Defense Articles

As Delivered by Deputy Secretary of Defense Gordon England, Washington, DC, Monday, March 20, 2006

Speech by the Honorable Gordon England

Deputy Secretary of Defense

4th Annual U.S. Missile Defense Conference

20 March 2006

“Missile Defense as an Element of National Security”

Good morning! Thanks to Lt. Gen. Obering for the warm introduction.

Trey is a great guy. Did you know that Trey is a student of Dr. Friedman, the famous economist? Dr. Friedman was teaching a class one day, and he saw that one of his students had fallen fast asleep. So he marched over and demanded, “What was the answer to my last question?”

The startled student blurted out, “I don’t know the question, but the answer is increase the money supply!”

It’s also good to see another great American on the agenda–General “Hoss” Cartwright. And I want to say thanks to him, too, for letting me be his warm-up act!

It is a distinct pleasure to be here this morning with the ballistic missile defense community–from MDA, other agencies, the Services, Combatant Commands, and industry.

You are the experts on missile defense, and I can’t add anything to your knowledge in that field. What I can do today, is to put your work building a top-notch missile defense system into the broader strategic context of defending freedom and liberty for our Nation, and our friends and allies.

Our new National Security Strategy, released last week, stresses a very important theme: we have never before faced greater uncertainty about future security conditions, than we do today.

This is a critical time for America. America is fighting a war against dispersed networks of terrorist extremists. They know they can’t succeed with conventional methods, so they use asymmetric means to challenge us and our allies. Their goal is to break our resolve and shatter our way of life. On 9/11, terrorists turned civilian airliners into guided missiles, killing some 3000 people of 60 nationalities. The only reason they didn’t kill 30K or 3M was because they hadn’t figured out how to do it.

But the Long War against terrorist extremists is only part of the nation’s security challenge.

Hostile states or non-state actors could acquire and use weapons of mass destruction, to devastating effect. And the nation also faces the possibility that a major or emerging power could choose a hostile course.

Today, we face a wide array of security challenges and concerns, and each is potent.

Where does a missile threat fit into this picture? The answer is, “almost everywhere.” 26 nations currently have ballistic missiles, and there were nearly 80 ballistic missile launches around the world last year.

Iranand North Korea–countries that our new National Security Strategy calls “tyrannies”–continue to pursue

Terrorists would obtain WMD if they could, and they’re trying. As one of al-Qaeda’s ringleaders, al-Zawahiri said in 2001, “The need is to inflict the maximum casualties against the opponent … for this is the language understood by the west, no matter how much time and effort such operations take.”

The new National Security Strategy says, “The first duty of the US Government remains what it always has been: to protect the American people and American interests.”

Missile defense was, and is, a critical part of our strategy for protecting America. Both the new National Security Strategy and the 2006 Quadrennial Defense Review underscore the need for a strong missile defense capability.

Missile defense is a central part of our broader national strategy, a strategy that can only be realized over time and with a great deal of hard work, and I thank you for your steadfast commitment to this task.

The NSS identifies the proliferation of nuclear weapons as one of the greatest threats to our national security. Ballistic missile defenses provide a critical layer of defense for protecting America against the danger of WMD-armed missile attacks.

* The Cold War-era, “one size fits all” notion of deterrence is no longer appropriate to the challenges of the 21st century.

* The updated, “New Triad” concept reinforced in the QDR provides a set of approaches that are more tailorable to a range of potential adversaries, and to range of missiles. I expect that General Cartwright will have more to say on this subject. The new concept includes, as an essential element, an integrated ballistic and cruise missile system.

During the 40 long years of the Cold War, America maintained a steadfast commitment and resolve.

The threats our Nation face today will require the same commitment, the will and resolve that the American people demonstrated during the Cold War. It’s not about a single President or a single Congress. The Cold War commitment spanned Conservatives, Liberals, Democrats and Republicans and across many terms. Although a Republican Congress opposed President Truman on many issues, the Congress and the President were united on the issue of national defense. That same commitment and will is necessary today.

Adm. Gary Roughead, commander of the U.S. Pacific Fleet, has expressed confidence in the effectiveness of the missile defense systems being developed jointly by Japan and the United States to counter threats in the region, including intercepting ballistic missiles from North Korea.

Roughead also indicated in a recent interview with Kyodo News in Tokyo that there have been active exchanges between the U.S. and Chinese navies following the encounter by the Japan-based U.S. aircraft carrier USS Kitty Hawk with a Chinese submarine in international waters off Okinawa Prefecture last year.

”I would say it is possible to hit a missile with a missile because we have done it. We have done it many times,” Roughead said referring to tests that have been conducted in developing the ballistic missile defense systems.

”Our testing, especially with the navy’s ballistic missile defense that’s based on the Aegis weapons system that both the U.S. and Japan have as part of their capability…(has) proven that capability. I have great confidence in that capability,” he said.

The commander of the Hawaii-based fleet admitted the system is ”very expensive,” but said it is because of the advanced nature of the technology involved and that he is pleased with the progress in developing the capability together with Japan.

Concerning the Japanese government’s intention to study the possibility of easing its self-imposed ban on the exercise of the right to collective self-defense to protect allies under attack, Roughead declined to comment directly but emphasized the importance of prompt information sharing between the two countries in the event of a missile attack.

”The approach and the process that the Japanese government is going through in that regard is really a matter for the Japanese government to work through and think through,” the 1973 U.S. Naval Academy graduate said.

”But it is very important that we be able to share information, especially in areas such as ballistic missile defense where the threat of a ballistic missile moves so very, very fast that our ability to share information and the ability to cooperate is very important,” he added.

The two countries have both begun deploying the missile defense systems, mainly to deal with threats from North Korea as well as China’s rapidly growing military spending.

Tokyo and Washington envisage a two-stage interception scheme to deal with a missile attack. First, Aegis vessels from both countries would try to intercept an incoming missile in space by launching the sea-based Standard Missile-3 interceptors.

If unsuccessful, they would employ the ground-based Patriot Advanced Capability-3 missiles designed to intercept incoming ballistic missiles in their final phase after they have reentered the atmosphere.

Japan and the United States began a joint missile defense research project in 1999 after North Korea test-fired a long-range Taepodong-1 missile, part of which flew over Japan and fell into the Pacific Ocean, the year before.

On the Kitty Hawk’s encounter with the Chinese navy sub within range of a torpedo attack in October, Roughead explained, ”Both ships were operating lawfully in those waters. Both ships were operating in a very safe and responsible manner.”

The admiral, responsible for the world’s largest combined fleet command covering the Pacific and Indian oceans, said the incident showed the Chinese military aspires to build a navy that will ”go farther and farther from their shores.”

Against the backdrop of China’s growing military spending and concerns about the lack of transparency involving its military policy, Roughead emphasized the importance of trading views directly with Chinese navy officials for promoting mutual understanding.

He said he visited China in November and the Chinese navy commander, Adm. Wu Shengli, reciprocated with a recent trip to the United States to meet Roughead and other navy officials as part of such efforts.

”I believe that the engagement and the better understanding of where our navies are going…(are) important. And transparency between and among navies, I think, is something that can only add to the understanding and the security and prosperity of the region,” Roughead said.

Concerning the U.S. Navy’s recent shift of gravity from the Atlantic Ocean to the Pacific Ocean, he suggested the move is motivated due to economic interests as trade using Pacific routes has been on the increase.

”The amount of goods that move between the United States and Asia is three-and-a-half times that which moves between the United States and Europe,” Roughead said.

”For the predictable future, the economies in the Pacific are what will fuel the global economy, what will fuel our prosperity, and that’s why the importance is being placed on the Pacific,” he said.

”It’s important that we have the capability to represent our interests to cooperate with our friends and allies, and the way that we do that is to have credible naval capability in the Pacific Ocean,” he added.

WASHINGTON — A historic moment took place July 22 at Fort Greely, Alaska, as the first ground-based missile interceptor (GBI) was placed in an underground silo at the missile defense complex there.

Army Maj. Gen. John W. Holly said the emplacement of the interceptor “marks the end of an era where we have not been able to defend our country against long-range ballistic missile attacks.” He is the director for the Missile Defense Agency’s Ground-based Midcourse Defense Joint Program Office.

Holly noted there are countries that possess weapons of mass destruction and have the ability to launch ballistic missiles that could impact the United States.

The Alaska interceptor emplacement took place the same day that the House and Senate approved the $417 billion fiscal 2005 DoD budget. About $10 billion of that money goes for missile defense. The defense authorization bill now goes to President Bush for signature.

Missile Defense Agency (MDA) spokesman Chris Taylor said up to five more interceptors will be emplaced at Fort Greely, located 100 miles from Fairbanks, by the end of 2004. The agency hopes to have up to 10 more interceptors emplaced by the end of 2005, he added.
Advertisement

The July 22 event signaled the first interceptor in the ground for the MDA, the outcome of President Bush’s December 2002 directive that the secretary of defense provide an initial capability in 2004. The system was developed in response to a near-term ballistic missile threat to the United States, deployed forces, and allied countries.

The emplacement of the first GBI does not mean the missile defense system is operational, according to an MDA release. This will happen after more interceptors are emplaced and the interconnected architecture of radars, sensors, battle management and command, control, and communications is activated.

[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]

In December 2001, President Bush gave Russia six months’ notice that the United States was withdrawing from its Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty in order to pursue an ABM system.

DoD’s initial plan for a missile defense capability called for up to 20 GBIs capable of intercepting and destroying intercontinental ballistic missiles during the midcourse phase of flight, a period that offers the greatest opportunity for a “hit to kill.”

In addition to those planned for Fort Greely, another four are slated for Vandenberg Air Force Base, Calif., by 2005. The plan also calls for sea-based interceptors to be employed on existing Navy Aegis-class ships for a shoot-down capability against short- and medium-range ballistic missiles threatening the United States.

Up to 15 Aegis-class destroyers and three cruisers will be equipped with a long-range surveillance and tracking capability by the end of calendar 2006. The cruisers will also have the capability of shooting down potential enemy threats with the Standard Missile-3.

The department also seeks to deploy air-transportable Patriot Advanced Capability-3 systems as another means to stop short- and medium-range missiles.

The plans also call for targeting incoming missiles by using land-, sea-, and space-based sensors and existing early-warning satellites, as well as upgraded radar now located at Shemya, Alaska. By the end of calendar year 2005, a sea-based x-band radar will also be in place at Adak, Alaska.

In addition, DoD requested that the United Kingdom and the Kingdom of Denmark upgrade early-warning radars on their territory.

Dramatic changes have been made in the way in which the Department of Defense develops and procures weapon systems. There is a movement away from the strict requirements-based approach that emphasized a formalized identification of deficiencies, an identifiable and predictable threat, and strict system performance parameters. In the vanguard of this defense acquisition process revolution is the Missile Defense Agency’s embrace of capabilities-based acquisition and spiral development. Since its adoption of these processes in January 2002, the MDA has made remarkable progress in restructuring its approach to the development of a fully integrated ballistic missile defense system (BMDS). The MDA is now faced, however, with an even larger–and perhaps more difficult–task: turning these principles into formalized and institutionalized programmatic processes in the face of significant cultural and organizational challenges. Those challenges are based on the fact that MDA’s approach significantly alters the the traditional roles and responsibilities of acquisition organizations, operational units, and contractors.

[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]
Advertisement

The MDA’s approach is unprecedented for such a large program. Although some DoD acquisition organizations have, in the past, bridged the organizational and cultural gap between research and development and operational use, the BMDS will be the first large-scale program that comes into operation while still, in effect, in an R & D mode. This capability-based approach calls into question who “owns” the particular system and significantly alters the traditional DoD role of the acquisition community.

Although much of MDA’s acquisition approach is still undergoing refinement, the fundamental precepts are in place. Despite recent testing setbacks, a rudimentary missile defense system will soon go operational, the overall BMDS program management of the system remaining with MDA. There will be no formal turnover from the acquisition community to the Services for many of the missile defense elements and components. MDA will concurrently test and operate the BMDS while on alert, and day-to-day operations will be performed by a mix of contractors, National Guard, and servicemembers. Contractor logistics support (versus a large Service-led logistics “tail”) will be the key to maintaining the system. These initiatives are a significant break with existing DoD processes and will serve as a model for the development and fielding of large-scale future joint systems.

Unique Nature of the BMDS Program

There is a well-established and formalized process for transitioning a system from R & D to operational use that allows the Service to formally identify and allocate funding to operate the system, to train personnel, and to develop logistics procedures. A variety of factors, however, will require the BMDS to operate in a manner that is not in clear concert with the existing DoD processes. Although these factors are unique, they have relevance to other future high tech joint systems. A major issue is that BMDS elements and components will be fielded in very small numbers; for example, only a handful of ground-based mid-course interceptors are initially planned. This is in contrast with most weapon systems, which are produced using a fairly rigid lockstep process, manufactured in mass quantities, and often require a long logistics and maintenance tail. A modern BMDS negates the need for a large number of military personnel to be identified, trained, and equipped.

Another unique factor is that unlike most DoD weapon systems under development currently, the BMDS will provide a new capability that is non-existent today: the interception and destruction of an incoming ballistic missile. Since the BMDS provides a new capability, integration testing–both horizontally and vertically–occurs across the entire system, as opposed to the long series of formalized processes and regression tests that are necessary to ensure that adding a new capability does not degrade existing capabilities. The lack of any current capability today to defeat a ballistic missile attack negates the need to defer fielding of the BMDS.

Another consideration is the unprecedented level of integration required among BMDS early warning sensors, weapons sensors, and interceptors. The speed required to track, identify, and engage a ballistic missile calls for an extraordinary level of sensor fusion. No single sensor or weapon can achieve the capability required to engage a ballistic missile traveling at high speeds across oceans and continents. Only through continued, centralized management of all BMD systems will MDA be successful in developing a program that meets the unique characteristics of a missile defense engagement.

Restructuring the Missile Defense Program

MDA’s approach was brought about by Defense Secretary Rumsfeld’s January 2002 memorandum on MDA program direction, which fundamentally restructured the missile defense program by canceling the missile defense operational requirements documents (ORDs). This was the most fundamental redirection of the missile defense program since its inception in 1983. Like all ORDs, the missile defense ORDs mandated discrete and exact levels of effectiveness (key performance parameters) for each missile defense element. A theater air and missile defense capstone requirements document was also established; it laid out the overall framework for the entire missile defense mission.

As Delivered by Deputy Secretary of Defense Gordon England, Washington, DC, Monday, March 20, 2006

Speech by the Honorable Gordon England

Deputy Secretary of Defense

4th Annual U.S. Missile Defense Conference

20 March 2006

“Missile Defense as an Element of National Security”

Good morning! Thanks to Lt. Gen. Obering for the warm introduction.

Trey is a great guy. Did you know that Trey is a student of Dr. Friedman, the famous economist? Dr. Friedman was teaching a class one day, and he saw that one of his students had fallen fast asleep. So he marched over and demanded, “What was the answer to my last question?”

The startled student blurted out, “I don’t know the question, but the answer is increase the money supply!”

It’s also good to see another great American on the agenda–General “Hoss” Cartwright. And I want to say thanks to him, too, for letting me be his warm-up act!
Advertisement

It is a distinct pleasure to be here this morning with the ballistic missile defense community–from MDA, other agencies, the Services, Combatant Commands, and industry.

You are the experts on missile defense, and I can’t add anything to your knowledge in that field. What I can do today, is to put your work building a top-notch missile defense system into the broader strategic context of defending freedom and liberty for our Nation, and our friends and allies.

Our new National Security Strategy, released last week, stresses a very important theme: we have never before faced greater uncertainty about future security conditions, than we do today.

This is a critical time for America. America is fighting a war against dispersed networks of terrorist extremists. They know they can’t succeed with conventional methods, so they use asymmetric means to challenge us and our allies. Their goal is to break our resolve and shatter our way of life. On 9/11, terrorists turned civilian airliners into guided missiles, killing some 3000 people of 60 nationalities. The only reason they didn’t kill 30K or 3M was because they hadn’t figured out how to do it.

But the Long War against terrorist extremists is only part of the nation’s security challenge.

Hostile states or non-state actors could acquire and use weapons of mass destruction, to devastating effect. And the nation also faces the possibility that a major or emerging power could choose a hostile course.

Today, we face a wide array of security challenges and concerns, and each is potent.

Where does a missile threat fit into this picture? The answer is, “almost everywhere.” 26 nations currently have ballistic missiles, and there were nearly 80 ballistic missile launches around the world last year.

Iranand North Korea–countries that our new National Security Strategy calls “tyrannies”–continue to pursue

Terrorists would obtain WMD if they could, and they’re trying. As one of al-Qaeda’s ringleaders, al-Zawahiri said in 2001, “The need is to inflict the maximum casualties against the opponent … for this is the language understood by the west, no matter how much time and effort such operations take.”

The new National Security Strategy says, “The first duty of the US Government remains what it always has been: to protect the American people and American interests.”

Missile defense was, and is, a critical part of our strategy for protecting America. Both the new National Security Strategy and the 2006 Quadrennial Defense Review underscore the need for a strong missile defense capability.

Missile defense is a central part of our broader national strategy, a strategy that can only be realized over time and with a great deal of hard work, and I thank you for your steadfast commitment to this task.

The NSS identifies the proliferation of nuclear weapons as one of the greatest threats to our national security. Ballistic missile defenses provide a critical layer of defense for protecting America against the danger of WMD-armed missile attacks.

* The Cold War-era, “one size fits all” notion of deterrence is no longer appropriate to the challenges of the 21st century.

* The updated, “New Triad” concept reinforced in the QDR provides a set of approaches that are more tailorable to a range of potential adversaries, and to range of missiles. I expect that General Cartwright will have more to say on this subject. The new concept includes, as an essential element, an integrated ballistic and cruise missile system.

During the 40 long years of the Cold War, America maintained a steadfast commitment and resolve.

The threats our Nation face today will require the same commitment, the will and resolve that the American people demonstrated during the Cold War. It’s not about a single President or a single Congress. The Cold War commitment spanned Conservatives, Liberals, Democrats and Republicans and across many terms. Although a Republican Congress opposed President Truman on many issues, the Congress and the President were united on the issue of national defense. That same commitment and will is necessary today.

Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe and U.S. President George W. Bush reaffirmed their nations’ strong alliance in their first summit Saturday, agreeing to accelerate cooperation on ballistic missile defense and coordinate policies at the six-way talks to resolve the North Korean nuclear issue.

”We agreed to strengthen and accelerate cooperation in ballistic missile defense and we will instruct our foreign and defense ministers to study this matter,” Abe told reporters, adding he had ”meaningful talks” with Bush on the sidelines of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation summit in Hanoi.

”The relationship between Japan and the United States is strong and we will keep it that way,” Bush said. ”The strong relationship between our two countries is good for the security of the East.”

North Korea’s Oct. 9 nuclear test and missile launches in July prompted Japan and the United States, which began joint BMD research in 1999, to seek to speed up the deployment of the missile defense shield in Japan.

Bush reaffirmed the U.S. ”defense commitment” for Japan and the two leaders also agreed to advance steadily with the agreed plan of the realignment for the U.S. military presence in Japan, the officials said.

In response to Abe’s request for U.S. cooperation in Japan’s bid for a permanent seat on the U.N. Security Council, Bush expressed his support and said details should be worked out between the two governments, Japanese officials said.

The two leaders spent a significant amount of time discussing North Korea, with the president telling reporters that the two reaffirmed ”common commitments” to making the six-party talks successful.

Abe added they agreed to take a coordinated approach and aim to achieve concrete results at an early stage in the talks, which are expected to resume next month.

”The president indicated that he and the prime minister saw eye-to-eye on the North Korean issue,” White House National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley said. ”North Korea has a choice.”

Encouraging North Korea to take a positive choice requires ”a mix of both pressure and positive incentive, and the consequences of the decision North Korea makes,” Hadley said.

Regarding the Iran nuclear issue, Abe and Bush agreed to work closely together to resolve the problem, according to the officials.

On Iraq, Abe reassured Bush that Japan will continue to support reconstruction there, while the president vowed that the United States will not leave Iraq until its mission is completed, the officials said. Japan has been one of the most supportive allies of Washington in the U.S.-led war on Iraq.

On the economic front, Bush expressed hopes of promoting an APEC-wide free trade zone and Abe responded by saying Japan believes it would be helpful to consider the framework, the Japanese officials said.

In response to Bush’s invitation to visit the United States at an early date, Abe said he looks forward to doing so ‘’some time next year.”

Abe, who took office in September, is hoping to follow in his predecessor Junichiro Koizumi’s footsteps in developing a close personal friendship with Bush.

Ahead of an hour-long working lunch, Abe and Bush met one-on-one for about 20 minutes, Hadley said. A senior Japanese official who accompanied Abe at the lunch said the two leaders, despite meeting only for the first time, ”looked as if they have been longtime friends.”

Hadley told reporters Bush complimented Abe for the ‘’strong start of his administration,” noting that the president had in mind Abe’s trip to China and South Korea to strengthen Japan’s ties with the two countries.

Abe and Bush were later joined by South Korean President Roh Moo Hyun for trilateral talks, where they agreed to coordinate policies on the North Korean issue and to work with China, chair of the six-party talks, in order to achieve positive results at the negotiations.

Also Saturday, Abe held separate bilateral meetings with Roh, Chinese President Hu Jintao, Russian President Vladimir Putin and Australian Prime Minister John Howard.

Japan, the United States, South Korea, China and Russia are involved in the six-way talks with North Korea.

Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe and U.S. President George W. Bush reaffirmed their nations’ strong alliance in their first summit Saturday, agreeing to accelerate cooperation on ballistic missile defense and coordinate policies at the six-way talks to resolve the North Korean nuclear issue.

”We agreed to strengthen and accelerate cooperation in ballistic missile defense and we will instruct our foreign and defense ministers to study this matter,” Abe told reporters, adding he had ”meaningful talks” with Bush on the sidelines of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation summit in Hanoi.

”The relationship between Japan and the United States is strong and we will keep it that way,” Bush said. ”The strong relationship between our two countries is good for the security of the East.”

North Korea’s Oct. 9 nuclear test and missile launches in July prompted Japan and the United States, which began joint BMD research in 1999, to seek to speed up the deployment of the missile defense shield in Japan.

Bush reaffirmed the U.S. ”defense commitment” for Japan and the two leaders also agreed to advance steadily with the agreed plan of the realignment for the U.S. military presence in Japan, the officials said.

In response to Abe’s request for U.S. cooperation in Japan’s bid for a permanent seat on the U.N. Security Council, Bush expressed his support and said details should be worked out between the two governments, Japanese officials said.

The two leaders spent a significant amount of time discussing North Korea, with the president telling reporters that the two reaffirmed ”common commitments” to making the six-party talks successful.

Abe added they agreed to take a coordinated approach and aim to achieve concrete results at an early stage in the talks, which are expected to resume next month.

”The president indicated that he and the prime minister saw eye-to-eye on the North Korean issue,” White House National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley said. ”North Korea has a choice.”

Encouraging North Korea to take a positive choice requires ”a mix of both pressure and positive incentive, and the consequences of the decision North Korea makes,” Hadley said.

Regarding the Iran nuclear issue, Abe and Bush agreed to work closely together to resolve the problem, according to the officials.

On Iraq, Abe reassured Bush that Japan will continue to support reconstruction there, while the president vowed that the United States will not leave Iraq until its mission is completed, the officials said. Japan has been one of the most supportive allies of Washington in the U.S.-led war on Iraq.

On the economic front, Bush expressed hopes of promoting an APEC-wide free trade zone and Abe responded by saying Japan believes it would be helpful to consider the framework, the Japanese officials said.

In response to Bush’s invitation to visit the United States at an early date, Abe said he looks forward to doing so ‘’some time next year.”

Abe, who took office in September, is hoping to follow in his predecessor Junichiro Koizumi’s footsteps in developing a close personal friendship with Bush.

Ahead of an hour-long working lunch, Abe and Bush met one-on-one for about 20 minutes, Hadley said. A senior Japanese official who accompanied Abe at the lunch said the two leaders, despite meeting only for the first time, ”looked as if they have been longtime friends.”

Hadley told reporters Bush complimented Abe for the ‘’strong start of his administration,” noting that the president had in mind Abe’s trip to China and South Korea to strengthen Japan’s ties with the two countries.

Abe and Bush were later joined by South Korean President Roh Moo Hyun for trilateral talks, where they agreed to coordinate policies on the North Korean issue and to work with China, chair of the six-party talks, in order to achieve positive results at the negotiations.

Also Saturday, Abe held separate bilateral meetings with Roh, Chinese President Hu Jintao, Russian President Vladimir Putin and Australian Prime Minister John Howard.

Japan, the United States, South Korea, China and Russia are involved in the six-way talks with North Korea.

Tobyhanna army depot, Pa. — Engineers and technicians have designed and built a satellite communications system that supports the ground-based missile defense program in Alaska.

Work on the system began in early 2000 when the Program Manager for Defense Communications and Army Transmissions Systems tasked Tobyhanna to build the AN/TSC-86D satellite communications system that could act as a fixed terminal at a site until a permanent system is installed.

Employees from the depot’s Satellite Communications Systems, Production Support Services and Systems Integration directorates carried out the mission.

“It’s intended as a temporary system, but is complete enough that it will be used as a communications system by itself,” said John Deininger, electronics engineer, SATCOM.

The system is used for voice, data and video communications. It is currently supporting the Missile Defense Space Battalion, the first ground-based midcourse defense battalion, at Fort Greely, Alaska.

The battalion will provide operational control and security over ground-based interceptors located in Alaska to protect the nation from limited ballistic missile attacks.

“The 86D is a unique, first-of-its kind system; it has dual antennas for communications through separate satellites, but can operate using one antenna,” Deininger said.

The system is composed of five trailers, each about 40 feet long. The heart of the system is the 86D trailer that houses the main systems, such as modems, channel converters and baseband racks.

“There is also a supply and maintenance trailer, a power trailer that provides uninterruptible power systems and generators, a trailer that houses the antennas and air conditioning equipment, and an equipment trailer, which has all the equipment to assemble the system,” said Charles Cortese, mechanical engineering technician, SATCOM. “We customized each trailer to not only house equipment meant for a fixed site, but also to be transportable by C-17 cargo aircraft.”

Depot technicians extensively modified the trailers. For example, special undercarriages and tires were installed to help the trailers fit into a C-l 7. Also, the 86D trailer’s height had to be lowered.

“One of our major hurdles was getting some of the moving equipment certified for Air Transportability,” said Tom Musso, SATCOM. “All trailer design details were provided to the Transportability Group at Wright Patterson Air Force Base (Ohio). As a result of resolving this, we received C-130 and C-17 transportation certification.”

Personnel also designed and fabricated support brackets, hundreds of feet of cables and electronics racks, sometimes redesigning racks during the process when upgrades were requested.

“The entire electrical power supply system was fabricated here,” noted Jack Pallien, electronics technician, SATCOM. “We also modified the lightning protection system.”

“The system is totally redundant; it will not go off the air,” added Richard Budgeon, electronics technician, SATCOM. “If a component goes down, its function is automatically switched to another component.”

PM DCATS supplied the main SATCOM systems.

Completed in January 2003, the system was deployed to Schriever Air Force Base, Colo., in March 2003, to support the AN/GSC-52 Modernization Program and returned to Tobyhanna in August 2003, where additional upgrades were installed. Tobyhanna technicians are currently installing the system in Alaska.

Installation includes staging all the trailer assemblies, erecting the antenna assemblies, properly anchoring the system and connecting all the external power, grounding and communication cabling.

“Once that is done, a second crew will align and test the system prior to completing on-site final acceptance testing,” Budgeon said. Tobyhanna will maintain the system wherever it is fielded.

“We received great support from several (depot) directorates,” Musso said. “All told, there were about 45 people throughout the depot who had a hand in completing this project.”

Country X continues to slowly slip into chaos: there are strong indications its military forces are posturing for war in response to perceived escalating threats from traditional adversaries; its economy has nearly come to a halt; its annual harvest has been destroyed from an onslaught of natural disasters; food shortages are rampant; foreign aid is all but terminated; and all foreigners have been expelled or detained. In addition, regional and international diplomatic contacts have declined-some have ceased, even from its traditional allies-because of noncompliance with United Nations resolutions to cease weapons of mass destruction activities and to dismantle its intercontinental-range delivery systems. The country’s leader has virtually disappeared publicly, and the traditional anti-Western rhetoric from the state-run press has all but ceased. A concerted imposition of economic sanctions by the international community failed to correct this hostile situation and the country is further isolated and is going into bankruptcy. Country X appears to have placed all of its military forces on heightened alert, and it has begun deploying mobile ballistic missile forces (including intercontinental-range missiles) out of garrison. There are indications of heightened activity at nuclear test/storage sites.

What was once a functioning state is now on the brink of implosion and is increasingly a threat to regional and international security. What was designed by the international community as a means to force the regime back to the negotiating table has become a showdown of wills and brinksmanship. Faced by a perception that it has run out of options and is apparently no longer supported by allies, Country X may soon perceive no other choice but to use its strategic weapons, possibly with nuclear capabilities, in retaliation against its enemies as a last desperate measure. In response to this very real and growing threat, not only to the region but to our country, the United States has begun its own planning to address head-on tins growing threat.

Sound familiar? We have all read these fictional scripts detailing the buildup of tensions to set the stage and context for exercises and wargames. Unfortunately, such scenarios are often not that far from real-world events.

The Department of Defense, under guidance from national leadership, plans for these threats. Our current integrated ballistic missile defense system (BMDS), which includes radars, other sensors, shooters and the ground-based midcourse defense (GMD) system, represents the vision of President Ronald Reagan, carried forward by subsequent presidents and the National Security Policy directive to deploy and field an initial defensive capability by September 2004. Credit for the full-team effort in making these systems operational goes to the Missile Defense Agency (MDA); combatant commanders; the Departments of the Army, Navy and Air Force; the National Guard Bureau; the states of Colorado and Alaska; and numerous contractors.

As we train and exercise against fictitious scenarios by rogue or hostile states and/or actors, what we learn is very real. We employ the concept of operations we plan to use. Our tactics, techniques and procedures are comprehensively put into action and run through the wringer as if we were facing a real crisis or war. Indeed, when North Korea launched missiles this past July, it provided a test of the 1983 national defense vision and BMDS development, planning and training that has occurred since then.

North Korea didn’t tell us what kind of missiles they were going to launch or their trajectories. As a precaution, the President put the 100th Missile Defense Brigade (GMD) and its battalion, the 49th Missile Defense Battalion (GMD), in Alaska, on alert. Regardless of the outcome of the missile firings, the situation allowed the chain of command to exercise the operations plan, from the President through the DoD and two combatant commanders (U.S. Strategic Command and U.S. Northern Command) to the brigade and battalion, for any situation presented. In early September our defensive plan was again exercised during the successful integrated flight test of the ground-based interceptor (GBI) conducted by MDA.

This summer, the 100th Missile Defense Brigade (GMD), commanded by Col. Michael Yowell was on heightened alert status in response to North Korea’s actions.

At the same time, the 1st Space Brigade, commanded by Col. Timothy Coffin, activated the FBX-T (Forward-based X-Band-Transportable) radar detachment and the soldiers who operate the system. Those soldiers now operate under the day-to-day control of the 94th Army Air Missile Defense Command in support of the BMDS mission. MDA is projecting that several more FBX-Ts will come on line over the coming decade.

Missile defense is definitely a growth industry, an industry reliant on space-based information. As other sensors become part of the system, the demand for information from infrared sensors continues to grow. This has always been the case for BMDS assets, but now warfighting commanders require the same information packaged to support situational awareness and decision making.

In October, North Korea tested a nuclear device that pushed the nightmare scenario of a rogue state armed with both nuclear warheads and missile delivery systems a step closer to reality. The underground detonation generated international headlines calling for increased spending on missile defense programs, but many of the initiatives called for in the articles that appeared below the headlines were already under way.

In Okinawa on the day of the nuclear test, the first shipment of Patriot Advanced Capabilities-3 (PAC-3) missile equipment had just arrived at Tengan Pier and was awaiting delivery to the 1st Battalion, 1st Air Defense Artillery (ADA), Kadena Air Base, Japan. The Patriot battalion’s deployment from Fort Bliss, Texas, to Japan had made its own headlines because it symbolized both the buildup of U.S. theater missile defense capabilities in the Asia-Pacific region and a coalition approach to a more proactive defense posture.

As Pyongyang started its countdown, soldiers of Battery C, 1st Battalion, 43rd Air Defense Artillery, 35th ADA Brigade, Osan Air Base, South Korea, were, by coincidence, conducting an operational readiness exercise to ensure that Patriot missile launchers oriented to defend against an air attack from the north were ready to launch at a moment’s notice. As Echo Battery’s “hot” crews went about their battle drills, they were not particularly concerned about North Korea’s nuclear capabilities or its development of a long-range missile that might someday be capable of reaching the U.S. West Coast. North Korea’s burgeoning arsenal of short- and medium-range theater ballistic missiles, which they knew could strike any spot on the peninsula with conventional or chemical warheads, gave them enough to worry about.

The stellar performance of U.S. Patriot systems during Operation Iraqi Freedom, when the system went eight for eight against Iraqi missiles, provided soldiers of the U.S. Patriot battalions cause for confidence. However, Patriot is only the lower tier of America’s envisioned multilayered theater air and missile defense system. The terminal high-altitude area defense (THAAD) system, which will serve as the upper tier of theater missile defense, is yet to be fielded. The good news is that the missing piece is about to fall into place.

In September, the Missile Defense Agency (MDA) announced its decision to accelerate the THAAD testing and fielding schedule, a decision that resulted from U.S. and allied combatant commanders’ concerns around the world. The MDA based its decision to speed up THAAD fielding on concerns expressed by combatant commanders such as Gen. B.B. Bell, commander of U.S. Forces Korea. Gen. Bell had described the threat posed by the North Korean missile arsenal, which he said includes more than 600 Scud missiles and as many as 200 medium-range ballistic missiles, during his appearance before the House Armed Services Committee on March 9, 2006. “The regional missile threat requires a robust theater missile defense system to protect critical Combined Forces Command capabilities and personnel. PAC-3 missile system upgrades and improved munitions have significantly enhanced our posture,” Gen. Bell told the committee. “To protect critical U.S. facilities in Korea, we must complete upgrading the remainder of our systems with advanced theater missile defense capabilities. Continued production of PAC-3 missiles in the near term, followed by continued development of the terminal high-altitude air defense, airborne laser and Aegis ballistic missile defense will provide the layered missile defense capability we require in the future.”

Events subsequent to Gen. Bell’s appearance before the committee reinforced his assessment of the theater ballistic missile threat. On July 4, 2006, North Korea conducted test launches of a long-range missile and five shorter-range ballistic missiles. The long-range Taepo Dong-2 missile, which some analysts believe is capable of hitting the western United States, failed after about 40 seconds, but it caused U.S. Army North to bring the 100th Missile Defense Brigade (Ground-Based Midcourse Defense) at Colorado Springs, Colo., and the 49th Missile Defense Battalion (Ground-Based Midcourse Defense) at Fort Greeley, Alaska, to operational status for the first time. However, it was North Korea’s tactical ballistic missile launches that most worried combatant commanders. Jane’s Defence Weekly reported that “the successful launching of six Scud-class missiles (possibly including one No Dong) demonstrates that the Korean People’s Army missile units have achieved a significant level of operational readiness and that the missile systems are developmentally mature.” Gen. Bell told the Asia Times in July, “If there was an argument for a more capable missile defense, they [North Korea] made it very effectively for us. Until there’s a peace treaty on this peninsula, I think we should be able to defend ourselves against them.”

The 1st Battalion, 1st Air Defense Artillery, began its deployment from Fort Bliss to Kadena Air Base in August 2006. The battalion falls under the command of the recently activated 94th Army Air and Missile Defense Command at Fort Shafter, Hawaii. Stationing the battalion, which is equipped with the latest PAC-3 missiles, at Kadena enhances the security of Japan and our Air Force assets there by providing a reliable tactical ballistic missile defense deterrent in the region. The Okinawa deployment is one of several steps the United States and Japan are taking to ensure adequate missile defenses are in place. Other examples include the deployment of an Aegis ballistic missile defense cruiser to Yokosuka (the entrance to Tokyo Bay), the colocation and integration of air defense command-and-control capabilities, the establishment of a bilateral joint operation coordination center at Yokota Air Base in the suburbs of Tokyo and the stationing of an X-Band radar in northern Japan to provide early detection and tracking of ballistic missile launches.