Quoted:
Overhaul, meaning = Get rid of our current one and forget all about setting uo a new one.
Not at all. I guess I'm going to have to repeat myself...again.
First and foremost, the GBI(Ground Based Interceptors) were going to be placed in Europe to protect Europe from Iranian IRBMs, not ICBMs. There is a difference. If you don't know what that difference is leave the discussion until you do.
It was going to be placed in Europe not based on the Iranian threat now, but the Iranian threat several years from now. Remember, it takes a while to build the infrastructure. While we're digging holes in the ground the Iranians would, presumably, be buying and developing their own missiles. Mostly buying. They do have a good relationship with North Korea. The assumption is that North Korean advances in missile technology would be sold to Iran. It's a good assumption, most of their missile technology has made it to Persia.
Also remember that Iran has a "peaceful" nuclear program. One where they are trying to refine uranium to weapons grade, because they say they want to use Russian designed nuclear power plants. However, it is conceivable they could refine it a bit more and have uranium worthy of building a nuclear weapon out of. Again, this is the reason we wanted GBIs in Europe. To prevent Iran from blackmailing Europe in the case that the West has to go to war with Iran to secure the SLOCs (again if you don't know look it up) through the Straits of Hormuz.
Fortunately, the ballistic missile threat isn't developing as fast as once thought. The Nork missile test failures are testimony to that.
And the program isn't really going to be killed. Instead, as someone pointed out, we can have a network of some less energetic systems. The front runner is a land-based SM-3, which can be ready in 3 years. Right now with the current SM-3, you'd need 6 launch sites to cover Europe (Vice GBI's one. Which shows the value of a high speed/high energy system). However, SM-3 is due for a block II upgrade, which will include a 21 inch booster. That would allow total protection of Europe with two sites.
SM-3 is already an export system, with Japan as a major player. Some European navies have expressed interest in Aegis/SM-3, and some are already Aegis equipped. This system of using SM-3 (or THAAD, although THAAD isn't the front runner) would allow us to spread the cost of defending Europe among allies, and would get more ballistic missile interceptors into service faster.
Overall, I think this is a good call.
Quoted:
U.S. Yanks European GBIs; Plans SM-3s
By Amy Butler
President Barack Obama is making major changes to plans started by his predecessor to establish ballistic missile defenses in Europe, and they will have major ramifications for interceptor makers Boeing and Raytheon.
Defense Secretary Robert Gates and the vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, USMC Gen. James Cartwright, say findings of a congressionally mandated review of missile defense - as well as adjustments in the intelligence assessment of the missile threat from Iran - underpin the changes.
Ten two-stage, silo-based Ground-Based Interceptors (GBI) that were to be placed in Poland and a long-range tracking radar bound for the Czech Republic – a plan pushed by President George W. Bush and endorsed by Gates in 2006 –– will be scrapped. This posture assumed that Iran would have a few intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBM) capable of reaching Europe or, eventually, the United States around 2015. However, medium- and intermediate-range ballistic missiles (IRBM) are proliferating at an alarming pace, prompting the restructuring, the officials told Pentagon reporters this morning. Of particular worry is the “raid” threat that hundreds of these missiles would be launched at once.
“We built the original system on the idea of a rogue nation threat – three to five missiles that could come from either North Korea or Iran. The reality is we are dealing with hundreds of missiles in the IRBM and medium range capabilities,” Cartwright says. “What you can do with an SM-3 in affordability and in deployment and in dispersal is substantially greater for a larger group of [threat] missiles than what we have with the Ground-Based Interceptor.”
The new plan has four phases, the first to be fielded in 2011. It is a mix of Patriot and PAC-3 terminal defenses as well as ship-based SM-3 Block IAs made by Raytheon and deployed in the Eastern Mediterranean and other areas around Europe.
Phase two in 2015, will incorporate land-based and ship-based SM-3 Block IBs (with an improved seeker and divert and attitude control system) and airborne sensors, Cartwright says. Poland and the Czech Republic are among the top candidates to house the relocatable land-based system. The U.S. Missile Defense Agency already has begun to experiment with infrared sensors on unmanned aerial vehicles as a facet of its sensor network.
In 2018, the land- and sea-based SM-3 Block IIA, which adds more range with a 21-in. booster (over the IA and IB’s 14-in. motor), will lead the third phase. This significantly increases range, and Cartwright says up to three sites would be required to protect Europe.
Finally, in 2020, phase four will include a new and yet-to-be described SM-3 Block IIB, which Cartwright says will counter an ICBM from Iran.
The shifting threat and the cost underpin the decision, according to Cartwright, who has telegraphed such changes since the start of the year. A single GBI costs about $70 million, with each SM-3 Block IA at about $10 million and the IB at up to $15 million.
Michèle Flournoy, U.S. under secretary of defense for policy, is in Prague and Warsaw now to address their concerns. Delay in ratification of the GBI sites contributed to slippage to as late as 2018 for those interceptors. Gates and Cartwright emphasize that the land-based SM-3 is a candidate for both nations.Some observers assert that a desire by the Obama administration to placate Russia, which had strongly objected to the GBI plan, is at the root of the shift. Gates says the SM-3 missiles should be viewed as less threatening to Moscow, though he said claims that GBIs could be tipped with nuclear payloads were “unfounded.” Furthermore, the planned deployable X-based radar, which will likely be placed in the Caucasus region, will only be able to focus at the threat area alone. The system proposed with the GBI could have peered into Russia.
Reaction from Congress was swift and generally along party lines. Republicans object, citing possible insult to Europe and an over-eagerness to please Russia. Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.) says the shift is “short sited” and leaves the United States vulnerable.
“It shows a willful determination to continue ignoring the threat posed by some of the most dangerous regimes in the world, while taking one of the most important defenses against Iran off the table,” echoes Rep. John Boehner (R-Ohio), the House minority leader.
Rep. Ike Skelton (D-Mo.), chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, says the new approach will “focus our resources where they will do the most good.”
And his Senate counterpart went further, countering Republican accusations. “President Obama has made a sound choice that will improve our security,” said Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin (D-Mich.).
He noted Polish and Czech hesitations over the previous plans and said the new vision would still provide widespread protection. Poland also is being offered a Patriot battery - which he says was their first priority - and SM-3s for deployment on their soil. “This decision reinforces our security commitment to our European allies; it does not weaken it,” Levin claims.
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_channel.jsp?channel=defense&id=news/NewMD091709.xml&headline=U.S.%20Yanks%20European%20GBIs;%20Plans%20SM-3s
I don't know if you guys know Ike Skelton, but he has been sound on defense as long as I have followed him.
I also encourage you guys to follow the Check Six podcast. They usually break this stuff well before it makes the main stream.