Multiple Kill Vehicle

Several decades ago, engineers from Raytheon and Lockheed Martin developed a prototype for a flying weapon system—a pod-like craft—designed to intercept and destroy multiple ballistic missiles. Using small kinetic energy weapons, this system would be employed through intercept missiles, or perhaps from preexisting locations in space, and then hunt down incoming ballistic missile warheads.

Largely forgotten, the concept was repopularised in the video game Battlefield 4 as a flying gun system; however, few are aware that this was based on an actual semi-functioning design. Today we will look at this prototype flying weapon, known as the Multiple Kill Vehicle, or MKV.

THE CONCEPT

Since the introduction of ballistic missiles, both the United States and the Soviet Union have rushed to produce defense systems to counter these threats. Known as anti-ballistic missile, or ABM, systems, these defense methods become a crucial component of military doctrine and geopolitics.

The deployment of the German V2 marked the first recognition of the missile threat. Travelling at multiple times the speed of sound and dropping from incredible heights, these missiles were untouchable. Bell Labs led the first attempt to develop a defense during the war, but it noted that no allied country had the technology to counter the V2.

After the war’s end, in 1946 another attempt was made, known as Operation Wizard. The goal was once again to create a system capable of intercepting a V2 or V2-like rocket. Interest in such a system oscillated for the next decade, but rapid Soviet advances like Sputnik reoriented priorities.

By the late 50s, Bell Labs had produced its first large-scale ABM system, known as Nike Zeus. The system would track an incoming target, then fire a missile potentially armed with a 400-kiloton warhead. The system would intercept the incoming missile at a high altitude, with the aim of destroying it. The Zeus, although a promising concept based on the Hercules system, lacked the necessary capabilities to effectively counter the increasing number of ICBM warheads in a real-world war. Experts noted that just 4 ICBMs in its vicinity could easily overwhelm and destroy a Zeus base, as the Zeus system could only track one target at a time. What’s more, incoming warheads could use radar deflectors to great effect against Zeus, blinding it until it had entered a far lower altitude. This is not to mention the serious issues of detonating a nuclear warhead at high altitudes over a populated area.

With the number of ICBMs fielded by both sides in the Cold War growing rapidly, by the 1960s a new concept was on the table. Known as Nike-X, this new system was far more efficient than Zeus. Using a huge computer system, Nike-X could track hundreds of objects at a time and provide tracking information for many missiles at once. This meant that Nike-X could handle a greater number of warheads before being overwhelmed. Even more advantageously, Nike-X would operate at high speeds and employ innovative tactics. Rather than intercepting at extreme altitudes, the system would wait until the incoming warheads dropped into thicker atmosphere below 60 kilometres, then make the intercept with extreme speed. The Sprint missile, a lightweight, extremely fast missile with high accuracy, served as the cornerstone of the system. It was capable of rapidly destroying incoming missiles, even seconds before their impact, and it could even launch and destroy a warhead as low as 25,000 feet. The Sprint missile could successfully destroy its opponent without the need for a nuclear warhead to detonate.

While Nike-X would never eventuate due to cost limitations and fear of escalation, many other ABM proposals would emerge over the following years, including Sentinel, and in the 1980s the famous Star Wars or SDI program; however, these would be far narrower in scope.

Geopolitically, from the late 1960s on, pressure grew to limit ABM system development. Strategically, ABM systems were just as threatening as ICBMs themselves, because in theory, if one country possessed a perfected ABM system, they would be immune to the unspoken guarantee of mutually assured destruction. In other words, the fear was that if one country built the perfect ABM system, then they would almost certainly escalate into conflict with the weaker power, since the weaker power could not effectively defend itself. Treaties such as the ABM treaty of 1972 and SALT 2 aimed to deescalate this situation.

Nevertheless, both sides remained determined to at least conceptualise an intercept system. Crucially, from 1970 onward, designers would need to overcome the new challenge posed by multiple re-entry vehicles, or MIRVs, as well as those posed by penetration aids designed to throw off intercept systems as ICBMs neared their target. Rather than intercepting a single warhead, an intercept system would now need to counter many from each missile, as well as increasingly advanced countermeasures.

Research on hit-to-kill (HTK) intercept methods received increasing attention in the 1980s. Similar to a more advanced Sprint missile, an HTK weapon must be fast and possess a higher resolving power in terms of accuracy. It should be capable of eliminating targets in space, if necessary, without relying on any explosive warheads. Even with the most cutting-edge digital technology in the 80s, this level of accuracy would still be hard to achieve.

LEAP PROGRAM BEGINS

Although details remain limited, it is believed that in the early 1990s, the so-called “multiple-kill vehicle” idea first entered conceptualization. The Army initially proposed this system as a hit-to-kill system that could combat various submunitions, not just nuclear warheads. Intended to be extremely small, this HTK system would require advanced engineering to track and intercept extremely fast and relatively small munitions, beyond what many thought was possible at the time. However, more proposals and concepts emerged.

In 1985, Hughes Aircraft Company began developing the LEAP system, or Lightweight Exo-Atmospheric Projectile. On paper, the concept was straightforward: a ground-based interceptor missile would launch, propelling a small vehicle into space. At altitude, the vehicle would separate, much like stage separation on a standard rocket. From there, LEAP would track its target using an infrared sensor and use various small booster rockets around it to correct its trajectory. Then, it would use kinetic energy to impact and destroy its target.

The LEAP system underwent its first flight tests in 1991. In a series of impressive, videoed tests, the LEAP manages to balance itself and track a target in standard gravity, proving the design was possible. The LEAP system would prove a success and is now operated in some capacity. However, this was just the beginning of the story.

EKV SYSTEM ARRIVES

During the same period, Raytheon was working on an even more advanced intercept vehicle. This hyper-accurate system would be larger than the original LEAP and more technologically advanced. Called the Exo-atmospheric Kill Vehicle (EKV), also referred to as a Kinetic Kill Vehicle, it would use the same principles as the original lightweight LEAP.

As recalled by engineers on the project, the real challenge was designing such an accurate system on the EKV itself. Many thought it impossible, but against the odds, a working concept was built. As one engineer working on the project put it, getting the vehicle to accurately hit a high-speed target in space was like trying to get a hole in one in New York while hitting the golf ball from Los Angeles.

Tested in a tin shed and surrounded by nets, the EKV successfully hovered in standard gravity. Further testing was done, with the EKV then being improved to hover and provide telemetry data and then to simultaneously track a target, much like the tests done on the LEAP.

After successful testing, Raytheon received a contract to begin producing EKVs for real-world testing against targets and eventual production. As one designer put it, the EKV had to hit its target, or else it was useless. It had no warhead and no proximity fuse; it had to directly impact.

Referred to as Integrated Flight Test 3, the first successful real-world intercept using the EKV was achieved on October 2, 1999. The test was a success, with the system destroying its target on its first attempt. Many doubted it could achieve the required level of precision, even on the day of the test, but this remarkable achievement was considered groundbreaking. By 2004, the first of the EKV payloads were loaded into GDI missiles and ready for deployment.

MULTIPLE KILL VEHICLE SYSTEM

In 2002 a competition was publicly held for the development of yet another system, known as the Multiple Kill Vehicle, or MKV.

This would once again be a kinetic intercept weapon, but this time it would be significantly more complex. Unlike earlier designs, as the name suggests, the MKV system would aim to intercept multiple incoming threats at once. The program would be run using a dual-path approach. Raytheon would once again develop one variant—called the MKV-R—while Lockheed Martin would develop another—called the MKV-L.

This system would be launched to intercept ICBMs. Deployed from a missile, the small pod would be equipped with various boosters, guiding it to the target. This vehicle would carry a variety of small kinetic warheads, which it could then use to knock out multiple targets within a cluster. When multiple warheads are deployed simultaneously, the system can more reliably destroy a single target or intercept multiple incoming threats.

Public information suggests that the MKV could combat threat missiles at any stage, whether they were in the launch, midcourse, or terminal stages. The R and L variants would differ in both design and employment.

The MKV-L would use a single carrier vehicle released from a rocket. Several small kill vehicles would be positioned in a bandolier configuration around the carrier. The carrier would utilise its onboard systems to send data to each of its kill vehicles, launching them towards their targets and providing tracking data until they made contact.

The MKV-R would be different. It would not use a carrier vehicle; instead, the launch rocket would release a cluster of kill vehicles, which would have their own onboard systems. Rather than relying on a carrier, the individual kill vehicles would communicate with one another, designating one as the leader or relaying crucial information to the others. All vehicles could do this; thus, if the lead vehicle was lost, another would take over, leading the group.

In 2008, the military publicly disclosed the existence of the MKV program by releasing videos of successful hover tests conducted in standard atmospheres. The videos show a variety of booster setups, each highly impressive in their ability to stabilise the vehicle whilst also moving and repositioning.

Although Raytheon officially announced the MKV concept in February 2002, some have speculated that they actually recorded footage of the MKV pod in the mid-1990s and that Raytheon was developing the system at the same time as the EKV.

The MKV-L carrier was also tested in a static environment, as were various short- and long-range target acquisition sensors. These tests, by available accounts, seem to have been successful, once again proving that the kinetic kill vehicle concept was not only less dangerous than using warheads for intercept but also more effective due to improved accuracy.

Publicly, the MKV program ended in 2009, however in 2015 Raytheon, Lockheed Martin, and BoeingThe Boeing Company: A global aerospace leader and one of the world’s largest defense contractors, specializing in the design and manufacture of milita... More indicated that they were involved in a continuation project aimed at achieving the same goal – a multi-target intercept vehicle.

THE FUTURE OF EKV

Raytheon is currently under contract to keep the EKVs operational until 2034, when they will be replaced by the so-called Next Generation Interceptor—or NGI system—which is currently under development by Lockheed Martin as of April 2024. This NGI system— of which, numerous test variants have already gone through testing—remains somewhat of a mystery, although we know that it will essentially stick to the same playbook as previous intercept vehicles, albeit with a more advanced tracking computer onboard.

CONCLUSION

In retrospect, the period from the mid-1980s through the early 2000s saw rapid advancements in kinetic energy weapons. Today, the US, Russia, and China are increasingly developing larger kinetic energy weapons intended for surface-to-surface use.

The various kinetic kill vehicle programs we have looked at were technologically impressive and highly ambitious for their time. Despite the odds, the outcome was a system that was less dangerous than a nuclear intercept warhead, yet also more effective and capable of knocking out more targets.

From the looks of it, this type of kinetic kill vehicle technology will only become more prominent in the future; new intercept programs will continue to build upon the groundwork of these early concepts for future designs, and we may also see similar tech used to develop smaller weapons for use by troops on the ground.