|
|||||
|
|||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||
 |
 |
    |
|
|
|||
 |
|
||
|
|||
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This weeks Missile Defense stories for Friday, August 23, 2002.
U.S.-Russia: U.S. Contractor, Russian Institute Pursue Missile Defense CooperationBy David Ruppe Details of a possible agreement — which would capitalize on U.S. withdrawal from the Antiballistic Missile Treaty and a strategic relationship proposed by the U.S. and Russian presidents in May — have not been disclosed. For the work to take place, however, the parties would need their respective governments to make “certain political decisions,” including relaxation of technology and information controls, a senior Russian official said this week. The official, Anatoly Kuzin, deputy director general of strategic planning at the Khrunichev center, urged such changes in a speech here at a conference on missile defense. “Certain political decisions will have to be made by proper authorities of our two nations before any full scale of joint efforts in the area of missile defense will be launched,” he said through a translator. “We on our side understand that for such decisions to be made, certain organizational and informational underpinnings will have to be put in place.” According to a Lockheed Martin official, “very sensitive discussions” also have been taking place between the Pentagon’s Missile Defense Agency and Russian government officials. Signs of Support The talks between Lockheed Martin and Khrunichev apparently were underway before the United States pulled out of the ABM Treaty. The treaty was viewed as an obstacle to the proposed cooperation, said U.S. Representative Curt Weldon (R-Pa.), who introduced Kuzin as the featured speaker at a banquet Wednesday. Weldon, a member of the House International Relations committee and a adamant promoter of both U.S. missile defense and of U.S.-Russian cooperation, said the parties both told him, “We really can’t come out public with this yet, because the research we’re talking about perhaps will not be allowed under the ABM Treaty. But after the treaty expires, we can talk about it publicly.” U.S. Missile Defense Agency Director Lt. Gen. Ronald Kadish alluded to the Khrunichev-Lockheed Martin consultations June 27 at a congressional hearing, expressing muted support for the proposed venture. Additionally, in a joint declaration signed by U.S. and Russian Presidents George W. Bush and Vladimir Putin May 24, the presidents agreed to steps “aimed at strengthening confidence and increasing transparency in the area of missile defense, including the exchange of information on missile defense programs and tests in this area, reciprocal visits to observe missile defense tests, and observation aimed at familiarization with missile defense systems.” They also agreed to “study” possible areas for missile defense cooperation, “including the expansion of joint exercises related to missile defense, and the exploration of potential programs for the joint research and development of missile defense technologies.” Some Opposition Despite evidence of high-level support for collaboration, some U.S. and Russian officials have expressed concerns, if not outright opposition to close collaboration on missile defense. At the June 27 congressional hearing U.S. Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz expressed concern that shared U.S. technology might leak to third parties. “There’s no way we can cooperate with them on missile defense if the technology goes out the back door to countries like Iran,” he said. Some Russian officials have expressed skepticism about the prospects for close cooperation. “I believe that there is more talk to it at this point than real plans or programs,” Alexei Arbatov, vice chairman of the Russian Duma for defense, said at a press conference in late June. Arbatov disputed the widely touted notion that the new principles of a strategic relationship and the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, also signed May 24, have ushered in a new strategic relationship between the two countries. “Despite the agreement to reduce strategic offensive weapons, relations of mutual nuclear deterrence remain in place between our countries as the base of our relations in this field,” he said. “Since strategic missile defense is interconnected with offensive strategic forces, there can be no real cooperation here.” Arbatov suggested real cooperation on missile defense can only occur after a treaty is signed to cut each country’s arsenals. The May 24 agreements allow each country to keep downloaded weapons in storage. Russian Col. Gen. Leonid Ivashov, vice president of the Geopolitical Problems Academy, said a major obstacle to cooperation is that Russia does not have plans for a national missile defense system and that the United States probably would not share its technology. Export Control Restrictions Whether the United States or Russia will choose to significantly relax its technology restrictions also remains to be seen. Both countries created stringent arms export regimes during the Cold War, prohibiting exchanges of sensitive technology and information that could be used for military purposes by certain countries. According to the U.S. International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR), it is U.S. policy to deny approval of exports to or imports from a group of about two dozen countries, including Russia, Cuba, Iran, Iraq, Libya and Syria. Bush administration officials and U.S. legislators including Weldon, meanwhile, have criticized Russia for allowing certain military exports to Iran and helping that country build nuclear reactors, which might produce fissile material suitable for nuclear weapons. Export control restrictions like the arms trade regulations have tightly constrained the ability of U.S. and Russian developers to share information and technology, said James McCurry, a Lockheed Martin representative at the conference. They would probably obstruct any close cooperation on missile defense, he said. “Without loosening up ITAR, I can’t really see how they will be able to do that,” he said. Referring to his conference booth promotional posters, McCurry said, “I’ve had to water down this material to the point where it has all been in the public domain,” because foreign visitors were attending, he said. Working within those restrictions, another company at the conference displayed a sign saying it would allow only U.S. citizens into its tent. Company representatives checked IDs and took names. Long-Term Relationship Khrunichev has been “cooperating closely” with U.S. companies — Lockheed Martin in particular — since the fall of the Soviet Union in the early 1990s, Kuzin said. Since 1995, it and Russian company RSC Energia have participated in a joint venture called International Launch Services through which the two parties launch satellites for customers on U.S. Atlas and Russian Proton missiles from their respective countries. The venture’s “dual launch” capability, Kuzin said, has enabled it to offer customers “guaranteed launch dates and a high degree of reliability of the services we offer” and made the venture a success. “Over the years of our cooperation, we have succeeded in establishing a rapport not only as engineers working in the same field but also as business partners and as human beings working side-to-side with each other,” he said. Any close cooperation on missile defense between U.S. and Russian entities should be viewed as “long-term cooperation between equal strategic partners,” and involve transparency and openness, Kuzin said, speaking at the conference. “As we cooperate, we should be provided with the opportunity to share our technologies and technological expertise, and it goes without saying it should be a two-way street,” he said. In an interview with Global Security Newswire, Kuzin suggested the Russian government also would need to abandon its support for adherence to the terms of the ABM Treaty, the purpose of which was to tightly restrict missile defenses against ICBMs. “It has been the Russian government’s decision that all things could be achieved within the framework of the ABM treaty,” he said.
Israel: Officials Deploy Patriot Batteries Near Nuclear PlantIsrael’s Ma’ariv reported today that officials have deployed Patriot missile interceptors near the Dimona nuclear power plant, according to Agence France-Presse (see GSN, Aug. 15). The deployment is part of a training exercise and officials plan to move the interceptors when the exercise ends, an Israeli military spokesman said (Agence France-Presse, Aug. 23). During the 1991 Gulf War, Iraq fired about 40 Scud missiles at Israel. One hit an area near the Dimona plant, which Iraq said was an attempt to destroy it, according to Associated Press. Israel also deployed a battery of Arrow missile interceptors in the central part of the country earlier this month, AP reported (see GSN, June 19). Some have speculated the deployment was preparation for a possible Iraqi missile strike (see related GSN story today; Celean Jacobson, Associated Press/Jordan Times, Aug. 23). For further information, see: Federation of American Scientists Background on Arrow
U.S. Plans: MDA to Award Target Contract by May 2003The U.S. Missile Defense Agency is expected to award a contract by May for managing targets and countermeasures in the U.S. layered missile defense program, Aerospace Daily reported Monday (see GSN, July 17). The main responsibilities of the contractor would be the “design, prototyping, development, procurement, certification, product improvement and qualification testing of a suite of targets and countermeasures that provide (a) threat-realistic challenge to the evolving layered missile defense system,” the agency said last month. The agency is expected later this month to issue a request for proposals for the contract, which could be worth as much as $500 million annually, according to Aerospace Daily. Based on current missile defense test schedules, the agency has estimated that between fiscal 2004 and 2008, it will need 23 targets for short-range ballistic missiles, 19 for medium-range ballistic missiles, two for intermediate-range ballistic missiles and 16 for ICBMs. Those numbers are expected to increase as the agency better defines its testing plans for the next several years (Sharon Weinberger, Aerospace Daily, Aug. 19). For further information, see:
U.S. Plans I: Navy Considering New Interceptor, Aldridge SaysThe U.S. Navy is examining improvements to its sea-based missile defense interceptors, which might lead to production of a new missile, Pentagon acquisition chief Pete Aldridge said yesterday (see GSN, June 19). “A new missile is possible,” Aldridge said at the Army Space and Missile Defense Command conference in Huntsville, Ala. Officials might decide whether to develop a new missile in time to include it in a fiscal 2004 budget proposal, industry and U.S. sources at the conference said. Today is the deadline for services to submit program objectives to the defense secretary, Aldridge said. The U.S. withdrawal from the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty has created opportunities for more effective missile interceptors such as a new naval upper-tier capability, Aldridge said. Increased costs led Aldridge to recommend canceling the Navy Area missile defense program, which used a Raytheon Standard Missile 2 Block 4A missile, he said (see GSN, Dec. 12, 2001). The Raytheon SM-3 missile, however, would be effective for the naval upper-tier defense plan, Aldridge said. The Missile Defense Agency will make the ultimate decision on the acquisition of a new sea-based ballistic missile, said Navy Vice Adm. Phillip Balisle, commander of the Naval Sea Systems Command. The SM-3, however, is the “path ahead,” and sea-based evolution is based on its use, he said. Still Searching for Partners Meanwhile, the Missile Defense Agency is still looking for U.S. allies who want to participate in missile defense, Aldridge said (see GSN, July 31). Several U.S. teams are currently in Europe to discuss cooperation options, including financial contributions and other options for joint development such as radar operation and basing rights (see GSN, March 28). “We’d like to be able to get unique capabilities from any country or industry ... we’re open to that,” Aldridge said (Kerry Gildea, Defense Daily, Aug. 22). For further information, see:
United States: Missile Defense Progress Is “Impressive,” Bush SaysBy Kerry Boyd Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and other defense and security advisers discussed missile defense and military transformation with Bush. Missile defense development is in the “research, development and testing phase,” so it is impossible to know when the United States could deploy a fully operational missile defense system, Rumsfeld said. An eventual system would probably be “broad and be able to deal with relatively limited numbers of ballistic missiles and also short-range — medium and shorter range missiles. And the shorter range defenses are more advanced,” he added. “We’re testing a layered program which involves a terminal phase, midcourse, as well as boost phase. It is a — a program that will become layered. It will start out as a test bed and then evolve over time,” Rumsfeld said. “We’ve had some very good successes with both short-range missiles as well as longer range missiles, intercepting them. And I feel very good about the program.” The United States is also briefing its allies about U.S. missile defense development, Bush said. For further information, see: ABM Treaty Text and Associated Documents (U.S. Defense Department) U.S. Fact Sheet on Withdrawal from ABM Treaty
U.S. Plans II: Military to Postpone PAC-3 Full AcquisitionU.S. and industry sources have said that the Missile Defense Agency and the U.S. Army have decided to postpone full-rate production of the Patriot Advanced Capability 3 missile interceptor for at least another year, Defense Daily reported yesterday (see GSN, July 1). The Army plans to continue low-rate initial production of the PAC-3, but a full acquisition decision has been put on hold for at least another year, sources said. A Pentagon Defense Acquisition Review Board review of the PAC-3 was scheduled for September, but now has been postponed until next summer, sources said. Meanwhile, lawmakers are expected to continue to keep the PAC-3 program under the control of the Missile Defense Agency, sources said at the U.S. Army Space and Missile Defense Command conference in Huntsville, Ala. A House-Senate conference committee to reconcile the fiscal 2003 defense appropriations bills is expected to debate the issue, Defense Daily reported (see GSN, Aug. 7; Kerry Gildea, Defense Daily, Aug. 21). For further information, see:
United States I: More Money Needed for Top Program, Official SaysBy David Ruppe “Clearly, as I said, there is not enough money to do everything,” said Tom Devanney, deputy program director for Ground-Based Missile Defense, speaking at a conference here. “If we have to trade off, we trade off in favor of making sure the test bed [is done],” he said, referring to the many pieces of test infrastructure scheduled to be installed across the Pacific. The current planned level of resources, however, will not harm the quality of the program, he added. “I believe we can build the test bed and continue to move forward on the development program in a very businesslike … way,” he said. Work Proceeding Work on the GMD program is proceeding rapidly, with five of six missile silos dug at Fort Greely, Alaska and other new facilities scheduled to be in place across the Pacific by the deadline, Devanney said (see GSN, Aug. 19). Planned facilities include a powerful focal array radar at Shemya Island, Alaska, an additional site for launching dummy warhead targets on Kodiak Island, Alaska, additional warhead interceptor missiles based at Vandenberg Air Force Base in California, additional satellite communications systems across the Pacific and fiber optic links from facilities in Alaska to the rest of the continental United States. So far, for all seven intercept test flights, officials have launched all targets from Vandenberg and all interceptors from the Reagan Test Site at Kwajalein Atoll in the Marshall Islands. Expanding the ground-based missile defense test bed is Devanney’s top priority, he said. “The immediate objective is to put the test bed on the ground by September ’04, give us the capability to expand the test geometries, give us an emergency capability to defend the country,” he said. The ground-launched interceptor program, still in the research and development stage, is considered the Pentagon’s most high-profile and advanced missile defense program — and one of its most expensive. A seventh intercept test, scheduled for next month, is to involve a space-based missile warning sensor, the Joint National Integration Facility in Colorado Springs, Colo., and ground-based X-band early warning radar and a battle management, command, control and communications system, both at Kwajalein Atoll, according to the Pentagon (see related GSN story, today). The test also will involve the first use of a ship-based advanced radar system to gather data on the target and interceptor missile. De facto Deployment Denied Bush administration officials have been clear that the test bed components also will serve as an emergency capability that might be activated to meet an emerging ballistic missile threat from Asia. During a question and answer session, however, Devanney reiterated the administration’s view that those systems are not intended as a disguised missile defense deployment. “Let me take exception to the word deployment,” he said. “That is not what we are doing, we are building a test bed and when it is activated, it will be used for testing, not deployment.” Critics have charged the administration with seeking to deploy a missile defense capability to meet Bush’s stated goal of having an emergency capability in place by 2004, even though the technology will not be fully proven by then. “Deployment means you are going to man it with soldiers, sailors, Marines, airmen. You are going to turn it on and operate it 24 hours a day … and plan to operate it for an expanded period of time as a part of the defense of the United States,” Devanney told Global Security Newswire. “That’s not what we’re doing by 2004. What we’re doing is building a test bed that has an inherent limited defensive capability if we should need it. But that’s not its primary intent.” Officials are building the facility at Fort Greely, which is scheduled to include at least five interceptor missiles by September 2004, primarily for testing, but the site has not yet been selected for deployment, Devanney said. “The decision has not been made to do that,” he said. The five intercept missiles scheduled to be in place at Fort Greely also are not planned to be used for live intercept testing, Devanney said. The agency might face difficulties with a stringent environmental safety review over concerns parts of the missiles could fall near populated areas. “Right now, we have no firm plans to ever launch out of Fort Greely for a test,” he said. Fort Greely is a “validation of operational concept test site, which doesn’t involve flight testing, it involves ground testing, reliability, maintainability testing, of the entire system including the interceptors,” Devanney said. “Can we place interceptors in those silos in an in an arctic winter, can we pull on out and maintain it if we need to. How do they stand up in an arctic environment?”
United States II: Pentagon Delays Ground-Based Midcourse TestPossible damage to equipment has prompted a delay in the next flight test of a prototype ballistic-missile interceptor, the U.S. Defense Department announced yesterday. Previously scheduled for Aug. 24, the test would be the seventh in the Ground-based Midcourse Defense program (see GSN, Aug. 19). The Missile Defense Agency plans to delay the test by 30 to 45 days to replace rocket motors on the interceptor’s booster, which is a modified Minuteman II ICBM, according to Aerospace Daily. The seals on the booster’s exhaust nozzle have possibly been damaged, according to the Pentagon. The Missile Defense Agency cannot know for certain whether the seals have been damaged until the interceptor booster is removed from its silo, according to agency spokesman Air Force Lt. Col. Rick Lehner. Even if the seals appear to be safe, officials plan to replace the booster’s rocket motors in case there is hidden damage, Lehner said (Sharon Weinberger, Aerospace Daily, Aug. 21). Meanwhile, Bloomberg.com reported new details Monday about the planned interceptor test, in which the Pentagon plans to use the Aegis radar system installed on the USS Lake Erie in the Pacific Ocean. Officials Data from the Aegis system will be transmitted to a Lockheed Martin facility in New Jersey, where it will be used in simulations to determine how well the system would have guided an actual interceptor, Missile Defense Agency Director Air Force Lt. Gen. Ronald Kadish said. The test will use a dummy warhead that will be smaller than those used in previous tests, making it harder to detect and destroy, Kadish said. “It’s a different set of characteristics,” he said. “These targets are relatively small. It will be difficult for the system in different ways.” The next interceptor test will use about the same number of decoy balloons as the previous one, according to Bloomberg.com. In March, the Pentagon added two small decoys to a single large one used in earlier tests (see GSN, March 15). Kadish has said the interceptor tests will employ progressively more difficult decoys (Tony Capaccio, Bloomberg.com, Aug. 19). For further information, see: U.S. Missile Defense 2002 Budget
U.S. Plans: Top U.S. Defense Leaders to Brief Bush on Missile DefenseSenior missile defense officials plan to brief U.S. President George W. Bush on the progress of missile defense programs at a meeting today with top defense advisers, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld told reporters yesterday (see GSN, Aug. 20). Bush might “give any guidance or direction he may care to give after learning how the program has developed to this point,” he said, adding that the meeting is routine (U.S. Defense Department release, Aug. 20). Bush is scheduled to meet in Crawford, Texas, with Rumsfeld, Vice President Dick Cheney, Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Richard Myers and national security adviser Condoleezza Rice to discuss missile defense development and other efforts (see related GSN story, today). Missile Defense Agency Director Lt. Gen. Ronald Kadish and Assistant Secretary of Defense J.D. Crouch are also scheduled to attend (Adam Nagourney, New York Times, Aug. 21). Because missile defense testing will continue for years, the president does not need to make any major decisions on what a final system would look like yet, officials said. “There are no decisions that I know of that are pending or imminent at all,” MDA spokesman Lt. Col. Rick Lehner said. The administration’s focus on missile defense is part of a broader strategy to modernize the military, according to the Los Angeles Times. The officials are also expected to discuss the lessons of the military campaign in Afghanistan and how they can be applied to future conflicts, White House spokesman Ari Fleischer said yesterday (Schrader/Gerstenzang, Los Angeles Times, Aug. 21). Cruise Missiles In the wake of a report Monday that Rumsfeld has recently called for more focus on cruise missile defenses, he said yesterday that there are no plans to discuss cruise missiles during today’s meeting (see GSN, Aug. 19). Rumsfeld emphasized, however, that the weapons do pose a threat. An enemy could launch cruise missiles from land, sea or air, and they can carry nuclear, chemical, biological and conventional warheads, he said. “They’re highly accurate. And they can, with minor adaptations, achieve considerable range,” Rumsfeld said. He reiterated that the United States must defend against both traditional and asymmetrical threats such as cruise missiles, ballistic missiles, terrorism and cyberattacks (U.S. Defense Department release). Iraq The White House repeated comments yesterday that officials at the Crawford meeting do not plan to discuss efforts to oust Iraqi President Saddam Hussein. “Look, we’ve had war councils on Iraq, and we let people know,” Fleischer said. “This is the case of the media chasing its own imagination.” Gen. Tommy Franks, who leads the military in the Middle East, will not attend, Fleischer added (Nagourney, New York Times). For further information, see: U.S. Missile Defense 2002 Budget
U.S. Plans: Pentagon Turns Attention to Cruise Missile ThreatU.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld sent a classified memo to the White House last month calling for increased efforts to defend against cruise missiles, the Washington Post reported yesterday, citing U.S. officials familiar with the memo (see GSN, July 11). The memo raised the issue of cruise missiles, which has been gathering more attention recently, to a higher level and created more debate within the government, according to the Post. “The issue has gotten people’s attention,” a senior administration official said. “It’s something that has recently bubbled to the surface as a result of Rumsfeld throwing it out for discussion.” The National Security Council convened an interagency “working level” meeting this month in response to the memo to discuss “how to get our hands around the issue and figure out who will take the lead on what aspects,” the administration official said. The Threat There is no new intelligence information in particular that led to Rumsfeld’s memo, but an “accumulation” of intelligence indicates an increasing interest in cruise missiles by countries and organizations hostile to the United States, another U.S. official said. U.S. intelligence agencies have estimated that 12 to 24 countries will have land-attack cruise missiles by 2015. At least 81 countries have some type of cruise missile, but most are designed to hit ships at a range of less than 60 miles. Land-attack missiles concern U.S. officials most because they might be able to carry weapons of mass destruction against the U.S. homeland or other installations, the Post reported. Officials are also concerned that hostile countries or terrorist organizations might convert aircraft or anti-ship missiles into unmanned aerial vehicles that could deliver weapons of mass destruction. “Your car has in it all the sophisticated technology that’s necessary to feed a little actuator inside of a guidance system to make a missile fly more or less where you want it to go,” a Rumsfeld aide said. Iraqi researchers tried to convert a Czech L-29 trainer aircraft into an unmanned vehicle to deliver chemical or biological agents, and the Japanese cult Aum Shinrikyo tried to obtain several years ago a remotely piloted helicopter to deliver chemical weapons, according to the Post. “We see this as a potential near-term threat, a poor man’s cruise missile — a UAV acquired off the shelf and then modified to deliver chemical or biological agents,” a government official who studies cruise missile development said. “We have every reason to believe that terrorists could try to acquire or obtain this capability.” The Defense The Bush administration has made developing a system to defend against ballistic missiles, which are usually more costly to develop than cruise missiles, a top priority, but defending against cruise missiles requires different strategies, according to the Post. Enhancing defenses against cruise missiles would require linking various detection systems, such as the Air Force AWACS and the ship-based Aegis radar, to create a “single integrated air picture” that would be better at distinguishing between friendly and hostile aircraft, the Post reported. “The problem with cruise missile defense is it needs an integrated, interservice approach but has remained spread among the services,” said Dennis Gormley, a senior fellow at the London-based International Institute for Strategic Studies. Lt. Gen. Joseph Cosumano, head of the Army Space and Missile Defense Command, last month called for the creation of single Pentagon agency to coordinate defense against cruise missiles, similar to the Missile Defense Agency that was established to develop ballistic missile defenses. “We ought to balance our capabilities” to meet both cruise and ballistic missile defenses, he said. The Rumsfeld aide, however, said the Pentagon is more likely to try improving coordination among existing programs rather than create a new agency. A study on cruise missile defense was ordered in May, and a Joint Staff organization that was chartered six years ago to deal with the issue has been given more responsibility to develop new homeland air defense concepts. Other agencies outside the Defense Department would have to participate in efforts to deal with the cruise missile threat, defense officials said. “If we’re going to deal with this — and we are — it’s going to require a government-wide effort,” the Rumsfeld aide said. Another step might be strengthening efforts under the Missile Technology Control Regime to prevent proliferation, several experts said (Bradley Graham, Washington Post, Aug. 18). For further information, see: U.S. State Department MTCR Summary Carnegie Endowment World Missile Chart
United States: Ground-based Midcourse Test Set; Alaska Site ProgressesThe U.S. Defense Department said Friday that the next test of a prototype missile interceptor is scheduled to take place Aug. 24 (see GSN, Aug. 14). The intercept test, which will be the seventh in the Ground-based Midcourse Defense program, will involve use of a U.S. Navy cruiser equipped with the Aegis radar system (see GSN, Aug. 6). The use of sea-based radar had been prohibited under the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty before the United States withdrew from the treaty in June. “While the cruiser’s radar will not take part in directing the interceptor to its target, the data gathered will be used to confirm the potential role the SPY-1 radar and the Aegis weapon system could play against long-range missile targets,” the Missile Defense Agency said (Agence France-Presse, Aug. 17). The interceptor will attempt to destroy a mock warhead on a Minuteman 2 intercontinental ballistic missile launched from Vandenberg Air Force Base in California, the Pentagon said. The ICBM is slated to carry decoys along with the target, according to the Associated Press. Crews plan to launch the interceptor from the Kwajalein test range in the Marshall Islands to destroy the warhead 140 miles above the Pacific Ocean (see GSN, July 22; Associated Press/Yahoo.com, Aug. 16). Helium Leak Forces Rescheduling The test date, which previously had been scheduled for mid-August, was rescheduled because of a leak in the helium tank of the interceptor’s Exoatomospheric Kill Vehicle, Aerospace Daily reported last week (see GSN, Dec. 12, 2001). Missile Defense Agency spokesman Chris Taylor confirmed that there had been a leak, but he said it was repaired “early this month.” He denied that the leak had delayed the test. The agency’s policy is to announce a flight test a week before it takes place, and because no date had been announced, there could be no delay, according to Taylor. “You can encounter a number of technical issues in the process of preparing for a test,” he said (Sharon Weinberger, Aerospace Daily, Aug. 14). Work Progresses at Fort Greely Base Meanwhile, workers at a test missile complex at Fort Greely, Alaska, have installed the metal liner for the first of six missile silos, the Associated Press reported yesterday (see GSN, March 5). “They are right on schedule,” said Tom York, an engineer with the Missile Defense Agency Site Activation Command. Each of the silos is slated to be fitted with the metal tubes and sleeves, according to AP. Officials plan to use five of the silos to house missiles and to use the sixth as a spare. “This is big-time getting this liner in. We’ve been drilling these holes for two months,” York said. The missile silos and the test complex’s Readiness and Control Center are scheduled to be completed by the end of this summer, AP reported. “It’s been a good summer all the way around,” York said (Associated Press, Aug. 18). For further information, see: U.S. Missile Defense 2002 Budget ABM Treaty Text and Associated Documents (U.S. Defense Department) U.S. Fact Sheet on Withdrawal from ABM Treaty
About Newswire | Contact National Journal | Re-Use Guidelines
HOME | CONTACT US | GET INVOLVED | SITE MAP |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Back to top