U.S. Plans:  Booster Spoils GMD Test

The U.S. Missile Defense Agency unsuccessfully tested a missile interceptor last night when the interceptor failed to separate from the rocket used to propel it into space (see GSN, Nov. 22).

Officials for the Ground-based Midcourse Defense program, which conducted the test, plan to review data from the test to determine what went wrong, the agency said in a press release.  They might be able to announce preliminary results in several days or more, according to the release.

All other GMD elements that technicians tested — including sensors, radars, and command, control and communication technology — appeared to work properly, the agency said (see GSN, Sept. 10).  An infrared laser in a Boeing 747 airplane modified for the Airborne Laser program successfully detected and tracked the boosting target missile as it launched from Vandenberg Air Force Base in California, according to the release (see GSN, Dec. 10).  Aegis cruiser USS Lake Erie successfully tracked the missile after it launched (see GSN, Sept. 25).

The test, the eighth in a series in the program, was the last in which officials had planned to use a surrogate booster that had been designed for other purposes, the agency said (see GSN, Oct. 30).  Contractors are designing two alternative boosters that they plan to begin flight-testing in the spring, according to the agency (see GSN, July 22 and Dec. 9).

A booster separation problem had spoiled the third GMD test in July 2000 (U.S. Defense Department release, Dec. 11).  Additionally, problems with a booster rocket delayed a missile defense test earlier this year, prompting U.S. officials to deny part of a potential bonus to defense contractor Boeing, according to Bloomberg.com (see GSN, Aug. 21).

Meanwhile, builders at Ft. Greely in Alaska have made progress on another component of the GMD program (see GSN, Aug. 19).  They have finished digging six holes for interceptor missile silos, but the holes have not yet been hardened with concrete, Bloomberg.com reported yesterday (Tony Capaccio, Bloomberg.com, Dec. 10).

Back to top

British Plans:  Defense Ministry Supports Deploying Interceptors in Europe

By David Ruppe
Global Security Newswire

WASHINGTON — The British Defense Ministry released a paper Monday arguing in favor of British participation in a proposed U.S. missile defense plan to defend the United States and Europe, and supported the controversial idea of basing missile interceptors, along with missile-tracking radars, in Europe (see GSN, Nov. 26)

The paper signals the most candid government indication so far of what such a trans-Atlantic system, which has been aggressively promoted by Bush administration officials, might involve.

The paper said U.S. and British missile defenses would be “greatly enhanced” by upgrading existing radar facilities at the Royal Air Force Fylingdales base, already a site under consideration for inclusion in the plan.

It further said, “Additional interceptor sites, perhaps in the Northeast United States and in Northwest Europe, would greatly enhance the defense of the U.S., and the latter could also provide protection for part of Europe.”

“The $64,000 issue is that the United States wants land-based batteries in Europe,” said Dan Plesch, a senior research fellow at the Royal United Services Institute for Defense Studies in London.  “They’re trying to get this through by offering industrial sweeteners and so-on.”

The paper did mention “real opportunities” for British employment as a benefit of participation, though not in the context of any quid pro quo on deployment.

Defense Minister Geoffrey Hoon in comments before Parliament Monday indicated Fylingdales was a possibility and also that an early warning Space Based Infrared System (SBIRS) receiver system at RAF Menwith Hill station could be used in such a system.

Hoon declined to discuss further what and how British sites might be used, saying the potential system’s “architecture” was not yet decided.

Strong Sign of Support

The so-called “discussion paper,” is the clearest indication to date that the Prime Minister Tony Blair is privately inclined to support, or at least not to reject, collaborating with the United States on its ballistic missile defense program.

Although U.S. officials have discussed expanding U.S. deployments with their British and Danish counterparts, they so far have made no formal requests for basing or cooperation.  Nor has either European government yet announced it will agree to help.

There has been strong opposition to the idea inside and outside the British government.

Member of Parliament Malcolm Savidge asked Hoon during his Monday appearance before House of Commons whether the document indicated the government was acting “servilely subservient” to the “ideological obsessions of the Bush administration,” observing the government had not declared missile defense a national priority in a White Paper earlier this year.  Hoon denied the charge.

The latest paper said the United Kingdom does not currently face a strategic ballistic missile threat but might do so in the future.

“There are an increasing number of potential threats to the security of the U.K. and her Allies in the world today.  To choose only to tackle some of these and hope others never materialize would be a dangerous approach,” it said.

Criticisms Dismissed

Hoon said the paper was intended “to inform debate” on the issue. 

While the paper did not present any final conclusions on whether the United Kingdom should team up, it did, however, attempt to dismiss a range of criticisms that have been raised regarding British participation, including from within Blair’s own party.

It said recent testing suggests that the U.S. system could be effective at stopping enemy ballistic missiles, that participation would not make the Fylingdales base or the country in general any more vulnerable than it already is for attacks as a close U.S. ally, and that the system would not provoke an arms race by undermining the nuclear deterrence capability of the Russian or Chinese nuclear arsenal.

The paper further argued Britain would be better positioned to intervene in conflicts around the world having a missile defense system in place to protect against threats to its homeland.

“We believe that a potential aggressor would be more likely to be deterred if he knew that he could not threaten the homelands of key states in the international community in this matter,” it said.

Though it raised the possibility that missile defense might lead potential aggressors to improve their ballistic missile capabilities, it ultimately dismissed the idea, concluding, “The proliferation threat is not new; missile defense is a response to, not the cause of, the problem.”

Value, Not Cost

The inability of the United Kingdom or other European governments to afford a strategic missile defense also has been a prominent concern raised by critics. 

The discussion paper said the cost of such a system to Britain could not yet be determined.

“There is no doubt missile defense is an expensive capability.  It is too early to estimate the cost of acquiring missile defense protection for U.K. territory at the present time — system architectures and technologies are still under development and the ways in which the U.K. might participate in any future program remain to be determined.”

It said that economic “value” might be gained from British industrial participation in the program, for which the United States is expected to spend many tens of billions of dollars.

“Missile defense is a massive technological undertaking, invoking research and development of high value, cutting-edge systems.  The U.K.’s defense industry is well placed to participate in and benefit from the enterprise, an enterprise which also has real opportunities for the creation of highly skilled employment in this country,” it said.

The paper said London was considering creating a Missile Defense Technology Center, jointly funded by government and industry, to focus missile defense work and discussing with U.S. officials bilateral exchanges, technical partnerships between industries and arrangements for technology transfers.

Back to top

U.S. Plans:  Airborne Laser Aircraft Set to Track Test Missile

The Boeing 747 airplane that the U.S. Defense Department has modified to carry the developing Airborne Laser system will take part in Wednesday’s test of the Ground-based Midcourse Defense program, but it will not carry the laser, Reuters reported today (see GSN, Nov. 1).

In the test, the eighth in a series, officials plan to fire a target from Vandenberg Air Force base in California and to attempt to shoot it down with an interceptor from Kwajalein atoll in the Pacific Ocean (see GSN, Nov. 22).  The aircraft, which is not yet weaponized, will only track the target, Pentagon officials said (Charles Aldinger, Reuters, Dec. 10).

Back to top

U.S.-Canada:  Ottawa Eyes Joint Defense

Canada is ready to begin discussions with the United States over creating a joint missile defense system, Canadian Foreign Minister Bill Graham said yesterday (see GSN, April 18).

“We’re quite prepared to examine the issue of missile defense.  This is something that has been considered to some extent in Europe as well,” Graham said.  “When it comes to preparing for potential threats to our shared continent, we’re in this together,” he added.

Graham made his remarks during an announcement of the creation of a U.S.-Canadian planning group to help defend against terrorist attacks, according to the Globe and Mail.  As part of the arrangement, U.S. troops will be able to operate within Canada, but only under the control of a Canadian officer and only by invitation, the Globe and Mail reported.  Canadian military forces will also be able to enter the United States, according to the newspaper (Daniel Leblanc, Globe and Mail, Dec. 10).

For further information, see:

MDA Basics of Missile Defense

MDA Missile Defense System

Back to top

U.S. Plans I:  MDA Finds, Fixes Tracking Problem on Interceptor

Missile Defense Agency technicians have detected an anomaly during several flight tests of the missile interceptor used in the U.S. Ground-based Midcourse Defense program, an agency official said Thursday.

Officials first noticed the problem — which affected data on the location of the interceptor relative to the target — in the sixth test of an interceptor built by defense contractor Raytheon, Defense Daily reported Friday.  During flight, an interceptor must repeatedly assess a target’s location, according to a Ground-based Midcourse program official.  If the location is lost even briefly at the wrong moment, the interceptor might miss the target, the official said.

Cables that were to be used only for testing probably caused electromagnetic interference, said U.S. Air Force Lt. Col. Rick Lehner, an agency spokesman.  Lehner said that officials have removed the cables for the next test, which, according to Defense Daily, is planned for Wednesday night (see GSN, Nov. 22).

Meanwhile, the anomaly “never interfered with the effectiveness of the EKV [exoatmospheric kill vehicle], demonstrating a resilience and robustness in the system design,” Lehner said (Kerry Gildea, Defense Daily, Dec. 6).

Back to top

U.S. Plans II:  Orbital Sciences Test-Fires Alternative Booster Rocket

U.S. defense contractor Orbital Sciences has test-fired a rocket motor that U.S. officials might use in the first stage of a new Ground-based Midcourse Defense system, Defense Daily reported Friday (see GSN, Oct. 30).

Following trouble with Boeing’s off-the-shelf booster technology, the U.S. Defense Department awarded Orbital Sciences a $425 million contract earlier this year to build an alternative booster vehicle for the missile defense system (see GSN, Mar. 5).  Lockheed Martin was also slated to continue developing Boeing’s troubled booster program.

Orbital Sciences officials statically test-fired the rocket for 70 seconds — one of the last steps that must take place before a scheduled launch in 2003, they said.  Alliant Techsystems produced the rocket motor, Defense Daily reported.

“We are very pleased with the results of the static fire test,” said Ron Grabe, executive vice president and general manager of Orbital Science’s Launch Systems Group.

Lead systems integrator Boeing might choose between the Orbital Sciences and the Lockheed systems early next year, according to Defense Daily.  Wednesday’s test of the Ground-based Midcourse system is expected to be the last using a surrogate booster, Defense Daily reported (see GSN, Nov. 22).

“Calendar year 2003 will be the year of the booster for GMD,” said the MDA director, Air Force Lt. Gen. Ronald Kadish (Kerry Gildea, Defense Daily, Dec. 6).

Back to top

U.S. Plans III:  Possible Funding Shift Upsets Congressional Committee

A Pentagon proposal to move $64 million from midcourse missile defense initiatives to Patriot Advanced Capability 3 missile production is running afoul of lawmakers on the Senate Appropriations Committee’s defense subcommittee, Aerospace Daily reported today (see GSN, Nov. 25).

The proposal is part of an overall Defense Department effort to transfer $104 million from a variety of defense programs to Patriot production.  While the Patriot program is popular on Capitol Hill, midcourse missile defense also enjoys congressional support and the proposal to transfer funds “has not been received well,” a source said.

Members of the subcommittee have not decided whether to block the move, and a decision may not take place until January, Aerospace Daily reported (Marc Selinger, Aerospace Daily, Dec. 9).

Back to top

United States:  Experts Target Missile Defense Testimony

A top U.S. missile defense official has presented flawed testimony to Congress, two scientists said in a article released yesterday (see GSN, July 17).

U.S. Air Force Lt. Gen. Ronald Kadish, director of the Missile Defense Agency, reported an incorrect success rate of certain missile defense tests, said the Massachusetts Institute of Technology scientists — Global Security Program co-director George Lewis and Lisbeth Gronlund, senior research associate in the Security Studies Program.

The article, in the December issue of Arms Control Today, focuses on Kadish’s contention that quality control problems early in interceptor flights have caused most test failures (see GSN, Oct. 30).  According to the scientists, Kadish has said that missiles that have reached the technologically complex endgame of the intercept have been significantly more successful.

“Close examination of statements by MDA officials, who have been arguing that the test record for hit-to-kill missile defenses shows that such systems will work, demonstrates that the Pentagon has been less than forthright about its successes and failures,”according to the article.

The scientists accused Kadish of miscalculating the percentage of endgame successes and of comparing dissimilar tests.  Kadish testified that the endgame success rate is 88 percent, they said, but actually it is 71 percent.  Furthermore, the endgame success rate for midcourse intercept tests is 61 percent, they added.

While the scientists criticized Kadish’s testimony and calculations, they also said that the “endgame success rate is irrelevant.”

“There is no reason to consider the endgame success rate rather than the overall success rate,” the article says.  Taking into account all stages of the test, “the overall success rate for midcourse systems drops to only 41 percent,” it says (Lewis/Gronlund, Arms Control Today, December 2002).

Back to top

U.S. Plans:  Interceptor Developers Try for Better Aim, More Sizzle

Two developing U.S. missile technologies could make missile defense systems more lethal, according to reports.

During last month’s test for U.S. Sea-based Midcourse Defense program, the Standard Missile 3 successfully changed its aim before impact to a new point on an incoming target, Defense Daily reported yesterday (see GSN, Nov. 22).

The ability to shift the aim of the interceptor makes it much more lethal, an official with contractor Raytheon said.  Originally aimed at the center point of the target, the missile shifted its course to directly strike measurement and communications equipment.

Shifting the aim point was a secondary goal in the test, Raytheon officials said.  An effort to enable such technology began a year ago when U.S. Navy and Missile Defense Agency officials decided to test new software that would allow a more effective intercept, according to Defense Daily.  The next flight test will also involve a shift in aim point, a Raytheon official said (Robinson/Gildea, Defense Daily, Dec. 4).

Meanwhile, new warheads that use chemical reactions and the force of the target’s movement to break an incoming missile into pieces could make interceptors 500 percent more powerful, the U.S. Office of Naval Research said Tuesday.

The warheads carry a powdered metal embedded in a plastic matrix that breaks on impact with the missile to start a chemical reaction, according to the office.  The reaction causes high heat and pressure to destroy a target more completely, the office said (U.S. Office of Naval Research release, Dec. 3).

Back to top

About Newswire  |  Contact National Journal  |  Re-Use Guidelines

HOME  |  CONTACT US  |  GET INVOLVED  |  SITE MAP