The Missile Defense Agency is considering a land-based variant of the Standard Missile-3, says Ed Miyashiro, deputy general manager of Raytheon's Missile Systems sector in Tucson, Ariz.
Driving the need is Israel, which wants the ability to engage ballistic missiles in the exoatmosphere farther away from its own territory. Iran fired multiple medium- and long-range ballistic missiles July 9 during a military exercise. The long-range Shahab could reach Israeli territory.
SM-3 prime contractor Raytheon is examining a range of options -- including a moveable, but not highly mobile, system that could fill Israel's needs. Very few modifications would be needed for the missile and some tweaks would be required in the command and control system.
The system would employ the same vertical launch modules, in an eight-pack configuration, used in the Aegis ship-based system.
Either
(a) This does not speak well of the system reliability and capability of the Arrow ABM, or
(b) Israel is spending American FMS dollars to buy more ABM capability it cannot build quickly due to industrial bottle necks with the Arrow or
(c) It cannot afford to buy with its own money (AKA buying more Arrows).
I think (b) is the most likely, if this system is meant for very quick deployment.
There are implications there for those wishing to make the effort to see them.
Israel requires some (future) anti-satellite capability which Arrow is not able to provide .....
Another proposal was based on an AEGIS-type ship permanently patrolling the Black Sea, something the US Navy said was perfectly do-able.
However, aside from ignoring ballistic paths, it was Turkeys refusal to support OIF and its political (re) focus on the Middle East that drilled that idea into the ground before it could lift-off, as it were.
>
>Israel requires some (future) anti-satellite capability which
>Arrow is not able to provide .....
I don't see the USA providing Israel that capability any more than it will provide Israel F-22s, for much the same reasons.
Furthermore, OIF was not the same as protecting NATO territory against outside aggression. Turkey is, after all, a long-standing member of the Alliance. Or am I being naive?
http://www.globalsecurity.org/space/systems/sm3-deploy.htm
>As of January 2008 it was planned that Aegis BMD will deliver the
>following:
>
>Fifteen (15) Aegis Destroyers equipped with the Aegis BMD Weapon
>System to conduct the LRS&T and engagement missions
>
>Three (3) Aegis Cruisers equipped with the Aegis BMD Weapon System
>to conduct the LRS&T and engagement missions SM-3
>
>Eleven (11) SM-3 Block I missiles
>
>One (1) Pathfinder SM-3 Block IA Flight Test Round (FTR)
>
>One (1) Pathfinder SM-3 Block IB Flight Test Round (FTR)
>
>Eighty two (82) SM-3 Block IA missiles
>
>Fifty two (52) SM-3 Block IB missiles
Orders of magnitude mean things. There are 145 SM-3's of various marks that have been built and deployed as of last January. That is ten time the number of active Arrow interceptors. America's ability to surge SM-3 ABM coverage to Israel is there.
If it is used, quickly, that will be an indication of things to come.
Something about boost phase IRBM kinetic kills being preferred, but not providing the optimal solution.
Which I found odd because the USN stated that a Tico class AEGIS cruiser could do it when sailing in the Black Sea, which is near Turkey last time I checked.
JPOW (Joint Proj Optic Windmill), the multinational missile intercept excercise/simulation had some numbers regarding this.
But of course I can be (and often am) wrong, which is why I read DTI to get my facts straight ;).
Turkey is a member, yes, but Turkey is dealing with some internal political issues which do not allow it to become too cuddly with the west (US), since the current Turkish government whishes to establish closer ties with its Arab neighbors instead of pursuing the European membership.
Add the potential VERY lucrative Oil (pipeline) contracts with Iran, you have some dynamite reasons for Turkey to if not oppose, then at least delay any missile shield program which is clearly aimed at Iran.
The naval ships could do this while operating in international waters, without getting into any of the tricky politics re: Turkey or re: what we have been seeing in CZ/PL. In other words: they provide a solution and no cans of worms need to be opened.
But perhaps the U.S. efforts to install a capability in CZ/PL may have something to do with the fact that in missile defense, it's not about having one "silver bullet" system, it's about having many sensors, engagement systems and C4I/battle management nodes all integrated together to act as one cohesive system.
In that context, however, I think a land-based SM-3 would certainly be an interesting (and low cost/off-the-shelf when fired from a standard Mk 41 vertical launching system) addition to the arsenal of options, which surely will find a place of use.