# F-16 Intercepts Missile



## tomahawk6 (5 Dec 2007)

US jet intercepts ballistic missile for first time: officials 

A US F-16 fighter used an air-to-air missile to destroy a sounding rocket in its boost phase for the first time this week in a test of a new missile defense concept, US spokesmen said Tuesday. 
The system -- named the Net-Centric Airborne Defense Element (NCDE) -- breaks new ground in that it would arm fighter aircraft or drones with missiles fast enough to intercept a ballistic missile as it lifts into space. 

The aircraft would have to get to within a 100 miles of the launch site to catch the ascending missile in the first two to three minutes after launch. 

But it could be very useful in a short range combat situation against short and medium range missiles, said Rick Lehner, a spokesman for the US Missile Defense Agency. 

The Pentagon has two other better known boost phase intercept systems under development -- the Airborne Laser and the Kinetic Energy Interceptor -- but those are still years away from being ready, he said. 

"So it does give us an initial boost phase capability even though it is a much shorter range missile, and you have to be in the area of the missile launch to be effective," Lehner said. 

The test Monday at White Sands Missile Range in New Mexico involved an F-16 fighter that fired two modified AIM-9X missile at an Orion sounding or research rocket. 

The first destroyed the rocket and the second recorded the interception, the Pentagon's missile defense agency said. 

The missile seekers' relayed images of the rocket at close range, demonstrating the capability to acquire and track the target, the Pentagon's missile defense agency said. 

"Although not unexpected, the subsequent intercept destroyed the target," it said. 

"A second AIM-9X launched during the test observed through its seeker the intercept of the target by the first and was also on a trajectory to intercept the target," the agency said. 

Besides special seekers, AIM-9X and AIM-20 AAMRAM are fitted with a new liquid propellant second stage to give it the burst of speed needed to catch a ballistic missile in its boost phase. 

Lehner said the missiles were heavily instrumented during the test, but otherwise conditions were "pretty realistic." 

Raytheon Missile Systems, which developed the NCADE, said it "provides a revolutionary, low-cost approach to interceptor development and acquisition." 

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php...ow_article= 1


----------



## AJFitzpatrick (3 Jan 2008)

I acknowledge I am no expert on this but if the jet or drone is that close to the launch site so as to hit the missile in the 2 to 3 minute window, why not hit the launch site instead? Is it the amount of explosive payload required ?


----------



## SeaKingTacco (3 Jan 2008)

Suppose that you don't know where the launch site is...

Or that, without a missile launch, no hostile act has (hypothetically) been committed.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (3 Jan 2008)

Not to mention how often do we have aircraft orbitting a potential launch site?


----------



## geo (3 Jan 2008)

also..... once the missile has flown the coop, hitting the launch site might be a moot point.


----------



## Infanteer (4 Jan 2008)

Brilliant - they actually included Net-Centric in the name of a missile....


----------



## Flip (4 Jan 2008)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Brilliant - they actually included Net-Centric in the name of a missile....


Sorry, you've got me feeling a little dull witted.
What's your point?

Interesting, an incremental improvement in the field of missile defence.
It's real value, I suspect would be to keep Iran and North Korea guessing.


----------



## dapaterson (4 Jan 2008)

Keep in mind that launch sites will generally have heavy local Air Defence assets.  Most pilots dislike SAMs and AAA for some reason...


----------



## aesop081 (4 Jan 2008)

Flip said:
			
		

> Sorry, you've got me feeling a little dull witted.
> What's your point?



Dont worry, the rest of us military folks got his point.


----------



## Kirkhill (4 Jan 2008)

Flip:

I am guessing that Infanteer was referring to one of those "flavour of the month" buzz words guaranteed to get your project funded if you include it in your programme title or prospectus.

But hey, I'm only guessing....because I'm only a civilian. ;D


----------



## Flip (4 Jan 2008)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Flip:
> 
> I am guessing that Infanteer was referring to one of those "flavour of the month" buzz words guaranteed to get your project funded if you include it in your programme title or prospectus.
> 
> But hey, I'm only guessing....because I'm only a civilian. ;D



So, I guess "Green House Gas Emitting Missile" would be a bad name?  ;D


----------



## birdgunnnersrule (4 Jan 2008)

The ability to intercept a missile using an F-16 is worthwhile mentioning only as a deterrent. In order to be successful in short range, excellent Intel plus a good threat assessment CVR list (Criticality, Vulnerability, Recuperability) list will be needed. I find it extremely difficult to believe that an F-16 would be successful against multiple launches at different altitudes/trajectory.  Once again, the key to the whole thing is taking out the launch point in the first place. With our 'net centric' environment, it should be quite easy for the western world to do this. I guess we should ask the Israelis how successful they were at saturation attacks and TBMs. Just kidding, but the solution is not as simple as an F-16.


----------



## tomahawk6 (4 Jan 2008)

Its another tool in the ABM tool chest. The USAF used to have an anti-sat capability with a missile fired from an F-15.


----------

