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.'"

Comments

SBX-1

[daveschroeder]

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

Re:SBX-1

[PPH]

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:SBX-1

[daveschroeder]

Quite right.

And you've also demonstrated, even if not your intent, quite well why secrets are necessary, even in open and democratic societies — not to keep them from our own citizens, but to prevent adversaries from understanding our capabilities, techniques, sources, and methods.

Re:SBX-1

[PPH]

We can hope that those granted the clearance to perform the necessary oversight are honest enough to tell us the truth: Whether or not this missile defense system actually works. Without telling us how or showing us the evidence. I'd have more faith in them if their political lives didn't depend on repeated cash infusions from the very companies that build the stuff that may or may not work.

Re:SBX-1

[hairyfeet]

Not to mention how long can you feed the thing gas? The wiki says that pig is sucking down on SIX 3.6Mw generators and there are plans to add two more of those hogs on top of those 6. i'm sorry but if there were EVER a case for nuclear power that giant power hog would be it. if we were in an actual war situation how long would we be able to keep feeding that thing with all the other fuel needs of the country and military?

While i think drones are a good idea that thing is just too much of a piggy on conventional fuel. Instead we need more like that giant flying wing NASA was showing off, something solar powered that can stay up for weeks on end. park those suckers over anyone like NK that you are worried about, but sucking down as much gas as that oil rig radar? i just don't see that as a long term viable system, not with the cost of oil rising.

Re:SBX-1

[Baloroth]

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:SBX-1

[jafiwam]

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.

Re:SBX-1

[PPH]

Decoys of warheads are for the re-entry phase.

Decoys don't work during re-entry. Chaff, mylar balloons and lightweight dummies won't survive atmospheric drag.

Decoys are useful during the mid course 'coast', after the booster stages have separated but before warheads return to the atmosphere. Just after booster separation, it is possible to maneuver warheads to a small degree. This allows independent targeting by warheads from a single missile (MIRVs). Its also possible to spread some decoys between them so as to make mid-course interception more difficult as well as obfuscate the identity of the actual targets and confuse terminal defense systems (if any).

Mid course is where the SBX-1 and GMD are expected to work.

The re-entry phase is the trickiest to defend against. Warheads are moving fast and may not be differentiated from decoys until they hit the atmosphere. From this point, there may only be seconds until a warhead reaches its target. And in those seconds, defense systems need acquire their target, calculate trajectories and the ABMs accelerated to target. If the targets are 'hard targets' (missile silos, bunkers, etc.) the job is somewhat easier in that the warhead must strike within a few hundred yards laterally and at a low altitude. This gives ABM systems a smaller footprint to protect and a shorter flight to target. Populations targets are large and can be attacked with high altitude blasts. So terminal ABM systems have to get up higher, cover larger areas and have much less decision time to work with. Guess which types of targets North Korea will most likely select.

In general, the sooner you can knock an ICBM down, the easier a job it is. Knocking them out in their silos is best.

Parent post written by anti-US propagandist

[daveschroeder]

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.

Re:Parent post written by anti-US propagandist

[sideslash]

If you are so indoctrinated into "USA USA USA USA..." that you cannot see how this is a bad thing, well there is probably no hope for you, nor point in trying to have a conversation with you.

I

Clearly, parent was vaporized by a nuclear weapon in mid-sentence. Maybe even a "nukular" one launched by rednecks. RIP AC.

Re:Parent post written by anti-US propagandist

[vux984]

The major powers already have enough offensive to destroy anyone else.

However, they can't use it because of mutual assured destruction. Or put another way, they can use it, but the retaliation would be too devasting to contemplate.

On the defense side, a missle defense system disables the enemies ability to first strike on us. This is a good thing, and is the defensive aspect to a missile defense system.

However, a missile defense system disables the opponents ability to retaliate our first strike, and is a crucial element to enabling us to first strike with impunity. That is a very VERY offensive element to missle defense systems.

That said, we still should participate in the missile defense race, it would be beyond foolish to let our opponents develop missile defense while we have none.

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.

The world will not be a better place if any nation, including the US, can first strike with impunity.

Re:Parent post written by anti-US propagandist

[daveschroeder]

No, I understand all too well. The doctrinal notion of MAD, even if absurd, only works when your enemy fears or cares about destruction (as we do).

To paraphrase The Peacemaker, I'm not afraid of the man who wants a hundred nuclear weapons — I'm terrified of the man who only wants one.

Re:Parent post written by anti-US propagandist

[NoNonAlphaCharsHere]

Two of the biggest cold warriors in history, Nixon and Brezhnev, decided that missile defense systems were a Really Bad Idea (TM). Down the road of "missile missile anti missile missile" madness lies. Unilateral changes in these kinds of policies are very unwelcome and destabilizing. Imagine the US reaction if China started to pursue this sort of technology.

Re:Parent post written by anti-US propagandist

[AmiMoJo]

However, a missile defense system disables the opponents ability to retaliate our first strike, and is a crucial element to enabling us to first strike with impunity.

Only if you are sure it is going to work 100% perfectly... Or maybe 98% perfectly if you are willing to accept a few cities and millions of deaths as acceptable losses. Against an opponent with many missiles a missile defence isn't that useful.

Against countries with only a few missiles though it is viable. So given that it would probably be best not to develop missile defence systems because it will only force countries like North Korea to build larger and larger arsenals to defend themselves against the US, while affording the US itself no real protection.

Re:Parent post written by anti-US propagandist

[Darth Snowshoe]

However, a missile defense system disables the opponents ability to retaliate our first strike, and is a crucial element to enabling us to first strike with impunity. That is a very VERY offensive element to missle defense systems.

Nobody wants to risk everything on a worldwide missle defense system that's never been operationally tested. Nobody wants to live in a world where several other continents have been nuked into radioactive ash. Believe me, the people planning and building missle defense systems sincerely hope that they never have to be used. Nobody's imagining it as an enabler for a first-strike capability.

Re:Parent post written by anti-US propagandist

[RajivSLK]

Exactly. Close 100% of North Korean GDP is going towards military uses whether the US has missile defense or not. Forcing North Korea to use up a large part of that budget building a larger, yet less effective, arsenal is a win.

Re:Parent post written by anti-US propagandist

[poity]

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:Parent post written by anti-US propagandist

[DesScorp]

How infinitely arrogant one has to be to decide their "enemies" are not even capable of acting rationally.

Some aren't. It wasn't very rational for Hitler to start a two-front war. Seemed like a great idea to him, though.

Re:Parent post written by anti-US propagandist

[Alex Belits]

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:Parent post written by anti-US propagandist

[Alex Belits]

All governments are rational actors. Even those, your propaganda paints as irrational ones. If they were not, they would be overthrown long ago.

Re:Parent post written by anti-US propagandist

[rtb61]

It is all still a waste of money. They are autocracies, the only way to effectively defend against them is to convince 'Dear Leaders' and their cronies that they are number one on the hit parade and they will be targeted and eliminated as the first priority.

'Dear Leader' and his pals do not give a crap about their country or it's citizens they can all burn as long as it feeds the ego and lusts of 'Dear Leader' and his pals.

So all you need to do is convince 'Dear Leader' and his pals, that they will die should they initiate a conflict, no negotiation, no truce, no peace until they personally have been eliminated. Whether by direct conflict or assassination.

The idea that political leaders should be spared from direct personal attack during conflicts is crap. They should be the first on the firing theirs and ours, for their failure to achieve diplomatic resolution and save their citizens lives. Top down attack will see many more diplomatic resolutions and many fewer even zero conflicts.

What if I told you

[eap]

a guided missile is just a disposable drone?

Re:What if I told you

[WindBourne]

Can a guided missile loiter at 50-70K undetected by enemies for 24-48 hours?

The real question.

[Nethead]

Could a drone really take down a North Korea missile before it self destructs.