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
Unclassified
2
Since the year 2001 Israel has sustained more
Iron Dome is an Anti-Missile Air Defence
29/7/2014
18,000 1,000 90%
Unclassified
3
29/7/2014 The role of Anti-Missiles Air
Every successful interception is
Some of the debris might
Unclassified
4 29/7/2014
Unclassified
5
29/7/2014 This (new) situation evokes the question:
Unclassified
6
Estimate the risk to the population on the ground:
Calculate the limits of debris’ danger area
Calculate the time during which the danger persists
Estimate of casualty numbers in case no early warning is given
Recommend ways to update the
early warning policy based on research results
Is early warning against interception debris essential?
If so, where should this warning be 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)
29/7/2014
Unclassified
7
Threat Type Interception Height Wind Profile On-Ground Distribution Map Population Density Expected Number of Casualties Additional Considerations
Early Warning Policy
Time of Fall Exposed Population Total Population
Vulnerability Model Distribution Model 29/7/2014
Unclassified
8
Threat Type Interception Height Wind Profile On-Ground Distribution Map Population Density Expected Number of Casualties Additional Considerations
Early Warning Policy
Time of Fall Exposed Population Total Population
Vulnerability Model Distribution Model 29/7/2014
Unclassified
9
29/7/2014
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Ground distance Height
Short, not affected by wind Long, affected by wind
Unclassified
10
29/7/2014
100 200 300 400
100 200 300 Horizontal distance, m Vertical distance, m
100 200 300
100 200 300 Fragment mass - 5 gram, Height - 3000 m Ground distance, m Ground distance, m
Side view Top view
Unclassified
11
29/7/2014 Falling time – up to several minutes
100 10-1 10-2 10-3 10-4 10-5 10-6 10-7
Unclassified
12
29/7/2014
Downwind distance, m
Unclassified
13
Threat Type Interception Height Wind Profile On-Ground Distribution Map Population Density Expected Number of Casualties Additional Considerations
Early Warning Policy
Time of Fall Exposed Population Total Population Vulnerability Model
Distribution Model 29/7/2014
Unclassified
14
29/7/2014
10-4 10-6 10-8 10-10 10-12
Fragments Density Person Presented Area Population Density Ratio of Exposed Population
Probability of Casualty
Expected Number of Casualties dx dy Probability
Casualty
Unclassified
15
Currently measured by amount of kinetic
A fragment approaches the ground with a
Hence the criterion can be formulated in
29/7/2014
Unclassified
16
29/7/2014 Risk Level Expected Impact Fragment Mass (Terminal Velocity)
Minor Injury – scratch, limited bleeding
0-2 grams (40 miles/h)
Minor to Moderate Injury
2-5 grams (50-100 miles/h)
Moderate to Serious Injury
5-10 grams (55-110 miles/h)
Serious to Severe Injury
above 10 grams (60-120 miles/h) steel ball stone ball £1
Unclassified
17
29/7/2014
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
Below concrete roof
100 grams 50 grams
Below non-concrete roof Inside a car Unprotected
Unclassified
18
(real-time calculation)
29/7/2014
10-4 10-6 10-8 10-10 10-12
10-4 10-6 10-8 10-10 10-12
Medium-sized warhead, Total expected number of casualties – 510-3 Salvo of 5 small warheads, Total expected number of casualties – 310-2
2 km 2 km
N N
Unclassified
19
Dangerous free falling fragments weigh 2
The expected number of casualties is about
The dangerous area might be very large Early warning is not always essential (night,
29/7/2014