The truth about MEADS

Besides, development of MEADS is essentially done. MEADS is ready to prove what it can do. System elements are ready to begin flight testing this year. In addition to the $800 million budgeted for the next two years, approximately $1 billion more from the U.S. is needed to transition to production, not the $2.8 billion figure critics tack on without substantiation.

The second fact is that the more than 40-year-old Patriot system is costly to man and maintain. That’s why the nations agreed to develop an improved system in the first place. In fact, the U.S. has spent more than $3 billion in contracts in the past six years to support, repair and upgrade U.S. Patriot systems while investing only $1.5 billion in development of next-generation MEADS. 

An important component of the budget debate is that development and procurement costs are minuscule compared to operations and support costs associated with the aging Patriot system. MEADS will cut these costs in half. No one knows what it will cost to continue to “upgrade” Patriot within the limits of its 40‐year‐old design. Germany studied this issue and decided to adopt MEADS because it produced better performance for a fraction of the price.

The debate has been framed on cost, but it should also include performance. A single MEADS battery defends a larger area than three Patriot batteries because they can’t protect their backs or cover the range that MEADS is capable of defending. We faced ballistic missile threats from multiple directions in Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF) and it was only good fortune that no enemy missile was launched outside the sector of Patriot coverage. Our enemies learned from OIF just as we did, and we cannot count on that good fortune in the future.  

Additionally, Patriot can’t get to the fight without months of advance planning.  A basic MEADS battery takes only three transport flights to begin protecting American warfighters and interests, and MEADS has the ability to grow in place and move with the troops. Placed side by side with MEADS, you’d need five times the manpower and ten times the transport planes to deploy Patriot in a crisis and defend the same area. OIF proved how long that takes.

If the goal is to get the warfighter increased performance while reducing costs, there is only one answer – MEADS. Check the numbers on what it will cost to upgrade, maintain and deploy Patriot vs. MEADS and the answer becomes very clear. But don’t just take our word for it.

An independent cost- benefit analysis would certainly confirm that continuing to prop up an aging 1970s-era system in the U.S. Army inventory over the next 20 years is not cost effective. The analysis would clearly favor fielding a state-of-the-art air missile defense system designed for supportability, mobility and transportability that, above all, protects our warfighters against next-generation threats.  Our Congressional leaders are faced with two options to satisfy U.S. air and missile defense requirements – MEADS or Patriot.  An independent life cycle cost analysis will verify what the Germans already know – that MEADS will cost significantly less than Patriot to own and operate while providing better performance.

Bottom line: Our leaders should choose the most cost-effective path forward for our country based on an unbiased cost assessment from the GAO, and nothing else.

Dave Berganini is the president of MEADS International.