East Coast Interceptor Site: Some Observation’s from this Week’s Congressional Hearings (May 11, 2013)

A possible east coast site for interceptors for the current U.S. Ground-Based Midcourse Defense (GMD) national missile defense system was the subject of multiple questions at Thursday’s (May 9, 2013) hearing of the Strategic Forces Subcommittee of the Senate Armed Services Committee.  Administration and military officials emphasized that the east coast of the United States was already protected by the current GMD system.  They also said that if a decision to deploy such an east coast interceptor site was made, it would take five to seven years to build and would also involve the deployment of a new X-band radar in the eastern United States.

 Senator Mark Udall began by asking Lt. General Richard Formica (Commander of U.S. Army Space and Missile Defense Command and of the Joint Functional Component Command for Integrated Missile Defense, of the U.S. Strategic Command):  “Secretary of Defense Hagel, Admiral Winnefeld and General Jacoby have all said recently that the current ground- based midcourse defense system defends all of the U.S., including the East Coast, against missile threats from both North Korea and Iran. In your capacity as commander within Strategic Command, you represent the warfighter perspective on our missile defense capabilities and requirements. Do you have confidence in our current GMD system to defend all of the United States, including the East Coast, against current and near-term ballistic missile threats from both North Korea and Iran?”

 General Formica replied: “Yes, Mr. Chairman.  Thank you for the question. We do have confidence in the ability of the ballistic missile defense system to defend the United States against a limited attack from both North Korea and Iran today and in the near future. “

 Madelyn Creedon, Assistant Defense Secretary for Global Strategic Affairs, added (referring to the additional fourteen interceptors in Alaska that the Administration announced in March): “The East Coast is well-protected as the result of — well, it was protected before the additional — and this additional fourteen provides additional protection both for anything from North Korea as well as anything from Iran should that threat develop.”

 In response to a question from Senator Deb Fischer, General Formica stated (referring to the required Environmental Impact Statement) that “depending on the assumptions and how fast the EIS goes, five to seven years” would be needed to deploy an east coast interceptor site, with eighteen to twenty four months of this time needed for the Environmental Impact Statement.   He also estimated that about 500 military and civilian personnel would be required to operate the site.

(A day earlier, in a House Armed Services Committee hearing, Representative Doug Lamborn urged Missile Defense Agency Director Vice Admiral James Syring to recommend that President Obama waive the requirement for an environmental impact statement in order to speed up the possible deployment of the east coast site.  Admiral Syring seemed to be unaware that this was possible (and I don’t know if it is either)).

 General Formica also indicated that such a deployment would involve a new X-band radar in the eastern United States:

Senator Fischer:  “OK.  And would such a site benefit from the deployment of an X-band radar on the East Coast?”

General Formica:  “Yes, ma’am.  Back to my point on sensoring and assessment and discrimination capability, an X-band radar, frankly, anywhere east would greatly benefit the threat that I and we in the agency see coming.  And certainly that would be part of it.”

 

Advertisements
Leave a comment

2 Comments

  1. Allen Thomson

     /  May 11, 2013

    > General Formica: “Yes, ma’am. Back to my point on sensoring and assessment and discrimination capability, an X-band radar, frankly, anywhere east would greatly benefit the threat that I and we in the agency see coming. And certainly that would be part of it.”

    Hmm. It would be interesting to see an analysis of what that radar would be and how it would be used. Perhaps something like SBX but looking at late midcourse to support shoot-look-shoot in conjunction with Ft. Greely???

    Reply
  2. Corky Boyd

     /  May 12, 2013

    ‘five to seven years” would be needed to deploy an east coast interceptor site, with eighteen to twenty four months of this time needed for the Environmental Impact Statement.

    World War II would have been a lot shorter if we had 2 year lags from Environmental Impact Statements. Only difference the outcome would have been different.

    Things can be done faster. The original Polaris Missile system was in operation less than three years after approved. It beat its target by one year. And that was with a full load of 16 armed missiles, with a trained crew, on station off Norway, with a satellite nav system (Transit), a ships inertial nav system for sub nav and missile guidance inputs. It wan’t easy. The IOC of the Fort Greely Mid Course Interceptor site came less than 4 years after Bush took office, and 3 years after we effectively withdrew from the ABM Treaty.

    We can do better than 5 to 7 years.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: