bobdina
10-01-2009, 03:21 PM
U.S. Could Send Army Patriot Missile Unit to Poland
By JOHN T. BENNETT
Published: 1 Oct 2009 13:02
A senior State Department official told lawmakers Oct. 1 that Washington could deploy a U.S. Army unit to Poland under the Obama administration's newly unveiled missile defense framework.
Gen. James Cartwright, above, says the new missile defense architecture will be an upgrade over the previous plan. (CHRIS MADDALONI / STAFF)
Ellen Tauscher, undersecretary of state for arms control and international security, told the House Armed Services Committee the administration "could rotate an Army Patriot missile unit to Poland" as it hashes out where the pieces of its new architecture will be located.
In testimony before the panel, Tauscher and Michele Flournoy, undersecretary of defense for policy, made clear the Obama administration has told Polish leaders they will eventually base American forces there. In a blunt admission, Tauscher admitted having U.S. troops on its soil, as a buffer against neighboring Russia, was what the Polish government "really wanted" when it agreed to the Bush administration's now-scrapped plans to install 10 missile interceptors there.
Out, too, is a Bush-era plan to put a sophisticated radar suite in Czech Republic. Administration and Pentagon officials testifying before the House committee, however, said Washington will discuss with Czech leaders the possibility of placing a state-of-the-art command-and-control system key to the new framework there.
The Obama plan centers on sea- and land-based Aegis combat systems and SM-3 missiles. Officials say it will be designed to combat what new intelligence reports say is the biggest threat from Iran: short- and medium-range missiles. The Bush framework was geared toward combating Iran's long-range missiles. Pointing to the new intel, the Obama team said development of Tehran's long-range arsenal has slowed.
In phase one of the Obama plan, the United States will deploy SM-3 interceptor missiles and radar surveillance systems on Aegis ships by 2011. In phase two and by 2015, a more capable version of the SM-3 interceptor and more advanced sensors will be used in both sea- and land-based configurations. In phases three and four, intercepting and detecting capabilities further will be developed.
Gen. James Cartwright, U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff vice chairman, told the House panel the envisioned architecture is an upgrade over the Bush plan for a number of reasons.
One, he said, it will feature more sensors that can see farther out, adding range the Bush system never imagined.
"We're pairing long-range sensors with long-range weapons that [would have been] paired with shorter-range sensors," he said.
Cartwright, who was a key player in designing the new framework, also said the plan will allow the Pentagon to buy and deploy more missile interceptors. The Bush plan was centered on "25-ton" ground-based interceptor (GBI) armaments. The Obama administration's plan will continue development work on the GBI but will field a larger number of sea- and land-based SM-3 missiles, which are smaller - around 1 ton - and much less expensive, he said.
Analysts say that is good for Raytheon, maker of the SM-3, and bad for Boeing, which was set to cash in on the GBI-based plan. Lockheed Martin, maker of the Aegis system, is colored by analysts as the other big winner, according to analysts.
Panel member Rep. John Spratt, D-S.C., said going with the cheaper SM-3s should bring the Pentagon "substantial savings."
During the hearing, panel members focused heavily on just when Iran is expected to field a long-range ballistic missile, and whether the Obama administration scrapped the controversial Bush plan to make nice with Moscow. Here is a compilation of key exchanges from two-hour session:
■ The panel's ranking Republican, Rep. Howard "Buck" McKeon of California, said he is "skeptical of the plan" but acknowledged "it does have some merits." What worries McKeon the most is the administration based its new framework on "questionable assumptions." He also called a land-based SM-3 "a paper missile," saying he is concerned it might not be ready by the time Iran fields a long-range missile late next decade.
■ McKeon and several other Republican panel members hit on the land-based SM-3 repeatedly. They say it appears to them the Obama missile framework will leave a gap late next decade when parts of Europe and some deployed U.S. forces would not be protected from Iranian missiles expected to come online then.
■ Republican lawmakers questioned whether the decision to scrap the Bush administration's plans was a calculated attempt to appease Moscow. Flournoy and Tauscher repeatedly said while the president is happy to accept any changes in Russian behavior that stem from the decision, "the decision had nothing to do with Russia."
■ Rep. Doug Lamborn, R-Colo., said the timing of the announcement was suspect because it came before completion of the Pentagon's ongoing ballistic missile defense assessment and Quadrennial Defense Review. He also questioned why the new framework was announced before Washington's planned START Treaty talks with Moscow even kicked off. Flournoy said the administration decided to make the announcement late last month because of inaccurate press reports about its plans.
■ Rep. Trent Franks, R-Ariz., said he finds little "that is truly new" with the Obama plan. He said he thinks the ongoing debate about the new framework is all about the elimination of the GBI site in Poland. Because it was billed as providing redundancy against long-range Iranian missiles, he worries the U.S. military will now be unable to take out such an Iranian missile when Tehran has such a capability. Missile Defense Agency chief Army Lt. Gen. Patrick O'Reilly countered by telling Franks the envisioned Bush system would not have provided such redundancy, largely because it would have only had 10 interceptors in Poland.
■ Tauscher said she is slated to travel to Moscow "in about 10 days" for wide-ranging talks with Russian officials. Missile defense and revising the START Treaty will be on the docket, she said.
http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=4304829&c=AME&s=LAN
By JOHN T. BENNETT
Published: 1 Oct 2009 13:02
A senior State Department official told lawmakers Oct. 1 that Washington could deploy a U.S. Army unit to Poland under the Obama administration's newly unveiled missile defense framework.
Gen. James Cartwright, above, says the new missile defense architecture will be an upgrade over the previous plan. (CHRIS MADDALONI / STAFF)
Ellen Tauscher, undersecretary of state for arms control and international security, told the House Armed Services Committee the administration "could rotate an Army Patriot missile unit to Poland" as it hashes out where the pieces of its new architecture will be located.
In testimony before the panel, Tauscher and Michele Flournoy, undersecretary of defense for policy, made clear the Obama administration has told Polish leaders they will eventually base American forces there. In a blunt admission, Tauscher admitted having U.S. troops on its soil, as a buffer against neighboring Russia, was what the Polish government "really wanted" when it agreed to the Bush administration's now-scrapped plans to install 10 missile interceptors there.
Out, too, is a Bush-era plan to put a sophisticated radar suite in Czech Republic. Administration and Pentagon officials testifying before the House committee, however, said Washington will discuss with Czech leaders the possibility of placing a state-of-the-art command-and-control system key to the new framework there.
The Obama plan centers on sea- and land-based Aegis combat systems and SM-3 missiles. Officials say it will be designed to combat what new intelligence reports say is the biggest threat from Iran: short- and medium-range missiles. The Bush framework was geared toward combating Iran's long-range missiles. Pointing to the new intel, the Obama team said development of Tehran's long-range arsenal has slowed.
In phase one of the Obama plan, the United States will deploy SM-3 interceptor missiles and radar surveillance systems on Aegis ships by 2011. In phase two and by 2015, a more capable version of the SM-3 interceptor and more advanced sensors will be used in both sea- and land-based configurations. In phases three and four, intercepting and detecting capabilities further will be developed.
Gen. James Cartwright, U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff vice chairman, told the House panel the envisioned architecture is an upgrade over the Bush plan for a number of reasons.
One, he said, it will feature more sensors that can see farther out, adding range the Bush system never imagined.
"We're pairing long-range sensors with long-range weapons that [would have been] paired with shorter-range sensors," he said.
Cartwright, who was a key player in designing the new framework, also said the plan will allow the Pentagon to buy and deploy more missile interceptors. The Bush plan was centered on "25-ton" ground-based interceptor (GBI) armaments. The Obama administration's plan will continue development work on the GBI but will field a larger number of sea- and land-based SM-3 missiles, which are smaller - around 1 ton - and much less expensive, he said.
Analysts say that is good for Raytheon, maker of the SM-3, and bad for Boeing, which was set to cash in on the GBI-based plan. Lockheed Martin, maker of the Aegis system, is colored by analysts as the other big winner, according to analysts.
Panel member Rep. John Spratt, D-S.C., said going with the cheaper SM-3s should bring the Pentagon "substantial savings."
During the hearing, panel members focused heavily on just when Iran is expected to field a long-range ballistic missile, and whether the Obama administration scrapped the controversial Bush plan to make nice with Moscow. Here is a compilation of key exchanges from two-hour session:
■ The panel's ranking Republican, Rep. Howard "Buck" McKeon of California, said he is "skeptical of the plan" but acknowledged "it does have some merits." What worries McKeon the most is the administration based its new framework on "questionable assumptions." He also called a land-based SM-3 "a paper missile," saying he is concerned it might not be ready by the time Iran fields a long-range missile late next decade.
■ McKeon and several other Republican panel members hit on the land-based SM-3 repeatedly. They say it appears to them the Obama missile framework will leave a gap late next decade when parts of Europe and some deployed U.S. forces would not be protected from Iranian missiles expected to come online then.
■ Republican lawmakers questioned whether the decision to scrap the Bush administration's plans was a calculated attempt to appease Moscow. Flournoy and Tauscher repeatedly said while the president is happy to accept any changes in Russian behavior that stem from the decision, "the decision had nothing to do with Russia."
■ Rep. Doug Lamborn, R-Colo., said the timing of the announcement was suspect because it came before completion of the Pentagon's ongoing ballistic missile defense assessment and Quadrennial Defense Review. He also questioned why the new framework was announced before Washington's planned START Treaty talks with Moscow even kicked off. Flournoy said the administration decided to make the announcement late last month because of inaccurate press reports about its plans.
■ Rep. Trent Franks, R-Ariz., said he finds little "that is truly new" with the Obama plan. He said he thinks the ongoing debate about the new framework is all about the elimination of the GBI site in Poland. Because it was billed as providing redundancy against long-range Iranian missiles, he worries the U.S. military will now be unable to take out such an Iranian missile when Tehran has such a capability. Missile Defense Agency chief Army Lt. Gen. Patrick O'Reilly countered by telling Franks the envisioned Bush system would not have provided such redundancy, largely because it would have only had 10 interceptors in Poland.
■ Tauscher said she is slated to travel to Moscow "in about 10 days" for wide-ranging talks with Russian officials. Missile defense and revising the START Treaty will be on the docket, she said.
http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=4304829&c=AME&s=LAN