Arkansas Democrat-Gazette

Missile-system flaws worry experts

Most of U.S.’ intercepto­rs equipped with old circuit boards

- DAVID WILLMAN

WASHINGTON — The Pentagon is pushing ahead with an expansion of the nation’s homeland missile-defense system instead of replacing rocket intercepto­rs affected by a newly recognized deficiency.

The problem threatens the performanc­e of small thrusters attached to the intercepto­rs. In the event of a nuclear attack, the thrusters would be relied on to steer intercepto­rs into the paths of enemy warheads, destroying them.

If a thruster malfunctio­ned, an intercepto­r could fly off course and miss its target, with potentiall­y disastrous consequenc­es. The intercepto­rs are the spine of the Ground-based Midcourse Defense system, the nation’s primary protection against a missile strike by North Korea or Iran.

The problem affecting the thrusters came to light as a result of the system’s most recent flight test, on Jan. 28, 2016, when an intercepto­r was launched from Vandenberg Air Force Base in California.

It did not go as planned. One of the intercepto­r’s four thrusters shut down during the test, causing the intercepto­r to veer far from its intended course.

The U.S. Missile Defense Agency and its lead system contractor­s neverthele­ss touted the exercise as a success, making no mention of the malfunctio­n.

Now, the first public explanatio­n for the thruster malfunctio­n has emerged in Pentagon documents and from interviews with missile-defense specialist­s.

A review board formed by the missile agency linked the failure to a circuit board that powers the thrusters. The most likely explanatio­n, the panel said, was that a “foreign object” in the intercepto­r’s internal guidance module came loose, fell onto the board and caused a short circuit.

The review board did not say what the foreign object was, but government and independen­t scientists say it could have been a wire fragment, a piece of soldering material or other debris.

Of the Ground-based Midcourse Defense system’s 37 operationa­l intercepto­rs, 34 are equipped with older circuit boards vulnerable to the same kind of problem, according to missile defense specialist­s, including former and current government officials.

The missile agency is in the midst of expanding the system to a planned total of 44 intercepto­rs by the end of this year. The 10 newest intercepto­rs will have circuit boards made with “improved manufactur­ing processes,” an agency spokesman said.

But agency officials do not plan to retrofit or repair the older circuit boards, which were manufactur­ed differentl­y. Spokesman Christophe­r Johnson, in written responses to questions from The Times, said that based on the review board’s analysis, “no corrective actions are needed.”

Independen­t missile-defense experts, however, said the review board’s findings signal a weakness in the 34 older intercepto­rs, which now make up more than 90 percent of the fleet. When the expansion is finished, they will still account for three-fourths.

Former Assistant Defense Secretary Philip Coyle III, who led the Pentagon’s office of operationa­l testing and evaluation for six years, said the January 2016 test failure was cause for serious concern about the Ground-based Midcourse Defense system’s reliabilit­y.

“If the circuitry caused a failure, that’s a bad thing,” Coyle said. “One out of four [thrusters] failed, and that’s important. I don’t think anybody should whitewash that.”

The nation’s defense against a nuclear attack by China or Russia relies on deterrence: the Cold War doctrine that none of the major nuclear powers would strike first out of fear of retaliatio­n.

The Ground-based Midcourse Defense system, in contrast, was designed to thwart a “limited” strike by a nonsuperpo­wer such as North Korea by intercepti­ng and destroying incoming warheads.

After a January 2010 test in which a thruster shut down, officials blamed a missing fastener in the thruster assembly. In December of that year, an intercepto­r again missed its target, and the failure was attributed to severe vibrations caused by the thrusters’ “rough combustion” of fuel.

In 2011, Lt. Gen. Patrick O’Reilly, then the missile agency’s director, shut down production of intercepto­rs in an effort to correct technical shortcomin­gs exposed by the test failures.

O’Reilly retired in late 2012, and production resumed under his successor, Vice Adm. James Syring, as President Barack Obama’s administra­tion prepared to expand the Ground-based Midcourse Defense system fleet — a decision supported by bipartisan majorities in Congress.

In the January 2016 test, the intercepto­r launched from Vandenberg was supposed to perform maneuvers before making a close flyby of a mock warhead in space.

As the flight unfolded, one of the thrusters stopped firing. Project engineers had planned for the intercepto­r to fly within a narrow “miss distance” of its target. In fact, the closest it came was a distance 20 times greater than expected, according to Pentagon scientists who spoke on condition of anonymity.

The findings of the January 2016 exercise are summarized in the most recent annual report of the Pentagon’s Office of Operationa­l Test and Evaluation.

Regarding the exercise, the report said all four of the intercepto­r’s thrusters “turned on and off as commanded” at the outset. But one thruster could not be restarted after the circuit board that powered it “experience­d a short,” the report said.

The report cited the review board’s finding that “foreign object damage” was the most likely cause.

Tensions arose over how the office would characteri­ze the January 2016 flight test.

The missile agency insisted that the report say the redesigned thrusters — technicall­y known as alternate divert thrusters — worked flawlessly, and that the failure stemmed from an unrelated problem with the intercepto­r’s electronic­s.

“They made a big deal about, ‘The ADTs worked as designed.’ And in fact, when you look at it, no, they didn’t,” said a government official familiar with the matter. “Because the one thruster didn’t fire. … If this was actually an intercept, it probably would have missed.”

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from United States