This article first appeared in Aviation Week & Space Technology.
The likelihood of the U.S. establishing a fixed Ground-Based Midcourse Defense (GMD) missile interceptor site in Poland appears to be waning as the Pentagon is more sharply focused on the quick fielding of a land-based SM-3 system to protect Europe from an Iranian ballistic missile threat.
Marine Corps Gen. James Cartwright, vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, says part of the rationale behind capping the number of operational three-stage Ground-Based Interceptors (GBIs) (GMD’s missile segment) was a miscalculation of the intercontinental ballistic missile threat. “The reality is it did not come as fast as we thought it’d come,” he told an audience at the Space and Missile Defense Conference 2009 here last week. Air Force Lt. Gen. Henry (Trey) Obering, the Missile Defense Agency (MDA) director through 2008, said the ICBM threat was expected to materialize in 2015, and that drove the time line for establishment of the European missile field. Cartwright did not cite a new date by which intelligence experts predict an ICBM threat could materialize.
Iran has demonstrated a space launch capability and, despite a third-stage failure of North Korea’s Taepo-Dong 2 during a recent test, experts at the conference this week say Pyongyang is making some headway. Uzi Rubin, retired Israeli general officer and expert on the threat, says the Iranians have made considerable headway with solid rocket motors. And the pace of ballistic missile-testing in Iran is impressive, he says.
Still, the 30 GBIs — 26 at Ft. Greely, Alaska, and four at Vandenberg AFB, Calif. — are deemed sufficient to counter the “rogue” threat of a long-range ballistic missile attack on the U.S. from North Korea or Iran. “That is a heck of a lot more than [needed for] a rogue,” Cartwright added. An X-band tracking radar, which is slated for the Czech Republic, is needed in the region regardless of where the interceptors are based, he noted.
Despite a rush from then-President George W. Bush to establish a site for 10 two-stage GBIs in Poland in advance of the 2015 threat, the proposal has suffered setbacks. It has not been ratified there. And it has sparked ire from Russia, which sees it as destabilizing and threatening to Moscow’s nuclear deterrent capability at a time when Washington is negotiating a follow-on to the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (Start), which expires at the end of the year. Cartwright says it would take five years from approval until deployment of the GBIs in Poland.
The Obama administration has begun a wholesale review of what is needed to defend allies in Europe and U.S. forces there from an attack. This shift away from GBIs could represent an attempt by the White House to continue fielding missile defenses, but also to steer clear of the fast and long-range GBIs as well as the very-high-speed and mobile Kinetic Energy Interceptor. Termination of KEI was proposed by Defense Secretary Robert Gates in the Fiscal 2010 budget, and program execution was cited among the reasons. The mobile GBI and KEI could be viewed as more destabilizing for regional powers such as Russia and China. One retired senior Pentagon official suggests KEI could have been a “sacrifice” to get Russia to agree to some other form of missile defenses in Europe and in light of the Start talks.
“We have to walk a fine line as we deploy and develop a system to counter North Korea,” said U.S. Air Force Gen. Kevin Chilton, head of Strategic Command, in a speech here last week. Deployment of missile defense systems that could be seen to threaten Russia’s and China’s nuclear deterrent could spark an arms race that is unaffordable in this recession, he noted.
Read the rest of this story, check out the Russky’s hot Su-35S, see if the new ICBM threat is worth worrying about and see the gaps in missile defense from our friends at Aviation Week, exclusively on Military.com.
– Christian
{ 13 comments… read them below or add one }
Good Morning Folks,
GBI’s in Europe is pure idiocy. First off if the Russians conducted a nuclear attack on Europe the would employ their mobile SRBM’s, IRBM’s, MRBM’s and LRBM’s which they have and abundant supply of and the GBI is useless.
Currently the Russians like the Chinese have no operational ICBM’s either in silos or on mobile launchers and the Topil in all it configurations is at least a decade away or longer. Beside the ICBM would not be the weapon of choice in an attack against Europe.
The weapons of choice would be Russians tactical missiles. Since the Russians have most of their tactical weapons in the East and have basically demilitarized western Russia, there is not intent on the part of Russia and all the American Missile Defense program can be taken as is provocative of the immature political thinking of the late Bush era. As for Iran, they are still decades away of being any kind of threat to Europe.
I know some one will bring up Russia and Georgia. First off Russia was provoked by and attacked by Georgia and this is not a nuclear issue for either country.
ALLONS,
Byron Skinner
Why are we even trying to defend Europe? Don’t they have their own militaries and goverments? Did they ask us to do this? If so where is the money?
When will you people realise. The Cold War is over! Russia is supposed to be your ally, why on earth would they attack the US or Europe? Infact a large part of their country is in Europe. Ok so you may have a bit of a “my military is better than yours” thing going on, but you’ll probably live your life without seeing a single hostile action between Russia, Europe or the United States.
I believe Iran was the issue here, however. This is a different issue entirely, so don’t mention the “R” word.
Send a wing of SM-3s to HI for counter Korean missiles & any TransPac Iranian strike.
Or Iran strike by cargo ship Launch site.
Must expand SM-3s to HI alone.
& or CA State, OR
the Cenobyte: you are soooo right.MY toughs really
Byron Skinner,
If they’re not much use for protecting Europe they’ll be more use intercepting a Russian ICBM, even if it is headed over the north pole. Perhaps that’s the real intent. The missile radars come with a batch of pac-3 interceptors if I remember correctly.
I think your know-it-all attitude is getting in the way here. The purpose of the missile defense is plastered all over the SMD agency website, a quote from Rumsfeld, something about “by their very existence they serve as a deterrent”.
-Jeff
Where and what to base isn’t really an issue in my mind. Developing the capability is. Ballistic missile technology is proliferating. Nukes will as well. The whole “we want to pursue diplomacy” is a nice thought, but it ain’t working. We can’t bomb and invade every country that is sideways of us in this world that may develop or already has these capabilities. We aren’t left with much of an option in my opinion other than pursuing promising systems.
Good Morning Folks,
For Jeff. Interesting rebuttal. I’m not quite sure how a Missile Radar System based in what was once Eastern Europe could detect the launch of Russian or Chinese ICBM’s that by range restrictions would have to be launched from the Norther area of Russia or China for an over the Pole attack on North America.
Neither the Topil systems from Russia or the DF-31-41 from China will have the capacity to reach North America from current launch sites in either country, neither of which by the way are operational.
Both countries have put their liquid fueled ICBMs into storage with their warheads stored at separate facilities. It would appear that Russia and China have greater concerns of internal unrest and the security of nuclear weapons the an attack by the United States. Russian nuclear weapons by the way are guarded by and American contractor. Putin doesn’t trust his own Army with out some justification, Jeff.
Just one more question Jeff, is not the Alaska based Radar to be able to track all incoming over the pole from Russia and China, or is there a flaw in the system that the American taxpayer who has thrown hundreds of billion of dollars in the rat hole called missile doesn’t know about.
You whole response has kinda a fishy smell to it , Jeff. Could you enlighten us why the Alaska system needs a back up in Europe?
Also Rumsfeld’s quote about the system serving as a deterrent, from who Jeff?
ALLONS,
Byron Skinner
Byron Skinner wrote: “Russian nuclear weapons by the way are guarded by and American contractor.”
Could you provide a verifiable source that Americans are physically providing security for Russian warheads? Nunn-Lugar doesn’t appear to have such a provision and I find it hard to believe that a strong nationalist like Putin would allow foreigners to secure Russian nukes. If there is verifiable proof, please accept my apology in advance.
The idea that the polish base is about missile defense is a joke it’s just a way to put a US base in Poland.
You’d think the Poles were experienced enough at foreign occupation not to fall for it.
Good Evening justbill,
If your interested in a job, speak, read and write Russia, and have experience in security systems management, give DynCorp International a call.
Thats about all that I can say.
ALLONS,
Byron Skinner
buy cheap nokia n95 experience without nokia mobile learning is better than learning without excperi-ence. I have nokia 6300 but one lamp wait which my feet are guided; and that bose headphones is the lamp of experience. I know of no way of judging of the future but by the apple touch past. http://www.leadsoftstore.com/
buy cheap nokia n95 experience without nokia mobile learning is better than learning without excperi-ence. I have nokia 6300 but one lamp wait which my feet are guided; and that bose headphones is the lamp of experience. I know of no way of judging of the future but by the apple touch past. http://www.leadsoftstore.com/