From “”The Defense Monitor” – Center for Defense Information – Washington, DC

The Costs of Ballistic

Missile Defense

By Christopher Hellman

Senior Analyst

There is no simple way to estimate the cost of developing a national missile defense (NMD) system. A 1995 analysis by the Library of Congress' Congressional Research Service (CRS) makes the point eloquently: "The question of exactly how much has been spent on 'SDI' or missile defenses since its inception is controversial and problematic. Analysts do not all agree on what exactly to count and how to count it once identified."1 For example, should money spent on the Nike and Safeguard systems which were designed to shoot down incoming missiles be counted? It is equally difficult to estimate the future costs of an NMD system, since it is uncertain what form the initial system will take and how it might later be expanded.

This section focuses on the costs of ballistic missile defense (BMD) programs since President Reagan's 1983 "Star Wars" speech. Although substantial sums were spent on BMD systems such as the Nike-X, Nike-Zeus and Safeguard systems prior to this date-the Brookings Institution's "Atomic Audit" places the cost of these three systems at $34 billion2-the idea of developing and deploying a system capable of protecting the entire United States against ballistic missile attack was not seriously considered prior to 1983.

Figures, unless otherwise noted, will be in current-or "then-year" dollars-which are not adjusted for inflation, in order to show actual expenditures rather than to compare the relative expenditures from one year to another.

Historical Costs of BMD/NMD Program

According to the 1995 CRS report, the Defense Department's official funding estimates for ballistic missile defenses for the period Fiscal Year (FY) 1984 through FY'94 of $32.6 billion were badly understated. CRS estimated the actual amount at $70.7 billion. This funding was for general research and development on a broad range of technologies, and not designated as funding for specific BMD systems.

In fact, NMD does not appear as a separate program until the FY'97 budget request. Between FY'93 and FY'00-the years covered by the Clinton Administration-NMD received $10.8 billion.3

Relative Cost Estimates of Selected NMD Systems

One of the factors which make it difficult to assign a dollar figure to NMD is uncertainty about how the system will look. The number and type of components, as well as the extent of the threat against which the system is designed to defend, have constantly evolved. Chart 1 gives a comparison of some of the most concrete system architectures, including the threat they are intended to meet, the components included in each system, and their costs. The systems range from the modest one envisioned in the Missile Defense Act of 1991, to the much more ambitious GPALS system advocated by the Bush Administration. Note: this chart is representative, not inclusive.

A "Limited" System

An April 2000 report by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) puts the cost of the Clinton Administration's latest blueprint for a limited NMD system at nearly $60 billion.4 The report looked at the costs of the various phases of NMD deployment from an initial system of 100 ground-based interceptors at one location to a more robust system with 250 ground-based interceptors at two locations. CBO estimated the cost of the initial system, known as Expanded Capability 1, at $29.5 billion, and of the larger, Expanded Capability 3 system at $48.8 billion. This figure does not include the costs of the SBIRS-Low satellite system, which CBO views as critical to the success of the current NMD program. Including the cost of the SBIRS-Low satellite system, CBO estimates the total cost of the Expanded Capability 3 system at $59.4 billion (see Chart 2 for estimated costs of a "limited" NMD system).

Conclusions

A precise dollar figure for NMD remains elusive due to uncertainty about the final scope of the program and lack of agreement about which costs from earlier missile defense systems should be included.

CDI calculates that since 1983 the Pentagon has spent $95 billion on BMD, and roughly $44 billion on NMD alone.

The projected $60 billion cost of the Expanded Capability 3 system currently under development is likely a conservative one, given the history of delays and cost overruns in the various NMD and TMD development programs. This estimate does not take into account the cost of future expansion of the system to include the space-based components of the GPALS program.

Notes

1. "Ballistic and Tactical Missile Defense: RDT&E Appropriations & Programs, FY 1984-FY 1994," the Congressional Research Service, August 1, 1995.

2. The "Atomic Audit" (The Brookings Institution, 1999) presents the cost of these three systems in constant 1996 dollars. A rough recalculation eliminating the effects of inflation places the cost of these systems at approximately $10 billion.

3. DoD's annual "Selected Acquisition Costs by Weapons Systems," FY'94 through FY'01.

4. "Budgetary and Technical Implications of the Administration's Plan for National Missile Defense," Congressional Budget Office, April 2000.

Updates

Feb. 4, 2002: Over $9 billion requested for missile defense in FY'03 — DOD's Fiscal Year 2003 (FY'03) budget request was released on Feb. 4, 2002. Of the $379 billion request - a 14 percent increase over what was appropriated in FY'02 - missile defense was one of the big winners. While $7.8 billion was officially requested for missile defense programs, an additional one-plus billion is hidden in other programs that missile defense can tap into, bringing the total funding available to missile defense well over $9 billion. The Pentagon also plans to increase the money available for missile defense to $11 billion by FY'07. (Defense Week, Feb. 4, 2002)

Feb. 1, 2002: CBO estimates missile defense could cost up to $238 billion by 2025 — In a study released on Jan. 31, the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) announced that the layered missile defense system proposed by the Bush Administration could cost up to $238 billion by 2025. The study looks at the ground-based midcourse intercept, sea-based midcourse intercept, land-based radar needed for the ground-based system, and space-based laser intercepts. Although the Pentagon claims that it is too early in the programs' research and development phase to accurately put a price tag on the various systems, skeptics of missile defense were quick to argue that the money could be better spent. Said Democratic Senators Tom Daschle, Carl Levin, and Kent Conrad in a joint statement: "it [missile defense] could draw resources away from programs to counter other, more likely and more immediate threats that we know we face." (New York Times, Feb. 1, 2002)

Jan. 4, 2002: Ballistic Missile Defense Organization Renamed, Revamped — The Pentagon on Jan. 4 changed BMDO's name to the Missile Defense Agency. It also reorganized the agency's acquisition procedures (see NMD Update, Nov. 8, 2001). The new agency's mission will be to "employ a Ballistic Missile Defense System (BMDS) that layers defenses to intercept missiles in all phases of flight against all ranges of threats," a Jan. 4 Pentagon press release stated. BMDS thus appears to replace National Missile Defense (NMD) as the umbrella term describing the defense system being developed by the United States to protect its territory and its allies. The Pentagon statement contained no mention of the original limited nature of NMD. References to BMDS addressing "all ranges of threats" seem to indicate an expansion of the system's goals from a defense against limited threats, such as a handful of North Korea's missiles, to all threats, possibly including Russian and Chinese nuclear arsenals.

Dec. 20, 2001: FY 2002 Defense Appropriation Cuts SBL, Boosts Arrow — House and Senate conferees cut $120 million out of the administration's $170 million request for the Space-Based Laser (SBL) program in the FY 2002 Appropriations bill passed Dec. 20. The bill, submitted to the president for signature, also zeroes out money for the troubled SBIRS-Low satellite-based early warning system. However, it allows the Pentagon to continue the program by using up to $250 million allocated to the satellite sensor technology program; $135 million less than requested by the Pentagon for SBIRS-Low. Among the winners in the 2002 Defense Appropriations bill were the joint U.S.-Israeli Arrow missile defense program, with a $66 million increase over the administration's request, the Airborne Laser with a $73.5 million increase, and the PAC-3 system with a $60 million increase, Defense Daily wrote. Overal, Congress agreed to spend $7.8 billion on missile defense in FY 2002; $500 million less than requested by the administration but $2.5 billion more than appropriated in FY 2001.

Dec. 12, 2001: Congress Approves $8.3 Billion FY 2002 Missile Defense Authorization — Congress passed the FY 2002 Defense Authorization bill, which includes $8.3 billion for missile defense. $1.3 billion of this amount may be used for fight against terrorism, at the president's discretion. The bill rejects the Pentagon's request to transfer the oversight of PAC-3, MEADS, and Navy Area programs from the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization (BMDO) to the military services, citing concerns that the services may not be able to adequately support them. The final authorization is $400 million higher than the original House of Representatives FY 2002 authorization, and a $2.6 billion higher than the FY 2001 allocation.

Dec. 4, 2001: Senate Appropriates Up To $8.3 Billion in FY 2002 Funds to Missile Defense — The Senate Appropriations Committee (SAC) mark up on Dec. 4 allocated $7 billion to missile defense, with another $1.3 to be used either on missile defense or counter-terrorism, Defense Daily reports. The markup includes $288 billion for SBIRS-Low system, which House appropriators zeroed out entirely in their version of the bill. The SAC also cut $25 million out of $50 million request for Space Based Laser and zeroed out procurement funds for SBIRS-High, instead allocating more money to SBIRS-High research and development. Senate and House appropriators failed to meet Dec. 11 as originally planned to reconcile their versions of the FY 2002 defense spending bills, the National Journal reports. They are expected to try again next week.

Nov. 14, 2001: Senate Committee Considering New Arrow Production Facility — The Senate Foreign Relations Committee has authorized $100 million to set up a production facility in the United States for Arrow missiles. The United States and Israel jointly developed the Arrow missile defense system, which was declared operational in Israel in October 2000. The U.S. facility, most likely set up in cooperation with Boeing, would significantly add to Israel's own production capabilities. The Israeli government feared that its own facilities could not produce enough missiles for Israel's defense, Senate sources told CDI. The bill authorizing funds for the Arrow facility has yet to be approved by the full Senate.

Nov. 14, 2001: SBIRS-High Over Budget, Behind Schedule — Lockheed Martin's SBIRS-High program is three years behind schedule and already twice above its originally projected price, Bloomberg.com and Aerospace Daily report citing Congressional and Air Force documents. Projected lifetime costs of the six-satellite constellation, designed to detect launches of enemy missiles, grew from $10 billion to $23 billion, according to the House Appropriations Committee documents. The system's deployment may also be delayed until 2009, three years behind the original launch time, Bloomberg.com wrote. The House Appropriations Committee report is recommending that the Air Force delay buying the system. Lockheed Martin's order is likely not in jeopardy; the company has a contract with the Air Force guaranteeing the payment of all costs plus profits, regardless of the cost growth, Bloomberg.com reports.

Nov. 7, 2001: House Appropriators to Kill SBIRS-Low — The House Appropriations Committee is considering eliminating all FY 2002 funding for the SBIRS-Low satellite constellation, the New York Times reports. The appropriators are concerned about the system's growing costs and weak performance. The funding cut would only affect next fiscal year, and the paper quoted House appropriators as saying that they want to see more development, rather than an outright cancellation of the program. The committee's report, which has yet to be approved by the full House of Representatives, recommends studying the use of ground-based radars instead of SBIRS-Low. BMDO spokesman Lt. Col. Rick Lehner dismissed ground-based radars as inadequate. "They don't have the range of space-based systems which can cover the whole planet," he told the New York Times on Nov. 7.

Nov. 8, 2001: Missile Defense Management To Be Overhauled — The Pentagon plans sweeping changes to the agencies overseeing U.S. missile defense programs. Under the draft of an internal memorandum published in Inside the Pentagon on Nov. 8, the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization would be renamed the Missile Defense Agency (MDA). While the services retain or regain control over individual programs, the MDA Director would be responsible for assuring interoperability across all missile defense systems. The Defense secretary's memorandum calls for developing a capability to defeat missiles "in all phases of flight against all ranges of threat." It is not clear whether the wording means that the Pentagon is abandoning the idea of limited missile defense in favor of protection against large scale threats, such as the one posed by mass launch of Russia's ballistic missiles. Another significant proposalis to allow MDA to bypass the normal Pentagon acquisition process that provides independent reviews of requirements and milestone achievements.

Oct. 31, 2001: Pentagon Protests Size of Missile Defense Budget Hike — In a series of letters to Congress, the Pentagon lamented cuts in its request for missile defense funding made by congressional authorizers. Missile defense funding is slated to increase by nearly $3 billion under both the House and the Senate FY 2002 Defense Authorization bills, but falls short of the administration's $8.3 billion request. The House cut $148 million out of the Pentagon's $170 million request for the Space Based Laser (SBL) program. The Pentagon protested the decision in a letter written to the conference committee, arguing that the cuts make it "extremely difficult and costly to reconstitute the expertise required to restart a future SBL effort," Aerospace Daily reports. Senate authorizers cut $347 million from the administration's $596 million request for the Navy Theater Wide (NTW) program. The Pentagon wrote in its appeal that the NTW cuts would "cost roughly 4 to 5 years [in development] and up to $1,000 million," Inside Missile Defense wrote. The two versions of the FY 2002 Defense Authorization bill have yet to be reconciled in a conference.

Oct. 24, 2001: Senate, House Appropriators Move on Missile Defense Funding — The House Appropriations Committee approved a FY 2002 defense spending bill which cut funding for SBIRS-Low and added money to the PAC-3 program. The committee capped overal missile defense funding at $7.9 billion, $400 million less than the Senate. Senate Appropriations defense subcommittee Chairman Sen. Daniel Inoyue (D-Hawai) said that his panel will approve the $8.3 billion for missile defense requested by President Bush and endorsed in the Oct. 2 Senate authorization, Aerospace Daily reports. The Appropriations Committee plans to let the President decide whether to spend up to $1.3 billion of that amount on fight against terrorism, as was also recommended in the original authorization.

Oct. 2, 2001: Senate, House Differ on Missile Defense Authorizations — The Senate-approved version of the FY 2002 Defense Authorization bill earmarks up to $8.3 billion for the Pentagon's missile defense programs; $400 million more than the House authorized on Sept. 25. However, only $7 billion of the Senate's authorization is specifically for missile defense, the remaining $1.3 billion is for the president to spend either on missile defense or on counter-terrorism. The House and the Senate will have to resolve the disrepancies in conference, expected to begin soon.

September 6, 2001: Democrats to Trim Missile Defense Funds — The chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.) tagged the almost 60 percent increase in missile defense funding from FY 2001 to FY 2002 "unjustifiable," and called for a portion of the $3 billion increase to be transferred to other military priorities. Sen. Levin also said he is considering legislation requiring the Bush administration to notify Congress about possible violations of the ABM treaty, the Aerospace Daily reports. The Senate is scheduled to discuss missile defense funding on Sept. 6; the Washington Post reports that Democrats may try to cut as much as $1.3 billion of the $8.3 billion request.

August 28, 2001: NMD Funding Challenged by Lawmakers, Economy — Two key congressmen questioned whether the Pentagon should get the $18.4 billion in additional funds it requested for FY 2002 if the appropriation required using Social Security funds. Budget Committee Chairman Sen. Kent Conrad (D-N.D.) and his Republican counterpart in the House, Rep. Jim Nussle (R-Iowa) said they oppose using Social Security and Medicare funds for funding defense, the Washington Post reports. On Aug. 27, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) released its budget estimates, which forecast virtually no surplus in Fiscal Year 2002 after excluding the Social Security funds. The Pentagon is asking for a $18.4 billion on top of the $324.8 billion already requested. Portions of the request are to fund an almost 60 percent increase in missile defense spending, from $5.7 billion in FY 2001 to $8.3 billion in FY 2002.

August 13, 2001: Navy Area TMD Program $2 Billion Over Budget — The Navy's Area Wide Theater Missile Defense system will cost $1.8 billion more than projected, Defense Week reported on August 13, citing U.S. Defense Department and congressional documents. The increase — some 25% of the original budget — is being blamed on the two-year delay in the system's development. The system's interceptor, being built by Raytheon, has experienced software and guidance system problems, Defense Week reports.

August 9, 2001: Daschle Proposes Cuts in Administration’s Proposed Missile Defense Budget — Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle (D- S.D.) wants to limit the increase in the missile defense budget to $500 million. Daschle argued that the administration is proposing to spend too much money on missile defense programs, leaving other national security programs to suffer. The administration has proposed increasing next year’s missile defense budget by $3 billion, or 57 percent. Daschle has proposed using the money for other national security programs such as cruise missile and theater missile defenses, arguing that cruise and theater missiles pose a more immediate threat to U.S. security than intercontinental ballistic missiles. Like many in the Democratic party, Daschle favors scaling back the administration’s efforts to expand research on space-based missile defense and build a missile defense test range in Alaska. August 9, 2001: Conservatives Begin Missile Defense Lobbying Campaign — A coalition of conservative lobbying and research groups launched a national campaign to pressure Congress into paying for the administration’s missile defense plans. The coalition, named Americans for Missile Defense, says one of its goals will be to support and encourage pro-missile defense Congressional Republicans facing Democratic pressure to trim the missile defense budget. The coalition’s organizers, including Frank Gaffney, Jr., president of the Center for Security Policy, say they are confident that domestic support for missile defense will increase once Americans realize “that the United States could not defend itself against long-range missile attacks.”

July 30, 2001: Senate, House Challenge Funding for Pentagon's Missile Defense Facility — Senator Diane Feinstein (D-CA) asked the Pentagon on July 20 to refrain from launching construction of the planned Ft. Greely, AK missile defense facility. The Senator argued that the Pentagon may be illegaly using funds appropriated for another purpose. In his July 30 response to Sen. Feinstein, Under Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz wrote that the Pentagon intents to stay its course because funding for the Ft. Greely facility falls under a $85 million appropriation for "NMD Initial Deployment Facilities." On the House side, Representatives Ike Skelton (D-MO), John Spratt (D-SC) and Norman Dicks (D-WA) also challenged the Pentagon's plans for the Ft. Greely facility, arguing that the new system proposed by President Bush is "materially different" from the one presented by President Clinton, for which the 2001 military construction money was appropriated. Arguing that the Pentagon would be violating "the spirit of the law," the three representatives asked the Department of Defense to not begin construction at Fr. Greely.

August 1, 2001: House Armed Services Committee Approves $8.16 Missile Defense Authorization — The House Armed Services Committee approved an $8.16 billion FY 2002 authorization for missile defense; $135 million less than requested by President Bush but $3 billion more than authorized in FY 2001. The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2002 rejects the Pengaton's proposal to transfer control of the Patriot, MEADS, and Navy Area Wide systems from the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization to the respective services. However, it endorsed reorganization of U.S. missile defense programs, ending the old theater and national missile defense classification, introducing instead a new three-tiered structure: boost, midcourse, and terminal missile defense. The committee also strongly endorsed the Defense Department's plan to build a new testing and initial deployment facility at Ft. Greely, Alaska.

July 17, 2001: Missile Defense Budget Boosted by 56% — The 2002 revised defense budget calls for a 56 percent increase in the Pentagon’s spending on missile defense programs. The FY 2002 budget request is $8.29 billion, compared to $5.29 billion authorized for 2001. Approximately 85 percent of the requested funding will go to the Pentagon’s Ballistic Missile Defense Organization (BMDO), and the rest will go towards Army and Navy missile defense programs. Of the FY 2002 BMDO budget, $685 million has been alloted for boost-phase defense systems, $968 million for terminal defense systems and $787 million for work on countermeasures and targets and tests. The request may encounter resistance in the Senate where the new Democratic leadership is known to oppose President Bush's plans for a rapid deployment of a missile defense system. Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin (D-MI) is believed to want to move $3 billion from missile defense to quality-of-life improvements for military personnel, the Washington Times wrote.

June 27, 2001: Army THAAD Project Manager Says Program is Under Budget and Ahead of Schedule — The Army's THAAD program is $13 million under its baseline budget and several months ahead of schedule in a number of areas according to Project Manager Col. Patrick O'Reilly. The $13 million figure applies to the original $4 billion contract, and O'Reilly estimates that approximately 10 percent of the contract value has been executed so far. He said that the testing of various missile components and how they function in flight has been progressing on schedule this year, and that flight tests scheduled for 2004 are likely to occur ahead of schedule. THAAD has been plagued by a number of testing problems in the past, and has suffered six failures in seven tests.

June 27, 2001: NMD Funding To Get a Boost — The Fiscal Year 2002 defense budget will increase missile defense funding by around $2 billion, according to Pentagon budget documents obtained by CDI. The U.S. military will get roughly $8 billion for missile defense in FY '02 when the Pentagon unveils its budget, most likely in July. The program expected to benefit the most is the Navy's Theater Wide (NTW) program, which is being touted by the Navy as the best system for boost-phase intercept, with a deployment possible as early as 2004. The Pentagon may see even more NMD funding in the near future: Sen. Christopher Bond (R-Mo.) is proposing an amendment that would add up to $1.45 billion to missile defense funding in the current fiscal year's defense budget, Aerospace Daily reports.

May 30, 2001: Sen. Jack Reed (D-R.I.), expected to become chairman of the Senate's strategic forces subcommittee, called for Congress to put more money into TMD programs. The threat to U.S. forces from short and medium range missiles "already exists in large and growing numbers," Sen. Reed said in a speech on May 25, quoted in Defense Daily. "Those are systems that we should really put some energy and resources behind," he added. NMD should be a lower priority because the threat from long-range missiles is remote, Sen. Reed said, arguing that "robust" NMD research should continue nevertheless.

May 30, 2001: Rep. Tom Allen (D-ME) proposed a bill on May 2 that would require the president to seek financial contributions from U.S. allies protected by a future American-made missile defense system. The bill, titled "Missile Defense Burdensharing Act of 2001," is similar to another one proposed by Rep. Vitter (R-LA). His legislation would have mandated the deployment of ballistic missile defenses for all NATO members as well as Israel, Japan, the Republic of Korea, and Taiwan, while collecting a share of the development costs from these nations. The former bill has yet to be introduced; the latter bill was introduced but not acted upon by the House.

May 25, 2001: The future of NMD funding seems less certain with the U.S. Senate coming under Democratic control after Vermont Senator James Jeffords left the Republican Party. Senator Carl Levin (D-MI) is the apparent successor to Senator John Warner (R-VA) as chairman of the Armed Services Committee. As a supporter of the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) treaty, Senator Levin will likely take a much more cautious approach towards national missile defense (NMD), and has voted for legislation requiring more rigorous testing of NMD technologies. Although the Bush Administration has yet to deliver particulars on its plans for NMD, it's clear that Senator Levin will be a hard-sell when it comes to funding the robust system envisioned by the White House.

May 14, 2001: The Pentagon will ask for $1 billion in supplemental funding for missile defense programs, said the chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee Sen. Ted Stevens, according to the Defense News. The money is to be included in the Pentagon's supplemental funding request, expected to be sent to Congress later this month. Sen. Stevens added that he believes that "Congress will react favorably to the additional [funding request for missile defense] and not put strings on it."

May 8, 2001: Boeing Co., the lead systems integrator for NMD, has exceeded program costs by $381 million, or 17% of the budget, Defense Week reports. Although some extra costs resulted from the changing scope of the program, at least $279 million are simple overruns. Boeing's portion of the NMD program has been plagued by trouble — the company is a year late in delivering its new booster rocket and Pentagon's Ballistic Missile Defense Office cut the company's bonus by half in 2000.

April 5, 2001: The total development, deployment, and maintenance costs for all U.S. ballistic missile defense programs will exceed $115 billion, according to a report in Defense Week citing newly released Pentagon figures. The tally includes not just NMD but also lower-tier programs such as Navy's Theater Wide system and the Army's THAAD, as well as the SBIRS-Low satellite constellation. The total life-time cost of the Pentagon's missile defense programs is still unclear — the Pentagon could only provide estimated maintenance costs for four of its eight missile defense programs.

March 2, 2001: A General Accounting Office (GAO) report said that the Air Forces's Spaced-Based Infrared System-low (SBIRS-low) satellite program will likely go over budget and exceed its schedule. The SBIRS-low network of 24 satellites is intended to detect missile launches and track the missiles in flight as part of the national missile defense program currently under development. According to the GAO report issued February 28, "the Air Force's current SBIRS-low acquisition schedule is at a high risk of not delivering the system on time or at cost or with expected performance."

March 2, 2001: The Fiscal Year 2002 funding request released by the Bush Administration includes $1 billion for the development of missile defense technologies. The funding proposal increases Pentagon spending by $14 billion, the first installment of President Bush's promised $26 billion over ten years to speed the development of "generation after next" weaponry. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld did not specify how much of the $1 billion earmarked for missile defense will go toward the NMD system.

January 24, 2001: The $6 billion contract recently signed by Boeing and the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization could be worth as much as $13.7 billion by 2007, according to the Pentagon. The contract keeps Boeing as the National Missile Defense (NMD) program's lead system integrator or top contractor. The base contract contains "options" — such as additional testing or development of an anti-countermeasures system — which could drive its value as high as the $13.7 billion figure.

November 14, 2000: The cost of the new Space Based Infrared System (SBIRS) High satellite program could reach as much as $4.2 billion instead of the planned $1.9 billion, Defense News reported. SBIRS High satellites are to be used in national missile defense for detecting and tracking enemy missiles. The Air Force, which administers the program, says costs could increase further in 2003.

More Information

For more information please e-mail Christopher Hellman, Senior Analyst, at chellman@cdi.org .