LTGEN Jay Garner,
Commanding General, U.S. Army Space and Strategic Defense
Command
Near-Term National Missile Defense Options
18 June 1996 - House National Security Committee
Subcommittees on Military Research and Development and Military Procurement
Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, for the opportunity to appear at this hearing to discuss the Army's missile defense program. As Commander, U.S. Army Space and Strategic Defense Command, I have the distinct privilege of directing the activities of. the U.S. Army Space Command, Colorado Springs, CO--the Army User for National Missile Defense; the Missile Defense and Space Technology Center, Huntsville, AL--the Army's development center for Missile Defense technologies; the Kwajalein Missile Range, in the Marshall Islands--the Nation's only full service test range for Ballistic Missile Defense systems; and the High Energy Laser Test Facility at White Sands, New Mexico-- the Nation's most powerful High Energy Laser in support of DoD laser research, development, test, and evaluation. COL(P) Dan Montgomery, the Army's Program Executive Officer for Missile Defense, oversees the development of both Theater and National Missile Defense systems for the Army.
As Commander, U.S. Army Space and Strategic Defense Command, I am charged with the responsibility to serve as the Army's focal point and advocate for Space, Theater, and National Missile Defense. Together, PEO-MD and I share a uniquely comprehensive view of the Army's role and responsibilities in Missile Defense. We welcome this opportunity to share our views with you and hope you will find them useful.
Now, let me focus on NMD which is why you asked us here today. First, let me make it clear that there is only one DoD NMD Program. This is the "3+3" Deployment Readiness Program which develops and demonstrates the elements of an initial system over a 3 year period to enable an informed decision to deploy within 3 years thereafter. The Army continues to play a key role in the planning for and execution of this program. With BMDO funding and guidance, we are currently developing the Ground Based Interceptor (GBI), the Ground Based Radar (GBR), and the Site Battle Management/Command, Control, and Communications (Site BM/C3).
However, you specifically asked me to address near-term deployment options, which we had developed prior to the Department's "3+3" program decision. The Army's near-term deployment option takes full advantage of the past and on-going investments in the ground-based NMD elements cited above. The concept leverages the existing infrastructure at the U.S. Army Kwajalein Atoll (USAKA) for testing and potentially the infrastructure at the Grand Forks ABM site for deployment. It uses the BMDO-funded/Army-executed elements that are being designed specifically for the NMD mission to address the full spectrum of threats--including all of the existing threat types in the world today with growth potential to address even more sophisticated responsive threats should they emerge in the future. Our analysis to date shows that such a system could provide highly effective protection of all 50 states against limited attacks. The ongoing test program will provide crucial information to assess performance capabilities and validate this analysis.
Although no Treaty Compliance assessments of any near-terrn deployment options have been conducted by OSD, I believe the Army's system option could be developed, tested, and deployed in a manner fully compliant with the ABM Treaty. The elements currently under development by the Army that could be utilized in this concept undergo annual review by the OSD Compliance Review Group.
The Army's near-term deployment option is evolutionary in nature and would provide the foundation of the objective architecture. All of the elements are part of the objective architecture and the near-term system could be incrementally built upon as needed in response to threat evolution. That is, the investment in a near-term deployment . that is on the path to the objective system would be fully utilized, not wasted.
The Army's principal near-term deployment option consists of an initial NMD System of 20 GBIS, a GBR, and associated BM/C3 deployed at a single-site within six years. This nearterm NMD system would be supported by existing space-based sensors (e.g., DSP), advanced and upgraded early warning radars (EWRs), and upgraded command and control to support USCINCSPACE in the NMD mission. The initial system would be capable of interoperating with future space-based early warning and tracking systems such as the Space-Based Infrared System (both High and Low constellations) when they become available.
We have estimated the cost to develop, test, acquire, and deploy such a system to be about $5.2B. However, this cost estimate has not yet been submitted to OSD for validation. This includes the costs of 69 GBIs (20 to deploy, 12 to test, and 37 in the pipeline for spares and towards the growth to 100 deployed); the GBR at the site and a prototype GBR at USAKA for test; the Site and CINC BM/C3; 3 Advanced EWRS; upgrades to 2 existing EWRS; system engineering and integration; test range, targets, and associated testing costs for 12 flights; and site design and construction including modifications of the 30 Spartan silos at Grand Forks.
The Army's other near-term deployment option would be a higher risk, quick response, or emergency, deployment that could be available within about four years as opposed to six. We have estimated the cost to develop, test, acquire, and deploy this option to be about $4.8B. This estimate still requires OSD cost validation. This includes 66 GBIs (20 to deploy, 10 to test, and 36 in the pipeline for spares and towards the growth to I 00 deployed); the GBR at the site and a prototype GBR at USAKA for test; the Site and CINC BM/C3; 3 Advanced EWRS; upgrades to 2 existing EWRS; system engineering and integration; test range, targets, and associated testing costs for 10 flights; and site design and construction including modifications of the 30 Spartan silos at Grand Forks.
The individual elements of the near-term deployment option are described below:
The GBI missile consists of an Exoatmospheric-Kill Vehicle (EKV) on a two- or three-stage solid-rocket booster, which we believe industry can quickly and cost effectively fabricate using existing, commercially-available motors. The GBIs will ensure reliable body-to-body impact and destruction of ICBM reentry vehicles (RVs) during the midcourse flight regime. The EKV has a sensitive, long-range electro-optical sensor with an on-board discrimination capability that allows the GBI to be launched against a cluster of objects, designate, and intercept the lethal object in a target complex. The EKV will have the capability to receive In-Flight Target Updates (IFTUs) and Target Object Maps (TOMS) generated by the BM/C3 from sensor data to enhance probability of target kill and overall system performance. The GBI element also includes the ground support equipment and command and launch equipment.
The GBR is a wide bandwidth, solid-state X-Band phased array radar sized for the NMD mission and capable of precision long-range detection, acquisition, tracking, and classification of strategic ballistic missile targets. It will also be capable of providing kill assessment data to the BM/C3. It uses the same solid-state transmit/receive modules that are being used in the THAAD radar and utilizes some common software and hardware. It will provide a substantially longer range than the THAAD radar to allow operation against strategic targets.
The BM/C3 will reside within the Cheyenne Mountain Complex (CMC) and at the initial NMD Site (collocated with GBI and GBR) with specified command and control functions allocated to each location (CINC and Site) and redundant capabilities existing at both locations. The Site BM/C3 will plan the engagements, manage the battle, perform kill assessment, and provide engagement information and results back to the CMC.
The near-term capability also includes upgrading two of the existing EWRs and deploying three new advanced EWRs (potentially in Alaska, Hawaii, and the Northeast US) to allow state vector data to be provided to CMC for cueing the NMD system. The advanced EWRs are X-band phased array radars; but for treaty compliance reasons, they are not the same configuration as the GBR, will not be tested in an ABM mode, and will not be able to communicate to the interceptor in-flight. The advanced EWRs will be deployed on the periphery of the U.S. and will be oriented outward to perform early warning functions similar to the existing EWRS. This concept still requires review by the OSD Compliance Review Group.
In summary, there have been three successful National Missile Defense tests conducted. The Army has done all three. The Army has utilized its 40 years of ballistic missile defense expertise in developing near-term deployment options. The Army supports the department's "3+3" program and is ready to proceed as BMDO's executing agent for the ground based elements: GBIS, GBRS, and associated BMC3, or any emergency deployment option directed by DoD.
Again, thank you for this opportunity to appear before you. I'm ready to address your questions.
|
NEWSLETTER
|
| Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list |
|
|
|
