Article

2007-07-10 Home Front: WoT

U.S. cruise missile defense said possible in 14 months

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Steve White 2007-07-10 00:00|| || Front Page|| [6 views ] Top

#1 Rusia's dev of UW hypervelocity torpedoes bears high potential for LR, "pop-up" SLCM-IRBM's capable of remote or independent UW maneuver.

Posted by JosephMendiola 2007-07-10 00:24|| 2007-07-10 00:24|| Front Page Top

#2 Its application of "look down shoot down" radar technology. Its doable.

And we could apply other sensors to the platform for maritime tracking and interdiction.

Plus: Putting a few over Mexico with JSTARS type of tie-ins (at a much less expensive ground station instead of on an aircraft) would immensely help secure that border in combination with fences in key areas, and vehicle barriers to slow traversal of terrain.

This is a threat - think about Chavez, modern diesel electric submarines, and submarine launched cruise missiles via the torpedo tubes.

Posted by OldSpook 2007-07-10 00:35|| 2007-07-10 00:35|| Front Page Top

#3 I think Chavez would understand that shooting a single cruise missile at the US would have some very real consequences. I don't think that there is much of a cruise missile threat from anyone except Russia or China. Does the aircraft include the munitions to shoot down the missile? The ability to track a missile into its target is not a selling point to me. The system would seem to require the remmanning of all the WW II coastal defense redoubts.

Posted by Super Hose 2007-07-10 07:49|| 2007-07-10 07:49|| Front Page Top

#4 China is selling cruise missiles to Iran IIRC.

Posted by lotp 2007-07-10 08:48|| 2007-07-10 08:48|| Front Page Top

#5 It just requires a will to do it

See, I told you it was impossible.

Posted by Senator Carl Levin">Senator Carl Levin 2007-07-10 08:50|| http://home.earthlink.net/~sleepyjackal/index.html]">[http://home.earthlink.net/~sleepyjackal/index.html] 2007-07-10 08:50|| Front Page Top

#6 Very doable. I just wonder if it is really worth it. Countries don't want to be on the receiving end of a US counterstrike and the terrorists really can't launch a cruise missile from a sub. I think this would be better employed in Israel, Taiwan and Japan.

Posted by DarthVader">DarthVader 2007-07-10 09:12|| 2007-07-10 09:12|| Front Page Top

#7 I think Chavez would understand that shooting a single cruise missile at the US would have some very real consequences.

What? How long before the firm of Pelosi-Reid in conjunction with the NYT-WP-LAT would move to surrender? The darling would lead the socialist one party agenda they so dream of.

Posted by Procopius2k 2007-07-10 09:36|| 2007-07-10 09:36|| Front Page Top

#8 Christopher Bolkcom, defense specialist at the Congressional Research Service, said cruise missiles were difficult to track and that Lockheed's forecast about deploying a wide-area defense was "optimistic." "It's sort of like border security. You can put some useful measures in place, but you can never afford a fool-proof system," he said. Bolkcom said U.S. policymakers had likely done "the mental calculus that it's too expensive, too hard, on the one hand, and the threat is not big enough to justify it, on the other."

Well, then, Mr. Fancy-Pants, let's just not do it at all. I mean, it's too hard/threat not big enough/etc. UNTIL that cruise missile hits your pad on the Upper West Side, eh? To put this in perspective, the total DoD is well over $400 billion/year (not including war-time funding for actual deployments). This is a measely $10 billion to protect our homeland. Not that I think Osama's gonna pull up in a sub and launch one, but if we just sit back and wait for them to strike, it's too late. What's the financial cost of just being hit again, much less if they actually took out the NYSE, or the Mercantile Exchange, or half of Boston. Oh well, that last one's not so bad.

This quote above explains what's wrong with our current generation (myself included). If something's too hard, let's just forget about it. If it costs a little too much, just have someone else pay for it. Jeebus, the mind boggles at this type attitude. We would've never stormed the beaches of Normandy, much less put a man on the moon if this type attitude had been prevalent back in the early 20th century.

Posted by BA 2007-07-10 09:40|| 2007-07-10 09:40|| Front Page Top

#9 Question, is there anyway to fire a cruise missile from a smaller vessel. Say a P-T boat or large yacht? or do you need a sub/warship sized thing?

Because we can trace sub/warships back to a government in nearly all cases.

Posted by rjschwarz 2007-07-10 11:40|| 2007-07-10 11:40|| Front Page Top

#10 rjschwarz - It could be done, although I think the vessel it would be launched from would be toast. The easiest way for the terrorists to get a warhead in is to float it in on a large yacht, put it in a large flat panel truck, drive to the highest point of a city and set off the nuke.

Getting a cruise missile, rigging up said missile to boat and getting it here without mishap or discovery, firing said missile without fizzle is fairly implausible I would say.

Posted by DarthVader">DarthVader 2007-07-10 14:49|| 2007-07-10 14:49|| Front Page Top

#11 And Darth, that is why this is an idiotic waste of money. If we were going to war with China, and they had a credible navy and we could not stop them from getting to our shores...THEN this would make sense. It does not make sense in a counter-terror application IMO.

Posted by remoteman 2007-07-10 16:11|| 2007-07-10 16:11|| Front Page Top

#12 Cruise Missiles are a huge threat and CHEAP compared to a comparably accurate and with equal warhead throw weight Ballistic Missile.

In addition Ballistic missiles need a much more expensive ship to carry and launch them than Cruise Missiles would require.

A rogue Nation or a rogue Terrorist Entity could steal a Liberian Freighter and launch a Cruise Missile from it. But technologically that would be almost impossible to do with a Ballistic Missile.

Posted by RD 2007-07-10 16:14|| 2007-07-10 16:14|| Front Page Top

#13 Most small patrol boats can carry harpoon like missiles. The Manama Class in the Navy of Bahrain carry Exocet, for instance.

I still see this as an unlikely terrorist threat. The attack on the USS Cole was pretty effective on the second try. In the first try the dingy sank. While extrapolating this to an offshore cruise missile attack is possible (especially if you are an engineer working for Lockheed.) We have limited assets, let's work on making our guys less suceptable to IED's.

My technical question stands. It is possible to mount a nice radar on a ballon and let it detect cruise missile launches. How does Lockheed boy intend for us to deal with the detected missile ... or is that a seperate purchase order with more ~~money~~ required. I have always found engineers to be thoroughly enthusiastic about spending cash on cool toys.

Posted by Super Hose 2007-07-10 16:58|| 2007-07-10 16:58|| Front Page Top

#14 The easiest way for the terrorists to get a warhead in is to float it in on a large yacht, put it in a large flat panel truck, drive to the highest point of a city and set off the nuke.

Darth,
you dont even need to get it ashore... detonate a nuke in the hold of a cargo ship, below the waterline close to shore in a busy harbor, and there will be far tremendous destruction and the dirty fallout from the sea-water coupled with the tidal wave hitting port facilities...

you get the idea.

shoot, just set of your nuke in a boat in the gulf of mexico in the middle of the oil field. the shock wave will break every wellhead for miles and miles and disrupt oil production far more than katrina did. wanna hurt america? make thier gas cost more. and drive up the price of oil so the petrodollars really keep flowing to the terrorist states like iran and chavez land.

Posted by Abu do you love 2007-07-10 17:54|| 2007-07-10 17:54|| Front Page Top

#15 Darth, have you seen this? Also see Donald Kingsbury's
"The Moon Goddess And the Son" (one of my favorite SF books)

Posted by gromgoru 2007-07-10 18:02|| 2007-07-10 18:02|| Front Page Top

#16 It is possible to mount a nice radar on a ballon and let it detect cruise missile launches.

Yes. The US has had the ability to detect and kill cruise missiles for over 30 years (look down, shoot down radars and missiles). The problem is that F-15s are very expensive and low density assets and was not worth the cost for this role. In addition, radars have been on aerostats for a long time. What's new is that with agile AESA radars, the probability of detection and tracking goes up. With cooperative engagement, the shooter can be a SAM guided in by the airborne radar.

But why build and maintain specialized high density asset when multiple problems should be addressed at the source? Spend the resources to keep possible launchers away from our shores and subvert (CIA is useless, need to create another alphabet agency) and overthrow nations who would base them (e.g. Castro, Hugo). Nation leaders and their proxies have realized US leadership have lost their collective gonads for over a generation and the cost of attacking or threatening Americans is very low or even beneficial (aid, trade, political concessions). Until the American voters elect people who will take severe action and make examples of those who would kill us, the threats will proliferate.

Posted by ed 2007-07-10 18:25|| 2007-07-10 18:25|| Front Page Top

#17 Frankly, I would like to see the politicians and their families protected LAST among Americans, particularly Carl Levin's. Might provide some incentive to get the rest of the nation protected FIRST

Posted by Frank G">Frank G 2007-07-10 18:43|| 2007-07-10 18:43|| Front Page Top

#18 I think RD has a good point. I'm not so worried about Al Queda launching a cruise missile, as Iran or North Korea, through cut-outs, renting a freighter and launching something, to the extent of then blowing up the ship to leave no witnesses.

And, the monitoring system would be a good second layer against ICBMs if Levin dies and we get some more BMD.

Posted by Gary and the Samoyeds">Gary and the Samoyeds 2007-07-10 21:45|| http://home.earthlink.net/~sleepyjackal/index.html]">[http://home.earthlink.net/~sleepyjackal/index.html] 2007-07-10 21:45|| Front Page Top

23:57 Angaiger Tojo1904
23:55 Angaiger Tojo1904
23:49 Angaiger Tojo1904
23:46 Mac
23:42 Mac
23:22 JosephMendiola
23:21 Rex Mundi
23:18 Rex Mundi
23:08 Anonymoose
23:01 Ol Dirty American
22:41 JosephMendiola
22:41 Squinty Unoluger4458
22:29 Fred
22:27 Swamp Blondie
22:23 JosephMendiola
22:12 Zenster
22:09 Mac
22:04 Zenster
21:56 Gary and the Samoyeds
21:53 Gary and the Samoyeds
21:46 Gary and the Samoyeds
21:45 Gary and the Samoyeds
21:40 Jerry Springer
21:40 gorb