i [H.A.S.C. No. 111–10] THE FUTURE OF MISSILE DEFENSE TESTING HEARING BEFORE THE STRATEGIC FORCES SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS FIRST SESSION HEARING HELD FEBRUARY 25, 2009 U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 51–659 WASHINGTON : 2010 For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800 Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001 STRATEGIC FORCES SUBCOMMITTEE ELLEN O. TAUSCHER, California, Chairman JOHN SPRATT, South Carolina MICHAEL TURNER, Ohio LORETTA SANCHEZ, California HOWARD P. ‘‘BUCK’’ MCKEON, California ROBERT ANDREWS, New Jersey MAC THORNBERRY, Texas JAMES R. LANGEVIN, Rhode Island TRENT FRANKS, Arizona RICK LARSEN, Washington DOUG LAMBORN, Colorado MARTIN HEINRICH, New Mexico FRANK ROSE, Professional Staff Member KARI BINGEN, Professional Staff Member ZACH STEACY, Staff Assistant (II) C O N T E N T S CHRONOLOGICAL LIST OF HEARINGS 2009 Page HEARING: Wednesday, February 25, 2009, The Future of Missile Defense Testing ............ 1 APPENDIX: Wednesday, February 25, 2009 .............................................................................. 45 WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 25, 2009 THE FUTURE OF MISSILE DEFENSE TESTING STATEMENTS PRESENTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS Tauscher, Hon. Ellen O., a Representative from California, Chairman, Stra- tegic Forces Subcommittee .................................................................................. 1 Turner, Hon. Michael, a Representative from Ohio, Ranking Member, Stra- tegic Forces Subcommittee .................................................................................. 3 WITNESSES Coyle, Hon. Dr. Philip E., III, Former Director, Operational Test and Evalua- tion, U.S. Department of Defense ....................................................................... 28 Francis, Paul L., Director, Acquisition and Sourcing Management, U.S. Gov- ernment Accountability Office ............................................................................. 30 McQueary, Hon. Dr. Charles E., Director, Operational Test and Evaluation, U.S. Department of Defense ................................................................................ 4 Mitchell, Donald C., Chief Engineer for Ballistic Missile Defense, Air and Missile Defense Systems Department, Applied Physics Laboratory, Johns Hopkins University .............................................................................................. 31 Nadeau, Maj. Gen. Roger A., USA, Commanding General, Test and Evalua- tion Command, U.S. Army .................................................................................. 9 O’Reilly, Lt. Gen. Patrick J., USA, Director, Missile Defense Agency, U.S. Department of Defense ........................................................................................ 7 APPENDIX PREPARED STATEMENTS: Coyle, Hon. Dr. Philip E., III ........................................................................... 82 Francis, Paul L. ................................................................................................ 113 McQueary, Hon. Dr. Charles E. ...................................................................... 49 Mitchell, Donald C. ........................................................................................... 128 Nadeau, Maj. Gen. Roger A. ............................................................................ 73 O’Reilly, Lt. Gen. Patrick J. ............................................................................ 59 (III) IV Page DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD: [There were no Documents submitted.] WITNESS RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS ASKED DURING THE HEARING: [There were no Questions submitted during the hearing.] QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS POST HEARING: Mr. Heinrich ..................................................................................................... 163 Ms. Tauscher ..................................................................................................... 147 THE FUTURE OF MISSILE DEFENSE TESTING HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES, STRATEGIC FORCES SUBCOMMITTEE, Washington, DC, Wednesday, February 25, 2009. The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 1:00 p.m., in room 2212, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Ellen Tauscher (chair- man of the subcommittee) presiding. OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ELLEN O. TAUSCHER, A REP- RESENTATIVE FROM CALIFORNIA, CHAIRMAN, STRATEGIC FORCES SUBCOMMITTEE Ms. TAUSCHER. The committee will come to order. The Strategic Forces Subcommittee meets today to gather testimony on the fu- ture of missile defense testing programs. We are expecting a series of votes at around 1:30. So what I would like to do is: I will do my opening statement; the ranking member will do his opening statement; and the best we can, our first panel, generals and Dr. McQueary, if you could summarize your statements in five minutes or less, then I expect that we will be about the time that that will be called; and then we will come back and then we will have our questions, if that will work for you. During the past eight years, there has been a vigorous debate over the Bush Administration’s approach to testing and deploying missile defense systems. Many, including myself, have expressed concerns about the previous Administration’s approach to testing. Those expressions don’t come from naı¨vete´ or confusion. It is be- cause we all want an operationally effective, suitable, and surviv- able system. However, the objective of today’s hearing is not to debate what the Bush Administration did or did not do. We are well past that point. Instead, our objective today is to look forward and to see what specific actions need to occur to make sure that the missile defense systems we have deployed are operationally effective, suit- able, and survivable. The United States, its deployed forces, and its friends and allies around the world face real threats from ballistic missiles. That is why I voted for the Missile Defense Act of 1999, which made it the policy of the United States ‘‘to deploy, as soon as technologically possible, an effective national missile defense system capable of de- fending the territory of the United States against limited ballistic missile attacks.’’ So far, the testing record for missile defense systems is mixed. According to the Director of Operational Test and Evaluation’s (1) 2 (DOT&E’s) fiscal year 2008 Annual Report to Congress, theater missile defense systems, such as Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD) and Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD), con- tinue to make significant progress in the fiscal year 2008. For example in 2008, the Navy’s operational test and evaluation command declared Aegis BMD to be ‘‘operationally effective and suitable.’’ This is a major accomplishment that we should all take pride in. The same cannot be said of the long-range, Ground-based Mid- course Defense (GMD) system. For the third year in a row, the Of- fice of the Director of Operational Test and Evaluation stated in its annual report, ‘‘GMD flight testing will not support a high level of confidence in its limited capabilities. Additional test data under re- alistic conditions is necessary to validate models and simulations and to increase confidence in the ability of these models and sim- ulations to accurately predict system capability.’’ I would also note that, due to technical challenges, the Missile Defense Agency (MDA) was unable to conduct any GMD intercept tests in the fiscal year of 2008. This situation needs to improve. Better testing must be the foundation of our forward progress on a ground-based missile defense. It is in this context that Congress has said the proposed expansion of the GMD system in Europe can- not move forward without more testing, so that we can have the highest level of confidence in the system’s capabilities. We have two distinguished panels of witnesses for today’s hear- ing. Panel one includes Dr. Charles McQueary, the Pentagon’s Di- rector of Operational Test and Evaluation; Lieutenant General Pat- rick O’Reilly, the Director of the Missile Defense Agency; and Major General Roger Nadeau, Commander of the Army Test and Evaluation Command. Panel two includes Mr. Philip Coyle, the former Director of Oper- ational Test and Evaluation; Mr. Paul Francis, Director of Acquisi- tion and Sourcing Management at the Government Accountability Office (GAO); and Dr. Donald Mitchell, chief engineer for the bal- listic missile defense at Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory. Thank you for agreeing to testify, gentlemen. At today’s hearing, I am particularly interested in having our witnesses address the following issues. For all of our witnesses, I need you to answer one fundamental question: What specific ac- tions need to take place during the next several years to make sure that we have a high degree of confidence that the Ballistic Missile Defense System (BMDS), especially the long-range, Ground-based Midcourse Defense system, will work in an operationally effective, suitable, and survivable manner? Furthermore, General O’Reilly, welcome. Welcome to your first hearing as the new director. General O’REILLY. Thank you, ma’am. Ms. TAUSCHER. I understand that you have begun a review of the Missile Defense Agency’s entire testing program to determine your long-term data requirements and testing needs. I would like you to provide the committee with an update on that effort and