US Navy warships are firing top ballistic missile interceptors at an 'alarming rate,' admiral says
During a Senate Appropriations Committee hearing, Hawaii Sen. Brian Schatz said US forces have expended large amounts of munitions to defend Israel from Iranian strikes during the latest round of conflict in the Middle East and asked whether the Navy has all the Standard Missile-3 interceptors that it needs to be ready for other global threats.
Adm. James Kilby, acting chief of naval operations, said that the service does have a sufficient supply of interceptors, but, he said, "we are, to your point, using them at an alarming rate."
"As you know, those are missiles procured by the Missile Defense Agency and then delivered to the Navy for our use," he added. "And we are using them quite effectively in the defense of Israel."
The SM-3 is a missile interceptor that uses a kinetic kill vehicle to destroy short- to intermediate-range missiles during the mid-course phase of flight. It is part of the Navy's highly advanced Aegis Combat System, equipped on Arleigh Burke-class destroyers and Ticonderoga-class cruisers.
Unlike the Navy's other missile interceptors, the SM-3 can engage targets in space.
The SM-3 missile comes in multiple variants, which can cost as much as $10 million on the low end and almost $30 million on the high end, according to the MDA. The weapon is made by US defense contractor RTX and, for the newest variant, Mitsubishi Heavy Industries.
The Navy first used the SM-3 interceptor in combat to defend Israel from Iran's unprecedented missile and drone attack in April 2024. American warships then fired the interceptors again several months later, in October, when Tehran launched over 180 ballistic missiles at Israel.
A US official told Business Insider last week that Navy warships in the eastern part of the Mediterranean Sea had launched missile interceptors to defend Israel from Iranian attacks amid the latest round of fighting between the two enemies. The official, however, did not specify what type of interceptors.
It is unclear how many SM-3s might have been launched as part of these efforts, and it is also unclear whether there were any confirmed interceptions of Iran's missiles in the latest engagements. The Pentagon did not immediately respond to BI's request for additional information.
Navy leadership has previously stated that it needs a lot more SM-3s to counter higher-level threats in the Pacific, like China and its large arsenal of ballistic missiles. Analysts, however, have raised concerns that the sea service is rapidly expending these interceptors in Middle East conflicts without sufficient plans to replace them.
The fiscal year 2025 defense budget request cut procurement of SM-3 Block IB interceptors from around 150 to zero over the next five years, and only called for production of a dozen of the newer SM-3 Block IIA variants every year for the same period.
The defense appropriation bill reversed some of those plans, providing additional funding for more SM-3 production. In May, the Pentagon awarded a substantial contract to RTX for dozens of SM-3 IBs. And there's also been further support aimed at boosting production of newer SM-3 variants. The outlook for the coming fiscal year isn't totally clear, but the emphasis on missile defense could reflect a favorable environment for increasing SM-3 interceptor stockpiles.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CNN
2 hours ago
- CNN
Trump says two US Navy subs are moving following comments by an ex-Russian president. Here are the subs in the American fleet
Donald Trump Federal agencies US militaryFacebookTweetLink Follow US President Donald Trump said Friday he was ordering two US Navy nuclear submarines to 'appropriate regions,' in response to remarks by Dmitry Medvedev, Russia's former president and current deputy chairman of its Security Council. In what he called an effort to be 'prepared,' Trump said in a Truth Social post that he had 'ordered two Nuclear Submarines to be positioned in the appropriate regions, just in case these foolish and inflammatory statements are more than just that.' The president did not specify what type of submarines were being moved or where to, and the Pentagon usually reveals little about any of its subs' movements. The US Navy has three types of submarines, all of which are nuclear-powered, but only one of which carries nuclear weapons. Here's a look at the US submarine fleet: The US Navy has 14 Ohio-class ballistic-missile submarines (SSBNs), often referred to as 'boomers.' SSBNs 'are designed specifically for stealth and the precise delivery of nuclear warheads,' a Navy fact sheet on them says. Each can carry 20 Trident ballistic missiles with multiple nuclear warheads. Tridents have a range of up to 4,600 miles (7,400 kilometers), meaning they wouldn't need to move closer to Russia to hit it – in fact, they could do so from the Atlantic, Pacific, Indian or Arctic oceans. SSBNs are strong nuclear deterrents as they are expected to survive an adversary's first strike. Their movements are among the Navy's most closely guarded secrets. At 560 feet (170 meters) long, the Ohio-class subs displace almost 19,000 tons submerged and have a crew of 159. They can reach a speed of 23 miles per hour. In the 1990s, the Pentagon determined the Navy didn't need as many Ohio-class SSBNs in the nuclear deterrent role, converting four of them into guided-missile submarines (SSGNs). Retaining the same overall specs as the boomers, the SSGNs carry Tomahawk cruise missiles instead of the Trident ballistic missiles. Each can carry 154 Tomahawks with a high-explosive warhead of up to 1,000 pounds, and a range of about 1,000 miles. They can also transport troops, who can be clandestinely deployed from lockout chambers in former ballistic-missile tubes, according to the Navy. Movements of the SSGNs are also highly classified, but in recent years the Navy made occasional note of their presence near military hotspots, to send a message of deterrence. These form the bulk of the US Navy's submarine fleet and are designed to hunt and destroy enemy subs and surface ships with torpedoes. They can also strike land-based targets with Tomahawk missiles, though they carry the Tomahawks in much smaller numbers than the SSGNs. Fast-attack subs come in three forms: the Virginia, Los Angeles and Seawolf classes. The Virginia class is the newest, with 23 commissioned as of July 1, according to a Navy fact sheet. They are 377 to 461 feet long, depending on their configuration, displace up to 10,200 tons, and have a crew of 145. The Los Angeles class is the oldest of the Navy's fast-attack subs, with 23 still in service. They are 360 feet long, displace 6,900 tons and carry a crew of 143. Finally, the Seawolf class is the smallest in the US fleet. Two of the subs, USS Seawolf and USS Connecticut – measuring 353 feet and displacing 9,100 tons – are more in line with standard attack boats, carrying torpedoes and cruise missiles. The third in the Seawolf class, the USS Jimmy Carter, is one of the most specialized craft in the Navy, with a hull extended 100 feet longer than the other two subs. 'This hull section provides for additional payloads to accommodate advanced technology used to carry out classified research and development and for enhanced warfighting capabilities,' the Navy says.
Boston Globe
3 hours ago
- Boston Globe
Not just Big Bird: What to know about the Center for Public Broadcasting and its funding cuts
Here's what to know: Losing funding President Donald Trump Lawmakers with large rural constituencies voiced concern about what the cuts could mean for some local public stations in their state. They warned some stations will have to close. Advertisement The Senate Appropriations Committee on Thursday reinforced the policy change by excluding funding for the corporation for the first time in more than 50 years as part of a broader spending bill. How it began Congress passed legislation creating the body in 1967, several years after then-Federal Communications Commission Chairman Newton Minow described commercial television a 'vast wasteland' and called for programming in the public interest. Related : The corporation doesn't produce programming and it doesn't own, operate or control any public broadcasting stations. The corporation, PBS, NPR are independent of each other as are local public television and radio stations. Advertisement Rural stations hit hard Roughly 70% of the corporation's money went directly to 330 PBS and 246 NPR stations across the country. The cuts are expected to weigh most heavily on smaller public media outlets away from big cities, and it's likely some won't survive. NPR's president estimated as many as 80 NPR stations may close in the next year. Mississippi Public Broadcasting has already decided to eliminate a streaming channel that airs children's programming like 'Caillou' and 'Daniel Tiger's Neighborhood' 24 hours a day. Maine's public media system is looking at a hit of $2.5 million, or about 12% of its budget, for the next fiscal year. The state's rural residents rely heavily on public media for weather updates and disaster alerts. In Kodiak, Alaska, KMXT estimated the cuts would slice 22% from its budget. Public radio stations in the sprawling, heavily rural state often provide not just news but alerts about natural disasters like tsunamis, landslides and volcanic eruptions. From Big Bird to war documentaries The first episode of 'Sesame Street' aired in 1969. Child viewers, adults and guest stars alike were instantly hooked. Over the decades, characters from Big Bird to Cookie Monster and Elmo have become household favorites Entertainer Carol Burnett appeared on that inaugural episode. She told The Associated Press she was a big fan. 'I would have done anything they wanted me to do,' she said. 'I loved being exposed to all that goodness and humor.' Sesame Street said in May it would also get some help from a Netflix streaming deal. Advertisement A control room at the Arizona PBS offices at the Walter Cronkite School of Journalism and Mass Communication in Phoenix, seen on May 2. Katie Oyan/Associated Press Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates Jr. started 'Finding Your Roots' in 2006 under the title 'African American Lives.' He invited prominent Black celebrities and traced their family trees into slavery. When the paper trail ran out, they would use DNA to see which ethnic group they were from in Africa. Challenged by a viewer to open the show to non-Black celebrities, Gates agreed and the series was renamed 'Faces of America,' which had to be changed again after the name was taken. The show is PBS's most-watched program on linear TV and the most-streamed non-drama program. Season 10 reached nearly 18 million people across linear and digital platforms and also received its first Emmy nomination. Grant money from the nonprofit has also funded lesser-known food, history, music and other shows created by stations across the country. Documentarian Ken Burns, celebrated for creating the documentaries 'The Civil War,' 'Baseball' and 'The Vietnam War', Influence of shows Children's programing in the 1960s was made up of shows like 'Captain Kangaroo,' ''Romper Room' and the violent skirmishes between 'Tom & Jerry.' 'Mr. Rogers' Neighborhood' mostly taught social skills. 'Sesame Street' was designed by education professionals and child psychologists to help low-income and minority students aged 2-5 overcome some of the deficiencies they had when entering school. Social scientists had long noted white and higher income kids were often better prepared. Advertisement Over the years, 'Finding Your Roots' showed Natalie Morales discovering she's related to one of the legendary pirates of the Caribbean and former 'Saturday Night Live' star Andy Samberg finding his biological grandmother and grandfather. It revealed that drag queen RuPaul and U.S. Sen. Cory Booker are cousins, as are actors Meryl Streep and Eva Longoria. 'The two subliminal messages of 'Finding Your Roots,' which are needed more urgently today than ever, is that what has made America great is that we're a nation of immigrants,' Gates told the AP. 'And secondly, at the level of the genome, despite our apparent physical differences, we're 99.99% the same.'
The Hill
3 hours ago
- The Hill
US deadlines in Ukraine are a gift to Putin and Xi
President Trump's announcement this week of a shortened window of '10 to 12 days' for Russian President Vladimir Putin to reach a ceasefire agreement in Ukraine reflects a continued evolution in his rhetoric. His growing frustration with Moscow and his willingness to speak plainly about Russia's escalation send a signal that many in the U.S. and Europe have been waiting to hear. But while the shift in tone signals growing frustration, it has not translated into action. Russia reads the action as a continued pause in pressure, which it has used to intensify its offensive against Ukrainian homes and hospitals. Russian forces are now making their fastest territorial gains in more than a year, and their attacks are becoming more sophisticated. Swarm tactics using Iranian-designed Shahed drones, now mass-produced and adapted inside Russia with Chinese parts, are overwhelming Ukraine's air defenses at an alarming rate. In just one day last month, Russia launched 728 drones, decoys and missiles in a single coordinated wave. Ukrainian interceptors and radar crews are doing heroic work, but they are stretched to the limit. The U.S. has tools at its disposal that remain unused. For months, a bipartisan sanctions bill, co-authored by Sens. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) and backed by 85 senators, a veto-proof majority, has been ready to move. The legislation would impose steep secondary tariffs on countries like China, India and Brazil that continue to buy Russian oil and gas, and would significantly raise the cost of doing business with Moscow. But in July, Senate leadership pulled the bill from consideration after President Trump suggested he would act if Russia failed to move toward peace within 50 days. Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) said he would 'hold off' on advancing the bill, signaling that Congress would defer to Trump's timeline. House leaders followed suit. That decision was a mistake. While it is encouraging to see President Trump express increasing resolve, deferring congressional action in the hope that Putin will suddenly negotiate has only given Moscow more time and space to escalate. Every week of delay is a missed opportunity to tighten the financial pressure on Putin's war machine. And the clock is not just ticking in Ukraine. The broader contest involves China, too. Beijing's role in this war has become increasingly visible. Chinese companies are supplying entire weapons systems, not just components. Chinese-made drones and decoys are helping Russia saturate Ukrainian airspace. Chinese officials have even welcomed delegations from occupied Ukrainian territories and continue to sell heavy machinery to companies operating there. European officials report that China's foreign minister recently told the EU that Beijing does not want Russia to lose the war and fears that a Russian defeat would allow the U.S. to focus more squarely on Asia. Ukraine has responded accordingly. In early July, Kyiv arrested two Chinese nationals on espionage charges after they allegedly attempted to steal information about Ukraine's Neptune missile program. Days earlier, President Volodymyr Zelensky imposed sanctions on five Chinese firms accused of supporting the Russian war effort. These are not symbolic gestures, they are signs that Ukraine is increasingly realistic about the stakes and about China's alignment with Moscow. Support for Ukraine is not a distraction from U.S. competition with China. It is a critical part of it. Weakening Putin's military capacity weakens a key pillar of China's global strategy. And allowing Russia to continue its aggression without consequence would embolden Beijing's worst instincts from the Taiwan Strait to the South China Sea. To its credit, the Trump administration has begun voicing stronger concerns about Beijing's role. In the recently concluded round of trade talks, senior U.S. officials reportedly raised objections to China's purchase of sanctioned Russian oil and its sale of more than $15 billion worth of dual-use technology to Moscow. These are important warnings — but without follow-through, they risk being absorbed into the pattern of delay that Moscow and Beijing are already exploiting. The Graham-Blumenthal sanctions bill should move forward. It represents the most serious effort yet to impose real costs not only on Russia, but on the network of countries (especially China) helping it survive sanctions. It complements, rather than competes with, the administration's efforts to pressure Moscow. And it sends a message that the U.S. is serious about backing up its warnings with action. Countdowns can be useful. They create urgency. But urgency without follow-through is no substitute for strategy. What matters now is not how many days remain on the clock, but whether we are using each one to act. Jane Harman is a former nine-term congresswoman from California and former ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee, who most recently served as chair of the Commission on the National Defense Strategy. She is the author of 'Insanity Defense: Why Our Failure to Confront Hard National Security Problems Makes Us Less Safe.'
