Dismiss Notice
Welcome to IDF- Indian Defence Forum , register for free to join this friendly community of defence enthusiastic from around the world. Make your opinion heard and appreciated.

Pentagon Proposes Missile Defense Sites

Discussion in 'The Americas' started by layman, Sep 14, 2013.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. layman

    layman Aurignacian STAR MEMBER

    Joined:
    May 1, 2012
    Messages:
    11,024
    Likes Received:
    3,042
    Country Flag:
    United States
    Defense Department Announces Missile Defense Siting Study
    (Source: U.S Department of Defense; issued September 12, 2013)

    WASHINGTON --- Pursuant to the fiscal year 2013 National Defense Authorization Act, the Defense Department has initiated a study to evaluate five candidate sites in the continental United States for the potential future deployment of additional ground-based interceptors, Pentagon officials announced today.

    Two missile defense sites with long-range interceptor missiles already are active at Fort Greely, Alaska, and Vandenberg Air Force Base, Calif. Today, these sites provide protection for the United States against limited intercontinental ballistic missile attacks, officials said.

    “In response to a congressional requirement, we are evaluating several sites in the continental United States for a potential future deployment of additional Ground-based Interceptors, or GBIs,â€￾ said Navy Vice Adm. James D. Syring, director of the Missile Defense Agency. “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.â€￾

    Completing the mandatory siting study and the associated follow-on environmental impact statement would decrease the time necessary to build a site if a decision is made to do so, officials said. An environmental impact study would take 18 to 24 months to complete once the siting study is finished, they added.

    A small Defense Department team will visit each candidate site to obtain information on basic infrastructure, including the electrical power supply, water resources, transportation access and other areas for assessing the suitability of a potential site.

    All of the sites are on federal land and are operated by the Defense Department, the National Guard or both, officials said.

    They are:
    -- Fort Drum, N.Y.;
    -- Camp Ethan Allen Training Site, Vt.;
    -- Naval Air Station Portsmouth SERE Training Area, Maine;
    -- Camp Ravenna Joint Training Center, Ohio; and
    -- Fort Custer Training Center, Mich.
     
  2. layman

    layman Aurignacian STAR MEMBER

    Joined:
    May 1, 2012
    Messages:
    11,024
    Likes Received:
    3,042
    Country Flag:
    United States
    Sites For Potential East Coast Missile Defense Plan Selected

    [​IMG]
    A ground-based missile interceptor is lowered into its silo during an emplacement at the Missile Defense Complex at Fort Greely, Alaska, in 2007.



    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, N. Y.

    ■ Camp Ethan Allen Training Site, Vt.

    ■ Naval Air Station Portsmouth SERE Training Area, Maine

    ■ Camp Ravenna Joint Training Center, Ohio

    ■ Fort Custer Training Center, Mich.

    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, Calif., 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.

    More Info
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page