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. Weve requested 162 million for that effort and requested another 155 million for phase one of the Mission Control facility and Radar Foundation in fy17. Follow that with a phase two request of 150 million for the project. The Space Program weve 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 were 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 wont 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 coproducing 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 ill 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 theres any speeding up of that possibility . Theres 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 were concerned about. Are you still on track for 2025 deployment time frame for that thats the time frame that a future er, if it was approved program would deliver. Its 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 nonintercept tests. Tell the American People why they should have confidence in this system given its 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 mid2000s. And actually quota four for seven intercept test record, since the mid2000s. On the fielded versions that are available to war fighter. Ce 1s an ce 2s were one for seven. And its not just flight testing that helps us inform the reliability number that the war fighter uses to inform how they fight. Theres 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 were on the right path. The flight testing record isnt where we would like it to be. But the failures that weve had have been very simple. Mechanical, vibration of the imu, and literally electrolyte leakage from a battery. Were not talking about the science and the algorithm and the hard part of fit to kill systems. Were 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 weve done. Ill speak for the war fighter. Were comfortable with the pather with on improvements. He alluded to it it could be a threat to the u. S. Whats your understanding of the status of that missile because youre 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 ill 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 im very comfortable that were 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. Weve 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 were passing the same quality rigor down to that lower level of all the suppliers. As you know theres many on the kill vehicle, and its a constant focus. Yeah. Andrea. Just want to follow up in terms on changing scenario with korea, with north korea. Theres 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 havent gotten all the fixes in . Sure. Ill 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 itss a logical one and wha it could provide in terms of sensor or engagement capability. Again weve not made any movement or decision on this. I would, i would characterize it as were 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 dont have a cost. There are many Different Levels of capability that could be considered. [ inaudible ]. Im 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 well 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 youll see us come out with the final eis by tend of this fiscal year. But, again, no decision has been made on that and its only p prepara torch ry work thats been done. Is the system being considered for Foreign Military sales. The last congress inserted language seeking an explanation to obstacles. Yes its being considered for military sales. I dont want to get out of policy decisions but those countries have expressed interest in it. Ill 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 fy17 or later on . Ill have to bucket and get back to you on the total number for lasers in particular because its 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 were 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. Theres 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 were talking about the need for a much smaller but at the same time for some applications much more powerful. And its not the same science in that problem. Its a big focus across our request this year as it was last year. The last thing i would say is the testing that were doing with the reboost and the Unmanned Aircraft in particular is not just lasers but its 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 theres more serious discussions in sending thad to south korea. So, with that possibility now, is there more discussion or talk of you know theres 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 whats 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. Its not off the table in any respect. But not included in this years 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 . Ill try to keep it unclassified. It breaks roughly onethird twothirds. Based on maintenance we always say theres 30 but it can go up or down one or two total and then youll 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. Were adding were 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 youre going to start to see that number go up. Whats the next intercept test scheduled . You havent had one since june of 14. We have learned a lot through our nonintercept test. That data is equally important to any intercept test we do. The intercept test that were scheduled to conduct is in november of this year. Against an icbm. And that will be the ce 2 block 1 interceptor. Its going most sophisticated target ever . Certainly the longest range target ever that weve intercepted. And ill keep the other part of that test classified in terms of what were 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 youre planning an intercept test to test that against an icbm as well . Not an icbm. What is the next test . So if thats proving its short and mediumrange targets, right . Were looking at two tests in the 1718 time frame that will test against the intermediate year range Ballistic Missile thats similar to what we expect from north korea or iran. Just on north korea, just because its been in the news so much and weve 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 theyve gained and what does that mean in terms of the program here in terms of defending. Ill leave others what the policy implications are of that. Ill talk to you what were 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. Were 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, ive got create confidence in where we are today which is a complete capability against that threat thats 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 cant go into the numbers in terms of where well be with reliability but its across the board increase of capability and across the kill chain and gives the war fighter create confidence were on the right path. Youve addressed the possibilities of an icbm from north korea. Could you share any threat analysis youre operating under for the positive an iranian icbm and what you told the House Committee the iranian couldnt field one until later this decade at the earliest. Ill let the Intelligence Community speak to that officially. What weve 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 weve done to field improvements like the fort drum integrated data terminal the one well 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 wasnt the air forces 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 were 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 were 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 were looking at against the hyper sonic glide vehicle threat that we see materializing in the future. And im comfortable that weve got the key decision points laid out over the next several years on laser capability. And ill just leave it at that. Interceptor upgrade capability. And more sensor capability as well. And i think if there was a glaring hole i havent 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 weve got the right balance. Overall amount of Defense Missile