US jet intercepts ballistic missile for first time

Firehorse

Banned Member
A US F-16 fighter used an air-to-air missile to destroy a sounding rocket in its boost phase for the first time this week in a test of a new missile defense concept, US spokesmen said Tuesday.
The system -- named the Net-Centric Airborne Defense Element (NCDE) -- breaks new ground in that it would arm fighter aircraft or drones with missiles fast enough to intercept a ballistic missile as it lifts into space.
The aircraft would have to get to within a 100 miles of the launch site to catch the ascending missile in the first two to three minutes after launch.
But it could be very useful in a short range combat situation against short and medium range missiles, said Rick Lehner, a spokesman for the US Missile Defense Agency.
The Pentagon has two other better known boost phase intercept systems under development -- the Airborne Laser and the Kinetic Energy Interceptor -- but those are still years away from being ready, he said.

"So it does give us an initial boost phase capability even though it is a much shorter range missile, and you have to be in the area of the missile launch to be effective," Lehner said.

The test Monday at White Sands Missile Range in New Mexico involved an F-16 fighter that fired two modified AIM-9X missile at an Orion sounding or research rocket.

The first destroyed the rocket and the second recorded the interception, the Pentagon's missile defense agency said.

The missile seekers' relayed images of the rocket at close range, demonstrating the capability to acquire and track the target, the Pentagon's missile defense agency said.
"Although not unexpected, the subsequent intercept destroyed the target," it said.
"A second AIM-9X launched during the test observed through its seeker the intercept of the target by the first and was also on a trajectory to intercept the target," the agency said.
Besides special seekers, AIM-9X and AIM-20 AAMRAM are fitted with a new liquid propellant second stage to give it the burst of speed needed to catch a ballistic missile in its boost phase.
Lehner said the missiles were heavily instrumented during the test, but otherwise conditions were "pretty realistic."
Raytheon Missile Systems, which developed the NCADE, said it "provides a revolutionary, low-cost approach to interceptor development and acquisition."
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=071204233530.iix59uhf&show_article=1
I have long anticipated this way of intercepting BMs, especially those with new manuevarable warheads, and new Topol Ms.
Russia orders new strategic nukes
MOSCOW (AP) — Russia's military has commissioned another batch of new intercontinental ballistic missiles — nuclear weapons officials boast can penetrate any prospective missile shield, reports said Sunday.
The announcement comes amid tensions between Moscow and Washington over U.S. plans for missile defense sites in Poland and the Czech Republic.
The three new Topol-M missiles are capable of hitting targets more than 6,000 miles away and, mounted on a heavy off-road vehicle, are harder for an enemy to track it down, officials said.
The Topol-M missiles, which had been deployed only in silos before December 2006, are stationed near the town of Teikovo, Russia's Strategic Missile Forces said in a statement carried by the ITAR-Tass and RIA Novosti news agencies.
The same unit commissioned the first batch of such truck-mounted missiles a year ago.
The Topol-M's chief designer, Yuri Solomonov, has said the missile drops its engines at a significantly lower altitude than earlier designs, making it hard for an enemy's early warning system to detect the launch.
He said the missiles' warhead and decoys closely resembled one another in flight, making it extremely difficult for a foe to select the real target from a multitude of false ones.
Windfall oil revenues in recent years have allowed the Kremlin buy weapons and fund the development of new missiles. The deployment of Topol-Ms, however, has proceeded slowly and Soviet-built ballistic missiles have remained the backbone of the nation's nuclear forces.
Teikovo, a small town in the Ivanovo region, is located about about 150 miles northeast of Moscow.
Find this article at:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2007-12-16-russiamissiles_N.htm

Baluyevsky also warned that the launch of an interceptor missile by the US could trigger a Russian missile strike because it could be mistaken for a ballistic missile aimed at Russia.
"We are talking about the possibility of a retaliatory strike being triggered by the mistaken classification of an interceptor missile launch," he said, adding that Russia's defenses were controlled by an automatic system.
"If we assume that Iran does try to launch a missile against the United States ... then interceptor missiles from Poland would fly in the direction of Russia," he said.
"I don't mean to scare anyone, but this isn't a scare story ... It's a technical detail that could affect the military stability of the world," Baluyevsky said.
http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/world/archives/2007/12/17/2003392901
 
Last edited:

macman

New Member
Wow - you just need to penetrate deep into enemy airspace, & be there at exactly the same time that a ballistic missile is launching...

Good luck with that.
 

Feanor

Super Moderator
Staff member
Wow - you just need to penetrate deep into enemy airspace, & be there at exactly the same time that a ballistic missile is launching...

Good luck with that.
Might not be possible against Russia, but against potential DPRK launches. ;)
 

macman

New Member
Still a matter of timing...

How are you going to know when they are going to launch - are the planes just going to hang around in enemy airspace to wait for them?

If they're going to do that, they'll have to take out enemy air-defences, & if they do that, why not just take out the silo's as well?

Might be handy to have a few planes armed with missiles around in case they missed a silo, but then you still have the problem with timing.

And if they missed a silo, & I don't give much chance for them being on station for a launch.
 

Wooki

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
I have long anticipated this way of intercepting BMs, especially those with new manuevarable warheads, and new Topol Ms.
I think you may have misread the intent of the NCADE. It is to be used in the boost phase and the "maneuverable warheads" you refer to are used in the last stages of flight.

Its entirely outside the NCADE's mission to intercept a RV in the terminal phase.

cheers

w
 

gf0012-aust

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Well, they will have to be escorted by fighters- the adversaries will try to shoot it down before launching their BMs.
and you have to predict somewhere in a 360deg circle that there is an asset out there to shoot at first.

btw it doesn't need to have escorts - there's a little SOP in existence thats used by AWACs, AAR and tankers and applies just as readily to a fat nose laser platform...


Also, new long range AA missiles may be even bigger threat to them.
the longer the range the easier it is to actually detect - and the better the opportunity to manouvre. planes aren't static targets.
 

Feanor

Super Moderator
Staff member
I think you may have misread the intent of the NCADE. It is to be used in the boost phase and the "maneuverable warheads" you refer to are used in the last stages of flight.

Its entirely outside the NCADE's mission to intercept a RV in the terminal phase.

cheers

w
I think what he meant was that this negates the advantage that manoueverable warheads provide in the terminal phase, by allowing an intercept in the boost phase.
 

Wooki

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
I think what he meant was that this negates the advantage that manoueverable warheads provide in the terminal phase, by allowing an intercept in the boost phase.
Fine, but the in theater players for whom this defensive weapon is designed for (Iran, N Korea, India, Pakistan) don't have maneuverable warheads (except perhaps India).

Either way, it is simply not an effective weapon against any of the first tier ICBM nations (and yes I realize that it could be used in a lucky snap shot against a sub launched threat, but the key word in my sentence was "effective")

cheers

w
 

Feanor

Super Moderator
Staff member
Exactly. So the real use of the target are ICBMs launched by third world states. N. Korea, Iran, etc.
 

Firehorse

Banned Member
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #12
I think what he meant was that this negates the advantage that manoueverable warheads provide in the terminal phase, by allowing an intercept in the boost phase.
Yes, exactly! I wonder if adding reflective coating to BM skin and/or revolving motion would protect it from laser beam?

Well, unless that big plane is made stealthy, it will show up on ground & airborne radars- no need to predict anything about its location, course & speed. Good luck for B-747 derivative to try outmaneuvering S-300/400! Even then, fighters can use their cannons, not just A2A missiles.
 

gf0012-aust

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Yes, exactly! I wonder if adding reflective coating to BM skin and/or revolving motion would protect it from laser beam?
the US and israelis have already tested the effects of spinning surfaces to see their impact on weaponised lasers -


Well, unless that big plane is made stealthy, it will show up on ground & airborne radars- no need to predict anything about its location, course & speed. Good luck for B-747 derivative to try outmaneuvering S-300/400! Even then, fighters can use their cannons, not just A2A missiles.
Range of S300-S400 is what?

Range of longest repeated laser to date? 280.000miles

good luck once weaponised lasers of the latters reach and energy get put on a plane. (and it will be a big plane, not some dicky fighter) 2 space based solutions means total coverage. 4 planes means total quadrant coverage.

btw, you still don't seem to have worked out that those planes are not "lone rangers" - modern airforces work with systems. eg thats why AWACs and SBR run and assist major assits in theatre. In other words they won't be blind deaf and dumb on their own. In critical battle space they will have escorts - and again, the further out the missile shoot, the easier it becomes to escape and evade if your own assets are placed properly.

guns? for goodness sake, understand how modern battlespace sensor systems will be employed with critical assets.

it's a weaponised critical asset - not the daily flight to hawai'i for "american airlines" morning run across the pacific
 

Feanor

Super Moderator
Staff member
The question if how to provide targetting data to the laser at 280 000 miles to shoot down a rapidly accelerating ICBM.
 

gf0012-aust

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
The question if how to provide targetting data to the laser at 280 000 miles to shoot down a rapidly accelerating ICBM.
But thats where systems and sensor fusion becomes the key.

the US has been able to lock on target at 280,000 miles since 1969.
factor in space based radar
seabased X band
compass call
rivet joint
AWACs
USN organic AWACs
USN organic battlespace management
coalition sympathetic systems (and there are about 8 already that can be hooked in if necessary)
existent DEW systems including assets such as Australias JORN which the US wants to integrate into for LR sensing
and other existent USN systems

well, you have a fused battespace capability already in place that is being refined each continuing day.

In fact, even last week, we had a briefing about the future sensor capability to which 8 partners have been signed up.

Not everything however, is in the public domain. and therein lies the problem with speculation.
 

Feanor

Super Moderator
Staff member
Interesting. So the USA would be able to provide targetting data without any assets closer then 280 000 miles? Or are you saying that the USA could provide targetting data with local assets to a laser that's 280 000 miles away? If it's the first please elaborate. If it's the second, then that's not news to me. The solution would be then to target the local assets that provide the targetting data. And the problem for blue force would be getting those local assets into place to be there when an ICBM launch happens.
 

gf0012-aust

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Interesting. So the USA would be able to provide targetting data without any assets closer then 280 000 miles? Or are you saying that the USA could provide targetting data with local assets to a laser that's 280 000 miles away? If it's the first please elaborate. If it's the second, then that's not news to me. The solution would be then to target the local assets that provide the targetting data. And the problem for blue force would be getting those local assets into place to be there when an ICBM launch happens.
what I'm saying is that the US has been able to operationally target a laser at a range of 280,000 miles since 1969 - and keep it locked on to target.
i.e. they have more than latent capacity to do it - its demonstrated at a real persistent functional level

the issue outside of that is:

weaponising the laser medium to become offensive
integrating all the targeting platforms into a coherent battlespace/targeting solution. again, elements of those disparate systems already can and do talk to each other - again the latency and actuality of what they can do here and now means that they have an advantage in delivering even a stopgap solution over other countries who are still at the "theoretical stage"

laser targeting - esp space based assets seeking to destroy a platform at launch is closer for the americans than any other country.

they've conducted space managed warfare since 1991.

here and now they are already ahead of the curve and targeting launch vehicles from a stand off position is not too far off in their future.

they're not a one trick pony, whereas I'd argue that any nation wanting to be near peer is a decade away from reaching parallel capability let alone needing technical superiority. The US won't be standing in temporal flux, they'll be moving ahead and are the best placed top do so.
 

Feanor

Super Moderator
Staff member
I think you misunderstood my question. If the USA has no assets within 280 000 miles, the USA can detect, track and target enemy forces on the tactical level with an aircraft mounted laser? I.e. the USA can zap an enemy fighter jet or tank, at 280 000 miles, with no local assets whatsoever to provide the data?
 
Top