Thread FULL!!!__AMERICA AT WAR!__Use New Thread!: Re: The New Arsenal

» JenL_2 - Re: The New Arsenal

More from the Defense Spending Report in WSJ:

---

<img src="http://www.suite101.com/files/mysites/je..." width=204 height=228 align="left">Still Playing: Star Wars

A look at the Pentagon's latest hopes -- and obstacles -- for missile defense

By GREG JAFFE

The rancorous debate over whether or not to build a missile shield has quieted and the dollars are flowing.

But will the billions the Bush administration plans to spend produce a system that can intercept ballistic missiles and protect the U.S. homeland as well as American soldiers and allies abroad?

For years missile-defense backers have complained that the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, which bans development of a national missile defense, was crippling U.S. efforts. Late last year, President Bush gave the Russians notice that he would withdraw from the treaty in six months. That means that on June 13, the Pentagon will be able to test and build any system it wants. It already plans to run as many as 30 different tests of ground, sea and airborne systems this year, as well as explore possible space-based technologies.

Missile-defense spending will continue rising as well. The administration intends to spend about $7.8 billion developing missile-defense technology in 2003, a 60% increase over what the Clinton administration spent in its last defense budget. The goal is to have some rudimentary "emergency" systems fielded by 2004. And the Pentagon projects the missile-defense budget to hit $11.1 billion by 2007.

The Pentagon currently divides its missile-defense systems into three categories, or phases, based on what stage of missile flight the system is supposed to target. In the boost phase, the target is a missile soon after takeoff; midcourse systems shoot at missiles after they've left the atmosphere and are hurtling through space; and a terminal-phase defense is supposed to stop missiles as they fall back through the atmosphere toward their target.

None of these systems are ever likely to be foolproof. Rather, Pentagon planners hope that by "layering" the three systems and taking shots at enemy missiles in each of their three stages of flight, they'll be able to increase the chances of success.

"We think we can have a good capability in a relatively short period of time by pursuing a layered defense," says Air Force Lt. Gen. Ron Kadish, who heads the Pentagon's Missile Defense Agency.

Gen. Kadish works out of a small office in Arlington with a view of the Pentagon. On a small table near his desk are buttons that caution "No Whining" and "No Whimpering." On another table are bottles of "Arrogant Bastard Ale."

A thick skin and at least a touch of arrogance are probably essential for anyone trying to build a national missile shield -- an endeavor often likened to trying to hit a bullet with a bullet. "There is nothing that the Department of Defense has done that is as difficult as missile defense," says Philip E. Coyle, the Pentagon's chief tester until last year and now a senior adviser at the Center for Defense Information, a Washington, D.C., nonprofit defense think tank.

Here is a look at the options the Pentagon has and the challenges it must surmount in each of the missile-defense categories it's currently pursuing:

Boost Phase

The big advantage of attacking a missile in its boost phase -- the first four minutes after liftoff -- is that the missile is a big, bright and comparatively slow-moving target. Also, in this phase there's only one target to shoot at -- the rocket -- since decoys or other countermeasures are released only after the missile leaves the atmosphere.

Earlier this year, the Pentagon asked defense contractors for their best ideas on attacking a missile in its boost phase. So far, it has received more than 50 proposals, which are in the process of being reviewed. Right now the Pentagon is actively exploring three systems that attack a missile in its boost phase.

Gen. Kadish says the most promising in the near term is an airborne laser. "It's within our grasp at this point," he says. The first complete test of the chemical laser, affixed to a specially modified Boeing 747 jetliner, will take place in 2004. Cleveland-based TRW Inc., which is working on the laser technology, and Lockheed Martin Corp., Bethesda, Md., which is developing the equipment to direct the laser beam, as well as Chicago-based Boeing Co., have received a total of about $1.5 billion in research funds over the past three years.

Because the boost phase is so brief, the laser, which shoots through the sky at the speed of light, is a big advantage. Still, problems remain with the technology, particularly whether clouds will distort the beam and make it miss its target. The enemy might also be able to foil the laser by placing reflective coating on its missiles. And critics warn that the 747, which must fly into enemy air space to get close enough to destroy the missile, would be vulnerable to attack itself.

Another boost-phase option would involve modifying a Navy Aegis cruiser, designed to defend ships against short-range cruise missiles, to attack ballistic missiles as they are lifting into space.

A ship-based boost-phase system is a favorite of missile-defense backers who argue that it could be accomplished in only a few years and for just a few billion dollars. Gen. Kadish is skeptical, noting that because the boost phase is so short, the ship carrying the interceptors must be close to an enemy launching pad to be sure of catching it in time.

"The cost trade-offs…don't seem to be compelling enough," he says. "Geography counts in boost phase. You have to be right around the spot where the boosting rocket is."

There's no question that such an Aegis-based system, which would be built by Lockheed; Raytheon Co., based in Lexington, Mass.; General Dynamics Corp., of Falls Church, Va.; and Northrop Grumman Corp., based in Los Angeles, has some real drawbacks. None of the missiles in the Navy's current arsenal are fast enough to catch a missile in its boost phase, Mr. Coyle says. "You need a missile that's about twice as fast as the one they've got," he says.

But the biggest limitation is geography. The system might work well against a small country with a long coastline like North Korea, but a larger country such as China or Iraq could thwart it by moving its missile launchers farther inland.

The only sure way to overcome the problem of geography would be to put interceptors in space. One option is to revive "Brilliant Pebbles," a program that dates back to the Reagan administration. It was conceived as a system of about 1,000 miniature satellites that circle the Earth searching for any enemy missile that is launched. If one is spotted, the satellites would release a kill vehicle to race down from space and collide with the missile before it leaves the atmosphere.

Building a network of 1,000 miniature, low-orbit satellites equipped with sensors and kill-vehicles probably wouldn't be cheap or easy, Gen. Kadish concedes. It would also face fierce opposition from U.S. allies and rivals opposed to militarizing space.

Midcourse Phase

The system furthest along is a continuation of the Clinton administration's land-based missile-defense program, which has been in a research and testing stage that wasn't prohibited by the ABM treaty. It is initially being built around a small number of ground-based interceptors, topped with a "kinetic kill vehicle" designed to smash into an enemy warhead as it hurtles through space.

If testing is successful, the Pentagon goal is to have a rudimentary ground-based system of four or five interceptors at Fort Greely, Alaska, by 2004 that could be used for more advanced testing or to defend the U.S. in the case of an emergency.

The Fort Greely missile silos, about 150 miles from Fairbanks, Alaska, won't be used for testing the ground-based interceptors, but rather for storing them. During tests the missiles will be launched from a separate site on Kodiak Island off the coast of Alaska. Boeing is the lead contractor in this system and makes the booster rocket. Raytheon is developing the kill vehicle and the radar, and TRW is building the software to knit it together.

After failing to hit its target in two of its first three tests, an early prototype of the ground system now has struck targets three times in a row. But big questions remain. A host of critics, including 50 Nobel laureates, have challenged the system's ability to distinguish between real missiles and decoys intended to fool the system. The most recent test of the system, conducted March 15, was successful and included three decoys, compared with only one in the previous three tests.

Gen. Kadish, however, concedes that the decoys in the experiment aren't exact replicas of what an enemy might deploy, and at some point more realistic decoys will need to be tested. "We're still in the data-gathering phase," he says. "What this shows us is how the kill vehicle reacts to the decoy. Does it slow it down?"

The fate of the midcourse system may ultimately be tied to the fate of the Pentagon's low-orbit Space-Based Infrared System, or SBIRS Low, a constellation of satellites that is supposed to help sort out warheads from enemy decoys. The program, which has been marred by repeated delays and cost overruns, saw its funding cut by about $800 million in the latest 2003 budget proposal.

"We've been at SBIRS Low for 18 years," says Gen. Kadish, who acknowledges that the program has been a struggle. "It's still an important part of our sensing-suite requirements. It's an important part of our system."

There is also some hope that midcourse interceptors could be launched from ships. The Pentagon is exploring whether the Navy's theater-wide system, designed to protect ships and soldiers in battle, could be modified to protect the U.S. from missile attack. Lockheed is making the ship-based radar for that system and Raytheon its booster and interceptor. In a January test of the Navy theater system, an interceptor launched from Lake Erie was able to strike a missile.

The main appeal of the Navy system is its mobility. Because it's based on a ship, it can be moved almost anywhere in the world, allowing the U.S. to extend missile protection to allies in Europe and Asia.

But there are still major technological challenges. Several scientists say that the target in the initial Navy test was much larger than a typical missile, making it easier to hit. Also, to adapt the theater-based system to protect the nation, which is a far larger swath of territory, the Navy would have to build a much faster missile, which is no easy task. And even if it could build a faster ship-based missile, the system would have the same problem distinguishing an enemy's missiles from its decoys as the ground-based system, say critics.

Another midcourse option is the space-based laser, which is currently being developed as part of a demonstration program by Lockheed, Boeing and TRW. The goal is to put an experimental laser in space by 2012. Because a laser can fire again and again for relatively little money, it could take multiple shots at an incoming missiles and decoys. Lasers, which are often distorted by clouds or rain, are likely to be more effective in space.

The technology is the most blue-sky of any of the systems, however, and could take decades to develop and cost tens of billions of dollars to field, according to Pentagon officials.

Terminal Phase

The PAC-3, the latest version of the Patriot air-defense missile, is the first antimissile system to enter full-scale production, and is beginning to be deployed. It has been through 11 tests, all of which have been at least moderately successful.

The problem with the PAC-3, which is designed to hit a missile after it has passed through space and is hurtling back toward Earth, is its very limited range. Because the terminal phase is so brief -- less than three minutes -- such a system at best can protect only an airfield or a few thousand troops on a battlefield. Adapting it to cover major cities or larger areas might well be impossible because it would have to be located near the target and it's too difficult to predict where the missiles would come down.

--Mr. Jaffe is a staff reporter in the Wall Street Journal's Washington Bureau.

Subscribe to WSJ Online @ http://www.wsj.com

---

....Jen

-- posted by JenL_2