3.

4.

In addition to the above, the following may enter Phase 2 in FY 1987:

Strategic Relocatable Target Weapon

Additional weapons concepts which may enter Phase 2 in
FY 1987 or FY 1988 are not now known.

Demolition Munitions

Question: Please provide a table showing the number of W45, MADM and B54, SADM munitions stockpiled, their location, their useful life, and the schedule and status of retirement.

Answer: All W45 (MADM) munitions have been retired, and there are none in the inventory. All European deployed B54 (SADM) warheads were removed by end-FY 1985 (as announced publicly at the October 1985 meeting of NATO's Nuclear Planning Group)

DELETED

Question: How much special nuclear material is included in each of these weapon systems (W45, B54)?

Answer: The W45 (no longer stockpiled as an ADM warhead is still used in Terrier missile system) and the B54 special nuclear material quantities are as follows:

DELETED

Standard Missile-2

Question: What is the new schedule for deployment of the W81, SM-2 warhead including the total number required?

Answer: At the time the FY 1987 budget was submitted, expected IOC for the SM-2(N) was DELETED However, due to a budget restructure caused by FY 1986 Congressional appropriations reductions for SM-2 (N) development, IOC for this weapon has been delayed Initial planning estimates indicate that DELETED SM-2(N)s will be required to meet projected shipfill, reload, and maintenance pipeline requirements.

DELETED

Question: Provide a breakdown of all funding requested in FY 85, FY 86, and FY 87 for this warhead.

Answer: Direct production and surveillance funding requested for this warhead in FY 1985, FY 1986, and FY 1987 is as follows:

Question: Explain the military need for the new nuclear warhead and the full capability of the warhead design.

Answer: The SM-2(N) is an important element of Navy AAW doctrine and is needed to counter nuclear anti-ship cruise missiles (ASCMs) such as the Soviet AS-4. A defensive weapon, it is specifically designed for kill of the incoming ASCMs nuclear warhead. Analysis has shown that nuclear-armed ASCMs

DELETED

Antisubmarine

Question: Describe the status of the DOD and DOE's development of the antisubmarine warfare/standoff weapon.

Answer: The Phase 2A Design Definition and Cost Study has recently been completed for Antisubmarine Warfare/Standoff Weapon, now known as Sea Lance. The Navy has completed the Defense Systems Acquisition Review Council II and will proceed with full scale engineering development for the weapon system. The Navy is also processing a request that Department of Energy proceed into Phase 3 engineering development for the nuclear payload. It is expected that Phase 3 will commence in August 1986.

Question: Provide for the record a breakout of the total estimated cost (including operating and PACE), total builds, per unit cost of the warhead, and the amount spent and remaining cost.

Answer: The life cycle cost estimate for the Antisubmarine Warfare/Standoff Weapon as published in the Weapon Design and Cost Report follows:

57-567 0-8625

Research, Development, and Testing
Production and Surveillance

Construction

Total

($ in Millions)

$ 398.1
DELETED

119.9

$DELETED

Of this total, actual costs incurred for this system through the second quarter of FY 1986 total about $100,000. DELETED

Question: Have there been any delays in the DOD discussions on this system?

Answer: The antisubmarine warfare/stand-off weapon development and production schedule has been unchanged for the last year.

Question: What is the status of the authorization and appropriations--both DOD and DOE--for this system? Provide a breakdown of DOD and DOE funding for FY 85, FY 86, and FY 87.

Question: Describe the status of the DOD and DOE development Antisubmarine Warfare Nuclear Depth/Strike Bomb.

Answer. A joint Phase 2A Design Definition and Cost Study commenced in February 1986. The study should be completed in time to support the start of Phase 3 Development Engineering in about a year.

Question: Have there been any delays in the DOD discussions on this system?

Answer: Since the decision to pursue a Phase 2A was made in November 1985, there have been no delays in proceeding with the study.

Question: What is the status of the authorization and appropriations--both DOD and DOE--for this system?

Answer:

The research, development, and testing funding allocated to this Pre-Phase 3 system remains part of the level of effort and is not specified until Phase 3. The Department of Energy is planning an initial estimated allocation of about DELETED in production and surveillance direct operating expenses for production/process engineering in FY 1987. Construction funding is anticipated to be requested in FY 1988. The Antisubmarine Nuclear Depth/Strike Bomb is a new start in FY 1987.

Strategic Defense Initiative

Question: The Administration has submitted an FY 1986 supplemental request for $62 million for the DOE Strategic Defense program. The funds for this supplemental request are to come from DOD appropriations. Please explain why this transfer is used rather than a request for new appropriations.

Answer: An appropriation transfer will not increase Federal outlays and is deficit neutral as compared to a supplemental request.

Question: Does this request imply that the FY 1986 DOD appropriation was excessive?

Answer:

No.

In FY 1986 the Strategic Defense Initiative budget was reduced $1,000,000,000 which required Strategic Defense Initiative Organization program restructuring. As part of this restructuring, high priority experiments such as nuclear directed energy weapons were accelerated for early resolution of critical nonnuclear systems and survivability issues. If funds were not transferred they would be used to restore some of the efforts deleted in program restructuring and to provide funds for some efforts that could readily be accelerated.

Question:

FY 1986?

What, specifically, will these funds be used for in

Answer: The appropriation transfer will be used to accelerate research on nuclear driven directed energy weapons research. This research is necessary to understand the Soviet capability against any defensive systems we may develop; understand the Soviet capability there might be against our present deterrent forces; and to investigate a nuclear strategic defense option if needed.

Question: What programs and what laboratories are expected to be funded?

Answer: All of the weapons laboratories will receive funding from the appropriation transfer. Funding will be allocated to support all four major nuclear directed energy weapons concepts including the x-ray laser, hypervelocity pellets, electromagnetic concepts, and optical lasers as well as vulnerability and lethality studies. DELETED

Question: What is the effect on laboratory manpower of this supplemental request?

Answer: Laboratory strategic defense initiative staffing will increase on the order of about 140 FTE's total for Sandia National Laboratories, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, and Los Alamos National Laboratory.

Question: Provide a table showing the manpower requirements for the Strategic Defense Initiative for FY 1985, FY 1986, and FY 1987. Please provide this by laboratory.

Answer: The estimated manpower requirements for Department of Energy nuclear directed energy weapons are provided in a table which I would like to insert in the record.

Question: Provide the funding for the Strategic Defense Initiative by location for FY 1985, FY 1986, and FY 1987.

Answer: The estimates for Department of Energy nuclear directed energy weapons are provided in the following table: (The information follows:)