Clearing the Air for Ballistic Missile Defense

If a major corporation in the defense industry makes their case for their product, we are interested. I don't want to see my tax money spent on a company that won't stand up for their product. Say what you want about Lockheed Martin, but we give them huge props here for one reason, Fred Moosally and several others from Lockheed Martin put themselves out there and sell their product to the American people. Whether I agree with them or not, at least they believe in their product, and are willing to engage the debate why it is superior.

Geoff Fein did an interview with Dan Smith (PDF), Raytheon president for Integrated Defense Systems division, and if Dan puts himself out there, we'll talk about it. In particular we want to talk about this great article by Geoff Fein, who we love on this blog. Well done by Dan Smith, facts from the July 31st hearing need to be told, and can only be explained if you guys get your ass out there more often. You allowed the Navy to put out disinformation on the SM-2 thing, and they certainly had me fooled. I don't like repeating disinformation, my readers deserve better. That issue still needs clarity, so do a follow up interview. You guys can hit your audience here if you want, we do a Guest Author Series you know...

For the first time since the July 31st hearing, Dan Smith rightfully points out that the DDG-51 Arleigh Burke-class destroyers are not built BMD capable. From Defense Daily (subscription only).

"There isn't a DDG-51 today that comes off of the production ways with BMD capability, for example. That's an upgrade to existing DDG-51s," he said. "When they get through the next phase of that...I think the Navy plan is to have like 15 destroyers which have what you would call rudimentary BMD, but those are upgrades, as opposed to a standard package coming off the production way. So there is some knowledge there that needs to be looked at with a little bit finer tooth comb."

And to do BMD a ship is going to need sensors, Smith added. "There really is no comparisons in capability between a DBR and a SPY-1D, either from a concurrency perspective...in other words how many phases can be in operation and how many modes at one time...or in just the capability to command the missile which is in the other end of the spectrum in the SM-3 (Standard Missile) mode."

Even if the Navy's proposal is approved and they go back to building DDG-51s, there is still opportunity for Raytheon, Smith added. "There is nothing that says you couldn't make the non-recurring investment to put much of Zumwalt into a new construction DDG-51 hull, that's what it was designed to do."

OK so lets detail exactly what Dan Smith of Raytheon is talking about. When Chairman Gene Taylor called a meeting of the House Seapower and Expeditionary Forces Subcommittee on July 31st to discuss the DDG-1000, Gene Taylor's stated intent was to have "a hearing that would clear the air of rumor and lay out all the facts without championing any ‘side’ in the debate." One problem though, Vice Admiral Barry McCullough didn't clear the air at all, instead of simply saying "hey we screwed up, this thing is expensive as hell and we can't afford it" the Navy took a position that made claims about the DDG-1000 out of context, then made claims about the DDG-51 also without context. In the question and answer part of the hearing, Rep. Jim Langevin (D-RI) asked Vice Admiral Barry McCullough to detail the technology of the new DDG-51s the Navy wanted to buy to replace the DDG-1000s. Vice Admiral Barry McCullough answered:

Sir, the capability set I described for a DDG 51 that would restart as DDG 113 is based on the modernization program that we currently have funded in the DDG modernization program.

And that includes the COTS-based computer hardware, the open-architected computer program, the multi-mission signal processor with inherent ballistic missile defense capability, and the extended range anti-air warfare capability with SM-6.

Here is the problem. Any new DDG-51s the Navy buys today does not have "inherent ballistic missile defense capability" as McCullough suggested. Dan Smith talked about 15 destroyers, we have names of fourteen of them: USS John Paul Jones (DDG 53), USS Curtis Wilbur (DDG 54), USS John S. McCain (DDG 56), USS Russell (DDG 59), USS Paul Hamilton (DDG 60), USS Ramage (DDG 61), USS Fitzgerald (DDG 62), USS Stethem (DDG 63), USS Benfold (DDG 65), USS Milius (DDG 69), USS Hopper (DDG 70), USS Decatur (DDG 73), USS Higgins (DDG 76), and USS O’Kane (DDG 77).

Notice a pattern? Every DDG-51 configured for AEGIS ballistic missile defense is either a Flight I or a Flight II version of the Arleigh Burke class destroyer. Most people don't realize this, but the reason why is because as Dan Smith suggests, AEGIS BMD is an upgrade. It is actually more specific than that. Current ballistic missile defense only runs on ships with AEGIS version 5.3.x, and it is specific to hardware/software. You cannot put current AEGIS BMD on the new baseline ships, it simply won't work, the hardware/software doesn't exist on those ships, and for the record, the hardware that supports todays AEGIS BMD isn't even made anymore.

In the future this is all supposed to come together with AEGIS open architecture (OA), but until then there is no such thing as a new Arliegh Burke destroyer "with inherent ballistic missile defense capability" as was implied in the July 31st hearing.

As a side note, AEGIS ballistic missile defense will never work for the seven “Baseline 2” cruisers, essentially CG-52 through CG-58, because they have the old SPY-1A which utilizes very old computers known as UYK-7s and UYK-20s. It is incredibly expensive to upgrade these ships to use the SPY-1D(V), which will prevent them from ever performing the AEGIS BMD role. Such information begs the question, is that where the number "7" came from in determining the number of DDG-1000s to build? Did the Navy originally intend to retire seven more ships early with the construction of seven DDG-1000s?

As we have already highlighted, the suggestion the DDG-1000 can't use SM-2s is a comment out of context. As is highlighted in that link, the 2009 budget asks Congress to fund SM-2 Block III integration for the DDG-1000, integration that will be completed in time for the DDG-1000 class to support SM-2s. Gene Taylor called the July 31st hearing to clear the air, but the Navy blew so much smoke in that hearing how could anyone see a clear picture in case the Navy made. Think about it, the Navy is telling Congress the DDG-1000 cannot support Standard missiles because that capability hasn't been developed yet, but the Navy is also telling Congress the DDG-51s can support ballistic missile defense, even though that capability hasn't been developed yet either.

We think it is frustrating that even in a Congressional hearing we can't get straight talk from the Navy. Dan Smith is right to get out there, do interviews, talk to the press, and stand up for Raytheon's product. If there is a case to be made for Dual Band Radar instead of SPY, then make it with clarity. Lockheed Martin is kicking the crap out of General Dynamics, Northrop Grumman, and Raytheon in their public approach. This is the information age, it stuns me how so many companies in the defense industry allow their competition to dominate the information flow, which ultimately can lead to misrepresentation of the information. It seems to me whenever we are talking about taxpayer money, accuracy is important, and trusting in a reporter, or a blogger, to always get the facts right is asking too much, particularly when information can be disclosed out of context inside the House chamber during a public hearing.

All information in this article is public information collected from media sources and public congressional testimony.