Well,
Greetings from the sbx-1. All I have to say is:
A. You guys are bickering about things you have no say in at all.
B. It was designed by more than just old military retirees.
C. This thing sucks a ton of juice.
D. Its all classified.
HAHA I know you won’t.

Posted by: Nameless at July 24, 2008 02:34 AM

I was stationed in the Aleutians some years ago (actually two dif-
ferent tours). Why anyone believes that the area is the place to
locate a structure the size of the XBR is beyond belief. Odds are
that it'll spend more time being towed back to Pearl for mainten-
ance than it will be "on station" in Adak's Kuluk Bay. By the way,
the people at the Honolulu newspaper who have written so much
about the XBR need to understand that Adak is not, repeat, not
at the "end of the Aleutian chain."

Posted by: Jerry S. Craft at December 27, 2007 12:47 AM

Art,

Regarding your question, "is it possible for a moving platform to acquire a target and track that target while the target is also moving?" The answer is yes -- see the movie "Top Gun," for example. Of course, the maximum speed of the SBX will be several orders of magnitude less than an aircraft.

Regarding the rest of your question, "...through space at an accelerated rate of speed." The answer is also yes, and the SBX could do so, but in any envisioned scenario of a ballistic warhead from the PDRK, the SBX will never have to do so. That is, "ballistic" means the warhead is traveling at whatever velocity it had when it was deployed, and its path is determined (and set) by classical Newtonian physics.

Hitting a bullet (the warhead or target) with another bullet (the interceptor) that can change direction (as is the case here; the interceptor can maneuver as it approaches the ballistic warhead) is difficult. Hitting a bullet that can change direction with another bullet that can change direction is more difficult (though theoretically not impossible).

Regarding your assertion that, "This platform is early warning and nothing else. Early warning simply alerts remote controlling activities of an impending threat," is simply incorrect. This is an X-band radar (very short wavelength). An X-band radar has the capability to detect, of course, but no one would build an X-band radar for the sole purpose of detecting something (its "eyesight" is too narrow for that; an "early warning" radar uses electromagnetic radiation with a much longer wavelength which can "sweep" much larger volumes of space per unit time). Far more importantly, however, for the people who live on the west coast of the United States, a powerful X-band radar can track objects. In this particular case, the SBX can track objects as small as a softball at 4,000 km distance.

Prior to about 1990 (that is, prior to the collapse of the former Soviet Union) and the days of "mutually assured destruction," neither the Soviet Union nor the United States needed to know precisely where a ballistic warhead was located in space nor where it was precisely going to land, because there was no defense against a ballistic warhead (in fact, there was a treaty to INSURE that neither country had such a defense). Each country just needed enough warning and a rough estimation of impact points to "flush their bombers and their missiles" before the "counterforce" warheads destroyed the other country's countering ability. This military capability was generally known as having a "launch on warning" capability. Nuclear warheads targeted either other nuclear weapons ("counterforce") or population centers and other places of high value ("countervalue"). Hence, "early warning radars" were needed to avoid giving the adversary a "first strike capability" against its nuclear weapons -- "early warning radars" provided the "launch on warning" capability. The advent of very difficult to detect submarines that could launch nuclear weapons provided the capability of an "assured second strike," as did mobile land-based nuclear weapons.

Today, however, the FSU is not a threat to launch nuclear weapons at the United States (or probably anyone else for that matter). But rogue states, which are not deterred by "mutually assured destruction" are a threat. Hence, the need for a missile defense system that can protect the United States from the DPRK (and the need for an X-band radar somewhere along the straightline trajectory -- the closer to the midpoint of that trajectory, the better -- between the DPRK and the United States). In the not too distant future, additional radars (and interceptor sites) will probably be needed to defend against ballistic nuclear warheads headed into the east coast of the United States (launched, say, from the vicinity of Iran).

Posted by: guyot49 at December 30, 2006 12:06 PM

Sounds foolhardy and expensive at best. Not knowing the basics of this platform and knowing radar - is it possible for a moving platform to acquire a target and track that target while the target is also moving through space at an accelerated rate of speed. This platform is early warning and nothing else. Early warning simply alerts remote controlling activities of an impending threat. History of this type of military activity is knee-deep in archives. It would appear PR was deeply at work here instead of common sense.

g

Posted by: Art Foucault at December 29, 2006 10:25 PM

No one has directly addressed the question as to "Why wasn't the SBX built on Adak"?

Answer: It is true that "mobility" is a positive factor for placing the X-band radar on a floating platform, but only indirectly. The SBX is designed to defend the United States from ballistic warheads that are deployed from a missile launched from the DPRK. For such a purpose, putting the SBX in or around the Sea of Japan is a waste of effort (remember the SBX is designed to "see a softball at 4,000 km"). The United States has been able to detect the launch of missiles for many years (launching an ICBM requires a lot of energy – and this energy can be seen from space). What is much more difficult to do is track the warheads after they have been deployed from a missile (actually, from the second or third stage of a missile). Thus, what is needed is something that can track deployed nuclear warheads AFTER they go over the horizon from the perspective of the Sea of Japan. The SBX will be able to "see" anything that comes over the horizon that is larger than a softball (OK, let's be conservative and make the object larger than a basketball -- the SBX can certainly see anything that is big enough to contain a nuclear weapon as it comes over the western horizon toward Seattle or San Francisco). As Robot.Economist noted, radars for tracking missiles launched from DPRK are already in place in Japan (remember space-based assets will detect the launch of the missile; tracking the missile during the ascent phase and as it leaves the atmosphere can be accomplished by either a ground-based or sea-based radar, but only up to the point that it goes over the horizon). Thus, the people manning the SBX will be well aware of any such launch and will be looking for "stuff" coming over the western horizon well before the "stuff" actually gets over the horizon (of course, the other people whose job it is to protect the United States from nuclear warheads -- the folks in Omaha, Colorado Springs, and other places -- will be well aware, too: ever watch the movie "War Games"?). So placing the SBX where it could track nuclear warheads as they are about midway between the DPRK and the United States is about the only option. If you get a globe and trace a straight trajectory from DPRK to Seattle, say, you'll find that Adak ain't a bad place to put an X-band radar designed to track ballistic nuclear warheads halfway between the DPRK and Seattle. Of course, Adak Island IS a bad place to put just about anything, but if you want to track ballistic nuclear warheads heading for the United States from the ground, your options are limited.

But, you ask, "Why wasn't the X-band radar built on the island, itself?

Answer: In one word -- TIME. It was built in Corpus Christi, TX where the weather is favorable to build things -- especially large, complex things. Barring hurricanes, things can be built near the shore of the Gulf of Mexico 24/7/365. In his State of the Union address in January 2002 (yes, the "axis of evil" SOTU), President Bush said, "We will develop and deploy effective missile defenses to protect America and our allies from sudden attack." If you were in charge of MDA in January 2002, it would have been your job to find a way to protect the United States from ballistic nuclear warheads deployed from a missile launched from the DPRK. You are told that in three years (that is, by 2005) it will be possible to place ground-based interceptors in Alaska that will be able to intercept and destroy such ballistic warheads. But, in order to increase the probability of intercepting these warheads, you also needed the capability to track them as they were enroute between the DPRK and the United States and you needed to possess this capability on a continuous basis. Because GEO space-based radar did not (and does not) exist, and it is impractical to fly airplanes with X-band radars 24/7/365 anywhere in the world (but especially in the Aleutian Islands), a sea-based or ground-based radar is your only option. You are told if you try to build a large, 7-story X-band radar somewhere in the Aleutians it would require at least five years, perhaps as much as 8 to 10 years; but such a radar could be built in southern California or the Gulf Coast in about two years. Ummm…. “Is it possible,” you ask, “to build something that has a mass of 100 million pounds [NOTE: this is not an exaggeration], pick it up off the ground, put it on an ocean-going platform, and move it to the Aleutian Islands?” “Well, yes sir,” you are told, “as a matter of fact, it IS possible. Oh, and it will be less expensive to place a 50,000-ton radar somewhere in the Aleutians in that manner, too.” What would you have told the President?

One other note: placing the SBX in the harbor at Adak protects it (somewhat) from the weather. So it does not have to survive 30-foot waves, "only" 8 to 10 foot waves: it is a big platform.

Posted by: guyot49 at December 29, 2006 04:19 PM

Why is the government allowing this system to travel. The system still need to be inspected for possible malfunctions. Why send the system to the severe weather conditions like Alaska.
This system should be placed somewhere between
Korea and the United States.

Posted by: herkey cosby at December 29, 2006 01:15 PM

Robot Economist,
"I have no quarrel with the notion of an SBX, it just seems like we're deploying the wrong system to the wrong environment".
You are correct - it just SEEMS that way. You have posed and answered your own question. The Sea of Japan, the Med and the Eastern Indian Ocean are exactly where we need this station and the likely destination for them.

And that pad is bigger than it looks - plenty big enough for a CH-47 or Osprey.

Posted by: RTLM at December 23, 2006 05:03 AM

pedestrian - I have no quarrel with the notion of an SBX, it just seems like we're deploying the wrong system to the wrong environment. Why use a floating radar in some of the roughest seas in the world when you could easily deploy a stronger system on a nearby island?

Like I said before, the SBX would probably be more useful in calmer waters, like the Sea of Japan, the Med or the eastern Indian Ocean. Planning doesn't seem to be the MDA's strong suit sometimes. I guess that's what happens when the legislative and executive branches constantly throw money at your organization, but exercise very little oversight.

Posted by: Robot.Economist at December 22, 2006 02:26 PM

>"If the intent is to deploy the SBX around Adak,
why didn't we just build a X-Band site on the >island? Aren't Alaskan waters some of the roughest chop in the world?"

The advantage of this is mobility and the ability to operate at international waters. In such cases, building sites on islands owned by other countries is always at risk for uncertainity of change in diplomacy such as anti-American government gaining power. Parking these mobile bases at international waters will eliminate risks from such government bodies moving toward to remove bases from their territories where such sites are built on their islands. Just park these bases north of Canada at international water, and you won't need to worry the risks that NORAD faces for Liberal Party taking charge of the government in Canada.

Another advantage is the ability to move certain amount of these bases where ever, and whenever needed around the world, especially in crisis. Bases on ground does not have that advantages, leaving certain bases idle. Mobile base has the flexibility for the ability to "shift" a concentration of military presence where ever the danger is predicted. Airstrips and aircraft carrier both allow aircrafts to land, but both have advantages and disadvatages each do not have, and the advantage of aircraft carrier is its mobility to "shift" the military presence around the world when needed.

The disadvantage of parking these SBX at sea is waves and weather hazards. The SBX could have been operating better for redesigning of landing space of helicopter, and if possible, dumper units that will stabilize the upper portion of the SBX which will allow more flexibility to obtain supplies by ships via the crane unit, or if possible, a dry dock that will let supply ships to park within the SBX. However, that will still be a challenge more than landing a jet on an airstrip with ships facing waves to get within the dry dock where waters will be removed by water pumps allowing ships to park below the SBX.

Posted by: pedestrian at December 22, 2006 12:35 PM

Also worth mentioning, Sen. Stevens even wondered whether SBX is a good idea. From, "A Radar Unit's Journey Reflects Hopes, Snafus In Missile Defense," a recent Wall Street Journal article by Jonathan Karp:

Republican Sen. Ted Stevens of Alaska, a staunch advocate of missile defense, nevertheless questioned the wisdom of having such a valuable sensor floating in the treacherous North Pacific. "I hope your people are nautical enough to know what you're doing," he told Air Force Lt. Gen. Ronald Kadish, then Missile Defense Agency director, at a Senate hearing. The general replied that he had reviewed a century's worth of local wave patterns and had confidence in SBX's naval architects and Boeing.

Posted by: Nick Schwellenbach at December 22, 2006 11:12 AM

Robot,

"If the intent is to deploy the SBX around Adak, why didn't we just build a X-Band site on the island? Aren't Alaskan waters some of the roughest chop in the world?"

Great questions. Originally, the plan was to build to the X-Band Radar on Shemya island, where there are already early warning radars. Besides avoiding some of the roughest seas in the world, there would have been other advantages as well. I'll let Lisbeth Gronlund, Phil Coyle, George Lewis and David Wright take it from here (from: http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/global_security/technicalrealities_fullreport.pdf):

The SBX is smaller than the previously planned Shemya XBR. According to an MDA report, the SBX will have only 50–65 percent as many transmit/receive modules as the planned Shemya XBR, and a correspondingly reduced aperture, reducing detection range to 4,800 km (for the 65 percent populated SBX) rather than the XBR’s 6,700 km (MDA 2002, p. v). This reduction may not be significant, since a detection range of 4,500 km corresponds to a radar horizon altitude of about 1,500 km, which is roughly the maximum altitude of a long-range missile. However, the specified detection range is against a target with an RCS that is not publicly known. If the actual RCS is less than this value (for example, if stealth is used as a countermeasure), than the larger power and aperture of the XBR relative to the SBX might have been useful. In addition, the larger aperture and power of the XBR relative to the SBX will give it a higher signal/noise ratio against a specific target at any given range, and a narrower beam providing somewhat better tracking, resolution, and decoy discrimination capability. However, these differences are not large, and for the purposes of roughly estimating the capabilities of these systems, it appears reasonable to assume that the somewhat smaller size of the SBX relative to the XBR is not a significant issue. Other factors may be of more significance.

[snip]

More importantly, since the SBX is viewed as a test asset, it has a number of serious deficiencies when viewed from the perspective of an operational system (MDA 2002). Unlike the planned Shemya XBR it does not have dual redundant electronics, so it is less reliable. Unlike the planned Shemya XBR, it will not be hardened against the electromagnetic pulse from a high altitude nuclear explosion. And it does not have the fiber optic cable connection that was planned to give the XBR secure communications.

Posted by: Nick Schwellenbach at December 22, 2006 11:08 AM

RTLM - I agree, being able to put X-Band radars everywhere is a definite plus, but sea-basing isn't the only option. Last time I check, MDA has at least two truck-mounted X-Band systems, one of which is already looking at the DPRK from Japanese soil.

Nixer6 does have a point though. If the intent is to deploy the SBX around Adak, why didn't we just build a X-Band site on the island? Aren't Alaskan waters some of the roughest chop in the world?

The SBX is definitely interesting idea, but its probably more practical in calmer waters, like the Med or over by the Arabian Peninsula.

Posted by: Robot.Economist at December 22, 2006 08:35 AM

I still wonder why they didn't just build it on Adak island??????
Because it needs to be mobile off Japan and DPRK. 2 acres of real estate in the middle of the ocean. I hope they build 8 or 10 of them. Not so expensive - old oil rigs, the modifications and the radars. Nukes are expensive and complex. This is realiable, cost-effective and probably very quiet. If they're in patrolled waters, assign an SSN to them.

Posted by: RTLM at December 22, 2006 01:24 AM

POGO first released this info in August. Chicago Tribune and Inside Missile Defense, among others, reported on it.

Posted by: JJ at December 21, 2006 06:28 PM

You people ARE aware that this thing is mobile right? It doesn't use all the fuel to power the frickin' radar. And they spilled 3 to 5 gallons? My god that's an ecological disaster of biblical proportions. And POGO wonders why nobody with more than two brain cells firing takes them seriously.

Posted by: sferrin at December 21, 2006 05:48 PM

Nope. I was talking about a 40kw 4-71 Detroit Diesel Generator. And 30 gal per day is about what it burns.

I still wonder why they didn't just build it on Adak island??????

Posted by: Nixer6 at December 21, 2006 05:43 PM

If it takes you 30 gallons of diesel per day to power a house you are talking about one big house.

30 gallons per day X $ 2.50 per gallom of diesel = $ 75. per day or $ 2,250 per month.

I think 3 gallons per day was what you ment to say.

Posted by: Zoltan at December 21, 2006 05:29 PM

Ok..it's not certified to land big helos. Dumb!!

I can power a small house for about 30 gallons per day. That radar must really suck power.

One BIG question...If the wanted that location, why the heck didn't they just build it on top of Adak island?????????

Posted by: Nixer6 at December 21, 2006 05:05 PM

If this radar station carries 1.2 million gallons of diesel fuel it's electrical requirements must be gigantic.

A diesel electric generator burning 1,000 gallons a day can produce a lot of electrical power.

1,200,000 gallons / 1,000 gallons per day = 1,200 days or 3.28 years before the tanks run dry.

I think you could power a good sized Las Vegas casino on a 1,000 gallon per day generator. I would't think the US Navy is going to light it up like a casino, nor will it have thousands of people on board.

Posted by: WAC at December 21, 2006 04:56 PM

Why won't choppers land???

This what I do for a living. I deliver supplies, people, water and fuel to offshore oil platforms.

I'm a supply boat Captain working in the Gulf of Mexico.

In a 280 footer, depending on wind etc, you can SAFELY pump fuel and water in 8-10 foot seas. Above that you are asking for trouble. And possible serious injury.

SAFELY transferring people in anything above 10 to 12 foot seas is NUTS!

Any links on the Dove. Hopefully, it's DP2 (dynamic positioning) equipped.

Thats ALOT of fuel capacity on that rig. Why???

Posted by: Nixer6 at December 21, 2006 04:49 PM

As for security, why not a CIWS or two?

Posted by: JM at December 21, 2006 04:47 PM

Mike, see also:

http://www.defensetech.org/archives/002627.html

for some of the reasons a floating nuclear reactor is probably a very bad idea.

Posted by: Eric Hundman at December 21, 2006 02:51 PM

@mike:

Hmm. If their two problems are that they're worried about 1) its structural integrity and 2) its security, then putting a nuclear reactor in may not be a good idea.

Posted by: Haninah at December 21, 2006 02:28 PM

Good Morning Folks,

Did we not dicuss the sanity or insanity of this last Summer when this contraption was laying about in Pearl Harbor waiting for the Artic Winner to set in before being transported up into the Gulf of Alaska.

Enough.

ALLONS,
Byron Skinner

Posted by: Byron Skinner at December 21, 2006 01:50 PM

why dont they power this with a small nuclear reactor?

Posted by: mike at December 21, 2006 01:07 PM