Article

2009-10-08 Home Front: WoT

New Missile Plan Would Link Allies' Radar, Other Systems

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Steve White 2009-10-08 00:00|| || Front Page|| [11135 views ] Top

#1 So European defense has gone from continental wide interception capability to one with maybe a radius of 200km. Too bad for Germany, France, Austria, Switzerland. Heh, heh.

Oh, and for any SM3's stationed on ships in the Med, any competent targeting officer will ensure the flight profiles of his IRBMs pass too high for interception.

Posted by ed 2009-10-08 00:44|| 2009-10-08 00:44|| Front Page Top

#2 no problem ed... this is about appearances... we all 'knew' all along that missile defense wouldn't work. that is what the one said all along.

you merely proved it for him.

Posted by abu do you love ">abu do you love 2009-10-08 03:24|| 2009-10-08 03:24|| Front Page Top

#3 No reason the long range target countries can't mount their own missile defences. It only takes money and will, the technology can be purchased from Israel or India if President Obama won't sell it to them.

Posted by trailing wife 2009-10-08 08:36|| 2009-10-08 08:36|| Front Page Top

#4 Soros must be heavily invested in SM-3 interceptor missiles.

Posted by Lumpy Elmoluck5091 2009-10-08 09:46|| 2009-10-08 09:46|| Front Page Top

#5 There's another problem.

You want to use ship-based SM-3s Bambi? Great. Which ships?

We don't have that many. A few Aegis-equipped cruisers, a few more Burke-class destroyers. We're building more of the latter, slowly, but the DDX program is troubled and the CGX may never get built.

To keep one ship on station in the eastern Med or the Black Sea (assuming the Turks let it through which they don't have to do), you need to have three (better, four) ships available in the rotation.

And we have uses for the other SM-3 equipped ships -- off the coast of Korea, for example. So the number of ships available to cover Europe is decidedly limited.

To keep three SM-3 based ships on duty to cover Europe, assuming the SM-3s can do the job, means we need 10 to 12 new ships. We're building two new destroyers a year. We're not building any new cruisers that I've read about (someone correct me if I'm wrong).

That's one of the reasons why the Bush team wanted a land-based system (in addition to the flight profile issue and the types of missiles that Iran could really threaten Europe with). Oh sure, the navy system is 'cheaper' -- until you amortize the costs of the new ships needed.

But then economics doesn't seem to be Bambi's strong suit ...

Posted by Steve White 2009-10-08 11:42|| 2009-10-08 11:42|| Front Page Top

#6 Instead of the longer-range missiles that could reach clear across Europe,

so you think the mullahs are less interested in nuking Israel, than they are in nuking Berlin?

Posted by liberalhawk 2009-10-08 11:48|| 2009-10-08 11:48|| Front Page Top

#7 from john pike, global security

"Aegis BMD has worked closely with Japan since 1999 to design and develop advanced components for the SM-3 missile. Other prospective international participants include:

The Joint United States and Australia MOU was signed July 2004 and provides a 25 year framework for cooperation on missile defense.
The Joint United States/United Kingdom MOU was signed in 2003, and a U.S./UK Joint Study on potential Type 45 DDG BMD capability was initiated in 2006.
The U.S. has provided The Netherlands Pricing & Availability data to participate in a 2006 TRACEX event. In addition, initial discussions are underway to assess the capability of Dutch systems BMD capability and may lead to integration of SM-3 onto Dutch SMART-L/APARS equipped ships.
Germany has a BMD Liaison Officer working with the Aegis BMD staff to develop an understanding of BMD-related issues.
High level discussions have taken place to provide South Korea and Aegis BMD capability on their KDX-III Class Aegis Destroyers. "

apparently SM3 is to be used on non US ships, including on Skor amd JMaritimesselfdefenceforce ships, which you need to take account of that in your calculations, including also the prospect of land based SM3's (though not in the Visograd states, but in the Med)

Also, of course an AEGIS destroyer can be used for other things at need, so Im not sure it makes sense to attribute the cost entirely to euro/Med area missile defense.

Posted by liberalhawk 2009-10-08 11:55|| 2009-10-08 11:55|| Front Page Top

#8 if President Obama won't sell it to them.

What, pray tell, has given you that impression?

Posted by liberalhawk 2009-10-08 11:56|| 2009-10-08 11:56|| Front Page Top

#9 But then economics doesn't seem to be Bambi's strong suit

No, Reality is not his strong suit.
His fantasy world does NOT include Folks who'd be glad to Murder him and all other Americans, to him they simply don't exist, sorta like the Blind spot in your eye, it just ain't there.

Posted by Redneck Jim 2009-10-08 15:15|| 2009-10-08 15:15|| Front Page Top

#10 What, pray tell, has given you that impression?

No impression, liberal hawk, just a back-up plan. Just like the bit you quote about mounting the things on non-American ships, especially after Steve White wrote about the limited American ship inventory.

Posted by trailing wife 2009-10-08 15:31|| 2009-10-08 15:31|| Front Page Top

#11 Seeing as we the US govt under both parties has always strongly supported defense exports, especially to our closest allies, saying "if obama wont sell it to them" sounds out of left field to me. Its like asking what sources there are to buy a car with a US nameplate, if GM, Ford and Chrysler decide to go into the baby food business and use all their existing inventory to make artificial reefs. Saying heres a back up "if X does Y" implies theres a real chance X might do Y.

Posted by liberalhawk 2009-10-08 15:38|| 2009-10-08 15:38|| Front Page Top

#12 First off, LH, Bambi has never actually said that he believes in missile defense, even in limited missile defense. A clear statement from him that he now believes missile defense to be useful, necessary and practical would be helpful.

In particular, I'd like to see Bambi recognize publicly that there are different types of BMD that require different systems. The land-based system Bush had proposed was more capable and would have defended both Europe and us.

Yes, you can use DDGs and CGs for other purposes, but to the extent that you do, they then aren't on station to provide missile defense. The whole point of putting an AEGIS-equipped ship on station is to provide missile defense, which means you have to park it where you want it and not task it with other duties.

Yes, you can sell SM-3 technology/systems to partners -- we're currently doing that. Such partners (UK, Germany) could then park ships in the eastern Med or Black Sea. They then have the same issues we have, though (perhaps) the rotation would be easier. But to make that work, you have to be absolutely sure that your partners see the threat as you do and, more importantly, have the same pressure on the trigger button as you do. It doesn't do any good (for us) to have a German FFG on duty if the German government / ship captain makes a decision NOT to fire SM-3s at incoming Iranian missiles because they aren't aimed at Germany.

Finally, the Mad Mullahs are indeed most interested in nuking Israel. But the ability to threaten to nuke Berlin if the Germans move to stop them is part of the strategic game. Having a European missile shield is the proper response -- it constrains the Mad Mullahs in their threat, because now they know that they can't blackmail the Euros with the threat of medium/long range nuclear-tipped missiles. That in turn protects Israel.

That's the point.

Posted by Steve White 2009-10-08 15:45|| 2009-10-08 15:45|| Front Page Top

#13 multi uses - im assuming that our main potential great power competitor is the PRC, and that to a considerable extent the USN is sized to counter that potential threat. Im assuming that in the event of a conflict with the PRC, seaborne missile defense against Iran becomes a lower priority.

As for allied forces, I was thinking more in terms of the availability of the system to SKor and Japan, lowering demands for USN Aegis ships near North east asia.

Im not sure about a Presidential statement on missile defense. If DoD asks for funds for that in the PresBud and supporting documents, is it not clear thats the Presidents policy? Other than political gotcha, why do you need Obama to say that in public?

WRt to nuking berlin - isnt the realist response that Iran is rationally deterrable, with our nuclear response? In the case of Israel, where one can make the case that elements in the Iranian regime are proceeding on a non-rational basis, believing that nuking Tel Aviv would lead to the coming of the hidden imam and the end of days, well rational MAD theory may not apply. But does anyone in Teheran believe that applying nuclear blackmail to Berlin or Paris will usher in the 12th Imam? I dunno. Certainly the opinions of the govts of FRG and France would seem to be relevant. If they think the small odds of an iranian attack on them are not worth A. Pissing off the Russians with a system based in the Visograd states B. Going to the trouble of building their own sytem, or at least pushing hard in public for the US system, I dont know that I see the strategic logic for the US to choose a more expensive option, whose political support in the Visograd states has never been all taht firm, and which does piss off the Russians.

Posted by liberalhawk 2009-10-08 15:59|| 2009-10-08 15:59|| Front Page Top

#14 Your assumption that the current USN is anywhere close to sized to counter a growing PRC capability betrays a profound unfamiliarity with the lifecycle timing of ship procurement, not to mention Congressional politics around same.

Posted by lotp 2009-10-08 19:00|| 2009-10-08 19:00|| Front Page Top

#15 WRt to nuking berlin - isnt the realist response that Iran is rationally deterrable, with our nuclear response?

Liberalhawk, within a decade of Pakistan getting The Bomb they were sponsoring terrorist attacks against Manhattan and our main response was to pretend it was Afghanistan and give them billions of dollars in transit fees _annually_ so we could support our troops in their little trap there, while people like you pretended we were actually fighting a war that mattered.

Let's see what Iran can do with the same class of deterrent.

Posted by Thing From Snowy Mountain 2009-10-08 19:37|| 2009-10-08 19:37|| Front Page Top

#16 Seeing as we the US govt under both parties has always strongly supported defense exports, especially to our closest allies, saying "if obama wont sell it to them" sounds out of left field to me

Between his history of supporting our enemies and his track record of not supporting allies, I'd say the onyl thing that would be out of the blue is to assume he actually would sell it our allies.

Posted by Mike N. 2009-10-08 22:03|| 2009-10-08 22:03|| Front Page Top

23:47 Clolulet tse Tung9375
23:23 Spike Crusoth7697
23:10 Spike Crusoth7697
22:31 Frank G
22:27 Rambler in Virginia
22:24 Barbara Skolaut
22:19 Scooter McGruder
22:03 Mike N.
21:53 Zhang Fei
21:45 tipper
21:40 Broadhead6
21:33 phil_b
21:29 Broadhead6
21:19 Broadhead6
21:17 Frank G
21:13 Broadhead6
21:09 tipover
20:53 Alaska Paul
20:50 Alaska Paul
20:50 Broadhead6
20:40 Frank G
20:22 Alaska Paul
20:22 lotp
20:21 Alaska Paul