More than a month has passed since President Obama announced to bury the former plans for the two controversial missile defense bases in Poland and the Czech Republic. This gave ample opportunity to digest this major change. Here is a brief summary of the reactions and latest developments:

Paul Taylor at the Reuters blog wrote that the decision to drop plans to install it on Polish and Czech territory constitutes a test for NATO’s unity because

President Barack Obama’s decision […] leaves those former Soviet satellites feeling betrayed — because they expended political capital to win parliamentary support — and more exposed to a resurgent Russia, especially after its use of force against Georgia last year.

Megan Stack from the LA Times puts it more poignantly:

Washington’s decision to back out of the missile shield agreement forged by the Bush administration –and opposed by Russia – has evoked memories among Poles of Cold War helplessness, of being brushed aside as casualties of great power politics.

When Barack Obama entered office it was often mentioned in the European press that even though the substance of his foreign policy might not change dramatically, the way he would address his (European) partners would alter in comparison to Dubya. The Nobel Peace Prize Committee obviously shared this view and awarded Obama the prize “for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples”. Well, it seems that sometimes the Obama administration is not necessarily more successful than the Bush gang: Polish officials seemed to be the last to hear about the change in plans.

“We heard first from the media,” said Witold Waszczykowski, deputy head of Poland’s national security bureau. Speculation that the missile shield plan would be dropped had been in the air since the U.S. presidential campaign. And yet, Waszczykowski said, Polish leaders were repeatedly reassured – even days before a team of U.S. officials arrived to brief officials – that no decision had been reached.

Aiming to sooth this frustration and concerns, Poland and the Czech Republic are being offered roles in the Obama administration’s new plan to defend Europe against Iran’s development and deployment of short- and medium-range ballistic missiles, senior administration officials told Congress on October 1.

The U.S. Undersecretary of State for Arms Control and International Security, Ellen O. Tauscher, informed the House Armed Services Committee that

“We have offered the Poles a future piece of the SM-3 [Standard missile-3] deployment” and “we’re working on a number of different things” for the Czechs.

Russia remains suspicious about Washington’s new antimissile plans and fears its strategic nuclear weapons could still be threatened by the reconfigured scheme. However, at the same time Moscow sees a redrafted U.S. anti-missile shield plan as less of a security threat than the previously proposed project. Russia’s ambassador to NATO, Dmitry Rogozin, stressed that there are chances for cooperation. He said that Moscow believes it would be possible to establish a missile-defense system jointly with the military alliance.

“If we are convinced that the European missile-defense initiative is not part of a U.S. theater missile-defense system, such efforts are possible.”

Cooperation is also under discussion in Washington. The United States has not dismissed an offer to use two Russian radars in southern Russia and Azerbaijan for missile defense, a senior Defense Department official said in a recent interview with Interfax. The NTI Newswire reported that:

U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates “and other senior defense officials have already pointed to the possibility of some form of link between Russian radars … to provide additional data and early warning information that could benefit both of us in defending against ballistic missile threats,” said Assistant Defense Secretary Alexander Vershbow.

Assistant Defense Secretary Alexander Vershbow banging the drum in Korea

Vershbow bang the drum also with other remarks that raised concern on the Russian side. He told reporters on Thursday that countries in the region, such as Ukraine, “may also have radars that could contribute to early-warning information.” This statement prompted Moscow to call for clarification. Subsequently Washington denied in an official statement that it planned to station U.S. radar systems in Ukraine.

Leaving aside all this animosities, concerns, and the potential for cooperation, some observers question whether the weapons that would be central to the Obama administration’s new missile defense plan for Europe can be trusted to function during a conflict. There has been no realistic testing of the Standard Missile 3, which could still be fooled by balloons or other decoys likely to be deployed by an enemy missile, argued David Wright, a senior scientist at the Union of Concerned Scientists. In addition critics come up with a very creative form of accounting to show that the new plans will not lead to cost-savings. The Congressional Budget Office early this year estimated the cost of the Bush plan at between $9 billion and $13 billion over two decades. However these savings are allegedly eliminated by the construction and extended operational costs of the ship-based alternative which would cost $18 billion to $26 billion. However, there is one teeny tiny thing that the critics might have forgotten to take into consideration: some of that cost comes from pre-existing plans to equip no fewer than 67 Navy vessels with Aegis ballistic missile defense technology. Besides that, the vessels are far more flexible and neither static nor do they serve a single purpose as the European components of the original plan would have.

There is another reason why the new plan leaves a lighter footprint: Lt. Gen. Patrick O’Reilly, director of the Pentagon’s Missile Defense Agency, added that preparation of a Polish missile defense site, which was to have taken five years to complete, could now be finished in less than a year and be staffed with fewer than 100 U.S. personnel, instead of the 400 who would have been needed under the Bush-era plan.

© picture: Korea Times

We only use cost-effective and proven systems to shield ourselves, like umbrellas.

U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates on Saturday lashed out at critics of a new missile defense plan for Europe and insisted it was not a concession to Russia, as some charge. This is something that Senator John McCain, ranking Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee, accused the plan to be. Since when is making concessions a crime? Well, we already know for some time how McCain prefers to solve conflicts. Maybe he should take a conflict resolution class to learn that making concessions is neither a taboo nor a capital sin. Anyhow, I digress, let’s get back to business:

Concession or not, shortly after President Obama announced his decision to scrap plans to base the missile defense components in Poland and the Czech Republic, it was reported that Russia will abandon plans to deploy Iskander SRBMs in Kaliningrad. Luckily some people in Russia are not as narrow-minded as certain U.S. senators.

Two days before President Obama made his announcement rumors came up that Russia and the United States might cooperate on the Gabala Radar Station. While this idea has been under discussion for already some time and was only recycled, the rumor mill has also something new to offer. NTI’s Global Security Newswire reported on September 14:

Recent news reports have indicated that the Obama administration is considering Israel as one alternative location if it chooses not to pursue the planned deployment of missile interceptors in Poland and a radar base in the Czech Republic. Some U.S. systems might remain in Israel after the two nations conduct a joint missile defense exercise scheduled for October, the Jerusalem Post reported last week.

A senior U.S. State Department official hinted that reports of plans to deploy missile defenses in Israel might be incorrect. They might be incorrect? A strong refusal sounds differently.

Even though the original missile defense plans for Europe were scrapped, this does not mean Washington will limit itself to the Vandenberg Air Force Base and Fort Greely. Under Obama’s new plan, the United States would initially deploy ships with missile interceptors and in a second phase would field land-based defense systems. To “tip the balance back just slightly towards the wonky”, make sure to read Joshua Pollacks post “Testing European Missile Defense” over at the Arms Control Wonk.

Picture © Reuters

I can end the time of silence with a bang. You probably have already heard the big new: US President Barack Obama has shelved plans for controversial bases in Poland and the Czech Republic in a major overhaul of missile defense in Europe.

Make sure to read NTI’s great article on the issue. For those of you who are more visually oriented, you can also watch president Obama’s announcement here.

Barack Obama received much kudos for his decision politicians and from press. Here are some examples from Germany: Chancellor Angela Merkel said that Obama’s decision is a promising signal to solve the problems with Russia. Federal Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier lauded the step and stressed that there is a new chance to discuss the issue of missile defense in Europe once again with all partners. The daily Sueddeutsche described the decision to shelve the plans as an act of courage, willingness to take risks and decisiveness. The German daily Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung lauded the style how the U.S. approached his allies.

Take this as a brief appetizer. I will write more on this issue tomorrow.

Here is another ROK follow-up: over at UPI they have a brief article on South Korea’s Red Shark and its kin: South Korea to produce Red Shark torpedoes.

A report from the U.S. Government Accountability Office, released on August 6, comes to the conclusion that the cost of building and operating the controversial U.S. anti-ballistic missile sites in Europe could substantially exceed the original estimate:

After reviewing several proposed missile-defense sites in Eastern Europe, the Army Corps of Engineers has determined that initial construction estimates for sites in the Czech Republic and Poland for $837 million are unrealistic, and that “almost $1.2 billion” is a more accurate figure.

The GAO report does not only come up with its own assessment but also contains also some homework for the Pentagonians: it urges them to develop “accurate, realistic, and complete cost estimates for military construction and operations and support for ballistic missile defenses in Europe”. For more details see the post over at the Nukes of Hazard blog. If you want to put the spending into a historical context you might want to take a look at this chart.

Recently the Obama administration has proposed to emphasize battlefield missile defenses over systems for intercepting strategic ballistic missiles. This would save money while potentially making it more vulnerable to future attack, says a report published yesterday by a Washington-based defense think tank. For more details see NTI’s GSN.

Costs are not the only issue that raises concerns. A group of U.S. and Russian scientists from the East West Institute say that the proposed missile defense shield deployed in Central Europe would be ineffective.

These are some of the reasons why the Obama administration is currently reviewing the plans to field 10 ground-based interceptors in Poland and a radar station in the Czech Republic. The major U.S. defense contractors use this time to offer new toys out of their toolbox.

Raytheon proposed to develop a land-based variant of the SM-3 interceptor originally designed for use on warships by 2013. This interceptor would target short- and medium-range missiles from land. Raytheon also already a scenario for the deployment of the new interceptor:

The U.S. Defense Department is considering the proposed system for inclusion in a European missile shield, according to Raytheon leaders. Russia has long opposed a proposal to field in Poland ground-based interceptors that could target its ICBMs, making SM-3 interceptors a potentially more acceptable alternative for countering an Iranian long-range missile threat.

This seems to be only Raytheon’s viewpoint. U.S. Strategic Command head Gen. Kevin Chilton did not specify whether the Pentagon was considering an SM-3 system as a replacement for the proposed ground-based interceptors.

Raytheon’s rival Boeing has something else to offer: The United States could temporarily place a mobile ground-based missile interceptor in Europe as protection from a potential long-range missile threat, U.S. defense contractor Boeing Co. recommended.

By 2015, Boeing could prepare a two-stage, 47,500-pound interceptor that could be transported by C-17 cargo aircraft and deployed at a NATO site on a trailer-based launch platform, [Boeing vice president and general manager for missile defense]Hyslop said. The interceptor could be fielded within 24 hours and then removed when the missile threat abates, he said.

While these alternative ideas do the rounds and the future of the missile base is still uncertain – the U.S.-Polish agreement has not been ratified by the Polish parliament nor agreed by President Obama – Poland is convinced that another deal will put into effect. Polish Defense Minister Bogdan Klich said yesterday that the first battery of U.S. Patriot missile will be deployed in Poland either this year or next.

“We are negotiating with the Americans and we are getting closer to a conclusion. I hope we will make the final decision in the autumn. There are still some controversial points, but the number of those is decreasing,” Bogdan Klich told Polish Radio.

The agreement to supply Poland with Patriots as was signed in 2008 but in official statements the idea that the delivery was a form of payment for hosting the interceptor base was rejected.
All these issues are no reason for the Missile Defense Agency not to come up with new plans. MDA Director Patrick O’Reilly predicts that the United States will significantly improve its ability to track incoming ballistic missiles from space by 2016:

Currently, U.S. sensors […] are providing data as soon as a ballistic missile boosts after launch. However, a gap exists after boost, forcing MDA officials to look to reacquire a target later in its flight when the U.S. has other capability for tracking.

President Lee Myung-Bak poses in front of the KSLV-1 (AFP)

Just a brief follow-up: South Korea suspended Wednesday the launch of its first space rocket with just less than eight minutes remaining in the countdown due to a technical glitch. A new launch date will be announced after consultations with experts from Russia, who made the first stage of the Korea Space Launch Vehicle-1 (KSLV-1), also called the Naro-1.

For some background information on Seoul’s space program and bragging see the Yonhap article on the “culmination of 20 years of research and development that started with small, rudimentary solid-fuel machines”.

The Washington Post also has two articles related to my latest entry. The first addresses the question of double standards:

South Korea on Wednesday plans to launch a satellite into space using technology capable, in theory, of eventually delivering nuclear warheads or other weapons of mass destruction.

A successful launch from an island off South Korea’s southwestern coast will add that country to an elite club of nine nations that have demonstrated the capability to orbit a satellite and — if they choose — to conduct long-range missile strikes against an enemy. But it will probably not attract the same kind of international criticism heaped on North Korea when it recently attempted a similar launch.

ROK’s Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs Moon Tae-young already stated that any comparison between the two missile launches is ‘inappropriate.’ An unnamed U.S.-official put it bluntly: The question is, ‘are they allies or friends, or people who have generally been belligerent?’ A great U.S. philosopher former U.S. president phrased it slightly different: ‘Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists.’ Henry Sokolski already aptly raised the question: ‘If we wink at this nuclear-capable rocket launch . . . how in the world can we object to North Korean and Iranian tests without looking like hypocrites?’

Japan seems to have fewer concerns. While having pressed the U.N. Security Council to censure North Korea, it expressed its hope that the South Korean test will be successful.

South Korea is said to have spend an estimated US$200 million to obtain technological assistance of Russia after the U.S. government spurned South Korea’s appeals for assistance. Russia is supplying the first stage of the rocket about to be launched.

The second WP article describes DPRK’s softer tone of the recent days. The core statement is:
The reasons behind North Korea’s apparent softening in strategy are known only to Kim and his inner circle. But analysts in South Korea have speculated that much of North Korea’s saber rattling this year was for internal consumption, as Kim began to prepare the country for a succession process that may hand power to his third son, Kim Jong Un, who is just 26.

We have another indicator that Kim Dae Jung’s sunshine policy has sent out one of its last rays. A last week’s report by the Korean Times strongly underlines that Seoul is no longer trying to hug its northern neighbor until it smiles:

South Korea began deploying 1,000-kilometer-range surface-to-surface cruise missiles in the field earlier this year, according to missile developers and military sources Monday. The missile, a modified variant of the Hyunmoo missile, is capable of reaching as far as Beijing and Tokyo, as well as hitting key targets in the entire North Korean territory, they said.It is the first time that the development and deployment of the long-range cruise missile, dubbed Hyunmoo-III, have been confirmed.

ranges of ROK's missiles

The Hyunmoo-III brings into reach DPRK’s long-range missile sites, including the Musudan-ri site in North Hamgyeong Province. The cruise missile is reported to have a CEP of 5 meters. The state-funded Agency for Defense Development is currently developing a newer version of the missile family: the Hyunmoo-IIIA, with an extended range of up to 1,500km. The new cruise missile is based on the Hyunmoo-I and II which are ballistic missiles with a range of 180 to 300km.

It comes to no surprise that the argument that Seoul brings forward for the deployment of the Hyunmoo-III is the threat posed by North Korea’s increasing asymmetrical capability of missile and nuclear weapons. According to the Koran Times article, DPRK has deployed more than 600 Scud missiles with a range of 320-500 kilometers and 200 Rodong missiles with a range of 1,300 kilometers near the Demilitarized Zone dividing the two Koreas.

Missile gap … we have heard this before. Let’s see how long it will take DPRK to justify its own missile program with the same argument. Pyongyang already said that it will closely watch the international reaction on South Korea’s planned launch of a carrier rocket with a satellite on board following criticism of a similar launch conducted by Pyongyang. Kim Jong Il has a point because the launch has also a military purpose:

The launch of the Naro-ho will offer a great opportunity for the Sejong destroyer to test and evaluate its [Aegis missile-defense system] performances, since a space vehicle, in general, has almost the same design, components, and technology as those of an ICBM.

The Hyunmoo is not the only field where Seoul is increased its activities: South Korea’s defense ministry said on August 13 that newly developed ‘Red Shark’ anti-submarine guided missiles will be deployed on destroyers by 2012 to beef up the country’s naval defense. The missiles are capable of hitting underwater targets after first flying over water. South Korean destroyers will begin to carry about 60 to 70 long-range anti-submarine missiles.

It will be hard for Pyongyang to react to these developments in its well-known manner, i.e. by clenching its fist, banging the table and launching some missiles: impoverished North Korea has spent an estimated US$700 million this year on nuclear and missile tests, enough to solve its food shortage for at least two years, South Korean news reports said. Even though the north is reported to have earned about US$100 million through the sale of missile technologies, gunboats and multiple rocket artilleries in 2008, the gap is still huge. The additional income might come from another source: North Korea has apparently agreed to reverse-engineer and to mass-produce Russian-designed Kornet anti-tank guided missiles that it recently obtained from Syria. Syria will allegedly also be the buyer of these missiles.

However, in the last century we saw that another country tried to outspend its opponent only to find itself dissolved in the end.

Image: © Korea Times

BrahMos lifts off the universal vertical launcher on board the Indian Navy's Kashin II-class destroyer INS Ranvir

We have not had an entry on India in the recent time. So let’s see how things developed on the subcontinent.

Back in June the Times of India reported that after basing Sukhoi-30MKI fighter jets in the North-East, India is now all set to conduct another test of the 3,500-km-range Agni-III ballistic missile towards the end of this month. So let’s see whether India will stick to its schedule or there are again some turtles causing a delay. Once fully-ready by 2011-2012, the Agni-III will provide India with the capability to strike deep into China, with cities like Shanghai and Beijing well within its potent reach.

In the same Times of India article the success of the latest test-launch of the Agni-II was called into question: the trial “failed to meet the laid-down flight parameters”.

Over at Missilethreat.com they reported on India’s rapid progress on its indigenous missile defense program. In light of speculations that weapon testing could be completed by 2010 they conclude that the defensive program seriously outstrips India’s development of an offensive ballistic missile force.

In addition to speed, India’s program shows signs of significant sophistication, especially compared to her possible regional adversaries. A case in point is China. While China’s offensive ballistic missile program is more advanced than India’s, it does not possess a comparable BMD capability. China’s surface-to-air missiles could intercept ballistic missiles, but only up to an altitude of 30km. Furthermore, it is thought that China’s BMD program falls far behind India’s in the area of research and development, particularly in the area of software development and programming, key and indispensable components of any functional missile defense system.

However, India seems not to rest on its laurels. New Delhi intends to develop defenses capable of intercepting longer-range enemy missiles with ranges as high as 6,000 km. This would triple the current capability. Back in March India succeeded in countering a 2,000-km range missile at an altitude of 80 km.

Let’s shift to missiles that are intended to hit targets that are not that far away: two decades after the homegrown Nag anti-tank guided missile (ATGM) was conceived, it has been cleared for production. The Indian Army ordered 4,000 Nags. With a current annual output of 200 and eventually 400 Nags, it will take the state-owned Bharat Dynamics, which produces these missiles, some time to deliver. The DRDO scientist said focus will now shift to the helicopter version, the Helina, which will have an extended range of seven kilometers (other sources mentioned a range of eight kilometers). DRDO scientists stated that the land version also eventually will have a range of seven kilometers.

Israel Air Force Commander Major General Ido Nehushtan said earlier that the Arrow-3 system, the third layer of Israel’s missile defense shield, will be operational by 2014. The events of the recent days might cause the general to reconsider his statement.

Over the course of the last week, three attempts were made  to conduct an intercept test of a mock Iranian Shahab missile with the Arrow-2 anti-missile system off the coast of California. On all three occasions the tests were aborted because of various malfunctions, Israeli defense officials said. The latest attempt was made yesterday, on July 23, but the test was called off after the launch attempt was hit by last-minute technical problems. A target had been released from a C-17 plane but communication glitches between the missile and the radar led U.S. defense officials to abort the test before an intercepting missile could be fired.

Naturally, officials try to play the failure down: malfunctions of systems still in their experimental stage were to be expected.

Isaac Ben-Israel, a retired general and weapons expert, said the interceptor wasn’t fired because it is too expensive to use in a test that isn’t expected to go according to plan. He said such glitches are common when developing new systems and he did not consider it a significant setback.

As a consequence of this failure, further tests of the system, planned for today and Monday, have also been postponed.

The Arrow project was spurred largely by the failure of the U.S. military’s Patriot missiles to intercept Iraqi Scud rockets that struck Israel in the 1991 Gulf War. The program is half-funded by the United States.

Arrow test launch

The first level, the so-called Iron Dome, is expected to be able to intercept rockets with a range from four kilometers to 70 kilometers like the Kassam and Katyusha rockets fired from the Gaza Strip or from south Lebanon. Israel has successfully tested its anti-rocket level of the defense system. An official statement announced that the tests occurred around July 15 and destroyed an unspecified number of incoming rockets. The previous tests which were conducted at the end of March were equally successful. More tests are expected in the next few months before the defense system is deployed in southern Israel to counteract rockets fired by Palestinian militants based in the Hamas-ruled Gaza Strip. Israel Air Force Commander Major General Ido Nehushtan said that the system would be operational and deployed in 2010.

General Nehushtan also said that the second level of Israel’s missile defense system, the David’s Sling, would be operational within four years. David’s Sling is intended to intercept medium-range rockets.

The third and final level of the missile defense system, the Arrow 3 would be declared operational shortly afterwards. The Arrow-3 is an advanced version of the current long-range system in operation by the Israeli Air Force:

The Arrow-3 exoatmospheric interceptor includes a two stage interceptor based on hit-to-kill technology. Its compact design, outstanding maneuverability, and divert capability serve to enhance its effectiveness against all types of Theater Ballistic Missiles (TBMs) and warheads. The Arrow-3 also includes a state-of-the-art long range acquisition high resolution EO sensor and has a low life cycle cost (LCC).

While the Arrow-3 are still dreams of the future, Israel plans in coming days to launch an Arrow-2 missile interceptor off the California coast. The Israeli air force as of April had conducted 17 tests of the improved Arrow-2 system. The current exercise would be the first Arrow-2 test to target a mock enemy missile capable of traveling 1,000 km. The test launch will simulate the interception of Iranian ballistic missiles, including the Shahab-3 and the Sajil missiles, as well as more advanced missiles Iran has yet to finish developing.

Picture © Israel Aerospace Industries