Can The U.S. Intercept A North Korean Missile?

North Korea"s nuclear program has gathered serious and frightening momentum over the past few months, culminating in the isolated regime test-firing a missile over Japan in August and detonating a hydrogen bomb last Sunday. As diplomatic efforts stall, Statista"s Niall McCarthy points out that eyes are turning to the region"s missile-defense technology.

Despite it being South Korea"s first line of defense against a nuclear attack, the U.S. Army"s THAAD system has proven controversial in the country with residents fearful the areas surrounding the launchers could become North Korean targets. The most recent nuclear test has prompted the country"s defense ministry to deploy the four remaining THAAD launchers, on top of the two already in operation.

That decision may turn out to be well-founded, considering that the THAAD system has a 100 percent success rate in test interceptions. That"s according to the U.S. Missile Defense Agency, who say the system hit 13 targets in 13 attempts up to May 2017 (as well as another successful test since then).

You will find more statistics at Statista

Countries in the region can also count on the Aegis missile system fitted to U.S. and Japanese naval vessels. Its Raytheon Standard missiles cannot currently engage ICBMs but they are capable of destroying ballistic missiles. They have proven reasonably reliable in tests, destroying 35 targets and failing on seven occasions.

The U.S. Patriot surface to air missile system is also used by South Korea and Japan. When it is used to engage missiles, it has a shorter range and is more effective protecting strategic targets rather than larger areas. Despite controversy regarding the system"s record intercepting Iraqi SCUD missiles during the Gulf War, anti-missile tests have generally proven successful.

The Ground-Based Midcourse Defense is responsible for defending North America by intercepting incoming warheads in space during the midcourse phase of ballistic trajectory. So far, however, the system has proven far from reliable with only 10 out of a total of 18 tests ending in success.

Israel has demonstrated how far missile defense technology has evolved, deploying its Iron Dome system with great success.

As North Korea continues testing and sabre-ratting, the U.S. and its allies will be hoping their own defenses won"t be put to a far greater test.

Navy Test Of New Anti-ICBM Missile Fails

Three weeks ago, the US military conducted its first successful test of a ground-based anti-intercontinental ballistic missile system that had cost more than $40 billion to develop, with the Pentagon lauding the test as “an incredible accomplishment.”

But the Navy had no such luck on Wednesday following an unsuccessful test of a new ship-based anti-ICBM projectile. As the Missile Defense Agency announced in a press release, the test of the new SM-3 Block IIA missile - which was conducted jointly by the US and Japan"s Ministry of Defense – had failed.

The test, conducted Wednesday, was the second intercept test of the SM-3, and the first to yield an unsuccessful result.  The previous test was conducted in February. The missile is being designed jointly by the US and Japan with the explicit intent of countering the threat posed by North Korea"s increasingly sophisticated nuclear program, according to the MDA.

Here’s the full release:

"The U.S. Missile Defense Agency and the Japan Ministry of Defense conducted a development flight test today of a new Standard Missile-3 (SM-3) Block IIA missile off the coast of Hawaii. A planned intercept was not achieved.

The SM-3 Block IIA is being developed cooperatively by the U.S. and Japan to defeat medium- and intermediate-range ballistic missiles. This is a new, developmental interceptor that is not yet fielded by either country.

At approximately 7:20 p.m., Hawaii Standard Time, June 21 (1:20 a.m. Eastern Daylight Time, June 22), a medium-range ballistic target missile was launched from the Pacific Missile Range Facility at Kauai, Hawaii. The USS John Paul Jones (DDG 53) detected and tracked the target missile with its onboard AN/SPY-1 radar using the Aegis Baseline 9.C2 weapon system. Upon acquiring and tracking the target, the ship launched an SM-3 Block IIA guided missile, but the missile did not intercept the target.

Program officials will conduct an extensive analysis of the test data. Until that review is complete, no additional details will be available."

This was the fourth development flight test using an SM-3 IIA missile, and the second intercept test. The previous intercept test, conducted in February 2017, was successful.

Though currently still in the development and test phase, the SM-3 Block IIA interceptor is being designed to operate as part of the Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense system. Currently, the Aegis BMD system operates with the SM-3 Block 1A, SM-3 Block 1B, and SM-6 interceptors.

The Pentagon announced on May 31 that it had succeeded in thwarting a simulated ICBM attack using its Ground-based Midcourse Defense (GMD) system, which the military hailed that as “an incredible accomplishment.”

Riki Ellison, founder of the Missile Defense Advocacy Alliance, described the test as "vital" prior to launch. "We are replicating our ability to defend the United States of America from North Korea, today," Ellison said.

That test was the first of its kind in nearly three years, and the first test ever to target an intercontinental-range missile like North Korea is developing. Full text of the news release from the Pentagon can be found below:

HOMELAND MISSILE DEFENSE SYSTEM SUCCESSFULLY INTERCEPTS ICBM TARGET

The U.S. Missile Defense Agency, in cooperation with the U.S. Air Force 30th Space Wing, the Joint Functional Component Command for Integrated Missile Defense and U.S. Northern Command, today successfully intercepted an intercontinental ballistic missile target during a test of the Ground-based Midcourse Defense (GMD) element of the nation"s ballistic missile defense system.
 
This was the first live-fire test event against an ICBM-class target for GMD and the U.S. ballistic missile defense system.
 
During the test, an ICBM-class target was launched from the Reagan Test Site on Kwajalein Atoll in the Republic of the Marshall Islands. Multiple sensors provided target acquisition and tracking data to the Command, Control, Battle Management and Communication (C2BMC) system. The Sea-Based X-band radar, positioned in the Pacific Ocean, also acquired and tracked the target. The GMD system received the target tracking data and developed a fire control solution to intercept the target.

The primary difference between the two anti-ICBM systems is that the SM-3 Block IIA missile is designed to be launched from a ship, providing the US with more flexibility when deploying it. The GMD system tested by the Pentagon last month is, as its name suggests, ground-based.

We now wait to see how the North will respond - specifically, whether the hermit kingdom will follow through with what would be its 10th ballistic missile test since the start of the year.  The US anti-ICBM test follows the death of University of Virginia student Otto Warmbier, who passed away earlier this week after being released to the US for medical reasons. Warmbier had reportedly been in a coma for a year after being arrested in North Korea. His crime? He was caught stealing a North Korean propaganda poster.
 

US Missile Defense Test: Realistic Assessment Of "Incredible Accomplishment"

Authored by Andrei Akulov via The Strategic Culture Foundation,

«The intercept of a complex, threat-representative ICBM target is an incredible accomplishment for the GMD system and a critical milestone for this program», said Missile Defense Agency (MDA) Director Vice Adm. Jim Syring. «This system is vitally important to the defense of our homeland, and this test demonstrates that we have a capable, credible deterrent against a very real threat». The MDA press release says the Ground-Based Midcourse Defense (GMD) element of the ballistic missile defense system provides combatant commanders the capability to engage and destroy intermediate and long-range ballistic missile threats to protect the U.S.

Sounds really impressive but is it really a credible deterrent against any threat, especially in view that the single test cost about $244 million? Actually, the statement made by the head of the MDA implies that from now the US has the capability to counter intercontinental ballistic missiles. If so, the strategic balance with Russia is going to change in the US favor. It calls for going deeper into the subject.

The upgraded Ground-based Midcourse Defense is destined to kill ICBMs in space. On May 30, the GMD was for the first time fired against an intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) – a much faster vehicle than short or intermediate range missiles. This time Exo-atmospheric Kill Vehicle (EKV) tested new engines while intercepting and destroying a target in a direct collision. Previous tests did not use an ICBM as a target or only tested certain components of the complicated system. One has to give the devil his due - it’s a significant step forward.

A relatively small target was hit at a great distance measured in thousands of miles with both objects moving at breath taking speed at roughly 15,000 mph (24,000 km/h). The speed guarantees a kinetic kill and no explosive is required. It’s a good start though many more tests are needed to really acquire real exo-atmospheric kill capability. Only 32 interceptors are stationed at Fort Greely, Alaska, and four at Vandenberg Air Force Base with eight more to be deployed till the end of the current year. The interceptors have never operated in combat conditions and there are many more tests to go through before full operational capability is reached.

Today, the GMD is hardly reliable.19 tests have been conducted since 1999 with only 9 of them successful. Combined with the high cost, the tests gave the system a bad reputation. The EKV is the main problem. If the May 30 test were a failure, the future of the GMD program would be questioned. It was a matter of survival rather than achieving a technological breakthrough.

One does need to be a military expert to realize that a real success would be achieved after a number of tests conducted under various conditions. Will the interceptors hit the targets when electronic countermeasures and decoys are used? Normally, such measures reduce efficiency by roughly 50%. Russian and Chinese missiles carry sophisticated suites of countermeasures to overcome advanced ballistic missile defense (BMD) systems. The GMD interceptors can hit only unsophisticated missiles launched by those who are new to the game, like North Korea, for instance. It leaves open the question of how the GMD interceptors would perform under real war conditions.

With its limited efficiency, the program’s estimated cost is $40 billion – an enormous sum to benefit the producers. But that’s not all. There is another costly program run by the MDA to counter Russian and Chinese missiles with the help of «directed-energy airborne laser» fired from a military drone. A weapon carried by remote-control aircraft loitering high over launch sites would add early interception ability to the GMD system, but it will require much time, effort and money and the doubts are great the laser will be powerful enough to do the job.

The MDA has also accelerated development of a Multi-Object Kill Vehicle (MOKV), which turns each interceptor into a kind of precision-guided shotgun, firing multiple warheads at multiple incoming targets from a single GBI rocket. Originally scheduled to enter service around 2030, the MOKV will now go on GMD interceptors (GBIs) in 2025. Funding requested for 2018 is $259 million, out of a $7.9 billion MDA budget. Costly enough to make taxpayers ask questions about the expediency and efficiency of the plans.

So, the May 30 test was not a great breakthrough and not a quantum leap as raving media reviews describe it. It was big step forward, but not more than that. The GMD remains rather powerless against contemporary ICBMs like the Russian RS-24 Yars, for instance. But it’s hardly a coincidence that the test was conducted against the background of three carrier groups being deployed near North Korea and the urgent deployment of THAAD missile defense systems in South Korea without prior knowledge of the South Korean government! This is a sign that the US mulls a preventive strike against Pyongyang.

The May 30 test will no doubt soothe Americans’ concern over a possible North Korean response in case such an attack is carried out. The missiles North Korea has in the inventory are believed to threaten Hawaii with 11 bases across multiple service branches and the island of Guam, which is a military asset too.

And it will certainly inspire the MDA to ask for more appropriations. The agency «relative to its size has probably wasted more money on canceled technology projects than any other federal organization in modern times», Loren Thompson, a well-known defense expert wrote for Forbes in 2011. More than five years has passed and some experts are warning that as a whole the testing record is not enough to instill confidence. The system may not be as reliable as people might think. Philip Coyle, a senior fellow at the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation told CNN on May 31, «Based on its testing record, we cannot rely upon this missile defense program to protect the United States from a North Korean long-range missile».

The US media ravishment appears to be exaggerated. The May 30 test was a limited success. But the North Korean threat will be exploited to spur the GMD and other very costly BMD programs.

Russia Warns Norway Over Missile Defense Plans

Authored by Alex Gorka via The Strategic Culture Foundation,

Russia has warned Norway over consequences of joining NATO ballistic missile defense (BMD) plans. According to Russian ambassador to Oslo, Moscow will retaliate. Norway"s possible accession to NATO"s missile shield «will be a new factor that will be considered in our strategic planning as the emergence of an additional problem in the Arctic region», Teimuraz Ramishvili told the Norwegian state media network NRK.

In 2017, Norway may become a part of BMD. The Norwegian government has appointed an expert group to consider a possible Norwegian contribution to the missile shield. A detailed report on the issue is currently being prepared by experts from the Norwegian Defense Research Establishment and the US Missile Defense Agency to be submitted the year.

Norway has no interceptors on its soil but there are other ways to contribute into the anti-missile plans. Denmark does not host missiles but it committed itself to the bloc’s BMD in 2014, working to equip its frigates with advanced radar systems capable of detecting and tracking ballistic missiles. The missile defense program continues to be implemented despite the fact that after the nuclear agreement with Iran in 2015, there is no rationale for it.

?slo is a participant in the US-led Maritime Theater Missile Defense Forum. The Norwegian contribution to the missile defense system has not yet been decided on. Even without interceptors, Norway could contribute by integrating into the BMD system its Globus II/III radar in the Vardøya Island located near the Russian border just a few kilometers from the home base of strategic submarines and 5 Aegis-equipped Fridtjof Nansen-class frigates. The Vardøya radar can distinguish real warheads from dummies.

Another radar located in Svalbard (the Arctic) can also be used by US military for missile defense purposes. Senior US officials and politicians have visited the site during the last few years, including former Defense Secretary Ash Carter, former State Secretary John Kerry and Republican Senator John McCain. The radar is installed in violation of the 1925 treaty which states that Svalbard has a demilitarized status. The visitors invented different reasons, like viewing the effects of climate change (John Kerry) or highlighting the plight of polar bears (John McCain) to justify the need to inspect the site.

Installation of BMD sites might potentially undermine the efficiency of Russian strategic nuclear forces as a means of deterrence.

Norway is executing a drastic change in its military policy towards a far more aggressive posture. Even though the country is small, it has the sixth biggest military budget per capita, after the United States, Israel, Singapore and some ‘monarchies’ in the Persian Gulf. The country spends 7.3 billion dollars on the military, more than Sweden (5.7 billion), a country with twice the population. Its geographic position makes it a key element of NATO military planning. The nation’s leading political parties want an increased focus on ‘strategic assets’ like F-35, capable of striking deep into Russian territory, submarines and surveillance capabilities. 

Norway hosts 330 US Marines in the central areas of the country, formally on a ‘rotating’ basis. The rotation does not change the fact that the forces are permanently present in Norway. They are deployed at the Vaernes military base, about 1,500 km (900 miles) from the Russian territory, but the training program involves traveling closer to the border. Norway and Russia share a small land border far in the north.

The Marines can be easily reinforced. The US forward storage areas have been upgraded to store cutting edge weapons and equipment for about 16,000 Marines. Building up stockpiles is a key part of US strategy to enhance its capabilities in Europe. There are plans to warehouse tanks, artillery and other fighting vehicles at other locations around the Old Continent.

The only purpose for the deployment is preparation for an attack against Russia. The Marines are first strike troops. The provocative move is taking place at the time the Russia-NATO relationship hit a new low as the bloc’s forces deploy in Eastern Europe and tensions run high in the Black Sea and elsewhere. According to Heather Conley, the director of the Center for Strategic and International Studies" Europe Program, Northern Europe is now being viewed as a «theatre of operations».

There are other plans to increase US military presence in Norway. According to a report of Washington-based Center for Strategic and international Studies (CSIS), «The former Royal Norwegian Navy base at Olavsvern is ideal for supporting submarine operations in the extreme North Atlantic and Arctic Seas». The think tank believes it may be possible for Norway to nationalize and reopen a portion of the facility to support the rotational presence of US, UK, French, and Norwegian submarines. Olavsvern was NATO’s closest naval base to Russia’s submarine bases along the coast of the Kola Peninsula west of Murmansk.

It was reported last year that a study group from the US Navy visited both Andøya and Evenes airports in northern Norway to see if any of the two airports could be suitable to serve as a base for American P-8 Poseidon patrol aircraft.

The deployment of NATO forces to Norway is clearly a provocative act directed at Moscow. Norway shares a 121 mile border with Russia, while the Russian Northern Fleet is based in the Murmansk region, approximately 100 miles from the border.

Norway has pledged not to host foreign forces on its territory. It had stashed stockpiles of weapons in preparation for a possible conflict, but until recently, foreign troops were allowed into the country only temporarily for training purposes. Oslo had adhered to this principle even at the height of the Cold War.

Shifting away from the «no foreign forces on national soil» policy is fraught with consequences. Turning the national territory into a spearhead for an offensive against Russia inevitably makes Norway a target for a retaliatory strike. Russia did not start it. Actually, very few NATO members take part in the BMD plans. The decision to join would be seen as an outright provocation staged by a neighboring state. By doing so, Norway will deteriorate the relations and greatly reduce its own security which can only be achieved through developing of partnership and strengthening of centuries of good neighborly relations.