"U.S. failed to use SBX for N. Korea missile"

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...korea-missile/

U.S. failed to use best radar for N. Korea missile
Bill Gertz

Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates denied permission for the U.S.
Northern Command to use the Pentagon's most powerful sea-based radar
to monitor North Korea's recent missile launch, precluding officials
from collecting finely detailed launch data or testing the radar in a
real-time crisis, current and former defense officials said.

Jamie Graybeal, Northcom public affairs director, confirmed to The
Washington Times that Air Force Gen. Gene Renuart, the Northcom
commander, requested the radar's use but referred all other questions
to the Pentagon.

Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman said Mr. Gates' decision not to use
the $900 million radar, known as SBX, was "based on the fact that
there were numerous ground- and sea-based radars and sensors in the
region to support the operational requirements for this launch."

SBX, deployed in 2005, can track and identify warheads, decoys and
debris in space with very high precision. Officials said the radar is
so powerful it could detect a baseball hit out of a ballpark from more
than 3,000 miles away, and that other radars used by the U.S. would
not be able to provide the same level of detail about North Korea's
missile capabilities.

RELATED STORIES:
• Angry N. Korea boots U.N. inspectors
• North-South Korea complex hurt by hostilities
• Inside the Ring

Retired Air Force Lt. Gen. Henry Obering, who until recently headed
the Missile Defense Agency, said the SBX would have gathered data
other U.S. systems could not.

"The sea-based X-band radar is clearly without a doubt the most
powerful and capable sensor in all of our missile defense inventory,"
he said. "It is three or four more times powerful than other radars"
in Asia, including Aegis-equipped ships, a Cobra Dane early warning
radar in Alaska and a small X-band radar in northern Japan, he said.

Gen. Obering noted that the SBX was used by the U.S. Strategic Command
to track a falling satellite and guide U.S. sea-based missile
interceptors that destroyed it in February 2008.

Current and former defense officials offered other factors that likely
affected the decision, ranging from the fact that the radar was
undergoing maintenance about the time of the launch to concerns about
provoking the North Koreans.

One current and two former specialists in strategic defenses said the
administration rejected the request because it feared that moving the
huge floating radar system would be viewed by North Korea as
provocative and upset diplomatic efforts aimed at restarting six-
nation nuclear talks.

Those talks do not appear likely to resume any time soon.

Reacting to U.N. condemnation of the April 4 launch, North Korea said
Tuesday that it would "never participate in the [nuclear] talks" and
would restart its plutonium-yielding nuclear reactor. The U.N. nuclear
watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), said North
Korea had ordered U.N. inspectors to leave the reclusive communist
country.

According to a senior military official involved in continental
missile defense, Gen. Renuart initially sought to use the SBX out of
concern that the anticipated launch was aimed at the United States or
allied territory.

However, Obama administration civilian policymakers accepted North
Korea's claim that the rocket spotted by intelligence satellites being
fueled at North Korea's Musudan launch complex was a space launcher
with a satellite, and not a missile, the official said. He spoke only
on the condition of anonymity because he was discussing internal
deliberations.

In the end, the missile failed to put a satellite into orbit, although
the missile traveled farther than in previous North Korean tests.

Former defense officials said the failure to use the SBX precluded the
U.S. from gathering finely detailed intelligence and electronic
signatures on the North Korean missile - information that could be
useful in guarding against a future rocket launch aimed at the United
States or one its allies.

Regardless of whether it was a missile or space launcher, "the
technologies that overlap between a ballistic missile and a space
launcher are incredible; everything you need for a ballistic missile
can be tested out with a space launcher," one of the former defense
officials said, speaking only on the condition of anonymity because
the information he possesses about the SBX's capabilities is not
public.

Another official with direct knowledge of the SBX's capabilities said
that if it were deployed in New York harbor it could track a baseball
hit out of San Francisco's AT&T stadium, some 3,000 miles away.

Prior to the April 4 test, military and Obama administration leaders
issued conflicting statements on how the United States would respond
to a test of the rocket that the Defense Intelligence Agency had
identified as a long-range Taepodong-2.

Adm. Timothy Keating, commander of the U.S. Pacific Command, initially
said the Pentagon was set to shoot down the missile using missile
defense interceptors based in Alaska.

However, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton told CNN on March
25 that the United States had no plans to shoot down the missile but
instead would raise the issue with the United Nations. "We're not
talking about anything like that," Mrs. Clinton said when asked what
circumstances would prompt the Pentagon to shoot down the North Korean
rocket.

North Korea's government had declared - after stating that the rocket
was a space launcher - that it would view the use of missile defenses
against the rocket as an act of war.

The SBX radar, built on a large floating oil rig platform and normally
based at the remote western Aleutian island of Adak, about 1,200 miles
southwest of Anchorage, was undergoing maintenance in Hawaii in early
March.

The senior military official involved in continental missile defense
said it would have required suspending the work to get the SBX sailing
"so we asked [for it to be moved] pretty early, and preparations were
begun."

"As it became more clear that this was a space launch attempt and SBX
would not have added any to the capabilities we needed to monitor a
space launch, we canceled our request to allow refit to continue on
timeline," the senior official said.

Defense officials said that in addition to monitoring the Taepodong-2
launch, Gen. Renuart wanted the SBX radar in place to provide a real-
world test of the new missile defense system.

Missile defense critics have criticized the Bush administration, which
began deploying the current system earlier this decade, for not
conducting realistic testing of the system.

President Obama has said he wants to make sure that U.S. missile
defenses work properly before continuing support for the program.

Philip Coyle, a former Pentagon weapons testing specialist who has
been critical of missile defense testing, said the SBX is technically
a better radar than any system in Japan.

However, Mr. Coyle said one problem with the radar is that its
resolution is so fine it needs to be "cued," or directed where to
look. That may be a reason it was not deployed, he said.

"Both the [Government Accountability Office] and my former office have
questioned whether this radar can survive the maritime environment,"
said Mr. Coyle, now with the Center for Defense Information.

The administration's restrictions on missile defenses were disclosed
as Mr. Gates announced last week that he is planning a $1.4 billion
cut in missile defense funding.

Sen. Jon Kyl, Arizona Republican, and Sen. Joe Lieberman, Connecticut
independent, wrote to Mr. Obama on April 6, urging him to reject the
missile defense cuts.

The senators warned that the planned missile defense funding cut would
undermine international cooperation with Japan, Israel and other
states at a time when missile threats are growing.

"mike" wrote in message
...
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...korea-missile/

U.S. failed to use best radar for N. Korea missile
Bill Gertz


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

that was mentioned and discussed here a week ago.

On Apr 21, 6:51 am, "Raymond O'Hara"
wrote:
U.S. failed to use best radar for N. Korea missile
Bill Gertz

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

that was mentioned and discussed here a week ago.

The difference is that the back story is leaking out.

SBX and the other Air Force radars are too easy targets in the big
game. The navy needs a ship that can go fleet speeds while mounting a
radar that powerful.

-HJC

On Apr 21, 10:51*am, hcobb wrote:
On Apr 21, 6:51 am, "Raymond O'Hara"
wrote:

U.S. failed to use best radar for N. Korea missile
Bill Gertz

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

that was mentioned and discussed here a week ago.

The difference is that the back story is leaking out.

SBX and the other Air Force radars are too easy targets in the big
game. *The navy needs a ship that can go fleet speeds while mounting a
radar that powerful.

-HJC

Won't happen. You know how big those RADARs are? Hint: its on an oil
rig. Hide that in the open sea. Not to mention tracking requires a
good idea of where the RADAR is.

In article
,
frank wrote:

On Apr 21, 10:51*am, hcobb wrote:
On Apr 21, 6:51 am, "Raymond O'Hara"
wrote:

U.S. failed to use best radar for N. Korea missile
Bill Gertz

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
------

that was mentioned and discussed here a week ago.

The difference is that the back story is leaking out.

SBX and the other Air Force radars are too easy targets in the big
game. *The navy needs a ship that can go fleet speeds while mounting a
radar that powerful.

-HJC

Won't happen. You know how big those RADARs are? Hint: its on an oil
rig. Hide that in the open sea. Not to mention tracking requires a
good idea of where the RADAR is.

Saw the rig from the air a couple months back when we visited our
daughter and son-in-law on Maui.

Flank speed? It's the next best thing to a geological feature, speedwise.

Steve Hix wrote:
In article
,
frank wrote:

On Apr 21, 10:51 am, hcobb wrote:
On Apr 21, 6:51 am, "Raymond O'Hara"
wrote:

U.S. failed to use best radar for N. Korea missile
Bill Gertz
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
------
that was mentioned and discussed here a week ago.
The difference is that the back story is leaking out.

SBX and the other Air Force radars are too easy targets in the big
game. The navy needs a ship that can go fleet speeds while mounting a
radar that powerful.

-HJC
Won't happen. You know how big those RADARs are? Hint: its on an oil
rig. Hide that in the open sea. Not to mention tracking requires a
good idea of where the RADAR is.

Saw the rig from the air a couple months back when we visited our
daughter and son-in-law on Maui.

Flank speed? It's the next best thing to a geological feature, speedwise.

In Cobb World™ the U.S. Navy can solve any military problem even if
it defies physics or history.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

On Apr 21, 4:34 pm, Steve Hix
wrote:
In article
,



frank wrote:
On Apr 21, 10:51 am, hcobb wrote:
On Apr 21, 6:51 am, "Raymond O'Hara"
wrote:

U.S. failed to use best radar for N. Korea missile
Bill Gertz

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
------

that was mentioned and discussed here a week ago.

The difference is that the back story is leaking out.

SBX and the other Air Force radars are too easy targets in the big
game. The navy needs a ship that can go fleet speeds while mounting a
radar that powerful.

-HJC

Won't happen. You know how big those RADARs are? Hint: its on an oil
rig. Hide that in the open sea. Not to mention tracking requires a
good idea of where the RADAR is.

Saw the rig from the air a couple months back when we visited our
daughter and son-in-law on Maui.

Flank speed? It's the next best thing to a geological feature, speedwise.

Nifty unit,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Sbx_underway.jpg
maybe it has a fancy ray-gun in it.
Ken

On Apr 21, 2:15 pm, frank wrote:
Won't happen. You know how big those RADARs are? Hint: its on an oil
rig. Hide that in the open sea. Not to mention tracking requires a
good idea of where the RADAR is.

The ship's current location can be found by laser ring inertial
navigation backed up by GPS. The achievable limit is whatever
wavelength of light doesn't hit too much dispersion in the fiber
optics so it's much more accurate than radar wavelengths.

Broadcast power can come off of however big of a nuclear reactor the
ship can hold and radar collection area is handed by making the entire
side of the ship a flat panel radar that shaped something like CSS
Virginia.

Put it together and it spells BCGN.

-HJC