Skip to main content

tv   Missile Defense Agency 2020 Budget Request Briefing  CSPAN  March 18, 2019 7:20pm-8:02pm EDT

7:20 pm
this is a 312 squadron budget. that discussion will happen in subsequent years. we owed that answer to congress based on their direction. it is a priority for our secretary. but the fy20 budget was built off of 312 number. >> do you expect next year we will see? >> i won't predict what will happen. that is a discussion that will happen going forward. >> ladies and gentlemen, we are standing back to take any additional questions. okay.
7:21 pm
thank you, mark and good afternoon. as mark medical examinerred we are well aware this is your last brief of the day. we will dry 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. and as you know mda has an incredibly important mission. we develop and deploy missile defenses to protect the homeland and 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 proud of the men and women of mda that make this possible. i would like to turn it over to miss michelle atkinson who is director for operations. who can run you through the budget request. >> thank you, admiral. good afternoon. i appreciate the opportunity to brief you today on the missile defense agencies fiscal year 20 budget request. our budget request is consistent with the president's commitment to expand and improve our missile defense
7:22 pm
capability while at the same time recognizing we must be able to address tomorrow's threats which continue to expand and advance. next chart. in fy20, mda will continue to expand the deployed forces, allies, and international partners against increasingly missile defense. next chart. mda's priorities for missile defense are nested within the national defense strategies priorities and as follows. first, we must continue to focus on increasing system reliability. we need to increase engagement capability and capacity and also rapidly address the advancing missile threat. our budget request maintains
7:23 pm
operational missile defense capabilities for existing homeland and regional defense forces, continues to increase inventory, and use investing technologies to improve sensors, battle management, fire control, and kill vehicle capabilities to address the evolving threats. next chart. the current defense, but we require additional capabilities to in order to stay ahead of the evolving threat. the projected missile threat is complex and volatile and includes evolving hyper missile threats. it is critical we continue to develop innovative. this evolving threat demands a globally present and persistent sensor network to track it. next chart. the recently completed missile defense review recognizes the evolving missile threats that
7:24 pm
we face and under scores that missile defense must remain a high priority investment. indeed 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 developmenting and fielding of the mdt. the mdr emphasizes our continued pursuit of cooperativerelationships with allies and partners to field inoperable and effective missile defense. next chart. mda fy20 request is a total of $9.4 billion to continue a development of reliable, increasingly capable missile defense. our priority in this budget
7:25 pm
remains the delivery of greater missile defense capability to our war fighters. includes investments in advance technology investments. next chart. mda remains committed to delivering, expanding, and sustaining our nation's homeland missile defenses and we request $1.8 billion for the ground base mid course defense. fy20 we will continue to have 40 ground base interceptors in alaska and four in california. we will strengthen and expand homeland missile defenses by continuing the construction of a new field and work to deploy 20additional missile at fort greeley. this budget continue development of the redesign killed vehicle or rkv. we are committed to using a
7:26 pm
rigorous test approach that is 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 fy20 we will conduct a launch from van den berg. this radar which will be available in 2020 is a critical mid core sensor that will improve the discrimination capability and support a more efficient use of rgbi's. we are requesting $128 million for the the c-based exb. radar. the fy20 program continues to
7:27 pm
provide expanded time to maintain this continued expansion. pb20 request includes funding for two additional radars which will help provide persistent continuation. we are requesting $275 million to continue the homeland defense radar hawaii which is scheduled to be available in 2023. we are also requesting $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. fy20 request for mdb is
7:28 pm
$1.7 billion. we will procur 301b missiles for deployment on land at the shoresights in romania and poland andat sea. this will bring the total numbers of missiles procured to 361 by the end of fy20. fy20 we will also continue the multiyear procurement. we will procure seven sm3 block missiles. >> we will also continue work with the u.s. navy to integrate the spy 6 defense radar. our fy20 request for the terminal high altitude defense
7:29 pm
or thad program is $854 million. this would allow us to support all unique items. the budget also procures 37 thad. bringing the total to 568 by the end of fy20. additionally in fy20 we will continue thad software development and upgrades and integration of missile defense capabilities on the korean peninsula. we are requesting $543 million to support and sustain four kp2 radars in japan, turkey, israel, and u.s. central demand. this funding continues software development to improve discrimination capabilities and other upgrades to approve the radar performance. our budget request of $500. for israeli programs continues
7:30 pm
mda's long standing support ofisraeli programs to include iron dome, the aeroa weapons system. and finally in support of phase three of the european phase adepartmentive report of epaa our fy20 budget includes $64 million to be available in 2020 and make capability improvements at other sites. mda is developing missile -- the investment strategy for these technologies 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 requesting $157 million for hyper sonic defense. the fy20 plan includes software modifications to current assets and further defines the
7:31 pm
architecture for future capability demonstrations. our request for technology initiatives is $304 million. this includes a new effort for the development of a neutral particle beam that will leverage past and current work on particle beams, laser pointing, and laser stability to provide a component technology for our future system that will offer new kill options for the mbds and add another layer of protection for the homeland. this funding provides laser scaling efforts to scale up power levels to support dody capabilities. our fy20 budget request continues discrimination accept sore technology development and supports advance technology testing. we are requesting $63 million for mda space efforts to sustain the two space track and surveillance system satellites operating in low earth orbit.
7:32 pm
and to continue development -- we are requesting $14 million for the object kill vehicle or okv. next chart. we are requesting $564 million in fy20 for the command and control battle management communications system. we will continue to support current capability. we are requesting $554 million to develop threat representative targets and $396 million to complete ground testing. critical flight tests in fc20 includes ftm44 which is a test against a long range target.
7:33 pm
next chart. in summery, the mda fy20 continues to focus on sustaining and continuing system reliability such as thaad, gmd. it focuses on the lrtl radar in alaska. and addresses the advance threat with efforts such as the hyper sonic defense program. fy20mda will continue to make progress in the development and deployment of a reliable, layered, ballistic missile defense system to detend our homeland, deployed forces, allies and partners for missile attacks of all ranges. the admiral and i will take a few requests. >> good afternoon. thank you for doing this.
7:34 pm
i have two questions. one of what you said and one from what happened yesterday. the radar in the pacific you didn't say where it was going to be at, is that going to be on the united states territory or is this going to be some place offshore? can you answer that or is that classified? >> i will go ahead and give you the best answer we can. so capability and capacity increase for the over all indo pay come region is an important priority. so in coordination with the department and combatant demands we are addressing potential sites i would say all the above. >> austin long spoke at the hudson institute and the topic was hyper sonics and he noted how far this is the pentagon person, he noticed how far china is on hyper sonics.
7:35 pm
the idea of having a network to determine hyper sonics including the sensor network that the united states had a road match 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 said at the 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. miss atkinson talked about the initial investment on existing accept sos today and how we can bring those together to handle those advanced threats. that is where you normally start. and then we move to radar technology and place those in specific places to give us as much of the track custody as
7:36 pm
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 you have that global coverage, particularly for advance threats. so we are working with the department now to work through that architecture, make those investigatements and be a part of a multimission sensor layer capability for the department. >> thank you. tony. >> tony at bloomberg. how serious are the technical problems? is this more quality part issues? >> yeah. so i will just for those that may not be familiar with it. the rkb is the redesigned kill vehicle. we went down this pass. signed a request in 2016. signed that out and we were moving through, came to a preliminary design review, as we approached the critical time review at the end of last year. forthese are not familiar with
7:37 pm
a cdr, when you are get there, you are satisfied with the rebostness of your design. you have done all the model and simulation and you 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 we were ready to take that step. so through coordination in the department all the way up to the under secretary for research and engineering, we determine the the best thing to do is 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 deal with reliability issues in the fleet and erode the confidence of the war fighter. we know that is the wrong step. we are going back to assess that design and dot proper testing.
7:38 pm
>> wove got to take a look at whole design. we are assessing that and looking at the impact. over the curse of the next few months we'll have a better field. we are working that very hard today. >> to what extent does the fielding expansion jeopardize because of this? >> so since the additional 20 ground base interceptors, we will be tipped with the redesigned kill vehicle two year delay again up to two years based on our assessment today. it would move to the right in two years. >> follow up on that. they were initially supposed to be ready in 2023 and now they will be ready in 2025? >> that is correct. >> and just to follow up, my original question. you directed energy budget for the year, do you have a break out for that? >> i will have to get back to you on the specifics.
7:39 pm
our budget as i stated in my briefing earlier, our budget includes funding for laser scaling and for other directed energy. like the particle beam efforts. >> chase sherman inside defense. there has been an effort to accelerate the rkv program. is that effectively off the table? >> we are reassessing the whole program. in terms of any acceleration, we are interested on following the system engineering rigor and getting it right. >> what are the key milestones between now and that review in two years? can you say about who the key industry players are? working on the rkv? >> 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 a critical resign.
7:40 pm
>> last year the mda asked congress for permission to put together a multiyear procurment. the fy20 request that the mdb is putting forward shaves 54 missiles from the plan you told congress you were going to execute on that multiyear procurement. you said you could save 13%. is it the cost of avoid eyewitness go up? what is the reason for cutting the missiles from the plan? >> i can answer that in fy20 the number of missiles decreased because in fy19 congress did not appropriate
7:41 pm
the advance procurement funding. so that provided a ripple effect through the quantity of interceptors. we are committed to the multiyear procurement and plan on pursuing that and moving forward this year. >> will there be any saving? >> yes, sir. we are still projecting about as much savings. just a year later. >> and can you tell us what the status of the fm3 block 2a production is? >> yeah. so we just recently completed independent technical review that is driven by the under second is tear for r & e. although we have completed the live fire test campaign and believe we are almost ready to go to production, a part of ready to go to production is the complete the assessment on over all long-teem reliability and assure we have a producible design. so it's just normal course at
7:42 pm
this point coming through the engineering. >> independent technical review before the production decision? >> yes. >> is that like a lack of confidence in the facility? >> it's being driven by dr. griffin. we fully support. we want to have those outside looks. we invite that in. what we want to do is insure because we are in a cooperative development on a complex system; we want to make sure when we go to production, it is a robust design and long-teem liability. >> cassandra ere win space news. we were told by dod that they are making some changes in how they are resource missile defense in terms of what the priorities. they said they are shifting from traditional to nontraditional. it was not clear exactly what that meant.
7:43 pm
can you explain what traditional resources of traditional 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 investment in missile defense don't all go to nor should they go to the missile defense agency. as you listen to miss atkinson debris, we discussed the other services. we are wetted to the agency. closely wetted to the army. so i would say that the best way to answer your question, it is a broad dod wide effort. it's a complex threat and it requires full full up all hands on deck response to it. >> for the faith based
7:44 pm
discrimination, is there investments being made now outside of the mda? >> absolutely. it will be a multimission department wide. so we are tucked into a mission. >> and why do they have a new name? defeat and defense? >> that has been around for a bit. 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. jenn with defense news. youd a mentioned a flight test for fy20. and you said that you're using a gby. i seem to recall back when the
7:45 pm
big gmd test admiral said at the time there would be a plan to have a test of the gmb system in 2018, fall, early winter. that involved two -l interceptors. are you walking back from testing with two interceptors? can you detail that gbi test that is scheduled? >> so i will tell you i believe what you are tucking about is the ftg11. which is what we refer to as the salvage shot. we will be launching against an intercontinental ballistic missile range target. and we will use the salvo of the newest version of gbi and older version to characterize the interceptors. that is scheduled for this year actually. >> so then what would the fy20 test be accomplish something somewhere it will be focused in
7:46 pm
on an upgrade to the booster. so once we do that test in 2020, then we can marry it and evaluate the up up upgraded rkv. >> particle beam research, is that something you think you can actually test this year? and where do you test it? >> so neutral particle beam the focus will be on technology -- it traces back to the strategic defense initiative. we think it has a lot of promise for the missile defense mission. so our focus in fy20 is to lay the foundation to get to a demo. we will be doing the ground test. doing a demonstration on the ground before we are ready to
7:47 pm
go to the unordered demo. focus on maturing technologies and feasibility. >> and that is something that is fundamentally different from the studies that are being done elsewhere. and the feasibility? >> it is separate and distinct. it is a technology effort that will point in that direction. >> okay, thank you. >> space base kill assessment, when were the sensors deployed and how many are there? what does that technology have to prove or go through before it can be integrated into the operational actual system? >> so we did leverage a commercial lift and that capability deployed today. i'm not going to tell you the number that is there. but it is there and they are operational now. what they haven't done yet is completed the integration with the ballistic missile defense. they have been operational through a couple of the last flight tests and working
7:48 pm
closely with norcom to assure that the war fighters are satisfied with the interfaces. they are operational now and provides a capability that we need to assure once we move with salvo doctrine that we can detect that in space. >> when you say flight test do you mean gbi test? >> we can leverage that on any capability. >> you said you used it already. >> yes. we will use it in the salvo test asked about earlier. >> thank you. >> i was going to ask you about the particle beam. is there anything in the budget for boost defense? >> i think that the closest that we can get to in the mda budget would be the efforts in the directed energy side of the house. where we are focused in on scaling that laser. the different types of lasers
7:49 pm
we are working and with industry to mature the power levels and to get it to the space, weight, and power required for a mission defense. am i leaving anything out? that is the focus. >> use an airborne application? >> there is an option there. there investments being made. >> also, from the washington post, i just want to ask a broad question, you know, the president was here earlier this year, and the defense secretary, made a lot of comments, ambitious comments, about the defense, and, therefore would be more slightly confused, by y, why the budget is declining, and that because, most of those are happening outside the missile, or is there another explanation to that for that, please give us a sense, of how that squares. >> yeah, so i will start with a missile defense review was approved by the president of
7:50 pm
the united states, and so we were aligned to the missile defense review, if you but, that is a significant amount in missile defenses, and therefore, there are investments being made elsewhere, because it makes sense. >> and do you have an overall figure, for missile defense, as you, including 50, and other investments overall, and -- would increase, or decrease, >> crystal, i would like to mention also, to add to the admiral's remarks that what you are seeing is actually in fy 18 and in fy 19, mda received significant increases for the missile defense and defeat, enhancement related items, and what you are seeing, and 20, actually looks like a decrease, but it is really just the declining funding, as we complete those efforts, and those tales. 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.
7:51 pm
>> i just wanted to follow-up on the question about senses that you were talking about, that, will be working in -- when did they go online, and i think specifically to ask you about north korean lunches, would you be able to detect those -- >> again, back to the kill assessment, leveraging martial list, i'm not going to talk about the numbers, but, yes, so, they were deployed through last calendar year, and put on station, and are going to the final integration of those, is a system now, and they will collect data, and, operate, teach 11. >> but what i asked is, when would have been the first time, they would've been able to detect something like, -- >> there were not any lunches coming out of the arena from the countries i think you're mentioning, during fy 17, which is when we were deploying the system.>> okay, thank you.>> thanks, wondering if you could, talk a little bit about, the difference between what the
7:52 pm
space-based kill assessment is, is doing, and what the agency is looking for from the space filter, or have us to overlap, how they are similar, how they are different. >> okay, so i will use, a model -- >> if you could give us an update, on what is happening now, and where is it going to go in 20 -- >> so, just get a simple fight what can be a pretty complex story, so you have indications in the morning, right, there is a set of capabilities that do that, to think about, is when you have a launch, right, so indications in the morning, and normally you would handed over to raiders, to get to a truck so you can get to the solution, right, so, indications in learning happen first, and let's just say rather than passing to a radar to get that track, if this is some global advanced threat, 12 and now, he would go to the space center layer, the departmentwide ability that cannot only do, indications in the morning, but
7:53 pm
also, handle the tracking capability, and when you get to the backend, and you start to intercept them let's just say it's a kinetic intercept, coming 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 again, it affects your policy. does that make sense? >> it is, and what is your status of the space sensor with -- >> now, we are making assessment across the department to get to that multimission capabilities, so i would tell you where they are today, is, going through, on what architecture should look like, not only the capabilities, but how you would spread those capabilities, because you may not put them all on one bird, how many do you need, and what the fertility. >> red, and so, what are the main goals for fy 19 and why 20 for space center, >> it is the development of the sensors, that would go on, as part of the payload. >> and, that was one of the things that was highlighted during the missile defense review rollout here, yet, it is not mentioned at all, i think,
7:54 pm
in the presentation you gave your pick >> right, because it is a broader department initiative that we are a part of, and i stay multimission, or maybe that is too broad of a term, but i mentioned, indications in the morning, i talk about, detection, and tracking, there are other capabilities, that that system will be required to do, and we are just part of that. >> who has the lead on space center layer, >> it is, it is at the department level. >> c. >> it will be, it is within the department. i am just not prepared to talk about it today. >> i am -- corporation, i have a question, with homeland defense, so, do you already decide, where, argue deployed, and, if not, when do you decided? >> so, i talked about it earlier, maybe you were not
7:55 pm
here, but, the overall sensor architecture, and the drive from our buddies, particularly, in the indo pay, region, drives us as part of the architecture to need another sensor in the area. we are going through cytosine today, we've made no decisions on the location, but really, the decision ford will be driven by the evolution of the threat was complex, that will drive the decision of the department level decision. >> is equity similar in capability to the lr dr? >> they all, i would say you'd say tailored a sensor for the needs in the area, so lr dr, geographically, where it is at, has a particular view. we are going to be defending hawaii, we're going to increased our defense capability of hawaii, with the ability we are crating anyway, we still coming to that site selection process as well, and so, as we think about, where we
7:56 pm
might go into the pacific, and home down on the patient and said, it will be tailored, both in size, and power requirements. >> probably the last question. >> just, back to the space center layer, because, you asked who specifically is doing it, we are in very close collaboration with the air force, and tied very closely to what is being executed today, and is probably the answer i should've given earlier, but my mind was elsewhere. okay, i am sorry. >> yeah, i am just looking for an update on where you are with the management, and it looks like, you are delayed by like 20, operational capability, and -- full, can you update us on what some of the issues were, and -- it looks like, about a two-year delay, >> the best way to summarize it, is that we have had construction delays, in fact, general grace is just out there last week, in colon, meeting with the team, that is bringing it forward, i talked to him during his trip, and he talked
7:57 pm
about the amazing progress that was made since the last time he was there, so we are progressing along, we believe that we will complete that effort this year, and then we will be able to install the combat system, which is on site now, we're facing that work in now, and that will complete it in 20. >> construction companies, or what did you do to resolve the issue? >> it is been a lot of hard- core heavy leadership, and partnership with the u.s. army corps of engineers, with the command you come, the local governments there, you know, in the area, directly engaging with senior leadership, and those companies. so, everyone is banded together, the commitment is there to get it done, and as you know we have some tough weather, last year, which, can contribute to the delays, but it has really been about just completing the construction, so that we can move in with a
7:58 pm
weapon system, get that installed pick >> so what specifically with the problems of construction? >> it was not a quality issue, it was really just the speed of getting it done, not sticking to the schedule. again, weather was perfect, expertise, number of people on site, to get the work done. and so, there has been a lot of senior leadership, although it up to the second of defense, helping us to bring this one through. >> our guess, i think that is all you got time for, thank you very much for coming. >> thank you ma'am, thank you sir, thank you very much for your time today. >> thank you.>> thank you.
7:59 pm
8:00 pm
>> while congress is on break this week, we are featuring our american history tv programs and print them on c-span three, giving a glimpse at what is available every weekend. from the civil war, to the great migration, and a look into the lives and policies of past political leaders, american history tv, every weekend on c-span three, is 48 hours of historical programs, exploring our nation's past.
8:01 pm
on american artifacts travel to historic sites, museums, and archives. lectures and history takes you to college classroom lectures on topics ranging from the american revolution, to 9/11. journey through the 20th century, with archival films on public affairs, on real america. here, from presidents and first ladies, and learn about their politics, policies, and legacies, on the presidency. look at the people and events that shape the civil war, and reconstruction, and listen to eyewitness accounts of key events in our nations history on oral histories. american history tv, each night this week in prime time, while congress is in recess, and on c- span three, every weekend. >> american history tv features author talks on the civil war, the american civil war museum's annual conference took place, at the library of virginia, and was cohosty

1 View

info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on