Ten Years Later: Successful Demonstration of Sea-Based Terminal Defense Against Ballistic Missiles

Heritage Foundation ^ | June 6, 2006 | Baker Spring

[Paul Ross]

Ten Years Later, a Successful Demonstration of a Sea-Based Terminal Defense Against Ballistic Missiles
by Baker Spring, Heritage Foundation
WebMemo #1125

June 13, 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.[1] 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.[2] 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.[3]

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.[4] 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.[5] 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.[6] 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.”[7]

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.[8]

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.[9] 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.[10] 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 ten 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.

Baker Spring is F.M. Kirby Research Fellow in National Security Policy in the Douglas and Sarah Allison Center for Foreign Policy at The Heritage Foundation.

[1] Missile Defense Study Team, “Defending America: A Near- and Long-Term Plan to Deploy Missile Defenses, The Heritage Foundation, 1995.

[2] Missile Defense Agency, “First at-Sea Demonstration of Sea-Based Terminal Capability Successfully Completed,” May 24, 2006.

[3] Missile Defense Study Team, op. cit., p. 28.

[4] Henry F. Cooper and J.D. Williams, “The Earliest Deployment Option – Sea-Based Defenses,” Inside Missile Defense, September 6, 2000.

[5] For Ambassador Cooper’s detailed criticism of the Missile Defense Agency’s “biased” approach toward the development of competing basing modes for missile defense, see Ambassador Henry F. Cooper, letter to Lieutenant General Ronald Kadish, July 16, 2001.

[6] “Aldridge Kills Navy Area Missile Defense Program,” Defense Daily, December 17, 2001, at http://www.defensedaily.com/VIP/common/pub/dd/2001/dd12170109.html (June 1, 2006).

[7]Missile Defense Agency, op. cit.

[8] Program budget information was provided to the author by the Navy on June 6, 2006.

[9] “Missile Defense, the Space Relationship, and the Twenty-First Century,” Report of the Independent Working Group on Missile Defense, Institute for Foreign Policy Analysis, Cambridge, Massachusetts and Washington, D.C., 2006, pp. VIII-9-VIII-10.

[10]Missile Defense Agency, op. cit.

[ElkGroveDan]

We all may get to see a demonstration of this in real time, real soon.

[Paul Ross]

The money quote:

When it takes more than ten 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?

If the RATs return to power either in 2006 or 2008, then even if the Administration finally shakes the cobwebs out of its head (perhaps due to a Faustian bargain with Pooty-Poot and Hu Jintau)...and asserts missile defense as a vital national necessity....it might find that the Anti-Defense Crowd has zeroed out all missile defense "because it didn't work, or was too costly."

When the unbeatable answer to all those objections was sitting at the docks...waiting to be properly upgraded.

If instead of remaining theoretical, or unfunded, but instead it was a fully deployed operational system, online and and protecting America if and when the Rats came to power...then even they might suddenly discover some reasoms to not eliminate our actually-working defenses.

[Alamo-Girl]

Bump!

[Dosa26]

I don't know it for a fact but I doubt we spent 50 billion on aegis just so we could get nuked by 3rd world-ers. It will take a little more to finish the shield but we already abducated the abm treaty, we have most of the hardware, lets do it.

[Sundog]

Thanks for the ping.

I say we put a precision munition into the control bunker for the missle shot and remind N.K. they have never signed a peace treaty ending the Korean war.

Can you imagine the stink the UN would raise?

[Paul Ross]

We all may get to see a demonstration of this in real time, real soon.

No kidding, with Iran

And North Korea blowing hellfire and damnation. N Korea test moves 'continuing'

And so also may this guy and his bosses who either allowed or ordered him to torpedo Area NavyWide.

Under Secretary of Defense
(Acquisition, Technology & Logistics)
Edward C. "Pete" Aldridge Jr. DoD photo

I personally don't see how he, or they, can live with themselves.

Let's just pray that this stop-gap emergency measure gets deployed in time:

Navy to Field Terminal Phase SM-2 Interceptors on Aegis Ships

June 5, 2006 :: Inside Defense :: News

The U.S. Navy plans to modify its existing fleet of Standard Missile-2 (SM-2) Block IV missiles to defend against enemy ballistic missiles in the terminal phase, the final minute or so before the missiles strikes their targets. On May 24, the Navy conducted the first sea-based intercept of a ballistic missile in the terminal phase, using a modified SM-2 fired from the Aegis cruiser Lake Erie. Based on the success of this test, the Navy plans to modify approximately 100 SM-2 missiles and deploy them on three Aegis BMD-configured cruisers. According to Christopher Taylor, an MDA spokesman, this plan is still being generated and vetted by Naval Sea Systems Command, so detailed costs are not yet available.

Three cruisers. Three. That tells us just how desperate is the state of things, and how last-second it is. We may not have this deployed either sufficiently or at all...before the balloon goes up.

[Paul Ross]

I say we put a precision munition into the control bunker for the missle shot and remind N.K. they have never signed a peace treaty ending the Korean war. Can you imagine the stink the UN would raise?

The stink? Yes. But the reaction of the North Korean regime, basically a sock puppet for Red China, is hard to predict. They could accept it as a sound whipping...or they could explode and start the rolling attack on South Korea. With 10,000 old Soviet long guns trained on Seoul...they could reduce the city to flaming rubble with just the first shots.

I think the more elegant way to deal with this, would be to immediately...but quietly... deploy and park both the USS Lake Erie and her sister ship, one near the coast of North Korea and another down-range ...prepared for action.

They launch, we shoot it down.

A number of salutory things would eventuate from this:

(1) We get real-world confirmation of the system's viability.

(2) So does the enemy. And I mean ALL the enemy. Not just the North Koreans. But the Russians. The Chinese. And the Iranians. And a host of tyrants elsewhere would be forced to pay heed.

(3) We either silence the critics, or we don't. It's make or break time. If successful, we vindicate all of our previous efforts, and arguments, and destroy all the political logjams both internal and external to the Pentagon, and get a clean sweep go ahead for what is necessary. If it fails, we need to go back to the drawing board. Not ready for prime time. But we have hardly spent anything on this system, so it wouldn't be a big loss. And if it does fail, then we need point out that the better system was killed, with Navy AreaWide.

(4) North Korea would suddenly not only know that we had knocked down their missile...but they now also wouldn't have any idea of whether their missile was in fact able to perform...since we would no longer be permitting their tests to be completed. They would have a complete collapse in their confidence in their weapons system...and their ability to intimidate, bluff, or suprise us.

[Paul Ross]

And as if someone in the Pentagon is channeling me...albeit I would be quiet about this rather than make it a kind of "public line-in-the-sand".

US: If N. Korea Launches Missile Without Notice, Can't Assume it is Test

[Sundog]

There also needs to be a reasonable ASW force protecting the ships, the chi-com have a reasonable coastal defense submarine force.

They would love to be able to persuade America to stay out of the straits of Taiwan.

The point of the bunker attack is to remove the scientists / engineers. The rocket is replaceable.

[Almondjoy]

I believe a nuke can be set for an air burst.. so what happens to a missle if it gets clipped? Sending it off course? Are they set to go off at a certain altitude?

I guess it doesn't matter.. clipped and off target is a lot better than downtown L.A.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for the ping!

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for the ping!

[Paul Ross]

The point of the bunker attack is to remove the scientists / engineers. The rocket is replaceable.

To be thorough you would need to get a lot more than the launch complex. The actual fabrication and assembly plant is where you will find the real scientists/engineers. The launch complex bunker likely will instead have mostly political big-wigs and top-brass.

[Paul Ross]

I believe a nuke can be set for an air burst..

Yes it can, but it also has to reach a high enough altitude for an effective range to their EMP effect to actually impair an Aegis cruiser.

so what happens to a missle if it gets clipped?

The SM-3's have done that in one test. It was still effective at rendering the warhead inoperable. They are fragile.

Sending it off course?

The SM-2 uses high-explosive fragmentation and essentially disintegrates the incoming RV...[and thats Re-entry vehicle, not Recreational!]

Are they set to go off at a certain altitude?

Yes. They are. If it smacks into the ground before it can be triggered...it destroys its operability rather thoroughly.

BTW: This will be the interesting challenge for the US Deep-Earth Penetrator "Bunker Buster" project...if Congress stops interfering with the funding for it.

I guess it doesn't matter.. clipped and off target is a lot better than downtown L.A.

That is a fair consideration.

[Paul Ross]

We all may get to see a demonstration of this in real time, real soon.

Ping.

[Paul Ross]

It's show time!

[Jeff Head]

AEGIS VLS cells could be located in ground based bunkers at likely targets and provide an effective point/terminal defense of those targets on land. We should have been doing this for years.

In my Dragon's Fury Series, written in 2000, 2001, and 2002, that is exactly what I proposed doing at all critical military, governmental, and infrastructure sites susceptible to ballistic missile attack.

[Paul Ross]

What is your take on this guy, the civilion DOD deputy who killed Navy Area Wide? And just two months after 9/11!!!

[wjcsux]

SM-3 is currently in production. Aegis BMD is moving along quite nicely. This is one of many reason you don't want the RATS in power again.