end. flights the flight testing which is the test requirements, increases the liability funding and continues the fire-control and software testing. in addition we continue on with the redesign kill vehicle and requesting $274 million for that continuance and flight test is still scheduled in late 2018. we'll begin deployment that in the 2020 time frame and undertake the other gbi improvements. continue liability improvements, technology modernization, everything we briefed last year continues this year in those important areas. shift gears in to epaa. it was deployed in 2011. we declared technical capability of epaa phase two in december. we continue to support epaa in

phase three in particular, $630 million towards epaa phase three to include the second agency. we anticipate beginning construction in 2016 of the tcd by tend of 2018. we continue procurement of missiles, continue to deliver missiles to the fleet. we continue the development at a pace of $106 million and that program went through two successful flight tests in 2015. with two intercept tests scheduled later this year and then another intercept test scheduled in early '17. for thad, one unit is deployed to guam in 2013 in response the north korean threat in the pacific area of operations. we continue procuremen of that equipment including 24 interceptors for $370 million

request. by the end of '17 it will deliver 61 additional interceptors to the army by tend of 2017 for a total of 205. shift gears to sensors and space. continue work on deployment and testing and sustainment of the radars. the air force uawr, total of just under $500 million is requested in this area. continue to support the sbx at a pace of request of $70 million. continue to move forward with the long range discrimination radar program in alaska. we've requested $162 million for that effort and requested another $155 million for phase one of the mission control facility and radar foundation in fy-'17. follow that with a phase two request of $150 million for the project. the space program we've talked in the past by the space kill

assessment. that experiment planning going well and focus area in the 2014 authorization act, we expect a launch the sk network in fiscal year '17. $20 million requested in that area. very important area. for ctb and cyber, $430 million requested for ctubc. this gives us the capability and five fold increase in the defended area in particular and allows to us field the functionality and support of phase three and important engage mobility. plan for and fund a 25 which is the spiral that will bring in the long discrimination radar. cyber operations program, i just want to mention because of its importance. we continue to work hard in this area as well as other tests in general service systems.

several initiatives that we got going, computer network defense certification. cyber monitoring, response team continues to pay great dividends. we continue to focus on discrimination across mda, across all of the elements of mda, and that request has continued in '17. just a word about advance technology. continue down the path with important laser technology development and the experiments and testing that are going on in particular at the laboratories and have now broadened into asking industry what we can do in this area. laser technology maturation is critical for us in term of not only discrimination but getting to concept feasibility point on this intercept. just a word about mlkb, we got

continued development funded, $72 million in '17. not a full program we're continuing to refine the industry concepts in this area. and evaluate the future program based on those concepts. one final word about international, continue to support the development of all of the regional defense capabilities which are sovy all thely important. expand our work with international partners. i won't go into specifics. a word about israel and our continued long standing support of their cooperative programs including the development of interceptor and aerosystem improvements and finally continue the previous efforts in co-producing the iron dome defense system in the 17 budget. those are the highlights. i wanted more importantly to get to your questions. i think we have handouts that describe in more detail but i'll be happy to take your questions.

yeah. >> i wanted to ask if the president's budget included anything for thad extended range, you know just given what some of the evolving things are happening in the pacific, if there's any speeding up of that possibility? >> there's not a speeding up but a continuation of the work we started last year with concept developments and not only for that system but other systems as well that are important for that region and other threats we're concerned about. >> are you still on track for 2025 deployment time frame for that >> that's the time frame that a future er, if it was approved program would deliver. it's about a ten year development program. >> korea as far as the public is concern, i asked peter cook your ground space systems had one successful intercept insurance 2008. you had two non-intercept tests.

tell the american people why they should have confidence in this system given it's had a spotty record albeit successful intercept in june of 2014. what gives you confidence, what gives you some concerns and i have a follow up on the can '08. >> sure, if i can expand the one for three back to the mid-2000s. and actually quota four for seven intercept test record, since the mid-2000s. on the fielded versions that are available to war fighter. ce 1s an ce 2s we're one for seven. and it's not just flight testing that helps us inform the reliability number that the war fighter uses to inform how they fight. there's also ground system architecture improvements that have gone on, and the work, more importantly, most importantly in term of the discrimination efforts that we focused on to

take the system from a simple threat capability to a much more complex threat capability that coupled with the reliability improvements that have been on a steady glide scope to improve the program since a couple of years ago gives us confidence that we're on the right path. the flight testing record isn't where we would like it to be. but the failures that we've had have been very simple. mechanical, vibration of the imu, and literally electrolyte leakage from a battery. we're not talking about the science and the algorithm and the hard part of fit to kill systems. we're talking about simple corrections that have been found in flight testing and corrections have been made and flood back to the fleet. we learned a lot from flight testing but we also learned a lot through extensive ground testing we've done.

i'll speak for the war fighter. we're comfortable with the pather with on improvements. >> he alluded to it it could be a threat to the u.s. what's your understanding of the status of that missile because you're designing a system to conquer it. >> sure. the efforts that we have focused on specifically since back in 2013 when secretary hagel made the decision to go for that very threat in terms of where we saw the numbers progressing, and where we saw the capacity that we need to defeat the potential inventory that they may have. the second part of that equation is and i'll just reiterate they

never successfully or attempted to flight test it. and flight testing an icbm is much different than flight testing what was demonstrated on sunday. not that what they did on sunday was not provocative it was, disturbing, alarming, but everything that we planned and have been supported by the department have been to stay ahead of that very threat, across the kill chain. and i'm very comfortable that we're one ahead of it today and the funded improvements keep us ahead of it on where it may be by 2020. >> you alluded to the lock wire here. zip and zap there. how are they improved or not improved. >> have gotten a lot better. we've seen a marked improvement in their efforts in this area. we continue to focus down at the

subcontractor third and fourth tier level and continue to ensure we're passing the same quality rigor down to that lower level of all the suppliers. as you know there's many on the kill vehicle, and it's a constant focus. yeah. andrea. >> just want to follow up in terms on changing scenario with korea, with north korea. there's been some discussion that admiral harris has acknowledged about, you know, making the test site in hawaii a permanent facility or an operational facility. can you say a word or two about how those discussions are going and also is there some need or some discussion about adding interceptors even beyond the 44, moving to a higher number in california where, i believe you only have three interceptors now, you know, given the shock doctrine and the concerns that,

you know, still are not completely resolved because you haven't gotten all the fixes in? >> sure. i'll take the first one first. the short discussion, i personally i have spoken to admiral harris about that last week. as a combatant commander his job is to continue to pursue as many tools in his toolkit to defeat the threat that he sees coming. that said, this facility was built as a test facility. and nothing more. but the question and his desire and its's a logical one and wha it could provide in terms of sensor or engagement capability. again we've not made any movement or decision on this. i would, i would characterize it as we're discussing and

considering options. but, again, you know, it was built as a faefcility and nothi more and before it transitions beyond that you have to see a whole department agreement and approach on that. [ inaudible ] >> i don't have a cost. there are many different levels of capability that could be considered. >> [ inaudible ] . >> i'm sorry can you repeat the question again. i got more on the west coast. the answer is no. 44 x 17, as you know, the effort on the kill vehicle on the redesigned kill vehicle is progressing and is far future, beyond the c 2 block 1 which we'll test later this year in terms of what we plan to do with that kill vehicle back to the ce 1 fleet and then any more beyond that i think you would see us requested in that design.

we continue to, in the new design if we were to go beyond 44. the program plan is 44 x 17 with capability of the rx v to get the ce fleet recapitalized and i would say the third thing i would answer is environmental studies that are going on with the east coast site continue and you'll see us come out with the final eis by tend of this fiscal year. but, again, no decision has been made on that and it's only p prepara torch ry work that's been done. >> is the system being considered for foreign military sales. the last congress inserted language seeking an explanation

to obstacles. >> yes it's being considered for military sales. i don't want to get out of policy decisions but those countries have expressed interest in it. i'll just leave it at that. >> thank you. >> yeah. >> how much money has been requested for rdt work on laser systems and are there any milestones ahead for fy-'17 or later on? >> i'll have to bucket and get back to you on the total number for lasers in particular because it's broken in many different lines here. but the request and really our focus on lasers continues down the path of scaling up in power, scaling down in size for both the discrimination first mission that we see and potential scale

up to a high powered laser some day. so we're focused on several different technologies in this area. we brought industry in and asked them to help us with their thoughts on concepts of potential applications. there's been a lot of work, great work done in the services on this in the army and air force and navy in particular, but for our application we're talking about the need for a much smaller but at the same time for some applications much more powerful. and it's not the same science in that problem. it's a big focus across our request this year as it was last year. the last thing i would say is the testing that we're doing with the reboost and the

unmanned aircraft in particular is not just lasers but it's uri sensing capability you need to go with the laser to provide the initial queue. big focus for us in terms of where we need to go with that capability. yeah. >> i wanted to ask an additional question on thad given that it seems like there's more serious discussions in sending thad to south korea. so, with that possibility now, is there more discussion or talk of -- you know there's still a requirement for nonthad batteries but only seven budgeted the last time i checked. so will we potentially see a plan to actually buy eight and nine now or what's the discussion behind all that? >> so, seven fully funded, seven

to deliver by 2018 to the army. interceptor procurement through 2021 at over 400 interceptors total. we continue to discuss with the army that requirement and when it would need to be fulfilled and what the budgeting year would be for that. it's not off the table in any respect. but not included in this year's budget. yeah, tony. >> how many ce 2s or war heads are in the field now, they are going to go to 44 by 2017 but how many now, roughly? >> i'll try to keep it unclassified. it breaks roughly one-third/two-thirds. based on maintenance we always say there's 30 but it can go up

or down one or two total and then you'll see us as we go to 44 that mix will be a higher percentage of ce 2s. >> 30 to 44 by the end of '17. incrementally adding. >> we're adding -- we're going beyond 30 every month between now and tend of '16. i think the number is 37 by the end of '16. and then 44 by tend of '17. so you're going to start to see that number go up. >> what's the next intercept test scheduled? you haven't had one since june of '14. >> we have learned a lot through our non-intercept test. that data is equally important to any intercept test we do. the intercept test that we're scheduled to conduct is in november of this year. against an icbm. and that will be the ce 2 block

1 interceptor. >> it's going most sophisticated target ever? >> certainly the longest range target ever that we've intercepted. and i'll keep the other part of that test classified in terms of what we're going to present and what the speed of intercept would be. >> replicating a -- >> replicating the expected range and speed of an icbm. we would be more concerned does it replicate the ko 8. >> i know you're planning an intercept test to test that against an icbm as well? >> not an icbm. >> what is the next test? so if that's proving it's short and medium-range targets, right?

>> we're looking at two tests in the '17-'18 time frame that will test against the intermediate year range ballistic missile that's similar to what we expect from north korea or iran. >> just on north korea, just because it's been in the news so much and we've been thinking about it, do you have any preliminary thoughts now, assessments of both -- the implications are both the nuclear test and this most recent launch in term of any additional capabilities or additional knowledge that they've gained and what does that mean in terms of the program here in terms of defending. >> i'll leave others what the policy implications are of that. i'll talk to you what we're doing specifically and what we planned against that threat. again, i keep walking back to

the decision that was made to go to 44g bis by '17. we're in a steady state effort on this program. when epa was born. and there was no planned improvement beyond what was done to just maintain the system. i give great credit to secretary hagel and jim miller in particular and admiral having the vision to see this coming and that decision has enabled us to be three years ahead of where we would have been if we had done nothing. so, i've got create confidence in where we are today which is a complete capability against that threat that's never been flight tested and where it might be by 2020 and i just reiterate to the american people that that foresight has enabled us to

build and maintain and improve the system in a big way and can't go into the numbers in terms of where we'll be with reliability but it's across the board increase of capability and across the kill chain and gives the war fighter create confidence we're on the right path. >> you've addressed the possibilities of an icbm from north korea. could you share any threat analysis you're operating under for the positive an iranian icbm and what you told the house committee the iranian couldn't field one until later this decade at the earliest. >> i'll let the intelligence community speak to that officially. what we've done is not deviate since you know years ago on our path against not just the regional threat that iran poses, but the potential long range

icbm threat that they pose. and today the current system would protect against that hypothetical threat, and the improvements that were undertaken with 44 x 17 and everything we've done to field improvements like the fort drum integrated data terminal the one we'll cut into the architecture this year gives us the extra communication capability to that exact threat along with all the uerw improvements that are briefed and taking that radar which was fairly old technology wasn't the air force's help upgraded that into a good first step of ballistic missile tracking classification capability and with those improvements, and the other efforts we made across the kill chain with gmd we're equally postured well for that threat should it materialize. yeah. courtney.

>> i wanted to ask you if you believe that your funding in '17 is enough to outpace the threats at this point in time and if you have had to take a step back on anything in '17 that you are worried about? >> not in our request that there are upgrades and programs that are continuing in '17 that we started in '15, actually that continue to be supported by the department. and i get the r and d question a lot, you know, if there was something that was ready now, you would hear me talking about the need for more r and d. but we're progressing on many fronts right now at a pace that will get us to decision points in a logical system engineered, well thought out, well tested,

well analyzed pace to inform those future capability increases and i throw thad er in that mix or any other capability that we're looking at against the hyper sonic glide vehicle threat that we see materializing in the future. and i'm comfortable that we've got the key decision points laid out over the next several years on laser capability. and i'll just leave it at that. interceptor upgrade capability. and more sensor capability as well. and i think if there was a glaring hole -- i haven't been in this job for over three years now and there was a glaring need like there was in 2013, the department would step up and fund that. i think we've got the right

balance. >> overall amount of defense missile defense spending in the overall defense budget went down from the two, by i think 7% to 9.1 million. i know that's not all nda. what meant away? what did you have to sacrifice? >> of the nine that you see, 7.5 is mda. and our pd-16 request for '17 was 7.8. and that was our share of the amount that was given to the department below the budget agreement. and i think you've heard maybe of the $22 billion at the department level, our share of

that was, was that $300 million. where we took risk was in interceptor procurement, thad and aegis in particular and we looked inwardly and have garnered more efficient isis. i talked about what we've done in the past but i'm the first to not want to trade immediately fighting capability when a cut comes down but there's efficient isis we've and the across the program and the test program in terms of becoming more efficient there at a better cost. everybody in the department is challenged that way and those are the tradeoffs we made. yeah. back here. >> the sensor going on now, does the budget speak at all to maybe stf, something post-sensor? >> yeah. >> satellite, maybe? >> there's been a lot of studies

done on what should be next, not just for beyond for us in particular, beyond stds but we proposed several years ago and we've engaged with the air force and other partners in those studies. and partners outside of dod even. and our missile defense function is a big part of those discussions in terms of, you know, if there's a new constellation, where does missile defense fit in and we're there. it will not be an mda centric satellite system request. . and i don't want to get out in front of those discussions but that's where we're headed. we got the right effort in terms of the space kill assessment which we're getting up on the commercial satellites which will happy lot in terms of informed

that mission the kill assessment information that we need. and prototype that and then the work that we've done in terms of some of the repo work with sensors there eventually you want to get something into space and prototype it. and then i think that will inform what's the long term -- what's the long term end state. but i can assure you that the discussion is where does mda fit in with partners in that discussion. and that's where we are coming out and through the airway. >> when do you expect to have or hold a competition for rx v? >> there won be a competition. we brought the industry partners together. it will be out in the '18-'19 tame fra

time frame for production. there's a few to get us through the test program but the long term production will be competed. yeah. >> israel, there's been two memorandum of understanding. roughly where are those? are u.s. companies getting shares of iron dome funding? >> there's only one signed co-production agreement today. we're working on another co-production agreement. we're garagering and i won't go into the percent, but it's not significant. not small percent of work share that's come back to the united states with iron dome. >> not insignificant. >> not significant. and i'm very comfortable that that agreement has panned out not just for us but for israel and importance of that system.

yeah. >> time for one more question. >> let's go here. go ahead. >> is india doing work right now to upgrade the patriot system? >> army program. army improvements. yeah. >> the funding for israel is in the 125 -- >> that's correct. over 100 million. >> the co-production agreement when do you anticipate completing that and is it not correct that the congress has asked for that to be a 50-50 split on both iron dome and david sling? >> i don't know that specifically. certainly interest. i would guess on the percent. but i can tell you that we're working hard with our israeli partners to come up with the best agreement we can for us and them and it's bean very open transparent discussion and it

will follow the path that iron dome followed. >> will there be an agreement this year? >> i can't put a tame frame on it. these things take time. as you know, dave sling was extremely successful at the end of the year in their test series and exceeded our expectations and their expectations on its performance so we're very comfortable talking about production at this point. >> last year the israelis came back with an additional request after the budget had been submitted for additional missile defense support. do you anticipate that they might ask for additional funding beyond the level you've provided? >> not to me. that will be a discussion with us and them in more between them and the congress and i'll stay out of that. >> now whether that's going part of the mou negotiated with sniz

>> i don't have the details of the specifics of that mou and i would be guess field goal i said it was. better suited for state department or policy to answer that. thanks. >> thank you very much, folks. don't forget rick has some handouts for you. >> thank you. on the next washington journal congressman mike pompeo of kansas a member of the select benghazi committee gives an update on the investigation into the 2012 attack. then representative brenda lawrence of michigan, the leading democrat on the oversight subcommittee on the interior is here to discuss the flint water contamination and national water safety issues. after that katharine moon on north korea's launch of a long range rocket last week. washington journal is live every morning at 7:00 a.m. eastern and can you join the conversation with your calls and comments on facebook and twitter.

next, utah governor gary herbert delivers his annual state of the state address at the state capitol in salt lake city. this is 25 minutes. >> all rise. the honorable gary r. herbert, governor of the great state of utah, and first lady jeanette herbert, followed by spencer cox, our lieutenant governor, and his wife abby. [ applause ]