Sec. 1668. NEXT GENERATION INTERCEPTORS FOR MISSILE DEFENSE OF THE UNITED STATES HOMELAND
1,371 words·~6 min read·
/statute-compilations/comps-16861/sec-1668A research copy — for the controlling text, always check the official state or federal source. Not legal advice.
## SEC. 1668 NEXT GENERATION INTERCEPTORS FOR MISSILE DEFENSE OF THE UNITED STATES HOMELAND ###
(a)Funding Plan The Director of the Missile Defense Agency shall develop a funding plan that includes funding lines across the future-years defense program under section 221 of title 10, United States Code, for the next generation interceptor that— ####
(1)while applying lessons learned from the redesigned kill vehicle program, incorporating recommendations from the Comptroller General of the United States, and implementing “fly-before-you-buy” principles, produces and begins deployment of the next generation interceptor as early as practicable; ####
(2)includes acquiring at least 20 operational next generation interceptors; and ####
(3)includes transition plans to replace the current inventory of silo-based boosters with follow-on systems prior to the end of the useful lifecycle of the boosters. ###
(b)Report on Funding Profile The Director shall include with the budget justification materials submitted to Congress in support of the budget of the Department of Defense for fiscal year 2023 (as submitted with the budget of the President under section 1105(a) of title 31, United States Code) a report on the funding profile necessary for the next generation interceptor program through the date on which the program achieves full operational capability. ###
(c)Congressional Notification of Cancellation Requirement Not later than 90 days prior to implementation of a final decision to cancel the next generation interceptor program, the Secretary of Defense shall provide to the congressional defense committees a briefing on such decision, including— ####
(1)a justification for the decision; and ####
(2)an analysis of the national security risk that the Secretary accepts by reason of cancelling such program. ###
(d)Inclusion in Required Flight Tests Section 1689(a) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 (Public Law 114-328; 10 U.S.C. 2431 note) is amended by adding after the period at the end the following new sentence: “Beginning not later than five years after the date on which the next generation interceptor achieves initial operational capability, the Director shall ensure that such flight tests include the next generation interceptor.”. ###
(e)Report Not later than the date of on which the Director approves the next generation interceptor program to enter the initial production phase of the acquisition process, the Director shall submit to the congressional defense committees a report outlining estimated annual costs for conducting annual, operationally relevant flight testing to evaluate the reliability of the system developed under such program, including associated production costs for procuring sufficient flight systems to support such testing for the projected life of the system. ###
(f)Program Accountability Matrices ####
(1)Requirement Concurrent with the submission to Congress of the budget of the President for fiscal year 2023 and each fiscal year thereafter pursuant to section 1105(a) of title 31, United States Code, the Director shall submit to the congressional defense committees and the Comptroller General of the United States the matrices described in paragraph
(2)relating to the next generation interceptor program. ####
(2)Matrices described The matrices described in this subsection are the following: #####
(A)Technology and product development goals A matrix that identifies, in six-month increments, key milestones, development events, and specific performance goals for the technology development phase and the product development phase of the next generation interceptor program, which shall be subdivided, at a minimum, according to the following: ######
(i)Technology maturity, including technology readiness levels of major interceptor components and key demonstration events leading to full maturity. ######
(ii)Design maturity, including key events and metrics, at the interceptor all up round level and major interceptor component level. ######
(iii)Parts testing, including key events and metrics for vetting parts and components through a parts, materials, and processes mission assurance plan. ######
(iv)Software maturity, including key events and metrics, at the all up round level and major interceptor component level for the interceptor. ######
(v)Manufacturing maturity, including manufacturing readiness levels for critical manufacturing operations and key demonstration events. ######
(vi)Schedule, with respect to key program milestones, critical path events, and margins. ######
(vii)Reliability, including growth plans and key milestones. ######
(viii)Developmental testing and cybersecurity. ######
(ix)Any other technology and product development goals the Director determines to be appropriate. #####
(B)Cost ######
(i)In general The following matrices relating to the cost of the next generation interceptor program: ######
(I)A matrix expressing, in six-month increments, the total cost for the technology development phase and the product development phase. ######
(II)A matrix expressing the total cost for each of the contractors’ estimates for the technology development phase and the product development phase. ######
(ii)Phasing and subdivision of matrices The matrices described in clauses
(i)and
(ii)of subparagraph
(B)shall be— ######
(I)phased over the entire technology development phase and the product development phase; and ######
(II)subdivided according to the costs major interceptor component of each next generation interceptor configuration. #####
(C)Stakeholder and independent reviews A matrix that identifies, in six-month increments, plans and status for coordinating products and obtaining independent reviews for the next generation interceptor program for the technology development phase and the product development phase, which shall be subdivided according to the following: ######
(i)Performance requirements, including coordinating, updating, and obtaining approval of the top-level requirements document. ######
(ii)Intelligence inputs, processes, and products, including— ######
(I)coordinating, updating, and validating the homeland ballistic missile defense validated online lifecycle threat with the Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency; and ######
(II)coordinating and obtaining approval of a lifecycle mission data plan. ######
(iii)Independent assessments, including obtaining an initial and updated— ######
(I)technical risk assessment; and ######
(II)cost estimate. ######
(iv)Models and simulations, including— ######
(I)obtaining accreditation of interceptor models and simulations at both the all up round level and subsystem level from the Ballistic Missile Defense Operational Test Agency; ######
(II)obtaining certification of threat models used for interceptor ground test from the Ballistic Missile Defense Operational Test Agency; and ######
(III)obtaining accreditation from the Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency on all threat models, simulations, and associated data used to support interceptor development. ######
(v)Sustainability and obsolescence, including coordinating and obtaining approval of a lifecycle sustainment plan. ######
(vi)Cybersecurity, including coordinating and obtaining approval of a cybersecurity strategy. ####
(3)Form The matrices submitted under paragraph
(2)shall be in unclassified form, but may contain a classified annex. ####
(4)Semiannual updates of matrices Not later than 180 days after the date on which the Director submits the matrices described in paragraph
(2)for a year as required by paragraph (1), the Director shall submit to the congressional defense committees and the Comptroller General updates to the matrices. ####
(5)Treatment of the first matrices as baseline #####
(A)In general The first set of matrices submitted under paragraph
(1)shall be treated as the baseline for the technology development phase and the product development phase of the next generation interceptor program for purposes of updates submitted under subsection
(i)and subsequent matrices submitted under paragraph (1). #####
(B)Elements After the submission of the first set of matrices required by paragraph (1), each update submitted under paragraph
(4)and each subsequent set of matrices submitted under paragraph
(1)shall— ######
(i)clearly identify changes in key milestones, development events, and specific performance goals identified in the first set of matrices under subparagraph
(A)of paragraph (2); ######
(ii)provide updated cost estimates under subparagraph
(B)of such paragraph; and ######
(iii)provide updated plans and status under subparagraph
(C)of such paragraph. ####
(6)Assessment by comptroller general of the united states Not later than 60 days after receiving the matrices described in paragraph
(2)for a year as required by paragraph (1), the Comptroller General shall— #####
(A)assess the acquisition progress made with respect to the next generation interceptor program; and #####
(B)provide to the congressional defense committees a briefing on the results of that assessment. ####
(7)Termination The requirements of this subsection shall terminate on the date that is one year after the date on which the next generation interceptor program is approved to enter the production phase.
Connectionstraces to 2
Traces to 2 documents
U.S. Code
Citation graph
cites case law
Sec. 1668
NEXT GENERATION INTERCEPTORS FOR MISSILE DEFENSE OF THE UNITED STATES HOMELAND
Cites 2Cited by 0 across 0 sources