Text Fwd: All missile defense programs are part of the same system

DMZ Hawai'i
All missile defense programs are part of the same system
August 26, 2011 by kyle

Bruce Gagnon posted a link to this article about the U.S. missile defense program. As he points out, the article explains how all missile defense systems are “part of the same network of systems.” The proposed South Korean naval base in Jeju island, where islanders are waging a fierce struggle to oppose the base, is part of this network. Hereʻs a pertinent section:


In congressional testimony, you’ve highlighted the need for interoperability of all U.S. and allied interceptors and supporting sensors. Is this a realistic requirement?

Absolutely, and we’re not going for interoperability that’s achieved after the fact, but rather full integration from the get-go. MDA designs and manages the entire ballistic missile defense architecture — whether homeland or regional missile defense — from a single set of requirements and specifications. So they’re not separate systems, but literally one holistic network built to operate as a single system. It took us 10 years to get to the point where we have one systems engineering process and one set of specifications writ large for the entire globe. This allows us to do all the trades and provide the most low-risk, cost-effective means of meeting all our missile defense requirements.

Great rhetoric, but how can this be translated into the holistic system you speak of?

A good example is the Aegis ashore system. We saw this great capability on ships and saw the need to replicate this capability on land. By looking down from the top, it was a simple decision to take those [SM-3 Block 2A] missiles off the ship and build land variants of the same Aegis system. And now we have a brand new capability that never existed before, with a worldwide logistics sustainment and training program in place that costs tremendously less than had we developed a land system from scratch.

And what about systems deployed by the Israelis and those planned for NATO countries, Japan and other partners. Will they all work as a single system in combat?

The international partner program is part and parcel of our mainstream program. They’re not considered as adjuncts to U.S. missile defense, but part of the same network of systems. So with NATO, Israel or Japan, they’re all working from the same specifications that take into account all the required interfaces. We have a set process for all our partners. We typically start with studies, then move to simulations and assist in calibrating country-specific requirements from the very beginning to fit into the overall system. Today, we’re working with over 20 countries for the collective benefit of us all.

But each country has its own operational, cost and industrial base considerations. How does it all pull together?

First of all, I want to emphasize that we don’t control another country’s system or how a country chooses to develop its systems. But we put in place up-front agreements that drive genuine partnerships for designing systems that can be readily integrated. With Israel, for example — our oldest partner with whom we have an extremely mature relationship — we’ve actually replicated an Israeli command-and-control center here in the United States and similar interconnected laboratories are planned with NATO and other partners. Together we conduct many simulation excursions, hundreds of different scenarios to optimize and continually improve upon the design.

So when you ask about how we can have confidence in combat? The answer is we practice it, we exercise it, we’re full partners in flight tests to the point that beyond basic sharing of data, the links are in place to operate as a unit when we have to face actual threats.