United States:  House Appropriations Cuts Some Missile Defense Funding

A House Appropriations subcommittee last week cut millions of dollars from the Bush administration’s request for a variety of missile defense programs but raised funding to procure the Patriot Advanced Capability 3 missile, Aerospace Daily reported yesterday.  The full committee is scheduled to consider the bill today (see GSN, May 8)

In considering the fiscal 2004 defense appropropriations bill, the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense boosted PAC-3 procurement funds by $90 million and added almost $23 million to sea-based X-band radar development, a key component of a national missile defense system (see GSN, May 16).

The subcommittee cut the overall White House missile defense request by $193 million.  In its report to the full committee, the subcommitee said Defense Department proposals to develop advanced missile defense technologies expressed concern that “considerable work remains to fully develop, test and deploy current systems.”  The committee cut $150 million from a $301 million request for an advanced missile interceptor.

According to the report, lawmakers cut $76 million from the Bush administration’s Ballistic Missile Defense Systems request.

“It is not clear what activities, levels of effort, or deliverables warrant,” that level of funding, the report says.

Committee members also decreased the $274 million request for the Space Based Radar by $100 million (see GSN, July 18, 2002).

Although the radar’s technology “is worthwhile for a variety of satellite applications, the committee is concerned that the large constellation and associated tasking, exploitation, processing and dissemination (TPED) required to satisfy the SBR goal is ultimately unaffordable,” the report says.

The program could require 20 satellites and $25 billion in funding, Aerospace Daily reported.

The subcommittee supported a House Armed Services Committee proposal to investigate the possibility of a new, advanced bomber aircraft (see GSN, May 8).  According to the report, the subcommittee provided $100 million for the study (Marc Selinger, Aerospace Daily, June 25).

Back to top

United States:  Franks to Testify Before Congress on Patriot Friendly Fire Incidents

U.S. Army General Tommy Franks, head of the U.S. Central Command, is expected to testify before Congress on two friendly-fire incidents during the Iraq war that involved the Patriot missile interceptor, Aerospace Daily reported today (see GSN, May 23).

Franks’ testimony may be classified, but an open session on the incidents for reporters is being scheduled in the next several weeks in Washington, said Lt. Gen. Joseph Cosumano, head of the Army Space and Missile Defense Command and the Army Space Command.  The investigations into the two Patriot incidents — the destruction of a U.S. Navy F/A-18 Hornet and a British Tornado, both by Patriots — have examined a number of possibilities, he said.

An investigation was also conducted into an incident wherein a U.S. F-16 fired at a Patriot battery, destroying the system but leaving the crew unharmed, according to Aerospace Daily.  Congress is also expected to be briefed on this incident (Rich Tuttle, Aerospace Daily, June 25).

Back to top

Japan:  Tokyo Seeks Domestic Production Rights to PAC-3

Japan’s Defense Agency is planning to ask the United States for permission to produce Patriot Advanced Capability 3 missiles domestically, Agence France-Presse reported today (see GSN, June 23).

The award could go to Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, which already produces the PAC-2 missile, according to a report today in the Nihon Keizai.  Japan is planning to provide funding next year for a two-layered missile defense system.

“Nothing has been decided about the introduction of the PAC-3 and it is still under study as part of the missile defense program,” a Defense Agency spokesman said.  “Since the Patriot 2 is being made by Mitsubishi, I personally think that it would be difficult for other makers to get (the contract),” the spokesman added.

A Mitsubishi spokesman said the company does not yet have a contract to perform the work.

“The report is very speculative,” the spokesman said.  “We would be grateful if such a license comes to us as we take pride in our missile technologies,” he added (Agence France-Presse, June 24).

Back to top

European Plans:  MEADS Offer on Schedule for This Month

A proposal for the development of the multinational Medium Extended Air Defense System will be sent to defense departments on schedule this month, according to the system’s contractors (see GSN, June 9).

“The offer lays an important foundation upon which our customers can base their decision regarding the continuation of this major trans-Atlantic program as it will contain the first reliable estimations concerning the development, acquisition and operating costs,” said Werner Kaltenegger, chief executive of the European Aeronautic Defense and Space Co. and missile-defense firm LFK.  “In addition, the first assemblies will be completed on schedule this year, including the prototype of the new-fire control radar and extensive simulations will be performed to demonstrate the capabilities of the ultra-modern MEADS air defense system,” he added.

The MEADS system is being developed by the United States, Germany and Italy.  Washington is slated to provide 55 percent of the funding, while Berlin and Rome will contribute 28 percent and 17 percent, respectively.

MEADS program officials said the impending offer marks an important step for the program, according to Defense Daily International.

The MEADS program has been adjusted to incorporate the Patriot Advanced Capability 3 missile from U.S. contractor Lockheed Martin.  The international system, however, faces uncertain funding, Defense Daily reported (Defense Daily International, June 20).

Back to top

NATO:  U.S. Air Force Space Command Opens New Early Warning Facility

The U.S. Air Force Space Command opened a new facility last week designed to provide early warning of ballistic missile launches to NATO members and other nations (see GSN, June 13).

The opening of the Shared Early Warning System Centralized Distribution Facility at Peterson Air Force Base in Colorado marked the transfer of the early warning system from the developmental phase to the operational phase, a command spokeswoman said.  The system will provide missile launch warnings to NATO members, according to a command statement.

The system will also provide launch warnings to “six partner nations and multiple coalition forces,” the spokeswoman said.  While refusing to name the six additional nations, she said the defense secretary’s office would choose which additional countries would be covered by the system (John Bennett, InsideDefense.com, June 23).

Back to top

U.S. Plans:  Critics Say Administration Misled Congress on Missile Defense Deployment Order

By David Ruppe
Global Security Newswire

WASHINGTON — By exploiting nuances in terminology, missile defense critics say, the Bush administration misled Congress this year to help win approval of President George W. Bush’s missile defense plans.

The charge is based on official administration documents, statements by spokesmen and congressional testimony indicating that Bush ordered the Pentagon last December to “field,” rather than “deploy,” initial land- and sea-based missile defenses by October 2004.

Two key Democratic senators who cooperated on authorizing the program said they were assured by administration officials the system would be declared “fielded’ and not “deployed’ until the missile interceptors are proven to work under realistic conditions through operational testing.

Days after gaining key House and Senate committee approval for the initiative, however, the White House on May 20 issued a policy statement declaring its intention to “deploy” the systems by the deadline.  In addition, a recently leaked copy of the Dec. 16, 2002 order, “National Security Presidential Directive 23,” showed that Bush had directed the Pentagon to “deploy” the systems all along.

The leaked directive and current use of the term “deploy” have provoked criticism from some missile defense analysts.

“It’s clear to me that they’re trying to slip something past the Congress and the American people,” said Joseph Cirincione, a senior associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

“There is certainly some deception going on,” said Lisbeth Gronlund, a missile defense analyst with the Union of Concerned Scientists.

“This is surprising since in testimony as recently as last month [Missile Defense Agency Director Lt. Gen. Ronald] Kadish described it as both an ‘initial defensive capability’ and a ‘test bed,’” Philip Coyle, former assistant secretary of defense and director of operational test and evaluation, said last month.

Pentagon spokesmen now say no distinction in terminology was intended.

“Fielding is deployment, deployment is fielding.  It’s just whatever word you choose to use,” said Missile Defense Agency spokesman Richard Lehner.

“If they [White House officials] call it a deployment, it’s called a deployment … to me it’s one in the same,” he said.

A review of hearing testimony does show a mixed record on official statements.

Senate Concerns

Use of the term “field” rather than “deploy” was and remains important to two senior lawmakers in particular, who point to a 1983 law requiring the Pentagon to operationally test major weapons systems before deploying them. 

“Any decision to deploy missile defense prior to conducting operational testing would be contrary to current law, fiscally irresponsible, and would also call into serious question the effectiveness of the defense,” Senator Carl Levin (D-Mich.), senior Democrat on the Senate Armed Services Committee, said in an April statement.

“I urge the Defense Department to conduct realistic operational testing on the 2004 missile defense systems as early as possible, prior to asserting that the systems are deployed and proven,” said fellow committee member Senator Jack Reed (D-R.I.).

The term “field,” experts say, implies a status short of a deployment, reflecting the fact that the system would not be completely developed and tested by the time the first interceptor missiles entered service and would remain part of the testing infrastructure.

The Pentagon’s top testing official, Thomas Christie, in his most recent annual report to Congress concluded – and other officials have not disputed – that major components of the land-based interceptor system will not be deployed or fielded by the deadline, nor will the whole system be sufficiently developed to begin operationally testing by October 2004.

“This is a test bed, first and foremost,” Christie wrote.

He drew a similar conclusion with the sea-based system:  “There are significant capabilities yet to be demonstrated before the engagement conditions can be considered operationally realistic.”

Senate Democrats want to ensure the ordered system will be operationally tested, Gronlund said.  Furthermore, they want to avoid setting a precedent for the future, she said.

“They don’t want this to be a precedent for actually deploying something without testing.  They don’t want to cross that line,” she said.

The president would like the system declared deployed, rather than just fielded and available in an emergency, for political purposes, she said.

Bush wants to say before the next election, “this is it, I said I would build a missile defense system and here it is,” Gronlund said.

Deployment implies the system is “up and working, that we’ve really got something,” she said.

The White House, in its fact sheet released last month, said Bush’s order was justified by a the current security environment and the state of the missile defense technologies.

“In light of the changed security environment and progress made to date in our development efforts, the United States plans to begin deployment of a set of missile defense capabilities in 2004,” it said.

Pentagon Insisted on “Fielding”

The Pentagon first characterized Bush’s order as a fielding in a press release and statements by officials announcing the order on Dec. 17, the day after the president signed it. 

While declaring deployment a goal, the Pentagon’s press release announcing the decision said, “the president has directed the Department of Defense to begin fielding initial missile defense capabilities in 2004-2005.”

A White House release also used the term and Pentagon press officials at the time rejected the word deploy as a descriptor.

“We’re talking about initial capabilities now,” said Pentagon Public Affairs Officer Cheryl Irwin in a phone interview the day after the announcement.

Pressed to say whether it would be a deployment, she said, the military will “begin fielding initial missile defense capabilities.”

The Missile Defense Agency’s Web site fact sheet on the ordered activity also used the term field and stresses the system’s developmental nature.

Missile Defense Agency spokesman Chris Taylor said in a February e-mail, “We felt ‘fielding an initial capability’ was a more accurate description than deployment.”

Congressional Testimony

Since Bush’s order, senior administration officials often used the term “field” to describe the ordered activity, perhaps most significantly before Levin and Reed’s committee, where authorization was needed and the most vocal critics were found.

In particular, at a March 18 hearing there, Kadish, Director of Operational Test and Evaluation Thomas Christie, and Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Policy J.D. Crouch all chose that terminology.

“Last December the president directed the Department of Defense to field an initial set of missile defense capabilities because of our technical progress and our total lack of missile defenses against intermediate- and long-range missiles,” Kadish said in his prepared remarks.

Crouch in his first sentence referenced “the president’s recent decision to begin fielding missile defense capabilities.”

Undersecretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics E. C. “Pete” Aldridge, Jr. differed with his colleagues in his prepared testimony.

“As you are aware, on December 19th, 2002, President Bush made the decision to deploy a limited Missile Defense capability beginning in 2004,” he said.

In questioning, though, Aldridge took a step back:

“The terminology ‘deployed’ bothers me … the word ‘deployed’ has a connotation that goes far beyond the construction of a test bed,” he said.

Aldridge suggested the “fielded” systems primarily would be part of the Missile Defense Agency’s development and testing infrastructure, while also available for operations.

The Pentagon was pursuing “the construction of a test bed which will be augmented with some limited operational capability,” he said.

Assurances Taken

Reed said administration statements that day, and previously, assured him that the system would be fielded and not declared deployed until it is operationally tested.

“In December 2002, President Bush issued a statement announcing his intention to ‘proceed with fielding an initial set of missile defense capabilities’ in 2004,” the senator in a statement.

“During a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing on ballistic missile defense held on March 18, 2003, Department of Defense officials, including the Pentagon’s acquisition chief, the director of the Missile Defense Agency, and the director of operational test and evaluation all told the committee that the missile defenses to be fielded in 2004 will be used to conduct more realistic operational tests,” he said.

Levin similarly, in April, said the three officials “all testified that the national missile defense system President Bush intends to say is ‘fielded’ in 2004 will be used to conduct realistic operational tests, and that the Defense Department did not intend to waive the requirement for operational testing of missile defenses.  I have not heard that they have changed their plans.”

The two Democrats, two of the administration’s most outspoken skeptics in Congress, on May 14 joined the majority Republicans to approve authorizing language to “field” the system contained in the 2004 defense authorization bill.  House and Senate delegations are expected to meet soon on the bill to reconcile bill differences.

In the House Armed Services committee, senior Democrats have not insisted on the distinction in terms, treating authorization of Bush’s order as an exception to the law.  In a statement on May 14, Representatives John Spratt (D-S.C.) and Silvestre Reyes (D-Texas) said they received Republican agreement that operational testing would be completed before future deployments.

Policy to ‘Deploy’ Indicated

On May 20, The White House issued a policy statement declaring its intention to “deploy” the systems by the deadline.

Later in the month, a leaked copy of Bush’s security directive was published on the Web that said twice the Pentagon would “deploy” the system.

“The United States plans to begin deployment of a set of missile defense capabilities in 2004.”

“The Defense Department shall begin to execute the approach proposed by the secretary of defense and shall proceed with plans to deploy a set of initial missile defense capabilities beginning in 2004,” it said.

Pentagon spokesmen now say no particular distinction has been intended, that the two words have been used interchangeably.

Pentagon spokeswoman Irwin wrote in an e-mail, “DOD and MDA (and it’s predecessor organizations) have used the words ‘deployed’ and ‘fielded’ interchangeably and both denote operational availability.”

In fact, some administration officials did previously say in congressional testimony Bush had ordered a deployment.  Two, in particular, were the military officials who will be responsible for operating the land-based system once it’s up and running: Army Space and Missile Defense Command Director Lt. Gen. Joseph Cosumano in March testimony and National Guard Bureau Chief Lt. Gen. H. Steven Blum.

Others, such as U.S. Navy Deputy Chief of Naval Operations Vice Admiral John Nathman in March 27 testimony, and Kadish, did not.

Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, in Feb. 13 testimony, was the most senior official to state deployment.

“We increased missile defense by $1.5 billion, including increased funds for research and development of promising new technologies, and to deploy a small number of interceptors beginning in 2004,” he said.

Rumsfeld under questioning, though, acknowledged the significance of the terms, calling “deployment” and “test bed” “hot button words,” while insisting a test bed with only a “minimal deployment” capability was intended.

His comments — and controversial administration-backed legislative language that some senators said would have waived the operational testing requirement for Bush’s ordered system — sparked criticism in the hearing.

“Your budget request seeks a waiver of the operational testing requirements to enable you to implement your plans to deploy a national missile defense system in 2004.  How do you justify bypassing operational testing requirements?” Levin said.

The administration officials before Levin in March denied that was the intent of the controversial language but said they accepted its removal from the bill.

Officials, including Irwin most recently, have said the administration intends to put the system through operational testing at some point after it is in the field.

Choice of Terms

Critics suspect officials tried to sell Congress on the idea of deployment, and while encountering resistance, tailored their message to make the authorization more palatable.

“My guess is there is a combination of deception and confusion, and some people are willing to muddy the waters for political purposes,” Gronlund said.

Furthermore, she said officials used varying terms for their own reasons.

“Different people have a vested interest in using one term or another,” she said.

“I think there is an interest on the part of the Missile Defense Agency and the Pentagon to call it fielding, because they have to be somewhat honest with Congress … and, then the White House clearly has an interest,” she said.

Cirincione says the Democrats were outright misled on the administration’s intentions.

“The administration laid down a smokescreen to prevent congressional objections to actually deploying a weapons system that hasn’t been tested.  And when they clearly got Congress’ OK for this, they pulled back the curtain and revealed that this is a deployment after all, establishing now the precedent of deploying the system without testing it.”

“I think the Pentagon has used whatever label is most politically convenient at the time for them,” said Arms Control Association analyst Wade Boese.

He praised the administration for skill at using language to set the course of a debate, saying, “Then that’s how people talk about it from then on.  I think this administration deserves credit for that, they are very good at getting their message across.”

Back to top

Japan:  Tokyo Allows Ballistic Missile Intercepts Over Japan

In a new interpretation of Japan’s Constitution, the Japanese Defense Agency said the country is allowed to intercept ballistic missiles that fly over its territory, including those that might not be targeting Japan, the Japan Times reported today (see GSN, June 13).

Officials at the Defense Agency said yesterday that intercepting a missile over Japan would not violate the constitution’s ban on collective defense.  If Japan implements a missile defense system, it cannot be used to help defend another country, the Japan Times reported.  However, a missile flying over Japan could accidentally fall short and hit the country, justifying an intercept (Japan Times, June 23).

Japan has decided to put fiscal 2004 money toward a two-layered missile defense system, the Daily Yomiuri reported today.  The plan would involve Patriot Advanced Capability 3 missiles and Standard Missile 3 missiles, according to Japanese officials.

The system — seen by some Japanese officials as the only effective means to respond to the threat of North Korean ballistic missiles — still faces legal and technical hurdles, according to the Daily Yomiuri (Michio Hayashi, Daily Yomiuri, June 23).

Back to top

Arab Plans:  Gulf States Plan Regional Missile Defense

The United Arab Emirates and some of its neighbors are planning to buy missile defense systems and integrate them into a regional missile defense shield, Defense News reported today (see GSN, April 24).

The six-member Gulf Cooperation Council will determine the requirements for a missile defense system by the end of the year, according to Maj. Gen. Khaled al-Bu Ainain, commander of the United Arab Emirates’ Air Force and Air Defense Command.

“If gulf states went with a series of Patriot missiles, it would be easy later on to integrate them in one regional defense system,” said Susan Baumgarten, president of Raytheon, which produces the Patriot missile.

The GCC includes the U.A.E., Oman, Bahrain, Qatar, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia.  Kuwait and Saudi Arabia already have Patriot missiles, according to Defense News (Riad Kahwaji, Defense News, June 23).

Back to top

U.S. Plans:  Pentagon Officials Blame Test Failure on Misfiring Control Jets

U.S. Defense Department officials have said the failure of a solid-fuel guidance system was responsible for a missile interceptor failing to hit its target during a sea-based missile defense test conducted earlier this week, the Washington Times reported today (see GSN, Jan. 19).

The solid divert and attitude control (DAC) system used to control the interceptor’s kinetic warhead stopped functioning, resulting in the missed intercept, officials familiar with the test said.  The system uses solid-fuel jets to guide the interceptor’s warhead.

The U.S. Navy, which helped develop the interceptor, was previously urged to use a liquid-fuel system, but rejected the idea because liquid fuel is more difficult to store onboard a ship than solid fuel, missile defense officials said.

“The Navy insisted on a DAC with solid fuel, but the technology makes it more difficult for it to burn and stop, and burn again,” a missile defense official said.

In this week’s test, one of the solid fuel “cells” failed to ignite, according to the Times.

“The Navy is demonstrating an inability to get the DAC to work right,” the official said.  “They keep saying they think it’s ready, but it’s not.  They have got to figure out how to fix it,” the official added.

A spokesman for the Missile Defense Agency said, however, that it is still too early to determine why the test failed.

“We’ll certainly analyze the performance of the solid divert and attitude control system (SDACS), along with the performance of every other component from which we received data during the test,” MDA spokesman Rick Lehner said in a statement (Bill Gertz, Washington Times, June 20).

Back to top

About Newswire  |  Contact National Journal  |  Re-Use Guidelines

HOME  |  CONTACT US  |  GET INVOLVED  |  SITE MAP