|
STATEMENT
OF
LT. GEN RONALD T. KADISH, USAF
DIRECTOR, MISSILE DEFENSE AGENCY
BEFORE
THE HOUSE ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE
MILITARY PROCUREMENT AND MILITARY RESEARCH AND
DEVELOPMENT JOINT HEARING ON MISSILE DEFENSE
JUNE 27, 2002
Chairman
Hunter, Chairman Weldon, Members of the
Subcommittees.
Good afternoon, and thank you for the
invitation to appear before you to talk about
the Missile Defense Program.
Thank you also for your committee's
strong support of this important program.
While we face many challenges in the road
ahead, we are moving forward.
The consistent support your committee has
given to missile defense will, in the end, have
a profound impact on our nation's security.
We
are moving forward with the President's
missile defense program.
My objective is to meet or exceed the
Department-wide execution goals.
MDA's financial systems show that we
are on track to do this.
Despite the continuing resolution during
the first quarter of this fiscal year, MDA's
financial systems indicate that overall in FY
2002, we are 60 percent obligated and 18 percent
expended through April 2002.
This is comparable to our execution this
time last year, by the end of which MDA had
exceeded, overall, the Department-wide goals for
obligations and expenditures.
In
addition, R&D is a two-year appropriation,
and we would not expect to obligate 100 percent
of our R&D funding in the first year. For example, we have budgeted for contract awards fees that
will not be obligated until the end of the
period of performance in the second year.
In short, I am confident that MDA
execution is on course, will meet or exceed
Department-wide standards, and that MDA does not
have a carry-over problem.
I
would like to update you on our progress since I
last testified before your subcommittees on 27
February. As I look back, it has been a busy four months, punctuated by
a series of important events just two weeks ago.
In the space of three days this month, we
had a successful intercept of an MRBM by a
Standard Missile-3 interceptor launched from an
Aegis cruiser; the United States formally
withdrew from the ABM Treaty; and we broke
ground on the start of the expanded BMD System
Test Bed at Ft. Greely, Alaska.
We
are truly at a crossroads in the development of
missile defenses. Our pace has picked up, and it is important that we sustain
our momentum to be able to take full advantage
of the opportunities that now lie before us.
Some of the momentum is most readily seen
in our recent testing progress.
Additionally, our redesigned processes
and management structures are now beginning to
mature, although there are start up problems we
need to solve, as you would expect with such a
new management approach.
I
mentioned the SM-3 successful intercept.
This was Flight Mission (FM) -3, part
of our initial Aegis LEAP Intercept (ALI) test
series for our Sea-based Midcourse Defense
element. The
first test, FM-2, which took place last January,
was also a hit, so we are now 2-for-2.
With these two tests, we have fulfilled
our basic objectives at this stage of ALI
testing, and the next step is to take advantage
of this early completion of our objectives and
capitalize on our success so far in the
development of the SM-3 missile capability.
Last
March 15, we had our fourth successful intercept
of the Ground-based Midcourse Defense element.
Our record now stands at 4-for-6 in
intercepts.
As in previous tests, we used a modified
Minuteman as a target and the prototype booster
for the interceptor.
The kill vehicle separated from its
booster some 1400 miles from the target warhead.
By using on-board visual and infrared
sensors, augmented by radar data provided
through the in-flight communication system, the
kill vehicle found and hit the target that was
surrounded by three balloon decoys.
We have completed the initial reviews of
our data, and the lessons learned are being
applied to subsequent tests.
The next intercept test event, IFT-9,
will be conducted later this summer.
Our
initial operational testing of the PAC-3 has not
achieved all the results we expected to see.
We have had four operational intercept
tests this year, one each during February,
March, April, and May.
In each case, soldiers from Ft. Bliss
operated the firing units.
The four tests involved various mixes of
PAC-2 and PAC-3 missiles operating together
against simultaneous air-breathing and ballistic
missile targets.
In these tests, the PAC-2 destroyed only
one of its two assigned air-breathing targets,
and, against ballistic missile targets, the
PAC-3 destroyed only two of four.
In one test, a PAC-3 hit its ballistic
missile target but did not destroy the warhead,
so the test was not judged a success.
In another, a PAC-3 missile failed to
fire. And
in a third test, even though the missile target
was intercepted and the warhead destroyed, a
second PAC-3 failed to launch.
As a result, this test was not a complete
success, because our operational concept calls
for two PAC-3s to be fired at each target to
maximize our chances of intercept.
We have some more work and testing to do
to fix these problems, but the initial
production of PAC-3 should continue as planned.
Mr.
Christie's Office of Operational Test and
Evaluation is evaluating the results of this
initial operational test series over the summer.
While
we naturally tend to focus on these very visible
intercept flight tests, I believe that the
thorough ground testing we must do before flight
tests is even more important.
This has always been our approach.
Rigorous ground test checks can reveal
critical flaws and are essential if we are to
have successful intercept flight tests. Unless we continue to take this deliberate and important
step, we may waste the effort and resources we
spend on the more complex and costly flight
tests. These
ground tests sow the seeds of success in our
future flight tests.
I
mentioned we had broken ground at Ft. Greely for
the expanded BMD System Test Bed.
This test bed will add two essential
dimensions to our ability to test.
First, it will allow us to test our
individual elements under more operationally
realistic and stressing conditions than we could
before. And
second, it will allow us to test the integration
of those elements into a single BMD System in
ways we that would not have been possible
before. Some
of the tests we will now be able to conduct
would not have been permitted under the ABM
Treaty.
As
we look ahead over the next 6 months, we have
some 15 ground tests and 20 flight tests
scheduled, including several data gathering
flights.
Looking
farther out over the next year, individual
element progress will be substantial.
For example, the Airborne Laser will be
undergoing ground and component tests,
especially in beam control, with low power laser
tests scheduled for next summer.
For Ground-based Midcourse Defense, we
are still looking at roughly one intercept
flight test per quarter, with four, and perhaps
even five, having been done by this time next
year. We
have two important GMD command and control
simulation exercises set up for this fall.
Our sea-based element has a sled test
next month, with the next intercept flight test,
FM-4, planned for the fall.
THAAD is still in a ground testing phase,
with extensive missile defense integration
qualification and radar tests.
The
exercise agenda is full.
We have four missile defense integration
exercises and two system-wide wargames scheduled
over the next twelve months.
Our international test agenda includes
exercises this fall with Korea and with the US
European Command and, next spring, with US
Central Command.
Let
me turn to some of the process and management
changes that are beginning to bear fruit.
We
changed our acquisition approach from
threat-based to capability-based.
We have already taken a key step in that
direction.
I have approved the initial Technical
Objectives and Goals document, or TOG, that lays
out the capabilities to which our BMD System
should be designed.
This document will be the starting point
for development.
The
TOG is distinguished from its closest
predecessor document, the Operational
Requirements Document, or ORD, in two major
ways. First,
the TOG deals with capabilities that are more
broadly defined than military requirements as
traditionally derived.
This gives a somewhat wider range of
latitude to the developer, in effect telling him
what to do, rather than how to do it. And
second, it has been developed in conjunction
with our user and developer communities.
This is an important departure from past
practice where requirements were specified by
the user in detail before being handed off to
the developer.
The
advantage the TOG has over its predecessor is
that these objectives and goals can be modified
during system development to incorporate
advances in technology.
Furthermore, if necessary, the TOG can be
adjusted to reflect changes in adversary
capabilities.
It is this ability to make rapid
trade-offs during development that will be so
important to speeding up the decision and
acquisition cycle that we need for missile
defense.
The
Departmental system of oversight is maturing.
I met with the Senior Executive Council
last winter, and we are scheduled to do so again
this summer to present our program and budget
proposals for next year.
More
of our routine MDA missile defense activity
coordination occurs with the Missile Defense
Support Group.
This group has representatives from each
of the 13 separate Departmental entities that
have a stake in our program.
It has met virtually every two weeks
since it was stood up four months ago.
For example, the Missile Defense Agency
developed an Implementation Plan to execute the
Secretary's guidance in his January chartering
memorandum.
We have reviewed the draft of this plan
in detail with the Missile Defense Support
Group, and we are now incorporating their
comments. I can tell you from experience that, had we used normal
coordination procedures, we would not have been
this far along in drafting such comprehensive
guidelines for such a complex program-one that
touches the Military Departments, the Joint
Staff, and many other Defense Agencies.
The
National Team of government, support
contractors, federally funded R&D centers,
and industry that we have set up is also
maturing. It
is helping us with the unprecedented tasks of
integrating the diverse elements of the BMD
System and developing a comprehensive BM/C2
approach. The
first engineering products, focused on Block 04
and to a lesser extent on Blocks 06 and 08, are
due mid-July.
These products will form the basis for
any Block architecture changes or risk reduction
activities we need to take prior to submitting
the FY04 President's Budget.
Together with our National Team members,
we will be able to review and revise, as needed,
our biennial Block architecture approach.
This development cycle gives us the
ability to modify our BMD System approach as
capabilities evolve and as the threat changes.
The
team's work over the past four months has been
most productive, and I look forward to their
report to me next month as to how we might best
accomplish our tasks.
Their recommendations will form the
foundation for my own recommendations to the
Department for the program.
And you, in turn, will most likely see
some of those during our hearings with you next
year.
Chairman
Hunter, Chairman Weldon, the Missile Defense
Program is indeed at a crossroads.
With the continued support of the
committee for the President's Budget, we can
make the right choices to keep up the aggressive
pace and momentum of our development effort.
In so doing, we can fulfill our
responsibility to help protect the American
people, our deployed forces, our allies, and our
friends from the threat of ballistic missile
attack.
Thank
you. I
look forward to your questions.
|
