• The Heritage Network
    • Resize:
    • A
    • A
    • A
  • Donate
  • MEADS Development Crucial to U.S. Defense

    Former Representative Bob Barr’s (R–GA) criticism of the Medium Extended Air Defense System (MEADS) anti-aircraft and missile program is understandable but misplaced. Representative Barr, quite reasonably, points to the Obama Administration’s plan to continue spending money on this cooperative program with Germany and Italy despite an announcement early last year that it is moving to exit it. What he fails to appreciate is that the Administration’s earlier decision to exit the program was itself misguided.

    MEADS is important and advantageous for several reasons. First, MEADS successfully completed its design review last August. Second, it had a successful flight test last November. Third, integration testing of the system continues to advance. Fourth, MEADS will very likely provide a much-improved capability over the Patriot system in fending off combined attacks by both cruise and ballistic missiles, while providing 360-degree coverage. Fifth, the alternatives to MEADS would hardly be cost-free and would start at less advanced positions in the acquisition process. Finally, the MEADS program is one of the few missile defense programs that is receiving direct development funding from U.S. allies.

    The last of these facts deserves special consideration, because it is about more than the foreign contributions. The Obama Administration has stated that it is its policy to foster foreign cooperation in the broader missile defense program, but its actions indicate otherwise. First, it moved to pull the rug out from under the governments of the Czech Republic and Poland by canceling existing agreements to field a missile defense radar and interceptors on their respective territories. This system was being designed to provide protection toU.S.territory as well asEurope. The withdrawal was to appeaseRussiawhen it insisted that theU.S.and its allies inEuropebe left vulnerable to Russian missile attacks. Then the Administration announced its intention to exit the MEADS program, thereby pulling the rug out from underGermanyandItaly.

    Most recently, Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta stated in a letter to Senator John McCain (R–AZ) that he is likely to cancel the current missile defense program forEurope, called the European Phased Adaptive Approach (EPAA)—which is supposedly the centerpiece of the Administration’s broader missile program—under the automatic defense cuts the Administration favors.

    There is a pattern developing here: The Obama Administration makes commitments to U.S. allies regarding missile defense and then abandons those commitments in a way that does serious damage toU.S.relations with its allies and the missile defense program. It certainly appears that the President recognizes that the American people want to be protected against missile attacks, but he is not committed to that defense himself. The answer to this dilemma, apparently, is to advance certain missile defense programs for a while and then terminate them later. The American people, as well as U.S. friends and allies, deserve a serious and sustained missile defense effort.

    This brings us back to the issue of money. The real source of waste in these instances is the President’s pursuing missile defense programs only to the extent that it leaves an impression in the mind of the public that he favors such a defense. If this is his strategy, he is undertaking an expensive public relations campaign.

    Posted in Featured [slideshow_deploy]

    3 Responses to MEADS Development Crucial to U.S. Defense

    1. Rapparree says:

      Unlike SDI, the MEADS program is a down-to-earth, valuable deterrent that includes ally funding and can be deployed in the short-term. What's not to like?

      Time to start FREEZING federal spending and not CUTTING defense spending.

    2. Snitch-in-Time says:

      It is instructive to note that the most conspicuous critics of MEADS happen to represent states with large Raytheon facilities that produce the venerable but aging Patriot system. What we are seeing is not an honorable episode of new-found fiscal responsibility but rather another predictable and ugly episode of "crony capitalism". The losers, should MEADS be cancelled, will be troops sent into the field with aging air defenses against resurgent Russian and Chinese air assets in the hands of our adversaries. After cancellation of MEADS then what? Patriot will cost more to give "MEADS-like" capabilities and the technology acquired through MEADS will be forfeited. That is the real cost of defaulting on the MEADS contract, the US will lose the technology developed through the partnership. Funny how critics never mention this.

    3. WWH says:

      MEADS is way along its path to being fligh tested. Stopping it now can only be viewed, by a reasonable person, as politically motivated. There is absolutely no economical reason to not complete a program that is more than 3/4 done!

    Comments are subject to approval and moderation. We remind everyone that The Heritage Foundation promotes a civil society where ideas and debate flourish. Please be respectful of each other and the subjects of any criticism. While we may not always agree on policy, we should all agree that being appropriately informed is everyone's intention visiting this site. Profanity, lewdness, personal attacks, and other forms of incivility will not be tolerated. Please keep your thoughts brief and avoid ALL CAPS. While we respect your first amendment rights, we are obligated to our readers to maintain these standards. Thanks for joining the conversation.

    Big Government Is NOT the Answer

    Your tax dollars are being spent on programs that we really don't need.

    I Agree I Disagree ×

    Get Heritage In Your Inbox — FREE!

    Heritage Foundation e-mails keep you updated on the ongoing policy battles in Washington and around the country.