U.S. Plans:  Pentagon Explains New Secrecy Measures

By Bryan Bender
Global Security Newswire

WASHINGTON — U.S. defense officials this week defended plans to classify details of future missile defense tests as secret in order to prevent potential adversaries from developing countermeasures to anti-missile systems (see GSN, May 17).

Pete Aldridge, undersecretary of defense for acquisition, technology and logistics, and Air Force Lt. Gen. Ronald Kadish, director of the Missile Defense Agency, said the increasing complexity of the testing program for the national missile defense system requires that information about both test targets and decoys be restricted.

The first element of U.S. missile defense programs to have the new restrictions is the Ground-based Midcourse Defense system, the most advanced system against ICBMs that the United States has in development.  The next GMD test is scheduled for August.

“These precautions reflect the commonsense evolution of any national defense program making rapid progress in time of war,” Aldridge wrote in today’s USA Today.  “On June 14, our obligations under the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty ended, and our testing program can now proceed.  What could be a more appropriate time to tighten security?  Doing so is sensible, not sinister” (see GSN, June 14).

The Bush administration is launching a counteroffensive against charges from interest groups and former Pentagon officials that tighter security precautions are unnecessary at this time due to the relative immaturity of the program and apparent lack of realistic test conditions.  They worry the new restrictions might help the Pentagon hide test failures.

Philip Coyle, former Pentagon director of operational test and evaluation, said earlier this month that “this program is not at the point where the types of decoys used have even begun to be representative of the likely enemy countermeasures against missile defense” (see GSN, June 11).

He contended in a Washington Post commentary that to date only round balloons have been used to simulate possible enemy efforts to confuse the missile interceptor, but they do not look like enemy missiles.  Moreover, he wrote, even the targets themselves do not adequately simulate enemy warheads.

“Thus, the current test program is not giving away any secrets; nor is there any potential of that for years to come,” according to Coyle.

Kadish, speaking to reporters yesterday at the Pentagon, said the types and numbers of countermeasures to be used in upcoming tests will increase dramatically, requiring the agency to be tighter-lipped about test parameters.

“We’re at the point in our testing where we are going to aggressively pursue what we can do against countermeasures,” he said.  “There is no responsible individual that will make that type of information available to our adversaries so they can defeat our system.  In my view, this is the proper time to start classifying those details.”

Still, critics assert that the new restrictions could stifle public debate about whether the $48 billion research and development program system is sufficiently advanced and effective to invest additional billions of dollars to deploy it as early as 2004.  But Aldridge and Kadish said the restrictions will not apply to members of Congress, who ultimately will have to decide whether to proceed with the national missile defense system.

“There is not now, and can never be, any component of this program classified beyond the reach of the security clearances of its congressional overseers,” Aldridge said.

Congress Debates Funding

A more immediate controversy surrounds missile defense funding for the fiscal year beginning Oct. 1.  A Senate vote on the fiscal 2003 defense authorization bill has been held up this week due to debate over an amendment to restore $800 million in missile defense funds requested by the Bush administration but removed by the Senate Armed Services Committee.

Debate on an amendment by Senator John Warner (R-Va.) to return the money to the administration’s $7.5 billion request for missile defense programs took place yesterday and continued today.  The House fully funded the request in its version of the defense bill.  Administration officials indicate that President George W. Bush will veto the final legislation if the funds are not restored.

For further information, see:

MDA Basics of Missile Defense

MDA Missile Defense System

MDA Midcourse Defense Segment

U.S. Missile Defense 2002 Budget

Back to top

U.S. Plans:  Pentagon Considers Incremental Acquisitions

The U.S. Defense Department has begun considering a proposal to acquire components of a U.S. missile defense system incrementally, Missile Defense Agency Director Air Force Lt. Gen. Ronald Kadish said last week (see GSN, June 19).

“We may not be able to foresee exactly how many of these systems we would want to buy over time or could afford,” Kadish said, adding that incremental production would allow the agency to move as rapidly as possible without committing to large, full-inventory orders.

Most of the U.S. medium- and long-range missile defense programs are still in stages of development, according to Defense Week.  The Pentagon supports the idea of building such systems in a “spiral way” — fielding technologies once they become available, tested and improved and then building from there — Defense Week reported.  Such a system needs more relaxed requirements and testing programs in exchange for faster deployments.

“We want to avoid committing to a long period of procurement and acquisition (that is) expensive and may not provide the capability we need at the time of deployment,” said Stephen Cambone, incoming director of the defense secretary’s Program Analysis and Evaluation office.

The discussions over possible changes to the Pentagon’s acquisition systems are still in the early stages, Kadish said.  Any changes would have to be approved by Pentagon civilian officials, he said.

Testing Requirements Unclear

There are concerns over the possible changes to the way the Pentagon would acquire U.S. missile defense systems, according to Defense Week.  Officials are examining how legal requirements such as operational testing, which come into effect during the full-rate production phase, would change, they said (see GSN, June 18).  A Missile Defense Agency working group is examining all possibilities, said agency spokesman Air Force Lt. Col. Richard Lehner.

Another concern is that if fewer systems are produced, that would lead to higher individual costs, Defense Week reported.  Lehner said it is more cost-efficient if the complete number of items to be purchased is known.

“However you can accomplish this same cost efficiency by buying a small number of systems at a pre-negotiated price,” he said (Ann Roosevelt, Defense Week, June 24).

Back to top

Israel:  Military Wants UAVs to Destroy Missile Launchers

Israel is continuing to develop an unmanned aircraft capable of identifying and destroying an enemy’s ballistic missile launcher, Aviation Week and Space Technology reported today (see GSN, Dec. 17).

The project’s goal is to create a multilayered missile defense system for Israel and to augment the Arrow missile defense system, which focuses on destroying enemy missiles in the terminal stage, Cabinet minister Dan Meridor said.

Israeli planners originally wanted the unmanned aircraft to shoot down a ballistic missile shortly after launch but decided that goal was too technically difficult, so they focused on destroying the launcher.  Experts expect the aircraft to be relatively large and carry weapons and sensors, including an infrared system to detect missile launches and air-to-surface missiles, according to Aviation Week.

Israeli officials tried to persuade the U.S. military to participate in the project, but the United States showed little interest in destroying launchers, focusing its resources on other forms of missile defense, Aviation Week reported.  Israel still plans to pursue the project but U.S. involvement would speed up development, said retired Brig. Gen. Kuti Mor, deputy director general for policy planning in the Israeli Defense Ministry.  Without U.S. assistance, Israel will need at least five years to bring the project to operational status, Mor said (Wall/Fulghum, Aviation Week and Space Technology, June 24).

For further information, see:

MDA Terminal Defense Segment

Federation of American Scientists Background

MDA Basics of Missile Defense

MDA Boost Defense Segment

Back to top

ABM Treaty:  House Republicans Express Support for ABM Withdrawal

U.S. Congressman Don Young (R-Alaska) introduced a resolution to the House of Representatives earlier this month declaring support for the U.S. withdrawal from the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty and for establishing “a robust layered missile defense system” (see GSN, June 13).

“The way we can and must defend our homeland is through the development of a layered missile defense system — a layered system that would violate the terms of the ABM Treaty,” Young said (see GSN, Nov. 14, 2001).  “Clearly, the day has come to withdraw from this dated and ineffective document that was created more than 30 years ago, during a different time and under different conditions than those that face our national security today” (Young release, June 13).

Nine other House Republicans also sponsored the resolution, which was referred to the Armed Services and International Relations committees (Aerospace Daily, June 18).

For further information, see:

ABM Treaty Text (U.S. State Department)

U.S. Fact Sheet on Withdrawal from ABM Treaty

U.S. Defense Department Executive Summary

Back to top

About Newswire  |  Contact National Journal  |  Re-Use Guidelines

HOME  |  CONTACT US  |  GET INVOLVED  |  SITE MAP