Need For 44 Ground-based Midcourse Interceptors Was Not Based On Sound Analysis, O’Reilly Says
European Missile Defense Fiscal 2010 Budget Weak Because Legal Curbs Won’t Permit Spending More Than $51 Million, General Tells Congress
The U.S. missile defense program is proceeding with long-standing plans to buy 44 interceptor missiles, Army Lt. Gen. Patrick O’Reilly, the Missile Defense Agency (MDA) director, said.
He spoke in an interview with Space & Missile Defense Report.
President Obama’s proposal for defense spending in the fiscal year ending Sept. 30, 2010, would cut deployment of silos to house the interceptors, O’Reilly explained.
That silo deployment number is being cut to 30 from 44, he said.
“We’re going to proceed on with all 44 interceptors,” O’Reilly continued. “What’s been limited to 30 is deployment of the silos. So there are 30 silos” in the budget plan.
Silos have been built and are in storage, which “gives us flexibility for the future,” he said.
Asked whether the GMD testing that Congress and Obama have urged might mean that MDA eventually will have to buy more than the planned 44 interceptors, O’Reilly said that a six-month review with the director of operational test and evaluation is being completed, along with the three armed services’ test agencies, to determine testing needs.
Results will be issued in the next month or so, which will determine “the ultimate number that we would propose for testing GBI,” or ground-based interceptors, “Aegis and THAAD,” O’Reilly said. He referred there to the Aegis sea-based weapon control system for ships, and the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense missile defense systems.
O’Reilly spoke in the interview after he testified before a congressional panel. He appeared before a hearing of the House Armed Services Committee strategic forces subcommittee.
There, he said the rationale for 44 interceptors wasn’t based on sound analysis.
“I’ve yet to see that” analysis presented to justify purchasing 44, O’Reilly said, adding that the requirement could be off by “a factor of 10 to 20.”
He said there was “a lack of analysis for the 44” being purchased for the GMD system, which is the only currently operational U.S. system to defend against long range and intercontinental ballistic missiles, especially threats from Asian nations such as North Korea.
O’Reilly ran into skepticism from Rep. Michael R. Turner of Ohio, ranking Republican on the subcommittee.
Why, Turner asked, should there be a reduction in the amount of missile defense being procured at a time when the missile threat is rising? He referred to rogue nations such as Iran and North Korea.
Missile defense funding would be cut by $1.2 billion to $7.8 billion in fiscal 2010, under the Obama budget.
It provides a mere $51 million for the European Missile Defense (EMD) system that the United States would build in the Czech Republic (radar) and Poland (interceptors in ground silos). The EMD interceptors would be a two-stage variant of the three-stage GMD interceptors.
But that low funding number doesn’t mean the EMD program is dead. Rather, O’Reilly explained, it results from restrictions that Congress previously has placed on using any funds for EMD construction.
“I have significant restrictions [on] how much I can spend,” he said. The assessment is that $51 million is the most that could be spent on EMD during fiscal 2010.
As well, the Obama budget would eliminate plans to buy further Airborne Laser (ABL) missile defense aircraft, and drop the Kinetic Energy Interceptor (KEI), along with the Multiple Kill Vehicle (MKV). ABL and KEI were two main programs intended to annihilate enemy missiles just after they launch, in the boost phase, before they have time to emit multiple warheads or confusing decoys.
In place of those programs, the MDA now will focus on developing a system to hit enemy missiles in their ascent phase.
In the interview, O’Reilly was asked what weapon control and interceptors might be used in the ascent phase system.
“The ascent phase [system] is a concept that’s not new,” he said, “and there’s been a lot of previous work done in that area. It basically boils down to knowing where you think the threat is, and knowing what the area is you’re trying to protect, and how do you position yourself so that you’re able to intercept those missiles before they hit your defended area.”
Just where that system would be located a a given time would depend on the interceptor used, he indicated.
Therefore, you can “really take any interceptor, and if it’s in the right place at the right time, it could have great capability,” O’Reilly explained.
As for the weapon control system, “it’s an extension of our existing command and control development,” he said.
While the KEI and MKV programs may have been dropped, he continued, much of the development work done in those programs may be used in the ascent phase system. “So we’re not abandoning the work that’s been done previously,” he said.
The ascent phase missile defense system would be a mobile asset, so it wouldn’t use a fixed-location missile defense system such as GMD, O’Reilly said.
A mobile system can position itself for the best shot at hitting an incoming enemy missile. Also, a mobile system, after firing interceptors to kill the incoming weapon, can leave the area, so the ascent phase asset wouldn’t be vulnerable to enemy counterattack.
The ascent phase system would benefit from sensors able to spot enemy missiles being launched and track them as they ascend, O’Reilly said. He said two satellites being launched soon will be able to validate that approach.
Unmanned aerial systems and other sensors also could be in the loop, the general continued.
What is critical is “being able to see things early. We’ve developed our battle management command and control extensively over the last several years … leveraging that and having to put these mobile interceptor systems — whether they be on land or the Aegis system — put them in the right place.”