[Senate Hearing 108-676]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2005
----------
WEDNESDAY, MARCH 3, 2004
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met at 10:11 a.m., in room SD-192, Dirksen
Senate Office Building, Hon. Ted Stevens (chairman) presiding.
Present: Senators Stevens, Cochran, Shelby, Hutchison,
Burns, Inouye, Leahy, and Dorgan.
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Department of the Army
STATEMENT OF HON. LES BROWNLEE, ACTING SECRETARY OF THE
ARMY
ACCOMPANIED BY GENERAL PETER T. SCHOOMAKER, CHIEF OF STAFF, UNITED
STATES ARMY
STATEMENT OF SENATOR TED STEVENS
Senator Stevens. Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. I
apologize for being late. I was presiding over the Senate. We
have all got too many things scheduled these days.
Today we are going to receive the testimony from the Acting
Secretary of the Army and the Chief of Staff on the Army's
fiscal year 2005 budget request. Secretary Brownlee, we welcome
you for your first time before our committee. We look forward
to hearing your plans to modernize the Army. You are no
stranger to this Senate or to the committee, even though you
were on the other committee. We are pleased to welcome you back
as a friend and a colleague.
General Schoomaker, we welcome you to our committee. We
look forward to working with you in the coming years, and I
thank you again for making the trip, the long trip to Alaska
for the military appreciation dinner there. It is very
important to our people.
The Army is now well on its way towards the future with its
transformation plans. We are at war and this transformation to
our future force is continuing. It is a huge undertaking to do
both at the same time. We are also conducting a global war on
terrorism, the war in Iraq, the war, ongoing activities in
Afghanistan, and now Haiti. We are constantly reminded of the
need for a strong, modern, prepared Army, and it is as
important today as it ever was, more important probably, to
have a military which has the resources it needs and the
support of the President and the entire country.
Today you are deployed all over the globe. We have 320,000
soldiers deployed or stationed forward, as I am informed. The
Guard and Reserve are also sharing this burden, with more than
100,000 reservists and guardsmen mobilized and on active duty.
The total force is a reality now.
There are many important issues facing the Army. One of the
most critical decisions Congress will make this year is how to
help the Army reorganize and equip itself for future threats.
I believe you have demonstrated to the Congress and the
country that the transformation concept is not simply a new
weapons platform, but a new doctrine, a new organizational
concept for the Army, and it is a whole new way for the Army to
fight and win wars. We appreciate your combined commitment to
the Army and your willingness to serve to ensure that the Army
remains on the right course.
It is the intention of this committee to give you the
support you need to achieve your goal of modernization.
My distinguished friend from Hawaii is not here this
morning because he is chairing another committee. He will be
here soon. We do have other Senators. Do any of you have an
opening statement to make before we listen to the General and
the Secretary? Senator Shelby.
Senator Shelby. Mr. Chairman, I look forward to the
testimony.
Senator Stevens. Senator Hutchison.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON
Senator Hutchison. Mr. Chairman, I will make mine a part of
the record. But I agree with what you have said. We do have
boots on the ground in two very dangerous places and our own
homeland is also now a focus for attack. So the Army is the one
that is out there, obviously Guard and Reserve. I will be
interested in hearing how you are going to handle the fatigue
of the Guard and Reserve and ramp up our active duty forces,
which you have already addressed publicly, but we hope to hear
more about, and how you would finance that.
So you have a huge job and we are here to support you in
every way. Thank you.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison
As a member of this committee, I have been privileged to
visit with our soldiers who are fighting to free Iraqis and
Afghans who for decades lived perilously under the oppressive
regimes of Saddam Hussein and the Taliban. These same soldiers
are proudly working to create an environment where people no
longer fear the government under which they live and work. They
are helping to rebuild and secure societies in which freedom is
a right and not a quantity to be metered out by the few in
positions of power.
Unfortunately, as I sit before you today, men and women of
our Armed Forces are still deployed in harms way. And if
statistics hold true, some will be either wounded or killed.
With this in mind, I think it is appropriate and indeed
necessary for us to ask difficult questions. Knowing how the
Army is successfully confronting an adversary which does not
wage open battle against the United States, but seeks less
direct methods and means for achieving their objectives is
important. Indeed, the threats to our security have transformed
themselves into a decidedly unconventional threat. Our enemies
pursue asymmetrical approaches to warfare, including
nontraditional threats to the homeland, the use of weapons of
mass destruction, and modern forms of irregular warfare. Army
transformation therefore must not only be designed to confront
the enemy which the Stryker brigades are best suited for, but
also an unconventional enemy utilizing asymmetric means and
methods both abroad and at home.
The greatest challenge for the Army, including the Reserve
and National Guard, may be organizing, equipping and training
the force to serve in a more relevant role in Homeland Defense
and Security. Ironically, the United States is less likely to
enjoy the kind of sanctuary status from attack in the future
than in the past. The global transportation network has made
intercontinental travel more routine. Our borders are porous to
both the illegal immigrant and the international terrorist
alike. We now face an implacable enemy willing and able to
attack the homeland. The increased focus on homeland defense
and the growing requirement for the Army to divert resources
away from the more traditional roles and missions of an
expeditionary Army raise a very important question: How does
the Army and the DOD intend to fund an on-going global war on
terrorism, while reorganizing, equipping, and developing
missions for the active, reserve, and National Guard to best
defend the homeland against another attack the likes of 9/11?
While there is no shortage of challenges, I look forward to
hearing how the Army will continue to overcome them. It is with
deep gratitude and the utmost respect for the soldiers
currently serving to defend this great country that I thank you
for your service and look forward to our discussion on how best
to prepare for the future.
Senator Stevens. I apologize. Senator Dorgan, do you have
any opening statement?
Senator Dorgan. No, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Stevens. Senator Cochran, do you have any opening
statement?
Senator Cochran. Mr. Chairman, I do not.
Senator Stevens. Gentlemen, we are prepared to listen to
your testimony and welcome you here. We all have an enormous
task to assure that you have the funds and the authority you
need to keep this modernization going. So, Senator Brownlee--
Secretary Brownlee.
Mr. Brownlee. Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of
this committee: Thank you very much for the opportunity to
appear before you today along with my good friend and fellow
graduate of the University of Wyoming Reserve Officer Training
Corps (ROTC) program, the Chief of Staff of the United States
Army, General Pete Schoomaker.
General Schoomaker and his family made a very difficult
decision last summer to leave quite a comfortable and lucrative
retirement to come back and rejoin the Army. The Army is
benefiting in an enormous way from his marvelous leadership. I
am especially honored to appear alongside this great soldier
today and I am honored to work alongside him every day. I could
not measure what he has brought to the Army. He has brought a
new meaning to the word ``transformation'' and he has
revitalized the spirit of our soldiers with his emphasis on the
Soldier's Creed and the Warrior Ethos. So it is a great honor
for me to be here before the committee representing the
magnificent soldiers of our Army along with the Chief of Staff.
We have a prepared posture statement, Mr. Chairman, and
with your permission we would like to submit that statement for
the record.
Senator Stevens. We automatically submit all statements for
the record in this committee.
Mr. Brownlee. Let me begin by expressing my gratitude for
the tremendous support to our soldiers who are serving our
country around the world, as well as to their families at home.
This support comes from the members as well as from your
dedicated professional and personal staffs. Your interest and
involvement in the Army's activities has made a significant
difference in our soldiers' welfare and their mission
accomplishment. So to the members and staff of this very
distinguished committee, on behalf of the United States Army,
thank you all for what you have done.
I know that you are deeply interested in the great work our
soldiers are doing, their training, and their morale and how we
are equipping them. In the last 9 months I have visited our
troops in Iraq three times and those in Afghanistan twice and
traveled to our posts in Germany, South Korea, and here in the
United States. I am grateful to have the opportunity to share
what I have learned with you.
Underlying everything we are doing and planning to do is
the most important point I want to make here today, and that is
that we are an Army at war, serving a Nation at war.
To better cope with the demands of this war, we have
proposed to grow the Army temporarily by 30,000 soldiers over
the next several years, using the authority provided in Title
10 and to be paid for from supplemental appropriations. We will
plan to use these resources to stand up at least 10 new combat
brigades over the next several years and ask for your support
in this endeavor. We are also restructuring our Active and
Reserve forces to meet the challenges of today and to more
effectively use the resources the Congress and the American
people have entrusted to us. This is an ongoing process and we
will keep the Congress fully informed.
Let me comment on a matter of grave importance to the
senior leadership of the Army, sexual assaults on soldiers by
fellow soldiers. Such attacks not only weaken unit cohesion and
lessen combat power; they are wrong, they will not be
overlooked, and they will not be tolerated. The Army is
committed to identifying and holding accountable those who
commit such actions as well as committed to providing proper
care for the victims of such attacks.
We are dedicated to creating an environment and a command
climate where these young women feel free to report these
incidents through multiple venues: the chain of command,
medical channels, chaplains, and their peers. We will properly
care for those who have been assaulted and investigate and take
appropriate action against those perpetrating these crimes. It
is the right thing to do and we are going to do it.
Many of you have asked about the measures we are taking to
protect our forces in Iraq. I would like to address two in
particular. First, the number of up-armored high mobility
multipurpose wheeled vehicles (HMMWV's) in the U.S. Central
Command (CENTCOM) area of responsibility is now over 2,000,
compared to about 500 last spring. When General Schoomaker and
I testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee in
November, we estimated then that we would be unable to satisfy
the CJTF-7 requirement of 3,000 up-armored HMMWV's until May
2005. This was unacceptable. We have worked with industry to
steadily increase production of these vehicles and we will now
reach a production level of over 4,000 vehicles by August 2004.
We will ramp up from 185 vehicles this month to 220 by May
and continue to increase until we reach our requirement. I have
talked to the chief executive officers (CEO's) of the companies
that build these up-armored HMMWV's and visited their
production lines. They are committed to and capable of
increasing production rates to up to 450 per month to help us
fill our requirement even faster. While this will require
additional resources, we are working within the Army budget and
with the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) so that we
can achieve this accelerated production level as quickly as
possible.
Second, there has been concern about every soldier having
the best available protection against bullets and explosive
fragments. To provide this protection, we increased the
production of Interceptor body armor last year and are
currently producing and shipping 25,000 sets monthly to the
theater of operations. There are now sufficient stocks of
Interceptor body armor to equip every soldier and Department of
Defense (DOD) civilian in Iraq and Afghanistan, and we will
fill our requirement for the remainder of the soldiers and DOD
civilians in theater by the end of this month.
In summary, we are producing enough body armor so all
soldiers now rotating into theater will be issued a set of body
armor either before they deploy into Iraq or immediately after
arrival in Afghanistan.
The Army provides relevant and ready campaign-quality land
power to combatant commanders as a part of a joint force. To
better do this, we are transforming the Army itself in response
to lessons learned and experiences gained by the Army's recent
2\1/2\ years of combat in the global war on terrorism, as well
as the operational environments envisioned in the foreseeable
future.
Last Monday General Schoomaker and I announced the
termination of the Comanche helicopter program as part of a
major restructuring and revitalization of Army aviation. In
lieu of completing development and procuring 121 Comanche
helicopters in the fiscal year 2005 through fiscal year 2011
future years defense plan (FYDP), we will propose to reallocate
these resources to procure almost 800 new aircraft for the
Active and Reserve components.
As a part of our total program over the FYDP, we will also
enhance, upgrade, and modernize over 1,400 aircraft in our
existing aviation fleet. This program to revitalize Army
aviation reflects the changed operational environment and will
provide the modularity and flexibility we must have to achieve
the joint and expeditionary capabilities that are so essential
to the Army's role now and in the future.
The fiscal year 2005 President's budget we have submitted,
when amended to reflect the termination of Comanche, represents
a balanced consideration of both our current and long-term
requirements and provides our Army with the resources we need,
excluding war-related costs. The tempo of our current
operations is high and has human and material costs. We
appreciate the assistance of the Congress in addressing these
issues as we work to restore our units and equipment to the
high levels of readiness necessary to continue to meet our
obligations to the Nation.
In all that the Army has accomplished and all that it will
be called upon to do, the American soldier remains the single
most important factor in our success. Today our soldiers are
present in over 120 countries around the world, representing
the American people and American values with courage and
compassion. I want to express my appreciation for the service
and the enormous sacrifices made by our soldiers, especially
those who have given the last full measure, and their families
as we meet the challenges and risks posed by the war on terror.
Our deepest thanks go to the members of our Active and
Reserve component units, as well as to the thousands of
Department of the Army civilians who are deployed overseas in
harm's way. Regardless of where our soldiers serve, they
perform as the professionals they are with skill, courage,
compassion, and dedication. They embody the values of our Army
and our Nation, serving selflessly and seeking only to do what
must be done before returning home.
Despite remarkable successes, our fight is far from over.
It will take time to win the war on terror. Our enemies are
resolute, but hard-line al-Qaeda operatives in Iraq recognize
they cannot dislodge our forces by fear or intimidation. Our
commitment to prevail in Iraq and elsewhere is unshakable. I
have seen the resolution in our soldiers' eyes and heard the
determination in their voices.
We must do our part to ensure they have all they need to do
the job we have set before them. When the American people and
our leaders stand behind them, they can do any task on Earth.
We are transforming the Army while retaining the values
critical to the Army's achievements of the past 228 years. The
fiscal year 2004 defense legislation and supplemental
appropriations have enabled the Army to do that which it has
been asked to do and I look forward to discussing with you how
the fiscal year 2005 budget request will permit us to continue
meeting our obligations now and in the years to come.
Mr. Chairman, in closing I would like to thank you and the
members of this distinguished committee for your continuing
support of the men and women in our Army, an Army at war, and a
full member of the joint team, deployed and fighting terror
around the world.
PREPARED STATEMENT
I appreciate this opportunity to appear before you today
and I look forward to answering your questions.
Senator Stevens. Thank you very much.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Honorable R.L. Brownlee and General Peter J.
Schoomaker
February 5, 2004.
Our Nation is at war. The security of our homeland, the Global War
on Terror, and sustained engagement around the world define today's
complex and uncertain strategic environment. The future will be no less
ambiguous.
We must prepare now to meet the challenges of tomorrow. Rather than
focusing on a single, well-defined threat or a geographic region, we
must develop a range of complementary and interdependent capabilities
that will enable future joint force commanders to dominate any
adversary or situation. A capabilities-based approach to concept and
force development, as articulated in the 2001 Quadrennial Defense
Review, is the major focus of defense transformation.
Over the past year our Army has met the demands of the Global War
on Terror, with more than 325,000 troops deployed around the world in
over 120 countries. The Army was instrumental in the defeat of Saddam
Hussein and the Taliban and the subsequent liberation of more than 46
million people from oppression and despair. The Army remains a central
and critical participant in Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation
Enduring Freedom. Although these and other operations have stressed the
force, our Soldiers have responded magnificently.
Our Army's commitment to the Nation remains absolute. While we
execute the Global War on Terror, our Army simultaneously continues its
organizational and intellectual transformation to meet the challenges
of the 21st Century. In support of the National Security Strategy and
the National Military Strategy we are improving our warfighting
readiness and ability to win decisively. We also remain dedicated to
the well-being of our Soldiers, their families and our civilian
workforce.
The United States Army is the most powerful land force on earth.
With this power comes a great responsibility. American Soldiers show by
their daily actions that they understand this, and are fully worthy of
the trust the American people have placed in them.
For 228 years the Army has never failed the Nation, and it never
will.
Peter J. Schoomaker,
General, U.S. Army, Chief of Staff.
R.L. Brownlee,
Acting Secretary of the Army.
purpose of the posture statement
The Army Posture Statement provides an overview of today's Army.
Focusing on the Soldier, the centerpiece of the force, it explains the
current and future strategic environments that provide our mandate for
transformation. Our core competencies and how we intend to meet our
current demands and future challenges are outlined. It describes what
we must become in order to provide more ready and relevant forces and
capabilities to the Joint Team.
2004 ARMY POSTURE STATEMENT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Our Nation At War
Our Nation, and our Army, are at war. It is a different kind of
war, fought against a global terrorist network and not likely to end in
the foreseeable future. In the days following the attacks on September
11, 2001, President Bush spoke candidly to the Nation. ``These
terrorists kill not merely to end lives, but to disrupt and end a way
of life.'' He added: ``The only way to defeat terrorism as a threat to
our way of life is to stop it, eliminate it and destroy it where it
grows.''
Our Army exists to fight and win our Nation's wars. We are an
integral member of the Joint Team committed to winning in fulfillment
of our responsibilities to national security. We are fighting to
preserve the American way of life and to safeguard the many freedoms
our citizens enjoy. Our Soldiers and their families have not forgotten
the events of September 11, which launched us to action in Afghanistan
and Iraq. They are reminded daily of the ongoing conflict through
separation, concern for forward-deployed loved ones and, most
regrettably, news of casualties. Our Army continues the mission and
remains committed to defeating our enemy.
Our Army's Core Competencies
As our Army fights the current war and remains dedicated to
transforming, we are focused on our two core competencies: (1) Training
and equipping Soldiers and growing leaders; (2) Providing relevant and
ready land power to Combatant Commanders as part of the Joint Force.
Our Army must be an agile and capable force with a Joint and
Expeditionary Mindset. This mindset is the lens through which we view
our service. We must be mobile, strategically deployable and prepared
for decisive operations whenever and wherever required. We must be
lethal and fully interoperable with other components and our allies, as
well as flexible, informed, proactive, responsive and totally
integrated into the joint, interagency and multinational context. Our
management and support processes must reflect and support these same
characteristics.
Strategic Environment--Our Mandate for Transformation
At the end of the Cold War, the United States had no peer
competitor. Our Army was much larger and was built around heavy,
mechanized and armored formations. Because America stood as the lone
superpower during this time of global realignment, we were able to
downsize our force structure. Today, the future is uncertain and
presents many challenges. The emerging challenges manifest themselves
as new adaptive threats, employing a mix of new and old technologies
that necessitate changes to the ways in which the elements of our
national power are applied.
The 21st century security environment is marked by new actors and a
noteworthy proliferation of dangerous weapons, technologies and
military capabilities. While threats from potentially hostile regional
powers remain, increasingly non-state actors, operating autonomously or
with state-sponsorship, also are able to endanger regional and global
security. These forces--insurgents, paramilitaries, terrorists, narco-
traffickers and organized crime--are a growing concern. They often are
networked and enabled by the same tools and information systems used by
state actors. Our adversaries will rely more frequently on indirect and
asymmetric methods, such as anti-access and area-denial strategies,
unrestricted warfare and terrorism, to mitigate their relative
disadvantage. The most dangerous of these threats are the development
and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction (WMD)--including
biological or chemical agents, or radiological ``dirty bombs''--to
attack the United States. This security environment requires that the
Army have the capability to dominate throughout the spectrum of
conflict and to plan for multiple future contingencies.
As a result of this adaptive enemy and our worldwide commitments,
current organizations, systems and facilities are and will continue to
be stressed. We now rely on our Reserve Component to support our
operations to a degree not seen since World War II. As of January 14,
2004, there were more than 164,000 Reserve Component Soldiers mobilized
with over 139,000 of them serving overseas. The institutional Army is
being asked to do more, applying lessons learned from current
operations. These lessons are critical to our organizations and
individual Soldiers as they prepare for worldwide missions. Therefore,
the current and future strategic environments require the Army to have
the capability to dominate throughout the spectrum of conflict and to
plan for multiple contingencies. These new security challenges, coupled
with the current war on terrorism, require a different approach.
Army Focus Areas
Last summer, Army leaders identified immediate focus areas
instrumental to adapting Army organizations and processes that will
help us to better meet the Nation's security requirements. All of our
focus areas should be viewed in the context of our ongoing efforts to
retain the campaign qualities of our Army while simultaneously
developing a Joint and Expeditionary Mindset. Of these focus areas, a
critical enabler is the redesign of our resource processes to be more
flexible, responsive, and timely. Our goal is to be a better Army every
day--better able to execute our core competencies as members of the
Joint Team.
Adapting Resource and Acquisition Processes
The resource process is at the core of our Army's mission success.
Our Nation faces a cunning and adaptive enemy, predictable only in his
zeal and intent. We are just as cunning and our Soldiers are constantly
changing tactics and techniques in order to disrupt the enemy's plans.
In the same way, our resource and acquisition processes must become
more flexible, responsive and timely in order to take immediate
advantage of technological improvements and to sustain the quality of
the force over time.
Resetting Our Force
Quickly resetting our forces upon their redeployment from current
operations is a strategic imperative. The reset program incorporates
lessons learned from Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF) and Operation
Enduring Freedom (OEF), retrains essential tasks, adjusts pre-
positioned stocks of equipment and ammunition, and brings unit
equipment readiness back to standard. Units must recover quickly in
order to provide the Combatant Commanders with land-power capabilities
for future requirements. We will face challenges as we rotate troops
from deployment to home station, while simultaneously maintaining
vigilance and readiness.
Continued congressional support and adequate resources are needed
to accomplish our reset tasks and to mitigate the risk we have incurred
to our Current and Future Forces. The fiscal year 2004 defense
legislation and supplemental appropriation delivered substantial
assistance toward covering the cost of current operations and
initiating the reset process. We fully appreciate the exceptional
support Members and their staffs have provided this year. But, the job
is not complete. In fact, it has only just begun.
Mitigating Strategic Risk Through Increased Land Power Capability
Today our Army is executing operations in defense of the homeland
(Operation Noble Eagle); stability and support operations in the
Balkans (Stabilization Force/Kosovo Force); peacekeeping in the Sinai
as part of the Multinational Force and Observers (MFO) and combat
operations in Iraq and Afghanistan (Operation Enduring Freedom/
Operation Iraqi Freedom). We are also forward stationed in Korea and
elsewhere. Approximately two-thirds of our active and reserve combat
formations were deployed in fiscal year 2003 and will be deployed in
fiscal year 2004.
These deployments, coupled with planned future rotation of units
into OIF and OEF, the largest movement of Army troops since World War
II, have highlighted already existing stress to our force. To mitigate
risk, the Army is embarking on a series of initiatives. The first
initiative is resetting forces returning from OIF and OEF to a standard
higher than before their deployment. A second establishes force
stabilization measures to reduce turbulence amongst Soldiers, units and
their families. Thirdly, the Army is internally rebalancing Active and
Reserve Component forces to better posture our existing force structure
to meet global commitments. And lastly, we are beginning to increase
the number of available combat brigades through improved force
management and modular reorganization. This increase allows the Army to
improve strategic flexibility, sustain a predictable rotation cycle,
and permits the Reserve Component to reset.
To facilitate this end state, the Army will seek to maintain, or
even to increase temporarily, its current level of manning. These
measures, when resourced, will mitigate risk and ultimately provide
increased capability to Combatant Commanders.
Conclusion
Our Nation is at war and our Army is at war; we remain ever
relevant and ready to meet today's challenges. Yet there is much more
to do. We are prioritizing wartime requirements, incorporating next-
generation capabilities into current systems where appropriate, and
preserving essential investments in the Future Force. We also are
becoming more joint and expeditionary. We do not move forward alone,
but as part of the Joint Team. We need the support of the American
people and the U.S. Congress. With this backing, we will continue to
carry the fight to our enemies to provide security here at home.
CORE COMPETENCIES
c
Our Army has two core competencies, supported by a set of essential
and enduring capabilities. These core competencies are: (1) training
and equipping Soldiers and growing leaders; and (2) providing relevant
and ready land-power capability to the Combatant Commanders as part of
the Joint Force. Additionally, our Army's senior leadership has
established immediate focus areas and issued specific guidance for
planning, preparation and execution of actions aimed at rapidly
effecting necessary transformation in support of these core
competencies. See Addendum I (available at www.Army.mil) for more
information on the Army's focus areas.
Train and Equip Soldiers and Grow Leaders
Our Army prepares every Soldier to be a warrior. Our training
replicates the stark realities of the battlefield in order to condition
Soldiers to react instinctively in combat. Such training is essential
to building Soldiers' confidence in themselves, their equipment, their
leaders, and their fellow Soldiers. Constant training in weaponry and
field craft, and a continuous immersion in the warrior culture, give
Soldiers the skills they need to succeed on the battlefield. Mental and
physical toughness are paramount to the development of the warrior
ethos and apply to all Soldiers from private to general. Every Soldier
is called upon to be a leader.
The Soldier
The American Soldier remains the centerpiece of our combat systems
and formations and is indispensable to the Joint Team. Adaptive,
confident and competent Soldiers, infused with the Army's values and
warrior culture, fight wars and win the peace. As a warrior, every
Soldier must be prepared to engage the enemy in close combat; the
modern battlefield has no safe areas. Our Army trains our Soldiers to
that standard, without regard to their specialty or unit. The Soldier--
fierce, disciplined, well-trained, well-led and well-equipped--
ultimately represents and enables the capabilities our Army provides to
the Joint Force and the Nation.
Our Soldiers are bright, honest, dedicated and totally committed to
the mission. All share common values, a creed and a warrior ethos. Our
Army defines selfless service as putting the welfare of our Nation,
Army and subordinates before your own. Soldiers join the Army to serve.
Most Americans do not fully realize the personal sacrifices these
Soldiers and their families endure. However, our Soldiers know that
they have done their part to secure our Nation's freedoms and to
maintain the American way of life.
Our Soldiers' Creed captures the warrior ethos and outlines the
professional attitudes and beliefs that characterize our American
Soldier. The warrior ethos is about the refusal to accept failure and
the conviction that military service is much more than just another
job. It defines who Soldiers are and what Soldiers do. It is linked to
our long-standing Army Values, and determination to do what is right
and do it with pride.
Recruiting and Retaining a High-Quality Volunteer Force
All of our Soldiers are warriors whose actions have strategic
impact. Because we are at war and will be for the foreseeable future,
we must recruit Soldiers who have the warrior ethos already ingrained
in their character, who seek to serve our Nation, and who will have the
endurance and commitment to stay the course of the conflict. We must
recruit and retain Soldiers who are confident, adaptive and competent
to handle the full complexity of 21st century warfare.
We will continue to bring the highest quality Soldier into the
force. All newly enlisted Soldiers are high school graduates (diploma
or equivalent) and 24 percent have some college. These young Americans,
who believe service to our Nation is paramount, make our success
possible. They display a willingness to stand up and make a difference.
Our recruiting and retention efforts continue to be successful. The
active Army met its recruiting and retention goals in fiscal year 2003.
The Army National Guard exceeded its retention goals for fiscal year
2003 and simultaneously met its end strength objectives. The Army
Reserve met its recruiting goals and all but one retention target in
fiscal year 2003. Most importantly, all components sustained their end-
strength requirements.
We do not know yet the effect the high operational pace of recent
months will have on our recruiting and retention in fiscal year 2004
and future years. We must carefully monitor recruiting and retention
trends and adequately resource our successful recruiting and retention
initiatives. Incentives such as the Enlistment Bonus Program, The Army
College Fund and the Loan Repayment Program, have successfully enabled
the Army to execute precision recruiting in fiscal year 2003. Our
Special Forces Candidate ``Off the Street'' initiative continues to
attract highly motivated and qualified warriors. Significantly,
Selective Reenlistment Bonuses, such as the Present Duty Assignment
Bonus and the Theater Selective Reenlistment Bonus, which are intended
to enhance unit stability, have helped us realize our retention
successes. For more information on recruiting, see Addendum C.
Civilian Component Enhances Our Capabilities
Army civilians are an integral and vital part of our Army team.
They are essential to the readiness of our Army at war and our ability
to sustain operations. Our civilian employees share our Army values.
They are smart, resourceful and totally committed to supporting our
Soldiers and our Army to do whatever it takes to meet the challenges
that come our way. These dedicated civilians perform critical, mission-
essential duties in support of every functional facet of combat support
and combat service support, both at home and abroad. Army civilians
serve alongside Soldiers to provide the critical skills necessary to
sustain combat systems and weaponry. They work in 54 countries in more
than 550 different occupations. In fiscal year 2003, nearly 2,000 Army
civilians deployed to Southwest Asia in support of Operation Iraqi
Freedom, Operation Enduring Freedom, and the Global War on Terrorism
(GWOT). They have the education, skills and experience to accomplish
the mission while ensuring continuity of operations for all commanders.
Realistic Training--Essential to Mission Success
Tough, realistic training ensures that our Soldiers and units
maintain readiness and relevance as critical members of the Joint
Force. Our Army's combined-arms training strategy, including an
appropriate mix of live, virtual, and constructive training, determines
the resource requirements to maintain the combat readiness of our
troops. We revised our training ammunition standards to allow Combat
Support and Combat Service Support units to conduct live fire exercises
under conditions similar to those they might encounter in combat.
The Army's OPTEMPO budget is among its top priorities. Our
leadership is committed to fully executing the Active and Reserve
Component ground and air OPTEMPO training strategies, which include
actual miles driven and hours flown, as well as virtual miles
associated with using simulators. The flying hour program is funded to
achieve a historic execution level of live flying hours per aircrew per
month. If units exceed the historic execution level, our Army will
increase their funding. Thus far this year, OPTEMPO execution reports
show units exceeding their programmed miles driven and hours flown.
These are the units that are aggressively preparing for deployments to
OIF and OEF, as well as the units who recently have returned and are
preparing for future operations. Our combined arms training strategy is
working and sustaining our warfighting readiness. We see the results
every day in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Joint and Expeditionary
Our Army is the dominant ground component of the Joint Team and
provides the Joint Force Commander a campaign quality force with unique
and complementary capabilities. We are vital and indispensable members
of the Joint Team first and are a Service second. We must remain aware
that our Army always conducts operations--offensive, defensive,
stability and support--in a joint and expeditionary context. Acting in
concert with air and naval power, decisive land power creates a synergy
that produces a Joint Force with abilities far exceeding the sum of the
individual service components. Our Army can: support civil authorities
at home and abroad; provide expeditionary forces at the right time and
the right place; reassure our allies and multinational partners; deter
adversaries and, should deterrence fail, decisively defeat the enemy;
and win the peace through post-conflict operations, in concert with
interagency and multinational efforts. Our Army must continually
examine the capabilities resident in and required by the Joint Force.
We will concentrate our energies and resources on those attributes
which our Army is best suited to provide to the Joint Force. Our Army
will arrive on the battlefield as a campaign-quality force fulfilling
the requirements of the Joint Force Commander--lethal, agile, mobile,
strategically responsive, and fully interoperable with other components
within the interagency and multinational context.
Train and Educate Army Members of the Joint Force
Our Army is taking action across a broad front to make jointness an
integral part of our culture by including this concept in our education
and training programs. We have always produced leaders with the right
mix of unit experience, training, and education. As we look to the
future, we know that, to meet our current and future leadership
requirements and those of the Joint Force, we must redesign aspects of
our Army's training and leader development programs to include lessons
learned from current operations. Our objectives are to increase our
ability to think and act jointly and to provide our Soldiers with the
latest and most relevant techniques, procedures and equipment that will
make them successful on the battlefield. Additionally, the changes
acknowledge the current and projected pace of operations and
deployments. As a result, we will be better prepared for the current
and future strategic environments.
Maintaining a ready Current Force today and achieving a transformed
Future Force tomorrow requires a shift in the way units train for joint
operations. Our Army's Training Transformation Initiative (TTI), which
supports the June 2003 Defense Department Training Transformation
Implementation Plan, provides dynamic, capabilities-based training and
mission rehearsal in a joint context.
Leader Development--Train For Certainty, Educate For
Uncertainty
Leader development is an essential part of our Army's core
competencies and the lifeblood of our profession. It is the deliberate,
progressive and continuous process that develops our Soldiers and
civilians into competent, confident, self-aware, adaptive and decisive
leaders. They emerge prepared for the challenges of 21st century
combined arms, joint, multinational and interagency operations.
Army leaders at all levels bear responsibility for America's
Soldiers and accomplishing the mission, whatever it may be. The range
of missions and their complexity continue to grow, presenting our
leaders with even greater challenges than previously experienced. The
evolving strategic environment, the gravity of our strategic
responsibilities, and the broad range of tasks that the Army performs
require us to review, and periodically to refocus, the way we educate,
train and grow professional warfighters.
We have a training and leader development system that is unrivaled
in the world. Our professional military education prepared our officers
and noncommissioned officers to fight and win in Iraq and Afghanistan.
We will continue to develop our leaders with the right mix of
operational assignments and training and education opportunities that
meet the current and future requirements of the Army and Joint Force.
Our leader training focuses on how to think, not what to think. We will
maintain our investment in the future by sustaining the highest quality
leader training and education for our Army.
Combat Training Centers (CTC)/Battle Command Training
Program (BCTP)
The CTC program is a primary culture driver for our Army.
Additionally, our CTCs are a primary enabler of, and full participant
in, the Joint National Training Capability. The CTCs develop self-aware
and adaptive leaders and Soldiers and ready units for full spectrum,
joint, interagency and multinational operations. CTCs continuously
integrate operational lessons learned into the training. Our Army
enhances the training experience offered by our CTCs (National Training
Center in California, Joint Readiness Training Center in Louisiana,
Combat Maneuver Training Center in Germany and Battle Command Training
Program based in Kansas) by increasing the focus on development of
capabilities essential to joint operations. Leader training and
development during CTC exercises hone the Joint and Expeditionary
Mindset and promote our Army's warrior culture.
Provide Relevant and Ready Land Power Capabilities to the Combatant
Commander and the Joint Team
To meet global commitments across the full spectrum of military
operations, our Army has mobilized more than 164,000 Reserve Component
Soldiers. More than 325,000 American Soldiers are serving overseas and
more than 23,000 Soldiers are supporting operations within the United
States. This high operating tempo is no longer an exception. Sustained
operations and deployments will be the norm for our Army forces
supporting multiple and simultaneous shaping and stability operations
around the globe. At the same time, we will continue to contribute to
Joint Force execution of major combat operations, homeland security
missions and strategic deterrence.
Army Global Commitments
Our Army is engaged in more than 120 countries throughout the
world. To highlight our Army's commitment, a review of the major
warfighting formations of the Active and Reserve Component serves as a
measurable benchmark. Over 24 of the Army's 33 Active Component Brigade
Combat Teams (BCTs), and five of our 15 Reserve Component Enhanced
Separate Brigades (ESB) were deployed in fiscal year 2003. This trend
will continue in fiscal year 2004, with 26 of 33 Active Component BCTs
and six of our 15 Reserve Component ESB brigades projected for
deployment.
The majority of these combat formations are deployed in the U.S.
Central Command area of responsibility (AOR), effectively executing
stability and support operations. More than 153,000 Soldiers are
supporting CENTCOM operations in Iraq, Afghanistan, Kuwait and the Horn
of Africa. We are currently in the middle of the largest movement of
troops since WWII, as we rotate more than eight-and-a-half divisions
and two ESBs to or from the theater. The approximate ratio of Active to
Reserve Component forces today is currently 63 to 37 percent,
respectively. Once our current rotation is complete, the ratio will
change to approximately 54 to 46 percent, Active to Reserve Component.
Since September 11, we have mobilized almost half of the Reserve
Component. They are trained, professional, and ready to execute any
task.
Army support to other Combatant Commanders remains high. U.S.
Northern Command's Army component, U.S. Army Forces Command, provides
more than 23,000 Active and Reserve Component Soldiers for duty in the
defense of our homeland. These troops are available for missions
including Military Assistance to Civil Authorities (MACA), emergency
preparedness, and anti-terrorist operations. The Army Reserve provides
to NORTHCOM significant voice and data connectivity necessary to
execute real-time operations. U.S. European Command provides forces,
such as V U.S. Corps, to CENTCOM; and to Stability Force (SFOR) and
Kosovo Force (KFOR) in the Balkans. U.S. Pacific Command supports
ongoing operations in the Philippines, as part of the Global War on
Terrorism, in addition to maintaining more than 31,000 Soldiers on the
Korean Peninsula. U.S. Southern Command is fully engaged as the
headquarters for 1,500 Soldiers executing detainee operations at
Guantanamo Bay, Cuba; has deployed 740 Soldiers to Joint Task Force--
Bravo at Soto Cano Airbase, Honduras; and is assisting the government
of Colombia in its war on narco-terrorism. U.S. Special Operations
Command's Army component provides professional, dedicated, and
specially trained Soldiers to each Combatant Commander. These Soldiers,
working closely with conventional forces, have been instrumental to our
success in the Global War on Terrorism.
In addition to federal missions, our Army National Guard (ARNG)
plays an important domestic role, routinely responding to state
emergencies. In fiscal year 2003, there were 280 requests for emergency
support, ranging from basic human needs to engineering support during
natural disasters. Our ARNG has fielded 32 Weapons of Mass Destruction
(WMD) Civil Support Teams (CST), which assist first responders in the
event of an incident. Another 12 CSTs are due to be activated within 18
months. To date, these teams have responded to 74 different requests
for support. Also, more than 8,000 ARNG Soldiers have executed critical
force protection duties at 148 Air Force installations in CONUS.
Resetting the Force
The extraordinary demands major combat and stability operations in
Afghanistan and Iraq are placing on our equipment and personnel require
that our Army quickly reset returning units for future national
security needs. The reset program will incorporate lessons learned from
OIF and OEF, retrain essential tasks, adjust pre-positioned stocks of
equipment and ammunition, and bring unit equipment readiness back to
standard. The objective is to ensure our Army forces are ready to
respond to near-term emerging threats and contingencies. However, reset
cannot be viewed as a one-time event. Reset will continue to be key to
our future readiness as our military executes our National Security
missions.
Through reset, all returning active duty and Army Reserve units
will achieve a sufficient level of combat readiness within six to eight
months of their arrival at home station. The Army National Guard will
take longer to achieve the desired level of readiness. The goal for
these units is to reestablish pre-deployment readiness within one year.
Our Army also will take advantage of reset as an opportunity to
reorganize units into modular designs that are more responsive to
regional Combatant Commanders' needs; that better employ joint
capabilities; that reduce deployment time; and that fight as self-
contained units in non-linear, non-contiguous battlespaces. This effort
began with the 3rd Infantry Division and will soon be expanded to
include the 101st Airborne Division (Air Assault).
In addition to investing in new equipment to replace items that
were destroyed or worn out during combat and stability operations, the
reset program will repair major items used in OIF and OEF. Repair
requirements have been determined for all OIF1 units and the workload
for this comprehensive effort is immense: about 1,000 aviation systems;
124,400 communications and electronics systems; 5,700 combat/tracked
vehicles; 45,700 wheeled vehicles; 1,400 missile systems; nine Patriot
battalions; and approximately 232,200 items from various other systems.
This effort represents a significant expansion of normal maintenance
activities, requiring the increased use of CONUS and OCONUS based
depot, installation and commercial repair facilities.
Reconfiguring existing Army pre-positioned stocks for global
coverage of potential missions is a major component of the reset
process. The intent is for each stock to have sufficient combat power
to meet the immediate threat, as well as enough materials to render
relief in other contingencies.
Congressional support, in the form of supplemental appropriations,
has been invaluable in beginning the reset effort. Our readiness
depends directly on the successful execution of the reset program, and
it will remain an ongoing priority for the foreseeable future.
Continued resourcing will be needed to ensure that our Army can fight
the current war and posture itself for future missions.
Transformation: Moving From the Current to the Future Force
The goals of Army Transformation are to provide relevant and ready
forces that are organized, trained and equipped for full-spectrum
joint, interagency and multi-national operations and to support Future
Force development. Army Transformation occurs within the larger context
of changes to the entire U.S. military. To support our Army staff in
the execution of transformation, the Army leadership directed the
establishment of an Army Training and Doctrine Command (TRADOC) Futures
Center, operational as of October 2003.
Our Current Force is organized, trained and equipped to conduct
operations as part of the Joint Force. It provides the requisite
decisive land power capabilities that the Joint Force commander needs
across the range of military operations: support to civil authorities
at home and abroad; expeditionary forces; the ability to reassure
friends, allies and multinational partners; dissuading and deterring
adversaries; decisively defeating adversaries should deterrence fail;
and winning the peace as part of an integrated, inter-agency, post-
conflict effort.
Our Future Force is the operational force the Army continuously
seeks to become. Informed by National Security and Department of
Defense guidance, it is a strategically responsive, networked,
precision capabilities-based maneuver force that is dominant across the
range of military operations envisioned for the future global security
environment.
As our Army develops the Future Force, it simultaneously is
accelerating select future doctrine, organization, training, materiel,
leadership, personnel, and facilities (DOTMLPF) capabilities into our
Current Force. This process will be fundamental to our success in
enhancing the relevance and readiness of our Army and prosecuting the
Global War on Terrorism. Similarly, the operational experience of our
Current Force directly informs the pursuit of Future Force
capabilities.
Balancing Current and Future Readiness
Balancing risk between current and future readiness remains a
critical part of our Army's transformation process and one that
requires continual assessment to ensure that plans and programs are
aligned with overall requirements. Without question, the issue of
current operational readiness is our Army's highest priority. During
the past several years, our Army made a conscious decision to accept a
reasonable degree of risk to the readiness of our Current Force in
order to permit investment in capabilities for our Future Force. This
risk came in the form of reductions in and limitations to modernization
and recapitalization programs. As part of the past four budget
submissions, our Army made difficult choices to cancel and restructure
programs, shifting resources to the development of transformational
capabilities. Some of these investments have already produced results:
for example, the new Stryker Brigade Combat Team formations now being
fielded, the first of which is currently deployed on the battlefield in
Iraq. Others are helping to develop emerging technologies and
capabilities that will be applied to our force throughout the coming
decade.
Besides the ongoing efforts related to equipping the Current Force,
our Army also has begun other major initiatives that will improve our
readiness and relevance in the future. These include an effort to
realign Active and Reserve Component units and capabilities, in order
to make our Army more readily deployable and available to Joint Force
Commanders; home-basing and Unit Focused Stability, which will improve
readiness and reduce personnel turbulence; and the reorganization of
Army units into more modular and capability-based organizations.
While the previous decisions to accept reasonable risk in our
Current Force were considered prudent at the time, the strategic and
operational environment has significantly changed in light of the
large-scale engagement of Army forces in Operation Iraqi Freedom and
other expeditionary operations. Ever-changing demands on our force,
coupled with our commitment to mitigating risk to our Soldiers, have
necessitated re-examination and transformation of our Army's resource
process and business practices (see Addendum H at www.Army.mil).
Making the Resource Process More Responsive
The resource process is our Army's center of gravity. Without the
right people, the proper equipment, top-notch installations and
adequate dollars to support all appropriately, our Army would not be
able to fulfill its duty to our Nation.
In order to maintain our premier warfighting capability, Army
resource processes must be flexible, dynamic, transparent and
responsive to both our requirements and those of the Joint Force. This
is especially true in today's environment. We are at war against
conventional and unconventional enemies, and simultaneously pursuing
transformation. Our resource process must be transformed to allow us to
keep pace with changes brought on by the enemy. Though we anticipate
the battle against terrorism will last for years, possibly decades, we
cannot program and budget in advance for that war. Our Army obviously
cannot ignore our country's current security needs, yet it would be
equally imprudent to deviate from the development and fielding of our
Future Force. Balancing these requirements will be one of our toughest
tasks.
The GWOT requires a host of radical paradigm shifts in the way we
view the face and nature of our global operating environment, as well
as in the way that we conduct operations. Responsible yet creative
stewardship of our resources will remain absolutely necessary. Internal
controls must be tightened and waste eliminated; outsourcing non-core
functions is still an important option. Risk will continue to be a
factor and our resourcing decisions must take this into account.
We must transform our resource processes and adjust our priorities
to meet the challenge of the current strategic environment. Because we
cannot mass-produce a volunteer Army, the retention of the right
volunteer force is an imperative. This force is essential to the combat
effectiveness of an increasingly complex and technologically
sophisticated Army. We must refine and streamline the resource,
acquisition, and fielding processes for equipment and supplies as we
cannot make up for lost time in a crisis.
Accelerated Acquisition and Fielding
We have adapted and continue to improve our acquisition and
fielding processes. In 2002, as Soldiers reported equipment shortages
in Afghanistan and elsewhere, we implemented the Rapid Fielding
Initiative (RFI) to ensure that all of our troops deploy with the
latest available equipment. Equipment fielding schedules were revised
to support unit rotation plans, and procurement and fielding cycles
were radically compressed.
In coordination with field commanders and our Soldiers, a list of
more than 40 mission-essential items, including the Advanced Combat
Helmet, close-combat optics, Global Positioning System receivers,
Soldier intercoms and hydration systems, was identified for rapid
fielding. Laying the foundation for acquisition transformation, RFI
already has equipped nine brigade combat teams (BCTs). In fiscal year
2004, RFI will upgrade a minimum of 18 BCTs and eight enhanced Separate
Brigades, serving in OIF and OEF. Additionally, we are accelerating
fielding of select future capabilities to our Current Force. These
items include thermal weapon sights, enhanced night vision goggles,
improved body armor, the Future Combat Rifle, and a new sniper rifle.
Congressional support for regular budget and supplemental spending
requests enables our Army to put this improved equipment in the hands
of our Soldiers.
With this support, our Army also has instituted a Rapid Equipping
Force (REF) that works directly with operational commanders to find
solutions to operational requirements. These solutions may be off-the-
shelf or near-term developmental items that can be made quickly
available. For example, the REF established a coordinated effort to
supply U.S. Forces with immediate solutions to counter improvised
explosive device (IED) threats. Currently, IED teams are on location
providing expertise and material solutions, to safeguard our Soldiers.
We are acting aggressively to improve the armor protection of our
armored and light-skinned vehicles. Other recent examples of REF
products are the Well-Cam and PackBots. The Well-Cam is a camera,
attached to an Ethernet cable and a laptop, that enabled Soldiers in
Afghanistan to search wells for weapons caches. PackBots are
operational robots used to clear caves, buildings, and compounds so
Soldiers are not unnecessarily put in harm's way.
RFI and REF provide timely support to our relevant and ready forces
and to the Combatant Commanders, and facilitate Army Transformation.
Balancing Our Active and Reserve Component Force Structure
Currently, neither our Active nor Reserve Component is optimized
for today's rapid deployability requirements. We will continue ongoing
efforts to restructure our forces in order to mitigate stress; to align
better with the current and projected security environments; and to
offer campaign-quality land power capabilities to the Combatant
Commanders. By doing so, we will ensure that our Army provides the
responsiveness and depth required to achieve strategic and operational
objectives, while simultaneously defending our homeland.
Our Army is restructuring and rebalancing more than 100,000
positions in our Active and Reserve Component force structure. These
conversions increase the Active Component capabilities available to
support the first 30 days of a rapid response operation. In response to
Secretary of Defense guidance, we have already completed approximately
10,000 positions. For example, the Army National Guard provisionally
organized 18 additional military police (MP) companies. Between fiscal
year 2004 and fiscal year 2009, our Army will divest approximately
19,500 positions of less frequently used Active and Reserve Component
force structure to further resource critical high demand units such as
military police, civil affairs, and special operations forces. We
project that future rebalancing efforts will convert an additional
80,000 positions of lower-priority force structure. Despite these
changes, our Army will remain stressed to meet anticipated
requirements. To ensure that our Army can fulfill its commitment to our
Nation, we should have the force capability level required to
facilitate rebalancing, resetting, restructuring, and transforming of
the Army.
Military-to-civilian conversions are another way to improve
manpower efficiency. More military personnel will fill the operational
force if they are moved out of positions that can be prudently
performed by civilians. To improve the Army's ability to better support
worldwide commitments, it is essential to start this process now.
Our Reserve Component relies heavily on Full-Time-Support (FTS)
personnel to sustain support of current contingencies while
restructuring the force. FTS personnel perform the vital, day-to-day
organizational, administrative, training and maintenance activities
that ensure the highest level of Soldier and unit readiness. To
guarantee that our Army's Reserve Component will continue to fulfill
ever-increasing demands with trained and ready units, our Army plans to
raise FTS authorizations by 15 percent, from the current level of
71,928 to 85,840, by fiscal year 2012. In 2003, the Army Reserve began
implementation of the Federal Reserve Restructuring Initiative. The
goal is to better meet contingency requirements and to improve unit
readiness.
Achieving Greater Combat Capability With Modular,
Capabilities-based Unit Designs
Modular units are interchangeable, scalable, and tailorable
formations, which provide the Joint Force Commander with a
strategically responsive force that greatly increases his ability to
defeat any adversary. Modularity enables us to tailor our capabilities
to the requirements of the situation and delivered at the right time
and the right place. Modularity permits the Combatant Commander to
optimize his warfighting tool set.
Moving toward independent, echelon-above-brigade headquarters will
enhance modularity. In accordance with our Unit of Employment (UE)
construct, a UE will provide the command-and-control structure into
which modular, capabilities-based Units of Action (UA) are organized to
meet Combatant Commander requirements. These UAs will incorporate
essential maintenance, intelligence, and communications functions
previously provided by higher level organizations. Our UE headquarters,
while able to accept joint capabilities such as a Standing Joint Force
Headquarters element, will have an organic capability, depending on the
contingency, to function as a Joint Task Force or Joint Force Land
Component Command headquarters like we have already done in Afghanistan
and Iraq.
Force Stabilization
The great demands placed on our Army have forced us to re-examine
many of our long-standing personnel and basing practices. As a result,
our Army is transitioning to an improved manning system, designed to
augment unit readiness by increasing stability and predictability for
commanders, Soldiers and families. Force Stabilization will allow
Reserve Component Soldiers to plan for their deployments while
supporting their civilian jobs and their community commitments. It
places greater emphasis on building and sustaining cohesive,
deployable, combat-ready forces for Combatant Commanders.
The home-basing initiative keeps our Soldiers in their assignments
at specific installations longer, thus reducing unit turbulence and
increasing unit cohesion. Unit Focused Stability synchronizes our
Soldiers' assignments to their units' operational cycle, providing a
more capable, deployable and prepared unit.
Installations as Our Flagships
Our installations are an essential component in maintaining the
premier Army in the world. For the warfighter, installations are the
platforms from which we project military power. Our installations
perform the following key missions: (1) provide effective training
facilities; (2) rapidly mobilize and deploy the force; (3) provide
reachback capabilities; (4) sustain and reconstitute the force; and (5)
care for our families. As power projection platforms, our installations
must be equipped with a robust information infrastructure that gives
the deployed commander quick and efficient reach-back capabilities. All
of these missions help to maintain our Army's deployability and
fighting edge.
Historically, we have accepted risk in our infrastructure and
installation services in order to maintain our current readiness. The
cumulative effect on our installations is that commanders rate more
than 50 percent of our facilities as ``adversely affecting mission and
training requirements.'' We have adjusted our management processes to
be more effective stewards of our resources. In 2002, we established
the Installation Management Agency (IMA) to create a corporate-focused
structure that provides efficient installation management worldwide.
The IMA uses creative management programs to sustain quality
installations and maintain the well-being of the entire Army family.
The Installation Information Infrastructure Modernization Program
(I\3\MP) enhances the installation's role in power projection and
provides the architecture to address the essential reach-back
requirement. Additionally, our Installation Sustainability Plan
addresses ways to fulfill environmental requirements without impacting
current or future training. Other important progress include
modernization of barracks and housing; a Residential Communities
Initiative; and divestiture of redundant facilities infrastructure and
non-core utility systems through privatization.
In the past few years, the administration and Congress have helped
us to begin addressing our infrastructure challenges. We requested 94
percent of funding required for sustainment of installations in fiscal
year 2004. We have made progress in improving our installations by
adjusting existing programs and developing new management strategies.
However, there is much still left to do in order to upgrade our
installations to better support the mission, Soldiers, and our
families.
Army Families and Well Being
People are the heart and soul of the Army--Soldiers, civilians,
family members, and retirees. Our readiness is inextricably linked to
the well being of our people. The Army Family, for both the Active and
Reserve Component, is a force multiplier and provides the foundation to
sustain our warrior culture. We have placed significant emphasis on our
Reserve Component this year in recognition of their contributions to
the Global War on Terrorism. With the help of the administration and
Congress, many improvements have been made including the retention and
increase of Imminent Danger Pay, Family Separation Allowance, and a
sizable pay raise. Other key well-being initiatives include the Spousal
Employment Partnership, new TRICARE policies for the reserve
components, and improvements in barracks and family housing. For more
information on other Army well-being initiatives, see Addendum D
(available at www.Army.mil)
Introducing New Capabilities Into Current Force
While at war, the urgency to accelerate the development and
fielding of new and enhanced capabilities to our fighting forces in the
field has never been greater. Our Army is making significant strides in
this regard with the employment of a new brigade combat team
organization, equipped with the latest available technology, to provide
the Combatant Commander with enhanced warfighting capabilities. The
rapid fielding of the Stryker vehicle demonstrates our Army's ability
to use the acquisition and resource processes to meet a Combatant
Commander's urgent needs.
Stryker Brigade Combat Team (SBCT)
In 2003, our Army deployed our first SBCT, the 3rd Brigade, 2nd
Infantry Division, to Operation Iraqi Freedom, delivering its enhanced
capability to the Joint Force in record time: four years from broad
concept to deployment. Exceptional support from Congress and the Office
of the Secretary of Defense, along with close collaboration between the
Army and industry, made this achievement possible.
Stryker brigades are our Army's first truly network-centric force,
filling the capability gap between light- and heavy-force units with an
infantry-rich, mobile force that is strategically responsive,
tactically agile, and more lethal. Improved battlespace awareness and
battle-command technologies embedded in our SBCTs enhance combat
effectiveness and survivability by integrating data from manned and
unmanned air and ground-based sensors and providing real-time,
continuous situational understanding. Planned enhancements will
incorporate still-developing technologies. Significantly, our SBCTs
will improve our Army's understanding of Future Force processes,
helping us to formulate an advanced warfighting doctrine that will
serve as an important bridge to the development of our Unit of Action,
the structural foundation of our Future Force.
This spring, our second SBCT at Fort Lewis, Washington, will become
operational. Our third SBCT, in Alaska, will be available in 2005.
Continued OSD and congressional support will ensure that subsequent
brigades in Hawaii, Louisiana, and Pennsylvania, are fielded between
2004 and 2008.
Future Capabilities
Our Army plans to field a number of systems this decade that will
provide a foundation for informing the transformation of our Current
Force capabilities into those needed by our Future Force. Once fielded,
these systems will perform as interdependent systems of systems and
will greatly enhance joint warfighting capabilities. Our future
capabilities programs are designed to enhance the campaign-quality
land-power capabilities that we provide to the Combatant Commanders.
Our programs undergo continuous reviews to ensure they meet the
capability requirements of the Joint Force. When required, we
restructure programs, revise requirements and reprogram resources. The
following are just a few of the key transformational systems our Army
will begin to field during the next six years:
The Network.--Our Future Force situational dominance will depend
upon a comprehensive, ubiquitous, and joint-interoperable Command,
Control, Communications, Computers, Intelligence, Surveillance, and
Reconnaissance (C\4\ISR) architecture (the Network) that enables the
Joint Force Commander to conduct fully interdependent and network-
centric warfare. The Network will provide the backbone of our Future
Force and the future Joint Force, enabling the maneuver commander to
effectively coordinate battlefield effects. Some of the more important
systems within our Network include:
--Warfighter Information Network--Tactical (WIN-T).--WIN-T will be
the communications network of our Future Force, optimized for
offensive and joint operations, while providing the Combatant
Commander the capability to perform multiple missions
simultaneously.
--Joint Tactical Radio System (JTRS).--JTRS is a family of common,
software-defined, programmable radios that will become our
Army's primary tactical radio for mobile communications.
--Distributed Common Ground System--Army (DCGS-A).--DCGS-A is a
single, integrated, ground-based, ISR processing system
composed of joint, common hardware and software components and
is part of the DOD DCGS family of systems.
--Aerial Common Sensor (ACS).--This ISR system and platform will use
robust sensor-to-shooter and reach links, (such as DCGS-A
ground stations), to provide commanders at every echelon the
tailored, multi-sensor intelligence required for joint
operations.
Future Combat Systems (FCS).--By extending the network capabilities
into the Unit of Action, the FCS provide a system of systems capability
that was not previously available to Soldiers and commanders in joint
operations. The core of our Future Force's maneuver Unit of Action is
the Future Combat Systems, comprised of 18 manned and unmanned
platforms that are centered around the Soldier and integrated within a
C\4\ISR network. FCS will provide our Soldiers greatly enhanced
situational awareness, enabling them to see first, understand first,
act first and finish decisively. Our FCS platforms will offer the Joint
Force networked, lethal direct fire; indirect fire; air defense;
complementary non-lethal fires and effects; and troop transport
capability. In May 2003, FCS moved, on schedule, into the System
Development and Demonstration phase. Our Army is aggressively managing
our FCS development effort and intends to achieve initial operational
capability by the end of the decade.
Army Science and Technology
The Army Science and Technology (S&T) Program provides our Army
superiority in both human and materiel systems arenas--preventing
technological surprise. The Army S&T program retains a dynamic
portfolio of investments that are responsive to warfighter needs today
and into the future. The priority for Army S&T is to pursue paradigm-
shifting technologies that can alter the nature of the military
competition to our advantage in the future and, where feasible, to
exploit opportunities to accelerate the transition of proven
technologies to our Current Force.
The Army S&T program exploits technology developments from the
other services, defense agencies and commercial industry as well as
international communities. The S&T program focuses on technology
relevant to our Army and joint capabilities. It synchronizes
operational concepts development and acquisition programs through
transformational business practices that speed technology fielding to
the Soldier. The Army's S&T program is balanced to satisfy the high
payoff needs of the future force while seeking rapid transitions for
critical capabilities to our Current Force.
Joint Operational Concepts (JOPSC)
The Joint Force has transitioned from independent, de-conflicted
operations to sustained interoperability. It must now shift rapidly to
joint interdependence. To that end, we are reviewing training
requirements, traditional relationships and developmental and
institutional programs. This process includes ensuring that our
operational concepts are nested inside those employed by the Joint
Force. The concepts and initiatives listed below discuss particular
Army emphasis areas; these areas are not all-inclusive. Functional
concepts and other Army initiatives that support the JOpsC are
discussed in detail in Addendum J (available at www.Army.mil).
Actionable Intelligence
Our Army also is focused on attaining actionable intelligence--
intelligence that provides situational understanding to commanders and
Soldiers with the speed, accuracy and confidence necessary to influence
favorably current and future operations. Actionable intelligence
achieves its intended purpose of empowering greater individual
initiative and self-synchronization among tactical units by fusing
information across organizations and echelons--accelerating the speed
of decision-making and the agility of operations.
Focused Logistics
Our Army's current actions around the world in support of the
Global War on Terrorism present a view of future military operations
and provide valuable insights as we transform our logistics systems
from the Current to the Future Force. The successes enjoyed during OIF
were the result of the integrated logistics team of Soldiers, civilians
and contractors, all of whom developed innovative solutions to a range
of challenges caused by four major capability gaps in the current
logistics system. To sustain combat power, our Army must have the
ability to ``see the requirements'' on-demand through a logistics data
network. We require a responsive distribution system, enabled by in-
transit and total-asset visibility and managed by a single owner who
has positive end-to-end control in the theater. Our Army needs a
robust, modular, force-reception capability--a dedicated and trained
organization able to quickly open a theater and support continuous
sustainment throughout the joint operations area. Lastly, we need an
integrated supply chain that has a single proponent, who can reach
across the breadth and depth of resources in a joint, interagency and
multinational theater. As we move from the Current Force to the Future
Force, we will build confidence in the minds of the Combatant
Commanders by delivering sustainment on time, every time.
A COMMITMENT TO OUR NATION
Our Nation and our Army are engaged in a Global War on Terrorism--a
war of survival against an insidious and cruel enemy that threatens our
civilization and our way of life. This enemy is actively targeting the
interests of America and our allies, both within our own country and
abroad.
Defeating this enemy requires the continued, strong support of our
Nation. The steadfastness of our Nation in this effort is readily
apparent. Ordinary Americans are doing their part and will continue to
do so. Congressional support for our troops has been critical to our
success. The industrial base also has responded, accelerating
production of items essential to our Soldiers' protection and
warfighting ability.
Our Army, too, remains committed to its heritage of preserving
freedom. American Soldiers display unrelenting tenacity, steadfast
purpose, quiet confidence and selfless heroism. For America to survive
and flourish throughout the 21st Century, our Army must defeat
decisively the threats that challenge us today. To accomplish this
essential task, we must recognize some important truths.
--The fight against terror will be a long one.
--Our Army must simultaneously deter aggression, defeat the forces of
international terrorism, and maintain our campaign qualities.
--We must continue to modernize to meet the challenges of our future.
--Our operational tempo is high and will remain so.
--Sustained operations and deployments will be the norm for our
Soldiers--NOT the exception.
--Old rules and operational methods may no longer apply; we will not
achieve victory with a business-as-usual approach.
Congressional backing for reset, our continued transformation to
the Future Force, our rebalancing and restructuring of the Active and
Reserve Component, and improvements to our installation infrastructure
is essential to continued mission readiness. We fully appreciate the
exceptional support Members and their staffs provided this past year.
The support of the American people and their elected representatives in
the United States Congress is essential.
Our Army's commitment to the future is certain. We will continue to
provide our Nation, the President, the Secretary of Defense and the
Combatant Commanders a unique set of core competencies and
capabilities. We remain dedicated to training and equipping our
Soldiers and growing leaders. We will continue to deliver relevant and
ready land power to the Combatant Commanders and the Joint Force. We
will protect our country and our way of life as we have for 228 years.
It is our privilege, our duty, and our honor to do so.
Senator Stevens. Our co-chairman has arrived. Senator
Inouye, do you have an opening statement?
STATEMENT OF SENATOR DANIEL K. INOUYE
Senator Inouye. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I do,
and I ask that my full statement be made part of the record.
But before I do, I would like to join you in welcoming General
Schoomaker and the Secretary of the Army, because this is their
first time before us. I can assure you that it will be--I will
not say a happy time, but we are good people.
I would like to join my chairman in expressing our
admiration and our gratitude to the men and women who have
stood in harm's way in our behalf since 9/11. I commend
everyone who has played an important role in these operations.
Time and time again, the extraordinary ability of our men and
women in uniform and all the people who work to support them
has been demonstrated. I can speak for everyone here: We are
extremely proud of our fellow Americans.
Thank you very much, sir.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Senator Daniel K. Inouye
Secretary Brownlee and General Peter J. Schoomaker, I would
like to welcome you both for your first appearance before this
subcommittee. It is an honor to have you here and I look
forward to your testimony.
It has been over two years since the United States
responded to the 9/11 attack with the Global War on Terrorism.
I commend everyone that has played a role in these operations.
Time and time again, the extraordinary ability of our men and
women in uniform and all the people that work to support them
has been demonstrated.
However, these ongoing operations have strained our troops.
Numerous concerns such as recruiting and retention, and force
structure requirements have been raised in Congress and by our
military forces in the field.
I suspect that these concerns will again be the subject of
debate in Congress, as they are continually brought up by
service members, their families, and the public. With ongoing
operations for the Global War on Terrorism and our struggling
effort to fund domestic priorities as well, this Committee has
a very difficult road ahead.
I am pleased that the Army is responding to the stress of
overseas deployments by temporarily increasing end strength by
30,000. Last year during the fiscal year 2004 Army budget
hearing, this subcommittee raised the subject of Army end
strength. General Shinseki testified that the requirements of
the Army demanded a change in right-sizing and right-mixing the
Army between Active and Reserve components. General Schoomaker,
I commend you for responding to this issue.
I look forward to discussing the details of this plan, its
funding and what you see as the long term future of Army force
structure.
I would also be interested to learn how you plan to ramp up
and then decrease the force within a few short years.
Part of the strain on our forces has led to our concern
over recruiting and retention, especially for the Guard and
Reserve. Ongoing deployments and the use of stop loss have
placed enormous demands on our military personnel and their
families.
I understand the Army is currently meeting goals for the
active component but is slightly short on the reserve
component. I would like to know your plan to address these
concerns this year and in fiscal year 2005.
The Army faces an unknown future, largely depending on how
things progress in Afghanistan and Iraq. Your task is to plan
for a schedule that is as yet undetermined, while working to
reset the force for another contingency.
To complicate this further, this will take place within the
constraints of a difficult fiscal year and with supplemental
funds coming later than you might hope.
Gentlemen, I must say the challenges facing you are great,
but I have every confidence in your ability to succeed.
Secretary Brownlee, General Peter J. Schoomaker, I look forward
to exploring these issues today and hearing your responses.
Senator Stevens. Thank you, Senator.
General Schoomaker, do you have a comment to make?
General Schoomaker. Sir, I would like to make just a few
brief comments if I might. Chairman Stevens, Senator Inouye:
thank you very much for the opportunity to join Secretary
Brownlee before you today and talk about our great Army.
I would like to reciprocate and recognize the great service
of Secretary Brownlee as Acting Secretary of the Army. He had a
very distinguished military career of his own--two tours in
Vietnam, wounded, recognized and awarded for valor on the
battlefield, and of course you are all aware that he also
served with distinction here as a staffer in this body, in the
Senate. He certainly is a great partner as we go forward with
the great challenges that we have before us, as we transform
the Army while we are engaged in the global war on terrorism
and engaged all over the world.
I would also like to recognize Lieutenant General Ron
Helmly with us today from the--he heads the U.S. Army Reserve;
and Lieutenant General Roger Schultz, to my left rear, who
heads the Army National Guard. We are one, we are a total Army,
we are together. There is no daylight between us in what we are
trying to achieve here, and I think you will see as we talk
about what we are doing that we are approaching this as a
unified body moving forward to the 21st century.
I would also like to recognize the great pride I have in
being able to serve once again in uniform with the men and
women of the United States Army, and this includes their
families, it includes the great civilians that we have, that do
so much to support our Army at war.
Finally, I would like to reinforce something that Secretary
Brownlee has said, and that is that we are moving out with a
great deal of vigor and momentum and we are trying to take
advantage of the silver lining in this cloud of worldwide
operations and being at war. We are trying to transform the
Army using the momentum of the Army as we reset for continuous
operations, that we do not reset it to the Army it was before,
but we reset it to the Army of the future.
We see this as an extraordinary window of opportunity, to
take advantage not only of the great resources that this
Congress and this committee has provided to our Army, but also
take advantage of the motion that the Army is in. It is a
narrow window of opportunity and perhaps one of my greatest
fears is that we do not take full opportunity here of this
window and allow ourselves to come to rest and not complete the
transformation that we feel is so necessary.
We have taken some extraordinary steps and one of them, of
course, is as we looked at Army aviation we found a solution in
the fact of terminating Comanche. I can assure you we did not
start out with an attitude to terminate Comanche, but it made
such sense from a business position as being a fiscally
responsible thing to do, and also that the operational traits
made so much sense.
I would ask your support for these kinds of initiatives to
ensure that the commitment that we were able to obtain from the
Secretary of Defense, from the White House, and from the Office
of Management and Budget (OMB) that these resources would be
committed to fixing Army aviation as we do it. I would tell you
that in this particular case it is not just the extraordinary
number of helicopters we are going to buy and the amount of
upgrades and modernization that we are going to do with our
existing fleet, but it also includes the military construction
(MILCON), it includes fixing the ammunition like rockets and
the Hellfire issue, which is a great concern to me, the
simulators, the training base, the unmanned aerial vehicles
(UAV's), and the future tech base for a future joint rotorcraft
solution for 2020-2025.
So it is a far-reaching approach that we are taking, and I
would very much appreciate your support with this, because I
know that there is a great deal of interest in how we are going
to accomplish all of this.
Having said that, sir, I stand with the Secretary of the
Army here in his statement and we have submitted our posture
statement for the record, and I look forward to your questions.
Thank you.
Senator Stevens. Well, thank you very much.
We anticipate approximately 10 members coming to join in
this hearing, so unless there is objection we will limit the
original round to 5 minutes apiece.
I want to start off by congratulating the two of you for
the Comanche decision. This committee had to make a decision
once before, a similar decision on the Sergeant York. You have
made the decision I think clearly and with a succinct
statement, so from my point of view I intend to support your
efforts and will honor the commitments that have been made that
the funds that will be redirected from the Comanche will stay
within Army aviation, where the need is very great.
But can you tell us, is there going to be a gap now in Army
helicopter procurement because of this?
General Schoomaker. Sir, the answer is no. In fact, as you
know, we were not going to achieve delivery of Comanche until
later within this future years defense program. There were 121
Comanches in the program at the time. The counterbalance is
that we are going to be significantly upgrading the current
fleet, bringing for instance Apache up to Block 3, which gives
us the same capability, with the exception of low
observability, as Comanche Block 1 was going to provide us.
What in effect we are doing, I believe we will achieve a
greater industrial base capacity that in effect is going to
give us very positive results on our readiness in the aviation
fleet. So we see this as a win-win situation all the way across
and I think it will give us immediate assistance here in
maintaining the readiness of our aviation.
Senator Stevens. Well, I am going to ask your cooperation
by having a classified session on the total subject of the
helicopter transition at a later date, because I think some of
the questions might not be appropriate in an open session.
ARMY END STRENGTH
We discussed informally the question of what is going to
happen to the increased strength you have now and your plans
for forming separate brigades from those and transitioning them
into the regular Army as you downsize other units. Could you
explain that for us here this morning?
Mr. Brownlee. Sir, I might let Pete start out with what we
need to do and then I could pick up and explain some of the how
for that.
Senator Stevens. Yes, please.
General Schoomaker. Sir, thank you very much. This is a
total Army switch to modularity, and what we are talking about
doing is maintaining 10 divisions on the Active Force and 8
divisions in the National Guard, for a total of 18 division
battle command headquarters. We then want to expand the number
of brigades. On the Active Army side we want to go from 33
active brigades that we currently have to a minimum of 43. That
is an increase of 30 percent, with the possibility of going to
48. We have an off-ramp at 2006 to make that decision, to see
how we are doing and what the affordability is.
But we believe that by going from 33 to 43 brigades, which
is the equivalent of almost 3 divisions of fighting strength
within the 10-division formation, that it will help us greatly.
At the same time, we are going to be transforming the Army
National Guard under its 8 division headquarters to 34 brigade-
sized units. This in effect gives us an Army of somewhere
between 77 and 82 brigade combat teams, which is in fact the
answer to relieving the stress to the force. This gives us a
broader base, that we get greater dwell time between
deployments and rotations. We believe that we can do this
within the current authorized statutory end strength numbers.
We have asked for a temporary growth, not in statutory end
strength, but a temporary growth in the Army under the
authorities that the President has in Title 10, that the law
gives him, for us not to use stop-loss, stop-move to grow the
Army, but to actually be able to recruit, train, and organize
through the pipeline on a temporary basis this additional
30,000 soldiers to create these brigades.
Simultaneously, we believe that we can find efficiencies
through some of the global force reposturing, military to
civilian conversions, and other efficiencies that we have had
that will offset that temporary growth so that we can let the
air out of the tires and come back down to our end strength,
retaining the brigades that we form.
I will let Secretary Brownlee discuss the specifics of
that.
Mr. Brownlee. Sir, I know there has been some discussion
over here about how we had proposed this. When we look
carefully at what we need to do and the authority to do it,
there clearly is an authority that the Congress intended for
peacetime, which was authorized end strength. There is another
authority in Title 10 that allows the President to waive the
requirements of the end strength and grow the force to whatever
is necessary to deal with the emergency.
Since the President had declared an emergency, we looked
and we were already some 20,000 people over our authorized end
strength under this Title 10 authority. We then asked
ourselves: Well, how are we paying for that additional end
strength? We were in fact paying for it with the supplemental
appropriations provided by the Congress for those purposes.
So what we have proposed is to allow us, as Pete described,
to grow by up to 30,000 over the next several years and to use
this to create these new brigades. It gives us additional head
space to do some of the efficiencies that will be very
difficult or impossible to do if we did not have this extra
growth and flexibility.
During this period of time our strategy is to find within
the Army these 30,000 spaces. So at the end of the conflict,
whenever that is, and as Pete says when the conflict comes down
and we let the air out of the tires, we can keep those
brigades, but at the authorized end strength we currently have.
That is our plan, that is our strategy.
As we looked at this, it was clearly better for us because
if we had to put this in our budget request and ask you to
increase our authorized end strength by 30,000 people, it is
about $1.2 billion per 10,000, so that is about $3.6 billion we
would have to put in our budget and knock out other programs to
pay for it. We then have to go through our future years defense
plan and knock it out every year in there also. So we would be
taking that out of programs that we are very interested in and
you have helped us greatly with to modernize the Army.
In fact, I know because I worked here and deal with some of
the same problems you do, if it were done over here, if you had
to go into the budget and find $3.5 billion of military
personnel money, that money pays out at a one for one rate over
90 percent and most of the other accounts that you would
actually be using as a source for funds pay out at a much lower
rate. So you would have to take a much larger proportion out of
those accounts to pay for these military personnel costs. You
might have to find as much as $7 to $10 billion or even more
out of these other accounts to pay for it.
So as we looked at this, we thought it was clearly better
for us and hopefully you would see it as better for the
Congress in dealing with this situation.
Senator Burns. Secretary Brownlee, can you turn your
microphone on?
Mr. Brownlee. I am sorry. I apologize, sir. I hope that
came across.
Senator Stevens. I just thought my ears were acting up
again.
Senator Burns. I thought I had gone deaf.
Mr. Brownlee. Sir, as one with very bad ones I should know
better. I apologize.
Senator Stevens. Well, I appreciate that. I do hope we can
keep the responses a little more succinct so that we can have
more than one question per Senator.
But one thing I failed to do--would you identify for the
record the general officers that have come with you, General
Schoomaker? I think sometimes we fail to recognize they are
here for your support. So I would like to have in the record
who is here.
General Schoomaker. Sir, I recognized Lieutenant General
Ron Helmly from the Army Reserve and Lieutenant General Roger
Schultz on the far left from the Army National Guard. General
Helmly is sitting right here in the middle. Lieutenant General
Jerry Sinn, who is out of our budget office. He is our counsel
on money, a very good one. And I think you know General Guy
Swan behind us, who is our legislative liaison.
Senator Stevens. Thank you very much.
Senator Inouye.
Senator Inouye. If I may follow up on the chairman's
question, are the new brigades going to be a permanent part of
the force?
General Schoomaker. Yes, sir.
Senator Inouye. I recall Dr. Zakheim indicated that these
new brigades will be phased out after the war in Iraq. Is that
correct?
General Schoomaker. No, sir. The 30,000 temporary end
strength will be phased out after the emergency and they will
be offset by the efficiencies we find within our current
statutory end strength during the period that we are doing this
transformation.
Senator Inouye. But not the new brigades?
General Schoomaker. No, sir. They stay, they remain.
RECRUITING AND RETENTION
Senator Inouye. Secretary and General, with the strain of
our deployed forces there is some concern among many about
recruiting and retaining, and I suppose that should be a
concern of all of us. Are you confident that you can meet your
goals without changing any standards in recruiting or
retention?
General Schoomaker. Yes, sir.
Mr. Brownlee. Right now, sir, I would describe as
cautiously optimistic where we are on all of this. We certainly
are concerned within the Army because we do have a very high
OPTEMPO. The Army is very busy. This impacts on soldiers and
their families. Right now with respect to recruiting, we are
confident that we are going to make our goals. We are running a
little below the line in some of them, but for most of them it
looks like we are going to make all our fiscal year 2004
requirements.
We have some concerns in retention in some spots, but in
other areas we are doing very well. So we are going to
concentrate on those. We have a lot of authority that has been
provided by the Congress to take certain measures to allow us
to provide incentives, which we will do when it appears time to
do that. We have already used some of them on reenlistment
bonuses and other authorities that have been provided for those
things.
General Schoomaker. Sir, I would like to add very briefly.
We were extraordinarily successful last year in meeting over
100 percent of our retention and recruiting goals across all
components. This year it looks like we are on track right now
to exceed 100 percent in recruiting across the components. We
do have a few retention challenges, but everybody is very
confident that we will make it.
BRIGADE UNITS OF ACTION
But I would like to make a very strong comment here that we
must relieve the stress on this force, and we believe our plan
is designed to do that, because we cannot rely on this
extraordinary level of commitment, sacrifice, and patriotism to
carry us at the level that we are currently operating. That is
why I feel it is so important that we use this extraordinary
window of opportunity to transform this Army to a broader
brigade base, to be able to achieve the kind of dwell time.
We anticipate we will be able to create a force that will
be able to sustain this level of effort we have today with an
Active Force rotation scheme of 1 year in three and with the
Reserve Components 1 year in five or six, which we think is
sustainable.
Senator Inouye. I realize that the matter of policy is not
within your jurisdiction, but, like all of us, you read the
papers, you receive briefings and such. And there are potential
hot spots throughout the world--the Korean Peninsula,
Indonesia, Malacca Straits, the Middle East, just to name a
few, Pakistan, India. Are you considering expanding the
military if we find ourselves having to involve ourselves in
all these activities?
Mr. Brownlee. Sir, as I indicated, the plans that we have
within the Army are to increase the number of combat brigades.
That will give us an additional capability in case we have to
respond to something else. Our primary intent right now is, as
General Schoomaker said, to relieve the stress, current stress
on the force. If there is another emergency elsewhere, this
clearly would give us more capability and flexibility in
responding to that.
General Schoomaker. I think again, just as a baseline,
today we have 33 brigades in the Active Force and we have 15
enhanced separate brigades in the National Guard that we
consider available and ready to go in a rapid way. If we
complete our transformation, we could have as many as 82
brigades available to us in real combat power within our
current statutory end strength.
This is what this transformation has taken us to. It will
be between 77 and 82 brigade combat teams across the Army
active component and National Guard.
Senator Inouye. You can have 82 brigades without changing
the end strength?
General Schoomaker. That is correct, sir.
Senator Inouye. Thank you, sir.
Senator Stevens. Senator Shelby.
Senator Shelby. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
ARMY AVIATION
Secretary Brownlee, regarding the Comanche program, I
believe that is the right way to go. What about the OSD and
White House commitment here? Are they committed to Army
aviation in the future, which I think is very important, that
this savings be spent there. I think General Schoomaker
referenced that clearly. Do you want to comment on that? Go
ahead, General.
General Schoomaker. I personally received the commitment of
Deputy Secretary of Defense Wolfowitz. I met in the Oval Office
with the President and achieved his commitment, and we met with
Josh Bolton in OMB and received their concurrence and
commitment that we would apply the Comanche program $14.6
billion to Army aviation.
Senator Shelby. It is very important to the future of the
Army, is it not?
General Schoomaker. Yes, sir.
RESET
Senator Shelby. The Army reset program, General Schoomaker.
A lot of us are concerned about the health of the Army's combat
equipment. We have talked about this before, especially combat
vehicles, with what has been going on in Iraq. $1.5 billion was
included in the supplemental last year for the Army depot
maintenance. Yet we understand that the Army Tank and
Automotive Command currently has a backlog of roughly the same
amount.
How much funding has the Army received from the 2004
supplemental for reset? What is the readiness level of the
units that have returned and units still deployed in Iraq?
Mr. Brownlee. I want to do that for the record, provide for
the record the exact amount of funding we received out of the
supplemental for resetting the force. But we do have funds to
recapitalize, reset, all of the major systems that we have
brought back right now, I believe, and we are proceeding to do
that.
[The information follows:]
Reset
The fiscal year 2004 emergency supplemental funded $1.2
billion in depot maintenance requirements and $2.0 billion in
10/20 level maintenance and delayed desert damage.
Additionally, we received another $208 million for
transportation to move equipment to the depots and to
commercialize some in-theater communications capability. This
was particularly important in that it permitted us to redeploy
several of the Army's unique communications units who were
approaching their one-year mark for deployment. We also
received $712 million in investment funds to purchase
communications equipment, replacement stocks for our
prepositioned equipment sets, and lethality and survivability
equipment for both Active and Reserve Component Soldiers.
Senator Shelby. But you have got to have sufficient
resources to reset. General?
General Schoomaker. Sir, you are exactly right. I am again,
with the same people, both the Secretary and I are on the
record. We are going to require supplemental funding to reset
the Army 2 years beyond the end of this emergency, which is
consistent with what it took us to reset the Army following
Desert Shield/Desert Storm. We have over 9,000 pieces of
rolling stock, 9,000 pieces of rolling stock that were used and
consumed and require repair, just from the Operation Iraqi
Freedom 1 (OIF-1), from the war.
Senator Shelby. We have got to get that to the depots, have
we not?
General Schoomaker. Yes, sir. That is who is going to have
to do this work. Some of it is going to have to be done
forward, some of it is going to have to be done here.
CALIBRATION SETS
Senator Shelby. General Schoomaker, regarding test,
measurement and diagnostic equipment, not very much attention
gets paid to test, measurement, and diagnostic equipment, but I
would like to express concern about the Army's action in this
bill to decrease the research, development, test and evaluation
(RDT&E) funding for calibration sets equipment by 275 percent
and to zero all procurement funding.
The loss of this funding for calibration sets (CALSETS)
2000 a lot of people believe negatively impacts two
transformation imperatives that are important to you,
modularity and commonality. Do you have enough calibration sets
in the force to meet immediate requirements? In other words,
what are we going to do here?
General Schoomaker. Sir, I believe we do, but we would need
to provide that for the record, unless the Secretary knows.
[The information follows:]
Calibration Sets (CALSET) Requirements
Army is meeting immediate critical calibration
requirements; however, it is assuming some near and long term
modernization risk. We are satisfying immediate critical
requirements for CALSETS 2000. CALSETS 2000 is a modernized,
tactical, deployable mobility platform with mounted calibration
and repair capability. The current Army requirement for CALSETS
2000 is 40: 29 tactical sets, six echelon above corps sets,
three training base sets, and two sustaining base sets. To
date, 20 CALSET 2000 systems have been procured. Without
funding to procure additional sets, the military will continue
to rely on a combination of CALSET 2000, and AN/GSM-286 and AN/
GSM-287 tactical sets. The AN/GSM 286/287 sets have the same
calibration capability, but do not meet mobility and
survivability requirements.
The Army is taking risk by not providing funds to modernize
existing calibration equipment or to fill emerging calibration
requirements gaps. The Deputy Chief of Staff, G4 is conducting
a world wide mission assessment to determine how the Army will
perform test, measurement, and diagnostic equipment (TMDE)
calibration and repair support without an equipment acquisition
program. The assessment focuses on risk mitigating solutions,
including: deployable modular military support teams, contracts
for calibration and repair support services, realignment of
existing CALSETs sets into discrete missions and functions, a
review of critical calibration standards and the systems they
support, and the potential for creating a Joint Calibration and
Repair support program. It will also address the legal
liability associated with calibration, impacts of repair
support to TMDE and review lessons learned and business cases
used by commercial industry today.
FUTURE COMBAT SYSTEM (FCS)
Senator Shelby. Okay. Future Combat Systems. Secretary
Brownlee, how is the FCS-lead systems integrator (LSI) team
performing? Is technology development where you want it to be?
Mr. Brownlee. Sir, I get different reports from the people
who are over watching that. They tell me that they are doing
well. I have to tell you that I have had some concerns about
that and so recently I wrote a letter to the Institute for
Defense Analysis and asked them to please examine the LSI
relationship between the Army and the LSI contractor and to
provide that report to the Army, just to be sure that that
relationship is working as we intended from an independent
point of view. So we will get that and that should be done in
several months.
STRYKER
Senator Shelby. Could you talk about the Stryker vehicle
performance in this setting in Iraq?
Mr. Brownlee. Yes, sir, I can, and I am sure Pete would
like to add to whatever I might say. But we have been very
pleased with the way it is performing in Iraq. We have had
several vehicles that have been hit by rocket propelled
grenades (RPG's) that have survived in the way we intended, and
this is with an interim protective system, the slat armor that
we put on it which was an interim protective system. So far
that has worked as intended. The reports we get from the field
are very good with respect to that vehicle and we are very
pleased with it so far.
Senator Shelby. General?
General Schoomaker. Sir, I am very pleased with the way
Stryker has performed, not only as a vehicle but as a system.
The amount of infantry that is in Stryker is amazing and its
lethality, its ability to network and move. As you know, we
have just gotten our commitment and approval out of OSD to
proceed with Stryker 5 and 6, so that completes Stryker. As we
move forward----
Senator Shelby. That is a good endorsement, too, is it not?
General Schoomaker. Sir, it is. The improvements that are
being made to Stryker along the lines of protection are
significant. Currently it is the second best protected system
that we have, second to the M-1 tank, and it will continue to
improve. So we are very happy with what we see there.
Senator Shelby. Mr. Chairman, we will get another round?
Senator Stevens. Yes, we will.
Following the early bird rule, next we recognize Senator
Hutchison.
Senator Hutchison. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
STOP LOSS
You said--I think your concept is outstanding, and you said
you were going to use stop-loss orders to keep the people as
you are in your retraining process. How long do you anticipate
those stop-loss orders will be?
Mr. Brownlee. We only stop-loss units that are alerted to
be deployed, units that are deployed, and units that have
immediately returned from deployment. This is to, as General
Schoomaker said, stabilize that force so that it stays
together, trains as a team, deploys as a team and a unit, and
fights that way.
Senator Hutchison. And how long do you anticipate the stop-
losses to last?
General Schoomaker. We stop-loss from alert to up to 90 to
120 days upon return. But you might have misunderstood me here.
Our temporary end strength--our temporary growth that we have
asked for above end strength is not stop-loss. We do not want
to use stop-loss for that. We want to recruit and specifically
target where those go.
So we will continue to use stop-loss for those units that
are specifically going to war, to hold them together, and we do
that very carefully. I mean, we recognize what stop-loss is,
but if you take a look at our other initiatives, which is force
stabilization, as we move to modularity and stabilize the force
it will reduce our requirement to have to use stop-loss.
RESERVE COMPONENT DEPLOYMENTS
Senator Hutchison. I understand. Let me ask you this. Are
you going to be able to show fairly quickly a relief to Guard
and Reserve deployments?
General Schoomaker. I think you know we have just alerted
three more brigades and a division headquarters for OIF-3, and
we have done it early to provide the predictability and the
time so that people are not being rushed as has been necessary
in the past. But again, the more of these brigades we can
create on the active side--and that is why we have asked to do
the 10 brigades in 3 years. We have already got one in the 3rd
Infantry Division. They have already reset into a four-brigade
division. We are going to do two more this year. We will do
three or four next year and the residual three or four the
third year.
The faster we can achieve that, the less we are going to
have to--the more relief we can give to calling the Guard, as
long as we are at this level of effort. If this level of effort
reduces, of course, the requirement for the National Guard will
reduce commensurately.
Senator Hutchison. Do you have a long-term goal on how long
you would ask a member of the Guard and Reserve to activate
during their time that they have signed up to serve?
General Schoomaker. We are working very hard to reduce the
amount of post-mobilization training requirements in the Guard.
If we get into force stabilization and modularity, it will
allow us to predict when we have to call--when a unit would be
in the window of alert.
Senator Hutchison. I understand that you are saying
predictability is very important, and it is. But I am also
visiting our Guard and Reserves in Kuwait, Afghanistan, Iraq,
and at home, and part of their frustration, as you know, is
overdeployment. It is not just being able to tell when they are
going; it is going so much.
General Schoomaker. The path to relieve their frustration
is the faster that we can get to this level, it will increase
the dwell time between deployments. As I said, we could get on
the Active side one deployment in a 3-year cycle, on the Guard
side we can get one deployment in a 5- or 6-year cycle in a
predictable fashion. Our desire is to limit these deployments
to 6-month deployments if we have to do it.
Senator Hutchison. That is what I was after. Thank you very
much.
Senator Stevens. Senator Dorgan is recognized.
Senator Dorgan. Mr. Chairman, thank you.
RESERVE COMPONENT RECRUITMENT AND RETENTION
Secretary Brownlee and General Schoomaker, the National
Guard and Reserve are being used in a manner that we had not
previously anticipated. I think everyone agrees with that, and
we have Guard and Reserve troops in Iraq that have now been
mobilized for 13 months, away from homes, families, and jobs
and who may not be back home until May. That was certainly not
anticipated, and we have had long discussions about that.
Let me ask, what is this doing to recruitment and
retention? There has been some concern about recruitment and
retention rates in the Guard and Reserve. Can you give me
information about that? I see General Schultz is here and
perhaps he has information about that as well.
Mr. Brownlee. Sir, in the National Guard in fact our
retention rates, I believe, are running over 100 percent right
now. Reserves are a little bit below the glide path that we
would desire. We believe we can get that up in order to meet
our fiscal year 2004 goals.
Senator Dorgan. At this point, then, you are not concerned
about, based on your experience and also looking forward, you
are not concerned that the increased deployments are going to
affect recruitment and retention?
Mr. Brownlee. Sir, I am always concerned, I very much am. I
think this OPTEMPO certainly has human costs that we have to
measure and what we have told the Army staff is we want to know
when the light on the dashboard flickers amber so we can take
measures and steps to try to get things under control. What we
want to avoid is having people come in and tell us when every
light on the dashboard is red and then we are in trouble.
So that is the way we are trying to operate it. But I would
not want to tell you we are not concerned. We are very
concerned and that is one reason that we have come forth with
the initiative to grow the size of the Army to reduce the
stress.
General Schoomaker. If I could, I may be the only person in
the room that thinks it is extraordinary that we are calling
the Guard and the Reserve. I think that is what we are for and
I think that the Active, Guard, and Reserve are all volunteers.
Now, what is disappointing is that we are working, of the
million people we have in uniform, we are working too few of
them too much. Part of what we have to do in our restructuring
is distribute the load across the force, and that is what we
are trying to do here.
But the Guard right now is leading in both recruiting and
retention in the Army, which is counterintuitive. But in fact--
and I will let Roger verify, validate that.
Senator Dorgan. The reason I ask the question is it is
counterintuitive, you would think. And I think it is
extraordinary, by the way. I would not necessarily agree with
you.
General Schoomaker. It is.
Senator Dorgan. It is extraordinary that we would call up a
unit and they are gone 17 months or in some cases close to 18
months from family, home, and job, and in a couple of cases
only 2 years following a deployment to Kosovo.
I understand that is what the Guard and Reserve are for,
but I think you have indicated in your testimony we need to be
judicious about how often we deploy them and how long we deploy
them, because they are citizen-soldiers.
SUPPLEMENTAL BUDGET REQUEST
Let me ask a question. You have mentioned General Sinn and
we are very proud of General Sinn in North Dakota. You
indicated that he is keeping track of costs. I suspect that you
are taking a look at what are the anticipated future costs here
with respect to deployments and, for reasons that the chairman
and others have discussed on the floor with me and others, that
those costs are not included in the budget. But I would expect
that we will then pass a supplemental. We passed a $60 billion
supplemental for the military at the end of 2003 and we will do
that again.
But can you give us some sense of what kind of costs you
are seeing and what kind of costs you are planning for that are
not yet included in the budget, but that we will be confronted
with with respect to a supplemental?
Mr. Brownlee. Sir, the cost of the operations, if you count
all the costs to include the personnel costs, which maybe
should not be counted, but it runs for both Afghanistan and
Iraq over $4 billion a month. Most of that would be covered, is
covered now, by the supplemental that was previously passed.
The Army got roughly $40 billion of I believe the $65.1 billion
that was provided by the Congress for military operations and
that is what we are using for that. We believe that certainly
is adequate to take us to the end of this fiscal year.
We may need some assistance from the administration,
depending on whether the costs continue or increase. So that
right now is where we see that.
ADD-ON ARMOR
Senator Dorgan. Let me ask--my time is about expired. I
want to ask one additional question. The marines recently
engaged in a contract to buy sets of what is called LAST
ceramic armor for HMMWV's in Iraq. As I inquired about that, I
understood the marines determined that the LAST armor is the
quickest and most efficient way of protecting its vehicles,
HMMWV's, after observing tests done by the Army.
Does the Army have plans to proceed in a similar fashion?
These are--apparently it is ceramic armor for the doors of
HMMWV's that the marines observed in testing that the Army did,
and they decided to proceed to purchase.
Senator Stevens. Your time has expired, I hope that you
realize.
Senator Dorgan. I preceded my question by suggesting my
time was about to expire. I finished my question and if they
have time to answer I would appreciate that.
Mr. Brownlee. Sir, if we could take that for the record. I
would prefer not to address that in open session.
Senator Dorgan. That would be fine. Thank you very much.
[The information follows:]
Add-on Armor Kits for the HMMWV
The Army did not purchase the LAST Armor produced by
Foster-Miller Inc., in Waltham, Massachusetts because the
ceramic did not address the holistic approach to HMMWV add-on
armor protection that the Army desired. The LAST Armor, a
ceramic armor plate, provides only partial door protection, has
no back plate or perimeter protection. Also, the ceramic armor
is very expensive: $600 per square foot as opposed to the
Rolled Homogenous Armor (RHA), which is used in our Army
Research Laboratories (ARL) add-on armor kits, at $15 per
square foot. In October 2003, the LAST Armor was sent to the
Army Test Center where the armor demonstrated reasonable
protection against ballistic threats. But there were concerns
about the robustness of the ceramic armor when it is attached
to the vehicle. LAST Armor is mounted to the canvas door of a
HMMWV with clips and Velcro, and cannot be expected to stop an
improvised explosive device blast since the canvas door would
likely dislodge, thereby creating an additional piece of
fragmentation (door and armor plate) that can injure or
mortally wound the Soldier.
The Army has purchased 6,900 ARL add-on armor kits and
1,500 O'Gara Hess add-on armor kits for HMMWVs. The Army kit
provides door, perimeter, and back plate protection with
ballistic glass and air conditioning. ARL's durable kit is
composed of \3/8\ inch RHA and it takes approximately three
hours to install all kit components. To date, 2,675 kits have
been produced and 2,079 kits have been installed in theater.
The U.S. Marine Corps is scheduled to receive 650 of these ARL
add-on armor kits as well.
The Army believes LAST Armor is a good commercial off-the-
shelf force protection product for civilian and local law
enforcement, but does not provide robust or extensive enough
force protection for Soldiers deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan.
Senator Stevens. Senator Cochran is recognized.
Senator Cochran. Mr. Chairman, thank you.
ROTATION OF TROOPS
General Schoomaker, I understand the Army is in the midst
of one of the largest troop rotations in the history--well,
since World War II anyway. You have pointed out that in this
period of 4 months from December through April you will have
110,000 troops deploying to the Iraq theater of operations and
120,000 returning. That is quite a challenge. You have said we
are entering the most challenging period for the Army since
World War II.
I wonder what you have done to help ensure the protection
of those forces during the troop rotation and the logistical
challenges that you face? Have you had enough equipment,
airlift, sealift, support from the other forces or from the
total force concept?
General Schoomaker. Sir, it is a great question. We in fact
are moving over 250,000 people in those 4 months. We are moving
on average 5,000 people in and out every day. We have done very
close work with Central Command, General Abizaid and his folks,
to ensure the proper protection and operational security. All
of the things that are required there are extraordinary, and
the support we have had out of Transportation Command, General
Handy and his folks, in managing this movement is
extraordinary.
What I find to be particularly extraordinary is we are
right now at the very peak of this and it has been virtually
seamless. It has been very, very well done. We are very proud
of what the joint team has done to be able to pull this off,
and we do not anticipate we will have any problems in the
future because it is running very smoothly.
NATIONAL GUARD AVIATION MODERNIZATION
Senator Cochran. We have a good number of reservists and
guardsmen on duty around the world. I have been told that about
40 percent of the force in Iraq is made up of reservists and
National Guardsmen. I know we have 22 Guard and Reserve units
represented from my State that are deployed to the theater.
One of our groups represented over there is an Army
National Guard aviation group from Tupelo, Mississippi. They
fly helicopters, and when they were deployed they realized they
had lost their helicopters to a Tennessee Guard unit that had
gone on before them, and they were anticipating some
replacement helicopters. But these are challenges that I know
you are facing. They have been dispersed among some other
units, so they can take advantage of their training and their
capability of contributing to the mission there.
But I am sure the aircraft distribution challenge is
something that you are looking into and trying to manage as
well. Do you have the replacement aircraft that you need,
helicopters, for National Guard aviation units? Is there
anything we can do in this budget cycle to help you overcome
the deficits that you may face?
Mr. Brownlee. Sir, I appreciate the question and I have
looked into this. That unit of yours has performed remarkably,
because we used them in a way that we would prefer not to. We
had to use them almost as fillers for other units. That is part
of our reorganization of the Reserve components that we are
going to address.
We have too much force structure for the number of people
we have, so when we call a unit up we have to take people from
other units to fill those units up. We want to reduce the
number of units, but not reduce the number of people, so we can
keep units filled. One point.
The second point is, for the unit at Tupelo, they did lose
their OH-58's, their Kiowas, to the Tennessee unit. Under the
aviation plan that is being put together right now, it is yet
undetermined whether they will receive Kiowa Warriors back in
that unit or Apaches. But that decision should be made soon and
we will make sure that you know as soon as we make that
decision.
General Schoomaker. I would like to just jump on that. You
asked what can you do. Support the movement of the Comanche
funding to the Army aviation modernization, because we are
going to purchase 800 new aircraft and upgrade 1,400, and that
is for the Active, Guard and Reserve. It makes the Guard and
Reserve well in aviation, and that was a significant factor in
making the decision to go this direction.
ARMORING BRADLEY FIGHTING VEHICLES
Senator Cochran. In connection with force protection, we
heard about the upgrading of the armor for HMMWV's. Is there a
similar program underway for the Bradley fighting vehicles?
Mr. Brownlee. Sir, the Bradley fighting vehicles can be
equipped with what we call reactive armor. We have some
reactive armor sets. We do not have enough for every Bradley in
theater, but the Bradley of course has the kinds of ballistic
protection already inherent in its organic armor up and beyond
that that the up-armored HMMWV would have. The reactive armor
that we are talking about would provide additional protection
from even more deadly weapons, and we do not normally put that
on every Bradley, but only on selected units.
Senator Cochran. As part of the improvement of the
helicopter and other aviation situation----
Senator Stevens. Senator, I am sorry to say your time is
up.
Senator Cochran. I would be glad to wait for another round.
Thank you.
Senator Stevens. Senator Shelby--Senator Burns. Pardon me.
Senator Burns.
Senator Burns. Mr. Chairman, I have a statement I will put
in the record.
Senator Stevens. Without objection.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Senator Conrad Burns
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to thank the
witnesses for coming before our subcommittee today, to testify
on the Army's fiscal year 2005 budget.
Our military, and the U.S. Army in particular, has many
folks engaged in Afghanistan and Iraq, fighting the war on
terrorism. We are winning this war on terror. Our soldiers,
sailors, airmen and marines are performing magnificently. We
must honor those who have made the ultimate sacrifice for our
country, to ensure that our forces have the resources to defeat
the enemies of our country. With 325,000 soldiers deployed in
120 countries, including 165,000 reservists, there is no
question that our forces are being challenged.
I see the increasing trend in the ratio of reservists
overseas from 37 percent in the early stages of Operation Iraqi
Freedom to 46 percent currently. In Montana, over 40 percent of
our National Guard units have been called to active duty. I
intend to do my part as their representative to ensure our
armed forces have what they need to win this war, protect our
homeland, and come home safely.
We have announced that the Army force structure will grow
by 30,000 soldiers, on a temporary basis. We must plan
appropriately to house, equip, and train these men and women
who serve. While the force structure increase may be temporary
and funded through the supplemental appropriation, I urge the
Army to consider all the costs associated with this increase so
that we are not forced to sacrifice the research and
development of systems that maintain the superiority of our
forces, just so that we may support our operating budget.
I read daily of our great American Soldiers and Marines
developing unconventional solutions to solve the problems they
face in the field. I think it makes a great deal of sense to
have an organization chartered to bring good ideas from our
nation's universities, laboratories, and small businesses to
the soldiers as soon as possible, and where necessary,
bypassing the bureaucracy. I encourage your continued support
of Army initiatives to expedite the fielding of urgently needed
equipment through efforts such as the Rapid Fielding Initiative
and the Rapid Fielding Force. These efforts have resulted in
the fielding of great innovations such as advanced weapon
sights, optics, compact soldier communication systems, and
compact GPS Receivers.
I see that the Army has been cooperating with other
agencies such as DARPA on a range of technologies urgently
needed for the war on terror. This cooperation has allowed us
to field technologies to defeat improvised explosive devices,
investigate underground structures, and provide a low cost air
reconnaissance capability to our forces.
I am aware of the program initiated to transform our Army
ground forces; the Future Combat Systems. It is a good sign of
its acceptance by the Army to see its transition from science
and technology into full-scale development. It is encouraging
to see the Army take ownership of this program, begun
unconventionally in partnership with DARPA, on a very
challenging schedule intended to field an evolutionary
capability in the near term. More recently in Operation Desert
Storm and Operation Iraqi Freedom, we witnessed the incredible
advantages of joint operations, leveraging the advantages of
air superiority and precision weapons. We have seen an increase
in the number of Unmanned Air Vehicles (UAVs) in use by our
forces at all echelons. The feedback I have received from the
soldiers on the ground is that they wish they had more of these
systems, not less.
I look forward to seeing how the Army will amend its budget
and re-allocate the resources dedicated to the Comanche within
the Army to other aviation programs, like the continued
fielding of technology that will add a measure of protection to
our Blackhawks and Chinook helicopters.
Again, I thank all of you for being here today. I look
forward to the discussion before us this morning. Thank you.
Senator Burns. I just have one question.
By the way, I just want to state publicly now:
Congratulations. Our visits to Iraq and Afghanistan have been
very fruitful and I want to congratulate your people, both
leadership and the Government issue (GI's) that we have got on
the ground. They are doing a remarkable job under very
difficult conditions, knowing that they are the target and are
in a reactive position rather than in an active position, which
is a tough way to operate your business. The morale I found was
high. I was really impressed with the leadership of those young
men and women that you have over there, and I want to
congratulate you on that. That comes from an old marine and it
comes hard. No, not really.
RESERVE COMPONENT TRAINING AND EQUIPMENT
We have got 40 percent of our Guard in Montana deployed and
now we have gotten notification that the 163rd Mechanized
Infantry Regiment out of Bozeman, Montana has been put on
alert. There is some question about equipment. I have worked
very hard to build the infrastructure for training both in my
Reserves and my Guard in Montana, because whenever the move was
made that a lot of our force structure was going to go into our
citizen-soldiers I made sure that they had, the Guard and the
Reserves, communications that was interactive for training, the
facility was part of the recruitment and the morale of the
troops. I felt their training had to be as good as what we are
providing our soldiers on active duty.
But I am just wondering about the equipment when they
deploy. Now, some of the equipment is not up to what we find
with our active duty personnel. Will their equipment, such as
the body armor--and I have got written down here ``HMMWV, body
armor''--will that all be brought up to the same as active duty
whenever they are deployed?
General Schoomaker. Sir, we have equipped the Guard--the
30th, the 39th, and the 81st that right now are in motion for
OIF-2 received the top, the most modern body armor, equipment,
helmets, what we call RFI, the rapid fielding initiative. They
received it ahead of the Active Force, and we are now of course
catching up on the Active Force.
But our intention and our commitment is to equip the Army
at the top level across the Active, Guard and Reserve and to
train, to do what you are talking about uniformly across the
force. That is our initiative here as we go to modularity,
stability, and to do the kind of things that we are talking
about doing.
Senator Burns. That is good news. Also, when you integrate
they have still got to be part of a team and they have got to
understand what position they play on the team, so to speak. I
have been always concerned about that.
IMPROVISED EXPLOSIVE DEVICES (IED)
Under another, I would like some sort of a briefing
whenever we get time, and I can communicate this with Secretary
Brownlee, but deploying new technologies for detection and
worrying about these roadside bombs and detection devices. Is
the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA)--are you
satisfied with the progress that DARPA is making in new
technologies for detection?
Mr. Brownlee. Sir, we have within the Army an IED task
force. I do not want to get into a lot of detail of what they
are doing, but let me say that not just DARPA but every agency
that can help has been asked to help and has been very
forthcoming. Let me just say that we are pleased with what this
task force is doing and what they are accomplishing and what it
looks like we can accomplish, and we would be happy to provide
that to you in a different session.
Senator Burns. Well, it looks like this is the wave of the
future and I think that is pretty important.
That is all the questions I have and I want to congratulate
the General on his boots.
General Schoomaker. Sir, those are Wyoming boots.
Senator Burns. That is what I thought. Are you as good a
roper as the boots are?
General Schoomaker. I am a half-decent roper. Are you a
heeler?
Senator Burns. I can do both ends, but I am not very good.
General Schoomaker. Good. I do not play golf; I do that.
Senator Burns. Good man.
Senator Stevens. The most important question is, do you
fish, General?
Senator Burns. He does that, too.
Senator Stevens. We will cover that later.
Tell us about the Future Combat System and what the status
of that project, program, is now, will you please?
FUTURE COMBAT SYSTEM
Mr. Brownlee. Sir, let me say a little bit about the
program. As you know, it is the Army's system of systems
approach to equipping our future forces. We intend to convert
most of our heavy units to that and maybe some others in the
future. Right now we are looking at an initial operational
capability by 2010 and a full operational capability by 2012.
It is all in R&D development right now and, as I said, we have
this approach with a lead system integrator where the
contractor works very closely with the Army in the development
of these systems.
Do you want to comment on what we intend to do with it?
General Schoomaker. I think the best statement is that we
think we are going to fulfill, we have got confidence we are
going to fulfill, the Future Combat System. We are protecting
the funding. We are moving forward on it. We are informing
ourselves with our current operations and spiraling things into
Future Combat System, and we are trying to pull technologies as
they are developed back into the current force.
So I look at the Future Combat System not as a destination,
but as an effort every day as we move out there. I am fairly
confident that we are going to do well there. The biggest
challenge we have in the Future Combat System in my view is the
command, control, communications, computers, intelligence,
surveillance, and reconnaissance (C\4\ISR), the battle command
and the intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance aspects
of that, because it is a network, it is dependent upon the
network, and we must achieve the networkcentricity that is
required for us to really optimize what the Future Combat
System holds. It will significantly improve our ability to
operate as part of a joint team.
SUPPLEMENTAL BUDGET REQUEST
Senator Stevens. Gentlemen, I think I must take
responsibility for the fact that there will be no supplemental
this year, in the balance of this fiscal year. We just spent
too much time on those supplementals in the past. I had the
Congressional Research Service (CRS) take a look at policies we
have followed now since the Persian Gulf war and those policies
have been that in the initial periods of a war, engagement
overseas, we have followed the practice that the Commander in
Chief takes money from the funds we have already made available
for the Department of Defense and uses them in the conduct of
that activity and then later comes in and asks for a
supplemental which repays the amounts that have been taken from
the regular accounts, and then provides for the balance of the
fiscal year for those activities using the experience of the
first quarter, quarter and a half of the new fiscal year to
determine how much will really be needed for that fiscal year.
My question to you is, you have not lived through those
periods, but in terms of your judgment has the Army--the Army
bears the real brunt of this type of policy. Has it in anyway
been harmed by that practice? Is it a practice we should
abandon and ask for a supplemental now? The budget will have at
least $30 billion indicated as being available for the
supplemental some time after the beginning of next calendar
year.
I want to know, are you willing to go on the record and
tell us whether this policy adversely affects the Army in its
activities in the conduct of the war?
Mr. Brownlee. Yes, sir. We have looked at this very
carefully and we believe with the funds we have in fiscal year
2004 both in our budget and from the supplemental that we can
clearly get to the end of fiscal year 2004. If we get in
trouble, OSD has assured us they are able to help. Beyond
fiscal year 2004 when we would have the funds available in the
fiscal year 2005 budget, we would be able to cash flow funds
out of third and fourth quarter funds to help us in the first
and second quarters, and if there are additional problems that
might arise, we have checked with OSD and they believe the
administration is capable of providing any other help we might
need, which means we should be able to carry ourselves at least
through the end of March next year, maybe a little beyond. I
would not want to put a date on it, but at least until then.
That is our best estimate.
Senator Stevens. That is the policy we followed in Kosovo
and Bosnia and as a matter of fact in the initiation of the
Persian Gulf war.
Mr. Brownlee. Yes, sir.
Senator Stevens. But there has been a request that we
change that policy. You are confident that you can live with
this policy in terms of this war?
Mr. Brownlee. Notwithstanding any emergencies that we do
not see now, sir, we can.
Senator Stevens. General and all your general officers, you
lived--I am going over the line a little bit here--you lived
through these other engagements. Was the Army inconvenienced in
Bosnia or in Kosovo in that manner of funding the operations
overseas?
General Schoomaker. Sir, not that I am aware of. The only
thing that I would say--and it is a little bit below the radar
screen probably--but as you know, there are anti-deficiency
rules and there are times when we could make better decisions
if there was certainty of funding in certain areas, so that we
may be able to not only anticipate better but provide better
fiscal management if we had the opportunity to do a little
longer lead time on some things.
But in terms of the macro picture and the big news, I am
not aware of there having been a problem in that.
Senator Stevens. Senator Inouye.
Senator Inouye. Thank you.
TRAVELING ARMY EXHIBIT ON INTEGRATION
As you can imagine, as part of my work I try my very best
to travel and meet and listen to men and women in uniform. I
find that there are two elements involved in the development of
a combat soldier. One is morale, naturally; and the other is
the sense of belonging to a unit.
So some years ago I began questioning people and, to my
surprise--I should not have been surprised--almost no one had
ever heard of the Fifth Regimental Combat Team, made up of
Puerto Ricans, which served in World War II. When I tell that
to the Puerto Rican Americans, their eyes light up and they
say: My God, we had our men in there?
Even with all the documentaries we have had about the
members of the Army Air Corps, the Tuskegee Airmen, not too
many Americans are aware of them. But when you tell them that
this unit protected bombers and never lost a single bomber they
are stunned. They were made up of men who were segregated, like
the Puerto Ricans were segregated. Then when I tell them that
there was a Filipino regiment, a combat team, sent to the
Philippines just before December 7 and they ended up the war
with less than 800 men because they were left there by General
MacArthur to serve as the basis of a guerrilla force, they are
stunned. When I tell Hispanic Americans that 17 of them have
medals of honor, they cannot believe it.
So, Secretary, you and I have worked out something of a
traveling exhibit. We are going to send them all over the
museums of the posts. I just want to know, how is it coming
along.
Mr. Brownlee. Yes, sir. Sir, I will provide the answer for
the record, but to my knowledge we are proceeding with that. I
certainly support what you are doing. I think it will show a
real benefit to the Army in recruiting and we want to do that.
So I thank you for the idea and I will get you a detailed
account of where we are.
[The information follows:]
Traveling Army Art Exhibit
Sir, I have asked our Chief of Military History, Brigadier
General John S. Brown, to take the lead for the Army on this
very important project. A partnership between the National
Center for the Preservation of Democracy and the Army has been
established for the purpose of establishing a traveling
historical exhibit. I believe this is an excellent idea, and
that the evolution through time of an acceptance of cultural
and racial differences is a worthwhile theme. Certainly the
spirit of tolerance is one of the greatest strengths of our
present armed forces and of our democratic heritage. The funds
have been transferred to the Center of Military History.
General Brown's staff is currently working out the contracting
details and assisting in coordinating the traveling venues with
the National Center for the Preservation of Democracy. General
Brown is scheduled to have an office call with you on Monday,
March 22, 2004, and can answer any specific questions you have.
Senator Inouye. Well, we have a lot of talk about human
rights and civil rights. Integration began in the Army. That is
the first place. It was not the Interior Department or any
other Department; it was the Army.
Mr. Brownlee. Yes, sir. Sir, thank you for that.
Senator Inouye. Thank you, sir.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Stevens. Senator Shelby.
Senator Shelby. Thank you.
RESET
I would like to go back to the reset programs, the
projections for it. It is my understanding from some of the
depots, that a plan to do reset has not--the plans have not yet
materialized, General, while projections for the reset workload
at the depots continue to go down. Is 10/20 the standard our
soldiers deserve? An adequate overhaul, a lot of people
contend, cannot be accomplished anywhere but in the depots.
What is the real reset plan for the depots? Mr. Secretary,
do you want to touch that?
Mr. Brownlee. Sir, we are using the depots now. You might
be interested to know that in these depots, particularly the
one in Anniston, we are using them to assist us in preparing
armor kits for all the HMMWV's that are not up-armored as they
cross the line.
Senator Shelby. I know. I was down there. I just saw what
they are doing.
Mr. Brownlee. They are cutting steel and putting together
kits----
Senator Shelby. It is very innovative.
Mr. Brownlee [continuing]. To help us do that, and we are
very appreciative of that. In fact, we fly those over, that is
how important that work is that they are doing there.
Senator Shelby. What about the projected work on reset for
the depots? It has not come forth yet. What do you--what is
going on here?
Mr. Brownlee. Sir, a lot of our equipment has not been
brought back yet, and we have provided for I believe it is 17
systems--is that the number that we would propose----
General Schoomaker. I think 15 systems in reset.
Mr. Brownlee [continuing]. That we have provided for, and
it should get to the depots soon. I am not sure why it has not.
Now, some of it we are going to have to do in theater because
it is going to stay there.
Senator Shelby. Would you get back to me on the details of
this? Will you get the details to me?
Mr. Brownlee. Okay, sir, we will do it.
General Schoomaker. Sir, I have got----
Senator Shelby. General?
General Schoomaker [continuing]. A card here, if I could,
comment on that. We requested and received $1.2 billion in
fiscal year 2004 supplemental funding for depot-level resetting
the force, above our President's budget 2005 position. So this
is going to be a massive effort. As I said, this effort will
continue 2 years beyond the emergency as we reset the massive
amount of equipment.
Senator Shelby. We are bringing our equipment up to
readiness status.
General Schoomaker. Yes, sir. Yes, sir.
SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY FUNDING
Senator Shelby. The science and technology (S&T) funding,
General. In comparison to 2004 funding, every R&D account but
one goes down in the 2005 request. Basic research is cut $64
million, applied research is cut $389 million, advanced
technology development is cut $391 million, advanced component
development and prototypes is cut $186 million, RDT&E
management support is cut $34 million, and operational systems
development is cut $167 million.
I am not sure how the R&D program is balanced. I support
FCS, but it seems that the budget is harmful to the Army's
organic labs and this could be a problem, Mr. Secretary.
Mr. Brownlee. Sir, we actually--our R&D actually went up
from fiscal year 2004 to fiscal year 2005.
Senator Shelby. But not in these specific programs.
Mr. Brownlee. Not in those specific accounts. Sir, we will
have to take a look at them. I suspect also because we had
about $1.2 billion in development funds for Comanche, much of
which will now be directed into procurement, that that number
is going to be adjusted when the budget amendment comes over.
Senator Shelby. Would you look at these accounts, take a
second look?
Mr. Brownlee. Yes, sir, we will.
Senator Shelby. These are organic lab accounts. I think
they are important for the future.
MINIATURE KILL VEHICLE
I want to get, while I have got a little time hopefully, to
Space and Missile Defense Command (SMDC). You are very familiar
with that. The SMDC Technical Center is managing the miniature
kill vehicle (MKV) program. What do you think of the MKV
program and the technical center's role?
Mr. Brownlee. Sir, I would have to take it for the record.
Senator Shelby. Do you want to get back with us on this?
Mr. Brownlee. I will.
[The information follows:]
Miniature Kill Vehicle
Recent changes in policy, brought about by the demise of
the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, allow a broader set of
midcourse defense alternatives to be developed, tested and
fielded. The Multiple Kill Vehicles program, formerly titled
Miniature Kill Vehicle, is addressing the need for a lower cost
solution to emerging ballistic missile threats that may carry
multiple reentry vehicles or sophisticated countermeasure
suites. The Army's Space and Missile Defense Technical Center's
long history of demonstrated success in developing advanced
ballistic missile interceptors and in advancing basic science
leading to component miniaturization under the Small Business
Innovative Research program makes it the natural choice to
serve as the Missile Defense Agency's Executing Agent for the
Multiple Kill Vehicles program.
The Multiple Kill Vehicles (MKV) program will address
midcourse discrimination issues created by countermeasures
postulated for the 2010+ timeframe by intercepting all credible
threat objects with one or more kill vehicles. This solution
offers a low system cost and an effective approach against
ballistic missile threats just beginning to emerge by using
multiple kill vehicles deployed from a single booster and
carrier vehicle to intercept all credible objects that have not
been positively identified as non-lethal. At very high closing
velocities, even a low mass kill vehicle will have enough
kinetic energy and penetration capability to kill a threat
warhead in most engagements. This work is indeed critical for
the defense of the United States and our allies against long
range ballistic missiles; however, the capability under
development through the MKV program is not currently designed
to engage battlefield rockets and other short-range threats
currently encountered in Iraq.
Senator Shelby. We have been told that the work is critical
and the technology is badly needed. I do not know if this is
the right forum to discuss all this.
PATRIOT ADVANCED CAPABILITY--PHASE 3 (PAC-3) MEDIUM EXTENDED AIR
DEFENSE SYSTEM (MEADS) REPROGRAMMING
Mr. Brownlee. I am not sure either, sir. I will be happy to
take it for the record.
Senator Shelby. Will you get back with me on this?
Of course, the PAC-3 MEADS transfer to the Army, there was
apprehension in the Congress that the Army might use these
funds to pay other bills. We were met a couple weeks ago with a
reprogramming action. Could you get this to me, too?
Mr. Brownlee. What funds were these, sir?
Senator Shelby. Reprogramming action, MEADS.
General Schoomaker. PAC-3.
Senator Shelby. PAC-3 MEADS.
Mr. Brownlee. Sir, I will look.
Senator Shelby. Will you get back with us on the record on
that?
[The information follows:]
MEADS Reprogramming
The Army submitted a reprogramming request in order to fund
critical Patriot software and hardware upgrades. These software
and hardware upgrades will address deficiencies within the
current Patriot system that contributed to the two incidents of
fratricide during Operation Iraqi Freedom. These upgrades will
improve situational awareness, command and control,
classification, correlation, and operations in areas of
increased electro-magnetic interference. Since final decisions
on the combined aggregate Patriot/MEADS program, to include
negotiations with international partners, have yet to be
finalized, the MEADS portion of the combined program was deemed
an appropriate bill-payer for these important Patriot upgrades.
Mr. Brownlee. You know, we greatly accelerated that program
just before the war and we were going to bring it back down to
a more reasonable level, because we did really accelerate it
just before the war, PAC-3.
Senator Shelby. If you will discuss those.
Mr. Brownlee. Yes, sir.
Senator Shelby. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much.
Senator Stevens. Senator Cochran.
Senator Cochran. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
UNMANNED AERIAL VEHICLES
General Schoomaker, as part of the announcement of the
cancellation of the Comanche program, I understand the Army has
decided to use unmanned aerial vehicles to fulfill some of the
capabilities that Comanche was to provide, and that you have
identified over $300 million from that program to procure
additional legacy and future UAV's.
Given that the Fire Scout UAV has been selected to be part
of your Future Combat System force, would the Army be served
better by accelerating procurement of Fire Scout UAV's instead
of buying more legacy systems?
General Schoomaker. Sir, I would have to--again, I would
have to take that for the record. I know that UAV's are a
significant part of our future and a growing part because the
potential there is great. I know as we move to FCS, the Future
Combat System, that they are going to be a large part of that.
As you know, we have had some significant success with
UAV's in the current conflict. We are starting to see greater
potential in some of that. But as to the specifics of that, I
would have to go for the record.
[The information follows:]
UAV Procurement
In order to meet the current requirements for Operation
Iraqi Freedom and the Global War on Terrorism, we are
accelerating the procurement of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs)
already in production, such as the Shadow Tactical UAV, and the
Raven Small UAV. We are also working to accelerate future
systems such as Fire Scout and the Extended Range/Multi-Purpose
(ER/MP) UAVs. However, both of these future systems are still
in development and thus not available today to meet the
warfighter's need. Army commanders engaged in current
operations hail the capabilities of the Shadow UAV, which
supports Current Force mechanized, light, and Stryker Brigade
Combat Teams, and the Hunter UAV systems, which are fielded to
III Corps, Fort Hood, Texas, XVIII Airborne Corps, Fort Bragg,
North Carolina, and V Corps, U.S. Army Europe, and serve as the
interim ER/MP UAV. Both current and future UAV systems are part
of the Army's UAV strategy. However, in order to meet the
immediate needs of combatant commanders, we must equip our
units with these current systems until Future Force UAV systems
are developed, integrated and ready for fielding.
Senator Cochran. I hope you would also include in your
response for the record whether or not you think that the $300
million is an adequate investment in advanced UAV's.
AMMUNITION SHORTAGES
There is also a critical shortage of both training and war
reserve ammunition, such as the Hydra-70 rocket. The decision
to cancel the Comanche program and procure new helicopters will
increase the need for training ammunition and of course war
reserve ammunition. The question is how does the Army plan to
address these shortfalls, which we understand could be as high
as $16 billion?
General Schoomaker. Sir, we moved $30 million this year to
increase the capacity of Lake City, which is your small
caliber, 50 caliber and below small arms ammunition, which is
going to mitigate. I think by the end of this year, we will
have capacity that will turn the corner and mitigate the
shortfalls we have had in small arms, which I have been very
concerned about.
As part of the Comanche program, we moved $155 million of
that program as part of the aviation reset, part of the
aviation fix, to the Hydra rocket program. I think it buys
something like 163,000 Hydra rockets in this program; and $93
million into the Hellfire line. This was the point I tried to
make earlier. This movement of money from Comanche into fixing
Army aviation is not just about the helicopters. It is about
UAV, it is about ammunition, it is about MILCON, it is about
simulations, it is about training. It is a holistic approach to
fixing Army aviation, and the point that you have made right
there is one of the most significant.
Senator Cochran. Thank you very much.
THEATER SUPPORT VEHICLES
I understand too that the Army has been impressed by the
performance of leased high-speed vessels and is considering
leasing these types of craft as theater support vessels. There
are several American shipyards capable of producing these
vessels both quickly and economically based on what I
understand to be successful experimentation. What are the
Army's plans for procurement of theater support vessels?
Mr. Brownlee. Sir, we have been impressed by the capability
of those vehicles. We are right now considering how they can
help us in our deployments and so we are studying how we can do
that. We do not have right now any plans to lease, but we are
considering how that vehicle can be used. It is much faster
than a normal ship and for some of our deployments we believe
it would be very useful. So we are looking at that.
Senator Cochran. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Stevens. Thank you.
Senator Leahy.
Senator Leahy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Gentlemen, good to see you, all of you. You have a pretty
impressive bench behind you.
General Schoomaker. Sir, we need a lot of help.
Senator Leahy. I do not think so, but you have good help
there and that is good.
ADD-ON ARMOR
I understand Secretary Brownlee mentioned before I came in
about the Bradley reactive armor and that you do not have
enough. When I first heard about this reactive armor years ago,
I said, you have got to be kidding, the way it was described.
Then I started seeing some of the tests and all and I must
admit I am very, very much of a fan. I think it is critical. I
have heard great things about its performance. I hope we can
get the funds to expand it. If my son or daughter were among
those in this armor, I would want it there yesterday. I know
some of our Guard forces that are going over into Iraq and
scrounging armor wherever they can, I think it is important we
get it out.
COMANCHE TERMINATION
General, on the Comanche program, General Cody had given me
a call at home before that to let me know about the decision.
Of course, I must admit we did end up chitchatting a little bit
about Montpelier, Vermont, and you are welcome to come up there
any time. As the Secretary has mentioned, General Richard Cody
and I both come from Montpelier, Vermont, and knew each other
when we were growing up. We only say good things about each
other because it is sort of a mutual deterrent pact. But I
cannot really think of anything bad to say about him.
But he told me about the Comanche program. I thought it was
a good decision. I thought it was taking resources away from
too many other very critical aviation programs, all the
infrared missile countermeasures for example.
HEALTH USAGE MONITORING SYSTEM (HUMS)
Let me just mention one, and I admit this is probably the
first time any parochial type questions have ever come out of
this committee, but it is the HUMS program, the Integrated
Mechanical Diagnostic Health and Usage Monitoring System. I am
glad my staff wrote it all out because I have just called it
``HUMS'' and I never was quite sure what it stood for.
But we are using it on the Blackhawks of the 101st Airborne
Division. It is a great diagnostic system. I have seen it
demonstrated. If I was commander and I had 10 helicopters out
there, I would want to know exactly which of the 10 can go out
or how many can go out, and so on.
Are we going to reach a point where we might be equipping
all our helicopters with HUMS? Are we going to be able to find
money for that? I see it as sort of like cheaper to fix the
roof before the rainstorm kind of thing. Mr. Secretary, what do
you think about this?
Mr. Brownlee. Sir, I know that we have an intense interest
in those kinds of diagnostics maintenance equipment. It has
great use. I am not familiar with right now the extent to which
we intend to buy those and equip all our helicopters with them,
but we can certainly provide that for the record.
[The information follows:]
Health Usage Monitoring System (HUMS)
The Army is currently performing a two-year demonstration
on the Health Usage Monitoring System (HUMS). The 101st Air
Assault Division tested HUMS on a number of UH-60 Blackhawks
while deployed to Iraq. The initial reports from this
demonstration are positive. The Army will use the data from
this demonstration to help guide its future policies on
installation and utilization of these types of diagnostic
systems. For future systems, the AH-64D Block III, UH-60M, and
CH-47F programs are planning to install some type of organic
maintenance diagnostic system.
Senator Leahy. Yes, would you have your staff talk to mine.
Let us know where we are on that, because it is something I
have followed very closely. I have helped get some of the money
through here for the pilot programs. I have been impressed. I
have had some things I have helped get money for pilot
programs, they have not worked. I have freely admitted that.
Others do, and this one does seem to work.
General Schoomaker. Sir, if I could add to that, I think
General Cody explained to you, again as part of our Army
aviation modernization program, that as we transfer money from
Comanche it is our intent to go to a two-level maintenance
system in that, as well as going to the automated logbook on
these aircraft. So I am not sure that this system you are
talking about is integral to that, but we are certainly
committed to a far advanced system of maintenance management to
increase our operational readiness and impact the force
maintaining-wise.
Senator Leahy. Thank you, General.
POST-TRAUMATIC STRESS TREATMENT
My last subject. I was up here 3 or 4 weeks ago in Vermont
on a beautiful Sunday morning, having my coffee. My wife is a
nurse. She worked on medical-surgical floors and all, and has
also spent time with the Veterans Administration (VA) hospital
system when I was in law school. She said: Patrick, you have
got to read this. It was this New York Times, this New York
Times magazine, ``Coming Home.'' It is basically talking about
soldiers with post-traumatic disorder. In my generation we
called it shell shock.
It was a very moving article. Since then I cannot tell you
the number of e-mails I have gotten from veterans, from parents
of people who were over abroad, those who are parents of people
in the military or spouses or what-not, who sent me this
article. Of course, we have all the reports of depression and
suicide among our troops. I went out with some other Senators
and my wife to have dinner one evening out at Walter Reed, and
just some of the stories I was hearing there.
The condition requires specialized treatment. You have to
have a system in there that will encourage troops to come
forward. You are out there, you are facing terrible danger. You
may get shot, you may be seriously wounded. You have proven
your bravery, and our men and women are brave. But then there
seems to be among some that it is not brave to come forward and
ask for this treatment.
It has got to be there. You have got to make sure it is
there. I am going to looking at it both on this committee and
on the subcommittee I serve on that oversees the VA.
But can you give me just a broad overview? What kind of
programs do we have? Because I find the suicide rate alarming
among our forces. I find the people who come back terribly
injured, and I do not want them to be rejects of society. They
have earned an awful lot more than that.
Mr. Brownlee. Sir, I could not agree more. I appreciate all
of the members who have gone out and visited our troops at
Walter Reed and other hospitals. Clearly, the sacrifices that
these young soldiers have made for our country are deserving of
the very best attention we can get them. I have addressed your
specific questions to those at Walter Reed. This is an integral
part of their care. They receive this kind of care and
counseling right along with the physical medical part, and it
is just clearly integrated in their care.
Senator Leahy. Is this budget going to reflect that?
Mr. Brownlee. Yes, sir. Yes, sir, it is.
I should also tell you that, while the number of suicides
in the theater has been more than is acceptable to us, it is
not significantly above the norm, and there are still some
cases that are not properly determined and that could put us
substantially or more above the norm. But we conducted, for the
first time in a combat theater, a mental health assessment. We
sent a team out, visited units, talked to soldiers, gathered
data, and came back with some conclusions and recommendations
for how we can do better, not during the war or after the war,
but before we send troops in, what we can do to prepare them
better, as well as--so that they can cope better with the
situations that they face.
I thought it was significant that that was done while the
troops were committed there. But it is the first time we had
ever done that.
Senator Leahy. I commend you for doing that, Mr. Secretary.
I think it is extremely important. I know our men and women are
motivated, but sometimes the things they face are something
they really did not understand. I remember the conversations I
had with my son after he finished out in Parris Island with the
Marine Corps. Of course, like all former marines, the further
he is removed from that the more enjoyable I guess it was. But
at least there they always knew when the explosions were going
off or anything else that that night or the next night or the
next night they are going to be back in their barracks and the
only thing they had to worry about was their drill instructor.
Now we have people out and they are seeing their friends
having their limbs blown off and all and they are facing real
danger, which is unavoidable in these situations. I just want
to make sure that we fulfill our commitment--we tell them to go
out--we fulfill our commitment when they come back. Some of
them--on the one hand, I am very impressed when I see some of
these high-tech prosthetics we have for those who have lost
limbs, which are really amazing. But you also have to have--it
is not just their bodies with some of them.
So I commend you for sending the team out, and please have
your staff keep in touch with me if you have areas in there
that you think would be worthwhile to know.
Mr. Brownlee. Yes, sir, we will.
If I could just add, Mr. Chairman, because I would like for
the committee to know. When we first started getting wounded
soldiers back to Walter Reed in significant numbers and with
the very kind of grievous wounds they had, where they had
clearly lost limbs and this sort of thing, where many of them
were going to be medically retired as disabled--it is amazing
the numbers that want to stay in even though they have lost
limbs, and some have stayed. But I contacted Tony Principi, a
dear friend of mine who runs the Veterans Affairs Department.
We have put together a team. We have people in his
organization. He has people from his organization working at
Walter Reed and other places, and the whole intent of this is
to ensure we have a seamless system for these soldiers, so that
if they are medically retired from the military and then become
part of the Veterans Affairs Department responsibilities nobody
gets dropped off. We take care of them through that, manage
them through that process.
His intent and mine is to make sure that for every single
wounded soldier that is medically retired and becomes a part of
the Veterans Affairs responsibility that that is a seamless
operation.
Senator Leahy. I have gone over my time. Let me just say
that I talked to one young soldier who was there. His wife was
with him and they have a little child, and he was showing me
this leg, mechanical leg, with the computer sensors in it. I
said: Well, what are you going to do now? He looks at me like:
What kind of a question is that, sir? I want to be right back
in the Army. He said: I am going to work hard with this because
I want to go back. I thought: Good for you.
Mr. Brownlee. And many of them have, sir.
Senator Leahy. Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. It is good to see both
General Schoomaker and Secretary Brownlee. Thank you.
Senator Stevens. Yes, we all thank you very much, Mr.
Secretary and General. I do think there is a lot of comment
being made around here now about how the Army is being harmed
by these decisions that have been made with regard to the
budget. I want to tell you before we finish our bill we will
confer with you to make sure that you have the flexibility you
need to use any funds that are available, not just in the
Department of Defense, but to the President, period, to assure
there be no shortfall in funds while we have soldiers in the
field, keeping in mind that from this Senator's point of view
the worst thing that can possibly happen to the Army as well as
the Senate is to have a post-election session. We get nothing
done and I assure you you would not get any more money after
the election than you would get after January 1, but it would
be a very arduous period in which to try to get it.
ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS
I would like to avoid a post-election session in the
interests of the people who are at war. We do not need that
after the election. I hope to work with you to make sure you
have the money you need and have all the flexibility you need.
[The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but
were submitted to the Department for response subsequent to the
hearing:]
Questions Submitted to Hon. Les Brownlee
Question Submitted by Senator Pete V. Domenici
SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY (S&T)
Question. I note that basic and applied research comprises only
about one-tenth of the Army's $10.4 billion request for RDT&E funding
in fiscal year 2005. While funding for development of mature
technologies is important, it has long been my belief that investments
in basic science and technology are where cutting-edge breakthroughs
occur. For DOD, this means that our warfighters are able to employ
transformational technologies sooner. Would you please comment on the
importance of basic S&T investments for Army transformation?
Answer. The Army's basic research program produces new knowledge to
fuel revolutionary advances and leap-ahead technology that enable Army
Transformation. The program invests in world-class expertise
(government, academic, and industry) and state-of-the-art equipment. It
balances its investment between in-house Army unique research and
leveraging external scientific research that has great potential for
military applications. The fiscal year 2005 budget submission reflects
the Army's sustained commitment to make leap-ahead science and
technology (S&T) investments that will provide high payoff
transformational capabilities for our Soldiers.
Army S&T investments, laboratories, and research, development, and
engineering centers are essential to provide America's Army with
sustained overmatch in land combat. The Army continues to maintain a
robust S&T portfolio and workforce to provide solutions to fill the
capability gaps being identified in current operations in Afghanistan
and Iraq and will continue to do so in the future. Through its S&T
investments, the Army fosters innovation and accelerates and matures
technologies to enable Future Force capabilities and exploit
opportunities to transition technologies to the Current Force.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Judd Gregg
ATIRCM
Question. In addition to updating deployed Aircraft Survivability
Equipment (ASE) systems, it is my understanding that the Army has
successfully developed and begun to produce a next generation system,
the Advanced Threat Infrared Countermeasure (ATIRCM) that will protect
helicopter crews from threats they currently face. What are the Army's
plans to deploy the ATIRCM to rotary wing assets?
Answer. The ATIRCM consists of an active LASER jammer and functions
as part of a suite containing a Common Missile Warning System, an
Improved Countermeasure Munitions Dispenser (ICMD), and the Advanced
Infrared Countermeasure Munitions (AIRCMM--flares). This system
protects aircraft against all known and currently projected infrared
threat missile systems. The Army will start fielding the ATIRCM to Army
Special Operations Aviation in the near future. Conventional Army
Aviation units will receive the ATIRCM shortly thereafter. Recent
decisions resulted in accelerating the fielding of the ATIRCM system by
three full years.
Question. Secretary Brownlee, the Congress provided approximately
$7 million in fiscal year 2004 for the development and integration of
the Advanced Threat Infrared Countermeasure Multi-Band Laser. This
Multi-Band Laser is a pre-planned product improvement to the Advanced
Threat Infrared Countermeasure system. What is the status of this
effort?
Answer. The Army is in the process of negotiating a task order with
the Advanced Threat Infrared Countermeasure (ATIRCM) Lead Systems
Integrator (BAE) to complete the design of the Multi-Band Laser for
ATIRCM. The estimated award date is scheduled to be not later than
April 15, 2004.
Question. Secretary Brownlee, it is my understanding that the Army
plans to upgrade the Advanced Threat Infrared Countermeasure (ATIRCM)
system with a multi-band laser that is being developed specifically for
the ATIRCM program. Furthermore, the Army has considered inserting an
alternative Multi-Band Laser, developed for the Air Force, into ATIRCM.
What analysis has the Army or Air Force done on the effectiveness of
this alternative Multi-Band Laser
Answer. The U.S. Air Force has done extensive testing of their
multi-band laser (MBL) for use with large aircraft. This testing
includes live missile firings, lab testing, and simulations. The
results of this testing demonstrates that their MBL is effective for
large aircraft. The Air Force has made a great deal of this information
available to the Army. The Army has analyzed this data and determined
that the Air Force MBL could be effective for rotary aircraft. However,
the Army has also determined that integration of this MBL would be
schedule prohibitive and would not meet our acceleration requirements.
______
Questions Submitted to General Peter T. Schoomaker
Questions Submitted by Senator Pete V. Domenici
IMPROVISED EXPLOSIVE DEVICES
Question. Does the Army have the authorities it needs to get
existing technologies in the hands of Task Force Improvised Explosive
Device (IED) to better detect these bombs? If not, what authorities do
you need?
Answer. The Army has sufficient legislative authorities to
accelerate and transition proven technologies to the IED Task Force.
Sustained Science and Technology (S&T) investments over time have
enabled Army S&T organizations, including the U.S. Army Materiel
Command's Research Development and Engineering Command and the Army
Corps of Engineers' laboratories, to quickly develop and provide
expedient solutions to the warfighter in support of the Global War on
Terrorism. Examples of successful S&T solutions already being provided
to the warfighter to counter the IED threat include: omni-directional
under vehicle inspection systems to detect IED and contraband and an
electronic countermeasure system that provides force protection by
jamming the prevalent electronic detonators being used to set off IEDs.
RECRUITING AND RETENTION
Question. What is the active-duty Army doing (besides temporarily
increasing end-strength) to alleviate its reliance on Guard and
Reserves? Can the Army better manage its use of personnel to ensure
more of its active-duty component is available to participate in future
operations?
Answer. In conjunction with temporarily increasing end-strength,
the Army is rebalancing its Active Component/Reserve Component (AC/RC)
capabilities to meet combatant commander needs with an expeditionary,
campaign quality force. The Army is working to provide the proper
Active and Reserve Component balance of units to enhance high demand
and early deploying capabilities. Changes contained in the Program
Objective Memorandum for fiscal years 2004-09 reduce stress on existing
high demand units in both the AC and RC by converting approximately
30,000 of ``Cold War'' force structure. Additionally, we are reducing
structure and creating a Trainees, Transients, Holdees, and Students
account in the Army National Guard and Army Reserve. This enhances RC
readiness by allowing the assignment to units of only those Soldiers
who are available for deployment. To reduce RC demand for current
operations in Iraq, the Office of the Secretary of Defense has called
upon the U.S. Marine Corps to provide a division sized force for
Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF) 2. The Active Component is aggressively
reconstituting forces while converting to a modular based unit design
to increase capabilities for the Global War on Terrorism and prepare
for potential OIF3 and 4 deployments.
SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS
Senator Stevens. Thank you both very much.
General Schoomaker. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Brownlee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[Whereupon, at 11:46 a.m., Wednesday, March 3, the
subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene at 10 a.m., Wednesday,
March 10.]