Team Infidel
Forum Spin Doctor
Defense Daily
May 1, 2008
Pg. 1
By Emelie Rutherford
Democrats on a House oversight panel grilled a Pentagon official yesterday on missile defense effectiveness and spending, with some suggesting money dedicated to the Pentagon agency in charge of missile defense should be directed elsewhere.
Missile Defense Agency (MDA) Director Air Force Lt. Gen. Trey Obering maintained before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee's national security and foreign affairs subcommittee that his agency's programs are on track and needed, even as threats from non-state actors persist that MDA cannot address. "As soon as we say that we're not going to develop a long-range missile defense for this country, we are inviting that avenue of attack for our future adversaries," Obering said.
Rep. John Tierney (D-Mass.), the subcommittee chairman, shot back that the general was being an advocate for "not making any priorities, not making distinctions, and [to] just spend every dollar we have on defense for every possible contingency...without deciding which one's more realistic than others."
While the panel's present Democrats grilled Obering, subcommittee ranking member Rep. Christopher Shays (R-Conn.) blasted his colleagues across the aisle for not allowing the general to present more information on his field of expertise.
"I think this is a fraud, I think this is an absolute joke, you should have been given as much time as you needed," Shays said to Obering.
The hearing was the third in a three-part series on missile defense oversight by the House subcommittee. Tierney said he is concerned about "$64 billion being spent on an intercontinental ballistic defense system that has not had realistic operational tests yet under a number of conditions that we continue to procure on."
Obering testified he does not agree with a recent Government Accountability (GAO) critique of ballistic missile defense system (BMDS) performance measurements.
As Rep. Paul Hodes (D-N.H.) pointed out, the GAO--in testimony submitted to a Senate subcommittee April 1--said it was not able to assess whether MDA met its overall performance goal for BMDS, "because there have not been enough flight tests to provide a high confidence that the models and simulations accurately predict BMDS performance."
"Moreover, the tests that have been done do not provide enough information for DOD's independent test organization to fully assess the BMDS' suitability and effectiveness," the GAO says in the April 1 written testimony.
Hodes also noted his concern that the Pentagon not yet demonstrating a ground-based missile defense system capable of defending against a long-range ballistic missile in a real-world situation.
Obering told Hodes those are not valid criticisms of the missile defense effort's progress.
The general said MDA is working to validate and verify models and simulations used to predict BMDS performance.
"Do we have validated and verified models? The answer is not yet," Obering said. "Do we have any problems, though, with what we've seen in terms of the predicated data, in terms of our flight testing and in terms of what we're seeing and in terms of real-world performance? The answer's no. We have not seen any show stoppers. We have not seen anything that would have an effect with respect to our program that would tell us that we're on the wrong path."
Obering said the Pentagon's director of Operational Test and Evaluation, Charles McQueary, agrees on the MDA is "on the right path to do this verification and validation of our models...and in terms of the numbers of flight tests."MDA has tested the long-rage system with operational assets in "operationally realistic" conditions, he said.
"The one condition that we did not have on the target was complex countermeasures, [but] ... you don't have to have complex countermeasures to be operationally realistic," Obering said. "You will for the future, but you don't necessarily have to do that for today."
The general said MDA works with the GAO regularly, but that he doesn't "agree in total with" their conclusions. "We do know our systems better than anybody, that's a fact," he said.
Subcommittee member Rep. Betty McCollum (D-Minn.), who also sits on the House Appropriations Committee, talked of wanting to look at the overall threat assessment to the country, and of the Defense Department and Department of Homeland (DHS) Security having discussions "about the right funding mix across this entire country."
"We have limited resources," she said, pointing out the MDA's budget is roughly one-third the total budget for DHS.
Obering said he does not agree with a Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimate that concludes if MDA continues on its course that taxpayers will spend an additional $213 to $277 billion between now and 2025, on top of the $120 to $150 billion already spent.
"They're making assumptions about what we will continue, what we will not continue, that I don't think are accurate," Obering said about the CBO estimate. He told McCollum he will submit a further explanation in writing.
May 1, 2008
Pg. 1
By Emelie Rutherford
Democrats on a House oversight panel grilled a Pentagon official yesterday on missile defense effectiveness and spending, with some suggesting money dedicated to the Pentagon agency in charge of missile defense should be directed elsewhere.
Missile Defense Agency (MDA) Director Air Force Lt. Gen. Trey Obering maintained before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee's national security and foreign affairs subcommittee that his agency's programs are on track and needed, even as threats from non-state actors persist that MDA cannot address. "As soon as we say that we're not going to develop a long-range missile defense for this country, we are inviting that avenue of attack for our future adversaries," Obering said.
Rep. John Tierney (D-Mass.), the subcommittee chairman, shot back that the general was being an advocate for "not making any priorities, not making distinctions, and [to] just spend every dollar we have on defense for every possible contingency...without deciding which one's more realistic than others."
While the panel's present Democrats grilled Obering, subcommittee ranking member Rep. Christopher Shays (R-Conn.) blasted his colleagues across the aisle for not allowing the general to present more information on his field of expertise.
"I think this is a fraud, I think this is an absolute joke, you should have been given as much time as you needed," Shays said to Obering.
The hearing was the third in a three-part series on missile defense oversight by the House subcommittee. Tierney said he is concerned about "$64 billion being spent on an intercontinental ballistic defense system that has not had realistic operational tests yet under a number of conditions that we continue to procure on."
Obering testified he does not agree with a recent Government Accountability (GAO) critique of ballistic missile defense system (BMDS) performance measurements.
As Rep. Paul Hodes (D-N.H.) pointed out, the GAO--in testimony submitted to a Senate subcommittee April 1--said it was not able to assess whether MDA met its overall performance goal for BMDS, "because there have not been enough flight tests to provide a high confidence that the models and simulations accurately predict BMDS performance."
"Moreover, the tests that have been done do not provide enough information for DOD's independent test organization to fully assess the BMDS' suitability and effectiveness," the GAO says in the April 1 written testimony.
Hodes also noted his concern that the Pentagon not yet demonstrating a ground-based missile defense system capable of defending against a long-range ballistic missile in a real-world situation.
Obering told Hodes those are not valid criticisms of the missile defense effort's progress.
The general said MDA is working to validate and verify models and simulations used to predict BMDS performance.
"Do we have validated and verified models? The answer is not yet," Obering said. "Do we have any problems, though, with what we've seen in terms of the predicated data, in terms of our flight testing and in terms of what we're seeing and in terms of real-world performance? The answer's no. We have not seen any show stoppers. We have not seen anything that would have an effect with respect to our program that would tell us that we're on the wrong path."
Obering said the Pentagon's director of Operational Test and Evaluation, Charles McQueary, agrees on the MDA is "on the right path to do this verification and validation of our models...and in terms of the numbers of flight tests."MDA has tested the long-rage system with operational assets in "operationally realistic" conditions, he said.
"The one condition that we did not have on the target was complex countermeasures, [but] ... you don't have to have complex countermeasures to be operationally realistic," Obering said. "You will for the future, but you don't necessarily have to do that for today."
The general said MDA works with the GAO regularly, but that he doesn't "agree in total with" their conclusions. "We do know our systems better than anybody, that's a fact," he said.
Subcommittee member Rep. Betty McCollum (D-Minn.), who also sits on the House Appropriations Committee, talked of wanting to look at the overall threat assessment to the country, and of the Defense Department and Department of Homeland (DHS) Security having discussions "about the right funding mix across this entire country."
"We have limited resources," she said, pointing out the MDA's budget is roughly one-third the total budget for DHS.
Obering said he does not agree with a Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimate that concludes if MDA continues on its course that taxpayers will spend an additional $213 to $277 billion between now and 2025, on top of the $120 to $150 billion already spent.
"They're making assumptions about what we will continue, what we will not continue, that I don't think are accurate," Obering said about the CBO estimate. He told McCollum he will submit a further explanation in writing.