Strategic Defense Iniative

I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1992 Report to Congress on the
Strategic ,
Defense
Initiative
..........
---------------,
July 1992
Prepared by the Strategic Defense Initiative Organization
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Strategic
Defense
Initiative
July 1992
Prepared by the Strategic Defense Initiative Organization
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
TABLE OF CONTENTS
List of Figures ......................................................................................... iv
List of Tables ......................................................................................... v
Chapter 1
Ballistic Missile Defense Policy
1.1
1.2
1. 3
1.4
1.5
1.6
1. 7
lntroduction ........................................................................................ 1-2

SDI and the New National Defense Strategy................................................... l-2
1.2.1 Changes in the Strategic Planning Environment .................................... 1-2
1.2.2 Strategic Defense in the New Military Strategy ..................................... 1-2
The Ballistic Missile Threat ..................................................................... 1-3
1.3.1 Ballistic Missile Proliferation .......................................................... 1-3
1.3.2 Accidental and Unauthorized Strikes ................................................. 1-5
1. 3. 3 Missile Defenses and U.S. EffOrts to Discourage Proliferation ................... 1-5
Toward the Future: Global Ballistic Missile Defense System .............................. 1-5
1.4. i U.S. and Its Allies ...................................................................... 1-5
1.4.2 U.S. and the Former Soviet Union ................................................... 1-5
1.4.3 Shared View on Defenses .............................................................. 1-6
U.S. Contribution to a Global Defense System .......................... .................... 1-7
1.5.1 Elements of U.S. Contribution ........................................................ !-?
The Missile Defense Act of 1991 .............................................................. 1-8
1.6.1 Toward the Future ....................................................................... 1-8
1.6.2 Deployment Planning
................................................................... 1-9
Summary and Conclusion ...................................................................... 1-9
Chapter 2
Defense Concepts and Architectures
2.1
2.2
2.3
Ballistic Missile Defense--History ............................................. : ............... 2-2

Description of the OPALS Concept ........................................................... 2-4
Ballistic Missile Defense Architectures ........................................................ 2-5
2.3.1 Theater Missile Defense ................................................,. ............... 2-6

2.3.2 Limited Defense System/National Missile Defense (NMD) .......I............. 2-9
2.3.2.1 Initial Defense Site .......................................... .1 ~ 2-11
I
2.3.3 Space-Based Interceptors (SBI) ....................................
2-15
1
Chapter 3
Description of Each SDI Project
3.1
3. 2
3. 3
Introduction ....................................................................... !................ 3-2

SD I Program Elements (PE) ................................................... i ......... 3-7
Project Descriptions ............................................................. ~ ................ 3-11
I
I
I
~-4 of SDI Projects and Activities to Possible Deployment Phases

Relationship
!
Chapter 5
Other Nation Participation
5.1
5.2
5.3
5.4
5.5
GPALS and the Allies ........................................................................... 5-2

Consultations with Allies on the SDI ........................................ : ................. 5-3
5-3
Allied Participation in SDI Research .....................................
L ..................
!... ..............
Cooperative SDI Programs with Friends and Allies .................... : ..

5-4
I
Summary of Allied Participation and Cooperation ......................... ! ............. 5-7
I
I
'
Chapter 6
ABM Treaty Compliance
6.1
6.2
6.3
Introduction
...............................;................... 6-2
Existing Compliance Process for SDI ....................................... ' ................. 6-3
SDI Experiments .............................................................. !.. ................. 6-3
;;
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Chapter 7
Countermeasures
7.1
7.2
7.3
7.4
7.5
7.6
Countermeasures ................................................................................. 7-2

TheCIS
......................................................................................... 7-2
The Third World ................................................................................... 7-2

Countermeasures Costs ........................................................................... 7-3
Countermeasures Evaluation and Verification ................................................. 7-3
Summary and Conclusion ........................................................................ 7-3
Chapter 8
Funding
Chapter 9
Relation of SDI Programs to Military Missions
9.1
9.2
9.3
Introduction
....................................................................................... 9-2
SDI Technologies and Critical Military Missions ............................................ 9-3
SDI Technologies and Significant Military Missions ........................................ 9-4
9. 3.1
9.3.2
9.3.3
9.3.4
9.4
9.5
Air Defense .............................................................................. 9-4

Maritime Operations .................................................................... 9-5
Ground Forces .......................................................................... 9-6
Space Defense ........................................................................... 9-6
Cost-Effectiveness at the Margin ............................................................... 9-8
Survivability ...................................................................................... 9-9
iii
List of Figures
Figure 1-1
Ballistic Missile Capabilities: A Representative Look ............................... 1-4
Figure 2-1
Global Protection Against Limited Strikes (GPALS) ................................ 2-4
Figure 2-2
Notional Near Term Theater Missile Defense Architecture .......................... 2-8
Figure 2-3
Notional Far Term Theater Missile Defense Architecture ............................ 2-9
Figure 2-4
Limited Defense System/National Missile Defense Architecture .................... 2-10
Figure 2-5
Initial Defense Site ...................................................... ,................. 2-12
Figure 2-6
Composite Multi-Threat Defense Coverage: Single Site at Grand Forks, ND ... 2-13
Figure 2-7
Composite Multi-Threat Defense Coverage: Single Site In Northeast............. 2-14
Figure2-8
BP Operation ........................................................... : .................. 2-16
Figure 3-1
OPALS-Related Space-Ground R&D Investment .................................. 3-3

I
Figure 9-1
SDI Technologies and Critical Military Missions ................................... 9-3
Figure 9-2
Potential SDI Technology Benefits to Other Significant Military Missions ....... 9-7
iv
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
List of Tables
Table 8-1
Project Funding Profile (In Millions of Then-Year Dollars) ........................ 8-3
Table 8-2
Estimated Funding Required to Meet Next Milestone

(In Millions of Then-Year Dollars) ..................................................... 8-6
j,
(This page intentionally left blank)
vi
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Chapter 1
1-1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Chapter 1
This chapter describes the policy associated with ballistic missile defense, including the
implications of the evolving international security environment, the role that defenses can play in
responding to the threats we foresee in the 1990s and beyond, and recent decisions regarding
policy for the SDI Program. In addition, this chapter will discuss recent U.S. diplomatic initiatives
and developments and the implications of the Missile Defense Act (MDA) of 1991.
1.1
Introduction
The Department of Defense is developing for deployment a ballistic missile defense system
that will provide protection to the United States, its forward deployed forces, and allies and friends
against limited ballistic missile strikes, whatever their source. The concept under which this
system is being developed is called Global Protection Against Limited Strikes (OPALS). The
passage of the Missile Defense Act (MDA) of 1991 moved the Administration and Congress close
to a consensus on the role of ballistic missile defenses. The goal contained in the MDA is a
reflection of the determination of Congress to defend the U.S. against limited ballistic missile
attack and defend U.S. forward deployed forces and our friends and allies with highly effective
ballistic missile defenses.
1.2 SDI and the New National Defense Strategy

1.2.1 Changes in the Strategic Planning Environment
The past several years have seen historic changes in the strategic environment that have
transformed our primary security concerns. The Soviet empire has been replaced by 15
independent Republics; many of the Republics and 5 nations in Eastern Europe are now members
of the North Atlantic Cooperation Council (NACC); and Germany has been unified and remains a
member of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). The threat of a short-warning massive
conventional attack against Western Europe leading to global war has ceased to exist.
While the threat of a conventional conflict escalating to global warfare has declined, the
potential for major regional threats to U.S. and allied security interests is growing. Although a
new era holds the prospect for treating regional issues independent of the East-West context, we
have witnessed the sobering truth that local sources of instability and oppression will continue to
foster conflict These conflicts, as the Gulf War has illustrated, can arise suddenly, unpredictably,
and from unexpected quarters. The Gulf War presages very much the type of major regional
contingency we are likely to confront: a theater of conflict very far from home, against foes well
armed with advanced conventional and unconventional weaponry. The proliferation of ballistic
missiles, and of weapons of mass destruction, increases the danger associated with these potential
conflicts.
1.2.2 Strategic Defense in the New Military Strategy

In 1990, in response to the dramatic changes in the strategic environment, the United States
. announced a new strategy in which regional conflict replaced global war as the major focus of its
conventional defense planning. The new military strategy rests on four essential elements:
strategic deterrence and defense; forward presence; crisis response; and
reconstitution. The deployment of defenses will support these tasks in several unique ways.
Strategic Deterrence and Defense: The United States will continue to rely on its
strategic nuclear deterrent capability, including a survivable command, control, and
1-2
11'
communications system and a modified version of the traditional Triad. Ballistic missile defenses-including space- and ground-based interceptors and sensors--will provide protection for the United
States against actions that are by definition undeterrable--accidental and unauthorized launches.
They also can provide protection against limited, deliberate ballistic missile strikes which may
threaten regional stability or the interests of U.S. allies and friends. Ballistic missile defenses
could extend protection to our forward deployed forces and allies. Defenses will become an
increasingly important indicator of American strategic capability and military strength-a tangible
indicator that we remain committed to providing security assistance to our friends and allies.
Forward Presence: The forward presence of U.S. forces can take many forms.
Stationing forces in selected forward bases or aboard naval vessels is perhaps the most visible
demonstration of U.S. commitment in key areas. Theater ballistic missile defense systems
operating in concert with U.S. early warning systems will provide point and wide area defense and
early warning to U.S. forward-based and expeditionary forces; space-based interceptors will
provide continuous, global coverage to those forces. U.S. defenses, in combination with those its
allies and coalition partners might deploy, would provide protection, on short notice, of U.S.
forces, host nation forces, and pons and airfields for arriving forces. These defenses would also
be capable of protecting population centers and would permit those at risk additional warning to
undertake civil defense measures.
Crisis Response: The need to respond to regional contingencies and crises, and do so
on very short notice, is one of the key elements of the new regional strategy. Defenses, in addition
to protecting targets, could also serve to defuse regional crises by deterring the employment of
ballistic missiles. This combination of defense and deterrent capabilities increases the likelihood
that, in regional crises, potential adversaries cannot use ballistic missile attacks to gain an
advantage or to deter the United States and its allies or coalition partners from pursuing political,
diplomatic, or military initiatives designed to resolve the crisis.
Active defenses also reduce pressures on U.S. military and political leaders involved in a
regional conflict to alter their campaign or war plans because of the threat (or actual use) of ballistic
missiles. In the absence of effective defenses, such carefully laid plans could be disrupted or
delayed. With an effective defense in place, our military leaders are better able to follow their well
constructed plans, thereby retaining the initiative in battle.
Force Reconstitution: The reconstitution concept is not simply to recreate or expand
existing forces, but to consider what new forces are most needed for a new or reemerging threat
consistent with our strategic concept A capability to protect against limited strikes represents an
appropriate level of defense within our strategic forces structure, based on our current planning
assumptions. Forces under consideration for deployment in the OPALS concept should provide
the base level of capability to carry us into the foreseeable future in support of our forward
presence and crisis response missions. If more ambitious missile defense capabilities are required
in the future as a result of changes in the international environment, the SDI program will have
developed the systems and technologies required to respond should a decision be made to do so in
the future.
1.3 The Ballistic Missile Threat

1.3.1
Ballistic Missile Proliferation
A major implication for future regional contingencies that clearly emerged from the Gulf
War is the political and military importance of possessing a capability to counter defensively the
threatened or actual use of ballistic missiles and weapons of mass destruction. The United States
cannot accept a situation in which these capabilities are allowed to constrain a U.S. president's
flexibility in employing military power when necessary to support U.S. national security objectives
1-3
~~~~--~---
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

and commitments abroad or to pose an unconstrained threat to U.S. forces when they are deployed
in the field. It also cannot ignore the growing threats posed by ballistic missiles to the territory and
forces of U.S. friends and allies.
Figure 1-1 represents an illustrative look at ballistic missile proliferation. Today, over
twenty non-NATO nations have ballistic missiles. Additionally, by the year 2000, as many as 20
nations may have weapons armed with chemical, nuclear, or biological warheads. These
technologies pose a threat today that is largely regional in character (e.g., shorter-range missile
systems). However, the trend is clearly in the direction of systems of increasing range, lethality,
and sophistication. Some third world countries are striving to acquire or develop missiles capable
of delivering payloads at increasingly longer ranges. Moreover, several countries could achieve
intercontinental ranges through the conversion of space launch vehicles. A country pursuing an
indigenous space launch capability can exploit rocket 'dual use' technology to develop a ballistic
missile. Since 1957, the number of countries capable of building and launching space launch
vehicles has increased by about one every 4 years.
Figure 1-1 Ballistic Missile Capabilities: A Representative Look
1-4

Ballistic missile proliferation is a matter of concern in a world that may be increasingly
affected by diverse geopolitical considerations. The Middle East remains unstable: Iraq continues
to challenge UN inspections dedicated to destroy its remaining ballistic missile arsenal and missile
production capability; Iran pursues Western missile technology and looks to Nonh Korea for longrange SCUDs and China for missiles and nuclear related technologies; Syria has turned to Nonh
Korea for an extended range ballistic missile and seeks aid from China and Western firms for
improved capabilities; Libya shops throughout the world for a source of longer range missiles to
extend its reach across the eastern Mediterranean. The risk of war continues in South Asia, fueled
by the long-standing tension between India and Pakistan with both countries developing ballistic
missiles. Nonh Korea threatens the stability of Nonheast Asia and by selling SCUDs, including
some modified to extend their range, to countries in the Middle East.
1.3.2 Accidental and Unauthorized Strikes

While we are satisfied with the assurances we have received from Russia and the other
three nuclear republics with regard to the maintenance of unified control over all the nuclear
weapons of the former Soviet Union, the possibility of future political instability still creates
concern about the potential for accidental and unauthorized strikes. Political turmoil in the former
Soviet Union, however, is not the only reason for concern about accidental and unauthorized
strikes. The proliferation of ballistic missiles increases concerns over the possibility of such a
strike due to the political instability within the acquiring countries, the lack of adequate command
and control safeguards or both.
1.3.3
Missile Defenses and U.S. Efforts to Discourage Proliferation
Ballistic missile defenses also will suppon our broader effons to discourage the spread of
ballistic missile technologies and weapons of mass destructions. We will redouble our effons to
control the spread of these capabilities. And we will pursue means to deter the use of such
weapons, and to destroy them if deterrence fails and they are used against the U.S., its forces, or
our friends and allies. But as we learned in the Gulf, active defenses have to be a part of the
solution to this urgent problem. Defenses would undennine the military and political utility of such
systems and should serve to dampen countries' incentives to acquire ballistic missiles. And where
proliferation controls fail, defenses provide an alternative means to respond to ballistic missile
threats.
1.4 Toward the Future:

1.4.1
Global Ballistic Missile Defense System
U.S. and Its Allies
The U.S. has been discussing the OPALS concept with its NATO allies and other allies
and friends for over a year, both bilaterally and in NATO fora. These discussions have included
the objectives of a limited deployment of ballistic missile defenses--including, in our view, that
such defenses would not threaten existing deterrents--and the willingness of the U.S. to extend
protection to allies. We have discussed the possibility of providing allies information from
OPALS sensors for both early warning of an attack and to improve the effectiveness of theater
based (U.S. or allied) ballistic missile defenses. Our discussions also included an invitation to
participate in the development and operation of those defenses. (See Chapter 5 for a description of
cooperative programs with allies.)
1.4.2 U.S. and the Former Soviet Union
I
I
The Administration is pursuing discussions concerning the deployment of limited defenses

and President Yeltsin's proposal for a global defense system. On September 27, 1991, President
Bush called "on the Soviet leadership to join us in taking immediate, concrete steps to permit the
iI
J.s
.i
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

limited deployment of nonnuclear defenses to protect against limited ballistic missile strikes-whatever their source." Following the announcement, the United States presented a new proposal
for presentation at the Defense and Space Talks (DST) in Geneva, which was consistent with our
GPALS concept. The U.S. tabled its new position on October 3, 1991.
On 5 October, then-President Gorbachev replied to the President's invitation by stating that:
"We are ready to discuss the U.S. proposal on nonnuclear ABM systems." Gorbachev's response
signalled a clear change of previous Soviet thinking on the issue of ballistic missile defenses.
When additional details of our GPALS concept were provided on October 7 to senior arms control
officials representing the central government as well as several Republics, the presentation was
positively received.
1.4.3
Shared View on Defenses
President Bush's initiative for cooperation in the deployment of defenses was followed by
President Yeltsin's January 29, 1992 announcement that "We are ready jointly to work out and
subsequently to create and jointly operate a global system of defense in place of SDI." Two days
later, in a speech to the United Nations Security Council, President Yeltsin reiterated his proposal
for the "creation of a global system for protection of the world community" which "could make use
of high technologies developed in Russia's defense complex." President Yeltsin's remarks
represented a major breakthrough. For the first time, a Russian leader publicly acknowledged our
shared interest in developing defenses against ballistic missiles.
During their meeting at Camp David on February 1, Presidents Bush and Yeltsin had a
constructive discussion about the proposal on global defenses. They agreed to continue this
dialogue. When Secretary of State Baker met in Moscow in February with President Yeltsin and
Foreign Minister Kozyrev, he stated that the U.S. shared Yeltsin's bold vision on the need for a
global ballistic missile defense system, and that we were prepared to work together toward this
goal. Secretary Baker proposed that we begin this cooperation by concrete steps in three areas:
the sharing of early warning information on ballistic missile launches through a

Joint Ballistic Missile Early Warning Center that would integrate and display early warning
information from all participants;
the discussion of areas for possible technology exchange, especially the acquisition
of former Soviet technology and hardware; and,
the development of a concept for a global ballistic missile defense system.
The United States is encouraged by these recent developments, and we will continue to pursue
these discussions with our allies, Russia, and others as we move forward.
At the June 16-17 Summit in Washington, Presidents Bush and Yeltsin signed a Joint
Statement on a Global Protection System:
"The Presidents continued their discussion of the pote.ttial benefits of a
Global Protection System (GPS) against ballistic missiles, agreeing that it is
important to explore the role for defenses in protecting against limited ballistic
missile attacks. The two Presidents agreed that their two nations should work
together with allies and other interested states in developing a concept for such a
system as part of an overall strategy regarding the proliferation of ballistic missiles
and weapons of mass destruction. Such cooperation would be a tangible
expression of the new relationship that exists between Russia and the United States
and would involve them in an important u.,dertaking with other nations of the world
community.
1-6
.. .
... - ...
,
i
The two Presidents agreed it is necessary to start work without delay to develop the
concept of the GPS. For this purpose they agreed to establish a high-level working
group to explore on a priority basis the following practical steps:
The potential for sharing of early warning information through the

establishment of an early warning center.
The potential for cooperation with participating states in developing

ballistic missile defense capabilities and technologies.
The development of a legal basis for cooperation, including new

treaties and agreements and possible changes to existing treaties and
agreements necessary to implement a Global Protection System."
In the context of the global ballistic missile defense regime proposed by Russian President
Yeltsin, opportunities for cooperation with our allies will increase. The United States considers its
allies as one of the cornerstones of any cooperative effort on global missile defenses, and the U.S.
has underscored the central role of our allies in this concept to Russia.
1.5 U.S. Contribution to a Global Defense System

1.5.1 Elements of U.S. Contribution
The elements being currently developed under GPALS will comprise the U.S. contribution
to a global defense system. Our contribution would consist of surface- and space-based elements
to ensure continuous global detection, track, and intercept of ballistic missiles and their associated
warheads, including theater missile threats. These defensive elements could be deployed
sequentially. The beginning of the deployment process need not await the deployment of the entire
system. Nor would the deployment of a GPALS system be contingent on the technical maturity of
follow-on systems. The OPALS concept integrates space- and surface-based (ground, sea and
airborne) interceptors and sensors in order to enhance the effectiveness of both theater and strategic
missile defenses. A GPALS defensive system would consist of the following:
Space- and surface-based sensors capable of providing global, continuous

surveillance and tracking, from launch to intercept or impact, of ballistic missiles of all
ranges. The use of space-based sensors would allow for a reduction in the size, cost, and
number of the surface-based weapons and sensors, while increasing their performance. In
combination, the sensors would provide information to U.S. forces and, potentially, to
those of our allies as well
Interceptors based in space, on the surface, and airborne, capable of providing high
confidence protection to areas under attack. Space-based interceptors could provide
continuous, global interdiction capability against missiles with ranges in excess of
approximately 500 kilometers (about 300 miles). The surface-based and airborne-launched
interceptors, located in the United States, deployed with U.S. forces and, potentially,
deployed by U.S. allies, would provide local point and wide-area defense.
Common to all the GPALS interceptors is the use of non-nuclear, hit-to-kill technology for
destruction of all types of warheads--nuclear, chemical, biological and conventional. These
interceptors are designed to permit destruction of both missiles and warheads well away from the
targets being defended. The employment of multi-layered defenses will ensure multiple
opportunities to engage hostile ballistic missiles, thereby providing a high level of defense
effectiveness.
17
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
The current Theater/l'actical elements of GPALS will be able to be deployed globally by the
United States. These forward elements of our ballistic missile defense will be transportable and
could be deployed with ground-based or sea-based units. Friends or allies may also choose to
deploy theater defenses that could be interoperable with those of the United States. It is important
to note that the space-based ballistic missile defense sensors will suppon theater as well as strategic
defense operations.
1.6 The Missile Defense Act of 1991

The passage of the MDA represents a significant step toward a consensus between the
Administration and Congress on fundamental missile defense goals. The national goal identified in
the MDA is to:
(1)
deploy an anti-ballistic missile system, including one or an adequate additional
number of anti-ballistic missile sites and space-based sensors, that is capable of providing a
highly effective defense of the United States against limited attacks of ballistic missiles.
(2)
maintain strategic stability; and
(3)
provide highly effective theater missile defenses to forward-deployed and
expeditionary elements of the Armed Forces of the United States and to friends and allies of
the United States.
The MDA states that the limited deployment of defenses should be "designed to protect the
United States against limited ballistic missile threats, including accidental or unauthorized launches
or Third World attacks". Congress and the Administration agree on the need for a defensive
capability to protect against these threats .
. The MDA directed the Administration to take several measures to implement the Act's goal
of a highly effective defense against limited ballistic missile strikes. The Department is moving
forward on each of these. In panicular, the Department is developing for deployment an ABM
defense located at a single site, by the earliest date allowed by technological availability, (discussed
below). The Department plans to deploy advanced theater ballistic missile defenses by the mid1990s. The United States, as discussed above, is continuing its dialogue with Russia on the
deployment of highly effective defenses against limited missile strikes. These activities are
consistent with the MDA's suppon for discussions with the former Soviet Union on obtaining
relief from the current ABM Treaty regime in order to achieve the missile defense goals stated in
theMDA.
1.6.1 Toward the Future

The Administration and Congress share the determination to provide, as soon as feasible,
protection against limited ballistic missile attack. It remains for the Administration and Congress to
agree on the appropriate combination of forces. In our view, a combination of surface- and spacebased interceptors and sensors offers the best approach for addressing the full range of OPALS
missions and contingencies. This combination would provide a level of defense effectiveness that
could not be achieved by surface- or space-based systems alone. The Congress has endorsed
developing for deployment space-based sensors. But it has mandated that space-based interceptors
such as Brilliant Pebbles (BP) not be included in the initial plan for the limited defense system
architecture described in the MDA. It explicitly endorsed robust funding for research and
development of promising follow-on technologies, including BP, however, stating:
18

To effectively develop technologies relating to achieving the goals specified in [the MDA]
and to provide future options for protecting the security of the United States, robust
funding for research and development for promising follow-on anti-ballistic missile
technologies, including BP, is required.
While we can continue to discuss Brilliant Pebbles' role in our defensive architecture, we need not
resolve the question of their deployment this year. The Department will vigorously pursue the
development of space-based sensors for deployment and, funding permitted, continue to develop
technologies such as BP as a follow-on option to the deployment specified in the MDA, and to
meet existing military requirements.
1.6.2
Deployment Planning
The Department has planned, programmed, and budgeted its resources to support the goals
of the MDA and established military requirements. In response to congressional direction, the
Department is developing for deployment a defense located at a single site. Depending on the
progress made towards agreement to modifying the ABM regime, the restrictions on the location
and number of ABM sites, including the number of interceptors, in the United States, as well as
the prohibition on the deployment of space-based ABM sensors and interceptors, would be relaxed
accordingly. In this eventuality, the site at Grand Forks would be redundant. However, as long
as the ABM Treaty remains in force, the single site it permits would remain at Grand Forks.
Because the capability provided by this single site is constrained by the ABM Treaty, it cannot
defend the continental United States against the full range of threats to the required level of
effectiveness. In addition, several Treaty issues have not yet been resolved. The capability of this
Treaty-limited deployment would be restricted to intercepting a few tens of RVs launched by
ICBMs or long-range SLBMs aimed at the center of the nation. Additional sites, prohibited by the
ABM Treaty, are needed to provide the required level of defense for the entire U.S. against the full
range of threats.
After ABM Treaty compliance issues are resolved, we can undertake, if appropriate, and
after consultation with our allies who would be affected, improvements to existing early warning
sensors to bridge the gap until the space-based Brilliant Eyes sensors become operational. We are
currently studying this issue.
Consistent with our objectives and expectations for a global defense system, the
Department is planning to complete deployment of the full ground-based ABM system, consisting
of additional sites and additional ground-based interceptors at the turn of the century. Space-based
sensors are planned for deployment by the late 1990s to support the national and theater
components of a global defense system. The United States also will deploy advanced, highly
effective theater ballistic missile defenses beginning in the mid-1990s. Space-based interceptors
(i.e., Brilliant Pebbles) could be available for deployment by the year 2000 to complete the
deployment of the overall OPALS system architecture.
1.7 Summary and Conclusion

In response to the dramatic changes in the international security environment, the United
States has established a new defense strategy. Missile defense will provide critical support for that
new strategy.
In addition, we have seen a significant break from past Soviet policy on ballistic missile
defenses which has opened a historic opportunity for cooperation in this area. For the first time, a
Russian leader has acknowledged our mutual interests in protection against ballistic missile attack.
We are prepared to work with our allies, Russia, and other countries toward the goal of a global
1-9
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

ballistic missile defense system. The elements being developed under OPALS will comprise the
U.S. contribution to this system.
The U.S. remains a global power with global responsibilities and alliance commitments.
Our concept for missile defenses--GP ALS--reflects these responsibilities and commitments.
Theater and strategic defense programs have been integrated, both conceptually and technically.
This will permit the U.S. to develop for deployment by the mid-1990s advanced, surface-based
theater defenses and an initial site of the ground-based ABM tier, and, beginning in the late 1990s,
to deploy the remaining surface and space-based elements of a global ballistic missile defense
system.
With the passage of the MDA, a major step has been made toward a consensus between the
Administration and Congress on U.S. ballistic missile defense goals. The national goal identified
in the MDA is to deploy ballistic missile defense systems, consistent with stability and capable of
providing a highly effective defense of the United States against limited ballistic missile attack, and
highly effective theater ballistic missile defense for U.S. forward deployed and expeditionary
forces, allies and friends.
1-10
II'
I
I
1-11
I
,I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Chapter 2
Strategic Defense Initiative Concepts and Architectures
I'1',
2-1
I
.I
'
,I .
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
--
Chapter 2
This chapter responds to subparagraphs (b)(1) and (b)(3) of Section 224 of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Years 1990 and 1991 (Public Law 101-189), which
request a statement of "the basic strategy for research and development being pursued by
the Department of Defense under the Strategic Defense Initiative (SOl), including the relaUve
priority being given, respectively, to the development of near-term deployment options and
research on longer-term technological approaches." Part (b)(3) requests "a clear definiUon of
the objectives of each planned deployment phase of the Strategic Defense lnitiaUve for
defense against strategic ballisUc missiles."
2.1
Ballistic Missile Defense--History
The technical problem of defending the United States against attack from long range
ballistic missiles has been studied since the mid-1950s. The principal defense concept in the 1960s
and 1970s was to equip a defensive missile with a nuclear warhead, shoot it at an attacking
warhead, and guide the defensive missile close enough to the attacking warhead so that detonation
of the defensive warhead would destroy the attacker. Despite some remarkable progress made in
ballistic missile defense technologies during the 1960s, with the technologies available at that time,
this engagement could only occur post-apogee when attacking warheads were beginning their
descent to targets. Intercepts outside the atmosphere were complicated by decoys so the most
reliable intercepts could occur only after attnospheric slowdown.
Development of a multi-site missile defense system based on this concept proceeded into
the 1970s. In 1972, the United States and the Soviet Union signed the Anti-ballistic Missile
(ABM) Treaty which eventually, following its amendment in 1974, limited each country to
building only one ABM system deployment area with 100 ABM interceptor missiles. The
American site was completed in 1975, but was rendered inactive shortly thereafter. With so few
interceptors, even with intercepts outside the atmosphere, a single site system using the technology
available at that time had only a very limited capability to defend a small pan of the U.S. against a
large Soviet attack. Therefore, the U.S. determined that the expense of maintaining this site did
not merit its continued activation. However, the Russians have maintained and improved over time
their ABM system deployed around Moscow.
Significant advances in technologies applicable to ballistic missile defense occurred after the
1970s. In 1983 President Reagan challenged the U.S. scientific community to investigate the
feasibility of developing a defensive system using these technologies to counter ballistic missiles.
In response to the President's challenge, the Department of Defense conducted an intensive
analysis of these advanced technologies.
This analysis, known as the Fletcher Study, concluded that new technologies made
possible the actual intercept of an attacking missile. This capability represented a significant
improvement over previous concepts and would permit destruction of an attacking missile without
need of a nuclear detonation. In addition, the Fletcher Study recognized the feasibility of
intercepting attacking missiles much earlier in their flight path, thus giving a defensive system more
opportunities to intercept an attacking missile. Based on these and other fmdings, the Fletcher
Study outlined an approach for designing a defensive system that remains the conceptual
cornerstone of modem ballistic missile defense, and noted that the technologies required to develop
such a system were either in hand or on the horizon. The Fletcher Study concluded that the most
effective ballistic missile defense system would be a muiJilayered system that could intercept
2-2
r
I
missiles in any phase along the missile's flight path, thus increasing the probability that an
attacking missile would be destroyed.
Since its initiation in 1983, the SDI program has evolved through three distinct phases: 1)
a broad based technology exploration and demonstration program to identify those technologies
ready for development to support an initial multi-layer comprehensive defense system, and those
promising follow-on technologies that could provide resilience against a full range of responsive
countermeasures, 2) a focused development program called "Phase I", initiated in 1987, and aimed
toward a significant layered defense capability to augment and strengthen deterrence, and 3) the
1991 refocusing of the program by the President toward protection of the U.S., our forces
overseas, and friends and allies against limited ballistic missile strikes, whatever their source. The
latter is the continuing focus of the current program.
In his 1991 State of the Union Address, the President stated:
"... Looking forward, I have directed that the SDI Program be refocused on
providing protection from limited missile strikes, whatever their source. Let us
pursue an SDI program that can deal with any future threat to the United States, to
our forces overseas, and to our friends and allies."
As a result, the program presented to Congress during 1991 was structured to provide by
the end of this decade many of the same space- and ground-based elements of the previous SDI
architecture--but in substantially reduced numbers. Rather than being sized to help deter a massive
Soviet attack (now judged to be substantially less likely) involving thousands of ballistic missile
weapons, a OPALS deployment, involving half the ground-based interceptors and one-fourth the
space-based interceptors previously planned in the Phase I Architecture, would protect the United
States against limited attacks involving up to 200 ballistic missile warheads.
Consistent with the mandate in the FY 91 Defense Appropriations Act, the Administration
also proposed an accelerated program to develop and deploy advanced theater ballistic missile
defense systems (potentially based in-theater or transported there when needed, or based on ships).
This capability would be significantly more effective than the Patriot defense demonstrated in the
Gulf War, and would be highly efficient against theater missiles with ranges longer than the Scud,
as well as shorter range missiles.
The Administration has integrated its plans for strategic and theater missile defenses
through a concept called Global Protection Against Limited Strikes, or OPALS. Global means
protecting U.S. worldwide interests with theater defenses as well as defenses for the American
homeland. Protection means the objective is high confidence of extremely low or no leakage.
Wmited means up to 200 attacking ballistic missile warheads in a variety of scenarios.
.
The scale of limited strikes depends on their source. For Third World threats we might
expect one to a few tens of missiles launched simultaneously. For an accidental launch, we might
be concerned with the launch of a single ICBM or SLBM having 10 nuclear warheads or with the
launch of a few such missiles. For an unauthorized launch, it might involve a regiment of ICBMs
(e.g., 10 ICBMs with 10 warheads each) or of a full submarine of SLBMs (e.g., 20 SLBMs with
10 warheads each), launched within a short time. For advanced missiles, penetration aids could
accompany the nuclear warheads. Missiles from some Third World countries might have primitive
penetration aids, or none at all.
The Missile Defense Act of 1991, contained within the FY 1992 National Defense
Authorization Act and discussed in greater detail in the previous chapter, gave further direction to
the SDI program by accelerating the deployment of the first ground-based missile defense site for
the United States by three to four years. We view this deployment to be the initial step toward
2-3
,l
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

deployment of the elements under development as part of the OPALS concept capable of providing
a highly effective defense of the U.S. against limited ballistic missile attacks. The Act also
reiterated the Congressional desire to field improved theater ballistic missile defenses by the mid-
1990s.
2.2 Description of the GP ALS Concept

Under the OPALS concept, a ballistic missile defense system which could protect against
limited strikes would consist of surface-, airborne, and space-based elements. Figure 2-1 depicts
the integrated nature of the three segments of OPALS. The Brilliant Pebbles piece is separated
slightly to reflect the fact that, unlike the other two pieces, Congress did not include space-based
interceptors in the initial plan for a Limited Defense System. The sizes of the puzzle pieces reflect
the relative investment currently projected; i.e., the segment for homeland defense will likely cost
about 2.5 times that of either Brilliant Pebbles or the Theater Ballistic Missile Defense Segment.
Figure 2-1 Global Protection Against Limited Strikes (GPALS)

As the technology is tested and proven, defensive elements could be deployed sequentially
to provide incremental additions to defensive capability, and need not await the deployment of the
entire system. Nor would the deployment of a defense system be contingent on the technical
maturity of follow-on systems. OPALS would consist of the following:
Space- and surface-based sensors capable of providing global, continuous surveillance and
track, from launch to intercept or impact, of ballistic missiles of all ranges. The use of
space-based sensors would allow for a reduction in the size, cost, and number of the
surface-based weapons and sensors, while increasing their performance. 1n combination,
the sensors would provide information to U.S. forces, and, potentially, to those of our
allies.
2-4
Interceptors. based in space, on the surface, and airborne, capable of providing highconfidence protection to areas under attack. Space-based interceptors could provide
continuous, global interdiction capability against missiles with ranges in excess of
approximately 500 km (about 300 miles). The surface-based interceptors, located in the
United States, deployed with U.S. forces and, potentially, deployed by U.S. allies, would
provide local point and wide area defenses.
The Command Center infrastructure supports the centralized command and decentralized
execution of the ballistic missile defense system while maintaining human control of the
system at all times. These distributed facilities will be at the Cheyenne Mountain Air Force
Base and collocated with the various ground-based sensor and interceptor sites. The
command centers will link the GPALS elements through its command and control
structure, communications networks and battle management software, ensuring that proper
execution of a single coordinated defense exists. Additionally, the GPALS command and
control will include an integrated system with theater forces to ensure coordination and
information flow between theater ballistic missile defense assets.
A layered defense, including the combination of surface- and space-based interceptors and
sensors, would provide the highest level of confidence in the effectiveness of the defenses, and,
over the full range of GPALS missions. This is because a ground-only system does not have as
many shot opportunities against a missile as does a combined space and ground system. For
example, while a ground-based interceptor would only shoot at an incoming missile after it reaches
its apogee, the space-based interceptor can intercept a missile in its early to mid stages of flight.
The two systems combine to give the highest probability of engagement and kill.
2.3
Ballistic Missile Defense Architectures
The trajectory of a ballistic missile can be divided into several phases: boost, post-boost,
midcourse, and terminal. The boost phase refers to the early portion of missile flight when the
engines are burning and thrusting the vehicle out of the atmosphere. The post-boost phase refers
to the period immediately after booster engine burnout, usually after the missile has left the
atmosphere and initiates release of its warheads. The midcourse phase refers to the relatively long
period when the warheads coast in space along their trajectories. The terminal phase refers to the
last portion of flight when the warlleads reenter the atmosphere. For long-range missiles, the time
period of the boost and post-boost phases combined is a few minutes, the midcourse phase lasts
about twenty minutes, and the terminal phase is a minute or so.
The opportunities to intercept a ballistic missile vary for each phase of the missile's
trajectory. The architecture concept under development calls for a layered defense so that the
technological capabilities we have developed can be employed in discrete fashion in each phase of
the threat trajectory. This approach will result in the highest probability of engaging and
destroying the threat.
A key feature of a multilayered defense is the use of both space-based and ground-based
systems. For example, the most practical way with the widest coverage to detect the launch and
flight of a strategic missile in its boost phase is to use an orbiting platform that can observe the
launch from space. Destroying strategic missiles in their boost or post-boost phases, especially
before the missiles have released their loads of multiple warheads, is another function that can only
be performed practically from space. And in a battle that will only last about thirty minutes from
launch to warhead impact, this capability increases the time and opportunities available to conduct
intercepts throughout the battle space.
2S
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

The discussion that follows addresses the layered Ballistic Missile Defense system--active
Theater Missile Defense, Limited Defense System, and Space-Based Interceptors--to defend
against limited ballistic missile attacks regardless of their source. The strategy for fielding an
effective ballistic missile defense follows an orderly progression of testing the most promising
technologies as they'come from the laboratory and deploying defensive systems as their capabilities
are proven. A more detailed plan for the deployment of theater and national defenses was recently
provided to Congress.
2.3.1
Theater Missile Defense
The theater/tactical missile threat facing U.S. forces and those of our allies and friends is
complex in terms of the types of threats (tactical ballistic missiles, cruise missiles, and air-tosurface missiles), the technical sophistication, destructive potential and concept of operations.
These threats are addressed broadly in the JCS Mission Need Statement for Theater Missile
Defense. The required general capabilities are grouped into four areas: Attack operations
(counterforce); passive defense; active defense; and BMJC3L In combination with active defenses,
counterforce, passive defense and BM/C31, the United States is provided with a capability to
respond to the full range of theater missile threats using space- and surface-based interceptors. The
focus of the discussion in this repon is on the active defense ponion of the general theater missile
defense mission.
The active defense ponion of the Theater Missile Defense program has been expanded in
the past year to emphasize the transition from research and development to acquisition of a theater
ballistic missile defense system. As stated in the Report to Congress on the SDI Program last
year, we are aggressively pursuing the development of advanced, rapidly relocatable, groundbased wide area theater missile defenses for deployment in the mid-1990s. In parallel, we are
researching and developing space, maritime, and ground-based sensors, and space, maritime, and
air-launched interceptors, for deployment at a later time, which together with the theater ballistic
missile defense systems developed in the mid-1990s will provide a mutually supponing system.
In the near term (1995-98), our strategy is to upgrade the PATRiar system; add an uppertier, area defense called 1HAAD (Theater High Altitude Area Defense); upgrade the Homing-AllThe-Way-Killer (HAWK) air defense system; improve the Navy SPY-1 radar to give Aegis ATBM
capability to defend the fleet, pons, and landing sites; and improve the battle management and
command, control, and communications that support these elements.
PATRIOT is a mobile system consisting of a single radar, normally eight launchers with
four interceptor missiles each, and a command and control unit. This system was originally
designed to protect point or small area military targets (e.g., an airbase or artillery battery) against
anack from air-breathing threats such as cruise missiles or manned aircraft. PATRIOT was later
upgraded to protect a limited area against faster moving shon range ballistic missiles with a range
up to about 370 miles. This is the capability that was demonstrated against Scuds in the Gulf War.
Although this system is not designed to defend against very fast-moving threats such as long range
ballistic missiles, additional enhancements are planned that would enlarge the area PATRIOT can
defend. The planned PATRIOT Anti-Tactical Missile Capability Three (PAC-3) will be a major
system upgrade that will increase PATRIOTs range, firepower, and lethality against shon-range
ballistic missile threats with ranges of 1,000 km. The ERINT program provides a hit-to-kill
alternative interceptor technology that would be deployed with the PATRIOT system, enhancing
funher its firepower and lethality.
Recognizing the inherent limitations of a small-area defense system such as PATRial', the
Department is developing 1HAAD as a key element for active theater missile defense. 1HAAD
will provide wide area coverage and will engage tactical/theater ballistic missiles at high altitudes
2-6

and at greater distance from the intended target, thereby minimizing debris and chemical/nuclear
damage. TIIAAD is intended to counter ballistic missiles with ranges from about 50 miles to
1,800 miles. The TIIAAD element includes missiles, launchers, BMJC3 units and ground suppon
equipment, and is designed to be C-141 transponable (with an objective to make it C-130
transportable). The long-range Theater Missile Defense-Ground Based Radar (TMD-GBR) will
provide fire control and surveillance for TIIAAD as well as for other active TMD systems. This
radar is planned to be mobile and compatible with existing command, control and communications
systems. The theater radar is a member of a family of radars under development.
The TIIAAD interceptor will be evaluated as a Navy system. Consequently, industry is
being directed to provide the necessary data to evaluate the cost and operational effectiveness of
making the TIIAAD interceptor compatible with the Venical Launch System (VLS) carried on
Navy cruisers and destroyers.
An important element of the TIIAAD program is the building of a prototype "battery"
during the demonstration and validation stage of development for ballistic missile defenses. This
"User Operational Evaluation (UOE) System" includes interceptors and TMD-GBR, will be used
for early operational assessment, and has the potential to be deployed during a national emergency.
This approach is designed to meet the Congressional mandate by providing an improved near-term
active TMD capability by 1996 while lowering risk in subsequent phases of the acquisition cycle.
The full operational system will be fielded in the 2000 time frame.
TIIAAD and PATRIOT will be supponed by a sea-based area active TMD system, the
CORPS SAM limited area defense system, and the capability to augment sensor elements for
earlier detection and tracking of theater threats by utilizing Brilliant Eyes data for cueing theater
interceptors. Ultimately, space-based interceptors could contribute to the active TMD mission by
intercepting missiles with ranges greater than about 500 kilometers.
Corps SAM will be a highly mobile air defense system intendCd to replace the HAWK air
defense system early in the next decade, and provide defense against aircraft, cruise missiles, and
tactical ballistic missiles. The specific capabilities of CORPS SAM will be defined at the end of its
concept definition phase as technical alternatives are evaluated and selected. It is the first system
that will be designed as a dual use defense against manned aircraft and tactical ballistic missiles.
Maritime TMD applications are being investigated for both limited and wide-area
protection, utilizing the U.S. Navy Aegis weapons system. The Secretary of the Navy and Chief
of Naval Operations have indicated that their Service is committed to accomplishing the Navy role
in the theater missile defense mission, and a flag-level office has been established within the
Depanment of the Navy to integrate Navy TMD effons. As noted earlier, SDIO is examining
TIIAAD compatibility with the AEGIS system to permit eventual evaluation of a common missile
utilizing the venicallaunch system.
2-7
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

Figure 2-2 illustrates the near tenn theater ballistic missile defense architecture, and Figure
2-3 depicts the far tenn theater ballistic missile defense capability.
Figure 2-2 Notional Near Term Theater Ballistic Missile Defense Architecture
2-8
:::I.
THMD-
Figure 2-3 Notional Far Term Theater Ballistic Missile Defense Architecture
Other research efforts underway include Extended Range Interceptor (ERIN'l) technology,
and the Arrow/Arrow Continuation Experiments (ACES), a cooperative U.S./Israeli interceptor
technology program. Boost phase intercept technology for an airborne platform also is undergoing
research. Airborne interceptors in the vicinity of a missile launch could place an enemy's theater
ballistic missiles, regardless of their range, at risk.
The theater ballistic missile defense program involves all four Military Services and U.S.
friends and allies in the development of technology and the selection of systems to provide an antimissile defense. Additional information on the theater ballistic missile defense architecture and
programmatic specifics was provided to Congress in the 180-day report mandated by the Missile
Defense Act of 1991.
As noted in Chapter 6, although the objective of the ABM Treaty is to limit defenses against
strategic ballistic missiles, there may be conflicts between the Treaty and the development and
deployment of some of the theater/tactical missile defense systems under consideration. We are
2.3.2
Limited Defense System/National Missile Defense (NMD)
The Limited Defense System (LOS) architecture for the defense of the United States as set
forth in the MDA includes multiple sites with ground-based interceptors supported by both groundbased radars and space-based sensors. In programmatic terms, SDIO refers to the illS as the
National Missile Defense (NMD) segmenL This architecture is illustrated in Figure 2-4.
2-9
'j
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
.._
"~
GBl
lP'
Figure 2-4 Limited Defense System/National Missile Defense Architecture

The required number of sites ranges from three to five in the continental United States plus
one each in Alaska and Hawaii to provide defense coverage against the full range of OPALS
threats. Depending upon progress in seeking relief from the ABM Treaty, we may be able to avoid
a site at Grand Forks, which is not needed in a multiple site deploymenl In the final deployment
configuration, interceptors are committed toward their incoming targets based on early detection by
the Brilliant Eyes (BE} space sensor system. BE develops high quality tracks and provides early
discrimination shortly after the reentry vehicles drop off the post-boost vehicle. Later intercepts
and trajectory and discrimination updates can be supported by both the BE and by the groundbased radar. The combination of both radar and optical data to suppon intercepts by the groundbased interceptors provides the most robust defense performance against the widest range of
possible threat and penetration aid variations.
The baseline program will focus on the initial site and the sensor systems to suppon it in
the context of an incremental deployment toward the 5-7 sites required to meet military
requirements versus the full range of threats. This context is most imponant in designing the
architecture for the battle management /command, control and communications (BMC3) portion of
the system. We intend to design an "open architecture" BMC3 system which will allow for the
future incremental addition of sensors, sites, and interceptors without redesign or rebuilding of the
basic BMC3 system. The initial site components of the system will be brought to operational status
2-10
to support the initial site capability. The initial site will consist of the local components of the
BMC3 system plus the initial deployment of ground-based interceptors (OBI) and the first
operational ground-based radar (GBR).
BE is being developed on a schedule that would permit deployment soon after the initial site
is operational. The BE space-based sensor system will be the primary midcourse optical sensor,
allowing tracking of post-boost vehicles and RVs as soon as they are dropped off. This provides
the maximum time for the OBI to fly, generating the maximum possible defended footprint from
each OBI site. During the deployment of the ground-based sites and before BE is available, cueing
of the OBI into the battle to provide maximum defended footprint could be provided by either
software upgrades to the early warning radars, construction on new radars, or by GSTS. Use of
any of these interim cueing approaches may require treaty relief. BE also provides critical support
to theater defense, cueing the radars and/or directly committing THAAD interceptors. Against
longer range theater ballistic missile threats, this increases the defended footprint area by up to a
factor of 10 from that provided by local radar support alone, greatly decreasing the ground assets
required in-theater for a given level of defense. BE also is capable of peacetime monitoring of
missile flights worldwide, providing the optical signature data base to allow all defense systems to
operate at peak performance when called on in wartime.
The primary role of the Ground-Based Surveillance and Tracking System (GSTS) is to
provide an option for interim cueing of OBis at the initial site, prior to deployment of Brilliant
Eyes. The current NMD architecture optical sensor requirements are met by the Brilliant Eyes (BE)
program.
2.3.2.1
Initial Defense Site
While planning for the Limited Defense System architecture as described in the Missile
Defense Act, our first priority will be to deploy by the earliest date allowed by the availability of
appropriate technology, an ABM Treaty-compliant system at a single site.
The composition of the initial defense site is shown in Figure 2-5 with the Ground Based
Radar (GBR), Ground Based Interceptor (OBI), and associated BMC3.
211
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
--II
~
.........
-,
- --
NIIDBallo
l~
==
,._.._
Figure 2-5 Initial Defense Site

The BMD cell located at Colorado Springs has a battle manager node that will allow CINCSPACE
to enable the system and direct the battle. The BMD cell will be connected to the Regional
Operating Center (ROC) located at the initial site by both land line and communications satellite to
provide highly reliable and survivable control. The ROC also has a Battle Manager Node and is
capable of directing the battle locally if communications are disrupted. The OBR will acquire and
track the incoming ballistic missile targets. OBis are committed and start their flyout based on
initial tracks from the radar. After the OBR performs fine tracking and discrimination of the RY s
from debris and penaids, inflight updates and target object maps may be issued to the interceptors
inflight Based on the initial commit data and any subsequent updates, the OBis will acquire their
targets with their on board sensors, perform any detailed discrimination necessary, and intercept
their designated RYs.
The initial site, if located at Grand Forks, would have coverage of central North America
(Figure 2-6), against long range northern threats from the CIS, China, and the Middle East, when
supported with a single ~located OBR. This area of coverage may be expanded if more accurate
launch point determination and state vectors of inbound threat missiles are provided to the
defenses. In this event, OBis could be committed much earlier, thus greatly expanding their
intercept range.
2-12
Illustrative Composite Threat

- C5S-4 From China
- SS-18, SS-N-20 In Bastion, SS-24 From CIS

Long Range Missiles From Middle East
Single Silo AI Grond Forks, ND For

GBIAndGBR
GBI
ByGBRAnd
GBISonsore
GBROnly
GBR And Upgr- Early

Wamlng Radaro
Figure 2-6 Composite Multi-Threat Defense Coverage

Single Site at Grand Forks, ND
The right portion of the figure shows the coverage obtained by upgrading the existing early
warning radar network (BMEWS/PAVE PAWS). In the dark shaded region (which does not
include the east and west coasts). The interceptors are committed by the early warning radars but
are supported for target discrimination during the intercept by the GBR at Grand Forks as well as
by their own on-board sensors. In the lighter shaded region the interceptors are committed to a
point in space by the early warning radars but must rely solely on their own on-board sensors for
proper target selection after acquiring the target complex. This mode of operation should provide
good capability against the current expected threat, but not future threats. Greater confidence in
target discrimination against more responsive threats will result when additional sensor support,
such as from additional Ground-based Radars and/or Brilliant Eyes, is provided.
2-13
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

Deployment at Grand Forks, ND, would be compliant with the ABM Treaty. However,
against the possibility of shon range out of bastion SLBMs, even when committed with BE,
CONUS and Nonh America cannot be completely protected. Due to the SLBM's shon time of
flight, there is insufficient time to fly a GBI from Grand Forks to intercept the SLBMs on the
coasts. To provide coverage for the possibility of out of bastion SLBM, multiple sites in CONUS
are required.
Initial analyses indicate that a multi-site defense system, which is our ultimate objective,
would require sites in the Nonheast, Nonhwest, Southeast, Southwest, plus Alaska and Hawaii.
In this eventuality, the site at Grand Forks would be redundant, since the four CONUS sites would
be sufficient to offer complete coverage of the United States. Thus, a preferred strategy--the ABM
Treaty aside--would begin with the first site in the Northeast (or Nonhwest), in which case cueing
would still provide total CONUS coverage for the long range Nonhero threats (see Figure 2-7).
However, in this instance, we could save $1-2 billion because we would ultimately require one
less site.
llluatmlvo Composite Threet

Slnglo Silo In The Norlheeat For GBI And GBR
css-4 From Chino
GBI Fly OUI6.5 km INC
55-18, SS.N-20 In Ballllon, 55-24 From CIS
- Long Rongo lllsolles From Mlddlo E. .t
ByGBI
Sonoora Only
GBROnly
GBR And Upgraded

Early W..mng Rodoro
Figure 2-7 Composite Multi-Threat Defense Coverage

Single Site in Northeast
214

Architectural analysis of these options is in process to determine the most cost-effective
method of complying with the MDA. These details as well as the implementation plan will be
presented in the 180-day report to Congress due in June.
2.3.3
Space-Based Interceptors (SBI)
Although Congress mandated that space-based interceptors, including Brilliant Pebbles

(BP), not be included in the initial plan for deploying a Limited Defense System, the 1991 Missile
Defense Act states that:
"To effectively develop technologies relating to achieving the goal
specified in (the Act) and to provide future options for protecting the
security of the United States and the allies and friends of the United
States, robust funding for research and development for promising
follow-on anti-ballistic missile technologies, including Brilliant
Pebbles, is required."
Brilliant Pebbles is a space-based, highly autonomous, proliferated, surveillance and
kinetic hit-to-kill interceptor system. The BP concept consists of single interceptors and their
associated "life jacket" carrier vehicles. The interceptor incorporates sensors, guidance control,
battle management, and an axial propulsion stage. The interceptor will possess high-rate attitude
control, on-board data processing, navigation, and divert propulsion capabilities. Each life jacket
provides on-orbit power, low-rate attitude control, surveillance, communication, thermal control,
and protection from the space environment and hostile countermeasures. Ground control systems
will provide man-in-the-loop, positive control of the BP constellation.
The BP constellation planned for OPALS would constitute the initial intercept layer of a
multilayered defense against both strategic and theater ballistic missiles in excess of 500
kilometers. It would offer a defensive tier with warning, command and control, sensing, and
intercept technologies that are independent of those dedicated to the surface-based layers.
BP would be continuously in position to provide global detection of an attack and a means
to destroy both strategic and theater ballistic missiles. It could act autonomously to provide highly
effective protection against a limited number of missiles, regardless of their source, that exceed 80
km altitude for more than about three minutes, as would be the case for missiles following
minimum energy trajectories with ranges greater than approximately 500 km. Additionally, BP has
shot opportunities against realistically depressed trajectory ballistic missiles with ranges greater
than approximately 700-800 km.
BP would be deployed in low earth orbit and operate in conjunction with the surface-based
defensive tier. The combination of BPs and ground-based interceptors deployed in the United
States, such as OBI, would provide the highest confidence protection of the United States against
limited strategic missile threats. In some theaters, where the threat involves shorter range, mostly
endoatmospheric missile threats that BP cannot engage, including short-range depressed trajectory
systems, surface-based active TMD such as THAAD, ERINT, and improved PATRIOT could
complement BP to provide the highest confidence theater defense.
The surface-based defenses, both those located in the United States and those in the theater,
would benefit from an independent assessment of threat characteristics, early cuing, and from the
thinning of the threat by BP. The requirements for surface-based elements to detect threats at longrange and ensure highly effective coverage over broad areas can be sign:ticantly reduced by the
presence of space-based defenses.
21S
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

BP's capability for multiple shots per target would greatly increase the probability of
intercept and ease the burden on surface-based interceptors, minimizing the number required to
help perform national and theater defense.
BP could be available for deployment as early as the end of this decade, depending on the
level at which the program is funded.
Figure 2-8 depicts SBI operation.
Figure 2-8 BP Operation
2-16
2-17
'J
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Chapter 3
'
,I'
I,.
I
"I
"
I
"
:I
I"
I
~~
I
I
I~
I
I
I..
I
~
~~
lo..
II..
II..
3-1
II..
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Chapter 3
This chapter responds to subparagraph (b) (2) of Sedion 224 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Years 1990 and 1991 (Public Law 101-189), which requests
a detailed description of each program or projed which is included In the Strategic
Defense lnHiative or which otherwise relates to defense against strategic ballistic missiles,
including a technical evaluation of each such program or projed and an assessment as to
when each can be brought to the stage of full-scale engineering development (assuming
funding as requested or programmed).
3.1
Introduction
Section 3.3 of this chapter contains a description of each project within the SDI program.
For those projects which are developing systems to meet U.S. ballistic missile defense
requirements, the project descriptions include an estimate for when each system could be ready for
full scale engineering development (now called engineering and manufacturing development). The
acquisition strategy and test and evaluation program for all such systems are in accordance with
requirements specified in the DoD 5000 series documents.
Five major program elements are used to integrate all SDI projects. These program
elements were established by Congress during the FY 92 budget process, and partition the SDI
program into discrete mission areas. A description of these program elements is provided in
Section 3.2, and each project description identifies the associated program element(s).
In addition to establishing the five SDI program elements, Congress also passed the Missile
Defense Act (MDA) of 1991. This Act placed certain requirements on DoD which impact the pace
and focus of the projects described in this chapter.
Last year, the President's FY 92 budget request for SDI was based on a plan calling for a
deployment decision in the late 1990s, with the first ground-based site becoming operational by the
year 2000. The Missile Defense Act of 1991 accelerated this schedule by several years, requiring
deployment of the initial site by 1996, or as soon as the appropriate technology is available.
However, while accelerating the schedule, Congress also reduced the overall FY 92 budget request
for SDI by $1 billion, and that portion supporting the ground-based system by over $300 million.
These conflicting actions by Congress necessitated some modifications to the SDIO plan
for providing the U.S. with ballistic missile defenses under the OPALS concept, but did not
essentially change the long tenn program strategy. We are proposing program modifications
primarily involving reprogramming near- and mid-term resources from technology base, advanced
concepts, and space-based weapons research to support the accelerated schedule for near-tenn
U.S. ground-based systems. Additionally, several parallel development approaches had to be
surrendered to establish baseline technologies for initial site systems.
3-2
---~r
Description of Each'SD! Project

Figure 3-1 Wustrates SDrs historical investment in near term
. Iand grOIll!(
systems and technologies, and highlights FY 92 and FY 93 investt.nent
'
after passage of the Missile Defense Act of 1991. Despite the $1 billii'o~~n:J~~~(~t
planned investments in ground-based programs are maintained. In the p
:;;;,.:+";~....:;
investments in grbund based programs, particularly U.S.
substantially to support the accelerated initial U.S. site deployment.
supporting space-b~sed interceptors was reduced from last year's proposal
'
,, ..
FY8892
Appropriations And
FY 93 Amended
FY9293
President's
Budget
Request
SPACE
U)3
c
.2
I
'
GROUND
iii
l2Z::J
{Ill
111
u.s.
TMD
Budget
E22l
-c2
~
>
1-
Fiscal Year
.I
Figure 3-1
3-3
1 ..
GPALS-Related Space-Ground R&D Investment
j '
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

Investment in space-based interceptors has been substantially reduced. This program,
which consists primarily of the Brilliant Pebbles (BP) sensor(mterceptor/battle management suite,
now constitutes only II percent of total SDI funding for both fiscal years 1992 and 1993. This
was the percentage appropriated for space-based interceptors in FY 1992 by Congress, while the
Missile Defense Act of 1991 called for "robust funding" for follow-on technologies, including
Brilliant Pebbles. In terms of both percentage of total SDI funding and actual dollars allocated,
fiscal years 1992 and 1993 show the lowest investment levels for space-based interceptor systems
since the Joint Chiefs of Staff first established mission requirements for a ballistic missile defense
system (1987). These reductions will slip BP deployment options into the next century. Fully
three quarters of the total SDI budget in FY 1992 and FY 1993 is now in support of TMD and
Limited Defense System development
In light of the Missile Defense Act of 1991, the following adjustments, among others, have
been made to the program.
GBIIE2I
Last year, we planned to carry two interceptor concepts, the GBI and the exoendoatmospheric interceptor (E2I), through the demonstration and validation phase and
then decide, in the mid-1990s, which to carry into the Engineering Manufacturing
Development (EMD) phase for deployment around the year 2000. We budgeted for
developing and deploying E2I, then judged to be the more expensive interceptor. We did
not budget to deploy both at the end of the decade--although a mix was possible if the
DEMYAL program succeeded in significantly reducing costs.
However that competition might have turned out, the GBI is more mature, and
prudence demands we select the most mature technology now if we are to begin
deployment in the mid-1990s as called for in the MDA.
At the same time, we continue to believe an endo-atmospheric interceptor option
will be desired in the future. Accordingly, our acquisition strategy has been modified to
develop the E2I technology as a technology insertion program which would lead to
deployment options at subsequent sites or as a retrofit pre-planned product improvement
(P3 I) option for improving the interceptors at the initial site. Thus, rather than a
competition between alternate concepts, we are now pursuing both concepts in a leaderfollower context, with the leader being that interceptor exploiting the currently more mature
technology, i.e., GBI.
This realignment will permit us to support earlier GBI deployment, as called for by
the MDA, without cost growth in our interceptor deployment program over the next five
years--and to preserve an option to deploy an E2I capability by the end of the decade.
However, there may be some growth in long-term total acquisition costs for OBI-something like $1 billion more for 5-7 sites.
We are moving ahead to implement this strategy. The formal request for proposals
(RFPs) for the first phase of the GBI program was released to industry by the Army in
early March, and contract awards are expected by the end of April. Pending approval of
the Defense Acquisition Executive, competition to select a single GBI contractor will follow
in the fall, with contractor selection early in 1993. This contractor may develop both the
GBI for the initial site and manage a parallel effort to infuse technology from the SDIO
technology programs into the development activities for subsequent sites in response to the
evolving threat-e.g., by providing the technology base for an E2I capability.
3-4
Description of Each SD! Project
mm.
As discussed in our Report to Congress last year, we are developing x-band
ground-based radars under a "family-of-radars" acquisition strategy to address the
requirements for both theater and strategic missile defense systems. Such an integrated
acquisition strategy, with a single contractor, should reduce the total acquisition costs to
meet TMD and LDS requirements by 25% as compared to two distinct GBR programs for
theater and strategic defenses.
Since we were already seeking to provide advanced active TMD system capability
by the mid-1990s as reported to Congress last year, there was no need to accelerate our
development activities for the GBR. However, to be responsive to the MDA directions to
accelerate olir previous plans for deploying the initial LDS site, we have added the initial
LDS-GBR to the RFP that has now been in the contractors' hands for 2 months. Contract
award is expected by the end of the summer--again pending review by the Defense
Acquisition Executive.
Regrettably, the GBR program cost estimates have grown significantly--by about
$1.5 billion over the next 5 years. In part, this cost growth reflects the fact that the GBR
now being pursued for deployment at the initial site is about four times the size and has
almost three times the power of the GBR proposed last year--and its deployment is called
for several years sooner. Some of this increase is also due to conservatism introduced
during the exhausting Pentagon reviews of our GBR acquisition plan over the past 9
months; and, we believe that there will be substantial reductions when industry begins to
provide real data for our consideration.
Sensor Cueini for LDS

A single LDS site at Grand Forks, .North Dakota, consisting of OBI and GBR
elements (and the necessary command and control elements, of course), can protect only
the central third of the continental United States (CONUS). However, the coverage from
this single site could be expanded to include the entire continental United States if additional
sensor information were used to "cue" (i.e., provide target vectors) OBis into the
battlespace before the collocated GBR could acquire the attacking ballistic missiles. In any
case, a single site at Grand Forks could not defend against out-of-bastion submarine
launched ballistic missile threats, or other potential threats emanating from the south.
In particular, full coverage for the continental United States (and most of Canada)
would be provided by Brilliant Eyes (beginning at the end of the decade, according to the
plan we presented to Congress last year). In addition, we are considering whether
affordable measures might be taken as an interim step along with deployment of the initial
site called for in the MDA to achieve earlier full coverage of the continental United States.
Three alternatives are available:
GBRs in the Northeastern and Northwestern United States at an additional
investment of about $800 million over the next five years--this would require relief from
ABM Treaty restraints.
Software improvements to existing early warning radars at an additional investment
of less than $400 million over the next five years-this may require relief from ABM Treaty
restraints and the agreement of the host nations for the early warning radars. We are
.II~
I
3-S
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Description of Each SD/ Project

Development and deployment of the ground launched surveillance and tracking
system (GSTS) at an investment of about $1.6 billion during the next five years--whether
this would require negotiated relief from the ABM Treaty would have to be formally
determined within the U.S. government.
The first two of the above alternatives would be desirable parts of the ultimate LDS
in any case.
After obtaining relief from ABM Treaty restrictions, further GBI/GBR sites would
be needed in addition to the initial site to provide confident complete coverage of the
continental United States against all limited ballistic missile threats, including ballistic
missiles launched from out-of-bastion submarines. If relief from the Treaty could be
obtained in time, deployment of the initial site in the Northeast followed by a Northwestern
site would eliminate the need for a site at Grand Forks--and $1-2 billion could be saved.
Hopefully, our ongoing discussions with the former Soviet Union will provide a basis for
moving in this direction.
If GBRs were deployed in the Northeastern and Northwestern United States,

improvements to the early warning radars would not be necessary to achieve complete
coverage of the continental United States from Grand Forks. However, upgrading the
early warning radars would enable full coverage from either Grand Forks or a Northeastern
(or Northwestern) GBI site; would require a smaller investment in the near-term; and
would leave an important residual capability for any subsequent deployment beyond the
initial site. Of course, no decision would be taken to upgrade the early warning radars
without appropriate clarification regarding ABM Treaty restrictions and consultation with
our allies who are involved with maintaining these systems.
Developing and deploying GSTS would be the most expensive option; would not
produce an integral part of the ultimate architecture; would have no value until used (unlike
the radar options which could produce useful peacetime capability); and would have the
undesirable attribute of being lost if launched due to spoofing, either intentional or
accidental. Furthermore, in some scenarios, its use could exacerbate instabilities if it were
mistaken for an ICBM launch. Nevertheless, we intend to complete assembly and ground
testing of the GSTS sensor package as a technical hedge.
Whatever we decide regarding an interim cueing measure, Brilliant Eyes will
essentially be our primary optical surveillance sensor to work in concert with the groundbased radars to improve the effectiveness of both LDS and active TMD systems. It
provides the maximum time for interceptors to fly out from a given site and thus provides
the maximum defended area possible from a given deployment of ground-based LDS or
active TMD interceptors. Also, because Brilliant Eyes could be cued to continuously
observe specific areas, it could serve to monitor missile tests worldwide, providing
important intelligence and signature data to allow our defenses to maintain their peak
effectiveness as new threats appear.
Our Brilliant Eyes acquisition strategy has been approved by the Defense
Acquisition Executive, the RFPs for the competition to downselect from four DEMYAL
contractors to two were recent! y released by the Air Force, and contractor selection is
expected by the end of the summer. With the necessary funding support, we anticipate the
first DEMVAL space tests in the 1996 time period, deployment of the first 12 operational
satellites around the end of the decade, and a full operational capability early in the next
decade. Although the cost estimate for the total acquisition of Brilliant Eyes has actually
been reduced during the past year by almost $3 billion (in FY91 dollars), the estimate for
3-6

the DEMYAL Program over the next five years has increased by about $600 million to
assure an early evaluation of operational issues.
SE&I. BWC3. and ST&E

Acceleration of activities to support deployment of the initial LDS site, as called for
by the MDA, leads to major realignment of several essential integrating activities--and
substantially increased funding requirements over the next five years. The JOOst important
of these critical activities are: (a) systems engineering and integration; (b) battle
management, command, control and communications (including the command center
element (CCE)); and (c) system test and evaluation (ST&E). Our program planning to date
suggests that these three critical activities will require about $3 billion more over the next
five years than we planned for last year when contemplating only DEMVAL activities
during most of that period and the deployment of the initial site at the end of the decade.
Systems engineering and integration is, in effect, the glue that holds the
development activities together. Our development efforts cannot be viable without
excellence here. Furthermore, ultimate system operational effectiveness depends upon the
early effective execution of all three of these critical activities.
For example, we must fully defme an open BMJC3 architecture up front so that the
components deployed to support the operation of the initial site can be exchanged for
advanced components via P3I programs or added to later (including with additional sites
and even including possible allied active TMD systems) without requiring a major system
redesign. And, to have confidence that the system will operate effectively when we activate
the first site, we must have already been operating and gaining experience with the BMJC3
system, including with essential hardware and software in conjunction with a
comprehensive simulation and testing program. Indeed, our approach to building
confidence will be to complete and fully test, via simulations and operational exercises,
several "builds" of key hardware and software before initial site activation.
Our test and evaluation plans and programs are being developed in close
cooperation with key members of the ST&E community, including all three services, to be
consistent with OSD guidance in all key areas of interest. Testing has already begun in the
earliest stages of our development activities. As we proceed, continued testing will help
build confidence in an evolving and improving system capability that integrates the
activities of the three services across theater and strategic Jines.
SDIO constitutes a pilot program that is pushing realignment of I &E infrastructure
to support the Department's new interest in developing fieldable prototypes. In many
regards, the MDA is a key driver for innovation in this area-and the development activities
for the initial site and subsequent improvements will serve as a proving ground for new
concepts.
3.2 SDI Program Elements (PE)

Program Element: Q603216C- Theater Missile Defense ITMP>
The Theater Missile Defense (TMD) Program Element (PE) includes all programs, projects,
and activities that have as a primary objective the development of deployable and rapidly relocatable
advanced theater missile defenses. These defenses will defend forward-deployed and
expeditionary elements of the Armed Forces of the United States. The near-term goal of the TMD
program is to improve existing theater anti-missile capability by upgrading the Army's PATRIOT
37
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
and the Navy's Aegis systems. Longer range plans include development of the Corps SAM and
deployment of other advanced TMD systems in the 1990s. For instance, the Theater High Altitude
Area Defense (TIIAAD) system will be available for deployment in a national emergency as a
Deployable Demonstration System by the mid-1990s. A fully developed TiiAAD system could be
ready neat the turn of the century.
The TMD program involves all three services in the development of technology and the
selection of systems to provide an anti-missile defense. For example, we intend to evaluate the
utility of the TiiAAD interceptor in a Navy role, while the Air Force is considering an active TMD
role for aircraft
The active defense role of theater systems like TilAAD and PATRIOT will be enhanced
when combined with other elements of U.S. defenses such as Brilliant Eyes, and potentially,
Brilliant Pebbles. Also, theater active defenses will complement and be integrated with theater
passive defense and counterforce operations.
Program Element: Q6()3215C- Limjted Defense System CLDS)

The Limited Defense System (LDS) PE includes programs, projects, and activities (and
supporting programs, projects, and activities) which have as a primary objective the development
of systems, components, and architectures for a deployable anti-ballistic missile system that is
capable of providing a highly effective defense of the United States against limited ballistic missile
threats, including accidental or unauthorized launches or Third World attacks. For purposes of
planning, evaluation, design, and effectiveness studies, such programs, projects, and activities
take into consideration both the current limitations of the anti-ballistic missile (ABM) Treaty and
modest changes to the Treaty's numerical limitations and its limitations on the use of space-based
sensors.
Activities within the LDS PE are focused on developing highly effective defenses including
possibly several ground-based interceptor sites and space-based sensors to protect the entire
United States, including Alaska and Hawaii, against ballistic missile attacks consisting of several
tens to up to two hundred reentry vehicles (RV). Within this LDS framework, an ABM Treatycompliant ballistic missile defense system located at a single site within the U.S. will be developed
"by the earliest date allowed by the availability of appropriate technology or by 1996," in
accordance with the Missile Defense Act of 1991. Development for follow-on sites and Brilliant
Eyes is also included.
It is instructive to consider three categories of activities conducted within the LDS Program
Element
The System DeyeJo.pment category is made up of those activities that directly constitute the
formal development of the LDS system, including system engineering, command and control,
system testing, and site preparation and construction. These are the principal activities that
compose the Major Defense Acquisition Programs subject to oversight by the Defense Acquisition
Executive. They compose approximately 40% of the LDS budget in FY92, are expected to grow
to 54% in FY93, and ultimately, as the design is firmed up for final development and deployment,
will compose an increasing percentage of the entire LDS budget
The second category of activities (Rjsk Mjti&arion. Hedees. and P3Il constitutes the
technology program, in direct support of the LDS development activity, which will provide
technological alternatives at the component and subcomponent level to mitigate risks in the main
development program and to provide a basis for later technology insenionJP3I programs. These
activities will compose about 28% of the LDS Program Element budget in FY92 and about 20% in
3-8
11''
i
FY93. Note that several activities were transferred from the Other Follow-On and Research and
Support program elements.
The remaining one-third of the FY92 budget for the LDS element (Threat Evaluation.
PhenomenoloL:Y. and Other Support) is to help evaluate the threat; to improve our understanding of
key phenomenology; particularly with respect to the discrimination problem; and to provide other
critical support activities. In FY93, we anticipate these efforts will compose about one-fourth of
the LDS budget
Prowro Element:
0603214C- Space-Based Interceptors CSBD
The Space-Based Interceptors PE includes programs, projects, and activities that have as a
primary objective the conduct of research on space-based, kinetic-kill interceptors, such as Brilliant
Pebbles (BP) and associated sensors that could provide an overlay to ground-based ABM
interceptors.
Although Congress mandated that space-based interceptors, including Brilliant Pebbles, not
be included in the initial plan for deploying a Limited Defense System, the 1991 Missile Defense
Act states that:
"To effectively develop technologies relating to achieving the goal
specified in (the Act) and to provide future options for protecting the
security of the United Stales and the allies and friends of the United
States, robust funding for research and development for promising
follow-on anti-ballistic missile technologies, including Brilliant
Pebbles, is required."
Space-based interceptors offer a cost- and operationally effective means of providing highly
effective protection, on a global basis, against limited ballistic missile attacks. Accordingly, this
PE will include research and development to provide options to integrate a future deployment of
Brilliant Pebbles with other strategic and active theater missile defense systems.
Prowro Element:
06Q3217C- Other Follow-On Systems
The Other Follow-On Systems PE includes programs, projects, and activities that have as
a primary objective the development of technologies capable of supporting systems, components,
and architectures that could produce highly effective defenses in the future. SDI is pursuing these
promising technologies in order to support a possible future decision to increase ballistic missile
defense capabilities. Such a decision would be based on how the ballistic missile threat evolves.
Most notable among the areas being investigated are advanced sensor and interceptor,
directed energy, and hypervelocity gun technology. Advanced sensor technology efforts are
focusing on improving the speed and quality of acquisition, tracking, and discrimination
capabilities of sensor platforms. Advanced interceptor projects such as the Lightweight
Exoatmospheric Projectile (LEAP) program are developing lighter, lower cost interceptors with
improved guidance, tracking, and propulsion features. SDrs directed energy program is pursuing
high energy laser and particle beam technologies which will support the development of systems
capable of near speed-of-light intercept, interactive discrimination, and continuous worldwide
coverage. Finally, research in the field of hypervelocity technology is focusing on developing a
gun which will utilize electricity and magnetism to accelerate projectiles to very high speeds
sufficient to destroy an attacking missile or warhead on impact The hypervelocity gun's primary
advantages include multiple shot capability, a reusable launcher, and low-cost projectiles.
3-9
,I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

By pursuing a balanced approach that addresses the current threat while concurrently
investigating more advanced technologies, SDrs vigorous follow-on research and development
efforts ensure that the nation's ballistic missile defense program will retain enough flexibility to
respond to threats which may evolve rapidly in the future.
Pro~
Element: 0603218C- Research and Support Activities
The Research and Support Program Element contains three categories of activities:
"Research", "General Test and Evaluation", and "Support" for activities in one or more of the other
program elements. For example, some 80% of activities within this Program Element directly
support the l.DS and TMD Program Elements.
The research category was markedly reduced in response to the major Congressional cuts
last year. In those cases where the technology work was appropriately aligned to activities in other
program elements, funding was transferred to those program elements. Our Test and Evaluation
efforts are absolutely essential to executing a viable, accelerated program to deploy the initiall.DS
site. About 50% of the support for our Test and Evaluation efforts is provided in this program
element because the work is "common" to all of the elements of a complete global defense system.
Under our General Support activities, we supply the basic management support to SDIO and our
agents to accomplish the SDI program. Here we pay for salaries, buildings, and basic
management support within executing services and agencies.
J.JO
3.3
Project Descriptions
PROJECT TITLE;
1101 - Passive Sensors
PROGRAM ELEMENTS;
0603215C- Limited Defense System
0603214C- Space-Based Interceptors
PROJECT DESCRIPTION;
Umjted Defense System
This project develops and demonstrates the infrared sensor component technology
required for the performance, reliability, survivability, producibility, and affordability of
the Global Protection Against limited Strikes (OPALS) surveillance systems. The specific
infrared technology areas include: improving the producibility of high quality radiation
hardened beryllium mirrors, optical contamination, infrared detectors, readout devices, onarray signal processing techniques, optical test facilities for characterizing and calibrating
sensors, nuclear test capability, active cryocooler development and life testing, pilot line
production, "learning curve" manufacturing techniques out of lab and into industry,
demonstrations of focal plane components, cost-performance-yield models for accurate
system cost estimates, and integrated advanced sensor demonstrations.
Space-Based lnterc<:ptors
FY92-93 SBI program element funding will fund advancements to those projects
listed above that have applicability to Space-Based Interceptors element needs.
PROJECT TITLE;
1102 - Microwave Radar Technology
PROGRAM ELEMENT;
This project addresses radar system design and component technology needed to
build long-range radar capable of multiple target detection, tracking and discrimination
functions. Targets are ballistic threats at both endo and exoatmospheric ranges. The
project provides the critical Ground-Based Radar (GBR) technology for all strategic
defense systems.
I ,arge Radar IecbnolQty
This task develops ground-based radar technologies for phased array systems
having large bandwidth and precision tracking for midcourse, early reentry, and near
exoatmospheric discrimination and fire control missions.
Innoyatiye Radar Technology
This task is developing high risk radar technologies which have direct benefit for
ground-based radar operation in electronic countermeasures and nuclear environments.
Innovative concepts which exploit neural network aperture controllers, resonant target
phenomenology features, and advanced beam-forming will be developed.
3-11
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
PRO IECT TITLE;

1103 - Laser Radar Technology
PROGRAM ELEMENT;
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
This project develops and demonstrates the laser radar technologies capable of
supporting SDS components and architectures. Laser radar technology includes
development of components, systems, data bases of target measurements, and supporting
analysis. Laser transmitters, receivers, mechanisms for steering and directing beams, and
signal processing are included in component development Data base development includes
both laboratory and field measurements, and developing simulations for calculating laser
radar cross sections and evaluating system performance.
For many missions, laser radars are preferred over microwave radars due to smaller
size and tighter beam divergence. Laser radars also provide the spatial and velocity
resolution for midcourse discrimination of RVs from other objects. This technology will
also be used in boost phase for active tracking of threat boosters and precision pointing of
boost-phase weapons, and in midcourse for designation. Specific technologies include
lasers with high temporal and frequency stability and wide bandwidth waveforms, wide
bandwidth detectors, optical beam steering and receiving systems for rapid retargeting, and
signal processing and analytical tools required for implementation. The Army Missile
Optical Range is utilized to make calibrated laboratory target measurements, and the
Firepond laser radar is used to make field measurements of deployment events for targets
launched from Wallops Island, VA.
PROJECT TITLE;
PROGRAM ELEMENTS;
1104- Signal Processing

PRO.IECT DESCRIPTION;
Limited Defense System

This project develops and demonstrates the techniques and components associated
with onboard high speed sensor signal and data processing for multiple interceptor and
surveillance sensor systems and provides a radiation hardened digital and analog circuit
component technology base supporting LDS technologies. To accomplish mission
objectives, key elements must perform large numbers of computations to perform
surveillance, acquisition, tracking, and kill assessment of missiles and reentry vehicles.
These elements must survive and continue to perform in high levels of natural and nuclear
radiation. Selected elements must continue to operate through very high flash levels of
nuclear burst High speed and low power Very Large Scale Integrated (VLSI) electronic
circuits and memories with performance comparable to DoD Very High Speed Integrated
Circuit (VHSIC) technology must be developed to achieve very high levels of performance
and radiation hardening. Further development of this technology is absolutely critical to
lowering the risk and system costs involved with a deployment/full-scale development
decision.
~~:lf:~with
LDS a project that will produce two radiation hardened stateof-the-art 32 bit Reduced Instruction Set Computers (RISC) for space applications. The
two RH32 processors have special features that are required for space applications that are
not found in commercial processors. The level of testability, fault tolerance, and radiation
immunity built into the RH32 processors distinguish them from processors available or
3-12

planned. The built-in fault tolerance features will enable the RH32 to operate through the
harsh space radiation environment with a very high delivery of processor service. A
companion effort, the RISC Ada Environment (RISCAE), will develop the software
environment for both processor designs.
PROJECT TITLE;
PROGRAM ELEMENT;
II 05 - Discrimination
PRO IECT DESCRIP'fiON;

Theater Missile Pefenses
Funding under this Program Element provides for analyses and simulation in
support of active TMD discrimination. FY 1993 efforts will be accomplished under project
IJ09.
This task area is responsible for characterizing the optical and radar signatures of
threat objects (e.g. penaids and RVs) and backgrounds for development of effective target
acquisition and discrimination techniques for OPALS efforts related to systems funded
under the LPS Program Element Activities encompass all phases of ballistic missile flight.
Collection and analysis is done on celestial and atmospheric backgrounds, development of
phenomenology models, discrimination algorithms (Lexington Discrimination System
(LDS)), and integrated tools for a realistic assessment of surveillance, acquisition, tracking,
and discrimination techniques.
PROJECT TITLE;
PROGRAM ELEMENTS;
II 06 - Sensor Studies and Experiments
0603216C- Theater Missile Defenses

0603217C - Other Follow-On Systems
This project includes a variety of experiments, studies, and support elements
designed to examine the interrelationships between sensors, discriminants, and other
information fusion considerations. Data collected within this project is critical to the design
of all surveillance and weapon sensors and sensor processing algorithms in the Strategic
Defense System. The Midcourse Space Experiment (MSX) also supports OPALS
elements funded under Limited Defense System (PE No. 0603215C) and Advanced
Electn:K>ptics under Theater Missile Defenses (PE No. 0603216C).
Theater Missile Defense

Advanced electro-optical sensor technologies being developed include visible,
ultraviolet, and infrared radiation hardened charge-coupled device (CCD) imagers, stepstare sensor signal processing algorithms, and processor architectures to support evolving
SDI midcourse surveillance concepts. Methodologies and techniques for performing track
correlation and multisensor discrimination are also included. Progress will be verified by
designing, building, and field testing sensors and by performing end-to-end simulations.
Sensors will be demonstrated on the MSX experiment.
The Infrared Background Signature Survey (IBSS) will provide multi-spectral
(ultraviolet, visible, and infrared) and radiometric measurements of orbiter plumes, earth
313
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

backgrounds, chemical releases, orbiter environment, gas releases, and calibration sources.
These data are critical to determining the requirements for the major SOlO systems.
Measurements were made both with the Shuttle Pallet Satellite Platform (SPAS) II in the
shuttle bay and with the SPAS deployed from the shuttle that has maneuvered from the
immediate vicinity. The mss instrumentation package was developed jointly by the u.s.
and the Federal Republic of Germany. A follow-on SPAS mission, SPAS III, is planned
forFY94.
The Midcourse Space Experiment (MSX) will provide the system functional
demonstration, target and background data, and the technology demonstrations necessary
for the midcourse sensor platforms to meet Milestone II. MSX is planned for CY93. The
principal sensor is a cryogenic MWlR/LWIR radiometer and spectrometer system with high
off axis rejection optics. MSX will provide data on real midcourse targets against real
backgrounds at realistic system ranges for use in system ground demonstrations; provide
high quality target and background phenomenology data for further development of robust
models of representative scenes; demonstrate key functions such as acquisition, tracking,
handoff and bulk filtering; provide multi-wavelength target phenomenology data for
assessing optical discrimination algorithms; and demonstrate the capability to integrate key
technologies into a working platform similar to proposed operational midcourse sensor
designs.
Unconventional Passive Discrimination is an evaluation and development task for
optical discrimination techniques that make use of target signature time history; information
to perform target classification/discrimination. The feasibility of these techniques was
demonstrated with previous optical target measurements (e.g., Malabar, Have Jeep,
Starmate). UPD techniques are potentially applicable to both surveillance system elements
and interceptor system elements.
Other Follow-On Systems
The Vehicles Interaction Program (VIP) is investigating the interactions of a space
vehicle with the space environment The work to be done consists of ground research and
flight experiments to investigate observed phenomena attributed to such interactions.
Ground research will include analysis and interpretation of previous experiments and
existing data, laboratory studies and experiments, and basic research and model
development Flight experiments include ballistic and orbital flights designed to obtain data
that will be used to validate and refme models developed in ground research and to better
characterize the phenomena.
Advanced discrimination techniques will be developed to counter new(mnovative
penetration aid developments, including the use of directed energy assets (lasers and neutral
particle beams), dust and debris, and infrared and ultraviolet emissions from space objects.
fRO IECT TITLE:

1109 - TMD Discrimination
PROGRAM ELEMENT;
This program consists of a sequence of flight tests planned to address critical
system level discrimination issues for active theater missile defense. The objective of the
program is to collect critical sensor data on potential countermeasures such that the active
TMD system discrimination performance against these threats can be assessed. The threats
considered for these flights are tank fragmentation, jamming, chaff, reduced cross-section,
RV modifications, and decoys.
3-14

PROJECT TITLE;
PBOGRAM ELEMENT;
1201 -Interceptor Component Technology
0603215C-Limited Defense System
This project is developing advanced components for lightweight, low-cost
interceptors for the Limited Defense System. The technologies provide a basis for highly
effective ground-based interceptor systems that are deployable as early as 1996, with the
OPALS LOC, and through the year 2000 and beyond, with follow-on efforts. Technology
development efforts focus on addressing the more stringent, follow-on requirements, such
as onboard discrimination, greater kinematic capability, enhanced autonomy, and increased
threat complexity. Component performance will be demonstrated through ground testing
of hardware and software at contractor's facilities, the KKV Hardware-in-the-Loop
Simulation (KHILS) facility, the National Hover Test Facility (NHTF), and through flight
testing. Propulsion components will be demonstrated through static test firings and flight
tests.
Seeker components that are being developed range from the UV through the
VLWIR. Early emphasis was placed on hardened focal plane array (FPA) and readout
development (128x128 Pixels) and fabrication at low cost (1000 FPA/Year Production
Rate) while maintaining required performance (11-14 urn Cutoff Wavelength). Recently
initiated efforts aim toward multicolor operation and neural network or optical processing
techniques to aid in discrimination. A solid state ladar with an agile beam director is also
being designed to improve discrimination capability.
The interceptor avionics technology development effort has produced a lightweight
(75 g), high throughput (400 MOPS) signal and data processor that is programmable and
very adaptable to a variety of interceptor applications. Current emphasis is on hardening of
this processor, development of neural networks for on-FPA signal processing, and creation
of advanced algorithms for multi-seeker data fusion, image processing, discrimination, and
autopilots.
Inertial Measurement Unit (IMU) development to date has focused on a lightweight
(30 g), low-cost ($500/Unit) micromechanical inertial guidance system providing a 3-axis
gyro and accelerometer on a single chip with performance parameters typical of those
associated with space-based systems (100/Hour Drift Rate). Programs were initiated in
1991 to address the more stringent performance requirements associated with the longer
flyout time of ground-based endoatmospheric interceptors (0.01-1.00/Hour Drift Rate).
Development of a stellar navigation system has also been initiated to enhance interceptor
performance.
Propulsion system technology development has been ongoing since 1988.
Advanced liquid axial stage technology has been developed and tested that provides 8X
weight reduction in stage weight over older interceptor propulsion systems while reducing
cost This particular component, known as ALAS, will be flight tested in the coming year
onboard one of the LEAP experiments. Solid axial stage components have also been
developed and will be tested in the near-term. These systems are primarily for space-based
applications.
31S
l_l
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

PROJECT TITLE:
PROGRAM ELEMENT:
1202- Interceptor Integration Technology

0603215C-Limited Defense System
PROTECT DESCRIPTION:
LOS funding provides for the development, integration, and evaluation of
advanced, high performance, lightweight interceptor technologies for use in both theater
and strategic defense. These technologies will be used to support Ground Based
Interceptors (GBU and Theater High Altitude Area Defense (lHAAD).
Follow-on funding provides for the development, independent government testing,
and experimental integration of state-of-the-art component technology to provide risk
reduction for systems that could be deployed prior to the beginning of the twenty-first
century.
Develop miniaturized, advanced interceptor components to integrate into
Lightweight Exoaunospheric Projectiles (LEAP) with a hit to kill kinetic energy mission,
required for improved system cost-effectiveness. Develop and test a sensor package which
will fly along on and observe interceptor demonstration flights. Develop and test
lightweight seeker technologies and interceptor components. This project has the capability
of determining proper technology integration techniques; validating seekers and inertial
measurement units in hardware-in-the-loop facilities; performing free flight hover tests;
performing technology validation flights in suborbital, reduced mission scenarios; and
performing orbital technology validation flights in support of Engineering Manufacturing
Development decisions.
PROJECT TITLE;
PROGRAM ELEMENT:
1203 - Hypervelocity Technology
This project will demonstrate the launch of a guided projectile (D-2) from a
hypervelocity gun (HVG) with associated fire control to demonstrate the potential of a
HVG system as a candidate weapon system for active Theater Missile Defense (TMD) in
the near-term and other longer-range applications in the far-term. This involves the
development of the Gee-hardened D-2 projectile which is a command guided to terminal
homing interceptor. To launch the D-2 at required velocities greater than 3 km/sec, the
High Energy Railgun Integrated Demonstration (HERID) electromagnetic launcher and
Eglin battery upgrade supply (BUS) system is being developed as a test bed for preDEM/VAL demonstrations. A fire control effort is underway to determine what technology
is necessary to command guide the ground-launched D-2 to a hit-1(}-kill intercept at ranges
up to25 km.
HVGs feature very high acceleration and minimum dead zone intercepts, potential
for low marginal costs per round for large required inventories, practicality of quickly
switching loads, reduced weight and volume of ammunition, and potential for very high
velocities with very high acceleration.
Cooperative HVL experimental and applied research efforts will be conducted with
approved foreign organizations in accordance with SDIO memorandum of understandings.
3-16
PROJECT TITLE:
PROGRAM ELEMENT:
1204 - Interceptor Studies and Analysis
PROJECT DESCRIP'fiON:
This project satisfies the mission requirement for interceptor studies and analyses
through systems engineering and technical assistance, special projects for advanced
technologies, program planning and analysis, and aerodynamic studies and analysis.
Additionally, trade studies are conducted to determine the best possible technologies in
which to invest, in order to give the highest payoff to GPALS element interceptors that
could be deployed after the beginning of the twenty-first century.
PROJECT TITLE:
PROGRAM EI.EMENT:
1206- Advanced IMD Weapons
0603216- Theater Missile Defenses
PRO.IECT DESCRIPIION:
The purpose of this project is to perform research on advanced active theater missile
defense (TMD) weapons components and subcomponents and associated technologies in
concert with active IMD architecture study results, other SDIO technology efforts (e.g.,
ground sensors for cueing weapons), and overall Strategic Defense Initiative GPALS
objectives. The project is structured with a near-term goal of supporting development of an
active IMD system to counter the current theater threats and a long-term goal of technology
advancement to support future theater defense as well as overall SDIO system development
under the GPALS program. The project objectives are being accomplished through a
number of technology demonstration programs and studies including Enhanced Kinetic
Energy (EKE) Warhead, Directed Energy Weapons (DEW) and Electrothermal Gun
(ETG).
Enhanced Kinetic EnerL~Y Warhead
The EKE Warhead Program, a follow-on to a joint USA/USAF technology
program (1986-89) that demonstrated the EKE concept, is developing and testing EKE
warheads to neutralize conventional, chemical, and biological threats. Full-scale fragment
and hit-to-kill (HTK) EKE warheads will be developed, and warhead performance will be
demonstrated through rocket sled tests. Testing against simulated chemical and biological
threats will be emphasized. Warhead designs, including level 2 drawings, and test
evaluation reports will be delivered. The EKE Fragment Warhead Program is jointly
conducted by the Joint Tactical Missile Defense Program Office and the Army Chemical
Research, Development, and Engineering Center. Explosive ejection of fragments without
initial fragment destruction will be demonstrated. Perforation of the threat target with the
surviving fragments and breakup/ injection of the EKE reactant material into the target will
also be demonstrated. Both are scheduled in early FY92. The EKE HTK Warhead will
provide the advantages of EKE when the HTK interceptor hits exactly where intended. It
also allows graceful degradation of the HTK interceptor when it achieves a near miss of the
uuget"sweetspoL"
Directed Ene(LlY WejijlOI!s
Included in this project is a concept developmental effort that will evaluate the
feasibility of developing directed energy weapons for active IMD application. The effort is
especially designed to develop weapons capable of achieving boost-phase intercept of
theater tactical ballistic missiles. However, the effort will evaluate ground-based, spacebased, and airplane-based laser system effectiveness in booster-, midcourse-, and terminalphase intercept of tactical ballistic missiles. Various candidate laser systems such as the
3-17
----------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Description of Each SDl Project

chemical oxygen codene laser and free electron laser will be evaluated. Evaluation of
candidate laser systems will provide the basis for funding the high-leverage development of
laser subsystems. Development of either a ground-based or airplane-based laser system
would provide one critical component of a readily transportable active TMD System.
Electtpthermal Gun
The Electrothermal Chemical (ETC) Gun Program is a technology effort to develop
and demonstrate the means to gun-launch and control hit-to-kill, hypervelocity projectiles.
This program is a direct result of a combined SOlO/Ballistic Research Laboratory (BRL)
effort to develop, understand, and document the performance of internal ballistic physics
and associated scaling factors of ETC Gun performance using theoretical analysis and
supporting experiments. The program has three parts. The first part is a technology
project explonng the feasibility of combining electrical and chemical energy sources to
produce hypervelocities. Two projectile acceleration schemes, hybrid gun and traveling
charge (TC), were developed simultaneously. The hybrid acceleration scheme uses
electrothermal injectors to provide an electrically enhanced coventional chemical charge to
propel a projectile. The TC scheme provides initial acceleration via the hybrid scheme and
then further accelerates the projectile, by igniting a second charge integrated with the
projectile, with electrothermal injectors located midway'down the gun barrel. A series of
experiments using a 60-mm gun were conducted to demonstrate each process in FY 90 and
FY 91. The hybrid concept showed more promise and is being aggressively pursued.
Additional experiments using the hybrid concept with a 60-mm and a 105-mm gun during
FY 92 through FY 95. The goal of this effort is to produce muzzle velocities 35% greater
than could be obtained using comparable conventional propellants. The second part of the
ETC Gun Program involves two studies of missile defense threat and mission analysis.
The first study completed in FY 90 investigated strategic missile defense, and the second,
currently underway, is investigating theater missile defense. The results of both studies
will be used to define requirements, guide development, and create a road map for critical
issue resolution. The third part of the ETC gun program is a two-phased study of fire
control. Three contractors are separately pursuing solutions to the fire control of gunlaunched hypervelocity projectile. The program is divided into two phases. Phase I is the
identification of critical issues through the preliminary design of a fire control and battle
management system. During Phase ll, the contractors will conduct experiments and tests
to resolve the critical issues identified during Phase I.
PROJECT TITLE:
PROGRAM ELEMENT;
1208 -Discriminating Interceptor
PROJECT DESCRIPJION:
To achieve a high probability of kill of midcourse targets, interceptors must be
capable of discriminating between real targets, decoys, and debris during the
exoatmospheric portion of flight The interceptor must be lightweight, low cost, and must
be able to kinematically engage a full range of threats. To acquire midcourse targets and
perform discrimination at sufficient range to implement guidance commands requires broad
utilization of the electromagnetic spectrum and use of ladar to capitalize on available
discriminants. Processors able to support the large computational demand, while staying
within cost and weight constraints were once beyond the limit of technology, but recent
advances in interceptor signal and data processor development (PE No. 0603217C, Project
1201) have made a discriminating seeker and interceptor feasible.
Discriminating interceptors with increased autonomy will reduce communication
bandwidths and simplify the overall architecture. Discriminating seekers are now available
3-18
.,
...

with higher resolution and signal-to-noise ratios at close range than current state-of-the-art
technology can provide. Discrimination technology will allow interceptors to take
advantage of not only temperature and emissivity, but of other discriminants as well.
These include static features, such as length, width, and shape; surface features such as,
texture, hot spots, polarization, and sub-features; and dynamic characteristics such as
spinning, coning, precession, and microdynamics.
This program will design, integrate, and test an Advanced Discriminating
Interceptor. The effon will provide a Block Upgrade for the Ground-Based Interceptors
deployed at the initial NMD site. Seeker components will be developed that utilize the latest
in active and passive technology to do discrimination on-board the interceptor. Critical
components will be fabricated and tested. Flight test vehicles will be designed, built, and
tested to demonstrate the technology.
PROJECT TITI1E;
1209 - Endoanoospheric Interceptor
Technologies
PROGRAM ELEMENT;
This project will develop and demonstrate advanced components for miniaturized
endoatmospheric interceptors as part of a comprehensive program to coordinate the
development of endoatmospheric interceptor technology components. These technologies
provide the basis for intercept of strategic and tactical ballistic missiles within the
atmosphere.
The project consists of development and test of innovative seeker and apenure
(optical windows and RF radomes) concepts. These seeker and apenure concepts will be
tested in the Aero Optic Evaluation Center (AOEC) being developed by SDIO for this
purpose.
This project will develop and demonstrate miniaturized endoatmospheric
interceptors for strategic and tactical missile defense under the ENDO LEAP program. The
program will evaluate the seeker and apenure concepts developed under Follow-On
Systems, build and test atmospheric seekers, and build and flight test miniaturized
experimental kill vehicles. The ENDO LEAP seekers and experimental vehicles will be
tested in the AOEC facility under development The miniaturized experimental vehicle will
have self-contained autonomous guidance, jet l'eaction or aerodynamic control, optical or
radar seeker and will be capable of hit-to-kill accuracy, not requiring a warhead.
This project will provide the technologies to block upgrade current ERINT and
1HAAD pczformance capabilities for active TMD. Aimpoint selection and minimum seeker
response time will provide assured endoatmospheric Hit-to-Kill, making the interceptor
more responsive to advanced threats. RF technologies will eliminate current 1WT
technologies replacing them with higher power solid state devices, which significantly
reduces interceptor size and weight
This project will provide endoatmospheric technologies to block upgrade the
Ground-Based Interceptors which are to be deployed at the initial NMD site. The aerothermal and aero-optical issues associated with hypervelocity flight in the anoosphere will
be resolved. Advanced window materials and cooling techniques will be developed and
3-19
,I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

tested. This will provide interceptor velocities and performances that incorporate and
exceed the current low velocity HEDI flight tests, and make the concept ofE2J feasible.
PROJECT TITLE;
PROGRAM ELEMENT;
1210- Navy LEAP Technology Demonstration

Program
0603217C- Other Follow-On Systems
Funding under this program provides for the planning and testing which could
provide a low-cost, low-risk, demonstrated technology insertion option, based on LEAP
interceptor technologies. This could provide a near-term, comprehensive demonstration of
the applicability of LEAP technology to a system more closely representative of a
deployable system than the current launch vehicles. The program will include a series of
suborbital flight tests of the Navy STANDARD missile, which will include LEAP
program-developed technology as part of the payloads. The flights will be increasingly
challenging, as is the current LEAP flight test program. A step-by-step approach will be
used to demonstrate the use of LEAP projectiles and technology with existing boosters,
sustainers, and shipboard launch and fire control systems. The program will culminate in a
series of realistic, fully-integrated high speed intercepts at sea. In order to minimize cost,
reduce risk, and enable early demonstration, maximum use will be made of existing
hardware, test facilities, test infrastructures, and procedures. Early tests will be perfonned
using deployed extended range missile systems (Terrier).
PROJECT TITLE;
PROGRAM ELEMENT;
1211 - Interceptor Facilities
Funding for this program provides for the development, independent government
testing, and experimental integration of state-of-the-art component technology to provide
risk reduction for Limited Defense systems that will be deployed prior to the beginning of
the twenty-first century. Prior to FY 1992, efforts in this project were funded in project
1202, and in FY 1993, funding will be provided within project 3310.
This task centers around developing independent government validation technology
to verify contractor material performance and exercise baseline interceptor models in
support of an Engineering and Management Development (EMD) decision. This project
has the capability of determining proper technology integration techniques, conducting
digital simulation of interceptor kill vehicles in real time, validating seekers and inertial
measurement units in hardware-in-the-loop facilities, performing free flight hover tests,
and, as required, performing technology validation flights in suborbital, reduced mission
scenarios.
The National Hover Test Facility has been developed to support the validation of
integrated KEW performance. Inexpensive, repeatable, and observable system level
demonstrations of advanced technology suites is the key technical issue of the program.
The facility has already demonstrated the ability to flight test, validate performance, and
identify and resolve flight anomalies in vehicle propulsion and guidance hardware and
software. The facility testing is an integral component of the overall SDIO ground and
320

space test effon and directly suppons flight testing of the Space Based Interceptor (SBI)
vehicle and the LEAP vehicles. In addition, the facility is a unique national asset for the
validation of Ground Based Interceptor (GBI). Lastly, integration issues associated with
the current Brilliant Pebbles (BP) vehicle concept will also be addressed at the facility prior
to system deployment. Onboard vehicle system measurements are acquired using facility
telemetry equipment Targets at the facility include static rocket motor firings of scaled
ICBMs, orbiting space objects which are viewed through a satellite tracking system, and
heated target test stands to simulate tracking of IR targets.
The Aero-Optic Evaluation Center (AOEC) is being developed for evaluating
endoatmospheric interceptor concepts and testing endoatmospheric interceptor hardware
under near-flight conditions. The center piece of the AOEC is the Large Energy National
Shock (LENS) Tunnel. The tunnel will produce flow conditions that lead to dissociation of
the atmosphere and the formation of plasma. In the near-term, the AOEC will provide
fundamental scientific insight into hyper-velocity, high enthalpy flow dynamics; aero-optic
performance data on ENDO-LEAP fore-body and seeker window design concepts; and
validation data for current Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) models.
The Kinetic Kill Vehicle Hardware-in-the-Loop Simulator (KHILS) provides test
suppon to the LEAP, ENDO LEAP, GBI, Discriminating Interceptor, and Brilliant Pebbles
programs. These tests validate critical hardware components required for the systems in a
HWIL fashion. Seeker breadboards/brassboards, signal processors, IMUs and guidance
processors are tested as well as the integrated KKVs. The tests will use real-time
simulation techniques to validate the hardware components/subsystems against realistic
operational backgrounds. The most advanced HWIL capabilities available anywhere will
be on line in KHILS to provide the performance capability required to adequately test KEW
systems. In the interim, a baseline simulator has been established to test the various KKV
technology brassboards (e.g. ULTRASEEK, SPPD). Research continues into highly
versatile test technologies to extend scene projection capabilities into the ultraviolet and the
full infrared spectrum.
PROJECT TITLE;
1212- D-2 Program
PROGRAM EI.EMENT;
This project will develop and integrate components for a guided projectile (D-2) for
a hypervelocity gun (HVG) with associated fire control to demonstrate the potential of a
HVG system as a candidate weapon system for active Theater Missile Defense (TMD) and
other longer range applications in the far term. This involves the development of the Geehardened D-2 projectile which is a command guided to terminal homing interceptor.
PROJECT TITLE;
1301- Radio Frequency Free Electron
Laser (RFFEL) Technology
PROGRAM ELEMENT;
The goal of the RFFEL program is to demonstrate the capability of a high power
FEL to perform boost-phase and post-boost-phase intercept of ballistic missiles or theater
missiles from eanh orbiting platforms. Midcourse interactive discrimination can also be
performed by destroying simple decoys and thermally tagging or impaning velocity change
3-21
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

to sophisticated decoys. Additional Space-Based (SB) FEL missions include self defense,
defense of other platforms in the strategic defense constellation, and the suppression of
strategic aircraft.
The primary thrust of the current program is the design and fabrication of a proofof-principle FEL device to validate FEL technology and demonstrate operation of a
moderate power FEL. This effort is called the Average Power Laser Experiment (APLE).
The device being fabricated under APLE is a 10.6 micron, 100kW average power FEL
utilizing a Single Accelerator Master Oscillator-Power Amplifier (SAMOPA) design. The
APLE Prototype Experiment (APEX) at Los Alamos will occur in parallel with APLE. The
APEX project involves operation of a SAMOPA FEL that validates, at subscale, all physics
issues related to the APLE.
SBFEL technology development is planned in parallel with the APLE device
fabrication, concentrating on advancing and tailoring FEL technology required for
operation in a space environment. This technology includes improved system efficiency
and the development of superconducting and cryogenic accelerators. The technology
development strategy leverages a large amount of beam control, optics and acquisition,
tracking and pointing technologies from other directed energy weapon projects.
PRQJECT TITLE:
1302 -Chemical Laser Technology
PROGRAM ELEMENT;
PROJECT DESCRIPIION;
Space-based chemical lasers (SBLs) will enhance an SDS consisting of kinetic
energy weapons by adding global (to the cloud tops), 24 hour, zero time-to-intercept hard
kill of strategic and tactical targets. This capability adds early boost-phase kill of strategic
and tactical ballistic missiles, increased capability for hard kill in the bus phase, additional
robust passive and active midcourse discrimination against simple decoys, interactive
discrimination against more sophisticated decoys, and intercept of long-range strategic
bombers and cruise missiles. Early boost-phase kill of strategic or tactical ballistic missiles
provides very high leverage to the defense by negating missiles before they can deploy
multiple warheads, decoys, chemicals, or submunitions. In all cases, debris will fall far
from protected territory and, in many cases, on the territory of the aggressor. Early boostphase kill also provides effective defense against threats which are most difficult for
conventional architectures, namely low apogee trajectory and high traffic threats.
Critical technical issues for the SBL element can be grouped into five areas: the
laser device; beam control; optics; acquisition, tracking, pointing, and fire control
(ATP/FC); and high power integration. The laser or beam generating device is a hydrogen
fluoride chemical laser which produces the high power laser beam by photon extraction
from excited HF molecules, generated by the energetic reaction of hydrogen and fluorine.
In 1990 and 1991, the Alpha program demonstrated near-weapon-level continuous-wave
operation. The Alpha design is space compatible and directly scalable to weapon-level
power requirements. Required beam control technology was demonstrated by the LODE
program in 1987. Required optical technology can be subdivided into two classes: small
high-incident-power optics for handling the high power beam within the SBL and large
moderate-incident-power optics for directing the expanded high power beam toward the
target. Required small high-power optics have been demonstrated in a number of SBL
programs, including Alpha. The LAMP program, completed in 1989, demonstrated a 4meter diameter beam director primary mirror whose design is space compatible and directly
scalable to weapon size. ATP/FC technology to meet SBL AIP/FC requirements is being
3-22

developed in project number 1305. High power integration is being demonstrated in a
stepwise fashion through the Alpha and LAMP Integration (ALI) and Star LITE programs.
In ALI, the Alpha, LODE, and LAMP hardware and technologies are being integrated for
an end-to-end (save ATP/FC) ground demonstration of an SBL in the early FY95 time
frame. In Star LITE, ALI hardware and designs will be integrated with an A TP suite and a
spacecraft, and launched for an end-to-end space demonstration of a weapon-scalable SBL
against thrusting targets in late FY97. In parallel, a number of laboratory efforts are
developing additional promising technologies for defense against robust far-term threats.
These efforts include low absorptance optical coatings that may permit the use of uncooled
optics throughout the optical train, shoner wavelength lasers that may achieve equivalent
range performance with a smaller diameter beam director mirror, molecular (rather than
mechanical) methods for compensation of beam aberrations to produce the required beam
quality, optical train designs that would permit retargeting over larger angles by tilting a
lightweight, small-diameter mirror rather than pointing the entire telescope, and
manufacturing techniques for improving the producibility and decreasing the cost of large
optics.
The Star LITE experiment will demonstrate the readiness of the SBL to enter into
EMD. An initial operational capability for the SBL could be achieved early in the next
decade.
PROJECT TITLE:
PROGRAM ELEMENT:
1303- Neutral Particle Beam Technology
The Neutral Particle Beam (NPB) project exploits the capability of a stream of
atomic particles to penetrate into a target 1) to provide lethal energies and/or 2) to induce
signatures that permit discrimination. Such a beam is capable of effecting kill of ballistic
missiles in the boost, post-boost, and midcourse phases. The NPB project has a
technology development segment, a ground-based technology integration segment, and a
space experiments segment Together, these segments address the key technical and
system issues associated with the feasibility of deploying an NPB system capable of lethal
intercept as well as midcourse discrimination. The technology development segment
concentrates on developing enabling technologies for the ground and space experiments
and initially deployable NPB systems. In the ground-based integration experiments, the
Accelerator Test Stand (AIS) was used to integrate and test low energy components; the
Ground Test Accelerator (GTA) is the primary test bed for initial NPB system development
and also for advanced technologies such as high brightness ion sources, advanced
neutralizer development, and Acquisition, Tracking, Pointing and Fire Control (ATP/FC);
and the Continuous Wave Deuterium Demonstrator (CWDD) examines high duty factor and
deuterium operation at low energies. The NPB space experiments include Beam
Experiments Aboard Rocket (BEAR) flown in July 1989, which addressed basic space
operability issues, and Far-field Optics eXperiment (FOX), an orbital experiment which
will address key NPB issues that cannot be tested on the ground.
3-23
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

PROJECT TITLE;
1304- Nuclear Directed Energy Technology
PROGRAM ELEMENT;
PRO IECT DESCRIPTION;

Nuclear Directed Energy Weapon (NDEW) concepts offer the promise of
fundamental improvements in defense technology, including high brightness, large lethal
volume, multiple simultaneous target engagement, and alternative lethality mechanisms.
Development of NDEWs is being pursued to provide a base of knowledge concerning such
weaponry that would permit the U.S. to better judge potential Soviet capabilities, and to
provide the basis for a ground-based or pop-up U.S. NDEW capability should it be needed
at some point for Strategic Defense System (SDS) follow-on phases. The NDEW research
path is focused on a program of theoretical and computational development in concert with
underground nuclear tests and related laboratory experiments. A DoD and DoE cooperative
program is conducting mission analyses as well as exploring systems engineering
concerns.
Technical capabilities are being developed within this project to enable extremely
precise measurements of high performance coatings on mirrors employed in high-energy
laser weapon systems. This work supports development and validation of hardened
coatings for space laser systems.
PROJECT TITLE;
1305 - Acquisition, Tracking, Pointing
and Fire Control Technology
PROGRAM ELEMENI;
PRO.IECT DESCRIP'fiON;
Acquisition, tracking, pointing, and fire control (ATP/FC) efforts will advance the
technologies required to perform critical functions for all candidate DEW concepts to be
used in GPALS follow-on architectures. These functions include acquiring, identifying,
and prioritizing the targets to be engaged, precision tracking of each target, selecting and
establishing the line-of-sight to the target airnpoint, holding the beam on the airnpoint,
assessing the results, and reinitiating the sequence to engage a new target. A TP/FC
technologies are required for both boost-phase destruction and midcourse interactive
discrimination missions. Efforts within the ATP/FC technology base address major
tracking/pointing component performance issues, and the development of technologies for
advanced A IP/FC experiments through the Advanced DEW Active Precision Tracker
(ADAPT) program. Studies are in progress to define experiments that integrate A TP/FC
with weapon concept experiments in both the space based laser and NPB projects. A series
of field experiments with payloads on high altitude balloon platforms will build upon the
RME pointing and stabilization achievements to demonstrate all the tracking and functional
integration needed to control single target engagements. The pace of ATP-FC development
is planned to support an advanced technology demonstration of a directed energy weapon
concept in the late 1990s, which could lead to an initial operational capability early in the
next decade.
3-24
I] ,
PROJECT TITI.E;
PROGRAM ELEMENT;
1307 - DE Demonstrations
0603217C - Other Follow-on Systems
Directed energy weapons will provide revolutionary capabilities for the next
decade's military systems. These "speed-of-light" weapons project lethal beams nearinstantaneously to distant targets, disabling and/or destroying them in seconds or less.
Examples of DE possibilities follow: (I) Worldwide full-time negation of strategic and
theater missiles early in boost phase with a constellation of space-based high-energy lasers.
This provides a hedge against the depressed trajectory; a solution for short timeline threats;
and, hard kill of chemical and biological threats -- even if delivered as clustered munitions - far from defended territory. Further, debris from the encounter does not attain orbit,
simplifying the acquisition and intercept problem for other layers of the defense.
(2) Robust interactive discrimination of warheads from decoys in midcourse using lasers
or neutral beams. The neutral beam offers the unique advantage of disrupting or disabling
electronics, resulting in mission failure and possibly devaluing salvage fusing.
(3) Worldwide full-time negation of strategic bombers and cruise missiles to the cloud
tops, and potentially complete air superiority, with space-based lasers. (4) Worldwide
full-time high resolution surveillance using the large telescopes and sophisticated sensors
aboard the DE weapon platforms. (5) Theater defense with surface-, air- and space-basing
of high-energy lasers. Proliferated mobile ground-based lasers can provide point or area
defense, and aircraft and space-based systems can negate missiles in the boost phase.
Within this project, directed energy weapon components are assembled to
demonstrate and assess their system performance in operational environments. The
objectives are to field near-term (3-4 year) experimental platforms at scales which can be
extrapolated with confidence to systems with operational capabilities.
PROJECT TITLE;
PROGRAM ELEMENT;
1403- Computer Engineering
This effort provides technologies required to develop a highly reliable space borne
multiprocessor computer architecture. This project consists of two technology tasks: An
Advanced Information Processing System (AlPS) able to meet reliability requirements; and
a Very High Speed Integrated Circuit (YHSIC) multiprocessor development effort. This
project results in a technology base for a radiation-hardened 32-bit computer, efficient
configuration of generic YHSIC Spaceborne Computer (GYSC), and other multiprocessor
computers.
PROJECT TITLE;
PROGRAM ELEMENT;
1405- Communications Engineering
Develop communications technology to support operational requirements for
defensive systems. Develop communications components, both radio frequency (RF) and
laser communications, for space-to-space, space-to-ground, and ground-to-space links.
Efforts to define requirements for space qualification and radiation hardness of extremely
high frequency (EHF) components needed for robust communications are included.
3-25
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

PRO.TECI TITLE:
PROGRAM ELEMENTS;
1501 - Survivability Technology
0603216C - Theater Missile Defenses

Theater Mjssi1e Pefenses
Develops and demonstrates survivabi1ity technologies to ensure that active TMD
elements can perform their mission in all expected environments. Approaches include:
studies/analyses, appropriate tests and demonstrations, and SEO development.
Technologies will be available for incorporation into active TMD elements at EMD.

Develops and demonstrates survivability technologies to ensure that National
Missile Defense (NMD) elements can perform their mission in all expected environments.
Approaches include: studies/analyses, Above-Ground and Under-Ground Testing
(AGTIUGT), Survivability Enhancement Option (SEO) Development, and operability
demonstrations. Technologies will be available for incorporation into NMD elements at
EMD.
Space-Based Interceptors
.
Develops and demonstrates survivability technologies to ensure that SBI elements
can perform their mission in all expected environments. The approach is AGTJUGT
demonstrations.
PROJECT TITLE;
PROGRAM ELEMENTS;
1502- Lethality and Target Hardening

PRO.TECT DESCRIPTION;
The Lethality of SDI and active TMD weapons is part of the measure of
effectiveness of how well SDI and active TMD systems fulfill defense mission
requirements. The Lethality and Target Hardening program is developing a necessary and
sufficient understanding of physical principles involved in weapon/target interaction, target
response and kill modes, and resulting signatures needed for interactive discrimination and
kill assessmenL
Each of the following tasks are interdependent because of the common physical
principles involved in the lethality technology, but have been programmed separately to
align the major program tasks with the SDI and active TMD elements.
Theater Missile Defenses
The TMD lethality task has similar requirements to the other tasks but specifically
addresses active TMD interceptors and theater threats. Theater threats include
conventional, chemical, biological, and nuclear warlieads. A common, validated lethality
criteria for a high confidence kill against any/all threat warheads is required. This lethality
criteria is developed in coordination with active TMD interceptor development, and the
lethality of the interceptors will be validated in cooperation with interceptor
demonstration/validation flight tests. Successful accomplishment of this task depends on
lethality technology development under the Other Follow-On Program ElemenL
3-26

Space-Based Interc!:lltors
Objective of the SBI lethality task is to develop validated lethality criteria for space
interceptors against all boost, post-boost, and midcourse threats. Primary lethality
technology emphasis is on target hit and damage assessment in demonstration/validation
flight tests and on lethality issues for space interceptor engagement of large multiple
warhead targets. This task was separated from the SDI Research and Support Program
element for FY 1992.
This task provides supporting lethality technology for developmental SDI groundbased interceptors (including theater defenses) and directed energy weapons. This
supporting lethality technology includes lethality phenomenology analyses and tests to
evaluate defense warhead and/or hit-to-kill effectiveness against simulated threat warheads.
Priority technology support is for active theater missile defense lethality issues against
potential chemical and biological threats.
PROJECT TITLE:
1503 - Power and Power Conditioning
PROGRAM ELEMENT:
This program was established to develop generation and conditioning technologies

capable of producing required quantities of electrical power needed by advanced groundand space-based kinetic/directed energy weapons and surveillance and BMJC3 systems that
might be deployed after the beginning of the twenty-first century. Power requirements for
the various SDIO payloads are divided into two broad categories: (I) baseload power for
surveillance, communication, and housekeeping applications; (2) burst power for weapons
and discrimination operations, and periodic testing. The nuclear power technologies
developed under this PE support the follow-on systems of SDIO and are characterized by
high power density requirements and the need for higher levels of passive survivability.
The major projects in this PE to satisfy these follow-on requirements are the Thermionic
Fuel Element (IFE) program, the Thermionic System Evaluation Test, and the Thermionic
Space Reactor System Design. Due to budget cuts, these nuclear power technology
programs have been modified and extended.
Research and Sumgt Activities
This program was established to develop generation and conditioning technologies

capable of producing required quantities of electrical power needed by advanced groundand space-based kinetic/directed energy weapons and surveillance and BM/C3 systems.
Power requirements for the various SDIO payloads are divided into two broad categories:
(1) baseload power for surveillance, communication, and housekeeping applications;
(2) burst power for weapons and discrimination operations, and periodic testing. General
categories in the program and major projects to satisfy program requirements include:
baseload power (Survivable Solar Power Subsystem Demonstrator-SUPER; advanced
solar technology; multi-megawatt technology generators, fuel cells, power conditioning),
and assessments and analyses. Due to budget cuts, the burst power and power
conditioning technology development programs have been stretched or terminated.
327
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

PROJECT TITLE;
PROGRAM EI.EMENTS;
1504- Materials and Structures


The Materials and Structures (M&S) Project conducts research, development and
flight and ground test demonstrations in lightweight structural materials, adaptive structures
technology, propulsion/ thermal/optical materials, tribomaterials, superconductor devices,
and space environmental effects.
Other follow-On Systems

Follow-On M&S projects focus on providing advance materials and structures
technologies to meet the extreme pointing and tracking, secure communications, and
enhanced discrimination requirements of near- and far-term GPALS systems as they mature
in development. To gain confidence in the ability of these systems to operate in the natural
and threat environments, requires system selected materials evaluations and adaptive
structure technologies. Superconducting devices will provide orders of magnitude
increased capabilities in secure communications and target discrimination.
Space Based lntexcc:ptors
M&S supports Space-Based Interceptor activities through the application of
advanced materials technologies to BP designs and orbital flight tests of advanced
materials. These efforts will provide for low earth orbit exposure of potential BP material
samples to the natural space environment. M&S technology will also be used to reduce
vibration through the application of improved active and passive damping materials for BP.
PROJECT TITLE;
PROGRAM EI.EMENTS;
1505- Launch Planning, Development and

Demonstration

Othc:r Follow-On Systems
Past launch failures, an outdated space transponation technology base, diminished
launch capacity, and high space transportation costs have seriously undermined America's
ability to access space. To economically meet the growing space launch requirements of
the 1990s and beyond, a system is needed which will provide low cost, reliable, high
capacity, and operationally flexible access to space. The objective of the Advanced Launch
Development Program is to provide a technology basis for a launch vehicle program to
begin in the late 1990s. Previous cost goals established for the Advanced Launch System
(ALS) program are still valid: A ten-fold reduction in the cost to deliver cargo to low earth
orbit as compared to the present cost of the Titan IV. In 1991, the ALS program was
restructured to the National Launch System (NLS) program. Activities focus on defining
appropriate vehicle concepts and propulsion and nonpropulsion technology
demonstrations. Funding responsibility for this project has been transferred to the USAF
and NASA.
Phase I
The 1988 Strategic Defense System (SDS) Defense Acquisition Board Annual
Review directed that the OSD perform a study to determine the most cost-effective
approach to meeting SDS launch requirements in concert with other national security launch
requirements. The study included all aspects of SDS deployment, maintenance, and
3-28

replenishment, as well as consideration of existing ranges and launch vehicles currently
available, and explored the possibility of using alternative launch sites or boosters. An
assessment of the capability of both production and launch facilities to support the required
deployments was made. Emphasis was placed on achieving minimum cost for deployment
of a Phase I SDS. A product of the launch study was a methodology which allows for
rapid cost estimation of launch costs for various SDS launch architectures. FY92 and
beyond funding is zero due to Congressional action and transfer of funds to other projects.
PRO IECT TITLE:
PROGRAM EI.EMENT;
1601 - Innovative Science and

Technology (IS&n
0603218C- Research and Support Activities
Explore innovative science and technology for several technologies of interest to
SDIO.
PROJECT TITLE;
PROGRAM ELEMENT;
1602- New Concepts Development
Explore innovative concepts pursuant to PL97-219 which mandates a two-phase
R&S competition for small businesses with innovative technologies.
PROJECT TITLE;
PROGRAM ELEMENT;
1701 - Launch Services
0603217C - Other Follow-on Systems
PROJECT DESCRIP'[ION;
Special Projects
Develop and deploy flight hardware to support accelerated test programs for emerging
specialized application technologies associated with OPALS. Plan and execute test
programs; collect and analyze data; and issue final reports as appropriate. Plan for and
conduct orbital insertion missions in support of other special test activities.
I.aunch Services - Low Cost Bi~:ht Test Servjces CLCFIS>
Defme, develop, and conduct fast-response, ground-based, pre-flight verification
and ballistic or space flight testing of unique concepts and high yield approaches for SDI
weapons, seekers, and targeting applications that might be deployed beyond the tum of the
century. Provide experienced launch and flight test teams including: launch services,
payload processing, payload integration, mission operations/planning, range
operations{mtegration, mission analysis, and test operations.
3-29
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

PRO IECT TITLE:
17CY2. - Special Test Activities
PROGRAM ELEMENT:
Develop accelerated test programs for emerging special application technologies.
Determine acquisition strategy. Acquire test systems and test equipment Plan and execute
test programs including on-orbit command, control, and validation of demonstration
payloads and resulting data collection.
Programs being accomplished under this effon include ZEST and the Single Stage
Rocket Technology Program (SSRTP), previously known as the Single Stage to Orbit
(SSTO). The SSRTP will focus on the development of technology for a reusable,
suborbital launch vehicle. The SSRTP program will design, develop, and validate a
reusable launch vehicle (either manned or unmanned) capable of airline-like operations to
augment existing space launch capability.
PROJECT TITLE;
2102- Space-Based Sensor (Brilliant Eyes)
PROGRAM ELEMENT;
The Brilliant Eyes (BE) system is a distributed constellation of space-based
surveillance sensor satellites which suppon the battle managemenrJC3 and weapons of the
OPALS architecture. BE satellites carry a suite of passive sensors including shon,
medium, and long wavelength infrared (SWIR, MWIR, and LWIR) and visible sensors.
These sensors can acquire against small "hot spot" surface areas, track, and discriminate
strategic and longer-range tactical ballistic missiles. BE suppons National Missile Defense
(NMD) and active Theater Missile Defense (fMD).
BE target track and discrimination data suppon battle planning and execution for
midcourse intercepts. This data includes weapon target assignments, target updates,
discrimination target maps to the interceptors shortly before intercept, and kill assessments
of midcourse intercepts. In suppon of active TMD, BE provides launch point
determination for counterforce, impact point prediction for passive defense, and accurate
target track for active defense.
This constellation of satellites provides global access, both below-the-horizon
(BTH) and above-the-horizon (ATH), of tactical and strategic ballistic missiles in their
boost, post-boost, and midcourse phases.
The concept of operations for BE consists of two primary modes. The first is a
"hot spot" surveillance mode. The BE sensors constantly survey a predesigned, limited
area of the Earth's surface, such as a theater of operations or a missile field. In this mode,
BE sensors acquire the boosters and continue tracking through the midcourse phase with
internal handover among the different sensors. The second mode of operation is used in
the case of a ballistic missile launch that occurs outside the limited number of predesignated
surveillance areas. The BE sensors receive a track handover from Brilliant Pebbles or other
boost surveillance sensors, such as DSP or FEWS. BE sensors then acquire the boosters
and continue tracking through the midcourse phase.
J.Jo

The major technical issues being addressed by this program include: (1) software
validation and performance utilizing SDIO test beds (Surveillance Test bed and National
Testbed); (2) distributed surveillance, sensor fusion, and sensor taskings utilizing computer
simulations and flight demonstrations; (3) sensor acquisition, tracking, and discrimination
performance with simulated and actual backgrounds utilizing ground and flight
demonstrations; (4) technology maturity and performance through analyses, hardware in
the loop ground tests, and flight demonstrations; 5) weapon support capacity and loading
utilizing analyses and hardware-in-the-loop ground tests; and 7) producibility
demonstrations utilizing analogy to current systems and engineering models and simulation
of critical components.
The test program for BE includes computer simulations, ground demonstrations,
and flight demonstrations to collect data and demonstrate the technical maturity of the BE
program for a Milestone II decision in mid 1990s. Technology maturity could support a
BE deployment early in the first decade of the next century.
The BE project is expected to begin the Engineering, Manufacturing, Development
phase (formerly Full Scale Development) by 1998.
PRO IECT TITLE;
PROGRAM ELEMENT;
2103- Ground-Based Surveillance

and Tracking System
The primary role of the Ground-Based Surveillance and Tracking System (GSTS)
is to provide an option for interim cueing of GBis at the initial site, prior to deployment of
Brilliant Eyes. The current NMD architecture optical sensor requirements are met by the
Brilliant Eyes (BE) program
The GSTS concept is composed of ground equipment and a launchable, long
wavelength infrared (LWIR) sensor system. The sensor system is boosted into suborbital
flight by a ground-based, fast response rocket to provide above the horizon surveillance to
detect and track attacking ballistic missiles in the midcourse. Once in space, the GSTS
sensor will provide object data to the ground segment where engagement planning
operations will provide weapon tasking and inflight targeting support GSTS will provide
surveillance data to the Command and Control Element (C2E) for situation and kill
assessment
GSTS funding includes work being performed to develop SDIO sensor test
capabilities at Arnold Engineering Development Center (AEDC). Two existing sensor test
chambers at AEDC are being upgraded, the 7Y chamber and the lOY chamber. The 7Y
chamber will be used principally for seeker testing (such as GBI and BP seekers), and for
calibration of surveillance sensors (such as GSTS and BE). The lOY chamber will be used
to perform end-to-end functional and performance characterization and testing of
surveillance sensors. These ground test capabilities are required for GSTS and BE, as well
as providing support for other SDIO programs.
3-31
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

PROJECT TITLE:
2104- Ground-Based Radar
PROGRAM ELEMENTS;
NMD-GBR is the strategic member of the SDIO "Family of Radars" and consists of
deployed radars (NMD-GBR) and a single DEM/VAL radar (GBR-n. The other member
of the "Family" is the theater radar (IMD-GBR) described below.
Theater Mjssi!e Defenses- Ground-Based Radar CfMD-GBRl
The TMD-GBR meets an immediate requirement for a more capable active theater
missile defense radar. The TMD-GBR utilizes current GBR technology. Required
functions include attack early warning, threat type classification, launch/ impact point
estimation, threat classification against theater/tactical ballistic missiles. The TMD-GBR
will have fire control suppon capabilities against tactical ballistic missiles and residual
capability against cruise missiles and other air breathing threats.
The TMD-GBR project is expected to begin the Engineering Manufacturing
Development phase (formerly Full Scale Development) in 1996.
Limited Defense System- National Missile Defense Ground-Based Radar <NMD-QBR>
NMD-GBR is required to detect, acquire, and track RVs from accidental or
unauthorized limited strikes from ICBMS, SLBMs, or MRBMs. The NMD-GBR suppons
the Ground-Based Interceptor (GBO in exoatmospheric engagements. The NMD-GBR can
operate autonomously or can use range extending cueing suppon from other space and/or
ground based Early Warning Systems (EWS) sensors. The NMD-GBR will also provide
precision tracking, launch point prediction and signaV data processing for
exoatmospheric/endoatmospheric discrimination and classification in suppon of the Ground
Based Interceptor (OBI). The GBR-T DEMJVAL radar will provide the Functional Test
Validation (FTV) of the NMD-GBR at the USAKA national range.
The NMD-GBR project is expected to begin the Engineering, Manufacturing,
Development phase (formerly Full Scale Development) by CY 1996.
Family ofRadm Design Concent
The design and fabrication of the TMD-GBR and the NMD-GBR will be based
upon the family of modular X-Band radars concept derived from the GBR-X radar
program conducted 1986-1991. A common antenna module serves as the radar apenure
building block for the "family of radars". The radar transmitter, receiver, signal processor,
data processor, and software have significant commonality. The transmitter (power) and
apenure are sized to the radar range requirements.
PROJECT TIII.E;
2106 - Advanced Contingency Theater Sensor
PROGRAM ELEMENJS;
PRO IECI DESCRIPTION;

The purpose of this project is to demonstrate near-term TMD sensor upgrades and
technologies with potential application to Theater Missile Defense (IMD). These
demonstrations provide near-term sensor alternatives that address critical TMD sensor
3-32

needs. These improvements are accomplished through block upgrades to existing sensor
systems and/or the inttoduction of new technologies.
This project includes the TMD Experiments Program (previously Project Number
1205) which consists of the Advanced Contingency Theater Sensor (ACI'S), Patriot
Remote Launch Demonstration; Tactical Surveillance Demonstration (TSD); Passive Sensor
System II (PSS II); Multi-function Electronically Scanned Adaptive Radar (MESAR); and
the Expert Missile Tracker (EMT). Additional sensor development will include processing
of space sensor data; the RAPTOR high-altitude, long endurance airborne platform; and
another round of invite, show, and test experiments.
Space-Based Interceptors
This project provides collateral spin-off technology from the RAPTOR program that
is applicable to the Brilliant Pebbles program.
PROJECT TITLE:
2201 - Space-Based Interceptor
PROGRAM ELEMENT:
The earlier Space-Based Interceptor program, under the old Phase I architecture,
was directed at resolving the technical issues for various space-based interceptor concepts.
Brilliant Pebbles has replaced SBI as the space-based tier of OPALS, and SBI will be
terminated when Martin Marietta completes its hardware development and integration and
hover testing. However, certain previously planned SBI tests have been continued because
they have the potential to provide components for the Ground-Based Interceptor (OBI)
reducing overall OBI risk.
PROJECT TITLE:
2202- Ground-Based Exoatrnospheric
Interceptor Development
,..I
I
I
,,..
I
I
i ,..I
I
I
PROGRAM ELEMENT;
0603215C c Limited Defense System
I
PRO.JECT DESCRIPTION:
The objective of the Ground-Based Interceptor (OBI) development effort is to
develop and deploy a ground-launched exoatmospheric interceptor designed for hit-to-kill
(non-nuclear) intercepts of Intercontinental Ballistic Missile (ICBM) and Submarine
Launched Ballistic Missile reentry vehicles (RVs) in the midcourse of their trajectories.
Midcourse sensors will acquire, track, and pass threat cluster information to the Command
and Control Element, which will cue the interceptors and provide updates if they are
available. Using onboard sensors, the interceptors will acquire the threat cluster and select
the RV. The deployment will be as directed in the 1991 Missile Defense Act.
3-33
'
I~
I I
II
I~
. I
OBI work is separated into four tasks: (1) ERIS Functional Technology Validation
(FTV), (2) Exoatmospheric Test Bed Payload Launch Vehicle (XTB/PLV), (3) OBI
DEMIYAL Activities, and (4) Initial NMD Interceptor.
Task 1. The ERIS FTV effort consists of a series of 2 exoatmospheric interceptor
experiments to validate the concept of intercept of an RV in the presence of decoys. The
first flight test mission was flown in FY91 and was highly successful. The second mission
was attempted in May 1991 but was aborted due to anomalous target trajectory data. It has
been rescheduled for FY92.
I,
'
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

Task 2. The XTB/PLV effort will ensure that the $100M investment made at
US AKA in support of the FfV program will not be lost, and that the experience gained by
the launch support personnel is retained for subsequent testing at USAKA. Early OBI
flight tests planned to support the initial National Missile Defense deployment will utilize
the XTB/PLV launch facilities and services until the OBI booster is developed. Brilliant
Pebbles will also use the launch services for suborbital tests.
Task 3. Selected OBI technologies from the program OBI DEM/VAL Activities
will be transferred to SDIO(fechnology to support the development of an advanced
discriminating interceptor. The remaining efforts under the existing OBI DEM/VAL
contracts will be downscoped to support an NMD interceptor developmentProgram
Task 4. A full and open competition is contemplated, with contracts to be awarded
in FY92 or FY93 that will support a later deployment decision for the initial NMD
interceptor.
The OBI project is expected to begin the Engineering Manufacturing Development
PRO IECT TITLE:
PROGRAM ELEMENTS;
2203- HEDI (Endo/Exoatmospheric

Interceptor (E2I))

The Theater Missile Defenses program element is funding a portion of the KITE-2a
flight test, as the data collected in this test will be beneficial to active TMD interceptor
efforts, particularly to Arrow, 1HAAD and Navy far-term interceptor designs.
The concept for performing the High Endoatmospheric Defense Interceptor (HEDI)
mission is the Endo-Exoatmospheric Interceptor (E2I) which operates primarily during the
reentry phase of attacking ballistic missile trajectories. It is designed to engage
Intercontinental Ballistic Missile (ICBM) and depressed Submarine-Launched Ballistic
Missile (SLBM) attacks.
While previously a separate program, in the future the E21 effort will be developed
as a potential Block upgrade to the Ground Based Interceptor (OBI) for inclusion in the
ground based tier for OPALS. It was in competition with the OBI (midcourse option); the
decision was made to select OBI for the initial NMD interceptor. Therefore the E2I
DEM/Val contract awards will not be made. The endoatmospheric interceptor research
efforts will continue under SDIO technology.
The primary E2I activity is a technology demonstration effort called the Kinetic
Energy Kill Vehicle Integrated Technology Experiment (KITE) with the objective of
resolving key technical issues through intensive ground and flight testing of a 300kg kill
vehicle. KITE-I was an extremely successful flight in January 1990 at White Sands
Missile Range (WSMR). The second KITE flight in August 1991 at WSMR ended 0.2
seconds into flight when the self-destruct system engaged prematurely. In May 1992,
KITE-2a will provide critical aero-optic measurements of blur induced by the forebody and
window coolant flow and measurement of the refraction caused by the hypersonic shock
3-34

wave. These cannot be measured in ground testing. This data is critical to both ATBM as
well as ABM interceptors and has shared funding between the TMD and LDS line
elements.
This effon is unfunded in FY93. However, depending on funding and the results
of KITE-2a, a KITE-3 test flight may be conducted in FY93. The KITE-3 integrated
mission would intercept an RV with Patriot conducting an underlay intercept of a replica.
PROJECT TITLE;
PROGRAM ELEMENT;
2204 - DEW Concept Definition
PROJECT DESCRIP'fiON;
DEWs are being developed as advanced weapons systems for possible integration
into a follow-on to the OPALS. DEW Concept Definition effons will establish and
maintain concept performance requirements and technical characteristics that are traceable to
the requirements of the evolving GPALS architecture. This work will include development
and analysis of alternate system designs, definition of weapon platform subsystem
performance requirements, critical technology issues identification, technology program
plan development, and theoretical analyses. A data base will also be developed to allow
timely preparation and revision of System Concept Papers (SCPs)/Decision Coordinating
Papers (DCPs) and Test and Evaluation Master Plans (TEMPs). The data base will provide
the basis for technology development and demonstration plans. H executed, these would
furnish the technology base and requisite demonstrations to resolve critical DEW issues on
a scale sufficient to establish confident extrapolation to weapons level performance.
fRO IECT TITLE:

2205 - Brilliant Pebbles (BP)
fROGRAM ELEMENT;
PROJECT DESCRIPIION;
The Space-Based Interceptor (SBI) Program Element (PE) is a research effon to
develop promising follow-on anti-ballistic missile technologies. Project 2205 within this
PE funds the Brilliant Pebbles (BP) program. BP is an element of the Global Missile
Defense (GMD) program, which in tum, is one segment of the Global Protection Against
Limited Strikes (OPALS) ballistic missile defense system. The BP program is directed
toward demonstrating and validating a system concept that defeats both theater and strategic
ballistic missiles with ranges greater than approximately 500 kilometers in normal flight
trajectory--or about 800 km for depressed trajectories, whatever their source or destination
on the globe, in their boost, postboost, and midcourse phases of flighL The product of the
BP program will be a system that consists of space, ground, and launch components. The
space component is comprised of singlet interceptors and their associated "life jacket"
carrier vehicles.
The interceptor is a light-weight, kinetic, hit-to-kill vehicle that incorporates

sensors, guidance control, battle management, and an axial propulsion stage. It possesses
high-rate attitude control, onboard data processing, navigation, and diven propulsion
capabilities. Each life jacket provides on-orbit power, low-rate attitude control,
surveillance, communication, thermal control, navigation, and survivability. The ground
component provides "man-in-the-loop" positive control of the BP constellation. The
launch component is used to place the deployment package of BP singlets into space and
operational orbits.
3-35
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

The objectives of the current BP Pre-EMD phase include: finalizing the BP System
Concept, demonstrating and validating the system design concept; developing and
implementing a comprehensive risk management/mitigation program; and conducting the
necessary trade-offs to balance performance, producibility, operability, supportability,
affordability, and schedule requirements. Specific technical issues to be resolved during
Pre-EMD include demonstrating: target acquisition, discrimination, and tracking; BP endgame intercept performance and flyout guidance performance; station-keeping adequacy;
singlet and life jacket performance; communication systems; computers and software;
survivability; launch system/payload integration; and linkages with the element command
center. These demonstrations will be performed through a combination of: Treatycompliant orbital and suborbital flight testing, ground and underground testing, hover tests,
"hardware-in-the-loop" testing, detailed simulations, and technical analyses. Overall risk
assessment for Pre-EMD is low to moderate.
The BP concept evolved from key component technology efforts conducted by
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL). These results were passed to industry
for technical advancement and testing. LLNL will continue to provide advice to both the
industry contractors and the government task force.
The BP project is expected to begin the Engineering, Maufacturing, Development
PRO.TECI TITLE;
22CJ7 - Patriot Multimode Missile
PROGRAM ELEMENT;
0604225C - Engineering Manufacturing
Development
Patriot is a long-range, mobile, field Army and Corps air-defense system, which
uses guided missiles to simultaneously engage and destroy multiple targets at varying
ranges. Current threat theater ballistic missiles (TBMs) with significantly improved range
and accuracy have increased the threat against Patriot air-defense sites and defended assets.
This could result in the destruction of air-defense sites and provide the enemy air
superiority once an attack is initiated. The current Patriot missile requires improved
performance and increased accuracy to counter the evolving threat and to increase its
contribution to the lower tier of the theater segment of a Global Protection Against Limited
Strikes (OPALS) system. The Multimode Missile Program will incorporate a multimode
seeker into the Patriot missile which will enable fuze/guidance integration and create the
potential for using directed or focused blast warheads. Repackaging the Patriot guidance
section with an active seeker will provide smaller miss distances at extended ranges and
eliminate a potential rate saturation problem. The multimode guidance capability will
provide the accuracy needed to counter the advanced, high-speed TBM threats as well as
the low RCS, long-range targets in all operational environments.
The cornerstone of US and allied air defense, the Patriot was fielded in 1983 as a
theater defense weapon system to counter the air-breathing threat In 1988, this all-altitude,
all-weather interceptor was improved to acquire, identify, track, engage, and destroy
incoming TBMs. The Patriot anti-tactical missile capability (PAC) consisted of
modifications to the system software (PAC-I) and to the missile warhead and fuse
assembly (PAC-2). These improvements provided Patriot with a self-defense capability
during Operation Desen Storm. The PAC-2 capability, deployed in January, 1991,
extended the fire unit corollary asset defense capability.
3-36
1'
PROJECT TITLE:
2208 - Extended Range Interceptor (ERINl)
PBOGRAM ELEMENT;
0604225C - Engineering Manufacturing
Development
The purpose of this project is to fund both the DemonstrationN alidation
(DEM/VAL) and Engineering Manufacturing Development (EMD) of the Extended Range
Interceptor (ERINT-1) Technology Program. This technology program is being
considered as a potential adjunct to several systems in the theater segment of the Global
Protection Against Limited Strikes (GPALS) system.
The ERINT-1 will demonstrate a small, agile, hit-to-kill missile that will provide an
asset defense against incoming maneuvering and non-maneuvering TBMs. A secondary
objective of the Program is to provide defense against the air-breathing threat The missile
combines several state-of-the-art technologies, including an onboard active millimeter wave
seeker that provides endgame guidance, advanced flight control technologies for agility in
terminal maneuvers, lethality enhancement technologies, and a lightweight composite case
solid rocket motor. The ERINT has been designed to integrate easily with existing air
defense capabilities such as Patriot, and is a technology capable of integration into the Navy
AEGIS weapon system.
The ERINT Program will undergo a series of eight flight tests during FY1992-93.
Results from these tests, from accompanying simulation and other analyses, and from
ongoing acquisition planning, analysis, and trade studies being performed by US Army
organizations will be used to establish the ERINT acquisition strategy. On the basis of
ERINT test results, high fidelity simulations, and cost and operational effectiveness, the
U.S. Army and SDIO will determine the future acquisition strategy.
PROJECT TITLE;
2209 - Arrow Continuation Experiments
(ACES)
PROGRAM ELEMENT;
The ACES Program is a US-Israeli initiative designed to provide Israel with a basis
for an informed EMD decision for an area tactical ballistic missile defense capability. This
Program is a follow-on demonstration phase for Arrow interceptor development Critical
lethality tests will be conducted in the initial phase of this program using the Arrow-!
missile developed during the Arrow program. An Arrow-2 missile will be designed and
tested for an increased engagement envelope. If successful, the Arrow-2 will satisfy the
Israeli requirement for an interceptor for population defense and will support US
technology base requirements for new advanced anti-tactical ballistic missile technologies
that_could be incorporated into the GPALS layered defense system.
PROJECT TITLE;
2210-THAAD
PROGRAM ELEMENT;
The THAAD system is a key element of the GPALS architecture and will provide
large area coverage in both mature and contingency theaters. THAAD will engage
3-37
I
.I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

tacticaVtheater ballistic missiles at high altitudes which minimizes debris and
chemicaVnuclear damage. TIIAAD will be interoperable with US Air Defense Systems,
space-based sensors and NATO systems. TIIAAD will complement lower tier defenses
such as Patriot and Corps SAM.
The TIIAAD element includes missiles, launchers, BM/C3 units, and support
equipment The TIIAAD BM/C3 units will be compatible with the battalion air defense
Tactical Operations Centers (TOCs) to enable communication to higher and lower echelons.
The Theater Missile Defense Ground-Based Radar (TMD-GBR) element will provide fire
control and surveillance for TIIAAD as well as for other active TMD systems. The
TIIAAD element, combined with the TMD-GBR element forms the THAAD System. The
THAAD system will be C-141 transportable and will utilize existing standard government
power systems. Furthermore, the potential for adapting the THAAD system in a cost and
operationally effective manner for a sea-based defense is being considered.
The TIIAAD Dem/Val program will include building a prototype "battery" called the
User Operational Evaluation System (UOES). It will consist of 40 missiles with launchers,
2 BM/C3 units, 2 GFE TMD-GBRs, and support equipment The UOES will be used for
early operational assessment but also has the potential to be deployed during a national
emergency. This approach provides near-term improved active TMD capability and lowers
the risk of subsequent phases of the acquisition cycle. The objective system will be fielded
in the 2000 time frame.
The TIIAAD project is expected to begin the Engineering, Manufacturing,
Development phase (formerly Full Scale Development) by 1996.
PROJECT TITLE;
PROGRAM ELEMENT;
2212 - Corps Surface-to-Air Missile
0603216C-Theater Missile Defenses
PROJECT DESCRifiiON;
Corps SAM is a OPALS MDAP program. The program will lead to the
development of a strategically deployable, tactically mobile, low- to medium-altitude air and
ballistic missile defense system that will support deployed Corps, contingency operations,
and rapid reinforcing missions. The near-term effort is focused on Concept Definition
activities directed towards establishment of a range of requirements for a Corps SAM
system and identification/evaluation of concepts that will most likely satisfy these
requirements. Corps SAM will be optimized for operation in the context of the Army's
AirLand Operations doctrine as it applies in both mature and contingency theaters. Its
distributed/netted architecture and module components will allow the unit to be taskorganized and the equipment configured according to the array of expected air and missile
threats, available strategies, and acceptable level of risk and cost The system will provide
area and point defense capabilities against both TBM and air-breathing threats compatible
with strategic deployability and tactical mobility. Corps SAM will be an integrated part of
the overall Air Defense/active Theater Missile Defense architecture. As such, it will be
compatible/interoperable with other Army air defense systems (i.e, TIIAAD, Patriot,
FAAD) and will interface with joint and allied sensors and BM/C3I networks. Concept
studies will include both Government and contractor efforts to perform cost, schedule, and
performance trade-<>ffs and evaluation of system level concepts. Operational analyses will
be conducted to evaluate the impact of various concepts/requirements on missions, force
structure, and system effectiveness. A program baseline will be established for Milestone I
3-38

approval that defines cost, schedule, and performance objectives as well as an acquisition
strategy designed to meet these objectives.
The Program is also investigating possible international interest in the cooperative
development of Corps SAM.
The Corps SAM project is expected to begin the Engineering, Manufacturing,
PRO IECT TITLE;
2300 - Command Center
PROGRAM ELEMENT;
0603215- Limited Defense System
Global Protection Against Limited Strike (OPALS) system surveillance and
engagement activities are coordinated and controlled by the Command and Control Element
(C2E). C2E is a distributed system of facilities, equipment, software/algorithms,
communications, personnel, and procedures that support centralized command and control
and decentralized execution of Ballistic Missile Defense thus maintaining human control of
the system at all times. The C2E is comprised of five sub-elements: Ballistic Missile
Defense Operations Center and Cell (BMDOC and BMDC), RegionaVElement Operations
Centers (ROC/EOC), the Command and Control Network (C2N), the Communications
Network Management (CNM), and Battle Management (BM). Management of three
functional areas, Command and Control, Communications and Battle Management, will
implement the responsibilities of the C2E through an evolutionary acquisition approach.
Command and Control includes the specification, design, fabrication, and test of a
Command and Control capability to demonstrate OPALS system ballistic missile defense
requirements for human-in-control. This will be accomplished through a series of
hardware and software development blocks that incrementally increase system functionality
and performance. The development of decision aid hardware and software in conjunction
with command and control gaming to validate and refine the command and control
processes, procedures, and responsiveness is the initial focus.
Communications involves the development and integration of the C2N which
consists of the Terrestrial Communications Network (TCN) and the Space
Communications Network (SCN). This also involves evaluation of existing capabilities
and off-the-shelf components. The Communications Network Management (CNM)
capability will also be developed using a similar approach. Common Communications
Components (COM3) is a development action that will implement an inter-operable
communications network for OPALS.
Battle Manuement addresses the area of automated control. It includes the
automated functions that support inter-element interaction for control of weapons and
sensors and is resident on (and tailored to) every system element. The objective is to
establish battle management functional definitions to ensure that the multiple OPALS
elements execute a single, coordinated defense.
The technologies required for EMD are sufficiently mature to support the
implementation of Evolutionary Acquisition. Focusing on off-the-shelf capabilities reduces
schedule and technical risk, and allows hardware/software testing to begin earlier than
3-39
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

would normally be expected. This also accommodates deployment responsibilities of the
C2E as required by the MDA 1991.
The Command Center project is expected to begin the Engineering, Manufacturing,
PROJECT TITLE:
PROGRAM ELEMENT:
2304 - System Software Engineering
PROJECT PESCRIPTION:
OPALS will require adaptive, fault-tolerant, reliable, trusted software that must be
developed, integrated, and tested across multiple systems and developers. This project will
provide the capability to specify, develop, acquire, integrate, test, and maintain software
for SDIO. Research and development efforts underway to achieve these capabilities
include proof-of-concept demonstrations; tools and methods analysis; software code
prototyping; laboratory experiments; software contractor evaluations; and various analyses,
investigations, and reports. Proof-of-concept demonstrations of formal methods for
software development, demonstrating the production of code to Trust Level five, are
expected during FY96. Build One of the SDI Software Engineering Support Environment
(SESE) is scheduled for completion in FY93 with subsequent builds completed in FY94
and FY95. Efforts continue in the research and development of parallel processing
technologies. Standards, products, tools, and methodologies developed under this activity
apply to all SDI Element software development efforts and will provide the basis for
coordinated and successful SDI software development, integration, and testing efforts.
PROJECT TITLE:
PROGRAM ELEMENT;
3102 - System Engineering
The Systems Engineering and Integration Contractor (SEIC) addresses architecture
definition requirements analysis and system defmition of the OPALS system and elements
that are within the system. The SEIC provides risk assessment and trade studies to
optimize and balance the system. Trade studies will be performed for mission analysis,
discrimination, technical performance, cost analyses, and technology insertion. The
systems engineering and integration task requires planning and participation in integrated
testing and identification and resolution of key Demonstration/Validation (DEMNAL)
issues. An important task of the SEIC is to ensure a rationale growth path exists for
incremental deployment of the OPALS capability.
The SEIC is responsible for examination and analysis of the Threat, as derived
from the Systems Threat Assessment Report (STAR), as a basis for system definition and
analysis. The SEIC identifies, defines, and decomposes the functions and interrelationships of OPALS. The definition and decomposition process is developed to a level
of detail permitting unique element function/performance requirements allocations and the
definition of the interfaces between individual elements. Key DEM/VAL issues identified
in the requirements definition process are allocated to data, demonstrations, and simulations
and are generated for areas identified as low confidence to facilitate an informed Milestone
II decision. As part of the demonstrations during DEMNAL, this project will support the
design and development of the Command Center ElemenL This includes designing the
3-40
r
I
'
related functions including selection of algorithms, communication network concepts,

processors, and software.
The SEIC performs support task requirements for active Theater Missile Defense
(TMD) by providing the resources necessary to accomplish the integration and balancing
tasks to: (l) integrate the TMD segment into OPALS, (2) integrate Strategic Sensors and
space-based OPALS elements with active TMD, (3) integrate and balance SDIO and
Service active TMD activities, and (4) define interfaces to the theater C3 structure.
The SEIC will support the requirements definition and integration of Global Missile
Defense overlay and early deployment of a National Missile Defense that will protect the
United States from limited attack by FY96.
PRO IECT TITLE:
PROGRAM ELEMENT;
3103- SDIO Metrology

The Metrology effort was previously started in Projects 3104 and 3105 and is
presently in progress at National Institute of Science and Technology facilities in
Gaithersburg, MD, and Boulder, CO. This project addresses the identification and
development of critical measurement standards, unique to SDIO requirements, which are
inadequate or non-existent at the U.S. National level. These standards will provide the
legal and scientific basis for measurement of performance of SDIO system parameters.
PROJECT TITLE;
PROGRAM ELEMENT;
3104- Integrated Logistics Support
The Integrated Logistics Support (ILS) project addresses the identification and
quantification of the essential elements of a Global Protection Against Limited Strikes
(OPALS) support system. It identifies the basic supportability costs, schedule,
performance, and support technology drivers in each SDI project to ensure the minimum
cost of ownership and maximum effectiveness of the GPALS system.
PROJECT TITLE;
3105 - Producibility and Manufacturing
This project will identify producibility and manufacturing risks associated with the
new technologies and designs being proposed for Global Protection Against Limited
Strikes (OPALS) and will coordinate and implement a structured, unified approach to risk
reduction and mitigation of common producibility and manufacturing issues.
The apJUPach jnyolyes the following four efforts:
1. Manufacturing Strategy Development This effort develops and implements a
capstone Strategic Defense System Manufacturing Strategy (based on the revised
DoDD 5000.1, DoDI 5000.2) providing leadership and direction as the Elements
3-41
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

and Systems Engineer develop their manufacturing strategies. This strategy
development will flow down to the Element Contractors and subcontractor levels.
2. Industrial Resource Analyses. Analyses and Risks of the shortfalls of
industry's capability to manufacture key element design technologies.
3. Initiating critical producibility programs with industry in a number of highpriority areas to complement ongoing technology or Element producibility and
manufacturing efforts.
4. Manufacturing Operations Development and Integration Laboratories
(MODILs). MODILs serve to address and ultimately mitigate high producibility
risks. This involves accelerating the development, integration, and introduction of
modem, cost-effective manufacturing technologies into the design and the industrial
base using existing national resources (government labs, industry, academia).
These efforts combine to assure that commitment and emphasis will be placed on
risk reduction and design-for-manufacturability during the appropriate design or
development phase.
PROJECT TITLE:
3107 - Environment, Siting, and Facilities
PROGRAM ELEMENT:
Provide environmental impact analysis documentation and facility acquisition
support for the SDIO systems and technical development projects. Plan, program, budget
and monitor facility acquisition of Military Construction projects. Provide guidance and
prepare Environmental Assessments and Environmental Impact Statements, as applicable,
for SDIO technology demonstrations and test and evaluation activities. Develop guidance
for Executing Agents on facility acquisition and environmental matters.
PROJECT TITLE;
3108 - Operational Environments
PROGRAM ELEMENT;
PROJECT DESCRIPJION:
The purpose of this project is to identify, integrate, coordinate, and resolve natural
and nuclear environmental issues. The program will focus on characterizing natural,
debris, and nuclear environments from a systems perspective. DoD and DoE programs
will be reviewed to identify specific areas where additional effort is needed to support
deployment/operation of a OPALS system, thus providing an adequate understanding of
natural, debris, and potential nuclear environments within which a missile defense system
must operate.
There are two main efforts ongoing within this project: (1) the KEW Space Debris
Modeling effort, in which the Debris Radiance (DEBRA) model and a long-term DoD
model of the space debris environment (Debris Analysis Workstation, or DAW) are being
developed; and (2) the Nuclear Effects Physics Modeling effort, in which first-principle
physics satellite nuclear radiation codes are being upgraded to provide higher-fidelity,
faster-running, trapped, radiation transport codes. Both DEBRA and the nuclear effects
codes, with associated documentation, will be delivered to SDIO's National Test Bed
(NIB) for use in assessing system survivability of OPALS space assets.
3-42

PROJECT TITLE;
PROGRAM ELEMENI;
3109 - System Security Engineering
The objective of the project is to ensure that Electronic Information Systems
Security (ELINFOSEC) is integrated into the Global Protection Against Limited Strikes
(OPALS) system, including the National Missile Defense (NMD) and Theater Missile
Defense (TMD) programs. This objective will counter the existing and rapidly growing
threat arrayed against an electronic information system like the GPALS system.
Communications Security (COMSEC) and Computer Security (COMPUSEC) equipment,
technology, methodologies, and designs will be integrated with the development of
GPALS elements.
PROJECT TITLE;
PROGRAM ELEMENT;
3110 - Survivability Engineering
The system Survivability Program is responsible for oversight and management of
the GPALS Survivability Program. .This oversight activity includes coordination of the
SDIO's survivability-related activities to support the OPALS acquisition process, ensuring
that the proper interfaces are established and maintained within the system, element, and
component levels of the Program.
The Program provides for the generation of system and top-level element
survivability requirements that are direcdy traceable to SOlO-approved mission
requirements and threat scenario(s). Analyses are performed to support TMD, GMD, and
NMD. This analysis includes performance of system-level trade studies to assess the
ability of the system and elements to survive and operate in natural (e.g., debris) and
manmade hostile (e.g., nuclear, laser, ASATs) environments. Additionally, the System
Survivability Program supports the element programs by ensuring that the elements'
survivability design concepts are consistent with their survivability requirements and that
the segments/elements are prepared for DAB and other critical reviews. The Program is
also responsible for defining requirements for and performing system-level survivabilityrelated tests, namely through SDIO's test beds within the National Test Bed (NIB). This
includes identifying environment/response modeling requirements within the test beds and
defining system survivability test requirements as inputs to the SDI test and evaluation
planning process. .Finally, the Program is responsible for defining and assessing critical
survivability-related operational concepts that are consistent with system and element
survivability requirements, that enhance the system/elements' survivability, and that
provide maximum flexibility to the User.
PROJECT TITLE;
PROGRAM ELEMENJ;
3111 - Surveillance Engineering

In all mission areas and phases of the Global Protection Against Limited Strikes
(OPALS) System, some level of target surveillanceldiscrimination capability will be needed
in order to meet mission requirements. However, surveillance/discrimination, to include
bulk filtering, track initiation, tracking, track correlation, discrimination, and sensor
3-43
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

management, is one of the most difficult and fundamental problems facing OPALS. This
problem will also become more complex in the future as target decoy technology improves
and is acquired by potential threats. This program addresses a wide range of
surveillance/discrimination issues from a systems perspective and develops and evaluates
algorithms and systems schema to meet mission requirements by efficient use of available
sensing resources. To accomplish this, this program is developing a simulated test
environment known as the Surveillance Test Bed (STB). The STB is one of several test
beds that will be resident on the National Test Bed (NTB). The STB provides the
capability to evaluate element algorithms or Test Articles (bulk filtering, tracking,
discrimination, etc.) and system schema (the framework that integrates elements and
algorithms into a coordinated system) on a high fidelity simulation of element sensors. In
addition to the STB, other lower fidelity software tools will be utilized to conduct analysis
and identify scenarios to be evaluated with the STB. This program will also develop and
implement a methodology for validation of system level discrimination performance,
including performance of system discrimination schema and algorithms in wartime
environments. Oose coordination is maintained with the Discrimination Technology
project (#1105). Discrimination algorithms developed under that project will be evaluated
and validated.
PROJECT TITLE:
PROGRAM ELEMENT;
3112- Systems Engineering Support
The systems engineering support will provide critically needed capability to develop
and use test beds and other models/simulations in support of the design and validation of
Limited Defense System (LOS) concepts. State-of-the-art test beds, models/simulations,
and analysis tools are being developed in support of studies and analyses conducted prior
to the Milestone II engineering and manufacturing development decision. These tools will
support the SDIO community in evaluation/ comparison of alternative architectures and
support element model development/integration. In general, system engineering support
will include: design, development, integration, test, and maintenance of Level One and
Level Two System Simulators (LISS/L2SS); design, development of Command and
Control simulators (C2 Sims) and component commands Concept of Operations; and
development of the Software Engineering, Test, and Integration Center (SWETIC).
PROJECT TITLE;
PROGRAM ELEMENT;
3113 - Ground Communications
Provide environmental impact analysis documentation and facility acquisition
support of the SDIO National Missile Defense (NMD) systems and technical development
projects. Plan, program, and budget Environmental Assessments and Environmental
Impact Statements, as applicable, for SDIO NMD facility design and construction activities.
Develop guidance for Executing Agents on facility acquisition and environmental matters.
3-44
Description of Each SDJ Project

PROJECT TITLE:
3114 - Launch Communications
PROGRAM EI.EMENT:
PRO IECT DESCRIPTION:

This is a new project activity. Provide environmental impact analysis,
documentation, and facility acquisition support for the launch and deployment of SDIO
space elements systems and technical development projects. Plan, program, budget and
conduct Environmental Assessments and Environmental Impact Statements, as applicable,
for SDIO space elements ground-based facility design and construction activities. Develop
guidance for Executing Agents on facility acquisition and environmental matters.
PRO IECT TITLE:
320 I - Architectures and Analysis
PROGRAM ELEMENT;
0603218C - Research and Support Activities

This project develops, evaluates, and compares alternative architecture concepts for
all phases of the Strategic Defense System (SDS), including Limited Protection Systems
(LPS), Global Protection Against Limited Strikes (GPALS), Phase I, and Follow-on
Architectures. Emphasis is on the insertion of newly emerging technologies into the
system elements to reduce system cost and increase effectiveness. Includes upgrading and
maintaining simulation tools which are necessary to conduct architectural level analyses,
such as the Mission Effectiveness Model (MEM) and the exoatmospheric discrimination
simulation (XoDis). Element task areas are: Follow-on Architecture Analysis, Alternative
Architectures, Analysis Tools, and Direct Support.
PROJECT TITLE;
3202 - Operations Interface
PROGRAM ELEMENT;
The mission of the SDI Organization is twofold: (a) to support national security
policy and strategy and (b) to manage the development and deployment of a ballistic missile
defense (BMD) system that meets the operational mission requirements of the designated
users of that system. For the first part, analyses and simulations focus on definition of the
GPALS concept, coordinating and refining the concept definition with other parts of DoD,
external agencies, and (indirectly) with Allies and friends who may cooperate in mutual
deployments of a BMD system. The Mission Analysis function provides direct support to
the Director, SDIO, and senior OSD policy officials on a variety of sensitive policy and
strategy issues, including implications of events in Russia and other members of the
Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) for the SDIO/GPALS program; the status of
formerly-Soviet offensive ballistic missile capabilities; arms control; strategic stability and
deterrence; and proliferation of nuclear weapon and ballistic missile technology in the rest
of the world. For the second part, analyses and simulations address strategic and tactical
effectiveness, including offense-defense interaction of proposed GPALS system
architectures against offensive ballistic missile threats to the U.S., our allies and friends,
and deployed forces. Analytical results are then used to support activities required for the
Defense acquisition process, including preparation of Cost and Operational Effectiveness
Analyses required by the Defense Acquisition Board. Funds are also provided from this
Project to operational users (USSPACECOM, ARSPACE, AFSPACE, NAVSPACE,
Marines, SAC/STRATCOM) to enable them to develop their concepts of operations for
345
.I .
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

employing BMD and ensuring that these concepts are integrated into the overall BMD
system deployment strategy and planning.
PRO.JECf TITLE:
3203 - Intelligence Threat Development
PROGRAM ELEMENTS:
0603216C -Theater Missile Defenses
The purpose of the SDI Intelligence Threat Development project is to provide an upto-date threat description against which system-specific "design-to" threat specifications,
lethality designs, and target objects are developed. The primary vehicle for providing this
threat description is the System Threat Assessment Report (STAR), which is updated by
SDIO, reviewed by the services, and validated by the Defense Intelligence Agency annually
under this project The Intelligence Threat Development Program divides the threat into
two major categories--Delivery Vehicles and Payloads--and three levels of detail within
each category. The delivery vehicle category includes ballistic missile boosters and
aerodynamic missiles residing within the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS), CIS
post-boost vehicles (buses), and Rest-of-World (ROW) missiles (ballistic and
aerodynamic) with ranges greater than 30 kilometers. The payload category includes CIS
re-entry vehicles (warheads), penetration aids, and ROW missile warheads (both nuclear
and non-nuclear). The STAR addresses the threat faced by a Global Protection Against
Limited Strikes (OPALS) system from two points of view. First, the descriptions of CIS
threat vehicles, warheads, and penetration aids are equally applicable whether the U.S. is
under limited or all-out nuclear attack. Second, the ROW threat descriptions address the
threat both from the perspective of attack against CONUS (strategic) and overseas theater
(tactical) elements. The threats are described at the highest level in terms of country-oforigin (Level 0); fonn, fit, and function (Levell) necessary to produce the SDI "design-to"
threat specifications; and the very detailed Level 2, where actual materials and structures are
described for use in lethality studies and actual target designs. The analyses will evaluate
emission signatures, reflection signatures, trajectories, and vulnerabilities for strategic and
theater elements of OPALS. These analyses will provide detailed data for developing both
theater defense systems and other OPALS systems.
PRO.JECf TID.E:
3204 - Countermeasures Integration
PROGRAM EI.EMENT;
PROIECf DESCRIPTION;
The purpose of the SDI countermeasures integration project is to identify likely

countermeasures to strategic defense system concepts such as OPALS (and/or individual
system components) to assist defense systems designers to make their systems robust
against potential countermeasures. The countermeasure may be technical--directed
specifically against the hardware of the defense system, or tactical--designed to avoid or
suppress the defense. The countermeasures project uses a Red-Blue Team methodology
and includes concept verification through analysis and experimentation. On a continuing
basis, a Defense Science Board Task Force will make recommendations on the existing
DoD-SDIO countermeasures program and suggest necessary improvements.
Majer technical issues include denying or delaying target acquisition, discrimination,
and aimpoint for OPALS elements. R&D approaches used include Red Teams,
countermeasure studies and analysis, ground tests, and flight tests.
3-46
PROJECT TITLE:
fROGRAM ELEMENT;
3205 - Theater Missile Defense (fMD)

Special Studies
The purpose of this project is to produce workable solutions to the critical issues
within Theater Missile Defense. The priorities are based upon input from theater
Commanders-in-Chief (CINCs), allies, and the US Services. The research and
development tasks contained in this program are centrally managed and directed by SDIO,
in close cooperation with the Executing Agents.
The objective is to defme technical and other systematic approaches to operational
requirements critical to an integrated active TMD complex of systems. The project spans
both Allied and the four Uniformed Services interests and concerns. Within the program
are: European and Northeast Asian Theater architecture studies; two Artificial Intelligence
software projects for Command and Control and Discrimination; an analysis to determine
the best interface between OPALS and TMD roles and systems; support of Israeli TMD
studies and analysis; U.S. Air Force studies, analysis, and experiments to examine sensor
and Command and Control support and improvement for active TMD; U.S. Marine Corps
studies and research into HAWK and supporting sensor system improvements to provide
point defense against ballistic missiles; U.S. Navy studies and analysis into local and
regional defense using existing and augmented Fleet assets to counter Ballistic Missiles;
and U.S. Air Force studies for other TMD pillars beside active defense (e.g, TPS-75
modifications, command and control integration, etc.)
PROJECT TITLE;
PROGRAM EI.EMENI;
3206- System Threat
With the changing world situation and the proliferation of ballistic missiles, it is
imperative that an accurate characterization of theater, national, and global threats be
developed. The accurate specification and characterization of ballistic missiles and the
appropriate development and integration of scenarios using these characterizations is critical
to: ( 1) the analysis of alternative ballistic missile defense architectures; (2) the performance
assessments of potential technology applications; and (3) the operational performance
evaluations of candidate designs. The threat specifications and characterizations must be
based on accepted intelligence community threat projections or realistic estimates of
technological/operational innovations; be traceable back to objective and quantifiable
analyses; and be supported by the using organizations. These threat projections, described
in engineering terms and parameters, must be used by all SDIO agencies to ensure that
results can be compared and contrasted.
The System Threat development project is an integral part of SOlO's three-part
Threat Program. The System Threat project uses as a baseline the System Threat
Assessment Report (STAR) developed under the Intelligence Threat Development project
(#3203) and incorporates likely adversary countermeasures identified in the
Countermeasures Integration project (#3204). The System Threat project adds systemspecific engineering characterization details described in the form of scenarios
characterizing particular timing, targets, and tactics.
3-47
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

The System Threat Project achieves its objectives through the auspices of the Threat
Working Group (TWG), and the lWG subgroups (the Scenario Working Group (SWG)
and the Penetration Aids Panel). The lWG and the lWG subgroups include
representatives from: the intelligence community (DIA, CIA, Service Science and
Technology centers, etc.); the SDIO and Service element development offices; the using
commands (USSPACECOM, USASDC, etc.); the Service engineering support agencies;
and contractors associated with the government functions. Using the expertise available
through the lWG, the System Threat Project:
( 1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
Identifies user needs for threat scenario descriptions.

Identifies analyses needed to fully specify and characterize the threat missile
systems.
Exposes the analysis results to all interested agencies.
Addresses critical threat issues which arise during the analysis process.
Ensures all supporting agencies' views on threat issues are fully aired.
Reviews and approves all System Threat Scenario Descriptions.
Produces threat computer tapes and supporting documentation for use by the
development community.
The System Threat Scenario Description Documents are presented to the SDIO
System Design Board (SOB) for endorsement and configuration control.
PROJECT TITLE;
3207 - System Architecture
PROGRAM ELEMENT;
0603215 -Limited Defense System
The objective of this project is to defme an evolving architecture for the phased
deployment of the GPALS defense system. The emphasis will be on the Limited Defense
System including initial deployments. This project will also defme how Theater Missile
Defense (TMD), Space-Based Interceptors (SBI), and Other Follow-On Systems will be
integrated into OPALS. This project will provide recommendations on System Elements,
command and control, battle management, acquisition strategies, program management,
and site activation. This project will also provide inputs to reports to Congress, Cost and
Operational Effectiveness Analysis (COEA), and other required acquisition documents.
PROJECT TITLE;
3208 - Integration and Balancing
PBOGRAM ELEMENT;

System Epgineering Manawnent/Documentation
Develop, coordinate, and staff interagency MOUs. Develop system engineering

management concepts and planning and acquisition strategies. Documentations: System
leveliLSP, TMD Master Plan, System level Test and System Engineering Plans, System
level BCE, Active Defense Architecture Specifications, Configuration Management Plan,
Risk Management, System Engineering Notebook.
348

InteiJjltion and Balancini Studies
Threat, vulnerability, survivability of assets, force on force modeling, to defme conflict
outcomes as a function of NP/CF. lnterpillar BM/C3 requirements and operations for each
TMD mission and region of interest
Asset Survivability
Characterize defense requirements for all asset types to be protected by theater defense
systems.
Regional Otaracterizations Assets
Detailed spatial data of countries most likely to be involved with conflicts involving
theater/regional ballistic missiles.
lllik
Support trade studies with cost models and estimates of risk assessments for alternative
TMD architectures and concepts.
Techbase System Engineerioi

Inputs to Army Technology Base Master Plan.
U.S. Prod. Cost Support
Provide support cost requirements for all asset types to be protected by theater defense
systems.
facility SupJl011 for Special Access Program Integration and Ba}ancini Studies
Maintain, modify, and/or develop simulation facilities and technical data repository for
special access programs (SAPs) and infusion into active TMD. Develop multi-level
technical data repository of TMD-related SAP data. Develop/modify, install, and enhance
simulation tools. Conduct I & B studies considering SAPs. Develop SAP interfaces to
EADTB.
Ihreat!Scenarios
Continued characterization and refinement of emerging TMD threats: RCS, trajectories,
accuracies, and inventories. Develop Penaid characteristics and IR signatures. Collect and
catalog design to and excursion threat data Support validation activities. Collect and
catalog scenarios used by the TMD community. Compare for consistency and
compatibility. Maintain design to and excursion threats for the US Army TMD studies.
PROJECT TITLE;
3209 - Special Studies
PROGRAM ELEMENT:
This project contains classified programs relating to technological advancements.
3-49
__ l
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
PROJECT TITLE;
PROGRAM ELEMENT;
3210- Tactical Missile Defense Attack
The purpose of this project is to undertake studies to develop and demonstrate the
means to counter tactical missiles (fMs) through a centrally managed, anti-TM research
program concentrating on operations to destroy TM launchers and supporting equipment.
This includes: command, control, communications, and intelligence (C3I) functions;
sensors and sensor fusion; and weapon systems. This effort will lead to materiel
requirements definitions and needs to counter TMs. The study and development program
will be a multi-service effort. The service executing agency will centrally manage its
service's efforts and report to the SDIO.
The project currently has three major areas of research. Research into promising
sensor technologies, with concentration on overhead assets, will yield technical design
requirements for both theater fire control and warning functions. Information and
intelligence fusing research to identify and strike critical mobile targets will be funded.
Research into weapon systems capabilities will determine design requirements for near term
product improvement programs and technical requirements for long-term acquisition items.
PROJECT TITLE;
PROGRAM EI.EMENT;
3211 - C4I and Operational Analysis
PRO.JECT DESCRIP'[ION;
This effort is a partial follow-on to FY 1991 Project 3208. C4I, in the context of
this project, is defined as all those Command, Control, and Intelligence functions, serviced
by computers and communications systems, beyond Weapon Control functions , which
will be integrated into the existing air defense function and structure. In 1992, this project
funding is apportioned 90% for US Army C4I concerns and 10% for Joint concerns. In
future, this project will contain those USMC, USAF, and USN specific tasks (now
contained within Project 3205) which contribute to the enhancement of C4I systems for
active TMD. A significant change in future funding profiles based on the task
reorganization is anticipated.
The portion of the project for Joint work is being geared to support the JCS's
JROC TMD Special Study Group on C3I. It is anticipated that studies and analysis of
Desert Storm, Just Cause, and Urgent Fury C4I will be consulted, as well as original work
initiated. The US Army effort includes developing and analyzing known and planned
Unified Theater Army Air Defense CONOPS and C3I Architectures to examine warflghting
stratagems plus weapons and sensor use; identifying information types and information
flows based on strategems and use; determining the optimum architecture via trade studies;
initiating work on SAMOC; demonstrating of current Intelligence networks to move
National Sensor information rapidly into and around Unified Theaters; initiating work on
ADTOC; initiating program to IV& V Air Defense software.
3-SO

PROJECT TITLE:
3212- Passive Defense
PROGRAM ELEMENT;
The purpose of this project is to undertake studies to develop and demonstrate the
means to minimize the effectiveness of Tactical Missiles (TMs) against high priority assets
within the theater. The program will apply technology developments to defeat, confuse, or
minimize the effectiveness of threat acquisition sensors and the technology related to
surviving TM attacks. The study and development program will be centrally managed and
directed by the U.S. Army Strategic Defense Command which will report to the SOlO.
The project is currently conducting research into sensor negation, asset hardening,
and other survivability measures for the following critical theater targets; GUARDRAIL
ground station, corps command posts, US Army aviation forward area rearm refuel points
(FARRPs), and the POMCUS sites. Future year work will address additional theater
assets and TM systemic issues.
PROJECT TITI.E;
3213- Active Defense Engineering
PROGRAM ELEMENT;
This project provides system engineering and mission analysis support to evaluate
alternative concepts and architectures for the active defense pillar of IMD. This project
consists of two objectives.
One project objective is to support the operational user with engineering analysis to
evaluate the system implications of various scenarios, threats, and operational
requirements. Balancing of threat allocation and time line/battle space between the upper
and lower tiers will be conducted. The analysis will also defme the key active defense
sensor trades and requirements. Data from trade studies will be used as analytical support
for Cost and Operational Effectiveness Analyses and operational requirements
development Products will support TIIAAD, Patriot, and Corps SAM.
Another objective of this project is to define the architecture and external interfaces
required to satisfy IMD mission needs. New active theater missile defense systems will be
integrated into the existing U.S. and allied battlefield C3I architectures. Timeliness and
quality of information have a direct effect on the required effectiveness of the overall TMD
system. This effort will recommend preferred alternatives to optimize TMD performance.
Focus will be on TMD internal and external information exchange and data distribution
requirements.
PRO IECI TITLE:
3301 - SOlO Test Data Centers
PROGRAM ELEMENT;
These Centers archive, catalog, maintain, process, distribute, and provide

conttolled access to SOlO experiment data. Their mission is to serve as the principal
repository for SOlO experiment data and to assist the analysis and science community with
3-Sl
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

their requirements for information to evaluate GPALS feasibility, development, and
implementation. Additionally, the Data Centers provide specialized data products and
analysis support for SDIO System Elements. Presently, there are five Data Centers located
at DoD centers of expertise in specific areas of science and technology. They are the
Backgrounds Data Center (BDC), Kinetic Energy Weapon Data Center (KDC), Midcourse
Data Center (MDC), National Test Facility Data Center (NDC), and the Plume Data Center
(PDC).
PRO IECT TITLE;
PROGRAM ELEMENT;
3302 - System Test Environment
0603218C- Research and Suppon Activities
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION;
The mission of the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI) National Test Bed (NIB)
Program is to provide a comprehensive capability to experiment and evaluate alternative
SOl system concepts, architectures, including battle management/command, control and
communications (BMJC3), and key defensive technologies and integrate the ultimate SDS.
The NIB consists of a network of integrated, geographically distributed, simulation and
suppon facilities. The National Test Facility at Falcon AFB, CO, is the hub and central
experiment and simulation facility. The mission of this project has changed to identify only
the infrastructure suppon for tasks and projects previously identified as pan of Project
3302. Those projects/tasks now are identified separately under their respective projects.
This project consists of the acquisition, operation, and maintenance of computing and
communications networks, secure facilities, and technology required to suppon the NIB
mission. The network nodes include SDIO, Army Strategic Defense Command, Air Force
Space Systems Division, Air Force Electronic Systems Division, Strategic Air Command,
Los Alamos National Laboratory, Naval Research Laboratory, General Electric
Corporation- Blue Bell, PA., Army Space Command, and Riverside Research InstituteArlington, VA.
PRO IECT TITLE;
PROGRAM ELEMENT;
3303 - Independent Test and Evaluation
0603218C- Research and Suppon Activities
Provide independent T&E oversight and assessment of all (GPALS) element tests
to ensure that comprehensive T &E programs are implemented to suppon GPALS design,
development, construction, operational capability, and deploymenL This effon provides
GPALS wide T &E programmatic and technical management, verification and validation
(V& V), certification, status monitoring, and targets to support SOI test programs.
3S2

PROJECT TITLE:
3304 - Targets
PROGRAM ELEMENTS;
0603216C - Theater Missile Defenses
This task provides for overall coordination of the targets development and
acquisition program to support Test and Evaluation target requirements throughout the SDI
Program and, as such, is funded across several Program Elements. Currently, three tasks
are included in this project: the SDIO Targets Program, Space Test Range, and Studies and
Analyses.
The objective of the Targets Program is to provide engineering and threat
representative test targets for experiments and for Developmental Test (DT) for the
OPALS/Phase I Program. These targets must meet SDS performance, engineering, and
threat characteristics requirements to provide test articles that will adequately emulate the
expected threat and support engineering and development tests. Test and Evaluation is the
staff function designated to provide for the design, development, characterization,
validation, production, acquisition, and support system tests. The targets of concern are
Boosters, Re-entry vehicles (RV), Post-Boost Vehicle (PBV), Decoys, and Penetration
aids (Penaids).
Targets will be designated and developed based on element and system level
development test/experiment requirements. Initial target design and development will
include an engineering and threat representative target set approved by the Test and
Evaluation Working Group (TEWG) and validated by the intelligence community. Testing
will be conducted on the test targets to ensure that they meet the characterization and
validation requirements of the standard/threat target set This characterization will ensure
the proper data is available, post test, for accurate and timely test evaluation.
Products resulting from this effort will include:
Pre-production prototypes (target booster, PBVs, RVs, Decoy/Penaids)
Flight-qualified hardware
Pre-production, validated test articles (PB V/RVs, Penaids/Decoys)
ERIS, KITE-3, GBI, MSX, AST targets, ARE-2H payload, GSTS, BP, Patriot,
ERINT
Launcher Boosters
Range Telemetry and Communication Equipment
PRO IECT TITLE;
3305 - Theater Test Bed
PROGRAM ELEMENT;
The Theater Test Bed effon will develop computer-based analysis centers to
evaluate the component and overall system designs postulated for Theater Missile Defense.
The Theater Test Bed Program will provide the capability for operational, doctrine, and
materiel developers and systems engineers and analysts to address the issues associated
with Theater Missile Defense. This effon will develop a common base for simulation
software and the means to augment it with location-unique software for the specific, local
analysis and provide the capability for man-in-the-loop/hardware-in-the-loop experiments
3-53
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

and the networking of test bed centers. In addition, the effort will identify, design, and
evaluate appropriate joint and unilateral experiments. Major test bed characteristics include
real time operations, a friendly, highly interactive user environment, direct user control,
Ada and maximum software portability, and security requirements compatible with
multinational participation.
PROJECT TITLE:
3306 - Computer Resources and Engineering
PROGRAM ELEMENT;
This project provides funding for the Advanced Research Center and Simulation
Center (ARC/SC) for ongoing operations and maintenance in support of Ground-Based
Elements (GBE). The ARC/SC is an advanced computation technology system providing
the operational test bed for resolving weapons, sensors, and battle management and
command, control and communications (BMJC3) issues for strategic and theater defense. It
also serves as a development and test capability for other USASDC programs, to include
the Surveillance Test Bed, Extended Air Defense Test Bed, and Ground-Based Radar Test
Facility. The ARC/SC is a major node in the National Test Bed (NIB).
Facilities at Huntsville (US Army Strategic Defense Command) support evolving
architecture analysis and represent the only operational, high-fidelity simulation capable of
providing end-to-end GBE issue resolution.
PROJECT TITLE;
3307 - Airborne Surveillance Test bed (AST)
PROGRAM ELEMENT;
Umjte4 Defense System

The Airborne Optical Adjunct (AOA) program was expanded to use the AOA as an
Airborne Surveillance Test bed (AST) to conduct experiments that will help OPALS
elements resolve critical system and optical sensor functional issues throughout all phases
of a ballistic missile trajectory. The AST program provides for the design, fabrication,
integration, and operation of a BMD type infrared (IR) sensor. This IR sensor, together
with the appropriate data processing, display control, communications, and ancillary
equipment was installed on a modified Boeing 767 commercial aircraft It collects multitarget data, verifies sensor technical requirements, and validates signal and data processing
techniques and algorithms. The major issues to be addressed by the AST are bulk filtering,
sensor-to-sensor correlation, resolution of closely-spaced objects, discrimination, hand
over to other sensors, and signal and data processing requirements for IR sensor
performance. The AST provides a design and performance data base for ongoing as well
as future programs in the areas of design, system performance, and operation of IR
sensors, real time onboard signal and data processing, performance of an integrated IR
sensor system, and target signatures. The need to perform these functions accurately and
reliably places great demands on the airborne optical system, the most complex of its kind
ever builL The operation of the AST sensor system provides data essential for risk
reduction and effective design of future optical surveillance systems. Initially, the AST
subsystems were tested at ground facilities. After integration on the aircraft, the integrated
system was tested in flight tests over the Continental United States (CONUS) and is being
used in functional demonstrations and to support collection of key optical data from a series
3-54

of SDI experiments conducted at United States Army Kwajaleui Atoll (USAKA), WSMR,
ETR, and other national test ranges.
The sensor functions for anti-tactical ballistic missile (ATBM) missions, part of the
OPALS concept, are the same as those sensor functions for BMD missions. AST was
tested as an optical sensor adjunct with the U.S. Army's Patriot Air Defense System for an
experiment at WSMR to validate the applicability of IR sensors in an ATBM role. In
addition to the basic sensor functions, ASTs integration with radar sensors, ATBM C2
element, and interceptor missiles provides useful experience translatable into the BMD
integration mission.
PROJECT TITLE;
3308 - System Simulations
(Level I and Level
PROGRAM ELEMENT;
The System Simulators are being developed to provide end-to-end analysis
capabilities which are based on current Global Protection Against Limited Strikes (GPALS)
architectural concepts and are traceable to the top-level system requirements. Level I is
fundamentally a stochastically driven model which captures the performance requirements
allocations of the system and its elements and will be the primary tool for the iteration and
validation of the requirements allocation process. Level II will be a more detailed, higher
fidelity, design specific representation of the system and, while retaining some architectural
configuration flexibility, will be parameterized to a much lesser extent than Level I. Level
II is, in addition, a critical exercise in the engineering and integration of the system and its
interfaces, in that the Level II development spans multiple development agencies and will
precede the availability of hardware components and subsystems by years. The cognizant
services and Element Program Offices are directly responsible for the development of their
models which will then be integrated into a common simulation framework at the National
Test Facility. Level II as an analysis tool is expected to play a crucial role in the formal
testing of the system.
PROJECT TITLE:
3309 - System Test Planning and Execution
PROGRAM ELEMENT;
The objective of this project is to provide "system-level" test planning and execution
for developmental test (DT) and operational test (OT) for the OPALS system and its
system-level segments. Element developmental, test, and evaluation (DT&E), however,
remains the responsibility of the element program manager as does element-to-element
interface testing. This project supports both the SDIO and service system-level planning
for DT and OT. This project will suppon system-level DT tests and will provide the
funding for OT tests conducted by the Operational Test Agencies within each Service.
System-level testing will consist of three related effms in DEMVAL: 1) Extraction
and augmentation of system data from element DT contractor and government tests to meet
system test objectives as defined in the System Test Plan; 2) augmentation of inter-element
live field integration tests to complete a series of System Integration Tests (SIT); and 3)
3-55
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

completion of system-wide GPALS emulations in a real time Integrated System Test
Capability (ISTC). DEMVAL system test planning also includes planning for the tests in
the GPALS Engineering and Manufacturing Development (EMD) phase in sufficient detail
to defme the resources and provide those top-level test plans to support the Milestone
reviews and to scope the EMD Statements of Work.
When SOlO-sponsored system-level tests piggyback on element and inter-element
tests to collect system data or satisfy "system" test objectives, this project will fund the
system-level incremental delta test costs, i.e., additional planning, instrumentation, test
time, data analysis and evaluation over and above the basic element test costs. Certain
tasks are related but not included; i.e., Service element DT. The NTB is separately funded
through its own projecL Further, Allied tests are not included.
PROJECT TITI 1E:

3310 - Test and Evaluation Facilities and
Launch Support
PROGRAM ELEMENT:
This objective of this project is to provide adequate, common-user test and
evaluation (I&E) facilities to enable SDIO test and experiment programs to meet their
objectives. This is the first year these projects are consolidated for management purposes;
the plan is to further consolidate management for other multi-user facilities in future years.
Prudent consolidation can enhance efficiency and economy while satisfying user
requirements. Facilities requirements will be satisfied using existing resources whenever
possible. New and upgraded facilities will only be pursued when no existing capability
will meet basic requirements. This project includes the following facilities: the Center for
Research Support (CERES), Millstone Hill Radars Support, and range support for SDIO
programs at WSMR, USAKA, and ESMC LC20.
PROJECT TITLE:
PROGRAM ELEMENT:
3311 - Mobile Test Assets
This project allocates resources to develop, operate, maintain, and upgrade SDIO
mobile test assets. SDIO test and technology experiment programs require adequate test
resources, ranges, monitoring, and data collection to accomplish their test objectives.
When existing ranges/launch locations and fixed facilities do not have sufficient capability
to support SDIO test and experiment requirements, mobile assets will be programmed
consistent with overall T &E requirements. In FY 1992, this project specifically addresses
the range support ship, USNS Redstone. In subsequent years, the plan is to consolidate
other common user mobile test assets under this projecL The USNS Redstone and her
electronic system, the M247 Flight Test Support System, were specifically designed and
developed by the Navy Strategic Systems Program for supporting TRIDENT flight test
activity. Prior to FY 1992, it has not been available nor used for support of SDIO
missions. During FY 1992 and in subsequent years, it will be used to perform the range
support mission for SDIO experiments for the Lightweight Exoatmospheric Projectile
(LEAP) project, Brilliant Pebbles (BP) tests, and Theater Missile Defense (TMD) tests
where Wake Island serves as the target launch location. Wake Island has not traditionally
been used as a range asset and is not equipped for this mission. Relocating the Redstone to
the Western Pacific will satisfy this requirement in a cost-effective manner.
3-56
'
....
~I
PRO IECT TITLE:
PROGRAM ELEMENTS:
3312- System Test Environment Support
PROJECT DESCRIP'fiON:
The System Test Environment Support project provides a critically needed
capability to the SDI community in special studies and analyses, dealing with Strategic
Defense System (SDS) architectures, elements, technologies, interfaces, strategies, testing,
and simulation/modeling to include time sensitive studies and analyses. Particular
programs supported include: Architecture Development--GPALS/NMD Requirements;
Element Support--Brilliant Eyes and Brilliant Pebbles; Technology Investigation-Communication/Neural Workshop; Interface Compatibility--United States/United
Kingdom, Theater Missile Defense (TMD), and Extended Air Defense Test Bed (EADTB);
Strategic Algorithms; Demonstration and Validation Testing--GPALS/NMD Experiment
Design. Provides the SDI community with an Institutionalized Model Set This will be a
"tool box" of models that the NIB has performed confidence assessment and/or validation
and verification on and that SDIO has accredited. Provides advanced hardware and
software environment initiatives to meet near-term requirements in Visualization, Software
Environment, Technology Insertion, Networking, Simulation Techniques, and Security.
PROJECT TITLE;
PROGRAM ELEMENTS;
4000 - Operational Support Costs

This project provides system engineering and program control support common to
all other projects within these PEs. Typical system engineering tasks include review and
analysis of technical project design, development and testing, test planning, assessment of
technology maturity, and technology integration across SDIO projects and support of
design reviews and technology interface meetings. Program control tasks include
assessment of schedule, cost, and performance, with attendant documentation of the many
related programmatic issues. This project supports funding for civilian personnel and
expenses for travel (TOY), training, rents, communications, information management,
utilities, printing, reproduction, supplies, and equipment.
PROJECT TITI 1E;

4302- Technology Transfer
PROGRAM ELEMENT;
The Technology Applications Program was established in 1986 to make SDI
technology available to federal agencies, state and local governments, and U.S. business
and research interests. The objective of this program is to develop and support the transfer
of SOl-derived technology to Department of Defense applications as well as to other
federal, state, and local government agencies; federal laboratories; universities; and the
domestic private sector.
3-S7
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

PRO IECT TITLE:
4305 - Miniaturized Accelerators for PET
PROGRAM ELEMENT:
The Medical Free Electron Laser (MFEL) program seeks to develop and enhance
free electron laser technology and to assess how the unique characteristics of FELs may be
exploited for applications in medical, biophysical, and materials science research. After
FY90, SDIO transferred total responsibility for the MFEL program to
DDR&E/Environmental and Life Sciences.
The Positron Emission Tomography (PET) accelerator program, initiated in FY88
by Congressional direction, is a research project that will reduce the size, weight, and cost
of current particle accelerators used to develop radio-pharmaceuticals for Positron Emission
Tomography medical diagnoses.
J.ss
3-59
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Chapter 4
Relationship of SDI Projects and Activities to Possible Deployment Phases
4-1
....
I ,.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Chapter 4
This chapter responds to subparagraph (b)(4) of Section 224 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Years 1990 and 1991 (Public Law 101-189), which requests "an
explanation of the relationship between each such [deployment] phase and each program and
project associated with the proposed architecture for that phase."
The following charts display the relationships between the various SDI Projects, the mission functional
areas, the Program Element which funds each Project, and the phase of the deployment that is planned for the
project For a more complete description of each project, refer to Chapter 3.
Correlation of GPALS Functional Areas and SDI Program Support
Activities with Projects, Program Elements, and Possible Deployment Phases
Pro11ram Elements
GPALS Functional
Areas & Program
Suooort Activities
Sense an Auack
Control, Openue,
&Integrate
Engage & DestroyStrategic
NOJ'E:
Projects
rrMD fL-DS
II 01
1102
1103
1104
11OS
1106
1601
2102
2103
2104
3109
3110
3111
3307
1403
1405
1601
2300
2304
1208
Tech
1209
2201
2202
2203
2205
Passive Sensors
Radar
Laser Radar
Signal Process
Discrimination
Sensa Swdies
IST
Brilliant Eyes
GSTS
GBR
System Security
Surv Engineering
Surveillance Eng
AOA/AST
SBI
FollowOn
Deployment Phase
~uearcb
"
~upport
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Computer Eng
Comm Eng
1ST
Command Center
srw Eng
0
0
Discrimination
Endo Tech
SBI
GBI
E2I
Brilliant Pebbles
Potential
!Follow-On
GPALS
0
0
The single site, initial limited defense oyotem io captured unde:- the GPALS portion of these charu.
4-2
-.
I
I
I
I
I
Correlation of GPALS Functional Areas and SDI Program Support Activities with Projects,
Program Elements, and Possible Deployment Phases
Program Elements
GPALS Functional
Areas & Program
Support Activities
Deolovment Phase
Research
Projects
follow-
TMD a..DS
SBI
pn
&
Support
GPALS
Potential
follow-On
Engage & Destroy

-Theater
Engage & Destroy

-Follow-on
1206
2106
2203
2208
2209
2207
2210
2212
Theater Intercept
ATS
E21
ERINT
ACES
PATRIOT
THAAD
CORPS SAM
1201
1202
1203
1204
1210
1301
1302
1303
1304
lnt Comp Tech

Exo LEAP
HV Technology
lnt Study & Analy
Navy Exo
FEL
Chern Laser
NPB Tech
NDEW
ATP/FC
1ST
SBIR
DEW Concept Def
130S
1601
1602
2204
!I
il
:I
i
Support with Key
Technology
ISO!
IS02
IS03
IS04
1601
Survivability
Lethality
Power Cond
Mats & Structs
IST
'
4 -3
I
i_
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
GPALS Functional
Areas & Program
Support Activities
Perform System
Analysis,
Engineering &
Testing
Manage
Projects
1501 Survivability
1502 Lethality
1504 Marerials &
SbUCtures
170 I Launch Services
1702 Spec Test Acts
2304 S/W Engineering
3102 Sys Engineering
3104 ILS
3105 Prod &
Manufacture
3107 Envbnnmen~
Siting & Facilities
3108 Ops Envbnnment
3109 Sys Sec Eng
3110 Surv Engineering
3111 Surveillance Eng
3112 Arch & Analysis
3202 Ops Interlace
3203 Threat Dev
3204 Countermeasures
3205 TMD Studies
3206 System Threat
3207 Arch Engineering
3208 TMDI lnregration
3209 Special Studies
3210 Counterlorce
3211 C"I
3212 Passive Defense
3213 Active Defense
3282 Ops Planning
3292 Off/Def Analysis
3301 Dala Center
3302 Sys Test Envir
3303 lnd TIE Ovecsight
3304 Targets
330S Theater 1B
3306ARC
3307 AOA/AST
3308 Sys Simulator
3309 Sys Test Plan/Exec
3310 Test Facility
3311 Mob Test Assets
3312 NI'B Support
4000 Management
Support
Proaram Elements
Deployment Phase
!Research
!Follow&
Potential
SBI OD
~upport GPALS
rrMD ILDS
!Follow-On
4-4
..
4-S
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Chapter 5
II
II
, II I
. II
!III
I
I;I
I'
II
'I'
'I.,
I
II I
!I
I~I I
II
:I
:. 11
I I
rl
:I
:I
: --I
'
S-1
: ~~-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Chapter 5
This chapter responds to subparagraph (b)(5) of Section 224 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Rscal Years 1990 and 1991 (Public Law 101-189), which requests
"(a statement addressing) the status of consultations with other member nations of the
North Atlantic Treaty Organization, Japan, and other appropriate aiDes concerning
research being conducted in the Strategic Defense Initiative program."
5.1 GPALS and the Allies

With the refocusing of the SDI Program toward OPALS, the United States has
significantly increased the priority assigned to theater missile defenses--improved theater missile
defenses would be the first elements of OPALS to be deployed. Moreover, the U.S. Congress has
appropriated funds to accelerate Theater Missile Defense (TMD).
With respect to theater defenses specifically, the United States could deploy such
transportable defenses to a region during times of heightened tensions, or they could be
permanently deployed by a government on its own territory. It is likely that U.S. forces forward
deployed in peacetime will have active theater missile defenses as part of their equipment
The United States believes a number of friends and allies will be interested in the TMD
aspects of OPALS, particularly because third world ballistic missile proliferation is a growing
concern to many of them. If friends and allies decide to deploy their own theater missile defenses,
i.e., in parallel with those deployed by the United States, we would envision them as being
autonomous systems potentially capable of being interoperable with elements of United States
defenses, such as receiving space-based sensor data to increase their efficiency.
The deployment of a system to defend against limited ballistic missile strikes would
contribute to the security of U.S. friends and allies. To that end, there are several general areas for
cooperation with allies and friends:
Participation in the Strategic Defense Initiative Organization's (SOlO's) basic

research and development programs that have application to OPALS. This could
mean participation in technology research and development or in OPALS-related
experiments.
Government-to-government cooperation specifically in TMD-related aspects of

OPALS, which may be of particular interest to allies.
Independent acquisition of a theater missile defense system, either purchased from

another country such as the United States, or indigenously developed, which could
be interoperable with elements of a U.S. system.
Such cooperation would not be a new activity. Allied participation in SDI research predates
the refocus of the program toward OPALS. In fact, the United States has already developed a
considerable level of allied participation in SOl-related research since early in the program.
S-2
II
5.2 Consultations with Allies on the SDI

The United States has long consulted with allies and friends regarding SDI research,
development, testing, and deployment plans. In particular, the United States has sought to work
within the NATO alliance to continue a mutual security framework, including cooperation
regarding ballistic missile defenses, for confronting the instabilities of the post-Cold War
multipolar world. In response to U.S. initiatives, the November 1991 Rome Summit document
acknowledged the risks of the proliferation of ballistic missiles and weapons of mass destruction
and noted that the "solution of this problem will require complementary approaches including, for
example, export control and missile defenses."
Several in-depth presentations on the GPALS concept were provided to allied and friendly
governments during 199 I. These presentations provided detailed information on the conceptual
framework for achieving global protection against limited ballistic missile strikes, and offered
foreign participation in OPALS, with particular initial emphasis on the theater missile defense
segment of OPALS.
U.S. officials briefed the OPALS concept in the Pentagon to representatives from fifteen
nations on March 28, 1991. Following that introductory OPALS briefmg, DoD officials visited
the major capitals in Europe in April 1991, and the Far East in June 1991. In each capital,
discussions were held with senior foreign officials on the OPALS concept, and their views were
solicited on prospective participation in the development and acquisition of OPALS. During 1991,
several nations, as well as NATO, identified concerns for anti-tactical ballistic missile (ATBM)
defense and expressed a receptiveness to continuing the dialogue with the United States on the
OPALS concept and its development to assess how they might actively participate.
In addition, U.S. officials consulted with allied leaders, both bilaterally and in NATO fora,
on the results of high-level negotiations and meetings (outlined in Chapter 1) with the former
Soviet Union on U.S. objectives for ballistic missile defense. Furthermore, senior government
and industry personnel from several allied countries have visited the United States for detailed
technical discussions and updates on the SDI program.
SDIO sponsors annual advanced planning briefings to acquaint government and industry
representatives from selected allied nations, as well as U.S. industry, with SDI projects,
initiatives, and future acquisition plans. The SDIO also co-sponsors an annual classified
multinational conference on theater ballistic missile defense technologies and prospective
employment architectures. The last such conference was held in Tel Aviv, Israel, in March 1992.
5.3 Allied Participation in SDI Research

Allied participation in SDI is of significant benefit to the United States as well as to the
participating nations. The United States has signed Memoranda of Understanding (MOUs) on
participation in SDI research with the governments of the United Kingdom (December 1985),
Germany (March 1986), Israel (May 1986), Italy (September 1986), and Japan (July 1987). The
MOUs are not related to specific projects - they are designed to facilitate allied participation in SDI
research and development as permitted under U.S. laws, regulations, and international obligations,
including the anti-ballistic missile (ABM) Treaty. Companies in countries that have not signed an
MOU have also successfully competed for contracts, and countries that have not signed an
overarching SDI MOU have signed government-to-government agreements for cooperative
research on specific SOl-related projects.
All SDI contracts are awarded strictly on the basis of technical merit and cost in accordance
with the procurement practices mandated by Congress. Several such provisions apply to the
S-3
I
iI
I
II
I
II
I
II
I
II
I
II
I
I
I
I
I
I
~I
I
I
I
I
I
I
II
II I
I~
III I
I
I
I
' I
~
,i I~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
In 1987, Congress enacted additional legislation (Section 222, National Defense

Authorization Act for Fiscal Years 1988 and 1989) regarding allied participation in the SDI
Program. This legislation prohibits the award of new SDI contracts to allied entities unless certain
conditions are satisfied. Such provisions shall not apply to the award of subcontracts. In FY 1991
three contracts were awarded to foreign entities under Public Law 100-180, Section 222,
Subsection (b). Of these contracts, SDIO awarded one to the United Kingdom Ministry of
Defence for the extension of research on the Advanced Sensor Hardening Concepts for Space
Platforms. Additionally, SDIO awarded a contract to SOFRADIR of Chatenay Malabry, France,
for the fabrication, testing, and delivery of two photovoltaic long wavelength infrared mercury
cadmium telluride array detectors possessing high sensitivity, superior responsiveness, pixel
uniformity, and low noise characteristics at nominal operating temperatures. The third contract
awarded by the Department of the Air Force to Culham Laboratory of the United Kingdom Atomic
Energy Authority to study the physics and optimization principles of high brighmess negative ion
volume sources required in SDI Neutral Particle Beam applications.
5.4 Cooperative SDI Programs with Friends and Allies
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Other Nation Panicipation

awarding of SDI contracts to foreign firms. The Bayh Amendment to the FY 1973 Department of
Defense Appropriations Act provides that no Department of Defense research and development
(R&D) contracts may be awarded to foreign firms if a U.S. entity is equally competent to carry out
the work and is willing to do so at lower cost. The Defense Appropriations Acts for Fiscal Years
1986 and 1987 prohibited setting aside funds for SDI research contracts awarded to foreign firms,
and stated that U.S. firms should receive SDI contracts unless awards would be likely to degrade
research results.
Long-standing laws and policies governing rights to research results developed under U.S.
contracts ensure that the U.S. technology base receives the benefits of all SDI research, whether
performed by a domestic or foreign contractor. In accordance with these laws and policies, the
U.S. Government will receive rights to use the technology developed under SDI contracts.
Contractor rights to use the results of their SDI research depend on security considerations and
specific conditions of each contract. These ground rules for cooperation are fully reflected in each
of the MOUs and Memoranda of Agreement (MOAs) the United States has signed on participation
in SDI research. In order to fully exploit the technology development SDIO has funded abroad,
entries are being added to SOlO's Technology Applications Information System (TAIS) database
synopsizing the technology for potential spin-off applications to qualified United States industry
and government agency users. The status of significant ongoing projects is also provided.
The following section addresses cooperative projects between the U.S. and our friends and
allies throughout the history of the SDI Program.
France: $17.37 million. Sensors, theater defense architecture, free-electron laser

technology, klystrons, and propulsion components and casings.
Status: In January 1990, SDIO signed a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) with the
French Ministry of Defense (MOD) regarding free-electron laser (FEL) research. Under
this five-year agreement, information will be exchanged and cooperative research projects
will be developed to reduce cost and schedule risks for both countries. Materials have been
identified for exchange, and a visit to France is planned to share information and identify
concepts for collaboration in FEL research.
Germany: $88.55 million. Pointing and tracking, optics, lethality and target hardening,
electron laser technology, theater defense architecture, infrared phenomenology, and SPAS
assembly.
S-4
Status: The Infrared Background Signature Survey (ffiSS), conducted aboard the U.S.
Space Shuttle Discovery, received a reusable Shuttle Pallet Satellite from MesserschmittBoelkow-Blohm (MBB). Other German firms including Linde, Kaiser Threde and AEG
Telefunken, along with the University of Berlin, contributed to the development of the
sensor suite.
A five-year lethality program headed by Diehl GmbH, along with MBB and the
Ernst Mach Institut (EMI), was funded by SDIO through the Defense Nuclear Agency.
EMI developed an innovative warhead fragment with unusual penetrating capabilities,
while MBB developed a technique for accelerating large masses at extremely high
velocities. Results from this work have already been transferred to the U.S. Theater
Missile Defense lethality program data base, the orbital debris breakup study, and the high
explosive initiation and weapon safety programs.
Israel: $412.08 million. Electrical and chemical propulsion, magnetohydrodynarnics,

short-wave chemical lasers, theater defense architecture, Arrow and ACES experiments,
and the Israeli Test Bed.
Statys: In June 1988, SDIO and the Israeli Ministry of Defense concluded an MOA for a
cooperative SDI research project on the Arrow anti-tactical ballistic missile (ATBM)
experiment. The experiment, to be conducted at an Israeli test range, is designed to
demonstrate the capability to intercept a surrogate tactical ballistic missile. Three flight tests
were held in 1990 and 1991; the next Arrow test launch date will be scheduled upon
completion of analyses of previous flight test data.
In March 1989, SDIO and the IMOD concluded an MOA to develop an Israeli
Theater Ballistic Missile Test Bed (ITB) on a cooperative, cost-share basis. The ITB was
opened in March, 1992. It is a computer simulation facility capable of conducting
simulations against postulated theater missile threats.
In May 1989, SDIO and an Israeli government research facility signed a costsharing agreement to develop a low-cost hypervelocity gun (HVG). The HVG is expected
to be capable of accelerating projectiles to velocities in excess of 3.0 kilometers per second;
perform bartel and armature material research; and resolve other technical issues associated
with hypervelocity gun technology. Based on the results of a series of experiments,
additional experiments are scheduled to produce muzzle velocities significantly greater than
could be obtained using comparable conventional propellants.
In June 1991, SDIO and the Israeli MOD concluded a Memorandum of Agreement
that implemented the Arrow Continuation Experiments (ACES), a cooperative, cost-share
program designed as a follow-on demonstration phase of the Arrow interceptor experiment.
ACES will provide for the development of a tactical ballistic missile interceptor that will be
smaller, lighter, and have a greater engagement envelope than the original Arrow design.
This interceptor will support Israel's requirement for tactical ballistic missile defense and it
will benefit U.S. technology base requirements for advanced ATBM technologies.
Japan: $6.00 million. Superconducting magnetic energy storage, superconducting

materials, diamond coatings, signal processing, electric propulsion, and Western Pacific
theater defense architecture.
Statys: SDIO signed a contract with a Japanese fmn in November 1988 to analyze and
assess the unique requirements associated with the defense of U.S. and allied assets in the
Western Pacific region against attack by medium- and short-range ballistic missiles. The
s.s
1 [
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Other Nation PanicipaJion

second phase of this effort was completed in March 1991 and an active 1MD architecture
has been developed. Phase three will further define and evaluate architectures in light of
contingency operations; further develop battle management, command, control, and
communications (BMJC3); and address transportability and mobility architectural issues.
Phase four, scheduled to begin in April 1992, will address architectural issues through
interactive modeling and simulation.
Netherlands: $14.34 million. Theater defense architecture and electromagnetic launcher

technology.
Status: The five-year cooperative research agreement on electromagnetic launcher
technology was signed in July 1987 with the Netherlands Organization for Applied
Scientific Research. An electromagnetic launcher, provided by SDIO, has been repeatedly
tested at the Prins Maurits Laboratory. Scientists have redesigned the launcher to improve
its performance; designed new types of solid armatures to improve launch efficiencies; and
identified promising new concepts for pulse power investigations. Dutch research to date
has increased gun efficiencies and operating capabilities of mechanical opening switches.
Future plans include cooperative solid state switch research and continued technical
exchanges to further U.S. and Dutch electromagnetic launcher research.
United Kingdom: $129.09 million. Optical and electron computing, thyratrons, ion
sources and power conditioning for particle beams, electromagnetic rail gun technology,
optical logic arrays, countermeasures and penetration aids, UK Test Bed, and theater
defense architecture analyses.
Status: The United Kingdom (UK) MOD and SDIO signed a cooperative agreement in
January 1989 to develop a prototype artificial intelligence framework. The framework is
based on the principle of comparing a priori information about offensive missile objects to
real time sensor data. The prototype is based on a blackboard architecture where signal
processing, clustering, and raid assessment rules are partitioned. The framework control
module manages tasking and data sharing to maximize the timeliness and accuracy of the
discrimination process. Two of the three programs are near completion.
In Apri11989, SDIO and the UK MOD signed a cooperative agreement to develop a

Knowledge-Based System (KBS) Data Fusion Demonstrator. The effort will develop
battle management algorithms based on KBSs for fusing information gathered by disparate
types of sensors. Efforts will be undertaken to run the UK KBS benchmarks on U.S.
computers in mid-1991.
In September 1988, under a cost-sharing arrangement with the UK MOD, SDIO
undertook a joint cooperative project known as the Extended Air Defense Test Bed
(EADTB). The EADTB will support extended air defense planning, concept analysis,
doctrine development, and battle plan development The simulation framework for the
EADTB has been developed and is undergoing testing. Requirements for a terminal tier
experiment were defined as of March 1991.
Work is continuing with the UK to develop neutral particle beam (NPB) technology
under SDIO's directed energy research program. Culham Laboratory in the UK is
developing high brightness, continuous wave, ion-source technology, as well as the ion
source, instrumentation and control, and beam stop for the Continuous Wave Deuterium
Demonstrator (CWDD). Power technology for the CWDD is being developed by a British
fmn. Two British firms and Culham laboratory have also assisted in designing the NPB
Power System Demonstrator. Additionally, Culham Laboratory and one British fmn
S-6

initiated the design of a space-engineered NPB ion ejector source for the Neutral Particle
Beam Space Experiment (NPBSE). Because of the advanced quality of their efforts on the
first ever space-engineered ion ejector continuous wave source, both Culham Laboratory
and the British firm have been selected by the U.S. prime contractor to provide the ion
source for the NPBSE.
Additional U.S.-foreign SDIO research efforts include:
Belgium: $0.52 million. Theater defense architecture, laser algorithms, and mosaic array
data compression and processing module.
Canada: $8.00 million. Power system materials, particle accelerators, platforms, theater
defense architecture, and sounding rockets.
Denmark: $0.03 million. Metrology of magnetic optics.
Italy: $15.79 million. Cryogenic induction, superconducting magnetic energy storage,

millimeter-wave radar seeker, theater defense architecture, and smart electro-optical
sensor.
The above descriptions indicate that SDIO is conducting an active program of cooperation
with our friends and allies. The annual SDI funding dedicated to cooperative research activities
with friends and allies, normally constitutes 2-3% of SOlO's fiscal appropriations. The SDIO is
engaged in a number of exploratory discussions with friends and allies to determine other areas of
mutual research interest in GPALS to be pursued via similar types of arrangements.
.1
'
5.5 Summary of Allied Participation and Cooperation

Allied scientific excellence and technical capabilities have been and continue to be
demonstrated through contractual efforts and cooperative research projects. They have made many
technical contributions to both strategic ballistic missile and theater missile defenses. Currently,
trends in allied involvement in the SDI Program are theater-missile-defense-related activities, test
bed and technology experiments, and other cooperative activities of mutual interest. Continued
allied participation and cooperation in the SDI Program promote greater scientific understanding
and technological mastery of the ballistic missile defense problem. Through these multinational
efforts, SOlO's theater and strategic missile defense technologies continue to advance.
S-1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Chapter 6
6-1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Chapter 6
6.1
Introduction
The 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty addresses the development, testing, and
deployment of ABM systems and components. It should be noted that nowhere does the ABM
Treaty use the word "research." Neither the United States nor the Soviet delegation to the Strategic
Arms Limitation Talks (SALT I) negotiations chose to place limitations on research, and the ABM
Treaty makes no attempt to do so. The United States made it clear during the ABM Treaty
negotiations that development commences with the initiation of field testing of a prototype ABM
system or component. The United States had traditionally distinguished "research" from
"development" as outlined by then-U.S. delegate Dr. Harold Brown in a 1971 statement to the
Soviet SALT I delegation. Research includes, but is not limited to, conceptual design and
laboratory testing. Development follows research and precedes full-scale testing of systems and
components designed for actual deployment. Development of a weapon system is usually
associated with the construction and field testing of one or more prototypes of the system or its
major components. However, the construction of a prototype cannot necessarily be verified by
national technical means of verification. Therefore, in large part because of these verification
difficulties, the ABM Treaty prohibition on the development of sea-, air-, space-, or mobile landbased ABM systems, or components for such systems, applies when a prototype of such a system
or its components enters the field-testing stage.
The ABM Treaty regulates the development, testing, and deployment of ABM systems
whose components were defined in the 1972 Treaty as consisting of ABM interceptor missiles,
ABM launchers, and ABM radars. ABM systems based on other physical principles and including
components capable of substituting for ABM interceptor missiles, ABM launchers, or ABM radars
are addressed only in Agreed Statement D. In order to fulfill the basic Treaty obligation not to
deploy ABM systems or components except as provided in Article m, this agreed statement
provides that in the event that ABM systems based on other physical principles and including
components capable of substituting for ABM interceptor missiles, ABM launchers, or ABM radars
are created in the future, specific limitations on such systems and their components would be
subject to discussion in accordance with Article XIII and agreement in accordance with Article XIV
of the Treaty. The Agreed Statement does not proscribe the development and testing of such
systems, regardless of basing mode. The SDI Program will continue to be conducted in a manner
that fully complies with all U.S. obligations under the ABM Treaty.
Research and certain development and testing of defensive systems are not only permitted
by the ABM Treaty but were anticipated at the time the Treaty was negotiated and signed. Both the
United States and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics supported this position in testimony to
their respective legislative bodies. When the Treaty was before the Senate for advice and consent
to ratification, then-Secretary of Defense Melvin Laird advocated, in his testimony, that the United
States "vigorously pursue a comprehensive ABM technology program." In a statement before the
Presidium of the Supreme Soviet, Marshall Grechko said the ABM Treaty "places no limitations
whatsoever on the conducting of research and experimental work directed toward solving the
problem of defending the country from nuclear missile strikes."
6.2
Existing Compliance Process for SDI
The Department of Defense (DoD) has in place an effective compliance process (established
with the SALT I agreements in 1972) under which key offices in DoD are responsible for
overseeing SDI compliance with all United States arms control commitments. Under this process,
the SDI organization (SDIO) and DoD components ensure that the implementing program offices
6-2
I
Other NaJion ParticipaJion
adhere to DoD compliance directives and seek guidance from offices charged with oversight
responsibility.
II.
II
II
III
I
II
I
II
I
II
I
I
Specific responsibilities are assigned by DoD Directive 5100.70, 9 January 1973,

"Implementation of SAL (Strategic Arms Limitation) Agreements." The Under Secretary of
Defense (Acquisition), USD(A), ensures that all DoD programs are in compliance with United
States strategic arms control obligations. The Service secretaries, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs
of Staff, and agency directors ensure the internal compliance of their respective organizations. The
DoD General Counsel provides advice and assistance with respect to the implementation of the
compliance process and interpretation of arms control agreements.
DoD Instruction S-5100.72 establishes general instructions, guidelines, and procedures for
ensuring the continued compliance of all DoD programs with existing arms control agreements.
Under these procedures, questions of interpretation of specific agreements are to be referred to the
USD(A) for resolution on a case-by-case basis. No project or program which reasonably raises a
compliance issue can enter into the testing, prototype construction, or deployment phase without
prior clearance from the USD(A). If such a compliance issue is in doubt, USD(A) approval shall
be sought In consultation with the office of the DoD General Counsel, Office of the Assistant
Secretary of Defense for International Security Policy, and the Joint Staff, USD(A) applies the
provisions of the agreements, as appropriate. DoD components, including SOlO, certify internal
compliance periodically and establish internal procedures and offices to monitor and ensure internal
compliance.
In 1985, the United States began discussions with allied governments regarding technical
cooperation on SOl research. To date, the United States has concluded bilateral SOl research
Memoranda of Understanding (MOUs) with the United Kingdom, Germany, Israel, Italy, and
Japan. All such agreements will be implemented consistent with United States international
obligations, including the ABM Treaty. The United States has established guidelines to ensure that
all exchanges of data and research activities are conducted in full compliance with the ABM Treaty
obligations not to transfer to other states ABM systems or components limited by the Treaty, nor to
provide technical descriptions or blueprints specially worked out for the construction of such
systems or components.
6.3 SDI Experiments

All SDI field tests must be approved for ABM Treaty compliance through the DoD
compliance review process. The following major programs and experiments, all of which involve
field testing, have been approved and are to be conducted during the remainder of FY 1992 and FY
1993: Laser Atmospheric Compensation Experiment (LACE), Relay Mirror Experiment (RME),
and the Wideband Angular Vibration Experiment (WAVE); the Kinetic Energy Kill Vehicle
Integrated Technology Experiment (KITE), flights in the High Endoatmospheric Defense
Interceptor (HEDO project; flights throughout FY 1992-1994 in the Airborne Surveillance Test
Bed (AST) program, a revision of the Airborne Optical Adjunct project (including AST viewing
Patriot intercepts); the Ground-Based Interceptor (OBI) (formerly the Exoatmospheric Reentry
Vehicle Interceptor Subsystem (ERIS)) flight experiments; the Lightweight Exoatmospheric
Projectile (LEAP) flight experiments I - ill (the LEAP IV experiment is pending approval); Brilliant
Pebbles Flight Experiments 1 - 5; Brilliant Pebbles Flight Experiment 1T (1M pending approval);
Patriot Pre-Planned Product Improvements; Extended Range Interceptor (ERINT) program flight
experiments; and the Israeli Arrow interceptor development known as the Arrow Continuation
Experiments (ACES).
The following major projects and experiments have been approved for later years, subject,
in some cases, to review of more completely defmed experiments: Single-Stage-To-Orbit
experiment; the Midcourse Space Experiment (MSX); the Ground-Based Radar Experiments
II
I'I
I
I
I
I
I
I
d
I
I
I
I
I
II
I
I
il
:I
II
L
63
Ill..
, I
I._
------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Other NatiiJn Participation

(TMD-GBR dem/val); Zodiac Beauchamp Sensor Integration Experiment (Project Clementine,
pending approval); Neutral Particle Beam Space Experiment (NPBSE); and the Star LITE SpaceBased Laser Experiment (formerly Zenith Star).
In addition, the following data collection activities continue to be approved: the Optical
Airborne Measurement Program (OAMP) and High Altitude Observation aircraft (HALO and
Argus); Red Gemini VI-IX; the Firebird experiments; Brilliant Eyes ground testing, including
testing of a proof-of-principle device in conjunction with, and attached to ground-based telescopes
Aerothermal Reentry Experiments (ARE-2H and ARE-3); Ultraviolet Plume Instrument (UVPI)
and Army Background Experiment; Red Tigress; Bowshock lll; the Polar Ozone Aerosol
Measurement (POAM) experiment; Countermeasures Demonstration Experiment; and SPAS lli
(Shuttle Pallet Satellite). The following projects have been approved, but are not funded for FY
1992: Sounding Rocket Measurement Program (SRMP); Transportable LADAR System; Vehicle
Interactions Program/Vehicle Interactions Characterization Experiment (VIPNICE) flights; and
Radiant Shield. The System Integration Tests (SITs) planned for FY 1992-1993 utilize data
collected by a variety of sensor systems for simulation and integration planning purposes; followon SITs beginning in 1995 will be examined for Treaty compliance as their experiments are better
defmed.
The following projects have approved activities that are not considered to be in field testing;
Average Power Laser Experiment (APLE); Alpha/LAMP Integration; Hypervelocity Gun (HVG);
and the Space-Based Interceptor (SBI). Also, the National Test Bed has been determined to be
compliant with the ABM Treaty.
The following target development projects have been approved: STARBIRD; Strategic
Target System (STARS); Operational and Development Experiments Simulator (ODES); Project
Redwood; ERINT Target System development project and the Target Development Tests. The
Brilliant Pebbles Target Launch Vehicle Demonstration is pending approval. All SDI launches are
reviewed for compliance with the research and development launch provisions of the 1987
Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty. Such launches will be notified to the Nuclear Risk
Reduction Center of the former Soviet Union as required.
The following programs, some of which have not been sufficiently defmed for compliance
review, are not yet approved: Brilliant Pebbles flight tests 2M, 3M, 4M, 2T, and 3T; LEAP flight
tests 5, 6, 7, X, FTV-2, FTV-3, FTV-4, and FTV-5; Advanced Contingency Sensor (ACTS);
Theater High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD); the Ground-based family of radars (TMD-GBR
and GBR-T); Corps SAM; Aegis SPY-I radar and Standard ll (Block 4) upgrades; HAWK and
AN/TPS-59 radar upgrades; Brilliant Eyes flight tests; Miniature Seeker Technology Integration
(MSm experiments (MSTI-Scout 1 is pending approval.); RAPTOR/I'ALON; High Altitude
Balloon Experiments (HABE); and Brilliant Pebbles Tether Tests.
We are planning to develop and deploy theater/tactical missile defense systems to counter
the projected threat to our forces abroad and to our allies. Although the objective of the ABM
Treaty is to limit defenses against strategic ballistic missiles there may be conflicts between the
Treaty and the development and deployment of some of the theater/tactical missile defense systems
under consideration. We are currently studying this issue.
Currently, no experiment has been approved that would not fall within the categories used
in Appendix D to the 1987 Report to Congress on the Strategic Defense Initiative. Changes to
previously approved experiments require compliance review.
6-4
6-S
,I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Chapter 7
Countermeasures
II
II
II
I
II
I
II
I
iI
I
!I
I~
,,. I
I
I
I
I
, II
I
:I
'I
il
II
I
. ;I I
II
I I
il
!
i
7-1
', Ill..
I
I~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Chapter 7
Countermeasures
This chapter responds to part (b)(7) of Section 224 of the November 7, 1989
Conference Report authorizing appropriations for FY 1990. This part requests "a
review of possible countermeasures of the Soviet Union to specific SDI programs,
an estimate of the time and cost required for the Soviet Union to develop each such
countermeasure, and an evaluation of the adequacy of the SDI programs described
in the report to respond to such countermeasures."
7.1
Introduction
1991 has been a year of transition for the SDI Countermeasures effort. In recognition of the
changing international security environment, the Countermeasures program has intensified its
focus on the Third World while continuing to investigate potential Commonwealth of Independent
States (CIS) responses to the U.S. ballistic missile defense (BMD) architecture. As part of this
effort, the Countermeasures program has placed a greater emphasis on the evaluation and
verification of simpler counters which are more likely to be employed by a resource-constrained
CIS and technologically unsophisticated Third World nations.
7.2 The CIS

Potential CIS countermeasures examined in previous years include modifications to the
. offensive threat, such as decoys and replicas, that attempt to confuse and overwhelm the defense.
Defense suppression/anti-satellite (ASAT) techniques, such as orbital and direct-ascent interceptors
which attempt to destroy defense elements, were also considered. Advanced technologies, such as
those employed in ground- and space-based directed energy and kinetic energy weapons, are also
potentially available to the CIS as far-term countermeasures. Existing CIS ASAT capabilities, such
as the co-orbital system, the Galosh, and a direct ascent ASAT weapon, have been judged to be
basically ineffective in present numbers and design_
A study of potential CIS countermeasures concluded that the Russians may pursue an R&D
hedge that emphasizes lightweight penetration aids that do not significantly erode missile payloads.
Furthermore, CIS preoccupation with domestic crises and an economy undergoing reform clearly
works against decisions to vigorously pursue costly sophisticated military countermeasures to the
U.S. BMD system.
7.3 The Third World

A recently completed study of Third World reactions to the U.S. BMD system by the
program's Strategic Red Team (SRT) concluded that such countries can be expected to react in a
variety of ways depending on whether they see themselves as threatened by or protected by U.S.
defenses. Major findings of the study include:

A recognition that the traditional model of deterrence may no longer apply or may prove
unreliable with reganl to the behavior of ballistic missile-equipped Third World nations.
Proliferation of ballistic missiles is becoming increasingly diffuse, with a variety of
supplier networks for acquiring missile components and systems.
7-2
I~
CounJermeasures
iI
I
II
I
II
I
II
I
II
I
II
I
I
I
Sophisticated counters to the U.S. BMD system are not likely to be employed before
well in~ the first decade of the next century, if then.
The most likely supplier of advanced ballistic missiles, and perhaps defense
countermeasures, to the Third World will likely be the People's Republic of China.
I
Another 1991 study analyzed the motivation driving Third World nations' desire to acquire
ballistic missiles. The study concluded that missiles are becoming the long-range weapon of choice
in regional conflicts; and that missiles are acquired for technological prestige, autonomy of action,
and warfJghting capability. However, ballistic missile use is hampered by effective long-range
guidance and reconnaissance capability, which in turn limits missile targets to large static areas
such as cities, industrial facilities, and military bases.
7.4 Countermeasures Costs'

The potential costs to the CIS and the Third World of developing countermeasures and
other responses to the U.S. BMD system are the subject of ongoing analyses. Economic
conditions and pricing mechanisms in the CIS continue to be extremely volatile. As such, the
reliability of costing data as well as the affordability of any large-scale response is highly
questionable and subject to change. Cost and affordability analyses for third world nations will be
addressed as potential countermeasures developed by those nations are identified.
7.5
,,,
Countermeasures Evaluation And Verification
The Countermeasures program's evaluation and verification effort begins with the
identification of potential countermeasures by Red/Blue exercises. In Red/Blue efforts, the Red
Team adopts an adversary mindset and develops countermeasure concepts; the Blue Team develops
concepts to negate the potential countermeasure. Potential countermeasures are then subjected to
laboratory and flight tests to determine technological feasibility and availability and the timing of
appearance. Analyses are also conducted to evaluate the role that political factors play in
development and deployment of countermeasures. Countermeasure concepts under investigation
include RV replica and decoy discrimination, RV signature masking, and other techniques to
confuse the defense.
After consultation with Congress, an agreement was reached on the establishment of a
Defense Science Boani (DSB) Task Force to review the SDI Countermeasures Program. As noted
in the Report of the Committee on Appropriations (Report 102-95), the ''DOD Independent Review
of SDIO Countermeasures- Action Plan" was developed to address Committee concerns. The
Action Plan directs the DSB Task Force to examine past and ongoing studies in the
Countermeasures program, assess the conduct, results and adequacy of the program, and develop
fmdings and recommendations regarding its future efforts. The Task Force will provide its report
in the summer of 1992.
7.6 Summary And Conclusion

During 1991, the SDI Countermeasures program continued to reorganize and refocus its
efforts in response to the evolving international security environment With the collapse of the
Soviet Union and the increasing proliferation of ballistic missiles and associated technology,
countermeasures employed by adversaries are likely to become more varied and innovative. In
response to this challenge, the Countermeasures program will continue to coordinate with element
and system designers to ensure that U.S. deployed defenses can respond effectively to all potential
countermeasures to SDI.
73
~~'I
I
I
I
l1
I'
il
Ill
III
r
.
I
I~:I
I
'I
. i
I~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Chapter 8
Funding
8-1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Chapter 8
Funding
This chapter responds to subparagraph (b)(B) of Section 224 of the National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Years 1990 and 1991 (Public Law 101-189), which requests "details regarding funding of
programs and projects for the Strategic Defense Initiative (including the amounts authorized,
appropriated, and made available for obligation alter undistributed reductions or other offsetting
reductions were carried out), as follows:
(A)"The level of requested and appropriated funding provided for the current fiscal year for each
program and project in the Strategic Defense Initiative budgetary presentation materials provided to
Congress.
(B) "The aggregate amount of funding provided for previous fiscal years (including the current
fiscal year) for each such program and project
(C) "The amount requested to be appropriated for each such program and project for the next
fiscal year.
(D) "The amount programmed to be requested for each such program and project for the
following fiscal year.
(E) "The amount required to reach the next significant milestone for each demonstration program
and each major technology program.
8-2
I II'
I
II'
I
II
,I
Funding
Table 81
Project Funding Profile
(In Millions of Tben-Year Dollars)
Funds Expended
Tbrougb FY
1991
416
103
431
503
1007
792
0
0
FY 1992
Appropriation
34
12
13
30
89
184
10
21
FY 1993
Request
494
466
149
651
40
285
0
0
0
0
0
31
126
6
63
79
II
18
0
14
50
63
35
0
19
1020
770
650
23
104
80
127
1392
67
24
175
76
0
47
24
1
12
1
II
1
24
486
431
462
134
68
135
Lethality and Target Hardening

Power & Power Conditioning
Materials & Structures
51
50
6
24
1505 Launch Planning, DevelqJment and
284
47
58
0
1601 Innovative Science & Tecbnology

1602 New Concepcs Development
583
146
70
40
83
41
1701 Launch Servicca

1702 Special Test Activities
25
23
71
17
68
36
2102 Brilliant Eyes

2103 Ground-Based Surveillance & TlliCking
System
2104 GroundBased Radar
2106 Advanced Contingency 'I'IIealel' Sensa
362
112
116
118
278
112
284
0
82
28
212
90
UNCLASSIFIED
Proiect Number and Title

II 0 I Passive Sensors
II 02 Microwave Radar
1103 Laser Radar Technology
1104 Signal Processing
1105 Discrimination
1106 Sensor Studies & Experiments
1109 Thealer Defense Discrimination
Ill 0 Sensors/Integration
1201
1202
1203
1204
1205
1206
1208
1209
1210
1211
1212
Interceptor Component Technology

Interceptor Integration Technology
Hypervelocity Technology
Interceptor Studies & Analysis
Foreign Technology Support
Advanced TMD Weapons
Discriminating lnte=ptor
Endoatmospheric Interceptor Technology
Navy LEAP Technology Demonstration
Interceptor Facilities
D-2 Program
1301
1302
1303
1304
1305
Free Electron Laser

Chemical Laser Technology
Neutral Particle Beam Technology
Nuclear Directed Energy Technology
Acquisition, Tracking, Pointing & Fire
Control Technology
1307 Directed Energy Demonstration
1403 Computer Engineering

1405 Communications Engineering
1501
1502
1503
1504
Survivability Technology
15
0
18
7
57
8
17
6
56
18
13
45
126
208
II
54
Demonslration
8-3
II
I
II
I
II
I
II
I
I
I
I
I
II
I
,.,II
I
I
~I
I
ll~o.
II
iI I
I
I I
II
I I
II
i I
i ,..
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Funding
Table 8-1 (continued)
(In Millions or Tben-Year Dollars)
Project Number and Title
Funds Expended
Tbrougb FY
1991
FY 1992
Appropriation
FY 1993
Reauest
0
160
2201 Space-Based Interceptor

2202 Ground-Based Exoannospheric Intetceptor
Development
2203 HEDI (E21)
2204 DEW Concept Definition
2205 Brilliant Pebbles
2207 PATRIOT Multi-mode Missile
2208 Extended Range Interceptor (ER1NT)
2209 Arrow Continuation Experiments (ACES)
2210 THAAD
2212 CORPS SAM
2213 Sea-Based TMD lnten:eptor
599
669
173
558
137
525
45
103
42
20
0
0
66
2
390
160
160
60
100
25
30
0
5
450
171
129
58
243
25
2300 Command Center

2304 System Software Engineering
655
5
74
8
1204
8
3102
3103
3104
3105
3107
3108
3109
3110
3111
3112
3113
3114
System Engineering
SOlO Metrology
Integrated Logistics Support
Producibility & Manufacturing
Environment, Siting & Facilities
Operational Environments
System Security Engineering
Survivability Engineering
Surveillance Engineering
System Engineering Support
Ground Communications
Launch Communications
191
0
44
29
51
2
7
2
7
0
0
0
74
I
4
199
0
7
20
16
I
12
8
11
29
13
0
320 I
3202
3203
3204
3205
3206
3207
3208
3209
3210
3211
3212
3213
3282
3292
Arcltiteclure and Analysis

Opezations Interface
Intelligence 'lbmll Development
Countermeasures Integration
Theater Missile Defense Special Studies
System Threat
System Arcbitec~
Integration and Balancing
Special Studies
Tactical Missile Defense Attack
c'I and Operational Analysis
Passive Defense
Active Defense Engineering
191
29
65
109
138
7
14
28
0
0
0
0
0
I
3
7
10
17
68
8
24
7
16
4
16
I
6
I
I
Operational Planning
Offense-Defense Analysis
11
I
11
2
10
27
15
3
26
5
6
10
22
32
7
0
11
0
3
19
3
3
I
I
UNCLASSlFIED
8-4
I I
Funding
Table 8-1 (continued)

(In Millions or Then-Year Dollars)
Prolect Number and Title
Funds Expended
Through FY
1991
FY 1992
Aooroorlation
FY 1993
Reouest
11
83
6
147
0
0
29
38
9
24
49
22
116
6
217
37
29
45
7
133
57
SOlO Test Data Centers

System Test Environment
Independent Test & Evaluation
Targets
Theaiee Test Bed
Computec Resoun:es and Engineering
Airborne Surveillance Test Bed
System Simulating (Level I and Level 2)
System Test Planning and Execution
Test and Evaluation Facilities and Launch
Suppon
3311 Mobile Test Assets
3312 System Test Environment Support
0
550
15
276
101
39
625
0
0
12
15
14
15
4000 Operational Support Costs
1190
407
351
8
59
2
I
3
I
UNCLASSIFlED
3301
3302
3303
3304
3305
3306
3307
3308
3309
3310
4302 Technology Transfer

4305 Miniaturized Accelerntors for PET
8-S
55
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Funding
Table 8-l
Estimated Funding Required to Meet Next Milestone
(In Millions or Tben-Year Dollars)
ProRram/Project
2104 Theater Missile DefenseGrowld Based Radar
2207 PA1RIOT
2210 THAAD
2212 CORPS SAM
2102 Brilliant Eyes
2104 National Missile DefenseGround Based Radar
2202 Ground Based lnlercepla
2205 Brilliant Pebbles
2300 Command Center
1301 Free Electtcn Laser
1302 Chemical Laser
1303 Neutral Particle Beam
1305 Acquisition, Tracking,
Pointing/Fire Control
Required
Arter FY 1993
Description or Next Milestone
Date
434
Milestone II
1996
722
1188
547
1043
1545
Milestone ill for Multi-mode Missile

Milestone II
Milestone II
Milestone II
Milestone II
1995
1996
1997
1998
1998
915
.1715
707
288
1064
Milestone II
Milestone II
Milestone II
Megawau Class FEL Dernonslration
Capstone Technology Integration
Experiment
Far Field Optics Experiment
Integrated ATP DemonstnUion
1998
1997
1997
1998
1997
360
190
1997
1997
UNCLASSIFIED
8-6
I II
I
II
I
. II
I
II
I
II
I
II
I
II
I
II
II
I
I
,,I
I
I
II
II:I
I
I
~I
I
II
,I
i
II
:I
:I
:I
8-7
I~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Chapter 9
Relation of SDI Technologies to Military Missions
I IIi
II
I
I
II
I
!I
I
II
I
II
I
II
I
II
:I
II
. I
I
I
I
:I
IIII
. I,I
. III
I
II I
il
:II
II
:II
~I
I
!I
9-1
I ,...
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Chapter 9
This chapter responds to subparagraphs (b) (9) and (b) (1 0) of Section 224 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Years 1990 and 1991 (Public Law 101-189), which requests "details on what
Strategic Defense Initiative technologies can be developed or deployed within the next 5 to 10 years to
defend against significant military threats and help accomplish critical military missions. The missions to be
considered include the following:
(A)
"Defending elements of the Armed Forces abroad and United States allies against tactical
bal6stic missiles. particularly new and highly accurate shorter-range baiDstic missiles of the Soviet
Union armed with conventional, chemical, or nuclear warheads.
(B)
"Defending against an accidental launch of strategic baJUstic missiles against the United
States.
(C)
"Defending against a Umited but miUtarily effective attack by the Soviet Union aimed at
disrupting the National Command Authority or other valuable miUtary assets.
(D)
"Providing sufficient warning and tracking information to defend or effectively evade
possible attacks by the Soviet Union against military satellites, including those in high orbits.
(E)
"Providing early warning and attack assessment information and the necessary survivable
command, control, and communications to facilitate the use of United States military forces in
defense against possible conventional or strategic attacks by the Soviet Union.
(F)
"Providing protection of the United States population from a nuclear attack by the Soviet
Union.
(G)
Any other significant near-term military mission that the application of SDI technologies
might help to accomplish."
Subparagraph (b) (10) requests ,or each of the near-term military missions listed in paragraph (9), the
report shall include the following:
(A)
"A list of specific program elements of the Strategic Defense Initiative that are pertinent to
such missions.
(B)
"The Secretary's estimate of the initial operating capability dates for the architectures or
systems to accompUsh such missions.
(C)
"The Secretary's estimate of the level of funding necessary for each program to reach
those initial operating capability dates.
(D)
"The Secretary's estimate of the survivabiUty and cost-effectiveness at the margin of such
architectures or systems against current and projected threats from the Soviet Union.
9.1
Introduction
This chapter discusses the application of SDI technologies to critical and/or significant
military missions. The chapter also addresses the issue of cost effectiveness at the margin within
the context of the changing international security environment, and the survivability of proposed
defensive systems.
9-2
II'
I
II
I
II
I
II
I
9.2
SDI Technologies and Critical Military Missions
For' SDI systems associated with missions (A) through (F) in subparagraph (b) (9),
information on the schedule and cost to achieve initial operating capability (IOC) will be provided
in the 180-day repon on the deployment of Theater/Tactical missile defenses and a single-site,
initial National Missile Defense system, as requested by Congress. IOC schedule and cost
estimates related to the potential application of SDI technology to other significant military missions
is not provided because such information would be speculative at this time.
Figure 9-1 lists the critical military missions (A) through (F) specified by Congress in
subparagraph (b) (9), and identifies the SDI systems which incorporate the near term technologies
which could accomplish these missions. The six missions are addressed wholly, or in pan, by the
GPALS concept of protection against limited ballistic missile attack. Details on these systems are
found in Chapters 2 and 3 of this report
Mission
A. Defending elemen!S of the Anned Fon:es abroad and United StaleS
allies against tactical ballistic missiles (fBMs), particularly new and
highly accurate shorter-range ballistic missiles of the Soviet Union

armed with conventional, chemical, or nuclear weapons.
Program
Element
r<UJC"
.:
:
:
i/22('1):-BE
1-TMD-ORR
_221 )5- BP
22m-
r
10321 r
10321
2208- ERIN
' 2210 -THA n
SAM
2212 2300- CLE
B. Defending against an accidental launch of Slralegic ballistic
missiles against the United StaleS.
:
:
!Wl1215(
:-ill:
Wl~?l ~("
)(,{)121 ~
'- (
IM~?l~l
_.: !2J :-GBL
C. Defending against a limiled but militarily effective attack by the

Soviet Union aimed at disrupting the National Command Authority
or other valuable military assets.
: )5~~
:t3 0-
D. Providing suffiCient warning and tracking information to defend

or effectively evade possible attacks by the Soviet Union against
military satellites, including those in higb orbits.
12102-B
12205- B
12300- <IE
E. Providing early warning and attack assessment information and

the necessary survivable command, control, and communications to
facilitate the use of Uniled StaleS military forces in defense against
possible conventional or Slralegic attacks by the Soviet Union.
12
F. Providing pro&ection of the United StaleS population from a

nuclear attack by the Soviet Union.
1:!11 )2. IE
:-~
];
I (
L-:
i-BP
1- C"'E
~3(
_.:w )4-. iBR
~~
113!1:
10 mn.
!Wl' )1
~~r
uoo
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
II
I
II
).1:1'
I~
]UOUJll5C
IQj!Q32151
:!202 _,
2205- ~
2300 .( ZE
Figure 9-1 SDI Technologies and Critical Military Missions

9-3
II
,R
I
i0321
I
II
I
:I
II
!
I I~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Relation of SD/ Programs to Military Missions
9.3
SDI Technologies and Significant Military Missions
This section addresses significant military missions that SDI technologies might help to
accomplish. Significant military missions include air, maritime, ground, and space defense.
9.3.1
Air Defense
The Nonh American air defense mission encompasses surveillance, warning, interception,
and identification or negation of unknown aircraft that penetrate the air defense identification zone.
Systems that contribute to the air defense mission in the Nonh American continent include the Joint
Surveillance System network of Air Force and Federal Aviation Administration radars, the Distant
Early Warning Line/Nonh Warning system radars across Alaska and Canada, Over-the-Horizon
Backscatter radar, Airborne Warning and Control System (A WACS) aircraft, and fighterinterceptors on continuous alert. SDI technologies could significantly improve air defense mission
efficiency and effectiveness, especially against future threats.
Nonh American air defense assets operate as a system, with one type of surveillance asset
compensating for the deficiencies of others. Interceptor aircraft assist fixed surveillance sensors in
identifying all tracks of incoming aircraft. In some cases, A WACS aircraft and interceptors
perform surveillance when transient gaps occur in radar coverage. If fixed or aircraft-based
sensors had greater capability, interceptors could perform more critical missions. Improvements in
sensor range, data processing, and operating efficiency would greatly facilitate the air defense
mission.
Because aircraft can be divened to many possible targets, discerning the objectives of an
air-breathing attack is difficult. However, broad patterns of mass raids can be revealed if
information from multiple sensors can be assimilated simultaneously. SDI's advances in
survivable communications and distributed computation could significantly improve raid
recognition, attack assessment, and efficient assignment of interceptors.
The Nonh American air defense surveillance mission could obtain substantial benefit from
a variety of SDI effons. SDI electrical power projects could provide long-term energy sources for
unattended ground-based radar systems. Battle management and communications systems within
the SDI Program could facilitate sensor data fusion and attack assessment. Improvements in
aircraft-based compact data processing and sensor operations could greatly enhance airborne
surveillance of air-breathing threats. Survivable, high-data-rate communication systems could help
maintain connectivity among the air defense regions and improve the allocation of interceptors and
sensors within and among regions.
Tactical air defense in a theater of operations is closely integrated with Theater Missile
Defense (TMD) and includes sensors such as the A WACS and other (non-TMD) mobile groundbased radars. These sensors provide early warning and engagement control of Air Force air
defense and Army antiaircraft surface-to-air missile systems such as the PATRIOT (in its antiaircraft role), HAWK, Stinger, and Chaparral, as well as Vulcan gun systems. The current air
defense sensor/weapon configuration results in a highly decentralized command and control
environment, which is further constrained by limitations in battle management/command, control
and communications (BM/C3) technology.
Theater air defense operations depend on limited sensor and BM/C3 architectures, which
are in turn affected by electronic countermeasures and raid size. Sensors incorporating
sophisticated SDI technology would ensure sustained theater air defense operation and would
preclude the operation's being hampered by countermeasures.
9-4

Theater air defense operations could also benefit from the development of SDI
technologies. For example, the extension of air defense systems to a more robust role could be
derived from hypervelocity gun (HVG), laser, and kinetic-kill vehicle experiments. Early-warning
attack assessment functions could benefit from sensor developments. Missile lethality
enhancements could be based on improved lethality and vulnerability analyses. Command,
control, and data processing could be improved as a result of the software development and signal
data processing work being accomplished for the SDI Program. Reductions in size and weight of
the missile components and better rocket motors and gun launch components will result in both
increased range and higher probability of kill.
'I
I
;
At the global level, SDI computer technologies and simulation display advances could help
integrate air-breathing and missile threat information necessary to respond to combined attacks.
SDI kinetic energy interceptor technologies may allow more intercepts with fewer aircraft. Sensor,
kinetic energy interceptor, and battle management technologies pursued by the SDI Program could
all be applicable to the strategic air defense missions.
The utility of space lasers for worldwide air defense has been studied since the 1970s.
Lethal beams can be projected to the cloudtops, destroying strategic bombers in seconds. Theater
aircraft are similarly vulnerable. SDI progress in hydrogen fluoride chemical laser technology, and
in the pointing and control of the high power beam makes a militarily useful system possible.
9.3.2
.I
Maritime Operations
The global maritime operations of U.S. naval units and fleets in peacetime and wartime are
critically dependent on surveillance, communications, and the ability to intercept hostile forces
beyond the range at which the forces can actively threaten fleet units.
Advances in communications, multiprocessors, intelligence interfacing, and software, from
projects now under development in the SDI Program, should greatly benefit U.S. fleet operations.
For example, the SDI battle management software developed to track and intercept hundreds of
ballistic missiles and reentry vehicles (RVs) should be readily adaptable to the Navy's requirements
to perform similar operations involving seaborne and airborne friendly and hostile objects.
Furthermore, SDI software development tools employing artificial intelligence and knowledgebased technology should markedly reduce the cost and time required to develop and manufacture
secure and fault-tolerant software for tactical use in maritime operations.
The SDI advanced infrared sensor technology, if applied in naval aircraft and air defense
missiles, could help fleet defenses keep pace with advances in the anti-ship missile (ASM) threat.
Space-based radar, employing major advances in high-frequency and sophisticated signal
processing techniques for extending sensor performance, will offer a valuable mix for confronting
hostile forces with a multispectral surveillance, tracking, and targeting capability.
Spinoffs from HVG and laser technology could result in highly effective ship-based
weapons for close-in defense. For example, a rapid-fire electromagnetic gun (rail gun) that propels
a low-cost guided projectile could be very effective for defending against ASMs launched from
bombers, ships, or submarines. Additionally, electromagnetic coil launchers, with the potential to
launch much heavier aircraft from an aircraft carrier than currently is possible, offer a replacement
for steam catapults.
Applications of SDI laser weapon technology could provide the quick-kill defense
capability needed to counter even the most advanced AS Ms. Advances in developing high-power
microwave technologies for strategic defense may be applied to seaborne tactical weapons in
9S
I'
I
I
defense against missiles and targeting satellites, and may be applied to suppression of enemy shipand land-based defensive radars and command, control, and communication systems.
9.3.3
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Ground Forces
For conventional ground force operations enemy forces most likely will deploy a vast array
of weapons, including tanks, mobile artillery, armored personnel carriers, and attack helicopters.
These weapons are designed to provide the mobility and firepower necessary to defeat allied
forces. To counter this capability, U.S. forces require a continued infusion of new technologies
to provide improved capabilities in the areas of firepower, fl!'e control, and command control, and
communications, as well as improved power supplies to enhance the mobile operations of
advanced weapons.
The SDI Program is developing a range of advanced technologies that could be used to
develop advanced weapons, suppon systems, and control systems for conventional forces. For
example, HVG technologies could provide significant improvements in anti-armor operations. The
HVG could be capable of long-range, rapid, lethal response to conventional attack. In addition,
the ability to engage more than one target at a time is being developed through advances in
computer-aided and controlled multitarget fl!'e control systems. This ability would enhance the
battle management functions of all forces and enhance their efficiency in the use of resources.
The development of high-power-density power supplies could provide a significant benefit
to the modern ground force, especially command and control and suppon elements. Improvements
in power technology have led to the development of systems that can provide suffiCient power with
low noise and/or thermal signatures. Lightweight, quiet power systems would reduce the
signature of critical units, thus enhancing survivability while meeting power needs.
The SDI Program also is developing technologies to automate the collection, fusion, and
processing of massive amounts of intelligence data on a near-real-time basis. These technologies
can help ensure the timeliness and availability of reliable intelligence required to suppon mobile
forces on a battlefield
9.3.4
Space Defense
U.S. space defense requirements include space surveillance and tracking, space defense
weapons, and space system survivability. Particularly relevant are SDI systems (Brilliant Eyes,
Brilliant Pebbles technology, Ground-Based Interceptor) and technologies for maneuvering and
hardening space platforms.
Additionally, multispectral focal plane arrays and on-board processing are being developed
to provide global coverage and multiple track me maintenance. Shon-wavelength lasers have
direct potential for tracking and providing rapid images of satellites. In the long term, interceptors
or other means of active self-defense are likely to be required (e.g., ground-launched interceptors
could be used against the co-orbital ASAT).
9-6
Figure 9-2
Potential SDI Technology Benefits to Other Significant Military Missions
SDI TECHNOLOGIES
BENEFIT TO OTHER DEFENSE

MISSIONS
Air Defense
Long-term energy service
Sensor data fusion and auack assessment
Survivable high data rare communications
Integration of threat infonnation
Electrical Power
Battle management and communications
systems
Computational techniques and simulation
deploy
CHAPTER 3/
PROJECT
NUMBERS
1503
1405, 2300, 3102 and 3306
3102, 1405
2300,3302,and3306
Kinetic energy interceptor
1201 and 1202
Hypervelocity gun
Kinetic-kill vehicle
Survivability
1203
1301 and 1302
1201 and 1202
1501
Missile lethality
Lethality and vulnembility analysis
1502
Command, control and data processing
SoftwaJe development and signal data

processing
1405, 2300, 3102, and 3306
Destroy strategic bombers and theater

aircraft
Space-based chemical J.asen
1302
Theater endoatmospheric, and exoatmospheric

intezceptors
1201,1202, 1206,2202,and
2203
More intercepts with fewer aircraft

More robust
Laser
Maritime Operations
Long-mnge intercept
Secure, survivable communications
networlc and advanced processing
Communication, multiprocessors, intelligence, 1403,1405,2300,2304,

interfacing, and softw~~~e
3102, 3109, and 1501
Advanced infrared sensor teclmology in

naval aircraft and air defense missiles
Advanced infrared sensor teclmology
1101, 1201, 2102, 2103, and

3307
Close-in defense
Hypervelocity gun and lasa'
1203, 1301, and 1302
Ground forces
Anti-armor and antiaircraft
Hypervelocity gun
1203
High-power derisity power supplies
Power and power cooditiooing
1503
Computer-aided and -amtroJled multitarget Battle management

fJre control
Space Defense
Support satellite survivability
Multispectral focal plane arrays and on-
2300,3102,and3306
Space survci11ancc and engagement and satellite 1301, 1302, 1303, 1501,
survivability
2102, 2103, 2205, and 3307
Space SCDSOIS
1101, 2102, 2103, and 3307
Ground-lmed radar
1102 and 2104
board processing
Ground-lmed radar
9-1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
9.4 Cost-Effectiveness at the Margin

In past years, the focus of the SDI Program has been deterrence of a massive intentional
Soviet missile strike. In the former U.S.-Soviet relationship, U.S. planners evaluated prospective
defenses using the Nitze Criteria of military effectiveness, survivability, and cost effectiveness at
the margin (CEATM).
Public Law 99-145, Section 222 (dated November 8, 1985) stated that
"
(B) the system is cost effective at the margin to the extent that the system is
able to maintain its effectiveness against the offense at less cost than it would take to
develop offensive countermeasures and proliferate the ballistic missiles necessary to
overcome it; ... "
In the context of the previous U.S.-Soviet strategic balance, to prevent the Soviets from
adding systems to overcome a deployed defense, the defense had to be less expensive to upgrade
than the offensive weapons the Soviets deployed. In this context, the Soviets would have a
reduced incentive to deploy extra systems, since the U.S. could counter these additions at less
expense.
CEATM, while a key criterion for considering the possible deployment of a defense against
a massive Soviet attack, is not relevant when applied to Global Protection Against Limited Strikes
(OPALS). Additionally, the CEATM criterion was originally applied to avoid an unfavorable
long-term, offense-defense, cost competition with the Soviet Union. Since a massive strike from
the ex-Soviet, nuclear-capable republics is considered extremely unlikely, ensuring favorable
CEATM is no longer an appropriate or relevant criteria.
Nor is CEATM a useful criteria in the context of accidental or unauthorized launches from
former Soviet Union republics, or limited intentional strikes from other nations. The former Soviet
Union has no incentive to modify its forces to ensure the success of accidental or unauthorized
launches--this would be contradictory. And, with regard to intentional or other attacks by other
nations, the defensive capabilities envisioned under the OPALS concept should be sufficient to
handle the limited inventory of ballistic missiles these nations are likely to have in the near future.
A cost tradeoff more applicable to the mission of defending against limited strikes is the
cost of the defense relative to value of the protected assets. For a strike against the continental
United States (CONUS), this means weighing the cost of OPALS against the value destroyed by
an attack in the absence of a defense--potentially tens of millions of lives and hundreds of billions
or trillions of dollars.
In addition, in several important ways, OPALS may reduce the incentives of smaller
nations to pursue ballistic missile capabilities. First, the presence of missile defense would
increase potential attackers' cost of successfully delivering a weapon on target, thereby making it
difficult for many economically constrained nations to pursue a ballistic missile development
program capable of real strategic utility. Second, a space-based global defense could significantly
reduce the effective range of a threat missile, thereby reducing the geographic scope of influence of
the attacker and enhancing regional stability. Finally, the presence of a defense may require an
attacker to alter his targeting, selecting less valuable but undefended targets, thereby reducing the
strategic utility associated with ballistic missiles and providing a further disincentive for
proliferation. The combination of these effects could do much to slow the spread of ballistic
missiles, thereby aiding othec nonproliferation efforts and reducing the possibility of an accidental,
unauthorized or limited strike ever taking place. Criteria related to such anti-proliferation and
9-8
; !I
regional-stability measures are much more germane to the GPALS mission than is the Nitl:e
criterion of CEATM.
9.5
Survivability
A critical requirement of the Nitze criteria is to ensure the functional survivability of

potential ballistic missile defense elements in a hostile environmenL The U.S.'s former principal
concern was the possibility of defense suppression attacks by the Soviet Union on elements of a
U.S. ballistic missile defense system. To address this concern, the SDI program pursued vigorous
development of both passive and active survivability technologies, methods and tactics. Passive
measures include: hardening the defensive systems against nuclear, kinetic energy, laser, and
RF/microwave threats; redundancy; and autonomy. Active measures include options such as attack
warning, on board survivability management options, and evasion tactics.
The defense suppression threat was an acknowledged, critical factor in the design of
defenses when the SDI program was focused on deterring and disrupting a massive Soviet attack.
With the program focus changed to defense against a proliferating third country ballistic missile
threat, and protection against limited (accidental or unauthorized) attacks by the former Soviet
Union, it has been assumed that the concern over a defense suppression attack can be relaxed.
This position presupposes that defense suppression capability is currently beyond the technical and
economic capability of most (if not all) third world countries. Additionally, a defense suppression
attack has been typically viewed as a precursor to a Ulllilll Soviet attack.
I
.I
I
I
I
I
I
iI
I:I
I
I
III
:I:I
However, an unauthorized, limited attack by a "rogue" commander or republic of the

former Soviet Union could be accompanied by defense suppression measures if such an already
existing capability was available to the commander or republic. Even without an accompanying
defense suppression attack, the destruction by U.S. defenses of ballistic missiles and warheads in
space may detonate the nuclear warhead(s) and produce a hostile (nuclear) space environment in
which remaining defensive systems would have to operate. In addition, modest defense
suppression attacks by third world countries are feasible, especially at the tactical level. Therefore,
the design of SDI systems and architectures, even under the GPALS concept, continues to
incorporate survivability measures.
II
I
il
The survivability of potential ballistic missile defense systems is ensured through a twofold approach. First, broad-based SDI survivability programs are maintained to suppon the
development of all potential BMD systems. These efforts include:
- A Balanced Hardening program, which develops survivability technologies such as:

electronics that can operate within nuclear environments; hardened communications systems; and
laser/radio frequency (RF)-jamming mitigation tactics. Once validated, these technologies are
available for system developers to tailor them to satisfying system-unique requirements.
- An Environment/Analysis and Simulation program, wherein computer environment

models are developed and made available to system developers. Operability demonstrations are
conducted, and cost-effectiveness and functional assessments are performed.
- A special Theater Missile Defense survivability program which investigates theaterspecific issues such as radar cross-section reduction techniques, protection from chemical threats,
and countermeasures to anti-radiation missiles.
- A Test and Evaluation program, wherein proposed systems, subsystems, and
components are subjected to simulated threat environments, to include ionizing radiation in
underground nuclear testing.
99
I
I
I'I
I
I
I
II
I
II
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

Secondly, the formal DoD acquisition process demands that survivability requirements be
developed and validated for each military system, and that adequate operational testing be
conducted to ensure that systems satisfy those requirements before they are fielded. For SDI,
survivability requirements are developed for both the individual defensive elements, and for the
overall defensive system. Operational testing or appropriate simulation is likewise required and
will be conducted at both levels.
9-10
911

Strategic Defense Iniative

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Strategic Defense Iniative

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Strategic Defense Iniative

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

I

1992 Report to Congress on the

Prepared by the Strategic Defense Initiative Organization

Prepared by the Strategic Defense Initiative Organization

lntroduction ........................................................................................ 1-2

Ballistic Missile Defense--History ............................................. : ............... 2-2

2.3.1 Theater Missile Defense ................................................,. ............... 2-6

Introduction ....................................................................... !................ 3-2

~-4 of SDI Projects and Activities to Possible Deployment Phases

GPALS and the Allies ........................................................................... 5-2

Cooperative SDI Programs with Friends and Allies .................... : ..

Countermeasures ................................................................................. 7-2

The Third World ................................................................................... 7-2

Air Defense .............................................................................. 9-4

Ballistic Missile Capabilities: A Representative Look ............................... 1-4

Global Protection Against Limited Strikes (GPALS) ................................ 2-4

Notional Near Term Theater Missile Defense Architecture .......................... 2-8

Notional Far Term Theater Missile Defense Architecture ............................ 2-9

Limited Defense System/National Missile Defense Architecture .................... 2-10

Initial Defense Site ...................................................... ,................. 2-12

Composite Multi-Threat Defense Coverage: Single Site In Northeast............. 2-14

BP Operation ........................................................... : .................. 2-16

OPALS-Related Space-Ground R&D Investment .................................. 3-3

SDI Technologies and Critical Military Missions ................................... 9-3

Project Funding Profile (In Millions of Then-Year Dollars) ........................ 8-3

Estimated Funding Required to Meet Next Milestone

(This page intentionally left blank)

Ballistic Missile Defense Policy

(This page intentionally left blank)

1.2 SDI and the New National Defense Strategy

1.2.2 Strategic Defense in the New Military Strategy

1.3 The Ballistic Missile Threat

Ballistic Missile Proliferation

Ballistic Missile Defense Policy

Figure 1-1 Ballistic Missile Capabilities: A Representative Look

Ballistic Missile Defense Policy

1.3.2 Accidental and Unauthorized Strikes

Missile Defenses and U.S. Efforts to Discourage Proliferation

1.4 Toward the Future:

Global Ballistic Missile Defense System

U.S. and Its Allies

1.4.2 U.S. and the Former Soviet Union

The Administration is pursuing discussions concerning the deployment of limited defenses

Ballistic Missile Defense Policy

Shared View on Defenses

the sharing of early warning information on ballistic missile launches through a

the development of a concept for a global ballistic missile defense system.

The potential for sharing of early warning information through the

The potential for cooperation with participating states in developing

The development of a legal basis for cooperation, including new

1.5 U.S. Contribution to a Global Defense System

Space- and surface-based sensors capable of providing global, continuous

Ballistic Missile Defense Policy

1.6 The Missile Defense Act of 1991

maintain strategic stability; and

1.6.1 Toward the Future

Ballistic Missile Defense Policy

1.7 Summary and Conclusion

Ballistic Missile Defense Policy