Aeronautics and astronautics – Missile stabilization or trajectory control – Remote control
Reexamination Certificate
2003-02-26
2004-05-25
Gregory, Bernarr E. (Department: 3662)
Aeronautics and astronautics
Missile stabilization or trajectory control
Remote control
C244S003100, C244S003110, C244S003150, C244S003190, C342S062000, C342S195000
Reexamination Certificate
active
06739547
ABSTRACT:
BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION
1. Field of the Invention
The present invention is directed towards a ballistic missile detection and defense system. The system of the present invention comprises a ship based interceptor or antiballistic missile, a missile launch detection system, a missile tracking system, and a ship based signal processing system capable of receiving said tracking signal calculating an intercept trajectory for an antiballistic missile to intercept a ballistic missile, and further capable of outputting an intercept trajectory program to an antiballistic missile.
2. Description of the Prior Art
The trajectory of a long range ballistic missile will follow an arc like path. The initial one third of the arc comprises the path of the missile from immediately after it is fired as it ascends toward its target along the arc like trajectory. The middle third portion of the arc comprises the zenith of the missile's trajectory, when the missile trajectory switches from ascending to descending. The final third of the arc comprises the missile's descent toward, and impact with, its target. Ballistic missile detection and defense systems or antiballistic missile (“ABM”) systems may be divided into categories based upon the intended portion of the ballistic missile's arc trajectory where interception is intended to occur. This method of classification is referred to herein as “trajectory trisection.”
Prior art ABM systems have been directed toward intercepting ballistic missiles as they are descending toward their target in the final phase of the trajectory trisection category. One such system is disclosed in U.S. Pat. No. 5,757,310 to Millard. One of the benefits of such a system is that significant time is available to track the incoming ballistic missiles, calculate their trajectory, and distinguish decoys from actual ballistic missiles.
One of the major drawbacks of such a system is that the incoming ballistic missile is relatively close to its target by the time such an ABM system launches an interceptor missile. If the interceptor missile misses or experiences a malfunction, inadequate time is left to take alternate defensive measures. In such a scenario, if the incoming ballistic missile contains a thermonuclear warhead, large scale destruction and radioactive contamination will result. If the incoming ballistic missile detonates near a population center, millions of lives may be lost and billions of dollars in property damage is likely to result. Thus, the risks associated with such a system appear to far exceed the benefits. Intercepting a ballistic missile at a point relatively close to the target presents danger to people and property in the target vicinity from falling debris resulting from a successful missile interception. Such drawbacks are discussed in U.S. Pat. No. 5,340,056 to Guelman et al.
Other ABM systems are directed toward intercepting ballistic missiles in the middle phase of their trajectory trisection category. One such system is disclosed in Jun. 20, 2000 documents published by the United States Department of Defense (“USDoD”). These documents disclose an ABM system intended to launch a land based “kill vehicle” intended to intercept an incoming ballistic missile in midcourse. Under the presidential administration of William Clinton, this system represented the choice of the USDoD for the National Missile Defense (“NMD”) system. Such a system provides less time to evaluate the trajectory of the incoming ballistic missile than a final phase trajectory trisection system, such as the one disclosed in the Millard patent, discussed above. Alternatively, such a system provides more time to evaluate the trajectory of the incoming ballistic missile than an initial phase trajectory trisection system.
ABM systems may be particularly well suited for defending against small scale ballistic missile attacks such as those which the USDoD believes will be possible by the year 2005 from small nations, such as North Korea. Such nations are referred to by the USDoD as “rogue nations” in a Jan. 20, 1999 DoD News Briefing by Secretary of Defense William S. Cohen, published by the USDoD.
ABM systems may also be classified according to whether the interceptor missile, detection systems or control systems is land based or nonland based. Land or ground based systems are disclosed in the Millard patent, in USDoD news briefings describing the NMD system, and in U.S. Pat. No. 5,340,056 to Guelman et al. and U.S. Pat. No. 5,464,174 to Laures.
There are several disadvantages to land based systems. One disadvantage of land based systems is the limited geographic area which they can cover. A simple land based system intended to protect the population centers and military installations of the west coast of the lower 48 states of the United States would have to cover a coastline stretching approximately 1,100 miles, from the Mexican border to the Canadian border. If such a system is to be a final phase trajectory trisection system, such as the one disclosed in Millard, multiple land based antiballistic missile sites must be employed to protect the intended target zone. If one expands the target zone to encompass the entire continental United States, the cost of land based final phase trajectory trisection systems may be cost prohibitive.
Another disadvantage of a land based system is lack of mobility. The majority earth is covered by ocean and our entire planet is covered by atmosphere and space. Thus, an ocean or spaced based system provides much greater deployment flexibility than a land based system, including systems who have one or more components based on land. Additionally, the geographic dispersion of rogue states, such as North Korea or Iraq makes mobility an extremely valuable asset in an ABM system.
REFERENCES:
patent: 3951359 (1976-04-01), Willhite
patent: 3982713 (1976-09-01), Martin
patent: 4925129 (1990-05-01), Salkeld et al.
patent: 5340056 (1994-08-01), Guelman et al.
patent: 5464174 (1995-11-01), Laures
patent: 5757310 (1998-05-01), Millward
patent: 5862496 (1999-01-01), Biven
patent: 6209820 (2001-04-01), Golan et al.
patent: 6265704 (2001-07-01), Livingston
patent: 6527222 (2003-03-01), Redano
patent: 6543716 (2003-04-01), Miller et al.
patent: 6549158 (2003-04-01), Hanson
patent: 6561074 (2003-05-01), Engel et al.
patent: 6563450 (2003-05-01), Wallace
patent: 6568628 (2003-05-01), Curtin et al.
patent: 6575400 (2003-06-01), Hopkins et al.
patent: 0655599 (1995-05-01), None
patent: 2107834 (1983-05-01), None
LandOfFree
Mobile ballistic missile detection and defense system does not yet have a rating. At this time, there are no reviews or comments for this patent.
If you have personal experience with Mobile ballistic missile detection and defense system, we encourage you to share that experience with our LandOfFree.com community. Your opinion is very important and Mobile ballistic missile detection and defense system will most certainly appreciate the feedback.
Profile ID: LFUS-PAI-O-3191975