tv Missile Defense Agency 2020 Budget Request Briefing CSPAN March 13, 2019 9:26am-10:04am EDT
have. >> thank you, mark. good afternoon. as mark mentioned, we are well aware that this is your last brief of the day and so we will try to keep you excited here. it's great to have an opportunity to talk to you about the importance of the president's budget request. as you know mba has an incredibly important mission, we develop and deploy missile defenses to protect the homeland as well as to protect our deployed forces and allies all over the world from the threat of missile attack. i'm incredibly proud of that mission, it is a noble mission and i'm incredibly proud of the men and women of mda that make this possible. at this point i'd like to turn
it over to ms. michelle atkinson who is our director for operations. she can run you through the collars of our budget request for fy '20 and then we will be happy to take your questions. >> thank you, admiral. good afternoon. i appreciate the opportunity to brief you today on the missile defense agency's fiscal year '20 budget request. our budget request is consistent with the president's commitment to expand and improve our missile defense capability while at the same time recognizing that we must be able to address tomorrow's threats which continue to expand in advance. next chart. in fy '20 mda will continue to strengthen and expand the employment of defenses for our nation, deployed forces, allies and international part of nurse against increasingly capable missile threats. the missile defense program will support our war fighters and the needs of the combatant commanders by developing, integrating, testing and deploying intercepters, sensors and improvements to the
ballistic missile defense system. next chart. mda's priorities for missile dense are nested within the national defense strategy priorities and are as follows, first, we must continue to focus on increasing system reliability to build war fighter confidence. we need to increase engagement capability and capacity and also rapidly address the advancing missile threats. our budget request maintains operational missile defense capabilities for existing homeland and regional defense forces, continues to increase interceptor inventory and will use existing technologies to improve sensors, battle management, fire control and kill vehicle capabilities to address the evolving threats. next chart. the current bmds can defeat the current ballistic missile capabilities of our adversaries but we require additional capacity and advanced capabilities in order to stay ahead of the evolving threat. the projected missile threat is complex and volatile and
includes evolving ballistic and hyper sonic missile threats. it is critical we continue to develop break through technologies to outpace missile capabilities against the homeland. this evolving threat demands a sensor network to track it from birth to death. the recently completed missile defense review recognizes the evolving missile threats we face and underscores that missile defense must remain a high priority investment in our national defense strategy. inn doo he had the missile defense mission is expanding to include nonballistic threats. aligned with the current national and defense strategies the mdr strengthens our posture as we continue to make progress in the development and fielding of a bmds to defend our homeland, deployed forces, allies and partners. the mdr supports the critical need to support new concepts and technologies to address tomorrow's threat. the mdr emphasizes or continued
pursuit of cooperative relationships with allies and partners to field inter operable and effective regional missile defenses. mda's fy '20 budget request is a total of $9.4 billion to continue the development of a reliable increasingly capable and state of the art missile defense four our nation deployed forces, allies and international partners. our priority in this budget remains the delivery of greater missile defense capability and capacity to our war fighters and includes investments in advanced technology development and future capabilities. next chart. mda remains committed to delivers, expanding and sustaining our nation's homeland missile defenses. we request $1.8 billion in fy '20 for the ground based mid course defense or gmd program. in fy '20 we will continue to have 40 ground base intercepters deployed in alaska and four at vandenberg air force base in
california. we will strengthen and expand missile defenses with a new missile field and work to deploy 20 missile dee septemberers. this budget also continues development of the redesigned kill vehicle or rkv. we are committed to using a rigorous engineering and test approach that provides a system to the war fighter that is both reliable and effective. a two-year delay to the rkv program was necessary in order to complete design modifications and perform the testing to demonstrate that the rkv system will meet its requirements. also in fy '20 we will conduct a gmd flight test using a gbi launch from vander berg. for the long range discrimination radar we are requesting $136 million in fy '20. this radar which will be available in 2020 is a critical mid course sensor that will
improve target discrimination capability and support a more efficient use of our gbis. we are requesting $128 million for the sea based x band radar which provides precision mid course track to protect the homeland. as of now sbx has been at sea for more than 500 days without a port visit. the fy '20 program continues to provide extended sea time to maintain this important contribution to homeland defense. our budget also requests $20 million for the dane radar for life extension in partnership with the u.s. air force. our pb 20 request includes two additional radars which will provide precision tracking and hit assessment to support defense of the homeland against long range missile threats. we are requesting $275 million to continue the homeland defense radar hawaii which is scheduled to be available in 2023.
we are also requests $7 million for the pacific discriminating radar to be available in the 2026 time frame at a location to be determined. next chart. moving now to regional defenses. our fy '20 request is $1.7 billion which includes sustaining the deployed standard missile three fleet and upgrading shims to add capability. we will procure 30 missiles for deployment on land at the shore sites in romania and poland at at sea. this will bring the total number of missiles procured to 361 by the end of fy '20. in fy '20 we will also continue the multi-year procurement for the missile. we will procure seven 2-a missiles for a total of a 4
missiles procured through fy '20. in fy '20 we will continue 1 b modernization and 2 a software upgrade programs. we will continue work with the u.s. navy to integrate the spy 6 aegis missile defense radar with the weapons system. our request for the terminal high altitude area defense is $854 million. this will allow us to support the maintenance sustainment of all bmds unique items for the seven batteries and all of the thad training devices. this procures 37 thad intercepters in support of the u.s. army, bringing the total to 568 by the end of fy '20. additionally, in fy '20 we will continue thad software upgrades and capabilities on the korean peninsula. we are requesting $543 million
to support and sustain 12 radars which includes the forward based mode radars in japan, turkey, israel and u.s. central command. this spending also continues software development to improve discrimination capabilities and other upgrades to improve the radar performance. our budget request of $500 million in fy '20 for israeli programs continues mdas long standing support of cooperative programs to include iron dome, david sling and the weapons systems. finally in support of phase three of the european phase adaptive approach or epaa, our pb '20 budget request includes $64 million to complete the aegis site in poland to be available in 2020 and make capability improvements at other aegis shore sites. mda is developing advanced missile defense technologies for integration into the bmds to
defeat rapidly evolving threats. the investment strategy balances the need to address the most dangerous current threats with the need to position the u.s. to respond to threat developments in the future. we are requested $157 million for hypersonic defense. the fy '20 plan includes software modifications to current bmds assets and further defines the architecture for future capabiliability demonstrations. a neutral particle beam will leverage past and current work on particle beams, lacer pointing and lacer stability to provide a component technology for a future system that will offer new kill options for the bmds and will add another layer of protection for the homeland. this funding also provides lacer scaling efforts to scale up power levels to support dod-wide capability objectives.
our fy '20 budget request also continues discrimination sensor technology development and supports advanced technology testing. we are requesting $6$63 milliono sustain the space track surveillance satellites operating in low earth orbit and to continue development of the space based kill assessment network. we are requesting $14 million for the multi object kill vehicle to fund technology risk reduction efforts to establish a foundation for killing multiple lethal objects with a single interceptor. we are requesting $564 million in fy '20 for the command and control battle management communications system. we will continue to support current capability in centcom, ucom, end owe pacom and north com with upgrades that integrate
the aegis and other capabilities. we are requesting $554 million in develop threat representative targets and $396 million to doeft bmds flight and ground testing. critical flight tests includes ftm 44 which is an aegis test against a long range target and an integrated thad aegis and patriot operational test against multiple targets. next chart. in summary, the mdafy '20 budget focuses on sustaining and increasing system capability for thad, gmd, aegis, tippee too and cobra. it also increases capability with efforts and it also addresses the advanced threat with efforts such as the hypersonic defense program. in fy '20 mda will continue to
make progress in the development and deployment of a reliable layered ballistic missile defense system to defend our homeland, our deployed forces, our allies and partners from missile attacks of all ranges and in all phases of flight. the admiral and i will now take a few questions. >> hi. good afternoon. thank forks for this. i have two questions, one off of what you said and one from something that happened yesterday. the radar in the pacific that you didn't say where it's going to be yet, is that -- is that going to be on united states territory or is it going to be someplace offshore? >> can you answer that or is that classified? >> so i will go ahead and give you the best answer that i can given where we are today. >> that's always the one i prefer. >> capability and capacity increase for the overall end owe pacom region is an important priority and it's part of a broader sense or architecture. in coordination with the
department and combatant commands we are continuing to assess potential sites. i would say all of the above. as we assess the threat and different sites we will determine where it should be. >> the reason i ask that question it leads to one i had in mind when i came here. yesterday austin long spoke at the hudson institute and the topic was hypersonics and he noted how far -- this is a pentagon person -- he noted how far china is on hypersonics and the idea of having a network to determine hypersonics, including a sensor network, that the united states had a roadmap while china had investments. how do you judge the time frame to when we will have some type of sensor-based network that they spoke of yesterday to help fulfill the goal that michelle had said at her conclusion? >> so i think it's a mix of investments and really understanding the projections of where the threat is and where it is going. so ms. atkinson mentioned the --
>> ms. atkinson, pardon me. >> that's okay. she lets me call her michelle every now and then. she talked about the initial investment on existing sensors today and how we can bring those together to handle those advanced threats and that's kind of where you normally start, right? and then we move to radar technology and place those in specific places to give us as much of the track custody as was mentioned earlier from launch all the way to intercept point. we have been very consistent in the need to take sensors and go into space so that you have that global coverage, particularly for advanced threats that would overfly or underfly the field of view of a radar. so we're working with the department now to work through that architecture, make those investments and be a part of a multi-mission sensor layer capability for the department. >> thank you. tony? >> tony, bloomberg. you flicked the problem with the kill vehicle. how serious are the technical problems or is this more quality
parts issues? >> yeah, so i will just for those who may not be familiar with it, so the rkb is the redesigned kill vehicle. with he went down this path, signed an acquisition plan in 2015, the undersecretary for defense at the time signed that out and we are moving through, came through a preliminary design review and as we approached the critical design review at the end of last year and those of you who aren't familiar with what a cdr is, when you get there you're satisfied with the robustness of your design, you have done the modeling and simulation and believe you are ready to go to production. we have specific entrance criteria to take us there. we did not believe as a government team that we were ready to take that step into that critical design review and so through coordination in the department all the way up to the undersecretary for research and engineering we determined that the best thing to do is to go back and assess that design and take the time to do it right. we could do what some programs do and what the missile defense agency did years ago, which is
to go ahead and produce what we've got and then deal with reliability issues in the fleet and erode the confidence of the war fighter. we know that is the wrong step. we're going back to assess that design and do the proper testing, do the analysis and then we will go to the critical design review when we're ready. we're following our normal process of rigorous engineering, gated reviews, milestone driven. >> to what extent are these quality parts -- i understand there's been parts failure in ter mall testing. >> we have to take a look at the whole design. we're assessing that and looking at the impact to what that means over the long haul. over the course of the next few months we will have a better feel, but we are working that very hard today. >> so what extend is the fielding expansion of the 64 jeopardized because of this. >> since the additional 20 ground based intercept rs were going to be tipped with the kill vehicle a two-year delay, again, up to two years based on our assessment today would mean
those intercept rs will move to the right by two years. >> just to follow up on that, they were initially supposed to be ready in 2023 and now they will be ready in 2025? >> that's correct. >> thank you. just to follow-up, i'm another, your directed energy budget for the year, doo you have a breakout for that one, please? >> michelle, i will turn to you. >> yes, sir. so i will have to get back to you on the spefkt, but our budget as i stated in my briefing earlier our budget includes funding for laser scaling and for other directed energy like the neutral particle beam type efforts. >> we will come back to you. jason? >> jason sherman, inside defense. so there had been an effort to accelerate the rkb program. is that effectively off the table? >> we are reassessing the whole program. so in terms of any sort of acceleration, we're very focused in on following the system engineering rigger and getting it right.
so that's where we are. >> what are the key milestones between now and that review in two years and can you say a bit about who the key industry players are working on the rk about. ? >> so the key is when we reset getting to a critical design review you move those milestones to the right. it's all the run ups that would take you between a preliminary design review and getting to critical design. it is the testing phase that is required, it is the modeling of the results of that and then the full up analysis before you get to the critical design review. >> and last year the mda asked congress for permission to put together a multi-year procurement of the sm 3 block 1 b. the fy '20 request that mda is putting forward shaves about 64 missiles from the plan that you told congress you were going to execute on that multi-year procurement. you originally said that you
could save 13%, does the cost avoidance go up in the smoke here? what's the reason for cutting the missiles from the plan? >> so i can answer that in fy '20 the number of missiles decreased because in fy '19 congress did not appropriate the advanced procurement funding. so that enabled us not to start those intercepters in '19. so we have to start those in '20. so that provided a ripple effect through the fight up of the quantity of intercepters. we fully are committed to the multi-year procurement and we plan on pursuing that and moving forward this year. >> and will there be any savings associated with the multi-year procurement as a result? >> yes, sir, we're still projecting about as much savings, just a year later. >> and can you tell us what the status of the sm-3 block 2 a production is -- production decision is? >> yeah, so we just recently completed an independent technical review that's given by
the undersecretary for r & e and the focus of that review was really on the overall reliability. so although we've completed the live fire test campaign and believe that we are almost ready to go to production, part of being almost ready to go to production is to complete the assessments on overall long term reliability and to ensure that we have an absolute producible design. so it's just normal course at this point coming through the engineering to make sure that we're ready, but we anticipate that we will be able to go to production this year. >> independent technical red review, an independent technical review before the production? >> yes. >> a lack of confidence -- >> no, it's being driven by dr. griffin and we fully support -- we want to have outside looks, we invite that in and we want to ensure -- because we are in a cooperative development on a complex system, with he want to make sure when we do go to production it's a robust design and it has long term reliability. >> sandra. >> thank you, sandra irwin,
space news. we were told by dod that they are actually making some changes in how they resource missile defense in terms of what the priorities of the missile defense review, they said that they are actually shifting from traditional to nontraditional. it was not clear to us what exactly that meant, so i was wondering if you can explain what traditional -- or resources from traditional missile defense are being shifted and why do they call it missile defeat and defense? is that a new thing? >> i'm not familiar with the statements that you said, but i will state that missile defense investments in missile defense don't all go to nor should they go to the missile defense agency. as you listen to ms. atkinson's overview brief we discussed the other services. we are wedded closely to the navy on ballistic missile defense, closely wedded to the
army with the terminal of the altitude defense system, the air force when it comes to the operation of large radars around the globe. i would say that the best way to answer your question is that it is a broad dod-wide effort. it's a complex threat and it requires, you know, full up all hands on deck response to it. >> for the space discrimination -- space-based discrimination for hypersonic defense, are there investments being made now outside of mda? >> absolutely. so what i mentioned earlier is that it will be a multi-mission department-wide effort to deployed the system that has more than just the missile defense mission. so we are tucked into that overall architecture and fully supportive of the department's efforts to get a multi-mission capability deployed. >> and why defeat -- why do they have a new name now, defeat and defense? >> so that's been around for a bit, but i would say it is the integration, which is important,
between the left of launch operations and the actual passive and active defense measures. >> thank you. >> hi. jen judson with defense news. m test for fy 20. and you said that you are using a gbi launch from vandenberg. i seem to recall back when the big gm the d test in may 2017. admiral seerg said at the time there would be a plan to have a test in the gmd system in 2010, fall or early winter that involved two intercepters. are you walking back from testing with the two intercepters at this point? can you detail the gbi test that's scheduled for fy 20 snt. >> sure, so i will tell you -- i believe what you are talking about is the ftg 11, which is what we refer to as the salvo shot.
we will lufrm against an intercontinental ballistic missile range target. an icbm. and we'll sues a salvo of a newest version of gbi and an older version to characterize the interaction of the intercepters as they go after the icbm. and that's scheduled for this year actually. >> okay. and so then what would be the fy 209 test be accomplishing. >> it will be focused on an upgrade to the booster. and so once we do that test in to 20 then we can marry it and evaluate the updwraded rkv downstream. >> thank you. >> the neutral particle beam research, and see -- because that's sort of a new sounding thing. is that something you think can you actually theft this year and where do you test it? >> so neutral particle beam like any new technology, the focus will be on technology maturation. and also feasibility for that
coined of capability. and as you know it comes -- it traces back to the strategic defense initiative. we think it's got a lot of promise for the missile defense mission. and so our focus in fy 20 is to lay the foundation to get to an on orbit demo i think in fy 23. we will do the ground test and demonstration on the ground before we go for the on orbit demo. and again focus onomah touring technologies and focus on feasibility. >> okay. and that's something that's fundamentally different from the studies done elsewhere on space based intercept on the feasibility of those. >> it is separate and distinct. it's a technology effort that will point in that direction. >> okay. thanks. >> thanks. dan with jeans. you mentioned pace based kill assessment when were the sensor deployed? and how many are there in and what does that technology have to prove or go through before it can be integrated in the
operational actual system? >> okay. so we did leverage a commercial lift and that capability is deployed today. i'm not going to tell you the number that's there. but tell us. and they are operational now. what they haven't been -- what we haven't kun yet is completed the integration with the ballistic missile defense. they've been operational through a couple of the last flight tests and we are working closely with north com and saturate com to ensure as we bring it in for integration that the where fighters are satisfied with the interviews and those sorts of things. they are operational now and provides the capability we need to ensure as we move with salvo doctrine or hit policy, those sorts of things we can detect that in space. >> when you say flight test, you mean gbi tests or north korean tests. >> we can leverage that capability on any life fire test doesn't matter the system. >> you said you used it already. >> yes. it's -- and we're use going in the salvo test that was asked about earlier. >> thanks. >> sir.
>> steve tremble with aviation week. i was asking about the neutral particle beam. but is there anything in the budget for boost phase defense? >> i think the closest that we can get to in the mda budge would be the efforts in the directed energy side of the house where we are focused in on scaling that laser. the difference lateysers and working with industry to mature the power levels and get it for the space weight and power that's required for a missile defense mitch pch michelle, appear i leaving anything out? that is the foekd for boost phase. >> still the airborne application versus space application. >> there are option there are developments made on a poe potential kinetic energy options from aircraft, yes. >> from the "washington post", i wanted to ask a broad question. the president was here earlier in year and the defense secretary made a lot of
ambitious comments about the future of missile defense. i think some people will be slightly confused by why the missile defense agency's budget is declining. is that because most of the investments are happening outside the missile defense agency? or is there some explanation for that? can you give us a sense how that squares. >> i'll start with the missile defense review was approved by the president of the united states. and so we are aligned to the missile defense review. if you look at our budget that's a significant investment in missile defenses. as i mentioned before there are investments being made elsewhere because it makes sense. >> and do you have an overall figure for missile defense out -- including missile defense agency and other investments outside? and whether that's increased or decreased. >> first of all i would like to mention also, just to add to the admiral's remarks, that what you are seeing is actually fy 18 abfy 19. mda received receive increased
for congressional plus ups wau see in 20 looks like a decrease but it's just the declining fund being as we complete knows efforts and knows tails. i do not have a dollar figure that would probably -- for the funding elsewhere in the department. that would be a question for the department. >> okay. i just wanted to follow up on the question about the sensors you were talking about that already would be -- already working in the system. when did they go online? and he specifically asked you about north korean launches. would that be able to detect those? >> so, again back to space based kill assessment, leveraging commercial lift. i'm not talking about the numbers. they were deployed through last calendar year and put on station and where a through the time integration of those as a system now. and any will collect data and operate during ftg 11.
>> what i asked is when would have been the first time they would have been able to detect something? >>, remember there weren't any launching coming out of the indopacom arena from the countries you are mentions during fy 17 when we were deploying the system. >> okay. thank you. jason. >> great, thanks. i wonder if you could talk a little bit about the difference between what the space-based kill assessment is -- is doing and what the agency is looking for from the space sense he were layer. >> sure. >> how the two overlap or how they are similar, how they are different. >> sure. i'll use an aegis mod zblool could you give us an update on space sensor layer what's happening now and where it goes in 2020. >> just to simplify what can be a complex story, right, you have indications and warning. there is a set of capabilities that do that. think of that as when you have a launch, right. indications of warning and
normally you would hand that over to radars to get to a track to build a fire control solution. so indications and warning happen first. and so let's just say rather than passing to a radar to get that track if this is some global advanced threat well then now you go to the space sensor layer. a departmentwide capability that cannot only do indications and warning but also handle the tracking capability. and when you get to the back end and you start to the intercept let's say it's a kinetic intercepter from the ground, then the space based kill assessment would be that capability that determines whether or not you hit. and then you can make decisions on firing again. it affects the salvo policy. >> great backup does that make zbleens it does. what's the status of the space sensor layer effort. >> now we are making investments across the department to get the multimission capability. i would tell you where we are today is going through a deep assessment on what that architecture should look like, not only the numbers and capability but how you spread those capabilities because you
may not put them all on one bird. how many you need and what overtology. >> what are the main goals for fy 19 and 20 for space sensor layer. >> it's the development of the sensors that would go on as part of the pay load. >> and that was one of the things that was highlighted during the missile defense review rollout here. yet it's not mentioned at all i don't believe in the presentation that you gave here. >> right. because it is a broader department initiative that we are a part of. and i say multimission. maybe that's too broad of a term. but i mentioned indications and wagener. i talk about deeks atection and tracking there are sore capabilities that's required to do and we are part that have >> who has the lead on space sensor layer. >> it's at the department level. >> oic. >> it's within the department. >> eye i'm not prepared to talk about it today.
>> yes, sir, gentleman in the back. >> hi, i'm yuso with nhk. i have a question regarding the whomland defense pacific corridor. do you already decide where you deploy it? and when do you decide it? >> so i talked about it earlier. maybe you weren't here. but the -- the overall sensor architecture and the drive from our war fighters particularly in the indopacom region drives us as part of the architecture to need another sensor in the area. we are going through a -- aite assessment today. we have made no decisions on the location. but it really -- the decision for it will be driven by the evolution of the threat. as the threat becomes more complex that's driving the decision and that's a department-level decision. >> if i could follow up on that, is that similar in capability to the the lrdr?
>> i would say you tailor the sensor for the needs in the area. lrdr geographically where it's at has a particular true we defend hawaii. increase our defense of hawaii with the radar in hawaii and we are coming through that site selection process as well. so, as we think about where it might go in the pacific and hone down on locations and sites tfl be tailored both in size on the power requirements. >> yes, ma'am, probably our last question. >> just go back -- just back to the says sensor layer, right, because you asked who specifically is doing it. we're in close collaboration with the air force and we're tide closely to the efforts that are being executed by darpa today. that's the answer i should have given earlier but my mind was elsewhere. i'm sorry. >> i'm just looking for an update on where you are with aegis ashore in poland, it's my understanding it looks like you are delayed to fy 20 to
operational capability, initial, full. can you update us on what the issues were around that site, since it looks like it's about a 2-year delay. >> yeah, the best way to summarize it is we have had construction delays. lieutenant general greves was in poland meeting with the team bring going forward. i talked to him during his trip. he talked about the amazing progress made since the last time he was there. we are progressing along. we believe that we will complete that -- that effort this year and that we'll be able to install the combat system on-site now. we're facing that work in now. and that we'll complete it in '20. >> did you switch out construction companies? what did you do to resolve the issue. >> it's been a lot of hard core heavy leadership and partnership with the u.s. army corps of engineers and the combatant kpand, u-com, the local governments there in the area, directly engaging with poland and with senior leadership in
those companies. so everyone has banded together. the commitment is it there to get it done. as you know we had tough weather last year which contributed to the dras. but it's really been about just completing the construction so that we can move in with the weapons system get it installed. >> what specifically were the problems with the construction? >> it wasn't a quality issue. it was really just the speed of getting it done, not sticking to the schedule. again, weather was part of it. expertise, number of people on-site to get the work done. there's been a lot of senior leadership pressure, all the way up to the deputy secretary of defense helping us to bring it through. >> all right, guys i think that's all we've got time for. thank you very much for coming. >> thanks. >> thank you, sir and ma'am for your time today. >> thank you. >> thank you. we're live on capitol hill
this morning as the senate judiciary committee is gathering for confirmation hearing for two nominees that would serve on the san francisco-based ninth circuit court of appeals. senator lindsey graham of south carolina is the chair of the committee. should start here in just a moment. this is live coverage on c-span3. good morning. we're going to consider two ninth circuit tom knees this morning. and i believe senator cotton is here to make an introduction. we'll just lead off with you, senator cotton. >> thank you, mr.