It sounds almost almost to intercept without an interceptor that itself is also guided... You do realize that the plasma sheath is the very reason stealthy RVs are not possible ? Plasma is HIGHLY radar reflective. Even if an object is extremely low RCS it can still be tracked by it's plasma trail which will show up on radar. F-35 tracking ballistic missile over 1200 kilometers away on DAS. That's a plane not even designed for BMD missions. Aegis cruisers have radar capability that can track and calculate intercepts for satellites in space. When North Korea tests a rocket ships far away in pacific are track it. Cluster submunition not bomb. And locally built not imported Russian or Chinese stuff. FAEs make the job even easier because if they go boom there is no sharpnel to rain down. Unlike the Scuds and their burning hulks. Then how does it evade ABM ? Are you incapable of reading ? [quote="FAS"The PAC-3 is designed to provide hit-to-kill lethality against high-speed tactical ballistic missiles; maneuvering tactical missiles; low-radar cross-section, long-range targets in operational environments; cruise missiles; and other air-breathing aircraft."[/quote] Land based SM-3 is under development. If push comes to shove they can be sent to Afghanistan. Not that it's absolutely necessary. PAC-3 and THAAD alone are quite potent on their own. It would be a simple modification to make the Pershing's radar do that. You do realize that movting target tracking is far far more easier than stationary ground targets that sit amidst clutter ?