Washington, DC, July 28, 1995.
Hon. Strom Thurmond,
Chairman, Committee on Armed Services, U.S. Senate Washington, DC.
[Page: S11147]
The Department's approach to the MEADS program has its direct legacy in past Congressional direction that the United States seek cooperation with our allies on the development of tactical and theater missile defenses. I would cite the provision from the Fiscal Year 1994 Defense Authorization Conference Report that expressed the following sense of the Congress:
`Congress encourages allies of the United States, and particularly those allies that would benefit most from deployment of Theater Missile Defense systems, to participate in, or to increase participation in, cooperative Theater Missile Defense programs of the United States. Congress also encourages participation by the United States in cooperative theater missile defense efforts of allied nations as such programs emerge.'
The MEADS represents an appropriate form of allied cooperation in the development of a missile defense system for which the United States and our allies share a valid military requirement. As you are aware, MEADS will fulfill an existing U.S. operational requirement for a rapidly deployable, highly mobile, robust air defense system designed to protect maneuver forces and expeditionary forces of the U.S. Army and Marine Corps. Both Services are in strong agreement on the need for protection against short- to medium-range ballistic missiles and the full spectrum of air-breathing threats-aircraft, cruise missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles. This is also a military requirement shared by our European allies. In short, this is a valid requirement.
To satisfy this requirement and reduce costs, the committee recommends a restructured program that would merge ongoing efforts in PAC-3 and Theater High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) to produce a mobile, hybrid system. The acquisition strategy for the current MEADS program does, in fact, leverage off existing ballistic and cruise missile defense programs as the committee suggests. During the MEADS program definition phase, we have planned to evaluate all viable options including hybrid solutions. Each approach will be assessed and its advantages in terms of costs and commonality will be compared to other system concepts. At least one of our partners, Germany, which already has PATRIOT, would most likely respond eagerly to any PAC-3 option which would provide part of a cost and operationally effective MEADS architecture. Additionally, any potential cost saving derived from unilateral development are more than offset by the political, operational and diplomatic benefits of international collaboration.
The outcome of the internationally structured MEADS program will be viewed on both sides of the Atlantic as one of the most important tests of future trans-Atlantic defense cooperation. At a time when both sides of the Atlantic are experiencing declining defense budgets and smaller procurements, we should welcome collaborative ventures where there are compatible requirements. Failure to follow through with this collaborative effort could significantly impact prospects for future defense cooperation within the alliance, jeopardize U.S. efforts to forge an alliance policy on theater missile defense, and may hamper the ability of U.S. defense industry to solicit joint programs with the allies in other areas.
The Senate report language specifies that the United States would be best served to work with the allies on theater missile defense systems that would provide wide areas of coverage, such as Navy wide area or Army THAAD systems. While future cooperative efforts in those programs may have merit, I firmly believe that MEADS uniquely offers the best opportunity for allied cooperation at this time. In a future conflict, as in Operation Desert Storm, the United States and our allies will likely be operating together in a theater of operations as a coalition force. In this manner, our maneuver forces will be vulnerable to attack by tactical ballistic missiles, cruise missiles and other air-breathing threats. The MEADS would allow United States, French, German and Italian forces operating the system to provide protection for all coalition partners. At the same time, THAAD and Navy Wide Area Defenses could provide a defensive overlay. Hence, MEADS supports coalition efforts, joint operations and interoperability of tactical ballistic missile defenses. These could be critical features in a future conflict.
I urge you to support the full budget request for MEADS, our centerpiece of Theater Missile Defense cooperation with our European allies.
Sincerely,
William J. Perry.
-