DoD's Fiscal 2002 Amended Budget Request: Under Secretary Aldridge Speaks Out on Acquisition Budget Implications - Edward C. Aldridge - Interview

Program Manager, Sept-Oct, 2001

On June 27, 2001, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld presented a special DoD News Briefing on the amended fiscal 2002 budget request for the Department of Defense. Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics Edward C. "Pete" Aldridge spoke with a small group of reporters after the briefing.

Q

What is going into the BMDO [Ballistic Missile Defense Organization] in terms of changing the lending programs into categories?

A

The philosophy of the ballistic missile defense program is that we are trying to put together a technology program that will allow ballistic missile defense to move from various stages of intercept -- we'll be looking through the entire spectrum of ballistic missiles from short-range to long-range, and designing a program that allows us to address the terminal phase, the mid-course phase, and the boost phase.

And as we go from terminal to boost, it obviously gets harder and harder. We're not sure we know what the answer is to move through these layers of defense so we've laid out a program that really gets started in FY02 to begin to identify those technologies for those various phases of flight. And as we proceed in time and technologies are proven or disproved, we will narrow down [the choice of technologies], heading toward a solution.

As we get to a solution, if there is a decision to deploy, we will. The first step of that you're seeing [already] in the budget, where the PAC-3 [Patriot Advanced Capability 3] and possibly wide area defense are actually moved from BMDO to the Services for them to [monitor and] deploy. That's missile defense, and they've made the decision to move out and proceed.

As we lay out a research and development program, and as we find those answers with time and we know what the cost is and we know what the time to deploy would be, then we would move it [missile defense] back to the Services for implementation.

In the past we've been spending money but we've been restricted to the assumption that we will do everything within the ABM [Anti-Ballistic Missile] Treaty. I think you've heard the President has said that until we find a solution -- if that's the solution we want -- we will not be constrained by the ABM Treaty We hope to negotiate that away but he thinks the decision on how we're going to pursue ballistic missile defense will be based on what's in the best interest of the nation in this world rather than the world of 1970.

As a matter of fact, I was a member of the arms control negotiating team that wrote the provisions of testing in the ABM mode. I was part of the SALT I [Strategic Arms Limitation Treaty I] negotiating team, and I remember writing those provisions down. Those provisions are no longer appropriate for this world. That was 30 years ago. So that's kind of what the plan is and that's what [BMDO Director] General Ronald Kadish has laid out.

The program this year adds roughly $2 billion to begin to lay out these parallel technology paths, and that's where we're heading.

Q

Knowing that you are heading up this panel that is now doing a comprehensive review of the Navy's shipbuilding program, [and based on] what you see from the Navy regarding their solutions for what to do with the SBN [Ship Building Navy] account money that's provided in this budget, is that satisfactory to you? Are they placing themselves on the right track given what you started to see out of your review?

A

What we saw in the review as far as what's going on in the Navy ship building program, puts the Navy on a decline [as far as] total number of ships. If we did nothing more than what the Navy's plan was, we would be going down over the next 20 years to a 200- or 230-ship Navy. So we said we need to understand the role of the Navy in this new environment. What is the role of the Navy? What is the structure of the Navy we need to pursue to begin to meet our needs for the future as part of this strategy?

I asked the Secretary of Defense about doing an overall Navy force structure review with the programs that we need, the rate of ships we need to buy, and the type of mix of ships we need for the future. So the study was undertaken under those ground rules. It was something that I thought was very important.

I happened to have run a Navy shipbuilding study for former Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld in 1976, and he understands how we do those kinds of things. We look at the world and determine what the world looks like and the threats, challenges, and technologies of the world. We need to determine what the role of the Navy is in this future world. If we can determine what the role of the Navy is going to be, then we can determine the size and the shape and the technology that it ought to have. We need to do that before we lay out a shipbuilding program. We have to do it for the purpose for which the Navy's being constructed.

Q

Based on the reaction yesterday to the play on reducing the B-Is and consolidating them, and the general reaction in Congress every time there's a suggestion to cut something almost anywhere, how realistic is it to make those cuts? And how do you go about doing it?