As frozen_snowman said, this report lists goals for the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization (BMDO) to accomplish in order to be effective at
countering enemy threats, but also doing it at the cheapest possible cost and the soonest possible development time.
They list their goals as increasing the range of the missile defense interceptors, the lethality of the interceptors vs the enemy missile, the
accuracy of the interceptors, as well as increasing the effectiveness and producibility of the interceptors, while also decreasing size, the cost and
Decreasing the size and weight has an effect on the range, altitude and speed at which an interceptor can intercept it's target. Generally it helps
to increase the accuracy, lethality, range and effectiveness - all goals of the missile defense system.
They go on to reiterate these points many times through the report.
Pursuing advanced concepts and systems to counter future threats is also a goal for the missile defense system. They are basically looking to create a
system or a concept which will separate their system from an enemy's ballistic missiles and the technology that powers it. This way, they can counter
the current threat while also remaining a step ahead in the future to counter a future threat.
Introducing new kill mechanisms and boost phase interception technology are goals to counter a future threat.
Boost Phase Intercept
Technology (BIT) is the technological concept of intercepting a
missile still in it's boost phase, i.e., the roughly 3 minute time period after a missile is launched where it's booster and sustainer engines are
On page 4 of the report, they demonstrate a graph showing the old and new approaches to missile defense vs the threats and risks of enemy attack. A
continuous building block approach to countering these threats is stressed, while delivering the war fighting capability of today to meet the threats
of today. They also mention laying out continuous implementation technology funding to meet tomorrow's threat on what they call the "Technology Road
Map" and the "Technology Master Plan."
The "Technology Road Map" is demonstrated on page 9 of the report and shows how joint technology board input to the "Technology Master Plan,"
resource and investment strategies, and requirements generation can lead down this 'road' to the goals of technology inserts in to current programs,
new programs to combat new threats, and eventually, off in the 'sunset' (as seen in the picture in the report), "Making Missile Defense A
The "Technology Master Plan" objectives are basically to understand the evolving threat in the global ballistic missile theater, identify timelines
for the development, deployment and design of technology in order to keep pace with this threat, and also to mitigate the risks involved and reduce
the Major Defense Acquisition Program (MDAP) costs. Some other objectives were named as aligning existing technological missile defense programs and
to leverage service technology programs while developing new systems to meet requirements of the national missile defense system.
This "Technology Master Plan", according to a foot note on page 11, defines BMDO's (Ballistic Missile Defense Organization) investment and
approach to obtaining the "needed" technology
There is a Design, Develop and Deploy diagram on page 6 that says that major DoD projects require an 8-15 year cycle time, in which the DoD cannot
afford. To counter this, they hope to reduce the price as well as this cycle time to create a more cost effective missile defense system while getting
it fully loaded and operational in a shorter amount of time.
They identify the challenges as being redundant capabilities and proprietary technologies.
They identify the opportunities as defining and implementing open system approach to hardware development, including plug and play modules for future
architecture, systems to lower costs, facilitate interoperability and reducing proprietary solutions. What that basically boils down to is introducing
hardware on the missile defense system, at a lower cost, that is able to support future developments and essentially allow for a freely operated
system amongst many different operators in order to basically 'work together'.
On page 16 is the "Technology Program Approach" which lists the threats, the stressed BMD functions, the system's need for technology, and the
areas of technological focus. This is basically a lay out of what they perceive as threats to the United States, and the missile defense system's
current needs in order to effectively counter those threats. There are several listed so I recommend looking over them.
On page 18 is a nice list of terms used in this report and their acronym abbreviations. They include:
Atmospheric Interceptor Technology
Exoatmospheric Interceptor Technology
Boost Phase Intercept Technology
Advanced Radar Technology (ART)
Advanced Passive Technology (APT)
Advanced Mission Technology (AMT)
I Advanced Technology (BAT)
Directed Energy Technology
**Included are a few links to pages describing the linked technologies more in depth**
Some interesting diagrams are on pages 19, 20, 22, 24, 27 and 28 which basically display some of the systems and show how they work, along with giving
a few extra details.
BM/C4I Budget Information
Directed Energy Weapons
Kinetic Boost Phase Intercept
Boost Phase Intercept
[edit on 3/1/08 by NovusOrdoMundi]