The satellite interception was done by modifying the SM-3 exo-atmospheric kill vehicle for a higher altitude interception.
Kevin
| Author | Comment | ||
|---|---|---|---|
drunknsubmrnr |
|||
|
Posts: 1333 ( 6-May-2008 20:53:18) |
More like SM-3 has trouble with endo-atmospheric interceptions. It's endo-atmospheric "partner" was supposed to be SM-2 Block IVa LEAP, which was
cancelled a few years ago. Now they're going with PAC-3 for the lower-tier intercepts.
The satellite interception was done by modifying the SM-3 exo-atmospheric kill vehicle for a higher altitude interception. Kevin
Normal human beings don't get dolphins.
|
||
taschoene |
|||
|
Posts: 4214 ( 6-May-2008 23:39:13) |
LEAP (Lightweight Exo-Atmspheric Projectile) is the kill vehicle on SM-3, but otherwise you're correct -- SM-2 Block IVA was the "lower-tier"
supplement to the SM-3 "upper tier" interceptor. Together they would have covered the whole flight envelope, roughly analogous to Patriot PAC-3 and
THAAD.
The difference is that SM-3 is a pure exo-atmospheric interceptor and is optimized for the role. THAAD, on the other hand, has a mix of low exo-atmopspheric and high endo-atmospheric capability. That sounds good on paper, but forced a lot of design compromises, like having to cool the seeker window against atmospheric heating, at the cost of weight and seeker complexity. The result is that SM-3 has a wider engagement envelope than THAAD, especially versus intermediate-range threats -- it can take them on both ascent and descent, while THAAD is a pure descent-phase interceptor. Check slide 6 in this briefing (less than 1 MB): http://www.ndia.org/Content/ContentGroups/Divisions1/Missile_Defense/Mr.%20Altwegg's%20Presentation.pdf Also factor in the potential of SM-3 Block II, which blows up the second and third stages to the full 21-inch diameter of the Mk 72 booster and takes full advantage of the volume available in the Mk41 launcher (the so-called Full-Caliber Standard). That's going to give SM-3 a huge kinematic advantage over the much smaller THAAD. |
||
taschoene |
|||
|
Posts: 4215 ( 6-May-2008 23:55:33) |
Nightwatch2 wrote: Actually, SM-3 beats THAAD handily in its preferred environment of mid-course exo-atmospheric interception. Either one has more "reach" than
PAC-3, which is a pure terminal-phase interceptor (like SM-2 Block IVA), designed to take out inbound missiles at the very end of their flight very near the
launch platform. Both SM-3 and THAAD are meant to intercept targets much further away, but SM-3 has a significantly larger capability there, IMO.
|
||
drunknsubmrnr |
|||
|
Posts: 1334 ( 7-May-2008 14:55:01) |
Wow. That slide certainly illustrates the trade-offs THAAD had to make to achieve endo- and exo-atmospheric intercepts. I had no idea it was that bad.
In their defence, I don't think anyones planning to use THAAD for boost phase intercept. It appears to be more of a completely defensive system at Theater level. Kevin
Normal human beings don't get dolphins.
|
||
westwords2020 |
|||
|
Posts: 283 ( 9-May-2008 00:40:47) |
I read a CRS report that had the Block 2A version which would be the full diameter Standard could be equipped with multiple independant kill vehicles to
counter decoys and multiple independant reentry vehicles.
|
||
drunknsubmrnr |
|||
|
Posts: 1340 ( 9-May-2008 01:21:08) |
I wouldn't put much stock in that report. Decoys and MIRV's aren't a problem now.
Kevin
Normal human beings don't get dolphins.
|
||