China Seeks Range Extender for Anti-Ship Missile

Reported as China accidentally reveals top secret new weapon

H-6K variant with cruise missiles (credit Alert 5)

A centrefold graphic recently flourished intimate details of a Chinese bomber carrying a stark new weapon. State-controlled media has since gone into cover-up mode. But military analysts think Beijing may have been caught with its pants down. The government produced Modern Ships magazine has splashed high-resolution computer-generated images of China’s most recent addition to its strategic bomber line-up – the H-6N – over the front and feature pages. But that’s not what drew the eye of the world’s defence thinkers. The graphics showed the new bomber carrying a huge ballistic missile slung under its fuselage. And that missile looks a lot like one of a family of ballistic weapons deployed by China’s People’s Liberation Army Rocket Force (PLARF) as aircraft carrier killers.

I have my doubts that this was "accidental" - thinking it's more of a psyop, but it does raise some ideas to counter such weapons - ideas that our parents and grandparents (oh, hell, maybe even our great grandparents) thought up way back when in the fun days of the Cold War.

As seen in the photo above, the Chinese already have the potential to extend their cruise missile range by use of the same H-6 platform. So what does the potential to add the "ship killer" ballistic missile mean? As the article quoted above notes, it has the potential to add more range to this "carrier killer" anti-ship ballistic missile (ASBM).

So, what do you do to counter a relatively slow moving bomber that flies out to launch a big ASBM? You do what we used to do against the kamikaze planes of the Japanese in WWII and the Soviet threat in the Cold War - you station "pickets" of various kinds to detect and report activity that might threaten your forces. In WWII, it was "radar picket destroyers." During the Cold War we had radar picket submarines
:

By this time, the Cold War with the Soviet Union was in full swing, and air defense of U.S. carrier battle groups on potential strike missions near the Russian landmass generated a requirement for even more submarine radar pickets. Eventually, six more World War II submarines - all Manitowac-built USS Gato (SS-212)-class boats - were chosen for the more drastic MIGRAINE III SSR conversion. Because experience had shown that even the newer SSR configurations were seriously cramped, the final MIGRAINE design

called for cutting the boats in two and inserting a 24-foot "plug" to get additional room for an expanded CIC and electronic spaces forward of the main control room. Even so, the MIGRAINE IIIs also had to sacrifice their after torpedo tubes for more berthing space, but they were fitted with a larger, streamlined sail, with the BPS-2 search radar mounted aft of the periscopes and other masts. An AN/BPS-3 height-finder radar on a pedestal just behind the sail and an AN/URN-3 TACAN beacon on the afterdeck completed the installation. The six MIGRAINE III boats - USSs Pompon (SSR-267), Rasher (SSR-269), Raton (SSR-270), Ray (SSR-271), Redfin (SSR-272), and Rock (SSR-274) - were all converted at the Philadelphia Navy Yard between 1951 and 1953 - giving the Navy a total of ten radar picket submarines to face the growing Soviet threat just as the Korean War was drawing to a close.

There were also radar picket ships of the Guardian class:

The AGRs were based on both coasts at Newport, Rhode Island (later Davisville, Rhode Island) and Treasure Island, California near San Francisco, eight on the East Coast and eight on the West Coast. They would spend 30–45 days at sea regardless of weather, alternating with 15 days in port, monitoring aircraft approaching the United States as an extension of the Distant Early Warning line under the Continental Air Defense Command. Their primary duty was to warn of a surprise Soviet bomber attack. The AGRs were augmented by twelve radar picket destroyer escorts of the Edsall and John C. Butler classes, known as DERs, and Lockheed WV-2 Warning Star aircraft. The DERs and WV-2s were called Barrier Forces, BarLant and BarPac, and operated much further from the US than the AGRs. By 1965, the development of over-the-horizon radar had superseded their function, and the radar picket ships were decommissioned and scrapped by the early 1970s.

SBX-1

Now we already have "over the horizon radar", including the "big ball on a oil platform" - SBX-1 (pdf) and a bunch of other stuff to look for missiles, which is exactly what the H-6N is - with a slow launch phase (under 600 knots) followed by a more rapid phase after the booster on the missile engages.

These are modern times. We have Aegis ships, anti-ballistic missile missiles, and satellites that monitor such things.

Let's suppose we decide for a "belt and suspenders" approach that some additional pickets might be a good idea - could we use long lingering UAVs akin to the solar power NASA Pathfinder to keep an eye on things? Of

NASA Pathfinder

course we could, in fact, the idea has already been looked at:

In 1993, after ten years in storage, the aircraft was brought back to flight status for a brief mission by the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization (BMDO). With the addition of small solar arrays, five low-altitude checkout flights were flown under the BMDO program at NASA Dryden in the fall of 1993 and early 1994 on a combination of solar and battery power.

No much in new thinking under the sun.

U.S. Navy photo by MC1 Corwin M. Colbert)

From the surface of the sea side, there is little reason why unmanned platforms, now being developed for anti-submarine warfare, Sea Hunter cannot also be adapted for use as radar pickets, perhaps with passive sensor characteristics.

The point to all this being that the threat of aircraft launched ASMs or even ASBMs is not a sea change, but merely a logical follow on weapon for a country as geographically limited as is China. And that we've seen threats like this before and found ways to limit them.

Everything old is new again.

As an aside, the U.S. played with Air Launched Ballistic Missiles in the past (1974), see

Friday Film: The Nike Hercules Story (1960)

" Detecting a North Korean Missile Strike on Guam" nice video from the Center for Strategic and International Studies

How It Works: Detecting a North Korean Missile Strike on Guam:

What's Faster than "Hypersonic?"

Scary headline: Russia creates 'unstoppable' hypersonic Zircon missile with Navy destroying 4,600mph speed but the remainder of the article refutes the "unstoppable" part:

Russia claims to have created a devastating hypersonic missile that travels five times faster than the speed of sound and could rip through navy warship defences because it's too fast to stop.

The Kremlin's Zircon missile has been called "unstoppable", "unbeatable" and "undefendable" with a 4,600mph speed that only one defence system in the world can destroy – that system is owned by Russia.

So, it can be stopped - but only if you have the Russian "system" - I'm sure U.S. engineers and scientists can dope that out.

By the way, you know what's faster than "hypersonic?"

Frickin' laser beams.

Of course, there might be glitches:


UPDATE: US Navy Develops Laser Weapon Prototypes for Destroyers, Cruisers (and Maybe Carriers). Zap.

Important U.S. House Armed Services Strategic Forces Sub-Committee Hearing: Fiscal Year 2016 Missile Defense

This is worth an hour of your time:



If you have doubt, there is this Reuters headline, U.S. missile defense agency warns of "jeopardy" from budget cuts:

Further budget cuts would put the U.S. military's ability to protect the United States in "serious jeopardy" at a time when Iran and North Korea are advancing their own missile programs, the head of the U.S. Missile Defense Agency said on Thursday.

Vice Admiral James Syring told U.S. lawmakers that failure to lift budget caps in fiscal 2016 would force him to delay urgently needed steps aimed at improving the reliability of a system that top military leaders have already called "unsustainable" given growing threats and budget pressures.

It is not rational to think standing still means your potential enemies will also call a halt to their activities.

UPDATE: U.S. Naval Insitute News offers up Army-Navy Memo on need for Ballistic Missile Defense Strategy, referenced in the above:

Osd013090 14 Cno Csa Memo

UPDATE2: Robert Work, Deputy Defense Secretary on budget issues as found in the Aviation Week opinion piece, "Budget Blunders Threaten U.S. Military Superiority":

Sequestration is a blunder that allows our fiscal problems, not our security needs, to determine our strategy.

Preach it!

North Korean Threat: EMP? Death by Threats?

Source: VOA

About 8 or 9 years ago there were dire warnings about the possible danger of some sort of attack that could result in "electromagnetic pulse" ("EMP") damage to the U.S. (see Yet Another Threat). Sen Jon Kyl, Speaker Gingrich and others raised alarms.

An old ground burst

Now, these issues rise again, this time with the North Koreans as the threat. For example, from The Washington Times :

North Korea has labored for years and starved its people so it could develop an intercontinental missile capable of reaching the United States. Why? Because they have a special kind of nuclear weapon that could destroy the United States with a single blow.

In summer 2004, a delegation of Russian generals warned the Congressional Electromagnetic Pulse (EMP) Commission that secrets had leaked to North Korea for a decisive new nuclear weapon — a Super-EMP warhead.

Any nuclear weapon detonated above an altitude of 30 kilometers will generate an electromagnetic pulse that will destroy electronics and could collapse the electric power grid and other critical infrastructures — communications, transportation, banking and finance, food and water — that sustain modern civilization and the lives of 300 million Americans. All could be destroyed by a single nuclear weapon making an EMP attack.

More at Chaos from the Sky: Why the EMP Threat Is Real:

An EMP attack would cause cascading failures in other critical infrastructures and a possible national blackout. These conclusions are based on tests showing that E1 high-EMP simulators couple well to electric grid distribution power lines and low-voltage cables. Radasky and Pry point out that “electronic control systems are effectively the Achilles’ heel of our power delivery network.”

The electrical power grid supports all of America’s other critical infrastructures and is vulnerable to an EMP. Any credible threat depends on critical communications infrastructures. If an EMP attack should succeed, more than two-thirds of the American people could perish within 12 months of the event.

And more at Rebuttal to “The EMP threat: fact, fiction, and response” (co-authored by Dr. Pry who also wrote the Washington Times opinion):

One scenario of particular concern to the EMP Commission is that rogue states or terrorists could make an “anonymous EMP attack” by launching a short- or medium-range missile off a freighter outside US territorial waters.22 This would eliminate the need for an ICBM to deliver the EMP attack. Since the EMP strike would come from no one’s territory, it could also conceal the identity of the attacker. Although it would not be necessary, an additional layer of anonymity could be achieved by a state sponsor by contracting with terrorists to carry out the attack.

It should be noted that Dr. Pry is also head of EMPACT America, " . . . a bipartisan . . . organization for citizens concerned about protecting the American people from a nuclear or natural electromagnetic pulse (EMP) catastrophe."

The Institute for Foreign Policy Studies has produced a white paper on Counter the EMP Threat: The Role of Missile Defense (pdf)(2010) that suggests improvements to the Aegis BMD force and other practices to reduce the risk.

Does the DPRK have a missile capable of reaching the U.S.? Take a look at the chart above - the answer currently seems to be "no" - but North Korea rocket 'has 10,000km range' the BBC reported in December 2012. It appears the NORKs have a new system, the Unha-3 that has longer legs than what they've been up to previously but there are questions about its payload capacity:

Despite western press speculation that the Unha 3 could be the basis for an intercontinental ballistic missile that could reach the United States, this three stage rocket is incapable of lofting the payload necessary for that mission. Similarly the American and Soviet analogues (Thor and R-14) could not be upgraded for such a mission. In 1957 Soviet Chief Designer Yangel sold his R-16 ICBM concept to the leadership as simply his R-12 IRBM serving as the second stage to his R-14 MRBM. In fact substantial redesign and repackaging of all elements, and new propellants were necessary to provide a viable ICBM. The same applies to any North Korean design, which would require a new 3-m diameter first stage.

However, some cautionary advice in the update to Business Insider's North Korea Is Not Even Close To Hitting The US With A Nuke, which also linked to this video from USC professor Gruntman:

ASTE 520 Spacecraft Design - North Korea Satellite Launch from USC Graduate and Professional Pr on Vimeo.
Update: Some key comments begin abour 16:27.

Just to add to the tale, comes this DPRK propaganda photo (via The Washington Post) , purportedly showing the lines of attack on the U.S. mainland, including, oh, my!, the Eastern Seaboard on the high tech chart in the background:

Gotta like those hats.

See also from nknews.org: ANALYSIS: North Korean Photo Reveals ‘U.S. Mainland Strike Plan’.

And this delightful piece from the DPRK's own Central News Agency Kim Jong Un Convenes Operation Meeting, Finally Examines and Ratifies Plan for Firepower Strike:

He said the enemies are bringing dark clouds of a nuclear war testing the DPRK's self-restraint, adding the DPRK can no longer tolerate this. He ordered the KPA to blow up and reduce everything to ashes at a single strike, if an order is issued.

He said the heroic service personnel of the KPA and all other people, their hearts burning with irrepressible resentment at the reckless war provocation moves of the U.S. imperialists, are now waiting for a final order of the WPK Central Committee, hardening their will to turn out in a do-or-die battle with the enemies.

Finally, I added this as an update to a previous post, but it worth considering in light of the above, George H. Wittman's Peace Through Bluster and Missiles.

Fun and games with the NORKs.

Reality Bites: "Obama's Missile-Defense Reversal"

Mistakes were made - now begins the mad dash to fix the mess created by an arrogant academic fantasy, as noted in by the Wall Street Journal in Obama's Missile-Defense Reversal:

Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel chose Friday afternoon to announce one of the biggest switcheroos of the Obama Presidency: The Pentagon now plans to fortify America's homeland defenses against missile attack, reversing a 2009 decision that was part of President Obama's fantasy of a world without nuclear weapons.

Build more missile defense ships, please

Mr. Hagel said the U.S. will add 14 ground-based long-range missile interceptors by 2017 to the 30 already deployed at sites in Alaska and California. "The United States has missile-defense systems in place to protect us from limited ICBM attacks," said the new Defense chief, "but North Korea in particular has recently made advances in its capabilities and is engaged in a series of irresponsible and reckless provocations."

That's for sure. The Pentagon believes North Korean missiles can already reach Alaska and Hawaii, and it's only a matter of time before they are nuclear-tipped and can hit Seattle or San Diego. The Pyongyang regime has recently promised to attack the U.S. and turn South Korea into a "sea of fire." It's nice to see the Obama Administration finally admitting reality.

Axis of evil, anyone?

Read it all.

The NORK threat of a "sea of fire" appears therein.

A prior thought on how to deal with the rogue state of North Korea here.

UPDATE: More here:

Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel announced plans on Friday to bolster U.S. missile defenses in response to "irresponsible and reckless provocations" by North Korea, which threatened a preemptive nuclear strike against the United States last week.

North Korea: Missile Threat Against U.S.

I don't see it in this BBC report, "North Korea warns US on missiles after South deal", but I'm pretty sure that along with the claim that the NORKS have the missile range to strike, in addition to Guam and Japan, the U.S. mainland, there was the threat of a "nuclear sea of fire" -

North Korea says it has missiles that can hit the US mainland, in a statement two days after South Korea unveiled a missile deal with the US.

The statement said US bases in "Japan, Guam and the US mainland" were within its "scope of strike".
***
North Korea routinely issues strong rhetoric against Seoul and Washington.

The statement, carried by state-run KCNA news agency and attributed to North Korea's National Defence Commission, said Pyongyang would match any enemy "nuclear for nuclear, missile for missile".

On Sunday, South Korea announced it had reached an agreement with the US on extending the range of its ballistic missiles.

Really? Well, allegedly the Taepodong-2 has a range of about 6000km, which might bring Alaska into range. The red line on the Google map is roughly 6000km, which would indicate a possible ability to hit mainland Alaska from where North Korea was before it launched a missile at the U.S.

In case you are curious, the U.S.Navy has Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD) equipped ships:

As of November 2012, there are 26 Aegis BMD combatants (5 cruisers [CGs] and 21 destroyers [DDGs] in the U.S. Navy. Of the 26 ships, 16 are assigned to the Pacific Fleet and 10 to the Atlantic Fleet. In response to the increasing demand for Aegis BMD capability from the Combatant Commanders, the MDA and Navy are working together to increase the number of Aegis BMD capable ships. Such efforts consist of upgrading Aegis DDGs to the BMD capability, incorporating Aegis BMD into the Aegis Moderization Program and new construction of Aegis BMD DDGs.
***
Aegis BMD is the first missile defense capability produced by the MDA that has been purchased by a military ally. Japan’s four KONGO Class Destroyers have been upgraded with BMD operational capabilities.

Global Missile Defense: "More important than ever"

U.S. Defense Department report Official Outlines Global Missile Defense Strategy:

U.S. efforts to build effective missile defenses are more important than ever for defending the nation and its deployed forces and for cooperating with allies and partners, a senior defense policy official said today.

James N. Miller, principal deputy undersecretary of defense for policy, told attendees at a missile defense conference here that the nation’s missile defense efforts, while focused on a few emerging threats, also span the globe.

“We continue to focus on Iran and North Korea as particular threats to us and our allies,” Miller said.

Iran already has the largest inventory of ballistic missiles in the Middle East, he said, and is working to develop salvo-launch and intercontinental ballistic missile capabilities.

North Korea, despite the “urgent humanitarian needs of its destitute population,” is likewise modernizing its missile arsenal, Miller said. North Korea’s inventory already includes “a substantial number of mobile ballistic missiles that could strike targets in South Korea, Japan, and U.S. bases in the Pacific,” he added.

Both nations’ nuclear potential increases U.S. strategic concerns about missile defense, Miller said, and other nations and nonstate actors also pose a significant threat.

USS Hopper

The United States adopted a phased, adaptive approach to European ballistic missile defense in 2009 to deter and defend against “the development, acquisition, deployment and use of ballistic missiles by regional adversaries,” he said. The strategy relies heavily on systems that can be relocated, allowing the United States and its allies to adjust to a complex and changing threat environment, he explained. The approach will bring together sea-, land- and space-based systems in four phases of deployment through 2020, Miller said.

“Technological advances or future changes in the threats could modify the … timing of the later phases,” he said. “That’s one reason the approach is called adaptive.”

NATO endorsed the phased, adaptive approach and agreed to make current and future missile defense systems interoperable across NATO, he said.

Looking beyond Europe, U.S. strategy is to apply the phased, adaptive missile defense approach in other regions, particularly in East Asia and the Middle East, he said.

In Asia, the United States is partnered with key allies including Japan, Australia and South Korea to enhance missile defense, he said. Japan now has a layered ballistic missile defense capability that includes U.S. tracking systems, interceptors, early warning radars and a command-and-control structure that integrates those technologies, Miller said.

“We regularly train together, and have successfully executed simulated cooperative [ballistic missile defense] operations,” he said. “We’re also engaged in cooperative development of the next-generation … interceptor, which is projected to enter service in 2018.”

China obviously is a key component of security strategy in the Pacific, Miller said.

“The United States welcomes a strong, prosperous and successful China that plays a greater global role in supporting international rules, norms of responsible behavior and institutions,” he said. At the same time, he said, the United States and China’s neighbors remain concerned about its military buildup and objectives. Miller noted that China likely is nearing deployment of a medium-range anti-ship missile.

Greater transparency from China about its military strategy could reduce the chance of a misunderstanding or miscalculation, Miller said, and toward that end the United States continues to seek greater government-to-government communication with Chinese leaders.
***

Oh, that missile defense system that some politicians opposed before they were in favor of it.

You know, before it became "more important than ever."

Maritime Security: The Very Sort of Proliferation We Don't Need

With a tip of the hat to MissileThreat.com, there are several issues presented by this commercial enterprise that offers convenient "missiles in shipping containers" that can be fired from highways, railroads and the sea. Product information:

Club-K Container Missile System is designated for hitting surface and land targets by 3М-54ТE, 3М-54ТE1 and 3М-14ТE cruise missiles.
Club-K Missile System can be installed on coastal positions, surface ships and vessels of different classes, railway and automobile platforms.

Club-K Missile System is housed in 40-feet standard marine container.
Functionally Club-K Missile System consists of Universal Launching Module (ULM), Combat Management Module (CMM) and Energy-Supply and Life-Support Module (ES&LSM).

The launcher with 4 missiles is housed in the Universal Launching Module. The ULM is designed for preparation and missile start-off from transport-launching containers.

Combat Management Module provides:
– every day servicing and scheduled missile control;
– receiving of target detection and commands to open fire
– combat support computation;
– pre-launch preparation;
– launch mission defining and cruise missile launching.

CMM and ES&LSM can be constructively arranged and made in the form of separate standard marine containers.

SPECIAL FEATURES:
- Capability of usage from any land and sea platforms
- Efficiency of delivery and installation on carrier or coastal positions
- Hitting of surface and land targets
- Ability to increase the number of ammunition loads

Maximum range estimated to be 300 km (180 miles). See here.
Even with a conventional warhead not exactly the sort of "invention" the world really needs, is it? Toss on a biologic warhead and you have the potential for a real mess.

See also here.

And watch this video. (QuickTime)

The Heritage Foundation has a new video on missile defense "33 Minutes":

33 Minutes: Protecting America in the New Missile Age is a one-hour documentary produced by The Heritage Foundation that tells the story of the very real threat foreign enemies pose to every one of us. The truth is brutal - no matter where on Earth a missile is launched from it would take 33 Minutes or less to hit the U.S. target it was programmed to destroy.

That "less" part is worrisome.

Here is the trailer:

Iran: Medium Range Missile Tested

Reported as Iran 'test launches' medium-range missile:

Iran says it has successfully test launched a mid-range surface-to-surface missile, state media has reported.

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said the Sajjil-2 missile used "advanced technology" and had "landed exactly" on the unspecified target.
***
He said the missile used solid fuel and was "able to go beyond the atmosphere then come back and hit its target".

Hmmm. Solid fuel.

UPDATE: Steeljaw has a relevant post here linking to the new Missile Defense Agency publication Foreign Ballistic Missile Capabilities, which contains the following on Iran:

Iran does not yet have the technical capability to produce an ICBM, but it is believed they
may develop one by 2015. Iran has continued research and development on its longer
range ballistic missile programs and has publicly reiterated its commitment to developing
SLVs, which contain most of the key building blocks for an ICBM. Iran launched its Safir
SLV on 17 August 2008 in a failed attempt to orbit its indigenously produced Omid satellite.
On 2 February 2009 Iran again launched a Safir SLV, successfully inserting the Omid satellite
into orbit. This success shows progress in some technologies relevant to ICBMs.
***
Iran has also indicated it has a solid-propellant MRBM in development, and it may seek to develop additional longer-range MRBMs and IRBMs. This includes a variant of the North Korean new IRBM which reportedly has been sold to Iran. (footnotes omitted)

An SLV is a Space Launch Vehicle. Apparently Iran is moving along on it "solid-propellant MRBM.

Potential ranges of Iranian missiles:

Since the Iranians assert the range of the Sajjil-2 is 2000 km, the red line gives you an idea on the range potential, not that Iranian leaders have ever vowed to wipe Russia, Ukraine, Bulgaria or Greece off the map. Israel is not impressed:

Israel said that the new missile test should also be a source of concern for European countries which would also now be in range.

"In terms of strategic importance, this new missile test doesn't change anything for us since the Iranians already tested a missile with a range of 1,500 kilometres (nearly 950 miles), but it should worry the Europeans," Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon said.

"The Iranians are also trying to develop a ballistic missile with a range of 10,000 kilometres (6,250 miles) that could reach the coast of the United States," Ayalon told public radio.

Blackmail by missile. Coming soon to a town near you.

Cutting defense budgets in missile defense? Have you called your Congresspersons?

Missile Defense: Focus on Defense - Not Retaliation

Missile defense ought to be in the forefront of national defense.

The threat is not from the traditional major powers. Nor is missile defense a means of defending against retaliatory strikes after a first strike.

Instead the threat is the "one off" missile filed by a rogue state or a stateless entity like al Qaeda. A retaliatory strike capability is pointless if there is no one to retaliate against. Against the rogue state or stateless actor the best alternative to be able to thwart the attack.

Now comes a compelling argument by Claremont Institute's Vice President and Fellow in American Studies, Larry Greenfield, for missile defense systems here:

Modern missile technology, in the hands of terror states and their proxies, threatens.

The next level of national security advocacy has therefore arrived as well.

It is the public campaign for funding and deployment of missile defense systems against rogue states and terror groups who are not deterrable by the threat of counterstrike or mutually assured destruction.
***
Put more broadly, can Western democracies, including the United States, preempt or defend attacks before a crisis develops, rather than merely planning and preparing to retaliate while meekly surviving post-disaster as a destroyed nation?
***
Test after successful test of anti-missile missiles shows that President Ronald Reagan’s original vision of missile defense — not the immoral and limited option of massive retaliation — has become attractive both in the United States and Europe. Poland and the Czech Republic are logical sites for radar and system deployments. However, President Barack Obama’s recent European tour did not give our friends confidence that he would continue our path to defend Europe.
***
Several important developing U.S. missile defense projects all face looming budget cuts, including the Airborne Laser, a “boost phase” defense, which counters North Korean or Iranian long-range missiles; the Ground Based Interceptor program (our only operational system capable of destroying a Taepodong-2 missile approaching the U.S. mainland); the Multiple Kill Vehicle, designed to destroy multiple missile stages and warheads in space; and the Space Tracking and Surveillance System, which discriminates between real warheads and decoys in space, thereby defeating an enemy’s ability to overwhelm our missile defense system with countermeasures.

Missile threats are real and missile defense science is solid. The funding costs are actually quite low and the moral case is overwhelming. Political obstacles must be overcome, including the left’s rejection that the U.S. would be strong or independent in the world and the military establishment’s repeated bureaucratic resistance to using funds for projects that aren’t their own.

Some argue that missile defense money spent is money wasted, for example Missile Defense: 'Longest Running Scam' Exposed:

Dr. Stephen Flynn, Senior Fellow for National Security Studies at the Council on Foreign Relations and a retired Coast Guard Commander, testified that the "non-missile risk" - smuggling a weapon of mass destruction into the US by ship, train, truck, or private jet - is "far greater than the ballistic missile threat...." He noted that smuggling is the only realistic option for a terrorist group like al Qaeda; it offers anonymity to any attacking nation and therefore protection from retaliation; seaports, borders, and overseas flights "provide a rich menu of non-missile options"; and it has greater potential to "generate cascading economic consequences by disrupting global supply chains."

Despite these risks, Flynn said, "The combined budgets for funding all the domestic and international port of entry interdiction efforts... is equal to roughly one-half of the annual budget for developing missile defense. Nowhere in the US government has there been or is there now an evaluation of whether that represents an appropriate balance....The amount of resources we dedicate to the [more serious threat of cargo delivery] is miniscule compared to the kinds of resources we invest in dealing with the ballistic missile threat. That's the kind of disconnect we're operating in."

Gee, maybe there can be more than one kind of threat. And there has been recent evidence of North Korea and Iran building up their missile systems. While they may be crude, they still work. Sort of like the AK-47.

A while ago I did a post on the potential threat from the sea based missiles which is worth a look:

Now that's a real threat -- one we should take seriously.

This concept has been covered before- at The CounterTerrorismBlog here:

Reader Timothy Thompson, who is always able to provide keen insight into weapons systems, comments on the missile purchase:

[The BM-25 missiles that Iran purchased] can easily be launched from [a] freighter modified with launch tubes and blast channels. They give Iran a projection of force capability far beyond the 2000-3000 km range of the missiles. It is possible -- though not confirmed -- that Iran may not use the BM-25's but only bought them to get the R-27 rocket motors for a missile of their own design.

Other relevant links here ("Iran's New Missiles"), here ("Iran's Cruise Missile Threat and Merchant Ships") and all the links therein. And remember that SecDef has mentioned this scenario before:

Mr. Rumsfeld also was asked about the danger of terrorists or rogue states attacking the United States by putting a short-range Scud-type missile on a freighter and firing it close to U.S. shores.

He said one Middle East nation already has “launched a ballistic missile from a cargo vessel.”

“They had taken a short-range, probably Scud missile, put it on a transporter-erector launcher, lowered it in, taken the vessel out into the water, peeled back the top, erected it, fired it, lowered it, covered it up. And the ship that they used was using a radar and electronic equipment that was no different than 50, 60, 100 other ships operating in the immediate area.”

Other U.S. officials have said the nation was Iran, which tested a freighter-launched missile in the Caspian Sea in the late 1990s.

“It is true that the big distinction we make between intercontinental, medium-range and shorter-range ballistic missiles doesn’t make a lot of sense if you’re going to move the missile closer to the target,” he said. (source)

As long as I'm repeating things, go visit MissileThreat.com at the Claremont Institute and enjoy their movies of a merchant ship launch here (big) or here (smaller) to see how it would work.

The U.S. Navy is now standing up the Air and Missile Defense Center (NAMDC) as described by Steeljaw Scribe:

On Thursday, 30 April 2009, the Navy’s newest Center of Excellence (COE), the Navy Air and Missile Defense Center, was opened for business onboard the Naval Weapons Development Center, Dahlgren Virginia. RADM Brad Hicks, who is also the Aegis BMD program director, will serve as the Center’s first commander until a permanent flag is assigned later this year. The ceremony’s keynote speaker, ADM Robert “Rat” Willard, Commander U.S. Pacific Fleet spared no words in underscoring the importance of this particular COE in the context of recent events to include the recent North Korean launch.
***
The challenge ahead of the center will be the role it plays in Navy’s quest to equally field a national missile defense to shield the homeland, a regional defense for friends and allies and theater systems for protection of forward deployed forces while still accounting for the multi-mission nature of platforms like the Aegis-equipped cruisers and destroyers currently deployed. And the center’s efforts won’t end there, for the threat includes ever-increasingly proliferated cruise missiles and a host of other airborne threats.
***
This was a much needed step in beginning to restore balance to a force that has, frankly, become very power projection-centric. Along with other warfare areas, such as blue-water ASW, it seemed in the post-Cold War environment that integrated air and missile defense was increasingly pushed to the back even while threats like those posed by new generations of low-observable, fast cruise missiles were widely proliferated. However, the emerging area denial capabilities of countries like China and Iran, not to mention the requirements levied by the Maritime Strategy (and, one presumes, the NOC when it ever is released) clearly demand the establishment of an organization to oversee the disparate parts of the air defense picture.

Call your Congress person and ask for more money for these programs.

North Korea: April Missile Launch - Defensive Pieces Moving Into Place

As noted at the blog DPRK Studies by Richardson, North Korea is continuing preparations for whatever missile launch it is setting up:

As I noted a few weeks ago, there are several advantages to launching a satellite rather than an ICBM with a payload. Briefly; 1) To focus the nascent Obama administration on the issue. Went off like clockwork. 2) Iran received little criticism after launching a satellite in early February. 3) An SLV is technically easier but tests the exact same technology needed for an ICBM, which could potentially be armed with a nuclear weapon.

The director of U.S. National Intelligence, Dennis Blair, on Tuesday stated that North Korea appears to be preparing to launch a SLV (also see OFK). What South Korea notes, and what Blair failed to emphasize, is that any launch would violate UN Security Council resolutions. Whatever the outcome - success or another miserable failure - North Korea will use the launch (portrayed as a success, or course) for internal propaganda

In response, Japan and South Korea (and the U.S.) are placing Aegis-class ships in useful positions, considering the announced flight path of the North Korean effort. Good coverage at Closing Velocity, a blog by a missile defense insider, see especially here, here and here. As for the U.S., see here:

Two U.S. Aegis-equipped destroyers will detect and trace North Korea's long-range missile to be launched between April 4 and 8, Yonhap News Agency reported Sunday.

USS John S. McCain and another U.S. Aegis destroyer that participated in the large-scale South Korea-U.S. Key Resolve exercise remain in the East Sea in response to the North's upcoming missile launch, a military source was quoted as telling Yonhap.

The 12-day command-post exercise, which involved 14,000 U.S. troops stationed outside the peninsula, ended Friday.

The two U.S. warships are ready to intercept what the Stalinist North claims a satellite if it is deemed to pose a threat, the source said.

Korean-American officer Jeffrey Kim commands the USS John S. McCain, whose four radars can detect any object within a radius of 1,000 kilometers, he said.

The 9,200-ton destroyer is also capable of shooting down the North's rocket with its SM-3 interceptor missiles, according to the source.

More than a little irony in that report.

Closing Velocity also reports on a "timely" BMD missile test run by the U.S. Navy off California March 27. Photo caption:

PACIFIC OCEAN (March 26, 2009) The San Diego-based guided-missile destroyer USS Benfold (DDG 65) fires a missile Thursday, March 26, 2009 during training exercise Stellar Daggers in the Pacific Ocean. Benfold engaged multiple targets with Standard Missile-2 (SM-2) Block IIIA and modified SM-2 BLK IV missiles. The overall objective of Stellar Daggers was to test the Aegis system's sea-based ability to simultaneously detect, track, engage and destroy multiple incoming air and ballistic missile threats during terminal or final phase of flight. The Benfold's Aegis Weapons System successfully detected and intercepted a cruise missile target with a SM-2 BLK IIIA, while simultaneously detecting and intercepting an incoming SRBM target with a modified SM-2 BLK IV. This is the first time the fleet has successfully tested the Aegis system's ability to intercept both an SRBM in terminal phase and a low-altitude cruise missile target at the same time. (U.S. Navy photo/Released)

A little BMD promo featuring USS Lake Erie: