USN cruiser to shoot down satellite

[GAP]

This whole scenario was difficult enough for the US to do, let alone Canada....

 

[a_majoor]

If this goes through (and it seems it will), then the vast economies of scale will bring ABM defense into the mainstream. The most interesting development is the one liner of Israel asking for a land based version: if they can ask for it, then so can many others (Tiawan, Ukraine, Iraq, South Korea, Japan....). I suspect this is not the system being touted to the Eastern European nations right now, but it certainly would be an interesting complimentary system, and the ability to use Ageis cruisers to move ABMs to high threat areas only makes the attackers job more difficult:

http://www.strategypage.com/dls/articles/200881623433.asp

Aegis Triumphant
by James Dunnigan
August 16, 2008

The U.S. Navy, capitalizing on the success of its SM3 anti-missile missile, wants to equip more ships with it. So far, the seagoing Aegis radar system has used SM-3s to knock down nearly 90 percent of the test missiles fired towards it. This includes shooting down a low flying space satellite. There are 18 U.S. Navy ships equipped with SM-3, and the navy would like enough money to equip all of its Aegis equipped ships (90) with the SM-3. This is expensive, as it costs a few million bucks to upgrade the Aegis radar and install the new software. And then there are the SM-3 missiles, which cost three million dollars each. The navy won't say how many SM-3 missiles are on each ship equipped to handle them, but it's probably something like at least a dozen. So to equip over 80 additional Aegis ships with SM-3 would cost over three billion dollars.

The Aegis anti-missile system consists of a modified version of the Standard anti-aircraft missile and the Aegis radar system, modified to track incoming ballistic missiles. The RIM-161A, also known as the Standard Missile 3 (or SM-3), has a range of over 500 kilometers and max altitude of over 160 kilometers. The Standard 3 is based on the failed anti-missile version of the Standard 2.

The Standard 3 has four stages. The first two stages boost the interceptor out of the atmosphere. The third stage fires twice to boost the interceptor farther beyond the earth's atmosphere. Prior to each motor firing it takes a GPS reading to correct course for approaching the target. The fourth stage is the 20 pound LEAP kill vehicle, which uses infrared sensors to close on the target and ram it. The Aegis system was designed to operate aboard warships (cruisers and destroyers that have been equipped with the special software that enables the AEGIS radar system to detect and track incoming ballistic missiles).

By the end of the year, the U.S. Navy will have completed equipping 18 ships with the Aegis anti-missile system. One reason the navy recently cancelled its expensive new DDG-1000 class of destroyers was because these were built to support amphibious and coastal operations, and did not have a radar that could easily be converted to use SM-3 missiles. The DDG-1000 also cost 2-3 times as much as current Aegis destroyers. With missile defense seen as a higher priority than providing new coastal combat capability, the DDG-1000 was killed, and money saved could be used to build more Aegis destroyers, and convert more current destroyers and cruisers to use SM-3.

Japan also has four Aegis warships being equipped with this anti-missile capability. Other nations are equipping some of their ships with Aegis. Currently, five navies operate 108 Aegis equipped ships, and are thus able to upgrade to SM-3. Israel also wants to buy a land based Aegis, which would cost about $50 million, plus the costs of the SM-3 missiles. This is not a problem, as the original development version of Aegis was built on land, and still serves for continuing testing and development.

Although staggeringly expensive, maybe we should consider "joining the team".

 

[stegner]

Although staggeringly expensive, maybe we should consider "joining the team".

Indeed.

 

[aesop081]

Although staggeringly expensive, maybe we should consider "joining the team".

Why ?

 

[a_majoor]

Why ?

Nations as varied as Iran, China, and North Korea have been developing or expanding ballistic missile technology which can be used to "deny entry" of forces into regions they contest. Canadian ships operate in the Arabian sea, within range of Iranian missiles (and perhaps Pakistani ones as well), so a certain amount of prudence is nesessary. As well, since we operate with US and multi national task forces, having that ability makes our ships that much more valuable to the TF.

 

[tomahawk6]

Not an expert but I dont see the Aegis working with current Canadian warships without extensive modifications to the superstructure.If a new destroyer is being planned it would be easier to include the Aegis in the new design.I suppose you could fit the SM-3 but without access to Aegis its not going to do much good. Canadian ships are not going to be ballistic missile targets anyway. Perhaps purchasing the new THAAD might be more prudent,but with the current budget constraints the money would be best spent elsewhere.

http://www.army-technology.com/projects/thaad/
http://www.lockheedmartin.com/products/thaad/index.html

 

[geo]

Aegis as an afterthought is a bad idea.
Plan ahead, build it into the plans......

It's like someone deciding to hack off the roof of his car cause he suddenly wants a convertible... it changes everything & it usually won't work (very well)

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

Just as long know one suggests that mounting it on the JSS is feasible..... :

 

[hugh19]

Just as long know one suggests that mounting it on the JSS is feasible..... :

Sarcasm on....  But why not????? ......Sarcasm off

 

[armyca08]

This is a big one and the US is afraid that some of it could end up in the wrong hands.  It's not a GPS satelite or anything as pedestrian as that.  Secrets, secrets, secrets...

What if obama wins, maybe bush isn't interested in Obama having a two year old spy satalite at his disposal.. maybe not. You'd think they'd be able to fix it or something.

Maybe it is all a front and the cloaking system is set to engage after the missles are launched to add the ultimate red herring.

 

[Jack O.]

You are aware the missile was launched and the satellite was destroyed? As far as I know, no cloaking device activated, and I seriously doubt President Bush wanted the satellite downed to "Keep it from Obama".

 

[armyca08]

You are aware the missile was launched and the satellite was destroyed? As far as I know, no cloaking device activated, and I seriously doubt President Bush wanted the satellite downed to "Keep it from Obama".

Yah you are probably right. Perhaps it was put up as target practice to insure that Iran's new satalites can be shot down effectively?

Pretty straight forward otherwise. You'd think they'd make satalites to work, and like test them before launch. Also the capacity to imploy space robots to fix the things might be a good investment.. if they can shoot a missle up there they should be able to drop off a space robot designed to fix the thing.


With a budget of over 17 Billion you'd think NASA could pull it off.. I'd make space robots before even thinking of a manned mission to mars.

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

Yah you are probably right. Perhaps it was put up as target practice to insure that Iran's new satalites can be shot down effectively?

Pretty straight forward otherwise. You'd think they'd make satalites to work, and like test them before launch. Also the capacity to imploy space robots to fix the things might be a good investment.. if they can shoot a missle up there they should be able to drop off a space robot designed to fix the thing.


With a budget of over 17 Billion you'd think NASA could pull it off.. I'd make space robots before even thinking of a manned mission to mars.

You did read the first page where it was a no longer functioning US spy satellite right?

have you ever seen the stresses any sort of rocket or missile undergoes during launch and flight?

At 17b NASA seems to have truble breaking even....what does that tell you?

Maybe it is all a front and the cloaking system is set to engage after the missles are launched to add the ultimate red herring.

ummm ok....maybe you need stronger medication...