- Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for coming.
Appreciate your attendance after a pretty long day,
I know, this is going to be your last briefing of the day.
Welcome, I'm Mark Wright,
Public Affairs Officer for the Missile Defense Agency.
Let me introduce you to your speakers for today.
On your right is Miss Michelle Atkinson.
She is the Director for Operations,
the Acting Director for Operations
for the Missile Defense Agency.
And to her right is Rear Admiral Jon Hill,
the Deputy Director of the Missile Defense Agency.
They'll give an opening statement and then go through some
slides for you and give you some additional information.
I know you already should have picked up
a packet of information from OSD/PA.
Make sure you get one if you haven't yet.
Right after that's done,
they'll go through the budget slides for you
and then we'll have time for some questions.
I ask that when time for questions,
the admiral doesn't know you, neither does Miss Atkinson,
so please identify yourself and where you're from
and then we'll answer your question as best as possible.
We should have about 20 minutes for each
if everything works out all right.
Admiral?
- Okay, thank you Mark, and good afternoon.
As Mark mentioned, we are well aware that this is your last
brief of the day and so we'll try to keep you excited here.
It's great to have an opportunity to talk to you about
the importance of the president's budget request.
And as you know, MDA has an incredibly important mission.
We develop and deploy missile defenses
to protect the homeland as well as to protect
our deployed forces and allies all over
the world from the threat of missile attack.
I'm incredibly proud of that mission.
It is a noble mission and I'm incredibly proud
of the men and women of MDA that make this possible.
So at this point, without any further ado,
I'd like to turn it over to Miss Michelle Atkinson,
who is our Director for Operations.
So she can run you through the particulars
of our budget request for FY20.
And then we'll be happy to take your questions.
- Thank you, Admiral.
Good afternoon.
I appreciate the opportunity to brief you today on
the Missile Defense Agency fiscal year '20 budget request.
Our budget request is consistent with
the president's commitment to expand
and improve our missile defense capability,
while at the same time recognizing that we must
be able to address tomorrow's threats,
which continue to expand and advance.
Next chart.
In FY20, MDA will continue to strengthen
and expand the deployment of defenses for our nation,
deployed forces, allies, and international partners
against increasingly capable missile threats.
The missile defense program will support our war fighters
and the needs of the combatant commanders by developing,
integrating, testing, and deploying interceptors, sensors,
and improvements to the ballistic missile defense system.
Next chart.
MDA's priorities for missile defense are nested within
the National Defense Strategy priorities and are as follows.
First, we must continue to focus on increasing
system reliability to build war fighter confidence.
We need to increase engagement capability and capacity
and also rapidly address the advancing missile threats.
Our budget request maintains operational
missile defense capabilities for existing
homeland and regional defense forces,
continues to increase interceptor inventory,
and will use existing technologies to improve sensors,
battle management, fire control,
and kill vehicle capabilities
to address the evolving threats.
Next chart.
The current BMDS can defeat the current
ballistic missile capabilities of our adversaries
but we require additional capacity and advanced
capabilities in order to stay ahead of the evolving threat.
The projected missile threat is complex and volatile,
and it includes evolving ballistic
and hypersonic missile threats.
It is critical that we continue to develop innovative
and breakthrough technologies to outpace rogue state
offensive missile capabilities against the US homeland.
This evolving threat demands a globally present
and persistent sensor network to be able
to track it from birth to death.
Next chart.
The recently completed Missile Defense Review recognizes
the evolving missile threats that we face and underscores
that missile defense must remain a high-priority
investment in our National Defense Strategy.
Indeed, the missile defense mission
is expanding to include non-ballistic threats.
Aligned with the current National and Defense Strategies,
the MDR strengthens our posture as we continue to make
progress in the development and fielding of a BMDS to defend
our homeland, our deployed forces, our allies, and partners.
The MDR supports the critical need to pursue new concepts
and technologies to address tomorrow's threat.
The MDR also emphasizes our continued pursuit
of cooperative relationships with allies and partners,
to field interoperable
and effective regional missile defenses.
Next chart.
MDA's FY20 budget request is a total of $9.4 billion
to continue the development of a reliable,
increasingly capable and state-of-the-art missile
defense for our nation, deployed forces,
allies, and international partners.
Our priority in this budget remains the delivery of greater
missile defense capability and capacity to our war fighters,
and includes investments in advanced
technology development and future capabilities.
Next chart.
MDA remains committed to delivering, expanding,
and sustaining our nation's homeland missile defenses,
and we request $1.8 billion in FY20 for
the Ground-based Midcourse Defense, or GMD, program.
In FY20, we will continue to have 40 ground-based
interceptors deployed at Fort Greely, Alaska,
and four at Vandenberg Air Force Base in California.
We will strengthen and expand homeland
missile defenses by continuing the construction
of a new missile field at Fort Greely,
and work to deploy 20 additional
interceptors at Fort Greely,
which will increase the total deployed GBIs from 44 to 64.
This budget also continues development
of the Redesigned Kill Vehicle, or RKV.
We are committed to using a rigorous engineering
and test approach that provides a system to
the war fighter that is both reliable and effective.
A two year delay to the RKV program was necessary
in order to complete design modifications
and perform the testing to demonstrate
that the RKV system will meet its requirements.
Also in FY20, we will conduct a GMD flight
test using a GBI launched from Vandenberg.
For the Long Range Discrimination Radar, or LRDR,
we are requesting $136 million in FY20.
This radar, which will be available in 2020,
is a critical midcourse sensor that will
improve BMDS target discrimination capability
and support a more efficient use of our GBIs.
We are requesting $128 million
for the Sea-Based X-Band Radar,
which provides precision midcourse tracking
and discrimination to protect the homeland.
As of now, SBX has been at sea
for more than 500 days without a port visit.
The FY20 program continues to provide extended SBX sea time
to maintain its important contribution to homeland defense.
Our budget also requests $20 million
for the Cobra Dane radar,
to continue radar refurbishment
and life extension in partnership
with the US Air Force.
Our PB20 request also includes funding
for two additional radars,
which will help provide persistent discrimination,
precision tracking, and hit assessment to support defense
of the homeland against long-range missile threats.
We are requesting $275 million to continue
the Homeland Defense Radar-Hawaii,
which is scheduled to be available in 2023.
We are also requesting $7 million
for the Pacific Discriminating Radar,
to be available in the 2026 timeframe
at a location to be determined.
Next chart.
Moving now to regional defenses.
Our FY20 request for Aegis BMD is $1.7 billion,
which includes sustaining deployed Standard Missile 3 fleet,
and upgrading Aegis ships to add BMDS capability.
We will procure 30 Aegis SM-3 Block
IB missiles for deployment on land,
at the Aegis Ashore sites in Romania and Poland,
and at sea on multi-mission Aegis BMD ships.
This will bring the total number of SM-3 Block
IB missiles procured to 361 by the end of FY20.
In FY20, we will also continue the multi-year
procurement for the SM-3 Block IB missile.
We will procure seven SM-3 Block IIA missiles,
for a total of 54 missiles procured through FY20.
In FY20, we will also continue SM-3 Block IB modernization,
and the SM-3 Block IIA software upgrade programs.
We will also continue work with the US Navy
to integrate the SPY-6 Aegis Missile Defense
Radar with the Aegis weapons system.
Our FY20 request for the Terminal High Altitude
Area Defense, or THAAD, program is $854 million.
This will allow us to support the maintenance,
sustainment of all BMDS-unique items
for the seven fielded THAAD batteries,
and all of the THAAD training devices.
This budget also procures 37 THAAD
interceptors in support of the US Army,
bringing the total to 568 by the end of FY20.
Additionally in FY20,
we will continue THAAD's software development
and upgrades and integration of missile
defense capabilities on the Korean Peninsula.
We are requesting $543 million
to support and sustain 12 TPY-2 radars,
which includes the forward-based mode radars in Japan,
Turkey, Israel, and US Central Command.
This funding also continues software development
to improve discrimination capabilities,
and other upgrades to improve the TPY-2 radar performance.
Our budget request of $500 million in FY20
for Israeli programs continues MDA's longstanding support
of US-Israeli cooperative programs to include Iron Dome,
David's Sling, and the Arrow weapons systems.
Finally, in support of phase three of
the European Phased Adaptive Approach, or EPAA,
our PB20 budget request includes $64 million to complete
the Aegis Ashore site in Poland to be available in 2020,
and also to make capability improvements
at other Aegis Ashore sites.
Next chart.
MDA is developing advanced missile defense
technologies for integration into the BMDS
to defeat the rapidly evolving threats.
The investment strategy for these technologies
balances the need to address the most dangerous
current threats with the need to position
the US to respond to threat developments in the future.
We are requesting $157 million for hypersonic defense.
The FY20 plan includes software
modifications to current BMDS assets,
and further defines the architecture
for future capability demonstrations.
Our request for technology maturation
initiatives is $304 million.
This includes a new effort for the development
of a neutral particle beam that will leverage past
and current work on particle beams,
related enabling technology, laser pointing,
and laser stability to provide a component technology
for a future system that will offer new kill options
for the BMDS and will add another layer
of protection for the homeland.
This funding also provides laser scaling efforts to scale up
power levels to support DOD-wide capability objectives.
Our FY20 budget request also continues
discrimination sensor technology development
and supports advanced technology testing.
We are requesting $63 million for MDA space efforts
in FY20 to sustain the two Space Tracking
and Surveillance System satellites operating
in low earth orbit and to continue development
of the space based kill assessment sensor network.
We are requesting $14 million for
the Multi-Object Kill Vehicle, or MOKV,
to fund technology risk reduction efforts
to establish a foundation for killing multiple
lethal objects with a single interceptor.
Next chart.
We are requesting $564 million in FY20
for the Command and Control Battle Management
Communications system, or C2BMC.
We will continue to support current C2BMC capability
in CENTCOM, EUCOM, INDOPACOM and NORTHCOM,
with upgrades that integrate the Aegis
engage-on-remote and LRDR capabilities.
We are requesting $554 million in FY20
to develop threat representative targets
and $396 million to conduct BMDS flight and ground testing.
Critical flight tests in FY20 include FTM-44,
which is an Aegis BMD test against a long range target,
and FTO-03, which is an integrated THAAD,
Aegis and Patriot operational test against multiple targets.
Next chart.
In summary, the MDA FY20 budget request continues to focus
on sustaining and increasing system reliability for BMDS
elements such as THAAD, GMD, Aegis, TPY-2 and Cobra Dane.
It also focuses on increasing engagement capability
with efforts such as the new LRDR radar in Alaska,
and it also addresses the advanced threat with efforts
such as the hypersonic defense program.
In FY20, MDA will continue to make progress
in the development and deployment of a reliable layered
Ballistic Missile Defense System to defend our homeland,
our deployed forces, our allies and partners,
from missile attacks of all ranges
and in all phases of flight.
The Admiral and I will now take a few questions.
- Hi, good afternoon, thanks for doing this.
My name is Tom Squiteri, I'm with Talk Media News.
I had, two questions, one off of what you said
and one from something that happened yesterday.
The radar in the Pacific that you
didn't say where it's going to be yet,
is that going to be on United States territory
or is it going to be some place offshore?
Can you answer that or is that classified?
- So I'll go ahead and give you the best answer that I can,
given where we are today.
- [Tom] Right, that's always the one I prefer.
- Right.
So you know, capability and capacity increase
for the overall INDOPACOM region
is an important enough priority
and it's part of a broader sensor architecture, right?
So in coordination with the Department
and with the combatant commands,
we are continuing to assess potential sites.
And so I would say all of the above.
You know, as we assess the threat and different sites,
then we'll determine where it should be.
- The reason I asked that question,
it leads to one I had in mind when I came here.
Yesterday, Austin Long spoke at the Hudson Institute
and the the topic was hypersonics,
and he noted how far, this is a Pentagon person,
he noted how far China is on hypersonics
and the idea of having a network to determine hypersonics,
including a sensor network,
that the United States had
a road map while China had investments.
How do you judge the timeframe to when we'll have some
type of sensor-based network that they spoke of yesterday,
to help fulfill the goal that
Michelle had said at her conclusion?
- Yeah, I think it's a mix of investments
and really understanding the projections
of where the threat is and where it is going.
So Miss Atkinson mentioned the.
- [Tom] Pardon me.
- That's okay.
She lets me call her Michelle every now and then.
So she talked about the initial investment
on existing sensors today and how we can bring
those together to handle those advanced threats,
and that's kind of where you normally start, right?
And then we moved to radar technology
and place those in specific places to give us
as much of the track custody as was mentioned earlier,
from launch all the way to intercept point.
We have been very consistent in the need to take sensors
and go into space so that you have that global coverage,
particularly for advanced threats that would
overfly or under-fly field of view of a radar.
So we're working with the Department now
to work through that architecture,
make those investments and be a part of
a multi-mission sensor layer capability for the Department.
- [Tom] Thank you.
- [Mark] Tony?
- [Tony] Tony Capaccio with Bloomberg.
You flicked the problem with the Redesigned Kill Vehicle.
How much is, how serious are the technical problems,
or is this more quality of parts
issues that Raytheon is having?
- Yeah, so I'll just, for those who may not be familiar
with it, so the RKV is the Redesigned Kill Vehicle.
We went down this path,
signed an acquisition plan back in 2015,
the Undersecretary of Defense for Acquisition,
Technology, and Logistics at the time,
signed that out and we're moving through,
came through a preliminary design review as we approached
the Critical Design Review at the end of last year.
And those of you who aren't familiar with what a CDR is,
when you get there, you're satisfied
with the robustness of your design,
you've done all the modeling and simulation,
and you believe that you're ready to go to production.
We have specific entrance criteria to take us there.
We do not believe as a government team that we are ready
to take that step into that Critical Design Review,
and so through coordination into the department,
all the way up to the Undersecretary
for Research and Engineering,
we determined that the best thing to do was to go back
and assess that design and take the time to do it right.
We could do what some programs do
and what the Missile Defense Agency did years ago,
which is to go ahead and produce what we've got
and then deal with reliability issues in
the fleet and erode the confidence of the war fighter.
We know that is the wrong step.
So we're going back to assess that design
and do the proper testing, do the analysis,
and then we'll go to the Critical
Design Review when we're ready.
We're following our normal process of rigorous engineering,
gated reviews, milestone driven.
- To what extent, though, are these quality of part issues?
I obviously understand there's been parts failures
and thermal testing of late parts in the production lines.
- No, this is the,
we've got to take a look at the whole design,
which is what we're doing.
We're assessing that and we're looking at
the impact to what that means over the long haul.
So over the course of the next few months,
we'll have a better feel,
but we're working that very hard today.
- All right, well to what extent is the fielding
expansion of 64 now jeopardized because of this?
- Okay, so since the additional 20 ground-based interceptors
were going to be tipped with the Redesigned Kill Vehicle,
a two year delay,
again up to two years based on our assessment today,
would mean that those interceptors will
move to the right by two years.
- [Tony] Thank you.
- [Mark] Thank you.
- [Reporter] And a follow up on that,
they were initially supposed to be ready
in 2023 and now they'll be ready in 2025?
- That's correct.
- Thank you, and just to follow up,
sorry, my original question.
Your directed energy budget for the year,
do you have a break out for that one please?
- Michelle, I'll turn to you.
- Yes sir, so I'll take,
I'll have to get back to you on the specifics,
but our budget, as I stated in my briefing earlier,
our budget includes funding for laser scaling and for other
directed energy like the neutral particle beam-type efforts.
- [Mark] We'll come back to you.
Jason.
- [Jason] Okay, Jason Sherman, Inside Defense.
So there has been an effort to accelerate the RKV program.
Is that effectively off the table now?
- We're re-assessing the whole program, right?
So in terms of any sort of acceleration,
we're very focused in on following
the system engineering rigor and getting it right.
So that's where we are.
- What are the key milestones between
now and that review in two years?
Can you say a bit about who the key
industry players are working on the RKV?
- Yes, so the key is when we reset getting
to a critical design review,
you move those milestones to the right.
So it's all the run-ups that would normally take you between
a preliminary design review and getting to critical design.
So it is the testing phase that is required
is the modeling of the results of that,
and then the full-up analysis before you get
to the critical design review.
- Great.
And last year the MDA asked Congress for permission to put
together a multi-year procurement of the SM-3 block IB.
The FY20 request that MDA is putting forward shaves
about 64 missiles from the plan that you told Congress
you were going to execute on that multi-year procurement.
It originally said that you could save 13%.
Does the cost avoidance go up in smoke here?
What's the reason for cutting the missiles from the plan?
- So, I can answer that in FY20 the number
of missiles decreased because in FY19 Congress did
not appropriate the advanced procurement funding.
And so that enabled us not to start
those interceptors in '19.
So we have to start those in '20.
So that provided a ripple effect through
the FYDP of the quantity of interceptors.
We fully are committed to the multi-year procurement.
And we plan on pursuing that and moving forward this year.
- And will there be any savings associated
with the multi-year procurement as a result?
- Yes, sir.
We're still projecting about as much savings.
- [Jason] Oh you are, great.
- Just a year later.
- And can you tell us what the status
of the SM-3 block IIA production is?
Uh, production decision is?
- Yes.
So we just recently completed an independent technical
review that is driven by the undersecretary for R&E.
And the focus of that review was
really on the overall reliability.
So although we've completed the live fire test campaign
and believe that we are almost ready to go to production,
part of being almost ready to go to production is
to complete the assessments on overall long-term reliability
and to ensure that we have an absolute producible design.
So it's just normal course at this point coming through
the engineering to make sure that we're ready.
But we anticipate that we'll be able
to go to production this year.
- An independent technical read review?
An independent technical review
before the production decision?
- Yes.
Just to.
- [Jason] Do you have a lack
of confidence in the capability?
- It's being driven by Dr. Griffin.
And we fully support, we want to have those outside looks.
So we invite that in.
And what we want to do is to ensure that because, you know,
we're in a cooperative development on a complex system,
we want to make sure that when we do go to production
it's a robust design and it has got long-term reliability.
- [Mark] Sandra.
- Thank you.
Sandra Irwin, SpaceNews.
We were told by DOD that they're actually making
some changes in how they resource missile defense.
In terms of what the priorities
of the Missile Defense Review,
they said that they are actually shifting
from traditional to non-traditional.
It was not clear to us what exactly that meant.
So I was wondering if you can explain what traditional,
or resources from traditional missile
defense are being shifted,
and why do they call it missile defeat and defense?
Is that a new thing?
- I'm not familiar with the statements that you said.
But I will state that missile-defense,
investments in missile defense don't all go to,
nor should they go to, the Missile Defense Agency.
As you listen to Miss Atkinson's overview brief,
we discussed the other services.
We're wedded closely to the Navy
on Aegis Ballistic missile defense, for example,
closely wedded to the Army with the deployment
of the Terminal High Altitude Air Defense system
and closely with the Air Force when it comes
to the operation of large radars around the globe.
So I would say the best way to answer your
question is that it is a broad DOD-wide effort.
It's a complex threat and it requires a full up,
all hands on deck response to it.
- For the space discrimination,
space based discrimination for hypersonic defense
are there investments being made now outside of MDA?
- Absolutely, and so what I mentioned earlier
is that it will be a multi-mission,
department-wide effort to deploy the system
that has more than just a missile defense mission.
So we're tucked into that overall architecture
and fully supportive of the department's efforts
to get a multi-mission capability deployed.
- Then why defeat,
why do they have in your name defeat and defense.
What is the difference?
- So that has been around for a bit
but I would say it is the integration which
is important between the left of launch operations
and the actual passive and active defense measures.
- [Mark] Jen.
- Hi, Jen Judson with Defense News.
You had mentioned a GMD flight test for FY20
and you said that you're using a GBI launch from Vandenberg
and I seem to recall back when the big GMD test in May 2017,
Admiral Syring said at the time that there would be
a plan to have a test of the GMD system in 2018 in
the fall or early winter, that involved two interceptors.
Are you walking back from testing
with two interceptors at this point
and can you detail that GBI test that's scheduled for FY20?
- Sure.
So I will tell you I believe what you're talking about
is the FTG 11 which is what we refer as the salvo shot
and so we will be launching against an intercontinental
ballistic missile range, ballistic missile range target,
an ICBM, and we'll use the salvo of a newest version
of GBI and an older version to characterize
the interaction of those interceptors as they go after
the ICBM and that's scheduled for this year actually.
- Okay.
And so then what would the FY20 test be accomplishing?
- The FY20 test will be focused in
on an upgrade to the booster.
And so once we do that test in 2020 then we
can marry it and evaluate the upgraded RKV downstream.
- [Jen] Okay, all right.
Thank you.
- [Mark] In the back.
- [Reporter] I think we're living in
a neutral particle beam research.
Is that because that's sort of a crude sounding thing?
Is that something that you can actually
test this year and where do you test it?
- Yeah, so neutral particle beam, like any new technology,
the focus will be on technology maturation
and also feasibility for that kind of capability.
And as you know it traces back to
the Strategic Defense Initiative.
We think it's got a lot of promise for
the missile defense mission and so our focus
in FY20 is to lay the foundation to get
to an on orbit demo, I think in FY23.
And so we'll be doing the ground tests,
doing a demonstration on the ground before
we're ready to go to the on orbit demo.
And again, focus on maturing the technologies
and focus on feasibility.
- And that's something that's fundamentally different
from the studies that are being done elsewhere
on space-based intercept and the feasibility of those?
- It is separate and distinct.
It is a technology effort that will point in that direction.
- [Reporter] Thanks.
- Dan Watson with Jane's,
you mentioned the space-based kill assessment.
When were those sensors deployed
and how many are there?
And what does that technology have to prove
or go through before it can be integrated into like
the operational actual system?
- Okay, so we did leverage commercial lift
and that capability is deployed today.
I'm not going to tell you the number that's there
but it is there and they are operational now.
What they haven't been,
what we haven't done yet is completed
the integration with the ballistic missile defense
so they've been operational through a couple of
the last flight tests and we're working very closely
with NORTHCOM and STRATCOM to ensure as we bring
it in for integration that the war fighters
are satisfied with the interfaces and those sorts of things,
but they're operational now and provides us
the capability that we need to ensure
that as we move with salvo doctrine or hit policy,
those sorts of things, we can actually detect that in space.
- When you say flight testing, you mean GBI tests or?
- No.
We can leverage that capability on any live-fire test.
It doesn't matter what the system is.
- But you said you've used it already?
- Yes, and we're going to use it and
the salvo test that was asked about earlier.
- [Steve] Steve Trimble with Aviation Week,
I was going to ask about the neutral particle beam
but is there anything in the budget for boost phase defense?
- I think that the closest that we can get to
in the MDA budget would be our efforts
in the directed energy side of the house
where we're focused in on scaling that laser,
those different types of lasers that we're working with
the UARC and the FFRDCs and with industry to mature
the power levels and to get it to the space, weight,
and power that's required for a missile defense mission.
Michelle, am I leaving anything out?
No, so that is the focus for boost phase.
- Still the identity as an airborne
application versus space application?
- There is an option there.
There are investments being made on
a potential kinetic energy options from aircraft, yes.
- [Mark] In the back.
- Paul Sonne from the Washington Post.
I just wanted to ask a broad question.
You know the President was here earlier this year
and the Defense Secretary made a lot of comments,
ambitious comments about the future
of missile defense and I think some people
will therefore be slightly confused by why
then the Missile Defense Agency's budget is declining.
And is that because most of those investments
are happening outside the Missile Defense Agency
or is there some other explanation for that?
Can you just give us a sense of how that squares?
- So I'll start with the Missile Defense Review
was approved by the President of the United States
and so we're aligned to the Missile Defense Review.
If you look at our budget,
that's a significant investment in missile defenses.
And as I mentioned before,
there are investments being made
elsewhere because it makes sense.
- And do you have an overall figure for missile defense,
including Missile Defense Agency and other investments
outside and whether that's increased or decreased?
- Yes, so first of all I would like to mention also,
just to add to the Admiral's remarks,
that what you're seeing is actually, in FY18 and FY19,
MDA received significant increases
for the missile defense and defeat enhancement related items
and other Congressional plus-ups.
And what you're seeing in '20 actually looks
like a decrease but it's really just the declining
funding as we complete those efforts and those tails.
I do not have a dollar figure.
That would probably,
for the funding elsewhere in the Department
that would be a question for the Department.
- [Reporter] I want to follow up on the question about
the sensors that you were talking about
that will already be, already working in the system.
When did they go online and he specifically
asked you about North Korean launches,
would that be able to detect those?
- Okay, so again back to Space Based Kill assessment,
leveraging commercial lift.
I'm not going to talk about the numbers.
Yes, so they were deployed through last calendar year
and put on station and we're going through
the final integration of those as a system now
and they will collect data and operate during FTG 11.
- But what I asked is,
when would have been the first time they would
have been able to detect something like?
- So, remember, there weren't any launches coming out
of the INDOPACOM arena from the countries
I think you're mentioning during FY17
which is when we were deploying the system.
- [Reporter] Okay.
Thank you.
- [Mark] Jason.
- Thanks.
I wonder if you could talk a little bit about
the difference between what the space-based kill
assessment is doing and what the agency is looking
for from the space sensor layer,
how those two overlap, or how they're similar,
how they're different.
- Okay.
So I'll use an Aegis model.
- [Jason] If I could also just ask you to give us
an update on space sensor layer,
what's happening now and where is it going to go in 2020?
- So, just to kind of simplify what
can be a pretty complex story, right,
so you have indications and warning,
there's a set of capabilities that do that,
so think of that as when you have a launch,
right, so indications of warning.
And normally you would hand that over to radars to get
to a track so you can build a fire control solution, right?
So indications and warning happen first,
and so let's just say rather than passing
to a radar to get that track,
if this is some global advanced threat,
then now you would go to the space sensor layer,
a Department-wide capability
that can not only do indications
and warning but also handle the tracking capability.
And when you get to the backend and you start to intercept,
and let's just say it's a kinetic
interceptor coming from the ground,
then the space base kill assessment would be
that capability that determines whether or not you hit.
And then you can make decisions on firing again.
It affects your salvo policy.
Does that make sense?
- [Jason] It does.
And what's the status of the space sensor layer effort?
- So now we're making investments across the Department
to get to that multi-mission capabilities.
So there are, I would tell you where we are today
is going through a deep assessment on what
that architecture should look like,
not only the numbers and capabilities
but how you would spread those capabilities
because you may not put them all on one bird,
how many do you need and on what orbitology.
- Right.
And so what are the main goals for FY19
and FY20 for space sensor layer?
- It is the development of the sensors
that would go on as part of the payload.
- And that was one of the things that was highlighted
during the Missile Defense Review rollout here,
yet it's not mentioned at all, I don't believe,
in the presentation that you gave here.
- Right, because it is a broader Department
initiative that we are a part of.
And I say multi-mission and maybe
that's just too broad of a term,
but I mentioned indications and warning,
I talk about detection and tracking,
there are other capabilities that that system
will be required to do and we're just part of that.
- [Jason] But who has the lead on space sensor layer?
- It's at the Department level.
- [Jason] OSD?
- It'll be, it's within the Department.
I'm just not prepared to talk about it today.
- [Mark] Yes, sir.
Gentleman in the back.
- Hi, I'm (mumbles) with NHK Japan Broadcasting Corporation.
I have a question regarding
the Homeland Defense Pacific radar.
So, do you already decide where are you deployed?
And if not, when do you decide it?
- So, I talked about it earlier, maybe you weren't here.
But the overall sensor architecture
and the drive from our war fighters,
particularly in the INDOPACOM region drives us,
as part of the architecture
to need another sensor in the area.
We are going through a site assessment today.
We have made no decisions on the location but really,
the decision for it will be driven
by the evolution of the threat.
So as the threat becomes more complex,
that'll drive a decision
and that's a department-level decision.
- [Reporter] Follow-up on that,
is that going to be similar in capability to the LRDR?
- They're all, I would say that you tailor
the sensor for the needs in the area.
So LRDR, geographically where it's at,
has a particular view.
We are going to be defending Hawaii,
we're going to increase our defense capability
of Hawaii with a radar that we're placing
in Hawaii and we're still coming through
that site selection process as well.
And so as we think about where it might go
in the Pacific and hone down on locations and sites,
it'll be tailored both in size and the power requirements.
- [Mark] Yes, ma'am, probably our last question.
- Mark, can I just go back?
Just back to the space sensor layer, right,
because you asked who specifically is doing it.
We're in very close collaboration with
the Air Force and we're tied very closely
to the efforts that are being executed by DARPA today.
And that's probably the answer I should have
given you earlier but my mind was elsewhere.
Okay, I'm sorry.
- Yeah, I'm looking for an update
on where you are with Aegis Ashore in Poland.
- [Admiral Hill] Sure.
- It's my understanding that it looks
like you're delayed to FY20,
is it for operational capability, initial, full?
Can you update us on what some of the issues were around
that site since it looks like it's about a two year delay?
- Yeah, the best way to summarize it
is that we've had construction delays.
In fact, Lieutenant General Greaves
was just out there last week in Poland meeting
with the team that is bringing it forward.
I talked to him during his trip
and he talked about the amazing progress
that was made since the last time he was there.
So we're progressing along.
We believe that we will complete that effort
this year and that we'll be able to install
the combat system which is on-site now,
we're phasing that work in now,
and then we'll complete it in '20.
- Did you switch out construction companies?
Or what did you do to resolve the issues?
- I tell you, it's been a lot of hardcore heavy leadership
and partnership with the US Army Corps of Engineers
and with the combatant command EUCOM,
the local governments there in the area directly engaging
with Poland and with senior leadership in those companies.
So everyone has banded together,
the commitment is there to get it done.
As you know, we had some tough weather last year
which contributed to the delays
but it's really been about just completing
the construction so that we can move
in with the weapon system and get that installed.
- So what specifically were
the problems with the construction?
- It wasn't a quality issue, it was really just the speed
of getting it done and not sticking to the schedule.
Again, weather was part of it, expertise,
number of people onsite to get the work done.
And so there's been a lot of senior leadership pressure,
all the way up to the Deputy Secretary
of Defense helping us to bring this one through.
- [Mark] All right, guys,
I think that's all we've got time for.
Thank you very much for coming.
Ma'am, sir, thank you very much for your time today.
- Thank you.
- [Reporter] Thank you