Come into our missile shield: US (Australia)

THE US wants Australia to join a global missile shield that could see interceptors and radar units based on Australian soil and new RAN warships working with the US Navy to protect vast areas of the region.

A senior Pentagon official, JD Crouch, told The Weekend Australian he planned to visit Canberra later this year to explore options for Australian participation in the missile defence program dubbed Son of Star Wars.

"We don't have any particular solution here," he 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."

Defence Minister Robert Hill said Australia had made no decision to join the US project, but such a move was "logical", and most likely to take the form of three new air-warfare destroyers still being planned.

Asked if Australia was leaning towards becoming a partner in the controversial, expensive and still-experimental system, Senator Hill said: "The trend has been in that direction."

When countries such as North Korea rejected international constraints and pressure "a way of taking out missiles is a logical way to go", he said.

"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 defence agenda."

Australia sees missile defence as potentially a major strand of its alliance with the US over the next 20 years, and believes it could boost regional security through a possible trilateral alliance with the US and Japan.

Fearing a possible attack by North Korea, the US is deploying three warships with missile interceptors and 10 ground-based missile interceptors in Alaska and California by next year. The interceptors smash into an attacking warhead in outer space.

Mr Crouch, the assistant secretary for international security policy, said advantages to both countries included work for Australian high-tech companies, the continued inter-operability of the two militaries in future coalitions, and greater security from attack.

He said if Australia did move to a ship-based system, it could cover an enormous area by "internetting" with US radar units and satellites.

As improvements to the SM-3 ship missile system were being developed, "three ships could do a pretty good job of covering against some types of long-range threats against the west coast of the US", he said.

The SM-3 missile was designed to target short and medium-range missiles, but better radar would allow it to target and destroy long-range missiles, Pentagon officials said.

"And that's what's really powerful about thinking about missile defence in a global sense. If you could put radars and sensors in various places and internet them together, you get kind of a beginning-to-end picture of that missile flight which gives you tremendous power," Mr Crouch said.

"An Australian ship-based radar in the right place might be just the thing to defend some other piece of territory."

He dismissed concerns about the reliability of the SM-3, which missed in its fourth live test last month. The US intends to field the system on three ships next year, along with ground-based interceptors in Alaska.

Jan. 13, 2003

Standard Version

The matrix below is a summary of the major flight tests in the Navy's Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense system.

Flight Test Number	Date	Intercept?	Notes
Control Test Vehicle-1A (CTV-1A)	Sept. 24, 1999	n/a	This test was the first launch of the SM-3 missile, which showed a successful second and third stage separation and flight endurance – once it launched (it actually was supposed to be launched on Sept. 23, but did not fire due to a computer error; the test had to be repeated the following day).
FTR-1 (the first risk reduction flight and the second flight overall in the Aegis LEAP intercept (ALI) test series)	July 14, 2000	n/a	The third stage of the SM-3 failed to separate. An errant interrupt signal was transmitted to the missile that caused it to fail immediately after launch. The software, which had been used in an earlier test without problems, had to be re-coded.
Flight Test Round-1A; a repeat of FTR-1 (third flight test of nine scheduled)	Jan. 25, 2001	n/a	This test was conducted to evaluate the SM-3's airframe stability and control through a nominal kinetic warhead separation. The test launch achieved third-stage separation, third-stage motor burn, and attitude control through nominal KW separation.
Flight Mission (FM)-2	Jan. 25, 2002	Yes	This fly-by test was not intended to be an intercept: its objective was to evaluate the SM-3’s fourth-stage kinetic warhead guidance, navigation and control. The SM-3 was launched by the USS Erie Aegis cruiser against an Aries target missile, which has been reported as having been five times longer and a third wider than any medium-range ballistic missile that the SMD is being designed to shoot down. It was the first fully operational SM-3 with a live solid divert and attitude control system to steer the kinetic warhead into the target.
FM-3	June 13, 2002	Yes	In this designated intercept test, an SM-3 launched from the USS Erie Aegis cruiser successfully intercepted an Aries ballistic missile target. This was the fifth of nine planned developmental tests. FM-3 only intended to show that a Navy interceptor can hit a ballistic missile target; FM-3 did not attempt to demonstrate lethality. To be "killed", certain types of enemy missiles must be hit at the right spot for a hit to also be a kill. This will be attempted on FM-4.
FM-4	Nov. 20, 2002	Yes	FM-4 marked the first time a Navy theater test target was intercepted during its ascent phase. An SM-3 missile was launched from the Aegis cruiser USS Lake Erie to counter an Orbital Sciences Test Target Vehicle that was launched from the Pacific Missile Range Facility in Kaui, Hawaii. The SM-3 missile had an altitude of 93 miles at the time of impact; because of this, its flight time was shorter by about a minute and a half. FM-4 demonstrated the SM-3's ability to switch its aimpoint while in flight to increase its accuracy, according to Raytheon program officials. FM-4 was the first of six planned flight tests to develop an emergency sea-based short- and medium-range ballistic missile defense capability. The next flight test is tentatively scheduled for April or May of 2003.

Sources:

CTV-1A: DOT&E FY 00 report; “Navy conducts first flight of SM-3 for NTW program,” Aerospace Daily, Sept. 28, 1999

FTR-1: DOT&E FY 00 report; “NTW flight test fails,” Defense Daily, July 18, 2000

FTR-1A: “Standard Missile-3 flight test provides data for NTW,” Defense Daily, Jan. 29, 2001

FM-2: “Intercept starts long road to sea-based missile defense,” Aviation Week & Space Technology, Feb. 4, 2002

FM-3: “Navy reports success in missile defense test,” New York Times, June 14, 2002; “Navy missile defense hit opens door for variety of test scenarios from sea,” Defense Daily, June 17, 2002

FM-4: "Standard Missile-3 demonstrates aimpoint shift maneuver in latest SMD flight test," Defense Daily, Dec. 4, 2002

For more information contact , Martha.krebs@att.net
or , vsamson@cdi.org.

BACK TO THE TOP

MISSILE DEFENSE HOME

CDI HOME

CENTER FOR DEFENSE INFORMATION
1779 Massachusetts Ave, NW, Washington, DC 20036-2109
Ph: (202) 332-0600 · Fax: (202) 462-4559
info@cdi.org

Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense Flight Test Conducted

(Source: US Missile Defense Agency; dated June 18, web-posted June 20, 2003)


     The Missile Defense Agency and the U.S. Navy announced June 18 they have conducted a flight test in the continuing development of the AEGIS Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD) Program, an element of the Ballistic Missile Defense System.

     Preliminary indications are that the SM-3 interceptor missile deployed its Kinetic Warhead, but an intercept was not achieved.

     The primary objective of this test was to evaluate the SM-3 Kinetic Warhead’s guidance, navigation and control operation in space using an upgraded solid divert and attitude control system (SDACS).

     Government and industry officials will conduct an extensive analysis of the flight test, and the results will be used to improve the AEGIS BMD development and testing program.

     This was the fourth flight test of the AEGIS BMD system against an Aries target, with the first three tests resulting in successful intercepts of the target missile.

     The Aries target missile was launched at 7:15 p.m. EDT (1:15 p.m. HST) from the Pacific Missile Range Facility on the Hawaiian Island of Kauai. The crew of USS LAKE ERIE, an AEGIS cruiser stationed offshore, launched the SM-3 interceptor missile approximately two minutes later.

     MDA and the Navy manage the Aegis BMD Program. Raytheon Missile Systems, Tucson, Ariz., is the prime contractor for the development of the SM-3 missile. ATK builds the improved SDACS for the SM-3. Lockheed Martin Naval Electronic and Surveillance Systems, Moorestown, N.J. manages the development of the Aegis Weapon System installed in Aegis cruisers and destroyers, including the upgrades for the AEGIS BMD System.

     -ends-

Back to the top

I have a theory about the enemies of missile defense. Whenever one of the Pentagon's ABM tests doesn't go according to plan, they give a prize to the first one who shouts "nanny-nanny-boo-boo!" in the popular press.

The most recent winner may be Fred Kaplan, for this article in Slate. It was certainly the most mocking assessment of an Aegis missile-defense test that went awry last week. The headline said it all: "The Pentagon's Laughable Weapons Test."

Let's set aside the question of why missile-defense critics are so happy when military technology that means to protect us from weapons of mass destruction doesn't live up to its promise. For now, we'll focus on Kaplan's gleeful outrage over how the Missile Defense Agency described what happened — and in particular, its reluctance to label the test a "failure."

Indeed, the MDA's press release oddly resorts to the passive voice in describing the test: "an intercept was not achieved." I have no idea why the agency doesn't just say the thing "missed its target."

But this is a minor point of semantics. Kaplan wants to make a major issue of missile-defense failure. He quotes MDA spokesman Chris Taylor: "I wouldn't call it a failure," said Taylor on CNN, "because the intercept was not the primary objective. It's still considered a success, in that we gained great engineering data. We just don't know why it didn't hit."

Kaplan sneers: "Oh, it's hard to be a satirist these days."

This is grossly unfair, and Kaplan knows it. Taylor's point is a rather simple one: Just as a test in school can have dozens of questions, a missile-defense test has many parts. The ABM may have missed its target, but that doesn't mean nobody will learn anything from what happened. Researches will study how the rocket motors and directional thrusters performed, whether the radars and heat seeker picked up its prey, and so on. We may soon know precisely why the interceptor missed its target. Then we'll be able to fix the problem and move on. If nobody ever learned from failure — I'll go ahead and use the word, even if Taylor avoids it — we wouldn't bother to figure out why the Columbia Space Shuttle disintegrated in February.

It's disappointing that the Aegis system didn't operate as well as we might have hoped. In a way, it's even more disappointing to hear the cackles of Kaplan and others echoing in the background. These guys seem like modern-day Luddites, judging from their delight at technology letting us down.

At least Kaplan is honest enough to write these words in his last paragraph: "Of course, the Pentagon's standard of success in testing is not entirely ridiculous. In the early stages of a weapon's R & D, especially if the program involves advanced technology, there is real value in learning practically anything about its performance. If one part of the test fails but the other parts work fine, it might legitimately be called a success."

Those three sentences almost retract the snickers that come before them. Yet Kaplan just couldn't hold his fire — or keep himself from giggling — at last week's test.

Maybe we supporters of missile defense should set up our own awards program. The first critic to emit joyful howls at a missile-defense setback wins a framed map of Los Angeles with a big red bull's-eye drawn on it.



	http://www.nationalreview.com/miller/miller062303.asp

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.