The Obama administration insisted that they would opt for sea-based interceptors as a more feasible and less costly method of protecting against Iranian missile strikes …

Hmmmm ….

In one of the biggest national security reversals of his young presidency, Mr. Obama canceled former President George W. Bush’s plans to station a radar facility in the Czech Republic and 10 ground-based interceptors in Poland. Instead, he plans to deploy smaller SM-3 interceptors by 2011, first aboard ships and later in Europe, possibly even in Poland or the Czech Republic.

I don’t want to defend Obama … but doesn’t that last sentence above kind of detract from the assertion that he “flip-flopped”? SM-3’s were used for missile defense (and other things) onboard the Aegis Cruiser I served on. The article above seems to indicate that they can also, or will also, be used in ground based systems. If Biden gives SM-3’s to the Poles – then this latest move is simply in line with the “better, stronger, faster” missile defense they were talking about earlier.

If he’s giving the Poles what G.W. wanted to give them – and not anything new – then he has indeed flip flopped – and must be on crack or something.

But here’s what Gates said when we cancelled the deal with the Poles and Czechs …

“Those who say we are scrapping missile defense in Europe are either misinformed or misrepresenting the reality of what we are doing,” Mr. Gates said. He added that the new configuration “provides a better missile defense capability” for Europe and American forces “than the program I recommended almost three years ago.”

I trust Gates and was never able to just brush this statement off as him being a good soldier and supporting the Chain of Command here.

Further …

The administration’s new four-phase plan would deploy existing SM-3 interceptors using the sea-based Aegis system in 2011, then deploy an improved version in 2015 both on ships and on land. Rather than the 10 bigger interceptors originally envisioned for Poland, there could be 40 to 50 of the smaller missiles on land by then and more on ships. A more advanced version would be deployed in 2018 and yet another generation in 2020, the latter with more capacity to counter intercontinental missiles.

The interceptors Mr. Bush wanted to put in Poland would not have been deployed until 2018, officials said. The SM-3 missiles have had eight successful tests so far, and were used to shoot down a satellite, although critics said the missiles have not had to cope with the sort of decoys enemies might use. Instead of the sophisticated radar proposed for the Czech Republic, officials said they would rely more on a limited version in Turkey or the Caucasus, as well as satellites and newly developed airborne sensors.

Hate to be a fly in the ointment here – but tell me how this is a “flip flop” if they’re actually putting in Poland what they said they might put in Poland when they can-x’d the Bush system?

It looks like they’re going for smaller, lighter, and with something that IS proven – the SM-3.

I could have this wrong – tell me how though?

HondaV65 on October 21, 2009 at 3:33 PM

In April, Barack Obama offered his support for missile-defense systems in eastern Europe, especially based in Poland and the Czech Republic. Last month, without warning American allies, Obama reversed himself and said the US would not be pursuing land-based missile defense systems in eastern Europe.

See my post above throwing cold water here on the assertion that Obama “flip flopped”.

The man who has his facts wrong …

Is Ed …

And here’s the NYT’s to prove it.

In one of the biggest national security reversals of his young presidency, Mr. Obama canceled former President George W. Bush’s plans to station a radar facility in the Czech Republic and 10 ground-based interceptors in Poland. Instead, he plans to deploy smaller SM-3 interceptors by 2011, first aboard ships and later in Europe, possibly even in Poland or the Czech Republic.

So when Ed says that …

Last month, without warning American allies, Obama reversed himself and said the US would not be pursuing land-based missile defense systems in eastern Europe.

Isn’t that patently wrong when you look at the NYT article which was printed over a month ago?

It appears that land-based interceptors – and large numbers of them – WERE a part of the Obama plan.

HondaV65 on October 21, 2009 at 3:41 PM

Right from the White House a Month ago …

This is what they said the new system would do …

The phased, adaptive approach for missile defense in Europe:

Sustains U.S. homeland defense against long-range ballistic missile threats. The deployment of an advanced version of the SM-3 interceptor in Phase Four of the approach would augment existing ground-based interceptors located in Alaska and California, which provide for the defense of the homeland against a potential ICBM threat.

Speeds protection of U.S. deployed forces, civilian personnel, and their accompanying families against the near-term missile threat from Iran. We would deploy current and proven technology by roughly 2011 – about six or seven years earlier than the previous plan – to help defend the regions in Europe most vulnerable to the Iranian short- and medium-range ballistic missile threat.

Ensures and enhances the protection of the territory and populations of all NATO Allies, in concert with their missile defense capabilities, against the current and growing ballistic missile threat. Starting in 2011, the phased, adaptive approach would systematically increase the defended area as the threat is expected to grow. In the 2018 timeframe, all of Europe could be protected by our collective missile defense architecture.

Deploys proven capabilities and technologies to meet current threats. SM-3 (Block 1A) interceptors are deployed on Aegis ships today, and more advanced versions are in various stages of development. Over the past four years, we have conducted a number of tests of the SM-3 IA, and it was the interceptor used in the successful engagement of a decaying satellite in February 2008. Testing in 2008 showed that sensors we plan to field bring significant capabilities to the architecture, and additional, planned research and development over the next few years offers the potential for more diverse and more capable sensors.

Provides flexibility to upgrade and adjust the architecture, and to do so in a cost-effective manner, as the threat evolves. Because of the lower per-interceptor costs and mobility of key elements of the architecture, we will be better postured to adapt this set of defenses to any changes in threat.

I have to conclude here that although Obama handled this wrongly – he’s not flip-flopping. And I also have to conclude that what Gates said a month ago about building a better system is exactly what they are doing.

We jumped on this because we thought the Obama administration was caving into the Russians – it now appears to me that he wasn’t.

Hey … I’m no fan of Obama – but I don’t see how Ed can criticize “birthers” for ignoring evidence when the White House plan (as announced a month ago) is perfectly in alignment with what they are doing today.

Not a flip flop.

HondaV65 on October 21, 2009 at 4:42 PM

I like it…

Romeo13 on October 21, 2009 at 4:57 PM

I’m not an expert on missile defense … but I am pretty much an expert on DoD weapons procurement. The fact is – the DoD has a record of failure in planning complex weapons systems using today’s technology and then delivering it to the field two decades later. An excruciating example to me is the “SeaWolf” submarine (SSN 21). Back when I was a wee pup Submariner in 1984 – all of us guys knew that the SEAWOLF was going to be the replacement for the SSN-688 Los Angeles Class. We envisioned hundreds of these things.

But SSN 21 didn’t come along until like 15 years later – rife with cost overruns and QA problems. I’m still not sure that boat ever did a successful deployment – it was so broke. It was a running joke years later when I was an OLD submariner.

Anyway – if the administration is planning on deploying today’s tech … well … today – and developing the system as technology advances – I like that plan and can’t criticise it.

We need to be careful before we sling barbs at Obama on Defense issues – because he’s got Gates, Petraeus, and the others. As long as he listens to them – he’s doing the right thing. In this case – it appears he was listening.

HondaV65 on October 21, 2009 at 5:07 PM

The White House went with the “Scrapping missile defense” headlines as a choice.
So I appreciate Obama not scrapping our entire missile defense system in Poland but think he made a serious mistake in capitulating by not installing the radar/intelligence installations.

Baxter Greene on October 21, 2009 at 5:28 PM

But the White House didn’t “choose” that headline …

Here’s what Hillary said a day after the decision was made, and it jibes perfectly with what’s happening now …

From NBC’s Libby LeistSecretary of State Clinton defended President Obama’s decision on missile defense saying, “This decision was not about Russia it was about IRAN and the threat its ballistic missile program poses.” She said the change proposed by Obama will deploy missile defense sooner – a “stronger and smarter approach.” She made the comments during a speech at the Brookings Institution, previewing next week’s session of the U.N. General Assembly….

HondaV65 on October 21, 2009 at 5:45 PM

marybel on October 21, 2009 at 5:52 PM

There’s a lot of nuance to missile defense and it has many tentacles. One element is the shield over Europe, one element is the shield over the Continental U.S.

I have never defended Obama’s overall position on missile defense – his campaign statements on the subject were naive and irresponsible. Cutting the Airborne Laser is a big mistake I think.

But overhauling the Bush plan for intercept missiles in Poland and Czech may not be a bad plan. Especially if Gates is honestly backing it.

Gates said … outright – this new plan is better than the Bush plan. I believe in Gates. I don’t think he’d lie about that.

We need to ease up on this particular decision. It may have been a very smart decision.

It looks like we will have missiles on the ground in Europe now maybe three years sooner than we would have under the Bush plan.

Not that the Bush plan was flawed – but it was three years old – and technology advances an order of magnitude in that amount of time.

HondaV65 on October 21, 2009 at 6:01 PM