Levin Sees Opportunity For Developing European Missile Defense Jointly With Russia
Senator: Iranian President Ahmadinejad May Not Be Deterred By U.S. Retaliation Threat From Launching Missile Attack
Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.), chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee (SASC), expressed doubt on the need for the Airborne Laser (ABL) ballistic missile defense system.
Space & Missile Defense Report asked Levin whether the ABL is needed to defend the United States against enemy missiles.
“I’m skeptical,” Levin replied.
Lawmakers both favoring and challenging the ABL program expect it will face a major financial reduction this year, as Congress considers defense budget bills for the fiscal year ending Sept. 30, 2010.
Rep. Trent Franks (R-Ariz.), a member of the House Armed Services Committee strategic forces subcommittee, said he expects a $3 billion overall cut in missile defense programs out of a total $9.6 billion current funding level, with support for some less advanced programs such as ABL being cut in half. He spoke during a Defense Daily Webinar moderated by Dave Ahearn, senior editor of Space & Missile Defense Report. (Please see Space & Missile Defense Report, Monday, Feb. 23, 2009.)
The ABL program is led by The Boeing Co. [BA], which contributes the heavily modified 747-400 jumbo jet and systems integration, while Northrop Grumman Corp. [NOC] makes the laser system, and Lockheed Martin Corp. [LMT] contributes the beam control/fire control system.
Assuming the ABL shoots down a target missile in a critical test this year, the ABL will become the U.S. system designed to take out missiles in their most vulnerable phase of flight, just after liftoff, while the enemy missile is churning out hot exhaust that is easily tracked. Also, the enemy missile at that point hasn’t yet had the opportunity to spew forth multiple warheads, confusing chaff or decoys. The ABL would be able to hit missiles of varying ranges, including long-range weapons.
Earlier, in a media briefing on defense acquisition reform, Levin told reporters that he wishes to see improved testing of the Ground-based Midcourse Defense (GMD) system shielding the United States against long-range missiles, which also is led by Boeing. It currently is the only part of the multilayered U.S. ballistic missile system designed to take down long-range enemy missiles.
“In terms of the missile defense system against long-range missiles, they’re — as far as I’m concerned — not been adequately tested,” Levin said.
At the same time, Levin said more developed or operational missile defense programs, such as the sea-based Aegis weapon control system and Standard Missile interceptor, are advanced and solid.
“The defenses against short-range missiles have got — have been tested properly,” he said. “They have a proven use. And I think they’re worth the money in terms of the national missile defense program.”
Citing a specific program, he lauded the sea-based Aegis weapon system by Lockheed and the companion Standard Missile interceptor by Raytheon Co. [RTN].
“The Aegis has shown its value,” Levin said.
As to whether the SASC will slash authorization amounts for missile defense systems still in development, Levin indicated that may depend on whether President Obama does that first. Obama might suggest cuts in those programs in his detailed budget proposal for the fiscal year ending Sept. 30, 2010, which the White House next month will send to Capitol Hill for Congress to consider. The budget document he unveiled this week was just an outline of the fiscal 2010 federal government budget plan.
As a matter of law, however, all authorizations and appropriations — whether involving increased, stable or decreased amounts — become law only when and as Congress decides by passing fiscal legislation.
Asked about possible cuts in missile defense programs, Levin said that it “depends on what comes in the [Obama fiscal 2010] budget. They may also — the administration may make some decisions on reductions in missile defense before it comes to us here on the Hill. So, until I see the budget, I can’t say that I favor reducing the budget request in missile defense.”
However, Levin hinted that whether Obama proposes those cuts or the Congress enacts them on its own, cuts are coming.
“I do think we spend a lot of money in the area of missile defense without adequate testing,” he said.
A month ago, Levin said he would “love to see” cuts in some missile defense programs.
Levin last week focused his criticisms especially on missile defense programs still in development and undergoing testing, as opposed to more advanced or operational systems.
He and Sen. John McCain of Arizona, the ranking Republican on SASC, cosponsored a new bill that would require more testing of weapons systems that the Pentagon purchases.
Asked whether the Levin-McCain measure would prevent inadequate testing of missile defense systems, Levin said he expects it will, if the measure is enacted.
“It’s intended to do that,” he said.
Levin also wishes to wipe out the streamlined development and acquisition budget procedures that have allowed the Missile Defense Agency (MDA) to erect a multilayered missile defense system rapidly, in the face of a growing enemy threat.
“I want to go back to the normal rules of acquisition when it comes to missile defense” funding for MDA, Levin said.
That would involve substantially more time and steps in buying and emplacing missile defense systems.
“Right now they’ve been given a pass” to accelerate around some budget-process steps, he noted. “They’re not subject to the usual rules of acquisition. They can buy before they fly, and that’s wrong. We should not allow that. And this bill is aimed at being much tighter in terms of testing, prototyping, and flying before we buy.”
More broadly, Levin was asked whether the United States needs a shield against enemy missiles.
Space & Missile Defense Report asked whether missile defense development has been well run or badly run, whether its costs are reasonable or in the past few years out of control, and whether the United States needs missile defense? Or, could the United States discard missile defense and depend on mutual assured destruction to deter North Korea and Iran?
“We need missile defense,” Levin said, “providing it works, and providing it’s well tested,” he said. But different missile defense programs have different levels of maturity and capability, he indicated.
“I can’t give you a sort of one-word answer” on whether missile defense development overall is well run. “My answer would be it depends on which particular system you’re talking about, and whether or not it’s been adequately tested or not.”
He also spoke to the European Missile Defense (EMD) system that the United States wishes to erect in the Czech Republic (radar) and Poland (interceptors in ground silos) to protect Europe and the United States against enemy missiles launched by Middle Eastern rogue nations such as Iran.
Russia has lashed out, stridently opposing the 10 EMD interceptors in blistering terms as a threat to Russian intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs), a claim that Pentagon leaders ridicule as ludicrous.
Levin thinks that a deal could be reached for Russia to participate in the EMD system.
“I think there’s some potential to do some joint-ness in defense work with Russia,” he said.
“European Missile Defense already is in the works, in terms of the Czech Republic and Poland,” he noted. The administrative governments of both nations have signed deals with the United States in which they would host the EMD, although full parliamentary approvals in those nations still are pending. NATO, too, has approved EMD.
It is possible “that maybe we can do some missile defense with Russia, which would really be a defense against an Iranian threat,” Levin said.
” You can talk not only about something which might have military value, but something which would have a huge potential to change the dynamic, where Iran would see that it’s not just the United States and some of the traditional Europeans that have problems, and the Israelis that have problems with an Iranian missile, but that the Russians also have big problems” with Iran going nuclear, he said.
What must also be considered here is “the capabilities of Iran plus their stated intent to destroy another country [Israel], plus the likelihood that they’re proceeding to a nuclear weapon,” Levin said.
Levin also was asked whether Iran and North Korea can be deterred from launching missile attacks, given that the United States could retaliate with a devastating missile attack that would destroy the offending nation.
As to North Korea, Levin said that Pyongyang might be dissuaded by the threat of retaliation. But with Iran, fanatic religious types who aim to annihilate Israel make it unclear whether the awesome American military might would force them to forego an attack.
“I think Iran is less deter-able with the current leadership, because of the stated position of that leadership that they’d like to destroy a country,” Levin said, referring to Israel.
In North Korea it is clear that leaders have “one interest in mind … and that is to stay in power,” Levin explained. But in Iran that may not be the case. “When you get to more religious fanatic types, that is less certain that that is their goal,” he said.
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has said Israel should be wiped from the map, and that Israel soon shall cease to exist. His comments come as Iran continues to produce nuclear materials that world leaders fear may be used to build atomic bombs, and as Iran has launched missiles in salvo tests, launched a missile from a submerged submarine, and has orbited a satellite with a rocket involving the same basic technologies as an ICBM.
Iran also has, however, a supreme religious leader, Ali Khamenei, whom Levin thinks may be a bit more rational.
“I think he probably would be deter-able,” Levin said. “I worry about Ahmadinejad.”