[House Hearing, 108 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS FOR 2004
_______________________________________________________________________
HEARINGS
BEFORE A
SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
________
SUBCOMMITTEE ON DEFENSE
JERRY LEWIS, California, Chairman
C. W. BILL YOUNG, Florida JOHN P. MURTHA, Pennsylvania
DAVID L. HOBSON, Ohio NORMAN D. DICKS, Washington
HENRY BONILLA, Texas MARTIN OLAV SABO, Minnesota
GEORGE R. NETHERCUTT, Jr., PETER J. VISCLOSKY, Indiana
Washington JAMES P. MORAN, Virginia
RANDY ``DUKE'' CUNNINGHAM,
California
RODNEY P. FRELINGHUYSEN, New Jersey
TODD TIAHRT, Kansas
ROGER F. WICKER, Mississippi
NOTE: Under Committee Rules, Mr. Young, as Chairman of the Full
Committee, and Mr. Obey, as Ranking Minority Member of the Full
Committee, are authorized to sit as Members of all Subcommittees.
Kevin M. Roper, Alicia Jones, Gregory J. Walters, Doug Gregory, Paul
W. Juola, Steven D. Nixon, Betsy Phillips, Paul D. Terry, Greg Lankler,
Kris M. Mallard, John G. Shank, and Sarah E. Young, Staff Assistants
Sherry L. Young and Clelia M. Alvarado, Administrative Aides
________
PART 1
Page
Secretary and Chief of Staff of the Army......................... 1
Secretary of the Navy, Chief of Naval Operations, and Commandant
of the Marine Corps............................................... 205
Secretary and Chief of Staff of the Air Force.................... 345
Secretary of Defense, Annual Report to the Congress.............. 481
________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations
________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
92-804 WASHINGTON : 2004
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
C. W. BILL YOUNG, Florida, Chairman
RALPH REGULA, Ohio DAVID R. OBEY, Wisconsin
JERRY LEWIS, California JOHN P. MURTHA, Pennsylvania
HAROLD ROGERS, Kentucky NORMAN D. DICKS, Washington
FRANK R. WOLF, Virginia MARTIN OLAV SABO, Minnesota
JIM KOLBE, Arizona STENY H. HOYER, Maryland
JAMES T. WALSH, New York ALAN B. MOLLOHAN, West Virginia
CHARLES H. TAYLOR, North Carolina MARCY KAPTUR, Ohio
DAVID L. HOBSON, Ohio PETER J. VISCLOSKY, Indiana
ERNEST J. ISTOOK, Jr., Oklahoma NITA M. LOWEY, New York
HENRY BONILLA, Texas JOSE E. SERRANO, New York
JOE KNOLLENBERG, Michigan ROSA L. DeLAURO, Connecticut
JACK KINGSTON, Georgia JAMES P. MORAN, Virginia
RODNEY P. FRELINGHUYSEN, New Jersey JOHN W. OLVER, Massachusetts
ROGER F. WICKER, Mississippi ED PASTOR, Arizona
GEORGE R. NETHERCUTT, Jr., DAVID E. PRICE, North Carolina
Washington CHET EDWARDS, Texas
RANDY ``DUKE'' CUNNINGHAM, ROBERT E. ``BUD'' CRAMER, Jr.,
California Alabama
TODD TIAHRT, Kansas PATRICK J. KENNEDY, Rhode Island
ZACH WAMP, Tennessee JAMES E. CLYBURN, South Carolina
TOM LATHAM, Iowa MAURICE D. HINCHEY, New York
ANNE M. NORTHUP, Kentucky LUCILLE ROYBAL-ALLARD, California
ROBERT B. ADERHOLT, Alabama SAM FARR, California
JO ANN EMERSON, Missouri JESSE L. JACKSON, Jr., Illinois
KAY GRANGER, Texas CAROLYN C. KILPATRICK, Michigan
JOHN E. PETERSON, Pennsylvania ALLEN BOYD, Florida
VIRGIL H. GOODE, Jr., Virginia CHAKA FATTAH, Pennsylvania
JOHN T. DOOLITTLE, California STEVEN R. ROTHMAN, New Jersey
RAY LaHOOD, Illinois SANFORD D. BISHOP, Jr., Georgia
JOHN E. SWEENEY, New York MARION BERRY, Arkansas
DAVID VITTER, Louisiana
DON SHERWOOD, Pennsylvania
DAVE WELDON, Florida
MICHAEL K. SIMPSON, Idaho
JOHN ABNEY CULBERSON, Texas
MARK STEVEN KIRK, Illinois
ANDER CRENSHAW, Florida
James W. Dyer, Clerk and Staff Director
(ii)
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS FOR 2004
----------
Wednesday, March 12, 2003.
FISCAL YEAR 2004 ARMY POSTURE
WITNESSES
HON. THOMAS E. WHITE, SECRETARY OF THE ARMY
GENERAL ERIC K. SHINSEKI, CHIEF OF STAFF, UNITED STATES ARMY
Introduction
Mr. Lewis. The Committee will come to order.
General, I think we will begin by apologizing to both you
and the Secretary for the delay in starting the hearing.
As you know, we lost some young soldiers overnight on a
Black Hawk helicopter that went down. It is always painful when
we lose our young people, and the members of the Committee want
you to know that our hearts as well as our thoughts are with
you and their families.
General Shinseki. Thank you.
Secretary White. Thank you.
Mr. Lewis. This afternoon the Committee welcomes the
Honorable Thomas E. White, the Secretary of the Army, and
General Eric K. Shinseki, Chief of Staff of the Army, as we
hold an open hearing on the posture and acquisition programs of
the United States Army.
Mr. Secretary, General, on behalf of the Committee I want
to welcome each of you and thank you for your service in these
very difficult times. I will come back to that in just a
moment.
Today, we meet to hear your testimony in support of the
fiscal year 2004 budget request. I would note that this budget,
and those that have preceded it in recent years, continue the
path of change that you and your associates in Army leadership
have embraced as the challenges of this new century have become
steadily more apparent. It is not an understatement to say that
your efforts to rethink the Army's organization of its forces;
develop different and better equipment for a more agile and
responsive Army; and, above all else, to hold true to the
enduring importance of people, leadership and fielding an Army
that fights as it trains, those basic tenets have been right on
the mark in the view of this committee and at least from this
member's perspective.
We want you to know that we are deeply appreciative of the
thought that has gone into this. I think your insistence on
these priorities have been highly regarded and legitimately so
in many a circle. In my view, as time goes on, they will be
historically significant to all who observe the work of our
national forces during this critical time.
You have already achieved considerable success in this
regard. The Congress and the American people have seen the
results firsthand again and again from Bosnia to Kosovo to
Afghanistan to the current operations pertaining to Iraq.
As we all know, the hardest tasks before those in
leadership positions is to successfully promote and to produce
change. And with respect to the Army, the two of you, the DOD,
this Committee and others have all seen our share of
frustrations along the way. This is not new, especially when it
comes to developing and fielding equipment.
Many of us recall vividly a hearing this subcommittee held
3 years ago where representatives from the Army were unable to
answer basic questions about the status and continued relevance
of your acquisition programs. As a result, we pushed the Army
to rethink both the process for developing and acquiring
weapons and how the Army organizes itself to accomplish that
task. Mr. Secretary and General Shinseki, you both heard us;
and you have responded.
We know what it is like to propose new ideas and
technologies. Not so long ago--we have talked about this a lot.
Not so long ago, this Committee had to struggle with all of the
military services to win the acceptance of Unmanned Aerial
Vehicles as a regular element of the forces you deploy. Now,
with the successes of these systems in the Balkans, in
Afghanistan and elsewhere, one almost takes for granted the
capabilities of these systems, what they bring to the fight and
to each of the services as well.
And, General Shinseki, I would like to say to you that our
troops who have used the Stryker medium combat vehicle, those
troops and our warfighting commanders, they feel the same way
about a system which was not brought into this world in a
typical fashion, a major new program which will fill a
dangerous void in our Nation's power projections capability.
Now it goes without saying that, even while we are here
principally to discuss the 2004 budget request, all this takes
place at a very dangerous time in our world history and indeed
a very dangerous time for our Nation. Your forces are engaged
around the clock supporting the global war on terrorism in
Afghanistan and elsewhere. You have deployed thousands of
troops for a likely conflict in Iraq, and events on the Korean
peninsula continue to represent a cause of grave concern. And
let us not forget those tens of thousands of Reservists who
have been called to duty who are not only on the front lines
overseas but also, in a way we have not seen since the Second
World War, providing for our homeland security as well.
No one ever believed we would need soldiers to protect our
places of business, production and public gatherings. But the
troops who have taken on this job have been a soothing reminder
of those who are willing to protect our Nation with their
lives; and the soldiers have performed their duties with good
cheer, grace, and efficiency that have made them welcome
everywhere they have gone.
The lesson is that the world, at least for we Americans,
has changed. Yet America's Army is where it has always been, on
the front lines, wherever those front lines may be.
We understand the tremendous pressures that these events
place on your equipment, your facilities and all of those Army
families, the military and civilian, their loved ones, those
called to duty, and those with ties of blood and history to
those who serve.
We are here today to hear your views on these matters and
have a number of questions we need to discuss with you in that
regard. I want you to know that your entire statement will be
included in the record as we proceed. This member and all of
those sitting on this Committee have, over the years and
especially since September 11, seen firsthand the hard work and
the difficult missions carried out by our forces in the field.
Indeed, within the past few weeks, some of us have traveled
to observe our forces deployed on the front line to see those
young men and women firsthand; and indeed it is not just a
thrilling but in many ways a frustrating experience.
This is a testament to all of the work of our Armed Forces,
but the teamwork that exists in connection with this commitment
in many ways is personified by a man who I believe has been in
the right place at the right time. I would like to take just a
moment, if you will, to talk about an individual. This young
man of whom I speak, throughout his 37 years in the service of
our country, beginning with West Point, to distinguished
service in Vietnam, and then the postings with the Army in
Europe during the Cold War, he served the Nation with
distinction. He was part of that force which both kept the
peace during that time and thenmade possible the dismantlement
of so many of those walls in Europe.
Then, in the new world following the end of the Cold War,
he assumed positions of increasing responsibility; and just 6
years ago he was placed in command of the multinational forces
who helped bring some measure of peace to Bosnia and also
Kosovo. Now, after 4 years as Chief of Staff, through those
very tough, demanding years, he can look back as being the man
who was ahead of many in making the concept of military
transformation shift from being a slogan to a working reality.
He did this with a clear vision, candid talk and perseverance
and, by so doing, helped bring this Nation to the top of the
Defense agenda.
He has done all of this while presiding over an Army which,
following the shock of September 11, moved around the world to
help liberate Afghanistan and which as we meet today is hunting
terrorists and protecting America's interests in many places.
That same Army today is now joined with the Navy, the Marines,
the Air Force and others in carrying out what we all know is a
very difficult, crucial and probably long-term mission in the
Middle East.
Of course, you all know that I am referring to General Eric
Shinseki. Ric, you have been a great friend of this Committee.
We want the country to know what we think of your service. A
soldier who has fought in the Nation's wars along with many
others and who has also benefited from the opportunities
granted by our country in the military that services it.
General, we thank you for your work.
Mr. Secretary, we thank you for your work.
Secretary White. Thank you.
Mr. Lewis. Before we move on to that testimony, I suggested
earlier I would like to call on my friend and colleague from
Pennsylvania, Jack Murtha.
Remarks of Mr. Murtha
Mr. Murtha. As you know, Mr. Secretary, the Chairman,
myself, Mr. Dicks and Mr. Hobson just came back from Kuwait.
What a transformation. When I was there in August--I mean, in
August I knew we weren't going to war in the near future; and
today they are ready to go.
I stood there with my nephew, who is in the other branch of
the service, in tents left over from the Army and a flag that I
gave him that was flown over the Capitol and I listened to
those young folks talk about how well prepared they were and
some of the systems that we put in place.
The Chairman is too modest when he talks about the
Predator. If it hadn't been for him, there would be no
Predator. He was the guy who pushed it. He was the guy that got
criticized, and he was the guy that they tried to stop from
putting it out in the field. He persisted, and that Predator is
one of the most important systems that we have. The combat
systems that they have today, which have been improved so much,
the batteries so much smaller, which gives them such an
advantage. And they are confident that they will win this war.
There is no question in our mind about it.
There is no question that the conditions are very austere
and very difficult. But I was so impressed by the new logistic
system we have where you can go in there--
And, by the way, I asked how many were Reserve and Guard
people; and half of them held up their hands; and they were
seamless. You couldn't tell the difference between who was the
Guard and the Reserve.
But they will be able to save money by not stockpiling
stuff in the front. They will be able to send it out where it
is needed because of the computerized system that works so
well.
And they are going to prevail. None of us want to go to
war. But if we have to go to war when the President makes the
decision, I am so confident under your leadership you have done
such a good job. And, of course, the lighter Army is going to
be the Army of the future; and you folks have done so much.
Greg Dahlberg, who was here, was in the forefront--and Kevin
Roper.
All of us in this Committee feel so strongly that we have
got to move the Army in another direction, along with you. So I
look forward to hearing your testimony and congratulate you and
compliment you on the work that you have done, because the
product is out there in the field ready to go.
Mr. Lewis. Mr. Secretary, please proceed. Your entire
statement will be placed in the record.
[Clerk's note.--The Fiscal Year 2003 Joint Posture
Statement of the Secretary of the Army and the Chief of Staff
of the Army is printed at the end of this hearing. See page
140.]
Summary Statement of Secretary White
Secretary White. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Congressman
Murtha, distinguished members of the Committee. I am grateful
for this opportunity to talk to you today about the Army.
Our priorities remain the same as they were a year ago: Win
the global war on terrorism and transform the Army, as you have
talked about, to prepare it for future wars.
First and foremost, I wish to thank this Committee for your
continued support of the Army. The 2003 budget has allowed us
to make significant improvements in many key areas. We have
structured our budget request for 2004 in exactly the same
fashion as 2003, based upon our top priorities of People,
Readiness and Transformation.
PERSONNEL INITIATIVES
The people front. Thanks to you and your support, we are
making significant strides in the personnel area with
initiatives including a fully funded general pay raise for all
soldiers, targeted pay raises in selective cases, significantly
reduced soldier out-of-pocket expenses for housing, and an
accelerated Residential Communities Initiative to improve on-
post quarters for our families.
This year, we are examining options under an initiative
called personnel transformation to shift away from our
individual replacement system to a unit manning approach that
will enhance the cohesion and combat readiness of our
formations while improving the predictability of assignment
patterns for Army families. As you know, we have had over
30,000 National Guardsmen and Reservists on active duty
consistently since the 11th of September of 2001; and, as of
today, we have activated over 130,000 soldiers for current and
potential future federal operations at the federal level. In
addition, over 2,700 soldiers currently are activated for state
service.
These Reserve Component soldiers are performing
magnificently, and we appreciate the tremendous support they
have received from their employers as well as the American
public. We recognize the unique sacrifices made by these
citizen soldiers as they step up to do their duty as citizens
and patriots.
READINESS AND OPTEMPO
In readiness, the Army is ready for any additional
operations that we are ordered to perform in the future; and
our great soldiers are successfully meeting our many current
obligations around the world.
With your help in 2003 and again in our 2004 budget
request, we gave priorities to funding training requirements
for the force, significantly improved our spare parts
availability and accelerated fielding of soldier support
systems and unit communications equipment to make our units as
ready as possible.
Having said that, our operational tempo--I think the Chief
would echo this--has never been higher in the 40 years of
experience that I have with the Army. We are indeed an Army on
the move.
While we are actually funded normal OPTEMPO training,
including the full complement of pre-9/11 missions such as
Bosnia and Kosovo and the Sinai and Korea, we have many other
obligations as we pursue the global war on terrorism as part of
the joint force. Post 9/11 missions in the past 18 months
include Operation Noble Eagle here at home, Enduring Freedom in
Afghanistan, as well as operations in the Philippines and
elsewhere.
Finally, we have the significant flow, as you have seen
personally, of Army forces into the Persian Gulf in support of
the diplomatic effort to insure the disarmament of Iraq.
Given this level of activity, I don't think it is any
surprise that supplemental funding will be required in 2003 as
we progress during the year.
We are working hard to balance our readiness imperative for
realistic training with our obligation to be good stewards of
the environment. That balance is reflected in DoD's range
preservation initiative that we ask your support for. It is
essential for us to maintain the balance between the use of
military lands for their uniquely military purposes and the
need for environmental protection and species preservation. The
readiness of our soldiers going into harm's way depends upon
it, so we ask for your help with this important initiative.
TRANSFORMATION
Transformation. You have mentioned it, and you have fully
supported it in the Committee for a long time; and for the
Chief, almost four years now since he laid the marker down. We
are transforming our Army even while we execute combat
operations and prepare for future contingencies. This
simultaneity is not only a necessity, it is an imperative.
We are transforming the business side of the Army as well
as the operational forces, and we are transforming within the
joint context not merely in a service centric manner. We have
held steady to the azimuth established by the Chief, General
Ric Shinseki back in 1999.
FUTURE COMBAT SYSTEM
In 2004, we request funding for the fourth of our six
Stryker brigades to be fielded at Fort Polk, Louisiana, to the
Second Armored Cavalry Regiment. We remain focused on the
Objective Force with the restructured Comanche armed
reconnaissance helicopter program. We are postured to
successfully meet acquisition Milestone B in May for the Future
Combat System or FCS. FCS includes the non-line of sight
variant, the initial fielding increment which will meet the
cannon requirements previously addressed by the Crusader
program. We remain on glide path to field the first Objective
Force unit in 2008 with an initial operational capability, IOC
in 2010.
On the business side of the Army, we fully solicit your
support for the DoD transformation package that would greatly
streamline our operations and give us the flexibility to manage
the Department in the most efficient manner. In the same vein,
our business transformation initiatives are designed to achieve
greater value for the taxpayer dollar.
RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITIES INITIATIVE
Our Residential Communities Initiative or RCI, which really
has been championed by many of you over the years in this
Committee, to privatize family housing continues to be, I
think, an enormous success. By 2007, the Army will have
established partnerships to bring every set of family quarters
up to standard. We are able to do this because, with an
investment of roughly $600 million, we have attracted over $7
billion in private capital. This is a tremendous value for the
taxpayer and the soldier and we believe the model of how better
business practice can help us with non-core functions such as
housing.
We are seeking to apply the same manner and model of
public-private partnership on a challenge of on-base utilities
in our installations, consolidating all installation management
under one command, centralizing Army-wide, contracting over
$500,000 per contract in our Army Contracting Agency. We are
seeking to regionalize utilities contracting and achieve
economies of scale that were not possible with our previous
business management structure. Private capital would be
required to fix the utilitiesinfrastructure on our bases, and
we are setting the conditions to attract it just as we did with RCI.
Finally, we are conducting what we call our Third Wave
initiative, which seeks to eliminate all non-core functions
currently consuming Army people and dollars.
Rest assured we will pursue these business initiatives in
full consultation with you and the Congress.
From a risk perspective, balancing the risk associated with
near-term modernization and mid-term transformation has
required us to make some very tough choices. We have had to
terminate or restructure numerous current force modernization
programs to generate the capital to fund transformation. In a
nutshell, our 2004 budget submission funds people, readiness
and transformation at the expense of some of our infrastructure
accounts in current force modernization. We have made judgments
only after careful balancing of both the operational risk and
the risk of not transforming to provide the capabilities the
Army needs to meet the obligations of the mid- and long-term
joint operational concepts that we are a part of.
SUMMARY
In conclusion, I wish to return to those who I mentioned
first in these remarks, our soldiers. Their performance in
Afghanistan speaks volumes: Dead of winter, landlocked country,
toughest terrain imaginable, collapsed the Taliban regime, put
al Qaeda on the run. It has been my privilege as it has been
your privilege to visit them in Afghanistan and Kuwait, in
Bosnia and Kosovo, all around our country. You couldn't meet a
finer group of young Americans. They are flat out in my 40
years the best soldiers I have ever seen; and we all ought to
be very, very proud of them. Rest assured they stand ready,
along with our sister services, to accomplish any tasks ordered
by our Commander-in-Chief.
Thank you for this opportunity, Mr. Chairman, to discuss
the 2004 budget submission of the Army. I look forward to your
questions.
Mr. Lewis. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
General Shinseki.
Summary Statement of General Shinseki
General Shinseki. Mr. Chairman, Congressman Murtha, first
let me begin, Mr. Chairman and Congressman Murtha, by
expressing my thanks to both of you and the other members of
this Committee for the very generous opening remarks.
I have been a soldier every day for about 37 and a half
years, and I have enjoyed every one of those days. I have done
a few things in that period of time. I think the last four
years will always be very special. But part of that privilege
has been the high point of working with great patriots here in
the Congress and, uniquely, with those members of this
Committee who have taken a little bit of risk, listened to a
description of what the future could be, and then gave us the
support and the resources to generate enough momentum to come
back to you and suggest that we had something going here. Then
to again demonstrate your confidence in us and Secretary
White's leadership has been phenomenal in helping us maintain
that momentum. So, to the members of this Committee, thank you
for your great support.
Mr. Chairman, Congressman Murtha, I am honored to join the
Secretary today, as I have indicated, whose leadership and
guidance has produced tremendous momentum for what we have been
about in this thing called the Army Vision, my privilege in
joining him to report out to all of you on the posture of the
Army and its readiness today.
Today, soldiers, as the Secretary has indicated, are
serving magnificently as part of a joint team with all of our
other members, other uniformed services, tremendous young
Americans doing terrific work defending our freedom in this war
against terrorism and then preparing for any other contingency
they may be called upon to do. In the Army alone, over 242,000
soldiers are deployed forward, stationed overseas someplace.
Almost 133,000 of our Reserve Component soldiers have been
mobilized at this point in the past 6 months.
All of you, the Secretary, and I have visited a good many
of them. I have stood with them where they worked and trained,
spoken with them as well, those who arrived back here at Walter
Reed Army Medical Center. I have spoken to them candidly, had
frank discussions with them about their sense of the Army's
readiness to respond to the calls of this Nation.
The Army is ready. We have the best army in the world. It
is not the largest, but it is the best. It is the best trained,
the best equipped, and the best led.
But, as you all know, it is more than just about equipment.
We have the best soldiers. Their determination and commitment
are as firm as I can recall in all my years of service. They
are immensely proud to serve this Nation. They will take any
objective. They will accomplish any mission we give to them. I
am proud of what I have seen. Soldiers are standing by in a
hundred camps and stations waiting for orders, and they will
fight, and they will win decisively this war on terrorism and
any other we might ask them to fight.
I am daily reassured of my assessment. America's Army
remains the most respected land power to our friends and allies
and the most feared ground force to those who would think about
threatening the interests of the United States.
We want to project that degree of respect and readiness of
this great Army we have today into the future. To do so, over
the last three plus years, we have described a need to be more
responsive, more deployable, an Army that is more agile and
versatile, an Army that is as lethal as this great Army is
today and more survivable but a lot more sustainable to reduce
our foreign footprint.
Three and a half years ago, we knew that there was a war in
our future. We didn't imagine what the situation would be
today, but we knew there was a war some time in our future. We
just didn't know when, where or against whom. The relative
predictability that I guess we may say we got used to during
the years of the Cold War, that relative predictability had
given way during the 1990s to a continuing chaos of
unpredictability. Voices inside and outside the Army suggested
a need for change, and some of those voices were right here.
TRANSFORMATION
Because of that fundamental nature of change, it was more
than just modernizing a platform or two. It asked for the Army
to take a fundamental, comprehensive look at itself and make
some decisions. We didn't call it modernization. We decided to
call it Transformation because it was so broad reaching and
would reach for a long period of time. With the unwavering
support of the Administration and this Congress, we are
transforming today rapidly to be more capable of dominating any
future crises.
To mitigate the risk that is inherent in any comprehensive
change, no matter the institution, we structured Army
Transformation along three broad and mutually supporting
vectors. There is a near-term, a mid-term and a distant far-
term vector.
On the near-term axis, we preserve the readiness of today's
legacy fighting force to fix the long-standing operational gap
between the light and the heavy components of today's Legacy
Force.
We created a requirement for an interim capability which
has come to be called the Stryker Brigade Combat Teams. We are
fielding six of them. We have described the requirement for
six. We have put aside the funds to do that. That is on the
mid-term axis.
And it is on the third and final axis that we are readying
the Army for the long term. We are developing future concepts
and technologies that will provide consistent capabilities of
overmatch through the middle of the century.
Our Future Combat System Milestone B Defense Acquisition
Board decision. This first acquisition decision comes up in May
of this year, and we intend that that will be a successful
event, and we intend to begin fielding the Future Combat System
in 2008.
Our Secretary White has noted balancing these requirements
over time dictates difficult but prudent choices. Recognizing
the constraints that come with finite resources, the Army has
had to make and we believe we have made prudent calls on how to
balance those risks. We have terminated and restructured
programs to help fund Transformation to the degree we can from
our own internal resources, carefully weighing the operation of
the demands of today's missions while preparing for the future.
Your support, which has been vital, will continue to be
vital as we explain to you why we are doing the things we are
and to gain your understanding and support as we go forward.
FISCAL YEAR 2004 BUDGET REQUEST
The Army's fiscal year 2004 budget strikes the essential
balance to maintain readiness throughout the Program Objective
Memorandum, POM, period and beyond. We are confident that we
have done that well.
We are already seeing dividends from our own investments in
future readiness. Monies that we have invested in the last
three years are generating technologies that are coming on-line
early today: Superior body armor for dismounted soldiers today,
robots in caves and antitank warheads on unmanned aerial
vehicles today, unprecedented blue force tracking capabilities
today.
Then, most recently, during the last joint exercise, the
largest joint exercise in our history, something called
Millennium Challenge 2002. With the help of the United States
Air Force, the Army air-delivered a Stryker platoon onto a dirt
strip in a place called Fort Irwin, California. Just three
years after the Army described its requirement for an Interim
Force, we are demonstrating increased strategic operational and
tactical versatility that Stryker Brigade Combat Teams will
provide to combatant commanders.
This summer the first Stryker Brigade Combat Team will join
us on the war on terrorism. So it is not just about
capabilities we intend to field in 2000 and beyond. It is also
about enabling soldiers fighting this war on terrorism and
preparing for any future mission we may give to them. It is
about reducing the operational risk borne by our soldiers today
and in the future.
PERSONNEL
Now, having said all of this, Mr. Chairman, people remain
the engine behind all of our magnificent moments as an Army.
That has been true throughout the 200-plus year history of this
Army. It is true today. It will continue to be true in the
future.
Their well-being is inextricably linked to our readiness.
Thanks to your help on things like pay, health care, retirement
benefits, housing and other well-being programs, we are doing
better than ever at taking care of our people. Our soldiers,
our civilians, our veterans, our retirees and their family
members appreciate your support more than I can say. We are
grateful for your unwavering, bipartisan leadership and for
your unyielding devotion to our soldiers. With your continued
strong support, we will win this war against global terrorism.
We will meet our commitment to our friends and allies. We will
remain ready to contend with the unpredictability. There are
certainly unpredictable events in our future, and we will
transform ourselves for those decisive victories on future
battlefields. You keep us the most respected land force in the
world.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I look forward to your questions.
Mr. Lewis. Thank you, General Shinseki.
[The joint statement of Secretary White and General
Shinseki follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
READINESS
Mr. Lewis. Mr. Secretary and General, normally, I don't ask
questions at the beginning of the hearing but rather pass it
on. But on this very special occasion--
General Shinseki, you have outlined the training and the
fact that we are the best. Let me, if you will, first say to
you that I can't tell you how proud I am to have this
responsibility at this moment in our history to chair the
Subcommittee of Appropriations that does the spending of money
for our national security. But, having said that, when you are
challenged, you need to be ready. But we also want to have
confidence we can be successful.
So, General Shinseki, while all of us have been hoping over
time for a peaceful option, it is my personal view that when
some of our friends in Europe decide to walk away, they close
the door that was that door. So, because of that, I ask you the
question: If the President, the Commander in Chief, were to
make a call tomorrow, are we ready and will we succeed swiftly?
General Shinseki. Mr. Chairman, you have asked a question
about readiness to do the most difficult of missions that we
think about, plan for and prepare for. And normally in our
deliberations we talk about the word readiness in a variety of
categories. We talk about training. We talk about new
equipment. We talk about spare parts and maintenance of our
systems. We talk about ammunition. We talk about the kinds of
things that affect the morale of our people. It is only when we
come to a major operation like this we roll it up into the one
word about readiness.
So I will tell you that in September of 2001, when the
President addressed the Houses of Congress, and those of us of
the Joint Chiefs who were present, and indicated that there was
a war being declared on terrorism and that there were other
concerns with other actors who were not behaving in accordance
with the best interests of our country and our friends and
allies, the Secretary and I immediately, after that speech, put
the Army in a wartime footing.
We directed the Army to increase its tempo of training, we
increased the requirement to train with their weapons,
increased the rate at which they would fire, increased the
requirements for chem/bio training, continued the development
of young leaders who would continue to fill leadership
positions. It is as a result of the last 18 months' focused and
dedicated effort that I answer your question about will the
Army be able to meet the call if the President succeeds
unequivocally as a yes.
The Army is ready. There are lots of unknowns out there.
Chem/bio is probably the toughest aspect of what we have to do
to prepare. But in all of these things, the Army, over the last
several years has invested to deal with those unknowns, whether
it is new equipment in the chemical and biological environment
that results in new suits, new masks, increased training.
But the answer to your question is, the Army is ready. If
it is ordered to conduct this operation, it will do so
decisively.
Mr. Lewis. Thank you, Chief.
Mr. Young.
MORALE OF THE TROOPS
Mr. Young. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much and thank the
Secretary and the General. Thank you for being here.
I have had just very recently an opportunity to spend a lot
of time with both of them and have talked about a lot of
issues.
But I just wanted to make one comment for the record; and
you have a good attendance here today, Mr. Chairman, so I am
not going to use up a lot of time.
As you know, my wife and I spend a lot of time at the
hospital at Walter Reed; and we try to establish a relationship
with all of the soldiers that are wounded in Afghanistan or
anywhere in the region and stay with them until they either go
home or go back to their unit. And one thing that runs--a
thread that goes through all of them is their enthusiasm for
their training, for their leadership, for their equipment, and
for the motivation of where they were and why they were there.
I would tell you, to see these young kids with--missing an arm
or missing a foot or a leg or in a brace of some kind saying,
Congressman, how soon can you get me back to the fight--I mean,
the morale is outstanding.
That is just a tremendous, tremendous accolade to you and
all of your leadership, for those who lead these young kids
into these areas of hostility. You have done a really good job.
I, for one, appreciate, General, very much your role not
only in the recent activities but in that 37-year period.
Secretary White, I will tell you, he is tough. He tells it
like it is, which is, you know, something that I appreciate
very much. Because I am not very diplomatic. I just want to get
right to the core of the thing.
But you have done such a really good job, and I am happy
that you feel that this Committee has been very supportive.
Because that is our direction, that is our intent, to make sure
that our soldiers have the best training, that they have the
best equipment, that they have the best planning and that they
aren't sent off on wild goose chases to do something and risk
their lives for something unimportant. They are doing something
extremely important, which is crucial to the survival of our
Nation as we know it.
So I just wanted to take those few words to compliment both
of you and your leadership team that have provided this
tremendous education and leadership for these young kids that
serve in our uniform. I appreciate it very much.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Lewis. Gentlemen, you both mentioned the fact that this
Committee operates very much in a nonpartisan fashion. That is
in no small part--that is due to the work I have the privilege
of doing with my colleague from Pennsylvania, Jack Murtha.
Jack.
FISCAL YEAR 2003 SUPPLEMENTAL FUNDING
Mr. Murtha. There is only one concern I have, and that is
pay. I understand that the Army is going to be in bad shape if
you don't get a supplemental by May.
Now tell me the technical--you know, the services say this,
and then they seem to find a way to get by. Technically
speaking, when are we talking about a deadline here? What is
the answer to this pay problem, Mr. Secretary?
Secretary White. Well, on the--actually, the OMA
appropriation, the operation and maintenance appropriation, is
really a shorter fuse than the personnel accounts. On the OMA
appropriation, we are looking at the end of April where we are
going to need a supplemental help beyond our share of the
omnibus appropriation. The military personnel side is roughly
June. So in both cases, as opposed to last year where it went
later in the year, because of the scale of mobilization and the
scale of the activities, we are on fairly short fuses on both
accounts.
Mr. Murtha. Mr. Secretary, every year we hear this, and
then somebody gives you orders that you have to find a way
topay it. When is the deadline? Tell us when we have to have a
supplemental so that you would run out of money and you couldn't pay
the troops.
Secretary White. I think that, well, in terms of paying
people, June. In terms of operations and maintenance, before
that.
Mr. Murtha. So we would have to have a supplemental passed
in May in order to pay the troops and O&M. You can't use the
Feed and Forage authorities to get by.
Secretary White. Well, you could. But I think the most
preferable solution and assuming that the supplemental will be
here shortly, as you can imagine, there is intense work going
on on this. But we would like to see it pass before the Easter
recess.
Mr. Murtha. That is all I have, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Lewis. Thank you, Mr. Murtha.
Mr. Hobson.
REMARKS OF MR. HOBSON
Mr. Hobson. Thank you. I won't be quite as quick. I haven't
written a book like Jack has. First of all, Mr. Secretary,
General Shinseki, I want to thank you for your service. You
have persevered under some difficult times, both of you; and
all of us are appreciative of what you have done.
I just have--and I have a number of questions I will do for
the record. But I have four things I would like to talk about.
When we were in Kuwait, one the most serious--we always ask
everybody, what do you need? What do you need to get this done?
The number one critical thing that we heard was bandwidth. I
don't have enough. And they are buying--and there are some
other things in that theater we could talk about. But I want to
go into three other things real quick.
I am concerned--I have another hat I am now wearing that
relates to civil work in the Corps of Engineers. I am concerned
about what is going to happen to the Corps. Actually, if you
look at the money, you don't get a new pocket of money if you
get rid of the Corps.
Thirdly--I can't give this up, guys, even though I am not
the chairman anymore of military construction. MILCON is close
to me. As you know, the housing and things of that sort. I am
not the chairman now, but I am concerned that MILCON has been
put on hold, and I am wondering where that money is going or
going to go or not go.
Lastly is a thing that I think they need over there. There
are some things called hemo coolers which are--we can't kick
out the combat medical support--which is a system for taking
blood and keeping it at a temperature. And we have tried. And
you are going to call all of a sudden and want all of these
things, and they are not going to be ready because we can't
kick the money out of the combat support medical procurement
staff at Fort Detrick.
So those are real quick things.
ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
Secretary White. Let me talk about a couple and let me
defer the bandwidth discussion to the Chief on the operational
side.
As far as the Corps of Engineers is concerned, I think they
do a magnificent job, in my opinion. If you were to look--you
have just been in Kuwait--at all of the construction that has
gone on there to properly bed down and build up this force,
that is the Corps of Engineers. If you were to look at the Port
of Beaumont and Corpus Christi where I was a week ago and look
at the relationship between the Corps and the port authorities
to deploy major units through those two ports, in my opinion
and in times like this, the Corps is worth its weight in gold.
The fact that we can have that capability there largely funded
by the civil works appropriation is, for me, a great deal.
Mr. Hobson. And it doesn't cost you any money.
Secretary White. Right. I think it is a great deal. They
have done a wonderful job.
MILITARY CONSTRUCTION (MILCON)
On the MILCON fund front, we have funded it at $1.7
billion, a little over that. You plussed it up last year, which
we deeply appreciate. We are focusing on barracks and the bills
necessary for Transformation, and that is what we could afford,
looking at the total budget. We have worked a whole series of
things in getting the force ready to be in position should the
President so order it in the Persian Gulf, not only on the
medical side, but radios and all sorts of other things. I am
sure you saw that when you were there.
HEMACOOLERS
I will have to get back to you on the specific issue that
you brought up about the hema cooler.
[The information follows:]
The U.S. Army Medical Research and Materiel Command at Fort Detrick
is actively moving ahead with this important technology. The Command
received $250,000 in research and development money in April 2001 for
development of a low-power blood cooling and storage device. That money
was provided to Energy Storage Technologies, Inc., of Dayton, Ohio, in
the form of a cooperative research and development agreement. Energy
Storage Technologies completed development of the device and provided a
briefing to the Army on a prototype device on March 4, 2003. Testing is
required on the device before a full production contract can be
awarded.
BANDWIDTH
Mr. Hobson. Chief, do you want to talk about bandwidth?
General Shinseki. I will.
Congressman, bandwidth really has been an issue for as long
as I have been in the Army. Even with radios. We had to manage
frequencies because of the demands for bandwidth and in place.
What we had to do was you discipline the force on the available
spectrum that you had, and you allocated it, and we managed
inside that limitation. What has happened to us was the demand.
Mr. Murtha. Excuse me. If the gentleman would yield, don't
you have to buy that, though, from the commercial side?
General Shinseki. No, it was allocated to us, and we
operate it.
Mr. Murtha. But aren't you also buying commercial? Yes,
sure you are.
General Shinseki. Yes, we are today.
Mr. Murtha. Big cost out of O&M.
General Shinseki. Yes, we are today. But the appetite for
bandwidth, because it is less specified in terms of
frequencies, is significant. What we need to do is take a good
hard look and understand what it is we need and prioritize that
for what are the most important military functions we have and
then declare what additional bandwidth is going to be required
to do what, and some of that is work we have to do.
Mr. Hobson. They tell us we need another satellite
positioned better. That is something we need to work on. I
don't know if we can fix it short term here, but it is
something we all need to think about. Because this is becoming
a major part of your operation, the seamless communication
between everybody, and if we need it we need--I think what we
are trying to point out is these people feel long term they
need additional capability that you don't have to buy, sir.
General Shinseki. Yes, sir.
Mr. Lewis. Thank you, Mr. Hobson.
The Committee has long had the support of our Chairman and
the Ranking Member of the full Committee. Without their help,
it would be hard to get it done as we try to do, so it is my
privilege to call on David Obey, Ranking Member of the full
Committee and in service here.
POST-CONFLICT REQUIREMENTS IN IRAQ
Mr. Obey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
First of all, General, let me simply say I fully agree with
the statements made by the Chairman about your service. You are
a first-rate professional, and I think Members of Congress
respect the fact that you are a straight shooter and will give
straight information. That is pretty rare on either side of the
table in this institution.
Let me ask--and I don't want to get into the question at
all of whether we should or shouldn't deal with Iraq. That is
not where I am going at all. I just want to look at some
questions in terms of the adequacy, the size of our forces over
the long haul; and let me ask three questions, roughly.
First of all, in Iraq, if things go less well than we would
like, if we don't have large-scale surrender of Iraqi troops,
we don't see a lot of white flags, if we wind up having to kill
a lot of Iraqi soldiers and if we have got a lot of ethnic
fighting going on at the same time, what kind of troop levels
do we think would be required to maintain the pacification
effort?
General Shinseki. As you know, Congressman, there is a plan
in place with a troop list that has been identified by our
combatant commander; and that troop list addresses all of the
possible scenarios he anticipates that it could take him to get
to his final set of objectives.
Mr. Obey. Let me say I am not talking about how many troops
we need to, you know, to go in there and do what is needed. If
things turn out a lot rougher than we expect and hope--and I
don't think they will be, but if they do--what numbers are we
talking about on the pacification end after the--after we have
taken the place?
General Shinseki. The post-hostilities period?
Mr. Obey. Yes.
General Shinseki. Well, again, you know, the best person to
answer this is the combatant commander who is in the process of
planning that as a follow-on phase to his current operation.
The troop list for his current operation also presumes that
there is going to be a follow-on phase that he has to begin
process of transitioning through, and the troop list that he
has declared makes that transition.
What the final numbers are when they settle out here could
be, as I have suggested, could be a high-end number. We would
all hope that it was something less. But these are----
Mr. Obey. Well, what is the high-end number?
General Shinseki. Well, it is a number that was provided a
couple of weeks ago, I believe, it could be as high as several
hundred thousand. But, again, what goes into determining that
kind of number----
END-STRENGTH REQUIREMENTS
Mr. Obey. I understand. What I am getting at is this, we
have got a lot of places where we might have to use troops. I
mean, we have got Iraq, we have got Korea, we have got other
problems, minor problems, to say the least. I guess the
question I am getting at is, when you look at the strain on
regular forces and if you look also at the heavy use of Reserve
and Guard forces, do we have an Army that is large enough to do
the job that we might be called on to do over the next 5 or 10
years? What is your judgment on that?
General Shinseki. Well, for the last three and a half years
in testimony, Congressman, I have been consistent about
describing the Army as smaller than the mission profiles that
it has carried, and that continues to be true today.
Mr. Obey. I mean, my--I don't know what point it is where
we get to the point where the Reserves--I mean, given the
surprises that we have delivered to a lot of people in the
Reserve forces, I don't know how many of them we are going to
keep when this operation is over. So I think we really need to
have a frank discussion about what size our active force needs
to be and I guess what would be your best professional judgment
about what that level ought to be, say, five years from now if
we were to be comfortable with having adequate force to do
whatever job we might be called on to do.
General Shinseki. Congressman, I am sure there is a right
number out there, but there are also a lot of numbers that
could be off the mark.
I think if there is ever a time that we would have the best
possible basis for answering that question, looking atwhat
this--all of our services--but in the case of the Army what we have
done here through the 1990s and at this particular point in time where
we are dealing with a war on global terrorism, operations that have us
in a variety of places, the potential operation in Southwest Asia and a
potential growing crisis in Korea--potential, I say--I think looking at
what our responsibilities are to provide responsive options to our
leadership, this is about as good a time as it is to get to some good
numbers.
The Secretary indicated part of this is answering the
questions about do we have the soldiers who are on active
service today filling the right positions. That is part of the
answer.
The end-strength answer, as I have testified over the last
three years, is that the Army is smaller than the mission
profile that it carries. So there is a piece here that deals
with end strength.
ACTIVE AND RESERVE COMPONENT MIX
But there is also the piece that you are suggesting, that
is, the right mix between our active and Reserve components. We
have relied on our Reserve components far more heavily than I
believe anyone intended when they designed this program. But
they were always seen as this strategic capability that in the
case of an unanticipated requirement where we needed immediate
response that the Reserve components needed to fill that
transition for us. They have done that magnificently in this
requirement for additional formations on short notice and many
of them on very short notice. We have asked them to move, and
they have done it magnificently.
Secretary White. If I could add a couple of things to that.
There are a lot of dimensions to this. One, obviously, is
the Secretary of Defense has talked about the overall posture
of the force in Europe, the overall posture of the force in
Korea and how much of it going forward needs to be forward
stationed and what changes and changes in posture can we make
to take advantage of the strategic situation we face going
forward.
As the Chief said, the whole business of the Active
component/Reserve component mix--there are units in the RC
today that have been repeatedly mobilized over the last three
or four years, military police, the MP units, for example. The
question is, does that mean we need more MP units in the active
component going forward because you can't continue--we have had
MP units that were mobilized 9/11/01 to 9/11/02, demobilize,
and some of them are being recalled again. So there is a broad
range of work going on right now within the Department of
Defense involving us, obviously, and the combatant commanders
to get this mix right and the posture right going forward.
Mr. Obey. Well, I guess all I would say in closing is that
I know that in the New York Times of March 12 an article
appeared which said this: Independent Comments. James F.
Dobbins, who served as special envoy to Afghanistan in the
current Bush administration, said that even the lowest
suggested requirement of 75,000 troops to stabilize Iraq would
mean that every infantryman in the U.S. Army spend six months
in Iraq out of every 18 to 24.
Then it goes on to talk about the costs associated with
that. And I guess the question I would simply raise, sitting
here knowing the Budget Committee is marking up their budget
resolution today, is it seems to me if we have this kind of
potential and the other long-term needs of our Armed Forces,
not to mention what is going on on the domestic side, but we
ought to think seriously about whether we can afford any tax
cut at this time. I don't expect you to get into that, but that
certainly--I think any prudent person would raise additional
cautionary flags about the advisability of a tax cut at this
time.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Lewis. Thank you very much, Mr. Obey.
Mr. Nethercutt.
COMBAT FEEDING PROGRAM
Mr. Nethercutt. Thank you, Mr. Chairman; and welcome,
gentlemen. Pleased to have you; and thanks to your team behind
you, too. I know it is a joint effort here.
Secretary White, I want to talk with you about the combat
feeding program for a minute. The Army is the executive agent
which provides one-stop shopping for all the DoD feeding
requirements from procurement or research through procurement.
It is a small program, but it is an important one to the
soldiers in the field and the personnel in the field.
Congressman Frelinghuysen and I have actively supported the
program over the years. Despite our efforts, there has been a
cut by the Army in funding to the program; and we perceive
there to be additional management bureaucracy attached to it.
Last October, you sent me a letter saying that the Army
intends to fully restore funding in the upcoming POM upon
validation of requirements for fiscal year 2006 to 2009. My
understanding is that not only was the funding not restored but
that funding in fiscal year 2004 was cut another $550,000. Is
that your sense of it? And it may be too precise to recall.
Secretary White. I will have to get back to the record for
that. I am sorry, but I don't have the facts right at my
fingertips.
Mr. Nethercutt. That is fine. We just think that the
current program structure should be maintained. I think Mr.
Frelinghuysen and I agree with it, and the Committee has
adopted that position as well.
Secretary White. Thank you. I will look at that and get
back to you.
[The information follows:]
The Army still intends to restore the research, development, test,
and evaluation funding for the combat feeding program. We see no
evidence of any $550,000 cut in the fiscal year 2004 program. However,
Congress directed a fiscal year 2003 cut in the Congressional marks and
language for reduced program growth. The combat feeding program falls
under the Combat Feeding, Clothing, and Equipment line. Within this
line are four other soldier-related projects. Since the Congressional
language did not specify which program to decrement, a percentage of
the $4.2 million was taken from all five projects within the line. The
field feeding program percentage was calculated to be $87,000.
LAND WARRIOR PROGRAM
Mr. Nethercutt. Let me ask you about Land Warrior. This
year the Army is proposing to take a significant step forward
with the Land Warrior program. There is a request of $97
million to begin acquisition and it was zero before. And over
the Future Years Defense Program, the FYDP, we are going to
look at $772 million and another $552 million in research. I
wonder if there have been any changes that you can articulate
to the Committee with the prime contractor on Land Warrior. I
am wondering what the Cox technologies--what will be used for
this system and what the program architecture will be; and that
may be too technical for you right at this moment. I know you
have got your hands full on other things, but I know there are
a number of competing technologies available for incorporation
into the program, and I am interested to know what your sense
of the program, the future, will be.
We are committing, it looks like, $1.2 billion for the
program over the long haul without being sure exactly what the
latest iteration of the Land Warrior will involve. Is that
something you can respond to now or would you prefer to later?
Secretary White. In addition to providing detail for the
record, Land Warrior is an integral part of the Objective
Force. We are pursuing to make the individual soldier an
integral part of the Objective Force and give them
extraordinary capabilities. And consequently we have given it
very, very high priority in its development. I don't know that
we have made for the 1.0 version specific technology selections
yet, because we haven't in broader Objective Force in the
Future Combat System. But as you can see from the way we have
funded it, we consider it to be tremendously more important,
and I will get you more detail for the record.
Mr. Nethercutt. That would be great. I hope you will look
at the technologies because I have an interest in it, a strong
interest in it, and hope that these technologies could be
pursued.
[The information follows:]
Although full functionality of the Land Warrior initial capability
system was achieved during developmental testing, overall developmental
testing results and low demonstrated reliability in an early functional
assessment indicated that this system would not likely be reliable
enough to enter operational testing as originally planned. As a result,
the program is now concentrating on developing a reliable system for
meeting the Land Warrior system requirements for Stryker integration
and will not produce any units in fiscal year 2004. The Army is working
to re-designate the fiscal year 2004 Land Warrior procurement dollars
to support additional Land Warrior research, development, testing, and
evaluation as well as procurement of items under the Rapid Fielding
Initiative.
The Army competitively awarded General Dynamics Decision Systems
(GDDS) the Land Warrior prime contract on January 30, 2003. GDDS has
total integration responsibility for Land Warrior and will consider
technologies as they become mature for integration in the Land Warrior
to meet operational requirements. GDDS will take advantage of
components available from government agencies, internally designed, and
commercial off-the-shelf components and technologies. This approach
minimizes the use of Land Warrior-unique hardware and software and
utilizes an open system architecture to provide greater flexibility to
incorporate technology upgrades, reduce intellectual and proprietary
rights issues, and reduce developmental and support costs. Looking to
the future, the Land Warrior advanced capability will incorporate
mature technologies from the Objective Force Warrior science and
technology advanced technology demonstration and emerging commercial
technologies to provide the Objective Force soldier with advanced
capabilities in lethality and survivability.
Mr. Nethercutt. I would just say two other things if I may
in the quick moment that I have left. I appreciate, General
Shinseki, your comments about a year or so ago about a spray
cooling technology in the Future Combat System, the value of
that technology in the future platform acquisitions for the
Army and other services as well. I think it has great potential
and I hope you still feel that way, that it has potential.
General Shinseki. We do.
COMANCHE HELICOPTER PROGRAM
Mr. Nethercutt. And finally I would just ask if you could
for the Committee summarize an update about the Comanche. I
know there have been numerous restructurings. Are we at the
last restructuring for Comanche? I am interested to know what
the status of the program is.
Secretary White. We in the past year, culminating in a
Defense Acquisition Board review, have done an extensive review
of Comanche. We brought in outside people to take a look at it.
And where we came out was, number one, we are focusing squarely
on the armed reconnaissance version in the first three blocks
of the aircraft because our most pressing need is an armed
scout for the Objective Force that would replace Kiowa Warrior.
Second, we have changed the structure of the Sikorsky-Boeing
team into a single program office. Third, we have rebaselined
the program into what I think--for the last time, I might add,
into a program that is achievable on the timelines that we
needed to be. And we have fully funded to our cost estimates
not only the 2004 budget but in the program out to 2009 when
the initial fielding would be the program and it is time to
deliver Comanche as an integral part of this. And we took it
through the Defense Acquisition Board. Everyone has agreed on
it and we are off and running. We are going to deliver this
helicopter. It is critical to the Objective Force.
Mr. Nethercutt. I agree and I hope we can get a status
report. I may have a question that I might want to just add for
the record, if I may, Mr. Chairman; more technical, just some
benchmarks report. But thanks so much for your testimony. Thank
you, Mr. Chairman.
[The information follows:]
Extensive Army and outside reviews of the Comanche program over the
past year culminated in a Defense Acquisition Board review. As a
result, we have focused the program squarely on the armed
reconnaissance version in the first three blocks of the aircraft
because our most pressing need is an armed scout for the Objective
Force that would replace the Kiowa Warrior. A second result was the
creation of the joint Sikorsky-Boeing program office in an effort to
improve cooperative development. The third major change was
rebaselining the program into an evolutionary approach with affordable
and achievable timelines. I believe this is the last time we will need
to restructure this program.
The Army sent Congress a quarterly report on Comanche this past
February and will send additional reports at the end of April, July,
and October 2003. We fully funded the Comanche program to our cost
estimates not only in the fiscal year 2004 budget, but also in the out
years to initial fielding in fiscal year 2009. We are going to deliver
this helicopter. It is critical to the Objective Force.
Mr. Lewis. Mr. Dicks.
STRYKER BRIGADES
Mr. Dicks. Well, I want to welcome General Shinseki and
Secretary White and I want to associate myself with the remarks
of the Chairman and the Ranking Member about the service of
General Shinseki who I think has done a fantastic job. And we
have watched out at Fort Lewis the first two of these Stryker
Brigades, and looking forward to seeing this program completed.
I just would mention that section 8121 of the Fiscal Year
2003 Defense Appropriation Act requires the Department of
Defense to program and budget for no less than six Stryker
Brigades. Now I understand that there is some question about
this; that we have got approval now on the first four; but the
last two, the Department is still reviewing it or studying it
or doing something. Can you advise us on that?
Secretary White. Yes, sir. As I said in my opening
comments, the fourth of the six Stryker Brigades is in the
fiscal year 2004 budget, Second Armored Cavalry Regiment at
Fort Polk, and the money to support brigades five and six is in
the program, the fiscal year 2004/2009 program.
Mr. Dicks. Where is five and six going to be?
Secretary White. Five is Hawaii, 25th Division; and six is
in the National Guard in Pennsylvania. We have been asked by
the Secretary of Defense to complete a study that looks at
whether modification should be made to the design of the
brigade to (a) make it more of a transformational step, make it
look more like a unit of action--for example, the addition of
aviation and perhaps other things; and then (b) to look at the
stationing of brigades 5 and 6. We all report to the Secretary
of Defense on that. We intend to complete that in the near
future and send it up to him.
My view is brigades five and six are imperative. We need
those six brigades. I also think it is imperative that the
National Guard get brigade six. We have never been more One
Army than we are today, as you know, from being numerous places
in the world, and we need to have them a part of
Transformation, and brigade six does that. So it is in our
program. We will do the study and have further discussions with
the Secretary.
Mr. Dicks. If you made decisions to add capability to five
and six, I would assume that at some later date those
capabilities would be added to one, two, three, and four.
Secretary White. Well, you could do that or----
Mr. Dicks. Spiral----
Secretary White. You could say certainly we are going to
improve one through four over time, and spiraling as Objective
Force technologies come along. As we are fielding our units of
action on the Objective Force side, we will look to infuse,
where it is appropriate, those technologies into the existing
force which obviously would include brigades one through four.
FUTURE COMBAT SYSTEM (FCS)
Mr. Dicks. Tell me about the status of the Future Combat
System. You have mentioned that in your remarks and Congress--
as I understand, the fiscal year 2004 budget includes $1.7
billion in Army research development and funding. Can you give
us a little more feeling about the Future Combat System and how
that is going to work?
Secretary White. Yes. The Future Combat System is a system
of systems. It includes 19 different systems: manned, unmanned,
air, ground, Land Warrior for the individual soldier, and, most
importantly, the network that ties all of this together into a
Network Centric Force. We have sent out requests for proposals
for 24 different technology packages to support this. Industry
is going to give us a tremendous response. I think we are going
to get back over 300 proposals from industry on this.
We will package those together into an increment, one that
will be the first installment as we roll this out. We will look
at the analysis that indicates that increment one makes sense
to do, that it is affordable and that the technical risk of
fielding it in 2008 makes sense; bring all this to a Defense
Acquisition Board decision in May, and proceed in a system
design and development from there forward. So it is on track.
We focused our science and technology, S&T money along with
the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, DARPA to keep
this on track, and the next three or four months are critical
between now and May to get this through a successful task.
Mr. Dicks. I yield to Mr. Murtha.
Mr. Murtha. This is going to be coordinated with the Navy
and Air Force?
Secretary White. Yes, sir; absolutely. And this force is
designed to work in a joint environment.
Mr. Dicks. Let me finish this up Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Lewis. One more question.
FUTURE COMBAT SYSTEM--KEY TECHNOLOGIES
Mr. Dicks. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. What are the areas of
emphasis on these various technologies that comprise Future
Combat System? What are some of the things we are talking
about?
Secretary White. Number one----
Mr. Dicks. The 24 Requests for Proposal, the RFPs and all
that.
Secretary White. Right. The network and how all of these
interrelate from a software, computing, communicating
structure, number one. Number two, a common theme through this
is our robotic technologies. The Crusader program had an
automatic loader that we have transferred over. I think that is
critical. Third, logistics economy. We are seeking to make this
force as significantly a lower logistic burden than the
existing force, so we are focusing on that. Four,survivability
technologies that will give us equivalent survivability of a heavy
force today at far lower weight. Fifth, intelligence and sensor
packages. We have an operational concept for the Objective Force that
says we are going to see first, we are going to decide first, then we
are going to act and close decisively. There are technology packages
that focus on the ``see and decide'' in this thing that I think are
fundamental.
General Shinseki. Let me just add, Mr. Chairman, if I
might, the Secretary has outlined for you a very, very
aggressive program, and the $1.7 billion, Congressman Dicks,
that you talk about in fiscal year 2004 is really a fiscal year
2004 piece to an effort that has been underway for about 3
years. If you look at the President's budget in 2001, 2002 and
2003, there were decisions made that moved on the order of
$12.5 billion into science and technology. That has already
been underway that is going to deliver here in the next year or
so the kinds of capabilities that the Secretary outlined.
You all put about another $3.2 billion into the Army's
accounts to sort of jump-start and give us momentum. So we are
talking here about $16 billion of effort already accomplished;
$1.7 billion is the fiscal year 2004 piece, and that $1.7
billion breaks up into about three big bins: manned platforms,
unmanned ground, and aerial platforms. So those are two, about
a third each of that $1.7 billion. And the third is a network
that makes them capable of acting in a synchronized manner.
That investment is important because it then allows us to
deliver that fiscal year 2008 capability we are focused on.
Some of this plays back to the questions that Congressman
Murtha asked about a supplemental. If we are not able to take
care of our 2003 requirements, as you know, what happens is we
start looking for flexibility in other accounts, and when that
happens to be this investment in the future, you begin to
unravel in 2008. So these are fairly well-knitted-together and
balanced priorities, and our ability to deliver the assurances
in May that our Future Combat System Milestone B Defense
Acquisition Board is on track, very much tied to being able to
hold the $1.7 billion in research and development that is
itemized for 2004.
Mr. Dicks. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Lewis. Thank you Mr. Dicks. I kind of failed the
Committee at the very beginning, for I promised myself in the
future that I am going to say to all of those who are willing
to listen, who are present, if we have any cell phones,
``Blackberries'' or any other kinds of berries in the audience
or otherwise, they should be turned off. They can be heard in
the hall, but otherwise not in this room.
Let's see. Mr. Cunningham.
Mr. Cunningham. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Jack, The
Predator, is made in my district.
Mr. Murtha. That is right. That is absolutely right.
Mr. Cunningham. We need additional money for production of
Predator B's that will go to Iraq.
Mr. Murtha. The more I see about it, the more I agree with
you. It is marvelous.
Mr. Lewis. You are doing real good, friend.
ENVIRONMENTAL RESTRICTIONS ON TRAINING
Mr. Cunningham. You raised a question on Comanche. My
concern is it has been 20 years in production. When I was still
on active duty, we were talking Comanche. And I know the
Russians, they have got some pretty good capabilities with
their helos as well. And my concern is if it has taken 20 plus
years to develop, are we still putting any modern technology
into these helos? And so I want to follow that.
Camp Pendleton is located just north of my district. The
Marines literally go in off the beach in their amphibs. But
they have to assemble as a group once they hit the beach, and
go through a narrow corridor because there's gnat catchers on
both sides of them. They can't make a full plus assault. They
can't dig foxholes. They can't do lot of combat maneuvering.
They are training in some areas where they are limited to
pushing--literally walking with boxes, acting like tanks. Is
the Army at its bases facing similar restrictions in training?
Secretary White. I think we all are, Congressman. That is
why the Range Preservation Initiative which is the Department
of Defense-wide initiative which basically is aimed at giving
us the flexibility to sustain training fundamental to
readiness, but, at the same time, being good stewards of the
environment is critical. What tends to happen is that the laws
are litigated in the courts. The solutions tend to become
extreme and that produces highly restrictive situations like
the one that you referred to.
Mr. Cunningham. So you would say those conditions do exist
today on restrictions and training?
Secretary White. Yes.
Mr. Cunningham. And you need our help.
Secretary White. Yes.
Mr. Lewis. If the gentleman would yield for one moment.
Mr. Cunningham. Absolutely, sir.
Mr. Lewis. To that point, the National Training Center for
the Army is located in the Great Mojave Desert, no longer in my
district but nonetheless the most important training center in
the world, was held up by way of expansion for years and years
regarding the desert tortoise. The reason it was held up was
because the only healthy population of the tortoise that could
be found in the whole region could be found on the base,
because the Army was better stewards of land than our other
agencies that are involved.
There is enough territory there for four Eastern States.
And for well over a decade, some of us have been calling upon
them to plant eggs out in that east Mojave to revitalize that
population. There is absolutely no consideration of that, while
in the meantime the stewards get kicked around who happened to
be training these fine troops that we are talking about on that
very fine base. Thank you.
RESERVE COMPONENT PAY
Mr. Cunningham. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have another
real problem. My district director in San Diego is a Marine
Corps Reservist. And he is being called up to deploy to Iraq.
Our office is going to lose him to a deployment. And during
Team Spirit, I was the CO of a unit that was responsible for
that exercise, and we used a lot of Reservists to supplement
Team Spirit in Korea. And the problem is that when my reservist
goes from working for me to the Marine Corps, he cannot even
make his house payments on the Marine Corps pay. I have come to
find out that we as Members of Congress can't supplement that.
Secretary White. Can't?
Mr. Cunningham. Cannot. And I am looking for bonuses,
anything I can to support this young man and his family. And I
know that other Reservists lose pay when they go to the Reserve
active duty, and I just need your help and the Members'. That
it is something I think that we ask thesemen and women to go
over, and yet when they do and when they sacrifice for this country,
they can't even meet their house payments. And you know as well as I
do, one of the things they want to know when they are overseas is that
their families are doing okay.
Secretary White. That is right.
Mr. Cunningham. So I think it is an area that in Congress
we really need to take a look at. I don't know what the
complement should be with looking at the new scenarios with all
the services in Reserve and Guard, but that is one of the areas
that really started bothering me when I looked at my own
district director, that he couldn't even pay his house payment.
Secretary White. There is significant economic hardship. It
depends on where you are. If you work for a private sector
corporation, a lot of times they will equalize the pay. I rode
around in Afghanistan, Pakistan, in a Guard C-130 where the
crew all worked for Northwest Airlines. And Northwest Airlines
equalized the pay so that there wasn't economic--but that is
not a uniform deal. People that own their own businesses, run
their own businesses, are particularly hard hit by this. So
there is significant economic hardship to the extended
mobilizations.
IMPACT AID
Mr. Cunningham. The last thing I would say is that many of
us feel that the President was wrong on reducing Impact Aid for
those people that live off base, and we have a caucus that I am
sure will override the budget and put that money back in to
take care of our troops.
I yield back.
Mr. Lewis. Thank you, Mr. Cunningham. By the way, every
President this century has eliminated those Impact Aid monies
because they know the Congress will put it back in. That is a
kind of game we play.
But in the meantime, the ever-patient Mr. Sabo.
NON-LINE OF SIGHT CANNON (NLOS-C)
Mr. Sabo. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And Secretary, General,
welcome to the Committee.
A year ago this Committee was struggling with the issue of
the Crusader. In the end we added some money, stopped the
Crusader, but provided $370 million to continue deploying an
indirect fire system, including a deployable chassis. What has
happened with the Congress past last year and in consultation
with the administration?
Secretary White. The progress has been excellent. We are in
the midst of executing the 2003 program. We are transferring
the Crusader technology, the robotic loader, the cockpit, all
the other pieces of this. We will have a cannon system on the
common FCS chassis, and I expect that it will be an integral
part of increment one, and we will begin fielding in 2008. So I
think it has played out exactly the way we hoped it would as
the program was restructured last year and as Crusader was
terminated.
Mr. Sabo. One of our concerns was the question of how one
would integrate a fairly large artillery piece on a lighter
chassis. How is that problem working out?
Secretary White. Well, I think it is fair to say that on a
20-ton chassis as opposed to a 37-ton system, a Crusader, that
you won't get the same caliber-length gun, and that you will
probably carry fewer rounds; but we will still have an
enormously capable artillery piece to get after the fundamental
fire support requirement that remained valid and was recognized
as valid when Crusader was terminated. Precisely what that will
be we will know a lot more of as we go through Milestone B here
in a couple of months, but I expect that this will be a very
successful development.
Mr. Sabo. When we acted last year, we put the management
responsibility with the same program that had been charged with
developing the artillery system, and my understanding is that
for 2004 the Army is requesting or proposing combining this
funding with the Future Combat Systems. Why is that and what is
the impact of that?
Secretary White. Well, I don't think it has got any impact
on the development of the cannon variant of the Future Combat
System. It is just that because they are all going to be on a
common chassis, we wished to manage this as an integral part of
the family. But the pieces of it, the digital cockpit that was
developed, the gun-cooling technology, all the other things
that we had invested in in the Crusader program, will be an
integral part of the NLOS cannon variant and it will go on the
common FCS chassis.
FISCAL YEAR 2003 SUPPLEMENTAL
Mr. Sabo. Thank you. One further question, Mr. Chairman.
We don't know the size of a supplemental, but could you
give us some idea in terms of the additional cost? I expect
there will be two parts to that, and one is the cost for
deployment; and then, secondly, whether there is or isn't
combat, a different type of supplemental--but simply for the
deployment of the additional funds that are requested, how much
of those funds that are required go directly to the services
ratio-wise versus those going to outside contractors that we
hire?
Secretary White. I will have to get back to you in terms of
the split because the contractor is going to be largely in the
O&M part of the supplemental. The supplemental will be, or our
request for it is about a little over 90 percent, I would say,
of either military personnel or O&M, and I will have to get
back to you with the breakout. And the supplemental hopefully
will be here shortly and we can make it more specific.
Mr. Sabo. Are those cost-plus contracts?
Secretary White. Sir?
Mr. Sabo. Are they cost-plus?
Secretary White. I suppose it depends on precisely what
part of it you are talking about and for what service; whether
it is construction, emergency construction, or whether it is
operation of food service or whatever. But I will get back to
you with more detail for the record.
Mr. Sabo. Thank you.
[The information follows:]
Based on current planning assumptions, up to one-third of the
Army's supplemental funding may be provided to support contract
requirements in the Operations & Maintenance and Procurement
appropriations. Specific requirements, especially for reconstitution of
the force and recapitalization, cannot be predicted at this early
stage.
Mr. Lewis. Thank you. Mr. Frelinghuysen.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you both for your service to our country, and in
particular, General Shinseki, thank you for your leadership.
Thirty-seven years ago I had yet to be drafted and you were
already there. And it is incredible to think of that length of
service to our country, how proud you must be. We are proud of
you.
General Shinseki. I am. Thank you.
ARMY COMBAT POWER
Mr. Frelinghuysen. Our all-volunteer--and we haven't heard
that term here this afternoon--military has done us proud. And
for all the talk years ago about what might have been the
caliber of the young men and the women as an all-volunteer
force as not meeting the mark, those myths and concerns have
been dispelled or debunked. I think you and your colleagues
have done an incredible job, particularly, and it has been
mentioned, melding the Active and Reserve. It wasn't easy.
There were characterizations about Reserves and Guard, and I
think those characterizations today as a result of your
leadership and your predecessor's has been removed. There is
more professionalism, better training, better pay. And I like
to say when I am on the stump, that the Army in particular, but
the military generally, is the greatest equal opportunity
employer in the Nation.
I don't think the military gets credit for it. And maybe
this is in the way of an advertisement because the Army is
here, the Army never really gets credit for being the largest
part of that equation. As you have said on other occasions
testifying and in my office, you have more troops ready to go
literally today than any other service--and we are not in the
business here of beating up on other services--and you have
more boots on the ground.
I want to just put out a general question that might be
considered to be a softball, but relative to the issue of boots
on the ground, often around this table we talk about the term
``overwhelming superiority,'' and maybe that has to do with the
excellence of our Air Force and the overwhelming power that
they deliver.
Can you talk a few minutes about the Army's part of that
equation? Because I think sometimes the Army is too modest
about what it does, and in some ways has allowed some of our
fellow citizens to think that wars can be won without losing
lives and that wars can be won by overwhelming air superiority.
I don't forget the Marines either. His lips didn't have to
move. I knew that if there was a whisper--the Ranking Member,
for the record.
General Shinseki. Congressman, no question how proud the
Secretary and I are of our service, but we are also very, very
proud of the services that stand with us--the great Air Force
we have and Navy and Marine Corps. But ultimately the issues
that we deal with are the issues of people, and they continue
to reside on the ground and ultimately this gets resolved by,
as we say, boots on the ground. It does not have to be Army
boots, but it takes people invested on the ground to go and
bring to finality all the other things that we can do.
If you want to look at the issue of precision and that gets
a lot of attention because----
Mr. Frelinghuysen. Precision, fire power, we have got it.
General Shinseki. It is sometimes described as a
counterpoint to ground capability, and I don't think it is ever
intended to be that way, nor do I think it is a very accurate
way of describing what our capabilities are or our professions
are. Precision has a value to the way we prosecute this
business of combat.
But there is precision with fires and there is also
precision with maneuver, and in the business of precision with
fires, you have two components of that. You have the accurate
location of a target and then you have the accurate delivery of
fires. Accurate delivery of fires, I think we have demonstrated
that we have the technology to be able to do that. We are
always challenged with that first piece, and that is the
accurate location of a target. Unless you can bring target
location error and circular error probability of a location of
a target and a strike of a weapon, precision is sort of less
than we would like it to be.
Where ground forces provide contributions is resolving the
front end of that, and that is locating, fixing, isolating that
target so that you can bring to bear precision fires, and so
there is a complement here. And certainly in the ground
warfighting doctrine, fires and maneuver are always talked
about as complementary capabilities.
In the joint arena, maneuver and fire still have that
relationship, and a final resolution of most of the scenarios
that we look at and prepare for ultimately end up on the
ground. You have those situations in which a target not only
cannot be identified or located, but even if identified and
located are conflicted because you have innocents around them,
and so your fires are not able to be necessarily employed to
the extent you would like, and it takes, then, ground
capability to go in there, get the separation you want or to
take targets down.
I think we have seen all of our services mobilized for this
potential operation, and I think all of us have demonstrated.
As General Jim Jones and I used to say, we were never on an
overly crowded battlefield. There is enough work for everybody.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. Great. Thank you.
Mr. Lewis. Thank you, Mr. Frelinghuysen.
Mr. Visclosky.
ABRAMS AND BRADLEY MODERNIZATION PROGRAMS
Mr. Visclosky. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Gentlemen, thank you for your service. Mr. Secretary, as I
understand it, the Abrams and Bradley Fighting Vehicles were
modernized, were two divisions, but that the proposal now is to
terminate the modernization program, despite the fact that it
has not occurred, for the Third Armored Cavalry Regiment. What
is the rationale for the termination of that?
Secretary White. Up until this year, our plan had been to
fully modernize three and a third divisions. The three
divisions of III Corps: 1st Cavalry, 4th Infantry Division, 3rd
ID and its cavalry regiment, 3rd ACR. This year we had to make
some tough choices about how much we could modernize, and the
core of the modernization is the M1A2, most advanced variant of
the Abrams, and the Bradley A3 variant.
This year in making trades that I referred to in my opening
remarks and needing the money to supportTransformation, we had
to reduce the modernization to six brigades, two divisions, the 1st Cav
and 4th ID, and forego the modernization of the other division and the
ACR. And it was a choice that we had to make in order to fully fund
Transformation, and we had to limit the degree that we would otherwise
would have liked to have done in modernization of the existing force,
and that is the call that we made.
Mr. Visclosky. How much money would be involved, Mr.
Secretary, approximately? What was the trade-off moneywise
then?
Secretary White. I will have to get the details as to how
much four brigades' worth would have been to modernize Bradley
and Abrams, but I will get you those numbers.
[The information follows:]
To provide both the 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment and the 3rd
Infantry Division with the same vehicle mix that the rest of the
Counterattack Corps has, consisting of the Abrams M1A2-SEP tank and the
Bradley M2/3A3 Infantry Fighting Vehicle, the cost would be $1.936
billion for Abrams tanks and $1.589 billion for Bradley Fighting
Vehicles. If the Army were to use M1A1 AIM-D with second-generation
forward-looking infrared radar, the cost would be $165.4 million plus
$1.589 billion for the Bradley Fighting Vehicles. Other variations of
the Bradley Fighting Vehicle could also be assessed for such an
upgrade.
Mr. Visclosky. I have one or two questions for the record
on the Abrams Tank and the Bradley Fighting Vehicle.
[Clerk's note.--Questions submitted by Mr. Visclosky and
the answers thereto follow:]
Question. In order to pay for the Army of the future (the Objective
Force), this Committee has supported the Army's termination and
reduction of dozens of current programs over the past two years. In
fiscal year 2004, the Army again asks us to support program
terminations and reductions--this time a total of 48 programs impacted.
Two of these programs are the Abrams Tank and Bradley Fighting
Vehicle. These are the current force's most potent weapons to ensure
both enemy defeat and soldier survivability. The Army now proposed to
terminate Abrams and Bradley modernization after fielding of modern
versions of each vehicle to only two divisions. This leaves the 3rd
Armored Cavalry Regiment--the other unit in what the Army calls the
Counterattack Corps--with Abrams and Bradley vehicles that are more
than 10 years old.
Please explain your rationale for terminating the M1A2 SEP tank and
Bradley A3 Fighting Vehicle before fielding to the 3rd Armored Cavalry
Regiment.
Answer. The Army favors a pure Abrams tank fleet for III Corps;
however, as with many other major weapons systems, it is cost
prohibitive to procure a M1A2 SEP tank for every armored crew. This is
especially true when considering the significant bills we are faced
with in order to transform the Army. As a result, the Army has made
some difficult decisions on equipping the armor corps. The end state
for the tank fleet based on these decisions will be M1A2SEP tanks in
the 4th Infantry Division and 1st Cavalry, and M1A1HA, M1A1AIM or M1A2
tanks in the rest of the active force. We are currently working options
to buy back M1A2SEP's and M3A3's or M1A1AIM-D+ tanks and M3A2ODS++ for
3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment giving them the digital architecture to
communicate with the rest of the digitized III Corps.
Question. Please provide your analysis of this decision that shows
how the need to terminate these programs for affordability reasons
outweighs the operational combat risk.
Answer. The Army has made some difficult decisions on equipping the
current force with the most modern and capable equipment. Although we
have assumed some risk by not producing enough M1A2SEP tanks to equip
the 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment and 3rd Infantry Division, we still
maintain both survivability and lethality overmatch with the current
tank force. The delicate balance required to transition from the
current force to the Objective Force will require some acceptable risk,
but never to the extent of putting our troops at an unacceptable risk.
Although every armor unit will not be equipped with the M1A2SEP
tank, all Active Component units, less 3rd Infantry Division, will
receive a new AIM tank providing even greater survivability, mobility,
and increased operational readiness rates. The 3rd Infantry Division is
scheduled to keep their newer M1A1 heavy armor tanks providing them
with a similar level of armor protection.
The Army is preparing a response to a Congressional report
requirement requesting a study on the compatibility of a mixed tank
fleet and the adequacy of such a mixed fleet to meet the heavy corps
mission. We except this study to be finished in July 2003.
Question. Can this Committee be assured that if it provides the
Army additional resources to procure the required M1A2 SEP tanks and
Bradley A3 vehicles that the Army will spend the funds for that purpose
and that the Army will provide the balance of funding required to
complete that procurement?
Answer. Yes, to the extent that the Army is continually reviewing
the delicate balance of the Army's contributions to the Joint war
fight. Modernizing the 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment is one of the
Army's top priorities and every effort will be made to use all
available assets to accomplish that goal.
Question. Would the Army be willing to work with the contractors
for each of these combat vehicles to find an innovative solution to
resourcing the needed M1A2 SEP tank and Bradley A3s to include zero sum
movements of funding within each program?
Answer. The Army shares your concerns about the long-term viability
of United Defense LP and General Dynamics Land Systems. We have
initiated a series of discussions with corporate representatives in an
effort to ensure these facilities can successfully bridge the gap
between the end of the production of legacy systems and the initial
production of the Future Combat Systems. We will continue to support
the Abrams fleet as the Army transitions to the Objective Force,
maintaining minimal risk on all fronts.
[Clerk's note.--End of questions submitted by Mr.
Visclosky.]
COUNTERATTACK CORPS ARMOR REQUIREMENTS
General Shinseki. May I add to this discussion,
Congressman? Three years ago when we began this review of the
state of the Army, in fact we had a focus on this counterattack
corps, three and a third divisions. And as we projected forward
the investments at the end of 10 years, at that would
accomplish for us if we were to do everything we had described,
we would have three and a third divisions that were quite
capable, quite modernized, essentially a heavy force that we
have today, and the ability to transport it rapidly would still
be challenging.
It is on that basis that we went back and took a look at
whether the Army would be best served with one piece of it,
this one corps that was wholly modernized, whether it was
strategically more important for us to go back and look at the
entire Army and put in place a modern transformation program
that would give us all of our divisions that would be in the
same condition as that one corps, all of them capable of being
moved quickly, being lethal, and having the descriptors that I
used earlier. A strategic change for us. And we decided to
refocus our dollars and our energy and to make some tough
decisions that would give the Army, the entire Army, the
capabilities that we had been sort of husbanding for a single
piece of it.
We think in the long run that will bear out as having been
the right decision. We understand that whenever you go through
this transformation, there are pressures on existing members in
the industrial base. We understand that. And 3\1/2\ years ago
we made very clear in our early presentations that we could not
do this, this major change in transformation, without the
support of industry, and we invited industry to join us. We
told everyone this would be a bold step, but we needed their
help to step off, and we would do the best we can to resolve
risks and work through this.
There are a number of early beneficiaries of this. The NLOS
cannon, common chassis FCS business, has already identified
some members of industry who have already begun to make that
return on early investments because they are part of this
effort to make the change. Others took risk on their own and
stepped off smartly with us and are yet to have the benefit of
those decisions. Others were a little slower to step off for
reasons of their own. There may be even some who chose not to
step off. But there are a variety of categories of situations
for industry. For the most part, industry has stepped up with
us. We would not be where we are today--even if we had the
funding available, we would not be where we are today if
industry as a whole hadn't supported us in this effort.
We will continue to look at those concerns that are
expressed by Members that say they have got periods here that
have to be bridged, but it is not too late to step off with us,
and I think it is----
FISCAL YEAR 2003 FUNDS FOR ABRAMS AND BRADLEY
Mr. Dicks. Would the gentleman yield just briefly?
Mr. Visclosky. Sure.
Mr. Dicks. What are you going to do with the 2003 money for
these upgrades and the tanks?
Secretary White. Spend it.
Mr. Dicks. On something else or on----
Secretary White. No. In other words, to get the fully
modernized capability----
Mr. Dicks. At the Corps you have got to spend the money on
the 2003----
Secretary White. Right. We are talking about 2004 money,
not 2003.
Mr. Dicks. Right.
General Shinseki. The 2003 dollars were assigned against
risks that we did not want to take, and so those dollars are
being focused on that. It is the 2004 monies that we begin to--
Congressman, it is really beyond the 2004 and it is really 2005
and 2006, that some of these trend lines begin to drop more
significantly.
LIFE CYCLE COSTS
Mr. Visclosky. I have a lot of reasons to be proud to serve
with the members on this Committee. Besides their focus on the
quality of life of those individual troops, it is also the
issue of operation and maintenance and spare parts and all
those things that don't capture headlines. And I share their
concern particularly as far as the rising cost of readiness and
the issue of paying attention to life cycle costs during system
development. And my sense is that that life cycle cost of a
system generically on average is about 72 percent of the
overall cost.
What programs or proposals do either of you gentlemen have
in place to try to better address that issue? And I understand
there is always that impulse, and I think it is a natural
impulse, to get right to that cutting edge of that technology
or new system but not look at the overall cycle costs in
maintenance problems that may impose?
Secretary White. That thrust line is a central part, a
critical part, of the Future Combat System development. We
absolutely must reduce the logistic burden associated with the
Future Combat System over the current heavy force that drives
the life cycle cost.
Another part of it is robotic technology. If you look at
Crusader, and now the FCS Non-Line of Sight Cannon, the biggest
classed element in the life cycle is the cost of the crew. And
so if you go to unmanned systems and robotics and become more
efficient with people going forward, it will also have an
enormous impact on the O&M cost. So the automatic loader that
we are transferring over to the cannon in the Future Combat
System, which allows us to put a significantly smaller crew on
the cannon, will also have a significant impact on the life
cycle question.
So I absolutely agree with you and that is a central thrust
on the Objective Force. The same with Comanche.
Mr. Visclosky. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Lewis. Mr. Tiahrt.
BUSINESS INITIATIVE COUNCIL
Mr. Tiahrt. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would also like to
add my voice in thanking you for your service to the country.
You could have done a lot of other things with your life. You
chose to serve our country, and so thank you very much.
I want to make a comment to start with. You have started an
Army Business Initiative Council. I think it is very
innovative. The Federal Acquisition Regulations are lethargic,
cumbersome, and they block getting new technologies into our
soldiers' hands. And I would like to extend an offer to work
with you to change the process if we can, so we can shorten the
time it takes to get a good idea in the hands of the people who
defend this great Nation.
Secretary White. I look forward to that.
TRANSFORMATION
Mr. Tiahrt. Second, we used to call it modernization, it is
now transformation. We have an aging Legacy Force and in our
efforts to upgrade them sometimes we have come up with multiple
systems out there. We have about four different models of an M-
1 tank, I am told three models of the M-2Bradleys, a couple
models of the helicopters, Apache helicopters. The Black Hawks have
more versions than that out there.
So we have these upgrades that cost a lot with O&M, and I
think it consumes our resources. How do you balance between
maintaining some of these items in our Legacy Force with new
procurement, new ideas? What is the criteria that we are going
to use in the future to decide whether we maintain an existing
system or discard it for a new technology?
Secretary White. Well, let me start, and the Chief can--let
us take aviation, for example. We have invested over the years
to put together an aviation fleet with Apache, Black Hawk, and
currently Kiowa Warrior and, in the future, Comanche, that we
are paying to upgrade to digital capability and to have a
common set of helicopters and retire the AH-1s and the Hueys
that were in our fleet in previous years. So the overall fleet
is going to be smaller by about 1,000 helicopters. But it will
be more modern and it will all be digital cockpits, and that is
the decision we made on how to modernize aviation and bring
Comanche on as a part of it.
We will make decisions on block improvements and infusion
of technology into existing systems as a trade against bringing
in new systems in the Objective Force. And as you have heard in
the previous discussion, we have found it necessary to limit
the modernization of the Legacy Force in order to support
Transformation because we think there are enormous advantages
to doing that. But it is a tough call and in this particular
budget, the call is made in favor of the Transformation side as
a way to get to the O&S costs and a lot of other things and
strategic deployability of the force.
General Shinseki. I would only add, Congressman, that this
is a challenge that all the services had, and the Army has had
to walk this line between taking care of today's Legacy Force,
that force that you go to the unanticipated crises, that go to
fight wars on short notice, understanding that if you don't
husband resources and take care of the future, that future
force is the same one you have today, just older.
So all of the challenges that you have today about where
you can deploy, how fast you can deploy, and what it takes to
sustain it, is just more significant 10 years from now. And so
what the Army has done over the last three years and where it
stands today is to have balance, exactly what you asked us to
do; and that is to ensure that today's force can go and handle
today's crises, but to put as much energy as we can towards the
Future Combat System.
Much of that momentum that we have today came right out of
this Committee. I mean there was $3.2 billion added a few years
ago to give us that kind of momentum. It is a challenge. We
have taken risk in the Legacy Force, but I can tell you that
the answer I provided to the Chairman in the opening here as he
asked is this force ready, and I unequivocally said, yes, it
is, and it can go and do what it is that the President might
order--I will tell you that that risk has been acceptable in
our estimation, and we are as confident in this force today as
we thought we would be here in the year 2003. But at the same
time, we have put the energy for capability in 2008, 2010, that
will allow a future Chief, yet again once removed, to be able
to say that right decisions were made in 2003 to give him the
best Army in the world in 2008-2009.
Mr. Tiahrt. I realize this is an open hearing, Mr.
Chairman, and I would have other questions if it were closed,
but I think I will just yield back the rest of my time.
STRYKER BRIGADES
Mr. Lewis. We will have many occasions to ask those closed-
door questions. Thank you very much. For the members of the
Committee but also those who are participating with us, we have
this room for about another half hour and I know members have
additional questions. So while we have the opportunity, Chief,
earlier we talked about Stryker, and I remember your talking
about the fifth and sixth brigades. I was frankly--while I had
known, I was nonetheless reminded of the value of that sixth
brigade being with the Guard and Reserve people, that if they
are not connected to the future that it has implications that
are long term. So I was hesitant to even mention the fact that
Fort Irwin used to be in my district. It is not any longer, but
I have always wondered why we didn't have a Stryker Brigade out
there. In the meantime I----
General Shinseki. There will be a Stryker unit training
there shortly, Mr. Chairman.
STRYKER ACQUISITION
Mr. Lewis. I specifically wanted to ask you if you would
elaborate for us with those brigades anticipated, the mission
requirements that are a part of that asset and what you
anticipate.
General Shinseki. May I give a broader answer and then get
to some specifics?
Mr. Lewis. Sure.
General Shinseki. Mr. Chairman, three years ago, if we were
to go back and visit the discussions we had, I think the
observation of the Army was it was an Army still Eurocentric,
very much heavy, and focused on Europe. And the question to the
Army was how are you looking at your responsibilities more
broadly and what do you think, what capabilities you need to be
able to deal in a larger strategic context?
As a result of some of those discussions, we did take a
look and I think found ourselves fairly heavy-forced and
focused in Europe. We were asked to think about the Asia-
Pacific theater, a maritime theater to be sure. The tyranny of
distance is clear, but ultimately as I indicated, when you get
to where the problem areas are, they reside on land, and you
have to have some capability to deal with it. A heavy army with
70-ton tanks didn't see itself quite capable of providing
options to the combatant commander of the Pacific.
We were asked to think about it and we tried to resolve our
concerns in developing an interim capability that served really
several needs. One was to solve this gap between early-arriving
light and later-arriving heavy forces, and we did need
something that gave us a capability we didn't have, an interim
force.
We also understood that if we are going to talk about the
future force, that initially when we asked about these
breakthrough technologies that would be available to be used in
the Army, the early answers were 2018. That is what we were
asked to think about.
Well, 2018 was so far in the future we needed a way to pull
that focal point closer in, and we have asked for a 2008
capability. But to do that we had to restructure our
acquisition process. And Stryker then served the second need,
and that was to run at our acquisition processes, sort of bang
into things and reorganize the deck chairs into a faster, more
capable acquisition process. Stryker was described as a 7-to-9-
year effort initially. We have fieldedit in 2\1/2\ years. I
think we have demonstrated that both the acquisition process and
industry can respond more quickly, giving us some confidence in the
2008 date.
And, equally importantly, the third reason we needed the
Stryker Brigades was you need a laboratory to grow new
leadership that is going to think about new organizations, new
ways of putting together capabilities, new ways of fighting, so
that when 2008 arrives and the technology is here, you have got
a leadership that is ready to leverage that.
For all those reasons, we felt that the interim effort was
important. How many of these Stryker Brigade Combat Teams--and
as you know, there were Interim Brigade Combat Teams initially.
They didn't even have a name because there was no vehicle
associated with it. There was a range of numbers. We settled on
six, and the six were located at Fort Lewis, Washington, for
reasons that were important to us because Fort Lewis has a
history of mounted operations and we didn't have to put a lot
of investments in infrastructure. It already exists: ranges,
motor pools, roads.
If we were going to address the requirements of the Pacific
combatant commander, we had to give him more than just a one
location option and we looked at placing Stryker Brigade No. 3
in Alaska. We had a requirement to meet the needs of the 18th
Airborne Corps, our contingency corps, and that required us to
provide the fourth piece to the 2nd Armored Cavalry Regiment at
Fort Polk. The fifth was to round out the Asia-Pacific focus,
and that was decided that to get to Southeast Asia most
rapidly, a location of a brigade in Hawaii would fit. And then
the sixth was a more strategic investment and that was for the
reasons cited by the Secretary, an investment of a sixth
brigade in a National Guard unit. And the National Guard
participated in that decision, came back to us and said that
the best unit should be the one in Pennsylvania.
We have been asked to relook at the fit, the organization,
the capabilities, and the locations. We are doing that study
now, and for all of what has been provided, the early studies
seem to have been about right; that the capabilities to get to
the problem areas in the Pacific that the combatant commander
asked us to look at, put those four brigades on the Pacific Rim
about in the right locations. But we will review that and
provide our final studies, as the Secretary said, we are in the
process of doing. Six is about the right number. It is an
affordable one.
REDEPLOYMENT OF ARMY FORCES IN EUROPE
Mr. Lewis. Mr. Secretary and Chief, you heard me earlier
express no small amount of frustration relative to the peace
option and I kind of pointed a finger at our friends in Europe;
namely, the French and Germans. I wanted a linkage to scratch
my head. There is a question I wanted to ask about how you view
the recent discussions concerning redeployment of U.S. Forces
from bases in Germany to locations in Eastern Europe.
Secretary White. Well, Mr. Chairman, the Combatant
Commander, General Jones, is in the process, as he has talked
about, of conducting a strategic review to see what our
positioning should be and our posture should be in Europe,
looking towards our long-term security interest in not only
that area of the world but in other parts of the world where
you could possibly deploy from that portion of the world.
Our business will be, when he brings that in and the
Secretary looks at it and decisions are made about that posture
to line up the Department behind whatever plan is decided, to
support him and to support the Secretary of Defense. And
consequently we are active participants in that review, and we
will just have to wait and see how it comes out, but we are
deeply involved in that.
Mr. Dicks. Just on that point, is that why you didn't
require any military construction in Europe this year?
Secretary White. We did. We have Military Construction
projects in Europe in 2004.
Mr. Dicks. You do.
Secretary White. And in 2003 as well, yes.
Mr. Dicks. The Chairman has yielded to me. Thank you very
much. On the Stryker----
Mr. Lewis. How much time do you think I am yielding to you?
Mr. Dicks. Whatever I can get.
Mr. Lewis. I am going to get to you in a second. Chief, do
you want to respond to that at all?
General Shinseki. I would just add, just to reinforce the
Secretary's comments----
Mr. Lewis. By the way, I think I may yield over here next
time. Excuse me.
General Shinseki. I think in the long term what serves us
best and how we make our decisions in the near term is to look
for strategy that has a good description of where we want to be
in the future. The question may start with do we think there
will be a NATO in 10 to 15 years. I personally think so and I
would hope so. Do we see our membership in it as important, our
leadership in it as important? I think so. And if that is the
case, what is NATO going to look like in the years ahead and
how do we see ourselves being contributing members and where
does that footprint look?
I think that strategy is being looked at by the Combatant
Commander and I think we ought to give him time to get to the
best description that he can provide. And we certainly help him
with that. But once he has made that plan, that description,
then we will do everything we can to swing our priorities to be
able to help him accomplish that, but I do think the long-term
view is certainly helpful.
Mr. Lewis. Gentlemen, from time to time, we do have
questions about the size of our total budget that goes towards
the military. We have fewer of those questions today than we
have in the past, but to have you talking about the long range
is very important to this member, for indeed we spend money
every year not because we are interested in pursuing war but,
rather, America is going to lead the world over the decades
ahead.
Go out to 2020, our objective is to have peace with the
world, the Indias, the Chinas, the future leadership forces in
the world. So that long-range thinking is very important to me.
Mr. Dicks.
HIGH-SPEED SEALIFT SUPPORT FOR STRYKER
Mr. Dicks. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The Army has recently
decided to field a fleet of 12 high-speed vessels, catamaran-
style ships to further its goal of being able to transit a
Stryker Brigade in 96 hours; is that correct?
Secretary White. No sir. The program is seven vessels.
General Shinseki. That is correct. Seven vessels are in our
program.
Mr. Dicks. Where are you going to locate that? Do you have
any idea? I have got a good suggestion.
General Shinseki. I think in proximity to Stryker Brigade
locations is probably helpful.
Secretary White. As you know, Congressman, we tested--we
have a leased vessel catamaran that carries 55 Strykers. We
moved the Stryker platoon from the Irwin area----
Mr. Lewis. The less you dwell on this, Mr. Secretary, the
better off Mr. Dicks is going to be.
Secretary White. Okay, never mind. We are working on it.
STRYKER AND M113 COMPETITION
Mr. Dicks. And on the M113 competition, Stryker won hands
down; is that right?
Secretary White. Yes, in our view. We did the side by side,
as was required, and I think you would just ride the back end
of either of those vehicles maybe 5 minutes and you won't
require the rest of the tests.
Mr. Lewis. The gentleman has 30 seconds remaining.
PATRIOT ADVANCED CAPABILITY-3 MISSILE (PAC-3)
Mr. Dicks. PAC-3's, why did you still put them in the Army
budget when Congress has directed you to put them in the
Missile Defense Agency?
Secretary White. The Missile Defense Agency is transferring
control of PAC-3 and MEADS to the Army, and that should happen
very shortly.
Mr. Dicks. All right. So you are staying with your
position?
Secretary White. Yes, sir.
Mr. Lewis. Mr. Nethercutt.
CONSOLIDATION OF THE MILITARY PERSONNEL ACCOUNTS
Mr. Nethercutt. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. One question,
gentlemen. I understand that the Office of the Secretary of
Defense has directed the services to consolidate all military
personnel appropriations to the Guard, Reserve and Active
accounts in this year's budget. I have also heard that the next
step may be toward an effort next year to similarly roll
together the O&M MILCON accounts. Is that your sense of the
direction from OSD? And if so, I am wondering what is broken
about the current process that would necessitate such a move?
Secretary White. Congressman, I haven't heard of the second
part of it. The first part of it, I think the consolidation of
the manpower accounts is for flexibility, but I haven't heard
anything about the second phase.
Mr. Nethercutt. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Lewis. Mr. Frelinghuysen.
CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL WARFARE
Mr. Frelinghuysen. With all the talk of mobility and
getting back to boots on the ground, the thought that the
battlefield could be littered with biological and chemical
agents is a most frightening prospect. I am not sure what you
could say here in this setting, but obviously news reports
point to alleged inadequacies in terms of training and thinks
of this nature. I have no doubt that you have given your full
concentration to all the possibilities and to all what I think
you classified as unpredictables.
Can you give us some higher level of reassurance that those
many troops on the ground are prepared for every eventuality?
General Shinseki. Congressman, as I have indicated earlier,
this is the toughest part of our mission preparation. First of
all, there are lots of unknowns, but what we do know about it
we have taken steps to safeguard and protect and prepare our
soldiers. As I indicated, over the past 6 years, 19 new
chemical and biological defense systems, detectors; first of
all, five detectors for chemical and biological agents that we
didn't have in Desert Storm. Part of this has been a new
protective overgarment and a new mask that replaces the one
that we had and that every service member who deploys has four
sets. That is a capability.
Now, we have taken our soldiers and put them in the most
trying training conditions, and you operate fully protected
with your mask on for a period of time to get you used to the
discipline and stamina that goes with operating in this
environment. And whether it is February at Fort Stewart,
Georgia, or August in the National Training Center on a
training exercise, you can expect that you will be fully
protected and you will have to operate in that condition and
complete your battle tasks as a part of that training scenario.
So I will tell you that we have made major efforts at
preparation for the last year now. If you see the film footages
of our formations that are forward in the area of
responsibility today, a good portion of what you see are people
operating that equipment. There are still unknowns, but our
confidence level at being able to operate in this kind of an
environment is significant.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Lewis. Thank you, Mr. Frelinghuysen.
Mr. Visclosky.
FORCE STRUCTURE
Mr. Visclosky. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. I do
appreciate the work you do in transformation in trying to gain
control over obviously a very large organization and ingrained
cultures and habits and interests in trying to make a
fundamental change. I would associate myself with the point Mr.
Obey had made earlier, though, as far as the absolute size,
given the TEMPO of operation, the commitments that have been
made, the increased mobilization of Guard units and Reserve
units, the changed demographics of enlisted personnel as far as
their marital status and family-in-distress deployments cause
in that situation, that we are not going to have the
determination of that today or in the immediate future.
But at some point I do think we are going to have to
examine whether we have enough people. Because in the end, as
you both state in your testimony, each one of those individual
Americans who have put that uniform on and decided to risk
their lives for our interest are the most important components;
and the question, ultimately, is you don't want to wear them
out and their families out, too.
I am not really asking a question, but I do think you
raised a very fundamental and important point.
General Shinseki. There is no disagreement here,
Congressman. We are, you know, in agreement with you--violent
agreement, in fact.
Mr. Visclosky. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Lewis. Thank you very much, Mr. Visclosky.
We are coming close to the end of this hearing, but I
wanted to make a few comments in connection with all of this.
I mentioned earlier that oft times we are criticized for
the portion of the national budget that goes to the national
defense. It gets close to, among discretionary dollars, to half
of our total national budget. Those of us who have been on this
Committee for years have constantly tried to remind people that
one of the very few really, really important reasons for
national government in the first place is to secure our
democracy and our freedom. Indeed, today, people understand
just how important our being ready and prepared and doing the
R&D, et cetera is. We don't hear very many calls about reducing
numbers of troops at this moment, while not so long ago that
was almost the byline around here.
We don't hear very many expressions of concern about
recruitment, for example. We are breaking records regarding
recruitment in the Army presently, and not so long ago our
frustration was where do you find those volunteers and how do
we pay them enough to keep them.
It is an evidence that when America is challenged our
people respond, and it is reflected in the services across, but
especially in the Army.
Mr. Secretary, I want you to know how much I appreciate
your personal service here. You have made a very extended
commitment beyond what most could ever ask, and you have
carried forth this job extremely well, and I appreciate that.
Secretary White. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Lewis. Speaking to my friend the Chief, Eric Shinseki,
I will never forget--just very shortly after I was first given
the privilege of having this job 4 years ago, I went to the
swearing in of the new Chief of the Army; and I learned in that
process that this fellow, when he was born in Hawaii, was a
foreign alien, World War II time. Think of what it says about
America to have a foreign-born alien now the Chief of the U.S.
Army.
Think of what it means further to have that leader, after
37 years, not just lead the Army but do it so well. Indeed, it
is a very, very impressive reflection of our process; and we
ought to all be grateful for the fact that our system works as
well as it does. America leads the world because they have got
people who can help us lead.
So, with that, if there are no further questions, the
Committee is adjourned. Thank you, gentlemen, very much.
[Clerk's note.--Questions submitted by Mr. Hobson and the
answers thereto follow:]
Family of Medium Tactical Vehicles
Question. The biggest Army procurement is the acquisition of 83,170
trucks and 10,000 trailers for a total of approximately $18 billion
through the year 2024. Later this month--on March 26, 2003--the Army is
to choose between two vendors who have been in a ``bake off'' to sell
the next version of the FMTV.
Is this competition moving on schedule?
Answer. The Army is nearing contract award. The FMTV A1 competitive
rebuy contract award has been delayed until April 2003 while two
remaining certifications/notifications are provided to Congress.
Question. Will there be a gap between the end of the current
contract and deliveries under the new contract?
Answer. There will be no gap between the end of the current
contract's deliveries and deliveries under the new contract.
Army Corps of Engineers
Question. It is being suggested that the Army Corps of Engineers--
particularly the civil side--does not belong in the Army.
What was behind this proposal, and has the idea now been
discredited?
Answer. One of the high priorities of the Secretary of Defense has
been to reduce or eliminate activities within the Department of Defense
that divert resources away from the primary defense mission. As part of
this review, options were considered that could have led to the
transfer of the Army Corps of Engineers Civil Works program to other
agencies. The Army has no such initiative underway, nor has the Army
been asked to undertake such an initiative. We understand that this
matter is no longer being considered.
Section 109, Division D, of the fiscal year 2003 Omnibus
Appropriations Act expressly prohibits use of any funding for this
purpose in fiscal year 2003. The Civil Works program is resourced
separately from other Army and Defense Department activities, so there
is no question of diversion of military resources. Moreover, the Civil
Works program provides a trained and ready engineering and scientific
workforce within the Army, available to be reassigned as needed to
defense missions such as environmental restoration of oil fields or
rebuilding infrastructure in Kuwait, Bosnia, and Kosovo.
hemacoolers
Question. For the third year in a row, fiscal year 2003 contained a
plus-up from me for Portable Low-Power Blood Cooling and Storage
Devices (``Hemacoolers''). You need this system now for portable, low-
energy use, blood storage in forward deployed units.
How can I encourage the Combat Support Medical Procurement staff at
Fort Detrick to move ahead on this?
Answer. The U.S. Army Medical Research and Materiel Command at Fort
Detrick is actively moving ahead with this important technology. The
Command received $250,000 in research and development money in April
2001 for development of a low-power blood cooling and storage device.
That money was provided to Energy Storage Technologies, Inc., of
Dayton, Ohio, in the form of a cooperative research and development
agreement. Energy Storage Technologies completed development of the
device and provided a briefing to the Army on a prototype device on
March 4, 2003. Testing is required on the device before a full
production contract can be awarded.
Rotational Force in Europe
Question. General James Jones, Commander of United States Forces in
Europe, has discussed the possibility of moving to a United States
presence in Europe made up of (1) troops on short term rotation, (2)
families left at home in the U.S., and (3) ``lily pad'' compact bases
scattered in the New (Eastern) Europe and Africa. Camp Bondsteel would
be a model. Such an approach would fall heavily on Heidelberg and the
heavier United States Army. What is the Army opinion of this vision?
Answer. The Army Staff has been directed to conduct an extensive
review of Army strategic posture looking out over the next ten years to
ensure that the Army is able to meet all the requirements of the
combatant commanders and is well positioned to seamlessly transform to
the Objective Force. Concurrently, the Secretary of Defense has
directed that his staff, the Joint Staff, and the combatant commanders
review future posture, overseas basing, and rotation policies. The Army
is working in close coordination with these efforts to ensure the
synchronization necessary to meet the Army's responsibilities for
flexible power projection and sustained land dominance as part of the
Joint Force. We will continue to work closely with the combatant
commanders, the Joint Staff, and Office of the Secretary of Defense to
develop and ensure the appropriate posture to meet both the current
strategic requirements and the future challenges to our national
security.
Question. Are all military construction projects in Europe on hold
and is it because of this? Or something else?
Answer. The Office of the Secretary of Defense is withholding
fiscal year 2003 military construction funding for Germany while
General Jones conducts a review of force structure, stationing, and
related infrastructure requirements in Europe. The Secretary of Defense
has asked him to revalidate projects for the fiscal year 2003 and
fiscal year 2004 military construction program within 30 to 60 days.
This allows the Army to perform a more detailed assessment of facility
requirements. Upon receipt of this assessment, project level execution
plans will be developed to accommodate required changes to the current
program.
Question. Is there the same situation for military construction
projects in Korea?
Answer. Yes, the Korea combatant commander is also conducting a
review of force structure, stationing, and related infrastructure
requirements. We plan a similar relook at our construction program.
National Guard and Reserve Personnel
Question. In a September 13, 2002, letter to Defense Secretary
Rumsfeld, with a copy to you (Secretary White), I complained about the
misuse of the Guard and Reserve. Part-time reservists are being turned
into full time soldiers through extended and unpredictable active duty
assignments. While reservists are more than willing to do their share,
especially in a time of crisis, they signed on with the expectation
that periods of active service would be relatively short.
Are we using the Guard and Reserve instead of asking for the higher
level of Active Component troops actually needed?
Answer. When our endstrength was reduced to 480,000 several years
ago, the Army chose to put the preponderance of some low-density
specialties into the Reserve Component in order to maximize the Active
Component combat power available for response to contingencies. Since
that time, the level of contingency operations has risen, forcing us to
draw from the Reserve Component for the soldiers with the right skill
sets to support these deployments. We have had over 30,000 Reserve
Component soldiers mobilized continuously since 9/11. I have testified
that I believe the active Army is too small for its current mission
profile. That said, there are a number of initiatives in process to
address this issue. We are working to ensure that we optimize the mix
of specialties in the Active and Reserve Components, as currently
sized. We are also striving to use existing endstrength most
efficiently through our Third Wave initiative, which aims to keep
soldiers and Army civilians assigned to positions that are part of the
Army's core competencies. Finally, we are using the flexibility
Congress has provided us to mitigate the stress on our Reserve
Components.
Question. What is your active strength and what should it be?
Answer. The Congressionally mandated fiscal year 2002 Active Army
end strength was 480,000. However, nothing has changed since my last
testimony--the Army is too small for its mission profile. The reality
is that our operations tempo, already challenging before 9/11, has
increased dramatically in the post 9/11 environment. Over the past 18
months, mobilizations have maintained a steady state of approximately
30,000 Reserve Component soldiers, effectively increasing our active
duty strength to approximately 510,000. We recognize the necessity to
ensure we look internally to obtain all possible efficiencies prior to
making any determinations on potential end strength increases.
A study is currently underway to review Army non-core
competencies--the Third Wave--with the expectation that some personnel
savings will be generated for use in mitigating ``force stress.''
Additionally, we are fully cognizant of the stress that this steady
state mobilization is placing on our Reserve Components. Studies are
underway to determine the correct balance of Active and Reserve forces,
including an analysis exploring options for mitigating the current
stress to the Reserve Component by ensuring that the correct type units
are resourced within the Active Component.
Question. What percent of the mission is done by the Active
Component, the Guard, and the Reserve?
Answer. First of all, the Guard and Reserve personnel we have
mobilized have done an outstanding job and have been a valuable asset
in the fight against terrorism. As for the percentage, the Active
Component does roughly 60 percent of the mission and the Reserve
Component does about 40 percent of the mission. As the war on terrorism
continues, we will continue to rely heavily on the Reserve Component
for critical specialties such as civil affairs, Special Forces,
military police, and military intelligence.
Question. Do the Guard and Reserve requests for equipment and
military construction projects reflect their share of the mission?
Answer. The Guard and Reserve continue to play an important role in
the Army's missions and are being modernized and transformed along with
the active forces. Equipment and military construction projects for all
components are based on the requirements generated from The Army Plan
and the Defense Strategy. This equipping is taking place across mission
sets.
In recognition of the vital role played by the Reserve Components,
the Army plans to convert a Reserve Component brigade in Pennsylvania
to a Stryker Brigade. This conversion will enhance our strategic
reserve and support the war on terrorism, small-scale contingencies,
and homeland defense missions. All associated critical equipment and
military construction projects are funded for this conversion.
Similarly, for the Army's Aviation Transformation Plan, the Reserve
Components have been funded alongside their Active Component
counterparts.
Additionally, the Army continues to implement the Army National
Guard Division Redesign Study (ADRS Phase I & II), a process that will
convert six Army National Guard combat brigades to combat support and
combat service support structure. In addition to ADRS, the Army has
begun planning for the implementation of the Army's National Guard
Restructure Initiative, an initiative that will convert additional
heavy combat brigades to mobile light infantry brigades in order to
take into account the new strategic roles and missions of our Reserve
Components.
Finally, there are many other force structure changes that will
require new equipment and construction for the Reserve Components, and
these are based upon the requirements of the Defense Strategy. These
changes include additional biological detection companies, civil
support teams, military police, military intelligence, engineers, and
other similar units. Guard and Reserve forces are being equipped for
these critical missions.
Abrams and Bradley Modernization Programs
Question. In order to pay for the Army of the future (the Objective
Force), this Committee has supported the Army's termination and
reduction of dozens of current programs over the past two years. In
fiscal year 2004, the Army again asks us to support program
terminations and reductions--this time a total of 48 programs impacted.
Two of these programs are the Abrams Tank and Bradley Fighting
Vehicle. These are the current force's most potent weapons to ensure
both enemy defeat and soldier survivability. The Army now proposed to
terminate Abrams and Bradley modernization after fielding of modern
versions of each vehicle to only two divisions. This leaves the 3rd
Armored Cavalry Regiment--the other unit in what the Army calls the
Counterattack Corps--with Abrams and Bradley vehicles that are more
than 10 years old.
Please explain your rationale for terminating the M1A2SEP tank and
Bradley A3 Fighting vehicle before fielding to the 3rd Armored Cavalry
Regiment.
Answer. The Army favors a pure Abrams tank fleet for III Corps;
however, as with many other major weapons systems, it is cost
prohibitive to procure a M1A2 SEP tank for every armored crew. This is
especially true when considering the significant bills we are faced
with in order to transform the Army. As a result, the Army has made
some difficult decisions on equipping the armor corps. The end state
for the tank fleet based on these decisions will be MlA2SEP tanks in
the 4th Infantry Division and 1st Cavalry, and M1A1HA, M1A1AIM or M1A2
tanks in the rest of the active force. We are currently working options
to buy back M 1 A2SEP's and M3A3's or M1A1AIM-D+ tanks and M3A2ODS++
for 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment giving them the digital architecture
to communicate with the rest of the digitized III Corps.
Question. Please provide your analysis of this decision that shows
how the need to terminate these programs for affordability reasons
outweighs the operational combat risk.
Answer. The Army has made some difficult decisions on equipping the
current force with the most modern and capable equipment. Although we
have assumed some risk by not producing enough M1A2SEP tanks to equip
the 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment and 3rd Infantry Division, we still
maintain both survivability and lethality overmatch with the current
tank force. The delicatebalance required to transition from the current
force to the Objective Force will require some acceptable risk, but
never be to the extent of putting our troops at an unacceptable risk.
Although every armor unit will not be equipped with the M1A2SEP
tank, all Active Component units, less 3rd Infantry Division, will
receive a new AIM tank providing even greater survivability, mobility,
and increased operational readiness rates. The 3rd Infantry Division is
scheduled to keep their newer M1A1 heavy armor tanks providing them
with a similar level of armor protection.
The Army is preparing a response to a Congressional report
requirement requesting a study on the compatibility of a mixed tank
fleet and the adequacy of such a mixed fleet to meet the heavy corps
mission. We expect this study to be finished in July 2003.
Question. Can this Committee be assured that if it provides the
Army additional resources to procure the required M1A2SEP tanks and
Bradley A3 vehicles that the Army will spend the funds for that purpose
and that the Army will provide the balance of funding required to
complete that procurement?
Answer. Yes, to the extent that the Army is continually reviewing
the delicate balance of the Army's contributions to the Joint war
fight. Modernizing the 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment is one of the
Army's top priorities and every effort will be made to use all
available assets to accomplish that goal.
Question. Would the Army be willing to work with the contractors
for each of these combat vehicles to find an innovative solution to
resourcing the needed M1A2SEP tank and Bradley A3s to include zero sum
movements of funding within each program?
Answer. The Army shares your concerns about the long-term viability
of United Defense LP and General Dynamics Land Systems. We have
initiated a series of discussions with corporate representatives in an
effort to ensure these facilities can successfully bridge the gap
between the end of the production of legacy systems and the initial
production of the Future Combat Systems. We will continue to support
the Abrams fleet as the Army transitions to the Objective Force,
maintaining minimal risk on all fronts.
Stryker/Mobile Gun System
Question. Modernization of the Stryker family of vehicles is
generally considered a success story. Stryker is going from ``factory
to foxhole'' faster, perhaps, than any other major system.
The Mobile Gun System (MGS) represents the vehicle in the Stryker
family that will bring the most combat power. The fiscal year 2004
request funds procurement of Strykers for the 2nd Armored Cavalry
Regiment, a unit that will have more MGS vehicles than any other
Stryker unit. Is this procurement rate adequate? If not, what would it
take to accelerate it?
Answer. Yes, the procurement rate is adequate. The initial low-rate
production decision is scheduled for December 2003 with first unit
deliveries scheduled for December 2004. First unit fieldings to 3rd
Brigade, 2nd Infantry Division, will occur in late 2004 to support the
MGS initial operational test and evaluation. The 2nd Cavalry Regiment
will begin receiving MGSs in the second quarter of fiscal year 2005.
Question. The cannons for the Motorized Gun System (MGS) are made
at the Watervliet Arsenal. These cannons require 18 months of
production lead-time. Does the procurement request address, adequately,
this lead-time or is there the possibility of a delay.
Answer. Correct, Watervliet Arsenal is the manufacturer of the MGS
cannon, and it requires 18 months lead before its production is
complete and it can be installed into the platform. The additional
funds provided in the FY04 congressional marks adequately address the
procurement of this specific subcomponent of the MGS.
Armored Vehicle Launched Bridge
Question. One of the 24 programs proposed for termination is the
Armored Vehicle Launched Bridge (AVLB) Upgrade Program, a tactical
assault bridge. The AVLB was supposed to replace the recently
terminated Wolverine Heavy Assault Bridge program. Is there any
allegation that the AVLB cannot do the job?
Answer. The Armored Vehicle Launched Bridge (AVLB) is capable of
providing the maneuver commander assault bridging capability on the
battlefield within limitations. The AVLB was not designed to replace
the Wolverine. The Wolverine was developed to replace the 1960s
technology AVLBs; however, the program was terminated in fiscal year
2000. The AVLB continues to provide the majority of the assault
bridging capability in the Army today. The AVLB comes on two separate
chassis, the M48A5 and the M60A1. Both versions can carry the military
load classification (MLC) 60 or MLC 70 ton bridges that can support,
with restrictions, gap crossing for the M1 Abrams tank. To support the
M1 tank crossing on the MLC 60 bridge, a high-risk gap crossing must be
conducted and limits the maximum crossing distance to 15 meters. The
MLC 70 bridge is capable of supporting the M1 tank crossing up to 18
meters.
The Army currently has 79 MLC 70 bridges in the inventory. In the
area of capability, the AVLB cannot keep pace with the newer Abrams and
Bradley vehicles it supports. To mitigate the termination of the
Wolverine program, and to provide a more reliable AVLB, the AVLB
recapitalization program was developed. The AVLB recapitalization
program was to provide both readiness and performance enhancements to a
select number of the AVLB fleet. The program was designed to provide 65
AVLBs upgrades for the electronics, hydraulics, track, transmission,
and final drive and provide MLC 70 bridge capability. The remaining
AVLBs would have received the electrical and hydraulic upgrades and any
modification work orders not applied to the vehicles. This program was
terminated in December 2002 with the Army assuming risk in assault
bridging capability to fund higher priority programs. The remaining
fiscal year 2003 funding will continue to allow electrical and
hydraulic upgrades for 54 systems. The 54 systems will support the
Counterattack Corps, augmented with the 44 Wolverine Heavy Assault
Bridges procured.
Question. How will the Army perform its assault bridging mission in
Iraq or in any other conflict?
Answer. The Wolverine and both AVLB variants are supporting the 3rd
and 4th Infantry Divisions in Iraq. Currently, the Army has 44
Wolverines programmed, with 25 fielded to the 4th Infantry Division.
Ultimately, the 4th Infantry Division and the 3rd Armored Cavalry
Regiment will only have the Wolverine heavy assault bridge. The
remainder of the Army will continue to be supported by the AVLB (with
MLC 70 or MLC 60 bridges). These are assigned to mechanized engineer
units at the division and corps level and to the armored cavalry
regiments.
Preparations for Military Operations in Iraq
Question. One weekend ago, I had the privilege of traveling with
Congressman Jack Murtha and Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi to Qatar and
Kuwait. The purpose of the trip was to review the preparations for
possible military action in Iraq. Our soldiers are all ready,
motivated, and a great credit to the United States.
Inevitably, the congressional delegation asked ``what do you need
from us?'' The principal response was ``more bandwidth for
communications.'' Despite buying commercial, there is still not enough.
How can we help?
Answer. Both military and commercial satellite communications would
be used extensively in any potential operations in Iraq. Units deployed
to the Persian Gulf have sufficient bandwidth to accomplish their
missions, although additional satellite hardware and bandwidth would
provide more flexibility to execute operations.
Question. The next response was ``more SOF (Special Forces) troops
and helicopters.'' How can we help there?
Answer. In response to the increasing demand for Army Special
Operations (ARSOF) support to Joint force commander campaign plans, the
Army has validated and resourced growth in its SOF structure. Army
support to SOF aviation, combat service support, Special Forces, civil
affairs, Rangers, and psychological operations has been critical to the
SOF transformation strategy. The agreement between the Army and the
United States Special Operations Command (USSOCOM) to transfer 1,788
manpower spaces to Major Force Program (MPF)-11 beginning in fiscal
year 2003 is the first step in the U.S. Army Special Operations
Command's transition toward their Objective Force. The Office of the
Secretary of Defense's (OSD's) recent Program Decision Memorandum (PDM-
1) directed the Army to transfer an additional 677 manpower spaces in
fiscal year 2004 to support USSOCOM and enhance ARSOF aviation and
psychological operations. This represents a transfer of 2,465 spaces
from the Army to USSOCOM in support of SOF transformation.
Since the commencement of ARSOF operations in support of the global
war on terrorism, the Army has provided over $1 billion in new
equipment to enhance ARSOF firepower, communications, and ground and
air mobility. PDM-1 also directs the Army to transfer 16 CH-47 aircraft
to USSOCOM in support of SOF aviation. OSD has identified a total
shortfall for USSOCOM of 24 MH-47 aircraft. Given the mission levels
and existing shortfalls in the Army CH-47 fleet, the Army would request
Congressional funding assistance directly to the USSOCOM MPF-11 funding
line for the procurement of the eight additional MH-47G new builds to
meet the USSOCOM MH-47 shortfall.
The future SOF Objective Force will meet Secretary of Defense and
combatant commander requirements with enhanced lethality, precision,
speed, stealth, survivability, and sustainability.
Question. Although you have done a Herculean job with this most
difficult deployment, some of it was so fast that it lacked
coordination. The example given is: delivery of trucks before arrival
of drivers. What can be done to synchronize and sequence this?
Answer. Without a specific unit example, we cannot know whether the
deployment plan intended for the trucks to show up before the drivers.
In many instances, equipment is scheduled to arrive first to avoid
soldiers sitting idle waiting for their equipment. As part of routine
procedure, ports of debarkation have the capability to move vehicles
and equipment to staging areas. In many cases, a unit advance party
will arrive in conjunction with the equipment and prepare for the
arrival of the unit's main body. Specific examples of drivers scheduled
to arrive in advance of unit equipment, but did not arrive as scheduled
would need to be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. Considering the size
of the deployment, it is possible that personnel and equipment
schedules were altered, thereby causing synchronization problems. The
Army will gather lessons learned to identify improvements as a part of
our efforts to improve the synchronization of personnel and equipment
arrivals.
Question. I understand that there is a plan to arm and uniform a
band of rag-tag Iraqi dissidents. Are you comfortable enough with this
group to put the imprimatur of the United States of America on them?
What legal implications does this have?
Answer. I believe an operational question such as this is best
answered by the Combatant Commander, United States Central Command. As
for the legal implications I would again defer to the Combatant
Commander and his legal staff.
[Clerk's note.--End of questions submitted by Mr. Hobson.
Questions submitted by Mr. Bonilla and the answers thereto
follow:]
Small Unmanned Aerial Vehicles
Question. Secretary White, as we have discussed before, I am very
interested in the new capabilities that Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs)
are showing on the modern battlefield. UAVs are now being recognized as
a vital tool.
I was pleased to see that the budget substantially increases our
investment in UAVs. However, this increase will go primarily to larger
UAVs. I believe that there is still tremendous need for a small UAV. I
know the Army has been examining this issue for some time now, but the
time has come to get a small UAV on the battlefield.
Currently, the Congressionally funded Buster UAV, is mature enough
to serve our ground forces. Buster weighs only ten pounds and has a
night vision sensor. It is fully automated from take off to landing. It
also has the ability to have way points programmed into the flight
management system and accept inflight changes.
What role do you see for smaller UAVs (UAVs that are carried with
the soldier)?
Answer. Unmanned systems will be a critical component at all levels
of the FCS initiative. Current Army small unmanned aerial vehicle
(SUAV) use is in the initial testing and developmental stages. SUAVs
will provide an ``over-the-hill or building'' tactical reconnaissance
and surveillance capability--a capability that currently does not
exist. With this capability, the squad could have ``eye in the sky''
ability, as well as the ability to observe in an urban setting.
SUAVs are envisioned as part of a family of UAVs identified as
Class I (backpackable) and Class II (off the fender). All are hand-
launched, reusable SUAVs using existing commercial off-the-shelf
technology. SUAV ground control stations are envisioned as small,
handheld rugged computers ranging in size from laptop to personal
digital assistant size capable of flight planning, flight monitoring,
and video storage. The Army intends to pursue a common control
interface for the SUAV ground control stations. This will ensure the
ground control station is compatible with all SUAVs in use.
Buster, a small, fully-automated UAV in its fourth year of
development, is among several potential candidates that can respond to
the request for proposal issued in response to the FCS requirements.
Question. What is the Army doing to bring small UAVs to the
battlefield?
Answer. The Army currently has several advanced concept technology
demonstrations (ACTD) ongoing with DARPA that focus on a scalable,
lift-augmented, ducted-fan SUAVs--basically a ``flying donut'' with the
propeller in the middle. Called the micro air vehicle and organic air
vehicle, these ACTDs provide for a SUAV that can hover outside windows,
perch on a building, or loiter over a target where traditional, fixed-
wing SUAVs cannot.
The micro air vehicle program provides a vertical take-off and
landing UAV in the Class I category and is focused to support squad and
platoon level units. The organic air is vehicle focused on platoon and
company level units for the Class II requirement.
[Clerk's note.--End of questions submitted by Mr. Bonilla.
Questions submitted by Mr. Frelinghuysen and the answers
thereto follow:]
M855 ``Green Tip'' Ammunition
Question. In a recent visit to U.S. soldiers injured in combat
overseas, I learned of an issue of concern to U.S. Special Operations
forces in Afghanistan. Results of testing conducted at Picatinny
Arsenal in New Jersey show that the 5.56mm M855 62-grain green tip
projectile ``over-penetrates'' and does not effectively incapacitate
the enemy at close range. Please comment on this concern.
Answer. After action reports from Afghanistan state that the M855
5.56mm, 62-grain green tip bullet does not immediately incapacitate or
kill an unprotected enemy at close range.
The projectile in the M855 cartridge was designed for superior
penetration in hard and semi-hard targets, i.e., helmets and body
armor, and targets at medium to long ranges. Its full metal jacketed,
steel-tipped design is not the most efficient close quarters battle
projectile.
The Army is investigating an improved close quarters projectile to
be used strictly by Special Operations units in the war against
terrorism. The Army is reviewing cartridges currently used by law
enforcement agencies and conducting ballistic tests to determine the
best 5.56mm close quarters projectile. In the near term, Special
Operations Command has procured a commercial cartridge with a 77-grain
projectile that has more mass to impart on the target and should
improve the situation in Afghanistan.
[Clerk's note.--End of questions submitted by Mr.
Frelinghuysen. Questions submitted by Mr. Lewis and the answers
thereto follow:]
Fiscal Year 2003 Supplemental Requirements
Question. The global war on terrorism operations, ranging from the
protective air cap in the homeland, to the Philippines, to Afghanistan,
and operations in the Iraq area have placed enormous strains on your
operating accounts. The Army reports that it has borrowed against both
the third and fourth quarter funding for fiscal year 2003 to continue
operations.
Secretary White, when do you expect that the Congress will receive
a supplemental funding request?
Answer. We are optimistic that the President's request will be
submitted in order for Congress to consider it before the Spring
recess.
Question. Will we see one request, or more than one?
Answer. Based on current planning assumptions, we understand there
will be one Department of Defense request.
Question. Please describe the costs that will be covered in the
supplemental request. Will the estimated cost of war be covered?
Answer. We anticipate the Defense supplemental request will cover
incremental costs for mobilized Reserve Component personnel and other
military personnel costs, projected military operations,
transportation, reconstitution, replenishment of munitions and
equipment, and preparatory actions for military operations. The
supplemental is intended to cover the cost of the war, based on current
planning assumptions, with the exception of long-term reconstitution
and recapitalization, which we cannot predict at this time.
Question. Will redeployment of our forces back to their home
stations be covered?
Answer. Yes, the Army's request will include a component for
returning the forces to their home stations. Total redeployment costs
will be based on the actual return dates and cannot be estimated at
this time. Not all redeployment costs will incur in fiscal year 2003.
Question. Will reconstitution costs be covered?
Answer. The Defense request will include a component for
reconstitution. However, we cannot predict definitive and total
reconstitution requirements at this time.
Question. Are funds included for post-war assistance to rebuild
Iraq?
Answer. It is our understanding that the President's request will
include funds for post-war assistance to Iraq.
Army Personnel Issues
Question. Please explain your active duty military personnel end
strength levels to the Committee. What was the number of personnel on
board in October when you started fiscal year 2003? Was that number
over the authorized end strength level for the Army?
Answer. Fiscal year 2002 Active Army end strength, which
approximates the starting strength for October 2002, was 486,543, which
included 2,200 stop-loss personnel. This exceeded the authorized
strength of 480,000 by 6,543. To meet current contingencies, end
strength has continued to increase through fiscal year 2003. The
projected fiscal year 2003 Active Army end strength is 508,800,
including 20,600 stop-loss personnel. This will be 28,800 over the
authorized strength of 480,000.
Question. Did the increase of personnel include those under a stop-
loss action? Did it include any mobilized Reservists? If so, what were
those numbers?
Answer. Stop-loss has significantly contributed to the increase in
Active Army end strength. Since the end of fiscal year 2002, the Active
Army end strength has grown by 22,200. Stop-loss accounts for
approximately 18,400 of this Active Army end strength growth. This
estimate does not include mobilized Reservists
Question. To date, what is the number of Army National Guard and
Army Reserve soldiers currently on active duty in support of the
mobilization?
Answer. The total number of National Guard and Reserve soldiers on
active duty to support the mobilization is 130,101. This includes
68,424 Army National Guard; 59,049 Army Reserve; 1,935 Individual
Mobilization Augmentees; and 693 Individual Ready Reserve.
Question. What is the Army's current mobilization cap?
Answer. The Army's current mobilization cap is 168,003.
Question. What stop-loss action is currently in effect, and how
many military personnel are affected by that?
Answer. The global war on terrorism and, operations in Iraq have
required the Army to use limited stop-loss. The estimated fiscal year
2003 stop-loss end strength is20,600, which includes a military
occupational specialty stop-loss of 3,800 and an operational unit stop-
loss of 16,800.
Question. Can you estimate what your end strength level will be in
September 2003, the end of this fiscal year, and starting fiscal year
2004? What level of end strength is funded in the budget request for
fiscal year 2004?
Answer. The current fiscal year 2003 Active Army end strength
projection is 508,800, which includes an estimated stop-loss strength
of 20,600 to support the global war on terrorism and operations in
Iraq. The budgeted fiscal year 2004 end strength and average manyear
strength are both 480,000. Average strength equates to personnel cost.
The projected fiscal year 2004 Active Army end strength is 485,600 and,
due to the high fiscal year 2004 starting strength, the projected
fiscal year 2004 average manyear strength is 492,200. The projected
fiscal year 2004 Active Army strength estimates assume that stop-loss
is lifted at the end of fiscal year 2003 and that the Army accesses
72,500 personnel in fiscal year 2004 to maintain future force
readiness.
Question. Currently, what is the monthly ``burn rate'' for your
personnel costs?
Answer. The burn rate for active duty military personnel costs, to
include those for soldiers mobilized in support of the global war on
terrorism, is expected to average $3.0 billion per month, from March
through September 2003.
Question. When do you anticipate the military personnel accounts
will run out of money? Are you using your third or fourth quarter funds
now?
Answer. The Army is using third and fourth quarter military
personnel funding now. Without supplemental funding, the Army will run
out of Military Personnel, Army funding in June 2003.
Question. Are you considering implementing the authorities of the
``Feed and Forage Act''?
Answer. Without timely and sufficient supplemental funding, the
Army would have to consider implementing the authorities of the ``Feed
and Forage Act.''
Question. What is the amount of supplemental funding you will need
for military pay and allowances through the end of this fiscal year?
Answer. We are currently working with the DoD Comptroller to refine
our military pay and allowances requirements based on revised
operational planning assumptions.
Joint Experimentation and Transformation
Question. In the fall of 2000, the Chief of Staff of the Army
announced a far-reaching initiative to transform the Army's combat
units and the systems that the Army would field to support those units.
The effort continues along several lines including formation of the
Stryker Brigade Combat Teams (SBCTs) and the associated variants of
Stryker, and an aggressive effort to develop and field the Future
Combat Systems.
General Shinseki, please comment on the progress the Army has made
toward transforming itself over the past three years, and on those
initiatives you feel are most important to maintaining the momentum for
change.
Answer. With the unwavering support of the Administration and
Congress, we have made great strides towards achieving our Army Vision
of People, Readiness, and Transformation over the past three years.
Our people--soldiers, civilians, and their families--have risen to
the challenges posed by our vision. For three consecutive years, the
Army--Active, Army Reserve, and Army National Guard--has achieved its
recruiting mission with quality recruits, who exceeded the Department
of Defense (DoD) standard of 90 percent high school graduates. We have
the lowest officer attrition rate in 15 years. Satisfaction indicators
such as basic pay, retirements, and job satisfaction are at a 10-year
high. We continue to meet our retention goals in all categories and
components as we have every year since 1998. Our soldiers are seeing
vast improvements in housing as a result of the Residential Communities
Initiative. By the end of fiscal year 2005, the Army will have
privatized over 71,000 homes, equaling 82 percent of the Army family
housing inventory in the United States.
Our soldiers remain ready to meet the demands of an uncertain world
and the war on terrorism. The Army has manned its warfighting units to
100 percent. We have maintained rotations of our battalions and
brigades through our unmatched training centers and our battle command
training program for both the Active and Reserve Component
headquarters. The Army has played an active role in Joint
experimentation in such exercises as Millennium Challenge 2002. The
Army has created the Installation Management Agency to streamline the
control of our installations and enhance their readiness. We continue
to enhance leadership through the transformation of the officer
education system at every echelon from the upcoming Basic Officer's
Leader Course for newlycommissioned officers up to the ongoing Army
Strategic Leadership Program for general officers.
We have structured Army Transformation along three broad and
mutually supporting vectors. We have laid the groundwork for developing
the Objective Force: the Army Transformation Campaign Plan with
supporting subordinate command plans; the operational and
organizational plan for the Objective Force unit of action; and the
operational requirements document for the Future Combat System (FCS) of
systems. The Army has taken the lead in DoD's transformation of the
acquisition process, in conjunction with the Defense Advanced Research
Projects Agency, to contract for a Lead Systems Integrator to
accelerate the transition of FCS to the system development and
demonstration phase following the Milestone B decision in May. In just
over three years from concept to execution, we developed a medium
capability--the Stryker Brigade Combat Team--to fill the operational
gap between our heavy and light forces. Once certified following
successful completion of the operational evaluation, our first SBCT
will achieve its initial operating capability providing a capability to
the combatant commanders with a responsive force that can deploy where
access is limited.
Our second SBCT will act as the test unit for the Stryker's initial
operational test and evaluation this year and will achieve its
certification in May 2004. The third SBCT will begin fielding new
equipment this year while acting as the Army's test bed for a hybrid
unit-manning concept. It will achieve its certification in May 2005.
Funding for our fifth and sixth SBCTs remains on hold until we complete
a study required by DoD that will examine possible enhancements to the
SBCT force structure.
While our Legacy Force is presently engaged in fighting the war on
terrorism, we have accelerated the insertion of transformational
technologies such as unmanned aerial vehicles and blue force tracking
to enhance the combat power and situational awareness of our deployed
forces. We are proud of our efforts within these three vectors of Army
Transformation.
Obviously the Army cannot rest on its laurels, we must continue our
efforts to attain irreversible momentum for transforming the Army as
part of the Joint force. On the materiel side, we must continue to fund
the FCS and other transformational systems, such as the Warfighter
Information Network-Tactical System, Medium Extended Air Defense
System, the Joint Tactical Radio System, and the Army Airborne Command
and Control System that will enable Objective Force. We must continue
our efforts in the area of aviation modernization: to field the
Comanche armed reconnaissance helicopter; to upgrade our Apache Longbow
aircraft, and Chinook heavy lift aircraft in both Army and Special
Operations variants; and to continue the development of unmanned aerial
vehicles. We must field all six of our Stryker Brigade Combat Teams. We
need to support our efforts to achieve Reserve Component transformation
through actions such as the Army National Guard Restructuring
Initiative. We must support initiatives that allow us to achieve the
best mix of force structure within the Active and Reserve Components
and allow us to develop a continuum of service. We must continue our
efforts to support our soldiers, civilians, families and retirees
through efforts such as the Residential Communities Initiative and
barracks revitalization. In addition, we require transformed business
practices, which achieve the best value for the taxpayer's dollars,
conserve limited resources for investment, enhance the management of
our personnel, installations, and contracting, and accelerate
innovation throughout the force. With your continued support for our
efforts, we will fully realize the Army Vision--People, Readiness, and
Transformation.
Question. Please explain the Army's experimentation plan, and how
it supports both Army Transformation and Joint Forces Command's
initiatives in the Joint arena.
Answer. The Army developed its Transformation Concept Development
and Experimentation Campaign Plan (AT-CDEP) to integrate and
synchronize Army experimentation to support Objective Force
development, integrate Army concept development and experimentation,
and shape and support Joint concept development and experimentation.
The AT-CDEP's four components--exploratory concept development and
experimentation (CD&E); developmental CD&E; Service/Joint engagement;
and annual integrating experiments--provide the respective focus areas
for innovative and aggressive experimentation, Objective Force
development, integrating and linking Army and Joint experimentation and
ensuring Objective Force networked system of systems are fully
integrated within the Army and within a Joint context. This plan and
its processes fully support DOD's transformational pillars to
strengthen Joint operations, experiment with new approaches to warfare,
exploit intelligence advantages, and develop transformational
capabilities. The Army reviews and updates the AT-CDEP annually to
integrate, synchronize, and prioritize Army experimentation with Joint
experimentation through ongoing collaboration and long-range planning.
The recent decision by the Army and Joint Forces Command to co-sponsor
the upcoming Army Transformation Wargame as a fully joint wargame
(Unified Quest 03) is an excellent example of this collaboration and
integration. We see this trend continuing as Army Transformation
becomes fully embedded within Joint transformation.
Redeployment of Army Forces From Europe
Question. Given that the Department of Defense is studying the
possibility of adjusting force levels in Europe, does it also make
sense to study possibly redeploying European-based forces, now deployed
to Southwest Asia, back to the continental United States (CONUS)
locations after operations in Southwest Asia are complete?
Answer. The Secretary of the Army has directed the Army Staff to
conduct an extensive review of Army strategic posture looking out over
the next ten years. The intent is to ensure that the Army is able to
meet all the requirements of the combatant commanders and is well
positioned to seamlessly transform to the Objective Force.
Concurrently, the Secretary of Defense has directed that his staff, the
Joint Staff, and the combatant commanders review future posture and
overseas basing. The Army is working in coordination with these efforts
to ensure the synchronization necessary to meet the Army's
responsibilities for flexible power projection and sustained land
dominance as part of the Joint Force. The Army will continue to work
closely with the combatant commanders, the Joint Staff, and the Office
of the Secretary of Defense to ensure we have the appropriate posture
and force structure to meet both the current strategic requirements and
the many future challenges to our national security.
Soldier Support Equipment
Question. General Shinseki, please define by type of equipment and
the unit requirements for soldier support equipment such as body armor,
ballistic plates, basic communications equipment, basic navigation
equipment, cold weather clothing and related items.
Answer. The Army is dedicated to reducing the weight our soldiers
have to carry. Our benchmark soldier--the Infantryman--currently
carries a standard basic load of 77 pounds; the heaviest load soldiers
carry on the battlefield. The Army leadership directed an objective
reduction in that overall weight to 40 pounds. The Army's Rapid
Fielding Initiative (RFI) best illustrates our efforts to transform and
provide improved, reduced-weight soldier support equipment. Program
Executive Office--Soldier (PEO-Soldier) provided much of this equipment
to units in current operations.
This equipment express includes advanced environmental protection,
individual protection, lethality enhancements, leader systems and
specific equipment for military operations in urban terrain (MOUT). The
soldier environmental protection equipment includes a new cold weather
cap, silk weight underwear, Coolmax T-shirts, black fleece bibs,
Smartwool socks, and improved desert boots. Individual protective
equipment enhancements include the Advanced Combat Helmet, sand/wind/
dust goggles, Interceptor Body Armor, and knee and elbow pads. New
lethality enhancements include improved close combat optics, target
acquisition scopes, machine-gun optics for the squad automatic machine
gun, rail kits for light and medium weight machine guns, and new M4/M16
rifle magazines. Advanced leader systems include the multi-band, inter-
squad, tactical radio; mini-global positioning system; small
binoculars; and cutting edge laser target designators. MOUT equipment
advances embrace new assault ladders, grappling hooks, quickie saws,
door rams, and entry tools.
Question. General Shinseki, please tell us what the Army is
learning about soldier's equipment as we prosecute the global war on
terrorism in disparate, challenging environments, like Afghanistan, and
as we prepare for a possible conflict with Iraq. In your response
please address such items as body armor, hydration systems, boots,
undergarments, weapons optics and enhancements, communications gear,
and night vision devices.
Answer. The primary lesson learned from our soldiers who had served
in Afghanistan was that soldiers and units required items of field
equipment, which they had not received through normal supply
procedures. In many cases, soldiers were buying items with their
personal funds. These shortages represent the highest-priority, Army-
wide soldier equipment shortages. Based on these lessons learned, the
Army senior leadership directed PEO-Soldier to initiate the RFI. The
aforementioned items are being procured as a result of the RFI.
Question. Are there new or contingency item fielding plans? If so,
who is receiving this equipment and what are the timelines? Will Guard
and Reserve soldiers get this equipment?
Answer. Recognizing that both funding and commercial production
rates for equipment would limit the scope of RFI, and based on Army
guidance to focus on the ``soldier who sleeps on the ground and walks a
patrol,'' we decided that RFI would focus strictly on the deployable
Brigade Combat Teams (BCT). This puts the equipment into the hands of
the infantry battalions, engineer, squads, medics, artillery forward
observers, air defense teams, and military police that are at the very
sharpest point of the spear.
In fiscal year 2003, the RFI provided equipment to units in current
operations. To institutionalize and continue the RFI, we have
identified the requirement to resource nine BCTs in fiscal year 2004--a
requirement which is currently unfunded. The Army is competing funds in
the Program Objective Memorandum for RFI to continue at a rate of nine
BCTs per year. At that rate, each BCT will be revisited approximately
every fourth year. This accomplishes one of the significant goals of
RFI to get newer, better, commercially available equipment into the
hands of our troops as quickly as possible. This will allow the Army to
field to each BCT new equipment that capitalizes on the rapid advances
in the commercial sector. A new cutting-edge technology weapon sight, a
small lighter hand-held GPS, and improved cold-weather gear are just a
few examples of the types of equipment that develop and improve rapidly
in the commercial sector. The Army's plan is to field all Active and
some Reserve Component units in the first round of RFI.
Question. The Committee has heard reports of deploying soldiers
paying for soldier support equipment (boots, some clothing items,
gloves, etc.) out oftheir own pockets. How widespread is this, and does
the Army have a plan to address this?
Answer. While the Army cannot track every individual expenditure,
personnel in some units have spent their own funds to buy private
equipment ranging from socks to commercial GPS units. Lessons learned
following combat operations in Afghanistan in 2002 validated this fact
prompting the Army to direct PEO-Soldier to initiate the RFI.
PEO-Soldier assessed what items soldiers were procuring and what
was currently not in the Army supply system. These were mainly
commercial items, newly available on the market, which had not been
previously considered for procurement or fielding by the Army. PEO-
Soldier conducted follow-up visits with soldiers and leaders to verify
lessons learned and validate required items. In November 2002, PEO-
Soldier fielded 15 types of equipment units preparing to deploy in
support of Operation Enduring Freedom. PEO-Soldier used $11 million of
internal funds for this equipment.
The Army organized a team to extend RFI to the remainder of the
Army and compiled a list of equipment that would be most useful to
soldiers in the field. After reviewing and prioritizing the list, a
standard ``kit'' for each BCT was approved and validated. The RFI kit
is in the process of being fielded and includes items that soldiers
were most commonly buying for themselves.
Question. The Committee understands that the Army and other
services have taken steps recently to ensure that our soldiers have the
right equipment should we face chemical or biological weapons attacks
in Southwest Asia. Please comment on the state of readiness in this
area and what you've done to prepare for this possibility.
Answer. Over the past nine months, the Army has aggressively
addressed over 60 chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear
(CBRN) issues and taken preparatory actions in support of combatant
commanders. In broad terms, the Army has increased force readiness and
combat capability in individual protective equipment, biological
warfare defense, decontamination, collective protection, medical
support to CBRN defense, radiological detection, chemical detection,
and sensitive site exploitation and elimination operations.
U.S. forces serving in Iraq and throughout the Gulf region are
trained and ready to operate in contaminated environments. Nuclear,
biological, and chemical contamination on the battlefield poses
significant challenges and difficulties, but these challenges are not
insurmountable. Our forces are trained, and they have the equipment
they need to survive and sustain operations in such an environment.
Question. What is the Army doing to insure that non-deployed units
are receiving the same high levels of equipment, and not having to
sacrifice training funds to buy individual equipment?
Answer. Non-deployed units have continued to conduct tough,
realistic training. The Army's OPTEMPO funding program remains intact,
and nondeployed units are executing aggressive home station and
combined arms training strategies. Acquisition project managers are
funded to acquire and field modernized individual equipment, and units
are budgeted to enable them to replenish the equipment to which they
are authorized.
Guard and Reserve Force Protection Mission
Question. Mr. Secretary, please explain how the Reserve component
forces have been or are involved in anti-terrorism/force protection
missions this year.
Answer. Reserve component (RC) forces have been and are still
involved in anti-terrorism/force protection missions by supporting
Active component forces within and outside continental United States
locations, with security forces conducting access control and military
police duties on Active and Reserve installations. RC forces also
provide military intelligence support for anti-terrorism programs and
other operations. Additionally, RC forces support the Active component
by working in military operation centers and support federal government
agencies in intelligence analysis and foreign language interpretations.
Question. What is the number of Reserve forces currently mobilized
for Operation Noble Eagle to fill those requirements?
Answer. The Army has approximately 18,100 National Guard soldiers
providing force protection augmentation at Army and Air Force
installations. The Army has approximately 9,600 National Guard soldiers
providing force protection augmentation at Army installations and
approximately 8,500 National Guard soldiers providing force protection
augmentation at Air Force installations.
Question. The Committee understands that the Air Force lacks the
required number of security forces to provide the appropriate level of
security for their facilities worldwide. Please explain why the Army
National Guard is supplying soldiers to support the Air Force for their
security requirements.
Answer. The Office of the Secretary of Defense and the Air Force
asked the Army to provide force protection augmentation to Air Force
installations. After analysis and further coordination with the Air
Force, we determined the Army could support the request. The Army and
Air Force developed a memorandum of agreement where the Army would
provide force protection augmentation to selected Air Force
installations for up to two years. Before the end of the first year,
the Army and Air Force will meet to determine the level of support for
the second year. The Army expects to complete this mission in December
2004.
Question. What is the number of Reserve personnel mobilized, and
the length of time they will be providing security forces?
Answer. The Army has approximately 18,100 National Guard soldiers
providing force protection augmentation at Army and Air Force
installations. The Army rotation policy requires soldiers and units
executing missions outside the continental United States to serve for
six months and soldiers and units executing missions within the
continental United States to serve for 12 months. We expect the mission
to end in December 2004.
At this time, we cannot give a firm time when Reserve personnel
force protection augmentation will cease. The requirement to provide
force protection augmentation is based on threat and vulnerability
assessments, commitment of Active Component forces at various
installations, identification of critical infrastructure sites, and the
force protection condition level. As we prepare for the follow-on
rotation of forces, we review each one of these factors to determine if
we can reduce or eliminate the augmentation.
Question. What are the incremental personnel and O&M costs
associated with this mission for the Army? Describe the funding
agreement between the Army and Air Force.
Answer. The current memorandum of agreement between the Air Force
and Army provides for full reimbursement for the Army's force
protection support at Air Force installations. Under this agreement,
there are no incremental costs to the Army, as the Air Force pays all
costs.
Anti-Terrorism and Force Protection (AT/FP)
Question. The fiscal year 2002 Army budget provided $345 million
for anti-terrorism and force protection. That amount funded nearly 100
percent of the perceived requirement. In the current fiscal year Army
funding for anti-terrorism and force protection grew to $505 million as
a result of congressional increases. However, the requirement for
fiscal year 2003 is assessed at $615 million. In the fiscal year 2004
request, the Army has sustained the increased level of AT/FP funding
from 2003, but the estimated requirement has grown to $945 million.
Please discuss the Army's method or management framework for
establishing anti-terrorism/force protection requirements, and the
progress being made in achieving goals.
Answer. The Army is directed by Department of Defense directives
and instructions to establish its own guidance, which is accomplished
in Army Regulation (AR) 525-13, a regulation for all Army Major
Commands (MACOMs) to execute their AT programs. The regulatory
requirements and taskings provide an assessment checklist for each
MACOM level AT program manager to assess their AT program as well as
their subordinate units' AT programs. For several years, the Army has
conducted Force Protection Assessment Team (FPAT) assessments of each
of the Army MACOM AT programs by using the requirements in AR 525-13 to
assess the MACOMs.
The Army also manages the overall FP programs by funding MACOM
regulatory requirements. Based on the findings of these FPAT
assessments, the improving of the overall FP program requirements, and
the shift to controlled-access status at all Army installations,
funding requirements have increased in recent years. The Army
prioritizes MACOM funding requirements based on threats and
vulnerabilities to their installations. The Army has made significant
progress in meeting the new AT/FP requirements for our installations.
In fiscal year 2003 approximately $211 million will be spent on AT/FP
military construction projects related to installation access control.
In addition, approximately $302.4 million of Other Procurement, Army
funds will be spent on physical security equipment controlling
installation access.
Question. How do you rate the Army, overall, in terms of AT/FP
preparedness?
Answer. The Army rating scheme is based on red, amber, and green
scores. The Army rates itself in the area of AT/FP preparedness as
amber. This reflects that some deficiencies still exist, but with a
limited impact on mission accomplishment. Our annual FPAT assessment of
MACOM AT/FP preparedness and the overall rating of their FP programs
show steady improvement. In addition, the Army's initiative to control
installation access has given command emphasis to the AT/FP
preparedness, which will increasingly improve our overall rating. The
access control initiative is being accomplished through both enhanced
physical security improvements and deployment of security forces to
conduct force protection within and outside the continental United
States.
Weapons of Mass Destruction--Civil Support Teams (WMD-CST)
Question. The WMD-CST teams are response units that support civil
authorities when responding to a weapons of mass destruction situation.
The Congress currently has authorized 32 Civil Support Teams. In the
2003 Defense Authorization Act, language was inserted requiring the
Army to provide at least one WMD Civil Support Team to each state, and
to report within six months on a plan for the establishment, manning,
equipping, and training of these additional teams.
Mr. Secretary, what is the status of that report?
Answer. The draft report regarding section 1403 of the 2003 Defense
Authorization Act was sent to the Assistant Secretary of Defense for
Homeland Defense. They will forward it to Congress after their review
and approval. We expect the report will be submitted to Congress before
the June 2, 2003, deadline.
Question. How long do you estimate it will take the Army to
establish 23 additional teams for those states that do not currently
have one?
Answer. We estimate that it will take between 18 and 24 months to
establish the additional 23 teams. This period includes manning,
equipping, training, and certification of these teams.
Question. What is the total cost for standing up those remaining 23
teams, and what is the number of full-time National Guard personnel
that will be required to man them?
Answer. The total cost to stand up the remaining 23 teams is
approximately $192.6 million in fiscal year 2005 and fiscal year 2006.
A total of 506 Active Guard/Reserve positions are required to
accomplish the manning piece. This personnel increase requires an end
strength authorization increase by the same amount.
Question. Break out, for the record, the cost per team for the
National Guard personnel costs, their training and equipment costs.
Answer. The total cost to stand up each team is approximately $8.5
million in fiscal year 2005. This figure includes approximately $1.5
million for military construction costs per team. Personnel costs to
the Army Guard are $1.66 million and about $356,000 for the Air Guard.
Training and equipping costs will run about $1.6 million in operation
and maintenance for the Army Guard and about $817,000 in operations and
maintenance for the Army. Equipping costs for the Chemical and
Biological Defense Program items will cost approximately $2.57 million.
Question. Are there any funds included in the budget request for
these additional teams?
Answer. No. There is currently no funding in the fiscal year 2004
budget to establish additional WMD Civil Support Teams.
Rising Cost of Readiness
Question. One of the recurring challenges the Army faces in
managing operation and maintenance accounts is the rising cost of
operating equipment, be it M-1 Tanks, Bradleys, or helicopters. Growth
in operating costs is squeezing out desired investment in new systems.
In a February 2003 report, the General Accounting Office found that the
military services pay little attention to operating and support costs
and readiness during development, when there is the greatest
opportunity to affect those costs positively. Rather the services focus
on technical achievement, featuring immature technologies during
development and fielding. Then the services pay the price down the road
when operating and support costs greatly exceed expectations. And even
though operating and support costs make up, on average, about 72
percent of the life cycle cost of a system, the operators and
maintainers have little input to the development process.
Do you agree with the assessment that little attention is paid to
operating and support costs and readiness during weapon system
development, when there is the greatest opportunity to affect those
costs?
Answer. We agree that in the past, the Army did not put enough
emphasis on reliability, availability, and maintainability during
development for some of its weapon systems, which resulted in increased
operating and support costs and difficulty in maintaining readiness
standards. However, that is not the case today. The Army has undertaken
several initiatives to reduce weapon system operating and support costs
while achieving higher levels of readiness.
The Army has placed greater emphasis on operational requirement
documents for weapon systems, as well as ensuring reliability,
availability, and maintainability requirements are clearly stated and
designated as key performance parameters, when appropriate, to ensure
requirements are achieved. This increased emphasis will ensure that
established levels of reliability, availability, and maintainability
are designed into weapon systems and result in lower operating and
support costs and higher readiness levels.
The Army is participating with OSD in a program called Reduction of
Total Ownership Costs, which focuses on reducing weapon systems
operating and support costs. The Department of Defense established 30
pilot programs, 10 from each service, with a goal to reduce total
ownership costs by 20 percent by fiscal year 2005. Many of these pilot
programs are developmental programs. While these programs are still
ongoing, many have met the 20 percent goal, and others have made
substantial progress in reducing total ownership costs. OSD sponsors
quarterly pilot program forums to provide continuous assessment of the
programs' progress and keep them on track. In addition, the Army has
established an office to provide oversight and emphasis on weapon
systems supportability and operating and support cost reductions. This
office conducts assessments of weapon system programs to improve
supportability and cost effectiveness throughout their life cycle.
Question. What do you propose as process improvements to gain
control of total ownership costs of our military equipment?
Answer. The Army is working to identify and analyze the increase in
operating and sustaining costs and is leading a multi-organizational
operating and sustaining cost analysis work group to develop near-term
tactical and long-term strategic plans for reducing operating and
sustaining costs.
Question. When the Army first developed and procured the current
fleet of combat vehicles and aircraft nearly 20 years ago, planning
figures for the life span of this equipment were significantly
different from the OPTEMPO the Army experienced in the 1990s and thus
far this decade, particularly since 9-11. What impact has this had on
Army recapitalization plans, and on the rising costs of spare parts and
maintenance for equipment that is aging faster than originally
anticipated?
Answer. High OPTEMPO along with the operation and support costs
associated with aging equipment are the main reasons that the
recapitalization program exists. In fiscal year 2002-2009 the Army will
spend over $21 billion in operation and maintenance and procurement
appropriations to address 17 weapon systems that are critical to Army
Transformation. However, recent operations and the rising costs of
Transformation have caused the Army to significantly reduce the
procurement spending on its recapitalization program. As a result, less
than 40 percent of the combined fleets of the 17 systems will be
recapitalized. Currently, there is no synchronized sustainment strategy
to address the remaining fleets.
Question. How are these costs being managed over the Army Future
Years Defense Plan (FYDP)?
Answer. A working group was created to identify and analyze the
increase in operation and support costs over the FYDP. An increase in
operation and maintenance funding for the Army's depot maintenance
program, of which recapitalization is a subsidiary, has been projected
to increase from $1 billion in fiscal year 2003 to over 1.6 billion in
fiscal 2009. This funding will allow the Army to meet the goal of
funding 90 percent of its depot maintenance requirements.
Consolidation of the Military Personnel Accounts
Question. The fiscal year 2004 budget request recommends
consolidating the six Guard and Reserve military personnel accounts
with their respective active duty military personnel appropriations.
The budget request proposes that the Reserves personnel pay accounts be
Budget Activity 7, and the National Guard's personnel pay accounts be
Budget Activity 8 under the active duty accounts.
Mr. Secretary please explain the reasons the OSD Comptroller had
for merging the pay accounts into one appropriation per Service.
Answer. The military personnel pay accounts were merged to provide
increased management flexibility, specifically in terms of
reprogramming. Further, the Office of the Secretary of Defense
anticipates the consolidation will result in an eventual net reduction
of administrative workload and streamline execution for all components.
Question. What level or degree of increased flexibility does the
Army gain from this consolidation?
Answer. Consolidating Guard and Reserve funds with Active Army
funds reduces the number of budget activities and so increases Guard
and Reserve flexibility.
Question. Will the Chiefs of the Reserve Components have full
management and control of their financial resources in order to execute
their Title 10 responsibilities for trained and ready forces?
Answer. Yes. Under the consolidation, the Army Reserve and the
National Guard will both continue to exercise full management and
control of their resources under Title 10. The consolidated
appropriation preserves the current appropriation act language
applicable to the Reserve and National Guard.
Question. Having separate appropriations accounts for the Active
and Reserve Components allows Congress to monitor how well the services
are executing their programs. What assurance can you give the Committee
that the Active Component will not use the Reserve budget activities to
fund their own bills or shortfalls?
Answer. The Army can give complete assurance that the Component
budgets will be executed with the intent of the appropriation. Each
Component's execution will remain visible and cannot be impacted
without reprogramming actions, which require Office of the Secretary of
Defense oversight and Congressional approval if greater than $10
million.
Reserve Component Missions
Question. The 2001 Quadrennial Defense Review directed a
comprehensive review of the Reserve Components contributions to
National Defense. One aspect of transformation, addressed in this
Review, is the appropriate mix of Active and Reserve forces to meet
Department of Defense's missions and responsibilities.
Mr. Secretary, are you considering transferring some combat support
missions that are primarily performed by Reserve forces to the active
duty military?
Answer. Yes. We are considering several options.
Question. If so, explain what Reserve forces you would restructure
and the reasons for the shift.
Answer. The Army's Active and Reserve Component force mix is the
result of deliberate actions to balance risks and priorities in light
of operational requirements as well as resource constraints. The Army
continues to adjust its force structure based on the ``1-4-2-1'' force-
sizing construct. The Army's force mix is designed to support the
geographic combatant commander's requirements and is determined using
the Total Army Analysis (TAA) process. To stay within constant end
strength levels, adding capabilities to the Active force will require
the transfer of some mission capabilities between the Active and
Reserve force. A number of options exist to reduce risk, including the
conversion of lower demand structure inside the active force,
converting key capabilities held in the Reserve Component (RC) but
needed intermittently, and changes in Reserve personnel management to
increase access by enhancing volunteerism and diminishing involuntary
mobilization.
Currently, the Office of the Secretary of Defense in conjunction
with the Joint Staff has undertaken a study to improve operational
availability of all military forces. As part of this study, the Active
Component/Reserve Component (AC/RC) mix is being studied in the context
of short notice, short duration major combat operations. This study is
incomplete and will be continued as part of Defense planning for fiscal
year 2005 to determine any recommended force structure changes.
Question. The ``Total Force'' concept has resulted in a large
percentage of the combat support and combat service support units being
located in the Reserves. Would moving capabilities from the Reserves to
the Active Component eliminate Reserve units, or reduce the Reserve
Components' end strength levels?
Answer. I do not believe shifting capabilities between the Active
and Reserve Components would impact Reserve Component end strength. As
you are aware, much of the force found in the Reserve Components today
is a result of decisions made to support the Total Force Policy and
previous defense strategy. With the draw down during the 1990s, the
Army could not maintain all of its warfighting capability in the active
force and decided to place many highly specialized capabilities in the
Reserve Components. The Reserve Components were configured and
resourced to provide many specialized capabilities anticipated to be
needed only in a protracted major theater war. Given the requirements
of the new defense strategy and the high level of Reserve Component
use, these force structure decisions are under review to determine the
proper active and reserve force mix. We are exploring the impact of
Active and Reserve Component transformation initiatives on mobilization
and readiness before we make a final determination as to the proper AC/
RC force mix. However, among the RC transformation initiatives is an
endeavor to eliminate unready units by bringing force structure levels
down to better match end strength. This will dramatically increase
readiness by focusing resources on high-demand, high-OPTEMPO forces and
creating rotational depth in capabilities such as civil affairs,
psychological operations, biological detection, military intelligence,
and military police units.
Question. Do you have an estimate of what it will cost to shift
Reserve force capabilities to the active military?
Answer. No, we do not have an estimate at this time.
Spare Parts Shortfalls
Question. The Committee often hears from military units at their
home bases, or when they are deployed, that the Army suffers shortages
of key spare parts. In the budget request for fiscal year 2004, the
Army has realigned substantial funding, over $650 million, to increase
the spare parts inventory.
Please discuss the spare parts issue, and the trade offs the Army
has made in order to free up the additional funds for spare parts.
Answer. The Army has had a long-standing problem with spares. In
the mid 1990's, the Army systematically reduced our strategic
inventories supporting all major weapon systems. This decision was made
in response to DoD's attempt to right size inventories and implement
stock funding of depot level reparables while adjusting the force
structure after the end of the Cold War. For several years, high weapon
system readiness rates and high supply stock-availability rates were
maintained by redistribution of excess inventories and local repair of
components. However, in recent years, the combination of increased
OPTEMPO, aging weapon systems, and reduced national level stocks
negatively impacted weapon system readiness and supply availability.
In early 2000, the Army logistics and financial communities started
working to develop, validate, and fund the increased requirement for
spares. The Army continued to work the issue internally, but this
requirement was competing with a multitude of other force structure and
operational requirements. As the global war on terrorism started to
unfold, the requirement continued to grow until the fiscal year 2003
unfinanced requirement reached $1.563 billion in August 2002. Based on
a critical readiness need to replenish depleted peacetime inventories
of repair parts and support the global war on terrorism, the Army
decided to take the necessary level of risk in the base operations
support accounts in the active and Reserve Component operations and
maintenance appropriations for both fiscal year 2003 and fiscal year
2004. By initiating this action, the Army is able to order long lead-
time parts for inventory in anticipation of unit demands in fiscal year
2004. Because readiness of the force is especially paramount during the
global war on terrorism and the uncertainty of a war with Iraq, the
Army took this measured risk with the base operations support accounts.
Recapitalization Programs
Question. The Army's recapitalization program is shown to be fully
funded for fiscal year 2004, with program growth of about $200 million.
What is your assessment of the progress being made in the Army
Recapitalization Program?
Answer. The Army's Recapitalization Program continues to achieve
success. During fiscal year 2002, the Army exceeded expectations
achieving 102 percent of the projected systems for induction to be
recapitalized. Through the second quarter of fiscal year 2003, we have
already achieved 60 percent of the total fiscal year 2003 goal. Certain
systems scheduled for recapitalization in the third and fourth quarters
of fiscal year 2003 are ahead of the original projected quarterly goals
and are already inducted for recapitalization. We again expect to
achieve the goal of 100 percent of the projected systems for induction
to be recapitalized in fiscal year 2003.
Question. Have you added or deleted items for fiscal year 2004?
Answer. There, have been no recapitalization system additions or
deletions for fiscal year 2004. The 17 Army recapitalization programs
are the AH-64D Apache; UH-60 Black Hawk; CH-47 Chinook; M1 Abrams; M2/
M3 Bradley; M270A1 Multiple Launch Rocket System; Patriot Ground
Support Equipment; Field Artillery Ammunition Supply Vehicle; M113
Family of Vehicles; Heavy Expanded Mobility Tactical Truck; M88
Recovery Vehicle; Electronic Shops Shelter; High-Mobility Multipurpose
Wheeled Vehicle; TPQ-36 Firefinder Radar; M9 Armored Combat Earthmover;
Small Emplacement Excavator; and the Armored Vehicle Launched Bridge.
The following variants within the 17 will receive no
recapitalization funding starting in fiscal year 2004: M1A2 Abrams SEP
retrofit; M2A3/M3A3 Bradley; M88A2 Recovery Vehicle; and the Armored
Vehicle Launched Bridge.
Aircrew Training Hours
Question. Please discuss Flight School XXI. Does Flight School XXI
change the Army's flying hour requirement of 14.5 hours per crew per
month?
Answer. Implementation of Flight School XXI will enhance unit
capabilities by providing better-trained aviators. Flight School XXI
will achieve this result by assuring more aviator time in the cockpit
of their primary rated aircraft, with less time in training-specific
aircraft. Therefore, Flight School XXI will positively impact the
quality of aviator training, even as it complements ongoing Army
efforts with parts, maintenance, and deployment readiness issues to
help assure the consistent execution of the established quantitative
standard of 14.5 hours per crew per month.
All of Flight School XXI is funded within the aviation training
base and does not change the Army's requirement of 14.5 hours per crew
per month. Additionally, with a five-week average shorter course
length, Flight School XXI will assist in decreasing pilot shortages in
units.
Question. Is the 14.5 hours per crew per month requirement fully
funded in the fiscal year 2004 budget request?
Answer. First, let me assure you that the Army intends to meet its
fiscal year 2004 flying hour goal of 14.5 hours per active duty crew
per month. We continue to train to maintain readiness and remain
committed to achieving goals established that assure readiness, like
that of 14.5 flying hours per month.
It is true that achievement of this aviation flight-training goal
is sometimes impacted by factors beyond the control of the unit
commander. Those external factors include aircraft downtime due to
Safety of Flight maintenance issues and, to some extent, transformation
and deployments. Our recent history with these factors has led the Army
to budget for the fiscal year 2001 through 2002 historical average of
13.1 hours per crew per month, with plans to internally finance up to
14.5 hours as the impact of these factors for fiscal year 2004 emerge.
Having said that, it is true that the Army is taking some small risk in
the flying hour program for fiscal year 2004. However, this risk is
prudent because it allows the Army to invest more heavily in depot
maintenance and spare parts to reduce aircraft downtime. The better we
do at arresting potential aviation parts and maintenance issues, the
better we will do at consistent execution of our flight hour training
standard. We will closely monitor execution of the flying hour program
in fiscal year 2004 and make necessary adjustments to ensure that
funding is not the reason for not executing the full 14.5 hour per
month aviation training standard.
Question. Since student pilots spend a shorter overall time in
flight school, is there a cost savings?
Answer. Although pilots spend less time in Flight School XXI and
fly fewer hours there, they spend more time in simulation training and
fly more hours in modernized ``go to war'' aircraft instead of legacy
aircraft. Although the total number of hours in Flight School XXI
decreases, the hours saved are offset as a result of the increased
operating cost associated with flying modernized aircraft.
Facilities Sustainment, Restoration, and Modernization
Question. In the fiscal year 2004 budget request, Sustainment,
Restoration and Modernization (SRM) of facilities is funded at 84
percent overall, with the sustainment piece funded at 93 percent as
mandated by OSD.
What is the status of the Army's Barracks Upgrade Program?
Answer. Congressional establishment of major command baselines for
SRM funding which eliminated our centrally managed OMA-funded barracks
upgrade program renovations in fiscal year 2002 and 2003, in addition
to internal Department priorities in fiscal year 2004, have caused us
to delay completion of our barracks modernization beyond 2009. The Army
does not meet DoD's goal of eliminating inadequate permanent party
barracks by 2007.
Question. Please describe the Army's progress toward achieving the
DoD goal of a 67-year recapitalization rate by 2007.
Answer. The Army-wide recapitalization rate for fiscal year 2004 is
144 years. Our goal is to increase recapitalization investment and meet
the 67-year rate by 2007.
Question. What is the impact on mission accomplishment of the
current state of facilities?
Answer. The overall condition rating of Army facilities is C-3,
which impairs mission performance.
Question. In what geographic areas are the more severe facilities
maintenance problems?
Answer. The geographic areas with the most severe facilities
maintenance problems are those with extreme climatic conditions such as
areas affected by very cold temperatures, corrosive salt, sand, and
high humidity. Some of the worst geographic locations include
facilities in Korea and Germany.
Army Installation Management Agency
Question. The Army has taken aggressive action to transform the
management of installations. Integral to that effort has been the
creation of the Installation Management Agency. The new Army field
agency, activated on October 1st of 2002, is intended to provide a
corporate, senior level focus on installation management in support of
the mission commanders. The new agency is designed to achieve
efficiencies, ensure consistency and eliminate migration of funds from
base operating accounts, such as facilities maintenance, environmental,
and family programs.
Secretary White, please describe your progress in transitioning
base operations to the Installation Management Agency?
Answer. The Installation Management Agency (IMA) has achieved
initial operational capability and is performing its vital mission of
managing the Army's installations. IMA is meeting the mobilization,
deployment, redeployment, and other related support requirements in
support of the global war on terrorism and operations in Iraq. IMA is
partnered with Network Enterprise Technology Command and the Army
Contracting Agency to improve efficiencies.
Fiscal year 2003 represents a transition year for management of
manpower and dollars as documentation and appropriations realign to the
agency. This transition, although not complete, has already proven
beneficial to warfighting commanders and major commands who have been
able to focus on operations and training, with IMA fully in charge of
running the installations and caring for soldiers and families. In
addition, the Army Reserve integrated its headquarters engineering
functions into the IMA headquarters, with an additional policy office
established at the Assistant Chief of Staff for Installation
Management. The transfer of the remaining Army Reserve headquarters
base operations functions will be accomplished in conjunction with the
Army Reserve restructuring initiatives. IMA will achieve full
operational capability by the end of fiscal year 2004.
Question. General Shinseki, why are the garrison and area support
group commanders senior-rated by the local senior mission commander?
How can the garrison commanders ensure Army-wide consistency in
funding, and avoid migration of funds, if the local mission commander
holds the keys to the garrison commander's career? Isn't this like
having an auditor's future controlled by those he is auditing?
Answer. Making the senior mission commander on the installation the
garrison commander's senior rater ensures that the garrison commander's
performance is responsive to the priorities of the installation. We
balance that by having the IMA region director rate the garrison
commander. Designating the IMA region director as rater provides the
corporate point of view on the garrison commander's ability to
implement the efficiencies and uniformed level of service required for
all Army installations within a given region. This designation of the
senior rater is also consistent with Army officer evaluation policy and
consistent with rating schemes of other officers on the installation.
Senior raters are senior-level officials with broad experience and are
able to evaluate performance across their installations. For the Army
to successfully execute its mission, IMA, the major commands, and the
senior mission commanders on installations must all work as one team in
very close partnership.
Army Contracting Agency
Question. With the creation of the Army Contracting Agency, the
Army has realigned previously decentralized contracting processes under
one organization. The Army's goal was to eliminate redundant contracts,
and to leverage the buying power of Army wide requirements.
Mr. Secretary, please describe the implementation of the Army
Contracting Agency, and the efficiencies and savings you have achieved.
Answer. The Army Contracting Agency (ACA) was established as part
of Army Transformation efforts. In accordance with our vision of the
ACA, we have not yet achieved any identifiable savings in the seven
months since the ACA stood up. The plan is to realize savings in the
fiscal year 2004-2006 timeframe. The ACA has eight subordinate
contracting organizations: a northern and southern regional
headquarters aligned with the continental United States, Installation
Management Activity regions; Information Technology, E-Commerce, and
Commercial Contracting Center; and five contracting activities outside
the continental United States.
Each Army installation will retain its local directorate of
contracting (DOC), which will continue to perform full contract support
for locally awarded contract actions and provide advice and assistance
for centrally awarded actions. The DOC awards local base operations
contracts under $500,000 and places delivery/task orders against
established contract vehicles regardless of dollar value. In addition,
the DOC performs contract administration for locally and centrally
awarded contracts, manages local purchase card programs, and conducts
emergency and safety buys above $500,000.
The ACA will generate savings through reduced cost of purchasing by
eliminating duplicative overhead, obtaining efficiencies from
regionalized and national contracts, and exploiting electronic commerce
technologies. Again, the ACA expects to realize savings over a three-
year period from fiscal year 2004-2006. The target personnel savings
will be a net reduction of about 230 spaces. Program savings will be
achieved on a case-by-case basis. Further savings will be obtained by
economies of scale through negotiating single requirements, Army wide
with industry providers.
Basic Officer Leadership Course
Question. The Army recently approved far-reaching changes to its
Officer Education System that impact Basic and Advanced (Career)
Officer courses as well as Command and General Staff College
instruction. This course moves away from the traditional branch
oriented officer basic in favor of a program called the Basic Officer
Leadership Course. Under the new course, new officers would first spend
about six weeks at a common location (Fort Benning) learning the basics
of leadership, physical fitness, and individual weapons proficiency.
Then the officers would move on to branch specific training at the
branch school houses, for example tank training at Fort Knox.
General Shinseki, please explain the rationale behind the changes
in the Officer Education System, the anticipated positive developments
these changes should bring, and the risks associated with these
changes.
Answer. As the Army transforms to the Objective Force to meet the
challenges of the 21st Century security environment, so too must the
Army transform its officer education system (OES) to train and educate
the leaders who will command and control that force. Transformation of
OES is based on a documented rationale for change, including findings
and recommendations from the Army Training and Leader Development Panel
(ATLDP) officer study published in February 2001.
The ATLDP identified the current OES as not meeting the leader
development requirements of the contemporary operational environment.
This complex, information-centric operational environment,
characterized by uncertainty and ambiguity, rapid tempo, and
compression of strategic and tactical focus, requires officers to be
self-aware, adaptive, full-spectrum leaders. To meet Army needs and
officer expectations, a transformed OES will provide the right
education, in the right medium, to the right leader, at the right time
and place.
The Army strategic objective is to develop more capable, confident
leaders through continuous investment in personal growth and
professional development throughout their careers. The Army intends to
achieve this objective by improving and sustaining leader development
through an experientially based education and training model enabled by
increased leveraging of technology. This model will support the Army
service culture and warrior ethos and produce leaders who can resolve
dilemmas under stress, make decisions, and lead formations. Risks are
associated with timely development of the advanced distance learning
courseware and modules required to implement the model.
Question. What are the additional funding requirements associated
with changing the Officer Education System?
Answer. The Army will execute three high-payoff OES initiatives:
for lieutenants--the Basic Officer Leader Course (BOLC); for captains--
the Combined Arms Staff Course (CASC) for staff officers and the
Combined Arms Battle Command Course (CABCC) for company commanders; and
for majors--Intermediate Level Education (ILE).
BOLC ensures a tough, standardized, small-unit leadership
experience that progresses from pre-commissioning, to the initial entry
field leadership experience, and branch technical/tactical training.
BOLC provides a small unit leader training continuum and a common Army
standard for small unit leadership. Additional funding requirements for
BOLC fiscal year 2003 to fiscal year 2009 are $47.7 million.
Captains OES synchronizes training with assigned duty positions.
This concept also reduces personnel and family turbulence. The CASC and
the CABCC provide assignment-oriented training for staff officers and
company commanders, respectively. Most importantly, CASC and CABCC will
return approximately 1,500 captains to the field and give senior
commanders more responsibility for junior officer professional
development. The captains OES model will generate a net savings to the
Army of $57.8 million during the period fiscal year 2003 to fiscal year
2009.
The third OES transformation initiative, ILE, will provide all
majors with the same 12-week Military Education Level 4 producing/Joint
Professional Military Education 1 common core of operational
instruction, and additional tailored education opportunities tied to
the requirements of the officer's specific career field, branch, or
functional area. Additional ILE fiscal year 2003 to fiscal year 2009
funding requirements are $137.9 million.
Total additional funding requirements associated with transforming
OES for the fiscal year 2003 to fiscal year 2009 timeframe are $243.4
million.
Question. Will changes to the officer career courses, which rely
heavily on distance learning, produce officers capable of meeting the
challenges of company command and battalion and brigade staff
assignments?
Answer. Advanced Distributed Education (ADL) is the delivery of
training to soldiers and units through the application of multiple
means and technology. ADL allows students, leaders, and units
centralized access to essential information and training. It represents
a powerful capability in which the proper balance of course content and
delivery technologies are provided when and where they will have the
greatest impact on force readiness.
The captains OES, the CASC and the CABCC, provide assignment-
oriented training for staff officers and company commanders,
respectively. ADL is key to the captains OES model and will produce
officers capable of meeting the challenges of company command and
battalion and brigade staff assignments. In addition to ADL, captains
OES capitalizes on new high-impact, multi-echelon, combined arms
resident training methods.
ADL will be used to facilitate learning in combined arms tactics,
techniques, and procedures and training doctrine, history, and
tradition. This will be followed by an immersion experience in a hands-
on, performance-oriented resident component taught by small group
instructors under the supervision of the assistant commandants at the
branch schools. This phase will be tailored to the officers' assigned
duty positions.
CABCC will also include an on-site experiential combat training
center (CTC) component led by a branch-qualified mentor. This tactical
exercise without troops overlaid on a unit in a CTC rotation is a
hands-on practicum designed to reinforce the commander's personal
responsibility to develop, execute, and evaluate training.
Question. What impact will this shift in policy have on local
commanders in the field who are already managing soldiers working
longer hours and deployed more often since September 11?
Answer. The requirement to do more with less and the demands of the
contemporary operational environment necessitated the OES
transformation. The BOLC model does not increase the amount of time an
officer is in the training base. The Army benefits from the BOLC by
gaining a corps of mature, confident, and competent officers who have a
common bond with their combined arms peers and are ready to lead small
units upon arrival at their first assignment.
The current Intermediate Staff College concept affords a resident
education for only 50 percent of the majors in a year group. The Army
leadership decided that education should not be a promotion
discriminator and that a smaller Army with increased demands must
educate 100 percent of its majors. Intermediate Level Education will
provide all majors with the same common core of operational instruction
and additional tailored education opportunities tied to the
requirements of the officer's specific career field, branch, or
functional area.
OES transformation will impact the field by timely producing an
officer with a warrior ethos, grounded in warfighting doctrine, and who
has the technical, tactical, and leadership competencies and skills to
be successful in the officer's branch, assigned duties, career field,
and functional area.
Question. The Committee applauds the Army's efforts to provide
Intermediate Level Education to all its officers, but can the force
absorb a doubling of the number of majors in training at a time of
significant operational stress? How will this be managed?
Answer. The Army recognized that pulling an entire year group or
cohort of majors will have an adverse impact on readiness and modified
the concept. The ILE Intermediate Staff College concept will target
approximately 1,950 officers from the Army competitive category each
year. This target number is equivalent to a year group/cohort of
majors. To alleviate the readiness impact on the field, 50 percent of
the officers attending ILE will be in the grade of major and 50 percent
will be drawn from the two senior year groups of branch-qualified
captains. The Army Personnel Command will target officers for ILE
attendance over a four-year period--the officer's last two years as a
captain and first two years as a major.
Joint Logistics Warfighting Initiative
Question. The Army has been participating in a Department of
Defense-wide demonstration of a logistics information management
technology insertion program. The demonstration project, which is in
its third year, is called the Joint Logistics Warfighting Initiative.
What is your assessment of the Joint Logistics Warfighting Initiative?
Answer. The Joint Logistics Warfighting Initiative (JLWI) adds a
capability to the legacy logistics systems at the operational level
that the Army has not had in the past. This capability greatly widened
the access to more timely supply and maintenance information through
web-based tools. JLWI works well in base support and garrison
operations and was used in Operation Enduring Freedom and in Iraq.
However, without a more robust communication's architecture, JLWI and
other web-based applications will have limited use during combat
operations. The logistical functionality in JLWI is viewed as a
capability that must be addressed when the Army transforms its
logistics enterprise and converts to an enterprise resource planning
based logistics solution.
Question. Does the Army plan to continue and expand use of the
Joint Logistics Warfighting Initiative?
Answer. The Army will continue to use JLWI until the introduction
of the enterprise resource planning software. There is no plan for the
Army to expand JLWI beyond those units already programmed.
Fiscal Year 2004 Program Terminations
Question. The fiscal year 2004 Army budget request proposes
terminating 24 programs and restructuring an additional 24 to free up
the financial resources needed to support the Future Combat System and
transformation to the Objective Force. Many of the terminated and
restructured programs are so-called Legacy Force programs such as the
M1A2 SEP, Bradley Fighting Vehicle A3 upgrade, and related programs.
The Army estimates that $2.3 billion becomes available in fiscal year
2004 because of these actions, and $2.6 billion becomes available in
fiscal year 2005.
Please highlight the major system terminations proposed in the
fiscal year 2004 budget request.
Answer. The Army terminated the 24 programs listed on the following
table in the fiscal year 2004-2009 Future Years Defense Plan.
FISCAL YEAR 2004-2009 FUTURE YEARS DEFENSE PLAN PROGRAM TERMINATIONS
[In millions of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year Fiscal year
Program termination 2004 2004-2009
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Crusader................................ 475.1 5,738.9
Bradley A3.............................. 247.4 1,540.6
Abrams SEP.............................. 138.2 1,489.2
ATACMS BAT P3I.......................... 245.8 1,278.5
ATACMS Block II......................... 86.4 688.7
MLRS 270A1 Conversion................... 110.9 667.5
Tactical Exploitation System............ 83.5 349.9
Wide Area Munitions..................... 50.1 321.7
Raptor.................................. 29.1 289.4
25mm M919 Round......................... 0.0 268.0
D7 Tractor.............................. 18.2 199.6
Stinger................................. 33.0 195.7
Improved Target Acquisition System...... 28.7 172.4
Striker................................. 8.7 171.5
Lightweight Video Recon System.......... 14.4 167.0
120mm E4 Tank Round..................... 0.0 128.2
Diagnostic Improvement System........... 15.4 72.0
Joint Tactical Terminal................. 9.3 25.9
Common Ground Station, P3I.............. -8.0 25.9
Floodlight Sets......................... 3.9 25.1
Guardrail............................... 14.2 23.0
M16A4 Rifle............................. 9.4 20.9
Non-lethal Capabilities Set............. 5.9 11.8
Mark-19 Grenade Launcher................ 2.9 2.9
-------------------------------
Total from Program Terminations..... 1,622.5 13,874.3
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question. What are the associated savings estimated for fiscal year
2004? Over the Future Years Defense Plan (FYDP)?
Answer. The Army reallocated the $13.9 billion to its
Transformation efforts over the FYDP period. For fiscal year 2004 $1.6
billion was garnered from these terminations for Transformation.
Question. The budget request proposes terminating the M1A2 SEP and
Bradley A3 programs. In light of these proposed terminations, do you
have concerns about maintaining the industrial base needed to produce
the Future Combat System (FCS) beginning in fiscal year 2008?
Answer. Army Transformation required cancellation of certain
programs to fund a variety of transformational initiatives to achieve
greater war fighting capability over the long term. We assessed the
risks to the industrial base from these program cancellations and,
where we judged necessary, we have taken steps to mitigate adverse
impacts. We saw two major risks to the industrial base as a result of
the decision to not modernize the Counterattack Corps. Both of these
risks involved maintaining viable armor system production capabilities
at two production facilities: the Lima Army Tank Plant at Lima, Ohio,
and the United Defense combat vehicle production facility at York,
Pennsylvania.
The first risk involves the General Dynamics' combat vehicle
fabrication capability at the Lima Army Tank Plant. We judged that risk
as unacceptable since Lima initially had an insufficient workload to
remain viable as a production facility for the fabrication of the
Marine Corps' Advanced Amphibious Assault Vehicle and the Army's FCS
ground vehicles. To mitigate this risk, the Army has restructured some
programs and now has sufficient work to sustain Lima in active
production until these new programs are brought into production.
The second risk involved maintaining the United Defense's combat
vehicle production facility in Pennsylvania. We recognize that this
facility would also be a likely candidate to manufacture FCS ground
vehicles in the future. We expect that the production facilities in
Pennsylvania will remain viable and open through calendar year 2004
because of a continuation of their current fiscal year 2003 Bradley
upgrade work. With this expectation and acceptance of risk, we did not
program fiscal year 2004 funding for Bradley upgrades to protect that
portion of the industrial base.
While we cannot guarantee additional work from support for fielded
systems, foreign sales, and reprocessing vehicles from operations in
Iraq, the Army is looking hard at workload projections after calendar
year 2004 and identifying fiscal year 2005 options which might be
needed to protect any United Defense combat vehicle fabrication
capability determined essential for future production. Those options
will consider United Defense work on development of manned FCS non-line
of sight gun system, unmanned ground systems, foreign sales, and other
new non-traditional business. All of the other industrial base risks
from not funding the Counterattack Corps are judged acceptable.
We expect fiscal year 2003 funding and other work to keep essential
skills active through the end of calendar year 2004, given that final
vehicle deliveries are scheduled for June 2005. The program funding for
Bradley system sustainment and technical support will transition in
fiscal year 2006 from procurement to the Operation and Maintenance,
Army account. We believe United Defense's engineering staff and the
Army's own in-house staff will be able to sustain the vehicles made by
United Defense.
The shortage of Bradley upgrade funding is manageable, but there
are two key issues we must address. The first issue is how we will fund
the required technical support to the fielded fleet. For fiscal year
2003, the Army will have to fund the technical support from operation
and maintenance accounts. That will present a problem for us because we
will be addressing not only peacetime requirements but operational
requirements associated with the global war on terrorism and operations
in Iraq. Obviously, we will finance the highest priority operational
requirements first and defer those which are lower priority. A second
issue is whether key suppliers will abandon the supplier network as we
reduce requirements. This is a continuing problem, and we will do more
tradeoff analysis to support decisions, for example, to either
stockpile components or find alternate suppliers.
Question. The budget request proposes terminating production of the
M919 depleted uranium cartridge for the Bradley Fighting Vehicle. Are
the stocks of this round sufficient to meet requirements from now
through the retirement of the Bradley?
Answer. The Army has not funded the M919 program due to other
higher-priority requirements. However, the program has received funds
throughCongressional plus-ups in fiscal year 1999 through fiscal year
2003. Procurement will end with the fiscal year 2003 appropriation
unless the Congress directs additional funds into the program. The Army
will have produced a quantity of approximately 2.14 million cartridges
through the end of fiscal year 2004. The Army acquisition objective
stands at 5.3 million cartridges. There is a $30 million critical
unfunded requirement in the fiscal year 2004 budget. Stocks of the M919
cartridge, along with stocks of its less-capable predecessor cartridge,
the M792, are sufficient to meet the needs of the Bradley Fighting
Vehicle through its retirement. The Bradley family of armored combat
vehicles will be an integral part of the Army force structure until
fiscal year 2045. During this timeframe, the M919 depleted uranium
cartridge will provide soldiers with a lethal fighting capability that
also enhances their survival on the battlefield.
Question. In fiscal year 2003, the Army proposed 18 systems
terminations. Some are being reconsidered. For example, in fiscal year
2003 the Army terminated the Advanced Threat Infrared Countermeasures
(ATIRCM) system, yet this program received $75 million in the fiscal
year 2004 budget request. Please explain the apparent inconsistency.
Answer. The ATIRCM program was not officially terminated in the
fiscal year 2003 budget submission. With the fiscal year 2003
submission, the Army zeroed the ATIRCM procurement but left research,
development, test, and evaluation funding in place to examine cost-
reduction strategies within the program. The Army eliminated funding
for procurement because of several factors including, poorly defined
requirements, escalating costs, and to a lesser extent, because the Air
Force and the Navy in 2000 withdrew from the Common Missile Warning
System (CMWS). The Army transferred funding to the Special Operations
Command for procurement of 97 ATIRCM/CMWS systems through fiscal year
2008.
In the fiscal year 2004 budget submission, the ATIRCM program
contains funding for a new procurement strategy to develop an
affordable counter-infrared program. The Army completed an aircraft
survivability study to determine the optimal strategy to field
survivability equipment to its conventional forces. The strategy
proposes installing wiring harnesses for the modernized fleet (AH-64D
Longbow, UH-60M Black Hawk, and CH-47F Improved Cargo Helicopter) and
procuring countermeasure systems (ATIRCM, CMWS, improved countermeasure
dispensers, and advanced infrared countermeasure munitions) in unit
size sets. A unit size set is defined as a corps-, division-, or
brigade-sized element. This revised procurement strategy offers an
affordable solution to counter-infrared technology fielding and is
funded in the fiscal year 2004 budget submission.
Question. Are there systems on the fiscal year 2004 list over which
the Army has reservations?
Answer. Based on lessons learned from the war on terrorism, the
Army reviewed ongoing operations and revalidated limited numbers for
four systems, that had been terminated during the preparation of the
fiscal year 2004 budget submission: Tactical Exploitation System (TES),
M919 25mm ammunition, Stinger missile, and the Joint Tactical Terminal.
As part of the fiscal year 2004 budget submission, the Army also
generated a list of critical unfunded priorities. Three of the
revalidated systems were placed on this list (TES, M919, and Stinger).
In all cases, the unfunded priorities procure systems to meet an
identified Army shortfall in the global war on terrorism.
Stryker Brigade Combat Capabilities
Question. The Army plans to establish six Stryker Brigade Combat
Teams (SBCTs) to be supported by approximately 300 Stryker vehicles per
team. From fiscal year 2000 through 2003, $2.8 billion has been
provided to purchase 1,100 vehicles. The fiscal year 2004 budget
request includes $955 million to purchase 301 additional vehicles. The
Office of the Secretary of Defense has recently reconsidered the extent
of the Stryker program. Vehicles to support the first four SBCTs have
been fully funded through the fiscal year 2004 budget request. The
fifth and sixth brigades have been put on hold pending an Army study
due to the Office of the Secretary of Defense in July 2003. Section
8121 of the fiscal year 2003 Defense Appropriations Act requires the
Department of Defense to program and budget for no less than six
Stryker Brigades.
Please provide your assessment of the state of the Stryker program.
Answer. SBCTs provide an invaluable means of spearheading Army
Transformation. The SBCT trains junior officers and noncommissioned
officers--tomorrow's commanders and command sergeants major--in the
tactics, techniques, and procedures that will inform employment of the
Objective Force. The Army has resourced six SBCTs in the Future Years
Defense Program to contribute to fulfilling the ``1-4-2-1'' defense
construct and national security requirements. However, at this time,
the Secretary of Defense has only authorized the procurement of the
first four brigades. The Army will provide the Secretary of Defense
with a plan for Stryker Brigades five and six.
Question. Has development of all variants of the Stryker been
completed?
Answer. No. Development of the Mobile Gun System and the Nuclear,
Biological, and Chemical Reconnaissance Vehicle continues. The initial
low-rate production decision for both vehicles is scheduled for
December 2003 with first unit deliveries scheduled for December 2004.
Question. What is the status of the Mobile Gun System (MGS) and
Reconnaissance variants of the Stryker? Is the development of these
variants complete?
Answer. Development of these variants continues with the initial
low-rate production decision scheduled for December 2003 and first unit
deliveries scheduled for December 2004. Reconnaissance Vehicle (RV)
development is near completion, with 66 to be fielded by mid April
2003. Modifications to the RV are a result of lessons learned coming
out of testing and are designed to ensure the vehicle meets its
requirements and is safe for soldier use.
Question. What type of test ammunition is required to support
completing the development of the MGS? Are the stocks of this
ammunition sufficient to support development of the MGS?
Answer. Qualification testing of six types of 105mm ammunition
cartridges supports MGS development. They include the M900 armor-
piercing, fin-stabilized, discarding sabot; M456A2 high-explosive,
anti-tank (HEAT); M393 high explosive; and training rounds for each.
MGS development will use about 500 rounds of each during ammunition
compatibility and safety qualification testing. The Army has
sufficient, serviceable stocks of existing M900 sabot and M456 HEAT
cartridges and their associated training cartridges for use with the
MGS. The Army does, however, lack sufficient, serviceable stocks of
high explosive and anti-personnel cartridges to support the MGS. These
cartridges have passed their 20-year service life. In parallel and in
conjunction with the MGS development, the Army is re-procuring a
replacement for the M393A2 high explosive plastic and a matching
training cartridge. In addition, the Army is developing a canister
cartridge to meet the antipersonnel requirement.
Stryker/M113 Comparative Analysis
Question. Section 113(c) of the fiscal year 2001 Defense
Authorization Act required the Army to conduct an evaluation of Medium
Armored Vehicles. The results of the evaluation were submitted to the
Congress in January of 2003. The evaluation compared the capabilities
and characteristics of the Stryker Infantry Carrier Vehicle (ICV) and
the M113A3 Armored Personnel Carrier (APC). The Army evaluation
concludes that the ICV provides advantages in the areas of force
protection and survivability, support to the dismounted assault and
close fight, and mobility. Given this conclusion, the Deputy Secretary
of Defense approved obligation of funds appropriated for the Stryker.
The fiscal year 2004 budget request includes $955 million for an
additional 301 vehicles.
What are the main differences in the survivability of the Stryker
compared to the M113 (with and without armor kits)? Which vehicle is
superior in this regard and why?
Answer. The primary difference in survivability is that the Stryker
has protection against 14.5mm threats, while the M113A3 provides
protection from 7.62 mm threats. The M113A3 needs several hours of
preparation if 14.5mm armor protection is required. The Army does not
own any M113A3 14.5mm armor sets. With add-on armor kits, both vehicles
can provide protection against rocket-propelled grenades (RPG). The
Army will have RPG armor for the Stryker, but does not have any RPG
armor kits for its M113A3s. Stryker does not have the additional noise
associated with ``track slap.'' With its lower acoustic signature,
Stryker is less likely to be detected than a M113A3. Additionally, the
automatic fire extinguishing system in the Stryker ICV can put out a
fire after the vehicle is hit and provides a better chance of
preserving the lives of the crew and enabling the vehicle, if still
mobile, to continue the mission. The lack of an onboard automatic fire
detection and extinguishing capability places the M113A3 crew at
greater risk than the crew of the Stryker ICV. Overall, the Stryker is
significantly more survivable than the M113A3 and, therefore, has a
greater capability to safely deliver soldiers to the fight than the
M113A3.
Question. What are the differences between these systems for ``limp
home'' capability? Which vehicle is superior in this regard and why?
Answer. The Stryker has superior ``limp home'' capability--also
referred to as residual mobility. Immobilized vehicles result in the
loss of combat power--each vehicle and its squad is one-quarter of the
platoon's combat power. It is likely that a vehicle will remain under
enemy fire following a mine strike or other engagement that results in
damage. If an M113A3 loses a track, it becomes immobilized and the
squad must defend the vehicle while the crew repairs it--requiring at
least an hour to prepare the vehicle to ``limp home.'' However, even
after losing one or more wheels, the Stryker can immediately ``limp
home'' and self-evacuate to a protected position to make repairs or
continue the operation.
Question. What are the performance differences in supporting
dismounted assault and close combat? Which vehicle is superior in this
regard and why?
Answer. The Stryker is superior in its ability to support the
infantry squad in combat. With its superior armor and the remote weapon
station (RWS), the Stryker commander can operate the integrated RWS
under protection and provide accurate direct fire against targets from
a stationary position to support dismounted infantry operations.
Conversely, a M113A3 commander must operate his pintle-mounted weapon
from exposed position. Moreover, RWS day and night sight pictures can
be shown on the squad leader's display, which is visible to the entire
squad riding in the Stryker and allows the squad a 360 degree view of
the surrounding area before dismounting. This increases the fidelity of
the squad's situational awareness, enhancing their survivability and
likelihood of mission success. To replicate this capability, the M113A3
gunner must scan the surrounding area with binoculars or a night vision
scope while exposed, and communicate his observations to the squad
verbally.
Question. What are the performance differences between these
vehicles in the areas of mobility (both on- and off-road),
transportability, and recovery?
Answer. The Stryker has much greater fuel economy than the M113A3
over flat, level primary roads, and is self-deployable by highway. The
M113A3 may require transportation support for longer intra-theater
moves and movements to and from ports of debarkation/embarkation. The
comparison evaluation results reflected that the Stryker is able to
deliver an infantry squad to the fight faster when employed in the
projected operational terrain mix. The Stryker's superior road movement
capability enables the entire Stryker Brigade Combat Team to self
deploy in parallel with other means of intra-theater transport, such as
C-130 aircraft and theater support vessels, or when other transport
means are not advantageous or available, to concentrate combat power or
fight dispersed as required.
The Stryker and the M113A3 are air transportable in C-130, C-5, and
C-17 aircraft. One vehicle, a Stryker or M113A3, can be transported in
a C-130. A C-17 can transport three vehicles of either type. The M113A3
is smaller and lighter, enabling strategic air deployments by C-5 to
carry two additional vehicles. The M113A3 has better capability in soft
soil, but when it gets stuck, it requires extraction by external
recovery assets. The Stryker's self-recovery and likevehicle-recovery
capabilities reduce its disadvantages in terrain favorable to the
M113A3. With pivot steering, the M113A3 does have a better turning
radius than the Stryker.
Question. Please summarize the Army's experience with operational
vignettes at Fort Lewis, the National Training Center, and elsewhere
comparing the performance of these vehicles.
Answer. The Army is pleased with the Stryker's performance at Fort
Lewis and the National Training Center. During the comparison
evaluation operational vignettes, both vehicles adequately supported
platoon missions, but the Stryker provided better overall operational
capability. Analysis of the comparison evaluation technical data
identified differences between the vehicles and the results of
operational vignettes complemented those findings. Soldiers
participating in these vignettes overwhelmingly favored the Stryker
over the M113A3. When capabilities of both vehicles are compared,
considering the variables of mission, enemy, terrain, troops, and time
available, the Stryker provides a greater capability across a wider
range of possible operating conditions.
During Millennium Challenge 2002, the Stryker proved itself quite
mobile in the mountainous terrain of the National Training Center. The
opposing forces remarked that the Stryker surmounted terrain that no
other vehicle, wheeled or tracked, had been able to climb. While both
vehicles provide the basic capabilities to conduct required tasks and
subtasks, mission success is impacted by how soldiers employ the
vehicle. The Stryker provides significant advantages in the areas of
force protection and survivability, support to the dismounted assault
and close fight, and mobility.
Future Combat Systems
Question. The Army describes the Future Combat System as its number
one priority supporting transformation to the Objective Force. The
fiscal year 2004 budget request includes $1.7 billion in Army research
and development funding. This includes FCS System Design and
Development (SDD) funding, as well as funding for Netfires and the
Objective Force Indirect Fire system. The later two elements of FCS
were included in the Crusader budget amendment proposed by the
Administration for fiscal year 2003.
What is the current status of the Future Combat System? Please
outline for the Committee the upcoming steps in the development process
for FCS.
Answer. The FCS program is in the latter stages of the concept and
technology development phase of the DoD acquisition model. The Army and
DARPA have identified the concepts and technologies necessary to
develop, integrate, field, and sustain FCS Increment I. The Army will
recommend to DoD that the program transition from concept and
technology development to system development and demonstration at the
FCS Milestone B Defense Acquisition Board in May 2003. The next major
milestone is at the initial production decision in 2008 leading to the
Army's initial operating capability at the end of the decade.
Question. The Committee understands that the Army has recently
released 24 requests for proposal (RFPs) for various technologies that
will comprise FCS. Please explain the primary areas of emphasis of
these RFPs.
Answer. The 23 sub-contract RFPs and one sub-contract released by
the Army are primarily focused on unmanned systems; supportability;
training; and command, control, communications, and computers, and
intelligence surveillance, and reconnaissance (C4ISR). Fully 12 of the
23 RFPs emphasize C4ISR, because the Army recognizes that network
connectivity and data fusion are the most critical aspect of the FCS
system of systems concept.
A unique aspect of FCS versus other individual program developments
is that a Lead Systems Integrator is horizontally integrating all of
the RFPs. This horizontal integration is occurring across all manned,
unmanned, unattended sensors, and munitions within the FCS. In the
past, larger emphasis was placed on vertical integration rather than
horizontal integration. Horizontal integration is an attempt to improve
connectivity between systems and capitalize on potential force
effectiveness increases from the synergistic application of combat
power across a force.
Question. The Committee is aware that the Milestone B decision for
FCS is approaching in May of 2003. Explain what this decision
represents for the development of the FCS.
Answer. The Milestone B decision represents the Office of the
Secretary of Defense's approval for the FCS program to transition from
concept and technology development phase to the system development and
demonstration phase. A decision to proceed to the systems development
and demonstration phase allows the Army, DARPA, and the Lead Systems
Integrator to start the systems integration and demonstration
activities necessary to enter production. More importantly, the FCS
Milestone B decision represents a major step in the Army's desire to
transform and achieve Objective Force capability before the end of the
decade.
Question. The Committee is aware of discussions within the Army
indicating that the FCS program is between $40 and $50 million short of
funds to support the program through the Milestone B decision. Why?
What work must be performed or accelerated in order to keep the program
on schedule?
Answer. The Army and DARPA team need to reprogram $30 million
dollars from within the Army to support FCS modeling and simulation
(M&S) efforts. The Army believes it must build and sustain a state-of-
the-art M&S capability to accomplish the engineering effort required
for the FCS program. This M&S capability will increase the efficiency
and quality of the design effort, allow the design team to prototype
subcomponents in a three-dimensional synthetic environment, and test
performance on a synthetic battlefield from different locations in a
collaborative fashion. The Army sees M&S as the only way to design the
FCS system of systems and make it work efficiently. Specifically, these
resources will provide government licenses and services required to
deliver, maintain, and improve the services of the FCS advanced
collaborative environment. Included is the software and hardware
backbone to integrate government-owned data and applications.
Question. The Army has chosen an acquisition strategy that relies
on a Lead Systems Integrator (LSI) to coordinate the early stages of
the program. Why has the Army chosen this strategy? What is the primary
contribution of the LSI to development of the FCS?
Answer. The Army and DARPA chose an LSI to help manage and
integrate FCS because of the magnitude and complexity of the task. The
Army studied the acquisition approach of other large and complex
programs, such as the National Missile Defense and International Space
Station programs, to determine the best method of managing and
horizontally integrating a large engineering effort. The Army concluded
that the LSI concept provided the most efficient and lowest risk
approach to integrate the system of systems concepts required by FCS.
The Army believes that with a LSI, that it can integrate architectures
and platforms, and manage the interface requirements more efficiently
and effectively. Additionally, the Army is transforming away from
functional mission areas and related platform development, to a more
horizontally integrated process. To break the functional mission area
mold, the Army chose to competitively select an LSI to provide
horizontal systems engineering development and management across the
FCS system of systems.
Question. This program is the joint responsibility of the Army and
DARPA. Please explain the respective roles and funding responsibilities
for the Army and DARPA in development of the FCS.
Answer. DARPA and the Army combined their talents to define
concepts, identify technologies, and begin development of FCS using a
memorandum of agreement (MOA). The Army and DARPA have a 55/45 cost
share agreement, respectively, for the concept and technology
development phase of the FCS program effort. This MOA extends through
2005 and both parties are currently updating the MOA to define the FCS
Increment II concept and technology demonstration phase activities.
Generally, DARPA has focused on its forte of thinking outside of the
box and developing novel and higher risk technologies. The Army has
focused on leveraging and maturing DARPA work and technologies to the
degree that they can be integrated into weapons systems.
Non Line of Sight Cannon
Question. In fiscal year 2003, the Administration proposed a budget
amendment to terminate the Crusader artillery system. This proposal
recommended $195.5 million to continue developing an indirect fire
support element for the Future Combat System (FCS). To this, the
Congress added $173 million, for a total of $368.5 million. The funding
was intended to develop a firing platform as well as weapon system
integration. This funding was provided specifically to the program
management staff that had been developing Crusader.
Mr. Secretary, the Congress provided nearly $370 million to
continue developing an indirect fire weapon for the Army including the
development of a more deployable chassis. What has the Army
accomplished to date with this funding?
Answer. To date, the Army/United Defense/General Dynamics team has
entered the preliminary design phase for the non-line of sight cannon
(NLOS-C). The NLOS-C is a manned ground vehicle that is deployable on a
C-130 aircraft. The NLOS-C embodies the major design drivers that will
effect an overall design for all of the other manned ground vehicle
variants (mortar, direct fire cannon, etc.) in the FCS. The team has
made significant up-front system engineering effort to generate and
allocate the performance and functional requirements to support
component design activities. The team has performed the majority of the
design, analysis, and development efforts necessary to conduct detailed
individual subsystem and component design within the vehicle. The team
has accomplished preliminary design analyses, design option
assessments, and architecture development for the electronics,
software, propulsion, suspension, crew station, ammunition handling,
armament, cooling, and survivability.
The engineering, architecture analysis, and design work apply not
only to the NLOS-C, but to all of the other FCS manned ground vehicles.
In addition, a best technical approach for the NLOS-C was presented to
and accepted unanimously by the program manager, user, and Lead System
Integrator. Overall, the funding has enabled the Army to substantially
reduce the schedule and cost risk to the FCS manned ground vehicles and
has provided a head start for the FCS system design and development
phase. Finally, the FCS NLOS-C demonstrator is scheduled to begin
testing this summer.
Question. An area of concern in the Committee's fiscal year 2003
deliberations was integration of a large artillery piece onto a
relatively light chassis. What progress has been made to solve this
problem?
Answer. The physical and dynamic forces exerted on a firing
platform have been analyzed using high-fidelity computer modeling
techniques. These computer models have proven to be extremely accurate
in the past for measuring force loads and vehicle properties. Various
suspension and propulsion options were also analyzed to determine the
effect of the force transfers. Results have indicated that the addition
of stabilizers to the rear of the vehicle provide sufficient support to
reduce the vehicle settling time and forces experienced by the crew.
Timeline analyses have also been done and confirm that this solution
will support the user's aggressive response requirements. A system
demonstrator is being manufactured to confirm these analyses and will
undergo live testing at Yuma Proving Ground this summer.
Question. The Committee understands that the Line of Sight variant
of the Future Combat System (FCS) and the NLOS cannon will share a
common chassis. What engineering and design challenges confront the
Army in developing a common chassis for these systems?
Answer. The current development approach for all FCS manned ground
vehicles is to share a common chassis design with common subsystems
where practical. The various mission profiles and demands of the manned
ground vehicle suite pose a design challenge to package required
mission equipment within the power, weight, and volume constraints.
Computer aided design and engineering models have confirmed the
feasibility of this solution approach. By maximizing basic component
commonality, the Army expects to realize significant savings in
development, production, training, maintenance, and logistics costs.
The challenge will be to maximize commonality without compromising the
overall vehicle performance capabilities throughout the vehicle
variants. The driving philosophy is to maintain commonality where it
saves money and provides an operational benefit to the user.
Question. Congress provided NLOS funding to the Army program
management staff responsible for development of artillery systems. In
fiscal year 2004, the Army budget request proposes combining this into
the funding line for the FCS. Why?
Answer. Realigning the FY04 program will more accurately reflect
the true characterization of the program. FCS is a system of systems
linked by a battle command network, rather than a collection of various
independent platforms. Furthermore, the realigned FY04 program also
more accurately reflects the execution of the work being accomplished.
Since the Army is developing all variants through one system of systems
Lead Systems Integrator, the Army expects to achieve improved
efficiencies in the FCS program. The system of systems contractor will
maximize commonality and also ensure supportability is engineered
across the system of systems.
Question. What changes in program management does the Army propose
as a result of realigning, funding for NLOS development?
Answer. Realigning the program funding for NLOS has not resulted in
any substantial changes to the program management of the NLOS-C
program. The Crusader management staff has transitioned to form the
NLOS-C management staff to support the initial FCS program in general.
Tactical Unmanned Aerial Vehicle Shadow 200
Question. The Army's Tactical UAV recently underwent its
Operational Test and Evaluation.
Please give a summary of the operational test and evaluation
report--was the Shadow 200, the Army's tactical UAV, found to be
operationally suitable and operationally effective?
Answer. The TUAV Shadow 200 system is deployed with the 4th
Infantry Division and with the first and second Stryker Brigade Combat
Teams. These systems have the full confidence of the senior commanders
of those combat units. The TUAV Shadow system was one of the DoD's most
successful acquisition programs achieving a Milestone II to III
decision in less than three years to include a successful initial
operational test and evaluation (IOT&E). One of the key elements in
this success was an Army approved acquisition based on a blocking
strategy to achieve early success with anticipated block upgrades.
The DoD Joint Interoperability Test Center remarked that the TUAV
Shadow was the ``model for future C4I development.'' As tested by the
Army's Test and Evaluation Command in the Block I configuration, and
the rapid acquisition strategy, the TUAV Shadow is effective, suitable,
and survivable. Finally, the Army has deemed the Shadow system
affordable, and full rate production go ahead was approved in September
2002 with the full rate production contract being awarded in December
2002.
Question. What is the Army plan for continuing the TUAV program?
Answer. The Army acquisition objective is 83 systems while the Army
procurement objective is 41 systems based on the fiscal year 2004-2009
Program Objective Memorandum. Thirteen systems had been procured under
low rate initial production contracts; the full rate contract award in
December 2002 was for nine systems with procurement for the remaining
19 systems to take place from 2004 to 2008. Systems will eventually be
fielded to each of the Army's divisions, Stryker Brigades, and the
training center.
The Future Combat Systems Lead Systems Integrator released requests
for proposal for four classes of UAVs in February 2003 that would
include at least two UAV capabilities possibly met by the TUAV Shadow
200 or a growth version of that same system. In addition, the Army
continues to work towards further improvement of the TUAV Shadow 200
with a series of targeted upgrades including improvement of target
location error, incorporation of a tactical common data link, and
conversion to a heavy fuel (JP-8) engine. The TUAV Shadow will deploy
in the Persian Gulf region as part of the 4th Infantry Division.
Question. Has the TUAV program presented in the fiscal year 2003
budget been restructured in the fiscal year 2004 budget request?
Answer. The TUAV budget has not been restructured in the fiscal
year 2004 budget request.
Question. How many Shadow 200 systems does the Army intend to
acquire in fiscal year 2003 and 2004?
Answer. The Army will procure nine TUAV Shadow systems in fiscal
year 2003 and eight systems in 2004. The maximum production capacity is
12 systems per year.
Question. In what ways does the TUAV not satisfy the Army's
requirement for a longer-range, more robust UAV capability? What
program are you pursuing to meet this requirement?
Answer. While the Shadow 200 TUAV is an outstanding asset--easily
deployed, and focused on the needs of the tactical maneuver commander,
it has limitations. The TUAV has a small payload capacity, cannot carry
multiple payloads, and has a limited range. These limitations are due
to its smaller size. In accordance with Objective Force guidelines, the
Army is pursuing an extended range/multi-purpose (ER/MP) UAV that is
light, mobile, and flexible to meet projected division/corps
requirements beyond the 50-kilometer range the Shadow 200 TUAV operates
in.
At the same time, the U.S. Air Force Predator and Global Hawk UAVs,
while outstanding platforms, cannot meet the Army ER/MP UAV
requirements due to limited assets, requirement for extensive
logistical support, and differing Army missions. Additionally, neither
Predator nor Global Hawk is responsive enough to provide support at
multiple echelons at once. Given the nature of the anticipated roles of
division and corps under Army Transformation, the requirement for an
ER/MP UAV is critical.
The operational requirements document for this capability is
undergoing final adjustments in preparation for a May Army requirements
oversight council, and we hope to have this important capability to the
Army beginning in fiscal year 2006/2007. We do not intend to develop a
new ER/MP UAV capability; rather, we will conduct a fly-off in fiscal
year 2004 among current UAV platforms to determine the air vehicle the
Army will select to meets its extended range UAV requirements. Finally,
the ER/MP UAV must be compatible with the Shadow 200 UAV ground control
equipment to ensure commonality of equipment, reduced training
requirements, and overall cost savings of not having to maintain two
separate ground control systems.
Aerial Common Sensor
Question. With the cancellation of the Joint SIGINT Avionics Family
(JSAF) program, the Army was required to restructure its Aerial Common
Sensor program. Please summarize the new acquisition strategy for your
Aerial Common Sensor (ACS) program.
Answer. Due to the cancellation of the JSAF program, the Army rated
the communications intelligence (COMINT) sub-system for ACS as a high-
risk area. Therefore, the milestone decision authority approved a
change to the acquisition strategy allowing two contractor teams to
proceed through the technology development phase to reduce risk. The
exit criteria for the phase were adjusted to include the demonstration
of a prototype COMINT sub-system in a system integration laboratory
environment. The technology development phase began in April 2002 and
will conclude with contractor technical demonstrations in early July
2003.
Upon completion of the technology development phase, the Army will
select a single contractor team in an open competition to complete the
system architecture, develop, test and produce the system, and develop
the sustainment plan for the life of the system. The first ACS unit
will be equipped in fiscal year 2009.
Question. What are the major milestones in the decision-making
process and what are the timeframes for these milestones?
Answer. The next program milestone is the Milestone B decision
planned for September 2003. The Milestone B decision will formally
initiate the program and authorize entrance into the system development
and demonstration phase. The system development and demonstration phase
will begin with the award of the system development and demonstration
contract in January 2004 and conclude in the fourth quarter of fiscal
year 2007.
Key events during this phase are the developmental tests of the ACS
prototype. Developmental test #1 is scheduled in fiscal year 2006 and
developmental test #2 is scheduled for fiscal year 2007. Developmental
test #2 and a follow-on limited user test will provide the necessary
system evaluation to proceed to Milestone C in the fourth quarter of
fiscal year 2007. The Milestone C decision will authorize low-rate
initial production of the ACS system. Initial operational test and
evaluation will occur in fiscal year 2009 and supports the full rate
production decision, also in fiscal year 2009.
UH-60 Black Hawk Fielding Plan
Question. Among the systems proposed for restructuring in the
fiscal year 2004 budget request is the UH-60 Black Hawk. The
restructuring is tied to the Army Aviation Modernization Plan (AAMP)
which proposed a reduction to the total number Black Hawks the Army
will field. The fiscal year 2004 budget request is consistent with an
overall decline in the number of Black Hawks as the number of aircraft
requested drops from 12 to 10.
How many UH-60 Black Hawk aircraft are requested in the fiscal year
2004 budget? How does this compare to the requested and enacted levels
of the last two years?
Answer. The Army has requested 10 UH-60 aircraft in the fiscal year
2004 budget. The Army requested 12 UH-60s each in fiscal years 2002 and
2003. Congress provided seven additional UH-60s in fiscal year 2003 and
10 additional UH-60s in fiscal year 2002.
Question. Please explain the modified fielding plan for the UH-60
Black Hawk as a result of the Army Aviation Modernization Plan (AAMP).
Answer. The 2003 AAMP continues the Army's efforts to retire all
legacy aircraft quickly, structure the Active and Reserve Components
with like units, and field all these units with modernized aircraft.
The plan also eliminated or reduced the size of a number of units to
align the aviation force structure with current and future warfight
requirements. The RAMP retires all operational UH-1s by the end of
fiscal year 2004, reduces the number of UH-60s in the Active Component,
cascades aircraft to the Army National Guard and the aviation training
base, and continues Black Hawk procurement to reach the Army's total
UH-60 requirement of 1,680 aircraft.
Question. Does the AAMP propose a lower number of aircraft to
support Army requirements?
Answer. The Army has reduced its total requirement for UH-60s from
1,956 to 1,680.
Question. How will the number of aircraft proposed in the AAMP
change for the Active Army versus the Guard and Reserve?
Answer. The Army will reduce the total number of UH-60s in Active
Component warfight units by 28 percent. The Army National Guard UH-60
warfight requirement will be reduced by five percent. However, the
number of UH-60s on hand in the Army National Guard will grow by 32
percent from 2002 to 2007. The number of UH-60s in the Army Reserve
does not change.
Question. The Committee understands the result of the AAMP,
together with retirement of older aircraft such as the UH-1 and OH-58,
is that some Army aviation units will be at between 50-70 percent of
fill. Is this correct? If so, for how long?
Answer. At the end of 2002, the Army had fielded approximately 92
percent of its total Black Hawk requirement (1,550 of 1,680 required),
and the Army National Guard had 85 percent of its requirement on hand
(587 of 687 required). As units transition to their new structure in
2003 and 2004, there will be approximately 10 to 15 companies in the
National Guard that will be filled at the 50 to 70 percent level for 12
to 18 months. By the end of 2Q04, the National Guard should have
approximately 610 of their 687 UH-60s on hand. This provides enough
aircraft to fill all of the National Guard high-priority units at 90 to
100 percent and the remaining units at no less that 80 percent.
Question. Does the reduction in the total number of aircraft
proposed in the AAMP give rise to the need for a more robust
recapitalization plan for the Black Hawks that are currently fielded?
If so, how is that supported in the fiscal year 2004 budget request?
Answer. The Army is currently funding two UH-60 recapitalization
programs. The UH-60A to A program is funded to recapitalize 20 UH-60As
in fiscal years 2004 through 2013. The UH-60M recapitalization/upgrade
program is funded for continued development and certification in 2004
and initial production beginning in 2005.
CH-47 Chinook Helicopter
Question. The Army plans to rebuild the aging CH-47 Chinook heavy-
lift helicopter. The program is in the second year of Low-Rate Initial
Production (LRIP). $327.1 million is included in the fiscal year 2004
budget for 16 aircraft. The current Army program will produce 340
aircraft compared to a requirement of 513. Of the total planned
production, 53 aircraft will support Special Operations requirements.
In the fiscal year 2003 bill, the Congress added $39 million to this
program provided that the Army restructures the CH-47 program to
upgrade the entire fleet (465 aircraft) at a rate of not less than 36
aircraft per year. The current Army plan, as reflected in fiscal year
2004 budget request, does not implement this direction.
Please explain the significance of the CH-47/MH-47E to the Army and
the Special Operations Command in general, and to supporting the Global
War on Terrorism in particular.
Answer. The Army Special Operations Forces (SOF) MH-47E Chinook was
absolutely critical in providing the vertical envelopment capability
infiltrating Special Forces teams, Army Rangers, and Navy SOF into
Afghanistan during the early stages of Operation Enduring Freedom. The
aircraft was also deployed to the Philippines supporting Operation
Enduring Freedom-Philippines. The aircraft's unique SOF peculiar one-
of-a-kind systems include its terrain following/terrain avoidance
radar, aerial refueling capability, and over-the-horizon satellite
communications. This equipment enabled SOF teams to be flown over
desert and rugged mountainous terrain in excess of 20,000 feet, flying
at times in zero visibility due to brown out and atmospheric
conditions. During Operation Enduring Freedom, the MH-47Es aircraft
mission equipment enabled combat aircrews of the 160th Special
Operations Aviation Regiment to fly combat missions in excess of 12 to
14 hours using night vision goggles. During Operation Enduring Freedom,
the MH-47E conducted the longest rotary wing infiltration of Special
Forces in Army history. This unique MH-47E capability saved the SOF
ground force commander several weeks of critical time during Operation
Enduring Freedom.
The MH-47E also performed other highly successful missions that
included SOF exfiltration, air assault, resupply, forward air refueling
point operations, sling load, selected combat search and rescue, and
medical evacuation operations for SOF deep within the battlefield. The
MH-47E proved to be the strongest workhorse on the battlefield
supporting Army Special Operations Forces and other U.S. forces into
Afghanistan and Iraq. Within the Army and the Department of Defense, it
is the only aircraft capable of flying the extremely long missions.
Due to limited number of MH-47Es, the CH-47 provided a tremendous
complementary capability in support of Special Operations Forces where
the CH-47s were determined to be suitable and feasible. Like the MH-47,
the conventional CH-47D Chinook also demonstrated its vertical lift
capability in Afghanistan. The CH-47D provided air assault, resupply,
sling load, and medical evacuation operations for conventional forces;
however, the CH-47 does not offer the mission range or possess the same
optic systems as the MH-47E. The CH-47D was able to safely operate in
the environment because of the recent significant engine and
communications equipment upgrades made to the aircraft.
Question. How many of each type of these aircraft are currently
deployed in support of the war on terrorism, and in support of
operations in Iraq?
Answer. The Army has 120 total CH-47D and MH-47D/E aircraft
deployed in support of these operations.
Question. What is the mission capable rate of the fleet of aircraft
that is deployed?
Answer. The CH-47D mission capable rate is 71 percent and the MH-47
mission capable rate is 84 percent.
Question. What is the status of the CH-47/MH-47 rebuild program?
Answer. The CH-47/MH-47 rebuild program is on track, but is in the
process of restructuring to accommodate the increased priority of the
Special Operations aircraft. The low-rate initial production contract
was signed on schedule in December 2002. The first aircraft was
subsequently inducted into the production line in January 2003. Two
additional aircraft have since been inducted into the program.
The President's Budget placed increased emphasis on the early
production of the MH-47G. Due to the pressing requirements of the
global war on terrorism, the production of the MH-47G was accelerated.
Most of the first three production lots will be dedicated to the
production of the MH-47G. This will introduce some inefficiency in the
resultant CH-47F program that will result in an increase in unit cost.
The current estimate is that the cost increase will be less than 10
percent. The Army Cost and Economic Analysis Center is currently
developing a revised cost estimate.
Question. What is the quantity of aircraft proposed in the fiscal
year 2004 budget request?
Answer. Sixteen CH-47Ds are programmed for remanufacture to the MH-
47G configuration.
Question. The fiscal year 2003 bill provided $39 million above the
budget request, and directed the Army to structure this program to
produce not less than 36 aircraft per year, and a total of 465 aircraft
over the life of the program. What steps has the Army taken in the
fiscal year 2004 budget request, and over the FYDP, to structure such a
program?
Answer. None. Currently on OSD withhold, the $39 million would have
provided long lead items for one production lot. The estimated cost to
complete this program is an additional $2 billion. Due to competing
priorities and limited resources, the Army cannot afford an increase of
this magnitude. Additionally, the operational impact of a 36 aircraft
per year in the remanufacturing program is considered too high. With
the planned increase in MH-47 inventory from the current Army CH-47D
inventory, the Army would have to stand down one CH-47 unit or resource
below authorization 10 CH-47 units through fiscal year 2018 to execute
a 36 aircraft per year program.
Question. How has the shift in initial lot production from the CH-
47F to the MH-47G model impacted the CH-47F program?
Answer. Adjusting the production schedule to comply with the
Program Decision Memorandum will add an estimated $177 million to the
CH-47F, of which $77 million will be realized in fiscal year 2005-2009,
and slip the Army's CH-47F first unit equipped 21 months into fiscal
year 2007.
RAH-66 Comanche Helicopter
Question. In October 2002, the Defense Acquisition Board (DAB)
recommended that the Army proceed with the Comanche program and
approved production of 650 aircraft at a rate of not to exceed 60 per
year. Of the total, the DAB approved production of 73 low-rate initial
production (LRIP) aircraft. The quantity will be reassessed at the
Future Combat System (FCS) Milestone B decision in May 2003. The fiscal
year 2004 budget request includes $1.1 billion for Comanche. Test
aircraft 3 will make its first flight in May 2005.
In October 2002, the DAB recommended that the Army produce 650 RAH-
66 Comanche helicopters. What is the basis for the quantity recommended
by the DAB?
Answer. Six-hundred fifty Comanches fields a 12-helicopter squadron
in each Objective Force unit of action and a similar unit in the
reconnaissance, surveillance target acquisition (RSTA) squadron of the
unit of employment. There are projected to be 30 unit of action and 10
RSTA units for a total of 480 Comanche helicopters. Additionally,
Special Operations will field 16 aircraft, and 154 are required for the
training base, operational readiness float, testing, and other
missions.
Question. Please compare the DAB figure to the total Army
requirement. What is the basis for the total Army requirement? Does the
Army total assume that Comanche will serve only as an armed
reconnaissance aircraft or as an attack aircraft as well?
Answer. The Comanche is a multi-role armed reconnaissance and
attack helicopter integral to the Army's future force. It addresses
Army battlefield reconnaissance requirements as a lethal, low-
observable, reconnaissance sensor, communications, and weapons platform
and will replace the Army's vintage combat aircraft. Comanche is
designated as the initial system for the Army's Transformation within
its future Objective Force and is the combat aviation element within
the Future Combat System. The total Army requirement for Comanche is
819 in both units of action and units of employment. This includes 652
in Active Component reconnaissance, attack, cavalry, and special
operating forces units; 167 for flight school, operational readiness
float; testing; and other missions. The DAB permitted Army procurement
to the units of action and the reconnaissance units in the units of
employment. This equates to 650 Comanches: 496 in Active component
units and 154 for schools, operational readiness float, testing, and
other missions.
Question. The DAB specifies that the Comanche should be produced to
meet Block III capabilities. Please describe Block III capabilities. Do
aircraft of this specification differ from the Army's plan prior to the
DAB?
Answer. Comanche Block III will begin fielding around 2013. Block
III adds full sensor packages including sensor fusion and also the
external fuel armaments system that adds the capability of extended
ranges and external weapons. Block III focuses squarely on the armed
reconnaissance version because this represents our greatest aviation
battlefield deficiency. Basically, the requirements did not change
during restructure except for the addition of tactical control data
link that permits control of unmanned aerial vehicles.
Question. The DAB requires use of the Cost Analysis Improvement
Group (CAIG) cost estimates for program and budget formulation. Please
explain how these estimates differ from the Army's estimates.
Answer. The difference between the Army's position and OSD CAIG's
in research, development, testing, and evaluation was only one percent
(two percent when excluding sunk costs), and the procurement difference
was nine percent.
Question. Following the DAB recommendation, the Army filed a Nunn-
McCurdy waiver based on acquisition unit cost growth. Why? Is the
waiver a result of using CAIG cost estimates or for other reasons?
Answer. The Army cost position did include cost growth resulting in
a program acquisition unit cost variance of 14.4 percent and
acquisition procurement unit cost variance of 8.1 percent. The Army
estimates did not reflect a Nunn-McCurdy breach. However, the
incorporation of the OSD CAIG estimate, which added significant
increases to the procurement estimate, resulted in a program
acquisition unit cost breach of 23.2 percent and an acquisition
procurement unit cost breach of 18.3 percent. These amounts require
Nunn-McCurdy breach notification to Congress.
Question. The Comanche program has again been restructured in the
wake of the DAB recommendation. Why?
Answer. The DAB recommendation represents the agreed upon and
approved restructured Comanche program. To bring all development
processes into compliance with the new program structure, we are
revising documents such as the test and evaluation master plan and
conducting a critical design review.
RAH-66 Comanche Technical Development
Question. The Comanche has experienced numerous technical issues
during its development including: the weight of the aircraft, the
aircraft's vertical rate of climb (VROC), and the complexity of the
software needed to operate the aircraft. In December of 2002, the T-802
engine for the Comanche passed a critical design review. This engine
provides enough power to meet the aircraft's VROC requirements. In
January 2003, due to commercial obsolescence, the Army had to reprogram
funds to ensure adequate stocks of computer chips for the aircraft's
mission computer, and for other electrical components.
The Committee is aware that the Army has adjusted requirements to
ensure that Comanche's weight growth will not prevent production
aircraft from meeting vertical rate of climb requirements. Please
explain.
Answer. The Army did not change the objective requirements for
Comanche. However, the Army did adjust the timeframe for meeting the
objective requirements. This adjustment resulted from restructuring the
program to adopt an evolutionary acquisition strategy. Evolutionary
acquisition is the desired method for achieving a usable weapon system
in the near term rather than having a lengthy development trying to
achieve final objective requirement at first fielding. A threshold VROC
requirement for the Block I and II configured aircraft is lower than
the objective in Block III. This allows the Army to quicken the initial
fielding and, using emerging technology, achieve the final objective
VROC.
Question. Does the adjustment of requirements mean that the Army
has lowered its performance requirements for the Comanche?
Answer. No. The objective requirements for Comanche remain the same
as before the restructure, but the adjusted strategy allows the program
to achieve those objective requirements in an evolutionary process.
Question. Recent Army reports indicate that the T-802 engine to be
used in Comanche will provide acceptable weight growth ``margin'' as
the Comanche program progresses. How much margin does this engine
provide in light of the aircraft's current weight?
Answer. We are certain that there is substantial growth margin in
the T-802 engine, but we do not currently know how much. From
recommendations made in 2002 by the independent review panel, the
project manager has implemented a study of the engine to determine the
amount of power that can be achieved by the engine and what the effect
will be on the engines durability and dependability at various shaft
horsepower outputs. Once the data from the study is obtained, the
developers will be able to adjust the engine's power output in concert
with required range, weight limits, and operational availability to
optimize the overall system performance.
Question. What if any operations and support risks are associated
with the T-802 engine which runs ``hotter'' in order to generate more
horsepower?
Answer. The risk with running the engine at a higher horsepower
output is associated with increased wear and stress on engine component
parts. Currently, the Comanche's forecasted engine runtime time between
overhauls is very high.
We are certain that the engine can be operated at a higher power
output while still maintaining an acceptable time-between-overhauls
value. However, we will not know the specific limits of engine power
output until the study is completed.
Question. Does the weight of an aircraft typically grow as it
progresses through development and production, and if so, at what rate?
Does the Comanche program's experience match the Army's more general
experience? Explain.
Answer. Yes, historically, attack type helicopter weight grows an
average of 10 percent during development. The Comanche helicopter
weight has grown 17.5 percent. Comanche's weight growth is not
surprising considering the new requirements that it has had to satisfy
as compared to legacy aircraft, such as radar cross section reduction,
advanced infrared suppression, NBC protection, internal weapons bay,
improved agility, sideward and rearward flight capability, and improved
reliability and maintainability. Still, we believe that during the
evolutionary development, we will be successful in keeping the aircraft
within the needed maximum weight range.
Question. The Army has recently reprogrammed funds to provide for
costs related to the mission computer modules and electrical
components. Please explain why this reprogramming of funds was
necessary.
Answer. In traditional acquisition processes of the past, we
usually only had to deal with advanced procurement of long-lead items
for production about a year to 18 months before a production decision.
However, in today's rapid technological growth environment, commercial
electronic components are changing at such a rapid pace that a specific
design is only up to date for one or two years, or less. These
technology advances are accompanied by proprietary form-factor changes
also. For many weapons systems developments, the designer finds that
the components of his system, while still fully capable, become
unavailable in the market place. If sufficient numbers of the no longer
commercially produced parts are not acquired before they are
unavailable, the designer will be forced into a premature and unplanned
redesign effort. The Army requested a reprogramming of research,
development, testing and evaluation (RDTE) funds to procurement funds
in order to stockpile sufficient obsolete electronic parts to carry the
program through low-rate initial production.
Question. Are measures included in the fiscal year 2004 budget to
further hedge against computer and electrical component obsolescence
for Comanche?
Answer. Yes, now that we have established a procurement funding
line, the Army will reprogram some of the Comanche RDTE in fiscal year
2004 to continue to stabilize the current design with the existing
components. At the end of the low-rate initial production, Boeing-
Sikorsky will update the electronic design to the newest technologies
of that time just before full-rate production.
AH-64 Apache Longbow Service Life Extension
Question. The Acquisition Decision Memorandum (ADM) for the
Comanche indicated that the AH-64 Apache will continue to meet the
Army's heavy attack requirements. Accordingly, the ADM directed the
Army to submit a plan to OSD by November 2002 to extend the service
life of the Apache.
Please describe the plan for Apache Service Life Extension that the
Army submitted pursuant to the Comanche Acquisition Decision
Memorandum.
Answer. The Army's plan for the Apache Longbow will lower
operations and support costs while taking advantage of technologies to
ensure Apache Longbow relevance and interoperability with the Objective
Force. The operations and support improvements include a new composite
rotor blade, a common engine in all Longbow aircraft, airframe life
extension, and other life extension improvements.
The technology improvements address specific combatant commander
warfighting needs and fix platform deficiencies pertaining to Objective
Force interoperability affecting the 284 Block I aircraft. Improvements
include a littoral capability, upgrading the digital capability of all
Block I aircraft to meet the requirements of the Objective Force,
enhancing the targeting capability, air transportability capability,
and integrating unmanned aerial vehicle Level IV control.
The digitization improvements require the aircraft to return to a
remanufacturing facility. This major improvement requires the
installation of a new data bus and system's architecture in Longbow
lots 1-6 (284 aircraft) and enables digital communications with Object
Force platforms. The proposed plan will take advantage of returning to
a remanufacturing facility to combine currently funded initiatives such
as the Joint Tactical Radio System, Modernized Target and Acquisition
Designation Sight, and Aircraft Survivability Equipment installation
efforts to limit the impacts of these major improvements on our Apache
unit readiness.
Question. What is the extent of the plan? Does it call for more
extensive depot-level maintenance? A rebuild program? Please explain.
Answer. The plan includes a combination of a rebuild program and
field retrofit. Block I Longbows from lots 1-6 must return to the
remanufacturing facility for the necessary digitization improvements.
The remaining 217 Longbows from lots 7-10 would receive retrofits in
the field. Several of these improvements are software upgrades. Also,
items such as the new composite rotor blade would be fielded through
the Army Working Capital Fund as spares to maximize utilization of
rotor blades currently fielded.
Question. How is this plan reflected in the fiscal year 2004 budget
request? If not, why?
Answer. This plan is not reflected in the fiscal year 2004 budget
submission because the Longbow Apache Multi-Year II contract runs
through fiscal yar 2007 and the Comanche Acquisition Decision
Memorandum was subsequent to the 2004 budget submission. Funding for
this plan will be reviewed for the fiscal year 2005 budget submission.
FMTV Recompetition
Question. The decision on recompetition of the Family of Medium
Tactical Vehicles (FMTV) contract is scheduled for March of 2003. The
budget request for fiscal year 2004 is $309.8 million, down from $662.9
million in fiscal year 2003.
The Committee understands that a decision on the FMTV recompetition
is scheduled for March 2003. Is the Army still on schedule to make its
selection?
Answer. The FMTV A1 competitive rebuy contract award has been
delayed for up to 30 days, until April 2003, while two remaining
certifications/notifications are provided to Congress.
Question. Funding for the FMTV program declines substantially, by
over $350 million, from fiscal year 2003 to the 2004 request. Why?
Answer. Fiscal year 2003 funded the last year of the current FMTV
production contract, as well as the first year of the FMTV A1
competitive rebuy production contract.
Question. In the Fiscal Year 2003 Defense Appropriations Act, the
Congress provided new multi-year procurement authority to support FMTV
recompetition. What are the Army's plans for awarding a multi-year
contract for this program in fiscal year 2003?
Answer. The Army is nearing contract award. The FMTV A1 competitive
rebuy contract award has been delayed until April 2003 while two
remaining certifications/notifications are provided to Congress.
Question. What is the Army's total requirement for the FMTV? What
is the outstanding requirement projected as of the end of fiscal year
2003?
Answer. The Army's total requirement for the FMTV is 83,170 trucks
and 10,000 trailers. As of the end of the current production contract,
the Army will have procured 21,876 trucks and 2,214 trailers, or 26.3
percent and 22.1 percent, respectively, of its total requirement.
Question. When do you anticipate that the Army will have fully met
its FMTV requirements?
Answer. FMTV would meet its total requirement with procurement in
fiscal year 2022, subject to funding levels.
Question. Does the advent of the Stryker Brigades, and ultimately
the Objective Force, alter the Army's requirement for trucks? If so,
please explain.
Answer. There has been an increase in the Army's requirement for
trucks as a result of the Stryker Brigades. However, the total truck
requirement is expected to decrease as a result of the transformation
to the Objective Force. We expect to achieve this reduction through
vehicle technologies that combine medium and heavy tactical vehicles
into a single family of trucks.
Joint Tactical Radio System (JTRS)
Question. The Joint Tactical Radio System (JTRS) program is a
family of software programmable, reconfigurable digital radios that
will support networked voice, data and video transmissions. The program
is managed through a Joint Program Office led by the Army. Nearly $600
million is currently programmed within the Army for JTRS of which
$134.7 million is requested in the fiscal year 2004 budget. Among the
challenges for the system are developing the software which is
fundamental to the system's operation and interoperability with other
radios, and ensuring equal emphasis on this program from all of the
Services each of which has responsibilities in the development of this
system through the Joint Program Office.
What is the current schedule for this program? Do you anticipate
that the Army will meet the established development and fielding
timeline?
Answer. The Army is currently following an aggressive schedule to
develop and field the JTRS Cluster 1 radio. After a successful Army
System Acquisition Review Council in May 2002 and Defense Acquisition
Board in June 2002, a cost-plus award fee contract was awarded to the
Boeing Company in June 2002. The current top-level acquisition schedule
plans for an early operational test beginning in the fourth quarter of
fiscal year 2004, a development/operational/limited user test beginning
in the third quarter of fiscal year 2005, and a multi-service
operational test and evaluation beginning in the fourth quarter of
fiscal year 2006.
These test events provide a basis for decision reviews, which
consist of an overarching integrating product team in the second
quarter of fiscal year 2005, a Milestone C decision in the second
quarter of fiscal year 2006, and a full-rate production decision in the
second quarter of fiscal year 2007. The first unit equipped is the
second quarter of fiscal year 2007.
Since contract award approximately nine months ago, the program has
successfully completed an integrated baseline review, a system design
review, and is closing out remaining actions associated with the
hardware preliminary design reviews. Also upcoming are a software
preliminary design review and a critical design review. The contractor
has indicated that they would like an additional 90 days to get to the
early operational assessment. After the critical design review, a
decision will be made on any movement of the schedule, when sufficient
data will be available. Overall, the Army expects to meet the
established development and fielding timeline established in the
acquisition program baseline, given the currently funded levels.
Question. The JTRS program is managed through a Joint Program
Office for which the Army serves as the lead. Please explain how
management responsibilities and funding are divided between the various
services.
Answer. The JTRS Waveform Program is responsible for funding the
evolution of the software communications architecture, development of
the cryptographic algorithms, and the waveform software application
used by the Service JTRS radios. The JTRS Waveform Program provides the
capstone acquisition strategy, security verification, and JTRS
certification to ensure the cost-effective procurement of interoperable
radios for all the Services. Each grouping of radio procurements is
defined as a Cluster program. Each Cluster program is responsible for
developing, testing, and producing their Cluster radio sets. Each
Service funds their procurement of radios through the Cluster program
that meets their communications requirement.
Question. In your view, are your peers in the other Services
providing equal emphasis on this program to ensure it will meet
established development milestones?
Answer. Yes, the all Services are providing equal emphasis on JTRS.
Each Service will meet their communications requirement through a
grouping of radio procurements or Clusters. Currently, Clusters 1, 2,
3, and 4 have been identified, and the Clusters are successfully
executing to established development milestones.
Question. Please explain the significance of the JTRS program to
Army communications overall and to fielding the Future Combat System
(FCS) in particular.
Answer. The Army Transformation Campaign Plan envisions a seamless
communications architecture that enables interoperability across
Services, platforms, and echelons of command. While numerous radio sets
currently support the Army, JTRS provides a family of interoperable
radio sets, capable of loading multiple waveforms, to support Joint
operations. JTRS enables the Army to support Joint operations by
providing the capability to transmit, receive, bridge, and gateway
between similar and diverse waveforms and network protocols used within
the radio frequency spectrum and across Service boundaries.
The FCS network communications architecture provides network-
centric communications connectivity to the unit of action. The JTRS is
a critical enabler of the FCS command, control, communications,
computers, intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance capabilities.
Every entity within FCS utilizes a software programmable radio and an
associated networking waveform capable of interoperating within the FCS
heterogeneous network. Large ground vehicles will incorporate JTRS
Cluster 1 and utilize the wideband networking waveform for FCS network
interconnectivity. Small air/ground sensors and soldiers utilize the
JTRS small form factor radio along with the embedded networking
waveform for FCS network interconnectivity.
Question. What radios will JTRS eventually replace?
Answer. JTRS will combine the functionality of numerous single
function radios among the services into a single, Joint-interoperable
family of radios. JTRS will operate with many legacy waveforms
currently used by military and civilian agencies and incorporate new
waveforms as they are developed. The components of the JTRS family of
radio sets will be scaleable in terms of form, fit, and cost to meet
specific user operational needs.
Question. What is included in the fiscal year 2004 budget request
for this program? For the out years?
Answer. The fiscal year 2004 budget request for the JTRS Joint
Program Office is $134.7 million. This will fund continued maintenance,
evolution, and configuration control of the software communications
architecture; continued funding of JTRS waveform contracts; continued
development of software cryptographic algorithms and other security-
related activity; continued technology insertion activities; continued
test and certification activities to insure interoperability of all
JTRS systems; management and transition of the Joint Task Force
Warfighter New Equipment Training (WARNET) program; and technical and
non-technical program support. Out year funding is similarly
structured.
The JTRS Cluster 1 program is funded in accordance with Department
of Defense acquisition guidance. This guidance directs that DoD shall
strive to provide realistic cost estimates. As such, the Defense
Acquisition Board decision recognized the aggressive JTRS Cluster 1
schedule and associated cost risk and directed the program to be funded
to reflect Joint Cost Position and Cost Analysis Improvement Group
recommendations. Cluster 1 funding in fiscal year 2005 and out includes
requirements for the continuation of contractual development efforts,
testing, and management and program office support and technical
support requirements.
Question. What progress is planned with the fiscal year 2004
funding?
Answer. The 21 JTRS waveforms included in the Cluster 1 contract
will be ready for early operational assessment in the fourth quarter of
fiscal year 2004 with limited functionality. The Single Channel Ground
and Airborne Radio System, Enhance System Improvement Program waveform
development will be completed, as will the development of a number of
other waveforms. Potentially, development of other JTRS operational
requirements document threshold waveforms will be started, depending on
funding availability. Additionally, the first cryptographic algorithms
will be delivered. Software communications architecture evolution and
configuration control will continue, significant test and certification
activity will occur, and technology insertion opportunities will be
identified and pursued.
The Joint Staff coordination process is nearing completion for the
Joint Task Force WARNET program. This process will further define
requirements for transitioning the program, with results being
implemented by, the Joint Program Office in fiscal year 2004. In fiscal
year 2004, the JTRS Cluster 1 program will continue design,
development, and support of the ground and airborne sets and design of
ground vehicular installation kits for platforms required for testing.
An early operational test is planned for the fourth quarter of fiscal
year 2004, with, ramp-up for conduct and coordination of the test
beginning in fiscal year 2003. The prime contractor and major
subcontractors are expected to complete the build of pre-engineering
development models, and the contractor expects to begin testing JTRS
Cluster 1 prototypes in April 2004. The contractor will also start to
ramp-up for the fabrication and build of the engineering development
models.
Training Ammunition
Question. Describe the process used to develop budget estimates for
training ammunition.
Answer. Ammunition requirements for weapons training are based on
proponent-developed Department of the Army (DA)-approved training
strategies. Once a strategy is approved it is added into DA Pamphlet
350-38 and resourcing for it incorporated into the Program Objective
Memorandum (POM). To get the POM requirement, the Army Training Support
Center maintains a database containing all of the Army's weapons
training strategies and ammunition requirements for each strategy, by
ammunition type and year: Currently, the Army's major commands input
their weapons densities and unit category into the database. The merger
of these sources of data--strategy requirements, weapons densities, and
unit category--provides the annual Army training ammunition
requirements.
The Army is currently transitioning to a new database that will
accommodate the changed format of the revised fiscal year 2005 Army
weapons training strategy. The revised strategy eliminated category
clarifications and is instead organized by a more detailed unit type.
The new data base still requires the Army to input strategy
requirements, but ``feeds'' from other Army data bases will provide
weapons densities by unit identification code, modified table of
organization and equipment, and installation. After the Army major
commands verify this data, a training ammunition requirements report is
generated and serves as the basis for DA-approved training ammunition
requirements. Additionally, several Army major commands submit non-
approved training requirements for consideration. Training related to
contingency operations is an example of these non-approved
requirements.
Once the baseline Army training ammunition requirements are
developed, a number of DA and Army Materiel Command staff agencies meet
to discuss issues such as execution rates, supply availability, and
anticipated production for each type of ammunition. Decisions about
what to program and in what quantities emerge from these meetings.
Question. The Committee understands that the fiscal year 2004
budget request provides ammunition sufficient to meet a ``C-2'' level
of training readiness. Why?
Answer. Army training ammunition is funded at the C-2 level in
FY04. The Army desires to fund training ammunition at the C-1 level,
but the reality is that training ammunition competes for funding with
other Army priorities. While there is moderate risk in funding training
ammunition at the C-2 level, the FY04 budget reflects the best balance
between available funds and Army priorities.
Question. Given deployments for the global war on terrorism and
potentially in Iraq, is the Army executing its live-fire training
program at a ``C-2'' level or higher? Please explain.
Answer. For fiscal year 2004, the Army is funded at the C-2 level
for training ammunition. At present, however, the Army is executing its
live-fire training program at the C-1 level, and for some types of
munitions, above the C-1 level. First, as Reserve Component (RC) units
prepare to deploy, whether for U.S. or overseas missions, they are
required to train to Active Component standards. For most, this entails
individual weapons qualification. However, some RC units must also
perform collective training as well as individual qualification.
Second, prior to the start of any operations in Iraq; units in the area
of operations conduct a more intense level of training than that
prescribed by the Army's peacetime weapons training strategy. Not only
do they train to more rigorous levels, but they also conduct
familiarization training with a few items not normally trained in
peacetime. The intent behind such training is to ensure soldiers
understand how the munitions will perform before they actually use them
for the first time in combat. Third, the number of contingency
operations involving Army soldiers has grown in recent years. In
addition to supporting training for operations in Iraq, Afghanistan,
and the United States, we also are supporting training for soldiers for
operations in Guantanamo Bay, Kosovo, and Bosnia. Training ammunition
support for these unprogrammed requirements currently is being sourced
from other, lower-priority units' training ammunition, or from other
available stocks.
Question. What opportunities are provided for live-fire training
with modernized or preferred munitions in this budget request?
Answer. In most cases, the modernized or preferred round cannot be
fired on existing ranges because of environmental or safety danger zone
restrictions.
Additionally, preferred and modernized rounds tend to be expensive.
Nonetheless, the Army has programmed a variety of training-unique
variants of these rounds and has incorporated them into its current
weapons training strategies. Examples include the 120mm tank training
round, 25mm training round, 30mm training round, and the 120mm mortar
full-range training round.
Question. The Committee understands that the Army's policy for
live-fire training with modernized or preferred munitions such as
shoulder-launched missiles is one missile per nine-man squad per year.
All other training is conducted with ``sub-caliber'' devices. Why does
the Army limit training on such systems? Has such training expanded in
the wake of recent U.S. deployments?
Answer. The Army limits live-fire training with modernized or
preferred munitions for a number of reasons, including safety,
environmental constraints, and the high cost of many of the munitions
involved. The use of training aids, devices, simulators, and
simulations helps hold down the cost of live-fire training while still
training soldiers to standard. However, in addition to training to more
rigorous levels during training in Afghanistan and Kuwait, units also
trained with a few items for which Army training strategies have no
live-fire requirement. Javelin missiles were an example of such an
item. The intent behind training with these and other items not
normally used in live-fire training was to ensure soldiers understood
how the munitions would perform before they actually used them for the
first time in combat.
War Reserve Ammunition
Question. The Army has a backlog of approximately $1 billion in war
reserves of ammunition. The fiscal year 2004 budget request includes
$1.3 billion for procurement of ammunition of which $139 million is for
war reserve stocks. The overall funding level for ammunition in the
fiscal year 2004 request is $56.9 million greater than 2003.
Please describe the state of the war reserve of ammunition. What
are the total stockage requirements by major types of ammunitions
(small arms, tank ammo, mortars, etc.)? What are the present fill
levels for these categories?
Answer. Significant shortages of key preferred munitions exist
throughout the Army inventory. Underfunded programs, production
stoppages, and other obstacles continue to exacerbate already short
munitions lines. Additionally, the global war on terrorism, unresourced
mobilization, and surge training have further reduced stocks maintained
in stateside depots which are used to source ammunition basic loads and
sustainment stocks.
The following table lists the total requirements and percentage
fill for conventional ammunition war reserve stockage requirements and
percentage fill. The categories do not include missile items.
CONVENTIONAL AMMUNITION WAR RESERVE STOCKAGE REQUIREMENTS AND FILL
PERCENTAGE
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Main categories Requirements Percent fill
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tank.................................... 241,325 83
SBCT Main Gun Systems................... 19,536 100
Mortars................................. 1,251,284 60
Artillery............................... 23,277,361 71
Rockets................................. 261,610 17
Anti-Tank Rockets....................... 163,647 54
Demolition.............................. 26,220,710 77
Small Arms.............................. 826,743,769 69
Medium Caliber.......................... 24,400,701 79
Illumination/Pyrotechnics............... 2,675,167 100
Mine/Countermine........................ 935,208 53
Non-Lethal.............................. 5,319,077 19
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question. How much of the $1.3 billion included for ammunition in
the fiscal year 2004 budget request goes toward filling war reserve
requirements?
Answer. The Army Procurement of Ammunition appropriation for fiscal
year 2004 includes $129 million for ammunition which goes toward
filling war reserve requirements.
Question. Have war reserve requirements changed as a result of the
global war on terrorism and other potential deployments?
Answer. War reserve requirements have not been affected. Munitions
required to fight terrorism and arm units for potential deployments are
included in the Army's requirements to defend the homeland, fight two
overlapping wars, and conduct small-scale contingencies.
Question. Do you anticipate that a supplemental funding request for
fiscal year 2003 will include a component for ammunition war reserves?
If so what is the Army's estimate?
Answer. Yes, the Army's request will include a component for
ammunition war reserves. The Army's estimated cost to replenish war
reserve ammunition is currently being refined based upon revised
planning assumptions. Once completed, the Army's requirement will be
contained within the overall Department of Defense supplemental
request.
Land Warrior Program
Question. $94.8 million is included in Other Procurement, Army in
fiscal year 2004 to provide for the initial procurement of the Land
Warrior system. Land Warrior provides dismounted forces with common
digital situational data and links to other weapons such as tanks and
artillery. The Army plans to procure an additional 4,800 sets through a
low-rate initial production contract in fiscal years 2005-2006.
The fiscal year 2004 budget request includes $94.8 million for
procurement of about 2,000 Land Warrior sets. What is the basis for the
initial procurement quantity of these items?
Answer. Land Warrior initial capability, or Block I operational
requirement document (ORD) compliant, systems were slated for
production in fiscal year 2004. The 1,875 Land Warrior initial
capability systems were intended only for the 75th Ranger Regiment. The
remaining 100 systems were to be used by the Army Training and Doctrine
Command schools. Although full functionality of the Land Warrior
initial capability system was achieved during developmental testing,
overall results and low demonstrated reliability in an early functional
assessment indicated that this system would not likely be reliable
enough to enter operational testing as originally planned. As a result,
the program is now concentrating on the Land Warrior-Stryker
Interoperable/Block II system and will not produce any units in fiscal
year 2004. The Army is working to re-designate the fiscal year 2004
Land Warrior procurement dollars to support additional research,
development, testing, and evaluation and procurement of items under the
Rapid Fielding Initiative.
Question. What capability will the initial Land Warrior sets
provide?
Answer. The Land Warrior initial capability system was originally
designed to meet the Block I ORD requirements such as increased command
and control through situational awareness and understanding, enhanced
soldier survivability with improved body armor, increased mobility with
use of global positioning system, and other enhancements in soldier
equipment. Key requirements for the Block I system were to provide
increased functionality without increasing the soldier's current load
and provide a 12-hour power requirement to power the Land Warrior
system in any operational environment. Program focus has shifted to
design, development, and fielding of the Land Warrior Stryker-
Interoperable system. Land Warrior Stryker-Interoperable is scheduled
for full production in fiscal year 2006 with the first unit equipped in
fiscal year 2006. The Land Warrior Stryker-Interoperable system will
meet all Block I and II ORD requirements.
Question. What is the fielding plan for Land Warrior?
Answer. The Land Warrior Stryker-Interoperable system will be
fielded to the 75th Ranger Regiment and six Stryker Brigade Combat
Teams starting in fiscal year 2006 and ending in fiscal year 2008. The
Army then plans to begin fielding an upgraded version of Land Warrior
to the Special Forces Groups and the Objective Force units of action
beginning in fiscal year 2009.
Question. Weight has always been a technical problem for the Land
Warrior system. Initial versions of the hardware weighed as much as 92
pounds. Describe the units that the Army proposes to buy in fiscal year
2004 and how the Army has addressed weight issues for this system.
Answer. The Land Warrior ORD reflects a 40-pound objective and 50-
pound threshold weight requirement for the advanced capability/Block
III system. The Land Warrior program is chartered with integrating
currently fielded and proposed government-furnished and contractor-
designed equipment into a system that provides overmatch capability to
the infantryman and those who fight with infantrymen. The Army looks at
reducing the soldier's load by pursuing technologies that can produce
high-payoff weight savings, advanced battery technologies, the XM8
advanced combat rifle, and science and technology programs such as the
Objective Force Warrior advanced technology demonstration and
lightweight Squad Automatic Weapon.
Question. The Army budget request indicates that the Land Warrior
sets planned for procurement in 2004 represent a mix of commercial and
military specific items. Please indicate which components are
commercial and which are military specific.
Answer. The Land Warrior program intends to take advantage of
state-of-the-art commercially developed items such as local area
network technology and antennae, audio headset, and microphone that
meet specific Land Warrior requirements. Other commercial products that
meet or exceed Land Warrior objective requirements will be integrated
as pre-planned product improvements.These components will be integrated
into military items such as the Modular Lightweight Load-carrying
Equipment, Advanced Combat Helmet, Integrated Body Armor, and uniform
enhancements to provide the soldier with an optimum fighting system
tailored to his specific mission requirements.
Question. Has the mix of commercial and military specific
components changed over the course of the Land Warrior system's
development?
Answer. Yes. As commercially developed technologies mature, we
continue to add improvements to the Land Warrior system design to
improve functionality and reduce weight. We will continue to explore
areas in order to meet the weight and power objectives of the ORD in a
spiral development of the Objective Force Warrior to continue to
provide emerging technologies, particularly in the area of power
management. As we integrate commercial and military specific
components, we have two main concerns relating to security issues and
environmental concerns. Security concerns include soldiers operating in
various networks while being protected from radio frequency jamming or
interception from the enemy. Commercially developed hardware must also
be ruggedized to be able to withstand the rigor of a battlefield
environment and still be able to operate in austere environments
without mission-affecting failures.
Question. Please describe the relationship between Land Warrior and
the Objective Force Warrior system that is presently in research and
development.
Answer. Objective Force Warrior is a science and technology
advanced technology demonstration program that will demonstrate the
technologies and prototype design of an integrated soldier system of
systems at Technology Readiness Level 6 providing a revolutionary
increase in the operational effectiveness of soldiers and small teams,
with a 50-pound fighting load and 24-hour sustained operations without
resupply. The demonstration will include squad level (with platoon
headquarters and lateral squad leaders) iterative limited objective
experiments and capstone demonstration with 20 to 25 prototype systems
during fiscal year 2006. The Objective Force Warrior advanced
technology demonstration will transition the technology and system
design to Program Executive Office (PEO)-Soldier for the acquisition
and fielding of the Land Warrior advanced capability (Block III) that
will support the Objective Force unit of action.
Question. When does the Army plan to begin the transition to
fielding Objective Force Warrior?
Answer. The Objective Force Warrior advanced technology
demonstration will conclude in fiscal year 2006 with the transition of
a soldier system of systems to PEO-Soldier for system development and
demonstration of Land Warrior-advanced capability. The transition
strategy also includes early insertion of mature component technologies
to the initial versions of Land Warrior. PEO-Soldier is involved with
the planning and conduct of the Objective Force Warrior advanced
technology demonstration, particularly program oversight and the
capstone demonstration. The Objective Force Warrior advanced technology
demonstration contractual mechanism includes an option to move directly
into system development and design.
Venture Capital Fund
Question. In the fiscal year 2002 Department of Defense
Appropriations Act, the Congress provided $25 million for the Army to
establish a Venture Capital Fund to identify and develop novel
commercial sector technologies for military application. In the fiscal
year 2003 DoD Appropriations Act, Section 8105 provided the Army with
the authority to transfer up to $20 million in unobligated research and
development balances to continue this fund for fiscal years 2003-2005.
What measures has the Army taken to establish and operate the
Venture Capital Fund over the past two years?
Answer. In September 2002, the Army issued a Broad Agency
Announcement to solicit proposals to manage the venture capital
initiative provided for by the Section 8150 of the 2002 Department of
Defense Appropriations Act. The Army received 20 proposals in response
to the BAA and has selected a winning proposal. The Army is required by
the 2002 Department of Defense Appropriations Act to use an ``Other
Transaction'' (OT) as the basis of the agreement between itself and the
entity managing the venture capital initiative. The OT is currently
being negotiated between the Army and winning company. The negotiations
are expected to be completed and the OT signed by the end of April
2003.
Question. How much of the funding provided in the FY 2002
Appropriations bill has been obligated to date?
Answer. At this time, none of the $25 million provided by Section
8150 of the fiscal year 2002 Department of Defense Appropriations Act
has been obligated for the Venture Capital Investment Corporation. The
Army will obligate the entire $25 million at execution of the OT
agreement between the Army and the not-for-profit corporation that will
manage the venture capital. The Army expects this will occur at the end
of April 2003.
Question. What technologies has the Army focused on with the
funding provided through the Venture Capital fund?
Answer. The Army is using the opportunity of the venture capital
initiative to focus on technology associated with power and energy for
the soldier. Technologies of interest include, but are not limited to,
devices, systems and software that generate, store, control, and manage
the power and energy required by the individual soldier for
communications, computing, sensing, weapons functioning, mobility, and
comfort. Parameters of interest for these technologies include low
weight and volume, safety, reliability, cost effectiveness, longevity,
reduced system power requirements, and minimal logistics impact.
Question. Please describe the measures the Army uses to conduct
oversight and management of the Fund's activities.
Answer. The Army plans on requiring periodic reporting by the not-
for-profit corporation that will manage its venture capital initiative.
Additionally, the OT agreement will include incentive structures to
encourage the attainment of Army goals for the initiative. Finally, the
Army also anticipates that the not-for-profit corporation that will
manage the venture fund will notify the Army through the Army
agreements officer when it plans on taking significant investment
actions.
Question. Would you recommend establishing permanent authority for
the Venture Capital Fund?
Answer. While this initiative is still early in its development, it
does appear to hold considerable promise. The initial response to the
Broad Agency Announcement, as well as the Central Intelligence Agency's
success with In-Q-Tel, is encouraging. Section 8105 of the fiscal year
2003 Department of Defense Appropriations Act allows funding the Army
venture capital initiative for an additional three years. This
provision will provide the Army the flexibility and authority it needs
in the near term to maximize the opportunities for making its venture
capital initiative a success and for determining whether to recommend
that Congress provide permanent authority for the initiative.
Patriot PAC-3 Missile
Question. The fiscal year 2004 budget request proposes $561.6
million to procure 108 Patriot PAC-3 missiles. Including the
acceleration of this program funded in the fiscal year 2003 Omnibus
Appropriations Act, $592.2 million is available for this program in
fiscal year 2003. The Omnibus added $104 million to the program and
increased the procurement quantity to 100 missiles. The fiscal year
2004 budget also proposes transferring funding and management of this
program from the Missile Defense Agency to the Army.
Please explain results of the Patriot PAC-3 acceleration funded in
the fiscal year 2003 Omnibus Appropriations Act.
Answer. Fiscal year 2003 acceleration funding provided for an
accelerated delivery schedule for low-rate initial production (LRIP)-2
and LRIP-3 missiles. LRIP-2 (40 missiles) will be delivered three
months ahead of the contracted schedule and LRIP-3 (72 missiles), 10
months ahead of schedule. Fiscal year 2003 acceleration funding also
provided for the procurement of 12 additional missiles in fiscal year
2003 bringing the fiscal year 2003 contract total to 100.
Question. Does the quantity proposed in the fiscal year 2004 budget
rely on the acceleration funded in the fiscal year 2003 Omnibus
Appropriations Act?
Answer. No, the fiscal year 2004 schedule is based on the
accelerated program but the quantity is independent.
Question. What quantity of Patriot PAC-3 missiles is proposed in
fiscal year 2004? Through the Future Years Defense Program (FYDP).
Answer. A total buy of 108 PAC-3 missiles is proposed in fiscal
year 2004, and the fiscal year 2004 President's budget presents a total
buy through the FYDP of 1,159.
Question. Please explain how accelerating the Patriot PAC-3 program
fits into the Administration's plan to deploy a national missile
defense system in 2004-2005?
Answer. Patriot is the only fielded system capable of defeating
tactical ballistic missiles. Patriot is an element of the Ballistic
Missile Defense System.
Question. Over the past two years, the Department of Defense
proposed funding both research and development for the Patriot PAC-3
system as well as procurement within the Army. In both instances, the
Congress transferred both management and funding to the Missile Defense
Agency. The fiscal year 2004 budget again proposes funding Patriot PAC-
3 in the Army. Why? What criteria were used to determine whether the
Army or Missile Defense Agency should fund and manage this program?
Answer. Subsection 224(b) of title 10, United States Code, requires
the establishment of criteria for the transfer of responsibility for a
ballistic missile defense program from the Director, Missile Defense
Agency (MDA) to the Secretary of a military department. On December 30,
2002, the Under Secretary of Defense (Acquisition, Technology and
Logistics) established the following criteria to carry out production
plans: technical maturity; availability of facilities for production;
and funds programmed in the Future Years Defense Program.
In accordance with subsection 224(c), the Under Secretary of
Defense (Acquisition, Technology and Logistics) certified that PAC-3
met the established criteria and notified Congress of his intent to
transfer the PAC-3 program to the Army, including the responsibility
for research, development, test, and evaluation related to Army
requirements. Additionally, the Under Secretary of Defense
(Acquisition, Technology and Logistics) informed Congress that, in
conjunction with the transfer of responsibility for PAC-3 program, the
Medium Extended Air Defense System would be realigned from the Missile
Defense Agency to the Army.
Chemical Agents Demilitarization
Question. In fiscal year 2003, the Army received nearly $1.49
billion for Chemical Agents and Munitions Destruction. This amount
included funding to assemble equipment for the plants used to destroy
chemical agents and munitions. The fiscal year 2004 request totals
$1.65 billion, and includes $119.8 million for military construction
that the Administration proposes transferring from the Military
Construction budget request to the Department of Defense request.
Please explain the reasoning behind the transfer of funds from
Military Construction to the Chemical Agents and Munitions Destruction
account.
Answer. Section 141(b) of the fiscal year 2003 National Defense
Authorization Act requires, beginning in fiscal year 2004, the Under
Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) shall submit an annual certification
to Congress that the budget request for the chemical agents and
munitions destruction program has been submitted in accordance with the
requirements of Section 1412 of the National Defense Authorization Act
of 1986. The 1986 Authorization Act requires that chemical
demilitarization funds be set forth in the budget in a separate account
and not included in the budget accounts for any military department. In
order to comply with the fiscal year 2003 Authorization Act language,
funding for the chemical demilitarization program, including
construction, is consolidated into a single account. The Army will
maintain executive agent responsibility for this program.
Question. How does the transfer of this funding help the
effectiveness of the program?
Answer. The inclusion of construction funding in the single
Chemical Agents and Munitions Destruction, Army account is not expected
to change the effectiveness of the program.
[Clerk's note.-- End of questions submitted by Mr. Lewis.
The Fiscal Year 2004 Army Posture Statement, as referred to on
page 4 follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Thursday, March 20, 2003.
FISCAL YEAR 2004 NAVY POSTURE
WITNESSES
HON. HANSFORD T. JOHNSON, ACTING SECRETARY OF THE NAVY
ADMIRAL VERNON CLARK, CHIEF OF NAVAL OPERATIONS, UNITED STATES NAVY
GENERAL MICHAEL W. HAGEE, COMMANDANT OF THE MARINE CORPS, UNITED STATES
MARINE CORPS
Introduction
Mr. Lewis. The Committee will come to order.
This morning, it is my privilege to welcome the Honorable
H.T. Johnson, Acting Secretary of the Navy, and Admiral Vernon
Clark, Chief of Naval Operations, as well as General Michael
Hagee, the Commandant of the Marine Corps.
Chief, and Commandant, and Mr. Secretary, welcome. We will
probably all keep our statements reasonably brief this morning
and spend what time we can in exchange; but I want you to know
that if we are brief, it is not out of any lack of respect for
either our statements or yours, but rather because of the very
important work you are about this moment. All of us know that
the ships at sea are at the point of this effort in the Middle
East. And indeed as our men and women are beginning to go into
action, it is a critical time for the country, I think for the
world as well.
It is important for me to say to you, but also to say to
those who are listening, that some people are talking about
transforming the military around this town. The Navy clearly
gets it, they are way out on that point as well, making
changes, a new direction for both the Navy and the Marine Corps
that I think bodes very well for our country's future.
I have said before that these budgets are sizeable. They
are not nearly as sizeable as some of us would prefer, but
nonetheless sizeable. And we spend this money on behalf of
peace, and our effort in the Middle East at this moment is a
reflection of the President's commitment, the Commander in
Chief's commitment to carry forward the war on terrorism and to
eliminate those who would use that negative force to have their
way in the world. It is very important for all of us to know as
well that even though this battle has begun--and we hope that
this one will end reasonably swiftly--that is only the
beginning.
And so the discussion of the fiscal 2004 Budget for the
Navy sets a plane that is a reflection of not just today's
requirement, but the requirement for many years ahead. The
challenge is very real. We are taking it seriously. I know that
you are taking it seriously, too.
Before I call on you, Mr. Secretary, let me call on my
colleague Jack Murtha.
Mr. Murtha. In light of what the Chairman said, I have no
further comments. I am looking forward to getting you guys out
of here.
Mr. Lewis. Mr. Secretary, I have shown this to you, but I
might let the audience know that already the Navy is sending
pictures by way of e-mail which you can print out. This picture
is of a Tomahawk missile that was fired last night off the USS
DONALD COOK. It is the reflection of the will as well as the
capability of the United States Navy and American forces.
Recognition of Greg Walters, Committee Staff
Welcome, gentlemen. Now, I wonder if I could, before you
start, I see a friend of mine has walked into the room. So
before we start, I want to welcome a gentleman who has left our
staff to go out in the private world. We don't have the
capability to fund our fine staff at levels that we should when
they have young children, especially in this marketplace. I am
afraid those who would communicate with us about military
matters have needs as well, perhaps as great a need as we have.
This young man has worked with our Committee for 18 years,
has been on the Subcommittee for most of those years, most
recently he was responsible for Navy programs. But he is well
noted in the community as one of the real experts in
acquisition and, to say the least, has helped us begin to raise
questions about the challenges we have relative to acquisition
over time.
So with that, let me let him know that we are proud of his
service and look forward to continuing a relationship. We want
to thank you, Greg Walters. Stand up, will you, Greg? We thank
you, Greg. And while we will miss you, we wish you and Sarah
and Evan the best of all that is available in the months and
years ahead.
So, Mr. Secretary, that is a very appropriate way to begin.
Summary Statement of Secretary Johnson
Secretary Johnson. Thank you, sir. Mr. Chairman,
Congressman Murtha, I will follow your lead and have very brief
comments. It is an honor to appear before you.
Today, in the Persian Gulf and around the world, our Nation
is well served by the most professional and capable naval force
in the world. I hope that each of you, and Greg, will take
great pride in preparing this force for doing what they are
asked to do now. Over the last few years you have certainly
prepared our Marines, Sailors, and all the Armed Forces for the
job that lies ahead. Our Marines, Sailors, along with Army, Air
Force, and Coast Guard partners, are on station around the
world defending our country, working on the war, global war on
terrorism, as well as just representing our country around the
world, as you well know.
Today, 73 percent of our ships are at sea, which is a very
high percent, and Admiral Clark will talk about that; 66
percent of our Marines' operating forces are forwarddeployed.
In fact, if you looked very carefully, you would find the percent is
probably even a little higher. They are on the front line, and they are
well prepared to do our Nation's desires.
People are our most precious resource. We can provide the
best equipment, but if we don't have the people capable of
operating that, we aren't very successful. Our recruiting and
retention have been at all-time highs, and we are very proud of
our sailors and Marines as they go forward.
FISCAL YEAR 2004 BUDGET REQUEST
In this year's budget we have tried to look forward. We
made some very difficult decisions, particularly on retiring
some ships. But we are building new ships. We have dedicated
$11.4 billion to construct ships, to convert some of the old
SSBNs to SSGNs, two more, and also to do our cruiser
conversion.
We continue to look at aircraft also, buying 100 new
aircraft. As you mentioned, Mr. Chairman, we would like to buy
more, but we want to make sure that what we have are well
maintained and manned by capable sailors and Marines.
We are also taking a new approach to how we build ships and
how we build everything in our Department and I think across
the Department of Defense. Our next-generation aircraft carrier
will use new techniques; it will be an electric ship, if you
will. We are also looking at the DD(X) as a centerpiece as we
move forward. And, as many of you know, we are working on the
Littoral Combat Ship. In all of these we are looking at the
hull, if you will--we call it the sea frame--and then we are
looking at putting equipment on board the sea frame, and then
finally putting electronics at the last minute, to get
electronics that is up to date. We continue to move forward on
the Joint Strike Fighter, upgrading the Hawkeye. And realizing
the EA-6B Prowler is our most difficult aircraft to maintain
and are planned by EA-18G to replace that.
As you well know, the cost of operations and the support of
the Global War on Terrorism are not part of our fiscal year
2004 budget. We have not yet sent over a supplemental. We will
be working on that very closely with you as we go forward.
On behalf of all the sailors and Marines around the world,
I would like to thank this Committee for equipping them and
making them ready.
I would also like to say as a personal comment, that you
have very strong leaders over the Navy and Marine Corps.
Admiral Clark and General Hagee are dynamic leaders that our
Marines and sailors follow around the world. We thank you, sir,
and I look forward to answering your questions.
Mr. Lewis. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
[The biographical sketch and statement of Secretary Johnson
follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Lewis. Chief.
Summary Statement of Admiral Clark
Admiral Clark. Thank you, Mr. Secretary, and Congressman
Murtha, and members of the Committee. And I just want to start
by saying what a privilege it is for me to be here this
morning, appearing alongside my number one joint partner,
General Hagee, as part of the Navy/Marine Corps team.
And Mr. Chairman, you can imagine that I suffer a little
bit from preoccupation with other things today, but it is a
privilege for me to be here and represent the men and women of
the United States Navy.
SHIPS FORWARD DEPLOYED
Secretary Johnson talked about how much my Navy was
underway. He did not mention this number: 55 percent of my Navy
is forward deployed, engaged in this forward deployment in the
global war against terrorism.
I would like to talk about taking the sovereignty of the
United States of America to the far corners of the Earth, and
that is what they are doing today. Mr. Chairman, when I wrote
my notes, I said they have to be over there to be ready when
and if the President orders us to action. Of course, this
morning we know that it is; they have to be ready as he orders
them to action. And we got to see that last night.
We oftentimes talk about the gray ships. We don't talk
about some of the other part of the structure. Over 130 ships
are also underway, some leased, some owned, supporting the land
forces alone. I just want to say--and I will keep my comments
as brief as possible--that I have never seen this Navy this
ready since I have been part of it, and that is since 1968. I
believe that it is that way because we are realizing the return
on investment made by the Congress representing the citizens of
the United States of America. And I believe that the action
going on right now is proof positive that the judgments made
were absolutely the right judgments.
I want to thank the Congress for the steps taken to help
motivate our people to serve. And I won't go into each of them.
Let us just say that we know there are a lot of pieces to this
calculus, but we are realizing, as the Secretary said, the
greatest retention that we have ever realized in our history.
It is because of a lot of things, including the fact that they
are reading the signals from the citizens of the United States
of America, and that signal is that they appreciate what our
young men and women are doing. They are making it possible for
us to have the kind of ready force that we are seeing in action
right now.
There are a lot of programs that make it possible. I have
outlined that in my written testimony, and I won't go into it
here.
READINESS
For the last 2\1/2\ years, I have been coming up here. This
is the third budget that we have talked about, and I have
talked about the importance of readiness. And I believe that
the gains that we have realized in three years speak for
themselves here. Now, we are up here to talk about the fiscal
year 2004 budget, and a key to our action and our discussion
today is about sustaining those gains, making it possible for
us to continue to represent the Nation around the globe, but
also to move forward and continue to transform our Navy and our
number one partner, the Marine Corps.
We create a Navy that gives the President of the United
States options--when I talk to our people, I tell them that is
what we are about. That is why we are out there--and to give
joint force commanders the kind of combat capability that they
need.
And our vision for future readiness--in previous years, I
have talked about current readiness and the battle for people,
and the number three priority was future readiness. Our vision
for how to proceed in creating the future is Sea Power 21. And
again, that is all itemized and documented in my written
statement, and I won't go into detail here except to say it is
about Sea Strike, projecting offense. It is about Sea Shield,
projecting defense; something that we haven't been able to do
that we need to be able to do in the future. And it is about
Sea Basing, the ability to protect American sovereignty from
the sea, the operational independence that comes from operating
from the largest maneuver space in the planet, the world's
oceans.
INVESTMENT STRATEGY
So this year's investment strategy continues the commitment
to readiness, it continues the commitment to people and the
battle for people, while it focuses more sharply than any
budget that I have been associated with on building for the
future.
The DD(X), Littoral Combat Ship, conceived from the
beginning, from its birth, to be manned, to be equipped with
unmanned vehicles under the sea, on the sea, in the air, to
take the fight to the enemy and dominate the battlespace in the
near land arenas where I am convinced our future enemy is going
to come after us.
The E and F-18G, brand-new program, CVN-21. I am so excited
about our ability to leap ahead and the potential in the
platform. Virginia class submarines. Missile defense. The
President has announced the intention that we are going to
field the sea-based--interim sea-based capability next year and
we are going to do that. When I talk to our folks today, I talk
to them about this.
And you talked about the size of budgets, and my call to
them is, look, we have got to learn how to be more effective.
And as we are more effective, we will also be more efficient.
As the Congress and those who support us work to make sure
that we have the resources that we need, we have to do our
part, too. And we are doing a number of things to try to make
ourselves more effective and efficient. And I will mention just
one this morning, a manning experiment called Optimum Manning,
to see if there are ways that we can introduce technology and
make it better. Last night, the USS MILIUS, one of those two
ships that are involved in that manning experiment, with 23
percent less people on it than all of the rest of the DDGs, was
part of the group of six that launched the initial TLAM strikes
into Iraq.
Another is Sea Swap. I won't talk about it, except we are
doing experiments to become more effective and more efficient.
So we are doing our part to create the resources to build the
21st century Navy. I would just say that in this submission, we
were able to redirect almost $2 billion directly to procurement
accounts for that purpose. And over the FYDP, the number is
much larger, and our goal is to continue that process as we
build for the future.
SUMMARY
And so, Mr. Chairman, in short, the Navy is on the line.
Your Navy is ready. It is forward deployed, it is on scene, it
is in the fight. We are focusing on the future while making
sure that we are prepared for today. The young men and women of
your Nation's Navy are serving right now with distinction. And
I will tell you that one of the proudest moments of my career
is having the chance to represent them in front of this
Congress and tell you and speak to the people of America about
what they are doing on the point. And so I thank you for the
opportunity to be here today, and I look forward to your
questions, sir.
Mr. Lewis. Thank you very much, Admiral Clark.
[The statement of Admiral Clark follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Lewis. General Hagee.
Summary Statement of General Hagee
General Hagee. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Congressman
Murtha, distinguished members of this Committee. It is really
an honor for me to be before you today to represent your Marine
Corps. I would like to thank each of you for your strong
support for the issues and programs that are of such vital
interest to the readiness of our Armed Forces.
I would particularly like to thank you for your immediate
assistance in the fiscal year 2003 omnibus appropriations bill.
I recently returned from a visit to the Central Command theater
of operations, and I can report to you that your Marines are
ready, they are well trained, they are well equipped, thanks to
you, and their morale is unbelievably high.
MARINE CORPS DEPLOYMENTS
Along with our sister services, the Navy/Marine Corps team
continues to play a key role in the Global War on Terrorism and
the establishment of stability and security in many of the
world's troubled spots. Marines, both active and Reserve, are
operating side by side with Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, NGOs,
diplomats, and many others in diverse locations around the
globe, from Afghanistan to the Arabian Gulf, the Horn of
Africa, Turkey, Georgian Republic, Colombia, Guantanamo Bay,
and the Philippines.
Today Marines are flying from Bagram Air Base in
Afghanistan, from Navy carriers at sea, and from bases along
the Arabian Gulf littoral. As the Secretary mentioned,
currently 66 percent of the Marine Corps operating forces are
forward deployed, most of them in Kuwait, and almost 90 percent
of our operating forces are either forward deployed, forward
based, or forward stationed.
Marine Corps operations throughout the past year have
highlighted diversity and utility of our expeditionary forces.
Although we have had one of our busiest years in terms of
operational deployments, participation and realistic worldwide
exercises remain critical to supporting theater security
cooperation plans and ensuring we maintain a ready and capable
force.
Along with the Navy, we are moving out with new
organizational concepts mentioned by the Chief of Naval
Operations. These include Tactical Air Integration, Carrier and
Expeditionary Strike Groups, Joint Network Sea Basing that the
CNO mentioned. These concepts will make us more responsive,
flexible, and effective in the future.
FISCAL YEAR 2004 BUDGET REQUEST
The fiscal year 2004 budget continues our efforts to
modernize and transform the force. Support that you and
Congress have provided over the last two years has helped us
make real progress in our modernization, transformation,
personnel, and readiness accounts. And as the CNO mentioned,
without your support over the last few years, we could not be
doing what we are doing today.
While Marines and their families have benefitted from
increased appropriations for targeted pay raises and improved
family houses and barracks, this Committee's support for
important procurement programs has ensured that our Marines are
better equipped and better prepared to survive any danger.
With regard to transformation and modernization, I am happy
to report that our top Marine Corps ground programs are
adequately funded over the FYDP. Among these are the Advanced
Amphibious Assault Vehicle, the High Mobility Artillery Rocket
System, and the Joint Lightweight 155 Howitzer.
On the aviation side, we are on track for funding for the
V-22, the Joint Strike Fighter, and the four-bladed Cobra, and
Huey upgrades.
READINESS AND CONTINGENCY REQUIREMENTS
Finally, we continue to make needed progress in readiness.
Having recently come from the operating forces, I can tell you
there is a marked positive improvement in the way we are
funding for readiness now compared with just a few years ago.
Much of that improvement can be directly attributed to the
support that you and the rest of the Congress have provided
over the last few years.
My main concern today, as mentioned by the Secretary of the
Navy, with regard to funding is due to unplanned demands of
current operations. We are using our third and fourth quarter
funding to finance the Global War on Terrorism and for
operations in Iraq. Clearly, our current contingency
requirements are significant and exceed the appropriations
provided to date. We ask for your continued support and will
provide all required supporting details once the Commander in
Chief has submitted his supplemental request.
That concern notwithstanding, your Marines are currently
doing what they have been trained to do and equipped to do.
They are forward deployed and ready to support the Nation
through whatever challenges lie ahead. We know who we are and
we must be prepared to defend this great country. We will
remain your only sea-based, rotational, truly expeditionary
combined arms force ready to answer the call anytime, anywhere,
as part of an Integrated Joint Force.
On behalf of all your Marines and families, sir, we thank
this Committee, and I look forward to your questions.
[The biographical sketch and statement of General Hagee
follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
VIRGINIA CLASS SUBMARINE ISSUES
Mr. Lewis. That was a hoorah you heard back there.
Gentlemen, we all want you to know we are very proud of the
work that you are about. I find that we often spend a lot of
time in this Committee, a lot more time than one might think,
talking about air power. And I am sure that among my colleagues
there will be some discussion of that today as well as some
discussion about the supplemental.
We are going to be having a vote shortly after the hour,
and it is going to involve two or three votes, so we are going
to try to get your business done rather quickly. Members are
going to be submitting questions for the record in an unusual
volume rather than discussing these things here.
You have work to do that is serious work, but in the
meantime, receiving information regarding the fiscal year 2004
budget is fundamental to our ability to help you as well.
I would like to spend just initially some moments
discussing ships at sea. Clearly one of the most significant
capabilities we have in terms of providing American presence
around the world involve those ships. One of the elements of
all of that that has always fascinated me is what we can do as
we extend that power to have our enemy or potential enemy
wonder whether or not we are there. And so that which is under
the sea is really very, very basic to that which you described,
Chief, and Mr. Secretary. I am concerned and the Committee is
concerned about ongoing difficulties with the cost of providing
submarine power. The Virginia class is a reflection of the
heart of our concern. So I wonder if you would spend a few
moments discussing that with the Committee, and then we will go
forward.
Admiral Clark. Absolutely, Mr. Chairman. I have the same
concerns you do. I do believe that we have taken measures in
this budget that have the potential to help this process along
greatly. One of the things in the fiscal year 2004 budget is an
investment to get to economic order quantity numbers that make
it more effective and efficient to build any--it doesn't matter
if it is a submarine or anything else. When your building rate
is down, you pay excessive overhead and it runs the cost up.
And when you look at the submarine program in particular,
you see a number of areas. The contract is written in a way
that when there are wage agreements that would be passed back,
those are added to the contract and so forth. And those are
issues, and those are the sources of some of the increase. But
the right thing for us to do is to get to a multiyear that
allows the contractor to go to suppliers and do long-term
acquisition of components so that the supplier can operate at a
more effective base, and for us to get to multiple submarines a
year to get on the right place on the production curve so that
we are making better use of the fixed cost in the shipyard.
That is provided for in this budget with a $400 million
investment in economic order quantity issues and measures. And
then the attempt to get to, with the approval of the Congress,
a multiyear that would allow us to make progress on that front.
MULTIYEAR PROCUREMENT AUTHORITY REQUEST
Mr. Lewis. Chief, I think you know of the Committee's
reservations about multiyear contracting. The obvious
difficulties we have with tankers on the air side, the lease
program that is of significant ongoing controversy is a
reflection of our desire to get assets out there as quickly as
possible but, at the same time, maintain some control over the
budget. So at the heart of your suggestion--I know the priority
you give to multiyear for submarines--but clearly can't be the
only answer that is in line for getting us where we need to be.
And so I just underline my ongoing question by asking it
this way: Why a multiyear? How can we justify considering a
multiyear when we haven't seen the first ship yet?
Admiral Clark. Well, I believe that we have been having
this discussion for a couple of years. And you know my belief,
that one of the things that we need to do is figure out how to
become the best partners that we can become with industry.
Clearly there are issues on the side of the contractor who has
to produce effectively and efficiently. The responsibility for
oversight in that rests with the acquisition executive. It is
not a uniformed military role. But I obviously am greatly
interested in it. But all the projections make it clear that if
we can get to a multiyear, the kind of results that we have had
in other programs reinforce the validity of the assumptions
that lead us to the belief that we are going to save at least
$100 million a submarine if we do that. When we analyze the
cost data and we look at the fact we are in a small market, it
is the only market producing these kind of submarines. And we
have suppliers that are specialty suppliers, and when they are
operating on the margin and the inability to plan over the long
term to properly size their employee base and their production
baseline, it runs the cost up.
Now the analysis shows us--and I have looked at this
analysis and examined it--that the multiyear approach is a good
and smart thing to do, and it is good and it is the rule that I
put out, Mr. Chairman, it needs to be good for the sailors and
it needs to be good for the taxpayers. And I believe that this
is.
CONTROLLING COST THROUGH MANAGEMENT
Mr. Lewis. I remember in the old days when I was spending
some time examining contracts that involved the field of
highway construction, that the biggest challenge we had in
those days was a minor little thing called change orders. In
multiyears, Mr. Secretary, you spoke about building the frame
and then you provide some supplies or other material. Then you
put in the most modern of the electronics. Those are called
change orders. And man, I can tell you, if I were in the
private sector, I would love to have you guys lined up with
every ship you have got for 10 years, and then send you the
change orders at our cost and not your cost.
Yesterday the Secretary of the Air Force opened a bag of
worms that I thought was most fascinating that applies to all
of our branches. The Secretary talked about the fact that with
the F-16, we had people purchasing the F-16 in the marketplace,
other countries, and they were able to produce a product that
was significantly different and better than the one that our
people are fielding as a result of stability in the purchasing
marketplace, and they talked about how quickly it could be
done, et cetera. Frankly, it came down to a question of
management. If we rely just upon multiyear procurements as the
way we can improve efficiency here, somewhere down the line we
are going to find a clip out there.
I am very concerned that we do more than just talk about
multiyear procurement. We aren't going to spend a lot of time
rehashing this again today, but there is more than just
multiyear to this problem of making sure that our procurement
procedures,the management of this process, is run in a way that
improves our efficiency. I have dwelt on that a bit.
Mr. Murtha.
SUPPLEMENTAL FUNDING REQUIREMENTS
Mr. Murtha. Only a couple things. We need to know about the
supplemental; when you need it, and when you run out of money,
Mr. Secretary.
Secretary Johnson. The short answer is the summertime. And
some of that is in early June and some in late July. The
Marines are probably spending at the highest rate because, as
the Commandant talked, 90 percent are forward based, deployed,
and so forth.
Mr. Murtha. I wonder if we could borrow some from USAA. I
see they got $13 billion in your former job there; maybe they
can lend us some money.
Secretary Johnson. Yes, sir.
ROTOR BLADES FOR THE CH-46
Mr. Murtha. The other thing is, I just want to mention to
the Commandant, don't forget the CH-46 blades, because we are
only carrying half of what you need to carry in those CH-46s
and don't have them all out there. And it is such an old
airplane. I know they are expensive, but we need to spend some
money on those blades.
General Hagee. Sir, we couldn't agree with you more. And we
are looking at that very hard. In fact, as the Navy is
decommissioning some of its CH-46 Deltas, we are collecting
those blades. That is a concern of mine, too, sir.
Mr. Lewis. Thank you very much, Mr. Murtha.
Mr. Frelinghuysen.
INTEGRATION OF SPECIAL OPERATIONS
Mr. Frelinghuysen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Gentlemen, good morning, and thank you for your service. As
we speak, the Special Ops people are doing a pretty dangerous
work. And we salute their courage, and we know that they will
perform admirably.
I have some questions relative to the Special Operations
and how the Navy is integrating its Special Operations. The
Marines, obviously you work side by side with the Army's
equivalent and other Special Ops, to what extent that
integration is working.
Secretary Johnson. Our SEALs are very much a part of the
Special Operations and are very integral to everything they do.
And Admiral Clark might say something. The Marines have been
working side by side, as you talk, not quite as integrative,
but yet very, very supportive, and working many things that
Special Ops would normally be doing. We are doing the work in
Georgia, some training commitment that the Special Ops signed
up to do, and the Marines said we can do that for you and allow
you to do other things.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. I asked the question because obviously
each service has budget allocations. This involves advanced
training, special equipment, the whole issue of inoperability.
We like to think on this dais that the services are working
close together. Can you reassure us that is occurring?
Admiral Clark. I can assure you that the Special Forces
across the whole element, Congressman, it is working. As the
Secretary said, we have different layers. We categorize our
SEALs in different categories. But I have a group of them that
are assigned full time to this Special Operations Command, and
they are working day in and day out and assigned to the same
units with the Army folks and the Air Force Special Operations
Forces. Then I have Special Operations Forces that are embarked
in my own platforms and they work hand in glove with the Marine
Corps in our operations at sea and with our own forces. And so
there is great integration and jointness in our Special
Operations structure.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. So there is jointness between--
obviously, there is jointness between the Navy and the Marines,
but is there jointness with the Army?
Admiral Clark. Yes, sir.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. There is.
Admiral Clark. Without confirming or denying what Special
Forces might be doing or not at all.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. Whatever they are doing is remarkable.
Admiral Clark. I assure you--they are integrated.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. It is dangerous, and we salute them.
Admiral Clark. Thank you.
ANTIMINE WARFARE
Mr. Frelinghuysen. Relative to floating, tethered, and
buried mines, the whole issue of the challenge of what we do to
eliminate the possibility of our ships being blown up, what are
we doing in terms of technology to promote more antimine
warfare?
Admiral Clark. The biggest thing, Congressman, is this. We
made a commitment a few years ago to develop organic capability
so that we would not have to have one-of-a-kind kind of mission
ships doing mining warfare. And they were small and slow and
hard sometimes to get to the point of action. We home-ported
some, moved some minesweepers that we owned into the Indian
Ocean area sometime back, and we have augmented those forces
for this contingency.
And then the next thing is that our fiscal year 2004 budget
brings forward the Littoral Combat Ship. And it is this Chief's
belief that our future enemies are going to come after us with
asymmetric means, and mine warfare is one of them. And as this
new ship, designed to dominate the battlespace in the near land
area, one of the three principal missions of this ship is going
to be mine warfare. And as I said in my opening statement,
designed from the keel up, from thebeginning, to operate with
unmanned vehicles. So what is happening? Unmanned, underwater search-
and-destroy vehicles, and unmanned aviation assets, and all optimized
for this particular warfare area. That is where LCS is going now, one
of the three principal warfare missions to accomplish in the near land
area.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. Thank you very much.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Lewis. Thank you, Mr. Frelinghuysen.
I was going to kid my next friend who is--but this is not a
day for kidding--one of the more knowledgeable members of the
Committee. He too is going to have us keep you here only a
brief time, Mr. Dicks.
V-22 UPDATE
Mr. Dicks. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And we want to
compliment both you and the Secretary for your leadership and
the good work that is being done by the sailors and Marines out
there at the point of the spear.
Chairman, I had a chance to be out there and see the forces
in the field, and I was very impressed with their readiness and
their willingness to do this job, and we all should be proud of
them.
Just a couple quick questions. For the Commandant, give us
an update on the V-22. This has been a troubled program, but a
program that we have stayed with because we know of its
importance to the Marine Corps. Can you give us where we are?
General Hagee. Yes, sir, I can. As you know, this is not a
time-driven program, this is an event-driven program, and we
are doing very well on the testing. Right now we are about 80
to 85 complete on the high rate of descent testing. And
everything that we have experienced in the air was predicted by
the model. So, we feel very good about our models. And in fact,
we have confirmed that tilt rotor aircraft can come out of this
phenomena faster than a normal helicopter, because all you do
is you push forward and you fly out of it.
We are about 80 percent complete with the low speed
maneuverability testing, and that also is going very well. As I
am sure you know, sir, we landed a couple of tilt rotor
aircraft on board amphibs back in January. Proved no problem
whatsoever. So from our part, sir, the testing is going very
well, and we are very confident in the aircraft.
FUNDING REQUIREMENTS FOR SSGN PROGRAM
Mr. Dicks. Good. Admiral Clark, on the SSGN program, our
Committee staff has been concerned about whether we have enough
funding in the program. As I understand it, it is around $4
billion for the entire program. How do you feel about it? I
know you just had this giant shadow exercise. How is this thing
going?
Admiral Clark. Well, the program is progressing smartly.
There is additional funding in the fiscal year 2004 submit to
move forward with two additional conversions. This is one of
those conversions that ties back to the question on SOF and
also deals with the very things that we are facing, as we
speak, in operations in the Indian Ocean and the Arabian Gulf
and the eastern Mediterranean. This submarine is going to--this
conversion and transformation is going to give us extraordinary
capability with 150-plus TLAMs. But the real benefit here is
the volume of this platform and the ability to exploit future
underwater vehicles and forces. And I am convinced that the SOF
part of this is--you know, 10 years from now, we are going to
be looking back at this, talking about how glad we are that we
made this move that allowed us to exploit the independence of
the sea and to bring the kind of capability with Special Forces
that enables us to deal with the kind of things that we are
going to face in the global war on terrorism. This budget has
the funding in it to progress down the line to the conversion
to convert forward submarines.
NAVY PARTICIPATION IN MISSILE DEFENSE
Mr. Dicks. Let me ask one final thing. On the question
about the Navy being involved in missile defense, I think this
is a good idea, especially with this Korean situation
unfolding. It would be incredibly good if we had a capability
to deal with a Korean ballistic missile, you know, from a naval
ship. Obviously, one in the vicinity could make a big
difference, especially since we don't have the land-based
missile--defense missile in place yet, and there is some
question about how good it is going to be once it is in place.
Can you give us an update on where we are on this and what
your strategy is?
Admiral Clark. Absolutely. And I thank you for asking the
question. In my written testimony, I talk about this,
Congressman Dicks, at some length. And I talk also in the new
vision for the future, Sea Shield is our ability to project
defense over the horizon. You know, over the course of history,
you look back 30-plus years, when I came in the Navy, we
primarily defended ourselves. And then over time we have
stretched our combat reach. We are talking now about dramatic
revolutionary kinds of changes in our ability to project
defense, not just for our forces but for the coalition and for
the other members of the joint structure. So I am convinced
that this is one of the most important capabilities that we are
looking at in this early part of the 21st century.
We have had an incredibly successful year in testing--not
in wishing--in testing, with six successes out of six tests
that the results are accelerating us down this ramp.
Now, the guidance that I have out to our Navy is we are
going to field this capability by September of fiscal year
2004. Obviously, we are not going to do it without the support
of the Congress. But here is what I did. This is under the
purview and the development of the Missile Defense Agency. They
were going to build a test ship. It was going to cost a
billion-plus. I went forward and said, this is so important I
will give you the Lake Erie right now. You can have it full
time, make it your test ship. The successes of this we have,
does this fit your plan? The Director of the Missile Defense
Agency was elated with this approach; saves the Nation a
billion bucks plus, a billion-and-a-half really, and moves us
down toward the development of this capability.
So that is where we are going. They are going to develop
the missiles to fulfill the interim capability at the end of
fiscal year 2004.
Mr. Dicks. What missile are you going to use? Is it a
standard missile?
Admiral Clark. Yes. It is part of the standard family. And
this budget also includes some of those. These are right now
missiles that are being hand-built, because they are
prototypes, and we will have to move to a production line
capability. But we can put enough missiles out by the end of
fiscal year 2004 to start this interim capability.
Mr. Dicks. Will it have a boost phase capability?
Admiral Clark. Yes, it is my belief that it will.
Mr. Dicks. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Lewis. Thank you very much, Mr. Dicks.
Mr. Dicks. In the spirit of cooperation.
Mr. Lewis. Everybody is in this together this morning, and
I am pleased with that.
Mr. Nethercutt.
PLAN FOR PENGUIN MISSILE
Mr. Nethercutt. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Gentlemen,
welcome. Thanks for being here and thanks for your great
service.
I want to talk to you about the decommissioning of the
Penguin missile. My understanding is there is a decision to
decommission this missile, a stand-off missile, by April 1. The
cost savings, I am informed, are about $500,000 in
consideration of putting Hellfires on these helicopters for
launch, and we spent, I am informed, about $200 million dollars
on the Penguin.
A couple weeks ago I sent a letter asking--or sought
information about the decommissioning decision and why. And
given the fact that we are looking at a stand-off capability
for helicopters with the Penguin--I think the range is about 25
miles--and a big payload versus the Hellfire, which is about
4\1/2\ miles and a smaller payload, why is this happening? Has
it been fully thought through? And finally, I would just ask if
you would have a chance to come brief me on it, or the
Subcommittee, and give us a sense of why, and hold off on this
decision on April 1 until at least we are satisfied that this
is the right thing.
Secretary Johnson. We are making some very difficult
decisions. I will let the Admiral talk about some very specific
ones. But we are going back and looking at all of our weapons
systems and see which ones, particular legacy ones, that we can
move forward without it. Once we take a weapons system out of
the inventory, the cost recovery is phenomenal.
Admiral Clark. I will have to get the exact details for
you, Congressman, but I will tell you this. And I talked about
this last year in some detail. In order for me to get the
resources to move to the future, I was going to go after some
programs, and so that we could invest our resources in a Navy
that created the 21st century Navy.
He mentioned some tough choices. We have this program, this
submit recommends the termination of over 50 programs. It also
recommends the decommissioning of a number of ships. And some
people, you know, reasonable people will have a discussion
about whether that is the right thing to do. We fundamentally
made the decision that we were not going to pursue programs
that delivered us redundant capability and that we would reach
for the best capability that we could get.
I can't tell you the time line on Penguin. I don't know the
dollars, I don't have them here. I am sorry, I don't have all
of those 50 programs here. But we will come up and brief you.
We absolutely want to convince the Congress that we are
thinking about the threat correctly and that we are making the
right kind of judgments and decisions.
When we talk about the ships that I am addressing, one of
them was the class leader that I commanded. So when we talk
about decommissioning, this gets real personal for me. But I
absolutely believe that it is the right thing to do. And so I
would like to take the details of that question for the record,
and we will absolutely have people come up and brief you on the
specifics.
Mr. Nethercutt. I would be grateful.
[Clerk's note.--The Department did not provide a response
for the record, but did provide a briefing to Congressman
Nethercutt.]
VIRGINIA CLASS SUBMARINE--COST ISSUES
Mr. Nethercutt. And just a question for the record, my last
question would be, what is the status of the Virginia class
submarine, where I understand it is facing some significant
cost growth problems?
Mr. Lewis. We have asked that.
Mr. Nethercutt. Okay. Sir, I will look forward to your
answer. Thank you.
JOINT STRIKE FIGHTER--PROGRAM ISSUES
Mr. Lewis. Gentlemen, we have the addition of one more
member, and the bells are about to go off. I promised you, we
are going to let you free to do much more important work, to do
here shortly.
As Mr. Moran gets his collection together, let me just ask
you, if you would, to discuss with us that which has been in
the news a lot lately. The Joint Strike Fighter and the weight
question which could impact that asset's capabilities, and in
terms of flight patterns, you and I have talked about this a
bit. Would you respond to that subject area?
Admiral Clark. Well, you know, we are in development, and
so development decisions and trade-offs will be made. I don't
know the specifics of the--I have seen articles in the paper.
That information hasn't come up the chain to me yet. But let me
say this about Joint Strike Fighter. Privately, I have talked
to you about what I learned in Afghanistan: thousand-mile
sorties, five times to the tanker. And my new favorite word is
not just ``credible'' combat power, but ``persistent'' combat
power. That airplane would have gone all the way in and come
all the way out without ever going to the tanker.
The missions that I am going to be flying in this
operation, I can go all the way in and come all the way out
without ever going to the tanker. I want that kind of combat
reach. This is a significant advance in warfighting capability.
To me, that is what it is about.
We are in a research and development program. You are going
to have issues come up in that process. We have committed in
the fiscal year 2004 budget to this program and the Navy line
shows that we want this airplane.
Mr. Lewis. And, frankly, that is exactly what I was looking
for. Your commitment to Sea Power 21 and the LCS, extending the
power of the Navy is a very important piece of that as well.
And I think it is important that you know that we want to see
you continue on that horizon that leads to the kind of change
that will allow us to continue to lead the world.
I must say another thing before I turn to Mr. Moran. I am
very, very appreciative of straightforward answers that say,
look, friends, we are in this together, we only got so much
money, this program ain't going to work, and therefore we have
made a decision. For right or wrong, we have made adecision we
are not going to spend money in that direction.
That is a lot better than hedging around the edges,
especially when Members' districts are involved. I know you.
You have both the good sense and the guts to sit down with
somebody eyeball to eyeball. If we had a lot more of that
around here, we wouldn't be, piece by piece, extending programs
that should have been terminated a long time ago.
The bells have rung, so we are getting on the edge of the
time we spend here. Mr. Moran, we are attempting to----
Admiral Clark. May I have 10 more seconds?
Mr. Lewis. Of course.
Admiral Clark. I want combat reach. I want the availability
that comes with it, plus 90 percent. That will make me so much
more combat capable. That will affect the investment for the
whole Nation. That is the way to do this and do it right.
General Hagee. Sir, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Lewis. Sure.
General Hagee. I would like to associate myself with the
Chief of Naval Operations' remarks, especially on the Joint
Strike Fighter and the need that we have for the STOVL version
of that aircraft.
Mr. Lewis. Thank you, gentlemen, very much.
NAVY/MARINE CORPS INTRANET
Mr. Moran. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Admiral, the Secretary, and the General have addressed
the front-burner issues in their statement and responses. Let
me ask one issue that I don't think has been covered. Are we
back on track with the Navy/Marine Corps Intranet? We had a lot
of trouble last year with it. Are we all set there, and
particularly in terms of the network security that we were
concerned about and computer operations?
Secretary Johnson. Sir, we are on track on all the
technical things. There are great cultural things that we
continue to work. Every time we roll it out, we have the same
problems. But the Navy and Marine Corps are totally committed
and our people are, and the transformation in our thinking that
this brings about is phenomenal.
Mr. Moran. Well, that is terrific. I just hate to see
people with two computers on their desk because they just don't
want to give up on their--you know, they are used to using
their old computer, and it is almost like a security blanket.
And I understand we still have an awful lot of that.
Secretary Johnson. We have to get rid of those second
computers you talk about, then. The legacy systems have to be
replaced, then. There is strong commitment from the top and at
all levels, but it is difficult, as you all know, to give up
something you have used a long time.
Mr. Moran. But you say we are on track.
Admiral Clark. The reason there are two computers there is
because we weren't a modern organization, so we had almost
100,000 different applications that we used across the Navy. We
are going to seven. That is where we are going. And so until we
can make that integration work, we are going to have a little
bit of this in transition. But this is the right thing, and we
are headed there.
Mr. Moran. That is consolidation from 100,000 to seven? I
think that is----
Admiral Clark. That is where we are going.
Mr. Moran. I am not going to take up any more of your time.
Thank you for your service.
Mr. Lewis. Thank you, Mr. Moran.
Mr. Murtha.
Mr. Murtha. Let me say two things. One, I was impressed
that General Johnson moved from 423 combat missions to teaching
aeronautics at the Academy. I mean, that is versatility. I will
tell you that. And I want to say to General Hagee, if General
Jones were here, we would have never finished in time.
General Hagee. I am not going there, sir.
EA-6B AIRCRAFT
Mr. Dicks. Just one quick question. Tell us about what you
are trying to do with EA-6B.
Admiral Clark. This budget moves EA-6B forward three years.
Now, this is another one of these smart business things. The
EA-6, last night couldn't have done the operation without it.
We have flown the thing hard. The cost of it is has gone up
like this because it is old. We had to do something smart to
get rid of airplanes costing us a fortune to fly it but that we
can't win in combat without it. The G, the Growler, that will
use the common air frame, is going to be a smart buy. It is
going to keep us at a level----
Mr. Dicks. F-18?
Admiral Clark. F-18, now, the EA-18G. And it is in this
budget. The first one will roll off the line in fiscal year
2006, which is quickly, and we will be deploying them in fiscal
year 2009.
Mr. Dicks. And you have got some fixes in here to keep the
ones that we have got going?
Admiral Clark. Yes, sir. ICAP-3 and the things to keep the
air frames going, it is in the program.
Mr. Dicks. Thank you.
SPECIAL OPERATIONS FORCES
Mr. Lewis. Gentlemen, as we close down this hearing, Mr.
Frelinghuysen talked about Special Ops a bit with General
Hagee. The Special Ops forces of America for me have always
been the Marine Corps. They have been doing that job for a
long, long time. I must add to that, though, some of us took a
brief trip to Alaska not so long ago, watched these kids jump
in the water; we called them SEALs. And I scratched my head and
I said, thank goodness they didn't have that when I was a kid,
because I would have wanted to do that.
The men and women who make up our forces are the heart of
what makes this successful, and you are out there proving it
today, and God bless them all. Thank you very much for being
here. The Committee is adjourned.
[Clerk's note.--Questions submitted by Mr. Hobson and the
answers thereto follow:]
Air Force Institute of Technology
Question. Mr. Secretary, I would like to congratulate your
predecessor and the Secretary of the Air Force for concluding the 4
December 2002 Memorandum of Agreement that forms an educational
alliance between the Air Force and the Navy. This MOA is an excellent
first step in implementing ``jointness'' for military education and I
strongly support it. This educational alliance will maintain the Air
Force Institute of Technology (AFIT) and the Naval Postgraduate School
(NPS) as ``world class'' higher educational institutions; complementing
each other; and ensuring high quality, relevant responsive graduate
education aligned to defense needs. Thank you.
How critical are the educational programs of AFIT and NPS for
meeting the needs of the Navy?
Answer. Naval Postgraduate School (NPS) programs are specifically
designed to meet Navy and Department of Defense needs. NPS provides
relevant and unique advanced education and research programs essential
to increasing the combat effectiveness of U.S. and Allied armed forces
and enhancing the security of the United States. While the programs at
the Air Force Institute of Technology are designed to meet Air Force
needs, in some areas the military focus also aligns with Navy needs.
Question. The MOA commits the two services to filling all seats at
AFIT and NPS before sending students to civilian schools. How is Navy
implementing that commitment?
Answer. The Navy uses the Naval Postgraduate School (NPS) as its
primary source of graduate education. The Air Force Institute of
Technology (AFIT) will be used as a secondary source when it has space
available within programs meeting Navy requirements. Civilian
institutions will be used when NPS and AFIT do not offer programs
meeting necessary education requirements. NPS will coordinate
implementation of the MOA with AFIT.
Question. The MOA requires the creation of a joint AFIT/NPS
admissions and quota control process to provide for enrollment of
students from all services and from the Coast Guard. What steps is the
Navy instituting to carry out that requirement?
Answer. While the Navy and Air Force have separate admissions and
quota control processes, the Memorandum of Agreement requirement is
being addressed in ongoing discussions between the Naval Postgraduate
School and the Air Force Institute of Technology.
Question. The MOA requires the Air Force and Navy to review
current AFIT and NPS policies and to establish common policies that
represent best practices at both schools. What mechanisms has the Navy
put in place to accomplish this requirement, and how will you involve
the faculty and leadership of the two schools in conducting the
necessary review?
Answer. The Naval Postgraduate School and the Air Force Institute
of Technology are collaborating on the establishment of common
policies.
Question. The MOA requires the Assistant Secretaries of Financial
Management for the two services to program the resources needed to
launch the alliance and ensure its success. What specific initiatives
will be funded in order to launch the alliance and make it successful,
over and above those funds needed to sustain the excellence of the
ongoing operations of the two schools?
Answer. The Navy continues to research funding requirements to
launch the alliance and ensure its success.
Question. The MOA requires the Assistant Secretaries of Financial
Management for the two services to program the resources needed to
launch the alliance and ensure its success. Is there a dichotomy in
that the Navy charges tuition which it keeps to lower operating
expenses where the Air Force does not?
Answer. United States Code Title 10 7045(b) authorizes Navy to
charge other services the costs of instructing their officers at the
Naval Postgraduate School (NPS). This enables NPS to expand course
offerings and instructional staff to accommodate other service
students. Air Force has no such authority for the Air Force Institute
of Technology, which is limited to accepting other service students on
a space-available basis.
Question. Oversight of the education alliance is to be carried out
by the respective Air Force Board of Visitors and the Navy Board of
Advisors. The MOA directs that each school's governing body will
interact with each other. What steps has the Air Force taken to
interact with the Navy Board of Visitors?
Answer. Air Force Institute of Technology (AFIT) and Air University
representatives attended the meeting of the Naval Postgraduate School
(NPS) Board of Advisors (BOA) on January 29, 2003. NPS BOA
representatives attended the meeting of the AFIT Board of Visitors on
March 17, 2003.
Question. What do you think about a Joint Board of Visitors?
Answer. Collaboration between the Naval Postgraduate School and the
Air Force Institute of Technology is essential to the success of the
alliance. As the collaboration evolves, the merits of a Joint Board of
Visitors can be evaluated.
Iraq
Question. Two weekends ago, I had the privilege of traveling with
Congressman Jack Murtha and Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi to Qatar and
Kuwait. The purpose of the trip was to review the preparations for
possible military action in Iraq. Our kids are all ready, motivated,
and a great credit to the United States.
Inevitably, the congressional delegation asked ``what do you need
from us?'' The principal responses were Army and Marine oriented since
we were seeing troops on the ground. (More bandwidth, special
operations troops, and special operations helicopters). However, as the
Navy is a full partner in this endeavor, we ask you now ``what does the
Navy need from us?''
Answer. The Navy needs the continued support of Congress to fund
the programs that will keep the Navy ready to respond to worldwide
contingencies. The resources contained in the fiscal year 2004 budget
go far in helping both the Navy and the Marine Corps maintain
heightened readiness in these uncertain times, provide further
investment in transformational programs, and take care of our Sailors,
Marines and their families. The road to attaining our shipbuilding and
aircraft procurement program goals remains exceptionally challenging.
We received all the funding we asked for our initial requirements in
the supplemental. If additional funding became available for efforts
other than Global War on Terrorism, the Department has provided a memo
containing our unfunded Naval programs for which funding could be
applied, signed by the CNO and the Commandant on February 27, 2003.
Rotational Force in Europe
Question. General James Jones, Commander of United States Forces in
Europe (EUCOM), has discussed the possibility of moving to a United
States presence in Europe made up of (1) troops on short term
rotations, (2) families left at home in the U.S., and (3) ``lily pad''
compact bases scattered in the New (Eastern) Europe and Africa. Camp
Bondsteel would be a model. What is the Navy opinion of this vision?
Answer. It is Navy's position, and that of the working group at
EUCOM, that Naval forces are already built within this framework. We
are organized to deploy future carrier strike groups and expeditionary
strike groups on a short-term rotational basis, away from their
families, just as we have always done. The no-families policy applies
primarily to combat forces and not to support forces in theater.
The ``lily pad'' term is no longer used in EUCOM's emerging basing
models for joint main operating bases (Joint MOBs), joint forward
operating bases (Joint FOBs), and joint forward operating locations
(Joint FOLs). Naval bases in the U.S. European Command function as
Joint MOBs and FOBs. The current structure also provides a strategic
bridge for forces flowing through the Suez to points east.
Question. Are all military construction projects in Europe on hold
and is it because of this? Or something else?
Answer. No. A single Navy project has been placed on hold pending
completion of a review of overseas basing requirements in portions of
Europe. That project is a fiscal year 2003, $14.8 million Combined
Dining Facility at Naval Air Station Keflavik, Iceland.
Question. Is there the same situation for military construction
projects in Korea?
Answer: No. Navy does not have any military construction projects
on hold in Korea.
Joint Strike Fighter Program
Question. Recent press reports have suggested that the Joint Strike
Fighter could be up to 20 percent overweight, threatening the Short
Take-Off Vertical Landing (STOVL) version of the plane. How much of a
problem is this and how is it being addressed?
Answer. The government parametric estimate for the Joint Strike
Fighter (JSF) air system weight currently is above the targets the
government/contractor team established for this period in the program.
The JSF team is aggressively working weight reduction initiatives.
Weight reduction, along with closure and maturation of design issues,
is addressed daily through a combination of the normal teaming
processes and insight from numerous external experts from all Services
as Preliminary Design Review (PDR) activities progress. The government
and prime contractors fully recognize the need to reduce the design
airplane weight through a proper systems engineering process that best
accommodates performance requirements, schedule, cost, and acceptable
risk. A Blue Ribbon Action Team (BRAT) has been established to
reconcile weight projection methodologies and identify detail design
impacts by late June. PDR remains open pending the final BRAT results.
No delay to the overall schedule is currently projected.
[Clerk's note.--End of questions submitted by Mr. Hobson.
Questions submitted by Mr. Cunningham and the answers thereto
follow:]
Ship Depot Maintenance
Question. The President's budget request for operations and
maintenance depot level ship maintenance contains approximately $3.5
billion for this activity. That number is similar to the 2003 request.
However, on closer analysis, $400 million for organic depot maintenance
was funded in a separate account and $268 million is scheduled for
unallocated overhead. The actual dollars going to repair similar ships
is nearly $700 million less. Why?
Answer. Intermediate ship maintenance funding of approximately $400
million will be consolidated with ship depot maintenance funding
beginning in fiscal year 2004 as a result of Navy's regional
maintenance initiative. This total fiscal year 2004 ship maintenance
budget supports 96.2% of our notional operations and maintenance ship
maintenance requirements. This percentage is slightly higher than the
95.5% funded in the fiscal year 2003 President's Budget. We were able
to reduce ship maintenance funding in fiscal year 2004 while budgeting
to fund a higher percentage of the requirement for several reasons. The
cyclic nature of ship maintenance contributed to a lower requirement in
fiscal year 2004; the requirement was reduced as we accelerated the
retirement of our oldest, most maintenance-intensive ships; and
finally, the reduced requirement directly reflects the benefits
provided in the fiscal year 2002 Supplemental Appropriations.
The budgeted fiscal year 2004 unallocated overhead amount is $268
million, rather than $368 million. This funding is associated with the
overhead that supports non-Pacific Fleet ship work at the two mission
funded Naval shipyards. In the fiscal year 2003 President's Budget, the
portion that funded overhead for Atlantic Fleet ship work to be
performed at Puget Sound Naval Shipyard was also included in the ship
depot maintenance budget line.
Surface Ship Depot Maintenance
Question. Surface ship funding appears to be significantly
understated. The Phased Maintenance Availability (PMA) category which
funds AOEs and amphibious ships is budgeted at 13 hulls for
approximately $185 million. This compares with an average of 25 hulls
and approximately $370 million in previous years. Using OPNAV planning
tools, 21 hulls were scheduled for PMAs at a cost of approximately $365
million using a 91 percent funding level. Why is there such a
significant reduction on a class of ships which are not scheduled for
decommissioning in FY2004?
Answer. The Chief of Naval Operations' availability-planning tool
is continuously updated as operations, port work loading
considerations, and ship material condition assessments dictate
modifications to the ship maintenance plan. The number of Phased
Maintenance Availabilities (PMAs) budgeted supports the maintenance
required at the time of budget development due to the cyclic nature of
ship maintenance.
[Clerk's note.--End of questions submitted by Mr.
Cunningham. Questions submitted by Mr. Visclosky and the
answers thereto follow:]
Man Overboard Identification (MOBI) System
Question. Congratulations on successfully completing the fleet
evaluation of the ORCA Man Overboard Identification (MOBI) system. I
understand that 100 percent of the reporting ships in the evaluation
recommended that the Navy move forward with full fleet installation of
this lifesaving system, and that the Navy has made that decision.
When does the Navy intend to begin the installations fleet-wide?
How long will it take to outfit the entire fleet?
Answer. We intend to begin installations in December 2003. After
completion of the successful fleet evaluation, we incorporated several
design changes based on recommendations submitted by the evaluation
ships. We are now developing the installation details as part of the
Ship Alteration process and preparing the required Integrated Logistic
Support documentation, which includes technical manuals, supply
support, and planned maintenance requirements. We plan to complete
outfitting the entire fleet within three years; however, this will
depend on availability of all required funds and ability to schedule
ship installations as planned.
Question. Since you have made the decision to install this system
fleet-wide, when do you plan to include this program in the Navy
Budget?
Answer. Funding for this program has been submitted for
consideration as part of our fiscal year 2005 program and budget
deliberations. Commander, U.S. Fleet Forces Command has agreed to
budget for maintenance requirements after initial installation.
Question. I understand that your installation plan calls for those
Sailors with deck operations, those you have determined to be ``at
risk'', are the Sailors who will be provided a MOBI transmitter. Does
it ever happen that any Sailor or Marines who are not defined as ``at
risk'' fall from the ship?
Answer. Our plan is to install a Man Overboard Identification
(MOBI) transmitter in every MK-1 FloatCoat and inherently buoyant life
preserver because anyone working topside is at risk of falling
overboard and should be wearing a life preserver. There have been
cases, however, where Sailors and Marines who are not defined as ``at
risk'' have also fallen overboard. As MOBI product improvements are
made, we hope to provide a unit in the future that could be used with
the normal shipboard uniform.
[Clerk's note.--End of questions submitted by Mr.
Visclosky. Questions submitted by Mr. Lewis and the answers
thereto follow:]
Joint Strike Fighter Performance Attributes
Question. The fiscal year 2004 budget request for the Joint Strike
Fighter (JSF) is $4.4 billion. This is the tactical aircraft of the
future for the Navy, Marine Corps and Air Force. In addition, foreign
partners intend to purchase a large number of the aircraft.
In general terms, what are the attributes of this aircraft that you
believe make it worth this large investment--what does it bring to the
fight that is significantly different than aircraft of today?
Answer. The sea based Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) will complement
the F/A-18E/F and will provide the Navy and Marine Corps a first day of
the war, long range, self-escort, survivable, stealthy strike fighter
that is capable of operating and winning against surface-to-air and
air-to-air threats in 2010 and beyond. The JSF will bring a robust,
fully integrated onboard sensor and precision navigation suite and
precision munitions that will enable true battle space dominance, as
both a sensor and a strike platform. In addition, with F/A-18 like
performance qualities and stealthy characteristics, the JSF too will be
able to fight and win in both the beyond, and within-visual-range air-
to-air arenas.
Question. What is the current estimate of the date for Initial
Operational Capability?
Answer. The Joint Strike Fighter Marine Corps Short Take Off
Vertical Landing version is currently projected to reach Initial
Operational Capability (IOC) in calendar year 2010. The Navy carrier
version is scheduled to reach IOC in calendar year 2012.
Joint Strike Fighter Cost Estimates
Question. Understanding that numbers will change over time, what is
the total current estimate for development of the JSF--previous years
through 2003 and then 2004 to completion?
Answer. As reflected in the December 2002 Selected Acquisition
Report, the Joint Strike Fighter current total development estimate is
$37.3 billion comprised as follows: $9.8 billion, fiscal years 1994-
2003, and $27.5 billion, fiscal years 2004-completion.
Question. What is the current estimate of the total number of JSF
that will be acquired?
Answer. The Department of the Navy's current Joint Strike Fighter
procurement objective is 680 aircraft.
Question. Taking into account the research and development and
procurement funds, what is the current estimate of the average cost per
aircraft?
Answer. The December 2002 Selected Acquisition Report reflects a
Program Acquisition Unit Cost (PAUC) of $65.7 million.
Question. What drives changes to this average cost per aircraft--
change in the total buy, increased research and development?
Answer. The December 2002 Selected Acquisition Report (SAR)
reflects Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) Program Acquisition Unit Cost
(PAUC) increase of $3.8 million ($BY02) from the December 2001 SAR.
This change was driven by reduction of Department of Navy planned
procurement quantity from 1089 to 680 aircraft in accordance with the
Navy/Marine Corps Tactical Aviation Integration Plan; increased
Research, Development, Test and Evaluation (RDT&E) for added scope to
accommodate JSF international partners, and a revised estimate for
General Electric F136 development completion.
Joint Strike Fighter Software Development and Testing
Question. The Air Force has had a most difficult time in developing
and testing the software for the F-22. Have you applied the software
development and testing ``lessons learned'' from the F-22 to the JSF
program and if so, what are you doing to ensure the same problems do
not affect this aircraft?
Answer. The Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) program has benefited
greatly from the F/A-22 development and test activity and has worked in
concert with the F/A-22 to ensure technical, programmatic, and test
execution lessons learned are being shared between the two programs.
JSF and F/A-22 share the same prime contractor and many of the same
avionics suppliers (radar communications/navigation, electronic
warfare, etc.). The sharing of lessons learned with F/A-22 and other
relevant aircraft programs (e.g. F/A-18 E/F, F-16, Eurofighter, etc.)
along with the substantial risk reduction activities completed during
the JSF Concept Development Phase, positions the JSF program to
leverage those activities and reduce the risk of its avionics
development program. Some of the specific lessons learned implemented
in JSF planning include the following: preplanning a multi-block
avionics program during the development phase to deliver integrated
operational capability in smaller and more testable avionics blocks;
using an open architecture approach to minimize the cost, time, and
regression testing required to modify specific hardware and software
elements during System Development and Demonstration (SDD)/production;
and implementing a technology refresh program during SDD to capitalize
on the ever increasing capabilities of processing power while reducing
the costs to replace diminishing manufacturing sources during
development and production by targeting technology enhancements to
improve the affordability, producibility, or reliability of specific
products.
Question. What is the next major milestone in the JSF development
and testing program and when will that occur?
Answer. The next major milestone will be the Pratt and Whitney
propulsion Critical Design Review in May 2003, leading to Pratt and
Whitney's first System Development and Demonstration engine operating
in the test cell in September 2003.
Joint Strike Fighter Interchangeable Engine Program
Question. For the past nine years, Congress has expressed its
strong support for the Interchangeable Engine Program for the JSF in an
attempt to ensure that two engines--the Pratt-Whitney and the General
Electric engines--are available for a competition at the earliest
practical time.
The Committee understands that a recent OMB directed inflation
adjustment of $38 million was not spread across the entire JSF program,
and was instead levied against the General Electric engine portion of
the program which could potentially delay the program by two years. Is
this accurate?
Answer. None of the fiscal year 2003 inflation adjustment of $38
million was applied to the General Electric F136 program. Inflation
reductions allocated to planned General Electric F136 effort in fiscal
year 2004 and out will likely result in an approximate two-year delay
to the General Electric F136 engine schedule.
Question. What is the rationale for (1) the reduction and (2) for
the decision to apply the reduction to only one piece of the program?
Answer: The Office of Management and Budget issued revised
inflation indices in January 2003, which resulted in reductions to
planned Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) funding in fiscal year 2003 and out.
This required the JSF Program Office to reevaluate funding allocations
within the program. To hold schedule to first flight, production start
and fielding, and meet the Services' Initial Operational Capability
dates, funding was first applied to the Lockheed Martin Air System and
the Pratt-Whitney propulsion contracts. The remainder of the funding
was then allocated to the General Electric F136 engine contract and the
Government support portions of the program. Reduction of planned
General Electric funding in fiscal year 2004 and out, with consequent
schedule delay, was a difficult decision essential to keeping this very
critical JSF development effort on schedule.
Question. Do you believe the application of this reduction will
cause a delay in a potential engine competition?
Answer: The Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) Program office is analyzing
ways to limit the impacts of the General Electric F136 funding
reductions in fiscal year 2004 and out, but the production engine
competition likely will be delayed. The Department will reevaluate
General Electric F136 funding and schedule as part of the fiscal year
2005 budget development process.
Question. In fiscal year 2003, the appropriations conferences
agreed to a $30 million increase for the interchangeable engine
problem. To what extent does this OMB directed reduction eliminate that
increase?
Answer. None. The inflation reduction was not applied to fiscal
year 2003 General Electric F136 planned effort.
Joint Strike Fighter Design Issues of Concern
Question. A recent news article indicates that JSF's prime
contractor, Lockheed Martin, discovered in February that the JSF could
be up to 20 percent overweight. Specifically, how does this
``discovery'' affect the program?
Answer. The government parametric estimate for the Joint Strike
Fighter (JSF) Air System weight currently is above the targets the
government/contractor team established for this period in the program.
The JSF team is aggressively working weight reduction initiatives.
Weight reduction, along with closure and maturation of design issues,
is addressed daily through a combination of the normal teaming
processes and insight from numerous external experts from all Services
as Preliminary Design Review (PDR) activities progress. The government
and prime contractors fully recognize the need to reduce the design
airplane weight through a proper systems engineering process that best
accommodates performance requirements, schedule, cost, and acceptable
risk. A Blue Ribbon Action Team (BRAT) has been established to
reconcile weight projection methodologies and identify detail design
impacts by late June 2003. PDR remains open pending the final BRAT
results. No delay to the overall schedule is currently projected.
Question. While it is not unusual for aircraft development programs
to have issues with weight, there is a concern that something in the
realm of an additional 20 percent, could threaten schedules and
budgets. Are you concerned about this potential?
Answer. Department leadership is closely monitoring weight status
and progress toward addressing related issues. We will have more
insight into this issue when the Blue Ribbon Action Team reports out in
June 2003.
Question. Mr. Secretary, to the extent that fixing this problem
causes the JSF schedule to slip, what back up plan exists for the Navy
and Marine Corps?
Answer. A slip in the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) schedule would
incur a requirement for the Department of the Navy to fund additional
Center Barrel Replacements for both Navy and Marine Corps F/A-18C/D
aircraft. Extending the service life of the F/A-18C/D fleet will
provide short-term relief in bridging TacAir force structure
requirements. The F/A-18E/F production line will remain open through
calendar year 2013 (last procurement 2011, deliver 2013), allowing the
procurement of additional F/A-18E/F's as an option to bridge force
structure gaps in the event of JSF schedule slip. The recently
completed AV-8B re-manufacture program provides the USMC some
flexibility in their tactical aviation requirements if there are delays
in the JSF delivery schedule.
Question. The news article mentions this is potentially a problem
with the design of the aircraft. Is this a design problem and if so,
what are the options for getting it corrected?
Answer. The Blue Ribbon Action Team is currently assessing the
weight issue relative to design. Details regarding this issue will be
better understood when the assessment completes in June 2003.
Joint Strike Fighter Technological Challenge
Question. Have you considered, and does it make sense, to maybe
move the other variants of the JSF forward to help replace aging
aircraft sooner and move the STOVL variant to a later point in the
schedule to provide additional time for development?
Answer. At this point, 18 months into execution of the System
Development and Demonstration contracts, there is still no delay in the
Short Takeoff and Vertical Landing (STOVL) variant development.
Therefore, reordering of the variants at this time is not practical or
affordable. It would require a major program re-structure with
attendant significant schedule delays and cost increases.
V-22 Aircraft
Question. The Director, Operational Test and Evaluation fiscal year
2002 Annual Report indicates that the milestone III decision on the V-
22 scheduled for November 2000 was delayed due to an independent
evaluation conducted by DOT&E. The milestone III decision was then
delayed indefinitely after a December 2000 crash.
The aircraft returned to flight in May 2002, and the number of
aircraft engaged in flight-testing increased to three by December 2002.
The fiscal year 2004 budget request contains $1.3 billion for nine Low
Rate Initial Production (LRIP) aircraft. Of this amount, $872.2 million
is for procurement, including $39.1 million for advance procurement,
and $441.1 million is for research and development.
Update the Committee on the progress of the V-22 program. What is
the status of flight-testing for the V-22?
Answer. The V-22 Program is currently mandated to continue
production at the minimum sustaining rate until the Secretary of
Defense certifies this aircraft meets the requirements outlined in
Section 123 of the FY 2002 National Defense Authorization Act. The
program continues to ensure a methodical and event driven test flight
program to validate all engineering and software changes. Program
reviews have been comprehensive; the organizational, technical and
programmatic issues are well addressed. The plan represents a rational
approach to flight testing.
The V-22 has flown over 350 flight hours (as of April 2003) since
its return to flight May 29, 2002.
3 Engineering and Manufacturing Development (EMD)
aircraft have returned to flight.
3 Low Rate Initial Production (LRIP) aircraft have
been modified and delivered early or on time.
Aircraft 9 Benefield Anechoic Facility phase III
testing accomplished 40 percent more test points than planned,
resulting in flight test savings.
Aircraft 7 is progressing well through multi-mode
radar testing to include flat rolling and isolated peak terrain
following.
Simultaneous deployments to USS IWO JIMA (shipboard
suitability) and Ft Bragg, NC (parachute loads testing).
Since its return to flight, the V-22 program has had no hydraulic
failures or software anomalies attributed to earlier mishaps.
Question. The DOT&E fiscal year 2002 Annual Report states that the
first order of business for V-22 testing is successful completion of
high rate of descent (HROD) tests. Has the V-22 successfully completed
this aspect of flight-testing?
Answer. The High Rate of Descent (HROD) flight test program is
producing significant results to include:
Recognition and definition of the flight boundary
for Vortex Ring State (VRS) onset.
Confirmation of the recovery technique.
Warning system design ready for in-flight
evaluation.
Recognition and demonstration of V-22's superior VRS
safety margin.
Phase I of HROD flight testing is scheduled to be completed May
2003 to support operational evaluation (OPEVAL).
Question. What are the key issues that need to be resolved, and the
capabilities proven, before you place Marines in the back of a V-22 on
a regular basis?
Answer. The V-22 program office has established a comprehensive and
rigorous ``event driven'' flight test program. When all developmental
and operational test requirements are complete, in accordance with all
prescribed directives, Marines will be placed in the back on a regular
basis.
Question. Will the V-22's suitability for shipboard operations be
adequately tested in the next phase of the program?
Answer. The V-22 successfully met shipboard suitability
requirements in the initial operational evaluation (OPEVAL) after a
final evaluation of the Blade Fold Wing Stow system. The self-taxi
capability enhanced the shipboard operational use of the aircraft. The
recent correction of hydraulic and software items, which includes the
redesign of the nacelle, and the shipboard suitability development
testing underway will support a successful OPEVAL.
A-12 Aircraft Settlement
Question. After an original ruling against the government for
wrongful termination of the A-12 stealth attack fighter development
program in 1991, an appellate court found the program contractors
liable for up to $2 billion in costs incurred by the government due to
non-performance on the A-12 development contract.
There have been sporadic attempts by the Department of the Navy to
reach some sort of in-kind settlement whereby the contractors would
provide up to $2 billion worth of goods and cost savings initiatives to
the Defense Department. The Justice Department has objected to this
approach and insists on an actual payment of $2 billion to the
Treasury. Absent a settlement the contractors plan to appeal the ruling
to the Supreme Court.
What is the status of attempts to settle the A-12 suit? What set of
goods and services are being offered by the contractor in its attempt
to settle the suit? What is the present position of the Justice
Department and OMB with regard to actually attempting to collect $2
billion in cash as per the appellate court ruling?
Answer. The Department of Defense and the Department of Justice
have been engaged in settlement discussions with the companies on a
number of occasions over the past several years. We are maintaining a
dialogue with the contractors and, although all parties are still
reviewing the recent decision of the Court of Appeals for the Federal
Circuit, we continue to exchange positions and proposals. The parties
have discussed different ways of constructing a settlement, including a
variety of products and services, as well as cash. The difficulty is in
reaching a complete settlement that everyone agrees is reasonable and
equitable under the circumstances. The Department of Justice is
participating actively in these efforts with DoD. There is no present
collection effort.
Navy and Marine Corps TACAIR Integration
Question. The Navy and Marine Corps have recently announced the
integration of their respective tactical air (TACAIR) forces. While
most observers have focused on the impact this integration will have on
overall aircraft purchases, it is more than that--it is a major shift
in Naval Aviation philosophy.
Please provide a brief description of the elements of TACAIR
Integration and the major elements of difference from the previous
tactical air forces.
Answer. The TACAIR Integration plan changes from the fiscal year
2003 program of record: total procurement objective, numbers of active
and reserve squadrons, Primary Aircraft Authorized (PAA) in tactical
squadrons and the organizational assignment of squadrons.
--Total Department of the Navy (DoN) procurement objective:
reduced from 548 F/A-18E/F and 1,089 JSF, totaling 1,637
strike-fighter aircraft to 460 F/A-18E/F and 680 JSF, totaling
1,140 strike-fighter.
--Numbers of active squadrons: decommission 3 active USN F/A-
18 squadrons, 1 Reserve USN & 1 Reserve USMC F/A-18 squadron.
Total DoN strike-fighter squadrons reduced from 64 to 59.
Note--2 active USN squadrons decommission outside FYDP.
--PAA reduction: 12 USN F/A-18C squadrons will reduce PAA
from 12 to 10 beginning in fiscal year 2004. USMC F/A-18
squadrons will reduce PAA from 12 to 10 as they integrate into
Carrier Air Wings (4 in fiscal year 2004, 4 more during the
FYDP). Exceptions are those USN F/A-18 squadrons identified for
transition to F/A-18E/F or squadrons identified for integration
into the USMC's Unit Deployment Plan (UDP) rotation.
--Organizational assignment: 6 additional USMC F/A-18
squadrons integrated into Carrier Air Wings, 3 USN F/A-18
squadrons integrate into USMC's UDP rotation.
Note: Final 2 USMC squadrons integrate into Carrier Air Wings
outside FYDP.
Question. In what specific ways has this change affected the way
the Navy and Marine Corps train and work together?
Answer. Navy and Marine Corps TACAIR units have a long history of
integrated operations and training. TACAIR integration will increase
the degree of integration by bringing an additional six USMC squadrons
into the Carrier Air Wing structure and three USN squadrons into the
Unit Deployment Plan rotation. Upon assignment, integrated squadrons'
operational command chain will change to the Carrier Air Wing or Marine
Air Group and the individual squadrons inter-deployment training cycle
will be conducted in accordance with the respective operational
requirements. Additionally, a USMC O-6 has already been selected for
ultimate assignment to command a Carrier Air Wing.
Question. This integration will also allow the Department of the
Navy to reduce the number of primary authorized aircraft by 47 during
fiscal year 2004. What is the long-term impact of TACAIR Integration on
authorized aircraft?
Answer. TACAIR Integration will reduce the number of primary
aircraft authorized (PAA) by 56 (vice 47) in fiscal year 2004. Twelve
USN squadrons and four USMC squadrons 2 aircraft + two
reserve squadron decommissions 12 aircraft = total of 56
aircraft.
Long-term impact of the plan on authorized aircraft is a reduction
of 128 PAA. Thirty-four squadrons reduce PAA and five squadrons are
decommissioned. The improvement in capability and reliability of
tomorrow's strike-fighters enables the PAA reduction while retaining
significant increases in overall capability. However, the most
significant portion of the reduction in total procurement comes from
reduction in procurement overhead rather than PAA. Overhead rates were
recalculated by matching procurement attrition rates with historical
rates and capturing efficiencies of improved reliability,
maintainability and capability rates of new strike-fighters, basing
efficiencies, training requirement reduction and improvements in
simulator-based training.
AV-8B Harrier Jump-Jet
Question. Earlier this year the Marine Corps' AV-8B attack jet
program was the subject of an investigative report by the Los Angeles
Times. The four part series of articles detailed the Harrier's history
as one of the most accident-prone airplanes in the naval aviation
fleet.
The report alleged that recurrent failures of the engine, wing
flaps, and ejection system coupled with a lack of spare parts and
adequate flying time have lead to fatalities that could have been
avoided.
What is the Department of the Navy's official response to the
issues raised by the LA Times article?
Answer. The problems discussed in the recent LA Time's articles
list four primary material problems causing AV-8B mishaps: Flaps
Controller, Engine, Ejection System, and Nose Wheel Steering.
--The Flaps Controller was replaced with a new Digital Flaps
Controller in the fourth quarter of fiscal year 2001. Since
installation, there have been no flap related mishaps.
--The engine program underwent an extensive Engine Life
Management Plan (ELMP) with increased funding to further test
the F402 Engine. Since ELMP was instituted in 2000, there have
been no engine related mishaps.
--The Ejection System in the AV-8B is currently being
upgraded to address all ejection related mishaps including: 4
line release, Electronic Airspeed/Altitude Sensor, upgraded
Helmet and Visor and Parachute Over Inflation Controller
(estimated completion is fiscal year 2005). Since the upgrades
have begun, there have been no ejection related deaths.
--The Nose Wheel Steering (NWS) system was redesigned and is
being incorporated into all fleet aircraft (estimated
completion is fiscal year 2005). Since the redesign of the NWS
system there have been no NWS related mishaps.
Following the AV-8B groundings in calendar year 2000, all Harrier
aviation related trends are positive. Mission Readiness, Safety, Pilot
Flight Time, and Fleet deployments have all increased. Pilot morale is
high, as is their confidence in the aircraft. The aircraft has been
performing superbly as indicated by its success while participating in
OPERATION IRAQI FREEDOM and OPERATION ENDURING FREEDOM, and other
deployments around the world.
Question. What has been the current safety record of the AV-8B in
terms of significant mishaps per flight hour and how does this metric
compare to other aircraft in the Navy/Marine Corps fleet?
Answer. The ten-year average mishap rate for the AV-8B is 9.73
mishaps per 100,000 flight hours compared to 6.44 for the F-14 and 2.80
for the F-18. Since the engine life management plan was implemented in
2000, the yearly mishap rate for the AV-8B has continued to decrease
below its ten-year average.
2003 Mishap rate per 100,000 flight hours for:
AV-8B............................................................. 4.86
F-14..............................................................*12.11
F-18.............................................................. *5.95
EA-6B............................................................. 4.90
S-3............................................................... 4.42
*Does not include Operation IRAQI FREEDOM combat losses.
Question. Is the AV-8B program adequately financed in the current
Future Years Defense Program to ensure that its mishap rates are no
higher than the average for the rest of the fleet?
Answer. The AV-8B program is adequately funded. The single issue to
address is the engine life management plan. This issue has been
included on the Navy's fiscal year 2004 Unfunded Program List (priority
number 20) and it is also moving forward as part of the fiscal year
2005 President's Budget development process. If this funding were to be
made available, it would continue the Accelerated Simulated Mission
Test (ASMET) series of tests to improve engine readiness, availability,
and safety. The three-year trend of the AV-8B is clearly comparable to
other tactical aircraft (TACAIR) legacy platforms such as the F-14, F/
A-18 and EA-6B, and is sustainable even under the more demanding
circumstance of single engine flight in a Short Takeoff and Vertical
Landing environment. The relatively small number of aircraft and flight
hours of the AV-8B when compared to F/A-18 may, in the future, result
in some larger variations as compared to the TACAIR mean. That is the
statistical reality of comparing different population sizes, and should
be viewed more broadly over several years.
Unmanned Combat Aerial Vehicle (UCAV)
Question. General Jumper, the Air Force Chief of Staff, was
recently quoted as saying that the investment in unmanned strike
aircraft is worth the cost only if it can deliver significant
additional warfighting capability. That, in general, pursuing this
technology for the sole purpose of getting a man out the cockpit is not
worth the cost--the investment pays off if the aircraft can deliver
significant additional capability.
Given that the Services often argue that the single greatest
advantage the United States has over its adversaries, is the talent of
our men and women in uniform, General Jumper's comments cannot be
discounted.
Admiral Clark and General Hagee, what are you views on this
subject?
Navy answer. As with any system, the cost effectiveness of Unmanned
Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) should be determined by comparison of capability
delivered versus cost. Taking humans out of the cockpit is not an end
unto itself, but it does allow UAVs to offer increased endurance, more
effective signature control, and the potential for reduced costs. In
addition, inherent risk to aircrew results in significant limitation of
employment options in some missions--taking the human out of the
cockpit in these situations greatly expands available alternatives in
the application of force. The Navy concurs that the single greatest
advantage that the United States has over its adversaries is the talent
of our men and women in uniform. However, in some cases the best place
for those men and women to contribute those talents is outside of a
cockpit.
Marine Corps answer. Should the Marine Corps choose to initiate an
acquisition strategy for an unmanned combat aerial vehicle sometime in
the future, the missions and capabilities of this technology would
serve as a force multiplier vice replacing aviators.
Question. What role will the Unmanned Combat Aerial Vehicle have in
the Navy and Marine Corps of the future and how is that reflected in
your SEAPOWER 21 and Marine Corps Strategy 21 documents?
Navy answer. The Unmanned Combat Aerial Vehicle (UCAV) will play a
critical role in providing persistent, penetrating surveillance and
reconnaissance capability, and in addressing time critical targets
through the combination of lethality and persistence. The UCAV is
envisioned to contribute to all aspects of Sea Power 21--the strategy
specifically states that the Sea Services will ``use unmanned
platforms: air, land, sea, and undersea for combat and
reconnaissance.''
Marine Corps answer. The UCAV is not specifically mentioned in
SeaPower 21 or Marine Corps Strategy 21. However, UCAV would be used
primarily as a Suppression of Enemy Air Defense (SEAD) asset in an
environment populated with numerous and highly capable surface to air
missiles. A UCAV would also be used as a deep strike asset well beyond
friendly lines.
Question. The fiscal year 2004 request for Unmanned Combat Aerial
Vehicles (UCAVs) is $275 million. Of this amount, how much is for the
Navy's variant of the UCAV?
Answer. A total of $123 million (including $5 million for the Joint
Program Office) was requested in fiscal year 2004 for the Navy's
Unmanned Combat Aerial Vehicles (UCAV) demonstration effort. In
addition, DARPA is expected to contribute $13 million to the Navy's
UCAV demonstration effort in fiscal year 2004.
Question. How much is included in the Navy's 2004 request for the
Joint Program Office?
Answer. $5 million is requested for the Navy's share of Joint
Program Office efforts.
Question. What is the current estimate of the production unit cost
of the Navy UCAV?
Answer. The Navy Unmanned Combat Air Vehicle effort is
insufficiently mature to justify a production unit cost estimate.
Further demonstration of technical feasibility and final validated
requirements are required before an analytically based cost estimate
can be provided.
Tactical UAV Fire Scout
Question. In fiscal year 2003, the Navy announced that it would
complete the Engineering, Manufacturing, and Demonstration (EMD) phase
of its Tactical UAV--Vertical Take Off and Landing system called Fire
Scout. The Navy's proposal was to conduct concept of operations work
with the five systems purchased with the EMD contract, but to not move
forward into production because the system could not meet the stated
requirement. This action essentially terminated the Fire Scout UAV
program and Congress provided additional funds for needed upgrades to
existing Pioneer Tactical UAV in order to meet near term requirements
for the Navy and Marine Corps.
The fiscal 2004 budget request appears to reverse the 2003 decision
by including $4 million to continue development of the Fire Scout. In
addition, the Navy's Unfunded Requirements list includes another $35
million for Fire Scout. This does not sound like a terminated program.
What is the story on Fire Scout?
Answer. In 2002, the Navy restructured the Vertical Takeoff and
Landing Tactical Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (VTUAV) program to end with
the completion of Engineering and Manufacturing Development (E&MD) and
one Low Rate Initial Production (LRIP) system.
In January 2003, the Navy identified VTUAV as a candidate system
for deployment aboard the Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) Flight 0.
According to our mission analysis, adopting existing, and near-term
available surface warfare, mine warfare, and anti-submarine warfare
sensors and weapons to the VTUAV and employing them from LCS Flight 0
would increase LCS combat capability, reduce reliance on manned
helicopters, and push the sensor and (eventually) weapons envelope
outward. Navy requested $4 million in fiscal year 2004 to complete
shipboard developmental testing associated with the current VTUAV
program. An additional $35 million was identified on the Chief of Naval
Operation's (CNO) Unfunded Programs List to develop LCS mission-unique
capabilities. This effort would include additional VTUAV research and
development to facilitate the integration of a VTUAV with the emerging
Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) requirement.
Despite the 2002 restructuring of the VTUAV program, the Marine
Corps does not feel Fire Scout meets their Expeditionary Maneuver
Warfare requirements for range, transportation to and use from
primitive sites, and survivability as laid out in Ship-to-Objective
Maneuver (STOM) operations.
Question. Just 12 months ago you were arguing that the system did
not meet the requirement, what has changed?
Answer. The original VTUAV program was developed in support of
Marine Corps requirements. In the past 12 months, the Navy initiated
the Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) program to fill a gap in surface
warfare, mine warfare and anti-submarine warfare. LCS will rely heavily
on unmanned systems to provide combat capability in these areas. The
current VTUAV program supports LCS surface warfare and intelligence,
surveillance and reconnaissance missions. Adaptation of additional
sensor and weapons will address the LCS Flight 0 requirements in all
three focused Mission areas.
The Marine Corps understands the need for a VTUAV on the LCS, but,
even with planned improvements, the Fire Scout falls short of meeting
Marine Corps requirements for performance, deployability, reliability,
survivability, cost, and schedule.
Question. Considering the other options available for you with
respect to other Tactical UAVs available with other manufacturers, why
are you pursuing a system that does not provide the endurance and the
speed you state you need?
Answer. An improved Fire Scout with upgraded speed, range
endurance, survivability, payload capability and weaponization will
meet all the endurance and speed requirements for the LCS core missions
of mine warfare, surface warfare and antisubmarine warfare with an
initial operating capability (IOC) of fiscal year 2007. No other
Tactical UAV is in development to meet all of the Navy's requirements
by fiscal year 2007.
Since the improved Fire Scout does not meet Marine Corps mission
requirements, the Marines are considering an alignment with the Coast
Guard's Deep Water UAV program, Eagle Eye. In accordance with the
Deputy Secretary of Defense's guidance to explore additional production
of previously developed programs or to join in cooperative development
programs with other governmental agencies, the Marines believe teaming
with the Coast Guard is in the best interest of the service since Eagle
Eye VUAV capabilities will surpass even the improved Fire Scout
capabilities. A Marine Corps demonstration system can be delivered in
fiscal year 2005 with a program IOC of early fiscal year 2008.
Question. Will you consider a re-competition of the contract?
Answer. Fire Scout was selected in a full and open competition. The
Fire Scout meets the current VTUAV Operational Requirements Document
(ORD). If a significant change in requirements necessitates a new ORD,
the acquisition strategy will be revised to best balance resources to
meet the warfighters' needs.
Question. How much will it cost the Navy to ``grow'' the Fire Scout
into a system that meets the requirement--or are you prepared to revise
the requirement? If the requirement is revised will you re-compete the
contract?
Answer. The Navy does not expect to see significant changes to the
requirements in order to meet Littoral Combat Ship mission focus areas;
therefore, Navy does not intend to recompete the contract at this time.
The Navy does envision an estimated $147 million would be required for
development and fielding. This includes the non-recurring engineering
and four LRIP systems. A new acquisition strategy for a VTUAV would be
developed if a new Operational Requirements Document with significant
new requirements becomes necessary.
Question. Please provide a detailed explanation for the $4 million
requested in the fiscal year 2004 request as well as the $35 million
identified on the unfunded requirements list.
Answer. The $4 million requested in fiscal year 2004 funding is for
shipboard testing associated with the completion of the current
Vertical Takeoff and Landing Tactical UAV (VTUAV) Engineering and
Manufacturing Development program. The $35 million identified on CNO's
Unfunded Programs List would be used to conduct additional VTUAV
research and development to facilitate the integration of a VTUAV with
the emerging Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) requirement.
Broad Area Maritime Surveillance
Question. Beginning in fiscal year 2002, Congress has supported the
Navy's concept of using high altitude UAV's to conduct a majority of
its maritime surveillance mission. The original objective was to use
UAVs in conjunction with manned surveillance and reconnaissance
aircraft to accomplish the surveillance and anti-submarine warfare
missions.
What is the status of the Navy's BAMS program?
Answer. The Broad Area Maritime Surveillance (BAMS) Unmanned Aerial
Vehicle (UAV) Program is proceeding to a Milestone B in the third
quarter of fiscal year 2004. Requirements (Concepts of Operation,
Operational Requirements Document, Analysis of Alternatives, and
Command, Control, Communications, Computers, and Intelligence Support
Plan) and acquisition documentation (acquisition strategy report, Test
and Evaluation Master Plan, manpower estimate report, etc.) are in
preparation to support the milestone.
Question. The Navy requested, and Congress provided, funds for the
acquisition of two Global Hawk UAVs so that it could test and
demonstrate maritime surveillance sensors. When will these UAVs deliver
to the Navy and when will the test program be complete?
Answer. The two Global Hawk UAVs will deliver in the 2nd and 4th
quarters of fiscal year 2005 respectively. The Navy intends to obtain
maximum value from the Global Hawks through an extended test and
experimentation program. The Global Hawks will be used for persistent
Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance (ISR) doctrine
development and continuous refinement of concept of operations, and
tactics, training, and procedures generation. The Global Hawks will
continue as enduring test beds for UAV maritime sensors development.
There is presently no defined completion date for the program.
Question. Is it the intent of the Navy to use the Global Hawk UAV
as the platform for its BAMS Program or do you anticipate a competition
for an alternate platform.
Answer. An Analysis of Alternatives is underway and is considering
a number of platforms for Broad Area Maritime Surveillance Unmanned
Aerial Vehicle. Concurrently, acquisition strategy options are being
formulated. The results of these two efforts will assist the Navy in
determining the most cost effective acquisition strategy to meet the
warfighting requirement.
Pioneer UAV
Question. General Hagee, there was great confusion last year as to
the Marine Corps' requirement for a tactical UAV. The budget request
included funds to upgrade the existing Pioneer UAV for connectivity and
maintainability issues. However, last minute differing viewpoints on
the Marine Corps' UAV needs lead the Committee to question the
necessity of upgrading the Pioneer in favor of an alternative UAV.
What is the Marine Corps requirement for a tactical UAV?
Answer. The Marine Corps has a requirement for an organic UAV
system that is interoperable with Joint C4I systems, is capable of
operating from ships or seabases, and will seamlessly transition to
operations ashore. This future UAV system should have the capability.to
support expeditionary maneuver warfare, and therefore, must be
deployable by organic USMC aviation assets. The UAV system should be
organized to provide scalable support to Marine Expeditionary Units,
Marine Expeditionary Brigades, and Marine Expeditionary Forces. Most
importantly, the UAV system must be responsive to the needs of a Marine
Air Ground Task Force (MAGTF) commander by providing, through the use
of modular payloads, reconnaissance, target designation,
communications/data relay, and signals intelligence (SIGINT)
capabilities. Without compromise, the UAV should be able to launch from
an amphibious ship or seabase, provide persistent support to a MAGTF
commander during movement to the objective, as well as during actions
on the objective, and have the capability to return to the ship,
seabase or a pre-designated site ashore. The future UAV system must be
very reliable with low Mean Time Between Failures (MTBF) and low
Maintenance Man Hours Per Flight Hour (MMPFH). The UAV must be
maintainable in austere environments while requiring minimal manpower
for servicing.
Question. Does the fiscal year 2004 budget request support your
needs?
Answer. The 2004 budget provides an upgrade to the Pioneer UAV
system. The system was fielded in 1988 and the upgraded Pioneer is
intended to provide UAV capability to the Marine Corps until a common
tactical vertical UAV (VUAV) is fielded in approximately FY 2009.
Question. What is the program of record that the Marine Corps
supports--the Pioneer as upgraded or some other UAV?
Answer. The Marine Corps supports--the Pioneer upgrade as a stopgap
system until FY 2009. The budget priorities for the Pioneer system
provide safety, sustainment, and minor capabilities enhancements.
Question. With the submission of its fiscal year 2004 Budget, the
Navy has proposed retiring DD-963 class destroyers, and earlier
versions of the Aegis Class Cruisers. These actions would take the
Navy's ship force structure below 300 ships in total, and below 116
surface ships.
Admiral Clark, what is the requirement for the total fleet size
given the present national security strategy and threat environment?
Answer. In order to meet the key goals outlined by the Quadrennial
Defense Review (QDR) and National Security Strategy (NSS), and to
transform in a way that assures continued operational effectiveness in
a changed security environment, the Navy-Marine Corps team has embraced
Sea Power 21. Sea Power 21 is implemented via a Global Concept of
Operations (CONOPs) that widely distributes the firepower of the fleet
to bolster both homeland and theater security, improve crisis response
reaction time, and position us to win decisively in war. In the past,
strategies focused on regional challenges. Today, we must think more
globally to be ready to defend the vital interests of the United States
against a broad range of potential challenges. Specifically, we need to
increase the probability that we will be in the right place at the
right time to deter and respond rapidly to terrorism and other
transnational threats. The Global CONOPs will more broadly distribute
combat power by creating additional independent strike groups (from 19
today to 37 in the future) capable of responding across the spectrum of
conflict simultaneously around the world.
While many features of the Global CONOPs can be executed with
today's forces, a fleet of approximately 375 battle force ships will be
required in the future to fully implement the concept and execute the
defense strategy. Independently, or as part of a Joint Task Force, this
dispersed, netted, and operationally agile fleet will deliver the
tailored mission capabilities needed to sustain homeland defense,
provide security in four theaters, swiftly defeat two aggressors at the
same time, and deliver decisive victory in one of those conflicts.
Question. Admiral Clark, what is the basis for the Navy's proposal
to retire ships with remaining useful service life?
Answer. Accelerating the retirement of the SPRUANCE Class
destroyers, the baseline one TICONDEROGA Class cruisers, and selected
OLIVER HAZARD PERRY Class frigates was a difficult decision--but the
right decision--and one based on the capabilities needed for both
today's and tomorrow's threat environment. These ships are
significantly less capable in the near-land threat environments we'll
see in the future. They require more maintenance, modernization and
additional manning to operate because they lack many of the optimal
manning technologies of our newer platforms. Most importantly, they
provide either redundant or significantly less effective strike and air
defense capabilities than our other platforms. In every case,
continuing to operate these ships for the few years remaining in their
service lives adds little to our aggregate warfighting posture. Our
ability to move forward with critical recapitalization and
transformation efforts is improved from an affordability standpoint
with savings from the higher ship and shore infrastructure costs
associated with the unique life cycle requirements of the less capable
DD 963's and baseline one cruisers. Current Navy warfighting analysis
of likely combat scenarios over the next ten years indicates that the
warfare missions for surface combatants are not well met by these less
capable ships and accelerating their retirement adds little or no risk
in the near-term, but helps significantly in facilitating our
transition to the numbers, type and mix of ships we will require to
execute the range of missions we anticipate in the 21St Century. In the
long term, we need the next generation destroyer, DD(X), the next
generation cruiser, CG(X) and the Littoral Combat Ship to address these
missions.
Question. Do you believe that simply counting hulls is a useful
metric when determining the effectiveness of today's fleet? What are
some other ways of measuring the offensive and defensive capabilities
of the fleet?
Answer. The global nature of the war on terror demands a global
Navy that can muster at the far corners of the earth to deny sanctuary
to the enemies of our country. If we are to be there when the nation
calls upon us, then numbers do matter.
That said, it is the offensive and defensive capabilities that
count if we are to use the maneuver area of the sea to our nation's
advantage. We can--and do--measure those capabilities in terms of
weapon range, sensor fidelity, data processing speed, and other
measures of effectiveness. The best metric then is the synergy between
these capabilities and the right number of platforms to truly measure
the combat power of today's--and tomorrow's--Navy.
Question. What are the risks associated with a reduced fleet size--
can this risk be mitigated with a better mix of effective platforms?
Answer. The global nature of the war on terror demands a global
Navy that can muster at the far corners of the earth to deny sanctuary
to the enemies of our country. If we are to be there when the nation
calls upon us, then numbers do matter. So in the simplest terms,
reduced fleet size incurs some risk in the Navy's ability to be where
it's needed, when it's needed.
That said, our analysis indicates that our proposed near-term
inactivations and our remaining war fighting capability provide an
acceptable level of risk without compromising our ability to accomplish
our mission. The reason for this is three-fold.
First, because we've made important gains in the current readiness
of our legacy force these last few years; it produced the more
responsive force we've seen on deployment this year.
Second, because the types of combatants scheduled for
decommissioning--SPRUANCE Class (DD 963) Destroyers, Baseline 1
TICONDEROGA Class (CG 47) Cruisers (non-Vertical Launch System (VLS)
capable), and older OLIVER HAZARD PERRY Class (FFG 7) Frigates--are not
well suited to take on the threats projected to develop over the next
10 years, especially in the areas of missile defense and warfare in
littoral waters.
Third, because we are investing the savings garnered from these
decommissionings to invest in precisely the new ship capabilities
needed to deal with these future threats. The next generation destroyer
(DD(X)) and the Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) are funded within the FYDP
and represent substantial future capability. DD(X) will provide Naval
Surface Fire Support (NSFS) in support of expeditionary missions,
acoustic stealth and advanced ASW capability, and large TLAM capacity.
LCS will enable operations in nearland areas and provide capabilities,
at lower cost, to defeat area-denial and anti-access efforts.
On balance, the risks associated with the temporary reduction in
fleet size are mitigated by our investment in the future.
Question. Do you anticipate any other countries Navy becoming a
peer competitor to the United States Navy in the next 20 years?
Answer. No, we do not anticipate the naval capability of another
country becoming a peer competitor to the United States Navy in the
next 20 years. Countries developing combat capabilities are not
expected to possess the breadth and depth of the U.S. Navy's. The
possibility does exist, however, that countries will develop asymmetric
capabilities challenging U.S supremacy in a specified location or
mission area for a limited period. The American way of war has changed
. . . we now fight as a joint force, often as part of a larger
coalition. A capability to fight from a sea base is critical in this
era of denial of basing ashore, reduced host nation support and anti-
access strategies. Land-based cruise missiles and theater ballistic
missiles are proliferating and further drive the requirement to provide
a mobile, sea based shield for allied and joint forces operating
ashore. The capabilities and concepts we are developing will provide us
the ability to operate and fight from the sea, dictate the place and
pace of combat, and win the nation's wars.
Question. What are some of the driving factors, other than sinking
the opposing force's Navy, that are used in determining the size and
composition of the U.S. Navy fleet?
Answer. Force planning and capability,requirements, risk-based
judgments, and fiscal realities determine the size and composition of
the U.S. Navy fleet in a given budget year. Current defense planning
has determined the force planning and capability requirements as:
Defend the United States.
Deter forward in critical areas.
Swiftly defeat aggression in overlapping major
conflicts, decisively defeating the adversary in one of these.
Conduct a limited number of small-scale
contingencies.
The Navy's approach to fulfilling this guidance is a product of
robust campaign, capability and risk analyses; and as a result, the
Global Concept of Operations (Global CONOPs) was developed. This
transformational architecture distributes our combat striking power
throughout a dispersed, networked fleet to support our joint war
fighting operations. Its implementation will enable Sea Power 21
capabilities and will take us from the current 19 strike capable groups
to 37 strike capable groups, built upon a force of approximately 375
ships.
While our POM04 and PR05 investment fully supports Sea Power 21 and
Global CONOPs transformation, the Navy currently possesses neither all
the capabilities nor the required mix of ships to achieve the desired
Global CONOPs end state within the FYDP. Fiscal realities will
determine when this size and composition is achieved.
Littoral Combat Ship (LCS)
Question. The Navy is currently experimenting with several small,
high-speed vessels to determine what role they may have in a future
littoral combat environment. Last year the defense appropriations
conferees provided $30 million above the budget to formally start the
Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) program.
Describe the present concept of operations and program acquisition
strategy for the LCS program.
Answer. The following is a synopsis of the Littoral Concept of
Operations (CONOPS) developed by the Naval War Development Command and
approved by the Chief of Naval Operations. The Littoral Combat Ship
(LCS) CONOPS in its entirety can be provided as requested.
LCS will contribute to Sea Shield through its unique capability to
respond quickly, operate in the littoral environment, and conduct
focused missions with a variety of networked off-board systems. LCS
will assure access for the Joint Force through, anti-submarine warfare
(ASW), mine countermeasures (MCM) and surface warfare missions as well
as through surveillance and reconnaissance. LCS also will directly
support Sea Strike operations by enabling forced entry for Joint power
projection forces. This includes support to Marine Corps, Army, and
Special Operations Forces. LCS will be an enabler of Sea Basing by
providing force protection to Joint assets and by acting as a swift and
flexible logistics element for joint mobility and sustainment.
Littoral Combat Ships, with the appropriate network and off-board
systems, will be able to operate as part of a littoral operations
force, or as deployers with multi-mission fleet forces (Carrier Strike
Groups/Expeditionary Strike Groups (CSGs/ESGs)) in a wide variety of
tasks. These tasks include: ASW, MCM, counter small boats, lengthening
and broadening surveillance horizons, conducting operational deception,
probing/testing enemy intentions and plans, hindering/complicating
enemy attack preparations, deploying, monitoring and protecting sensors
and weapons grids, performing Special Operations Forces (SOF) insertion
and extraction, providing force protection, conducting scouting/manned
reconnaissance, marker operations, combat search and rescue, and
tactical sustainment and mobility for Joint Forces.
In terms of hull design, LCS will achieve a potent balance of
mission capacity, maneuverability, stealth, and survivability. With a
draft of 20 feet or less, an innovative hull form and propulsion system
will enable LCS to operate at economical loiter speeds and to conduct
high speed sprints between 40 and 50 knots. LCS hull design and
propulsion systems will provide the maneuverability necessary to
transit in advance of other forces, ensure survivability and self-
defense, and quickly reposition in response to operational
requirements. Proven signature management technologies designed to
minimize infrared, acoustic, and magnetic emissions and limit its radar
cross-section will also be employed.
LCS is currently initiating pre-Milestone A/Defense Acquisition
Executive (DAE) approval acquisition activities, including analysis of
requirements, exploration of technologies and new system concepts,
program planning, and development of an acquisition strategy. The LCS
Request for Proposals (RFP), released on February 28, 2003, solicits
Preliminary Designs for LCS Flight 0, Phase I with options for Phase
II--Final Design and Detail Design and Construction. The award of up to
three Flight 0 Preliminary Design contracts for LCS is expected in the
July 2003 timeframe. LCS Flight 0 construction is scheduled to commence
in fiscal year 2005.
Question. How does LCS ``fit in'' with your ``family of ships''
concept?
Answer. Development of our next generation cruiser, CG(X), our
next-generation multi-mission destroyer, DD(X), and the Littoral Combat
Ship, LCS, are each critical to the future Navy. Each future surface
combatant is optimized to perform a key function: CG(X) to create and
maintain air superiority over the Joint force at sea and on land; DD(X)
for delivery of precision strike and volume fires to support assured
access and maneuver warfare; and LCS to operate closer to shore to deny
the enemy the use of asymmetric threats in an anti-access strategy
using mines, submarines, and swarming small combatants. As such, CG(X),
DD(X), and LCS will provide complementary capabilities that are fully
netted to the Joint force.
Question. If the LCS is to presumably work very close to enemy
shores with small crew contingents, what self-defense capabilities will
it have?
Answer. The Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) will incorporate a total
ship approach to survivability that addresses susceptibility,
vulnerability, and recoverability, with crew survival as a primary
objective. The principal means to minimize susceptibility include
speed, agility, signature management and a core self-defense weapon
suite. The LCS core weapon/sensor systems will provide the capability
to detect, identify, track and protect itself against threats including
anti-ship cruise missiles (ASCMs), aircraft, surface craft, mines and
torpedoes. Additionally, LCS will complement speed, signature
management, hard kill and soft kill systems with networked capabilities
to improve situational awareness and disrupt the threat's detect-to-
engage sequence in the littoral environment. The following are some of
the projected defense capabilities for specific threat areas:
Mine Warfare (MIW).--In all mission configurations the LCS shall
have core systems that provide the capability to conduct precise
navigation to avoid previously identified minefields, and enable the
employment of off-board or onboard sensors to perform mine avoidance
along the LCS' intended track.
Anti-Surface Warfare (ASUW).--In all mission configurations the LCS
shall have core systems that provide the capability to conduct multi-
sensor search, detection, classification, localization and tracking of
surface contacts in its assigned area of responsibility. The LCS will
also have the core capability to protect itself against small boat
attacks, including the use of speed and maneuverability, and have the
core capability to conduct warning and disabling fire.
Anti-Submarine Warfare (ASW).--In all mission configurations the
LCS shall have core systems that provide the capability to detect
threat torpedoes at sufficient range to permit initiation of effective
countermeasure and/or maneuver action to defeat the threat.
Question. Previously, the Navy has justified the submarine
requirement based on the need to operate close to shore. With the
introduction of the LCS, what is the role of the submarine in littoral
combat?
Answer. Submarines remain critical contributors to U.S. undersea
preeminence including waters in the littoral environment. Their
technical and operational capabilities pose significant obstacles to
potential adversaries who would seek to use the oceans to attack our
interests.
Submarines provide the United States an asymmetric advantage by
projecting power from under the sea, sustaining U.S. Forces in distant
anti-access and area denial environments, and in denying enemies
sanctuary by providing persistent intelligence, surveillance, tracking,
and rapid engagement.
The submarine's characteristics make it uniquely capable of
conducting clandestine missions in the littoral environment including:
Independent operations even when faced with a
hostile enemy.
Extensive unreplenished operations.
Undersea warfare battlespace dominance.
Surface warfare against large surface ships or
combatants.
Clandestine electronic, acoustic and visual
Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance (ISR).
Strike with surprise from within an adversary's
defense umbrella.
Clandestine SOF support.
Question. Do you think that the LCS would benefit from more
experimentation to determine its role before commencing a new
development program?
Answer. Lessons learned from Navy experimentation with small high-
speed ships and innovative hull forms such as the High Speed Vessel
(HSV-Xl), TRITON, and SLICE are invaluable in helping to formulate the
Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) role. We continue to rely on these vessels
to inform us in areas such as modularity, common launch and recovery
systems, and off-board vehicle operations. Vessels such as Hybrid Deep
Vee Demonstrator (HDV(D)-100), Hybrid Small Waterplane Area Craft
(HYSWAC), and X-CRAFT, will provide hydrodynamic information for
potential LCS candidates. Other efforts include studies/analysis by the
Naval War College, Naval Warfare Development Center, and industry.
Together, experimentation and analysis have laid a solid foundation for
the LCS sea frame and mission module CONOPs.
Question. What are the initial cost estimates, per unit, of the
LCS?
Answer. The LCS Flight 0 Preliminary Design Request For Proposals
issued on February 28, 2003, states that the Cost as an Independent
Variable target for the LCS and the installed core mission systems is
$220 million fiscal year 2005 dollars threshold and $150 million fiscal
year 2005 dollars objective. This includes: detail design; basic ship
construction costs; procurement, installation, and integration of the
core systems; outfitting and post delivery costs; and testing. The
mission packages are estimated to cost $30 million to $100 million each
fiscal year 2005 dollars depending on the warfare mission that the
module is supporting.
CVN-21 Aircraft Carrier
Question. The CVN-21 is the new transformational aircraft carrier
for the Navy. It is, in fact, a merger of the CVNX-1 and CVNX-2
capabilities that were presented last year.
Please provide a brief description of the capabilities you envision
for this new carrier.
Answer. The CVN 21 Class aircraft carriers will expand the
capabilities of the NIMITZ Class in the following areas:
An increase in sortie generation rate from 140 fixed
wing sorties/day to 160/day sustained for 30 days. To achieve
this sortie rate, new technology and improved design concepts
are being pursued to CVN 21 that will feature:
Enhanced/reconfigured flight deck:
Four electromagnetic catapults
(EMALS).
Re-designed flight deck arrangement
for ``pit stop'' servicing.
Three aircraft elevators for
enhanced aircraft movement and servicing.
Smaller/lighter island design.
Advanced Arresting Gear (AAG).
Two hangar bays vice three (reduced weight,
more parking area).
Improved weapons handling/aircraft servicing
efficiencies:
Weapons elevator technology
improvements.
Dedicated weapons sponson for
handling and servicing ordnance outside the
hull.
Improved weapons flow from magazine
to flight deck.
Upper stage elevator optimized for
weapons throughput to aircraft.
Additionally, CVN 21 will have:
Enhanced Self-Defense:
Multi-Function Radar and Volume Surveillance Radar,
Dynamic armor system;
Anti-torpedo torpedo; and
Enhanced ship self defense system using ESSM.
New Nuclear Propulsion Plant:
All electric auxiliary systems;
Zonal electrical distribution system;
300% increase in electrical generation capacity over
NIMITZ; and
Maximum use of reconfigurable spaces with standard
distribution panels.
Survivability Improvements:
5, underbottom/enhanced magazine protection;
Ship righting moment improvements; and
Enhanced underwater protection.
Engineering Improvements:
Enhanced service life allowance (5%-7.5%) at
delivery allows for predicted growth throughout the life of the
ship; and
Computer design model using CATIA improves
affordability of ship design changes and alterations.
Question. In fiscal year 2003, Congress provided an additional $160
million for acceleration of the CVNX-1 carrier.
Is it your intention to use these additional funds instead for CVN-
21?
Answer. Yes, these funds will be used for efforts originally
planned for CVNX, now designated CVN 21.
Question. How, specifically, do you intend to use the $160 million
in additional funds?
Answer. In fiscal year 2003, Congress appropriated $160 million
over the President's request to accelerate existing CVNX-1 design
efforts (propulsion/electric plant, HM&E, & Total Ship Integration
efforts). This funding was required for the program definition, design
maturity, and workforce maturity needed to support advanced
construction efforts. The additional funds provide a level-loaded
workforce in the peak design years, completion of the requirements
definition needed to support award of a detailed design and advanced
construction contract in fiscal year 2004, and supports advanced
construction efforts in fiscal years 2004-2006 by reducing both
schedule and cost risk. Efforts are as follows:
Program definition
Complete ship specifications.
Refine detailed ship build strategy and shipyard
facilities plan.
Develop detailed construction schedule.
Refine detailed ship design schedule based on
construction schedule.
Design maturity
Complete 2nd revision of propulsion plant diagrams.
Complete system diagrams for affected hull,
mechanical, and electrical systems.
Accelerate reactor compartment arrangement
development.
Supports future construction schedule.
Supports more efficient implementation of
design tools.
Supports more efficient design and
construction plan.
Accelerate other propulsion plant and ship
arrangement development to reduce cost and schedule risk and
support flexibility in construction planning.
Workforce maturity
Accelerating effort allows design force to ramp to
peak design manning by end of 2003.
Initiates 3-5 years of level-loaded design force in
fiscal years 2004-2008 (vice large inefficient spike).
Allows use of experienced designers and engineers
made available from other projects at Northrup Grumman Newport
News and Electric Boat (CVN 77, VIRGINIA Class, and SSGN).
Question. The current funding profile for the CVN-21 is a request
for split funding of construction between fiscal years 2007 and 2008.
Who knows what the budgets will look like 5 years from now, but we
would like to know the rationale for split funding of this ship
construction program.
Is there any issue, other than affordability, that drives you to
such a proposal?
Answer. Affordability is the only driver for the split funding
proposal.
Question. It is our understanding that such a proposal would
increase the cost of the lead ship. Is that accurate?
Answer. The split funding proposal has no impact on the cost of the
lead ship.
Question. What is the current estimate of the additional costs
incurred in the program due to split funding of construction?
Answer. As stated above, there are no additional costs incurred by
split funding ship construction.
Question. What and when is the next Milestone for this program?
Answer. The CVN 21 program is currently projecting a 3rd Quarter
Fiscal Year 2004 Milestone B Defense Acquisition Board decision by the
Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition Technology and Logistics.
The purpose of the Milestone B decision is to approve the program's
entry into the System Development and Demonstration Phase.
Question. What business-reengineering processes did you use for the
design of the ship? For example, you have rearranged weapons movement.
Answer. A three-step process was used to evaluate technologies and
design concepts to be pulled forward from CVNX-2 and to recommend
changes to improve capability beyond the CVNX-1 baseline. In the first
step, six subject matter expert (SME) teams and three cross-functional
teams were formed. SME teams examined discreet areas, while cross-
functional teams examined areas impacting the entire ship. The team
structure is listed below:
Weapons Movement SME Team;
Flight Deck SME Team;
Hangar Bay/Aircraft Intermediate Maintenance
Department SME Team;
Integrated Island SME Team;
Survivability SME Team;
Material Movement SME Team;
Sortie Generation Cross Functional Team;
Weight & Stability Cross Functional Team; and
Manpower Reduction Cross Functional Team.
The teams performed an assessment of each technology or design
feature within their area of responsibility to evaluate affordability,
schedule risk, contribution to warfighting capability, and impact on
ship's manpower, weight, stability, and support systems. In addition,
the cross functional teams summarized the combined impacts on weight
and stability, manpower, and sortie generation rate resulting from the
total package of technologies/design concepts that were recommended.
These evaluations were uniformly conducted and documented according to
guidance prepared by the program office. Over 100 participants
representing 12 different organizations, including industry, the
science and technology community, fleet representatives, and other Navy
organizations participated in this effort.
In the second step of the process, team recommendations were
considered by the Concept Ship Executive Panel (CSEP). The CSEP was
chaired by the Program Manager and included representatives from the
Navy staff (N785--Head, Aircraft Carrier Programs), the Naval Sea
Systems Command, the Naval Air Systems Command, the Office of Naval
Research, and the Fleet. The CSEP considered the team proposals and,
taking into account total ship impact, risk, and the cost/benefit
analyses, recommended the CVN-21 concept ship for consideration by the
Program Executive Office (PEO) for Carriers. PEO Carriers concurrence
with the concept ship constituted the third step in the process.
Following PEO Carriers concurrence, the program office tasked
Northrop Grumman Newport News (NGNN) with transforming the concept ship
into a preliminary ship design. During this on-going process, NGNN,
with appropriate participation by the Government, is refining and
iterating the original concepts into workable designs that can be
effectively integrated into the ship and meet operational requirements.
Question. Was this based on the results of a process reengineering
study?
Answer. No. Processes currently in place for CVNX-1 are being
utilized for CVN-21.
CVN-77 Aircraft Carrier
Question. The CVN-77, also known as the George H.W. BUSH, is to be
the final ship of the CVN-68 NIMITZ Class aircraft carriers. The fiscal
year 2004 budget request includes approximately $1.2 billion in
procurement funds and $311 million in Research, Development, Test and
Evaluation funds for the CVN-77.
In fiscal year 2003, this Committee raised concerns about the
Navy's decision to use legacy technology; especially the multi-function
radar and volume search radar, rather than advancing technology for the
CVN-77 as planned.
The Congress eventually provided an additional $90 million above
the budget request in 2003 to advance ``potentially transformation
technologies'' for the CVN-77. What are your plans for the expenditure
of these funds?
Answer. As noted in the CVN-77 fiscal year 2003 Report to Congress
dated February 15, 2003, the Navy held meetings with industry and
government participating acquisition managers to investigate the
following potential technology candidates:
Full Service Integrated Networks--Wireless ICAN
applications;
Integrated Advanced Strike And Mission Planning
Capabilities--SESS Information Operations Center (SIOC)
Integration;
Full Service Integrated Networks--Radio Room
Automation;
Common Flexible Island--Mast Clamp Current Probe;
Common Flexible Island--Composite Mast;
Multi-Modal Display Workstation & Integrated
Advanced Strike And Mission Planning Capabilities--CV-TSC
Technologies;
Integrated Advanced Strike And Mission Planning
Capabilities--Naval Strike Warfare Planning Center (NSWPC)
Ready Room Technologies; and
Integrated Advanced Strike And Mission Planning
Capabilities--Joint Fires Network (JFN) and Naval Strike
Warfare Planning Center (NSWPC) Integration.
The Navy has further evaluated the specified technologies based on
refined cost estimates, execution plans, risk plans, and a more
detailed assessment of ship construction schedule impact. The following
technologies are being pursued for implementation on CVN-77:
Full Service Integrated Networks--Radio Room
Automation;
Common Flexible Island--Mast Clamp Current Probe;
Common Flexible Island--Composite Mast;
Multi-Modal Display Workstation & Integrated
Advanced Strike And Mission Planning Capabilities--CV-TSC
Technologies;
Integrated Advanced Strike And Mission Planning
Capabilities--NSWPC Ready Room Technologies; and
Integrated Advanced Strike And Mission Planning
Capabilities--JFN and NSWPC Integration.
Question. Will these be technologies that could be transitioned to
the CVN-21?
Answer. Any transformational technologies incorporated into CVN-77
will be included in the CVN-21 concept.
DD(X) Destroyer Program
Question. The Navy is continuing its development of the DD(X), the
transformational destroyer program.
Please provide a brief description of the capabilities you envision
for this new destroyer.
Answer. DD(X) is the centerpiece of a family of ships that will
deliver a broad range of core capabilities to the Fleet. DD(X) will
provide a baseline for spiral technology and engineering development to
support a range of future surface ships including the Littoral Combat
Ship (LCS) and the next generation cruiser, CG (X) .
DD(X) is a multi-mission surface combatant tailored to be the
primary family of ships provider for volume fires and precision strike.
Armed with an array of land-attack weapons including the Long Range
Land Attack Projectile fired from the Advanced Gun System (AGS) and
Tactical Tomahawk, DD(X) will provide persistent, distributed, long-
range, precision attack needed in support of Marine Corps' future
expeditionary operations in the littorals and for our joint forces
operating deep inland. DD(X) is a critical enabler for the Navy's Sea
Strike vision, which includes the Marine Corps' Expeditionary Maneuver
Warfare, Ship-to-Objective Maneuver, and Operational Maneuver From the
Sea concepts.
DD(X) will take advantage of advanced stealth technologies to be
less detectable and less vulnerable to enemy attacks than the ships it
will replace. A tumblehome hull form combined with an integrated
deckhouse and apertures will significantly reduce radar cross-section
and infrared signatures. An enhanced soft kill capability, including
the latest in countermeasure technology, such as NULKA and TORCH
enhanced by precise infrared and radar detection capabilities, will
improve survivability in any combat environment. DD(X)'s active and
passive sensors and countermeasures will force foes to close to much
closer ranges allowing the robust combat systems more time to engage
and kill targets.
An open architecture, distributed combat system will support a
``plug and play'' environment in which to operate AGS, an Advanced
Vertical Launching System (VLS) and a Multi-Function Radar/Volume
Search Radar (MFR/VSR) suite. With counter-fire target acquisition
capability, MFR/VSR will significantly enhance the survivability of
maneuver forces and indirect fire assets operating ashore. In addition
to anti-air weapons, such as the Evolved Sea Sparrow Missile and
Standard Missile, the Advanced VLS will house land attack missiles and
will have the capability to carry and launch missiles to support a
Ballistic Missile Defense mission. With a fully netted command,
control, communications, computers, and intelligence (C4I) capability
including Cooperative Engagement Capability, the remote launch of DD(X)
missiles by another unit will be possible.
DD (X) will have an Integrated Undersea Warfare (IUSW) Suite. This
bifocal sonar system, coupled with an embarked air detachment will make
DD(X) the most capable blue water USW platform afloat. Augmented by an
integrated organic mine-avoidance system, DD(X) will be able to operate
in any battlespace. Advanced hull materials coupled with rafting of
main engineering components and the latest in hull treatments will
ensure DD(X) is the quietest and most magnetically stealthy combatant
afloat.
Other significant DD(X) features include an Integrated Power System
to allow rapid reconfiguration of power, reduced acoustic noise and a
spiral to rail gun and the potential for directed-energy weapons aboard
CG(X).
Question. What are the major technological issues that must be
resolved with respect to the development of the DD(X) and do you
believe you have a plan to successfully address these issues?
Answer. The major technological challenge with respect the
development of the DD(X) is the concurrent design, build test of the
ten Engineering Development Models (EDMs) listed below:
Advanced Gun System.
Integrated Power System.
Dual Band Radar.
Total Ship Computing Environment.
Peripheral Vertical Launching System.
Integrated Deckhouse & Apertures.
Autonomic Fire Suppression System.
Infrared Mockups.
Hull Form Scale Model.
Integrated Undersea Warfare System.
There is a plan in place that includes extensive land at-sea
testing of the EDMs as part of a comprehensive risk mitigation approach
to be performed within the scope of the DD(X) design agent contract
(fiscal years 2002-2005). Using the spiral development approach, the
test plan will allow the DD(X) program to manage risk through test
demonstrations that provide continuous feedback to the DD(X) system
design.
Question. What are the major design issues that must be resolved
with respect to the development of the DD(X) and do you believe you
have a plan to successfully address these issues?
Answer. The major design challenge is associated with integration
activities. Signatures, human system integration, electromagnetic
interference and compatibility, damage control automation, and Cost As
an Independent Variable (CAIV) are examples of interrelated design
attributes. The plan being executed is the development of the ship
design through a total ship system design process, with iterative
baselines established for critical analysis. The process yields a
design at pre-established decision points that is balanced to maximize
achieving a total ship performance within the CAIV goal. The resulting
design can be further iterated through trade studies to analyze a
requirements change or to optimize priority performance in a given
mission area. The discipline of the process and flexibility allowed by
the process tools are key to the successful design cycle process.
The composition of the Design Agent Team is another key to the
successful design process. The Team contains both shipbuilders
(Northrop Grumman Ship Systems, Pascagoula, MS, and Bath Iron Works,
Bath, ME), and a National Team that includes Raytheon, Lockheed Martin,
Boeing, United Defense Limited Partnership, and Northrop Grumman
Information Technology.
Question. The Navy is proposing a spiral development approach to
the DD(X), which in itself is rather ``transformational.'' Is this a
spiral development plan that meets the criteria established by
Secretary Aldridge? One of the challenges of managing a spiral
development program is having a solid test and evaluation plan that
allows sufficient testing at the end of each spiral based on a approved
set of criteria. Do you have a test and evaluation plan?
Answer. The DD(X) spiral development approach was approved by
Secretary Aldridge when the DD21 Program was restructured to DD(X) in
November 2001.
The DD(X) Test and Evaluation Master Plan is under development and
being engineered to specifically address evaluation of the DD(X) Flight
I baseline. There is an extensive series of lower level engineering
systems tests that are pre-cursors to land and at-sea tests planned to
demonstrate ship system performance. These risk mitigation activities
will precede equipment production and ship construction. This includes
testing of the Dual Band Radar, Integrated Power System and Total Ship
Computing Environment on the EX-RADFORD.
Question. One controversial aspect of the DD(X) is the funding of
the first ship through the RDT&E appropriation in fiscal year 2005,
rather than the traditional approach of funding the lead ship of any
class in the Shipbuilding and Conversion appropriation.
What is the rationale for this funding proposal?
Answer. The rationale for funding the first DD(X) Class ship with
RDT&E funding is that it allows the program to more easily address the
inherent technical and integration challenges of a lead ship through
the use of annual funding while maximizing technology benefits in the
shortest time period. In addition, the use of RDT&E funding minimizes
prior year shipbuilding bills, which has been a Navy and Congressional
concern in recent years.
Question. Considering this is a spiral development approach, it is
possible that the design and weapons capabilities will not be solid by
fiscal year 2006 when you anticipate procurement of the second ship.
Will you have sufficient information on the design and capabilities
to go forward with procurement just one year after initiating the R&D
ship?
Answer. The design and capabilities of the first Flight will be
solid before construction begins on the first ship. The second ship is
planned to succeed the first ship by one year. The engineering data
package that supports the first ship construction is the same
engineering data package that supports the construction of the second
ship. Both shipbuilders will be involved in the ship design and will
utilize the same 3-D CAD/CAM system to minimize design issues and the
transfer of manufacturing data.
DDG-51 Destroyer Program
Question. During discussions last year, the Navy stated its intent
to procure one, and the last, DDG-51 in fiscal year 2006. The fiscal
year 2004 budget request now shows no DDG-51 acquisition in fiscal year
2006.
Please tell us why this additional DDG-51 vessel is not going to be
procured in fiscal year 2006.
Answer. In order to transform to meet future threats, the Navy must
move toward DD(X) as soon as feasible. By concluding the procurement of
DDG-51 Class ships in fiscal year 2005 and reallocating funding to
DD(X), Navy was able to add a DD (X) in fiscal year 2006 and fiscal
year 2007 in its fiscal year 2004 budget request, two more than the
fiscal year 2003 request.
Question. Since the follow-on to the DDG-51 is the DD(X), do you
anticipate that should the DD(X) schedule slip, you would seek an
additional DDG-51 in the 2006 budget?
Answer. The DD(X) program is on schedule to begin procurement in
fiscal year 2005, no slippage is anticipated. Navy is committed to
maintaining a robust shipbuilding program. Recapitalization
requirements and industrial base health will be taken into
consideration in the formulation of future shipbuilding program budgets
as necessary.
Question. Without this additional one ship in 2006, what is the
anticipated impact on shipyard workload?
Answer. Loss of the fiscal year 2006 DDG-51 Class ship has an
adverse impact on the Surface Combatant industrial base workload.
Surface combatant procurements have averaged three ships per year since
the mid-1990s. The fiscal year 2004 President's Budget shipbuilding
plan sustains surface combatant production at a minimum of one ship per
year during the transition from the DDG-51 Class to the DD(X) class.
However, this will result in a surface combatant production gap in
fiscal year 2006 or fiscal year 2007 at both General Dynamics Bath Iron
Works and Northrop Grumman Ship Systems (NGSS). Specific shipyard
impacts will vary, depending on workload projections at each yard. A
critical variable is award of the DD(X) lead-ship production contract
in fiscal year 2005, and ramp up of continuous, follow ship DD(X)
production in fiscal year 2006 and out. Regardless, additional work
will be needed to sustain each yard during the fiscal year 2006-07
transition period.
NGSS has ongoing, concurrent production for LPD 17 Class ships, LHD
8, and startup of the LHA(R) shipbuilding program during the DDG-DD(X)
transition period. NGSS will also be initiating production for the
Coast Guard Deepwater Program during this same time frame. The lack of
the fiscal year 2006 DDG will have an adverse impact at this shipyard,
potentially increasing costs due to higher overhead rates, production
inefficiencies, and cost increases to sustain critical second tier
vendors.
Bath Iron Works (BIW) has no other concurrent shipbuilding work
beyond their existing DDG-51 production workload during the planned
transition from DDG to DD(X) production. Should BIW not be awarded the
lead DD(X) production contract, the lack of the fiscal year 2006 DDG
will make the transition to DD(X) follow-on construction more costly to
the Navy.
As a part of the DDG-LPD workload swap, the first three of four
ships were ``swapped'' as a part of the award process for the fiscal
year 2002 DDG multiyear procurement. This was in accordance with the
LPD/DDG workload realignment Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) signed
in June 2002. Per the MOU, BIW is entitled to the equivalent workload
of one DDG at some future date, pending award of LPD-28 to NGSS. Loss
of the fiscal year 2006 DDG may transition this workload swap agreement
to the DD(X) program and could affect the Navy's future production
planning for DD(X).
Virginia Class Submarine--Multiyear Procurement
Question. The fiscal year 2004 budget request includes
approximately $2.6 billion for the VIRGINIA Class submarine program. Of
this amount, $2.5 billion is for procurement and $106 million is for
R&D. The budget request also includes a request for a 7-ship multi-year
procurement for fiscal years 2004 through 2008.
Does this program meet all the criteria for a multi-year
procurement decision?
Answer. The VIRGINIA Program meets all United States Code Title 10
conditions for multi-year procurement (MYP).
a. Substantial savings: $805 million for seven ships ($115 million
per ship).
b. Stability of Requirement: VIRGINIA Class is necessary to achieve
and maintain required SSN force level, ensure continuous US undersea
superiority, and provide a highly capable and flexible SSN for the
future. The Program is planned for 30 ships.
c. Stability of Funding: The Navy gives VIRGINIA Class program high
priority, and the Department is committed to fund this MYP throughout
the contract period.
d. Stability of Configuration/Design: VIRGINIA design is
essentially complete; design changes are the lowest in submarine
construction history; major key events have been met; and early
testing, including evaluation by Commander, Operational Test and
Evaluation Force (COMOPTEVFOR) during OT-IIB, provides high confidence
that the ship and systems will perform as required.
e. Realistic cost estimates: VIRGINIA cost estimates are realistic
as they are based on actual returns from the first four ships. The
first ship is 82% complete.
f. National Security need: VIRGINIA Class', role in national
security is documented in Quadrennial Defense Review and Joint Chiefs
of Staff studies.
Question. With a June 2004 delivery date for the first boat, it is
not likely that even one of the submarines will be operational before
Congress will have to make a determination on proceeding with this
multi-year procurement request. If this multi-year procurement is
approved, will the Congress be setting a precedent for committing to a
multi-year acquisition program prior to fielding the first system?
Answer. Authorization for multi-year procurement of VIRGINIA Class
submarines would be earlier than in the Navy's other multi-year
procurement shipbuilding program, DDG-51. However, the VIRGINIA Class
design is 100 percent complete and construction of the lead submarine
is more than 82 percent complete. We have enough information to
effectively price and evaluate a multi-year contract.
A multi-year procurement is the most cost effective way to buy
those submarines. Additionally, it creates industrial base stability,
ensuring that efficiencies and saving are optimized.
Question. What are the estimated cost savings of this multi-year
procurement proposal?
Answer. The estimated savings are $805 million for seven submarines
(at least $115 million per ship) procured in fiscal years 2004-2008.
The savings assume continued shipbuilder teaming and use of Economic
Ordering Quantity funds for material purchases.
Question. What would be the impact on your fiscal year 2004 request
if Congress does not approve the proposal?
Answer. The below table provides the funding changes to the fiscal
year 2004 budget request:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY FY04 FY05 FY06 FY07 FY08
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quantity PB-04 Request (Multiyear)........... 1 1 1 2 2
Restore Multi-year Savings................... (115) (115) (115) (230) (230)
Reallocate FY04 EOQ.......................... 390 (65) (65) (130) (130)
Reallocate FY05 EOQ.......................... ............ 390 (78) (156) (156)
Reallocate FY06 EOQ.......................... ............ ............ 195 (97) (97)
------------------------------------------------------------------
Net Change............................... 275 210 (63) (613) (613)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Numbers in parenthesis () represent shortfalls to budget.
Question. Since the plan is a total of 30 submarines of this class,
what is the logic of a 7-ship multi-year request?
Answer. Navy's minimum requirement for SSN force structure is 55
submarines. In order to sustain this level, it is essential to increase
VIRGINIA SSN build rate to two submarines per year as soon as possible.
Due to advance procurement requirements for long lead-time material,
the earliest opportunity to increase the build rate to two SSNs/year is
FY2007. While a multi-year procurement of five SSNs (i.e., one per
year) would still reap savings over annual procurements, SSN force
levels could not be maintained at 55 over the long-term. Additionally,
while a multi-year contract for five SSNs with options to buy two more
would also result in significant savings over annual procurements, the
shipbuilder could not procure Economic Order Quantity (EOQ) materials
for the option ships, reducing the savings possible for these SSNs.
Virginia Class Submarine--Cost Overruns
Question. Recent press articles as well as statements from senior
DoD officials, point to a serious problem with VIRGINIA Class submarine
cost overruns.
What is the current estimate of the total program cost growth and
what is the genesis for these overruns?
Answer. The VIRGINIA Class 30-ship program cost estimate is
$64,747.5 million (Base Year FY95 Dollars) or $81,792.2 million (Then
Year Dollars). This reflects a Procurement Acquisition Unit Cost
increase from $1739.4 million to $2158.3 million (Base Year FY95
Dollars) or 24% since the last Acquisition Program Baseline (APB) in
December 2000. The major changes reflected in the revised cost baseline
include:
Labor and material costs have risen because of
higher than expected inflation. DoD inflation projections were
in the 1-2% range, whereas actual experience is in the 4.0-4.5%
range.
Pensions and health care costs are increasing
contractor overhead costs. This pattern is consistent with what
is being experienced in the economy in general.
The continued low rate of submarine production has
led to a shrinking vendor base and higher material costs.
Vendors are requiring a premium for highly specialized
equipment with no other military or commercial applications.
Changes to cost estimates based on cost returns from
the first four ships under construction, which indicated that
actual labor hour and material costs are slightly higher than
originally estimated.
There are two components of cost growth. First, there is real
growth in material, labor, overhead, and worker benefits that has
occurred since the December 2000 baseline (19%). This component is
reduced by 7% for multi-year savings for a net cost growth of 12%.
Second, there is another component of growth due to different
escalation and de-escalation calculations in the 2000 baseline (12%).
This component arises because, in the 2000 baseline, the cost of ships
outside the Future Years Defense Program (FYDP) were escalated and de-
escalated at OSD-approved indices whereas, in the 2002 APB update,
these ships were escalated based on best available labor and material
escalation information and de-escalated at OSD-approved indices thus
artificially inflating program cost growth. The two components are real
bills that DoD must pay. However, it is misleading to characterize the
total 24% as new cost growth over the last two years of the program.
The new estimate reflects DoD's current policy to accurately price
programs using realistic cost data and realistic inflation assumptions.
The four VIRGINIA Class submarines now under contract are progressing
according to schedules established eight years ago, and the lead ship
is expected to be delivered to the Navy a month early.
Question. Given the history of cost overruns in the Navy
shipbuilding program, why should this Committee believe that all the
cost growth has been identified--can you be certain we will not be
surprised with yet another cost growth in this program?
Answer. The VIRGINIA Class Program Office and Navy acquisition
officials are aggressively challenging any cost increases while
pursuing strategies to achieve the lowest possible future costs.
Shortfall areas associated with designing a new class of submarine will
not affect future contracts since this effort is essentially complete.
The Navy is structuring the follow-on construction contract (for the
next five to seven submarines) as a fixed-price incentive contract to
incentivize construction savings. Additionally, the Navy has requested
authority to transition to a multi-year contract with economic order
quantity (EOQ) provisions in fiscal year 2004, which will reduce costs
through greater shipyard efficiency and authority to purchase material
in larger quantities. Finally, the fiscal year 2004 President's Budget
request plans to increase the submarine build rate in fiscal year 2007
and beyond to preserve the submarine force structure necessary for
continuing U.S. undersea dominance. The increased build rate will
contribute significantly toward reducing per-unit costs by reducing
overhead costs.
Question. Recent press articles as well as statements from senior
DoD officials, point to a serious problem with VIRGINIA Class submarine
cost overruns.
What are the Navy's options for controlling cost of this program?
One option the Navy may be pursuing is to buy more submarines and
therefore reduce the cost per vessel; another option is to reduce the
total buy, thereby reducing the total cost of the program. What would
be the impact on the Navy's force structure if it built fewer VIRGINIA
Class submarines?
Answer. Current SSN force level is 54. The 2001 Quadrennial Defense
Review (QDR) sets the moderate risk level SSN force level at 55. The
1999 Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff (CJCS) Study reached the
conclusion that fewer than 55 attack submarines in 2015 and fewer than
62 in 2025 would leave Combatant Commanders with insufficient
capability to respond to urgent crucial demand without gapping other
requirements of high national interest. Additional Navy studies since
1999 have identified the minimum warfighting requirement of SSNs as 55.
Current SSN force level is inadequate to meet current Combatant
Commander demands. For calendar year 2003, Combatant Commanders have
requested between 14 and 15 deployed SSNs for National and Combatant
Commander ISR, Tomahawk strike, Carrier Battle Group support, and
Special Operations Force-equipped SSN missions. Considering
sustainability and training requirements, the Navy is able to sustain
10 SSNs deployed with the current force level.
If the VIRGINIA build rate were to remain at 1 per year,
(considered the minimum rate to maintain supplier and industrial base)
and the Program of Record plan to refuel five LOS ANGELES Class SSNs is
maintained, SSN force level would reach 55 in 2008, but decrease to 54
by 2015, 46 by 2017, and 36 by 2025. The rapid decrease is due to the
retirement of the LOS ANGELES Class SSNs as they reach the end of hull
life.
Question. Have you explored the option of terminating this program
after construction of submarines currently under contract and pursuing
other submarine construction options?
Answer. Termination of the VIRGINIA Class program after the current
contract and investigation of other submarine construction options has
not been pursued. There are no ``off the-shelf '' submarine designs
that would satisfy U.S. submarine mission requirements that could be
built at a lower cost than the VIRGINIA Class. The VIRGINIA Class
submarine was designed to meet the security requirements of the post-
Cold War era while minimizing submarine procurement and life-cycle
costs. With a focus on the littoral battlespace, VIRGINIA Class is
designed for flexibility in responding to changing missions and
threats. Its modular design, which allows for affordable insertion of
new technologies, ensures it will continue to be the right submarine
well into the 21st century.
Question. What would be the cost of the program termination after
construction of SSN 777, which is scheduled for a December 2007
delivery?
Answer. There have been no estimates made of the cost to terminate
the VIRGINIA Class program. In 1994, following the termination of the
SEAWOLF program, RAND published ``The U.S. Submarine Production Base:
An Analysis of Cost, Schedule, and Risk for Selected Force
Structures''. The 1994 RAND report estimated the indirect costs of
stopping and later restarting submarine production at nearly $3B
(FY1992 dollars). This figure included shutdown, cumulative
maintenance, shipyard restart and vendor restart costs.
Question. What is the total life cycle cost of a VIRGINIA Class
submarine and how does that compare to other classes of submarines in
the Fleet?
Answer. For the 30-ship VIRGINIA Class, using fiscal year 1995
(base year) dollars, Total Acquisition Cost of $64,747.5 million (per
APB Change 3, 4/02/03) plus Operating and Support Cost of $31,343.0
million (per Selected Acquisition Report, 12/31/02) yields Total Life
Cycle Cost = $96,090 million. Total life cycle cost for one VIRGINIA
Class submarine is $3,203 million.
Because of the significant differences in submarine class sizes,
direct comparisons of life cycle costs are tenuous. For example, the 62
LOS ANGELES Class SSNs have lower support costs per ship because
support costs are spread over twice as many submarines as the VIRGINIA
Class. Additionally, the VIRGINIA Class estimate accounts for the
addition of significant new systems and capabilities (such as Vertical
Missile Launch, Advanced SEAL Delivery Vehicle and Dry Deck Shelter,
Under-Ice Capability, and Special Hull Treatment) that are not
accounted for in the LOS ANGELES estimate. Given these significant
differences, the best available estimates of average annual operating
and support costs (per ship, in fiscal year 1995 base, year dollars)
for the VIRGINIA Class and the LOS ANGELES class are $35 million and
$26 million, respectively.
Ballistic Missile Defense System Weapons
Question. One element of the Midcourse Defense Segment of the
Ballistic Missile Defense system (BMDS) is the AEGIS BMD program. This
system is intended to defend against exo-atmospheric short-range
ballistic missiles (SRBMs) and Intermediate Range Ballistic Missiles
(IRBMs) in the terminal and midcourse phases. The system uses the AEGIS
Weapons System with the Navy Standard Missile serving as the
interceptor.
Please explain the program or agreement between the Missile Defense
Agency and the Navy under which you provide access to the ship(s) that
MDA needs to support the AEGIS BMD program.
Answer. The Navy is in process of assigning USS LAKE ERIE (CG-70)
to the Missile Defense Agency (MDA) as a dedicated ballistic missile
defense testing platform. This action allows the MDA testing program to
avoid the delay and expense that would be involved in modifying an
older Aegis-equipped cruiser to accomplish the testing mission and it
demonstrates Navy's firm commitment to missile defense as a core
mission. OSD concurred and directed this action. OSD also directed MDA
to procure Standard Missile-3 missiles and Ballistic Missile Defense
(BMD) upgrade ship sets to facilitate an early deployment of Navy
missile defense capability. A Memorandum of Understanding is currently
in staffing which will stipulate the LAKE ERIE cost sharing
arrangement, administrative actions, and other operational details
between Navy and the MDA. We expect the actual ship assignment to occur
this summer.
Question. The Committee understands that one AEGIS cruiser is under
the control of the Missile Defense Agency for purposes of the Ballistic
Missile Defense System test bed. Please explain what ``control'' means
in this case.
Answer. MDA control means that the ship's schedule and operations
will be dedicated to MDA sponsored ballistic missile defense testing. A
Memorandum of Understanding is currently in staffing with MDA and will
stipulate the LAKE ERIE cost sharing arrangement, administrative
actions, and other operational details between Navy and the MDA.
Question If an AEGIS class ship serves in the AEGIS BMD program, is
the ship also available for other surface combatant missions? Please
explain why or why not.
Answer. Aegis-equipped ships are multi-purpose platforms and are
capable of multi-tasking. The extent to which multi-mission tasking
would be possible will depend upon the specific geographical position
and combat system set-up required by the specific mission. We
anticipate that the multi-purpose employment of an Aegis-equipped ship
will remain unchanged by this new mission.
Question. The Committee understands the Navy is considering
deployment of a stand-alone strike group of missile defense ships as
early as next year. Please explain the Navy's plans and how they fit
into the Missile Defense Agency AEGIS BMD program.
Answer. The concept of a Missile Defense Strike Group is consistent
with the President's December 2002 decision to field an initial
operating capability for sea-based Missile Defense not later than 2005,
and with Navy's SEA POWER 21 vision for the future. However, the
planning for deployment of such a group remains at an embryonic stage.
Commander, Fleet Forces Command has been tasked to undertake this
conceptual work and will report the results to me this summer. The
requested information will be provided as soon as it becomes available.
Question. Does the Missile Defense Agency budget request for fiscal
year 2004 fully fund the AEGIS BMD program? Has the Navy requested
funds in the fiscal year 2004 budget to supplement the MDA request? If
so what requirements are funded in the Navy budget request.
Answer. It is the Navy's understanding that the Missile Defense
Agency has fully funded the Block 04 Initial Defensive Operations
Capability of the Aegis BMD program element. As this program is
currently technology-paced, Navy does not request funds to supplement
the MDA request. Such action should occur, if required, in MDA's area
of responsibility.
Question. The Committee understands there are technical issues
concerning attitude control on the SM-3 missile. Please explain the
technical challenges you face, and whether you believe this will affect
the Missile Defense Agency's ability to deploy the AEGIS BMD system.
Answer. The issues involving the Solid Divert and Attitude Control
System (SDACS) in the SM-3 missile are related to manufacturing and
production, rather than hit-to-kill technology. The current SDACS
design utilizes rhenium, an exotic material designed to tolerate the
high heat flux involved in operating a rocket motor in space. This
material has proved difficult to weld and fabricate into the intricate
tubes, ports and passages featured in the current SDACS design. The
Navy is pursuing an alternative, more tolerant design featuring a
monolithic casting. This alternative SDACS is easier to manufacture,
has been successful in ground testing and will be flight-tested in FM-
5, slated to occur this summer. While technical risk certainly is
extant in the monolithic SDACS design, the current engineering
assessment is favorable.
Impact of Operating Tempo on Depot Maintenance
Question. Mr. Secretary, scheduling ship depot maintenance is an
art form in the best of times, and it must be a real challenge given
the current operating tempo. How has the ongoing deployment surge and
combat operating tempo impacted your ability to make ships available
for the scheduled maintenance periods in this current fiscal year?
Answer. Based on the Fiscal Year 2004 President's Budget request,
there are 86 Chief of Naval Operations scheduled ship availabilities
funded for execution in fiscal year 2003. Nine availabilities have been
rescheduled to support operations, but they have not been canceled.
Based on operational assumptions as of March 20, 2003, 11 more
availabilities are expected to change from the original scheduled
dates. All but one are expected to execute prior to the end of the
fiscal year, but some may be reduced in scope.
Question. The high operating tempo has also increased the need for
maintenance as ships and airplanes are experiencing greater than
anticipated use when these assets are returned to their homeports, do
you expect you will be able to adjust the depot maintenance schedule to
accomplish the necessary work?
Answer. Based on the operational schedule as of March 20, 2003, we
expect to be able to adjust the ship depot maintenance schedules to
accomplish the necessary work. However, we are projecting that one
availability scheduled for fiscal year 2003 will need to be performed
in fiscal year 2004 to support the current operational schedule. We
will continue to adjust our maintenance plan as the return dates of the
deployed ships are finalized.
Aviation depot maintenance is schedule and usage driven. We may
find additional maintenance on particular airframes and engines is
required once we induct each plane. The induction schedule has been
modified and is executable if we receive supplemental funding soon
(mid-May 2003).
Question. Will the Navy need supplemental funding in order to
accomplish increased depot level ship maintenance requirements in the
current fiscal year? If the ships can be made available and the money
is there, is the shipyard capacity adequate?
Answer. Yes, we will need supplemental funding to accomplish
increased depot-level ship maintenance requirements in fiscal year 2003
and for the depot-level maintenance that will be required on the ships
participating in Operation IRAQI FREEDOM that are going into a
maintenance period in fiscal year 2004. If the ships are available and
the supplemental funding is provided, we expect the public and private
shipyards to be able to perform the required work.
Question. Given the current pace of operations, do you now expect a
surge in depot work requirements for 2004? Please discuss how you will
balance deployment requirements and maintenance facility capacity. Will
additional funding be needed in fiscal year 2004 for this surge?
Answer. We do expect additional ship depot work requirements for
fiscal year 2004 as a result of Operation IRAQI FREEDOM (OIF). Based on
projected operational requirements as of March 20, 2003, we anticipate
that we will have the capacity at the public and private maintenance
facilities to perform the work that will be required in fiscal year
2004.
Our request for the fiscal year 2003 supplemental included funding
to perform depot level maintenance on OIF ships. If the fiscal year
2003 supplemental is adequate and allows for funding to be obligated in
fiscal year 2004, additional fiscal year 2004 funding is not projected
at this time. If fiscal year 2003 supplemental funding cannot be used
in fiscal year 2004 or other higher priority fiscal year 2003 OIF
issues take precedent, additional funding will be required in fiscal
year 2004 to cover the increased fiscal year 2004 ship maintenance
requirement.
We expect a ``bow wave'' of depot inductions of those aircraft that
were deployed in support of OIF and couldn't meet their originally
scheduled inductions. These inductions will be accomplished when the
aircraft return to the continental United States (CONUS). Additional
funding should not be needed if supplemental funding is received soon
(mid-May 2003).
Ship Depot Maintenance
Question. The fiscal year 2004 ship depot maintenance request
consolidates funding for ship intermediate maintenance into the depot
maintenance line, and overall funding declines by approximately $300
million and scheduled availabilities decline from 95 in 2003 to 87 in
2004 while funding for surface ship depot maintenance declines from 95%
to 91.6%. In addition, fiscal year 2004 depot operations funding
declines another $300 million from 2003 levels. Admiral Clark, please
provide your assessment of the health of the ship depot maintenance
program.
Answer. The fiscal year 2004 budgeted amounts reflect the
acceleration of the retirement of our oldest, most maintenance-
intensive ships and the benefits provided through the fiscal year 2002
supplemental appropriations. The fiscal year 2004 percent funding is
consistent with that budgeted for fiscal year 2003 in the fiscal year
2003 President's budget. Because ships' decommissioning dates were
advanced from those planned in the fiscal year 2003 budget, maintenance
funding budgeted for those ships was available to apply to other
unfunded fiscal year 2003 requirements. This resulted in a higher
percent funding for the fiscal year 2003 surface ships' maintenance.
The decrease in the ship depot operations support budget line is
primarily driven by the $236 million reduction in funding for Naval Sea
Systems Command ship alteration program and funding for the Supervisor
of Shipbuilding and Repair. This funding is a parallel reflection of
the lower ship maintenance account.
Question. Why have scheduled availabilities been cut?
Answer. The actual number of scheduled availabilities varies on an
annual basis based on force structure, operational requirements, and
the ship class maintenance plan. We were able to reduce the ship
maintenance funding in fiscal year 2004 while budgeting to fund a
higher percentage of the requirement for several reasons. The cyclic
nature of ship maintenance contributed to a lower requirement in fiscal
year 2004; the requirement was reduced as we accelerated the retirement
of our oldest, most maintenance-intensive ships; and finally, the
reduced requirement directly reflects the benefits provided in the
fiscal year 2002 supplemental appropriations.
Question. How can the ship depot maintenance program absorb a cut
of $600 million?
Answer. The fiscal year 2004 ship maintenance budget supports 96.2%
of our notional operations and maintenance ship maintenance
requirements. In fact, this percentage is slightly higher than the
95.5% funded in the fiscal year 2003 President's budget. We were able
to reduce ship maintenance funding in fiscal year 2004 while budgeting
to fund a higher percentage of the requirement for several reasons. The
cyclic nature of ship maintenance contributed to a lower requirement in
fiscal year 2004; the requirement was reduced as we accelerated the
retirement of our oldest, most maintenance-intensive ships; and
finally, the reduced requirement directly reflects the benefits
provided in the fiscal year 2002 supplemental appropriations.
Question. Ship depot maintenance at Puget Sound Naval Shipyard has
been transferred from the working capital fund and the proposal is that
it be mission funded. To those of us who are unfamiliar with the
intricacies of the working capital fund, what does this proposal mean?
What are the factors that resulted in this decision?
Answer. Mission funding increases the Fleet's flexibility to
respond to execution year priorities.
The primary factors for the shift to mission funding are:
Responsive to Fleet Needs: Maintenance required to prepare a ship
for early deployment can be executed by adjusting work priorities.
Under Navy Working Capital Fund additional funding for emergent work
must be made available in the execution year.
Efficient use of Resources: Under Navy Working Capital Fund all
work must have specific customer funding. At times temporary low depot
workload has resulted in workers being idle despite ships being
available that require work. Under mission funding the underutilized
workforce can be assigned to any required ship maintenance work.
Facilitates Integration and Consolidation of Maintenance
Infrastructure within a Region: In some regions, Navy Working Capital
Funded shipyards and mission funded intermediate maintenance facilities
exist in close proximity to each other. This difference in funding
systems inhibits sharing of resources between activities and the
potential for ``singling up'' infrastructure. Moving the shipyards to
mission funding facilitates this integration and consolidation.
Positive Execution Year Financial Controls: Mission funding
provides direct and positive control of funds during the execution
year. Under Navy Working Capital Funding execution year costs can vary
from the planned costs and result in adjustments to the cost of work
(rates charges) two years in the future.
Chemical Biological Incident Response Force
Question. The Marine Corps established the Chemical Biological
Incident Response Force to provide rapid response to mitigate the
effects of terrorism including chemical and biological incidents. CBIRF
units include a total of 373 personnel of which 32 are from the Navy, 1
from the Army and the balance from the Marine Corps. Elements of the
CBIRF were deployed in response to the Anthrax contamination discovered
on Capitol Hill in late 2001.
An operational requirements document (ORD) has been approved within
the past year to upgrade CBIRF equipment through the Family of Incident
Response Systems (FIRS) program.
Please explain the composition of CBIRF units in terms of both
manpower and equipment.
Answer. The present Manpower Table of Organization (T/O) of CBIRF
is:
Marine Officers 22
Navy Officers..................................................... 7
Army Officers..................................................... 1
Marine Enlisted................................................... 318
Navy Enlisted..................................................... 25
Total......................................................... 373
A T/O increase of 98 personnel has been approved to take place
during FY-04. It will add 4 Marine Officers, 4 Navy Officers, 84 Marine
Enlisted and 6 Navy Enlisted to the current T/O. Total strength will
then equal: 471.
The total dollar value of CBIRF equipment is $22 million. Of this,
$3 million is purely military equipment used for overseas deployment.
The balance, $19 million, is response equipment which is roughly 90%
Commercial-Off-the-Shelf equipment that allows the CBIRF to operate
autonomously or to operate with other domestic first responders.
Question. How many CBIRF units are there in the Marine Corps?
Answer. One. However, the single battalion can provide a full
response unit to two separate, simultaneous events. The first response
unit of 125 Marines and Sailors is on one hour alert. It can deploy via
trucks within one hour of notification. It can be ready for air
deployment via military commercial aircraft within four hours of
notification. The second unit will require about 4 hours to move out of
Indian Head via truck and about 8 hours to be prepared for air
embarkation.
Question. How are the CBIRF units incorporated into Marine
Expeditionary Units (MEUs)? Does each MEU have CBIRF capabilities?
Answer: The Enhanced MEU NBC (E-NBC) Capability Set is a tailored
set of over 40 pieces of equipment. This capability set was developed
based on lessons learned and on CBIRF equipment successes. It provides
the MEU commander a limited capability to address Weapons of Mass
Destruction (WMD) and enhances his capability to detect and identify
Toxic Industrial Chemicals/Toxic Industrial Materials (TICS/TIMs).
CBIRF elements are not incorporated in the MEUs. CBIRF can provide
support directly to the MEU if directed. CBIRF, in conjunction with
Marine Corps Systems Command (MARCORSYSCOM), provides a training
package on Consequence Management to each MEU prior to its deployment.
MARCORSYSCOM provides contract personnel to conduct the technical
training for the equipment that is included in the E-NBC Capability
Set. CBIRF personnel focus on the tactical employment of these assets.
In addition, CBIRF provides all the medical training for the MEU
personnel involved in the NBC mission.
Question. What are the lessons learned from recent deployments of
CBIRF? Have these lessons learned been promulgated to other Services?
Answer. CBIRF has conducted both operational and training
deployments. The key operational deployments have been in support of
restoration of the US Capitol office spaces and in support of National
Special Security Events (NSSEs).
The key lessons are the requirement for a well balanced, task
organized, flexible force that can respond to very wide range of
mission taskings from the incident commander, who is in almost all
cases, a civilian. While on Capitol Hill, CBIRF conducted biological
sampling operations, moved 12 tons of contaminated mail and completely
cleaned out a Senate office. Bio Sampling was a mission CBIRF had
trained for, although on nowhere near the scale it was executed. The
other two missions had never been anticipated or trained for. The key
to success was a balanced force that had the logistics, command and
control, technical expertise and thorough familiarity with Personal
Protective Equipment (PPE) and Incident Command System. CBIRF was able
to meet all civilian PPE and safety requirements dictated by the
incident commander.
Subsequent operations have been preposition operations in support
of security for special events. These have validated CBIRF's basic
operational concepts but highlighted the need for large numbers of
personnel trained to enter a contaminated area and then extract
contaminated victims. In particular, the full response training at the
Capitol prior to the 2003 State of the Union Address was invaluable in
demonstrating the mission enhancements gained from pre-positioned
equipment and personnel.
We have shared our lessons learned with all those military and
first responders who attend the EOD and law enforcement seminars we
conduct quarterly. In addition, we train monthly with local fire and
EMS organizations and work with the community specific command and
control structures to insure what we have learned is passed on.
Finally, we host a monthly Technology Review Board specifically to
examine lessons learned and seek new technology to assist with the
mission. Standing members of this board included the National Guard CST
Equipment/Training Officer, US Coast Guard Strike Team Representatives,
and local and state first responder agencies.
Question. The Committee understands that the Marine Corps is
engaged in an effort to upgrade the equipment used by CBIRF units.
Please explain the operational requirements for this program.
Answer. The initial requirements for CBIRF can be found in its
Operational Requirements Document (ORD) of 1996. Since its inception,
CBIRF's missions have expanded as the unit matured and new and
differing threats have emerged. CBIRF, has a new Mission Statement
signed by the Commandant of the Marine Corps in January 2002. A
Universal Needs Statement (UNS) was approved in January 2003. The basis
of the UNS was developed in the CBIRF Research, Development, and
Acquisition Plan (Approved in November 2002) that provided a detailed
analysis of the CBIRF mission areas and capabilities that the unit
needs to be mission effective. The approved UNS identified seven
mission areas for CBIRF: Reconnaissance, Decontamination, Force
Protection, Medical, Urban Search and Rescue, C4I, and General Support.
Informally, force protection has been split into personal protective
equipment and anti-terrorism force protection. In general, FIRS pursues
an evolutionary approach, upgrading capabilities with the best
available technology as threats and missions change or previous systems
reach the end of their service life.
Question. What investments are proposed in the fiscal year 2004
budget request for the Family of Incident Response Systems (FIRS) to
enhance CBIRF capabilities? Over the Future Years Defense Program
(FYDP) ?
Answer. CBIRF has received approval of a force structure increase
of 98 Marines and Sailors. These personnel will allow CBIRF to increase
the operational capabilities and endurance of their two Incident
Response Forces (IRF). A complete set of GOTS and COTS individual
equipment will be needed for the additional CBIRF members.
Response time is critical to the effectiveness of CBIRF to react to
a terrorist incident. To improve deployability, additional investment
will be applied to procuring additional equipment to have equipment
staged for force deployment by ground or air. Over the FYDP, a complete
third set of CBIRF response equipment will be procured to be used for
operational training. This will allow the two deployable equipment sets
to be kept at 100 percent operational readiness status. Additionally,
the airdeployable set will be packaged for transport by military or
commercial aircraft. This will significantly reduce response time and
enhance operational readiness. This course of action is based on an
analysis conducted when CBIRF was brought under the 4th Marine
Expeditionary Brigade--Anti-Terrorism (4th MEB-AT).
Deployability and safety will be enhanced with the FY04 procurement
of specially configured buses that will allow the IRFs to deploy in
contiguous sub-elements and allow mission planning and briefings to be
conducted moving to an incident site. Presently, the IRFs are
transported in box vans, 15 passenger vans, and standard school buses
that do not have sufficient space for individual response equipment.
Starting in FY 2004 and continuing over the FYDP, the creation of a
limited stockpile of scarce consumables and long lead-time items will
increase CBIRF's operational depth and enhance mission reconstitution
capabilities. Previous limited resourcing has not sufficiently provided
equipment depth required for resupply and operational reconstitution.
The commercial market for some items, such as mask filters and OSHA
Level A suits, is being overwhelmed by governmental agencies at the
Federal, state, and local levels. Based on lessons learned from CBIRF's
response to the anthrax attacks and Operation Nobel Eagle, FIRS will
move away from the ``just-in-time'' commercial supply paradigm for
select items to one of ``on-hand-supply'' for operational depth. This
requires investment in additional equipment.
Commercial investments in R&D are creating new and improved
capabilities that enhance the performance of existing technologies. An
example, the Chem Pro 100 is completing Foreign Comparative Testing
(FCT). Depending on the outcome of that test, this COTS detector could
improve CBIRF's reconnaissance mission capability enhancing the
detection of TICs/TIMs.
New and improved versions of the CBIRF's existing equipment makes
CBIRF COTS equipment obsolete. Recapitalization investment must be
available to take advantage of these technological breakthroughs. For
example, the improved MultiRAE detector provides additional capability
and remote sensing. Investment would be used to procure this technology
thereby improving CBIRFs remote sensing capability. The FIRS program
office must be in a position to take advantage of rapidly emerging
technological improvements to recapitalize CBIRF equipment that has
been in their inventory since 1997.
The FIRS program office is an active participant with the Technical
Support Working Group (TSWG) and has resourced a number of efforts that
are coming into maturity. As these efforts mature, the FIRS program
office will procure them for CBIRF. In FY 2004, the Chemical Resistant
Drinking Tube and an improved heat stress calculator should be
available for procurement.
Question. What technologies are being pursued to support the FIRS
program in the Marine Corps Research and Development funding lines?
Answer. Technologies pursued in the FIRS program line support the
eight commodity areas defined for Marine Corps Weapons of Mass
Destruction (WMD) Incident Response Forces: Reconnaissance,
Decontamination, Medical, Anti-Terrorism Force Protection, Personnel
Protective Equipment (PPE), Search and Rescue, C4I, and General
Support. Each project is relatively small, no more than moderate risk,
and widely coordinated with the Services, Federal Agencies, and
applicable DoD programs. The Marine Corps has historically resourced
the CBIRF, now FIRS, RDT&E funding line at a modest level, about $1
million per year. In fiscal year 2004, FIRS is budgeted to receive $1.9
million. With such a limited budget, the FIRS program maintains a high
activity level through teaming and cost sharing.
In the area of Search and Rescue, FIRS supports the demonstration
and evaluation of COTS and emerging (TRL 6 or higher) technologies for
victim location and extraction from a multi-hazard environment, e.g.,
collapsed structure and chemical contamination. These include infrared,
ultra-violet, acoustic, electromagnetic sensors for assessing
structural hazards and locating casualties. Additionally, FIRS
participates with the joint program office, government labs and
universities for the demonstration and evaluation of robotic systems
applied to search and rescue.
In the area of PPE, FIRS participates with the TSWG, Soldier
Biological Chemical Command (SBCCOM), and NIOSH for the development and
testing of drinking tubes for commercial positive pressure respirators
(Self-Contained Breathing Apparatus (SCBA) and Powered Air Purifying
Respirators (PAPRs)). Additionally, FIRS participates with NAVAIR and
TSWG in the assessment of respiratory and heat stress loads experienced
when conducting consequence management related tasks and mission
profiles and the development of a heat stress calculator for use with
OSHA Level A and Level B protective postures. Finally, FIRS is
investigating the effects of breathing high flow rates (up to 115 LPM)
and toxic industrial chemicals on GOTS and COTS filters in association
with NIOSH, TSWG, SBCCOM and the commodity area manager (CAM) for
Individual Protective Equipment. As a side note, CBIRF has served as a
test unit for both Joint Lightweight Integrated Suite Technology
(JSLIST) Block 1 Glove and the Joint Service General Purpose Mask
(JSGPM).
In the Medical commodity area, FIRS is supporting the initiatives
of International Task Force 45 (ITF 45) which is chaired by CBIRF. FIRS
supports the development of a Mass Casualty Ventilation System for use
with civilian casualties in contaminated environments. Furthermore,
FIRS supports the collaborative development of a mass casualty training
protocol with Defense Research and Development Canada and TSWG.
In the area of General Support, FIRS is supporting the assessment
of several mobility systems to improve the safety and speed of CBIRF's
deployment to an incident site and CBIRF's mobility around the hot zone
of an incident. This includes modified commercial vehicles, all-terrain
vehicles, and personal transporters. The intent is to increase the
endurance of the unit by reducing the physical exertion required to
maintain a high casualty extraction sortie rate.
In the reconnaissance commodity area, FIRS leverages the DoD
sponsored Small Business Innovative Research (SBIR) program to pursue
non immunoassay based biological detection and class based
identification, individually worn sensors, an improved field analysis
capability. Current FIRS sponsored SBIR topics include: Individual Bio
Sensor/Sampler, Multi-TIC Colorimetric Badge, Disposable Chemical
Detector, Extending the Life of Bio Sensors with Dendrimers,
Microorganism Imprinted Polymers, Field Chemical Analytical Tool,
Multi-Mission Chemical Sensor, and MEMS-based Microcantilever Chemical
Sensor. Although funding for phase I and phase II SBIRs are centrally
funded and approved by the OSD sponsored SBIR program, FIRS supports
the program management, technical oversight and transition of the
programs. FIRS participates in the U.S. Army Chem Bio Defense Tech Base
program in the topic of Fluorescently Labeled Virus Probes for non-
immunoassay based bacteria detection. FIRS supports the testing of
lightweight, low cost, COTS and emerging chemiresistive and
chemicapacitive polymer-based chemical sensors. FIRS supports the
development of an automated M256 detector kit reader in cooperation
with SBCCOM. FIRS R&D supports the development of rapid analytical
methods for field use of Gas Chromatograph/Mass Spectrometer systems.
In the decontamination area, FIRS supports improvements and seeks
enhanced capabilities in mass casualty decontamination systems. These
improvements will increase throughput of civilian ambulatory and non
ambulatory casualties through the demonstration of COTS and emerging
systems such as tents, water heating, collection and recycling systems.
This effort in particular differs significantly from the efforts
underway in more traditional operating forces. These improvements focus
on decontamination in an urban environment for civilian casualties with
a significantly wider age and health range then traditional military
decontamination systems and procedures are designed.
Advance Amphibious Assault Vehicle (AAAV)
Question. The fiscal year 2004 budget request includes $97.9
million for Procurement, Marine Corps to complete funding for nine
System Development and Demonstration (SDD) prototypes of the AAAV. The
fiscal year 2002 Annual Report of the Director, Operational Test and
Evaluation indicates that amphibious operations testing has been
repeatedly postponed because of poor performance in Developmental
Testing relating to ocean operations, and transiting to surf zones.
Also, operating sequentially on water and on land has not been
demonstrated. Once fielded, the AAAV will replace AAV7A1.
General, please describe the status of the AAAV program. The
Committee understands that the Marine Corps is presently completing
System Development and Demonstration (SDD) prototype vehicles that will
be provided to the Director, Operational Test and Evaluation for
testing.
Answer. The AAAV is currently in the Systems Development and
Demonstration (SDD) acquisition phase (formerly called EMD). The Prime
Contractor is General Dynamics Amphibious Systems in Woodbridge,
Virginia. Testing of the three first generation program definition and
risk reduction (PDRR) prototypes is ongoing. Integration and assembly
of second generation SDD prototype vehicles began in fiscal year 2002
and is ongoing. An operational assessment with four prototype vehicles
is scheduled for early fiscal year 2005 to support the Milestone (MS)
C, Low Rate Initial Production (LRIP) decision planned for September
2005. The AAAV program is on schedule and within budget.
Question. What are the results of AAAV testing so far?
Answer. Extensive testing of first-generation, program definition
and risk reduction (PDRR) prototypes continues. Accomplishments to date
include the following:
The AAAV PDRR prototypes have performed approximately 4,900 miles
of land mobility testing (equivalent to nine vehicle years) and 2,270
hours of water testing including the conduct of operations with the
amphibious ship USS Anchorage (LSD 36) to execute static and underway
launches and recoveries from the ship and successful maneuvering within
the well deck. Firepower testing of PDRR prototypes demonstrated that
the prototype design met the ORD requirement for accuracy during
Firepower Developmental Testing. Numerous design changes have been
incorporated into the second-generation, SDD prototypes to improve the
AAAV design in the areas of vehicle performance and troop comfort.
Testing of the SDD prototypes will commence in fiscal year 2003. The
program is currently on track for demonstrating all land and water
mobility Key Performance Parameters (KPPs).
Question. Please comment on the DOT&E 2002 report which indicates
that the amphibious phase of early operational testing has been
postponed due to performance of vehicle.
Answer. After careful consideration, and study of other program
testing profiles, it was determined that the conduct of an amphibious
Early Operational Assessment (EOA) on first-generation prototype
vehicles this early in the program was, not as valuable as performing
additional developmental testing on the program definition and risk
reduction assets with second-generation SDD components. Additional
developmental testing will enable the program to achieve early test
lessons learned information as it continues to mature the SDD
components. An operational assessment is planned for fiscal year 2004
with the more mature, second-generation SDD prototypes. The testing is
planned to coincide with the completion of the first draft of the
tactics, techniques, and procedures that are being developed for high
speed open ocean transport of Marines using AAAVs.
Question. What specifically will be accomplished with fiscal year
2004 funding?
Answer. The fiscal year 2004 funding for the AAAV includes the
following for PMC and RDT&E:
PMC funding is budgeted for Special Tools (ST) and
Special Tools Equipment (STE) in the amount of $97.9 million.
The funding will be used to procure from General Dynamics Land
Systems (GDLS) and major subcontractors required materials,
services, personnel and facilities to design, fabricate,
manufacture or procure, and install and proof ST/STE that is
unique and specific to the AAAV program. ST/STE will be used to
manufacture production AAAVs during Low Rate Initial Production
and Full Rate Production phases of the AAAV acquisition
program.
RDT&E in the amount of $240.7 million will be used
for the following: continued design development, manufacturing
planning, and producibility design enhancements of the AAAV(P)
and AAAV(C) designs; the AAAV survivability program;
fabrication and delivery of SDD prototypes; testing of PDRR and
SDD prototypes; development of AAAV training devices and
simulators; development of AAAV training courseware; and
completion of Ballistic Vulnerability Testing of program
definition and risk reduction prototypes.
Question. What is the fielding plan for the AAAV? How many of these
vehicles does the Marine Corps plan to acquire and how long will it
take to replace the AAV7A1?
Answer. The delivery schedule for AAAV is depicted below with a
total of 1,013 vehicles. Full operational capability (FOC) is scheduled
for FY 18.
FY05.............................................................. 1
FY06.............................................................. 0
FY07.............................................................. 9
FY08.............................................................. 19
FY09.............................................................. 28
FY10.............................................................. 75
FY11.............................................................. 105
FY12.............................................................. 120
FY13.............................................................. 120
FY14.............................................................. 120
FY15.............................................................. 120
FY16.............................................................. 120
FY17.............................................................. 115
FY18.............................................................. 61
Lightweight 155MM Howitzer
Question. The Lightweight 155mm Howitzer (XM 777) is the Marine
Corps' and the Army's next generation 155mm towed howitzer. It will
replace the M198 towed artillery piece. The XM 777 weighs about 10,000
lbs. compared to 16,000 for M198; two can fit into a C-130 aircraft.
The Marine Corps serves as the DOD lead for developing the gun, and the
Army leads development of the digital fire control system. The Marine
Corps budget request includes $111.5 million in fiscal year 2004 to
procure 60 guns. The decision to approve full rate production is
scheduled for beginning of fiscal year 2005. The program total includes
$784.4 million to produce a total of 377 guns.
General, please describe for the Committee the state of development
of the Lightweight 155mm Howitzer.
Answer. The Lightweight 155mm Howitzer (LW155) had a successful
Milestone C decision last November by the Assistant Secretary of the
Navy (Research, Development and Acquisition). This decision authorized
the award of a two-year multi-year contract for the low-rate initial
production (LRIP) phase. During this LRIP phase the Marine Corps is
ordering a total of 94 howitzers--34 in FY 2003 and 60 in FY 2004 with
deliveries commencing about a year after placement of orders. The prime
contractor is preparing for production and placing orders with their
suppliers. More than 70 percent of the weapon will be produced in the
US with final integration and assembly occurring in Hattiesburg, MS.
The weapon is performing well in the ongoing reliability growth and
corrosion testing, and we have taken extraordinary steps to integrate
the testing and production of the basic weapon with the Army funded
digital fire control effort. After this two-year LRIP phase, we expect
the Marine Corps and the Army to jointly procure M777A1 howitzers (guns
with integrated digital fire control). Support for the program is
strong within both Services and we are nearing completion of an
agreement which will continue cooperation through production with the
United Kingdom and Italy.
Question. One of the main management problems in this program has
been establishing production facilities in the US to produce
``production representative guns'' for testing. Have these problems
been resolved? Please explain.
Answer. Yes, those issues have been resolved. We have produced two
pilot production howitzers using the US production facilities. This
pilot production effort has confirmed the supply chains capability to
produce the LW155 and extensive testing of these guns has been very
successful. More than 70 percent of the work content for production
guns will be accomplished within the US with final integration and
assembly to occur at Hattiesburg, MS. Low-rate initial production
howitzers are currently being produced. These fully ``production
representative'' howitzers will be used for the final operational test
next summer.
Question. How is testing proceeding? The Committee understands that
the weapon has had problems, notably with titanium components used to
reduce weight. Comment on these problems, and the steps the Marine
Corps has taken to solve them.
Answer. Testing has been progressing very well. The fact that the
program achieved a successful Milestone C is evidence that the design
is sound and the weapon meets requirements. Prior issues with cracks,
generally around weld locations in some components (spades, trails,
travel locks) have been resolved by strengthening those areas and in
many cases eliminating the welds altogether by using castings. The
program conducted a rigorous operational assessment (OA) over a 6-8
week period using both soldiers and Marines and was assessed by
independent evaluators from both Services. During that OA over 5000
rounds were fired and the weapon was towed over 1000 miles with no
evidence of structural failures. Additional structural improvements
have been incorporated onto the pilot production guns as have more than
40 castings. These castings have increased the strength of the weapon
even further by significantly reducing the number of welds. Strength of
design testing on pilot production weapons was very successful.
Question. The Committee is aware that the Engineering Manufacturing
and Design guns used for testing did not incorporate improvements, and
were not production representative. Have production representative guns
that incorporate design improvements yet been produced to complete
testing?
Answer. Yes. The two pilot production guns that incorporate design
improvements were built by the actual production team. The first pilot
production weapon has passed strength of design and accuracy testing
and is currently undergoing rigorous reliability growth testing at Yuma
Proving Ground. The second pilot production weapon is being used to
support the development and integration of the pre-planned product
improvement digital fire control (known as Towed Artillery Digitization
or TAD). Low-rate initial production of the howitzer is well under way
and the initial deliveries in early FY04 will be used for first article
testing, production qualification testing, and a joint operational test
to support the full-rate production decision.
Question. What is the fielding plan for the Lightweight 155mm
Howitzer in terms of both the number of guns and funding over the
Future Years Defense Program?
Answer. The Marine Corps has a requirement for 380 systems and will
achieve an initial operational capability (IOC) in FY05 and a full
operational capability (FOC) in FY08. The Marine Corps program is
funded for 377 systems. The Army has a requirement for 368 systems with
an IOC in FY06. Currently 227 for the Marine Corps are funded in the
FYDP.
BUDGET PROFILE
($ in millions)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY03 FY04 FY05 FY06 FY07 FY08 FY09
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
USMC Bud Req....................... 62.0 111.5 175.5 177.1 73.6 0 0
Army Bud Req....................... -- 5.0 51.1 100.7 135.8 59.0 3.6
USMC Quantity...................... 34 60 110 120 53 0 0
Army Quantity...................... -- -- 27 54 86 37 23
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question. The Marine Corps plans to begin fielding the XM 777 in
fiscal year 2005, at least one year before the Army completes the
digital fire control system. Why did the Marine Corps chose to
incorporate digital fire control as an upgrade to the Lightweight 155mm
Howitzer rather than including it as part of the initial capability?
Answer. The Marine Corps already had an urgent need to replace its
existing, heavy and aging M198 155mm towed howitzers with the
Lightweight 155mm Howitzer. It is anticipated that the extensive use of
the M198 in Iraq will further diminish its remaining life making
replacement with the LW155 even more time critical to avoid significant
rebuild costs for the M198. The urgent operational requirement to
deliver a new, more capable artillery system to the fleet as soon as
possible, even without digital fire control, supersedes any benefits
from delaying the initial fielding. The weapon has a much longer lead-
time than the digital fire control, and the initial Marine Corps
weapons will include all of the interfaces necessary to integrate the
digital fire control at a later date. As a result, when the digital
fire control becomes available early in FY 2006, retrofit of the
howitzers already fielded will be rapidly and easily accomplished.
Question. Is the engineering and design, and mounting hardware
complete to accommodate the digital fire control system when it becomes
available?
Answer. Yes. The engineering and design of the mounting hardware is
complete and it is currently undergoing tests. The pilot production
gun, undergoing strenuous reliability growth testing at Yuma Proving
Ground, has all of the digital fire control hardware on the weapon as
it is being tested. To date the hardware and its mounting is performing
superbly.
Question. Does emplacement time improve on the Lightweight 155mm
Howitzer with the digital fire control system compared to the initial
capability which relies on iron sights and traditional methods of
emplacement?
Answer. Traditional methods of emplacement require that the battery
position be prepared with survey. This takes up to 20 minutes before
the guns arrive in position. Using traditional methods, howitzers must
be oriented for direction sequentially, which can take another 10-15
minutes. Finally, it can take 2-3 minutes (included in the overall 10-
15 minutes' time) to emplace each individual LW155 using traditional
methods (vice 6-7 minutes for the M198). With digital fire control
there is no requirement for initial survey. Most important, all
howitzers use their onboard capability to orient simultaneously. This
allows a battery of six digitally equipped LW155s to emplace in 2-3
minutes, versus 10-15 minutes without digital fire control. This
reduced time to be ready to fire can be critically important to troops
in need of life-saving fire support.
Internally Transportable Vehicle
Question. The Internally Transportable Vehicle (ITV) program was a
Marine Corps led joint program with the U.S. Special Operations Command
to field a family of light ground combat vehicles. The vehicle was
intended to be internally transportable in heavy lift helicopters as
well as the MV-22 and CV-22.
Because the vehicle, which was a non-developmental item, was not
tactically employable, the Marine Corps cancelled the program. Despite
a valid operational requirements document (ORD), the Marine Corps does
not have a current program, to replace the aging IFAV attack vehicle.
What is the status of the Internally Transportable Vehicle program?
Has the program been terminated?
Answer. The ITV program is still a valid, active program and is
currently engaged in Milestone A activities, Concept and Technology
Development.
Past ITV candidates pushed the dimensional envelope of V-22 to meet
the requirements for HMMWV-like ground mobility. Although these ITVs
fit inside V-22, the fit was too tight and the vehicles were too heavy
for rapid ingress/egress in combat scenarios. The program was not
cancelled at that point, but no production contract was awarded. The
Marine Corps began reviewing and modifying the ITV requirement based on
the lessons learned from the failed efforts.
The bottom line with the ITV requirement is that trade-offs are
required between vehicle size and weight. Smaller, lighter vehicles
allow for rapid deployability inside a V-22, but deliver less ground
capability. Larger, more robust vehicles allow for greater payloads/
heavy guns but cannot be internally transported within the V-22.
Question. Does the Marine Corps have an operational requirements
document (ORD) to support procurement of the ITV or a similar vehicle?
Answer. The ITV program is based upon a Joint Operational
Requirements Document (JORD) written by the Marine Corps Combat
Development Command (MCCDC). Change 1 to the ITV JORD was signed in
April of 2000, and Change 2 is expected to be signed in July 2003. The
ITV requirements seek a mobility platform that is deployable inside the
V-22 and carries heavy machine guns and a three man crew. The ITV will
support a variety of missions to include airfield and port seizure,
Tactical Rescue of Aircraft or Personnel (TRAP), non-combatant
evacuation operations (NEO), limited objective attacks, and
reconnaissance and surveillance missions.
Question. What system(s) will the Marine Corps use in place of the
cancelled ITV?
Answer. The Marine Corps has not cancelled the ITV program and will
continue to pursue a vehicle that is deployable inside the V-22.
Question. Is the replacement vehicle for the ITV a nondevelopmental
item?
Answer. The ITV is currently pursuing a non-developmental
acquisition strategy. The IFAV pursued a Commercial-Off-The-Shelf
acquisition strategy.
Question. Is the alternative to the ITV domestically produced?
Answer. The ITV requirement is still being revised. No vehicles are
formally being considered for the program at this time.
The IFAV was sold to the Marine Corps by Advanced Vehicle Systems
of Washington, D.C. via the GSA schedule. Fifty-five percent of the
IFAV is manufactured in Austria and 45 percent is manufactured and
assembled in America.
Question. How much funding is included for the ITV replacement in
the fiscal year 2004 budget request in Procurement? In Research and
Development?
Answer. The ITV program has no funding in FY 2004 in Procurement or
Research and Development lines. The IFAV program has no funding in FY
2004 in Procurement or Research and Development lines.
Modular Weapon System
Question. The Marine Corps describes the Modular Weapons System
(MWS) as its highest priority long-term modernization program. The MWS
will replace the 1980's era M16A2 rifle. This program includes weapon
modifications such as rails for integration of various optics and laser
aiming devices. The acquisition objective for this program is just over
65,000 rifles, of which 1,500 have been thus far fielded.
What is the fielding plan for the Modular Weapon System?
Answer. Fielding to 1st and 2nd Marine Divisions will begin this
month (April 03). Fielding to 3rd and 4th Marine Divisions will begin
in June 03. Quantity will be 1,500 per month for 12 months. The future
fielding plan is still under consideration.
Question. Compared to the Marine Corps' active component strength
of 175,000 personnel, the plan is to acquire about 65,000 MWS rifles.
What is the basis for the acquisition objective for this program?
Answer. The MWS gives the warfighter the ability to mount a wide
variety of mission-essential accessories to the weapon platform. The
only Marines that need to be able to mount accessories (or even have
accessories to mount) are Marines in the Ground Combat Element (GCE)
and a very few select supporting establishments. Because units outside
the GCE have neither the accessories to mount nor the need to mount
accessories, it was decided to procure the MWS only for the GCE at this
time.
Question. What is the cost of the Modular Weapon System in the
fiscal year 2004 budget request? Over the Future Years Defense Program?
Answer. The price per unit of the M16A4 is below. The M4 carbine is
undergoing final reliability and endurance testing and is expected to
be fielded to select units in FY 2004. Projected per unit cost is
$1000-$1100.
FY03.............................................................$839.19
FY04..............................................................846.06
FY05..............................................................872.94
FY06..............................................................889.70
FY07..............................................................906.15
FY 2004 MWS FYDP profile ($M*):
FY03.............................................................. 23.9
FY04.............................................................. 13.7
FY05.............................................................. 10.1
FY06.............................................................. 10.0
FY07.............................................................. 0.1
FY08-09........................................................... 0
* Includes first destination transportation costs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Marine Corps Depot Maintenance
Question. Marine Corps fiscal year 2003 funding for force
operations depot maintenance is $141 million which addresses 90 percent
of the stated requirement. The fiscal year 2004 funding declines to
$122 million, covering only 67% of the requirement.
General Hagee, why has the Marine Corps reduced depot maintenance
funding for fiscal year 2004?
Answer. FY04 depot maintenance funding is not inconsistent with
prior years. The Marine Corps must balance the competing priorities of
equipment maintenance, equipment modernization, and infrastructure
upgrades within a fiscally constrained environment.
Question. What will be the impact on the work force at the depots?
Answer. Reduced workload may result in the loss of skilled
personnel through termination of temporary and term appointments and
through early retirement incentives. Replacing personnel with
specialized skills may require significant ramp-up time. However, due
to external factors (e.g. additional workload and funding that will
flow to the depots from reconstitution requirements associated with the
Global War on Terrorism), we believe the probability of the budgeted
reduction of the personnel to be fairly low. If there were no
additional funds provided in FY 04, numerous options are available and
will be pursued prior to instituting any adverse personnel actions.
Question. How will this reduced funding level impact readiness?
Answer. While there is no apparent impact to immediate readiness,
there is risk that equipment readiness in the future will decline if we
continue to delay repairs. Additionally, by not rotating equipment
through depot level maintenance, there is also a risk that future
repairs will cost more.
Training Area Encroachment
Question. In June 2002, GAO reported that DoD lacks a comprehensive
plan to manage encroachment on training ranges. The GAO reported that
the Defense Department's own data demonstrate that the military is
ready to fight and that DoD has not documented to what extent, and at
what cost, environmental laws affect the military's ability to train.
To what extent has the Navy separately, or as part of a DoD effort,
attempted to document the effect of encroachment on the Navy's ability
to train and at what costs?
Answer. The Department of the Navy's Federally Funded Research and
Development Center, the Center for Naval Analyses (CNA), performed
three studies to help us quantify encroachment impacts.
In the first study CNA looked at encroachment impacts at the unit
level. They found that, Navy-wide, SORTS scores (Status of Readiness
and Training--the standard readiness measuring system used throughout
DoD) aren't able to capture the effects of the occasional degradation
in training due to encroachments. Simply put, in light of the myriad of
parameters and training events that go into Fleet SORTS scores, the
occasional encroachment on a training event simply doesn't show up.
However, when CNA looked at individual units training on installations
with environmental restrictions, they found training readiness scores
were significantly degraded in particular mission areas.
Following this look at unit-level impacts, CNA looked at effects of
encroachment on battle group level exercises that train to the
operational level of war. Specifically, they looked at the impacts of
encroachment on the major Fleet exercises known as Fleet Exercise
(FLEETEX) and Joint Task Force Exercise (JTFEX). They found that
encroachment on these exercises is not immediately apparent upon
observing an exercise because the workaround for a specific restriction
is built into the exercise during the planning process. By following a
Fleet exercise from its early development stages through actual
execution, they found several events altered or eliminated during the
planning cycle as a result of environmental restrictions. CNA also
found examples where weapons employment during the training exercise
was inconsistent with employment in wartime due to airspace
restrictions along the U.S. east coast.
In the third study, CNA in conjunction with the Office of the
Deputy Undersecretary of Defense (Readiness), approached the study of
encroachment from the installation (range) perspective. They focused on
a particular training range and developed a methodology to characterize
the physical assets; for example, airspace and groundspace the range
needs in order to fulfill its training mission; how to objectively
assess the degree to which these assets are restricted; the reasons for
these restrictions; and their ultimate impact on the training of combat
forces. We feel this is an important step in addressing the overall
issue of range management, of which encroachment is one component. The
methodology helps us characterize encroachment in a general
perspective, and shows how we can look at it in the context of other
types of restrictions and focus our efforts accordingly.
The Commanding General, Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton,
California sponsored a two phased study at a cost of $200,000 to
establish quantitative data that examined encroachment impacts on the
capability of the installation to support Marine Air Ground Task Force
operational readiness requirements. The first phase was completed in
January 2002, and the second phase is complete with the results
pending.
Question. To what extent does the fiscal year 2004 budget request
provide funds to pay for the costs associated with encroachment?
Answer. The Department of the Navy budgets the appropriate funding
required to comply with existing environmental laws applicable to
installations, ships, and aircraft. The Navy does not specifically
budget for the cost of encroachment.
Consideration of Operating Costs During Acquisition Process
Question. One of the recurring challenges the Navy and Marine Corps
face in managing the Operation and Maintenance accounts is the rising
cost of operating equipment.
In February 2003, the General Accounting Office reported that the
military services pay little attention to a system's operating and
support costs during development when there is the greatest opportunity
to positively affect these costs. Instead, the Services focus on
technical achievements, featuring immature technologies during
development and fielding and then pay the price down the road when
operating and support costs greatly exceed expectations.
Even though operating and support costs make up, on average, about
72 percent of the life cycle of a system, the operators and maintainers
have little input to the acquisition process.
Mr. Secretary, do you believe the GAO's report is an accurate
assessment, and if it is, what do you propose as process improvement to
gain control of total ownership costs of Navy equipment?
Answer. The Department of the Navy recognizes operating and support
is normally the largest cost driver in the total life cycle of a system
and that 60-70 percent of those costs are determined by decisions made
early in the acquisition process. Therefore, to optimize those costs,
the most effective methodology is to address operating and support
costs early in the acquisition process, ideally during development.
These efforts are then followed by subsequent technology and process
improvements during the life cycle of the system. The following are
concrete examples of the Department of the Navy's continual effort to
reduce operating and support costs:
Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) Program projects a 40
percent reduction in operating and support costs across the
projected program life cycle, compared with replacement
aircraft ownership costs.
CVN-21 is developing a new nuclear power plant, new
integrated warfighting system, and all electric auxiliaries,
which are predicted to reduce manning by some 500 to 800
billets.
The future surface combatant, DD(X), is the first
ship designed from the keel up to embrace total ship automation
and reduced maintenance. This allows these ships to have
predicted manning at less than one-third that of current
destroyers.
F/A-18 E/F, for a number of years has executed
innovative performace based logistics contracts, which have
reduced total ownership costs.
The Smart Ship Program is implementing numerous cost
saving initiatives on existing platforms that will have a
dramatic effect on manning (largest operation and support cost
driver for ships). The initiative in the area of food service,
distributed engineering, ship control, navigation and damage
control systems are allowing billets to be removed from ship
manning documents today and will continue into the future.
Reducing operating and support costs through
disinvestments, such as the early removal of Phoenix missiles
from the ordnance inventory. New weapons systems coming to the
fleet, such as the F-18 E/F, are much more versatile and can
perform multiple missions that previously required multiple
platforms. The Navy is driving toward fewer and more capable
multi-mission weapons systems that minimize operator interface
and maintenance requirements, thus increasing warfighting
capability while driving down operating costs.
In addition to the examples cited above, the Department of the Navy
has embraced the priniciples of Total Life Cycle System Management
(TLCSM). TLSCM advocates increased involvement from product developers,
maintainers and operators early in the acquisition cycle in order to
improve reliability and maintainability. This interaction will
ultimately reduce total operating costs. The Department of the Navy has
recently established a Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Navy for
Logistics with a primary mission to address TLCSM.
Question. In what ways, specifically, is the Navy pursuing the
reduction in total cost of ownership in ``Sea Enterprise'' a supporting
operational initiative of SEAPOWER 21 designed to increase efficiencies
with the Navy?
Answer. The fundamental challenge facing the Navy is finding
resources to meet recapitalization requirements for Sea Power 21. Sea
Enterprise is the resource enabler of Sea Power 21. Sea Enterprise
seeks to improve organizational alignment, streamline processes, refine
requirements and create incentives for positive changes. Legacy systems
and platforms no longer integral to mission accomplishment will be
retired and Navy business processes will become more efficient to
achieve enhanced effectiveness in the most cost-effective manner. With
the assistance or industry advisors, Sea Enterprise improves the Navy's
business practices as well as adds mechanisms to redirect savings from
efficiencies to new platforms and systems.
Recognizing the opportunity presented by the early identification
of means to lower operating costs in the acquisition process, the Navy
has been focused on reducing total ownership costs for the past several
years at all echelons. At the corporate level, Navy has established a
Sea Enterprise Board of Directors (BOD), chaired by the Vice Chief of
Naval Operations (VCNO) and the Assistant Secretary of the Navy for
Research, Development and Acquisition (ASN (RD&A)). The BOD has
specifically chosen ownership cost reductions as one of its top focus
areas to aggressively pursue. There are multiple approaches to
ownership cost reduction that Navy is pursuing, to include:
Investmenst in newer, more reliable commercial
technology to replace cost-inefficient components.
Policy preference for ``performance based''
logistics contracts, whose total-life cycle focus is on
reducing operating and support costs.
Policy that business case analyses, targeting impact
of total life-cycle affordability to own and operate must
preface major weapon program decisions.
Independent reviews of weapon system developments
for the express purpose of determining progress towards
logistics effectiveness and life cycle affordability.
Retirement of older and inherently more costly to
support weapons systems.
Investment in information technology advancements
(such as Enterprise Resource Planning) that promote cost
visibility.
The role for Sea Enterprise is to ensure savings are optimized
across the enterprise, information is shared across programs, and
barriers to implementation are addressed at appropriate levels. Sea
Enterprise formalizes a governance process to ensure execution of
targeted efficiency initiatives.
Question. The Navy has established a ``Fleet Requirements''
organization in Norfolk. In what ways does that organization focus on
reducing the cost of operating and maintaining the Fleet rather than
new, unproven technologies?
Answer. The Department of the Navy recognizes operating and support
is normally the largest cost driver in the total life cycle of a system
and that 60-70% of those costs are determined by decisions made early
in the acquisition process. Therefore, to optimize those costs, the
most effective methodology is to address operating and support costs
early in the acquisition process, ideally during development. These
efforts are then followed by subsequent technology and process
improvements during the life cycle of the system. For Fleet
requirements, the Commander, U.S. Fleet Forces Command (CFFC) reviews
the requirements, coordinates all FLEET responses and then sends one
consolidated voice or position from the user to the OPNAV sponsor.
Antiterrorism and Force Protection
Question. Over the past three years, Congress has provided the Navy
over $5 billion for Antiterrorism and Force Protection (AT/FP)
initiatives. The Committee's staff recently concluded a classified
report of the Navy's efforts to mitigate the terrorist threats against
the United States naval vessels and raised some concerns about the
Navy's efforts. The review indicates that:
Efforts to develop effective programs to combat
terrorism have been largely ad hoc, reactive and tied to major
terrorist events;
There is no mission needs statement or requirements
document for either ashore or afloat requirements and therefore
no understanding of how the Navy wants to proceed with its
program; and,
There is a perceived lack of guidance from the Navy
leadership on the establishment of anti-terrorist capabilities.
Admiral Clark, what do you think about these general concerns
raised by the staff's review?
Answer. The House Appropriations Committee's Surveys and
Investigative (S&I) staff inquiry into the Navy's Antiterrorism and
Force Protection (AT/FP) efforts was very thorough and it noted several
of the critical issues on which the Navy is making progress.
Antiterrorism/Force Protection continues to be one of our top
priorities. The AT/FP budget has been used to develop a deliberate
program to improve AT/FP afloat and ashore. As our program moves
forward, recent advances include the validation of a comprehensive AT/
FP Mission Needs Statement, complemented by the ongoing development of
the Force Protection Mission Capabilities Package, an analytical tool
which identifies future (afloat) AT/FP requirements and the resources
that will be needed to acquire them. Effective October 1, 2003, I am
aligning all major shore claimants under a single Echelon II command
(Commander, Naval Installations), which will ensure that requirements
are properly defined, and resources are programmed to support AT/FP
efforts at our installations. My staff is coordinating a capabilities
assessment process that incorporates both afloat and ashore
requirements. The Navy will continue to use its Systems Commands
(SYSCOMS) for development and acquisition of technology to support
fleets in their AT/FP programs. However, better integration between the
SYSCOMS is being coordinated thru the Systems Acquisition Lead Teams
(SALT) process. The SALT process was established over seven months ago
to ensure uniform Navy-wide program management for AT/FP issues. Navy
AT/FP continues to move in the right direction, making visible progress
in a number of key areas, and ensuring effective use of Congressional
funding.
Question. Mr. Secretary, how would you rate the Navy and Marine
Corps, overall, in terms of AT/FP preparedness?
Answer. The importance of maintaining a strong Antiterrorism/Force
Protection (AT/FP) posture has been stressed at every level within the
Navy. AT/FP and physical security awareness throughout the Service is
high. We have put into place a training and education program that
provides quality AT/FP training for our operators at the deck plates,
as well as for the officers who lead them. Additionally, our Integrated
Vulnerability Assessment program has been proven to effectively measure
the overall successes of our program efforts, and conversely, to
identify and prioritize our weaknesses, then facilitates corrective
measures. Where needed, we have fielded an array of commercially
available technologies to enhance the security of our waterfronts and
flight lines around the world. Other focus areas include: Critical
Infrastructure Protection, emergency preparedness, consequence
management and participation in various Joint Service programs for
installation protection and emergency response. The Navy Shore
establishment is focused on Installation Protection (IP) in accordance
with Joint programs/policy and participates in the Joint Staff
Installation Pilot Program (JSIPP). Our Systems Commands (SYSCOMS) are
coordinating, integrating and implementing Joint policy regarding shore
facilities design, construction, modification and operations, as well
as emergency response programs. Through the Systems Acquisition Lead
Teams (SALT) process our SYSCOMS also facilitate integration of
existing AT/FP programs related to CBRNE issues for base operations,
security, medical, fire fighting, industrial safety and others. Given
all of these efforts combined, I consider the Navy's level of
preparedness to deter, defend, mitigate and respond to today's
terrorist threat to be solid.
The Marine Corps is well prepared to execute its Antiterrorism/
Force Protection (AT/FP) responsibilities. The nature of the threat
requires a robust and continuously evolving AT/FP program. Personnel
and resources for AT/FP continue to be a priority in our combat
development process. For fiscal year 2003, the Marine Corps has either
developed or sustained the following:
United States Marine Corps organized, trained and
equipped units capable of incident response, deterring,
detecting, and defending against asymmetric threats against
U.S. territories, populations and critical infrastructure.
The 4th Marine Expeditionary Brigade (MEB)
Antiterrorism (AT) to support commanders with rapidly
deployable, specially trained, and sustainable forces for
combating terrorism.
A Chemical and Biological Incident Response Force
(CBIRF) capable of deploying in response to chemical,
biological, radiological, nuclear or high-yield explosive
incidences.
Rapidly deployable quick response forces to support
United States Northern Command.
Marine Emergency Preparedness Liaison officers
organized by Federal Emergency Management Agency region.
Enhanced First Responder training on Marine Corps
installations as well as enhanced coordination with community-
wide local authorities.
Developed and implemented Electronic Security Systems
(ESS) to include biometrics, access control, video surveillance
and assessment.
Question. Admiral Clark, have you published guidance on the minimum
anti-terrorism capabilities that should be present at the region, base
and ship class level?
Answer. The series of instructions and publications published by
the Department of Defense and the Navy (by the Secretary and myself)
delineate Antiterrorism/Force Protection (AT/FP) program standards, and
individual protective measures that ships, installations, and regions
must be able to perform at escalating threat levels and Force
Protection Conditions.
Additionally, I have published policy that includes tools and
prioritized AT/FP requirements for the various categories of ships and
aviation assets. Published staffing standards identify minimum
capabilities and manpower needed to meet physical security and AT/FP
requirements at our installations, including waterside, both at home
and abroad.
AT/FP capabilities are developed and reviewed by my staff annually
through a Mission Capabilities Assessment process designed to define
future capabilities, and the resources needed to acquire them.
Question. Do you have an overall program plan for the development
and acquisition of technology and staff for antiterrorism and force
protection?
Answer. The overall plan for AT/FP technology acquisition is based
on the need to take a systematic approach to AT/FP technology that will
ensure the interoperability of individual AT/FP technology subsystems.
Furthermore, we must ensure that this plan will allow force protection
officers to tailor AT/FP solutions to the unique requirements of their
own local command.
The Navy's AT/FP technology requirements for afloat units are
developed through a series of programmatic analytical tools. The
Combating Terrorism and Force Protection Mission Capability Packages
determine the warfighting capabilities required to effectively counter
the asymmetric threat. The AT/FP investment strategy uses these
required capabilities to lay the foundation for an ``afloat technology
roadmap''. We're also leveraging existing shipboard systems to
establish an afloat AT/FP ``program of programs'' that are designed to
deter, detect, classify, identify, deny, disable, and neutralize the
asymmetric threat. The AT/FP viability of these programs is reviewed on
a continuous basis within our Afloat AT/FP Working Group.
In October 2003 the Commander Naval Installations (CNI) will be
established as the single echelon II command responsible for all shore
installation programs. CNI will be responsible for AT/FP programs, and
will work closely with Commander, U.S. Fleet Forces Command (CFFC) and
Regional Commanders to ensure program requirements are properly
defined. CNI will collaborate with CNO N46 (Ashore Readiness Division)
to program required resources to meet AT/FP program needs.
Implementation of AT/FP programs will be the responsibility of Regional
Commanders, with support from selected Systems Commands. The Naval
Facilities Engineering Command (NAVFAC) will centrally procure and
install all physical security equipment beginning in fiscal year 2004.
NAVFAC will also provide technical guidance to CNI and Regional
Commanders for Emergency Management Planning, Chemical/Biological/
Radiological/Nuclear/high-yield Explosive (CBRNE) programs, and
Critical Infrastructure Protection programs.
The Navy's Staffing Standards are published in a Navy instruction
and provide guidelines as to the personnel requirements for various
positions and requirements. The Navy validates these requirements, and
manpower needs and staffing requirements are adjusted based on this
metric and the needs of the Navy.
Question. Have you identified a central authority within the Navy
for anti-terrorism programs, to include responsibility for program
management, technical evaluation, acquisition and fielding to ensure
that each fleet doesn't create it's own program?
Answer. The problem of alignment within AT/FP is one of my greatest
concerns and one that is being addressed. To better align the program,
I have assigned the Commander, U.S. Fleet Forces Command as the
executive agent for CONUS AT/FP. Additionally, they are responsible for
identifying all AT/FP requirements for the Navy. These requirements are
documented and then forwarded to the Navy Staff for consolidation,
validation, and procurement.
We have been working closely with our Systems Commands to determine
the most effective way to manage the procurement of technology and
other equipment to ensure program continuity. One of the difficulties
in establishing a single central authority for AT/FP acquisition
program management is that AT/FP technologies cut across the mission
areas of multiple Navy acquisition communities. To place this office
within only one of those organizations would hinder our ability to tap
into the needed subject matter expertise at the excluded organizations.
We are therefore exploring new organizational structures that will
identify the AT/FP roles and responsibilities of each acquisition
community while ensuring that the necessary cross-organizational
collaboration occurs.
Question. Mr. Secretary, in fiscal year 2003 this Committee
provided the additional funding to address anti-terrorism/force
protection issues; the fiscal year 2004 request does not sustain this
increase.
Do the lower amounts requested in fiscal year 2004 indicate that
you have made sufficient progress in the AT/FP area so that the higher
fiscal year 2003 funding level is no longer necessary or is this an
affordability issue?
Answer. This is mostly an issue relating to the maturing of the
Navy AT/FP program. Post-COLE and 9-11-01 supplemental funding has been
used to meet valid requirements and was used effectively. However, the
sheer volume of requirements generated after September 11th complicated
the development of a firm program.
We believe there are sufficient funds in the fiscal year 2004
request to meet our needs. Our approach for fiscal year 2004 and out is
to first conduct a bottom-up review of the baseline program, adjusting
the program as necessary so that the right priorities receive funding.
In some cases, this means that program elements previously funded may
be used as offsets to fund new, higher priority requirements identified
by Combatant Commands and Navy Component Commanders. The lower amount
requested in fiscal year 2004 reflects this approach and our belief
that the Navy AT/FP Program is approaching a steady state condition.
Product Quality Deficiency Reporting Systems
Question. Secretary, it is our understanding that the Navy's Air
Systems Command--NAVAIR--is setting up its own Product Quality
Deficiency Reporting (PQDR) system.
The Navy's Sea Systems Command--NAVSEA--already has a PQDR in place
that is connected to the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) and other
services.
According to some DoD officials, NAVAIR is basically recreating the
NAVSEA system at a cost of $3 to $5 million a year, with an additional
$1 to $2 million a year to operate the system and connect it to other
Navy systems. These officials also say that NAVAIR could use the NAVSEA
system and not incur the expense and effort of creating another
database that then has to be connected to the NAVSEA system (GAO-01-
923)
What is the justification for a separate NAVAIR Product Quality
Deficiency Reporting (PQDR) reporting system?
Answer. NAVAIR is not developing a separate NAVAIR Product Quality
Deficiency Reporting (PQDR) reporting system but rather creating a
single entry point for the warfighter for all discrepancy reports that
will seamlessly integrate with the NAVSEA PQDR database where
appropriate.
The Naval Aviation Maintenance Discrepancy Reporting Program
(NAMDRP) website should not be considered a stand-alone NAVAIR PQDR
system. Rather it is a one-stop input point for all Naval Aviation
discrepancy report submission and tracking of which Product Quality
Deficiency Report (PQDR) is only one of ten reports. The NAMDRP web
application is tasked with providing a single data entry point for all
Naval Aviation discrepancy reports required by OPNAVINST 4790.2H
consisting of:
Engineering Investigations (EI).
Hazardous Material Reports (HMR).
Conventional Ordnance Deficiency Reports (CODR).
Explosive Mishap Reports (EMR).
Product Quality Deficiency Reports (PQDR).
Technical Publication Deficiency Reports (TPDR).
Aircraft Discrepancy Reports (ADR).
Aircraft Baseline Discrepancy Reports (ABDR).
Supply Discrepancy Reports (SDR).
Transportation Discrepancy Reports (TDR).
The goal of the NAMDRP application is to accommodate the needs of
the warfighter by providing a consistent and easy to use web
application to simplify entry and tracking of all Naval Aviation
discrepancy reports. Of these reports EI, HMR, CODR and EMR reports are
currently in production with a warfighter user base of over 6500 users.
PQDR, TPDR and ADR are currently in development for incorporation to
the website with ABDR, SDR and TDR soon to follow.
Question. Do you believe it is an accurate assessment to state that
NAVAIR could use the NAVSEA system?
Answer. The Naval Aviation Maintenance Discrepancy Reporting
Program (NAMDRP) website is not a redundant NAVAIR version of the
NAVSEA Product Quality Deficiency Reporting (PQDR) system. On the
contrary, it is integrally linked to the NAVSEA PQDR system. Naval
aviation PQDRs will enter through the NAMDRP system and then pass to
the NAVSEA PQDR database. NAVAIR is currently and will continue to use
the NAVSEA system as the central repository for all Navy PQDRs.
The process to seamlessly integrate and electronically pass Naval
aviation PQDR data to the NAVSEA system is currently under development
with the NAVSEA team. The decision to use a NAMDRP website front-end
rather than the NAVSEA website was based on the desire to minimize the
number of input websites used by the warfighter and to keep the
submission of aviation discrepancy reports consistent for all the
report types.
Question. What is the total amount included in the fiscal year 2004
request and subsequent budget requests to establish and operate the
NAVAIR system? (Please provide data by year, by appropriation account,
and by line item.)
Answer. The following chart shows the budget request for the PQDR
portion of the Naval Aviation Maintenance Discrepancy Reporting Program
(NAMDRP) website. (Dollars are in thousands)
Appropriation: O&M, N (BA-4)
FY04.......................................................... $343
FY05.......................................................... 298
FY06.......................................................... 261
FY07.......................................................... 261
FY08.......................................................... 261
The above figures include the following types of program costs:
Website hardware, software and associated IT
maintenance.
Labor costs to develop and maintain website
functionality.
Travel, training and materials to support Fleet
users.
Fleet Help Desk support, user enrollment and metrics
preparation.
Clearinghouse support for NAVAIR users (metrics,
training, clear/expedite process logjams).
The NAVAIR investment in developing and maintaining a NAMDRP input
mechanism for Naval Aviation PQDRs is a small fraction of the total
NAMDRP budget request. The NAMDRP website's function is to give fleet
personnel a one-stop input point for all Naval Aviation discrepancy
report submission and tracking. The Product Quality Deficiency Report
(PQDR) is only one of ten possible discrepancy submissions that may be
submitted via the NAMDRP.
Navy Personnel Reductions
Question. The Navy's active duty end strength of 373,800 requested
in the fiscal year 2004 budget request is 1,900 personnel below the
fiscal year 2003 authorized level of 375,700 personnel. The Navy
Reserve end strength for fiscal year 2004 is 85,900 personnel, a
decrease of approximately 2,000 Reservists.
Mr. Secretary, the Navy is the only Service downsizing personnel in
fiscal year 2004. Please explain the reasons for the reductions in
military personnel. Are these cutbacks in end strength driven by force
structure reductions, i.e., the decommissioning of ships?
Answer. Navy's end strength numbers are determined and continually
refined during a process that takes into account the current and future
manning requirements of our ships, aircraft and associated supporting
functional areas. Navy end strength is based on requirements that are
largely force structure based. As older, more manpower intensive
platforms are taken off line and replaced by more efficient ships and
aircraft the requisite end strength decreases in concert.
The decrease in fiscal year 2004 end strength is the result of the
net changes (commissionings/decommissionings) in the Navy's force
structure.
Question. With the Navy playing such a large role in the Global War
on Terrorism, why would you be reducing end strength and force
structure rather than increasing it?
Answer. Current end strength authorization, with the flexibility
you have granted to +3%, is sufficient to meet all commitments. Given
our current and near term strength profile, we have seen no impact on
deploying battlegroups in fiscal year 2003 and do not anticipate any
impact on fiscal year 2004 deployments.
In conjunction with the execution of our overall investment
strategy, we continue to conduct extensive reviews focused on balancing
current and future force operational requirements and capabilities,
while operating within established fiscal constraints. In proposing the
budget submission for fiscal year 2004, we determined that reducing the
number of less capable, manpower intensive platforms would free
valuable resources essential to future plans for enhancing
transformational capabilities. The manpower associated with these force
structure changes results in a smaller requirement.
Additionally, Navy has various efforts underway that are helping
improve manpower efficiency and reduce future manpower requirements.
Task Force Excel is exploring innovative techniques to improve how we
train our Sailors. Sea Swap and Optimal Manning projects are finding
ways to keep our Battle Forces at sea longer while also exploring
potential areas to restructure crew manning. FORCENET is aimed at
improving manpower efficiency by integrating warriors, sensors,
networks, command and control, platforms and weapons into a networked
distributed combat system. Sea Enterprise maintains core capabilities;
optimizes investments; and applies selected business reforms to our
organizations and processes. Sea Warrior is the enhanced assessment,
assignment, training and education of personnel. We believe these
initiatives, when completed, will yield increased capabilities, while
permitting us to man our forces in the most efficient and economical
manner possible.
Question. Does the Navy still have ``gaps'' in billets at sea? If
so, why would you reduce personnel if you still have requirements to
fill?
Answer. While isolated unit shortfalls exist, as of February 2003,
Fleet manning stood at 99.0% or a shortage of 1,784 personnel. At this
same point shore manning was 96.1%. We expect that personnel in
training pipelines (who do not count as shore manning) will flow to the
Fleet over the course of the rest of fiscal year 2003 and reduce this
shortage to near zero by the end of the year. Based on historical
trends and projections, we expect fiscal year 2004 to remain at these
high levels in the 97-99% band.
Consolidation of the Military Personnel Accounts
Question. The fiscal year 2004 budget request recommends
consolidating the six Guard and Reserve military personnel accounts
with their respective active duty military personnel appropriations.
The budget requested that the Reserves' personnel pay accounts be
Budget Activity 7, and the National Guard's personnel pay accounts be
Budget Activity 8 under the active duty accounts.
Mr. Secretary please explain the rationale for merging the pay
accounts into one appropriation per Service.
Answer. Departmental budget guidance directed consolidation of
active and reserve appropriations into the fiscal year 2004 President's
Budget submission. Reserve Personnel Navy (RPN)/Military Personnel Navy
(MPN) and Reserve Personnel Marine Corps (RPMC)/Military Personnel
Marine Corps (MPMC) mergers are the first step in providing DoD greater
financial flexibility in fighting the Global War on Terrorism (GWOT)
and future conflicts. Benefits include:
Expedited funding transfer between Active and
Reserve accounts to meet operational requirements;
Greater flexibility during contingency operations;
and
Improved ability to manage changing end strength/
costs.
Given the degree of utilization of mobilized reserves in the GWOT
and enhanced integration with Active forces under the total force
concept, this consolidation would provide the necessary flexibility for
the Department to more efficiently manage its overall resources to meet
emerging and rapidly evolving military requirements.
Question. What level or degree of increased flexibility does the
Navy gain from this consolidation?
Answer. Within Congressionally approved reprogramming thresholds,
funds may be moved between Active and Reserve accounts without prior
approval for formal reprogramming action, as is currently required.
This will be particularly beneficial in view of the increased
flexibility to transfer Reserve Personnel (RP) dollars during periods
of mobilization when Reservists are paid from Active Military Personnel
(MP) account. Flexibility will be limited, however, by the $10 million
realignment threshold between budget activities.
Question. Will the Chief of the Navy Reserve and Marine Corps
Reserve have full management and control of his financial resources in
order to execute their title 10 responsibilities for trained and ready
forces?
Answer. Yes. This consolidation, while offering greater flexibility
and responsiveness in the fiscal process, does not, in any way, inhibit
the abilities of the Chiefs of Naval and Marine Corps Reserve from
managing financial resources to execute their respective
responsibilities under Title 10 United States Code. Funds will continue
to be allocated to them in the same manner as today, but with a
different nomenclature and set of rules governing their use.
Question. Having separate appropriations accounts for the Active
and Reserve components allows Congress to monitor how well the services
are executing their programs. What assurance can you give the Committee
that the active components will not use the Reserve budget activities
to fund their own bills or shortfalls?
Answer. Under current law, the Services have limited authority to
move funds between budget activities. No more than $10 million may be
realigned into Active or Reserve budget activities without prior
congressional approval. Additionally, historic Military Personnel (MP)
shortfalls of $100 million, or more, cannot be accommodated from the
Reserve Personnel (RP) account.
RP funding will be a separate budget activity (BA) within the MP
account. Any request to transfer funds between Reserve and Active BAs
within the MP account will be fully vetted through the existing
resource allocation decision-making process. As is currently the case,
fund managers will be responsible for ensuring that resourcing
specifically programmed and budgeted for reserve requirements is
maintained.
Personnel Issues
Question. Please explain your active duty military personnel end
strengths levels to the Committee. What was the number of personnel on
board in October when you started fiscal year 2003? Was that number
over the authorized end strength level for the Navy and the Marine
Corps?
Answer. Navy's active duty end strength was 383,108 at the
beginning of fiscal year 2003. This exceeded our fiscal year 2002
authorized end strength of 376,000, but was within the 2 percent
flexibility provided for in the National Defense Authorization Act
(NDAA).
At the beginning of fiscal year 2003, the Marine Corps' active duty
end strength was 173,733. While this is 1,133, or 0.6 percent, over the
fiscal year 2002 authorized end strength of 172,600, it was within the
2 percent flexibility authorized in the NDAA.
Question. Did that increase of personnel include those under a
stop/loss action? Did it include any mobilized Reservists? If so, what
were those numbers?
Answer. Navy's end strength on September 30, 2002 included 301
Sailors who were transitioning as Navy stood down from the post-9/11
stop loss but does not include mobilized Reservists.
For the Marine Corps, the beginning fiscal year 2003 end strength
of 173,733 included 306 Marines on stop loss (298 enlisted and 8
officers). No mobilized Marines are included in that number since Title
10, United States Code, excludes from active end strength computations
those mobilizations accomplished under Presidential Reserve call-up.
Question. To date, what is the number of Navy Reserve soldiers
currently on active duty in support of the mobilization?
Answer. As of March 19, 2003, 9,979 Naval Reserve members are on
active duty in support of the mobilization. As of April 22, 2003,
21,118 Reserve Marines are on active duty in support of the
mobilization.
Question. What is the Navy's current mobilization cap? The Marine
Corps?
Answer. Based on March 2003 OSD guidance, Navy's current
mobilization cap is 33,000 and the Marine Corps' is 40,786.
Question. What stop/loss action is currently in effect, and how
many military personnel does that affect?
Answer. Navy Hospital Corpsmen in paygrades E-1 through E-6 with
Navy Enlisted Classification Code (NEC) of 8404 (Field Medical Service
Technician) are the only Sailors currently under stop/loss. This policy
affects 2,616 Sailors who have an EAOS prior to December 2003 and, of
that number, we could expect about 960 to have plans to leave the
service.
The Marine Corps implemented stop loss for all Marines (Active and
Reserve Components) on January 15, 2003. As of April 22, 2003, there
were 3,010 Active Component Marines (64 officers and 2,946 enlisted)
and 4,993 Reserve Component Marines (79 officers and 4,914 enlisted) on
stop loss. Of the 4,993 Reserve Component Marines on stop loss, 411 are
mobilized consisting of 273 from the Selected Reserve and 138 from the
Individual Ready Reserve.
Question. Can you estimate what your end strength level will be in
September 2003, the end of this fiscal year, and starting fiscal year
2004? What level of end strength is funded in the budget request for
fiscal year 2004?
Answer. We anticipate Navy end strength to be at the +2 percent
National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) flexibility of 383,214. End
strength of 373,800 is funded in Navy's fiscal year 2004 budget
request.
For the Marine Corps Active Component end strength, assuming
operation IRAQI FREEDOM and the War on Terrorism requirements do not
change appreciably from current projections, and our forces flow
expeditiously back from theater, our current worst case estimate is
approximately 180,250, or 3 percent above the fiscal year 2003 end
strength authorization of 175,000. For fiscal year 2004, an end
strength level of 175,053 is included in the fiscal year 2004 budget
request.
Question. Currently, what is the monthly ``burn rate'' for your
Navy and Marine Corps personnel costs?
Answer. The total monthly ``burn rate'' for Navy personnel costs is
approximately $1.98 billion. The ``burn rate'' associated with the
Global War on Terrorism is $340 million, per month, through March 2003.
For the Marine Corps, in March 2003, the total monthly ``burn
rate'' for the Active Component personnel costs was approximately $838
million, of which, approximately $220 million was for Operation IRAQI
FREEDOM and the War on Terrorism.
Question. When do you anticipate the military personnel accounts
will run out of money? Are you using your third or fourth quarter funds
now?
Answer. Yes, future quarter funds are being used. Without
additional funds, MPN would run out of funds in August 2003.
Under the current apportionment, the Marine Corps will run out of
MILPERS money on 15 June 2003 unless supplemental funding is received
or additional funds are brought forward from the fourth quarter. The
Marine Corps had to bring forward third and forth quarter funding to
close out the second quarter and will require supplemental funding or
additional fourth quarter funds brought forward to close the third
quarter.
Question. Are you considering implementing the authorities of the
``Feed and Forage Act''?
Answer. No, we are not considering invoking the authorities of the
Feed and Forage Act.
Question. What is the amount of supplemental funds needed for
military pay and allowances through the end of this fiscal year for the
Navy and Marine Corps?
Answer. The amount of supplemental funding needed in fiscal year
2003 for military pay and allowances is $1,620 million.
The Marine Corps received $1,200 million in supplemental funding
for military pay and allowances. An additional $193.7 million is
required to fund increased Family Separation Allowance (FSA) and
Imminent Danger Pay (IDP) rate increases and the Hazardous Duty Pay--
Location (HDP-L) determination for Iraq, Kuwait and Israel.
Naval Reserve Missions
Question: Is the Navy heavily utilizing its Reserve Component like
the other services are doing for the Global War on Terrorism, or is the
Navy Reserve underutilized?
Answer: The Naval Reserve is not being underutilized. The Naval
Reserve mobilized over 12,000 personnel for Operation IRAQI FREEDOM,
Operation ENDURING FREEDOM and the Global War on Terrorism (GWOT). This
represents 14% of the Navy's Selected Reserve force and a little less
than 3% of the Total Navy Force. In addition, as of the end of April
2003, the Navy has mobilized a total of 19,786, or 23% of the force,
and demobilized over 7,700 Naval Reservists since September 11, 2001 in
support of the Global War on Terrorism. We are committed to supporting
the President's prosecution of the GWOT and will appropriately rotate
mobilized Reservists onto active duty to enhance the Navy's forward
presence and ability to respond globally as the President requires.
One Naval Reserve Tactical Aviation squadron was mobilized and two
detachments of the Naval Reserve Special Warfare helicopter squadrons
were mobilized. Additionally, 11 of 14 Inshore Boat Units and 6 of 22
Mobile Inshore Undersea Warfare Units were mobilized.
Substantial quantities of Naval Reserve medical personnel, Cargo
Handling Units and Fleet Logistic Support aviation personnel, as well
as more than 1,800 Naval Construction Battalion augmentation personnel
were mobilized to fill surge requirements during the war. These numbers
represent a balanced answer to the increase in wartime requirements for
Navy.
Question. Can the Navy Reserve be doing more to relieve the active
Navy's Perstempo/Optempo during this Global War on Terrorism? If so,
how?
Answer. The risks associated with periods of surge will often
require additional manpower and equipment from the Naval Reserve to
sustain Navy commitments, and the Navy is using, and will continue to
use, the Naval Reserve very effectively to relieve the Perstempo/
Optempo strain associated with the Global War on Terrorism.
Commissioned units such as the Reserve Carrier Airwing, Maritime
Patrol Squadrons, Coastal Mine Hunters (MHCs), and Fleet Hospitals
provide needed support in peacetime as well as during crisis.
Similarly, individual augmentees reinforce and sustain active forces
through augmentation to Combatant Commanders' staffs, Intelligence and
Cryptologic support, and Naval Control and Protection of Shipping
operations. The peacetime and warfighting relief these units and
personnel provide allows the Active Component the trade-space necessary
to more fully use its forces to conduct deployed operations.
Question. Is the Navy Reserve involved in the Homeland Security
mission? If so, in what respect?
Answer. Immediately after September 11, 2001, some of the first
Naval Reserve units called into service were Naval Coastal Warfare
units that were called upon to support the Coast Guard in the Homeland
Security mission. This fleet protection mission is currently 100%
resident in the Naval Reserve, though Navy has begun to migrate some of
this capability to the Active Component in order to meet extensive
overseas commitments. The Naval Reserve units will continue to be
included in Coast Guard operational plans and will support the Coast
Guard's Homeland Security--Maritime mission as needed.
Question. Naval Coastal Warfare capability resides in the Naval
Reserve. Is the Navy Reserve assisting the Coast Guard in protecting
our ports, harbors, and coastal waters for Homeland Security? If not,
why not?
Answer. The National Strategy for Homeland Security assigns the
Coast Guard as the Lead Federal Agency for Maritime Homeland Security
(MHLS). Coast Guard is ideally suited for this role because of their
unique blend of civil and military responsibilities, including law
enforcement.
Naval Coastal Warfare units have the capabilities to support the
Coast Guard in their Maritime Homeland Security mission provided the
circumstances warrant their involvement. Naval Coastal Warfare
capability is included in several Coast Guard operational planning
documents, and the capabilities are well known to the Coast Guard
planners.
Question. The Committee understands that the Navy is involved in an
initiative to redesign the Navy Reserve. What changes do you intend to
make in the Navy Reserve as a result of the effort?
Answer. In light of the Global War on Terrorism and our vision for
the future--Sea Power 21, we are looking at ways to build a future
Naval Reserve that is seamlessly blended into Sea Power 21, and is
fully integrated with and operationally relevant to the active Naval
forces. We currently are at the working group stage in the redesign
effort. The working groups have been given guidance to propose methods
of transformation for the Naval Reserve so that it is fully integrated
with the active force. The redesign implementation plan will be
evolutionary in nature and will be pursued with Congressional
concurrence. The targeted areas for improvement include: creating a
single personnel system, improving active duty ownership of Reservists,
developing active duty education on Reserve capabilities, consolidating
Active and Reserve equipment where feasible, and simplifying funding
processes and validating requirements. No decisions have been made at
this time. The Naval Reserve continues to meet its mission of support
to the Fleet.
[Clerk's note.--End of questions submitted by Mr. Lewis.]
Wednesday, March 19, 2003.
FISCAL YEAR 2004 AIR FORCE POSTURE
WITNESSES
HON. JAMES G. ROCHE, SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE
GENERAL JOHN P. JUMPER, CHIEF OF STAFF, UNITED STATES AIR FORCE
Introduction
Mr. Lewis. The Committee will come to order.
The Committee is pleased to welcome the Honorable James G.
Roche, Secretary of the Air Force and General John P. Jumper,
Chief of Staff of the Air Force. Let me begin by saying, Mr.
Secretary and General Jumper, that this is a very, very
sensitive time for all of us who are responsible for playing a
role one way or another in our Nation's defense.
As we find ourselves on the verge of war, many a thought
comes to mind, many a frustration; many a prayer as well. There
is little doubt that at the lead point of anything that we are
doing will be the forces that you represent. And I am here to
say that I couldn't be more proud of the preparedness that has
gone into putting you in the position that you are in.
No small part of some of the change of recent decades is a
reflection of work between the Air Force and this Committee,
and we are, to say the least, indebted to your leadership that
has been so responsive to the kind of change that takes us over
the horizon. Indeed, there is not any doubt that whether we are
talking about a minor little additive to our capability over
time, an arena known as the Unmanned Aerial Vehicle, or we are
talking about smart weapons or we are talking about your
officers sitting by laptops communicating with each other and
with us, it is a phenomenal world that we are living in.
Because America is so good, we do remain I think as the hope
for peace long term in the world.
I wanted to share with you the thought that there is many a
person who presumes that sometime out there, as the world
continues to change and to shrink, that there is absolutely no
way that one day we will find ourselves in direct confrontation
with huge-population countries like China or like India. I just
do not believe that is the case at all. Or if we continue
emphasizing research and development and the training and
attracting of the very, very best that the country has to
offer, we will continue to be so far ahead, that those leaders
will look to find their way in the world without confrontation.
So the ``must be's'' that we are talking about today in
your budget and the budgets of your colleagues are monies that
involve our search for peace. And so as we contemplate war at
this very moment, it is because we are all about eliminating
tyrants who would use terrorism as their first asset to gain
their purpose.
General Jumper, your predecessor let us know very clearly
that air superiority is not good enough. It is air dominance
that is a requirement, and we do have that kind of capability,
but there is more to a war than air alone. We all know that.
Indeed, if we are going to be good in your arena, we have
to care for the people who make up your force, make sure that
they can live on the pay they receive and have adequate
housing, as well as the training and retraining, along with the
assets that make them so good.
It is a privilege for me to have this responsibility at
this special time in our history. You both know that your
entire testimony will be included in the record.
Before going to you, however, let me call first upon my
colleague from Pennsylvania, Jack Murtha.
Remarks of Mr. Murtha
Mr. Murtha. Well, I know you folks are busy, and I am not
going to say much because I know you want to get back to work.
So we are over here to do everything we can to help you, and we
know you have got some problems. And we know as important as
air is, the guys on the ground have to really do the work. But,
you are the big part of getting it ready to go into the ground.
So we look forward to seeing some victorious results.
General Jumper. Thank you, sir.
Secretary Roche. Thank you.
Mr. Lewis. I have no idea how Chairman Young attends all of
the meetings that he does, but he pays very special attention
to our Subcommittee and he was with us in the Intelligence
Committee room this morning for most of the time that we were
there. So, Mr. Chairman, if you have any comments I would be
happy to call on you as well.
Remarks of Mr. Young
Mr. Young. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. Basically I
welcome the Secretary and the Chief here to this Subcommittee,
which is a very supportive Subcommittee, and I think both of
you know--I want to say for the record and for the members of
the Committee, Mr. Chairman, that I talk to a lot of people in
uniform, infantrymen, marines, airborne. And you talk to them,
you know, ``What do you really need when you get in? Are you
scared and what kind of a tool do you need?'' And without
question they will say, ``I want to make sure that anything
that is in the air above me belongs to the United States.'' And
that is where these folks have done such a tremendous job.
They have some other heavy hitting on their plate these
days, which I am not going to go into at this point, but I want
to just make a comment for the record that I made so many, many
times before when we get into the issue of advancing the state
of the art in airplanes, fighters, bombers, or whatever it is,
that on occasion I have been told, Why do you have to invest a
lot of new money in a lot of new fighter airplanes, because the
F-15 is one of the best airplanes in the world? And my response
is, my son wants to be a fighter pilot when he gets a little
older, and I don't want him going into combat in one of the
best planes in the world, I want him to be there in the best
airplane in the world.
And so I come here ready to support the requirements of
this Air Force and its personnel, and I know that this
subcommittee feels the same. And I just look forward to their
testimony.
AIR FORCE ACADEMY INVESTIGATION
Mr. Lewis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Secretary, and General, before we turn to you
specifically, I wanted to raise another subject that has been
in the media a lot of late that relates to our academies. I
think you may know that I had the privilege of serving for a
while on the advisory board to the Air Force Academy, and it
was a privilege to have that opportunity. The men and women who
made up the forces, I saw them as students, are magnificent
indeed, and the mix of talent is incredible. It is true of all
of our academies. But a bit of controversy, not a small bit,
has arisen here of late, that I know that both of you are
personally involved in, evaluating and attempting to get to the
bottom of it and make recommendations to us.
This hearing is not going to be dominated by that subject
if this Chair has his way, for you are about that work this
moment, and all of us are feeling the pain that is a part of
it. In the meantime we are dealing with the fiscal year 2004
budget, and I would like to have us spend most of our time on
that. I mean, the members have their own free will, but in the
meantime, I wanted you to know that at least that is my feeling
about this subject, for now. It will not be the end of it, but
for now.
Mr. Secretary.
Summary Statement of Secretary Roche
Secretary Roche. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and
Congressman Murtha and Chairman Young, members of the
Committee, it is my great honor to join General John Jumper
today to represent the 700,000 Active, Guard, Reserve and
civilian airmen who are engaged in defending our Nation,
serving our interests around the globe. We are very proud of
their achievements this past year, from combat operations in
homeland defense, to their daily efforts to guarantee the
readiness, health, security and morale of our force.
In our travels around the Air Force, we have been impressed
and humbled by their creativity, commitment, and
professionalism. And as we appear before you today, we have
more than 40,000 airmen serving at some 50 expeditionary bases
in over 35 countries, plus another 60,000 airmen permanently
assigned overseas.
We are fighting the war on terrorism and defending our
Nation's interests. Mr. Chairman, if the President decides to
order our forces to combat in Iraq, they are ready.
Secondly, Mr. Chairman, I told you last year how proud I
was to have the opportunity to serve alongside an officer whom
I deeply respected: General John Jumper. I wish to tell you
that my respect continues. He holds me in my job when there are
days when I feel like not doing it. He is the reason I come to
work, along with the other airmen, and I commend him to you as
a simply spectacular military officer and an unbelievably great
American.
TRANSFORMATION
Sir, as we prepare for the future, we fully support the
Department's continuing efforts to balance near-term readiness
and operational requirements and the long-term transformation
of our Armed Forces. Our challenge is to fight the global war
on terrorism while simultaneously transforming. We must do
both. And while we face near-term budget pressures, we
nevertheless must invest for the future; otherwise we may be
forced to pay more later in dollars, perhaps even in lives.
Of utmost importance to us is our continuing focus on
warfighting and delivering a full spectrum of air and space
capabilities to the combatant commanders. Through the efforts
of this committee, your colleagues in the Congress and the
Department, I am proud to report that we are currently meeting
these objectives.
OPERATION NOBLE EAGLE
There has been some good news, Mr. Chairman, that we would
like to share with you. The year 2003 provides us with a number
of examples. For instance, we continued our expanded homeland
defense mission, providing 25,000 fighter, tanker, and airborne
early warning sorties, something that was brand new to us in
2001--in September of 2001. This was made possible only through
the mobilization of 30,000 airmen from the Air Force Reserve
and National Guard--Air National Guard. They conducted over 75
percent of all the Noble Eagle missions.
Today we continue this effort with more than 200 military
aircraft dedicated to providing combat air patrols or on-call
support to high-risk areas, cities, and key facilities across
the United States. I commend these Reserves and Guardsmen to
you, Mr. Chairman.
OPERATION ENDURING FREEDOM
In Operation Enduring Freedom, we made joint operations in
a landlocked Nation possible. We flew more than 40,000 sorties
just in 2002 alone. Plus, you know, all the sorties we flew in
2001, over 70 percent of coalition air operations. And of our
8,000 refueling missions, 55 percent were to Navy and Marine
Corps aircraft.
In Afghanistan our Special Operations teams developed new
ways to bring air and space power to bear in a variety of
engagements. Our combat controllers integrated new technologies
and precision weapons to do close air support from 39,000 feet
using the B-1 and B-52 bombers and at lower altitudes for our
Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps fighter bombers. And now we
are developing better processes to target and engage time-
critical and moving targets.
B-1 CONSOLIDATION
Continuous improvements in readiness and technology made
these successes possible. With the support of your Committee,
the Congress, Secretary Rumsfeld, we successfully consolidated
our B-1 bomber fleet and improved overall fleet readiness. Its
mission capability rate increased 10 percent from last year. It
is now over 71 percent, the highest in its history.
SPARE PARTS
The increased spares funding that this Committee and this
Congress has supported have paid off dramatically; 16 of 20
weapons systems improved mission-capable rates last year. The
C-5B achieved its highest mission-capable rate since 1994, and
it is now at 73 percent.
The B-2 improved over 33 percent, the A-10 was up eight
percent, and our F-15s were up over five percent. Some of our
oldest F-15s are suffering from age and from structural
problems, and they are difficult, but the young men and women
who do the maintenance on them are extraordinary. They are
doing sometimes depot-level maintenance in the squadron level,
and they are keeping these planes together in a beautiful way.
MISSION CAPABLE RATES
These are the best mission-capable rates we have
experienced in five years and the best annual increases we have
achieved since the mid-1980s. Clearly there are challenges.
While we are making great progress in adapting the Air Force,
we face challenges to our continuing air dominance. The
increasing proliferation of advanced surface-to-air missile
systems threatens our ability to gain and maintain air
superiority in potential conflicts. Manned portable surface-to-
air missiles have proliferated extensively. Tactical ballistic
missiles and cruise missile technology is spreading.
RUSSIAN SU-37 AIRCRAFT
An advanced fighter has already been produced,
specifically, the Russian SU-37, that is superior to our best
fighters. But our air-to-air world is increasingly dominated by
how shall we deal with the cruise missile threats.
We are now facing the undeniable reality that other nations
are investing in advanced American military technologies and
fielding the best our aerospace industry has to offer in their
air forces. While the investment of our good friends and allies
is of great value to our alliance industrial base, superior
capabilities are now or will shortly be present in American-
produced airplanes that don't fly the American flag.
And by the way, Mr. Chairman, on the side, I have been
researching what happened in the late 1930s, and at one point a
similar thing happened where American industry was supporting
foreign airplanes with much greater technology than they were
providing to either the Department of the Navy or the
Department of War.
AGING AIRCRAFT
Now, while other nations are modernizing, we continue to
employ aging systems that are becoming more difficult to
operate and more expensive to maintain. The average age of our
operational air force is over 22 years per aircraft. And even
with planned aircraft procurements, the total fleet average age
is expected to increase to 27 years by the year 2020.
We sometimes jokingly put forward a histogram of our age of
aircraft and note which ones were in service that are flying
today that went into service before I was commissioned into the
United States Navy, and I would hate to tell you how many
planes that are in service today were in service before my
colleague and dear friend John Jumper was commissioned as a
second lieutenant in the United States Air Force. We have some
old aircraft, sir.
MODERNIZATION
Our proposed 2004 budget addresses a number of our
challenges and supports the Department's priorities. It
accelerates our modernization and joint capabilities and
maintains the gains of readiness and people programs we
achieved last year. Most important, it gets money into our
procurement program and funds essential capabilities our
warfighters need. I strongly request that you support stability
in our major programs.
PERSONNEL AND READINESS
Our number one investment priority remains our people. The
budget fully supports our authorized total force in strength,
funds our education to force development initiatives, puts us
on track to eliminate inadequate housing, and reduces out-of-
pocket housing expenses on schedule with the Secretary's
objectives. We appreciate your continued support of pay raises
for our uniformed and civilian airmen.
Our readiness budget increases by six percent. It funds an
expanded $6 billion flying hour program and sustains the
positive trends we have achieved in our readiness rates. Our
proposal increases our infrastructure investment above the 2003
requested level and keeps us on track to meet the Department's
goal of a 67-year recapitalization rate by 2008.
F/A-22 PROGRAM
Finally, I am proud to report our proposed budget increases
investment in new technologies by five percent over last year.
Next year we will fund 22 F/A-22s if the budget is approved,
continuing our move to a sustained production rate. We are
attempting to get stability in this program so as to replicate
what occurred with the C-17 where we can bring costs down and
increase reliability.
Mr. Chairman, you remember very well the C-17 and some of
the terrible days it went through, and it barely survived. And
yet today when we receive a C-17, within 48 hours it is in the
area of operations doing its mission, without any additional
work.
The F/A-22 program is improving. It is currently meeting or
exceeding all key performance related requirements. We have
restructured the upgrade spirals to focus on developing the
system's air-to-ground capabilities and recently delivered our
initial production aircraft to Nellis Air Force Base.
We are experiencing some ongoing issues with software
integration but having nothing to do with the flight controls,
and we face the classic challenge in transitioning from
development to production, something that you know, Mr.
Chairman, I lived through on the B-2, in great agony.
It is not unusual to see these problems at this stage in
the aircraft program because, more and more, what we do in the
Armed Forces is software-based. But one of the things I would
wish to say is that John and I have spent eight months--
andeight months ago we got into this program in great depth. Over the
period of time, Mr. Chairman, and with discussions with you and some
very good encouragement from you, we are proud to say that the planes
are now being delivered on time, and, in fact, we may have the first
one that is early.
We have had a dramatic improvement in meeting the test
points in the envelope for tests. We have gone back and fixed
the production problems in which foreign object debris, FOD,
damaged a couple of our engines. Key performance parameters
have been met. It is stealthier than it was intended to be. The
radar exceeds the requirement. We fired at supercruise a series
of missiles. We have fired guns. We have taken care of canopy
howl and we are fixing the fin buffeting problem. We have a
situation with the spares that were not funded previously as
they should have been, are finally starting to catch up. And we
are now working on the assembly line and the station-to-station
work on the assembly line is better than it has ever been.
But there are still some things, and the one that stands up
is software, which will plague this program. It is plaguing an
intelligence program that you know very well, Mr. Chairman. We
should tell you the airborne laser is going to suffer the same
thing, and we are now trying to hunt ahead of time to see how
many of our programs were not properly funded for the period of
integration and test, because the assumption that everything
would go together correctly the first time simply is not borne
out in reality.
We found that in the past, monies that were allocated to
fund a second systems integration laboratory for software--
software integration laboratory--were cut to save money. We
found that in linking up places within the program that were
supposed to have been done so software could be developed was
cut in order to save money. We found that there were programs
associated with classified parts of the program where the
contractor thought that they weren't allowed to collect data so
as to be able to do better diagnosis. It was a misunderstanding
of the rules.
We are fixing as many of these things as we can, and each
time we make an investment, like we are investing in the
software integration lab, it is to do something for this
program and for the F-35, because so much of the F-35 depends
on this program functioning well. For instance, 55 percent of
the engine for the 35 is really based on the F/A-22.
To work the software issue, we are going to take one
aircraft and make it our flying-proof aircraft for software. We
were able to go in December from under two hours of stability
in software in the lab to well over eight hours. We moved to
the airplanes because they were in initial production in some
instances, experiencing difficulties again when we bring
everything together, including all of the antennas. So we will
take one plane, make it as close to production configuration as
possible and make that plane work, and then move that software
to the other aircraft. This doesn't mean we can't do the test.
It does. It means we don't go the period of time without one or
the other subprograms experiencing some difficulty; none
affecting the safety of flight.
What is different, Mr. Chairman, is we now have a more
realistic cost estimating regime established. We were
embarrassed to tell you that in the past we were doing things
on a 50/50 basis. We have ended that. We now do it on an 80
percent basis, which means that we should be able to minimize
surprises to you, sir.
We think we have a far better management team in our Air
Force on top of this program. It is not that we won't face
unknown unknowns, but we are working hard to make sure that any
unknown unknown is as bound as it can be. We remain committed
to our buy-to-budget strategy. We will maximize the number of
aircraft we procure within the established budget caps.
We have kept our word to you, sir, and we believe that once
we can get stability in this program, we can lower the costs.
We have already demonstrated that we can lower the costs of the
radar by 40 percent and have a dramatically improved radar
because technology is moving forward and there are things we
can do.
This process of ours of trying not to ask you for more
money on this serves as not only an insurance policy for the
taxpayer, but it provides a dramatic incentive for your Air
Force and our industry suppliers to get it done right. With
your support, we will continue to deliver the only operational
system we will field this decade that puts iron on the enemy.
May I add, Mr. Chairman, we are dedicated to bringing the
system online because it will alter how we fight.
As you know, both John and I will be the first to recommend
to Secretary Rumsfeld that this program be terminated if we
believe we cannot bring something to you of which you would be
very, very proud. And therefore, we would ask you, sir, to give
us our chance, give us more than eight months. Give us a chance
to bring this plane on to show you what we can do.
AIR FORCE TRANSFORMATION
Mr. Chairman, we are also working very closely with
Secretary Rumsfeld and our colleagues to implement a range of
sensible management practices that we believe will help
minimize obstacles in the path to effective future
administration of the Department. Particularly, we are looking
at measures to transform our personnel, acquisition,
administrative, and range management practices.
We thank you very much for the investment you have made in
our future and for the trust you have placed in our concerted
effort to provide America with air and space dominance. I think
on behalf of all our airmen, Mr. Chairman, you and your
colleagues are providing them the wherewithal that, should the
President ask them to perform, they will do so and they will do
so to make you proud. Thank you.
Mr. Lewis. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
General Jumper.
Summary Statement of General Jumper
General Jumper. Mr. Chairman, Congressman Murtha, Chairman
Young, it is a pleasure to be before you today and for this
chance to tell you about the outstanding men and women of the
United States Air Force.
Let me begin, Mr. Chairman, by saying that my boss here,
who talked about the increase in mission capability rates
across our force, this would not have been possible without the
support of this Committee that put out there, into the hands of
our airmen, the parts and the supplies they needed to do their
job.
RETENTION
Let me also add that there is no greater help to our
retention issues of the past than to put into the hands of our
airmen out on the flight line the parts they need to fix their
airplane. It is because when we break faith with them by not
giving them that part, is when they begin to walk out the door.
When we give them the tools they need todo their job, we find
that they stay with us. So let me thank you, Mr. Chairman, and members
of the Committee, for that level of support which has made that
difference.
AIR FORCE ACADEMY
Right up front, Mr. Chairman, I would like to address our
situation at the United States Air Force Academy. The Secretary
and I have been personally involved in this situation. We have
not put anybody else to be our spokesman on this, as we talked
earlier. It is our absolute determination that our United
States Air Force Academy will graduate officers of character,
of honor, and of integrity, and that the crime of any kind of
assault will absolutely not be tolerated either among the
cadets or those who would hope to be officers. We have
dedicated our full power to this, sir, and we will fix this
problem.
Sir, let me continue to mention that this, the year 2003,
is the 100th anniversary of powered flight, and we have come a
long way since those days of wood and fabric machines to the
point now that we are reaching for the frontiers of space in
this exciting world that we live in. And this environment, we
all know, sir, is very much different than any environment we
ever expected.
If we even go back to before the fall of the Berlin Wall
and the demise of the Soviet Union and look at the predictions
that were made back in those times, we would find that by the
year 2000, the United States was to have been a second-rate
power. We would find that probably no one around could point to
a place called Kosovo, and very few people could name even a
majority of the ``Stan's'' and yet over the decade that has
passed since, the decade or more since Desert Storm, we have
found ourselves in all of those situations, and we found that
we have been able to adjust to those and deal with them in a
rather spectacular way. Again, thanks to the help from this
Committee and the great airmen that we have and the flexibility
we have in all of our services.
TOTAL FORCE
I would also mention, sir, that as Congressman Murtha
pointed out, none of us fight alone, sir. The days are gone
where any of us can claim that we can win any battle all by
ourselves. And we stand not only as a total force of active
Guard and Reserve but as an integrated force with our Army and
our Navy and our Marine Corps counterparts to get this job
done. And you would be proud, sir, of the way that we have gone
about to exercise together and to correct some of the doctrinal
differences from the past. This current set of Chiefs of Staff,
I will tell you, are dedicated to getting over some of those
previous obstacles. And even today, as I mentioned, the total
force, the Combat Air Patrols the CAPS that we have over the
United States of America are 75 percent manned by our Guard and
Reserve forces, and they have really stepped up to this.
Over our Capitol city today, we have F-16s from the 388th
Fighter Wing at Hill Air Force Base. It happens to be an active
duty wing, but most of the time you would find a Guard unit or
a Reserve unit overhead our Nation's Capitol.
Let me also say, sir, what a pleasure it is to work with
this Secretary of the Air Force, who brings to the men in
uniform, men and women in uniform, one with command experience.
He commanded a ship. He served in the Navy for 23 years, and he
has made this transition from ancient mariner to elder airman
in grand style, and it is a pleasure to work with a guy who
cares and who understands the burden of command on a day-to-day
basis. And I thank my boss for all he does for our airmen.
READINESS
Sir, the boss went through the statistics of what we have
been doing, and I won't repeat those. As we get ready again for
the next conflict, I would just like to say, sir, your airmen
stand ready. They stand ready because of the efforts of this
Committee and the support of this Committee to do the Nation's
bidding. They stand tall. They stand proud. They stand properly
equipped. They stand properly manned, and properly resourced to
do their job, and they will fall in on this coalition effort
and this joint effort in a way that will continue to make us
proud of their efforts.
And not only to put bombs on target, but we have to
remember that the first night of the Afghanistan war, we also
dropped humanitarian relief supplies, 2.4 million meals to
starving people on the ground. Again, the humanitarian effort
will be a part of this effort that we see in this upcoming
campaign when the President makes the decision to go.
AEROSPACE EXPEDITIONARY FORCE
It is not without some pain that we do this. I have
testified before this Committee before our transition to the
Expeditionary Force, where we have divided our air forces up
into 10 equal parts, and they are on a rotational basis now so
we can deal with whatever contingency does arise. We have now
got deployed elements of Aerospace Expeditionary Forces, AEF
numbers 7 and 8. We have pulled forward AEF 9 and 10, and even
1 and 2. Actually, we pulled 23,000 airmen from forward-planned
deployment groups into the current group to deal with the
current situation. And as I said before, they have accelerated
their training and their workup cycle, and they are ready to
go.
SPACE
The boss talked about aging systems, and of course we have
the ones that are well publicized. It is also interesting to
note that even our space programs, the defense satellite
program is now 32 years old. The Minuteman III program, which
we all considered a modern program, is now 30 years old. When
you look at the charts, it is hard to believe that, like the
rest of our lives, time is passing as quickly as it has, and it
takes its toll on our systems.
RECRUITING AND RETENTION
You know, one of the Secretary of Defense's main
transformational programs has to do with people. Another
tribute to this Committee's support of our people is the fact
that we are making all of our numbers in recruiting. Our
retention statistics are better than they have been in years,
and, again, it is because of the incentives and the resources
that you all have made happen that allow those numbers to be as
good as they are.
And, sir, I get to travel--as I do, and members of the
Committee--all over the world. I remember Mr. Murtha and most
of the members of the Committee coming over when I was a
commander in the United States Air Force in Europe during the
Kosovo crisis, and wandering around and seeing our people, all
of our soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines, in action. And it
is always--37 years I have been doing this work, and it never
ceases to amaze me, the pride and the dedication you find when
you go out there in the field and you watch these great airmen
do their work.
Recently, I was at a field over in southwest Asia, and a
young captain, Red Horse combat engineer, came up to me and
saluted. And he is building a runway. Well, anybody knows that
a runway is not a minor project. It is a pretty major project.
When you put it on top of a volcanic formation where you have
to pump hundreds of thousands of gallons of water out of it to
keep it at the right level, any engineer knows this is a
significant challenge.
This young captain, Red Horse engineer, comes up and goes,
``Sir, I started this project. They want me to rotateout of
here in about 2 or 3 weeks. I want you to know, sir, I'm not going
until this damn thing is finished'' and his chief is right behind him.
His chief master sergeant says, ``Sir, I am not going either.'' and I
said, ``You men can stay until this thing is finished. You have got my
permission.'' they are like that all over the place, and you couldn't
be more proud to be a part of the service.
I was at Incirlik Air Base, at the bomb dump there. I walk
up--there is a master sergeant and a tech sergeant. You walk
up, and they are sharp looking. You salute and you say, Where
are you from? You expect to hear some active duty base in
reply. The guy says, ``Sir, I am a Guardsman from Little Rock,
Arkansas. I am the sheriff of Little Rock.'' and you say, You
mean you are the sheriff? You took a pay cut to take this job,
didn't you? He said, ``Yes, sir, I did, but I wouldn't trade
this job for anything.'' and I ask the tech sergeant, Who are
you? And he says, ``Oh, I work for him in Little Rock. I say,
``Well, who the hell is guarding Little Rock?'' These are
people who wouldn't trade the position they have for anything,
to put on that uniform and go do these tasks, even if it is
with a cut in pay.
EMPLOYER RECOGNITION PROGRAM
And the Secretary and I have instituted a program to
acknowledge these great employers out there. I know Congressman
Hobson and I have talked about this before, but you will see
people walking, and with a lapel pin that has got the Air Force
symbol on it, and in the middle of the wings is an ``E'' for
employer. And these are recognition for the employers out there
who let their people put on the uniform, let them go and do
their job for their Nation, and we are equally proud of them.
They are just as much heroes as the people who put on the
uniform because they are sacrificing back home, too.
UNMANNED AERIAL VEHICLES
Mr. Chairman, you and I have had many talks over a long
period of time about the F/A-22, about remotely piloted
aircraft and their importance in the future. I won't expand on
what the Secretary said. You will find the 2004 budget an
unprecedented support for our remotely piloted vehicle fleet,
both the Predator A, the Predator B, and the Global Hawk, and
many more that we can't talk about in this setting, but a
family of vehicles that we are advancing so that we can pick
the best of breed and we can make sure that we are giving the
whole world of remotely piloted aircraft their due in our
progress toward the future.
BOMBERS
Bombers have always been an area of concern. Congressman
Dicks and I have talked about this often, and, again, the 500-
pound bomb for the B-2 bomber and other continuous improvements
in our bomber fleet are going to make sure that we can not only
stand off, but that we can penetrate and that we can loiter for
long periods of time. We have seen in Afghanistan where the
advent of the B-52 puts actually the B-52 in a close air
support role. And I would like to say that Curtis LeMay is
rolling over in his grave some place at the thought of this
strategic long-range bomber doing close-air support. But we are
at that point now where we can take advantage of these
platforms to do a variety of missions. As my boss is fond of
saying, ``we will never again buy a single-mission airplane or
platform.'' And that is the exactly the way to look at it.
JOINT OPERATIONS
One more point I would like to make is that we are working
hard to develop the concept of operations to work with the Navy
and the Army and the Marine Corps so that as the Army develops
its concept of operations for brigade combat teams and deep
operations, the Marines and the Navy likewise with their
concept of operations, we are there and figuring out how to
complement them with the systems we will bring on in the
future.
In the deep operations business, the F/A-22 is going to be
the thing that is going to penetrate deep, deal with those
targets on the ground, eventually moving targets on the ground
and be able to keep corridors open so that C-17s and other
resupply aircraft can get to those formations deep behind enemy
lines, and so on and so forth, as we work stealth, standoff,
and precision with the United States Navy. And we have to have
the United States Marine Corps deal with some of the problems
they have with shallow water mines and the like that we think
we can help with.
This is the development of joint concepts of operations
that are now underway with this current crop of CNO and service
chiefs that are willing to sit down and work these things
together.
So, Mr. Chairman, it is a pleasure to be here with my
colleague and to be able to do what we have done for so long.
I would like to make one introduction. We have with us
today Major Miller, who is an F/A-22 test pilot at Edwards Air
Force Base, and one who can attest firsthand to the fact that
this aircraft is one that we can indeed be proud of and is so
much better than anything we have ever seen before, that it
even waters the eyes of a steely-eyed fighter pilot. Sir, thank
you very much. We look forward to your questions.
Mr. Lewis. Thank you very much, Mr. Secretary, and Chief.
[The joint statement of Secretary Roche and General Jumper
follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
F/A-22 AIRCRAFT
Mr. Lewis. The two of you reflect I think the best of the
service that we have. You expressed it very well. We are in
this as one team, one fight. We have a challenge that is short
term that is ahead of us, but the real challenge goes on for
years to come.
Shortly after I got this job, I learned that there was much
to be learned from the two previous Chairmen of the
Subcommittee who spent a lot of time with me, whether they
liked it or not. In the meantime, both of them want the job
back, and I am not giving it up--yet, anyway. But early on in
that process, they joined with me, along with the entire
Subcommittee, to take a look at the future of tactical air.
I think you have spent some time looking at the GAO report
that raises a number of questions. Not all of them are new
questions, but nonetheless, one of the first issues we faced
during that new stewardship of mine was to talk about the F/A-
22; where it had been, where it ought to be going, and what its
future might be.
When our Subcommittee recommended that we delay production
schedules and take a hard look at testing that was projected
and make sure the testing took place, most people were most
amazed that my right arm on things like this, my Ace from
California was right along with us in connection with at least
raising concerns. The concern that we were raising was not the
potential capability of this aircraft. Clearly the airframe is
demonstrating its phenomenal capability beyond that which many
have expected.
But the very questions we were concerned about are now
raising their head. I am not sure what is going to be part of
the Defense Acquisition Board review that is coming up on
March--it is March 27th, I believe--but I am hearing some
feedback that suggests that there will be some additional
questions raised. So I wonder if you would help us with that.
In your opinion, will the Operational Test and Evaluation,
OT&E, be delayed? Will the program be restructured? Do you have
any idea will there be additional costs and will those costs
come out of the production budget?
Secretary Roche. Let me start, sir. The OT&E, we have
planned to do sometime between, say, August and November. It
may go closer to November, because we have got to make sure
that the software issue is taken care of before we go into
Initial Operatiional Test and Evaluation, or IOT&E. We are
concentrating on the IOT&E date, because it is a good way to
bring everything together, but the ``standing Army'' on this
program is, like, $50 million a month. If you are not doing
anything, you are still spending $50 million. That is cost that
buys you nothing.
We have made what we believe is very measurable progress,
as I noted from last summer, where we took over the test
program and became the two people in charge, replaced the
general officers who were running it with a team that was more
conducive to what we wanted to do. The program should not be
restructured.
We have all of the issues associated with other early
programs, like fin buffeting which happens to all twin-tailed
aircraft. We have gotten that fixed. There were other problems
associated with the performance of the airplane. They are
fixed.
We are now down to that problem which will plague every
major weapons system in the United States, which is trying to
have enormous amounts of software orchestrated and working
together. It is something you slug your way through. There are
people who say: ``Well, we should move to a new level of
architecture called open architecture.'' Open architecture
means it is plug and play for whatever you bring along. Its
basic design feature is that once you have it in place, it is
much easier to upgrade parts. But there are no living examples
of an open architecture system that exists. What there are are
various levels of modularity.
The F-35 is going to be the first that will try to have a
good bit of modularity, but it will still have the same problem
of how do you orchestrate among these various subsystems.
We now do so much in these airplanes. The F/A-22, for
instance, will be an intelligence/surveillance/reconnaissance
plane as well as an attack aircraft, as will the F-35. It will
be in communications with aircraft close aboard, as well as the
operations center in some other country. It will be very
different than something in the past. And consequently you are
trying to bring a lot together at the same time.
The flying test bed was funded and used, and certainly I
made great use of it for the radar. It did not replicate all
that in fact shows up on an airplane.
But a lot has been done for which we should be very proud.
There has never been an aircraft that supercruised before. This
airplane supercruises beyond its spec. Its radar is the best
that has ever been produced. The modification to give it air-
to-ground will make it even better against air-to-air cruise
missiles and give it air-to-ground capability and cause its
costs to come down by 40 percent per plane per radar.
So it is an issue where we are at the point where you have
to slug your way through. Just as you recall that the B-2 had a
radar that couldn't see through rain at one point, it was a
software issue. There were other software issues of control.
You remember the control surfaces weren't behaving correctly.
It was a software issue. And you work your way through these
software issues. The F-15 had software issues, and the F-117.
Anytime you get into this world that is not unlike my personal
computer at home--I cannot go beyond America on Line, AOL 5.0,
because if I do, I freeze up something in my computer. It is
happy with that ancient software, and it works fine, but if I
try and do more, I can't. I am not smart enough to figure out
how to change all the other software.
Here we are talking about certain subroutines that will
have a problem. We have made dramatic progress in the lab. Now
it is a matter of moving that progress to an aircraft,
stabilize it, and then move it to the other aircraft. But
meanwhile we are still doing an enormous number of test points
in the plane. So I don't expect it to be restructured. If we
were to say the software problem is a problem--we have to end
the program, for instance--then I don't know any major program
of any service that could pass that test.
Yes, it is true, it is very true that this phase of this
program should have been properly funded. And in doing some
homework, I know that your Subcommittee made that point very
clear, because I think you heard the B-2 and some of the other
programs. It was not. And what we are finding is, as I noted,
the same thing is showing up in other programs. We are running
back to say how do we make sure that this period where you
bring everything together for final integration and begin
tests, and at the same time you transition the production of a
program, is the most difficult time, because everything is
compacted at one point. Thatis where we are in this program,
but we often times forget all of the accomplishments we have made on
the program.
General Jumper. And there is nobody, Mr. Chairman, if I
might add, who has come to us and said the architecture won't
work, or you have an impossible problem to solve here. We have
had groups of experts go out and look at this to reassure us.
So it is a matter of slugging our way through this final step
of integration and getting ourselves to the finish line here in
that part of the program that is always the most difficult for
a system as you transition it from the engineering and
development phase into the production phase, and you sweep up
those last items that you have to work the hardest on.
Secretary Roche. We spent some time with some people in the
National Academy of Sciences who specifically worry about the
future of software and open architecture, and they admitted
that we are at a complex level, and to go the next level in the
next airplane is going to be a heck of an accomplishment. It is
the way you would eventually like to have things be, and we
would at some point like to go back and backfit the 22. To make
that leap now would be to give you a program that would be out
of control, and I would never recommend it.
Mr. Lewis. I have taken up more than my time. I do have
other questions relative to these modifications that involve
air-to-ground capability. That wasn't the original design here,
and our purpose was to question what course we were looking at
out there in terms of future challenge on air-to-air. Mr.
Cunningham can help me with that, I am sure. But in the
meantime, I am certainly glad that some of my Committee did ask
some of these questions early on.
Mr. Murtha.
Mr. Murtha. I will tell you, the Chairman is modest about
his part that he played in this. He fought everybody, even Jack
Lew, one of the most liberal OMB directors we ever had, and
said it is the only program he ever agreed with. And yet we
were trying to hold it up because we believed that you needed
to do more research before you went into production. The
Chairman withstood tremendous pressure. One time we got into
conference, and it was--well, I won't go into the details of
that conference, but we had some very difficult times.
But I am comfortable with what you are doing now, but I
have heard a couple things. One is that the--I didn't know the
tail was fixed. In other words, the buffeting is fixed. Is that
right?
Secretary Roche. Yes. The programs we have put in, we have
gone through the tests now, and they work.
COMPUTER PROCESSOR
Mr. Murtha. Now, the computer, I hear, is so old in this
machine that they don't even do the parts anymore. Is that
accurate?
Secretary Roche. The computer is perfectly fine for
handling things. There are parts within the computer that are
no longer in production. For the long run, we are developing a
replacement--it is a central processor, a long-term processor
replacement for it. We can do everything with this plane with
what we have. It has room for additional cards, additional
memory, et cetera.
Mr. Murtha. I guess it doesn't make sense to upgrade it at
this point. Is that what you are saying?
Secretary Roche. Well, if you rushed it, they are having
difficulty getting the next level of processor, and we have an
orderly plan to get to it. And when we get to it, we will. It
is like the air-to-ground mods the Chairman refers to. We are
not stopping and putting those in. We are seeing how to phase
those in, and by phasing them in in a way that also reduces
costs, then that is a sensible thing to do.
The reason we do all of this is we started the study--the
Secretary of Defense asked us to do a very first principal
study of the F/A-22 a year ago. John and I took this as a
reason to sit back to say is this what we need, is this right,
and to look at it. Now, like all staffs, everyone assumed that
there was a predetermined answer, and they gave it to us. And
we were both quite upset. And we said, no, we are genuinely
interested, because if we are going to go out and slug away at
this thing with the manufacturer and the colleagues in the
government, we better be on firm ground that this is what we
want.
Mr. Murtha. And with us.
CRUISE MISSILE PROLIFERATION
Secretary Roche. And with you, absolutely. We have to have
credibility with you. When we did it, we found that, yes, there
are some emerging fighters around. There are surface-to-air
missile systems that are getting better and better. The key
that we came to was we had no system that can catch something
that is moving deep, and we have a whole program that goes at
that. We have now demonstrated each key part; one quite
classified, in a closed session we could tell you about, that
had its second absolute terrific experiment. We now know how to
go do that.
The second one was we looked at what was happening in
cruise missiles, the proliferation, the fact that some of our
allies are quite content to sell you a surface-to-surface
cruise missile that is stealthy, and how could we defend
against it? It is not just a matter of seeing it, you have also
got to kill it. But it turns out that the supercruise
capability of the----
Mr. Murtha. Low observable?
Secretary Roche. Low observable cruise missiles are on the
market, and these are going to start proliferating as long as
people are out to buy them. We asked people--we did a survey.
We went around saying, What do you think the probability is in
the next 20 years someone will lob a cruise missile into the
United States? We found two groups. One group said it will
absolutely never happen. It would be easier to bring the ship
in and blow up a port. Other groups said of course it is going
to happen. The issue is there is enough evidence to suggest
that our deployed forces will face this.
It turns out supercruise becomes critical on being able to
get angles of attack and have multiple shots. We worked our way
through and said if we make the changes to the plane, we can
reduce costs and have something that is dramatically better.
And there is no substitute. F/A-22 can do these things. Nothing
else can.
GUARD AND RESERVE PERSONNEL
Mr. Murtha. Let me say in conjunction with what the Chief
said, I was just in Incirlik not long ago with the Speaker, and
most of the guys were from the National Guard in Pittsburgh.
And then Mr. Hobson and I went back with the Democrat leader
and, same way, most of them Reserves, integrated seamlessly.
The Air Force does a better job than anybody else of putting
Reserves and Guard people in the front lines. It is really
gratifying to see them work so well together.
SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS
But now the supplemental, you had to have cut back
onsomething since you are deployed and spend so much money overseas in
this Iraqi thing. What are you cutting back on? What do you need money
for? Where are you running out of money?
Secretary Roche. I will start, sir, and ask John to
contribute. Clearly what we are doing is money that had been
authorized and appropriated for the fourth quarter especially,
we are moving up to do things, to move troops, et cetera. That
is building a bill for us. That is one type of cost.
There is another type of cost, sir. We have had to use a
lot of our instructor pilots, a lot of instructors, to move
them overseas in order to have the kind of massive force that
the President would want us to have there. That means training
is being delayed.
We have been assiduous about not postponing maintenance,
but at some point we are going to have to come back and catch
up on minor things having to do with maintenance. So we have
been giving data to the comptroller, as part of all the
services putting stuff together, and dealing with DoD, both the
costs of doing that, plus the fact that we have to maintain the
force over the United States. And if the President asks us to
go into Iraq, I am sure you would expect that we may have to
put an increasing amount of forces over the United States; do
that at the same time do Iraq, at the same time ensure that the
deterrent in Korea is enhanced.
Mr. Murtha. What is the bottom line? When do you need
money?
Secretary Roche. We run out of money? June, as of right
now. You got us to June by doing something for us a couple
weeks ago, which we much appreciated. By the way, thank you for
lifting some of the caps on reprogramming things. That was just
wonderful. Thank you.
BOEING 767 TANKER LEASE
Mr. Murtha. And we have got the tanker lease. Has that deal
been signed yet?
Secretary Roche. No, sir. The Secretary is looking at it.
It is a tough thing. You hire somebody like me, and you get a
business deal. And the business deal is different, it is not
the usual sort of a thing. It is a unique time because interest
rates are very low.
Mr. Murtha. We don't like it. We don't like it, but we have
got to get tankers out there. That is the problem.
Secretary Roche. And Don Rumsfeld knows this as well, Mr.
Murtha, and it is a matter of can he agree with us.
Mr. Murtha. None of us like it. All of us would rather buy
them.
Secretary Roche. Well, it turns out this time we think it
is almost a wash. But if it is not a good business deal for the
American taxpayer, we wouldn't bring it forward. We think it
is. Other analysts think it is not. The poor Secretary is in
the position between two numbers. They do a study on the
outside; and the outside, it comes in right down the middle. He
is considering it. But certainly we have been able to
demonstrate to a lot of our colleagues the condition of our
tankers, why we are worried, the sensible moves forward. And if
we don't do the lease, we have programmed money in our budget
to begin purchasing in a few years.
AIR FORCE ACADEMY INVESTIGATION
Mr. Murtha. I hope your folks will give us something on
jammers also.
Finally, I want to tell you how much I appreciate the
cooperation you have given our staff in looking at the Air
Force Academy problem, because, you know, the Navy didn't
handle their problem very well. The Army did a lot better. This
is such a serious thing, but I appreciate the openness and the
willingness to cooperate and the fact that you two are paying
attention yourself to the issue.
Secretary Roche. We are. We are the leads. We are doing it.
We are drafting the memo of instructions. We have promised the
Members of Congress and Secretary Rumsfeld that by the end of
this month we would issue corrective action to make--we don't
want to sit and wait, because we have 218 new female cadets
starting in less than 90 days, which will give us a total of
714 young women at the Air Force Academy. We have two
obligations, Mr. Murtha. One is to ensure that the parents of
those cadets don't go to sleep at night worrying about their
daughters in ways they should not have to. And secondly, we
have got to ensure that the parents of the male cadets realize
that due process will always apply, and we will do that. This
is something that we take on very personally, because this is
not something you have staffs do. This is something leaders do.
Mr. Lewis. Thank you, Mr. Murtha. Mr. Young.
Mr. Young. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much, and as a
member of the Board of Visitors of the Air Force Academy, I
will say that I have followed very closely, Mr. Secretary and
General Jumper, how you have handled this. And I think you have
done a--you hit the problem immediately. You didn't try to
cover up anything. And we had talked earlier in private about
some of the things that you were doing. Is that something you
would like to say for the record now, or would you rather hold
on that and----
Secretary Roche. If I may, Mr. Chairman, we are trying to
pull it all together to have a coherent package. I want to vet
it with my boss, Don Rumsfeld, and then announce next week,
sir.
SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS
Mr. Young. Fair enough. I wasn't going to do this, but Mr.
Murtha sort of opened the subject.
You know, one of the first jobs that I had this year, other
than the reorganization and getting the hearings scheduled and
underway, I will have to deal with the supplemental, and I want
to deal with it as quickly as possible because I know, as you
responded to Mr. Murtha, you need the money. I mean, you have
been building up to a war. You have been flying a lot of
sorties in Northern Watch and Southern Watch. There is a lot of
money that has already been spent, but we can't get much
information as to what that supplemental will look like and
when we might get it. Are you able to give us any insight as
to----
Secretary Roche. Mr. Chairman, I would be glad to tell you
where my head is. I can't tell you when. That is above my pay
grade. I know that our Comptroller and the Secretary and the
Office of Management and Budget, OMB are working together. We
can't predict the length of this conflict. We don't know what
the costs will be afterwards in terms of reconstitution. We
have said as we have looked forward that we know what Operation
Enduring Freedom, Noble Eagle, and maintaining our forces are
like. We know what it is like to predeploy to Guam to be able
to support their increased deterrence in Korea. We have
estimated that something like $15 billion is what we would
require for our Air Force, but we have to go through and
justify that, both with the Comptroller and with OMB, and we
are in the process of doing that now.
Mr. Murtha. Would the gentleman yield? One thing you have
to make sure, we had 192 pages in 1991 of justification
material. We need that kind of justification so we can turn it
around quickly.
Secretary Roche. Yes, sir. That is one of the things we are
doing with the Comptroller. They are not going to send
something to OMB that he feels that he can't take before Mr.
Rumsfeld; Mr. Rumsfeld will say, that makes sense and let's go.
That is part of the delay.
Mr. Young. Mr. Lewis and I, along with Chairman Duncan
Hunter and Chairman John Moore and a few other Members, spent
almost the whole day--and General Jumper was there--at the
Pentagon with the Secretary of Defense, and the Comptroller
very specifically, because he did most of the presentation. And
frankly, they were a little frustrated on how they were going
to be treated by OMB on this issue of the supplemental, whether
or not the request from the services would be seriously
considered by OMB. But we will just have to wait and see, I
guess, on that.
JOINT STRIKE FIGHTER
Mr. Chairman, let me take up one other issue. We talked a
lot about the F/A-22 here today so far, but there is another
airplane out there that we refer to as JSF, Joint Strike
Fighter. And my understanding was that at one point you were
not totally satisfied with the engine requirements and that you
were considering having competing engines. Is that still the
plan and is that underway?
Secretary Roche. I will start and then again--I don't want
to dominate this. My colleague is very articulate. So the JSF
is about where the F/A-22, then the F-22, was 10 years ago. It
is having its weight difficulties. The basic engine has about
$4 billion-plus monies that needs to be invested in it for
development, and there was an issue with the second source for
the engine. This is very, very important, that there be a
second source, because the basic engine on the F-35 is derived
from the F/A-22 engine. If there ever was a class problem with
that engine, you would not want the entire fleet of F/A-22s and
F-35s shut down.
Therefore, there was to be monies put in for the second
engine. That was estimated to be around $1.5 billion to do
that. That cost has moved up to $2.9 billion. Other things
associated with the program have the program manager delaying
that for a while, and that is causing some concern. Now, this
is something that is being run by the Department of the Navy at
this point, but General Jumper and I resume ownership of the
program in total in 14 months, and therefore we have asked the
Department of the Navy if we can be much more actively
involved. We will start to become much more actively involved
in the program precisely because we want to make sure when it
comes back to us, we are not surprised. But it is early in the
program. Software issues, for instance, will not even begin to
emerge for another 5 years. But we need the second engine, to
make sure that there are two engines for the plane, that will
have that much production.
Mr. Young. On the JSF, one last question. And then, Mr.
Chairman, I will relinquish the time. I have been reading
reports on
F/A-22, JSF, you know, a lot of the airplanes, and one of the
latest reports on JSF said something about the weight being
excessive for the vertical takeoff mode.
Secretary Roche. Well, all airplanes--you know, weight is
the nemesis of every airplane, and at this stage of a program
when you go from general ideas about how it is designed to very
specific drawings and then start to do the weights of the
various members, you will recall the A-12, which was an
interesting issue because it was designed as if it were metal,
then built in plastic in many cases, and the weight was
dramatically heavier.
So at this stage of a program, that is always a problem.
The engineers have to, once they realize it, work at it. It is
starting to hit weight limits across the board, but that is not
unusual at this stage, once you get the detailed drawings
begun, and they will fight this problem and fight this problem
for years.
General Jumper. Sir, a lot of people think that because we
flew these test airplanes, that the JSF is really a lot further
along than it is. It is really just emerging from what we call
``brochure status'' into the place where you really start
getting down and having to quantify things. Just like every
other program we have, there will be this turmoil, and it is to
be expected in any program like this until this really takes
shape and the engineering and the design really comes together.
Secretary Roche. You remember the YF-22 and the YF-23
prototypes were flying handsomely in 1991 and 1992.
Mr. Young. We are not giving up on the vertical takeoff
capabilities.
Secretary Roche. No, sir.
Mr. Young. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much.
Mr. Lewis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Dicks, Mr. Murtha asked all the questions on the
tankers, so you may not need your full 5 minutes.
AIR FORCE ACADEMY
Mr. Dicks. Mr. Chairman, I may want to come back to that,
since I wasn't here to hear the testimony. I just want to say I
do appreciate the leadership of Secretary Roche and General
Jumper on all these issues, and particularly coming to grips
with the problem at the Air Force Academy. I am a member of the
Board of Visitors at the Air Force Academy, and I am very
interested in the report that is going to be presented to us.
And I have been impressed with the way you have taken this on
directly. I think you are absolutely right. We have to restore
confidence that the things at the Air Force Academy are under
control and that, frankly, women are being treated fairly when
they are interrogated about these issues. And that apparently
has not been the case, and I hope we can get that straightened
out.
And I appreciate the fact that the Chairman wants to talk
about substance. I always like to talk about substance as well.
But this is one we have to take care of for the credibility of
the Air Force, in my judgment.
And on the tanker issue, I know that my good friend Jack
Murtha, who has worked with me on many issues over the years,
asked you about this. I just want to raise the question. I went
out to Tinker--I know the Secretary was out there at about the
same time that I was----
Secretary Roche. Same day.
AGING TANKER AIRCRAFT
Mr. Dicks. Same day, in fact. And I was shocked to see the
condition of these older airplanes, and the fact that you are
in there--in there for 200 or 300 days at a time, and they were
all built between 1957 and 1963, except for the KC-10s, and it
is about time we started replacing them. And I worry about this
in the context of--there have been several accidents, or
incidents, recently where you have had problems with the older
airplanes. Isn't that correct?
Secretary Roche. Yes. As you may remember, Mr. Dicks, we
had a plane that landed at Andrews Air Force Base and went to
do a 90-degree turn on the tarmac, and the truck containing the
wheels on one side remained stationary, and the plane turned on
top of it and it just broke out from its housing on the wing.
Wehave had that.
The E models are the ones we worry about most, sir, because
they are older. They are the ones who were in service, many of
them, before I was commissioned. At one point to update them,
they took planes from the retiring commercial 707s and put the
engines and pylons on them to give them some additional life.
Those pylons were never intended to go the length of time that
they have gone, and these aircraft are now averaging 43 years.
And the corrosion, the catalytic corrosion, which is a battery-
like effect when you have dissimilar metals, or metals near
each other in the presence of water, is starting to eat away at
them.
It doesn't happen to the B-52s by the way the B-52 is
designed, but also we don't fly something like the B-52 the way
we did when it was first bought. If we did, it would age a lot
faster. These aircraft are flown exactly the way they were from
day one, carrying a lot of fuel and cargo to our airmen.
So they are corroding, the aluminum is delaminating, the
costs on the ground, just to take time. The 68 we want to
retire will probably put a dent in our refueling capability on
the order of four to five percent, because we will move the
crews to R models. But all the R models were commissioned--that
are there today, were all commissioned and flying before John
was commissioned as a second lieutenant. We have to get to
this, because I think everyone now recognizes it is pivotal for
a global reach.
Mr. Dicks. One, that is true. In Afghanistan, I believe
every single airplane that flew in there had to be refueled,
sir. So it isn't just the bombers or the long-range aircraft.
It is every airplane.
General Jumper. It is Navy, it is the Marine Corps as well.
Mr. Dicks. What I worry about is what if we had a block
failure of these tankers? We would be in a position where we
would not have this same military capability that we have
today. And I also worry about this because of the things that
are tough out there in the Northwest. How long is the 767 line
going to be around if we don't get started on this in an
appropriate time?
And I know I am preaching to the choir. I know you two have
been very strong advocates of this program. I just hope you
will take it back to the Secretary that it is time to make a
decision and move forward with this, and I think there will be
strong support in the Congress because people up here recognize
how serious this problem is.
PROCUREMENT FUNDING
And the other thing I worry about of course, you know as
General Myers, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, testifies
every year, you know that we are $30 to $40 billion short of
where we should be on procurement. And we don't have the
procurement dollars. I mean, I hear voices down at OMB saying,
well, just buy them. Well, if we had the $30 or $40 billion of
procurement money that we should have in this budget, we could
buy them. But we don't. And therefore, that is why we have to
go through the lease and do it differently.
Secretary Roche. Secretary Rumsfeld has been spending a
good bit of time trying to get his head around this. It is
difficult to make a decision that is so different than the ones
that we have made in the past, and I have great sympathy with
him. It is the sort of thing he asks us to do to be
transformational. And sometimes you are different, and when you
are different, lots of people have to come on board.
Mr. Dicks. Right. And I just think it would be a tremendous
thing to get this thing started and then move it forward. I
wanted to ask another quick question on the B-2.
Mr. Lewis. By the way, you have almost convinced Mr. Murtha
on this one.
B-2 BOMBER GLOBAL AIR TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT
Mr. Dicks. Yeah, well, we are working on it. And Mr. Murtha
is always there when it counts. Now, let me ask you this. Could
the Air Force execute $38 million if provided in a supplemental
to add GATM, GATM capability to the B-2 bomber? Could the Air
Force execute the same amount if provided in fiscal year 2004?
Do you understand what this program is?
Secretary Roche. Yes, oh, yes. To make it more acceptable
to international controllers.
Mr. Dicks. Right. This is a serious problem, right?
Secretary Roche. It is and we are going through our fleet
little by little. In the case of the B-2, I think we are going
to do that at the same time we worry about changing the
frequency of the radar, because the radar frequency interferes
with some commercial frequencies. I can't answer the question
specifically. I have to go back Mr. Dicks and get back to you.
But GATM is something that is across the board. By the way, in
these old KC-135 tankers it is not worth putting in the money
to make them compatible for GATM.
F/A-22 PRODUCT IMPROVEMENT
Mr. Dicks. Going back, everyone has to have their little
bit on the F/A-22. I have been a supporter of the F/A-22. One
thing that we did--the Chairman was involved in this, all of
the people on this Committee frankly were involved when we had
to do product improvement on C-17. We invested a considerable
amount of money at one point to try and get it fixed. Well, now
it has turned out to be one of our very best programs. We have
gotten the costs way down, did multiyear procurement. I mean,
is it time for some kind of a product improvement approach
here? I know that has been suggested, and there is some
controversy about it. But how do you feel about it?
Secretary Roche. In fact, sir, we have invested about $470
million over time.
Mr. Dicks. There is a question how much. We may need to do
more of it. That is, I think, the issue.
Secretary Roche. We might. At this stage, having won the
first gold award for product improvement by investing
andgetting costs down, I am very familiar with this. It was an attempt
to get the supplier to invest to find out ways of lowering the costs.
One of the problems with that, Mr. Dicks, is--it is always when you are
a supplier--the assumption of what is the volume. Every time there is
controversy about this plane in terms of numbers, every other supplier
behaved just the way I did; which was, whoops, I had better get my
money faster. And we become very difficult. We were very difficult to
deal with.
When the Congress took action last year, and the suppliers
saw that and saw the Secretary approve the program a year ago,
within a week all the supplier negotiations were done because
there was some sense of stability. This program cries for
stability. If it can become stable--and we have lowered the
number to produce per year so as to have something, we have
both gone down--we have both gone through all the production
facilities, all of the stations--36 a year. If we could get to
36 a year, then I know how to work to get the costs out of it.
Then you can make very tailored additional investments in ways
of lowering costs.
Mr. Dicks. Okay, thank you.
Mr. Lewis. Thank you, Mr. Dicks. Mr. Hobson.
GUARD AND RESERVE
Mr. Hobson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, gentlemen,
for what you do.
Somebody talked about the Wrights. I would like to invite
you this summer to where they learned to fly the airplane,
Wright Patterson Air Force Base. And on seamless, real quick,
when Jack and I were there, the commander at Incirlik has a
picture on his wall outside his office. It is a picture of an
Ohio KC-135, refueling F-16s from--unfortunately from Toledo,
not from my base--but it is on his base to show the
seamlessness of the operation. And he says he has flown with
the guys and he likes it.
Very quickly, sir, Mr. Secretary, I want to congratulate
you and the Secretary of the Navy at the time for concluding
the 18 December 2002 Memorandum of Agreement that forms an
educational alliance between the Air Force Institute of
Technology and the Naval Postgraduate School at Abbot. I really
very much appreciate all you have done on that.
I have got a series of questions that I will leave for the
record. But I do think you did a great job on that and I--you
know, we need to say thank you when you do things right,
because sometimes we come around and say, hey. And I am going
to ask you about one of those in a minute.
Secretary Roche. Softening me up, are you?
SATELLITE BANDWIDTH FOR USE ON WEAPONS SYSTEMS
Mr. Hobson. Yes. I can't let you go without that. But when
Mr. Murtha and Ms. Pelosi and myself were there, we keep asking
the troops, ``What do you need''? And the one thing that we got
back from everybody we talked to was bandwidth. And I hope you
all are looking at that. And if you have anything you want to
respond to now in this setting is fine. If you don't want to
respond now----
Secretary Roche. I think we both do. We agree. When we put
a Global Hawk up, we use up an enormous amount of bandwidth.
And one of the things that Secretary Rumsfeld has championed is
transformational communication. And our Under Secretary Pete
Teets, who is taking the lead on our team for it, is to try to
have a quantum leap in how you handle bandwidth by using more
laser communications between satellites and satellites to the
ground.
This year we will be working on trying to definitize a
program to make that make sense, because we have a decision in
2005 as to whether to buy two more advanced Extremely High
Frequency, EHF satellites or to proceed down this path which is
really quite revolutionary. We are working the bandwidth issue
by trying to create more.
The other thing we are doing is taking each of our
programs, looking to see if we can reduce the bandwidth it does
occupy. So we would like to do more Global Hawk control, for
instance, from the back of Multisensor Command and Control,
MC2A aircraft and get off the pipes that go intercontinental
from each little drone, and be able to just have one pipe that
goes back.
As you know, we have done an experiment of using a tanker
as a smart tanker in communications relay instead of each
airplane using up satellite information. We can take all of
that to the back end of the tanker with no one there, have it
all processed by machines, and just have one pipe come back.
Lowers costs of bandwidth, it allows us to free up bandwidth.
It is something we worry about a lot.
General Jumper. Sir, let me just say we have also just
concluded a test where we actually control the Predator from
the back of a C-130 aircraft with the C-130 aircraft also
equipped with the same sensors that the Predator has, so that
you cannot only look with the C-130, but you can control the
Predator from the C-130, again directly, not taking up
satellite bandwidth.
And the Secretary has also directed, that we get deeply
into the idea of multiple control of Predators. A lot of the
time now that you spend with Predators is actually physically
flying it from one place to another. If we can beef up the auto
pilot and just tell it go from point A to point B and we can
split up the bandwidth--and we found a way to take the
bandwidth that we have now and split it up actually into
several pieces--that allows you now to control several of these
Predators, and you just station them where you want them at the
time that you are using the pilot intervention, either when the
Predator is defending itself against an air threat or a ground
threat or when you are taking control of that sensor to look
through it. These are all innovations that we are trying to put
forth quickly to deal with the bandwidth problem.
Mr. Hobson. I would just like to make one comment about
that. When you both talk about Predator and Global Hawk, I wish
you would talk to Mitch Daniels, because those are both
congressional adds, as I understand it, that came out of
someplace around here by a couple of members of this Committee.
And so not all member adds are bad.
Secretary Roche. We should also tell you that it is an
initially historical analogy that we are using. This is a new
form of warfare. If you just think of it as a plane without a
pilot, you will make a mistake every single time. If you think
of it as an adjunct to air and space power, you can do a lot
better. The model we are using is actually a model that you
should be very proud of. In the late 1930s, Wright Patterson
Air Field--those fields were the home of a series of different
types of aircraft that were used by the Army Air Corps along
with the field at Maxwell to understand what would be
appropriate doctrine for the air in which they were going. And
they did something by having clumps of these and actually
testing them. They didn't go and spend millions of dollars to
come up with the perfect airplane. They actually got their
pilots involved, et cetera.
That is exactly what we are doing with these unmanned
vehicles and remotely piloted aircraft. We are getting our own
pilots involved and our own systems people involved andwe are
going to have multiple families going at the same time. It will be far
cheaper in the long run. But its historic antecedent is Wright-
Patterson Air Force Base in the late 1930s.
KC-135 TANKER BRAKES
Mr. Hobson. Thank you. Let me ask the question that I was
going to ask you. And I want you to understand I have been into
this before, some current stuff in the paper. But I am
distressed for the second time that a French company will be
supplying brakes for the United States Air Force aircraft.
First Boeing bought French-made brakes for the C-17, which I
complained about some time ago and nothing happened. Now the
Air Force is going to buy French-made brakes and main landing
gear wheels for the KC-135 tanker rework. On February 24, 2003,
I wrote to Dr. Marvin Sambur, Assistant Secretary of the Air
Force for Acquisition, complaining about the KC-135 contract.
The Air Force had rejected all domestic offers for failure to
meet solicitation requirements. The successful French bidder
claimed it met the requirements, but that claim was challenged
by one of the unsuccessful domestic bidders who had tested the
French company's materials. Dr. Sambur and I met about this.
Subsequently he wrote to me on 6 December 2002, saying that
the Air Force had not tested, as I maintained, the brake; but
that the Air Force would test it before production. And, three,
the Air Force would not grant a waiver. I very much appreciated
his time and his willingness to address this matter.
Nevertheless I questioned why the test has to wait until
production, April 2004.
In my opinion, the Air Force should test immediately so as
not to lose a year, should the French brake fail to meet the
specifications, or to give them an extra year to perfect their
product, that by the terms of the specification should be ready
now and not then. So I have got some concern about this and
this isn't a result of anything that has been going on now. I
have been into this before.
Secretary Roche. It is a new one on me, to be very, very
honest. Let me go back and look at it. I know that anytime you
are talking about parts for the KC-135, you are talking about
parts for an antiquated airplane, and therefore the supplier
base is not always what you would want it to be.
Our understanding, from a note just handed to me, was that
the French product in fact was able to handle many more
landings than the American product. We will go look at it, Mr.
Hobson. We would just be talking off the top of our heads if we
addressed it now, sir.
Mr. Hobson. That is fine.
[The information follows:]
It is true that formal qualification testing for the KC-135 brakes
is not slated to begin until April 2004. The Air Force will not wait a
year to ensure the proposed design and prototype brake will perform as
advertised. Air Force engineers are already witnessing, first hand,
prototype testing performed by Messier. This data will be reviewed and
analyzed by the USAF prior to Critical Design Review (CDR). United
States Air Force engineering personnel will witness prototype testing
on the following dates:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prototype Test: Test Dates:
Vibration............................. 9 April-11 April 2003
Peak Torque........................... 21 April-25 April 2003
Static Torque......................... 18 May-23 May 2003
RTO (Rejected Take-Off)............... 08 June-13 June 2003
Design Review: Program Dates:
CDR................................... 28 June-3 July 2003
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Following CDR, the contractor will be required to provide the
Government articles for anti-skid evaluation no later than 31 March
2004. This qualification test method and schedule were outlined in the
solicitation and contract. As such, all offerors proposed a
qualification program that followed this methodology. The Air Force is
using the same methodology widely in both military and commercial
development projects; this is the testing process used by all Air Force
wheel and brake programs. The key milestone in this initial round of
testing is the CDR. By following this testing plan the Air Force will
be able to determine if the Messier design and prototype will perform
as proposed, well before formal qualification testing begins in April
2004.
FOREIGN SALE OF AIRCRAFT
Mr. Hobson. The last thing I would like to ask you very
quickly is the Qatarese are buying an advanced so-called F-16.
But it doesn't look like any--I mean, it looks like, but it
isn't like any other F-16. Have you all looked at the
capabilities of that aircraft, because I never hear anybody
talk about it. Is that because it might affect some other
programs, or what is the problem?
Secretary Roche. Is it Qatar or is it the United Arab
Emirates?
Mr. Hobson. Maybe it is the Emirates. UAE. And they are
paying--I am sorry, you are right. But I understand that they
are paying for all the research and development on this
aircraft and that it is a lot different than our F-16s.
Secretary Roche. Oh, Mr. Hobson, are you ready for my
cassette? Let me start with the block 60. But I can go before
that. The block--the F-16 version XM--being done for Israel,
Poland, Greece, Singapore, Chile, and I have forgotten--I said
Greece--will have a set of avionics suite on it that is better
than anything in our F-16s. And by the way, Mr. Chairman,
except for its older modification line, it will have dramatic
integration of software and everything else and it will be
delivered within five years of signing of contract.
The block 60 is the generation beyond that. It will be the
first Active Electronically Scanned Array, the AESA radar. Has
a dramatically improved electronic warfare system, forward-
looking infrared, different engine conformal tanks. It
resembles an F-16 only in its canopy, wheels, tail and the
outer wings, and it will be delivered within five to six years
of contract signing. Korea will have the F-15K, which will have
different engines, different radar, different electronics, than
any American F-15; highly, highly complex integration program.
It will be delivered within six years of contract signing. And
all these are paid for by these other countries.
The Australians will develop a thing called wedge-tail
which is a 737 AWACs-like airplane, brand new radar, brand new
antenna technology, integrating American and other technologies
on board, and it will be delivered within seven years of
contract signing. Something is not right with our acquisition
process.
Mr. Hobson. I am glad I led you into that, sir.
Secretary Roche. Thank you, sir. And I didn't ask you to do
it.
Mr. Hobson. No. But I think--we don't hear this and we need
to know that, I think. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
ACQUISITION PROCESS
Mr. Lewis. Something is wrong with our acquisition process.
Mr. Murtha. Yes. What does that mean?
Secretary Roche. The time it is taking for us to be able to
bring something into the field as compared to the time it is
taking a foreign country to invest in, develop, and
purchasefrom American companies is--the times are too different. And
even if--as we have looked at it we have said, well, let's double the
time, because they are using a basic airplane form already. It doesn't
take that long to design an airplane or how to control it. The time is
still something like half of ours. This is a process that starts in our
own Air Force, our own bureaucracy, our own requirements that seem to
get away from the simple proposition of there is a supplier, there is a
customer, and there is a contract. The contract specifies how many,
what they are supposed to do, specifications, and the funding line. We
introduce all kinds of other bureaucratic things that we find hobble
our own program.
We will blame us first. When we went out and got into the
test program and got into the whole thing, we found that our
own Air Force was not dealing with itself in any sort of an
expeditious manner. There was no sense of urgency. There were
just hundreds and hundreds of people who were quite content
to--well, wait for this thing to happen. Wait for that to
happen. Perfectly good people. But the sense of urgency of
delivering on time wasn't there. But when you get to the same
companies, exact same companies who are delivering for a
foreign purchaser with a lot less red tape, things happen a lot
faster. So we are starting in our own house to try and clean it
up before we cast any stone at anybody else.
Mr. Lewis. Let me interpose myself in this. One of the
cudgels the Chairman has is that within DOD there is a great
propensity for acquisition people, especially in the civilian
ranks, to be very, very comfortable with the people they dealt
with last year; and the people they dealt with last year are
one of the companies that you used to work for or one of the
other big guys around, and we keep pushing the thought that
maybe some competition from the small guys might be good. But
it is tough to crack those preconceived notions. Within this
mix you guys are the bosses. You hire and fire. I would like
to, as you give us some subtext to Mr. Murtha's question and my
comment, if you tell me that five guys have been fired between
now and then, it would be interesting relative to the X and Y
procurement attitude that says, oh, business as usual. No
urgency in contrast.
Secretary Roche. As you know, Mr. Chairman, we are not
reluctant to remove general officers from jobs if we think they
are not in tune with us. Where your point is especially true is
our combat controller community and our force protection
community is working in a number of small drones. They are
working with only small companies and they are, in fact,
piggybacking a lot of terrific work that is being done by the
Army and by the Marine Corps. There is no reason for the Air
Force to go to any of the big companies. These little ones are
producing some dramatic things.
John and I were in the mountains in Nevada a month ago,
late at night, with a styrofoam little thing that was about
three feet long and about two feet wide, and we launched it,
watched it, tracked it. It was all made of styrofoam with a
stabilized little camera. It was terrific for our force
protection people. Our combat controllers are working with
other small things. There is dramatic innovation in some of
these small companies, and we are trying to tailor part of our
force to go after it. You can't all of sudden turn to them and
say, produce an F/A-22. What you can do is try to get to the
larger companies, and if you know something smart about one of
the smaller ones, say, go deal with them. Don't buy them.
Mr. Lewis. Yeah. But the other guys can go--that is, the
foreign buyer can go get an F-16 that has dramatically adjusted
capabilities in very short time frames because of a different
attitude. Maybe hiring and firing, I don't know.
Secretary Roche. And stability. Stability, sign a contract,
and you roll.
Mr. Murtha. Stability meaning what?
Secretary Roche. When you sign a contract with a foreign
purchaser, you have a set of specs and you have a contract and
you have a constant stream of money. You can buy in the
sensible way the parts you need to deliver and you have to be
able to prove it works. You don't have disruptions in quantity,
you don't have people coming back and saying let's study
whether we need this or not next year. The foreign buyer signs
a contract, except for very rare moments would the contract
ever be disrupted, it will flow, and then you have an
obligation. Now, if you make a mistake, you wind up bearing the
cost. I made a mistake and it cost $65 million. But that is
what you do. It is business.
General Jumper. But you are allowed to--then all the
subcontractors go out there and they buy--if the contract is
for 100 airplanes, they buy 100 airplanes' worth of stuff at
the best possible rate. They get the best price for it. When
all the subcontractors are allowed to do that, it gets that
cost down and gets that time down to a manageable proportion.
Mr. Murtha. Well, what can we do to stabilize it? That is
what I am asking.
Secretary Roche. Well, the part that we would ask of you--
and remember, all of this is our own problem, not your problem,
sir--is that a program have some steadiness to it. If we could
have two years in a row--and I will use my favorite--of the F/
A-22 treated as a stable program, suppliers know how to behave
under those circumstances. They settle down. They willingly
invest because they want to be the long-term supplier to get
their own costs down. When they see numbers bouncing, when they
see there is a new study or this is happening or that is
happening, the natural reaction to go is, This is very
uncertain, I don't like uncertainty, I don't want to risk
money.
Mr. Murtha. Have we done that?
Secretary Roche. Yes, sir. And so have we.
Mr. Murtha. In what regard?
Secretary Roche. In terms of the program funding over many
years and not having it settled early enough and then having
some steadiness to the program. But as I say, the part of the
Congress is at the end of the chain. In our own Air Force we
have caused instability.
F/A-22 PROGRAM STABILITY
Mr. Lewis. I am going to get to Mr. Visclosky, but you just
forced me to ask this question that one of my very able people
who worked on the F/A-22 brought to my attention. The Congress,
OSD, nor the Air Force has cut F/A-22 in many years in terms of
dollars available. All problems have come from cost growth and
schedule delays. Tell me why that is the case if we are dealing
internally with our own problems.
Secretary Roche. Well, there have been studies of the
program which have suggested that the numbers volume, the long-
termproduction would vary whether it would live, not live; how
many planes there would be or not be--which have caused some
uncertainty in the supplier base. And certainly when I was a supplier,
I watched this occur. But I said most of the problems are within our
own.
Mr. Lewis. Are you responding to my question? I am
wondering since we didn't cut numbers, we didn't cut costs.
Secretary Roche. You didn't cut numbers.
Mr. Lewis. Who did? Studies are fine, but you know, the
money is money.
Secretary Roche. These things go through the budget
process. My understanding is the program did not go as
initially it was supposed to have flowed.
Mr. Murtha. But you took it out of research--you took it
out of production and you put it in research. In other words,
you asked us to shift it, so it is not a matter of we cut it.
We put the same amount of money in there.
Secretary Roche. That is correct. By the way, with a
foreign buyer, there is no color of money. You move the money
back and forth.
Mr. Murtha. One of the mistakes you make, you request too
many when you ask for it, because that makes the price go down.
When I say ``you,'' I am talking about the Air Force.
Secretary Roche. We agree with you.
Mr. Murtha. We need to have a more realistic figure in what
you request so we----
Secretary Roche. Yes, sir, Mr. Murtha, we agree. Not only
that, we have found that when we go back--went back and looked
at what were the cost estimates, it was a 50/50 basis, which is
crazy. Which meant that the probability of the program going
south inside the Air Force was very high. Now we are trying to
tell everybody move to an 80 percent. Put in the uncertainty so
that we don't have the surprises we have had. Because if we
surprise you, then you have to worry about how to deal with it.
But between you and us, the Office of the Secretary of
Defense has to worry about it, OMB has to worry about it, et
cetera.
General Jumper. The software integration lab is a perfect
example. That was a decision made to save a buck, and it was
the wrong decision to make. There is also test equipment that
had to do with the environmental control system on the airplane
that was cut again by the Air Force to save a buck. These are
mistakes that were made that start with our own and we have to
correct.
Mr. Lewis. I guess it goes back to our original discussion
here that the stability that these other people seem to
experience some way, even when we control it, we lose control.
General Jumper. Absolutely.
Secretary Roche. What Don Rumsfeld refers to is appetite.
And there, Mr. Murtha, you are absolutely right. Where the
appetite is so high, and then someone says, well, that's going
to cost something--well, no, we will do it this way; everything
will fit right the first time.
Mr. Lewis. We will cut corners here.
Secretary Roche. You don't have to buy all the spare parts
because it will all go together. That is crazy. What we are
trying to do is to not leave our success with what we have
found and we have great sympathy with the comments that you are
making.
Mr. Lewis. Well, we desperately were working early on to
have this not be a broken program. And I am still worried about
it as we go forward and I await this with great interest.
Mr. Visclosky, you are generous and patient.
MILITARY AND CIVILIAN PERSONNEL JOBS
Mr. Visclosky. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Gentlemen, thank you very much for your work. I have a couple
of questions on personnel, and if I could just give you three
examples and then if you could respond. It is my understanding
that Air Force personnel are replacing civilian truck and bus
drivers who are performing nonsecurity-type of work at Robins
Air Force Base in Georgia. Secondly, it is my understanding
that the Air Force is also planning on replacing civilian
employees who are currently cleaning restrooms and kitchens and
renovating military housing also with military personnel, in
this case at Patrick Air Force Base in Florida. Also, at
Patrick Air Force Base, military personnel are being assigned
to collect garbage and clean streets in replacement of civilian
employees who are about to be let go.
One, I assume because I am asking the question, that that
information is correct. Secondly, I guess my question is why
would we be having military personnel replacing civilians who
are doing this, when we are calling up Reservists and The
National Guard to help fight a war? Why are we having military
personnel do these essentially civilian jobs?
Secretary Roche. Mr. Visclosky, it is a terrific question.
It is precisely the opposite of the direction that we have
given over and over and over. We will follow up on each of
those. But you should please know, sir, that General Jumper and
I have been adamant, that we are looking for ways to free up
military uniform people so they do military things and not do
things that could be better done by, say, active duty people
like Guard and Reserve or uniform people that could be better
done by civilians.
We are in favor of more contracting. We are in favor of a
more stable work force, but not to have military people do
nonmilitary things. There are some who think if you are in
uniform, you are free. It is not true. It is just not true.
I have probably lost it now, but there was a period of
about six months ago, we had the pricing out of what it really
costs when you use an average airman, and it is something like
$90-some thousand dollars a year when you put all things
together. Those airmen should be used for the things that they
do well, not for things that could be done by others. And we
have asked each of our major commands to look to free up,
because we have an end strength problem, and I absolutely agree
with Secretary Rumsfeld. Before we increase end strength, let's
make sure we are using the people we have in things we want to
continue to do, and using them well. We found 2,000 of our
airmen not working in our Air Force. Now, some of that is very
legitimate. They are on group staffs CINC staffs, or combatant
commander staffs, or they are in cross-training in hospitals.
But we also found 600 of them in the Defense Finance Office.
And we said we want them back. There is no reason for 600 of
them to be there.
So this is absolutely antithetical to all the direction we
have given, and your question is absolutely right, and we will
ask the same question.
Mr. Visclosky. Yes. And I have another example, but if I
could just submit those to you in writing and get a response
because----
Secretary Roche. Absolutely.
Mr. Visclosky [continuing]. Because my personal position is
we don't have enough people in uniform to meet the commitments
we have today, let alone any misallocation of those. And if you
could respond I would appreciate that very much.
Secretary Roche. We shall.
[Clerk's note.--Questions submitted by Mr. Visclosky and
the answers thereto follow:]
Question. Why in the time of war would the Air Force be placing
uniformed personnel into non-security type of civilian jobs in the
United States?
Answer. The assumption of responsibility for providing military
vehicle operations support represents the culmination of an Air Force
Materiel Command (AFMC) plan approved in 1998. The plan centered on the
relocation of deployable military positions to Air Force bases where
they can best support the Air Force expeditionary mission. The change
was a matter of military necessity when the plan was approved and
remains so.
A key element of the AFMC plan called for the migration of
deployable military personnel from Edwards AFB, CA, a base without
combat flying units, to Robins AFB, which hosts several operational
combat flying squadrons. This realignment allowed the function at
Edwards AFB to become available for competition with industry. The Air
Force objective is to realize synergies by collocating essential
military expeditionary combat forces at bases with flying units.
Bringing all the deployable people together facilitates teaming during
training, equipping and preparing for deployment, as well as during
subsequent deployments. To maintain their skills, these military
personnel perform vehicle operations duties at Robins AFB when they are
not performing their expeditionary role.
Question. Why in the time of war are we seeing Air Force personnel
replacing civilian truck and bus drivers who perform non-security type
work at the Robins Air Force Base (AFB) in Georgia?
Answer. The assumption of responsibility for providing military
vehicle operations support represents the culmination of an Air Force
Materiel Command (AFMC) plan approved in 1998. The plan centered on the
relocation of deployable military positions to Air Force bases where
they can best support the Air Force expeditionary mission. The change
was a matter of military necessity when the plan was approved and
remains so.
A key element of the AFMC plan called for the migration of
deployable military personnel from Edwards AFB, CA, a base without
combat flying units, to Robins AFB, which hosts several operational
combat flying squadrons. This realignment allowed the function at
Edwards AFB to become available for competition with industry. The Air
Force objective is to realize synergies by collocating essential
military expeditionary combat forces at bases with flying units.
Bringing all the deployable people together facilitates teaming during
training, equipping and preparing for deployment, as well as during
subsequent deployments. To maintain their skills, these military
personnel perform vehicle operations duties at Robins AFB when they are
not performing their expeditionary role.
Question. Why are we replacing limousine and protocol drivers who
drive people from Warner Robins, Georgia, to Atlanta, Georgia?
Additionally, base shuttle drivers and flight line drivers?
Answer. The assumption of responsibility for providing military
vehicle operations support represents the culmination of an Air Force
Materiel Command (AFMC) plan approved in 1998. The plan centered on the
relocation of deployable military positions to Air Force bases where
they can best support the Air Force expeditionary mission. The change
was a matter of military necessity when the plan was approved and
remains so.
A key element of the AFMC plan called for the migration of
deployable military personnel from Edwards AFB, CA, a base without
combat flying units, to Robins AFB, which hosts several operational
combat flying squadrons. This realignment allowed the function at
Edwards AFB to become available for competition with industry. The Air
Force objective is to realize synergies by collocating essential
military expeditionary combat forces at bases with flying units.
Bringing all the deployable people together facilitates teaming during
training, equipping and preparing for deployment, as well as during
subsequent deployments. To maintain their skills, these military
personnel perform vehicle operations duties at Robins AFB when they are
not performing their expeditionary role.
Question. Why is the Air Force planning on replacing unionized
civilian employees cleaning toilets and kitchen sinks and renovating
military housing with military personnel at Patrick AFB in Florida?
Answer. This workload at Patrick AFB is currently being performed
under contract. Military personnel are not being re-assigned to perform
these duties on a continuing basis.
Question. Why are military personnel being assigned to collect
garbage and clean streets at Patrick AFB when there is a war about to
be fought and civilian employees are about to be discharged?
Answer. This workload at Patrick AFB is currently being performed
under contract. Military personnel are not being re-assigned to perform
these duties on a continuing basis.
Question. Does the spending bill being presented by you today
include additional monies for these civilian jobs?
Answer. No, the fiscal year 2004 budget request does not include
additional funds for these civilian jobs for the following reasons: (A)
At Warner-Robins AFB, military personnel will continue to perform base
shuttle functions to support Aerospace Expeditionary Force mission
requirements. Contractors will continue to perform decoy vehicle
driving functions. The fiscal year 2004 budget request maintains the
fiscal year 2003 level and includes $1.1 million for contractors to
perform the decoy vehicle driving mission and other vehicle operations
duties. (B) At Patrick AFB, subject functions (collecting garbage,
cleaning toilets or renovating military family housing) are performed
by contract personnel. No additional funds are required.
[Clerk's note.--End of questions submitted by Mr.
Visclosky.]
CRUISE MISSILE LIFE EXTENSION
Mr. Visclosky. I also have a series of questions on the
cruise missile program, and we had a discussion last year about
the concern I have. And it transcends cruise, but it is an
important part of it, is Mr. Hobson, Mr. Frelinghuysen, and I
are on the Energy and Water Subcommittee. And obviously, we
have a large expense at the Department of Energy as far as the
weapons rate and potential modernization program. And again for
the record, I have a whole series of questions, my concern
being that decisions are being made at the Department of
Defense--and if they are legitimate ones that is fine--but
without a recognition of what the costs are long term to the
Department of Energy----
Secretary Roche. Yes, this is on things with the Advanced
Cruise Missile, keeping ACMs going.
Mr. Visclosky. Given the pronouncements of the President as
far as where we would like to be as far as----
Secretary Roche. National Nuclear Posture Review.
Mr. Visclosky. Exactly. And the one question I would have--
and then I would yield back my time--is apparently the Air
Combat Command last year was preparing a mission statement for
the cruise missile life extension. Do you know, Mr. Secretary,
if that has been completed at this point in time?
Secretary Roche. I don't know. John, do you?
General Jumper. I don't know. I was a part of that process
and as far as I know it was submitted, but we will have to get
back to you, sir, to get you a specific answer.
Mr. Visclosky. If you could. And I have a fairly
significant series of questions on this topic, but again I
don't think I need to take people's time here, but my lack of
following up on each one of those questions here should not be
meant to----
Secretary Roche. No, I understand sir. In fact, we prefer
it that way because we think some of the answers are going to
be classified answers.
Mr. Visclosky. Right. Thank you very much.
[The information follows:]
A mission needs statement (MNS) has not been done for
cruise missile life extension. The recently signed Nuclear
Response Concept of Operations (CONOPS) will drive any required
changes to the current MNS.
Mr. Lewis. Thank you very much, Mr. Visclosky. We have on
my right six members who have been here most of the time,
almost all the time, who have not asked a question. So thank
you for your patience, gentlemen.
Mr. Bonilla.
T-37 AIRCRAFT AT LAUGHLIN AIR FORCE BASE
Mr. Bonilla. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I only have a very
brief question.
Gentlemen, thank you. As most of the Committee members
feel, we very much appreciate your service to our country. We
know you have a lot of things on your mind right now. I just
want to ask a brief question. With Laughlin Air Force Base and
the great pilot training they have been doing there for many
many years, there is a need for an aircraft storage facility
that I was asking the wing commander about just the other day.
And as you know in that part of the country, two or three times
a year there are severe storms that develop. And last April we
had one that caused damage to 80 percent of the assigned T-37
aircraft that cost $5 million to fix. You just never know when
this stuff is going to hit. And they really need, in light of
the pending crisis we are faced with--and we would just hate
for anything to stop them from what they need to do--I am going
to look at, unless you object, and I haven't even spoken to the
Chairman about this, but I am going to look at trying to put
the money for this hangar in the supplemental because this is a
very urgent need that they have down there. It is about a $3.7
million project.
General Jumper. We will look at it too, sir.
Mr. Lewis. We have got one at George Air Force base, too,
by the way.
Mr. Bonilla. General, I didn't know if you were aware of
this or not.
General Jumper. I was certainly aware of the incident.
Mr. Bonilla. But you know, we work very closely with
Laughlin and Randolph down there. We want to make sure they
have what they need to get the job done and have no
interruptions.
General Jumper. I understand, sir. No, that is perfectly
legitimate. We will certainly take a look at it from our end.
Mr. Bonilla. Okay. Thank you very much. That is all I have,
Chairman.
Mr. Lewis. Brevity was by way of trying to get that money.
Mr. Nethercutt.
BOEING 767 TANKER LEASE
Mr. Nethercutt. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Welcome,
gentlemen, and thanks to your team behind you. Thanks for all
of your good work. I want to pile on a little bit on the tanker
issue. I know it has been discussed, but I find it surprising
that in the decision to reduce the E model 68,roughly 20
percent of your fleet, that there hasn't been more objective or
documentary evidence as to why this is a good thing, especially in
light of the fact that we are not planning to purchase a new tanker
until 2009. And there appears to be some delays in decision-making,
understandably, and I appreciate that, relative to the lease. I don't
see any evidence, and we have asked for it: net payroll impacts,
necessary MILCON adjustments, cost of WINS, savings data, whether the
reduced fleet for tankers will allow us to meet our two Major Regional
Conflicts, MRC obligations. And I know your staff is working on it. My
sense is they have worked hard, and I am not here to just knock them
around or criticize. But I am surprised this hasn't been done or
documented, or be able to say here is the case for knocking out 20
percent, and here is what we are going to do if we don't have a new 767
tanker lease arrangement and we have to buy only one, I understand, by
fiscal year 2009.
Secretary Roche. Yes, sir. The Air Mobility Command has had
the lead on that. And I am in receipt of your letter and have
your letter and we will get back to you. We asked those same
questions: What was going to be the impact on our ability to
refuel? Given the amount of time these things are down for
maintenance et cetera, it turns out it is about 4 to 5 percent
hit in terms of the amount of refueling we would normally do,
because we would move the crews--we keep the crews and we move
them to R models and use the R models more because the Es are
just sitting there.
The second question we asked is, well, look, what does it
take to keep these things going? Well, they have to be
modernized, they have to be repaired, the cost in depot. And we
should tell you this is going to start affecting more and more
of our types of airplanes, not just the tankers. As this chart
shows age going on, we have a problem in F-15s now that we are
having to deal with, Some of the older F-15s which are now
averaging 20 years old. The sense was by the Mobility Command,
and then double-checked by our staff, that it is not worth it
to the taxpayer to ask that we keep these things limping along,
even if we don't get the lease. Because we specifically said,
let's do everything on the basis that there is no lease, just
like our basic plan is, and the Mobility Command came back and
said these E models are just sick chickens.
Mr. Nethercutt. That is fine, Secretary, but did they do it
over a beer?
Secretary Roche. No, sir.
Mr. Nethercutt. Where is the documentation?
Secretary Roche. Data has come in and we are packaging the
data to bring it over to you.
Mr. Nethercutt. Okay. I am just surprised it hasn't been
maybe more forthcoming or more available to be presented. And I
am not being smart about it. I am serious. I think this is
important.
Secretary Roche. No, I understand.
Mr. Nethercutt. To not only my State but to other parts of
the country as it relates to our needs in the coming months and
days and years.
Secretary Roche. I would not wish to give an excuse, but
the Mobility Command has been busy in the last couple of weeks.
But they have the data and we are vetting it and we will bring
it over to you.
Mr. Nethercutt. All right. Well, I would be grateful,
because I want to support you, and this Committee is going to
make this critical decision about this reduction in force and
where we go from here, too. I have seen differences in cost
analysis. An Inside Defense Article says the Air Force is going
to save $3 billion in fiscal year 2004 alone from retirements.
My understanding of what our discussion entailed was about $800
million over 6 years. So there is this disconnect that I
think----
Secretary Roche. There is savings in depots. There is cost
avoidance by not having to do the GATM work or not upgrading,
and that is the cost that we are involved. And we will show you
both direct costs and there is also cost avoidance.
[The information follows:]
The Air Force decision to reduce KC-135E model inventory by
68 aircraft balances Air Force priorities and programs limited
funds where they are most needed. This fleet reduction
consolidates and retains a capable war-fighting asset yet still
allows the Air Force to support other priorities. The cost
savings for reducing the 68 KC-135Es in fiscal year 2004
through fiscal year 2009 is $781 million. Those savings are
derived from eliminating depot maintenance, repairs relating to
corrosion, manpower and required engine overhauls. Over 80
percent ($627 million) of the savings is scheduled to be
directly reinvested into sustaining the remaining KC-135 model
fleet. The $627 million will be applied to repairing corrosion,
flight training, and aircrew and maintenance manpower. The
combat capability of the remaining KC-135s is enhanced by
increasing crew ratios and maintenance manning, resulting in
higher utilization rates on the remaining aircraft.
EVOLVED EXPENDABLE LAUNCH VEHICLE
Mr. Nethercutt. All right. One final question--and I don't
want to hold my friends up here. But you can answer this for
the record or now if you want. I want to talk to you about the
Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle, this next-generation heavy
launch vehicle for the military space programs. And the
possibility is that I understand NASA wants to launch this
orbital space plane and have it be a manned aircraft that is
going to be a different configuration moneywise and designwise,
I understand, as opposed to unmanned launches from an
Expendable Launch Vehicle. There are some costs increases if
you are going to do a manned one, just because of the safety
issue. And I am wondering if you are able to tell us who is
going to bear the cost for the burden of this increased
obligation if it is manned versus unmanned, how you analyze it,
if you can say something now. If not----
Secretary Roche. We have had some discussion with NASA. I
would like to come back to you on the record for that, because
we have to talk to NASA to help answer the question. It could
have been exploratory language. I would like to know where it
stands. This was new on my scope and new on John's scope.
Mr. Nethercutt. All right. Thank you a lot for your service
and your answers.
[The information follows:]
Since human rating is a NASA-only requirement at this time,
the Air Force assumes NASA would fund any associated mission-
unique requirements.
Mr. Lewis. Thank you, Mr. Nethercutt.
Mr. Cunningham.
TANKER LEASE
Mr. Cunningham. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First of all, I
would like to identify myself with the tanker problems. You
know, if you call Texaco posit coming out of Iraq and it is on
the ground at Hill Air Force Base, it does not do you any good.
And there is not a fighter pilot I know that doesn't, you know,
as soon as you get engaged, start wondering where the Texaco
is. And it is critical. Just like if Turkey doesn't allow
overflights and stuff, then that becomes even more critical.
F/A-22 AIRCRAFT
What I would like to do, Mr. Chairman, is give the members
here, not necessarily our friends in blue, but the members
here, and especially the staff, some things to think about
concerning the F/A-22. General Accounting Office (GAO) has
identified certain problem areas, and members are concerned
with costs. But when it comes to telling if an airplane is good
or bad or what, I would rely--even more than the folks in this
room--I would rely on the Air Force's and Navy Fighter Weapons
School's, young lieutenants and captains and folks like Major
Colin Miller here, to tell us, what the capabilities of that
airplane are, rather than I would bean counters. They care, but
they don't know firsthand the capabilities of this aircraft or
their significance.
Secondly, there are avionics questions. We did stop funding
a F-22 software integration lab. That is not the Air Force's
fault, but our own. And now we are having aircraft integration
problems, and components are not being interfaced properly.
There are problems, but I truly believe they are fixable.
There is something else we should consider. Much of the
avionics integration problems that we are talking about will be
issues on the Joint Strike Fighter. If we don't fix them now on
the F/A-22, we are going to end up with over 30-year-old
fighters instead. Then when the Joint Strike Fighter comes up,
which is not as capable as the F/A-22, it is going to be
delayed even more because we haven't fixed those avionics
integration problems. And we are going to be in deep kimchee in
our fighter forces. It is going to mean life and death to the
young kids who fly those aircraft.
Secondly, there is not a single airplane I know that has
ever come through tests--problem-free. The F-18/EF, it doesn't
even have the same radar now that it is going to have in its
final configuration. And guess what? We are going to have
integration problems along the way. So if you are willing to
criticize the F/A-22, you had better be able to criticize other
programs that you are going to support down the line because we
are going to have these integration problems.
The F-15, the very first time I flew it, had a problem with
the radar flood mode. That forces you to go to pulse doppler,
and it has a seven percent kill probability. While scanning you
could track the enemy on the F-15, you couldn't shoot him.
Well, we fixed that on the F-15; but it took time and it took
money. And other fighter airplanes had problems. On the F-16,
we initially had a deep stall. We wanted to put the F-110
engines in for a fix but the bean counters, again, said, you
can't do that, you are going to have an FCG beyond 52 percent
mach. They said the airplane will fall out of the sky. Well, we
fixed that and F-16 has been a phenomenal aircraft. But it
takes time to work out problems with these aircraft.
And if you want to cancel these programs every time we have
a glitch, there are costs. I am a Navy guy trying to protect an
Air Force airplane. But I believe in it and I think it is the
way to go. And the key point is that with the Joint Strike
Fighter, with F-18 or an F-14, do not have the capability alone
to penetrate some areas. You are still going to need the F-22,
with the B-2 to stand the point--because these other aircraft
we are building today do not have the capability to penetrate
in all scenarios.
I yield.
Mr. Lewis. I thank the gentleman for yielding and for his
comments and he has been very cooperative all along regarding
the questions that the Committee has raised on that program.
The elimination of the lab that you were talking about though,
Duke, I might mention, came as a direct result of the
authorizers putting a cap on research and development. In turn,
the bean counters in the Air Force decided that the thing to do
was to cut back on that lab. These questions need to be asked
and this program, presuming it survives all the way through the
process--and I certainly support its survival--will do so with
a healthy program because of things this Committee----
General Jumper. Which is my promise to you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Lewis. It is. Mr. Frelinghuysen.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Gentlemen, people have invoked Incirlik. I think all of us
salute the work that has been going on for 10 years, Operations
Southern Watch and Northern Watch, and the dangers involved and
the bravery of those pilots. Obviously, their skill has kept
them alive and we hope those skills, as they are put to use in
the future, will keep many of them alive. We salute their
courage.
EB-52 AIRCRAFT
I have a question relative to the EB-52. The Air Force
appears to be enthusiastic about developing an EB-52 to assist
in the electronic warfare role alongside the F/A-22, the F-35s
and other systems. Can you explain to me the concept of
operations and why the Air Force is exploring the option of an
airframe that is one of the oldest in the fleet doing a mission
that is essential, while at the same time moving forward with
fighter programs that are supposed to be having EW as an
organic mission? Wouldn't it be more realistic and reasonable--
and we are here about cost--more cost effective to move forward
with an electronic attack version of the F/A-22 and the Joint
Strike Fighter, JSF, and leave the B-52 to bomb until it is
phased out? What are we doing? This falls under the category of
is it worth it to the taxpayers.
General Jumper. Sir, thank you for that question. Admiral
Vern Clark and I have gotten together as we talked about the
version, the replacement for the EA-6B, and we have talked
about trying to expand this definition of electronic warfare to
beyond just a jamming on a fighter platform, and how we might
come together with other means to address the larger problem of
being able to penetrate warheads to targets, which is exactly
what you are trying to do with electronic warfare.
One of the options that comes out of this study is the need
to have persistent jamming of the type we saw in the Kosovo
war, where we had lots of EA-6s that had to come in and out and
try to cover a large space, not only for the war over Serbia,
but for persistent aircraft over Kosovo to stay for long
periods every time to do close air support and other things. As
it turns out, if you look at it, you have a B-52, it has an
external fuel tank out there on the wing tip that is the size
of a small condominium. You can fill that full of jamming
equipment, potentially, and the studies are stillongoing, and
you can provide a stand-off jamming capability that can loiter for long
periods of time in those situations where you have to persist over that
battlefield for long periods of time to do close air support and other
things. And by the way, you don't inhibit its bombing capability one
iota. So it can go. It can still deliver weapons. It can do the stand-
off jamming as an adjunct mission, all with loiter times that are not
at all possible with fighter aircraft.
With the fighter aircraft--and Vern Clark is always in need
of the capability that would have to come off the carrier--it
would have to be able to run with the pack, would have to be
able to conduct a raid to get back in and get back out again,
and always have that jamming capability along with it. So there
is a complementary nature to this thing that is a subject of
our study right now before we come forward with specific
proposals.
With regard to the age of the aircraft, again, I would just
emphasize, sir, that three times during the life of the B-52 we
have gone in and done major structural upgrades to that
airplane, because it was always supposed to be able to
penetrate at low level and high speed over a long-range nuclear
mission. That mission has not come true. Now we are flying the
airplane up in the benign high altitude environment. It is
beefed up beyond anyone's expectation. That is why it continues
to perform so magnificently and so the platform and the mission
seem to come together. We don't know all the details yet, but
that is the nature of what we are looking at, sir.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. So this is a behemoth that is never
going to die because it still has--it still can be utilized.
General Jumper. There is no reason to make it go away, sir,
because it still is so productive in our inventory.
Secretary Roche. And in our case, if we were to go
instantaneously to an all stealth fleet, we might think
differently. But you would not want to take an F/A-22 that is
stealthy and give it a stand-off jamming capability so everyone
knew where it was. This is an aircraft that is big enough and,
as General Jumper said, the size of these pylons are a size of
a small condominium. We would use the same equipment the Navy
would, so we would not be developing anything new.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. Thank you.
Mr. Lewis. Thank you. Mr. Tiahrt.
TANKER LEASE PROGRAM
Mr. Tiahrt. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I was thinking maybe my colleague from New Jersey was going
to advocate for reengineering the B-52 and I was going to tell
him I am with him 100 percent.
I would be remiss if I didn't talk a little bit about the
tanker lease program. One note of caution. If we study this and
delay and interest rates go up 1 percentage point, that would
be the equivalent of losing one of the tankers. It would cost
that much money. So I think delay--there is a good chance
interest rates will go up. Not a very good chance that they are
going to go down much further. So I may be preaching to the
choir on this, but I did want to make that note of caution.
Also, I did hear that--I read, excuse me, that it would be
difficult if not impossible to maintain our air bridge to the
Middle East and conduct a 24-hour bombing campaign because of
the limitations on our tanker fleet now. And I don't know if
that is true, and I hope it is not.
Secretary Roche. It is not true, sir.
AIRBORNE LASER PROGRAM
Mr. Tiahrt. Okay. That is comforting.
I will move on then to the airborne laser program. I wish
we had that capability today in the Middle East based on what
is going to happen in a short amount of time here, the ability
for us to have an airborne laser there and really take care of
any Scud problem that could result from it in my mind. I am
proud of the job that the people in Wichita have done modifying
the first unit, completed successfully the ground tests. Now it
is at Edwards Air Force Base. Could you give me status on how
the program is going? Are we on schedule, are we on budget, and
how is the technology?
Secretary Roche. I will start. General Jumper has a long
history in this program, a great supporter. This is one of
those technology risks that we should take because if it pays
off it is really quite dramatic. The program is on schedule,
but it is hitting that point of integration and tests which I
discussed earlier, and the program was not properly budgeted
for that. So they are running ahead of their budget to do the
right thing.
We have had a major review of the program with General
Kadish and the program manager. They have done a terrific job
on this program and it is one where it is at that point in time
now where you have to worry about things coming together. If,
like the F/A-22, people did not buy spare parts, and so for
instance we found with the F/A-22, sometimes planes would sit
for two weeks awaiting a small piece of tubing. We are praying
and trying to catch up as fast as we can in the airborne laser
to see, well, what parts to be buying ahead of time so that you
don't have the same sort of a problem. They will go through
some difficulties, but the technology seems so good it is worth
really pressing forward.
General Jumper. Sir, I have followed this program closely
now for a number of years as the skeptical fighter pilot who--
they said, we are going to shoot this laser through unstable
atmosphere and hit a small target, and I was the biggest
skeptic they had. I was dragged off by an enthusiastic group of
scientists out to Kirtland Air Force Base and at the end of
three days in 1996, they convinced me that the science is there
to do this. As the Secretary says, that we are at--this is one
of those programs where we went directly from a computer-aided
design on a computer screen to building the airplane as a way
to achieve efficiency. And as these things come together and
they actually bolt the pieces of equipment to the floor and
they feel--they figure out how to do things like suspend the
tube that directs the laser path through the airplane that goes
up and back through the airplane several times, these are the
practical things, engineering things, we are running up against
right now that are causing delays. Nothing that is a show
stopper yet, but still watching all this come together, you
know that the problems are going to be there.
So it is exactly as the Secretary said. We depended on this
to all come together in a seamless and faultless way. That is
not going to happen and we are going to have to be prepared for
some instability in this development program. But, sir, let me
tell you, I watched the development of the mirrors up close and
personal. I sat with the scientists as they explained to me how
they generate this hydroxide laser beam. I will tell you, the
technology is there and we really do need to give this a
chance.
Mr. Tiahrt. Thank you. I am very encouraged by the progress
and I hope they can finish ahead of schedule, because I do know
that it will make our troops much safer in the area.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Lewis. Thank you Mr. Tiahrt. Mr. Wicker.
PILOT TRAINING
Mr. Wicker. Let me ask, undergraduate pilot training, how
many pilots did we train last year and how many this year? What
are we going to need 5 years from now, 10 years from now?
Mr. Hobson. Is that the Guard and Reserve?
General Jumper. Yes, sir. We put total about--between 1,300
and 1,600 pilots through our entire system. That is for us and
for our allies that we help train each year. And we absorb
those into our Air Force with about 330 or so fighter pilots,
maybe a little less, and the rest of them to the rest of the
systems that are out there. And we do that in a series of our
training bases that you all know stay very, very busy with a
very high volume of aircraft and sorties that they fly. It is a
superb program. Everybody wants to be a part of it and we are
very proud of that program.
Mr. Wicker. Where do you think it is going to go in the
coming years?
General Jumper. We think that about 1,100 or 1,200 pilots
per year is where we need to be to support the force that we
have now. As we look at the greater capability of the combat
forces that we have, as we bring on precision-guided munitions,
this is always an area that will be under review. But right now
there is nothing that tells us we are going to need any less
than that. Remember that the rated requirements not only for
the cockpits, but you have to have rated senior officers to be
able to do the war planning and to be able to advise the
combatant commanders in the field, et cetera. So it is not just
to fill the cockpits, it is to fill other things that go along
with a total air and space force.
JOINT TRAINING
Mr. Wicker. Let me briefly ask you, General Jumper, were
you paraphrased correctly in the recent issue of ``Aviation
Week'' when you commented that joint training like that at the
National Training Center has probably been counterproductive?
And--well, were you paraphrased critically?
General Jumper. Well, yes. That was an incorrect
paraphrase. The point I was making during that, and I think if
you read the whole thing you will see this, is that in the
close air support issue we've been dealing with in the Army,
when you go out to the National Training Center what you find
is the Army very properly--and I pointed this out in my
interview--very properly stages maneuver forces, ground force
on ground force, so they can practice the maneuvering they need
to do to win the tank battle. At the same time, 52 weeks a
year, they are supported by close air support that comes from
Nellis Air Force Base in the form of airplanes that go out and
participate in these battles.
The full weight of close air support and being able to
attrit the Red Forces is not felt, because if you attrited the
Red Forces, then they couldn't get to this maneuver battle that
they are trying to get to. So what we have done over the years
is teach generations of Army officers that I see all these
airplanes overhead in this battle. But you know what? They
don't kill anybody. So that generation of Army soldiers walks
out of there saying, well, this close air support didn't do
much for me. All for the very right reason. The right reason is
that if it had the full effect, you couldn't get to this part.
So what General Shinseki and I have agreed to do is to go
back and address this problem. By the way, we do the same thing
in Red Flag. In Red Flag we get together so you increase your
tactical level of proficiency in the air, just like they work
on their tactical level of proficiency on the ground at the
National Training Center. So we have agreed that this is a
problem and we are going to go back and address this and find
ways to make sure that we can show the full effect of close air
support as a part of our joint training.
Mr. Wicker. Thank you.
F/A-22 AIRCRAFT
Mr. Lewis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Wicker.
The gentleman in blue and the Secretary will be most pleased
with the comments I have to make next. We have a couple of
votes on the floor and then, following that, there is a brief
debate on the motion to recommit that we will all have to be
enamored with, and then we have a couple of votes after that.
So that is going to wipe out the rest of our ability to be
here. So, exercising the discretion of the Chair and the
recommendations of a couple of our members, led by Top Gun, I
would like to call upon--if you gentlemen give me the leave--I
would like to call upon Major Colin Miller to stand, if he
would. You know, we have got some questions about software, et
cetera, et cetera, et cetera. But tell us about this airplane,
what your experience has been. What will it do? Give us a
little dog-and-pony show, Major.
Major Miller. Yes, sir. Thank you for the question. I grew
up in the F-15 in the Air Force, an incredible airplane and
still extremely capable. The F/A-22 is a whole new ball game,
it really is, just generations ahead. The things that as a
pilot--the four transformational capabilities that I see daily,
the stealth, the supercruise, the integrated avionics and
maneuverability--when you put them together, you really get a
synergistic effect that gives you an airplane that I believe
just will never be beat. The supercruise is really eye-watering
for a pilot. I never thought I'd say an airplane has too much
thrust, and I won't say that today. But it is close. When you
put it in military power, you are really moving around. What we
are seeing is about a 50 percent increase in the range of our
standard weapons that we carry on a lot of the fighters.
At the same time, it really decreases your vulnerability,
because now all the other weapons that are looking for you have
to work a very tough thematic problem because you are moving so
fast. On top of that, you are very stealthy. And so first he
has to find you, then he has to figure out how to solve that
problem. And we have run against the ground and air systems,
and we are starting now to run in integrated scenarios against
heavily defended battlespace. And when you pull all that
together, it is extremely frustrating for any force that is
trying to engage you. While we are denying them shots and
denying them situational awareness, the integrated avionics,
when they are working, are really phenomenal. With very low
work load, the pilot gets a complete picture of the battlespace
that is in color. People are identified red or blue. And they
are identified by platform height and whether or not they are
trying to prosecute a target against you. It even tells you if
they are trying to prosecute a target, prosecute your wing man,
so you can help them.
So we have all that. We also have--datalink is now working
in the airplane, the phenomenal force multiplier, and will
bring these on soon. So when you put all these things together
for a fighter pilot, that is the airplane I want to be in. I
have great situational awareness and I have great capability to
prosecute the attack. And in many ways I am invulnerable.
Mr. Lewis. Major, you may want to know that some years ago
we would have thought we blew the lid off the Pentagon when we
suggested that maybe we ought to test this baby before we just
automatically leapt into a multibillion dollar potential
procurement. All that you have described is fabulous, presuming
all these systems are working together. And it was your
civilian defense members who are concerned about the future of
the Air Force and this program who insisted we test it first.
It is really, really important for us to be working together.
We couldn't be more proud of the Air Force, and you personally,
and the job you are doing. But we want to make sure that the
assets we provide for you do, you know, what the people who are
on the drawing boards say they think it might be able to do.
So, gentlemen, with that, I think we ought to let all of
our friends go do much more important work than here. And with
that, thank you, Major. The Committee is adjourned.
[Clerk's note.--Questions submitted by Mr. Hobson and the
answers thereto follow:]
Sexual Assault Scandal at the Air Force Academy
Question. It is an understatement to say that I am outraged by
recent reports that male cadets at the Academy victimized more than 50
female cadets and that officials at the Academy did nothing to help
them. Female cadets reporting assaults suffered reprisals by academy
leaders or fellow cadets. Twenty cadets said they were ignored,
criticized, or disciplined after reporting a sexual assault. Female
cadets not reporting assaults kept silent out of fear that they would
suffer the same reprisals visited upon their more vocal sisters. This
has to stop.
With all respect, General Jumper, it gives us no confidence to read
in the newspaper ``the Chief of Staff defended the generals running the
Air Force Academy . . .'' If this type of poisoned climate exists, the
Superintendent and past Superintendents are, ultimately, to blame. It
is called responsibility and leadership, sir. Two things that it is
most important to show at the training ground of future Air Force
officers.
Who is responsible (perhaps the female cadets themselves, or some
General who you have promoted, retired, and decorated)?
Answer. With several reviews and investigations of the Academy
situation incomplete, we cannot yet be sure we know all the facts, and
we must not rush to judgment as to the personal responsibility of any
individual. We intend to take another look at this issue when all the
relevant information is in. As you are aware, we have replaced the
leadership team at the Academy. We did so because we believe new
leadership can most effectively implement the changes the Secretary and
I will direct at the Academy in our Agenda for Change, which we expect
to release next week, and any future changes we may find appropriate
after receiving the reports of the Working Group, the Air Force and
Department of Defense Inspectors General, and the review group recently
mandated by the Congress. Our focus has been, and remains, addressing
the issues raised.
Question. How are you going to address what has happened in the
past and how are you going to prevent it from happening in the future?
Answer. As you may be aware, the Air Force is engaged in a
comprehensive review of Air Force Academy programs and practices to
deter and respond to sexual assaults. In connection with that review,
we are looking closely at factors affecting both reporting and handling
of alleged incidents of sexual assaults, including the cadet hierarchy
and the relationships between the upper and freshman classes. We are
also evaluating how the Academy administers cadet discipline in order
to ensure there are no obstacles to the reporting of crimes. We are
evaluating how we select, train, and organize the professional staff to
ensure we provide the best available supervision and mentoring. We are
also reviewing the process of investigating allegations of sexual
assaults, as well as the awareness training, medical care, counseling
services, legal consultation, victim advocacy, and spiritual support we
provide to victims to ensure they receive the support that they need,
and fair treatment throughout the investigative and judicial process.
While our review is continuing, the Secretary and I have made
changes in Academy leadership in order to implement some significant
changes to reinforce our goals to train and equip tomorrow's leaders at
the Academy. We intend to ensure the safety and security of every cadet
and to enhance the trust and confidence of the American people in the
Air Force Academy. We will shortly announce a variety of changes
including among others those regarding cadet life, Academy leadership,
officer and non-commissioned officer selection and training, security
for cadets, and the social climate at the Academy. These changes, which
are to be implemented in time for the arrival of the entering Class of
2007 this Fall, are intended to reinforce the values of character,
leadership, integrity and honor that we must instill in every cadet and
future Air Force officer.
Finally, we have made it clear to the cadets that sexual assaults
will not be tolerated at the Air Force Academy, and all who commit
sexual assaults will be brought to justice. In addition, those who
knowingly protect perpetrators, and those who would shun or harass
anyone with the courage to come forward and report these crimes will be
held accountable.
Air Force Institute of Technology
Question. Mr. Secretary, I would like to congratulate you and the
Secretary of the Navy for concluding the 4 December 2002 Memorandum of
Agreement that forms an educational alliance between the Air Force and
the Navy. This MOA is an excellent first step in implementing
``jointness'' for military education and I strongly support it. This
educational alliance will maintain the Air Force Institute of
Technology (AFIT) and the Naval Postgraduate School (NPS) as ``world
class'' higher educational institutions; complementing each other; and
ensuring high quality, relevant and responsive graduate education
aligned to defense needs. Thank you.
How critical are the educational programs of AFIT and NPS for
meeting the needs of the Air Force?
Answer. All programs at Air Force Institute of Technology (AFIT)
are specifically designed to meet Air Force needs. The research
conducted by AFIT students and faculty directly supports Air Force
critical technologies. The Department of Defense and Air Force focus
allows AFIT to quickly respond to new and changing Air Force
requirements. While programs at the Naval Postgraduate School (NPS)
meet and respond to Navy needs, in many areas the military focus is
also applicable to the Air Force. The rationalization effort seeks to
optimize the educational programs at AFIT and NPS to create world class
institutions to meet the needs of all the Services and Department of
Defense, including those of the Coast Guard.
Question. The MOA commits the two services to filling all seats at
AFIT and NPS before sending students to civilian schools. How is the
Air Force implementing that commitment? How is the Navy?
Answer. Air Force Institute of Technology's (AFIT's) Registration &
Admissions Office (RR) is responsible for designating the source of
education (AFIT, Naval Postgraduate School (NPS), or Civilian
Institutions) for Air Force educational requirements. Our current
guidance is that Air Force students will attend AFIT first, if the
program is offered, then NPS, or finally civilian institutions. AFIT/RR
is in regular contact with AFIT's graduate school and with NPS in
implementing the guidance.
Question. The MOA requires the creation of a joint AFIT/NPS
admissions and quota control process to provide for enrollment of
students from all services and from the Coast Guard. What steps is the
Air Force instituting to carry out that requirement?
Answer. While the Air Force and the Navy have separate admissions
and quota control processes, the MOA requirement is being addressed in
ongoing discussions between the two schools.
Question. The MOA requires the Air Force and Navy to review current
AFIT and NPS policies and to establish common policies that represent
best practices at both schools. What mechanisms has the Air Force put
in place to accomplish this requirement, and how will you involve the
faculty and leadership of the two schools in conducting the necessary
review?
Answer. The draft implementation MOA is currently being reviewed by
the faculties of both institutions.
Question. The MOA requires the Assistant Secretaries of Financial
Management for the two services to program the resources needed to
launch the alliance and ensure its success.
What specific initiatives will be funded in order to launch the
alliance and make it successful, over and above those funds needed to
sustain the excellence of the ongoing operations of the two schools?
Answer. The Air Force continues to research funding requirements to
launch the alliance and ensure its success. The Air Force is committed
to the alliance and to making sure it is resourced properly to ensure
its success. The Air Force Institute of Technology (AFIT) Board of
Visitors, in their March 2003 meeting, recommended that AU/CC and the
Navy's CNET/CC determine those areas of the alliance that will be the
most productive in terms of collaboration. AFIT/CC and NPS/CC are
currently executing that tasking together.
NPS and AFIT do have different business models in terms of levels
of direct and reimbursable funding--tuition payments are one area of
difference. Both models work fine for the respective services at the
present time. However, the services are reviewing systems to determine
if a more compatible business model is necessary to further the goals
of the alliance.
Question. Is there a dichotomy in that the Navy charges tuition
which it keeps to lower operating expenses where the Air Force does
not?
Answer. The Naval Postgraduate School (NPS) has Title 10 authority
(Chapter 605--U.S. Naval Postgraduate School, Section 7045(b)) that
allows the school to charge tuition and related fees and expenses for
international officers and sister service officers to attend. These
additional funds are used by NPS to hire additional faculty, etc., due
to the limitations of authorized faculty positions. Equivalent Title 10
authority (as that for NPS) would place both institutions on equal
footing to account for international and sister service officer
attendees. The Air Force Institute of Technology (AFIT) does not have
the equivalent authority and must allow international officers and
sister service officers to attend on a space-available basis. The Air
Force is currently analyzing possible AFIT requirements for charging
tuition.
Question. Oversight of the education alliance is to be carried out
by the respective Air Force Board of Visitors and the Navy Board of
Advisors. The MOA directs that each school's governing body will
interact with each other.
What steps has the Air Force taken to interact with the Navy Board
of Advisors?
Answer. Oversight of the alliance is to be carried out by the
respective Air Force Board of Visitors (BOV) and the Navy Board of
Advisors (BOA), with interaction with each other. Air Force Institute
of Technology (AFIT) and Air University representatives were invited
and attended the NPS BOA meeting on 29 January 2003. Representatives
from NPS BOA and the Air University BOV attended AFIT's BOV meeting on
17 March 2003.
Question. What would you think about a Joint Board of Visitors?
Answer. Separate boards recognize that Air Force Institute of
Technology and NPS remain independent institutions. Close interaction
will facilitate the collaboration essential to optimize both
institutions. While a Joint Board of Visitors would give a single focus
point for oversight of the alliance, and may emerge from on-going
efforts, it would be premature, in our view, to judge the value of a
Joint Board.
Future of the C-5 Aircraft
Question. General Jumper. I appreciate your designating the C-5A as
the follow-on aircraft to the C-141 cargo plane currently operated by
the 445th Air Reserve Wing at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio.
These planes are to be re-engined. Should that not be possible, the
445th is to get C-17s.
On 27 April 2003, Secretary Roche announced that the Airworthiness
Board would conduct a review of the C-5A to determine if the airlifter
fleet is too expensive to maintain and should be retired. Where is this
review?
Answer. The C-5A will be the first aircraft assessed by the new Air
Force Fleet Viability Board (formerly the Air Worthiness Board). The
board will assess technical and cost aspects of specific aircraft
fleets, and then make recommendations to the CSAF/SECAF on whether to
sustain or retire those fleets. The board will be assembled by the end
of May 2003. Once the board is assembled, the C-5A assessment will
start, and should be complete by October 2003.
Question. What is your personal view about what we should do with
the C-5A? Does it include buying additional C-17s?
Answer. The Air Force is committed to divesting itself of legacy
aircraft that are no longer supportable. Having said that, we also have
airlift requirements that are imperative to the Air Force's global
reach mission. The C-5A is a major contributor to this capability. In
the initial stages of the C-5 Reliability Enhancement and Re-engining
Program (RERP), the C-5A is part of the System Development &
Demonstration (SDD) effort. The SDD process involves an extensive
teardown and reconfiguration that, along with the Air Force Fleet
Viability Board recommendations, will allow us to make an educated
decision on the feasibility, supportability, and cost-benefit of
modernizing the C-5As. If the C-5A is not found to be a good
investment, then an additional buy of C-17s will be required to meet
the 54.5 million ton mile per day minimum requirement for our airlift
fleet.
Science & Technology Budget
Question. Overall, this has to be viewed as a disappointing budget
for Air Force Science and Technology (S&T). It runs counter to a number
of studies (National Academy of Sciences, Scientific Advisory Board)
that called for a real increase in S&T spending. At a time when the
national defense needs more scientific development for long-range
planning, status quo seems inadequate.
Perhaps the biggest problem is the cut in applied research
programs, which will be funded at an 8.6 percent reduction from last
year. These programs are truly the seed corn for future weapons
systems. Further and frankly, they also tend to pay the personnel bills
at the labs, so are very important to the organic scientific workforce.
How did you set the amount of this request? Was it the Air Force or
OMB?
Answer. The 8.6 percent reduction cited in this question stems from
a comparison of the Fiscal Year 2003 and Fiscal Year 2004 amounts as
reflected in the Fiscal Year 2004 President's Budget (PB) request.
However, this Fiscal Year 2003 amount includes almost $170 million in
congressional adds. The Air Force has worked hard to maintain a
balanced Science and Technology (S&T) portfolio and the fiscal year
2004 President's Budget requested amount of $2.2 billion is actually
higher than the fiscal year 2003 appropriated amount of $1.8 billion
for the Air Force S&T Program and provides for the technology
development essential for the Air Force vision of an Expeditionary Air
and Space Force. This amount includes $758 million for applied research
efforts--an increase of $60 million over the Fiscal Year 2003 requested
amount, which equates to seven percent real growth. Although the
civilian pay portion of this Applied Research funding goes down $20
million this is the result of a bookkeeping change vice an actual
decrease in civilian pay funding--per congressional direction, civilian
health care and life insurance funding for retirees was transferred
back into the centrally-managed account from which it had come the
previous cycle. If you subtract civilian pay and compare only the non-
civilian pay portion of the applied research funding, the actual real
growth is 24 percent.
Use of Guard and Reserve
Question. In the September 13, 2002, letter to Defense Secretary
Rumsfeld, with a copy to Secretary Roche, I complained about the misuse
of the Guard and Reserves. Part-time reservists are being turned into
full time soldiers through extended and unpredictable active duty
assignments. While reservists are more than willing to do their share,
especially in a time of crisis, they signed on with the expectation
that periods of active service would be relatively short.
Are we using the Guard and Reserve instead of asking for the higher
level of Active Component troops actually needed?
Answer. The Air Force has adequate active duty end strength. We are
adjusting the Active Component force mix (not force size) to meet
requirements and reduce our need to bring Guard and Reserve personnel
on extended duty. We have defined stress on active duty career field
areas and are working to redistribute manpower for areas of lower
stress to higher stress to fulfill active duty requirements. We are
also overhauling our requirements determination process. This new
effort will incorporate a quicker method of determining manpower
requirements that is tied more closely to UTCs (unit type code-
deployment requirements) and defines levels of capability for both
peacetime and wartime workloads. Ultimately, during a deployment, war
planners will be able to define the capability required, select the
right force to meet that requirement and then define level of
capability at the home station and adjust work out appropriately.
Question. What is your Active strength and what should it be?
Answer. The beginning strength for fiscal year 2003 was 368,251;
this was 9,451 over the authorized strength level of 358,800 for the
end of fiscal year 2002. Air Force Active Duty End Strength for fiscal
year 2003 is 359,000. The Air Force has adequate end strength and is
adjusting its Active Component force mix (not force size) to meet
requirements. This is a skills mix problem. We have defined stress on
active duty career field areas and are working to redistribute manpower
for areas of lower stress to higher stress to fulfill active duty
requirements. We are also overhauling our requirements determination
process. This new effort will incorporate a quicker method of
determining manpower requirements that is tied more closely to UTCs
(unit type code--deployment requirements) and defines levels of
capability for both peacetime and wartime workloads. Ultimately, during
a deployment, war planners will be able to define the capability
required, select the right force to meet that requirement and then
define level of capability at the home station and adjust work out
appropriately.
Question. What percent of the mission is done by the Active
Component, the Guard, and the Reserves?
Answer. This is a complex question because there's no easy method
to directly compare the contributions of each component of our total
force. For example, many members of the reserve and guard volunteer to
serve and are able to contribute significantly to our wartime mission
without mobilization. Trying to account for the contributions of each
component to real-world contingencies can also become difficult. Many
active duty members directly support combat operations from their home
station because of our investments in technology. Alternatively,
mobilized reserve and guard members ensure continuity of operations at
active duty bases by performing the duties of active duty personnel
deployed.
With these caveats in mind, let me attempt to provide some insight
into the level of contributions the reserve and guard are providing
today. Our total force is composed of over 700,000 personnel. The Air
Force Reserve (AFR) makes up 11 percent; the Air National Guard (ANG)
makes up 15 percent; and the active component, including civilians,
completes the force with 74 percent. Today, the AFR has approximately
14.5 and the ANG has 11.9 percent of their total force mobilized.
Directly supporting OPERATIONS IRAQI FREEDOM, SOUTHERN WATCH, NORTHERN
WATCH, and ENDURING FREEDOM, the active duty component has 12.3 percent
of its personnel deployed to the theater. The AFR and ANG had 3.4 and
7.8 percent of their forces deployed, respectively.
Question. Do the Guard and Reserve requests for equipment and
military construction projects reflect their share of the mission?
Answer. Yes. We build our requests for equipment and military
construction by balancing the mission requirements of the Total Air
Force . . . Active, Guard, and Reserve. We do not, however, develop
these requests based on any sort of ``fair share'' system. Our requests
are developed to meet the most pressing requirements of the Total
Force, be they Active, Guard, or Reserve.
Rotational Force in Europe
Question. General James Jones, Commander of United States Forces in
Europe, has discussed the possibility of moving to a United States
presence in Europe made up of 1) troops on short term rotations, 2)
families left at home in the U.S., and 3) ``lily pad'' compact bases
scattered in the New (Eastern) Europe and Africa. Camp Bondsteel would
be a model. While all bases are at risk of being closed or downsized,
General Jones singled out Ramstein as a base with ``enduring value.''
What is the Air Force's opinion of this vision?
Answer. General Jones' vision fits squarely with our Air
Expeditionary Concept wherein the U.S. Air Force provides combat ready
forces capable of responding in hours and days to meet our nation's
security requirements across the spectrum of operations from
humanitarian relief to combat operations.
Our expeditionary construct already capitalizes on changing our
forward presence footprint from sole reliance on garrison basing to one
that uses rotational forces to provide the same level of presence. Our
forces construct schedules our units for a specific time period, of
approximately 90 days, thus allowing us to maintain a guaranteed amount
of immediately available forces while affording our personnel the time
required to perform needed training plus post- and pre-deployment
actions. While this concept works well in many parts of the world, we
still need to maintain permanent-party, overseas bases, particularly in
Europe and the Pacific, to guarantee us access into other critical
regions of the world during a time of crisis. We are studying our
requirements at this time so it is premature to commit to any specific
number, type, or location of bases.
The use of a rotational force may afford some possible benefits,
such as allowing the families of our airmen to remain in a single
location for extended periods of time, but it can present us with new
challenges in retaining those same airmen as they maybe faced with
multiple long deployments away from their families. As we say in our
service, we recruit Airmen but we retain families. Rotational forces
may place unforeseen strains on our training and experience levels at
our bases depending on the frequency and duration of rotational
deployments. We also believe that having American families stationed
abroad affords other nations the opportunity to directly observe our
values in practice and learn that we are not so different from them.
For example, parents all over the world share essentially the same
concerns for their children.
While ``lily pad'' bases, such as Al Udeid or Singapore, are
invaluable to allow us access to their regions in times of need, we
still need select overseas bases, like Kadena and Ramstein, that afford
us the opportunity to marshal our air and space assets prior to entry
into one, or more, critical regions. In particular, Ramstein provides a
critical capability as a ``jumping-off point'' allowing aircraft from
the United States, or Southwest Asia, a guaranteed location we can rely
on to refuel and repair our aircraft. Ramstein, along with our other
bases in Europe today, allow us a convenient marshalling point to
embark deploying North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) forces for
out of area operations.
Question. Are all military construction projects in Europe on hold
and is it because of this or something else?
Answer. The military construction projects for certain European
bases in the fiscal year 2003 enacted military construction
appropriation were on hold earlier this year to allow the European
Command combatant commander an opportunity to review the military
construction program for his theater. His review is now complete. With
the exception of one Air Force family housing project in Germany, all
other Air Force military construction projects in the fiscal year 2003
overseas program are moving forward toward project award and
construction.
Question. Is there the same situation for military construction
projects in Korea?
Answer. We have not yet seen the final results of Pacific Command's
basing study. However, we anticipate our Air Force installations in the
Republic of Korea, Osan and Kunsan Air Bases, will continue to have
enduring value to U.S. interests in the region. We do not anticipate
that the need for the military construction requirements at Osan and
Kunsan Air Bases in the fiscal year 2004 budget request and our future
years defense plan will diminish in any way.
Joint Strike Fighter Weight
Question. Recent press reports have suggested that the Joint Strike
Fighter could be up to 20 percent overweight, threatening the Short
Take-Off Vertical Landing (STOVL) version of the plane.
How much of a problem is this and how is it being addressed?
Answer. Weight control is a significant concern on any aircraft
development effort, including the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF), and we're
working to get it right. The current design of the U.S. Marine Corps
STOVL variant shows it could exceed target weight. The JSF Team is
currently making adjustments to internal structures layout, materials
composition and examining all variant designs to ensure target weights
are met.
[Clerk's note.--End of questions submitted by Mr. Hobson.
Questions submitted by Mr. Nethercutt and the answers thereto
follow:]
Air Worthiness Board
Question. The budget request proposes the establishment of an Air
Worthiness Board, a group of independent experts that would be charged
with determining when it is no longer financially viable to keep old
aircraft in service and mandating retirement of those platforms.
Please describe the intended composition, responsibilities and
functioning of the board.
Answer. The board will lead a continuous process of evaluating
aircraft for sustain-or-retire decisions. Approximately four aircraft
fleets will be evaluated each year according to a prioritized list with
the goal of completing all major aircraft within a five year period.
The board will be led by a director who may be an active duty Air Force
Colonel. The director will be assigned to the Deputy Chief of Staff for
Installations and Logistics, and will be stationed at Wright-Patterson
AFB, OH. Other board members include Aeronautical Systems Center (ASC)
senior civilian technical experts from the propulsion, aircraft
structures, sub-systems, and avionics fields, and a cost analyst from
the Secretary of the Air Force's Financial Management and Comptroller
Directorate. A sub-group of the board, known as the Inspections and
Survey Team (IST), will provide the actual hands-on inspections and
data analysis. Members of the IST will come from ASC as well as from
specific weapons system program offices. Some IST members will be
different for each aircraft fleet.
A fleet assessment will begin with the IST conducting hands-on
aircraft inspections and analysis of structural integrity, safety,
propulsion, avionics, and cost information at a minimum. The IST will
then provide an assessment to the board, containing the continued cost
burden to maintain the fleet and the capability impacts of doing so.
Capability impacts include increased maintenance man-hours, increased
depot hours, degraded aircraft performance, etc. The board will review
the IST assessment, validate the technical and cost data, and make a
sustain-or-retire recommendation to the Secretary of the Air Force and
Air Force Chief of Staff.
Question. In evaluating aircraft for possible retirement, will the
board consider Air Force requirements and the cost of replacing the
aircraft with an equivalent capability?
Answer. No. The board's charter is to assess a fleet in order for
the Secretary of the Air Force and Air Force Chief of Staff to make a
sustain or retire decision based on technical and cost factors only.
Question. Why are KC-135Es being rushed into retirement before this
board is even established?
Answer. We are convinced that it is essential to begin replacing
the oldest combat weapon system in the Air Force inventory right away.
Indeed, increasing costs and decreasing reliability and
maintainability, in light of our future expectations, have already
reached the point where it no longer makes sense to continue investing
limited resources to keep our oldest and least capable KC-135E tankers
flying. Unfortunately, the Air Worthiness Board, now known as the Air
Force Fleet Viability Board was not in existence last year to assist
with the partial retirement decision on the tanker E-models. In fact,
the urgent and compelling need to begin recapitalizing the KC-135 fleet
is exactly what prompted initiation of the Air Force Fleet Viability
Board. Retirement of all KC-135s needs to be addressed now. We are
choosing the less capable and more maintenance intensive KC-135E
aircraft for retirement initially, and this will then give future Air
Force Fleet Viability Boards a better indication of what to expect as
the KC-135R fleet ages further. The Air Force simply cannot accept the
risk of unknown systematic failures that could ground the fleet and
cripple the global reach of U.S. and coalition forces.
Question. What is unique about the costs associated with
maintaining and supporting these aircraft that necessitate their
retirement before the board could review this program?
Answer. The increasing costs and decreasing availability of the 43-
year old KC-135Es have forced the Air Force to consider retirement in
order to pay for the ever-increasing costs of the remaining KC-135s.
The KC-135E costs continue to grow. Presently E-model engine overhauls
are twice as expensive and are required ten times more often than for
their R-model counterparts. Additionally, corrosion damage is driving
bills that the Air Force has not budgeted for, and, in the end, would
only be an interim fix. The E-model retirement provides funds for
increased flight hours and manpower reinvestments on the remaining
tankers. Savings from these retirements will be used to pay for the
corrosion replacement/overhaul repairs needed to keep the remaining E-
models flying safely. These changes give us higher utilization rates on
our remaining fleet, mitigating the impacts of the retiring aircraft.
Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle
Question. NASA has indicated that the EELV may be used as the lift
vehicle for the Orbital Space Plane. Putting a manned capsule on top of
an expendable rocket would likely require substantial alterations to
the system, with a significant associated investment. Limited numbers
of launches have already called into question the ability of the
industrial base to support two separate systems. The NASA proposal
would require substantial safety alterations to the system to make it
``human-rated''--and these alterations will require a significant
investment.
Is the Air Force committed to supporting both variants of the EELV
with sufficient launches to support both contractors?
Answer. Yes, the Air Force remains fully committed to supporting
both variants of Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle (EELV) to maintain
assured access to space. Once our heritage systems fly out, all Air
Force EELV class payloads will launch only on Delta IV and Atlas V
vehicles. Note also that EELV is a commercial partnership with
industry; the contractors market and sell their launch services to
commercial launch customers in addition to the government.
Question. If tasked to support the OSP mission, would a separate
human-rated vehicle be developed?
Answer. This has not been determined. The Air Force has no
requirements for a human-rated vehicle at this time, but NASA is
currently working directly with the two Evolved Expendable Launch
Vehicle (EELV) contractors to characterize vehicle design reliability
and assess potential improvements to address any human rating issues.
Question. Would NASA cover the costs associated with the new human-
rated requirements?
Answer. Yes. Since human rating is a NASA-only requirement at this
time, the Air Force assumes NASA would fund any associated mission-
unique requirements.
Question. Would two separate vehicles be held in the inventory
(cargo-rated and human-rated), or would a single vehicle, capable of
supporting both requirements, be produced?
Answer. This has not been determined. NASA is currently exploring
the human rating issues directly with the Evolved Expendable Launch
Vehicle (EELV) contractors, and a related study is still pending. The
best approach will not be known until NASA completes its study.
Question. Would human-rated versions of both EELV variants be
developed?
Answer. NASA would decide this at the conclusion of its human
rating study and source selection efforts.
Question. Would these new requirements create additional
incremental costs that would be borne by the Air Force for future
launches of the EELV, if only a human-rated variant is available?
Answer. This is presently unknown. The Air Force anticipates that
NASA will assume financial responsibility for unique requirements to
address any identified human rating issues.
[Clerk's note.--End of questions submitted by Mr.
Nethercutt. Questions submitted by Mr. Wicker and the answers
thereto follow:]
Joint Pilot Training
Question. What are your thoughts on Joint Training as it applies to
undergraduate pilot training? How do you foresee this working, if at
all?
Answer. Overall interservice flying training between U.S. Air Force
and U.S. Navy is a success. All navigator training is accomplished at
either Randolph AFB, or Naval Air Station (NAS), Pensacola.
Approximately 100 Air Force and 100 Navy pilot candidates are also
interservice trained. In addition to undergraduate Pilot/Navigator
training, the majority of C-130 selected pilot students go through
Advanced Multi-engine Turboprop training with the U.S. Navy at NAS
Corpus Christi.
There are many safeguards to ensure our interservice training is
effective and efficient; oversight starts from the top. The Joint
Aviation Executive Steering Committee (JAESC) oversees flying training
between the Air Force and Navy. This O-8 level group provides overall
policy guidance. The Interservice Training Review Group (ITRG) is the
O-6 level group directly below the JAESC and is tasked with executing
JAESC policy decisions. Additionally, the ITRG is empowered with making
decisions on interservice flying training consistent with JAESC
guidance. A Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), signed by the Chief of
Naval Aviation Training and AETC/DO identifies the responsibilities and
processes for administrative and operational support for interservice
flying training.
Considerable time and effort is put into maintaining the MOU and
reviewing training requirements and syllabuses to ensure both services'
training objectives are met. The largest benefit of interservice flying
training is the instructor exchange. The U.S. Air Force, U.S. Navy, and
U.S. Marine Corps instructors train Air Force, Navy, Marine, North
Atlantic Treaty Organization and Foreign Military Sales (FMS) students
providing them with invaluable instructional experience. The
camaraderie and experiences of squadron mates from different services
benefit the overall knowledge of the instructor force. Joint
Undergraduate Pilot Training is a success story, as well as the
graduate level Multiengine Turboprop training at NAS Corpus Christi.
UAV Pilot and Operational Training
Question. As UAV applications and uses become more integrated into
our military, what are your plans for UAV pilot and operational
training?
Answer. Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) operators currently are
sourced from three sources; (1) Current and qualified Air Force pilots;
(2) Current and qualified Air Force navigators holding a FAA
Commercial/Instrument rating; and (3) Air Force pilots that are not
medically qualified to fly aircraft but maintain Flying Class II
standards according to AFI 48-123. These aviators attend UAV Transition
Training at Indian Springs Airfield near Las Vegas, Nevada. Upon
completion of training they are qualified to operate UAVs in an
operational unit. This methodology is used today and will be used in
the future.
The Air Force is also developing an initiative to allow graduates
of a proposed enhanced training program, currently called Next
Generation Navigator (NGN) Training, to operate UAVs. All NGN graduates
will be designated as Combat Systems Officers (CSO). In this
initiative, during Undergraduate NGN training, students will be
identified to ``track'' to Strike/Fighter, Tanker/Airlift/Bomber, or
UAVs (categorized into Remotely Piloted Aircraft and Unattended
Aircraft). Upon completion of undergraduate CSO training, those
selected for the UAV track will attend UAV training just as those
selected for the F-15E attend fighter training. Upon graduation from
the UAV Formal Training Unit (FTU) they will be qualified to operate
UAVs in an operational unit. Once NGN training has matured, UAV
operators will be sourced primarily from NGN training; however, there
will still be some presence of pilots and CSOs that crosstrain into the
UAV career field.
[Clerk's note.--End of questions submitted by Mr. Wicker.
Questions submitted by Mr. Visclosky and the answers thereto
follow:]
Detection of Nuclear Detonations
Question. It remains an important mission for our nation to detect
whether other nations detonate nuclear devices either on the ground or
in space. This would apply to the situation in North Korea, for
example, where we would want to know immediately if it conducted a
nuclear test and to immediately analyze and understand what was tested.
Last year I raised the issue with General Jumper that when the
current DSP satellites retire, the Air Force has not yet identified
which of its future satellites will carry nuclear detonation (NUDET)
detectors. Nuclear detonation detectors are developed and produced by
the Department of Energy for the Air Force.
Last year we discussed this issue in the context of GPS (global
positioning system) satellites. I understand the focus now is on the
SBIRS--high (Space Based Infrared System--high) satellites that the Air
Force is developing to replace DSP.
I understand that the opportunity to place nuclear detonation
detection equipment on the first 2 SBIRS--high satellites has been
lost. While it is possible to put the detectors on the third and
subsequent satellites, there is no funding in either the Department of
Defense's or Energy's fiscal year 2004 or subsequent budgets to build
payloads, integrate them onto satellites, or operate them.
General Jumper, why is there still confusion on how to continue
the important nuclear detonation detection mission as we transition
from the current to the next generation of Air Force satellites?
Answer. The Air Force plans to continue to provide these critical
capabilities in the near future. United States Nuclear Detonation
Detection System (USNDS) sensors on the Global Positioning System (GPS)
currently provide, and will continue to provide, a majority of the
system's required detection capabilities. USNDS sensors on Defense
Support Program (DSP) satellites are expected to remain operational for
the remaining life of their host satellites. As DSP transitions to the
Space-Based Infrared System (SBIRS), the classified capabilities
provided by those NDS sensors will phase out.
In anticipation of this upcoming transition, the Air Force funded
and performed several studies to determine possible solutions for the
post-DSP era, examining many host platform options and technical
approaches. Final decisions regarding how or if the geosynchronous
component of USNDS will be continued in the post-DSP era are still
pending. To assist in determining the path forward, the Department of
Energy, through the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA),
funded the design and production of prototype geosynchronous sensors
and a testbed ground processing system. The Air Force is now preparing
to integrate this experiment onto the last DSP satellite, expected to
launch in fiscal year 2005. Integration is scheduled to begin 16 May
2003.
Question. What is your plan to fix this?
Answer. The Air Force is evaluating several options to obtain the
necessary funding, including cooperative efforts with the users of
United States Nuclear Detection System (USNDS) data. The final strategy
will be resolved through existing processes that will align priorities
and funding.
Question. How much is needed in fiscal year 2004 in both agencies
to fix this problem?
Answer. National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) requires
$2.59 million in fiscal year 2004 to begin work developing a future
geosynchronous neutrongamma sensor. The Air Force believes no Fiscal
Year 2004 Air Force funding is necessary. If a positive decision is
made regarding the future of the GEO component of USNDS, Air Force
funding will be requested in fiscal year 2005.
Cruise Missiles
Question. Last year the Department of Energy submitted a billion
dollar plan to the Energy and Water Subcommittee to extend the life of
the W-80 nuclear warhead for Air Force (ACM and ALCM) cruise missiles
until 2030. In my questions to both the Department of Energy and to
you, General Jumper, I discovered that while DOE had a billion dollar
modernization plan for the warhead, the Air Force had no formal plan to
extend the life of its cruise missiles to 2030. Moreover, the Air Force
didn't even have funds in its budget to even conduct flight testing in
support of DOE's program, which is only the first step of what the Air
Force would need to do to actually field DOE's modernized warhead.
Consequently, the DOE program is currently being ``restructured''. I
think everyone would agree that there was a major disconnect between
the Air Force and Energy a year ago. I'd like to explore with you today
whether than disconnect is resolved. In my bill, we appropriated $122
million for the warhead life extension program last year and are being
asked for another $178 million this year. These are significant
amounts. Yet the Air Force only plans to spend $39 million through
fiscal year 2008 on this program.
It also appears to me that there is much confusion on the exact
number of warheads to be modernized, which obviously affects the cost
of the program, and whether the Air Force is demanding that DOE
modernize many more cruise missile warheads than will be needed in 2012
under the Bush-Putin strategic arms reduction agreement recently
ratified by the Senate.
As I understand it, the Administration's nuclear posture review
instructs the Air Force to keep the B-52H bombers until 2030. Only the
B-52H bomber, last delivered in 1962, can carry or launch cruise
missiles. The B-1 and B-2 have no physical capability to do so. The
last ALCM (air launched cruise missile) was delivered in 1986 and is
past its 10 year design life. The last ACM (advanced cruise missile)
was delivered in 1994 and has a 15 year design life. The
Administration's plan, after expenditure of billions of dollars for
modernization, will result in our nation having 70 year old aircraft
armed with 50 year old cruise missiles. I wonder if this investment is
worth the cost, and will result in meaningful military capability.
Under the Bush-Putin agreement, our deployed nuclear weapons will
drop from about 6,000 today to around 2,000 by 2012. Has the Secretary
of Defense determined the exact mix of Trident SLBMs, Minuteman ICBMs,
nuclear bombs, and cruise missiles that will be in the force at that
time?
Answer. The exact force mix of nuclear weapons in the 2012 time
frame is not determined at this point. Discussing these numbers in
detail would require a closed session. The Nuclear Posture Review (NPR)
Implementation Plan of March 2003 provides the number of weapon
delivery platforms (e.g., SLBMs, ICBMs, etc) projected in the force in
2012. Per the NPR and the Moscow Treaty, the total number of warheads
in 2012 will be between 2,200 and 1,700. As we draw down to those
numbers, the balance of specific weapons within this threshold will be
examined bi-annually to determine the correct end-state for 2012. This
decision will be based on our nation's progress in achieving required
capabilities defined under the ``New Triad'' and whether the worldwide
security environment will allow planned reductions to proceed.
Question. It seems to me that as we make a \2/3\ reduction in the
nuclear force structure by 2012, that Trident SLBMs and Minuteman ICBMs
(which are to receive the more modern warheads from the MX Peacekeeper
missiles that are being phased out) will be given priority, and that
cruise missiles will have less of a role. Do you agree?
Answer. No, because the correct balance of forces is still being
analyzed. The Nuclear Posture Review (NPR) Implementation Plan of March
2003 does not provide the exact force mix of nuclear weapons in the
2012 time frame. Per the NPR and the Moscow Treaty, the total number of
warheads in 2012 will be between 2200 and 1700. The balance of specific
weapons within this threshold will be examined bi-annually to determine
the correct end-state for 2012. This decision will be based on our
nation's progress in achieving required capabilities defined under the
``New Triad'' and whether the worldwide security environment will allow
planned reductions to proceed.
Question. Last year I asked you to answer this question, but your
answer for the record asked me to ask someone else. Could you please
send a classified paper to Mr. Hobson and to me to answer this
question: Is there any military target in the world today, or one
contemplated in the future, that cannot be successfully struck with an
ICBM, an SLBM, or bomber-delivered nuclear bomb--that only a cruise
missile can successfully attack?
Answer. The current force structure provides the warfighter with
the survivability and flexibility needed to plan and prosecute both
deliberate and adaptively planned nuclear response actions. The
combined B-52 and cruise missile (air launched cruise missile and
advanced cruise missile) capability has singularly unique attributes
designed to penetrate air defense systems and strike a potential
adversary's high value targets, thereby minimizing risk to the aircraft
or its aircrew. These attributes include: mission flexibility; hard-
target kill accuracy; low observable characteristics; stand-off
capabilities. Additional targeting clarification should be directed to
OSD/LA or JCS/LA, and will likely involve input from U.S. Strategic
Command.
Question. Last year you testified ``. . . sustainment of the
existing cruise missile fleet was the course of action chosen until the
need for a new system is identified.'' What is your plan to extend the
lives of current ALCM and ACM cruise missiles to 2030? Is it feasible
to do that, or will you really need a new missile eventually?
Answer. It is feasible to extend the lives of current air launched
cruise missiles (ALCM) and advanced cruise missiles (ACM) to 2030. The
Nuclear Posture Review (NPR) dated December 2001 states ``. . . its
current force of cruise missile can be sustained until 2030.'' Air
Force will support this NPR direction by implementing the Service Life
Extension Programs (SLEPs). The NPR Implementer gives further direction
by stating, ``The Secretary of the Air Force will complete ongoing
sustainment and life extension programs and initiate required service
life extension programs where necessary to sustain the ALCM and ACM
until 2030 and restore required weapons systems reliability rates to
design specification values.'' The SLEP studies identified aging
components and potential component failures that might need replacement
to sustain ACM and ALCM until year 2030.
The NPR Implementer also addresses the requirement for a new
missile. It states the Air Force will continue to implement the ACM and
ALCM SLEPs until the development of a new cruise missile. A next-
generation cruise missile program would need to start around 2014 to
ensure an initial operational capability in the 2030 timeframe.
Question. Has the Secretary of Defense formally approved a program
to either extend the lives of current Air Force cruise missiles until
2030, or to develop a replacement missile?
Answer. Yes. The Secretary of Defense approved the Nuclear Posture
Review Implementation Plan in March 2003. The NPR Implementer directs
the Secretary of the Air Force to maintain the current Advanced Cruise
Missile (ACM) and Air Launched Cruise Missile (ALCM) fleet via the
Service Life Extension Programs through 2030.
Question. What exactly is funded, and what exactly is not funded,
in the Air Force's Future Years Defense Plan to extend the life of its
cruise missiles to 2030?
Answer. The Air Force has fully funded all known cruise missile
requirements through the future year defense plan (FYDP). Additional
activities will be funded beyond the current FYDP as required to extend
Advanced Cruise Missile (ACM) and Air Launched Cruise Missile (ALCM)
service life through 2030.
ALCM:
--Conventional/Air-Launched Cruise Missile Test
Instrumentation Kit
--Inertial Navigation Element (also known as Global
Navigation Control Unit)
--Functional Ground Test Facility
--Thermal Batteries and Pyrotechnical Devices
--W-80 LEP Integration
ACM:
--Joint Test Instrumentation Kit
--Functional Ground Test Facility
--Thermal Batteries and Pyrotechnical Devices
--Aging and Surveillance Program
--ACM Subsystem Simulator and Advanced Missile Simulator
--W-80 LEP Integration
Question. How much funding in then-year dollars beyond what is
projected in your current Future Years Defense Plan would realistically
be needed to extend the life of Air Force cruise missiles to 2030?
Answer. The following funding is projected beyond the current
Future Years Defense Plan (FYDP) to extend cruise missile life to 2030.
This includes Procurement; Research, Development, Test & Evaluation;
Operation and Maintenance and Military Personnel funding.
Advanced Cruise Missile
[In millions of dollars]
FY10............................................................. 57.6
FY11............................................................. 58.2
FY12............................................................. 58.9
FY13............................................................. 59.5
FY14............................................................. 63.2
FY15............................................................. 63.9
FY16............................................................. 64.6
FY17............................................................. 65.3
FY18............................................................. 66.1
FY19............................................................. 66.9
FY20............................................................. 67.7
FY21............................................................. 68.5
FY22............................................................. 70.2
FY23............................................................. 71.9
FY24............................................................. 73.6
FY25............................................................. 75.4
FY26............................................................. 58.9
FY27............................................................. 60.3
FY28............................................................. 61.7
FY29............................................................. 63.2
FY30............................................................. 64.7
______
Total....................................................... 1,336.3
Air Launched Cruise Missile
[In millions of dollars]
FY10............................................................. 59.5
FY11............................................................. 60.1
FY12............................................................. 60.8
FY13............................................................. 65.5
FY14............................................................. 66.2
FY15............................................................. 66.9
FY16............................................................. 67.6
FY17............................................................. 68.4
FY18............................................................. 69.2
FY19............................................................. 70.1
FY20............................................................. 70.9
FY21............................................................. 71.8
FY22............................................................. 73.7
FY23............................................................. 75.6
FY24............................................................. 77.5
FY25............................................................. 79.4
FY26............................................................. 59.0
FY27............................................................. 60.3
FY28............................................................. 61.6
FY29............................................................. 62.9
FY30............................................................. 64.2
______
Total....................................................... 1,411.2
Question. Have you conducted a formal analysis of alternatives for
cruise missile life extension programs?
Answer. No analysis of alternatives was accomplished for the
Advanced Cruise Missile or Air Launched Cruise Missile Service Life
Extension Programs.
Question. Have you conducted a full life cycle cost analysis for
cruise missile life extension programs?
Answer. Both advanced cruise missile and air launched cruise
missile service life extension program studies included a life cycle
cost and risk analysis on the components with life extension concerns.
Question. Have you accomplished an operational requirements
document for cruise missile life extension?
Answer. A new operational requirements document (ORD) for cruise
missile life extension is not required. Air launched cruise missile
(ALCM) and advanced cruise missile (ACM) acquisition was completed
under the Strategic Air Command (SAC) System Operational Requirements
Document (SORD). ORDs are written/updated to document system
capabilities, justification, parameters, program support, and force
structure required to satisfy a validated need. They serve as the
foundation for acquisition. For SORDs beyond Milestone III, it is only
necessary to re-accomplish the requirements correlation matrix to
comply with the ORD format for programs less than Acquisition Category
I (ACAT I). Both ALCM and ACM are complete with acquisition and are
considered ACAT III.
Question. What actions has the Defense Acquisition Board taken on
extending the life of Air Force cruise missiles until 2030, or
developing a new missile?
Answer. Defense Acquisition Board (DAB) approval was not required
for ACM/ALCM SLEP activities. SLEP activities were below cost
thresholds requiring DAB approval.
Question. Last year, the Air Force had no funding in its budget to
support any phase of the Department of Energy's W-80 life extension
program. This year the situation is improved. Please answer separately,
how much is in the fiscal year 2004 budget and accompanying future
years program in support to Department of Energy's W-80 life extension
program for:
W-80 flight testing?
W-80 integration and support?
W-80 handling equipment?
W-80 test manuals?
W-80 publications?
Answer. The tables below provide details on W-80 related funding:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY04 FY05 FY06 FY07 FY08 FY09 Totals
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ACM:
Flight Testing....................... 1.5 2.0 2.0 3.0 1.9 ........ 10.4
Integration and Support.............. 1.3 1.1 .69 .94 1.2 .34 5.57
Handling Equipment................... ........ 2.2 ........ ........ ........ ........ 2.2
Test Manuals......................... .09 .18 .09 ........ ........ ........ .36
Publications......................... ........ ........ ........ ........ .1 ........ .1
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Totals.............................. 2.89 5.48 2.78 3.94 3.2 .34 18.63
=====================================================================
ALCM:
Flight Testing....................... 1.4 .29 1.11 2.9 4.7 ........ 10.4
Integration and Support.............. 1.7 1.2 1.1 .94 1.2 .34 6.48
Handling Equipment................... ........ 2.3 ........ ........ ........ ........ 2.3
Test Manuals......................... .09 .18 .09 ........ ........ ........ .36
Publications......................... ........ ........ ........ ........ .1 ........ .1
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Totals.............................. 3.19 3.97 2.3 3.84 6.0 .34 19.64
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question. Does Air Force expect DOE to deliver any extended life
W-80 warheads that would go temporarily into storage rather than
immediately to deployment? If so, why?
Answer. The Air Force will upload all refurbished W-80 warheads
onto the active cruise missile inventory.
[Clerk's note.--End of questions submitted by Mr.
Visclosky. Questions submitted by Mr. Lewis and the answers
thereto follow:]
Consolidation of the Military Personnel Accounts
Question. The fiscal year 2004 budget request recommends
consolidating the six Guard and Reserve military personnel accounts
with their respective active duty military personnel appropriations.
The budget requested that the Reserves personnel pay accounts be Budget
Activity 7, and the National Guard's personnel pay accounts be Budget
Activity 8 under the active duty accounts.
Mr. Secretary please explain the reasons the OSD Comptroller had
for merging the pay accounts into one appropriation per Service.
Answer. The OSD proposal to restructure the military personnel
appropriations for Active, Guard and Reserve into one appropriation is
a step in the right direction. It begins to finance our enterprise like
our Total Force fights--as an integrated team. This will provide
additional flexibility by obviating the need to use transfers to move
funds between individual programs within the merged accounts. The
consolidation will also reduce administrative workload and streamline
funds execution and reporting.
Question. What level or degree of increased flexibility does the
Air Force gain from this consolidation?
Answer. The Air Force will be able to reprogram $10 million into or
out of the Reserve Component budget activities without prior
Congressional approval. In addition to this flexibility, there will be
no limit to the amount that can be reprogrammed with prior
Congressional approval. With the separate appropriations, Air Force
needs Congressional prior approval for any amount, and that amount is
limited by the total amount of transfer authority allowed for the
Department of Defense.
Question. Will the Chiefs of the Reserve components have full
management and control of their financial resources in order to execute
their title 10 responsibilities for trained and ready forces?
Answer. Approved DoD accounting and internal control procedures
assign fiduciary responsibility to the Assistant Secretary of the Air
Force (Financial Managment and Comptroller) for all Air Force funds.
Management and control of the individual appropriations are delegated
to the Air Force Director of Budget (SAF/FMB) for all Active funds and
to the Air National Guard and Air Force Reserves for their accounts.
Overall management of the consolidated Personnel account will be a SAF/
FMB responsibility; however detailed program management within the
budget activities for the Air National Guard and Air Force Reserves
will continue to reside with those organizations.
Question. Having separate appropriations accounts for the Active
and Reserve components allows Congress to monitor how well the services
are executing their programs. What assurance can you give the Committee
that the active components will not use the Reserve budget activities
to fund their own bills or shortfalls?
Answer. Since the proposal places Guard and Reserve military
personnel (MILPERS) funding in separate Budget Activities, Congress
will still have visibility into its execution. The Department's
proposal to restructure MILPERS appropriations begins to finance our
enterprise like our Total Force fights--as an integrated team. This
will provide additional flexibility to move funds between individual
programs within the merged accounts and reduce administrative workload
while streamlining fund execution and reporting.
Personnel Issues
Question. Please explain your active duty military personnel end
strengths levels to the Committee. What was the number of personnel on
board in October when you started fiscal year 2003? Was that number
over the authorized end strength level for the Air Force?
Answer. The beginning strength for fiscal year 2003 was 368,251;
this was 9,451 over the authorized strength level of 358,800 for the
end of fiscal year 2002.
Question. Did that increase of personnel include those under a
stop/loss action? Did it include any mobilized Reservists? If so, what
were those numbers?
Answer. Yes, this increase did include personnel under stop/loss
action, but did not include mobilized Reservists since mobilized
Reservists do not count against the active duty end strength.
Approximately 7,300 of the overage was due to the stop/loss program and
the remaining 2,200 is attributed to exceeding accession goals and
improved retention.
Question. What stop/loss action is currently in effect, and how
many military personnel are affected by that?
Answer. On 13 March 2003, the Air Force announced the details of a
limited Stop Loss action. Effective 2 May 2003, retirements/separations
of 43 officer and 56 enlisted high-demand specialties are suspended.
Projected impact (number eligible to retire/separate between 2 May 2003
and 30 September 2003) is 6,172 active duty officers/4,858 active duty
enlisted and 834 Air Reserve Component officers/3,030 ARC enlisted.
Specialties under Stop Loss will be reviewed every 60 days and
personnel released from Stop Loss will be afforded up to five-months
transition time. As OPERATION IRAQI FREEDOM progresses and the Air
Force reconstitutes, we will discontinue the use of Stop Loss using the
60-day review process.
Stop Loss exemptions include involuntary/hardship discharges,
mandatory retirements and separations, discharge by reason of
conscientious objector status, members who have shipped or are
scheduled to ship household goods, members on terminal leave, and
members previously Stop Lossed who have since established a retirement/
separation date. In addition, members may request a Stop Loss waiver if
there are unique circumstances warranting exemption.
Question. Can you estimate what your end strength level will be in
September 2003, the end of this fiscal year, and starting fiscal year
2004? What level of end strength is funded in the budget request for
fiscal year 2004?
Answer. The current estimate of strength for 30 September 2003 is
367,100 (8,100 over the authorized level of 359,000). This overstrength
is caused by improved retention and our ability to meet the accessions
goals. The effect of the new stop/loss program that is expected to
begin on 2 May 2003 will add to the strength overage. Even though stop/
loss affects more individuals, we anticipate that those who planned to
separate before the end of the year and now will not be able to could
add approximately 4,700 to the strength overage, depending on the
duration of the Stop Loss program currently in effect. The funded
strength level included in the President's Budget for fiscal year 2004
is 359,300.
Anti-Terrorism/Force Protection Mission
Question. In the fiscal year 2003 appropriation, the Air Force
received additional funding to address anti-terrorism/force protection
issues. The Air Force budget request for fiscal year 2004 does not
sustain the 2003 level of funding.
Please explain how the active and Reserve forces have been or are
involved in anti-terrorism/force protection missions this year.
Answer. Our Total Force has been integrated to provide seamless
force protection at all our installations: Active, Guard, and Reserve.
The Air Reserve Component (ARC) has made huge contributions to our
success in Operations ENDURING FREEDOM, NOBLE EAGLE and IRAQI FREEDOM.
Through enhanced physical security measures, counterintelligence, and
intelligence activities, ARC forces have implemented and continue to
implement heightened levels of protection for our vital resources, key
infrastructure and our most valuable asset: our people.
Question. What is the number of Reserve forces currently mobilized
for Operation Noble Eagle to fill those requirements?
Answer. The total number of Air Reserve Component personnel
mobilized in support of Operation Noble Eagle (ONE):
Air National Guard................................................ 8,193
Air Force Reserve................................................. 2,236
Total.......................................................10,429
Of this total for ONE support, approximately 40 percent (4,300+) of
the personnel are considered to be working in traditional force
protection/anti-terrorism specialties (i.e., physical security,
counterintelligence, and intelligence).
Question. The Committee understands that the Air Force lacks the
required number of Security Forces to provide the appropriate level of
security for your facilities worldwide. Please explain why the Army
National Guard is supplying soldiers to support the Air Force's
security requirements.
Answer. This is an example of two Services working together in a
spirit of cooperation to meet a significant and enduring threat facing
our Armed Forces. With the increased requirements driven by the events
of 9/11, the subsequent Global War on Terrorism, and the progressive
demobilization of Air Reserve Component forces, the Air Force lacked
sufficient resources to provide full dimensional protection to its
resources. In this case, the Army had the expertise and the available
personnel necessary to help the Air Force secure its resources until
such time as the Air Force can implement long-term manpower and
technology solutions to mitigate vulnerabilities. This is a fit that
makes sense and it supports our strong foundation for joint operations.
``One Team, One Fight.''
Question. What is the number of Reserve personnel mobilized, and
the length of time they will be providing security forces?
Answer. The total number of Air Reserve Component (ARC) personnel
mobilized is approximately 36,000. Security forces personnel currently
mobilized worldwide are approximately 5,400. ARC security forces
currently mobilized will continue to serve in a mobilized status until
April 2004 or until an individual has served 24 months, whichever is
earlier. The Air Force is proactively managing personnel usage, and
began systematic demobilization in September 2002, in an effort to
minimize impacts on individuals while still meeting mission
requirements. If required by events, any new ARC mobilizations will be
accomplished to satisfy primarily overseas requirements and only if the
necessary force protection capability cannot be obtained from the
volunteer pool (i.e., ARC members that are volunteering to serve on
extended man-days).
Question. What is the incremental personnel and O&M costs
associated with this mission for the Army? Describe the funding
agreement between the Air Force and the Army.
Answer. Personnel costs are $620.4 million and O&M are $257
million. The funding agreement is that the Air Force will pay all costs
associated with mobilization of these Army members.
Equipment Operation Costs
Question. Mr. Secretary, one of the recurring challenges that you
face in managing your Operation and Maintenance account is the rising
cost of operating your equipment. In a February 2003 report, the
General Accounting Office found that the military services pay little
attention to operating and support costs and readiness during
development, when there is the greatest opportunity to affect those
costs positively. Rather the services focus on technical achievement,
featuring immature technologies during development and fielding.
Is this an accurate assessment, and if it is, what do you propose
as process improvements to gain control of total ownership costs of our
military equipment?
Answer. The processes highlighted in the February 2003 General
Accounting Office report, for the most part, have been or will be
changed or modified. The Air Force is aggressively attacking
sustainment costs for both new and aging systems. For example, there is
a renewed emphasis within the Air Force on the Systems Engineering (SE)
effort devoted to system development. SE training has been improved
through the creation of the Center of Excellence for System Engineering
at the Air Force Institute of Technology. Program managers are required
to look for ways to incentivize contractors to perform robust SE to
reduce sustainment costs. In fact, the status of all key SE processes/
practices have been or will be a salient topic of discussion at all
periodic program reviews. The above notwithstanding, the Air Force's
new collaborative requirement processes simultaneously focus upon all
life-cycle issues. Operators, acquirers and sustainers are brought
together to jointly identify and agree upon requirements from program
inception. In an attempt to reduce unknown factors that drive up
Operations and Maintenance costs, emerging technologies are being
further matured in the laboratory setting before being placed into
program development. Similarly, immature technologies are being fully
vetted based upon the need for such a technology. Contrary to past
practices, immature technologies will only be inserted in a system when
there is a need to counter a known threat that cannot be accomplished
in any other manner. In addition to the above, the Product Support
Management Plan (PSMP), along with the Reduction in Total Ownership
Cost (R-TOC) plans, are required as part of the particular acquisition
strategy. A key factor in the PSMP is the emphasis on life-cycle
sustainment cost. This plan will ensure the system will meet the using
command's requirement and provide best value. Finally, the Air Force
began a massive training effort to teach the ``big picture'' of
innovation, collaboration, and cost implications to all acquisition
team members. The plan is to train each individual involved in the
acquisition process (some 12,000 persons) by fiscal year 2007.
Facilities Sustainment, Restoration and Modernization
Question. Mr. Secretary, the Department of Defense has established
standards for Facilities Sustainment, Restoration and Modernization.
Sustainment is to be funded at a minimum of 93% of requirement. The
restoration and modernization goal is to correct C3 and C4 conditions
by 2010.
Has the Air Force funded sustainment of facilities at the DoD
desired level of 93% or above?
Answer. Yes. We are funding sustainment at 95 percent of the
requirement.
Question. Has the Air Force established a restoration and
modernization funding plan that will achieve elimination of C3 and C4
ratings by 2010?
Answer. Our goal (based on the fiscal year 2004 Defense Planning
Guidance) is to restore the readiness of existing facilities to at
least C-2 status, on average, by the end of fiscal year 2010. Based on
current funding projections, it is realistic that we will meet this
goal.
We are concurrently targeting our investment to eliminate all C-3
and C-4 rated facility classes. Based on current funding projects (and
extending them beyond fiscal year 2009 . . . our farthest-reaching
funding projection), we expect to eliminate all C-3 and C-4 rated
facility classes by 2014.
Question. The fiscal year 2003 appropriation included increased
funding in base operations and Facilities Sustainment, Restoration and
Modernization to address anti-terrorism and force protection concerns.
Did the Air Force sustain the higher level of funding for
antiterrorism/force protection in the fiscal year 2004 request?
Answer. Thanks to the help of this committee, we were able to
address a large portion of our facility-related anti-terrorism/force
protection requirements in our fiscal year 2003 program. With the
fiscal year 2003 enacted budget, the Air Force is investing more than
$450 million in anti-terrorism/force protection facility requirements.
Of this amount, more than $200 million is being invested through our
military construction program.
For fiscal year 2004, we have requested nearly $20 million for
anti-terrorism/force protection-specific projects (i.e., perimeter
fencing, entry access gates) and antiterrorism/force protection design
requirements embedded into other construction projects.
In addition to this investment, we still have anti-terrorism/force
protection requirements programmed in our future years defense plan.
Specifically, the Air Force has identified approximately $100 million
in requirements for fiscal years 2005-2009. These projects either
enhance existing anti-terrorism and force protection measures or
eliminate inefficiencies caused by existing workarounds. They include,
for example, fencing, entrance gates, and vehicle inspection stations.
Question. What is your assessment of Air Force progress in
identifying and addressing anti-terrorism and force protection
concerns?
Answer. The Air Force is making excellent progress in identifying
and addressing anti-terrorism and force protection concerns. As part of
annual vulnerability assessments required by Air Force Instruction 10-
245, we assess each installation to ensure new projects are constructed
in compliance with DoD antiterrorism standards. Similarly, existing
facilities are assessed in the context of the installation
vulnerability assessment.
In addition to the $450 million being invested in fiscal year 2003
and the $20 million programmed for fiscal year 2004, we have identified
approximately $100 million in the future years defense plan (fiscal
years 2005-2009) for anti-terrorism and force protection military
construction projects. Projects in the future years defense plan either
enhance existing anti-terrorism and force protection measures or
eliminate inefficiencies caused by existing work-arounds. The projects
include fencing, entrance gates, and vehicle inspection stations.
Depot Maintenance
Question. Historically, the Air Force has been able to fund depot
maintenance at an average level of about 93%. For fiscal year 2004, you
increased depot maintenance funding by $226 million, but the percent of
requirement achieved is only 79%, because costs grew by $486 million.
Depot Maintenance for Air Force reserve component equipment is also
funded at about the same level.
The Air Force's top unfunded requirement for fiscal year 2004 is
$516 million for depot maintenance which would raise the funded level
to 92% of requirement.
Please discuss the surge in Air Force depot maintenance costs, and
the expected outcome if Air Force depot maintenance is funded at only
79%.
Answer. The surge in depot maintenance costs is attributed to
several factors such as aging aircraft issues that affect both material
consumption and direct labor hours. For example, the depot work package
for KC-135E aircraft has doubled in the last 10 years, primarily due to
aging aircraft issues. One factor is the corrosion on the engine
struts, the point at which the engines attach to the wing. This
corrosion must be repaired now or it will continue to worsen, become
more expensive to repair over time, and could impact safety of flight/
airworthiness of our KC-135E fleet. There are numerous examples like
this across all our fleets. If depot maintenance funding remains at 79
percent, the Air Force will defer 42 aircraft and 76 engines. We faced
tremendous pressure in this budget and took some risk within depot
maintenance, knowing that we will have challenges to work in fiscal
year 2004. We are committed to working those challenges.
Question. What will be the impact on your depot maintenance
backlog?
Answer. The Air Force will defer 42 aircraft and 76 engines in
fiscal year 2004. Additionally, we will defer some level of software,
other major end items, and Depot Programmed Equipment Maintenance
(DPEM) funded exchangeables maintenance. We know we have challenges in
fiscal year 2004 and we are committed to working through those
challenges.
Spares
Question. The Air Force's second highest ranked unfunded item is
$412 million for spares. Your budget briefing materials indicate that
you increased funding for flying readiness, and that you expect to fly
the prescribed program, but that you have accepted some risk in the
area of spares.
Please elaborate on the risk you have assumed in budgeting for
spares, and how you intend to manage that risk.
Answer. The Air Force took some risk with the flying hour spares
funding in fiscal year 2004. Due to the sustained nature of our effort
in support of the Global War on Terrorism, the Air Force faces an
extraordinary degree of uncertainty regarding the operational profiles
we will actually execute in fiscal year 2004. The Global War on
Terrorism influenced our maintenance patterns in fiscal year 2002 and
its effects have influenced our fiscal year 2004 projected meantime
between failure for repair of parts, which helped determine the fiscal
year 2004 funded level. However, if the Air Force returns to fiscal
year 2001 maintenance patterns, we will address strategies to assure
that funding levels support flying hour execution.
Outsourcing Functions Performed by Military Personnel
Question. In order to meet OMB's competitive sourcing goal, DoD
plans on competing many functions that contain military positions. The
military positions are not being eliminated but being moved from
commercial functions to war-fighting functions. Funds, therefore, have
to be made available to either pay the new in-house organization or a
contractor. The Air Force has estimated that this could cost between
$10 to $15 billion dollars over the next five years.
Has DoD budgeted sufficient resources in order to be able to move
military positions?
Answer. To our knowledge, DoD has budgeted no resources for this
initiative. However, the Air Force identified a first increment for
this initiative, $2.4 billion over the Five Year Program (FYP), as our
#1 unfunded priority in the fiscal year 2004 POM. Unfortunately,
resources have yet to be allocated.
Encroachment on Training Areas
Question. In June 2002, GAO reported that DOD lacks a comprehensive
plan to manage encroachment on training ranges. Not withstanding the
fact that the Defense Department's data indicates that the military is
ready to fight, the GAO documented that encroachment is happening and
that DOD has not evaluated to what extent, and at what cost,
environmental laws affect the military's ability to train.
To what extent has the Air Force separately, or as part of a DOD
effort, attempted to document the effect of encroachment on the Air
Force's ability to train and at what costs?
Answer. The Department of Defense is aggressively working on Range
Comprehensive planning to address the impacts of encroachment and the
Air Force is a full partner in support of the effort. The Air Force is
developing a Resource Capability Model to identify, quantify and assess
resource opportunities and degradations, based on mission requirements
and identify the operational risk created when air, land, water, and
frequency resources are denied or degraded. To date, we have spent
approximately $300,000 on this effort.
Question. To what extent does the fiscal year 2004 budget request
provide funds to pay for the costs associated with encroachment?
Answer. The Air Force has initiated efforts to begin capturing the
fiscal impact of encroachment. However, no direct method currently
exists to determine the full cost associated with encroachment
mitigation primarily because the costs are embedded within multiple
funding sources (installation operations and maintenance accounts,
environmental programs, personnel, acquisition, base operating support,
and communications and frequency management, etc). For example, the Air
Force is spending nearly $38 million in military construction to
acquire 417 acres for the only remaining departure corridor for live
ordnance at Nellis AFB. Nearly $35 million from the operations and
maintenance account will be spent on a 10-year bird-of-prey study in
New Mexico, Texas, and Arizona.
In consideration of these multiple funding sources, the Air Force
is striving to better understand the impact of encroachment on
operational readiness by capturing and identifying the cost embedded in
these various programs.
Purchase Cards and Travel Cards
Question. Over the past two years, the General Accounting Office
has published numerous reports detailing difficulties and potential
fraud in the military departments having to do with the use of
government travel and purchase cards. The GAO reported recently that
while more improvement is needed, substantial improvements have been
made. In fact, the Air Force has lower charge off rates than the Army
and Navy Departments.
What are some of the actions the Air Force has taken in response to
purchase and travel card problems as reported by the GAO?
Answer. With respect to the purchase card, the Air Force has issued
two policy letters to quickly implement GAO recommendations, tighten
controls and improve oversight. We have already mandated standard
training, and we are incorporating the remaining GAO recommendations
into the new Air Force Instruction.
The Office of the Under Secretary of Defense, Comptroller has
formed a task force with the intention of changing many of the current
card policies. Concerning the travel card, significant changes will
include: 1. Tightening the credit worthiness of all individuals that
receive a travel card. 2. Providing specific disciplinary guidelines
for both military and civilian cardholders. 3. Modifying personnel
systems to track actions against a delinquent/abusive cardholder. 4.
Developing methods to control cards when a cardholder separates or
retires. 5. Developing a data mining operation to identify abuse of any
travel card. 6. Implementing mandatory split disbursement for all
military travelers. Split-disbursement requires a traveler to have
their travel card payment sent directly to the bank by electronic funds
transfer when they file their travel voucher.
Question. Have you reduced the number of cards issued?
Answer. Yes. The Air Force has reduced the number of government
purchase cards from 77,580 in September 2002 to 49,621 in March 2003.
This is a 36 percent reduction in the number of cards. In addition,
over the past year Air Force reduced their travel cards by 100,000 or
about 20 percent of the cards. Furthermore, we are working with the
Office of the Under Secretary of Defense, Comptroller and supporting
their efforts to further reduce the number of travel cards.
Question. How do you train your personnel to avoid problems with
travel and purchase cards?
Answer. Air Force Instruction (AFI) 64-117 and policy letters
mandate training requirements for all purchase cardholders and
approving officials. To provide a common training baseline, all
cardholders and approving officials are required to take standard
training from Defense Acquisition University. Agency/Office Program
Coordinators are required to take the GSA Agency/Organization Program
Coordinator training. In addition, the Air Force requires both initial
and annual refresher training for both cardholders and approving
officials. Areas of training include: Responsibilities of cardholder,
Bank electronic access program, Federal Acquisition Regulations and
associated DoD and Air Force supplements.
Air Force has many different ways of training both the cardholder
and our Agency Program Managers (APC's) who are responsible for travel
card administration. We have web sites that provide training for both
cardholders and APC's. Currently we are mailing out 1,800 new CDs to
all APC's that emphasize their job functions and responsibilities. The
Air Force holds two conferences each year, one for level three APC
managers and another with General Services Administration for all APC's
and travel cardholders to get hands-on policy and bank training. We
encourage all our bases to take advantage of the bank-sponsored on-base
training, where the bank travels to the base and conducts training. It
is planned to develop a new training CD once all the new Office of the
Under Secretary of Defense, Comptroller travel card policies are
completed.
Question. Do you hold supervisors responsible for verifying the
appropriateness of credit card use by their subordinates?
Answer. Yes, the Air Force holds the approving officials
responsible for the government purchase card usage of the cardholders
assigned to them. The approving officials must ensure that all
cardholder transactions are for valid government requirements.
Regarding the travel card, Air Force commanders own the program. The
Assistant Secretary of the Air Force (Financial Management and
Comptroller) advised Air Force commanders to monitor charge card use
and be mindful of the importance of their continued leadership, careful
selection and diligent training of those Air Force members entrusted
with charge cards. To assist in verifying the appropriateness of travel
card use, agency program coordinators use Bank of America's automated
reporting system, EAGLES. EAGLES reports are a tool available to the
program coordinators to identify suspicious travel card activity and
investigate through regular spot checks. Commanders use this capability
through their program coordinators to identify problems early and
address them when they are discovered.
Question. Secretary Rumsfeld was briefed on the lease proposal by
Aldridge and Zakheim on March 10th and requested additional
information. Part of that briefing was a review of a new Institute of
Defense Analysis (IDA) study which is critical of the lease proposal.
The lease is expected to cost about $17 billion, with another $4
billion needed for the service to purchase the aircraft post-lease.
Mr. Secretary, what can you tell us about Secretary Rumsfeld's
consideration of the lease proposal? What were the concerns he raised?
Answer. To clarify the record, I was not present at the above-
mentioned meeting that was reported in the media. As far as the costs
you mentioned, the Air Force has not released cost information on the
lease and cannot release cost information until the Secretary of
Defense approves the lease.
The DoD leasing panel has been reviewing the lease proposal since
October 2002. Discussions are occurring at the highest levels within
the Department of Defense. The Air Force continues to answer all
questions raised by the Department on the lease proposal.
Question. What were the issues raised in the Institute of Defense
Analysis (IDA) study on the proposed lease?
Answer: To clarify the record, I was not present at the above-
mentioned meeting that was reported in the media. As far as the costs
you mentioned, the Air Force has not released cost information on the
lease and cannot release cost information until the Secretary of
Defense approves the lease.
Office of the Secretary of Defense, Director, Programs Analysis and
Evaluation (OSD/PA&E) commissioned this quick-look study to estimate
the cost of a KC-767. The Air Force is not the release authority for
this study, however I can relay your request to OSD. The Air Force
negotiated with Boeing for over seven months--I believe that IDA was
hampered by having only a few weeks for their quick analysis. IDA's
initial results were that the cost of the KC-767 should be less than
the Air Force negotiated price. Numerous meetings and data exchanges
have occurred and will continue to occur among Air Force, Boeing, IDA
and OSD representatives to better understand the weapon system and to
clarify differences in costing methodology.
Question. What are your thoughts on the IDA's criticism of the
lease proposal?
Answer. To clarify the record, I was not present at the above-
mentioned meeting that was reported in the media. As far as the costs
you mentioned, the Air Force has not released cost information on the
lease and cannot release cost information until the Secretary of
Defense approves the lease.
OSD/PA&E commissioned this quick-look study to estimate the cost of
a KC-767. The Air Force is not the release authority of this
proprietary study, however I can relay your request to OSD. The Air
Force negotiated with Boeing for over seven months--I believe that IDA
was hampered by having only a few weeks for their quick analysis. I
believe that IDA did not fully understand and evaluate the cost,
configuration, and complexities of the Air Force KC-767. Numerous
meetings and data exchanges have occurred and will continue to occur
among Air Force, Boeing, IDA and OSD representatives to better
understand the weapon system and to clarify differences in costing
methodology.
Question. What financial or other advantages are there to leasing
now that may not be present if we purchased at a later date?
Answer. To clarify the record, I was not present at the above-
mentioned meeting that was reported in the media. As far as the costs
you mentioned, the Air Force has not released cost information on the
lease and cannot release cost information until the Secretary of
Defense approves the lease.
The key reasons to lease now are low interest rates, low inflation,
the depressed aircraft industry, and a mature 767 production line.
Leasing meets a projected need as KC-135s age and tankers require
recapitalization. Leasing delivers more critical tanker capability to
the warfighter in the same time period than the conventional program as
funded in the Fiscal Year 2004 President's Budget. Leasing requires
less money upfront and allows the Air Force to spread the operating
cost over the life of the lease. Congress stipulated a multi-year lease
that enabled the Air Force to negotiate firm fixed price development;
production, training, and logistics support contracts that avoid the
uncertainty of cost-plus contracts. Waiting to begin replacement will
likely result in higher unit costs and a slower ``ramp-up'' of much
needed new aircraft.
Question. Will the lease arrangement require research and
development costs?
Answer. To clarify the record, I was not present at the above-
mentioned meeting that was reported in the media. As far as the costs
you mentioned, the Air Force has not released cost information on the
lease and cannot release cost information until the Secretary of
Defense approves the lease.
The KC-767 negotiated lease proposal requires no separate Air Force
research and development funding. Boeing's international launch and
commercial pricing of the Global Tanker Transport Aircraft (GTTA) has
resulted in costs being amortized among two foreign customers (total of
four aircraft) and the U.S. Government (100 jets).
Question. If so, who will be responsible for paying for those
costs, the government or the contractor?
Answer. To clarify the record, I was not present at the above-
mentioned meeting that was reported in the media. As far as the costs
you mentioned, the Air Force has not released cost information on the
lease and cannot release cost information until the Secretary of
Defense approves the lease.
Research and development costs are initially borne by the
contractor, but are recovered in the fixed price of the KC-767 over the
course of the lease.
Question. Are there any funds in the President's FY04 budget
request to support the lease if it is approved?
Answer. To clarify the record, I was not present at the above-
mentioned meeting that was reported in the media. As far as the costs
you mentioned, the Air Force has not released cost information on the
lease and cannot release cost information until the Secretary of
Defense approves the lease.
If the Secretary of Defense approves the lease of the KC-767, the
Air Force will prepare a report to the four defense committees seeking
lease approval. If the KC-767 lease is approved by the Secretary of
Defense without changes, funding will be required in fiscal year 2004
for MILCON and other program startup costs. The Air Force has
programmed $4.1 billion in the fiscal year 2004 President's Budget
(fiscal year 2004-fiscal year 2009) for a traditional tanker
procurement with funding beginning in fiscal year 2006.
KC-135 E-Model Tanker Retirement
Question. Did the Air Force conduct a formal analysis to assess how
the retirement of 68 E-model tankers would affect DOD's ability to meet
wartime requirements?
Answer. Yes. It was determined that the capability lost with a
reduction of 68 E-model tankers (13 percent of the fleet) is equivalent
to a 4-5 percent reduction in sortie generation averaged over a
sustained 30-day conflict.
Question. Did the Air Force complete a comprehensive analysis of
potential basing options to know whether they were choosing the most
cost-effective alternative?
Answer. The tanker roadmap uses existing tanker bases in the Air
Force. It is most cost-effective to use existing tanker bases and
leverage the in-place support facilities and personnel. Active duty
bases that transfer R-models to the reserve components will be the
first to receive new replacement tankers, or in the case of McConnell
AFB, their resultant force structure will increase with R-models.
Reserve component basing and manpower remain unchanged, however the
standard reserve component air refueling squadron is re-baselined to 8
R-model tankers by the time the first 100 new tankers are delivered to
the active duty.
Question. What plans are there to replace those models with R-
models for the Air Reserve Component?
Answer. Air Force active duty R-model tanker units will transfer 48
total aircraft to the reserve components during the period the E-models
retire (fiscal year 2004-06). Of those 48, 16 flow to the Reserves and
32 to the Air National Guard.
Question. What is the tanker replacement (KC-767) beddown plan and
how will it effect both the active duty and reserve component bases?
Answer. The active duty will continue to flow R-models to the Air
National Guard, allowing them to retire their remaining 56 E-models.
The Air Force plans to base the first 100 new tankers at active duty
bases. Whether the Air Force leases tankers sooner or buys them later,
this plan will not change. The resulting force structure will be a pure
R-model reserve component and a mix of R-models and new tankers in the
active duty.
Question. What is the fall-back position if leasing is not
approved, and 68 air craft are cut from the inventory? Does the AF only
plan on procuring a single new tanker in FY09 with all other buys
outside of the FYDP?
Answer. The tanker retirements in the fiscal year 2004 President's
Budget are neither associated with, nor contingent upon the proposed
lease. The savings from these retirements are used to pay for corrosion
repairs on the remaining tanker fleet. Although under a traditional
purchase the first new tanker will not be delivered until fiscal year
2009, the Air Force does have $4.1 billion programmed in the FYDP to
recapitalize the tanker fleet. Funding begins in fiscal year 2006.
Question. Please detail the budget associated with procuring
tankers, within the FYDP and beyond. Is this reduced number of tankers
sustainable over the next 7-10 years if leasing does not occur?
Answer. The funding profile for tanker replacement in the Air Force
program is indicated in the table below. Currently the Air Force has
$4.1 billion programmed in the future years defense plan (FYDP) which
will deliver 16 aircraft by fiscal year 2011 (aircraft purchased in
fiscal year 2008 and fiscal year 2009 will be delivered in fiscal year
2010 and fiscal year 2011). Outside the FYDP the preferred production
rate of 18 aircraft/year will require between $3.8 billion to 4.2
billion annually. The eventual number and type of tankers the Air Force
might buy has not been determined.
[In millions of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Program Element 41221F FY04 FY05 FY06 FY07 FY08 FY09 FYDP
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Program...................... $0 $0 $154 $375 $1,417 $2,172 $4,118
Aircraft Delivery *................ 0 0 0 0 0 1 1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Delivery occurs two years after aircraft order funding is made available.
The Air Force tankers will be more sustainable because of planned
retirements. The Air Force reinvested 80 percent of its savings back
into the tanker fleet, making needed corrosion repairs on the remaining
KC-135 fleet. Additionally, reinvested manpower and additional flight
hours will improve utilization of the fleet.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Question. How will crew ratios change with this decision? Please
quantify personnel changes associated with this plan.
Answer. The crew ratio will increase with the decision to reduce
KC-135 E-models. The Air Force retained 286 officer and enlisted
positions as part of the 48 aircraft transfer to the Air Reserve
Components (ARC), filling requirements in the active duty tanker
program. This increased the active duty crew ratio from 1.36 to 1.75,
while also largely maintaining the active duty flight hour program,
flying more hours per jet. The ARC retained the manpower associated
with the E-model reduction, allowing the Air National Guard to increase
their crew ratio from 1.27 to 1.8, and Air Force Reserves from 1.27 to
1.5.
Question. Does this create a greater burden on the Guard to support
missions, if the active force is reduced by 68 a/c? Please quantify the
number of KC-135 sorties that the Air National generated annually over
each of the last five years. Is this rate expected to increase
significantly under this proposal?
Answer. The Air Force plans to reduce 68 primary aircraft
authorization (PAA) KC-135Es between fiscal year 2004-06. As part of
our recapitalization plan, 48 active duty R-models will transfer to the
Air Reserve Component (ARC) allowing the ARC to retire their first 48
E-models. Additionally the Air National Guard (ANG) will standardize
the size of their units at eight PAA, allowing the retirement of an
additional 20 KC-135Es, and maintain all ARC unit flags. The savings
will be reinvested into the KC-135 fleet for critical corrosion
repairs, manpower is reinvested to increase crew ratio to 1.75 active
duty, 1.8 ANG, and 1.5 Air Force Reserve Command. The active duty/ARC
reduces the KC-135 PAA fleet by 13 percent, but retains peacetime
flying hours to support crew training.
Yes, this creates a greater burden on the Air National Guard. These
active force aircraft have generated significant sortie rates
requirements that will continue to exist as they are absorbed by the
ANG. The active duty to ARC mix changes from 45 percent/55 percent in
fiscal year 2003 to 41 percent/59 percent respectively by fiscal year
2006. In peacetime the aircraft will log more hours per year, however,
the crewmembers will fly/work the same amount. In a maximum effort
wartime scenario the ARC will pick up an additional four percent of the
workload.
Over the last five fiscal years, ANG KC-135 (E & R) sorties
generated are: 19,859 (fiscal year 1998); 17,684 (fiscal year 1999);
16,316 (fiscal year 2000); 16,986 (fiscal year 2001), and 19,499
(fiscal year 2002). ANG sorties are expected to gradually increase
under this proposal.
Question. What is the net impact on Fairchild? Grand Forks?
Elsewhere?
Answer. Under the most current plan Fairchild AFB will transfer a
total of 18 R-model tankers to the reserve components to backfill their
E-model retirements. Grand Forks' contribution is 12 R-models, and
McConnell's is 18.
Question. How many tankers are required for a two MTW scenario?
What is the identified tanker requirement for a MTW involving Iraq?
Answer. Tanker Requirements Study 2005 (released 2001) was
conducted by Air Mobility Command in partnership with the Office of the
Secretary of Defense (OSD) Program Analysis and Evaluation division.
The study was conducted to determine both aircraft and aircrew
requirements to meet our nation's aerial refueling needs in the near
term. The Tanker Requirements Study recommended fleet availability of
500-600 aircraft at a 1.66 to 1.92 crew ratio, depending upon the
scenario.
We are confident that we can, and will, successfully execute all
required missions. However, as simultaneous operations in other regions
are added, tanker availability becomes more of a limiting factor,
delaying deployment of forces, and extending the duration of the air
war. In the future, the Air Force will continue to assess its tanker
requirements and make appropriate decisions regarding force structure.
Question. Please detail the assumed savings from retiring these
aircraft, including an explanation of assumed cost-avoidance. Are these
savings being used entirely to recapitalize the remaining E-models?
Answer. Savings include depot costs, manpower, and engine
overhauls. Cost avoidance includes expected increases to depot
maintenance costs and corrosion repairs (including strut replacement).
These retirements avoid needed replacement/overhaul of the E-model
struts on approximately half of the fleet ($177 million). The cost of
program depot maintenance has quadrupled since 1990; cost avoidance for
higher bills in the Future Year Defense Plan is approximately $530
million.
[In millions of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Program FY04 FY05 FY06 FY07 FY08 FY09 FYDP
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Savings............................ $75 $107 $134 $153 $155 $157 $781
Cost Avoidance..................... 76 151 167 145 78 90 707
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total........................ 151 258 301 298 233 247 1,488
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All savings from operation and maintenance costs were reinvested
back into the KC-135 fleet, directly linked to critical corrosion
repairs, replacing the struts on the remaining E-models. Additionally,
reinvested manpower and additional flight hours will improve
utilization of the fleet.
C-17 Request of Only 11 Aircraft
Question. Last year, Congress added $585.9 million with direction
to ensure the Air Force properly budget for a second C-17 multiyear
contract. The Air Force request this year only funds 11 C-17s in FY
2004.
Why did the Air Force choose not to fund 15 aircraft in FY 2004 as
directed by Congress?
Answer. The congressional add of $585.9 million (three aircraft in
fiscal year 2003) presented the Air Force with an opportunity to revamp
the remaining program. The new program is not incrementally funded (we
buy 11 and get 11); and, unlike last year's request, the Advance
Procurement is low (we never go above 15 percent). Additionally, we
maintain Multiyear Procurement at the planned economic production rate
of 15 aircraft per year. The new program avoids requesting funding
early-to-need since the contractor doesn't manufacture and assemble
what would have been fiscal year 2004's 12th aircraft until fiscal year
2005, meaning funding above 11 in fiscal year 2004 is early-to-need by
one year. The Air Force will take advantage of existing order backlog
to only order the number of aircraft required (11) to be started by the
end of next year. The new program avoids the need to out-prioritize
other important defense programs, since adding four early-to-need C-17
aircraft would have required over $600 million in additional funding in
fiscal year 2004.
Question. Are any of the 11 aircraft requested in the FY 2004
budget funded early-to-need?
Answer. One of the 11 C-17s requested in the fiscal year 2004
President's Budget is funded slightly (less than one month) early-to-
need. The Air Force is attempting to strike a balance between funding
as many aircraft as possible, without having to fund aircraft early-to-
need. With the current procurement profile presented in the fiscal year
2004 President's Budget, no aircraft are funded early-to-need after
fiscal year 2004.
Question. The production schedule accompanying the request
indicates that rather than delivering 4 aircraft from June through
August of FY04 as was displayed in the 2003 submission, no aircraft
will be delivered during this period. Is this correct?
Answer. No, a break in production is not expected. Relative to the
contract delivery dates, Multiyear Procurement 1 is currently 139 days
ahead of schedule. Multiyear Procurement 2 resets the schedule reserve
to 90 days. No changes occurred in the production schedule between the
fiscal year 2003 and fiscal year 2004 submission to Congress. However,
the fiscal year 2003 submission was based on multiyear procurement 1
contract dates, and the fiscal year 2004 submission was based on
multiyear procurement 1 forecasted early deliveries. Therefore, the
perceived 3-month ``production break'' from June through August of
fiscal year 2004 results from showing actual/projected delivery dates
for first multiyear procurement 1 and contract delivery dates for
multiyear procurement 2. The negotiated schedule reserve is desired to
allow for unanticipated events, such as the United Kingdom lease that
occurred in 2001.
Question. The final aircraft under the first multiyear contract
will be delivered 6 months early in May of 2004 as opposed to November.
How has the second multiyear accounted for this?
Answer. Multipleyear Procurement (MYP 2) moves the contract
delivery dates forward to shorten the amount of schedule reserve. The
MYP 2 contract takes Boeing's internal schedule into consideration
since Boeing's schedule maintains a constant production flow, and
provides for a smooth transition between the two MYP contracts.
Question. If the Air Force were to modify the delivery schedule in
FY 2004, could an additional 4 aircraft be put on contract prior to the
start of FY 2005?
Answer. Yes, but the costs and risks outweigh the potential
benefits. Modifying the delivery schedule would require increasing
plant throughput and could result in increased cost/risk to the Air
Force. The multi-year procurement contract was based on an economic
production rate of 15 C-17s per year. Production above 15/yr does not
yield any cost benefits. Increasing C-17 production rate also increases
C-17 risks, decreases plant reserve/flexibility, and also increases
difficulty in implementing aircraft block upgrades on time. The
potential ramp-up could require extra funding for retooling and take as
much as 12-24 months to implement.
Question. Interim Contractor Support increases from $532 million in
FY 2003 to $927 million in FY 2004. Please explain the reason for the
increase of $395 million. How many total C-17 aircraft will be fielded
by the end of FY 2003? FY 2004?
Answer. The increase in the Interim Contractor Support request is
due to requirements to support the +60 buy, standup of new C-17 bases,
sustainment support as more aircraft are delivered, aircraft block
upgrades, and the purchase of spare engines. Of the $395 million
increase, $229.2 million is due to site activation funding for McGuire
AFB, NJ, March AFB, CA, Hickam AFB, HI, and Travis AFB, CA. The $85.9
million is for increased sustainment support as more aircraft are
delivered. This includes increased spares requirement due to the
current operations tempo and Kosovo lessons learned. The $50.7 million
is for aircraft block upgrades. The $29.1 million is for the purchase
of spare engines. Based on Boeing's projected delivery schedule, 109 C-
17s will be fielded by the end of fiscal year 2003 and 125 by the end
of fiscal year 2004.
Question. What is the high altitude airdrop mission capability for
the C-17?
Answer. Normally the C-17 performs airdrop operations at and below
25,000 feet. The 25,000-foot cap is primarily a physiological
consideration for the aircrew, because the aircraft must be
depressurized for the drop. Above this limit there are limitations to
how an individual can perform their duties and stringent regulations on
the use of life support equipment. The C-17 has demonstrated airdrops
up to 29,000 feet (with special permission) operationally over the past
year.
Question. Please provide us with an update on the status of the C-
17 commercial variant program and what effect that and a NATO or
foreign sale of this variant might have on the program?
Answer. The Commercial Application of Military Airlift Aircraft
(CAMAA), and NATO or foreign sales of this commercial variant should
have no affect on the current multiyear procurement contract of 60 C-
17s (180 total).
The CAMAA program office has developed a business plan that
supports a public/private venture investing in 10 commercial C-17s. The
CAMAA program is currently on hold, pending the validation of a
military requirement for 222 C-17s, 42 more than the current buy of
180, and demonstration that diverting 10 of those 42 additional C-17s
into a CAMAA variant is both cost effective and militarily efficacious.
Bomber Requirements
Question. The Air Force bomber requirement is defined as 157
bombers (a mix of B-1, B-2, and B-52) at their full capacity. This
requirement is defined in a November 2001 Long-Range Strike Aircraft
White Paper.
Mr. Secretary, could you please define for the Committee the Air
Force's numerical bomber requirement by aircraft.
Answer. The November 2001 Long-Range Strike Aircraft White Paper
defines a bomber force structure which includes 157 aircraft. The
bomber force structure includes the following number of aircraft: B-2
(21), B-1 (60), and B-52 (76).
Question. Are we currently meeting that requirement, including the
``full capability'' aspect of that requirement?
Answer. Yes, the Air Force is pursuing a time-phased modernization
program that will eventually achieve full capability for our 157
bombers by 2015. The objective of the modernization program is to
improve lethality, survivability, supportability, and responsiveness,
all of which are necessary for the bomber force to achieve the desired
``full capability.''
Question. Is the Strike Aircraft White Paper of November, 2001,
considered by the Air Force to be the bomber roadmap for the future?
Answer. No, as stated in the Long-Range Strike Aircraft White
Paper, the document is not the bomber roadmap. The White Paper
articulates long-range bomber force structure plans, modernization,
capabilities, concept of operations, and replacement timeline. The
document is a ``snapshot'' in time and is designed to reflect strategic
guidance and fiscal plans; therefore, changes in the threat
environment, advances in weapon technology, unforeseen increases in
aircraft attrition, or any number of other variables could drive a
modification, addition, or complete re-write. The Air Force's bomber
roadmap is now in development at Headquarters, Air Combat Command.
Question. How often is the Strike Aircraft White Paper reevaluated?
When will it be reevaluated again?
Answer: The document is a ``snapshot'' in time and is designed to
reflect strategic guidance and fiscal plans. The first Strike Aircraft
White Paper was completed in March 1999 and updated in November 2001.
The Air Force is currently evaluating guidance and plans to determine
if an update is needed.
Question. Please provide for the record a copy of the November,
2001, Strike Aircraft White Paper?
Answer. The Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Air Force
(Financial Management & Comptroller), Congressional Liaison, has
provided a copy to the House Appropriations Committtee, Subcommittee on
Defense.
B-1B Defensive Systems Upgrade Program
Question. In a letter to the Committee in December the Air Force
notified that it was canceling the Defensive Systems Upgrade Program
(DSUP) due to persistent cost overruns and mission failures.
What are the estimated termination costs of the DSUP program in
FY03?
Answer: As noted in the ``Report to Congress on B-1 Defensive
System Upgrade Program (DSUP),'' DSUP termination costs could be as
high as $90 million. That amount includes government costs to modify
two fleet aircraft to replace the two test aircraft currently
configured with Block F DSUP, test infrastructure previously shared
between B-1 Block E and Block F and Boeing allowable termination costs.
The Boeing share of the termination costs will not be finalized until
the final contract termination resolution, expected before February
2004. At this time, the Air Force plans on using $82 million of fiscal
year 2003 DSUP RDT&E funding to cover anticipated DSUP termination
costs.
B-2 Bomber Modifications
Question. The FY04 request includes $76.4 million for additional
upgrades to the B-2. The primary modifications in the request are the
MK82 JDAM/Smart Bomb Rack Assembly, Link 16/Center Instrument Display/
In-flight Replanner, and Low Observable improvements.
What is the status of the MK82 JDAM/Smart Bomb Rack Assembly
modernization program for the B-2?
Answer. The B-2 Smart Bomb Rack (SBRA)/Joint Direct Attack Munition
(JDAM)-82 integration program is proceeding on schedule. Testing at
Edwards AFB began in February 2003. The test period began with a full
range of ground testing, which was successful. Flight testing started
shortly thereafter. Both captive carry and separation tests have been
conducted to date. Communications between the aircraft and the weapons
have been successful. The first separation test was conducted on 5
March 2003, and, as planned, sixteen inert, unguided JDAM-82s were
successfully released. Analysis of the mission data is currently
underway. The next mission is scheduled for 23 April 2003 and flight
testing is projected to complete by 10 September 2003.
The production portion of the SBRA program is also on schedule. The
baseline contract effort to modify the first bomb racks for use by the
509th at Whiteman AFB may be awarded in early April. This award will
insure sufficient SBRA assets are available to meet the RAA (Required
Assets Available) requirements of four shipsets by November 2004.
Question. Can you please define for the Committee the increased
weapon delivery capability that the smart bomb rack assemblies will
bring to the plane in terms of current capability per type of munition,
and what the capability will be once the racks are installed.
Answer. Presently, the B-2 can strike up to 16 individual targets
with the GBU-31 (2000lb class weapon). The weapons are carried on a
rotary launch assembly (RLA). The B-2 can carry eight weapons per RLA
and with two weapons bays can carry a total of 16 weapons.
The addition of Mk 82 JDAM (GBU-38)/Smart Bomb Rack Assembly allows
the B-2 the ability to carry up to 80 GBU-38 weapons. This allows the
B-2 the capability to individually strike up to 80 targets in one
sortie. The GBU-38 is a 500lb class weapon that can, in certain
instances, strike targets where collateral damage concerns prohibit the
use of a 2000lb weapon such as the GBU-31.
Question. When does the Air Force anticipate it will begin
modifications to integrate the Small Diameter Bomb into the B-2's
weapons capability?
Answer. The fielding of the MK-82 JDAM with the SBRA in fiscal year
2004 will dramatically increase B-2's payload from 16 JDAMs to 80
JDAMs. Because of this huge leap in capability in delivering 500lb.
near precision weapons, there is no funding in the Future Years Defense
Plan for Small Diameter Bomb (SDB) integration on the B-2. When the
SDB's development is complete, opportunities for integration on the B-2
platform will be assessed by the Air Force.
Question. What increased weapon delivery capability would the Small
Diameter Bomb bring to the plane in terms of bombs per sortie?
Answer. Given the capability provided by MK-82 JDAM (fiscal year
2004 for B-2 integration), the Air Force has chosen not to integrate
the Small Diameter Bomb (SDB) on the B-2 at this time. However,
analysis shows the B-2 could carry sixty-four 250lb. weapons (SDBs)
loaded on the B-2 Rotary Launcher Assembly (RLA) or 80 on the SBRA.
Question. EHF SATCOM upgrades begin in FY 2005 as compared to last
year's request, which had the modification beginning in FY 2007. What
is the reason for the acceleration and how was the significant program
savings achieved?
Answer. Changes in the EHF SATCOM program between the fiscal year
2003 and fiscal year 2004 President's Budget submissions did not result
in schedule acceleration or cost savings. In the fiscal year 2003
President's Budget, EHF SATCOM upgrades were scheduled to begin in
fiscal year 2005. Due to higher Air Force priorities, funds were
reduced in the fiscal year 2004 President's Budget, resulting in the
procurement start date slipping from fiscal year 2005 to fiscal year
2007. These funding cuts and the program delay of two years resulted in
a slight decrease in funding over the FYDP (fiscal year 2003-fiscal
year 2009).
Question. Please explain for the Committee the savings identified
in the Radar System Modification program. The FY 2004 budget indicates
the program has been accelerated to begin in FY 2006 instead of FY 2007
as proposed last year. The total program cost has been reduced from
$1.271 billion to $500 million.
Answer. The B-2 Radar program was mid-way through a trade study
when the fiscal year 2003 President's Budget was submitted. Although
the trade study examined a range of options, the fiscal year 2003
President's Budget was based on an estimate that included $.65 billion
in Research, Development, Test and Evaluation (RDT&E) and $1.27 billion
in aircraft procurement for a total cost of $1.92 billion (fiscal year
2003-fiscal year 2009). Program start would begin in fiscal year 2003
and procurement would begin in fiscal year 2007. As the Air Force
worked through the trade study, it was determined that the requirement
could be met with a less expensive option, which was submitted in the
fiscal year 2004 President's Budget request. The option in the fiscal
year 2004 President's Budget was phased differently and included a
budget of $.77 billion in RDT&E and $.5 billion in aircraft procurement
for a total cost of $1.27 billion (fiscal year 2003-fiscal year 2009).
Procurement would start one year earlier in fiscal year 2006.
B-2 Exhaust Cracks
Question. Last year the Committee expressed concern about the
reappearance of surface material cracks aft of the engines. Are you
continuing to see this cracking?
Answer. Cracks are continuing to appear aft of the engines on the
aft deck. As of 13 March 2003, all aircraft except two have cracks and
the remaining two are expected to eventually experience cracking as
well. Although these cracks do not pose a safety-off-light concern,
they will propagate to a point where they impact Low Observable (LO)
characteristics. The majority of the cracks are within acceptable
limits at this time; it is anticipated that they will eventually grow
to a point where repairs are required. Depending on the rate of
continued cracking and crack growth, there is the possibility of a
serious impact on mission capability.
Question. Is there anything more you know about the cause of these
cracks and have they affected the aircraft's performance in any
measurable way?
Answer. The root cause of aft deck cracking has not been
determined. A team of government and industry experts has been
assembled to help monitor the crack growth, conduct tests, and develop
a system engineering approach to conclusively determine the failure
mechanism. On 25 March 2003, a contractor team started work, using
fiscal year 2003 funding, to complete the structural root cause
analysis. The results of that investigation will help to derive viable
short- and long-term solutions.
Aft deck cracks have affected the Low Observable (LO) performance
on two aircraft. External patches have been installed temporarily on
these two aircraft to contain excessive cracking. The patches are
considered temporary, since they do not maintain the desired LO
performance.
Question. Have you determined a fix for this problem?
Answer. At this time, no permanent fix has been determined for this
problem. The Air Force has developed an interim solution for aircraft
with limited cracking that will maintain the desired Low Observable
(LO) performance. In addition, the Air Force is pursuing an interim
repair for seriously cracked aft decks that will also maintain LO
performance. The root cause analysis will help determine the way ahead
for a permanent solution.
Question. Is there anything in the request to address this problem?
Answer. Our government and industry team is using the available
fiscal year 2003 funding to complete structural root cause analysis
scheduled to be completed by September 2004. There is currently no
funding budgeted for this problem beyond the fiscal year 2003
appropriation.
B-52 Stand-Off Jamming Platform
Question. The Air Force plans to use B-52s as an Airborne
Electronic Attack platform by developing a pod capable of covering
early warning and ground control intercept radars with particular
attention to radars feeding advanced long range SAMs. The Situational
Awareness Defensive Initiative (SADI), which is the follow on to the B-
52s current early warning and jamming capability, is being rebaselined
in FY 2004 to include this new initiative.
Why is the B-52 the best platform for this mission? Why not use a
767 or other aircraft?
Answer. The B-52 is the best platform for this mission since it is
available and will be in service until 2040, can perform the electronic
attack mission in conjunction with the attack missions it currently
performs, has high electrical generating capability, and has the long
range and loiter characteristics necessitated by the stand-off jamming
role. Use of a 767 or similar aircraft as a stand-off jamming platform
is not as advantageous because of the additional costs to acquire the
aircraft and to operate and maintain an additional fleet of single
mission aircraft. The OSD sponsored Airborne Electronic Attack (AEA)
Analysis of Alternatives (AoA) study concluded, to be survivable in an
anti-access threat environment, the services needed both stand-in and
stand-off jamming capability. To be effective at the longer ranges
posed by these threats, stand-off jamming requires a large amount of
Effective Radiated Power (ERP). The B-52 can generate the necessary
electrical power to power a high ERP jamming pod while maintaining its
weapons carriage capability. In addition, the B-52 platform provides
both the range and persistence necessary to support other assets within
the Global Strike Task Force.
Question. How would a standoff jamming capability affect the
current weapons employment capability?
Answer. B-52 weapons employment capabilities will not be impacted.
The B-52 maintains its existing vast combat capabilities, delivering
Conventional Air Launched Cruise Missile, Joint Air to Surface Standoff
Missile, Joint Direct Attack Missile, Joint Stand Off Weapon, Wind-
Corrected Munitions Dispenser, and the Miniature Air Launched Decoy
weapons, while performing as a stand-off jammer simultaneously.
Question. What requirement/capability changes are being made to the
B-52 stand off jamming mission?
Answer. The B-52 has an ALR-20A panoramic receiver that due to
serviceability issues needs replacing. An existing requirement to
replace the ALR-20A with the Situational Awareness Defensive
Improvement (SADI) has been modified to incorporate enhanced
capabilities to control the jamming pod. The jamming pods will be
composed of electronically steerable arrays and will replace the
external fuel tanks on the B-52.
Question. Funding provided in FY 2003 is to carry the program
through FY 2004. What efforts will this $22.4 million be used for over
this two year period?
Answer. The $22.4 million will be used for risk reduction efforts
and trade study analysis to define the new program cost and schedule
and aid in final source selection of the new Situational Awareness
Defensive Initiative architecture.
F-16 Aircraft Procurement Cancellations
Question. In the FY 2003 request, the Air Force had proposed to
begin purchase of an additional 6 aircraft in FY 2004 and 6 aircraft in
FY 2005 at a total cost of $459 million. The FY 2004 budget deletes the
request for any additional aircraft and realigns $63.7 million of the
proposed funding to F-16 modifications for a net savings of $395
million.
What is the Air Force's argument for deleting funding for the
additional aircraft as proposed in the FY 2003 request?
Answer. The Air Force determined that it would be more cost
effective to invest the funds originally to be used to procure the
remaining (12) F-16 Block 50s into programs that will upgrade the F-16
Block 40 to a similar capability as the F-16 Block 50. To accomplish
this, funds were placed into Common Configuration Implementation
Program, Falcon STAR (Structural Augmentation Roadmap), and High Speed
AntiRadiation Missile (HARM) Targeting Systems R7.
Question. What drove the increased unit flyaway costs above what
was anticipated when the FY 2003 budget was submitted?
Answer. The increase in unit flyaway costs was driven by higher
than anticipated funding requirements for the APG-68 radar (required to
match USAF fielded version) and escalation of diminishing manufacture
source costs (parts obsolescence).
Question. While funds made available from the deletion of the
additional aircraft have been reinvested in aircraft improvements, this
amounts to only $63.7 million above what was anticipated when the 2003
request came to Congress. What higher priority programs are being
funded with the remaining $395 million in savings?
Answer. The Air Force reinvested $103.8 million into F-16
modifications for the Common Configuration Implementation Program,
Falcon STAR structural augmentation program, and HARM Targeting System.
Examples of other programs the remaining ``savings,'' were invested
into are B-2 Ultrahigh frequency satellite communications, F-117
expanded data transfer system, contract logistics support for F-16/HH-
60, and munitions programs.
Question. How can the capability gained from these modifications
outweigh the loss of 12 operational Block 50 aircraft?
Answer. By reprogramming a portion of the funds, funding
disconnects in the top three F-16 modernization/structural programs are
eliminated. This action funds dramatic improvements in the operational
capability of our F-16 Block 40/50 fleet, approximately 650 jets. These
three programs are: (1) High-Speed Anti-Radiation Missile (HARM)
Targeting System Revision #7; resulting in suppression of enemy air
defenses (SEAD) improvements; (2) Common Configuration Implementation
Plan--provides a near-peer capability for all Block 40/50 aircraft
giving these aircraft flexibility to perform all multirole missions
(Precision Attack, SEAD/Destruction of Enemy Air Defenses (DEAD), Air
Superiority), not just one or two specialized missions; and (3) Falcon
Star, a structural modification program that insures all F-16s
(including the early Block 25s and 30s) can reach their design life of
8,000 flight hours. The elimination of 12 jets in order to fund these
programs is prudent.
Question. Will Foreign Military Sales sustain the line?
Answer. Yes. The line is virtually only producing aircraft for
Foreign Military Sales (FMS) customers (with the exception of one
United States Air Force F-16 from the fiscal year 2001 budget slated
for production in December 2004). We expect a Letter of Offer and
Acceptance from Poland with the month for approximately 48 aircraft,
the production line is scheduled to make 349 aircraft--348 for foreign
customers and one for the United States Air Force. This will keep the
production line open until December 2008.
Question. What Foreign Military Sales do we have?
Answer. As of Wednesday, 19 March 2003, foreign customers have
ordered a total of 2113 F-16s. 1814 have been built, with 299 remaining
to be produced.
F/A-22 Raptor Avionics Problems
Question. Initial Operational Test and Evaluation is presently
scheduled for August of 2003. The greatest risks to certification of F/
A-22 for IOT&E have been identified as avionics test progress, software
development, flight envelope expansion, and test aircraft
configuration.
Instabilities and problems with the Electronic Warfare (EW) and
Communications, Navigation, and Identification (CNI) subsystems have
seriously delayed the progress of the avionics flight test program.
The F-22 avionics recently demonstrated a 90-percent start up and
8.8-hour run time in the avionics lab. However, when transferred to the
aircraft, avionics only achieved a 1-hour run time before system crash.
The Air Force has newly activated a second Avionics Integration Lab in
Marietta to address avionics instability issues. In addition, OSD
convened an independent Avionics Red Team to assess avionics
development and status.
What were the findings and recommendations of the Red Team?
Answer. Their findings reflected that systems engineering processes
lacked the rigor necessary to meet the schedule constraints. The Red
Team recommendations center on implementation of new software
development tools and data capturing methods for finding and fixing the
root causes of instability events. The team went on to state that,
after we implement these new tools, there is no reason we can't resolve
the stability issue. They agreed the architecture appears sound and the
stability issues are normal for a system of this complexity.
Question. What has the Air Force done to implement Red Team
recommendations?
Answer. We are implementing the Red Team's recommendations to
strengthen the key systems engineering processes to better understand
and correct stability related issues. By the end of June, the
recommended data collection tools will be fully implemented to allow
identification and correction of the software instability root causes.
Adding functionality is on hold until the software is stabilized.
Improvements to the current version are being implemented in smaller
increments to better isolate and assess stability progress.
Question. Has the program been able to identify why the avionics
has such greater stability in the Avionics Integration Lab verses on
the aircraft itself?
Answer. Run time stability differences are attributable to
differences between lab and aircraft configurations, to include cable
lengths, number of apertures, environment, and hardware. The Avionics
Integration Lab is being changed to better replicate the aircraft. For
example, the lab changed the power-on sequencing so as to replicate
aircraft. Additionally, the lab now employs more extensive
communications to simulate an aircraft under testing conditions. The
Program Office has identified several differences between the lab and
the aircraft and these differences have been corrected.
Question. Mr. Secretary, in your opinion, will a stable,
operationally effective, and suitable F/A-22 avionics suite be
delivered for the August scheduled Initial Operational Test and
Evaluation?
Answer. The program remains event-driven. We will not begin
Dedicated Initial Operational Test and Evaluation (DIOT&E) until we
have delivered a stable, effective, and suitable avionics software
suite. As such, DIOT&E is currently estimated to start in October 2003.
Question. If a stable, operationally effective, and suitable F/A-22
avionics suite cannot be achieved prior to the scheduled IOT&E, will
the Air Force still proceed with IOT&E?
Answer. No. Dedicated Initial Operational Test and Evaluation
(DIOT&E) start is an event-driven milestone--we will not begin DIOT&E
until we are ready to succeed. Based on remaining development work, we
are estimating a DIOT&E start date of October 2003. This provides 60
days (from previous start date of August 2003) to implement aircraft
and laboratory changes necessary to achieve software stability.
Question. What is the standard the program is trying to achieve to
qualify as a stable, operationally effective, and suitable F/A-22
avionics suite?
Answer. The F/A-22 program objective for runtime stability and
start-up performance at the start of Dedicated Initial Operational Test
and Evaluation are 20 hours and near 100 percent, respectively.
F/A-22 Attack Role's Effects on Avionics Problems
Question. Underlying the avionics challenges is a problem in how
the Air Force implemented their software development efforts. The
proper approach requires ensuring that all the bugs are worked out of
the software that provides a basic level of capability before adding
the next level of capability. Instead the Air Force continued to add
new software modules, which introduced new bugs before the old ones
were solved.
Mr. Secretary, at what point in the development of the Raptor was
the decision made to add an attack capability?
Answer. The requirements of the attack capability has been inherent
in the aircraft since 1993 Program Management Directive added the Joint
Direct Attack Munition capability to the development program and the
Operational Requirement Document was updated in 1996 to reflect the
multi-role capability of the aircraft. In September 2002, the Chief of
Staff of the Air Force and I announced the re-designation of the F-22
as the F/A-22. This was done in part to re-emphasize and remind members
of the defense community of the inherent air-to-ground capabilities in
the current design and the improved strike capability to be realized
through planned spiral modernization.
Question. Did the decision to add the attack mission to the
Raptor's capability affect the avionics development and in any way
contribute to the instability of the software?
Answer. No. Neither current nor future F/A-22 air-to-ground
capabilities are in any way related to the current avionics
instabilities being seen in flight test. The Joint Direct Attack
Munition (JDAM) software module has not yet been integrated into the F/
A-22 avionics software. Future air-to-ground capabilities (beyond
JDAM), as captured in the F/A-22 Spiral Modernization Roadmap, are also
not part of the current software loads nor contributors to avionics
instabilities.
F/A-22 Raptor EMD Cost Growth
Question. The Air Force has identified $876 million in cost growth
in the Engineering and Manufacturing Development (EMD) funding for the
F-22 program (FY03-06). To cover these additional costs, the Air Force
is delaying modernizations in the aircrafts capabilities and reducing
the number of aircraft procured in Lot 3 from 23 to 20, and in Lot 4
from 27 to 22.
Mr. Secretary, you were recently quoted in Defense Daily as saying
``We are now at a point where we are cutting down on the cost curve''
on the F/A-22. What developments have occurred or what data have you
seen which would lead you to make this statement?
Answer. The aircraft cost is decreasing. The Lot 3 aircraft costs
are 11 percent less than Lot 2, and 46 percent less than the initial
production lot. Continued program stability will enable supplier
confidence and is critical to future cost reductions. Supplier
confidence leads to increased supplier investments, reduced production
costs, and ultimately, maximized production quantity under the ``buy-
to-budget'' acquisition strategy.
Question. In fact, haven't the actual costs been consistently
higher than the Air Force estimate?
Answer. No, actual production costs have not been consistently
higher than the Air Force estimates since 2001. The Air Force uses a
Target Price Curve (TPC) agreement to incentivize Lockheed-Martin and
Pratt & Whitney to meet cost goals for the airframe and engine,
respectively. The TPC agreement has, until Lot 3, been an effective
tool for estimating actual costs. All lot buys from Production
Representative Test Vehicle (PRTV) I through Lot 2 have met their TPC
goals. The most recent lot placed on contract, Lot 3 (fiscal year 2003
funds), is the first lot of aircraft that did not meet its TPC goal.
However, the Lot 3 unit costs are still less than Lot 2. The higher-
than-expected Lot 3 cost affects the cost curve for the remaining lots.
These effects, however, are already included in the latest buy estimate
of 276 total aircraft. Still, it is important to note that unit costs
are consistently decreasing with each successive lot, to include Lot 3.
Question. What planned modernizations will be delayed due to the
reprogramming of these funds to cover the overrun?
Answer. Candidate capabilities that have been delayed include air-
to-ground radar modes, Link 16 transmit, helmet-mounted cueing system,
and Small Diameter Bomb integration.
Question. If we had the F/A-22 today, what could it do in
Afghanistan and Iraq that we couldn't otherwise already do?
Answer. In Iraq, our forces had the luxury of 12 years of no-fly
zone operations to degrade and destroy their integrated air defenses
and pave the way for quick entry of coalition ground forces if
required. A stealthy F/A-22 fleet would allow the same capability
against adversaries with more advanced air defenses.
F/A-22 GAO Report Supports Reducing Production Rate
Question. The GAO issued a report on March 14th citing numerous
problems with the test aircraft, concluding that the F/A-22 program has
not met key performance, schedule, and cost goals, and recommending
that the annual production rate not exceed 16 aircraft until
operational testing is complete (scheduled for July, 2004).
Mr. Secretary, General Jumper, could you please give us your
response to the criticisms raised by the GAO report, and their
recommendation to slow the production rate?
Answer. The Air Force strongly disagrees with the GAO
recommendation to slow the production rate. The GAO's rationale is that
the Air Force should limit annual production at 16 aircraft until the
need for future modifications can be determined. In fact, in December
of 2002, the Department of Defense certified to Congress that savings
afforded by procuring greater than the 16 aircraft far exceeds
potential retrofit costs. Flight, fatigue, and static test activity
have been extremely successful and do not indicate the need for any
further structural updates. The F/A-22 is already meeting or exceeding
all key aircraft performance parameters.
The GAO report also neglects to examine the subsequent impacts of
their recommendations. Slowing the production rate will lead to
increased program costs as supplier confidence decreases, ramp rates
fail to achieve maximum efficiency, learning curve projections fall
short of expectations and inflation is allowed to factor further into
the equation. In addition, slowing production delays delivering the F/
A-22's revolutionary capabilities into the hands of the warfighter.
Question. Is the vertical fin buffeting solution under test or has
it been incorporated into the manufacturing line? What is the
associated cost?
Answer. The F/A-22 fin buffet solution has been validated and fully
flight-tested for altitudes above 10,000 feet. The actual solution
requires minor retrofits for Lot 1 and prior aircraft. The cost to
retrofit all affected aircraft is $2 million. For Lots 2 and beyond,
the fixes are already incorporated in the manufacturing line. Flight
test of the fin buffet solution for the flight envelope below 10,000
feet is scheduled to begin in May 2003, as part of the already
scheduled envelope testing for that flight region. However, it is
important to note that our analysis for the region below 10,000 feet
predicts no further modifications will be needed.
Question. What modifications have been made to address the higher
than predicted aft fuselage temperatures and thermal management system
deficiencies? Are these modifications under testing or have they been
incorporated into the production line?
Answer. To mitigate the high temperatures, we've developed and
demonstrated the following modifications: addition of thermal blankets
to protect specific high temperature areas, replacement of the most aft
internal vertical frame with Titanium and insertion of copper shims
between a specific Titanium-Titanium interface. Formal qualification
testing is also already underway. These modifications have been
completed on the aircraft that will conduct Dedicated Initial
Operational Test and Evaluation (DIOT&E). Production Representative
Test Vehicle II through Lot 2 jets will be retrofitted after they are
delivered. Finally, for Lot 3 and beyond, these modifications have
already been incorporated into the production baseline.
Question. Has the horizontal tail redesign been incorporated into
the production line? What is the estimated cost of the horizontal tail
redesign? Will aircraft continue to be delivered while a redesign is
occurring? Will you retrofit previously delivered aircraft with the new
tail?
Answer. Yes, the horizontal tail redesign is now part of the Lot 3
and beyond production baseline. We redesigned the horizontal tail as a
Producibility Improvement Project (PIP). The redesign cost is about
$15.7 million, but because the redesign is a PIP, it will result in a
total production savings of $183 million (return multiple of 11.6). It
is important to note that the existing tails are fully capable through
periodic in-service inspections throughout their service life. Hence,
there is no plan to retrofit previously delivered aircraft.
Lack of F/A-22 Integrated Diagnostics for Maintenance at IOT&E
Question. Development and integration of fully integrated
diagnostics has slipped to a software block that delivers after the Air
Force's planned start of IOT&E. Without integrated diagnostics,
maintenance carried out in accordance with the current F/A-22
maintenance concept will not be possible and contractor logistic
support, to include special test equipment and personnel, will be
required.
Mr. Secretary, will fully integrated diagnostics be delivered in
time for IOT&E?
Answer. No. The maintenance concept for Initial Operational Test
and Evaluation (IOT&E) does not require fully integrated aircraft
Diagnostic & Health Management (DHM) software. The program is therefore
not planning to deliver the full capability for the start of IOT&E. The
IOT&E maintenance concept and the corresponding required DHM
functionality to fulfill that concept have been approved by both the
Air Force Operational Test and Evaluation Center (AFOTEC) and Air
Combat Command. IOT&E is event based--testing will not start until the
agreed-to set of DHM functionality is complete. Full DHM functionality
will be tested as part of Follow-On Test and Evaluation.
Question. If not, do you anticipate contractor logistic support and
special test equipment and personnel will be required?
Answer. Yes. The approved Initial Operational Test and Evaluation
(IOT&E) maintenance concept includes the use of field service
representatives and special test equipment (STE) to mitigate increased
aircraft turn-around times. As mentioned, the full DHM functionality to
be delivered and tested during Field Operational Testing and Evaluation
will eliminate the use of field service representatives and STE.
Question. Will this increase costs in the testing program?
Answer. Yes. The requirement for the use of special test equipment
(STE) will drive minimal additional labor costs resulting from the need
to have sustained contractor support for STE operations and
maintenance. No additional STE will be procured, as testing will use
the F/A-22's initial inventory of STE. These costs are included in the
latest Engineering and Manufacturing Development (EMD) cost estimate
and are fully funded.
F/A-22 Envelope and Flight Monitoring
Question. All F/A-22 test aircraft today have multiple operation
limitations. All are monitored during flight for unacceptable loads/
stresses. Missions have been terminated early as a result of exceeding
monitored load and/or temperature limits. IOT&E requires both an
adequate flight envelope and can not occur if this monitoring is
required.
Is the GAO report correct in stating that to prevent heat buildup
during flight testing, the aircraft is restricted to flying just over
500 miles per hour, about the same speed as a modern jet liner, and
that with heat sensors in the rear portion of the aircraft, it slows
down whenever the temperature approaches a certain level?
Answer. The GAO report is correct for the nine Engineering &
Manufacturing Development (EMD) airframes only. Three of the EMD
aircraft will support Initial Operational Test and Evaluation (IOT&E)
and have already been modified to mitigate heat build-up. The remaining
aircraft will be modified upon delivery or on the production line.
Production Representative Test Vehicles through Lot 2 aircraft will be
modified upon delivery. Lot 3 and beyond aircraft will have the
modifications as part of the production line. These aircraft will have
no airspeed envelope restrictions.
Question. Mr. Secretary, in your opinion, will the F/A-22 be able
to achieve an adequate flight envelope and unmonitored flight clearance
in time for the scheduled IOT&E?
Answer. Yes. Based on the current test point burn rate, F/A-22 will
achieve an adequate flight envelope and unmonitored flight clearance in
time for Initial Operational Test and Evaluation (IOT&E). The current
plan will clear the envelope by August 2003 in time to meet the
currently projected IOT&E start date of October 2003. It is important
to note that entry into IOT&E is event-driven. One of the criteria for
starting operational testing is having the required flight envelope
available.
Question. What is the standard the program is trying to achieve to
qualify as an adequate flight envelope and unmonitored flight
clearance?
Answer. The Air Force is currently expanding the F/A-22 flight
envelope through the flight sciences test program at Edwards AFB.
Aircraft #4002 and #4003 are instrumented test vehicles that are
capable of monitoring air loads across all the flight control surfaces
for establishing and clearing structural limits as well as validating
computer performance models. Initial Operational Test and Evaluation
(IOT&E) will begin with non-instrumented aircraft after #4002 and #4003
have cleared the 9G symmetric and 7.2G asymmetric envelope above 10,000
ft. Recently, the Air Force Operational Test and Evaluation Center
(AFOTEC) added an envelope requirement below 10,000 ft for IOT&E. Based
on the current burn down rate, this expanded envelope will be cleared
by IOT&E start. This standard has been agreed to by the AFOTEC, as well
as DoD Director of Operational Test and Evaluation (DOT&E) as being
production representative.
Lack of Many F/A-22 Operational Capabilities
Question. Significant operational capability is being deferred
until after the start of IOT&E and completion of EMD. Deferred testing
includes ferry configuration, external stores, and JDAM carriage
release, full gun employment envelope, full use of speed brake
function, and numerous system specification compliance test points.
Deferred mission avionics capabilities include JDAM employment, AIM-9X
integration, helmet mounted cueing system integration, and Joint
Tactical Information Distribution System transmit capability.
With so much operational capability being deferred until after the
start of IOT&E and completion of EMD, do we not run the serious risk of
testing aircraft that are not combat representative?
Answer. The Initial Operational Test & Evaluation (IOT&E) aircraft
will be combat representative and will closely match the Initial
Operational Capability (IOC) configuration with few exceptions. We do
not intend to test an aircraft that is not combat representative. The
F/A-22 was designed with four revolutionary capabilities: stealth,
supercruise, advanced maneuverability, and integrated avionics that
will be extensively tested during IOT&E. The only significant EMD-
deferred operational capability not planned for IOT&E is Joint Direct
Attack Munition employment. This along with other minor deferred
capabilities will be tested in Follow-On Test & Evaluation (FOT&E)
prior to IOC.
Question. Do we not face a high risk of increased program costs if
we run into significant obstacles in fully incorporating their
capabilities?
Answer. Yes, increased program costs could result if unexpected
significant obstacles are encountered as future capabilities are
developed and integrated on the F/A-22. However, the program is
confident that it has the right approach to manage technical and cost
issues that minimize the risk associated with future capability
integration.
Conventional Warhead Intercontinental Ballistic Missile
Question. The Pentagon and Air Force are considering converting
some of the long-range, ground-based nuclear missiles into nonnuclear
rockets that could be used to strike states like Iraq and North Korea
on short notice. The Air Force Space Command in Colorado Springs will
begin formally exploring the idea of converting some Minuteman III
missiles this fall in a two-year analysis of alternatives.
At what level in the Air Force organization is consideration being
given to converting long-range, ground-based nuclear missiles into
conventional rockets?
Answer. Let me first respond to your statement. I believe some
clarification may be necessary. The Conventional Ballistic Missile
(CBM) concept differs from others that currently have funding
programmed in the Future Years Defense Plan (FYDP). In fiscal year
2004, Air Force Space Command (AFSPC) will begin formal analyses of two
potential programs that are separate and distinct from the CBM concept
referenced above: Per Nuclear Posture Review (NPR) direction, AFSPC
will start a two-year Analysis of Alternatives (AoA) for the Land-Based
Strategic Nuclear Deterrent, a potential follow-on system to begin
replacing the aging Minuteman III force by 2018. A significant life
extension effort is now underway for the Minuteman III force, designed
to ensure system viability through 2020.
In addition, AFSPC will begin to analyze options for providing a
prompt conventional global strike capability, by means of a Common Aero
Vehicle. While the method for delivering such a system is not yet
determined, options may include an ICBM like boost vehicle. This CBM
concept has been discussed at AFSPC and the Air Staff. It is only one
of several possible alternatives being examined to meet the NPR goal of
enhancing our deterrent posture with a mix of conventional and nuclear
advanced concepts to provide the widest possible range of options for
our nation's leaders. These internal discussions simply allow us to
weigh alternatives and in no way represent a decision to design,
produce or deploy a CBM. In short, there is no developmental CBM effort
underway, nor is one programmed in the current FYDP.
Question. With regard to the consideration being given to putting a
conventional warhead on an ICBM, how is the Air Force addressing the
concerns that our adversaries, regardless of whether it is a
conventional warhead, could portray any launch of an ICBM as a nuclear
first strike?
Answer. In order for an adversary to have the potential to portray
the launch of a conventionally tipped ICBM as a nuclear strike, they
would need to have early warning sensors capable of detecting the
launch of an attack. Only Russia has such a capability and we do not
consider them to be an enemy, though they are not a traditional ally. A
series of agreements are in place to reduce the risk of
misunderstanding: The 1988 Ballistic Missile Launch Notification
Agreement and the 2000 Pre-and Post-Launch Notification Agreement call
for advance notice of ICBM launches. In addition, the 2000 Shared Early
Warning Agreement provides for sharing of information derived from
early warning sensors. The latter two agreements have been signed but
have not yet been implemented. Finally, the 1971 Accidents Measures
Agreement calls for notifications in connection with events that have
the potential to create the risk of nuclear war, including certain
launches and ambiguous incidents involving detection of objects from
early warning sensors. This information sharing regime provides
satisfactory protection against the risk of misunderstanding while
simultaneously preserving the operational security necessary for system
effectiveness.
Question. What funds are included in the FY2004 President's Budget
in support of this analysis?
Answer. There is currently no funding programmed specifically for
Conventional Ballistic Missile.
Question. Will the analysis of alternatives include any research or
development efforts?
Answer. As stated previously, there is currently no funded analysis
for the Conventional Ballistic Missile (CBM) concept. This has simply
been an internal discussion to allow us to weigh alternatives. In no
way does this represent a decision to design, produce or deploy a CBM.
Question. How would such a conversion of missiles affect current
treaties in force?
Answer. Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles (ICBMs), including the
Minuteman III, are currently subject to the Strategic Arms Reduction
Treaty (START). START does not distinguish between nuclear and
conventional warheads. Therefore, deploying a conventional warhead on
an ICBM would have no effect on the United States' ability to continue
to comply with START.
Question. This proposal has been considered by the Defense
Department before. What were the results of any prior consideration and
what information does the Department have as a result?
Answer. A Conventional Ballistic Missile Advanced Concept
Technology Demonstration was funded by Congressional adds in fiscal
year 1997, 1998, and 1999. Concept and design work for a high-speed
precision penetrator front end, to be tested on an excess Minuteman II
booster, proceeded through critical design review. However, DoD
terminated the effort due to lack of firm requirements and absence of
programmed funding to continue the effort beyond fiscal year 1999.
Residual fiscal year 1999 funds were applied to other projects
following consultation with Congressional committees.
Low-Yield Nuclear Weapons
Question. The Air Force is pursuing legislative relief from a 1994
Defense Authorization Act prohibition against doing any research and
development that could lead to production of low-yield nuclear weapons.
The Air Force has a research program approved last year and run by
STRATCOM for a ``robust deep earth penetrator''. STRATCOM has requested
proposals to begin R&D on the target analysis system.
Mr. Secretary, is there any conflict between the 1994 National
Defense Authorization Act's prohibition against any R&D which could
lead to production of a low-yield nuclear weapon, and the Air Force's
``robust deep earth penetrator'' program?
Answer. We do not have a ``robust deep earth penetrator'' program.
However, we are considering developing a Robust Nuclear Earth
Penetrator (RNEP). It is our view that development of the RNEP does not
conflict with the 1994 National Defense Authorization Act's prohibition
against any research and development that could lead to the production
of a new low-yield nuclear weapon. RNEP, if approved for production,
would involve modifying an existing weapon to enhance its penetration
capability and providing an external guidance package to improve
accuracy.
Question. If this prohibition were lifted, is this the direction
you would take this program in?
Answer. The prohibition contained in the 1994 National Defense
Authorization Act does not apply to the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator
(RNEP). The RNEP program will proceed independent of any relief from
the 1994 National Defense Authorization Act. Currently, the Air Force
has no plans to request development of any new nuclear weapons,
including low-yield weapons. However, lifting the present prohibition
would allow us to explore the full range of options that could
strengthen our ability to deter, or respond to, new and emerging
threats. Even if lifted prior Congressional approval and authorization
is still required before full-scale development of any new weapon can
begin.
Question. If the prohibition were lifted, given the current state
of the penetrator program, how long would you estimate it would take to
have a functioning low-yield nuclear weapon capable of holding hard and
deeply buried WMD threats at risk?
Answer. The prohibition contained in the 1994 National Defense
Authorization Act does not apply to the Robust Nuclear Earth Program
(RNEP) and therefore does not impact this effort. Currently, the Air
Force has no plans to develop or deploy a new low-yield nuclear weapon
for holding hard and deeply buried weapons of mass destruction at risk.
Countermeasures for Large Aircraft
Question. What contribution has the Air Force made to the review of
ways to protect commercial aircraft from shoulder fired anti-aircraft
missiles?
Answer. The Air Force has participated in Office of the Secretary
of Defense working groups to define DoD positions on issues raised by
the National Security Council/Office of Homeland Security Task Force on
man portable air defense systems (MANPADS). Additionally, the Air Force
had participants on the ``Red Team'' that assessed the technical
options to address the MANPADS threat to commercial aviation. Further,
the Air Force has conducted its own ``quick look'' study on the MANPADS
threat and Air Force capabilities to defeat the threat.
Question. Please describe for us the system under development for
our large military aircraft like the C-17 and C-130.
Answer. The Air Force's Large Aircraft Infrared Countermeasures
Program (LAIRCM) is in Low Rate Initial Production. It successfully
completed live-fire testing last summer and will begin in-flight
testing 21 April 2003 with first deliveries to Air Mobility Command
beginning on or about 5 May 2003.
LAIRCM is an advanced version of the joint UK/USSOCOM Directed
Infrared Countermeasures Program (DIRCM). Both DIRCM and LAIRCM systems
share common components including: Ultraviolet Missile Warning System,
the System Processing Unit and the turret assemblies. The primary
difference is LAIRCM uses a colorless, eye-safe multiband laser to
counter the incoming missile/s, whereas, the older DIRCM system uses
high intensity lamps for this purpose. System makeup: LAIRCM will
install three turret assemblies on large aircraft (C-17, KC-10, etc.)
and two turrets on the smaller aircraft like the C-130. Here's how the
LAIRCM system functions:
First, when the Missile Warning System detects an incoming infrared
missile, the Processing System and control unit points the laser turret
at the missile, allowing the turret's fine tracker to lock onto the
missile's seeker head. The multiband laser then directs energy onto the
seeker head ``walking'' the missile off the aircraft. The laser does
not damage nor destroy the missile; it just ``spoofs'' the missile's
guidance thus decoying it away from the aircraft. USSOCOM has elected
to upgrade existing DIRCM lamp-based systems to the laser jamming
system because DIRCM's lamps do not have sufficient power to protect
the larger aircraft like C-17, C-5, KC-767, etc.
Question. What would be an estimate of the cost to deploy this
technology on commercial airliners?
Answer. In December 2002, the Air Force asked the Large Aircraft
Infrared Countermeasures (LAIRCM) System Program Office (SPO) to
prepare a cost estimate to protect U.S. commercial aircraft with LAIRCM
equipment. The SPO, in conjunction with Northrop Grumman (LAIRCM's
equipment manufacturer) and Boeing (installs LAIRCM on C-17 aircraft),
came up with an estimated $2 billion total program cost to install
LAIRCM on 775 U.S. commercial airliners (approximately $2.3 million per
aircraft). This cost broke down as follows: $1.8 billion for LAIRCM
equipment and its installation, $100 million for new production
facilities, and $100 million for aircraft nonrecurring engineering
expense (NRE).
NRE is required for each series of aircraft, e.g. B-767, MD-11, B-
747, etc. to determine the optimum location on each series of aircraft
for the 3-5 missile warning sensors and the laser turret(s). This $15-
25 million cost is a one-time expense for each aircraft series.
Since December 2002, Northrop Grumman has refined their proposal to
a LAIRCM-like system and reduced best estimates to approximately $1.9
million per aircraft for a 300 aircraft pilot program installed across
a three-year period (fiscal year 2003-05). The aircraft installation
approach has been further studied, resulting in a single conformal
installation, which reduces the NRE required for each aircraft series,
e.g., B-767, MD-11, B-747. They also have proposed a follow-on program
beginning in fiscal year 2006, installing this LAIRCM-like solution on
1,000 aircraft per year, Northrop has suggested that the unit cost will
further decline to $1 million per aircraft excluding NRE and large
volume production facilitization. Northrop also estimates less than a
one percent increase in cost per flying hour to maintain this LAIRCM
equipment.
Multi-Sensor Command and Control Aircraft (MC2A)
Question. The MC2A program envisions placing AWACS and J-STARS
like radar capabilities aboard a 767 modified aircraft. The plane would
also ultimately have connectivity with space based radar and could
command and control UAVs and UCAVs.
What is the current planned delivery date of the first MC2A test
bed aircraft?
Answer. The MC2A 767-400ER test bed delivery date is calendar year
2010. The test bed will roll off the Boeing commercial aircraft
production line in late calendar year 2005, complete militarization and
airframe modifications in late calendar year 2007, and begin
Development, Test and Evaluation in late calendar year 2008 to deliver
in calendar year 2010.
Question. What is the current planned delivery date of the Multi-
Platform Radar Technology Insertion Program sensors?
Answer. Global Hawk's developmental Multi-Platform Radar Technology
Insertion Program (MP-RTIP) sensor will be delivered in calendar year
2006, the MC2A developmental MP-RTIP sensor will be delivered in
calendar year 2008. These delivery dates are synchronized with the
programs' schedules to meet the warfighter's required capability
delivery dates.
Question. If there is a delay in one how will that effect planning
for the other? Answer: It will cause a commensurate delay to the
overall program. If either the MC2A or Multi-Platform Radar Technology
Insertion Program (MP-RTIP) is delayed, the overall schedule will need
to be resynchronized. MC2A's four acquisition lanes--the 767-400ER test
bed, MP-RTIP sensor, weapons systems integration and Battle Management,
Command and Control (BMC2) efforts must all be synchronized to enable
delivery of the MC2A capability by warfighter's desired 2012 date.
Additionally, a delay in the MP-RTIP program will result in a
commensurate delay in the delivery of the Global Hawk MP-RTIP
capability.
Question. Has there been a delay in the contract award for either
part of this program?
Answer. The MC2A 767-400ER test bed contract award has been delayed
from October 2002 to June 2003 due to fiscal year 2003 congressional
reductions. The MultiPlatform Radar Technology Insertion Program
contract was awarded in December 2000, and modified for the MC2A-sized
radar sensor in September 2002.
[Clerk's note.--End of questions submitted by Mr. Lewis.
The 2003 Annual Report to the Congress by the Secretary of
Defense follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
W I T N E S S E S
----------
Page
Clark, Adm. Vernon............................................... 205
Hagee, Gen. M. W................................................. 205
Johnson, Hon. H. T............................................... 205
Jumper, Gen. J. P................................................ 345
Roche, Hon. J. G................................................. 345
Shinseki, Gen. E. K.............................................. 1
White, Hon. T. E................................................. 1
I N D E X
----------
Fiscal Year 2004 Air Force Posture
Page
Acquisition Process.............................................. 427
Aging Tanker Aircraft............................................ 420
Airborne Laser Program (ABL)..................................... 439
Aircraft, Countermeasures for Large.............................. 478
Air Force Institute of Technology (AFIT)......................... 444
Air Worthiness Board............................................. 448
Annual Report to the President and the Congress by the Secretary
of Defense..................................................... 481
Anti-Terrorism/Force Protection Mission.......................... 457
Boeing 767 Tanker Lease..............................416, 434, 436, 439
Bomber Requirements.............................................. 468
B-1B Defensive Systems Upgrade Program....................... 469
B-2 Bomber Program:
Exhaust Cracks........................................... 470
Global Air Traffic Management (GATM)..................... 422
Modifications............................................ 469
B-52 Standoff Jamming Platform............................... 471
C-5 Aircraft, Future of the...................................... 445
C-17 Request of Only 11 Aircraft................................. 467
Computer Processor............................................... 414
Cruise Missiles.................................................. 451
Life Extension............................................... 432
Proliferation................................................ 415
Depot Maintenance................................................ 459
EB-52 Aircraft................................................... 437
Equipment Operation Costs........................................ 457
Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle (EELV).......................435, 449
F/A-22 Raptor Program.....................................412, 436, 441
Avionics Problems............................................ 472
Attack Role's Effects on Avionics Problems............... 473
Engineering and Manufacturing Development (EMD) Cost Growth.. 474
Envelope and Flight Monitoring............................... 476
General Accounting Office (GAO) Report Supports Reducing
Production Rate............................................ 474
Lack of Integrated Diagnostics for Maintenance at Initial
Operational Test and Evaluation (IOT&E).................... 475
Lack of Many Operational Capabilities........................ 476
Product Improvement.......................................... 422
Program Stability............................................ 429
F-16 Aircraft Procurement Cancellations.......................... 471
Facilities Sustainment, Restoration and Modernization (SRM)...... 458
Foreign Sale of Aircraft......................................... 426
Intercontinental Ballistic Missile (ICBM), Conventional Warhead.. 477
Introduction..................................................... 345
Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)....................................... 418
Weight, Joint Strike Fighter................................. 448
KC-135 Tanker Program:
Brakes....................................................... 425
KC-135 E-Model Tanker Retirement............................. 463
Multi-Sensor Command and Control Aircraft (MC2A)................. 479
Nuclear Detonations, Detection of................................ 451
Nuclear Weapons, Low-Yield....................................... 478
Personnel Issues................................................. 456
Air Force Academy Investigation..................347, 417, 420, 443
Consolidation of the Military Personnel Accounts............. 455
Force in Europe, Rotational.................................. 447
Guard and Reserve Personnel, Use of...................416, 423, 446
Military and Civilian Personnel Jobs......................... 430
Outsourcing Functions Performed by Military Personnel........ 460
Procurement Funding.............................................. 421
Purchase Cards and Travel Cards.................................. 460
Remarks of Mr. Murtha............................................ 346
Remarks of Mr. Young............................................. 346
Satellite Bandwidth for Use on Weapons System.................... 423s
Science and Technology Budget.................................... 445
Spares........................................................... 459
Statement of James G. Roche and General John P. Jumper, The Joint 358
Summary Statement of General Jumper.............................. 353
Aerospace Expeditionary Force (AEF).......................... 354
Air Force Academy............................................ 353
Bombers...................................................... 356
Employer Recognition Program................................. 356
Joint Operations............................................. 356
Readiness.................................................... 354
Recruiting and Retention...................................353, 355
Space........................................................ 355
Total Force.................................................. 354
Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs).............................. 356
Summary Statement of Secretary Roche............................. 347
Aging Aircraft............................................... 349
B-1 Consolidation............................................ 348
F/A-22 Program............................................... 350
Mission Capable Rates........................................ 349
Modernization................................................ 350
Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF)............................. 348
Operation Noble Eagle (ONE).................................. 348
Personnel and Readiness...................................... 350
Russian SU-37 Aircraft....................................... 349
Spare Parts.................................................. 349
Transformation.............................................348, 352
Supplemental Appropriations....................................416, 418
T-37 Aircraft at Laughlin Air Force Base......................... 453
Training Issues:
Encroachement on Training Areas.............................. 460
Joint Training............................................... 441
Pilot Training, Joint......................................440, 450
Unmanned Aerial Vehicle Pilot and Operational Training....... 450
Fiscal Year 2004 Army Posture
Abrams and Bradley Modernization Programs........................84, 98
Abrams and Bradley, Fiscal Year 2003 Funds for............... 87
Aerial Common Sensor (ACS)....................................... 125
Aircrew Training Hours........................................... 112
Ammunition:
M855 ``Green Tip'' Ammunition................................ 102
Training Ammunition.......................................... 133
War Reserve Ammunition....................................... 134
Anti-Terrorism and Force Protection (AT/FP) Mission.............. 108
Guard and Reserve Force Protection Mission................... 107
Armor Requirements, Counterattack Corps.......................... 86
Armored Vehicle Launched Bridge (ALVB)........................... 99
Army Combat Power................................................ 83
Army Contracting Agency (ACA).................................... 114
Army Corps of Engineers..........................................70, 96
Bandwidth........................................................ 70
Basic Officer Leadership Course.................................. 115
Business Initiative Council...................................... 88
Chemical Agents Demilitarization................................. 138
Chemical and Biological Warfare.................................. 93
Combat Feeding Program........................................... 74
Facilities Sustainment, Restoration, and Modernization (SRM)..... 113
Family of Medium Tactical Vehicles (FMTV)........................ 96
Recompetition................................................ 131
Future Combat System (FCS)......................................77, 121
Key Technologies............................................. 78
Helicopter Programs:
AH-64 Apache Longbow Service Life Extension.................. 130
CH-47 Chinook Helicopter..................................... 126
RAH-66 Comanche Helicopter..................................76, 128
Technical Development, RAH-66 Comanche................... 129
UH-60 Black Hawk Fielding Plan............................... 126
Hemacoolers......................................................70, 96
Impact Aid....................................................... 81
Installation Management Agency, Army............................. 113
Introduction..................................................... 1
Iraq, Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF):
Post-Conflict Requirements in................................ 71
Preparations for Military Operation in....................... 100
Joint Experimentation and Transformation......................... 104
Joint Logistics Warfighting Initiative........................... 116
Joint Tactical Radio System (JTRS)............................... 131
Land Warrior Program............................................75, 135
Life Cycle Costs................................................. 87
Military Construction (MILCON)................................... 70
Non-Line of Sight Cannon (NLOS-C)...............................81, 123
Patriot PAC-3 Missile Program.................................... 138
Personnel Issues, Army........................................... 103
Active and Reserve Component Mix............................. 73
Consolidation of the Military Personnel Accounts............93, 110
End Strength Requirements.................................... 72
Force Structure.............................................. 94
Forces in Europe, Redeployment of Army..................91, 96, 105
Moral of the Troops.......................................... 68
National Guard and Reserve Personnel......................... 97
Reserve Component Missions................................... 111
Reserve Component Pay........................................ 80
Readiness, Rising Cost of.......................................67, 109
Recapitalization Programs........................................ 112
Remarks of Mr. Hobson............................................ 69
Remarks of Mr. Murtha............................................ 4
Soldier Support Equipment........................................ 105
Spare Parts Shortfalls........................................... 112
Statement, The Fiscal Year 2004 Army Posture..................... 140
Statement of Thomas E. White and General Eric. K. Shinseki, The
Joint.......................................................... 12
Stryker Brigades.................................................77, 89
Acquisition, Stryker......................................... 90
and M113 Comparative Analysis...............................93, 120
Combat Capabilities, Stryker Brigade......................... 92
High-Speed Sealift Support for Stryker....................... 92
Stryker/Mobil Gun System..................................... 99
Summary Statement of General Shinseki............................ 8
Budget Request, Fiscal Year 2004............................. 10
Personnel.................................................... 10
Transformation............................................... 9
Summary Statement of Secretary White............................. 5
Future Combat System......................................... 6
Personnel Initiatives........................................ 5
Readiness and Optempo........................................ 5
Residential Communities Initiative........................... 7
Summary...................................................... 7
Transformation............................................... 6
Supplemental Funding, Fiscal Year 2003......................68, 82, 102
Terminations, Fiscal Year 2004 Program........................... 117
Training, Environmental Restrictions on.......................... 79
Transformation................................................... 88
Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs), Small........................... 101
Tactical Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (TUAV) Shadow 200........... 124
Venture Capital Fund............................................. 137
Weapons of Mass Destruction-Civil Support Teams (WMD-CST)........ 109
Fiscal Year 2004 Navy Posture
A-12 Aircraft Settlement......................................... 305
AV-8B Harrier Jump-Jet........................................... 306
Acquisition Process, Consideration of Operating Costs During..... 335
Advance Amphibious Assault Vehicle (AAAV)........................ 329
Air Force Institute of Technology (AFIT)......................... 298
Anti-mine Warfare................................................ 291
Antiterrorism and Force Protection............................... 337
Ballistic Missile Defense Systems Weapons........................ 323
Broad Area Maritime Surveillance................................. 309
CH-46 Helicopter, Rotor Blades for the........................... 290
Chemical Biological Incident Response Force (CBIRF).............. 326
Controlling Cost through Management.............................. 289
CVN-21 Aircraft Carrier.......................................... 314
CVN-77 Aircraft Carrier.......................................... 316
DDG-51 Destroyer Program......................................... 319
DD(X) Destroyer Program.......................................... 317
Depot Maintenance:
Impact of Operating Tempo on Depot Maintenance............... 324
Marine Corps Depot Maintenance............................... 334
Ship Depot Maintenance.....................................300, 325
EA-6B Aircraft................................................... 297
Force in Europe, Rotational...................................... 299
Internally Transportable Vehicle (ITV)........................... 332
Introduction..................................................... 205
Iraq, Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF).............................. 299
Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) Program.............................295, 300
Cost Estimates............................................... 302
Design Issues of Concern..................................... 303
Interchangeable Engine Program............................... 302
Performance Attributes....................................... 301
Software Development and Testing............................. 302
Technological Challenge...................................... 304
Lightweight 155mm Howitzer....................................... 330
Littoral Combat Ship (LCS)....................................... 312
Man Overboard Identification (MOBI) System....................... 301
Military Personnel Accounts, Consolidation of the................ 341
Missile Defense, Navy Participation in........................... 293
Modular Weapon System (MWS)...................................... 333
Multiyear Procurement Authority Request.......................... 289
Naval Reserve Missions........................................... 343
Navy/Marine Corps Intranet....................................... 296
Navy and Marine Corps TACAIR Integration......................... 305
Penguin Missile, Plan for........................................ 294
Personnel Issues................................................. 342
Personnel Reductions, Navy................................... 340
Product Quality Deficiency Reporting Systems..................... 339
Recognition of Greg Walters, Committee Staff..................... 206
Special Operations Forces........................................ 297
Integration of............................................... 290
SSGN Program, Funding Requirements for........................... 292
Statement of Admiral Vernon Clark................................ 231
Statement of General Michael W. Hagee............................ 263
Statement of Hansford T. Johnson................................. 208
Summary Statement of Admiral Clark............................... 228
Investment Strategy.......................................... 229
Readiness.................................................... 228
Ships Forward Deployed....................................... 228
Summary...................................................... 230
Sunmmary Statement of General Hagee.............................. 261
Budget Request, Fiscal Year 2004............................. 261
Marine Corps Deployments..................................... 261
Readiness and Contingency Requirements....................... 262
Summary Statement of Secretary Johnson........................... 206
Budget Request, Fiscal Year 2004............................. 207
Supplemental Funding Requirements................................ 290
Training Area Encroachment....................................... 334
Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs):
Pioneer Unmanned Aerial Vehicle.............................. 310
Tactical Unmanned Aerial Vehicle Fire Scout.................. 308
Unmanned Combat Aerial Vehicle (UCAV)........................ 307
V-22 Helicopter Update.........................................292, 304
Virginia Class Submarine:
Cost Overruns..............................................288, 321
Multiyear Procurement........................................ 320