LBSM3 / Aegis ashore

Grey Havoc

Grey Havoc

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
9 October 2009
Messages
21,129
Reaction score
12,215
http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2011IAMD/ScottPerry.pdf

http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a535111.pdf

http://www.dtic.mil/descriptivesum/Y2011/MDA/stamped/0604880C_PB_2011.pdf
http://www.dtic.mil/descriptivesum/Y2012/MDA/stamped/0604880C_4_PB_2012.pdf
http://www.dtic.mil/descriptivesum/Y2013/MDA/stamped/0604880C_4_PB_2013.pdf
http://www.dtic.mil/descriptivesum/Y2014/MDA/stamped/0604880C_4_PB_2014.pdf
 
http://www.dodbuzz.com/2013/10/08/pentagon-builds-aegis-ashore-md-sites-in-romania/
 
http://www.defenseone.com/management/2015/12/romania-us-wraps-construction-anti-missile-battery/124396/
 
http://news.usni.org/2015/12/16/aegis-ashore-site-to-reach-technical-capability-declaration-this-week-but-not-operational-until-summer-2016
 
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-missile-defense-hawaii-idUSKCN0V0008

Exclusive: U.S. weighs making Hawaii missile test site operational - sources
WASHINGTON | By Andrea Shalal

The U.S. military has stepped up discussions on converting its Aegis missile defense test site in Hawaii into a combat-ready facility that would bolster American defenses against ballistic missile attacks, according to sources familiar with the discussions.

The proposal, which has been discussed sporadically for several years, was given fresh impetus by North Korea's fourth nuclear test on Jan. 6 and by recent strides in China's missile technology capabilities, said current and former U.S. military officials, congressional aides and other sources.

A Chinese official in Washington suggested that Beijing would see such a U.S. move as counter-productive to relations.

Aegis, developed by Lockheed Martin Corp (LMT.N) for use on U.S. Navy destroyers, is among the most advanced U.S. missile defense systems, integrating radars, software, displays, weapons launchers and missiles.

Setting up its land version -- Aegis Ashore -- in Hawaii and linking it with Aegis destroyers would add a permanent missile defense site to the Pacific, providing an extra layer of protection for the U.S. islands and the West Coast at a time when North Korea is improving its missile capabilities.

Ground-based interceptors in Alaska and California provide the current defense for Hawaii and the continental United States against missile attacks.

The Navy also relies on deploying Aegis-equipped destroyers based on U.S. intelligence warnings about imminent threats. North Korea's development of mobile missile launchers has made it more difficult to predict launches in advance.

To make the test site combat-ready, the U.S. military would need to add personnel, stockpile live missiles and beef up security, at an estimated cost of around $41 million, said the sources, who were not authorized to speak publicly.

It would also need to integrate the site into the larger U.S. ballistic missile defense system, with control likely shifting from the Pentagon's Missile Defense Agency to the U.S. Navy, the sources said.

U.S. Navy Admiral Harry Harris, commander of U.S. Pacific Command, has been engaged in high-level discussions about ways to protect Hawaii, Guam and the continental United States from threats like North Korea, his spokesman, Captain Darryn James told Reuters.

James said no decisions had been made, but the Aegis Ashore site in Hawaii had a "proven test capability."

"Admiral Harris is always exploring options to forward deploy and operationalize the latest advancements in ballistic missile defense technologies in the Pacific, where we face increasingly sophisticated threats to the homeland," James said.

It remains unclear when the U.S. administration could reach a decision, but implementing the changes could be done swiftly, the sources said.

STRENGTHENING THE SHIELD

North Korea's nuclear test in January underscored U.S. concerns that the secretive state has the ability to place a bomb on a long-range ballistic missile that could reach the U.S. West Coast.

Any moves to boost missile defenses could inflame growing military rivalry between China and Washington and its allies.

Converting the site on Hawaii's Kauai island into combat use could rankle China at a time of heightened tensions with Washington over the disputed South China Sea. Beijing has already expressed concern about the possible deployment of the mobile U.S. Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) system to South Korea.

Zhu Haiquan, spokesman for the Chinese Embassy in Washington, said Beijing believed the nuclear proliferation issue would be best resolved diplomatically.

"All measures seeking to increase military capacities will only intensify antagonism and will not help to solve the problem," he said when asked about the possible U.S. move.

"China hopes the relevant country will proceed on the basis of regional peace and stability, adopt a responsible attitude and act prudently in regard to the anti-missile issue."

Russia, meanwhile, has repeatedly objected to the U.S. Aegis Ashore site in Romania, which is due to become operational in the coming weeks. A similar site is due to open in Poland in 2018.

The Missile Defense Agency explored the prospect of putting the Hawaii test site into full operation in a classified report to Congress in September 2014, according to one of the sources.

Congress requires the agency to update its estimate of the cost, feasibility and effectiveness of adding more Aegis Ashore sites this spring.

The Aegis Ashore test site in Hawaii completed its first intercept test in December, using a Raytheon Co (RTN.N) Standard Missile-3 Block 1B to destroy a target that replicated an Iranian Ghadr-110 medium-range missile.

Riki Ellison, who heads the non-profit Missile Defense Advocacy Alliance, said the new Aegis installation would in effect give the U.S. military three chances to shoot down a missile aimed at Hawaii, up from one currently.

"If you have the assets on the island, why not use them to protect against possible missile attacks from North Korea?" Ellison said.

The December test proved the Aegis Ashore system could fire two different Raytheon Co (RTN.N) missiles -- one inside the earth's atmosphere and one outside -- at an enemy missile.

Expansion of military operations in Hawaii have sparked protests by residents in the past.

But Hawaii Representative Mark Takai, a Democrat and member of the House Armed Services Committee, said the conversion is "the best way to ensure we have protection for Hawaii’s critical defense infrastructure against increasingly belligerent actors that threaten our country."
Click to expand...

"Now witness the firepower of this fully armed and operational Aegis ashore!"
 
Now look at the distance between Hawaii and North Korea and consider what they're really saying. Also consider they talked about putting THAAD there a one point as well.
 
So I'm looking at the map here. It looks to me that pretty much any great circle trajectory from DPRK to CONUS goes nowhere near Hawaii. So basically, a system in Hawaii can defend Hawaii and that's about it. And that of course defends against anyone shooting at Hawaii, (like China) not just the North Koreans.

That might be worthwhile, since there is a big concentration of potential military targets in Hawaii, but to say such a defense would be intended only against North Korea is pretty disingenuous.
 
TomS said:
So I'm looking at the map here. It looks to me that pretty much any great circle trajectory from DPRK to CONUS goes nowhere near Hawaii. So basically, a system in Hawaii can defend Hawaii and that's about it. And that of course defends against anyone shooting at Hawaii, (like China) not just the North Koreans.

That might be worthwhile, since there is a big concentration of potential military targets in Hawaii, but to say such a defense would be intended only against North Korea is pretty disingenuous.
Click to expand...

Hawaii is one of the few major US targets the DPRK could hit without overflying two other nuclear powers both of whom claim (perhaps truthfully) all sorts of handicaps in early warning capability.
 
TomS said:
So I'm looking at the map here. It looks to me that pretty much any great circle trajectory from DPRK to CONUS goes nowhere near Hawaii. So basically, a system in Hawaii can defend Hawaii and that's about it. And that of course defends against anyone shooting at Hawaii, (like China) not just the North Koreans.

That might be worthwhile, since there is a big concentration of potential military targets in Hawaii, but to say such a defense would be intended only against North Korea is pretty disingenuous.
Click to expand...

The other significant point is that they're suggesting THAAD has anti-ICBM capability. (And ASAT reach as well according to the other thread.)
 
Hmm, wait. I'm rereading it and it doesn't actually talk about THAAD as part of a Hawaiian combat capable missile defense system at all. It talks about upgrading the AEGIS test site into an AEGIS Ashore site and integrating it into national missile defense. That would imply SM-3 and SM-6, which would be very much last-ditch tries against an ICBM. However, they would also offer a capability against sub-launched IRBMs (North Korean, assuming they ever get it to work, or Chinese).
 
TomS said:
Hmm, wait. I'm rereading it and it doesn't actually talk about THAAD as part of a Hawaiian combat capable missile defense system at all.
Click to expand...

Different case. Back during one of North Korea's tantrums they said they considered moving a THAAD battery there (temporarily, during the NK test). Looking my previous statement over I can see how it sounds like I was suggesting that's a current plan.
 
I'd though that was mainly about the THAAD radar, but my memory is a bit hazy.
 
MDA studying anti-air warfare capabilities for Aegis Ashore sites

The Missile Defense Agency is studying the best way to defend the Aegis Ashore sites in Europe from aerial attacks, U.S. European Command confirmed.

The study is in response to direction in the Fiscal Year 2016 National Defense Authorization Act requiring a report on the air-defense capabilities of the Aegis Ashore sites, which the United States says are installed specifically to defend Europe against a limited ballistic missile attack from Iran. One site is operational in Deveslu, Romania, while another is being constructed in Poland and is expected to be activated in 2018.

"The Missile Defense Agency received congressional direction in the FY-16 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) to study the conventional air defense of our European Phased Adaptive Approach (EPAA) sites, which requires a complete evaluation of the optimal anti-air warfare capability," EUCOM spokesman Patrick Foughty wrote in a July 1 email to Inside the Navy. "Working together with the component command lead for site protection, U.S. Naval Forces Europe, they are exploring the appropriate measures accordingly."

The report was due 180 days after the enactment of the FY-16 NDAA, which was signed on Nov. 25, 2015, meaning the study was due on May 23. Foughty did not provide a reason behind the delay.

The legislation specifically directed the Pentagon's report to include an "evaluation of the feasibility, benefit, and cost of using the Evolved Sea Sparrow Missile, the Standard Missile-2, or other options" to provide anti-air warfare capabilities for the site.

It also directed an assessment of any potential changes in hosting agreements between the host nations and the United States, as well as an appraisal of the air and ballistic missile threats to the sites.

During a June 14 roundtable organized by the Missile Defense Advocacy Alliance on Capitol Hill, representatives from Romania and Poland, respectively, demurred to answer questions about their respective policies on providing anti-air warfare capabilities for the sites.

"Contrary to our military colleagues who can provide some really technical expertise, we diplomats are maybe not the best people to talk about particular elements of military matters," Maciej Pisarski, chief of mission at the embassy of Poland. "These are very important installations, they need to be protected. That's what I will say. How and which capabilities are questions for the military experts."

Robert Dumitrescu, counselor at the Romanian embassy, agreed with Pisarski.

"This is a definitely a responsibility that we are taking together very seriously and also as a political consul, I can only refer to the fact that the military experts are taking very seriously all issues regarding the protection of these sites," Dumitrescu said.
 
2 8-cells. One with 32 ESSM, one with 32 PAC-3.
 
sferrin said:
2 8-cells. One with 32 ESSM, one with 32 PAC-3.
Click to expand...

PAC-3 MSE probably due to datalink compatibility issues. It's been looked at.
 

Attachments

  • pac-3-mse-aegis.png
    pac-3-mse-aegis.png
    256.9 KB · Views: 362
Japan to spend $2 bil on land-based Aegis missile defense system
Dec. 19 04:03 pm JST
TOLYO

Japan formally decided on Tuesday it would expand its ballistic missile defense system with U.S.-made ground-based Aegis radar stations and interceptors in response to a growing threat from North Korean rockets.

A proposal to build two Aegis Ashore batteries was approved by Prime Minister Shinzo Abe's cabinet.

The sites without the missiles will likely cost at least $2 billion and are not likely to be operational until 2023 at the earliest, sources familiar with the plan told Reuters earlier.

"North Korea's nuclear missile development poses a new level of threat to Japan and as we have done in the past we will ensure that we are able to defend ourselves with a drastic improvement in ballistic missile defense," Japanese Minister of Defense Itsunori Onodera told reporters after the cabinet meeting.

The decision to acquire the ground version of the Aegis missile-defense system, which is already deployed on Japanese warships, was widely expected.

North Korea on Nov 29 tested a new, more powerful ballistic missile that it says can hit major U.S. cities including Washington, and fly over Japan's current defence shield.

That rocket reached an altitude of more than 4,000 km (2,485 miles), well above the range of interceptor missiles on Japanese ships operating in the Sea of Japan.

North Korea says its weapons programs are necessary to counter U.S. aggression.

The new Aegis stations may not, however, come with a powerful radar, dubbed Spy-6, which is being developed by the United States.

Without it, Japan will not be able to fully utilise the extended range of a new interceptor missile, the SM-3 Block IIA, which cost about $30 million each.

A later upgrade, once the U.S. military has deployed Spy-6 on its ships around 2022, could prove a costly proposition for Japan as outlays on new equipment squeeze its military budget.

Initial funding will be ring-fenced in the next defense budget beginning in April, but no decision has been made on the radar, or the overall cost, or schedule, of the deployment, a Ministry of Defense official said at a press briefing.

Japan's military planners also evaluated the U.S.-built THAAD (Terminal High Altitude Area Defense) system before deciding on Aegis Ashore.

Onodera said this month Japan would acquire medium-range cruise missiles it can launch from its F-15 and F-35 fighters at sites in North Korea, in a bid to deter any attack.

The purchase of what will become the longest-range munitions in Japan's military arsenal is controversial because it renounced the right to wage war against other nations in its post-World War Two constitution.
Click to expand...

Source
 
Read and weep.

http://www.asahi.com/ajw/articles/AJ201807260060.html
Japan’s plan for missile defense system hits stumbling blocks

By SHINICHI FUJIWARA/ Staff Writer


Local opposition has forced the central government to postpone bidding for geological surveys at the planned sites of the increasingly expensive Aegis Ashore missile defense system in Akita and Yamaguchi prefectures.

The Defense Ministry was originally scheduled to offer the public tenders on July 26 and open the bidding on Aug. 2 to choose the entities that will conduct the geological surveys at the sites.

But it decided on July 25 to push back the public tenders until Sept. 5-7 and open the bidding on Sept. 12.

The decision was made after Defense Minister Itsunori Onodera effectively retracted his original estimate of 80 billion yen ($720 million) per unit of the U.S.-made missile defense system amid speculation that the costs will snowball.

The central government plans to deploy the Aegis Ashore system at the Ground Self-Defense Force’s maneuvering grounds in the prefectural capital of Akita in northern Japan and in Hagi, Yamaguchi Prefecture, the westernmost prefecture on Honshu, to counter potential missiles from North Korea and China.

But the Hagi city government submitted a written request for Onodera to postpone the tender, indicating that the city is not ready for the deployment.

Norihiko Hanada, mayor of neighboring Abu in Yamaguchi Prefecture, requested a meeting with Keitaro Ono, parliamentary secretary for defense, on July 25 to convey the town’s opposition to the deployment.

The mayor told reporters that the planned deployment “has not gained local residents’ understanding.”

A Defense Ministry official visited Akita Prefecture on July 23 to brief local officials about the project. However, both the Akita prefectural government and Akita city have asked the ministry to postpone the bidding process.

On a TV program in August last year, Onodera described the Aegis Ashore system as “economical and a good bargain,” compared with an Aegis vessel that comes with a price tag of 170 billion yen.

At the Upper House Budget Committee in November, Onodera gave an estimate of 80 billion yen for one Aegis Ashore system.

However, the ministry later revised the figure to about 100 billion yen, including the cost to build a facility to house the system.

Onodera effectively retracted his earlier estimate at a news conference on July 24.

“I have never mentioned how much the Aegis Ashore is estimated at,” he said.

He added that the price of about 100 billion yen was simply a reference.

Some ministry officials expect the deployment of two units will cost more than 500 billion yen together, given the expenses needed to introduce a new radar system manufactured by Lockheed Martin Corp. and other factors.


The Asahi Shimbun​
Click to expand...
 
Costs balloon, delays expected for Aegis Ashore defense system (The Asahi Shimbun)

The Aegis Ashore missile defense system, touted as vital in protecting Japan from North Korean ballistic missiles, will cost 1.7 times the initial estimate and its operational start will likely be pushed back.

A major reason for both the higher price and delay in operations is that the Japanese government has almost no say in the matter and must adhere to the price estimates and production schedule presented by Lockheed Martin, the U.S. manufacturer of the system.

Defense Ministry officials on July 30 disclosed that the total cost of deploying two of the land-based missile intercepting systems has ballooned to about 466.4 billion yen ($4.2 billion), mainly because the ministry plans to install the most advanced radar system on the unit bound for Japan.

But the company also explained that about six years would be needed to manufacture and deploy a single unit, meaning the start of the Aegis Ashore system will be delayed from the initial plan to get it up and running in fiscal 2023.

In addition, local communities that have been tabbed as host sites for the Aegis Ashore system have heightened their opposition against the deployment.

With the United States and North Korea increasing dialogue, Akita city in northern Japan and Hagi, Yamaguchi Prefecture, in western Japan are no longer convinced the missile defense system is needed, especially in their respective backyards.

The local opposition and the spiraling cost of the system will likely lead to additional discussions in the Diet over the necessity of the purchase.

Defense Minister Itsunori Onodera has said the Aegis Ashore system represents an opportunity to greatly improve Japan’s defense capabilities against ballistic missiles.

The system would have a detection range exceeding 1,000 kilometers, about double that of the radar aboard the Aegis destroyers operated by the Maritime Self-Defense Force.

Each Aegis Ashore unit, including the radar, was initially estimated to cost 80 billion yen. The latest estimate puts the cost per unit at about 134 billion yen.

The Defense Ministry had not disclosed the total cost of servicing and operating the Aegis Ashore system for 30 years after it is deployed. However, the latest estimate puts the total cost at about 466.4 billion yen, with about 195.4 billion yen going for maintaining and operating the system.

The system will be acquired through the Foreign Military Sales program, in which procurement is made through the U.S. government.

The FMS is considered U.S. defense assistance to U.S. allies, so buyers generally pay the asking price. This tends to lead to higher costs in the long run compared with direct purchases from defense equipment manufacturers.

Lockheed Martin said that if the FMS contract with Japan is signed next year, it will take six years to manufacture and deploy one unit. That means the start of operations is now expected to be in fiscal 2025 at the earliest.
Click to expand...
 
http://the-japan-news.com/news/article/0004625109
Advanced radar boosts cost of Aegis Ashore to ¥466.4 bil.


8:31 pm, July 31, 2018


The Yomiuri Shimbun

The Defense Ministry has announced that the planned Aegis Ashore ground-based missile defense system will be equipped with the state-of-the-art solid-state radar (SSR) produced by Lockheed Martin Corp., a move that will significantly raise the cost from the initial estimate.

The cost is expected to soar to ¥466.4 billion, including ¥267.9 billion for acquiring two Aegis Ashore units with SSR, as well as maintenance and operating expenses and training costs.

The start of the Aegis Ashore’s operation, which was aimed for fiscal 2023, could be delayed by about two years.

Aegis Ashore is a land-based facility with a missile defense capability equivalent to that of an Aegis-equipped destroyer. The ministry plans to include the cost for the main body of two Aegis Ashore units in its budgetary request for fiscal 2019.

The cost was initially estimated at about ¥80 billion per unit, but it has jumped to ¥134 billion as the SSR radar, developed by Lockheed, is the most advanced technology available.

SSR can detect targets at a distance of 1,000-plus kilometers. It will be able to monitor all of North Korea constantly from Akita and Yamaguchi prefectures, where the Aegis Ashore units are expected to be deployed.

The radar will enhance Japan’s ability to counter a saturation attack, in which numerous ballistic missiles land at the same time, as well as a ballistic missile launched on a lofted trajectory, in which a projectile is sent up at a steeper angle than normal.

The ¥466.4 billion, which has been proposed by the U.S. Defense Department’s Missile Defense Agency and Lockheed, includes ¥195.4 billion for maintaining and operating the system for 30 years and ¥3.1 billion for educational training costs.

The figure does not cover expenditures for facility development and maintenance, interceptor missiles and missile launchers.

Meanwhile, the first Aegis Ashore unit is likely to be delivered six years after its contract is concluded. In light of this, the start of operation could be delayed into fiscal 2025.

The Defense Ministry has decided to install the radar in a bid to enhance the nation’s interception ability, as the threat from North Korea’s ballistic missiles remains intact.

Amid concerns over the ballooning costs for the Aegis Ashore deployment, the ministry intends to thoroughly explain the importance of the radar’s introduction.

“Our country’s ballistic missile defense capability will dramatically improve” by introducing the SSR radar, Defense Minister Itsunori Onodera told reporters at the ministry on Monday. “The introduction is essential.”

The ministry considered Lockheed’s SSR and the SPY-6 developed by Raytheon Co. as candidates. Initially, the SPY-6 radar was believed to be the favorite, as it is scheduled to be installed on a U.S. Navy Aegis-equipped destroyer. However, the SSR has been regarded as advantageous cost-wise, as well as its capability to detect targets and simultaneously deal with numerous ballistic missiles.

The SSR adopts the technology used in the LRDR interception radar for an intercontinental ballistic missile, which is currently being constructed in Alaska. The SSR’s detection distance is 1,000-plus kilometers — more than double the SPY-1 radar, which is carried by the Maritime Self-Defense Force’s Aegis-equipped destroyers.

In response to Pyongyang’s mood for dialogue and the soaring costs, some people, mainly from the opposition camp, have argued that the Aegis Ashore units are unnecessary. However, Onodera said, “The threat from North Korea remains unchanged.”
Click to expand...
 

Japan’s missile defense shield faces unforeseen costs--sources
REUTERS

September 27, 2019 at 14:25 JST


Additional tests may add at least $500 million (54 billion yen) to Japan's price tag for two U.S.-built ballistic missile interceptor stations that could struggle to shoot down the latest North Korean missile types, four government and defense sources said.

The tests are required to show the system is working properly, according to Lockheed Martin, the manufacturer. Held in Hawaii rather than Japan, they would cost about $100 million per launch.

"Japan is waiting to hear back from the U.S. Missile Defense Agency about what tests will be required," said one of the sources. "Those tests haven't been budgeted for."

As part of a major defense upgrade, Japan in 2018 agreed to buy the land-based Aegis Ashore sites offered by Washington, rejecting a new U.S. Navy radar offered by Raytheon Co. in favor of one designed by rival Lockheed Martin Corp.

The Japanese defense minister at the time, Itsunori Onodera, did not know Japan would also have to pay for missile launches to test the Lockheed radar, the sources said. One of the defense sources said the Japanese government had thought computer-simulated tests would be sufficient.

All four asked not to be identified because they are not authorized to talk to the media.

An official at Onodera's parliamentary office declined a request to interview the senior ruling party lawmaker about the issue. It is unclear whether other Japanese officials knew about the tests.

"That topic would have been addressed in government-to-government discussions," said Lockheed Martin spokeswoman Mona Neuhass. "Regardless of the radar selected, a live fire test will be required to verify the fire-control loop."

Japan's Defense Ministry said it had no immediate comment.

The Japanese government, among the top three foreign buyers of U.S. military hardware for the past three years, must now explain additional spending on a multibillion-dollar project.

The contract for the Aegis Ashore systems has not yet been signed. The systems are scheduled to be operational by 2024.

"It may be an opportunity for Japan to rethink Aegis Ashore in favor of integrated air missile defense," said one of the sources, who is familiar with Japan's military planning.

Integrated air missile defense (IAMD) is a broader approach to defense, with multiple components to counter threats ranging from warheads plunging from space to lower-altitude attacks such as cruise missiles.

This year, North Korea tested ballistic missiles whose warheads appeared to maneuver in flight, making them harder to shoot down.

Lockheed Martin referred requests to comment on new North Korean missiles to Japan's Defense Ministry and the Missile Defense Agency.

So far Japan has budgeted $1.2 billion for Aegis Ashore hardware but expects other costs, including construction, maintenance and operational expenses over three decades to put the final tally for two sites at $4.31 billion.

Hiranao Honda, a lawmaker with the opposition Constitutional Democratic Party of Japan and director of its security division, said the additional costs showed the program should be shut down.

"There are a series of costs that have yet to be budgeted for, such as construction, and we still have to pay for the missiles. There has not been an adequate explanation from the government," said Honda, who has requested more details from the Defense Ministry on Aegis Ashore costs.

He noted that Japan already had eight warships with a similar but less-capable Aegis system that can attack incoming missiles.



ALARM



A recent series of short-range missile tests by Pyongyang, which U.S. President Donald Trump dismissed as unimportant, have prompted alarm in Japan.

Former defense chief Takeshi Iwaya said last month that those launches appeared to test new missiles with irregular trajectories designed to penetrate ballistic missile defenses, including the Aegis Ashore stations. Typically, such defense systems are designed to counter projectiles on predictable flight paths.

Both Lockheed Martin's Solid-State Radar and Raytheon's SPY-6, which the U.S. Navy is putting in its latest Aegis-equipped ships, promise a major boost to Aegis's ability to detect and hit incoming targets.

Japan will also have to buy interceptor missiles along with the radar. The latest missile for the Aegis system, the SM-3 Block IIA, jointly developed by Japan's Mitsubishi Heavy Industries and Raytheon, costs about $30 million each.

Using some of those missiles for tests would add to the cost of setting up the system, as would paying for targets that mimic incoming warheads.



TESTS OVERSEAS



Holding those tests in Japan could crank up tensions in East Asia, so Tokyo would conduct them at a more isolated test site in Hawaii, according to three of the sources.

Japan would have to pay for a temporary Aegis Ashore site there as well as interceptors, including the pricey Block IIA, which would be destroyed in any test.

Aside from personnel and target missiles, Japan would also pay for an exclusion zone to keep commercial shipping and aircraft away from the tests.

One test could cost about $100 million, according to one of the sources, who has knowledge of past tests conducted by the United States in Hawaii.

Configuring Aegis Ashore to fire other interceptors that could target newer North Korean missiles would require additional tests, he added.
Click to expand...
 
Sounds like the marketing team developed this one. Is it even an AESA? With GaN technology?
 
sferrin said:
Sounds like the marketing team developed this one. Is it even an AESA? With GaN technology?
Click to expand...

Yes, S-Band GaN with element level DBF. The same family has been selected by the US for the Long Range Discrimination radar and the Homeland Defense radar being set up in Hawaii. Japan chose it over Raytheon's SPY-6 IIRC. It is great that BMD applications and export orders are creating competition in this arena so that even the USN and DOD can compete future iterations of them for future applications. Keeps contractors honest and invested in IR&D.

www.lockheedmartin.com

A New Breed of Radar

Satellites. Spent rocket boosters. Stray hardware. Debris from in-space collisions. The need to accurately track the estimated 500,000 objects floating in space is only increasing.
www.lockheedmartin.com www.lockheedmartin.com
 

Attachments

  • Lockheed_SSR_NJ.jpg
    Lockheed_SSR_NJ.jpg
    73.5 KB · Views: 119
  • Lockheed_LRDR.png
    Lockheed_LRDR.png
    465.6 KB · Views: 135
  • SPY-7_SSR.jpg
    SPY-7_SSR.jpg
    45.3 KB · Views: 147
That post that you quoted was from nearly 3 years ago. The Navy has indeed selected the SM-6 for the SBT mission though the MSE still looks an attractive future option as it doubles the load-out for the SBT mission. If Data-link weren't a constraint it would actually be a good use case on the FFG(X) given a smaller VLS footprint.
 
www.wsj.com

Japan Halts Introduction of U.S. Missile-Defense System

Tokyo cites costs, technical issues with introduction of Lockheed Martin’s Aegis Ashore batteries
www.wsj.com www.wsj.com

TOKYO—Japan suspended plans to introduce a multibillion-dollar American missile-defense system, citing major new costs and delays from modifications needed to ensure rocket debris from the system doesn’t endanger local residents.

Two Aegis Ashore batteries were scheduled to be deployed around 2025 in southern and northern Japan that would provide the country with a new layer of defense against ballistic missiles.

Japan agreed to buy the system, made by Lockheed Martin Corp., in 2017 for an initial price-tag of $2.1 billion as concerns rose about the threat from North Korean missiles and as President Trump called for allies such as Japan to buy more American defense hardware.

However, Japan’s defense ministry said on Monday that following talks with the U.S. this year, it became clear that significant hardware changes were needed to ensure that rocket boosters from interceptor missiles fired from the batteries fall in designated safe areas. The interceptors are designed to smash into and destroy incoming ballistic missiles.

The changes would be expensive and take considerable time, the ministry said, without providing specific details. The plans will now be referred to the National Security Council, headed by Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, for further discussion.

“Due to considerations of cost and timing, we have stopped the process of introducing the Aegis Ashore system,” Defense Minister Taro Kono told reporters.
Lockheed Martin said in a statement it was prepared to address any concerns of the Japanese government, while the State Department didn’t respond to a request for comment.

The cost of Japan’s Aegis Ashore system had already risen sharply, setting it up as one of the country’s most expensive defense purchases. Mr. Abe has ramped up military spending in recent years, mostly on U.S. hardware such as F-35 jet fighters.

Aegis Ashore would provide Japan with a fixed shield against ballistic missiles, supplementing its ship-based Aegis missile-defense system and land-based PAC-3 systems.

The defense ministry has faced particularly strong opposition in the northern prefecture of Akita to its proposal to locate one of the two new batteries there. Residents raised concerns about the electromagnetic waves from the system’s strong radar and the possibility of the area becoming a military target because of the proposed facility.

Difficulties for the government increased when an independent candidate who campaigned against the Aegis base won election to Japan’s Upper House of parliament to represent Akita last year.

The defense ministry had told residents in Akita that rocket-booster debris would fall into the sea, but on Monday confirmed that hardware changes would be needed to guarantee that would happen.

The ministry was also forced to backtrack after reassuring people living near the site for the second battery in the southern prefecture of Yamaguchi that debris would fall inside a military base.

Yoji Koda, a retired Japanese vice admiral, said the ministry was too lax in its approach to the project. He said possible alternative solutions are for the ministry to buy land where rocket boosters might fall if the system isn’t modified, or to select new sites for the batteries. But he added that the relationship with local communities would be even more difficult now.

“The ministry has ruined mutual trust,” he said.

Write to Alastair Gale at alastair.gale@wsj.com and Chieko Tsuneoka at chieko.Tsuneoka@dowjones.com
Click to expand...
 
www.defensenews.com

Japan confirms it’s scrapping US missile defense system

Now the government will need to enter negotiations with the U.S. about what to do with payments and the purchase contract already made for the Aegis Ashore systems.
www.defensenews.com www.defensenews.com

www.defensenews.com

Japan’s new missile defense destroyer starts sea trials amid Aegis Ashore saga

The last of Japan’s eight planned destroyers capable of intercepting ballistic missiles has started sea trials ahead of its commissioning, even as the country ponders its next move following its decision to suspend plans to introduce ground-based systems for that role.
www.defensenews.com www.defensenews.com
 
While Aegis Ashore is primarily for Japan’s defense and the choice to suspend it is Tokyo’s to make, underemphasized in Japan’s public debate is the negative effect its absence will have on the U.S.-Japan alliance. The United States would have benefited from Japan’s Aegis Ashore system. In addition to improving Japan’s capability and capacity to protect U.S. forces stationed in Japan, Aegis Ashore would have enhanced U.S. homeland defense capabilities. Importantly, U.S. military operators saw Aegis Ashore as a way to free up American Aegis destroyers in the region to shift to other areas where China is active, such as the South China Sea, Indian Ocean, and Philippine Sea. Seen from this perspective, Japan’s deployment of Aegis Ashore would complement U.S. regional strategy. Its cancellation, therefore, complicates America’s approach to the region. For example, Adm. Harry Harris, then-commander of U.S. Pacific Command, told Congress in 2018 that without Japan’s Aegis Ashore deployment, the U.S. Navy would have limited flexibility to take its Aegis-equipped destroyers that are defending Japan and put them elsewhere because of U.S. treaty obligations to defend Japan.


This is not to suggest that Aegis Ashore would meet all of Japan’s security challenges. There are legitimate questions regarding the cost-effectiveness of devoting billions of dollars to a single system that may or may not succeed in intercepting incoming ballistic missiles. Moreover, Japan’s Aegis Ashore was limited to ballistic missiles despite initial considerations that included capabilities to defend against both ballistic and cruise missiles (which were scrapped due to cost concerns). Given China’s existing inventory of cruise missiles and progress on hypersonic boost-glide missiles, however, even Japan’s planned Aegis Ashore sites would not have protected against all potential missile threats.
Click to expand...


warontherocks.com

Is Japan’s Interest in Strike Capabilities a Good Idea? - War on the Rocks

In the span of a month, Tokyo has rapidly gone from canceling a ballistic missile defense system to considering strike capabilities against foreign
warontherocks.com
 
A joint effort to develop a large, open-architecture BMD surface combatant would make a lot more sense than a "joint strike frigate."
 
"More mobile"? Hell, THIS is more mobile than Aegis ashore:

j5ha85zyuid51.jpg
 
In this day and age, why would you have such a strategically important defence system fixed and not mobile?


Regards
Pioneer
 
Hobbes said:
Because it's big and heavy and would require substantial reengineering to convert to a system divisible into truckloads.
Click to expand...
Just add another TEL to the THAAD system and put SM-3 Block IIA on that. (Or would it entail an entire revamp of the design for environmentals?)
 
Pioneer said:
In this day and age, why would you have such a strategically important defence system fixed and not mobile?


Regards
Pioneer
Click to expand...

No good reason other than that it is the only rapidly employable system that does not require any developmental funding to put out there. If you were to take a clean sheet approach to providing this capability you probably won't be working around AEGIS or around the Standard Missile family that the Navy is wedded to given their installed base, component commonality and economics. You would ideally build something around Army's IAMD and gradually introduce longer ranged sensors, longer ranged shooters etc. There was once an expanded FOV THAAD radar proposed. THAAD-ER is being looked at and they can continue to add larger diameter interceptors that begin to push into area defense roles.

But all this requires R&D dollars which no one wants to provide because it would mean taking money from other systems each service is already wedded to.

BTW, the Army plans to field the first Medium ranged battery with a truck mounted 4 x MK41 setup in under 2 years time. So there, even if we want the Standard Missile family, we have the launcher solution taken care off. How much to build a very large, mobile rotating S-band radar? Wouldn't be surprised if Raytheon or Lockheed have an internal effort looking into a single face rotating SPY-6/7 for ground based applications. Investing in something like this is why we have the MDA. Unfortunately, it is just used as an agency for other services to funnel their procurement needs for BMD when the agency should be laser focused on development and experimentation.
 
Last edited:
sferrin said:
Hobbes said:
Because it's big and heavy and would require substantial reengineering to convert to a system divisible into truckloads.
Click to expand...
Just add another TEL to the THAAD system and put SM-3 Block IIA on that. (Or would it entail an entire revamp of the design for environmentals?)
Click to expand...

How does the THAAD radar performance compare to SPY-6 (or even SPY-1)?
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom