DOCSLIB.ORG

Hearing National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 Oversight of Previously Authorized Programs Committee on Armed S

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Hearing National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 Oversight of Previously Authorized Programs Committee on Armed S i [H.A.S.C. No. 112–111] HEARING ON NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2013 AND OVERSIGHT OF PREVIOUSLY AUTHORIZED PROGRAMS BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS SECOND SESSION SUBCOMMITTEE ON STRATEGIC FORCES HEARING ON FISCAL YEAR 2013 NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION BUDGET REQUEST FOR MISSILE DEFENSE HEARING HELD MARCH 6, 2012 U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 73–437 WASHINGTON : 2012 For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center, U.S. Government Printing Office. Phone 202–512–1800, or 866–512–1800 (toll-free). E-mail, [email protected]. SUBCOMMITTEE ON STRATEGIC FORCES MICHAEL TURNER, Ohio, Chairman TRENT FRANKS, Arizona LORETTA SANCHEZ, California DOUG LAMBORN, Colorado JAMES R. LANGEVIN, Rhode Island MO BROOKS, Alabama RICK LARSEN, Washington MAC THORNBERRY, Texas MARTIN HEINRICH, New Mexico MIKE ROGERS, Alabama JOHN R. GARAMENDI, California JOHN C. FLEMING, M.D., Louisiana C.A. DUTCH RUPPERSBERGER, Maryland SCOTT RIGELL, Virginia BETTY SUTTON, Ohio AUSTIN SCOTT, Georgia TIM MORRISON, Professional Staff Member LEONOR TOMERO, Professional Staff Member AARON FALK, Staff Assistant (II) C O N T E N T S CHRONOLOGICAL LIST OF HEARINGS 2012 Page HEARING: Tuesday, March 6, 2012, Fiscal Year 2013 National Defense Authorization Budget Request for Missile Defense ................................................................... 1 APPENDIX: Tuesday, March 6, 2012 .......................................................................................... 33 TUESDAY, MARCH 6, 2012 FISCAL YEAR 2013 NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION BUDGET REQUEST FOR MISSILE DEFENSE STATEMENTS PRESENTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS Sanchez, Hon. Loretta, a Representative from California, Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Strategic Forces ...................................................................... 5 Turner, Hon. Michael, a Representative from Ohio, Chairman, Subcommittee on Strategic Forces ............................................................................................... 1 WITNESSES Ahern, David G., Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense, Portfolio Systems Acquisition, Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Tech- nology, and Logistics ............................................................................................ 11 Gilmore, Hon. J. Michael, Director, Operational Test and Evaluation, Office of the Secretary of Defense .................................................................................. 13 O’Reilly, LTG Patrick, USA, Director, Missile Defense Agency .......................... 9 Roberts, Dr. Bradley H., Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense, Nuclear and Missile Defense Policy, Office of the Secretary of Defense ....................... 7 APPENDIX PREPARED STATEMENTS: Ahern, David G. ................................................................................................ 72 Gilmore, Hon. J. Michael ................................................................................. 84 O’Reilly, LTG Patrick ....................................................................................... 57 Roberts, Dr. Bradley H. ................................................................................... 45 Sanchez, Hon. Loretta ...................................................................................... 43 Turner, Hon. Michael ....................................................................................... 37 DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD: Seven Slides Used by Mr. Turner ................................................................... 99 November 18, 2011, Letter from Mr. Turner and Mr. Sessions to Mr. Kendall ........................................................................................................... 107 February 12, 2012, Letter from Mr. Kendall to Mr. Turner ......................... 109 November 17, 2011, Letter from Members of the Subcommittee on Stra- tegic Forces to Secretary Panetta ................................................................ 110 January 23, 2012, Letter from James Miller to Mr. Turner ......................... 112 November 23, 2011, Letter from Mr. Turner to Secretary Panetta ............. 114 (III) IV Page DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD—Continued December 12, 2011, Letter from Secretary Panetta to Mr. Turner .............. 116 December 29, 2011, Letter from Christine Fox to Mr. Turner ..................... 117 Status of Morale at MDA ................................................................................. 118 SBX Annual Cost Breakdown FY06–FY13 ..................................................... 125 PB13 Aegis BMD SM–3 Missile Buy-Deliver Plan ........................................ 126 FY 2009–2013 [MDA] Major Accomplishments and Changes ...................... 127 WITNESS RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS ASKED DURING THE HEARING: [There were no Questions submitted during the hearing.] QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS POST HEARING: Mr. Franks ........................................................................................................ 153 Mr. Heinrich ..................................................................................................... 161 Mr. Langevin ..................................................................................................... 156 Ms. Sanchez ...................................................................................................... 144 Mr. Turner ........................................................................................................ 131 FISCAL YEAR 2013 NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZA- TION BUDGET REQUEST FOR MISSILE DEFENSE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON STRATEGIC FORCES, Washington, DC, Tuesday, March 6, 2012. The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 3:05 p.m., in room 2118, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Michael Turner (chair- man of the subcommittee) presiding. OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MICHAEL TURNER, A REP- RESENTATIVE FROM OHIO, CHAIRMAN, SUBCOMMITTEE ON STRATEGIC FORCES Mr. TURNER. Good afternoon. I want to welcome everyone to to- day’s hearing on the fiscal year 2013 national defense authorization budget request for missile defense. We have a great team of witnesses today for this important topic. We have the Honorable Brad Roberts, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Nuclear and Missile Defense Policy, U.S. Depart- ment of Defense. We have General Patrick O’Reilly, director of the Missile Defense Agency. General, I note that this will be your last appearance before us, as your term is up this December. We thank you for your 22 years of service to the United States. And General, I hope that you will always think fondly of the times that you have been before us. We appreciate your dedication and certainly your hard work. We have the Honorable Michael Gilmore, Director, Operational Test and Evaluation, Office of the Secretary of Defense. We have Mr. David Ahern, Deputy Assistant Secretary of De- fense, Strategic and Tactical Systems, Office of the Under Sec- retary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics. Since entering office, the Obama administration has dem- onstrated a lack of interest, quite frankly, and support for missile defense, specifically the defense of the homeland of the United States. In its first budget submission to Congress, President Obama slashed $1.16 billion out of the missile defense budget, more than a 10 percent reduction in one single year. If you turn your attention to the screen, you will see the fiscal year 2009 Future Year’s Defense Plan, the FYDP, from the Bush administration, slide one, and the fiscal year 2010, FYDP, fiscal year defense plan from the Obama administration, slide two. The President’s fiscal year 2013 submission is, in fact, lower than the President’s own fiscal year 2010 budget request by over $100 mil- lion, slide three. (1) 2 [The slides referred to can be found in the Appendix beginning on page 99.] Mr. TURNER. Remember, slide one shows that the fiscal year 2010 request from the Obama administration was $1.6 billion less than the previous President recommended, and slide two shows it was less even than President Obama’s only budget request for fis- cal year 2010. What’s more, the Missile Defense Agency fiscal year 2013 FYDP projection for fiscal year 2013 to 2016 is $3.6 billion less than even President Obama’s fiscal year 2012 fiscal year defense plan projec- tion for fiscal year 2013 to 2016 just last year and is $2 billion less than the previous administration’s projection for fiscal year 2013. [See slide 4, Appendix page 102.] And, where the President has requested support for missile de- fense, it has been to support regional missile defenses, to the exclu- sion of national missile defense. According to the MDA [Missile De- fense Agency] budget charts, the United States and the Obama ad- ministration will spend approximately $4 or $5 on regional missile defense, including the European Phased Adaptive Approach, EPAA, for every $1 on national missile defense. This trend continues over the FYDP, slides five and six. That is a ratio, again, of $4 or $5 for regional for every $1 for national missile defense. Let me give a caveat to say that every one of these slides comes right from the MDA or MDA numbers, the Missile Defense Agency, other than slide six, which was put together by staff based on the MDA budget outline breakdowns for
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Shemyaafr,Alaska 1992IRPFIELD INVESTIGATIONREPORT
    EM0-1096 VOL 1 ShemyaAFR,Alaska 1992IRPFIELD INVESTIGATIOREPN ORT Volume 1 of 4 TECHNICAL .., FINAL February1993 preparedfor U.S.Air Force IO ElmendorfAFB,Alaska 11th AirControlWing 1lth CivilEngineeringOperationsSquadron UnderContractDEU-91-06 Preparedby CH2MHILL RC.Box8748 Boise,Idaho83707 For EnvironmentalManagementOperations Undera RelatedServicesAgreement withtheU.S.Departmentof Energy EnvironmentalManagementOperations Richland,Washington99352 j OtSTR|BUTIOPJ 0_:: ii-tIU L_OCuiviENT iL, ',..;;'-,_;;;.,.';,:{:1;" ,. FINAL I i i NOTICE i This report has been prepared for the United States Air Force by CH2M HILL for the purpose of aiding in the implementation of a final remedial action plan under the Air Force Installation Restoration Program (IRP). As the report relates to actual or possible releases of potentially hazardous substances, its release prior to an Air Force final decision on remedial action may be in the public's interest. The limited objectives of this report and the ongoing nature of the IRP, along with the evolving knowledge of site conditions and chemical effects on the environment and health, must be considered when evaluating this report, since subsequent facts may become known which may make this report premature or inaccurate. Acceptance of this report in performance of the contract under which it is prepared does not mean that the Air Force adopts the conclusions, recommendations or other views expressed herein, which are those of the contractor only and do not necessarily reflect the official position of the United States Air Force. Government agencies and their contractors registered with the Defense TechnicalInformationCenter (DTIC) should direct requestsfop copies of.this report to: Defense Technical InformationCenter (DTIC), Cameron Station,Alexandria, VA 22304-6145.
    [Show full text]
  • LORAN-A Historic Context
    ' . Prepared by Alice Coneybeer U.S. Coast Guard, MLCP (se) Coast Guard Island, Bldg. 540 Alameda, CA 94501-5100 Phone 510.437.5804 Fax 510.437.5753 U.S. Coast Guard- Maintenance & Logistics Command Pacific • • • • • • • • • • LORAN-A Historic Context Alaska (District 17) September 1998 ENCLOSURE(2.} ( LORAN-A Context 1. TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. TABLE OF CONTENTS .........•.....................................................•......................•........•..................................•. 1 2. TECHNICAL BACKGROUND ......................................................................................................................... 2 3. IDSTORY OF LORAN-A STATIONS.............................................................................................................. 2 4. LORAN-A IN ALASKA. ..................................................................................................................................... 3 5. LORAN-A DURING THE COLD WAR IN ALASKA (1945-1989) ............................................................... 4 6. NATIONAL REGISTER ELIGffiiLITY EVALUATION .............................................................................. 4 6.1 SIGNIFICANCE OF LORAN-A WITIIIN TilE CONTEXT OF TilE DEVELOPMENT OF AIDS TONAVIGATION ............................................................................................................................... 5 6.2 SIGNIFICANCE OF LORAN-A WITIIIN TilE CONTEXT OF WORLD WAR II IN ALASKA .............. 5 6.3 SIGNIFICANCE OF LORAN-A WITIIIN TilE HISTORIC CONTEXT
    [Show full text]
  • Guide to Air Force Historical Literature, 1943 – 1983, 29 August 1983
    Description of document: Guide to Air Force Historical Literature, 1943 – 1983, 29 August 1983 Requested date: 09-April-2008 Released date: 23-July-2008 Posted date: 01-August-2008 Source of document: Department of the Air Force 11 CS/SCSR (MDR) 1000 Air Force Pentagon Washington, DC 20330-1000 Note: Previously released copies of this excellent reference have had some information withheld. This copy is complete. Classified documents described herein are best requested by asking for a Mandatory Declassification Review (MDR) rather than by asking under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) The governmentattic.org web site (“the site”) is noncommercial and free to the public. The site and materials made available on the site, such as this file, are for reference only. The governmentattic.org web site and its principals have made every effort to make this information as complete and as accurate as possible, however, there may be mistakes and omissions, both typographical and in content. The governmentattic.org web site and its principals shall have neither liability nor responsibility to any person or entity with respect to any loss or damage caused, or alleged to have been caused, directly or indirectly, by the information provided on the governmentattic.org web site or in this file. DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE WASHINGTON, DC 23 July 2008 HAF/IMII (MDR) 1000 Air Force Pentagon Washington, DC 20330-1000 Reference your letter dated, April 9, 2008 requesting a Mandatory Declassification Review (MDR) for the "Guide to Air Force Historical Literature, 1943­ 1983, by Jacob Neufeld, Kenneth Schaffel and Anne E.
    [Show full text]
  • Cold War in Alaska a Resource Guide for Teachers and Students
    U.S. National Park Service Alaska Regional Office National Historic Landmarks Program COLD WAR IN ALASKA A RESOURCE GUIDE FOR TEACHERS AND STUDENTS RB-29 flying past Mt. McKinley, ca. 1948, U.S. Air Force Photo. DANGER Colors, this page left, mirror those used in the first radiation symbol designed by Cyrill Orly in 1945. The three-winged icon with center dot is "Roman violet,"a color used by early Nuclear scientists to denote a very precious item. The "sky blue" background was intended to create an arresting contrast. Original symbol (hand painted on wood) at the Lawrence Berkley National Laboratory, Berkeley, California. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Radiation_symbol_-_James_V._For- restal_Building_-_IMG_2066.JPG ACTIVE U.S. Army soldiers on skis, Big Delta, Alaska, April 9, 1952, P175-163 Alaska State Library U.S. Army Signal Corps Photo Collection. U.S. Department of the Interior National Park Service Alaska Regional Office National Historic Landmarks Program First Printing 2014 Introduction Alaska’s frontline role during the Cold War ushered in unprecedented economic, technological, political, and social changes. The state’s strategic value in defending our nation also played a key role in its bid for statehood. Since the end of the Cold War, Alaska’s role and its effects on the state have received increasing focus from historians, veterans, and longtime Alaskans. This resource guide is designed to help students and teachers in researching the Cold War in Alaska, and to provide basic information for anyone who is interested in learning more about this unique history. The guide begins with a map of Cold War military sites in Alaska and a brief summary to help orient the reader.
    [Show full text]
  • Department of Defense Authorization for Appropriations for Fiscal Year 2006
    S. HRG. 109–22, PT. 7 DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION FOR APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2006 HEARINGS BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES UNITED STATES SENATE ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS FIRST SESSION ON S. 1042 TO AUTHORIZE APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2006 FOR MILITARY ACTIVITIES OF THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, FOR MILITARY CON- STRUCTION, AND FOR DEFENSE ACTIVITIES OF THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY, TO PRESCRIBE PERSONNEL STRENGTHS FOR SUCH FISCAL YEAR FOR THE ARMED FORCES, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES PART 7 STRATEGIC FORCES MARCH 16, APRIL 4, 7, 2005 ( Printed for the use of the Committee on Armed Services VerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:32 Jun 14, 2006 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6011 Sfmt 6011 C:\DOCS\21108.TXT SARMSER2 PsN: JUNEB DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION FOR APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2006—Part 7 STRATEGIC FORCES VerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:32 Jun 14, 2006 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 6019 Sfmt 6019 C:\DOCS\21108.TXT SARMSER2 PsN: JUNEB S. HRG. 109–22, PT. 7 DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION FOR APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2006 HEARINGS BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES UNITED STATES SENATE ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS FIRST SESSION ON S. 1042 TO AUTHORIZE APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2006 FOR MILITARY ACTIVITIES OF THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, FOR MILITARY CON- STRUCTION, AND FOR DEFENSE ACTIVITIES OF THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY, TO PRESCRIBE PERSONNEL STRENGTHS FOR SUCH FISCAL YEAR FOR THE ARMED FORCES, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES PART 7 STRATEGIC FORCES MARCH 16, APRIL 4, 7, 2005 ( Printed for the use of the Committee on Armed Services U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Fort Greely, Alaska
    DCN: 9873 FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Ground-Based Midcourse Defense (GMD) Fort Greely, Alaska Presented by: Mr. Tom Devanney Deputy Program Director Ground-Based Midcourse Defense 26 April 2004 Draft Deliberative Document For Discussion Purposes Only DO NOT RELEASE Under FOIA FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Mission And Tasks “The Defense Department… Shall Proceed With Plans to Deploy a Set of Initial Missile Defense Capabilities Beginning in 2004.” President George W. Bush NSPD-23, 16 DEC 02 BMDS Mission • Provide Missile Defense Capabilities to COCOMs Tasks • Build, Test, and Verify an Initial Defensive Operations Capability • Place the BMDS on Alert • Execute Concurrent Testing and Defensive Operations • Continue Development to Incrementally Improve Capability BottomBottom Line:Line: FieldField anan InitialInitial MissileMissile DefenseDefense CapabilityCapability TEAMTEAM GMD Forging America’s Shield 7/7/2005 6:35 PM FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY GM-04-01-02106-R27-(TABS Installation Familiar Brief)-(04-26-04)-(U) 2 FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY MDA – Fort Greely • Public Law 107-20: (July 24, 2001) – Sec. 1207: The Secretary of Defense may retain all or a portion of Fort Greely, AK as the Secretary deems necessary to meet military operations logistics and personnel support requirements for missile defense. • Memo - SECDEF to Director, BMDO (Now MDA): – Delegates authority to retain portions of Fort Greely, AK to meet Missile Defense Requirements to Director, BMDO • Memo for DASA (I&H) Attn: Mr. Paul Johnson: (10 Aug 01) – BMDO determined that
    [Show full text]
  • The Development of Phased-Array Radar Technology the Development of Phased-Array Radar Technology
    • FENN, TEMME, DELANEY, AND COURTNEY The Development of Phased-Array Radar Technology The Development of Phased-Array Radar Technology Alan J. Fenn, Donald H. Temme, William P. Delaney, and William E. Courtney I Lincoln Laboratory has been involved in the development of phased-array radar technology since the late 1950s. Radar research activities have included theoretical analysis, application studies, hardware design, device fabrication, and system testing. Early phased-array research was centered on improving the national capability in phased-array radars. The Laboratory has developed several test-bed phased arrays, which have been used to demonstrate and evaluate components, beamforming techniques, calibration, and testing methodologies. The Laboratory has also contributed significantly in the area of phased-array antenna radiating elements, phase-shifter technology, solid-state transmit-and- receive modules, and monolithic microwave integrated circuit (MMIC) technology. A number of developmental phased-array radar systems have resulted from this research, as discussed in other articles in this issue. A wide variety of processing techniques and system components have also been developed. This article provides an overview of more than forty years of this phased-array radar research activity. was certainly affordable array radar with thousands of array ele- not new when Lincoln Laboratory’s phased- ments, all working in tightly orchestrated phase co- Tarray radar development began around 1958. herence, would not be built for a very long time. In Early radio transmitters and the early World War II retrospect, both the enthusiasts and the skeptics were radars used multiple radiating elements to achieve de- right. The dream of electronic beam movement was sired antenna radiation patterns.
    [Show full text]
  • Missile Defense for the 21St Century by Gregory H. Canavan
    BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE TECHNICAL STUDIES SERIES MISSILE DEFENSE FOR THE 21ST CENTURY Gregory H. Canavan i Published by The Heritage Foundation 214 Massachusetts Avenue, NE Washington, DC 20002–4999 800-544-4843 heritage.org Copyright © 2003 The Heritage Foundation ISBN 0-89195-261-6 Cover design by Mark Hurlburt Layout by Michelle Fulton Smith Charts and Graphs by Russell Martin Nothing written here is to be construed as necessarily reflecting the views of The Heritage Foundation or as an attempt to aid or hinder the passage of any bill before Congress. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS PREFACE / VII LIST OF FIGURES / VIII LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS / IX INTRODUCTION / XV TECHNICAL DEVELOPMENTS IN MISSILE DEFENSE / 1 Early Missile Defense and Offensive Proliferation: Offensive Proliferation / 3 Early Technologies and Systems: NIKE Systems; Sentinel; Safeguard / 5 Uncertainties / 16 Summary of Developments in Nuclear Phases / 19 DEVELOPMENTS DURING THE 1970S / 23 The ABM Treaty / 23 U.S. Army Programs and Hit-to-Kill Technology / 24 Space-Based Laser for Boost-Phase Intercept / 27 Summary of Developments During the Interim Program / 28 DEVELOPMENTS DURING THE 1980S / 29 Strategic Defense Initiative: Exploration Phase / 29 Strategic Defense System Phase I / 32 Brilliant Pebbles / 37 Brilliant Pebbles in Midcourse and Terminal / 42 Summary of Developments During SDI / 45 GLOBAL PROTECTION AGAINST LIMITED STRIKES / 47 Scope / 47 Elements / 48 Development and Testing / 50 Navy Contributions / 53 iii Ballistic Missile Defense Technical Studies
    [Show full text]
  • PE-0603884C-Sensors
    UNCLASSIFIED Date Missile Defense Agency (MDA) Exhibit R-2 RDT&E Budget Item Justification February 2008 APPROPRIATION/BUDGET ACTIVITY R-1 NOMENCLATURE RDT&E, DW/04 Advanced Component Development and Prototypes (ACD&P) 0603884C Ballistic Missile Defense Sensors COST ($ in Thousands) FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013 Total PE Cost 514,989 586,121 1,076,983 1,116,740 1,099,649 1,077,632 823,583 0811 Ballistic Missile Defense Radars Block 2006 236,290 0 0 0 0 0 0 0911 Ballistic Missile Defense Radars Block 2008 259,351 0 0 0 0 0 0 0011 Ballistic Missile Defense Radars Block 2010 6,638 0 0 0 0 0 0 AX11 Ballistic Missile Defense Radars Block 1.0 0 5,569 5,723 0 0 0 0 BX11 Ballistic Missile Defense Radars Block 2.0 0 28,821 101,879 2,979 0 0 0 CX11 Ballistic Missile Defense Radars Block 3.0 0 97,183 96,191 21,842 18,694 19,814 14,888 DX11 Ballistic Missile Defense Radars Block 4.0 0 100,223 150,505 239,713 137,808 1,220 7,926 EX11 Ballistic Missile Defense Radars Block 5.0 0 15,802 144,042 226,844 193,327 187,228 115,679 WX11 Ballistic Missile Defense Radars Capability Development 0 170,826 257,646 221,330 300,079 427,821 253,664 XX11 Ballistic Missile Defense Radars Sustainment 0 154,568 296,472 360,520 418,280 412,143 406,860 0602 Program-Wide Support 12,710 0 0 0 0 0 0 ZX40 Program-Wide Support 0 13,129 24,525 43,512 31,461 29,406 24,566 Amount Included in PE 0904903D -151,670 -111,212 -120,268 -131,192 Total PE Cost Reflected in R-1 514,989 586,121 1,076,983 965,070 988,437 957,364 692,391 Note: The content previously planned in projects 0811, 0911, and 0011 are now captured in projects AX11, BX11, CX11, DX11, EX11, WX11, and XX11 for FY08-13 in accordance with the MDA revised Block structure.
    [Show full text]
  • GAO-19-68, Missile Defense
    United States Government Accountability Office Report to Congressional Committees December 2018 MISSILE DEFENSE Air Force Report to Congress Included Information on the Capabilities, Operational Availability, and Funding Plan for Cobra Dane GAO-19-68 December 2018 MISSILE DEFENSE Air Force Report to Congress Included Information on the Capabilities, Operational Availability, and Funding Highlights of GAO-19-68, a report to Plan for Cobra Dane congressional committees Why GAO Did This Study What GAO Found First fielded in 1976 on Shemya Island In its January 2018 report to Congress, the Air Force reported how the Cobra in Alaska, the Cobra Dane radar faces Dane radar and the Long Range Discrimination Radar (LRDR) have shared and growing sustainment challenges that unique capabilities to support ballistic missile defense and space surveillance DOD plans to address through missions. The report noted that the respective locations of both radar systems modernization projects. Anticipating affect their ability to provide those capabilities. The Department of Defense future needs, DOD began investing in (DOD) also has other radar investments—the Pacific Radar and the Space new radar systems that share Fence, which, according to DOD officials, may reduce DOD’s reliance on Cobra capabilities with Cobra Dane to support Dane to provide ballistic missile defense and space surveillance capabilities. ballistic missile defense and space surveillance, including the LRDR The Cobra Dane Radar on Shemya Island, Alaska (Alaska), the Space Fence (Marshall Islands), and the Pacific Radar (location to be determined). The conference report accompanying a bill for the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2018 included a provision that GAO review the Air Force’s report to Congress on the operation and sustainment of Cobra Dane.
    [Show full text]
  • History . Variants . Systems . Operators . Missions
    history . variants . systems . operators . missions £5.99 the world ’s greatest 1 1 3 5tanker ... and more ... By kc -135 stratotanker rc-135 rivet joint Over the years, AIR International has established an unrivalled reputation for authoritative reporting across the full spectrum of aviation subjects. With correspondents and top aviation writers from around the world, AIR International brings you the best in modern military and commercial aviation. AIR International features: Latest News Dedicated news reports and factual insider information plus a section of ‘news in pictures’ and military frontline reports. Military Coverage Including worldwide air exercise reports and heightened exposure of UAVs. Exclusive Interviews Providing answers from the people at the forefront of modern aviation. Commercial Coverage Features and profi les on airlines from around the world. Available Monthly from and other leading newsagents Image: Lockheed Martin ALSO AVAILABLE IN DIGITAL FORMAT: DOWNLOAD NOW AVAILABLE FROM: FREE APP PC, Mac & with sample issue Windows 8 IN APP ISSUES £3.99 iTunes AIR INTERNATIONAL SEARCH 263/13 Available on PC, Mac, Blackberry, Windows 8 and kindle fire from Requirements for app: registered iTunes account on Apple iPhone 3G, 3GS, 4S, 5, iPod Touch or iPad 1, 2 or 3. Internet connection required for initial download. Published by Key Publishing Ltd. The entire contents of these titles are © copyright 2014. All rights reserved. App prices subject to change. FOR LATEST SUBSCRIPTION DEALS VISIT: www.airinternational.com 665 ALW JP Fleets.indd 2 20/08/2014 15:31 introduction 1 3 5 lmost 36 years ago to the day, I watched a KC- 29, 1958 and serves with the Kansas Air National 135A Stratotanker take off – and it was a fi rst Guard’s 190th Air Refueling Wing.
    [Show full text]
  • Ballistic Missile Defense Glossary
    BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE GLOSSARY VERSION 3.0 JUNE 1997 DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE ORGANIZATION 7100 DEFENSE PENTAGON WASHINGTON, DC 20301-7100 PREFACE AND ACKNOWLEDGMENTS PURPOSE The purpose of this glossary is to facilitate a common language within the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization (BMDO) and the ballistic missile defense community. This glossary supplements other existing Department of Defense (DoD) publications. SCOPE This glossary is not an official DoD publication; it is limited to terminology that relates to ballistic missile defense. A number of computer, software, and engineering terms are included, especially those applicable to BMD. In addition, numerous acquisition terms are included in light of BMDO’s ongoing transition to a more acquisition-oriented agency. Many entries are taken from the DoD 5000-series of directives, the DoD program objective memorandums, the Joint Staff Glossary (Joint Pub 1-02), and the Defense Systems Management College Glossary. A number of outdated or seldom-used terms are also included for historical relevance, though obsolete terms are denoted. WORLD WIDE WEB The BMDO Glossary can be found on the BMDO World Wide Web home page at http://www.acq.osd.mil/bmdo/bmdolink/html/ FORMAT All entries are listed in alphabetical order, including acronyms (which are cross-referenced with their corresponding definition). General terms are defined in a BMD context where appropriate. In cases where a term has more than one BMD-related meaning, multiple definitions are given. Wherever possible, organizational changes occurring since publication of the October 1995 BMDO Glossary are incorporated. Please note that abbreviations and acronyms listed herein are capitalized for ease of reference.
    [Show full text]