Back to news

February 3, 2020 | International, Aerospace

The drive to advance missile defense is there, but there must be funding

By: Richard Matlock 

Over the past five years, missile threats have evolved far more rapidly than conventional wisdom had predicted. Best known is North Korea’s accelerated development and testing of sophisticated, road-mobile ballistic missiles. But the U.S. National Defense Strategy requires renewed focus on greater powers. China has adopted an anti-access strategy consisting of new offensive missiles, operational tactics and fortifications in the South China Sea. Russia, too, has developed highly maneuverable hypersonic missiles specifically designed to defeat today’s defenses.

Grappling with these sobering realities demands change. The 2019 Missile Defense Review called for a comprehensive approach to countering regional missiles of all kinds and from whatever source, as well as the increasingly complex intercontinental ballistic missiles from rogue states. But programs and budgets have not yet aligned with the policy. The upcoming defense budget submission presents an important opportunity to address these new and complex challenges.

The Missile Defense Agency’s current top three goals are sustaining the existing force, increasing capacity and capability, and addressing more advanced threats. The first two are necessary but insufficient. The third goal must be elevated to adapt U.S. missile defense efforts to the geopolitical and technological realities of our time.

For the last decade, less than 2 percent of MDA’s annual funding has been dedicated to developing advanced technology, during which time our adversaries have begun outpacing us. As President Donald Trump said last January, we “cannot simply build more of the same, or make incremental improvements.”

Adapting our missile defense architecture will require rebalance, discipline and difficult choices. Realigning resources to develop advanced technologies and operational concepts means investing less in single-purpose systems incapable against the broader threat. It also requires we accept and manage new kinds of risk. Indeed, meeting the advanced threat may, in the short term, require accepting some strategic risk with North Korea.

The beginning of this rebalance requires more distributed, elevated and survivable sensors capable of tracking advanced threats. The most important component here is a proliferated, globally persistent space layer in low-Earth orbit consisting of both passive and active sensors. MDA may be the missile defense-centric organization best suited to developing and integrating this capability into the architecture, but there is considerable opportunity for partnering with others to move out smartly, as recently urged by Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. John Hyten. Partnerships with the Space Development Agency and the Air Force can be supplemented by collaborative efforts with commercial space companies.

We need not do this all at once. Space assets could be fielded in phases, with numbers, capability (sensors, interceptors, lasers), missions, and orbits evolving over time. MDA demonstrated a similar paradigm with the Delta experiments, Miniature Sensor Technology Integration series and the Near Field Infrared Experiment in the past.

Meanwhile, other sensors could alleviate the cost of building new, billion-dollar radar on islands in the Pacific Ocean — efforts which continue to suffer delay. Adding infrared tracking sensors to high-altitude drones, for instance, has already been demonstrated experimentally in the Indo-Pacific theater with modified Reaper unmanned aerial vehicles. These need not be dedicated assets. Sensor pod kits could be stored in theater to be deployed aboard Reapers or other platforms during heightened tensions.

We must revisit boost-phase defenses and directed energy. In 2010, the Airborne Laser program demonstrated that lasers could destroy missiles in the boost phase, but deploying toxic chemical lasers aboard large commercial aircraft was fiscally and operationally untenable. Fortunately, considerable operational promise exists with recently developed solid-state lasers (the cost of which is around $2 of electricity per shot). We must move these systems out of the laboratory and build and test operational prototypes.

Near-term actions to better manage risk against the rogue-state ballistic missile threat must not overtake the pursuit of these larger goals. Although the Pentagon is currently considering a 10-year, $12 billion program for a next-generation interceptor, nearer-term, cheaper options are available. Replacing each existing kill vehicle on the Ground-Based Interceptors with several smaller kill vehicles would multiply each interceptor’s effectiveness dramatically. The U.S. has been developing this technology since 2006, including a “hover” flight test in 2009. Affordable solutions like this must be found.

Missile defense cannot do it all. Denying, degrading and destroying enemy missile systems prior to launch must be part of the mix. But left-of-launch activities can be expensive and difficult, and reliance on a cyber magic wand carries risk, too. We need to broaden our approach to attack all parts of our adversary’s kill chain.

The National Defense Strategy urges that we contend with the world as it is, not as we might wish it to be — or as it previously was. To meet the threats of today and tomorrow, we must radically transform our U.S. missile defenses. It falls to the 2021 budget to do so.

On the same subject

  • At advent of ambitious mod plan, US Army seeks $190B in FY20

    March 14, 2019 | International, Land

    At advent of ambitious mod plan, US Army seeks $190B in FY20

    By: Jen Judson  WASHINGTON — The U.S. Army is asking for about $190 billion in fiscal 2020, an increase of roughly $8 billion above last year’s budget top line, which will cover the cost of the advent of an ambitious modernization plan, a defense official told Defense News ahead of the White House’s FY20 budget request release. Breaking that top line down, the service is requesting roughly $120 billion in its base budget and then another $31 billion in Overseas Contingency Operations-for-base funding. The Army is asking for another $30 billion in traditional OCO funding — which is the account used to pay for wartime operations in theater — and another $10 billion to cover emergency funds, according to the source. The budget is expected to be officially released March 12. OCO-for-base funding is money that could be in the base budget, but is classified as OCO for the purpose of getting around statutory budget caps imposed by the Budget Control Act. Both Congress and the Pentagon have relied on OCO as a workaround for the budget caps in the past. Full article:

  • German ministry seeks data on quicker fighter jet deliveries

    September 12, 2018 | International, Aerospace

    German ministry seeks data on quicker fighter jet deliveries

    Andrea Shalal BERLIN (Reuters) - The German military has asked potential bidders in a high-stakes competition to replace its aging Tornado fighter jets about accelerating deliveries of new warplanes before an initial target date of 2025, sources familiar with the matter said. The defense ministry posed the question in early August in a follow-up to its initial request for information from Europe’s Airbus (AIR.PA) and Lockheed Martin (LMT.N) and Boeing (BA.N), both from the United States, the sources said. The ministry had no comment on the latest twist in a tender that could be worth billions of euros. One of the sources said the request signaled concerns about the growing cost of servicing the current fleet of 85 operational Tornado jets. Defence Minister Ursula von der Leyen says she favors a European solution - the Eurofighter Typhoon built by Airbus, Britain’s BAE Systems and Italy’s Leonardo SpA (LDOF.MI) - but Lockheed and Boeing still hope for a chance to bid for the work. Airbus and the U.S. government submitted data this spring about the four fighter jet models under consideration - the Eurofighter, Lockheed’s F-35, and the Boeing F/A-18E/F or F-15E. Germany is studying a number of options, including buying one type of jet to replace the Tornado jets, a split buy of two aircraft types, and a service life extension of the Tornado jets, according to multiple sources familiar with the process. Germany has also asked Washington for information about the possibility of leasing Boeing F-15 fighter jets, two sources said, although that is seen as an unlikely outcome. Von der Leyen in July said she expected a preliminary decision on the next steps by the end of the year. POSSIBLE SPLIT BUY? One proposal calls for Germany to buy 40-45 Lockheed F-35 jets to replace those Tornados that can carry nuclear bombs, and about 75 new Eurofighters to replace both the other Tornados and a first batch of Eurofighters delivered between 2003 and 2008. Buying F-35s would allow Germany to keep a mixed fleet of fighter jets, a key requirement in its military strategy, while averting costly and time-consuming modifications to the process of certifying the Eurofighter to carry nuclear bombs. Although not a nuclear power, Germany hosts some U.S. nuclear warheads under NATO’s nuclear-sharing policy and operates a number of Tornado warplanes that can deliver them. The U.S. has told Germany it could take 12 to 18 months to study the Eurofighter certification issue. German industry executives are pressing for quick answers, given that the already high cost of keeping the Tornado jets flying could rise once Britain and Italy phase out their fleets. “The cost of spare parts and operations keeps going up,” one industry executive said.

  • Boeing extends plant shutdowns in Washington state

    April 7, 2020 | International, Aerospace

    Boeing extends plant shutdowns in Washington state

    ByEd Adamczyk April 6 (UPI) -- Boeing Co. announced an extension of a production suspension in its Washington state facilities, and signaled that layoffs and buyouts could be coming, to help stem the spread of COVID-19. The company's Puget Sound and Moses Lake sites will be closed until further notice because of the spread of the coronavirus, additional advice from state health authorities and supply chain disruptions, the company said in a Sunday statement. The original shutdown began on March 23 and was scheduled for two weeks. The Puget Sound facilities are mostly known for constructing commercial aircraft, but the military's KC-46 tanker and P-8 maritime patrol aircraft are built on the same lines. Boeing officials said last month the stoppage is not expected to affect their production too greatly. Boeing employs about 70,000 people in the region. Last week it announced a two-week closure of facilities in the Philadelphia area for two weeks due to the spread of the virus. In a letter last week to employees, CEO David Calhoun predicted that the company's recovery from the health crisis will be lengthy. "When the world emerges from the pandemic, the size of the commercial market and the types of products and services our customers want and need will likely be different," he said. "It's important we start adjusting to our new reality now." Within several weeks, a buyout package will be offered to some of Boeing's 161,000 U.S. employees. Nearly one-third of its 27,000 unionized machinists are over 55, and with an aging workforce a buyout could find many takers. While the company appears to be eligible to receive funds from a $17 billion loan available to the aviation industry included in the $2 trillion federal stimulus package it is required to maintain staffing at 90 percent of current levels.

All news