Sequestration is putting missile defense–both homeland and regional defense–in jeopardy, and could lead to future overmatch, the director of the Missile Defense Agency (MDA) told the House Armed Services Committee (HASC) panel Thursday.
A potential 18 percent reduction–if sequestration kicks in–was a figure mentioned at the Senate Appropriations Committee missile-defense hearing March 18. This would reduce MDA’s budget from $8.1 billion to $6.7 billion, a more than a $1.4 billion reduction, Vice Adm. James Syring told the panel on Strategic Forces.
If MDA maintains its top priority commitment to have 44 Ground Based Interceptors (GB) by fiscal year 2017 and its European Phased Adaptive Approach (EPAA) commitments in Europe, it will have to cut modernization, he said.
“I would immediately go to efforts that were started last year, which are the redesigned kill vehicle and the long range discriminator radar,” Syring said. The two programs account for about $500 million. Both programs would immediately be put on hold or delayed under sequestration.
“To me, now you’re starting to jeopardize our future capability in terms of what we’re able to say to the American people and our ability to defend the homeland,” he said. “With the development and testing I see going on with North Korea, very specifically, and the pace and the progress they’re making, I’m in serious jeopardy without those improvements of going to the (U.S. Northern Command) NORTHCOM commander and advising him that the system is overmatched…the system will be overmatched.”
MDA saw an immediate impact under the first sequestration round in 2013. With many MDA contracts under annual funding, tests were deleted or delayed. Further risk was taken by removing the entire development margin on the SM3 Block IIA development program. “It must deliver that missile in 2018 to support the Poland deployment,” he said.
Army Lt. Gen. David Mann, Space and Missile Defense/Army Forces Strategic Command and Joint Functional Component Commander for Integrated Missile Defense said the threat is not static. It is growing in sophistication and numbers.
“The concern that we have in terms of the modernization of the Patriot force–the improvements to the radar, the Missile Segment Enhancement (MSE) that we’re trying to develop to bridge that gap between Patriot and THAAD force, the software upgrades that are required those software upgrades, due to sequestration could be impacted. They could be delayed.”
Other efforts, such as improving capability against cruise missiles, would be impacted.
Delays also would hit the Army’s top missile defense priority, modernizing the air-missile defense battle command network that is moving from stovepiped command and control systems to a single architecture. This network would allow dispersal of missile defense components, instead of deploying large units down range. It’s a cost effective architecture addressing both the tactical and operational level systems.
NORTHCOM and North American Aerospace Defense Commander Adm. William Gortney told HASC, “the biggest impact of sequestration would delay our ability to outpace the threat.”
Defending the homeland is an “away game, that’s where our primary focus is,” he said. Sequestration will force the services to go into their readiness accounts–“the quickest path to a hollow force”–and will drive operational tempo up, stressing an already stressed force.
“I’m very, very concerned about that ability to outpace the threat in the Pacific, and in the Gulf and in the Mediterranean in order to do that critical mission,” Gortney said.”
Brian McKeon, principal deputy under secretary for defense for policy, told the panel that $6.2 billion of MDA’s $8.1 billion budget is in research, development, test and evaluation. Investments to pace the threat and advance capability is the “heart of the budget.” Cuts would likely come in research and development that would be “pretty devastating to our systems.”
The proposed Republican budget would add $90 billion to the Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) fund, but in response to questions, missile defense officials all agreed they’d prefer to have additional funds placed in the base budget.
Gortney said, “it’s the authorities,” and the differences between how OCO money can be spent. “MDA does not have the authority to spend OCO” funds.
“What is really essential is that we have some predictability in our programs,” Mann said. “Predictability is key” and having the rules and authorities surrounding those appropriations provide that predictability.
Before OCO, there was supplemental funding, Gortney said. It comes down to the authorities so the Defense Department “can spend money where we need to spend the money to make the best decision for the American people.”