While the profound change in the focus of the nation’s national BMDS under the Obama administration caught many by surprise, in hindsight, there were strong signals from many quarters that such a change might be on the horizon. While many Navy leaders always recognized the potential of Navy BMD to take on this dominant role, through the 1990s, few others did. But by the beginning of the last decade, some defense experts had begun to recognize the potential of Aegis BMD to take on a greater role in defending America and its friends and allies from ballistic missiles.

 

Aegis BMD Forward

A decade ago, a comprehensive National Defense University (NDU) strategic assessment, Globalization and Maritime Power, noted, “Events of the past 18 months have created new possibilities for the U.S. Navy to contribute to defense against intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs).” As NDU’s national security staff more-closely examined the future potential Aegis BMD, their analysis led them publish a Defense Horizons occasional paper where they noted, in part: “Using missile interceptors based at sea to defend the United States against ICBMs offers several advantages.”

Today, Aegis BMD is the only certified, operationally effective system that the MDA can field to enable our regional combatant commands to defend our forces forward, as well as our allies and friends, from theater and regional ballistic missile attack. Additionally, while cost was not a primary factor in Obama’s decision to pursue a European Phased Adaptive Approach (EPAA), the Government Accountability Office (GAO) published estimates of the cost of land-based system in Europe, which substantially exceed the original cost estimate of more than $4 billion. This made taking Aegis BMD ashore an even more affordable and cost-effective option, and one that former Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates called “A very real manifestation of our continued commitment to our NATO allies in Europe – ironclad proof that the United States believes the alliance must remain firm.”

As new systems are delivered and Aegis Ashore is added to the mix, the Navy will continue to build toward an in-stride Aegis BMD capability that will provide maximum flexibility to combatant commanders. And as one way to institutionalize this support, the Navy has established the “Ballistic Missile Defense Enterprise” to align efforts to coordinate and focus key staffs and leadership to better coordinate and synchronize Navy actions as well as interactions with other services, the Joint Staff, and international partners.

The Navy will continue to align efforts to better support BMD as a core Navy capability and ensure that Integrated Air and Missile Defense (IAMD) continues as a core mission of the U.S. Navy, becomes even more robust as additional Aegis BMD capability comes on-line, and remains one of the key enabling capabilities that the Navy provides the joint force. This intense focus is crucial, for IAMD is one of the most complex and difficult conundrums any military – and especially any naval – force must deal with.

While there are many knowledgeable voices, in these pages and elsewhere, who have commented on the daunting challenges of IAMD, perhaps one of the most-informed and incisive commentaries appeared in the January 2012 issue of the U.S. Naval Institute Proceedings. In his article, “Out of Many, One,” Capt. Kevin Eyer, a former Aegis cruiser commanding officer, put the IAMD challenge in stark terms:

Integrated air and missile defense (IAMD) is an overarching term that subsumes both ballistic-missile defense (BMD) and Fleet air defense (FAD). While it is true that the systems, units, and personnel employed in both elements are often the same, and that this commonly leads to the impression that there is a unity in the conduct of both, this is far from absolute truth. Indeed, despite the conceptual desire to achieve a seamless understanding and conduct of IAMD, we are nowhere near that ideal state. The chief challenge is that although both elements address defense against “airborne” threats, the natures of these – and consequently the requirements necessary to defend against them – have been and still are so widely divergent that until recently, the paths of BMD and FAD seemed only remotely connected.

To put this vision [of integrating BMD and FAD] into operation, a near-real-time fire-control quality picture of the battle space must be established. This picture is identical in every participating unit – an accurate and real representation of “ground truth” in the grid. When this is achieved, it will signal the advent of the ability to leap forward to “The Vision.” In reality, the air-defense community has been hotly debating the exact definition of this single integrated air picture, or SIAP, for some years: must it be real time, or near real time or only real time for some tracks as displayed in some units? This esoteric discussion does little but allow the most doctrinaire to hold forward progress hostage. It delays attainment of the long-sought Holy Grail of IAMD, and indeed of all warfare. Until this SIAP is achieved, we will forever be trapped in the “fog of war.”

 

Institutionalizing an Enterprise Approach

To support this challenging mission set, the Navy’s Ballistic Missile Defense Enterprise will continue to bring together the technology, concepts and programs for air and missile defense. Navy support for the Aegis BMD mission has grown over the last several years as the Navy recognizes that this capability is in increasing demand by U.S. COCOMs worldwide. As then-Chief of Naval Operations (CNO) Adm. Gary Roughead noted in March 2011, “Within the traditional force, the biggest demand we’re having to deal with right now is ballistic missile defense. Whether it’s in the Western Pacific, the Arabian Gulf – we’ve now started to fill ships back into the Mediterranean again.” Nor is this commitment likely to change under the Navy’s current leadership. As CNO Adm. Jonathan Greenert testified at his Senate Armed Services Committee confirmation hearings:

Navy ballistic missile defense is fully consistent with our Maritime Strategy, enhancing deterrence, supporting sea control and the conditions for power projection, all of which is achieved through forward presence. The Geographic Combatant Commanders recognize the value of this capability and have created a high demand for these assets, as demonstrated through the validation of an increase in the large surface combatant requirement from 88 to 94 in the current planning environment. The Navy has already embarked on an effort to increase the production of BMD-capable large surface combatants through the restart of the DDG 51 production line, promoting competition in DDG production to improve cost, setting the conditions for a future DDG multiyear program, and adding an additional DDG in FY14.

Finally, and as we will discuss in more detail later, the strategic framework for Aegis BMD, while initially instantiated in the United States, is gaining international currency. There is a growing worldwide commitment to Aegis BMD that has the potential to field an international global enterprise that is capable of defending against the most imminent – and growing – threat to nations and navies on land and at sea alike, the threat of ballistic missiles armed with WMD. The Aegis Global Enterprise is this emerging concept. But in the near term, it is important to examine the United States’ current strategic focus.