Senior Pentagon officials are again concerned about additional cost growth on the already bloated Space Based Infrared System High (SBIRS High) program, the nation’s next- generation early missile warning satellite constellation, prompting some to question whether to eliminate one of the satellite’s sensors as a way to trim cost if the program meets with future overruns.

In recent years, the program’s cost has spiked unexpectedly by more than $3.5 billion, raising the total bill to nearly $10 billion. Additionally, the launch schedule has continued to slip. Lockheed Martin [LMT] is the prime contractor while Northrop Grumman [NOC] is building the payloads.

The SBIRS High satellites–four to be placed in geosynchronous orbit–were designed to carry two sensors. The first is a scanner to rapidly scan Earth from top to bottom looking for infrared events, or surprise missile launches. The second, a “staring” sensor, can be cued to look at a particular area, staring for infrared events of much shorter duration, like the quick burn of a short or theater range missile.

The constellation of these GEO satellites, coupled with two SBIRS High scanning sensors on classified host satellites in highly elliptical orbit (HEO) will replace the existing Defense Support Program (DSP) satellites. SBIRS High’s unique attribute of both sensors–including the addition of the staring sensor–was one of the improvements for the system touted by Air Force officials. DSP uses a scanning sensor that has been adapted to handle some intelligence on quick-burn theater missiles, but warfighters were looking forward to the new staring sensors specifically designed to pick up on those events, especially as smaller and shorter range theater missiles have proliferated to potential adversaries.

It is the staring sensor that has found itself in the crosshairs in the most recent discussion about the future of this system that has plagued the Pentagon in recent years. According to Pentagon and industry sources, Undersecretary of Defense for Intelligence Stephen Cambone has recently raised concerns about future cost growth, Pentagon and industry sources said. The issue is less related to a specific impending problem, and more derived from recent experience and, according to some, a healthy sense of paranoia.

Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz opened the door in a Dec. 23 budget decision to trade SBIRS High requirements to preserve cost. In program budget decision No. 753, he directed U.S. Strategic Command, the Joint Staff and Air Force to “examine SBIRS requirements for the geosynchronous earth orbiting satellites, with a focus on adjusting requirements as necessary to control program timelines, cost and schedule.”

Yet, no decisions have been made to change the configuration of the satellite. Retired Maj. Gen. Robert Dickman, the Air Force’s No. 2 military space official, last week acknowledged the discussion and said the service is confident cost is under control.

“People have been concerned over how do you keep the risk down on SBIRS cost growth,” Dickman said during a Jan. 19 interview with Defense Daily, sister publication to Satellite News. “We think we are well down the path. Most of the pieces for SBIRS High GEO exist. They just don’t exist integrated. But, the pieces are there.”

Dickman assured he sees nothing ahead that could derail the program like an earlier problem with the HEO sensors. Officials were set back billions due in large part to trouble isolating and quelling electromagnetic interference (EMI) spikes emitted from the payload, which was flying on a host satellite demanding rigorous EMI standards (likely a signals intelligence satellite). The delays amassed huge fines to maintain a standing army while handling that single problem. HEO 1 was delivered last summer, more than 18 months later than scheduled; the second is to be delivered next month.

Furthermore, Dickman noted that a drastic change so far into a program could incur cost.

“My sense is, at least in the near term, in a small number of spacecraft it will cost money, not save money. If you buy enough spacecraft and you take something off, obviously you would save money in the long run,” Dickman said. “But, we are far enough into the program now that the nonrecurring [cost] to replace it…may cost just as much as keeping it on assuming we don’t have any major problems.”

–Amy Butler