Even if the Airborne Laser (ABL) missile defense system is cut deeply or canceled, the laser system may survive by finding other uses, a Northrop Grumman Corp. [NOC] executive said.
Many members of Congress, both missile defense supporters and critics, expect to see severe cuts in some, not all, missile defense development programs, including major cuts in ABL. (Please see Space & Missile Defense Report, Monday, Feb. 23, 2009.)
Northrop makes the ABL laser system, which is housed in a heavily modified 747-400 jumbo jet provided by The Boeing Co. [BA], the ABL prime contractor. The laser beam is managed by a beam control-fire control system provided by Lockheed Martin Corp. [LMT].
Larry J. Dodgen, sector vice president for Northrop Grumman Information Systems, was asked by Space & Missile Defense Report whether cutting or killing the ABL program would mean the loss not only of a missile defense platform, but also the loss of an entire type of weapon system, the laser. Other missile defense systems use interceptors to take down enemy missiles.
“The answer to that is, obviously, yes,” Dodgen said at a press briefing at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C.
But he qualified that to say that the Northrop laser “has other functions that could be used [for missions] besides missile defense.”
Indeed, other military laser-based systems already are being devised.
In judging the ABL program, it is crucial to consider that an entire fleet of the planes would be required to mount a credible missile defense, Dodgen said. Currently, just one prototype ABL exists, which will be tested this year when it attempts for the first time to shoot down a target missile in flight.
“You have to have an operational fleet,” Dodgen said. And as lawmakers assess the missile defense budget for the fiscal year ending Sept. 30, 2010, they must consider multiple issues, such as cost.
On that point, we asked whether decision makers should consider the hefty cost of the airplanes alone, or whether they also should weigh as well the minuscule cost of shooting down a missile with the ABL and its beam of light, versus the cost of using an interceptor.
“I think you can look at it both ways,” he said. But ultimately, other factors will be rolled into the decision, he said, such as “operational suitability … deployability, sustainability.”
And, he said, “cost will be a big thing there.”
The cost of the planes, versus the low cost of using them to kill enemy missiles, was detailed by briefers for Boeing. Just $60,000 worth of chemicals for the ABL laser can take out several enemy missiles. In contrast, interceptor missiles can cost hundreds of thousands to millions of dollar each. (Please see Space & Missile Defense Report, Monday, March 23, 2009.)
While an interceptor missile can take out just one enemy missile, or perhaps the multiple warheads it spews out, the ABL — without reloading its chemical laser — can take down several enemy missiles, Dodgen replied. True, at some later point, “you have to recharge that magazine” in the laser.
“All those things have to come into consideration for the future,” in assessing how to fund the ABL, he said.
Another factor to consider, he said, is that the best way to take out an enemy missile is early in its flight trajectory, just after it lifts off from the launch pad or silo, while its flaming exhaust makes the missile easy to track, before that missile can belch out multiple warheads, decoys or confusing chaff. And the ABL is designed to do that, using its speed-of-light laser to destroy enemy weapons shortly after liftoff.
Dodgen said that hitting enemy missiles in their boost phase is the optimal way to protect the United States, its forces and allies.
The government can get the most from valuable missile defense dollars by focusing on early intercept of hostile ballistic missiles through mobile and flexible defenses, he said.
“A mobile, early intercept system stands to make the existing layer of defense much stron’er while also being more affordable for taxpayers in the long run,” he said.
Dodgen was commander of the Army Space and Missile Defense Command — Army Forces Strategic Command before joining Northrop.
“The most value for the dollar clearly lies in shooting down ballistic missiles as early as possible after they’re launched, when they are most vulnerable and before they separate into numerous, hard-to-track objects,” Dodgen said. “To do that, our nation needs defenses that can deploy quickly and engage ear,y. This will be cost-effective, because more shooters and sensors are needed to destroy a missile during its latter stages of flight.”
Northrop Grumman is prime contractor for two Missile Defense Agency (MDA) systems that have the strategic mobility and flexibility needed to more affordably enhance current defenses. They are:
- Kinetic Energy Interceptors, a mobile, early engagement weapon system for vital regional defense on-demand to protect the homeland, allies and deployed forces overseas. The KEI uses a high-acceleration interceptor to take down enemy weapons. While KEI was designed to take out enemy missiles in their boost phase, if the ABL works well to fill the boost phase mission, the KEI might then transition to a new role killing enemy missiles in their midcourse of flight.
- Space Tracking and Surveillance System. MDA’s space-based sensing element, which will be the first system capable of providing worldwide coverage, tracking missiles through all phases of flight.
“This is an opportune time to reassess the path forward and our overall missile defense strategy,” Dodgen said. “Do we content ourselves with defenses primarily against two countries — North Korea and Iran — or do we shift to mobile capabilities that could strengthen existing defenses a,d at the same time prepare the country for emerging and more complex threats?”
ABL, being mounted on an aircraft, is mobile. So too are KEI and STSS, global platforms for addressing shifting threats; mobile for responding from anywhere; layered for multiple shots at a target; and more affordable than maintaining fixed or ground-based missiles.
Dodgen contended that standing still in missile defense is falling behind because countries hostile to the U.S. are making rapid advances in ballistic missile and nuclear weapons technologies.
“MDA has a portfolio of future programs with the capabilities needed to move forward,” he said.