Missile defense opposition no match for momentum. (Missile Defense -- L.A.'s Work in Progress).

PHILIP Coyle III served in the Carter Administration as deputy assistant secretary for defense programs at the Department of Energy. The Los Angeles resident, now senior advisor to the Washington-based Center for Defense Information, said the recently-approved $355.1 billion Pentagon budget will seem nominal in the next decade, with the military expected to seek $800 billion by 2012. That bodes well for the region's defense industry, whose missile defense, cargo planes and jet fighter operations are in heavy demand by the Pentagon.

Question: What stands out in the new $355.1 billion defense budget?

Answer: Let me remark first that the overall military budget for fiscal 2003 will be $396.1 billion, including the intelligence budget, Department of Energy military programs and a few smaller programs. The president got virtually all that he requested for missile defense - about $7.8 billion, much of which will be spent in Southern California.

Q: Critics say missile defense programs aren't needed because terrorists won't be launching missiles.

A: There are arguments both ways. North Korea declared it was developing nuclear weapons. Two years ago they launched a long-range (test) missile. While that missile was not powerful enough to reach the United States, it certainly was cause for concern. And Iraq has SCUD missiles, though they too can't reach the U.S.

After Sept. 11, proponents of missile defense said, "See, unexpected things can happen." Skeptics said it's not relevant - if we'd had missile defense, it wouldn't have done anything to stop Sept. 11.

Q: Can't the technologies involved in missile defense be used for other applications?

A: Some of the sensors that are used in missile defense are the same technology used for reconnaissance and surveillance on aircraft and satellites. They could be used to track the heat from enemy tanks and trucks on the ground, to spot oil fires around the world or for sensing the weather. Army aircraft with infrared sensors were deployed over the Washington D.C. area to try to see the sniper's rifle fire, looking for the flash of heat from a rifle going off.

Q: When would missile defense be operational?

A: The system that's farthest along is PAC 3 - that's Patriot Advanced Capability 3 - an Army system designed to shoot down SCUDS. They just finished the first round of operational testing. It didn't do very well. It only got three hits out of seven tries. And they never did a test where they tried to shoot down a SCUD; the real threat that they're worried about. Because of the poor performance in operational testing, the Army has deferred production. Assuming the next round of testing goes better, PAC 3 could be operational in 2005.

Next farthest along is the Ground-Based Mid Course System, a system pursued by President Clinton. This system is intended to shoot down intercontinental ballistic missiles in mid flight. (The Missile Defense Agency's) five missile silos in Alaska would have rudimentary capability to detect and shoot down a few enemy missiles. They are doing it in an evolutionary way and it will be about a decade until for a fully capable system.

Q: Will opponents be able to kill the programs?

A: Two things will keep missile defense as an issue when it comes to defense spending. First is that it's a lot of money - over $50 billion over the next five years, going to $11.7 billion a year by 2007. Second is pressure from other major defense programs - the F-22, the Joint Strike Fighter, the Navy's new ships. All of those things will be competing for the same dollars.

Q: How vulnerable is the SBIRS Low program?

A: The government is going to support SBIRS as a key element of missile defense architecture. SBIRS would have newer sensors than Defense Support Program, which was first started about 40 years ago and which it replaces. It sees them when they're launched and determines what kind of missile it is. The main issue critics have raised is whether or not the system will be able to tell what the enemy missile is doing? Can the system distinguish them from decoys? SBIRS will be a key element in doing that.

Q: What about the debate over reductions to the Joint Strike Fighter, F-22 Raptor and F/A-18EF Super Hornet jet fighter programs?

A: The new tactical aircraft programs are well supported by Congress and the president. The total budget this year for the F-22, F/A-18EF and Joint Strike Fighter is $12 billion. Congress appropriated $100 million and two more aircraft than the president asked for in those programs. And Congress gave $3.3 billion for 15 C-17 (military cargo) aircraft. That's $600 million and three aircraft more than the president asked for, which is good for Boeing Long Beach.