Army Seeks New Cruise Missile Defense Capabilities

WASHINGTON � Addressing a perceived increase in cruise missile threats, the U.S. Army is working to develop new defenses against the weapons by fiscal 2008, an official said Thursday (see GSN, Feb. 26).

At least one of three key components, though, may not be ready for fielding until two years after that goal, the official also said in March congressional testimony. In that hearing, Lt. Gen. Larry Dodgen, commander of the Army Space and Missile Defense Command, told Congress that cruise missile defense efforts needed to be accelerated.

Existing Army defenses against cruise missiles consist primarily of the Patriot antiballistic missile systems, which did not shoot down a small number of Iraqi cruise missiles apparently fired at U.S. forces last year during the war.

There is an inherent difficulty in using ballistic missile defenses for lower-altitude, slower-flying cruise missile defense, Dodgen said last week at an event sponsored by the National Defense University Foundation.

�It makes it extremely difficult for the systems that we use to combat ballistic missiles to also position themselves for cruise missiles,� he said, adding that expanding the role of the interceptors can complicate the challenge of identifying airborne objects in combat.

Another challenge, he said, is tracking cruise missiles at greater distances, which experts say is difficult because the weapons fly lower and slower than ballistic missiles and are better concealed by the horizon from ground-based radar.

The Army plans to build a cruise missile defense system with three principal components: a new airborne sensor called JLENS, to help track more distant and low-flying threats; a modified seeker guided-missile called SLAMRAAM; and an �integrated fire control� system for integrating the radar data from other sensors, including from those other services, to add greater surveillance range.

JLENS, or Joint Land Attack Cruise Missile Defense Elevated Netted Sensors, is a dirigible holding fire control and surveillance radars (see GSN, Oct. 6, 2003). SLAMRAAM stands for Surface-Launched Advanced Medium Range Air-to-Air Missile. It will be a version of a missile already used by Air Force and Navy aircraft.

Regarding the integrated fire control, Dodgen said last week the military has already shown it can use radar data gathered from an airborne platform to fire a missile when the missile system�s own radar cannot see the target coming.

�We can shoot a missile, and we can use radar data from some other sensor that is not organic to the engineered system that we have,� he said.

Dodgen in March testimony said the SLAMRAAM could be ready by fiscal 2008, but the JLENS not until fiscal 2010.

�It is clear that the required systems and capabilities necessary to counter this emerging threat need to be accelerated to field a cruise missile defense as soon as possible,� he said in prepared testimony to the House Armed Services Subcommittee on Strategic Forces.

Dodgen last week said the envisioned new cruise missile defense capability was intended to address advanced cruise missile threats the United States might someday face from a major or smaller power.

For the near term the Army has taken measures, which Dodgen did not specify, following the Iraq cruise missile attacks to shore up its defenses.

From: www.nti.org...

This is good news. The Army needs a good defence against cruise missiles

Could the current sensor suite on the AWACS serve the same purpose as the dirigible mounted radar at a longer standoff range possibly being less vulnerable to point of battle countermeasures?

Sweet system, man, I cant wait for all these systems to come out.

I wonder who the americans are planning to attack next? Who has cruisemissiles that can even remotely threaten American troops?

Well, Iam sure its for peackeeping operations. Why would every other country build up there military?

Originally posted by psteel
I wonder who the americans are planning to attack next? Who has cruisemissiles that can even remotely threaten American troops?

china, russia, their customers in asia, south america, middle east who im sure will be buying cruise missles as soon as they can and their systems are specifically designed against ours

It's no wonder weapon programs cost so much. Unless it's due to the time frame that they want to deploy in (2008) there already is a fully intergrated weapon system that is in fact in use right now, AEGIS. Detect, Track, Fire Control, and is very good at handling cruise missles.

AEGIS Weapons System MK-7

china already have the new cruise missile. It can shoot home of the aircraft carrier. Today,it is new adv and powerful weapon in this world. it's name of SS-N-22 Sunburn.

Originally posted by PLA OF CHINA
china already have the new cruise missile. It can shoot home of the aircraft carrier. Today,it is new adv and powerful weapon in this world. it's name of SS-N-22 Sunburn.

Well that missile won't do you any good if its in the bottom of the ocean. The missile only has an effective range of approximately 250km. With the E-2 series of early warning aircraft in place aircraft from the carrier can sink the missile destroyer before it gets within range.

Plus the topic was discussing Army Low-Altitude air defense not Navy.

just use a hihg powered laser or railgun
or use the simple proven method agaist missles chaff but i dont know if that would work

Originally posted by namehere

china, russia, their customers in asia, south america, middle east who im sure will be buying cruise missles as soon as they can and their systems are specifically designed against ours

USA has no bussiness attacking Russia or China, unless their nuts. And no client state is going to be able to aford such weapons anyway. For gods sake people you'd thing USA was still in the cold war and no one told them its over. Or maybe its this wet dream the Wolfiwitzes types have about world domination.

Now too long ago a Russian leader explain at a press confrence that Russia was going to build new generation missiles and such. This was met with applause. That is why the US is building up. War is a part of life and it always will be.

Originally posted by jetsetter
Now too long ago a Russian leader explain at a press confrence that Russia was going to build new generation missiles and such. This was met with applause. That is why the US is building up. War is a part of life and it always will be.

Then implicit in that statement is the notion that the USA intends to attack Russia. THis is why so many people out side of the USA see AMerica as the biggest threat to world peace. If you did keep it to your self we would all accept. But no country has gone to war anywhere as much as the USA has in the past 1/2 century.

BTW your wrong, war doesn't have to be a part of life, thats a choice thats made.

But war has been apart of my life and I did not make any choices. You see there..... There is nothing wrong with a good defence.

Originally posted by jetsetter
But war has been apart of my life and I did not make any choices. You see there..... There is nothing wrong with a good defence.

If thats all it was I would not worry and even applaud your technological achievements. But we have this "National Security Strategy" thingy. See it states that your governement will indulge in socalled "Wars of PReemption" to prevent from ever challenging the AMerican position of military dominance in the world. In other words any power that threatens AMerican sphere of influence in the world.

Thats what Japan viewed it was doing in 1941.Indulging in preventative strikes to prevent the USA from interfering in its sphere of influence. One could even argue that all Hitler was doing in Europe from the late 1930s was preemption or preventative wars.

Is this the model that Americans see as their future and our unfortunate fate?

Originally posted by psteel
Thats what Japan viewed it was doing in 1941.Indulging in preventative strikes to prevent the USA from interfering in its sphere of influence. One could even argue that all Hitler was doing in Europe from the late 1930s was preemption or preventative wars.

no, defensive weapons systems are to protect from them attacking us, since the cold war our strategy for major wars has been defensive, we plan just incase we are attacked, you have it backwards here, your examples are wrong, they had offensive militaries and both were steam rolling their neighbors to expand their own territory and they were not intent on any major war hence pearl harbor, theres a difference between attacking to secure land vs preparing incase youre attacked.

Skyshield is an effective air defense system for low altitude targets

en.wikipedia.org...

www.youtube.com...