Rand Study Recommends More Investment In Cruise Missile Defense

Aerospace Daily | July 1, 2002 | Sharon Weinberger

[Stand Watch Listen]

A recent Rand study warns that the Army should invest more money in developing better defenses against cruise missiles, which will pose more of a threat than ballistic missiles.

In a report prepared for the commander of Army Air Defense Artillery Center at Fort Bliss, Texas, Rand researchers said that when comparing a number of possible future scenarios, cruise missiles, not theater ballistic missiles, emerged as the most likely threat to U.S. security.

"One conclusion we draw from our analysis is that the threat of cruise missile attack, and the need to defend against it, is present in all futures and scenarios," says the Army Air and Missile Defense report.

While enemies could develop advanced cruise missiles, the more likely threat is from unmanned aerial vehicles used as crude cruise missiles. Because the military's air defense systems are not good at recognizing such threats, "simple and unsophisticated cruise missiles pose a unique challenge," the report says.

The report advised investing more money in systems like the Army's Joint Land Attack Cruise Missile Defense Elevated Netted Sensor System, which can be used to detect land attack cruise missiles.

While cruise missiles will become an even more significant threat to the United Sates and to deployed forces, "the need for defenses against theater ballistic missiles (TBMs), depends on the likelihood of conventional war in the future," the report says. If the United States expects to fight against countries like Iraq, such defenses are crucial, the authors concluded. But if such large military operations are not as common, theater ballistic missiles will be less of a concern.

In additional to developing cruise missile defenses for the continental United States, the report recommended the Army invest more money in its short-range air defense (SHORAD) capabilities, saying that these systems are needed to protect deployed forces.

Over the past few years, the Army has not invested enough in these areas, the authors said.

"The Army should retain and improve its SHORAD capability against manned aircraft, particularly fixed wing aircraft," according to the report, because such defenses are relatively inexpensive and effective.

The report was not optimistic about the Army's investment in lasers, such as the joint U.S-Israeli Tactical High Energy laser (THEL) system. "Devoting significant amounts of money and effort to develop a tactical laser to destroy enemy artillery and rockets en route may not be worth the investment," it says.

THEL requires substantial dwell time to hit a target, its logistics are cumbersome, and the system is susceptible to bad weather, according to the report.

Moreover, "a practical laser capable of being deployed and transported along with the maneuver forces it was designed to protect would have to be of an order of magnitude smaller than the current THEL," the report says.

While the report said the threat of theater ballistic missiles could decrease, the authors emphasized that effective defenses are still necessary.

However, current systems - such as Theater High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) and Patriot Advanced Capability-3 (PAC-3) - need to be more easily deployable, according to the report. Patriot systems should be smaller and more mobile, the report said. It said THAAD needs smaller radars and interceptors, and its radars should have lower power requirements and more efficient generators.

-- Sharon Weinberger

[WyldKard]

Makes sense to me....

[Free the USA]

Bump