The next two months could be critical in helping to shape NATO's ambition to make missile defense one of its core missions.
 
This topic has evolved gradually, having once been an area that several member states wanted to avoid altogether. But then NATO began to pursue efforts to protect deployed forces.Now the question is whether NATO's role should grow further and encompass ballistic missile defense of all members' territory.

NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen, as well as a group advising the alliance on its strategic direction, maintains that territorial missile defense should become part of the organization's mission. For critics, the move is seen as merely a NATO ploy for relevance in the new strategic security environment.

What members finally decide should be known soon, since clearly defining NATO's role is slated to be a major agenda item at next month's summit in Lisbon.

Program advocates are hopeful the alliance will approve expanding the mandate to territorial from theater missile defense, although several industry officials doubt that such a commitment will emerge. Given budget constraints at the member-state level and the difficulties the alliance has had in tackling the theater missile defense mandate, the most likely outcome will be a two-year study to buy time, the officials say.
 
Last month, Rasmussen told reporters in Washington that the cost of upgrading NATO's task to territorial from theater defense would be modest, amounting to no more than €200 million ($268 million). That bill would not involve purchasing missile defense batteries, but represents the cost of upgrading the alliance's command-and-control infrastructure to integrate member state-provided equipment in a NATO operational scenario.

The issue of territorial defense has been studied since 2003. As part of that undertaking, the alliance has looked broadly at the threat, with no range constraints but with an eye on how it might evolve, notes David Sparks, head of the Missile Defense Group at the NATO Consultation, Command and Control Agency. The work also has involved examining what capabilities member states could provide as well as the command-and-control fabric required to integrate various systems.
 
As part of that effort, NATO also has had to deal with the change in U.S. plans for its missile defense footprint in Europe. The third interceptor site in Poland had long been at the center of Washington's push, but now the Obama administration's Phased Adaptive Approach (PAA) calls for land-basing of the Standard Missile SM-3 with forward deployed sensors (see p. 60). The PAA also calls on members to participate by providing capabilities.
 
At Lisbon, NATO planners intend to present a technical assessment of the coverage that PAA would provide in its early stages and the scope of European national systems coming online as well as what that represents in terms of a composite capability, Sparks says. Policy questions also are expected to be discussed.
 
One key topic centers on whether NATO can devise an architecture that truly protects all elements of the alliance, particularly parts of southern Europe, when assuming a threat from Iran. But Sparks notes that “it will be quite difficult at this stage not to protect certain nations.” The system is envisioned as “an alliance capability” for the full organization.

Although much of the focus of the deliberations will be on territorial defense, the alliance is more quietly approaching its first major milestone for a basic missile defense capability. By year-end, a basic operational capability is due to be fielded under the Active Layer Theater Ballistic Missile Defense (ALTBMD) effort underway since 2005.

ALTBMD is effectively an equipment suite that NATO developed so it can use member-provided theater missile defense systems capable of engaging threats with a range of up to 3,000 km. (1,860 mi.). The first elements are already in place, such as the planning tool for the NATO air command-and-control structure at the Combined Air Operations Center (CAOC) level and above, notes Dave Kiefer, NATO ALTBMD deputy program manager.
 
The Interim Capability Step 2—the element due to be added by year-end—will provide the NATO command structure real-time situational awareness of threats, derived from sensors such as the U.S. Defense Support Program early warning satellites and sea-based radars. That information will be processed at a truck-based facility adjacent to the CAOC at Uedem, Germany. The facility will also integrate existing NATO theater missile defense assets, such as PAC 3. The French and Italian systems are expected to come online within a year.

But the capability in place at year-end will still be rather basic, partly because many of the systems that eventually will help populate ALTBMD will not be available at the outset. For instance, Dutch frigate sensor information will be added soon after the system starts operations, and French and Italian SAMP/T intercept systems also will still have to be incorporated. However, Kiefer notes that tests are already being conducted to verify compatibility between the NATO system and the national equipment. In fact, work is underway to ensure that the Medium Extended Air Defense System will tie into ALTBMD, even though the program is only at the critical design review stage.

Another hurdle for NATO's missile defense effort has centered on development problems with the Air Command and Control System. Because ACCS has not matured as planned, NATO had to devise the interim solution of setting up the facility adjacent to the CAOC in Uedem. Once ACCS issues are fixed, and the so-called Level of Operational Capability 1 is ready, the situational awareness data will be sent directly in the CAOC.

NATO's investment community still needs to approve upgrades to ACCS Capability 1 for the theater missile defense role, as well as associated improvements to the Bi-Strategic Command Automated Information System, which provides command and control above CAOC level. Kiefer points out that those upgrades are required for the air command-and-control service, the intelligence service and the service producing the common operating picture. Approval of those upgrades should be secured this year.

Photo: Luftwaffe