Identifier
Created
Classification
Origin
04ANKARA3989
2004-07-19 09:48:00
CONFIDENTIAL
Embassy Ankara
Cable title:  

CHARTING A WAY FORWARD ON US-TU MISSILE DEFENSE

Tags:  MARR MCAP PARM TU 
pdf how-to read a cable
This record is a partial extract of the original cable. The full text of the original cable is not available.
C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 02 ANKARA 003989 

SIPDIS

E.O. 12958: DECL: 07/09/2029
TAGS: MARR MCAP PARM TU
SUBJECT: CHARTING A WAY FORWARD ON US-TU MISSILE DEFENSE
COOPERATION


Classified By: (U) Classified by PMA Counselor Tim Betts, reason 1.4, b
/d.

C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 02 ANKARA 003989

SIPDIS

E.O. 12958: DECL: 07/09/2029
TAGS: MARR MCAP PARM TU
SUBJECT: CHARTING A WAY FORWARD ON US-TU MISSILE DEFENSE
COOPERATION


Classified By: (U) Classified by PMA Counselor Tim Betts, reason 1.4, b
/d.


1. (C) Summary: At the July 8 Missile Defense Technical
Experts Group meeting in Ankara, the US and Turkey agreed
that the completion of the joint architectural study of
Turkey called for a new look at bilateral cooperation in the
area of missile defense. The two sides agreed to three new
studies -- a sensor placement study to identify optimal
locations in Turkey for a forward deployed sensors; a Post
Engagement Ground Effects Model Study; and a revised upper
layer analysis based on updated THAAD information. The GOT
was reluctant to agree at the outset to all aspects of a
sensor placement study out of concern that the study could
duplicate or contradict what is being done in NATO's Missile
Defense Feasibility Study. To help address this concern it
was decided to facilitate a dialogue with the NATO team that
manages the study, The two sides agreed to pursue the
amendment of the MOU to allow for the new studies and
tentatively planned to hold the next full TEG in January

2005. End Summary.


2. (C) On July 8 a Missile Defense Technical Experts Group
(TEG) meeting was held in Ankara with the intention of
agreeing upon future cooperation in the area of missile
defense. The Turkish side was led by Turkish General Staff
(TGS) Scientific Decision Support Center (SDSC) Chief BG
Pekar, supported by TU Air Force J-5 BG Unal (Pekar's
predecessor once removed),SDSC project coordinator CPT (Air
Force) Osman Iyde, LTC Unal from TGS/J-5, MFA NATO/EU
Armaments and Defense Expert Muzaffer Akyildirim among
others. The US side was led by Missile Defense Agency (MDA)
Dr. David Martin. Both sides voiced their appreciation for
the bilateral cooperation dating back several years, when the
TEG was initiated as an outgrowth of the High Level Defense
Group (HLDG). Since then the cooperation had taken on a life
of its own and benefited both sides through the completion of
the 3-phase joint architectural study of missile defense for
Turkey.


3. (C) The TEG agreed that near term future work should
include:
- a sensor placement study to identify optimal locations in

Turkey for a forward deployed sensors;
- a Post Engagement Ground Effects Model Study;
- a revised upper layer analysis based on updated THAAD
information.


4. (C) MDA reminded the TEG that DASD Ian Brzezinski noted
during his visit two years before that interceptors for the
defense of Europe would likely need support from forward
deployed sensors, probably located in Turkey's general
region. The US had already received approval to upgrade
radars in Thule, Greenland and the UK that would help to
defend North America and western Europe, but a more eastern
sensor would provide better tracking data and also be
necessary to help defend NATO's easternmost regions. For
this reason, Dr. Martin urged the Turkish side to approve the
sensor study, amend the MOU and begin the study soon.


5. (C) The Turkish side asked extensive questions on how the
sensor study would fit into NATO's ongoing feasibility study.
Despite MDA's assurances that the NATO study would not go
into detail on the actual placement of forward deployed
sensors, the Turks expressed concern about duplicative and/or
overlapping work on issues already being pursued in Brussels.
They noted Turkey does not have the resources to support
duplicative studies. MDA emphasized that appropriate
briefings on the US-TU study could be fed into the NATO
study. Dr. Martin suggested a joint contribution of a
US-purchased sensor supported by Turkish infrastructure would
be an excellent contribution to the NATO MD force structure.
He argued that the study should be completed in order to
explore that possibility. The Turks questioned whether
sensors and interceptors would be a commonly funded or
national expense. MDA explained that currently the NATO plan
is that interceptors would be nationally funded; nations
might also make sensors available to NATO, but there will be
the alternative (not yet guaranteed) of common funding for
sensors. Such common funding would have to compete with
other NATO funding priorities. MDA assured the GOT that
doing the sensor study would not commit the GOT to hosting a
sensor. The Turks, reluctantly it seemed, agreed to the
sensor study.


6. (C) MDA also briefed the Turks on the Post Engagement
Ground Effects Model (PEGEM),noting that the program was
designed to predict and evaluate, not manage, the
consequences of leaked missiles. The GOT had expressed
interest at the May 2003 TEG in doing a PEGEM study on the
missile leakage allowed by the joint architectural analysis.


7. (C) The TEG agreed that a revised upper layer analysis
would be useful given new information on THAAD since the
conclusion of the joint architectural study. It would
provide better background relevant for the sensor study.


8. (C) MDA planned to provide TGS within six weeks a draft
MOU amendment with the goal of finalization of the amendment
by October 1. With that timeline, the sensor placement study
would be complete at approximately the same time as the NATO
study.


9. (C) Comment: As a result of the July 8 TEG, the GOT is now
fully aware of how important the forward deployed sensor is
to the US. The Turks clearly had lingering concerns about
ensuring coordination of the bilateral study with the NATO
feasibility study and the related issue of common versus
national funding. IMF-imposed fiscal discipline has made the
defense budget tight.
DEUTSCH