Dear Jeff,
when you write: "SCUD-C cost per launch - 100,000 $" do you intend to say that the cost of a single Scud C missile is $ 100.000 ? If Yes can you quote a credible source?

best
Arieh Stav

Posted by: STAV ARIE at October 10, 2006 9:29 AM

RC:

P.S. I wasn’t saying that you where a janitor, I just was wondering what you experience was as I was trying to discern what disciplines you utilized to derive your conclusion.

As for what I was referring to by “Radar Cup” meaning the range of detection that a series of radars afford not the actual physical attributes of the radar ;)

Posted by: Jeff at August 11, 2005 2:00 PM

RC:

Point taken ;)

Posted by: Jeff at August 11, 2005 1:54 PM

One more thing and I'll end this as I'm sure you have bigger fish to fry.

No I was not a janitor or turning wrenches. I worked on trajectory reconstructions at MIT/Lincoln Labs and was a radar systems analyst on the other radars. I've briefed generals and colonels and played in their war games. I've also been responsible for systems verification before acceptance for several add ons. My efforts usually revolved around making certain the air force not only got what they need but what they paid for.

Neither radar was a CUP and both were/are fixed face phased array. The shemya radar from the 50's was the ANxx17 a big fence faced radar rusting when I got there. Dig them all you want they still are some of the best at their jobs.

Thanks for giving me some credit, even a minor amount for knowing something.

Those beam tests you mentioned, yes I know about them and think that is a wonderful proof of a tactical concept. You make a big leap from shooting down world war 2 rockets in a tactical environment to that of a space or air based shot from a moving object. Having worked in hardware engineering development(silicon valley) since 96 I can tell you those are some pretty big steps. Besides the leaps of faith I've seen locally, I can't count the number of times in dealing with the Air Force or other contractors that I've heard the line it's only a minor tweak.
Just remember that while you are up close to the top there are those of us who were down in the trenches seeing how things really work or don't work. Something I wish you and all senior people would remember, It is not enough to have a good plan if nobody follows it.

Thanks for the informed banter.
RC

Posted by: RC at August 10, 2005 7:49 PM

RC:

“As for where I worked, it was not in R&D but worked on the Radars on the Western Test Range. I also worked on Corba Dane (EW/Intel) and Pave Paws West(EW).”

So you didn’t do R&D but “worked on” the radar. This could mean that you where a repairman. Not to mention that Cobra Dane was technology developed in 1955 and deployed in 1977, Pave-Paws West 1978!!! Think things might have changed since then? Don’t get me wrong if you worked on those systems its no wonder you have some reservations. That being stated capabilities have grown by orders of magnitude since then. Not to mention those systems where not initially designed to perform C4ISR to support interdiction mission roles.

In fact if I remember correctly “Cobra Danes” primary mission was to track and collect data on foreign intercontinental / submarine launched ballistic missiles as part of an early warning system. Again if memory serves Cobra Dane gave the United States a radar cup that provided a 15 minute window (regarding ICBMS) from which to initiate a retaliatory response. Now while Cobra Dane was also relegated to serve as tracking radar for test launches to the Kamchatka and the broad ocean impact areas in the Pacific Ocean this was secondary mission roll. It certainly by no means supports that such an installation is indicative of the technology regarding the radar systems designed to provide target discrimination for a strategic defensive architecture. Same goes for Pave Paws West out of Boston.

“My problem with all of this is having worked on (performance analysis only) and around these programs I see that there is no follow through.”

I agree. I could site many examples to support this though it would fill up the whole page. I will say that if you watched CSPAN coverage of CPAC this past February during the third day of the convention you would have seen me rip apart Mr. Van Hipp about that very issue as well as GBMC. Again while I support missile defense I do not want to see follow through regarding G.B.M.C. Follow through defined as application of G.B.M.C. technology towards a strategic defense mission role as that specific approach concedes to much advantage to an opposing offensive architecture.

“Critical pieces of the system never materialize such as the X-band targeting radar that was already in development when I left defense work. This is what I mean by unworkable.”

While I will not go into depth regarding current X-band radar capabilities I would contend that it has evolved some since 1978 , heck even 98 – I am guessing as to when you “left defense work”. Plus with boost phase defenses there exists little need for X band radar as such launches would be readily identifiable via their thermal signatures due to their exhaust (called thermal plumes). This is another reason why I push for boost phase defenses. X-band radar is more relegated towards C4ISR that supports mid course architectures like GBMC.

“The promise of directed energy weapons ( lasers, etc ) and many of the other facets of an ABM system remain unfulfilled.”

Regarding your perceptions surrounding the prospects of directed energy interdiction you might do well to check out the public tests regarding M.T.H.E.L. out at HELSTF. They have successfully shot down multiple, in-flight Katusha rockets as well as artillery rounds. An artillery round being a heck of a lot harder to destroy (regarding target size as well as target hardness ) then any ballistic missile. Now while I readily admit that M.T.H.E.L. is designed for tactical application the test results are of such a success that such an A.T.C.D. proves directed energy interdiction is very much in the realms of possibility with only a question of scale. Issues such as enhanced aim platform stability or beam jitter control being at best ones of minor engineering and not a show stopper regarding proof of concept. Issues such as atmospheric aberration and thermal blooming already have been addressed with the use of adaptive optics and as such are not show stoppers in regards to such interdiction methodologies being implemented for the mission roll of strategic defense.

“Some of the problems I've seen come as much from intaservice turf battles as from political turf battles. One of my favorite would be the siting of the PAVE PAWS radars which were place for political reasons and not utility.”

You actually hit the other part of the issue right on the head. Sadly the issue of inter-service, inter-program and inter-departmental patriarchal infighting is alive and well and continues to undermine effective implementation of SDI / NMD to this very day. I can share a personal observation to this effect when I attended the D.E.P.S. 2002 annual convention. At the convention you had representatives of all the different facets of directed energy weapons- Laser, HPW (high powered microwave) even one that represented neutral particle beam. This was of course coupled with representatives of each of the branches of the service – navies free electron laser – air forces active denial technology , GBL program (wont go into details on here) ect. In any case the cross program / service through cutting I had witnessed lead me to comment to the entire panel on how such behavior not only undermines the cross pollenization of ideas as well as increase redundancy of both basic and pre competitive research but has denied the United States of a capability crucial to its own security as well as to global stability. Heck I can think back to the army jockeying for its “slice of the fiscal pie” back in 1993. The army did so by claiming that army run ground based interceptors would be “treaty complaint defenses”, giving momentum to initiatives of the Clinton administration cutting funding to boost phase defense R&D / S&T. So I hear ya there brother.

As for issues similar to “siting of the PAVE PAWS radars which were place for political reasons and not utility” I feel ya there as well. Heritage foundation just released a report that was the result of a year long research program regarding the state of the US military / industrial support infrastructure. In the report it describes how district focused congressman / senators care more about if such defense programs have manufacturing jobs in their district then if the weapons platform affords the United States the best capability for the amount of national will invested. This is sadly something I agree with as well. For a more publicly known, current example of how bad that is look at the problems Sec Def Rumsfeld (one of the smartest Sec Def in the history of that office as well as a personal hero of mine) had in regards to killing that 57 ton paper weight the “Crusader”.

Jeff

Posted by: Jeff at August 10, 2005 4:30 PM