Art,

Regarding your question, "is it possible for a moving platform to acquire a target and track that target while the target is also moving?" The answer is yes -- see the movie "Top Gun," for example. Of course, the maximum speed of the SBX will be several orders of magnitude less than an aircraft.

Regarding the rest of your question, "...through space at an accelerated rate of speed." The answer is also yes, and the SBX could do so, but in any envisioned scenario of a ballistic warhead from the PDRK, the SBX will never have to do so. That is, "ballistic" means the warhead is traveling at whatever velocity it had when it was deployed, and its path is determined (and set) by classical Newtonian physics.

Hitting a bullet (the warhead or target) with another bullet (the interceptor) that can change direction (as is the case here; the interceptor can maneuver as it approaches the ballistic warhead) is difficult. Hitting a bullet that can change direction with another bullet that can change direction is more difficult (though theoretically not impossible).

Regarding your assertion that, "This platform is early warning and nothing else. Early warning simply alerts remote controlling activities of an impending threat," is simply incorrect. This is an X-band radar (very short wavelength). An X-band radar has the capability to detect, of course, but no one would build an X-band radar for the sole purpose of detecting something (its "eyesight" is too narrow for that; an "early warning" radar uses electromagnetic radiation with a much longer wavelength which can "sweep" much larger volumes of space per unit time). Far more importantly, however, for the people who live on the west coast of the United States, a powerful X-band radar can track objects. In this particular case, the SBX can track objects as small as a softball at 4,000 km distance.

Prior to about 1990 (that is, prior to the collapse of the former Soviet Union) and the days of "mutually assured destruction," neither the Soviet Union nor the United States needed to know precisely where a ballistic warhead was located in space nor where it was precisely going to land, because there was no defense against a ballistic warhead (in fact, there was a treaty to INSURE that neither country had such a defense). Each country just needed enough warning and a rough estimation of impact points to "flush their bombers and their missiles" before the "counterforce" warheads destroyed the other country's countering ability. This military capability was generally known as having a "launch on warning" capability. Nuclear warheads targeted either other nuclear weapons ("counterforce") or population centers and other places of high value ("countervalue"). Hence, "early warning radars" were needed to avoid giving the adversary a "first strike capability" against its nuclear weapons -- "early warning radars" provided the "launch on warning" capability. The advent of very difficult to detect submarines that could launch nuclear weapons provided the capability of an "assured second strike," as did mobile land-based nuclear weapons.

Today, however, the FSU is not a threat to launch nuclear weapons at the United States (or probably anyone else for that matter). But rogue states, which are not deterred by "mutually assured destruction" are a threat. Hence, the need for a missile defense system that can protect the United States from the DPRK (and the need for an X-band radar somewhere along the straightline trajectory -- the closer to the midpoint of that trajectory, the better -- between the DPRK and the United States). In the not too distant future, additional radars (and interceptor sites) will probably be needed to defend against ballistic nuclear warheads headed into the east coast of the United States (launched, say, from the vicinity of Iran).

Posted by: guyot49 at December 30, 2006 12:06 PM

Sounds foolhardy and expensive at best. Not knowing the basics of this platform and knowing radar - is it possible for a moving platform to acquire a target and track that target while the target is also moving through space at an accelerated rate of speed. This platform is early warning and nothing else. Early warning simply alerts remote controlling activities of an impending threat. History of this type of military activity is knee-deep in archives. It would appear PR was deeply at work here instead of common sense.

g

Posted by: Art Foucault at December 29, 2006 10:25 PM

No one has directly addressed the question as to "Why wasn't the SBX built on Adak"?

Answer: It is true that "mobility" is a positive factor for placing the X-band radar on a floating platform, but only indirectly. The SBX is designed to defend the United States from ballistic warheads that are deployed from a missile launched from the DPRK. For such a purpose, putting the SBX in or around the Sea of Japan is a waste of effort (remember the SBX is designed to "see a softball at 4,000 km"). The United States has been able to detect the launch of missiles for many years (launching an ICBM requires a lot of energy – and this energy can be seen from space). What is much more difficult to do is track the warheads after they have been deployed from a missile (actually, from the second or third stage of a missile). Thus, what is needed is something that can track deployed nuclear warheads AFTER they go over the horizon from the perspective of the Sea of Japan. The SBX will be able to "see" anything that comes over the horizon that is larger than a softball (OK, let's be conservative and make the object larger than a basketball -- the SBX can certainly see anything that is big enough to contain a nuclear weapon as it comes over the western horizon toward Seattle or San Francisco). As Robot.Economist noted, radars for tracking missiles launched from DPRK are already in place in Japan (remember space-based assets will detect the launch of the missile; tracking the missile during the ascent phase and as it leaves the atmosphere can be accomplished by either a ground-based or sea-based radar, but only up to the point that it goes over the horizon). Thus, the people manning the SBX will be well aware of any such launch and will be looking for "stuff" coming over the western horizon well before the "stuff" actually gets over the horizon (of course, the other people whose job it is to protect the United States from nuclear warheads -- the folks in Omaha, Colorado Springs, and other places -- will be well aware, too: ever watch the movie "War Games"?). So placing the SBX where it could track nuclear warheads as they are about midway between the DPRK and the United States is about the only option. If you get a globe and trace a straight trajectory from DPRK to Seattle, say, you'll find that Adak ain't a bad place to put an X-band radar designed to track ballistic nuclear warheads halfway between the DPRK and Seattle. Of course, Adak Island IS a bad place to put just about anything, but if you want to track ballistic nuclear warheads heading for the United States from the ground, your options are limited.

But, you ask, "Why wasn't the X-band radar built on the island, itself?

Answer: In one word -- TIME. It was built in Corpus Christi, TX where the weather is favorable to build things -- especially large, complex things. Barring hurricanes, things can be built near the shore of the Gulf of Mexico 24/7/365. In his State of the Union address in January 2002 (yes, the "axis of evil" SOTU), President Bush said, "We will develop and deploy effective missile defenses to protect America and our allies from sudden attack." If you were in charge of MDA in January 2002, it would have been your job to find a way to protect the United States from ballistic nuclear warheads deployed from a missile launched from the DPRK. You are told that in three years (that is, by 2005) it will be possible to place ground-based interceptors in Alaska that will be able to intercept and destroy such ballistic warheads. But, in order to increase the probability of intercepting these warheads, you also needed the capability to track them as they were enroute between the DPRK and the United States and you needed to possess this capability on a continuous basis. Because GEO space-based radar did not (and does not) exist, and it is impractical to fly airplanes with X-band radars 24/7/365 anywhere in the world (but especially in the Aleutian Islands), a sea-based or ground-based radar is your only option. You are told if you try to build a large, 7-story X-band radar somewhere in the Aleutians it would require at least five years, perhaps as much as 8 to 10 years; but such a radar could be built in southern California or the Gulf Coast in about two years. Ummm…. “Is it possible,” you ask, “to build something that has a mass of 100 million pounds [NOTE: this is not an exaggeration], pick it up off the ground, put it on an ocean-going platform, and move it to the Aleutian Islands?” “Well, yes sir,” you are told, “as a matter of fact, it IS possible. Oh, and it will be less expensive to place a 50,000-ton radar somewhere in the Aleutians in that manner, too.” What would you have told the President?

One other note: placing the SBX in the harbor at Adak protects it (somewhat) from the weather. So it does not have to survive 30-foot waves, "only" 8 to 10 foot waves: it is a big platform.

Posted by: guyot49 at December 29, 2006 4:19 PM

Why is the government allowing this system to travel. The system still need to be inspected for possible malfunctions. Why send the system to the severe weather conditions like Alaska.
This system should be placed somewhere between
Korea and the United States.

Posted by: herkey cosby at December 29, 2006 1:15 PM

Robot Economist,
"I have no quarrel with the notion of an SBX, it just seems like we're deploying the wrong system to the wrong environment".
You are correct - it just SEEMS that way. You have posed and answered your own question. The Sea of Japan, the Med and the Eastern Indian Ocean are exactly where we need this station and the likely destination for them.

And that pad is bigger than it looks - plenty big enough for a CH-47 or Osprey.

Posted by: RTLM at December 23, 2006 5:03 AM