MAJGEN William S. Chen,
Program Executive Officer, Missile Defense

Ballistic Missile Defense
10 June 1996 - House National Security Committee
Military Procurement Subcommittee and the Military Research and Development Subcommittee

Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee. I am Major General William S. Chen, the Program Executive Officer for the Missile Defense (PEO MD), formerly named the PEO Army Global Protection Against Limited Strikes (GPALS) .

I am honored to be here today to discuss the Army's programs for missile defense. First, I would like to briefly describe the mission of the PEO MD in response to Congressional and Ballistic Missile Defense Organization (BMDO) direction. Secondly, I will discuss the systems and capabilities the Army is developing for theater and national missile defense.

We are proud that, for more than 34 years, the Army has played an important role in the research, development, and operation of ballistic missile defenses for this nation. The role ranges from the development and actual fielding in the 1970s of the first U.S. ABM system at a site near Grand Forks, ND, to the current acquisition of the ground based systems needed for strategic and theater missile defense.

Even before the establishment of the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI) concept in 1983, the Army had been using the expertise and long-term experience of our scientists and engineers in Huntsville, AL, to develop advancements in interceptor, sensor, and other technologies that are the embryos of the systems now matured for development.

In 1984 the Director of the BMDO (formerly Strategic Defense Initiative Organization - SDIO) was given the responsibility for managing the research and development for strategic ballistic missile defenses. In November 1990, the Secretary of Defense added Theater Missile Defense (TMD) research and development to the BMDO charter.

On 20 September 1991, the Undersecretary of Defense (Acquisition) signed the Acquisition Decision Memorandum establishing six Major Defense Acquisition Programs (MDAP). The programs are: (1) GPALS System with Battle Management Command, Control, and Communications (BM/C3); (2) Global Missile Defense (GMD); (3) National Missile Defense (NMD) system; (4) Upper Tier Theater Missile Defense System (UTTMDS); (5) PATRIOT; and (6) Corps Surface-to-Air Missile (Corps SAM).

The PEO Army GPALS was established 29 July 1992 (renamed PEO MD on 24 May 1993) with the mission to manage the research, development, and acquisition of the ground based portion of BMDO's TMD and NMD segments. I became the PEO in July 1992. As the PEO, I manage and execute the Army's TMD and NMD systems within BMDO guidance. The specific TMD subsystems I manage are: (1) Theater High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD); (2) TMD Ground Based Radar (TMD-GBR); (3) PATRIOT; (4) Extended Range Interceptor (ERINT); (5) Corps SAM; and (6) Arrow/Arrow Continuation Experiments (ACES). The specific NMD subsystems I manage are: (1) Ground Based Interceptor (GBI); (2) NMD Ground Based Radar (NMD-GBR); and (3) the Army's portion of the BMDO BM/C3 system (which consists of the Army Component Command Center [ARCCC] and the Regional Operations Center [ROC]). Although not a system, I manage the site development program for the initial NMD site near Grand Forks, ND. Our work in the Army is only one part of the BMDO program, but I believe it is a vital part of our country's defense system.

The TMD and NMD systems are designed to protect the United States; our forces deployed abroad; allies and other countries, including areas of vital interest; against accidental, unauthorized and limited ballistic missile strikes. Based on the lessons learned from Operation Desert Storm, Congress has determined that our nation's ballistic missile defenses should become a higher priority than in past years. Congress has been the leader in recognizing the increased need for continued emphasis on TMD, calling for deployment of substantially improved capabilities by the mid- 1990's. At the same time, Congress has authorized the development of a "ABM-Treaty compliant anti-ballistic missile defense system", a capability we do not have today, as the initial step toward meeting the goal of a highly effective defense of our homeland.

The fiscal year 1994 budget request reflects priorities established by Secretary Aspin and is consistent with basic tenets of the Missile Defense Act of 1991 as amended by the fiscal year 1993 National Defense Authorization Act. The fiscal year 1994 budget request emphasizes the TMD program as first priority followed by the NMD acquisition program. These programs still await the results of Secretary Aspin's bottom-up review which is expected to have a direct impact on the planning and execution of the ballistic missile defense.

THEATER MISSILE DEFENSE

Today U.S. Army forces have the only combat proven Theater Missile Defense (TMD) capability -- the PATRIOT Anti-Tactical Missile Capability (PAC-2). It provided protection for coalition warfighters, critical military assets and geopolitical centers during Operation Desert Storm against Iraqi tactical ballistic missiles. While PAC-2 was quite effective in this role, an improved TMD capability is needed. The tactical missile threat is significant now, and it is growing. At present, twenty-eight (28) countries have tactical ballistic missiles (TBM's), and at least thirteen (13) other countries are projected to have them by the end of the decade. Additionally, many potential enemies possess or seek to acquire cruise missiles, tactical air-to-surface missiles, and remotely piloted vehicles which may threaten U.S. and Allied forces in future regional conflicts. We agree with prior Congressional guidance that the development and fielding of a more robust, near-term Army capability against these theater missile threats must be pursued on a priority basis.

Contingency operations may require the deployment of Army forces to counter regional threats around the globe, and tactical missile threats exist in nearly all potential theaters of operations. The mission of TMD elements of deployed forces is to protect critical assets, population centers and maneuver forces from these threats during all phases of an operation. The Army's TMD systems must be able to provide that protection.

The Army's planned two-tier architecture will provide effective, low leakage protection. The Theater High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) system with its sensor, the TMD-Ground Based Radar (TMD-GBR), comprises the upper tier. PATRIOT is a lower tier system operating under THAAD's umbrella coverage, and it provides air breathing threat protection for the upper tier system. The Corps Surface-to-Air Missile (Corps SAM) system is also a lower tier system when the maneuver forces it supports are inside THAAD's umbrella coverage. Let me explain how these systems will accomplish the protection missions. I will begin with the current TMD capability and progress through PATRIOT, THAAD and then Corps SAM, the order in which the Army will field its TMD capability.

As I mentioned previously, PATRIOT PAC-2 is our existing TMD capability. It provides limited TBM protection for selected, critical assets. The Army's TMD programs build on our experience with PAC-2. The PATRIOT Advanced Capability-3 (PAC-3) growth program incrementally upgrades virtually all elements of the PATRIOT system with mature technologies. The PAC-3 system greatly expands the defended area, resulting in increased protection of critical assets against TBM'S, cruise missiles, tactical air-to-surface missiles , remotely piloted vehicles, and aircraft. The lethality of PAC-3 candidate missiles (the PATRIOT Multimode Missile and the Extended Range Interceptor (ERINT)) will also enable PAC-3 to defeat a wider range of TBM'S. While PAC-3 will greatly enhance the Army's TMD capabilities, it is designed for critical asset and limited area defense.

THAAD, the upper tier system, responds to the urgent need for a more robust TMD capability. It will provide an umbrella of TBM protection for troops, critical assets and population centers spread over wide areas. THAAD will defeat the more stressing, higher velocity threats at much greater ranges and higher altitudes than PAC-3. Its hit-to-kill technology will provide high lethality against a wider range of threat missile warheads. THAAD's high altitude intercepts will effectively defend against maneuvering re-entry vehicles, greatly reduce the probability that debris and chemical or biological agents from a TBM Warhead will reach the ground, and result in intercepts occurring before threat missiles break up. The combination of higher altitude and longer range intercepts will provide multiple opportunities for THAAD to kill incoming threat missiles. Also, the long range TMD-GBR can act as a cueing sensor to PAC-3, helping it to intercept threat missiles at the outer edges of the PAC-3 engagement envelope.

The combination of THAAD and PAC-3 is essential to defeat the full range of current and projected threats and to ensure a more robust defense. It provides cost effective, low leakage TBM protection for geopolitical assets, population centers, and theater strategic assets. It also assists in the defense of ground forces.

The Army needs another TMD system to ensure protection of maneuver forces. That system is Corps SAM. It will go to any theater with far fewer airlift and sealift requirements than THAAD and PATRIOT; have the tactical mobility to support the Corps commander's scheme of maneuver; counter short range TBM'S, cruise missiles and tactical air-to-surface missiles whose primary targets are forward assets and forces; and shield forces from observation and lethal attacks from manned and unmanned aircraft. When Corps SAM is fielded the Army will be able to fully accomplish its TBM protection mission - to protect critical assets, population centers, and maneuver forces from the full spectrum of current and projected threats.

Let me now discuss the development status of our TMD programs, beginning again with PATRIOT. At the end I will also discuss the Arrow Continuation Experiments (ACES) program, a joint effort between the United States and Israel to help Israel develop its own TMD capability.

The PATRIOT program continues to develop system improvements including communications and computer upgrades, an enhanced target identification capability, further radar enhancements, generator upgrades, and an improved remote launch capability. During FY93 the Guidance Enhancement Missile (GEM, formerly called the Quick Response Missile) will undergo testing and may enter production. PATRIOT is also moving towards a Milestone IV Defense Acquisition Board review for the PAC-3 missile to proceed into Engineering and Manufacturing Development (EMD). The Multimode Missile (MMM) and the Extended Range Interceptor (ERINT) are the PAC-3 missile candidates. The final of four flight tests for the MMM's seeker is scheduled for the 4th quarter of FY93. In FY94 the PATRIOT program plans to enter EMD for the PAC-3 missile. Development efforts will continue on other PATRIOT improvements in areas such as target identification, communications, generators, and the radar.

The ERINT program will demonstrate a small, agile, hit-to-kill missile. ERINT is a candidate PAC-3 missile, and the program is developing flight control components to enable ERINT to function in the PATRIOT system. ERINT technology could potentially be integrated into other missile defense systems such as Corps SAM and the Marine Corps HAWK. ERINT's flight test program continues through FY93 with intercept test flights beginning in the 3rd quarter. The FY94 dollars will fund completion of the flight test program and ERINT/PATRIOT integration work.

The Army awarded a four year THAAD Demonstration/Validation (DEM/VAL) contract to Lockheed Space and Missiles Systems in September 1992. Lockheed's team will produce the objective THAAD system's design and some DEM/VAL prototype hardware including twenty missiles for DEM/VAL testing, three launchers, and two BM/C31 units. The Lockheed contract also has an option for the government to purchase forty additional missiles. The DEM/VAL hardware and the forty missiles will serve as a User Operational Evaluation System (UOES), which will also be available for deployment in case of a national emergency by the end of FY96. The UOES will have two TMD-GBR radars provided through a separate contract with Raytheon. The FY93 THAAD efforts have focused on designing the UOES. The Initial Design Review has been completed and work is progressing towards a Final Design Review in the Fall. Lockheed has also completed a THAAD/Navy AEGIS compatibility study and a THAAD nuclear hardening study, fabricated prototype missile components, and initiated its ground test program. The FY94 dollars continue the THAAD DEM/VAL program. The UOES effort will progress through completion of the Final Design Review, missile ground testing and THAAD/TMD-GBR integration, and begin missile flight tests. The effort on the objective THAAD system will focus on defining the requirements for that system, leading to its System Requirements Review in the third quarter of FY94.

The Army awarded a five year Family of Radars DEM/VAL contract to the Equipment Division of Raytheon Company in September 1992. This contract supports both NMD and TMD systems. For TMD the Raytheon team will produce a DEM/VAL radar to support THAAD testing at the White Sands Missile Range, and two UOES radars for integration with the THAAD UOES hardware. The FY93 TMD-GBR efforts have focused on the radar design and initial production of the solid state transmit/receive (T/R) modules for the antennas of the radars. The FY94 dollars will continue the DEM/VAL program. The DEM/VAL radar will be built and delivered to the White Sands Missile Range for testing. The UOES radar development effort will progress through the Critical Design Review and production of those radars will begin.

The Corps SAM Project Office completed the analysis of seven government funded, contractor conducted Concept Definition studies earlier this fiscal year. The program is moving towards a Milestone I DAB review in the 4th quarter of FY93 and is consistent with the new U.S. National Defense Strategy, "CONUS-Based, Force Projection." There is potential for Allied cooperation in the Corps SAM program, and even more potential for Allies to procure Corps SAM. The FY94 dollars will fund the government's source selection process for the Corps SAM Demonstration/Validation (DEM/VAL) contract, the contract award, and initiation of that development effort.

In addition to managing development of U.S. Army TMD systems, I also manage the Arrow Continuation Experiments (ACES) program, a U.S.-Israeli program. ACES is a follow-on to the Arrow program and is designed to provide Israel with a basis for an informed EMD decision for an area TMD capability. The FY93 efforts have focused on conducting lethality flight tests using the Arrow- 1 missile and completing the Critical Design Reviews for the Arrow-2 missile. The FY94 dollars will fund two more Arrow- 1 lethality flight tests and the initial Arrow-2 missile flight tests.

NATIONAL MISSILE DEFENSE

Now, let me discuss with you my NMD program.

The basic requirement for the NMD system is to provide protection for the United States against accidental, unauthorized, and limited launches of Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles (ICBM), and Submarine Launched Ballistic Missiles (SLBM) from any country. The NMD (single site) system would provide defense against strategic ballistic missiles targeted against the Continental United States. We are continuing research and development efforts on an outside-the-atmosphere (exoatmospheric) GBI, a NMD-GBR, the Army Component Command Center (ARCCC), Regional Operations Center (ROC,), and site development.

Let me describe for you the capabilities of the ground based strategic systems. The system objective is to provide high confidence of extremely low or no leakage of threatening warheads. To do this, we need as much warning as possible that an enemy ballistic missile has been launched in order to (1) intercept the resulting re-entry vehicles (RV) warheads in their mid-course trajectory, (2) to determine the success of the intercepts, and (3) to be able to launch other interceptors to stop any "leakers" that may have gotten through on the first attempts to intercept. The basic concept is to provide sufficient sensor warning and discrimination capabilities so that the defense can provide a "shoot-evaluate-shoot" capability. This means getting at least two independent, sequential shots on all threatening warheads.

The Army's advanced exoatmospheric interceptor concept is called the GBI. The GBI is based on known and tested technologies that have been enhanced to make the missiles smarter, lighter, and less costly (improvements in software, miniaturization, seeker performance, and divert propulsion have resulted in improved performance and reduced cost). The GBI is the weapons element of the NMD system, and will provide non-nuclear, exoatmospheric hit-to-kill intercepts during the midcourse phase of the threat trajectories. The GBI interceptor operates like a bullet hitting an incoming bullet rather than exploding a warhead in the vicinity of the target as previous technologies had employed. GBI is designed to destroy RVs in the mid-course of their flight through space so the-debris disperses safely and burns up upon re-entry into the atmosphere. Hit to kill provides increased confidence in the lethality of the interceptor. Successful Exoatmospheric Reentry-vehicle Interceptor Subsystem (ERIS) tests clearly demonstrated our ability to guide and divert the interceptor to the precise accuracy needed to accomplish this mission. The GBI is ready to proceed with the Demonstration and Validation phase of the program. The GBI Request for Proposals (RFP) was released on November 1992. The proposals were to be received from industry on 18 February 1993 but were deferred from government acceptance by the acting Undersecretary of Defense (Acquisition) on 17 February 1993. The deferment was made so the NMD program acquisition strategy could be reviewed. The fiscal year 1994 budget request provides funding to initiate the prime demonstration validation contract. Although subject to the outcome of the bottom up review, we anticipate the GBI contract to be awarded in December 1993 leading to a Preliminary Design Review by the end of fiscal year 1994.

In addition to the weapon progress, we are also continuing to make great progress in sensor development. The GBR project is developing a family of radars, emphasizing modularity and commonality, to support both the NMD and the TMD systems. This family of radars concept uses one overall program to develop strategic and theater radars that share common components and software. The radars will be designed to search, acquire, track, identify threatening missiles, support interceptor commit, and make kill assessments. These radars will operate in X-band, a frequency range that provides very good range resolution and discrimination capability. The strategic radar referred to as the NMD-GBR, will support the exoatmospheric GBI, and is in the Demonstration and Validation phase of the acquisition process. RFPs were released and industry responses were received in May 1992. The NMD-GBR contract was awarded in September 1992. The NMD-GBR is the primary active sensor supporting the deployment of the NMD system. The NMD-GBR will conduct pre-commit surveillance, respond to cueing from space based or other ground based sensors, and will plan and schedule its sensor resources to search, acquire, track, classify/identify, and estimate object trajectory parameters. This data will be used to develop a weapon tasking plan for the GBI and for the planning of sensor tasking in post commit surveillance. In post commit surveillance, the radar schedules its sensor resources to maintain the target in track in order to provide an In Flight Target Update (IFRU) (which is used to improve the interceptor trajectory), and a radar Target Object Map (TOM) (which provides target data to the interceptor), and to assess the intercept to deter-mine if the target was killed. The fiscal year 1994 budget request provides funding to initiate fabrication and assembly of subsystem components, software development, and construction of the facilities for the test radar to be built at the U.S. Army Kwajalein Atoll. On-going demonstration and validation activities such as requirements definition and design will continue.

We are providing critical support to BMDO in developing the Battle Management/ Command, Control, and Communications (BM/C3) capabilities for NMD. I am responsible for developing the Army Component Command Center (ARCCC) and Regional Operations Center (ROC) portions of the overall command and control system. The ROC will provide the battle management capabilities necessary to perform engagement planning for the ground based elements while the Army Component Command Center (ARCCC) provides operational control and connectivity to the overall C3 system. The fiscal year 1994 budget request provides Army support to BMDO in executing their Battle Management/ Command, Control, and Communications (BM/C3) options assessment contract which will assist in defining the overall BM/C3 software requirements.

Our site development planning continues to focus on the Army's deactivated SAFEGUARD complex near Grand Forks, ND, and developing a plan for integrated logistical support that will be needed by the Army systems.

CONCLUSION

The Army is executing programs to significantly improve our country's TMD capability and to establish our country's NMD capability. These programs are well defined and should be aggressively executed.

The Army has our country's existing TMD system and wartime experience using it. Our TMD programs build upon lessons learned from that experience and will field systems that will accomplish the TMD protection mission.

The Army traditionally, and historically has the role of providing homeland defenses, including defense against ballistic missiles of all ranges and all types. Technology required for ground based missile defense systems to proceed into development is available today. We are developing systems that will demonstrate the required capability and will provide an option for future deployment. The Arrny has a 217-year history of defending our homeland. We look forward to the development of defensive weapons to protect our citizens at home and our soldiers, allies and friends overseas from ballistic missile attacks.

Our current budget request reflects the continuation of planned activities, and it is critical we continue.

Mr. Chairman, these are just a few of the research, development, and acquisition challenges facing the Army. I want to assure you that we will use sound acquisition principles in the execution of these programs. I hope the Army's ground based systems will have the funding required so that the defense needs of our country can be met.

I appreciate this opportunity to appear before the committee and shall be happy to answer any questions you may have.