Page 1       TOP OF DOC
[H.A.S.C. No. 108–18]








MARCH 19, 2003

 Page 2       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC



TERRY EVERETT, Alabama, Chairman
CURT WELDON, Pennsylvania

JOHN SPRATT, South Carolina

Harry Cartland, Professional Staff Member
Robert Lautrup, Professional Staff Member
Hugh Brady, Professional Staff Member
 Page 3       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
Dan Hilton, Staff Assistant



    Wednesday, March 19, 2003, Status of Military Space Activities

    Wednesday, March 19, 2003



    Everett, Hon. Terry, a Representative from Alabama, Chairman, Strategic Forces Subcommittee

    Reyes, Hon. Silvestre, a Representative from Texas, Ranking Member, Strategic Forces Subcommittee

 Page 4       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    Arnold, Lt. Gen. Brian A., Commander, Space and Missile Systems Center, Air Force Space Command

    Cosumano, Lt. Gen. Joseph Jr., Commander, Space and Missile Defense Command

    Kuklok, Maj. Gen. Kevin, Assistant Deputy Commandant of the Marine Corps, for Plans, Policy and Operations

    Mayo, Vice Adm. Richard, Commander, Naval Network Warfare Command

    Teets, Hon. Peter B., Under Secretary of the Air Force



Everett, Hon. Terry
Reyes, Hon. Silvestre
Teets, Hon. Peter B.

[There were no Documents submitted.]

 Page 5       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
[The Questions and Answers can be viewed in the hard copy.]
Mr. Everett
Mr. Reyes


House of Representatives,
Committee on Armed Services,
Strategic Forces Subcommittee,
Washington, DC, Wednesday, March 19, 2003.

    The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 5:12 p.m., in room 2216, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Terry Everett (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.


    Mr. EVERETT. The hearing will come to order. We meet today to receive testimony on Department of Defense (DOD) space programs and the fiscal year 2004 budget request for space activities. I want to welcome Under Secretary Peter Teets and also thank you for that earlier briefing. Secretary Teets is testifying today as the head of national security space programs.

 Page 6       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    I also want to welcome, seated behind Secretary Teets, the Service Space Program heads: For the Army, Lieutenant General Joseph Cosumano Jr., Commander, Space and Missile Defense Command; the Navy, Vice Admiral Richard Mayo, Commander, Naval Network Warfare Command; representing the Air Force, Lieutenant General Brian A. Arnold, Commander, Space and Missile Systems Center, Air Force Space Command; and finally Major General Kevin Kuklok, Assistant Deputy Commandant of the Marine Corps, for Plans, Policy and Operations.

    Following Secretary Teets' remarks, I invite you to join him at the witness table as committee members ask questions. We have a great deal of ground to cover today, and I want to allow each of our members as great an opportunity as possible to ask questions, so I will be brief.

    Likewise, I would ask you, Mr. Secretary, to be brief with your prepared remarks. The entirety of your written statement will be entered into the record.

    Under Secretary Teets is the first person to serve as overall head of national security space programs. Consolidation of space activities under a single executive agent was a strong recommendation of the Space Commission, otherwise known as the Rumsfeld Commission for its able leader, our current Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld.

    On the one hand, the Secretary oversees an area of technology that is rapidly growing in importance, and on the other hand, he has inherited many space programs that have experienced cost growth and schedule delays. The secretary also faces the institutional hurdle of better integrating military and intelligence community space activities, which promises to benefit both user communities, as well as provide more value to the taxpayer.
 Page 7       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    Further, he faces the difficulty of maintaining assured access to space while transitioning from legacy space boosters to the new family of Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicles (EELV) during a period when reduced commercial launches place added financial pressures on both suppliers.

    Finally, another challenge, highlighted almost daily in the press, is the planned transition from existing space-based communication systems to a new transformational communications system based on laser interconnection. That system is to provide the increased information handling capability that our future forces require.

    I would like to recognize my good friend and our distinguished ranking member, Mr. Reyes, for any comments he might have.

    [The prepared statement of Mr. Everett can be viewed in the hard copy.]


    Mr. REYES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I join you in welcoming our distinguished witnesses, in particular, Under Secretary of the Air Force Teets. I also appreciate that the top military officers on space matters from each of our services have been able to join us here today. I know that you will greatly add to today's discussion.

 Page 8       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    This important hearing is being held at this hour in the afternoon due to the committee's tight scheduling constraints, so I intend to keep my remarks as brief as possible.

    Mr. Chairman, as Mr. Teets notes in his written testimony, space assets have become vital to our war fighters. Our command, control, and communication systems depend on them. They provide our warriors in the field, in the air, and on the seas with vital intelligence on a real-time or close to real-time basis.

    They are also important to the performance of our weapons. The newest work horse of our munitions, the Joint Direct Attack Munition (JDAM), derives its accuracy from our U.S. space assets.

    As important as space and our assets in space have become to our military, our space programs have not received sufficient attention, I believe, from Congress. Many members, even on this committee, are only vaguely aware of our space missions, capabilities, and our future plans.

    My distinguished colleague, Chairman Everett, and I have had a unique opportunity to focus on these issues through our work on the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI). I am personally very excited to be able to continue this work through this newly established subcommittee.

    I believe that we have an opportunity to focus on our military space programs in a way that the committee has not been able to in the past. I think that this subcommittee will have a valuable role in bringing needed visibility and understanding of our military space programs to Congress at large.
 Page 9       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    I also know that our witnesses will be focusing on the 2004 budget as requested, and I look forward to that review and that discussion as well. However, I also hope that this hearing will be the first of many where we discuss broader issues such as what is the ultimate goal of our military space program, what do we mean by such terms as space control capabilities and assured access to space, how are other militaries using space, and what dangers does this represent to our country?

    In addition, as Mr. Teets acknowledges in his written testimony, several of our space programs have faced large budget overruns and severe schedule slippages. One of the eight priorities that he mentions that have shaped the 2004 budget request is to get space acquisition programs back on track. I look forward to hearing what we are doing to accomplish this goal, and, as importantly, what challenges remain for these kinds of programs.

    Finally, the Columbia tragedy has forced Congress to review and evaluate NASA (National Aeronautics and Space Administration). I hope that Mr. Teets can touch on what lessons DOD can draw from the Columbia tragedy. Moreover, I believe it would be useful to hear from him his thoughts on how DOD interacts both with NASA and commercial space interests and what room for improvement exists among those relationships.

    Mr. Chairman, I thank you for calling this very important hearing. We have much ground to cover, so I yield back the balance of my time.

    [The prepared statement of Mr. Reyes can be viewed in the hard copy.]

 Page 10       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Mr. EVERETT. Thank you, Mr. Reyes.

    I would like to remind members that the classified matters discussed in the previous members' meeting cannot be brought up in this hearing.

    Secretary Teets, I look forward to your testimony.


    Secretary TEETS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. It is an honor to be here, and I am particularly honored to be here in the presence of these distinguished military service leaders that you so kindly introduced. I have worked closely with these gentlemen over the course of the last 15 months, and I believe that that underscores really the importance that we place in jointness as we approach the problems and solve the problems that are associated with our national security space systems.

    While the Air Force has, as you said, been designated as DOD's executive agent for space and as I have been given milestone decision authority on acquisition programs, I also serve as the director of the NRO (National Reconnaissance Office), as you know. And yet I must say that there is no question about the fact that all military services make extensive use of our space assets, and it is important for every military service to join together in a way that allows knowledgeable people to be brought to bear in any war fighting efforts that we take on.

    As you know, of course, our space systems today are more important to our ability to fight and win military conflicts than they ever have been in the past. And so it is appropriate that we have joined together in a way that allows us to understand the unique requirements of each of the services and at the same time provide the kind of economies of scale and efficiencies that can result from a single service having executive agency status.
 Page 11       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    As it relates to the President's 2004 budget, I would tell you that we have significantly increased the budget request in 2004 from 2003, and, as a matter of fact, one of the things that my office does is put together a virtual MFP (Major Force Program). And if I compare the virtual MFP from fiscal year 2003 to fiscal year 2004, I will see an increase of about 18 percent in terms of growth.

    Over the course of this last 15 months, we have spent a lot of time trying to implement properly the recommendations that came from the Rumsfeld Commission activity, and I think we have done a good job of making progress. And yet I would also say that there is much left to be done, and we have some challenges ahead of us, but I think we are performing well as a team together, and we communicate well and we communicate frequently.

    I look forward very much to the opportunity to continue that partnership in coming weeks and months, and as it relates to today's activities, I would very much look forward to answering questions that you or other members might have and, with your permission, would ask that the military service leaders join me at the table here.

    [The prepared statement of Secretary Teets can be viewed in the hard copy.]

    Mr. EVERETT. That would be a good prospect.

    Secretary TEETS. Thank you very much, sir.

 Page 12       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Mr. EVERETT. Mr. Secretary, we have had, as you know, cost overruns in some of these programs for some time. What specific steps have you taken to ensure that the space acquisition programs are based on good, rapid, and independent cost analysis?

    Secretary TEETS. Mr. Chairman, as you probably know, shortly after I was sworn in and took the job of being Under Secretary of the Air Force, one of the major Air Force space programs was experiencing significant cost growth and schedule delay, a program known as Space-Based Infrared System High, (SBIRS High). And I spent a considerable amount of time during the early months of my assignment in trying to understand the root cause of that difficulty and bring to bear a process improvement that would avoid having those kinds of problems in future activities going downstream.

    What I found, really, was that the SBIRS High program had a number of unusual, innovative kinds of clauses that were built into the contract, that the SBIRS development program was taking place in an environment in which there was perhaps a shortage of good solid systems engineering talent, that the contract that was in place between the Air Force and the contractor, Lockheed-Martin, had some significant flaws.

    Because that program had breached the Nunn-McCurdy limits, it was necessary for us to take a hard look at alternatives. So we studied what various alternatives were open to us, and at the same time we studied the potential of restructuring the SBIRS High contract between the Air Force and contractor, Lockheed-Martin, in a way that would give us high confidence that we could perform and achieve going forward, achieve our objectives.

    I am pleased to say that that contract restructuring was basically accomplished last spring. It involved some extremely high energy work with not only the contractor, but with the government program office that was running it as well.
 Page 13       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    I think we have made great progress in restructuring the government program office under Colonel Mark Borkowski, who reports directly to General Arnold, and then we also experienced significant change at the contractor's facility. With additional resources brought in to shore up systems engineering, with some strong changes in the contract, we were successfully able to restructure that contract and put us on a course that we could properly execute. I believe that is in place now, and we are moving ahead well.

    The other thing we did over the course of the year was we set up what is called a Defense Space Acquisition Board process. This is a process that emphasizes independent cost estimates and independent cost estimating excellence.

    What we do is also involve representatives from all of the services, representatives from the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD), and have an opportunity to review carefully progress in programs before we pass certain key milestone dates. When we do that, we review the independent cost estimates, and we make certain that we have a way forward with the necessary resources in order to properly execute the program.

    One observation I would make is that we have been classically trying to execute these high-technology, difficult programs to execute—we have been trying to do it with virtually no management reserve. I would maintain to you that it is absolutely necessary for any program manager in charge of one of these high-tech development programs to have discretionary resources available to apply to problems as they arise in the development program.

    So we have been working hard in this Defense Space Acquisition Board process of trying to find ways to create some discretionary reserve for all of our program managers, and we are in the process of building on that.
 Page 14       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    Mr. EVERETT. I see that my time is going to expire. We will have a second and third and fourth round if we need to.

    Secretary TEETS. Yes, sir. I know I took a long time to answer that question, sir.

    Mr. EVERETT. No, because the answer was very important. As you well know, money is important in this program, and we have got a lot of things to do with maybe not as much money, in my estimation, as we might need.

    Mr. Reyes.

    Mr. REYES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think the first thing I want to do is perhaps refer back to some of the questions I had in my opening statement, and I will just rephrase the three of them.

    The first one deals with what is the ultimate goal of our military space program. The second one is what do we mean by such terms as space controlled capabilities and assured access to space. And what are other militaries using space for and what are the dangers that this represents to our country?

    Secretary TEETS. I will take a crack at the first one, and we may want to hear from some of the other people here on the panel with regard to the ultimate goal for military support or for military space, and it is the word, support. We think of ourselves as being able to provide intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance capability, unmatched in any medium other than space. We think of ourselves as being able to provide rapid communications. We can provide weather information.
 Page 15       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    We are an enabling capability that allows us to efficiently and effectively conduct military operations on a global scale. And our goal is to make certain that we maintain and even increase the asymmetric advantage that our military forces use or enjoy from the use of space.

    With regard to the terminology of space control and assured access that you asked about, I would say that space control is terminology that applies to being able to, first, have a knowledge of what objects are in space. You cannot control what you do not see or know or understand, and so, therefore, one of the things we need to do is improve our situation of awareness of what is in space.

    Second, I think space control involves an effort that must be undertaken to allow us to be knowledgeable if we are under attack. We oftentimes have, I will say, hiccups or glitches that occur on our space craft, and, quite frankly, if we were under attack, we might well today decide that it was another glitch as opposed to an attack. So we need to develop some technology that will tell us when we are under attack.

    We need to develop some defensive capability, that is to say, perhaps some maneuver capability, perhaps some shielding from radiation. There are various kinds of defensive counter space capabilities that are under study.

    And then, last, we need to be thinking also about offensive counter space. Our space assets are enormously valuable, and the time may well come when we decide that we must take actions that could preclude an adversary from their use of that high ground. So space control refers to that entire range of activity in space.
 Page 16       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    As it relates to assured access, assured access simply means that we want to know that we can deliver these important assets into orbit in space. And if we have a failure of a certain rocket, we want to be able to be resilient from that failure, that is to say, not have to stand down and stop all space launch activity for months or years at a time. That is what I mean when I talk about assured access to space.

    As it relates to other military forces, clearly, we have a growing capability from China. You have undoubtedly read about it in the newspapers. They hope to launch a man into orbit yet this year. We have seen a lot of capability in terms of space launch capability being developed in China, and they have an aggressive overall space program.

    Russia, of course, continues to have an active space program as well. I think today, it is also possible that we could be attacked from the ground with some of our space assets. So I would say that there is a growing danger from other adversaries developing capabilities that could tend to threaten our space capabilities.

    General Bob Taylor, who is the national security space integration lead, has just recently completed a vulnerability study. It is a very detailed study, and it is a worthy one. We have classified that study in terms of the results of it, because we do not want to publish what our vulnerabilities are. But, obviously, if you all are interested in hearing some of the results of that vulnerability study, I know General Taylor would be pleased to brief them to you.

    Mr. REYES. Thank you.
 Page 17       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    Mr. Chairman, I think that would be a good idea to get that.

    Mr. EVERETT. I think so, too. I think it would be a good one.

    Mr. Franks.

    Mr. FRANKS. Mr. Chairman, I will just pass for the moment.

    Mr. EVERETT. Mr. Meek.

    Mr. MEEK. I will pass also, Mr. Chairman.

    Mr. EVERETT. Mr. Ryan.

    Mr. RYAN. It is good to see you again. I am sorry we did not finish up last time.

    I missed a little bit at the beginning, so can you talk a little bit about the evolved expendable launch vehicle? I do not know if you have talked about that much yet or not.

    Secretary TEETS. I have not talked about it an awful lot, and this would be a great opportunity, if you would permit it, for General Arnold——

 Page 18       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Mr. RYAN. Sure.

    Secretary TEETS [continuing]. To get a word in edgewise. It turns out that the Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle, EELV, is a program that General Arnold, the commander of the Space and Missile Center and the program executive officer of space for Air Force Space, is in charge of.


    General ARNOLD. Good afternoon. The EELV program, or the Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle program, was based on the notion that we would transition from the older heritage systems that we have been flying the satellites on for some years. We looked at a way to design a rocket that had less parts, was more reliable, and also reduced the cost to space.

    We have a contract on now with both the Boeing Company, who builds the Delta 4, and the Lockheed-Martin Company that builds the Atlas 5. Those are the two new EELV systems.

    They come in various varieties, from a medium lift all the way up to a heavy lift. The Boeing Company is on contract to build us a heavy demo later on this year.

    Thus far, we have had three successful launches, and we have had one successful Atlas 5 launch back in August of 2002. Later last year, we had the first successful Delta 4 launch, and then just recently, we launched our first government launch, just Monday a week ago. It was a discus satellite—it put it right on orbit. So far, we have had great success with both the Boeing and the Lockheed-Martin programs.
 Page 19       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    Mr. RYAN. When you work with Boeing—and I am new to this committee and to Congress, too. So when you are working with a company like Boeing for certain technologies, and they are also working with China or Russia or whoever, what are the protections as far as the technology goes that would also have maybe some other applications? I mean, this is obviously military and commercial and everything else. What are the protections that are included in some of that?

    General ARNOLD. Any time we have a contract that deals with a foreign country, we go through SAFIA, i.e., the Secretary of the Air Force for International Affairs, to check to make sure that we are not violating any trade agreements, any protection agreements, if you will. With respect to the Boeing Company, we do not have that problem. With respect to the Titan or the Atlas 5 with Lockheed-Martin, they buy a Russian engine that is known as the RD–180.

    So we do have some trade issues—not necessarily issues, but agreements, if you will. The two of note are basically the RD–180 being built in Russia. We would like to produce that here in this country, and so the Russians will pass us the information or the formula or the recipe to build that engine. We will give that to Pratt and Whitney here later this year. That is the first step.

    The other step is to stockpile a certain number of the RD–180 engines here in this country just to give us sort of a risk protection, if you will. So that is really the only major international type of agreement with either one of those companies we have today with EELV.
 Page 20       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    Mr. RYAN. Thank you.

    General ARNOLD. Yes, sir.

    Mr. RYAN. We appreciate you coming.

    Mr. EVERETT. Thank you, Mr. Ryan.

    Admiral Mayo, both the Army and Air Force have a significant space presence in Colorado Springs. The Navy does not. Now that you have transferred defense to the Air Force, would it make sense from both a coordination and operation standpoint to mitigate a significant space presence in Colorado?


    Admiral MAYO. Mr. Chairman, thanks for the question. We have had a presence in Colorado Springs for some time, approximately about 10 Navy officers and civilians. Last October, when the new strategic command stood up, we began to draw down that contingent in Colorado Springs. Our intention is to continue a small cell in Colorado Springs to work with the other service components, but to also place a small cell in Omaha with the new strategic command.

    But what we did, Mr. Chairman, in the aftermath of the Rumsfeld Commission report and actually in advance of the new strategic command—space is so important to the United States Navy that we are mainstreaming space. We are making it an operational capability. We have stood up our own new command in the Navy that works for the fleet in recognition of just how important the products we get from space are.
 Page 21       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    So we think we are well postured with the cell of people we have in Colorado Springs, the cell of people we are going to have in Omaha, with our commands in Dahlgren, Virginia, and our new command in Norfolk, Virginia, working for the fleet.

    Mr. EVERETT. Thank you.

    Mr. Secretary, the Secretary of Defense earmarked about $1.3 billion to accelerate the procurement of satellite-based radars. The additional funds bring the total cost of the SBIRS program from fiscal year 2003 to fiscal year 2009 to about $4.5 billion. Given the recent funding increases to the space-based radar program, has the program's desired capability been defined, and to what extent will the critical technologies be significantly mature to support the program?

    Secretary TEETS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Space-based radar is an enormously important new program for military space, and I would also hasten to say that it certainly bridges into the intelligence community as well. This will be a partnership program that is developed using the full capability of both military space, using all services, by the way, and also the intelligence community. So it will be truly a national security space system that we will be developing.

    Why? Well, because, for one thing, space-based radar has an ability to provide ground mobile target indications from space. This gives our war fighters an enormous advantage as they look at moving targets and track moving targets on what we hope to be a persistent, virtually constant basis.
 Page 22       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    In addition, space-based radar gives us an opportunity to do synthetic aperture radar imaging from space, and that is of enormous value to the intelligence community. So right now, we are in the process of forming a program office, doing formal architecture studies, developing an acquisition plan.

    We recognize that it must have the full involvement of Army Space, Navy Space, Marine Corps Space, and, of course, Air Force Space, and, joined with the intelligence community, that makes for a lot of players. But we are going to put together a strong team that can bring this wonderful capability online.

    With that, I would be happy to turn it over to any of the other folks on the panel here.

    Mr. EVERETT. That would be good if we could hear from them.


    General COSUMANO. Thank you, sir. From the Army's perspective, as we look at the value of these future programs and the current programs, as we look at the ability to transform the Army—and, obviously, while we are at war, we are also transforming.

    But as we look at that future Army we call our objective force, it is going to be a lighter Army, a more deployable Army, and space is one of those key enablers that will provide that Army with the ability to see first, understand first, act first, and finish decisively. So programs like the space-based radar, GPS–3 (Global Positioning System), the transformation communications study, and the programs that follow from that are key to this future Army that we talk about.
 Page 23       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    Mr. EVERETT. Let me—I am going to run over for just a minute, Mr. Reyes.

    Mr. REYES. Go ahead.

    Mr. EVERETT. Speaking about GPS–3, why was this delayed for so long—delayed for several years?

    Secretary TEETS. I can give you a quick thumbnail of that. GPS–2 has been in progress for a good long time, and there are a number of GPS–2 satellites that are in the queue that have been acquired and bought. And it turns out that our GPS satellites are lasting a little longer than we thought they would last.

    We have got an improvement program under way on GPS–2 called GPS–2RM and then a further improvement called GPS–2F, and those contracts are under way. Now, what we need to do is look at a program which will get in synchronization to bring GPS–3, an even more improved satellite system, into play at a point in time when we need to replenish the constellation.

    What we have determined is that it would be timely to replace GPS, or to have the GPS–3 replacement satellites in the 2012 timeframe. Now, we had funds from the fiscal year 2003 budget that would allow us to do initial design work, some study work with some industrial counterparts, and put in place a procurement that would satisfy this objective of having a first launch capability in 2012.
 Page 24       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    As we looked at the situation as it relates to anti-jam capability, we have decided to take a look at whether it would be possible for us to accelerate this GPS–3 capability, because it does have strong anti-jam capability.

    So we are in the process right now of reexamining our GPS–3 acquisition strategy, and I am in virtually weekly dialog with General Arnold and the GPS joint program office headquartered out in Los Angeles on this very subject of what is the smart way ahead. If we determine that we can wisely and for good reason accelerate that 2012 launch, then we will modify our acquisition plans accordingly.

    Mr. EVERETT. Thank you.

    Admiral, I kind of interrupted what you were going to say, I think, on the previous question. But we were talking about GPS–3, and since it was brought up, I wanted to ask a question. Would you continue on the previous question?

    Admiral MAYO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I get excited about space. We have 306 ships in the Navy, 217 today are under way, most of them deployed. So well over two-thirds of our Navy is at sea.

    They get their messages from space. They know where they are from space. They know what their battle space looks like from space, and they get their targeting information from space. We are very, very critically dependent upon space, and we will need it even more in the future to do precision, fast, speedy combat action.
 Page 25       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    So I get excited about this. I pay a lot of attention to what is going on in the national space security world with Mr. Teets. We work closely with him. We need this more than ever, and I just cannot emphasize that enough.

    Mr. EVERETT. General Arnold.

    General ARNOLD. I will just comment briefly, Mr. Chairman, on your comment on the technology readiness for space-based radar. We are right now investing a lot of up-front money to make sure that the various aspects and subcomponents of the space-based radar are maturing at the right rate, so that later on in this decade, we can begin to integrate those systems and then build the entire system of systems, if you will.

    So we are dedicating right now up-front this year and the next couple of years to make sure that we absolutely mature those technologies, for example, the electronic scan, the ray, the internal processing capabilities, so that we will be able to meet the objective of this fiscal year 2012 first launch. So I think we are on the right track there.

    It also needs to start up-front with the right kinds of concept of operations, making sure we balance the requirements from both the intelligence community as well as the joint war fighters. In fact, my good friend, General Cosumano, has loaned me a couple of his Army Colonels out at our joint SPO (Special Project Office) out at Los Angeles to really build a joint and a national capability so that we can build this system and built it right so it meets all the needs of all of our customers out there, and this will be a real chore. It is not going to be easy, but I think we are on the right track.
 Page 26       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    With respect to GPS–3, we are fundamentally improving every time we build one of our space systems. Today, we are in the sustainment of our current GPS systems. We have got 27 good satellites on orbit. We just put GPS–2R Number 8 on orbit. We will put 2R Number 9 on orbit on the 31st of this month, and we will continue to do that.

    We are also modernizing at the same time and we are transforming. In every case, as we go from one of the blocks, as Mr. Teets mentioned, from a 2R to a 2F or the Block 3, we increase the capability sometimes five and maybe tenfold in capability for the war fighter. And it is very important that we look at that and we develop that and push that technology along in the right path.

    At the same time as we develop a new GPS Block 3, we need to make sure the users, our sailors, our Marine Corps, our Army, our Air Force, have the right kinds of receivers in order to take advantage of the updated GPS signal that we are giving them. We will be backward compatible, but backward compatibility equals backward capability.

    So we need to make sure that we also fund what we call the user equipment at the same pace that we are bringing along the modernized GPS system. We are intending to do that, and we manage that, but the anti-jam capability for GPS is vital and we are really paying attention to that.

    Mr. EVERETT. General Kuklok.

 Page 27       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    General KUKLOK. I would just echo the other three leads, and I think from the Marine Corps perspective, of course, GPS is of significant interest to the Marine Corps. I think the other piece that tends to get lost in the discussion is a lot of space assets and a lot of the locations are on the ground. A lot of the sites are on the ground, and because we are totally forward deployed along with the Navy and the Army, we are very dependent on all of that GPS capability, and to date, the current upgrades to GPS have been more than adequate to meet our requirements.

    And we believe, as Mr. Teets has outlined, as we move into the future, and as General Arnold has referenced, sometimes we get quantum leaps from these things. So we are getting quantum leaps in the interim. What we thought GPS–3 would bring us some years back, some of the 2-blocks are doing for us today, so we are very confident that that path is going to work for all of us.

    Mr. EVERETT. Thank you all for your answers, and I apologize to the committee for running over, and we will go on with another round. But before I do that, let me also remind members again that anything that was discussed in the previous meeting cannot be discussed in this meeting.

    Mr. Reyes.

    Mr. REYES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    I was just curious about the new GPS–3—I am reminded that in Afghanistan, we had that incident where the individual changed batteries, and it reconfigured or defaulted to an erroneous GPS position, which led to faulty targeting. Does GPS–3 take care of that, or is that something that we still need to work on?
 Page 28       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    General ARNOLD. Sir, that is in reference to a handheld system that we deploy out to all of our service members, a plugger system, and when you disconnected the battery at that time and put it back in, it did reset in error. That was a procedure error. We have since corrected that. But that really has nothing to do with the updating of the GPS–3.

    What GPS–3 basically will give us is—to get just a bit technical, if I could, for a second, it will give us what we call an L1, an L2, and an L5. An L5 is safety of flight, that you will be able to navigate around the world and actually eventually do approaches. The other two are just to give you precision accuracy, and it can give you timing and location, which are very, very important.

    In addition to that, we are going to give you about a plus-20 db (decibels). The signal itself is very, very fragile and can be easily jammed, and our Defense Science Board (DSB) has told us that we need to increase the power approximately 20 decibels above the level that it has right now. And by doing that, then you can simply overcome jamming in the local area.

    The other thing we are doing is building what is called a new signal structure in the M-code overlay. What that will allow us to do is, essentially, if you are being jammed on your frequency, if you have the M-code capability, you can jam right back without doing what is called fracture-sight, in other words, ruining the signal for yourself. So we are developing that capability.

    In addition to those capabilities, we are also adding a new NAV WAR capability, and we could discuss that in another location. Those are the brand new capabilities we are adding to GPS–3. So it will be larger and certainly a tremendous capability over what we get today.
 Page 29       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    Mr. REYES. Thank you, General. I appreciate that explanation.

    Maybe we can get back, Dr. Teets, to the issue of the Columbia tragedy, and I realize that the investigation is not over. But I am wondering, based on that, have you had a chance to think about it and draw some lessons from that? And fully realizing that DOD interacts both with NASA and commercial space interests, are there areas where you feel there exists room for improvement in those relationships?

    Secretary TEETS. Yes, sir. I have, on several occasions recently, spoken with NASA Administrator Sean O'Keefe, and we, obviously, in the Air Force are trying very hard to provide any support we can to NASA as they sort through this tragedy and then re-plot their future. I would say that one of the things we have done over the course of the last year is to reach out to NASA to reinvigorate the NASA-DOD partnership council.

    I sit on a partnership council along with General Lord and Admiral Ellis and Sean O'Keefe and Ron Sega, the DDR&E (Director, Defense Research & Engineer) person at the Pentagon. We meet semi-annually—and we may increase the frequency of those meetings now—to really talk about what kinds of technology is developing versus what kinds of technology the DOD or the intelligence community is developing, and how can we better partner to leverage each other's technology developments.

    I look forward to continuing that kind of an association. As I say, we may increase the frequency of those visits. We will be very interested in seeing what NASA's plan for the future is in the aftermath of the Columbia tragedy. Again, we are pleased to be able to partner with them in any way that can be helpful to them, and, similarly, if we can use some of the technology they are developing, we would want to do so.
 Page 30       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    Mr. REYES. Thank you.

    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    Mr. EVERETT. Mr. Franks.

    Mr. FRANKS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    Mr. Secretary and gentlemen, I want to make sure that I do not touch on anything that is of a classified nature here, but you have mentioned a lot about the ability of the GPS–3 in terms of being protected from enemy jamming. What is the vulnerability of GPS–3 and some of our other satellite capabilities to the EMP (electro magnetic pulse)? I know it is something that probably anyone but freshmen are already pretty much familiar with. But as far as the electro magnetic pulse that perhaps a nuclear weapon set off by Korea or someone like that—what is the honest vulnerability there?

    General ARNOLD. I will keep this unclassified, sir. It is a very good question. The GPS satellite is located at what we call Middle Earth Orbit, MEO orbit, and that is at about 11,000 nautical miles in orbit above the Earth.

    By being at that altitude versus at what we call Low Earth Orbit, which means around roughly 400 to 600 nautical miles above the Earth, you are not quite as vulnerable, because you would have to have somebody that could insert some kind of a weapon, an atomic weapon—to have an EMP blast at 11,000 miles out is a little bit harder and more technically challenging than it would be at Low Earth Orbit, first of all.
 Page 31       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    But the GPS satellite is hardened because of the environment that it is at 11,000 miles. It is a much more stringent requirement that we have on that satellite, because you are in a radiation belt, if you will. And when you operate at MEO, Middle Earth Orbit, you have to have the ability for that system to sustain that environment for quite some time, and the life span of our satellites at that orbit—GPSs are lasting now upwards of 10 and as much as 12 years. You can believe that.

    So we take a lot of effort to make those RAD (Radiation Absorbed Dose) hardened, as we call it, radiation hardened. But it depends on the relative distance for the weapon that would go off and how close in proximity you were with your satellite, and that is about all I can say at this level with that, sir.

    Mr. FRANKS. Let me——

    Secretary TEETS. The jamming, yes, sir. With respect to jamming, right now, the signal itself is what we call about a minus-159 decibels. It is a very fragile signal.

    What you do to overcome the jamming—we are talking about putting a spot beam on the satellite. And, essentially, if we knew we were in a jammed environment—and there are various techniques to determine that—then you would steer the beam over that location, say, a large area the size of one of our—a medium size state, and it would produce that additional power to overcome the jamming so you could still receive the signal, if you will.

 Page 32       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Now, for our current systems, for example, the 2RM, as Mr. Teets mentioned, and the 2F, we are adding what is called flex power that will give us about a 6.9 db gain over what your current level is. And by doing that, you are actually gaining about five times in capability. So it does not sound like a lot, but you are really gaining an awful lot. Today, with the systems we have on today, we are using other techniques that I prefer not to go into right now.

    Mr. FRANKS. Thank you very much. Let me, if it is all right, just ask one more question in a completely different vein.

    Mr. Secretary, I know the joint strike fighter is something, I am told, that the Air Force, Navy, and a lot of folks are working together on. My question is how will this affect the present F–16 program? I know that—they tell me the F–16 will be in operation for maybe 10 or 12 years or longer. Can you tell me about how long you think this is going to take to begin to supplant the F–16 force?

    Secretary TEETS. Sure. As you undoubtedly know, the joint strike fighter, the Air Force variant of it, is really designed to be the replacement for the F–16. As the development schedule unfolds for the F–35, joint strike fighter—and we have aging aircraft in our current fleet, and those aging aircraft will be retired and replaced with F–35s.

    Of course, the development program is now very much under way. There are three variants, an Air Force variant to replace the F–16. There is a Marine Corps variant, which is vitally important to our Marine Corps forces.
 Page 33       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    And then, of course, the Navy variant will be carrier based. That program is synched up in a way that makes good sense for providing, first of all, capability for a very aging Harrier fleet in the Marine Corps, capability for a quite aging F–16 fleet in our United States Air Force, and then, of course, destined for naval service as well.

    Mr. FRANKS. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.

    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    Mr. EVERETT. Good question.

    Mr. Meek.

    Mr. MEEK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    Mr. Secretary, I want to ask questions around—since we are talking about the 2004 budget, and, obviously, when we start moving in the direction of going to the floor—and the defenders of your recommendations and the department's recommendations would be the members of the Armed Services Committee and, obviously, other members of the Congress.

    As we look at this GPS system—and we know that we have had some mishaps in the past—but definitely for the lives that it will save, because these are the questions that are before us right now as Americans—will son, daughter, mother, father return back to the states after we, obviously, engage war in Iraq and in other parts of the world.
 Page 34       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    I want to know what the department is doing as it relates to educating the American public on the efforts of our GPS system, number one, whether it be a web site, whether it be making information available to the media about how helpful it could be. It seems like we are on the right track. You all are trying to improve it constantly—I mean, it has this preventive maintenance look to it.

    What are some of the things that you all are doing so that the American public—if you look at the whole armed services package or the budget, DOD budget, many ask questions—''Oh, goodness, spending all of that money on defense.''

    What does it actually do, and how are you all telling that to the American public as it relates to letting them know that the money is well spent to save American lives, because that is what I am hearing now. Loss of life is the number one concern of Americans and others around the world.

    Secretary TEETS. Yes, sir. Thank you, Mr. Meek, for the question. I will take a quick stab at it, and then I will ask General Arnold to follow up as well with his thoughts.

    You know, I think it is quite well publicized and quite widely known that GPS has really enabled a new way of fighting. And if this conflict in Iraq proceeds, I think it is going to become much more clear.

    I can tell you that from our experience in Afghanistan, it is absolutely certain that we changed—fundamentally transformed the way some of our war fighting efforts were taking place. All of a sudden, using the GPS system, you could think of B–52s as being able to provide close air support, and precision guided weapons are enabled, really, by a GPS system.
 Page 35       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    Now, it may not be as well publicized as a fact as we would like it to be, but I think that in coming wartime kinds of activities, there is an opportunity for us to make certain that the American people do know that GPS is what is enabling this precision guided munitions activity. As it relates to the GPS system itself, of course, I think it is a remarkable situation where our Department of Defense is essentially providing a utility service to the world.

    And, in America, there are a whole lot of people driving automobiles these days that are using GPS receivers, and there are other people that are hiking mountains and sailing ships and boats and so forth that are using GPS receivers for navigation and timing.

    It is true, though, that GPS is an all-pervasive utility. I mean, timing—bank teller machines are all running off GPS timing. It is a remarkable utility, and perhaps we should increase our efforts to make certain that the American people are aware that it is their defense budget or our defense budget which is enabling that capability.

    Mr. MEEK. Mr. Secretary, I know you want to respond on that. I am familiar with the GPS, I am a fisherman, so I would not leave home without it.

    But I would say this, especially as it relates to what is getting ready to happen right now. I think that is important. The people that I am talking to and who seem to be looking at DOD appropriations, they are looking at next year being a real belt-tightening experience as it relates to the defense budget.

    And I am thinking of ways possibly for those that have angst with our position right now as it relates to war, as it relates to mainly the loss of life—this is a perfect time, not only for people in the uniform, but those of us that are wearing shirts and ties, to be able to share not only with the American public, but with other members of the Congress that they can find some comfort that every measure is being taken to save lives.
 Page 36       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    Now, I do not think—and, you know, obviously, there has been talk on the stock market about GPS companies that are doing well because of the conflict in Iraq, and that is not necessarily the question here. But I think this is a perfect opportunity.

    I asked Secretary Rumsfeld when he came before us as it relates to what we just started last year with an Under Secretary for—I believe it was for intelligence there at DOD—are we really using that office to the best of our ability to save American lives and our coalition partners' lives? I think it is important that we share more of that.

    You can turn on any cable station and hear more about what we think people do not know. But we should share that more with the American public, because that is what I am getting in my constituent calls from the district. They are saying they agree with us, what we are doing right now. They agree with—they know that it has to pass for us to get our young men and women out of the sand right now and off the water. Let's do it.

    But I think it is important that we have to do a better job as it relates to sharing with the American public the stopguards and safeguards and all of the thought and action we are putting into trying to save those lives. So that is really where I am headed.

    I think people understand the GPS—I am sorry, Mr. Chairman. I know I am going over, but I am coming in for a landing.

    Mr. EVERETT. We look forward to it. [Laughter.]

 Page 37       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Mr. REYES. We hope it is a safe one.

    Mr. MEEK. Thank you very much. I believe I am—but I think, Mr. Chairman, just in closing, this is a very important point, and the secretary thought it was an important point as it relates to an intelligence secretary. You hear nothing about that office. You hear nothing—I mean, in the media. I know it is intelligence, but the American people need to know that it is that kind of coordination at DOD, and they need to know more about our GPS capabilities.

    Mr. EVERETT. Thank you, Mr. Meek.

    Mr. Ryan, you look like you have a question.

    Mr. RYAN. Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    You were talking a little bit about the jamming, and I do not know if I completely understand it. The signals that you send out from the satellites can be jammed. How are they jammed?

    General ARNOLD. Let me just basically explain—and, Mr. Ryan, that is a very good question. There is basically four ways to get at our satellites, go after the satellite itself, go after the uplink signal, the downlink signal, or the ground station that receives it.

    In this case, the jamming we are talking about is a very—we will likely see as a small, handheld jammer or a small jammer, two watts to four watts in size, that would jam the downlink signal, the signal coming from the satellite to the receiver, either on the aircraft or on the ship or to a soldier in the field. That is the kind of jamming we are talking about. And because the signal is so fragile, it is very easy to jam, and I would have to go to a closed session to discuss it any further than that, sir.
 Page 38       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    Mr. RYAN. So you can jam the signal. Can you intercept the signal?

    General ARNOLD. Your receiver is what intercepts that signal, that is correct. And so the market variety you have in your car is a receiver. It receives that signal. That is exactly right.

    Mr. RYAN. So if you are signaling a ship to go to certain coordinates somewhere, can that be intercepted and the information looked at by the enemy?

    General ARNOLD. There is a distinct difference here. The signal is omni broadcasting in a global nature, and we have a constellation currently of 27 satellites that are on orbit. Each one of those is sending down a signal. It is a NAV message is what it is, and it gives you a timing and a position and a velocity.

    So your receiver picks that information up, whether it is on a ship—let's say Admiral Mayo is on a carrier. He receives that information, and then that translates that information into exactly where he is on the sea, and it will tell him where—the speed that he is traveling, and it will tell him, basically, here is north, south, east, and west relative to the position of the ship.

    That information will come down to anybody that has a receiver anywhere in the world. So it is not as though he will broadcast that information to another ship. Now, in that process, if he had to say, ''I am going to communicate with another ship,'' that signal is an RF (radio frequency) signal which likely could be picked up if it is not secure.
 Page 39       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    But the signal itself from GPS is merely broadcast around the world, and everybody that has a receiver can receive that. So it is not a consequence of being intercepted by somebody else and letting you know where I am at. Does that make sense?

    Mr. RYAN. I think it did. I am going to have to think about that for a while. Thank you very much, and I am also impressed with the GPS and the advances you have made. It does not help my golf game out at all, just so you know. But it is a lot more fun to golf with the system, so thank you very much.

    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    Mr. EVERETT. Thank you. This is important stuff, and believe it or not, they are going to be answering different questions. We covered about four pages of questions, Mr. Secretary. I must congratulate you on getting to the point on a lot of these things and our service heads of our different space agencies. This is important stuff, and we appreciate the work you are doing and the time that you have spent with us here today.

    I would also like to thank my members, Mr. Reyes, Mr. Franks, Mr. Meek, Mr. Ryan. You all had good questions, and they were to the point, and I appreciate the answers that were given.

    Actually, I do need to say one more thing. There are some questions we will submit for the record, and I particularly would like to talk to you about personnel and how you are handling personnel since they are essential to the success of this program and the money that we are spending.
 Page 40       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    So thank you again, and this hearing is now adjourned.

    [Whereupon, at 6:14 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]