Test Failure Stirs Missile Defense Doubts

gmd_boeing

The head of a key Senate subcommittee is questioning the reliability of part of the U.S. missile defense system after a failed test earlier this month.

The Defense Department maintains rocket-like interceptors in silos at Fort Greely, Alaska, and Vandenberg Air Force Base, Calif., as part of the Ground-based Midcourse Defense System, designed to shoot down incoming threats such as nuclear missiles.

An interceptor launched from Vandenberg during a July 5 test missed its target over the Pacific Ocean. Now, some lawmakers are criticizing the Pentagon’s plans to spend more than $1 billion in the fiscal year beginning Oct. 1 in part to expand the fleet of interceptors to 44 from 30.

“It’s our responsibility to ensure that those capabilities perform as advertised,” Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., chairman of the Senate Appropriations Defense Subcommittee, said during a July 17 hearing. “We know the threat is real. The question is whether our defense is real.”

The panel met to hear testimony from Navy Vice Adm. James Syring, director of the Missile Defense Agency, on the agency’s fiscal 2014 budget request.

Syring said a preliminary review of the test traced the problem to something called the exoatmospheric kill vehicle — the portion of the missile that separates from the main body to “intercept” or knock an incoming projectile out of the sky.

“The kill vehicle did not separate from the third-stage booster,” he said. “It wasn’t the booster, sir. It wasn’t the guidance system. The EKV did not separate.”

Syring said he remains confident in the Boeing Co.-made system — even though it’s never actually taken out an intercontinental ballistic missile — and pledged to conduct a full evaluation of the program.

“What’s important is continued testing,” he said.

Durbin cited among his concerns the system’s mixed record of hitting targets in only 8 of 15 attempts; the high cost of testing, which runs about $215 million per exercise; and the fact that many of the interceptors aren’t operational.

Syring acknowledged that unlike the Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense System — the sea-based program that equips Navy cruisers and destroyers with the Aegis radar system and Standard Missile-3, or SM-3, interceptors — the ground-based system faced a more demanding development schedule that resulted in interceptors being deployed before testing was complete.

Durbin said the problem is a recurring one that affects other weapons systems such as the F-35 fighter jet, the Pentagon’s most expensive acquisition program.

“We’ve run into this repeatedly, whether we’re talking about the F-35 or others — keep producing even while you’re testing,” Durbin said. “We’ve reached a point now where we’re making some critical budget decisions and may not be able to afford that luxury. What troubles me is this is a system that still hasn’t been proven to be able to protect America.”

Syring said the agency is working on “flying before we buy any more” interceptors. It’s also exploring the possibility of developing a universal kill vehicle that could be used with both ground-based interceptors and sea-based SM-3s.

About the Author

Brendan McGarry
Brendan McGarry is the managing editor of Military.com. He can be reached at brendan.mcgarry@military.com. Follow him on Twitter at @Brendan_McGarry.

30 Comments on "Test Failure Stirs Missile Defense Doubts"

  1. Test Failure Stirs Missile Defense Doubts. Maybe we should disband the military and use that money to buy fund insane crash and burn failures like Obama-care?

  2. No I think it show we should not jump into billions into a weapon system is fully tested and is marked reliable.

  3. USS ENTERPRISE | July 18, 2013 at 9:56 pm | Reply

    Testing is the only way to go, I am afraid. BEFORE you all say, "Oh, the Boeing Company is just trying to wring all the money it can from the US Government", YOU try making a missile intercept system. Computer models won't work, field testing IS the only way forwards.

  4. The SM-3 has an excellent intercept record. Somewhere close to 85%. Even with complex separating targets. Considering what they are attempting to do here, 85% is an amazing number.

    Their "universal kill vehicle" idea makes me nervous though. I hope they don't replace the SM-3 with that land based POJ.

  5. dumb question…

    and im just spit-ballin here but…

    why don't we put the aegis sea based systems on the land and call it a day…?

  6. Funny … I had the same idea when I was reading this. Why not expand the sea based Aegis system and make it land based as well?

  7. It's funny how the debate has changed from "it's impossible to hit a missile with a missile" to "but can we do it reliably" and yet it is still being spun as failure. The truly amazing thing is that none of those who said missile defense was impossible have ever been held accountable for their lies. As for reliability, rockets suck at that. No one has ever got more than one 9 of reliability out of a rocket.

  8. lemoutonzelectrique | July 19, 2013 at 8:32 am | Reply

    Ask Roscosmos if rockets work every time they're fired. There are expectable failures. The ones who thinks a machine will perform flawlessly every shot lives in a dream. Them Russians would certainly tell you a failed test can lead to improvements and that the real problem is when you have a succession of failed tests or failed flights. So it failed? More tests are needed to learn if that was just a quantic accident or a real systemic flaw.

    The Chineses would probably say, make 500 of 'em and fire 3 when you think only one is needed. ;)

  9. If we can hit a missile with a missile do you suppose we could hit a uranium enrichment compound the size of 12 football stadiums?

  10. Russell Romick | July 19, 2013 at 11:23 am | Reply

    @hibeam,
    I have read other comments you have made on other topics and thought you were joking or being satirical on a couple of posts but there seems to be a general trend of ignorance in your posts. How is this possible if you are reading defense news, ; ) that you have a lack of knowledge on other things but I guess it is possible. Please please please please educate yourself about what you are talking about before posting. Disband the military? Come on wake up to the real world. Obama-care crash and burn? You fail to realize both Britain, Canada, France, Australia had growing pains with their medical coverage system and ours are minor compared to theirs. Education would enhance your knowledge on these subjects. Am I all high and mighty? NO not at all, I make more mistakes and lack knowledge too but I try to learn as much as I can to improve my outlook and knowledge on the topics that interest me. I will be learning new thoughts and ideas (and find I have misconceptions) till I go to the grave.

  11. Michael Shatto | July 19, 2013 at 1:55 pm | Reply

    Don't Try – Don't Fail.

    Since Reagan, and probably before, Democrats have killed programs under development using test failures as an excuse to neuter the hated military.

  12. Folks, you can fire more than one missile at a target…

    We should as a rule field weapons after they have been thoroughly tested. Problem is the enemy isn't waiting and the potential cost of losing an American city is a very stiff price.

    The sea based system has different strengths. It is designed to target missiles in the lift or boost phase of flight. GMD does it in space in the event sea based missiles miss, aren't present like in a surprise attack or doesn't get them all e.g. multiple launches.

    The SM3 has had four tests and failed one. It isn't perfect. Again, you fire more than one missile. BTW, the sea based system is also deployed before all testing is complete.

    Consider that the GMD has a higher success rate than the X47B has for landing on a carrier. Some detractors just play BFF defense program or are branch partisans.

  13. If Bruce Dickinson was still around he'd say "Guess what?, I've got a fever and the only cure is more Aegis" ;-P

  14. Concurrency didn't work so well for us as a systems engineering practice back in the day, and it's not working now. Don't know why this lesson hasn't been learned yet.

  15. bulldurham48 | July 20, 2013 at 10:28 am | Reply

    Well it does not matter why it did not work now does it, just the fact that it did not work is the problem. As for more testing, let the dummies that developed it and said it was ready pay for the new testing, then if it works we should invest more , if not, it does not work no more money. Let the defense contractor invest some of his millions in the "good project". Then like I said if it works we should invest more, if not, his loss not ours.

  16. Ballistic missile defense remains a boondogle solution looking for a problem. Nobody is ever going to launch an ICBM at the US. Our capability to immediately detect and locate the launch site ensure an overwhelming response that even the tin horn tyrants in N. Korea and Iran understand. Put the dollars and technical expertise in cruise missile defense and shipping container inspections.

  17. Jack Nemerov | July 20, 2013 at 7:45 pm | Reply

    Why not call Israeli specialists in to fix the problem.

  18. Back on the drawing board boys. Remember it is for saving people lives. Probably it needs a coordinated ideas among allies.

  19. It probably need to adopt the RBS-15 missile tracking technology.

  20. The mid-course missile defense system built by Boeing has had the most failures of all of the missile defense systems. The Raytheon systems work well and the Lockheed Martin systems work well. Maybe Boeing should be replaced and the contract given to another company.

  21. Brian B Mulholland | July 23, 2013 at 8:05 pm | Reply

    Sir – I have reviewed the User Agreement, and can't see what rule I violated with the last, deleted post. Please advise, here or by email, at your convenience. Thank you.

  22. definitely doable systems as compared to ten years ago.

  23. FIRST missile-missile takedown was an obsolete BRITISH naval missile, a SEADART fired by HMS Gloucester that shot down a more modern Iraqi BALLISTIC missile during Gulf War I.
    Incidentally, the american system on a nearby amrican ship only succeeded in FIRING ON THE CHAFF of another u.s.navy ship. We can laugh about it now, of course…
    http://www.wingweb.co.uk/missiles/sea_dart.html

    Clearly the British could do something then that the usa dreams about.

    Pity the usa has all these big noises and big ad campaigns and big loud pie holes… that result in expensive non-working trash when the Europeans just quietly get on with making things that work that are ignored and overlooked.

    Keep up the good work, u.s.military industrial complex!
    The jobs of american illiterates rely on you…

  24. Loving America | August 9, 2013 at 5:51 pm | Reply

    DT and OT developement is an experiement. Kind of like going scuba diving before learning how to swim. Success is possible, but the likelyhood of failure is going to cost many times more than learning how to swim first. It's the "kick the can down the road" bean counting budget process that today's administration has bought into.

    "Failure IS an OPTION???"

  25. TheHipshooter | August 15, 2013 at 2:47 pm | Reply

    Interestingly, the article almost implies that the Aegis Combat system is a reliable, real world combat-test proven systems. Fact is we have almost no real world experience to validate that the Aegis using whatever technology, missiles, guns etc, can shoot down incoming anti-ship cruise missile, much less the DF21D. Especially when those missiles are being fired by a very clever enemy who has literally decades to devise tactics and technology designed to mitigate Aegis effectiveness.

    As far as the DF21 D goes I am hoping we have the ability to execute a pre-emptive strike on the systems, including satellites, that will be necessary to accurately guide this ship killer to its target.

  26. What if we just brought back project Thor as a state leadership decapitation weapon? Robs from God.

  27. Very good post. I am dealing with some of these issues as well..

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published.


*