Text Fwd: Missile defense radar to enter Puget Sound (Washington state)

* Text fwd from Bruce Gagnon on May 10, 2011

http://blog.seattlepi.com/aerospace/2011/05/09/missile-defense-radar-to-enter-strait-monday-sound-tuesday/

Missile defense radar to enter strait Monday, sound Tuesday

The U.S. Missile Defense Agency’s Sea-Based X-band Radar vessel will enter the Strait of Juan de Fuca late Monday and the Puget Sound [Washington state] on Tuesday, according to the agency.

“The first view of the SBX for some residents in the Pacific Northwest will likely be when the vessel is just off shore before entering the Strait of Juan de Fuca tonight,” the agency said Monday. “It should be visible from Port Angeles on Tuesday morning. The vessel can be seen from various points as it makes its way through Puget Sound to Elliott Bay and to Vigor Shipyards Seattle, arriving late Tuesday night.”

Boeing won a $27.1 million contract to perform maintenance and upgrades on the huge system. The work is set to take about three months at Seattle’s Vigor Shipyards.
People are not allowed within 100 yards of SBX while it is in navigable U.S. waters and moored at Vigor Shipyard.
....................................................

Sea-Based X-Band Radar (SBX) is a floating, self-propelled, mobile radar station designed to operate in high winds and heavy seas. It is part of the U.S. Defense Department Ballistic Missile Defense System.

The Sea-Based X-Band Radar is mounted on a fifth generation Norwegian-designed, Russian-built CS-50 semi-submersible twin-hulled oil-drilling platform. The hull was originally built at Vyborg Shipyard.

The radar is designed and built by Raytheon Integrated Defense Systems for Boeing, the prime contractor on the project for MDA.
Cost: $900 million
More information found here


Global Network Against Weapons & Nuclear Power in Space
PO Box 652
Brunswick, ME 04011
(207) 443-9502
globalnet@mindspring.com
http://www.space4peace.org/
http://space4peace.blogspot.com/ (blog)

Text Fwd:Pearl Harbor has become the X-Band radar’s informal home

DMZ Hawai'i
Pearl Harbor has become the X-Band radar’s informal home
January 31, 2011 by kyle

The Sea-Based X-band Radar (SBX) pulled into Pearl Harbor again on December 22, 2010. When the military originally proposed the expansion of its missile defense test range to include most of the north Pacific, many opposed the project, especially the homeporting of the $1 billion Sea-Based X-band Radar monstrosity in Hawai’i.

We were relieved when Hawai’i was not selected as the site, but soon we saw the terrible eye looming on the horizon as it pulled into Ke Awalau O Pu’uloa for repairs and maintenance, or so we were told. However, as this Honolulu Star Advertiser article explains, the SBX radar never spent a day in its Adak, Alaska homeport.

When it does head in, Hawaii has become the SBX’s home port by default. Ironically, in 2003, military officials considered but rejected permanently basing the SBX here. A spot three miles south of Kalaeloa was examined along with five other locations before Adak was selected.

Adak got the nod because it is between the “threat ballistic missiles” — presumably in North Korea — and the interceptor missiles in California and Alaska, Lt. Gen. Henry Obering III, then-head of the missile agency, said in a 2006 memo.

Instead it has been a kolea, wintering annually in the islands. The newspaper reports “The 280-foot-tall SBX, as it is called, has “loitered” in the vicinity of Adak several times, the U.S. Missile Defense Agency said, but it has returned to Pearl Harbor 11 times and spent a combined total of more than a year and a half in port in Hawaii.”

DAYS SPENT IN ISLES

» 2006: 170 days
» 2007: 63 days
» 2008: 63 days
» 2009: 177 days
» 2010: 51 days

» Dec. 22 to present


Source: Missile Defense Agency


The Honolulu Star Advertiser writes:

Like a loyal tourist, the massive $1 billion Sea-Based X-Band Radar platform keeps returning to Hawaii, becoming an instant focus of public interest every time it moors at Pearl Harbor.

» Size: 240 feet wide and 390 feet long
» Height: 280 feet from keel to top of radar dome
» Displacement: Nearly 50,000 tons

The Missile Defense Agency is tight-lipped about the reasons for never mooring the SBX in Adak as planned in 2006, but the Coast Guard raised concern over operating a 280-foot-tall oil rig ship in the unforgiving Bering Sea, where waves routinely exceed 30 feet and winds top 130 mph.

The SBX radar is part of the massive expansion of the U.S. missile defense system in the Pacific. On the one hand, the system is anything but defensive. Russia and China both feel threatened by the ring of missile defense sites encircling them, as these missiles could neutralize retaliatory capabilities in the event of a first strike by the U.S. So they view the missile defenses as an escalation to be met by expanded offensive capabilities. The expansion of missile defense systems is causing great political and social unrest in the places where the U.S. wants to station the facilities including Poland, the Czech Republic, Guam and Jeju-do, Korea. Kwajalein in the Marshall Islands has already been taken over by the U.S. missile defense system, its native islanders crammed into one small squalid slum on Ebeye island.

On the other hand, the missile defense is a massive boondoggle for missile defense aerospace contractors. As one former engineer from the Pacific Missile Range Facility told me in disgust, the system is not designed to work. It is only supposed to be improved incrementally, thereby keeping the federal dollars flowing. So perhaps the decision to homeport the SBX radar in Adak was only to ensure that Alaska got its fair share of the military pork through construction projects. The program was initiated during the double reign of Senators Stevens and Inouye on the Senate Defense Appropriations Subcommittee.

Meanwhile, the terrible eye is watching…

READ THE FULL ARTICLE

Text Fwd: [Robert Gates]A Better Missile Defense for a Safer Europe

* Informed by Bruce Ganon on Sept. 20, 09

New York Times Op-Ed
September 19, 2009
By ROBERT M. GATES
A Better Missile Defense for a Safer Europe

The future of missile defense in Europe is secure. This reality is contrary to what some critics have alleged about President Obama’s proposed shift in America’s missile-defense plans on the continent — and it is important to understand how and why.

First, to be clear, there is now no strategic missile defense in Europe. In December 2006, just days after becoming secretary of defense, I recommended to President George W. Bush that the United States place 10 ground-based interceptors in Poland and an advanced radar in the Czech Republic. This system was designed to identify and destroy up to about five long-range missiles potentially armed with nuclear warheads fired from the Middle East — the greatest and most likely danger being from Iran. At the time, it was the best plan based on the technology and threat assessment available.

That plan would have put the radar and interceptors in Central Europe by 2015 at the earliest. Delays in the Polish and Czech ratification process extended that schedule by at least two years. Which is to say, under the previous program, there would have been no missile-defense system able to protect against Iranian missiles until at least 2017 — and likely much later.

Last week, President Obama — on my recommendation and with the advice of his national-security team and the unanimous support of our senior military leadership — decided to discard that plan in favor of a vastly more suitable approach. In the first phase, to be completed by 2011, we will deploy proven, sea-based SM-3 interceptor missiles — weapons that are growing in capability — in the areas where we see the greatest threat to Europe.

The second phase, which will become operational around 2015, will involve putting upgraded SM-3s on the ground in Southern and Central Europe. All told, every phase of this plan will include scores of SM-3 missiles, as opposed to the old plan of just 10 ground-based interceptors. This will be a far more effective defense should an enemy fire many missiles simultaneously — the kind of attack most likely to occur as Iran continues to build and deploy numerous short- and medium-range weapons. At the same time, plans to defend virtually all of Europe and enhance the missile defense of the United States will continue on about the same schedule as the earlier plan as we build this system over time, creating an increasingly greater zone of protection.

Steady technological advances in our missile defense program — from kill vehicles to the abilities to network radars and sensors — give us confidence in this plan. The SM-3 has had eight successful tests since 2007, and we will continue to develop it to give it the capacity to intercept long-range missiles like ICBMs. It is now more than able to deal with the threat from multiple short- and medium-range missiles — a very real threat to our allies and some 80,000 American troops based in Europe that was not addressed by the previous plan. Even so, our military will continue research and development on a two-stage ground-based interceptor, the kind that was planned to be put in Poland, as a back-up.

Moreover, a fixed radar site like the one previously envisioned for the Czech Republic would be far less adaptable than the airborne, space- and ground-based sensors we now plan to use. These systems provide much more accurate data, offer more early warning and tracking options, and have stronger networking capacity — a key factor in any system that relies on partner countries. This system can also better use radars that are already operating across the globe, like updated cold war-era installations, our newer arrays based on high-powered X-band radar, allied systems and possibly even Russian radars.

One criticism of this plan is that we are relying too much on new intelligence holding that Iran is focusing more on short- and medium-range weapons and not progressing on intercontinental missiles. Having spent most of my career at the C.I.A., I am all too familiar with the pitfalls of over-reliance on intelligence assessments that can become outdated. As Gen. James Cartwright, the vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said a few days ago, we would be surprised if the assessments did not change because “the enemy gets a vote.”

Those who say we are scrapping missile defense in Europe are either misinformed or misrepresenting what we are doing. This shift has even been distorted as some sort of concession to Russia, which has fiercely opposed the old plan. Russia’s attitude and possible reaction played no part in my recommendation to the president on this issue. Of course, considering Russia’s past hostility toward American missile defense in Europe, if Russia’s leaders embrace this plan, then that will be an unexpected — and welcome — change of policy on their part. But in any case the facts are clear: American missile defense on the continent will continue, and not just in Central Europe, the most likely location for future SM-3 sites, but, we hope, in other NATO countries as well.

This proposal is, simply put, a better way forward — as was recognized by Prime Minister Donald Tusk of Poland when he called it “a chance for strengthening Europe’s security.” It is a very real manifestation of our continued commitment to our NATO allies in Europe — iron-clad proof that the United States believes that the alliance must remain firm.

I am often characterized as “pragmatic.” I believe this is a very pragmatic proposal. I have found since taking this post that when it comes to missile defense, some hold a view bordering on theology that regards any change of plans or any cancellation of a program as abandonment or even breaking faith. I encountered this in the debate over the Defense Department’s budget for the fiscal year 2010 when I ended three programs: the airborne laser, the multiple-kill vehicle and the kinetic energy interceptor. All were plainly unworkable, prohibitively expensive and could never be practically deployed — but had nonetheless acquired a devoted following.

I have been a strong supporter of missile defense ever since President Ronald Reagan first proposed it in 1983. But I want to have real capacity as soon as possible, and to take maximum advantage of new technologies to combat future threats.

The bottom line is that there will be American missile defense in Europe to protect our troops there and our NATO allies. The new proposal provides needed capacity years earlier than the original plan, and will provide even more robust protection against longer-range threats on about the same timeline as the previous program. We are strengthening — not scrapping — missile defense in Europe.

Global Network Against Weapons & Nuclear Power in Space
PO Box 652
Brunswick, ME 04011
(207) 443-9502
http://www.space4peace.org
globalnet@mindspring.com
http://space4peace.blogspot.com (Blog)


* Related blog
http://nobasestorieskorea.blogspot.com/2009/09/text-fwd-missile-defense-other-story.html
Friday, September 18, 2009
[국문 번역]Text Fwd: MISSILE DEFENSE: THE OTHER STORY

Text Fwd: Dear Secretary Gates

Text fwd from Bruce Gagnon on March 31, 2009

http://www.missiledefenseadvocacy.org/news.aspx?news_id=1654
Missile Defense in the News
Dear Secretary Gates
March 20, 2009

Dear Members and Friends,

Today, I delivered on behalf of our membership, a letter to the United States Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates urging the use of all available missile defense assets to the maximum capability to prepare in the face of the uncertainties of the North Korea "Space Launch" that might pose a threat to Alaska, Hawaii and other regions of the United States.

One of the United States most valuable assets and the best discriminating and tracking sensor for ballistic missile defense, the Sea-Based X-Band Radar (SBX) has not been deployed and has been docked for the past several months at Ford Island, Pearl Harbor, Hawaii. The SBX was the main sensor in the recent successful long-range ballistic missile intercept on December 5, 2008 providing the primary targeting information for the Ground Based Interceptor (GBI) out of Vandenberg Air Force Base, CA. that successfully intercepted a long-range ballistic missile from Kodiak Island, Alaska.

The December 5th, 2008 test simulated a North Korean long-range missile threat using the current U.S. missile defense deployed assets designed for a long range ballistic missile intercept. The SBX was also successfully deployed and used with the Aegis Sea-Based Missile Defense System for the February 21, 2008 successful NRO satellite shoot down which had a 1 in 45 chance of harming human life if not intercepted. The SBX is a self propelled X-band radar and has a sea speed of up to 10 knots per hour.

If deployed the SBX can begin to emit its sensor 50 or so miles from Hawaii and can become effective by providing sensoring information to the deployed long-range missile defense system in place today. The SBX cost $950 million dollars to build and costs additional tens of millions of dollars to maintain and operate annually.

The azimuth or launch direction for an ideal space orbital launch from North Korea using optimal rotation of the earth is in the mid-80s which over flies the country of Japan and heads east towards the Pacific Ocean. The azimuth for a long-range ballistic missile from North Korea to Hawaii is in the similar 80s degree range. North Korea has declared two "clear zones" on either side of Japan for the first and second rocket stages accounting for the debris falling from their rocket or missile launch. The North Korea trajectory following that flight path would terminate close to Hawaii if the rocket failed to achieve orbit or was a long range ballistic missile launch.

The SBX is the most powerful and most capable sensor to discriminate the debris, payload and a possible reentry vehicle in detail from a North Korean long range missile or rocket launch traveling at extreme high speeds across the Pacific Ocean.

Below is the text of the letter sent to Secretary Robert M. Gates:

Dear Secretary Gates,

As Chairman of the Missile Defense Advocacy Alliance representing 10,000 members nationwide with a 7 year consistent record of promoting the development and deployment of a robust missile defense capability for the United States, I am compelled to write to you regarding my concern for America's actions in the face of the growing North Korean missile threat. While I recognize the right of every sovereign nation to pursue a peaceful space program, I believe you would agree that the upcoming North Korean "space launch" could very well have military implications for the future and in the near term, threaten Alaska, Hawaii or other regions of the United States. Therefore, I urge that you consider activating all available missile defense assets to the Pacific to protect against an errant space launch attempt or a ballistic missile launch that threatens the United Stares or our allies. By way of reference, I understand that the assets deployed for the successful intercept of a long range ballistic missile target this past December 5, 2008 can put the United States in the most effective posture to counter any North Korean action in the next few weeks.

On a personal level and by the full support of my membership, I encourage you to place all of our Missile Defense assets in the Pacific region in the best position to counter the ambiguity that North Korea has historically demonstrated.

Respectfully,

Riki Ellison
Chairman and Founder
Missile Defense Advocacy Alliance