Archie to SAM: A Short Operational History of Ground-Based Air ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE IN THE 1990S Figure 95. Hawk intercepting Lance. The Hawk had the potential to intercept ballistic missiles, as it demonstrated in intercepting this Lance surface-to-surface missile. (Reprinted from Ballistic Missile Defense Organization.) The Army wanted to replace Hawk with a SAM system possessing capabilities between that of the man-portable Stinger and the much larger, complex, and capable Patriot. It desired better range, mobility, and firepower than the Hawk and greater mobility and survivability than the Patriot. (Another goal of the program was to reduce the manpower required to man the SAM battalion from 500 to about 300.) The new system began life under the name Corps Surface-to-Air Missile, a joint Army-Marine project intended to replace the Hawk. It soon became an international project when the Germans, French, and Italians joined the effort, formalized in February 1995 when the system was renamed MEADS. 13 241
BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE IN THE 1990S Mounted on a wheeled or tracked vehicle, MEADS features both strategic and tactical mobility. Unlike the Patriot that required the C-5 for air transport, MEADS will be transportable on the ubiquitous C-130; in fact, this became the system’s driving requirement. 14 The cost estimates fluctuate from the original $36 billion, and the IOC has been pushed back from 2007 to 2010. 15 In May 1999, the three government consortium awarded Lockheed-Martin the MEADS contract. This surprised some observers in view of that company’s difficulties with the THAAD program (see below). As the Americans desired, the missile will be based on the PAC-3 missile as a cost-saving measure that may cut the $5 billion missile development cost in half. MEADS will be a versatile weapon, able to intercept ballistic missiles, as well as defend against unmanned vehicles at lower altitudes. 16 Another system under development to fulfill the TMD role is the Israeli Arrow (fig. 96). The Israelis began work on the project in 1986 and gained US support two years later. This evolved into an unusual weapon relationship that involved almost complete US funding of the missile’s development, while the Israelis funded the early warning and fire control system. 17 The Arrow had considerable technical problems. In the period 1988 through 1991, its record was called disappointing, and the missile did not achieve its first interception until November 1999. 18 The Arrow was designed to have a footprint larger than the PAC-3 (one Arrow battery could cover as much area as four Patriot batteries according to one source) but smaller than the THAAD. Less mobile than the Patriot, it uses a blast-fragmentation warhead to destroy its target. 19 The Israelis declared the system operational in October 2000. They intend to field three batteries with an overall program cost of $2–$10 billion. 20 In contrast to these lower-tier missile systems, the THAAD system is an upper-tier system. It is intended to engage targets at a minimum 200 km range and 150 km in altitude that will give it 10 times the footprint of the Patriot missile. This extended performance would permit a shoot-look-shoot capability— sequential shots at an incoming missile. It will be more portable than the Patriot, as it will be air-transportable aboard the C-130. 21 Like the more recent US BMDs, it has a hit-to-kill 242
Page 2 and 3:
Report Documentation Page Form Appr
Page 4 and 5:
Air University Library Cataloging D
Page 6 and 7:
Contents Chapter Page DISCLAIMER .
Page 8 and 9:
CONTENTS Chapter Page 7 BALLISTIC M
Page 10 and 11:
CONTENTS Figure Page 30 George Pred
Page 12 and 13:
CONTENTS Figure Page 70 Blowpipe .
Page 14 and 15:
Foreword Dr. Kenneth Werrell’s hi
Page 16 and 17:
About the Author Dr. Kenneth P. Wer
Page 18 and 19:
PREFACE excluded from the original
Page 20 and 21:
PREFACE always been a factor in air
Page 22 and 23:
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Artillery Institute
Page 24 and 25:
ANTIAIRCRAFT DEFENSE THROUGH WORLD
Page 26 and 27:
Page 28 and 29:
Page 30 and 31:
Page 32 and 33:
Page 34 and 35:
Figure 7. British 40 mm light antia
Page 36 and 37:
Page 38 and 39:
Page 40 and 41:
Page 42 and 43:
Page 44 and 45:
Page 46 and 47:
Page 48 and 49:
Page 50 and 51:
Page 52 and 53:
Page 54 and 55:
Page 56 and 57:
Page 58 and 59:
Page 60 and 61:
Page 62 and 63:
Page 64 and 65:
Page 66 and 67:
Page 68 and 69:
Page 70 and 71:
Page 72 and 73:
Page 74 and 75:
Page 76 and 77:
Page 78 and 79:
Page 80 and 81:
Page 82 and 83:
Page 84 and 85:
Page 86 and 87:
Page 88 and 89:
Page 90 and 91:
Page 92 and 93:
FROM GUNS TO MISSILES American air
Page 94 and 95:
FROM GUNS TO MISSILES company deliv
Page 96 and 97:
FROM GUNS TO MISSILES (discussed la
Page 98 and 99:
FROM GUNS TO MISSILES flak rockets
Page 100 and 101:
FROM GUNS TO MISSILES 1953, the rat
Page 102 and 103:
FROM GUNS TO MISSILES to 1,285 in J
Page 104 and 105:
FROM GUNS TO MISSILES Figure 40. Ar
Page 106 and 107:
FROM GUNS TO MISSILES cember 1958,
Page 108 and 109:
Figure 42. Nike Hercules. The Nike
Page 110 and 111:
FROM GUNS TO MISSILES Airmen test-f
Page 112 and 113:
FROM GUNS TO MISSILES Bomarc failed
Page 114 and 115:
FROM GUNS TO MISSILES Despite knowl
Page 116 and 117:
FROM GUNS TO MISSILES Figure 47. Ha
Page 118 and 119:
FROM GUNS TO MISSILES Army decided
Page 120 and 121:
FROM GUNS TO MISSILES The third fam
Page 122 and 123:
FROM GUNS TO MISSILES with both les
Page 124 and 125:
FROM GUNS TO MISSILES that fired ov
Page 126 and 127:
FROM GUNS TO MISSILES Figure 53. Br
Page 128 and 129:
FROM GUNS TO MISSILES The two-decad
Page 130 and 131:
FROM GUNS TO MISSILES A. H. Peterso
Page 132 and 133:
FROM GUNS TO MISSILES “SAMs Spur
Page 134 and 135:
Chapter 3 Airmen versus Guerrillas:
Page 136 and 137:
AIRMEN VERSUS GUERRILLAS the next y
Page 138 and 139:
AIRMEN VERSUS GUERRILLAS war with t
Page 140 and 141:
AIRMEN VERSUS GUERRILLAS Figure 56.
Page 142 and 143:
AIRMEN VERSUS GUERRILLAS firings fr
Page 144 and 145:
Page 146 and 147:
AIRMEN VERSUS GUERRILLAS and Navy c
Page 148 and 149:
AIRMEN VERSUS GUERRILLAS American A
Page 150 and 151:
Page 152 and 153:
Page 154 and 155:
AIRMEN VERSUS GUERRILLAS but modifi
Page 156 and 157:
AIRMEN VERSUS GUERRILLAS In all, du
Page 158 and 159:
AIRMEN VERSUS GUERRILLAS least an e
Page 160 and 161:
Page 162 and 163:
AIRMEN VERSUS GUERRILLAS War Vietna
Page 164 and 165:
AIRMEN VERSUS GUERRILLAS D.C.: Depa
Page 166 and 167:
AIRMEN VERSUS GUERRILLAS 97, 121; a
Page 168 and 169:
Chapter 4 Operations between Vietna
Page 170 and 171:
OPERATIONS BETWEEN VIETNAM AND THE
Page 172 and 173:
Page 174 and 175:
Page 176 and 177:
Page 178 and 179:
Page 180 and 181:
Page 182 and 183:
Page 184 and 185:
Page 186 and 187:
Page 188 and 189:
Page 190 and 191:
Page 192 and 193:
Page 194 and 195:
Page 196 and 197:
Page 198 and 199:
Page 200 and 201:
Page 202 and 203:
Chapter 5 Ballistic Missile Defense
Page 204 and 205:
BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE Army cons
Page 206 and 207:
BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE Figure 80
Page 208 and 209:
Figure 81. Spartan launch. The Spar
Page 210 and 211:
BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE a limited
Page 212 and 213: BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE these wer
Page 214 and 215: BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE ment to c
Page 216 and 217: BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE developin
Page 218 and 219: BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE Radar Int
Page 220 and 221: BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE when the
Page 222 and 223: BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE casualtie
Page 224 and 225: BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE fluential
Page 226 and 227: BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE missiles
Page 228 and 229: BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE psycholog
Page 230 and 231: BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE 6. Army O
Page 232 and 233: BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE April 196
Page 234 and 235: BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE 54. Reiss
Page 236 and 237: BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE 74. GWAPS
Page 238 and 239: Chapter 6 Ground-Based Air Defense
Page 240 and 241: GROUND-BASED AIR DEFENSE SINCE 1990
Page 258 and 259: Chapter 7 Ballistic Missile Defense
Page 260 and 261: BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE IN THE 19
Page 264 and 265: Figure 96. Arrow launch.The Arrow i
Page 290 and 291: Chapter 8 Summary, Trends, and Conc
Page 292 and 293: SUMMARY, TRENDS, AND CONCLUSIONS ev
Page 294 and 295: SUMMARY, TRENDS, AND CONCLUSIONS te
Page 296 and 297: SUMMARY, TRENDS, AND CONCLUSIONS EC
Page 298 and 299: Index A-1, 128, 227-28, 232 A-4, 12
Page 300 and 301: INDEX Convair, 98 Crotale, 158 D-da
Page 302 and 303: INDEX Gulf of Tonkin incident, 115
Page 304 and 305: INDEX Remagen, 24, 57, 270 RF-4C, 1
Page 306 and 307: INDEX SAM, 34, 74, 81-82, 84, 87, 9
Page 308: Archie to SAM A Short Operational H
show all

Archie to SAM: A Short Operational History of Ground-Based Air ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?