House strategic forces hearing presses DOD on ‘Golden Dome’ reference architecture, spectrum needs for homeland defense

At a House Armed Services Committee Strategic Forces Subcommittee hearing, witnesses and members pressed the Department of Defense for details on the Administration's "Golden Dome" concept for homeland defense and on related studies ordered by the White House.

The discussion centered on how to build a layered defensive architecture to detect and defeat incoming threats, how the "Golden Dome" reference architecture under study will affect strategic stability, and whether the DOD can retain essential spectrum needed for detection, tracking and satellite communications.

The issue drew bipartisan attention because the executive order directing an "Iron Dome for America" study directed the secretary of defense to provide a reference architecture to the president. John Hill, who is performing the duties of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Space Policy, told the committee that the study produced a reference architecture for the president to consider but declined to detail recommendations that remain between the secretary and the president: "that'll be for the secretary and the president to ... provide the president, a reference architecture that the president could incorporate into the president's budget." (John Hill, performing the duties of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Space Policy).

Members pressed the witnesses on what a final architecture would need to include. "I've provided our command's recommendation of a 3 dome approach with the first dome being a domain awareness dome, the second to handle ICBMs and the third to handle the air threat to include cruise missiles," said General Gregory Guillot, commander of U.S. Northern Command, describing NORTHCOM's submission to the study and how hypersonic threats might be apportioned across the domes.

Representatives and generals repeatedly emphasized the importance of radio frequency access for the program. When asked whether a Golden Dome could be effective if the department lost access to the 3.0'0—.5 GHz band, Guillot responded, "I don't see how we can have an effective homeland defense system, without, full use of the 3 to 3.5 spectrum and the higher, numbers you mentioned, will be challenging as well." (General Gregory Guillot, commander, U.S. Northern Command). Other witnesses described ground radars in those lower-3 bands and SATCOM links in higher bands as central to missile warning, missile defense and space domain awareness.

Ranking Member Seth Moulton told the committee he had asked Hill about what the 60-day study period produced and what recommendations reached the president; Hill reiterated that the study provided a reference architecture for the president's budget process and that specifics would be released with the budget. Moulton and other members also asked witnesses to account for strategic-stability effects of a homeland-layered defense; witnesses said those considerations were part of the study analyses.

Committee members and commanders described the Golden Dome approach as inherently layered: domain awareness to "detect, track, cue and feed" defeat systems; an ICBM-focused layer for long-range ballistic threats; and an air/ cruise missile layer that would also address certain hypersonic profiles. Members emphasized that domain awareness is a prerequisite to defeat: "they can't defeat what they can't see," a point made repeatedly during the hearing.

Witnesses asked for sustained funding and for Congress to consider acquisition, test and fielding timelines as the executive branch and Department of Defense finalize requirements. Hill said most training and testing approvals do not require the highest-level review and that the department is seeking opportunities to reduce unnecessary approvals as space becomes more integrated with joint operations.

The committee did not receive a public, itemized budget or design for the Golden Dome at the hearing. Hill said the reference architecture is presently between the secretary and the president and will be incorporated into the president's budget for public consideration. Members said they would press for clearer costings and timelines as budgets and program details are submitted.

The hearing recessed for votes before question rounds concluded; the panel said it would resume questioning after the votes to continue oversight and to press for more detailed, budgeted plans to implement a layered homeland defense.