Aerospace Daily
August 28, 2001 Vol. 199, No. 105; Pg. 1
Reorganization of BMDO will bring fundamental changes, director says
By Sharon Weinberger
With a decision to deploy missile defense not yet made, Ballistic Missile Defense Organization (BMDO) officials are making a fundamental shift in the program, focusing on an open architecture that incorporates more testing and alternative technology paths.
National missile defense - previously conceived as a one-shot deployment that would protect the territorial United States - is now simply ballistic missile defense, and BMDO is being reorganized to reflect the new program divisions, officials said.
This new approach is "a research, development and test program that focuses on missile defense as a single integrated BMD system, no longer differentiating between theater and national missile defense," said Lt. Gen. Ronald Kadish, the director of BMDO, in July 30 congressional testimony.
New look, same issues
The new organizational structure for BMDO, scheduled to be completed by Oct. 1, integrates many of the services' missile defense programs under BMDO management. BMDO now will focus on three segments based on how long the enemy missile has been in flight: boost, mid-course, and terminal defense (DAILY, July 13). The interim reorganization, which took effect on Aug. 3, already has begun to transition Theater High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) and sea-based programs to BMDO. Maj. Gen. Willie Nance, previously the Program Executive Officer (PEO) for NMD, now is both program director for the ground-based midcourse division and PEO for Ballistic Missile Defense.
The reorganization also transfers developing technologies from the services to BMDO, including the Airborne Laser, Space Based Laser, and Space Based Infrared System (SBIRS) Low. More mature programs for lower-tier missile defense, such as PAC-3, MEADS and the Navy Area Theater Ballistic Missile Defense, are being transferred from BMDO to the services (DAILY, June 29).
BMDO officials say the new organization will allow them to focus on the research and testing aspects of missile defense, while also pursuing more of the so-called "parallel technology programs," similar to the contracts already awarded to study alternative boost vehicles.
"We plan to pursue multiple, parallel development paths to reduce the risk inherent in BMD engineering, with initiatives in each of the Boost, Midcourse, and Terminal Defense Segments of the BMD system," Kadish said July 30 in written testimony before the House Appropriations Committee's defense subcommittee.
While the testing program will be extended and improved to include more decoys, Kadish also argued that the acquisition program must be accelerated. "We must deviate from the standard acquisition process and recognize the unprecedented technical challenges we are facing," he said in testimony.
BMDO officials argue for an "evolutionary" acquisition process that eschews the normal event-driven milestones in favor of gradual deployment. "We will determine the architecture as we proceed with our development and testing," said Nance Aug. 22 at the Fourth Annual Space and Missile Defense Conference in Huntsville, Ala.
Some critics are concerned, however, that the reorganization will create conflicts between BMDO's acquisition requirements and those of the services, and some members of Congress have said that the reorganization would lessen their control and oversight (DAILY, Aug. 1).
Another concern is that the accelerated acquisition cycle will make deployment standards less rigorous than those for other major weapons. "Demonstrating that something works is a standard that everybody is judged by," said John Pike, director of GlobalSecurity.org and a frequent critic of missile defense. "If you create a different set of rules [for missile defense], it creates a lot of jealousy for other program managers."
Testbed progress
While missile defense deployment has been delayed, BMDO is pursuing aggressive testing and testbed construction plans. BMDO announced a formal decision Aug. 12 to begin site preparations for testbed construction at Fort Greely, Alaska. While BMDO has long said that missile silos should be constructed at Fort Greely as part of a testing program, critics have claimed that the location is better suited for deployment.
Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) complained in July that funds are being used to construct an "initial deployment facility" at Fort Greely (DAILY, Aug. 1). However, a statement issued by BMDO on Aug. 12 said, "developing an effective Missile Defense System is dependent upon operationally realistic testing of the MDS elements."
Kadish also defends the decision, saying that Fort Greely testbed construction is aimed at providing "robust testing," and this goal is consistent with using the site in an "emergency situation."
Some critics argue, however, that Fort Greely is inappropriate as a testing site. "They're trying to argue it's for testing, but they're having a hard time doing that because they can't actually fire missiles from Fort Greely for safety reasons," said Lisbeth Gronlund, a physicist with the Union of Concerned Scientists, a group that has been critical of missile defense plans.
Kadish argues that such criticism is unwarranted. "If we didn't do it at Fort Greely, we would have to do it somewhere else." Building elsewhere would simply add more costs to the test infrastructure, he added.
Copyright 2001 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.
