The Dilemma of Early Warning Against Debris Caused by Successful - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

The Dilemma of Early Warning Against Debris Caused by Successful Ballistic Missile Interception Dima Kanevsky CEMA – The Center for Military Analyses Rafael, Israel

Unclassified General  Since the year 2001 Israel has sustained more than 16,000 rockets 18,000  Iron Dome is an Anti-Missile Air Defence System which is operational since April 2010 and has shot down more than 500 rockets with a success rate of over 86% 1,000 90% 2 29/7/2014

Unclassified Background  The role of Anti-Missiles Air Defence Systems in military operations is steadily increasing  Every successful interception is followed by falling debris  Some of the debris might endanger people below the interception point 3 29/7/2014

Unclassified 4 29/7/2014

Unclassified Main Dilemma  This (new) situation evokes the question: Disturbance of the Is early warning life routine against interception debris essential? Life-saving 5 29/7/2014

Unclassified Goals  Estimate the risk to the  Recommend ways to update the population on the ground: early warning policy based on research results Calculate the limits of debris ’ danger  area Is early warning against interception  debris essential? Calculate the time during which the  danger persists If so, where should this warning be  given? Estimate of casualty numbers in case  no early warning is given How should people be warned?  What instructions should be given to  the population? This paper discusses lower tier intercepts only (up to 15-20 km) 6 29/7/2014

Unclassified Method Threat Type Distribution Interception Height Time of Fall Model Wind Profile On-Ground Distribution Map Expected Number of Casualties Early Population Density Vulnerability Warning Model Policy Exposed Population Additional Total Population Considerations 7 29/7/2014

Unclassified Threat Type Distribution Interception Height Time of Fall Model Wind Profile On-Ground Distribution Map Expected Number of Casualties Early Population Density Vulnerability Warning Model Policy Exposed Population Additional Total Population Considerations 8 29/7/2014

Unclassified Single Fragment Trajectory 80 70 60 Short, not affected Height 50 by wind 40 30 Long, 20 affected by 10 wind 0 Ground distance 9 29/7/2014

Unclassified Homogeneous Fragmentation Cloud Fragment mass - 5 gram, Height - 3000 m 300 Side view Top view 300 200 200 100 Vertical distance, m Ground distance, m 100 0 -100 0 -200 -100 -300 -200 -400 -300 -500 -400 -300 -200 -100 0 100 200 300 400 -300 -200 -100 0 100 200 300 Horizontal distance, m Ground distance, m 10 29/7/2014

Unclassified Drifting 10 0 10 -1 10 -2 10 -3 10 -4 10 -5 10 -6 10 -7 Falling time – up to several minutes 11 29/7/2014

Unclassified Simplified Approach Validation Downwind distance, m 12 29/7/2014

Unclassified Threat Type Distribution Interception Height Time of Fall Model Wind Profile On-Ground Distribution Map Expected Number of Casualties Early Population Density Vulnerability Warning Model Policy Exposed Population Additional Total Population Considerations 13 29/7/2014

Unclassified Vulnerability Model = Probability of Casualty Person Ratio of Fragments Population Presented Exposed * * * Density Density Area Population 10 -4 10 -6 =  10 -8 Expected Probability Number of of dx dy 10 -10 Casualties Casualty 10 -12 14 29/7/2014

Unclassified Criterion for Dangerous Fragment  Currently measured by amount of kinetic energy or kinetic energy per cross-section area  A fragment approaches the ground with a constant (terminal) velocity, which is a function of its mass  Hence the criterion can be formulated in terms of fragment ’ s mass 15 29/7/2014

Unclassified Risk Estimation Fragment Mass steel stone Expected Impact Risk Level (Terminal ball £1 ball Velocity) Minor Injury – scratch, 0-2 grams No risk (40 miles/h) limited bleeding Minor to Moderate 2-5 grams Low (50-100 miles/h) Injury Moderate to Serious 5-10 grams Medium (55-110 miles/h) Injury Serious to Severe above 10 grams High (60-120 miles/h) Injury 16 29/7/2014

Unclassified Who Needs to be Warned? Below concrete roof Below non-concrete roof Unprotected Inside a car 100 grams 50 grams Unprotected persons should find the nearest shelter (concrete roof)  Persons in a car should stop and remain inside  Persons inside a building should do nothing  17 29/7/2014

Unclassified Expected Number of Casualties (real-time calculation) Medium-sized warhead, Salvo of 5 small warheads, Total expected number of Total expected number of casualties – 5  10 -3 casualties – 3  10 -2 10 -4 10 -4 -4 N N 10 -6 10 -6 -6 10 -8 10 -8 -8 10 -10 10 -10 -10 2 2 10 -12 km km 10 -12 -12 18 29/7/2014

Unclassified Conclusions  Dangerous free falling fragments weigh 2 grams and more  The expected number of casualties is about 1/100 per intercept  The dangerous area might be very large  Early warning is not always essential (night, wartime) 19 29/7/2014