More Realistic Missile-Defense Testing Should Occur Before Deployments, U.S. Congressmen Say

By David Ruppe
Global Security Newswire

WASHINGTON — The next U.S. president should defer future deployments of national missile defense interceptors and order more aggressive and realistic testing of the system the Bush administration plans to activate this year, two senior congressmen said yesterday.

In letters addressed to President George W. Bush and Democratic presidential challenger Senator John Kerry (Mass.), Representatives John Spratt (D-S.C.) and Silvestre Reyes (D-Texas) wrote that more testing “would be preferable” even before placing the equipment already fielded this year on operational status.

“But failing this, the system must undergo a much more demanding regimen of flight tests in the future,” they said.

The U.S. Defense Department is preparing to activate by the end of the year some components of the Ground-based Midcourse Defense system, in accordance with a directive by Bush in December 2002. That initial deployment is set to include up to six interceptor missiles based at Fort Greely, Alaska, with a goal of placing 20 there and at Vandenberg Air Force Base in California by 2006.

The administration this year requested approximately $591 million in advance money to deploy an additional 20 interceptor missiles in 2006 and 2007, 10 of which are intended for defense against some future ICBM capability in Southwest Asia.

That money, the congressmen wrote, should be diverted into “more robust” testing.

“If you are president in 2005, we urge you to increase the number and realism of tests so that the Department of Defense, Congress, the people, and those we aim to deter will know we are fielding an effective system,” they wrote.

Spratt is the ranking Democrat on the House Armed Services Committee and a respected missile defense expert in Congress. Reyes is the senior Democrat of the committee’s Strategic Forces Subcommittee.

The congressmen questioned whether system components planned for activation would have much ability to intercept a North Korean-launched warhead in space.

“The Missile Defense Agency (MDA) has not conducted an intercept flight-test of this system for almost two years, and the last test in December 2002 was a failure,” they wrote. 

“Moreover, the ‘kill vehicle’ that intercepts the oncoming warhead has never been tested with the booster that it is mounted upon, and the system has never had an integrated test with the radars that will actually guide it in operation,” they wrote.

“It begs the question of what you mean by ‘operational’ if it hasn’t been tested and you cannot derive based on numerous test shots what the operational likelihood of a takeout is,” Spratt said in an interview today with Global Security Newswire (see GSN, Sept. 29).

The congressmen also noted that the deployed components this year would not include the system’s “most essential sensors”: an X-band radar and a satellite infrared tracking system (see related GSN story, today).

“Both are needed to provide precise tracking, particularly after the boost phase is complete, and to ensure that the kill vehicle can distinguish the incoming warheads from debris and countermeasures,” they wrote.

The radar will not be ready until next year, will itself lack components, and is not a designated operational asset, but is intended for testing, they said. Only two prototypes of the satellite system will be deployed in the next few years, “far short of an effective constellation.”

Spratt said the congressmen are not recommending canceling the activation planned for this year, considering the extensive efforts already made in preparation.

“They’ve already begun, if you want to go ahead and put them in the ground, fine, the money is budgeted, the project’s under way, but before you commit to the second phase, we think it would be wise for you to use some or a substantial part of that money to do real testing, [or even] basic testing, mating the EKV [exoatmopheric kill vehicle] to the current booster.”

The congressmen also urged the presidential candidates to “avoid exaggerating the capabilities of the GMD system.”

They argued that deploying without rigorous testing could “send the wrong signal to our adversaries,” deprive the United States of determining weaknesses and shortcomings of the system, and “create a false sense of security.”

Bush at a campaign event in August expressed confidence in the system’s capabilities, stating, “We say to those tyrants who believe they can blackmail America and the free world, ‘You fire, we’re going to shoot it down.’”

The congressmen also advised the candidates to “revisit the opportunity costs of national missile defense,” by considering a reallocation of part of the $10 billion annual budget toward other defense priorities such as theater missile defense.

“Should the voters choose you in November, we urge you to consider whether the overall amount of funding for ballistic missile defense is commensurate to the threat, and whether the balance struck between national missile defense (NMD) and TMD is appropriate,” they wrote.

Back to top
About Newswire  |  Contact National Journal  |  Re-Use Guidelines © Copyright 2008 by National Journal Group, Inc. The material in this section is produced independently for NTI by National Journal Group, Inc. Any reproduction or retransmission, in whole or in part, is a violation of federal law and is strictly prohibited without the consent of the National Journal Group, Inc. All rights reserved.