Despite the best efforts of the Bush administration to deploy a national missile defense system by 2008, the only system likely to be ready by then is one designed to counter short-range targets, said former U.S. Assistant Defense Secretary Philip Coyle in this month’s issue of Arms Control Today (see GSN, April 30).

The only missile defense system that is likely to be able to be operational before President George W. Bush leaves office is one based on the design pursued by the Clinton administration, Coyle said.

The Bush administration’s plans for a national missile defense system are based on three components — expanded theater defense systems, a ground-based midcourse defense system and possible space-based systems, according to Coyle.  Many of these systems, however, are behind in development and lack the needed capabilities for national missile defense, he said.

Theater Missile Defense

Each branch of the U.S. military has been developing its own tactical missile defense systems — a system designed to protect soldiers in the field from short-range missile attacks.  None of these systems were designed, or have the capability, to defend the United States against an ICBM attack.

The Bush administration wants to use some aspects of theater-defense programs, however, for national missile defense, Coyle said.  One theater defense system under development is the Patriot Advanced Capability-3 (PAC-3) system (see GSN, April 29).  PAC-3, however, is not designed to counter long-range missiles and no tests have been conducted to see how the system would incorporate into a national missile defense system, according to Coyle.  PAC-3 can also only defend a small area, so a large number of systems would be needed just to defend major U.S. cities from missile attacks, he said.

Another missile defense system being developed is the Theater High Altitude Air Defense (THAAD) system, Coyle said.  THAAD is designed to counter short- and medium-range ballistic missiles during the terminal phase.  While THAAD can defend a larger area than PAC-3, it, too, is not designed to counter ICBMs, he said.  THAAD flight test and production schedules have also slipped behind on deadline, with the first intercept test not likely to be scheduled until 2004 and the entire system probably not ready for deployment until 2010, according to Coyle.

The Navy Area Theater Ballistic Missile Defense system was designed to be the naval equivalent of PAC-3, but was canceled last year because of cost and schedule overruns, according to Coyle (see GSN, March 28).  The Navy is expected to relaunch the program once it determines a new approach, but it is too early to be able to determine what role the system could play in a national missile defense, he said.

The Navy Theater Wide system is the naval equivalent of THAAD — designed to protect larger groups of ships against medium-range missiles, according to Coyle (see GSN, March 26). The system will need at least another 12 developmental flight tests before it is ready for operational testing, he said.  Although the system is not designed to counter ICBMs, the Bush administration has indicated it wants to use the system as part of a sea-based midcourse or boost phase defense system in a national missile defense system, Coyle said.  For this to happen, however, the system would need to be reequipped with new interceptor missiles and radars as well as new ships to hold the advanced systems, he added (see GSN, April 25).

Finally, the Airborne Laser program has yet to be flight tested, and the test schedule has been delayed because of technological problems with the high-power chemical lasers used in the system, Coyle said (see GSN, April 11).  Production probably will not begin until 2010 and the cost of the lasers is likely to be more than $1 billion each, he said.

Ground-Based Midcourse Defense

The only ready component of a national missile defense system to date is the ground-based midcourse defense system that began during the Clinton administration, Coyle said.

“For all practical purposes, the only part of the Bush national missile defense that is ‘real’ is the ground-based midcourse system,” he said.  “As a result, despite the Bush administration’s attempts to distinguish its plans from its predecessor’s, Bush’s layered national missile defense is, in effect, nothing more than the Clinton system.” 

The ground-based midcourse defense system is further along in operational testing that THAAD or Navy Theater Wide system, according to Coyle.  The system is also further developed than proposed space-based missile defense systems, such as the space-based laser, he said.

U.S. plans to deploy a national missile defense system will be based heavily on the results of operational testing of a ground-based midcourse defense system, Coyle said.  If the system has three or four successful flight intercept tests annually, as it was able to do last year, it could be ready for operational testing in five years, he said.  If the operational tests are also then successful, a rudimentary ground-based midcourse defense system could be able to be deployed by 2008, according to Coyle.

There are still difficulties in developing radars and booster rockets for ground-based midcourse defense, Coyle said.  A new booster is about two years behind schedule (see GSN, March 5).  While an X-band radar may be successful, the Bush administration has not requested funding for one at a test site at Shemya Island off the coast of Alaska, he said (see GSN, March 5).  Some experts have said that either the Space-Based Infrared Satellite-High or -Low programs could be used instead of an X-band radar, but both programs have had cost and developmental difficulties, according to Coyle (see GSN, May 3).

The Bush administration has also proposed upgrading a radar system currently deployed at Shemya, Coyle said.  The L-band radar currently in place, however, operates with a resolution substantially less than an X-band radar, he said.

“In sum, the only element of a ‘layered’ national missile defense that exists on anything but paper is the ground-based midcourse system pursued by the Clinton administration,” Coyle said.  “Accordingly, it is nearly impossible to predict when, if ever, an integrated, layered national missile defense ... might be developed” (Philip Coyle, Arms Control Today, May 2002).

About Newswire  |  Contact National Journal  |  Re-Use Guidelines

HOME  |  CONTACT US  |  GET INVOLVED  |  SITE MAP

Back to top