Twitter Facebook Google RSS
 
National Defense > Blog > Posts > Debate Over Missile Defense Interceptors Gets Testy

6/26/2012

Debate Over Missile Defense Interceptors Gets Testy
By Stew Magnuson

The debate over whether a missile defense system the Obama administration plans to deploy in Europe will actually work got testy as a senior State Department official squared off with a leading critic of the program during a panel discussion June 25.

Thomas B. Cochran, a physicist,and a consultant to the Natural Resources Defense Council, challenged Frank Rose, deputy assistant secretary for space and defense policy on assumptions that the next generation of missile interceptors will be able to distinguish between ballistic missiles carrying warheads and decoys.

The issue was discussed at an American Security Project panel discussion looking at the administration’s European Phased Adaptive Approach (EPAA) that calls for interceptors to be first deployed on Aegis warships, and later on the ground in Europe. The plan to place interceptors and radar sites in Europe was first proposed during the George W. Bush administration in 2007 as a reaction to the Iranian missiles program, and then revised by the Obama administration in 2009. The plan has brought forth critics from both sides of the political spectrum as well as opposition from Russia, according to a summary of the issues the think tank distributed at the event.

“Does the administration agree that none of the radars in the EPAA missile defense system are insufficiently powerful to make it work for, and … that any of the existing missile defense systems used in either the EPAA or the ground-based missile defense can readily distinguish between warheads, decoys and other debris?” Cochran asked.

Rose countered that a Defense Science Board report that studied the plan “says that we are well on our way to achieving that ballistic missile defense capability.”

Cochran pressed on with his assertion that Mylar balloons, commonly used as decoys, can easily defeat the nation’s missile defense systems.

Rose said: “What I would say is that the whole idea of the phase-adaptive approach is that it will be phased and adaptive.” The first radar, the AN/TPY-2, will deal with relatively unsophisticated threats, he said. “But with each new increment of capability we will be able to deal with more complicated threats.”

The SM-3 Block 1B interceptor, which will be deployed in 2015, will have a two-color seeker to deal with more complicated threats, Rose said. The improvement of the ballistic missile signal processor on the Aegis SPY-1 radar will also provide more capabilities. With the SM-3 Block 2A interceptor— which is still under development — there will be more a advanced seeker and sensors, he added.

“Given the threats that we face today, I think the capabilities that we have deployed will be sufficient.  But …we expect the capability from the adversary to improve over time and hopefully our missile defenses will improve over time,” Rose said.

The American Security Project summary of the missile defense program noted that there are some unresolved technical issues. One is the aforementioned problem with adversaries launching decoys. The Defense Science Board report stated that this problem hasnot been completely solved.

Cochran continued to pepper Rose with questions asserting that current missile defense systems have a difficult time discriminating between warheads and Mylar balloons, which could be released by an adversary to confuse seekers. The relatively low-cost balloons have been deployed during tests of U.S. interceptors.

The Navy’s independent director of operational testing and evaluation has said the current version of Aegis, 3.61, is “operationally effective and suitable,” Rose said.

“For phase four, do you have any sensors in mind that are deployed today or that are in your R&D program that can distinguish between warheads and a bunch of Mylar balloons?” Cochran asked.

“I think there are a number of sensors – for example, the [precision tracking space system] should that come online – that will improve our discrimination capabilities,” Rose said, referring to a satellite still under development that is intended to track intercontinental ballistic missiles. “I agree with you on the overarching point that discrimination is a challenge, but the whole idea behind a phase adaptive approach is that over time as our capabilities improve, we will increase our sensor capabilities.”

The United States has spent $150 billion to date on missile defense programs, and the Defense Department has requested an additional $44 billion over the next five years — a 29 percent increase over previous budgets, the think tank paper noted. The operations and maintenance costs of the EPAA program remain unknown, it added. The Pentagon missed one deadline in January to spell out the program’s costs. The latest estimate of the report’s arrival is “this summer,” the report said.

Reported by Timothy Ambard
 
 

Posted at 11:26 AM by Stew Magnuson | Permalink | Email this Post | Comments (1)

Comments

Re: Debate Over Missile Defense Interceptors Gets Testy

The decoy debate is just a decoy. The Bush administration wanted to use big GBI missiles, but the Obama plan uses much smaller SM-3s that don't even have half the needed range. It's a huge ruse and everyone is afraid to confront this fraud: Details are here:

http://www.g2mil.com/deveselu.htm

Why waste billions on MEADS if the small SM-3s work? Because they don't!
Carlton Meyer at 7/1/2012 4:45 PM

Add Comment
Items on this list require content approval. Your submission will not appear in public views until approved by someone with proper rights. More information on content approval.

Name: *

eMail *

Comment *

Title

Attachments

Name: *


eMail *


Comment *


 

Refresh
Please enter the text displayed in the image.
The picture contains 6 characters.

Characters *

  

Legal Notice *

NDIA is not responsible for screening, policing, editing, or monitoring your or another user's postings and encourages all of its users to use reasonable discretion and caution in evaluating or reviewing any posting. Moreover, and except as provided below with respect to NDIA's right and ability to delete or remove a posting (or any part thereof), NDIA does not endorse, oppose, or edit any opinion or information provided by you or another user and does not make any representation with respect to, nor does it endorse the accuracy, completeness, timeliness, or reliability of any advice, opinion, statement, or other material displayed, uploaded, or distributed by you or any other user. Nevertheless, NDIA reserves the right to delete or take other action with respect to postings (or parts thereof) that NDIA believes in good faith violate this Legal Notice and/or are potentially harmful or unlawful. If you violate this Legal Notice, NDIA may, in its sole discretion, delete the unacceptable content from your posting, remove or delete the posting in its entirety, issue you a warning, and/or terminate your use of the NDIA site. Moreover, it is a policy of NDIA to take appropriate actions under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act and other applicable intellectual property laws. If you become aware of postings that violate these rules regarding acceptable behavior or content, you may contact NDIA at 703.522.1820.

 

 

Bookmark and Share