THAAD Development

[bring_it_on]

I'm not sure but it could very well have been 12 at some point during its development. The number has been 9 for a while now, and is quite inadequate imho unless the systems are exported to South Korea and more ME nations.

Just looking at the number of missiles they'd have to stop theoretically shows the number planned is severely insufficient.

PAC3MSE and THAAD procurement numbers are shockingly low resulting in very high prices. Although plenty of programs have taken cuts thanks to sequestration triggered by the BCA, it seems missile procurement has seen a massive chop.

 

[bring_it_on]

Aerojet Rocketdyne Helps Power America’s Missile Defense Efforts with Delivery of 300th THAAD Booster Motor and DACS Unit


SACRAMENTO, Calif., March 31, 2016 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- Aerojet Rocketdyne, a subsidiary of Aerojet Rocketdyne Holdings, Inc. (NYSE:AJRD), recently delivered the 300th booster motor and Divert and Attitude Control System (DACS) for the Missile Defense Agency’s Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) system.

THAAD is a highly effective, land-based element of the Ballistic Missile Defense System that provides the critical capability needed to protect America’s military, allied forces, critical infrastructure and citizens from short- and medium-range ballistic missile attacks.

“Aerojet Rocketdyne has worked with our prime customer Lockheed Martin to establish the capacity to produce the rate necessary to meet the growing demand for the THAAD missile,” said Eileen Drake, CEO and president for Aerojet Rocketdyne. “Our joint focus has been on improving producibility to meet affordability goals. The men and women of Aerojet Rocketdyne have shown extraordinary commitment and ingenuity in producing the 300 units. It is a great milestone.”

THAAD consists of five major components: launchers, interceptors, radar, THAAD fire control and communication units, and THAAD-specific support equipment. Through prime contractor Lockheed Martin, Aerojet Rocketdyne supplies both the booster motor technology that powers the THAAD interceptor as well as the DACS – a high-precision, quick-reaction propulsion system that positions the interceptor to successfully defeat an incoming ballistic missile.

Since the start of production for the THAAD weapon, there have been 16 flight tests with 100 percent success. Two of the intercept tests occurred in 2015.

Aerojet Rocketdyne is an innovative company delivering solutions that create value for its customers in the aerospace and defense markets. The company is a world-recognized aerospace and defense leader that provides propulsion and energetics to the space, missile defense and strategic systems, tactical systems and armaments areas, in support of domestic and international markets. Additional information about Aerojet Rocketdyne can be obtained by visiting our websites at www.Rocket.com and www.AerojetRocketdyne.com.

http://www.4-traders.com/AEROJET-ROCKETDYNE-HOLDIN-21904022/news/Aerojet-Rocketdyne-Helps-Power-America-rsquo-s-Missile-Defense-Efforts-with-Delivery-of-300th-THAAD-22100155/

 

[sferrin]

"Since the start of production for the THAAD weapon, there have been 16 flight tests with 100 percent success. Two of the intercept tests occurred in 2015."

Remember all the scorn heaped upon THAAD during it's first round of tests? Hell, during the last test the 2nd target wasn't even meant for THAAD. SM-3 was suppose to take it out but it had a failure of some sort so they shot a THAAD at the second target too.

 

[bring_it_on]

...

 

[bobbymike]

http://www.rand.org/blog/2016/04/the-effect-on-south-koreas-neighbors.html?utm_source=t.co&utm_medium=rand_social

 

[donnage99]

Can someone explain to me how a defensive weapon deployed by one nation can threaten the national security of another? I've seen this argument used by different countries but never fully understood the logic (not meant to be sarcastic but a real question)

 

[bring_it_on]

...

 

[Rickshaw]

Can someone explain to me how a defensive weapon deployed by one nation can threaten the national security of another? I've seen this argument used by different countries but never fully understood the logic (not meant to be sarcastic but a real question)

The view is that a defensive system will often allow it's user to protect their forces while they aggressively attack other nation/forces. A good example is the SDI system, which would have allowed the US to prevent the fUSSR from being able to attack it, while the US was able to attack the fUSSR with impunity (of course that assumes that SDI would be 100% effective).

 

[sferrin]

Can someone explain to me how a defensive weapon deployed by one nation can threaten the national security of another? I've seen this argument used by different countries but never fully understood the logic (not meant to be sarcastic but a real question)

It's pretty much crap. Like if I put locks on the door to my house that's suppose to mean I'm coming to rob you. The usual suspects then start wailing about how if only we took the locks off our doors the meth-addicts next door would stop planning to rob us.

 

[kaiserd]

Can someone explain to me how a defensive weapon deployed by one nation can threaten the national security of another? I've seen this argument used by different countries but never fully understood the logic (not meant to be sarcastic but a real question)

It's pretty much crap. Like if I put locks on the door to my house that's suppose to mean I'm coming to rob you. The usual suspects then start wailing about how if only we took the locks off our doors the meth-addicts next door would stop planning to rob us.

The line between defensive and offensive can sometimes be in the eye of the beholder/ matter or perspective. For example a "pure" fighter aircraft (no air-to-ground role) can be seen defensive if protecting your airspace or your armed forces but the same aircraft could be used to take-out strike aircraft of an opponent who sees them as defensive in nature (deterrent/ counter to your ground forces which could invade).
The concern about missile defences is that they could destabilise existing balances of deterrence or force/ counter force. Again a matter of perspective and context if that's a good or bad thing

 

[sferrin]

The line between defensive and offensive can sometimes be in the eye of the beholder/ matter or perspective. For example a "pure" fighter aircraft (no air-to-ground role) can be seen defensive if protecting your airspace or your armed forces but the same aircraft could be used to take-out strike aircraft of an opponent who sees them as defensive in nature (deterrent/ counter to your ground forces which could invade).

Taking out strike aircraft is still defensive in nature. If the other guy is going to complain that you can take out the aircraft he'd like to bomb you with that pretty much tells you all you need to know.

 

[kaiserd]

The line between defensive and offensive can sometimes be in the eye of the beholder/ matter or perspective. For example a "pure" fighter aircraft (no air-to-ground role) can be seen defensive if protecting your airspace or your armed forces but the same aircraft could be used to take-out strike aircraft of an opponent who sees them as defensive in nature (deterrent/ counter to your ground forces which could invade).

Taking out strike aircraft is still defensive in nature. If the other guy is going to complain that you can take out the aircraft he'd like to bomb you with that pretty much tells you all you need to know.

But those strike aircraft could be the only way an opponent has of countering supperior numbers of ground forces (e.g. NATO versus Warsaw Pact). Enhancing your ability to kill those strike aircraft will be seen as undermining your opponents ability to defend themselves.
It really does depends on the circumstances and your perspective.
A bit of imagination goes a long way.

 

[sferrin]

The line between defensive and offensive can sometimes be in the eye of the beholder/ matter or perspective. For example a "pure" fighter aircraft (no air-to-ground role) can be seen defensive if protecting your airspace or your armed forces but the same aircraft could be used to take-out strike aircraft of an opponent who sees them as defensive in nature (deterrent/ counter to your ground forces which could invade).

Taking out strike aircraft is still defensive in nature. If the other guy is going to complain that you can take out the aircraft he'd like to bomb you with that pretty much tells you all you need to know.

But those strike aircraft could be the only way an opponent has of countering supperior numbers of ground forces (e.g. NATO versus Warsaw Pact). Enhancing your ability to kill those strike aircraft will be seen as undermining your opponents ability to defend themselves.
It really does depends on the circumstances and your perspective.
A bit of imagination goes a long way.

Except in this case the other guy has far more ground forces than you and more strike aircraft than you could ever hope to shoot down. Furthermore, your defensive aircraft aren't located in a place that could ever shoot down his strike aircraft. Facts > Imagination.

 

[bobbymike]

The line between defensive and offensive can sometimes be in the eye of the beholder/ matter or perspective. For example a "pure" fighter aircraft (no air-to-ground role) can be seen defensive if protecting your airspace or your armed forces but the same aircraft could be used to take-out strike aircraft of an opponent who sees them as defensive in nature (deterrent/ counter to your ground forces which could invade).

Taking out strike aircraft is still defensive in nature. If the other guy is going to complain that you can take out the aircraft he'd like to bomb you with that pretty much tells you all you need to know.

But those strike aircraft could be the only way an opponent has of countering supperior numbers of ground forces (e.g. NATO versus Warsaw Pact). Enhancing your ability to kill those strike aircraft will be seen as undermining your opponents ability to defend themselves.
It really does depends on the circumstances and your perspective.
A bit of imagination goes a long way.

Except in this case the other guy has far more ground forces than you and more strike aircraft than you could ever hope to shoot down. Furthermore, your defensive aircraft aren't located in a place that could ever shoot down his strike aircraft. Facts > Imagination.

Chinese have learned from the Soviets/Russians that there is a large anti-military/MIC/Modernization/Nuclear systems/anti-US in general population that they can play to by shouting that everything the US does is destabilizing and dangerous knowing these people and their media surrogates will squeal.

 

[kaiserd]

The line between defensive and offensive can sometimes be in the eye of the beholder/ matter or perspective. For example a "pure" fighter aircraft (no air-to-ground role) can be seen defensive if protecting your airspace or your armed forces but the same aircraft could be used to take-out strike aircraft of an opponent who sees them as defensive in nature (deterrent/ counter to your ground forces which could invade).

Taking out strike aircraft is still defensive in nature. If the other guy is going to complain that you can take out the aircraft he'd like to bomb you with that pretty much tells you all you need to know.

But those strike aircraft could be the only way an opponent has of countering supperior numbers of ground forces (e.g. NATO versus Warsaw Pact). Enhancing your ability to kill those strike aircraft will be seen as undermining your opponents ability to defend themselves.
It really does depends on the circumstances and your perspective.
A bit of imagination goes a long way.

Except in this case the other guy has far more ground forces than you and more strike aircraft than you could ever hope to shoot down. Furthermore, your defensive aircraft aren't located in a place that could ever shoot down his strike aircraft. Facts > Imagination.

Chinese have learned from the Soviets/Russians that there is a large anti-military/MIC/Modernization/Nuclear systems/anti-US in general population that they can play to by shouting that everything the US does is destabilizing and dangerous knowing these people and their media surrogates will squeal.

Neither you or Sferrin seen remotely interested in reasoned and reasonable discussion or debate, which is a pity; alleging that anyone that doesn't 100 percent agree with you is "squealing" and is a Chinese/ Russian stooge a few times removed is pathetic and unworthy of this site.

To be clear I was only referring to NATO strike aircraft versus supperior Warsaw pact ground forces as an example of weapons one side may see as defensive while the other side could see as offensive in nature.
I was also not making any definitive judgement re: missile defense systems; a system to defeat the obvious rouge nations may be a good idea if cost/benefit makes sense (while any attemp at a more capable system to try to counter Russia or China would be foolish for many reasons).

I was merely pointing out the faulty logic that what one person deems defensive in nature could not reasonably be seen by another as having underlying offensive intentions/ purposes.

Another example; SAC in the Cold War, "Peace is our profession" etc.
A fleet of nuclear armed bombers built to deter your Russian and/ or Chinese adversary and destroy their cities and infrastructure if it ever came to it.
An offensive force for defensive purposes; that's how the US saw it, the USSR saw it a different way.
You could make a similar point using the USSR massive Cold War tank forces, poised to push deep into West Germany and beyond.

Defensive weapons do not necessarily have exclusively defensive purposes or impact and offensive weapons do not necessarily have exclusively offensive purposes and impact, and both are functions of context and perception, both of which can change.
If you are unwilling or unable to accept that you aren't really thinking at all.

 

[bobbymike]

The line between defensive and offensive can sometimes be in the eye of the beholder/ matter or perspective. For example a "pure" fighter aircraft (no air-to-ground role) can be seen defensive if protecting your airspace or your armed forces but the same aircraft could be used to take-out strike aircraft of an opponent who sees them as defensive in nature (deterrent/ counter to your ground forces which could invade).

Taking out strike aircraft is still defensive in nature. If the other guy is going to complain that you can take out the aircraft he'd like to bomb you with that pretty much tells you all you need to know.

But those strike aircraft could be the only way an opponent has of countering supperior numbers of ground forces (e.g. NATO versus Warsaw Pact). Enhancing your ability to kill those strike aircraft will be seen as undermining your opponents ability to defend themselves.
It really does depends on the circumstances and your perspective.
A bit of imagination goes a long way.

Except in this case the other guy has far more ground forces than you and more strike aircraft than you could ever hope to shoot down. Furthermore, your defensive aircraft aren't located in a place that could ever shoot down his strike aircraft. Facts > Imagination.

Chinese have learned from the Soviets/Russians that there is a large anti-military/MIC/Modernization/Nuclear systems/anti-US in general population that they can play to by shouting that everything the US does is destabilizing and dangerous knowing these people and their media surrogates will squeal.

Neither you or Sferrin seen remotely interested in reasoned and reasonable discussion or debate, which is a pity; alleging that anyone that doesn't 100 percent agree with you is "squealing" and is a Chinese/ Russian stooge a few times removed is pathetic and unworthy of this site.

To be clear I was only referring to NATO strike aircraft versus supperior Warsaw pact ground forces as an example of weapons one side may see as defensive while the other side could see as offensive in nature.
I was also not making any definitive judgement re: missile defense systems; a system to defeat the obvious rouge nations may be a good idea if cost/benefit makes sense (while any attemp at a more capable system to try to counter Russia or China would be foolish for many reasons).

I was merely pointing out the faulty logic that what one person deems defensive in nature could not reasonably be seen by another as having underlying offensive intentions/ purposes.

Another example; SAC in the Cold War, "Peace is our profession" etc.
A fleet of nuclear armed bombers built to deter your Russian and/ or Chinese adversary and destroy their cities and infrastructure if it ever came to it.
An offensive force for defensive purposes; that's how the US saw it, the USSR saw it a different way.
You could make a similar point using the USSR massive Cold War tank forces, poised to push deep into West Germany and beyond.

Defensive weapons do not necessarily have exclusively defensive purposes or impact and offensive weapons do not necessarily have exclusively offensive purposes and impact, and both are functions of context and perception, both of which can change.
If you are unwilling or unable to accept that you aren't really thinking at all.

Actually I wasn't referencing you or anyone else at this site defensive much or just looking for a argument that doesn't exist unless only in your mind. I was addressing sferrin alone with regard to the absolutely well known arms control anti-military movement that has existed in my lifetime from nuclear freeze to opposition to almost all military modernization.

When they opened the KGB archives there was reams of information that the Soviets ABSOLUTELY played propaganda games with the anti-nuke movements in the west. They completely infiltrated the European movements to stop GLCM and Pershing II deployments for example.

On another thread you accused me of looking for arguments YET IT IS ALWAYS YOU that responds and attacks peoples character and motives.

I have a great idea PUT ME ON IGNORE (I just added you to mine) list cause I don't care what you have to say.

 

[sferrin]

Actually I wasn't referencing you or anyone else at this site, defensive much or just looking for a argument that doesn't exist unless only in your mind.

Save yourself the futility of beating your head against the wall and add them to your ignore list.

 

[bobbymike]

Actually I wasn't referencing you or anyone else at this site, defensive much or just looking for a argument that doesn't exist unless only in your mind.

Save yourself the futility of beating your head against the wall and add them to your ignore list.

Done

 

[sferrin]

Stumbled across this looking for something else:

http://www.arnold.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123051670

Old but interesting. Speed for THAAD is generally given as 2.4 km/s but this would seem to indicate it's closer to 3 km/s.

 

[Mark S.]

I've seen 2.85 Km/sec quoted. Think it was in a book published by the Nation Research Council on BMD. Great book:

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/13189/making-sense-of-ballistic-missile-defense-an-assessment-of-concepts

 

[fredymac]

The article from the link indicated that they were testing seeker window durability in the face of endo-atmospheric heating. I always wondered why the window is offset and whether the sensor points straight ahead (which reduces effective aperture) or if the missile approaches the target with a slant angle.

 

[NeilChapman]

Neither you or Sferrin seen remotely interested in reasoned and reasonable discussion or debate, which is a pity; alleging that anyone that doesn't 100 percent agree with you is "squealing" and is a Chinese/ Russian stooge a few times removed is pathetic and unworthy of this site.

....

If you are unwilling or unable to accept that you aren't really thinking at all.

I thought you were making good points. When you guys devolve into personal attacks...

Please do better.

 

[bring_it_on]

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x4h0y1v_lockheed-thaad-extended-range_tech

Stumbled across this looking for something else:

http://www.arnold.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123051670

Old but interesting. Speed for THAAD is generally given as 2.4 km/s but this would seem to indicate it's closer to 3 km/s.

I'd have to really search through the internet and old HD's but I always put the speed range to be 2.8km/s+ and generally regarded in the 3km/s range. Of course with the ER they get a higher burnout velocity, and higher velocities cross range compared to the baseline.


The increased diameter for the first stage is designed to expand the interceptor’s range. The second stage or “kick-stage,” would then close the distance to the target and provide improved velocity at burnout, Trotsky told reporters during a Jan. 7 media teleconference. Higher velocity at burnout allows for improved divert capability, or more lateral movement during an engagement, which is needed for maneuverable targets.

 

[bring_it_on]

$270 Million for THAAD development. There's probably little bit of money there to specifically keep the ER concept alive until FY18

https://www.scribd.com/doc/316644715/Mda-17-Spend

 

[bring_it_on]

THAAD Flight and Intercept Tests Since 2005 (July 10, 2016)

https://mostlymissiledefense.com/2016/07/10/thaad-flight-tests-since-2005-july-10-2016/

 

[bring_it_on]

Japan considers adding THAAD to its air defence capabilities

Japan is "rushing forward" with upgrades to its missile defence capabilities and is considering adopting the US Army's Terminal High-Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) system, national broadcaster NHK reported on 9 August.

The government in Tokyo is concerned about the increasing number of missiles being fired by North Korea, including the 3 August launch of two No Dong (also known as Rodong) intermediate-range ballistic missiles (IRBMs), one of which travelled around 1,000 km.

Japanese defence minister Gen Nakatani said at the time that the missile appears to have fallen within the country's exclusive economic zone (EEZ), some 250 km west of Akita Prefecture in northeastern Japan.

Prime Minister Shinzo Abe said the launch was "a grave threat to Japan's security" and a "reckless act that is difficult to forgive", according to Kyodo news agency.

As a result, the defence ministry in Tokyo said it is acting to upgrade the nation's defences, NHK reported.

The No Dong IRBM is believed to have enough range to strike targets anywhere in Japan. North Korea's Musudan IRBM is widely credited as having the ability to hit Japan and the US territory of Guam, given its estimated range of 2,500-4,000 km.

Under a second supplementary budget in the 2016 fiscal year, Japan's defence ministry also intends to bring forward the purchase of additional ground-based Patriot Advanced Capability-3 (PAC-3) interceptor missiles.

The NHK report comes a few weeks after Seoul and Washington agreed to deploy THAAD interceptors to South Korea's town of Seongju to counter the threat posed by Pyongyang's military provocations.

North Korea responded to the move by threatening to take "physical action" against South Korea and the US.

The NHK report comes just a few days after South Korea's defence ministry suggested it is willing to share with Japan the information THAAD gathers on North Korean missile launches as soon as its system is up and running, which is expected to be before the end of next year.

Seoul's decision to deploy THAAD has triggered controversy in South Korea, where concerns about the system's effects on human health have sparked protests.

A Japanese deployment of THAAD could help convince South Koreans that the system promises benefits to their well-being rather than health risks.

Tokyo has announced it may issue an open-ended standing order to the Japan Self-Defense Forces (JSDF) to shoot down any North Korean missiles heading towards its territory, according to Kyodo. Tokyo has so far issued intercept orders on a case-by-case basis after detecting signs of North Korean missile launch preparations.

However, the JSDF may find executing such an open-ended order challenging. Both the ground-based PAC-3 and the sea-based Standard Missile systems would have to be kept at a high state of readiness, as would supporting ground, sea, air, and space detection systems and their respective communication, command, control, and other supporting systems.

Some Japanese naval vessels are equipped with the SM-3 Block IA (RIM-161B) hit-to-kill (HTK) anti-ballistic missiles (ABMs). The ABM's 1,200 km range and 200 km altitude limit allow it to intercept missiles at a range of up to 1,000 km.

There also plans to introduce the SM-3 Block IIA ABM, enabling ballistic missile interceptions at ranges of up to 5,000 km. Furthermore, the PAC-3 system's ABMs allow the endo-atmospheric intercept of tactical ballistic missiles (TBM) or their re-entry vehicles at an altitude of up to 20 km.

 

[sferrin]

However, the JSDF may find executing such an open-ended order challenging. Both the ground-based PAC-3 and the sea-based Standard Missile systems would have to be kept at a high state of readiness, as would supporting ground, sea, air, and space detection systems and their respective communication, command, control, and other supporting systems.

How times have changed. There was a day when the purpose of defensive forces was to be on alert in case called on to defend.

 

[bring_it_on]

...

 

[sferrin]

Nice. Home they go through with it as it's needed.

 

[bobbymike]

http://www.nextbigfuture.com/2016/08/hypersonic-missile-threat-is-focus-of.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+blogspot%2Fadvancednano+%28nextbigfuture%29&utm_content=FaceBook

THAAD-ER the answer to hypersonic missiles?

 

[sferrin]

THAAD ER would probably be a poor solution to this. A winged boost glider is going to have a lot more cross-range maneuverability than a traditional MARV. You want something like this:

http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,17791.msg248134.html#msg248134

 

[bring_it_on]

AUSA 2016: All future Raytheon AN/TPY-2 radars to be built with GaN - Jane's IDR

The US Missile Defense Agency (MDA) has awarded Raytheon a contract modification to transition the company's future AN/TPY 2 radar to Gallium Nitride (GaN), making the ballistic missile defense radar the latest to move away from Gallium Arsenide (GaAs), to improve reliability and efficiency while lowering cost.

The award, announced by Raytheon on 30 September, will be used to transition the production piece of company's Andover foundry in Massachusetts, which had been used to produce GaAs Monolithic Microwave Integrated Circuits (MIMIC) to produce GaN, Jim Bedingfield, director, missile defence and C4I systems for Raytheon, said at a company briefing on 29 September.

"The work has begun as we're on contract and will continue for the next few months," Bedingfield told IHS Jane's on 30 September.

Raytheon is working with MDA on a plan to upgrade existing TPY-2s that were built with GaAs MIMIC transmit and receive modules. If and when that would occur is up to the MDA, Bedingfield said.

"We are working closely with MDA on those options for a clear upgrade modernisation path. Our intent is to make it as affordable and efficient as possible as these radars are in worldwide demand," he said. "GaAs will continue to be produced for systems that require it."

TPY-2 will now be built using GaN modules just like Raytheon's SPY-6(V) for the Arleigh Burke-class of guided missile destroyers and the new enterprise air surveillance radar (EASR) for future Ford class aircraft carriers and amphibious ships. GaN is also a key component in the new Patriot radar that includes an Active Electronically Scanned Array and is used in the Next Generation Jammer.

GaN is a wideband gap semi-conductor so it has a higher voltage breakdown, which provides radars a higher power density on the radio frequency (RF) MIMIC amplifiers that Raytheon builds.

"With GaN you can increase your search capability by 5x the search volume, Bedingfield said on 29 September. "It allows the power to be much more effectively used."

The transition from GaAs to GaN occurs just below the transmit and receive modules at the MIMIC level, he said.

GaN enables the search volume to be greatly enhanced and the range increased by upward of 50%, Bedingfield said. "And you can increase the discrimination capability."

It is also possible to decrease a radar's aperture size because the system is operating more efficiently. "You could package the same capabilities into a smaller aperture size"; however, TPY-2 is not going that path, Bedingfield added.

AN/TPY-2 is an X-band radar that has a high degree of discrimination; it clears up the complexity of dense scenes allowing operators to understand what is the difference between a threat and non-threat, Bedingfield said.

Raytheon has produced 14 radars so far: 12 for the United States, and two for Foreign Military Sales customers. Of the 12 US radars, seven are with Terminal High Altitude Area Defense batteries and five in forward bases: Two in Japan, one each in Israel, Turkey, and US Central Command and one is deployed to Guam.

 

[r3mu511]

AUSA 2016: All future Raytheon AN/TPY-2 radars to be built with GaN - Jane's IDR

...

"With GaN you can increase your search capability by 5x the search volume, Bedingfield said on 29 September. "It allows the power to be much more effectively used."

...

GaN enables the search volume to be greatly enhanced and the range increased by upward of 50%, Bedingfield said.

the way the quote was written makes it sound like the actual search volume increased by 500%, but another article on Raytheon's GaN dev't makes it a bit clearer:

http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2016/06/cheaper-better-faster-stronger-ars-meets-the-latest-military-bred-chip/

"If we take a radar and swap out GaN for GaAs in the power amplifiers, we can provide more [direct current electrical] energy to the radar," Whelan explained. "Suddenly, we can search five times the volume of space in the same amount of time or track five times the number of targets as with the old radar simply with that upgrade. Another thing we can do is that same radar would be able to see 50 percent farther out—it could detect and track targets 50 percent farther away because more of that RF energy we're generating is being combined out in space."

putting together the two: a 50% increase in range equates to an approx 5x increase in radiated power, which means to get the same energy in any dwell position will now only require 1/5th the dwell time, hence the same search volume can now be scanned 5 times more compared to the original scan rate for that volume...

otoh, if the dwell time was retained at it's original value, a 50% increase in range would (for a hemispherical volume) mean a volume increase of around 337%...

 

[Austin]

THAAD ER would probably be a poor solution to this. A winged boost glider is going to have a lot more cross-range maneuverability than a traditional MARV. You want something like this:

http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,17791.msg248134.html#msg248134

THAAD ER would be able to defend the given area even if Winged Boost Glider has manouverability.

I still never understood the fuss around Hypersonic Glide Vehical , why would intercepting a HGV would be so challenging

 

[sferrin]

THAAD ER would probably be a poor solution to this. A winged boost glider is going to have a lot more cross-range maneuverability than a traditional MARV. You want something like this:

http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,17791.msg248134.html#msg248134

THAAD ER would be able to defend the given area even if Winged Boost Glider has manouverability.

I still never understood the fuss around Hypersonic Glide Vehical , why would intercepting a HGV would be so challenging

Much more maneuverability and cross range ability than a classic RV (even a maneuvering one like Pershing II).

 

[DrRansom]

I am confused about the importance of cross-range ability for interceptor design. I get how maneuverability is a problem, in that it makes interceptor end-game particularily hard. But what does cross-range do?

 

[sferrin]

I am confused about the importance of cross-range ability for interceptor design. I get how maneuverability is a problem, in that it makes interceptor end-game particularily hard. But what does cross-range do?

Being able to intercept a very fast target requires being able to anticipate where it's going to be, and maneuvering to update your position when the target moves. If has a lot of cross range you're going to need a lot to stay in front of it. And unless you're REALLY fast, or trying to intercept at short range, that could be a lot, which most SAMs/ABMs don't have.

 

[DrRansom]

Being able to intercept a very fast target requires being able to anticipate where it's going to be, and maneuvering to update your position when the target moves. If has a lot of cross range you're going to need a lot to stay in front of it. And unless you're REALLY fast, or trying to intercept at short range, that could be a lot, which most SAMs/ABMs don't have.

I got it now, thanks.

It is interesting to note that the current state-of-the-art onboard guidance algorithm for entry vehicles, see Ping Unified Entry Guidance in AIAA Journal of Guidance and Control, has wide turns built in as a standard way of decreasing energy while en route to a target. Those re-entry shallow turns would be extremely hard for a SAM to intercept...

 

[sferrin]

Those re-entry shallow turns would be extremely hard for a SAM to intercept...

At a distance it would be very difficult. Close in though (which it has to do if it's going to hit it's target), something like HiBex wouldn't even notice the difference.

 

[DrRansom]

At a distance it would be very difficult. Close in though (which it has to do if it's going to hit it's target), something like HiBex wouldn't even notice the difference.

In that case, does a THAAD-ER even make sense? I started thinking that an intercept strategy could involve firing multiple missiles to different kill boxes to cover the cross range area, but that adds up fast.

It might be the case that gliders are best defeated by point defense alone, along the lines of HiBex.