World Affairs Board - View Single Post

Galrahn · 02-05-2007, 23:00 PM

A Quick Review of AEGIS Missile Defense.

The US Navy is in the middle of a missile defense program based on the AEGIS Platform. As of the end of 2006, the program is on track for implementation on 16 AEGIS warships. That implementation will ultimately consist of 18 AEGIS warships able to support version 3.6 of AEGIS BMD software able to support SM-3 BMD interceptors.

Current BMD Ships:

San Diego, California, U.S.A.

DDG 53 - USS John Paul Jones
DDG 65 - USS Benfold
DDG 69 - USS Milius
DDG 73 - USS Decatur
DDG 76 - USS Higgins

Pearl Harbor, Hawaii, U.S.A.

CG 70 - USS Lake Erie
CG 73 - USS Port Royal
DDG 59 - USS Russell
DDG 60 - USS Paul Hamilton
DDG 70 - USS Hopper
DDG 77 - USS O'Kane

Yokosuka, Japan

CG 67 - USS Shiloh
DDG 54 - USS Curtis Wilbur
DDG 56 - USS John S. McCain
DDG 62 - USS Fitzgerald
DDG 63 - USS Stethem

These 16 ships represent 3 cruisers and all 13 Flight I and Flight II DDGs in the Pacific Fleet. The remaining 2 ships to be selected have not been named. As of the 2006 baseline, all three cruisers and the USS Decatur (DDG 73), USS Curtis Wilbur (DDG 54), and USS Stethem (DDG 63) finished 2006 with v3.6 - Long Range Surveillance and Track (LRS&T), which is full capability able to support SM-3s. The next two ships to get the upgrade, which I believe either happened last month or happens this month is the USS Fitzgerald (DDG 62) and USS John S. McCain (DDG 56).

This limited deployment, limited to 18 ships, is designed to proceed slowly in AEGIS BMD as part of continous upgrades of the AEGIS system. The intention is to prevent BMD from becoming a focus of AEGIS, while gradually improving the capability of the Navy to address Theater Ballistic Missile threats as part of a larger network, and eventually, when the technology comes online, to incorporate intercontinental intercept capability. For interceptors, the Navy has chosen to upgrade Block IV-ER Standards to the SM-3 system instead of investing in new missiles heavily while the SM-6 and other systems continue development. Again, this is to insure money isn't over invested into BMD technology while still maintaining an investment.

The plan is to have v3.6 - Long Range Surveillance and Track (LRS&T) on all 18 ships able to support interceptors by 2010 in a gradual upgrade. The next baseline benchmark ends in 2008 with all 18 ships supporting LRS&T, but not all with interceptors.

The big push for action in AEGIS BMD is coming from 2 sides, neither of which is happy with the current implementation. On one side you have a contingent looking to increase the funding and expand the list of AEGIS warships deploying AEGIS BMD. The push would imply that all CGs in the modernization and eventually DDGs in their modernization that follows should get AEGIS BMD upgrades. It is estimated this would cost at least 6.6 billion just to install the software throughout the fleet, and even more for ship board interceptors.

The other side doesn't want to see BMD become the centerpiece of AEGIS, and tends to reject AEGIS BMD in general. There has been a lot of talk to make AEGIS BMD a centerpiece of the CG(X) program. This is very unpopular for obvious reasons, While the Navy wants the CG(X) to feature AEGIS BMD, it doesn't want the mission profile to define the platform, and doesn't want to be forced to invest Naval specific funding into the technology, instead taking the relatively small budget increments that flow into AEGIS BMD from the Missile Defense Agency.

If you evaluate the MDA budget, comparing Naval BMD to land based BMD, it is clear THAAD and other ground based BMD gets the majority of funding. From the Navy perspective, while they would take the money, they don't want it if it becomes a determining factor regarding the development of AEGIS. The Navy is comfortable with this actually, although many critics are not. An example is how much funding went into AEGIS BMD early to incorporate the Army and USMC Patriot Defense System as an interceptor for AEGIS BMD, which reduced the pressing need to spend big money on a Navy interceptor ahead of its schedule for the SM-6.

In many ways, I think the Navy has it exactly right, and in a rare show has presented a very wise limited approach to AEGIS BMD.

I'd point out that Adm. Fallon specifically has been one of the better statesman on the subject, pointing out the versatility it provides the Navy in crisis response and assurance to allies without actually being a proven system. The leverage provided by offshore AEGIS BMD during last years North Korean 'demonstrations' utilizing limited AEGIS BMD deployments as a political tool was successful, although unclear how much, in changing the public international discourse to the 'demonstration' by both Japan and China.

That effect is a return on investment from a political perspective. AEGIS BMD gives the US political cover to respond with a purely defensive military response (AEGIS BMD and Patriot systems) which reduces the oppositions political noise to propaganda episodes like the North Korean launches last year. From a deterrent perspective, AEGIS BMD is successful without actually proving it, and because it is seen as a defensive tool and not seen as an imperial US footprint (despite the reality the same platform carries cruise missiles), AEGIS BMD serves as both a political and military advantage.

The recent deployment of 2 AEGIS BMD DDGs to the Persian Gulf with the Stennis, which Fallon or someone thinking like him appears to have specifically chosen as opposed to not having them in the deployment of the 'surged' Reagan (or surging an east coast carrier), is a another example of the Navy leveraging AEGIS BMD.

That leverage is not in actual capability rather specifically in the political, as a counter to rhetoric if needed. Why did the pentagon press statement and the president himself, both mention in the same sentence the deployment of Patriots and the Stennis CSG (with its pair of AEGIS BMD ships)? That couldn't of been an accident, rather it was the clue.

Just like the clue the Nimitz has been announced the next CSG to leave, sometime in late Feb. or early March, likely to replace the Eisenhower to maintain the 2 CSG force in the Gulf. The Nimitz group, like the Stennis, also has 4 DDGs instead of 2 or 3 like previous CSGs, including the AEGIS BMD ships USS John Paul Jones (DDG 53), and USS Higgins (DDG 76).

For an undesired and limited capability, the Navy appears to be going out of its way to deploy AEGIS BMD off the coast of Iran at a time (late March) where saber rattling will be at a high point (after the next UN deadline). While I don't believe the AEGIS BMD deployments are for war, I do think AEGIS BMD is a tool designed to 'take the wind out of the sails' of the political propaganda of Iranian Theater Ballistic missile strikes, as the capability can be cited as an effective propaganda tool in the US arsenal regardless of its unproven capability.

It will be interesting how the AEGIS BMD discussion unfolds. Continued test success for AEGIS BMD can be capitalized in political success, but that isn't going to sway many people who deal in the absolutes of warfare. With the 'all ahead slow' plan now entering the '2008 benchmark' phase it would appear the Navy limited deployment of AEGIS BMD has been wise due to its limited scope, regardless of its theoretical or actual capabilities.

After all, BMD has a proven record as a successful military tool able to effect a desired political result. While final evaluation painted a different picture after the fact, there is no question that Patriot deployments in 1991 to Israel as a counter to SCUD Theater Ballistic Missiles is what ultimately kept Israel out of the Gulf War. In effect, it was almost 16 years ago that BMD proved its value as a military tool to effect a political value making it worth the investment, despite its marginal (or even ineffective) military capability at the time. If you think about it, the limited deployment of a limited capability of an untested system offers a tremendous political deterrent value with a relatively light investment. If it ever becomes a required capability needed in combat, the merit of the limited scope of the program would certainly be re-evaluated, but as it is today I'd call AEGIS BMD in its limited form and deployment strategy a major success.

02-05-2007, 23:00 PM	#6 (permalink)
Galrahn *Defense Professional* Join Date: 04-14-06 Posts: 405	Addressing Missile Defense A Quick Review of AEGIS Missile Defense. The US Navy is in the middle of a missile defense program based on the AEGIS Platform. As of the end of 2006, the program is on track for implementation on 16 AEGIS warships. That implementation will ultimately consist of 18 AEGIS warships able to support version 3.6 of AEGIS BMD software able to support SM-3 BMD interceptors. Current BMD Ships: San Diego, California, U.S.A. DDG 53 - USS John Paul Jones DDG 65 - USS Benfold DDG 69 - USS Milius DDG 73 - USS Decatur DDG 76 - USS Higgins Pearl Harbor, Hawaii, U.S.A. CG 70 - USS Lake Erie CG 73 - USS Port Royal DDG 59 - USS Russell DDG 60 - USS Paul Hamilton DDG 70 - USS Hopper DDG 77 - USS O'Kane Yokosuka, Japan CG 67 - USS Shiloh DDG 54 - USS Curtis Wilbur DDG 56 - USS John S. McCain DDG 62 - USS Fitzgerald DDG 63 - USS Stethem These 16 ships represent 3 cruisers and all 13 Flight I and Flight II DDGs in the Pacific Fleet. The remaining 2 ships to be selected have not been named. As of the 2006 baseline, all three cruisers and the USS Decatur (DDG 73), USS Curtis Wilbur (DDG 54), and USS Stethem (DDG 63) finished 2006 with v3.6 - Long Range Surveillance and Track (LRS&T), which is full capability able to support SM-3s. The next two ships to get the upgrade, which I believe either happened last month or happens this month is the USS Fitzgerald (DDG 62) and USS John S. McCain (DDG 56). This limited deployment, limited to 18 ships, is designed to proceed slowly in AEGIS BMD as part of continous upgrades of the AEGIS system. The intention is to prevent BMD from becoming a focus of AEGIS, while gradually improving the capability of the Navy to address Theater Ballistic Missile threats as part of a larger network, and eventually, when the technology comes online, to incorporate intercontinental intercept capability. For interceptors, the Navy has chosen to upgrade Block IV-ER Standards to the SM-3 system instead of investing in new missiles heavily while the SM-6 and other systems continue development. Again, this is to insure money isn't over invested into BMD technology while still maintaining an investment. The plan is to have v3.6 - Long Range Surveillance and Track (LRS&T) on all 18 ships able to support interceptors by 2010 in a gradual upgrade. The next baseline benchmark ends in 2008 with all 18 ships supporting LRS&T, but not all with interceptors. The big push for action in AEGIS BMD is coming from 2 sides, neither of which is happy with the current implementation. On one side you have a contingent looking to increase the funding and expand the list of AEGIS warships deploying AEGIS BMD. The push would imply that all CGs in the modernization and eventually DDGs in their modernization that follows should get AEGIS BMD upgrades. It is estimated this would cost at least 6.6 billion just to install the software throughout the fleet, and even more for ship board interceptors. The other side doesn't want to see BMD become the centerpiece of AEGIS, and tends to reject AEGIS BMD in general. There has been a lot of talk to make AEGIS BMD a centerpiece of the CG(X) program. This is very unpopular for obvious reasons, While the Navy wants the CG(X) to feature AEGIS BMD, it doesn't want the mission profile to define the platform, and doesn't want to be forced to invest Naval specific funding into the technology, instead taking the relatively small budget increments that flow into AEGIS BMD from the Missile Defense Agency. If you evaluate the MDA budget, comparing Naval BMD to land based BMD, it is clear THAAD and other ground based BMD gets the majority of funding. From the Navy perspective, while they would take the money, they don't want it if it becomes a determining factor regarding the development of AEGIS. The Navy is comfortable with this actually, although many critics are not. An example is how much funding went into AEGIS BMD early to incorporate the Army and USMC Patriot Defense System as an interceptor for AEGIS BMD, which reduced the pressing need to spend big money on a Navy interceptor ahead of its schedule for the SM-6. In many ways, I think the Navy has it exactly right, and in a rare show has presented a very wise limited approach to AEGIS BMD. I'd point out that Adm. Fallon specifically has been one of the better statesman on the subject, pointing out the versatility it provides the Navy in crisis response and assurance to allies without actually being a proven system. The leverage provided by offshore AEGIS BMD during last years North Korean 'demonstrations' utilizing limited AEGIS BMD deployments as a political tool was successful, although unclear how much, in changing the public international discourse to the 'demonstration' by both Japan and China. That effect is a return on investment from a political perspective. AEGIS BMD gives the US political cover to respond with a purely defensive military response (AEGIS BMD and Patriot systems) which reduces the oppositions political noise to propaganda episodes like the North Korean launches last year. From a deterrent perspective, AEGIS BMD is successful without actually proving it, and because it is seen as a defensive tool and not seen as an imperial US footprint (despite the reality the same platform carries cruise missiles), AEGIS BMD serves as both a political and military advantage. The recent deployment of 2 AEGIS BMD DDGs to the Persian Gulf with the Stennis, which Fallon or someone thinking like him appears to have specifically chosen as opposed to not having them in the deployment of the 'surged' Reagan (or surging an east coast carrier), is a another example of the Navy leveraging AEGIS BMD. That leverage is not in actual capability rather specifically in the political, as a counter to rhetoric if needed. Why did the pentagon press statement and the president himself, both mention in the same sentence the deployment of Patriots and the Stennis CSG (with its pair of AEGIS BMD ships)? That couldn't of been an accident, rather it was the clue. Just like the clue the Nimitz has been announced the next CSG to leave, sometime in late Feb. or early March, likely to replace the Eisenhower to maintain the 2 CSG force in the Gulf. The Nimitz group, like the Stennis, also has 4 DDGs instead of 2 or 3 like previous CSGs, including the AEGIS BMD ships USS John Paul Jones (DDG 53), and USS Higgins (DDG 76). For an undesired and limited capability, the Navy appears to be going out of its way to deploy AEGIS BMD off the coast of Iran at a time (late March) where saber rattling will be at a high point (after the next UN deadline). While I don't believe the AEGIS BMD deployments are for war, I do think AEGIS BMD is a tool designed to 'take the wind out of the sails' of the political propaganda of Iranian Theater Ballistic missile strikes, as the capability can be cited as an effective propaganda tool in the US arsenal regardless of its unproven capability. It will be interesting how the AEGIS BMD discussion unfolds. Continued test success for AEGIS BMD can be capitalized in political success, but that isn't going to sway many people who deal in the absolutes of warfare. With the 'all ahead slow' plan now entering the '2008 benchmark' phase it would appear the Navy limited deployment of AEGIS BMD has been wise due to its limited scope, regardless of its theoretical or actual capabilities. After all, BMD has a proven record as a successful military tool able to effect a desired political result. While final evaluation painted a different picture after the fact, there is no question that Patriot deployments in 1991 to Israel as a counter to SCUD Theater Ballistic Missiles is what ultimately kept Israel out of the Gulf War. In effect, it was almost 16 years ago that BMD proved its value as a military tool to effect a political value making it worth the investment, despite its marginal (or even ineffective) military capability at the time. If you think about it, the limited deployment of a limited capability of an untested system offers a tremendous political deterrent value with a relatively light investment. If it ever becomes a required capability needed in combat, the merit of the limited scope of the program would certainly be re-evaluated, but as it is today I'd call AEGIS BMD in its limited form and deployment strategy a major success.