Israel:  Raytheon Fights Israeli Efforts to Market Arrow

U.S. defense contractor Raytheon is working to persuade U.S. lawmakers to oppose Israeli sales of the Arrow missile defense system to other countries, saying that Arrow sales would harm U.S. firms and damage arms control agreements (see GSN, May 16).

Since the signing of a co-production agreement in January, Israel has intensified efforts to win U.S. permission to sell the Arrow system — which is jointly developed for Israeli defense purposes by U.S. contractor Boeing and Israel Aircraft Industries — to other countries.  Under the agreement, Boeing produces 51 percent of Arrow components and IAI produces the rest and completes assembly (see GSN, Feb. 1).

Raytheon, which produces the Patriot missile defense system, sent a letter June 10 to dozens of congressional aides stating reasons for opposing Arrow sales beyond Israel, according to Defense News.

“We do not have a problem with U.S. support for development of Arrow but find it perplexing at best that after the U.S. taxpayer financed the development of the system, our government would then give Israel permission to sell it on the international market,” Raytheon lobbyist Andrew Schnabel wrote in the letter.

The letter and an attached document expressed concern that Arrow sales to other countries would damage sales of completely U.S.-produced systems, including the Patriot Advanced Capability 3 and Theater High Altitude Area Defense systems.  Arrow sales “would result in a foreign product, funded by the U.S. government, competing with American products … for the same national funds in the international market.  The likely international customers for a missile defense system cannot afford both Arrow and Patriot or THAAD,” Raytheon said.

Damage to U.S. sales would eventually increase costs to the U.S. military, according to Raytheon.

“International sales of Patriot (and potentially THAAD) increases sales volume and drives down costs for U.S. forces.  The loss of Patriot customers will diminish economy of scale savings for U.S. Army procurement of PAC 3 missiles,” the company said.

MTCR Violation?

Raytheon also said that allowing Arrow sales to third countries would undermine U.S. arms control commitments, particularly the Missile Technology Control Regime, which prohibits exports of systems that can deliver a 300-kilogram payload more than 500 kilometers.

“The export of Arrow is prohibited by MTCR due to its range and payload.  Whether Arrow is defined as a defensive or an offensive system is not the issue; the MTCR focuses on capabilities,” Raytheon said (see GSN, May 16).

The Israeli Defense Ministry refused to comment publicly on Raytheon’s effort to prevent Arrow sales to third countries, but Israeli senior officials said privately that if Raytheon continues its effort, Israel “will not hesitate to respond in kind,” as one official said.

“This is not just a competitive battle between Raytheon and Boeing, it’s a challenge to the government of Israel and our national security interests,” the official said last week.

Arrow sales would not violate the MTCR, Israeli officials said.  According to January’s co-production agreement, U.S.-produced Arrow components fall under the less restrictive Category 2 of the MTCR’s Equipment and Technology Annex, Defense News reported.  The Arrow system falls short of the MTCR’s range and payload restrictions, Israeli officials said.

“The Arrow simply cannot carry 300 kilograms for 500 kilometers or vice versa,” Israeli Maj. Gen. Isaac Ben-Israel said late last year.

If the United States authorizes Israeli sales of the Arrow system, it could result in $600 million to $900 million in sales over the next 10 years, according to Israeli officials and industry sources.

Until Israel receives U.S. authorization, “we are not selling and we have not sold to any other country, and we will not do so without the agreement of the United States,” Amos Yaron, director general of Israel’s Defense Ministry, said last month (Barbara Opall-Rome, Defense News, July 8-14).

For further information, see:

Missile Technology Control Regime (U.S. State Department)

THAAD Program Fact Sheet

PAC-3 Fact Sheet

MDA Terminal Defense Segment (Arrow)

Federation of American Scientists Background (Arrow)

Back to top

U.S. Plans I:  Russian Suggests Joint Effort on Nuclear-Armed Interceptor

The head of Russia’s main nuclear weapons laboratory has said the United States and Russia should consider jointly developing nuclear warhead-tipped missile interceptors as a component of a missile defense system, Defense Week reported today (see GSN, June 28).

Yevgeny Velikhov, director of the Russian Research Center Kurchatov Institute, pitched the idea of developing low-yield nuclear warheads for use on missile interceptors to a visiting delegation of 13 U.S. lawmakers this spring, according to a congressional aide.  While U.S. and Russian Presidents George W. Bush and Vladimir Putin have discussed cooperation on a missile defense system, they have never publicly considered using nuclear-armed interceptors, according to Defense Week.

William Schneider, head of the U.S. Defense Department’s Defense Science Board, previously has said that U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld is interested in using nuclear-armed interceptors, according to Defense Week.  A report accompanying the fiscal 2003 defense authorization bill passed by the U.S. House of Representatives encouraged the Pentagon to investigate the idea.  The U.S. Senate, however, passed legislation banning funds for nuclear-armed missile interceptors (John Donnelly, Defense Week, July 8).

Back to top

U.S. Plans II:  Missile Defense System to Use British Destroyers

The United States plans to request the use of British naval warships to develop a U.S. missile defense system that could also be used to defend the United Kingdom, the London Sunday Times reported yesterday (see GSN, July 1).

Top U.S. Defense Department officials are expected to travel to London later this month to request British cooperation in constructing a missile defense system, the Times reported.  The proposed system would employ new destroyers currently under construction as early warning ships that could also be armed with missile interceptors, according to the Times (see GSN, June 19).

The United Kingdom’s new Type 45 destroyers, which are expected to be operational in five years, could be used to track incoming ballistic missiles and possibly to destroy them, according to British Defense Ministry officials.

“The Type 45 and its radar system can be developed to play a part (in missile defense),” said Ralph Dunn, spokesman for the British Defense Procurement Agency.  “The missile we have is designed to shoot down low- and medium-level incoming missiles, but an anti-tactical ballistic missile could be added.”

British officials are still waiting for a formal U.S. request for the use of the destroyers and for notification that the United Kingdom would be protected by the system, according to the Times.  A spokesman for the opposition Conservative Party has said the British government is hiding its involvement in the U.S. missile defense program.

“It is time for the defense secretary or even the prime minister to make a statement to Parliament about the government’s missile defense policy and why they are hiding it from the public and their own party,” said Conservative Defense spokesman Bernard Jenkin (Nicholas Rufford, London Sunday Times, July 7).

Russia and Ukraine

Meanwhile, Russia and Ukraine might also help the United States develop a missile defense system, said Russian Maj. Gen. Vladimir Dvorkin, senior chair for the center for the problems of strategic nuclear forces (see GSN, July 2).  One example of possible cooperation between the three nations is the use of the Russian-Ukrainian-developed Dnepr rocket to install a system of satellite sensors in space, he said.

“Cooperation is needed for eliminating the uncertainty,” Dvorkin said.  “We have to cooperate to prevent another round of confrontation” (Vesti RTR/Defense and Security, July 3).

Back to top

About Newswire  |  Contact National Journal  |  Re-Use Guidelines

HOME  |  CONTACT US  |  GET INVOLVED  |  SITE MAP