Missile Defense 
U.S. Plans:  Decision on Miniature Kill Vehicles Due This YearFull Story
European Plans:  NATO Ministers Approve Study FundingFull Story
U.S.-Japan:  Kadish Pushes for Two-Layer Japanese Missile DefenseFull Story
U.S. Plans:  Defense Department May Budget For Missile ProcurementFull Story
South Korea:  Defense Official Wants Independent Missile Defense SystemFull Story
U.S. Plans:  Failed December Missile Defense Test Costs $45 MillionFull Story


Recent Stories: Missile Defense

From June 16, 2003 issue.

U.S. Plans:  Decision on Miniature Kill Vehicles Due This Year

The U.S. Missile Defense Agency will make a decision in a few months on developing Miniature Kill Vehicles that could be fired in groups from a single missile, Defense News reported today (see GSN, Feb. 3).

The agency is scheduled to decide how much money to spend on the systems by the end of summer.  Multiple MKVs, which could weigh between 2 and 10 kilograms, would theoretically allow an interceptor to defeat decoys.

A missile armed with two- or three-dozen MKVs would decrease the need to have “excruciating knowledge of the bad guys’ weapons,” said Gary Payton, the MDA deputy for advanced systems.

“With one interceptor, I can assign multiple kill vehicles to everything I see,” Payton said.  “It improves the probability of kill,” he added.

It is not certain, however, if a small kill vehicle can destroy an incoming missile.

“At the extreme, you have to worry about lethality,” Payton said (Gopal Ratnam, Defense News, June 16).


Back to top
     
From June 13, 2003 issue.

European Plans:  NATO Ministers Approve Study Funding

NATO defense ministers have approved funding for a missile defense feasibility study at their meeting yesterday (see GSN, June 2).

“This is truly an exciting time for missile defense at NATO,” said NATO’s Assistant Secretary General for Defense Investment Robert Bell.  “Missile defense is without any doubt a major building block towards transformation of the alliance to meet new security threats,” he added.

Work on the study, which will examine options for missile defense systems and determine the best technologies and systems to achieve an effective NATO missile defense, is expected to commence in October (NATO release, June 13).


Back to top
     
From June 13, 2003 issue.

U.S.-Japan:  Kadish Pushes for Two-Layer Japanese Missile Defense

The top U.S. missile defense official today encouraged Japan to implement a two-layer missile defense shield, the Kyodo News Agency reported (see GSN, June 5).

Visiting Tokyo, U.S. Missile Defense Agency Chief Lt. Gen. Ronald Kadish persuaded Japan’s defense chief Shigeru Ishiba to adopt a system that incorporates Aegis radar-equipped ships and ground-based Patriot missiles, according the news agency.  Kadish also pushed for a spiral approach, in which technology is upgraded and the system is enhanced over time.

The two officials said they would cooperate on ballistic missile defense, according to a Japanese official.  Ishiba said, however, that more domestic debate is needed before Japan adopts such a system (Kyodo News Agency/BBC Monitoring, June 13).


Back to top
     
From June 11, 2003 issue.

U.S. Plans:  Defense Department May Budget For Missile Procurement

Responding to criticism from government auditors, the U.S. Defense Department may begin allocating money in future budgets to buy missiles currently under development by the Missile Defense Agency, Inside Missile Defense reported today (see GSN, June 5).

Agency officials said the military services do not currently budget for procurement because they do not know if missile systems will be transferred to them.

Glenn Lamartin, director of defense systems for the undersecretary of defense for acquisition, technology and logistics, commented on a General Accounting Office recommendation to earmark money for missile procurement in future budgets.

“Doing so would not only promote the stability of the overall defense budget, but would also significantly improve the likelihood that an element or component would actually be fielded,” Lamartin wrote in an April 17 response to the GAO.  “The department will certainly consider this option for elements and components that have demonstrated sufficient maturity to enter into production,” he added.

In its report, the GAO warns that not laying out the costs in advance could force cuts in other programs down the line, Inside Missile Defense reported (Thomas Duffy, Inside Missile Defense, June 11).


Back to top
     
From June 10, 2003 issue.

South Korea:  Defense Official Wants Independent Missile Defense System

A top South Korean defense official said yesterday that Seoul should develop its own missile defense system and not just rely on U.S. efforts to provide a missile defense shield (see GSN, June 5).

“We need to build our own capabilities regardless of requests from the United States,” said Deputy Defense Minister for Policy Lt. Gen. Cha Young-koo.  “However, the United States has not yet made any proposal on our participation in the MD,” he added.

Cha said the U.S. Patriot missiles already stationed in South Korea should not dissuade Seoul’s efforts.

“We need to establish our own capability and we have a mid- and long-term plan for that,” he said.  Cha also supported a U.S. request that Seoul increase its defense spending to more than 3 percent of its gross domestic product (Xinhua News Agency, June 10).


Back to top
     
From June 10, 2003 issue.

U.S. Plans:  Failed December Missile Defense Test Costs $45 Million

U.S. defense contractor Boeing lost $45 million in bonus money last December when a test of the developing U.S. missile defense system failed (see GSN, Dec. 11, 2002).

The test failed because the warhead, built by Raytheon, did not separate from the booster rocket.  The problem was linked to a design change made by a Raytheon subcontractor two years ago, according to Patricia Sanders of the Missile Defense Agency.

The potential Boeing bonus for a successful test was $48.4 million.

“We were not pleased,” Sanders said.  “A lot of profit is really in the award fee, and that is a very big message to both Boeing and Raytheon — they didn’t make the profit and they won’t make that up,” she added.

Technicians at Pacific Scientific in California removed a small piece of foam to allow easier access to the warhead’s inner workings, but that foam was necessary to brace equipment that severed the bonds with the booster.  The uncushioned equipment broke after the missile was fired.

“This falls into the category of ‘no detail being too small,’” Sanders said.

Raytheon lost its bonus as well, but did not disclose the amount.  Raytheon officials will increase their monitoring of subcontractor work, the company said (Tony Capaccio, Bloomberg.com, June 9).


Back to top
     

About Newswire  |  Contact National Journal  |  Re-Use Guidelines

HOME  |  CONTACT US  |  GET INVOLVED  |  SITE MAP