Wikipedia

Anti-ballistic missile

(Redirected fromFakel V-1000)

Ananti-ballistic missile(ABM) is asurface-to-air missiledesigned to counterballistic missiles(missile defense). Ballistic missiles are used to delivernuclear,chemical,biological,orconventionalwarheadsin aballisticflighttrajectory.The term "anti-ballistic missile" is a generic term for a system designed to intercept and destroy any type of ballistic threat; however, it is commonly used for systems specifically designed to counterintercontinental ballistic missiles(ICBMs).

AGround-Based Interceptorof the United States'Ground-Based Midcourse Defensesystem, loaded into a silo atFort Greely,Alaska, in July 2004

Current counter-ICBM systems

edit
Israel'sArrow 3

There are a limited number of systems worldwide that can interceptintercontinental ballistic missiles:[a]

  • The RussianA-135 anti-ballistic missile system(upgraded in 2017 to A-235)[1]is used for the defense ofMoscow.It became operational in 1995 and was preceded by theA-35 anti-ballistic missile system.The system usesGorgonandGazellemissiles previously armed withnuclear warheads.These missiles have been updated (2017) and use non-nuclear kinetic interceptors instead, to intercept any incoming ICBMs.[1]
  • The IsraeliArrow 3system entered operational service in 2017. It is designed for exo-atmosphere interception of ballistic missiles during thespaceflightportion of their trajectory, including those of ICBMs.[2]It may also act as an anti-satellite weapon.
  • The AmericanGround-Based Midcourse Defense(GMD) system, formerly known asNational Missile Defense(NMD), was first tested in 1997 and had its first successful intercept test in 1999. Instead of using an explosive charge, it launches a hit-to-killkinetic projectileto intercept an ICBM. The current GMD system is intended to shield the United States mainland against a limited nuclear attack by arogue statesuch as North Korea. GMD does not have the ability to protect against an all-out nuclear attack from Russia, as there are currently only 44 ground-based interceptors available to counter projectiles headed towards the US.[3][4](This interceptor count does not include the THAAD, or Aegis, or Patriot defenses which provide shorter range defence against incoming projectiles.)
  • TheAegis ballistic missile defense-equippedSM-3 Block II-Amissile demonstrated it can shoot down an ICBM target on 16 Nov 2020.[5]
    • In a November 2020 test, the US launched a surrogate ICBM fromKwajalein AtolltowardHawaiiin the general direction of the continental US, which triggered asatellite warningto a Colorado Air Force base.[6]In response,USSJohn Finnlaunched a missile which destroyed the surrogate ICBM, while still outside the atmosphere.[6][7]

American plans for Central European site

edit
Further information:National missile defense § Recent developments

During 1993, a symposium was held by western European nations to discuss potential future ballistic missile defence programs. In the end, the council recommended deployment of early warning and surveillance systems as well as regionally controlled defence systems.[8] During spring 2006 reports about negotiations between the United States, Poland, and the Czech Republic were published.[9] The plans propose the installation of a latest generation ABM system with a radar site in the Czech Republic and thelaunch site in Poland.[9]The system was announced to be aimed against ICBMs from Iran and North Korea.[9]This caused harsh comments by RussianPresidentVladimir Putinat theOrganization for Security and Co-operation in Europe(OSCE) security conference during spring 2007 in Munich. Other European ministers commented that any change of strategic weapons should be negotiated onNATOlevel and not 'unilaterally' [sic, actually bilaterally] between the U.S. and other states (although most strategic arms reduction treaties were between the Soviet Union and U.S., not NATO). The German foreign ministerFrank-Walter Steinmeier,a Social Democrat, expressed severe concerns about the way in which the U.S. had conveyed its plans to its European partners and criticised the U.S. administration for not having consulted Russia prior to announcing its endeavours to deploy a new missile defence system in Central Europe.[10]According to a July 2007 survey, a majority of Poles were opposed to hosting a component of the system in Poland.[11] By 28 July 2016Missile Defense Agencyplanning and agreements[9]had clarified enough to give more details about theAegis Ashoresites in Romania (2014) and Poland (2018).[12]

Current tactical systems

edit

People's Republic of China

edit

Historical Project 640

edit

Project 640 had been the PRC's indigenous effort to develop ABM capability.[13]The Academy of Anti-Ballistic Missile & Anti-Satellite was established from 1969 for the purpose of developing Project 640.[13]The project was to involve at least three elements, including the necessary sensors and guidance/command system, the Fan Ji (FJ) missile interceptor, and the XianFeng missile-intercepting cannon.[13]The FJ-1 had completed two successful flight tests during 1979, while the low-altitude interceptor FJ-2 completed some successful flight tests using scaled prototypes.[13]A high altitude FJ-3 interceptor was also proposed. Despite the development of missiles, the programme was slowed down due to financial and political reasons. It was finally closed down during 1980 under a new leadership of Deng Xiaoping as it was seemingly deemed unnecessary after the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty between the Soviet Union and the United States and the closure of the USSafeguardABM system.[13]

Operational Chinese system

edit

In March 2006, China tested an interceptor system comparable to the U.S. Patriot missiles.[14][15][16]

China has acquired and is license-producing theS-300PMU-2/S-300PMU-1series of terminal ABM-capable SAMs. China-producedHQ-9SAM system[17]may possess terminal ABM capabilities. PRC Navy's operating modern air-defense destroyers known as theType 052C DestroyerandType 051C Destroyerare armed with naval HQ-9 missiles.

The HQ-19, similar to theTHAAD,was first tested in 2003, and subsequently a few more times, including in November 2015.[18]The HQ-29, a counterpart to theMIM-104F PAC-3,was first tested in 2011.[19]

Surface-to-air missilesthat supposedly have some terminal ABM capability (as opposed to midcourse capability):

Development of midcourse ABM in China

edit

The technology and experience from the successfulanti-satellite testusing a ground-launched interceptor during January 2007 was immediately applied to current ABM efforts and development.[23][24]

China carried out aland-based anti-ballistic missile teston 11 January 2010. The test was exoatmospheric and done in midcourse[25]phase and with akinetic kill vehicle.China is the second country after US that demonstrated intercepting ballistic missile with a kinetic kill vehicle, the interceptor missile was aSC-19.[25][26]The sources suggest the system is not operationally deployed as of 2010.[25][27]

On 27 January 2013, China did another anti ballistic missile test. According to the Chinese Defence Ministry, the missile launch is defensive in character and is not aimed against any countries. Experts hailed China's technological breakthrough because it is difficult to intercept ballistic missiles that have reached the highest point and speed in the middle of their course. Only two countries, including the US, have successfully conducted such a test in the past decade.[28]

On 4 February 2021, China successfully conducted mid-course intercept anti-ballistic missile test. Military analysts indicates that the test and dozens done before reflects China's improvement in the area.[29][30]

Rumored midcourse missiles:

Europe

edit

Aster

edit
Royal NavyType 45 destroyers(pictured), and French Navy and Italian NavyHorizonandFREMM frigatesoperateAster 30 missiles
Main article:Aster (missile family)

TheAsteris a family of missiles jointly developed byFranceandItaly.The Aster 30 variants are capable of ballistic missile defense. An export customer, theUnited Kingdomalso operates the Aster 30 Block 0.

On 18 October 2010, France announced a successful tactical ABM test of the Aster 30 missile[31]and on 1 December 2011 a successful interception of a Black Sparrow ballistic target missile.[32][33]TheHorizon-class frigatesinFrenchandItalianservice, theRoyal Navy'sType 45 destroyers,and the French and ItalianFREMM-class frigatesare all armed withPAAMS(or variants of it) integrating Aster 15 and Aster 30 missiles. France and Italy are developing a new variant, the Aster 30 Block II, which can destroy ballistic missiles up to a maximum range of 3,000 km (1,900 mi). It will incorporate akill vehiclewarhead.[34]

HYDIS²

edit

Involving France, Italy,Germanyand theNetherlands,the HYDIS² (HYpersonic Defence Interceptor Study) was announced on June 20, 2023 and is a project led byMBDA.It was selected in March 2023 and is partially funded by the European Defense Fund (EDF). Its aim is to propose an architecture and technology maturation concept study for an endo-atmospheric interceptor to counter new, highly sophisticated emerging threats. HYDIS² is centered around the MBDA's Aquila hypersonic missile interceptor concept and will involve a consortium of 19 partners and over 30 subcontractors from 14 European countries.[35]France, Germany, Italy and the Netherlands have already confirmed their support and commitment, by signing a letter of intent and agreeing to initial joint requirements.[36]The ultimate goal of the project is to develop a countermeasure that could be integrated into the French-led EU TWISTER (Timely Warning and Interception with Space-based TheatER surveillance) capability program. TWISTER, launched in 2019 with MBDA France acting as lead contractor as well, is intended to be an air defense system capable of early warning, tracking and intercepting high-performance air threats, including defense against ballistic missiles (BMD) and hypersonic vehicles.[37][38]The program involves France, Italy,Spain,the Netherlands,Finlandand Germany.[39]

EU HYDEF

edit

Competing against HYDIS², the EU HYDEF (European Hypersonic Defence Interceptor) also covers the concept phase to develop an endo-atmospheric interceptor and is related to TWISTER. Selected in July 2022, it is also partially funded by the EDF. It is coordinated by Spain'sSENER Aeroespacial Sociedad Anonima,while Germany'sDiehl Defenceis serving as the overall technical lead. They are heading a consortium of partners and subcontractors from various EU countries.[38]

India

edit

Main article:Indian Ballistic Missile Defence Programme
Second phase of Anti-ballistic Missile defense test with AD-1 missile

India has an active ABM development effort using indigenously developed and integrated radars, and indigenous missiles.[40]In November 2006, India successfully conducted thePADE (Prithvi Air Defence Exercise)in which an anti-ballistic missile, called thePrithvi Air Defence (PAD),anexo-atmospheric(outside the atmosphere) interceptor system, intercepted a Prithvi-II ballistic missile. The PAD missile has the secondary stage of the Prithvi missile and can reach altitude of 80 km (50 mi). During the test, the target missile was intercepted at a 50 km (31 mi) altitude.[41]On 6 December 2007, theAdvanced Air Defence (AAD)missile system was tested successfully.[42]This missile is an endo-atmospheric interceptor with an altitude of 30 km (19 mi). First reported in 2009, theDefence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO)is developing a new Prithvi interceptor missile code-named PDV. The PDV is designed to take out the target missile at altitudes above 150 km (93 mi).[43]The first PDV was successfully test fired on 27 April 2014.[44]According to scientist V K Saraswat of the DRDO, the missiles will work in tandem to ensure a hit probability of 99.8 percent.[45]On 15 May 2016, India successfully launched AAD renamedAshwinfromAbdul Kalam Islandoff the coast ofOdisha.[46] As of 8 January 2020, the BMD programme has been completed and theIndian Air Forceand the DRDO are awaiting government's final approval before the system is deployed to protectNew Delhiand then Mumbai. After these two cities, it will be deployed in other major cities and regions.[47]India has structured a five-layer missile shield forDelhias of 9 June 2019:[48]

PAD and PDV are designed for mid-course interception, while AAD is for terminal phase interception.[49]

  1. Outermost BMD layer at endo- and exo-atmospheric altitudes (15–25 km, and 80–100 km) for 2,000 km ranges
  2. Project KushaandS-400layer at ranges of 150, 250, 350 & 400 km
  3. Akash-NG,Barak-8layer at ranges of 70, 80, & 100 km
  4. Akashlayer at ranges of 25–30 km
  5. Surface to air missiles and gun systems as the inner-most ring of defense. Previously planned to acquireNASAMS-II.[50][51]ButIndian Air Forcedeterred by high cost is now looking at domestic alternative (potentially land-basedVL-SRSAM).[52][53]

The current Phase-1 of the Indian ABM system can intercept ballistic missiles of range up to 2,000 km and the Phase-2 will increase it up to 5,000 km.[54]

Iran

edit
Iranian madeArmananti-ballistic missile interceptor.

Iran usedArmanandS-300missile systems for ballistic missile defense.[55][56]

Israel

edit

Arrow 2

edit
Main article:Arrow (Israeli missile)
An Arrow 2 anti-ballistic missile interceptor

The Arrow project was begun after the U.S. and Israel agreed to co-fund it on 6 May 1986.[57]

The Arrow ABM system was designed and constructed in Israel with financial support by the United States by a multibillion-dollar development program called "Minhelet Homa" (Wall Administration) with the participation of companies likeIsrael Military Industries,TadiranandIsrael Aerospace Industries.

During 1998 the Israeli military conducted a successful test of their Arrow missile. Designed to intercept incoming missiles travelling at up to 2-mile/s (3 km/s), the Arrow is expected to perform much better than the Patriot did in the Gulf War. On 29 July 2004 Israel and the United States carried out a joint experiment in the US, in which the Arrow was launched against a real Scud missile. The experiment was a success, as the Arrow destroyed the Scud with a direct hit. During December 2005 the system was deployed successfully in a test against a replicatedShahab-3missile. This feat was repeated on 11 February 2007.[58]

Arrow 3

edit
Main article:Arrow 3
Arrow 3in testing.

The Arrow 3 system is capable of exo-atmosphere interception of ballistic missiles, including ofICBMs.[2]It also acts as an anti-satellite weapon.

Lieutenant General Patrick J. O'Reilly, Director of the USMissile Defense Agency,said: "The design of Arrow 3 promises to be an extremely capable system, more advanced than what we have ever attempted in the U.S. with our programs."

On 10 December 2015 Arrow 3 scored its first intercept in a complex test designed to validate how the system can detect, identify, track and then discriminate real from decoy targets delivered into space by an improvedSilver Sparrowtarget missile.[59]According to officials, the milestone test paves the way towardlow-rate initial productionof the Arrow 3.[59]

David’s sling

edit
Main article:David's Sling
Israel'sDavid's Sling,designed to intercept tactical ballistic missiles

David's Sling (Hebrew: קלע דוד), also sometimes called Magic Wand (Hebrew: שרביט קסמים), is an Israel Defense Forces military system being jointly developed by the Israeli defense contractor Rafael Advanced Defense Systems and the American defense contractorRaytheon,designed to intercept tactical ballistic missiles, as well as medium- to long-range rockets and slower-flying cruise missiles, such as those possessed byHezbollah,fired at ranges from 40 km to 300 km. It is designed with the aim of intercepting the newest generation of tactical ballistic missiles, such asIskander.

Japan

edit
Japaneseguided missile destroyerJDSKongōfiring aStandard Missile 3anti-ballistic missile.
Main article:RIM-161 Standard Missile 3

Since 1998, when North Korea launched aTaepodong-1missile over northern Japan, the Japanese have been jointly developing a new surface-to-air interceptor known as the Patriot Advanced Capability 3 (PAC-3) with the US. Tests have been successful, and there are 11 locations that are planned for the PAC-3 to be installed. The approximate locations are near major air bases, likeKadena Air Base,and ammunition storage centers of the Japanese military. The exact location are not known to the public.[60]A military spokesman[61]said that tests had been done on two sites, one of them a business park in central Tokyo, and Ichigaya – a site not far from the Imperial Palace. Along with the PAC-3, Japan has installed a US-developed ship-based anti-ballistic missile system, which was tested successfully on 18 December 2007. Japan has 4 destroyers of this type capable of carryingRIM-161 Standard Missile 3and equipped with theAegis Ballistic Missile Defense System.Japan is currently modifying another 4 destroyers so that they can take part of their defense force against ballistic missiles, bringing the total number to 8 ships.[60]

Soviet Union/Russian Federation

edit
S-300PMU-2vehicles. From left to right: 64N6E2 detection radar, 54K6E2 command post and 5P85 TEL.

The Moscow ABM defense system was designed with the aim of being able to intercept the ICBM warheads aimed at Moscow and other important industrial regions, and is based on:

United States

edit
See also:Safeguard ProgramandNext generation interceptor
United States NavyRIM-161 Standard Missile 3anti-ballistic missile.

In several tests, the U.S. military have demonstrated the feasibility of destroying long and short range ballistic missiles.[69]Combat effectiveness of newer systems against 1950s tactical ballistic missiles seems very high, as theMIM-104 Patriot(PAC-1 and PAC-2) had a 100% success rate in Operation Iraqi Freedom.[70]

The U.S. NavyAegis Ballistic Missile Defense System(Aegis BMD) usesRIM-161 Standard Missile 3,which hit a target going faster than ICBM warheads.[71]On 16 November 2020 an SM-3 Block IIA interceptor successfully destroyed an ICBM in mid-course, underLink-16Command and Control, Battle Management, and Communications (C2BMC).[72]

The U.S. ArmyTerminal High Altitude Area Defense(THAAD) system began production in 2008.[73]Its stated range as a short to intermediate ballistic missile interceptor means that it is not designed to hit midcourse ICBMs, which can reachterminal phasespeeds ofmach 8or greater. The THAAD interceptor has a reported maximum speed of mach 8, and THAAD has repeatedly proven it can intercept descending exoatmospheric missiles in a ballistic trajectory.[74]

The U.S. ArmyGround-Based Midcourse Defense(GMD) system was developed by theMissile Defense Agency.It combines ground-basedAN/FPS-132 Upgraded Early Warning Radarinstallations and mobileAN/TPY-2X-band radars with 44 exoatmospheric interceptors stationed in underground silos around California and Alaska, to protect against low-count ICBM attacks from rogue states. EachGround-Based Interceptor(GBI) rocket carries anExoatmospheric Kill Vehicle(EKV) kinetic kill interceptor, with 97% probability of intercept when four interceptors are launched at the target.

Since 2004, theUnited States Armyplans to replaceRaytheon's Patriot missile (SAM) engagement control station (ECS), along with seven other forms of ABM defense command systems, withIntegrated Air and Missile Defense Battle Command System(IBCS) designed to shoot down short, medium, and intermediate range ballistic missiles in their terminal phase by intercepting with a hit-to-kill approach.[75][76][77][78] Northrop Grumman was selected as the prime contractor in 2010; the Army spent $2.7 billion on the program between 2009 and 2020.[79]IBCS engagement stations will support identification and tracking of targets using sensor fusion from disparate data streams, and selection of appropriate kill vehicles from available launcher systems.[80][81][82][83][84] In February 2022 THAAD radar and TFCC (THAAD Fire Control & Communication) demonstrated their interoperability with Patriot PAC-3 MSE missile launchers, engaging targets using both THAAD and Patriot interceptors.[85]

Republic of China

edit

Procurement ofMIM-104 Patriotand indigenousTien-Kunganti-ballistic missile systems. With the tense situations with China, Taiwan developed theSky Bow(orTien-Kung), this surface-to-air missile can intercept and destroy enemy aircraft and ballistic missiles.[86]These system was created in partnership withRaytheon Technologies,usingLockheed MartinADAR-HP as inspiration to create theChang Bai S-bandradar system. The missiles have a range of 200 km and was designed to take on fast moving vehicles with low radar cross-section. The latest variant of this system is theSky Bow III (TK-3).

South Korea

edit

Since North Korea started developing its nuclear weapon program, South Korea has been under imminent danger. South Korea started its BDM program by acquiring 8 batteries of theMIM-104 Patriot(PAC-2) missiles from the United States. ThePAC-2was developed to destroy incoming aircraft and is now unreliable in defending a ballistic missile attack from North Korea, as they have developed further their nuclear program. As of 2018, South Korea decided to improve its defense system by upgrading to thePAC-3,which has a hit-to-kill capability against incoming missiles.[87]The main reason that the South Korean anti-ballistic defense system is not very developed is because they have tried to developed their own, without help from other countries, since the beginning of the 1990s.[87]The South KoreanDefense Acquisition Program Administration(DAPA)has confirmed that it has test launched theL-SAMsystem in February 2022. This particular missile has been in development since 2019 and is South Korea's next anti-ballistic missile generation. It is expected to have a range of 150 km and be able to intercept targets between 40 km and 100 km of altitude, and it can also be used as an aircraft interceptor. TheL-SAMsystem is expected to be complete and ready to use in 2024.[88]

History

edit

1940s and 1950s

edit
1946Project Wizardmissile
Launch of aUS ArmyNike Zeusmissile, the first ABM system to enter widespread testing.

The idea of destroying rockets before they can hit their target dates from the first use of modern missiles in warfare, the GermanV-1andV-2program ofWorld War II.

British fighters destroyed some V-1 "buzz bombs" in flight, although concentrated barrages of heavy anti-aircraft artillery had greater success. Under the lend-lease program, 200 US90 mm AAguns withSCR-584 radarsandWestern Electric/Bell Labscomputers were sent to the UK. These demonstrated a 95% success rate against V-1s that flew into their range.[89]

The V-2, the first true ballistic missile, has no known record of being destroyed in the air. SCR-584's could be used to plot the trajectories of the missiles and provide some warning, but were more useful in backtracking their ballistic trajectory and determining the rough launch locations. The Allies launchedOperation Crossbowto find and destroy V-2s before launch, but these operations were largely ineffective. In one instance a Spitfire happened upon a V-2 rising through the trees, and fired on it with no effect.[89]This led to allied efforts to capture launching sites in Belgium and the Netherlands.

A wartime study by Bell Labs into the task of shooting down ballistic missiles in flight concluded it was not possible. In order to intercept a missile, one needs to be able to steer the attack onto the missile before it hits. A V-2's speed would require guns of effectively instantaneous reaction time,[dubious–discuss]or some sort of weapon with ranges on the order of dozens of miles, neither of which appeared possible. This was, however, just before the emergence of high-speed computing systems. By the mid-1950s, things had changed considerably, and many forces worldwide were considering ABM systems.[90]

The American armed forces began experimenting with anti-missile missiles soon after World War II, as the extent of German research into rocketry became clear.Project Wizardbegan in 1946, with the aim of creating a missile capable of intercepting the V-2.

But defences against Soviet long-range bombers took priority until 1957, when the Soviet Union demonstrated its advances in ICBM technology with the launch ofSputnik,the Earth's first artificial satellite. TheUS Armyaccelerated development of theirLIM-49 Nike Zeussystem in response. Zeus was criticized throughout its development program, especially from those within theUS Air Forceand nuclear weapons establishments who suggested it would be much simpler to build more nuclear warheads and guaranteemutually assured destruction.Zeus was eventually cancelled in 1963.

In 1958, the U.S. sought to explore whether airbursting nuclear weapons might be used to ward off ICBMs. It conducted several test explosions of low-yieldnuclear weapons– 1.7kt boosted fissionW25 warheads– launched from ships to very high altitudes over the southern Atlantic Ocean.[91]Such an explosion releases a burst ofX-raysin the Earth's atmosphere, causing secondary showers of charged particles over an area hundreds of miles across. These can become trapped in the Earth' magnetic field, creating an artificial radiation belt. It was believed that this might be strong enough to damage warheads traveling through the layer. This proved not to be the case, butArgusreturned key data about a related effect, thenuclear electromagnetic pulse(NEMP).

Canada

edit

Other countries were also involved in early ABM research. A more advanced project was atCARDEin Canada, which researched the main problems of ABM systems. A key problem with any radar system is that the signal is in the form of a cone, which spreads with distance from the transmitter. For long-distance interceptions like ABM systems, the inherent inaccuracy of the radar makes an interception difficult. CARDE considered using aterminal guidancesystem to address the accuracy concerns, and developed several advancedinfrareddetectors for this role. They also studied a number of missile airframe designs, a new and much more powerful solid rocket fuel, and numerous systems for testing it all. After a series of drastic budget reductions during the late 1950s the research ended. One offshoot of the project wasGerald Bull's system for inexpensive high-speed testing, consisting of missile airframes shot from asabotround, which would later be the basis ofProject HARP.Another was theCRV7andBlack Brantrockets, which used the new solid rocket fuel.

Soviet Union

edit
V-1000

The Soviet military had requested funding for ABM research as early as 1953, but were only given the go-ahead to begin deployment of such a system on 17 August 1956. Their test system, known simply as System A, was based on the V-1000 missile, which was similar to the early US efforts. The first successful test interception was carried out on 24 November 1960, and the first with a live warhead on 4 March 1961. In this test, a dummy warhead was released by aR-12ballistic missilelaunched from theKapustin Yar,[92]and intercepted by a V-1000 launched fromSary-Shagan.The dummy warhead was destroyed by the impact of 16,000tungsten-carbidespherical impactors 140 seconds after launch, at an altitude of 25 km (82,000 ft).[93]

The V-1000 missile system was nonetheless considered not reliable enough and abandoned in favour of nuclear-armed ABMs. Retired V-1000 was used to develop 1Ya2TAsounding rocket,capable of launching 520 kg scientific payload to an altitude of 400 km.[94]A much larger missile, theFakel 5V61(known in the west as Galosh), was developed to carry the larger warhead and carry it much further from the launch site. Further development continued, and theA-35 anti-ballistic missile system,designed to protect Moscow, became operational in 1971. A-35 was designed for exoatmospheric interceptions, and would have been highly susceptible to a well-arranged attack using multiple warheads and radar black-out techniques.

A-35 was upgraded during the 1980s to a two-layer system, theA-135.The Gorgon (SH-11/ABM-4) long-range missile was designed to handle intercepts outside the atmosphere, and theGazelle (SH-08/ABM-3)short-range missile endoatmospheric intercepts that eluded Gorgon. The A-135 system is considered to be technologically equivalent to the United States Safeguard system of 1975.[95]

American Nike-X and Sentinel

edit

Nike Zeusfailed to be a credible defence in an era of rapidly increasing ICBM counts due to its ability to attack only one target at a time. Additionally, significant concerns about its ability to successfully intercept warheads in the presence of high-altitude nuclear explosions, including its own, lead to the conclusion that the system would simply be too costly for the very low amount of protection it could provide.

By the time it was cancelled in 1963, potential upgrades had been explored for some time. Among these were radars capable of scanning much greater volumes of space and able to track many warheads and launch several missiles at once. These, however, did not address the problems identified with radar blackouts caused by high-altitude explosions. To address this need, a new missile with extreme performance was designed to attack incoming warheads at much lower altitudes, as low as 20 km. The new project encompassing all of these upgrades was launched asNike-X.

The main missile wasLIM-49 Spartan—a Nike Zeus upgraded for longer range and a much larger 5 megaton warhead intended to destroy enemy's warheads with a burst of x-rays outside the atmosphere. A second shorter-range missile calledSprintwith very high acceleration was added to handle warheads that evaded longer-ranged Spartan. Sprint was a very fast missile (some sources[who?]claimed it accelerated to 8,000 mph (13 000 km/h) within 4 seconds of flight—an average acceleration of90g) and had a smaller W66enhanced radiationwarhead in the 1–3 kiloton range for in-atmosphere interceptions.

The experimental success of Nike X persuaded theLyndon B. Johnsonadministration to propose a thin ABM defense, that could provide almost complete coverage of the United States. In a September 1967 speech, Defense SecretaryRobert McNamarareferred to it as "Sentinel".McNamara, a private ABM opponent because of cost and feasibility (seecost-exchange ratio), claimed that Sentinel would be directed not against the Soviet Union's missiles (since theUSSRhad more than enough missiles to overwhelm any American defense), but rather against the potential nuclear threat of the People's Republic of China.

In the meantime, a public debate over the merit of ABMs began. Difficulties that had already made an ABM system questionable for defending against an all-out attack. One problem was theFractional Orbital Bombardment System(FOBS) that would give little warning to the defense. Another problem was high altitude EMP (whether from offensive or defensive nuclear warheads) which could degrade defensive radar systems.

When this proved infeasible for economic reasons, a much smaller deployment using the same systems was proposed, namely Safeguard (described later).

Defense against MIRVs

edit
Testing of theLGM-118A Peacekeeperre-entry vehicles, all eight shot from only one missile. Each line is the path of a warhead which, were it live, would detonate with the explosive power of twenty-fiveHiroshima-styleweapons.

ABM systems were developed initially to counter single warheads launched from largeintercontinental ballistic missiles(ICBMs). The economics seemed simple enough; since rocket costs increase rapidly with size, the price of the ICBM launching a large warhead should always be greater than the much smaller interceptor missile needed to destroy it. In an arms race the defense would always win.[90]: 18 

In addition to the blast effect, the detonation of nuclear devices against attacking intercontinental ballistic missiles produces a neutron kill effect from the strong radiation emitted, and this neutralizes the warhead, or warheads, of the attacking missile.[96]Most A.B.M. devices depend on neutron kill for their effectiveness.

In practice, the price of the interceptor missile was considerable, due to its sophistication. The system had to be guided all the way to an interception, which demanded guidance and control systems that worked within and outside the atmosphere. Due to their relatively short ranges, an ABM missile would be needed to counter an ICBM wherever it might be aimed. That implies that dozens of interceptors are needed for every ICBM since warhead's targets couldn't be known in advance. This led to intense debates about the "cost-exchange ratio"between interceptors and warheads.

Conditions changed dramatically in 1970 with the introduction ofmultiple independently targetable reentry vehicle(MIRV) warheads. Suddenly, each launcher was throwing not one warhead, but several. These would spread out in space, ensuring that a single interceptor would be needed for each warhead. This simply added to the need to have several interceptors for each warhead in order to provide geographical coverage. Now it was clear that an ABM system would always be many times more expensive than the ICBMs they defended against.[90]

Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty of 1972

edit
Main article:Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty

Technical, economic and political problems described resulted in theABM treatyof 1972, which restricted the deployment of strategic (not tactical) anti-ballistic missiles.

By the ABM treaty and a 1974 revision, each country was allowed to deploy a mere 100 ABMs to protect a single, small area. The Soviets retained their Moscow defences. The U.S. designated their ICBM sites near Grand Forks Air Force Base, North Dakota, where Safeguard was already under advanced development. The radar systems and anti-ballistic missiles were approximately 90 miles north/northwest of Grand Forks AFB, near Concrete, North Dakota. The missiles were deactivated in 1975. The main radar site (PARCS) is still used as an early warning ICBM radar, facing relative north. It is located at Cavalier Air Force Station, North Dakota.

Brief use of Safeguard in 1975/1976

edit

The U.S.Safeguardsystem, which utilized the nuclear-tippedLIM-49A SpartanandSprintmissiles, in the short operational period of 1975/1976, was the second counter-ICBMs system in the world. Safeguard protected only the main fields of US ICBMs from attack, theoretically ensuring that an attack could be responded to with a US launch, enforcing themutually assured destructionprinciple.

SDI experiments in the 1980s

edit
Main article:Strategic Defense Initiative

TheReagan-eraStrategic Defense Initiative(often referred to as "Star Wars" ), along with research into various energy-beam weaponry, brought new interest in the area of ABM technologies.

SDI was an extremely ambitious program to provide a total shield against a massive Soviet ICBM attack. The initial concept envisioned large sophisticated orbiting laser battle stations, space-based relay mirrors, and nuclear-pumped X-ray laser satellites. Later research indicated that some planned technologies such as X-raylaserswere not feasible with then-current technology. As research continued, SDI evolved through various concepts as designers struggled with the difficulty of such a large complex defense system. SDI remained a research program and was never deployed. Several post-SDI technologies are used by the presentMissile Defense Agency(MDA).

Lasers originally developed for the SDI plan are in use for astronomical observations. Used to ionize gas in the upper atmosphere, they provide telescope operators with a target to calibrate their instruments.[97]

Tactical ABMs deployed in 1990s

edit

The IsraeliArrow missilesystem was tested initially during 1990, before thefirst Gulf War.The Arrow was supported by the United States throughout the 1990s.

ThePatriotwas the first deployed tactical ABM system, although it was not designed from the outset for that task and consequently had limitations. It was used during the 1991 Gulf War to attempt to intercept IraqiScudmissiles. Post-war analyses show that the Patriot was much less effective than initially thought because of its radar and control system's inability to discriminate warheads from other objects when the Scud missiles broke up during reentry.

Testing ABM technology continued during the 1990s with mixed success. After the Gulf War, improvements were made to several U.S. air defense systems. A new Patriot,PAC-3,was developed and tested—a complete redesign of the PAC-2 deployed during the war, including a totally new missile. The improved guidance, radar and missile performance improves the probability of kill over the earlier PAC-2. During Operation Iraqi Freedom, Patriot batteries engaged 100% of enemyTBMswithin their engagement territory. Of these engagements, 8 of them were verified as kills by multiple independent sensors; the remaining was listed as a probable kill due to lack of independent verification. Patriot was involved in threefriendly fireincidents: two incidents of Patriot shootings at coalition aircraft and one of U.S. aircraft shooting at a Patriot battery.[98]

A new version of the Hawk missile was tested during the early to mid-1990s and by the end of 1998 the majority of US Marine Corps Hawk systems were modified to support basic theater anti-ballistic missile capabilities.[99]TheMIM-23 Hawkmissile is not operational in U.S. service since 2002, but is used by many other countries.

Developed in the late 1990s, the Lightweight Exo-Atmospheric Projectile attaches to a modifiedSM-2 Block IV missileused by theU.S. Navy

Soon after the Gulf War, theAegis Combat Systemwas expanded to include ABM capabilities. TheStandard missilesystem was also enhanced and tested for ballistic missile interception. During the late 1990s, SM-2 block IVA missiles were tested in a theater ballistic missile defense function.[100]Standard Missile 3 (SM-3)systems have also been tested for an ABM role. In 2008, an SM-3 missile launched from theTiconderoga-classcruiserUSSLake Erie,successfully intercepteda non-functioning satellite.[101][102]

Brilliant Pebbles concept

edit

Approved for acquisition by the Pentagon during 1991 but never realized,Brilliant Pebbleswas a proposed space-based anti-ballistic system that was meant to avoid some of the problems of the earlier SDI concepts. Rather than use sophisticated large laser battle stations and nuclear-pumped X-ray laser satellites, Brilliant Pebbles consisted of a thousand very small, intelligent orbiting satellites with kinetic warheads. The system relied on improvements of computer technology, avoided problems with overly centralized command and control and risky, expensive development of large, complicated space defense satellites. It promised to be much less expensive to develop and have less technical development risk.

The name Brilliant Pebbles comes from the small size of the satellite interceptors and great computational power enabling more autonomous targeting. Rather than rely exclusively on ground-based control, the many small interceptors would cooperatively communicate among themselves and target a large swarm of ICBM warheads in space or in the late boost phase. Development was discontinued later in favor of a limited ground-based defense.

Transformation of SDI into MDA, development of NMD/GMD

edit

While the Reagan era Strategic Defense Initiative was intended to shield against a massive Soviet attack, during the early 1990s, PresidentGeorge H. W. Bushcalled for a more limited version using rocket-launched interceptors based on the ground at a single site. Such system was developed since 1992, was expected to become operational in 2010[103]and capable of intercepting small number of incoming ICBMs. First called the National Missile Defense (NMD), since 2002 it was renamedGround-Based Midcourse Defense(GMD). It was planned to protect all 50 states from a rogue missile attack. The Alaska site provides more protection against North Korean missiles or accidental launches from Russia or China, but is likely less effective against missiles launched from the Middle East. The Alaska interceptors may be augmented later by the naval Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense System or by ground-based missiles in other locations.

During 1998, Defense SecretaryWilliam Cohenproposed spending an additional $6.6 billion on intercontinental ballistic missile defense programs to build a system to protect against attacks from North Korea or accidental launches from Russia or China.[104]

In terms of organization, during 1993 SDI was reorganized as the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization. In 2002, it was renamed toMissile Defense Agency(MDA).

21st century

edit

On 13 June 2002, the United States withdrew from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty and recommenced developing missile defense systems that would have formerly been prohibited by the bilateral treaty. The action was stated as needed to defend against the possibility of a missile attack conducted by arogue state.The next day, the Russian Federation dropped theSTART IIagreement, intended to completely banMIRVs.

The Lisbon Summit of 2010saw the adoption of aNATOprogram that was formed in response to the threat of a rapid increase ofballistic missilesfrom potentially unfriendly regimes, though no specific region, state, or country was formally mentioned. This adoption came from the recognition of territorial missile defense as a core alliance objective. At this time, Iran was seen as the likely aggressor that eventually led to the adoption of this ABM system, as Iran has the largest missile arsenal of the Middle East, as well as a space program. From this summit,NATO's ABM system was potentially seen as a threat by Russia, who felt that their ability to retaliate any perceived nuclear threats would be degraded. To combat this, Russia proposed that any ABM system enacted by NATO must be universal to operate, cover the entirety of the European continent, and not upset any nuclear parity. The United States actively sought NATO involvement in the creation of an ABM system, and saw an Iranian threat as a sufficient reason to warrant its creation. The United States also had plans to create missile defense facilities, butNATOofficials feared that it would have provided protection to Europe, it would have detracted from the responsibility ofNATOfor collective defense. The officials also argued the potential prospect of U.S-commanded operation system that would work in conjunction with theArticle 5defense ofNATO.[105]

On 15 December 2016, the US ArmySMDChad a successful test of a U.S. Army Zombie Pathfinder rocket, to be used as a target for exercising various anti-ballistic missile scenarios. The rocket was launched as part of NASA'ssounding rocketprogram, at White Sands Missile Range.[106]

In November 2020, the US successfully destroyed a dummy ICBM. The ICBM was launched fromKwajalein Atoll[107][108]in the general direction of Hawaii, triggering a satellite warning to a Colorado Air Force base, which then contacted theUSSJohn Finn.The ship launched aSM-3 Block IIAmissile to destroy the US dummy, still outside the atmosphere.[109]

See also

edit

Notes

edit
  1. ^Besides these, some smaller systems exist (tactical ABMs) that generally cannot intercept intercontinental strategic missiles, as they move too fast for these systems.[citation needed]

Citations

edit
  1. ^abARBATOV, ALEXEY; DVORKIN, VLADIMIR; TOPYCHKANOV, PETR; ZHAO, TONG; BIN, LI (2017)."ENTANGLEMENT AS A NEW SECURITY THREAT: A RUSSIAN PERSPECTIVE".Entanglement:11–46.
  2. ^abIsrael successfully tests David's Sling's interceptorArchived9 May 2013 at theWayback MachineBy Yaakov Lappin. Jpost, 25 November 2012
  3. ^"There is no guaranteed defence against ballistic missiles—yet".The Economist.Retrieved28 January2018.
  4. ^"Ground-based Midcourse Defense (GMD) System".Missile Threat.
  5. ^FTM-44 (17 Nov 2020) U.S. Successfully Conducts SM-3 Block IIA Intercept Test Against an Intercontinental Ballistic Missile TargetFlight Test Aegis Weapon System-44 (FTM-44). TheC2BMCnetwork detected an ICBM launch; U.S. Navy sailors aboard the USS John Finn (DDG-113) then launched an SM-3 Block IIA missile which destroyed the ICBM in mid-course.
  6. ^abMDA (18 Nov 2020) FTM-44 mission overview[permanent dead link‍]20-MDA-10624 (Not to scale nor in real time)
  7. ^Kluth, Andreas (29 November 2020)."A Successful U.S. Missile Intercept Ends the Era of Nuclear Stability".Bloomberg.Retrieved30 November2020.
  8. ^Assembly of theWestern European Union.Technological and Aerospace Committee. Lenzer. via FAS.Anti-missile defence for Europe – guidelines drawn from the symposiumArchived15 October 2015 at theWayback Machine.17 May 1993.
  9. ^abcd"MDA International cooperation".Archivedfrom the original on 1 September 2017.Retrieved11 October2017.
  10. ^Gaspers, J. (2007).A US Missile Defence Shield in Europe? Opinions and Arguments in the German Political Debate. Natolin Analyses 7(20)/2007.
  11. ^"55% Polaków przeciw budowie tarczy (55% of Poles against building the Shield)"(in Polish).Polska Agencja Prasowa.17 July 2007.Archivedfrom the original on 20 January 2012.Retrieved7 September2007.
  12. ^"(28 July 2016) Aegis Ashore"(PDF).Archived(PDF)from the original on 11 October 2017.Retrieved11 October2017.
  13. ^abcde"Project 640: China's National Missile Defence in the '70s".SinoDefence. Archived fromthe originalon 13 December 2011.Retrieved11 May2012.
  14. ^"donga [English donga]".English.donga. 28 March 2006.Archivedfrom the original on 20 June 2012.Retrieved11 May2012.
  15. ^"Chinese Version of Patriot Interceptor Said Undergoing Tests".MissileThreat. 29 March 2006. Archived fromthe originalon 20 July 2012.Retrieved11 May2012.
  16. ^"Pentagon Received No Warning of Chinese Missile Defense Test".Globalsecuritynewswire.org.Archivedfrom the original on 13 December 2011.Retrieved11 May2012.
  17. ^"HongQi 9 (HQ-9) Surface-to-Air Missile System".SinoDefence. 3 October 2009. Archived fromthe originalon 4 September 2013.Retrieved11 May2012.
  18. ^Axe, David (11 November 2015)."Did China Just Test a New Satellite-Killer?".The Daily Beast.Retrieved21 July2017.
  19. ^Pike, John."HQ-29 Anti-Ballistic Missile Interceptor".globalsecurity.org.Archivedfrom the original on 6 August 2017.Retrieved21 July2017.
  20. ^abcPike, John."HQ-19 Anti-Ballistic Missile Interceptor".globalsecurity.org.Archivedfrom the original on 14 July 2017.Retrieved21 July2017.
  21. ^"HQ-18 (S-300V) (China) – Jane's Strategic Weapon Systems".Articles.janes. 16 December 2011.Archivedfrom the original on 2 April 2012.Retrieved11 May2012.
  22. ^"Hongqi-15 (HQ-15)".MissileThreat. Archived fromthe originalon 5 May 2012.Retrieved11 May2012.
  23. ^"4. Anti-Stealth and Countermeasures".SinoDefence. Archived fromthe originalon 18 May 2012.Retrieved11 May2012.
  24. ^"China Adds Precision Strike To Capabilities".Aviationweek.Retrieved11 May2012.[permanent dead link‍]
  25. ^abc"Demarche Following China's January 2010 Intercept Flight-Test".The Daily Telegraph.London. 2 February 2011.Archivedfrom the original on 3 February 2018.Retrieved4 April2018.
  26. ^Quốc gia của ta thí nghiệm lục cơ phản đạo trước đây chỉ nước Mỹ tiến hành quá tương quan thí nghiệm(in Chinese). SINA News. 12 January 2010.Archivedfrom the original on 14 January 2010.Retrieved11 January2010.
  27. ^"NTI".Global Security Newswire.Archivedfrom the original on 19 January 2010.Retrieved11 May2012.
  28. ^"China test-fires anti-ballistic missile".english.ruvr.ru.Archived fromthe originalon 16 May 2013.Retrieved21 July2017.
  29. ^Tate, Andrew (8 February 2021)."China conducts another mid-course anti-ballistic missile test".Janes.
  30. ^Trevithick, Joseph (4 February 2021)."China Claims It Has Conducted A New Midcourse Intercept Anti-Ballistic Missile Test".The Drive.Archived fromthe originalon 13 May 2021.Retrieved13 May2021.
  31. ^"SAMP/T Successful on First European Missile Defense Intercept Test".Defense Update. 26 November 2010. Archived fromthe originalon 29 November 2010.Retrieved26 November2010.
  32. ^"Premier tir anti-balistique | Blog de la DE".Ead-minerve.fr. Archived fromthe originalon 26 April 2012.Retrieved11 May2012.
  33. ^"Une première en France: un missile intercepté par un antimissile Aster"(in French). Marianne2.fr. Archived fromthe originalon 5 September 2012.Retrieved11 May2012.
  34. ^Tran, Pierre (14 June 2016)."France, Italy To Cooperate in Development of Aster Missile".DefenseNews.Retrieved18 June2021.
  35. ^"MBDA debuts European hypersonic interceptor concept Aquila".20 June 2023.
  36. ^"Aquila: MBDA to lead consortium for European interceptor against hypersonic threats".20 June 2023.
  37. ^"Permanent Structured Cooperation (PESCO)'s projects - Overview"(PDF).12 November 2019.
  38. ^ab"Spanish, German companies start work on hypersonic missile interceptor".5 September 2022.
  39. ^"Timely Warning and Interception With Space-Based Theater Surveillance (TWISTER)".12 November 2019.
  40. ^"Interview: Vijay Kumar Saraswat Chief Controller of Research and Development, India's DRDO".[permanent dead link‍]
  41. ^Prithvi Mission Milestone in Missile DefenceArchived8 December 2007 at theWayback Machine.
  42. ^"India successfully conducts interceptor supersonic missile test".Pib.nic.in.Archivedfrom the original on 15 October 2015.Retrieved11 May2012.
  43. ^"DRDO to launch series of missiles".The Hindu.17 October 2009. Archived fromthe originalon 8 November 2012.Retrieved6 December2012.
  44. ^"India Successfully Test-Fires New Interceptor Missile".News.outlookindia. Archived fromthe originalon 28 April 2014.Retrieved30 April2014.
  45. ^Rajat Pandit (26 November 2007)."India on way to joining exclusive BMD club".The Times of India.Archivedfrom the original on 13 May 2013.Retrieved11 May2012.
  46. ^Franz-Stefan, Gady."India Successfully Tests Supersonic Interceptor Missile".Archivedfrom the original on 14 August 2017.Retrieved21 July2017.
  47. ^Philip, Snehesh Alex (8 January 2020)."India's ballistic missile shield ready, IAF & DRDO to seek govt nod to protect Delhi".ThePrint.Retrieved11 February2020.
  48. ^"Rajat Pandit (9 June 2019) India to buy US missile system to shield Delhi".The Times of India.10 June 2019.
  49. ^Gady, Franz-Stefan (8 January 2020)."Report: India's Homemade Anti-Ballistic Missile Shield Ready".thediplomat.Retrieved4 November2022.
  50. ^Pandit, Rajat (10 June 2019)."NASAMS 2: India to buy US missile system to shield Delhi".The Times of India.Retrieved11 February2020.
  51. ^Lakshman, Sriram (11 February 2020)."U.S. State dept. nod for sale of air defence system to India".The Hindu.ISSN0971-751X.Retrieved11 February2020.
  52. ^"India concerned over 'very high price' of American missile shield for Delhi".mint.16 February 2020.Retrieved3 November2022.
  53. ^"Not Keen On NASAMS-II, IAF Wants Indian Missile Defence".Livefist Defence.20 July 2022.Retrieved3 November2022.
  54. ^"India's AD-1 missile can intercept, destroy enemy ballistic missiles fired from 5000 km away".The Times of India.3 November 2022.Retrieved3 November2022.
  55. ^"Iran unveils new air defense weaponry as regional tensions ramp up, IRNA reports".Reuters.17 February 2024.Retrieved16 November2024.
  56. ^"Russia Risks Reputation Of Its Weapons Systems With Iran Air Defense Delivery".Archivedfrom the original on 24 September 2024.Retrieved16 November2024.
  57. ^"Israeli-United States Relations".Policy almanac. Archived fromthe originalon 4 November 2002.Retrieved11 May2012.
  58. ^"Israeli missile test 'successful'".News.BBC. 11 February 2007.Archivedfrom the original on 16 December 2007.Retrieved25 April2010.
  59. ^abOpall-Rome, Barbara (10 December 2015)."US-Israel Arrow-3 intercepts target in space".Defense News.Retrieved10 December2015.
  60. ^ab"U.S. and Allied Ballistic Missile Defenses in the Asia-Pacific Region | Arms Control Association".armscontrol.org.Retrieved26 April2022.
  61. ^"Japan plans Tokyo missile shield".BBC News.15 January 2008.Archivedfrom the original on 18 January 2008.Retrieved17 January2008.
  62. ^John Pike."GlobalSystems:ABM-1".Globalsecurity.org.Archivedfrom the original on 16 May 2012.Retrieved11 May2012.
  63. ^"Russian Anti-Ballistic Guided Missile Systems".Archived fromthe originalon 9 February 2008.
  64. ^abJohn Pike (20 April 2018)."Galosh - Moscow System".Globalsecurity.org.Archivedfrom the original on 9 October 2018.Retrieved8 October2018.
  65. ^Sean O'Connor (27 January 2014)."Russian/Soviet Anti-Ballistic Missile Systems".p. 1.Archivedfrom the original on 21 November 2015.Retrieved8 October2018.
  66. ^"Wonderland.org:ABM-3".Archived fromthe originalon 9 February 2008.
  67. ^"Russian Anti-Ballistic Guided Missile Systems".20 December 2008. Archived from the original on 20 December 2008.Retrieved21 July2017.{{cite web}}:CS1 maint: bot: original URL status unknown (link)
  68. ^John Pike (20 April 2018)."51T6 Gorgon".Globalsecurity.org.Archivedfrom the original on 9 October 2018.Retrieved8 October2018.
  69. ^"Jason Cutshaw (August 8, 2019) Leader gives space and missile defense update at SMD Symposium".
  70. ^John Pike."Operation Iraqi Freedom – Patriot".GlobalSecurity.org.Archivedfrom the original on 20 February 2012.Retrieved11 May2012.
  71. ^"BBC NEWS – World – Americas – US missile hits 'toxic satellite'".news.bbc.co.uk.21 February 2008.Archivedfrom the original on 13 April 2009.Retrieved21 July2017.
  72. ^MDA Newsroom (17 Nov 2020) U.S. Successfully Conducts SM-3 Block IIA Intercept Test Against an Intercontinental Ballistic Missile TargetSM-3 Block IIA Intercept Test animationhttps:// youtube /watch?v=lUDQrLcY5oIArchived25 April 2021 at theWayback Machine
  73. ^Panda, Ankit."What Is THAAD, What Does It Do, and Why Is China Mad About It?".The Diplomat.Archivedfrom the original on 4 April 2017.Retrieved3 April2017.
  74. ^McCarthy, Niall."Can The U.S. Intercept A North Korean Missile? [Infographic]".Forbes.Retrieved17 May2023.
  75. ^"Army Seeks To Field One-Size-Fits-All Battle Command System".Space News. 29 June 2004.
  76. ^Kiley, Gregory T. (17 May 2017)."Congress and the Administration Must Reassess Failing Missile Defense Programs".RealClearDefense.Archivedfrom the original on 21 May 2017.Retrieved22 June2017.
  77. ^"Fort Sill Tribune staff (August 8, 2019) MOS 14E: Linchpin of Patriot missile system".
  78. ^"Jen Judson (11 Oct 2018) So Patriot and THAAD will talk. What does that really mean?".10 October 2018.
  79. ^"Jen Judson (20 Aug 2020) US Army's future missile defense command system nearly simultaneously defeats cruise, ballistic missile threats".20 August 2020.
  80. ^Integrated Air and Missile Defense Battle Command System (IBCS)Archived6 October 2017 at theWayback Machinevendor summary
  81. ^"Daniel Cebul (12 October 2018) Army continues push for integrated sensors and shooters with latest IBCS contract".2 October 2018.
  82. ^Daniel Cebul  (9 October 2018) Army looks to a future of integrated fireArchived26 November 2022 at theWayback Machineby integrating THAAD IBCS LRPF
  83. ^Andrew Eversden(23 Dec 2021) Army awards Northrop Grumman $1.4 billion contract for IBCSArchived24 December 2021 at theWayback Machine
  84. ^"Jen Judson (February 6, 2017) Army falls behind with new anti-missile command system".6 February 2017.
  85. ^Jen Judson(10 Mar 2022) Missile Defense Agency fires Patriot missile from THAAD systemArchived26 November 2022 at theWayback Machine
  86. ^Huang, Po-Chang (9 May 2017)."Who to Protect? Taiwan's SAM Systems and the Distribution of Protection"(PDF).TUFTS University.Archived(PDF)from the original on 9 October 2022.Retrieved7 April2022.
  87. ^abPark, Hwee Rhak (2018)."The Ballistic Missile Defense Construction Strategies of South Korea and Japan: Self-reliance versus Cooperation with the US".Journal of International and Area Studies.25(2): 87–106.ISSN1226-8550.JSTOR26909945.
  88. ^"South Korea tests indigenous long-range surface-to-air missile".Janes.Retrieved26 April2022.
  89. ^abGregory Canavan,"Missile Defense for the 21st Century"Archived13 July 2015 at theWayback Machine,Heritage Foundation, 2003, p.3
  90. ^abcRamsey, Syed (12 May 2016).Tools of War: History of Weapons in Modern Times.Vij Books India Pvt Ltd.ISBN9789386019837.
  91. ^Nuclear Weapon Archive.org.ArgusArchived11 September 2006 at theWayback Machine.
  92. ^Gobarev, Victor (2001). "The early development of Russia's ballistic missile defense system".The Journal of Slavic Military Studies.14(2): 29–48.doi:10.1080/13518040108430478.S2CID144681318.Viewed 26 May 2012.
  93. ^Karpenko, A (1999)."ABM AND SPACE DEFENSE".Nevsky Bastion.4:2–47.Archivedfrom the original on 3 March 2016.Retrieved18 October2015.
  94. ^Krebs, Gunter Dirk."1Ya2TA".Gunter's Space Page.Retrieved12 November2024.
  95. ^GlobalSecurity.org.-135 anti-ballistic missile systemArchived15 October 2007 at theWayback Machine.
  96. ^Wragg, David W. (1973).A Dictionary of Aviation(first ed.). Osprey. p. 200.ISBN9780850451634.
  97. ^"Military Magic Boosts Astronomy: Declassified technology enhances celestial knowledge".Astronomy.29(1): 48. January 2001.Retrieved26 January2018.[permanent dead link‍]
  98. ^"Patriot system performance – report summary"(PDF).Defense Science Board Task Force. January 2005. Archived fromthe original(PDF)on 26 February 2006.
  99. ^"Hawk".FAS. Archived fromthe originalon 15 October 2015.
  100. ^"Navy Area Defense (NAD)".FAS. Archived fromthe originalon 12 August 2007.
  101. ^"DoD Succeeds in Intercepting Non-Functioning Satellite"(Press release). U.S. Department of Defense. 20 February 2008.Archivedfrom the original on 26 February 2008.Retrieved20 February2008.
  102. ^"Navy Succeeds in Intercepting Non-Functioning Satellite"(Press release). U.S. Navy. 20 February 2008.Archivedfrom the original on 25 February 2008.Retrieved20 February2008.
  103. ^"Ground-based Midcourse Defense (GMD)".MDA. Archived fromthe originalon 6 December 2010.Retrieved8 February2011.A total of 30 interceptors are planned for deployment by the end of 2010.
  104. ^PBS.The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer.A Viable Defense?Archived27 January 2011 at theWayback Machine.28 January 1999.
  105. ^Hildreth, Steven A.; Ek, Carl (28 December 2010)."Missile Defense and NATO's Lisbon Summit".UNT Digital Library.Retrieved11 May2022.
  106. ^U.S. Army announces successful test of U.S. Army Zombie Pathfinder rocketArchived9 January 2017 at theWayback Machineaccessdate=2017-01-08
  107. ^Richard F. Pittenger and Robert B. Gagosian (Dec 2003) Global Warming Could Have a Chilling Effect on the MilitaryArchived6 May 2021 at theWayback Machine"Military planners should begin to consider potential abrupt climate change scenarios and their impacts on national defense."
  108. ^"Jason Cutshaw (24 February 2021) Army's Reagan Test Site supports missile test".
  109. ^Bowman, Bradley (23 November 2020)."Successful SM-3 weapons test offers missile defense opportunity".defensenews.Retrieved25 November2020.

General sources

edit
  • Murdock, Clark A.(1974),Defense Policy Formation: A Comparative Analysis of the McNamara Era.SUNY Press.

Further reading

edit
  • Laura Gregoand David Wright, "Broken Shield: Missiles designed to destroy incoming nuclear warheads fail frequently in tests and could increase global risk of mass destruction",Scientific American,vol. 320, no. no. 6 (June 2019), pp. 62–67. "Current U.S.missile defenseplans are being driven largely bytechnology,politicsandfear.Missile defenses will not allow us to escape our vulnerability tonuclear weapons.Instead large-scale developments will create barriers to taking real steps towardreducing nuclear risks—by blocking further cuts in nuclear arsenals and potentially spurring new deployments. "(p. 67.)
edit
Wikimedia Commons has media related toAnti-ballistic missiles.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anti-ballistic_missile&oldid=1260990547#Soviet_Union"