It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

National Missile Defense Goes Black

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 29 2004 @ 02:49 PM
link   
It looks like big things are going on in the missile defense arena, unfortunately no sooner than 10 billion additional dollars are injected into the program it is announced that much of the the National Missile Defense program is going "black".

US National Missile Defense - Goes Black with More Green ($) & No Treaty

Back in June 2004 the US Congress voted to appropriate an additional 10 billion dollars for the National Missile Defense program. This was to assist in ongoing R&D in new technologies and to begin deployment of the shield at strategic locations around the globe. Then, just days ago (Oct. 14, 2004), Bush administration representative, Frank Sietzen stated that "the administration is reviewing whether or not we want to be signatory" to the 1967 United Nations Treaty on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space.

The "Outer Space Treaty" which was negotiated and signed at the height of the cold war preserves space for peaceful uses and prohibits any nation from declaring sovereignty over an extraterrestrial body.

The treaty was ratified by all the major space powers, including the United States and dozens of other governments. Although the treaty does not restrict weaponization of space, recent proposals have been made that would change the treaty to ban all kinds of weapons in space, for this reason, the US is contemplating withdrawing from the treaty.

The main reason for the US desiring withdrawal from the treaty revolves around the National Missile Defense initiative. Sietzen also said the US is not interested in WMD in space nor in military bases on the moon. What the US does seem interested in is conventional weapons that can be used in missile defense as well as conventional weapons delivered by spaceplanes, etc.


On Oct. 27, 2004, right on the heels of the news regarding the treaty, Air Force Lt. Gen. Henry A. Obering III, the new U.S. Missile Defense Agency director announced that a new shroud of secrecy is about to envelop the agency's projects.

Obering said he understands the government's obligation to inform U.S. taxpayers about their investment in the multibillion-dollar system, but that the agency is seeking to avoid tipping off potential enemies about weaknesses, particularly in the Ground-based Midcourse Defense system.

"We're not trying to hide things with respect to the American public. What we're trying to say is we have to take a really hard look at this now in terms of an operational capability in the future, of what we need to protect in terms of critical information..."

Obering, when asked about how developed the NMD system was and whether it is now effective against a North Korean threat, said that the agency was confident, based on testing so far and on threat expectations, that the components of the system would provide an effective defense against a near-term North Korean long-range missile launch.

He went on to say, "North Korea is a closed society - - but [with what] we can ascertain, what we believe -- we feel confident that this system will provide us more than just a rudimentary capability against that threat."


NMD: Description of methods/technologies

The National Missile Defense utilizes a layered Ballistic Missile Defense that provides multiple opportunities to intercept a target missile through each phase of its flight, thereby providing global coverage and protection against lethal missile payloads.

The National Missile Defense is divided into 3 segments which represent the 3 phases of a missile's trajectory. The "Boost phase", "Mid-Course phase" and the "Terminal phase".




Below are listed with very brief descriptions the various missile defense elements, projects and technologies associated with each phase of the missile's trajectory.

Boost Phase Elements:

* ABL / TILL – Airborne Laser / Track Illuminator Laser

* Cobra Judy Radar System

* DEW – Directed Energy Weapons Development

* LEAP – Lightweight Exoatmospheric Projectile

* SM-3 – STANDARD Missile-3

* STSS – Space Tracking and Surveillance System


Mid-Course Phase:

* EKV – Exoatmospheric Kill Vehicle

* GBR-P – Ground Based Radar-Prototype

* SBX – Sea-Based X-Band Radar

* UEWR – Upgraded Early Warning Radars (including PAVE PAWS)

* LEAP – Lightweight Exoatmospheric Projectile

* SM-3 – Standard Missile-3

* STSS – Space Tracking and Surveillance System

* HPD – High Power Discriminator

* Cobra Dane Radar System

* Cobra Judy Radar System

* DEW – Directed Energy Weapons Development


Terminal Phase:

* LEAP – Lightweight Exoatmospheric Projectile

* SM-3 – STANDARD Missile-3

* Patriot Air and Missile Defense System

* STSS – Space Tracking and Surveillance System

* THAAD GBR – Theater High-Altitude Area Defense
Ground Based Radar

* THAAD BMC3 – Theater High-Altitude Area Defense
Battle Management Command, Control and Communications

* Cobra Judy Radar System

* HPD – High Power Discriminator

* DEW – Directed Energy Weapons Development


Sources:

Raytheon National Missile Defense; "Advanced Technologies and Systems", Raytheon Brochure

Raytheon Missile Defense Systems & Technology: Missile Defense Program Matrix

"Bush administration may rethink space treaty"; Government Executive, October 25, 2004

"New missile defense director vows more secrecy"; David Ruppe, Global Security Newswire, October 27, 2004

"Senate panel boosts administration's Defense procurement request"; Amy Klamper, CongressDailyAM, June 14, 2004


Special thanks to Intelgurl for providing information that initiated research into this thread.





[edit on 29-10-2004 by bios]




posted on Oct, 29 2004 @ 03:29 PM
link   
Remember, that what the government HAS is usually about 30 years ahead of whatever is ANNOUNCED...

In the 80's, we were sending up shuttle missions almost every week in which the cargo was "classified". This was under Reagan, Mr. SDI himself. There is no doubt that we have SOMETHING in place up there.

This seems to indicate that they are looking into going more forward with supplementing the projectile defenses in place, with energy based ones as well. Since HELs and EMP emittors have pretty much been admitted to, it stands to reason that a more advanced version of this is what's planned.



posted on Oct, 29 2004 @ 03:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by bios

The treaty was ratified by all the major space powers, including the United States and dozens of other governments. Although the treaty does not restrict weaponization of space, recent proposals have been made that would change the treaty to ban all kinds of weapons in space, for this reason, the US is contemplating withdrawing from the treaty.

Yes Ive read somehting about this, pretty scary, but inevitable.

I'm personally not a huge fan of the entire missile defense program. I'm very sceptical about it, and doubt the system can respond quickly anough. Also, I dont think there really is a significant thread that a (nuclear) missile will be fired towards the continent. They said Saddam was a threat, but only had AK-47's and a few Migs buried in the desert.
North Korea might be a threat, but much more a threat to China and Russia, not the US.
Do you really think they will fire a missile to any of the three countries. They (probably) only have enough enriched, weapons-grade plutonium for half a dozen nuclear missiles. (source)


To my opinion the Pentagon exaggerates the threat of a missile attack, and use that 'threat' to legally develop and operate space-based weapons.
They could have spend the money much better, but that's probably noones concern. There is a big 'threat', america isn't safe...
blah blah



posted on Oct, 29 2004 @ 04:17 PM
link   
This gave me alot of information about the defence systems. Greate job Bios


Theres nothing better then a layered defence system.



posted on Oct, 29 2004 @ 04:31 PM
link   
Thank you, Bios...this is very informative.

Thanks for the time and effort put into this!



posted on Oct, 29 2004 @ 04:56 PM
link   
As an addendum to this thread it was announced today (Oct. 29, 2004) that the National Missile Defense shield would be operational by years end.
In an article entitled "U.S. Set to Have Missile Defense by Year's End", it is said that the US Missile Defense Command has built, tested and verified an initial defense operations capability, and is prepared to put it online while continuing testing and development on the in-place hardware and software.

Fort Greely, Alaska, now has 5 ground-based interceptors in place and is set to receive the 6th next week ( first week of November) with an additional 20 interceptors on the way.

Ground-based midcourse defense is the centerpiece of the operation, and is also the phase that is going into the "black". The mid-course phase contains one of the largest fire control loops ever built with 20,000 miles of fiber optic cable and nine satellite communications links.

Vandenberg Air Force Base, Calif., is coming online before the end of 2004 with four more silos and an in-flight communication system.

Beale Air Force Base, CA, has been totally revamped with the installation of advanced technology computing hardware inside the AFB's radar. It is currently going through final testing and will be online by the end of December 2004.

Looking a little further forward in the future, by the end of 2005, the largest X-band radar for target tracking and identification ever built will be completed. Built on a floating platform, the structure has four pontoons each the size of a fleet ballistic missile submarine. The structure is 14 stories tall and the radar is 110 feet tall.

Thomas M. Devanney, a program director for the Space and Missile Defense Command agency says that "The defense system now has the infrastructure and testing simulations to provide confidence..."

Source:
(US Army Press Release; issued Oct. 28, 2004)


[edit on 29-10-2004 by bios]



posted on Oct, 29 2004 @ 05:15 PM
link   
Great post


I on;y had time to look it over since I'm swamped right now but I will see what I can dig up later.



posted on Oct, 29 2004 @ 05:51 PM
link   
Good post, I've read about the X-Band Radar, and if its size doesn't impress you then this will "It can see an object the size of a golf ball at a distance of 1,000 miles.


I think the threat of a missile being fired by another country aimed at the US is slim, but never the less the threat is still there. I think Russia is currently the only country with a missile defence network.

I have no doubt that if an enemy nation fires a missile that we will be able to find it and track it, but hitting it is a whole nother ball game. Over time though I think that the network will increasingly become better.

What i'm curious about is if we could launch a interceptor missile at it in time, like if we detected a missile in the middle of the ocean heading our way I think we could stop it. But what if that missile is on a sub that gets close to the US, and then fires it. Or even worse, its on a "what appears to be" a cargo ship, that has a big container in the middle of it, and then when its a hundred or so miles off the US coast the container open up, the missile then gets lifted into its vertical position, then fires. I highly doubt the US could find, tack, and intercept that missile before its impact.

ship firing ballistic missile at Cali - 55mb vid, right click to download (save target as)



posted on Oct, 29 2004 @ 06:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Murcielago
What i'm curious about is if we could launch a interceptor missile at it in time, like if we detected a missile in the middle of the ocean heading our way I think we could stop it. But what if that missile is on a sub that gets close to the US, and then fires it. Or even worse, its on a "what appears to be" a cargo ship, that has a big container in the middle of it, and then when its a hundred or so miles off the US coast the container open up, the missile then gets lifted into its vertical position, then fires. I highly doubt the US could find, tack, and intercept that missile before its impact.



Cruise missiles can be nuclear tipped, have a range of up to 3,000Km and can fly nap of the earth, at night and at high speed. They are a much better weapon for what you are describing, as they can be fired while moving, from the horazontal or vertical positions, the support systems needed are minimal - prep them at point of origion and fire them weeks later. Submarines or ships can carry many times the number of cruise missiles than ballistic missiles.

Modern cruise missiles, such as the Storm Shadow also incorporate stealth into the designs, making it next to impossible to track and engage in flight, although it wasnt designed to carry nukes. But Tomahawks or the ACM were designed to carry nukes, and having the ability to sit off the coast somewhere, 200 miles from your target, and having a missile on target within 10 minutes of firing is something most countries wont pass up.



posted on Oct, 29 2004 @ 07:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by RichardPrice
Cruise missiles can be ...

The National Missile Defense system from what I can gather is primarily geared toward defeating ICBM's - not Cruise Missiles.



posted on Oct, 29 2004 @ 08:02 PM
link   
The F-22 is able to defeat stealth cruis missles. So consider cruise nukes nuetralized



posted on Oct, 29 2004 @ 08:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Laxpla
The F-22 is able to defeat stealth cruis missles. So consider cruise nukes nuetralized


From what I have read, the missle it would use against the enemy cruise missle is not developed yet.

It is in the works though



posted on Oct, 29 2004 @ 09:39 PM
link   
Cool!


Here is boeings design for a cruise missle defence.

www.boeing.com...



posted on Oct, 29 2004 @ 10:29 PM
link   

RichardPrice
Cruise missiles can be nuclear tipped, have a range of up to 3,000Km and can fly nap of the earth, at night and at high speed. They are a much better weapon for what you are describing, as they can be fired while moving, from the horazontal or vertical positions, the support systems needed are minimal - prep them at point of origion and fire them weeks later. Submarines or ships can carry many times the number of cruise missiles than ballistic missiles.


a missle that has to travel 1860 miles would be detected before it gets to the US. Also, the JASSM missile requires a plane.

and other countries Navy ship location is known, so if it was one of them, then the US would know that. Thats why a cargo ship with a missile could be a threat, it would have a countries flag on it or be watched much because it would just be another cargo ship headed to the US, it would basically "blend in with the crowd", and once it fires its missile it sinks, leaving no location as of where the missile was fired from.

and current cruise missiles (like the tomahawk) take weeks to position, which would make it a closely watch and suspicious ship.



posted on Jan, 31 2005 @ 06:42 AM
link   
Here is a great link. Must see

Need for a National Missile Defense After 9-11



posted on Jan, 31 2005 @ 06:51 AM
link   
Ballistic missile attacks can come in many forms. Although one may prefer to think of war in the modern age as β€œunthinkable,” it would be irresponsible to dismiss or ignore the harm our enemies may wish us. These textual descriptions and animations show what such attacks, and interceptions, would look like.To view these animations, you must first download Quicktime.

AEGIS Sea-Based Interception
Alerted by spaced-based detectors, an AEGIS Standard Missile (SM-3) system destroys an in-bound nuclear ballistic missile launched from China



view

Ballistic Missile Attack on Los Angeles
In this scenario, a Chinese CSS-4 ballistic missile armed with a nuclear warhead strikes an undefended Los Angeles, killing one and a half million people.

view



Ship-Based Attack on Hollywood
Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld has said that the greatest threat posed to the United States is from a ship-launched ballistic missile. This movie shows a tanker off the coast of California launches a Scub-B, armed with a 15 kiloton warhead, in an attack on Hollywood. Ninty thousand people die.




view

Chinese attack on Russia



Russia possesses the only operational ballistic missile defense system in the world. This animation depicts a ballistic missile launched from China which is then detected in space and by land based radar before the warhead is intercepted.

view

THAAD Interception of Ship-Launched SCUD
A ship-launched SCUD against Hollywood would have a very short flight time, susceptible to interception by only space-based laser or, shown here, a land-based terminal defense, such as the Theater High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) system
view

Hoover dam attck by N korea

China attack Taiwan

EDIT : quick time download at www.apple.com...

[edit on 31-1-2005 by Stealth Spy]



posted on Feb, 1 2005 @ 01:11 AM
link   



posted on Feb, 1 2005 @ 01:21 AM
link   
Great info thanks for resurfacing this topic. Learned alot there on this that I didnt know. I guess we will see what the future holds on the missile program, right now its one thing then the other.



posted on Feb, 1 2005 @ 01:26 AM
link   
.
going black = cat burying it's stinking sh*t?

all this mystic goverment sh*t, sounds like corruption to me.

If you can't dazzle them with your brilliance, baffle them with your bullsh*t.

It wasn't working so now we will bury our embarassment to keep those fat contracts going.
.



posted on Feb, 1 2005 @ 02:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zion Mainframe
Yes Ive read somehting about this, pretty scary, but inevitable.

I'm personally not a huge fan of the entire missile defense program. I'm very sceptical about it, and doubt the system can respond quickly anough. Also, I dont think there really is a significant thread that a (nuclear) missile will be fired towards the continent.


I think missile defense is a really good idea, but not because I'm afraid of Crazy Kim lobbing a missile at us.
Things like this inevitably proliferate. The British and the Russians will inevitably figure out how it works and in a few decades every member of the UN Security council will have an independent strategic defense network just as they all eventually got nukes. It's going almost completely destroy the potential for nuclear war and its going the stregthen the UN security councils ability to enforce peace. All we have to do now is get the UN functioning properly before that day comes. That won't be easy by any stretch of the imagination, but it's a dang sight better than having to go to war everytime some tinpot dictator is accussed of aspiring to nuclear weapons.


To my opinion the Pentagon exaggerates the threat of a missile attack, and use that 'threat' to legally develop and operate space-based weapons.
They could have spend the money much better, but that's probably noones concern. There is a big 'threat', america isn't safe...
blah blah


No doubt in my mind that the pentagon is chiefly concerned with offensive weapons and padding the pockets of defense industry big wigs, but in the long run this technology is going to leak and create a way to stop wars without using deterrence. They may very well end up putting themselves out of business.
Right, if every member of NATO and every member of the security council tells a nuclear nation "you're out of line" that nation can tell them to piss off because nobody is gonna risk nuclear war. But once this technology is in place a nation can knock offensive weapons and aircraft etc out of the sky without killing millions of people and creating an apocalypse.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join