Robert V. Davis,
Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Space

Department of Defense Space Activities
20 March 1996 - Senate Armed Services Committee
Subcommittee on Strategic Forces

I am pleased to appear before you to discuss the Department of Defense space activities together with General Ashy, Mr. Hall, and Major General Dickman. I would like to take the opportunity to thank this Committee for its leadership in urging and, when necessary, directing the Department of Defense to improve acquisition management of space programs and to enhance our space capabilities and their responsiveness to the warfighters. The foresight of the Committee in the area of improving space management and organization was especially clear in the Fiscal Year (FY) 1996 Authorization Bill language. We in the department are following your lead and putting in place the structure to address those issues and concerns.

The United States conducts a variety of activities to provide space support for national security objectives. DoD space forces support a wide range of requirements critical to the National Command Authority, and warfighters. The global coverage, high readiness, non-intrusive presence, and responsiveness of space capabilities provides real-time, and near real-time support for the full range of military operations in peace, Operations Other Than War (00TW), and war. Having been in my current position for approximately seven months, I have had the opportunity to view the current state of space activities within the Department of Defense from a fresh perspective. One way of characterizing these activities is to find the answers to several compelling questions. These questions are:

• Do DoD space activities provide adequate support to the warfighters?
• Are we organized to provide that support in the most cost effective manner?
• Is there unwarranted duplication among the services and defense agencies within DoD and with those of the Intelligence Community?
• Where should we be going in the future?

To address these questions, the Department has made a number of changes which have the common goal of improving our internal decision- making process and increasing the quality of support to the warfighters. Some of these steps have been completed, some are in progress, and others are in planning. The bottom line is that the Department's space activities are being addressed in a totally different manner--with greater efficiency--than they were when this Committee met last year.

Before I discuss each of these steps, it would be helpful if I would state my priorities as the Department's focal points for improving space activities.

First, and foremost, is to better organize and manage the DoD space program.

Next is to lay out a long-term strategy of where we should be going. It is interesting that the Department spends on the order of 13 to 14 billion dollars a year in space but does not have a long-term strategy for space. We are working to change that.Last, is to change the way we think about space and to change the old paradigms. A good example of this is to get away from the "stovepipe" thinking of separate space communication programs like DSCS, UHF, and MILSTAR, and to move to a more "architectural" approach for military satellite communications.

ORGANIZATION

We have worked hard to address the concerns of Congress and the independent Commission on the Roles and Missions of the Armed Forces (CORM) about National Security space activities. These concerns have involved the basic processes governing defense and intelligence space programs and spanned policy, resources, requirements, acquisition, operations and support to the warfighter. These concerns did not go unheeded by the Secretary of Defense and other senior DoD managers. Proof of that is my presence here today.

To address the management of National Security space activities we have taken a two step approach. The first step is to improve the integration and coordination of all DoD space activities. The second step involves improving the coordination and integration of defense and intelligence space activities.

We have fulfilled the first step by consolidating all space responsibilities and functions within the Office of the Secretary of Defense in a Single new organization under a Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Space (DUSD(Space)). Serving in that capacity, I report directly to the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Technology, Dr. Paul Kaminski. My responsibilities include:

• serving as the principal OSD staff assistant and advisor for space matters with responsibility for DoD space and intelligence functions in terms of policy, strategy, planning, international negotiations, Congressional and governmental liaison, and integration of space capabilities into the DoD force structure.
• overseeing acquisition management and architecture planning for such programs as space launch, reconnaissance and surveillance, tactical warning and attack assessment, communications, navigation, environmental monitoring, space control, and space related R&D.

Clearly, one person cannot do all of this alone. Three Assistant Deputy Under Secretaries - Space Systems Acquisition, Space Policy, and Space Systems and Architectures - report directly to me. My office has a permanent staff of 26 people who are kept extremely busy with all the issues under our span of control. But they are also the brightest and the best so we are making a great deal of progress.

In those areas where there is a need for coordination, I share responsibilities with the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Command, Control, Communications, and Intelligence (ASD(C3I)), and the Director, Defense Research and Engineering. For example I have responsibility for oversight of the military satellite communications architecture but the ASD(C3I)has the overall responsibility for the Department-wide C3 architecture. With respect to space technology, I am responsible for assessing future space requirements and recommending changes to space specific technology goals to the DDR&E, who retains overall responsibility for S&T programs within DoD.

With regard to better coordination of DoD and intelligence related space, there are two evidences of this improved relationship. One is that Associate Director for Intelligence Community Affairs and I co- chair an integrated product team tasked by the Deputy.Secretary of Defense and the Director, Central Intelligence, to conduct a comprehensive review of NRO programs and activities. I anticipate this activity will result in further improving the management and coordination of Defense and Intelligence space activities.

The second step is the creation of the Joint Space Management Board or JSMB. In December of last year, the Secretary and the Director of Central Intelligence signed a charter establishing the JSMB. The JSMB was formed to:

• ensure that defense and intelligence needs for space systems (including associated ground-based systems) are satisfied within available resources, using integrated architectures to the maximum extent possible,
• provide executive management for defense and intelligence space programs and oversight of the single National Security Space Architect, when that is created, and,integrate policy, requirements, architectures, acquisition, and funding for defense and intelligence space programs.

The Joint Space Management Board is co-chaired by the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Technology and the Deputy Director for Central Intelligence. The Executive Committee of the JSMB, vested with the full authority to act for the Secretary of Defense and the Director of Central Intelligence, within the bounds of the charter, includes in addition to the Co-chairs, the Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Executive Director, Intelligence Community Affairs. I serve as the DoD Executive Secretary of the JSMB.

The third step taken in improving the organization and management of DoD space activities was the creation of the DoD Space Architect. The Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Technology formed the office of the DoD Space Architect in September 1995 and named Major General Bob Dickman, United States Air Force, as its first director. This position is a two-year minimum tour filled through a nomination process, at the O-8 or civilian equivalent. His responsibilities include:

• developing space architectures across the range of DoD space mission areas to include space support, force enhancement, space control, and force application, and
• integrating validated requirements into existing and planned space systems architectures All of this will be developed with the full involvement of the Intelligence Community.

One obvious question is what is the working relationship between the DoD Space Architect and other organizations. In his capacity as the DoD Space Architect, he provides support to my office, the ASD(C3I) and other organizations, including the Ballistic Missile Defense

Organization, Defense Information Systems Agency, National Reconnaissance Office, etc., in the development of architectures and master plans for which those space architectures under his responsibility will comprise a critical component.

His relationship to my office is very clear. I provide overall guidance and priorities for the areas we need to focus on. At this time, under my oversight responsibility, he has initiated architecture efforts in two areas: advanced military satellite communications and space control, and will soon start a third dealing with telemetry, tracking, and control.

My office enjoys an excellent relationship with US Space Command. Everything we do in the Pentagon on space is focused on improving space support to the front line commander and to enhancing our military forces worldwide. USCINCSPACE is a member of the JSMB and, along with the Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, will bring the warfighter's perspective to the process. The direct participation and coordination between USCINCSPACE and the DUSD(Space) organization, including the Space Architect and the participating agencies in the JSMB, allow USCINCSPACE to influence and contribute to the decision process affecting defense and intelligence space policy, acquisition, architecture, funding and related issues. This is the right organizational approach and we are already reaping the benefits of the warfighter's perspective as we build to the future. I am very pleased with the support and participation of USSPACECOM in the development of the DUSD(Space) organization. We are working closely together to insure the front line forces understand, can use, and have available the space forces that they need to execute their mission.

At this time I would like to cite an example where I believe the process is improved and results in better support to the warfighters. The example I will use is the Space-Based Infrared System or SBIRS. SBIRS evolved from a coordinated and fully integrated process involving all the user and acquiring communities. Through a task force led by Keith Hall, a successful approach was adopted that provided an integrated acquisition strategy to meet the warfighter's and intelligence community's needs. The Operational Requirements Document (ORD) went through a Joint Requirements Oversight Council review and approval where the key performance parameters were validated. It was recognized that two requirements were significant cost drivers: survivability and direct downlink. Before validation of each of those, it was determined that a trade-off analysis needed to be done to determine the most cost-effective solutions to each of those requirements. The process to address those trades was vetted through the acquisition channel and resulted in the creation of integrated product teams, made of those organizations who had a stake in the ultimate outcome. The results of that process were presented to a "Warfighter's Forum," chaired by Vice-Admiral Frost, the Deputy Commander, U.S. Space Command and comprised of three-star level representatives from the Unified Commands, the Services, the Intelligence Community, and my organization. The bottom line is that there was complete consensus on the approach to take on what survivability and direct-downlink capability is required and is affordable. The success of this example is not only that all parties were involved in the process from the beginning, but that the time frame to reach closure was measured in months and not years. truly are seeing a change in the way we do business.

THE NATIONAL IMAGERY AND MAPPING AGENCY (NIMA)

A major concern of Congress and the Commission on the Roles and Missions of the Armed Services was the need to integrate Military and Intelligence space activities to more adequately support the warfighter. Another initiative we have taken in DoD towards solving this problem is the establishment of the National Imagery and Mapping Agency. Both the Defense and Intelligence communities staffed a task force over last summer to establish this Combat Support Agency which will report to the SecDef and the DCI. The NIMA charter is to consolidate the various imagery and mapping processing resources and to ensure exploitation and dissemination to users worldwide. The target date for stand-up of the new agency is October 1, 1996.

INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION

International cooperation has hit space in a big way. The national security, civil and commercial space sectors are all involved in space cooperation with other countries. The interdependence resulting from the globalization of the world economy has created exciting new opportunities for defense cooperative international development activities in space. The Department of Defense is committed to being a leader in this new era of international defense space cooperation. these efforts are focused upon providing:

• Clear and tangible benefits for the U.S.
• Expanded levels of cooperation which could be leveraged with the objective of enhancing the support provided to deployed U.S. and allied forces
• An increased focus on international cooperation agreements of both a bilateral and multi-lateral nature, which could result in long-term growth opportunities to the U.S. space industry
• Arrangements which may cross sector boundaries (civil, commercial, national security) if mutual benefits are possible
• Protection from the inadvertent transfer of a technology or manufacturing process which would negatively effect the U.S. leadership position in a technology or industrial base arena Creation of protection mechanisms for the avoidance of transfer of any technology or process which could lead to proliferation of weapons systems by powers hostile to the national security interests of the United States.

I mentioned earlier that one of my goals is to be future oriented and develop a Masterplan on International Space Cooperation. In support of the accomplishment of that task I have already met with my counterparts in France, the United Kingdom, and Australia. We also have had preliminary discussions with officials from Germany, Canada and Italy.

Bilateral discussions with the French have intensified. We are attempting to find areas of mutual cooperation that will be of benefit to both parties and avoid non-reciprocal transfers of technology. While the pace has been deliberate, the discussions are now moving towards potential cooperation in the area of Satellite Communications with a focus on Extremely High Frequency (EHF)compatibility.

By pursuing this area of military cooperation with the French, we are laying the groundwork for a relationship which will foster a climate of future support in activities such as allied peacekeeping efforts by assuring that satellite communications support will be available to the forces of both countries. This initial effort has expanded into a Quadri-lateral cooperative effort also involving the United Kingdom and Germany.

Over the past several years, Space Launch Trade Agreements have been established with China and Russia and last year with Ukraine. These agreements have provided the U.S. commercial satellite industry with greater access to space. The Russian agreement was recently renegotiated in an effort to bring all three agreements to parity with the goal of promoting joint development and increased trade through international collaboration.

The President's Space Transportation Policy identified "free and fair trade" in space transportation services as the long-term goal of the United States. In pursuit of this goal, the President's policy directed that we seek agreements with other nations to define "free and fair trade"; limit unfair practices in the market place; and establish criteria for the participation in this market by countries in transition from non-market to market economies. The current agreements with China, Russia and Ukraine have been crafted ensuring the entrance of these nonmarket economies into the global marketplace would not disrupt the market by creating an unfair advantage over existing market providers. Our trade agreements with these non-market countries have included specific quota and price restrictions as protections against distortions in the market place.

As part of these agreements, Technology Safeguards Agreements have been or will shortly be put in place to assure that neither our satellite technology nor the foreign counterpart's launch vehicle technology is compromised. These agreements assist in everything from streamlining customs requirements to making sure that required information flows expeditiously between parties. In addition, they provide for U.S. Government oversight, currently provided by the DoD, throughout technical interchanges and launches of satellites. This interaction allows for real-time information exchange regarding the release of the necessary data to accomplish the launch.

Finally, in the area of international cooperation, we are ensuring National Security space policy is recognized at the United Nations via the Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space (COPU0S}, and we are also engaged in other international fora such as the Inter-Agency Space Debris Coordination Committee (IADC).

The Secretary of Defense and the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Technology see a tremendous opportunity for developing international space cooperation efforts which would improve support to our deployed forces and provide increased market entry for opportunities for the U.S. commercial space industry.

SPACE PROGRAMS

I would now like to address some of the programmatic aspects of the DoD space program. I will focus on what I believe are the "Top Seven". Those being: Space-Based Infra-Red (includes the Space and Missile Tracking System), Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle, Titan IV, Global Positioning System, Global Broadcast System, MILSTAR, and the National Polar-orbiting Observational Environmental Satellite System.

Space- Based Infrared System (SBIRS)

Description.

SBIRS is an integrated system of global missile warning satellites which will begin replacing the Defense Support Program (DSP) constellation in 2002. It will provide greatly improved support to missile defense, whether theater or national, and will significantly enhance our technical intelligence capabilities. This critical program will serve multiple users, ranging from theater CINCs to the national intelligence agencies. The SBIRS program consists of three major phases. Phase 1, to begin in 1999, will consolidate the ground support systems of DSP in preparation for deploying SBIRS satellites. This consolidation will smooth the transition from the aging DSP system to modern SBIRS technology. Phase 2 will begin in 2002 with the launch of the first of four SBIRS geosynchronous orbit and two highly elliptical orbit satellites. Phase 3 will deploy the low-altitude Space and Missile Tracking System (SMTS) and a major block change in the high-altitude satellites to achieve an optimum "high/low" balance. Phase 3 begins in 2006, though we continue to explore options for early deployment of SMTS in support of a National Missile Defense system.

Program Status:

Currently in the pre- engineering and manufacturing development (EMD) phase, with two contractor teams led by Lockheed Martin and Hughes/TRW competing to analyze user requirements, conduct design studies, and develop low- risk system concepts.

FY 1996 Program.

In FY 1996, the SBIRS-High program, for Phase 1 and 2, will pass several key milestones. Following the Joint Requirements Oversight Council requirements review on 30 April, the program will enter source-selection and conduct its next major acquisition review in late August for approval to enter EMD.

FY 1997 Plan.

In FY 1997, the program will begin EMD. The Preliminary Design Review will be conducted and the long-lead elements of the Phase 1 DSP ground system consolidation will be purchased.

Issues

Progress has been made in achieving a greater level of Air Force/National Reconnaissance Office integration, essential to the success of this complex joint program. A SBIRS direct theater downlink requirement has been included for theater support, system survivability, and assured data delivery. A proposal to consolidate the Army Joint Tactical Ground Station with SBIRS in a Joint System Program Office will ensure that both strategic and tactical users have available a common, mobile receive system for missile warning data.

Space and Missile Tracking System (SMTS)

Description

SMTS is the low earth orbit component of the SBIRS architecture. Its unique capability to track missiles throughout their trajectory - not just during the "hot" boost phase - allows the system to effectively cue missile defense systems with accurate targeting data. It is particularly useful to National Missile Defense and against the longest range theater missile threats. SMTS also has the potential to address other SBIRS requirements, such as Technical Intelligence and Battlespace Characterization. A SMTS constellation optimized for national missile defense would consist of 21 satellites in three orbit planes. One optimized for all four SBIRS missions would contain at least 28 satellites in four orbit planes. In the baseline SMTS program we plan a deployment decision in 2000, with a first launch in 2006. There are earlier deployment options to support NMD, though these entail considerable cost and technical risk.

Program Status

The program is currently developing two Flight Demonstration System (FDS) satellites, which will be launched in FY 1999 for two years of on-orbit tests and data collection. TRW and Hughes are teamed for executing the FDS program.

FY 1996 Program

A Preliminary Design Review was successfully conducted and significantly enhanced the program by adding a Longwave IR Sensor system to the flight vehicles. Additionally, DUSD (Space), the Air Force, and BMDO developed an accelerated program option to support early NMD deployment.

FY 1997 Plan

The program will reach Critical Design Review as we firm up the flight configuration for FDS. In addition, we may add a Rockwell Low Cost Experiment (LCE) to the program for enhanced competition and risk reduction. Though offering many attractive features, the LCE may have considerable risks itself, which we will carefully weigh. One option is to fund the LCE program to Preliminary Design Review only, which will provide better insight into the technical risks before proceeding.

Issues

Acceleration of the SMTS deployment in response to Congressional interest to support an early National Missile Defense capability, would force the FDS to be down-scoped to emphasize NMD only, not a system fully capable of performing all the IR missions. Early deployment is considered a "Medium-to High" risk option.

In addition, deploying a "Block 1" SMTS in 2002 with limited orbital life will require prompt replacement in 2006 by more capable "Block 2" satellites, thus leading to costly back-to-back deployments. The program can be accelerated if directed, but a well-balanced, less- risky SMTS deployment in 2006, as envisioned in the current baseline program, would be more prudent.

Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle (EELV) System

Description

The EELV program is a "System of Systems" approach toward reducing the life cycle costs associated with space launch. In response to the President's Policy on Space Transportation, signed August 5, 1994, DoD initiated the EELV Program with the objective of reducing launch costs by at least 25% over current systems, with a goal of up to 50%. The EELV system includes a family of launch vehicles, an upper stage (if required), launch facilities (pad, processing, etc.), and range facilities. The program has three phases:

1. Low Cost Concept Validation,
2. Pre-Engineering Manufacturing & Development (EMD) and
3. EMD. Phase 3 will conclude with an initial operational capability at both coasts for the EELV family of launch vehicles.

The EELV Initial Operational Capability (IOC) for medium launch systems is 2001. Heavy launch IOC is 2005.

Program Status

Phase 1 contracts were awarded in August 1995 to four competing contractors: Alliant TechSystems, Boeing, Lockheed Martin, and McDonnell Douglas.

FY 1996 Program

During FY 1996 the contractors will mature the vehicle design and life cycle cost estimates. They also will perform risk reduction activities specific to their vehicle concepts in preparation for submission of proposals for Phase 2, scheduled for September 1996. Vehicle contractors must complete a Tailored Preliminary Design Review and submit a program life cycle cost estimate at the 70% confidence level prior to Phase 2 proposal submission.

FY 1997 Plan.

Phase 2 will begin in December 1996 with a downselect from four to no more than two competing contractors who will conduct pre-EMD for a 17-month period. Work will emphasize maturing system designs to support delivery of Critical Design Review packages and updated life cycle cost estimates (90% confidence level) for the June 1998 downselect to a single contractor.

Issues

During Phase 1, the contractors identified a mismatch between their required funding profiles and DoD's proposed budget. DoD addressed this issue by moving funding forward from the out years into the FYDP and reducing the low risk payload flights for the medium lift vehicle from two to one. Both DoD and the contractors support these changes as significant risk reduction measures regarding the program's overall cost.

Titan IV System

Description

The Titan IV space launch system provides heavy lift capability for the highest priority, national security payloads. To date, 14 Titan IVs have been successfully launched.A block change to improve reliability, replace obsolete components, increase flexibility, and comply with range safety requirements is underway, designated Titan- IVB.

Program Status

The current program consists of a 41-vehicle contract, which includes 15 vehicles in the Titan-IVB configuration. Congress approved, in the FY 1996 Defense Appropriations Act, procurement of up to six additional Titan IV vehicles (total of 47) to support DoD requirements. DoD has evaluated the heavy lift needs and identified a maximum requirement for five additional vehicles. The current plan is to procure three vehicles, with an option for two additional vehicles for assured access to space, if required, during transition to the EELV system. This option must be exercised by FY 1999, which follows the EMD downselect to one contractor for the EELV program.

FY 1996 Program

In FY 1996, the Titan IV Program has successfully launched two vehicles and is scheduled to launch three more before year's end. A procurement strategy for five of the six Congressionally approved additional vehicles is being developed for DoD approval in April 1996. A Request for Proposal will then be released for the additional vehicles.

FY 1997 Plan

Contract award for the additional vehicles is planned for the first quarter of FY 1997. Four Titan IV vehicles are scheduled to be launched including the first Titan-IVB.

Issues

DoD is continuing to evaluate the heavy lift requirements for the additional five vehicles in order to minimize the costs associated with continuing the Titan IV program and to ensure the most efficient transition to the EELV family of vehicles.

Navstar Global Positioning System (GPS)

Description

Navstar GPS is a space-based positioning and navigation system designed to provide worldwide, all weather, passive, three-dimensional (3-D), position, velocity and timing data to U.S. and allied military users. GPS provides a 3-D military accuracy specified at 16 meters (currently delivering military accuracy of approximately 10 meters) and a variable civilian accuracy set to 100 meters in peacetime. GPS supports virtually every mission area for all military services and is proving to be of tremendous benefit to civilian users in virtually all areas of public and private transportation and commerce. The basic GPS, as implemented by the DoD, consists of three segments: space, control, and user equipment.

Program Status

The operational constellation of 24 Block II satellites, procured from Rockwell, International, was fully deployed in March 1994. Four Block II satellites remain available for launch as replacements for any operational satellites that fail prior to launch of the first Lockheed-Martin Block IIR replenishment satellite in September 1996. Procurement of a family of user equipment to incorporate GPS into a host of military platforms and missions is well underway. Major suppliers of user equipment are Rockwell-Collins, Trimble Navigation, E-Systems, and Interstate Electronics.

FY 1996 Program

Procurement of Block IIR is continuing while the satellite control segment is being upgraded in preparation for launch of the first replenishment satellite. Twenty-one Block IIR spacecraft will sustain GPS coverage through 2001. A Request for Proposals has been issued for competitive procurement of Block IIF satellites to provide continuation of service beyond 2001. Contract award for development and procurement of Block IIF is expected in April 1996. The Block IIF contract will permit procurement of up to 33 satellites under a combination of multiyear contracts. A plan for future system improvements will be presented to the Congress by May 1, 1996, in accordance with the FY 1996 Defense Authorization Bill.

FY 1997 Plan

Manufacture and launch of Block IIR satellites and procurement of Block IIF satellites will continue, as will installation of GPS user equipment, to meet a completion date of the year 2000 directed in the FY 1994 Defense Authorization Bill.

Issues

The dual military/civil utility of GPS is advantageous for U.S. taxpayers, but is also a source of tension because of its potential for non-peaceful use around the globe. At its most precise level of accuracy, GPS is useful for both targeting and delivery of weapons.

The DoD has attempted to deter non-peaceful use of GPS by employing a security feature called Selective Availability which results in the nominal 100 meter direct civil accuracy. This feature has been a controversial issue with many civilian users of the system, but we continue to support its use as a mitigation against indiscriminate proliferation of a much more precise signal (10 meters or better) should Selective Availability be removed. DoD has also participated in an interagency process during the past year which will result in a national policy statement on GPS to be issued by the President in late March. The statement will provide the basis for U.S. support to GPS and for its availability to support national security and national, as well as international, scientific and commercial endeavors.

Global Broadcast Service (GBS)

Description

GBS is a program to procure a high speed, high capacity, super high frequency (SHF) digital information transmission system based on the commercial technologies developed for the current generation of satellite direct broadcast television services. It will provide worldwide, high data rate connectivity with unprecedented dissemination capabilities to a distributed set of users through small aperture receive antennae and highly mobile terminals. GBS will allow simultaneous transmission of various data such as imagery, logistics, weather, maps, operational orders, and telephone and television service to multiple receive locations within a given spot beam footprint. At lower data rates, information can be transmitted to larger, broad area coverage beams. The GBS system is comprised of four elements: an information management segment, a broadcast management center, a space segment, and user receive terminals. The program contains three phases: 1) lease of existing commercial satellite transponders over the U.S. during 1996-1998 for concept of operations (CONOPS) development, 2) fielding of an interim system by adding GBS payloads to the Navy's UHF Follow-On (UFO) satellites 8, 9 and 10, and building a prototype ground broadcast management system, and 3 fielding of an objective, worldwide GBS capability to be determined by the DoD Space Architect to meet the full set of broadcast requirements.

Program Status

Phase 1 leased service activities are underway. The contract to add GBS payloads to UFO satellites 8, 9, and 10 was recently signed allowing the engineering and production efforts for the space segment of the interim system to begin in time to support a UFO 8 launch in 1998.FY 1996 Program. Phase 1 leased capability will be used to refine the GBS CONOPS in support of the prototype ground broadcast management system definition. UFO GBS payload engineering, parts procurement, and production efforts are being conducted for deployment of the Phase 2, interim capability. The remainder of the FY 1996 funding will be used to support CONOPS development activities, begin development of the high speed data encryption hardware, initiate engineering trade studies for broadcast management, and the Phase 3 space segment.

FY 1997 Plan

The FY 1997 program includes final integration and testing of the UFO 8 GBS payload, and production, integration, and testing of the UFO 9 and 10 payloads. The R&D activities begun in FY 1996 will continue. The ground broadcast management segment acquisition will be initiated.

Issues

The current program requires an Above Threshol Reprogramming approval from Congress to complete the FY 1997 program. If not approved, the current $30 million investment is The UFO contractor, Hughes, requires funds by April 1996 to continue the effort. Additionally, the DoD SpaceArchitect must achieve sufficient third-phase program definition to support timely and effective FY 1998-2002 budget development.

MILSTAR

Program Description

The MILSTAR Satellite Communications System is a joint service program to procure the MILSTAR Extremely High Frequency (EHF) satellite, its mission control segment, and new or modified communications terminals for assured communications to crucial tactical and strategic users. MILSTAR will provide a survivable, jam-resistant, world-wide, secure communications system to meet minimum essential wartime communications needs for command and control of tactical and strategic forces. In response to Congress, DoD extensively restructured the MILSTAR program over the past four years to reduce costs and account for changes in the international and national security environments. Requirements for a classified payload and Cold War survivability features were eliminated. The number of satellites and ground control elements were reduced commensurate with the threat and force structure reductions leaving a current program comprised of two MILSTAR I and four follow- on, MILSTAR II satellites. MILSTAR II incorporates a Medium Data Rate (MDR) payload which will greatly increase communications capacity compared to the Low Data Rate capabilities of MILSTAR I.

Program Status

The first MILSTAR I satellite was launched in 1994 and successfully completed all initial testing. During a planned break in testing, it was used to support Operation Restore Democracy in Haiti and has since been put into full operational service. The second satellite was launched in Nov 1995, has completed much of its planned testing, and will become fully operational by the end of this month. On December 15, 1995, a critical milestone was achieved when the first satellite to-satellite message using the MILSTAR crosslinks was sent. The first MILSTAR II will be launched in 1999. Lockheed is the prime contractor for the MILSTAR satellite. TRW and Hughes are the principal subcontractors.

FY 1996 Program

During FY 1996, satellite #2 will complete on orbit testing. Production of the MDR payload for satellite #3 will be completed while satellite #4 MDR payload manufacturing will begin.

FY 1997 Plan

FY 1997 funds will be used to continue on-orbit operation of satellites #1 and #2, start satellite #3 integration and testing, complete the production of the satellite #4 MDR payload and bus, and start satellite #4 integration and test.

Issues

The Air Force reduction of FY 1997 funding for the Titan IV program will delay the launch of MILSTAR #6, currently scheduled for FY 2002, by 6 to 12 months.

National Polar-orbiting Operational Environmental Satellite System (NPOESS)

Description

NPOESS will provide space-based remotely sensed cloud imagery, temperature and moisture, and other meteorological, terrestrial, climatic, oceanographic, and solargeophysical data as well as sensor support for search and rescue. It combines the follow-on programs for DoD's Defense Meteorological Satellite Program (DMSP) and NOAA's Polar-orbiting Operational Environmental Satellite (POES) Program into a single, national environmental satellite system consisting of a three satellite constellation. Satellites for one of the orbit planes will be provided by the European Organization for the Exploitation of Meteorological Satellites (EUMETSAT). Satellites for the remaining two orbit planes will be provided by the U.S.

Program Status

NOAA, DoD, and NASA are implementing the President's May 1994 direction to merge the POES and DMSP follow on programs into the single, national NPOESS program and to capitalize on NASA's Earth Observing System technologies. The agencies have established an Integrated Program Office (IPO), staffed by members from all three agencies. In May 1995, the Secretaries of Defense and Commerce and the NASA Administrator signed a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) that defined agency and IPO roles and responsibilities and established a Triagency Executive Committee (EXCOM) for program oversight. The IPO is responsible to the EXCOM for program success. DOC is the lead agency for overall program execution and operation. DoD is lead agency for acquisition and NASA for technology transition.

FY 1996 Program

The Triagency EXCOM recently agreed to review the NPOESS program plan in light of the continued robust health of the on-orbit constellation and the current DMSP and POES satellite inventory. As a result, the Defense Acquisition Executive directed postponement of the April 1996 acquisition milestone decision, withdrawal of the draft solicitation, and development of a revised program focusing on early sensor development and risk reduction. The NPOESS System Program Director will present a detailed program plan to the EXCOM for approval in July 1996.

Issues

The NPOESS program was created to reduce the cost of acquiring and operating polar-orbiting environmental satellite systems, while continuing to satisfy established civil and military operational requirements. Part of the savings to the U.So result from using the EUMETSAT satellite, since the U.S. would provide only the NPOESS instruments, avoiding the spacecraft, launch, and operating costs. NOAA is leading negotiations with EUMETSAT for an agreement on EUMETSAT satellite operations during 2001-2010. This initial agreement does not cover EUMETSAT satellites that will carry NPOESS instruments, but it does encompass the time when one of the current DMSP satellites will no longer be operational, thus effectively making the EUMETSAT satellite in a similar orbit part of the three satellite NPOESS constellation. There are still issues to resolve, but this agreement should be ready for final approval this year.

DOC and DoD committed to jointly provide a total of approximately $1.4B in FY 1996-2001 for NPOESS. The resulting funding profile was front loaded with DOC funding because NOAA has an earlier need date for an NPOESS satellite. DoD funding will increase in later years to bring the total program fund sharing to 50/50 and eventually to 50/50 annually.

In summary, again I appreciate the opportunity to testify before the Committee. I am pleased with and proud of the positive changes that occurred over the last year within the space community. Though funding levels are somewhat restricted these days, I will continue to strive to obtain the maximum technical and programmatic accomplishment with those funds. Or more succinctly stated "to get the most bang for the buck". I also will work very closely with this Committee as we build on the progress we have already achieved. I look forward to the next occasion to testify before the Committee.