US eyes SkyHunter- Raytheon version of Israel's Iron Dome

[CougarKing]

Please note an older thread about Canada's purchase of the radar system linked to Iron Dome last year, if I can recall correctly:

Defense News

Pentagon Eyes US Iron Dome To Defend Forward-Based Forces
Barbara Opall-Rome, Defense News 11:43 a.m. EDT August 8, 2016
Raytheon To Transform Israeli Interceptor into Americanized SkyHunter


TEL AVIV — Israel’s state-owned Rafael Advanced Defense Systems and Raytheon, its US partner for Iron Dome production, are working to transform the combat-proven Israeli interceptor into a fully American system in defense of forward-deployed US forces.

Americanized versions of the Iron Dome’s Tamir interceptors are being offered under the Raytheon-trademarked SkyHunter brand for a US Army program aimed at defending against a spectrum of threats, from cruise missiles and UAVs to rockets, artillery and mortars.

The Israeli-designed Tamir interceptor has already been adapted for launch from the US Army’s developmental Multi-Missile Launcher (MML), part of the service’s Indirect Fire Protection Capability Increment 2 — Intercept (IFPC Inc 2-I) program.

(...SNIPPED)

 

[Colin Parkinson]

The "Americanized" version will cost 4x as much, 5 years late and fail to work 50% of the time.  [

 

[tomahawk6]

The US version would include lasers [HEL].

 

[tomahawk6]

The timing of this discussion is pretty good,as I found this article this evening dealing with the cruise missile threat.

http://www.businessinsider.com/us-military-lacks-cruise-missiles-defense-2016-8

Missile defense for the US has traditionally focused on fending off ballistic missiles that arch across the sky and fly in a somewhat predictable path, but recently the proliferation of cruise missiles have created a new threat to the US for which there is no current solution.

“While ballistic missile defense has now become established as a key military capability, the corresponding counters to cruise missiles have been prioritized far more slowly,” Thomas Karako, a senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, said last year.

“In some ways, this is understandable, in terms of the complexity of the threat, but sophisticated cruise missile technologies now out there are just not going away and we are going to have to find a way to deal with this — for the homeland, for allies and partners abroad, and for regional combatant commanders.”

Unlike ballistic missiles, that thrust high into the earth's atmosphere and loft down, rockets propel cruise missiles through the duration of the flight. This enables the missile to hug the ground, wind through mountains, and even accelerate in the last phase of an attack. In short, cruise missiles present a completely different set of challenges for missile defense.

Additionally, the US's most advanced adversaries, China and Russia, have developed extremely rangy cruise missiles that pose real threats to targets even in the US mainland.

 

[quadrapiper]

The timing of this discussion is pretty good,as I found this article this evening dealing with the cruise missile threat.

http://www.businessinsider.com/us-military-lacks-cruise-missiles-defense-2016-8

Missile defense for the US has traditionally focused on fending off ballistic missiles that arch across the sky and fly in a somewhat predictable path, but recently the proliferation of cruise missiles have created a new threat to the US for which there is no current solution.

“While ballistic missile defense has now become established as a key military capability, the corresponding counters to cruise missiles have been prioritized far more slowly,” Thomas Karako, a senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, said last year.

“In some ways, this is understandable, in terms of the complexity of the threat, but sophisticated cruise missile technologies now out there are just not going away and we are going to have to find a way to deal with this — for the homeland, for allies and partners abroad, and for regional combatant commanders.”

Unlike ballistic missiles, that thrust high into the earth's atmosphere and loft down, rockets propel cruise missiles through the duration of the flight. This enables the missile to hug the ground, wind through mountains, and even accelerate in the last phase of an attack. In short, cruise missiles present a completely different set of challenges for missile defense.

Additionally, the US's most advanced adversaries, China and Russia, have developed extremely rangy cruise missiles that pose real threats to targets even in the US mainland.

The notion of trying to secure something the size of Canada or CONUS, especially on the western side, against weapons that can cut about in mountain valleys seems appallingly sensor-intensive, even before trying to manage a response.

 

[GR66]

The notion of trying to secure something the size of Canada or CONUS, especially on the western side, against weapons that can cut about in mountain valleys seems appallingly sensor-intensive, even before trying to manage a response.

I guess by far the best bet then is to invest in fighters that can penetrate contested airspace undetected in order to shoot down the launch platforms beyond stand-off range before they can launch their long-range cruise missiles.  Ditto for highly capable ASW ships, aircraft, subs and sensors that can locate and destroy enemy subs prior to launch.