Slashdot Mirror
Why Drones Could Be the Future of Missile Defense
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 a drone, but the US Navy's Sea-based X-band RADAR (SBX-1) — a completely self-propelled (max speed: 8 knots), semi-submersible modified oil platform designed for use in high winds and heavy seas — is also part of the Missile Defense Agency's Ballistic Missile Defense System. It can track an object the size of a baseball from about 3000 miles away. SBX-1 sailed to the region to monitor the North Korean launch:
http://security.blogs.cnn.com/2012/03/29/navy-ships-out-radar-system-ahead-of-north-korea-launch/
A brief history of SBX-1 — great pictures: http://www.mda.mil/global/documents/pdf/sbx_booklet.pdf
Missile defense is an _offensive_ weapon. It takes away the worries of mutually assured destruction.
While the context was tactical nuclear weapons, this statement by George W. Bush makes clear the mindset of those in power in the U.S., "I want nuclear weapons I can use."
As long as it's not defending against a phantom menace it should work ok.
(linkie)
Free Martian Whores!
It looks like that will be the new battleground.
We will be staring at a future where we have crowded areas outside countries where international law allows activities, but those activities are expressly designed to create a defensive blockade around a particular country. As the original poster has said, the cost for a semi-autonomous blockade is becoming lower and lower.
While I don't have sufficient understanding of international law, nor the science fiction authors that most likely have talked about these in the past. I expect a future where we have major battles, skirmishes and wars not about sovereign land and rights, but about operations within international spaces.
The endpoint I can see as one of two places. Lots of "badland" style scenarios where nations cannot operate outside connected national corridors, or rewriting of international reducing the international areas in favour of a larger buffer.
Our rock is now getting a lot smaller.
Missile defense, as the name implies, _is_ defensive. It gives _us_ the advantage, which is a good thing — unless, of course, you don't want us to have that advantage.
Seriously, I wondered as soon as it was listed as failed if it had been taken down to test the US of A's latest technology.
a guided missile is just a disposable drone?
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? ??
Gates tabled the ABL for a time. This might be what did it in. Or perhaps he was hoping to improve lasers or even railguns.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
For a boost-phase attack you need air superiority over the launch zone – or at least close to it. If you have that, why not take the missile out before it is launched?
If it was taken out by an anti-missile missile of some kind, those tend to be fairly obvious. If it was taken out by an anti-missile kinetic (railgun), there may not be any good evidence without examining the husk of the rocket. Similarly, anti-missile lasers would be extremely noticeable in the right spectrum, but that probably wouldn't be in the 'visible' portion.
Best way to hide an anti-missile cannon? Set up a grid of anti-missile missiles to take the credit.
But, inevitable consequence of this would be to avoid the boost phase of ICBM. One way is cruise missile instead of a ballistic missile. The other way is to move the whole damned payload up into orbit. That would be a very dangerous development. Since countries with large area would not be at a big disadvantage here, this might be half decent solution against rogue regimes of smaller land area.
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
Agreed. I seriously doubt that anyone posting here actually _knows_ much about the current state of missile defense systems. I mean, you may have read a lot on the topic, but are the important details likely to be factually correct in public documents? I doubt it.
How effective are drones if no one is guiding them? Do your drones still work when you satalites are shot out of orbit? Do they still work when an EMP blast from a nuclear explossion takes out terrestrial communications?
We already have drones that take no fuel and never leave the sky. That's a satellite. By tracking missiles with radar and using a satellite based or local-to-that-continent weapons system to shoot them down, we get the same benefit as constantly buzzing drones without the need to pay for drones hovering around scouting. To use this type of system, all we need is to keep our eyes open using our best imaging tools (radar) and then get the imaging to talk to anti-missile weapons. Then we can use lasers, KE penetrators, or whatever else, pick your favorite tech. Or the cheapest one to put into space.
On a related note, ever wonder why North Korea rarely has successful missile tests?
wait what ? 12600 to 18000 km/h ?
However, the humanist in me would argue that the minute we developed strategic missile defense that we should give it away. The world will be a better place if NOBODY can first strike on anyone.
..we will offer it as a no cost option to any country that wants to fall in line with American interests...so it becomes a diplomatic and strategic tool for keeping our allies close and gaining new ones.
My God can beat up your God. Just kidding...don't take offense. I know there's no God.
Invisible, from miles away, been around for a while........ Just thought I'd remind everybody. And that's the stuff they let us know about!
We have airborne laser based systems capable of taking down ballistic missiles. Who's to say we didn't already use such a system to make sure the N Korean test failed? Would be a great test for the system. Plausible deniability.
My God can beat up your God. Just kidding...don't take offense. I know there's no God.
can defeat many of these ballistic missile threats in their boost phase
"Boost phase" means "shortly after launch," which means being close to where it was launched from, which often means violating their airspace. So your anti-missile technology relies on giving your enemy legal justification to fire to begin with.
...with controversy. But it's dead.
Much more plausible (and deniable, and non-attributable...) is downing it with cyber.
just a big expensive boondogle to help the sheep sleep through their sheerings. While there may be several nuclear powers willing to nuke the U.S., they wouldn't do it in a manner so traceable as a missile launch. Even North Korea isn't that crazy, I'm sure their modified fishing vessels work just fine.
"The ability to delude yourself may be an important survival tool" - Jane Wagner -
How much would it cost to put Chuck Norris on a missile with a handful of sledgehammers? Hard times calls for "out of the box" thinking.
And all this for the cheap price of .....
"It's too bad that stupidity isn't painful." - Anton LaVey
Dog pod grid?
Personally, I do not think so. because, no matter how lunatic they are, they are not lunatic enough to engage the US in a war.
But I guess the war industry should keep it going, eh folks?
Could a drone really take down a North Korea missile before it self destructs.
-- I have a private email server in my basement.
Please explain, except perhaps in speed, how this concept differs radically from the cruise missile.
So, how well will this drone system work against countermeasures? Like, for example, simply shipping the nuke to the target location?
--PM
There's no reason to send people under the sea when a nuclear powered robot can do the same thing, cheaper and safer. You'll lose a few, and a few nuclear payloads too - but then, that's already happened, eh? The trick will be making a decent self-destruct mechanism so that they can't be stolen and re-purposed. The cost advantages and inherent stealth of submersible drones make this a no-brainer for the military.
Please do not read this sig. Thank you.
Why not?
http://www.worldskycat.com/markets/skycom.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbital_airship
Unaccountable leaders are masters, and unrepresented people are slaves. How do US and EU fare?
My brother-in-law's brother was with the FBI and retired recently. There was a dragon fly surveillance bot on display. It was on display because it was declassified since it was already over 20 years old. The guy leading them into the building quipped, "If we had that 20 years ago can you imagine what we have today?" I actually thought of a rail gun. Some of the weapons they want us to believe are in development could already be deployed. Point I was really making, is how do we know that the failed launch wasn't brought down?
Why would we shoot down their missile? Even if we ignore the fugly diplomatic implications of such an act, it would have carried a significant risk of telling them something about our capabilities, and would definitely have prevented us from learning lots of useful stuff about their capabilities.
Personally, I do not think so. because, no matter how lunatic they were, they were not lunatic enough to engage in a war.
I guess the war industry put it in the history books, eh folks?
The most vulnerable portions of a missile launch ground to ground are at the launch site, where a passive drone could wait in hiding on top of a building and be activated when the site became active, and up in space.
During the initial boost launch, the missile moves upwards fairly slowly, and a kamikaze drone could easily impact it enough to damage the flight path, either by targeting the warhead or the fuel tanks, since it could dive downwards.
However, this requires you to violate the enemy airspace, as we did with the super drone that Iran downed.
As to the apogee space attack, we already have that covered, but you're not supposed to know about that.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
What? Your comment wasn't even relevant. It doesn't take into account military strength, or even specific countries.
When iron weapons were discovered, offence was war.
Then castles were built, and defense ruled.
Then gunpowder, and castles fell. Offence was again king.
Then trenches (defense) then tanks (offence) then arm launched anti tank rockets (defense) then nukes.
ABM is the next defensive weapon. They will be cheap, ($20000) and have upgradeable radar & software mounted in the rocket. They will sit in the town square, (or maybe on the town hall?) and when they spot an incoming threat, they will take it out.
Much cheaper than a nuke.
"You are talking about mass murder General, not war. Mr. President, I'm not saying we wouldn't get our hair mussed. But I do say no more than ten to twenty million killed, tops. Depending on the breaks." -- Dr Strangelove
especially not if they have lasers.
and russia? does that sound oppressive? i mean it kind of sounds oppressive to me.
There are no "rogue nations" more rogue than US.
Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
There was a dragon fly surveillance bot on display.
Where?
It was on display because it was declassified since it was already over 20 years old.
Probably also because it never worked.
The guy leading them into the building quipped, "If we had that 20 years ago can you imagine what we have today?"
I would guess, better propaganda and more corrupt management.
Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
Imperialism much?
History is full of people who were lunatic enough to start wars, even accounting for military strength and specific countries.
I wish someone would've first-posted "Bush is the real terrorist!" to this discussion, because then everyone would've come here and nodded their head, yup, that about covers it and represents the intelligence level of the 99% here, 'nuf said. Would've saved us a lot of time.
For a boost phase ABM to work, it has to reach the ICBM while the booster is burning. That would be possible for Iran or China or North Korea, but not for Russia since the interceptor would have to travel over too much land to reach the target before it went dark. Since we have successful arms control agreements with the Russians, sticking with this type of anti-missile defense might be best. The return-to-sender aspects of boost phase ABMs also seems attractive. Of course, the interceptor is also under power and a bright target and so may be intercepted itself so the advantage may not last. But it is probably better than our anti-Iran deployment scheme which infuriates the Russians.
Repeating something often doesn't make it false.
Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
The regime exists because of draconian internal control. It is not self sustaining, and gets the extra resources it needs (mostly food) by blackmailing the international community. The blackmail is not solely based on their nuclear capabilities.
For S. Korea and the US, conventional warfare is a meaningful threat. At a minimum the north could take Seoul, and it would be very bloody and costly to push them back to the DMZ. This could cause the collapse of the N. Korean state, so the leadership knows it is likely a suicidal act.
For China, a collapse of the N. Korea regime would be a nightmare, because of the wave of refugees that would pour over the border. They are currently dealing with a low level refugee problem with defectors, and it is a destabilizing force in their border area with N. Korea. This is how the regime blackmails China.
China also wants to avoid having a land border with a modern Western capitalist style state. A takeover by the south is the certain outcome of the end of the northern state, just like east and west Germany. Even with the Chinese embrace of capitalist economics, the Communist Party is still the sole source of political power, and they want to keep it that way. A functioning modern Democracy on a land border would be a direct challenge to their political legitimacy. China needs a functioning N. Korea.
None of this is directly caused by N. Korea nuclear weapons. The elite leadership knows that they would be personally doomed by the use of nuclear weapons. Even if they escape alive from the conflict that would follow, there is literally no place in the world they could hide.
Nuclear weapons in N. Korea are an bargaining chip for their game of blackmail. Without them the world world would not pay them nearly as much attention, so their ability to manipulate events would be seriously diminished.
Ballistic missile defense is a US political issue first and foremost. This has been true ever since Regan's Star Wars program. Despite all the money spent and all the claims, the chances that the system works is virtually zero. The "tests"that have been done are exercises in organized lying.
Remember the first Gulf War and the Scuds? After all the claims of success, the truth finally came out, and the Patriot system was a failure. The current versions are just as broken. How do we know this? Because the number of tests needed to prove a system like this is in the hundreds, or thousands. The number of tests they actually run is in the tens. And they are all rigged to succeed. Just think of how much testing they do on jets or other missiles. And if they did real meaningful testing, then potential adversaries could observe the results and have all the information they would need to defeat it.
So this done system is ultimately more DOD pork. Therefore, we'll end up building it despite the fact that it will be completely unreliable. A non-working solution to the wrong problem.
Why is Snark Required?
So yes, since naval fleets were basically defensive (cannot win a land war with a Navy), the build up of defensive capability on the High Seas was perceived as an offensive weapon.
From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
If the US can't stop many, many tons of weed and coke coming in, what's to prevent an atomic weapon arriving the same way?
Epitaph: At last! Root access!
Predator ceiling is 25,000ft according to wikipedia; only the recently canceled Global Hawk flies at 60,000ft. Methinks this is an attempt to revive a canceled program.
Is it a rule, that there's an exception to every rule?
Call me cynical, but somehow I just got an image of some DOD guy saying something like, "So what if the ABM's don't work? If anyone ever finds out, they will have much bigger problems to deal with..."