ALASKA MISSILE DEFENSE WEEKLY Fifty first Edition by jolinmilioncherie


              Fifty-first Edition
      Compiled by: Ms. Hillary Pesanti, Community Relations Specialist
               Command Representative for Missile Defense
          To subscribe, email:

               Note: Click on any storyline for more information. If you would
               like to view archived editions, click here: Archived Editions

FEBRUARY 17, 2003-FEBRUARY 21, 2003


• Hearing set for SBX Radar vessel, The Valdez Star (Alaska)


• President’s Day


• Airborne Laser conducts air refueling test, Aviation Week
• China denies testing MRV’d missile, Agence France Presse
• Britain agrees to Flyingdales’ radar upgrade, BBC Online
• Arrow-2 to be partially produced in the United States, Huntsville [AL] Times
• GMD may not be operational 24/7, Inside Missile Defense
• DoD proposes waiving test requirement for ballistic missile defense
  deployment, Aerospace Daily
• War planners speak of the risks, New York Times
• European Union says Iraq must disarm quickly and fully, New York Times


• Japan and the United States to test joint missile defense system, Associated
• North Korean rhetoric spurs Japan plans for missile defense, Wall Street
• U.S. missile plan seems well on its way, Defense News
• Christie: Aegis missile defense can be used with limited success, Inside The
• Astronomy technology aims to help vision, Associated Press
• MDA includes $500 million R&D boost for ABL in FY-04 budget request,
  Inside the Air Force


• U.S. lawmaker calls on Ukraine to help develop missile defense system,
  Associated Press
• Christie: OT&E office getting needed information from MDA, Inside Missile
• MDA further defines plan for new boost phase interceptor program, Defense
• Japan, U.S. agree to keep close contact over missile defence system, Agence
  France Presse
• SBR will require significant funds, clear plan for congressional approval,
  Defense Daily
• Report: Deployment of U.S. forces in Poland is possible, Associate Press


• GMD lacks operational capability, DOT&E report says, Defense Daily
• U.S.: China aiming missiles at Taiwan, Channel NewsAsia
• Lack of overseas missile sales leads to job cuts, Associated Press
• Army ready to test future space capabilities in upcoming space game, Defense
• Hit-and-miss missile defense, MSNBC

FEBRUARY 17, 2003-FEBRUARY 21, 2003

February 18, 2003. The first draft of the Environmental Impact Statement for the
proposed sea-based radar system, known in military jargon as SBX Radar, has
been published and is available for public viewing at the Valdez Consortium
Library. The voluminous document contains hundreds of pages of preliminary
results for all sites under consideration by the Ground Missile Defense. It also
contains information on environmental impact for the launch sites of the test
missiles from all over the Pacific region. The SBX is the newest proposed addition
to the Ground Missile Defense (Star Wars) program. Valdez is a candidate to serve
as the home port for this sea-going radar facility. The draft EIS also contains
information on locations for a Primary Support Base which will need to be located
within a 1,440-nautical-mile distance of the performing region of the SBX…In
brief, the EIS also addresses 16 areas of possible impact…No impact was expected
for Air Quality, Biological Resources, Utilities, Health and Safety or Visual and
Aesthetic Resources. The primary area of concern involved airspace. An
“Electromagnetic Radiation/Electromagnetic Interference” survey and analysis
would be required to minimize impact to aircraft and other potentially affected
systems, the report said… On Wednesday of next week, Feb. 26, the Ground
Missile Defense office will host another scoping meeting in Valdez which is open
to the public.




February 3, 2003. The first U.S. Air Force YAL-1A Airborne Laser (ABL) aircraft
demonstrated an aerial refueling capability behind a KC-135 tanker during a recent
test flight in California. The Boeing 747 freighter was outfitted with an air-to-air
refueling system during a two-year modification effort in Wichita, Kansas. The
aircraft is now at Edwards AFB, California, where its directed-energy weapons
(lasers) and optical systems will be installed. The ABL is designed to destroy
boosting missiles with a high-power laser.

February 11, 2003. Chinese officials vehemently denied a Japanese news daily's
report that China had tested a ballistic missile with multiple reentry vehicles, or
MRVs. This kind of warhead design would neatly counter and overwhelm any
missile defenses that the United States might be able to deploy in the near future.
Said Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Zhang Qiyue, the report that China
had tested a MRV’d DF-21 missile in mid-December was "utterly groundless."

February 5, 2003. The British government has formally agreed to allow the radar
facilities at Fylingsdale to be upgraded and incorporated into the fledgling U.S.
missile defense system. Defense Secretary Geoff Hoon alerted the U.K. Parliament
on Jan. 31 that he would be "conveying the government's agreement to the U.S.
request." Critics have opposed this move, fearing that it may lead to Fylingsdale
becoming a target or the United Kingdom becoming permanently involved in
missile defense programs of the United States. Hoon tried to ally that latter concern
by stating that the upgrade does not necessarily commit his government to further
participation, but it does "keep open the prospect of acquiring missile defense
capabilities for the United Kingdom."

Huntsville [AL] Times, February 12, 2003. Israel Aircraft Industry (IAI) and
Boeing signed a pre-production agreement in early February that would allow
Boeing to become more involved in production of the Arrow missile defense
program's interceptor, the Arrow-2. About half of the Arrow-2's component parts
will be assembled by Boeing at an existing facility in Huntsville, AL. This
agreement is the culmination of years of effort by IAI to get the Arrow-2 produced
in the United States as a way of bulking up its stockpile of the interceptors. Only
50 percent of the Arrow's components can be produced in the United States
because of Missile Technology Control Regime restrictions: even to get this pre-
production agreement established, the State Department had to grant Boeing a
Technical Assistance Agreement.

GMD MAY NOT BE OPERATIONAL 24/7, Inside Missile Defense, February
5, 2003. The Missile Defense Agency (MDA) may not be able to continually
operate the Ground-based Midcourse Missile Defense (GMD) system, according to
senior Defense official. Because a presidential directive called for an early
deployment of the still-in-development GMD system, MDA unveiled a plan where
20 interceptors for the GMD program would be deployed by 2005. While briefing
Congress about the MDA's FY 04 budget request, a Department of Defense official
said that due to the limited number of interceptors being initially deployed, "it is
not clear how they will be manned 24 hours a day."
MISSILE DEFENSE DEPLOYMENT, Aerospace Daily, February 14, 2003.
The Defense Department has asked Congress for permission to bypass operational
testing requirements so it can begin deploying ballistic missile defenses (BMD) in
2004, Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.) revealed Feb. 13. DOD appears to want to skip
operational testing for the BMD systems to save time and keep the deployment on
track. At a hearing of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Levin, the panel's
ranking Democrat, said DOD quietly submitted the request for a testing waiver as
part of its fiscal 2004 budget proposal. The Pentagon would exempt the missile
defense deployment from a law that requires DOD's director of operational test and
evaluation to certify that appropriate operational testing has been completed before
putting weapon systems into production, Levin said. "That law exists to prevent the
production and fielding of a weapon system that doesn't work right," said Levin,
who earlier criticized the Bush Administration for committing to deploy systems
that he believes have not been adequately tested (DAILY, Dec. 18, 2002).

Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld defended the waiver request, saying "we need
to get something out there in the ground [and] at sea" to support more realistic
testing and provide at least a minimal defense against ballistic missiles. To
underscore the urgency of fielding missile defenses, Rumsfeld said there is "no
doubt in my mind" that North Korea has a missile that could reach parts of the U.S.
The Bush Administration announced last December that it intends to begin
deploying up to 20 ground-based interceptors that can shoot down long-range
missiles in their midcourse phase (DAILY, Dec. 17, 2002). The plan also calls for
fielding up to 20 sea-based midcourse interceptors to defend against short-range
and medium-range missiles. The ground-based and sea-based interceptors would
be deployed by 2005. Supplemental expected 'soon' Levin also revealed at the
hearing that DOD is considering several proposals to change the way it operates.
They include eliminating assistant secretaries of defense that oversee reserve
affairs and special operations; replacing the current four-year terms served by the
service chiefs with two-year terms that can be renewed by the defense secretary;
and requiring the Joint Staff to report to the defense secretary rather than to the
chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Rumsfeld said he was unaware of the specific
proposals but generally believes the department needs to modernize the way it does

Rumsfeld also told the committee he expects the Administration to submit an FY
'03 supplemental appropriations request to Congress "reasonably soon" to pay for
military operations in Afghanistan and the Persian Gulf. The White House,
including its Office of Management and Budget, are working on the details of the
request. Although Congress recently added $10 billion to an FY '03 non-defense
appropriations bill for military and intelligence activities related to the war on
terrorism (DAILY, Feb. 11), a supplemental still will be needed because the war
on terrorism is costing about $1.5-$1.6 billion a month and because preparations
for a possible invasion of Iraq are costing an additional $2 billion or so, Rumsfeld

WAR PLANNERS SPEAK OF THE RISKS, New York Times, Washington,
February 17, 2003 — Senior Bush administration officials are for the first time
openly discussing a subject they have sidestepped during the buildup of forces
around Iraq: what could go wrong, and not only during an attack but also in the
aftermath of an invasion. Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld has a four- to
five-page, typewritten catalog of risks that senior aides say he keeps in his desk
drawer. He refers to it constantly, updating it with his own ideas and suggestions
from senior military commanders, and discussing it with President Bush. His list
includes a "concern about Saddam Hussein using weapons of mass destruction
against his own people and blaming it on us, which would fit a pattern," Mr.
Rumsfeld said. He said the document also noted "that he could do what he did to
the Kuwaiti oil fields and explode them, detonate, in a way that lost that important
revenue for the Iraqi people." That item is of particular concern to administration
officials' postwar planning because they are counting on Iraqi oil revenues to help
pay for rebuilding the nation.

Although administration officials are no doubt concerned about the ultimate
number of American casualties, they have declined to discuss the issue and it is not
known how that risk figures in Mr. Rumsfeld's list. If there is one thing that haunts
administration planners it is the thought of a protracted conflict, which could lead
to increased casualties. "How long will this go on?" one senior administration
official asked. "Three days, three weeks, three months, three years?" Even some of
this official's aides winced as they contemplated the last time frame on that list.
The Rumsfeld document also warns of Mr. Hussein hiding his weapons in mosques
or hospitals or cultural sites, and using his citizenry or captured foreign journalists
as human shields. The risks, Mr. Rumsfeld said, "run the gamut from concerns
about some of the neighboring states being attacked, concerns about the use of
weapons of mass destruction against those states or against our forces in or out of

A senior Bush administration official confirmed that a number of uncertainties
remained even after months of internal studies, advance planning and the insertion
of Central Intelligence Agency officers and Special Operations forces into some
corners of Iraq.
"We still do not know how U.S. forces will be received," the senior official said.
"Will it be cheers, jeers or shots? And the fact is, we won't know until we get
there." In an administration that strives to sound bold and optimistic — especially
when discussing the political, economic and military power of America — such
cautionary notes from the White House, the Pentagon and intelligence officials
may well have a political purpose. Following the military maxim that no battle
plan survives first contact with the enemy, the administration may feel it is better
to warn the American public of these dangers in advance. According to his aides,
President Bush has to prepare the country for what one senior official calls "the
very real possibility that this will not look like Afghanistan," a military victory that
came with greater speed than any had predicted, and with fewer casualties. If Mr.
Bush decides to begin military action without explicit United Nations approval,
other nations may well withhold support for what promises to be the far more
complex operation of stabilizing and rebuilding Iraq while preventing religious and
political score-settling and seeking out well-hidden weapons stores before others
find them, not to speak of continuing the war on terror.

"There is a lot to keep us awake at night," one senior administration official said.
As America's intelligence assets focus on Iraq, senior officials worry they may be
less thorough in tracking threats to the nation elsewhere. Just last week on Capitol
Hill, Vice Adm. Lowell E. Jacoby, director of the Defense Intelligence Agency,
said that his ability to detect the spread of nuclear weapons or missiles around the
world was being "stretched thin," and he said that some parts of the world,
including South Asia, Russia and China, had less coverage than he would like. The
director of central intelligence, George J. Tenet, hinted at one of the deepest
worries heard in the hallways of the intelligence agency, the Pentagon and the
White House: that a successful removal of Saddam Hussein could be followed by a
scramble among Iraqis for what remains of his military arsenal — particularly his
chemical and biological weapons — before it was secured by American forces.
"The country cannot be carved up," Mr. Tenet said of Iraq. "The country gets
carved up and people believe they have license to take parts of the country for
themselves. That will make this a heck of a lot harder."
At the White House, officials acknowledged that they had been late in focusing on
the question of how to bring enough relief assistance to the region in the days after
an attack begins, which could turn the populace against their would-be liberators.
Mr. Bush's political aides are acutely aware that if Iraq turns into lengthy military
operation, or if stabilization efforts are viewed by the Iraqi people as foreign
occupation, those events will quickly be seized upon by Mr. Bush's opponents.
Administration officials list these among their concerns:

• A muddy transition of power. Most of the planning has called for the swift
  removal of Mr. Hussein and his top aides. While a coup or exile might preclude
  the need for military action, they could create a chaotic situation in which Mr.
  Hussein is gone but the United States is not in control. Condoleezza Rice, the
  national security adviser, has begun to talk about how it will not be enough to
  remove Mr. Hussein, saying, "We must also get rid of Saddam-ism." Some,
  especially at the Pentagon, ask if, in the event of a coup or exile, the United
  States military might have to go into Iraq anyway to assure that the succession
  of power leaves in place a government that would give up all weapons of mass
• Chaos after Mr. Hussein is gone. Several task forces on Iraq have examined
  what some call the "score-settling problem," the specter of rivalries and feuds
  that have been bottled up for decades spinning out of control. Most have
  concluded that one result may be an American military occupation likely to be
  longer than the 18 months that Ms. Rice has talked about. Douglas J. Feith, the
  undersecretary of defense for policy, noted in Senate testimony last week that
  getting at the stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction would be a "complex,
  dangerous and expensive task."
• Events outside Iraq. North Korea is the first concern here, because a crisis there
  could require military resources tied up in the Middle East. An equal concern is
  terrorism here or in Europe, set off by Al Qaeda or others. One official noted
  recently that it might be impossible to know if an act of terror was set off by
  agents of Iraq or simply by terrorists taking advantage of the Iraq invasion.
• Securing the oil fields. It is assumed that Mr. Hussein would try to destroy the
  oil infrastructure. The only question is how thorough a job he would do.
  Blowing up the above-ground pumping stations, while troublesome, would not
  be that hard to fix. Sinking explosives deep underground, where they damage
  the drilling infrastructure, could be far more destructive.

FULLY, New York Times, Brussels, February 17, 2003 — The leaders of the 15
members of the European Union warned Iraq today that it must disarm
"immediately and fully," but said that Europe wanted to achieve this disarmament
peacefully and that war should be a last resort. The European statement was issued
at the end of an emergency summit meeting and after a weekend of huge
demonstrations in several cities against war in Iraq. It appeared to represent an
effort to paper over trans-Atlantic differences through firm demands on Saddam
Hussein while maintaining a distinct European position dedicated to a peaceful
outcome. "War is not inevitable," the statement said. "Force should only be used
as a last resort. It is for the Iraqi regime to end this crisis by complying with the
demands of the Security Council." [Text of the statement is linked at the right
under "Related Articles."] "The Union's objective for Iraq remains full and
effective disarmament," it said, adding: "We want to achieve this peacefully. It is
clear that this is what the people of Europe want." The European leaders did not
approve a timetable for Iraqi disarmament and rejected a British proposal that the
statement include the phrase "time is running out."

That phrase was rejected by Germany, which, together with France, has stood at
the forefront of European resistance to the Bush administration's plans to disarm
Iraq through force if necessary. In a demonstration of the continued distance
between Europe and the United States, President Jacques Chirac of France said that
there was "no need" for a second United Nations resolution reinforcing the threat
of force against Iraq, and that France would oppose one if the United States and
Britain proposed it to the Security Council. "Iraq must have no illusions," the
Greek president, Costas Simitis, said tonight, summarizing the European
declaration. He added that "Iraq alone will be responsible for the serious
consequences" if it continued to defy United Nations resolutions. The phrase
"serious consequences" is widely viewed as meaning military force. It appears at
the end of Security Council Resolution 1441, which last year provided arms
inspectors with a strong mandate to return to Iraq and verify disarmament.
Differences between Europe and the United States over Iraq have become so acute
in recent weeks that officials have expressed concern over the future of the NATO
alliance. Today, European leaders seemed anxious to allay those fears, saying they
were committed to "working with all our partners, especially the United States, for
the disarmament of Iraq."

In its most forceful passage, the European statement said: "Baghdad should have
no illusions. It must disarm and cooperate immediately and fully. Iraq has a final
opportunity to resolve the crisis peacefully. The Iraqi regime alone will be
responsible for the consequences if it continues to flout the will of the international
community and does not take this last chance." Prime Minister Tony Blair of
Britain, who faces intense domestic opposition to his support for the Bush
administration's war plans, insisted before the meeting that European leaders must
show a united front with America as the best means of compelling Mr. Hussein to
The meeting today was intended in part to try to patch up the sharp disagreement
among the Europeans that has left the goal of European unity in tatters. For months
now, France and Germany have resisted American pressure to go to war with Iraq,
while Britain, Italy, Spain and Denmark have expressed support for the American
position. That the meeting ended in a joint statement at all was something of a
victory for many of the leaders who have been eager to heal the rifts caused by the
Iraqi crisis and to speak in a single European voice. Indeed, in the days leading up
to the meeting today, many people in Europe, noting how deeply divided the
union's member nations have been on Iraq, were doubtful that any agreement
would be reached at all.

 The next step in the complex diplomatic chess game being played concerning Iraq
seems likely to come later this week, when the United States and Britain offer a
resolution in the Security Council finding Iraq in "material breach" of Council
resolutions, a formula for authorizing a military strike against the Hussein
government. But the European declaration that force should be only a "last resort"
indicated that the two major European representatives on the Security Council,
France and Germany, would actively resist the American and British move. The
statement seemed a careful balancing of the views that had badly divided the
European Union. On the one hand, it credited the American military buildup in the
Persian Gulf with forcing Iraq to readmit the United Nations weapons inspection
teams, which left the country in 1998. In what seemed a concession to the British
desire for a timetable for Iraq disarmament, the statement also said, "Inspections
cannot continue indefinitely in the absence of full Iraqi cooperation." But the
Europeans also called for the inspectors to have "the time and resources they
need," reiterating what has become almost a mantra for the nations opposed to
going to war, not only Germany and France but Russia and China, both of which
have veto power on the Security Council. How much time that is was left unclear,
but France has proposed that the chief weapons inspectors report back to the
Council on March 14.

Foreign Secretary Jack Straw of Britain said at a news conference after the joint
declaration was released that the important question was not time for the inspectors
but Iraqi compliance. "If there is not active compliance, then no amount of time or
more inspectors is going to change that reality of lack of compliance," he said. Mr.
Blair allowed that differences still existed among the European countries, but said,
"There was a lot of common ground, and I have no doubt that many, many people
around that table tonight were absolutely insistent that indeed, Saddam was in his
final chance." Not represented at the meeting today were 10 countries that are
expected to become members of the European Union next year. Those countries,
including most of the former satellites of the Soviet Union, all signed a statement
of support for the United States position on Iraq two weeks ago.

SYSTEM, Associated Press, February 17, 2003. Japan and the United States will
test a missile-intercept system aimed at countering a potential North Korean attack,
the Defense Agency said Monday. Agency spokesman Ichiro Imaizumi said the
two countries are jointly developing a new missile that can be launched from ships
to shoot down enemy missiles fired at Japan and that “missile testing will be
carried out in due course.”…A Monday news report in the Nihon Keizai Shimbun
said the United States and Japan were to begin testing their new anti-missile
defense in Hawaii over a two-year period starting in 2004. After the testing, both
sides will decide on whether to deploy the system, it said. The paper, a leading
Japanese daily, also reported that Japan would shoulder about 20 billion yen
(U.S.$165 million) of the development costs. Imaizumi said the cost-sharing and
the testing dates have yet to be decided. He said Japan and United States are
currently working on four parts of the new missile — the nose cone, kinetic
warhead, infrared seeker and second-stage rocket. Since Japan has no missile
testing range, it is widely believed that testing of the missile would occur in the
United States.

DEFENSE, Wall Street Journal, February 18, 2003. As concerns grow about
North Korea’s capability and intent in long-range missiles and nuclear weapons,
Japan is planning to carry out tests of missile-defense hardware with which it could
one day defend itself. In cooperation with the U.S., Japan is lining up performance
tests on essential components for use in an antiballistic-missile rocket that could
form part of a full-fledged missile-defense system, a spokesman for the Defense
Agency said Monday. Though the system is a long way from being put into place,
the planned tests show the rising anxiety in Japan since North Korea disclosed that
it was developing nuclear weapons… The antimissile initiative is in a study phase,
but Japan is expected to decide in the next year or so whether to advance the
project to the development stage. Japan and the U.S. will carry out tests on a nose
cone, which would protect sensors inside the missile head from heat; an infrared
seeker; a kinetic warhead, and a rocket motor. “These will be performance tests to
see whether they would work in a missile eventually,” said Ichiro Imaizumi, a
Defense Agency spokesman. The schedule and location of the tests haven’t yet
been decided, he said.
17, 2003. Politically, U.S. missile defense has reached the same point that a
warhead attains in the final stages of its flight: From here on it looks very difficult
to shoot down. Since Congress approved spending $7.4 billion on it last autumn,
and President George W. Bush announced in December he would begin initial
deployment of a missile defense system in autumn 2003, “the big policy issues
have been largely put to bed,” said Baker Spring, a defense analyst for the Heritage
Foundation, a conservative think tank in Washington. After almost 20 years of
contentious debate about whether missile defense would work, was affordable or
would be destabilizing, the issue seems likely to show up much lower on the
congressional radar screen this session. To the extent discussion arises this year, it
“will be much more heavily weighted toward programmatics — how much money
for which system, timelines for deployments, management of the Missile Defense
Agency,” said Spring, a longtime missile defense proponent. “There is a different
kind of political atmosphere surrounding” missile defense now, he said…
Democrats in Congress might have been expected to protest louder that missile
defense systems remain too unproven to deploy, but actions by North Korea helped
stifle much opposition to Bush’s decision… One thing Congress is sure to heed is
the performance of missile defenses if there is a war with Iraq. How well theater
missile defense systems — the Patriot Advanced Capability-3 system in particular
— work in combat could have substantial influence on the future of the missile
defense system…

SUCCESS, Inside The Navy, February 17, 2003. After a series of flight tests, the
Pentagon’s top tester, Thomas Christie, told Congress the Navy’s Aegis ballistic
missile defense system could be employed in an emergency “with limited
expectation of success.” According to excerpts from Christie’s fiscal year 2002
report to Congress -- obtained by Inside the Navy -- the Aegis BMD test strategy
through FY-02 has been “commensurate with the early maturity level of the
system.” While Christie, the director of operational test and evaluation,
acknowledges the program has had much success in FY-02, he cautions that the
program is still in its early stages… In his report, Christie reviews the Aegis BMD
test strategy for FY-02, which he says has “been simplistic and limited to
establishing the hit-to-kill proof-of-concept, and flight qualifying non-legacy
hardware and software components of the Aegis BMD system.”… However, flight
tests against “separating threats, or threats that employ countermeasures, are
required to fully address the discrimination and designation capability of Aegis
BMD,” the report states, adding, “These test limitations will be addressed as the
Aegis BMD program matures and the test program becomes more challenging.”
Accordingly, Christie concludes, “since these firings have been from functional,
fully manned, operational ships, this system could be employed in an emergency
with limited expectation of success. There are significant capabilities yet to be
demonstrated before the engagement conditions can be considered operationally

February 17, 2003. Technology that astronomers developed to take the twinkle out
of starlight as it enters their telescopes is now peering in the opposite direction,
revealing the eye’s complexities as never before. Scientists hope the detailed
images of light-gathering cells they can now see will lead to early diagnoses and
treatment of eye diseases to spare patients from blindness. The same system of
lenses, flexible mirrors and computers is also making laser eye surgery more
accurate. One day it may even allow surgeons to user lasers to zap away tiny
aneurisms within the eye… Called adaptive optics, it was first proposed in 1953 by
an astronomer eager to compensate for the distortions that light from stars, planets
and galaxies picks up while passing through Earth’s soupy atmosphere. But it was
not until the 1980s that such technology was refined, as part of research on
President Reagan’s failed “Star Wars” program to build a missile defense shield of
space-based lasers. After that technology was declassified in 1991, it quickly
found its way into the nation’s biggest telescopes. Deformable mirrors that can be
rapidly changed in shape to compensate for atmospheric turbulence soon began
steadying starlight in major observatories… Adaptive optics’ potential uses for
vision science purposes was not lost on the National Science Foundation, which
began funding research studying its vision applications in the 1990s.

BUDGET REQUEST, Inside the Air Force, February 14, 2003. The Missile
Defense Agency has requested an almost $500 million boost in research and
development funds from fiscal years 2004 to 2007 for the Airborne Laser, which is
designed to attack and destroy hostile missiles while in the boost phase of flight.
MDA funds the platform’s research and development while the Air Force funds
and manages its procurement and will eventually operate the system…In the
president’s FY-03 budget request, MDA projected a need for $2.12 billion for
ABL R&D efforts in FY-04 through FY-07. The agency has, since then, boosted
the request to $2.62 billion for that same time period in the FY-04 Defense
Department budget, according to a DOD official…Meanwhile, the Air Force sliced
the ABL procurement account by nearly $2.6 million…The FY-04 budget request
contains $25.7 million for procurement in FY-06, $95.5 million in FY-07, $293.3
million in FY-08 and $1.3 billion in FY-09. With those monies, the service plans to
procure one ABL system, which includes the aircraft, lasers and other internal
systems, in FY-09, according to Air Force spokesman Capt. Peter Kerr.


DEFENSE SYSTEM, Associated Press, February 19, 2003. U.S. Congressman
Curt Weldon called Wednesday for Ukraine to join the United States in developing
a missile defense system. The Pennsylvania Republican appealed to Ukrainian
space and defense officials to dedicate their “outstanding scientists and
researchers” to help develop the system. Weldon also praised Ukraine’s acceptance
of U.S. President George W. Bush’s proposal that it provide experts to
decontaminate areas affected by the potential use of nuclear, chemical or biological
weapons in a potential conflict with Iraq. “In this time of insecurity, with threats of
the potential use of weapons of mass destruction, it is reassuring and comforting to
know that ... all of your leadership understand the importance of this request,”
Weldon said. U.S. Ambassador Carlos Pascual, who joined Weldon at a news
conference, said Ukraine’s forces could save “tens of thousands of lives” if
weapons of mass destruction were used. Weldon also stressed the need to expand
existing threat reduction and nonproliferation programs to prevent sensitive
technologies from getting into terrorists’ hands.

MDA, Inside Missile Defense, February 19, 2003. During reviews of the fiscal
year 2003 Defense Department budget request last year, Sens. Carl Levin (D-MI)
and Jack Reed (D-RI) questioned whether the Pentagon’s operational test and
evaluation office had enough access to the programs being developed by the
Missile Defense Agency to provide adequate oversight. In his most recent report to
Congress, Thomas Christie, the OT&E director, said he and his staff are getting
that access. “Presently, my staff and technical support personnel have access to all
the information necessary to independently evaluate the MDA goals and
objectives, assess demonstrated operational capabilities, and determine test
program adequacy,” Christie said. His report covers DOD testing during fiscal year
2002. MDA will develop its programs in two-year blocks; Christie said his office
would review these plans. “My assessment for each block will be a
characterization of demonstrated capabilities and will point out operational
strengths and weaknesses that feed a military utility study,” the report states. “The
decision will be made to procure or field in an emergency a block increment after
my assessment and the military utility study is complete. This is a significant
departure from the traditional acquisition approach in which such decisions are
based upon the degree to which demonstrated performance meets specified
operational requirements.” The development goals of each of MDA’s two-year
block improvements will be based on broad classes of missions and threat
characteristics, but “operational assessments of a block’s demonstrated capabilities
will be based on more specific missions and threats,” Christie said.

INTERCEPTOR PROGRAM, Defense Daily, February 20, 2003. The Missile
Defense Agency (MDA) this week has outlined its plans for developing a new
kinetic energy boost phase interceptor (KE BPI) that could take out targets in all
phases of flight. MDA, in a formal request for proposals (RFP) statement of
objectives released yesterday, said it plans to use an evolutionary, spiral approach
to achieve increasingly greater and more robust capabilities over time against
ballistic missiles in all phases of flight to include boost/ascent as well as mid-
course and exoatmospheric terminal phases. MDA’s plan is to first demonstrate a
kinetic energy capability against ballistic missiles in the boost/ascent phase of
flight from a deployable ground-based launch platform. The goal, MDA said, is to
have demonstrated this capability in the ballistic missile defense system (BMDS)
testbed in the Block ‘08 BMDS increment, anticipated for Jan. 1, 2008 to Dec. 31,
2009. This capability will then evolve over time to mate with other launcher
platforms, such as sea-based in Block ‘10 and to fill capability shortfalls in the
overall BMDS architecture, MDA added.

DEFENCE SYSTEM, Agence France Presse, February 20, 2003. Japan and the
United States agreed on Thursday to keep close contact with each other over a
future system to intercept ballistic missiles, a defence agency official said. Defence
Agency chief Shigeru Ishiba held talks with Pete Aldridge, the Pentagon’s
procurement chief, now visiting Tokyo, as fears grow that North Korea may
resume its own missile test-firing. “A missile defence system is a very important
subject to study for our nation’s security,” Ishiba told Aldridge, according to the
defence agency official. Ishiba said Tokyo hoped to establish its own missile
defence system by maintaining close contact with the U.S. on the plan, the official
said. “Mr. Aldridge said the United States fully understands the situation
surrounding Japan,” the official said. “He said his country wants to exchange
information closely in various occasions.”

CONGRESSIONAL APPROVAL, Defense Daily, February 20, 2003. The Air
Force is going to need significant resources to field the Space Based Radar (SBR)
it has in mind, according to Peter Teets, under secretary of the Air Force and
director of the National Reconnaissance Office (NRO). And in obtaining those
resources, the Air Force is going to have to prove to Congress that it has a solid
plan in place for the program, he told reporters last week at the NRO offices in
Chantilly, Va. Congress, Teets said, “still has remaining concerns” about the Air
Force and NRO’s military space programs due to cost and schedule troubles that
surfaced in programs like the Space Based Infrared Systems (SBIRS) High
program and Future Imagery Architecture (FIA) program… Recently, Congress
has been responsive to the changes that have been made in those programs to get
them on track, Teets said. However, he said the service and NRO are now putting
better cost estimating in place and trying to create funding reserves for program
managers to ensure there are no repeats on the emerging programs like SBR. And,
SBR certainly will be on the congressional radar screen for cuts if problems crop

Associate Press, February 18, 2003. U.S. forces could be stationed at some point
in Poland and the deployment would not violate agreements between NATO and
Russia, the Interfax news agency quoted the Polish ambassador to Russia as saying
Tuesday. Stefan Meller, the Polish ambassador, also told Interfax in an interview
that the transfer of U.S. military bases from Germany to Poland was not under
discussion at the current time…Meller said that although the agreement between
Poland and NATO rules out the permanent deployment of troops in Poland, a
limited deployment of two motorized divisions would be possible if the alliance
were to face a threat… Meller also told Interfax that the United States had
suggested that at some point a part of a future missile defense system could be
deployed in Poland.


Defense Daily, February 21, 2003. The Pentagon’s Ground Based Midcourse
Defense system has not shown “significant operational capability,” according to a
new report from Pentagon Director of Operational Test and Evaluation (DOT&E)
Thomas Christie in his FY 2002 Annual Report. “Due to the stage of development
and…testing limitations, the GMD (Ground Based Midcourse Defense) element
has yet to demonstrate significant operational capability,” Christie wrote in the
report released this month. “The GMD test program has suffered from the lack of
production representative test articles and test infrastructure limitations.”… Major
GMD test program limitations noted by Christie include the lack of a deployable
test vehicle, the lack of a realistically placed midcourse sensor and a fixed intercept
point. The MDA has developed mitigation plans for the FY ‘04 test program,
according to the DOT&E report. But Christie cautioned that the FY ‘04 test
program may include “key exceptions” such as “demonstrating kill vehicle [a
Raytheon product] performance in the absence of detailed foreknowledge of target
characteristics and against tumbling or off-nominally deployed targets,” he wrote.
“Given the uncertainty of the threat, it is unclear that the target signatures will be
consistent with the threat when fielded.” The FY ‘04 budget request would post
more than $9 billion for missile defense-related activity, including $7.7 billion for
the research and development associated with fielding initial capability--and 10
ground-based interceptors--in FY ‘04.

February 21, 2003. The Bush administration claims China is aiming more missiles
at Taiwan. A Pentagon official said Beijing is adding 75 ballistic missiles yearly to
its arsenal, and could deploy missiles designed to attack land targets before 2005.
The remarks were made at a meeting of defence industry officials from the U.S.
and Taiwan in Texas this month. During the session, the Bush administration urged
Taiwan to buy more U.S. and Israeli-made missile defence systems, to counter
what it called a “daunting threat” from China… In addition to its ballistic-missile
buildup, Beijing is expected to deploy first-generation cruise missiles designed to
attack land targets. Beside the Patriot PAC-3 system, another short to mid term
option for Taiwan could be the Arrow missile interceptor, developed jointly by
Israel and the United States and declared operational in October 2000. Other
options included upgrading Taiwan’s Tien-Jung 2A interceptors, reported to have
been tested in 1998, and obtaining surface-launched U.S.-built AMRAAM
missiles. The United States is weighing a Taiwan request for immediate delivery of
AIM-120 Advanced Medium-Range, Air-to-Air missiles purchased in 2000. The
missiles were to be stored in the United States until or unless China fielded a
similar air-to-air system, something it may have since done, U.S. officials have

Press, February 20, 2003. A lack of sales overseas for advanced versions of its
Patriot antimissile system means defense contractor Raytheon Co. will lay off
about 300 people next month, a company official said. “A delay in Patriot
international contracts has created a gap in production needs at the Andover plant”
where the missiles and other components are made, said Raytheon spokesman
David Polk. Company officials, who broke the news to Andover workers at a
meeting Wednesday morning, said the job cuts will be split equally between the
unionized, blue-collar work force and salaried managers and engineers, according
to employees at the meeting… Some foreign governments may be holding off on
ordering until there is a new version of the Patriot missile, made by Lockheed
Martin Corp. at plants in Texas and Arkansas, Owen Cote, associate director of the
Security Studies program at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, told The
Boston Globe. However, officials said the new version may not be ready for export
for several years… Raytheon has boosted production of some components of the
Patriot system because of rising demand from the U.S. Army in anticipation of a
war with Iraq. However those orders have not been enough to compensate for the
loss of expected foreign sales.

UPCOMING SPACE GAME, Defense Daily, February 21, 2003. Army Space
and Missile Defense Command (SMDC) officials said yesterday they intend to
play a role in a space wargame starting today set in the year 2017 in which a
variety of futuristic space systems will be tested. The joint wargame, known as
Schriever II, will take place today through the end of next week. It is hosted by the
Air Force at Schriever AFB, Colorado Springs, Colo. SMDC said the game will
focus on space support to national security and future warfare and explore critical
space issues in depth and investigate the military utility of new space systems…
Throughout the course of the games, SMDC officials said they expect for the
participants to seek to leverage space, support increased deployability of Army
warfighters and reduce the Army’s footprint in theater. Space, they said, can
enhance the Army’s situational awareness, support precision maneuver fire and
enable continuous information and decision superiority… Although the wargame
specifics are classified, SMDC said the classic strategy of pitting friendly “blue”
forces against enemy “red” forces will be followed, featuring a worldwide range of
conflict that stresses space systems. The first space wargame, “Schriever 2001,”
was held in January 2001. About 250 military and civilian experts from more than
30 agencies around the country will participate.

HIT-AND-MISS MISSILE DEFENSE, MSNBC, February 20, 2003. While the
world awaits war in Iraq, little attention has been paid to President Bush’s military
budget proposal for next year - less still to a line item that would have attracted
enormous notice in more placid times. This is the Missile Defense program, the
successor to what, in Ronald Reagan’s day, was called the Strategic Defense
Initiative or “Star Wars.” The program’s budget, which was released to no fanfare
on Feb. 3, is startling for a couple of reasons. First, it totals $9.1 billion. That’s
nearly three times what Reagan managed to spend on the program in any of his
years in office and a 20 percent increase over the $7.5 billion that Congress gave
Bush last year - completing the transformation of the Pentagon’s Missile Defense
Agency from an insular research shop into one of the flushest branches of the U.S.
armed forces. Second, to go with the big boost, Secretary of Defense Donald
Rumsfeld has asked Congress to exempt Missile Defense from the law that
requires all weapons systems to undergo operational tests before being deployed in
the field… At first glance, this may sound like a prudent step. North Korea is on
the verge of restarting its long-dormant nuclear-weapons program; it is also
developing long-range ballistic missiles… A closer look, however, reveals some
drawbacks to this haste: a) By the MDA’s own admission, the $9.1 billion… buys
little, if any, protection in the near future; b) in the longer run, again by their own
testimony, the MDA’s managers don’t know where the program is going, what it
will look like, when it will be finished, or how much it will cost; and c) the
program is still technologically immature — some of its most vital elements have
yet to be built, even as prototypes. These problems exist quite apart from a couple
of broader issues: There are far cheaper ways, which Bush has resolutely
dismissed, to neutralize the North Korean threat; and there are far cheaper ways,
which he has gravely shortchanged, to deal with more immediate threats… If Bush
is worried about North Korea, as he has every reason to be, he should do what his
predecessor did and what the North Koreans have practically begged him to do for
four months now — sit down for direct talks and work out a trade: the resumption
of economic aid for a halt (and, this time, a more decisive halt) to their nuclear
program. Fred Kaplan is the author of “The Wizards of Armageddon” and writes
the “War Stories” column for Slate.

To top