(Third Edition)

By: Ms. Hillary Pesanti, Community Relations Specialist

Command Representative for Missile Defense





Note: Click on any storyline for more information. 


MARCH 18, 2002-MARCH 22, 2002




·        Pentagon agrees to carry out new environmental impact study for controversial missile defense “test bed” plans in Alaska, Reuters


MONDAY, MARCH 18, 2002


·        U.S. military has carried out a successful test of its new missile defense system, BBC

·        Analysts forecast missile shield success is just an early step, Chicago Tribune

·        Only a rumor…Army will maintain a key role in space and missile defense, Defense Daily

·        DoD missile defense groups being oversight role, Aerospace Daily

·        More changes ahead for missile defense, Aviation Week & Space Technology

·        History threatens to repeat with missile defense, Juneau Empire




·        Missile defense test scores another hit; paves way for more complexity, Aerospace Daily

·        Friday’s successful missile defense test didn’t receive an enormous amount of attention from the media, National Review

·        What happens if we have a BMD emergency?, Aerospace Daily

·        Missile defense research portal created, New York Times

·        New testing set for Patriot missiles, Birmingham (AL) News

·        Democrats dubious about missile defense management, Congressional Quarterly Weekly

·        Pyongyang radio terms U.S. position on missile threat “Brazen-faced gibberish”, BBC Worldwide Monitoring




·        Senate floor statement regarding Missile Defense testing given by Senator Thad Cochran

·        Reed takes lead in challenging missile plan, Providence Journal-Bulletin

·        U.S. set to deploy Missile Defense system by 2008, Japan Times

·        MDA eyes developing new family of targets for Missile Defense tests, Defense Daily

·        Airborne laser program costs drop due to program stretch-out, Inside Missile Defense





·        Contract changes with Lockheed Martin made for restructured SBIRS High program, Defense Daily

·        U.S. Seeking joint Missile Defense operations with Japan, Jiji Press Ticker Service

·        Bush has decided not to certify North Korea’s compliance with a 1994 nuclear agreement, Washington Times

·        Pentagon wants to triple the budget of a small Joint Chiefs of Staff office that analyzes Missile Defense programs, Defense Week

·        Lockheed Martin working out details of U.K. Cooperative Engagement Capability program, Defense Daily

·        Britain was warned to face the future as a target for ballistic missiles fired from the Middle East, Daily Star (England)



FRIDAY, MARCH 22, 2002


·        Two Patriot anti-missile interceptors obliterated their targets in a test in New Mexico, Defense Week Daily Update

·        China conducted a flight test of a CSS-6 short-range missile, Washington Times

·        DoD will play a greater industrial role in profits, programs, and prime power,  Defense Daily International

·        Raytheon plans hit-to-kill capability for SM-2 Block IVA missile, Defense Daily

·        PAC-3 system scores two hits in second operational test, Aerospace Daily

·        Bush’s Missile Defense plan harks back to father’s “layered” approach, CQ Weekly


MARCH 18, 2002-MARCH 22, 2002


PENTAGON AGREES TO NEW MISSILE DEFENSE TEST IMPACT STUDIES, Reuters, March 19, 2002.  The Pentagon said on Tuesday it had agreed in principle to carry out new environmental impact studies of controversial U.S. missile defense test plans stretching from California to Alaska to Hawaii.  But it said it remained on target for a functioning “test bed” in Alaska as early as September 30, 2004, a key element in President Bush’s drive to build a multibillion-dollar, multi-layered shield against a limited number of incoming warheads.  “If there are any (environmental) impacts, we are confident we can mitigate those impacts in time to meet out 2004 schedule, “ said Air Force Lt. Col. Rick Lehner, a spokesman for the Pentagon’s Missile Defense Agency….The agreement in principle aims to settle a lawsuit brought by the Natural Resources Defense Council – a national group of scientists, lawyers, and environmental specialists – plus seven other environmental and peace groups, under the National Environmental Policy Act.  Filed on Friday, the settlement hinges on the approval of U.S. District Judge Collen Kollar-Kotelly in Washington, said Geoffrey Fettus, the attorney who negotiated it with Pentagon on behalf of the co-plaintiffs.  At issue is everything from test-rocket launches that emit large quantities of ozone-depleting chemicals to facilities that store and use hazardous solvents and other explosive chemical compounds, Fettus said.  Under the deal, the Pentagon would update studies on the five or six silos for interceptor missiles due to be installed at Fort Greely, Alaska….The agreement also would require environmental impact studies on an upgraded early warning radar on Shemya Island, 1,500 miles off the coast of Anchorage, known as Cobra Dane.  Also undertaken would be analysis of impacts outside Alaska “involving environmentally significant modifications to physical plant, facility operations or flight tests” in the planned northern pacific test range, the agreement said.




MONDAY, MARCH 18, 2002


THE UNITED STATES MILITARY HAS CARRIED OUT A SUCCESSFUL TEST OF ITS NEW MISSILE DEFENCE SYSTEM, BBC, March 16, 2002.  A dummy warhead was launched over the Pacific Ocean at 9:11(EST Friday), and was hit by a ground-launched missile 20 minutes later.   Intercept was achieved at 9.41pm (EST)   The US military now has a four-out-of-six success rate over three years. . . .  The interceptor was launched from Kwajalein Atoll, 7,700 kilometers (4,800 miles) away in the Pacific.   This test involved a complex examination of the system's capabilities, said Lt. Col. Rick Lehner, spokesman for the Pentagon's Missile Defense Agency.   Lehner said the dummy warhead was accompanied by three balloons, to simulate the decoys, which hostile countries might fire during a missile attack to confuse US defense systems.   The previous two tests used only a single decoy balloon.  But the interceptor successfully picked out the mock warhead from the three decoys.   The test cost more than $100m. . . .  The Pentagon now hopes to move on to a further, yet more sophisticated phase of testing.


ANALYSTS: MISSILE SHIELD SUCCESS JUST EARLY STEP, Chicago Tribune, March 15, 2002.    The Pentagon's latest missile defense test was successful, but many more experiments are necessary to prove that the U.S. system can shoot enemy warheads out of the sky, military officials and outside experts say.  "I think we can say ... our test program is proceeding and showing some quite impressive success," Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz said Saturday.  On Friday night, a prototype interceptor slammed into a dummy warhead 140 miles above the Pacific, destroying both. It was the sixth test of a ground-based missile defense prototype and the fourth successful destruction of the dummy warhead.  "I'll say right off the bat before some critic discovers it, this was not a `realistic' test of exactly what intercepts would have to do," Wolfowitz said on CNN. "But it's the first time we have had anything that looked like a decoy warhead, and it picked out the real warhead from the decoys."  At least 19 more tests are needed before the system can be fully operational, said Lt. Col. Rick Lehner, a spokesman for the Defense Department's Missile Defense Agency. Those tests--one is planned every three months--will last until 2006 or 2007, Lehner said.  Missile defense skeptics said that's an important point.  "We have a long way to go before the final exam," said Chris Madison of the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation. "I'm concerned that people have the impression, based on these tests, that we're almost to missile defense. Until we have operational testing, we'll have no idea whether we can get there.". . .  Friday's test was the most complex of its kind so far, although it still was a developmental test, not an operational one.


RUMOR MILL, Defense Daily, March 18, 2002.  . Though there are rumors of future downsizing of Army Space and Missile Defense Command, Army Lt. Gen. Joseph Cosumano, SMDC commander, says the command is not going away. "These are certainly rumors, but the Army will maintain a key role in space and missile defense," he says. ". . . .   "SMDC intends to lay out the argument for its value in the 21st century." Army Chief of Staff Gen. Eric Shinseki recently told SASC there is a role for the Army in space and SMDC will keep the Army in those discussions.


DOD MISSILE DEFENSE GROUPS BEGIN OVERSIGHT ROLE, Aerospace Daily, March 18, 2002.  The Defense Department’s Missile Defense Support Group (MDSG) and MDSG Working Group held a joint meeting March 8 to kick off their role as new overseer of DoD missile defense programs, according to Undersecretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics E.C. “Pete” Aldridge.  Aldridge, who testified before the Senate Armed Services strategic forces subcommittee on March 13, said he formed the MDSG to advise the Missile Defense Agency and DoD’s Senior Executive Council (SEC) on missile defense. . . .  The MDSG consists of senior experts from 13 DoD staffs and is chaired by Spiros Pallas, acting director of strategic and tactical systems, who reports to Aldridge on MDSG matters.  MDSG members will be supported by the Working Group, which consists of people from their support staffs.  The SEC, which is chaired by Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz and includes the service secretaries and Aldridge, recently was assigned the task of considering whether elements of the Ballistic Missile Defense System (BMDS) should move to production and deployment.


MORE CHANGES AHEAD FOR MISSILE DEFENSES, Aviation Week & Space Technology, March 18, 2002.  Stability isn't something the Pentagon's missile defense efforts are known for. No surprise, then, that more changes are in store for both the long-range, anti-ICBM shield and the primary short-range terminal defense program.   The Army's Patriot PAC-3 air and missile defense project is the furthest along of the Pentagon's numerous missile defense efforts, but even it isn't immune from changes. Service officials are considering software tweaks after the hit-to-kill system failed to intercept a low radar cross-section, cruise missile-like target in its first operational test. . . .  An error in the ground computer caused it to provide the interceptor missile with inaccurate target location information, said Army Col. Tom Newberry. . . .  Service officials are still mulling whether to make a software adjustment, since the likelihood of a recurrence is deemed low. The same scenario was exercised four times during development tests, and in those cases, the intercepts were successful, Newberry said. He indicated the software change is likely to be made before PAC-3 is widely fielded.   Program officials don't expect any perturbations to the rest of the operation test program, which should conclude in May. The next intercept will be attempted later this month.


HISTORY THREATENS TO REPEAT WITH MISSILE DEFENSE, Juneau Empire, [Opinion, Steve Cleary, Citizens Opposed to Defense Experimentation], March 14, 2002.  Missile defense in Alaska is off and running, well ahead of common sense. The Army Corps of Engineers met with salivating contractors in Fairbanks last month, each prepared to bid on the National Missile Defense deployment at Fort Greely. Hundreds of billions of dollars will be poured into this black hole. As in the past, downstream costs for Alaska workers and for toxic clean up are forgotten, left for another day and another generation.   Such blind ambition has deep roots in Alaska. Edward Teller's Project Chariot, was foisted on the Eskimos of Northwest Alaska. Four thermonuclear bombs were going to blast a harbor in Point Hope's backyard. . . .   Today, Alaskans who challenge the National Missile Defense deployment are dismissed as naive tree huggers or unpatriotic for asking questions that our Alaska experience demands be asked and answered before missiles are deployed. How will this affect Alaska in the long-term? Will Alaska once again be left holding the hazardous bag?  Even though Project Chariot's detonations were canceled, radioactive waste was brought from a test site in Nevada and spread over the tundra. . .  Alaska is continually treated as a convenient testing ground and ultimate out-of-the-way toxic dump. Short-term profit leaves long-term harm for someone else to discover. Alaskan leaders have learned nothing. Missile defense boosters point out that this is not a nuclear project. They ignore evidence that this unproven technology is already promoting nuclear proliferation, inducing China, for example, to increase its nuclear arsenal. No nuclear missiles are scheduled to be deployed at Fort Greely, but what of the nuclear reactor that the Army operated at Fort Greely from 1962-72? . . .  Are the Alaskans soon to be digging in this radioactive morass going to be informed of the dangers? And what of the future for this fast-changing project? Will missiles be trucked, flown or ferried to Kodiak or launched in the interior?   Lucrative secret experiments abound.




MISSILE DEFENSE TEST SCORES ANOTHER HIT, PAVES WAY FOR MORE COMPLEXITY, Aerospace Daily, March 19, 2002   While the Missile Defense Agency (MDA) is still poring over the post-test data from the March 15 test of the Ground-based Midcourse Defense (GMD) system, the apparent success of the intercept probably will set the groundwork for more complex flight tests.  Integrated Flight Test 8 (IFT 8) took place over the central Pacific Ocean. . . .  Lt. Col. Rick Lehner, spokesman for the MDA, said it is still too soon to make any assessments about the test, other than to say it successfully destroyed the target. . . .   IFT 8 was the fourth successful intercept in the GMD program, formerly known as National Missile Defense. . . .  The decoys used in IFT 8 were part of MDA's plan to gradually increase the complexity of the tests . . . but MDA has only said that the two new balloon decoys are "smaller" than the original decoy. . . .  Lt. Gen. Ronald Kadish, the director of MDA, has said the agency has always planned to increase the number of decoys "of the balloon type" in future tests to represent different classes of threats. . . .  Lehner said MDA has not made any decision on what decoys to use for the next test, planned for this summer. It depends on the final analysis of data collected from this test, he said, and whether all of the test objectives were met.


SMASH HIT,  National Review, March 18, 2002   Friday’s successful missile defense test didn’t receive an enormous amount of attention from the media, and what attention it did receive was grudging. Reporters seem to like it so much better when this system, meant to protect our cities from nuclear attack, fails. . . .  Instead of appreciation for an incredible technological achievement — one with enormous practical benefits in a dangerous world, by the way — there's almost a sigh of disappointment when the Pentagon shows it can "hit a bullet with a bullet," as the generals like to say. . . .  Friday's test was . . . the fourth time it has succeeded. It was also the most complicated test the emerging missile-defense system has confronted. . . .  The missile-defense "naysayers" probably won't talk much about this latest success. They may say that the test wasn't hard enough, or they may suggest it was rigged. But mostly they'll hold out the perverse hope that the next test flops.  In the meantime, though, the Pentagon is showing that missile-defense technology can work consistently and in a variety of environments. . . .  The Pentagon's Ballistic Missile Defense Organization now says it will have a rudimentary missile-defense system ready a little more than two years from now.


BMD EMERGENCY,  Aerospace Daily, March 18, 2002   The MDA plans to turn over its ballistic missile defense systems to the military services once they are ready for procurement and operation, but what happens if an emergency arises, forcing one of those systems to be deployed while it is still in MDA’s R&D hands.  “As I recall, when we deployed JSTARS during he Gulf War, we still had contractors operating parts of that system because they weren’t ready for trained airmen to actually operate them,” said Air Force Lt. Gen Ronald Kadish, MDA’s director.  If a similar situation occurs for missile defense, “I would expect that elements of our contractor and [MDA] personnel would be involved in that operation, but the actual war fighting  decision-making [would be] done by proper chains of command.”


MISSILE DEFENSE RESEARCH PORTAL CREATED,  New York Times, March 18, 2002   The Missile Defense Agency, a unit of the Pentagon, said Monday that it is building an intranet to streamline and accelerate missile defense development, research and testing.   The customized portal, created with Plumtree Software applications, gives hundreds of government and military researchers access to vast amounts of classified data on missile shield testing collected over more than the last decade. Previously, scientists and military personnel involved in missile defense projects had to travel to three different libraries in Alabama, Colorado and Tennessee to obtain information critical to their research, such as electronic data gathered by radars that track the path of missiles during tests, according to Steve Waugh, deputy chief information officer at MDA.   The portal, which the MDA began setting up in December, makes data from each library accessible from the researchers' desktops for the first time through a Web browser. . . .  To ensure the security of classified data, the intranet is not connected to the public Internet, said Waugh. It is run over a private network run by the Department of Defense that requires highly guarded encryption, user authorization and security procedures.


NEW TESTING SET FOR PATRIOT MISSILES,  Birmingham (AL) News, March 18, 2002   A new missile killer will undergo critical battlefield-like tests in the next few months to help determine whether the Army can begin full-fledged production of the weapon this fall. . . .  After a successful flight test program last fall, PAC-3 has to undergo four operational tests using soldiers before a production decision is made. The first test failed last month. . . .  “Obviously they have a long ways to go," said Victoria Samson, research associate at the Washington-based Center for Defense Information.  PAC-3 is the newest version of the Patriot missile that gained fame during the Gulf War. Patriot is designed to defend a small area against short-range ballistic missiles, cruise missiles and airplanes. . . .  The Army in Huntsville manages the Patriot program. . . . .  Army officials are giving few details about what the Patriot missile system will try to shoot down in its remaining operational tests. . . .  "My concern about the system is that we have seen no evidence that it has been tested against targets that are as erratic as they acted during the Gulf War," said Ted Postol at MIT.


DEMOCRATS DUBIOUS ABOUT MISSILE DEFENSE MANAGEMENT,  Congressional Quarterly Weekly, March 16, 2002   When Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld issued a Jan. 2 order to streamline management of the missile defense program, it drew scant attention outside Pentagon circles. But now, as Congress examines President Bush’s $379 billion defense budget, that complicated bureaucratic shuffle is emerging as the most contentious issue. . . .  [Air Force Lt. Gen. Ronald T.] Kadish, [director of MDA]  and his immediate superior, Undersecretary of Defense for Acquisition E. C. "Pete" Aldridge, have been insisting to House and Senate Armed Services subcommittees that the new arrangement is essential if the missile program is to keep up with fast-paced developments in new technologies. . . .  But Democrats counter that the changes circumvent checks and balances that give Pentagon leaders and Congress a dispassionate analysis of technically dicey and expensive programs, uncolored by the enthusiasm of their advocates.  "Congress, by itself, does not have the resources to oversee every individual weapons program," Jack Reed (D-RI), chairman of the Senate Armed Services Strategic Subcommittee, complained at a March 13 hearing. "That is why Congress codified in statute the roles and responsibilities [of the Pentagon’s oversight agencies]. Under the new rules for missile defense, these organizations will not be performing their traditional roles." 


PYONGYANG RADIO TERMS US POSITION ON MISSILE THREAT "BRAZEN-FACED GIBBERISH", BBC Worldwide Monitoring, March 18, 2002    US government warnings on the dangers of North Korea's missile capability have been dismissed by North Korean radio. . . .  “The commander-in-chief of the US imperialist forces of aggression occupying South Korea, said that we are spreading missiles and found fault with us by saying that this is an element for instability in the Middle East. This is brazenfaced gibberish, reversing black and white. This is nothing but more sophistry to rationalize the establishment of their missile defense MD system. . . .  Meanwhile, the US imperialists conducted another MD test on 15 March. . . .  This clearly attests that the US administration is running mad about the establishment of an MD system. . . .  US Congress' reaction is evidence of this. At a congressional hearing on 12 March, [Rep. Dennis] Kucinich (D-OH) denounced Bush's attempt to establish an MD system and noted that the United States will not let him waste billions of dollars on his MD program. US newspapers also report that the rumors about the North's missile threat that the United States came out with was politically fabricated by the US authorities.”




MISSILE DEFENSE TESTING AND THE BALLISTIC MISSILE THREAT.  Madam President, there have been two important events relating to missile defense programs that occurred last week, which I would like to bring to the attention of the Senate.    First is the successful test last Friday night of our Nation’s long-range missile defense system. This was the fourth successful test against an intercontinental ballistic missile and it was much more complicated than earlier tests have been, in that the target warhead was accompanied by three decoys. Despite the presence of these countermeasures, the interceptor was able to destroy the ICBM warhead.. . .  This impressive event cannot be considered routine, but it is becoming regular. The regularity with which our missile defense testing is succeeding is very encouraging. Although slowed down by uncertain funding and ABM Treaty restrictions in the past, the missile defense program is now showing the benefits of the support provided by Congress over the past few years and of the new seriousness with which President Bush has attacked this problem.    There is still much technical work to be done, and problems are bound to occur, as they do in all weapons programs. But the continued testing success of our ground-based missile defense system-as well as in other missile defense systems such as the Patriot PAC-3 and the sea-based midcourse system-suggests that we are steadily making progress and moving toward the time when we will no longer be defenseless against ballistic missile attacks.


REED TAKES LEAD IN CHALLENGING MISSILE PLAN, Providence Journal-Bulletin, March 18, 2002.   Avoiding a frontal assault on the five-year, $40-billion missile-defense program that President Bush has built into his wartime budget, Senate Democrats are angling for controls on a plan they view as costly, vague and too lightly scrutinized. . . .  Led by Sen. Jack Reed (D-RI), some Democrats charge that the "checks and balances" have been stripped from the missile-defense program. . . .  As chairman of the Armed Services Committee's strategic forces subcommittee, Reed has taken a prominent role in arguing that the program may spend "a prodigious sum of money" and still fail to block missile attacks on U.S. soil or on U.S. troops abroad. During two extensive hearings this month, Reed and other Democrats have laid the rhetorical groundwork for exploiting failure in the missile-defense program. They also charge that the antimissile network draws money from more pressing priorities in the war against terrorism.   The Democratic critique of the missile-defense program represents an effort to establish congressional controls in a realm that for decades has been ruled by an international agreement the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty. . .   Reed's subcommittee hearings featured testimony by Under Secretary of Defense E.C. "Pete" Aldrich, the Pentagon's weapons-buying and technology chief, and Air Force Lt. Gen. Ronald T. Kadish, director of the Missile Defense Agency. . . .   Kadish and Aldrich defended the overhaul of the missile-defense plan, which bypasses many of the service-by-service reviews and approvals to which most new weapons systems are subjected.   Kadish likened the management scheme for missile defense to the streamlined systems used for such revolutionary weapons as the Polaris ballistic-missile submarine in the 1960s.


U.S. SET TO DEPLOY MISSILE DEFENSE SYSTEM BY 2008, Japan Times, March 19, 2002.  The United States is seeking to deploy a multi-layered missile defense system by 2008, with an airborne laser system capable of intercepting missiles immediately after their launch, defense sources said Sunday.  Between 2006 and 2008, the U.S. military plans to deploy two to three aircraft equipped with laser-beam systems that can knock down intercontinental ballistic missiles at the so-called boost phase. . . .  During the period, the U.S. also hopes to deploy four ships equipped with systems that can intercept ICBMs at the "midcourse" phase. . . .  Some new bases to fire missiles to intercept ICBMs at the midcourse phase will be put in operation by 2008, in addition to a base to be constructed in Alaska, the sources said. . . .  Japan and the United States will hold a working-level meeting of officials in charge of defense and foreign affairs in Washington in mid-April, diplomatic sources said Sunday. The two countries are expected to discuss missile defense issues and Japan's support for the U.S.-led military campaign in Afghanistan, the sources said.


MDA EYES DEVELOPING NEW FAMILY OF TARGETS FOR MISSILE DEFENSE TESTS, Defense Daily, March 20, 2002.   The winner of an upcoming contract to design a new liquid booster target for ballistic missile defense testing will be in a good position to build a whole family of new target vehicles under the Missile Defense Agency's (MDA) latest plans to bolster test profiles, industry and DoD officials said this week.     Last year, the Army Space and Missile Defense Command (SMDC), in cooperation with MDA, selected TRW and Orbital Sciences to design a new liquid booster target for ballistic missile testing.   Each contractor received a $100 million contract to develop a realistic liquid booster target to test the accuracy of defense weapons, officials said.  SMDC, which manages the target supplies for MDA, in about a month or two is expected to pick a winning contractor for the program. 


AIRBORNE LASER PROGRAM COSTS DROP DUE TO PROGRAM STRETCHOUT, Inside Missile Defense, March 20, 2002.  The MDA has been able to lower what had been escalating costs in the Airborne Laser program by stretching out the more difficult technical ABL tests and pushing back by more than a year a planned shoot-down of a Scud-like target. The agency is also in the midst of contract renegotiations with the ABL contracting team of Boeing, TRW and Lockheed Martin to accommodate new requirements, including the use of a "spiral development" approach to get the weapon fielded faster, an MDA spokeswoman said.  Before last October, when MDA took over, the ABL program had been managed by the Air Force since its inception in the late 1970s. The system involves a chemical laser, mounted on a modified Boeing 747, which is designed to intercept and disable ballistic missiles in their early boost phase. Last year, Air Force officials were forced to reprogram $38 million in FY01 because of technical challenges facing the program.




CONTRACT CHANGES MADE FOR RESTRUCTURED SBIRS HIGH PROGRAM, Defense Daily, March 21, 2002.   Changes are being made to the Space Based Infrared System (SBIRS) High contract that prime contractor Lockheed Martin found problematic, Peter Teets, under secretary of the Air Force and director of the National Reconnaissance Office (NRO) told the Senate Armed Services Committee’s strategic power panel yesterday.  The Lockheed Martin team identified clauses in the contract that were problematic, and those changes are being made, Teets said. For example, changes will be made so that "the government will have total system requirement responsibility" in the restructured program, he said.  Teets credited the Lockheed Martin team for taking steps to bolster management and engineering support since the program has come under fire for a close to two-year schedule slip and almost $2 billion cost overrun. Northrop Grumman is teamed with Lockheed Martin on the program.  Teets noted the restructured plan for the program should be completed by May 1. That plan will then go to Pentagon acquisition chief Pete Aldridge for re-certification, he added.  Meanwhile, the NRO continues to look at alternatives to SBIRS High as a backup plan, he said.


U.S. SEEKING JOINT MISSILE DEFENSE OPERATIONS WITH JAPAN, Jiji Press Ticker Service, March 20, 2002   The United States is calling for joint operability of U.S. and Japanese forces in a higher level of cooperation for ballistic missile defense.  The United States aims to achieve greater interoperability first by expanding its technological cooperation with Japan, a U.S. government source said. Such cooperation is likely to result mainly in the transfer of technology from the United States to Japan, but Japan could also offer technology to the United States.  Joint operability is particularly necessary to prepare for possible attacks by North Korea, said the source, who estimates that North Korea has deployed about 100 Nodong-type ballistic missiles.   As part of this vision of greater coordination between U.S. and Japanese military forces, the source hoped the two countries would be able to take their BMD initiative to the development phase from the current research phase by 2005.   The U.S. government source also hoped Japan will decide to enter the new phase in 2003 or 2004 before it draws up its new five-year defense buildup plan. The two countries are currently working on a prototype of a sea-borne interceptor missile as part of the joint BMD research launched in fiscal 1999.   The Japanese Defense Agency maintains that it has yet to decide on its involvement in the development and deployment phases of the BMD program.


U.S. NOT TO CERTIFY N. KOREA'S NUCLEAR RECORD, Washington Times, March 20, 2002.   President Bush has decided not to certify North Korea's compliance with a 1994 nuclear agreement.  In the 1994 deal, known as the Agreed Framework, the United States agreed to provide North Korea with two modern atomic power plants and yearly shipments of fuel oil until the plants were operating. In exchange, North Korea froze its suspected nuclear weapons program.  White House officials insisted that the decision doesn't mean the United States has evidence that North Korea is violating the agreement — only that America does not have enough information to make a judgment.  Washington is concerned that Pyongyang hasn't provided a record of plutonium it had previously extracted from a now-mothballed reactor, and that it may be hiding nuclear bomb-making materials. Plutonium is the primary fuel needed to make atom bombs.

PENTAGON TO TRIPLE MONEY FOR JOINT STAFF ANTIMISSILE OFFICE, Defense Week, March 18, 2002.   The Pentagon wants to triple the budget of a small Joint Chiefs of Staff office that analyzes missile-defense programs.  Although the Joint Air and Missile Defense Office, or JTAMDO, buys no military hardware for the armed forces to use in the field, the obscure office will see its budget reach $73 million in the coming fiscal year, the Pentagon budget request says. Home to 32 employees and part of the joint staff's requirements directorate (J-8), JTAMDO only received $21 million and $27 million in the previous two fiscal years, respectively.  The office was created in 1996 to develop joint air- and missile-defense requirements and operational concepts for systems that the Pentagon's missile-defense agency and services would then buy. Yet several other joint military institutions also claim to do similar work: defining joint concepts and technical "architectures." These other organizations include U.S. Joint Forces Command, U.S. Space Command and the Missile Defense Agency, and various service organizations purporting to create ideas for melding numerous anti-missile systems into a coherent multi-service whole.   A Pentagon official, in an interview, said the infusion of money at JTAMDO is justified and that the joint staff office does not duplicate work carried on elsewhere in the military.   Congressional staff have tried to cut the office in the past, the official said, but "we explained to them that we're not redundant.". . .  The office used the money in 1999 largely to conduct demonstrations on test ranges, including an engagement by a Patriot missile of a drone simulating a cruise missile. Low-flying cruise missiles are not visible to the Patriot's own radar until the threat appears upon the horizon. The test demonstrated how Patriot could use other sensors on the battlefield to track the cruise missile earlier in its flight.


BRITISH, LOCKHEED MARTIN WORKING OUT DETAILS OF U.K. CEC PROGRAM, Defense Daily, March 21, 2002.   The British government and Lockheed Martin are working out the details of the firm's involvement as the lead systems integrator for the next phase in the United Kingdom's procurement of the Cooperative Engagement Capability (CEC) system.  CEC is a sensor collaboration system that provides a comprehensive airspace-tracking picture. So far, Raytheon has under contract 58 CEC systems, including those used to successfully complete operational evaluation (OPEVAL) in the United States.  While the U.S. Navy's plans for competition to produce CEC ship sets remain unclear . . . the Navy plan has Raytheon as the lead developer for software versions 2.0 and 2.1--which will lead fleet CEC establishment--with Lockheed Martin developing the CEC version 2.2 software associated with missile defense missions.


MISSILE NUTS WILL SET SIGHTS ON UK, Daily Star (England), March 21, 2002.   Britain was warned yesterday to face the future as a target for ballistic missiles fired from the Middle East. Defense Secretary Geoff Hoon yesterday raised the prospect of long-range terror attacks. He told MPs that while there was no current "direct threat" to the UK of a missile attack involving weapons of mass destruction, that could well change. . . .  So-called "rogue states" such as Iraq or Libya - "might be capable of targeting the UK" within a few years' time. Hoon was giving evidence to the Commons Defense Select Committee inquiry into controversial US plans for a missile defense system to protect against a ballistic missile attack.   The Government had not decided whether to back such a system, but monitored "developing threats.  His comments are likely to been seen as part of a "softening up" process to prepare the ground for Britain to accept American plans, which could cover Europe and the UK. Many Labor MPs remain opposed to the scheme, fearing it could trigger a new arms race. A joint Ministry of Defense-Foreign Office paper to the committee said it was a "serious cause for concern" that there were states developing a ballistic missile capability while seeking to acquire weapons of mass destruction.   "Were a country in the Middle East or North Africa to acquire a complete long-range ballistic missile system, a capability to target the UK accurately could emerge within the next few years, " it said.   "Above all, we need to recognize in the debate the reality of the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and their means of delivery."


FRIDAY, MARCH 15, 2002


PATRIOT INTERCEPTORS HIT TARGETS IN TESTS, Defense Week Daily Update, March 21, 2002.  Two Patriot antimissile interceptors--one a new model PAC-3 and one an older PAC-2--obliterated their targets in a test this morning in New Mexico, the Army said.  The success is the latest of many for the Patriot program and bolsters the overall case for missile defense, though Pentagon testers have questioned the realism of the Patriot tests and the extent to which they prove the system’s effectiveness…. Today’s test was the second of four operational tests, wherein soldiers from Fort Bliss, Texas, not just contractors, put the system through its paces. The first operational test, in February, was mostly unsuccessful at intercepting the planned number of threat targets. The earlier "developmental" tests were almost all successful at killing targets, officials say.  According to the plan for today’s test at White Sands Missile Range, N.M., two Patriot PAC-3 missiles were to be fired against a Hera ballistic missile simulating a Scud, said Pam Rogers, an Army spokeswoman. One PAC-3 hit the target; the other didn’t take off for reasons the Army will investigate, she said…. The PAC-2 today destroyed another target--an MQM-107 drone aircraft, the Army said. A second PAC-2 was ready to fire at the drone if the first PAC-2 missed, but that wasn’t necessary, Rogers said….


CHINA MISSILE TEST, Washington Times, March 22, 2002. China’s military conducted a flight test of a CSS-6 short-range missile recently as part of efforts to build up its missile forces near Taiwan. The missile test took place several weeks ago and was monitored by U.S. intelligence agencies, said officials familiar with reports of the test.  China has deployed hundreds of CSS-6 and CSS-7 short-range missiles opposite Taiwan. U.S. intelligence agencies estimate there are about 350 of the systems now deployed. The missiles are destabilizing because they provide little warning of an attack.  CIA Director George J. Tenet said on Tuesday that "China continues to upgrade and expand the conventional short-range ballistic missile force it has arrayed against Taiwan."


ALDRIDGE: DOD TO PLAY GREATER INDUSTRIAL ROLE IN PROFITS, PROGRAMS, PRIME POWER, Defense Daily International, March 22, 2002.  The Pentagon under the leadership of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld will play a larger industrial base role to speed the introduction of new weapons and better control development costs through a broad number of initiatives such as boosting allowable profits for industry, stiffer penalties for poor performance to include program cancellations, taking power away from prime contractors, and taking a closer look at future mergers and acquisitions to ensure long-term competition, according to a top official.  "There is a transformation of attitude about how to run this building, and it starts with Rumsfeld…. Pentagon acquisition chief Pete Aldridge told Defense Daily International during a wide-ranging interview last week…. “[P]rograms that are under development and you give the responsibility to the contractors you find that there are lots of mistakes being made,” [Aldridge said.]  In fact, one of the programs that has encountered problems is Lockheed Martin's Space Based Infrared System High (SBIRS High) program, which has encountered a series of problems. The fate of the program is being debated, although cancellation is unlikely given the importance off the effort.  According to Aldridge, the program--like other major efforts particularly space programs--got into trouble because of the impact of overarching requirements on secondary needs, and bad calls by the prime contractor…. SBIRS High started out with a great set of requirements, key performance requirements, and those key performance requirements have stayed stable. But what happened was the flow down of the requirements to the secondary requirements and the implications of that for the system," Aldridge said.


RAYTHEON PLANS HIT-TO-KILL CAPABILITY FOR SM-2 BLOCK IVA MISSILE, Defense Daily, March 18, 2002.  Raytheon [RTN] is working on a plan to put hit-to-kill technology into its cancelled Standard Missile (SM-2) Block IVA project as a way of revitalizing the weapon's appeal for future programs, according to a company official…. At the end of last year, Pentagon acquisition chief Pete Aldridge ordered the cancellation of the Navy's Area theater ballistic missile defense (TBMD) program--and the SM-2 Block IVA--due to a breach of Nunn-McCurdy government program cost growth regulations. Now the Navy and the Missile Defense Agency (MDA) are working on an alternative proposal due to Aldridge in May to fill what they view as a valid requirement for "sea-based terminal phase missile defense.”….  The Navy Area follow-on plan that the service develops is to be cast in the context of a broader, extended-range anti-air warfare (AAW-ER) strategy, according to the Navy. A Navy AAW-ER plan is being drawn up for a "dual-purpose missile that was designed against conventional AAW (anti-air warfare) threats as well as the TBMD capability," a service official said last month….


PAC-3 SYSTEM SCORES TWO HITS IN SECOND OPERATIONAL TEST, Aerospace Daily, March 22, 2002.  The latest operational test of the Patriot Advanced Capability (PAC-3) missile defense system resulted in the successful destruction of both targets over White Sands Missile Range, N.M.  The   test involved two PAC-3 missiles fired against a Hera missile target, as well as the “shoot-look-shoot” intercept of an MQM-107 drone aircraft using PAC-2 missiles.  Preliminary data from the tests indicated that both the PAC-3 and PAC-2 missiles hit their targets, according to…MDA spokeswoman Alicia Garges.


BUSH´S MISSILE DEFENSE PLAN HARKS BACK TO FATHER´S `LAYERED´ APPROACH, CQ Weekly, March 16, 2002.  President Bush´s vision for missile defense, far more ambitious than the ground- and sea-based, single-phase system considered by President Bill Clinton, returns to the approach promoted by Bush´s father a decade ago.  The elder Bush envisioned a network of defenses that could protect U.S. territory, allies and American forces abroad against a small number of missiles. That was in contrast to the dream of his predecessor, President Ronald Reagan, who imagined an anti-missile shield that could fend off thousands of Soviet nuclear warheads.  Bush placed more emphasis than Reagan on defenses to protect U.S. forces in the field against short-range missiles, such as the Soviet-designed Scuds used by Iraq in the 1991 Persian Gulf War. For long-range missiles, he planned a "layered" defense designed to try to pick off attackers at several points in their flight.  The current administration also stresses a layered approach. As attacking missiles speed toward the United States, the initial line of defense would be interceptors that knock out some warheads in the "boost-phase" - the first few minutes of flight when engines thrust the missiles into space.  In the next stage, the missiles that make it through would be destroyed in "midcourse" as they coast toward their targets. The surviving weapons would be eliminated in their "terminal" phase - the last minute or two as they plunge back into the atmosphere toward U.S. cities and towns.  Prototypes of two programs - a contingent of ground-based interceptor missiles in Alaska and a laser-equipped Boeing 747 - are slated to be ready for testing in fall 2004, close to Election Day and Bush´s expected bid for a second term.  The administration believes the prototypes could be used as a rudimentary defense in the event of an attack. Critics argue that, regardless of how limited their military effectiveness would be, Bush will cite the programs in an election-year boast that he fulfilled his pledge to defend U.S. territory against potential missile attack.