Click for next page ( R2


The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement



Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.

OCR for page R1
Committee on an Assessment of Concepts and Systems for U.S. Boost-Phase Missile Defense in Comparison to Other Alternatives Division on Engineering and Physical Sciences

OCR for page R1
THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS  500 Fifth Street, NW  Washington, DC 20001 NOTICE: The project that is the subject of this report was approved by the Governing Board of the National Research Council, whose members are drawn from the councils of the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine. The members of the committee responsible for the report were chosen for their special competences and with regard for appropriate balance. This study was supported by Contract No. HQ0147-09-C-0002 between the National Academy of Sciences and the Missile Defense Agency. Any opinions, findings, conclu- sions, or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the organizations or agencies that provided support for the project. The Missile Defense Agency has approved this unclassified report for public release with the following distribution statement and release number applicable: Distribu- tion Statement A, Approved for Public Release, 12-MDA-6981. International Standard Book Number-13: 978-0-309-21610-4 International Standard Book Number-10: 0-309-21610-9 Copies of this report are available from: Division on Engineering and Physical Sciences, National Research Council, The Keck Center of the National Academies, 500 Fifth Street, NW, Room WS904, Washington, DC 20001; and The National Academies Press, 500 Fifth Street, NW, Keck 360, Washington, DC 20001; (800) 624-6242 or (202) 334-3313; http://www.nap.edu. Copyright 2012 by the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. Printed in the United States of America

OCR for page R1
The National Academy of Sciences is a private, nonprofit, self-perpetuating society of distinguished scholars engaged in scientific and engineering research, dedicated to the furtherance of science and technology and to their use for the general welfare. Upon the authority of the charter granted to it by the Congress in 1863, the Academy has a man- date that requires it to advise the federal government on scientific and technical matters. Dr. Ralph J. Cicerone is president of the National Academy of Sciences. The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964, under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences, as a parallel organization of outstanding engineers. It is autonomous in its administration and in the selection of its members, sharing with the National Academy of Sciences the responsibility for advising the federal government. The National Academy of Engineering also sponsors engineering programs aimed at meeting national needs, encourages education and research, and recognizes the superior achievements of engineers. Dr. Charles M. Vest is president of the National Academy of Engineering. The Institute of Medicine was established in 1970 by the National Academy of Sci- ences to secure the services of eminent members of appropriate professions in the examination of policy matters pertaining to the health of the public. The Institute acts under the responsibility given to the National Academy of Sciences by its congressional charter to be an adviser to the federal government and, upon its own initiative, to iden- tify issues of medical care, research, and education. Dr. Harvey V. Fineberg is president of the Institute of Medicine. The National Research Council was organized by the National Academy of Sciences in 1916 to associate the broad community of science and technology with the Academy’s purposes of furthering knowledge and advising the federal government. Functioning in accordance with general policies determined by the Academy, the Council has become the principal operating agency of both the National Academy of Sciences and the Na- tional Academy of Engineering in providing services to the government, the public, and the scientific and engineering communities. The Council is administered jointly by both Academies and the Institute of Medicine. Dr. Ralph J. Cicerone and Dr. Charles M. Vest are chair and vice chair, respectively, of the National Research Council. www.national-academies.org

OCR for page R1
COMMITTEE ON AN ASSESSMENT OF CONCEPTS AND SYSTEMS FOR U.S. BOOST-PHASE MISSILE DEFENSE IN COMPARISON TO OTHER ALTERNATIVES L. DAVID MONTAGUE, Menlo Park, California, Co-Chair WALTER B. SLOCOMBE, Caplin & Drysdale, Chartered, Co-Chair DAVID K. BARTON, Hanover, New Hampshire MELVIN H. EISMAN, RAND Corporation DAVID L. FRIED, Royal Oaks, California ALEC D. GALLIMORE, University of Michigan EUGENE HABIGER, Gen, USAF (Ret.), University of Georgia HARVEY L. LYNCH, SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory, Stanford University (retired) KENNETH C. MALLEY, VADM, USN (Ret.), Edgewater, Maryland C. WENDELL MEAD, AGRI, Incorporated DANIEL L. MONTGOMERY, BG, USA (Ret.), Strategic Defense Solutions C. KUMAR PATEL, Pranalytica, Incorporated JONATHAN D. POLLACK, Brookings Institution DAVID M. VAN WIE, Applied Physics Laboratory, Johns Hopkins University DAVID R. VAUGHAN, RAND Corporation DEAN WILKENING, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory Staff CHARLES F. DRAPER, Study Director; Director, Naval Studies Board RAYMOND S. WIDMAYER, Senior Program Officer SUSAN G. CAMPBELL, Administrative Coordinator MARY G. GORDON, Information Officer ROSE NEUGROSCHEL, Research Associate (April 18, 2011, through January 20, 2012) SEKOU O. JACKSON, Senior Project Assistant (through April 8, 2011) iv

OCR for page R1
Preface C urrent U.S. policy is to deploy as soon as technologically possible an effective National Missile Defense system capable of defending the terri- tory of the United States against limited ballistic attack, whether acciden- tal, unauthorized, or deliberate.1 The Missile Defense Agency (MDA) of the U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) plays a central role in supporting the Secretary of Defense (SECDEF) in developing and fielding an integrated, layered ballistic missile defense system. Ballistic missile defense (BMD) considers engaging threats during the boost phase, the midcourse phase, and the terminal phase of flight. Boost-phase defense encompasses engagements during the time period when the threat booster is still accelerating. The midcourse defense layer can be divided into (1) ascent phase, when the threat system is engaged prior to apogee, and (2) descent phase, when intercept occurs after apogee. The term “early intercept” is sometimes used to describe intercept after boost in the initial portions of the ascent phase of the threat system before apogee.2 Finally, terminal defense refers to engagements as and after warheads reenter the atmosphere and become subject to drag and reentry heating. 1  National Missile Defense Act of 1999, Public Law 106-38. 2  Within this report, an additional term, “postboost, predeployment,” is used to describe engage- ments where the boost phase has ended but deployment of submunitions or countermeasures has not yet occurred. This phase can be very short or nonexistent for certain threat systems. v

OCR for page R1
vi PREFACE TERMS OF REFERENCE The Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 (Public Law 110-417) directed the SECDEF to enter into an agreement with the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) in order to conduct an independent study of concepts and systems for U.S. boost-phase missile defense compared with “non-boost”-defense alternatives.3 Subsequent to ensuring that all the necessary contracting and industrial security requirements were met by the NAS and MDA, the two parties entered into a contract agreement and, in December 2009, the NAS president appointed the Committee on an Assessment of Concepts and Sys- tems for U.S. Boost-Phase Missile Defense in Comparison to Other Alternatives.4 The terms of reference for the study—that is, the committee’s charge—include the following. 1. Content—the study should include:  The extent to which boost-phase missile defense is technically fea- (a) sible and practical against potential ballistic missile threats against the United States, its forces deployed abroad, and its allies;  Whether any demonstration efforts by the Department of Defense (b) of boost-phase missile defense technology existing as of the date of the study (including the Airborne Laser and the Kinetic Energy Interceptor) have a high probability of performing a boost-phase missile defense mission in an operationally effective, suitable, and survivable manner; and  Comparison of effectiveness, limitations and relative life cycle cost (c) with other existing or anticipated alternatives that engage missiles in other phases of their flight. 2. Boost-phase systems to be examined—the study should include: (a) The Airborne Laser;  The Kinetic Energy Interceptor (land based and sea based options); (b) and  Other existing boost-phase technology demonstration programs. (c) 3. Factors to be evaluated in comparing boost-phase systems with other alternatives—the study should include: 3  copy of the congressional tasking is provided in Appendix A. In addition, the term “systems” A is used in place of “concepts and systems” throughout this report, and the term can be either present or proposed. 4  Biographies for the committee members are provided in Appendix B. The committee includes experts with experience in industry, academia, and government—combined with many years in strategic and tactical missile and missile defense technologies, system design and analysis, program management, policy, and cost modeling of major weapon systems as well as proven track records in deployment and operational command of these systems. That experience included knowledge of the history of ballistic missile defense, its technology evolution, and programs spanning the period from Nike X, Sentinel/Safeguard to the present.

OCR for page R1
PREFACE vii  Technical capability of the system(s) against scenarios identified in (a) paragraph (4) below;  Operational issues, including operational effectiveness; (b)  The results of key milestone tests conducted prior to preparation of (c) the report; (d) Survivability; (e) Suitability;  Concepts of operations, including basing considerations; (f)  Operations and maintenance support; (g)  Command and control considerations, including timelines for detec- (h) tion, decision-making, and engagement;  Shortfall and debris from intercepts; (i)  Force structure requirements; (j)  Effectiveness against countermeasures; (k)  Estimated cost of sustaining the system in the field; (l)  Reliability, availability, and maintainability; (m)  Geographic considerations, including limitations on the ability to (n) deploy systems within operational range of potential targets; and  Cost and cost-effectiveness, including total lifecycle cost estimates. (o) 4. Scenarios to be assessed—the study should include an assessment of each system identified in paragraph (2) above regarding the performance and operational capabilities of the system to:  Counter short-range, medium-range, and intermediate-range ballistic (a) missile threats from rogue states to the deployed forces of the United States and its allies; and  Defend the territory of the United States against limited ballistic (b) missile attack. 5. Comparison with non-boost systems—the study should include an as- sessment of the performance and operational capabilities of non-boost missile defense systems to counter the scenarios identified in paragraph (4) above. (The results under this paragraph shall be compared to the results under paragraph (4) above.) For purposes of this paragraph, non- boost missile defense systems include:  Patriot PAC-3 System and the Medium Extended Air Defense System (a) follow-on system;  Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense System, with all variants of the (b) Standard Missile-3 interceptor;  Terminal High Altitude Area Defense System; and (c)  Ground-Based Midcourse Defense System. (d)

OCR for page R1
viii PREFACE THE COMMITTEE’S APPROACH The committee first convened in January 2010 and held several data-gathering and report drafting meetings over an 18-month period.5 In order to address its charge, in part, the committee received briefings from DOD, congressional staff, nongovernmental organizations, and other individuals and organizations, in clas- sified and open sessions. In particular, the committee received many briefings and much information from MDA. Here, the committee sought and received a look into the analyses and rationales behind MDA-sponsored programs. However, the committee also utilized its own independent systems analysis and simulation and costing expertise, in addition to leveraging its members’ expertise accumulated over the years in the research and development, management, and operational command of major missile defensive and offensive missile programs. Its study is a technical one: The committee has not understood its charter to be to consider the many important policy issues presented by missile defense, including their effect on deterrence, strategic stability, arms control, alliance relations, the appropriate level of funding for missile defense relative to other priorities, and relations with Russia and China. However, its technical charter is a broad one. As described in the terms of reference and reiterated at the ­ naugural i meeting, when the committee met with congressional staff, the study was to com- pare boost-phase missile defense systems with non-boost-phase defense systems, i.e., alternative defense systems. The committee understood this to mean that it should consider the full range of systems, programs, and approaches and not confine its analysis to strictly boost-phase defense. Accordingly, the committee examined portions of the current Ground-Based Midcourse Defense (GMD) system, the Aegis, Patriot Advanced Capability (PAC-3), and Terminal High-Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) systems currently being fielded, as well as their proposed upgrades and all boost-phase missile de- fense systems that had been considered, including the Airborne Laser (ABL), the Kinetic Energy Interceptor (KEI), and other existing or contemplated boost-phase technology demonstrations (e.g., space-based interceptors and airborne intercep- tors launched from tactical air platforms). In addition, the committee examined the planned Phased Adaptive Approach (PAA)—that is, the Aegis BMD system, with all variants of the standard missile-3 interceptor given its relevance to the non-boost systems identified in the terms of reference. 5  summary of the committee’s meeting is provided in Appendix C. The committee met with rep- A resentatives from the Office of the Secretary of Defense, Department of the Air Force, Department of the Army, Department of the Navy, U.S. Northern Command, and U.S. Strategic Command among others in DOD such as the Missile Defense Agency, as well as representatives from the Department of State, the intelligence community, government laboratories, and the industrial base. In addition, the committee travelled to Fort Greely, Alaska, to review the operational doctrine and preparedness for the limited Ground-Based Midcourse Defense (GMD) system currently in place. The committee also held an open meeting where public input could be provided.

OCR for page R1
PREFACE ix The committee considered the supporting sensor requirements for the vari- ous boost-phase and non-boost systems, and each was studied to understand its utility against the criteria identified by the Congress in the terms of reference (e.g., effectiveness, resilience to countermeasures, force structure and realistic operational concepts, and life-cycle cost in comparison with other alternatives). To support the analysis of life-cycle costs, cost data on prior and current MDA-sponsorsed programs and technology efforts were gathered from various sources, including from MDA and the Congressional Budget Office, as well as programmatic and parametric data related to the development, procurement, and operating and support costs of other existing major DOD, National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), and commercial systems with elements simi- lar to those planned for ballistic missile defense. Armed with this analogous da- tabase of information, the committee developed “should” to “will” cost-bounded range estimates for each of the boost-phase and non-boost systems examined in this report.6 This unclassified report is organized as follows: Chapters 1 through 4 com- prise the committee’s comparison of systems for U.S. boost-phase missile defense with other “non-boost” alternatives. Chapter 5 outlines a path forward, including those activities that in its judgment should be redirected or terminated, including the various supporting sensors required. Here, the committee found systems engi- neering and analysis that need improvement and areas where the current ballistic missile defense capability for U.S. homeland defense—the GMD—should be reevaluated and modified as necessary in order to improve its overall effective- ness to achieve the desired end state while taking proactive steps to substantially reduce future costs. Although this report is unclassified, the committee also produced a separate classified annex, which does not modify any of the report’s findings and recommendations but provides supporting material for them and sets forth details of its analysis. The months between the committee’s last meeting and the publication of the unclassified report and classified annex were spent preparing the draft manu- scripts, gathering additonal information, reviewing and responding to the external review comments, editing the unclassified report and classified annex, and con- ducting the security review needed to produce both an unclassified report and a classified annex. The committee thanks the many briefers who presented information essential to the writing of this unclassified report and its classified annex. In particular, the committee is especially grateful to the MDA staff in Washington, D.C., who facililated the committee’s efforts in gathering information related to the study 6  The range cost estimates follow the Office of the Secretary of Defense policy guidance de- scribed in the Defense Acquisition University article “Drive Productivity Growth Through Will Cost/ Should Cost Management,” issued by the Acquisition Community Connection, https://acc.dau.mil/ CommunityBrowser.aspx?id=400180&lang=en-US.

OCR for page R1
x PREFACE tasking, such as military and technical information related to the systems for U.S. boost-phase and non-boost missile defense systems. It is also appreciative of the MDA staff at Huntsville, Alabama, during a site visit, and the operators at Fort Greely Air Force Base and the U.S. Northern Command, who shared operational and technical insights with respect to the GMD system.

OCR for page R1
Acknowledgment of Reviewers T his report has been reviewed in draft form by individuals chosen for their diverse perspectives and technical expertise, in accordance with proce- dures approved by the National Research Council’s Report Review Com- mittee. The purpose of this independent review is to provide candid and critical comments that will assist the institution in making its published report as sound as possible and to ensure that the report meets institutional standards for objectiv- ity, evidence, and responsiveness to the study charge. The review comments and draft manuscript remain confidential to protect the integrity of the deliberative process. We wish to thank the following individuals for their review of this report: Michael Bennett, Congressional Budget Office, Joseph M. Cosumano, Jr., LTG, USA (retired), Madison, Alabama, Raymond Jeanloz, University of California, Berkeley, William LaPlante, MITRE, George “Pete” Nanos, VADM, USN (retired), Johns Hopkins University, Applied Physics Laboratory, David O. Overskei, Decision Factors, Inc., John P. Stenbit, Oakton, Virginia, and Larry D. Welch, Gen, USAF (retired), Institute for Defense Analyses. Although the reviewers listed above provided many constructive comments and suggestions, they were not asked to endorse the conclusions or recommenda- tions, nor did they see the final draft of the report before its release. The review of this report was overseen by John Ahearne of Sigma Xi (emeritus). Appointed by the National Research Council, he was responsible for making certain that xi

OCR for page R1
xii ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF REVIEWERS an independent examination of this report was carried out in accordance with institutional procedures and that all review comments were carefully considered. Responsibility for the final content of this report rests entirely with the authoring committee and the institution.

OCR for page R1
Contents SUMMARY 1 1 INTRODUCTION 19 Brief History of Ballistic Missile Defense, 19 Evolving Ballistic Missile Threats, 21 Ballistic Missile Defense Missions and Systems Examined, 24 Organization of the Report, 29 2 U.S. BOOST-PHASE DEFENSE 30 Background, 30 Proposed Systems, 32 Analysis, 39 Findings, 65 3 ALTERNATIVES TO U.S. BOOST-PHASE DEFENSE 73 Present and Proposed Systems, 73 Analysis, 83 Findings, 101 4 COMPARISON OF UTILITY, MATURITY, AND 107 COST-EFFECTIVENESS Comparison of Boost-Phase and Non-Boost-Phase Systems, 108 Sensor Comparison, 115 Finding, 119 Recommendations, 123 xiii

OCR for page R1
xiv CONTENTS 5 RECOMMENDED PATH FORWARD 130 Organization, 130 Basis for Major Recommendation 5, 130 Key CONOPS for Effective Defense of the United States and Canada, 132 Recommended GMD Evolution—The Interceptor, 145 Recommended GMD Evolution—The Sensors, 149 Results of Engagement Analysis and Simulation of the System in Defending the Homeland, 155 Final Comments, 172 UNCLASSIFIED APPENDIXES A Terms of Reference 177 B Biographies of Committee Members and Staff 179 C Summary of Meetings 188 D Acronyms and Abbreviations 192 E System Cost Methodology 198