European Missile Defence Capability and Strategic Thinking

---

By Mark Bromley, BASIC, April 2001

---

Over the next several weeks, BASIC will send out weekly e-mails that
address issues confronting NATO member states. The May 29-30 foreign
ministers' meeting in Budapest, and the June 7-8 defense ministers'
meeting in Brussels, are the first formal opportunities for the new U.S.
administration to confer with NATO states on nuclear weapons concerns.
Since the Bush administration is concluding a review of the U.S. nuclear
posture and studying the need for further research into new nuclear
weapons development, dialogue with U.S. allies is more necessary than
ever.

Nuclear weapons issues are especially pressing in light of U.S.
intentions to move forward with national missile defense plans, despite
emphatic objections by Russia, China, and allies over strategic
stability and proliferation concerns. Friction between the United
States and its allies has been highly publicized over this issue,
particularly after the United States rejected the Kyoto global warming
agreement and cut off North Korean missile talks.

Please find below the first article of the series, which examines
European theater missile defense development, focusing on technological
development and political issues that these states must confront.

For further information, please contact Christine Kucia in Washington at
202-347-8340 ext. 103, or Mark Bromley in London at 44-20-7407-2977.

*******************

Development of effective missile defence systems has been a goal of
military planners since the V2 rocket was used against Britain in the
closing stages of the Second World War. As the ongoing debate over the
US-proposed National Missile Defence (NMD) system demonstrates, the
pursuit of apparently defensive systems has the potential to negatively
impact international stability. Any attempt to achieve security in
isolation, and disrupt the fragile network of multilateral arms control
agreements, has the potential to make the world more dangerous rather
than less so. As the countries of Europe become increasingly interested
in the concept of limited missile defence systems, it is important that
they do not lose sight of this principle.

When former US President Bill Clinton announced on 1 September 2001 that
the deployment of the proposed NMD system would be delayed, he made
reference to the influence European allies had on the decision:

"[NATO allies] have all made clear that they hope the United States will
pursue strategic defence in a way that preserves, not abrogates, the
Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) treaty. If we decide to proceed with NMD
deployment, we must have their support."1

As when President Ronald Reagan proposed his grander Strategic Defence
Initiative in the 1980s, Clinton's proposed NMD system, aimed at
protecting the continental United States from a so-called limited attack
by enemy missiles, elicited strong criticism from Europe. For example,
government officials in France and Germany argued that the Clinton plan
would destroy the ABM treaty and possibly spark a new arms race.

However, the transatlantic tension on the NMD issue is not based on
simple opposition in Europe to the concept of missile defence, but on
the scope and strategic implications of what is proposed. While
European governments think building a defence to protect the US mainland
from missile attack is costly and unnecessary, many in Europe agree
there is a need to develop Theatre Missile Defence (TMD) systems.

TMD systems are designed to give protection to forward deployed troops
and/or naval fleets against attack from short-, medium- and
intermediate-range ballistic missiles.2 The strategic importance of
developing such systems was highlighted during the Persian Gulf War when
allied troops came under fire from Scud missiles. Speaking on this issue
recently, UK Defence Secretary Geoff Hoon said: "We have always
recognised that there is a potential threat to Britain's deployed forces
and we would want to investigate and examine it to seek ways of
protecting the deployed forces."3

In fact, European government officials recently have been more publicly
willing to discuss missile threats. This new public stance could be
reflective of an increased willingness on the part of European
governments to pursue more ambitious TMD systems.

For example, a recent report from the UK Ministry of Defence (MoD)
stated: "[A]t current rates of progress, it seems likely that, well
before 2030, one or more of these [proliferating] states will have
ballistic missiles capable of reaching the UK carrying chemical or
biological payloads and, potentially, nuclear weapons."4 Also, the
German intelligence agency, Bundesnachrichtendienst, recently released a
report alleging that Iraq has been systematically cheating international
controls to build up an arsenal of chemical weapons and a missile system
capable of hitting targets in Europe.5

TMD technology is more suited to tackling the kind of threats a European
missile defence network would need to overcome. Whilst a US NMD system
would be required to intercept large, long-range, 'strategic' missiles,
Europe is more likely to face an attack by shorter range missiles since
the nations of Europe are much closer to the so-called 'states of
concern' cited by NMD advocates in the United States as those with
potential threat missiles.

TMD an increasing focus

TMD systems have been receiving funding on both sides of the Atlantic
for some time. Examples of systems under development in the United
States include the Navy Area Defence, the Navy Theatre Wide Defence, and
the Army's Patriot Advanced Capability-3 (PAC-3) and Theatre High
Altitude Air Defence (THAAD). Navy Area and PAC-3 are so-called
lower-tier TMD systems, designed to counter shorter-range ballistic
missiles, such as Scuds, and are based on interceptors that destroy
their targets at relatively low altitudes. Navy Theatre Wide and THAAD
are 'upper-tier' TMD systems, designed to intercept medium- and
intermediate-range missiles at high altitudes both within and outside
the Earth's atmosphere.

Most of the major countries in Europe, including France, Germany, Italy
and the United Kingdom, currently are engaged in developing some kind of
TMD capability, though the systems are generally of a more limited
capability than those being researched by the Pentagon.

However, Europe's development of TMD systems may have new political
importance to the international debate about US NMD plans as the Bush
team pursues its larger missile defence vision.

Pending an overarching review of defence systems this spring, the new
administration has yet to set out its official missile defence
deployment plan. It seems likely that the proposal will involve
integration of some of the TMD systems under development as a first step
towards a 'layered' missile defence that will attack offensive missiles
in their ascent, during flight, and in their descent. In a recent
interview, Paul Wolfowitz, US deputy secretary of defence, stated:

"The best thing is to attack a missile several different ways so that at
each point in its flight you are maximising the probability of success.
Moreover, that way, if you have a problem with one system, another
system may work better."6

In particular, the US Navy argues that the sea-based TMD systems under
service development might be modified to intercept strategic-range
missiles shortly after take off, or in the so-called boost phase. This
possible use of TMD systems as a US NMD component is significant for
Europe, as it raises the potential for future European involvement in
the US strategic network. This obviously would have serious political
ramifications.

If any European government were to develop an interest in using its
nascent TMD technology to help the United States develop a NMD system,
it would undoubtedly receive the support of the Bush administration.
The new administration has made repeated references to expanding its
proposed missile defence shield beyond US borders to protect 'friends
and allies'. At a recent press conference, Colin Powell, US secretary
of state, stated:

"Our policy is to deploy effective missile defences that are capable of
defending not only the United States, but also friends and allies and
deployed forces overseas, and to do it based on the best available
options at the earliest possible date."7

Also worth mentioning is Russia's proposal for a European Ballistic
Missile Defence (BMD) system presented to NATO Secretary-General Lord
Robertson on 20 February 2001. Though almost universally dismissed as
lacking in detail and an attempt to derail US NMD plans, the fact that
Russia is willing to cooperate on some kind of Europe-wide defence
against intermediate-range and tactical missiles is significant. It
removes what would be a major barrier to the creation of such a system.8

However, an important implication of Europe's pursuit of TMD systems is
the extent to which it undermines European ability to continue to argue
effectively against US missile defence plans. Despite seemingly renewed
European interest in theatre missile defence, most European governments
remain wary, if not outright opposed, to the US concept of a strategic
missile shield. In particular, European leaders continue to caution the
United States against unilateral abrogation of the ABM treaty, and
against undermining the international web of arms control and
non-proliferation regimes that have successfully kept a lid on nuclear
proliferation and use for the past 50 years.

In fact, the Bush administration already has discovered the political
utility of blurring the lines between TMD and NMD. When discussing
missile defence systems, the Bush administration no longer makes any
distinction between concepts for national and theatre defences. Donald
Rumsfeld, US defence secretary, stated recently:

"I have gotten to the point where I now am sufficiently into this
subject where I've concluded that 'national' and 'theatre' are words
that aren't useful. At least for me they're not, in how to think about
it, for this reason: What's 'national' depends on where you live, and
what's 'theatre' depends on where you live."9

If Washington is convincing in its assertion that all missile defences
are one and the same, it could be hard for European governments that are
actively pursuing TMD systems of their own to argue against the US
'national' missile defence plans.

Air Force Gen. Joseph Ralston, commander-in-chief of US European
Command, inadvertently highlighted this problem recently. Ralston
argued that NATO allies are no longer worried about a missile defence
system, and are accepting the growing need to defend against cruise
missiles, theatre ballistic missiles and strategic missile threats. He
maintained that if the United States could come up with a plan to work
with the Russians on the ABM treaty issues, and avoid a unilateral
withdrawal, European concerns about missile defence will disappear.10

Different concerns, same solution

The missile defence programmes of Europe and the United States are
motivated by vastly different strategic concerns. While the Bush
administration is determined to push ahead with an ambitious 'layered'
system, capable of protecting the US mainland from strategic missile
attack, Europe is primarily concerned with protecting forward-deployed
forces and naval fleets from cruise missile and short-range ballistic
missile attack.

However, the Bush administration has worked to blur the distinction
between these two goals, a move which could leave Europe unable to
produce effective arguments against Washington's plans ­ despite the
potentially damaging effects on international strategic stability. In
addition, the kind of technology under consideration by the Bush
administration to achieve a multifaceted missile defence network could,
at first, be of a similar nature to that currently under development in
Europe. This initial similarity could pave the way for the pursuit of
the 'global' missile defence that Bush's advisors long have described as
their eventual goal.

With the active encouragement of a resurgent European missile industry,
missile defences are increasingly being seen as an acceptable means of
improving security on both sides of the Atlantic. The long-term effects
of this shift are hard to quantify, but if it bolsters the US drive for
a layered NMD system, and diverts attention and resources away from
attempting to eliminate the threat via arms control and effective
multilateral agreements, they may well be negative.

Several key countries in Europe have committed serious political and
financial resources to developing TMD systems. The commitment shown by
these states reinforces the impression that missile defence is
increasingly viewed by the Western allies as a viable and acceptable
means of countering ballistic missile threats.

United Kingdom
The UK MoD is currently sponsoring a three-year Technology Readiness and
Risk Assessment Programme by the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency
and four British defence contractors, due to be completed this summer.
The programme aims to monitor "developments in the risk posed by
ballistic missiles and in the technology to counter them."11

The United Kingdom is working with Italy and France to develop the
Principal Anti Air Missile System (PAAMS). In August 1999, the three
countries signed a contract for £1.3 billion ($1.8 billion) to provide
for the development of the system.12 PAAMS uses Aster missiles, being
developed by Aerospatiale Matra Missiles ­ a subsidiary of the European
Aerospace, Defence and Space Co. (EADS) ­ and is designed to provide
"area defence, consort protection, and self defence" against attack from
aircraft and low-flying cruise missiles.13

More than the French and Italian versions, the UK variant of PAAMS is
designed to defend a group of ships in convoy, thus will form the main
battle system of the Royal Navy's new Type-45 Frigate. The first of a
projected 12 Type-45 Frigates is due to enter service in 2007.
According to informed sources, the total cost of the programme will be
£8 billion ($11.5 billion) while the cost of installing PAAMS in all 12
frigates is estimated at £2.8 billion ($4 billion).

The UK variant of PAAMS is primarily designed to protect against attack
from aircraft and low-flying cruise missiles. There presently exists no
official requirement for the system to be used against ballistic
missiles. However, informed sources indicate that there is no reason
why studies could not take place in the future to facilitate such an
upgrade. The Sampson Multi-Function Radar, which is being included in
only the UK variant of PAAMS, has been successfully tested against high
speed targets of ballistic trajectory. In addition, while the first
three frigates will use the French-made SYLVER vertical launch system in
their PAAMS systems, the UK government retains the option of switching
to Lockheed Martin Corp.'s Mk-41 for subsequent orders.14 The Mk-41 is
the launch system for Raytheon Co.'s Standard Missile-2,the basis for
the US Navy's Theatre Wide concept. As it stands, the United Kingdom is
committed only to acquiring a limited anti-missile system, but is
keeping its options open.

France and Italy
In addition to their own variants of the PAAMS system, France and Italy
are collaborating on at least two other anti-missile systems: the
Surface-to-Air Anti-Missile system (SAAM) and the Sol-Air Moyenne Portee
(SAMP/T, also known as SAAM AD). Like PAAMS, SAAM and SAMP/T are based
on the Aster family of missiles, and are designed to defend against
cruise missile and aircraft attack. However, SAMP/T has the capability
to be more effective against ballistic missile attack.

SAAM is a sea-based system, and acts as a defence against cruise missile
and aircraft attack. The French variant of SAAM is already in use on
the Charles de Gaulle aircraft carrier, and the Italian version, which
employs a different radar, is due to complete its testing in 2003.

SAMP/T is a land-based system, designed to be capable of intercepting
cruise missiles. However, an upgraded version of SAMP/T, the SAMP/T
Block 1, is currently being developed. If deployed, this upgrade would
give the system the ability to intercept ballistic missiles with a range
of up to 600km. Italy and France have placed an order for the
development of this capability and the initial service deployment is
expected by 2006.

Italy also is collaborating with the United States and Germany on the
Medium Extended Air Defence System (MEADS). France previously was
involved in the project but withdrew in early 1995. Based on Lockheed
Martin's PAC-3 missile, MEADS will be a ground-based system, designed to
target short-range ballistic and cruise missiles. In May, the three
countries involved will probably undertake a jointly funded, £174
million ($250 million), three-year study, to better define the scope and
capability of MEADS.15 The eventual system could cost as much as £1.7
billion ($2.5 billion) and is provisionally slated for deployment in
2012.16

In addition, Italy, along with Germany and the Netherlands, has been
participating in a series of consultations with the United States to
establish collaborative approaches to the research, development and
procurement of ship-based tactical ballistic missile defence systems.
The fifth meeting took place in April 2001 in Ulm, Germany and brought
together representatives from the governments, armed forces and industry
of the United States, Germany, Italy and the Netherlands, as well as
observers from Australia, Canada and Spain.17 It is unclear what
concrete results have emerged from these consultations, but after the
March 2000 meeting in the United States, Italy was reported to be
interested in Raytheon's Standard Missile-2.18

Germany and the Netherlands
Reports last year indicated that Germany was considering pulling out of
the MEADS programme over questions of cost, and access to sensitive US
technology. It now appears that such doubts have been overcome and the
German Parliament will likely give its approval in May 2001 to the
country's participation in the three-year scope and capability study.19

In addition, the German and Dutch navies have just completed a
three-year feasibility study exploring the possibility of adding a
Maritime Tactical Ballistic Missile Defence capability to their new air
defence and command frigates. The likely system will use Raytheon's
Standard Missile-2 missile but will have a European combat system and
radar.20

Along with the Greek military, the Germans and the Dutch already have
acquired a number of Patriot batteries and are planning to buy PAC-3
enhancements. This acquisition will give both countries some measure of
TMD lower-tier capability.21

NATO initiatives

The most ambitious European anti-missile system currently under
consideration is NATO's prospective TMD system, for which the alliance
is currently considering bids for study work. NATO labelled
anti-missile systems as the "Number one new equipment priority" as far
back as 1993.22 More recently, NATO's new strategic concept from 1999
stated: "The alliance's defence posture against the risks and potential
threats of the proliferation of NBC weapons and their means of delivery
must continue to be improved, including through work on missile
defences."23

Reflecting this fact, NATO has set about developing its own missile
defence capability. The deadline for applications for a pair of £9.4
million ($13.5 million) feasibility studies to design a future TMD
system for NATO was 15 January 2001. The final selections will be made
in June, after which the two winners will be given 18 months to design a
system. Though the initial contracts are small, the project is expected
to develop and expand, and the eventual system is likely to have both an
upper and lower-tier capability. In reflection of the potential size of
the project, all of the main US and European defence contractors have
been involved in the early bidding, grouping themselves into four
transatlantic consortia. If NATO does eventually develop a workable
upper-tier TMD capability, the alliance will be providing itself with
the ability to protect not just forward-deployed troops, but also border
areas and even cities from medium-range ballistic missile attack.24

Influence of European defence industry

One of the factors influencing Europe's interest in TMD systems is an
increasingly resurgent domestic missile industry. The European missile
industry is now able to compete globally in a market niche in the past
the reserve of the larger US firms, such as Raytheon and Lockheed
Martin. In 2000, six European countries chose Matra BAe Dynamics'
Meteor air-to-air missile over an upgraded version of Raytheon's
Advanced Medium-Range Air-to-Air Missile for equipping their new
Eurofighter aircraft.25 A recent Wall Street Journal article argued
that UK Prime Minister Tony Blair's May 2000 decision to favour the
Meteor over the Raytheon missile signalled that the "ground rules had
changed":

"Europe had gotten serious about building and buying the same military
hardware. And politicians like Mr. Blair were no longer afraid to
strain transatlantic defence ties in the process."26

The next few weeks will see the emergence of a powerful new,
pan-European missile house. Provisionally called MBDA, the new missile
group will combine the operations of Matra BAe Dynamics,
EADS-Aerospatiale Matra Missiles and the missile activities of Alenia
Marconi Systems. An informed source indicated that a final announcement
on the formation of the group was expected by the end of April.

These same companies are also eager to win contracts to develop
anti-missile systems and the majority of the European anti-missile
systems involve domestic contractors. PAAMS, SAMP/T and SAAM are all
being developed and marketed by EUROSAM. Founded in 1989 and funded in
equal part by the Italian and French governments, EUROSAM's direct
shareholders are EADS, Paris-based Thales, and Alenia Marconi Systems in
Italy. Matra BAe Dynamics is involved in the PAAMS programme.27

The group's aim is to "design, develop and manufacture the most modern
air-defence systems in the world, in a range of versions optimised for
naval, ground-launched or anti-tactical ballistic missile missions."28
After sales to Italy, France and the United Kingdom, the group gained
its first non-European customer when the Royal Saudi Arabian Navy chose
EUROSAM to provide it with a naval air-defence system.

At present, European companies have had little success in winning more
than minor contracts for the various missile defence programmes ongoing
in the United States, but they are keen for a slice of what could be
very large pie. When asked recently if Matra BAe Dynamics expected to
get any work from the planned US NMD system, François Desprairies, the
company's director of business development, strategy and planning, said,
"we certainly would expect to be involved in it." Matra BAe Dynamics
Chairman Mike Rouse added that involving the company in the US NMD
program "would help Washington sell the concept to Europe, while
enabling us to sell some of our systems and capabilities into the
program."29

The question of European companies wanting an equal share of the
contracts on offer also can be seen as influencing decision making at
the government level. German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder recently
softened his public objections to US missile defence plans, citing an
unwillingness to lose out economically. On 27 February 2001, Schroeder
was reported as saying: "[A] very important point for us is that we are
not excluded from this technology and the knowledge of the
technology."30

Conclusion

With the serious endeavours of several European states, and the Bush
administration's own strong efforts, missile defence programmes remain a
top talking point among the allies. Of serious concern is the
possibility that European countries will be unable to maintain a strong
opposition to US NMD plans if they continue to invest heavily in TMD
capabilities of their own. Also of concern is the possibility that
Europe's nascent TMD systems will be drawn into an overarching 'global'
missile defence system being considered by the Bush administration. In
the absence of in-depth public debate, the possibility exists of a
gradual slide towards increased European acceptance of missile defence
systems as a legitimate means of resolving real or supposed security
threats. This slide would undoubtedly be supported by an ambitious
European defence industry and a US administration eager to fend off the
opposition to its own NMD plans. The danger comes when this endeavour
is pursued at the expense of multilateral arms control, the only true
guarantor of international security.
_________
1. The White House, Office of the Press Secretary, 1 September 2000
2. "Taking National Missile Defense to Sea; A Critique of Sea-Base and
Boost-Phase Proposals" by Rodney Jones, Council for a Livable World,
October 2000
3. Oral Answers to Questions; Defence, Hansard, 19 March 2001, column 16

4. "The Future Strategic Context for Defence", UK Ministry of Defence,
February 2001
5. "Iraq Builds Chemical Weapons System Capable Of Hitting European
Cities", London Times, 26 February 2001
6. "Something Special Is At Risk", London Sunday Telegraph, 18 March
2001
7. "Joint Press Availability With French Foreign Minister Hubert Vedrine
and Secretary of State Colin L. Powell", US Department of State, 26
March 2001
8. "Russian Missile Defense for Europe: The February 20 Proposal is More
Serious Than It Seems" by Nikolai Sokov, Centre for Non-proliferation
Studies, 14 March 2001
9. "Transcript: U.S. Defense Secretary, NATO Chief", Washington File, 8
March 2001
10. "Missile Defense Would Strengthen NATO, Ralston Reports", Defense
Daily, 22 March 2001
11. Written Questions, Hansard, 12 June 2000, column 451W; and 26 June,
column 409W
12. "Franco-Italian Order for the Initial Production of Two PAAMS
Systems", September 2000, available at
http://www.eurosam.com/room/communique1.htm
13. "Aster 15", available at
http://www.eads-nv.com/eads/en/index.htm?/xml/en/missiles/airdef/aster15/aster15.xml&missiles

14. "Britain to Study Weapon Systems for Future Destroyer Use", Defense
News, 19 March 2001
15. The United States, Germany and Italy are contributing 55%, 28% and
17% of the cost respectively. The three companies involved are Lockheed
Martin, EADS and Alenia Marconi Systems.
16. "MEADS Team Wins Approval From Key German Official", Defense News, 9
April 2001
17. "NATO experts discuss MTBMD technologies at the EADS", EADS Press
Release, 5 April 2001
18. "European, U.S. Navies Review Joint TMD Work", Defense News, 28
February 2000
19. "MEADS Team Wins Approval From Key German Official", Defense News, 9
April 2001
20. "Thomson-CSF Signaal involved in MTBMD deployment", Thales Press
Release, 25 October 2000
21. "Theatre missile defence: deployment prospects and impact on Europe"
by General Sir Hugh Beach, ISIS Briefing on Ballistic Missile Defence
No. 2, September 2000
22. "NATO in search for missile 'umbrella'", London Daily Telegraph, 29
December 1993
23. The Alliance's Strategic Concept, approved by the heads of state and
government participating in the meeting of the North Atlantic Council in
Washington D.C. on 23-24 April 1999
24. "TMD: NATO starts the countdown", Jane's Defence Weekly, 3 January
2001
25. "Missile House Matra BAe Targets Teaming Deals With U.S. Firms",
Defense News, 13 March 2001
26. "European Defense Firms Step Up To Compete With American Giants",
Wall Street Journal, 8 March 2001
27. "About Eurosam," available at http://www.eurosam.com/about/index.htm

28. "About us," available at http://www.eurosam.com/us/index.htm
29. "Missile House Matra BAe Targets Teaming Deals With U.S. Firms",
Defense News, 13 March 2001
30. "Germany would seek share in US missile shield: Schroeder", AFP, 1
March 2001

Click here for BASIC.

Return to Global Beat Home Page

Nuclear Watch | East Asian Security | Economic & Monetary Union |

NATO Expansion | Nuclear Weapons and Proliferation |

U.S. Defense Policy | Publications | Events |

Experts Directory | Links Directory |

About the GRN |