United States:  Pentagon Clears Patriot Crew That Downed British Aircraft

A U.S. Defense Department board of inquiry has cleared a Patriot missile crew of responsibility for the March 23 downing of a British Air Force Tornado jet and the killing of the aircraft’s two-man crew, the London Daily Telegraph reported today (see GSN, April 4).

Flt. Lt. Kevin Main and Flt. Lt. David Williams were killed by a Patriot missile that reportedly misinterpreted their landing aircraft to be an incoming Iraqi missile.

According to an inquiry by the U.S. Central Command, the Patriot battery “mistook the aircraft for an antiradiation missile based on its high-speed descent and lack of functioning IFF (the plane’s Identification Friend or Foe signal).”

British sources criticized the U.S. finding, saying the plane would not have taken off without a working IFF signal and that the pilot would have noticed if it had failed midflight and contacted ground-control officials.

British Royal Air Force officials also said that the radar image of a Tornado aircraft is not similar to an incoming missile (Michael Smith, London Daily Telegraph, July 16).

Back to top

U.S.-Russia:  Joint Early Warning Center to Open Next Year

A joint U.S.-Russian center to provide advance notification of ballistic missile launches is set to open in Moscow early next year, an adviser at the Russian Political Studies Center said last week (see GSN, May 23).

The center will be equipped with computer equipment to process, track and display ballistic missile information, Lt. Gen. Vasiliy Lata said.  Approximately 20 U.S. Defense Department officers will work at the center alongside Russian experts, according to ITAR-Tass. 

The mission of the center is to prevent false alarms of missile launches and to make a realistic assessment of the ballistic missile situation in space, according to Lata (ITAR-Tass, July 10 in FBIS-SOV, July 11).

Back to top

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

About Newswire  |  Contact National Journal  |  Re-Use Guidelines

HOME  |  CONTACT US  |  GET INVOLVED  |  SITE MAP