Top Navy and Missile Defense Agency officials are debating whether
a ship-based defensive system against aircraft, cruise and ballistic
missiles could be developed using existing hit-to-kill technology.
The study group was formed at the request of Undersecretary of
Defense Edward ‘Pete’ Aldridge, who ordered the cancellation
of the Navy Area Wide missile defense system last December. It was
terminated, because it was more than 25 percent over budget and
was plagued by “management problems,” according to Aldridge.
The death of Navy Area Wide, however, does not imply that the service
gave up its requirement to protect ships against airborne threats,
officials said.
“The requirement is still there to defend from Scud-type
missiles,” said Rear Adm. William Cobb Jr., program executive
officer for theater surface combatants. He told National Defense
that the study group is looking at various options to replace Navy
Area Wide. None of those options involves trying to resurrect the
program, he said. “It’s a clean-sheet approach.”
The manufacturer of the Army’s PAC-3 hit-to-kill missile,
used in the most upgraded version of the Patriot air-defense system,
submitted a proposal to the Missile Defense Agency, recommending
that it consider the PAC-3 missile for Navy use as an anti-ballistic
missile weapon. Lockheed Martin Corp. officials declined to discuss
the proposal, but one company source said that the PAC-3 missile
could be adapted for the Navy Area Wide system with only “minor
modifications.” The PAC-3 missile is in low-rate production
currently, and has a budget of $600 million for fiscal year 2003.
In a hit-to-kill system, the warhead must be able to score a direct
strike on target missiles. The now-defunct Navy Area Wide planned
to modify the Aegis combat system to extend its anti-air warfare
capability, so it could detect, track and engage tactical ballistic
missiles. The plan was to upgrade the Standard Missile 2 Block IVA—made
by Raytheon—to make it more effective against shorter range
TBMs.
The Lockheed source said the Navy should consider using the hit-to-kill
missile, because “it works.” PAC-3, additionally, has
a sophisticated seeker, made by Boeing, which would meet Navy requirements,
said the source. “More importantly, it’s paid for.”
If the Navy were to incorporate PAC-3 into a ship-based system,
it would most likely require two missiles: PAC-3 would be used against
ballistic missile threats and the Standard Missile would be used
to defeat aircraft and cruise missiles.
Rear Adm. Phillip M. Balisle, director of Navy surface warfare,
said that the service does not necessarily care what missile goes
on the ship. “We just want the capability,” said Balisle.
“The war-fighting requirement [for Navy Area Wide] hasn’t
changed.” Because of the cost overruns and delays experienced
in Navy Area Wide, the Missile Defense Agency “will look at
changes in acquisition, engineering, maybe designs,” he said.
“We don’t care if it’s one or two missiles.”
Asked about the potential cost of a new program, he said, “We
have no idea what the cost implications of the changes will be.”
The Pentagon requested $200 million in fiscal year 2003 for terminal
defense systems, which may include a replacement for Navy Area Wide.
The Raytheon Co. is hoping that the Navy will not abandon the Standard
Missile 2 Block IVA, and maintains that this weapon can perform
all the functions the Navy wants. “Having two missiles for
two distinct missions [is not] the optimal solution,” said
Raytheon spokesman Dave Shea. “Our position is that SM 2 Block
IVA can do all the missions.”