Theater & Continental Balistic Missile Defence . . . and Canada

[CougarKing]

Related News...

Russia may quit START III after US deploys destroyer in Europe

(voiceofrussia.com)


Deployment of the Navy destroyer USS Donald Cook, equipped with the Aegis shipboard integrated combat weapons system, was announced by the US Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel at the Munich Security Conference.

"An important posture enhancement is European missile defense in response to ballistic missile threats from Iran,” Hagel said, adding that the US is committed “to deploying missile defense architecture there,” as a part of Phase 3 of the European Phased Adaptive Approach (EPAA).
<snipped>
"We are concerned that the US is continuing to build up missile defense capability without considering the interests and concerns of Russia,” Ulyanov told Interfax. "Such a policy can undermine strategic stability and lead to a situation where Russia will be forced to exercise [its] right of withdrawal from the [START] treaty.”

Ulyanov said that the legal basis for Moscow scraping the START treaty is legislated for within the text of the agreement, which Russia says it has so far fully implemented. In certain exceptional cases, involving a known threat to national security, both Russia and the US have the option to quit the treaty.

 

[a_majoor]

Given the growing threat of AA/AD (anti-access/area denial) weapons in multiple theatres (mostly ballistic missile delivered), there is going to be much more emphasis on at least theatre BMD. As a potential coalition partner in these adventures, we will need to know and understand how to work under the "umbrella" and also may need to develop useful capabilities to either add to existing BMD systems or have our own to keep covered when the allied systems are not available (for example when steaming to or from the AO).

As a minimum, long range sensors and communications linkages to the existing systems to provide continuing coverage should be high on our list of things to do. Adding long range interceptors would be number two, and getting on board with future weapons developments like high energy lasers or rail guns to intercept incoming AA/AD weapons would be a distant number three.

 

[CougarKing]

An update from REUTERS:

Exclusive: Pentagon to boost missile defense spending by over $4 billion: sources

WASHINGTON - The U.S. Defense Department plans to ask Congress for $4.5 billion in extra missile defense funding over the next five years as part of the fiscal 2015 budget request, say congressional sources and an expert.

Nearly $1 billion of that sum will pay for a new homeland defense radar to be placed in Alaska, with an additional $560 million to fund work on a new interceptor after several failed flight tests, said Riki Ellison, founder of the nonprofit Missile Defense Advocacy Alliance, and two of the congressional sources, who were not authorized to speak publicly.

The Pentagon's request for added funding comes despite continued pressure on military spending and cuts in other arms programs, a sign of Washington's growing concern about missile development efforts by North Korea and Iran, the sources said.


(...)- SNIPPED

The kill vehicle is part of the larger ground-based missile defense system managed by Boeing Co. Orbital Sciences Corp builds the rockets used by the system.

Michael Gilmore, the Defense Department's chief weapons tester, last week questioned the robustness of the Raytheon kill vehicle after a series of test failures, and said the Pentagon should consider a redesign.

"We need a new interceptor that actually works," said one of the congressional sources, adding that both of the existing kill vehicle models also needed to be fixed and tested since the replacement would need about five years to be made ready.

Ellison said the issue needed to be addressed quickly, given the Obama administration's push to buy 14 additional ground-based interceptors to beef up U.S. defenses against a potential missile strike from North Korea.

(...)

Twenty of the existing 30 ground-based interceptors carry the CE-1 version of the kill vehicle which failed to separate from the rest of the rocket in a flight test last July, said one of the congressional sources.

The other ten interceptors are equipped with a newer CE-2 kill vehicle, which has also suffered several problems and flight test failures, said the source.

The Missile Defense Agency aims to test fixes developed for the CE-2 kill vehicle this summer, after it wraps up its review of the July flight test failure, said agency spokesman Rick Lehner. That is months later than initially planned.

(...)

 

[tomahawk6]

Ok there are problems with the kill vehicle.If Iran were to launch say 5 ballistic missiles at the US multiple missiles would be launched at each target.We have the capability to defeat a limited missile attack.Russia would be able to overwhelm the defenses with sheer numbers.The PRC as yet doesnt have enough missiles to overwhelm the defenses IMO.The system will defend against rogue state attacks.Of course once such attack occured there would be retaliation.Now an EMP attack is a different animal entirely.

 

[CougarKing]

BMD being discussed on Parliament hill again?

Defense News

Official: Canada Revisiting Ballistic Missile Defense
May. 8, 2014 - 01:54PM  |  By AGENCE FRANCE-PRESSE 

OTTAWA — Canada is revisiting a decade-old decision not to join the US ballistic missile defense program, a top official in Ottawa said on Thursday.

James Bezan, parliamentary secretary to the minister of national defense, told a defense summit in Ottawa that the issue has come up again before both Senate and House of Commons committees.


“The government hasn’t made any decision” on the matter, Bezan said, explaining that it is waiting for the parliamentary committees to report back.

Bezan said there has been some concern about the “accuracy” of missiles being developed by some rogue countries that could target Canada’s neighbor, the United States, and end up striking Canada, he said.

He also expressed concern that Canadian officials would be “sidelined” in the decision-making responding to any missile threat incoming to North America.

A change in policy would require political consensus, however, which appears elusive.

Without political agreement — or if the issue becomes a political hot potato — Bezan predicted that the status quo would prevail.

(...EDITED)

 

[McG]

US DoD would like to update the missile warning technology watching Canada's North.

U.S. military to ask Canada for new missile sensors in the Arctic
CTV News
07 Apr 2015

WASHINGTON -- The U.S. military is preparing to ask that new sensors be installed in the Canadian Arctic that would be able to track different types of incoming missiles.

A senior defence official said Tuesday the request is being made to U.S. policy leaders -- as well as the Canadian government. He said it's too early in the process to set a target date.

"I don't think we have a timetable just yet," said Admiral William Gortney, the head of the Canada-U.S. Norad program and of Northern Command -- the Colorado-based body with tracking responsibility for the U.S. missile-defence program.

"We're just now bringing it up through our policy leaders as well as with the Canadian government."

He told a news conference at the Pentagon that it's nearly time to replace the aging sensors in the Canada-U.S. North Warning System, along the old Arctic distant early warning line, the Cold-War era DEW Line.

He said he'd prefer to replace them with newer versions that could not only see farther, over the horizon, but also be able to track shorter-range cruise missiles.

"In a few years -- I'd say 10 years is the number -- (the current equipment is) going to reach a point of obsolescence and we're going to have to reinvest for that capability," Gortney said.

"The question is, what sort of technology do we want to use to reconstitute that capability? We don't want to put in the same sorts of sensors because they're not effective against the low-altitude, say, cruise missiles. They can't see over the horizon."

The U.S. military has in the past voiced a hope for more flexible sensors in the Arctic, but Gortney's remarks suggested that a more formal request is in the works.

Canada refused a decade ago to join the American ballistic missile defence, or BMD, although it does play a role in monitoring the airspace through Norad. The Arctic sensors would deliver tracking information to the missile-defence program.

Defence Minister Jason Kenney recently said the government would look at modernizing Norad's capacity to detect potential threats.

He also reiterated that it was examining the long-standing opposition to participation in ballistic missile defence and would await the findings of a study by the House of Commons defence committee.

"But up to now, we haven't seen information that has changed our opinion on BMD," Kenney told a news conference call last month.

http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/u-s-military-to-ask-canada-for-new-missile-sensors-in-the-arctic-1.2316106

 

[tomahawk6]

NORAD/NORTHCOM are moving communications equipment and servers back into Cheyenne Mountain,in a move to EMP proofcommand and control.

http://news.yahoo.com/us-aerospace-command-moving-comms-gear-back-cold-015320113.html

 

[George Wallace]

I still can't fathom why those systems were moved above ground in the first place.

 

[McG]

Complacency. 

 

[tomahawk6]

I still can't fathom why those systems were moved above ground in the first place.

I agree it was a dumb move.I am glad though that someone woke up to the threat.Hopefully the subordinate commands will also move to EMP proof their communications and power generation.In an EMP attack the US power grid would be destroyed as well as cell towers ect.Facing this possibility it would almost be smart to launch a pre-emptive strike - if you could identify the attacker.EMP is the perfect weapon for asymetrical warfare.

 

[CougarKing]

In the aftermath of the missile explosion recently above the USS The Sullivans, her sister ship does another test:

Military.com

US Military Tests Ballistic Missile Interceptor Off Hawaii

HONOLULU — The U.S. military said Monday it successfully tested an interceptor that can shoot down ballistic missiles as well as airplanes.
The destroyer USS John Paul Jones tested the technology during a series of flight tests off the Hawaiian island of Kauai over the past week, the Missile Defense Agency said in a statement.

The tests used a modified version of the SM-6 missile the Navy already uses, said Heather Uberuaga, a spokeswoman for military contractor Raytheon Missile Systems.

The existing version can shoot down airplanes, helicopters and cruise missiles. The newer model tested off Hawaii may also destroy ballistic missiles in their last few seconds of flight.

(...SNIPPED)

 

[CougarKing]

Here's a notable update, plus a pitch further below for the US to focus more missile defense in the wake of North Korea's successful satellite launch last week:

Defense News

Maine Off List For Possible Ballistic Missile Defense Site on East Coast
Jen Judson, Defense News 5:07 p.m. EST January 15, 2016

WASHINGTON -- The Missile Defense Agency has determined, due to environmental and cost concerns, to take a site in Maine off its list of possible future East Coast ballistic missile defense sites, according to an agency statement.

The Center for Security Forces Detachment Kittery Survival, Evasion, Resistance and Escape Facility (SERE East) in Redington Township, Maine, was under consideration for a possible missile interceptor site, but after a survey conducted by the MDA and other federal and state agencies, it was determined that the site “presented irreversible environmental impacts, significant constructability concerns, and extensive costs associated with developing infrastructure in a remote area,” the statement reads.

(...SNIPPED)

Defense News

Commentary: Congress Must Prioritize Ballistic Missile Defense
By Kenneth Todorov 5:06 p.m. EST February 8, 2016


As we turn the page to a New Year, members of Congress and their staffs will face a myriad of difficult questions regarding how best to protect our homeland from a growing number of threats to our national security. In this era of declining budgets, it is critical our top national priorities are sufficiently resourced to provide those at the “tip of the spear” with the tools to protect our homeland from existing and emerging threats.

One such threat emanates from the growing number of ballistic missiles being developed by rogue adversaries. Given that this threat is growing in both quantity and sophistication, funding for our nation’s ballistic missile defenses must remain at the top of America’s priority list.

(...SNIPPED)

 

[MarkOttawa]

Why Canada should join US BMD:

Would the U.S. defend us from North Korean missiles? Don’t bet on it.
...
Canada is not a part of the defence function which resides in U.S. Northern Command. The assumption that the U.S. would defend Canada against a deliberate or (more likely) an errant shot from North Korea is problematic because the U.S. has only a limited number of interceptor missiles to defend against an unknown number of North Korean ICBMs — and a sure kill might require several shots at an incoming ICBM, with some interceptors held in reserve against unknown contingencies. The defence functions according to pre-scripted algorithms, leaving no time for political consultations.

For Canada to be protected, participation in the defence is the only sure route. That would involve a negotiated set of parameters which would cover Canadian cities — not just the ones covered by default because of their proximity to the border...

Canada stands alone among major U.S. allies in shunning active participation in missile defence, except in European NATO territory. It’s time we got off the fence.


What would it take? An earlier round of negotiations, aborted under Prime Minister Paul Martin, made it clear that Canada would have to make a contribution of some kind. The first contribution would be to allow Canadian personnel at NORAD to immediately staff missile defence billets. Following on could be some form of radar or communications nodes, both of which are key components of the system. It wouldn’t necessarily require deploying interceptors at Canadian bases.

Liberal politicians have, in the past, accepted that Canada should have said yes to missile defence under PM Martin. The time has come.

Michael Dawson was the Canadian political advisor [from Foreign Affairs] to the commander of NORAD and U.S. Northern Command from 2010 to 2014.

Mark
Ottawa

 

[CougarKing]

Related: why Canada needs to join the US BMD/THAAD program for protection against North Korea...

Canadian Global Affairs Institute/Mark Collins blog

Defence, Diplomacy, International Affairs, NATO, Nuclear Weapons
Mark Collins – Canada Should Just Say “Yes” to Missile Defence, North Korea in Mind
February 14, 2016 Global Affairs StaffLeave a comment

A retired Canadian diplomat, most recently our government’s political adviser to NORAD’s (and US NORTHCOM’s) American commander, makes the case:

    Would the U.S. defend us from North Korean missiles? Don’t bet on it.

    North Korea may or may not have tested a thermonuclear weapon — but it’s clear that the regime intends to continue its quest for the most powerful of all weapons.


(...SNIPPED)

 

[a_majoor]

Actually, if you parse the "reasoning" the LPC gave for not buying F-35's, the thing that stood out was they see no need for offensive action but rather the ability to contribute to the air defense of North America (the NORAD mission).

By that line of reasoning, the RCAF should also need ballistic defense missile batteries on each coast and one near the geographical centre (to catch "leakers"). Backups like laser equipped heavy transport jets and RCN warships equipped with the AEGIS system will be needed as well, if we were actually to take the Liberals at their word.

 

[MarkOttawa]

CBC piece features prominent peaceniks Peggy Mason and Doug Roche towards end, balance one assumes:

Analysis
North Korea nuclear threat renews debate on Canada's participation in U.S. missile defence
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/north-korea-u-s-canada-missile-defence-1.4229904

Earlier:

“Time to say ‘yes’ to a missile shield, Canada”
https://cgai3ds.wordpress.com/2016/04/21/mark-collins-time-to-say-yes-to-a-missile-shield-canada/

Mark
Ottawa

 

[a_majoor]

Not wanting to participate in missile defense was always a stupid policy, we have people and territory of our own to defend, not become an engagement zone for American ABM interceptors, especially as the threat continues to grow and proliferate.

Given the rapidly advancing technology, Canada might consider something along the line of "David's Sling", which is effective against cruise missiles, tactical and theatre ballistic missiles, and arming some ships with the SM-3 Standard missile, which allows you to shift your defensive shield to a limited extent and pre position things where you foresee trouble coming. American GBI (Ground Based Interceptors, the large ABMs based in Alaska) or Israeli Arrow-3 long range interceptors also exist, and could be placed in fixed sites in Canada where warranted.

It is crazy to continue to think in terms of the 1960's, either in policy or technology, when discussing missile defense.

 

[MarkOttawa]

Thucydides: As for RCN CSCs and missile defence:

Technology and Politics – Canadian Ballistic Missile Defence
...
Fast forward to 2015 and the RCN is in the design stages of the program that will see the construction of new Air Defence/Command and Control Destroyers. Work on those new ships will raise the questions of Ballistic Missile Defence once again. Should the ships be made capable of participating in the Anti-Ballistic Missile battle?

The real question should be “Can we responsibly prevent the ships from being capable in an ABM role?”..
https://defencemuse.wordpress.com/2015/03/10/technology-and-politics-canadian-ballistic-missile-defence/

A friend with relevant knowledge noted some time ago that the US side of NORAD would very much welcome the CSCs' having a missile defence capability--against cruise missiles also.

Mark
Ottawa

 

[daftandbarmy]

The most effective, and most difficult, form of ballistic missile defense is (of course) effective international diplomacy.

Sadly, we seem to have lost that competency somewhere between to Berlin Wall coming down and Guantanamo Bay....

 

[George Wallace]

The most effective, and most difficult, form of ballistic missile defense is (of course) effective international diplomacy.

Sadly, we seem to have lost that competency somewhere between to Berlin Wall coming down and Guantanamo Bay....

[  :goodpost: