U.S. Plans:  Physicists Find Boost-Phase Approach Impractical

By David Ruppe
Global Security Newswire

WASHINGTON — The largest U.S. society of professional physicists today released its conclusion that boost-phase missile defenses, such as those being pursued by the Bush administration for its national missile defense system, would be largely “impractical.”

It found that the brief time needed for an enemy rocket to boost into space would provide the United States with little opportunity to destroy them unless U.S. forces were prepositioned as close as 400 to 1,000 kilometers to the enemy missiles.

Even then, the approach may not be feasible, the study said.

“Defending the United States against solid-propellant ICBMs would be impractical in many cases, because of their short burn times,” said the American Physical Society in a release announcing its 150-page scientific and technical feasibility study, Boost-Phase Intercept Systems for National Missile Defense.  Missile-defense experts, mostly from academic institutions around the country, prepared the report.

“Even against longer-burning, liquid-propellant ICBMs that North Korea or Iran might initially deploy, a boost-phase defense would have limited use due to the requirement that interceptors be based close to potential missile flight paths,” it said.

It said, however, that boost-phase defenses could be technically possible against short- or medium-range missiles launched from ships off U.S. coasts.  In such a scenario, U.S. ships with interceptors would need to be sailing less than 40 kilometers from the attacking ships, it said.

Challenges Acknowledged

The Bush administration has been pursuing a multilayered approach to developing a national missile defense, with the idea of developing and deploying different systems to create overlapping defenses using varied technologies.  Boost-phase systems — potentially using land-, sea-, air- and space-based systems — are considered longer-term goals.  The APS study estimates that initial deployment of the major systems would take 10 years.

The Department of Defense’s Missile Defense Agency is planning initial concept demonstrations of the technologies in 2004 for the Airborne Laser (see GSN, March 7), in 2005 for an envisioned new missile interceptor, and much later for a space-based laser.

With respect to the missile interceptor, it aims to make “product-line decisions” in the next few years and have an initial capability deployed by 2010.

The administration this year requested $626.3 million for this boost-phase work in fiscal 2004.  The Senate Appropriations Committee, however, last week cut funding for a boost-phase interceptor by $175 million for fiscal 2004 while otherwise increasing spending for additional midcourse interceptors by $200 million, Defense Week reported this week (see GSN, July 14).

The Missile Defense Agency previously has acknowledged that effective boost-phase defenses would require “quick reaction times” and “high-confidence decision-making.”  It is developing faster interceptor capabilities and also high-powered lasers for the Airborne Laser.

“Thus, resources have been allocated to develop both kinetic and directed energy capabilities in an effort to provide options for multiple engagement opportunities and basing modes to address a variety of timing and geographic constraints,” according to an agency fact sheet.

The APS report concluded, though, that even very large and fast interceptors “that pushed the state of the art would in most cases be unable to intercept solid-propellant ICBMs before they released their warheads,” according to the release.

It also said that the Airborne Laser system currently under development would have a limited range that would require it to be so close to the enemy that it would be vulnerable to a counterattack.

A space-based system, it said, would be reaction time-constrained and also could require a sizable commitment of resources — 1,000 or more orbiting satellites would be needed to ensure that one would be in place to intercept a single missile, requiring a potential tenfold increase to U.S. space-launch capabilities.

“It is crucial that decisions about large-scale investments in weapons systems take into account their technical feasibility,” said APS President Myriam Sarachik in a statement.  “The APS hopes this report will help in evaluating whether to build boost-phase defense systems,” she added.

Back to top

U.S. Plans I:  Senate Appropriators Boost Missile Defense Spending

The U.S. Senate Appropriations Committee last week boosted funding for purchasing Ground-based Midcourse Defense interceptors and the Arrow missile defense system in its fiscal 2004 defense spending bill, Defense Week reported today (see GSN, July 10).

The bill adds $200 million to buy additional missile interceptors and tacks on another $90 million to the Arrow program (see GSN, July 10).  The committee also added an unsolicited $20 million to the Pacific Missile Range Facility for facility improvements, and the Army Space and Missile Defense Command is slated to receive another $125 million.

The increases are not matched in the House Appropriation Committee bill, and the differences will be worked out in conference, Defense Week reported.

The Senate committee also cut $175 million from the Defense Department’s funding request for a kinetic-energy interceptor. 

In an effort to reduce program risk, the committee cut funding for the Space-Based Radar program by $75 million.  The committee also cut a $194 million Navy request to modernize Aegis cruisers — ships that are crucial to the national missile defense plan — after lawmakers questioned the cost estimates and acquisition strategy (John Donnelly, Defense Week, July 14).

Back to top

Australian Plans:  U.S. Wants Canberra to Take Part in Missile Defense

The United States wants Australia to cooperate in developing internationally deployed missile defenses, the Weekend Australian reported Saturday (see GSN, Feb. 27).

The system could include radar facilities or interceptors based in Australia, and Australian Navy ships could take part in the system.  J.D. Crouch, a senior Pentagon official, said he planned to visit Canberra to discuss the issue, according to the Weekend Australian.

“We don’t have any particular solution here,” Crouch said.  “One thing would be the basing of ship-based systems (in Australia); there might be some sensors (radar) that would be valuable to place there; maybe even interceptors,” he added.

Noting threats from countries such as North Korea, Australian Defense Minister Robert Hill said “a way of taking out missiles is a logical way to go.”

“The more likely progress will be through a ship-based scheme that won’t be specifically designed to protect continental Australia, but will have the capability of missile interception that will give us the potential to engage in a broader missile defense agenda,” he added (Roy Eccleston, Weekend Australian, July 12).

Back to top

U.S. Plans II:  Army Will Seek Miniature Kill Vehicle Developer Soon

The U.S. Army last week announced that it is preparing to seek proposals for a miniature kill vehicle contract, Space & Missile reported today (see GSN, June 16).

The company that wins the contract will continue development and testing of the miniature technology, and the selection process will only be open to three companies that have been involved in the early research.  Science Applications International, Schafer and Lockheed Martin have already been awarded preliminary development contracts, Space & Missile reported.

Officials are concerned that awarding the contract to another company would result in duplicated efforts and costs, Space & Missile reported.  The contract will be issued through the Army Space and Missile Defense Command in Huntsville, Ala., and be used in the national missile defense system.

“This technology is needed for future application within the critically important Ballistic Missile Defense System,” the Army said in a statement.

Army officials said they are seeking a system that will allow 20-40 softball-sized kill vehicles to be loaded onto one booster rocket.  Each kill vehicle would weigh 4 pounds (Keith Stein, Space & Missile, July 14).

Back to top

U.S. Plans:  Conservatives Applaud Bush Deployment Decision

By David Ruppe
Global Security Newswire

WASHINGTON — A member of the U.S. House of Representatives and other U.S. missile defense experts yesterday praised President George W. Bush’s confidential directive last December to order an initial deployment of land- and sea-based national missile defense systems by October 2004 (see GSN, May 21).

“Its true value lies in the fact that it represents a formal order to deploy a global missile defense system capable of protecting the U.S. homeland as well as U.S. forces and U.S. allies,” Representative John Hostettler (R-Ind.) said.

“It’s an order to deploy missile defenses by a date certain, something no U.S. president has ever done.  With this, the president signaled to the world that America will no longer face the threat of being held hostage to coercive diplomacy,” he said.

George C. Marshall Institute Executive Director Jeff Kueter said the directive to deploy is “major step forward for missile defense” because it increases the prospects of political survival and funding of the controversial program.

“It codifies and illustrates possibly the most important feature that any science and technology program needs to be successful … stability of commitment and stability of resources,” he said.

He said it provides “a major contribution to the level of innovation and the quality of that innovation because you can credibly undertake long-term programs, high-risk activities and know that if you fail you won’t be chopped off at the knees.”

Hostettler and Kueter spoke at an event organized by the Heritage Foundation to discuss the importance of the directive, known as National Security Presidential Directive 23.

Technology Said Ready

The policy to “deploy” was first officially announced by the White House in May, provoking criticism the administration had obscured a significant aspect of the order — that it intended a “deployment” rather than a “fielding” of test infrastructure — in order to gain congressional authorization (see GSN, June 23).

Critics also have charged the order to “deploy” is politically motivated, questioning the existence of any potential threat justifying deployment of an incompletely developed system and noting that the deployment deadline is less than two months before the 2004 presidential election.

“Fielding such an unproven system may pick up political points with some people, but it won’t contribute to the defense or security of our country,” said Senator Carl Levin (D-Mich.) in a statement last month.

The Pentagon’s top testing official has told Congress that major elements of the systems will not be sufficiently developed to be operationally effective at the scheduled deployment time (see GSN, March 19), and Missile Defense Agency officials have suggested deploying the system may actually slow research and development activities (see GSN, April 18).

The experts yesterday, though, said the system had proven itself ready for an initial deployment.

“For the record, GMD [Ground-based Missile Defense program] had four of the last five tests result in successful intercepts, with an overall record of five out of eight successful intercepts,” said Hostettler, who serves on the House Armed Services Committee (see GSN, Dec. 11, 2001).

“With all of this success at the R&D level, what’s left to do?” he asked.

“The answer of course is to begin deployment.  President Bush did just that on Dec. 16, 2002, when he issued National Security Presidential Directive 23,” he said.

Kueter said the system could be made to work, even though systems remain under development, by enlisting existing equipment that is more developed, such as sensor and tracking systems from the sea-based Aegis and the ground-based Theater High Altitude Area Defense missile interceptor programs.

Deployment and Testing

Bush’s order, experts say, will create an unusual situation where systems purchased by a research and development agency will be deployed in the field while also being subject to further testing.

Kueter said deploying the system could help Missile Defense Agency accelerate development and testing.

“By deploying early and building out test beds, it allows you ramp up your development activities by allowing for more complicated and sophisticated tests,” he said.

Missile defense officials, though, have cited the deployment decision, which involves placing 20 missile interceptors in Alaska and California by October 2006, as a reason for the Pentagon’s decisions in the past year to cancel nine intercept tests.

The Missile Defense Agency’s No. 2 official this week said the agency has been working hard on developing ways to both operate and test the system at the same time.

“Putting the ballistic missile defense system on alert has implications of how do you keep it on alert and test it at the same time,” said Army Maj. Gen. Peter Franklin, deputy director of the Missile Defense Agency.

“There are ways you can put  … capability in there, things you can do that will allow us to go forward in some ways and maybe not go forward in others.  Those are part of our intensive, very intensive discussions with STRATCOM [U.S. Strategic Command] on exactly what is needed,” he said.

“It’s very complicated when you’re looking at testing one part of the system and you’re executing another part of the system,” he said.

Back to top

Israel:  U.S. Senate Subcommittee Approves Funds for Continuing Arrow Production

Approved by its Appropriations Committee yesterday, the U.S. Senate version of the fiscal 2004 defense appropriation bill contains more than $150 million in funding for the joint U.S.-Israeli Arrow missile interceptor program, the Jerusalem Post reported today (see GSN, June 2).

The Bush administration had originally requested $66 million for the program, while Israel had asked for an extra $110 million, according to the Post.  The bill includes $156 million for the Arrow program, a $90 million increase over the White House request.  The additional funding is set to go toward coproduction of the interceptor with the U.S. defense contractor Boeing, the Post reported (see GSN, Feb. 12).

In addition, the Senate version of the bill includes $20 million for the U.S.-Israeli jointly developed Tactical High Energy Laser, according to the Post.  The laser is designed to destroy short-range artillery rockets (Janine Zacharia, Jerusalem Post, July 10).

Back to top

U.S. Plans:  Defense Department Will Produce Report on Failed Test

The U.S. Defense Department will produce a report “very, very shortly” on a failed June 18 test of a missile defense system, Aerospace Daily reported today (see GSN, June 19).

The USS Lake Erie, using the Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense system, fired a Standard Missile 3 during a test in the Pacific.  The missile, however, failed to intercept its target, Aerospace Daily reported.

The missile successfully tracked the target but failed to hit it, according to Maj. Gen. Peter Franklin, the deputy director of the Missile Defense Agency.  Franklin said yesterday that the missile successfully located the target and tracked it for six seconds before “losing control.”

“It did lose control and we lost the intercept,” he said, adding that the tracking portion of the test was a success.  “The system was able to track across the radar base, which was an important part of the test,” he said (Nick Jonson, Aerospace Daily, July 9).

Back to top

About Newswire  |  Contact National Journal  |  Re-Use Guidelines

HOME  |  CONTACT US  |  GET INVOLVED  |  SITE MAP