[House Hearing, 117 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]


                                    

                         [H.A.S.C. No. 117-38]

                     ARMY TACTICAL WHEELED VEHICLE

                       PROGRAM UPDATE AND REVIEW

                           OF ELECTRIFICATION

                               __________

                                HEARING

                               BEFORE THE

              SUBCOMMITTEE ON TACTICAL AIR AND LAND FORCES

                                 OF THE

                      COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES

                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                    ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS

                             FIRST SESSION

                               __________

                              HEARING HELD

                              MAY 27, 2021

                                     
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] 

                               __________

                    U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE                    
45-432                     WASHINGTON : 2021                     
          
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
 
              SUBCOMMITTEE ON TACTICAL AIR AND LAND FORCES

                 DONALD NORCROSS, New Jersey, Chairman

RUBEN GALLEGO, Arizona               VICKY HARTZLER, Missouri
SALUD O. CARBAJAL, California        MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio
ANTHONY G. BROWN, Maryland           ROBERT J. WITTMAN, Virginia
MIKIE SHERRILL, New Jersey, Vice     SCOTT DesJARLAIS, Tennessee
    Chair                            MATT GAETZ, Florida
KAIALI'I KAHELE, Hawaii              DON BACON, Nebraska
MARC A. VEASEY, Texas                MARK E. GREEN, Tennessee
STEPHANIE N. MURPHY, Florida         RONNY JACKSON, Texas
STEVEN HORSFORD, Nevada

                 Bill Sutey, Professional Staff Member
                Kelly Repair, Professional Staff Member
                         Caroline Kehrli, Clerk
                           
                           C O N T E N T S

                              ----------                              
                                                                   Page

              STATEMENTS PRESENTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS

Bacon, Hon. Don, a Representative from Nebraska, Subcommittee on 
  Tactical Air and Land Forces...................................     2
Norcross, Hon. Donald, a Representative from New Jersey, 
  Chairman, Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land Forces.........     1

                               WITNESSES

Cadieux, Michael, Director, U.S. Army Combat Capabilities 
  Development Command Ground Vehicle Systems Center..............     5
Goddette, Timothy G., Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army for 
  Acquisition Policy and Logistics...............................     3

                                APPENDIX

Prepared Statements:

    Goddette, Timothy G., joint with Michael Cadieux.............    31
    Norcross, Hon. Donald........................................    29

Documents Submitted for the Record:

    [There were no Documents submitted.]

Witness Responses to Questions Asked During the Hearing:

    Mr. Brown....................................................    43
    Mr. Kahele...................................................    43

Questions Submitted by Members Post Hearing:

    Dr. DesJarlais...............................................    47
    Mrs. Hartzler................................................    47
    
    
      ARMY TACTICAL WHEELED VEHICLE PROGRAM UPDATE AND REVIEW OF 
                            ELECTRIFICATION

                              ----------                              

                  House of Representatives,
                       Committee on Armed Services,
              Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land Forces,
                            Washington, DC, Thursday, May 27, 2021.
    The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 3:00 p.m., via 
Webex, Hon. Donald Norcross (chairman of the subcommittee) 
presiding.

  OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. DONALD NORCROSS, A REPRESENTATIVE 
  FROM NEW JERSEY, CHAIRMAN, SUBCOMMITTEE ON TACTICAL AIR AND 
                          LAND FORCES

    Mr. Norcross. Welcome. I would like to call this hearing to 
order.
    Welcome, everybody, to this hearing of Tactical Air and 
Land Forces Subcommittee. Perhaps more than any other 
appreciates the attention to military trucks and utility 
vehicles. It might not be glamorous but--as some other weapon 
systems, but it is essential, and certainly we need that 
mobility in anything we do as a service.
    I would like to welcome the members who are joining us 
today remotely. I have to read this script, but, hopefully, we 
are not going to have to do it too many more times. Members who 
are participating remotely must be visible on screen for the 
purposes of identity verification, establishing and maintaining 
a quorum, participating in the proceeding, and voting. Remote 
attending members must continue to use the software platform's 
video function the entire time while in attendance, unless they 
experience connectivity issues or other technical problems that 
render them unable to participate on camera. If a member 
experiences technical difficulty, they should contact the 
committee's staff for assistance.
    A video of the members' participation will be broadcast via 
internet feed. Members participating remotely must seek 
recognition verbally and then are asked to mute their 
microphones when they are not speaking. Remote members may 
leave and rejoin proceedings. However, if a remote member 
departs our hearing for a short while for reasons other than 
joining a different proceeding, they should leave their video 
function on.
    If members will be absent for a significant period or 
depart to join different proceedings, they should exit the 
software platform entirely, then rejoin it when they return. 
Members may use the software platform chat feature to 
communicate with staff regarding only technical or logistical 
issues. I have designated a committee staff member to, if 
necessary, mute unrecognized members' microphones to cancel any 
inadvertent background noise that may disrupt the proceedings.
    With that, I would like to welcome our panel of witnesses 
for taking the time to come before us and discuss the Army's 
current and future tactical wheeled vehicles.
    Mr. Tim Goddette, Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army 
for Acquisition Policy and Logistics, and who until just this 
month was a PEO [program executive officer] of combat support--
combat services support at the Detroit [inaudible] procurement 
programs. Welcome.
    And Mr. Michael Cadieux, Director of Ground Vehicle Systems 
Center, that is our science and technology laboratory for 
combat and tactical vehicles.
    As I mentioned earlier, the truck and utility vehicles, 
particularly those necessary to support field operations, are 
essential to the success of any modern military. We have all 
seen the pattern of the increasing risk of the Army's 
management of these vehicles over the last few years by cutting 
modernization and production funding to generate more money for 
the higher priority weapons programs, the 31-4 piece that the 
Army has been going through night court for several years.
    We look forward to the witnesses addressing this increased 
risk and its implementation for truck and utility fleets today. 
We will also talk about risks to our industrial network, 
incredibly important, especially when we start talking about 
minimum sustaining rigs. We also noted over the last couple of 
months increased public awareness and interest in accelerating 
pace and scope of electrification. This is certainly nothing 
new to the automotive industry, but the military application of 
electrification, particularly, in the field environment has 
very different challenges.
    Our witnesses today will help us understand where the Army 
has been and where it is going for tactical wheeled vehicles. 
More importantly, they will help us understand and the 
operational technical challenges that make the commitment to 
vehicle electrification perhaps uncertain at best at this time.
    With this, I want to recognize the stand-in for our Ranking 
Member Mrs. Hartzler, Mr. Don Bacon from Nebraska, for his 
opening statement. Don.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Norcross can be found in the 
Appendix on page 29.]

 STATEMENT OF HON. DON BACON, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM NEBRASKA, 
          SUBCOMMITTEE ON TACTICAL AIR AND LAND FORCES

    Mr. Bacon. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the spirit 
in which you lead the subcommittee, and I am grateful to you. I 
appreciate your leadership in holding this hearing so that we 
may gain a better understanding of the Army's current and 
future plans for its tactical wheeled vehicle programs.
    As we await the delivery of the President's budget request, 
I am concerned about proposed fiscal year 2022 defense top line 
and what that could mean for both our Nation's defense, for 
soldiers. In recent years, the Army's tactical wheeled vehicle 
programs have been funded at or below minimum sustaining 
rates--just as the chairman says--and have at times been used 
as bill payers for the Army's higher priorities. This appears 
to be the likely case for fiscal year 2022 budget request as 
well. With over 200,000 tactical wheeled vehicles, we cannot 
afford to fall behind in recapitalization.
    I am particularly interested in gaining better 
understanding for today's hearing of what impacts these funding 
and prioritization choices are having on the Army's wheeled 
vehicle programs. From a strategic and operational risk 
management perspective, I expect the witnesses to address how 
tactical wheeled vehicle modernization procurement fits under 
the Army's priorities and what they see as the most significant 
challenges to modernizing and sustaining a ready tactical 
wheeled vehicle fleet.
    I also want to know what strategic risks and additional 
future costs the Army may be imposing on the wheeled vehicle 
programs and the industrial base needed to produce and sustain 
them.
    As we all know, cutting plans and funding for development 
and procurement programs creates vendor uncertainty and a lack 
of predictability over time. Doing so also increases unit costs 
and risks for loss of industrial capacity, capability, and 
resilience. So I expect our witnesses today to help address 
these concerns.
    Finally, I also look forward to today's discussion on the 
future of electrification in combat and tactical vehicles and 
the Army's initial efforts to collaborate with the electrical 
vehicle industrial partners to explore potential options. I 
understand that there are some potential benefits the 
electrification may provide, but there are also significant 
integration obstacles to achieving and maintaining operational 
capability in the dangerous and austere environments in which 
these vehicles will be depended on.
    So I expect our witnesses to provide a realistic assessment 
of the potential practicality, the operational value, costs, 
and technical development challenges of these tactical wheeled 
vehicle electrification. We just want to ensure that what is 
fielded improves combat capability and is technically ready.
    So I want to thank our witnesses for testifying before us 
today and for all you do to support America's soldiers.
    Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
    Mr. Norcross. Thank you, Mr. Bacon.
    We have your statement. It is a joint statement from the 
two of you. But Mr. Goddette, you are recognized for opening 
remarks. Good to have you here.

STATEMENT OF TIMOTHY G. GODDETTE, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF 
         THE ARMY FOR ACQUISITION POLICY AND LOGISTICS

    Mr. Goddette. Good afternoon, Chairman Norcross. Chairman 
Norcross, Representative Bacon, distinguished members of the 
Tactical Air and Land Forces Committee, on behalf of our Acting 
Secretary, the Honorable John E. Whitley, and our Army Chief of 
Staff General James C. McConville, thank you for the 
opportunity to discuss Army's tactical wheeled vehicle fleet 
and electrification of Army vehicles. Along with my colleague, 
Mr. Mike Cadieux, I ask that our joint witness statement be 
entered into the record.
    Today, I offer my perspective based on my recent experience 
as a program executive officer for combat support and combat 
service support over the last 3 years. Today's Army tactical 
wheeled vehicle fleet consists of portfolio of over 200,000 
light, medium, and heavy trucks.
    While our vehicles rely heavily on commercial industry 
investments and components, they differ from commercial 
vehicles in three important areas: severe off-road mobility, 
crew protection, and the ability to burn JP8 [jet propellant 8] 
or jet fuel in austere environments.
    In our environment of constrained resources, the Army's 
priority is the Joint Light Tactical Vehicle or the JLTV. We 
plan to buy approximately 49,000 JLTVs over the next 20 years. 
At that time, we will have a mixed fleet of roughly the same 
number of High Mobility Multipurpose Wheeled Vehicles also 
known as Humvees.
    The Army's next priority is to maintain a warm production 
base for the Family of Medium Tactical Vehicles, or FMTV, and 
heavy tactical vehicle fleet. The FMTV and the HTV fleet have 
met their respective acquisition objective and are currently 
between 65 and 70 percent modernized. FMTV will focus on 
meeting the low velocity air drop capability in our airborne 
community. And the heavy fleet will continue to recapitalize 
the oldest trucks that are approaching or exceeding their 
economic useful life through 2023.
    With the heavy fleet having reached its design maturity, 
the Army's exploring the concept of replacing the Heavy 
Expanded Mobility Tactical Truck, the Palletized Load System, 
and the M915 and M1088 tractors with the Common Tactical Truck 
or CTT. The CTT would be a commercial-based truck with a 
modular platform that leverages the best commercial practices, 
new mature technologies, and the potential to shift the cost 
curve, saving 15 to 30 percent.
    In regards to electric vehicles, there are a number of 
advantages that include fewer moving parts, fuel efficiency, 
reduced emissions, and lower heat signatures that come with 
these technologies.
    There are significant number of light commercial trucks in 
the pickup class that will be entering the market in fiscal 
year 2022 and 2023 timeframe. We see the light reconnaissance 
mission in our scout units as a possible early opportunity to 
field the electric vehicle, or EV, by leveraging that 
development and mature commercial industry.
    An area of particular challenge to fielding a full electric 
vehicle on the battlefield is the weight of the batteries and 
the lack of mobile recharging capability. As a result, the 
initial electric vehicle solution is likely to be a hybrid 
drive with combustion engines and batteries due to the range 
and payload requirements.
    The Army will continue to pursue incremental solutions such 
as anti-idle technology, powertrain modernization, and the 
ability to provide off-board power to reduce the need for 
separate tactical power generation.
    In closing, Mr. Chairman, and members of the subcommittee, 
I sincerely appreciate your time today to discuss the Army's 
tactical wheeled vehicle fleet and opportunities for 
electrification. I look forward to your questions.
    [The joint prepared statement of Mr. Goddette and Mr. 
Cadieux can be found in the Appendix on page 31.]
    Mr. Norcross. Thank you. Mr. Cadieux, you are now 
recognized for any opening remarks.

   STATEMENT OF MICHAEL CADIEUX, DIRECTOR, U.S. ARMY COMBAT 
 CAPABILITIES DEVELOPMENT COMMAND GROUND VEHICLE SYSTEMS CENTER

    Mr. Cadieux. Chairman Norcross, Ranking Member Bacon, 
distinguished members of the House Armed Services Subcommittee 
on Tactical Air and Land Forces, thank you for your continued 
support and enduring commitment to our soldiers, our civilians, 
and their families. I appreciate the opportunity to testify 
today alongside my former Army program executive office 
counterpart, Mr. Timothy Goddette, and to discuss vehicle 
electrification.
    I would like first like to take a moment to recognize the 
nearly 1,800 team members that make up the Ground Vehicle 
System Center family. Like all Americans, they were personally 
and professionally impacted during the pandemic. However, their 
ability to meet the challenge continues to be an inspiration as 
they keep our work on track to support America's soldiers.
    The United States Army Combat Capabilities Development 
Command, Ground Vehicle Systems Center, GVSC, located at the 
Detroit Arsenal, Michigan, is proud to serve as part of the 
larger Army Futures Command [AFC] team. AFC leads a continuous 
transformation of Army modernization in order to provide future 
warfighters with the concepts, capabilities, and organizational 
structures they need to dominate a future battlefield. At GVSC, 
we develop, integrate, demonstrate, and sustain the 
capabilities of the Army's ground vehicle systems in support of 
Army modernization priorities and improved Army readiness.
    Put simply, the GVSC team explores the art of the 
impossible across relevant technologies, evaluates and invests 
in order to mature technologies that meet Army program needs, 
and collaborates with Army acquisition partners using soldier 
touchpoints, when applicable, to transition technology into 
programs of record.
    The Army's and GVSC's electrification efforts are shaped 
and informed by over 30 years of progressive research. 
Electrification to the Army represents a means to achieving 
many different capabilities that enhance soldier's 
effectiveness in multi-domain operations. Specifically, it 
means the use of electric power to augment vehicle performance.
    Electrification-related technologies will mature and apply 
differently across the spectrum of light, medium, and heavy 
tactical wheeled vehicles as well as the Army's combat vehicle 
fleet based on each platform's unique needs and design 
considerations. Across the spectrum, electrification has the 
potential to provide the ability to operate at longer distances 
without refueling, extended silent [inaudible], and silent 
mobility through reduced acoustics and thermal signatures, and 
improved dash speeds. Additional onboard electrical power and 
energy storage required for advanced sensors, integrated 
tactical networks, and other future mission payloads, and 
exportable power generation and distribution.
    We recognize, especially from our location in the Detroit 
area, the significant commercial automotive focus and 
investments in electrification. We work closely with commercial 
partners to foster collaboration and leverage industry's 
investments in electrification technology development.
    While there are certainly some similarities in commercial 
and military requirements, we are mindful that the Army faces 
unique operational challenges compared to those in the 
commercial market. These challenges include the need to operate 
in extreme combat environments, widely ranging temperatures, 
and requirements for heavy armor and add-on mission packages.
    In assessing the operational usability by the military of 
commercially available solutions in various hybrid, hybrid 
plug-in, and all electric vehicles, we recognize two 
significant challenges: the need for a mobile and deployable 
recharging infrastructure, and greater battery energy density 
and endurance.
    To complement commercial automotive research and investment 
in technology for tactical wheeled vehicles, GVSC's funding for 
electrification focuses on developing capabilities for combat 
systems with specific military-unique requirements. For combat 
vehicles, our work is conducted under a platform 
electrification and mobility project, although the architecture 
and some of the component technologies are also applicable to 
tactical wheeled vehicles.
    GVSC's current efforts, specific to wheeled vehicles, focus 
on vehicle electrification kits which have demonstrated up to 
25 percent fuel savings through reduction in engine idle time 
for some platforms. We are continuing to pursue fuel demand 
reduction options like this with the Army program offices.
    On behalf of our Army and especially the Ground Vehicle 
Systems Center team, I would like to thank the subcommittee for 
your continued support. Electrification offers the Army 
multiple operational benefits, and GVSC continues to conduct 
relevant transformative research that will help bring hybrid 
and all-electric vehicle capabilities to the warfighter.
    We look forward to working with Congress to deliver the 
critical research, technology, and engineering that enables the 
Army's multi-domain transformation. I look forward to your 
questions.
    Mr. Norcross. Thank you for your testimony. I just want to 
set the stage here; we have our existing structure, and then in 
many ways the future, particularly with the electrical. You 
talked about, Mr. Goddette, the three major capabilities. And 
certainly one of those is JP8 that we talked about. Unlike many 
of our other programs where industry follows what we develop, 
we work so closely with the existing industry, and the vehicle 
in particular. So the health of that industry is critical to 
what we do.
    You talked about two new partners, GM [General Motors] and 
Mack [Defense], but you also talked about a warm production 
line. Minimum sustaining rate. Why don't you explain to us what 
a warm production line means to the industry? And is that 
across the board? Because the long-term health of those waiting 
or keeping a warm production line going is critical for our 
industrial base moving forward.
    So if you could explain what do you mean what you say warm 
production line?
    Mr. Goddette. So, Chairman Norcross, I will start by 
addressing what I mean by a warm industrial base. It is--the 
fact that we do have a very strong industrial base at the 
component level, the engines, the transmissions, the axles. 
Regardless of whether we have military vehicles, those 
particular components are going to be producing. And that is 
really the heart of what we do.
    The importance of a warm industrial base is that if we have 
to surge, we have the ability to work with our vendors and 
react. And if we have an open contract, that makes that much 
easier.
    The second-order effect of warm production base is that 
because the production is requiring the subtier suppliers to 
provide parts for manufacturing, it is also providing that part 
base for our sustainment, those systems that have already been 
fielded and may need replacement parts.
    So the importance of a warm industrial base is really 
twofold. It lets us adjust in terms of production quantity, but 
it also allows us to sustain our systems over time.
    Mr. Norcross. Let me follow up. So the minimum sustaining 
rate, typically, for building a helicopter, that is one set. 
Are you suggesting that the warm industrial base is kept warm 
with the private sector, or that we are demanding a minimum 
sustaining rate so they keep that line open and----
    Mr. Goddette. Sir, sometimes it means both. Sometimes it 
means that the particular manufacturer that we have also 
produces commercial products. And so from a workforce 
perspective, they can--they can ebb and flow back and forth 
between military and commercial. For those manufacturers that 
are maybe more in the military side, then the risk is a little 
bit higher.
    But I would also point out that over the last 20 or 30 
years, maybe even going back further, we have manufacturers in 
the 1990s, Freightliner, BAE, Stewart & Stevenson, to name a 
few, that aren't in our business today.
    So depending upon the requirement, depending upon the 
system that we are buying, I think sometimes our manufacturers 
may change, but almost always our engine, axle, brakes, et 
cetera, our component manufacturers take advantage of that 
strong U.S. industrial base.
    Mr. Norcross. Great. Now, I will follow up with that on the 
second round, but I want to get to our members.
    Mr. Bacon, you are recognized.
    Mr. Bacon. Thank you, Chairman Norcross, and thank you both 
to our panelists. I have enjoyed talking to you before. I 
appreciate your expertise here and your leadership.
    I understand that JLTV may offer utility in the special 
operations realm. [Inaudible] the services have relied on the 
U.S. Army to select these kind of wheeled vehicle solutions, 
such as the Humvee, but those vehicles are aging. Has there 
been any interest in the special operations community in the 
JLTV?
    Mr. Goddette. So, Representative Bacon, I can answer that, 
in fact, many of the systems that we have already fielded have 
gone to SOCOM [United States Special Operations Command] and 
the Special Forces. Of the roughly 4,000 that we fielded today, 
plus the other 3,000 we plan to field by the end of the year.
    So the answer is, yes, it is truly not only a joint program 
in name, but we share that particular system with our other 
service partners and joint partners as well.
    Mr. Bacon. So have the Marines also procured?
    Mr. Goddette. Yes, they have. In fact it is--we have the 
Marine Corps as part of the program office. And the program 
began by the Marine Corps actually being in charge of writing 
the requirement, and the Army being in charge of running the 
program. But we actually have Marine civilians and officers as 
part of our program office.
    Mr. Bacon. It sounds like a win-win there. That is great. I 
understand that the energy efficiencies and the electrification 
programs are a priority. I just want to verify that we are 
moving at a pace that is commensurate with the testing success. 
Do you feel like you are being pressured at all to field any of 
these systems before the testing or the validation warrants?
    Mr. Goddette. Congressman, I don't feel any pressure at 
all. Basically, I think this technology has great potential, 
great promise. But I know one of the things that we ensure is 
that as we take advantage of technology, we are very conscious 
of the operational capability that we field. And one of the 
things that we pride ourself not to do is to reduce the 
capability that we already have.
    There are some challenges. And as you have heard, the 
tactical wheeled vehicle fleet depends very heavily on where 
the commercial marketplace goes, both in terms of investment in 
technology as well as the components that make up our system.
    So I think our strategy in most cases is follow fast, if 
you will, and take advantage and leverage everything that the 
commercial industrial base is doing.
    Mr. Bacon. Now, you both made a compelling case, I believe, 
in the hybrid MFS [Modular Fuel System], where the technology 
has us at right now for fielding and maintaining our 
capability. One last series of questions. You know, some of the 
defense industry are worried or they are relaying to me anyway 
that the JLTV build-to-print recompete favors the incumbent 
given the scheduled access to needed information of part 
components regarding the JLTV technical data package.
    So how is the Army working with industry to ensure there is 
a fair and open competition? I just want to provide some 
confidence on both sides of this compete.
    Mr. Goddette. Yes, that is a great question. What we did 
before we started to develop our acquisition strategy is we 
worked very closely with industry. We asked them what are those 
areas that you are concerned about? To date, we have had 
multiple industry days and engagements with all of the 
manufacturers, our potential manufacturers. We go back and 
forth, and we share the request for proposal and all of the 
requirements that we have.
    In one case, we were going to run about an 18-month 
competitive effort, and industry came back to us and said that 
they felt that wasn't enough time. So we engaged to develop a 
strategy that met as many of the vendors as possible. I think 
where----
    Mr. Bacon. I----
    Mr. Goddette [continuing]. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Bacon. Go ahead. I am sorry. So I will just close with 
this question. So do you think the current schedule is feasible 
for true competition?
    Mr. Goddette. Yes, we do. We very much believe that we have 
taken all the feedback from the potential field and all of the 
vendors that have shown interest. And we have laid out a 
schedule that they can meet. And we believe that the--that the 
TDP itself, the technical data package that you referred to--
typically, a barrier to entry of competition is that the 
incumbent does have an advantage.
    But the Army has done a great job over the last 6 or 7 
years ensuring that our biggest programs, the JLTV and the 
FMTV, which represent 80 percent of our fleet, 160,000 
vehicles, we have bought the TDP so that the potential offerers 
have as much of a level playing field as we could possibly give 
them.
    Mr. Bacon. Thank you very much. I yield back, Mr. Chair.
    Mr. Norcross. Thank you. So we have Carbajal, Wittman, 
Horsford, and Turner.
    Mr. Carbajal, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Carbajal. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    Mr. Goddette, we are all eagerly awaiting the President's 
budget release tomorrow, and hopefully it means good news on 
many fronts. Given the likelihood of flat or nearly flat 
defense budgets, how important is tactical wheeled vehicle 
modernization and resources to the Army?
    Mr. Goddette. Representative Carbajal, thank you so much. 
We all live in constrained resources. We recognize that. I 
think what I would point out is when I look at the tactical 
wheeled vehicle fleet and the 200,000 vehicles that we have, we 
look at the medium and the heavy fleet, and that particular 
fleet, there are no holes in our motor pools, in our units.
    Our units have the trucks. And 65 to 70 percent of them are 
modernized. When we look at the light tactical fleet, that is 
not quite the case. While we have the vehicles in the motor 
pool, as we experienced in Iraq, in Afghanistan, we didn't 
necessarily have the protection we needed in the smaller 
vehicles. And so that is where we are putting our priority.
    And the reason why we have taken the time to prioritize the 
light fleet is because we understand there may not be 
resources. So when the Army looks at where the gaps are, and 
they put a priority on the ``31 plus 4,'' that is because we 
recognize we need to fill that gap.
    I think trucks are in a situation where we can accept and 
slow down a little bit to make sure that the Army can fight as 
a complete, a complete team.
    Mr. Carbajal. Thank you. Mr. Cadieux, the electrical energy 
demands on tactical and combat vehicles have increased steadily 
and will continue to grow in the coming years. Both legacy and 
next-generation ground vehicles must provide sufficient 
electrical power to effectively operate a variety of equipment 
and payloads, including electronic warfare, active protection 
systems, radios, and directed energy weapons, just to name a 
few.
    I understand that currently onboard vehicle power can be 
supplemented using auxiliary power units, but that existing 
APUs are so large and so heavy that they can be difficult to 
integrate with many vehicles which must say below certain 
size--must stay below certain size and weight threshold. How is 
the Army working to address these power generation needs with 
solutions that present an acceptable size and weight footprint?
    Mr. Cadieux. Congressman Carbajal, absolutely, we do see 
those integration challenges for those auxiliary power units. 
And as we look towards electrification, that is really where we 
see the operational benefits of creating that onboard power to 
power those advanced warfighting functions.
    Counter UAS systems, directed energy weapons, those items 
that are using lasers, microwave systems, that is really where 
we are seeing--the push towards electrification is to achieve 
those operational benefits. And to that end, we are closely 
working with partners across our Army Futures Command Team as 
well as the program executive office and Mr. Goddette and his 
team to identify what components of electrification can we take 
advantage of today and closely follow commercial industry.
    And when the technology, especially in the hybrid, the 
plug-in hybrid space is available, and it is affordable and it 
is mature, and we can integrate it onto our system, be in a 
position to do so.
    We certainly see there is some capability that is available 
today to reduce fuel consumption as well as to increase some 
available power. And as the investments in industry continue to 
occur over this decade and next, ensuring that those systems--
we monitor them, we communicate with industry on what our gaps 
are, how those gaps align to their investment, and then we make 
sure that they are ruggedized and they can support our systems. 
That is our strategy to achieve the challenge that you 
described.
    Mr. Carbajal. Thank you.
    Mr. Goddette, commercial companies with large fleets of 
trucks of all sizes routinely buy customizable solutions from 
vehicle manufacturers rather than custom-made vehicles. Why 
doesn't the Army procure commercialized--commercial truck 
variants as opposed to custom-built vehicles like the JLTV or 
FMTV? What would be the cost difference from the current plan 
to procure custom-made vehicles rather than purchasing 
customizable vehicles?
    Mr. Goddette. Yeah, so I think, Congressman Carbajal, it 
comes down to looking at the requirement. And in some cases 
when I talked about our military vehicles have a different 
requirement for mobility, payload, and protection, on a JLTV, 
there are no light items available in the commercial 
marketplace, which is why we buy the technical data package to 
compete, so that we can continue to give those capabilities to 
the soldier.
    As you move into the heavy tactical vehicle fleet, those 
more align with the commercial-like programs. A Line Haul 
tractor that you might see going up and down the road with UPS 
[United Parcel Service]. And so then that is where the 
situation where the Army can add an armored cab to it, or we 
can do something with the tires that make it a little bit more 
off-road mobile. And that is where we would want to target an 
opportunity to use commercial, is when the requirements look 
more like the commercial industry.
    Mr. Carbajal. Thank you. I am out of time, Mr. Chair, I 
yield back.
    Mr. Norcross. Terrific, thank you. Mr. Wittman, you are 
recognized.
    Mr. Wittman. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to 
thank our witnesses for joining us today. Mr. Cadieux, I would 
like to start with you. Listen, I appreciate the great work 
that is going on at the Ground Vehicle System Center. You know, 
we normally see military technology driving technology on the 
civilian side. This is actually one of those times where it is 
the opposite. We see technology that has been developed on the 
civilian side with electrical vehicles now being looked at on 
the military side.
    I wanted to ask this, if you look at electric vehicles, it 
does appear that they have a potential role in a first-strike 
capability. But we all know that our adversaries are going to 
look at what happens in sustainment, and we know that there are 
vulnerabilities, tactically, for those vehicles in sustaining 
them; that is, recharging them with the power necessary in 
order to be able to do that.
    Let me ask you, do you see that the vehicles have more than 
just a limitation of use for sort of a in-the-rear-with-the-
gear sort of capability? And are there considerations that are 
given to what kind of percentage of combination in the fleet 
that we would have with internal combustion engines versus 
electric vehicles versus hybrid vehicles?
    Mr. Cadieux. We certainly see a role, actually, across the 
entire spectrum for electrification, both in tactical wheeled 
vehicles as well as combat systems. And as we look at what 
commercial industry is doing today and where they are headed, 
and then as we look and close those gaps and integrate them 
onto our systems, we see the opportunities to increase.
    So right now and today, and actually it is an effort that 
Mr. Goddette is actively working today, is an electronic light 
or electric light reconnaissance vehicle. That is a specialty 
niche kind of activity that we see capability, perhaps today.
    And then as the maturity of those systems occur over time, 
especially as we close gaps on the combat systems, and that 
will take a while, we see opportunity to leverage that again 
across that entire spectrum and not necessarily behind, if you 
will, but really right into the deep fight.
    To your point, there are several challenges that we need to 
overcome.
    Mr. Wittman. Sure.
    Mr. Cadieux. How we do mobile recharging and an 
infrastructure to support that as one example.
    Mr. Wittman. Very good. Well, listen, I appreciate your 
thoughtfulness in that. And I want to follow up, Mr. Cadieux, 
with that. You know, I do see a world where these electric 
vehicles can complement our fleet. But I am not sure we that we 
are at a point where the internal combustion engine doesn't 
serve an outsize combat role. And as you point out, some of the 
limitations, namely, the size and weight of batteries, the 
inherently unstable nature of lithium ion batteries.
    We all know the ability to be able to control the heating 
of those, especially if they are quickly discharged, which we 
know in combat situation many times may be the situation. And 
also, as we both pointed out, charging in the field does become 
an issue.
    So, realistically, how far out do you think we are from 
having an electric vehicle in the field that has overcome all 
of these technical hurdles? I understand that it can be a 
complement, and I think there are specific roles for electric 
vehicles, but how far off in the future do you think a scaled 
implementation of these vehicles might occur?
    Mr. Cadieux. From a technology perspective, especially when 
we think about hybrid or hybrid plug-in, we suspect the 
commercial industry technology will begin to mature over the 
next--within this decade. And then we can start to leverage and 
truly integrate it onto some of our platforms.
    In terms of an all-electric platform, you know, the ability 
to overcome and close all of the gaps that were discussed a 
moment ago, we more than likely would see the technology being 
mature within the--in the next decade, not necessarily in this 
one.
    Mr. Wittman. Gotcha. Give me a little more of your 
perspective on hybrid technology. That to me seems to have the 
greatest potential to provide greatest capability in the field 
and does give you the ability to overcome some of the tactical 
hurdles, but also give you some flexibility that, I think, can 
be to our tactical advantage also. So kind of give me your 
perspective on how you see the development of hybrid technology 
in the development of combat vehicles?
    Mr. Cadieux. First, as we look at electrification 
components, we see some technology that is available very soon, 
such as anti-idle technology on our systems.
    Tim Goddette and ourselves have been partnered to look at 
the Joint Light Tactical Vehicle and anti-idle technology. So 
that way--and it is similar to my vehicle, when I am at a 
stoplight, my engine shuts off. When I am ready to go and that 
light turns green, it turns back on. The application of that, 
but it is in a much greater impact because we idle a lot with 
our vehicles. And we start to see some significant fuel 
savings, 25 percent in some cases, when we do that and apply 
some of those technologies. Those are very near in terms of 
maturity today.
    When we start to think of hybrid where we have maybe a 
larger battery pack in a smaller internal combustion engine, we 
certainly see some capability there as well. An area that we 
just noted as we took delivery of robotic combat vehicle 
lights, prototype systems. In those instances, we see a hybrid 
package there where you have a larger battery pack coupled with 
a smaller internal combustion engine.
    Mr. Wittman. Very good. Thank you, Mr. Cadieux.
    Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
    Mr. Norcross. Thank you. And we are also talking about 
things and issues of how does EMP [electromagnetic pulse] 
affect electrical vehicles. That is very important.
    Mr. Horsford, welcome to the subcommittee. It is good to 
have you here. You are recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Horsford. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
    First, I want to thank you very much for the warm welcome. 
I am excited to be joining as the newest member on HASC [House 
Armed Services Committee] and very delighted to be a part of 
this Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land Forces.
    Just by way of introduction, I have Nellis and Creech Air 
Force Bases in my district as well as the Nevada Test and 
Training Range, and the Hawthorne Army Depot all located in my 
district. So this is a very important committee, subcommittee, 
for the work of our military constituency and everything that 
they do each and every day.
    I also want to thank our witnesses today. And, obviously, 
right now I am listening and learning more than anything. And I 
really appreciate your expertise and insight on the Army's 
tactical wheeled vehicle program.
    I will just ask if I could, Mr. Goddette and Mr. Cadieux, 
the Nevada Army Guard recently took steps to revamp the 
training program for its drivers so that vehicle operators can 
be more prepared for future combat missions. This is taking 
place simultaneously with the State's effort to optimize the 
maintenance plan for the Nevada's approximately 1,500 ground 
vehicles and reduce maintenance expenditures.
    As you may know, Nevada Guard vehicles have not been 
transported or driven in a combat area in more than a decade. 
So I am aware the Army resumed product verification testing for 
the last variant of its Family of Medium Tactical Vehicles. But 
can you bring me up to speed and provide a status update on 
where the Army is with the testing of FMTVs, please?
    Mr. Goddette. Congressman Horsford, I would be glad to talk 
about that. As you know, we use the term family of tactical 
wheeled vehicle--I am sorry, the FMTV. In 2018, we awarded a 
new competitive contract which resulted in a much more capable 
system. So our systems are getting better over time.
    As we brought that vehicle to test, we started the 
reliability testing. And we got about one-third of the way into 
the test, and we were seeing results that led us to believe 
that we weren't on the proper reliability growth curve to get 
to where we needed to be.
    So I decided to stop that test. We went back and talked to 
our vendor, and the vendor made all the necessary fixes, 
brought it back to their own facility to test. And then 
recently here in the January, February, timeframe that they 
return the vehicles to the Army so that we could do our own 
independent testing. That is going extremely well. They have 
made a huge difference compared to where they were about a year 
ago, and we are very confident that they are on the right path.
    Mr. Horsford. Thank you. And also the Army, apparently, 
plans to keep its tactical wheeled vehicles in the fleet for 30 
or more years and it buys these vehicles over an extended 
period, which leads to concerns about obsolescence in the fleet 
and difficulties in manufacturing as suppliers struggle to 
provide vehicles and parts that are out of sync with the 
commercial market.
    So what strategies will the Army pursue to help solve this 
problem? And why are manufacturers in some cases not interested 
in producing military vehicles? And what can be done to address 
the issue of sole source over competitive bid process?
    Thank you.
    Mr. Goddette. Congressman Horsford, three very good 
questions. In terms of the 30 years, what we do is we work with 
our producers, our manufacturers when we have issues with a 
certain supplier that we think may not be able to produce 
anymore. We also buy--when we think we are going to buy for the 
life cycle, and we stock those critical parts. And then we are 
also getting into advanced manufacturing and using our organic 
industrial base to be able to do that.
    In terms of the sole source question, we, as I mentioned 
before, we buy the technical data package so that we can 
improve competition, and we think we have made great progress 
in doing that. And the biggest barrier to the manufacturer is 
usually volume. When most of the auto manufacturers, you think 
about, they make hundreds of thousands of vehicles a year. And 
on average, we buy maybe 3,000, maybe 4,000 vehicles a year. So 
I would say that is probably the biggest barrier to getting the 
more traditional manufacturers.
    Mr. Horsford. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
    Mr. Norcross. Thank you. I understand Mr. Turner is no 
longer here.
    So, Mr. Green, you are recognized for 5 minutes. I just saw 
him. There you are. You are still muted.
    Dr. Green. Can you hear me okay?
    Mr. Norcross. You are good.
    Dr. Green. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I want to thank our 
witnesses for being here. I really appreciate both the chairman 
and the ranking member for their leadership on this issue. And 
I certainly appreciate our witnesses and their lives of service 
to the country.
    And I, of course, am very appreciative of cutting-edge 
technology. I get enamored with it, just the next gadget that 
comes out. Clearly, the private sector is making some big 
transitions to electric. And I am excited about that too. Like 
everybody else, I think CO2 is an issue, and we've got to 
decrease both its production and find a way to get rid of it.
    But just because something is new and exciting doesn't 
necessarily mean it is the right choice for our warfighters, 
because in the end it is about them having the very best thing 
to fight with, piece of equipment. And having, you know, of 
course, deployed, myself, to combat, you know, I came in the 
Army it was the--and I don't even know if our witnesses will 
remember the Gama Goat or clearly the M113 which is still, you 
know, an armored vehicle but in the inventory. But the Gama 
Goat and the CJ7 were actually in the inventory when I came in 
the Army back in 1982. So I have been around and seen a lot of 
transition myself.
    My big concern with the electric vehicles is like a lot has 
already been discussed, but something as a physician that 
hasn't been raised is toxicity. And I would like to hear from 
you guys as you all contemplate batteries, what are we doing to 
address the toxicity to soldiers if, you know, some of the 
equipment that are in these batteries is, you know, aerosolized 
in an explosion, in a fire, or whatever, are we preparing for 
that as we prepare to deploy these things?
    Mr. Cadieux. Congressman Green, from a technical 
perspective, a couple of thoughts. First, we have been doing, 
we have extensive partnerships with the Department of Energy 
and their national labs as they work and really look at battery 
research and battery storage that includes safety and how do we 
do it smartly to your point of toxicity and ensure that it is a 
safe system.
    Additionally, we have efforts underway ourselves over the 
last 5 years where we have been looking to say how do we ensure 
that we have safety testing standards for these systems, 
especially when we start to put these capabilities and they are 
transported on Navy ships or aircraft.
    To ensure that they are safe, because to your point, if 
they catch on fire, it is very hard, right, how do we ensure 
that we extinguish it and how can you? And so we put a lot of 
effort towards how do we ensure we have standardized testing so 
as these batteries come online, we can each time test them to 
ensure that they are safe. Those are the areas that we have 
been spending most of our efforts.
    Dr. Green. I appreciate you guys saying that, but on the 
medical side of the military, you know, we oftentimes have 
physicians that are--you know, an OB [obstetrician] doc winds 
up in a flight surgeon's position, and he is downrange. And 
does that individual understand, you know, the--I mean, I am an 
ER [emergency room] physician, so I got extensive training in 
toxicology. We just have to make sure that we are prepared for 
that.
    One of the other questions I have, and I am shifting gears 
a little bit, because I am probably only going to get a chance 
for one more question, is a lot of rare earth metals find 
themselves in these electronic systems. And the vast majority 
of the rare earth metals, we are getting them from China. So 
what is our plan? If we are going to rely on these batteries, 
what is our plan for rare earth metals and the other things 
that go into the batteries and the systems that support them?
    Mr. Cadieux. You are absolutely correct. And one of the 
concerns that--or the factors that we have been looking at is 
especially in the case of rare earth magnets. That is something 
that is present in a lot of the electric motors. And so that is 
certainly a concern.
    The other concern that we also have is looking at lithium 
ion battery production, domestically, and is that going to be 
available when necessary, especially when industrial scales and 
when we can take advantage of it in the future as well, 
ensuring that we have that capability here.
    Dr. Green. So you guys are taking that into consideration 
as you look to develop these systems?
    Mr. Cadieux. Yes.
    Dr. Green. Okay. Well, that is real important. It would be 
great next time we talk to maybe get a little more detail on 
what the plan is.
    Mr. Chairman, I think I am out of time. I yield.
    Mr. Norcross. Mr. Brown, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Brown. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You have gone from Mr. 
Green to Mr. Brown, I appreciate it. I am going to pick up 
where he left off, and first of all, thank him for really 
honing in on safety aspects of, you know, kind of pivoting, 
converting, transitioning to electric power vehicles. I think 
it is really important.
    And, Mr. Cadieux, on the battery-related research, and you 
just recently mentioned what kind of a partnership with the DOE 
[Department of Energy], can you just flesh out in as much 
detail as you can, what is the trend line for the Army budget 
when it comes to research, development on battery capacity 
safety? What are the relationships with our research 
universities and with private industry? If you can kind of be, 
you know, as specific as possible. I just want to get a feel 
for, you know, how comprehensive the effort is of the Army to 
develop the kinds of batteries that are safe, they have the 
capacity, they can withstand the rigor of the battlefield? Can 
you talk in detail about that R&D [research and development] 
program?
    Mr. Cadieux. Absolutely. And thank you, Congressman Brown, 
for that question.
    Two activities, significant activities, that I would like 
to point to first. The first one is the Advanced Vehicle Power 
Technology Alliance. What that is that is a co-led activity 
between our center and the Department of Energy that allows us 
to co-invest and partner with industry and academic institutes. 
And I can share a lot more details with you on that.
    The other one I would like to point out too as well, 
though, is our Automotive Research Center. The Automotive 
Research Center is really our flagship activity where we 
partner with the University of Michigan and eight other premier 
institutes, three DOE national labs as well as over 20 
automotive industry partners. And they are all about doing the 
basic research with significant lines of effort into battery 
and battery technology and doing the modeling and simulation 
and analysis to ensure that, frankly, we get it right, we get 
it safe, and it is reliable over time. Those are two primary 
efforts that we are leveraging that hit universities, industry, 
as well as government partners.
    Mr. Brown. And how would you characterize the trim line of 
the Army's budget that goes into battery-related research and 
development?
    Mr. Cadieux. For the Ground Vehicle System Center, from 
which I can speak to, over the last 5 years, we have spent $75 
million, roughly, in battery or electrification-related 
technology across five lines of effort.
    Mr. Brown. Yeah, what is the trim line, though? $75 
million? Is it up, down, or flat?
    Mr. Cadieux. I would have to take that question for the 
record to really understand that, sir.
    [The information referred to can be found in the Appendix 
on page 43.]
    Mr. Brown. Okay. I appreciate that.
    Mr. Goddette, a question for you. And I thank our committee 
staff for teeing this question up for me. The tactical wheeled 
vehicle, my understanding is that there is an acquisition 
strategy that was produced in 2014, and that the Army is 
currently working on an updated comprehensive strategy. Is that 
accurate?
    Mr. Goddette. Congressman Brown, that is accurate. We had 
an original one in 2010 followed by the 2014. Right now, the 
Army is looking at a tactical wheeled vehicle plan based on 
multi-domain operations. So another element of the Army is 
studying the effects of how we are going to fight in the future 
against the systems that we have today versus the mix and 
quantity that we might need in the future. And that has been 
going on for about a year. And I believe the emerging results 
are being briefed out here shortly.
    Mr. Brown. Okay. As you mentioned, 2010, 2014, I think you 
mentioned 2000. What is the status of the strategy, and when 
are you going to release it?
    Mr. Goddette. Yeah, sir, I believe the emerging results of 
the plan are being briefed out internally to the Army now. And 
once the Army plan has been briefed out, then we will start to 
develop the strategy. So I wouldn't expect the strategy this 
year in fiscal year 2021, but sometime next year, probably.
    Mr. Brown. Yeah. A great former Secretary of Defense once 
said, without a strategy then, you know, you may be throwing 
good money at the bad money. So let's come up with a strategy 
and make sure that Congress can get a good look at it.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
    Mr. Norcross. Thank you, Mr. Brown. Mr. Kahele, you are 
recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Kahele. All right. Mahalo, Mr. Chair. And aloha, 
everyone, from Hawaii. Thank you so much for having this 
hearing today. I have two questions. One is for Mr. Cadieux. 
Based on the testimony, how are battery-related science and 
technology research efforts being factored into the Army's 
approach to electrification? And what Army and industry 
initiatives, if any, are showing considerable potential or 
promise?
    Mr. Cadieux. As we look at our tactical wheeled vehicle 
fleet and the electrification technologies, by and large, we 
look to leverage the investment that commercial industry is 
making. Recognizing that battery and battery energy density is 
critical in order to effectively integrate and provide 
operational value for our systems.
    So to that end, we have done significant partnerships in 
creating electrification forums where we are bringing dozens of 
industry partners together across the country so they can share 
with us where they are at. And then we are able to express, 
here is the conditions by which our systems operate in, and we 
can have that dialogue. So we have awareness of where we 
believe industry will be meeting our needs and where those gaps 
then remain.
    In the case of a gap then, what we will look at is we will 
partner whether it be with additional industry partners, 
universities, or non-traditional entities as well.
    One particular area that is interesting and exciting to us 
is a cooperative research and development agreement with the 
University of Maryland that is looking at solid-state battery 
technology, and that is something that has us interested as we 
move forward.
    Mr. Kahele. Yeah, I saw a news report this morning. One of 
America's largest vehicle manufacturers is expecting a 40 
percent increase over the next 10 years in electric vehicles 
and electric trucks. And so I think this is a step in the right 
direction. And partnering with those industry leaders and the 
sharing of critical information as the technology is developed, 
I think is very important. So thank you for that.
    The second question for Mr. Goddette. The Army apparently 
plans to keep its tactical wheeled fleet vehicles, excuse me, 
in the fleet for 30 or more years and buys these over, as you 
as well know, an extended period. This can lead to an obsolete 
fleet and difficulties in manufacturing parts and the supply 
chain as they struggle to provide vehicles and parts that are 
out of sync with the commercial market.
    Can you maybe talk a little bit about what the Army's 
future plans will be for the maintenance of the fleet over this 
extended period of time and especially as it relates to 
replacement parts and maintenance and how we are planning the 
O&M [operations and maintenance] component of the tactical 
wheeled fleet?
    Mr. Goddette. I would be glad to, Congressman. We do keep 
our vehicles for a very long time, 30 years. But because of the 
quantity, the over 200,000 tactical wheeled vehicles that we 
have, we tend to be in production for a very long time too.
    So the first area that helps us in the sustainment is if we 
are in production, then our manufacturers maintain 
relationships with the second-, third-, and fourth-year 
suppliers. And when somebody decides not to make a part, they 
find an alternative source.
    When we go out of production, oftentimes we will do what is 
called a lifetime buy where we recognize there is a critical 
component, and then we buy enough of those to take us through 
what we think will be the rest of the life of that system.
    And I think the third one that is newer, but one that we 
are putting energy into, is advanced manufacturing in our own 
organic industrial base, where they have the ability that if we 
have the technical data, we can actually use that technology 
and produce the part with our organic capability. So a 
combination of those three is how we address that issue.
    Mr. Kahele. Okay. Thanks, Mr. Goddette.
    Mahalo to the chair for the opportunity, and I will yield 
back the rest of my time.
    Mr. Norcross. Thank you.
    Mr. Veasey, are you with us? You are recognized.
    Marc? All right.
    Is there anyone else that we haven't recognized from the 
first round? If Marc comes back, we are going to yield to him.
    So for those of you who want to question for a second 
round, I am going to start by following up with that next 
generation. I mentioned EMP. Those pulses that we are looking 
throughout our services and our programs, for vulnerabilities. 
Gee, electric vehicles seem to be a place.
    Have you looked into those potential issues that might come 
up? EMP, you think of the nuclear blasts, but there are other 
ways to disrupt the electrical. How have you calculated those 
issues into your research so far?
    Mr. Cadieux. As we are working with industry and we are 
looking at where we have gaps, we are looking at it from a 
whole perspective of where are the vulnerabilities. Chairman, 
to your point, EMP. Another that comes to mind is cyber and how 
do we protect against cybersecurity threats as well.
    So as we work with these vendors and we work and we try to 
understand, we put them--we have robust testing, and we look 
and we start to say, what are the requirements that are 
necessary. And we have to do that upfront. And then if we see 
those gaps, that is where we have deliberate activities to try 
to close those gaps.
    And in some cases, we see that there is certainly an 
overlap with industry and where industry needs to go. 
Certainly, from a cybersecurity perspective, they care about 
that as well. And then for those that remain, we ensure that we 
are partnering and leveraging the mechanisms that we have to 
engage with universities and research institutes to close the 
remainder of the gaps that we have.
    Mr. Norcross. So electric vehicles, no pun intended, is a 
hot item out there in the commercial world, and so we get many 
questions. Are we going to look at our fleet, and you discussed 
much of that today. But just because it is available doesn't 
make it right [inaudible] to that.
    You talked about being quiet, the power, the heat 
signature, that burst power, but also when you start building 
those requirements. And the way they are right now I would say 
that there is quite a gap in those requirements. You talked 
about over the next decade that changing. What is the primary 
area of concern in those requirements? Is it the battery 
weight, size, availability, what everybody wants as it wants? 
You know, can you address those major concerns?
    Mr. Goddette. Yeah.
    Mr. Cadieux. Chairman----
    Mr. Goddette. Go ahead, Mike.
    Mr. Cadieux. Tim, go ahead.
    The first concern that we see is battery energy density, 
ensuring that the batteries have enough energy and then can fit 
and integrate onto our systems, and that problem becomes 
amplified as the weight of our vehicles. On the lighter end, it 
is easier and that problem gets worse over time.
    The other is the environmentals. We have to operate in 
extremely high temperatures in the desert down to the Arctic, 
and then we have to have components and we wrap them in--that 
have to operate in that environment, and then as we wrap them 
into armor and integrate them into very tight systems, how do 
we keep them cool, how do we ensure that those electronics also 
work in very high temperatures. Those are the two that jump 
right to mind in terms of the challenges that we have.
    Mr. Norcross. Thank you. We will go to Don Bacon and then, 
Marc, I will flip it over to you, all right.
    Mr. Bacon. Thank you there, Mr. Chair. Two follow-ups. I 
heard yesterday, researchers on electrification, if you go with 
a full battery for these vehicles, can you tell us the amount 
of added weight you will be putting on these devices? If you 
could give us a little background on that, I think it is useful 
to have that on the record. Thank you.
    Mr. Goddette. Yeah, Congressman Bacon, I would be glad to. 
The example, I guess, I would use, as Mike mentioned, it is 
easier on the light vehicles, so I will start with the Joint 
Light Tactical Vehicle. That has right now a capability of 350 
miles of range so that our soldiers, sailors, and Marines can 
do their mission, and it has got about 5,000 pounds of payload.
    If we were to take that range and the energy needed, we 
would need about 10,000 pounds of batteries, and we only have 
5,000 pounds of payload. So if I took half of that and put all 
the payload with batteries, I would cut my range in half to 175 
but I would have no payload left. And so that weight that you 
mentioned is significant. The other little fact is that 1 
gallon of fuel weighs about 8 pounds. That would equate to 
about 140 pounds of batteries.
    Mr. Bacon. I appreciate that, because that is a compelling 
background, and I think that is why you are going to the 
hybrid. That makes sense, because we have the technology now 
where you can maximize the capabilities of electrification now 
and yet still maintain your combat capability.
    My second question is, you know, I served four tours in the 
Middle East myself and had to look through the explosively 
formed penetrator at all these IEDs [improvised explosive 
devices] that the Iranians pumped over into Iraq, as well as 
Afghanistan. Your new vehicle as well, has it been looked at 
from that perspective, a hardening for these kind of munitions?
    Because we had to do that with the Humvee with our follow-
on there, with the--I just got a brain freeze but the vehicle 
we had to put in to help secure our troops better.
    Mr. Goddette. Congressman Bacon, you are talking about the 
MRAP [Mine-Resistant Ambush Protected] was the vehicle that we 
had to respond to----
    Mr. Bacon. Yeah, the MRAP.
    Mr. Goddette. And, quite frankly, that is why JLTV is our 
top priority in the Army----
    Mr. Bacon. Right.
    Mr. Goddette [continuing]. Is because we recognized that 
particular capability was needed. The MRAP did exactly that, it 
provided the protection, but we lost the mobility and we lost 
the payload. So the JLTV was an attempt to rebalance those 
three military requirements----
    Mr. Bacon. Fantastic.
    Mr. Goddette [continuing]. And so we believe that that is 
the biggest area that we need to focus on, which is why JLTV is 
the Army's number one priority in TWV [tactical wheeled 
vehicles].
    Mr. Bacon. That makes sense. I didn't understand that a lot 
of those requirements came right out of the EFP [explosively 
formed penetrator] and the IED scenario, so thank you.
    Mr. Chair, I yield back. Those are all my questions.
    Mr. Veasey. I think we lost the chairman.
    Mr. Bacon. Mr. Chairman, you are on mute.
    Mr. Norcross. I am here. Marc, you are recognized.
    Mr. Veasey. Okay. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much.
    Mr. Goddette, your example of the payload and the weight 
reminds me of the stories in school we used to hear about the 
computers that used to take up an entire room and now they 
nicely fit in our hands, in many cases, and as technology 
evolves it will be very interesting to see how the Army 
utilizes it.
    Given the likelihood--and this is for Mr. Goddette. Given 
the likelihood of constrained budgets and competing priorities, 
I am concerned about how our tactical wheeled vehicle fleets 
will remain relevant in a future fight against a near-peer 
competitor without many long-term modernization efforts.
    I am very interested in hearing about what the Army's near- 
and long-term plans are for the High-Mobility Multipurpose 
Wheeled Vehicles and that fleet since it is going to continue 
to be in service for quite some time. Have you considered the 
potential of modifying existing unarmored HMMVWs to an all-
electric configuration?
    Mr. Goddette. So that is a very good question. Consistent 
with where we are with modernization, the medium and the heavy 
fleets are in pretty good shape. They are 65 to 75 percent 
modern. As the light fleet, that is the area that we are 
focused on and why we are going after replacing as many Humvees 
as possible with the Joint Light Tactical Vehicle, because it 
does have protection. It has superior off-road mobility and 
superior safety as well.
    We are starting to look at those opportunities where 
electrification, whether it be a hybrid solution, may be able 
to be modified on our existing vehicles, but we are just 
starting to look at that based on the maturity of the 
technology and the crossover into our more austere ruggedized 
needs. There would be a degree of integration and ruggedization 
to make that technology applicable to our military vehicles.
    Mr. Veasey. For traditional internal combustible vehicles 
or engines that the Army currently uses, does the military 
refine their own fuel, or do they get their fuel--they do 
refine their own?
    Mr. Goddette. So, Congressman, what we do, our military 
vehicles have a unique requirement, unlike the commercial 
vehicles, to burn JP8, which is jet fuel, and that is primarily 
because we fight on the same--in the same areas as our Air 
Force partners who use a significant amount of fuel. And the 
Army is responsible for providing fuel for the Department of 
Defense, so therefore we have come up with a policy, a single 
fuel on the battlefield, which requires us to work with our 
engine manufacturers to modify engines so they can burn the jet 
fuel.
    Mr. Veasey. Because you are already doing that, do you 
think that the military would need their own mines in order to 
be able to, you know, replenish batteries for all electric 
vehicles in the future? Would they need to be able to source 
their own materials to build their own batteries or do you 
think that the batteries would just be part of the supply 
chain?
    Mr. Goddette. So we tend to follow the commercial 
investment. The amount of money that our commercial automotive 
industry is putting into many technologies, not just batteries, 
oftentimes dwarfs the amount of money that we have. And so we 
try to follow fast. We try to make sure that those technologies 
are mature, then ready, and then we integrate them into our 
more unique platforms.
    Mr. Veasey. Okay. Thank you very much. Mr. Chairman, I 
yield back.
    Mr. Norcross. Thank you. Mr. Wittman, do you have another 
question for us?
    Mr. Wittman. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
    I wanted to go to Mr. Goddette and ask a question about the 
tactical elements of electric vehicles and the sustainment of 
them. You know, listen, I think that there is capability with 
those vehicles. The question becomes tactical vulnerabilities.
    As you look at an internal combustion engine, when you are 
transporting fuel around, as you said, using jet fuel creates a 
dual utility or a multi utility for that fuel. And the 
refueling operation for an internal combustion engine can take 
place pretty quickly. Even on the biggest of vehicles there, 
refueling opportunity is fairly short; not the same for 
electric vehicles.
    And as we know, if you have a vehicle that stays in one 
spot for an elongated period of time or your adversary knows 
that it is going to be there for an extended period of time, it 
makes their calculus for tactical advantage much, much easier.
    Can you speak to any of the tactics? We talk about the 
technology side, but you also, I think, have to look at the 
tactics side. Are there any elements of tactics?
    And, Mr. Cadieux, I would point to you too. Any thoughts on 
the tactical elements of electric vehicles and what that--
challenges that poses to the Army?
    Mr. Goddette. So, Mike, let me just start with maybe a 20-
second answer, which is that the amount of time it would take 
to charge a JLTV that I mentioned earlier is probably around 10 
minutes for fuel. And it could be in excess of about 2 hours 
right now in one location to refuel or recharge, if we even had 
a recharging capability that was mobile, not fixed, as we would 
see here in the United States.
    Mr. Cadieux. Additionally, within the Army Futures Command 
we are leveraging multiple activities, we have been pursuing 
soldier touch points, and so getting that soldier feedback. And 
so that soldier feedback is key.
    And in this particular case, the Army Applications Lab, 
which is an AFC [Army Futures Command] component, recently 
engaged with six industry partners that have unique capability 
that have some promise for mobile and tactical recharging.
    And as they work through their process, we are going to get 
soldier feedback and that soldier feedback will go a long way 
to informing the tactics, as you mentioned.
    Mr. Wittman. Sure. Yeah, listen, those are great 
observations. I think, you know, looking at the full 
battlefield scenarios, listen, I think mobility is critically 
important. If you can move, you obviously lessen the risk there 
in the battlefield.
    The challenge then though is a complex one by moving a--
whether it is a stored energy vehicle to transfer power to a 
battery pack on another vehicle or whether it is a power 
generation facility that is actually generating power through a 
generator to transfer, when you put that on the move as well as 
the vehicle, as you know, the complexity increases 
significantly.
    While it does reduce the vulnerability, the physics of 
doing that and keeping both those systems functional also gets 
a little more complicated, especially if you are in very, very 
challenged environments. Maybe you would have some tactical 
limitations as far as roadways or terrain, those sorts of 
things.
    So just as you point out, I think it is incredibly 
important to get out there with the soldiers on the ground. As 
you know, I think the most compelling and thoughtful, 
insightful observations don't necessarily come from people up 
in the acquisition chain. They come from soldiers that will 
tell you, sir, this won't work, or, sir, have you thought of 
this, or, you know, we can do these things but we can't do 
those things.
    So I think that is incredibly important. I applaud you for 
doing that because that practical knowledge of what our junior 
enlisted, our senior enlisted, as well as our junior officers 
who are going to have to deal with this, their observations, I 
think, are going to be critical going forward. So thank you for 
doing that. I think that will fully inform the pathway forward 
for electric vehicles and hybrid vehicles.
    So thank you, Mr. Chairman. With that, I yield back.
    Mr. Norcross. Mr. Wittman, you know a little bit about the 
electric ships, right? They used to be under water with old 
batteries, right?
    Mr. Wittman. That is right. That is exactly right, yes.
    Mr. Norcross. And you didn't want to get them wet.
    Mr. Wittman. That is right. That is right. That is right.
    Mr. Norcross. Mr. Horsford, you are recognized for a second 
round. Well, Steve? You are recognized for another round if you 
need. Are you good? Okay.
    Mr. Brown, you are recognized.
    Mr. Brown. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just a question, a 
follow up on batteries prompted by that last exchange with 
Representative Wittman. Are we looking at battery replacement 
technology versus battery charging? I know that there is an 
Israeli company that has been working on that technology, the 
idea a vehicle pulls into a station, they drop a battery, they 
put another battery in and off they go.
    Certainly, you know, there is logistical requirements there 
as well, additional batteries, stuff like that, but in terms of 
like time on station in a tactical refueling setting, et 
cetera, et cetera, that technology I think would probably 
provide greater survivability for units.
    Is battery replacement something that is on the radar?
    Mr. Cadieux. As we are looking at the technologies from our 
perspective, everything is on the table, to include the 
scenario that you just outlined, Congressman Brown.
    Mr. Brown. Yeah. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Norcross. Mr. Kahele, you can wrap us up with the 
second round. Do you have a question?
    Mr. Kahele. Sure, why not, Chair? You know, always like the 
chance at a second question. And this would be a broad one for 
the Army, and I guess it would be--can be directed to either 
Mr. Goddette or Mr. Cadieux. But this has to do with, you know, 
as we have this broad discussion about increasingly looking at 
the military electrifying its fleet, its tactical fleet, do you 
have any thoughts on whether or not or how the DOD [Department 
of Defense] would be reassessing its long-term fuel storage?
    Obviously, fuel is a big deal for our current fleet, and as 
we electrify that fleet, is there any thoughts on what the DOD 
would be doing in terms of fuel storage? You know, we all saw 
how, you know, the oil industry was affected, you know, in the 
last few weeks.
    And so as the world moves towards clean and renewable 
energy and the DOD invests in the electrification of our 
tactical fleet, do you think that large fuel storage facilities 
might become obsolete in our military and at our DOD 
facilities?
    For me, this is significant in Hawaii because, you know, we 
only have so much room here and we have a lot of military 
bases, and so I am thinking about the future bases and fuel 
storage and if the Army would be cutting back on its fossil 
fuel consumption in the future as we electrify the fleet.
    Mr. Goddette. So, Congressman Kahele, I would just take 
probably that question for the record, because from my 
perspective, my charter kind of sits in buying tactical wheeled 
vehicles, which is for those units that would deploy into a 
theater.
    And the part that I think you are mentioning is more on the 
installation side of the house supporting a lot of the non-
tactical vehicles and some of the military vehicles as well.
    But from a storage perspective, on a tactical battlefield 
we tend to store in blivets and other things that, based on 
where we have to do the power generation to recharge batteries, 
would determine how we might change our doctrine. But I think 
your question was probably related to the installation side of 
the house, and we could take that for the record.
    [The information referred to can be found in the Appendix 
on page 43.]
    Mr. Kahele. Yeah, that sounds great. It was just a broad 
question as we, you know, have this discussion, but thanks for 
giving it a shot. I appreciate it.
    Thank you, Chair.
    Mr. Norcross. So for those of you who haven't seen his 
unique storage ability out in Hawaii, next time you are out 
there, remarkable what they have up in the mountains.
    With that, Mr. Bacon, any last words?
    Mr. Bacon. No, Mr. Chair. Appreciate both panelists, and I 
appreciated talking to them earlier as well. They did a great 
job. Thank you.
    Mr. Norcross. So we appreciate it. It was a great 
discussion. Obviously, you are keeping your eye on the ball in 
the future, but more importantly, you are making sure we get 
there where we are now. We appreciate your time and your 
service to this country.
    With that, we are adjourned. Thank you.
    [Whereupon, at 4:21 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]

     
=======================================================================

                            A P P E N D I X

                              May 27, 2021

      
=======================================================================


              PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

                              May 27, 2021

=======================================================================

   
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
      
=======================================================================


              WITNESS RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS ASKED DURING

                              THE HEARING

                              May 27, 2021

=======================================================================
    
              RESPONSE TO QUESTION SUBMITTED BY MR. BROWN

    Mr. Cadieux. The trend line for GVSCs investment in battery 
research from FY17-FY22 is depicted below. Over the past 2-3 years, 
GVSC has seen a positive trend in investments into battery research.

[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


[See page 16.]
                                 ______
                                 
              RESPONSE TO QUESTION SUBMITTED BY MR. KAHELE
    Mr. Goddette. The Military Services, like the Army, are customers 
of the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA). In Hawaii, the Army has an 
installation storage mission but it is very small (like filling 
stations). DLA runs a major fuel storage mission focused primarily on 
the Navy.   [See page 24.]

     
=======================================================================


              QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS POST HEARING

                              May 27, 2021

=======================================================================

                  QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MRS. HARTZLER

    Mrs. Hartzler. How do vehicle-based electrical power generation 
technologies (such as the On Board Vehicle Power system demonstrated by 
THAAD and the Army GVSC/C5ISR Teams in March 2021) fit into the 
Department's operational energy framework and how is the Department 
evaluating these technologies to meet weapon and vehicle energy 
requirements for expeditionary operations?
    Mr. Goddette. The on board power generation technologies 
demonstrated by a system such as Theater High Altitude Air Defense, or 
THAAD, have served to inform the feasibility and application for 
increase power generation on tactical wheeled vehicles. The goal is to 
increase mobility and survivability of the platforms by enabling more 
rapid emplacement and displacement of a weapon system in a future 
Multi-Domain Operation. The Army is also evaluating On Board Vehicle 
Power (OBVP) technologies through the Secure Tactical Advanced Mobile 
Power (STAMP) Joint Capability Technology Demonstration (JCTD) 
scheduled to run through 2nd Quarter, Fiscal Year 2023 (2QFY23). The 
STAMP JCTD will demonstrate the flexible application of mobile and 
stationary power sources, and inform energy requirements for 
expeditionary operations in Army missile defense systems and Mobile 
Command Post Integrated Infrastructure, as well as tactical wheeled 
vehicles. One example from work on THAAD is the Joint Light Tactical 
Vehicles (JLTV) program is currently leveraging the Tactical Vehicle 
Electrification Kit (TVEK) hardware generated for that program to 
introduce an anti-idle capability to reduce overall fuel consumption by 
up to 20 percent.
    Mrs. Hartzler. Major weapon systems, command and control systems, 
and combat vehicles are forecasting additional electrical power needs, 
30kW-300kW, in the future. What is the Department's plan to evaluate 
and implement vehicle-based power technologies to meet these energy 
needs? Will these electrical generation technologies be incorporated 
into the Army's vehicle electrification plan?
    Mr. Goddette. The Army is evaluating vehicle-based power 
technologies through demonstrations, evaluations, and ongoing research 
and development efforts throughout the U.S. Army Development Command 
(DEVCOM). One example of On Board Vehicle Power (OBVP) evaluation is 
the Secure Tactical Advanced Mobile Power (STAMP) Joint Capability 
Technology Demonstration (JCTD) scheduled to run through 2QFY23. The 
STAMP JCTD will demonstrate the flexible application of mobile and 
stationary power sources, and inform energy requirements for 
expeditionary operations in Army missile defense systems and Mobile 
Command Post Integrated Infrastructure, as well as tactical wheeled 
vehicles. These evaluations will help the Army to better understand the 
capabilities and limitations of emerging technologies and inform 
requirements and system design. The Joint Light Tactical Vehicle 
currently has the ability to export 10kW with an installed export power 
kit. To meet future needs, the program is investigating various hybrid 
or full electric concepts that would facilitate improvements to fuel 
consumption, silent mobility, silent watch and provide increased export 
power ability to meet future energy demands. Implementation of these 
technologies will be dependent on how the demonstrated capability 
impacts trade-offs in requirements and funding.
                                 ______
                                 
                 QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY DR. DesJARLAIS
    Dr. DesJarlais. The ISV original equipment manufacturer has 
developed an all-electric military concept demonstrator vehicle based 
on the ISV platform in just 12 weeks. What are your thoughts on the 
potential or possibility to grow the ISV into a family of vehicles with 
different configurations, to include electric powertrains?
    Mr. Goddette. The current F24/DF2 (diesel) powered Infantry Squad 
Vehicle (ISV) serves an excellent example of what commercial industry 
can do to tailor existing commercial product to meet our warfighter 
needs. A key enabler to the ISV success and in general, any commercial 
adaptation is the alignment of requirements with capabilities that 
allows adequate flexibility and trade space. The current ISV Original 
Equipment Manufacturer (OEM) is heavily invested in vehicle 
electrification and was able to quickly adapt their commercial 
technologies due to the flexibility inherent with the ISV body on frame 
architecture and the modularity of their electric vehicle technologies. 
The ISV is designed to a very specific set of approved requirements. 
The platform has the potential to be highly adaptable, to include 
electrification, if Army requirements continue to align with respect to 
key performance parameters such as weight, range, mobility, payloads 
and survivability.
    Dr. DesJarlais. Would you please elaborate on the steps you are 
taking to ensure the acquisition and research communities are 
leveraging commercial best practices and significant internal research 
and development investment by the commercial automotive industrial to 
support the development of and inform operational requirements for 
electric tactical and combat vehicles and their associated 
infrastructure?
    Mr. Goddette. I can only speak for the tactical vehicles, but being 
co-located at the Detroit Arsenal, we work closely with the Army 
Futures Command Ground Vehicle Systems Center (GVSC) and the Ground 
Combat Systems Program Executive Office to leverage and share advances 
in automotive Science and Technologies, including vehicle 
electrification. As stated in their response, GVSC has extensive 
engagement with the commercial automotive industry to leverage 
commercial electrification investment. Recent examples within my 
previous tactical vehicle portfolio include a closely coordinated 
industry day with Maneuver Capabilities Development and Integration 
Directorate, Army Futures Command to assess eLRV requirements as well 
as sending multiple eLRV market questionnaires to industry to 
continually inform our acquisition strategy and requirements. The 
program offices are taking all critical steps together with our 
partners to understand electrification as we plan out near and long 
term path to leverage this technology to benefit the Army.
    Dr. DesJarlais. Would you please elaborate on the steps you are 
taking to ensure the acquisition and research communities are 
leveraging commercial best practices and significant internal research 
and development investment by the commercial automotive industrial to 
support the development of and inform operational requirements for 
electric tactical and combat vehicles and their associated 
infrastructure?
    Mr. Cadieux. Located in Southeastern Michigan, GVSC is optimally 
positioned to work closely with the commercial automotive industry. 
GVSC leverages its proximity to automotive technical centers through 
Cooperative Research and Development Agreements with many of these 
automotive partners to leverage commercial efforts and investments in 
electrification. To-date, we have established 11 CRADAs and Test 
Service Agreements with automotive Original Equipment Manufacturers and 
suppliers of electrification components. Additionally, GVSC has held 5 
Electrification Forums attended by dozens of companies working in 
electrification in order to share information on the unique Army 
operational environment and to gain their input on our electrification 
plans and architecture. This forum allows GVSC to share the Army's 
unique electrification needs and challenges with commercial industry 
partners. GVSC also has an established track record of working with 
America's research universities and leveraging groups such as the 
Automotive Research Center (ARC), partnering with 15 industry 
organizations and 9 Universities from around the country to conduct 
modeling and simulation research in areas such as vehicle 
electrification. The collaborative efforts that the Army has had across 
the commercial automotive sector have directly helped to shape and 
inform the emerging Tactical and Combat Vehicle Electrification (TACV-
e) and Electric Light Reconnaissance Vehicle (eLRV) requirements 
documents. In the case of eLRV, the requirements enable the Army to 
leverage current and emerging commercial electric vehicle SUV/Pick-up 
truck offerings. Finally, GVSC has partnered with the Army Applications 
Laboratory (AAL) to find industry solutions for Army electrification 
challenges such as mobile charging infrastructure needed to support 
future military electric systems. As part of this effort, the Army has 
received technical input and solutions from over 70 different non-
traditional partners, ensuring that commercial best practices are being 
leveraged to address the military unique challenges with vehicle 
electrification.
    The collaborative efforts that the Army has had across the 
commercial automotive sector have directly helped to shape and inform 
the emerging Tactical and Combat Vehicle Electrification (TACV-e) and 
Electric Light Reconnaissance Vehicle (eLRV) requirements documents. In 
the case of eLRV, the requirements enable the Army to leverage current 
and emerging commercial electric vehicle SUV/Pick-up truck offerings.
    Finally, GVSC has partnered with the Army Applications Laboratory 
(AAL) to find industry solutions for Army electrification challenges 
such as mobile charging infrastructure needed to support future 
military electric systems. As part of this effort, the Army has 
received technical input and solutions from over 70 different non-
traditional partners, ensuring that commercial best practices are being 
leveraged to address the military unique challenges with vehicle 
electrification.

                                  [all]