Sea-Based Missile Defense System Works, but Will Congress Fund It?

Human Events ^ | 6/16/2006 | Baker Spring

[Paul Ross]

Sea-Based Missile Defense System Works, but Will Congress Fund It?

by Baker Spring
Posted Jun 16, 2006

In 1995, The Heritage Foundation’s Missile Defense Study Team proposed to Congress a comprehensive plan for developing and deploying an effective global defense against ballistic missiles.

The panel was chaired by the former director of the Strategic Defense Initiative, Ambassador Henry F. Cooper, and among its recommendations was a proposal to evolve the existing AEGIS weapons systems onboard Navy surface ships for air defense into a missile defense system.

Last month, the Navy demonstrated the wisdom of this approach by successfully testing modified versions of the AEGIS system and its accompanying Standard Missile-2 Block IV surface-to-air missile against a target ballistic missile off Hawaii. It downed the target missile in its last stage of flight, called the terminal phase. The Heritage panel predicted this success in its 1995 report:

The earliest, least expensive, and politically least intrusive way to achieve a global defense [against ballistic missiles] is to build on the nearly $50 billion the U.S. has already invested in the Navy’s AEGIS system. The AEGIS system has been deployed on Navy cruisers and destroyers to provide defenses against aircraft. The system can be upgraded and the ships armed with a modified Standard surface-to-air missile. The Navy system will initially provide protection against missile attacks for only a limited area, with the Navy Lower Tier program.

Policy Choices Put the Navy Lower Tier System on Hold

The Clinton Administration opposed this obvious, effective, and inexpensive near-term approach to missile defense for reasons related to arms control, not technical shortcomings with this approach. The Clinton Administration’s overarching policy was to preserve and strengthen the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty with the former Soviet Union. This policy precluded progress on progressive modifications of the Aegis Weapons System and the Standard Missile because the Clinton Administration interpreted ambiguous language in the Treaty that barred giving other systems – in this case an air defense system – an anti-missile capability as applicable to sea-based missile defenses under certain circumstances. The Clinton Administration’s determination allowed continued testing of the system only if it was “dumbed down.” Specifically, it precluded the sharing of anti-missile targeting data with the interceptor from off-board radar and sensors. This effectively halted progress until the end of President Clinton’s second term in January 2001.

Prior to President Bush’s first term, Ambassador Cooper and his fellow panel member Admiral J.D. Williams urged Congress and the Department of Defense to revisit the issue of evolving the AEGIS weapons system and the Standard Missile-2 Block IV into an effective missile defense system. This appeal was rebuffed because of the Missile Defense Agency’s preference for advancing ground-based defenses at the expense of sea-based and space-based options. Consistent with this bias against the sea-based option, Under Secretary of Defense Pete Aldridge announced the cancellation of the sea-based terminal defense program, then called the Navy Area program, on December 17, 2001. This action was justified on the basis that the program was too costly and not performing well.

Successful Test of Sea-Based Terminal Defense Proves Program Critics Wrong

If Under Secretary Aldridge’s criticism was based more on performance concerns than cost, then last month’s test proved those concerns to be unfounded. According to the Missile Defense Agency, the combined effects of the modified Standard Missile-2 Block IV’s hit-to-kill and blast fragmentation kill capabilities produced an outcome in which “the threat missile was completely destroyed."

The charge that the sea-based terminal defense option would be excessively expensive has also been shown to be overblown. According to the Navy, the test assets were drawn from existing Navy programs, and therefore no new program was established for this capability. In fact, procurement of the system’s components is complete, and existing funding supports operations and the requirements for sustaining the system. The recent test was conducted in response to direction from the Deputy Secretary of Defense in 2003 after the cancellation of the Navy Area program and was financed by the Navy at a total cost of just $25 million in research and development funds.

The Need for Congressional Guidance

The terminal defense system successfully tested by the Navy last month provides an immediate option for protecting U.S. coastal areas against short-range missiles launched from ships. This is the conclusion of a recent report by an independent panel of experts on missile defense. This is because the Standard Missile-2 Block IV is readily available. The Director of the Missile Defense Agency, Lieutenant General Henry Obering, is committed to talking with the Navy and Combatant Commanders about putting this kind of missile defense capability to sea. Congress, however, should not leave it to the Missile Defense Agency to determine how to proceed.

Rather, Congress should directly fund the Navy to continue testing the terminal defense system it demonstrated last week and to provide modified versions of the Standard Missile-2 Block IV to the fleet as soon as possible. Further, it should direct the Department of Defense to field the system in a manner that will provide a limited defense of U.S. coastal areas against ship-launched, short-range ballistic missiles and applicable areas of allied territories against short-range missiles launched from land or sea.

Conclusion

When it takes more than 10 years to allow a weapon to demonstrate its utility, it can undermine the confidence of the American people in the political leadership’s commitment to national security. This is particularly the case when the delays are the result an irrational commitment to an irrelevant arms control agenda or the petty bureaucratic preferences of those managing alternative programs. The nation could have had a sea-based terminal defense against ballistic missiles years ago.

The question now is, will it be too late? Only Congress can reduce that risk. It can do so by directing that this capability be put to sea as soon as possible and providing the necessary funds directly to the Navy to achieve that outcome. Otherwise, the American people will have every right to question their faith in the political leadership’s commitment to national security.

---

Copyright © 2006 HUMAN EVENTS. All Rights Reserved.

[Paul Ross]

Congress needs to butt in. The Executive Branch is obviously playing to an agenda that does not equal actual missile defense.

[corkoman]

Do we really want a global missile defense or a national/hemispheric defense?

I want the euroweenies to be concerned about things otherwise they will be just as likely to continue spitting in our faces as usual.

[Paul Ross]

Do we really want a global missile defense or a national/hemispheric defense?

It's not necessarily either/or. We can have both. The nice thing about Aegis is that they aren't "set in concrete" they can move about, be positioned into smothering hot zones, and also provide a useful early boost-phase knock-down of ICBMs. For tertiary defense, it would be possible to have them around the periphery of the US as well, with intercepts of SCUDS, cruise missiles and incoming ICBM RVs as well.

The latter-capability has yet to be demonstrated however...Xlinton killed the development of the faster version of the SM-3 which might have been able to robustly accomplish that. Re-activating the old Sprint missile system for our outer-periphery states would likely also be a good supplemental coverage. Nuclear Detonations would then at least occur over the sea.

[coconutt2000]

Last month, the Navy demonstrated the wisdom of this approach by successfully testing modified versions of the AEGIS system and its accompanying Standard Missile-2 Block IV surface-to-air missile against a target ballistic missile off Hawaii.

I remember only hearing about the failures in the MSM. /sarc

[coconutt2000]

I'm also in favor of ground based defenses closer to home to begin with. Yes, we need sea based platforms as well, but those would be best used as a mobile reserve to plug any gaps in coverage, or to extend coverage to cover an ally.

[Sundog]

The background noise from a high-altitude nuclear burst renders the Aegis systems inoperative for about a half hour. It is an interesting problem.

[The Duke]

Somehow I don't think our "owners" in China would allow this technology to be developed.

[Paperpusher]

Could some of these be installed in fixed positions, say along the coast, near large cities.

[familyop]

"Congress, however, should not leave it to the Missile Defense Agency to determine how to proceed."

Congress would shut all anti-ballistic missile defense down in favor of funding anti-family, social engineering program offices in their states.

[Mr. Silverback]

The Executive Branch is obviously playing to an agenda that does not equal actual missile defense.

Backup for that statement?

[Mr. Silverback]

Somehow I don't think our "owners" in China would allow this technology to be developed.

You're funny.

[Alamo-Girl]

Indeed. Thanks for the ping!

[The Duke]

You're funny.

I didn't intend to be "funny". Was I misinformed when told that China ultimately owns vast numbers of US mortgages?

Didn't they purchase the Clinton administration with cold, hard campaign cash? Don't you think that's a gift that's probably still giving?

Tell me it ain't so!

[HiTech RedNeck]

This system has to be fitted to battleships, no? I'd hope it could be fitted in the future to submarines, too.

[HiTech RedNeck]

Oh joy, then all the attackers need to do is save a few extra nukes to make noise with.

[Mr. Silverback]

What's funny is that you think China will be able to determine the equipment deployed by the United States Navy. That, sir, is a first class kneeslapper.

[Sundog]

Really redefines the use of nukes, doesn't it?

[Sundog]

No, They are just entitled to the technical details of it.

[The Duke]

What's funny is that you think China will be able to determine the equipment deployed by the United States Navy.

Sorry, I thought China actually bought something for their campaign contributions to Bill Clinton.

But what do I know, I'm only a Reagan-era defense industry analyst(?)

[Sundog]

Suppose Israel develops an Arrow SAM system. Suppose America donates 45 million dollars to the cause. Israel reserves the right to sell the technology to China. They always have and always will. We might get some dandy missile systems to use, but nothing the enemy doesn't already have access to. When our surveillance plane collided with that Chi-com jet, it was carrying Israeli made air to air missles, made by Rafael. They are reverse-engineered versions of the Sparrow missles we supplied to them.