U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

i 

51–659 2010

[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 
(II) 

STRATEGIC FORCES SUBCOMMITTEE 

ELLEN O. TAUSCHER, California, Chairman 

JOHN SPRATT, South Carolina 

LORETTA SANCHEZ, California 

ROBERT ANDREWS, New Jersey 

JAMES R. LANGEVIN, Rhode Island 

RICK LARSEN, Washington 

MARTIN HEINRICH, New Mexico 

MICHAEL TURNER, Ohio 

HOWARD P. ‘‘BUCK’’ MCKEON, California 

MAC THORNBERRY, Texas 

TRENT FRANKS, Arizona 

DOUG LAMBORN, Colorado 

FRANK ROSE, Professional Staff Member 

KARI BINGEN, Professional Staff Member 

ZACH STEACY, Staff Assistant 
(III) 

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, Strategic Forces Subcommittee .................................................................................. 1 

Turner, Hon. Michael, a Representative from Ohio, Ranking Member, Strategic Forces Subcommittee .................................................................................. 3 

WITNESSES 

Coyle, Hon. Dr. Philip E., III, Former Director, Operational Test and Evaluation, U.S. Department of Defense ....................................................................... 28 

Francis, Paul L., Director, Acquisition and Sourcing Management, U.S. Government 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 Evaluation 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 
Page

IV 

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 
(1) 

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 (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ELLEN O. TAUSCHER, A REPRESENTATIVE 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 future 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 because we all want an operationally effective, suitable, and survivable 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, suitable, 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 defending 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 
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), continue 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 Midcourse Defense (GMD) system. For the third year in a row, the Office 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 realistic conditions is necessary to validate models and simulations 

and to increase confidence in the ability of these models and simulations 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 cannot 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 hearing. Panel one includes Dr. Charles McQueary, the Pentagon’s Director of Operational Test and Evaluation; Lieutenant General Patrick 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 Operational Test and Evaluation; Mr. Paul Francis, Director of Acquisition and Sourcing Management at the Government Accountability 

Office (GAO); and Dr. Donald Mitchell, chief engineer for the ballistic 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 actions 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 share 

with us any initial results that you have at this point. I look forward to an interesting and thoughtful discussion. 
3 

On that note, let me turn the floor over to our distinguished 

Ranking Member, Mr. Turner of Ohio, who is here at his first hearing as the new ranking member of the subcommittee. 

Mr. Turner, we are interested in any opening comments you 

might have. And the floor is yours. 

STATEMENT OF HON. MICHAEL TURNER, A REPRESENTATIVE 

FROM OHIO, RANKING MEMBER, STRATEGIC FORCES SUBCOMMITTEE 

Mr. TURNER. Thank you, Madam Chair. And I am very honored 

to be serving with you as the ranking member of this important 

subcommittee. 

We are going to be dealing with very complex and challenging 

national security issues, and I look forward to working with you on 

these. We have had a very good bipartisan relationship, as you and 

I have served on this committee and also traveled abroad to discuss 

the important issues of missile defense, and bipartisan support is 

so important. 

What is unfortunate about the topic that we are going to discuss 

today is, while many of us will dive into the issue of technical satisfaction, of requirements, and the importance of how we verify what 

our systems are capable of, there are those who are outright opposed to these systems and will use the concept of testing to undermine the concept of the United States having an active missile defense system. 

It is so important that we get it right, so that we have the ability 

to have credible answers, and that we have a system in place 

where we can defend against those that would use the lack of testing to try to undermine our systems. 

And with that, I want to discuss a little bit about where I understand that we are. As we begin our discussion on missile defense 

testing, we should start by establishing a baseline of where we are 

today. The missile defense capability our Nation has fielded today 

consists of 26 ground-based interceptors (GBIs) in Alaska and California, 18 Aegis missile defense ships, 13 Patriot battalions, 5 

radar tracking system and command and control systems. 

As I have learned from intelligence analysts at the National Air 

and Space Intelligence Center (NASIC), which is in my home district, the threat doesn’t wait for us to perfect our defenses. If, for 

example, North Korea were to launch a long-range Taepodong missile today, we could use this system to protect the American people, 

our forces abroad, and our allies. 

As Secretary Gates recently suggested, the Pentagon was prepared to use its missile defense capabilities to bring down a North 

Korean missile if necessary. Having this missile defense capability 

today as an option is the direct result of U.S. leadership and the 

hard work and dedication of a strong Government and industry 

team. 

For the chairman and I agree that our missile defense assets 

must be effective and credible. I was particularly interested in Mr. 

Mitchell’s written statement that our Nation’s ballistic missile defense capability cannot be disregarded today, and will provide an 

even more effective defense in the future. Therefore, continued testing to increase the effectiveness, credibility, and flexibility of an al-
4 

ready deployed system against evolving threats is a commitment 

we all make. 

A common misconception about missile defense is that the technology doesn’t work, and that the tests are not realistic. Even 

today, you can find news stories, and we will hear about some even 

in this hearing, where people attempt to misconstrue testing with 

the issue of whether or not the system doesn’t work. 

A good starting point for us here today is to better understand 

the progress made to date. What is the state of our missile defense 

capabilities? As I understand it, the Missile Defense Agency is reviewing their test plan. And there is good alignment between them 

and the test community in this process. I am interested in hearing 

more about what our test objectives are, how assessments are 

made, where gaps and shortfalls exist, and how the rebaseline testing program should address these. 

Flight tests tend to get the most attention. However, ground 

tests and modeling and simulation play equally important roles in 

the test program. How are we progressing in these areas? Are 

there limiting factors in testing? I am particularly concerned about 

targets being the pacing item for testing. And I am interested in 

an update on the targets program. 

Our missile defenses are designed to counter limited threats from 

North Korea and Iran. We need a better understanding of the 

threats we are likely to see from these countries, so we even know 

what level of countermeasures, salvo launches, and multiple engagement launches MDA should address in their test plans. 

Testing should not be used as an impediment. On the contrary, 

I worry about the impact that potential cuts may have on testing. 

As we all know from experience, testing is always the first to go 

when cuts are made to defense programs. I hope the chairman and 

I can work together to ensure that this does not happen. This is 

too important for the safety of the people of the United States. 

Lastly, let us look at the testing history. Since 2001, 37 of 47 

tests have resulted in hit-to-kill intercepts, a nearly 80 percent success record. However, as the threat continues to evolve and we 

evolve our missile defense capabilities, we will continue to need 

more tests. 

Madam Chair, I look forward to working with you and our witnesses to manage these challenging issues to the benefit of the protection of the American people. Thank you. 

Ms. TAUSCHER. Thank you, Mr. Turner. 

Now we will go off to our first panel. Dr. McQueary, thank you 

for your thoughtful statement. It is part of the record. If you can 

summarize for us, we would appreciate it. Dr. McQueary, the floor 

is yours. 

STATEMENT OF HON. DR. CHARLES E. MCQUEARY, DIRECTOR, 

OPERATIONAL TEST AND EVALUATION, U.S. DEPARTMENT 

OF DEFENSE 

Dr. MCQUEARY. Thank you very much. 

Madam Chairman, Congressman Turner, distinguished members 

of the committee, good afternoon. I am pleased to be here to have 

this opportunity to speak to you about the testing of the Ballistic 

Missile Defense System, or BMDS as we will refer to it. 
5 

As requested in Chairman Tauscher’s letter, I will address three 

areas: my assessment of the missile defense testing programs as 

described in my annual report submitted on January 28; my assessment of the Missile Defense Agency’s three-phase review of 

BMDS; and three, test evaluation actions I see as needed to ensure 

that BMDS and its elements will work in an effective, suitable, and 

survivable manner. 

But before I get into my prepared statement, I would like to address a news article from Bloomberg that came out yesterday, if I 

may. And I will do that very briefly. That article fundamentally 

misconstrued my position on ballistic missile testing. And I would 

like to set the record straight. 

Specifically, the article stated, ‘‘According to McQueary, the U.S. 

defense probably wouldn’t be effective, even without the distraction 

of decoys.’’ This is a complete distortion of anything I have said to 

date on this subject. In my annual report, I said Ground-based 

Midcourse Defense has demonstrated a limited capability to defend 

against a simple, long-range ballistic missile threats launched from 

North Korea toward the United States. And I stand by that wording, both this year and in the past year. 

So if I may, I will get back to my main statement. 

Ms. TAUSCHER. Yes, sir. 

Dr. MCQUEARY. First, my assessment of missile defense testing 

programs to date. Overall, the MDA experienced a good year with 

its ground and flight test programs, notwithstanding the continuing challenges with targets. Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense 

demonstrated the capability to detect, track, and engage simple 

short- and medium-range ballistic missile targets for a variety of 

mission scenarios. 

The Navy’s Operational Test Agency, as you observed, indicated 

that the program was effective and suitable. And that was good 

news. And I completely agree with you. I have already commented 

upon the BMD, so I won’t belabor that point. 

Terminal High Altitude Area Defense, or THAAD, demonstrated 

the capability to detect, track, and engage realistic short-range targets. The Command, Control, Battle Management, and Communication element, or the C2BMC, demonstrated the capability to 

provide situational awareness (SA) to warfighters worldwide and to 

control the Army Navy/Transportable Radar Surveillance (AN/ 

TPY–2) radar in its forward-based mode. 

The MDA continued to increase operational realism in its testing. 

The ground-test program is robust, although the MDA is still using 

unaccredited models and simulation. The targets, availability and 

performance limitations continue to impact both the pace and productivity of the MDA flight testing. Even with MDA’s target program improvements, there remains significant risk in this area. 

Second, my assessment of the MDA’s three-phase review of 

BMDS. The MDA, General O’Reilly, has embarked on a process to 

develop a revamped Integrated Master Test Plan, or IMTP, that 

will document planned testing through the Future Years Development Plan. A principal focus is to ensure that the future testing 

will provide sufficient validation data to anchor the models and 

simulations. 
6 

This effort directly addresses the concerns I raised last year in 

my testimony before you. The three-phased review offers a logical, 

well-engineered approach. And although I must caution it will be 

a challenging test, I do applaud General O’Reilly’s personal commitment to the initiative. 

Future test and evaluation (T&E) actions, the third item, a combination of flight and ground testing together with verified, validated, and accredited models and simulations are needed to characterize the capabilities of the BMDS and its elements. The approach 

being developed by MDA in the three-phased review, if fully 

resourced and executed as planned, could provide a solid foundation for an independent assessment of the operational effectiveness, 

operational suitability, and survivability of each capability block. 

I see the operational test community participating in all phases 

of testing to the degree that is appropriate for the stage of development. An integrated approach that leverages combined developmental and operational testing to the maximum extent feasible is 

essential. I anticipate that much of the data needed for the Operational Test Agency’s evaluation will be collected during the developmental phase, and from the use of models and simulations that 

are validated and accredited based upon developmental flight tests. 

As we all recognize, the complexity of the systems and the physical constraints on flight testing will necessitate examination of 

much of the system’s capability in ground tests that leverage modeling and simulation. 

As I discussed in my written testimony, once the MDA has completed its developmental test objectives for a given block of capability—and this is a key point, I believe—I would foresee a dedicated operational test, led by the Operational Test Agency, that 

would be confirmatory in nature and would exercise the plan capability in an end-to-end fashion against a realistic portrayal of the 

threat. A concurrent assessment of training and supportability will 

ensure delivery of an operationally suitable block capability. 

And in conclusion, the MDA has experienced a good year, as I 

said. The renewed commitment to a rigorously engineered, disciplined and event-driven approach to flight and ground testing is 

welcome. I look forward to the development of an integrated test 

campaign that will ensure the delivery of operationally effective, 

suitable, and survivable capabilities to our warfighter. This concludes my remarks. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. McQueary can be found in the 

Appendix on page 49.] 

Ms. TAUSCHER. Thank you, Dr. McQueary. 

General O’Reilly, it is an honor to have you before the committee. 

Welcome. 

General O’REILLY. Thank you, ma’am. 

Ms. TAUSCHER. It is your maiden voyage in front of the committee. And let me tell you that in the few months that I have got 

to know you as the new director of MDA, I am very, very impressed 

by your willingness to work with the committee and to be responsive. And I hope we have been equally responsive back to you. 

We are anxious to hear your summarization of your testimony. 

I have read your testimony. I think it is excellent. And the floor 

is yours. 
7 

STATEMENT OF LT. GEN. PATRICK J. O’REILLY, USA, DIRECTOR, MISSILE DEFENSE AGENCY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

General O’REILLY. Thank you, ma’am. 

Good afternoon, Madam Chairman, Mr. Turner, distinguished 

members of the committee. It is an honor and greatly appreciated 

opportunity to testify before you today on the Department of Defense’s (DOD’s) Ballistic Missile Defense System, or BMDS, testing 

program. 

The Missile Defense Agency, or MDA, recently initiated a systematic review of BMDS testing in partnership with the Army, 

Navy, and Air Force Operational Test Agencies, with the support 

of the Director for Operational Test and Evaluation, Dr. McQueary. 

Our goal is to set test objectives that measure the performance 

of critical functions necessary for robust missile defense operations 

and create an event-oriented plan that extends out as many years 

as necessary to collect sufficient data to determine the operational 

effectiveness, suitability, survivability, and supportability of the 

system. 

First, I would like to describe the challenges in our approach to 

testing the BMDS. Given the unique characteristics of short-, medium-, intermediate- and long-range ballistic missiles that threaten 

our deployed forces, our friends, our allies and our Nation, no one 

missile defense interceptor or sensor system can effectively counter 

all ballistic missile threats. 

Warfighters are not only faced with the challenge of intercepting 

small objects at great distances and very high velocities, but they 

have to simultaneously counter large raid sizes involving combinations of threat missile types, and in the future countermeasures associated with ballistic missile attacks. 

Since it is difficult to develop countermeasures that degrade fundamentally different missile interceptor systems operating in different phases of a threat ballistic missile’s flight, the most effective 

missile defense architecture to handle the large missile raid sizes 

is a layering of endo-atmospheric and exo-atmospheric missile 

interceptors with a network of sensors connected and managed by 

a robust command and control and communications system. 

Consequently, a comprehensive test program must not only 

measure the operational effectiveness of individual sensors and 

interceptors, but also must measure the performance of an integrated Ballistic Missile Defense System. 

Evaluating the BMDS is likely one of the most challenging endeavors ever attempted by the Department of Defense. Ideally, 

comprehensive and rigorous testing is enabled by a stable configuration of the system being tested, a clearly defined threat, a consistent and mature operational doctrine, sufficient resources to repeat tests under the most stressing conditions, and a well-defined 

set of criteria of acceptable performance. Unfortunately, none of 

these situations apply to the Ballistic Missile Defense System. 

The hardware and software configurations of the BMDS change 

as the system continues to be developed. There are many significant uncertainties surrounding the nature and specifics of missile 

defense threats. And the creation of operational doctrine for simultaneous theater, regional, and homeland defense continues. More-
8 

over, the cost of each missile defense flight test ranges between $40 

million and $200 million, making the repetition of flight tests costprohibitive. 

In light of these challenges, our strategy is to develop models and 

simulations of the BMDS and compare their predictions to comprehensive flight and ground test results to validate the accuracy 

of those models and simulations. However, due to the complex phenomena associated with missile launches and associated environments, some performance measures cannot be predicted and must 

be measured in flight. 

I will now summarize the status of this ballistic missile defense 

testing to date. Although we have had three intercepts and three 

attempts in the currently deployed hardware, configuration of the 

Ground-based Midcourse Defense flight testing, to date, has been 

limited to the performance of the most basic Block 1 capability 

against intermediate-range ballistic-class threats. 

On 5 December, 2008, we were able to demonstrate a significant 

milestone by integrating space-, land- and sea-based sensors to 

form a common track and intercept a 4,000-kilometer threat-class 

missile. However, we were not able to demonstrate capability 

against simple countermeasures due to the failure of a component 

of the target. Significantly more GMD testing is needed when considering the tremendous potential capability of this system designed to destroy intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs). 

In fiscal year 2008, THAAD intercepted target missiles, in space 

and inside the Earth’s atmosphere, in demonstrated queuing to the 

Aegis system. THAAD testing to date has been highly successful, 

with five intercepts in five attempts against short-range ballistic 

missiles, four of which were actually foreign-threat missiles. But 

more testing is needed against salvo and medium-range threats. 

The Aegis BMD element has successfully tested against seven 

short-range ballistic missiles, one an actual threat missile. In eight 

launches of the SM–3 Block IA missile, including a successful salvo 

test, simultaneously destroying two short-range ballistic missiles 

conducted November 2007. 

As we continue to pursue the root cause of the failure of an SM– 

3 Block IA missile last November, we are preparing to test again 

against an intermediate-range ballistic missile class this spring, 

once the root cause of the failure has been identified and corrected. 

The sensor’s element, which consists of our early-warning radars, 

four base radars, and SPX has demonstrated its capability in July 

2008, when they all worked together to create a common track. 

And that architecture also supported the intercept of the GMD interceptor last November. 

Finally, I would like to describe our current test process and 

emerging results. The BMDS test review is being conducted in 

three phases. Phase 1, we determine the body of data necessary to 

validate the BMDS models and simulation and the data needed to 

evaluate operational effectiveness, suitability, and survivability. In 

Phase 1, we identified 85 critical variables and parameters that 

must be tested to validate our simulations, and 31 additional variables that we cannot model adequately and can only be measured 

in flight and ground tests. 
9 

We are currently in Phase 2 of our test review, where we determine the test venues and scenarios to acquire the data associated 

with those 116 variables identified in Phase 1. An advantage to developing a campaign of test objectives rather than developing objectives one test at a time is that we don’t always have to test those 

objectives that have previously been tested. This will reduce the 

cost and increase the frequency of BMDS testing. 

In Phase 3, we will identify the resources and planning infrastructure, including targets and test ranges, to execute those scenarios identified in Phase 2. Our goal is to complete this work by 

the end of May. 

In conclusion, I greatly appreciate your support as we address 

issues associated with testing the Ballistic Missile Defense System. 

BMDS test results send a very credible message to the international community on our ability to defeat ballistic missiles in 

flight, thus reducing their value to potential adversaries using ballistic missiles as a strategy to threaten our Nation, our deployed 

forces, our friends, and our allies. 

Contribution to U.S. non-proliferation goals is one of the most 

important benefits of robust and comprehensive missile defense 

testing. With your permission, I would like to submit the remainder of my remarks in written testimony and look forward to answering your questions. 

Ms. TAUSCHER. Without objection, so ordered. 

[The prepared statement of General O’Reilly can be found in the 

Appendix on page 59.] 

Ms. TAUSCHER. Thank you very much, General O’Reilly. 

General Nadeau, this is also your first time before the subcommittee. We thank you very much; very comprehensive testimony that you submitted to us. The floor is yours, sir. 

STATEMENT OF MAJ. GEN. ROGER A. NADEAU, USA, COMMANDING GENERAL, TEST AND EVALUATION COMMAND, U.S. 

ARMY 

General NADEAU. Thank you, ma’am. 

Good afternoon, Chairwoman Tauscher, Ranking Member Turner, distinguished members of the subcommittee. Thank you for 

the opportunity to appear before you today. In my invitation to appear, you asked me to address three specific questions, which I 

have done in my written statement to the subcommittee. 

I would like to take this opportunity to describe the independent, 

multi-service, Operational Test Agency team that assesses Ballistic 

Missile Defense System performance, the Army Test and Evaluation Command’s role as the lead Operational Test Agency and how 

our team works with the Missile Defense Agency, the Office of the 

Director, Operational Test and Evaluation, and the warfighter community. 

The Ballistic Missile Defense Systems development cuts across 

multiple service lines. It is only natural that a multi-service operational test team was formed to assess performance at the comprehensive systems level. While individual service operational test 

and evaluation agencies focus on the equipment being developed in 

that particular service, the lead Operational Test Agency’s mission 

is to provide independent, collective operational assessments of the 
10 

total integrated Ballistic Missile Defense Systems performance capabilities and limitations. 

In our role as the lead Operational Test Agency for the Ballistic 

Missile Defense System, we establish an Operational Test Agency 

team that interfaces with the test planning and execution cell within the Missile Defense Agency on a daily basis. Members from the 

other service operational test agencies, as well as the Joint Interoperability Test Command (JITC) are also part of that team. 

To better facilitate a close working relationship between us and 

our Missile Defense Agency counterparts, we have positioned significant personnel resources in Huntsville, Alabama, and Colorado 

Springs, Colorado to enable daily contact and coordination with the 

Missile Defense Agency test planners, modeling and simulation developers, and the warfighter. This enables our participation in all 

facets of test planning and execution among the various agencies. 

We essentially sit and work side-by-side with our Missile Defense 

Agency counterparts every day. We have found this operating relationship to be extremely productive and the best use of our collective resources. The communication flow among agencies is greatly 

enhanced through the co-location of personnel, while the independent integrity of the Operational Test Agency is preserved 

through separate reporting chains. 

In addition to the daily operational contact we have with the Office of the Director, Operational Test and Evaluation, the 

warfighter represented by the United States Strategic Command 

(USSTRATCOM) and the service operators, and the Missile Defense Agency—the multi-service operational test team produces an 

annual operational assessment report, co-signed by the service 

Operational Test Agency commanders. This document is the Capstone Operational Test Agency document for that year. 

The Army Test and Evaluation Command, as the lead Operational Test Agency, approves the report for release to the Director, 

Operational Test and Evaluation. It is used as one of the source 

documents from which they prepare their annual report to Congress. 

Another activity worth mentioning is our participation in the 

Missile Defense Agency’s post-test reviews. At the invitation of the 

Missile Defense Agency, we are able to provide performance feedback from our perspective that assists in identifying performance 

issues early, allowing for corrective action, which saves time and 

money in the long run. 

Madam Chairwoman, I thank the subcommittee for the opportunity to testify today. I look forward to answering your questions. 

[The prepared statement of General Nadeau can be found in the 

Appendix on page 73.] 

Ms. TAUSCHER. Thank you, General Nadeau. 

Members, we have two votes, a 15 and a 5. The subcommittee 

will be in recess. The hearing will be in recess until the subcommittee returns in approximately 25 minutes. I ask members to 

come back as quickly as we can. We will go into questions of this 

panel, and then we have a second panel, as you know. We are in 

recess. 

[Recess.] 
11 

Ms. TAUSCHER. Members are making their way back over from 

votes. And we expect another series of votes in perhaps about an 

hour. So I am going to start with our questions of our first panel, 

so that we can have enough time to assess the second panel and 

be sure to ask questions there too. 

I had a question for General O’Reilly and Dr. McQueary. Several 

of our potential adversaries have demonstrated the capability to 

conduct coordinated missile attacks—and this is something we 

could face in a real-world situation. Several missile defense systems, such as Aegis BMD and Patriot Advanced Capability–3 

(PAC–3), have demonstrated the capability to conduct both salvo 

launches and multiple simultaneous engagements. 

In your opinions, is a salvo test, firing two or more interceptors 

at a single target, necessary to understand the operational performance of GMD and to provide confidence that the system works 

as we intended to operate it? Additionally, what are your thoughts 

on the need for the GMD system to conduct a multiple simultaneous engagement by firing multiple GMD interceptors at multiple 

targets? 

Dr. McQueary or General O’Reilly, whoever. 

Dr. MCQUEARY. Let me—— 

General O’REILLY. Well, ma’am if—— 

Ms. TAUSCHER. General O’Reilly. 

General O’REILLY [continuing]. I may, I support that the testing 

of all of our systems, including GMD, must include salvo launches, 

because that is our doctrine. And we have a lot of theoretical estimations on the impact of one intercept on another interceptor flying in that area. But the phenomenology is very complex. And 

there would be a tremendous amount of empirical data gathered if 

we did that. 

I also support a multiple simultaneous intercepts, including 

GMD. However, I will need some assistance because of the amount 

of telemetry at Vandenberg Air Force Base and the safety considerations. I don’t believe in their history they have launched two 

interceptors at once. I do know that they have not handled four 

missiles in flight at one time, which that would require. 

So ma’am, I do believe it would very beneficial to do that. It is 

important. But moving beyond the salvo, there will need to be some 

investment, or some commitment from national resources in order 

to accomplish that. 

Ms. TAUSCHER. Well, I appreciate that very much, General 

O’Reilly. Perhaps in a subsequent conversation, you can give us a 

sense for what that will entail. And—— 

General O’REILLY. Yes, ma’am. 

Ms. TAUSCHER[continuing]. As the budget is going to be coming 

up soon, we can try to figure out how we can accommodate something like that. 

Dr. McQueary. 

Dr. MCQUEARY. I fully agree with what the general just said. I 

think a salvo launch’s multiple-target issues are a phenomenology 

that absolutely must be examined as a part of the program. 

Ms. TAUSCHER. Right. Let us see. 

General O’Reilly, the classified version of DOT&E’s 2008 assessment for the Ballistic Missile Defense System raised a number of 
12 

concerns about the BMDS. I know that you are working with 

DOT&E to address these concerns outlined in the report. Can you 

just, once again, aside from what you had in your testimony, can 

you kind of give us a more detailed summary on exactly how that 

cooperation is folding out, and just give us some more detail on 

that? 

General O’REILLY. Yes, ma’am. With the DOT&E report, it covered what had been tested, and emphasized what has not been 

tested, in order to validate the models and simulations. So I work 

very closely, and my staff does, with the operational test agencies. 

But Dr. McQueary has been very generous in providing his staff to 

observe every one of those meetings and provide us assistance or 

assessments, primarily, on where there are areas in their models 

and simulations that they believe we need to go re-look. And we 

have done that. 

So I believe that the results of this first phase are very comprehensive, because of the fact that we have had the benefit of 

DOT&E supporting us onsite, in the meetings, instead of us just 

trying to interpret what was missing from the reports. And all indications I have had from Dr. McQueary and his staff is we are addressing those areas that we need data to be collected in. 

Ms. TAUSCHER. I appreciate that, General O’Reilly. 

Dr. McQueary, you know, I think that there has been a significant change in the level of cooperation between MDA and DOT&E. 

And I am very appreciative of it. This subcommittee weighed in 

very seriously over the last three years about that. And I think 

these are very good results. 

Can you give us a sense for your expectations? Let me restate 

that. Can you give us a sense for the reality of that and how that 

is accruing to our expectations of having the testing regime be 

much more robust going forward? 

Dr. MCQUEARY. Well, I think the relationship is very good. The 

relationship began to improve, from my standpoint, when General 

Obering was here. We worked out some issues with him. 

I am particularly pleased, as I mention in my oral statement, 

about the approach that General O’Reilly has taken toward his 

three-phase approach of deciding what the test program really 

needs to be. And we are participants in the discussion thereof, because there is no such thing as the test that identifies everything. 

These are highly technical, complex kinds of things. 

And having discussions with the various parties who have an interest in seeing that we do the right thing, I think is very—right 

testing, I should say—is really the right thing to do. And so I don’t 

have anything that I would add to it. 

I would also point out one other thing I would add, excuse me— 

General O’Reilly and I try to meet once a week, although that is 

very difficult to do, as you might be. But we do have a time on the 

calendar. But we each know that we can cancel out if we need to 

do so, in order to just be able to go over issues that might be there. 

We meet for about 30 minutes. But I think that is an important 

way of keeping the communication channel open, because the 

issues are large, but they are not insurmountable. 

Ms. TAUSCHER. Well, the committee very much appreciates that 

new level of cooperation and the congruency of your effort to work 
13 

together. And that I think is really accruing very significantly to 

the program. 

General O’Reilly and Dr. McQueary, a key sensor critical for defense of the United States from a Northeast Asia attack is the upgraded COBRA DANE radar in Alaska. We have flown at least one 

missile across COBRA DANE for data collection, but have never 

performed an intercept flight test using the primary sensor and the 

fire control loop. 

Why have we not performed a GMD intercept test engagement 

using the upgraded COBRA DANE radar? Are we planning to do 

so? And what test range issues need to be dealt with, if any, to perform such a test? 

Dr. MCQUEARY. I support you. 

General O’REILLY. Ma’am, we are looking at that in the next 

phase. It is my expectation that we will do that. However, when 

it was done last time in September 2005, we required, or we needed the cooperation of the Russian Government, because the launch 

was an air-launch target in the Russian flight information region, 

it is referred to, within 12 miles. To have an operationally realistic 

trajectory does require to skirt very closely to Russian airspace. 

At the time, President Putin had provided agreement and concurred with us doing the test, with us exchanging and allowing 

their Russian officers to observe the test. So that is one issue that 

has to be addressed for any test up in that region. I would look forward to that engagement with the Russians, because I do believe 

that would be a very informative test. 

I believe the infrastructure and the other issues associated with 

a test over the North Pacific could be addressed straightforward 

through our normal processes. 

Ms. TAUSCHER. Thank you. 

Mr. MCQUEARY. In the event that we could not do the test, which 

we fully agree that it is desirable to do a real test, DOT&E still 

feels, as we have reported before, that there needs to at least be 

a target fly-by to test the software that was changed as a result 

of the last test that was conducted. There were some changes 

made, and we have not actually been able to run an operational 

test. 

Ms. TAUSCHER. Right. 

Dr. MCQUEARY. And a target fly-by would help gain information 

that the system does work as it is supposed to in target tracking. 

Ms. TAUSCHER. Thank you. 

Thank you, gentlemen. 

Mr. Turner. 

Mr. TURNER. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Dr. McQueary, I would like to get back to, just for a moment, 

your initial comment that you made about the news article that we 

saw where you were misquoted, and it really leaves the impression 

that the system doesn’t work. And that is not at all your message, 

even in your written testimony. Can you speak again about your 

reaction to this article and the gap between what the article portrays as your position and your position? 

Dr. MCQUEARY. I found out about this article at about 5 minutes 

of 6:00 last evening, just before I was going to the Kennedy Center, 

which was not a good time to prepare oneself to go listen to the 
14 

orchestra. But Admiral McCarthy, who had sent me the message 

letting me know what was there, I had sent a response back to 

him. And what he tells me is that his Blackberry died after he received my message. Now, so I will let you infer from that what it 

might have said. 

I was very disturbed because it was—I don’t mind talking with 

reporters. I don’t mind having discussion about what we do, because I try to run a very transparent organization. I do feel, 

though, that when reporters have uncertainty about how they are 

going to report what someone says, particularly if it is almost a direct quote, then they have the responsibility of making sure that 

that information is correct. 

And this was simply blatantly incorrect and inconsistent totally 

with what I have said in the last two annual reports that we have 

put out about where we are in the testing. We have consistently 

said that we need more modeling and simulation. There is nothing 

new in that. And we all understand why that is an important aspect of this. 

But we have demonstrated, through flight testing, some capabilities that are important. And I believe I would characterize it, if the 

North Koreans launched an attack against us this afternoon, we 

wouldn’t say we need more test data before we decide whether we 

are going to launch against and try to intercept that. We would see 

how the system works, and we would find out. 

Mr. TURNER. Excellent. And that is really the whole heart of, I 

think, all of this discussion, is the need for systems in place in the 

case where something might occur, like you just described. 

And I would like to deal with just a little bit of terminology. On 

page three of your testimony, you give us a list of where we are 

on a few of these. And you say the Ground-based Midcourse Defense, GMD, demonstrated a limited capability to defend against 

simple, long-range ballistic missile threats launched from North 

Korea toward the United States. Next sentence, ‘‘Terminal HighAltitude Area Defense, THAAD, demonstrated the capability to detect, track and engage both short-range, non-separating and singleseparating targets.’’ 

Then on the Command Control Battle Management Communication element, you indicate again, using the word demonstrated, the 

capability to provide situational awareness to warfighters worldwide. And you go on. 

And I am going to focus this for just a moment on the word 

‘‘demonstrated,’’ because you are all about testing, telling us what 

we know from what we have tested. But the word ‘‘demonstrated,’’ 

I believe you are not indicating to me that it is the limitation of 

the system, it is a limitation of the testing. In other words, the 

testing has demonstrated that this system has this capability, but 

it might have greater capability. Is that correct? 

Dr. MCQUEARY. It might have greater capabilities. There might 

be capabilities that the system couldn’t respond to as well in that. 

So what it does—I was referring to in those words specifically 

about what we showed as a consequence of the test that was conducted. And indeed, we did intercept, ‘‘kill,’’ a target to demonstrate that the GMD did work in that particular testing that we 
15 

had. So to me, that was a demonstration that the system has the 

capability to work. 

Mr. TURNER. Excellent. That is why I wanted to ask the question, because when I read this page, I was afraid that someone 

might read it as saying, you know, it only does this, it only does 

that. But in reality, it is just it has only demonstrated it in the 

testing scenarios that we had. It might have greater capability. It 

might even perform better than what we have currently been able 

to test. 

Dr. MCQUEARY. May I, just one point: when we talk about confidence, I want to be very clear that when we refer to confidence, 

you can always assume if we don’t say it, we are talking about statistical confidence. I am not in the mode of saying, ‘‘I don’t have 

confidence in you or you.’’ We are talking about, from a statistical 

standpoint, how many tests does one have to run in order to demonstrate mathematically, if you will, through data, that you have 

a certain level of confidence that the system is going to work. 

And when I speak of confidence, that is what I mean. And that 

is all I mean. I am not rendering a subjective view at all. I am trying to convey what we need to know. And that is why we say, over 

and over, we need the models and simulation, because we will 

never be able to run enough real tests to prove, with high statistical confidence, that the system can do what it is intended to do. 

But with models and simulation, verified by real testing, we can accomplish that objective. 

Mr. TURNER. Thank you. 

And to get back to your comment on North Korea, and this is my 

question next for the three of you, you know, currently the system 

that we have is intended to be integrated. Each of these individual 

components have unique capabilities. And the threat that it is designed against, we know that none of those individuals that are developing those threats, they are not abandoning missile systems. 

They are not abandoning seeking missile technology or missile capability. If we abandoned a capability or an element of our overall 

system that is integrated, we will open ourselves up to a vulnerability. 

But what I am concerned about, and what I would like you each 

to speak about, if we were to, based on lack of testing, lack of completion of testing, to stop or discontinue the advancement in any 

one of these areas or systems, I fear that we might lose some capability, because we have three different components basically. You 

have the development and innovation phase; you have the testing 

phase; you have procurement phase. 

And if you are to stop along the way, you are going to lose institutional intellect. You are going to lose some industry capability. 

Could you speak to a moment of concerns that you might have of 

ceasing to progress in any one of these integrated systems that we 

are looking at to protect us, and what might happen if we later go 

back and try to reengage, what gap would occur? 

Dr. MCQUEARY. Could I defer to General O’Reilly—— 

Mr. TURNER. Absolutely. 

Dr. MCQUEARY [continuing]. First, since he has a broader view 

of the whole system, because he lives it every day. 
16 

General O’REILLY. Sir, from an acquisition point of view, once we 

decide to stop, if we decided to stop developing one of these areas, 

you are exactly right, sir. The first area we would be very careful 

to look at was the industrial base and the intellect that you were 

referring to. 

The missile defense area is a very unique developmental skill in 

the sciences, in the material sciences, in the production and so 

forth. Our country has been successful. But I would say that we are 

one of the few countries with the type of resources that could do 

what we have already accomplished. And to ensure that we maintain and protect that competency in developing missile defense 

interceptors, where you are not just worried about launching the 

missile, but you are more worried about what happens to that missile at the very end of its flight, is very difficult. 

So that is an area, and that is one of my greatest responsibilities, 

is to ensure that we continue to develop that competency in the 

United States in those areas, both in industry and in the government team. And that is why I spend so much time in universities 

and engineering schools in order to continue to grow that competency. 

Second is the supply chain. A lot of small companies out there 

provide very unique items that apply just to missile defense interceptors and missile defense systems. And we have to be very careful about their ability to endure a transition from supporting missile defense applications to having it so that it could apply to other 

commercial ventures. And a lot of that is a very difficult transition 

for them, because of the nature of their work. 

If we did stop one of these production lines, requalification is 

very expensive. Typically, it runs on the order of a line, such as 

GMD, would be over $400 million, an estimate if a line stopped for 

over a year before you had to go requalify and find new vendors. 

That is at the second. 

And unfortunately, this business—and I guess it is a strength of 

the United States that most of these systems involve almost every 

aerospace company in the United States, providing some sort of expertise or capability. So it is a far-reaching impact that has to be 

carefully weighed. 

One benefit of continuing testing is to produce the interceptors 

themselves, which are the most difficult of these items—producing 

interceptors, so that we can continue to make decisions and keep 

a warm production line until we make a final decision that we have 

enough capability, or we have a capability by some other means. 

Mr. TURNER. Thank you. 

And on that, Dr. McQueary, in your opinion, two-stage interceptors that are proposed. It is not as if we are completely designing 

a new system; it is a modification of a system. And so my guess 

would be, since it is a modification of a system, you are testing that 

modification and not having to retest everything all over again. 

Later this year, if the two-stage flight test that is planned, if it is 

successful, would you recommend that we proceed with long-lead 

procurement? 

Dr. MCQUEARY. We have previously said that, with a successful 

test, that we could support the idea of long-lead procurement for 

items, yes. If that is what the Congress decides upon. 
17 

Mr. TURNER. And that is because it is—explain to me why that 

would be the case. 

Dr. MCQUEARY. Because there are great similarities. And we 

could show you that in detail, not easily here, but show a great 

similarity between the two-stage and three-stage interceptor. But 

nevertheless, there are changes. And therefore, it is important to 

verify that those changes did not introduce something anomalous 

in the behavior. 

In fact, we have gone on record before saying we thought we 

needed three tests, a total of three tests, in order to verify that the 

change from three-stage to two-stage was a satisfactory change. 

However, we have also said that we could, if someone chose to fund 

the operation, we would be all right. We would be all right in supporting the idea of going ahead with long-lead items, because the 

long-lead items, most of them, are usable in the three-stage vehicle 

in any event. 

Mr. TURNER. Excellent. 

And I have just one more question, Madam Chair. Thank you for 

your tolerance of time. 

Another thing that I am concerned of, if we abandon the advancement in any area or the pursuit of any area, is that what it 

says to our adversaries or those that are developing missiles. 

Gentlemen, could you comment on, do you believe our missile defense system has a deterrent effect, because if it does have a deterrent effect, then abandoning any portion of it, we would lose that 

deterrent effect. People would see a vulnerability that we have, or 

an area in which we are conceding, but that we are not going to 

be seeking a defensive posture. Do you guys have thoughts as to 

if you believe that the pursuit of our missile defense system and 

its deployment acts as a deterrent internationally? 

General O’REILLY. Well, if I may, sir, yes, I do from two regards. 

One is when you are looking at the inventories and the numbers 

you were talking about for ICBM defensive systems, you have to 

look at how many ICBMs could be launched at any one time. And 

you have to assume that the United States would respond some 

way if, in fact, ICBMs were launched against it, and the missile defense system intercepted and took out those ICBMs. 

So you have to look at what the inventory around the world of 

ICBM launch points are, and there is only a few of them. But there 

are others being built today. And so there is that operational judgment on how much do we need, not a material developing judgment. 

However, I would say to the direct point on your question is that 

I believe it is the most compelling way to devalue these missiles 

is to show that they are ineffective, because we keep intercepting 

them in different ways. And that is a great strength of a robust 

test program, is to keep intercepting in all the different fashions 

in which I believe our adversaries are looking at ways to defeat it. 

And testing against countermeasures and so forth, again, strengthens the deterrence. And it is welcome in our approach to testing. 

Mr. TURNER. Excellent. 

Madam Chair, thank you. 

Ms. TAUSCHER. Thank you, Mr. Turner. 

Mr. Andrews of New Jersey. 
18 

Mr. ANDREWS. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Ms. TAUSCHER. For five minutes. 

Mr. ANDREWS. Thank you, gentlemen, for your testimony and for 

your service to our country. I think it is very important that the 

discussion not bring false choices. And the choice is not deployment 

or abandonment. The choice is strategic, intelligence, effective deployment versus other options. I just want to ask anyone on the 

panel, has anyone here asked you to plan for the abandonment of 

the system? 

General O’REILLY. Well, as a material developer, I can tell you, 

no. 

Dr. MCQUEARY. And as head of DOT&E, that isn’t the way we 

operate. We are charged with testing the systems that the—— 

Mr. ANDREWS. Right. 

Dr. MCQUEARY [continuing]. Government decides to—— 

Mr. ANDREWS. So the abandonment is sort of a metaphysical discussion. I would like to switch to one I think is a little more focused. 

In January of 2002, Secretary Rumsfeld created a new world in 

testing. And that world exempted the BMD products prior to Milestone C. And in the context of that world, it is interesting to see 

the result that occurs in your 2008 report, which we mandated, between the Aegis system and the GMD. 

That language that you used on the Aegis system, it was declared ‘‘operationally effective and suitable.’’ Got very good grades. 

The GMD, on the other hand, the quote is, ‘‘GMD flight testing to 

date will not support a high level of confidence.’’ And I understand, 

Doctor, what you mean by confidence; not subjective term, but will 

not support a high level of confidence in its limited capabilities. It 

is apparent first one, on Aegis, sounds like an A. And the second 

one, to me, sounds like a C-minus, D-plus. 

Here is a hypothesis, Dr. McQueary, I would like you to consider. 

The main difference in the pre-Milestone C testing and activities 

between Aegis and GMD was that the testing that was done for 

Aegis looks an awful lot like the traditional testing that would 

have happened anyway without the exemption, the legacy testing, 

legacy documents; whereas the testing of the GMD looks very different. It looks like something that did not go through the same degree of rigor and scrutiny. Would you agree or disagree with that 

hypothesis? 

Dr. MCQUEARY. I don’t think I am qualified to be able to comment upon what you have just said, because I have not looked at 

that program from that standpoint. The GMD is clearly at an earlier stage of development than what the Aegis is. 

Mr. ANDREWS. But it is correct, isn’t it, that the testing protocol, 

the date on the GMD, has not followed the orthodox traditional 

path that other systems have followed. Isn’t that true? 

Dr. MCQUEARY. That is—— 

Mr. ANDREWS. It is very different from the Aegis testing. 

Dr. MCQUEARY. The entire program was put together that way. 

That is correct. 

Mr. ANDREWS. Would you characterize the testing as less robust 

than the Aegis testing? 
19 

Dr. MCQUEARY. I wouldn’t characterize it as less robust. I would 

characterize it as being in a much earlier stage of development 

than the Aegis. And I think one of the things that we bear responsibility to do is to assure that the GMD is tested to a sufficient. 

Mr. ANDREWS. But General, there is more than just a time differential. Isn’t there? Isn’t there a qualitative differential in the nature of the tests that have been done on Aegis versus the GMD? 

Don’t the Aegis tests look an awful lot like more of the pre-Rumsfeld rule? 

General O’REILLY. One of the purposes, sir, of the test review 

that I have conducted since I came on board was in fact to lay out 

all the data that is required to be collected. My predecessors have 

shown the planning for the next two years, two-year increments. 

Mr. ANDREWS. Yes. 

General O’REILLY. And it is more traditional, because what we 

are approaching now is to lay out the entire test program, so you 

can identify what is going to be tested and when, rather than having to assume that something is going to be tested. 

Mr. ANDREWS. And that looks an awful lot like, doesn’t it, the 

DOT&E process that would have been followed? Doesn’t it sort of 

echo that? 

General O’REILLY. As far as from a planning point of view, yes, 

sir. 

Mr. ANDREWS. Yes. 

General O’REILLY. Because in the DOT&E—— 

Mr. ANDREWS. Kind of wish we had those seven years back in the 

billions and billions of dollars we spent since then? You don’t have 

to answer that question. I do. 

On your testimony, you list a whole laundry list of things that 

are going to have to be done for the GMD, both in the Critical Engagement Conditions (CEC) and Empirical Measurement Events 

(EME) categories. If I read correctly, there are nine Critical Engagement Conditions and six Empirical Measurement Events that 

have to take place. 

And you list a whole laundry list of key factors that have to be 

looked at: solar and lunar backgrounds, low intercept altitudes, 

timing between salvo launches, long times of flight, high closing velocities for ICBM-class targets, correcting for varying booster burnout velocities, and responding to countermeasures. That is a pretty 

significant list. 

How long would it take to do all those things to your—degree of 

confidence that we need? How long would it take? 

Ms. TAUSCHER. Gentleman’s time has expired. 

But General O’Reilly, you can finish that answer. 

General O’REILLY. Sir, honestly, sir, that is why I am working 

in the—I am. Right now, we have identified what we need. And 

what you have asked is exactly what we are doing over the next 

couple months with these two agencies, and us—— 

Mr. ANDREWS. With that, thank you. Just add one thing, Madam 

Chair. That is an answer I think the committee would really like 

to hear before this year’s bill is written, because when we make 

funding priority decisions, I think it makes a big difference as to 

what we do. 
20 

General O’REILLY. And, sir, our plan is to complete this plan by 

May. 

Mr. ANDREWS. Thank you very much. 

Ms. TAUSCHER. Thank you, Mr. Andrews. 

Mr. Franks of Arizona for five minutes. 

Mr. FRANKS. Well thank you, Madam Chair. 

Madam Chair, our ranking member here asked questions that 

reached the goal that my own question had. And I thought he did 

an excellent job. So at the risk of sounding a little redundant here, 

let me just try to put some context by focusing again on the threat. 

And again, at the risk of being redundant, on July 4 of 2006, 

North Korea tested an ICBM and our GMD system was put on 

alert. And now, of course, there have been reports that North 

Korea may be testing an advanced Taepodong-2. 

And considering General Cartwright, Commander of Strategic 

Command, he said that the July 4, 2006 North Korean missile 

launch has spurred a limited operational activation of the Ballistic 

Missile Defense System. ‘‘We learned that the Ballistic Missile Defense System, procedures, and personnel performed well, and demonstrated a credible operational missile defense capability for 

homeland defense.’’ 

And I think that is a pretty profound statement on the part of 

General Cartwright. And so my first question, General O’Reilly, is 

do you share General Cartwright’s level of confidence? Are you confident that this capability that we have today, that we have today, 

can provide a defense to the American people from the current 

North Korean threat? 

General O’REILLY. Yes, sir, based on the scenarios that we have 

tested three times, although it is limited and it is in the beginning, 

those scenarios overlay a launch from North Korea and a response 

out of Alaska. And so we have tested three times that scenario first 

for obvious reasons. And that is the source of my confidence. 

Second of all, our firing doctrine is that we have a significant 

number of missiles. So we can put a significant number of missiles 

in the air at once. And that each time significantly increases the 

overall probability that you are going to be successful. 

Mr. FRANKS. So let me ask the blooming obvious question here. 

Forgive me. Do we have a system that is more mature than GMD 

to defend against the current ICBM threat? And what are the implications of delaying GMD production and fielding? 

General O’REILLY. Well, sir, we do have a more mature system 

now than we did then, particularly in our redundancy. And we 

have multiple redundant capabilities throughout the system now. 

And we have more interceptors. And we have learned in flight. 

Mr. FRANKS. Beyond GMD, General. I mean, do we have something beyond GMD that is a more mature system to defend us 

against ICBM threats currently? 

General O’REILLY. No, sir. That is the only system that has been 

tested against threats of 4,000 kilometers or greater. 

Mr. FRANKS. Well, thank you. 

Now, you know, I think it is clear that even if our systems 

haven’t given us 100 percent assurance through testing, and of 

course I believe in testing as much as any of you do. And I know 

that you would like to have more capability to do additional test-
21 

ing. But it is the only system that we have for this particular 

ICBM threat at the moment. 

And to cut or delay funding and fielding, in my judgment, 

Madam Chair, would send a tremendously dangerous message to 

the North Koreans, not just in terms of the actual ICBM threat to 

us, but I think it encourages them and other nations across the 

world, Iran and others, to develop nuclear programs that potentially could be passed, the technology could be passed along to terrorists. And I think the coincidence of jihadist terrorism and nuclear proliferation represents one of the greatest dangers facing us 

as a free people today. 

And so, I am going to run out of time it looks like here. But I 

will try one more here with Mr. McQueary. As a current test evaluator, would you say that, just because the strategic BMD received 

a less-than-perfect test score, that this necessarily means that it 

does not provide the warfighter with an operationally effective capability? 

Dr. MCQUEARY. It does not provide the warfighter with an operationally effective—— 

Mr. FRANKS. So let me ask—— 

Dr. MCQUEARY [continuing]. Capability that I can say with high 

confidence. I think it is important. Our job is testing and to deal 

with the facts at hand. And there has simply not been enough testing done in order to be able to state—— 

Mr. FRANKS. But the less-than-perfect score does not necessarily 

mean that it does not provide the warfighter with an operationally 

effective capability. 

Dr. MCQUEARY. The statement is not intended to imply that at 

all. 

Mr. FRANKS. Right. 

Well, Madam Chair, I just think it is important that, you know, 

I don’t know of any system that we have that is proven 100 percent 

effective. I am not even sure that we could say that about the baseball bat. But it is still pretty effective at close range. And so I just 

hope that we don’t, in the face of not being able to test all that we 

could and all that you gentlemen would like to test, and certainly 

I think we have a responsibility to facilitate that, to do things that 

would endanger our national security. 

And so with that, Madam Chair, I don’t know why that yellow 

light has been on so long. But I will yield back. Thank you. 

Oh, the light is stuck. I should have taken advantage of that. 

Ms. TAUSCHER. This is not a baseball bat, but it is a gavel. 

Mr. Heinrich. 

Mr. FRANKS. Has it been tested? 

Ms. TAUSCHER. Mr. Heinrich of New Mexico. 

Mr. HEINRICH. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

I have a couple of questions for Lieutenant General O’Reilly. And 

one is more general and one is more specific. But it goes back to 

some of the same issues that Mr. Franks has raised. And I will 

start with the more general one. And I would just ask, do we have 

any hard evidence to show that our missile defenses have actually 

deterred North Korea or Iran from deploying this? 

General O’REILLY. Sir, I am not in a position to answer that. I 

think that might be more of an intel question. 
22 

Mr. HEINRICH. Okay. 

General O’REILLY. But I don’t know, sir. 

Mr. HEINRICH. Well, on a more specific return to the issue of the 

GMD system, if I understand correctly, Taepodong-2 is a liquid-fuel 

system, is that correct? 

General O’REILLY. Yes, sir. 

Mr. HEINRICH. And most of our tests are against solid-fuel targets? Is there a qualitative difference in, you know, testing against 

a solid-fuel target versus a liquid-fuel target? And is that something that is relevant to future testing? Do we need to be testing 

something that is more analogous to, you know, basically to the 

Taepodong-2? 

General O’REILLY. Well, sir, we test both threat categories. As I 

said earlier in my discussion, we actually test frequently actual 

threat missiles that are the liquids. Most of our liquids are actual 

missiles which we have obtained. And we have tested them off the 

coast and asymmetric. I mean, we really want to ensure we have 

the confidence that Dr. McQueary says. 

Against our longer-range threats, we have the challenge that 

these targets are almost ICBMs themselves. And so we rely on our 

fleet of ICBMs in a lot of cases, which are mainly solids. 

Mr. HEINRICH. Right. 

General O’REILLY. But when you qualitatively compare between 

the two, the solid actually presents much more difficulty in intercepting, because as it burns, it actually produces chunks, if you 

will, of solid material that is burning. And so it clutters the scene. 

Mr. HEINRICH. Which could be mistaken for—okay. 

General O’REILLY. Yes, sir. And when a kill vehicle looks at a liquid, it sees primarily the objects or the debris and the hard objects, 

especially if you are looking with an infrared camera, which most 

of our systems have. 

But when you are looking at a solid system, you are seeing all 

this other. So it actually makes it more complex, harder, at times 

more difficult for an intercept to occur. 

Mr. HEINRICH. I yield back. 

Ms. TAUSCHER. Gentleman yields back his time. 

Mr. Lamborn of Colorado. 

Mr. LAMBORN. Thank you. 

Dr. McQueary, of Ground-based, Midcourse Defense, the analysis 

indicates the U.S. is more capable of defending itself against a single long-range—even though we haven’t reached the level of 

high—— 

Dr. MCQUEARY. It is more capable, but I can’t let you walk me 

into some kind of numerical amount, because we had no capability 

before. We now have capability. And therefore, by—and we demonstrated it. 

Ms. TAUSCHER. Majority will stipulate that we are more capable 

than we were before we had nothing. 

Dr. MCQUEARY. Seems like a logical way—— 

Ms. TAUSCHER. I think so too. 

Mr. LAMBORN. Can you put high confidence into a percentage 

count? Are you able to—— 

Dr. MCQUEARY. Well, we typically speak—— 

Mr. LAMBORN [continuing]. Is not a subjective term. 
23 

Dr. MCQUEARY. It is not a subjective term. But typically when 

we talk about performance of systems, we will be in the range of 

having reliabilities that might be in the range of 80 percent to 90 

percent reliability for missile systems, if you look at that. 

And then we talk about having a confidence generally in the 70 

percent to 90 percent range as being in the high realm. And the 

higher, the more, the higher the number when you go through and 

examine the test data and look at various test scenarios using modeling and simulation again. The higher the number, the more confidence you have in how the system will work. It is pretty straightforward. 

Mr. LAMBORN. Okay, so if you have a missile interceptor that is 

not the high-confidence performance level, operational level. But let 

us say it is 70 percent. But you fire that at an incoming threat, and 

it misses. And you fire another one. And that also has a 70 percent 

chance. When you put those two together, aren’t you left with 91 

percent? 

Dr. MCQUEARY. That, I wouldn’t attempt to do the arithmetic in 

my head. But that doesn’t sound too far off. Yes, the—— 

Mr. LAMBORN. Or a third one would then decrease the—— 

Dr. MCQUEARY. In fact, that is why the doctrine calls for firing 

multiple missiles to accomplish just what you are talking. Yes. 

Mr. LAMBORN. Okay, thank you. 

Dr. MCQUEARY. But it can get to be an expensive proposition if 

the missiles are very expensive. That is—— 

Mr. LAMBORN. That is right. Of course, the alternative is expensive also. 

Dr. MCQUEARY. This is true. 

Mr. LAMBORN. And also, I would like to shift gears to ask this: 

where do we stand with regard to the validation, verification—excuse me, I am going to shift to Lieutenant General O’Reilly at this 

point—where do we stand with regard to the validation, 

verification, and accreditation of the BMDS element level model? 

And when do we hope to be in a position to validate, verify, and 

accredit the element level models? 

General O’REILLY. Do you want to start? 

General NADEAU. Okay. I would start by telling you that the 

Operational Test Agency lead and other services are huge fans of 

this three-phase test review that the Missile Defense Agency is undergoing now which, when completed, will allow us to answer that 

question very, very specifically, as we were discussing, to break out 

of the two-year window into the entire program. 

And with the data and inputs and work that we all collectively 

put into the Phase 1 piece of identifying the number of ground and 

flight tests or flight tests necessary to get to the point where you 

have the ability to validate and verify (V&V) the models and then 

accredit them, and then start using those models for the greater 

good, and then also adding flight tests that will be required to do 

things you can’t pick up in the models. 

It will end up being a very good process. It has been a very good 

process to this date. And I applaud, in spades, the effort to get 

down this road, because from the test agency’s perspective, this is 

exactly the right thing to do. 

Mr. LAMBORN. Anything to add to that? 
24 

General O’REILLY. No, sir. 

Well, one result that we actually found as we went through 

Phase 1 is there are other areas in our infrastructure and our modeling that need improvement and need investment. It is not just 

the testing. It is also the modeling of our threats from areas such 

as NASIC and others. We need investment in that area, so we can 

have the digital models of the threats that are more precise, and 

the hardware in the loop and the other infrastructures. 

So we have learned a lot from this process, I would say, and not 

just the accreditation of the models, but the entire infrastructure 

to give us the confidence that we do have the results that the 

warfighters and the combatant commanders can use to make a 

judgment on the capabilities and limitations of the system. 

And Dr. McQueary, you may want to address that. 

Dr. MCQUEARY. I am with you. 

Mr. LAMBORN. I thank you all for your answers. 

Ms. TAUSCHER. Gentleman’s time has expired. 

The gentleman from South Carolina, Mr. Spratt, for five minutes. 

Mr. SPRATT. Thank you very much, indeed. 

And General O’Reilly, we are glad to see you in the position you 

are in—sitting at the table, we are grateful to have your service in 

this connection. 

When Mr. Reagan, in 1983, announced the Strategic Defense Initiative, he said its object was to ‘‘render nuclear weapons impotent 

and obsolete.’’ I think we would have to agree that we are a long 

way from that goal, are we not? 

Let the record show everyone nodded his compliance. [Laughter.] 

General O’REILLY. Yes, sir. 

Mr. SPRATT. I am not trying to diminish what you have done. I 

am simply trying to emphasize the great difficulty of achieving the 

goal that the President set down when he launched this. 

General O’Reilly, you said that we need this testing, because 

among other things, you did not want to place complete reliance, 

confidence, in simulators, which have inherent limitations. What 

are the doubts or concerns you are trying to dispel as you undertake this testing regimen? 

General O’REILLY. Well, sir, first of all, the simulations do have 

limitations in the fact that most of our flight-test failures that have 

occurred in this agency were due to quality control. And quality 

control is not revealed through simulations. You need to be doing 

actual testing in order to get that confidence and quality control 

testing on the ground. So that is one thing we are addressing is 

a comprehensive set of testing—not just flight testing, but the 

ground testing. 

And second of all, sir, it is associated with your opening comment, we are often referred to as a shield. We are not developing 

a shield. We are developing more of a multi-layered net, I think is 

a much better analogy. It puts a lot of uncertainty into the adversary. Is he going to be successful with attacking? But the best we 

can do is get the probability of engagements very high. But it is 

not an absolute shield. 

And so we need to be addressing, in our testing program, multiple systems working together to, in fact, show that something 

‘‘doesn’t fall between the seams,’’ between GMD or Aegis, or Aegis 
25 

or THAAD, or THAAD or Patriot. And so that is another major 

area we must address is, how do they work together? And it requires a combination, because of the expense, of models and simulation. But those actual flight tests are very critical. 

Mr. SPRATT. At the same time that Mr. Reagan made his speech, 

Paul Nitze, I believe, said that—and he is quoted in Mr. Coyle’s 

testimony—that laid down three ground rules for judging success, 

and the last of which was that missile defense should be cost-effective at the margin, so that the cost of deploying one additional defensive system would be less than the cost of an offensive system 

that might overcome it. 

Do you think you have achieved that criterion, so that the cost 

of defense is less than the cost of offense? 

General O’REILLY. Sir—— 

Mr. SPRATT. Yes, sir. 

General O’REILLY. I will address that the cost of our interceptors 

are much more expensive than the cost of the threat missiles which 

we see. In fact, we are often surprised at how those missiles are 

built, and what it takes in order to produce a missile that could 

threaten, not only your contiguous neighbor, but threaten a region. 

They are showing we have 1,000 more missiles in the 19 countries 

other than the United States, Russia, and China than we had just 

5 years ago. 

So they are much more inexpensive than our interceptors. But 

taking into account the area which you are trying to protect and 

the cities you are trying to protect from it, I believe that might 

change the calculus some. 

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Coyle, noting the flight test, says that MDA, 

over the past five years, has launched just two successful GMD 

flight-intercept tests. MDA still must carry out successfully about 

20 more, perhaps 25, flight-intercept tests of different types before 

the system can fully demonstrate effectiveness in realistic operational tests. Would you agree with that statement? Either one? 

Anyone. 

Dr. MCQUEARY. I don’t know off the top of my head whether it 

is 25, or whether it is 30, or whether it is 15. 

Mr. SPRATT. It is in that range. 

Dr. MCQUEARY. I think the key element is working with General 

O’Reilly on the path he is on, on this three-phase program in order 

to ascertain what tests have to be conducted. And from that, we 

can count, at that point, and then have data to look at. But I don’t 

know how to answer the question then, as you have posed it. 

Mr. SPRATT. But it is in the range of 20 to 25 additional tests? 

Dr. MCQUEARY. Well, if you want it in a simple mathematical 

sense, if you wanted to have a 90 percent probability of something 

working and have a 90 percent confidence that it would be what 

you want, we would have to run 28 successive tests in order to 

demonstrate—28 successive tests that are identical in nature—in 

order to prove that confidence level. So that may be the origin of 

the comment. 

But I believe Mr. Coyle is going to be on later. So he will be able 

to answer the question himself. 

Ms. TAUSCHER. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

Gentlewoman from California, Ms. Sanchez, for five minutes. 
26 

Ms. SANCHEZ. Thank you, Madam Chair. It is a pleasure to be 

back on the subcommittee after taking a couple years off. Obviously 

I came back because I think this is an incredibly important issue 

for our Nation. There are lots of threats out there. As you know, 

I chair on Homeland Security and in particular the subcommittee 

that handles the global counterterrorism for our Nation. 

So I just want to put to the record that, you know, it is always 

an issue about scarce resources. We are in a time, especially today, 

of scarce resources. There are a lot of demands here in Washington 

of what we are going to do with money that, quite frankly, most 

of us know we don’t even have. 

And so, you know, I just want to put for the record that I never 

have believed that this was an issue of wanting to stop or not having the capability that many of us think at some point we do need. 

But it is about how do we get there? And how do we most effectively get there? 

So I am very, actually, very proud of the gentlewoman from California, my friend, who has now chaired this for a couple of years. 

And I think you have been doing a great job to talk about how we 

reassess what we have out there, because we know that we put billions into this long-range missile defense system. And the confidence, I think, is really not there that it will stop something from 

coming in to our shores or other places that we want to protect. 

My question today is to General Nadeau. You expressed our limited capability against a launch from Northeast Asia. It seems to 

me, even in recent days when we have taken a look at what North 

Korea may or may not be doing, but most likely may, in continuing 

to expand its missile capability, how does the Department of Defense address our limited capability at this point, when we are 

looking at what North Korea may be doing, for example? 

General NADEAU. Yes, ma’am. Thank you for asking that question. The limited nature, as we have described that capability, is 

confined only to the fact that the flight tests that have been run 

have not been over an expanded series of scenarios. So against a 

narrow set, you end up with the assessment of limited capability. 

And so through, whether it is continued flight testing or use of 

modeling and simulation, when you can expand the envelope, and 

you see more, limited turns into a different assessment of capability. So again, limited nature, in its most simplistic form, is only 

because we have looked at it only in a very finite window so far. 

Ms. SANCHEZ. So if I am getting this correct—I mean, I used to 

work for Booz Allen & Hamilton. And we used to calibrate, you 

know, we used to put together our algorithms and figure out what 

we thought would happen. And then we would calibrate it with 

some real tests. 

Sometimes we couldn’t calibrate everything out. Maybe it is sort 

of like trying to land a person on the moon. You do the algorithm. 

But until you really land them, you really don’t know whether it 

is all going to work out. But you try to do or simulate as much as 

you can those critical pieces, especially keeping your people alive, 

or what have you. 

So what I am understanding from you is, we can’t account, in a 

real test manner, for every single possibility to give us 100 percent 

confidence that we are going to have—that we are going to test ev-
27 

erything that may come at us. But we do that through calculation, 

through algorithm, through modeling. And then where we can in 

the specific areas, we do these other tasks to get a better calibration of whether our system will work, or how to tweak the system 

so it works for us getting most of what is coming at us, or what 

we believe will come at us. Is that correct? 

General NADEAU. Yes, ma’am. I agree with that and would add 

a couple of points. You get through modeling and simulation the 

ability to more quickly go into different test scenarios and most certainly more economically, because of the cost involved. And if there 

is a belief, in discussion with the Missile Defense Agency or 

DOT&E, that we need to take a look at a test scenario that we do 

not have confidence in the model’s ability to do that assessment, 

then the dialogue turns to an actual flight. 

Ms. SANCHEZ. So it is not that we have stopped funding this particular area that we are interested and believe, because a lot of us, 

I think, I believe, are interested in this. It is that some—I don’t 

necessarily put myself in that category, but many have said that 

the systems that we have are what we built, what we actually have 

on hand, may be more of a facade, that it doesn’t have that confidence to take out whatever may come at us. We don’t know yet 

what they really have and how it will come at us. 

But I think most of us are just interested, or at least this side, 

under this chairwoman that I have seen, are interested in continuing to test and continuing to figure out how we make this system really work for what may come at us. 

Is that sort of putting words in your mouth, Chairwoman? 

Ms. TAUSCHER. I think those are words that came out of my 

mouth. 

Ms. SANCHEZ. So, in your opinion, how concerned should we be 

at what North Korea is doing, given what we currently have, given 

that we are not continuing to build the same system all over the 

place, that we think isn’t handling the job necessarily, but rather 

wanting to test and improve and really build something, or add on 

to what we already have, something that would really stop what 

may be happening. 

Ms. TAUSCHER. The gentlewoman’s time has expired. But you can 

answer the question. 

General NADEAU. From the test community’s perspective, one of 

the variables to consider is not concern over the performance of a 

potential adversary, if I can state it that way. And so where I turn 

our attention from the test perspective is to provide as much information to General O’Reilly and his team to be helpful to them to 

advance the performance confidence in the system. 

One of the luxuries of a test operation like mine is I am not pressured by cost, performance and schedule; meaning that in all of the 

right parameters, because I can look back and deal only with the 

facts and not get concerned about the shortness of schedule or perhaps the absence of other resources. 

So our function is to be that independent voice to General 

O’Reilly to help him and his agency make the right decisions and 

help alleviate, perhaps, either some of those concerns, or the terminology from our world is risk, ma’am. 

Ms. SANCHEZ. Thank you. 
28 

Ms. TAUSCHER. Thank you very much, gentlemen. We would like 

to get on to our second panel. We very much appreciate your appearance before the subcommittee. We know that we will see you 

again. 

General O’Reilly, we are looking very much into getting you back 

after the results of your test review is ready for us to have some 

testimony from you. So we look forward to doing that later in the 

spring. 

If we could take a 60-second recess and change out our panels, 

I would appreciate it. Thank you. 

We are honored to have our second panel with us today. We have 

experts and academics. And I think we are going to begin with Mr. 

Coyle. Just for the record, I want to state that Mr. Coyle and his 

wife are former constituents of mine and old friends. 

But I am glad to have you back. 

And all of your testimony has been submitted for the record. If 

you could summarize in five minutes or less, I would appreciate 

that. We are expecting some votes again. So we will have to recess 

when those votes are called. But we would like to get through as 

much as we can on the panel as possible. 

So Mr. Coyle, welcome back again to the committee. Thank you 

for your service. And the floor is yours. 

STATEMENT OF HON. DR. PHILIP E. COYLE, III, FORMER DIRECTOR, OPERATIONAL TEST AND EVALUATION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

Dr. COYLE. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman. I appreciate the opportunity to be with you before you today to support 

your examination of the future of missile defense testing. Ranking 

Member Turner, I appreciate being here with you also. 

In my view, there is a troublesome lack of clarity in public discourse regarding both the rationale for, and the technical progress 

toward, an effective U.S. missile defense network. Quite simply, the 

public statements made by Pentagon officials and contractors have 

often been at variance with the facts at hand. I am referring to the 

past, not under General O’Reilly. 

It is difficult to separate a programmatic spin from genuine 

progress. In particular in the past, the program has made claims 

that have not been demonstrated through realistic testing. 

In my prepared testimony I outline the steps that I believe the 

Missile Defense Agency must take. These include tests to establish 

operational criteria, such as how good is the system. You had questions earlier about that, and, as you saw, they were not able to be 

answered. Tests to demonstrate that the system can withstand attacks involving multiple missiles, not just one or two; testing to 

demonstrate that the system can be operationally effective in the 

presence of realistic decoys and countermeasures; and four, test to 

eliminate the gaps from past flight intercept tests, including years 

of kicking the can down the road on basic operational questions, 

like can the system work at night, in bad weather or in likely battlefield conditions? 

In my prepared testimony, I make an analogy about the different 

scientific and technical issues that a program can face. And I make 

the analogy with an imaginary Pentagon program to demonstrate 
29 

human flight. And I am not trying to be funny there. The Missile 

Defense Agency faces many very daunting scientific and technical 

problems, and they have not been addressing those questions. It 

appears that Lieutenant General O’Reilly is beginning the process 

to do that. 

Our military often observes that the enemy has a vote. In missile 

defense, this means that if the enemy is bound and determined to 

attack us, they will do whatever they can to overwhelm and confound our missile defenses. This means that the enemy may launch 

many missiles, not just one or two; may make their warheads 

stealthy and hard to detect and track; and may use decoys and 

other types of countermeasures to fool or confuse our defenses. 

They may attack us at night or in bad weather, or may use electronic jamming or stealth. Recently the White House said about 

National Missile Defense, the ground-based system as it is called 

now, ‘‘The Obama-Biden Administration will support missile defense, but ensure that it is developed in a way that is pragmatic 

and cost-effective and, most importantly, does not divert resources 

from other national security priorities until we are positive the 

technology will protect the American public.’’ 

How will the Administration and Congress be positive that missile defense will protect the American public? It is going to take 

testing far beyond what we have seen to date. 

The easiest ways for an enemy to overwhelm our defenses are to, 

number one, build more missiles, more offensive missiles, to attack 

us; number two, use decoys and countermeasures to fool the defenses; and three, attack us in ways that our missile defenses are 

not designed to handle, such as with cruise missiles, or through 

terrorism or insurgency. 

The Missile Defense Agency does not have a charter to counter 

terrorism. But it is responsible to address the ways that an adversary might try to overcome or fool our missile defenses. The testing 

program must put those issues front and center. But that has not 

been happening. 

My perspective on the threat may be different from yours. In my 

view, Iran is not so suicidal as to attack Europe or the United 

States with missiles. To me, it is not credible that Iran would be 

so reckless as to attack Europe, or the United States for that matter, with a single missile, and also by the way, with no decoys or 

countermeasures to fool us, and then sit back and wait for a massive retaliation. As we know, ballistic missiles have return addresses. 

I don’t believe that the launch of a small satellite by Iran earlier 

this month changes this situation. 

But if you believe that Iran is bound and determined to attack 

Europe or America, no matter what, then I think you also have to 

assume that Iran would do whatever it takes to overwhelm our 

missile defenses, including using decoys to fool the defenses, 

launching stealthy warheads, and launching many missiles, not 

just one or two. 

The Missile Defense Agency admits it can’t handle that situation 

today. And accordingly, their testing program must begin to address these challenges soon. 
30 

Ms. TAUSCHER. Mr. Coyle, can I ask you to sum up? We have 

about 10 minutes before we have another series of votes. And I 

would like to get the other two witnesses to give their statements. 

Dr. COYLE. Certainly, I can stop right there. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Coyle can be found in the Appendix on page 82.] 

Ms. TAUSCHER. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. Francis. 

STATEMENT OF PAUL L. FRANCIS, DIRECTOR, ACQUISITION 

AND SOURCING MANAGEMENT, U.S. GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE 

Mr. FRANCIS. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Mr. Turner and members of the subcommittee, I appreciate your 

having me here to participate in the discussion of missile defense 

testing. 

Ms. TAUSCHER. Thank you. 

Mr. FRANCIS. I will attempt to answer the three questions that 

I got in my invitation letter as well. The first was what are conclusions from our annual report that will be issued next month on 

missile defense. I would first like to recognize the uniqueness of 

missile defense testing and the challenges it faces in complexity, 

cost, safety, the fact that development and operational testing has 

to be combined, and the fact that modeling and simulation is really 

important for this program. So it makes every test event really important. 

Now, during fiscal year 2008, which we looked at in our review, 

we found that the testing itself, while there were many things done 

well, testing—particularly flight testing—was less productive than 

planned. None of the missile defense elements conducted all the 

testing they had planned. And only one achieved all its key objectives. In a number of cases, tests were either cancelled, deferred or 

achieved less than planned. And this was particularly true for the 

GMD element. 

Targets have been a persistent problem across all the elements 

that are flight testing. There are a number of consequences, in my 

opinion, associated with less productive testing. One of those does 

relate to anchoring models and simulations, which are absolutely 

key for this program. And there was a question earlier about how 

many models there were. 

There are 40 models; about six of them fully accredited, nine 

have been partly accredited. That leaves 25 to be done yet, before 

you can assess the full performance of the system. And I don’t believe that will be done until 2011. So quite a bit of work to do 

there; quite a bit of understanding yet about the fielded systems’ 

performance against countermeasures. 

Another consequence that we have observed is production fielding is beginning to get ahead of testing, so that some assets are 

being produced and fielded before they are tested. And finally, declarations of capability—that is when you say an asset is ready to 

be operational—some of those have been postponed. And some declarations have been made on the basis of less information than 

planned. 
31 

The second question you had asked me to address was our views 

on the three-stage review that General O’Reilly is conducting. We 

think that is something that is needed, and we welcome it. And I 

think General O’Reilly’s experience as the THAAD program manager is especially relevant in this review, because he has kind of 

been through this before. 

We have only gotten initial briefings on it, but I like the overall 

approach. I think identifying those critical variables that are going 

to be in the models and simulations and cross-walking those to 

testing, I think that is important and should close some of the gaps 

that we see today between modeling, simulation, and testing. I 

think the involvement of the test community has been very important. 

That third phase is going to be really critical. That is where General O’Reilly will address resourcing, the flight test program, and 

the ground test program with assets. And that gets to the third 

question that you had asked me to address is what actions do we 

think missile defense should take in this new approach? And I 

think there are five. 

One is continued involvement of the testers in the process. The 

second is the test program that emerges has to be robust in terms 

of targets, test assets, allowing time to analyze after a test and do 

post-flight reconstruction. And I think that is really important. 

The third thing is the fiscal year 2009 test plan is very ambitious 

now, because a lot of the fiscal year 2008 testing has been pushed 

into it. So I think that has to be looked at to see if it is still rational and achievable. 

The fourth thing is synchronizing, or re-synchronizing, I would 

say, production and fielding decisions with modeling and testing information, so that the modeling and testing comes before the production and fielding. And the last thing is I think it will take about 

two years for the new test plans to be fully implemented. So we 

are looking at 2010, 2011. 

So the MDA will be in a transitional period. I think that is going 

to be a time for careful management and some prudent decisions 

about production and fielding while we are waiting for a really 

sound test plan to emerge. So—— 

Ms. TAUSCHER. Thank you, Mr. Francis. 

Mr. FRANCIS. I am ready for any questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Francis can be found in the Appendix on page 113.] 

Ms. TAUSCHER. I appreciate that very much. 

Mr. Mitchell. 

STATEMENT OF DONALD C. MITCHELL, CHIEF ENGINEER FOR 

BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE, AIR AND MISSILE DEFENSE 

SYSTEMS DEPARTMENT, APPLIED PHYSICS LABORATORY, 

JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY 

Mr. MITCHELL. Thank you, Chairwoman Tauscher, Ranking 

Member Turner, distinguished members of the subcommittee. 

Thank you for the privilege of appearing before you today on the 

topic of Ballistic Missile Defense. 

I have served the Missile Defense Agency since 2005, first as a 

member of the Mission Readiness Task Force, and now as Director 
32 

for Readiness Assessment. In those assignments, I worked closely 

with the test and evaluation communities of GMD, Aegis BMD, and 

THAAD as they prepared for firing exercises in order to develop an 

independent assessment of their readiness to conduct those missions. The written testimony that I provided to the subcommittee 

is based upon that experience these last four years. 

The firing histories for those three elements indicate that there 

is a military capability against simple separating targets, and that 

upcoming flight tests will demonstrate a capability against more 

challenging threats. Though important, flight tests are not sufficient to accurately understand the operational effectiveness and 

operational suitability of a system. 

A test and evaluation plan that integrates the results from flight 

tests, ground tests, and high-fidelity models and simulations is required to understand the effectiveness and suitability of the BMDS. 

High-fidelity models and simulations are used first to predict the 

outcome of a flight test under various conditions, and second, to 

replicate the outcome of the flight test using the conditions as experienced during the mission. 

This technique, called anchoring, is part of the verification, validation, and accreditation (VV&A) for the models and simulations 

that allows one to believe the predictions produced by them. Models and simulations that are VV&A-ed can be used to produce a believable, statistically significant, cost-effective estimate of the effectiveness of the system. 

Ground tests can be used to demonstrate the operational suitability by showing the deftness with which the elements of the 

BMDS interact with one another. Thoughtful planning can produce 

complementary results from flight tests and ground tests. By emphasizing suitability in ground tests, the simplest set of flight tests 

can be defined with which to anchor the models and simulations. 

This approach provides flexibility in making fielding decisions of 

the BMDS. 

MDA has embarked on a three-phase effort to define a set of 

flight tests that will anchor the high-fidelity model in use in MDA, 

and ground tests that will demonstrate the suitability. An oft-asked 

question is, how many flight tests are necessary to demonstrate 

that a system is effective? That question is now properly reframed 

as how many flight tests are necessary to anchor high-fidelity models? 

The answer to that question is being developed using the critical 

engagement conditions and empirical measurement events. From 

this review, MDA will know what portions of the models can be anchored by measurements on the ground, and what portions should 

be anchored in flight. I look forward to a conclusion that presents 

the Director, Lieutenant General O’Reilly, with an efficient plan 

that demonstrates effectiveness and suitability of the BMDS. 

I would like to make a brief comment on GMD, if I may. That 

program has made significant strides in improving its test discipline and has adopted a quality improvement program that bear 

fruit in the future. I respectfully request that the subcommittee 

continue to support GMD in these efforts. 

I welcome the opportunity to speak with you today and will be 

pleased to answer any questions that you have. 
33 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Mitchell can be found in the Appendix on page 128.] 

Ms. TAUSCHER. Thank you, Mr. Mitchell. 

We are about to be called for votes, but I am going to actually 

yield my time to Mr. Larsen for five minutes. 

Mr. LARSEN. Thank you. 

Perhaps Mr. Francis can answer a question that I wasn’t able to 

ask. Sorry I wasn’t here for the whole panel. But it is still relevant 

to the panelists here, because it is a question that I will explore 

with Dr. McQueary as well. 

But from the GAO’s perspective, the idea that General O’Reilly 

has to lay out a, call it a lifetime testing plan, or just a longer-term 

testing plan for us, and then not conduct full tests each time in 

order to save money on a test. That is making a determination 

that, on any one test, you may not have to start from the very beginning and then go all the way through to the element that they 

want to test. That saves money. 

But in your view, will anything be lost doing it that way as well? 

The benefit is perhaps saving money on a test. But is there anything lost on the test from doing it that way? 

Mr. FRANCIS. It would depend on how the plan is laid out. So for 

example, if there is a very rigorous, say, ground test plan that is 

anchoring models and simulations, I think a—I haven’t seen the 

specifics of what General O’Reilly is proposing—but I would say 

then a more limited flight test might be okay, as long as it has that 

kind of a foundation. 

I think where you run into trouble is where you have a very success-oriented schedule set out that is predicated on everything 

going just fine. At the same time, we are producing. And when 

something happens and things don’t go well, then we end up loading up a test, for example. 

So the current approach was what I would call a crawl-walk-run 

approach. 

Mr. LARSEN. Right. 

Mr. FRANCIS. And we have got a little bit away from that. So instead of each test, flight test for example, demonstrating one new 

variable or one new capability, they are starting to load up. So I 

think it is Flight Test 6 that is coming up. It is going to have a 

new Exoatmospheric Kill Vehicle (EKV) in it. It will be the first 

test against a complex threat scene. And it is only going to be the 

second test of a new target. 

So that is my caveat. As long as the plan is laid out to anticipate 

some contingencies that it can react to, I think that would work 

out. If it is success-oriented, then we might end up loading up that 

flight test. 

Mr. LARSEN. Yes. 

Mr. Mitchell, do you have a view on that? 

Mr. MITCHELL. I have a view that—— 

Mr. LARSEN. On my question. 

Mr. MITCHELL. Yes, I have a view very similar to Mr. Francis. 

Models and simulations represent three things: the functional behavior of the system; the performance attributes associated with 

the system; and the error sources within the system. Many of those 

can be adequately understood on the grounds of ground test. And 
34 

it is the purpose of a flight test to then fully anchor those things 

we really can’t get at on the ground. 

With that approach to VV&A of the model, I don’t think we will 

lose anything in these flight tests, so long as they are carefully 

planned, sequential in nature, and don’t try and rush to a complicated, complex test that we haven’t walked up to, as Mr. Francis 

suggested. 

Mr. LARSEN. Yes. 

Mr. Coyle, do you have any thoughts on that? Do we lose anything by testing just the element that we wanted to test as opposed 

to starting from the beginning and testing through the element 

that we have added? 

Dr. COYLE. Well, I would recommend that there wouldn’t ever be 

any test that you hadn’t attempted to model and simulate beforehand. But there are some things that models will always be mysterious about those things. And it is just going to take a flight test. 

For example, Dr. McQueary, in his report to Congress, points out 

that the GMD system, the ground-based system, has not demonstrated its performance throughout, and I quote, ‘‘the expected 

range of adverse natural environments.’’ He is not talking about 

what the enemy might do to fool you. He is talking about, at night, 

when the sun is shining in your eyes, things like that. 

And so Dr. McQueary points out in his report to Congress that 

there are some issues like this that just haven’t been addressed 

yet. 

Mr. LARSEN. Madam Chair, that has been the main question I 

have been exploring. And so that is fine. So I yield back my time. 

Ms. TAUSCHER. Thank you, Mr. Larsen. 

Gentlemen, can we ask for your forbearance for about a half an 

hour. We have three votes, a 15, a 5, and a 15. But that doesn’t 

mean that we will be gone for that entire 15 minutes. So if you 

don’t mind, we will recess for about a half an hour. We thank you 

very much. Be right back. 

[Recess.] 

Ms. TAUSCHER. Witness line warm, as they say? [Laughter.] 

I think we want to just go and talk about the successes of theater 

missile defense, for example. DOT&E’s Fiscal Year 2008 Annual 

Report noted that theater missile defense systems, such as Aegis 

BMD and THAAD, continue to make significant progress, although 

the long-range GMD system continued to face challenges. Are there 

lessons we have learned from the theater missile defense testing 

that should be applied to the GMD system, first? 

And second, if so, what specific recommendations would you 

make to the Department of Defense? Let me start with Mr. Coyle 

and go right down the line. If you can keep your answers brief, I 

think we are going to see Mr. Turner pretty soon. 

Dr. COYLE. Thank you. 

Yes, the services do have an approach toward testing, which I 

think is very healthy. Publicly, in other forums, I have given the 

Navy credit for the approach that they have taken with the Aegis 

system. They have a tradition of doing quite realistic tests at sea. 

And that tradition has carried over to their missile defense work. 

Analogies like that could be made with respect to the Army in both 

Patriot and THAAD. 
35 

However, I have to add, for all their good successes, I continue 

to be concerned that Congress is not fully and currently informed 

about the ways in which these tests are scripted. And I think that 

is something that probably General O’Reilly is going to try to 

change. And that will be good. 

Ms. TAUSCHER. Mr. Francis. 

Mr. FRANCIS. Yes. I think some of the things—I agree certainly 

with what Mr. Coyle said about the testing. I think both in THAAD 

and Aegis, there is I think a wider range of targets being presented. I think the operators know less in advance about what is 

going to happen. And I think that they are engaging in a broader 

flight regime, if you will, not as narrow as GMD. 

If you go back, though, both Aegis and THAAD are self-contained. They own the missiles. They own the fire control. They own 

the radar. So I think it is a little less complex. And GMD didn’t 

own that. 

But having said that, I think if you turn the clock back, it would 

be interesting to ask General O’Reilly, I think THAAD was in this 

very situation in early development. And they were trying to do a 

lot of testing and gang up on a single test. And they had to stop 

and remap the test program. So I am hoping that is what they are 

doing with GMD now. 

Ms. TAUSCHER. It is not just a coincidence that it was General 

O’Reilly that did that. 

Mr. FRANCIS. No. Yes. 

Ms. TAUSCHER. Mr. Mitchell. 

Mr. MITCHELL. Yes, ma’am. The points are well-taken. But there 

is something else about Aegis and THAAD that you need to understand. It is the way they prepare for flight tests. 

They are very disciplined. They have a primary objective. They 

work hard to understand what the probability of success is against 

that primary objective. And they work equally hard at knowing 

what the risks are against attaining that probability of success in 

the mission. That is why they have been successful. And again, it 

is a wide variety of targets. 

GMD has adopted that precise mentality. It has caused them to 

postpone some missions: FTG–04 was canceled because of a problem in the telemetry system. It was very likely we would not get 

any telemetry data. And so we wouldn’t be able to reconstruct what 

happened. That was, in my mind, a correct decision, given the cost 

of these exercises and represents discipline that I am talking 

about. 

Ms. TAUSCHER. Thank you. 

I was just trying to keep the witnesses warm for you, Mr. Turner. I am happy to yield to you. 

Mr. TURNER. That is very kind of you. Thank you. 

Thank you, all, for participating first off and for bringing your 

expertise. 

Mr. Coyle, am I pronouncing that correctly? 

Dr. COYLE. Yes, sir. 

Mr. TURNER. Coyle, okay, thank you. 

One of the great aspects, I think, of any of these hearings, when 

you bring diverse views together, how much you can learn from the 

different perspectives and the advice that they give. Mr. Coyle, I 
36 

was really interested in your testimony because, besides your admission that you cannot fly, there was some revelation there. 

And on page six, you say: ‘‘In my view, Iran is not so suicidal as 

to attack Europe or the United States with missiles. To me, it is 

not credible that Iran would be so reckless as to attack Europe or 

the United States with a single missile, no decoys and the like. 

Similarly, North Korea isn’t so suicidal as to attack Japan or the 

United States.’’ 

And this hearing is about testing. But I took from your statement a belief that there is an exaggeration of the threat, a lack of 

a view which I think is different, and I would like you to expound 

upon, that Iran and North Korea really don’t pose the type of 

threat that everyone is saying that they do. 

Dr. COYLE. Actually, my point is just the opposite, that if you believe that Iran would be suicidal enough to attack Europe or the 

U.S., then you have to also believe that they would do whatever 

they would, they could, to overwhelm our defenses. And that would 

mean firing more than one or two missiles. And as General O’Reilly 

acknowledges in his testimony, that is not something the Missile 

Defense Agency can handle. 

For example, there is only supposed to be 10 interceptors in Poland. And it was pointed out by the first panel that the doctrine 

is to shoot as many as five missiles at each one. So if Iran launches 

two missiles, those 10 are all gone. And if Iran launches a third 

one, you have got no interceptors left. So if you want to take the 

threat from Iran seriously, then I think you have to look where 

they might go with it. 

Mr. TURNER. Okay. And I absolutely agree with you, with your 

point of you must, in your evaluation, think about, you know, that 

they would do whatever they could. Similarly, we should do whatever we can. And in that, then, should I take your comments to be 

an advocacy for more deployment of missile defense; because if you 

think that what we have is going to be insufficient for an ever-increasing threat, wouldn’t the logical conclusion of your testimony 

then be that we should deploy more, not less? 

Dr. COYLE. I support research and development (R&D) in missile 

defense and have for my whole life, if for no other reason than we 

should avoid technological surprise. What I would not support is 

deploying a bunch of hardware that we either know wouldn’t work 

in the situations we would face, or which have—— 

Mr. TURNER. But we don’t have that situation, right? Because no 

one has ever testified that we have something that we know does 

not work. No one has, I think, ever testified before this committee 

that we have things that we know don’t work. 

Dr. COYLE. Actually, the—— 

Mr. TURNER. They might not work as well, or they might not be 

perfect. But no one has said we have things that don’t work. 

Dr. COYLE. But what the Missile Defense Agency itself has said 

is that they cannot handle attacks with multiple missiles. That is 

an example of something they have said that they do not know how 

to do right now. Hasn’t been tested, and they don’t know how to 

do it. So if you believe that Iran would attack Europe or the United 

States, I think you have to take that seriously. 

Mr. TURNER. I appreciate that. 
37 

Mr. Francis, Mr. Mitchell, one of the things that I have been very 

impressed with in all of the testimony, is the secondary issue of 

you test, flight test, you get obviously a specific response from that. 

But you also get an incredible amount of data. And that data, in 

part, is used for simulation, modeling, computer work on, not only 

just improving the system, but on determining later how the system might perform or what are the uses it could be. 

I mean, one of the things that I think of when I hear them talk 

about that, is the Aegis system. You know, we never tested it to 

take out a satellite that was falling out of the sky. No one would 

argue that we should have never pressed the button to have it take 

a satellite out of the sky once the satellite is falling from the sky, 

just because it had not been tested. 

But we had computer modeling and simulation that aided us in 

determining whether or not this was something that was possible. 

And we had, obviously, a situation that we needed to act. And then 

we did. 

Could you speak a moment about the importance in testing of 

the data that is generated in the computer simulation and modeling, because I am very interested in your opinion and thoughts 

on that process. 

Mr. FRANCIS. Yes, well, I will start off and then turn over to Mr. 

Mitchell. But the data is very important, because after you have a 

flight test, they do what is called a post-flight test, a post-test reconstruction, where you actually try to replicate what happened in 

the real test through the modeling. And there is kind of a symbiotic 

relationship between the two. 

If you can get your data from the flight test to make the model 

better and to anchor it in reality, then when you are presented 

with a new situation or you are about to do another flight test, you 

can run the model and get some idea as how you are likely to do 

in a real flight test. So it is very important. And they build on each 

other. 

So when we are looking at a performance assessment, which is 

basically a way to look at how the missile defense system, as it is 

in the field, will work today, that is an aggregation of models. 

There is no one grand model that does that. So each one of these 

models, Aegis and THAAD and so forth, would get aggregated to 

give you some kind of prediction of the overall system. So there is, 

like I say, a symbiotic relationship, very important. 

Mr. MITCHELL. In addition to what Mr. Francis said, the data 

has another very important issue. And that is the system can behave in unexpected ways that didn’t threaten the flight. You may 

have had a success. But there is something peculiar, that data, 

that leads you to an investigation about what did this function do? 

Why did it do it? Why was the tracking accuracy the way it was 

and would you expect it to be a little bit better than that that occurred in flight? 

That data is a rich field with which to really poke at, not only 

your understanding of the system, but the way it is physically implemented, to determine whether or not it was intended to be that 

way. That is a second-level—a very important use of that data. 

Mr. TURNER. Thank you very much. 

Madam Chair. 
38 

Ms. TAUSCHER. I think the issue of validation of the models and 

simulations is one of the first things that General O’Reilly is moving vigorously to mitigate. 

The analogy I think is like if you have a patient appear in the 

emergency room. And you don’t take down their temperature and 

their vital signs, but you decide that they have a critical issue 

where they may need surgery. Nobody is going to go into surgery 

without figuring out whether the person, you know, has a heartbeat that is going, and a temperature that is okay, and whether 

they can manage the anesthesia or not. 

And I think that what is clear to me is that the lack of 

verification of these models and simulations, some number north of 

40, creates, for Dr. McQueary, this question of confidence. 

And Mr. Francis, this is a specific area that you have talked 

about in the GAO report. Could you just expand a little bit on the 

novelty of the fact that this hasn’t been done, the fact that this is 

an underpinning of, not only ‘‘fly before you buy,’’ but the kind of 

assurances and surety that systems are meant to have? 

Mr. FRANCIS. Sure. I do review a number of different programs, 

shipbuilding programs and Army programs. And we just did some 

work looking at testing of body armor. And in a test of a system 

like that, you can run repeated tests and get all the data you need, 

whether or not you have a model. You fully understand everything 

that vest can do. 

I think what is unique here about the missile defense is testing 

cannot achieve that. We can’t know everything about the system, 

because just the physical limitations of testing as it relates to the 

BMDS system. So modeling in some cases is a nice-to-have. But in 

missile defense, it is a must-have. 

And so one of the things that missile defense has been trying to 

do—and I think it is General Nadeau’s responsibility—is to do an 

annual performance assessment, which is an attempt to use modeling and simulation to say, ‘‘What do we know about the system 

that is in the field today,’’ because testing can’t tell us enough. You 

have to have your models accredited, part of which means being 

anchored in ground and flight test to be able to say that. 

And as I had said earlier, we are quite a ways from that. We 

have 40 models right now that would have to be aggregated in 

some form to say ‘‘Do we understand how the system in the field 

today works?’’ Twenty-five have yet to be accredited. 

So the significance of that is you can’t say how the fielded system 

is going to perform without the modeling and simulation. So it is 

a must-have. 

Ms. TAUSCHER. Thank you. 

I am not sure who came in first, Mr. Franks or Mr. Lamborn. 

Mr. Franks for five minutes. 

Mr. FRANKS. Well, thank you, Madam Chair. 

Madam Chair, I was just listening to the responses by Mr. Coyle. 

I guess related to the European site with the 10 interceptors suggestion that, you know, as many as five of the interceptors might 

be launched against one potential incoming missile. Even if that 

scenario was true, I guess that there are a couple of conclusions 

there. 
39 

First of all, that would mean perhaps at least two cities would 

be saved. Secondarily, given Iran’s present, at least what we believe is their present amount of fissile material that they have, 

there is a limit to the number of warheads that they might have, 

which might give us a chance to respond with greater numbers of 

interceptors, if that becomes clear. 

I think that my greatest hope is that the presence of a groundbased system in Poland and in the Czech Republic would, as it has 

been said so many times today, to devalue the Iranian nuclear program, to the hope that somehow many of the other things that we 

are trying to do would dissuade the program entirely and, again, 

try to keep that technology from the hands of terrorists. 

That is just a comment. But I wanted to ask you, Mr. Mitchell, 

a question. You stated in your written testimony, and I am going 

to quote. It says, ‘‘I conclude from this evidence that a fundamental 

useful defensive capability based on an autonomous operation of 

Aegis BMD, THAAD and GMD elements is available to our armed 

forces. But I cannot state that BMDS has reached maturity.’’ And 

I think that is a very erudite statement. 

And you raise an important point. Even though that BMDS 

hasn’t reached complete maturity, that it is still a useful defensive 

capability. And you are certainly an expert in this area. Can you 

comment on a few of the factors within the system and the testing 

mechanisms, as they are now, that give you the confidence to say 

that there is a useful defensive capability here? 

Mr. MITCHELL. Well, I have to be careful about the use of the 

word ‘‘confidence,’’ as Dr. McQueary schooled us earlier today. 

So—— 

Ms. TAUSCHER. You can say it is subjective confidence. 

Mr. MITCHELL. I am going to try and use the word only when I 

am talking about statistical significance. GMD, in its last three firing missions, has essentially successfully detected a re-entry vehicle (RV), targeted it, and the EKV has destroyed that warhead. 

They were simple, separating targets, as General O’Reilly said, 

much like the trajectories we might have to engage from North 

Korea, using—— 

If you look at that, there have been three chances. It has done 

it three times. There is something there that is useful. Now, I also 

am aware of the models that they use to predict their performance 

prior to these missions. And they are very detailed. And playing 

data back through, they were able to replicate what happened in 

flight. 

So I am beginning to believe that, if we finish the work started 

by General O’Reilly and use those models to arrive at a true understanding of the probability of success, we will have a credible defense. But that is yet to be proven. Now, that is solely for simple 

separating targets, as you—— 

Mr. FRANKS. No, that is a great answer, Mr. Mitchell. And I appreciate the analogy that you use of flipping the coin. You described in your testimony where statistics describe increasing confidence as a result of more flips of the coin or a greater number 

of testing trials in the case of BMDS. 

And while we absolutely need to conduct flight and ground testing, you said in you testimony, ‘‘the cost to conduct a firing mission 
40 

makes it prohibitively expensive to develop a high degree of confidence for the performance of the system for any one scenario, 

much less full battle space using only live-fire events.’’ In other 

words, it takes a lot to do all of these things. It costs a lot. 

Based on that, can you discuss the importance of high-fidelity 

models and simulations in order to achieve the type of statistical 

credibility and reliability in BMDS that you describe in your analogy? And what is the confidence level in high-fidelity models and 

simulations when testing BMDS? And I want you to hold that 

thought, if you could. 

There is one voice that I have heard in the crowd here. And I 

think it is the most compelling voice that I have heard on missile 

defense today. I think he is about seven-and-a-half months old. And 

I appreciate him being here. And I want you to know, my purpose 

for being on this panel is to make sure that he walks in the sunlight of freedom like the rest of us do. 

So please, I hope that he didn’t distract you here. 

Mr. MITCHELL. Oh no, not at all. The key to using models and 

simulations is that you have to be able to believe the results that 

you get from a model. That belief is what we have been calling 

VV&A, anchoring. We have used several terms, several different 

things that go into building a belief in the output. 

If you can believe that output, you can conduct any number of 

trials you want just using computer. You can do 250 and do 1,000 

against a scenario and get a very narrow range in which the real 

probability of success lies with a high degree of statistical confidence. You can then repeat that for any other scenario you wish 

to use. And by that technique, you can develop a sense of what the 

operational effectiveness of the system is. 

Mr. FRANKS. Thank you, all, very much. 

Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Ms. TAUSCHER. Isn’t it true that the reason we can use stockpile 

stewardship, which is simulation of testing using high-speed computers and other means, putting the largest laser in the world that 

is in my district in California, is because we had 1,000 tests at the 

Nevada Test Range and other places? 

Isn’t it true that one of the reasons why there is a question of 

anchoring and certifying the simulation and the testing and the 

modeling of the long-range system is that there hasn’t been that 

number of tests that actually go back and say what you are projecting in the modeling and simulation which, by the way, are projections, or is not grounded in the reality of enough tests? Is that 

true? Yes. 

Mr. MITCHELL. That is true. But I would like to expand upon the 

observation, if I may. 

Ms. TAUSCHER. Sure. 

Mr. MITCHELL. Tests come in a number of different types. Much 

of the things that are represented in models can be verified by conducting experiments underground. You can measure what the drift 

rate in an inertial measurement unit (IMU) is and have that replicated in a model as a statistical draw. You can do a lot of that. 

You will need flight tests for some things to do. The 1,000 tests, 

if I were to draw that analogy, would encompass all of these things, 

including flight tests, and say yes, we have to do that. But I don’t 
41 

want to leave the suggestion that we have to conduct 1,000 flight 

tests or 100 flight tests. 

Ms. TAUSCHER. Well, my point wasn’t that we have to do 1,000 

tests. But my point is that the reason why we have such confidence 

in the science-based stockpile stewardship management of the 

weapons, particularly the weapons now, is that we tested 1,000 

times. We have such a body of tests that you are not stretching the 

algorithm to try to get yourself to a place, because you have a significant body of live tests. 

Mr. MITCHELL. That is correct. 

Ms. TAUSCHER. And I am not suggesting that the long-range system has to go through 1,000 tests. But I think that what General 

O’Reilly—the point that he is approaching, is that we have not had 

enough live tests to be able to certify enough of the models and 

simulations. 

We have 25 out of the 40 that cannot be anchored. And that 

there is no credibility, perhaps—maybe not the right word, but a 

significant piece of it is credibility. There is no credibility to the 

projections that these simulations and these modelings have, because you cannot ground them. You cannot anchor them in live 

tests. 

Mr. Francis. 

Mr. FRANCIS. At this point, that is true. So you can’t use the 

models to predict the performance of the system. I think one of the 

things that is different, and I will defer to my colleagues here on 

the panel, is, in the case of the long-range system, I don’t think it 

is possible to physically test everything about it. 

Ms. TAUSCHER. That is right. 

Mr. FRANCIS. And that is where the models and simulations are 

actually going to have to do things that we can’t do physically. 

Ms. TAUSCHER. That is right. 

Mr. Lamborn for five minutes. 

Mr. LAMBORN. Is that working? 

Ms. TAUSCHER. I can hear you. 

Mr. LAMBORN. Thank you. 

Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Mr. Coyle, I would like to ask you a question about your three 

over-arching points, especially point number one on page six. And 

to me, I am going to give you some scenarios. And I think you will 

have—I hope you would agree that we have to question your first 

over-arching point when you consider the following. 

You say that Iran or North Korea would not be suicidal and 

would not do a launch against the U.S., because ballistic missiles 

have return addresses. But I can think of—just sitting here—right 

off the top of my head, I can come up with four different scenarios 

where that would not be true. 

For instance, if they secretly armed a terrorist organization 

thinking that they could get away with it and leave no fingerprints; 

or if there was theft by some breakaway group within the country; 

or launch by rogue officials, rogue officers; or even accidental 

launch. I mean, in none of those four scenarios is the threat of retaliation by the U.S. an effective deterrent. 

So even if your point is true that they are not suicidal, and I am 

not sure I even buy that point. But even if that is true, these other 
42 

alternative scenarios show that we should have some kind of protection if it is technologically possible. Even if the risk is slight, the 

consequence are so serious—it is a threat that has to be taken seriously. 

So when I look at that way of looking at it, Mr. Coyle, I just can’t 

buy your first point. What is your response to that? 

Dr. COYLE. Well, of course, the first two scenarios you mention, 

terrorism and theft, missile defense isn’t effective against those 

things. So perhaps we could put those aside, we would agree about 

those two. 

The other two that you mention, a rogue launch, accidental or 

unauthorized launch, those were exactly the criteria that the Clinton Administration had for missile defense during the Clinton Administration. 

In those days, of course, we were talking about an accidental or 

unauthorized launch from Russia or China—not from North Korea 

or Iran—but similar. And the reason that President Clinton didn’t 

decide then to go ahead with missile defense for that mission, because that was the only mission. It was not to try to stop an allout attack of missiles—— 

Mr. LAMBORN. Understood. 

Dr. COYLE. It was because, when his second term was finished, 

there had only been three tests. And two of them had failed. So 

there wasn’t much of an argument that the system would be effective. 

A good question that you are asking is, ‘‘Okay, what has changed 

since then?’’ And one of the difficulties that President Clinton faced 

was that both Russia and China do use decoys and countermeasures. And so the—the regional commanders, the CINCs as 

they were called in those days, advised him that chances are that 

our missile defense system wouldn’t work against an accidental or 

unauthorized launch from Russia or China, because those decoys 

would deploy, countermeasures would work. There would be, you 

know, these kinds of problems. 

And so that is what I am trying to bring out in my testimony 

is, one way or the other, if you think that this could happen, you 

have got to deal with the possibility of multiple, simultaneous 

launches or launches with decoys and countermeasures. And that 

has been something which, until General O’Reilly, the Missile Defense Agency has been kicking down the road. 

Mr. LAMBORN. Well, and I agree with you. I think this testing 

is going to be stepped up and beefed up and made more comprehensive. And I am very happy about that. But you said that 

that is in the context of Russia and China. North Korea and Iran, 

I think we would agree, are not nearly as technologically advanced. 

And as far as your earlier point, you said that those first two scenarios somehow didn’t apply. But my understanding is that, as 

missile technology becomes more advanced, even in lesser countries, lesser technological countries, like Iran and North Korea, 

they are developing a mobile capability. I mean, these tend to be 

mobile launchers. 

So acquisition by terrorists, whether it is deliberate or not, becomes easier the more that mobile technology for ballistic missiles, 
43 

is available. So I think all these scenarios are valid. And I am sure 

there are others that we haven’t discussed. 

Dr. COYLE. Well, I would agree with you. The difficulty is that 

the systems that are planned and being developed, the systems in 

Alaska, for example, and proposed for Europe are very focused on 

two countries, Iran and North Korea, not on other countries or, you 

know, terrorist groups such as you are positing. If that is the 

threat we have to worry about—I hope it isn’t, but if it is—I think 

that would argue for the more mobile kinds of systems, shorterrange and more mobile kind of systems, which as I understand it 

is where your chairwoman is going also. 

Mr. LAMBORN. Thank you for your answers. And I think all of 

the kinds of defenses we can field are all valuable. 

Ms. TAUSCHER. I don’t think we disagree. 

Mr. LAMBORN. I would agree with you on that. 

Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Ms. TAUSCHER. Thank you. Thank you, sir. 

We want to thank the panelists very, very much. We are just beginning our hearings. This was our first subcommittee hearing of 

this year. We specifically wanted to talk about missile defense and 

testing. We obviously believe that it is very important that we have 

the system, the suite of systems in its best capability as possible. 

We appreciate your efforts to illuminate the debate. And we will 

probably be calling on you again. 

Our working relationship with General O’Reilly is very, very 

good. And we expect that we are going to be hearing from him later 

in the spring as we move on toward doing the mark for the full 

committee for the defense bill. 

So this hearing is adjourned. The committee offers its thanks to 

the panelists very, very much for your hard work, for your patriotism and for your willingness to be before us. Good afternoon. 

[Whereupon, at 4:42 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

A P P E N D I X 

FEBRUARY 25, 2009 

PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD 

FEBRUARY 25, 2009 

(49) 
50 
51 
52 
53 
54 
55 
56 
57 
58 
59 
60 
61 
62 
63 
64 
65 
66 
67 
68 
69 
70 
71 
72 
73 
74 
75 
76 
77 
78 
79 
80 
81 
82 
83 
84 
85 
86 
87 
88 
89 
90 
91 
92 
93 
94 
95 
96 
97 
98 
99 
100 
101 
102 
103 
104 
105 
106 
107 
108 
109 
110 
111 
112 
113 
114 
115 
116 
117 
118 
119 
120 
121 
122 
123 
124 
125 
126 
127 
128 
129 
130 
131 
132 
133 
134 
135 
136 
137 
138 
139 
140 
141 
142 
143 
144 
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS POST HEARING 

FEBRUARY 25, 2009 

(147) 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MS. TAUSCHER 

Ms. TAUSCHER. What is your current assessment of the capability of the GMD system to successfully engage and destroy a long-range missile threat from North 

Korea—high, medium, or low? 

Dr. MCQUEARY. Ground-based Midcourse Defense (GMD) has demonstrated a limited capability to defend against simple, long-range ballistic missile threats 

launched from North Korea toward the United States. 

As I have previously testified, my statistical confidence in the performance of the 

GMD system across the entire battle space and against the full range of possible 

threat types remains low for two reasons. First, the Missile Defense Agency (MDA) 

has conducted only three intercept flight tests using the operational equipment and 

software and all of these occurred within a relatively small portion of the threat 

battlespace. Second, the models and simulations used by the MDA to assess GMD 

capability over the full battlespace and threat scenarios have not yet been verified, 

validated, or accredited for use in these assessments. 

Notwithstanding these limitations, I believe the warfighters have developed tactics, techniques, and procedures that improve the capability of the GMD to successfully engage and destroy a long-range missile threat from North Korea. I defer to 

the operational commander for his assessment of his ability to defend against any 

specific threat that may be posed against the United States today. 

Ms. TAUSCHER. To what extent was the GMD system designed to be suitable and 

survivable? 

• What specific steps do you believe are necessary to increase our confidence in 

the suitability and survivability of the GMD system? 

Dr. MCQUEARY. The Missile Defense Agency (MDA) has imposed design specifications on the prime contractor that in its opinion balanced need for the Ground-based 

Midcourse Defense (GMD) system’s rapid deployment with operational suitability 

and survivability. The Agency is best suited to provide design specifics and the underlying rationale. 

While the GMD system did not have Reliability, Availability and Maintainability 

(RAM) requirements designed into the system, the Agency implemented a limited 

RAM program in 2006. For the last year, the Operational Test Agency (OTA) Team 

has been working with the Agency to collect data on the suitability of the fielded 

GMD components. The current three-phased review of testing is examining the suitability and survivability data that have already been gathered. As improved components are fielded, such as the Capability Enhancement II Exoatmospheric Kill Vehicle, the Agency and the OTA Team will collect and assess the reliability, availability, and maintainability data. 

The MDA has committed to enhance the current RAM program and to implement 

a reliability growth program for new components. Building on the Critical Operational Issues and measures previously developed by the multiservice OTA Team, 

the Director, Operational Test & Evaluation staff, and U.S. Strategic Command, the 

Agency and the multiservice OTA Team will identify and prioritize tests, venues 

and resources needed. The updated Integrated Master Test Plan (IMTP) will incorporate the results of this three-phase review. Execution of this updated IMTP will 

provide the necessary confidence in the operational suitability and survivability of 

the GMD system. 

Ms. TAUSCHER. As MDA develops its revised testing program, what testing work 

remains to be done and how would you prioritize the work? 

Dr. MCQUEARY. The Missile Defense Agency’s (MDA) three-phased test review 

began with an agency wide effort to identify the critical factors necessary to examine system capability for each element and the overall Ballistic Missile Defense System (BMDS). The goal is to build a foundation of models and simulations that will 

allow us to understand performance at the system, element, or sub-element level. 

In addition, both the developmental and operational test communities are identifying the other data, such as reliability and maintainability data, necessary to support their respective evaluations. This review has already highlighted common gaps 

across the elements such as modeling of threats, debris, and general environmental 

conditions. The focus is to identify the testing that the MDA needs to accomplish 
148 

to validate and accredit the models and simulations necessary to evaluate the capability of the elements, such as Ground-based Midcourse Defense, as well as to evaluate the BMDS as an integrated system. The second phase is developing test strategies to capture the required data. The third phase will prioritize these requirements 

and allocate them to the test resources available, considering all test capabilities 

and limitations. The MDA plans to complete this effort by June 2009 and to publish 

a new Integrated Master Test Plan that will establish the priorities. The MDA Director and I will review and approve this plan. In general terms, I expect the top 

priority to be collecting the data to validate the basic system performance models 

within the likely operational domain of current threat systems. Once the basic performance models are validated, the Agency can expand testing to examine emerging 

threat capabilities. 

Ms. TAUSCHER. In the Fiscal Year 2008 Annual Report to Congress, DOT&E continued to raise concerns about the effectiveness, suitability, and survivability of the 

GMD system, noting that there was insufficient information available to make a determination. 

• What specific actions do you need to see before you are prepared to declare 

GMD effective, suitable, and survivable? 

Dr. MCQUEARY. To declare the Ground-based Midcourse Defense (GMD) effective, 

suitable, and survivable, the Missile Defense Agency (MDA) will need to accomplish 

sufficient ground and flight testing to successfully validate and accredit the models 

and simulations that we will use to assess GMD capability. There may also be certain events which are best empirically measured, such as flight tests with low radar 

cross section re-entry vehicles, high closing and separation velocities, and tumbling 

re-entry vehicles. Finally, technical analyses and maintenance data from fielded 

components will be integrated into analytical models to provide predictions of sustainability and survivability. I am confident that the MDA’s three-phase test review 

will result in a test program that, if fully funded and implemented, will allow me 

to assess GMD effectiveness, suitability, and survivability. 

Ms. TAUSCHER. What multi-mission events, such as cyber attack or other asymmetric attacks of key assets, have been introduced during GMD flight testing? 

• What multi-mission events are planned to be introduced in the future and 

when? 

• How is MDA adjusting its overall information assurance plan to address these 

issues? 

• If we have no such plans, why is this lack of threat realism acceptable? 

Dr. MCQUEARY. Given the overarching safety considerations, flight tests are generally not an appropriate venue for the introduction of cyber attacks. The Missile 

Defense Agency (MDA) has conducted this type of testing on ground equipment and 

communication links using integrated and distributed ground tests. To date, cyberattacks scenarios have been simulated for Ground-based Midcourse Defense during 

the Assured Response warfighter exercise, and are also planned in future Terminal 

Fury (1 scenario) and Global Thunder (10 scenarios) exercises. This is an appropriate method to evaluate the vulnerability and hardness of the Ballistic Missile Defense System (BMDS) elements and their communication links to cyber and asymmetric attacks. The MDA is coordinating the execution of its information assurance 

plan with the overall ground test plan. The on-going three-phased review will identify the additional testing required to validate and accredit the models and simulations, as well as any other testing needed to complete a comprehensive survivability 

evaluation. The MDA is developing an updated Integrated Master Test Plan that 

will identify the future testing needed to address any voids in the BMDS system 

assessment. The warfighter’s ability to employ the BMDS under asymmetric or 

cyber attack is best assessed during ground tests or major warfighter exercises employing multiple attack vectors simultaneously. 

Ms. TAUSCHER. The Fiscal Year 2009 National Defense Authorization Act prevents DOD from deploying long-range missile defense interceptors in Europe until 

the Secretary of Defense, taking into account the views of DOT&E, certifies that the 

proposed interceptor will work in an operationally effective manner and accomplish 

the mission. 

• From your perspective, what are the key operational differences associated with 

deploying the GMD system in Europe as compared to Alaska and California? 

• What impact would those differences have on how you would structure the testing program for the European GMD deployment? 

• What specific steps do you believe MDA needs to complete before you would recommend that the Secretary of Defense certify that the proposed interceptor has 
149 

a high probability of working in an operational effective manner and is capable 

of accomplishing the mission? 

Dr. MCQUEARY. I see four key operational differences associated with employing 

the Ground-based Midcourse Defense (GMD) in Europe as compared to the current 

deployment in Alaska and California: the two-stage missile; the sensors; the command, control, battle management & communications (C2BMC); and the mission 

timelines. These key operational differences must be considered in the testing program for the European GMD deployment. 

It is important to note that while the two-stage missile is an essential component 

of the European Capability, the interceptor itself is not necessarily unique to the 

European mission. There are certain scenarios where the employment of a two-stage 

interceptor from Alaska might offer specific operational advantages. There are numerous similarities between the two-stage booster, its associated launch hardware 

and software, and the existing three-stage booster. The Missile Defense Agency 

(MDA) has successful experience making this kind of modification. These changes 

can be adequately tested in the two flight tests currently proposed by the MDA. On 

the other hand, there are two distinct issues with the proposed two-stage interceptor: the interceptor itself and its performance in the European scenario. Testing 

the European mission cannot be accomplished with only one intercept flight test. I 

anticipate that the MDA will need to accomplish multiple intercept tests as well as 

numerous hardware-in-the-loop and ground tests, replicating as closely as possible 

intercept geometries and the timelines associated with them, to validate and accredit the necessary models and simulations. 

Testing the sensors, C2BMC, and mission timelines—basically the heart of the 

European mission—is even more challenging. The very short timelines associated 

with threat and target locations, the sensor locations, and their associated intercept 

geometries, makes understanding the coordination challenges and communications 

latencies of the C2BMC critical to mission success. The only way to confidently understand and adjust to these challenges and latencies is to ground test in Europe 

after the hardware and software have been deployed there. If this is not possible, 

all testing, not just the live intercept testing, must be accomplished using the current Pacific test bed. 

The intercept geometries, the timelines associated with them for both decision 

making and intercept, and the complex command & control issues must be developed, refined, and tested during both intercept flight tests and extensive hardwarein-the-loop ground testing while simulating the European architecture. To do this, 

there are a number of issues that must be resolved. How does the MDA emulate 

the European Midcourse Radar if it cannot be used for actual intercept testing in 

the Pacific test bed? How does the MDA accurately calculate and then replicate communications latencies in the Pacific test bed? How does the MDA overcome the limitations with the Pacific test bed that prevent realistic testing of the European Mission? Ultimately, models and simulations must be developed and verified, validated, 

and accredited before we can be confident in our ability to perform the European 

missile defense mission. This process must be accomplished using the Pacific test 

bed which is not an optimum solution. 

The results of the MDA’s current three-phase testing review should provide me 

with better estimate of when I will be able to recommend that the Secretary of Defense certify that the proposed interceptor has a high probability of working in an 

operational effective manner and is capable of accomplishing the mission. 

Ms. TAUSCHER. Would you recommend that the GMD program establish a master 

test program similar to Aegis BMD and THAAD? 

• What impact has the lack of a master test plan had on GMD’s ability to adequately plan for the system’s long-term testing? 

Dr. MCQUEARY. Both Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD) and the Terminal 

High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) have benefited from having legacy master test 

programs. This approach has also allowed these programs to efficiently and effectively verify and validate the models and simulations necessary to fully examine 

their capabilities. The Missile Defense Agency (MDA) Director has recognized the 

value of having a master test program. He has initiated the Agency wide threephase review of the test program and directed development of a test plan that spans 

the Future Years Defense Plan (FYDP). This new approach will benefit all of the 

MDA’s programs and will clearly define the requirements and resources necessary 

to accomplish this testing. 

Ms. TAUSCHER. Last year, the operational test authorities accredited the models 

for Aegis BMD version 3.6. 

• Does the Aegis BMD do modeling and simulations differently from other BMDS 

elements? 
150 

• If so, what are the key differences? 

• Are there lessons from the Aegis BMD modeling and simulation program that 

could be applied across the BMDS, particularly to the GMD system? 

Dr. MCQUEARY. Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD) modeling and simulation 

differs from other Ballistic Missile Defense System (BMDS) elements principally due 

to differences in model maturity. The recently transitioned Aegis BMD build 

(Version 3.6) leveraged existing Aegis hardware and software, including associated 

models and simulations. In comparison to other BMDS element models and simulations (for example Ground-based Midcourse Defense and Terminal High Altitude 

Area Defense), the Aegis BMD models are older and have acquired significant anchoring data to support verification, validation, and accreditation. 

Aegis BMD employs a number of complementary, element-focused, and predominantly digital models and simulations. Their results are rigorously compared and 

analyzed during pre-test readiness reviews to gain confidence in the model estimates and to predict system performance. The results are then compared with the 

post-flight reconstructions. 

The MDA’s actions to conduct a comprehensive three-phase test review and to develop verification and validation plans for their models and simulations (supported 

by anchoring data) are evidence that the MDA is already applying lessons-learned 

from the Aegis BMD modeling and simulation program to other BMDS elements. 

Ms. TAUSCHER. In its Fiscal Year 2008 Annual Report to Congress, DOT&E noted 

that theater missile defense systems (e.g., Aegis BMD, THAAD, and PAC-3) continued to make progress, while strategic systems (e.g., GMD) continue to face challenges in regards to testing. 

• What are the key reasons for these differences? 

• To what extent have Aegis BMD and THAAD’s success been a result of using 

their original operational requirements document to guide their testing and development? 

• Are their lessons from the Aegis BMD and THAAD programs that we could 

apply to the GMD program? 

Dr. MCQUEARY. There are several reasons for these differences: 

1. The Ground-based Midcourse Defense (GMD) mission (defense against intercontinental ballistic missiles) is a more complex task than the defense against 

short and medium range ballistic missiles. While there was extensive prototype 

testing, the current GMD system is still in a predominantly developmental test 

regime with the first flight of the new production Capability Enhancement II 

Exoatmospheric Kill Vehicle scheduled later this year. 

2. The Navy and Army have long traditions of conducting operationally realistic 

testing. The active involvement of the respective Service Operational Test 

Agencies has contributed to this success, particularly in determining operational suitability. 

3. Unlike the Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD) and Terminal High Altitude 

Area Defense (THAAD) programs, GMD did not originate from a Service program with clearly stated operational requirements. While it is difficult to ascribe specific benefits to the Aegis BMD and THAAD programs, operational requirements documents frame the evaluation requirements that ultimately drive 

rigorous testing. 

In general, Aegis BMD, THAAD, and Patriot have been executing rigorous, evaluation-based, traditional test programs that use Service best practices to demonstrate required capabilities through testing. Completion of the three-phase test review will give the Missile Defense Agency (MDA) a significantly improved and evaluation-based test program. Execution of this evaluation-based strategy should result 

in verified and validated models and simulations over the expected engagement envelope with unique capabilities demonstrated through empirical measurement 

events. The comprehensive test review is evidence that the MDA is applying lessons 

from the Aegis BMD and THAAD programs to other Ballistic Missile Defense System elements, including the GMD program. 

Ms. TAUSCHER. How have the missile defense elements, including interceptors and 

sensors, proven in their suitability for rain, high winds, snow or sleet, and other 

severe weather conditions? 

Dr. MCQUEARY. To date, most Ballistic Missile Defense System flight testing has 

occurred under benign conditions. This is primarily due to the fact that, while the 

Missile Defense Agency follows a combined operational and developmental (DT/OT) 

testing program, flight testing to date has been more developmental in nature requiring controlled test conditions to meet both test objectives and safety require-
151 

ments. On the other hand, all the sensors have tracked objects during a variety of 

environmental conditions; they have just not supported intercept flight tests in 

these conditions. 

Future operational testing will occur in natural environments and conditions, as 

they are present on the day of testing, subject to range safety limitations. As long 

as safety requirements are met, the test will execute. However, it would be cost prohibitive to delay a test—and all the expensive test support—waiting for specific 

weather conditions. Therefore, high fidelity ground testing, incorporating validated 

and accredited environmental models, will be the primary means to assess system 

performance under severe weather conditions. This includes, when and where possible, testing in climatic chambers such as will be done with all elements of the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense system connected and powered simultaneously. 

Ms. TAUSCHER. How was the Sea-based X-Band radar designed to be survivable? 

• Have we tested and run exercises to understand this issue? 

• What about other BMDS sensors? 

Dr. MCQUEARY. The Sea-Based X-band (SBX) radar and the host platform were 

designed to support operations in the Northern Pacific Ocean. The 2007 Winter 

Shakedown period demonstrated SBX survivability in extreme environmental conditions. Survivability design considerations also included electromagnetic interference 

and compatibility; information operations; and physical security. The Department of 

Defense has developed and implemented tactics, techniques and procedures to address the physical security of the SBX. In addition, the SBX was designed to provide 

for future survivability (Nuclear, Biological, and Chemical) upgrades. The Missile 

Defense Agency (MDA) continues to conduct tests, exercises, and analyses to provide 

data to characterize SBX survivability. 

For fixed-site sensors such as the Upgraded Early Warning Radars and Cobra 

Dane, which are located on military installations, the MDA and the multiservice 

Operational Test Agency Team will leverage previous Service assessments (for example, physical security) wherever possible. Performance of these long time operational sensors in various environmental conditions is well understood. 

For the AN/TPY-2, the MDA is conducting tests, exercises, and analyses of data 

from actual deployments to characterize the survivability of both the forward-based 

version and the tactical version of the radar system. In addition, the tactical version 

will undergo environmental testing in the climatic chamber at Eglin Air Force Base, 

Florida. 

The assessment of sensor survivability is an on-going process. Where data voids 

exist, the MDA will address them as part of the current three-phase test review. 

Ms. TAUSCHER. Due to cost pressures, MDA has removed three flight tests from 

the THAAD flight test program. In the past, DOT&E has raised concerns that this 

action has increased risk to the THAAD program. 

• Does it remain your view that MDA’s decision to remove the three flight tests 

from the THAAD test program has increased risk to the program? 

• What specific steps would you recommend for reducing risk for the THAAD test 

program? 

Dr. MCQUEARY. It is still my view that the re-baseline of the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) test program increased development risk to the program. The reduced number of flight tests, combined with the loss of data from FTT04 as the result of the target failure, means fewer opportunities to demonstrate repeatability of performance, which raises development risk and lowers confidence in 

any assessments we will make in the future. As it stands today, any loss of flight 

test data will likely require additional flight tests to achieve the prescribed knowledge points for THAAD. To the Missile Defense Agency’s (MDA) credit, when the 

target failed during FTT-10, the agency elected to repeat the flight test (FTT-10a). 

This decision reflects MDA’s renewed commitment to an evaluation driven approach. 

The completion of the current three phased review will provide another bottom 

up review of test requirements. The key to reduced development risk and a successful program remains a commitment to an evaluation based strategy that focuses on 

the information needed to form an evaluation rather than a specific number of flight 

tests. 

Ms. TAUSCHER. Do you think that the lethality demonstration scheduled for 2009 

will constitute proof that ABL is operationally effective, suitable, or survivable? 

• Will additional tests and analysis are required before the operational effectiveness or suitability can be determined? 

Dr. MCQUEARY. The Missile Defense Agency (MDA) is building the Airborne Laser 

(ABL) to demonstrate technology, not to demonstrate effectiveness, suitability, and 

survivability. The MDA did not structure the technology demonstration program to 
152 

provide the data necessary to make such an operational assessment. Testing leading 

up to the demonstration will concentrate on preparations for achieving a successful 

shoot down. 

Additional tests and analyses will need to be conducted during the systems development phase. Questions of effectiveness, suitability and survivability are normally 

addressed during testing of the production representative equipment, in this case 

airframe #2. I cannot draw meaningful conclusions about the potential operational 

suitability, or survivability of the ABL based on the program to date and the success, or failure, of the demonstration shoot down. Even attempting to relate lessons 

learned from the design, development, and construction of the current ABL airframe 

to future operational effectiveness, suitability, and survivability would be conjecture 

at best. The demonstration airframe is strictly a prototype built to demonstrate a 

technology. A single shoot down during a very controlled, non-operational scenario 

will only give a single example of capability at one point in the projected operational 

envelope of the ABL. At the time of the demonstration, there will be no data to draw 

any conclusions about the suitability of the ABL. Any survivability conclusions 

would be hypothetical, as the current technology demonstrator program is not structured to address ABL survivability issues. One would anticipate that the MDA 

would make many changes in the first developmental ABL, airframe #2, in an effort 

to make it operationally effective, suitable, and survivable. I will be better able to 

answer these questions during the development and testing of the first developmental airframe, not the current ABL technology demonstrator. 

That said, a successful high-power laser flight demonstration would be a major 

program milestone and could, with additional relevant testing, validate the feasibility of employing the current platform in support of high energy laser adjunct missions. 

Ms. TAUSCHER. The Director of Operational Test and Evaluation has indicated in 

its fiscal year 2008 annual report, that testing for the MDA is not yielding enough 

data to support certification of the elements at an individual level and at the integrated system level. 

• How does MDA plan to ensure that the BMDS is fully tested—including operationally effective and suitable—prior to continuing production? 

• How is MDA working with DOT&E to improve the data that DOT&E needs to 

certify the BMDS and its elements? 

• Will MDA continue the approach of concurrent testing and fielding under the 

new block structure? 

• Is that approach still necessary given that the Presidential directive to field an 

early capability has been met? 

Dr. MCQUEARY. A combination of flight and ground testing together with validated and accredited models and simulations is needed to ensure that the Ballistic 

Missile Defense System (BMDS) is fully tested and demonstrated to be operationally 

effective and suitable. An integrated approach that leverages combined developmental and operational testing to the maximum extent feasible is essential. 

Based upon the on-going three-phase review, the Missile Defense Agency (MDA) 

is developing a revised Integrated Master Test Plan (IMTP) to document test requirements and ensure that they fully accomplish all required BMDS testing 

through the Future Years Defense Plan. The plan, once executed, should also provide all the necessary validation data to anchor the models and simulations. My 

staff is working closely with the MDA and the multiservice Operational Test Agency 

Team to ensure that the IMTP addresses our data requirements for certifying the 

BMDS and its elements. 

The MDA has sought to balance developmental maturity and production stability, 

technical risks, and costs, to provide a capability to the warfighter where none existed. I will recommend certification after the system has demonstrated a high probability of accomplishing its mission in an operationally effective manner. The decision as to whether or not to continue with concurrent testing and fielding of part 

or all of the BMDS is a matter of policy best considered after advice from the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Combatant Commanders. My commitment 

is to provide the Congress and the Secretary of Defense (and ultimately through the 

latter, the warfighter) with the best available information upon which to make their 

decisions. 

Ms. TAUSCHER. If a missile defense system has the ‘‘technical capability’’ to shoot 

down an incoming ballistic missile target, does that mean the system is operationally effective, suitable, or survivable and has the ability to accomplish the mission? 

• What are the differences between technical capability and effectiveness, suitability, and survivability? 
153 

Dr. MCQUEARY. Even though a missile defense system may have the ‘‘technical 

capability’’ to shoot down an incoming ballistic missile, it does not necessarily mean 

that the system is operationally effective, suitable, or survivable. 

‘‘Operational Effectiveness’’ is the overall degree of mission accomplishment of a 

system when used by representative personnel in the environment planned or expected for operational employment of the system considering organization, doctrine, 

survivability, vulnerability, and threat. 

‘‘Operational Suitability’’ is the degree to which a system can be satisfactorily 

placed in field use, with consideration given to availability, compatibility, transportability, interoperability, reliability, wartime usage rates, maintainability, safety, 

human factors, manpower supportability, logistics supportability, documentation, 

and training requirements. 

‘‘Survivability’’ is the susceptibility and vulnerability of a system to a threat and 

the ability to repair the system following threat-induced damage. 

Technical capability is a system’s ability to perform a specific function or accomplish a specific mission, for example the ability to intercept a particular threat in 

a given flight regime. While not all technically capable systems are effective, all effective systems are technically capable. Operational effectiveness implies that the 

system will perform as desired across the full battle space against the full spectrum 

of intended threat systems. Similarly, an operationally suitable system will perform 

satisfactorily under the full range of conditions, not just under a certain demonstrated subset. 

Ms. TAUSCHER. To what extent was the GMD system designed to be suitable and 

survivable? 

• What specific steps do you believe are necessary to in increase our confidence 

in the suitability and survivability of the GMD system? 

General O’REILLY. The GMD system continues to mature its suitability and survivability capabilities. The DOT&E has specified several critical operational issues 

to characterize suitability and survivability, and these are listed in their 2008 Assessment of the BMDS, dated January 2009. Suitability is defined in the context 

of BMDS strategic and theater missile defense operations as being (1) interoperable, 

(2) reliable, (3) available, and (4) maintainable. 

Interoperability has been ground and flight tested and the Agency continues to 

demonstrate good interoperability among BMDS sensors (AN/TPY-2, Sea-Based Xband radar, Upgraded Early Warning Radar—UEWR, and the Aegis SPY-1 surveillance and tracking radar). Interoperability with C2BMC upgrades includes effective 

communications between the command authorities who authorize engagements to 

the weapon system operators at the fire direction centers. GMD flight test FTG-05, 

in December 2008, successfully demonstrated end-to-end testing of the BMDS system with excellent interoperability among all four sensors and led to the generation 

of a weapons task plan, a successful engagement, and an intercept. 

GMD is implementing a comprehensive, but very limited Reliability, Availability 

and Maintainability (RAM) program to both quantify capabilities as well as increase 

the reliability of the System. The current RAM Program, initiated in 2006, includes 

data collection and assessments of deployed assets, reliability growth testing of critical components, root cause and corrective action for failures, and a stock pile reliability program to assess the shelf-life of selected components. GMD formed a Joint 

Reliability & Maintainability Evaluation Team (JRMET) with the Operational Test 

Agencies (OTAs) to assess the RAM data generated from field assets and test 

events. 

Specific steps to enhance confidence in reliability include: comprehensive testing 

of all components as well as implementing a true growth program to both increase 

reliability as well as enhance service life of the components. The GMD System has 

much the same reliability of the initial Minute Man System, which has a comparable missile to the GMD Ground-Based Interceptor. 

The DOT&E reported that GMD Blocks 1 and 3 are partially suitable for their 

missions based on a very limited database, and that more data are required to perform a comprehensive characterization of suitability. GMD materiel readiness has 

been maintained over the past 36 months to the point that GMD components are 

readily available to meet heightened Readiness Conditions (REDCON) requirements. In addition, readiness rates have consistently exceeded GMD program material readiness goals and are consistent with legacy missile systems. 

Survivability is an attribute of the degree to which the system is survivable 

against a conventional attack and is survivable in its intended operating environment. Therefore, the survivability of the GMD system reflects the security of its primary operating locations at Schriever AFB, Vandenberg AFB, and Ft. Greely. Addi-
154 

tionally, these sites have been augmented to meet the security requirements established by USSTRATCOM. 

In the area of improvements to Physical Security, GMD is in the process of upgrading the Integrated Electronic Security System and overall security capabilities. 

GMD is working with Space & Missile Defense Command (SMDC) to definitize requirements that achieve necessary system effectiveness to secure the Fort Greely, 

Alaska site. In 2008/2009 GMD installed Ground Surveillance Radars to improve detection and plan to increase access delay and denial capabilities in 2010–2012. As 

part of this overall upgrade we are also exploring the options to harden existing facilities to make them better able to withstand direct and indirect attack. 

Survivability of network communications is currently achieved via multiple diverse and redundant communications paths provided by both satellite and fiber 

optic links. Ground Systems [GMD Fire Control (GFC), GMD Communications Network (GCN), Command Launch Equipment (CLE), and In-Flight Interceptor Communications System (IFICS) Data Terminal (IDT)] support survivability currently 

through multiple computer processors, communications diversity, and geographic redundancy. 

GMD is improving the survivability of its interceptors through implementation of 

the Fleet Avionics Upgrade/Obsolescence Program for interceptors to enhance our 

current capability to operate in the operational natural environment. 

Ms. TAUSCHER. What is your current level of confidence in the ability of the GMD 

system to successfully intercept a potential long-range missile launched from North 

Korea—high, medium, or low? 

General O’REILLY. Our confidence in the GMD system’s ability to successfully 

intercept a long-range missile launched from North Korea at the United States is 

high. Our confidence is based on several factors, 1) Testing of the GMD system, 2) 

Sufficient weapons (ground-based interceptors) to counter the expected threat, and 

3) Sufficient warfighter interaction with the system to develop effective tactics, techniques and procedures. 

Although limited to North Korean scenarios, GMD flight testing has been successful, as evidenced from three GMD Flight Tests (FTG-02 in September 2006, FTG03a in September 2007, and FTG-05 in December 2008) where we intercepted threat 

representative targets on each occasion. However, GMD has not tested the 

battlespace beyond North Korean scenarios representing simplistic threats. Our 

analysis strongly suggests countermeasure tests can be managed during an engagement, and a series of countermeasure tests will begin with the next flight test, FTG06 in the 4QFY09. 

The warfighting community has and continues to participate in ground and flight 

tests. Warfighters also use wargames and exercises as opportunities to develop and 

hone their tactics, techniques, and procedure to maximize its ability to prosecute the 

missile defense mission. They are trained and certified with the most recent BMDS 

configuration available, and have demonstrated the ability on several occasions to 

activate the system when needed and posture for credible and effective operational 

missile defense of the homeland. 

Ms. TAUSCHER. What percentage of the currently deployed GMD interceptors in 

Alaska and California would you rate as fully mission capable for combat operations 

at any given time? 

General O’REILLY. [The information referred to is classified and retained in the 

committee files.] 

Ms. TAUSCHER. Recent GAO reports state the GMD element has experienced the 

same anomaly during each of its flight tests since 2001. According to the GAO, 

while the anomaly has not yet prevented the program from achieving any of its primary test objectives, GMD has been unable to determine its source or determine the 

anomaly’s root cause. 

• Please provide an update on the assessment of the anomaly, including its potential for causing the interceptor to miss its target. 

• Please detail how the GMD element has mitigated the anomaly and whether 

all the mitigations have been flight tested and the data analysis completed. 

• Does this anomaly reduce the confidence in the reliability of the emplaced interceptors? 

• And has the shot doctrine been changed to provide a better chance of probability of kill? 

General O’REILLY. [The information referred to is classified and retained in the 

committee files.] 

Ms. TAUSCHER. Given its strategic mission to intercept potential nuclear armed 

long-range ballistic missiles, why weren’t GMD interceptors designed to operate in 

nuclear environments? 
155 

• Do you have plans to retrofit GMD interceptors to operate in nuclear environments? 

• What are the costs associated with such an upgrade? 

• Has MDA planned and programmed for this? 

General O’REILLY. [The information referred to is classified and retained in the 

committee files.] 

Ms. TAUSCHER. To what extent has the GMD been tested in harsh weather environments (e.g., rain, snow, fog, etc)? 

• What information can be learned from such testing? 

• If not, what are your plans to do so? 

General O’REILLY. The GMD system operates in benign environments since it operates at fixed sites on U.S. military bases. The interceptors are comprehensively 

verified after emplacement in silos whose environments are carefully monitored and 

controlled. However, the GMD system-level components have been tested under 

harsh environments per MIL-STD-1540. These environments include analysis and 

testing for vibration, shock, thermal balance and climatic conditions. This testing 

has provided high confidence in the components’ abilities to perform in the widest 

range of harsh environments expected. Using models and simulations, the Agency 

has conducted system-level ground testing against threats in conditions of rain, high 

winds, snow, sleet, and other weather conditions. Results indicate that the GMD 

system will meet its requirements. 

The amount of useful information from ground testing and analysis is sufficient 

to characterize system performance across the spectrum of conditions expected. 

Ms. TAUSCHER. What multi-mission events, such as cyber attack or other asymmetric attacks of key assets, have been introduced during GMD flight testing? 

• What multi-mission events are planned to be introduced in the future and 

when? 

• How is MDA adjusting its overall information assurance plan to address these 

issues? 

• If we have no such plans, why is this lack of threat realism acceptable? 

General O’REILLY. All aspects and operating conditions of the GMD system undergo intense scrutiny of multiple Department of Defense review and test teams to ensure it is protected from cyber and other symmetric attacks in all operating phases, 

including analysis of performance during flight tests. MDA in coordination with 

COCOMs, JTF-GNO, and NSA continuously conducts network monitoring and defense in order to protect the BMDS. 

Cyber attack simulations or other asymmetric attacks of key BMDS assets are not 

expressly included during development flight testing. Introducing an anomaly like 

a cyber attack rendering inoperable a portion of the BMDS during the course of a 

developmental flight test would introduce an unacceptable level of risk of corrupting 

the test objectives. However, for an operational test of military utility, or as part 

of a warfighter’s rehearsal or operational readiness drill, simulating an attack on 

the infrastructure would be entirely necessary and appropriate. 

To date, cyber-attack scenarios have been simulated for GMD during Assured Response warfighter exercise, and are also planned in future Terminal Fury (1 scenario) and Global Thunder (10 scenarios) exercises. These scenarios exercise the responsiveness to simulated cyber-attacks. Penetration tests are regularly performed 

immediately following ground-test runs for record. Current Penetration Tests are in 

planning stages to incorporate defensive operations and procedures in response to 

realistic cyber-attacks. 

As part of developing and fielding BMDS capabilities, MDA performs Information 

Assurance (IA) compliance validation tests to make sure BMDS capabilities are IA 

compliant with DoD standards and can operate in a cyber threat environment. 

As part of the ground test program, while the system is still in the test configuration, MDA performs penetration testing to determine if there are any IA weaknesses 

that could be exploited by potential adversaries. 

During normal day-to-day operations, Blue teams are scheduled to perform cyber 

attacks on selected key assets to determine likely threat vectors that could be used 

against BMDS capabilities. 

The Agency continues to plan for and expand testing to address emerging threats 

consistent with the intent of OSD procedures for OT&E of Information Assurance 

in Acquisition Programs, and we are moving towards compliance as our penetration 

testing capabilities increase. Our overall information assurance plan provides for a 

risk-based implementation of procedures and countermeasures. The cyber-threat is 

monitored and analyzed, and those results are made available to GMD and other 
156 

elements through a variety of mechanisms including daily summaries and, for GMD, 

presentations at the quarterly GMD System Protection Working Group. 

In addition to the simulated threat, it is worthwhile noting that, from a threat 

mitigation perspective, the Agency works closely with our Intelligence Community 

partners, and service counterparts to identify the foreign threat to all of our tests— 

this includes cyber. The exact details of this are classified, but we generally ensure 

that safeguards are in-place to identify, and where possible counter every level of 

threat including technical. 

Ms. TAUSCHER. Do you plan to fly the CE1 version of the GMD EKV against a 

target with countermeasures in an intercept? 

• If not, why? 

• If we don’t conduct such a test, how will we have confidence that the system 

will work in a real-time combat situation? 

General O’REILLY. MDA is currently reexamining its flight testing program and 

expects to include additional flight testing of the Capability Enhancement CE-I 

exoatmospheric kill vehicle (EKV). A BMDS test review is now underway to determine the complete body of data necessary to validate the BMDS models and simulations and the data needed to validate operational effectiveness, suitability and survivability. The integrated master test plan will be revised following the BMDS test 

review and it is expected that testing of the CE-I EKV will be accomplished and 

include the specific objective to discriminate and intercept a dynamic lethal object 

from an operationally realistic target scene with countermeasures. 

Ms. TAUSCHER. In fiscal year 2008, due to technical challenges, the GMD program 

was unable to conduct any intercept tests, despite the fact that Congress had authorized and appropriated more than $200 million to conduct such tests. 

• Did the Missile Defense Agency provide the prime contractor (Boeing) an award 

fee for its fiscal year 2008 performance? 

• If so, how much and what was the justification for such an award? 

General O’REILLY. Boeing was awarded $182.48M (66%) out of a potential fee pool 

of $276.45M for their performance during fiscal year 2008. 

Boeing’s less than satisfactory performance during fiscal year 2008 resulted in the 

removal of $95.08M from the award fee pool. More specifically, the lost fee opportunities were attributed to: 

• Failure to achieve any flight test intercepts during fiscal year 2008; 

• Missed commitments to deploy up to six new interceptors; 

• Delayed deployment of new capability to the warfighter; 

• Programmatic and budgetary impact within GMD and the Agency due to restructures of the integrated ground and flight test program; and 

• Failure to provide a joint product for establishing a common architecture for the 

Common Avionics Module. 

$33.57M of the $95.08M lost fee opportunity in fiscal year 2008 was authorized 

to be carried over to the fiscal year 2009 award fee period. $25M is authorized to 

be applied to GMD Flight Test-05 (FTG-05), $5M to Distributed Ground Test-03 

(GTD-03), $3.57M to Sea-based X-Band shipyard performance parameters, Simultaneous Test and Operations long haul communications and safety certification, and 

Upgraded Early Warning Radar documentation for Transition and Transfer. 

The Boeing Company significantly contributed to the BMDS mission in the following areas: 

• Excellent job planning and conducting ground test events GTD-02 and GTI-03; 

• Exceptional planning and execution of the BMDS system-level Sensor Characterization Flight Test (FTX-03) and associated data analysis even though the 

target flew an off-nominal trajectory; and 

• Noteworthy support of real-world events such as Operation Fast Shield. 

Ms. TAUSCHER. The Director of Operational Test and Evaluation has indicated in 

its fiscal year 2008 annual report, that testing for the MDA is not yielding enough 

data to support certification of the elements at an individual level and at the integrated system level. 

• How does MDA plan to ensure that the BMDS is fully tested—including operationally effective and suitable—prior to continuing production? 

• How is MDA working with DOT&E to improve the data that DOT&E needs to 

certify the BMDS and its elements? 

• Will MDA continue the approach of concurrent testing and fielding under the 

new block structure? 
157 

• Is that approach still necessary given that the Presidential directive to field an 

early capability has been met? 

General O’REILLY. A. How does MDA plan to ensure that the BMDS is fully tested-including operationally effective and suitable-prior to continuing production? 

In the on-going three-phase test review, MDA, the DOT&E and the BMDS Operational Test Agency Team are defining how operational testing attributes can be incorporated within the BMDS test program. As part of the review, critical operational 

issues are driving future test events, to include multiple simultaneous engagements, 

salvo launches, and more complex target presentations. MDA is developing detailed 

test planning requirements for meeting a more robust system assessment, with inputs from the BMDS OTA Team and the DOT&E. The review participants are planning tests with verifiable, quantifiable results, which will take place over the next 

three to four years. The BMDS Integrated Master Test Plan will be approved by 

MDA, the DOT&E and the BMDS Operational Test Agency Team and delivered at 

the end of May. 

MDA works with USSTRATCOM, DOT&E and the Military Departments to ensure adequate integrated development and operational testing. MDA has sought an 

appropriate balance between developmental maturity and production stability, technical risks and costs, to provide a capability to the warfighter where none existed. 

The goal is to add capabilities with demonstrated military utility, as they mature. 

B. How is MDA working with DOT&E to improve the data that DOT&E needs 

to certify the BMDS and its elements? 

One of MDA’s highest priorities is to refocus the BMDS test and evaluation program to determine what data are needed to validate our models and simulations, 

so that our warfighter commanders, the DOT&E, the BMDS OTA Team, and other 

decision-makers on the Missile Defense Executive Board have confidence in the predicted performance of the BMDS. The results of the on-going three phase test review will be a top-down-driven, event-oriented plan that extends until the collection 

of all identified data is complete. 

The BMDS test review to date confirms our need to significantly improve the rigor 

of the BMDS digital models and simulations of threat missiles, the phenomenology, 

and operational environments. The BMDS Integrated Master Test Plan (IMTP) will 

define the test program that will produce the data needed by DOT&E and the 

BMDS OTA Team to assess the BMDS capabilities, and will be signed by the 

DOT&E and the BMDS OTA Team. 

In order to assure close working relationships, the great majority of the BMDS 

OTA Team members are collocated with the MDA testing staff in Huntsville, and 

the MDA Director for Test meets on a bi-weekly basis with his counterpart in the 

Office of the Director, Operational Test and Evaluation. 

C. Will MDA continue the approach of concurrent testing and fielding under the 

new block structure? 

No. MDA intends to complete DT/OT prior to development programs being considered for fielding and operational acceptance decisions by the Services. However, 

when a contingency need arises (such as protection of the U.S. from long-range 

North Korean missiles) the appropriate COCOM Commanders and Joint Chiefs of 

Staff consider the capability and limitations of our developmental systems. If ordered, MDA will employ components of the BMDS on a contingency basis. 

D. Is that approach still necessary given that the Presidential directive to field 

an early capability has been met? 

MDA uses a capability-based acquisition process that allows MDA to address 

emerging, real-world threats as expeditiously as possible. Our process is based on 

collaboration with the warfighter community throughout development, testing and 

fielding. The priorities of the warfighter are based on the need to respond to real 

world threat. The results of the Joint Capability Mix Phase II study are evidence 

that DoD supports the importance of responding to the threat quickly. 

In some cases, such as GMD, we fielded limited capabilities to protect the Nation 

where portions of the system performance had been demonstrated in early tests. 

MDA fielded parts of GMD to provide a limited capability, and we continue to test 

in parallel for a full capability. In other cases, such as Aegis BMD 3.6.1, we have 

fielded an operational capability that has been tested and evaluated by the Navy’s 

COMOPTEVFOR, and continue to field additional capabilities for optimum BMDS 

integration and multi-area-of-responsibility use. With THAAD, we developed an initial capability that we have demonstrated against most short range threats, but 

have just begun our test campaigns to address medium range threats. MDA plans 

to continue this approach, to provide critical capability in increments to the 

warfighter based on their priorities. 

Ms. TAUSCHER. To what extent has the BMD sensors been tested in harsh weather environments (e.g., rain, snow, fog, etc)? 
158 

• What information can be learned from such testing? 

• If you have not conducted such testing, when to you plan to initiate such testing? 

General O’REILLY. Sea-Based X-Band (SBX) radar and AN/TPY-2 radars: 

A. SBX equipment and procedures were thoroughly tested in a detailed Winter 

Shakedown test from 3 Jan through 20 Feb 07 in the harsh northern Pacific Ocean, 

to include wave heights up to 50 feet and sustained winds of 60 knots, gusting to 

102 knots. The assessment demonstrated payload performance in Alaska environments; safety at sea; vessel navigation; sustainment operations; and COCOM and 

external agency inter-operability. 

B. The AN/TPY-2 radar has been performing very well in austere environments 

in both Japan (since 2006) and Israel (since 2008). 

C. Cobra Dane and Upgraded Early Warning Radars were designed, built, and 

tested by the Air Force. The operating frequencies of UEWR (UHF) and CDU (LBand) are minimally affected by weather environments (e.g., rain, snow, fog). The 

UEWR and CDU use the same external facilities (e.g.., array face, structure) that 

housed the Early Warning radars and COBRA DANE. The facilities have been in 

place for more than 20 years and have successfully operated and survived in all environments during that period. Therefore, specific weather related testing is unnecessary for UEWR and CDU. 

Ms. TAUSCHER. To what extent was the Sea-based X-Band radar designed to be 

survivable? 

• Have you tested and run exercises to understand this issue? 

• What about other BMDS sensors? 

General O’REILLY. [The information referred to is classified and retained in the 

committee files.] 

Ms. TAUSCHER. DOT&E’s latest report indicated that target reliability was a continuing problem in 2008. For example, in two recent flight tests, FTX-03 and FTG05, target missiles did not successfully deploy the planned countermeasures, which 

prevented the elements from developing algorithms needed for advance discrimination. DOT&E reported that until these target problems are solved, this poses a risk 

to future flight tests using countermeasures. 

• Please provide a status on developing advanced algorithms for discrimination. 

• What capability does MDA currently possess for discrimination? How was this 

capability verified? 

• Will additional flight tests need to be scheduled to understand the discrimination capabilities of the currently fielded interceptors? 

General O’REILLY. [The information referred to is classified and retained in the 

committee files.] 

Ms. TAUSCHER. Last year, the operational test authorities accredited the models 

for Aegis BMD version 3.6. 

• Does the Aegis BMD do modeling and simulations differently from other BMDS 

elements? 

• If so, what are the key differences? 

• Are there lessons from the Aegis BMD modeling and simulation program that 

could be applied across the BMDS, particularly to the GMD system? 

General O’REILLY. The primary difference in accreditation status resulted when 

the Navy’s Commander Operational Test and Evaluation Force (COMOPTEVFOR), 

accredited Aegis Element models, primarily MEDUSA, for Navy operational effectiveness. While in a MDA system-level performance simulation venue, Performance 

Assessment 2007 (PA07), EADSIM was used as the Aegis 3.6 representation which 

the MDA Operational Test Agency (OTA) did not accredit for BMDS system performance, primarily due to model limitations. 

In Performance Assessment 2009 (PA09), the Navy is using MEDUSA as the 

Aegis representation and will be the first opportunity for the OTA to evaluate the 

performance of the Aegis MEDUSA model during a MDA system-level performance 

event. 

Aegis BMD has a successful test program that provides numerous opportunities 

to collect test data to validate their M&S representations. This is their main advantage that can be shared with GMD. The lesson learned is that a lack of test data, 

especially from flight tests, does not allow OTA to accredit their representations. I 

have placed personal emphasis and scrutiny on tightly linking test events for elements and the BMD system to validating MDA models and simulations. 

Ms. TAUSCHER. System-level performance assessments are a comprehensive 

means to fully understand the performance capabilities and limitations of the 
159 

BMDS. In order to have high confidence in system-level models and simulations, 

MDA relies on an independent entity, the BMDS Operational Test Agency, to provide an accreditation. This organization depends on the verification and validation 

work performed by MDA’s elements. Accreditation is an official decision of how 

much confidence there is in a model or simulation used in the performance assessment. Currently, the BMDS Operational Test Agency has fully accredited 6 out of 

40 models and simulations, which are used for annual performance assessments. 

MDA intends to complete Performance Assessment 2009 by the end of the calendar 

year, but it is highly unlikely that this performance assessment will be fully accredited. 

• What is MDA doing to make progress in validating models and simulations? 

• When do you anticipate that MDA will have a fully-accredited, system-level performance assessment? 

General O’REILLY. The Missile Defense Agency (MDA) has implemented a Modeling and Simulation (M&S) System Post Flight Reconstruction (SPFR) program to 

better leverage the performance data that is gained through Flight Testing for 

model validation. During SPFR assessments, BMDS M&S representations are exercised under day-of-flight conditions to compare model performance to actual system 

performance. For calendar year 2009, MDA will implement SPFR validation assessments for system level flight tests in both Hardware-in-the-Loop (HWIL) and endto-end digital performance assessment representations. 

The BMDS is a capability based continuously evolving architecture—a spiral development process. Each delivery of a new missile defense capability requires the 

delivery of new models and simulations. The delivery of new models and simulations 

requires additional accreditation. Thus, as new versions of components emerge, their 

modeling and simulation representations must be anchored back to real-world 

events and data. Utilizing the SPFR program, and through analysis of the models 

and simulations database, the level of accreditation and confidence in the representation of BMDS performance will continue to increase. As we complete the Performance Assessment 2009 (PA09) effort in late Calendar Year 2009, we will complete 

accreditation review, based on OTA criteria, of the models that represent the December 2009 BMDS configuration. Any model structure or real world validation 

data shortcomings indentified in this process will be addressed through anchoring 

back to real world events and data when available. Validation data requirements 

will be provided to the test planning process. The completion of accreditation for 

models of the December 2009 BMDS configuration will not be precisely known until 

this accreditation review is complete. The PA09 model ensemble which represents 

the BMDS December 2009 configuration will be maintained and improved to meet 

any shortcomings indentified in the accreditation process. The Agency is restructuring the test program to provide data for Modeling & Simulation (M&S) Validation. The M&S Verification and Test Design Process will allow for collection of data 

parameters through flight and ground tests. As part of this on-going effort, the system level simulations, Digital Simulation Architecture (DSA) and the Single Stimulation Framework (SSF), will provide a fully capable representation of the fielded 

2010 BMDS configuration in October of 2010. The data to support Verification, Validation & Accreditation (VV&A) of the DSA and SSF is being addressed as part of 

the scheduling activity during Phase III of the M&S Test Verification and Design 

Process. The product of the Phase III activity is a revised BMDS Integrated Master 

Test Plan (IMTP) which identifies the test events providing M&S validation data. 

The schedule for completion of BMDS Block Validation and Accreditation will be 

completed in conjunction with the revised IMTP. 

Ms. TAUSCHER. In its Fiscal Year 2008 Annual Report to Congress, DOT&E noted 

that theater missile defense systems (e.g., Aegis BMD, THAAD, and PAC-3) continued to make progress, while strategic systems (e.g., GMD) continue to face challenges in regards to testing. 

• What are the key reasons for these differences? 

• To what extent have Aegis BMD and THAAD’s success been a result of using 

their original operational requirements document to guide their testing and development? 

• Are there lessons from the Aegis BMD and THAAD programs that we could 

apply to the GMD program? 

General O’REILLY. What are the key reasons for these differences? 

The relative level of maturity between the programs is the key reason for differences noted in the DOT&E Annual Report. GMD was an advanced concept program in 2002, when National Security Presidential Directive-23 directed MDA to deploy a set of initial missile defense capabilities beginning in 2004. GMD early devel-
160 

opment assets were placed into operational service to provide this initial capability. 

Continuing the spiral development process, while at the same time responding to 

real world demands, has slowed some of GMD’s planned progress. For example as 

a first priority, the initial GMD test program focused on establishing confidence that 

the system would in fact meet the challenges of the early threat. 

In contrast, the first Aegis ship was commissioned in 1983. Starting in 2002, MDA 

developed the necessary modifications to add Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense capability into an already existing Aegis fleet. Sound systems engineering in support of 

performance cornerstones was and remains essential to how the Aegis project, and 

now Aegis BMD, organizes and executes the ballistic missile defense mission. A 

combination of development, system engineering, integration, testing, training, logistics, technical support, operations and sustainment has been operating successfully for close to forty years. Leadership, to include communication, responsibility, 

authority and accountability, is a hallmark of the Aegis BMD program. 

THAAD was defined as a program in 1992 and went through an eight year concept definition phase before entering full scale development in 2000, and is expected 

to deliver its first operational assets later this year. 

Both Aegis and THAAD were significantly more mature programs at the time 

MDA was created and given the mission to provide Limited Defensive Capability 

through accelerated development, testing and deployment of the GMD system. 

To what extent have Aegis BMD and THAAD’s success been a result of using 

their original operational requirements document to guide their testing and development? 

Greater system maturity, not the existence of operational requirements documents, accounts for the greater success of the Aegis and THAAD test programs. The 

Secretary of Defense cancelled all missile defense Operational Requirements Documents in 2002. Since then, MDA specification documents and test plans have guided 

development and testing for GMD, Aegis BMD and THAAD. For each element, testing under operationally realistic conditions is an important part of maturing the 

BMDS. The MDA has been fielding test assets in operational configurations in order 

to conduct increasingly complex, end-to-end tests of the system. Comprehensive 

ground tests of the elements and components precede each flight test. MDA increasingly introduces operational realism into BMDS flight tests, bound only by consideration of and compliance with environmental and safety regulations. 

Aegis BMD uses a number of different BMDS and Aegis BMD documents for testing and development. However, system maturity and the Aegis BMD test program 

philosophy drive their success rate. Throughout its development, Aegis BMD has 

employed a deliberate, rigorous and disciplined technical approach to testing. There 

is tight coupling of modeling and simulation, ground testing and flight tests. Modeling and simulation are anchored with ground and flight test data. Aegis BMD philosophy to ‘‘test as we fight’’ institutes operational realism in all flight tests. Aegis 

BMD involves the operational test agent and warfighter in the early planning and 

conduct of each mission. Following each mission, critical Fleet feedback is provided 

to engineering development. 

The THAAD Project Office had a JROC approved Operational Requirements Document (ORD) on 1 May 2000. The ORD was the principal tool to guide the THAAD 

Project Office through the design phase. The ORD was used to conduct requirement 

trades for the System Preliminary Design Review in 2002 and was used as a guide 

for System Critical Design Review (CDR) in 2003. The ORD was not used to write 

critical operational issues and criteria for use in current test designs and operational assessments. 

Are there lessons from the Aegis BMD and THAAD programs that we could apply 

to the GMD program? 

GMD has drawn some lessons learned from Aegis BMD. In 2005 there were two 

early GMD flight test failures attributable to flaws, first in the software, and then 

with a fixture in a test silo. A mission readiness task force was established to set 

standards for rigor in test reviews. Drawing on lessons learned from the Aegis test 

program, these standards were applied not just to GMD, but implemented throughout MDA, and have resulted in successful flight tests from that point. MDA encourages the staff at all levels to collaborate and apply lessons learned both within their 

elements, as well as across the board, to improve mission success. 

Ms. TAUSCHER. In 2009, MDA plans to demonstrate the ABL during a lethality 

demonstration in which the system will attempt to shoot down a short-range ballistic missile. The KEI element also has a key decision point—a booster flight test— 

scheduled for 2009. In preparation for this test, the program conducted static fire 

tests and wind tunnel tests in fiscal year 2007 to better assess booster performance. 

Upon completion of KEI’s 2009 booster flight test and ABL’s 2009 lethality dem-
161 

onstration, MDA will compare the progress of the two programs and decide their 

futures. 

• Do you believe that the lethality demonstration scheduled for 2009 will constitute proof that an operational ABL is feasible and should be acquired for the 

boost phase system? 

General O’REILLY. No. The lethality demonstration is necessary but not sufficient 

to determine if the ABL should be acquired. A successful lethal demonstration by 

the ABL will answer two vital questions. First, is the technology ready? A successful 

demonstration will prove the technology is available to engage and destroy a ballistic missile during a missile’s most vulnerable phase before a payload can be employed or countermeasures can be deployed. Second, is the lethality concept feasible? 

A successful demonstration will increase the value of a layered missile defense while 

reducing the viability and effectiveness of enemy ballistic missiles. DoD’s intent is 

to continue to test and comprehensively assess the current prototype ABL as a research test bed while refining the design prior to a Tail 2 production decision in the 

future. 

Ms. TAUSCHER. The 2009 lethality demonstration is a key knowledge point for the 

ABL. Upon completion of the demonstration, MDA will decide the future of the program. Even with a successful demonstration, MDA will need to determine whether 

an operationally effective and suitable ABL can be developed. 

• Given that the 2009 lethality demonstration is successful and the ABL continues through development and into fielding, how does MDA plan to proceed 

with the development of the system’s unique operations and support requirements? 

• Starting with the lethality demonstration, please lay out the key questions that 

must be answered on ABL in order for it to be considered technically practical 

(that is, it can do its job reliably), operationally practical (that is, it can actually 

be where it needs to be and when), and practically supportable (that is, its 

maintenance can be performed by military personnel, its maintenance and support is affordable, and the basing/support operation is feasible in terms of 

human safety)? 

• How does MDA plan to minimize the difficulty of relocation and unique handling difficulties associated with the ABL? 

• What safety concerns currently exist with the ABL? 

General O’REILLY. Q1) How does MDA plan to proceed with the development of 

the system’s unique operations and support requirements? 

A1) MDA will work closely with Air Combat Command (ACC) to refine the Concept of Operations (CONOPS). ACC developed the current ABL CONOPs (January 

2007) and has been instrumental in providing user requirements into the ABL element of BMDS. 

The ABL aircraft is a Boeing 747-400F that requires minimal ABL airframeunique maintenance and support. These aircraft are in service throughout the world 

with a robust support structure. The weapon system utilizes commercially available 

chemicals (hydrogen peroxide, salt, chlorine, ammonia, iodine and helium) that are 

available globally. ABL has developed a prototype deployable/transportable chemical 

mix facility that will allow the manufacturing of laser fuel at any Forward Operating Location. A demonstration of ABLs ability to deploy will occur after lethal 

demonstration. ABL will continue to mature the life-cycle operation and support 

plans through continued tests, studies and user inputs. ABL will meet warfighter 

operational and support requirements and provide a globally deployable capability. 

Q2) What are the key questions that must be answered in order for ABL to be 

considered technically practical (that is, it can do its job reliably)? 

Key Questions include: Is the ABL lethal against all classes of ballistic missiles? 

Can ABL detect and track ballistic missiles threats? Can ABL compensate for the 

effects of atmospheric effects between ABL and the target? Does the ABL provide 

a capability that meets warfighter needs? 

ABL will address the most critical question of lethality during ABL’s lethality 

test/demonstration against a threat-representative ballistic missile in Fall of 2009. 

Data from this demonstration can then be used to anchor models to predict lethality 

against different types/classes of missiles. Successful completion of this test will also 

demonstrate ABL’s ability to detect and track ballistic missiles. 

The most technically challenging requirement for ABL has been compensating for 

the atmospheric effects between ABL and the target. ABL repeatedly demonstrated 

its ability to perform this critical function in 2006 during dozens of flight tests 

against special aircraft designed to assess ABL’s atmospheric compensation capability. 
162 

After lethal demonstration, MDA will continue to generate knowledge concerning 

ABL by addressing military utility issues. These follow-on ABL efforts will develop 

and demonstrate more robust capability within the ABL design and address key 

warfighter requirements such as: BMDS interoperability, weapon system maneuverability, ABL deployability, survivability, Reliability, Maintainability and Sustainability (RM&S). Key technology areas that will be addressed are improving performance of the optics, optimum chemical utilization, increased laser power, 

modularization of the onboard chemical supply system, and increased beam quality. 

In combination with the existing RM&S program, these efforts will ensure that future ABLs provide a revolutionary warfighting capability. 

Q3) What are the key questions that must be answered in order for ABL to be 

considered operationally practical (that is, it can actually be where it needs to be 

and when)? 

Key questions include: Is ABL deployable? Is ABL maintainable at a Forward Operating Location? Are the laser chemicals available at Forward Operating Locations? 

Actions to address questions: According to the ABL Concept of Operations, operational ABLs will be primarily based in the continental United States. Operational 

ABLs will be able to deploy to Forward Operating Locations world-wide. The deployment of ABL is dependent on threat. ACC and STRATCOM will utilize current intelligence to ensure ABL, as a critical component of the BMDS, is in the appropriate 

theater of operations to engage targets to defend U.S. interests, and to provide critical tactical information to other BMDS components. ABL plans to demonstrate its 

deployment capability after lethal demonstration. Deployment requirements have 

been documented, a prototype chemical mix facility has been built and some unique 

support equipment is available to support deployment. ABL will utilize common 

support equipment available at bases that already support heavy aircraft. This will 

reduce the size of the deployment package. During deployments, required maintenance will be accomplished on the flight line or in maintenance facilities located just 

off the flight line. Deployed ABLs will have technical support and supply reach-back 

to the home bases to ensure operational availability. Continued collection and analysis of ABL sustainment data will ensure refinement of operational support needs. 

ABL will have the ability to deploy its entire support requirements on short notice 

to anywhere in the world in 72 hours. 

Q4) What are the key questions that must be answered in order for ABL to be 

considered practically supportable (that is, its maintenance can be performed by 

military personnel)? Are its maintenance and support affordable? Is the basing/support operation feasible in terms of human safety? 

Key question to determine ABL being practically supportable . . . utilizing military 

personnel . . . include: Are ABL maintenance requirements significantly different 

than other complex weapon systems? Are maintenance tasks that are required for 

normal ABL operations within the capability of Air Force maintenance personnel? 

ABL maintenance by Military personnel: ABL, like other complex weapon systems 

will have multiple levels of maintenance. Future ABL logistics support will be a mix 

of contractor support (depot and complex repairs) and organic Air Force support. As 

the program continues to gain knowledge via the existing ABL, we will be better 

able to determine the appropriate level of support required by both Air Force and 

contractor support. For deployed ABLs, Air Force maintenance personnel will perform aircraft maintenance and basic weapon system maintenance. ABL, with the 

support of ACC, has performed initial studies on the various skills required to operate and maintain the weapon system. ACC will continue to be actively involved in 

development of ABL maintenance. ABL will further refine maintenance requirements during the Characterization and Capabilities Demonstration period following 

lethal demonstration. 

Key questions to determine ABLs maintenance and support is affordable: Does 

the ABL program have a Reliability, Maintainability and Sustainability program in 

place? Does the RM&S program address life-cycle cost of maintenance and associated support? Are efforts in place or planned to reduce cost drivers? 

ABL maintenance and support affordable: During the Characterization and Capabilities Demonstration period, ABL will perform affordability studies to include 

maintenance and support of ABL within the BMDS layered defense environment. 

The key components that will be addressed during this period are the life-cycle cost 

drivers. The studies undertaken by the ABL System Program Office and industry 

partners will utilize the existing Reliability, Maintainability and Sustainability 

(RM&S) program to evaluate factors that contribute to life-cycle costs. Management 

of these life-cycle cost drivers will provide the efficient and effective support of future ABLs. 
163 

Key question to determine that ABL basing/support operation is feasible in terms 

of human safety: Does the ABL safety program adequately mitigate potential personnel hazards associated with operation and maintenance of ABL? 

Safe ABL operation and maintenance: At Edwards AFB, ABL has successfully 

demonstrated the ability to safely support all ABL operations since testing of the 

high power laser in 2004. This excellent safety record is a result of ABL safety program. We will utilize this safety program wherever ABL is located. ABL has performed initial deployment studies addressing issues related to safe operation and 

maintenance at forward operating locations. ABL has planned a deployment demonstration that will demonstrate ABL’s ability to conduct safe operations at various 

U.S. and foreign bases. 

Q5) How does MDA plan to minimize the difficulty of relocation and unique handling difficulties associated with the ABL? 

A5) Operational ABL will be able to deploy to Forward Operating Locations worldwide. These locations can be at any operational location where heavy cargo aircraft 

operate. Runways, taxiways, and instrument approach requirements are similar to 

those for other heavy aircraft. ABL support equipment is comprised of typical military and commercial aircraft ground support equipment (air conditioning, auxiliary 

power, etc.) and equipment that is particular to ABL. ABL will utilize common support equipment available at bases in-theater wherever possible to reduce the size 

of the deployment package. ABL will require a limited number of specialized support equipment to service the laser weapon and mix laser chemicals. ABL has developed and demonstrated a prototype deployable chemical mixing facility. The chemicals required to operate the High Energy Laser are globally available in commercial 

markets (chlorine, hydrogen, ammonia, iodine and helium). To ensure the quality 

and availability of chemicals, pre-positioning of ABL laser fuels at pre-designated 

FOLs will ensure immediate availability upon arrival of ABL aircraft. The laser fuel 

chemicals have an unlimited shelf-life prior to mixing. Air mobility or sea transportation can then be used to replenish those laser fuels not locally available. Transport of specialized equipment will require military airlift. The amount of deployed 

equipment will depend on the operational scenario, but will be smaller than the 

footprint of the actual 747 aircraft. 

Q6) What safety concerns currently exist with the ABL? 

A6) Current ABL safety concerns are categorized into ten hazard areas—these include chemical containment on and off the aircraft, fire suppression on and off the 

aircraft, degradation of critical structures and critical systems, degradation of flying 

qualities, solar avoidance, incorrect pointing, and beam containment. The program 

utilizes a rigorous 4-prong safety approach to identify, assess, and mitigate all safety concerns. First, the Program Office identifies the level of risk associated with 

each hazard area, prior to each test series. These risks are then accepted at the 

proper level within the MDA. Second, the Air Force Flight Test Center at Edwards 

AFB identifies, documents, and accepts any risks associated with testing the system 

safely. Third, the Boeing Commercial Aircraft Group assesses the system to determine the safety implications from modifications made to the ‘green aircraft’ and subsequently issues a ‘safe-to-fly’ letter prior to each flight test series. Lastly, an Executive Independent Review Team assesses ABL’s compliance with airworthiness standards and assesses the safety of flight test risks and hazard mitigations; they also 

provide a ‘safe-to-fly’ recommendation prior to each flight test series. 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. HEINRICH 

Mr. HEINRICH. BMDS test schedules are driven by the costs and availability of 

targets. MDA has also experienced a number of failures with targets over the past 

several years. The lack of affordable threat representative targets is seriously impacting the adequacy of operationally realistic flight testing. 

• What is MDA doing to ensure affordable targets are available to support adequate developmental and operational test objectives? 

General O’REILLY. MDA is taking a number of steps beginning this year to ensure 

targets are more affordable and available including: 

• Identifying cost drivers in requirements and challenging their need or identifying other/cheaper ways to obtain data (e.g., range sensors already participating in test) 

• Reviewing and refining the acquisition strategy, identifying industry capabilities and considering alternative approaches for supporting the test program. In 

the industry request for information released in January, we emphasized that 

we will focus on target reliability, affordability, flexibility, and threat represen-
164 

tation. Based on the results of industry input and the performance of current 

target development programs, MDA will determine this summer if recompeting 

current target contracts is warranted. 

• Evaluating test campaigns, grouping by threat and by range, and improving efficiencies in mission planning and execution. 

• Increased quantity buys for economy of scale. 

• Increasing the availability of targets by providing a rolling spare for each mission. 

• Improving the long-term requirements development process to allow better target planning across the Future Year’s Defense Program to reduce perturbations 

in target requirements (a major target cost/schedule driver). 

Mr. HEINRICH. A recent study indicated that the Army and Sandia National Laboratory provided MDA with targets on time and at a reasonable cost before the targets management and procurements efforts were moved to MDA. 

• Has MDA considered giving the targets development and acquisition program 

back to the Army Targets Office and Sandia National Laboratory? 

• What are the pros and cons of giving responsibility for development and acquisition of missile targets program back to the Army Targets Office? 

General O’REILLY. Target production is an integral part of the MDA test mission 

and there are no ongoing discussions with the Army regarding assuming this function. The targets procured from the Army were primarily through a Missile Defense 

Targets office whose personnel were direct funded by MDA and used Space and Missile Defense Center contract vehicles. The Target Vehicles were shorter range, lower 

fidelity, targets and did not represent threat capabilities as accurately as current 

target configurations under development by MDA. The lower fidelity targets are, by 

their very nature, less costly to develop or manufacture. With the establishment of 

an MDA targets office, Army personnel have either become MDA employees or 

found other employment and the Army contract vehicles have lapsed or were transferred to MDA. In addition, targets from Sandia National Laboratories (SNL) have 

come under increased scrutiny with the failure of the last two SNL targets (FTG05 and FTX-03) to deliver associated objects. As a result, not all critical test objectives were achieved despite achieving most test objectives for FTX-03 and a successful intercept test with FTG-05. 

MDA is assessing recent inputs from industry and other sources in response to 

an MDA Request for Information to determine the need to recompete target delivery 

contracts. All respondents, including SNL, are being considered. 

Mr. HEINRICH. Given the greater complexity, difficulty, and risk of intercepting 

missiles during the midcourse phase, how important do you think it is to invest in 

technologies focused on boost phase? 

General O’REILLY. [The information referred to is classified and retained in the 

committee files.] 

Æ