Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense

Program review 2011

At

Sea...o

n P

atr

ol!

“[We] assumed lead for the President’s Phased Adap-

tive Approach to the Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD)

of Europe and established the BMD Enterprise…and

selected the DDG-51 Flight III as our Integrated Air

and Missile Defense ship for the future…completed

20 of 24 successful demonstrations of operational

BMD capability.” Admiral Gary Roughead, U.S. Navy Chief of Naval Operations CNO Guidance for 2011: Executing the Maritime Strategy

TTwo events a quarter-century apart have converged.

In March1983, at the height of the Cold War, Presi-

dent Ronald Reagan challenged America and the

world. “What if free people could live secure in the

knowledge that their security did not rest upon threat

of instant U.S. retaliation to deter a Soviet attack,” he

asked, “but instead that we could intercept and destroy

strategic ballistic missiles before they reached our own

soil or that of our allies?”1 The President then set the

nation on a course to move from a strategy of mutual

assured destruction to a new framework for a robust

national ballistic missile defense system (BMDS) that

would help avert nuclear Armageddon.

In December of that year, the U.S. Navy commissioned

the Aegis guided missile cruiser USS Ticonderoga (CG-

47), the first of what by 2011 would grow to a global

fleet of Aegis warships. In the 1980s, Aegis cruisers

were only a tiny fraction of the 600-ship Navy, but

today they are the backbone of the U.S. Fleet, and sev-

eral world navies have also embraced the Aegis shield.

That said, when Tico entered service, only the most

visionary prophet could imagine that BMD-capable

Aegis warships would someday become the fulcrum of

the national BMDS envisioned by President Reagan.

Indeed, Aegis BMD has grown in prominence because

the strategic landscape has changed dramatically.

In September 2009, President Obama explained the

need to reinvigorate U.S. BMD strategy with a “new

approach” that would put the Aegis BMD system on

shore. “This new approach will provide capabilities

sooner,” he stated, “build on proven systems and of-

fer greater defenses against the threat of missile attack than the 2007 European missile defense program.”2

Both Presidents thus challenged America and the world to embark on new courses for national and global security.

Even with delivery of new capabilities like “Aegis Ashore,” ship-based BMD will remain an essential and proven core element of any defense against bal-listic missiles. The inherent flexibility and mobility of the ship-based solution provides a missile defense option political and military leaders can count on as integral elements of their defensive arsenals today and tomorrow.

As Aegis BMD continues to evolve, America’s ability to defend our allies and friends worldwide, as well as our forces at sea and ashore, against ballistic mis-siles will become even more robust than it is today. Aegis BMD has become a crucial element of the na-tion’s defense and a key to forming and sustaining global and regional maritime partnerships—the Ae-gis Global Enterprise—that can and will safeguard vital interests. Indeed, while the U.S. Navy’s Global Maritime Partnership has many components, the ability of this partnership to undergird global and regional naval cooperation has created a worldwide framework for defense and security in an increasingly dangerous world.

In 2011, Aegis BMD is at sea, on patrol, near the homeland as well as in areas far forward—the Shield of the Fleet and the nation…and U.S. friends and allies worldwide.

The Vision Realizedvision

Aeg

is B

allis

tic

Mis

sile

Def

ense

/ A

t S

ea..

.on

Pat

rol!

1

ch

an

ge

The first ten years of the 21st Century have seen profound change for the United States Navy, the na-tion, and the world. In September 2001, the U.S. homeland experienced its first attacks in more than 50 years—a tragedy that spawned two conflicts which have extracted an enormous cost in lives and na-tional treasure. We are engaged worldwide in a war with radical extremism, at the same time that the nation continues its drawdown in Iraq and surge of combat operations in Afghanistan. We are watchful of the rise of a “peer competitor” that looks intent on becoming a global superpower. These dynamics are complicated by the ambitions of regional pow-ers. It is little wonder that the National Intelligence Council predicts daunting change will accelerate and broaden:

The international systems—as constructed fol-lowing the Second World War—will be unrec-ognizable by 2025 owing to the rise of emerg-ing powers, a globalizing economy, an historic transfer of relative wealth and economic power from West to East, and the growing influence of nonstate actors. By 2025, the international system will be a global multipower one.3

Change has accelerated in the last few years for America and its Navy as a new Administration, a new National Security Strategy and the 2010 Quadren-nial Defense Review have called for a reordering of priorities and programs. The Navy, Marine Corps and Coast Guard have their first tri-service maritime strategy, and a new vision for countering irregu-lar challenges further shapes the Navy’s strategies, plans, programs and operations.4

The 2010 Ballistic Missile Defense Review (BMDR)5 likewise put in motion profound changes in the U.S. approach to deal with the most deadly threat to the American homeland, our forces forward, and our allies and coalition partners: ballistic missiles armed with weapons of mass destruction (WMD). Accord-ing to the 2010 BMDR:

The United States will continue to defend the homeland from limited ballistic missile

attack. These efforts are focused on protect-ing the homeland from a ballistic missile at-tack by a regional actor such as North Korea or Iran… The United States will defend U.S. deployed forces from regional missile threats while also protecting our allies and partners and enabling them to defend themselves…. The United States will seek to lead expand-ed international efforts for missile defense. It will work more closely with allies and part-ners to provide pragmatic and cost-effective capacity.6

The 2010 National Security Strategy further under-scored this need:

This Administration has no greater respon-sibility than the safety and security of the American people. And there is no greater threat to the American people then weapons of mass destruction, particularly the danger posed by the pursuit of nuclear weapons by violent extremists and their proliferation to additional states.7

The United States has now put in place a new approach to defeating this global threat. On Septem-ber 17, 2009, the President revealed a sea change in U.S. ballistic missile defense policy.8 He termi-nated the existing plan that would have placed dedicated ground-based interceptors and missile- defense radar sites in Poland and the Czech Repub-lic. In their stead, he announced a Phased Adaptive Approach (PAA) for a global sea-based missile- defense capability centered on the Navy’s Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense system fitted out in the Ticonderoga and Arleigh Burke (DDG-51) guided missile cruisers and destroyers. A land-based “Aegis Ashore” component would follow, providing enhanced BMD protection from both the sea and land.9 Important particularly for the near term, the most effective “leg” of the nation’s BMD capability was already at sea and on patrol when the President announced the new approach to missile defense.

The only ConsTanT is Change

Aeg

is B

allis

tic

Mis

sile

Def

ense

...A

t S

ea O

n P

atro

l

3

ad

ap

tab

ilit

y

The Phased Adaptive Approach (PAA) includes sev-eral variants of the Standard Missile-Three (SM-3) to thwart the preponderant short- to intermediate-range ballistic missile threat from rogue nations.10 The PAA for BMD in Europe will leverage several elements of the BMDS, including forward-deployed sensors as well as sea- and land-based variants of the SM-3 interceptor. Evolutionary upgrades to the SM-3 Standard Missile and sensors combined with improvements to command and control infrastruc-ture provide capability to the warfighter to perform an increasingly complex and critical regional and homeland-defense mission.

Aegis BMD contributions to the PAA for BMD in Europe are highlighted in each of the four phases:

Phase 1 (2011): Sea-based Aegis missile de-fense ships and radars will be deployed to defend against short- and medium-range bal-listic missiles in Southern Europe.

Phase 2 (2015), Phase 3 (2018) and Phase 4 (2020): Aegis SM-3 missiles will be upgraded to provide coverage against medium- and intermediate-range missiles, as well as inter-continental bal-listic missiles (ICBMs).

In 2011, the Phased Adaptive Approach will be im-plemented in Europe and will eventually be adapted for other regions, including the Middle East and East Asia. It will be tailored to the unique regional threats.

The President’s decision to deploy the European PAA accelerates fielding of proven technologies like the Aegis Weapon System and promises improved long-term protection of our NATO allies as well as the U.S. homeland.

The successful 20-year track record of the Aegis Weapon System contributed to the President’s con-fidence. The Navy commissioned the pioneer Aegis missile cruiser USS Ticonderoga in 1983. Ticonderoga’s impressive multi-mission warfighting capabilities cen-tered on the Aegis Weapon System—the AN/SPY-1 multi-function phased-array radar, the Aegis Combat System and sophisticated surface-to-air missiles—in ad-dition to highly capable anti-submarine, anti-surface, and land-attack weapons. In 1991, the follow-on Ar-leigh Burke-class destroyers provided complementary warfighting quantity and quality.

Although initially designed to protect Navy carrier battle and surface action groups from attacks in a

nuclear-war-at-sea environment, the Navy adapted the Aegis and Standard Missile systems to counter the emerging global ballistic missile threat. In 2011, the Aegis weapon system is again providing a revolu-tion in sea-based capabilities—to defend U.S. forces at sea and ashore, America’s friends and allies, and the American homeland against the proliferating threat of ballistic and cruise missiles, as well as un-manned aerial vehicles and aircraft. Coupled with other ground-, sea-, and air/space-based elements of the U.S. Ballistic Missile Defense System, Aegis BMD can already deter and defend against a growing global threat.

In early 2011, 21 Aegis multi-mission warships—five Ticonderoga-class missile cruisers and 16 missile de-stroyers of the Arleigh Burke class—were in service. Since 2004, Aegis BMD has been on station with six or more ships at sea at any given time, conducting routine, in-stride ballistic missile defense. Of the 21 ABMD warships, 16 are assigned to the Pacific Fleet and five to the Atlantic Fleet.11

Comprising the ship-based “leg” of the U.S. nation-al BMD forces, these ships deploy to the Mediter-ranean, the Arabian Gulf and the western Pacific, providing an “umbrella” of deterrence. The Navy plans to include BMD capabilities in all 22 Aegis cruisers and 65-plus destroyers, including new- construction DDGs. In the meantime, Navy inter-national programs are partnering with allied navies to energize coalition ballistic missile defense world-wide, and provide what the U.S. President described as “…stronger, smarter, and swifter defenses of American forces and America’s allies.”12

This initiative to harness the power of U.S. and coali-tion partner nations and navies offers game-changing possibilities. There is great incentive for allied and partner navies to take advantage of our nearly five decades of research and development, testing, and real-world operations. Interoperability among U.S. and allied navies is the key reason why several have already embraced the Aegis solution -- recognizing the manifest benefits of the Aegis weapons system.

Aegis BMD is proven, ready and deployed around the world. This reality enabled the President to make his PAA decision with assurance. Moreover, this new approach will provide capabilities sooner, build on successful systems and offer greater defenses than the 2007 European missile defense program. The Aegis BMD/SM-3 weapon system enables the Navy to immediately step up to this challenge.

Phased adaPTabiliTy

Aeg

is B

allis

tic

Mis

sile

Def

ense

...A

t S

ea O

n P

atro

l

5

thre

ats

The September 11, 2001 attacks on the United States killed more than 3,000 Americans. Moreover, they provided a stark warning that both states and other actors had the desire and the means to strike the American homeland. Today, a growing number of potential adversaries possessing ballistic missiles armed with chemical, biological, radiological, nu-clear, and high yield explosive (CBRNE) weapons of mass destruction present an urgent security is-sue for the United States and its allies. Indeed, the National Defense University’s Institute for National Security Studies report, Global Strategic Assessment 2009: America’s Security Role in a Changing World, notes: “Our worst fears regarding the proliferation and use of weapons of mass destruction have not been realized to date, but important trends bearing on nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons have made it increasingly possible they will be.”13

While Global Strategic Assessment 2009 addressed the need to deal with the threat of weapons of mass de-struction as one security threat among a range of others, the threat of WMD delivered by ballistic missiles was so compelling that the following year National Defense University’s Center for Technol-ogy and National Security Policy commissioned Dr. Jacques Gansler, former Undersecretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics to con-duct a comprehensive evaluation of the cost-benefit tradeoff of a ballistic missile defense. According to the Gansler report, Ballistic Missile Defense: Past and Future:

As demonstrated by the attacks on New York and Washington on September 11, 2001, there are those in some parts of the world who are not deterred by the threat of invasion or even nuclear retaliation (including some rulers of so-called rogue states). A national missile defense system could provide a shield from destruction in the event of a threatened or ac-tual launch by a rogue state leader or a power-ful transnational terrorist group as well as an unintentional launch by Russia or China.

A limited system should be deployed because of its deterrent value and the possibility of saving so many American lives, but R&DE

and testing should be continued to enhance its capability against evolving threats, and de-ployment should be done in connection with international agreements and controls related to new, national strategic posture, based on both offense and defense systems, as well as tightened proliferation controls.14

Throughout the past decade, numerous assess-ments have echoed the threats and trends out-lined in the Ballistic Missile Defense: Past and Future report. For example, a June 2002 report issued by the National Defense Univer-sity’s Center for Technology and National Security Policy, Toward Missile Defenses from the Sea, sum-marized the challenges to and opportunities of Navy BMD:

During the past several years, national intelligence estimates have indicated a growing missile threat from North Korea, Iran, and Iraq that will continue to in-crease throughout this decade…. Developments of the past 18 months have created new possibilities for seabasing of national defenses against inter-continental ballistic missiles…. Using missile interceptors based at sea to defend the United States against ICBMs offers several advantag-es, the most important of which are flexibility and control.15

Four years later, then-Missile Defense Agency Di-rector, U.S. Air Force Lieutenant General Henry “Trey” Obering stated,” I have a lot of confidence in the ability of the sea-based system to be able to execute an operational mission.”16

These themes were reinforced by then-Program Di-rector, Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense, Rear Admiral Alan B. Hicks. For example, his 2007 Naval Insti-tute Proceedings article framed the current and future BMD/WMD threat:

Today, the United States faces a greater dan-ger from an expanding number of hostile

global ThReaTs

Aeg

is B

allis

tic

Mis

sile

Def

ense

...A

t S

ea O

n P

atro

l

7

thre

ats

regimes and terrorist groups that seek to ac-quire and use ballistic missiles and weapons of mass destruction (WMDs). These adversar-ies may not respond to traditional tools and concepts of deterrence.17

And, the next year Rear Admiral Hicks provided ad-ditional insight into the emerging threat from bal-listic missiles armed with WMD:

These threats range from terrorism to ballis-tic missiles tipped with WMD, intended to intimidate the United States by holding it, its friends, and its allies hostage. Not only are forward deployed forces at risk from ballistic missiles, but also the U.S. homeland is within range of these threats, which continue to grow in number, range, and complexity.18

The security of the U.S. homeland, deployed U.S. military forces, and allies is increasingly threatened by the proliferation of sophisticated ballistic mis-sile systems. By early 2011, according to Admiral Roughead, some 30 countries had deployed ballistic missiles, compared to only nine countries in 1972, 16 in 1990 and 25 in 2006: “So that’s a nation ev-ery three years that’s acquiring ballistic missile capa-bility.”19 While many of these are allied or friendly nations, some critical technologies have been trans-ferred—legally or illegally—to other countries or even sub-national groups that seek to harm the United States and its partners. Potential enemies such as China and Iran possess ballistic missiles and weap-ons of mass destruction, and today’s rogue leaders view WMD as weapons of choice, not of last resort.

China’s missiles hedge against a “Taiwan contin-gency,” while simultaneously undergirding its anti-access/area denial (A2/AD) efforts in the Asia Pa-cific region. One notable effort in this regard is the development of the world’s first anti-ship “carrier killer” ballistic missile, the DF-21D. Patrick Cronin, senior director of the Asia Program at the Center for a New American Security, wrote that “the missile can be fired from protected land-based bastions far

away, travels at high speed, and provides mid-course correction and a maneuverable reentry vehicle with great precision and lethality…The DF-21D is the ul-timate carrier-killer missile.”20 Moreover, Admiral Robert Willard, Commander of U.S. Pacific Com-mand, in August 2010 warned that the DF-21D was “close to being operational.”21

Given U.S. strategic interests in the Middle East, Iran’s missile development is perhaps even more troubling; the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency in June 2010 warned that it could be a mere two years before Iran is able to threaten other states with nuclear warheads mounted on ballistic missiles,22 and the Defense Intelligence Agency has reported that Iran could field an intercontinental ballistic missile capable of reaching the East Coast of the United States by 2015.23 Iranian ballistic mis-sile firings have accelerated, with several mid-range ballistic missiles launched during the past several years.24 Coupled with the determination to acquire WMD, Iran’s missiles pose grave threats to U.S. in-terests and America’s Middle Eastern, South Asian, and European allies.

Clearly, this capability and intent from Iran and oth-er potentially hostile nations, as well as sub-national groups, that obtain ballistic missiles carrying WMD, will hold U.S. forces overseas and our allies in jeop-ardy. “In the future, U.S. forces conducting power projection operations abroad will face myriad chal-lenges,” the 2010 Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) explained:

States with the means to do so are acquiring a wide range of sophisticated weapons and supporting capabilities that, in combination, can support anti-access strategies aimed at im-peding the deployment of U.S. forces to the theater and blunting the operations of those forces that do deploy forward. North Korea and Iran, as part of their defiance of interna-tional norms, are actively testing and fielding new ballistic missile systems.

Aeg

is B

allis

tic

Mis

sile

Def

ense

...A

t S

ea O

n P

atro

l

9

Global Threats (continued)

fram

ew

ork

In 2011, the United States has fielded an initial na-tional-level BMDS capability, with all aspects of the integrated system—land, sea, air and space—linked together to provide the best possible defense. The Navy’s contribution to BMDS, built around the Aegis Weapon System, has grown in importance based on its proven performance as well as its long-term potential. Aegis BMD complements and integrates seamlessly with other elements of the national BMDS.

The first priority of the BMDS implementation strategy—establishing a limited defensive capability against North Korean ballistic missiles—has largely been achieved with Patriot Advanced Capability-3 (PAC-3) batteries, the Ground-based Mid-course De-fense (GMD) System, the Forward-Deployed AN/TPY-2 Radar, and Aegis BMD long-range search, cue-ing, and engagement ships. The Aegis BMD system is integrated with Fleet and Joint Force war-fighting standards, and the BMDS Command, Control, Bat-tle Management and Communications (C2BMC) elements. Aegis BMD easily interoperates with other in-theater assets, including the Terminal High-Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) system, as well as other ground- air- and space-based sensors.

Aegis BMD has the ability to operate independently to defeat ballistic missiles, but also to function as an integral node in the overall, integrated national BMDS. Perhaps most critically, Aegis BMD main-tains this capability while also being able to carry out other vital general-purpose naval warfare mis-sions and tasks—from humanitarian assistance and counter-piracy operations to naval gunfire support of forces ashore. This in turn allows Aegis BMD to demonstrate the Department of Defense and the Navy’s commitment to network-centric operations using existing mobile and flexible multi-mission systems fully enabled by adaptable networks.

Support for Aegis BMD is growing outside the Navy and the Department of Defense. In 2009 the Inde-pendent Working Group on Missile Defense, the Space Relationship & the Twenty-First Century strongly recom-mended limiting fixed ground-based missile defense deployments based on GMD in favor of expanding

theater/regional defenses centered on sea-based mis-sile defense deployments (along with Aegis Ashore, Land-Based SM-3 and THAAD radars), recommend-ing, in particular: “Equip additional U.S. vessels with the Aegis anti-missile system. Encourage U.S. allies equipped with Aegis/SM to do the same.”25

The President leveraged the half-century of pro-gressive Aegis system and Standard Missile de-velopment to play an important role in defend-ing Europe as well as providing a proven and mobile capability for regional defense world-wide It is the precursor to a fundamental shift in the nation’s BMD policy from a predominantly land-and-space-based system to a predominantly sea- based system that is further enabled by space and airborne sensors.

Each success of the Aegis BMD test program under-scores the potential of Navy BMD to defend against short- mid- and long-range ballistic missiles. In 2011, Navy BMD is the only certified, operationally effec-tive, and suitable system to defend against theater and regional ballistic missile attack. This was possi-ble only because of the Navy’s commitment to make BMD a core mission for all Aegis ships and the con-tinued growth in capability and capacity these ships deliver—with in-service warships receiving extensive modernizations and upgrades to stay ahead of the threat and extend service lives. This vital capability has been delivered at only 10 percent of the total national BMD budgets.

The Navy will continue to align efforts to better sup-port BMD as a core Navy capability and it is virtu-ally certain that Integrated Air and Missile Defense (IAMD) will gain more prominence as a core mis-sion of the U.S. Navy and one of the key enabling capabilities that the Navy provides the joint force. To support this shifting mission set, the Navy’s “Bal-listic Missile Defense Enterprise” and Navy Air and Missile Defense Command (NAMDC) will contin-ue to bring together the technology, concepts and programs for air and missile defense, ensuring that Aegis BMD remains the shield of the Navy, the Nation, and increasingly, our friends and allies.

sTRaTegiC FRamewoRk FoR aegis bmd

Aeg

is B

allis

tic

Mis

sile

Def

ense

...A

t S

ea O

n P

atro

l

11

ele

me

nts

The U.S. Navy’s strong commitment to a national BMDS is articulated in the 2007 tri-service A Cooper-ative Strategy for 21st Century Seapower, which explains, “Maritime ballistic missile defense will enhance de-terrence by providing an umbrella of protection to forward-deployed forces and friends and allies, while contributing to the larger architecture for defense of the United States.”26 Emphasizing the Navy’s intent to push this defensive capability forward, the 2007 strategy also states, “Maritime forces will defend the homeland by identifying and neutralizing threats as far from our shores as possible.”

Ship-based Aegis BMD’s inherent mobility, persis-tent forward presence, readiness, ability to operate in international waters and conduct simultaneous multi-warfare operations—including long-range strike and scalability to match the need—are key at-tributes brought to any future military operation. Aegis BMD can reposition in response to a crisis, cover undefended flanks, thicken defenses of key areas and regions, and add firepower. The ability of these naval forces to use the vast world’s oceans for strategic and tactical movement, combined with the increasing stealth and self-defense capabilities of U.S. warships, as well as their increasing ability to fully exploit the “global space commons” for addi-tional capability, allows commanders to maintain a persistent, scalable and visible naval presence any-where in the world with low risk.

The multi-mission capability of Aegis missile cruisers and destroyers enables them to defend themselves, other forces in the region, and assets ashore. With organic logistics support, the Navy can sustain these ships on forward-deployment station for extended periods. Aegis warships can also conduct other criti-cal missions while tasked as ballistic missile defense assets—from humanitarian relief to launching long-range, precision strikes with Tomahawk land-attack cruise missiles. No additional personnel or assets are needed for these full-spectrum operations.

This was underscored by the 2010 QDR, which noted, “U.S. naval forces likewise will continue to be capable of robust forward presence and power projection operations, even as they add capabilities and capacity for working with a wide range of part-ner navies. The rapid growth in sea- and land-based ballistic missile defense capabilities will help meet the needs of combatant commanders and allies in several regions.”27

The Aegis weapon system’s adaptability has enabled the Navy to add improved hardware and software in successive Aegis spiral upgrades through a coordi-nated, disciplined and aggressive approach. The Aegis weapon sys-tem in 2011 consists of four major components: (1) the AN/SPY-1 ra-dar system; (2) the Aegis Combat System; (3) the Mk 41 VLS; and (4) Standard surface-to-air missiles. Ae-gis BMD leverages and builds upon capabilities inherent in the Aegis Weapon System and ballistic missile command, con-trol, communications, computers, intelligence, and reconnaissance systems seamlessly integrated with other ship systems.

The Aegis legacy of building, testing, and learning was the primary reason that Aegis BMD was the first element of the national BMDS to complete the en-tire MDA test process. This operationally realistic testing and capability development has enabled Ae-gis BMD to be the pacing element of the national BMDS. By closely coordinating testing with devel-opment and acquisition, the Navy will continue to deliver upgraded capabilities and capacities to Aegis BMD ships.

U.s. shiP-based bmd elemenTs

Aeg

is B

allis

tic

Mis

sile

Def

ense

...A

t S

ea O

n P

atro

l

13

1939

NAVY’SRESPONSE

EVOLVINGTHREAT

World War II: European Theater

End ofWorld War II

VT Fuze

ProjectBumblebee

initiated

TALOS & Radar

ProjectTyphoon

Withington Study defines Advanced Surface Missile

concept

Aegis Weapons Systems

Engineering development

begins

USS Ticonderoga commissioned

USS Arleigh Burke

commissioned

Guns & Radar

Kamikazeeattackson ships

V-2 attackson cities

USSR orbitsSputnik I

USS Starkstruck by

Iraqi Exocet

PresidentReagan

announcesStrategic DefenseInitiative

First U.S.BMD patrol

SM/LEAPdemonstration

First SM-3intercept

North KoreanTaepo Dong

overflies Japan

Beginningof Cold War

First USSRoperational

ICBMdeployment

Anti-BallisticMissileTreatysigned

Firstintercept ofseparating

target

Israel tests Arrow Missile

Aegis BMDtransitions

to theU.S. Navy

Iranian GreatProphet II exercise

Tests: Three Shots...

Three Hits

North Korea launches

Unha-2 rocket

U.S. withdrawsfrom ABM Treaty

Anti-ship cruise missile

Exocet

1941 1942 19451958

1960

1964

1969

1983

19911992

20022004 2005 2008

1944 1945 19461957

1959

1965

19721983

19871998

20022006 2009

2010

Aegis BMD…success from building and testing over time.

1939

NAVY’SRESPONSE

EVOLVINGTHREAT

World War II: European Theater

End ofWorld War II

VT Fuze

ProjectBumblebee

initiated

TALOS & Radar

ProjectTyphoon

Withington Study defines Advanced Surface Missile

concept

Aegis Weapons Systems

Engineering development

begins

USS Ticonderoga commissioned

USS Arleigh Burke

commissioned

Guns & Radar

Kamikazeeattackson ships

V-2 attackson cities

USSR orbitsSputnik I

USS Starkstruck by

Iraqi Exocet

PresidentReagan

announcesStrategic DefenseInitiative

First U.S.BMD patrol

SM/LEAPdemonstration

First SM-3intercept

North KoreanTaepo Dong

overflies Japan

Beginningof Cold War

First USSRoperational

ICBMdeployment

Anti-BallisticMissileTreatysigned

Firstintercept ofseparating

target

Israel tests Arrow Missile

Aegis BMDtransitions

to theU.S. Navy

Iranian GreatProphet II exercise

Tests: Three Shots...

Three Hits

North Korea launches

Unha-2 rocket

U.S. withdrawsfrom ABM Treaty

Anti-ship cruise missile

Exocet

1941 1942 19451958

1960

1964

1969

1983

19911992

20022004 2005 2008

1944 1945 19461957

1959

1965

19721983

19871998

20022006 2009

2010

“To put it simply, our new missile defense architecture in Europe will provide stronger, smarter, and swifter defenses of American forces and America’s allies. It is more comprehensive than the previous program; it deploys capabilities that are proven and cost-effective; and it sustains and builds upon our commitment to protect the U.S. homeland against long-range ballistic missile threats; and it ensures and enhances the protection of all our NATO allies.” President Barak Obama

17 September 2009

revo

luti

on

Beginning in the early 1960s, when Aegis was first conceived, and throughout nearly two decades of de-velopment that led to the commissioning of the first Aegis cruiser in 1983, Navy planners and engineers structured the Aegis system with the potential to take on future naval missions. Under the stewardship of visionary program managers, most notably the late Rear Admiral Wayne E. Meyer, widely regarded as the “Father of Aegis,” the system had an overarching imperative to “build-a-little…test-a-little…learn-a-lot” as the prudent way to insert revolutionary capabili-ties into the Fleet in an evolutionary manner.

As Admiral John C. Harvey, Commander Fleet Forces Command, explained in September 2010, what made the Aegis Program so successful was “a single-minded dedication to the pursuit of technical excellence.”28

As new threats emerged, the Navy’s leadership learned that an Aegis system designed originally to protect U.S. Navy carrier strike groups from waves of attacking Soviet aircraft and cruise missiles in a nuclear environment also had the potential—with a disciplined process of sensor, weapon, and systems upgrades—to be the key component of an integrated national BMDS.29 Aegis BMD offers a significant re-turn on investment by taking advantage of its more than $80 billion of investment in the sensors, weap-ons, command-and-control systems, ships, people and facilities that comprise the Aegis weapon sys-tem.

Aegis BMD capability is developed and delivered in two-year “block upgrades” providing increased capa-bilities at every step. The Aegis BMD Block 2004 delivered the first Aegis BMD Long-Range Search and Track (LRS&T) system certified for tactical de-ployment. The Aegis BMD Block 2006 focused pri-marily on improved prototype radar discrimination. And, the Aegis BMD Block 2008 further developed Aegis BMD to provide fully integrated advanced ra-dar discrimination. The 2010 configuration of Aegis BMD—the Aegis 3.6 weapon system—includes the Ae-gis BMD weapons system teamed with the advanced RIM-161 SM-3 Block 1A missile. This configuration

provides two primary warfighting capabilities to the national BMDS.

The first capability is for “hit-to-kill” target engage-ment and destruction. Aegis cruisers and LRS&T-fitted destroyers are equipped with the capability to engage short- to intermediate-range ballistic missiles in the midcourse phase of flight with the SM-3 Block 1A missile, as well as counter enemy aircraft and cruise missiles. LRS&T provides the U.S. national BMDS with its first mobile, global, and deployable capability that can destroy ballistic missiles both above and within the atmosphere—something that cannot be delivered by any other system.

This crucial capability grew out of Navy Standard Missile testing beginning with the Terrier/LEAP (Lightweight Exo-Atmospheric Pro-jective) demonstration project in 1993. This included assessing the capabilities of the LEAP Kinetic Kill Vehicle (KKV), continuing with the USN Theater Wide/Aegis LEAP Intercept (ALI) program in the late 1990s, and culminating in Standard Mis-sile improvements to the LEAP KKV, which then evolved into a Navy Standard Missile with a Kinetic Warhead (KW). This hit-to-kill engagement capabil-ity was rigorously engineered, successfully tested at sea, improved, and deployed in Aegis cruisers and destroyers.

Looking to the future, key upgrades include:

Tracking Improvements: The Aegis BMD signal processor improves system signal and data processing capability that results in more precise target infor-mation that supports real-time identification of the warheads and decoys. Two-color sensor technology in the SM-3 seeker provides the capability to sense infrared images in two wavebands and improves the ability to sort out small hot objects from larger hot objects. This upgraded seeker also improves detec-tion range. These upgrades to the SM-3 are sched-

“bUild-a-liTTle” ReVolUTion

Aeg

is B

allis

tic

Mis

sile

Def

ense

...A

t S

ea O

n P

atro

l

17

revo

luti

on

uled for deployment in 2011. The combination of the improved radar tracking and resolution provided by the BMD Signal Processor and the two-color seek-er will help to retain Aegis BMD’s high kill probabil-ity against advanced threats.30

Longer-range Threat Set Capability: Longer-range, multi-stage ballistic missiles challenge the capabili-ties of stand-alone defensive systems. One way to successfully reach and intercept missiles with long range and high speed and at the altitudes that these missiles fly is to give the SM-3 a head start by firing the missile based on off-board sensor information or completing the engagement entirely with off-board track information. The capability to fire the SM-3 on off-board sensor information is available today, as the 2010 BMDR noted:

DoD will also continue to improve the SM-3 interceptor missile defense capability. By 2015 a more capable SM-3 missile, the Block IB, will be available. It will have an improved seeker capability for greater on-board discrimination and greater area coverage. This interceptor will be deployed both at sea and on land, with the “Aegis Ashore” system. Developing the technology to launch an SM-3 interceptor in response to remote sensor data will also in-crease the coverage area. Once this capability is fully developed, the interceptors—no longer constrained by the range of the Aegis radar to detect an incoming missile—will be able to be launched sooner and therefore fly further in order to defeat the incoming threat.

Terminal Capability: One of the most challenging areas of ballistic missile defense is intercepting these missiles or reentry vehicles during their terminal phase of flight, when speeds are high and timelines are short. A high-priority program for the MDA and Aegis BMD is the development, integration, and testing of a near-term Sea-Based Terminal (SBT) ca-pability. This capability was tested and ready for de-ployment in 2009, just two years after program start. Aegis BMD’s near-term Sea-Based Terminal capabil-ity joins the U.S. PAC-3 and Israeli Arrow System in the terminal defense end game.

Standard Missile Improvements: The SM-3 Block IB is the next sea-based missile spiral upgrade. The seeker, signal processor, and propulsion system of the SM-3 Block IB missile kinetic warhead are im-proved versions of the Block IA missile and will result in increased missile effectiveness over longer-range and more sophisticated ballistic missiles, in-cluding an improved capability to identify closely spaced objects and better probability of kill. Engi-neering upgrades have undergone laboratory and ground tests, and flight-testing of the SM-3 Block IB missile occurred in 2010, and fleet deployment could begin as early 2011.

The next step in the evolutionary development of the Standard Missile is the longer-range SM-3 Block IIA missile being co-developed with Japan. This up-grade increases the range and velocity of the missile, providing additional reach, firepower, performance, and operational flexibility. The capabilities of the SM-3 Block IIA missile, coupled with enhanced sen-sor performance, will enable Aegis BMD to engage more hostile ballistic missiles and with a greater probability of kill. On June 23, 2006, Japan and the United States signed an agreement to transition the research of the Joint Cooperative Research Project to the SM-3 Cooperative Development (SCD) Pro-gram to develop jointly the SM-3 Block IIA missile. The SCD Program focuses on a 21-inch diameter variant of the SM-3 missile that can be launched from the existing MK 41 VLS. Initial flight testing of the SM-3 IIA will be in 2014 with a first intercept test in 2015.

Software Improvements to Transition to Open Architecture: The Navy recently demonstrated a software upgrade—Aegis BMD 4.0.1—that marks the transition to the Navy’s open architecture, a transi-tion that will be complete with software upgrades known as Advanced Capability Build 12, scheduled for completion in 2012. This next-generation signal processing capability greatly improves Aegis BMD performance against expanding enemy threats and will enable Aegis BMD to remain well ahead of the emerging threat, while ensuring Aegis BMD takes full advantage of the Navy’s move to a services-ori-ented architecture standard for all its ships.

Aeg

is B

allis

tic

Mis

sile

Def

ense

...A

t S

ea O

n P

atro

l

19

“Build-a-Little” Revolution (continued)

exce

lle

nce

Aegis BMD has undergone a comprehensive test program involving 25 at-sea live-firings between Jan-uary 2002 and the end of 2010. These tests have be-come progressively more operationally challenging throughout the course of the test program. Since

the first Aegis BMD intercept test, the Navy’s ele-ment of the overall U.S. BMDS has enjoyed unprec-edented success: 21 intercepts out of 25 at-sea tests, including dual intercepts by two interceptors during one test event.31

aegis Ballistic missile Defense Tests

TeST DaTe TargeT TyPe aegiS ShiP hiT MiSS

January 2002 TTV – Unitary (SCUD) Lake Erie XJune 2002 TTV – Unitary (SCUD) Lake Erie XNovember 2002 TTV – Unitary (SCUD) Lake Erie XJune 2003 TTV – Unitary (SCUD) Lake Erie XDecember 2003 TTV – Unitary MRBM Lake Erie XFebruary 2005 TTV – Unitary SRBM Lake Erie XNovember 2005 MRT – Separating Lake Erie XMay 2006* Unitary (SCUD) Lake Erie XJune 2006 MRT – Separating Shiloh XDecember 2006 TTV – Unitary Lake Erie No fire.April 2007 ARAV-A Unitary SRBM Lake Erie XJune 2007 MRT Separating Decatur XNovember 2007 Two ARAV-A SRBMs Lake Erie XXDecember 2007 MRT Separating Kongo (Japan) XJune 2008* Unitary (SCUD) Lake Erie XNovember 2008 Two ARAV-A SRBMs Paul Hamilton X Hopper XNovember 2008 MRT- Separating Chokai (Japan) XMarch 2009 SRBM Benfold XJuly 2009 Unitary ARAV-A SRBM Hopper XOctober 2009 Separating MRT Myoko (Japan) XOctober 2010 Separating MRT Kirishima (Japan) X *Standard Missile SM-2; all others SM-3 missiles.

TTV = Target Test Vehicle; ARAV = Terrier Oriole Target; MRT = Medium Range Target; FM/FTM = Flight Test Standard Missile; MRBM = Medium-Range Ballistic Missile; SRBM = Short-Range Ballistic Missile; Unitary Target = warhead remains attached to booster rocket (SCUD-type technology); Separating Target = warhead separates from booster rocket (North Korean No-Dong-type technology).

Source: Fact Sheet Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense Testing; Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense, Missile Defense Agency, at http://www.mda.mil/system/aegis_bmd.html. Accessed 3 December 2010.

TesTs ConFiRm aegis bmd exCellenCe

Aeg

is B

allis

tic

Mis

sile

Def

ense

...A

t S

ea O

n P

atro

l

21

exce

lle

nce

In an August 2009 briefing at the George C. Marshall Institute, Rear Admiral Hicks, then-Program Direc-tor, Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense, underscored the rigor and success of this extensive testing program: “The tests executed a high degree of operational re-alism and testing rigor…. The Aegis BMD system is operationally effective and operationally suitable.”

During the past several years, other real-world events have underscored the value that Aegis BMD brings to the nation’s defenses. For example, when the Curtis Wilbur (DDG 54) deployed to the Sea of Ja-pan on the world’s first BMD patrol, few envisioned Aegis BMD would demonstrate real-world value so soon. Ten months later, on July 4 and 5, 2006, North Korea launched seven ballistic missiles, including a long-range Taepo Dong-2 missile. Operating in con-junction with other elements of the national BMD System, the LRS&T-equipped Curtis Wilbur provid-ed early warning and tracking of these launches. In testimony before the House Armed Services Com-mittee, the Commander, U.S. Strategic Command noted, “The United States demonstrated a credible operational missile defense capability for homeland defense.” The Missile Defense Agency director later added, “For the first time in U.S. history, we had the capability to defend ourselves from a long-range ballistic missile attack.”

Additionally, the 2007, 2008, 2009 and 2010 tests involving Japanese Maritime Self-Defense Force guided missile destroyers demonstrated the promise of a broad-based coalition enterprise that will link several navies’ Aegis capabilities to address shared operational requirements. This is crucial for Eu-ropean Aegis BMD, as several European navies are procuring the Aegis weapon systems, presaging po-tential partnering opportunities for mutual self-de-fense and greatly enhanced interoperability.

Aegis – 1 / sAtellite – 0In Operation Burnt Frost, the United States had to go where no defensive missile system had gone before. In late 2007, the Department of Defense predicted that an inactive 5,000-pound U.S. recon-naissance satellite with hazardous fuel compounds on board would reenter the Earth’s atmosphere in a matter of weeks, posing risk of injury, death or property destruction. The President directed the U.S. Strategic Command to develop a course of action to destroy the satellite at an altitude where it would pose no hazard to population centers and other satellites in earth orbit but without generat-ing hazardous space debris.

The technical and operational challenges were sig-nificant. The school bus-size satellite was to be engaged higher and at a faster speed than any tar-get engaged during years of testing the national BMDS and Aegis BMD systems, and the satellite’s hydrazine tank—the target’s aim point—was only a fraction of the overall mass of the satellite. Be-cause of the higher closing velocities due to the satellite’s speed of greater than 17,000 miles per hour, a successful intercept would require longer radar and missile-seeker ranges, extended missile flight time and greater guidance accuracy. The Navy’s BMD warships were the assets of choice—the only assets capable of destroying the satellite, reliably and efficiently.

Three Aegis warships—the USS Lake Erie (CG-70), Russell (DDG-59) and Decatur (DDG-73)—were tasked to participate in the satellite shoot-down, with Lake Erie designated as the principal firing ship. Following extensive materiel, electronic and training preparations (including critical, one-time modifications to the SM-3 missiles), on February 20, 2008, Lake Erie launched a single SM-3 mis-sile, which intercepted the satellite at an altitude higher than 150 miles and a closing speed greater than 22,000 miles per hour. The results were spec-tacular. The errant satellite’s fuel tank detonated in a brilliant flash, destroying the satellite without danger of space debris.

Aeg

is B

allis

tic

Mis

sile

Def

ense

...A

t S

ea O

n P

atro

l

23

Tests Confirm Aegis Bmd Excellence (continued)

glo

bal

The engagement of allied navies in the Aegis pro-gram—Japan, Spain, Norway, Australia and Korea—has laid the foundation for an Aegis global enter-prise. The global effort began with a foreign military sales relationship with Japan, and has evolved to in-clude a commercial relationship in Spain, a blended enterprise between the major Spanish shipyard and Lockheed Martin in Norway and an expanded rela-tionship with Australia and Korea. The evolution of the Aegis system to an open architecture has ac-companied the global migration of engagement in the Aegis effort. For example, the Australian MOD became interested in using the Aegis architecture to connect other maritime assets into an integrated ar-chitecture as well.

The foundation for a global maritime security ar-chitecture has emerged with the construction and operation of allied Aegis warships. The Japanese Maritime Self-Defense Force (JMSDF) has the Aegis system on the Kongo-class destroyers and Atago-class destroyers. The Spanish Navy has the Aegis system aboard the F-100 frigates. And the Spanish success has migrated to the Norwegian and Australian na-vies, where Spanish shipbuilders have combined with U.S. weapons integrators to put Aegis aboard the Norwegian F-310 frigates and the Australian Navy Hobart-class destroyers. South Korea has an-nounced plans to build six 5,600-ton KDX-IIIA Ae-gis-equipped destroyers beginning in 2019, to com-plement the three Sejon-Daewan KDX-III destroyers that will be in service by 2012.

Other navies have participated directly in the U.S. flight test maritime (FTM) program. For example, the Japanese MSDF Kirishima was the first foreign warship to participate, in FTM-10 (2004), and in Oc-tober 2010 the warship successfully engaged a target ballistic missile. The LCF Tromp (F 803) was the first European participant in the test program, with the ship’s modified SMART-L systems tracking the bal-listic missile target in FTM-11. The Spanish navy’s Mendez Nunez (F 104), outfitted with a BMD soft-ware modification, tracked a ballistic missile target in FTM-12. And, the following ships actually launched SM-3 missiles at medium-range, separating-warhead targets with good results:

• Kongo (JMSDF), December 2007, hit • Chokai (JMSDF), November 2008, miss, no ship

error, failure in KV end game• Myoko (JMSDF), October 2009, hit• Kirishima (JMSDF), October 2010, hit

These tests demonstrated the promise of a broad-based coalition enterprise that will link several na-

vies’ Aegis capabilities to address shared operational requirements. The success of the jointly developed Japanese–U.S. SM-3 Block 2A missile has led the U.S. Department of Defense to initiate talks with Japan aimed at urging Japan to relax its decades-long arms embargo and export the SM-3 Block 2A to oth-er nations such as U.S. European allies.32

As the 2010 Ballistic Missile Defense Review acknowl-edged, “Other allies already own or are working with the United States to acquire specific capabilities, such as naval vessels equipped with the Aegis defen-sive system that could be adapted to include a mis-sile defense capability…. A primary U.S. emphasis is on ensuring appropriate burden sharing. The Administration rec-ognizes that allies do not view the specifics of the missile threat in the same way, and do not have equal resources to apply to this problem, but there is general recognition of a growing threat and the need to take steps now to address both existing threats and emerging ones.”33 The success of Aegis BMD afloat and the promise of Aegis Ashore have also garnered interest from a wide range of non-traditional partners, such as India.34

At the end of the day, sovereign interdependence and interoperability will remain core attributes of the Aegis global enterprise. The Aegis BMD system is already well integrated and interoperable with other U.S. assets and will eventually be held to this same standard with regard to coalition operations. NATO’s Active Layered Theatre Ballistic Missile Defense (ALTBMD) program has conducted tests demonstrating Shared Situational Awareness with the U.S. C2BMC system, with the ultimate goal of true C2 interoperability. The 28 NATO allies are expected to soon decide whether to connect the European allies’ short- and medium-range theatre missile defense systems via NATO to the U.S. long-range missile defense system. The high level of com-mitment to international partnership from both the United States and its allies will encourage successful interoperability initiatives. This interoperability will, in turn, ensure the success of the U.S.’ Phased Adap-tive Approach to ballistic missile defense. Globally, in early 2011, the Aegis weapon system was deployed on 88 ships, with another 18 Aegis warships under construction or planned.

aegis global enTeRPRise

Aeg

is B

allis

tic

Mis

sile

Def

ense

...A

t S

ea O

n P

atro

l

25

ah

ead

The U.S. Navy will continue to populate its cur-rent Aegis fleet with BMD via modernization and upgrades, as well as in new-construction destroyers. Plans call for the Navy to increase the number of Aegis BMD-capable ships from the 21 in early 2011, to 27 by 2012, and as many as 32 ships by 2013, as well as Aegis Ashore.35

As part of the President’s September 2009 decision, the United States will deploy SM-3 interceptors using the sea-based Aegis BMD system, and then deploy improved SM-3s in 2015 on both ships and land.36 Rather than the ten ground-based interceptors origi-nally envisioned in Poland, “Aegis Ashore” looks to deploy 40 to 50 SM-3 missiles on land, with more on board Navy BMD ships operating in nearby waters. More advanced SM-3 versions will be deployed in 2018 and yet another generation in 2020, the lat-ter based on the U.S./Japan cooperatively developed SM-3 Block IIA, which promises significantly more capability to counter intercontinental ballistic mis-siles. Indeed, the new approach in Europe will also rely on a distributed network of sensors and proven SM-3 interceptors that can be fired from Aegis war-ships and land. This will ensure greater geographic flexibility, greater survivability and greater scalability in response to an evolving threat.

Moreover, as one indication of how the Administra-tion might “fast track” Aegis Ashore, in August 2010 the Missile Defense Agency announced plans to build an Aegis Ashore test site at the Pacific Missile Range Facility in Barking Sands, Kauai, Hawaii.37

Even with delivery of the innovative Aegis Ashore, sea-based BMD will remain a core element of any defense against ballistic missiles.38 The inherent flexibility and mobility of Navy BMD assets provides a missile-defense option Combatant Commanders count on as part of their defensive arsenal. Indeed, surging Aegis BMD has become standard operating procedure in any crisis where defense against ballis-tic missiles is needed.39

The decision to truncate the Zumwalt (DDG-1000) program at three ships and the concomitant decision to continue the Aegis destroyer program beyond the numbers originally envisioned underscores the im-portance of Aegis BMD for the Navy and the nation. Indeed, the Chief of Naval Operations has stated that BMD is a fundamental mission of the service.

Further, recognizing the likely growth in importance of Aegis BMD, the Navy has proposed a 20-year, $10 billion program to upgrade and modernize the 2011 fleet of 84 Aegis cruisers and destroyers—ensuring that these ships reach service lives of 35 years, if not 40, which would be unprecedented for U.S. surface combatants. These “Aegis Mod upgrades,” coupled with other BMD enhancements, will be the founda-tion for mission success for decades to come. The broad scope of these upgrades is testimony to the long-term commitment to Aegis BMD—the Shield of the Fleet…and the nation—as well as U.S. friends and key allies worldwide.

In 15 years, Aegis BMD has grown from its small “niche” in the na-tional ballistic missile defense sys-tem to a robust, key BMD capability that has become the model for the national and international BMD. The President’s decision to leverage Navy BMD for his Phased Adaptive Approach in Europe speaks vol-umes regarding the capabilities of Navy Aegis BMD.

Navy BMD will continue to “build a little…test a little…learn a lot” to ensure that this critical capability delivers on its past success as well as its enormous promise. Aegis BMD is and will remain ready today…at sea…and on pa-trol with a steady focus on technical excellence and operational success in order to ensure our nation’s tomorrows.

The CoURse ahead

Aeg

is B

allis

tic

Mis

sile

Def

ense

...A

t S

ea O

n P

atro

l

27

foo

tno

tes 1 A Historic Beginning (Washington, D.C.: Ballistic Missile Defense Agency, 2005).

2 Peter Baker, “White House Scraps Bush’s Approach to Missile Shield,” The New York Times, September 18, 2009. See also, “Thinking About Future Naval Ballistic Missile Defense,” U.S. Naval Institute Online, September 17, 2009.

3 National Intelligence Council, Global Trends 2025: A Transformed World (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 2008), accessed at: www.dni.gov/nic/NIC_2025_project.html.

4 A Cooperative Strategy for 21st Century Seapower (Washington, D.C.: Department of the Navy, October 2007) and The U.S. Navy’s Vision for Confronting Irregular Challenges (Washington, D.C.: Department of the Navy, 2010), pp. 1-13. See also, Ronald O’Rourke, Navy Irregular Warfare and Counterterrorism Operations: Background and Issues for Congress (Washington, D.C.: Congressional Research Service, September 2010), pp. 1-27.

5 Department of Defense, Ballistic Missile Defense Review Report (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, February 2010).6 BMDR, op.cit., pp. 11-127 The National Security Strategy (Washington, D.C.: The White House, May 2010).8 White House Press Release, “Fact Sheet on U.S. Missile Defense Policy, A Phased Adaptive Approach for Missile Defense in

Europe,” September 17, 2009; and Ronald O’Rourke, Navy Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD) Program: Background and Issues for Congress (Washington, D.C.: Congressional Research Service, June 2010), pp. 8-9, 36-48.

9 Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense, Missile Defense Agency, at http://www.mda.mil/system/aegis_bmd.html. See also, O’Rourke, Navy BMD, ibid., pp. 5-7 for a description of Aegis Ashore—as well as Aegis ships and SM-3—including funding across the Future Years Defense Plan.

10 Ballistic Missile Defense Review Report, op.cit. 11 Aegis BMD, MDA at: http://www.mda.mil/system/aegis_bmd.html.12 Peter Baker, “White House Scraps Bush’s Approach to Missile Shield,” op.cit. 13 M. Elaine Bunn, ed., “The Proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction,” in Global Strategic Assessment 2009: America’s Security

Role in a Changing World (Washington, D.C.: National Defense University Institute for National Security Studies, 2009), pp. 162-185.

14 Jacques Gansler, Ballistic Missile Defense: Past and Future (Washington, D.C.: National Defense University, 2010), pp. viii-x.15 Hans Binnendijk and George Stewart, Defense Horizons: Toward Missile Defenses from the Sea (Washington, D.C., National De-

fense University, June 2002), pp. 1-6. 16 Otto Kreisher, “Bigger Shield,” Seapower, December 2006, pp. 40-43.17 Hicks, “Extending the Shield: Sea-Based Ballistic Missile Defense,” U.S. Naval Institute Proceedings, January 2007, pp. 56-59.18 Hicks, “Seabased Ballistic Missile Defense,” Joint Forces Quarterly, Issue 50, 3rd quarter 2008, pp. 39-45.19 Remarks by Admiral Gary Roughead, Chief of Naval Operations, at the Engineering the Total Ship Symposium,

September 26, 2008.20 Andrew Erickson and David Yang, “On the Verge of a Game Changer,” U.S. Naval Institute Proceedings, May 2009,

pp. 26-33; Andrew Erickson and David Yang, “Using the Land to Control the Sea: Chinese Analysts Consider the Antiship Ballistic Missile,” Naval War College Review, Autumn 2009, Volume 62, Number 4, pp. 53-86; and Marshall Hoyler, “China’s ‘Antiaccess’ Ballistic Missile and U.S. Active Defense,” Naval War College Review, Autumn 2010, Volume 63, Number 4, pp. 84-105.

21 “Admiral Willard: Chinese Anti-Ship Missile Close to Operational,” Inside the Navy, August 30, 2010.22 Leon Panetta, Interview With Jake Tapper, “This Week,” ABC, June 27, 2010. Accessed at: http://abcnews.go.com/

print?id=11025299. See also Bill Gertz, “Inside the Ring,” Washington Times, October 7, 2010 for reporting on a September 25, 2010 test of the DF-21 missile.

23 James Woolsey and Rebekah Heinrichs, “Iran and the Missile Defense Imperative,” Wall Street Journal, July 14, 2010.24 Mark Thompson, “The Pentagon Prepares for a Missile Attack from Iran,” Time.com, December 17, 2009, for one of the

earliest open-press reports detailing the threat from short- and mid-range Iranian missiles.25 Independent Working Group on Missile Defense, the Space Relationship & the Twenty-First Century (Washington, D.C., Institute for

Foreign Policy Analysis, 2009). 26 A Cooperative Strategy for 21st Century Seapower, op.cit.27 Quadrennial Defense Review Report, op.cit.28 Remarks the American Society of Naval Engineers Conference, September 14, 2010.29 Naval Engineer’s Journal, The Story of Aegis: Special Edition, Volume 121, Number 3, 2009, provides detailed descriptions of the

Aegis Program. 30 BMDR, op.cit., pp. 20-12.31 Aegis BMD, MDA at: http://www.mda.mil/system/aegis_bmd.html. On the October 28, 2010 Japanese Maritime Self

Defense test, see Jim Wolf, “U.S. and Japan Stage Successful Missile Defense Test,” Reuters, 29 October 2010, accessed at: http://uk.reuters.com/article/idUKTRE69S0S120101029.

32 “U.S. Urges Japan to Export SM-3s, Japan Times, October 25, 2009.33 Ballistic Missile Defense Review Report, op.cit., p. 32. 34 Amy Kazmin and Farhan Bokhari, “New Delhi Weighs Up US Missile Shield,” Financial Times, January 8, 2009.35 Aegis BMD, MDA at: http://www.mda.mil/system/aegis_bmd.html. 36 “Lockheed: Aegis Ashore Will Use Same Technology as Aegis Afloat,” Inside the Navy, November 2, 2009, and “Obama’s Mis-

sile Plan Clears Hurdle,” National Journal’s Congress Daily PM, November 24, 2009.37 “MDA Awards Lockheed Contract for Aegis Ashore Hawaii Test Site,” Inside the Navy, August 30, 2010.38 “Readiness of Warships Eyed to Meet Obama’s Missile Defense Goals,” Inside the Navy, October 4, 2010. 39 Hans Binnedijk, “A Sensible Decision,” Washington Times, September 30, 2009; David Wood, “Missile Defense: Who’s

Jeering Now?”; and Walter Pincus, “New Missile Plan Would Link Allies’ Radar, Other Systems,”

Aeg

is B

allis

tic

Mis

sile

Def

ense

...A

t S

ea O

n P

atro

l

27

Department of DefenseMissile Defense Agency7100 Defense Pentagon

Washington, DC 20301-7100

Approved for Public Release10-MDA-5934 (6 January 2011)