Theatre Balistic Missile Defence - a new role for Typhoon?
Thread Starter
Theatre Balistic Missile Defence - a new role for Typhoon?
Not so long ago, Flight International had a very interesting article:
Lockheed proposes funding plan for air-launched Patriot missile
Lockheed Martin has proposed a $137 million plan to develop and integrate an air-launched version of the MIM-104 Patriot advanced capability-3 (PAC-3) missile on the US Air Force's Boeing F-15C fighter fleet. The plan could come to fruition within 29 to 33 months.
The US Missile Defense Agency (MDA) began funding an air-launched PAC-3 development in 2007 to prosecute ballistic missiles in their boost and terminal phases, although the interceptor could also be capable of shooting down cruise missiles.
Yesterday this article appeared: Air-launch interceptors back in play for US missile defence
I remember watching the TV news back in early 1991 and seeing the Scuds coming in to Riyadh or Tel Aviv, and seeing the Patriots being launched to intercept them (yes I know they missed). It looked as if the US had the ability to take out incoming Scuds and similar, we did not. We had the same level of capability against them we had when the V2s were hitting London in 1944. That is - none.
The Royal Navy's new Type 45 will have a potential TBMD capability with Sea Viper - as discussed here. Unfortunately, instead of a class of twelve we will get six. It doesn't matter how capable they are, they can only be in one place at a time. Typhoon numbers have also been cut, but not by anything near 50%.
Nobody can predict the future. I can't be the only person here thinks the UK should be doing more about emerging ballistic missile threats. Not only are deployed UK forces at risk, but also civil populations. Some seem to prefer to forget that the US Navy fired a captured V2 from the deck of USS Midway not long after World War Two. There is nothing to stop a hostile nation putting a few Scuds aboard an innocent looking merchant vessel, as this writer notes. These sort of attacks wouldn't be particularly accurate, but would they need to be? Perhaps the Government's crystal ball says we need not worry about the unexpected?
Isn't countering ballistic missile threats a natural extension of the RAF core roles?
Lockheed proposes funding plan for air-launched Patriot missile
Lockheed Martin has proposed a $137 million plan to develop and integrate an air-launched version of the MIM-104 Patriot advanced capability-3 (PAC-3) missile on the US Air Force's Boeing F-15C fighter fleet. The plan could come to fruition within 29 to 33 months.
The US Missile Defense Agency (MDA) began funding an air-launched PAC-3 development in 2007 to prosecute ballistic missiles in their boost and terminal phases, although the interceptor could also be capable of shooting down cruise missiles.
Yesterday this article appeared: Air-launch interceptors back in play for US missile defence
I remember watching the TV news back in early 1991 and seeing the Scuds coming in to Riyadh or Tel Aviv, and seeing the Patriots being launched to intercept them (yes I know they missed). It looked as if the US had the ability to take out incoming Scuds and similar, we did not. We had the same level of capability against them we had when the V2s were hitting London in 1944. That is - none.
The Royal Navy's new Type 45 will have a potential TBMD capability with Sea Viper - as discussed here. Unfortunately, instead of a class of twelve we will get six. It doesn't matter how capable they are, they can only be in one place at a time. Typhoon numbers have also been cut, but not by anything near 50%.
Nobody can predict the future. I can't be the only person here thinks the UK should be doing more about emerging ballistic missile threats. Not only are deployed UK forces at risk, but also civil populations. Some seem to prefer to forget that the US Navy fired a captured V2 from the deck of USS Midway not long after World War Two. There is nothing to stop a hostile nation putting a few Scuds aboard an innocent looking merchant vessel, as this writer notes. These sort of attacks wouldn't be particularly accurate, but would they need to be? Perhaps the Government's crystal ball says we need not worry about the unexpected?
Isn't countering ballistic missile threats a natural extension of the RAF core roles?
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: S of 55N
Posts: 360
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AEGIS
Certain sources claim an 83% hit-rate against TBMs:
Air Defense: Aegis Hits Another One
My gut-feeling is that the effort required to equip Typhoon to conduct this role, in an operationally taskable fashion, would be significantly greater than that required to improve the nascent T45 capability.
Sun.
Air Defense: Aegis Hits Another One
My gut-feeling is that the effort required to equip Typhoon to conduct this role, in an operationally taskable fashion, would be significantly greater than that required to improve the nascent T45 capability.
Sun.
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: See that little island just above France? Yeah, there...
Age: 37
Posts: 168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We could just fight for more T45's? Which have a greater all round use, and lets face it, the RN DOES need more ships...
cost may be the issue there I admit
Didn't I read on this very forum that it'll be a T45 moored on the Thames that'll provide the air defense for the Olympics?
cost may be the issue there I admit
Didn't I read on this very forum that it'll be a T45 moored on the Thames that'll provide the air defense for the Olympics?
I cannot believe that no-one has thought of this before!
Let's spend hundreds of millions on getting a capability for a tiny fleet. Then let's assume that we can keep at least 2 of the new, expensively modified aircraft on station 24/7 (as I believe our colonial friends call it). This is a worthwhile spend against the threat of ballistic missile attack from - hang on, it'll come to me in a minute.
Ok you chaps who are being mortared and mined in hot places - back off! We've got to spend all the money on detering Korea cos let's face it - they could lob warheads into Westminster tomorrow.
Idiot!
Let's spend hundreds of millions on getting a capability for a tiny fleet. Then let's assume that we can keep at least 2 of the new, expensively modified aircraft on station 24/7 (as I believe our colonial friends call it). This is a worthwhile spend against the threat of ballistic missile attack from - hang on, it'll come to me in a minute.
Ok you chaps who are being mortared and mined in hot places - back off! We've got to spend all the money on detering Korea cos let's face it - they could lob warheads into Westminster tomorrow.
Idiot!
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: The Whyte House
Age: 95
Posts: 1,966
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think it might be cheaper and just as effective merely to base a number of 'PAC-3' Patriots at a few select sites. BAe might not be so keen though, they do run the MoD, after all.
Before the MSAM project (Bloodhound replacement) was canned in the 1990s, the BAe submission (with Raytheon) was Patriot.
Much cheaper to have a land based system, faster reaction time than a fighter launched system, cheaper to operate than a shipboard system and you could give London the only defence against an aircraft taking off from Heathrow, Gatwick or Stansted with some AQ 'Sleeper' Airline pilot at the controls doing a no notice attack on London (No way that a Tiffy could stop that kind of attack), though the politician at the end of the C2 chain would have to have some balls in OK'ing an engagement.
Much cheaper to have a land based system, faster reaction time than a fighter launched system, cheaper to operate than a shipboard system and you could give London the only defence against an aircraft taking off from Heathrow, Gatwick or Stansted with some AQ 'Sleeper' Airline pilot at the controls doing a no notice attack on London (No way that a Tiffy could stop that kind of attack), though the politician at the end of the C2 chain would have to have some balls in OK'ing an engagement.
Last edited by MAINJAFAD; 8th Aug 2009 at 21:13.
Mainjafad
"you could give London the only defence against an aircraft taking off from Heathrow, Gatwick or Stansted with some AQ 'Sleeper' Airline pilot at the controls doing a no notice attack on London "
....True but probably no use at all against the more credible scenario of a "Sleeper" in an commercial aircraft inbound to LHR.....
....True but probably no use at all against the more credible scenario of a "Sleeper" in an commercial aircraft inbound to LHR.....
