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


                         [H.A.S.C. No. 117-90]

                                HEARING

                                   ON

                   NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT

                          FOR FISCAL YEAR 2023

                                  AND

              OVERSIGHT OF PREVIOUSLY AUTHORIZED PROGRAMS

                               BEFORE THE

                      COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES

                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                    ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS

                             SECOND SESSION
                               __________

          SUBCOMMITTEE ON TACTICAL AIR AND LAND FORCES HEARING

                                   ON

              FISCAL YEAR 2023 ARMY MODERNIZATION PROGRAMS
                               __________

                              HEARING HELD
                              MAY 17, 2022


                                     
                  [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                     
                               __________

                    U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
                    
48-654                    WASHINGTON : 2023    


              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

                 Liz Griffin, Professional Staff Member
                Kelly Repair, Professional Staff Member
                           Payson Ruhl, Clerk

                            C O N T E N T S

                              ----------                              
                                                                   Page

              STATEMENTS PRESENTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS

Hartzler, Hon. Vicky, a Representative from Missouri, Ranking 
  Member, 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

Bush, Hon. Douglas R., Assistant Secretary of the Army for 
  Acquisition, Logistics, and Technology.........................     4
Peterson, LTG Erik C., USA, Deputy Chief of Staff, G-8, United 
  States Army....................................................     7
Richardson, LTG James M., USA, Acting Commanding General, U.S. 
  Army Futures Command...........................................     6

                                APPENDIX

Prepared Statements:

    Bush, Hon. Douglas R., joint with LTG James M. Richardson and 
      LTG Erik C. Peterson.......................................    37
    Norcross, Hon. Donald........................................    35

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:

    Dr. DesJarlais...............................................    61
    Mr. Kahele...................................................    60
    Ms. Sherrill.................................................    59
    Mr. Turner...................................................    59


 
           FISCAL YEAR 2023 ARMY MODERNIZATION PROGRAMS

                              ----------                              

                  House of Representatives,
                       Committee on Armed Services,
              Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land Forces,
                           Washington, DC, Wednesday, May 17, 2022.
    The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 2:21 p.m., in 
room 2118, Rayburn House Office Building, 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. This hearing will come to order.
    Good afternoon, and welcome to what is our third 
subcommittee hearing. We are reviewing the Department's 
[Department of Defense's] fiscal year 2023 budget request.
    Before I continue, I need to review the protocols. For all 
members remotely joining this hearing, members participating 
must be visible on screen for the purposes of identity 
verification, establishing and maintaining a quorum, 
participating in the proceedings, and voting. Members must 
continue to use the software platform video function for the 
entire time in attendance, unless they experience connectivity 
issues or other technical problems that render them unable to 
participate on camera.
    With that being said, I am going to turn to my opening 
remarks.
    The Tactical Air and Land Subcommittee is here to review 
the Army modernization programs for fiscal year 2023 budget 
request.
    I would like to thank our witnesses for being with us today 
and for the work you have done in getting this budget ready for 
the request to Congress.
    The committee is eager to hear details from today's 
witnesses on how the budget request will satisfy the equipment 
modernization requirements of the Army, both today and in the 
future.
    We are pleased to finally have a confirmed Assistant 
Secretary of the Army for Acquisition, [Logistics, and 
Technology], who is working in close coordination with both 
civilian and uniformed colleagues [to] refocus and recalibrate 
the Army's civilian leadership in the right direction.
    Mr. Bush, it is great to have you back. Good to see you 
again.
    And we also would like to welcome today, from Texas, 
Lieutenant General Jim Richardson, Acting Commanding General of 
the U.S. Army Futures Command.
    General, I believe this is the first time you are 
testifying. Great to have you here.
    And also, we have Lieutenant General Erik Peterson, Deputy 
Chief of Staff, G-8, and we are pleased to welcome you and look 
forward to your testimony.
    As we heard the other day, Chairman Smith, in his opening 
comments at the Army posture hearing, the Army modernization 
must be working towards stable, affordable, and achievable 
priorities. This is nothing new, but something that we are 
looking at is the 31+4. And it is no longer the be-all to end-
all for modernization, and this may be time to start opening 
the conversation to programs beyond this limited scope.
    Current events have proven that the Army may be asked to 
provide and assist in ways that surprise us and ultimately 
strain an already fragile industrial base. Events in Ukraine 
have done just that.
    While Congress and the Army have been planning and 
preparing for the force of 2028, we suddenly find ourselves 
watching a full-scale war unfold on the European continent, the 
likes we haven't seen since World War II. Modernization must 
now find a way to satisfy the urgency of today's challenges 
while simultaneously preparing for the future.
    Our goal today is to better understand the role in asking 
the Army to achieve these objectives while offsetting 
acceptable risk between the investment priorities, current/
future capabilities, and certainly, the industrial base 
stability.
    Today, just as in prior year modernization hearings, we 
will ask our witnesses to state for the record that the [fiscal 
year] 2023 request and the planned funding levels across the 
next 5 years, all of their priority modernization programs are 
affordable and achievable.
    The distinguished Army leaders before the subcommittee 
today are well-qualified to explain these modernization plans. 
Look forward to your testimony and, certainly, observations 
regarding these challenges.
    And at this point, my colleague from Missouri, Mrs. 
Hartzler, for her opening comments.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Norcross can be found in the 
Appendix on page 35.]

    STATEMENT OF HON. VICKY HARTZLER, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM 
MISSOURI, RANKING MEMBER, SUBCOMMITTEE ON TACTICAL AIR AND LAND 
                             FORCES

    Mrs. Hartzler. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    I, first of all, would like to thank each and every one of 
you for your service to our Nation. We really appreciate this, 
and the times we are living in certainly show how important it 
is that we be ready.
    We have a lot to cover today, and I look forward to having 
a full discussion on the status of Army's capabilities and 
modernization efforts with our distinguished panel of 
witnesses. And some of you have testified before on these 
topics about a year ago.
    To say that a lot has changed in the world since last 
spring would be a major understatement, especially with regard 
to global security and U.S. adversary threat assessments. The 
Taliban's quick overrun of Afghanistan, which required a hasty 
military withdrawal and emergency evacuation operation last 
summer, as well as Russia's invasion of Ukraine over the past 3 
months, have both only further highlighted how critical it is 
that our Army possess the capabilities and capacity needed to 
deter adversaries, quickly respond to crisis, provide support 
to our allies, and, when necessary, fight and defeat any 
adversary threat to our national security.
    We know that our peer adversary China is rapidly investing 
in newer, advanced warfighting capabilities, posing an imminent 
threat to global security and stability. I agree with our 
witnesses that modernization and the development of newer, more 
lethal capabilities are critical to ensure the Army continues 
to achieve overmatch against all potential adversaries. Our 
warfighters must remain capable to deter and defeat any 
adversary as part of the joint force. And I commend each of you 
for your tireless efforts to maintain, strengthen, and 
modernize the capabilities and lethality of the Army.
    Unfortunately, one thing that, sadly, has not changed since 
last year is the President's unwillingness to deliver a defense 
budget request for the necessary levels of funding to support 
you in these efforts. The administration's defense topline 
falls dangerously short of adequately equipping our ground 
combat forces and funding the modernization of our Armed 
Forces, ultimately forcing each service to make tough choices 
between future modernization programs and the sustainment of 
necessary existing platforms.
    I am particularly interested in gaining a better 
understanding from today's hearing of what impacts these 
funding and prioritization choices are having on the Army's air 
and missile defense programs and ground combat vehicle 
programs. As we have seen from the situation in Ukraine, these 
programs are critical for maintaining a lethal and effective 
force against our adversaries. I also want to know what 
strategic risk and additional future cost the Army may be 
imposing on these programs and the industrial base needed to 
produce and sustain them.
    I look forward to any update, as well, on the Army's Future 
Vertical Lift programs and how this program of new rotary 
aircraft and Air Launched Effects will provide enhanced 
capabilities and ensure supremacy against our near-peer 
adversaries.
    Recognizing the hard decisions and challenges imposed on 
all of you by the President's proposed budget topline, I look 
forward to working together to determine what is the right 
balance to prioritize and fund both current operational and 
tactical readiness and modernization investments required for 
future capabilities. Both are imperative to our national 
security.
    Lastly, as you are well aware, oversight of modernization 
of our ammunition production facilities has been a priority of 
mine and this committee for a long time. And last week, during 
the Army budget hearing, I addressed my concerns to Secretary 
Wormuth that there was no funding in this year's budget to 
address the approximately $95 million in urgent safety repairs 
necessary to the facilities at the Lake City Army Ammunition 
Plant. Secretary Wormuth explained that these critical projects 
weren't funded in this year's budget due to other projects 
being higher priorities, but that they would be able to be 
addressed in the Army's 15-year industrial modernization plan.
    Following that hearing last Thursday, this subcommittee was 
provided another list of Army ammunition plant modernization 
projects that could, in fact, be accelerated, if funded in 
fiscal year 2023. So, Mr. Bush, I look forward to hearing from 
you on how this additional funding can accelerate safety and 
modernization/repairs at these facilities and why it was not 
included in the fiscal year 2023 budget; and also, why it 
doesn't match up with the list of needs that Lake City has 
identified.
    And with that, I thank the chairman for organizing this 
important hearing, and I yield back.
    Mr. Norcross. Thank you.
    Without objection, each of the witnesses' prepared 
statement will be included in the hearing record. Hearing none, 
so ordered.
    Mr. Bush, you are now recognized.

 STATEMENT OF HON. DOUGLAS R. BUSH, ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE 
        ARMY FOR ACQUISITION, LOGISTICS, AND TECHNOLOGY

    Secretary Bush. Chairman Norcross, Ranking Member Hartzler, 
and distinguished members of the House Armed Services 
Committee, Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land Forces, good 
afternoon.
    Thank you for the invitation to appear before you and 
discuss the Army modernization program and the resources 
requested in the President's budget for fiscal year 2023.
    I am pleased to be joined by my teammates Lieutenant 
General Erik Peterson, Army Deputy Chief of Staff, G-8, and 
Lieutenant General Jim Richardson, the Acting Commander of Army 
Futures Command.
    We appreciate your making our written statement as part of 
the record for today's hearing.
    Chairman Norcross, the Army continues to transform to 
provide the joint force with the land warfare capabilities 
needed to accomplish the missions of the Department of Defense. 
The Army's fiscal year 2023 budget request I think can be 
described with two words: continuity and momentum.
    It maintains the readiness of the Army and establishes a 
sustainable path to transform to the Army of 2030. Our 
transformation requires a strategic pivot from two decades of 
counterinsurgency operations toward adaptation to meet our top 
pacing challenge in China and the acute threat of Russian 
aggression, all while continuing to defend the homeland and be 
prepared for other missions around the world.
    As outlined in our written statement, we remain committed 
to our six modernization priority areas: Long-Range Precision 
Fires; Next Generation Combat Vehicles; Future Vertical Lift; 
the Network; Air and Missile Defense; and Soldier Lethality.
    The Army's budget also continues modernization and 
procurement of our enduring platforms and equipment in 
aviation, ground combat systems, intelligence, logistics, and 
ammunition.
    Overall, I believe the budget request reflects a balanced 
approach that prioritizes our most important modernization 
efforts. However, as you both noted in your openings, all 
budget proposals require making choices, and this one is no 
different.
    As you are aware, in order to protect the Army's highest 
priority programs, the Army did reduce requested funding in 
other areas; specifically, the pace of modernization of our 
Armored and Stryker Brigade Combat Teams for selected systems. 
In doing so, the Army sought to ensure we didn't go so low on 
any of these systems that we put the industrial base at risk to 
a degree that forecloses the ability of the Army to quickly 
ramp back up, if more funding is provided.
    In short, we sought to ensure that we did not close off 
options for leaders in the Army or Congress to make adjustments 
to our plans in the future, if they judge that as the right 
thing to do. That is always a careful balance to strike and one 
that is very complex, since we are working with defense 
partners and their subcomponent vendors. So, I am not saying we 
always get it exactly right.
    I look forward to working with you and other members on 
your view of where the Army landed on this issue, and in areas 
you think we fell short I am happy to engage in ways to make 
progress in the directions you seek.
    A second issue I wanted to mention is to provide some good 
news, in my view, regarding the overall speed of acquisition 
and what the Army is doing to pursue that in an enduring way.
    The effort to make the entire Army acquisition system move 
more quickly to get equipment to soldiers is my number one 
priority, but I can't do it alone. The whole system--from 
concepts to experiments, to requirements, to acquisition--has 
to work together to make this work.
    I do see real evidence of progress, and I am committed to 
sustaining that in the future. Here are some examples. In the 
past year, the Army has moved 16 new systems into low- or full-
rate production; initiated seven new rapid prototyping efforts; 
moved two programs from rapid prototyping to rapid fielding. We 
also now have eight programs using the brand-new Software 
Acquisition Pathway which provides much more flexibility in 
software development with more programs on the way.
    The Army remains the lead Federal agency when it comes to 
executing COVID vaccine and supply orders, which have been done 
at a highly accelerated rate using multiple emergency 
authorities granted by Congress.
    Most recently, the Army is moving rapidly to replenish Army 
stockpiles that were drawn down to support Ukraine. For 
example, after receiving the funding on May 1st, by the end of 
this week, the Army expects to be on contract to replace 
Javelin missiles, Stinger missiles, as well as begin several 
efforts to accelerate production timelines by working with 
vendors and using different targeted authorities. Getting that 
done in just 20 days reflects the rapid work of hundreds of 
Army acquisition and contracting professionals--all supported 
by a large team across the Army, including the teams 
represented by the two gentlemen I am privileged to testify 
with today.
    Finally, just this year, as part of acquisition support to 
troops deploying to Europe, more than 50,000 Rapid Fielding 
Initiative kits with body armor and other protective equipment 
have been provided to soldiers from stockpiles kept for exactly 
this contingency.
    And over the next year, the Army plans to conduct initial 
fielding of 24 new systems, another sign that things are moving 
quickly and in the right direction, in my view.
    Simply put, I believe the Army's acquisition system is 
responding to congressional desire to move more quickly, get 
things to soldiers, cut through bureaucracy, cooperate across 
the Army, and make things happen. And I am committed to 
continuing that while I am the Assistant Secretary.
    In closing, I want to thank members of this committee for 
your overall very strong support of the Army's modernization 
program and your partnership in working with the Army to help 
ensure we understand where your concerns are and how we can 
work together to get our soldiers what they need to do their 
jobs.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    [The joint prepared statement of Secretary Bush, General 
Richardson, and General Peterson can be found in the Appendix 
on page 37.]
    Mr. Norcross. Thank you.
    Lieutenant General Richardson, you are now recognized.

 STATEMENT OF LTG JAMES M. RICHARDSON, USA, ACTING COMMANDING 
               GENERAL, U.S. ARMY FUTURES COMMAND

    General Richardson. Chairman Norcross, Ranking Member 
Hartzler, distinguished members of the subcommittee, on behalf 
of the soldiers and civilians of Army Futures Command, thank 
you for the opportunity to testify about Army modernization.
    Modernization is a team sport. So, it is an honor to appear 
today with my teammates.
    And innovation is about more than materiel. Armies win or 
lose by a combination of how they fight, how they organize, and 
how they equip. All three start with Army Futures Command.
    AFC is the engine of Army modernization. We develop 
concepts that become doctrine, design future organizations, and 
develop requirements for materiel--all based on assessments of 
the future operating environment, emerging threats, and 
technologies.
    As the Army's capabilities developer, AFC prioritizes S&T 
[science and technology] efforts to close the gaps. Then, 
together with ASA(ALT) [Assistant Secretary of the Army for 
Acquisition, Logistics, and Technology], we develop an S&T 
strategy and POM [Program Objective Memorandum]. AFC executes 
with oversight from ASA(ALT).
    Our soldiers and civilians are making significant progress 
in each of these areas. We are modernizing at the speed of 
change, based on the Army's six consistent modernization 
priorities.
    AFC, working closely with our ASA(ALT) partners, is 
supporting the delivery of 24 transformational systems into the 
hands of soldiers by 2023. Through soldier-centered design and 
strong support from FORSCOM [U.S. Army Forces Command], we are 
getting equipment into the hands of soldiers early, so that we 
can inform requirements before significant investments are 
made. In fiscal year 2021 alone, we conducted 113 soldier 
touchpoints. Looking ahead, we will work even more closely with 
the Army's warfighting headquarters to draw lessons from across 
the entire operational force.
    AFC leads Project Convergence, the Army's campaign of 
learning and experimentation. Project Convergence makes it 
real. It is soldiers, scientists, and our joint partners 
together in the dirt, learning lessons that inform 
requirements, concepts, and future force designs.
    In Project Convergence 2021, we learned that we must take a 
system-of-systems approach in developing our requirements 
documents. We also learned that we need to move from 
interoperability to the integration of systems with the joint 
force and our allies.
    In Project Convergence 2022, we will scale the technologies 
we are testing, integrate our allies and our partners, and 
build on the lessons of Project Convergence 2021.
    I echo our Secretary's invite to you to join us at our 
capstone event later this year. Seeing is believing. Project 
Convergence has taught us that data is the new ammunition and 
that the network is the center of gravity in the future fight.
    Drawing on those lessons, AFC is helping pave the way to a 
data-centric Army that is fully integrated into a data-centric 
joint force. We are working to implement common data standards 
and joint message formats in our requirements documents to 
ensure a holistic systems approach among the Army, the joint 
force, our allies and partners.
    People are the Army's top priority. People are going to be 
the foundation of our data-centric Army. So, we are 
experimenting with how to employ cutting-edge talent on the 
edge of the future battlefield.
    All of this work is building the Army of 2030, and the Army 
of 2030 is the foundation of the Army of 2040 and beyond. Our 
adversaries will modernize, whether we do or not. So, we cannot 
wait to start modernizing our Army. The future is now.
    Stable and consistent funding from Congress supports our 
ability to fight and win our Nation's wars, take care of our 
people, and continue the momentum of our modernization efforts. 
Thank you for your consistent support of our Army and our 
families.
    I look forward to answering your questions.
    Mr. Norcross. Thank you.
    Lieutenant General Peterson, you are now recognized.

STATEMENT OF LTG ERIK C. PETERSON, USA, DEPUTY CHIEF OF STAFF, 
                    G-8, UNITED STATES ARMY

    General Peterson. Good afternoon.
    Thank you, Chairman Norcross, Ranking Member Hartzler, and 
the distinguished members of the House Armed Services 
Committee, Tactical Air and Land Forces Subcommittee, for the 
opportunity to appear and to testify regarding the Army's 
fiscal year 2023 modernization efforts.
    A special thank you to all the committee members for your 
enduring support of our soldiers, civilians, and their 
families, as they play their vital role in the defense of our 
Nation, a role that they have played faithfully for nearly 247 
years.
    Our requested investments in modernization in fiscal year 
2023 reflect our deliberate 4-, now going on 5-, year effort to 
accelerate focused modernization and place transformational 
capabilities in the hands of our soldiers. These capabilities 
firmly support our National Defense Strategy of integrated 
deterrence, they facilitate active campaigning, and they help 
us build and maintain an enduring advantage over near-peers and 
potential adversaries.
    They contribute directly to the joint force's ability to 
deter, and when called upon, fight and win decisively. They 
reduce the risk imposed by increasingly capable and aggressive 
competitors, and will help us achieve and sustain the decision 
dominance and overmatch that we need.
    To that end, we remain committed to our six modernization 
priorities, and that commitment, combined with several years of 
ruthless prioritization, constant reassessment and 
reevaluation, and your sustained support promises to have 24 
signature modernization systems in the hands of our soldiers by 
fiscal year 2023, either for testing or for fielding.
    Through teamwork, engaged senior leadership, refinement of 
process, and the authorities and resources you have granted us, 
we continue to accelerate. From refined requirements processes 
and the responsible employment of other transactional 
authorities to experimentation, prototyping, and soldier-
centered design, the transformation you are helping us with is 
being brought to bear.
    This progress is not without risk. Several years of 
ruthless prioritization, eliminating, reducing, and deferring 
lower priority and less necessary efforts, as well as divesting 
of legacy capabilities, has left little flexibility in our 
topline. We made the easy choices the first couple of years. 
Now we are well into the realm of hard choices, really hard 
choices, and downright excruciating choices. As such, we ask 
for your continued, engaged support, and predictable 
authorizations and resources on time to help us maintain this 
transformation.
    In closing, I would like to offer one additional very brief 
thanks, and that is to your staffs, committee and personal, who 
professionally facilitate the engagement necessary to advance 
our common commitment to the defense of our Nation.
    Thank you for the opportunity to appear, and I look forward 
to your questions.
    Mr. Norcross. Thank you for each of your testimony.
    And I want to start out with an item that has been 
mentioned probably in at least three meetings that we had under 
HASC [House Armed Services Committee] in the last week. 
Recently, there was an Army Directive 2022-07 that talks about 
Army modernization roles and responsibility. Although it 
impacts a wide variety of men and women up and down the 
industrial chain, and then, within us, we have the two 
gentleman here today who are very much at the lead of each of 
those.
    So, Mr. Bush, General Richardson, what is your assessment 
of this realignment? And how will you monitor those proposed 
changes to make sure that it is actually focused and going to 
do which is our highest prioritizations, make sure we modernize 
in an efficient but timely way?
    So, Mr. Bush, if you would start?
    Secretary Bush. Yes, sir. Thank you.
    I think the one point, the first one I would make is that 
the memo was really simply acknowledging the way the system has 
been working, at least since I arrived in March of 2021, 
meaning that my organization, the Assistant Secretary 
organization, has responsibilities in law and in General Order 
1 that we are carrying out. AFC has responsibilities directed 
by the Secretary. And then other elements of the Army referred 
to in the memo--TRADOC [U.S. Army Training and Doctrine 
Command], Army Materiel Command, and others--also have 
responsibilities to achieve modernization across the entire 
Army. So, sir, I believe it is more of a reflection of the way 
things are working today, and have been working for the past 
year, than it is a fundamental change.
    The critical issue is that Army Futures Command never had 
acquisition authority. That has always resided, as required by 
law, on the civilian secretariat side in my office. And General 
Richardson and I talked together in developing this, as it was 
developed, and we have talked about it since. And I think the 
system is working very well, actually. He has got his job; I 
have got mine. No one person is in charge of everything. We 
have to coordinate and cooperate. And I think the memo simply 
reinforces that statement from the Secretary.
    And if I could, sir, I would let General Richardson talk 
about his view from his lane.
    General Richardson. As I spoke earlier in my opening 
statement, modernization is a team sport. Day-to-day work at 
AFC is not changing. We develop, we integrate concepts, 
technology, requirements, and force design. And AFC really is 
the engine behind that modernization. We execute the 
integration and the synchronization of modernization across the 
enterprise.
    A lot of people focus on the ``M'' aspect of DOTMLPF 
[doctrine, organization, training, materiel, leadership and 
education, personnel, and facilities], the materiel aspect. Our 
job is to integrate and synchronize across doctrine, 
organization, training, materiel, leadership, et cetera. And 
so, I spend a lot of time, and the headquarters spends a lot of 
time, doing that integration. Together with ASA(ALT), and all 
of our team members in the modernization enterprise, we work 
tirelessly together to do this. It is truly a team sport.
    As it relates to science and technology, we execute the 
science and technology at our labs. Mr. Bush and his 
organization provide oversight for that. We work together as a 
team to build our S&T strategy, to build the POM, and 
prioritize where we are going as an Army.
    So, modernization is a team sport. I have worked very 
closely with Mr. Bush on this memorandum, and I think working 
together as a team would further our way as we go towards the 
Army of 2040.
    Mr. Norcross. Thank you. Hopefully, at least that addresses 
some of the questions that had been coming up. Certainly, it 
seemed to align with the understanding that I had, and many 
others, is exactly working together, but there is the civilian 
along with military checks and balances that have been part of 
us since the very beginning.
    So, let's go right into a great description of that. Future 
Vertical Lift. Dr. Hicks was before the committee today, and 
one of those issues that came up talked about sustainment 
across the Department of Defense, but, in particular, many of 
our major acquisition programs have, historically, not been 
anywhere close to accurate, as the descriptions and the dollars 
were initially put forward.
    Some people suggested it was like in a supermarket: a loss 
leader, you buy it here, and we will get you in the end. Well, 
I don't think any of us like to plan based on that, and 
certainly, it is difficult to look into the future to see what 
things cost. But here we are in Future Vertical Lift, the FLRAA 
[Future Long-Range Assault Aircraft] and FARA [Future Attack 
Reconnaissance Aircraft]. We are working our way through it.
    So, why don't you, Mr. Bush, General, give us an update 
where it is and why sustainment in this program is going to be 
the right sustainment numbers?
    Secretary Bush. Thank you, sir. I will start, and then, 
turn to General Richardson.
    So, one thing I would say is that, because of concerns from 
this committee and others, the Army is in this case trying to 
get ahead of that sustainment kind of cost problem down the 
road, as you mentioned. Where are the programs?
    So, the FLRAA program is in source selection now. We expect 
that decision to be revealed in September, or around September, 
as planned, fourth quarter of this year, sir.
    The FARA program is behind, but that is only because it 
started later. It is also making rapid progress in building its 
initial prototypes that will help inform final requirements 
before we move to a formal acquisition program.
    So, in my estimation, in my view, both are actually going 
very well right now.
    Your question about sustainment is we are trying to get at 
it through modular open system design, so we are not locked 
into one vendor forever. Proper thoughts now about intellectual 
property and what the government will own, so, again, we are 
not beholden to a vendor for the entire life of the system, 
putting the government in a better position to manage 
sustainment cost. And for a couple of details on that, I would 
ask General Richardson to fill in, if that is okay, sir.
    General Richardson. Chairman, 70 percent of the cost of a 
weapon system is in sustainment over the life cycle. We have 
recognized that, and when we are looking at our requirements 
and doing our prototyping, the requirements are being informed 
by the prototyping. And we really focus on reliability, 
sustainability, and maintainability in our documents.
    Like Mr. Bush said with FARA and FLRAA, we are looking at 
digital sustainment, being about to get the requirements right, 
looking at time on wing for all of our parts, extending the 
life of our parts in the parts count. Most of modular system 
open architecture will allow us to do that with technology, 
where you take a card and put it in in a box, and pull it out, 
and it doesn't matter which vendor it comes from. As well, 
advanced teaming, and teaming with everybody, on the ALE [Air 
Launched Effects] as well, helps.
    But sustainment, Chairman, is important, it is 70 percent 
of the cost of a weapon system, and we have got to get it right 
upfront with the requirements document and be informed with our 
prototyping, as we go forward, whether it is FLRAA, FARA, NGCV 
[Next Generation Combat Vehicle], or any weapon system.
    Mr. Norcross. I appreciate your answers, but, again, one of 
the more difficult things is trying to understand in the 
future. You talk about the intellectual property rights, but, 
then, the actual design, depending on which program and which 
service. We are all over the place. But the idea of trying to 
get this into a better place is so critically important, 
because, quite frankly, we are taking our headache and giving 
it to the next generation, or in this case Mr. Garamendi and 
his committee, who has to keep the thing running. But, again, a 
big priority of ours.
    And now, let me turn it over to our ranking member, Mrs. 
Hartzler.
    Mrs. Hartzler. Thank you very much.
    And we are marking up in another committee right now, too. 
So, I am going to run after my question here.
    But, in my opening remarks, I mentioned the disappointment 
with the Army ammunition request not having the upgrades and 
repairs for Lake City Army Ammunition. And yesterday, we got 
the additional list of unfunded priorities, and then, we also 
have the list that was provided by Lake City for the safety 
upgrades that they need. And first of all, they don't match. 
So, as I said, could you talk, Mr. Bush, about the importance 
of funding these modernization projects, but then also explain 
why they don't match what the contractor is saying they need?
    Secretary Bush. Yes, ma'am.
    So, I think, to your first point, of course, as we 
discussed in the last hearing, overall, funding is up for the 
industrial base, including for projects across the board. But 
your question is a great one because it is the tactical, how 
does it actually affect people who work at the plants and when?
    So, ma'am, one reason--and I am going to look into why 
those two lists are different--is that, of course, the list 
that you got officially through the Army went through, frankly, 
about 15 layers. And different screens are applied to that 
information regarding whether it is proposed to be viewed as 
executable given the timeline, whether it is far enough along 
in the design process, and where it ranks on a priority list.
    So, what I need to do, ma'am, is take the list, the two 
lists and reconcile them, and get back to you. I will give you 
an integrated view and make sure that we didn't miss something 
we shouldn't have missed.
    I think across the board, ma'am, safety is our number one 
priority in our upgrade program. So, happy to work with you in 
more detail on the plans for Lake City and those two lists, in 
particular.
    Mrs. Hartzler. Okay. Great. Thank you.
    And, General Peterson, Force Provider [FP] provides fully 
integrated, basic life support for soldiers operating in 
austere battlefield conditions, including shelter, food, 
hygiene, and billeting. Each FP Life Support Module [LSM] 
supports 150 soldiers, enabling them to live safely and 
securely in remote environmental conditions ranging from desert 
heat to severe cold weather, as may be seen in the Arctic 
Circle or Russia border in Ukraine.
    The Army has increased its requirement from 235 to 369 LSMs 
and requires additional funding to meet the production 
necessary to attain that requirement. Funding, already low for 
this need, has been eliminated in the fiscal year 2023 budget, 
due to competition with other priorities.
    So, can you explain how the Army will be able to attain 
this requirement for these Force Provider systems to provide 
for the warfighters if they are continuously underfunded? And 
how does this program fit into the Army's soldier lethality 
priorities?
    General Peterson. Thank you for that question.
    We are reassessing all of our investments and strategies 
with respect to base support, infrastructure, and the 
investments therein. We have spent two decades using OCO 
[Overseas Contingency Operations] funding, primarily, to 
support our investments in those. And with the shift to base, 
we have a completely different approach, and under 
prioritization for 2023, they did not make the cut under that 
excruciating prioritization that we have.
    We are also relooking our overarching strategies of how we 
deploy and disperse our soldiers and whether or not long term 
the traditional methodology for basing and encampments meets 
our strategy for mobility/dispersion moving forward.
    Specific to the Arctic, as you mentioned, we are currently 
undertaking a deep dive into our Arctic strategy. We have 
recently conducted a quick-look tabletop exercise to identify 
short-term gaps in our ability to ensure that we focus our 
defense requirements in the Arctic. And we are proceeding right 
now with a more deliberate approach that is going to define our 
requirements.
    All in all, we do understand that we have a gap and we are 
underwriting some risk with respect to these base camp 
capabilities. But, with the overarching assessment of how we 
are going to fight in our priority theaters, as well as our 
Arctic investment, we will have that prioritization and a 
strategy moving forward.
    Mrs. Hartzler. If you had additional funding, is this 
something you would like to see?
    General Peterson. We would certainly welcome investment in 
these programs. We know that we are underwriting some risk.
    Mrs. Hartzler. Okay. Great.
    Thank you. I am going to yield back.
    Mr. Norcross. Thank you.
    Mr. Gallego, you are now recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Gallego. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    Secretary Bush, thank you for your testimony.
    In your written remarks, you outline that the Army's 
modernization efforts take into account Russia's ongoing war 
with Ukraine. Could you share the lessons you are learning from 
this conflict? Also, how are Russia's actions shaping how you 
define capability requirements and develop new concepts?
    Secretary Bush. Sir, I can offer brief thoughts, but, 
really, General Richardson I think has the best read on that in 
terms of requirements and how Ukraine is affecting the Army's 
thinking.
    I think, overall, it has focused our attention on our 
priorities that we have. I think General Richardson mentioned 
last week in a hearing with long-range fires everybody is 
seeing it, absolutely matters; Next Generation Combat Vehicles 
with survivability technologies, for example, they can avoid 
what is happening to the Russian equipment--[those] are two 
that jumped to my mind, sir.
    And then, finally, the importance of air and missile 
defense. The Ukrainians have been able to fight on against a 
pretty advanced adversary, but we know we need to keep making 
those investments as well, because the Chinese certainly have 
even better capabilities we would have to defend against.
    Mr. Gallego. General Richardson.
    General Richardson. Sir, I would just highlight that the 
fight in Ukraine highlights to Army Futures Command that we, as 
an Army, have our modernization priorities absolutely right. 
And I think everyone sees on TV as it relates to artillery and 
long-range precision fires. They are fighting in all domains, 
and we have just developed an all-domain concept of how we are 
going to fight and organize for the Army of 2030.
    But I would tell you, the lessons that I learned 
personally, it is not really about materiel. It is about how 
they are fighting; how they organize; their doctrine, are they 
following a doctrine? How are they commanding and controlling?
    We are learning a great deal, applying some of the lessons 
learned that we are working towards our future operating 
concept. We have a number of tabletop exercises that are 
ongoing right now. It is called our Future Studies Program. We 
are incorporating those lessons into the Future Studies Program 
as we look at the Army in 2040 and how we are going to fight 
and organize.
    Mr. Gallego. And speaking of multi-domain operations [MDO], 
while the Army organizes, trains, and equips the troops to 
conduct MDO as part of this joint force, are there any pitfalls 
to this one-size-fits-all doctrine for countering both near-
peer threats, and how do you envision MDO operating in the gray 
zone of conflict?
    General Richardson. Well, I think we have MDO just about 
right. We have done a lot of experimentation. We are organizing 
our organizations right now for the MDO fight.
    But I will tell you, as we look toward the future, we have 
had Project Convergence 2021 that I mentioned. It is a campaign 
of learning and it is a big experiment. It is a joint exercise 
that we do with all of the services, where we bring all of our 
technologies in. Simultaneously, we have a Future Studies 
Program going on from a different perspective of warfighters, 
technologists, et cetera, looking at the future. We are seeing 
it align.
    The way we are going to fight in 2040 is not the way we are 
going to fight today. We see speed, machine to machine. Speed 
is critical. It improves our lethality. If we are able to shoot 
faster, we are able to move and survive.
    In the future battles of the future, you are not going to 
be able to hide. So, we are going to have to operate in smaller 
formations and dispersed terrain, and the network will be the 
center of gravity. So, that is where we currently are with our 
multi-domain operations, and that is where we are going to the 
future.
    Mr. Gallego. Back to Mr. Bush, and actually General 
Richardson. It's no secret the Air Force and the Navy receive 
greater attention in conversations regarding planning for 
future force posture and strategy in INDOPACOM [U.S. Indo-
Pacific Command]. Can you describe what role you see the Army 
playing in the INDOPACOM AOR [area of responsibility]? And how 
is the Army as a whole shifting from 20 years of 
counterinsurgency to strategic competition now and into the 
future?
    Secretary Bush. Sir, I will start.
    There are three things that I think, if you look at our 
modernization priorities, as the Secretary has highlighted, fit 
perfectly into any Pacific scenario: long-range fires, 
including very long range, like with our Long-Range Hypersonic 
Weapon. Air and missile defense. We are dramatically over the 
course of the FYDP [Future Years Defense Program] expanding the 
force structure and capability of our air and missile defense 
forces. And then, the network, and the power of the network, as 
General Richardson was highlighting.
    Sir, I think those three things are probably my top three 
with regard to the Army in the Pacific, but we have more 
responsibilities than that, than just those things, but I think 
those are my top three.
    General Richardson. Congressman, as it relates to the 
Army's role in the Pacific, our number one task, specified 
task, is to set the theater, and that's with logistics, not 
only for the United States Army, but for the joint services. 
So, priority number one is to do that.
    Mr. Bush mentioned air defense to protect those sites. 
Protection is critical, and as you know, a lot of our 
transformational programs are centered around air defense. 
Long-Range Precision Fires, sensor to shooter, being able to 
sense and shoot faster than we had previously.
    We also have to look at command and control, and battle 
command, and some of the command-and-control systems across the 
fight.
    And then, lastly, I would say maneuver.
    Mr. Gallego. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Norcross. Thank you. The gentleman yields back.
    Mr. Turner, you are now recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Turner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Secretary Bush, I wanted to echo everybody else's comments 
and say good to see you. You are incredible. Thank you for 
doing what you are doing. It is not very many times that, as a 
committee, we look at someone who has taken a position and are 
just thankful that they have done so. Your knowledge and 
credibility is unmatched, and I am greatly appreciative that 
you bring your skills to what is an incredibly important 
position. Luckily, you have it in an exciting time. So, your 
skills are definitely needed.
    As you know, the Lima Tank Plant has been of particular 
interest to me. It is not in my congressional district, but it 
is our single tank plant. It is government-owned and 
contractor-operated. It has unique and complex manufacturing 
skills and a unique workforce.
    Over the last 10 years, as you know, there have been 
decisions that have been made that almost resulted in the plant 
closing, but you actually worked with us and helped to ensure 
that that plant remained open. So, thank you and your 
understanding of the necessity of that as being a critical 
asset for us in our supply chain and manufacturing.
    As you know, now Poland has just signed an agreement to 
acquire 250 Abrams tanks. Unfortunately, the time period for 
getting those tanks to them is now like the end of 2024 or 
early 2025 to start. The tank plant is currently producing 
about 15 tanks a month. It could produce more.
    Considering what is happening with Ukraine and Russia, 
obviously, it is much more important that we get those tanks to 
them, as we have seen Russia's operations in Ukraine and 
understand that this level of equipment is incredibly 
important. And also, as you know, Poland gave some tanks to 
Ukraine and we need to backfill those.
    I know you might have some ideas as to what can we do to 
expedite that. As we look at all our supply chains as a result 
of the Ukraine operation, we are going to have to enhance their 
ability to produce.
    I look forward, also, that we are going to be able to 
actually be at the tank plant together coming up soon.
    What are your thoughts as to how we can fill those orders 
quicker, get them in the hands of the Poles, and also, ensure 
our own production?
    Secretary Bush. Yes, sir. Thank you for those kind words 
and your raising this very important issue.
    As you have mentioned, Lima, that plant is a national 
treasure, one of a kind, critical to everything the Army does. 
And it was also great to see Poland, that order finally come 
through. I know it took a while. There were reasons for that I 
could tell you offline, but we got there. And it is very 
important.
    In terms of acceleration, there are options. It could 
involve, for example, prioritizing deliveries to them a little 
bit ahead of the U.S. Army, for example, or other allies. Those 
are dials we can turn. The Army is normally not the one to 
decide that. That would normally be OSD [Office of the 
Secretary of Defense]. But that is one option, sir.
    Another thing we are doing to try to enhance cooperation 
with Poland is, in the meantime, establishing a training 
activity with them to allow for at least initial 
familiarization training with U.S. soldiers on Abrams tanks in 
Poland. And those efforts are underway to start that. So, that 
is a mitigation to try to get them a head start on all the 
people side of operating an Abrams tank and doing the 
logistics.
    Beyond that, sir, transferring additional equipment to 
them. We are looking at options, including perhaps using the 
new Lend-Lease Act authority, to think creatively about how we 
could provide them with tanks in the interim. Those are very 
nascent conversations, though. So, I would have to come back to 
you with more detail in a classified space, sir, to give you 
the whole story.
    In terms of the industrial base itself, it is great to see 
the [plant] at 15 [tanks] a month. I remember when we were 
fighting to keep it at one tank a month. But I know it can do 
more, and I know the workforce can do more.
    So, I think if the Army continues to invest--and we get 
great support from Congress last year; thank you for that--that 
will help the industrial base broadly. Simply put, the more 
tanks going through there, the healthier the industrial base 
that feeds it.
    Mr. Turner. So, I also noticed that on your unfunded 
mandates, it is listed, for the Army, modernization and 
procurement of the Abrams tank. Can you speak to that? And is 
there----
    Secretary Bush. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Turner. How does that play into both production and 
funding?
    Secretary Bush. Yes, sir.
    So, one reason it was so high on the list, it was one of 
our more difficult choices in terms of where to adjust funding 
to maintain funding for other modernization priorities. We 
wanted to ensure it was high on the list, and the Chief of 
Staff, luckily, concurred with that view.
    So, I think that prioritization reflects the Army's view of 
how important that is. And if we can get help there, the Army 
would be glad to accept it. And we are ready to execute and to 
crank that production line up even more than it already is now.
    Mr. Turner. Again, thank you for your service.
    Mr. Norcross. Thank you, Mr. Turner.
    I was out at Lima and it is an incredible facility. You 
know, one thing I do recall is the industrial base of workers 
and how long it takes to get welders, which they have been 
building over the last 3 years. It is something that, when you 
go to crank it up, it is good to have that experience. They do 
a great job.
    Mr. Carbajal, you are now recognized.
    Mr. Carbajal. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    And thank you, Mr. Bush and General Richardson, for being 
here today.
    This committee is well aware of how sustainment costs of 
next-generation platforms become unsustainable. What steps are 
you taking at this point in the modernization process to ensure 
that sustainment costs for next-generation systems, such as the 
Future Vertical Lift and Next Generation Combat Vehicle, will 
prove reasonable and affordable? And what lessons learned from 
the sustainment of past programs are you applying to these 
next-generation systems?
    Secretary Bush. Thank you for the question, sir.
    It is a critical issue, as you note. I think we are doing 
better at getting ahead of that problem. That is not solely 
because of the Pentagon, though. That is also because of the 
actions of this committee over the years to emphasize the 
requirement to do sustainment planning earlier in the 
acquisition process.
    So, in this case, what we are trying to do, as General 
Richardson articulated very well, understand requirements 
upfront that relate to sustainment and where we can save 
funding. I do have examples of what we want to get away from.
    Some of our older platforms were procured at a time when 
the view was the government needed very little intellectual 
property [IP] and the government needed very little in terms of 
the ability to integrate new systems into it on its own. As a 
result, we are in, effectively, sole-source scenarios whenever 
we want to open up and touch one of those programs. That can 
lead to some of the cost escalation that you mentioned, sir.
    We are now trying to get ahead of that, ensure we have the 
right IP, not everything, but the right IP, so we can manage 
sustainment, but also upgrade the platforms faster through an 
open-systems approach, so we don't have to do everything 
through the original manufacturer, but can plug and play with 
new and upgraded, for example, on helicopters, sensors, 
weapons, engines, other things like that.
    And if I could ask General Richardson to expand a bit.
    General Richardson. Thank you for the question, sir.
    Again, I would like to reiterate that sustainment is 70 
percent of the cost of a weapon system. We have to get the 
requirement right upfront. We really need to look at the 
reliability requirements, the maintainability requirements, the 
sustainability requirements.
    Fuel efficiency is critical. And many of you know how far 
you can go on a gallon of gas in a tank or a helicopter. So we 
are really focused on fuel efficiency.
    Predictive maintenance. When is that part going to fail--
and understand that with our prognostics and our diagnostics, 
our sensors on our systems.
    So, as we look to the future, we are putting a huge focus 
on the sustainability aspect of our requirements documents and, 
truly, putting these weapon systems and this technology in the 
hands of our soldiers early, are informing us for the way 
forward.
    Mr. Carbajal. Thank you.
    Mr. Bush, within the Army's six priority modernization 
efforts, which programs face the most risk, due to workforce 
shortfalls? And how is the Army working to address it?
    Secretary Bush. Thank you, sir.
    So, right now, we are not experiencing anything that our 
vendors have not been able to handle. That doesn't mean there 
is not some risk in a tight labor market to programs having to 
be meeting potential cost challenges, just because of labor 
cost growth. However, we are not seeing anything right now to 
indicate that.
    That being said, we are combing the system right now 
looking for examples and areas where that might be a problem 
down the road, so we can try to get ahead of it and make 
estimations now.
    The Army does have contracting tools to address unexpected 
cost increases during a program, and we would use all of those 
to make sure that programs stay on track, working with members, 
regarding the amount of funding needed for those efforts. But I 
can just tell you that as of today, we don't have any examples 
like that. But that doesn't mean they are not coming, given the 
current rate of inflation and how we might experience other 
supply chain issues that affect our programs. So, I will be 
happy to communicate more when we have more data on that, sir.
    Mr. Carbajal. Great.
    Mr. Bush and General Richardson, I understand that the 
electric Light Reconnaissance Vehicle, eLRV, program has been 
identified as unfunded requirement in the fiscal year 2023. 
What are the Army's plans for the eLRV program? Why does this 
program consistently lack funding? Please speak to some of the 
initiatives currently underway to help further inform tactical 
and combat vehicle electrification efforts.
    Mr. Norcross. And if you can do it very quickly, we would 
appreciate it, with 1 second to go.
    Secretary Bush. Yes, sir.
    So, specific to eLRV, we have a requirement for that 
program. I believe the unfunded requirement would help us 
accelerate our efforts on that program. We can move forward 
with the basic budget request. I think that is an area where 
the Army is starting, with that program and that platform, to 
look at how electrification might play out on a future 
battlefield. The sustainment aspect of that is going to require 
a lot of thought and analysis in terms of how the Army actually 
manages an electric fleet on a future battlefield.
    If I could take part of that for the record, sir, and give 
you a complete summary of all of our current electrification 
and hybrid work, I think you will see we have an extensive 
portfolio where we are doing a lot of research and development 
to inform future potential procurement actions.
    Mr. Norcross. Thank you.
    Mr. Carbajal. Thank you very much.
    Mr. Chairman, I am out of time.
    Mr. Norcross. Thank you. The gentleman yields back.
    Mr. Wittman, you are now recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Wittman. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Gentlemen, thanks so much for joining us. Thanks again for 
your leadership.
    General Richardson, General Peterson, I want to drill down 
a little bit more on the Joint All-Domain Command and Control, 
better known as JADC2. We know it is a top priority within DOD 
[Department of Defense], looking at how this concept is going 
to be rationalized and what capabilities we need to support it.
    There is a concern, though, that individual service 
branches, as they are looking to develop and implement this, 
are looking at different technologies for things like sensors 
and intelligence analysis and fusion, command and control 
communications, weapons, as they relate to implementing JADC2.
    Can you give us the perspective on what is the Army doing 
in your effort to develop this JADC2 concept? And can you speak 
a little bit more about your decision to include allies in 
Project Convergence 2022? And then, also, some of your thoughts 
about how is the Army going to satisfy its own requirements in 
managing the risks related to this system and how systems 
integration will take place with the whole suite of things that 
have to happen in this joint all-domain environment? And you 
talk a lot about all-domain and multi-domain, but the question 
is, how do we take this concept and make sure that it indeed is 
a joint all-domain effort?
    General Richardson. Thank you for the question, sir. I will 
start off.
    I have spent a lot of time. As you know, the Joint 
Warfighting Concept, Joint All-Domain Command and Control is 
one of the functional battles within the Joint Warfighting 
Concept. The Army Futures Command participates with the Joint 
Staff and its planning teams weekly.
    We have Project Convergence. Project Convergence is a 
campaign of learning and experimentation. We are taking all of 
the technologies to the field with the joint force. We have a 
joint board of directors with the Army, the Navy, the Air 
Force, and the Marine Corps, and Space Force, as part of this 
team looking at that very problem.
    And we have brought all of our technologies to the field. 
And we have developed joint use cases, scenarios that we did, 
one being a Joint Common Operating Picture, that we all have 
the same common operating picture.
    Two, from a defensive perspective, air and missile defense. 
So, we have developed joint use cases all focused on joint 
command and control. What did we find in this experimentation?
    Number one, we have to have a set of common data standards. 
So, when we pass information or data--as I mentioned earlier, 
data is the new ammunition--we all have to have the same 
standards. We have to develop our weapon systems using joint 
message formats. We can no longer develop our weapon systems in 
stovepipes. When we look at our requirements documents, we have 
to think about, what does that weapon system connect to and who 
will it talk to? And so, you have to look at it from a systems 
approach.
    A lot of lessons learned coming out of Project Convergence 
from a joint perspective, and we have taken those lessons 
learned back to the Joint Staff and all the services where we 
meet monthly to work on those issues that we found.
    In Project Convergence 2022, we are bringing the joint 
force back together later this year but we are inviting our 
allies and our partners--the U.K. [United Kingdom] and the 
Australians will participate. Passing information amongst our 
joint--we fight as a joint team, but we fight as a coalition. 
And MPF [Mobile Protected Firepower], being able to communicate 
with our coalition parties is priority number one.
    And as I speak today, we have a Joint Systems Integration 
Lab that we have created up at Aberdeen, Maryland. We have 
connected every laboratory in the Army, as well as our sister 
services, as well as the Australians and the U.K. And we are 
putting all of our technology in this SIL, if you will, Systems 
Integration Lab, to ensure that we can do it before we go to 
the dirt.
    And so, JADC2 is extremely important. An individual service 
can't do it on its own. We have to come together with a common 
sets of standards, data standards, and a common format, because 
that is how we are going to fight in the future.
    Mr. Wittman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
    Mr. Norcross. Ms. Sherrill, you are now recognized for 5 
minutes.
    Ms. Sherrill. Thank you.
    And thank you to all the witnesses for appearing here 
today.
    I would like to begin with a discussion of the Secretary of 
the Army's recent Directive 2022-07. And as the chairman 
mentioned, there has been a great deal of concern, and it has 
repeatedly been brought up at various hearings here in the 
House and, as you know, in the Senate. After all, this 
committee, our colleagues in the Senate, and the Army itself 
has devoted significant time, energy, and resources to standing 
up Army Futures Command. And the need for the command was, and 
really is, clear. Our military must change the way it 
innovates. We need to be faster, more nimble, and more willing 
to adopt risk, if we are going to not only meet our pacing 
threats, but outpace them.
    So, with that in mind, Mr. Bush, I would like, if you 
would, for you to walk me through a few concerns that I have 
with the directive.
    As you know, section 3103 of title 10 gives you, as the 
Army's acquisition executive, statutory authority for the 
management of the Army's acquisition system. And earlier this 
month, you testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee 
that, quote, ``The directive really didn't shift that much, 
that it simply clarified lines of authority.'' You also 
testified that, since you arrived in your position, a lack of 
clarity regarding acquisition authority hadn't been a problem.
    So, if title 10 clearly gives you the acquisition 
authority, and if you don't yourself believe a lack of clarity 
was an issue, what problem was the directive seeking to 
address? Because you testified that your impression was that 
the Secretary wanted to codify how things have been working. 
So, it strikes me that the law is already pretty clear. What 
now do you expect to change?
    Secretary Bush. Yes, ma'am, happy to do that.
    The main thing the directive did was repeal two prior 
directives. So, ma'am, I think the two prior directives that 
were rescinded and replaced with this one were the areas where 
there was potential ambiguity--I think unintentional--that 
appeared to blur the lines between the responsibility areas for 
acquisition between, in this case, the military and the 
civilian side. So, by clarifying, ma'am, I am also referring to 
the ones that were rescinded, not just what you read in this 
new document.
    Ms. Sherrill. Because I think you and your boss said it was 
just clarifying only, and I think that is what Dr. Hicks had 
understood, when I spoke to her. And as we have discussed, you 
testified that AD [Army Directive] 2022-07 is expected to 
simply clarify those lines of authority. But, as you said, the 
directive rescinds in its entirety Army Directive 2018-05, 
which laid out the original relationship between your office 
and the commander of AFC.
    So, while I know the directive came from Secretary Wormuth, 
it is fairly clear that you and General Richardson are the 
individuals most impacted. And so, I am hoping you can walk me 
through the elements of 2018-05 that you believe are no longer 
appropriate.
    So, is the commander of AFC still the leader of the Army 
future force modernization enterprise?
    Secretary Bush. No, ma'am. So, I think one reason for 
that--that is a reason of confusion because there was some 
opinion that that included my organization. As a confirmed 
Senate official, I don't report to any general officer. I 
report to the Secretary.
    Ms. Sherrill. I think title 10----
    Secretary Bush. So, it was just clarifying separation, 
ma'am.
    Ms. Sherrill [continuing]. Is pretty clear on that.
    Secretary Bush. I agree.
    Ms. Sherrill. So, does AFC still assess and integrate the 
future operational environment, emerging threats, and 
technologies to develop and deliver concepts, requirements, and 
future force designs?
    Secretary Bush. Yes, ma'am.
    Ms. Sherrill. And does AFC still posture the Army for the 
future by setting strategic direction, integrating the future 
force modernization enterprise, and aligning resources to 
priorities?
    Secretary Bush. Not alone, ma'am. That responsibility is 
now shared across multiple elements.
    Ms. Sherrill. So, it seems that this isn't just a 
clarifying directive. It does seem like it rescinds some 
specific things. And as General Spoehr commented, there is a 
concern that the directive has the potential to return the Army 
modernization effort to how things were pre-2018. And I think 
we all in this room can agree that that can't be the case. Army 
Futures Command was stood up for a reason, and it really has to 
help continue to support nimbleness and ability to innovate.
    So, I want to thank both you and General Richardson for 
taking the time to meet with me yesterday, but I also want to 
revisit a concern that I raised during that conversation. 
Because you confirmed that the Army has made the decision to 
defund the S&T enterprise for the Strategic Long-Range Cannon 
[SLRC] program based on, one, a perceived redundancy concern, 
and two, cost concerns.
    And in the last 2 months, this committee has heard from 
witnesses as varied as the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, the 
Commandant of the Marine Corps, the head of Marine CCDC [Marine 
Corps Combat Development Command], the commander of EUCOM [U.S. 
European Command] about the necessity for a cannon artillery 
platform that is more survivable and has less of a signature 
than missile platforms can offer.
    So, as I said yesterday, I, and it appears several others, 
don't share your belief that the SLRC would be redundant. But 
what was really concerning to me yesterday was your comment on 
the cost. Because when I asked what the Army was projecting 
fielding the program will cost, you told me the Army didn't 
have a cost estimate.
    So, I have to say it is concerning to me that the Army 
would cut funding for a program that meets a critical 
capability gap without doing a robust cost estimate to 
determine if it was a worthwhile investment, especially given 
the stated need from combatant commanders and senior military 
leaders.
    So, with that, I yield back, and thank you.
    Mr. Norcross. Why don't we take that one? Can you do it in 
15 seconds?
    Secretary Bush. Ma'am, I want to answer your question, if 
it is okay.
    The first question asked, yes, the Army has taken the 
decision of the Secretary to terminate the science and 
technology project that involved the Long-Range Strategic 
Cannon. Yes, ma'am.
    The second question you asked was about the reasoning, and, 
yes, it was about potential redundancy in the Army's view and 
the potential cost implications.
    The last point I would make, ma'am, is we don't normally do 
full cost estimates for things that are in S&T. That would come 
much later. However, we did feel we had sufficient information, 
based on similar programs that are in development, to 
understand the rough scope of such an effort. And the Secretary 
believed that was enough information to support her decision.
    But I understand that members get views from many in the 
Department of Defense, and I am just presenting the Army's 
view.
    Ms. Sherrill. Yes, I just, with the concerns that we 
discussed yesterday----
    Mr. Norcross. Why don't we do this on the second round?
    Ms. Sherrill. Yes, and I will yield back.
    But the concern was just that it had met all the cost 
requirements. It had met all of the strategic goals, as we 
passed each wicket until we started cutting the funding.
    But, yeah, I will yield back.
    Mr. Norcross. We will do it on a second round.
    Mr. Gaetz, you are now recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Gaetz. Thank you.
    Chairman Norcross typically pursues a Buy American agenda 
in the NDAA [National Defense Authorization Act] markup. I 
support it. It typically gets bipartisan support and bipartisan 
opposition.
    I am wondering, are there any elements of the Army's 
modernization plans that are impaired by Buy American policies, 
or where would we see a rub, potentially?
    Secretary Bush. Sir, I can't give you a specific example. I 
think Buy America statutes actually do include exceptions that 
allow us to source some things from other countries, not 
exclusively within the boundaries of the United States, like 
the Berry amendment. So, I don't have an example for you, sir, 
but I think the Army feels that American industry, working with 
our partners, can produce what we need.
    Mr. Gaetz. So, I can take that to mean that, if we continue 
to support these Buy American policies, that it doesn't 
frustrate any of the modernization plans that you have been 
briefing us on today?
    Secretary Bush. Sir, I don't have a specific example for 
you.
    Mr. Gaetz. Great.
    Turning to another matter, we learned through a New York 
Times leak last night that America is going to re-engage in the 
war in Somalia--this as we are sleepwalking into a war with 
Ukraine. And the authorization to go into Somalia is presumably 
linked back to the 2001 AUMF [Authorization for Use of Military 
Force]. And it just seems crazy to me that we would have a re-
engagement of hostilities in Somalia after the Trump 
administration withdrew us from that conflict, not just without 
a congressional vote, but without even really a clear statement 
from the administration as to our goals. But, through New York 
Times leaks now, are we starting wars through New York Times 
leaks? I think there are fewer members of Al Shabaab than there 
were like viewers of CNN+. And yet, here we are re-engaging.
    We are at a briefing, I understand, on the Army's military 
modernization. Sadly, despite the good and needed efforts here, 
the Army that we have modernized the most is the Taliban's 
during this administration. It is probably not even close.
    And I used to be able to count on progressives in the 
Congress who joined me in opposing a war in Yemen, who joined 
me in pushing back against Presidential war powers with Iran, 
who agreed that it would be crazy to start World War III over 
the Kurds. But, on the issue of Ukraine, the progressives are 
signed up for the $40-billion-plus to fund the war. We didn't 
hear peep from them on Somalia. Progressives in the House were 
anti-war on matters that related to the Middle East, but, 
presumably, not on similar matters that relate to Europe and 
Africa.
    And so, I know it is not particularly pertinent to the 
modernization of the Army, but we are having to make zero-sum 
funding decisions. I think many of the projects we have been 
briefed on today are critically important to preserve our 
ability to fight our pacing adversaries. And when we get into 
these, like, skirmishes in sand dunes all across the world, I 
think that it deviates from the important work that the 
subcommittee is being briefed on today.
    I thank the committee for its indulgence, and I yield back.
    Mr. Norcross. I thank the gentleman.
    Mr. Horsford, you are now recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Horsford. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    I understand that the Army narrowed competition for the 
Mobile Protected Firepower program to a single vendor. I am 
curious, however, if you can share more on the status of the 
program; specifically, if you have concerns about usage, given 
the issues that have plagued the British chassis.
    Mr. Bush, what lessons has the Army learned from the 
British challenges and noise problems, and how have they 
informed selection considerations for the MPF program? Are you 
confident that this program will not face the same delays and 
challenges?
    Secretary Bush. Yes, sir, I can address that to some 
degree, I think. So, technically, the program is still in 
source selection, but I can speak more broadly and I think 
answer your question.
    As we did testing for both competitors, we executed the 
first thing, and the thing that takes the longest actually is 
safety testing to make sure that the platform avoids some of 
those problems you mentioned.
    I believe there are sufficient differences between what was 
proposed to the Army by one of the vendors regarding the 
platform you described and the experience with the platform the 
British had. So, sir, I can just tell you that, right now, from 
my team working on the program, they do not anticipate those 
same challenges arising, based on test data compiled so far. As 
you know, we have been carefully evaluating actual prototypes 
of both vendors. So, I think we have real information to think 
we are on a pretty good path there. The Milestone C decision 
for that is coming up next month, sir.
    Mr. Horsford. Okay. Also, Mr. Bush, are you confident that 
a 105-millimeter gun will effectively counter future armored 
threats? And how is ammunition being modernized in conjunction 
with the Mobile Protected Firepower program? Will we see a new 
105-millimeter round similar to the Advanced Multi-Purpose 
round?
    Secretary Bush. Sir, I will start, and if I may, defer to 
one of my two colleagues.
    The requirement we are building against does include using 
current 105-millimeter ammunition stocks for the weapon, for 
the platform. Consideration of a potential Advanced Multi-
Purpose round, 105-millimeter version of that, is still being 
considered, sir, but no final decision has been made.
    If I could let one of my colleagues talk about how that 
requirement is evolving, if that is okay?
    Mr. Horsford. Yes, briefly. Thank you.
    General Richardson. Congressman, we continue to observe the 
efforts that are going on with the MPF. As you know, we operate 
as a combined arms team with not just MPF, but our infantry, 
our armor, and our artillery forces. Based on the threat that 
we perceive going forward, and what we would like that vehicle 
to do, a 105 [millimeter round] does suffice for that from a 
requirements perspective.
    That is not to say that in the future we may need a larger 
gun. And I can tell you in our laboratories, from an S&T 
perspective, we are working that technology right now.
    Mr. Horsford. Thank you.
    Continuing on, General Richardson, you testified last week 
that there are a number of ongoing Active Protection System 
science and technology programs that are on track to be 
delivered in the short term to improve the survivability of 
armored vehicles. Can you share more details about the timeline 
for when these systems may move out of the R&D [research and 
development] stage and begin fielding on ground or aerial 
platforms? Are these systems, realistically, going to be 
fielded over the course of the next several years?
    General Richardson. Yes, Congressman.
    As I testified last week, there are a number of projects 
that we are doing as it relates to active protection--underbody 
blast, reactive armor, CARC [Chemical Agent Resistant Coating] 
paint, radar. We have been working on this and delivering this 
technology--Mr. Bush's PMs [program managers] are delivering 
this technology as we speak. And there is a program of record 
to do that.
    As well, we have been working on requirements for soft 
kill, hard kill, protect against top attack. And so, we have 
been meeting, working from an S&T perspective, from a maneuver 
perspective, to develop requirements for that. That is for the 
ground side.
    For the air side, we are doing the same thing, pursuing 
aircraft survivability equipment for our air vehicles; looking 
at teaming with our aircraft survivability as we go forward. 
And we are looking at advanced launch systems for decoys and 
jamming against our enemy systems.
    So, there are a number of projects that we have going on 
because this is about the protection of our soldiers, making 
that vehicle or helicopter lighter, providing greater mobility 
and greater protection.
    Mr. Horsford. Thank you. I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Norcross. Dr. Jackson, you are now recognized for 5 
minutes.
    Dr. Jackson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Bush, it is great to see you again. And General 
Richardson, and General Peterson, I appreciate you being here 
today as well. Thank you.
    I recently returned from a CODEL [congressional delegation] 
to the Indo-Pacific, where I met with leaders from Australia, 
Japan, and Taiwan. Something that was made very clear is that a 
conflict with China is rapidly approaching. And when you look 
at the potential Chinese aggression towards Taiwan, it 
continuously keeps moving to the left.
    So some of the future capabilities we talk about need to 
become a reality sooner than later, in my mind. I want to start 
with one of the Army's most important modernization priorities 
I know that we have talked about before, Future Vertical Lift.
    Since this subcommittee has held multiple briefings on this 
topic throughout the year, we all know how important this line 
of effort will be to provide a unique capability set for our 
military.
    Mr. Bush, I would like to ask you, with the decision 
expected later this year for FLRAA aircraft, the Army will 
select--the Army will make this decision. Would additional--and 
I know that the chairman has already asked a little bit about 
where we are in the funding priorities, so on and so forth. But 
my question for you, as a member of the committee, going 
forward is, would additional funding over the President's 
budget request be helpful for the program to sustain its 
momentum as it moves into this next phase of the procurement 
process?
    Secretary Bush. Sir, I am hesitant to ever say no, but I 
believe the program is actually fully funded and set up for 
success, based on the [fiscal year] 2023 budget request.
    One reason for that is, now that we are up on that decision 
point you mentioned, the costs have to be very clear and very 
locked in place, and I think we have a good estimate----
    Dr. Jackson. Okay.
    Secretary Bush [continuing]. For now, sir.
    Dr. Jackson. Well, I appreciate that. And if there is 
anything I can do to expedite that, if the situation changes 
and it needs to be expedited, I am interested in helping do 
that.
    My second question is, overall, you know, I have talked 
about this at hearings a little bit this week already, but I 
have some serious concerns about our level of medical 
readiness. Early this year, I published an op-ed in the 
Military Times that talked about how Future Vertical Lift would 
redefine the ``golden hour.'' For those who may not know, the 
golden hour is, essentially, the concept that presumes that 
some deaths are preventable if appropriate and timely care is 
provided. Fielding a new MEDEVAC [medical evacuation] platform 
with the maximum speed and range achievable will improve this 
capability. With technology advancing at a faster rate than 
ever before, having a platform that can adapt through an open 
systems architecture will be necessary.
    Mr. Bush, I want to direct these next questions to you. 
However, General Richardson, I would like to hear from you as 
well, if you have anything to add.
    I think you will both agree that an open system 
architecture on this new MEDEVAC platform must be able to 
accommodate technological advances from the medical standpoint. 
Having been responsible for the planning and development of the 
CASEVAC [casualty evacuation] and the MEDEVAC capabilities 
onboard the new Air Force One and the new Marine One during my 
time at the White House prior to becoming a Member of Congress, 
I know firsthand how important it is to consider this mission 
in the initial phase of design.
    So, with the MEDEVAC being a key capability for FLRAA, how 
often have medical personnel been consulted throughout the 
development process, and are there plans in place for that 
moving forward?
    Secretary Bush. Sir, I could get you more detail. However, 
I believe the answer is yes. The importance of that MEDEVAC 
mission with regard to that platform has been central from the 
start. So, I will double-check on that, but I believe that it 
is fully integrated into the plan now, and whichever platform 
we select, that will be an important next step as soon as we 
move into actually developing the selected aircraft.
    Dr. Jackson. Thank you.
    General Richardson. Congressman, I can answer your question 
more specifically because I just approved last week the medical 
concept.
    Dr. Jackson. Oh, excellent.
    General Richardson. And I will tell you that it was a team 
effort.
    Dr. Jackson. Yeah.
    General Richardson. And one aspect of it was aviation, as 
you mentioned. And I have never seen so many MEDEVAC pilots in 
one room with our operational pilots. And everybody was excited 
because, as you know, and I know as an aviation brigade 
commander, my MEDEVAC company was the center of gravity, the 
most decorated soldiers in my organization. And soldiers don't 
go to combat if they don't know they are not going to be picked 
up. So, medical, we are taking medical very seriously.
    And it was an all-day concept brief. Normally, it is an 
hour or two. I spent all day with them. And they spent weeks 
developing this concept.
    And one of the aspects, as you mention, is this requirement 
for a MEDEVAC, and MOSA [modular open systems approach] is 
extremely important, as we go forward.
    What we are working on for the future that I'm excited 
about is the golden 24 hours. And that's what our Medical 
Research Lab is working on. Because, as you know, the golden 
hour limits how far we can go on a mission. We want to be able 
to go, you know, have the golden 24 hours. A lot of research 
and work is being done in blood, whole blood, getting blood to 
the battlefield.
    But I really appreciate the question. We have made a lot of 
progress. We have a brand-new medical concept in the Army that 
everyone contributed to. And it is exciting, where we are 
going, as it relates to medical.
    Dr. Jackson. Well, thank you. I think my time has expired, 
but that is reassuring. I am happy to hear that because I think 
that, as we move forward, especially in INDOPACOM, where the 
distances are going to be great, it is going to be really key 
to think about those things upfront and not as an afterthought. 
So, I appreciate that you guys are doing that.
    Thank you. I yield back.
    Mr. Norcross. Mr. Veasey, from the other side of Texas, you 
are now recognized.
    Mr. Veasey. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
    Secretary Bush, what measures have DOD and the Army taken 
to increase production rates as it relates to Russia's invasion 
of Ukraine?
    Secretary Bush. Sir, two things are underway specific to 
Stinger and Javelin. Thanks to funding from Congress, as part 
of our replenishment funds, we were also able to get resources 
that will allow us to help those two production lines get 
healthier and faster. And we greatly appreciate that.
    Beyond those efforts, we are wanting to explore, assuming 
the supplemental is passed, funding that resides there that 
will help us to look even broader. A couple of things that have 
been discussed is the potential use of advance procurement 
provided in a flexible way to allow us to buy long-lead parts 
in advance for munitions--something that we in the Army 
normally only do like for aircraft, but we could do it for 
munitions; that would help.
    A second thing, sir--and this is building a broader, 
healthier industrial base--would be finding creative ways to 
use Defense Production Act funding, for example, to help make 
suppliers healthier. So, further down the supply chain, not the 
primes, help make them healthier by targeted investments.
    And finally, sir, I think the other thing we are looking 
at, as we try to get ahead of the problem--we want to--is to be 
looking at qualifying additional sources for production of some 
of these items and subcomponents. Normally, we allow industry 
to design their own supply chains, but the government has the 
ability to mandate additional sources of supply; basically, 
backup vendors, who can provide additional capacity and 
redundancy in case something goes wrong at a plant. So, we are 
looking at all options, sir.
    Mr. Veasey. And you had mentioned munitions. I know that 
DOD has adopted a process known as munitions industrial base 
deep dive to address some elements of support for Ukraine. But, 
by some estimates, the MIB [munitions industrial base] process 
may not be keeping pace with the immediate needs of Ukraine. 
What is your understanding of the MIB process and efforts to 
tailor its pace to the demands of the current conflict?
    Secretary Bush. Sir, the entity you speak of is kind of a 
staff advisory group with the Under Secretary of Defense for 
A&S [Acquisition and Sustainment] that is working with the 
Army, and the other services, in terms of looking at all the 
options I was describing as far as helping the industrial base. 
So, sir, its intent is not really to make it all happen by 
itself. It is part of a team effort.
    We have been able to meet Ukraine's demands from current 
Army stocks in most cases. Where we are really focusing on is 
replenishing those stocks quickly to avoid any risk to the 
Army.
    Looking down the road, sir, I think case by case, depending 
on the platform and what Ukraine's needs are, we may have to 
think a little bit broader than that. But, for now, we have 
been exercising from what we have.
    Mr. Veasey. Thank you very much.
    General Peterson, I was hoping that you could provide an 
update on the FLRAA down-select time.
    General Peterson. I would have to defer that to Mr. Bush 
because that is in the acquisition pathways that our teammates 
from ASA(ALT) oversee, if I may.
    Mr. Veasey. Thank you, sir.
    Secretary Bush. Sir, we are still targeting fourth quarter 
of this fiscal year. I believe it will be toward the end of 
that, though. September is probably the most likely 
announcement date for the FLRAA.
    Mr. Veasey. Okay. Okay. Good deal. Good.
    Secretary Bush. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Veasey. Thank you very much.
    Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
    Mr. Norcross. Thank you.
    We are going to go to a second round, and it is unusual; we 
have a little of time and votes haven't been called. So, I 
would like to take advantage and, again, thank the witnesses. 
It has been very helpful.
    I just want to follow up on Dr. Jackson's comments about 
the golden hour and some of the issues with what the Army is 
doing to try to help.
    So, we understand current law transfers the responsibility 
and authority for the Army's Medical Research Lab to the 
Defense Health Agency [DHA]. Obviously, that is going to have 
an impact on the Army science and technology resources.
    Mr. Bush, give us an update on this. What is the practical 
impact of this shift that is going on?
    Secretary Bush. Yes, sir. So, if I can start, and then, let 
General Richardson, who oversees that lab directly, working on 
my behalf, he can give you more details.
    So, yes, sir, section 711(B) of the fiscal year 2019 NDAA 
requires transfer in whole, including all funding and people, 
of the Army's Medical Research and Development Command [MRDC] 
lab activity. The Army has significant concerns with that, not 
that the Defense Health Agency would ever do anything to try to 
disadvantage the Army, but in terms of simply prioritizing 
combat medical care, that the Army specializes in and the Army 
is really good at, and we would not want to--it would be 
unfortunate to see that expertise transfer, and then, perhaps 
lose focus on those efforts.
    It is also a significant funding adjustment to the Army. 
So, in science and technology funding alone, the projected loss 
to the Army in medical research is almost $200 million a year 
across the FYDP. So, sir, because of that, the administration 
has presented a legislative provision for members to consider 
that would allow a little additional flexibility in that 
transfer, so the Army could retain key elements of that lab, 
while maintaining a move of some of the functions that I 
believe were the original focus to the Defense Health Agency.
    General Richardson can provide a little more detail.
    General Richardson. Chairman, we measure success in the 
medical community specifically in the science and technology 
laboratories at MRDC by what they transition, that technology 
that they transition to a PM. That lab is the most productive 
lab we have in Army Futures Command. It transitions more 
medical technology to our PMs than any other lab.
    What makes them so successful is those scientists and those 
doctors are out in the field with our soldiers. They were side-
by-side with me in Afghanistan, in Iraq, and they learned 
firsthand the technology that we needed.
    The simple tourniquet that you saw--they came out with in 6 
months--that saves soldiers' lives, that was our Medical 
Research Department under AFC. And they specialize in soldiers 
and scientists in the field together. That capability, along 
with the capability of our Medical Capabilities Directorate 
that develops requirements down in San Antonio, is under our 
command as well.
    When you look at the requirements community, the science 
and technology community, and the PM community, you are looking 
at unity of command. And so, when you move, in my opinion, when 
you move that medical research to DHA [Defense Health Agency], 
you may lose that soldier/scientist/doctor contact in the 
field.
    Mr. Norcross. We are going to take a little deeper look at 
it. I am sure that Dr. Jackson has great interest in this.
    But in my hometown we have the Army literally working in 
our trauma unit to get those skill sets perfect for when they 
are called to need it.
    So, with that, we are going to go to a second round, and, 
Dr. Jackson, you are now recognized.
    Dr. Jackson. Yes, sir, General, that is good to hear, and I 
would like to see some of that, actually. You know, as time 
goes on, I would like to visit and see more what you are 
talking about.
    But, also, if it is not too much trouble, I wanted to ask 
you if we could get the approved medical concept that you 
talked about, if I could get a copy of that to the committee, 
so we could have a look at it? I would be interested in that as 
well.
    All right. And, Mr. Bush, I just have one more question 
here. As you are aware, the rotary-wing community is eagerly 
awaiting the decision at the end of this fiscal year on the 
Future Long-Range Assault Aircraft down-select to one 
contractor, and we have been talking about that some. On the 
other hand, there is already concern about what this decision 
will mean for the vendor that is not selected. The industrial 
base for the military-unique helicopters essentially consists 
of three major contractors. The Army's choice of FLRAA could 
have major repercussions in the Department of the Navy as well, 
since both the Navy and the Marine Corps have early development 
efforts of their own for Future Vertical Lift, and they have 
been talking about using some of the lessons learned from the 
Army in this process.
    How would you assess the health of the Army's rotary-wing 
industrial base, and to what degree is the future health of 
your industrial base being, considering the Future Vertical 
Lift acquisition decision?
    Secretary Bush. Sir, I believe, overall, the industrial 
base is still quite healthy. As you know, all those companies 
also do commercial work and work for other governments. And it 
is some of our finest companies that do that work across the 
board.
    However, you speak of the future, and that is a very valid 
concern. I think one thing we are facing is we have two current 
excellent aircraft, the Black Hawk and the Apache, in 
production, going into multiyear contracts this year, thanks to 
Congress.
    At some point, transition from those platforms, and how the 
Army manages that to go to the new platforms, will be a 
challenge. So, I think we don't make acquisition decisions 
based on industrial base per se. We make them based on what has 
been proposed and how it meets the Army's requirements.
    I can tell you, though, from an Army corporate standpoint, 
we look very carefully in trying to divine how to maintain 
industrial base. So, it is not an issue that has been ignored, 
but it doesn't directly affect exactly the platform we choose.
    That being said, sir, we do want the entire industrial base 
healthy. We need multiple companies. We want competition. So, 
sir, that is something post-decision that, if there is issues 
to consider, I would be happy to work with you on those.
    Dr. Jackson. Yes, that is good to hear. You know, my short 
time on the committee, I have learned that it is not something 
you can just flip a switch and turn it back on. You do have to 
kind of keep everybody going in a certain level of activity in 
order to keep things healthy.
    So, with that, I yield back. Thank you, sir.
    Mr. Norcross. I have got to jump in on this. Mr. Bush, 
because this happened--you just mentioned about you don't make 
decisions based on the industrial base, but minimum sustaining 
rates, which is one of those core issues in decisionmaking, how 
does that figure into the statement you just made? And this 
originally came up several years ago with Boeing, the Chinook, 
and what it took to keep that line moving until a decision 
rendered. So, we got deep into that minimum sustaining rate, 
which was a factor.
    Secretary Bush. Sir, for systems already in production, we, 
of course, look very carefully at what our understanding of 
minimum sustaining rates are year to year; but, sir, we aren't 
in a position to enter into entirely new programs just to 
maintain a sustaining rate for somebody. So, I guess I would 
cage it that way. But it is a valid concern, sir, and we do 
try, I can assure you, as we look down the future, to think 
through the long-term effects on industrial base in armored 
vehicles as well on our current acquisition approaches, and 
then, current funding projections.
    Mr. Norcross. It is a consideration that is out there, and 
you are well aware of. Okay.
    To each of the witnesses, we appreciate your time and we 
thank you.
    And we are now adjourned.
    [Whereupon, at 3:53 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]



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


                            A P P E N D I X

                              May 17, 2022

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

      

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


              PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

                              May 17, 2022

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

      
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

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


              QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS POST HEARING

                              May 17, 2022

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

      

                  QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MS. SHERRILL

    Ms. Sherrill. Mr. Bush, the FY2020 NDAA commissioned a study from 
the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine to assess 
the feasibility of the Strategic Long Range Cannon. The Commission 
conducting the study last met on January 7, 2021. To date, the report 
has not been made public. When does the Army intend to release the 
report? Did the Academy conclude that the SLRC was technically 
feasible?
    Secretary Bush. The Army is in the process of performing an 
operational security review of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) 
Strategic Long Range Cannon (SLRC) Distro A version of the report. It 
is estimated that the Distro A version of the report will be released 
in approximately two weeks. The NAS concluded that SLRC is technically 
feasible. However, NAS also assessed the ``. . . system objectives, 
even if achieved, place some challenges for the utility, mobility, and 
survivability of the SLRC platform and projectile. . .''
                                 ______
                                 
                   QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. TURNER
    Mr. Turner. Does the Army plan to exercise a rapid prototyping 
middle-tier acquisition pathway for the common tactical truck program 
and what are the levels of funding associated with this effort in the 
FY23 program objective memorandum? With respect to the common tactical 
truck program, how does the Army plan to leverage commercial vehicle 
technology for this critical effort and will the program address 
capabilities and technology related to safety and protection, drive-by-
wire, and digital design?
    Secretary Bush. Yes, the Army plans to exercise the Middle Tier of 
Acquisition Rapid Prototyping (MTA-RP) pathway for the Common Tactical 
Truck (CTT). The Request for Project Proposals (RPP) was released to 
industry on June 30, 2022 to initiate the competitive prototyping 
phase.
    The Army requested Research, Development, Test & Evalutation (RDTE) 
funding for the CTT in FY 2023 and will consider funding options as 
part of future budget cycles. The Army intends to use feedback from the 
MTA RP phase to inform future resourcing decisions.
    The CTT competitive prototyping effort aims to leverage commercial 
investments in automotive related technologies, assess the utility of 
commercial design points for military applications, and inform our 
requirements development process for a highly common family of 
vehicles. The competitive prototyping effort will include design, 
analysis, and testing of prototype trucks. Some areas we expect to 
leverage commercial investment include: driver safety systems, 
cybersecurity, artificial intelligence, machine learning, autonomy, 
improved fuel economy and vehicle electrification, off-road mobility, 
and predictive maintenance.
    Mr. Turner. Secretary Bush and General Richardson, I understand the 
tactical and combat vehicle electrification initial capabilities 
document was approved in December 2021. Please speak to some of the 
initiatives currently underway to help further inform tactical and 
combat vehicle electrification efforts and how are you leveraging 
commercial technology investment in this critical area?
    Secretary Bush and General Richardson. Anti-idle efforts represent 
the nearest term and lowest cost way to extend mission duration and can 
improve a vehicle's typical fuel economy by up to 20 percent, depending 
on mission profile. Electrification of auxiliary systems that typically 
run from engine power (pumps and compressors, for instance) using solid 
state DC/DC converters and associated technology can improve fuel 
economy by up to 10 percent.
    The Army's electrification efforts are focused both on the future, 
in building a technology maturity landscape that supports the vehicle 
powertrain and energy needs beyond our current programs, and on the 
present, in finding solutions to improve mobility, operational 
duration, and on-board electrical power generation for current 
platforms.
    Ongoing experiments with the aforementioned anti-idle technologies, 
hybridization of current platforms, and vehicle micro-grid apply ready-
now or ready-soon technologies to the current fleet. The Army is 
developing a scalable vehicle hybrid-electric and electrification 
architecture and associated components with demonstrations in Fiscal 
Year (FY) 2025 and FY 2028.
    The technologies being developed under the Platform Electrification 
and Mobility program will provide significantly improved powertrain and 
energy capability that is scalable to a wide range of combat vehicle 
weight classes and accounts for future growth and increased capability 
over time. Additional areas of Army exploration include energy storage 
research to develop advanced fast battery charging capabilities; fuel 
cell research to develop fuel cell power systems that use JP-8 fuel to 
silently produce electrical power for range extenders; secure micro-
grids to improve power distribution, storage, and monitoring; and 
battlefield recharge capability.
    The Electric Light Reconnaissance Vehicle (eLRV) program is a good 
example of how the Army is leveraging commercial industry investment in 
electrification. The eLRV program leverages emerging commercial 
electric vehicle SUV/pick-up truck offerings to meet military 
requirements, while anti-idle efforts are rapidly incorporating a 
technology that industry has matured. Complementing these efforts, the 
Ground Vehicle Systems Center in Army Futures Command has conducted 
five Electrification Forums attended by dozens of companies working in 
electrification to share information on the unique Army operational 
environment and to gain their input on our electrification plans and 
architecture.
    These forums allow the Army to share its unique electrification 
needs and challenges with commercial industry partners.
    Mr. Turner. I understand the Army is currently reviewing the force 
design for infantry brigade combat teams that could likely lead to a 
more motorized force structure. What is the status of this review and 
can you speak to some of the courses of action that the Army is 
considering in order to make IBCTs more motorized?
    General Richardson. The Army is enhancing the battlefield mobility 
of Infantry Brigade Combat Teams (IBCTs) by fielding Infantry Squad 
Vehicles (ISVs), each capable of transporting a nine-Soldier Infantry 
Squad, to BCTs in the 82nd and 101st Divisions. Additional fieldings 
are planned for BCTs in the Army National Guard and the 173rd IBCT in 
Europe.
    The Army is reviewing a proposal to make IBCTs 100 percent 
tactically mobile by fielding 174 ISVs to the three Infantry Battalions 
within an IBCT, essentially creating a ``Motorized'' M-IBCT. The 
proposal is undergoing detailed analysis to ensure the design is 
suitable, feasible, and acceptable. If approved, the new motorized 
design will compete for funding in established processes.
    The Army is also considering a motorized IBCT pilot to inform force 
design and tactical mobility requirements. The proposed effective date 
for the motorized IBCT design is FY 2027.
                                 ______
                                 
                   QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. KAHELE
    Mr. Kahele. What is the current desired funding needed for 
``autonomous robotic targets'' by 25th ID small arms training?
    Secretary Bush. The Department has requested $3.158 million in the 
Fiscal Year 2023 President's Budget Request for Trackless Moving 
Targets (TMT) Upgrades and Interim Contractor Support. Although none is 
directly related to the 25th Ifantry Division, the TMT funding will 
support Infantry Platoon/Squad Battle Courses and Sniper Ranges with 
all terrain, armored infantry and vehicle moving target platforms. The 
TMTs will be able to travel anywhere on the range (via predetermined 
paths) and offer the ability to advance to and retreat from the firing 
point. This funding will finalize the training use cases, scenario 
development and contractor support of the systems, as well as upgrade 
the platforms based on that information.
    Mr. Kahele. What is the current status of reporting requirements 
relevant to autonomous robotic targets found in the House Report 117-
118 to accompany the FY22 National Defense Authorization Act?
    Secretary Bush. The Assistant Secretary of the Army (Acquisition, 
Logistics and Technology) submitted the report to Congress on April 22, 
2022.
    Mr. Kahele. Given the USMC Training and Education Command's 
successful use of autonomous robotic targets, including at USMC Hawaii, 
to what extent has the Army engaged with USMC on lessons learned on 
adoption as well as assessed potential cost savings from no/low range 
modernization?
    Secretary Bush. The Army's Program Executive Office (Simulation, 
Training and Instrumentation) engages with the USMC's Project Manager 
for Training Systems on a regular basis to exchange information on the 
status of similar training programs within the Army and USMC, to 
include the USMC's Autonomous Robotic Targets (ARTs) effort and the 
Army's TMTs effort.
    The TRADOC Proponent Office team visited Camp Lejeune to see the 
low-cost USMC ranges (``Range of the Future'') and concluded that Army 
and USMC do not have common live fire training requirements for ARTs 
and TMTs. The Army's training doctrine require the TMTs to be 
integrated within existing Army live fire ranges. The Army will use the 
TMTs for Squad/Platoon Battle drills and for Sniper training using 
munitions up to 7.62 Enhanced Performance Rounds and .50 caliber.
                                 ______
                                 
                 QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY DR. DESJARLAIS
    Dr. DesJarlais. Please describe the Army's electrification strategy 
as it pertains to the light, medium, and heavy tactical wheeled vehicle 
(TWV) fleet.
    Secretary Bush and General Richardson. The Targeted Modernization 
of Enduring Systems and Development of Future Capability Requirements 
is categorized into three periods: Near Term (2022-2027), Mid-Term 
(2028-2037), and Far-Term (2038-2050+). It's important to note that 
crossover periods may occur due to availability of emerging 
technologies, technology maturation, and funding constraints.
    In the near-term, the Army will execute targeted modernization of 
enduring systems in the light vehicle fleet (up to 2.5 tons) to 
establish baseline electrification capabilities and set conditions to 
achieve both hybrid and all-electric drive capabilities.
    In the mid-term, targeted modernization efforts will continue, 
however, mid-term objectives will be centered on the medium vehicle 
fleet (2.5-10 tons). The goal during this phase is to achieve an Multi 
Domain Operations-Capable force with hybrid electric vehicles in key 
locations by 2035.
    In the far-term, the Army will focus on fielding matured 
technologies (new hybrid and fully electric vehicles) while divesting 
selected enduring systems. During this timeframe, the Army will 
integrate high demand energy systems to vehicles (directed energy 
weapons systems, high demand communication and protection systems), and 
transition tactical and combat vehicles to all-electric capabilities.
    Dr. DesJarlais. Please elaborate on future RDTE efforts to mature 
technology for all-electric and hybrid propulsion for TWVs?
    Secretary Bush and General Richardson. The Army has multiple 
ongoing efforts to help inform requirements for all-electric and hybrid 
propulsion for Tactical Wheeled Vehicles (TWV), to include research in 
anti-idle technology, powertrain electrification, energy storage, fuel 
cells, and battlefield recharge capability.
    Anti-idle efforts represent the nearest term and lowest cost way to 
extend mission duration and can improve a vehicle's typical fuel use by 
up to 20 percent, depending on mission profile. Although the powertrain 
electrification includes the development of a scalable vehicle hybrid-
electric and electrification architecture and associated components in 
support of Next Generation Combat Vehicles, these efforts are 
applicable to TWVs also.
    Energy storage research focuses on providing relevant capabilities 
for Army battlefield conditions that ensure long battery life, high 
energy density and improved safety required for electrified systems. It 
investigates and develops advanced fast battery charging technologies 
and new battery chemistries that can be affordably acquired by the 
Army. Fuel cell research and development looks at the development and 
integration of fuel cell power systems that use JP-8 fuel to silently 
produce electrical power for range extenders, auxiliary power units, or 
any other type of resource for power generation capabilities, enabling 
rapid start-up and silent operation.
    The Army also continues to explore battlefield recharge capability 
which will be necessary to move the Army towards battery dominant/all-
electric tactical and combat vehicles, as well as to address the 
capability of power generation, power transfer, and power received on 
the vehicle with a goal to recharge a platform in the same amount of 
time or less than a current tactical or combat platform refuels.
    Dr. DesJarlais. What are the tactical and operational benefits of 
electrification for TWVs, in particular the light tactical vehicle 
fleet?
    General Richardson. The benefits of electrification of tactical 
wheeled vehicles are numerous, although they are not without 
limitations. Electrification of vehicles can reduce theater fuel 
requirements and the number of military personnel committed to 
delivering fuel across the battlefield and to protecting the delivery 
and storage of fuel. Electrified vehicles are quieter, have faster dash 
speeds, and typically have fewer parts which can simplify battlefield 
repair and maintenance. Electrified vehicles can recharge batteries 
that power other systems, such as those employed in dismounted 
operations or that power command, control, and communications systems.
    However, electrification of tactical vehicles is limited by power 
storage capacity, the weight of the vehicle, the distances that must be 
traveled between recharging, and the means of recharging. For that 
reason, electrification of tactical vehicles, including those that 
employ a hybrid design that combines electric and internal combustion 
power, are most likely to fit the demands of lighter tactical vehicles, 
while continuing to rely on internal combustion power for heavier 
vehicles. As the private sector continues to be heavily invested in 
developing effective vehicle electrification solutions, the Army 
remains in close collaboration with industry to leverage their 
approaches and progress.

                                  [all]