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.

Building the Shield

Efforts to establish a NATO-led European missile shield have ricocheted off national political challenges, regional rivalries and commercial interests, with a scheduled June meeting of allied and Russian defense ministers pivotal to charting the way forward.
Russian officials have directly linked participation in European missile defense to the U.S.-Russian New START, which took force Feb. 5. Two days after the strategic arms treaty went into effect, Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov told journalists that Russia would consider withdrawing from the New START if Washington aggressively pushed for the missile shield.
"If the U.S. bolsters the qualitative and quantitative potential of its missile defense, a question will arise whether Russia should further stick to the treaty or would be forced to take measures to respond to the situation, including military and technical measures," the diplomat said at a Feb. 7 news conference.
At the NATO-Russia November summit in Lisbon, Moscow and the alliance agreed to jointly develop a European missile defense. However, Russian officials lately have expressed concerns that two separate missile defense systems will be built in Europe: one by the U.S. and NATO without Russian participation, and the second by NATO together with Russia.
On Feb. 11, President Dmitry Medvedev appointed Russia's special envoy to NATO, Dmitry Rogozin, to the newly created post of special presidential representative on anti-missile defense and ordered creation of an interagency task force to cooperate with NATO. The group is expected to begin its work by March 31 and will be responsible for coordinating the negotiating process with NATO.
"This issue will really become either critically important for mutual understanding and further rapprochement between Russia and the West in military policies, or it will throw back our relations for several years and maybe even decades," Rogozin said in Brussels on March 1, the official RIA Novosti agency reported.
Deputy Defense Minister Anatoly Antonov said at the Feb. 7 news conference that missile defense is "a kind of litmus test that will allow us to see whether NATO members and the United States are ready for open, equal, honest and parity-based cooperation."
NATO and Russian defense ministers are to convene in June to discuss the results of a missile threat assessment by the group of experts who are also to report about the feasibility of building a joint missile defense system.
The initial assessment cites missile threats to Europe from the south, Rogozin said, but he questions why some plans are oriented toward northern Europe.
"Buildup of the strategic anti-missile defense in Northern Europe, where not a single expert identified a possible threat, is an unpleasant signal for us," he said, apparently referring to the U.S. plans to install elements of the missile defense system in Poland. Poland Poland has been at the center of European missile defense efforts and conflicts. Under plans proposed by U.S. President George W. Bush, Poland would have hosted interceptors. President Barack Obama scrapped that plan for an Aegis-ship based system, but still would install interceptors in Poland, as announced during the March 3 visit to Washington of Polish Foreign Minister Radek Sikorski.
Meanwhile, Poland also is pursuing a national missile defense effort that could include a combination of Patriots from Germany and development of a new system, although some question whether these efforts conflict.
Polish Defense Minister Bogdan Klich and Germany's former defense minister, Karl-Theodor zu Guttenberg, discussed a possible sale of up to 12 Patriot missile batteries during Guttenberg's Feb. 15 visit to Warsaw. "We are in the middle of talks on acquiring a number of Patriot missile batteries from Germany," Klich said at a press briefing after that meeting.
"We are linked by common proposals, goals and priorities," Guttenberg said at the briefing. "Poland is our partner. During the next few weeks, we will be holding talks on this issue."
Meanwhile, according to earlier reports by the local media, the Polish Ministry of Defense planned to launch a tender for an air defense system by the end of this year. The deal was reported to be worth about $5 billion.
In early 2010, five bidders responded to a request for technical specifications. These included proposals submitted by Raytheon and Norway's Kongsberg; MBDA and Poland's Bumar Group; Raytheon and Israel's Rafael; Germany's Diehl BGT Defense; and Israel Aerospace Industries. "We have designed a project of an air defense system, dubbed the Shield for Poland," said Edward Nowak, chief executive of Bumar Group. "It currently is our most significant project."
According to Nowak, the joint pitch of the local defense industry and MBDA has been wrongly seen as directly competing with plans to deploy elements of a U.S. missile shield on Polish soil, and the two projects would complement each other.
State-owned Bumar, which is Poland's largest defense group, said it hopes that joining forces with European manufacturer MBDA, which is offering the Aster 30 and VL Mica missiles, will improve its chances of securing the multibillion-dollar contract.
"The lack of developed missile products has been the biggest shortcoming of Poland's defense industry. While we have the necessary know-how and technology in radio location and C4ISR systems, we lack the technology in missile production," said Tomasz Badowski, chief defense analyst at the Euro-Atlantic Association, a think tank in Warsaw. "Cooperation with MBDA could permit [the Polish industry] to bridge the tech gap."
As Germany's bid could jeopardize the launch of the air defense tender, Bumar has intensified its research efforts and hopes to get government funding to quickly push ahead with a proposal and win the bid in its consortium with MBDA.
Poland's troubled relations with Russia play a key role in Warsaw's drive to acquire a new air defense system, analysts say. Medvedev visited the Polish capital Dec. 6, a trip that marked the first official visit by a Russian head of state to Poland in more than eight years, but the two countries have maintained frosty relations until recently.
The deployment of U.S. Patriot missiles on a training rotation at the Polish military base of Morag, in the country's northeast, was blasted by Moscow. Poland responded to Russia's objections in October, when the missiles were moved from Morag, where they have been stationed since last May, to the base in Torun, away from the Russian border.
Badowski said Poland's current air defense system is outdated and, despite Army modernization efforts, its cornerstone is based on Soviet technology.
"The missile defense systems used by anti-aircraft units of the Air Force are simply not capable of eliminating potential threats from the air," he said.
Norway In Norway, politicians skillfully linked support for the NATO missile shield with its own strategic High North defense plan. Norway had initially shown clear reluctance to row in behind the NATO plan, but warmed to the project after persuading NATO to deepen its commitment to High North and Arctic defenses.
The substantive concern among Norwegian legislators and military was that the shield would offer protection only to some NATO members; Norway was adamant it protect all NATO states. The transition from being an opponent to a supporter of the plan was rapid. Anne-Grete Strøm-Erichsen, Norway's former defense minister, was the only representative to publicly voice opposition to the plan at a NATO meeting in Vilnius in February 2008.
Strøm-Erichsen told the NATO meeting in the Lithuanian capital that Norway questioned the "need for a missile defense system," warning such a move could trigger "an arms race."
Extending the system's geo-graphic range was proposed during discussions between Benson Whitney, the then-U.S. ambassador to Norway, and Norway's state secretary for foreign affairs, Raymond Johansen.
Whitney noted that Norway was likely to abandon its opposition if the protective umbrella was broadened to include all NATO-aligned states in Europe, and if NATO was open to signing bilateral agreements on missile defense with Poland and the Czech Republic.
Norway regarded the widening of the protective range as pivotal to its objective of strengthening its own anti-missile capability, primarily directed at Russia's long- and medium-range missile arsenal on its doorstep on the Kola Peninsula.
However, this strategic view changed as Norway became more proactive in building a so-called "bridge of cooperation" between NATO and Russia on the missile shield issue, in the hope that a joint NATO-Russian solution would better serve the country's security interests in the High North Norway's initial lukewarm reception to the missile defense system was also influenced by its wish to see NATO cooperate with Russia on a broader missile defense program. The Norwegian view is that the dividend in NATO-Russian cooperation in this arena is reduced tension in the High North and Arctic regions.
To this extent, Norway got its wish when the Obama administration decided to scrap the missile shield in Poland and the Czech Republic in favor of expanding the shield program to include all NATO countries in Europe and North America.
NATO-Russian missile shield cooperation has long been regarded by Norway as the best means of accelerating the end to the last remnants of the Cold War. Norway lobbied strongly for NATO to invite Russia to the negotiating table ahead of the organization's summit meeting in Lisbon last November. "By reaching out and inviting Russia to cooperate with us, I believe we also have a real chance to build a security roof for the entire Euro-Atlantic area," NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen said in Lisbon. The U.S. and NATO have a special interest in maintaining a trouble-free relationship with Norway, which has increased its funding toward surveillance of Russian forces on Kola and provided intelligence data on changing missile capabilities and progress on new missile assets and tests by Russia in the region.
This intelligence transfer will cover the planned test-firing of Bulava missiles by the Severodvinsk-based Yuri Dolgoruky Borey-class submarines, the newest strategic subs in Russia's fleet, in June or July. Turkey In Turkey, a decision about acquiring a national long-range air defense system will likely wait for several months after June legislative elections. Meanwhile, Turkey's participation in the NATO missile shield has involved some politically touchy issues.Turkey's proposed national air defense system is being designed to counter both aircraft and ballistic missiles, and will be independent from the NATO missile shield. But since both systems are, by nature, anti-ballistic missile schemes and both are supposed to protect Turkish soil, they will have to be integrated in some way.
But the U.S. and some of its Western partners are staunchly opposed to the integration of any Russian or Chinese system into the NATO missile shield.
"American officials already have said that non-NATO elements would cause serious interoperability problems," one Turkish diplomat said.
The defense analyst said Western worries are related to both defense and commercial concerns.
"They [the Westerners] simply don't want Turkey to select Russian or Chinese options, and part of their concern is commercial," the diplomat said.
In the event Turkey effectively drops Russia and China from the list of contenders, the competition will be left to a rivalry between U.S. and Italian-French companies.
At the Lisbon summit, Turkey managed to persuade its NATO partners not to mention any countries as specific threats, although French President Nicolas Sarkozy explicitly said the ballistic missile threat was coming from Iran. At Turkey's request, the need to protect all NATO territory was also included in the decision text, as Turkey has close and developing ties with Iran.
"In any case, Turkish and NATO officials will have tough talks, with Turkey wanting a lot in return for the deployment of X-band radars on its territory," the defense analyst said. "Again, the next Turkish Cabinet will make the final decision on that."
Nabi Abdullaev in Moscow, Jaroslaw Adamowski in Warsaw, Burak Ege Bekdil and Umit Enginsoy in Ankara, and Gerard O'Dwyer in Helsinki contributed.