• The Heritage Network
    • Resize:
    • A
    • A
    • A
  • Donate
  • MEADS Passes Test; U.S. Should Re-establish Support for Program

    NATO.svgThe Medium Extended Air Defense System (MEADS) recently completed its third successful test—locating, tracking, and destroying two targets attacking simultaneously from the north and south. Instead of backing out of the MEADS program, the United States needs to recommit to it to ensure a robust and comprehensive missile defense system.

    The MEADS program began after a trilateral agreement by the U.S., Germany, and Italy to share developmental costs and procure the system. MEADS would complement current NATO missile defense systems, as well the seaborne Aegis missile defense system and Terminal High Altitude Area Defense System (THAAD). It would also provide another defensive layer against short-range missiles and air threats, increasing overall battlefield and strategic situational awareness and improving threat response time.

    MEADS uses 360-degree surveillance radar, a networked battle manager, easily maneuverable launchers, PAC-3 missiles, and a 360-degree Multifunction Fire Control Radar (MFCR) to locate, target, and destroy air and missile threats. It offers 360-degree protection from air and missile threats against the U.S., allies, and operationally deployed troops. Compared to the current Patriot system, MEADS is cheaper and easier to transport (allowing it to be used in high-tempo operations), and it is the only system able to intercept more than two threats simultaneously.

    Although MEADS “could provide a better defense against combined ballistic and cruise missile attacks,” the U.S. has no further development or procurement plans for the system. It has been in development between three NATO member states since 2004, and the planned U.S. termination may undermine NATO’s strategic aim to “develop the capability to defend our populations and territories against ballistic missile attack as a core element of our collective defense, which contributes to the indivisible security of the Alliance.”

    Further, as Baker Spring pointed out, by ending participation in MEADS, the U.S. could signal to allies that it may not stick to agreements; or, as former Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta stated, withdrawal could “negatively affect allied willingness to join future cooperative endeavors.”

    The U.S. needs to re-establish the MEADS program’s funding and procurement status to replace older, more costly air and missile defense systems and further enhance the United States’ missile defense capabilities.

    John Collick is currently a member of the Young Leaders Program at The Heritage Foundation. For more information on interning at Heritage, please click here.

    Posted in Capitol Hill, Security [slideshow_deploy]

    Comments are closed.

    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.

    ×