Archie to SAM: A Short Operational History of Ground-Based Air ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE IN THE 1990S deployment of the first unit in 2003. This system was designed to protect against aircraft, cruise missiles, and short-range ballistic missiles. DOD cancelled the program in December 2001, as it was $2 billion over budget (60 percent cost growth) and two years behind schedule. 27 DOD considered several missiles for the system. The trade press reported that the DOD was considering standardizing on one missile for both the Army and Navy programs. Because of the technical status of the two programs, this would probably mean using the THAAD. While that might make economic sense, and perhaps technical sense, it had political problems. That is, Republican legislators, holding the majority in Congress in the late 1990s, strongly supported separate Army and Navy programs. 28 Another proposal was to mate the light exoatmospheric projectile (LEAP) to a Standard missile. LEAP began with a 220- pound device in August 1989, but within three years it appeared in five versions that weighed between 12 and 40 pounds. It was estimated to have a maximum speed twice that of THAAD and an altitude capability of 80 km. LEAP had its first successful test in September 1992. 29 The NTW Ballistic Missile Defense program is also based on the standard missile aboard Aegis ships, but in contrast to the Area program, it is designed for longer range and higher altitude (outside the atmosphere) interception of ballistic missiles. It is comparable to THAAD. Designated SM-3, it is an SM-2 Block IV with a third-stage motor and a maneuvering hit-to-kill warhead that uses the LEAP IIR seeker. The missile had its first successful flight in September 1999, although this did not include the all-important third stage. But the system cannot handle ICBMs, which would require twice the interceptor missile speed and more powerful radars. Some believe that it might also require new ships. The original plan was to field an interim missile (Block I) by 2006, but by February 2001 the Navy rejected this concept to concentrate on the final version (Block II). The Navy now believes that 2010 is the earliest it can deploy this weapon, when it expects to get 80 SM-3 missiles aboard four Aegis cruisers. 30 A 1999 Heritage Foundation study asserted that NTW could be expanded into an NMD by putting 650 missiles 247
BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE IN THE 1990S aboard 22 Aegis ships in less than five years, for an initial cost of $3 billion. However, a Navy estimate for a 12-ship system was $15 billion, while later estimates for such a system were between $16 billion and $19 billion. A sea-based NMD would violate the ABM treaty. 31 The attractiveness of the Navy system was evident in 1999. In September, the Japanese agreed to conduct joint research with the United States for the NTW system. The two partners intend to jointly deploy a Block II Standard, with an undetermined IOC. The next month, naval representatives from the United States, Australia, Germany, Italy, and the Netherlands met to investigate a future cooperative naval effort. The Standard missile figured prominently in these talks. 32 To jump a bit ahead of the chronology, the election of George W. Bush to the presidency in 2000 renewed interest in the Navy BMD programs. Bush, Senate Majority leader Trent Lott, Secretary of State Colin Powell, and former secretary of state Henry Kissinger all called for the deployment of a seabased system. 33 A New Threat One reason for this increased activity was the recognition of an increased threat. Following the collapse of the Soviet Union and the overwhelming military victory in the Gulf War in the early 1990s, Americans relaxed, expected a peace dividend, and believed they were secure. They also began to cut the military. The politicians were also lulled by a 1995 national intelligence estimate (NIE) and the intelligence community’s March 1998 annual report that held that it would take 15 years for a country without a ballistic missile infrastructure to deploy an ICBM. This would give the United States ample warning before such a deployment. 34 Critics noted that this estimate ignored the existing Russian and Chinese ICBMs, turned a blind eye to the vulnerability of Alaska and Hawaii, and disregarded missile and missile technology transfer. This complacent view was jarred by events in the summer of 1998. First, a congressionally mandated committee chaired by former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld concluded that 248
Page 2 and 3:
Report Documentation Page Form Appr
Page 4 and 5:
Air University Library Cataloging D
Page 6 and 7:
Contents Chapter Page DISCLAIMER .
Page 8 and 9:
CONTENTS Chapter Page 7 BALLISTIC M
Page 10 and 11:
CONTENTS Figure Page 30 George Pred
Page 12 and 13:
CONTENTS Figure Page 70 Blowpipe .
Page 14 and 15:
Foreword Dr. Kenneth Werrell’s hi
Page 16 and 17:
About the Author Dr. Kenneth P. Wer
Page 18 and 19:
PREFACE excluded from the original
Page 20 and 21:
PREFACE always been a factor in air
Page 22 and 23:
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Artillery Institute
Page 24 and 25:
ANTIAIRCRAFT DEFENSE THROUGH WORLD
Page 26 and 27:
Page 28 and 29:
Page 30 and 31:
Page 32 and 33:
Page 34 and 35:
Figure 7. British 40 mm light antia
Page 36 and 37:
Page 38 and 39:
Page 40 and 41:
Page 42 and 43:
Page 44 and 45:
Page 46 and 47:
Page 48 and 49:
Page 50 and 51:
Page 52 and 53:
Page 54 and 55:
Page 56 and 57:
Page 58 and 59:
Page 60 and 61:
Page 62 and 63:
Page 64 and 65:
Page 66 and 67:
Page 68 and 69:
Page 70 and 71:
Page 72 and 73:
Page 74 and 75:
Page 76 and 77:
Page 78 and 79:
Page 80 and 81:
Page 82 and 83:
Page 84 and 85:
Page 86 and 87:
Page 88 and 89:
Page 90 and 91:
Page 92 and 93:
FROM GUNS TO MISSILES American air
Page 94 and 95:
FROM GUNS TO MISSILES company deliv
Page 96 and 97:
FROM GUNS TO MISSILES (discussed la
Page 98 and 99:
FROM GUNS TO MISSILES flak rockets
Page 100 and 101:
FROM GUNS TO MISSILES 1953, the rat
Page 102 and 103:
FROM GUNS TO MISSILES to 1,285 in J
Page 104 and 105:
FROM GUNS TO MISSILES Figure 40. Ar
Page 106 and 107:
FROM GUNS TO MISSILES cember 1958,
Page 108 and 109:
Figure 42. Nike Hercules. The Nike
Page 110 and 111:
FROM GUNS TO MISSILES Airmen test-f
Page 112 and 113:
FROM GUNS TO MISSILES Bomarc failed
Page 114 and 115:
FROM GUNS TO MISSILES Despite knowl
Page 116 and 117:
FROM GUNS TO MISSILES Figure 47. Ha
Page 118 and 119:
FROM GUNS TO MISSILES Army decided
Page 120 and 121:
FROM GUNS TO MISSILES The third fam
Page 122 and 123:
FROM GUNS TO MISSILES with both les
Page 124 and 125:
FROM GUNS TO MISSILES that fired ov
Page 126 and 127:
FROM GUNS TO MISSILES Figure 53. Br
Page 128 and 129:
FROM GUNS TO MISSILES The two-decad
Page 130 and 131:
FROM GUNS TO MISSILES A. H. Peterso
Page 132 and 133:
FROM GUNS TO MISSILES “SAMs Spur
Page 134 and 135:
Chapter 3 Airmen versus Guerrillas:
Page 136 and 137:
AIRMEN VERSUS GUERRILLAS the next y
Page 138 and 139:
AIRMEN VERSUS GUERRILLAS war with t
Page 140 and 141:
AIRMEN VERSUS GUERRILLAS Figure 56.
Page 142 and 143:
AIRMEN VERSUS GUERRILLAS firings fr
Page 144 and 145:
Page 146 and 147:
AIRMEN VERSUS GUERRILLAS and Navy c
Page 148 and 149:
AIRMEN VERSUS GUERRILLAS American A
Page 150 and 151:
Page 152 and 153:
Page 154 and 155:
AIRMEN VERSUS GUERRILLAS but modifi
Page 156 and 157:
AIRMEN VERSUS GUERRILLAS In all, du
Page 158 and 159:
AIRMEN VERSUS GUERRILLAS least an e
Page 160 and 161:
Page 162 and 163:
AIRMEN VERSUS GUERRILLAS War Vietna
Page 164 and 165:
AIRMEN VERSUS GUERRILLAS D.C.: Depa
Page 166 and 167:
AIRMEN VERSUS GUERRILLAS 97, 121; a
Page 168 and 169:
Chapter 4 Operations between Vietna
Page 170 and 171:
OPERATIONS BETWEEN VIETNAM AND THE
Page 172 and 173:
Page 174 and 175:
Page 176 and 177:
Page 178 and 179:
Page 180 and 181:
Page 182 and 183:
Page 184 and 185:
Page 186 and 187:
Page 188 and 189:
Page 190 and 191:
Page 192 and 193:
Page 194 and 195:
Page 196 and 197:
Page 198 and 199:
Page 200 and 201:
Page 202 and 203:
Chapter 5 Ballistic Missile Defense
Page 204 and 205:
BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE Army cons
Page 206 and 207:
BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE Figure 80
Page 208 and 209:
Figure 81. Spartan launch. The Spar
Page 210 and 211:
BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE a limited
Page 212 and 213:
BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE these wer
Page 214 and 215:
BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE ment to c
Page 216 and 217:
BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE developin
Page 218 and 219: BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE Radar Int
Page 220 and 221: BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE when the
Page 222 and 223: BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE casualtie
Page 224 and 225: BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE fluential
Page 226 and 227: BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE missiles
Page 228 and 229: BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE psycholog
Page 230 and 231: BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE 6. Army O
Page 232 and 233: BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE April 196
Page 234 and 235: BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE 54. Reiss
Page 236 and 237: BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE 74. GWAPS
Page 238 and 239: Chapter 6 Ground-Based Air Defense
Page 240 and 241: GROUND-BASED AIR DEFENSE SINCE 1990
Page 258 and 259: Chapter 7 Ballistic Missile Defense
Page 260 and 261: BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE IN THE 19
Page 264 and 265: Figure 96. Arrow launch.The Arrow i
Page 290 and 291: Chapter 8 Summary, Trends, and Conc
Page 292 and 293: SUMMARY, TRENDS, AND CONCLUSIONS ev
Page 294 and 295: SUMMARY, TRENDS, AND CONCLUSIONS te
Page 296 and 297: SUMMARY, TRENDS, AND CONCLUSIONS EC
Page 298 and 299: Index A-1, 128, 227-28, 232 A-4, 12
Page 300 and 301: INDEX Convair, 98 Crotale, 158 D-da
Page 302 and 303: INDEX Gulf of Tonkin incident, 115
Page 304 and 305: INDEX Remagen, 24, 57, 270 RF-4C, 1
Page 306 and 307: INDEX SAM, 34, 74, 81-82, 84, 87, 9
Page 308: Archie to SAM A Short Operational H
show all

Archie to SAM: A Short Operational History of Ground-Based Air ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?