7/27/2019 Aegis_BMD_2011

1/32

Aegis BALLISTICMISSILEDEFEN

PROGRAM REVIEW 20

7/27/2019 Aegis_BMD_2011

2/32

[We] assumed lead for the Presidents Phased Adap-

tive Approach to the Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD)

of Europe and established the BMD Enterpriseand

selected the DDG-51 Flight III as our Integrated Air

and Missile Defense ship for the futurecompleted

20 of 24 successful demonstrations of operational

BMD capability. Admiral Gary Roughead, U.S. Navy

Chief of Naval Operations

CNO Guidance for 2011:

Executing the Maritime Strategy

7/27/2019 Aegis_BMD_2011

3/32

TTwo events a quarter-century apart have converged.In March1983, at the height of the Cold War, Presi-dent Ronald Reagan challenged America and theworld. What if free people could live secure in the

knowledge that their security did not rest upon threat

of instant U.S. retaliation to deter a Soviet attack, heasked, but instead that we could intercept and destroy

strategic ballistic missiles before they reached our own

soil or that of our allies?1The President then set the

nation on a course to move from a strategy of mutual

assured destruction to a new framework for a robust

national ballistic missile defense system (BMDS) that

would help avert nuclear Armageddon.

In December of that year, the U.S. Navy commissioned

the Aegis guided missile cruiser USS Ticonderoga(CG-

47), the first of what by 2011 would grow to a globalfleet of Aegis warships. In the 1980s, Aegis cruisers

were only a tiny fraction of the 600-ship Navy, but

today they are the backbone of the U.S. Fleet, and sev-

eral world navies have also embraced the Aegis shield.

That said, when Tico entered service, only the most

visionary prophet could imagine that BMD-capable

Aegis warships would someday become the fulcrum of

the national BMDS envisioned by President Reagan.

Indeed, Aegis BMD has grown in prominence because

the strategic landscape has changed dramatically.In September 2009, President Obama explained the

need to reinvigorate U.S. BMD strategy with a new

approach that would put the Aegis BMD system on

shore. This new approach will provide capabilities

sooner, he stated, build on proven systems and of-

fer greater defenses against the threat of missile attack

than the 2007 European missile defense program.2

Both Presidents thus challenged America and the

world to embark on new courses for national and

global security.

Even with delivery of new capabilities like Aegis

Ashore, ship-based BMD will remain an essential

and proven core element of any defense against bal-

listic missiles. The inherent flexibility and mobility

of the ship-based solution provides a missile defense

option political and military leaders can count on

as integral elements of their defensive arsenals today

and tomorrow.

As Aegis BMD continues to evolve, Americas ability

to defend our allies and friends worldwide, as well

as our forces at sea and ashore, against ballistic mis-

siles will become even more robust than it is today.

Aegis BMD has become a crucial element of the na-

tions defense and a key to forming and sustaining

global and regional maritime partnershipsthe Ae-

gis Global Enterprisethat can and will safeguard

vital interests. Indeed, while the U.S. Navys Global

Maritime Partnership has many components, the

ability of this partnership to undergird global and

regional naval cooperation has created a worldwide

framework for defense and security in an increasinglydangerous world.

In 2011, Aegis BMD is at sea, on patrol, near the

homeland as well as in areas far forwardthe Shield

of the Fleet and the nationand U.S. friends and

allies worldwide.

THE VISION REALIZED

vision

7/27/2019 Aegis_BMD_2011

4/32

7/27/2019 Aegis_BMD_2011

5/32

The first ten years of the 21st Century have seenprofound change for the United States Navy, the na-tion, and the world. In September 2001, the U.S.homeland experienced its first attacks in more than50 yearsa tragedy that spawned two conflicts whichhave extracted an enormous cost in lives and na-tional treasure. We are engaged worldwide in a war

with radical extremism, at the same time that thenation continues its drawdown in Iraq and surge ofcombat operations in Afghanistan. We are watchful

of the rise of a peer competitor that looks intenton becoming a global superpower. These dynamicsare complicated by the ambitions of regional pow-ers. It is little wonder that the National IntelligenceCouncil predicts daunting change will accelerateand broaden:

The international systemsas constructed fol-lowing the Second World Warwill be unrec-ognizable by 2025 owing to the rise of emerg-ing powers, a globalizing economy, an historictransfer of relative wealth and economic powerfrom West to East, and the growing influence

of nonstate actors. By 2025, the internationalsystem will be a global multipower one.3

Change has accelerated in the last few years forAmerica and its Navy as a new Administration, anew National Security Strategyand the 2010 Quadren-nial Defense Review have called for a reordering ofpriorities and programs. The Navy, Marine Corpsand Coast Guard have their first tri-service maritimestrategy, and a new vision for countering irregu-lar challenges further shapes the Navys strategies,plans, programs and operations.4

The 2010 Ballistic Missile Defense Review (BMDR)5likewise put in motion profound changes in the U.S.approach to deal with the most deadly threat to the

American homeland, our forces forward, and ourallies and coalition partners: ballistic missiles armed

with weapons of mass destruction (WMD). Accord-ing to the 2010 BMDR:

The United States will continue to defendthe homeland from limited ballistic missile

attack. These efforts are focused on protect-ing the homeland from a ballistic missile at-tack by a regional actor such as North Koreaor Iran The United States will defend U.S.deployed forces from regional missile threats

while also protecting our allies and partnersand enabling them to defend themselves.The United States will seek to lead expand-ed international efforts for missile defense.It will work more closely with allies and part-

ners to provide pragmatic and cost-effectivecapacity.6

The 2010 National Security Strategy further under-scored this need:

This Administration has no greater respon-sibility than the safety and security of the

American people. And there is no greaterthreat to the American people then weaponsof mass destruction, particularly the dangerposed by the pursuit of nuclear weapons by

violent extremists and their proliferation toadditional states.7

The United States has now put in place a newapproach to defeating this global threat. On Septem-ber 17, 2009, the President revealed a sea changein U.S. ballistic missile defense policy.8 He termi-nated the existing plan that would have placeddedicated ground-based interceptors and missile-defense radar sites in Poland and the Czech Repub-lic. In their stead, he announced a Phased Adaptive

Approach (PAA) for a global sea-based missile-defense capability centered on the Navys AegisBallistic Missile Defense system fitted out in theTiconderoga and Arleigh Burke (DDG-51) guidedmissile cruisers and destroyers. A land-based Aegis

Ashore component would fol low, provid ingenhanced BMD protection from both the sea andland.9Important particularly for the near term, themost effective leg of the nations BMD capability

was already at sea and on patrol when the Presidentannounced the new approach to missile defense.

THE ONLY CONSTANT IS CHANGE

7/27/2019 Aegis_BMD_2011

6/32

7/27/2019 Aegis_BMD_2011

7/32

The Phased Adaptive Approach (PAA) includes sev-eral variants of the Standard Missile-Three (SM-3)to thwart the preponderant short- to intermediate-range ballistic missile threat from rogue nations.10The PAA for BMD in Europe will leverage severalelements of the BMDS, including forward-deployedsensors as well as sea- and land-based variants of theSM-3 interceptor. Evolutionary upgrades to theSM-3 Standard Missile and sensors combined withimprovements to command and control infrastruc-ture provide capability to the warfighter to performan increasingly complex and critical regional andhomeland-defense mission.

Aegis BMD contributions to the PAA for BMD inEurope are highlighted in each of the four phases:

Phase 1 (2011): Sea-based Aegis missile de-fense ships and radars will be deployed todefend against short- and medium-range bal-listic missiles in Southern Europe.

Phase 2 (2015), Phase 3 (2018) and Phase 4 (2020):Aegis SM-3 missiles will be upgraded to providecoverage against medium- and intermediate-range missiles, as well as inter-continental bal-listic missiles (ICBMs).

In 2011, the Phased Adaptive Approach will be im-plemented in Europe and will eventually be adaptedfor other regions, including the Middle East andEast Asia. It will be tailored to the unique regionalthreats.

The Presidents decision to deploy the EuropeanPAA accelerates fielding of proven technologies likethe Aegis Weapon System and promises improvedlong-term protection of our NATO allies as well asthe U.S. homeland.

The successful 20-year track record of the AegisWeapon System contributed to the Presidents con-fidence. The Navy commissioned the pioneer Aegismissile cruiser USS Ticonderogain 1983. Ticonderogasimpressive multi-mission warfighting capabilities cen-tered on the Aegis Weapon Systemthe AN/SPY-1multi-function phased-array radar, the Aegis CombatSystem and sophisticated surface-to-air missilesin ad-dition to highly capable anti-submarine, anti-surface,and land-attack weapons. In 1991, the follow-on Ar-leigh Burke-class destroyers provided complementary

warfighting quantity and quality.

Although initially designed to protect Navy carrierbattle and surface action groups from attacks in a

nuclear-war-at-sea environment, the Navy adaptedthe Aegis and Standard Missile systems to counterthe emergingglobalballistic missile threat. In 2011,the Aegis weapon system is again providing a revolu-tion in sea-based capabilitiesto defend U.S. forcesat sea and ashore, Americas friends and allies, andthe American homeland against the proliferatingthreat of ballistic and cruise missiles, as well as un-manned aerial vehicles and aircraft. Coupled withother ground-, sea-, and air/space-based elements ofthe U.S. Ballistic Missile Defense System, Aegis BMDcan already deter and defend against a growing globalthreat.

In early 2011, 21 Aegis multi-mission warshipsfiveTiconderoga-class missile cruisers and 16 missile de-stroyers of the Arleigh Burke classwere in service.Since 2004, Aegis BMD has been on station with sixor more ships at sea at any given time, conductingroutine, in-stride ballistic missile defense. Of the 21

ABMD warships, 16 are assigned to the Pacific Fleetand five to the Atlantic Fleet.11

Comprising the ship-based leg of the U.S. nation-al BMD forces, these ships deploy to the Mediter-ranean, the Arabian Gulf and the western Pacific,

providing an umbrella of deterrence. The Navyplans to include BMD capabilities in all 22 Aegiscruisers and 65-plus destroyers, including new-construction DDGs. In the meantime, Navy inter-national programs are partnering with allied naviesto energize coalition ballistic missile defense world-

wide, and provide what the U.S. President describedas stronger, smarter, and swifter defenses of

American forces and Americas allies.12

This initiative to harness the power of U.S. and coali-tion partner nations and navies offers game-changingpossibilities. There is great incentive for allied andpartner navies to take advantage of our nearly fivedecades of research and development, testing, andreal-world operations. Interoperability among U.S.and allied navies is the key reason why several havealready embraced the Aegis solution -- recognizingthe manifest benefits of the Aegis weapons system.

Aegis BMD isproven, ready and deployed around theworld. This reality enabled the President to make hisPAA decision with assurance. Moreover, this newapproach will provide capabilities sooner, build onsuccessful systems and offer greater defenses thanthe 2007 European missile defense program. The

Aegis BMD/SM-3 weapon system enables the Navyto immediately step up to this challenge.

PHASED ADAPTABILITY

7/27/2019 Aegis_BMD_2011

8/32

7/27/2019 Aegis_BMD_2011

9/32

The September 11, 2001 attacks on the United Stateskilled more than 3,000 Americans. Moreover, theyprovided a stark warning that both states and otheractors had the desire and the means to strike the

American homeland. Today, a growing number ofpotential adversaries possessing ballistic missilesarmed with chemical, biological, radiological, nu-clear, and high yield explosive (CBRNE) weaponsof mass destruction present an urgent security is-sue for the United States and its allies. Indeed, the

National Defense Universitys Institute for NationalSecurity Studies report, Global Strategic Assessment2009: Americas Security Role in a Changing World ,notes: Our worst fears regarding the proliferationand use of weapons of mass destruction have notbeen realized to date, but important trends bearingon nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons havemade it increasingly possible they will be.13

While Global Strategic Assessment 2009addressed theneed to deal with the threat of weapons of mass de-struction as one security threat among a range ofothers, the threat of WMD delivered by ballistic

missiles was so compelling that the following yearNational Defense Universitys Center for Technol-ogy and National Security Policy commissioned Dr.

Jacques Gansler, former Undersecretary of Defensefor Acquisition, Technology and Logistics to con-duct a comprehensive evaluation of the cost-benefittradeoff of a ballistic missile defense. According tothe Gansler report, Ballistic Missile Defense: Past andFuture:

As demonstrated by the attacks on New Yorkand Washington on September 11, 2001, thereare those in some parts of the world who are

not deterred by the threat of invasion or evennuclear retaliation (including some rulersof so-called rogue states). A national missiledefense system could provide a shield fromdestruction in the event of a threatened or ac-tual launch by a rogue state leader or a power-ful transnational terrorist group as well as anunintentional launch by Russia or China.

A limited system should be deployed becauseof its deterrent value and the possibility ofsaving so many American lives, but R&DE

and testing should be continued to enhanceits capability against evolving threats, and de-ployment should be done in connection withinternational agreements and controls relatedto new, national strategic posture, based onboth offense and defense systems, as well astightened proliferation controls.14

Throughout the past decade, numerous assess-ments have echoed the threats and trends out-lined in the Ballistic Missile Defense: Past and Futurereport. For example, a June 2002 report issuedby the National Defense Univer-sitys Center for Technology andNational Security Policy, TowardMissile Defenses from the Sea, sum-marized the challenges to andopportunities of Navy BMD:

During the past several years,national intelligence estimateshave indicated a growing missilethreat from North Korea, Iran,and Iraq that will continue to in-crease throughout this decade.Developments of the past 18months have created new possibilities forseabasing of national defenses against inter-continental ballistic missiles. Using missileinterceptors based at sea to defend the UnitedStates against ICBMs offers several advantag-es, the most important of which are flexibilityand control.15

Four years later, then-Missile Defense Agency Di-rector, U.S. Air Force Lieutenant General HenryTrey Obering stated, I have a lot of confidencein the ability of the sea-based system to be able toexecute an operational mission.16

These themes were reinforced by then-Program Di-rector, Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense, Rear Admiral

Alan B. Hicks. For example, his 2007 Naval Insti-tute Proceedingsarticle framed the current and futureBMD/WMD threat:

Today, the United States faces a greater dan-ger from an expanding number of hostile

GLOBAL THREATS

7/27/2019 Aegis_BMD_2011

10/32

7/27/2019 Aegis_BMD_2011

11/32

regimes and terrorist groups that seek to ac-quire and use ballistic missiles and weaponsof mass destruction (WMDs). These adversar-ies may not respond to traditional tools andconcepts of deterrence.17

And, the next year Rear Admiral Hicks provided ad-ditional insight into the emerging threat from bal-listic missiles armed with WMD:

These threats range from terrorism to ballis-

tic missiles tipped with WMD, intended tointimidate the United States by holding it, itsfriends, and its allies hostage. Not only areforward deployed forces at risk from ballisticmissiles, but also the U.S. homeland is withinrange of these threats, which continue to growin number, range, and complexity.18

The security of the U.S. homeland, deployed U.S.military forces, and allies is increasingly threatenedby the proliferation of sophisticated ballistic mis-sile systems. By early 2011, according to AdmiralRoughead, some 30 countries had deployed ballistic

missiles, compared to only nine countries in 1972,16 in 1990 and 25 in 2006: So thats a nation ev-ery three years thats acquiring ballistic missile capa-bility.19While many of these are allied or friendlynations, some critical technologies have been trans-ferredlegally or illegallyto other countries or evensub-national groups that seek to harm the UnitedStates and its partners. Potential enemies such asChina and Iran possess ballistic missiles andweap-ons of mass destruction, and todays rogue leaders

view WMD as weapons of choice, not of last resort.

Chinas missiles hedge against a Taiwan contin-

gency, while simultaneously undergirding its anti-access/area denial (A2/AD) efforts in the Asia Pa-cific region. One notable effort in this regard is thedevelopment of the worlds first anti-ship carrierkiller ballistic missile, the DF-21D. Patrick Cronin,senior director of the Asia Program at the Centerfor a New American Security, wrote that the missilecan be fired from protected land-based bastions far

away, travels at high speed, and provides mid-coursecorrection and a maneuverable reentry vehicle withgreat precision and lethalityThe DF-21D is the ul-timate carrier-killer missile.20 Moreover, AdmiralRobert Willard, Commander of U.S. Pacific Com-mand, in August 2010 warned that the DF-21D wasclose to being operational.21

Given U.S. strategic interests in the Middle East,Irans missile development is perhaps even moretroubling; the Director of the Central Intelligence

Agency in June 2010 warned that it could be amere two years before Iran is able to threaten otherstates with nuclear warheads mounted on ballisticmissiles,22and the Defense Intelligence Agency hasreported that Iran could field an intercontinentalballistic missile capable of reaching the East Coastof the United States by 2015.23 Iranian ballistic mis-sile firings have accelerated, with several mid-rangeballistic missiles launched during the past several

years.24 Coupled with the determination to acquireWMD, Irans missiles pose grave threats to U.S. in-terests and Americas Middle Eastern, South Asian,

and European allies.Clearly, this capability andintent from Iran and oth-er potentially hostile nations, as well as sub-nationalgroups, that obtain ballistic missiles carrying WMD,

will hold U.S. forces overseas and our allies in jeop-ardy. In the future, U.S. forces conducting powerprojection operations abroad will face myriad chal-lenges, the 2010 Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR)explained:

States with the means to do so are acquiringa wide range of sophisticated weapons andsupporting capabilities that, in combination,can support anti-access strategies aimed at im-peding the deployment of U.S. forces to thetheater and blunting the operations of thoseforces that do deploy forward. North Koreaand Iran, as part of their defiance of interna-tional norms, are actively testing and fieldingnew ballistic missile systems.

Global Threats (continued)

7/27/2019 Aegis_BMD_2011

12/32

7/27/2019 Aegis_BMD_2011

13/32

In 2011, the United States has fielded an initial na-tional-level BMDS capability, with all aspects of theintegrated systemland, sea, air and spacelinkedtogether to provide the best possible defense. TheNavys contribution to BMDS, built around the

Aegis Weapon System, has grown in importancebased on its proven performance as well as itslong-term potential. Aegis BMD complements andintegrates seamlessly with other elements of thenational BMDS.

The first priority of the BMDS implementationstrategyestablishing a limited defensive capabilityagainst North Korean ballistic missileshas largelybeen achieved with Patriot Advanced Capability-3(PAC-3) batteries, the Ground-based Mid-course De-fense (GMD) System, the Forward-Deployed AN/TPY-2 Radar, and Aegis BMD long-range search, cue-ing, and engagement ships. The Aegis BMD systemis integrated with Fleet and Joint Force war-fightingstandards, and the BMDS Command, Control, Bat-tle Management and Communications (C2BMC)elements. Aegis BMD easily interoperates with

other in-theater assets, including the Terminal High-Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) system, as well asother ground- air- and space-based sensors.

Aegis BMD has the ability to operate independentlyto defeat ballistic missiles, but also to function asan integral node in the overall, integrated nationalBMDS. Perhaps most critically, Aegis BMD main-tains this capability while also being able to carryout other vital general-purpose naval warfare mis-sions and tasksfrom humanitarian assistance andcounter-piracy operations to naval gunfire supportof forces ashore. This in turn allows Aegis BMD to

demonstrate the Department of Defense and theNavys commitment to network-centric operationsusing existing mobile and flexible multi-missionsystems fully enabled by adaptable networks.

Support for Aegis BMD is growing outside the Navyand the Department of Defense. In 2009 the Inde-pendent Working Group on Missile Defense, the Space

Relationship & the Twenty-First Centurystrongly recom-mended limiting fixed ground-based missile defensedeployments based on GMD in favor of expanding

theater/regional defenses centered on sea-based mis-sile defense deployments (along with Aegis Ashore,Land-Based SM-3 and THAAD radars), recommend-ing, in particular: Equip additional U.S. vessels

with the Aegis anti-missile system. Encourage U.S.allies equipped with Aegis/SM to do the same.25

The President leveraged the half-century of pro-gressive Aegis system and Standard Missile de-

velopment to play an important role in defend-ing Europe as well as providing a proven andmobile capability for regional defense world-wideIt is the precursor to a fundamental shift in thenations BMD policy from a predominantly land-and-space-based system to a predominantly sea-based system that is further enabled by space andairborne sensors.

Each success of the Aegis BMD test program under-scores the potential of Navy BMD to defend againstshort- mid- and long-range ballistic missiles. In 2011,Navy BMD is the only certified, operationally effec-tive, and suitable system to defend against theaterand regional ballistic missile attack. This was possi-ble only because of the Navys commitment to makeBMD a core mission for all Aegis ships and the con-tinued growth in capability and capacity these shipsdeliverwith in-service warships receiving extensivemodernizations and upgrades to stay ahead of thethreat and extend service lives. This vital capabilityhas been delivered at only 10 percent of the totalnational BMD budgets.

The Navy will continue to align efforts to better sup-port BMD as a core Navy capability and it is virtu-ally certain that Integrated Air and Missile Defense(IAMD) will gain more prominence as a core mis-sion of the U.S. Navy and one of the key enablingcapabilities that the Navy provides the joint force.To support this shifting mission set, the Navys Bal-listic Missile Defense Enterprise and Navy Air andMissile Defense Command (NAMDC) will contin-ue to bring together the technology, concepts andprograms for air and missile defense, ensuring that

Aegis BMD remains the shield of the Navy, theNation, and increasingly, our friends and allies.

STRATEGIC FRAMEWORK FOR AEGIS BMD

7/27/2019 Aegis_BMD_2011

14/32

7/27/2019 Aegis_BMD_2011

15/32

The U.S. Navys strong commitment to a national

BMDS is articulated in the 2007 tri-serviceA Cooper-

ative Strategy for 21st Century Seapower, which explains,

Maritime ballistic missile defense will enhance de-

terrence by providing an umbrella of protection to

forward-deployed forces and friends and allies, while

contributing to the larger architecture for defense of

the United States.26 Emphasizing the Navys intent

to push this defensive capability forward, the 2007

strategy also states, Maritime forces will defend the

homeland by identifying and neutralizing threats as

far from our shores as possible.

Ship-based Aegis BMDs inherent mobility, persis-

tent forward presence, readiness, ability to operate

in international waters and conduct simultaneous

multi-warfare operationsincluding long-range

strike and scalability to match the needare key at-

tributes brought to any future military operation.

Aegis BMD can reposition in response to a crisis,

cover undefended flanks, thicken defenses of key

areas and regions, and add firepower. The ability

of these naval forces to use the vast worlds oceans

for strategic and tactical movement, combined with

the increasing stealth and self-defense capabilities of

U.S. warships, as well as their increasing ability to

fully exploit the global space commons for addi-

tional capability, allows commanders to maintain a

persistent, scalable and visible naval presence any-

where in the world with low risk.

The multi-mission capability of Aegis missile cruisers

and destroyers enables them to defend themselves,

other forces in the region, and assets ashore. With

organic logistics support, the Navy can sustain theseships on forward-deployment station for extended

periods. Aegis warships can also conduct other criti-

cal missions while tasked as ballistic missile defense

assetsfrom humanitarian relief to launching long-

range, precision strikes with Tomahawk land-attack

cruise missiles. No additional personnel or assets

are needed for these full-spectrum operations.

This was underscored by the 2010 QDR, which

noted, U.S. naval forces likewise will continue to

be capable of robust forward presence and power

projection operations, even as they add capabilities

and capacity for working with a wide range of part-

ner navies. The rapid growth in sea- and land-based

ballistic missile defense capabilities will help meet

the needs of combatant commanders and allies in

several regions.27

The Aegis weapon systems adaptability has enabledthe Navy to add improved hardware

and software in successive Aegis

spiral upgrades through a coordi-

nated, disciplined and aggressive

approach. The Aegis weapon sys-

tem in 2011 consists of four major

components: (1) the AN/SPY-1 ra-

dar system; (2) the Aegis Combat

System; (3) the Mk 41 VLS; and (4)

Standard surface-to-air missiles. Ae-

gis BMD leverages and builds upon

capabilities inherent in the Aegis

Weapon System and ballistic missile command, con-

trol, communications, computers, intelligence, and

reconnaissance systems seamlessly integrated with

other ship systems.

The Aegis legacy of building, testing, and learning

was the primary reason that Aegis BMD was the first

element of the national BMDS to complete the en-

tire MDA test process. This operationally realistictesting and capability development has enabled Ae-gis BMD to be the pacing element of the national

BMDS. By closely coordinating testing with devel-opment and acquisition, the Navy will continue todeliver upgraded capabilities and capacities to AegisBMD ships.

U.S. SHIP-BASED BMD ELEMENTS

7/27/2019 Aegis_BMD_2011

16/32

1939

NAVYS

RESPONSE

EVOLVING

THREAT

World War II:

European

Theater

End of

World War II

VT Fuze

Project

Bumblebee

initiated

TALOS & Radar

Project

Typhoon

Withington St

defines Advan

Surface Miss

concept

Guns & Radar

Kamikazee

attacks

on ships

V-2 attacks

on cities

USSR orbitsSputnik I

Beginning

of Cold War

First USSR

operational

ICBM

deployment

Anti-

Exocet

19411942

1945

1958

1960

1964

1944 1945 1946

1957

1959

19

7/27/2019 Aegis_BMD_2011

17/32

is

Systems

ering

mentns

S Ticonderoga commissioned

USSArleigh

Burke

commissioned

USS Starkstruck by

Iraqi Exocet

President

Reagan

announcesStrategic

Defense

Initiative

First U.S.

BMD patrol

SM/LEAPdemonstration

First SM-3

intercept

North Korean

Taepo Dong

overflies Japan

Anti-Ballistic

MissileTreaty

signed

First

intercept ofseparatingtarget

Israel testsArrow Missile

Aegis BMDtransitions

to theU.S. Navy

Iranian GreatProphet II exercise

Tests:Three Shots

Three Hits

North Korealaunches

Unha-2 rocket

U.S. withdraws

from ABM Treaty

ssile

69

1983

1991

1992

20022004

2005 2008

1972

1983

1987

19982002

20062009

20

To put it simply, our new missile defense architecture in Europe will provide stronger, smarter

and swifter defenses of American forces and Americas allies. It is more comprehensive than the

previous program; it deploys capabilities that are proven and cost-effective; and it sustains and

builds upon our commitment to protect the U.S. homeland against long-range ballistic missile

threats; and it ensures and enhances the protection of all our NATO allies.

President Barak Obama

17 September 2009

7/27/2019 Aegis_BMD_2011

18/32

7/27/2019 Aegis_BMD_2011

19/32

Beginning in the early 1960s, when Aegis was firstconceived, and throughout nearly two decades of de-

velopment that led to the commissioning of the firstAegis cruiser in 1983, Navy planners and engineersstructured the Aegis system with the potentialto takeon future naval missions. Under the stewardship of

visionary program managers, most notably the lateRear Admiral Wayne E. Meyer, widely regarded asthe Father of Aegis, the system had an overarchingimperative to build-a-littletest-a-littlelearn-a-lot

as the prudent way to insert revolutionary capabili-ties into the Fleet in an evolutionary manner.

As Admiral John C. Harvey, Commander FleetForces Command, explained in September 2010,

what made the Aegis Program so successful was asingle-minded dedication to the pursuit of technicalexcellence.28

As new threats emerged, the Navys leadershiplearned that an Aegis system designed originally toprotect U.S. Navy carrier strike groups from wavesof attacking Soviet aircraft and cruise missiles in anuclear environment also had the potentialwith adisciplined process of sensor, weapon, and systemsupgradesto be the key component of an integratednational BMDS.29Aegis BMD offers a significant re-turn on investment by taking advantage of its morethan $80 billion of investment in the sensors, weap-ons, command-and-control systems, ships, peopleand facilities that comprise the Aegis weapon sys-tem.

Aegis BMD capability is developed and delivered intwo-year block upgrades providing increased capa-bilities at every step. The Aegis BMD Block 2004delivered the first Aegis BMD Long-Range Searchand Track (LRS&T) system certified for tactical de-ployment. The Aegis BMD Block 2006 focused pri-marily on improved prototype radar discrimination.

And, the Aegis BMD Block 2008 further developedAegis BMD to provide fully integrated advanced ra-dar discrimination. The 2010 configuration of AegisBMDthe Aegis 3.6 weapon systemincludes the Ae-gis BMD weapons system teamed with the advancedRIM-161 SM-3 Block 1A missile. This configuration

provides two primary warfighting capabilities to thenational BMDS.

The first capability is for hit-to-kill target engage-ment and destruction. Aegis cruisers and LRS&T-fitted destroyers are equipped with the capability toengage short- to intermediate-range ballistic missilesin the midcourse phase of flight with the SM-3 Block1A missile, as well as counter enemy aircraft andcruise missiles. LRS&T provides the U.S. nationalBMDS with its first mobile, global, and deployablecapability that can destroy ballistic missiles bothabove and within the atmospheresomething that cannot be deliveredby any other system.

This crucial capability grew outof Navy Standard Missile testingbeginning with the Terrier/LEAP(Lightweight Exo-Atmospheric Pro-jective) demonstration project in1993. This included assessing thecapabilities of the LEAP KineticKill Vehicle (KKV), continuing

with the USN Theater Wide/AegisLEAP Intercept (ALI) program inthe late 1990s, and culminating in Standard Mis-sile improvements to the LEAP KKV, which thenevolved into a Navy Standard Missile with a Kinetic

Warhead (KW). This hit-to-kill engagement capabil-ity was rigorously engineered, successfully tested atsea, improved, and deployed in Aegis cruisers anddestroyers.

Looking to the future, key upgrades include:

Tracking Improvements: The Aegis BMD signal

processor improves system signal and data processingcapability that results in more precise target infor-mation that supports real-time identification of the

warheads and decoys. Two-color sensor technologyin the SM-3 seeker provides the capability to senseinfrared images in two wavebands and improves theability to sort out small hot objects from larger hotobjects. This upgraded seeker also improves detec-tion range. These upgrades to the SM-3 are sched-

BUILD-A-LITTLE REVOLUTION

7/27/2019 Aegis_BMD_2011

20/32

7/27/2019 Aegis_BMD_2011

21/32

uled for deployment in 2011. The combination ofthe improved radar tracking and resolution providedby the BMD Signal Processor and the two-color seek-er will help to retain Aegis BMDs high kill probabil-ity against advanced threats.30

Longer-range Threat Set Capability: Longer-range,multi-stage ballistic missiles challenge the capabili-ties of stand-alone defensive systems. One way tosuccessfully reach and intercept missiles with longrange and high speed and at the altitudes that thesemissiles fly is to give the SM-3 a head start by firingthe missile based on off-board sensor information orcompleting the engagement entirely with off-boardtrack information. The capability to fire the SM-3on off-board sensor information is available today,as the 2010 BMDRnoted:

DoD will also continue to improve the SM-3interceptor missile defense capability. By 2015a more capable SM-3 missile, the Block IB, willbe available. It will have an improved seekercapability for greater on-board discriminationand greater area coverage. This interceptor

will be deployed both at sea and on land, withthe Aegis Ashore system. Developing thetechnology to launch an SM-3 interceptor inresponse to remote sensor data will also in-crease the coverage area. Once this capabilityis fully developed, the interceptorsno longerconstrained by the range of the Aegis radar todetect an incoming missilewill be able to belaunched sooner and therefore fly further inorder to defeat the incoming threat.

Terminal Capability:One of the most challengingareas of ballistic missile defense is intercepting thesemissiles or reentry vehicles during their terminalphase of f light, when speeds are high and timelinesare short. A high-priority program for the MDA and

Aegis BMD is the development, integration, andtesting of a near-term Sea-Based Terminal (SBT) ca-pability. This capability was tested and ready for de-ployment in 2009, just two years after program start.

Aegis BMDs near-term Sea-Based Terminal capabil-ity joins the U.S. PAC-3 and Israeli Arrow System inthe terminal defense end game.

Standard Missile Improvements: The SM-3 BlockIB is the next sea-based missile spiral upgrade. Theseeker, signal processor, and propulsion system ofthe SM-3 Block IB missile kinetic warhead are im-proved versions of the Block IA missile and willresult in increased missile effectiveness over longer-range and more sophisticated ballistic missiles, in-cluding an improved capability to identify closelyspaced objects and better probability of kill. Engi-neering upgrades have undergone laboratory and

ground tests, and flight-testing of the SM-3 BlockIB missile occurred in 2010, and fleet deploymentcould begin as early 2011.

The next step in the evolutionary development ofthe Standard Missile is the longer-range SM-3 BlockIIA missile being co-developed with Japan. This up-grade increases the range and velocity of the missile,providing additional reach, firepower, performance,and operational flexibility. The capabilities of theSM-3 Block IIA missile, coupled with enhanced sen-sor performance, will enable Aegis BMD to engagemore hostile ballistic missiles and with a greater

probability of kill. On June 23, 2006, Japan and theUnited States signed an agreement to transition theresearch of the Joint Cooperative Research Projectto the SM-3 Cooperative Development (SCD) Pro-gram to develop jointly the SM-3 Block IIA missile.The SCD Program focuses on a 21-inch diameter

variant of the SM-3 missile that can be launchedfrom the existing MK 41 VLS. Initial flight testingof the SM-3 IIA will be in 2014 with a first intercepttest in 2015.

Software Improvements to Transition to Open

Architecture: The Navy recently demonstrated a

software upgradeAegis BMD 4.0.1that marks thetransition to the Navys open architecture, a transi-tion that will be complete with software upgradesknown as Advanced Capability Build 12, scheduledfor completion in 2012. This next-generation signalprocessing capability greatly improves Aegis BMDperformance against expanding enemy threats and

will enable Aegis BMD to remain well ahead of theemerging threat, while ensuring Aegis BMD takesfull advantage of the Navys move to a services-ori-ented architecture standard for all its ships.

Build-a-Little Revolution (continued)

7/27/2019 Aegis_BMD_2011

22/32

7/27/2019 Aegis_BMD_2011

23/32

Aegis BMD has undergone a comprehensive test

program involving 25 at-sea live-firings between Jan-

uary 2002 and the end of 2010. These tests have be-

come progressively more operationally challenging

throughout the course of the test program. Since

the first Aegis BMD intercept test, the Navys ele-

ment of the overall U.S. BMDS has enjoyed unprec-

edented success: 21 intercepts out of 25 at-sea tests,

including dual intercepts by two interceptors during

one test event.31

Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense Tests

TEST DATE TARGET TYPE AEGIS SHIP HIT MISS

January 2002 TTV Unitary (SCUD) Lake Erie XJune 2002 TTV Unitary (SCUD) Lake Erie X

November 2002 TTV Unitary (SCUD) Lake Erie X

June 2003 TTV Unitary (SCUD) Lake Erie X

December 2003 TTV Unitary MRBM Lake Erie X

February 2005 TTV Unitary SRBM Lake Erie X

November 2005 MRT Separating Lake Erie X

May 2006* Unitary (SCUD) Lake Erie X

June 2006 MRT Separating Shiloh X

December 2006 TTV Unitary Lake Erie No fire.

April 2007 ARAV-A Unitary SRBM Lake Erie X

June 2007 MRT Separating Decatur X

November 2007 Two ARAV-A SRBMs Lake Erie XXDecember 2007 MRT Separating Kongo(Japan) X

June 2008* Unitary (SCUD) Lake Erie X

November 2008 Two ARAV-A SRBMs Paul Hamilton X

Hopper X

November 2008 MRT- Separating Chokai(Japan) X

March 2009 SRBM Benfold X

July 2009 Unitary ARAV-A SRBM Hopper X

October 2009 Separating MRT Myoko(Japan) X

October 2010 Separating MRT Kirishima(Japan) X

*Standard Missile SM-2; all others SM-3 missiles.

TTV = Target Test Vehicle; ARAV= Terrier Oriole Target; MRT= Medium Range Target; FM/FTM=

Flight Test Standard Missile; MRBM = Medium-Range Ballistic Missile; SRBM= Short-Range Ballistic

Missile; Unitary Target = warhead remains attached to booster rocket (SCUD-type technology); Separating

Target= warhead separates from booster rocket (North Korean No-Dong-type technology).

Source: Fact Sheet Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense Testing; Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense, Missile Defense

Agency, at http://www.mda.mil/system/aegis_bmd.html. Accessed 3 December 2010.

TESTS CONFIRM AEGIS BMD EXCELLENCE

7/27/2019 Aegis_BMD_2011

24/32

7/27/2019 Aegis_BMD_2011

25/32

In an August 2009 briefing at the George C. MarshallInstitute, Rear Admiral Hicks, then-Program Direc-tor, Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense, underscored therigor and success of this extensive testing program:The tests executed a high degree of operational re-alism and testing rigor. The Aegis BMD system isoperationally effective and operationally suitable.

During the past several years, other real-world eventshave underscored the value that Aegis BMD bringsto the nations defenses. For example, when theCurtis Wilbur (DDG 54) deployed to the Sea of Ja-pan on the worlds first BMD patrol, few envisioned

Aegis BMD would demonstrate real-world value sosoon. Ten months later, on July 4 and 5, 2006, NorthKorea launched seven ballistic missiles, including along-range Taepo Dong-2 missile. Operating in con-junction with other elements of the national BMDSystem, the LRS&T-equipped Curtis Wilburprovid-ed early warning and tracking of these launches. Intestimony before the House Armed Services Com-mittee, the Commander, U.S. Strategic Commandnoted, The United States demonstrated a credible

operational missile defense capability for homelanddefense. The Missile Defense Agency director lateradded, For the first time in U.S. history, we hadthe capability to defend ourselves from a long-rangeballistic missile attack.

Additionally, the 2007, 2008, 2009 and 2010 testsinvolving Japanese Maritime Self-Defense Forceguided missile destroyers demonstrated the promiseof a broad-based coalition enterprise that will linkseveral navies Aegis capabilities to address sharedoperational requirements. This is crucial for Eu-ropean Aegis BMD, as several European navies are

procuring the Aegis weapon systems, presaging po-tential partnering opportunities for mutual self-de-fense and greatly enhanced interoperability.

AEGIS 1 / SATELLITE 0

In Operation Burnt Frost, the United States hadto go where no defensive missile system had gonebefore. In late 2007, the Department of Defensepredicted that an inactive 5,000-pound U.S. recon-naissance satellite with hazardous fuel compoundson board would reenter the Earths atmosphere ina matter of weeks, posing risk of injury, death orproperty destruction. The President directed theU.S. Strategic Command to develop a course of

action to destroy the satellite at an altitude whereit would pose no hazard to population centers andother satellites in earth orbit but without generat-ing hazardous space debris.

The technical and operational challenges were sig-nificant. The school bus-size satellite was to beengaged higher and at a faster speed than any tar-get engaged during years of testing the nationalBMDS and Aegis BMD systems, and the satelliteshydrazine tankthe targets aim pointwas only afraction of the overall mass of the satellite. Be-cause of the higher closing velocities due to the

satellites speed of greater than 17,000 miles perhour, a successful intercept would require longerradar and missile-seeker ranges, extended missileflight time and greater guidance accuracy. TheNavys BMD warships were the assets of choicethe only assets capable of destroying the satellite,reliably and efficiently.

Three Aegis warshipsthe USS Lake Erie(CG-70),Russell (DDG-59) and Decatur (DDG-73)weretasked to participate in the satellite shoot-down,

with Lake Erie designated as the principal firingship. Following extensive materiel, electronic and

training preparations (including critical, one-timemodifications to the SM-3 missiles), on February20, 2008, Lake Erie launched a single SM-3 mis-sile, which intercepted the satellite at an altitudehigher than 150 miles and a closing speed greaterthan 22,000 miles per hour. The results were spec-tacular. The errant satellites fuel tank detonatedin a brilliant flash, destroying the satellite withoutdanger of space debris.

Tests Confrm Aegis BMD Excellence (continued)

7/27/2019 Aegis_BMD_2011

26/32

7/27/2019 Aegis_BMD_2011

27/32

The engagement of allied navies in the Aegis pro-gramJapan, Spain, Norway, Australia and Koreahas laid the foundation for an Aegis global enter-prise. The global effort began with a foreign militarysales relationship with Japan, and has evolved to in-clude a commercial relationship in Spain, a blendedenterprise between the major Spanish shipyard andLockheed Martin in Norway and an expanded rela-tionship with Australia and Korea. The evolutionof the Aegis system to an open architecture has ac-companied the global migration of engagement inthe Aegis effort. For example, the Australian MODbecame interested in using the Aegis architecture toconnect other maritime assets into an integrated ar-chitecture as well.

The foundation for a global maritime security ar-chitecture has emerged with the construction andoperation of allied Aegis warships. The JapaneseMaritime Self-Defense Force (JMSDF) has the Aegissystem on the Kongo-class destroyers andAtago-classdestroyers. The Spanish Navy has the Aegis systemaboard the F-100 frigates. And the Spanish successhas migrated to the Norwegian and Australian na-

vies, where Spanish shipbuilders have combinedwith U.S. weapons integrators to put Aegis aboard

the Norwegian F-310 frigates and the AustralianNavy Hobart-class destroyers. South Korea has an-nounced plans to build six 5,600-ton KDX-IIIA Ae-gis-equipped destroyers beginning in 2019, to com-plement the three Sejon-DaewanKDX-III destroyersthat will be in service by 2012.

Other navies have participated directly in the U.S.flight test maritime (FTM) program. For example,the Japanese MSDF Kirishima was the first foreign

warship to participate, in FTM-10 (2004), and in Oc-tober 2010 the warship successfully engaged a targetballistic missile. The LCF Tromp(F 803) was the firstEuropean participant in the test program, with theships modified SMART-L systems tracking the bal-listic missile target in FTM-11. The Spanish navysMendez Nunez (F 104), outfitted with a BMD soft-

ware modification, tracked a ballistic missile target inFTM-12. And, the following ships actually launchedSM-3 missiles at medium-range, separating-warheadtargets with good results:

Kongo(JMSDF), December 2007, hit Chokai(JMSDF), November 2008, miss, no ship

error, failure in KV end game Myoko(JMSDF), October 2009, hit Kirishima(JMSDF), October 2010, hit

These tests demonstrated the promise of a broad-

based coalition enterprise that will link several na-

vies Aegis capabilities to address shared operationalrequirements. The success of the jointly developed

JapaneseU.S. SM-3 Block 2A missile has led theU.S. Department of Defense to initiate talks with

Japan aimed at urging Japan to relax its decades-longarms embargo and export the SM-3 Block 2A to oth-er nations such as U.S. European allies.32

As the 2010 Ballistic Missile Defense Reviewacknowl-edged, Other allies already own or are working withthe United States to acquire specific capabilities,such as naval vessels equipped with the Aegis defen-

sive system that could be adapted to include a mis-sile defense capability. A primary U.S. emphasisis on ensuring appropriate burdensharing. The Administration rec-ognizes that allies do not view thespecifics of the missile threat in thesame way, and do not have equalresources to apply to this problem,but there is general recognition of agrowing threat and the need to takesteps now to address both existingthreats and emerging ones.33 Thesuccess of Aegis BMD afloat andthe promise of Aegis Ashore have

also garnered interest from a widerange of non-traditional partners,such as India.34

At the end of the day, sovereign interdependenceand interoperability will remain core attributes ofthe Aegis global enterprise. The Aegis BMD systemis already well integrated and interoperable withother U.S. assets and will eventually be held to thissame standard with regard to coalition operations.NATOs Active Layered Theatre Ballistic MissileDefense (ALTBMD) program has conducted testsdemonstrating Shared Situational Awareness withthe U.S. C2BMC system, with the ultimate goal oftrue C2 interoperability. The 28 NATO allies areexpected to soon decide whether to connect theEuropean allies short- and medium-range theatremissile defense systems via NATO to the U.S. long-range missile defense system. The high level of com-mitment to international partnership from both theUnited States and its allies will encourage successfulinteroperability initiatives. This interoperability will,in turn, ensure the success of the U.S. Phased Adap-tive Approach to ballistic missile defense. Globally,in early 2011, the Aegis weapon system was deployedon 88 ships, with another 18 Aegis warships underconstruction or planned.

AEGIS GLOBAL ENTERPRISE

7/27/2019 Aegis_BMD_2011

28/32

7/27/2019 Aegis_BMD_2011

29/32

The U.S. Navy will continue to populate its cur-rent Aegis fleet with BMD via modernization andupgrades, as well as in new-construction destroyers.Plans call for the Navy to increase the number of

Aegis BMD-capable ships from the 21 in early 2011,to 27 by 2012, and as many as 32 ships by 2013, as

well as Aegis Ashore.35

As part of the Presidents September 2009 decision,the United States will deploy SM-3 interceptors usingthe sea-based Aegis BMD system, and then deployimproved SM-3s in 2015 on both ships and land.36Rather than the ten ground-based interceptors origi-nally envisioned in Poland, Aegis Ashore looks todeploy 40 to 50 SM-3 missiles on land, with more onboard Navy BMD ships operating in nearby waters.More advanced SM-3 versions will be deployed in2018 and yet another generation in 2020, the lat-ter based on the U.S./Japan cooperatively developedSM-3 Block IIA, which promises significantly morecapability to counter intercontinental ballistic mis-siles. Indeed, the new approach in Europe will alsorely on a distributed network of sensors and provenSM-3 interceptors that can be fired from Aegis war-ships and land. This will ensure greater geographic

flexibility, greater survivability and greater scalabilityin response to an evolving threat.

Moreover, as one indication of how the Administra-tion might fast track Aegis Ashore, in August 2010the Missile Defense Agency announced plans tobuild an Aegis Ashore test site at the Pacific MissileRange Facility in Barking Sands, Kauai, Hawaii.37

Even with delivery of the innovative Aegis Ashore,sea-based BMD will remain a core element of anydefense against ballistic missiles.38 The inherentflexibility and mobility of Navy BMD assets providesa missile-defense option Combatant Commanderscount on as part of their defensive arsenal. Indeed,surging Aegis BMD has become standard operatingprocedure in any crisis where defense against ballis-tic missiles is needed.39

The decision to truncate the Zumwalt (DDG-1000)program at three ships and the concomitant decisionto continue the Aegis destroyer program beyond thenumbers originally envisioned underscores the im-portance of Aegis BMD for the Navy and the nation.Indeed, the Chief of Naval Operations has statedthat BMD is a fundamental mission of the service.

Further, recognizing the likely growth in importanceof Aegis BMD, the Navy has proposed a 20-year, $10billion program to upgrade and modernize the 2011fleet of 84 Aegis cruisers and destroyersensuringthat these ships reach service lives of 35 years, if not40, which would be unprecedented for U.S. surfacecombatants. These Aegis Mod upgrades, coupled

with other BMD enhancements, will be the founda-tion for mission success for decades to come. Thebroad scope of these upgrades is testimony to thelong-term commitment to Aegis BMDthe Shield

of the Fleetand the nationas well as U.S. friendsand key allies worldwide.

In 15 years, Aegis BMD has grownfrom its small niche in the na-tional ballistic missile defense sys-tem to a robust, key BMD capabilitythat has become the model for thenational and international BMD.The Presidents decision to leverageNavy BMD for his Phased Adaptive

Approach in Europe speaks vol-umes regarding the capabilities ofNavy Aegis BMD.

Navy BMD will continue to builda littletest a littlelearn a lot toensure that this critical capability delivers on its pastsuccess as well as its enormous promise. Aegis BMDis and will remain ready todayat seaand on pa-trol with a steady focus on technical excellence andoperational success in order to ensure our nationstomorrows.

THE COURSE AHEAD

7/27/2019 Aegis_BMD_2011

30/32

1A Historic Beginning(Washington, D.C.: Ballistic Missile Defense Agency, 2005).2Peter Baker, White House Scraps Bushs Approach to Missile Shield, The New York Times, September 18, 2009. See also,

Thinking About Future Naval Ballistic Missile Defense, U.S. Naval Institute Online, September 17, 2009.3National Intelligence Council, Global Trends 2025: A Transformed World(Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 2008),

accessed at: www.dni.gov/nic/NIC_2025_project.html.4A Cooperative Strategy for 21st Century Seapower (Washington, D.C.: Department of the Navy, October 2007) and The

U.S. Navys Vision for Confronting Irregular Challenges (Washington, D.C.: Department of the Navy, 2010), pp. 1-13.See also, Ronald ORourke, Navy Irregular Warfare and Counterterrorism Operations: Background and Issues for Congress(Washington,D.C.: Congressional Research Service, September 2010), pp. 1-27.

5Department of Defense, Ballistic Missile Defense Review Report(Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, February 2010).6BMDR, op.cit., pp. 11-127The National Security Strategy(Washington, D.C.: The White House, May 2010).8White House Press Release, Fact Sheet on U.S. Missile Defense Policy, A Phased Adaptive Approach for Missile Defense in

Europe, September 17, 2009; and Ronald ORourke, Navy Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD) Program: Background and Issuesfor Congress(Washington, D.C.: Congressional Research Service, June 2010), pp. 8-9, 36-48.

9Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense, Missile Defense Agency, at http://www.mda.mil/system/aegis_bmd.html. See also, ORourke,Navy BMD, ibid., pp. 5-7 for a description of Aegis Ashoreas well as Aegis ships and SM-3including funding across the Future

Years Defense Plan.10Ballistic Missile Defense Review Report, op.cit.11Aegis BMD, MDA at: http://www.mda.mil/system/aegis_bmd.html.12Peter Baker, White House Scraps Bushs Approach to Missile Shield, op.cit.13M. Elaine Bunn, ed., The Proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction, in Global Strategic Assessment 2009: Americas Security

Role in a Changing World(Washington, D.C.: National Defense University Institute for National Security Studies, 2009), pp.162-185.

14Jacques Gansler, Ballistic Missile Defense: Past and Future(Washington, D.C.: National Defense University, 2010), pp. viii-x.15Hans Binnendijk and George Stewart, Defense Horizons: Toward Missile Defenses from the Sea(Washington, D.C., National De-

fense University, June 2002), pp. 1-6.16Otto Kreisher, Bigger Shield, Seapower, December 2006, pp. 40-43.17Hicks, Extending the Shield: Sea-Based Ballistic Missile Defense, U.S. Naval Institute Proceedings, January 2007, pp. 56-59.18Hicks, Seabased Ballistic Missile Defense,Joint Forces Quarterly, Issue 50, 3rd quarter 2008, pp. 39-45.19Remarks by Admiral Gary Roughead, Chief of Naval Operations, a t the Engineering the Total Ship Symposium,

September 26, 2008.20Andrew Erickson and David Yang, On the Verge of a Game Changer, U.S. Naval Institute Proceedings, May 2009,

pp. 26-33; Andrew Erickson and David Yang, Using the Land to Control the Sea: Chinese Analysts Consider theAntiship Ballistic Missile, Naval War College Review, Autumn 2009, Volume 62, Number 4, pp. 53-86; and MarshallHoyler, Chinas Antiaccess Ballistic Missile and U.S. Active Defense,Naval War College Review, Autumn 2010, Volume 63,Number 4, pp. 84-105.

21Admiral Willard: Chinese Anti-Ship Missile Close to Operational, Inside the Navy, August 30, 2010.22Leon Panetta, Interview With Jake Tapper, This Week, ABC, June 27, 2010. Accessed at: http://abcnews.go.com/

print?id=11025299. See also Bill Gertz, Inside the Ring, Washington Times, October 7, 2010 for reporting on aSeptember 25, 2010 test of the DF-21 missile.

23James Woolsey and Rebekah Heinrichs, Iran and the Missile Defense Imperative, Wall Street Journal, July 14, 2010.24Mark Thompson, The Pentagon Prepares for a Missile Attack from Iran, Time.com, December 17, 2009, for one of the

earliest open-press reports detailing the threat from short- and mid-range Iranian missiles.25Independent Working Group on Missile Defense, the Space Relationship & the Twenty-First Century(Washington, D.C., Institute for

Foreign Policy Analysis, 2009).26A Cooperative Strategy for 21st Century Seapower, op.cit.27Quadrennial Defense Review Report, op.cit.28Remarks the American Society of Naval Engineers Conference, September 14, 2010.29Naval Engineers Journal, The Story of Aegis: Special Edition, Volume 121, Number 3, 2009, provides detailed descriptions of the

Aegis Program.30BMDR, op.cit., pp. 20-12.

31Aegis BMD, MDA at: http://www.mda.mil/system/aegis_bmd.html. On the October 28, 2010 Japanese Maritime SelfDefense test, see Jim Wolf, U.S. and Japan Stage Successful Missile Defense Test, Reuters, 29 October 2010, accessed at:http://uk.reuters.com/article/idUKTRE69S0S120101029.

32U.S. Urges Japan to Export SM-3s,Japan Times, October 25, 2009.33Ballistic Missile Defense Review Report, op.cit., p. 32.34Amy Kazmin and Farhan Bokhari, New Delhi Weighs Up US Missile Shield, Financial Times, January 8, 2009.35Aegis BMD, MDA at: http://www.mda.mil/system/aegis_bmd.html.36Lockheed: Aegis Ashore Will Use Same Technology as Aegis Af loat, Inside the Navy, November 2, 2009, and Obamas Mis-

sile Plan Clears Hurdle, National Journals Congress Daily PM, November 24, 2009.37MDA Awards Lockheed Contract for Aegis Ashore Hawaii Test Site, Inside the Navy, August 30, 2010.38Readiness of Warships Eyed to Meet Obamas Missile Defense Goals, Inside the Navy, October 4, 2010.39 Hans Binnedijk, A Sensible Decision, Washington Times, September 30, 2009; David Wood, Missile Defense: Whos

Jeering Now?; and Walter Pincus, New Missile Plan Would Link Allies Radar, Other Systems,

AegisBallisticMissileDefense...AtSeaOnPatrol

27

7/27/2019 Aegis_BMD_2011

31/32

7/27/2019 Aegis_BMD_2011

32/32

Department of DefenseMissile Defense Agency

7100 Defense Pentagon