|
TESTIMONY
OF
THOMAS P. CHRISTIE
DIRECTOR, OPERATIONAL TEST AND EVALUATION
BEFORE THE
HOUSE
ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON
STRATEGIC
FORCES
UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
REGARDING
MISSILE DEFENSE
March
25, 2004
Mr. Chairman, Congressman
Reyes, distinguished members of the
committee, I appreciate the opportunity to
appear before you today and provide you with
an update on where we stand with respect to
testing the Ballistic Missile Defense
System, or BMDS. I continue to strongly
support the construction and integration of
the BMDS Test Bed. This BMDS Test Bed will
provide the elements that make up the
Initial Defensive Operations, or IDO
architecture. While I am very encouraged by
the improved testing environment and
capability the BMDS Test Bed will provide, I
am even more pleased with the increased
emphasis on system integration and user
involvement I have seen over the past year.
STRATCOM and NORTHCOM are developing
tactics, techniques and procedures for
operating the system. The Missile Defense
Agency and the element program offices are
making the developmental tests progressively
more realistic. They are ground testing
with the available system hardware and
software and involving soldier operators to
the degree possible.
As I have said in the
past, the system must be built before we can
properly test it. The Missile Defense
Agency is still building it. We have just
begun to ground and flight-test some of the
system components in a tactical
configuration. General Kadish is
restructuring the BMDS testing program in
2005 to focus on further characterizing and
evaluating the performance envelope of the
IDO capability. This testing will be more
operationally realistic in that test
scenarios will include more complex target
presentations and engagement geometries. It
also will provide a better understanding of
the IDO end-to-end performance capability.
The Missile Defense Agency
continues to be proactive when it comes to
testing. General Kadish has adopted a
test-find-fix-test philosophy. This approach
provides a higher likelihood of finding
design and workmanship problems early in the
program. The decision to exploit the Test
Bed elements for an initial operational
capability has required some substantive
changes in test planning.
Test objectives have
shifted from demonstrating component
capabilities to demonstrating integrated
system capabilities. My staff and I remain
involved on a daily basis with the Missile
Defense Agency and the BMDS element program
offices to ensure that operational test
issues are addressed in testing. I have
recently sent forward for your review, the
master test plan for the Block 04 BMDS,
along with the developmental master test
plans for the four major elements (GMD,
Aegis, ABL and THAAD). While statute
prohibits me from having authority or
responsibility for developmental testing, we
are involved in an advisory role in the
development of these plans. Aegis and GMD
are the two primary elements of the Test Bed
that will comprise the near term
capabilities of the BMDS IDO. In both the
GMD and Aegis programs, operational testers
are involved with insuring that
developmental testing addresses as many of
the operational objectives as possible. The
Navy’s Operational Test Agency is advising
the Aegis missile defense program on how to
make their testing more realistic without
compromising important developmental testing
goals. The GMD program’s Combined Test
Force effectively integrates the operational
testers into the program development
activities and the test design and planning
efforts. The Service Operational Test
Agencies are working jointly, and in concert
with DOT&E, to independently advise MDA and
GMD Combined Test Forces on test plans, and
are independently evaluating all ground and
flight test data. My office has reviewed
and approved the operational test objectives
for the last three GMD integrated flight
tests. The Operational Test Agencies, in
close coordination with my office, have
developed a characterization plan that
provides the basis for continuous
operational assessments of demonstrated BMDS
capability as it is baselined in 2004, and
for each Block as it matures. The Missile
Defense Agency has supported this effort. I
am pleased with their openness and
cooperation with my office and the Service
Operational Test Agencies. We have agreed
on the data sources that will support both
Missile Defense Agency and operational
capability assessments. This will help
ensure that the test planning will to
address both developmental and operational
objectives.
The operational test
community places less emphasis on component
level test results, though we agree that
such testing can provide a robust
characterization and insight into individual
component and subsystem performance.
Realistic operational testing requires the
integration of all the internal and external
system elements, including operator
personnel employing approved tactics and
doctrine in accordance with their training,
to accomplish mission planning and
engagement through kill assessment. When
integrated system performance is not
confirmed by integrated system level
testing, the burden of combining component
performance into system performance falls to
models and simulations. Modeling and
simulation are not a good substitute for
integrated system testing. However, when
modeling and simulation are used to provide
context to integrated system hardware in the
loop tests, they can help to overcome test
limitations and give a more complete picture
of mission capability. I feel that MDA is
acting responsibly in using models and
simulations to estimate system performance,
but would caution that since the system is
still in development, model based estimates
almost always contain uncertainties.
Fielding the Test Bed
provides an opportunity to gather
operational data on system performance,
safety, survivability, reliability,
availability, and maintainability. We
should expect these data to drive system
enhancements. The challenge will be
achieving a defensive posture that is
flexible enough to accommodate the necessary
changes to hardware, software, and processes
that will be necessary to maintain a highly
available BMDS system, while supporting a
comprehensive testing program that that is
designed to mature, improve, and demonstrate
mission capabilities through continued
development.
In summary, let me say
that for years my office has been advocating
more comprehensive developmental testing,
leading up to realistic operational
testing. Specifically we have encouraged
programs to do more hardware and software in
the loop testing early during system
integration to avoid problems typically
found during operational testing of complex
networked weapon systems. The system
integration laboratories being employed by
the Missile Defense Agency and its elements
are addressing this important aspect of
system maturation. The Test Bed is adding
flexibility and complexity to the flight
test program that will pay dividends in the
future. The commonality of architectural
components between the Test Bed and the
operational system poses management
challenges, but should speed the integration
of new capabilities as they are confirmed
through testing. Mr. Chairman, Ladies and
Gentlemen, my staff and I continue to work
with General Kadish and his staff to ensure
that the capabilities and limitations of the
Ballistic Missile Defense System are well
characterized as the system proceeds in
development and testing.
This concludes my opening
remarks and I welcome your questions. |
