This article first appeared in Aviation Week & Space Technology.
This week’s NATO summit was supposed to serve as a catalyst to drive missile defense activities forward in Europe. But with Washington still defining its policy stance, the brakes are being put on expectations.
In another key area of alliance concern — Afghanistan — U.S. efforts to enlist greater European force commitments are also not likely to materialize, says Robert Hunter, a former U.S. ambassador to NATO and senior adviser at the Rand Corp. The Apr. 3–4 summit in Germany and France comes about six months too early for the Obama administration to have worked out a number of issues, he indicates.
Arms control and disarmament constitute a concern that the alliance’s strategic concept needs to address, says German defense minister Franz Josef Young. “We need new initiatives for conventional arms control,” he argues.
But for European missile defense efforts, the summit had been regarded as a key venue in which to urge members to embrace the concept of continental defense. The Pentagon’s push for a European site for the ground-based midcourse system — with a radar in the Czech Republic and interceptors in Poland — would be the centerpiece. But the Obama administration has yet to articulate a clear path forward on the third site, which Russia has strenuously opposed. As a result, the Czech government this month decided not to seek parliamentary endorsement for the radar construction.
In addition, it was hoped that working groups would be asked to study architectures for expanding the alliance’s current emphasis on theater missile defense into a network covering all of Europe, and to begin cooperatively developing key new components such as early warning systems and interceptors. A German military official has warned that without U.S. sites in Europe, there would be no missile defense shield built on the continent.
However, not everyone shares that assessment. “Dropping the third site would have no impact from a capability standpoint; there are other solutions available,” says Richard Deakin, senior vice president of Thales Air Systems Div., although he concedes there would be political repercussions from the U.S.‘s backing away from the so-called third site (augmenting those in Alaska and California).
“We think BMD [ballistic missile defense] will be less important in Strasbourg than initially expected,” says MBDA CEO Antoine Bouvier. “The likely result,” he notes, is that there will be more of a focus on expanding air defense capability to cover a range of new threats, using a building-block approach, rather than a pure BMD program. MBDA is pursuing a dual-track approach, with the Aster 30 Block 1 for the SAMP/T system providing a capability against short-range ballistic threats. The Aster Block 2 design, with its high endoatmospheric-intercept capability, would be able to counter medium-range weapons.
Bouvier suggests that Aster Block 2 would be capable of engaging weapons such as the SS-26, which follows a flattened trajectory and can begin terminal maneuvers at altitudes of roughly 25,000 meters (82,000 ft.).
The Block 2 missile is intended to be compatible with both land and naval launchers for the Aster 30.
France, which is expected to fully return into the NATO structure, is stepping up its interest in missile defense. In contrast, European efforts are largely fractured, with countries having been unable to agree on a common approach. That leaves European governments charting different courses.
For example, at the end of the development period for the Medium Extended Air Defense System (Meads) lower-tier anti-missile program, the Italian air force will decide whether to acquire 2–4 batteries. The country’s navy is more committed to missile defense but hasn’t yet determined whether to embrace a European or U.S. interceptor.
Meanwhile, French President Nicolas Sarkozy has made missile defense a priority. The 2009–13 military spending plan, now before parliament, includes a number of items earmarked for this area. The most notable are an early warning satellite/radar network and a Block 2 Aster air defense system that are supposed to be operational by 2020.
Further funding is expected to come from a 2.3-billion ($3.1-billion) French government economic stimulus package for aerospace and defense projects approved last year, says Bouvier. With President Barack Obama willing to give U.S. allies a more equitable role in common defense, “it’s an opportunity for Europe to make its voice heard and contribute in kind, not just with funding,” he says.
“[Territorial BMD] will require no real technology breakthroughs, but it will be costly,” says Michel Mathieu, CEO of Thales Raytheon Systems. Although it would make sense to split the burden without duplicating efforts, he says, U.S. technology restrictions appear to make this unfeasible — at least for sensitive technologies such as radar, interceptors and seekers.
The cornerstone of territorial BMD will be NATO’s Active Layered Theater Ballistic Missile Defense (ALTBMD) and notably its Air Command and Control System (ACCS), which is being supplied by Thales Raytheon Systems. ALTBMD is effectively the backbone to link NATO’s disparate systems, ranging from Patriot and Meads batteries to ships and potentially a U.S. interceptor site in Poland.
After a long development period that ended with factory acceptance testing last year, NATO is preparing to deploy the ACCS at 15 sites in 13 countries, although the system’s full functionality remains to be further enhanced. A framework contract for the deployment phase, known as Replication, will be issued in June and contracts let in batches, starting in November and continuing through 2012. The initial operating capability will be reached in 2010 or 2011, depending on which software version (factory acceptance or Block 1 upgrade) is used, says Mathieu. Upgrade 1 renders the system compatible with NATO’s latest planning/tasking requirements and provides new automation, interactivity and real-time data features, as well as the ability to interface with existing hardware. Full operating lower-tier capability will be reached in 2013 and full upper tier in 2014–16.
The same architecture will be retained for territorial missile defense, according to Mathieu, although specific new functions, such as the full air picture, will be added.
Work on the Block 2 Aster, which will expand the defense capability to counter ballistic and cruise missiles, is already underway under a French technology development program, says Bruno Delacour, vice president of advanced weapon solutions at Thales’s Air Systems Div. Block 2 will feature a long-range radar to be derived from France’s M3R demonstrator. The M3R — a fully distributed derivative of Thales’s new Ground Master 400 S-band active-array radar family — will begin tracking trials this year. Block 2 also will include a Ka– rather than a Ku-band seeker. It will be able to handle the faster speeds and smaller radar cross sections of longer-range missiles. This seeker is also set to start trials in 2009.
Read the rest of this story, take a look at Israel’s drone dozers, see what GAO says is breaking the bank (everything…) and check out sat pics of the DPRK model rocket from our friends at Aviation Week exclusively on Military.com.
– Christian
{ 10 comments… read them below or add one }
Good Morning Folks,
Here it is the silly season again. Who says the world is in a financial crisis if this folly can even be considered.
Defend against who? A decrepit Russia, and imaginary Iranian ballistic missile that could threaten Europe, who?
If it’s the left over SRMB’S or IRBM’s for Russia’s glory day of the Soviet Union their is Patriot, and the currently operational Standard which as I write is sitting in the Sea of Japan on the U.S.S. John McCain wait for North Korea to be stupid once again.
I would think that the G20 has far more urgent things to talk through the how to appease the twisted imaginations of the world arms contractors.
Russia and Iran are yesterdays news, their demented leadership is trying everything they can to be relative in the 21st. Century.
ALLONS,
Byron Skinner
Better to have it than not.
And u build up your arms for a time they are needed there talking 2020 here so who knows the threats then.
Give it to them but guess what they gotta up there commitment to afgan!
screw the euros. they make a joke of NATO and dont help in astan. they should get jack shit from us. pull all the troops out of europe. we will stop subsidizing their welfare state by paying for their defense needs.
I think I’ll wait for some more news citing this new Western European interest in BMD before I believe this. I have always gotten the impression that the only real interest in Europe for this sytem is from Eastern European countries scared of Russia.
Byron, I have to point out the effects of an emp blast on a place such as tokyo or los angelas or new york?
Just because rightnow you and many others dont consider there to be a major conventional threat doesnt mean there isnt one.
Think about it this way Hitler came to power in 6 yrs..what if China because of economic unrest or other factors was to fall into the hands of another hitler? China is a juggernaut how poerful would it become in 6 yrs time and with our government going in its present direction do you think well realy be able to stop it?
As john said better to have them than not.
In part I’ll agree with Byron here. I’m a proponent of missile defense in general, but at the moment we’ve got other concerns that need addressed. I want to keep our BMD research going, but we don’t have any immediate need to install a full system.
The money we spend on a BMD site could be used in other ways, on other more pressing military needs. We need to replace aging fleets of aircraft, build new tankers, fund a fight in Afghanistan, etc. We’ll need to replace most of our heavy armor after this war is over. They’ve been driving the hell out of the Abrams, you know.
While I like BMD, it’s not on my list of our top 50 pressing military needs.
Anyone concerned about the future of Missile Defense should check this out – http://www.prweb.com/releases/missile/defense/prweb2281544.htm
Good MOrning Valcan,
Two question you pose as I read your post. First a Russia that is big enough both economically and militarily to engage the west, ie. the United States. I will refer you to an article in the New York Times from March 19th. I believe: “Russia’s president to overhaul military” by Philip P. Pan. In it Mr. Pan quoted Russian President Medvedev as saying that the Russian will by 2011 cut the officers corps of the Russian military by 200K officers or more then hals of the current force level. The enlisted positions will be filled by conscripts on a need basis. “Thousand of combat units will be staffed only by officers.”
The Russians clearly are not planning to engage either the Europeans or the United States any time soon. In reference to the constant reminder of Nazi Germany in the 1920′s and 1930′s the world watching what was happening for nearly ten years and decided to not respond to Hitler. Neither Russia or China are showing any of those signs today.
In response to the argument that it’s better safe then sorry. I would assume that if Russia or China was think about boing to war with the U.S. they would find a way to defeat any ABM system before they made such a mistake. The only people who can see any advantage to the ABM are Boeing and the other defense contractor who are stuffing themselves at the ABM feed bad.
The ABM can be compared to the Maginot Line that was to keep France safe from the Germans. One note her the same French defense contractors that sucked millions of Francs in profit from building the Maginot Line also contracted with Hitler’s Germany to build the Atlantic Wall, another defense winner. The only one who came out were the defense contractors.
ALLONS,
Byron Skinner
I’m thinking that it may be more effective and cost efficient to pour the majority of funding into sea and plane based defense sytems which have shown the most promise up to this point. They are mobile and can be positioned on planes and ships outside rogue countries destroying the missiles in the intial launch stage. Instead their chasing this comprehensive missile sheild dream, which is costly and most likely unnatainable.
Hey Skinner,
Well i can see the idea that neither China nor russia would want to attack america or its allies right now. That doesnt mean that they wouldnt be unwilling or unable to sell them to nations or organizations which would be perfectly willing to use them on us.
If that were to happen i can see them prodding one of those nations into war then useing them to gain political leverage to weaken us until at a further time they have the ability to treat us like venezuella and numerous other countries believe we want to treat them.
Drake,
You do have a good point about the naval and airbased missile defenses. As has been brought up before airships would be much cheaper and if built right could haul much more than modern present airtransports like the C-5. Combine the airdefense role and transport role in one thing or hell just a combenation.
The missile defense ships and the new crusiers i think are being brought together into one. I think in some ways thats a good idea.
But yea like i said earlier with present technologies i think airships could again be brought up as a viable option for a number of roles currently filled by other platforms. Hell use a nuke plant like a pebble bed reactor and you could mount alot of firpower and EW assets.
Imagine a combination of airborne radar missile defense ship transport. well you get it anyways