U.S. Plans:  Planned U.S. Defenses May Not Be Ready by 2004, Officials Say

By David Ruppe
Global Security Newswire

WASHINGTON — Senior Bush administration officials sharply disagreed yesterday over whether limited U.S. missile defenses could be operating as planned by 2004 (see GSN, Dec. 18, 2002).  Officials did agree, however, to drop a request to waive requirements for successful operational testing prior to formally deploying the system (see GSN, March 7).

Thomas Christie, the Defense Department’s director of operational test and evaluation, told the Senate Armed Services Committee the military might not meet President George W. Bush’s goal of having the first stage of its national missile defense system fielded by the end of fiscal 2004.  Throughout his presidency, Bush has sought such a system to defend against a possible long-range missile threat from North Korea. 

“I don’t think they will all be in place by September 2004,” Christie said, referring to the various components of the ground-based, missile interceptor system, the centerpiece of the administration’s envisioned multilayered defense network.

Christie said “many essential components” of the system were not yet built and at least two key systems — an advanced, sea-based “X-band” radar and new boosters for ground-launched interceptor rockets — probably would not be in place by that time.

Without those key systems, the system cannot be operationally proven, he said.

“We cannot test this system without critical components,” he said.

Last December, the White House announced that the Pentagon would field six interceptor missiles in Alaska and four in California by October 2004 to provide an emergency operational capability.

Some committee members yesterday criticized the administration’s schedule.

“This is a question of not just deploying the system without testing, this is a question of deploying a system that is not fully built,” said Senator Jack Reed (D-R.I.).

Following the president’s December announcement, Reed issued a statement saying, “The president’s decision to deploy an untested national missile defense system has more to do with politics than effective military strategy … The administration does not know if the system works, yet there is a rush to                                           deploy it.”

Other Officials Say System Will Be Effective

The comments by Christie — who is appointed by the president, and not by the defense secretary, to provide independence from the military — appeared to contradict conclusions stated by two other senior administration officials testifying yesterday.

Undersecretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics Edward “Pete” Aldridge asserted the system would have a 90 percent chance of destroying a missile launched by North Korea after October 2004.

“The way you could achieve these rates is you don’t have to fire just one interceptor per target, you could fire two … and so the effectiveness would be in the 90 percent range,” he said.

Senator Evan Bayh (D-Ind.) followed up, “If you’re advising the president of the United States, and there is a possibility of the North Koreans hitting Los Angeles or San Francisco with a nuclear warhead, you are advising him that we would have a 90 percent chance of taking that down before it can get there, as early as the end of fiscal year 2004, and if millions of lives depend on it, that’s your answer?”

“Yes sir,” Aldridge said.

Senior committee Democrat Carl Levin (Mich.) questioned Aldridge’s assessment.  “Number one, I am surprised that you even answer this in an unclassified setting.  But, number two, I am surprised at your answer, because I know the classified number,” Levin said, adding, “I think you’ll want to correct the record after reading the classified number,”

Lt. Gen. Ronald Kadish, who heads the Missile Defense Agency, said he was ready to being placing the system into operational service.

“Based on the fact that our current analysis and testing provides us confidence in the hit-to-kill technology, I think we are ready to take the first step, the next step in actually making it operational.”

Kadish said the system could be improved over time as freshly developed technology is folded into the system. 

“Use it, get comfortable with it, improve it as best we can, and then make the decisions about it in the future, of what’s best to add to that system to make it better at a given time,” he said.

Testing Questions

Kadish said he believed a recent string of flight tests of the system had proven it was ready.

“Two years ago or more, I could not have told you with confidence that the hit-to-kill technology would be workable enough to put into an operational system.  We believed it to be so, but we had a lot of testing to prove it.  We have accomplished that testing, and we are confident now that the basic technologies and the approach we are using is a sound one,” he said.

Experts and some senators have disputed that claim, saying that the Pentagon has oversimplified the challenges a missile interceptor would face in identifying enemy warheads from decoys and that interceptors have received data about their targets’ trajectories prior to the tests.

Reed asked Kadish at what point the agency would begin testing the interceptor missiles without first preprogramming the flight path of the intended target.

Kadish acknowledged, “These tests are very scripted,” and said the testing would get less and less scripted “the more we get the [Alaska] test bed into the operation.”

Asked whether by 2004 the agency would not be testing missiles with limited or no data pre-loaded, Kadish said, “No.”

Flight Test Delay

Critics also have questioned whether the system’s testing record really indicates readiness.  The Pentagon reports the ground-launched system has successfully intercepted mock warheads in five out of eight flight tests, with the most recent test in December a failure (see GSN, Dec. 11, 2002).

“There are still lots of questions about whether the kill vehicle can discriminate, not just against advanced countermeasures, even against a single decoy,” said Matt Martin, an analyst with the Center for Arms Control and Nonproliferation.

The December intercept failed when the booster rocket failed to separate from the interceptor vehicle that is intended to strike the target.  The Pentagon has since cancelled the next two intercept tests, and the following two scheduled tests, intended to examine upgraded boosters, will not attempt to intercept any targets (see GSN, Jan. 7).

The Missile Defense Agency says it will resume intercept testing at the beginning of fiscal 2004.

“As they’re quick to point out, they’re at the very earliest stages of the testing, where everything is artificial,” said Martin.

Asked by Levin, Christie said the system would not be ready to test against a realistic long-range target by 2004.

Officials Drop Waiver Request

None of the officials testifying yesterday tried to defend the Bush administration’s request to exempt missile defenses from a standard Pentagon requirement that new weapons must be fully tested in operational conditions before they can be deployed.

Language for waiving that requirement was included in the administration’s fiscal 2004 budget request, but the officials yesterday said they would not object if Congress removed the language.

Christie said the administration’s current plans to field the missiles and other systems do not constitute a formal deployment order.

The system by 2004 will not be officially deployed, but rather will be considered to be part of a test infrastructure that already is in place and could be used in an emergency, he said.

“We’re not deploying it until we have built it,” he said.  “We may not have them deployed in 2004.  It may not be built in 2004,” he said.

Back to top

Taiwan:  Report Says Taipei Plans to Buy Patriot Missiles Quickly

A Taiwanese newspaper reported Friday that Taiwan is hastening the purchase of more than $3 billion in U.S. missile defense equipment, according to Agence France-Presse (see GSN, March 11).

The $3.16 billion deal would include two long-range radar systems, six Patriot Advanced Capability 3 missile systems, and upgrades for three PAC-2 missile systems, according to Taipei’s United Daily News.

The reported decision to speed the procurement took place as the U.S. Defense Department’s chief of Asia Pacific security affairs visited Taipei.  Mary Tighe is the highest-ranking U.S. military official to visit Taiwan since 1979, according to the United Daily News (Agence France-Presse, March 14).

Taiwanese defense officials, however, denied the report as speculative and said the military has a 10-year plan to acquire missile defense equipment.

“We have formulated a priority list and will carry out all procurement projects according to our own schedule.  There are no problems with any acceleration or postponement of arms procurement,” a statement from the Ministry of National Defense said (Taipei Times, March 15).

Back to top

U.S. Plans:  Mount Missile Defenses on Flatbed Ships, Hunter Says

U.S. House Armed Services Committee Chairman Duncan Hunter (R-Calif.) yesterday said the Defense Department should investigate mounting missile defense systems on flatbed ships to protect from sea-based missile attacks on the United States (see GSN, Feb. 27).

To defend against a “tramp freighter” armed with a Scud missile, Defense could deploy a “flatbed ship with a missile defense system bolted on it,” Hunter said.

The Pentagon is using the Aegis missile defense warning system, mounted on cruisers, to develop sea-based missile defenses for deployment worldwide.  Hunter suggested, however, that something less expensive and “less complete” than the Aegis system could be more applicable to static coastline defense.

Hunter made his suggestions at a committee hearing on U.S. military homeland defense activities.  Navy Adm. James Ellis, commander of the U.S. Strategic Command, did not support or reject Hunter’s proposal but said “all options” are on the table for defending the United States from a missile attack.

Representatives also questioned the Strategic Command’s role in missile defense.  Ellis said the command “is not envisioned to pull the trigger” but would instead relay information on incoming missiles to regional combat commanders or, if the attack is against the United States, to the head of the U.S. Northern Command.  The information would then be sent to the missile system operators.

Representative Terry Everett (R-Ala.) said that the information relay could cost crucial time in a missile attack (Marc Selinger, Aerospace Daily, March 14).

Back to top

U.S. Plans:  Lockheed Martin Receives $100 Million to Accelerate PAC-3 Production

The U.S. Army Aviation and Missile Command has awarded U.S. defense contractor Lockheed Martin $100 million to accelerate the production of the Patriot Advanced Capability 3 Missile, the company announced yesterday (see GSN, Dec. 4, 2002).  Lockheed Martin will produce an additional 12 PAC-3 missiles in fiscal 2003, in addition to the 88 missiles and related hardware the company was set to produce in fiscal 2003 under a contract awarded late last year (Lockheed Martin release, March 12).

Back to top

About Newswire  |  Contact National Journal  |  Re-Use Guidelines

HOME  |  CONTACT US  |  GET INVOLVED  |  SITE MAP