Home » Air » Shop Euro For Euro Missile Plan

Shop Euro For Euro Missile Plan

By Colin Clark Monday, October 12th, 2009 5:21 pm
Posted in Air, International, Naval, Policy

The CEO of Europe’s premier missile company, MBDA, thinks the US should use the MEADS and Aster anti-missile systems and buy European radar and subsystems as part of its missile defense plan for the continent.

“We have in Europe two programs well optimized to fit in with US ballistic missile programs,” Antoine Bouvier told the audience of several hundred senior industry and defense officials from around NATO last week.

Bouvier acknowledged burden sharing is a “very sensitive topic” as he spoke — someone can always claim that the Europeans are whining or that the Americans are bullying or some variant of those complaints — but he made clear that Europe could provide equipment that could help fill gaps in America’s arsenal and add value.

“It will provide a unique opportunity for US and European companies to work together,” he said.

MEADS, built by the U.S., Germany and Italy, is a mobile and transportable system to replace the Patriot and Hawk anti-missile systems for NATO. It is approaching critical design review and may be deployed by 2014. It has suffered enormous volatility over the years, coming close several times to being cancelled or abandoned. But the allies appear to have stabilized the program.

Aster is a sea– and land-based surface-to-air anti-missile program designed to take out highly maneuverable targets, including cruise missiles and stealthy targets. It is in production.

Tags: Commentary

This website uses IntenseDebate comments, but they are not currently loaded because either your browser doesn't support JavaScript, or they didn't load fast enough.

Join the Conversation

	Aurora October 12th, 2009 at 9:39 pm Kill the C-17, buy A400s. Kill the KC-767 and KC-777, buy A330MRTTs. Kill Navstar upgrades, buy into Galileo. Scrap our launcher programs, buy Ariane. Why worry about our own defense infrastructure? Don’t need it anymore. We’ve got the nobel peace prize.
	stephen October 12th, 2009 at 9:49 pm Either that or just let Europe buy the defense Europe feels Europe needs. EU and US economies are near peer.
	Daniel October 12th, 2009 at 11:17 pm i would say if Europe wants a European missile system they can pay for it.
	Jay B. Campbell October 12th, 2009 at 11:24 pm Well this would be the exact same thing that the rest of this great country’s industries fell prey too! If you want to turn this economy around, quit sending work overseas, and put our people back to work. In my mind rebuilding our industrial base to be based again in America will do more for this economy than all of the stimulus bills that could be thought of. This is not a quid pro pro between the the USA and the EU or any other organization. This is about America and its greatness. Wake up America!
	Colin October 12th, 2009 at 11:34 pm One of the questions that I haven’t gotten an answer to from the Pentagon is: how much of the new plan will get paid for by Europe. Gates and Cartwright made it very clear they want to see burden sharing occur, and they cited cost as an argument in favor of the new program. We’ll see.
	elgatoso October 13th, 2009 at 3:15 am YES, Europe can pay their own missile defense.
	The Question October 13th, 2009 at 10:27 am Yes, lets see the French pay both the price and political capital to put a missile defense system in Germany or Poland. That system which might drop the warhead in Poland who remembers the last time France came to their defense of Poland in 1939. Maybe the ghost of Neville Chamberlain, can convince the Czechs to depend on England to pay for their protection just like in 1939.
	CharlesHouston October 13th, 2009 at 2:48 pm Why will Europe NOT buy a continent missile defense system — one like George Bush proposed — that covers the entire continent??? Because the threat is vanishingly small. Why would Iran fire it’s proposed ballistic missile at Europe?? They will not. Russia is far more likely to threaten, bluster, and hope to get concessions for free. People are having a “knee jerk” reaction about the cancellation of this missile defense system. It was never needed, never made sense in a military analysis, and was a total waste of money.
	CharlesHouston October 13th, 2009 at 2:48 pm part 2 Europeans have spent big money on forming a heavy airlift wing in Hungary — flying C-17s. Poland flies F-16s. People can froth at the mouth about how the US is being left behind but that does not reflect reality. I am no Obama fan but let’s remain rooted in reality here! We should discourage Europeans from spending money on unneeded missile defense (let the US spend money on unneeded missile defense at most!) and encourage them to spend money on systems that are needed, will be used, etc. And that they will do — German troops are supporting us in Afghanistan, France has rejoined NATO. All is not perfect but our European allies are doing a lot to support us — under difficult circumstances. Charles Phillips LtCol USAF Ret
	Neipos Andros October 13th, 2009 at 2:55 pm Actually, what is wrong with using some European weapons? I don’t see the US developing a robust SAM capability, itself. If Europeans have SAMs that the US may need, such as anti cruise missile weapons, there is no reason why the US shouldn’t be buying those. I can think of many places that the US may need anti cruise missile SAMs, especially cheap ones. The biggest spot is Guam. As Guam is within easy cruise missile range of China, the US needs some sort of mass air defense for Guam, not a handful of SLAMRAAMS and the occasional, vulnerable, Patriot Battalion. There shouldn’t be a problem with buying European weapons, if they work and they aren’t duplicating equivalent US programs. Besides, they get to worry about development problems, not us, isn’t that a good thing in the end?
	Curt October 14th, 2009 at 4:09 am @Charles, Not to belittle the European contributions, but lets put it in perspective. For the specific cases you cite: – The Heavy Airlift Wing has now, and will have in the future, a grand total of 3 C-17s. And the US is part of the group of nations operating the wing! Sorry, not really sounding like a lot of heavy lifting there. At least better than the A400 fiasco. – The vaunted German Troops in Afghanistan are all in the North and do not conduct offensive operations and only recently had their ROE changed so they could fire on a force not actively firing on them. – The French rejoining NATO means pretty much nothing. Glad central Europe is now better protected from Soviet attack. To there credit they have been supporting operations in Afghanistan.
	Curt October 14th, 2009 at 8:25 am @Neipos Andros US is already a MEADS partner (system is slated to replace Patriot and uses the latest PAC3 missile). Problem with Astor is it duplicates existing US (and European for that matter) systems. A SL-AMRAAM type system is already in use by Norway and the Netherlands and will be soon by the Spain and Finland. Add a SL-AMRAAM ER and a ground launched AIM-9X and you pretty much cover the spectrum of threats covered by Astor with equivilent performance. With the added benefit that you use tested systems already in the US inventory and when you upgrade the AIM-120/AIM-9, you also update the SAM missiles. On the Naval side the SM-2 (and soon SM-6) and ESSMS pretty much cover the spectrum and they work in ther MK41 VLS. So there is no need for any version of Astor. And the Europeans have nothing comparable to the SM-3 (which is already a joint program with Japan). So what exactly does the US need from MBDA that we aren’t already working on with them (MEADS)?
	CharlesHouston October 14th, 2009 at 3:10 pm Curt — in many ways I agree with you. But diverting money to a missile defense system is not a good idea. The heavy airlift “wing” does only have three C-17s right now but Europeans had to justify (to European voters) spending money on US produced aircraft, ground support, etc. With some luck the wing will buy additional C-17s. And some eastern European countries (I cited Poland which is an ex-Warsaw Pact country) fly American fighters. The Germans in Afghanistan have been spending a lot more on booze than ammunition but their party is coming to an end now. Let’s encourage the Europeans to spend money on things that we can actually use now rather than a missile defense system.
	Roland October 15th, 2009 at 1:34 am Wherever the technology came from this is matter of saving life in the future. Rougue nations as we know it now, are stronger than they use to be.
	stephen October 15th, 2009 at 2:25 am “Glad central Europe is now better protected from Soviet attack. “ In what respect? BTW, there is no Soviet anything but memory, USSR no longer exists. How is a non-entity going to attack?
	roland October 15th, 2009 at 8:21 am I think the Georgean, Poland and their neighbors has the right answer. One thing I know is communism have done it by force and define their success as the end justify the means, in the past. There is nothing wrong in being prepared. But we needed to be caucious about it, as it may create fear among opposition, rougue nations and may counter react. I think the greatest danger the world have is terrorism, Osama Bin Ladin , Al-Sawari, Omar, a lying Persians and those who support terrorism.
	Curt October 15th, 2009 at 7:20 am @Charles, As I said, I did not mean to belittle the European contributions, just to put it in perspective. I would disagree that missile defense is not important, but I would agree that there are far more glaring failures in European Militaries than lack of missile defense that should be addressed first. And I would say if MBDA wants to do more missile defense work, they should convince their owners countries to participate. @stephen, The whole point of the quote was that there is no Soviet threat anymore so defending central Europe is not that important. As I said, France re-integrating with the NATO (or OTAN if you speak french) command structure (they were always a member of NATO just not the integrated military command part) really means very little.
	Brileant 11 October 15th, 2009 at 2:07 pm I think it is good to create something promot human existance,but all the hevy duty atlaries are wepone of mass ditruction of human being .so let create a coredor of negotiation for disamament of wepones of mass aistruction because all human have the same nature of equality, dignity and right and should act towords one another in a spirit of brotherhood.
	SkysoldierRecon October 18th, 2009 at 1:50 pm since our nato partners in europe have been so helpful, why not let them defend THEMSELVES. Gutless NATO members buying off talibs, swilling beer, fat and scared to go outside the wire. The US should use ALL that wasted UN, NATO money on something else. Guess Art.5 ain’t worth the paper its printed on.