Defense against Hypersonic Glide Vehicles

Forest Green said:
Or a divert version of SM-2/6.
Click to expand...
The faster a glider is the larger it's turn radius is going to be. If I'm a PAC-3MSE defending a target I'm going to be able to move laterally faster than the glider is if the glider still intends to hit the target.
 
sferrin said:
The faster a glider is the larger it's turn radius is going to be. If I'm a PAC-3MSE defending a target I'm going to be able to move laterally faster than the glider is if the glider still intends to hit the target.
Click to expand...
The larger the turn radius, but the larger the divert from its initial path in a given time period too. If it was all turn about radius, most SAMs probably wouldn't work against aircraft. A 50g Mach 3 missile has a larger turn radius than a 9g 400kts aircraft and yet it will win.
 
Forest Green said:
The larger the turn radius, but the larger the divert from its initial path in a given time period too. If it was all turn about radius, most SAMs probably wouldn't work against aircraft. A 50g Mach 3 missile has a larger turn radius than a 9g 400kts aircraft and yet it will win.
Click to expand...
In this case the glider is the aircraft. Think of a catcher catching a 100mph fast ball. To hit the target the glider has to come into PAC-3s envelope.
 
sferrin said:
In this case the glider is the aircraft. Think of a catcher catching a 100mph fast ball. To hit the target the glider has to come into PAC-3s envelope.
Click to expand...
Think about the path deflection caused by even a 1 degree turn over a second at Mach 20 - 105m. A Mach 5 interceptor has to turn through 4 degrees to catch up even not allowing for detection and control lag. I'm not sure thrust divert can achieve movements that large on its own. The only plus side is that the HGV does not know when to turn and every time it does it loses energy.
 
Forest Green said:
Think about the path deflection caused by even a 1 degree turn over a second at Mach 20 - 105m. A Mach 5 interceptor has to turn through 4 degrees to catch up even not allowing for detection and control lag. I'm not sure thrust divert can achieve movements that large on its own. The only plus side is that the HGV does not know when to turn and every time it does it loses energy.
Click to expand...

An HGV towards the end of its run probably is moving much slower than Mach 20 and if the defender is the target, or is at least more or less co-located with it, then the HGV can't really deviate its course by a large degree. So a terminal defense likely is workable with one or more existing SAMs. For area interception, the issue is exactly as you say. It looks like the goal is to push the interception out to the maximum range in order to force the HGV to start randomly maneuvering as far out as possible, and thus reducing range and terminal velocity. Or for any HGV that doesn't start some kind of evasive maneuvers early enough in its flight, simply being intercepted. A target that isn't deviating in course isn't particularly hard to hit regardless of speed.
 
Forest Green said:
Think about the path deflection caused by even a 1 degree turn over a second at Mach 20 - 105m. A Mach 5 interceptor has to turn through 4 degrees to catch up even not allowing for detection and control lag. I'm not sure thrust divert can achieve movements that large on its own. The only plus side is that the HGV does not know when to turn and every time it does it loses energy.
Click to expand...
By the time it gets to the target area it's going half that, maybe. And a one degree turn it misses the target unless it's got a nuke onboard.
 
To say nothing of the Soft kill tricks like ECM.

Or even other hard kill tricks you can do easily with Ships with modern gear.

Like having an outer escort ring doing basically Radar Picket duty.

Even an added 25 mile outer ring from the 10 mile usual ring around a Carrier for a total of 35 miles or likely more will give you basically triple the warning and reaction time to work with. Add in the usual datalink fun?

The Pickets can guided the SMP3 launched from the inner ships and easily put it in an interception basket compared to just from the 10 mile ships.

And this is very do able for the like of the USN and friends thanks to damn near every USN weapon carrying ship having Aegis and same VLS set up.

And before someone says Emissions control... There is so many tricks around that for Radars alone let alone modern upgraded ones I need two posts to just list them all...

Also The E2 Hawkeye can be off set towards the enemy by like 100 miles and likely can do the the Picket duty just as well thinking one it.
 
Crud, for most RBA shapes, it's still shrouded in reentry plasma till it's down about 20,000ft. So it can't even get terminal guidance till then to be able to hit a ship... If you happen to have changed course in a way that puts you away from the predicted impact point outside the field of view of the terminal sensors, well, the HGV or ASBM misses.
 
sferrin said:
By the time it gets to the target area it's going half that, maybe. And a one degree turn it misses the target unless it's got a nuke onboard.
Click to expand...
Well I thought we were discussing Avangard. That's really the only HGV about - DF-17 is likely a parade exhibit only at this point. It can always turn back but the interceptor would not have the luxury of assuming that. The best option is a powerful laser, not a chance of the missile evading that, minimal cost per shot, and a HGV skimming at high speeds would be highly susceptible to skin damage, or even temperature fluctuation. Or better yet, a space-based laser option could eliminate the missile as it's taking off as well as having various offensive advantages, like killing radars.
 
www.csis.org

Getting on Track

The Department of Defense is racing to build a constellation of satellites for tracking elusive hypersonic missiles. As these first satellites enter orbit, how should policymakers measure success? In a new report, CSIS unpacks the tradeoffs involved and pitfalls to avoid.
www.csis.org www.csis.org
 
MDA, SDA Announce Upcoming Launch of the Hypersonic and Ballistic Tracking Space Sensor and Tranche 0 Satellites
Feb. 14, 2024

The Missile Defense Agency (MDA) and Space Development Agency (SDA) announce the upcoming launch of six satellites into low-Earth orbit from Space Launch Complex 40 at Cape Canaveral Space Force Station, Florida.

Today's planned launch will include two satellites for MDA's Hypersonic and Ballistic Tracking Space Sensor (HBTSS) and the final four SDA Tranche 0 (T0) Tracking Layer satellites of its Proliferated Warfighter Space Architecture (PWSA). As part of the National Security Space Launch program, SpaceX's Falcon 9 rocket will deliver the satellites to orbit.

"This launch represents a pivotal time for MDA as we enter a new phase of missile warning, tracking and defense," said Lt. Gen. Heath Collins, director of MDA. "These HBTSS satellites are an essential step forward in our efforts to stay ahead of our adversaries."

MDA, the U.S. Space Force and SDA are collaborating to develop HBTSS as a space sensor prototype demonstration providing fire control quality data required to defeat advanced missile threats. Ultimately, this data is critical to enabling engagement by missile defense weapons, including engagement of hypersonic glide-phase weapons. This "birth-to-death" tracking by HBTSS will make it possible to maintain custody of missile threats from launch through intercept regardless of location.

"Launching our Tracking satellites into the same orbit with the MDA HBTSS satellites is a win for both agencies," said Derek Tournear, director of SDA. "We'll be able to look at test targets from the same orbit at the same time, so that we can see how the two sensors work together. In Tranche 1, SDA will fly both sensor types as an operational system – medium-field-of-view demonstrating fire control, based on HBTSS design, and wide-field-of-view doing warning and tracking, based on T0 tracking design."

Operationally, the missile defense capability, developed through MDA's HBTSS demonstration program, will inform SDA's PWSA and will detect hypersonic, ballistic, and other advanced threats earlier than terrestrial radars, providing hypersonic threat tracking data for hand off through linked missile defense weapons. SDA will build upon the fire-control capability successes learned from HBTSS and proliferate those fully developed capabilities in the spiral approach to future tranches.

SDA, part of the U.S. Space Force, previously deployed 23 Tranche 0 satellites on-orbit in 2023, including Transport and Tracking Layer satellites, from Vandenberg Space Force Base, California. The four Tracking Layer satellites that will launch with MDA's HBTSS were delivered by L3Harris Corps. and represent the final satellites in the Tranche 0 program bringing the on-orbit constellation to 27.

MDA initiated the HBTSS program in 2018. In January 2021 MDA awarded Other Transaction Agreements to L3Harris Technologies Inc. and Northrop Grumman Corporation.

The pending launch of the two prototype systems will be followed by two years of on-orbit testing. Over the next few weeks, MDA and SDA engineers will run a series of tests and checkout procedures to ensure the satellites are operating and integrating with the Missile Defense System and other mission areas.

Please direct all MDA-related media queries to Mark Wright at 571-231-8212, Mark.Wright@mda.mil or Nancy Jones-Bonbrest at 571-363-0782, Nancy.J.Bonbrest@mda.mil.

For more information on MDA please visit mda.mil.

Please direct all SDA-related media queries to Jonathan Withington at 202-468-4553, jonathan.b.withington.civ@mail.mil. For more information on SDA, contact OSD.SDA.Outreach@mail.mil or visit https://www.sda.mil.

The six missile tracking sats launched by Falcon 9 earlier tonight have been cataloged in 1000 km circular orbits at an inclination of 40.0 deg.
Click to expand...

https://twitter.com/x/status/1757989715062464716
View: https://twitter.com/planet4589/status/1757989715062464716

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fY3XVBLa7Uk
 
www.spacewar.com

BAE Systems to pioneer ground system for Space Force's missile defense upgrade

Los Angeles CA (SPX) Feb 29, 2024 - In a pivotal development for U.S. national security, BAE Systems (LON: BA) has been chosen by the Space Systems Command (SSC) Space Enterprise Consortium (SpEC) to spearhead the development of a pro
www.spacewar.com

www.spacewar.com

SSC confirms L3Harris's design for Next-Gen Missile Detection Sensors

Los Angeles CA (SPX) Feb 29, 2024 - The U.S. Space Force's Space Systems Command (SSC) is on a fast track to enhance its missile detection and tracking capabilities, with L3Harris Technologies playing a pivotal role in this advancemen
www.spacewar.com
 
insidedefense reporting MDA FY2025 GPI plans, expected to pick a winner soon between Raytheon and Northrop Grumman, cutting near term funding overall by $700 M, MDA hoping Japan will pick up the slack as they did with the Raytheon/Mitsubishi Heavy Industries SM-3 Block IIA , fielding of GPI expected to slip a year to 2035


MDA to pick GPI winner soon; leverage investment from Japan in planned co-development | InsideDefense.com

The Pentagon is sharpening its plan for a clean-sheet hypersonic defense weapon system, revealing decisions to soon pick a winner in a Raytheon-versus-Northrop Grumman contest, trimming near-term funding by nearly $700 million that is expected to be offset by co-development investments from...
insidedefense.com insidedefense.com
 
Is there a thread dedicated to the Proliferated Warfighter Space Architecture or should I just put anything regrading hypdersonic defense here? Or start a new thread? I feel the PWSA is going to go way, way beyond merely tracking hypersonic weapons. In fact I do not even think that will even be the primary mission of the coming LEO constellation; I think it is a lot bigger than that.
 
Josh_TN said:
The summary is a little misleading in that they conclude gliders with a sufficiently high speed can effectively evade terminal defenses (to say nothing of area defenses, which are largely unworkable). Also they note the PAC3 missiles would be superior as terminal defense interceptors for Aegis. I think it would behoove the USN to introduce something with more divert than SM-2/6.
Click to expand...

This is literally what IBCS does, tbf, and it only took 20 years of R&D efforts to get something that "kinda sorta" works. Main hyperglider threat isn't going to be against warships but Guam, Diego Garcia, and Okinawa, fwiw.
 
Josh_TN said:
The summary is a little misleading in that they conclude gliders with a sufficiently high speed can effectively evade terminal defenses (to say nothing of area defenses, which are largely unworkable). Also they note the PAC3 missiles would be superior as terminal defense interceptors for Aegis. I think it would behoove the USN to introduce something with more divert than SM-2/6.
Click to expand...
Yeah, the basic math says only terminal defenses are able to get in front of a hypersonic glider because they're already where the glider is trying to go.

And that you need to be very close to wherever you're protecting is, within 10km or so.

We've been getting in front of MARVs for a long time.
 
Well an area intercept would be possible with 1) precise tracking and 2) the glider not changing course. Major course changes are going to bleed energy and enable terminal defenses, so having a long range capability would at least buy time and energy for other layers of a defense. But the best solution is being able to shoot back at something equally valuable or the opponent TELs themselves.
 
Josh_TN said:
Is there a thread dedicated to the Proliferated Warfighter Space Architecture or should I just put anything regrading hypdersonic defense here? Or start a new thread? I feel the PWSA is going to go way, way beyond merely tracking hypersonic weapons. In fact I do not even think that will even be the primary mission of the coming LEO constellation; I think it is a lot bigger than that.
Click to expand...
Probably US Space Force thread material, same goes for SDA stuff in general.

Scott Kenny said:
Yeah, the basic math says only terminal defenses are able to get in front of a hypersonic glider because they're already where the glider is trying to go.

And that you need to be very close to wherever you're protecting is, within 10km or so.

We've been getting in front of MARVs for a long time.
Click to expand...
Best solution is a boost phase intercept.
 
Josh_TN said:
Well an area intercept would be possible with 1) precise tracking and 2) the glider not changing course. Major course changes are going to bleed energy and enable terminal defenses, so having a long range capability would at least buy time and energy for other layers of a defense. But the best solution is being able to shoot back at something equally valuable or the opponent TELs themselves.
Click to expand...
That second part is the more important one.

The SR71s proved that even a very small turn at Mach 3.2 is enough to get you out of all but a nuke SAM's threat radius. It would take even less of a turn at Mach 6.4...
 
Scott Kenny said:
That second part is the more important one.

The SR71s proved that even a very small turn at Mach 3.2 is enough to get you out of all but a nuke SAM's threat radius. It would take even less of a turn at Mach 6.4...
Click to expand...
It also proved that some proximity fuses did not work fast enough back in the 1970s wrt Korean DMZ incident.
 
US-Japan missile development project to cost over $3 billion
mainichi.jp

US-Japan missile development project to cost over $3 billion - The Mainichi

WASHINGTON (Kyodo) -- The United States and Japan have estimated the total cost of jointly developing a new type of missile capable of intercepting hy
mainichi.jp mainichi.jp
The United States and Japan have estimated the total cost of jointly developing a new type of missile capable of intercepting hypersonic weapons will exceed $3 billion, a Defense Department official said Thursday.
Of the total, Japan will allocate $1 billion to the Glide Phase Interceptor project, according to the official from the U.S. Missile Defense Agency. The two countries are aiming to complete the missile's development by the 2030s.

It is the second time that Japan and the United States have decided to develop an interceptor missile together following the Standard Missile-3 Block 2A.

The new project is aimed at knocking down incoming hypersonic missiles during their most vulnerable glide phase of flight before reentering the atmosphere from space, compared with a conventional defense system that is designed to intercept missiles shortly before reaching their targets.
 
barrett said:
US-Japan missile development project to cost over $3 billion
mainichi.jp

US-Japan missile development project to cost over $3 billion - The Mainichi

WASHINGTON (Kyodo) -- The United States and Japan have estimated the total cost of jointly developing a new type of missile capable of intercepting hy
mainichi.jp mainichi.jp
The United States and Japan have estimated the total cost of jointly developing a new type of missile capable of intercepting hypersonic weapons will exceed $3 billion, a Defense Department official said Thursday.
Of the total, Japan will allocate $1 billion to the Glide Phase Interceptor project, according to the official from the U.S. Missile Defense Agency. The two countries are aiming to complete the missile's development by the 2030s.

It is the second time that Japan and the United States have decided to develop an interceptor missile together following the Standard Missile-3 Block 2A.

The new project is aimed at knocking down incoming hypersonic missiles during their most vulnerable glide phase of flight before reentering the atmosphere from space, compared with a conventional defense system that is designed to intercept missiles shortly before reaching their targets.
Click to expand...
Expensive, but that seems to be the cost of being able to do the job.

Wish the US would do that with their hypersonic missiles...
 
barrett said:
US-Japan missile development project to cost over $3 billion
mainichi.jp

US-Japan missile development project to cost over $3 billion - The Mainichi

WASHINGTON (Kyodo) -- The United States and Japan have estimated the total cost of jointly developing a new type of missile capable of intercepting hy
mainichi.jp mainichi.jp
The United States and Japan have estimated the total cost of jointly developing a new type of missile capable of intercepting hypersonic weapons will exceed $3 billion, a Defense Department official said Thursday.
Of the total, Japan will allocate $1 billion to the Glide Phase Interceptor project, according to the official from the U.S. Missile Defense Agency. The two countries are aiming to complete the missile's development by the 2030s.

It is the second time that Japan and the United States have decided to develop an interceptor missile together following the Standard Missile-3 Block 2A.

The new project is aimed at knocking down incoming hypersonic missiles during their most vulnerable glide phase of flight before reentering the atmosphere from space, compared with a conventional defense system that is designed to intercept missiles shortly before reaching their targets.
Click to expand...
Implies it will be a long range large and very powerful and very high Mach missile with the associated necessary big radar and a LEO satellite constellation system for continuous coverage. Would that also imply for intercepting SRAM hypersonic cruise missiles that fly at lower altitude with in the earths atmosphere will require totally different missile system or perhaps rely on THAAD?
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom