DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY, OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY CHIEF OF STAFF FOR OPERATIONS AND PLANS,
Washington, DC, May 1, 1996.

Hon. Floyd Spence,
Chairman, House National Security Committee, House of Representatives, Washington, DC.

Dear Mr. Chairman: The Army understands that the House National Security Committee (HNSC) Research & Development Subcommittee will recommend during full committee markup that Medium Extended Air Defense System (MEADS) funding be cut. This action is apparently based on concerns surrounding technical, fiscal, and cooperative issues surrounding this international effort. These misconceptions place this program in severe jeopardy and place our future deployed forces at risk.

The MEADS effort was undertaken to explore a cost effective international solution to the need for defense of maneuver forces against the full threat spectrum to include aircraft, helicopters, unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV), cruise missiles (CM), and theater ballistic missiles (TBM). This need was reemphasized both last summer in a series of Senior Department level and CINC letters to Congress and in DoD's recently completed Ballistic Missile Defense Review which fully funded the programs' Project Definition and Validation (PD-V) Phase. Despite the potential French withdrawal from the program, the urgent need to provide maneuver force protection still exists.

The United States, Germany, and Italy recently committed to continue the international program, as demonstrated by their 22 April 1996 trilateral Statement of Intent. The Army enthusiastically supports pursuit of this international program with our NATO allies including Germany, one of our strongest and most stable air defense partners. The lack of demonstrated U.S. financial resolve will undoubtedly send a perplexing signal to this international industrial and governmental partnership.

MEADS is recognized as a vital defense system for the challenge of force protection on the 21st century battlefield. The Army views a system like MEADS as the eventual long term replacement for the Patriot system as the Army's lower tier TBM defense in the post 2010 time frame. The current investment in the PD-V phase will ensure that Soldiers, Marines, Airmen, and Sailors of the future will be protected on the battlefield by a robust system capable of responding to the full spectrum of threat.

Request your support for this critical Department of Defense Army air and missile defense program.

Respectfully,

Edward G. Anderson III,
Major General, U.S. Army.

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE ORGANIZATION,
Washington, DC, May 1, 1996.

Hon. Floyd Spence,
Chairman, House National Security Committee, House of Representatives, Washington, DC.

Dear Sir: I understand that the R&D Subcommittee has recommended that, in the FY97 Authorization Bill, the Medium Extended Air Defense (MEADS) be canceled. I would respectfully ask the Committee not to accept this recommendation for several reasons.

MEADS is an absolutely critical element of our ballistic missile defense architecture, providing the critical protection for US maneuver forces as they engage the enemy. It is strongly supported by both the U.S. Army and Marine Corps. In last year's discussion of MEADS, General Joulwan, our European CINC, forwarded a particularly strong letter of support for MEADS, reflecting the views of our other warfighters.

It is the only system that will have the transportability and mobility to be brought into theater and to forward deploy with the troops. Besides its capability to defend against ballistic missiles, it is a critical system to also protect these forces against advanced aircraft and cruise missiles. Patriot and other missile defense systems in our theater architecture cannot fulfill this role.

MEADS is envisioned to be a key multinational co-development program where we will leverage investment by European partners, who have similar military requirements, to undertake and complete the system development. We are responding to the direction given to us by the Congress in the FY96 Authorization Act.

As I have indicated to the Committee in my recent testimony, our negotiations with our European partners are complete and we should sign the Memorandum of Understanding within the next few weeks. Against the backdrop of a HNSC cancellation of the Program in FY97, the credibility of the United States vis-a-vis armaments cooperation will be called into question. Additionally, such a cancellation would have very serious ramifications vis-a-vis other programs where the United States is seeking European support.

Sincerely,

Malcolm R. O'Neill,
Lieutenant General, USA, Director.

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY, U.S. ARMY SPACE AND STRATEGIC DEFENSE COMMAND
Arlington, VA, May 16, 1996.

Hon. Floyd Spence,
Chairman, House National Security Committee, Washington, DC.

[Page: H6386]

Dear Mr. Chairman. The Army understands that the House National Security Committee has recommended that funding for the Medium Extended Air Defense System (MEADS) be cut and the Senate Armed Services Committee has recommended funding be reduced below the level negotiated for the international program. These actions place this program in severe jeopardy and, as a result, place our deployed forces at risk.

The threats to Army and Marine Corps maneuver forces (short range tactical ballistic missiles, cruise missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles) exist today and will grow significantly as we enter the 21st Century. The joint requirement document specifics countering these threats with a strategically deployable, tactically mobile system providing 360 degree coverage. Existing system configurations fail to provide the required protection due to deployability and mobility limitations, lack of 360 degree coverage, and lack of growth potential to meet these essential requirements.

As envisioned, this requirement will provide our forces the mobile protection required on future battlefields. The United States, Germany and Italy recently committed to continue the international program as demonstrated by their April 22, 1996 trilateral statement of intent. MEADS is the only system currently being designed with the mobility, deployability, target set and other critical characteristics of meet the Corps SAM requirements.

As the Theater Missile Defense Advocate for the United States Army, I strongly recommend that the Congress consider the MEADS/Corps SAM requirements and restore the funding necessary for this system designated for the protection of our maneuver forces.

Sincerly,

Jay M. Garner,
Lieutenant General, U.S. Army.
Commanding Officer.

United States Army,
The Vice Chief of Staff.

Hon. Floyd Spence,
Chairman, Committee on National Security, House of Representatives, Washington, DC.

Dear Mr. Chairman: I understand the House National Security Committee (HNSC) recommended zeroing the funding request for the Medium Extended Air Defense System (MEADS) in the FY97 Defense Authorization Bill. As its Chief of staff emphasized last summer following the SASC's vote to terminate the program, the critical warfighting requirement that MEADS intends to fill remains completely valid. As such, further funding disruptions will significantly impair our ability to expeditiously field a theater missile defense (TMD) system designed to protect our maneuver forces.

The threats to Army and Marine Corps maneuver forces form short range tactical ballistic missiles, cruise missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles exist today and will grow significantly as we enter the 21st Century. The MEADS requirements documents specifies countering these threats with a strategically deployable, tactically mobile system providing 360 degree defense coverage. Existing system configurations fail to provide the required protection due to deployability and mobility limitations, lack of 360 degree defense coverage, and lack of growth potential to meet these essential requirements.

Despite the potential French withdrawal from the program, the Army fully supports the MEADS international effort with our NATO allies. The MEADS program improves both US and NATO operational capability through total interoperability. Having MEADS deployed with our allies would mean less reliance on US assets to defend US and Allied forces and interests. This critical program is essential to further NATO cooperative efforts and a strong alliance. We support the Department of Defense decision to fully fund the MEADS Project Definition and Validation phase. This will allow international industry teams to fully explore all key TMD technologies and recommend robust, cost-effective solutions. I appreciate your support as we seek to provide the highest quality TMD force protection possible.

Sincerely,

Ronald H. Griffith,
General, United States Army,
Vice Chief of Staff.

United States Marine Corps,
Washington, DC.
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY,

Headquarters, U.S. Army,
Washington, DC.

Hon. Ted Stevens,
Chairman, Subcommittee on Defense, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.

Dear Mr. Chairman: We are writing to reaffirm our requirement for 360 degree protection against all tactical aircraft--from supersonic jets to attack helicopters, against advanced, low signature cruise missiles, and against medium and short range ballistic missiles. Army and Marine Corps maneuver forces face these threats today and are expected to face an expanding threat as we enter the 21st Century.

The Army and Marine Corps are in agreement that the Initial International Common Operational Requirements for the Medium Extended Air Defense System (MEADS) includes features necessary to meet the expeditionary nature of the Marine Corps, and will satisfy future Army Air Defense requirements. The MEADS program will involve participation by two key NATO allies, Italy and Germany.

We are very concerned that the Army and the Marine Corps currently do not have a system to meet this requirement. MEADS is projected to fulfill this requirement. The Army and the Marine Corps fully support the Department of Defense decision to fully fund the MEADS Project Definition and Validation phase. Funding will allow international industry teams to fully explore all key theater missile defense technologies and recommend robust, cost-effective solutions.

As always, we appreciate your support as we seek to provide the highest quality Missile Defense protection available for soldiers and Marines.

Sincerely,

C.C. KRULAK,

General, U.S. Marine Corps,

Commander of the Marine Corps.

DENNIS J. REIMER,

General, U.S. Army,

Chief of Staff.

United States Forces, Korea,
June 13, 1996.

Hon. Ike Skelton,
Ranking Minority Member, Subcommittee on Military Procurement, Committee on National Security, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC.

Dear Mr. Ranking Minority Member: On behalf of the airmen, soldiers, sailors, marines and civilians serving under my command in the Republic of Korea, I would like to thank you for your past support. I again find myself coming to you for assistance on a matter of the utmost importance to our mission on the Korean peninsula. I am writing you because of the threat to funding of a program that I view as a critical component of the security of my theater.

As I stated in testimony earlier this year and in a letter to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff which was well reported in the press, `Theater Missile Defense is another key area where we must improve our capability on the Korean peninsula. DPRK missiles threaten all our major ports, air bases, fielded ROK and US forces, and the population at large. However, even after upgrading to the PAC-3 configuration, these missiles can not cover all of our critical locations.' Although this statement was directed toward an upper tier system, I emphasized the importance of an upper tier system being in concert with an effective lower tier system.

The threat to forward ground combat forces in this theater from short and medium range ballistic missiles, unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV), and cruise missiles is already formidable, and continues to grow. The only system in place to defeat these threats across the full spectrum is Patriot, which consumes tremendous amounts of lift to get to the theater, lacks the mobility to support mobile combat forces and survive on the forward battlefield, and can only provide defense in a 90 degree sector.

The requirement for the Medium Extended Air Defense System (MEADS), formerly known as Corps SAM, gives the corps commander the means to protect his warfighting capability, and would also protect Marine amphibious forces from forced landing through redeployment. Compared to Patriot, MEADS/Corps SAM cuts airlift requirements in half, can cover twice as many forces in a movement to contact, with a third of the survival risk, and provides full 360 degree protection against all airborne threats. The need for this system is clear and fielding of this capability is vital to our survival and success on the future battlefield. That is precisely why this requirement, as part of a complete Theater Missile Defense program, is in the top 10 of our integrated priority list.

The Department of Defense has decided to fully fund the MEADS Project Definition and Validation Phase. Again, what concerns me is that funding for this critical program is threatened. Request your immediate support in the restoration of funding to the DOD requested level. Thank you for your continued support and assistance in this important endeavor.

Sincerely,

Gary E. Luck,
General, U.S. Army,
Commander in Chief.

Office of the Commander in Chief,
MacDill Air Force Base, FL, June 12, 1996.

Hon. Ike Skelton,
Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Military Procurement, Committee on National Security, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC.

[Page: H6387]

Dear Mr. Skelton: The House National Security Committee's 1997 Defense Authorization Bill currently proposes to eliminate funding support of the Medium Extended Air Defense System (MEADS). In today's increasingly complex, unstable world, this is unfortunate.

In the Central Region, the ability to defend against an ever growing threat from aircraft and short/medium range ballistic missiles is one of our highest priorities. In our view, key capabilities of any air/missile defense system are: mobility, 360 degree coverage, technical performance against the threat, and interoperability with our allies as well as across service lines. Systems currently in use do not meet these essential requirements. More importantly, we need a multi-layered air defense system that has as a major component the lower altitude capability to protect deep and fast moving land forces (Army and Marine) at distance from the shore or land entry point.

The capabilities inherent in Corps SAM/MEADS, or some similar derivative, will result in an increased ability to defend against current and future threats as well as possessing the characteristics so important in today's joint environment: mobility and interoperability. Continued funding support for this capability is crucial given the current threat we face in the Central Region as well as the prospects afforded by the proliferation of ballistic missile technology. In sustaining an international coalition, it is important that we be capable of providing a viable defense for the forces committed to our mutual objectives. I appreciate your support in restoring funding for this key program that will help defend our service men and women.

Sincerely,

J.H. Binford Peay III,
General, USA, Commander in Chief

United States European Command,
June 13, 1996.

Hon. Ike Skelton,
Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Military Procurement, House Committee on National Security, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC.

Dear Mr. Skelton: The President's Budget request for fiscal year 1997 included $56.2 million for the multinational Medium Extended Air Defense (MEADS) program, but the House recently passed a Department of Defense Authorization Bill that zeroes the MEADS program funding. In the short time since passage of the Authorization Bill, the Bill's key concern, expressed in the House report, has been addressed. The Memorandum of Understanding has been signed by the U.S., Germany, and Italy. Despite the withdrawal of the French from the program, there remains solid trilateral support for MEADS. Continued Congressional support of this program is essential for our Theater Missile Defense (TMD) program.

Theater missile defense is one of my top priorities. Many nations are developing and employing theater ballistic missiles, cruise missiles, and unmanned aerial vehicles which threaten U.S. and allied security interests. The `core' U.S. TMD systems play a central role in defending U.S. interests and forces, but these systems are limited by geography and strategic life requirements. Naval systems can reach only so far inland, and Patriot battalions require almost 70 C-5 sorties to deploy and offer little tactical mobility.

On tracked vehicles, the MEADS system moves forward with maneuver forces while protecting against low-level aircraft and cruise missiles as well as ballistic missiles. It requires substantially less strategic lift and enables the U.S. to protect both its forces and its regional interests against a wide spectrum of threats.

MEADS is an integral part of the multi-national, multi-service, layered defense architecture and provides cost-effective defense in our constrained fiscal environment. Unilateral development and fielding of new TMD systems often make programs unaffordable. Yet, with the Germans and Italians sharing the MEADS program costs, we can realize substantial savings.

I urge your support for the critical TMD system.

Sincerely,

George A. Joulwan,
General U.S. Army.