Ship, Sub Building Efforts Back on Track: U. S. Navy Undersecretary

The U.S. Navy's major shipbuilding and aviation programs are largely setting into stability, but questions are rising about the strategic outlook for the Navy and Marine Corps and the forces they will need in the future, all in the context of a declining defense budget.

Undesecretary of the U.S. Navy Robert Work recently sat down with Defense News for a wide-ranging interview. (U.S. Navy)

Navy Undersecretary Robert Work is in the center of the effort to define the Navy Department's direction and map out its future roles.

Q. How are you going to cut the budget for 2013?

A. First of all, we have not received fiscal guidance yet for POM 13 [Program Objective Memorandum]. We expect it momentarily. The way that this will work is the Navy and the Marines have been working on an expected top line which was based on last year's submission, the POM 12 submission, and that is due into the Department of the Navy on the 2nd of May. Then we will have three months to prepare the budget and turn it over to the Department of Defense, and then we'll go through the budget review throughout the rest of the year like we normally do. So we're expecting to get top level guidance here within the next week.
The Navy and the Marine Corps will refine their plans based on the guidance and will continually refine them until the 30th of July or so when it is due to the secretary of defense. So I'm expecting the numbers will change slightly, over time depending on how the budget negotiations go on the Hill, and we'll just adjust accordingly.

Q. Arguably, you haven't taken a major swipe at cutting your budget yet.

A. No, we're still operating under the fiscal guidance that's in right now. Of course if we get a year-long continuing resolution or if we get a bill for 2011, then we'll have to see what the impacts will be on '12 and make adjustments there. It's extremely fluid and flexible. I can't recall a time where we've been so deep in the fiscal year without a budget. And Congress hasn't even turned its attention to the 2012 budget, which under normal rules would be passed around the October time frame. We're in such an uncertain environment right now that talking about the budget really is not fruitful.

Q. Japan is still dealing with fallout from the earthquake and tsunami, and concerns about radiation from the destroyed Fukushima nuclear reactors recently caused the U.S. to send the Yokosuka-based aircraft carrier George Washington to sea, right in the middle of an overhaul. Has a decision been made about where the ship's going to go? Will the disasters affect the future of the Navy's Forward-Deployed Naval Forces in Japan?

A. We believe the FDNF will remain and that we will have a strong presence in Japan after this terrible disaster. We are getting more and more of our experts into Japan to help on the remediation. As far as I know, there has been no indication at all, and no discussion at all on the future of FDNF. It's to be assumed it will remain. [The question of where the George Washington will go hasn't] been resolved yet. A lot is going to depend on the mediation of the nuclear plants. Everyone's taking a look at this problem and trying to determine the best way to resolve it.

Q. The Marines are thinking ahead to where they're going to be post-Afghanistan. How do you see the shape of the Corps ten years from now?

A. The Corps structure review group that was set up by Commandant Gen. James Amos has finished. It was a bottom-up review to look at all the different things they were told to in the most recent quadrennial defense review and defense planning guidance. They come up with the 186,800 person Marine Corps. Now, they're a force of readiness. That's their key role. And the Secretary of Defense endorsed that role.
The plan is, depending on resources of course, to be manned very close to 100 percent as possible. They would have an entirely modernized and upgraded ground mobility portfolio based on two new systems - the Marine Corps personnel carrier and the new amphibious vehicle. Our hope is that we can get have eight battalions of the new amphibious vehicle and four battalions of the Marine personnel carrier.
The Marines have already dropped the total number of vehicles in their Marine Air-Ground Task Force, forcewide, from 42,000 to about 32,500, and they did that by essentially matching butts to seats. And they said how do we keep mobility in the ground force? They are looking at their joint light tactical fleet, what's the best way forward, should it be the Joint Light Tactical Vehicle or should there be some other option? They've looked at their medium truck fleet. I think they're in real good shape.
Aviation looks very bright. The secretary, the commandant and I are very confident that the engineering problems on the F-35B Joint Strike Fighter are going to be resolved. The Marines have made a decision to put five F-35C [carrier variant] squadrons aboard carriers, so they have lined up about 21 active squadrons, five of them C's, the remainder of them B's.
[Development of] the CH-53K [heavy-lift helicopter] is moving right along, and we're extremely happy with the AH-1Z [attack helicopters] and the UH-1Y [utility helicopter].
So when we take a look at a force in readiness, able to come from the sea, the plan is in place for a thoroughly modernized Marine Corps and thoroughly ready Marine Corps, going back to its naval roots and its amphibious heritage.

Q. Is naval fire support something in need of a solution or is the current capability acceptable?

A. In '13, we hope to take a look again at the 5-inch guided round, but the 6-inch guided round, the 155mm is going well. It's already met its threshold in range. The plans are to have three DDG 1000 destroyers carrying six of those systems.
We have an awful lot of 5-inch cannons in the fleet and if we can solve the 5-inch round problem, then the combination of the 6-inch rounds, 5-inch rounds and air-delivered ordnance is going to be plenty for any foreseeable contingencies.

Q. Production of LPD 17 San Antonio-class amphibious transport dock ships is continuing, with half the class is already in service and the sixth ship to be delivered this summer. Every previous ship has had problems to varying degrees. Shipbuilder Huntington-Ingalls Industries (HII) would really like to deliver a good ship, but they haven't done so yet. Do you see anything on this next ship that gives you hope?

A. We've had an awful lot of problems with the class, but the most recent ships are coming in in much better shape. We're still working with HII, we still want to see quality improve. As quality improves we expect scheduling and costs to improve.
But we're very satisfied with the basic design of the ship. Workmanship is getting better. We just awarded LPD 26 to HII, LPD 27 is a 2012 ship, and we'll start to worry about that once the budget is settled.
Sailors and Marines can't say enough about [the ships]. [U.S. Fleet Forces commander] Adm. John Harvey spends an awful lot of time trying to get that ship and the wellness of that class right and I think we've made great strides in doing so.

Q. Huntington Ingalls now has been set up as an independent entity, separated from Northrop Grumman. Are you happy with what you've seen so far with HII? What are you looking for from them in the future?

A. We're very happy that we have two yards that build surface combatant ships and two builders that build submarines. We think that's very healthy for the nation and for the Navy. We want to move for competition whenever possible.
We're extremely happy on the spin out. We spent a lot of time trying to determine if HII was going to be viable and I think, as it's been explained, we have the base case and the stress case. We put HII under an awful lot of stress. We assumed that almost all of the ships from '11, all five of the ships under construction, would have marginal performance at the same time, and that we would take the carrier to maximum speed. We stressed everything. We're working hard with HII on quality control issues, and they are extremely motivated to make this thing work.
We're very happy that we have done due diligence, and we think that HII is in as good a place as possible. [Shipyard chief] Mike Petters is exactly right, they have to focus on performance, specifically quality. If the quality goes up, then the costs go down, and the schedule gets back on. I think Mike is focused on exactly the right thing and we're going to do everything we can to work with HII to make sure they're successful.

Q. The biggest ship they're building right now on the Gulf coast is the assault ship America (lha 6). Will there be another lha without a well deck and an aviation version of that ship or is that going to be a one-off ship?

A. Nope, there will be two ships. LHA 7 will not have a well deck on it, and we'll have two aviation-capable ships.
Our intent is for LHA 8, which right now is a 2016 ship, to have a well deck in it. We're doing an analysis to determine the best and most inexpensive way for us to achieve that. Is it a repeat of the LHA 8 Makin class or is it an LHA with a well deck inserted into it? It's not going to be a completely newly-designed ship. It'll be a mod repeat of some type with a well deck in it.

Q. If it has a well deck, why isn't it called LHD 9?

A. That's a good question. I don't know whether that's been decided yet.

Q. Back to shipyards. As you know, both shipyards that built the Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) are U.S. subsidiaries of foreign owners. Do you see any issue with foreign ownership of U.S. shipyards?

A. So far, we're very comfortable with the smaller, mid-tier yards being foreign-owned. Marinette with Fincantieri and Austal USA with Austal. We're encouraged by the quality and we're encouraged by the management improvements that both of the companies are making.
We haven't really had to deal with foreign ownership of a larger yard - a NASSCO, or HII or Electric Boat. Certainly a nuclear yard [would be] a red line. We haven't really addressed a larger tier one yard. We would be concerned with a foreign owner of those yards.

Q. Of course, bae now owns most of the private repair yards in the U.S. doing U.S. Navy repair work.

A. That's true, from what we can see, there is no issue, Congress hasn't seemed to be at all worried about this. We certainly see a lot of advantages in this because of some of the management improvements that they're making as well as capital improvements they're making.

Q. The guided-missile submarine Florida was in action recently in the Mediterranean against the Libyan government. Has the ssgn proven itself?

A. I think the SSGN is a big success story. I think there's a lot more potential on the platform.
The two things that are at least definitely proven are that it is a tremendous covert strike platform, a volume strike platform. On the first day [of the missile strikes on Libya], the majority of U.S. Navy Tomahawks fired on Libya came off that single ship. So, covert volume strike has proven itself in combat. The majority of missiles fired on the first night from U.S. Navy platforms came from submarines and the majority of missiles that came from submarines came from Florida.
And it's a tremendous special operations forces (SOF) support platform. It can carry two dry deck shelters, two swimmer delivery vehicles. Essentially you have to think of this ship as having 24 tractor trailer-sized multi-function payload tubes. If you want to put [cruise missiles] in, you can. You can store SOF ammunition, you can store SOF gear. You could put unmanned underwater vehicles. I think there's a lot more potential for the submarine as a UUV mother ship. It has tremendous payload capacity and a very high availability rates because of the dual crew.

Q. Let's talk about airplanes. The 5th-generation Joint Strike Fighter will be in service in a few years, and some are already thinking about 6th-generation aircraft. How would you characterize that work?

A. Extremely at the beginning of the beginning.
The F/A-18 E and F [Super Hornet] is an extremely capable platform as you know fromWe're going to be operating Es and Fs well into the 2020s.
The JSF, we're hoping we'll have no more slips. The first six F-35C squadrons would be stood up by the end of this decade and they'll start deploying in the early 2020s.
So essentially, we're in very good shape as far as total number of strike fighters. Assuming the B and C do well, we'll be operating a mix of F/A-18 Es and Fs and F-35 Bs and Cs essentially through the 2020s.
The N-UCLASS - an unmanned system, carrier-capable, air-refuelable - we're going for a limited operational capability in 2018. That is going to inform what the next generation, or sixth generation fighter, might be.
So the debate within the department is, could that be a mix? Could it be a mix of manned and unmanned? Could it be an optionally manned platform? Do we believe that in 2030, when we need to start replacing the earliest Es and Fs ,will we be ready to go to an unmanned system at that point?
So we are just at the beginning of this. We've laid in the money in our 30-year aviation plan to be looking at that 6th-generation fighter starting around the 2020 time frame. That's when the majority of the RDT&E [research, development, testing and evaluation] money would start to fill in.
We have the 2013 and the 2017 QDRs, and many, many budget cycles between now and then. I think you could get people on both sides of the equation to tell the Navy what it needs but I don't think we're anywhere near knowing what the right answer is yet.

Q. Is the Navy considering additional assets to handle increased duties in the Arctic as global warming decreases the ice cap?

A. So far it's a Coast Guard area. There hasn't been any discussion between the Coast Guard and the Navy on whether the Navy would buy any icebreakers themselves. Our position is this is a Coast Guard mission best served by the Coast Guard.
The Arctic is central to future planning. We're very anxious to participate in climate change and in projections about how the future of the Arctic might unfold.
Submarines are up there, operating under the ice now. Potentially in the future we would have more surface ships. But as of right now there are no programs for any Navy icebreakers or any special ice-strengthened ships. Once we get a good feeling of what our long-term top line might be, I think further discussions between the Coast Guard and the Navy will occur on how we will be able to help each other in missions of mutual interest.

Q. Requirements are set by the combatant commanders, yet at times there seems to be little debate about the real need of the cocom requirements. Is this a good process or is it in need of some review?

A. They don't really set requirements, they have RRFs, Request for Forces. They submit their requests for forces and say, I need a ballistic missile defense ship, or a submarine for intelligence, surveillance or reconnaissance work, or a Marine task force, or an Army brigade combat team to do combat operations. The request comes into the Joint Staff. And there is a process by which you say, you just cannot get this.
The example with the Navy that I know of for sure is, if you add up all the requirements for submarines, where the combatant commander said I would like to have all sorts of submarines, the number would be above 15. But we say no, this is how many we can supply based on the total number of ships we have. So therefore the RRFs are adjudicated and combatant commanders are given submarines for missions that are deemed higher priority.
So the system does work. But I would say that over time, the system is designed to defer to the COCOM if at all possible. We look for ways to say yes, rather than try to determine whether we should truly say no for the good of the force. And I think this is a big, big debate that we have to have, and I think it's happening here within the department now.
The RRF process is in place. It does work, especially on high demand, low-density items - nobody can get everything they want, so you have to prioritize. And I think now what we'll be looking at is, if you want a ballistic missile defense ship, how would we be able to source that? How many amphibious ready groups might be demanded, or how many carrier battle groups?
As resources go down and operations and maintenance money goes down, the RRF process will be tightened up. Instead of looking always to say yes, we'll take a more holistic view across the force and whether we should be saying yes to this request or should we maintain the force? It's a big debate that happens every day in the Pentagon.

Q. Is the Navy right now paying a price for meeting the cocom request for two carrier strike groups to be on station in Fifth Fleet to support operations in Afghanistan?

A. Since 2006 Navy surface combatants, aircraft carriers and submarines have essentially been operating at major combat operations levels of demand. And the price the Navy pays for that is in missed maintenance, longer deployments, and this is another big issue.
People say, hey, why do you have to get to 313 ships when you're meeting all this demand with 287? What's the issue?
Well, the issue is we want to continue to meet that demand. But with the greater number of ships we don't want to increase presence, we want to have a sustainable operational model where we meet most of these demands but we can maintain our fleet so that each of our platforms can reach the end of their service lives.
When you hear the Navy arguing for more ships, it's not necessarily to say we want more ships out there all the time. We want to be able to meet the demand in a sustainable way where we can do our maintenance, take care of our sailors and Marines, and make sure that over time we're going to have the force ready when needed.

Israel to Deploy More 'Iron Dome' Anti-Rocket Defenses

JERUSALEM - Israel is planning to deploy four more batteries of its "Iron Dome" short-range missile defense system, Defence Minister Ehud Barak said on April 3.

An Israeli soldier stands near a launcher March 27, part of the first "Iron Dome" missile defense system deployed in Israel. The system is designed to intercept rockets and artillery shells. (David Buimovitch / AFP via Getty Images)

Speaking on military radio, Barak said: "With the financial help of the Americans, we hope to equip ourselves with four new 'Iron Dome' batteries so we will have six in operation in the next two years."

He added that a second battery would soon be operational on the Israeli border with the Gaza Strip.
The first battery of the unique multi-million dollar system came into operation a week ago, stationed outside the southern city of Beersheva, in the Negev desert, just days after it was hit by several Grad rockets fired from the Gaza Strip amid a rise in tensions and tit-for-tat violence.
The system, the first of its kind in the world and still at the experimental stage, is not yet able to provide complete protection against the hundreds of rockets fired from Gaza into southern Israel, officials have said.
The system, developed by Israel's Rafael Advanced Defence Systems with the help of U.S. funding, is designed to intercept rockets and artillery shells fired from a range of between 4 kilometers and 70 kilometers (3 miles and 45 miles).
Each battery comprises detection and tracking radar, state-of-the-art fire control software and three launchers, each with 20 interceptor missiles, military sources said.
Militants in Gaza and Lebanon's Hezbollah militia have fired thousands of projectiles at Israel in the past.
According to plans, the system will first be deployed along the border of the Hamas-run Gaza Strip, from where militants fired a daily barrage of improvised rockets prompting Israel to launch a devastating 22-day offensive in December 2008.
It will then be deployed along the Lebanese border, from where Hezbollah militants fired some 4,000 rockets into northern Israel during a 2006 war. It was that experience which prompted the development of Iron Dome.
Israel believes Hezbollah now has an arsenal of some 40,000 rockets.
But a complete deployment is expected to take several years.
In May last year, U.S. President Barack Obama asked Congress to give Israel 205 million dollars to develop the system, on top of the annual three billion dollars Israel receives from Washington.
Iron Dome will join the Arrow long-range ballistic missile defense system in an ambitious multi-layered programme to protect Israeli cities from rockets and missiles fired from Lebanon, the Gaza Strip, Syria and Iran.
A third system, known as David's Sling, is currently being developed with the aim of countering medium-range missiles.

India Bans Iran Nuclear-Related Trade

NEW DELHI - India has banned trade in all goods and services with Iran that could help Tehran pursue development of nuclear weapons, a government statement said.
The changes were made in new foreign policy trade rules to conform with a U.N. Security Council resolution imposing sanctions on Iran related to its nuclear and missile development program, said the commerce ministry.

India sits as a non-permanent member of the U.N. Security Council.
The changes posted on a government website on April 2 ban trade in all equipment, goods and technology which could contribute to Iran's enrichment-related, reprocessing or heavy water-related activities or to the development of nuclear weapon delivery systems.
Energy-hungry India, which has long enjoyed warm ties with Iran, has been treading a delicate path in its relationship with the Islamic republic as the United States presses New Delhi to break commercial links with Tehran.
The export ban comes as India has been struggling to work out a long-term method to pay for oil imports from Iran.
Iran is the second-largest crude supplier to India after Saudi Arabia and supplies up to 14 percent of the country's oil import needs. India imports around 80 percent of its crude oil.
India's central bank, in response to U.S. pressure, said in December oil and other import payments could not be made through a Tehran clearing house which Washington alleges is being used to bypass sanctions against Iran.
The decision meant India no longer had a means to pay for the fuel.
India and Iran have been negotiating for months on ways to resolve the payment deadlock on a long-term basis and salvage the trade, which is worth around $12 billion annually.
Late last month, Germany's Handelsblatt business daily said India was set to pay Iran for billions of dollars worth of oil imports by channeling funds to Tehran via the German central bank.
There has been no comment from India but earlier, government officials said such a route could be a way to break the payments deadlock.

Harrier Ops Making Case for F-35B

BOARD THE USS KEARSARGE - When U.S. naval strike jets hit targets in Libya in the predawn hours of March 20, they weren't flying from aircraft carriers.
Instead, the U.S. Marine Corps' short-takeoff, vertical-landing AV-8B Harrier IIs did the job from this amphibious assault ship. And that, said the senior Marine commander aboard, shows why his service needs the F-35B Joint Strike Fighter, the STOVL plane whose developmental problems have landed it under a two-year "probationary period" and made it a favored target of some budget-cutters.
"It would be lovely to have an aircraft carrier here, but there are not enough to go round," said Col. Mark Desens, the commander of the 26th Marine Expeditionary Unit, which operates the AV-8Bs aboard the Kearsarge. "What we do have is the opportunity to do a lot of things with this vessel, and we are accomplishing a tremendous return on investment with these six STOVL jets."
As the Libyan operation was coming together in the days leading up to the attack, the Wasp-class vessel was the only U.S. Navy vessel with a substantial flight deck near the Mediterranean Sea. Smaller than a full-sized Nimitz or Ford-class aircraft carrier equipped with catapult launchers, the Wasp-class ships can host STOVL aircraft alongside a host of helicopters.
By the time air strikes began, the six Harriers were just a small part of the 200-plus coalition aircraft assembled for the operation. But because the Kearsarge was far closer to Libya than the French and Italian air bases used by jets from other allied countries, the Harriers could fly not one but two sorties per night.
Analysts and sources said their performance has been a godsend for partisans of the F-35B. As the cost of the Joint Strike Fighter program ballooned, the knives came out for the STOVL version. Last fall, the United Kingdom abandoned its plans to buy the F-35B, leaving Italy and the U.S. Marine Corps as the only remaining buyers. Italy is nervous about the aircraft's fate since its new aircraft carrier, the Cavour, is built to host STOVL aircraft only.
For the Marine Corps, losing the strike jet would require a wholesale rethinking of their approach to combat. It would neuter the planned amphibious assault ship America, which is being built without a well deck, almost purely as a STOVL platform. It might even prevent the Marines from carrying out forced-entry amphibious landings, their raison d'etre recently blessed by Defense Secretary Robert Gates.
Will the STOVL jets' role in Operation Odyssey Dawn boost the case for the F-35B? "I would think so. We were here and we were ready to go," Desens said.
Big Improvement Desens and others noted that the F-35B would be a vast improvement over the Harrier. Not only does it carry more weapons and fuel, its sensors allow it to target enemy air defenses and vacuum up intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance data and feed it back to the fleet.
"When you look at the capabilities of the F-35B and how much it expands the tool box, that aircraft is going to push us way out in front of any future potential threats out there," the colonel said.
The plane is such a leap forward that it brings the capabilities of amphibious assault ships closer to those of aircraft carriers, said Daniel Gouré, an analyst at the Lexington Institute, Arlington, Va. "In a sense, you're doubling the number of aircraft-capable ships in the U.S. Navy with the F-35B, because there are more than a dozen amphibs," Gouré said.
That means more sovereign flight decks that can launch military operations without potentially difficult negotiations over basing.
"A vessel is sovereign. With an AV-8B or an F-35B, you get an immediate ability to start impacting a wide range of things," Desens said. "As you look down the road, the need for a STOVL jet sells itself, because you are not going to get more aircraft carriers. An F-35B costs a lot less than a carrier."Desens noted that a STOVL jet can also move ashore with troops as they push farther away from the beachhead, landing and flying from far smaller patches of ground than regular fixed-wing planes.
"You have tremendous operational flexibility if you are going to do a projected land war, like Iraq and Afghanistan, where those jets were sea-based and then we put them ashore as we moved north, meaning we could turn around a lot more sorties," Desens said. "Put that together and why wouldn't you want a STOVL?" 4 A.M. Launch On the first night of Odyssey Dawn, four of the Kearsarge's six Harriers took to the skies at 4 a.m. to join other U.S. and allied aircraft halting government forcesadvancing on rebel-held Benghazi.
"We had been planning with intelligence before the Benghazi sortie, and we had a picture of the [government] positions on the highway" leading to the eastern Libyan city, said one Marine pilot, Capt. Michael Wyrsch, who was flying his first operational mission.
Covering the 150 miles to Benghazi in about 15 minutes, the pilots saw explosions from attacks on the loyalist military vehicles that were launched by U.S. Air Force F-15s and F-16s already on the scene.
The Harriers engaged the middle section of a convoy of about 50 vehicles, including Russian-built T-72 tanks, armored personnel carriers and artillery pieces, which were spread along several kilometers of the highway.
Dropping six GPU-12 laser-guided bombs, the Harriers destroyed four tanks, one refueling truck and an infantry fighting vehicle.
"We had indications of anti-aircraft radar activity, but were not fired on," Wyrsch said.
At 10 p.m. on March 20, four Harriers took off for a second sortie to locate and attack the remnants of the same convoy, which had been reinforced by new vehicles outside the city of Ajdabiya. Using night-vision goggles, the pilots dropped 12 GPU-12s, destroying mobile artillery and rocket launchers.
"The best use of these aircraft is against tactical equipment, frequently tanks and heavy army equipment," said Rear Adm. Peg Klein, the commander of the expeditionary naval force.
Harrier raids were suspended on the third night of operations, when two Ospreys were scrambled to pick up the pilot of an F-15E who had ejected near Benghazi after his fighter jet apparently suffered a mechanical failure.
Two Harriers from the Kearsarge arrived on the scene before the Ospreys and flew low over a "suspect" group of armored vehicles. They dropped two GPU-12s on the vehicles, and according to a military source, fired their cannons as well.
Media reports claimed that between five and 10 local citizens were injured by gunfire in the area around the time of the rescue. The Marines declined to comment on the reports of woundings, saying an investigation was underway.
The Ospreys came in at 250 mph and under 1,000 feet of altitude, following laser designation provided by an accompanying Harrier that had a GPS reference.
"We were looking at a needle and avoiding populated areas," one pilot said.
They landed and retrieved the F-15 pilot.
A second F-15 crew member whose GPS device was not transmitting was met by locals sympathetic to the rebels and later handed over to the U.S. military.
Speaking of the Osprey, Desens was unfazed by doubts over the effect of JSF jet blast on flight decks.
"Take the V-22, where we had a concrete issue with the exhaust close to the deck. We used hotplates, but you don't see that now because we have found techniques to create deflection. I don't know if we would do that with the F-35, but I am sure we would find a solution because when you have a capability that is worth that much, you will figure out a way to solve that problem," he said.
Bottom line, Desens said: The benefits of the F-35B will far outweigh any difficulties.

Indian Military Wants Quick Solution as PAD Tests Continue

NEW DELHI - India conducted a successful test of its homegrown Prithvi Air Defence (PAD) system on March 6, but the military is looking for an interim solution because PAD likely will not be operational for at least three to five years, said a senior Ministry of Defence official.
In the sixth test of PAD, being developed by the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO), an incoming ballistic missile was destroyed at a range of 600 kilometers and an altitude of 16 kilometers, in what scientists described as an endo-atmospheric test. PAD also has passed an exo-atmospheric test in which an incoming missile was destroyed at an altitude of more than 70 kilometers.
However, DRDO scientists said many more tests are needed before the system is inducted, and the military needs an anti-missile system immediately, said a senior Army official.
Nuclear-capable rivals China and Pakistan make such a system a priority, said Rahul Bhonsle, a retired Indian Army brigadier general and a defense analyst based here.
"My reading is that this [PAD system] is at a technology-demonstration stage, and there would be many more trials and tests required for the system to be operationalized, which may take anything from three to five years," Bhonsle said.
"Testing in a controlled environment is different from a real-time one, and there is much that would be required to be done to gain this confidence."
No Induction Date As there is no set date for the induction of PAD, analysts are not sure when the system would go into production.
"If there are adequate investments in technology and testing with rapid productionalizing, PAD should meet Indian air defense needs," Bhonsle said.
"However, at present, this is not seen to be happening, so one can clearly say that this would remain a black hole unless the DRDO, the services and the MoD treat this as a priority area, given that this would give a major leap to Indian deterrence," he said.
The Army official said there is room for more than one variety of anti-missile system, and that while work on PAD proceeds, an advanced anti-missile system could be purchased overseas. "Lockheed Martin is claiming an improved [Patriot Advanced Capability-3 system] with longer range, which may meet part of the needs, given that this is also reportedly selected as the primary interceptor for the multinational Medium Extended Air Defense System in Europe," Bhonsle said.
"The Israelis have Arrow 2; these systems may meet part of the challenge," he added.
Another Army officer said that although there are many anti-missile systems available overseas, India might be better served by producing more warheads and more advanced missiles to deter nuclear aggression. DRDO, meanwhile, is working to extend PAD's range so that it can destroy ballistic missiles at a range of 5,000 kilometers, a DRDO scientist said.
Currently, PAD is a three-layered missile defense configuration that can engage at the exo-atmospheric layer - the layer in which an enemy missile enters the atmosphere - and the endo-atmospheric layer, in which the atmosphere is thermally sensitive.

Pakistan Seeks To Counter Indian ABM Defenses

ISLAMABAD - In response to India's pursuit of missile defenses, Pakistan has expanded its countermeasure efforts, primarily through development of maneuvering re-entry vehicles. The Army Strategic Forces Command, which controls Pakistan's ballistic missiles, has since at least 2004 said it wanted to develop such warheads; analysts now believe these are in service.
Mansoor Ahmed, lecturer at the Department of Defence and Strategic Studies at Islamabad's Quaid-e-Azam University, said that in addition to maneuverable warheads, multiple independently targetable re-entry vehicles (MIRVs) may be developed to stay ahead of India's "multilayered ballistic-missile defense system" and potential future countermeasures.
"This, coupled with submarine-launched, nuclear-tipped cruise missiles, would ensure the survivability of its nuclear deterrent and enhance the effectiveness of its missile force that can beat any Indian defenses," he said.
When asked about the threat posed by India's anti-ballistic missile (ABM) program, Harsh Pant, reader of international relations at the Defence Studies Department, King's College London, said it depended on the capability India eventually acquired.
"Many in India see an Indian missile defense capability as the only effective way to counter what they consider as Pakistan's 'nuclear blackmail,'" he said.
He cited the ongoing conflict in Kashmir, the 1999 Kargil conflict and the November 2008 Mumbai terror attacks as examples.Strategic Disadvantage These incidents "demonstrated for many the inability of India to come up with an appropriate response to the stability-instability paradox operating on the subcontinent that has put India at a strategic disadvantage vis-à-vis Pakistan."
He further explained, "A missile defense system would help India blunt Pakistan's 'first use' nuclear force posture that had led Pakistan to believe that it had inhibited India from launching a conventional attack against it for fear of its escalation to the nuclear level. With a missile defense system in place, India would be able to restore the status quo ante, thereby making a conventional military option against Pakistan potent again."Such a missile defense system and a second-strike capability "would enhance the uncertainties of India's potential adversaries, regardless of the degree of effectiveness of missile interception, and would act as a disincentive to their resort to nuclear weapons," he said.
Asked whether Pakistan's countermeasures would be effective against such ABM systems, Pant replied, "most definitely."
He said, "According to various reports, Pakistan has been developing MIRV capability for the Shaheen-II ballistic missiles and [the] Shaheen-III missile is under development."
He also explained there was a further danger for India in Pakistan's countermeasure efforts.
"Although the current capability of Pakistani missiles is built around radar seekers, the integration of re-entry vehicles would make these extremely potent and defeat the anti-ballistic missile defense systems. This would be especially true of Indian aircraft carriers that would become extremely vulnerable," he said.
While measures to maintain the credibility of the land-based arm of the deterrent may prove to be adequate, the security of the future sea-based arm of the nuclear triad is not as clear-cut.
Analysts have for years speculated that the Navy will equip its submarines with a variant of the Babur cruise missile armed with a nuclear warhead. However, whether a cruise-missile-based arm of the nuclear triad at sea would be effective and survivable in the face of Indian air defenses is uncertain.
The Soviet Union developed a counter to the BGM-109 Tomahawk nearly 30 years ago in the form of the MiG-31 Foxhound, which had a powerful look down/shoot down radar and a potent missile system. The Indian Air Force claims its Su-30MKI Flanker has similar capabilities.
When this was put to analyst Usman Shabbir of the Pakistan Military Consortium think tank, he said the interception of cruise missiles is not so simple."I think Babur will form the sea-based arm of the Pakistani nuclear deterrent" he said, "but the problem in targeting subsonic cruise missiles is that they are harder to detect due to their lower radar cross-signature, low-level navigation, and use of waypoints to circumvent more secure and heavily defended areas."
"By the time you detect them, there is not much time left to vector aircraft for interception."
However, Shabbir conceded it would be possible for an airborne interceptor to shoot down a missile like Babur. "An aircraft already on [patrol] might be lucky to pick it up on its own radar well in advance [if looking in the correct direction], or vectored to it by ground-based radar."

China Ramps Up Missile Threat With DF-16

TAIPEI - China is developing a ballistic missile that will pose a "great threat" to Taiwan and regional neighbors and further complicate U.S. military action should it become involved in a confrontation with Beijing.
Tsai De-sheng, Taiwan's National Security Bureau director-general, revealed during a legislative hearing on March 16 that China was developing the Dong Feng 16 (DF-16) ballistic missile. A Taiwan defense source said China has already fielded up to a dozen Dong Feng 21D anti-ship ballistic missiles (ASBM) in Qingyuan, Guangdong Province, and is preparing the groundwork for its first anti-satellite (ASAT) missile brigade in Hunan Province.
News of the DF-16 and additional advancements in the DF-21D and ASAT programs increases the threat to regional and U.S. military forces. No technical details about the DF-16 were given, but the admission follows mainland Chinese media reports in mid-February that the China Aerospace Science and Industry Corp. was set "to complete research, production and delivery of this new generation of missile by 2015," said the state-controlled Xinhua News Agency on Feb. 17.
China's Global Times subsequently reported the new missile was a medium- to long-range conventional missile with a strike range of 4,000 kilometers. Whether this is a reference to the DF-16 or another missile is uncertain.
"By deploying a new 4,000-kilometer-range, intermediate-range ballistic missile by 2015, the Chinese military is also trumping the U.S. Navy's early answer to the DF-21D ASBM - the UCAS-D unmanned combat air vehicle, which was expected to be deployed in the early 2020s," said Richard Fisher, senior fellow of the International Assessment and Strategy Center.
The DF-21D ASBM has been dubbed the "aircraft carrier killer" and considered a game-changer for U.S. military power in the region. Though skeptics have suggested China's ASBM efforts face technical hurdles that make it difficult to target a U.S. warship, others suggest China has made significant progress in deploying new communications and intelligence-gathering satellites to facilitate the targeting of U.S. warships with ASBMs.
In 2009 and 2010, China deployed a record number of surveillance satellites into lower Earth orbit. These included seven Yaogan-class satellites, including the Yaogan 7 and 11 electro-optical imagine satellites. These satellites can electronically capture high-resolution digital images and transmit to ground stations via China's Tianlian satellite network, said Ian Easton, a researcher with the Project 2049 Institute.
In 2010, China launched a threat-satellite Yaogan 9 constellation capable of triangulating and targeting radar-emitting aircraft carrier strike groups.
New Cruise Missile Threat Besides the threat from the new DF-21D, China has begun fielding a new generation of anti-ship cruise missiles (ASCM). These can be launched from submarines, surface warships, land-based mobile launchers and a new variant of the H-6K/M medium-range bomber. The new H-6K/M and submarines will allow China to hit targets as far way as Guam.
At the 2010 Zhuhai Airshow, several Chinese defense companies displayed how a combination of ASCMs launched simultaneously from a variety of platforms, aided by satellites and UAVs, could locate and destroy an aircraft carrier.
Chinese sources indicated operational tests have linked these satellites to anti-ship missiles for targeting U.S. warships, Easton said. The question for the U.S. is how to protect bases in the region now that Chinese missiles can reach Guam.
Roger Cliff, a China defense analyst, who co-authored the recent Rand report, "Shaking the Heavens and Splitting the Earth," said the U.S. must begin improving the survivability of air bases in the Western Pacific.
"This entails hardened runways, improved runway-repair capabilities, and hardened shelters for aircraft, including large aircraft such as AWACS, tankers, etc., as well as active missile defenses such as PAC-3 and THAAD."
Cliff also recommends new systems to counter China's anti-access/area denial strategy, such as a long-range, stealthy cruise missile; a supersonic, anti-ship cruise missile; stealthy intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance aircraft; high-altitude, long-endurance UAVs that can act as communications relays; long-range air-to-air missiles; truly mobile ground-based aircraft and cruise missile defense systems; and carrier-borne, long-endurance unmanned combat aerial vehicles.
STOVL Needed if Runways Destroyed The F-35B short take-off and vertical landing aircraft will also become a necessity since Chinese missiles could destroy runways at Kadena and Anderson air force bases. Taiwan is also pushing for the release of retired AV-8 Harrier jump jets to compensate for what specialists expect will be the annihilation of Taiwan's air bases during a war.
China has about 1,300 DF-11/15 short-range ballistic missiles aimed at the island. Taiwan is pushing forward on the procurement of new F-16C/D fighters from the U.S., but critics are questioning their survivability during a war with China.