Issue Brief #7
June 11, 2001

Suppression of Enemy Air Defenses: Improvements Needed

Recent operational experiences in Iraq and Kosovo have highlighted significant deficiencies in our capability to quickly detect, locate, identify and destroy enemy integrated air defense systems (IADS) and other mobile, high value, time-critical targets.  The suppression and destruction of enemy air defenses is critical for U.S. and coalition warfighters to be able to quickly and efficiently accomplish the military objectives in any future conflict.

Potential adversaries will attempt to counter the U.S. military’s capability to effectively suppress and destroy enemy air defenses by:

1. Deploying a new generation of sophisticated surface-to-air missile (SAM) systems and their related command and control components which pose a significant threat to our manned aircraft;

2. Employing countermeasures that will limit the effectiveness of our only existing, dedicated defense suppression weapon, the High-speed Anti-Radiation Missile (HARM);

3. Exploiting known deficiencies in the HARM missile and U.S. forces targeting capabilities.

In the near future, these threats may affect our Nation’s ability to achieve air supremacy and to execute military operations in an effective and timely manner.  Furthermore, these threats pose an increasing risk to U.S. manned aircraft.

Investments in our Electronic Attack capability by the Department of Defense, and in particular, in lethal suppression of enemy air defense (SEAD) systems over the past decade have been far short of that needed to match the threat.  We have invested heavily in precision-guided munitions utilizing Global Positioning System (GPS) for guidance and these weapons provide vast improvements in our capability to destroy fixed targets.  However, little has been done to improve our capability to detect, locate, engage and destroy time critical targets such as mobile integrated air defense systems (IADS) during that same time.  In fact, our primary means of engaging these types of targets remains the venerable HARM missile.  Currently, our pilots launch large numbers of this weapon just to “keep the enemy’s head down”.  Unfortunately, our adversaries have learned to survive to fight another day through evolving tactics and applications of commercial technologies, while still being able to threaten U.S. aircraft.  This was demonstrated in Operation Allied Force with the loss of an F-117 and an F-16.  During this same operation, coalition forces launched over 1,000 HARM missiles while destroying a mere handful of enemy targets. 

There are three technology demonstration programs currently underway designed to address this critical mission area.  The Advanced Anti-Radiation Guided Missile (AARGM) program and related QUICK BOLT Advanced Concept Technology Demonstration (ACTD) program both are aimed at significantly improving our capability to engage and destroy enemy air defenses and other time-critical targets, while using the existing HARM airframe.  In addition, the U.S. Navy’s High Speed Anti-radiation missile Demonstration (HSAD) program will address the need for a longer range, higher speed precision strike weapon that is required to counter advanced, long range air defenses. These programs show promise in fulfilling these critical operational needs.

An essential part of Electronic Warfare, the suppression of enemy air defenses (SEAD) is one of the first missions performed during any air campaign, and is an absolute necessity for obtaining and maintaining air supremacy.  Without air supremacy, the U.S. will be unable to effectively prosecute any future military operation. 

I know first hand the results of not having adequate SEAD capabilities.  I do not wish to see our pilots flying into harm’s way unable to effectively engage and destroy enemy air defenses and putting themselves at risk.  Significant improvements in our SEAD capabilities are urgently needed to ensure that they are not at risk in future air campaigns.

Accordingly, I hope the Defense Department will see fit to strongly support Electronic Warfare programs, and in particular, to fully fund the remaining development and production of these urgently needed weapon systems in the upcoming budget submittal.  In addition, I am encouraging my fellow members of the Electronic Warfare Working Group and the Congress at large to support these initiatives in the Fiscal Year 2002 budget to ensure that, in any future military campaign, our pilots have the proper weapons required to defeat the enemy air defenses of any potential adversary.

Randy "Duke" Cunningham
Member of Congress

Electronic Warfare Working Group

Congressman Joe Pitts, Founder and Co-Chairman

420 Cannon House Office Building

Washington, DC 20515

202 225-2411 phone    202 225-2013 fax