Friendly Fire
Technical elements are falling into place for the tri-national Medium Extended Air Defense System, but political wrangling within the Pentagon and among participating governments threatens to delay or even derail the start of the next phase of the project.
The U.S. military is fighting among itself over the strategy for Meads, particularly now that Congress has called for the program and its U.S. funding to be combined with that of Patriot, the incumbent air and missile defense system. A faction within the U.S. Army, which is in charge of U.S. Meads efforts, wants to curtail the international project in favor of Patriot.
However, the Office of the Secretary of Defense is eager to keep the program on track, not least because it is one of only a small number of cooperative programs. U.S. Army officials recently proposed delaying the fielding of Meads until 2016 from 2011, but that move was rebuffed by senior Pentagon procurement officials. A formal Meads acquisition review is slated for next month.
GERMANY, ITALY and the U.S. are in the final months of a $216-million risk reduction phase for the air and missile defense system, which is intended to replace Patriot equipment with more modern and mobile hardware. The urgency was highlighted earlier this year when U.S. troops in Iraq encountered major problems trying to move Patriot batteries as forces rushed north from Kuwait to Baghdad.
There are no technical reasons to delay the in-service date for Meads, insist industry officials involved in the project. In fact, the first battalion of hardware could be available early, in 2010, says Dave Seckinger, executive vice president for Meads International, the joint venture of EADS' Lenkflugkorper in Germany, MBDA's Italian branch and Lockheed Martin. The U.S. is the dominant partner in Meads, with 55% cost and workshare, followed by Germany with 28% and Italy with 17%.
Despite talk of delays, consideration also is being given to using some Meads equipment even earlier to fix Patriot's mobility shortfalls. For instance, the C-130 and A400M-transportable Meads launcher and battle management command and control equipment could become part of Patriot to make the system more mobile. That initiative is confined to the U.S. project, however, and not part of the tri-national effort.
Still ahead for the three partner nations are negotiations to cement the memoranda of understanding supporting the upcoming $2-3-billion design and development phase. The countries have held a series of informal discussions in recent months, and last week Germany declared any further talks part of the formal process, a sign that negotiations are progressing.
Technology transfer issues still loom, too. The U.S. government has issued a draft technology release policy governing the program, which is now being presented to Germany and Italy for their review. The negotiations are expected to be tense but have to be completed before the next phase can start. Because much more hardware and software will be involved in this phase, the negotiations are expected to be more difficult than those in the past, noted one industry official.
European representatives are frustrated that U.S. officials tend to view technology transfer as a one-way affair--from the U.S. to Europe. They note that in the case of Meads, technical expertise is shared both ways. For instance, EADS will build the X-band transmit/receive modules that will populate the fire-control radar's antenna, which will then be produced also by Lockheed Martin to balance workshare demands.
An area where Meads officials are still waiting for data is the Patriot PAC-3 Missile Segment Enhancement (MSE). The 51-month project begun this year by the Army adds a dual-pulse motor and other features to the hit-to-kill weapon--at the cost of greater weight. PAC-3 also serves as the Meads interceptor, but so far information on MSE hasn't been released to the international consortium, which wants to design its system to accommodate the updated missile, says Klaus Riedel, president of Meads International. The regular PAC-3 will remain the baseline weapon for Meads, he added, in part because the two development efforts will take place in parallel.
MSE should narrow the gap between Meads' performance requirement and what PAC-3 delivers. U.S. insistence on using PAC-3 scuttled plans for a new interceptor that would have been more capable and included from the outset a dual-pulse motor. Flight testing of MSE is slated to begin in 2006.
There is concern among Meads advocates that international deliberations will drag on and delay the start of the next phase. To avoid a gap between the current activity and design and development, industry and government officials are discussing potential bridging mechanisms to avoid industry having to reassign key engineers. Ideas being discussed now would have the U.S. Army, which already has its Meads funding approved for Fiscal 2004, finance the extension of the current risk reduction phase, with Germany and Italy making up the difference later when their budgets catch up. Meads has had to resort to such financial games before.
Still other sticking points exist. For instance, current plans call for the project to undergo two intercept tests in preparation for low-rate production, according to a program official. The U.S., used to more elaborate test activities than its European counterparts, wants more shots before entering the production stage.
DEVELOPERS ALSO have adjusted the number of interceptors each Meads launcher would carry. Original plans called for 12 PAC-3s per launcher, which has now been reduced to eight. The adjustment is a reflection of changing requirements, with some countries arguing they don't need the additional missiles, Riedel said. The launcher design will nonetheless accommodate the larger weapons load if a user wants it, he added. Other program officials blame the adjustment on the weight increase for PAC-3 associated with MSE.
Despite the political turmoil, engineers have been able to mark several technical accomplishments in the run-up to a system demonstration in Rome in March. Earlier this year the contractors completed a system interface demonstration involving most critical software components, as well as the processor for the fire-control radar. The exercise involved simulated engagements against aircraft and ballistic missiles, validating system performance, Riedel noted.
Next year, a similar drill will take place although this time with a prototype radar--not just the processor. Moreover, the demo will simulate engagements involving several targets, rather than just the one-on-one scenarios performed so far. The prototype fire control radar is undergoing final check-out in Munich and will be shipped to Rome early next month.
This year's systems interface demo was one of the achievements government officials wanted before entering the next phase. The other required elements--delivery of a proposal, an assessment of critical technologies and performance assessment report--have also been handed in, so they shouldn't pose any hurdles, Riedel suggested.