Military Leaders Say Total U.S. Missile Defense System Has 90 Percent Chance Of Success

Sens. Sessions, Begich, Flail Cuts In Missile Defense Budget Before Study Is Done; Sen. Thune Backs Laser

The Airborne Laser (ABL) missile defense system drew praise from high-ranking Department of Defense officials, who nonetheless propose cutting the directed energy program. Their comments came during a hearing of the Senate Armed Services Committee (SASC).

They also said that the overall U.S. missile defense system has a 90 percent chance that it would succeed in knocking down incoming enemy missiles.

The officials’ budget plan would shift the focus from systems countering enemy short- and medium-range missiles, while providing less money for systems shielding the United States against long-range and intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs).

That overall strategy drew praise from the SASC chairman, Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.), who said this "is a welcome change of emphasis, and one that is consistent with the actions of this committee and Congress in years past," in defense financing bills that "have focused on missile defense against short- and medium-range missile threats." He specifically lauded new plans to increase numbers of Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) and Standard Missile-3 interceptors.

A witness before Levin, Army Lt. Gen. Patrick O’Reilly, the Missile Defense Agency (MDA) director, lauded the one existing ABL aircraft and laser system for successfully tracking a boosting missile, the second such success in as many weeks. (Please see separate story for comments from The Boeing Co. [BA].)

ABL would be able to defeat missiles of all ranges, including ICBMs.

"The ABL program is still on track," O’Reilly told the senators, with the airborne missile-killer making steady progress toward a test later this year in which the ABL, for the first time, will shoot down a target missile in flight.

Another SASC witness, Deputy Secretary of Defense William Lynn, said the United States needs a laser capability.

Lynn and O’Reilly spoke as they detailed for SASC senators President Obama’s MDA budget plan for the upcoming fiscal year ending Sept. 30, 2010, a plan that would nix buying any more ABL aircraft and turn the one existing prototype into an experimental platform.

Boeing, the prime contractor, provides the ABL aircraft (a heavily modified 747-400F jumbo jet) and systems integration; Northrop Grumman Corp. [NOC] supplies the laser system; and Lockheed Martin Corp. [LMT] makes the beam control-fire control system.

In the air, a laser beam generated in the rear of the plane travels to the nose of the aircraft, where a mirror-gimbal beam control device aims it at the enemy missile. The laser annihilates the missile in two ways, by blasting a hole in the side of the missile body, and by frying the missile electronics.

The laser beam moves at the speed of light to hit an enemy missile shortly after it launches, in the boost phase, while the hot missile exhaust is easily tracked, before the missile can emit multiple warheads or confusing decoys or chaff. Also, if there is a problem with the ABL hit on the missile, there still is time for other missile defense systems to strike the enemy missile in its midcourse or terminal phases of flight trajectory. Further, using a laser to take down an enemy missile costs about $60,000, while using an interceptor rocket to take down the enemy missile easily can cost $500,000 or even more than $1 million.

This laser is the type of capability the United States needs, Lynn said.

"We need to keep this work going on directed energy," Lynn said. "It offers substantial capacity and capability to the nation that we don’t [now] have."

At the same time, Lynn said an improved laser needs to be developed, rather than producing more ABL aircraft like the prototype plane. He wishes to obtain a laser that would have 10 to 30 times the power of the prototype ABL laser.

It is clear that at least some senators don’t wish to see laser development abandoned.

"I hope you will continue to pursue it," said Sen. John Thune (R-S.C.).

Cuts Before Study Done

Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) said that Obama, in cutting missile defense programs now, is pursuing a backwards chronology.

A study of missile defense needs won’t be done for months, but the Obama budget already predetermines the outcome of the study by calling for spending cuts now, Session said.

"This is driven by money," and a desire to cut programs in some areas and spend that money in other areas, Sessions indicated. Noting the defense budget exceeds $500 billion every year, Sessions said there is a disconnect where some programs with very limited budgets are being cut deeply. "What’s happening here?" he demanded.

Sessions added that with the Obama budget plan, "you’ve decreased the capability of the [U.S. missile defense] system," in decreasing spending on some missile defense programs.

Missile defense programs aren’t a water spigot to be turned on and off at will, Sessions said. Because of the planned funding cuts, "assembly lines will be shut down," Session said. "We can’t just snap our fingers and have an assembly line start back up again" at the prime contractor, and the same is true with suppliers, he said.

"The numbers don’t add up," Session said. "Someone has decided to cut missile defense" before facts are in from the study.

Similarly, Sen. Mark Begich (D-Alaska), noted that the missile defense review study isn’t completed, but the budget with its spending cuts means "the answer has already been given." With the budget cuts plan already before Congress, "You’ve made decisions as to what [the review] will say."

Lynn responded to those concerns by repeating the administration position that it wishes to focus on missile defense systems that counter more prevalent threats, enemy short- and medium-range missiles.

With the ABL, Lynn said, the military does indeed intend to assess whether lasers provide needed capabilities, while declining to buy a second ABL aircraft at this time.

Sen. Evan Bayh (D-Ind.), too, is concerned that cutting some missile defense programs may mean that production lines go cold, and suppliers go out of business or turn to other lines of work.

But Marine Corps Gen. James E. Cartwright, vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said that won’t occur.