Posted on 05/14/2014 5:16:03 AM PDT by Kaslin
With Iran on the verge of obtaining nuclear weapons and Russia wanting to re-assert itself as a world power through the Ukrainian crisis, a strong military presence in the world is more important for America than ever. A critical way the military does this is by remaining a global leader in ballistic missile technology.
The details of ballistic missile defense systems are wonky and technical, especially as the technology improves far beyond those missiles used in the defense systems proposed by conservative hero President Ronald Reagan. But now, as military weaponry becomes more sophisticated at an alarmingly fast rate, and more hostile countries acquire ballistic missile technology, the United States must stay ahead of the curve when it comes to missile defense.
But staying ahead of the curve for our defenses does not necessarily mean always supporting the most theoretical advancements, especially as our federal government struggles to rein in record deficits.
Over the past 20 years, the Missile Defense Agency (MDA) has invested significant resources in developing the most accurate missiles on earth, and engineers have learned a lot while fine-tuning key interceptors like the Standard Missile-3 (SM-3) which can take out enemy missiles while in flight. The SM-3’s proven track record – which includes 26 successful intercepts – is why these missiles are essential to the continuing NATO effort in Europe to defend against missiles from hostile nations.
The most challenging aspect of this technology is achieving hit-to-kill capabilities with a “kill vehicle”, sometimes referred to as “hitting a bullet with a bullet.” The good news is that in this regard, the SM-3 has been very reliable. However, what should be concerning to supporters for a strong national defense is that the “exoatmospheric kill vehicle” on the only system that can defend the U.S. homeland against a long-range missile attack – the Ground-Based Midcourse Defense (GMD) system – has been far less dependable.
But this is no reason to turn our backs on GMD. In fact, with limited budget resources, the emphasis should be on continuing to improve these missiles’ already impressive technology, making sure they always hit the intended target with laser precision.
Even though according to Senator Kelly Ayotte (R-NH), the Obama administration has cut funding for missile defenses in half, it has at least come to its senses by turning away from the Standard Missile-3 II-B. Pushed heavily by entrenched special interests, the SM-3 II-B missile is a wildly expensive, flawed theoretical concept which could not be deployed until 2022. Of course, that timeline would be possible only if you believe even the most optimistic government estimates, which assume there will be no technical setbacks. Spending scarce resources on such a long-term time table, while hostile regimes wish to do us harm today, hardly seems like a prudent decision.
The tipping point on this debate came when the GAO and the National Research Council noted that the “boost phase intercept” concept that is central to the SM-3 II-B is not likely feasible. It would be impossible politically to explain spending billions on missiles which now may never exist, when the cheaper route also keeps America safer.
With the dangers America faces, time is of the essence when it comes to missile defense. With billions of dollars and countless man hours already invested to produce current accurate missile technology, the most effective way to bolster our defenses is to reengineer what already exists, and do so quickly.
America simply cannot afford – literally – for the Department of Defense to keep throwing away good money after bad. If it is serious about protecting the homeland and sending a message to Russia and others, breathing life back into the SM-3 II-B is not the way to do it. Fixing the GMD and evolving its hit-to-kill technology is.
Why is a missile defense shield no longer controversial and enjoys bipartisanship support? Because it works. Therefore, as threats evolve, Congress and our military must be nimble enough to swiftly direct already diminished resources into improving what already are the best missiles available today. This is a common sense budgetary decision which will keep America safe.
Obama weaponized terrorists and frees criminals
and TERRORIZES Americans using the IR”S”, DO”J” and N”S”A.
The EXEMPT Congress laughs, and
remains silent and EXEMPT.
First we would need an administration who gave a damn about American security and defense.
Missile defense by its nature has to be cutting edge on the other hand the entrenched interests in the defense industry are legendary.
Let's compare... GBIs - fixed land based silos requiring lots of infrastructure and protection. IIBs - "Aegis Ashore" capable, but also mobile in dozens of Aegis/VLS equipped cruisers and destroyers. GBIs - $90 million each (one source said $400 million each with development costs amortized). IIBs - I could not find a source for this, but other SM-3 variants are running around $24 to $30 million. Even if the IIB doubles the cost, at $60 million each they are still cheaper.
I would also compare their respective track records at intercept tests - which would support the point I'm trying to make. However I feel that would be unfair as the GBI and current SM-3s have been doing different kinds of testing. GBIs are intended to go after ICBM class (high speed & altitude) targets. The current versions of SM-3 are intended to intercept short to medium range targets. (generally not as much altitude nor speed) So the tests they have undergone are similar, but different in some key areas. Also, because of the costs of the missiles the SM-3s have been able to be test fired more often. The more you test (successful intercept or not), the more you learn and the more you advance. (something to keep in mind as we laugh at NK's missile failures - they are learning even as they fail)
So the upshot is, I don't understand why the author is promoting the GBIs over the SM-3 IIBs. Seems to me (from my Monday morning QB position) the SM-3s offer similar capabilities, more deployment options, and lower costs. Why wouldn't we push forward with their development?
The problems that first came up in the 70s when ABM defenses were first seriously discussed, and in the 80s when SDI came about, are STILL with us!
- Tracking: Can we reliably track an ICBM/SLBM and its MIRVed warheads? Is what we’re seeing REALLY a missile?
- Choice of weapon: Kinetic-energy weapons (bullet hitting a bullet) are not the best choice for a really reliable system. At orbital velocities, if you miss by six inches, you might as well have missed by a mile. Beam/energy weapons are better, which leads us to...
- Power requirements: To run your computers/trackers, and to run your beam weapons. Chemical lasers don’t last long. Do you really want to lift tons upon tons of power generators into orbit?
- the “kill window”; Mid-course and terminal phase of a ballistic missile’s flight are the WORST time to intercept it. Small, fast, and manuvering. BEST time is launch and boost phase. Big, slow, easy to see. Is an enemy really going to let you park a defense platform right over their head?
Could our missile-killer be mobile, penetrating enemy territory in time of conflict?
Jeez, I been reading too many techno-thrillers lately...
(and of course this does little to nothing for cruise missles.. just sayin’)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.