3 Snafus Blamed in Failure of Key Defense Missile Test

Pentagon officials disclosed Saturday that they had uncovered evidence of a third snafu in the latest test of the administration’s controversial missile defense program.

Not only did the “kill vehicle” fail to separate from its booster rocket during Friday’s test and a decoy balloon fail to inflate, but officials now say that it appears the interceptor rocket began to tumble off course as it streaked toward its dummy warhead target, officials said.

Defensive about the failures in two of three tests conducted since last fall, Pentagon officials insisted that the latest malfunction was irrelevant to their investigation of the technical feasibility of the system, since the aging booster used in this test will be replaced by a newer model in the final system.

Even so, the glitch in the closely watched $100-million test was another embarrassment that intensifies demands that President Clinton postpone deployment of the proposed $60-billion system.

“It’s hard to see how they can recommend a deployment decision of a missile system that doesn’t work,” said Sen. Byron L. Dorgan (D-N.D). “I think the test failure should and will mean the president will not announce a deployment decision.”

Clinton is to decide this fall whether to order the first steps toward construction of the system, which is intended to shield the nation from attack by up to 20 long-range missiles. His decision comes amid continuing complaints from Russia and China as well as traditional allies in Europe that the system would upset the nuclear balance.

“This is striking,” said Theodore Postol, an MIT physicist and rocket specialist who has become a leading critic of the system. It is “amazing to me . . . that they could shoot at a cooperative target in an orchestrated way . . . and have these problems.”

The Pentagon said the tumbling movement came after the first and second stages of the booster had separated successfully and as the booster maneuvered in a corkscrew motion to bleed off excess energy in its flight. Such maneuvers are often used to keep missiles or other aircraft on course.

Officials said they won’t know how much the rocket had tumbled until they study telemetry data they have received from the missile.

The main reason for the test’s failure, officials disclosed early Saturday, is that a 130-pound anti-missile “kill vehicle” had failed to separate from the booster rocket. They said this occurred because the kill vehicle never received a message from the booster indicating that the second stage had finished burning up its propellent; the kill vehicle is programmed not to separate until this message is received.

Missile defense officials said other systems worked properly, including the sensors, the “battle management” equipment and the in-flight interceptor communication system, which is used to channel flight data to the kill vehicle.

In the aftermath of the test, critics rendered harsh judgments of the technology, while supporters asserted that the snafus are only routine developmental problems that have little bearing on whether the system will work.

But both sides agreed that the outcome was likely to ease political pressure on Clinton and give him more latitude to delay construction if he desires.

The approaching decision has put Clinton in a tough position in this election year: He must call for construction of the system or open the door to criticism that his chosen heir, Vice President Al Gore, is soft in the face of a threat from missiles that are proliferating around the world.

“I’ll bet there are people in this administration who are breathing a sigh of relief,” said Joseph Cirincione, a critic of the system at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

Retired Navy Vice Adm. J.D. Williams, a missile defense advocate at the Coalition to Defend America Now, contended there is no question that the technology will work. “The technology is ready; it’s the Clinton policy that isn’t ready.”

Yet Williams acknowledged that the test’s outcome will make it easier for Clinton to “kick the can down the road” to his successor.

Some critics argued that since the concerned technologies have been in use for decades, the mishaps were even more embarrassing for the system’s developers.

Luke Warren, of the Council for a Livable World, an arms control advocacy group, noted that the Pentagon has simplified its flight tests recently based on a view that they need to “walk before they run.”

“This shows they need to crawl before they run,” Warren said. Proper separation of stages “is something they’ve been doing for decades. . . . This has got to be a humiliation for the Pentagon.”

Agreed Carnegie’s Cirincione: “These guys wanted to race and couldn’t get their car out of the garage.”

Many other analysts, however, believe that, despite the test failure, Clinton is likely to take a cautious route by giving the system a partial endorsement and ordering the first steps toward construction of a system.

At the White House, spokesman P.J. Crowley said Clinton would consider the test outcome “an important factor to take into account when considering the technical feasibility of the system.” But he insisted that “there’s nothing to rethink at this point” on deployment, since the president hasn’t made a decision.

The two leading presidential candidates, who soon may be confronted with the deployment issue, also commented Saturday.

Texas Gov. George W. Bush, the presumptive GOP presidential standard-bearer, called the test “a disappointment” but said he remains “confident that, given the right leadership, America can develop an effective defense system. In view of the potential threat we face from an accidental launch or an attack from a rogue nation, the United States must press forward to develop and deploy a missile defense system.”

Gore, who has been cautious in his remarks, said through a spokesman that “it is important that we not prejudge [the Pentagon’s] analysis. The ultimate decision to deploy is the president’s. . . . Al Gore supports the president making that decision.”

In Moscow, military leaders who have denounced the system as a dangerous threat to nuclear stability contended the failure showed the technology would never work.

Gen. Vladimir Yakovlev, commander of Russia’s strategic forces, told the Itar-Tass news agency that the system “will not be able to secure protection of the U.S. territory, and attempts to deploy such a system will be an empty waste of money.”