Why Drones Could Be the Future of Missile Defense 167
An anonymous reader writes "With North Korea's failed missile launch Friday, it is clear many nations around the globe are attempting to acquire missiles that can carry larger payloads and go further. Such moves have made the United States and its allies very nervous. Missile defense has been debated since the 1980's with such debate back once again the headlines. Most missile defense platforms have technical issues and are very expensive. One idea: use drones instead. '... a high-speed (~3.5 to 5.0 km/s), two-stage, hit-to-kill interceptor missile, launched from a Predator-type UAV can defeat many of these ballistic missile threats in their boost phase.' Could a Drone really take down a North Korea missile? 'A physics-based simulator can estimate the capabilities of a high-altitude, long endurance UAV-launched boost-phase interceptor (HALE BPI) launched from an altitude of approximately 60,000 feet. Enabled by the revolution in UAVs, this proposed boost-phase interceptor, based on off-the-shelf technology, can be deployed in operationally feasible stations on the periphery of North Korea.'"
Not sure this makes anything easier or cheaper (Score:2, Interesting)
The technical challenges and cost of BMD is mainly in the interceptor and tracking/targeting which has to be there weather launched from the ground or a ship at see or drone. Yes a done can be located near a country like DPRK and therefore hit at boost phase easier than intercepting further down range (Mid Course or Terminal) however this can be achieved by a ship off the coast in the same way using SM-3. Not sure the first stage of SM-3 is the complex or expensive part? ??
Re:What if I told you (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:SBX-1 (Score:5, Interesting)
It can track an object the size of a baseball from about 3000 miles away.
How many baseballs can it track at one time? And once it has figured out which are the real baseballs and which are fake*, how quickly interceptors be launched after the real ones?
*The details of which are highly classified. Because dummys and countermeasures are dirt cheap compared to the discrimination technology. Once you know what the SBX-1 is looking for, ICBM payloads can be updated inexpensively. And they are classified because we have publicly demonstrated how well we can see all this space junk. And how well we can shoot a piece of it down. But funding would be at risk should the public realize that an important piece in the middle is missing.
Re:Parent post written by anti-US propagandist (Score:4, Interesting)
I find these rebuttals humorous in the sense that opposition to missile defense comes in two opposing forms: 1) missile defense should not be implemented because it is a waste of money since it is such an immature a technology that even if widely implemented a few MIRVs can still penetrate, and 2) missile defense should not be implemented because such an effective shield would make the shield bearer more willing to nuke another country.
In criticizing ballistic missile defense, these systems are made out to be at once completely ineffective and completely effective. I think this contradiction points to a conclusion somewhere in the middle: that ballistic missile defense partially effective, and that it really has only one use, which is to safe guard against errant launches and rogue groups in possession of at most a handful of missiles. In other words, it fails as a strategic threat.
This is why, in addition to the US, Russia and China, along with many regional powers around the world, have active anti missile systems in place, and why the US isn't moving against existing or new systems in those countries (which it would if it in fact wanted to "strike with impunity").
Re:SBX-1 (Score:4, Interesting)
As for how many, the Aegis Radar system can track 100+, and this system is based on that, so at the very least it should be able to track a hundred of so. Realistically, if more than 100 missiles get launched, they would never be able to be shot down in time. An ABM shield is currently only useful against an accidental, terrorist, or rogue launch of under a few dozen missiles: any more and no missile-based defense system is going to be able to stop it.
As far as interceptors go, it would be launching Patriot missiles, and the US has over 1000 launchers for them in service, so taking out a half-dozen missiles wouldn't really be a challenge. Again, in the case of a major launch by China or Russia, no missile shield even close to being built is going to do anything at all to stop it.
Re:Parent post written by anti-US propagandist (Score:4, Interesting)
Do your homework. Do you remember what happened to the Soviet Union? They did produce a large amount of excellent hardware but ultimately they could not keep up economically.
Except it's a myth created to justify the excesses of US military-industrial comples. Military-related production was very cheap in USSR because government owned it directly and ran it, just like the rest of the economy, as a giant nonprofit. At the same time US was stuffing the pockets of military contractors with profits, and now continues so under pretenses of fighting Muslim terrorism and similar bogeymen.
Re:SBX-1 (Score:4, Interesting)
The drones are not just tracking during the boost phase, they are killing the target during the boost phase. Which is nice, because it falls right back down near or on the folks that launched it. Your bloviating about other stages of flight are meaningless because you clearly did not understand what the discussion is about.
Anyway, a boost-phase intercept is tricky because of the need to get the intercept vehicle there fast. That problem could be solved with a beam-weapon or by moving the intercept vehicle to a stand-off position much closer to the launch point. Thus, the drone equipped with it.
I have the feeling the 747 you think you know about is only the tip of the iceberg, it isn't used anymore because as a proof of concept, it worked poorly. However, it worked. The rest is engineering.