|
|||||
|
|||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||
 |
 |
    |
|
|
|||
 |
|
||
|
|||
|
|
|
|
||||||||
|
Capability of Initial U.S. Missile Defenses Remains Uncertain, Says Top Pentagon Testing Official By David Ruppe WASHINGTON — Doubts and uncertainties about planned U.S. missile defenses were raised yesterday by the Defense Department’s top testing official in congressional testimony (see GSN, March 11). President George W. Bush has ordered that Ground-based Midcourse Defense missile interceptors be fielded before October, but the system will not be ready for testing under operationally realistic conditions, might not be able to defeat a North Korean threat and might not be capable of defending Hawaii, according to the Pentagon Director of Operational Test and Evaluation Thomas Christie, who testified with other officials before the Senate Armed Services Committee. The system so far has only undergone developmental testing and there are no plans in the foreseeable future for dedicated operational testing for utility and effectiveness, Christie said. “As far as dedicated operational testing that I’m in control of, right now, that’s not in the plan, for the foreseeable future,” Christie said. Senator Daniel Akaka (D-Hawaii) said that some key elements of the system, such as the X-band target tracking radar, would not be ready by the system’s planned deployment. “I’m concerned that we will be deploying an incomplete system that will not protect the American people as we hope,” he said. A General Accounting Office report released yesterday expressed concern that the test plans through fiscal 2007 do not include sufficiently challenging targets and decoys. Senators also questioned the realism of the testing, noting so far the system has used GPS locators for tracking targets, in place of not-yet developed radar and satellite systems. One noted that seven of eight flight planned intercept tests were canceled following a December 2002 failed intercept. “As time goes on, I think the realism of the testing that we will be doing with this system, particularly after we have all the components of the test bed in place, to include the ship-based X-band radar, we will certainly have far more confidence in our estimates of our capability than we have today,” Christie said. Christie said testing over the next few years would have “operational flavor.” Missile Defense Agency Director, Air Force Lt. Gen. Ronald Kadish, however, said the system has already undergone a “realistic” testing regime that demonstrated some limited capability. “Our tests and analysis will give us the confidence that we can take these first steps towards initial defensive operations while we continue to prove out new technologies and increase the confidence in the system through realistic testing,” he said. “From a military utility standpoint, the analysis that has been done clearly shows that this will bring a capability, admittedly rudimentary and initial, but a capability that is of military utility, and that has even greater potential … in the years ahead,” said Adm. James Ellis, head of the U.S. Strategic Command. A recent report to Congress by Christie said, “due to the immature nature of the [ground-based] system, models and simulations of the ballistic missile defense system cannot be adequately validated at this time.” Christie said under questioning that that meant the system’s potential for success against a hypothetical attack from North Korea could not be assessed. “We’re deploying a system [for] which we can’t … validate the simulations of a North Korean attack, and we’re relying on GPS for engagement. … Testing it is something, but standing up there and saying this is a deployed system that will protect this country against a real threat stretches my imagination,” said Senator Jack Reed (D-R.I.). “So at this time, we cannot be sure that the actual system would work against a real North Korean missile threat?” Reed asked. Christie answered, “I would say that’s true.” Motivations QuestionedKadish defended his agency’s “fly-as-we-buy” approach, saying the system, because of its uniquely broad range of technologies and challenges, can only be realistically tested with fielded elements. “Every generation or so, there comes a time with a system of this type of nature that is technologically unprecedented or so useful that you’ve got to take it out of the normal understanding,” he said. Senator Carl Levin (D-Mich.) charged that Missile Defense Agency plans to produce about one missile interceptor per month exceed legal requirements to limit production until operational testing is under way. Kadish had argued some elements of the program were being operationally tested within the developmental testing program, prompting Levin to respond, “It seems to me, [you’re] quite clearly trying to do something here by proceeding to a level of production above low-rate initial production before you do the operational testings required by law.” Christie said he believed the program had not surpassed low-rate production and was “living within the law.” Kadish acknowledged production plans were partially for testing and partially for building a stockpile. “In some sense we’re doing both at the same time,” he said. Defending HawaiiQuestioned by Akaka, Christie said he was not sure the missile defense system would be able to defend Hawaii when the system is declared operational this year. “At this point in time, I can’t say one way or another,” he said. Akaka expressed skepticism that U.S. radar could track missiles aimed at Hawaii. “In order to protect Hawaii, you plan to use existing ship-based radars, which we understand are much less powerful than normal ballistic missile defense radars, and were never designed to track long-range missiles,” he said. “I’m concerned about Hawaii. Should I feel confident that the state of Hawaii will be protected by this system starting in September?” he said. “We have not done the thorough analysis. That’s one of the scenarios that we’re looking at,” Christie said.
| ||||||||||
Back to top
