Order Code RS21921
Updated August 27, 2004
CRS Report for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
Cruise Missile Defense
Ravi R. Hichkad and Christopher Bolkcom
Research Associate and Specialist in National Defense
Foreign Affairs, Defense, and Trade Division
Summary
Congress has expressed interest in cruise missile defense for years. Cruise missiles
(CMs) are essentially unmanned attack aircraft — vehicles composed of an airframe,
propulsion system, guidance system, and weapons payload. They may possess highly
complex navigation and targeting systems and thus have the capability to sustain low,
terrain-hugging flight paths as well as strike with great accuracy. CMs can be launched
from numerous platforms — air-, land-, or sea-based — and they can be outfitted with
either conventional weapons or weapons of mass destruction (WMD). The Department
of Defense is pursuing several initiatives that seek to improve capabilities against an
unpredictable cruise missile threat. These initiatives compete for funding and
congressional attention. This report will be updated as events warrant.
Background
The National Defense Authorization Act for FY1996 called on the Department of
Defense (DOD) to embark upon an initiative to develop cruise missile defense (CMD)
programs emphasizing operational efficiency and affordability. Advanced cruise missiles
(CMs) — those designed with stealthy capabilities to evade detection — were noted as
a prominent threat prompting the need for effective CMD. This CMD initiative was to
be well coordinated with other air defense efforts; that is, with “cruise missile defense
programs ... and ballistic missile defense programs ... mutually supporting” each other.1
Three years later, in conjunction with the National Defense Authorization Act for
FY1999, the Senate Armed Services Committee noted: “[T]he committee does not believe
that the Department of Defense has adequately integrated its various cruise missile
defense programs into a coherent architecture and development plan.”2
DOD has indicated a commitment to developing CMD capabilities — within its
larger strategy of air defense requirements — that demonstrate operational effectiveness.
Unlike past approaches to CMD that critics assert were “stovepiped” — individually
driven by the Services’ respective objectives — current and future programs are meant
1 National Defense Authorization Act For Fiscal Year 1996, H.Rept. 104-450, p. 57.
2 National Defense Authorization Act For Fiscal Year 1999, S.Rept. 105-189, p. 154.
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

---

CRS-2
to emphasize effectiveness based on inter-Service synergy, or jointness. Whether or not
the Pentagon will be able to integrate CMD plans to a point of effective interoperability
is an important question. Many analysts believe that no mission area will rely more on
jointness than detection and intercept of advanced CMs. An examination of CMD
development, therefore, offers some insight into the progress DOD is making in terms of
increased joint warfighting capability.
CMD today is primarily an issue of force protection for U.S. troops deployed in a
theater of conflict. The CM threat to the United States appears lower than the theater CM
threat, but it also seems likely to grow. Given ongoing proliferation challenges, there is
general consensus that CM technology will continue to spread.3 Many claim that the
United States’ dominance of manned military aviation will drive many countries to adopt
CMs as the “poor man’s air force.” By 2015, the CIA estimates that up to two dozen
nations will be able to pose a serious CM threat — primarily in theater but also through
forward-deployed weapons platforms.4 Also, the U.S. failure to detect several Iraqi CMs
launched against American assets during Operation Iraqi Freedom has led some in DOD
to now deem CMD a “critical mission area.”5
CMs present many operational challenges.6 Effective CMD requires rapid and
accurate performance of a series of military tasks collectively known as the “kill chain.”
First, surveillance radars must detect manned and unmanned aircraft; including CMs. The
second major step involves continuously tracking the aircraft along its course, a process
complicated by what may be an elusive flight path. Next, the aircraft must be identified.
It must be concretely determined whether the airborne object is a CM, or a friendly or
neutral aircraft. This process, called combat identification, is vital to lowering the chances
that a friendly or neutral aircraft might be erroneously identified as a threat, and attacked
— a scenario that unfortunately played out several times during Operation Iraqi Freedom.
Once a CM threat is identified, a decision on how to engage the CM must be made:
Which defense assets — naval, ground, or airborne platforms — will be used to try to
intercept the CM? The final step of the kill chain involves actually intercepting or
neutralizing the CM with weapons — missiles and gunfire being the only two current
options. Other technologies, such as directed energy weapons, are being studied.7
The U.S. military has historically fielded Service-oriented CMD systems —
independent land-, air-, and sea-based weapons platforms with CMD applications.8
Although this strategy has yielded fairly effective point defense capabilities against
3 For a detailed listing of countries possessing CMs, see CRS Report RL30427. For some recent
developments regarding CM proliferation, see CRS Report RL30699.
4 Michael C. Sirak, “US DoD Seeks to Bolster Cruise Missile Defences,” Jane’s Defence Weekly,
Sept. 2, 2002.
5 “Joint Officials Plan 2nd Annual Cruise Missile Defense Conference,” Inside Missile Defense,
vol. 10, no. 13, June 23, 2004.
6 For more information on air defense issues and challenges, see CRS Report RS21394.
7 Robert Wall, “Sketching the Future; Developers Mull Upgrading USAF Bombers with Laser
Weapons,” Aviation Week & Space Technology, vol. 160, issue 23, June 7, 2004.
8 Major examples of these platforms are as follows: the Army’s Patriot air defense system, the
Navy’s Aegis missile defense system, and the Air Force’s surveillance and tactical aircraft.

---

CRS-3
conventional airborne threats, most analysts agree that an advanced CM threat will require
more effective defenses. Some efforts are underway to promote better linkages among
existing Service platforms and radar systems to combat CMs and other low altitude
threats. The area cruise missile defense capability sponsored by North American
Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD), for example, seeks to augment sensor coverage
for NORAD capabilities and link with Service weapons systems for target engagement.9
Further effectiveness against advanced CMs will require improved joint surveillance,
tracking and combat identification capabilities, and increased weapons range.
Key DOD CMD Efforts
The Pentagon’s efforts to improve CMD capabilities are addressed through multiple
offices and strategies. Some of the most prominent ones are described below.
Joint Theater Air and Missile Defense Organization (JTAMDO).
JTAMDO was established in 1997 to ensure the coordination of CMD and ballistic
missile defense programs as well as to integrate DOD’s theater air and missile defense
requirements. As a result of restructuring under the Unified Command Plan of 2002,
U.S. Strategic Command (STRATCOM) took responsibility of global missile defense and
JTAMDO was tasked with a support role for STRATCOM. JTAMDO’s current mission
— developing joint capabilities and structures for an air and missile defense family of
systems — takes place through various projects. Some of JTAMDO’s current activities
include assisting with homeland air security and contributing to assessing ballistic missile
defense architectures in preparation for their initial defensive operations. CMD study and
technological demonstration remain among JTAMDO’s stated activities.
Single Integrated Air Picture (SIAP). The Joint SIAP System Engineering
Organization (JSSEO) — a division of the Assistant Secretary of the Army for
Acquisition, Logistics, and Technology — is tasked with leading efforts to develop a
SIAP — the integration of the Services’ air defense technologies into a total, shared
environmental awareness.10 Presently, the platforms of any one Service are only able to
provide a partial picture of the total threat environment. A SIAP is intended to detect and
continuously track all airborne objects and ensure that all allies within a theater have the
same tracking data. Within a theater, where a myriad of assets — friendly, hostile, and
neutral — may be concurrently airborne, a SIAP would be central to timely decision-
making regarding threat responses. The level of awareness offered by a SIAP will be
most dependent upon newer data linkages, such as that offered by the Joint Tactical Radio
System (JTRS), and the ability to track every object with one clear signature. Until
recently, the Navy was working toward this level of integration through a Block 2 upgrade
of its Cooperative Engagement Capability (CEC) system. JSSEO efforts later supplanted
this particular naval CEC program upgrade. JSSEO has been conducting technical
assessments to develop an integrated architecture for data sharing. The technology is
primarily aimed at accelerating the interoperability of those systems designed for airborne
threat detection and those designed for intercept — commonly known as the “sensor to
9 “NORAD-Sponsored ACTD Promises Enhanced Cruise Missile Defense,” Inside the Air Force,
Aug. 13, 2004.
10 Richard C. Barnard, “Single Integrated Air Picture Holds the Key to Navy’s Net Centric
Plans,” Sea Power, Mar. 2004.

---

CRS-4
shooter” linkage. JSSEO projects fielding this technology in September 2005.11 It
estimates SIAP development costs to be around $160 million from FY2004 to FY2009,
and the Services will need to spend $600 million to incorporate SIAP technology into
their existing weapons platforms.12
Joint Combat Identification Evaluation Team (JCIET). Under the authority
of U.S. Joint Forces Command, JCIET assesses issues associated with combat
identification and finding doctrinal, technological, and procedural solutions to reduce the
incidence of fratricide.13 JCIET coordinates joint exercises in which multiple Service
platforms are tested for performance in detection, tracking, and identification of airborne
threats — CMs being among them.14 The data collection and evaluation from these
exercises aids in determining how to address the advanced CM threat. JCIET efforts aid
combat identification capabilities and can therefore contribute to a clearer air picture. The
mission of providing a joint approach to CM combat identification belongs to JTAMDO.
In its budget estimates for FY2005, JTAMDO has allocated $15.3 million (17.7 %) of its
$86.4 million total funding towards combat identification activities.15
Integrated Fire Control (IFC). IFC attempts to decouple Service-specific and
platform-specific fire control radars from their weapons to create over-the-horizon and
joint CMD intercept capabilities. Presently, fire control radars control specific weapons.
The Navy, for example, can today intercept a CM with a surface-to-air missile guided by
the ship’s Aegis radar. A Patriot missile can intercept CMs based on its radar’s
information, and an F-15’s radar would guide its air-to-air missiles to intercept a CM.
IFC would enable an airborne surveillance platform such as an E-2C Hawkeye, E-3
AWACS, or the Joint Land Attack Cruise Missile Defense Elevated Netted Sensor
(JLENS) to relay CM tracking information to either ground- or air-based assets for
engagement.16 Furthermore, once ground-based weapons, for example, have been sent
to intercept the CM, radars external to the launch platform will be able to direct the
weapons towards the CM. These objectives of IFC would remove the horizon or line-of-
sight limitations that currently exist for CMD, thus increasing the time and distance for
intercept. Decoupling the fire control radar from the weapon could improve capabilities
against stealthy CMs due to improved radar perspectives.
Combined with the goals of a single integrated air picture, IFC would create a much
wider and more defensible area of coverage against advanced CMs. Major IFC efforts for
missile defense are now being undertaken within the Army’s Integrated Fire Control
11 “Common Aerospace Capability Standard to be Released in 2005,” Aerospace Daily & Defense
Report, July 28, 2004.
12 “Pentagon’s SIAP Office Expects to Deliver First Capability Set in FY-05,” Inside Missile
Defense, vol. 10, no. 4, Feb. 18, 2004.
13 For more information on JCIET, see [http://www.jfcom.mil/about/com_jciet.htm].
14 Sandra I. Erwin, “Air Warfare’s Holy Grail: A ‘Single Integrated Picture,’” National Defense,
Sept. 1, 2002.
15 Budget information provided to CRS by JTAMDO.
16 For more information on JLENS, see CRS Report RS21886.

---

CRS-5
Product Office.17 In addition, JTAMDO is investigating the integration of IFC along with
other air defense elements within a simulation environment, the Virtual Warfare Center.
Although studies here focus on both ballistic and cruise missile defense requirements, the
former’s integration has been more predominantly stressed in terms of efforts in 2005.18
Congressional Considerations
Generally at issue is whether or not DOD has adequately responded to congressional
directives on CMD. This question is best addressed by examining the three main parts
of the 1996 congressional CMD initiative: a suitable coordination of CMD with ballistic
missile defense (BMD) efforts, the development of CMD for near-term as well as
advanced CM threats, and affordability and operational effectiveness for all CMD efforts.
Congress directed DOD to undertake BMD and CMD efforts in a mutually
supportive fashion. Some argue that Pentagon efforts on CMD have taken a back seat to
BMD efforts. In terms of resource allocation, much more focus has been placed on
ballistic missile defense than on CMD. In its budget request for FY2005, for example,
DOD sought $9.2 billion for the Missile Defense Agency — the office tasked with BMD
— and asked for $239 million toward the development of CMD.19 On the one hand, it can
be argued that BMD must remain paramount given the known ballistic missile threat —
nuclear missiles are already targeted at the United States and enemy ballistic missiles have
already taken a toll on U.S. troops during wartime. On the other hand, some contend that
the current level of prioritization may be too lopsided. As noted by the Defense Science
Board, the CM threat is highly unpredictable and advanced CMs could emerge quickly
and unexpectedly.20
In relation to the congressional directive to address near-term and future airborne
threats, DOD has stressed effective theater and air missile defense as a prime objective.
In addition to upgrading many of the Services’ individual CMD weapons platforms, DOD
is working toward many of the strategies relevant to future CMD — a single integrated
air picture, better combat identification, and integrated fire control among them. DOD
anticipates that such building blocks will enable the employment of a joint engagement
zone (JEZ) for theater war fighting by 2010. Currently, theater commanders try to reduce
the chance of fratricide by separating CMD forces into distinct zones: missile engagement
zones and fighter engagement zones. This separation, however, also reduces effectiveness.
A JEZ is intended to enable interoperability among the Services’ sensors and weapons
systems for offensive and defensive operations. Will the CMD challenges inherent to
creating a JEZ really be overcome by 2010? To do so would require adequate investments
of time and effort by the Pentagon. However, JTAMDO, for example, estimates that as
little as 20% of its time and manpower is currently going toward CMD efforts. At the
same time, it estimates that upwards of 40% of its resources are being put toward support
17 Shelby G. Spires, “New Missile Office Faces Major Task,” Huntsville Times, July 9, 2004.
18 Information provided to CRS by JTAMDO.
19 Prepared testimony of U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld before the Senate
Appropriations Committee, Defense Subcommittee, May 12, 2004.
20 Report of the Defense Science Board Summer Study on Cruise Missile Defense,
Undersecretary of Defense for Acquisition & Technology, Washington, DC, Jan. 1995, p.14.

---

CRS-6
of the initial defensive operations of BMD.21 Moreover, considerable JTAMDO resources
are being expended toward homeland air security coordination. Current levels of effort
for these and other JTAMDO functions may be linked to the reorganization resulting from
the Unified Command Plan of 2002. Although some measure of action toward addressing
the CM threat is being taken, the level of urgency remains an issue — as DOD may now
deem other defense activities more pressing.
Congress noted that CMD measures should be undertaken with operational
effectiveness as a core criterion. Since interoperability of resources remains the paramount
feature in the Pentagon’s activities to develop effective CMD, consequences associated
with jointness are a key factor to monitor. Further, several CMD objectives will likely
enable other mission areas. An effective SIAP, for example, not only will offer CMD
applications but also will enable counter-air operations and battlefield interdiction efforts.
Increased jointness associated with CMD efforts may also create some level of
organizational friction, and Congress may come under pressure to provide oversight to
resolve Service “turf battles.” As CMD efforts become more integrated, Service control
over traditionally clear boundaries may get cloudier. With enhanced IFC, for example, Air
Force or Navy assets may be able to direct ground-based weapons that are currently under
Army control. It is possible that narrow Service interests may hinder the implementation
of — and thus effectiveness of — future joint CMD capabilities. Moreover, will the
Services’ CMD operational overlap lead to a reorganization of which Services control —
and are funded by Congress for — certain weapons systems and programs?
The congressional directive to develop affordable CMD measures is an important
issue in terms of procurement. Current cost-exchange ratios associated with CMs favor
attackers over defenders; cruise missiles can be cheap and defenses are costly. For
example, Patriot missiles, bought at roughly $2.5 million apiece, can be effective
interceptors for incoming CMs, but those CMs may be simple designs costing only a
couple hundred thousand dollars apiece.22 Moreover, intercept costs are only one of many
kill chain expenditures that can make CMD forces much more expensive than the CM
threat. On the whole, the Pentagon seems to have promoted the pursuit of advanced CMD
programs to combat sophisticated CM attacks. In terms of simple CM threats, however,
more resources may be needed to produce less costly but nonetheless effective defenses.
DOD’s Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) has a low-cost cruise
missile defense program that focuses on countering low-tech CMs by reducing the cost
of interceptors. DARPA hopes to develop CMD interceptors that would cost as little as
$40,000. Even cheaper intercept technologies may be required for cost-effective CMD,
especially if faced with large-scale attacks by cheap CMs. Inexpensive but proven
“jamming” technology (e.g., high power microwaves) that can disrupt CM guidance
systems might be a potentially useful approach. Also, point defense weapons, such as
radar-guided machine guns with high rates of fire, could be employed against less
sophisticated CMs.
21 Estimates provided to CRS by JTAMDO.
22 Kathy Gambrell, “Senate Begins 2nd Day of Debate on Fiscal ’05 Defense Budget,” Aerospace
Daily & Defense Report, May 19, 2004.

---