Ordnance – Waging war
Reexamination Certificate
2002-10-16
2003-09-30
Eldred, J. Woodrow (Department: 3644)
Ordnance
Waging war
C089S001340, C102S400000, C102S405000, C102S504000
Reexamination Certificate
active
06626077
ABSTRACT:
CROSS REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATIONS
Not Applicable
BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION—FIELD OF INVENTION
This invention relates to an intercept device; specifically a vehicle to obstruct and capture a flying nuclear, chemical or biological weapon, missile, hijacked aircraft or other airborne weapon of mass destruction.
BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION
The threat of a nuclear attack has been a serious concern of the United States since the Cold War. Although the threat of a planned nuclear attack from the Soviet Union has decreased since the Cold War, several nations have achieved significant technical advances in the fields of nuclear weaponry and other weapons of mass destruction. Consequently, the clandestine development and sales of inexpensive nuclear, biological and chemical weaponry to nations who support global terrorism are a more immediate threat to the security of the United States as such weapons of mass destruction are known to be possessed by numerous nations.
As modern computer aided manufacturing technologies and inexpensive sophisticated electronics become commonplace throughout the world, nations that previously posed no threat to national security now have the ability to design, manufacture and deliver weapons of mass destruction to targets around the world with great speed and precision. Advances in miniature Global Positioning Systems, remote launch systems, encrypted computerized control and guidance systems, satellite communications and propulsion systems all contribute to the availability of manufacturing resources needed to make high tech weaponry. This allows various nations and terrorist organizations the ability to develop, or purchase technologies to develop inexpensive missiles and short range airborne weapons.
Recent advancements in the portability, size, ranges, precision and destructive capabilities of such weaponry has changed significantly. The methods by which a nuclear warhead can be delivered to a target have also changed since the cold war. Short-range, less expensive missiles capable of carrying biological or nuclear weaponry have also evolved as a result of the aforementioned technical developments and have become a viable, affordable method of weapon delivery, even for nations or terrorist organizations with limited budgets. However, ICBM's, or similar space-based and high altitude weapons remain a formidable means of delivery and a viable threat to US National Security.
Recent terrorist attacks against the United States also saw the application of hijacked aircraft as weapons of mass destruction by means of ballistic collision with the World Trade Center. Thus, weapons of mass destruction are now defined in a much broader sense. The attacks of Sept. 11, 2001 confirmed that weapons of mass destruction need not be sophisticated nuclear explosives or ICBM's to impart devastating destruction of American lives and civic infrastructure. Likewise, although conventional, nuclear and biological weaponry still remain a threat, any object with substantial mass and velocity has the potential to be used as a weapon of mass destruction and should be defined as such.
Numerous methods have been devised to launch flying nuclear and conventional weapons from space-based, land based, sea-based and mobile launch systems. Consequently, many methods of defense to protect against such attacks have been developed and patented. Concurrently, many methods of defense to protect against less sophisticated methods of attack, like airliner hijacking, have also been patented. Many of these patents have unique applications that were developed in response to specific threats that no longer exist.
Early in the cold war, intercontinental ballistic missiles held by the Soviet Union had limited ranges and flight capabilities that allowed the US Armed Services and other defense organizations to predict the shortest flight paths, over the North Pole, to the intended target cities in the US. This made missile flight paths predictable, as the shortest paths were known. At this time, even if the Soviets used mobile, repositionable launch systems, such a truck mounted missile launch apparatus, the technology of the era limited their potential launch zones to areas that would allow the missile to reach the continental US. Later space based capabilities allowed missiles to be launched into space to reside in orbit for extended periods of time and be remotely controlled to re-enter the atmosphere to attack a specified location on land. Subsequent improvements since the cold war, to enhance capabilities of both US and Soviet missiles, included numerous improvements in computer guidance systems, propulsion, multiple weapon delivery and communications.
To enhance the long-range destructive capabilities of nuclear warheads carried aloft by Inter Continental Ballistic Missiles (ICBM's), several types of delivery systems and warheads were developed by the US and Soviets. The Multiple Independently Targeted Re-entry Vehicle (MIRV) system allowed a single missile to dispatch numerous nuclear warheads (MIRVs), to separate targets, while in flight. The US experimental rocket powered re-entry vehicle allowed an individual warhead to change its path as it falls. An earlier system, the Soviet-built Fractional Orbit Bombardment System (FOBS), allowed missiles or warheads to remain in orbit, for a period of time, before beginning their decent. FOBS gave the Soviet Union the ability to launch a mass attack against the US from any direction rather than just depending on a ballistic pathway arching over the North Pole. FOBS and similar systems are sometimes described as a “resident orbit systems”. Some researchers believe that several nations are developing resident orbit systems that can keep nuclear weapons in orbit indefinitely, until remotely launched for the purpose of a surprise attack.
French Patent number FR-PS 859,282, which comes closest to the object of the present invention, describes intercept devices in the form of net-like structures, which are brought into the flight path of a flying object to be fought, by means of carrier projectile, and are deployed there preferably by means of centrifugal force. For this purpose, small, uniformly distributed centrifugal weights are arranged on the net. According to this patent, the object to be fought (such as an approaching missile) entangles in the net. This patent also notes that the vertical rate of fall of the entangled object can be slowed down, for example, by means of several small parachutes or similar aerodynamic resistance bodies.
Whereas this device can be applied to obstructing missiles or hijacked aircraft, it employs no method of capturing and holding the object to be fought, other than reliance upon an extremely low probability of mechanical entanglement due to aerodynamic turbulence. With that, the object to be fought can escape the net and potentially fall to the ground.
U.S. Pat. No. 5,583,311 describes an intercept device for flying objects formed of a lightweight, small volume, packable structure made of a tear resistant, pliable material which can be stretched to a large two-dimensional or three-dimensional expansion by means of a deployment device. This patent describes such structures as having an integrated method of destruction, like built in explosives that destroy the deployable structure without destroying the aircraft that has been intercepted. The object of this invention is to slow the aircraft by means of aerodynamic drag, then release the aircraft by breaking the cables that comprise the intercept structure. However, this invention does not account for the presence of jet engine intakes, propellers, antennas, ailerons and numerous aircraft features that can serve to destroy the capture device and cause the destruction of the aircraft in many other ways. Furthermore, if an aircraft is hijacked to be used as weapon of mass destruction, the described drag devices provide no means of capturing the craft in a manner that provides for a more controlled decent to bring down the craft in an area away from popula
LandOfFree
Intercept vehicle for airborne nuclear, chemical and... does not yet have a rating. At this time, there are no reviews or comments for this patent.
If you have personal experience with Intercept vehicle for airborne nuclear, chemical and..., we encourage you to share that experience with our LandOfFree.com community. Your opinion is very important and Intercept vehicle for airborne nuclear, chemical and... will most certainly appreciate the feedback.
Profile ID: LFUS-PAI-O-3064347