[House Hearing, 115 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.A.S.C. No. 115-116]
ARMY FUTURES COMMAND:
WILL IT HELP?
__________
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON READINESS
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
HEARING HELD
SEPTEMBER 13, 2018
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
33-472 WASHINGTON : 2019
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUBCOMMITTEE ON READINESS
JOE WILSON, South Carolina, Chairman
ROB BISHOP, Utah MADELEINE Z. BORDALLO, Guam
AUSTIN SCOTT, Georgia JOE COURTNEY, Connecticut
STEVE RUSSELL, Oklahoma TULSI GABBARD, Hawaii
MIKE ROGERS, Alabama CAROL SHEA-PORTER, New Hampshire
VICKY HARTZLER, Missouri A. DONALD McEACHIN, Virginia
ELISE M. STEFANIK, New York SALUD O. CARBAJAL, California
MARTHA McSALLY, Arizona, Vice Chair ANTHONY G. BROWN, Maryland
SCOTT DesJARLAIS, Tennessee STEPHANIE N. MURPHY, Florida
TRENT KELLY, Mississippi RO KHANNA, California
MIKE GALLAGHER, Wisconsin
Tom Hawley, Professional Staff Member
Brian Garrett, Professional Staff Member
Megan Handal, Clerk
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
STATEMENTS PRESENTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS
Bordallo, Hon. Madeleine Z., a Delegate from Guam, Ranking
Member, Subcommittee on Readiness.............................. 2
Wilson, Hon. Joe, a Representative from South Carolina, Chairman,
Subcommittee on Readiness...................................... 1
WITNESSES
McCarthy, Ryan D., Under Secretary of the Army................... 3
Murray, GEN John M., USA, Commanding General, United States Army
Futures Command................................................ 5
APPENDIX
Prepared Statements:
McCarthy, Ryan D., joint with GEN John M. Murray............. 32
Wilson, Hon. Joe............................................. 31
Documents Submitted for the Record:
[There were no Documents submitted.]
Witness Responses to Questions Asked During the Hearing:
[There were no Questions submitted during the hearing.]
Questions Submitted by Members Post Hearing:
Mr. Brown.................................................... 46
Mr. Carbajal................................................. 45
Ms. McSally.................................................. 46
Ms. Stefanik................................................. 45
ARMY FUTURES COMMAND: WILL IT HELP?
----------
House of Representatives,
Committee on Armed Services,
Subcommittee on Readiness,
Washington, DC, Thursday, September 13, 2018.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 1:30 p.m., in
room 2020, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Joe Wilson
(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOE WILSON, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM
SOUTH CAROLINA, CHAIRMAN, SUBCOMMITTEE ON READINESS
Mr. Wilson. Good afternoon. The subcommittee will come to
order. I would like to welcome each of you to the hearing of
the Readiness Subcommittee of the House Armed Services
Committee on the new Army Futures Command.
Today the subcommittee will hear from the Under Secretary
of the Army and the Commander of the Army Futures Command about
the reasons the Army decided to establish a new major command,
the most significant restructuring of the institutional Army
since the 1970s.
Because this new entity will work within the existing Army
structure, the subcommittee will be interested in learning how
the Army Futures Command will work with other important players
in the Army modernization process. Relationships with the
Assistant Secretary of the Army for Acquisition, Logistics and
Technology [ASA(ALT)], as well as those with the Army's
Materiel Command [AMC] and the Training and Doctrine Command
[TRADOC], will be critical. Indeed, it is difficult to envision
how all these changes will synchronize in a smooth fashion.
We recognize that the Army's intent is to improve and speed
the modernization process. As you are aware, acquisition
improvement across the Department of Defense has been a
committee focus for a long time, though discernible change is
elusive.
We also are eager to understand how the Army intends to
overcome the obstacles to improvement that have frustrated so
many who have tried to overcome them. While I am hopeful, I am
not yet persuaded that a new command is the right answer to the
Army's acquisition challenges.
We welcome the witnesses' perspective on these issues and
any recommendations you may have.
Before I introduce the witnesses, I turn to the
extraordinarily distinguished ranking member of the Readiness
Subcommittee, the gentlelady and wonderful individual from the
beautiful territory of Guam, Madeleine Bordallo, for her
opening comments.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Wilson can be found in the
Appendix on page 31.]
STATEMENT OF HON. MADELEINE Z. BORDALLO, A DELEGATE FROM GUAM,
RANKING MEMBER, SUBCOMMITTEE ON READINESS
Ms. Bordallo. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Your
introductions get better by the day.
And thank you to the witnesses for being here to discuss
the establishment of the Army's newest four-star command, Army
Futures Command. And I want to congratulate the general on his
appointment.
Up to this point much of the focus and attention has been
placed on the selection of the Army Futures Command
headquarters, and I understand that the Department has selected
Austin, Texas. And I know some Members may still have questions
about the process and the metrics used to make the final
stationing decision.
Aside from location, as the Army proceeds with standing up
Futures Command, the committee has questions on the roles and
the mission of this new command. The Army has faced multiple
challenges with its efforts to modernize and rebuild the
service's full-spectrum readiness.
Furthermore, the Army's past attempts to change internal
policies, command relationships, and organizational structures
in an effort to improve the acquisition process has met mixed
results.
So I look forward to hearing how you believe it will be
different this time. And I hope you will also address three
areas of concern. First is the risk of creating another massive
bureaucracy. Second is duplicating the role of the Army Staff.
And third is the long-term risk to civilian control of the
acquisition system.
With regard to the bureaucracy concern, while I know the
intention is to keep this new four-star command small, history
shows that over time all such commands grow rapidly. No matter
who is in charge, large administrative commands like this often
develop internal processes that consume vast amounts of time
and resources.
So in creating yet another large organization, I think it
is fair to ask if the Army is, in fact, just creating more
overhead that will further slow an already cumbersome process.
Secondly, many of the functions that the Army Futures
Command is expected to address are already being performed
somewhere else on the Army Staff, and I am concerned that the
Army is standing up a four-star organization with up to three
lieutenant generals as deputies without a clearly defined
command relationship and an organizational plan.
I understand that as the Army separates staff roles and
responsibilities there may be a period of redundancy and
inefficiency. However, I look forward to hearing your plan to
mitigate these inefficiencies.
And finally, I hope you will address how civilian oversight
of the acquisition system will be maintained with this new
command. In my view, the law is clear that the acquisition
chain of command runs from program managers through the
civilian Assistant Secretary of the Army for Acquisition,
Logistics and Technology, who derives his authority from the
Secretary of the Army.
While the proposed structure appears to be consistent with
the letter of the law, I am concerned that it comes close to
violating the spirit of the law in that over time the civilian
acquisition leadership will be eclipsed by the size and the
weight of this new organization run entirely by general
officers.
So I would like to hear today about how such a loss of
civilian authority and control will be avoided.
As the Army has noted, the establishment of the Futures
Command is a significant undertaking in a reorganization plan,
and like with any major organizational change I am sure there
will be challenges as the command is stood up and begins to
influence decisions affecting modernization and readiness.
I support the Army's efforts to improve the acquisition
process; however, it is our responsibility today to ask hard
questions, especially while we are early in the development.
I look forward to your comments and working with you toward
a successful conclusion.
And I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, for calling this
hearing, and I yield back.
Mr. Wilson. And thank you very much, Congresswoman
Bordallo. We always appreciate your tireless service.
I am pleased to recognize our witnesses today. I would like
to thank them for taking the time to be with us. They are the
Honorable Ryan McCarthy, the Under Secretary of the Army, and
General John M. Murray, Commanding General, U.S. Army Futures
Command.
Before we begin, I would like to remind the witnesses that
your full written statements have been submitted for the
record, and we ask you summarize your comments to 5 minutes or
less.
Secretary McCarthy, we would like to begin with you, and we
look forward to your opening statement.
STATEMENT OF RYAN D. McCARTHY, UNDER SECRETARY OF THE ARMY
Secretary McCarthy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Good afternoon, Chairman Wilson, Ranking Member Bordallo,
and distinguished members of this subcommittee and staff. I
appreciate this hearing's acknowledgment of the importance and
gravity of the Army's establishment of Futures Command and the
impact it will have on our force.
First, I want to personally thank each of you for the 2-
year defense budget topline increase of $22.5 billion this past
year. This generous amount in support has primed the pump to
reenergize our Army's modernization efforts. Your confidence in
our ability to maximize the utility of every dollar is not lost
on us.
Today, I, alongside General Mike Murray, look forward to
sharing why the Army is reorganizing, how the Army is
institutionalizing a government structure to transcend
personalities, and how the Army is establishing relationships
to ensure modernization of our formations.
Dr. Esper and General Milley testified in April on the
changing nature of warfare, increasing adversarial
capabilities, and how the Army is meeting the National Defense
Strategy requirements. This reason underpins our reorganization
and the establishment of Army Futures Command.
We looked across the entire Army enterprise to put all
modernization tasks that generate a warfighting capability
under one roof. These tasks include warfighting concepts,
requirements, experimentation, and fielding of materiel and
nonmateriel solutions.
By design, this is not your normal Army command. It can't
be. To thrive in the Information Age we must operate in a fast-
paced, dynamic, and evolving ecosystem. We will become
comfortable being uncomfortable by partnering with
nontraditional actors, operating with a lean organizational
design, and sharing a connection to academia and industry we
have never achieved before.
This change enables us to address problem solving
differently and gain accurate customer feedback by
incorporating the best of Army warfighters with the best of
American academia and industry.
We are confident that Army Futures Command will address our
past modernization shortcomings. This command will now drive
accountability, provide agility and solution generation, and
produce results, ultimately bridging the future and the fielded
force.
This command will be painstakingly focused on the future
fight. We are ensuring the lethality and survivability of our
soldiers and the continued preeminence of our Army as the
world's premier land fighting force. With the help of industry,
academia, and Congress, we can produce what our soldiers need.
Two months ago we selected Austin, Texas, as the
headquarters of Futures Command. Austin provides the necessary
mix of STEM [science, technology, engineering, and math], R&D
[research and development] investment, a mature incubator
ecosystem, a top-tier university system to partner with, and a
disruptive and welcoming culture that propels a vertical
integration of our concepts through solutions, all within a few
city blocks. We couldn't be happier with the reception and
support from the City of Austin, the University of Texas, and
the State of Texas.
Recently, I was asked by the Governor of Texas what success
looked like and how I would know we made the right decision in
10 years. I told him the answer is simple: We will have next-
generation capabilities in the hands of our soldiers in the
next 3 to 5 years, as that is the only metric that matters.
Congressional support has provided the blueprint and
resourcing for this endeavor, and we must produce the results
that your trust requires. Anything less is not acceptable to
the current Army leadership, to this committee, or the citizens
of this country. We appreciate your unrelenting support and
acknowledge the work remaining.
Thank you for your time and the opportunity to testify
today. I look forward to your questions.
[The joint prepared statement of Secretary McCarthy and
General Murray can be found in the Appendix on page 32.]
Mr. Wilson. Thank you very much, Secretary McCarthy.
We now proceed to General Murray with your opening
statement.
STATEMENT OF GEN JOHN M. MURRAY, USA, COMMANDING GENERAL,
UNITED STATES ARMY FUTURES COMMAND
General Murray. Thank you, sir.
Good afternoon, Chairman Wilson, Ranking Member Bordallo,
and distinguished members of the subcommittee. Thank you for
the opportunity to testify before you today.
The world has changed significantly since our current
ground combat systems were designed and built in the 1970s and
1980s. The rapid pace of technological change, coupled with the
speed of innovation we see in the world today, demand that the
Army makes changes in the way we develop and deliver concepts
and capability for our soldiers.
I fully understand the weight of responsibility that now
rests on my shoulders and accept that responsibility without
hesitation. The stakes could simply not be higher.
I am personally and professionally invested to ensure that
future soldiers have the concepts and capabilities they need
when and where they need them to fight and win on a future
highly lethal battlefield. We simply must change our linear
sequential modernization process to create a flexible, agile,
and innovative organization that adapts to a rapidly changing
world and evolving threat.
This command will provide more than oversight on cost,
schedule, and performance. It must also provide value--value to
the American people, value to Congress, value to the joint
force, value to our Army, and most importantly, value to the
young men and women that will be defending our ideals and
freedoms on a future battlefield.
I have four initial priorities to ensure the Army Futures
Command succeeds.
First is to recruit, hire, and emplace talent throughout
the organization. We are being very deliberate about aligning
the right mix of talent, both military and civilian, against
the complex problems the Army must solve.
Second, build relationships and establish our footprint
within Austin's entrepreneurs, incubators, university system,
and private industry. This is what led our leaders to the
selection of Austin, and we must harness what the city has to
offer. As our command gets established, we will start seeking
to put small footprints into other incubator hubs across the
U.S. to gain access to as much of America's talent as we
possibly can.
Third, embrace the culture we need within our organization
to transform from the Industrial Age to the speed of the
Information Age. When you visit us in Austin you will not see
us in uniforms. What you will see is us operating out of a
high-rise, integrating on a daily basis with entrepreneurs,
scientists, and businesses.
We will employ the entrepreneurial spirit of accepting the
risk of failure early and cheaply in order to create the best
solutions for our soldiers.
Fourth, integrate Army organizations and missions. I
understand that change is hard, it will be disruptive, and
building the team from existing organizations dispersed across
the United States will take leadership and patience.
This is not about success of any one organization or
individual. It is about delivering concepts and capabilities
that ensure our soldiers and formations have overmatch on a
future battlefield. We must stay focused on output.
Last October we stood up eight cross-functional teams, or
CFTs, aligned with the Army's six modernization priorities. In
less than 12 months the CFTs have validated our approach and
produced solutions that will be rapidly delivered to our
soldiers, in most cases cutting the traditional requirements
and acquisition process in half or better.
Given sufficient resources and time, Army Futures Command
and the CFTs will continue to produce similar results. It is
those results that will ensure the Army retains overmatch, is
ready for multidomain operations, and most importantly, will
ensure our soldiers are ready to deploy, fight, and win on a
future battlefield.
Let me close by saying we cannot succeed without
congressional support. It is absolutely essential. I look
forward to all of you visiting us in Austin and providing you
updates on our progress on a routine basis.
Thank you for your time today, and I look forward to your
questions.
Mr. Wilson. Thank you very much, General Murray.
For the benefit of each member of the subcommittee, we will
adhere to the 5-minute rule for questions to the witnesses, and
I appreciate the 5-minute rule will be strictly administered by
professional staff member Tom Hawley. And we will begin with me
under the 5-minute rule.
Secretary McCarthy, as you are aware, title 10 vests
responsibility for the acquisition and budgeting to Senate-
confirmed civilian officials in the Department of the Army.
Given these restrictions, will the Army Futures Command have
the authorities necessary to carry out its mission? On the
other hand, are you concerned that the Secretary of the Army
and Assistant Secretaries will lose visibility of programs they
remain accountable for?
Secretary McCarthy. No, sir. Sorry, no, we are not
concerned, sir.
Mr. Wilson. Okay. We appreciate the succinct response. That
was clearly understood. And, in fact, the next question, I
think you may have answered that, too, before I get to it, and
that is, are there any further legislative initiatives that are
needed by anyone here to back up your efforts?
Secretary McCarthy. Not at this juncture, sir, no.
Mr. Wilson. Thank you very much.
And, General Murray, can you describe how you will ensure
your command will work with the Army Materiel Command and the
Training and Doctrine Command? How will you ensure that the
work of your command has influence in the annual program and
budget cycle? How will you interact with that process? And your
record of service is encouraging that somehow all of these
challenges are going to be met.
General Murray. Yes, sir.
So simply what I said in my opening statement is none of
us, whether it is TRADOC, AMC, or Army Futures Command, or
FORSCOM [U.S. Army Forces Command], can be successful if we
stay focused on output for our soldiers, delivering value to
young men and women that fight our battles. And so that is how
you stay unified.
And it is not just those organizations. It is also, as you
mentioned, the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Acquisition,
Logistics and Technology.
So relationships will be exceptionally important in going
forward, and I think as long as all of us remain focused on
what we deliver to our soldiers, that is how you get to
success.
Mr. Wilson. And a concern that we have all had is to be
able to change to the rapidly ever-changing technology. Do you
feel like this can be achieved?
General Murray. I do, sir, because we are going to rely not
only on our traditional lab system, which we will continue to
rely upon, but we are going to open our eyes to technologies
that we didn't even know existed. So we are going to get out
and we are going to find disruptive technologies that can
either be incorporated directly through the acquisition
executive or through our lab system.
Mr. Wilson. And Secretary McCarthy, you have already really
addressed this, too. You are ahead of the curve. And that is
the unique placement of all places Austin, Texas. And can you
go through that again as to what were the determining factors
of locating at Austin?
Secretary McCarthy. Sir, we started the process about 8 or
9 months ago where we got an outside firm to assist us in
developing a quantifiable formula that had characteristics like
STEM talent, R&D investment, density of entrepreneurs, skill
sets like systems engineering, software development, and looked
at the densities associated where these skills lied in the
country.
Also had accessibility, how fast could we assume the
location, our position in that ecosystem, as well as the cost
of living.
So we started with 150 cities, narrowed it down all the way
to 5. And then I personally went onto the due diligence visits.
And then ultimately it came out that Austin scored the highest
of the 5 cities that were our finalists, sir.
Mr. Wilson. Thank you very much.
And, General Murray, I think the American people would be
interested in learning of the location of your command, which
is quite unique.
General Murray. Yes, sir. It is on the 19th floor of the
University of Texas Systems Building. Currently it is concrete
floor, concrete pillars, and overhead water pipes. It will be
built out over the next 6 months right smack in the middle of
downtown Austin with a small cell operating in a place called
the Capital Factory, which is an accelerator hub.
Mr. Wilson. We all think of military facilities as
extraordinary acreage. And so to find out the centralized
nature of what you are doing, it shows vision. And I want to
commend you and thank both of you.
And we now proceed to Congresswoman Bordallo.
Ms. Bordallo. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And I hope
you don't extract this from my 5 minutes, but there is a native
of Guam in the audience today, and I am very proud of her. She
is the military assistant to the Under Secretary of the Army,
Mr. McCarthy, and she is seated right over there, Major
Unpingco.
Would you raise your hand? You are a little bit short.
Stand up. Stand up.
Mr. Wilson. Major, thank you for being here.
And that shall not be counted against----
Secretary McCarthy. Can I correct the record, sir? She is a
lieutenant colonel promotable.
Ms. Bordallo. Oh, all right, all right. And her father was
the Speaker of the Guam legislature for many years, and I
served as a senator under his leadership.
So welcome. Welcome to you.
All right, my question. Now we are starting the time, Mr.
Chairman? Thank you.
Mr. Wilson. Now you can begin.
Ms. Bordallo. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
This question is for either witness. Given the rapid
timeline for standing up this huge and complex organization
that is expected to be fully operational by the summer of
2019--is that correct?--how are you going to measure success
and progress? And more importantly, what is your plan if you
are not seeing any value added?
General Murray. So, ma'am, like I said in my opening
statement, the ultimate value is a value to the soldier. And so
that is how we will ultimately measure output.
The organization will build between now and about March, is
when I pick up my last organization, and fully operational in--
July 31 is the target date.
I am currently working specific metrics in terms of the
amount of time it takes us to deliver this capability, but like
I said earlier, I think ultimately you will be able to measure
the value of this organization. The ultimate metric is soldiers
on the battlefield being able to utilize the equipment and the
concepts we will produce.
Ms. Bordallo. Secretary McCarthy, do you?
Secretary McCarthy. If I may add, ma'am, the work really
began about 3 years ago, and it really started with a
conversation between Senator McCain and General Milley right
before his confirmation hearing. And his point of emphasis was
that the Army needed to reorganize itself so that it could
bring stakeholders together and move faster in this process,
reduce the span time, get better-informed decisions.
So the work really began then with then-Lieutenant General
Murray and Major General Jimmy Richardson, who was just
recently promoted to three stars, as his deputy. So a lot of
the work had been done over about a 2-year horizon.
And then timing worked out with this current leadership
team's buy-in and really found another gear last fall when we
made the announcement to pursue this. And so a lot of rigor and
energy applied over a 3-year horizon.
Ms. Bordallo. Thank you.
This next question is also for either witness. In creating
Army Futures Command the Army is taking major elements out of
two existing four-star commands, Army Training and Doctrine
Command and the Army Sustainment Command.
So since these organizations are getting smaller, have the
Army leaders considered making these commands three-star
commands in order to reduce overall administrative overhead?
Secretary McCarthy. Ma'am, what we believe as the Army's
senior leadership team is that it has provided much greater
clarity and focus for all of our major commands.
So Training and Doctrine focuses--it hones in on assessing
individuals and preparing them to send to the operational
force. FORSCOM, laser focused on readiness. And with AMC, by
taking out that S&T [science and technology], that research and
development organization, they look solely at the sustaining of
the force. The power of the RDECOM [U.S. Army Research,
Development and Engineering Command] is really part of the
nucleus that is behind the Futures Command.
So we see greater focus within the major commands, and we
know it will improve performance.
Ms. Bordallo. And I have one final question, Mr. Chairman.
Under Secretary McCarthy, I understand that the three-star
deputy to the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Acquisition,
Logistics and Technology will be answering in some capacity to
both the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Acquisition,
Logistics and Technology and the Commander of the Army Futures
Command.
So in my experience answering to two bosses has never been
very successful. I expect that at some point there will be
diverging instructions or conflicts. Who will be the honest
broker to ensure that civilian oversight for acquisition
retains its lawful integrity without overriding the commander's
authorities?
Secretary McCarthy. Ma'am, the purpose behind General
Ostrowski's role as the MILDEP [military deputy] for ASA(ALT)
being tied into the command is so that he can perform the
oversight and management of the program managers that are
matrixed into the command. They receive all of their
instructions from Dr. Jette.
But this brings the acquisition community closer to
requirements and our intent of improving planning, programming,
budgeting, and execution. So this is an organizational format
to bring us closer together so we can perform better. But his
instructions are from Dr. Jette.
Ms. Bordallo. Do you feel the same way, General?
General Murray. Absolutely, ma'am. So I see General
Ostrowski as my primary acquisition adviser.
Ms. Bordallo. Thank you.
And I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Scott [presiding]. Thank you, Ms. Bordallo.
Mr. Secretary, you answered Chairman Wilson's question
pretty succinctly with a ``no'' a minute ago. And I want to go
back to one of the things that I think a lot of us have
concerns about, is whether or not there will be challenges in
harmonizing the authorities within retaining Army Materiel
Command, the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Acquisition,
Logistics and Technology, and the standup of Army Futures
Command. Do you see any difficulties in the harmonization
between the three?
Secretary McCarthy. Yes, sir. There will be cultural
challenges. We have decades of ingrained behavior. So like all
things, this will require a great deal of senior leadership
focus, as well as in communication internally and externally to
stakeholders.
Mr. Scott. Just briefly, how do you see a day in Army
Futures Command? I mean, from start to finish. Can you walk us
through how, General, you expect a day or a week or a month?
General Murray. I don't know that I can walk you through a
time period, but I can talk you through what my priorities will
be from the headquarters location. And it is really just the
synchronization of efforts across the entire modernization
enterprise and ensuring that that enterprise is focused on what
is most important to the Army.
A lot of that is going to have to be worked through Dr.
Jette as the Army acquisition executive. I think I have
oversight of the entire acquisition process. So really from the
beginning of a requirement through the divestiture of a piece
of equipment, I don't have authorities across that spectrum.
So maintaining one person with oversight that can point out
opportunities and arising problems so they can be solved
quickly by whoever is responsible for that piece of it I think
is one of my primary roles. And then synchronization,
integration, and I would almost use the word orchestration of
the entire force modernization effort.
Mr. Scott. So some things would seem pretty simple, like
the selection and purchase of a new pistol. Other things are
more complex, you know, what type of system replaces something
like an Apache.
Will you deal with the simple issues as well as the complex
issues? Will something like a pistol or a rifle purchase come
through your command or will that be left?
General Murray. I think it depends on whether it is a
future capability or a near-term capability, sir. So I doubt
that whatever replaces the new pistol would come through my
command, but I am focused on Next Generation Squad Automatic
Rifle and Next Generation Squad Weapons.
So if it is the next evolution or the revolutionary
breakthrough that the CFTs are focused on. But I expect that I
will remain focused primarily on the Army's priorities.
Mr. Scott. I think most of my questions have been answered.
So I yield the remainder of my time and recognize Mr. Courtney
for 5 minutes.
Mr. Courtney. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, both witnesses, for being here today.
I get the logic and the intent of this initiative. The Army
has struggled over the years in terms of new acquisition
programs, and a lot of times it plays out in front of this
committee--the Future Combat Systems program, which I think was
terminated by Secretary Gates; the Ground Combat Vehicle, which
I think was terminated by Secretary Hagel.
Again, the demise of those programs was something that the
Armed Services Committee, and particularly subcommittees like
Readiness, sort of had front row seats while that was all sort
of going.
So again, I think that what you are trying to do, which is
to reset the whole approach here in terms of acquisition,
certainly makes a lot of sense.
I guess what I would be curious to hear is that if this
subcommittee 2 years from now held a hearing on sort of the
before and after standing up, what would be the matrix--or
metrics rather--in terms of what are we going to see happen in
2 years that would really be, again, a measuring stick so that
we can see that real change is occurring here in a positive?
And, again, I would open that to either one of you or both.
General Murray. Sir, you probably read this in a couple
articles. I can't do miracles, so I am not going to deliver you
a new tank in 2 years.
But what I do think you will see is some of the
capabilities the cross-functional teams are working on will be
in production and being delivered in the hands of soldiers
within the next 2 years, not all of them but a couple key
pieces of it.
And I do think that you will see a very deliberate effort
to align, synchronize, and orchestrate across the entire
modernization effort, and I think you will see much shorter
timelines to deliver capability to soldiers.
Secretary McCarthy. Yes, sir. Very similar vein to what
General Murray described is we will be able to show you the
span time reduction in requirements development. And then
moving towards experimentation and prototyping of the
performance of--for procurement of weapons systems, very
similar to the way manufacturing institutions measure return on
invested capital, the speed at which and the performance at
which you can put together a concept.
Mr. Courtney. So I am not proposing that you should just do
stuff for the sake of doing stuff, but, I mean, you do sort of
visualize that 2 years from now you will be able to present,
again, real concrete sort of timelines and particularly
priorities that you have identified for the command?
Secretary McCarthy. Yes, sir.
General Murray. Yes, sir.
Mr. Courtney. All right. Well, who knows we will be around
2 years from now, but I am sure, again, this subcommittee will
be certainly very anxious to sort of watch if we have sort of
figured out a solution to what has again been an unfortunate
time for the Army over the last few years.
With that, I yield back.
Mr. Scott. Mr. Russell, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Russell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And it is great to have the Under Secretary here today and
General Murray.
And if I may, to my colleagues on the committee, you
couldn't have a finer person in charge of this command. I have
known General Murray since we were both captains. I served with
him at Fort Irwin, Fort Benning, Fort Hood. We had overlap in
operational combat deployments to Iraq and also in the initial
entry forces into Kosovo. We were even on the Army's 50th
anniversary dozen soldiers that were picked to do that
commemoration team, and we served together in Schweinfurt and
Fort Hood.
I know this general that sits before you, and he is a
warrior. He is not a logistician that can't identify the muzzle
end of a rifle or something of that nature, not that we don't
love our logisticians, we do. But I am speaking as an
infantryman, so forgive me there.
We often say nothing is too good for the troops, and
nothing is pretty much what we have given them since the 1980s.
And all of the things that we were able to deliver to our
forces in the 1980s and early 1990s were a result of
technologies that were developed in the 1970s.
And if I might opine, I don't share the pessimism that some
may share on our panel today. I actually have optimism for it.
Because if you look at where our acquisition process has been,
we have a long line of almost hall of fame type failures to
show for what has not worked in the last 30 years: Future
Combat System; Crusader; Comanche; Land Warrior; melting
plastic rifles at Fort Benning that we almost adopted and thank
God we didn't.
One bright spot was FBCB2 [Force XXI Battle Command Brigade
and Below] and Force XXI, which really only came into its own
when that was turned over to field commands and they made it
work and then we used it in time of war. And the same could be
said for the soldiers support things like communications UAV
[unmanned aerial vehicles], night and thermal fusion. But that
was largely driven by the special operations forces community
that circumvented these traditional nonworking acquisition
processes.
So ground troops closest to the ground. And my own opinion
on this is the warriors know what they need, and this is an
approach to try to get at it. And I applaud both the Secretary
of the Army and the Under Secretary, General Milley, others
that have taken this bold move. When we have seen the best
developments in this age of information it is coming out of
places like DIUx [Defense Innovation Unit Experimental],
SOFWERX, other things that circumvent an archaic divided system
that doesn't work.
So we have to try something new. Otherwise we will continue
to fight in 1970s technologies well into 2050, and we can't
afford to do that, but right now that is what our soldiers
have. So I will get off my soapbox a little bit on that. But I
am actually quite optimistic, but my blood type is B positive,
so it is in my DNA.
So I would like to ask, General Murray, you laid out the
four priorities: recruit the best talent; build the
relationship with incubators and educators; embrace the culture
from the Industrial Age to the Informational Age, I think that
is a really key one; and then the integrating the Army
organization and missions.
A lot of the concern from this panel seems to be on that
last one, on the integration. But describe your colleagues'
reaction to it in the other four-star commands. And by the way,
I want to congratulate you again on the promotion to your
fourth star and your command. But describe that relationship
and the reaction to it from the field.
General Murray. Thank you, sir.
Start with the reaction first. So I have full support from
the other four-star ACOM [Army Command] commanders.
I was on the phone with General Perna from AMC last night,
and as you would imagine, with a 2-year budgeting cycle the
money is going to be a little flaky for the first couple years.
And that is specifically what we talked about. And he pledged
to me he would support my priorities even though he is
administering the funds.
I sat with General Abrams from FORSCOM a couple days ago.
What I asked from him was basically what you described, said I
need a partner so I can get soldier input and prototypes into
the hands of soldiers so we can deliver what is important to
soldiers first and focus on that.
And then General Townsend at TRADOC. Obviously, I am
picking up a part of his organization. I have a free and open
invitation to start work that I really pick up next summer from
General Townsend. So the relationship has been exceptionally
positive.
Mr. Russell. Thank you for that.
And, Mr. Secretary, is there anything that--I mean, the OSD
[Office of the Secretary of Defense] side of the five-sided
building can often be almost contrary to the operational side.
So how are you maneuvering these political realities with the
need to build the future as you are trying to weave your own
battles through there?
Secretary McCarthy. Sir, as an alumnus of OSD, I am fully
aware of what you mentioned.
A lot of that is just the engagement, the investment of
time of going up and down the E Ring and meeting with my
teammates.
A lot of the authorities that have been delivered by this
committee have really reset the balance so that the services do
manage a lot more major defense acquisition programs than we
have in the last couple decades. So like all things, it takes
engagement and just a lot of effort on a daily basis, sir.
Mr. Russell. Thank you.
And thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back my time. Thank
you.
Mr. Wilson [presiding]. Thank you, Congressman Russell.
We now proceed to Congressman Salud Carbajal of California.
Mr. Carbajal. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And thank you, Under Secretary McCarthy and General Murray,
for being here today.
The purpose of the Army's Futures Command is to streamline
modernization efforts in order to get new technology and
equipment to the soldiers quicker. The creation of this new
command is a result of significant failures involving major
combat systems and the growing concern that the U.S. is falling
behind its adversaries, such as Russia and China, when it comes
to our capabilities.
It is also a solution that could potentially address the
notorious complaint that it just takes too long to do business
with the military. I think General Milley explains it best,
quote: What we have is essentially a linear process, going from
an idea, writing up a big requirements document, and then
vetting it through multiple steps. It takes years, and it is
not going to be effective going into the future.
The whole idea behind this new command is to develop a
system where we can ask questions and change requirements at
the front end of the process, so that if we are going to fail
we fail early and fail cheap, as Secretary Esper would put it.
Secretary McCarthy and General Murray, I would like to get
a better understanding of how the current linear process will
be changed? What improvements and changes should industry
expect to see, and when, as they begin working with the Futures
Command?
Secretary McCarthy. Sir, if you look at the formation of
the cross-functional teams, and this is really the strongest
element of the command, is you have a single belly button, if
you will, point of entry to a portfolio, Long Range Precision
Fires, for example. So as a vendor they go into one place and
they can talk to all of the stakeholders associated with the
process.
This team of teams concept brings a requirements leader
with a program manager, sustainer, tester, all of those key
stakeholders together, formalizes the relationships. Why it had
taken 20 years to field weapon systems is the span time of
moving from desk to desk, which historically these various
stakeholders were in major commands, headquarters, Department
of the Army, spread across a million-person organization.
Now we are bringing them all together and reducing that
time it takes to move information, but also the clarity. If you
know this teammate you can work the tradeoffs in real time
between cost, schedule, and performance.
Our initial feedback from industry is they are very
encouraged by this. They can go to one place and they can work
through the various issues associated with an RFP [request for
proposal], better understand a requirement that we intend to
put on an RFP.
So it has created better relationships, but really more so
than anything it has improved the timelines it takes to move
information and formalize these teams to work better together.
General Murray. Yes, sir. And I would just add, so you
mentioned requirements documents. So a part of this is
experimenting, prototyping, putting it in the hands of
soldiers, getting soldier feedback, involving a cross-
functional team--scientists, testers, program managers,
operators--to make sure that we understand what is possible
before we write a requirements document.
That is what has led us to failure in the past sometimes,
is we would write a requirement that was not feasible where it
would take years and years to test; or it was just
unaffordable. So costers are also a part of this.
And then I would just echo what the Secretary said in terms
of the CFTs, cross-functional teams are showing us. So, for
instance, in Air and Missile Defense we needed a mobile we call
a SHORAD, short range air defense, to keep up with our maneuver
brigades. The initial estimate was we could field one in 2025.
We are now down to four battalions by fiscal year 2020. The
requirements process for that was done in 90 days as opposed to
the 3 to 5 years it was taking 2 to 3 years ago.
So I think there are some examples out there that we can
tie into to really how this is going to work.
Mr. Carbajal. Just to follow up. Coming from local
government we call that concept one-stop shop.
But let me ask you, what is the timing? I hear what you are
telling us, but as we know the DOD [Department of Defense] is
notorious for saying and characterizing this great concept. But
if somebody is watching this hearing and is going to be on the
receiving end, the other end of procurement, when are you going
to start implementing these systems?
Secretary McCarthy. Sir, we have already begun with the
cross-functional teams that we piloted last fall that are
managing these six portfolio capabilities.
General Murray. If I can go over just a little bit, Mr.
Chairman.
Mr. Wilson. Briefly, please.
General Murray. Yes, sir.
I think the key thing is with the relationships we talked
about earlier. These are led by former brigade commanders, so
these are coming out of armor and infantry brigades. There is a
PM [project manager] on their team, and the relationship from
that PM back through the acquisition channels has proven to be
very, very solid.
Mr. Carbajal. Thank you.
I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Wilson. Thank you, Mr. Carbajal.
We now proceed to Congressman Mike Gallagher of Wisconsin.
Mr. Gallagher. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And, General Murray, we would gladly accept any stories you
have about our colleague here, having served with him for so
long. Particularly afterwards, if you want to meet, I will
gladly receive those.
Thank you for being here today for what is a really
interesting discussion.
Just quickly, are all of the cross-functional teams, they
will be housed physically together in Austin on a day-to-day
basis?
Secretary McCarthy. No, sir. They are spread out all over
the country. Our Long Range Precision Fires are located at Fort
Sill, Oklahoma. The Ground Combat Vehicle is at Automotive
Research Development Command in Warren, Michigan. The Future
Vertical Lift is in Huntsville, Alabama. Our Network is in
Aberdeen Proving Ground. Missile Defense is at Fort Sill. And
the Soldier Lethality is at Fort Benning, Georgia.
We have two complementary efforts, Positioning, Navigation,
and Timing and Synthetic Training Environment. The Synthetic
Training Environment is in Orlando, Florida, with the PEO STRI
[Program Executive Officer for Simulation, Training and
Instrumentation], and the PNT, or Positioning, Navigation, and
Timing, is also at Huntsville.
Mr. Gallagher. And then how many personnel will be
physically present in Austin? And then what will be sort of the
effort to sort of bring people together on a routine basis if
the cross-functional teams are sort of the heart of this
effort, right?
General Murray. Yes, sir. They were. And I have to pass on
your offer. He has got more stories on me than I do on him.
Mr. Gallagher. It is mutually assured destruction, I would
imagine, yes.
General Murray. So the real function, it will end up being
a fairly large organization when you look at what is now RDECOM
at Aberdeen Proving Ground, part of ARCIC [Army Capabilities
Integration Center], which is at Fort Eustis, Virginia, plus
the cross-functional teams.
The headquarters in Austin is capped at 500. My goal is to
keep it below 500 and even with contractors not grow much above
that.
And you really unify, I think, and I think that is the key
premise we are trying to get at, is these various stovepipes in
the past had no central oversight, had no central person kind
of establishing priorities, creating visions, driving
discipline and accountability in the system, and that is the
role the headquarters in Austin will play.
Mr. Gallagher. And I am sorry to be obtuse about this, but
so who then is the belly button that the cross-functional teams
loop into within just the team that is in Austin?
General Murray. They link directly to my one and only
Deputy Commander, Jim Richardson, and ultimately to me.
Mr. Gallagher. Got it. And, obviously, TRADOC is probably
losing the most responsibility in this reorganization,
particularly when it comes to materiel and equipment planning.
And if you look at the history of military innovation,
successful militaries are not just those that acquire new
technologies first, they are the ones that incorporate those
new technologies into their doctrine, which in some ways is
just as difficult, right?
So could you walk me through your process a bit to
understand how ultimately you decided that it would be best to
split these TRADOC functions across commands?
General Murray. So I think what you are referring to, sir,
and I am sure you are familiar with the term, we call it
DOTMLPF [doctrine, organization, training, materiel, leadership
and education, personnel, and facilities]. So the integration
of doctrine, training, leader development, materiel. There is a
defined handoff between Army Futures Command and TRADOC, who
remains responsible for that DOTMLPF integration.
So what I will focus on is the future operational
environment. What would a battlefield look like in 2035? I am
just picking that year. Is it in a major city? Where could it
possibly be? What focus do we want? What peer competitor do we
want to focus on to develop concepts, organizational
structures, to identify gaps that can either be modified
through doctrine, organization, TTPs [tactics, techniques, and
procedures], in some cases materiel.
Everything other than materiel gets handed off to TRADOC in
about--just outside--let's just call it just outside the FYDP
[Future Years Defense Program], to do that integration, along
with the concepts and requirements for the materiel solutions.
Now, the materiel solutions themselves ultimately get
handed off to the acquisition community and ASA(ALT) to deliver
the materiel. What I am really delivering is concepts,
organizational structures, and materiel solutions to be
integrated by TRADOC.
Mr. Gallagher. Yeah. And then just to end, as my time is
running out, where I began. The reason I am sort of asking sort
of simplistic questions about physical presence is it seems
like we are placing a huge bet on the necessity of being in
physical proximity to an innovative culture, right? I mean,
that is the whole reason for relocating to Austin and entailing
some costs therein.
I guess I just would have some concern that given the
importance of the cross-functional teams, if we are still
operating a scenario in which those are spread all across the
United States and only sort of on a loose or semi-routine basis
coming back to the heart of the effort in Austin, are we really
achieving that sort of synergy that comes from physical
presence?
Because I quite agree, I think there is some value to sort
of being near ideas and discussions that don't often happen
within the Pentagon or at Fort Eustis or wherever.
And so I don't know, Mr. McCarthy, if you just want to
briefly address that concern.
Secretary McCarthy. It could be potentially a concern, sir,
but what we see with the value of the command group being in an
ecosystem like that of Austin is that we can tap into a lot of
commercial technologies that have not really been afforded to
the Department of Defense in recent years and forge our
relationships with academia and business and improve our
ability to do business with them.
The incorporation of the CFTs is to get them as close as we
can to all of the elements of DOTMLPF, as well as the program
management, and it is dependent upon the life cycle as well.
Mr. Gallagher. Thank you. My time has expired.
Mr. Wilson. Thank you, Congressman Gallagher.
We now proceed to Congressman Anthony Brown of Maryland.
Mr. Brown. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I want to thank the
Secretary and the General for being here today.
And, Mr. Secretary, looking forward to our visit to
Aberdeen Proving Ground next week.
My question has to do with funding. So Maryland is the home
of two significant research, development, test, and evaluation
activities; Aberdeen Proving Ground, you have the networking
cross-functional team, and then the Army Research Lab at
Adelphi.
The cross-functional teams, as I understand it, are
supervised by the Army Futures Command. There is some other
reporting that happens to other at least directorates or
commands, but you are supervising the cross-functional teams.
It is my understanding that the cross-functional teams
within that RDT&E budget get their funding from the Advanced
Technology Development account. The Army Research Lab, which is
basic and applied research, gets their funding from those
accounts.
So my concern is, how are we going the fund the CFTs, and
will that funding come at the expense of funding for basic and
applied research?
General Murray. So the first answer is, sir, that, yes, the
CFTs report directly to me, and only for the last 3 weeks.
Prior to that a lot of the success I credit to Mr. McCarthy and
the Vice Chief of Staff, General McConville. They had direct
access to senior leader decision makers, so they are not going
through layer after layer after layer of bureaucracy to get a
decision.
And that contributed a lot and that is what we are trying
to replicate with a direct report to me. Obviously, the Chief,
the Secretary, the Under, and the Vice still have access to
them and will get periodic updates.
To answer your question on really the basic science moneys
that the Army has versus the more traditional research and
development moneys, there will be no impact to the basic
science moneys. What I am counting on ARL [Army Research Lab]
and other labs to produce, basic science labs to produce, is
the future technologies that will be incorporated by the labs
and CFTs at some point in the future.
Mr. Brown. Just to clarify, you don't see the funding for
the CFTs impacting the funding for basic and applied research?
General Murray. We have been very, very consistent in
maintaining our funding in basic research and applied research
for many, many years, and we see the value of maintaining that
funding, because what that really addresses is the
breakthroughs and the knowledge we are going to need 20 years
from now.
Mr. Brown. Great.
My next question is a followup to Congresswoman Bordallo
regarding how do you measure success. You mentioned value to
the warfighters, you said that you are developing metrics, so
it seems to me that you are not able to put a finer point on
that now, and I appreciate that.
But can you at least characterize what those metrics might
look like a year from now, 5 years from now? What are some of
the things that you are looking at when you talk about value to
the warfighters, what those metrics might look like?
General Murray. In terms of value to the warfighters, I
think that is going to be a very hard one to put metrics
against. I think we are going to get a lot of that back from
soldier input. So once we deliver it.
We have a history of delivering a capability after a 3- to
5-year requirements process, a 10-year development process. We
have a history of delivering even the programs that were
successful, something that is almost obsolete by the time it is
delivered. And you get the most response from soldiers is,
``This is nice, but I have seen so much better in many other
places.''
So I think that direct feedback, not only through the
process but at the tail end, and really can a soldier apply
this on a battlefield and does it enhance their chance of
mission success, I think is, like I said, the ultimate metric.
That is going to be really hard to put specific metrics on.
That is probably why I can't pinpoint specific things.
There are things, and I hate process, although process is
sometimes necessary. You know, one of the metrics that has been
established is no more than 12 months to develop a requirements
document, and that was a process that took anywhere between 3
to 5 years just a year ago.
Mr. Brown. My last question. Before I ask it, I will say
also that I share Mr. Russell's optimism for the Army Futures
Command.
My last question. I know, Mr. Secretary, that one of the
criteria in terms of siting the command was that it be near a
leading academic institution, leading commercial institutions,
University of Texas. That is great.
This committee in the recent NDAAs have increased research
and development programs that support the work being done at
historically black colleges and universities. So it is maybe
half question, half comment.
I would hope that you would look to the historically black
colleges, at least in Texas, Texas Southern, which is in
Houston, Prairie View, to develop partnerships with those
institutions as well as you are sort of building out your
ecosystem of innovative and diverse views on how to bring value
to the warfighter.
Secretary McCarthy. Yes, sir, we will.
Mr. Brown. Thank you. I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Wilson. And thank you, Congressman Brown.
We now proceed to Congressman General Trent Kelly of
Mississippi.
Mr. Kelly. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And, General Murray and Under Secretary McCarthy, we really
appreciate you-all being here, and I appreciate the time you
spent with me in my office prior to this.
One of my greatest concerns that you are addressing, and I
am a huge fan of doing this, is we have got an acquisition
system that is set up for 40 or 50 years ago, and we expect it
to work today. And today technology moves in minutes and weeks
and months at the slowest, and we have got an acquisition
system that is built for decades or quarter centuries. And so I
appreciate this undertaking.
I think we have to be careful, and people are always
resistant to change. I think we have the right people in the
right places to do this. We rely on you to be honest brokers
and to do this in the right way.
There is going to be a lot of gnashing of the teeth and,
``We have never done this and it will never work.'' And you
guys have gone through this before. So I think we have the
right leadership team in place both at your level and above
your level and then your peers so that we can do this.
One of the things I kind of want to talk a little bit about
is from the time I have been in the military, almost 33 years
ago, we have always had--our opponents have had better long-
range artillery. They outdistance us or they had more guns, and
there was a lot of different things. And I know that we are
working on some of those solutions.
And so, General Murray or Mr. McCarthy, whichever one would
like to answer this, tell me kind of what you are doing to
address that. Not, obviously, classified stuff. But tell me who
you are working with and who are the key players in addressing
this issue that has been an at least 33-year problem in our
military.
General Murray. Yes, sir. We have broken it down into the
three bins that you will be very familiar with. So from a
tactical fires perspective, we are going through basically a
two-step upgrade to our current Paladin. We are going to the
M109A7, which is a new chassis. And then the next step is
coming very quickly; we call it the ERCA. So it is the Extended
Range Cannon Artillery. So it is a different caliber. It is a
.58 caliber cannon. And we have already shot a ram round out of
that, out of that tube, and more than doubled the range of our
current artillery. And the goal is to get that out even
further.
The next one is our operational fires. It is a new missile;
we call it the Precision Strike Missile. It has a range of
approximately--will have a range of approximately 499
kilometers, and it is only limited by the INF [Intermediate-
Range Nuclear Forces] Treaty. Our current missile that it is
replacing has a range of 350, so we are extending that by about
150 kilometers.
And then for our operational--I am sorry, our strategic
fires, we are looking very hard and starting down the path of
hypersonics, and then also looking at what we call the
Strategic Long-Range Cannon, which conceivably could have a
range of up to 1,000 nautical miles.
So we are looking across all the three echelons of fires.
And then we are also, a more near-term thing we are doing is we
are adding back in both cannon and rocket artillery into our
formations. Very graciously, we have been allowed to grow over
the last 2 or 3 years, and a large piece of that growth is
focused on artillery.
Mr. Kelly. And one thing, I know both of you guys have led
soldiers at all levels, and we as leaders sometimes think we
have the best ideas. But you guys both know that a lot of times
you don't tell them--you tell them the capabilities or you tell
them what you want and you let them figure it out. Sometimes
they surprise you with an answer that is much greater than
anything you ever anticipated. I ask that you not lose that.
And I ask that you also not lose the ability when you have
something developed but a different civilian organization maybe
comes up--with all the tech guys you are going to have around
you--with a better idea, let's not be immune from just saying,
we are breaking this other one, this is better, it is ready to
field, let's do this. So I hope you will do that.
My final concern a little bit is we have some places like
ERDC [U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center],
which do some of our greatest research in the world. And so
there is a little bit of fear that some of that money is going
to go to Futures Command, and they are going to be shorting on
their budget some of the greatest research and doctors and
people that we have.
What can you tell me or why should these people not be
worried about maybe losing their budget and it going to Futures
Command and them losing their budget? What would you do to make
sure they understand that is not going to happen?
General Murray. Yes, sir. I would say that the effort in
all the labs across the Army is to get them focused on Army
priorities. It is not to cut workforce, it is not to take
money. It is to streamline and focus on what is most important
to the Army. And that is what we have basically failed to do,
in my opinion, since the mid-eighties.
And you are right, the labs do incredible work and we have
got some incredibly bright people. I think the value of Futures
Command is we don't have all the really incredibly bright
people, to go back to a point you made earlier. So I think we
can learn a lot. It is not designed to cut away work from the
labs or to take people from the labs; it is to learn from other
really bright engineers, scientists, data scientists, et
cetera.
Mr. Kelly. And just very briefly, Chairman, it is not just
having the right idea. Sometimes it is reinforcing and patting
guys on the back and letting them know they are going to be
okay. You have to do that part; that is part of leadership and
change. People don't like change.
With that, I yield back.
Mr. Wilson. Thank you, Congressman Kelly.
We now proceed to Congresswoman Stephanie Murphy of
Florida.
Mrs. Murphy. Thank you.
Secretary McCarthy, General Murray, thank you for being
here today. And, Secretary McCarthy, it is nice to see you
again.
I was really encouraged by the comments in your written
testimony and what you said here today, that the Army must
generate a culture that embraces and embodies agility in the
pace of the private sector, and to do so the Army must tap into
the spirit of American entrepreneurship by operating in
innovative hubs and academic institutions in our country.
And that is why I am just so pleased that the Army selected
Orlando as the new location for the Synthetic Training
Environment cross-functional team under Army Futures Command.
And, as you know, the STE/CFT will merge live, virtual, and
gaming domains into a single state-of-the-art training
environment for soldiers. And my district in Central Florida is
really ideal for this kind of work. Orlando is the center of
gravity for gaming. It is home to a thriving tech ecosystem and
has a dynamic and diverse higher education system.
Just a couple of questions, and I will toss them all out at
once. Would you describe the benefit that the Army will receive
by locating this STE/CFT and other CFTs in and around
innovation hubs in the United States? How do you envision that
the CFTs will interact with these hubs and academic
institutions and the overall Army Futures Command headquarter,
as well as what can we do here in Congress to support the
success of these entities?
Secretary McCarthy. I think we can both comment on this,
ma'am. We are tapping into commercial talent that we have not
utilized in recent times. So that is the first thing. And being
closer to the innovators and allowing us to talk through our
challenges helps us create solutions faster and more
effectively. So we are trying to get as close as we can. I
think of the Allen curve of the 1970s, bringing the innovator
closer to the customer ultimately.
And you can talk through all of the requirements, to
General Murray's points earlier, about the development of a
requirements document. So we are excited about that
opportunity, in particular with Orlando. And over time, it is a
cultural change for us. We are putting the requirements leader
right in there with the PEO STRI organization. But it has
improved our definition of requirements and in the movement of
information, like we have illustrated before.
General Murray. Yes, ma'am. I think you heard over and over
again about how we believe the real power of different ideas,
sitting around the table and talking, really from different
perspectives, how you come to a better solution. Entrepreneurs,
private industry, big business, small business, we just see
them as another valuable team member that we can absolutely
learn from and come up with better solutions because of it.
Mrs. Murphy. Great. Thank you. And then what do you think
the new command's role will be in training and sustainment for
future Army systems?
General Murray. So sustainment is part of every
requirements document, and AMC, Army Materiel Command, will
maintain a leading role in helping us develop, as part of the
requirements document, the sustainability we are looking for,
the operational readiness that we are looking for.
The training piece of it will belong to TRADOC, where it
traditionally belongs. So as we hand over materiel solutions or
new concepts, they will develop the training strategy to go
with it, and then FORSCOM will actually execute the training.
Mrs. Murphy. Thank you. I will yield back the rest of my
time. Thank you.
Mr. Wilson. Thank you very much, Congresswoman Murphy.
We now proceed to Congresswoman Vicky Hartzler of Missouri.
Mrs. Hartzler. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, gentlemen. This is very exciting and has so much
potential. And I just am trying to hone in a little bit in how
this all ties together. And I appreciated your explanation,
General Murray, earlier of how you are going to have--your job
is to take the concepts and then come up with the materiel
solutions, and then pass that off to materiel acquisitions, and
then pass the training materiels off to TRADOC.
Can you just expound on that a little bit and what your
role is and then how it ties in with the other divisions in the
Army and their responsibilities?
General Murray. Yes, ma'am. Thank you. So, I mean, you
basically read it back to me, so--you know, Army Materiel
Command 6 months ago did all the logistics and sustainment for
a 1.1 million-man Army. They do all the foreign military sales
work, and they were doing research and development and S&T 6
months ago.
Training and Doctrine Command does accessions. They do
initial entry training. They do advanced individual training.
They do officer education. They do noncommissioned officer
education. And they produce the Army's doctrine.
And FORSCOM is probably the easiest to explain. They have
all the operational units, and they focus solely on the
readiness of those operational--readiness, those operational
units. And that is part of the streamlining, and it was
identified before as creating another bureaucracy.
I actually see it as streamlining the bureaucracy, because
if you look at--and nothing against my fellow four-stars, but
there is bureaucracy in AMC and there is bureaucracy in TRADOC
and there is bureaucracy in HQDA, the Headquarters Department
of the Army, and there is bureaucracy within the acquisition
community. All four of those communities all had a ``no'' vote.
Very few people had a ``yes'' vote.
So what I see this as is really taking those four
communities, when you look at the acquisition of materiel, the
development requirements and the acquisition of materiel, by
establishing oversight, that authority to install that, is you
have actually streamlined four bureaucracies into one. And
there is somebody in place that can say yes.
Mrs. Hartzler. So how will what you do differ from what
DARPA [Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency] is doing?
General Murray. So parts of what we do will be similar to
DARPA. DARPA will be one of our key partners. DARPA is one of
our key partners right now. We fund a lot of the work that
DARPA does through the Army, and we will continue to do that.
So the goal will be not to duplicate the efforts that DARPA
is doing, but to have the synergy with DARPA to achieve the
same result I have talked about earlier, delivering capability
as quickly as we can.
Mrs. Hartzler. So we have Dr. Jette now, the Assistant
Secretary of the Army of Acquisition, Logistics, Technology.
What is his role versus your role?
General Murray. His role has not changed. Since the day he
was sworn in to today, his role has not changed. So he remains
solely responsible to the Secretary of the Army for
Acquisition, Logistics and Technology. He is the Army's chief
scientist. PMs. He is responsible for the development of the
Acquisition Corps, both the uniformed and the civilian part of
it; and he is ultimately responsible for the delivery of a
materiel solution once a decision is made to go down that
route, that it can't be solved by anything else, can't be
solved by a doctrine change or an organizational change.
I will have to work very closely with Dr. Jette. And like I
said earlier, I have oversight. We are building systems right
now to give me oversight of the entire system. So if it is a
problem prior to a milestone decision authority or a materiel
development decision, usually associated with milestone A, I
have the authorities to fix that, because it is a requirements
issue or it is a prototyping issue or it is an experimentation
issue.
If it is past the decision to build a piece of equipment to
solve that problem, the responsibility really lies with Dr.
Jette, so I have the obligation to work with him to solve those
problems.
Mrs. Hartzler. So it will start with you.
You mentioned hypersonics. So are you taking over the
development of hypersonics and the research on that?
General Murray. Up until the point that we decide to build
it, yes, ma'am.
Mrs. Hartzler. So who is working on that now and you are
going to take that responsibility?
General Murray. Well, currently the limited amount of work
we are doing, which is expanding, is being done at a place
called SMDC, the Space and Missile Defense Command.
Mrs. Hartzler. So you will be taking that over under your
command and your development, your concept stage. What other
projects will you be assuming that are currently somewhere
else?
General Murray. So all the CFTs' work. There are about 21
individual programs that are within the CFTs. So Future
Vertical Lift, so future helicopters; the network, some of the
work that is going up at Aberdeen Proving Ground; the Assured
Position, Navigation, and Timing; the air and missile defense
portfolio; the soldier lethality portfolio, so the next-
generation rifle, next-generation automatic rifle, next-
generation night vision devices; the synthetic training
environment that was mentioned; directed energy; the
hypersonics we mentioned. And we are in the process of standing
up an artificial intelligence task force, so machine learning
and artificial intelligence.
Mrs. Hartzler. A big portfolio. Thank you very much.
I yield back.
Mr. Wilson. Thank you very much, Congresswoman Hartzler.
We now proceed to Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii.
Ms. Gabbard. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, gentlemen.
As you are looking at what the Futures Command is taking
on, how are you assessing the personnel needs, what skills,
educational background, and experience that you will need to
bring these teams together, and where do you plan to build them
from?
General Murray. I am relying pretty heavily on the
gentleman sitting to my right. So this will be very
nontraditional. And I like to tell people I walked into, I
think, my first meeting here in Crystal City, because of the
status of the headquarters down there, and I was very
comfortable because there was a lieutenant colonel wearing a
Combat Infantryman's Badge and a Ranger Tab. And then I quickly
found out that he is an operational research specialist with a
Ph.D. in data analytics.
So that is the type of skill set we are looking for. We are
very close to hiring a chief technology officer that Mr.
McCarthy can talk about, but he is a leader in the field.
Experts in the area of artificial intelligence, machine
learning.
So this will be very nontraditional to what I am used to
walking into. And if I have been successful in my career, it is
because I think I have been fairly successful finding the
people with the right talents to surround myself with that can
help me make the right decisions over time.
Secretary McCarthy. If I could expound on that, ma'am. So
if you look at the three major pillars that make up the
command: Futures and Concepts, Combat Development, and Combat
Systems. Futures and Concepts is kind of where you look at the
skill sets of the Skunk Works and Net Assessment which we have
in the Department.
We need to be thinking about our operational design in
future years as well as leaders that understand future
technologies. So being in the proximity of an ecosystem filled
with entrepreneurs, we look to either hire these folks
organically or as a consultant basis to help us understand what
technologies are out there that could affect our operating
concept to make us more lethal. So those will be research
scientists, people of that nature.
The Combat Development, to the point that General Murray
made before about a chief technology officer, we are recruiting
a dean of a very prestigious engineering school to be his chief
technology officer, so have someone who is world class in
systems engineering to help us look at our architectural
designs. Because like the programs I mentioned before, Future
Combat Systems and others, a lot of that was the systems
architecture associated with the weapon system.
So if it wasn't clean on the operating concept and we
didn't have a clean architectural design, that is why we had
catastrophic failures. A lot of this talent had been divested
from the Department over the last couple of decades, so we are
out recruiting people with those types of skill sets.
And to General Murray's, one of his primary tasks of
building this technical bench as well as world-class
warfighters like the ones he has got in his senior leadership
team.
General Murray. Ma'am, if I could just add, part of this is
also harnessing the talent we already have. So identifying and
harnessing talent that exists in a lot of the organizations
that will fall under me pretty soon.
Ms. Gabbard. Are you looking at all in the Guard and
Reserve and folks who may be doing this job already in their
civilian sector?
General Murray. I have a good tie-in to the Army National
Guard, and I have a one-star general officer that is really a
direct liaison to the entire Department in the National Guard.
And then in direct support to me is the organization called
the 75th Innovation Command out of Houston, Texas. It used to
be the 75th Training Command. And I have met with the two-star
commander that is in direct support to me, and he has some
amazing talent that he is harnessing all over the country.
Secretary McCarthy. A couple of the officers that are going
to serve on our artificial intelligence task force are coming
from the Reserves. They are really going to be the nucleus of
that organization in particular.
Ms. Gabbard. And then my last question is just about the
technical oversight for your command in making sure that the
investments that are being made are actually achieving
realistic goals and objectives and realistic timelines of
things that you are setting out as very clearly your
objectives. Where will that kind of technical oversight come
from?
General Murray. Primarily from the chief technical officer
and the resources I align with him. So before you establish a
timeline, it is good to have a good understanding of what is
reasonable. And to be honest with you, I can't do that by
myself.
So it is really the people I hire, the people I surround
myself with, get multiple opinions from outside agencies,
independent assessments, before we launch down a path to where
we are committing resources against something we can't achieve.
Ms. Gabbard. Thank you.
Mr. Wilson. And thank you, Congresswoman Gabbard.
We now proceed to Congressman Subcommittee Chairman Mike
Rogers of Alabama.
Mr. Rogers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you all for being here and for your service to our
country.
While I was disappointed Huntsville was not selected, I
don't know that much about Austin, but I am sure it is a fine
innovative community.
But I am real interested. I am still trying to understand
mechanically how you plug into that ecosystem that you made
reference to, Mr. Secretary, and how they interact with this
new command. Can you tell me more about that?
I understand the public-private partnership dynamic that we
employ in the depot systems, for example. How do you interact
with these innovators that you have located nearby?
General Murray. So, sir, there is--and Austin is just one
example of hopefully what will become a lot. You have heard of
the organization formerly called DIUx, now called DIU, no
longer experimental. The Air Force has a similar organization
called AFWERX. I am standing up a thing called the Army
Application Lab, which is a very similar concept to DIU and
AFWERX. They will actually be collocated in a place called the
Capital Factory in Austin. It is completely contrary to
anything I have experienced in my military career, but it
basically is an accelerator hub where young innovators bring
ideas and they match up with venture capitalists. And we will
be in there scouting and researching technologies, potential
technologies that we may want to accelerate or bring into one
of our programs of record. And that is just--I mean, those
exist all over the country.
And so, ultimately, as I said in my opening statement, the
goal would be to reach out, primarily through the 75th
Innovation Command, to get into these types of things and bring
us things we would not normally experience if we were sitting
on a military installation someplace.
Mr. Rogers. I heard you make reference to the fact you-all
will be working on directed energy. I am very interested and
excited about this capability and seeing us be able to employ
it in more ways, but I have been frustrated that we are doing
this research and development across several offices rather
than concentrating in one area.
So I have talked with Secretary Mattis about it and Mike
Griffin, and both have indicated they intend to centralize
that, but it sounds like that we are going the other direction.
Is what you are going to be doing inconsistent with that
centralization of effort?
Secretary McCarthy. Sir, if I may, like hypersonics, the
Department is looking at a similar type of joint interest
program, not a joint program office like the F-35 or some of
these other programs, but joint interest.
So we work on programmatic timelines that are suitable for
us to implement these capabilities into our formations, but we
share the information and we establish nodes where we can work
better together, really cultivate a supply chain to support
these efforts, because there are only a handful of companies at
present that are really expressing interest to work with us on
this. So I think you will probably see a similar effort like we
are doing with hypersonics today, sir.
Mr. Rogers. Thank you-all. I appreciate your service.
And I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Wilson. And thank you, Congressman Rogers.
And I want to thank our witnesses for being here today. And
also, I want to thank, of course, Tom Hawley for his leadership
on maintaining the 5-minute rule. And, of course, we want to
appreciate again our ranking member, Madeleine Bordallo, for
her bipartisan leadership on behalf of national security, a
proven record, as she is certainly such a promoter of the
strategic location of Guam and the beautiful beaches of Guam
for tourism that has been--I don't want Tulsi to hear this, but
Hawaii copied Guam.
Ms. Gabbard. Mr. Chairman, I object.
Mr. Wilson. And, hey, it has also been a great honor for
the subcommittee today to meet in the Sam Johnson Room of the
Rayburn House Office Building. Congressman Johnson is a beloved
Member of Congress, but he is a hero, having survived as a POW
[prisoner of war] of Vietnam, a person that we all--just we are
humbled to be in his presence any time.
And so, with this, we are adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 2:50 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
=======================================================================
A P P E N D I X
September 13, 2018
=======================================================================
PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD
September 13, 2018
=======================================================================
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
=======================================================================
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS POST HEARING
September 13, 2018
=======================================================================
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MS. STEFANIK
Ms. Stefanik. General Murray, I commend the U.S. Army for making
tough decisions regarding the modernization of the Army's future force.
I also appreciate the hard choices that you have had to make to insure
adequate funding across your top six modernization priorities. However,
I am concerned that given the current priorities of the Army and the
support that Congress has given the Army for long range assault
helicopters, the Army's shift toward Capability Set 1 will infringe
upon the success of a quick acquisition of the Capability Set 3
aircraft, and possibly even jeopardize the program. Can you tell the
committee that you are still planning to procure the long-range assault
aircraft (Capability Set 3) on the same or faster schedule than the
future armed reconnaissance aircraft (Capability Set 1)?
As the Executive Agent for the JMR-TD and with FVL as a high
priority for modernization, please assess the joint risk associated
with fielding a Capability Set 1 aircraft ahead of a Capability Set 3
aircraft, and any impact to the acquisition schedule for the Capability
Set 3 aircraft program. Specifically, can you comment on your
coordination with the Marine Corps and your assessment on the prospects
of continued cooperation?
General Murray. There is low risk associated with fielding a
Capability Set 1 aircraft ahead of a Capability Set 3 aircraft.
Capability Set 1 and Capability Set 3 are two complimentary programs
that are not in competition against one another for resources or
prioritization. The Capability Set 3 schedule remains unchanged and is
executing in accordance with the October 2016 Material Development
Decision. Capability Set 1 (Future Attack Reconnaissance Aircraft) is a
U.S. Army program led by the FVL CFT, whereas the Capability Set 3
Future Long Range Assault Aircraft is a multiservice program. The U.S.
Army and U.S. Marine Corps are the two services participating in the
Capability Set 3 Analysis of Alternatives. Both services are working
together to field the required vertical lift capability to their
respective service. The FVL CFT strategy is to begin fielding the FVL
Family of Systems circa 2028, including both Capability Set 1 and
Capability Set 3.
______
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. CARBAJAL
Mr. Carbajal. At $3 million per year, the Peacekeeping and
Stability Operations Institute (PKSOI) plays a critical role in
capturing lessons learned and developing informed doctrine, training,
education and operations for complex peacekeeping and stability
operations. It's also the only approved NATO Partnership Education
Training Center. It has recently been reported that the Army is
eliminating the Institute potentially as a ``pay for'' for the Army
Futures Command. Is PKSOI a ``pay for'' for the Army Futures Command?
If so, how will the functions of PKSOI be retained? Is the elimination
of PKSOI supported by the Joint Staff and OSD Policy?
Secretary McCarthy. No, the Peacekeeping and Stability Operations
Institute (PKSOI) is not a ``pay for'' for the Army Futures Command.
Recent Army decisions regarding PKSOI were aimed at consolidating the
Army's diverse Irregular Warfare (IW) enterprise to bring greater unity
of effort and more focus consistent with the National Defense Strategy.
The focal point of this effort is that the U.S. Army Training and
Doctrine Command (TRADOC) will establish an IW proponent office at the
Combined Arms Center, Fort Leavenworth, KS. This approach was informed
by a TRADOC study to determine the most appropriate means to oversee
the IW enterprise. The functions and structure of PKSOI and 12 other
related Army organizations were assessed during this study. The
proposed plan is to realign components of PKSOI currently at Carlisle
Barracks, PA: a. Assign and move PKSOI's Army Stability Operations
Force Modernization Proponency to the new IW office at Ft. Leavenworth
to improve doctrinal synergy. b. Assign PKSOI's current mission at
Carlisle Barracks for collecting, archiving, and disseminating Joint
Peacekeeping and Stability Operations (P&SO) lessons learned to the
Center for Army Lessons Learned at Ft. Leavenworth. c. Retain an office
and personnel at Carlisle Barracks to continue the Joint doctrinal
development and assessment functions specific to P&SO, with oversight
from the Combined Arms Center at Ft. Leavenworth. This will enable the
continued engagement and interaction with the broader P&SO community
including the Department of Defense, Department of State, other
agencies, and international partners. This approach to realigning
responsibility for Peacekeeping, Stability Operations, and Irregular
Warfare has only recently been finalized. We are currently in the
process of informing and gaining Joint Staff and OSD Policy support for
these efforts.
______
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. BROWN
Mr. Brown. Who was the final source selection for this decision
with the Army? And, did this final decision track with what the
internal Army process recommend?
Secretary McCarthy. Secretary Esper made the final selection. Yes,
the final decision aligned with the recommendation of the AFC Task
Force (TF). The AFC TF followed a rigorous data-driven approach to
systematically narrow the list of viable locations, eventually
resulting in the five very best candidate locations, which were visited
by both a working team as well as Under Secretary of the Army McCarthy
and LTG Wesley. Those five were then analyzed further using more data
to determine which location would provide the best return on investment
for the Army and the Nation.
Mr. Brown. What happens after these CFTs have completed their jobs?
Will you stand up new CFTs?
Who will decide what that next modernization priority will be? Is
the Defense Intelligence Agency integrated into the AFC? If not, what
is informing the requirement development? Is it threat based?
What metrics are the Army using for ``success'' for the AFC? How
will we know this is better than the old model?
The Army has indicated that the Purpose of the AFC is to bring
together new and emerging technologies. Specifically, how will these
new and emerging technologies be integrated into the ``big 6
priorities''? Does the Army plan to act as the lead systems integrator?
If so, what experience does the Army have in this role, and what
success stories can the Army share?
Assistant Secretary McCarthy has stated publicly that 80% of S&T
will be prioritized against 18 weapons systems. What projects will the
other 20% fund? Which Army research programs currently funded by the
80% will the Army cut?
General Murray. The CFTs will likely deactivate once their missions
are completed. We will assess the need for new CFTs based on emerging
requirements. We do not anticipate the Army's modernization priorities
to change. The Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) is a critical partner
in AFC efforts. Further, AFC has and will continue to personally brief
the DIA Director (currently LTG Ashley) on AFC efforts. Additionally,
AFC routinely partners with DIA, including the National Ground
Intelligence Center (NGIC) and other service centers that are federated
parts of DIA. The AFC approach is threat-based; threats drive AFC's
description of the Future operational environment and provide the
baseline for future modernization efforts. AFC is developing metrics to
gauge progress along five areas of emphasis: Unity of Effort,
Overmatch, Innovation, Solutions Development, and Engagement.
Ultimately AFC's success will be measured by improving our ability to
equip Warfighters with the tools they need, when they need them, to
fight and win. AFC will continue to identify, assess, update, and
refine metrics to ensure the Future Force Modernization Enterprise
effectively delivers Warfighting capabilities. New and emerging
technologies are being integrated into the Army's 6 modernization
priorities as these represent the focus of Army modernization.
Moreover, the CFTs have the responsibility for integrating these
technologies under the direction of AFC. AFC will be the orchestrator
of the Future Force Modernization Enterprise working closely with the
other services, the AAE, and the other ACOMs. The Army has learned from
past experiences with lead systems integrators and continues to learn
from initial successes with CFTs. Dr. Jette, Army Acquisition
Executive, has stated that 80% of Budget activity 6.3 dollars should be
aligned to the needs of the eight CFTs. The focus of the CFTs are near-
to-midterm, therefore the remaining 20% will resource the evaluation of
disruptive technologies that do not directly align with the CFTs. S&T
efforts that are not directly tied to the CFTs will be the first
efforts to be evaluated based on importance to the Army warfighter.
These efforts may ultimately be cut or moved to the 20% non-aligned
funding.
______
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MS. McSALLY
Ms. McSally. Under Secretary McCarthy, you have been quoted as
saying that Army Futures Command (AFC) will have a staff of around 500.
I also understand that the Army plans to staff Futures Command, at
least partially, by reallocating people and positions from other Army
organizations, such as the Army's Intelligence Center of Excellence
(USAICoE), located at Fort Huachuca. Has the Army identified whether
any functions will be reallocated from Fort Huachuca/USAICoE as a
result of the establishment of Futures Command? Has the Army identified
where the personnel positions, both military and civilian, will come
from for Futures Command? Does the Army anticipate pulling any
personnel positions from Fort Huachuca/USAICoE?
Secretary McCarthy. Portions of the Capability Development
Integration Directorates (CDIDs) and Battle Labs resident in Training
and Doctrine Command (TRADOC) Centers of Excellence transfer from
TRADOC to Army Futures Command. This includes the CDID and Battle Lab
at Fort Huachuca/United States Army Intelligence Center of Excellence
(USAICoE). Currently this is a Command transfer only, with the function
remaining at Fort Huachuca. Regarding identifying personnel positions
for Army Futures Command and Fort Huachuca/USAICoE, the Army is in the
process of defining which personnel positions will transfer from
existing Army Staffs and Commands to Army Futures Command, and while
the functions described above transfer to Army Futures Command,
currently the personnel positions remain at Ft. Huachuca. The Army
established the Futures Command Headquarters from within existing
personnel structure, offering a no net growth solution from the Army
Management Headquarters Account (AMHA) to achieve synergy among concept
development, modernization, and acquisition initiatives.
Ms. McSally. Under Secretary McCarthy, there have been press
reports which quote you as saying that the Army plans to restructure or
terminate a number of acquisition programs and research and development
programs in the next budget submission. Can you explain the process the
Army is using to determine which programs to terminate and restructure?
Can you also address how the future requirements for Army systems not
covered by the six cross functional teams are being addressed by the
R&D community--for example, will there be funds for future intelligence
systems or do you anticipate some sort of allocation of cuts?
Secretary McCarthy. The Secretary and Chief of Staff of the Army
personally led a program-by-program review of all Research and
Development, and Procurement efforts. Guided by the National Defense
Strategy and the Army Vision, they prioritized funding for the Army's
modernization priorities, to include those efforts under the purview of
the Cross Functional Teams, while assessing manageable risk across all
other battlefield functions. In answer to your question concerning
future intelligence systems, some intelligence-related investments fall
within the Network Cross Functional Team and enable lethality across
all domains. The development of survivable sensors to improve long
range and precision target acquisition, and advanced analytics to
expedite threat analysis, is needed to improve the lethality and
survivability of Army formations in contested environments.
Additionally, the Assured Positioning, Navigation, and Timing CFT
efforts are focused on providing commanders with critical Positioning,
Navigation, and Timing (PNT) capability to ensure mission command and
electronic warfare situational awareness, in a PNT contested
environment, for accurate and timely decision making. Proposed changes
to investments were not simply allocated, but were the result of close
scrutiny by the Army's most senior leaders. This review is ongoing
within the Department of Defense and final decisions will be reflected
in the Fiscal Year 2020 President's Budget Request.
Ms. McSally. General Murray, I understand that AFC will be focusing
funding on six priorities. How is the Army planning to ensure that
systems that are not assigned a cross functional team are developed and
fielded? Will Futures Command have a role in ``everything else'' and,
if so, what is that role? (These items include everything from
uniforms, parachutes, to the intelligence systems that allow the Army
to provide warfighters with timely and useful intelligence.)
General Murray. The Army will ensure that systems that are required
(e.g., intelligence systems that allow the Army to provide warfighters
with timely and useful intelligence) but are not assigned a cross
functional team are developed and fielded by several means. The first
is by utilizing the current governance, processes (e.g., Joint
Capability Integration Development System-JCIDS) and organizations
within the Future Force Modernization Enterprise (FFME). The second is
through the AFC Fusion & Integration Center (FIC), which will have
empowered representation from across the FFME to ensure that all
required systems are receiving funding needed to develop and field
those systems. AFC's role in this process will be to develop the
concept, define the requirements, execute research & development, and
identify solutions that our partners in the acquisition community will
field for the Army.
Ms. McSally. General Murray, as you know, TRADOC's Centers of
Excellence perform much of the intellectual work on the doctrine,
equipment, and skills needed for the future. It is not clear what
changes, if any, the establishment of AFC will make to Centers of
Excellence, such as the Intelligence Center of Excellence (USAICoE).
Can you explain anticipated changes to the missions and structures of
TRADOC Centers of Excellence resulting from the establishment of
Futures Command? I am also concerned about the command and control
relationships between Futures Command and the Training and Doctrine
Commands Centers of Excellence. What are the Army's proposed changes to
the TRADOC Centers of Excellence, including USAICoE? What command
relationship will they retain with the Centers' commanding generals?
What will be the command relationship between Centers of Excellence
commanders and their elements, and organizations that shift to Futures
Command?
General Murray. The AFC principle of Unity of Effort focuses on
leveraging efficiencies across disparate, but complementary elements of
the Army Future Force Modernization Enterprise. This includes
identifying and accounting for synergies between both AFC sub-elements
and partners such as TRADOC. TRADOC's primary mission is to recruit,
train and educate the fielded force, while AFC's mission is dedicated
to the future force. The Capability Development Integration
Directorates within the Centers of Excellence, to include the
Intelligence Center of Excellence (USAICoE), will be assigned to Army
Futures Command, while maintaining a general support relationship with
TRADOC. The remaining components of the Centers of Excellence will
remain the same and remain assigned to TRADOC.
[all]