U.S. Plans I:  Military Mulls Nuclear-Tipped Interceptors

U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has asked a scientific advisory board to study the potential for using nuclear-tipped interceptors to destroy enemy missiles, the Washington Post reported today.

William Schneider, chairman of the Defense Science Board, said yesterday that Rumsfeld had encouraged him to begin studying the idea.

“We’ve talked about it as something that he’s interested in looking at,” Schneider told the Post.  He said he plans this summer to begin a review of the nuclear option and other alternatives to current hit-to-kill tactics.

A Pentagon review of missile defense options during the first months of U.S. President George W. Bush’s term considered nuclear interceptors but did not suggest funding programs to develop such interceptors, according to two officials.

The Pentagon experimented with nuclear-tipped interceptors and deployed an anti-missile system with them for a short period in the mid-1970s but later abandoned the idea due to public concerns about nuclear explosions overhead and questions about ionized clouds and electromagnetic shock waves, according to the Post.  Missile defense plans since then have focused on destroying targets using a hit-to-kill system in which the interceptor destroys the target by slamming into it.

An anti-missile system around Moscow that was built in the 1960s and remains today relies on nuclear-armed interceptors.  Russian officials are concerned the United Sates will decide to use nuclear explosions in its missile defense plans, said Pavel Podvig, editor of a book on Russian strategic nuclear forces (see related GSN story, today).

“They believe strongly that you cannot get an effective missile defense using hit-to-kill,” he said.

Advantages

Possessing a missile defense system that uses interceptors with nuclear explosives to destroy missiles has some potential advantages over the hit-to-kill tactic, according to Schneider.

A hit-to-kill interceptor must distinguish between an enemy missile and decoys (see GSN, April 10).  An interceptor that sets off a nuclear explosion, however, could destroy everything around it — including decoys and the missile, Schneider said.

Nuclear interceptors might also be able to destroy biological warfare agents carried in a missile, he added.

Disadvantages

If an enemy missile is carrying a biological agent, however, destroying all of the agent could require “a very large warhead — more than a megaton — to destroy anthrax spores in bomblets that may be spread over a distance of five kilometers or more,” said Richard Garwin of the Council on Foreign Relations.

More importantly, a nuclear interceptor could emit an electromagnetic pulse that would pose a serious threat to a technologically integrated society like the United States that relies on radar and electronic equipment, Garwin said.

A nuclear explosion in space could also endanger many U.S. civilian and military satellites, he added (Bradley Graham, Washington Post, April 11).

Back to top

Russian Plans:  System Components to be Modernized by Fall, Official Says

Russia plans to have several components of a missile defense system modernized by this fall, the Russian newspaper Izvestiya reported Tuesday (see GSN, Feb. 11).

Officials have not discussed the idea of a concerted effort to develop a national missile defense program, said Vladimir Simonov, general director of the Russian Agency for Control Systems.  There have been concerns, however, that Russia’s scientific and technical knowledge in the field are being wasted, prompting the modernization program, he said.

“The main task today is to get the stagnating enterprises and scientific research institutes involved in anti-missile defense ‘back on their feet,’” Simonov said.

The modernization work on the A-135 System facility — Moscow’s missile defense system — and a radar station near Baranavichi in Belarus are expected to be completed by fall, according to Russian Defense Ministry documents.  The A-135 system is comprised of a radar station, computer control center and six launch silos for A-350 long-range anti-missile missiles around Moscow, according to Izvestiya.

Russia also plans to increase the space component of an anti-ballistic missile early warning system, Izvestiya reported.  Crews have rebuilt and upgraded the Serpukhovo spacecraft control system, which was destroyed in a fire last year, and the Serpukhovo center has reestablished control over three Russian early warning satellites.  Officials plan to launch a fourth satellite in the near future to complete the Russian system for monitoring ballistic missile launches, according to Simonov.

Russia also has made improvements in tactical missile defense systems, according to Izvestiya.  Designers have already completed tests on an upgraded S-400 Triumf surface-to-air missile system, said Aleksandr Lemanskiy, chief designer at the Almaz Science and Production Association.

Russia’s efforts to develop and modernize its anti-missile defense systems are hindered only by low funding, according to Simonov.

“Mark my words,” Simonov said.  “If the country had more money, this work would possibly become a top priority of the arms program.  You see, as with the United States, expenditure on a national missile defense program means investment in high-tech sectors of the economy and the development of areas of science which will determine the country’s future” (Izvestiya, April 9 in FBIS-SOV, April 9).

Back to top

U.S. Plans II:  Laser Flight Tests to Begin Midsummer, Air Force Says

U.S. Air Force officials said the airborne laser component of a missile defense system will be ready for its first test flight by midsummer, Defense Daily reported Tuesday (see GSN, March 25).

A team consisting of Boeing, Lockheed Martin and TRW is developing the laser, which will be installed on a Boeing 747.  It is designed to shoot down enemy ballistic missiles during their boost phase, according to Defense Daily (see GSN, March 11).

The first tests of the laser-equipped Boeing 747 will consist of short flights to determine only the performance of the aircraft, Defense Daily reported.  After about five such tests, further tests will evaluate the aircraft’s battle management systems and then the laser’s detection and tracking of test rockets.  The first round of tests is designed to ensure the aircraft “still performs like a 747,” said Air Force spokesman Ken Englade.

Even though the laser will not be test-fired until 2004 under a revised program schedule, flight tests are proceeding as planned, Englade said.  The delay of about a year in the laser test firing allows time for additional risk modification work, he said.

“It gives us more time in case we run into something we hadn’t anticipated,” Englade said.  “It builds more room in to maneuver.  We were on a really tight schedule.”

The funding for the laser program appears to be stable, despite past congressional threats of cuts, Defense Daily reported (see GSN, Feb. 5).  The proposed fiscal 2003 missile defense budget includes $598 million for the laser program, Englade said.  About $75 million of that funding comes from the canceled Navy Area missile defense system, he added (see GSN, Feb. 27).

“That increase will be used for increased testing and to build in more risk reduction,” Englade said (Kerry Gildea, Defense Daily, April 9).

A failed test of a TRW-made laser module for the laser program last year led to test delays and increased safety procedures, Air Force officials said yesterday.  Neither the Air Force nor the defense contractors involved in the laser program reported the test failure at the time it occurred, according to Defense Daily.

Preparations for a test of the laser last September were stopped when a pipe ruptured.  There were no injuries and no damage except to the ruptured pipe, Englade said.

As a result of the pipe rupture incident, officials have made modifications and improved procedures, Englade said.  There have been no further accidents since the new measures were enacted, he said (Kerry Gildea, Defense Daily, April 10).

Back to top

U.S. Plans III:  MDA Seeks Technology Proposals, Official Says

The U.S. Missile Defense Agency is seeking industry proposals for better boost-phase missile defense systems, Aerospace Daily reported last week (see GSN, March 11).

MDA Director Gen. Ronald Kadish last November created the Advanced Concepts Office to function as “a clearing house” for soliciting and processing industry technology proposals, said MDA Chief Scientist Charles Infosino.  The MDA probably will begin requesting industry technology proposals annually, he said.

From the time of launch, there are only about two minutes to intercept an incoming enemy ballistic missile during its boost phase, Infosino said.  Currently, the MDA is examining using an airborne laser to shoot down missiles during this phase, according to Aerospace Daily (see related GSN story, today).

“We clearly need ideas across the board,” Infosino said, adding, “We’d like to see more ideas, certainly from the rocket people, as to how do you (intercept boost-phase missiles), besides directed energy.”

Midcourse Needs Sensors

For midcourse ground-based missile defense, future developments should focus on better sensors that can distinguish actual missiles from decoys, Infosino said.

“I don’t think we need more midcourse hit-to-kill vehicles as much as we need better sensors to do the discrimination and to really come to grips with how the rockets that we’re going to need … can be put on ships,” he said (Jefferson Morris, Aerospace Daily, April 5).

Back to top

U.S. Plans I:  Pentagon Pursues Mini-Interceptors to Answer Decoy Challenge

By David Ruppe
Global Security Newswire

WASHINGTON — The Pentagon this year has quietly begun pursuing a risky new missile defense technology that, if successful, could resolve a core problem faced by the national missile defense system.

The envisioned technology is a package of 20-40 “miniature kill vehicles,” each the size of a softball and weighing two kilograms.  If successfully developed, these warhead interceptors might be launched on a single missile to attack a cluster of multiple targets in space.

That capability, experts say, could significantly reduce the challenge of requiring one kill vehicle to distinguish a warhead from a cloud of decoys and other objects surrounding it.  The miniature interceptors could possibly attack everything.

The miniature kill vehicle (MKV) represents for the military a potential paradigm shift in strategy from “a sniper to a shotgun,” according to one military presentation on the technology.

It is an idea that even some missile defense critics are applauding.

“I guess it’s a terrific idea if you could make it work,” said Steve Fetter, a physicist and professor in the School of Public Affairs at the University of Maryland.  “But in order to make it work against countermeasures these would have to be very small, so you could put say a hundred on a ground-based interceptor.”

“I’m actually quite intrigued by this idea.  It’s very close to an idea I proposed a little while back,” said Massachusetts Institute of Technology professor Theodore Postol.

High Risk

Critics say, however, that the system still might be fooled by certain countermeasures.

“It certainly has a significant advantage in terms of creating many more shots at a small cluster of objects, but it appears on the surface that there would be relatively straightforward countermeasures against it anyway,” said Postol.

A senior U.S. official who described the program in detail said the program is “high risk.”

“Functionally,” all kill vehicles are the same, having the same kind of components, said the official.  “What we’re trying to do is push the state of the art on the miniaturization side of things.”

The Navy’s theater missile defense “LEAP” interceptors, which weigh 15 kilograms, employ some miniaturization technology, the official said (see GSN, Jan. 28).  “We feel the technology with electronics and with seekers allow us to go to the next step with miniaturization.”

Fetter said he agrees.

“There are all sorts of things you can do if you are clever,” Fetter said.  “It seems to me the only practical way to salvage the midcourse concept.”

Good Idea, If It Works

For years, the U.S. military has been developing a 60-kilogram Exoatmospheric Kill Vehicle (EKV), only one of which might be launched aboard an intercepting missile.

This midcourse ground-based system, intended to knock threatening warheads out while they are in space, is one of the most expensive and high-profile of at least a half-dozen major U.S. programs — in various stages of conception and development — designed to destroy ICBM-launched warheads in various stages of flight.

Critics have charged that that single kill vehicle could easily be fooled and the missile shot wasted if decoys surround the target warhead.  For example, a single, shiny Mylar balloon sheath could hide a warhead among other similar balloons.

The system “has little chance of being effective, because states capable of deploying intercontinental-range missiles armed with weapons of mass destruction would also be able to deploy countermeasures that would defeat the system,” wrote Fetter in a co-authored article published last summer in the journal International Security.

The article suggests miniaturized kill vehicles as a solution, but adds that the program would go “far beyond the boundaries of the currently planned system.”

Cost Tradeoffs

The principal challenge is containing the cost per kill vehicle, the senior U.S. official said.

While size and weight are important, “what we really need to go after is the cost,” the official said, adding that reducing cost could entail a tradeoff in terms of how accurately the miniature kill vehicles can be guided toward a target.

“We’ve got to make sure we can build these things so they’re not $1 million a copy, but tens of [thousands of dollars] a copy.  That will allow us to have a lot of them on a vehicle,” the official said.  “We know we’ve got the technology in hand, I think, to get the miniaturization.  The real issue is can we bring the cost down.”

Reducing cost, the official said, involves a tradeoff in terms of how accurately the miniature kill vehicles can guide themselves toward a target.

The kill vehicles would be housed on a “carrier vehicle,” which would be launched toward a “threat cloud” of objects.  If each kill vehicle were to home in on a target by itself, it would probably need to carry an infrared device and accompanying focal plane array and cooling system to track the object, which , the official said, could cost a great deal.

Also, there could be a challenge in miniaturizing the infrared sensors and accompanying equipment like a cooling system, said Wright of Union of Concerned Scientists.  The larger EKV uses infrared to home in as it nears a target.

A Lighter-Weight Solution

The “most likely” idea under consideration, the official said, is to equip the vehicles with much cheaper and much lighter “visible seekers,” which would detect sunlight reflected off the target.

The kill vehicle might employ a telescope that focuses the optical energy onto a sensor such as a charge-coupled device used in a digital camera, according to the official.

“The advantage of charge-coupled devices is because they operate in the visible, they don’t need to be cooled to a very low temperature for them to function,” Postol said.

The charge-coupled devices are commercially available and inexpensive, he said.  “You get a vast decrease in complexity in the kill vehicle simply by using visible energy.”

A laser designator could be deployed on the carrier vehicle to guide the kill vehicles to their respective targets, particularly in the Earth’s shadow when no sunlight is present.  The type of laser that might be needed to provide sufficient targeting accuracy also could impact cost, the official said.

Another potential tradeoff, according to the official, involves the propulsion system of the kill vehicles.

“You want to go after threat clouds where the objects are reasonably close spaced as opposed to all over the place,” the official said.  “If the threat cloud is very, very big or the objects are all over the place, this thing will break down because you’ll have to put more and more propulsion fuel in these little things, and then that adds the weight, and you’re not going to maintain your two kilograms.”

Alternatively, fewer, bigger and heavier kill vehicles could be deployed, the official added.  “So those are tradeoffs we still have to do.”

More Challenges

Another challenge is deciding what type of sensor to put on the carrier vehicle to ensure it can maneuver toward the threat cloud.

The launch mechanism is another concern.  “You just don’t drop these things off.  You’ve got to aim them.  So does that mean the carrier vehicle has to maneuver around, and how much of a timeline do you have to start [launching] these in particular directions?” the official said.

Authorities must also decide a battle management philosophy, according to the official.

“Are we going to assign [the kill vehicles] one-on-one, or are we going to have several of these attack one [target]?” the official said.  “How do these things decide themselves what to attack?”

There is also a “lethality issue,” given the relatively small mass compared to a potential warhead, and the EKV for that matter.  If the reentry vehicle (RV) housing the targeted warhead is not struck in the right place, it and the warhead may not be sufficiently destroyed.

“This is an accuracy problem,” the official said.  “We might have to have several of these attack the RV or they would have to be very accurate and hit a specific point on the RV, a tradeoff of cost once again.”

“These things clearly will kill balloons.  We have to make sure they’ll kill an RV, and that’s a tradeoff of accuracy,” the official said.

Fetter said he believes even a one-kilogram kill vehicle would be sufficient, as it would be traveling at an extremely high closing speed of 15 kilometers per second.

“That’s plenty,” he said.

Questions About Effectiveness

Experts said miniature kill vehicles would face many of the same troubles overcoming countermeasures as would the larger EKV.

“You are reflecting light off objects, and there’s no reason to believe that you would be able to do tremendously better telling a decoy from a warhead with a laser,” said Postol, though he said that challenge is offset by having numerous kill vehicles.

Postol said it is also fairly easy to make clouds of reflecting materials, such as frozen water droplets, that could surround a warhead and decoys and confuse sensors.

Since the system would employ an infrared sensor to track objects, it might still be foiled if a warhead is sufficiently cooled and hidden in a balloon, said David Wright, a senior staff scientist at the Union of Concerned Scientists and author of a widely reported study in April 2000 arguing simple countermeasures could foil the EKV system.

“If the infrared sensors can’t detect it until it is too late, it doesn’t matter how many there are,” he said.

Another potentially effective countermeasure, he said, would be to embed a warhead in a very large balloon so that an interceptor might have a low chance of hitting the warhead if it hits the balloon.

“You make the balloons so much bigger than the warhead, and the probability that you could kill the warhead is still pretty low,” he said. “There are still easy ways to get around this.”

Information released by the Army suggests that at a minimum, the system could eliminate large numbers of decoys so another — possibly larger — infrared interceptor could finish the job.

An alternative to precise targeting, according to the senior military official, might be to direct several kill vehicles into a small area, so that the warhead would have a good chance of being struck.

Funding This Year

The military has in the past invested some money in pursuing the MKV concept, but this year the Missile Defense Agency ratcheted things up.

The Army expects to spend $11.5 million in fiscal 2002, has requested $15 million for 2003, and projects to spend $25 million for 2004.

The U.S. Army Space and Missile Defense Technical Center in Huntsville, Alabama, awarded three such contracts to teams of Lockheed Martin and Coleman Research, Schafer and Boeing, and SAIC and Raytheon in mid-February for concept definition studies, basically to work out some of the tradeoffs.  After a year, two teams will be chosen to do detailed studies, including designs of the kill vehicles and the carrier vehicle.

Two other contracts were awarded to Shafer and SAIC to perform experiments to demonstrate the capabilities of various miniaturized elements.  “To show we’re in the ballpark of feasibility, with respect to size and weight,” the official said.

After a year, one will be chosen for further demos.  The goal is to begin flight-testing by 2005.

Allaying Russian and Chinese Concerns

Fetter has argued against developing a midcourse missile launched national missile defense system, principally because it might present a threat to the offensive ballistic missile systems of Russia and China, possibly inciting those countries to deploy larger force numbers than currently planned and possibly put them on a higher, more perilous state of alert.

If fewer interceptor missiles need to be built as a result of the new technology, deploying the miniature kill vehicles might work to alleviate Russian and Chinese concerns about their own deterrent force, Fetter said.

That “should generate less concern for Russia and China,” he said.

Back to top

U.S. Plans II:  MDA Develops Liquid-Fuel Boosters for Test Targets

To better simulate real-life missile threats, the U.S. Missile Defense Agency wants to use test targets with boosters that utilize liquid rather than solid fuel, Aerospace Daily reported last week.

To represent Scud missiles in past PAC-3 tests, the agency has used solid-fuel based targets (see GSN, March 22).  Now the developers are “looking at different types of targets — liquid-fuel types now instead of solid-based booster targets,” said Lt. Gen. Joseph Cosumano, head of the U.S. Army Space and Missile Defense Command.

Liquid-fuel targets are more like Scud missiles because they allow better control of the target’s speed and movements, Cosumano said.  They also have a longer burn, like Scuds, said Steven Zaloga, an analyst with the Teal Group.

The Army awarded contracts to Orbital Sciences Corp. and TRW in September to design liquid boosters for missile defense targets and decided recently to terminate the Orbital contract and continue with the TRW design, Aerospace Daily reported (see GSN, Oct. 5, 2001).

The booster will probably use nontoxic propellants, such as hydrogen peroxide and kerosene.  It should be safer than old Scud missiles, which used an unstable mix of propellants, said Zaloga (Sharon Weinberger, Aerospace Daily, April 4).

Back to top

U.S. Plans:  Pentagon Scrutinizes SBIRS-High Development

The U.S. Defense Department is expected to decide early next month whether to continue developing the Space-Based Infrared System-High (SBIRS-High) satellites, a proposed U.S. missile defense component, Aviation Week & Space Technology reported this week (see GSN, March 14).

Contending with cost overruns and management problems, defense contractor Lockheed Martin must persuade Pentagon acquisition chief Pete Aldridge to continue backing SBIRS-High, according to Aviation Week & Space Technology.  Aldridge must determine how badly the United States needs to replace the current Defense Support Program satellite system (DSP) and whether SBRIS-High offers is advanced enough to continue development, according to Aviation Week & Space Technology.

A review conducted by the U.S. Air Force’s Joint Requirement Oversight Council last October found that Lockheed Martin’s initial assumptions on the SBIRS-High program were too optimistic, Aviation Week & Space Technology reported.  The review criticized the company’s management of the program and said that some of the operational requirements had changed since the contract was awarded in 1996.

The requirements for SBIRS-High were revalidated last January and cover aspects of the system’s capabilities ranging from sensitivity and early warning ability to ability to provide technical intelligence, said U.S. Space Command chief Air Force Gen. Ralph Eberhart.

“While DSP has served us well, we need the improved detection capabilities of the Space-Based Infrared System to counter emerging strategic and theater ballistic missile threats,” Eberhart said.

The U.S. Air Force is working to alter its contract to better ensure there are no problems in the future, according to Aviation Week & Space Technology.  Air Force Undersecretary Peter Teets has said the Air Force is taking back total system responsibility for SBRIS-High.

Even with Aldridge’s backing, Lockheed Martin might not be able to turn a profit on SBRIS-High, according to Aviation Week & Space Technology.  The cost has now risen to $4.5 billion, up from the original $1.8 billion contract.  Continued support, however, could help Lockheed Martin retain its credibility as a manager of complex satellite systems, Aviation Week & Space Technology reported.

“There is no more important program in the Lockheed Martin space portfolio now than SBIRS,” said company Executive Vice President Albert Smith.

The Pentagon also is developing replacements for SBIRS-High, according to Aviation Week & Space Technology.  The National Reconnaissance Office, overseen by Teets, is conducting the research.  Two DSP satellites, built by defense contractor TRW, are currently scheduled for launch (see GSN, March 14).  Any launch failures or further delays with SBIRS-High or its replacement option could cause a coverage gap in a U.S. defense satellite system, Aviation Week & Space Technology reported.

A 1996 Air Force schedule slated the first SBIRS-High satellite launch in the later half of this year, with further launches annually, according to Aviation Week & Space Technology.  The latest schedule places the first satellite launch in 2006 at the earliest.  A gap in the satellite system was allowable “based on the status of our existing capacity,” in the DSP system, said an Air Force Space Command official (Mecham/Wall, Aviation Week & Space Technology, April 8).

Back to top

About Newswire  |  Contact National Journal  |  Re-Use Guidelines

HOME  |  CONTACT US  |  GET INVOLVED  |  SITE MAP