comparemela.com

Test. And the white houses 2018 budget request. He was also asked about north Koreas Nuclear program at this House Armed Services subcommittee hearing chaired by congressman mike rogers. Good afternoon. I want to welcome everybody to the hearing today. Fiscal year 2018 Missile Defense programs and activities. We have an esteemed group of witnesses with us today. Mr. Todd harvey, acting assistant secretary of defense for strategy plans and capabilities. Vice admiral james syring, commander James Dickinson for integrated Missile Defense and Commander Army Strategic Forces command. And mr. Barry pike who has the best accent on the panel. And before i get started, i want to take the chairmans prerogative for a minute. For almost 37 years vice admiral syring has served his country in uniform. Many are familiar with him as director of Missile Defense agency which he has led since november of 2012. I remember the problems with the prior leadership of mda and the devastating impact in 2012. That has changed under admiral syrings leadership. I think theres no better testament than the recent Midcourse Defense System test against an icbm class target. With everything going on in the world, this success sends a powerful message to allies and adversaries we will defend ourself from the threat of attack. We thank you for your service and very much hope its not complete yet. With that, because we were called for votes, were on a shorter timeline. Im going to dispense with my Opening Statement and yield to my friend and colleague from tennessee for any Opening Statement he may have. Thank you. I would like to add my praise for admiral syring. We hope it continues. I also want to ask to put my statement into the records that we could get on with the hearing. Without objection so ordered. What i would ask so well have time for questions and also time to go into the classified section is ask each witness to try to summarize their statement in three or four minutes, if they could. The full statement will be admitted to the record without objection. First well start with mr. Todd harvey. Youre recognized for summary of your testimony. Thank you, sir. Chairman rogers, Ranking Member cooper, members of the subcommittee, thank you for opportunity to testify in the defense departments sefrts to sustain our capability so we remain ahead of the threat while providing effective inoperable regional Missile Defense capability. The u. S. Homeland is currently protected by the ground base Midcourse Defense System. Improving the capacity effective to the system is one of our highest priorities. The president s Budget Proposal would fund the long range discrimination radar, help lay the groundwork for new radar. Advance technology and space based kill assessment programs. We remain on track to complete the deployment to bring the total to 44. To bolster our defenses. From a regional standpoint, the president s fy2018 budget request also continues the deployment of Missile Defenses tailored to threats in europe, middle east, asia pacific region. In europe were continuing to implement the european phase and working in close collaboration with our nato allies of sensors and intercepters. President s budget request also supports the system that will be deployed in poland in the 2018 time frame. Nato allies have committed to spend more than a billion dollars on Missile Defense command and control. And many are improving their national bmd capabilitiecapabil. Our forced posture includes bmd capable ships and the recent deployment of thaad to south korea. We also maintain robust Missile Defense presence in the middle east including land and sea based assets deployed in the defense and located forces for those of allies and partners. This is in addition to build capacity for the counterparts that contribute to the ability to defend themselves. We must continue to look ahead. Which means assuring there are strategies that address the most dangerous threats we confront while emerging threats over the next decade. On january 27th of this year, the president directed the secretary of defense to initiate a new ballistic Missile Defense review to identify Missile Defense capabilities in the face of rapidly growing missile threats. It will be informed by the administration determination to develop state of the art system, defense the homeland, and the regional interest. We expect to complete it this fall. It will complement the report mandated by the fy2017 ndaa. The department continues to field Missile Defense systems, we intend to stay ahead of the Cruise Missile developments, sea capabilities, and defeat emerging ballistic and Cruise Missile threats. Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. Look forward to your questions. I thank you. The chair now recognizes admiral syring. Thank you for the opportunity to appear today. Ill submit my written statement for the record. I request permission to play the video from the test last week. We would love to see that. I will narrate as this goes since its unnarrated. Give the committee an idea of what was accomplished last week. Test was conducted on the 30th of may out in the pacific. Heres a blue water chart that depicts the test construct. It was fired from Brandenburg Air Force base. And the sbx and the northwest pacific. Giving the solution to intercept a quadrant in the Marshall Islands. The red indicates the target flyout and the green indicates the gbi from vandenberg. Heres a picture of the target lifting off in the Marshall Islands. 5,000 miles away from the coast of california. This is the longest range target that weve ever flown. The highest altitude and the highest closing velocity for an intercept. This was done with countermeasures. Next youll see a picture of the intercepter launched from va Vandenberg Air force base. Completely representative of the silos there. This is what we test out of. The gbi is production representative of the block ones that will be fielded to fill out the 44 gbis by the end of this calendar year. What youll see next is the sensor zone and what the kill vehicle saw in space. This is actual live data from the test. What you see in red is the warhead from the target. And what you see in green is its tank thats flying alongside because in space everything flies at the same velocity. You see the kill vehicle focused on the red warhead and eventually dropping out the other debris in the scene. What you see next is the kill vehicle in acquisition and terminal. Thats an actual picture of the reentry vehicle that was destructed beyond recognition. What youll see here is another infrared booster and the target warhead with the booster of the gbi flying by literally a second before the kill vehicle killed the target warhead. We had four or five different sensors strewn across the pacific to validate what you just saw. That was live data played back from the test. With that, sir, i stand ready for your questions. Outstanding. Thank you very much. Lieutenant general dickinson, youre recognized. Chairman rogers, Ranking Member cooper, and other distinguished members of the subcommittee, thank you for your continued support of our soldiers, civilians, and their families. This is my initial appearance before this subcommittee and it is indeed an honor to testify before you today to discuss the importance of Missile Defense to our nation and the need to maintain these capabilities in the face of a threat as we all know that continues to grow in both capacity and capability. Today i want to briefly summarize the missions of the organizations i represent. First, space and Missile Defense command or smdc, Army Forces Strategic command rstrat. Our six lines of effort are to number one, protect the homeland. Provide combatready space and Missile Defense professionals, plans that integrate global operations. Produce or adopt leap ahead combinations and technologies. And promote and foster a positive command climate. Our six lines of effort apply not only to the Missile Defense but also to army space. The army has more than 4,000 military and civilian space support to the war fighter from 22 different locations and 11 different time zones around the world. Within smdcrstrat, concepts requirements and doctrine provide training to the army space cadray and executes space and Missile Defense development. I also represent the joint force Component Command for integrated Missile Defense. Which supports strategic demand in our global Missile Defense operations. For example, today we have approximately 300 fulltime National Guard soldiers located in colorado springs, colorado, alaska, and Vandenberg Air force base, california, who operate the ground Missile Defense system. It represents the nations only defense on Intercontinental Missile attack. These professionals execute a strategically Important Mission 365 days a year. They refer to themselves as 3 00 soldiers protecting the 300 million. Additionally in support of u. S. Stratcon, synchronizing National Level planning, supporting ongoing operations, integrating training exercises, test activities globally, low density high demand Missile Defense resources and abdicating for future responsibilities. As reported the missile threat continues to grow both in terms of numbers and sophistication. We as a nation must maintain our current Readiness Posture and continue to increase our capabilities to address future threats. Finally id like to highlight the challenges we face today cannot be addressed without the dedication of our greatest asset. Our people. Service members, civilians, contractors and their families those stationed at home as well as those deployed provide support to the army every day. We remain committed to providing to pursue enhancements for the nation. This Missile Defense operations and the men and women who develop and deploy our systems is essential. Again, i appreciate the opportunity to discuss our capabilities and i look forward to addressing your questions. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Pike, youre recognized. Thank you, sir. Chairman rogers, Ranking Member coop cooper, and distinguished members im here to testify before you and thank you for continued support of our people. Support to our war fighters and their readiness remains our number one priority. I lead the Material Development production fielding and sustainment support for assigned missile and Space Systems for the army. This includes the centralized management of army air and Missile Defense, long range precision fires, close combat, and aviation Missile Systems as well as designated space programs. In todays complex dynamic volatile security environment, army air and Missile Defense is a key strategic enabler. As such, our focus continues or on providing war fighting Solutions Across the operational spectrum. We accomplish this by working with other military departments, the Missile Defense agency, the defense command, to support joint integrated air and Missile Defense capabilities. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member cooper, i look forward to addressing your questions. I thank all the witnesses for their statements. Ill recognize myself first for questions. Admiral, syring we have seen at least 60 of these are to be successed. It appears he has had success with solid fuel Ballistic Mission ls including those from submarines and on the ground. He recently showed he can build a reentry vehicle. I have to ask, does this budget request allow us to remain paced ahead of the threat and second, if we fully fund your request and it remains at the same funding of which increasing amounts or procurement not research and development will we continue to stay ahead of the threat or is it moving faster than we are . Sir, with the work of this committee and others and the support of congress, i would not say we are comfortably ahead of the threat. I would say we are addressing the threat that we know today. And the advancements in the last six months have caused great concern to me and others in the advancement of and demonstration of technology, Ballistic Missiles from north korea. It is incumbent upon us to assume that north korea today can range the United States with an icbm carrying a nuclear warhead. Everything that we are doing plans for that contingency. And in addition to looking ahead to what might be developed what is possible over the next five to ten years. In an open setting to the extent that you can, would you characterize what north korea has been doing for the last six months . They have been not only testing at an alarming rate in violation of international law, but demonstrating technology that feeds development of longer range missiles and more capable missiles as well. Can you discuss your timeline for developing and deploying the lrdr . How long will the mda take to do that and from acquirement finalization to deployment . From the specific requirement of when lrdr was developed, it was back in 2014 and we were under contract in late 2015 if i get the timeline correct. And we will ioc it to the war fighter in late 2020. Okay. With that i will yield to the Ranking Member for his opening questions. Thank you, mr. Chairman. In view of the lateness of the hearing and large number of committees here, i defer my questions for the classified portion of the hearing. Chair now recognizes gentleman from arizona mr. Franks for five minutes. Thanks, mr. Chairman. And admiral syring, everybody said it but i hope you know my name is on the list that honors your commitment to the country. Admiral syring, has mda completed the objective for both the sm31b and the 2a . So there is not a stated inventory objective. But i know what the navy is thinking it should be. And we are not close to that. When do you think this objective or this when do you think we could achieve that objective . At the production rate of ill just mr. Franks, ill plan for 48 to 50 a year. Itll be within the next four to five years. You know, sometimes its important for us to understand how much oversight mda receives in executive branch and legislative branches. Sometimes its an enormous burden on you but id like to ask you to detail how many meetings, rfis, and paperwork is involved at mda for these oversight processes. Request i give a qualitative answer . Yes, sir. A lot. We are under a tremendous amount of oversight. On the development of Missile Defense technology and capability. Well, given that its a lot, for all of this work, how many recommendations did gao have in his fy16 report . There were three or four. Four for the record. And how many of those were validated by d. O. D. . We didnt agree with three of the four. Three of the four. So how about the fy15 report . Im not going to pursue this much longer. I dont recall any specific recommendations from that report. So how much oversight would mba have if we made the bmds report and gao mandate biannual and alternate it when they were submitted and how could we how could the agency better focus on the mission if we did that . I want to start by saying that we given the oversight responsibility, we have a constructive relationship with gao. I dont want to impugn them in any way. We work closely with them. To answer your question directly, i think a biannual report would be more than sufficient in terms of their oversight responsibility. Let me shift gears on you here. How long do you think it will be before the gmd system has operational spares to maintain 44 gbis at all times. Itll be post2020 when we have a redesign kill vehicle available for procurement. And i know you need to pull gbis from the ground for the rkv recapitalization of the one intercepters. Is that correct . Thats correct, sir. How can we ensure we dont fall below that 44 gbis in placed the calendar year in fy18 . They made a down payment on solving that problem with 150 million to go towards silos and six boosters. Two silos additionally up in ft. Greeley. And therell be a tale to that in fy19 and out to complete that work. But the departments taken steps to address that shortfall where if that were funded and supported by congress this year and when the Department Funds the tail, plans will be in place to not dip below 44 for any length of time. That means youll start buying gbis again to add to our inventory when . We will add boosters, sir, starting this year. And the silo materials starting this year as well. Mr. Chairman, thats all i have. Just again, thank you for your service. Thank you, sir. I thank the gentleman. Chair now recognizes the gentlelady from california ms. Davis. I appreciate your all being here. This is one of the ive been on this subcommittee now for a few months and so i havent had a chance to work with all of you. I wonder if we could go back just to the gao report for a second. Though admiral, because we have certainly focused on improving our Acquisition Strategies, been great concerns about that as you well know. And certainly the gao report that recently came out looking at 16 suggested that the fact that you didnt agree with at least three of those recommendations was perhaps somewhat telling and they were looking for more agreement with that. So could you please share with us why, in fact, you werent in agreement with at least three of those. And i know they did overlap to a certain extent. Could you speak to us a little bit about that . Because, you know, were trying to figure out why not implement some of those . A lot of them had to do more with transparency, i believe, and the comments that were made were, well, you know, well take a look at this. But it was a little bit of a dismissal. Help us out with that, please. Maam, the history quickly is we in the past have up to this point agreed with most if not all of gao recommendations. So its not a matter of we never agreed. We just felt strongly department felt strongly in a couple of different areas. One was the recommendation that the cape approve Acquisition Strategies. The cape is a Voting Member on Acquisition Strategies to the under secretary of defense. So their vote is heard in that forum. But the acquisition of strategy approval is the responsibility of the former mr. Kendall position in terms of approving Acquisition Strategies for not only me but other parts of the department. And we the department felt that that was not in the capes area. The other point the other example was on cost modeling and schedule modeling. We have a very detailed test schedule tool that we use to plan tests and to forecast tests. We also are use a detailed cost model to roll out tests. Where i would agree with one part of their assessment is that there is more fidelity that could be applied specifically in different parts of the test. But we, i think, have done a tremendous job given the budgetary pressures which has pressurized the test program, frankly, over the last four or five years in replanning and conducting tests. I would note that they said in fy16 we delivered 100 of the capability that was planned. So those are just two areas i wouldnt say of firm disagreement, maam. But we had other methods to get at where their recommendation was coming out. So the fact they may have said there were challenges in meeting the test schedule, you think, was perhaps i recognize there is challenges every year in meetsing the test schedule. If there can be more fidelity applied to that process, were certainly going to provide that. Thank you i appreciate that. And while we celebrate the tests that you shared with us that i think we all really do feel good about that, i also know that it was somewhat under perfect conditions, if you will. You might want to challenge that. But i think that it was out of better conditions than perhaps we would face under a crisis. And so how do we really i think respond dollars being spent under these endeavors compared to what we need to do in realtime deployment make sense . Maam, let me if i can just have a point of discussion on that. Then ill turn it over to general dickinson who is the war fighter responsible for the actual execution of the test which the soldiers did. We have to plan tests ahead of time. Because of the air corridors. It was a 5,000 mile test and weve got to clear the aircraft, clear the ships from the area so there has to be a notification on when the test is going to be conducted. The scenario we conducted was actually an exact replica of the exact scenario this country would face if north korea were to fire a Ballistic Missile against the United States. We have radar in japan, alaska, and homeland Defense System in alaska as well. So what we did was move that area south and put a tippy on the island. A radar northwest of hawaii. And shot an intercepter out of vandenberg which 2,000 miles south replicated what the war fighter would face in realtime. The scenario was executed by war fighters on console. And the way the information flowed after the launch of t the upon a launch of north korean Ballistic Missile. It will be detected by the overhead sensors, pass it to the radars in japan, pass it to the radar in alaska, develops the weapons task plan in alaska, to shoot an intercepter to defeat that threat. I would actually argue the scenario that we conducted was maybe more operationally realistic than not. Gentlemans time expired. We only fired one intercepter and in a real world scenario would fire more than one. Were going to have to get a classified briefing in before we get called for votes. Trying to keep everybody on schedule. Mr. Hunter is recognized. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Lets go to hawaii. And first, i think this is the exteistential threat that ameri faces right now. And youre dealing with pit. You youre doing gods work. Lets talk about hawaii. Lets see. Does the program youre talking about you asked for 21 million for new hawaii ballistic Defense Missile radar or the equivalent by 2021. Does what youre talking about is that what youre going to have there opposed to just the sbx . Yes, sir. Okay. Second question, have you looked at and i know other people have so specifically mda, have you looked at blocks for the north Korean Missile threat . Yes. Weve done the analysis and looked at that extensively. Can you speak to that now or wait until the next hearing . I can speak to it, sir. There is inherit capability to engage longer range threats in terms of what we believe the design space is. We have not tested against that longer range threat. But analysis indicates that that could add another layer of defense to hawaii. In that video, where were you shooting that in the u. S. . Where was the target . Target was on meck island in the Marshall Islands and the intercepter was fired from vandenberg in l. A. No, im saying where were you aiming the fake icbm in the u. S. At . Towards the west coast. Towards san diego or los angeles . I wont say san diego. Right. How high would it have to be for alaska if you would have translated that north, it would have been picked up by the alaskan radar. San francisco or higher or something . That the construct that i described protects the United States. So lets go to the sbx. In 2020 its going to have to go dry dock, right . Yes, sir. So youre talking about building an actual radar on kauai, right . In the state of hawaii. Okay. So not the Pacific Missile Range facility . That is one option. We havent decided on location. There are six or seven locations were looking at. Does the navy not want to do it there . The navy understands the need for the radar and were working closely with them on what operational restrictions would have to be in place. But you basically have to have this done by 2020 . We do. Right. Okay. So i guess my next question is if you do it anywhere in hawaii, are you going to have to go through an Environmental Impact study . Yes. Im from california. Okay . I mean, camp pendelton was basically closed down to marine corps assault from the ocean because shrimp in the sand where they did an assault and walked around the actual beach then they could proceed with their assault. Do you think you have the right time frame in mind . If you have to do an eis. The time frame with an eis would be challenging. Is there any way to get around doing an eis . For reasons of National Security. And you would do an Environmental Assessment . Correct. And comes from osd . Thats correct. Okay so you could say because of National Security and pressing existential threat to the United States reasons, we can bypass that . That is my recollection of the options we have. Do you have to use an eis if you go on pmrf . Let me take that for the record, sir. Okay. The answer is yes. Okay . The answer is yes, we got it. Okay. Last thing is your budget request for the radar that will be in place before the sbx has to go in the dry dock. You have a date of 2021. Yet you have a planned ioc date of 2023 assuming a fully installed integrated and tested system. Question is how does this time frame to initial Operational Capability compare to like the lrdr . Very similar. Okay. Okay. So youre happy with the time frame . We of the sbx going away which is what you use for this test going away and having a medium range radar in place in hawaii to take its place . I would just offer a little different perspective. Sbx in my opinion will not go away in 2020. Its got to go into a dry dock and weve got to manage that operational risk. But the decision for sbx to go away will be both the commanders call. So you could press that off. They could press that off if they had to by a year or two . Absolutely. Got you. Thank you. Gentlemens time expired. Chair recognizes mr. Orourke from texas. Thank you. I appreciate being able to see the video. That was helpful to understand what were talking about. Can you talk about we obviously saw success in the icbm being destroyed. Can you talk about any concerns you have with the performance that you can share in this session . Yes, sir. This in no way should the committee take away that this is the final step and were stepping away declaring success. We have been on a journey over the last at least five to six years to improve the reliability of the entire system. As you know, the system was fielded very rapidly back in the early 2000s without a proper System Engineering cycle or production engineering cycle. Because of what the president deemed and correctly so that some defense now is better than no defense. What was said back then was we need to work to improve the system over time. And ive stated openly in this committee and others that i have reliability concerns with the system. That have been systemically addressed in large part over the last ill say six years bit by bit. Its just not the intercepter. Its the entire system. We are not there yet. We have continued work with the redesign kill vehicle. We have continued work with the reliability of the other components of the system to make it totally reliable to give the war fighter options in the future. Ive been open about that that we are not done yet. Let me ask you about that. The president has talked about an expanded Missile Defense system. Youve talked about in response to one of the questions that if i could characterize your answer, we may be keeping pace with the threats, but perhaps not as quickly or as effectively as you would ideally like. What did the president mean by expanding Missile Defense systems . Is the video you showed us, does that satisfy his interests in expansion . Sir, i dont know. I have not talked to the president specifically about this. But i know the ballistic Missile Defense review the secretary of defense has chartered will look at this exact question in terms of not only the capability of the current intercepters, but the capacity question and do we need more and where do we need more . Let me ask you this question, forgive the ignorance in the question. Im also new to this subcommittee. How good can we get at Missile Defense not speaking technologically but in terms of either treaty obligations or concerns about upsetting any balance or deterrence considerations that we already have . Sir, if i can, ill give you my perspective of military officer then ill hand it to my policy friend mr. Harvey to expand further. But i got asked that question a couple weeks ago about Missile Defense being destabilizing. And my answer to that was the only thing provocative and destabilizing are north koreas actions. What about with russia . I guess im specifically asking about. Ill let mr. Harvey take that. So as you know, the russians have expressed concerns about our Missile Defense capabilities. I think we have for the past 50 years recognized deterrence as the basis for defense of our homeland. In terms of defense of our forces in a regional context, i think to the extent that the russians pose a threat to those forces that we feel we have not just a right but an obligation to provide the defenses that we need to protect those forces. And we wont let ourselves be stopped by threats from the russians. Again, im not suggesting we should. Im just trying to get an understanding of the parameter of how far we can take this within current considerations. Maybe a question for a longer conversation. Perhaps on the same theme, how effective are russian Missile Defense systems comparable to ours . Sir, if i could take that to the classified session okay. Ill have that same question. Ill feel more comfortable. Thank you, mr. Chairman. I yield back. Chair now recognizes gentleman from alabama mr. Brooks for five minutes. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Admiral syring i understand that the Missile Defense agency and the d. O. D. Test and evaluation both agree that a multiyear procurement of the sm3 would make components that sm6 may also make sense. Is that right or is that wrong . I agree with that assessment. Why . One, the two intercepters are manufactured in the same location. There must be synergies between the two production lines. We have proven on the navy side, ill speak for the navy, a very successful track record with sm6 testing. Its technical baseline is mature enough, absolutely supportive. The sm13b will go through 17 in the september october time frame and were more confident given that test both the sm3 and the sm6 will be to have procurement. Next question, please describe the joint emergent operational needs submitted by u. S. Forces korea commander brooks in february of this year. I understand has been endorsed by admiral harris at the pacific command. Is that correct or incorrect . Thats correct, sir. What is the plan to provide this capability to the commander of u. S. Forces korea . Will you or your successor seek a reprogramming to accomplish this effort or have you included it in your budget request for fy18 . Its an emerging capability. I just returned from korea last night talking about the document. And potential Material Solutions and i would defer that discussion to the classified environment. This next question is for any witness who would like to pick it up. The groundbased Midcourse Defense System alaska and california is the Missile Defense system that protects the United States from long range Ballistic Missile attacks. Should the American People have confidence in its ability to defend the United States . Congressman brooks, American Public should have absolute confidence in it. I have confidence in the soldiers that man and operate the system. I have confidence in the system itself. Ive got great confidence in the relationship we have with the material developer admiral syring and mda in that regard, but absolute confidence. Given that north korea seems to also be advancing both their capabilities and perhaps numbers of missiles, do you have a judgment as to whether we will be ahead of the game in 2020 . I think at this point we will given the Current Program record and ill defer to admiral syring to talk about it and what the cape nlts are that were progressing with. I think we will likely be. Sir, i would answer and add that everything that this committee has supported over the last four years has been targeted towards a near term which is now part of the Program Record and fielded set of capabilities. A midterm and a far term capability. Midterm developed by 2020. Everything that we are working on and fielding is to stay ahead of the threat by 2020. Today were ahead. We need to stay ahead. Where i just want to put one caveat in is double capacity. Certainly the censoring work to improve the capability of the system is on a trajectory and in large part fielded. Where we need to be prudent and constantly vigilant on is what is the capacity increase that we can expect from north korea and what is our capacity to meet that threat . And i can assure you as part of the bmdr, all of the estimates will be balanced to come up with a recommendation from the department. It seems that we have protection with our facilities in alaska and california. Do you have a judgment as to whether we need more capabilities on the east coast . That will be part of the departments assessment over the next 180 days. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, i yield back. Chair now recognizes gentleman from new jersey mr. Norcross for five minutes. Thank you. There are a couple of items i want to follow up on from my colleagues. The sm3 missile. Been tested considerably but had a few issues not too long ago. Now i understand we got out of the penalty box and its now tested. Do you have any concerns about the reliability . No, sir. None whatsoever. So if we were able to identify additional resources, would you support or do you need additional missiles and by what year . Sir, ill gill give you the answer. The president s budget was the best balance at the time. The answer to the multiyear question from mr. Brooks is that my testimony is that the technical baseline for the sm3 is stable and ready for multiyear procurement. And additional procurement quantities if required. So youre comfortable with the time frame that has been laid out . Yes, sir. This will be once again a bmdr Department Decision but it will be my strong recommendation that it is ready for a multiyear procurement. We certainly understand what happens today doesnt necessarily keep us from change ing the dry docking of the sbx. My understanding we always have opportunities to extend this out. Theres a twoyear time frame comfortable or can we go beyond that in the event that other technical issues pop up . We can work with the operators and the military command in terms of what risk theyre willing to accept. And we will do underwater surveys to assess the life of, you know, basically how is the vessel doing. Risk on when the dry dock appears. Through the import periods short of a full dry dock. Do you have the Resources Available to you to extend that out . Id rather have the extension and not use it. Sir, that would be in 2020 and beyond and certainly well before then we will factor in that into the president s budget request if required. Itll be based on how the hawaii radar is progressing. You know, the fielding of the alaska radar, and i can assure you that wont be my decision. Itll be the combat commander decisions. Ill reserve the rest for closed session. I yield back. Thank you. Now recognizing mr. Lamborn for five minutes. Thank you. I want to thank you for service to our country and great work at mda. Youll be missed, but thank you for what youve done. The kill test result you showed us earlier is both wonderful and gratifying and i really was happy to see it. Now, looking forward to the future for future progress in boost phase kill, i think we have to look at directed energy. And mda in the last few years has made some modest but steady investments in directed energy. Now, as the missile threats to our country grow and as the geopolitical situation evolves and there are some dangers out there, i really see that we need to be stepping up our directed energy investments. As but im dismayed when i look at this budget that were cutting 50 million. In this years request. For directed Energy Research and development. So how do we square that with the needs that are and threats that are out there . Sir, the premise of the budget submission at the Department Level with directed energy was to pull directed Energy Funding across the department towards Common Solutions and common maturation of technology. Thats why we saw a reduction in the mda budget. That said, we owe the plan to not just the department but we owe the plan to the congress on how are we going to do that to continue the development of directed energy. I agree with you 100 . Boost phase defense and directed energy should be pursued vigorously and without delay. And i assure you as part of the bmdr, the department will look at directed energy in depth for missile deference and assess that recommendation. Okay. Would you appreciate this committee reviewing that part of the budget and scrutinizing it carefully . Sir, as youre entitled to with congressional oversight, of course. Okay. Excellent. Now, shifting gears. What can you tell us in open hearing about the iranian threat and our efforts in europe with sensors and or radar and intercepters to deal with that threat given the fact that we dont have an east coast site as of yet. I would let me be very careful here. I would put in perspective first the threat piece of iran versus north korea. There is no comparison in terms of the amount of testing that weve seen with north korea both in range and capability to what we have seen in iran over the last six to eight months. Its night and day. So our priorities on focusing towards a north korea threat have been exactly right. That said, we cannot forget about iran and what they are capable but that will space to the war fighter. And opportunities with the right assessment capability to go along with it. Okay. Thank you very much. Appreciate your service once again and i yield back. Thank you, gentleman. Was it your best ability or judgment that funding be cut for fi sl on drinking energy. No, that was not my best military advice. Thank you mr. Chair. Admiral, i just would like to get a orientation here. So from the time, if you can say this in open session, from the time the icbm was launched, how long was it before the vandburg intercepter was launched. About so minutes. Can you tell me where exactly did they intersect . Was it close to hawaii, close tore the west coast, closer to the point . It was about 2,000 miles west of california but further to the north of hawaii. And the when the test was done and the interception took place, was it always anticipated that that would be the route that more than likely, i assume, that a missile would have launched from north korea would take, was that basically the assumption made . Yes, maam. In terms of being able to replicate the architecture down on the test range, which we did. Now, one of the things that also, in your statement you talked about the radar, i think, homeland something radar. I dont know what the whole acronym was, for hawaii. How long would assuming that that radar is in the 2018 ndaa and then appropriated accordingly, how long is it expected for that radar to actually be built . If the funding, excuse me, is authorized and appropriated, we would then immediately do the aforementioned site survey and finalize the site in aforementioned Environmental Impact study in parallel to prepare for competition industry wide for procurement of that radar. And to answer your question, we are counting on two years for that to happen and the reason i was hedging on the environmental study is that sometimes that can take longer than that. And although a lot of people assume that pmrf on the island of hawaii is probably the most logical place. I assume that there are criteria that may place it somewhere else, thats why your response was your response, we have eight islands. Im assuming that youre looking more at just kuai as a site . Yes, maam. In your statement, you speak to the fact that the pacific architecture, the increase of defensive capability of gbi of enhanced defense of hawaii. Now, the gbi are the ground base intercepters, when you say the enhanced gbis for hawaiis defense, what, exactly, do you mean by that . Im sorry for the acronyms and driescrip ters we talk abou the gbi capability enhancement. The first 20 gbi which are the oldest are referred to capability enhancement ones. Capability enhancement twos were for simplicity, say comprised the next ten. And then capability enhancement two block ones comprised a balance of the 44. So the capability enhancement two block one was the very latest gbi configuration which will be fielded before the end of the year. If i recall the testimony correctly, though, the 44 is alaska and vander berg. When you talk about capability, defended from those locations. From alaska, yes, maam. And i think thats one of the things that people dont seem to realize is that some people are under the impression, if you respond, appreciate it. That some sm how theyre the best Vantage Point to protect the hawaii want islands, in actuality it may not be the best location, that it is either north of kuaui or some other location that would be the better location because of the icbn would track, would that be correct . Yes, maam. For gbi and alaska that would not be that would certainly not be a recommendation of mine. Now, the defense that we get from alaska in a crossing trajectory is very good in defending hawaii today. Thank you. Thank you very much. Mr. Chair. Thank you, i recognize the gentle lady from wyoming, mr. Chaining for five minutes. Thank you, as well, to all of our witnesses for your service and for being here. Admir admiral, there have been some discussion about strategic stability, which is a crucial issue. I think its important to note that its not the United States thats violating or talking about es ska lacalate to win, t russia. Is it also the case were not building Missile Defenses to counter the nuclear capabilities. Thats correct, maam. Isnt russia, in fact, doing it. Isnt it that theyve got several nuclear arms intercepters in their Missile Defense portfolio that are aimed at attempting to defeat any u. S. Nuclear attack. With an intent to counter our offensive weapons. There have been developments in that area. Isnt that, in fact, somewhat hypocrite cal. In my opinion, yes. And then a question for all of the witnesses, at a may hearing at the Senate Intelligence committee, when asked whether russia is using active measures to under mine u. S. Nuclear modernization and Missile Defense efforts, the director of Central Intelligence stated on the public record, yes, they are. I would like to ask all the witnesses on the record, do you agree with this assessment, start with you, mr. Pike . I dont know that i have any firsthand knowledge of that, maam. Maam, i have not seen that or have firsthand knowledge of it. Maam, me neither at this point. I cant comment. Okay. Thank you. I accept the position of the other panel members. All right. In the event that the director of Central Intelligence is accurate and is correct in his assessment, wouldnt it be the case that you would agree this is not something that we can let stand, that we cant allow the russians to under mine our defense programs . Absolutely. Yes, maam. Yes. Thank you. Thank you very much. Mr. Chairman, i yield back. Thank the gentle lady chair. I recognize the gentle man, mr. Kaufman. Thank you, mr. Chairman, one question i have is that this successful test that we just did, in your view and whoever would like to answer this, what impact do you think it has on the north korean regime in terms of the development of their program . Does it send them a clear signal about the intent of the u. S. United states in order to defeat their capability . I dont think we can rely on the rationale reaction. We need to do improvements to our system so that we can provide protection and not give him or his regime an opening to exploit weakness and use that to his advantage. I would just add that i think it validates that if called upon the war fighter called upon to operate the system in a real world scenario, that i have confidence that they would do that entirely. And what message it sends to north korea, i have no idea. I know what message it sends to American People. We can defend them this hours a day, seven days a week. I agree with that statement in terms of the demonstration that we have the war fighters that are prepared and trained to do that 24 7, 365, it clearly demonstrates we have the capability. Can you in this open session, can you say anything about the work that were doing with israel in terms of Missile Defense. I think that theres some talk about doing a joint test on the aero system. Yes, sir. Were close partners with israel on development of their systems, System Engineering, in particular, and testing supported also. Been intimately involved with david sling and more recent version of arrow three. Frankly, that intercepter is now up into the atmosphere and it had significant range constraints within the med te rain i cant bean. And one of the better places to test is in alaska from code yak and we plan to do that next year. Okay. So the arrow three is designed to defeat the over the horizon capability of the iranians am i correct in that . Designed to defeat missile threat from iran. Okay. And where are we at in terms of the deployment of that system . It is in its in testing and i dont have the specific thinking from the israelis, but i can get that to you, for the record. Okay. Thank you. Then what is can you, basically, state what chinas concern is with deployment of the system in south korea. All right. Id like if i can, relay that to my policy. I think theyve expressed a concern about that ability the radar system to track any missiles that might be launched from china. And what that says or what that exposes in terms of vulnerability in their systems. So i think thats a concern. Thank you. Thank you, mr. Chair, i yield back. Thank you gentleman, before we moved to the classified portion, i want to touch one topic. Can you explain why were building poland and romania that do not meet the same requirements for housing sailors, as you know, i met you at the polling site, a couple of months ago, on the site which is coming out of the ground. Theyre being housed four to a room. On the romainian side which we just completed two to a room. By the way. It really is first class. Who made this decision and why. Sir, timeline that i understand is that former cno directed that the site be fully capable but austere in its construction in nature for housing. And they didnt really they didnt have a definition of a steer at the time when the budget was submitted for romania. The unified facilities code from dod grappled with what is the definition of austere and came out with that guidance in 2013, which formed the basis for the poland military construction request. Its not a satisfying answer, but thats the timeline. What does this make sense to you, what does it me for morale given that were going to say less than 2 of the cost. From the navy standpoint, i cant speak to that, but certainly the message is being sent to the sailors in poland versus the sailors in romania that its different. And its inexplicable and despicable. Well recess and go into classified setting now. Read more at economist. Com. Well have live coverage of former director comeys testimony before the Senate Intelligence committee starting at 10 00 a. M. Eastern here on cspan 3. You can watch it at cspan. Org and listen yuds gs the cspan radio app. What would strike me was that we knew there was a world of states and state reps today if you think about north korea or iran or sometimes china and russia, that world of state to state relations is still very very important, and i think of it as the chest chest board world, its the world of how we essentially beat our adversary ris and we try to answer what move theyre going to mike. That world is there and its very important. Equally important is what i call the world of the web, that world of criminal networks, including terrorists, but also arms traffickers and drug traffickers. The world of business, which increasingly big Network Supply chains, Global Corporations and the world of nongovernmental organizations i think of all those actors as webb actors as increasingly important actors. But we dont have strategies for how to bring them together. To re repeal and replace the affordable care. He met with constituents in the southern wisconsin town of lake mills an was joined by state representative joel clay

© 2024 Vimarsana

comparemela.com © 2020. All Rights Reserved.