It all started with a report by Gazeta Wyborcza:

Shortly after Mr Obama took over, the White House started a strategic review of the missile defence project. In theory, the review hasn’t yet been completed but Mr Ellison believes that in fact the decision has already been made. A credible source in the Congress says the same: ‘The administration has been sounding out for a couple of weeks now how the Congress will react when the plans for building the missile defence in Poland and the Czech Republic are dumped.’

Now the State Department has countered the report:

QUESTION: Polish newspapers are reporting from Washington that Obama Administration changed its position on ABM, that Obama Administration will not place elements of ABM in Poland and Czech Republic and will stick to some other option, and that this decision has been almost made. Do you have any comments about that?

MR. CROWLEY: I would call that report inaccurate. Our review of our missile defense strategy is ongoing and has not reached completion yet.

What about alternatives to the interceptors in Poland?

1) A Land-based version of SM-3 is reported to be the most likely alternative to GMD in Poland:

Using the 14.5-in.-dia. SM-3 Block IB, which is in development, six or seven batteries would be required to provide coverage to Europe. The IB will include a new divert-and-attitude-control system as well as a new two-color seeker. Michael Booen, a vice president at Raytheon, says the system could achieve initial operational capability in 2013 (far sooner than the fixed GBI site in Poland); the MDA requested $50 million to start work in Fiscal 2010. The IB is designed to counter short- and medium-range ballistic missiles and will likely provide some capability against intermediate-range threats, says Dean Gehr, Raytheon’s SM-3 program lead. It is not seen as intimidating to Russia’s long-range missiles, and thus could be more politically palatable.

Cartwright says the land-based SM-3 could provide an interim defense for Europe against the more quickly proliferating threat of short- and medium-range missiles. “You look at an alternative [to GBI]—SM-3 or something else—and what we are seeing is that then it is only going to be two years to field. So, I can make a decision about that now, have a hedge [against the threat] and then, if GBI is actually required, I’m still OK because I’ve got something fielded,” and can proceed with GBI at a later date, Cartwright told Aviation Week after his speech. “What is real is the regional threat.” (emphasis added)

But where would these interceptors eventually be deployed? What about Turkey? Ankara has announced that it intends to deploy a two-tier air and missile defense system and has been reviewing bids by China (HongQi-9), Israel (Arrow2), Russia (S-400), and the United States (PAC-3) – so maybe it would be possible to strike a deal. I have no idea, however, whether the Turkey + SM-3 option would be technically feasible.

2) Then there is SM-3 Block IA on AEGIS destroyers, as illustrated (see slides 5&9) in a recent presentation by the commander of the AEGIS program, Rear Admiral Alan B. Hicks (USN).

3) And lastly, the unlikely option: Boeing’s mobile interceptor proposal (click here for a model of the interceptor)

By 2015, Boeing could prepare a two-stage, 47,500-pound interceptor that could be transported by C-17 cargo aircraft and deployed at a NATO site on a trailer-based launch platform, Hyslop said. The interceptor could be fielded within 24 hours and then removed when the missile threat abates, he said. (GSN, August 20, 2009)

Save/Share Bookmark

Hide Sites