Blog

In his recent Washington Examiner column, the Heritage Foundation’s James Carafano recounts the successful Airborne Laser (ABL) test that occurred earlier this month. Within two minutes of launching, the high-energy laser found its target and destroyed it.

“Not bad for a defensive weapon once ridiculed as science fiction,” Carafano writes. “Skeptics even persuaded the Obama administration to slot the airborne laser for the ninth circle of procurement hell — a pit for dead-end research and development programs. But this month’s dramatic success has put the critics on their heels…The Point Mugu exercise was what engineers call a ‘proof of principle’ test. They tested it. It is proven.”

Despite the ABL’s success, the Obama administration opted not to build a second test aircraft. Why? “It will argue laser missile defense makes no sense because the weapon’s range is limited to a few hundred kilometers. That would put the lumbering aircraft well within the range of air defense systems fielded by the likes of North Korea and Iran.”

But shorter-range Scud missiles, however, are threats that the ABL can counter. The former Soviet Union made these missiles, and today other countries make their own. Carafano notes that Iran’s Shahab-3 is an advanced Scud variant probably capable of traveling 1,000 kilometers and carrying a warhead.

“It couldn’t reach Washington from Tehran, but then, it wouldn’t have to. Iran could easily extend the missile’s reach simply by moving it to a commercial freighter and firing it from nearby using an improvised vertical launch tube disguised as cargo.”

Is this something worth worrying about? Please post a comment at the Washington Examiner.

The Department of Defense (DOD) has released its Ballistic Missile Defense Review, conducted from March 2009 through January 2010. Download the 61-page report in PDF.

In assessing the ballistic missile threat around the world, DOD found the threat to be growing. As technology improves, missiles are becoming more accurate and farther-reaching. Ballistic missile systems are also more flexible and mobile. These trends are particularly disturbing as rogue states continue developing long-range weapons and nuclear capability. Last year, Iran test-fired the long-range Sajjil-2 missile, capable of reaching Israel and Southern Europe. Intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBM) have a longer range than the Sajjil.

“There is some uncertainty about when and how this type of [ICBM] threat to the U.S. homeland will mature,” states the report, “but there is no uncertainty about the existence of regional threats. They are clear and present. The threat from short-range, medium-range, and intermediate-range ballistic missiles (SRBMs, MRBMs, and IRBMs) in regions where the United States deploys forces and maintains security relationships is growing at a particularly rapid pace.”

DOD’s recommended priorities for the U.S. include testing new capabilities before deployment, testing under realistic operational conditions, and adapting as threats shift.

DOD contends that the Ground-based Midcourse Defense presently protects the U.S. against ICBM attacks from Iran and North Korea. To maintain this “advantageous position” as the threat grows, DOD says the U.S. will:

“Maintain readiness and continue to develop existing operational capabilities at Fort Greely, Alaska, and Vandenberg Air Force Base, California.

“Complete the second field of 14 silos at Fort Greely to hedge against the possibility that additional deployments become necessary.

“Deploy new sensors in Europe to improve cueing for missiles launched at the United States by Iran or other potential adversaries in the Middle East.

“Invest in further development of the Standard Missile 3 (SM-3) for future land-based deployment as the ICBM threat matures.

“Increase investments in sensors and early-intercept kill systems to help defeat missile defense countermeasures.

“Pursue a number of new GMD system enhancements, develop next generation missile defense capabilities, and advance other hedging strategies including continued development and assessment of a two-stage ground-based interceptor.”

Some experts question the report’s conclusions. For example, the Heritage Foundation’s Baker Spring believes the threat to the homeland could well be more imminent, which leaves the U.S. vulnerable to strategic surprises and risks the lives of millions of Americans. Our solutions and strategies should be more immediate rather than future oriented.

Next month, the U.S. will simulate an Iranian attack to test its missile defense systems. The long-range “attack” missile would be fired from the Marshall Islands in the Pacific, and a missile fired from Vandenberg Air Force Base would intercept it.

The Missile Defense Agency’s Army Lieutenant General Patrick O’Reilly said the test will be different from a simulated North Korean attack, which would be slower and less direct.

“Previously, we have been testing the GMD system against a North Korean-type scenario…This next test … is more of a head-on shot like you would use defending against an Iranian shot into the United States. So that’s the first time that we’re now testing in a different scenario.”

In September, President Barack Obama dropped plans to build missile defense shields in Poland and the Czech Republic, claiming he wanted to focus on proven and cost-effective technology that will aid in defending against Iran’s shorter-range missiles rather than long-range. The decision was seen as a move to placate Russia.

“The development of that (Iranian) long-range threat has been slower than what was originally estimated, and the pace of the medium-range missiles is dramatically higher,” O’Reilly said.

Next month’s simulated attack will cost about $150 million

(Source: Reuters)

 
Daniel Inouye, chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee, is seeking funds for a missile defense project in Hawaii. He wants $68.5 million from last year’s budget to build an Aegis Ashore test facility, bypassing the defense authorizers. (Source)

One of the defense authorizers, Senator John McCain, tried to block Inouye’s request by introducing an amendment that would require formal approval. We’ve blogged about reports that North Korea possess a long-range missile capable of reaching Hawaii. The U.S. has been testing the Theater High-Altitude Area Defenses in Hawaii in preparation for a Taepodong-2 attack. The Missile Defense Agency (MDA) seeks to use funds that were intended for missile defense shields in Poland and the Czech Republic for the project in Hawaii.

An excerpt:

“[MDA Lt. Gen. Patrick] O’Reilly called the establishment of the Aegis Ashore facility in Hawaii a ‘priority.’ The test facility could also provide an operational ballistic missile defense capability when needed, O’Reilly argued. The test launcher could provide continuous protection for the region, he added…Japanese intelligence officials have warned that North Korea could launch a long-range ballistic missile toward the Hawaiian islands, which are roughly 4,500 miles away, but U.S. intelligence analysts do not believe that North Korea has the ability to hit Hawaii.”

Brian T. Kennedy, president of the Claremont Institute and member of the Independent Working Group on Missile Defense, wrote an op-ed for the Wall Street Journal about missile defense in Japan.

Kennedy cites what he sees as Japan’s lack of concern about strong missile defense. He quotes politician Tsuyoshi Yamaguchi, who said missile defense was “almost totally useless…Only one or two out of 100 are ever effective.”

“Unfortunately,” writes Kennedy, “both the new Japanese and the U.S. administrations appear to share an ideological predisposition against missile defense.”

Kennedy briefly summarizes President Barack Obama’s views on missile defense. The administration has cut funding to missile defense and dropped plans to deploy missile shields to Poland and the Czech Republic. Obama envisions a world of no nuclear weapons, whereas our enemies are more realistic. Kennedy notes that Japan sits between China and the U.S., and China intends to continue building its ballistic missile program. Does it make sense for Japan to move in the opposite direction?

“Today China possesses an arsenal of medium-, intermediate- and intercontinental ballistic missiles that could inflict destruction on the Japanese homeland,” Kennedy writes. “In addition, China possesses nuclear-tipped cruise missiles and is developing advanced stealth bombers to deliver them. Next year the Pentagon expects that Beijing’s JIN-class nuclear ballistic missile submarine fleet to be operational. The missiles on these submarines could strike at Japan from a significant distance anywhere in the international waters of East Asia. Beijing also seeks space-based capabilities.”

At the present rate, China may one day overpower the entire continent, including Russia. Will the U.S. be able to protect Japan, considering that our president is lukewarm on missile defense? While both the U.S. and Japan cut spending, countries like China, North Korea, and Iran are putting resources into defense technology.

“[T]he Japanese must continue to build robust defenses. Otherwise it will not be possible to build a strategic relationship between the two over the longer term in which Japan is not merely the junior partner but a supplicant to Beijing.”

Read the full article here.

(Image source)

 
Rep. Trent Franks of Arizona wrote an op-ed for Military Space and Missile Forum magazine about FY10 missile defense spending. He says President Barack Obama’s new missile plan includes protection against shorter-range missiles. Although countries have more short- and medium-range missiles than long-range, there are missiles capable of reaching the U.S.

Franks reminds us that Iran and North Korea are bound and determined to develop intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBM) capable of reaching our shores.

“And yet paradoxically, while all of these events are taking place, our Ground-Based Midcourse Defense element, the one and only system we have in place to defend the homeland of the United States from ICBMs, sustained a 35 percent cut over last year’s appropriated amount. In addition, the administration halted the number of interceptors being emplaced at 30, rather than the full 44, as had been planned.”

While the administration has shifted resources to shorter-range missiles, it fails to consider the lethality of long-range missiles. “It would take only one nuclear armed ICBM to kill hundreds of thousands of innocent Americans.”

To read the full text of Franks’s op-ed, download it here. (PDF)

 
Last year, Russia threatened to deploy Iskander missiles near Poland in response to our country’s plans to deploy missile defense shields to the region. The purpose of those plans was to protect Poland and the Czech Republic from missile attacks from North Korea. Russia claimed the shields would compromise its national security.

In September President Barack Obama dropped those plans.

Yesterday, Russia participated in “war games,” simulated attacks on Poland. (Source) Russia fired nuclear missiles, while troops landed on “Poland’s” coast. Held in September, the purported defense simulation looked offensive in nature to witnesses.

“The Russian air force practised using weapons from its nuclear arsenal, while in the Russian enclave of Kaliningrad, which neighbours Poland, Red Army forces stormed a ‘Polish’ beach and attacked a gas pipeline.”

During the exercise, Russian troops also simulated suppressing an uprising of minorities in Belarus. In light of Poland’s and the Czech Republic’s concerns that Russia is dictating their foreign policy, with the Obama administration’s apparent blessing, the simulation is even more ominous. What does it portend for Central Europe?

The Telegraph quotes a Polish man calling himself Ted, who said “Russia has laid bare its real intentions with respect to Poland. Every Pole most now get of the off the fence and be counted as a patriot or a traitor.”

Strong words. No doubt Poland thought it had negotiated some sort of protection with the U.S. when the country agreed to host missile shields. Now, a fearless and bold Russia is playing war games simulating “defensive” measures against Poland.

We won’t hold our breath waiting for Barack Obama to respond in a way that would displease Russia.

Facing North Korean missile threats, Japan’s navy is incorporating Aegis capabilities as part of its defense. Although it’s imperative that Japan strengthens its missile defense, the country’s new government leaders didn’t sound too concerned last month.

“Missile defense is almost totally useless,” said politician Tsuyoshi Yamaguchi. “Only one or two out of 100 are ever effective.” (Source)

Fortunately, Japan’s military doesn’t see it that way. Its navy successfully shot down a missile yesterday off Hawaii. A destroyer detected, tracked, and shot down the medium-range missile while in flight with an SM-3 interceptor rocket. (MDA – PDF)

The missile test, called the Japan Flight Test Mission 3 (JFTM-3), is part of an Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense intercept flight test, and it’s the third time a Japan Maritime Self-Defense Force ship successfully shot down a ballistic missile target.

“The JFTM-3 test event verified the newest engagement capability of the Japan Aegis BMD configuration of the recently upgraded Japanese destroyer, JS MYOKO (DDG-175),” according to the press release. “At approximately 6:00pm (HST), 1:00 pm Tokyo time on Oct 28, a separating, medium-range ballistic missile target was launched from the Pacific Missile Range Facility, Barking Sands, Kauai, Hawaii. JS MYOKO crew members detected and tracked the target. The Aegis Weapon System then developed a fire control solution and, at approximately 6:04pm (HST), 1:04 pm Tokyo time a Standard Missile-3 (SM-3) Block IA interceptor missile was launched.”

Equipped with the Aegis radar system, the destroyer will take on addition SM-3 receptors before returning to Japan. The Obama administration said the U.S. will use SM-3 interceptors and Aegis radar as part of the new missile shield plan.

(Image source: Wikimedia Commons)

 
Last week, Vice President Joe Biden visited Poland and the Czech Republic, the first such visit to the region by a high-level official since the President Barack Obama dropped plans to deploy missile defense shields to those countries. The Heritage Foundation’s Peter Brookes commented on the new missile defense shield plan proposed by the administration.

“In pulling the plug on the Bush missile-defense plan in Eastern Europe last month,” Brookes writes in the New York Post, “the White House came up with a new architecture based on a new evaluation of existing intelligence on the Iranian ballistic-missile threat…The Pentagon now insists Iran is moving faster on its short- and medium-range ballistic-missile programs than on its long-range ICBM effort, against which the Czech and Polish sites were aimed. (Of course, many experts think progress in one missile program supports another.)”

The new plan may protect Europe, but what about the Iranian threat to the U.S. and Israel? Land-based SM-3 missiles, designed to protect us and our ally, are in development. The target date for completion is 2020, but Iran could have an intercontinental ballistic missile by 2015.

“[T]he Obama administration thinks that if the Iranian ICBM comes online before the land-based SM-3s are developed and in place, the West Coast, Bush-era missile-defense sites give us some breathing room…Not really.”

Brookes notes that the “West Coast” system was created to protect us from North Korea, not Iran. Sites that would protect us from Iran (in Alaska and California) may not be adequate, especially since the administration reduced interceptors at those sites.

“That means there’s a gap in our defenses against an Iranian ICBM strike until the land-based SM-3s are operational, which, by the way, will almost certainly face funding and engineering-development challenges.”

Other problems with the new plan are cost, efficiency, and concerns that Russia will once again “negotiate” with the U.S. to curb development of another weapon.

“It’s…a good time to remind ourselves that the purpose of defense is to be technologically ahead of the threat, not behind it — which is where we’ll be if we’re not careful,” Brookes writes.

Read the full article at the New York Post.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton met with President Dmitry Medvedev and Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov yesterday to discuss how Russia and the U.S. will deal with Iran. Clinton echoed the president’s resetting Russian relations meme, and promised to stop criticizing the former Soviet Union about its human rights abuses, unlike the Bush administration.

Sounds like more appeasement. The U.S. must make nice with Russia if we hope to see any Russian cooperation with containing Iran. What has the U.S. received in return?

So far, not much, although Clinton said, “Russia has been extremely cooperative in the work that we have done together.” In return for Russia’s help, the U.S. will ease up on pushing Russia to issue tougher sanctions against Iran and work on diplomacy first. Should that fail, the U.S. will resume sanctions talks.

Iran purportedly agreed to allow inspections of the newly discovered second nuclear site. It’s probably why Lavrov said, “At the current stage, all forces should be thrown at supporting the negotiating process. Threats of new sanctions and pressure against Iran under current circumstances are counterproductive.”

Clinton also echoed Barack Obama’s view about Iran’s “right’ to develop peaceful nuclear power, but not weapons, and contended that Russia and the U.S. are in agreement on this point. After talks with Russia, Clinton said the U.S. will keep up the pressure against the defiant North Korea, which tested five missiles this week. While the U.S. is pushing for six-party talks, the rogue state seeks bilateral talks with the U.S.

(Sources: Associated Press and AFP)