The program we have restructured is designed to answer some key questions first and then take a step-wise approach as to whether we can or should afford that kind of a constellation. I think we are on track to do that.

Going beyond that role as a sensing capability, which we will also like from space, we have very early steps to seeing whether or not interceptors can be put on orbit, because that solves our geography problem in some of these areas; and I think that we have $14 million to start that kind of a development program in the 2004 budget.

In regard to anti-satellite efforts, that is a threat that we pay attention to.

ANTI-SATELLITE PROGRAM EFFORTS

Mr. WICKER. Well, and then the last part of my question was, the fact that the kinetic energy anti-satellite program has been shelved for the time being, do you have any concerns about that?

General KADISH. I don't at this point. I don't have any concerns about that at this point. Space control is both a policy and a technical issue that will have to be debated. But at this point in time our anti-satellite capability is not a key issue for me in this mission area at this point; and an

Mr. WICKER. Thank you.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Visclosky.

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Thank you. No questions.

MICROWAVE TECHNOLOGY

Mr. TIAHRT. Thank you.

Microwave technology is not part of what we are doing with BMD, but as far as I know. The Russians have used microwave technology.

There is an oilman from Wichita, Kansas, that does business in Russia; and he was approached by Russian scientists that said that they had the capability to bring an airplane down with microwave technology. They were selling it as a post-September 11th, 2001, technology to protect something stationary like a nuclear power plant. They claim that if an airplane violated the air space around the cone, around a nuclear power plant, they could take out that airplane and bring it down involuntarily.

Is this something that was just smoke and mirrors, that they were approaching this guy to try to get access to American citizenship, or is this a very real threat?

General KADISH. We don't have any microwave technology efforts for missile defense capability under way, and I don't know about the specific instance that you described. But there is a concern.

For instance, our X band radars are pretty-approach microwave; and we do have a safety area around those radars for aircraft. We don't want to put too much energy-when you hit this huge radar, it is not good to put energy on radar systems of that nature.

So I don't know of any programs to deal with this, but I would suspect that the science there would support some of these claims. Mr. TIAHRT. There has been a rumor that has floated around that some-that one of our satellites was disabled, potentially, by

microwave technology used by Russia. Is there any-have we known of any of that kind of capability?

General KADISH. I am not aware of anything of that kind, Congressman. I couldn't comment on that.

Mr. TIAHRT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

NAVY-MDA AEGIS “LAKE ERIE" AGREEMENT

Mr. LEWIS. Okay. Mr. Tiahrt, thank you.
Other questions from members?

Okay, we have had at least a reasonable amount of discussion with people in the Navy regarding the Aegis cruiser and that that agreement between the Navy and the Department-and the question of control is involved here. In that agreement, there is reference to control and what the definition might be. Could you kind of explain that to us?

General KADISH. I am not sure I understand the question, Mr. Chairman. The Navy agreement in regard to giving us the Lake Erie for tests, is that the issue?

Mr. LEWIS. That is it.

General KADISH. I think that is a wonderful agreement that we have come up with.

Mr. LEWIS. Of course.

General KADISH. We struggled in the preparation of the 2004 budget and swung a number of times of how we were going to continue our testing not only for SM-3 but for other things we would like to put at sea, and we came up with a number of schemes. The CNO, in particular the senior Navy staff, were very responsive to our needs; and I think that the agreement that we struck

Mr. LEWIS. Very responsive. Does that mean that they expressed their concerns?

General KADISH. They had a lot of concerns, as we had. Because I could not-we could not-they wanted their ship back is basically-because, of course, the operational impacts of not having all of the ships dedicated to the mission-so this was discussed, and all of the issues were laid out. I think the CNO and the Department made exactly the right decision to dedicate the Lake Erie to

us.

Mr. LEWIS. Take us forward a minute. Let's say that we wanted to expand the program. Then there is expense involved. If control means MDA control rather than the Navy, then who pays for it? General KADISH. Well, the agreement, at least as I understand it right now, is that anything we do in terms of that ship with modifying it for future capability and doing tests and that type of thing, we would pay for under our MDA budget and the development thereof.

The ship's crew and the some of the operating expenses and maintenance expenses for that ship would continue under the Navy auspices, because they are the best knowledgeable about how to do that, and we don't want to lose the connection of having an operational crew available to us for the Lake Erie in emergency situations or those types of issues.

So we struck a balance between who pays for the O&S versus who pays for all of the rest of it, and certainly the lion's share of

that expense is going to be on MDA's budget requirement. So that is the way we—I think we have split it up.

And how it when you get into writing MOUS and the actual budget documents, truth sometimes doesn't turn out that way. But that is the way that we have got it done.

Mr. LEWIS. General Kadish, I think this has been a very valuable hearing. We have lots of other questions expressed by the Committee, and I suggest we will submit those to you.

Are there other members who have questions at this moment?
If not, sir, you got plenty to do, so the Committee is adjourned.
General KADISH. Thank you. Thank you for your time.

[CLERK'S NOTE-Questions submitted by Mr. Lewis and the answers thereto follow:]

BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE SYSTEM-CAPABILITIES

Question. In December 2002 the President directed the Department of Defense to begin fielding an integrated and evolutionary Ballistic Missile Defense System (BMDS) of initial modest capability.

What capabilities does the initial deployment possess?

Answer. The capabilities called for by the president for 2004-2005 include up to 20 ground-based interceptors (GBIs) against an intercontinental-range ballistic missile threat-up to 16 located at Fort Greely, Alaska, and up to 4 located at Vandenberg Air Force Base in California. The GBIs will be available on a continuous basis to intercept long-range missiles during their midcourse phase of flight. The Ballistic Missile Defense System supporting the GBIs will include an initial set of integrated sensors based on land and at sea, and cued by early warning sensors in space. Over time, capabilities will be added to the BMDS, making it more robust and capable of engaging broader types of threats.

Question. Recent OSD testimony before the Congress estimated the effectiveness of the initial BMDS capability at 90%. What is the basis for this estimate?

Answer. Using the estimate probability of kill for each interceptor and multiplying it by the performance range for the rest of the system achieves a 90% effectiveness. Question. Do you feel this estimate is accurate?

Answer. Yes. MDA concurs with estimate provided during OSD testimony to Congress.

Question. Your direction is to establish a layered defense to intercept missiles in all phases of flight against all ranges. Given the technologies available to you today, please explain how you intend to apply the layered defense concept?

Answer. The initial BMDS layered defense consists of a variety of mature technologies that are currently affordable for engineering, development, and fielding. The development objective provides an integrated layered defense against three phases of ballistic missile flight-boost phase, midcourse phase and terminal phase. Initial terminal phase defenses have already been fielded through PAC-3. Initial midcourse phase defenses will be added during the initial fielding at Ft. Greely, AK, Vandenberg AFB, CA and at sea on Aegis cruisers and destroyers. Boost phase defense capability is being pursued through the Airborne Laser (ABL) and surfacebased kinetic boost, but will not be available until FY08 at the earliest. In addition, there are the Command, Control, Battle Management, and Communications (C2BMC), which integrates and provides interconnectivity, and sensors, consisting of existing satellites and upgraded early warning radars. The integration of and interconnectivity across all three missile defense phases will provide a layered ballistic missile defense capable of intercepting a variety of ballistic missile threats. MDA will continue to develop less mature technologies for future systems that will enable greater defensive coverage and effectiveness over time. These include spacebased radars, the X-band radar, and surface-based kill systems. By engineering and integrating these technologies as they mature we will provide effective defense across all three phases of ballistic missile flight.

Question. What threats is the system intended to meet?

Answer. The Ballistic Missile Defense System is not being designed to meet a specific threat. The system is being designed to engage threats to the United States, Friends, Allies and Forward Deployed forces in all phases of flight. Therefore, the Missile Defense Agency has developed an Adversary Capability Document that details over 200 threat parameters that can be utilized to evaluate Ballistic Missile Defense Performance across the entire threat spectrum. This threat spectrum is

bounded by physical boundaries of each threat parameter and evaluated against known Intel based missile systems.

Question. The initial capability envisions evolutionary development. Please explain this strategy. What capabilities do you believe you will add over the next 5 years? 10 years?

Answer. MDA applies evolutionary_acquisition to incrementally develop and expand on its initial BMDS capability. Evolutionary acquisition is the preferred DoD strategy for rapid acquisition of technology for the user. An evolutionary approach delivers capability in increments and recognizes, up front, the need for future capability improvements. The objective is to balance needs and available capability with resources, and to put capability into the hands of the user as quickly as possible. The success of this approach depends on consistent and continuous definition of needed warfighter capabilities. Its success also hinges on the maturation of technologies that lead to disciplined development and fielding of capabilities that provide increasingly effective missile defenses against evolving and changing threats. Specific future capabilities are described in the classified BMDS Statement of Goals (SOG), which MDA can make available.

Question. What threats do you envision that the enhanced capabilities will meet? Answer. Threats detailed within the evolution of the Ballistic Missile Defense System design will continually be evaluated against the Adversary Capability Document threat parameters.

BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE SYSTEM-TESTING PROGRAM

Question. The fiscal year 2004 budget request proposes a general provision designating the initial Ballistic Missile Defense System testbed as having reached the system development and demonstration (SDD) phase for purposes of any law governing the development and production of a major defense acquisition program. The provision does not explicitly state, but the provision appears to waive the usual testing required for a system to reach the SDD phase of development.

General Kadish please explain the need for the legislation proposed in the budget request which deems the Ballistic Missile Defense System to have reached the system development and demonstration (SDD) phase.

Answer. Section 8061 of the FY 2004 Budget says in part: "funds available to the Department of Defense under the heading RDT&E Defense-Wide may be used to develop and field an initial set of missile defense capabilities." This language addresses a concern about using RDT&E funds to develop, acquire, and deploy missiles in the Test Bed to provide a limited missile defense in a national emergency. It was included to ensure that RDT&E funding is all that will be necessary to be used for the initial set of missile defense capabilities used in the FY 2004 initial Missile Defense Test Bed. This sentence continues: "such fielding shall be considered to be system development and demonstration for purposes of any law governing the development and production of a major defense acquisition program." This second part was intended as an expansion of the first for clarification. It was not, as it has been misunderstood repeatedly, in any way a request for a waiver from operational testing. The Test Bed allows RDT&E assets to be evaluated by DOT&E in operational environments. In fact, both developmental and operational test data will form the basis of DOT&E assessments of the BMDS.

Question. Please explain how this provision will effect the development and testing of those programs that comprise the Ballistic Missile Defense System initial capability.

Answer. The Ballistic Missile Defense System (BMDS) is managed as a single RDT&E program. Therefore all elements and components will continue to undergo rigorous developmental and operational testing. The Department of Defense has no plans to exempt the missile defense system from developmental and operational testing. The Director of Operational Test and Evaluation (DOT&E) is directly involved in the review and assessment of all missile defense testing activities and will provide his operational assessment report to Congress each year. DOT&E supports the BMDS Test Bed concept because it will increase test realism and will mitigate many test limitations previously identified.

Question. What testing results give the Missile Defense Agency the confidence to deploy the testbed as an initial operating capability by 2004?

Answer. Results of previous flight (through IFT-10) and ground tests provide confidence that the initial integration of the developing system (sensors, battle management and weapon components) successfully meets objectives for system functionality and operations. Planned enhancements to the interceptor, sensors, and battle management components, including the integration of Aegis BMD surveillance and tracking capabilities, will be tested during a series of eight upcoming flight tests.

These will include two booster verification flights and six integrated flight tests (IFTs), with two planned as intercept tests. In addition, a series of integrated ground tests will be completed in fiscal year 2004 using actual system hardware and software. These ground tests, performed using threat representative scenarios, significantly augment flight test results and provide overall confidence in the deployment of limited systems defensive capabilities. These system capabilities will be exploited and built upon as MDA continues to integrate additional capabilities with future block developments of the BMDS.

Question. Are there specific technical developments that facilitate deployment at this point without a more extensive testing regimen?

Answer. Integration of system improvements, such as new booster developments, Exoatmospheric Kill Vehicle (EKV) enhancements, sensor and battle management upgrades, including integration of AEGIS BMD surveillance and tracking capabilities, will all be thoroughly tested within the flight test and ground test program planned to precede Initial Defensive Operations (IDO) and Block 04 overall. MDA does have an extensive test regimen planned for the BMDS. What are being_deployed in 2004 are a limited defensive capability and an operationally realistic Test Bed that will be used to continue operational testing of the BMDS.

Question. The Committee understands that the Department of Defense may be considering revisions to the proposed language. Please explain any changes you recommend to the requested language.

Answer. The question refers to proposed section 8061, which read in full: "Sec. 8061. Funds available to the Department of Defense under the heading, "Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Defense-Wide" may be used to develop and field an initial set of missile defense capabilities, and such fielding shall be considered to be system development and demonstration for purposes of any law governing the development and production of a major defense acquisition program. The initial set of missile defense capabilities is defined as "Block 04" Ballistic Missile Defense system fielded in fiscal year 2004 and 2005. Subsequent blocks of missile defense capabilities shall be subject to existing laws governing development and production of major defense acquisition programs.'

This was not drafted to waive operational testing, as the fielded developmental items will continue to be tested. However, we understand concerns that the language "and such fielding shall be considered to be system development and demonstration for purposes of any law” would have that effect, and agree to delete it and all that follows.

GROUND-BASED MIDCOURSE DEFENSE-INTERCEPTOR COMPONENTS

Question. In December 2002, the President directed the Missile Defense Agency to employ a Ballistic Missile Defense System (BMDS) that provides a layered defense using test assets to provide an initial capability. The Missile Defense Agency will implement this capability in the fiscal year 2004/2005 timeframe. The GroundBased Midcourse Defense (GMD) element of this program includes fire control/communications systems, interceptors (booster and kill vehicle), and sensors. The fiscal year 2004 budget includes $2.8 billion for this effort of which $707.5 million is for the interceptor.

The Missile Defense Agency is pursuing development of two deployable boost vehicles, both of which are non-developmental ICBM-class booster motor stacks, to support the groundbased interceptor for BMDS.

Please explain the reason why the MDA chose to use ICMB-class boosters to support the GMD interceptor. Does this strategy save costs? Development time? Are there other reasons?

Answer. Central to the stated mission of the Ground-based Midcourse Defense element of MDA is intercepting and destroying incoming warheads outside the earth's atmosphere. Given the weight of the Exo-atmospheric Kill Vehicle (EKV), the distance it has to travel and the acceleration needed to get from the ground to space at the speeds needed to complete the mission, the only means currently available to deliver the EKV for an exo-atmospheric intercept is the multi-stage ICBM-class booster. All boosters of this class in use today are generally reliable and benefit from decades of development and technological improvement. This strategy of using proven, state-of-the-art technology reduces the research and development phase of the ground-based interceptor effort and results in significant savings in both time and funding

Additionally, at the direction of Congress, Boeing conducted a study to consider alternative booster concepts. Boeing selected Orbital Sciences Corp for a developmental contract and, as a risk mitigation effort, turned development of their own booster over to Lockheed Martin for continued development and production. Both