun 19, 2015 11:53 pm

    They can't shoot down crap...they say they can, that doesn't mean they actually can. 

    Our missiles have performed poorly...against predictable maneuver-less and high-arc ballistic missiles.
    avatar
    George1

    Posts : 10773
    Points : 11252
    Join date : 2011-12-22
    Location : Greece

    Re: United States Missile Defense

    Post  George1 on Sat Jun 20, 2015 2:25 am

    Pentagon Building Cruise Missile Shield Across US, Citing 'Russian Threat'

    As Baltic and Nordic countries continue to express unfounded fears about Russian aggression, paranoia fever appears to have its hold on the United States. The Pentagon is quietly installing a cruise missile defense shield in major US cities, despite the financial fiasco of previous attempts to install similar technology.

    "A handful of senior military officials, including several current or past NORTHCOM commanders, have been among those quietly dinging the bell about cruise missile threats, and it’s beginning to be heard," Thomas Karako, a senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, told Defense One.

    To counter that threat, the Pentagon is working to install a high-tech radar system that would track incoming, low-flying missiles. Installed in aerostat balloons over major cities, as well as onboard warships off the coast, the radar would transmit warning signals to F-16 fighter jets if an enemy missile were detected.

    The Pentagon has remained fairly quiet about the details of the missile defense shield, giving little indication of what the total cost would be to the taxpayer. But the cost of other failed defense shield attempts could provide some idea.

    Last year, the Los Angeles Times reported on the costly endeavor of the Midcourse Defense System (GMD), a shield developed by Northrop Grumman and Raytheon. During a trial run, the GMD failed 8 out of 16 tests, with each test costing $200 million.

    That, of course, was only a fraction of the total.

    "Although American taxpayers have spent $40 billion during the past decade to develop the GMD system, the missile shield’s performance is spotty at best," according to the LA Times, "even in carefully choreographed tests that are more predictable and less challenging than an actual attack would be."

    Earlier this year, it was reported that the US Defense Department had requested a total of $8.8 billion in the 2016 budget for all missile defense systems. Given the complexities of developing a system of countering cruise missiles, which are relatively small and agile, a large portion of those funds could go toward the new project.

    "While ballistic missile defense has now become established as a key military capability, the corresponding counters to cruise missiles have been prioritized far more slowly," Karako said.

    "In some ways, this is understandable, in terms of the complexity of the threat, but sophisticated cruise missile technologies now out there are just not going away and we are going to have to find a way to deal with this – for the homeland, for allies and partners broad, and for regional combatant commanders."

    Even if the technology is developed effectively, implementing the system will also prove costly.

    "This is a big country and we probably couldn’t protect the entire place from cruise missile attack unless we want to break the bank," Admiral Sandy Winnefeld, vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said in a speech. "But there are important areas in this country we need to make sure are defended from that kind of attack."

    But all the money being poured into the project seems especially pointless given that it’s meant to defend against an illusory threat from Russia.

    "The only nation that has an effective cruise missile capability is Russia," Admiral William Gortney, head of US Northern Command said during a House Armed Services hearing in March.

    These concerns were echoed by former NORAD commander General Charles Jacoby last August during a missile defense conference.

    "We’ve made a case that growing cruise missile technology in our state adversaries, like Russia and China, present a real problem for our current defenses," Jacoby said.

    The US isn’t the only one spending millions on false threats from an "aggressive" Russia. Earlier on Friday, it was reported that the Finnish government had bid $3.72 million on a plot of land within its own borders to prevent a Russian citizen from obtaining the deed.

    "This was done, as far as can be judged, to ramp up the anti-Russian hysteria and give a propagandist boost to the myth of a 'military threat' from the East," the Russian foreign ministry responded in a statement.

    Russia’s deputy defense minister Anatoly Antonov echoed the sentiment:

    "The US is ramping up the issue of ‘Russian violations’ to justify their own ostensibly responsive military action that would be aimed at ensuring American 'leadership' in confrontation with the mythical ‘Russian military threat’ that Washington drums up regardless of all facts to the contrary," he said earlier this month in response to the US accusing Russia of missile violations.

    It looks like that "anti-Russia hysteria" will now cost Americans billions.

    Read more: http://sputniknews.com/us/20150619/1023606597.html#ixzz3dYbiGPu6


    _________________
    "There's no smoke without fire.", Georgy Zhukov

    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16882
    Points : 17490
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: United States Missile Defense

    Post  GarryB on Sat Jun 20, 2015 12:34 pm

    It assumes these enormous airships and national guard F-16s will survive the ICBMs and SLBMs impacting several hours before... not that likely in my opinion...

    For the cruise missiles themselves they could be programmed with a radar emission detector and the first wave could include a few ARM equipped cruise missiles... a 200KT warhead detonating any where near an airship should permanently deal with the problem fairly quickly...


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order
    avatar
    George1

    Posts : 10773
    Points : 11252
    Join date : 2011-12-22
    Location : Greece

    Re: United States Missile Defense

    Post  George1 on Tue Jun 23, 2015 9:26 pm

    US Awards $870Mln Contract to Develop Missile Defense Command System

    The US military awarded Lockheed Martin a contract worth three-quarters of a billion dollars to continue the development of a ballistic missile defense (BMD) command and control program that allows senior US officials to plan BMD operations, the Department of Defense stated in a press release.

    WASHINGTON (Sputnik) — The C2BMC is an operational system that enables the US President, Defense Secretary and combatant commanders to conduct ballistic missile defense planning, according to the Defense Department.

    “[Lockheed Martin] has been awarded a maximum $870,000,000… [to develop] the command and control, battle management and communications [C2BMC] system located worldwide for the Ballistic Missile Defense System,” the release said on Monday.

    The development of the C2BMC, the release explained, will enhance US homeland defense while meeting requirements for the planned deployment of BMD systems to NATO allies, referred to as the European Phased Adaptive Approach (EPAA).

    Lockheed Martin plans to perform the development in Arlington, Virginia; Huntsville, Alabama; and Colorado Springs, Colorado, with an expected completion date of December 31, 2021, the release added.

    C2BMC integrates globally deployed sensors, radars, satellites and interceptors into a single network, providing commanders with a unified picture of missile threats across the globe, according to an earlier Lockheed Martin press release.

    In March 2015, a Defense Department spokesperson announced that EPAA will include deployment of anti-ballistic missiles and BMD systems to Romania in 2015 and Poland in 2018.

    US authorities are reportedly considering deploying missiles to Europe to counter Russia’s alleged violations of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) treaty. Russian officials have pointed out that US missile defense launchers stationed in Poland and Romania are violations of the INF treaty.

    Read more: http://sputniknews.com/military/20150623/1023718416.html#ixzz3dulrSCtG


    _________________
    "There's no smoke without fire.", Georgy Zhukov

    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16882
    Points : 17490
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Cruise Missile Defense a Higher US Defense Priority

    Post  GarryB on Fri Jul 10, 2015 12:23 pm

    max steel wrote:Thanx and Garry can you explain what JLENS is and how washington d.c. can defend itself from cruise missile attack as you mentioned no nation can avoid fully an incoming cruise missile attack .

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JLENS

    Just airborne radar coverage on the cheap based on aerostats and interceptors... but they would need hundreds to get proper coverage of the US... perhaps thousands as Russian cruise missiles could be launched from container ships and approach the US from any direction... including flying through Mexico or Canada...


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order
    avatar
    max steel

    Posts : 2967
    Points : 2998
    Join date : 2015-02-12
    Location : South Pole

    Re: United States Missile Defense

    Post  max steel on Sat Aug 15, 2015 11:18 am

    Lockheed, Raytheon To Develop Advanced Kill Vehicle Concepts dunno

    Lockheed Martin and Raytheon will develop concepts for a kill vehicle capable of taking out multiple objects simultaneously under study contracts from the U.S. Missile Defense Agency valued at $9.7 million each.

    The Multi-Object Kill Vehicle, or MOKV, consists of several miniaturized kill vehicles launched atop a single interceptor. It is considered a long-term technology that would be deployed around 2025 to address a key weakness of current missile defense technology: the inability to distinguish between missile warheads, and decoys and other objects.

    The program appears to be a resurrection of the Multiple Kill Vehicle that U.S. President Barack Obama terminated shortly after taking office in 2009. The threat has advanced since then as has the technology available to the MDA, industry sources say.

    “Under this new contract, the contractor will define a concept that can destroy several objects within a threat complex by considering advanced sensor, divert and attitude control and communication concepts,” the Pentagon said in its announcement.

    U.S. Navy Vice Admiral James Syring, the MDA’s director, is expected to discuss the program during a speech Aug. 12 here at the Space and Missile Defense Symposium, industry officials said.

    Work on the contracts is expected to be completed by May 2016, the Defense Department said in the announcement.

    Currently, the MDA’s ground-based interceptors each carry a single kill vehicle designed to home in on an incoming missile warhead and destroy it by force of impact.

    “Ultimately, these Multi-Object Kill Vehicles will revolutionize our missile defense architecture, substantially reducing the interceptor inventory required to defeat an evolving and more capable threat to the Homeland,” Syring said in March 18 testimony to the Senate Appropriations defense subcommittee.

    The MDA’s budget request for 2016 includes funds for MOKV concept definition as part of the Common Kill Vehicle program, but does not specify how much is allocated to the effort.
    avatar
    max steel

    Posts : 2967
    Points : 2998
    Join date : 2015-02-12
    Location : South Pole

    Pentagon Building Cruise Missile Shield Across US, Citing 'Russian Threat'

    Post  max steel on Tue Sep 01, 2015 5:48 pm

    Northrop Grumman Beats BAE in Army Antimissile System Competition


    The Army has selected a new antimissile system for its combat helicopters after a tightly contested matchup between two of the nation’s top defense contractors.

    The Army on Friday awarded Northrop Grumman a $35.3 million contract to produce a laser antimissile system, called common infrared countermeasure, or CIRCM, to protect aircraft from shoulder-fired, heat-seeking missiles and other guided weapons.

    BAE Systems is the current supplier of antimissile systems for Army helicopters, so the Army’s decision is seen as a big blow to the company.

    The Aug. 28 award, however, far from guarantees Northrop will become the Army’s only CIRCM supplier. The contract gives the Army ample opportunities to test the equipment before it commits to buying large quantities of the systems.

    Northrop officials hailed the award as recognition that the company’s CIRCM offering gives the Army better technology than what it current has.

    “We believe there is only one company that has been selected,” said Jeff Palombo, sector vice president and general manager of Northrop Grumman's land and self-protection systems, in Rolling Meadows, Illinois.

    The contract awarded Friday funds 21 CIRCM “B kits” that will be tested in different Army helicopters, Palombo told National Defense Aug. 31. “The initial award provides incremental funding for the nonrecurring engineering portion of the job.”

    Full production would begin in 2019. The Army has budgeted about $1 billion over the next five years for the program, including contractor and government costs.

    Both Northrop and BAE had successfully tested prototypes over a three-year development program that ended in March. The Army on June 4 asked both firms to submit their best and final offers.

    Palombo said between now and October 2017, the Army will be able to exercise options for further development and low-rate initial production of the systems.

    “Like many engineering and manufacturing development contracts, there are time-phased options,” he said. “The customer always has the opportunity to put options on their contracts at their discretion.”

    All options were priced in the bidders’ proposals, such as low-rate production orders to equip Army Chinook, Blackhawk and Apache helicopters. There are also options for the A-kits for those airplanes, which are the electronics and mechanical parts that are necessary to install the CIRCM system in the aircraft.

    The Army structured the contract so it can first test the systems and ask for changes before it buys larger quantities. “EMD options are becoming more common” in military contracts, Palombo said. “During EMD you’re going to build units upfront, then you do environmental, integration, qualification and reliability testing,” he said. The company would make design or engineering modifications based on test results. “It’s very typical of the government to not order all the options at once but rather wait until the system is sufficiently tested and matured before they put those other options on contract.”

    That flexibility would allow the Army, for instance, to choose options to equip different helicopter models based on needs and available funding.

    The new CIRCM would replace an existing infrared countermeasure system made by BAE Systems that the Army bought six years ago for emergency combat deployments but now considers too heavy and too expensive.

    Northrop and BAE are the nation’s only manufacturers of directional infrared countermeasures. Northrop Grumman currently supplies infrared countermeasures to the Air Force and Navy for both helicopters and fixed-wing aircraft. BAE officials had argued that choosing Northrop for the Army work would further consolidate the market and possibly eliminate a competitor.

    Paul Roberts, spokesman for BAE Systems Electronic Systems, said the company was “disappointed by this decision.” In a statement to National Defense, he said the company has not yet decided whether it will protest the award. “We are currently considering all of our options as we prepare to be briefed by the Army about the decision."

    Palombo said Northrop’s “open systems architecture” likely gave it the edge, as it would make it easier to update the system over time, if enemies deploy more advanced missiles. Older aircraft missile-warning systems use flare dispensers to confuse the sensors of incoming missiles. Newer missile designs have more complex seekers that are able to defeat flares.

    The Army wants to eventually procure CIRCM in large quantities so it can provide aircraft with 360-degree coverage.

    “Infrared missile threats are constantly changing,” said Palombo. “So we make sure our systems are kept relevant as technology changes to make sure we can address any new threats,” he added. “An open architecture lends itself to rapid changes.”

    http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/blog/Lists/Posts/Post.aspx?ID=1937#.VeW1XgMjB7s.facebook
    avatar
    GunshipDemocracy

    Posts : 1747
    Points : 1787
    Join date : 2015-05-17
    Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada

    Re: United States Missile Defense

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Sat Sep 26, 2015 7:56 pm

    Mike E wrote:They can't shoot down crap...they say they can, that doesn't mean they actually can. 

    Our missiles have performed poorly...against predictable maneuver-less and high-arc ballistic missiles.

    they did poor or not... Pentagon might lull foes to false sense of security by selling those news? I would not assume that all what we hear is not engineered news Smile



    Rail Phantom: Russia Developing Invisible 'Death Trains' With Nukes

    The new project, codenamed "Barguzin," will carry six ICBMs RS-24 Yars (a land equivalent of the submarine-launched Bulava).

    A Russian BZhRK's cars can resist an explosion of a nuclear warhead just several hundred meters away. Such a train can run for a month autonomously and pass up to 1,000 kilometers daily at the speed of nearly 100 kmph.


    Wow, almost 100km/h and 1000 day? so US intel will not be vigilant about long trains staying 14hrs on track in the middle of nowhere lol!

    BTW not Rubezh but Yars?
    avatar
    max steel

    Posts : 2967
    Points : 2998
    Join date : 2015-02-12
    Location : South Pole

    Persistent Ground Surveillance Systems

    Post  max steel on Sat Sep 26, 2015 10:32 pm

    GunshipDemocracy wrote:
    Mike E wrote:They can't shoot down crap...they say they can, that doesn't mean they actually can. 

    Our missiles have performed poorly...against predictable maneuver-less and high-arc ballistic missiles.

    they did poor or not... Pentagon might lull foes to false sense of security by selling those news? I would not assume that all what we hear is not engineered news Smile


    US has defense system to shoot down all SR,IR,MR Ballistic Missiles because they have predicted path flight . SM-3 , THAAD,PAC-3 . Though SM-3 interception rate will be 20% see the link I shared in another post. PAC-3 is not reliable . Rest are reliable , I wonder how will they intercept cruise missiles though SM-6 can engage with cruise missiles but does Russia posses maneuvering cruise missiles also just like Iskanders ?



    GunshipDemocracy wrote:

    Wow, almost 100km/h and 1000 day? so US intel will not be vigilant about long trains staying 14hrs on track in the middle of nowhere lol!

    BTW not Rubezh but Yars?


    I wonder if US intel works in Russia that much extensively like current Russian intel works in US . Moreover , during tension they can't destroy those trains . See the post above they are using electronic to protect it from sats and radars
    avatar
    JohninMK

    Posts : 5236
    Points : 5299
    Join date : 2015-06-16
    Location : England

    Re: United States Missile Defense

    Post  JohninMK on Thu Oct 22, 2015 7:58 pm

    How about this for order value shrinkage? First sentence $784B then second sentence $784M, think the latter is correct but it is still $78M a year for the next 10 years, just to try to keep track of what Russia is doing. Still I bet they are having a hell of a party tonight.


    WASHINGTON (Sputnik) – The US government awarded defense contractor Lockheed Martin $784 billion to create and operate a new ballistic missile defense radar, the US Defense Department said in a release.

    “Lockheed Martin Corp. … is being awarded a $784,289,883 fixed-price incentive contract with options to develop, deploy, test and operate a Long Range Discrimination Radar (LRDR),” the release stated on Wednesday.

    The Defense Department said the creation of the ballistic missile defense system will take place in Moorestown, New Jersey and at Clear Air Force Station, Alaska. The work is expected to be completed by January 21, 2024 when the contract will end.

    “The LRDR will provide persistent discrimination capability to the Ballistic Missile Defense system to support the defense of the homeland,” the Defense Department said.

    The US Missile Defense Agency in Huntsville, Alabama is handling the contract with Lockheed Martin.

    Read more: http://sputniknews.com/military/20151022/1028903930/Lockheed-Awarded-Millions-to-Develop-Radar.html#ixzz3pJvJsB8o
    avatar
    max steel

    Posts : 2967
    Points : 2998
    Join date : 2015-02-12
    Location : South Pole

    The US government awarded defense contractor Lockheed Martin $784 billion to create and operate a new ballistic missile defense radar

    Post  max steel on Thu Oct 22, 2015 9:07 pm

    JohninMK wrote:How about this for order value shrinkage? First sentence $784B then second sentence $784M, think the latter is correct but it is still $78M a year for the next 10 years, just to try to keep track of what Russia is doing. Still I bet they are having a hell of a party tonight.


    WASHINGTON (Sputnik) – The US government awarded defense contractor Lockheed Martin $784 billion to create and operate a new ballistic missile defense radar, the US Defense Department said in a release.

    “Lockheed Martin Corp. … is being awarded a $784,289,883 fixed-price incentive contract with options to develop, deploy, test and operate a Long Range Discrimination Radar (LRDR),” the release stated on Wednesday.

    The Defense Department said the creation of the ballistic missile defense system will take place in Moorestown, New Jersey and at Clear Air Force Station, Alaska. The work is expected to be completed by January 21, 2024 when the contract will end.

    “The LRDR will provide persistent discrimination capability to the Ballistic Missile Defense system to support the defense of the homeland,” the Defense Department said.

    The US Missile Defense Agency in Huntsville, Alabama is handling the contract with Lockheed Martin.

    Read more: http://sputniknews.com/military/20151022/1028903930/Lockheed-Awarded-Millions-to-Develop-Radar.html#ixzz3pJvJsB8o


    Not an appropriate thread though and sputnik made a typo there. 784 million just for a long range radar ? dunno
    avatar
    George1

    Posts : 10773
    Points : 11252
    Join date : 2011-12-22
    Location : Greece

    New US Missile Defense Radar to be Ready for Testing by 2020

    Post  George1 on Mon Oct 26, 2015 11:20 pm

    New US Missile Defense Radar to be Ready for Testing by 2020

    The new LRDR system will be ready to be analyzed in five years.

    WASHINGTON (Sputnik) — The new US Long Range Discrimination Radar (LRDR) system will be ready to be analyzed in five years, defense contractor Lockheed Martin said in a release on Monday.

    "Lockheed Martin’s proposed LRDR system will be built on an aggressive timeline ready for operational testing in Clear Air Force Station, Alaska by 2020," Lockheed Martin stated.

    On Thursday, the US government awarded Lockheed Martin $784 million to create a new missile defense radar computer in Moorestown, New Jersey and at Clear Air Force Station, Alaska. The work is expected to be completed by January 21, 2024 when the contract ends.

    The radar defense system will have an electronic antenna and a locale to contain and use the antenna.

    Lockheed Martin Integrated Warfare Systems and Sensors Vice President Carl Bannar said this new system met the needs of the US national defense.

    "The United States has a limited number of ground-based interceptors to detect threats, yet the number of potential missile threats — and countermeasures used to hide those threats — is growing," Bannar said. "Our offering meets the MDA’s [Missile Defense Agency] vision for LRDR by pairing innovative radar discrimination capability with proven ballistic missile defense algorithms."

    Bannar noted that the new radar system built on previous US missile defense instruments.

    "Our mature, scalable, GaN [gallium nitride]-based S-Band technology was ideally suited for this high-performance ballistic missile defense application," Bannar concluded.

    The US Missile Defense Agency in Huntsville, Alabama is handling the LRDR contract with Lockheed Martin.

    Read more: http://sputniknews.com/military/20151026/1029132098/lockheed-lrdr-test-alaska.html#ixzz3piOHRFZo


    _________________
    "There's no smoke without fire.", Georgy Zhukov

    avatar
    max steel

    Posts : 2967
    Points : 2998
    Join date : 2015-02-12
    Location : South Pole

    Re: United States Missile Defense

    Post  max steel on Wed Jan 13, 2016 8:09 pm

    avatar
    max steel

    Posts : 2967
    Points : 2998
    Join date : 2015-02-12
    Location : South Pole

    Re: United States Missile Defense

    Post  max steel on Tue Feb 02, 2016 7:05 am

    Missile Defense Agency orders more THAAD interceptors

    The U.S. Missile Defense Agency will purchase 20 additional Lot 8 interceptors under a contract modification with Lockheed Martin.

    The modification, valued at $198.7 million, will support the Missile Defense Agency's Terminal High Altitude Area Defense project, bringing the cumulative value of the contract up to $822 million.

    THAAD is designed to protect population and high-value infrastructures from short and medium-range ballistic missile attacks, using interceptors to engage incoming targets. The system is capable of intercepting missiles inside and outside of the atmosphere.

    Work on the contract will be performed at several locations in Texas, Alabama, and Arkansas, and is expected to be complete by September 2019.

    Lockheed Martin announced they received a $528 million contract to produce and deliver THAAD missile systems in early January 2016. The systems were to be used by the U.S. Army to enhance its ballistic missile interception capabilities.

    DerWolf

    Posts : 60
    Points : 62
    Join date : 2015-12-06

    Re: United States Missile Defense

    Post  DerWolf on Tue Feb 02, 2016 11:46 am

    I seems US has the missile shield against ballistik missiles a top priority. Obviously this is against Russia or China missiles not n korea or iran as they say.
    avatar
    max steel

    Posts : 2967
    Points : 2998
    Join date : 2015-02-12
    Location : South Pole

    Re: United States Missile Defense

    Post  max steel on Tue Feb 02, 2016 7:44 pm

    DerWolf wrote:I seems US has the missile shield against ballistik missiles a top priority. Obviously this is against Russia or China missiles not n korea or iran as they say.

    Did you know that the anti-ballistic missiles that were to be placed in Poland were converted Minuteman rockets, with the first two stages being converted Minuteman II (nuclear ICBM). In other words identical launch signature as a nuclear strike. How effin stupid is that?
    (they were officially implemented to stop Iranian missiles....yeah Mad

    DerWolf

    Posts : 60
    Points : 62
    Join date : 2015-12-06

    Re: United States Missile Defense

    Post  DerWolf on Tue Feb 02, 2016 8:35 pm

    max steel wrote:
    DerWolf wrote:I seems US has the missile shield against ballistik missiles a top priority. Obviously this is against Russia or China missiles not n korea or iran as they say.

    Did you know that the anti-ballistic missiles that were to be placed in Poland were converted Minuteman rockets, with the first two stages being converted Minuteman II (nuclear ICBM). In other words identical launch signature as a nuclear strike. How effin stupid is that?
    (they were officially implemented to stop Iranian missiles....yeah Mad
    Does this means that those interceptors deployed in Romania and those that will be put in Poland are offensive missiles with nuclear warhead. Things seems that will escalate quickly, Russia wont tolerate this missile and army build- up near its borders.
    avatar
    max steel

    Posts : 2967
    Points : 2998
    Join date : 2015-02-12
    Location : South Pole

    Re: United States Missile Defense

    Post  max steel on Tue Feb 02, 2016 9:25 pm

    No I didn't say that and they're not carrying nuclear warheads. Yes those ashore abm sites can also potentially be used as land based cruise missile to target Russian assets like in Kaliningrad.
    avatar
    max steel

    Posts : 2967
    Points : 2998
    Join date : 2015-02-12
    Location : South Pole

    Re: United States Missile Defense

    Post  max steel on Tue Feb 09, 2016 4:41 pm

    Your Pocket Guide to How U.S. Missile Defense Works

    U.S. ballistic missile defense systems are designed to protect the U.S. homeland, deployed military forces, and allies from limited attacks. The Pentagon originally sought development of ballistic missile defense (BMD) technology to counter the Soviet nuclear threat during the Cold War, but its focus in the twenty-first century has shifted to defending against potential strikes from regional actors, particularly Iran and North Korea. Proponents of BMD stress its role in the projection of U.S. power and its value as a deterrent, while critics question its reliability and high costs. In recent years, some military analysts have said that the planned expansion of U.S-NATO missile defense systems in the former Soviet bloc has unnecessarily frayed relations with Moscow.

    How does ballistic missile defense work?

    Ballistic missiles can be launched from a variety of platforms, including silos, trucks, trains, submarines, and warships. There are four general classifications based on the maximum distance the missile can travel: short range (less than 1,000 kilometers); medium range (1,000–3,000 kilometers); intermediate range (3,000–5,500 kilometers); and intercontinental (more than 5,500 kilometers).

    Ballistic missiles have three stages of flight: boost phase, which begins at launch and lasts until rocket engines finish; midcourse phase, the longest stage, when the projectile is on its parabolic path to the target; and terminal phase, when the detached warhead reenters the atmosphere, often traveling less than a minute to impact. (Cruise missiles, by contrast, are jet-engine powered weapons that fly low and level to the ground, often avoiding enemy radar, before striking their target.)

    Defeating a ballistic missile involves four functions: detection, discrimination (separating the missile from everything else), fire control (determining exactly where to intercept), and killing (hitting the missile with some type of interceptor). However, the effectiveness of BMD systems in test trials has been mixed, and critics continue to question their value in realistic battle conditions.

    What is the history of U.S. missile defense?


    The Pentagon launched an intensive effort to counter the threat of Soviet intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) in the mid-1950s, when a number of competing programs was initiated by the U.S. Army, Air Force, and Navy. But by 1972, with U.S. and Soviet arsenals growing exponentially, Washington and Moscow signed the Antiballistic Missile Treaty(ABM), limiting to two the number of missile defense sites each could maintain.

    In the early 1980s, the Reagan administration expanded research and development of space- and ground-based defensive systems, and unveiled the Strategic Defense Initiative[PDF], later nicknamed “Star Wars.” The next year, the army tested its Homing Overlay Experiment, the first successful demonstration of a hit-to-kill vehicle.

    Meanwhile, tactical systems, or theater missile defense, continued to develop. U.S. Patriot missile batteries, originally designed to intercept Soviet intermediate-range ballistic missiles in Western Europe, were deployed to the Middle East during the Persian Gulf War. While they proved ineffective at defending against Scud attacks on Israel and Saudi Arabia in 1991, the concept drew increased attention and funding during the 1990s. By the latter part of the decade, BMD advocates pushed for a full-blown national missile defense system, citing nascent North Korean, Iraqi, and Iranian threats.

    Leading defense officials in the George W. Bush administration envisioned an integrated, layered defense capable of defeating enemy missiles on a global scale. Early in his first term, Bush withdrew the United States from the ABM treaty and instructed the Pentagon to “proceed with fielding an initial set of missile defense capabilities.” The first ground-based missile interceptor was installed at an army base in central Alaska in July 2004.

    What are the primary missile defense systems?

    The U.S. Missile Defense Agency (MDA) is developing a number of systems that could offer multiple opportunities to defeat limited ballistic missile attacks. These systems are not designed to shield against large-scale nuclear attacks from Russia and China. MDA has spent roughly $100 billion on missile defense since 2002, and plans to spend roughly $8 billion per year through 2017—around two percent of the Pentagon’s base budget.

    There are four primary BMD programs:

    Ground-Based Midcourse Defense
    : The most complex and costly component of the U.S. missile defense system is designed to destroy intermediate- and long-range ballistic missiles in space. As of summer 2014, twenty-six interceptors were located at Fort Greely, Alaska, and four at Vandenberg Air Force Base, California, with plans to increase this arsenal to forty-four by 2017. In a June 2014 test, an interceptor launched from Vandenberg destroyed a target missile launched from the Marshall Islands, marking the first successful hit (out of four tries) since 2008. But experts say the technology is still unreliable and needs further testing. Meanwhile, some U.S. officials are advocating for the construction of a third interceptor site on the Eastern seaboard, and the MDA is assessing prospective locations.

    Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense: Considered the most reliable component of missile defense, this traditionally sea-based system is designed to intercept short- and medium-range ballistic missiles. The Missile Defense Agency and the Navy plan to increase the number of BMD-capable Aegis warships from 33 in 2014 to 43 by 2019. As of June 2014, the Pentagon said the system had twenty-eight successful intercepts out of thirty-four tests.

    Terminal High Altitude Area Defense: THAAD is a rapidly deployable, truck-mounted system capable of intercepting short- and medium-range ballistic missiles inside and just outside the atmosphere. Three THAAD systems were operational as of mid-2014, but the Pentagon is expected to expand this to seven. In April 2013, the Army deployed a THAAD battery to Guam to help defend the U.S. territory from North Korean intermediate-range ballistic missiles.

    Patriot Advanced Capability–3: The PAC-3 is the successor to the systems deployed in the Persian Gulf War and the most mature system in the U.S. missile defense arsenal. Rapidly deployable, the system is vehicle-mounted and employs sensors to track and intercept incoming missiles in their terminal phase, at lower altitudes than THAAD systems. The PAC-3 was used during combat missions in Iraq in 2003 with mixed success. PAC-3 batteries have been deployed to several nations including South Korea, Afghanistan, and Turkey, among others, and more than a dozen nations have purchased variants of the system.




    What is the threat from North Korea?

    North Korea has several hundred short-range and medium-range ballistic missiles, and is developing an intermediate-range missile (Taepo Dong–2) that analysts say would be able to hit the continental United States should it become operational. The TD-2 succeeded in placing a satellite in orbit in December 2012—the first successful space launch after repeated failures in the years prior. However, experts say the feat does not translate into a reliable missile, and that further testing is needed. North Korea’s missiles are capable of delivering conventional warheads and, potentially, biological and chemical munitions.

    U.S. intelligence officials say that TD-2 missiles could, in theory, deliver a nuclear payload to the United States, but noted that without further testing, the potential for this was low in the near term. Experts suspect Pyongyang has four to ten plutonium-based nuclear weapons, but analysts continue to speculate whether the regime has mastered the miniaturization technology required to mount a nuclear warhead on its missiles. Several UN Security Council resolutions passed in recent years prohibit North Korea from developing nuclear or ballistic missile technology.

    What is the threat from Iran?


    Experts say Iran has the largest ballistic missile arsenal in the Middle East, having obtained most of this from its allies, particularly North Korea. The majority of Iran’s ballistic missile inventory consists of Scud missiles with a range of up to approximately 500 kilometers. Tehran views these as important tactical weapons, but experts say their ability to strike U.S. and allied targets in the region is limited because they would need to be launched from vulnerable positions along the Persian Gulf. Furthermore, analysts say these missiles are not very accurate and serve more as a psychological threat to large urban and economic centers in the region.

    The Islamic Republic is also building a stockpile of longer-range ballistic missiles that are able to hit any target in the Middle East, including Israel, but analysts say these weapons suffer from significant inaccuracy.

    U.S. intelligence officials have warned in recent years of Iran’s potential to deliver weapons of mass destruction with these missiles. In the 2014 U.S. Worldwide Threat Assessment [PDF], Director of National Intelligence James Clapper said Iran has “the means and motivation to develop longer-range missiles, including an intercontinental ballistic missile.” Tehran claims its controversial nuclear program is intended solely for peaceful applications, but Western analysts continue to speculate whether the regime has decided to pursue a nuclear weapon. Pursuant to UN Security Council Resolution 1929 , Iran is forbidden from developing ballistic missiles capable of delivering nuclear warheads.


    How does the United States collaborate with allies?


    A major component of U.S. military strategy is partnering with allies around the globe to expand their ballistic missile defense capabilities. The Aegis BMD system is the linchpin of the Obama administration’s plan for a phased deployment of a missile defense umbrella in Europe, which is intended to protect U.S. forces and NATO allies from regional threats like Iran. NATO leaders adopted missile defense as a principal alliance objective at their 2010 Lisbon Summit and approved the integration of U.S. and allied BMD efforts. In February 2014, the USS Donald Cook arrived in the port of Rota, becoming the first of four Aegis warships to be based in Spain. The first land-based versions of the system, so-called Aegis Ashore sites, are expected to be operational in Romania by 2015 and in Poland by 2018.

    In Asia, Japan is the Pentagon’s closest collaborator in this arena. Tokyo has procured a layered missile defense system from Washington, including Aegis-equipped destroyers and Patriot missile batteries. Analysts say the two longtime allies partner in a way that is highly interoperable, and note they are working to jointly develop future BMD systems. The United States has also provided BMD technology to South Korea, which bought Aegis warships and Patriot missile batteries. But while all three nations are wary of the looming ballistic missile threat from North Korea, analysts note that deep-seated tensions between Tokyo and Seoul have kept them from cooperating on BMD and other military matters.

    The United States is also assessing ways for Australia, which is building several Aegis-equipped destroyers, to contribute to missile defense in the Asia-Pacific region.

    In the Middle East, missile defense cooperation is a major component of Israel’s strategic relationship with the United States, experts say. In recent years, the United States and Israel have jointly funded and developed several rocket and missile defense systems, including the so-called Iron Dome, which was first deployed in 2011 to guard against very short-range rocket attacks (under 90 km) from potentially hostile neighbors; David’s Sling; and the Arrow I, II, and III systems, designed to counter strikes from regional actors, particularly Iran. Although there is some debate surrounding Iron Dome’s effectiveness, many analysts say the system hits the vast majority of its intended targets and, as a result, has altered Israel’s military strategy in recent conflicts with Hamas. Many believe that without the system Israel would have been forced to carry out more intense military assaults.

    What are the tensions with Russia?


    Missile defense has aggravated U.S.-Russian relations in recent years, particularly with U.S.-NATO plans to deploy BMD assets in the former Soviet bloc. Former U.S. defense secretary Robert M. Gates writes in his 2014 memoir that the missile defense issue dominated the U.S.-Russia relationship during his stints in both the George W. Bush and first Obama administrations.

    The Pentagon has stated repeatedly that the system is only designed to guard against limited attacks from regional actors like Iran, but the Kremlin believes the technology could be updated to intercept their missiles and may eventually tip the strategic balance toward the West. “The military people realize missile defense is part of the strategic arsenal of the United States,” Russian foreign minister Sergei Lavrov said in February 2014. “When a nuclear shield is added to a nuclear sword, it is very tempting to use this offensive defense capability.”
    avatar
    max steel

    Posts : 2967
    Points : 2998
    Join date : 2015-02-12
    Location : South Pole

    US Missile defence

    Post  max steel on Sat Feb 20, 2016 12:19 am

    avatar
    max steel

    Posts : 2967
    Points : 2998
    Join date : 2015-02-12
    Location : South Pole

    Re: United States Missile Defense

    Post  max steel on Fri Apr 08, 2016 7:09 pm

    Army Missile Defense Stretched Thin: Readiness, Crisis Response At Risk

    There’s no peace dividend in missile defense. While most types of Army units don’t deploy to Iraq or Afghanistan anymore, some scarce specialties are in increasing demand worldwide, such as special operators, division staffs, and missile defense forces like the famous Patriot. As long-range missile threats increase from Iran and North Korea, China and Russia, Hezbollah and Hamas, Army Chief of Staff Ray Odierno himself has said the current pace of missile defense deployments is not sustainable.

    “Today, we have air and missile defense forces in nine countries,” said Col. Clement Coward, deputy commander of the 32nd Air and Missile Defense Command. “On any given day, nearly half of the Army’s Patriot batteries are outside the continental United States [and] we’ve begun forward-deploying THAAD batteries” — even though THAAD’s so new there are only three batteries in service. As a result, Coward told the Association of the US Army today, “we are rapidly approaching an inflection point where we face the risk of breaking our AMD force.”

    Skilled personnel are thinking of getting out, equipment is wearing out, and upgrades are delayed because the units aren’t at home to get them, Army leaders warned. Even more worrying is that, with so much of the force either deployed or recovering from deployment, little is ready and available to respond to unexpected crises.

    “The risk really comes in our contingency forces,” said Maj. Gen. Gary Cheek, assistant deputy chief of Army staff for operations and plans (section G-3/5-7), also speaking at AUSA.

    “Where the risk is not apparent, but it’s very real, is if you’ve got a contingency requirement,” Check told me after the panel. “[If] I’ve got to send four Patriot battalions to protect key seaports, airports, tactical units, headquarters, in an active combat theater where I’m moving in forces, moving out non-combatants….I’ve really put that [contingency response capacity] at risk.”

    With budgets shrinking and sequester looming, the Army doesn’t expect to buy a lot of new missile defense batteries any time soon. Besides, the asset under stress is not so much the equipment as the skilled personnel to operate it. “The people are the key,” Cheek said, “so we will in fact for this career field over-man it” — that is, assign more personnel to missile defense than filling every position would require — “because we know the stress on it is so high.”

    Along with shoring up the supply of missile defenders, though, the Army also needs to reduce demand.

    “We’re trying to step back and say it’s time to rethink this, we need to get global priorities and make some hard calls about where we’re going to be and where we’re not gong to be,” Cheek told AUSA.

    “Once a combatant commander has his grip on that asset, they will never agree to give it away, never, and I understand that,” Cheek told me. The Army expects the supposedly temporary deployment of a THAAD battery to Guam will become a permanent fixture, for example. Officials at the conference also fended off repeated questions from the South Korean press about stationing THAAD permanently in the divided peninsula.

    “I’m not telling you that everything needs to be back in the United States,” Cheek told me, “but I think we could be more measured.”

    So late last year, both Gen. Odierno and his Navy counterpart, Chief of Naval Operations Jonathan Greenert, sent an “8-star memo” to then-Secretary Chuck Hagel calling for a reevaluation of missile defense strategy. While the Army worries about Patriot and THAAD deployments, the Navy worries about more and more of its multi-mission Aegis destroyers being relegated to a narrowly defensive role.

    That two four-star service chiefs are taking an interest is significant, said Maj. Gen. John Rossi, who heads both air defense and field artillery training at Fort Sill, Oklahoma. “As the demand exceeds the supply [for] air and missile defense,” Rossi told me, “their intent was [to ask], ‘what’s the broad strategy to deal with this threat set?'”

    “Remember deterrence?” Maj. Gen. Cheek asked the audience at AUSA. “That worked back in the day. It still works.” Of the 116 ballistic missiles shot at US forces since World War II, he said, every one was fired by Iraq before or during an American invasion. In other words, potential adversaries won’t risk US retaliation unless they figure we’re going to hit them with everything we’ve got regardless of whether they fire missiles.

    Reassessing the balance between deterrence and forward-deployed missile defense is a major theme of the Greenert-Odierno memo, retired Lt. Gen. Edward Anderson told AUSA.

    “The eight-star memo, it’s getting a ton of attention in the building, in OSD [the Office of the Secretary of Defense], from policymakers… and that’s a good thing,” said Air Force Brig. Gen. Kenneth Todorov, deputy director of the joint Missile Defense Agency. That said, Todorov pointed out, “it’s written from a service perspective, not a COCOM perspective.” If the four-star combatant commanders wrote a memo on missile defense, he said, its recommendations might be very different.

    “COCOMs don’t pay the bills,” Anderson shot back. “Services do.”

    Sponsored content

    Re: United States Missile Defense

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Sun Dec 17, 2017 12:50 pm