Cruise Missile Threat a ‘Front-Burner’ Issue

RubiconNZ

The Wanderer
GOPAL RATNAM
The threat of U.S. cities being attacked by cruise missiles launched from commercial ships is becoming a “front-burner” issue in Washington, said a Missile Defense Agency official.
The threat first identified by the 1998 Commission to Assess the Ballistic Missile Threat to the United States, also known as the Rumsfeld Commission, led by Donald Rumsfeld, has been on the back-burner for a while but is now assuming importance with Congress asking for more studies and the MDA showing strong interest in the threat, said Ben Stubenberg, chief of analysis and scenarios at the MDA.
Stubenberg was speaking at the 2006 Cruise Missile & IED Defense Conference: Joint Engagement of Time-Critical Air & Ground Targets, sponsored by the Defense News Media Group, in Arlington, Va.
Missiles fired off commercial ships at U.S. cities would offer the same advantage that improvised explosive devices (IEDs) do in the hands of insurgents in Iraq: great strength at a low cost to take on a mighty military, Stubenberg said.
With nearly 1,000 commercial vessels sailing within 200 nautical miles of the U.S. coast every 24 hours the potential for a rogue vessel to slip in unnoticed was high, he said.
As U.S. immigration and border control measures have been tightened since Sept. 11, the attractiveness for potential adversaries of attacking major American cities without having to breach the airport security to plant a suicide bomber is high, he said.
Offering a hypothetical example, Stubenberg said a ship could leave a small, unnoticed port in Southeast Asia — one of nearly 11,000 ports that are not rigorously monitored — and head straight across the Pacific Ocean to the port of Ensenada, another small port in Mexico, within missile range of downtown Los Angeles, all the time avoiding the rigorous procedures that cargo ships heading to major U.S. ports must follow.
Once the hypothetical ship is in waters off Ensenada, a missile fired from there could easily target downtown Los Angeles and cause tremendous damage, he said.
Though adversaries would have to deal with challenges of adapting a cruise missile for a sea-based role and ensuring guidance and navigation systems, the easy availability of disgruntled former military officials who, as in the case of Iraq, have handled missiles and guidance systems in their professional careers, could mean that such challenges may be overcome, he said.
The black market in rockets, missiles and the proliferation of launch expertise could make it easier for adversaries to acquire the key technologies, he said.
Deploying a coastal network of sensors and interceptors to shoot down missiles, beefing up intelligence gathering so potential rogue vessels can be neutralized before they reach U.S. shores and some expansion of U.S. missile defense capabilities are possible solutions, he said.
Though the MDA is interested in examining the notion of a missile on board a commercial vessel as part of understanding the asymmetric threat, cruise missile defense is not yet part of the agency’s portfolio, he said.
The U.S. Strategic Command has just assumed responsibility for integrating the cruise missile defense efforts being carried out by different military services.

DefenseNews.com


Any expansion of ideas, on how to deal with this threat. I mean it would be absolutely hard to get a serious defence in place, Sea Ram on Sky scrapers or port facilities? Off Shore Customs platforms for inspection of foreign vessels, Coast Guard Pilots and Security Detachment on each incoming Foreign Vessel, or a Maritime Exclusion zone with corridors of transport protected by Surface vessels. Those would be my ideas but the cost would be ridiculous.
 

Rich

Member
I can think of two choices in the matter.

1, Attack the countries who would threaten us with such weapons now while we have military dominance.

2, Move out into the country,"hopefully upwind of a major city".

If anyone knows of a way to protect a vast coastline against low observable cruise missiles with advanced guidance systems please tell me. The secrets to these missiles are going to traverse the Pakistan/China/Iran/NK pipeline and will be a reality.
 

Big-E

Banned Member
Rich said:
If anyone knows of a way to protect a vast coastline against low observable cruise missiles with advanced guidance systems please tell me. The secrets to these missiles are going to traverse the Pakistan/China/Iran/NK pipeline and will be a reality.
AN/SPY-3
 

Grand Danois

Entertainer
Big-E said:
Well, the curvature of the Earth limits the effectiveness of ground based radar against low flying cruise missiles. For high frequency radars it s close to line of sight. A radar on a 37 m high mast will be able to pick up a CM flying at 12 m at a distance of 37 km.

I would prefer airborne surveillance platforms like E3 Sentry as they can look down and pick up the CMs.

Or even better: A giant AESA in the sky for a 600 km radius vs CMs
 
Last edited:

RubiconNZ

The Wanderer
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #5
Its a bird its a plane nope its a blimp

I think that intro of these Aerostats won't be to far off, relatively cheap, easily deployable good way to go, I forgot all about them, but I think therese definately more to come.
 

DarthAmerica

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
I'd suggest the following...


1. First we start out with an improved intelligence gathering system that permits us to identify the proliferators and proliferants who could potentially conduct an operation like this and then dedicating assets to monitor them.

2. Then we improve our ability to monitor in real time the shipping lanes into the US within range of critical infrastruction. THe USCG/USN/USAF/USANG could operate high altitude long endurange unmanned aerial vehicles and Unmanned Surface Vehicles in the ISR role. These could include Aerosats.

3. Also a system of OTH Radar could help to provide overlapping coverage and also fill in the gaps in areas that are less likely to be used.

4. Then we equip the USAF and Air National Guard Squadrons with F-22's or AESA equipped F-15s and assign squadrons close enough to high value target areas so that they could intercept cruise missiles from alert status.

5. Employ DEW based long range defenses such as ABL/ATL and short ranged systems like VIGILENT EAGLE/THEL.

6. Deploy a variant of the Patriot SAM that is ADSAM capable and networked with the various ISR assets mentioned above.

7. Space Based Radar Coverage
 
Last edited:

Whiskyjack

Honorary Moderator / Defense Professional / Analys
Verified Defense Pro
Well, an interesting threat to counter. If it is terrorists, then the US needs to make it clear that the last legitimate owner of the cruise missile (I am sure forensics will help with id) will be held responsible. That country is responsible for guarding and disposal.

That should also make a lot of countries think twice.

If the attack is conducted by a sovereign country then the same principle applies.
 

Grand Danois

Entertainer
I thought this piece might hold interest.

AFRL Awards $8.8 Million Contract to Lockheed Martin

(Source: US Air Force; issued May 9, 2006)

ROME, N.Y. --- The Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL) has awarded a $8,796,220 contract to Lockheed Martin Corp., Littleton, Colo., to develop a power system for a stratospheric airship operating at more than 43 miles above the Earth.

The two-year contract is funded by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) of Arlington, Va., in support of its “Integrated Sensor Is Structure (ISIS)” program.

The goal of the ISIS program is to develop a stratospheric airship-based autonomous unmanned sensor with years of persistence in surveillance and tracking of air and ground targets. It will have the capability to track the most advanced cruise missiles at a distance in excess of 370 miles and dismounted enemy combatants on the ground nearly 200 miles away.

Achieving this goal will require the development of technologies that enable extremely large, lightweight phased-array radar antennas to be integrated into an airship platform. Major technical challenges are the development of ultra-lightweight antennas, antenna calibration technologies, power systems, station keeping approaches, and airships that support extremely large antennas.

“We are investigating four of those critical technologies here at Rome,” said Jeffery L. Mack, program manager in the AFRL Sensors Directorate, citing active electronically scanned arrays, lightweight/low power transmit/receive (TR) modules, advanced hull material for airships, and prime power for near space environments.

“Lockheed Martin engineers will perform preliminary design and analysis, development and validation testing of a novel power system for a stratospheric airship," said Mr. Mack. “The power system, most likely solar-regenerative supplemented by fuel for peak power consumption, must be capable of operating the airship’s radar, avionics and communications systems at least 99 percent of the time for more than one year.”

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/cgi-bin/client/modele.pl?session=dae.20592289.1147260603.RGHOu8Oa9dUAAGyxV8c&modele=jdc_34
My proposal is this aerostat for surveillance and then use both ship-based SM-2's through CEC and F-22A's with their look-down-shoot-down capability. The F-22A also have the advantage of high altitude and supercruise to intercept the cruise missiles.

Edit: Hmmm. I forgot land-based Patriots at critical installations and cities.
 

KGB

New Member
It's a bit OT but I'm curious; what if a terrorist gets hold of one of the leftover stinger missiles from the old afghan war and boarded a freighter headed for New York for example. Wouldn't he feast on the airliners taking off and landing?

The train seems more attractive now.
 

DarthAmerica

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
KGB said:
It's a bit OT but I'm curious; what if a terrorist gets hold of one of the leftover stinger missiles from the old afghan war and boarded a freighter headed for New York for example. Wouldn't he feast on the airliners taking off and landing?

The train seems more attractive now.
No, the missile would probably not work.
 
Top