H. R. 4310—44 
(c) TRANSFER FROM AEGIS ASHORE SYSTEM.—The Director shall 
transfer Aegis weapon system equipment with ballistic missile 
defense capability procured for installation in the Aegis Ashore 
System to the Secretary for the DDG–51 Class Destroyer Program 
to replace any equipment transferred to the Director under sub-
section (a). 
(d) 
TREATMENT
OF
TRANSFER
IN
FUNDING
DESTROYER 
CONSTRUCTION.—Notwithstanding the source of funds for any equip-
ment transferred under subsection (c), the Secretary shall fund 
all work necessary to complete construction and outfitting of any 
destroyer in which such equipment is installed in the same manner 
as if such equipment had been acquired using amounts in the 
shipbuilding and conversion, Navy, account. 
SEC. 224. EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES FOR THE PRECISION 
TRACKING SPACE SYSTEM. 
(a) LIMITATION.—Of the funds authorized to be appropriated 
by this Act or otherwise made available for fiscal year 2013 for 
the Missile Defense Agency for the precision tracking space system, 
not more than 75 percent may be obligated or expended until 
the date on which— 
(1) the Director of Cost Assessment and Program Evalua-
tion completes the evaluation under subsection (b)(1); and 
(2) the terms of reference for the evaluation under sub-
section (b)(1)(B) are— 
(A) approved by the Missile Defense Executive Board, 
in coordination with the Defense Space Council; and 
(B) submitted to the congressional defense committees. 
(b) INDEPENDENT COST ESTIMATE AND EVALUATION OF ALTER-
NATIVES REQUIRED.— 
(1) IN
GENERAL.—The Director of Cost Assessment and 
Program Evaluation shall perform— 
(A) an independent cost estimate for the precision 
tracking space system; and 
(B) a comprehensive assessment evaluation of alter-
natives for such system. 
(2) BASIS
OF
EVALUATION.—The evaluation under para-
graph (1)(B) shall be based on a clear articulation by the 
Director of the Missile Defense Agency of— 
(A) the space-based and ground-based sensors that will 
be required to be maintained to aid the precision tracking 
space system constellation; 
(B) the number of satellites to be procured for a first 
constellation, including the projected lifetime of such sat-
ellites in the first constellation, and the number projected 
to be procured for a first and, if applicable, second 
replenishment; 
(C) the technological and acquisition risks of such 
system, including systems engineering and ground system 
development; 
(D) an evaluation of the technological capability dif-
ferences between the precision tracking space system 
tracking sensor and the space tracking and surveillance 
system tracking sensor; 
(E) the cost differences, as confirmed by the Director 
of Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation, between such 
systems, including costs relating to launch services; and
H. R. 4310—45 
(F) any other matters the Director believes useful that 
do not unduly delay completion of the evaluation. 
(3) EVALUATION.—In conducting the evaluation under para-
graph (1)(B), the Director of Cost Assessment and Program 
Evaluation shall— 
(A) evaluate whether the precision tracking space 
system, as planned by the Director of the Missile Defense 
Agency in the budget submitted to Congress under section 
1105 of title 31, United States Code, for fiscal year 2013, 
is the most cost effective and best value sensor option 
with respect to land-, air-, or space-based sensors, or a 
combination thereof, to improve the regional missile 
defense and homeland missile defense of the United States, 
including by adding precision tracking and discrimination 
capability to the ground-based midcourse defense system; 
(B) examine the overhead persistent infrared satellite 
data or other data that are available as of the date of 
the evaluation that are not being used for ballistic missile 
tracking; 
(C) determine whether and how using the data 
described in subparagraph (B) could improve sensor cov-
erage for the homeland missile defense of the United States 
and regional missile defense capabilities; 
(D) study the plans of the Director of the Missile 
Defense Agency to integrate the precision tracking space 
system concept into the ballistic missile defense system 
and evaluate the concept of operations and missile defense 
engagement scenarios of such use; 
(E) consider the agreement entered into under sub-
section (d)(1); and 
(F) consider any other matters the Director believes 
useful that do not unduly delay completion of the evalua-
tion. 
(4) COST DETERMINATION.—-In conducting the independent 
cost estimate under paragraph (1)(A), the Director of Cost 
Assessment and Program Evaluation shall take into account 
acquisition costs and operation and sustainment costs during 
the initial 10-year and 20-year periods. 
(5) COOPERATION.—The Director of the Missile Defense 
Agency shall provide to the Director of Cost Assessment and 
Program Evaluation the information necessary to conduct the 
independent cost estimate and the evaluation of alternatives 
of such program under paragraph (1). 
(c) SUBMISSION REQUIRED.—Not later than April 30, 2013, the 
Director of Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation shall submit 
to the congressional defense committees the independent cost esti-
mate and evaluation under subparagraphs (A) and (B) of subsection 
(b)(1). 
(d) MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT.— 
(1) IN
GENERAL.—The Director of the Missile Defense 
Agency shall enter into a memorandum of agreement with 
the Commander of the Air Force Space Command with respect 
to the space situational awareness capabilities, requirements, 
design, and cost sharing of the precision tracking space system. 
(2) SUBMISSION.—The Director shall submit to the congres-
sional defense committees the agreement entered into under 
paragraph (1).
H. R. 4310—46 
(e) REVIEW BY THE COMPTROLLER GENERAL.— 
(1) TERMS
OF
REFERENCE.—The Comptroller General of 
the United States shall provide to the congressional defense 
committees— 
(A) by not later than 30 days after the date on which 
the terms of reference for the evaluation under subsection 
(b)(1)(B) are provided to such committees pursuant to sub-
section (a)(2), a briefing on the views of the Comptroller 
General with respect to such terms of reference and their 
conformance with the best practices for analyses of alter-
natives established by the Comptroller General; and 
(B) a final report on such terms as soon as practicable 
following the date of the briefing under subparagraph (A). 
(2) COMPREHENSIVE PTSS ASSESSMENT.—The Comptroller 
General shall further provide to the congressional defense 
committees— 
(A) by not later than 60 days after the date on which 
the evaluation is submitted to such committees under sub-
section (c), a briefing on the views of the Comptroller 
General with respect to such evaluation; and 
(B) a final report on such evaluation as soon as prac-
ticable following the date of the briefing under subpara-
graph (A). 
SEC. 225. NEXT GENERATION EXO-ATMOSPHERIC KILL VEHICLE. 
(a) PLAN FOR NEXT GENERATION KILL VEHICLE.—The Director 
of the Missile Defense Agency shall develop a long-term plan for 
the exo-atmospheric kill vehicle that addresses both modifications 
and enhancements to the current exo-atmospheric kill vehicle and 
options for the competitive development of a next generation exo- 
atmospheric kill vehicle for the ground-based interceptor of the 
ground-based midcourse defense system and any other interceptor 
that might be developed for the defense of the United States against 
long-range ballistic missiles. 
(b) DEFINITION OF PARAMETERS AND CAPABILITIES.— 
(1) ASSESSMENT REQUIRED.—The Director shall define the 
desired technical parameters and performance capabilities for 
a next generation exo-atmospheric kill vehicle using an assess-
ment conducted by the Director for that purpose that is 
designed to ensure that a next generation exo-atmospheric kill 
vehicle design— 
(A) enables ease of manufacturing, high tolerances to 
production processes and supply chain variability, and 
inherent reliability; 
(B) will be optimized to take advantage of the ballistic 
missile defense system architecture and sensor system 
capabilities; 
(C) leverages all relevant kill vehicle development 
activities and technologies, including from the current 
standard missile–3 block IIB program and the previous 
multiple kill vehicle technology development program; 
(D) seeks to maximize, to the greatest extent prac-
ticable, commonality between subsystems of a next genera-
tion exo-atmospheric kill vehicle and other exo-atmospheric 
kill vehicle programs; and 
(E) meets Department of Defense criteria, as estab-
lished in the February 2010 Ballistic Missile Defense
H. R. 4310—47 
Review, for affordability, reliability, suitability, and oper-
ational effectiveness to defend against limited attacks from 
evolving and future threats from long-range missiles. 
(2) EVALUATION OF PAYLOADS.—The assessment required 
by paragraph (1) shall include an evaluation of the potential 
benefits and drawbacks of options for both unitary and multiple 
exo-atmospheric kill vehicle payloads. 
(3) STANDARD MISSILE–3 BLOCK IIB INTERCEPTOR.—As part 
of the assessment required by paragraph (1), the Director shall 
evaluate whether there are potential options and opportunities 
arising from the standard missile–3 block IIB interceptor 
development program for development of an exo-atmospheric 
kill vehicle, or kill vehicle technologies or components, that 
could be used for potential upgrades to the ground-based inter-
ceptor or for a next generation exo-atmospheric kill vehicle. 
(c) REPORT.— 
(1) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 180 days after the date 
of the enactment of this Act, the Director shall submit to 
the congressional defense committees a report setting forth 
the plan developed under subsection (a), including the results 
of the assessment under subsection (b), and an estimate of 
the cost and schedule of implementing the plan. 
(2) FORM.—The report required by paragraph (1) shall be 
submitted in unclassified form, but may include a classified 
annex. 
SEC. 226. MODERNIZATION OF THE PATRIOT AIR AND MISSILE 
DEFENSE SYSTEM. 
(a) PLAN FOR MODERNIZATION.—Not later than 180 days after 
the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of the Army 
shall submit to the congressional defense committees a prioritized 
plan for support of the long-term requirements in connection with 
the modernization of the Patriot air and missile defense system 
and related systems of the integrated air and missile defense 
architecture. 
(b) ADDITIONAL ELEMENTS.—The report required by subsection 
(a) shall also set forth the following: 
(1) An explanation of the requirements and goals for the 
Patriot air and missile defense system and related systems 
of the integrated air and missile defense architecture during 
the 10-year period beginning on the date of the report. 
(2) An assessment of the integrated air and missile defense 
capabilities required to meet the demands of evolving and 
emerging threats during the ten-year period beginning on the 
date of the report. 
(3) A plan for the introduction of changes to the Patriot 
air and missile defense system program to achieve reductions 
in the life-cycle cost of the Patriot air and missile defense 
system. 
SEC. 227. EVALUATION AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT 
OF POTENTIAL FUTURE MISSILE DEFENSE SITES IN THE 
UNITED STATES. 
(a) EVALUATION.—Not later than December 31, 2013, the Sec-
retary of Defense shall conduct a study to evaluate at least three 
possible additional locations in the United States, selected by the 
Director of the Missile Defense Agency, that would be best suited 
for future deployment of an interceptor capable of protecting the