An
anti-ballistic missile (
ABM)
is a
missile designed to counter
ballistic missiles (a missile for
missile defense).A ballistic missile is used
to deliver
nuclear,
chemical,
biological or conventional
warheads in a
ballistic
flight
trajectory. The term
"anti-ballistic missile" describes any antimissile system designed
to counter ballistic missiles. However the term is used more
commonly for ABM systems designed to counter long range,
nuclear-armed
Intercontinental ballistic
missiles (ICBMs).
Existing systems
Only two ABM systems have been operational previously against
ICBMs, the U.S.
Safeguard system,
which utilized the
LIM-49A Spartan
and
Sprint missiles, and the
Russian
A-35
anti-ballistic missile system which used the
Galosh interceptor, each with a
nuclear warhead themselves. Safeguard was
only operational briefly; the Russian system has been improved and
is still active, now called
A-135 and using two
missile types,
Gorgon and
Gazelle. However the U.S.
Ground-Based Midcourse
Defense (GMD, previously called
NMD) system has recently reached
initial operational capability. It does not have an explosive
charge, but launches a .
Three shorter range tactical ABM systems are operational currently:
the U.S. Army
Patriot, U.S. Navy
Aegis combat system/
Standard SM-3, and the Israeli
Arrow missile. The longer-range U.S.
Terminal High
Altitude Area Defense system is scheduled for deployment during
2009. In general short-range tactical ABMs cannot intercept ICBMs,
even if within range. The tactical ABM radar and performance
characteristics do not allow it, as an incoming ICBM warhead moves
much faster than a tactical missile warhead. However it is possible
the better-performance Terminal High Altitude Area Defense missile
could be upgraded to intercept ICBMs.
Latest versions of the U.S.
Hawk missile
have a limited capability against tactical ballistic missiles, but
is not usually described as an ABM. Similar claims have been made
about the Russian long-range surface-to-air
S-300 and
S-400
series.
For current US developments, see
Missile Defense Agency. For other
short-range missiles, see
Sea Wolf,
Aster 15 and
Crotale missile.
Early history of ABMs
From World War II through the 1950s

Launch of a Nike Zeus missile
The idea of destroying rockets before they can hit their target
dates from the first use of modern missiles in warfare, the German
V-1 and
V-2 program of
World War II. British fighters
attempted to destroy V-1 "buzz bombs" in flight prior to impact,
with some success, although concentrated barrages of heavy
anti-aircraft artillery had greater success. The V-2, the first
true ballistic missile, was impossible to destroy using aircraft or
artillery. Instead, the Allies launched
Operation Crossbow to find and destroy
V-2s before launch.
The operation was largely ineffective , as
was a similar operation during the first Persian
Gulf War nearly fifty years later against the V-2’s
direct descendant, the Russian Scud
missile. The V2s were eventually dealt with by the launch
sites being over-run by the rapid advance of the Allied armies
through Belgium and the Netherlands.
The American armed forces began experimenting with anti-missile
missiles soon after World War II, as the extent of German research
into rocketry became clear. But defenses against Soviet long-range
bombers took priority until the later 1950s, when the Soviets began
to test their missiles (most notably via the
Sputnik launch in October 1957). The first
experimental ABM system was the soviet
V-1000
system (part of the experimental "
A-35" ABM programme),
closely followed by
Nike Zeus, a
modification of then-existing air defense systems. Nike Zeus proved
unworkable, and so work proceeded with
Nike
X.
Another topic of research by the U.S. was the test explosions of
several low yield
nuclear weapons at
very high altitudes over the southern Atlantic ocean, launched from
ships. The devices used were the 1.7 kt boosted fission W25
warhead.When such an explosion takes place a burst of
X-rays are released that strike the Earth's
atmosphere, causing secondary showers of charged particles over an
area hundreds of miles across. The movement of these charged
particles in the Earth’s magnetic field causes a powerful
EMP which induces very large currents
in any conductive material. The purpose was to determine how much
the EMP would interfere with radar tracking and other
communications and the level of destruction of electronic circuitry
aboard missiles and satellites.The project's results are not known,
although similar so-called 'effects tests' were a regular feature
of underground tests at the Nevada Test Site until 1992. These
'effects tests' are used to determine how resistant specific
warheads, RVs and other components are to exoatmospheric ABM
bursts.
Other countries were also involved in early ABM research.
A more
advanced project was at CARDE in
Canada
, which researched the main problems of ABM
systems. This included developing several advanced
infrared detectors for terminal guidance, a number
of missile airframe designs, a new and much more powerful solid
rocket fuel, and numerous systems for testing it all. After a
series of drastic budget reductions during the late 1950s the
research ended. One offshoot of the project was
Gerald Bull’s system for inexpensive high-speed
testing, consisting of missile airframes shot from a
sabot round, which would later be the basis of
Project HARP.
Developments in the 1960s and 1970s
Nike-X, Sentinel and Safeguard
Nike X was a US system of two missiles, radars and their associated
control systems. The original Nike Zeus (later called Spartan) was
upgraded for longer range and a much larger 5 megatonne warhead
intended to destroy warheads with a burst of x-rays outside the
atmosphere.A second shorter-range missile called
Sprint with very high acceleration was
added to handle warheads that evaded longer-ranged Spartan. Sprint
was a very fast missile (some sources claimed it accelerated to
8,000 mph (13 000 km/h) within 4 seconds of
flight—an average acceleration of
100 g)
and had a smaller W66
enhanced
radiation warhead in the 1-3 kiloton range for in-atmosphere
interceptions.
The new Spartan missile changed the deployment plans as well.
Previously the Nike systems were to have been clustered near cities
as a last-ditch defense, but the Spartan allowed for interceptions
at hundreds of miles range. Therefore the basing changed to provide
almost complete coverage of the United States in a system known as
Sentinel. When this proved
infeasible for economic reasons, a much smaller deployment using
the same systems was proposed,
Safeguard. Safeguard protected only the US
ICBM fields from attack, theoretically ensuring that an attack
could be responded to with a US launch, an example of the
mutually assured destruction
principle.
Moscow ABM system
The first real and successful ABM
hit-to-kill test was conducted by the Soviet
PVO forces on March 1, 1961.
An
experimental V-1000 missile (part of the "A"
ABM programme) launched from the Sary-Shagan test range, destroyed a dummy
warhead released by a R-12 ballistic missile launched from the
Kapustin
Yar
cosmodrome. The dummy warhead was destroyed
by the impact of 18 thousand
tungsten-carbide spherical
impactors 140 seconds after launch, at an altitude
of 25 km.The V-1000 missile system was nonetheless considered
not reliable enough and abandoned in favor of nuclear-armed
ABMs.
The only
other ICBM ABM system to reach production was the Soviet
A-35 system. It
was initially a single-layer exoatmospheric (outside the
atmosphere) design, using the Galosh (SH-01/ABM-1) interceptor.
It was
deployed at four sites around Moscow
during the
early 1970s.
Intended originally to be a larger deployment, the system was
downsized to the two sites allowed under the 1972 ABM treaty. It
was upgraded during the 1980s to a two-layer system, the
A-135. The Gorgon
(SH-11/ABM-4) long-range missile was designed to handle intercepts
outside the atmosphere, and the Gazelle (SH-08/ABM-3) short-range
missile endoatmospheric intercepts that eluded Gorgon. ABM-3 was
considered to be technologically equivalent to the United States
Safeguard system of the
1970s.
The problem of defense against MIRVs
ABM systems were developed initially to counter single warheads
launched from large
Intercontinental ballistic
missiles (ICBMs). The economics seemed simple enough; since
rocket costs increase rapidly with size, the price of the ICBM
launching a large warhead should always be greater than the much
smaller interceptor missile needed to destroy it. In an arms race
the defense would always win.
Conditions changed dramatically with the introduction of
Multiple
independently targetable reentry vehicle (MIRV) warheads.
Suddenly each launcher was throwing not one warhead, but several.
The defense would still require a rocket for every warhead, as they
would be re-entering over a wide space and could not be attacked by
several warheads from a single antimissile rocket. Suddenly the
defense was more expensive than offense; it was much less expensive
to add more warheads, or even decoys, than it was to build the
interceptor needed to shoot them down.
The experimental success of Nike X persuaded the
Lyndon B. Johnson administration to propose a thin
ABM defense. In a September 1967 speech, Defense Secretary
Robert McNamara described it as
Sentinel.
McNamara, a private ABM opponent because
of cost and feasibility (see cost-exchange ratio), claimed that
Sentinel would be directed not against the Soviet Union's missiles
(since the USSR
had more
than enough missiles to overwhelm any American defense), but rather
against the potential nuclear threat of the People's
Republic of China
.
In the meantime a public debate over the merit of ABMs began. Even
before the MIRV problem made ABM effectiveness non-workable during
the late 1960s, some technical difficulties had already made an ABM
system questionable for a large sophisticated attack. One problem
was the
Fractional
Orbital Bombardment System (FOBS) that would give little
warning to the defense. Another problem was high altitude EMP
(whether from offensive or defensive nuclear warheads) which could
degrade defensive radar systems.
Technical difficulties aside, an odd anti-ABM argument developed:
that no defense at all was better than any defense. Namely, a false
sense of security might encourage ABM-defended nations to escalate
against minor threats, believing they would be protected against
any response. By this reasoning, simply starting to deploy such a
system could prompt a full-scale attack before it could become
operational and thereby render such an attack useless. This curious
set of arguments implied that it couldn't possibly work, but if it
did that would be even worse.
The Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty of 1972
Various technical, economic and political problems resulted in the
ABM treaty of 1972,
which restricted the deployment of strategic (not tactical)
anti-ballistic missiles.
By the ABM treaty and a 1974 revision, each country was allowed to
deploy a single ABM system with only 100 interceptors to protect a
single target. The Soviets deployed a system named
A-35 (using
Galosh interceptors), designed to protect
Moscow. The U.S. deployed
Safeguard (using Spartan/Sprint
interceptors) to defend ballistic missile sites at Grand Forks Air
Force Base, North Dakota, during 1975. The U.S. Safeguard system
was operational only briefly. The Russian system (now called A-135)
has been improved and is still active around Moscow.
On June 13, 2002, the United States withdrew from the
Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty and subsequently recommenced
developing missile defense systems that would have formerly been
prohibited by the bilateral treaty. This action was done for the
ostensible reason of needing to defend against the possibility of a
missile attack conducted by a
rogue
state.
ABM developments in the 1980s and Persian Gulf War
The
Reagan-era
Strategic Defense Initiative
(often referred to as "Star Wars"), along with research into
various energy-beam weaponry, brought new interest in the area of
ABM technologies.
SDI was an extremely ambitious program to provide a total shield
against a massive Soviet ICBM attack. The initial concept
envisioned large sophisticated orbiting laser battle stations,
space-based relay mirrors, and nuclear-pumped X-ray laser
satellites. Later research indicated that some planned technologies
such as X-ray
Lasers were not feasible with
then-current technology. As research continued, SDI evolved through
various concepts as designers struggled with the difficulty of such
a large complex defense system. SDI remained a research program and
was never deployed. However several SDI technologies were used in
follow on ABM systems.
The
Patriot antiaircraft missiles
was the first deployed tactical ABM system, although it was not
designed from the outset for that task and consequently had
limitations. It was used during the 1991 Gulf War to attempt to
intercept Iraqi
Scud missiles. Post-war
analyses show that the Patriot was much less effective than
initially thought because of its radar and control system's
inability to discriminate warheads from other objects when the Scud
missiles broke up during reentry.
On a side note: lasers originally developed for the SDI plan are
currently in use for astronomical observations. Used to ionize gas
in the upper atmosphere they provide telescope operators with a
target to calibrate their instruments
Post Gulf War ABM developments in the 1990s
Tactical ABMs deployed
Testing of ABMs and ABM technology continued during the 1990s with
mixed success. However, after the Gulf War, improvements were made
to several U.S. air defense systems.
Patriot PAC-3 was developed and tested
following the Gulf War. The PAC-3 is a complete redesign of the
system deployed during the war, including a totally new missile.The
improved guidance, radar and missile performance improves the
probability of kill over the earlier PAC-2. During Operation Iraqi
Freedom, Patriot PAC-3s had a nearly 100% success rate against
Iraqi TBMs fired. However since no longer range Iraqi
Scud missiles were used, PAC-3 effectiveness against
those was untested. Patriot was involved in three
friendly fire incidents: two incidents of
Patriot shootings at coalition aircraft and one of U.S. aircraft
shooting at a Patriot battery.
From 1992
to 2000 a demonstration system for the US Army Terminal High Altitude Area
Defense was deployed at White Sands Missile Range
. Tests were conducted on a regular basis and
resulted in early failures, but successful intercepts occurred
during 1999. A new version of the Hawk missile was tested during
the early to mid 1990’s and by the end of 1998 the majority of US
Marine Corps
Hawk systems were modified
to support basic theater anti-ballistic missile capabilities. Soon
after the Gulf war, the
Aegis combat
system was expanded to include ABM capabilities. The
Standard missile system was also enhanced
and tested for ballistic missile interception. During the late
1990’s SM-2 block IVA missiles were tested in a theater ballistic
missile defense function.
Standard Missile 3 systems have
also been tested for an ABM role. In 2008 an SM-3 missile launched
from a
Ticonderoga-class
cruiser, the
USS Lake
Erie, successfully intercepted a non-functioning
satellite.
During 1998, Defense secretary
William
Cohen proposed spending an additional $6.6 billion on ballistic
missile defense programs to build a system to protect against
attacks from North Korea or accidental launches from Russia or
China.
The
Israeli
Arrow missile system
was tested initially during 1990, before the first Gulf War.
The Arrow was supported by the United States throughout the
1990s.
Brilliant Pebbles
Approved for acquisition by the Pentagon during 1991 but never
realized,
Brilliant Pebbles was a
proposed space-based anti-ballistic system that was meant to avoid
some of the problems of the earlier SDI concepts. Rather than use
sophisticated large laser battle stations and nuclear-pumped X-ray
laser satellites, Brilliant Pebbles consisted of a thousand very
small, intelligent orbiting satellites with kinetic warheads. The
system relied on improvements of computer technology, avoided
problems with overly centralized command and control and risky,
expensive development of large, complicated space defense
satellites.It promised to be much less expensive to develop and
have less technical development risk.
The name Brilliant Pebbles comes from the small size of the
satellite interceptors and great computational power enabling more
autonomous targeting. Rather than rely exclusively on ground-based
control, the many small interceptors would cooperatively
communicate among themselves and target a large swarm of ICBM
warheads in space or in the late boost phase. Development was
discontinued later in favor of a limited ground-based
defense.
SDI changed to NMD
During the early 1990s, President
George H. W. Bush
called for a more limited version using rocket-launched
interceptors based on the ground at a single site. During 1993, SDI
was reorganized as the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization.
Deployment of the more limited system, called the National Missile
Defense (NMD) was planned to protect all 50 states from a rogue
missile attack. Research and development of the NMD system was
continued by the Clinton administration from 1992 to 2000.
Countries with ABM capability
India
India
has an
active ABM development effort using indigenously developed and
integrated radars and locally designed missiles. In November
2006, India successfully conducted the
PADE in which an Anti-ballistic missile, called the
Prithvi Air Defense an
Exoatmospheric (outside the
atmosphere) interceptor system intercepted a Prithvi-II ballistic
missile. The PAD missile has the secondary stage of the Prithvi
missile and can reach altitude of 80 km. During the test the
target missile was intercepted at an 50 km altitude. India
became the fourth nation in the world to acquire such a capability
and the third nation to develop it through indigenous effort. On 6
December 2007 the
Advanced Air Defence missile system was tested successfully.
This missile is an Endo atmospheric interceptor with an altitude of
30 km. According to scientist V K Saraswat of
DRDO the missiles will work in tandem to ensure a hit
probability of 99.8 percent. Induction of the system into services
is expected to be in 2010. Two new anti ballistic missiles that can
intercept IRBM/ICBMs are being developed. These high speed missiles
(AD-1 and AD-2) are being developed to intercept ballistic missiles
with the range of 5000 km.
On March 6, 2009 India successfully tested an indigenous
interceptor missile that destroyed an incoming "enemy" ballistic
missile at an altitude of 80 km. A Dhanush missile was launced
from a ship about 100 km from the coast. It rose to a height
of 120 km and as it began its downward trajectory, the
interceptor was launced and successfully achieved a kill.
Israel

An Arrow anti-ballistic missile
interceptor
The Arrow project was begun after the U.S. and Israel agreed to
co-fund it on May 6, 1986..
The Arrow
ABM system was designed and constructed in Israel
with
financial support by the United States
by a multi-billion dollar development program
called "Minhelet Homa" with the participation of companies like
Israel Military
Industries, Tadiran and Israel Aerospace
Industries.
During
1998 the Israeli
military
conducted a successful test of their Arrow missile. Designed
to intercept incoming missiles travelling at up to 2 mile/s
(3 km/s), the Arrow is expected to perform much better than
the Patriot did in the Gulf War. On July 29, 2004 Israel and the
United States carried out joint experiment in the USA, in which the
Arrow was launched against a real
Scud
missile.The experiment was a success, as the Arrow destroyed the
Scud with a direct hit. During December 2005 the system was
deployed successfully in a test against a replicated
Shahab-3 missile. This feat was repeated on
February 11, 2007.
Russia
Apart from the Moscow ABM deployment during the Cold War, Russia
has striven actively for intrinsic ABM capabilities in its late
model SAM systems. Russian ABM capable systems include the
following:
United States
In several tests, the U.S. military have demonstrated the
feasibility of destroying long and short range ballistic missiles.
Combat effectiveness of newer systems against tactical ballistic
missiles seems very high, as the
Patriot
PAC-3 had a 100% success rate in Operation Iraqi Freedom
(reference link does not work). However NMD real-world
effectiveness against longer range ICBMs is less clear because they
are much faster and a single warhead much harder to hit.
Furthermore, warheads are likely to be accompanied by sophisticated
penetration aids that are difficult
to defeat.
While the Reagan era Strategic Defense Initiative was intended to
shield against a massive Soviet attack, the current
National Missile Defense has the
more limited goal of shielding against a limited attack by a
rogue state.
The George W. Bush administration accelerated development and
deployment of a system proposed in 1998 by the Clinton
administration. The system is a dual purpose test and interception
facility in Alaska, and as of 2006 is operational with a few
interceptor missiles. The Alaska site provides more protection
against North Korean missiles or accidental launches from Russia or
China, but is likely less effective against missiles launched from
the
Middle East. The Alaska interceptors
may be augmented later by the naval
Aegis Ballistic Missile
Defense System, by ground-based missiles in other locations, or
by the
Boeing Airborne Laser. President
George W. Bush referenced the
September 11, 2001
Terrorist Attacks and the proliferation of ballistic missiles
as reasons for missile defense.
ABM development
Europe
During 1993, a symposium was held by western European nations to
discuss potential future ballistic missile defence programs. In the
end, the council recommended deployment of early warning and
surveillance systems as well as regionally controlled defence
systems.
During Spring 2006 reports about
negotiations between the United States
and Poland
as well as
the Czech
Republic
were
published. The plans propose the installation of a latest
generation ABM system with a radar site in the Czech Republic and
the
launch site in
Poland.
The system was announced to be aimed against
ICBMs from Iran
and North Korea
. This caused harsh comments by then-Russia
's President Vladimir Putin at the OSCE security conference during spring 2007 in
Munich. Other European ministers commented that any
change of strategic weapons should be negotiated on NATO
level and
not 'unilaterally' between the US and other states (although most
strategic arms reduction treaties were between the USSR and US, not
NATO). German
foreign
minister Frank-Walter
Steinmeier expressed severe concerns about the way in which the
USA had conveyed its plans to its European partners and criticised
the US administration for not having consulted Russia prior to
announcing its endeavours to deploy a new missile defence system in
Central Europe – a criticism that was soon proven to be largely
groundless, as the US had repeatedly informed Russia about its
plans. As of July 2007, a majority of Poles were opposed to
hosting a component of the system in Poland. As noted above, Russia
has operated its nuclear armed
Moscow ABM system
in Europe since the 1970s.
See also
National missile
defense#Recent developments.
People's Republic of China
Project 640 had been the PRC's indigenous effort to develop ABM
capability. The Academy of Anti-Ballistic Missile &
Anti-Satellite was set up from 1969 for the purpose of developing
Project 640. The project was to involve at least three elements,
including the necessary sensors and guidance/command systems, the
Fan Ji (FJ) missile interceptor, and the XianFeng
missile-intercepting cannon. The FJ-1 had completed two successful
flight tests during 1979, while the low altitude interceptor FJ-2
completed some successful flight tests using scaled prototypes.{ A
high altitude FJ-3 interceptor was also proposed. Despite the
development of missiles, the programme was cancelled due to
financial and political reasons. However, technology and experience
from the recent successful anti-satellite test using a
ground-launched interceptor may be applied to ABM efforts.
In addition, China has acquired and is licence-producing the
S-300PMU-2/S-300PMU-1
series of ABM-capable SAMs.
China also has indigenous
HQ-9 SAM system,
which has some ABM capability. The Chinese-Russian developed
HQ-19 also has ABM capability.
China has now developed a new generation of anti-ballistic missiles
and
anti-satellite missiles,
including the
KT-1,
KT-409,
KT-2,
KT-2A,
KT-III, and other KT
upgrades. China also possesses a couple of sophisticated
air-defence destroyers such as the
Type 052C
Destroyer and
Type 051C
Destroyer. These are comparable to the
Spruance class destroyer .
Republic of China (Taiwan)
Republic of
China
, commonly known as Taiwan
, is also
engaged in the development of an anti-ballistic missile system,
based on its indigenously developed Tien Kung-II (Sky Bow) SAM
system. Although reports suggest a promising system, the ROC
government continues to be interested strongly in the American
Terminal High
Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) program.
Japan
Since 1998, when North Korea launched a
Taepodong-1 missile over northern Japan, the
Japanese have been jointly developing a new Surface-to-air
interceptor known as the Patriot Advanced Capability 3 (PAC-3) with
the US. So far tests have been successful, and there are planned 11
locations that the PAC-3 will be installed. A military spokesman
said that tests had been done on two sites, one of them a business
park in central Tokyo, and Ichigaya — a site not far from the
Imperial Palace.Along with the PAC-3, Japan has installed a
US-developed ship-based anti-ballistic missile system, which was
tested successfully on December 18, 2007. The missile was launched
from a Japanese warship, in partnership with the US Missile Defense
Agency and destroyed a mock target launched from the coast.
Footnotes
- Nuclear Weapon Archive.org. Argus.
- GlobalSecurity.org. -135 anti-ballistic missile system.
- Defense Science Board Task Force. Patriot system performance - report summary.
(PDF) January 2005.
- FAS. Hawk.
- http://www.fas.org/spp/starwars/program/sm2.htm
- PBS. The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer.
A VIABLE DEFENSE?. January 28, 1999.
- Interview: Vijay Kumar Saraswat Chief Controller of
Research and Development, India’s DRDO
- Prithvi Mission Milestone in Missile Defence.
- Outlook India. India develops new anti-missile system. November 27,
2006.
- INDIA successfully conducts interceptor supersonic
missile test
- India on way to joining exclusive BMD club
- India to develop high speed interceptors
- India successfully tests indigenous interceptor
missle
- Israeli-United States Relations
- BBC NEWS | World | Middle East | Israeli missile test
'successful'
- GlobalSystems: ABM-1
- Russian Anti-Ballistic Guided Missile
Systems
- Wonderland.org: ABM-3
- Wonderland.org: ABM-4
- GlobalSecurity.org: Operation Iraqi Freedom -
Patriot
- Assembly of the Western European Union. Technological
and Aerospace Committee. Lenzer. via FAS. Anti-missile defence for Europe - guidelines drawn
from the symposium. 17 May 1993.
- Gaspers, J. (2007). A US Missile Defence Shield in Europe? Opinions and
Arguments in the German Political Debate. Natolin Analyses
7(20)/2007.
- CDI Russia weekly. Pavel Felgenhauer. New PR for
an Old Missile. December 14, 2004.
-
http://www.sinodefence.com/special/airdefence/project640.asp
-
http://www.sinodefence.com/special/airdefence/fortress-china4.asp
-
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_channel.jsp?channel=defense&id=news/CHINA040809.xml&headline=China%20adds%20precision%20strike%20to%20capabilities
-
http://www.sinodefence.com/army/surfacetoairmissile/hongqi9.asp
- BBC News World article
- Center for Defense Information - http://www.cdi.org/
See also
External links