BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

REP. RICK LARSEN (D-WA): Thank you, Madame Chair.

Dr. McQueary, just a little bit more on the testing and the targeting. I noted on your testimony, page five, you discuss that during the 18-month period concluding at the end of '07, MDA suffered four target failures during 20 flight tests. Can you just give the committee a -- some consideration of what the impact of target failures have on your ability to evaluate the test program and what that might mean, you know, for your testing programs, you know, a year out or two years out?

DR. MCQUEARY: Well, certainly if you have a failure and there's a need to repeat the test as a result of that failure that occurred, then that obviously slows things down in terms of gathering information. A more important issue for us, though, is the development of the modeling and simulation, and we may get to that in later discussion because we really feel strongly that if we have high quality -- high fidelity modeling situation, which is being worked on and detailed by MDA, that that will permit us to make much better progress in evaluation and providing to the country effectiveness and suitability measures.

REP. LARSEN: Well, then, let's get to that now.

MR. MCQUEARY: All right.

REP. LARSEN: Why don't you discuss for us the modeling simulation models and --

MR. MCQUEARY: Right. If I may, just to put this into context, we frequently hear -- we get asked the question, well, what is the effectiveness and suitability where we are right now, and which we have limited information.

And if I may just put it into context, if we're dealing with statistics -- and this is a lot more complicated issue than just a simple mathematical equations associated with statistics -- but if you're looking at it purely from a statistical standpoint, if you want to prove that you have a 90 percent probability of having a mission success with a confidence level of 80 percent -- in other words -- you know, you'll never get to 100 percent -- you need to run 21 identical tests and they need to be successful in order to prove that.

So very quickly, you can conclude, with a system as complicated as MDA is and which it has a huge battlespace in which to operate in many different scenarios with targets and so forth, that it would be very difficult to ever afford to do testing to the level that one would need to do in order to gain a statistical level of confidence in what's there. However, if we develop high-quality models and simulation and use the testing that is done to prove that those models and simulation actually do represent the way the system performs, then we can use the computer, if you will, to do many, many, many runs so you can explore battlespace after battlespace and varied parameters such as missile performance and engagement scenarios and so forth in a given area. And so that's why we keep saying it is so important to have modeling and simulation as an adjunct to the test program.

REP. LARSEN: Do we need certain -- do we need a certain number of live tests in order to do that and --

MR. MCQUEARY: Yes, sir.

REP. LARSEN: -- and a certain number and a certain kind of live test in order to -- in order to do what you ask?

MR. MCQUEARY: You certainly do need live tests. I am not an advocate of saying why don't we just do -- prove all this out by modeling and simulation, and when we get to real we'll be -- sort of a real situation, we'll have confidence it'll work. That is not what I'm saying at all.

REP. LARSEN: But certain numbers and certain kinds?

MR. MCQUEARY: Certain numbers and certain kinds, and we would certainly expect that as the models and simulation are proven to be effective in the way that they operate, we would expect to continue, as we've been doing, working with MDA to help structure a test that would gather information that would be useful in proving to a high degree of confidence that the models and simulation are representative of the true system.

REP. LARSEN: General Obering, yeah.

GEN. OBERING: If I may, yes, sir.

I totally agree with Dr. McQueary. In fact, we have laid out -- in part of our pre-test reviews, I request, and the DOT&E representatives to our reviews also request, what are the models and simulations that will be validated, or what are the anchor points that we're going to demonstrate in this test as it relates to the objectives? And so he's exactly right.

And also to your point, we have models and sims that we use today. We use them to predict flyout. That's how we did the satellite shootdown, frankly, was a model that showed what our success rate would be. And so we have confidence in that. But we have to make sure we go through this very exhaustive verification, validation and accreditation process.

So what we've got is we've laid out which tests we're going to run to anchor the models that we need, at what time frame, and issue a final report. And that should be done in the September/August -- or September/October time frame of 2009. So we should have a following accreditation report to be able to provide to DOT&E for their concurrence.

REP. LARSEN: And that will lay out the testing -- the testing protocols and timelines beyond '09?

GEN. OBERING: It will -- what that will do is say by that time we should have certified and accredited models and sims that we can then use not only with our blessing, so to speak, but the community's blessing that that is representative of the entire performance of the system.

REP. LARSEN: Of the entire performance of the system.

GEN. OBERING: Yeah. That includes all components.

REP. LARSEN: By next year, of '09.

GEN. OBERING: Aegis -- (inaudible) -- THAAD, et cetera.

REP. LARSEN: Thank you, Madame Chair.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

REP. LARSEN: Thank you, Madame Chair.

I have a couple of questions on the same issue, but I'll come back to that. I have just a follow up to the last set of questions I had about the model and simulations. As I understand, you said September '09 you'll have models of simulations ready to be validated, or do you expect that they would --

REP. TAUSCHER: That would be the validation. They would be validated at that point.

REP. LARSEN: They would be validated -- Dr. McQueary, is that your understanding as well?

MR. MCQUEARY: Yes.

REP. LARSEN: That's your understanding as well.

MR. MCQUEARY: This is new -- newly developed information, so we have not had a chance to go into great detail and make sure we're in full agreement as to how this would be accomplished, but yes, this is a commitment that MDA has made and certainly consistent with what we'd like to see done.

REP. LARSEN: So let me ask you, then, do you and test and evaluate whether or not you'll be able to test and evaluate the models and simulations?

MR. MCQUEARY: We're a part of the team that looks at that information, an integral part of it.

REP. LARSEN: So we look to you, then, to determine whether or not that '09 date is going to be able to get hit, or --

MR. MCQUEARY: Well, I believe it's MDA's responsibility to execute the program, and you should look to them. But certainly if you ask us how are they doings. It's a part of our responsibility.

REP. LARSEN: Back to this relationship between ABL, KEI and GBI, airborne laser, kinetic energy interceptor and ground-based interceptor for those who don't live and breathe it. The down-select is '09. It does not necessarily mean immediate operation. You can have an x period of years where you're going to look at affordability. If the down-select, it goes to ABL, do you envision which service, as well, that goes to?

MR. MCQUEARY: Yes, sir, that would be Air Force. Just -- the program -- when the program was set up, originally, the Air Force had the program. They established the infrastructure, so to speak, to be able to support the program, and that would be -- they would be the obvious lead service for.

REP. LARSEN: Right, Now, Dr. McQueary, in your testimony on page 3, you said although ground-based midcourse defense is still developmental in nature, it demonstrated to some degree many of the functions required for system effectiveness.

MR. MCQUEARY: Right.

REP. LARSEN: I don't have a question for you on the system effectiveness, I have more of a question for you on the fact that you call it developmental in nature. And we're hearing as well, though, we're already considering a follow-on to ground-based midcourse defense which could be the KEI -- a mobile KEI. How should we -- and this is for General Obering as well -- I mean, how should we look at that? It's developmental in nature. It has the functions required for system effectiveness, but we're already now looking at maybe if ABL -- if the down-select is to ABL already looking at a follow on to something that we really haven't used physically, although it has the functions required for system effectiveness.

Do you have -- I mean, how should I look at that, as an authorizer trying to make decisions on where dollars go?

MR. MCQUEARY: Maybe I could let General Obering describe how they put the program together and then I could amplify on it from the standpoint of test and evaluation, if that would be satisfactory.

REP. LARSEN: Yeah. If there's time left, yeah. Or even if there's not time, Madame Chairman, I hope --

REP. TAUSCHER: There's time.

REP. LARSEN: Yeah, great.

GEN. OBERING: Sir, are you talking about the airborne laser program?

REP. LARSEN: No. If you down-select and we pick ABL but -- and still KEI is still sitting out there to be used as an emergency, but then considered as a follow-on to the ground-based midcourse defense, but we really haven't used it --

GEN. OBERING: I understand what you're saying.

REP. LARSEN: -- right -- so why are we looking at already doing a follow-on to something that we really haven't used?

GEN. OBERING: Okay. First of all, there's a qualitative difference.

REP. LARSEN: Yeah.

GEN. OBERING: Okay? And that is, the ground-based midcourse are fixed sites, so they're silo based, and once you put it in that silo, you've defined their (defended ?) area.

REP. LARSEN: Right.

GEN. OBERING: Okay. As we move forward in the future, we want to make sure we have the flexibility to address emerging threats. So being able to move away from a silo-based, long-range midcourse defense is important for large areas. Okay? And that's why we think that instead of -- (if ?) KEI is successful, we believe it does have applicability in the midcourse for some applications for flexibility to the warfighter to be able to do those moves.

We discovered this, by the way, in -- as we were going through our European site discussions with several nations early on, several of those nations indicated to us that if it were not fixed, if it were mobile, they would be very interested in that and they would host that. And that's what sparked the discussion about having this option for the warfighters and for the nation and for our allies to be able to use. So it is something that we believe is viable, it's something that we think is an option that we'd like to keep in the program for that, as opposed to just discarding it.

REP. LARSEN: Well, I guess from my perspective -- and we've had a little bit of discussion about this, but from my perspective, it still seems more conceptual than viable. And it may be viable, but more conceptual. And I guess that gets back to Dr. McQueary and how do we test that migration of KEI from a boost phase to a midcourse -- to an effective tool as a midcourse interceptor.

GEN. OBERING: If I may. If I may.

REP. LARSEN: Yeah.

GEN. OBERING: The concept with KEI all along was to be a canisterized, very fast-acceleration booster, but the kill vehicle on it is what would change. If it was a kill vehicle for a boost phase, that's really a more simple kill vehicle than a kill vehicle for a midcourse phase. So that is the -- that's the transition, so to speak. It already is a canisterized mobile platform. It's just changing the kill vehicle on the front end of that.

REP. LARSEN: Yeah.

MR. MCQUEARY: I think the approach that is being used is quite reasonable. I mean, I spent many years doing R&D myself, and if you're not quite sure exactly what is going to work the best, it's prudent to have alternative systems available if one can afford to do so. And you heard him discuss the issue of affordability, and a decision would have to maybe made on that. So I think it's a prudent approach to maximizing the likelihood that when we come through this, that we will have a system that can handle the threats that are identified that it must handle.

REP. LARSEN: I'll look forward to exploring that further.

Thank you, Madame Chair.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

REP. LARSON: Yes I do, Madam Chair. It's for General Obering. If you could just cover for the committee -- we were in Japan in January discussing cooperation with Japan -- defense cooperation with Japan, and the issue of command and control came up -- missile defense. Can you provide any update on where those discussions are?

GEN. OBERING: Yes, sir. Now, there are obviously -- that discussion is being led by United States Forces Japan and PACOM. They're the ones that are the lead on that. We helped inform those technically in terms of what's possible and what we can do. But we certainly have the ability and we intend to be able to share information. There's the radar that we have placed in Japan, what we call the TPY-2 forward base radar. That data will be made available to the Japanese forces. That includes the Aegis, Patriot, and other systems that they are either producing themselves or -- I'm sorry, procuring or co-developing with us for now and for the future.

Also, they have a series of radars that will be feeding data into what they call the JADGE system, which is their command and control system. We'd like to be able to share that data as well. And so, in addition we've laid out a series of exercises to kind of think through what that would be -- and when I say "we," I mean the United States and Japan in doing that. So we are very optimistic there in terms of that it's been a very healthy cooperation and it's been a very robust cooperation.

In fact, Japan is spending a billion-and-a-half dollars, roughly, a year in missile defense. And it's been a pleasure to work with them as partners.

REP. LARSON: That's apparent. Thank you.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT