• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Theater & Continental Balistic Missile Defence . . . and Canada

  • Thread starter Thread starter the patriot
  • Start date Start date
Edward Campbell said:
Too true; someone (Rex Murphy?) said that anyone who could explain Stephen Harper's positions on major issues would be made an honorary Jesuit.

It's a shame, really, because Harper is, I think, an honest, intelligent and thoughtful man.   He is trying too hard to please everyone; or, maybe Jack Layton is right: maybe dithering is contagious.

Interesting articles on the Tories in todays National Post.

Say that most Canadians agree with Tory policies - including on BMD, same sex marriage, abortion and the courts.

Only trouble is - NOBODY VOTES ON POLICY.

Also it is patently obvious that it is only fools like ourselves that worry about policy between elections, and it is only the media that worries about publicity between elections (the public having such a short attention span).

So from Harper's point of view, it is more important to clear up the party's finances, get as many of the Reds and Reformers as possible on side at the same time by satisfying their policy needs and get an organization in place for the next election.  Then start planning the election campaign now and figure out when to bring down the government at the most opportune time.

Then after that it is all about slick promotion - and friendly advertising agencies  ;D :blotto:
 
The Strategic Defence Initiative (AKA "Star Wars")has been dead for 20 years, but BMD technology develops apace. The United States has the elements to create a comprehensive  BMD system (one little noted factor is the very advanced and densly integrated C4I systems that already exist as part of NORAD; all we need to do is add the shooters), only lack of political will stops them:

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/4292227.html

How to Shoot Down a Rogue (North Korean) Ballistic Missile
North Korea's multi-stage rocket, launched on Sunday at 11:30 a.m., fell into the Pacific Ocean 790 miles east of Japan while firing its second stage. This was well short of North Korea's stated goal to put a satellite in space. Still, the rocket made a big splash around the world, with the Security Council expected to weigh in on the launch in coming weeks. From a security standpoint, however, the U.S. is prepared. Even if this missile could make it out of the atmosphere (thus able to reach the west coast of the United States), the U.S. is developing a layered system that can shoot down ballistic missiles in each stage of their flight. Here is how to shoot down a rogue ballistic missile.

By Erik Sofge
Published in the December 2008 issue.

COVER STORY: New Defensive Missiles Protect U.S. Against Rogue Attacks

BOOST PHASE | 3 to 5 minutes

1. Airborne Laser
The Missile Defense Agency is outfitting a Boeing 747-400F with infrared sensors and a high-energy laser in the nose that destroys missiles within the first minutes of a launch. The first test against a flying target is planned for 2009.

2. Kinetic Energy Interceptor
The KEI fills the Pentagon’s need to field a land-based mobile interception system. A launcher on a vehicle will fire a 36-ft-long missile that is fast enough to destroy an ascending ballistic threat. Flight tests start in 2009 and end in 2011.

MID-COURSE PHASE | Up to 20 minutes

3. Aegis Ballistic Defense
During the early and late segments of its midcourse flight, a missile will be in range of four-stage, GPS-guided interceptors launched from Navy ships. The ships’ radars can also track ICBMs to guide ground-based interceptors in Alaska and California.

4. Ground-Based Interceptor
GBIs are the only operational defense system that can destroy an intercontinental ballistic missile in the midcourse phase. When the three-stage GBI escapes the atmosphere, it releases a small spacecraft that tracks and then slams into an incoming warhead.

TERMINAL PHASE | 30 seconds to 1 minute

5. Patriot Advanced Capability-3
Earlier versions of the Patriot system were used to destroy aircraft, but upgrades are designed to handle ballistic missiles. The PAC-3 system is deployed at U.S. bases and guards allied nations. Its missiles identify targets with radar but have a range of only 124 miles.

6. Terminal High Altitude Area Defense
The THAAD system will be the next-generation complement to the PAC-3. It will be a farther-reaching defense against short- and medium-range ballistic missiles. An X-band radar will ensure the accuracy of THAAD’s 18-ft missiles.
 
Obama isnt a believer in BMD,but recent events may change his perception. The proposed defense cuts pretty much shut down the airborne laser program,except as a test bed. The planned expansion of the Alaska missile site at Ft Greely wont happen. However there is money for more SM-3's and for THAAD so the various tiers of the system are intact,at least for now.
 
Post at Unambiguously Ambidextrous:

NATO close to missile defence agreement (including Canada?)
http://unambig.com/nato-close-to-missile-defence-agreement-including-canada/

It stikes me as odd that a govenment that will not consider participating in North American ballistic missile defence may now agree to a European system (maybe it’s just that no-one in this country has bothered to notice)...

That Democratic Nobel Peace Prize winner in more gung ho on missile defence than our prime minister. Who’d a thunk that?

Mark
Ottawa
 
It stikes me as odd that a govenment that will not consider participating in North American ballistic missile defence may now agree to a European system

Realy ? This strikes you as odd ?

It stikes me as "ops normal". The decision on missile defence for North America was based on nothing more than opinion poll results. The only thing that the average Canadian could tell you about NA BMD is that it was just more american war-mongering, so do you think they honestly know/care enough to think about European BMD , or even that NA BMD was a good idea ?

 
CDN Aviator: Quite agree.  More:

Missile defence: Canada mans up–but only for Europe
http://unambig.com/missile-defence-canada-mans-up-but-only-for-europe/

...the government is actually giving its support–though still Eurocentric only–and the usual suspects have noticed and are howling...

That includes St. Steve, one waits for his pacifist web love-child to bawl.

Mark
Ottawa
 
Canada and missile defence: Only for Europe, Part 2
http://unambig.com/canada-and-missile-defence-only-for-europe-part-2/

...
Now even the Bear is chilling:

    Russia to aid NATO on antimissile network in Europe...

Mark
Ottawa
 
An update to this old thread:

Canadian Press link

Canada could be considering request from U.S. to join missile shield

By The Canadian Press | The Canadian Press – 18 hours ago.
OTTAWA - How much of a role Canada should play in securing North American from missile attacks could be up for renewed debate.

The Conservative government is facing a request by the United States to join an anti-ballistic missile shield.


The U.S. has been ramping up protection in recent months in response to increased tensions with both North Korea and Iran.

Their plans include placing additional missile interceptors in Alaska, suggesting the U.S. believes a threat to their northern territory is a distinct possibility, thus raising the question of the potential risk for Canada.

MacKay spokesman Jay Paxton says Canada has declined to take part in such measures in the past.

But he says the international security situation is constantly under review.
 
Ft Greely's interceptors are well situated to defend Alaska and Canada. I am not sure what Canada's involvement would be. CF personnel are assigned to NORAD.Funding has been included to expand Ft Greely's launch sites [$1b] and another 14 interceptors by 2017.
 
An article on the Pro BMD side. The argument is simply that we should give recognition to a system that already exists and that we already participate in. Formal recognition would simply regularize what is already happening now, and unless Canada was determined to buy SM-3 "Standard" missiles and associated radars and software for our ships, there is not much more we would be able to contribute in the here and now to BMD anyway

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2013/04/22/matt-gurney-its-time-for-canada-to-openly-embrace-americas-missile-defence/

Matt Gurney: It’s time for Canada to openly embrace America’s missile defence

Matt Gurney | 13/04/22 | Last Updated: 13/04/22 12:25 PM ET
More from Matt Gurney | @mattgurney

In 2005, in the face of heavy pressure from Washington, then-prime minister Paul Martin decided that Canada would not join the American National Missile Defense program. The real reason was political — his Liberal party did not want to be seen as too close to controversial American president George W. Bush. The Martin government tried to dress up the decision, of course — they said they feared the weaponization of space and adding to international controversy (Russia and China were both worried that an American missile defence system would render their arsenals ineffective, and thus skew the balance of power in America’s favour).

Eight years later, the threat from ballistic missiles has only grown more acute, and the ostensible reasons for Mr. Martin’s hesitation have been proven groundless. Reports have emerged that the U.S. is considering asking us to join again. It’s time for us to do so, specifically, the component known as Ground-based Midcourse Defense (GMD), which includes two bases of interceptor missiles, located in Alaska and California.

Join it officially, at any rate. Canada is already unofficially a part of it, and certainly benefits from it.

Related
Canada may be considering request from U.S. to join missile shield
U.S. sends in $900M anti-missile radar array as North Korea vows to fire up nuclear reactor
Matt Gurney: Remind me again why Canada opted out of missile defence?

In 2004, the year before Mr. Martin surprised officials in both capitals by refusing to sign on, Canada agreed to let NORAD serve as the early warning component of America’s missile defence project. NORAD — the North American Aerospace Defense Command — is a jointly run bi-national military command. Canadian and U.S. officers work together at a central facility to track, classify and, if necessary, engage, any possible threat to the territory of both countries. NORAD has been watching for incoming intercontinental ballistic missiles since the Soviet Union built its first models in the late 1950s (and was watching for incoming manned bombers before that). It was the right tool to watch the skies.

Let’s not pretend that Canada isn’t involved in the process: NORAD is jointly funded, and day-to-day command of the facility is frequently left to Canadian officers. That Canada would agree to help locate and track an incoming ballistic missile, but then take a pass on the (obvious!) decision to attempt shooting it down, has always been bizarre.

And it cannot be denied that Canada benefits from the existing GMD system. In a revealing report published last year, the National Research Council (part of the United States National Academies) did a full analysis of the state of America’s missile defence projects. The report was highly detailed and focused mostly on the technical side of the program — where bases should be cited to intercept missiles, the optimum launching times for successful intercepts, and the like. But it accepted as a given that the U.S. GMD system must include the ability to defend not just America from attack, but Canada as well. To that end, it recommended constructing a third interceptor base in New England, to provide better coverage from missiles coming in from the Middle East — the better to protect the U.S. eastern seaboard and eastern Canada.

Clearly, Canada is already a part of the program, and benefits from its protection. But even more telling is how, in the years since 2005,  the publicly stated reasons for Canada’s absence have been shown to be nonsense.

America’s missile defences are scattered across land-based bases and naval warships. There is no discussion of weaponizing space, and if anything, the U.S. is showing less interest in space than ever (the current barely benign neglect of NASA is proof of that).

Canadian sovereignty isn’t enhanced by refusing to be part of the process that protects us from attack
And rather than a source of international controversy, America’s ballistic missile programs are proving a source of international interest. A system being set up to defend Europe has been warmly embraced by all but the typically truculent Russians. America’s allies in Asia are also keen for a missile defence system, and South Korea and Japan recently welcomed the deployment of missile defence assets to the area in light of continued North Korea provocations. China and Russia responded with … silence.

The U.S.’s GMD system still doesn’t work 100% of the time. It’s an emerging technology, but it is improving. It is also already in place. Canada would not be on the hook for substantial costs. But by conferring our official political blessing, we’d be given a seat at the table where the defence of our territory is decided. Canadian sovereignty isn’t enhanced by refusing to be part of the process that protects us from attack.

We should have joined in 2005, but now that even the flimsy excuses offered then have been proven wrong, now would be better late than never.

National Post

Matt Gurney: • mgurney@nationalpost.com |
 
Related: the latest test...

US tests crucial anti-missile defense over Pacific - and fails...again
By: Agence France-Presse
July 6, 2013 10:15 AM


WASHINGTON - America's missile defense system failed on Friday in a test over the Pacific, with an interceptor failing to hit an incoming ballistic missile, the Pentagon said.

The miss represented yet another setback for the costly ground-based interceptors, which have not had a successful test result since 2008.

The test's objective was to have an interceptor, launched from Vandenberg air base in California, knock out a long-range ballistic missile fired from a US military test site at Kwajalein atoll in the Marshall Islands.

But "an intercept was not achieved," US Missile Defense Agency spokesman Richard Lehner said in a brief statement.

"Program officials will conduct an extensive review to determine the cause or causes of any anomalies which may have prevented a successful intercept," it said.

The anti-missile weapon has run into repeated technical problems, with tests delayed after two failures in 2010.

The United States has 30 of the ground-based interceptors in Alaska and California, at a cost of about $34 billion. They are supposed to counter the potential threat posed by North Korea, which has tried to develop long-range ballistic missiles.

The Pentagon wants to deploy an additional 14 ground-based interceptors to bases in Alaska, at a cost of about $1 billion, also in response to what Washington deems a growing threat from North Korea.

Some lawmakers also are pushing to open a new missile defense site on the country's East Coast, in case Iran or other adversaries obtain long-range missiles.

Critics of the missile defense program are sure to seize on the test result as further proof that the system faces insurmountable technical hurdles.
 
There is a very strong imperative to continue trying to succeed, and Americans do have a record in not only pulling off impossible tasks, but conveting lab grade equipment into assembly line products.

Looking at the global map, interceptor bases in Alaska will probably be joined by one on the US West Coast, one in the Indian Ocean (Diego Garcia, or possibly a radical upgrade to the shipborne Aegis system), a similar shipborn system in the Med and one on the US East Coast. One in the US SouthWest to deal with shots coming over the South Pole  or SLBMs in the southern oceans should also be considered.

For us this means *we* will operate under some sort of US anti missile sheild when deployed, and our cities will either be protected or under the intercept zones of the various continental US bases. This alone should have us concerned, and also focus the attention of our decision makers on this topic.
 
??? "Is there a need for this on North America's East Coast?" is the question that indeed needs to be asked. Especially with the US military's pivot to Asia and concurrent threats like North Korea. Unless they know more about the Iranians' delivery capability than they've let on...

Defense News link

Sites For Potential East Coast Missile Defense Plan Selected
Sep. 12, 2013 - 02:28PM  | 
By PAUL McLEARY

WASHINGTON — The Missile Defense Agency (MDA) is looking at five potential locations to house a controversial third domestic ground-based interceptor (GBI) site, which would guard the continental United States against ballistic missile attack.

While a site hasn’t been chosen, whittling the potential locations down to a few sites will allow to Pentagon to begin environmental and other assessments if Congress provides the money to go ahead with the build.

In a statement on Sept. 12, MDA director Navy Vice Adm. James Syring said that “while the administration has not made a decision to build another missile defense facility in the U.S. for homeland defense, if a decision were to be made in the future to construct a new site, completing the required site study and environmental impact statement would shorten the timeline required to build such a site.”

All of the sites are already on federal land:

■ Fort Drum, New York

■ Camp Ethan Allen Training Site, Vermont

■ Naval Air Station Portsmouth SERE Training Area, Maine

■ Camp Ravenna Joint Training Center, Ohio

■ Fort Custer Training Center, Michigan

Despite the fact that his state is being considered for the site, Sen. Patrick Leahy has said that he considers the program to be a waste of money, and he opposes placing it in his state.

John Isaacs, director of the Council for a Livable World, said in a statement that “the United States should not rush to deploy a missile defense site on the East Coast until a need for such a site is identified and the interceptors to be deployed at the site prove effective and suitable in operationally realistic tests.” The group is a non-partisan organization focused on nuclear weapons proliferation.

The US already operates GBI sites at Fort Greely, Alaska, and Vandenberg Air Force Base, California, with 30 GBIs on line, and another 14 to be added by 2017.

The issue of an additional GBI site on the East Cost sparked controversy on Capitol Hill this summer, as Senate Democrats pushed back against Congressional Republicans, who included money in their 2013 defense budget markup for the site.

It was further complicated by the MDA launching yet another failed test of its existing interceptors, marking a third failed intercept test in the past five years.

In a written reply to Sen. Carl Levin this past June, Syring, along with Lt. Gen. Richard Formica, commander of the Joint Functional Component Command for Integrated Missile Defense, admitted that there is “no validated military requirement” for a proposed East Coast missile defense site.

The letter came in response to one Levin sent to the two officers asking if there was an urgent need to begin work on a third site. In its 2013 budget markup, the Republican-controlled House Armed Services Committee voted to set aside $250 million for the construction of a missile defense system on the East Coast, making its second attempt to get the site into the budget after having a similar proposal shot down by the Senate Armed Services Committee last year.

The proposal from the House comes at a time of increased worry about North Korean, Chinese, and Iranian ballistic missile threats against the mainland United States and its allies, even though many analysts say that neither the North Koreans nor the Iranians are close to having the ability to hit the United States.

Nevertheless, in March Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel announced that he was earmarking about $1 billion to fund the emplacement of 14 additional missile interceptors in Alaska to guard against a missile attack from North Korea. The additional interceptors would bolster the 26 already deployed in Alaska and four in California, and give the United States 44 interceptor sites in all.

But in July, Syring said that the government wants even more. “The 44 [is for] what we see with North Korea today,” he said, adding that there is the real potential “to go beyond 44 as we start to evaluate the threat from Iran and from other nations.”

The Congressional Budget Office has estimated that expanding the ground-based midcourse defense system to the East Coast would cost about approximately $3.5 billion over the next five years.
 
Ft Drum would be my first choice. Latest intercept a success.Sept 10

http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=120744
 
Would Goosebay work?  That could satisfy the Conservative promise of a battalion without costing the CAF a single PY.
:P
 
If Ft Drum is selected it would be able to cover eastern Canada and half of the eastern US.USN warships operating out of Norfolk also have an intercept capability.
 
The United States has 30 of the ground-based interceptors in Alaska and California, at a cost of about $34 billion. They are supposed to counter the potential threat posed by North Korea, which has tried to develop long-range ballistic missiles.

The Pentagon wants to deploy an additional 14 ground-based interceptors to bases in Alaska, at a cost of about $1 billion, also in response to what Washington deems a growing threat from North Korea.

math seems a little off.. 34 billion for 30 ground based interceptors, adding 14 more will only cost 1 billion?
 
The initial outlay probably was initial cost of infrastructure plus missiles.Evidently included in the FY 2013 budget was for an In-Flight Interceptor Communication
System Data Terminal (IDT) Complex to be built at Ft Drum.Construction has begun with completion in fall of 2015.
 
An AEGIS cruiser conducts successful BMD test:

Defense News

Lake Erie Crew Hits Target in BMD Test

The Aegis ballistic-missile defense system continued its string of successful tests Wednesday, when a missile launched from the cruiser Lake Erie hit and destroyed a Hawaii-launched target, according to a Defense Department news release.

It was the fourth-straight successful BMD test for the Aegis program, according to Missile Defense Agency records, and the second in nine days: A missile launched from the destroyer Decatur hit a target in a Sept. 10 test near Kwajalein Atoll, part of the Republic of the Marshall Islands.

On Wednesday, sailors aboard Lake Erie tracked a separating short-range ballistic target and launched two Standard Missile-3 missiles to intercept it — a first for the program, the release said. The first of the SM-3s scored a hit on what the release said was “the most difficult target engaged to date.”

It’s the 27th successful intercept in 33 tries for the Aegis BMD program, which began testing in 2002. The program has hit 10 targets in 12 attempts since mid-2009, with the most recent miss coming last October in a joint test with the Army’s Terminal High Altitude Area Defense system.
 
Defense News

First US BMD ship leaves for Rota

3 More destroyers to follow



WASHINGTON — The US destroyer Donald Cook shoved off from Norfolk, Va., Jan. 31, bound for Rota, Spain, where the Arleigh Burke-class ship will become the first of four ballistic missile defense (BMD)-capable ships to be based in Europe.

The move, in the works since the fall of 2011, is part of the Obama administration’s Phased Adaptive Approach (PAA) plan to protect allies in the European region from ballistic missile threats, including missiles that could be launched from Iran. The plan includes forward-basing the Aegis destroyers in Spain, and establishing two Aegis Ashore ground stations — one in Romania to be operational by 2015, and another in Poland, to be up and running in 2018.

US Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel, visiting Poland Jan. 30, highlighted the two countries’ BMD efforts.

(...)
 
Back
Top