|
|||||
|
|||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||
 |
 |
    |
|
|
|||
 |
|
||
|
|||
|
|
|
|
||||||||
|
U.S. Classifies Missile Defense Interceptor Status By David Ruppe WASHINGTON — The U.S. Missile Defense Agency says it will make secret future tallies of anti-ICBM interceptors it fields, and classify the operational status of the interceptors and other assets of its long-range missile defense system (see GSN, Dec. 15, 2005). “In the interest of operational security, future interceptor emplacements will not be announced,” the agency said in a Dec. 20 press release. In addition, according to Missile Defense Agency spokesman Richard Lehner in a recent email: “Information regarding the operational status of missile defense assets, to include the number of operationally available ground and sea-based interceptor missiles, and the operational status of system sensors and radars has historically been and will remain classified.” Critics say they suspect the policies are aimed at shielding delayed agency efforts to field and operate the multibillion-dollar Ground-based Midcourse Defense system from public scrutiny. This is “another way in which they’re trying to quell any negative stories about the program,” Center for Defense Information missile defense analyst Victoria Sampson said by e-mail. Until now, “They’ve made certain that the public has known about it every time a new interceptor has gone into the ground,” she said. “It’s to prevent embarrassment on their part,” Union of Concerned Scientists senior scientist Lisbeth Gronlund said. “Two years ago they wanted to make a big announcement about deployment. Why wouldn’t you want to announce to the world that it was ready to go if it was?” she said. Lehner said that information on emplacements and operational capability could help a potential attacker. “The MDA director, per the MDA charter, has the responsibility to protect information that could benefit a potential adversary, which if disclosed publicly could provide information on the capability or operational status of Ballistic Missile Defense System assets,” he wrote. Until now, the agency has offered detailed information on deployment of missile interceptors. There are now eight installed at Fort Greely in Alaska and two at Vandenberg Air Force Base in California. Another interceptor missile is scheduled for emplacement at this month at Fort Greely, it said. The agency has said in budget documents and testimony that it plans to field up to 26 interceptors at Fort Greely by the end of 2007 and has dug silo holes for a total of 40 there. It also has sought and obtained initial funding to build an additional missile base somewhere in Europe and up to 10 interceptors for that site. “Long-term plans continue to include the procurement of up to 50 interceptors for deployment, and could include up to 10 for a third site,” Lehner wrote last month. “The policy to no longer publicly announce or release information regarding interceptor emplacements went into effect after emplacement of the tenth Ground-based Midcourse Defense interceptor in December,” he wrote yesterday. The decision comes as the agency failed to meet plans to field up to 20 Ground-based Midcourse Defense system interceptor missiles by the end of 2005 and to declare fielded components fully operational by the end of 2004 (see GSN, Jan. 9). Only 10 interceptors have been put in silos and none have made full-time operational status, ready to fire at any time, since the administration announced in December 2002 it would begin operating initial defensive capability. Only two interceptors went into the ground in 2005, the latest on Dec. 18. A reason for the fielding delay, according to Lehner, is that Missile Defense Agency Director Lt. Gen. Henry Obering last year decided to transfer four interceptors planned for deployment into the midcourse system’s test program, which also was behind schedule but is planning to increase the pace of testing this year. The decision followed two high-profile testing failures in late 2004 and early 2005, in which the interceptors failed to leave their silos. After reviewing the tests, two panels recommended improvements to agency review processes and management controls “to ensure better quality and configuration control as we prepared for more ‘production’ interceptors,” Lehner wrote last month in an e-mail. “The overall delay was the result of the MDA director’s desire to ‘stand down’ testing and deployment from this past February until the panel’s reviews were completed and evaluated, and process improvements put in place,” he wrote. The agency successfully fired a test interceptor on Dec. 13. The agency also reduced the number of deployed interceptors at Vandenberg from four to two so their silos could be available for tests this year, according to Lehner. The Missile Defense Agency is late in placing the defense system on full-time operational alert to attempt intercepts of foreign ICBM attacks. The military originally aimed to activate the system on Oct. 1, 2004, but pushed the date to the end of 2004. Senior officials in early 2005 then said the complex system of interceptors, sensors and command and control infrastructure — only partially developed and fielded — was not yet deemed ready for operation (see GSN, March 16). Some officials publicly suggested the system might never be declared operational (see GSN, Jan. 14). Agency officials have said the ground-based system continues to undergo a “shakedown period” of uncertain duration to make sure it works correctly, after which it might be declared operational. First reported October 2004, the shakedown period originally was expected to last a couple of months. Some prominent missile defense supporters, including former CIA Director James Woolsey, lately have criticized the ground-based approach as technologically misguided and argued for agency emphasis to shift toward developing other technologies for anti-ICBM defense, from sea, space or air. Senate appropriators, in a report last year, said they saw signs the Pentagon was shifting emphasis away from ground-based interceptors and argued against that move (see GSN, Oct. 7). Obering said at a conference last month said there was a misunderstanding and that the agency would continue working to improve the system.
| ||||||||||
Back to top
