Table Of Content

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS FOR 1994 6/1:0 36/5/994/ Y4._AP PT. 5 RINGS >vJkJ Departnent of Defense Appropriation... ./ORE A SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ONE HUNDRED THIRD CONGRESS FIRST SESSION SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE JOHN P. MURTHA, Pennsylvania, Chairman NORMAN D. DICKS, Washington ' "- JOSEPH M. McDADE, Pennsylvania CHARLES WILSON, Texas C. W. BILL YOUNG, Florida W. G. (BILL) HEFNER, North Carolina BOB LIVINGSTON, Louisiana MARTIN OLAV SABO, Minnesota JERRY LEWIS, California JULIAN C. DIXON, California JOE SKEEN, New Mexico PETER J. VISCLOSKY, Indiana GEORGE (BUDDY) DARDEN, Georgia Donald E. Richbourg, J. David Willson, John G. Plashal, RobertV. Davis, Sandra A. Gil- bert, David F. Kilian, Alicia Jones, Juuet Pacquing, Timothy L. Peterson, Gregory J. Walters, David W. Roberts, and Marcia L. Matts, StaffAssistants; Lee Ann V. Lehner andMiCHELES. Pendleton,AdministrativeAides PART 5 Page Research, Development, Test and Evaluation: Army 1 Navy 93 Air Force 175 Defense Agencies 315 Strategic Defense Initiative v........... 401 Defense Reinvestment and Conversion Programs 483 Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations 25 DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS FOR 1994 HEARINGS BEFORE A SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ONE HUNDRED THIRD CONGRESS FIRST SESSION SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE JOHN P. MURTHA, Pennsylvania, Chairman NORMAN D. DICKS, Washington JOSEPH M. McDADE, Pennsylvania CHARLES WILSON, Texas C. W. BILL YOUNG, Florida W. G. (BILL) HEFNER, North Carolina BOB LIVINGSTON, Louisiana MARTIN OLAV SABO, Minnesota JERRY LEWIS, California JULIAN C. DIXON, California JOE SKEEN, New Mexico PETER J. VISCLOSKY, Indiana GEORGE (BUDDY) DARDEN, Georgia Donald E. Richbourg, J. David Willson, John G. Plashal, RobertV. Davis, Sandra A. Gil- bert, David F. Kiuan, Aucia Jones, Juuet Pacquing, Timothy L. Peterson, Gregory J. Walters,DavidW. Roberts,andMarciaL. Matts,StaffAssistants;LeeAnnV.Lehnerand MicheleS. Pendleton,AdministrativeAides PART 5 Page Research, Development, Test and Evaluation: Army 1 Navy 93 Air Force 175 Defense Agencies 315 Strategic Defense Initiative 401 Defense Reinvestment and Conversion Programs 483 Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 70-827O WASHINGTON 1993 : ForsalebyIheU.S.GovemmeniPrintingOffice SuperintendentofDocuments,CongressionalSalesOffice,Washington,DC 20402 ISBN 0-16-0A1570-5 COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS WILLIAM H. NATCHER, Kentucky. Chairman JAMIE L. WHITTEN. Mississippi, JOSEPH M. McDADE, Pennsylvania Vice Chairman JOHN T. MYERS, Indiana NEAL SMITH, Iowa C. W. BILL YOUNG, Florida SIDNEY R. YATES, Illinois RALPH REGULA, Ohio DAVID R. OBEY, Wisconsin BOB LIVINGSTON. Louisiana LOUIS STOKES, Ohio JERRY LEWIS. California TOM BEVILL, Alabama JOHN EDWARD PORTER, Illinois JOHN P. MURTHA, Pennsylvania HAROLD ROGERS, Kentucky CHARLES WILSON, Texas JOE SKEEN. New Mexico NORMAN D. DICKS, Washington FRANK R. WOLF, Virginia MARTIN OLAV SABO, Minnesota TOM DkLAY, Texas JULIAN C. DIXON, California JIM KOLBE, Arizona VIC FAZIO, California DEAN A. GALLO, New Jersey W. G. <BILLI HEFNER. North Carolina BARBARA F. VUCANOVICH, Nevada STENY H. HOYER, Maryland JIM LIGHTFOOT, Iowa BOB CARR, Michigan RON PACKARD, California RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois SONNY CALLAHAN. Alabama RONALD D. COLEMAN. Texas HELEN DELICH BENTLEY, Maryland ALAN B. MOLLOHAN, West Virginia JAMES T. WALSH, New York JIM CHAPMAN, Texas CHARLES H. TAYLOR, North Carolina MARCY KAPTUR. Ohio DAVID L. HOBSON, Ohio DAVID E. SKAGGS. Colorado ERNEST J. ISTOOK, Jr., Oklahoma DAVID E. PRICE, North Carolina HENRY BONILLA, Texas NANCY PELOSI, California PETER J. VISCLOSKY. Indiana THOMAS M. POGLIETTA, Pennsylvania ESTEBAN EDWARD TORRES, California GEORGE (BUDDY) DARDEN, Georgia NITA M. LOWEY, New York RAY THORNTON, Arkansas JOSfi E. SERRANO, New York ROSA L. DeLAURO, Connecticut JAMES P. MORAN, Virginia DOUGLAS "PETE" PETERSON, Florida JOHN W. OLVER. Massachusetts ED PASTOR, Arizona CARRIE P. MEEK. Florida Frederick G. Mohrman, Ckrk and StaffDirector (III DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS FOR 1994 Wednesday, April 28, 1993. RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST AND EVALUATION, ARMY WITNESSES LT. GEN. WILLIAM H. FORSTER, USA, MILITARY DEPUTY TO ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE ARMY FOR RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, AND AC- QUISITION GEORGE T. SINGLEY III. DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY, OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE ARMY FOR RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT,AND ACQUISITION MAJ. GEN. RONALD V. HITE, USA, DEPUTY FOR SYSTEMS MANAGEMENT, OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE ARMY FOR RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, AND ACQUISITION Introduction Mr. MuRTHA. The Committee will come to order. This afternoon we will hold two separate hearings. The first will discuss the Army's Research, Development, Test and Evaluation programs. At approximately 2:30, we will recess for a few minutes and then hear the Acting Director of the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI) Office on SDI programs. Both hearings will be held in executive session due to the classification ofthe material to be discussed. We welcome Lieutenant General William H. Forster, the Mili- tary Deputy to the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Research, Development, and Acquisition; Mr. George T. Singley III, the Deputy Assistant Secretary ofthe Army for Technology; and Major General Ronald V. Hite, Deputy for Systems Management, Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Research, Development, and Acquisition. The total amount requested for RDT&E, Army in fiscal year 1994, is $5.3 billion, a decrease of over $700 million from last year's appropriation. Gentlemen, welcome. Your prepared statement will be made a part of the record. Please summarize your statement at this time. Summary Statement of General Forster army's MODERNIZATION VISION General Forster. Thank you very much. I ask that my formal statement be placed in the record. I would like to talk about the Army's modernization vision, how we derived (1) our budget from it and some of the tough choices we had to make in ramping down to the Fiscal Year 1994 budget before you. If there are questions or if I am not clear about something, please interrupt. There is no question that the world has changed and that the Army has changed with it. We do not consider our 1994 budget to be a place holder or a treading water budget. This budget continues the transition from a Cold War Army to America's Army, trained and ready to deploy whereever the American people send us. It is a stand-alone issue. In light of the changes in the world and the four dangers as out- lined by Secretary of Defense, Mr. Aspin, we intend to continue to fight as a combined arms team that will be part of a joint team, including the Marines, Navy, Air Force and probably a coalition partners. We have defined five capabilities that our Army must have to fulfill the missions expected of us. Let me list five modernization capabilities. We must project and sustain the force. The Army will be primarily CONUS-based as the dollars go down. We have to get to the fight and once there, we must sustain it. We have to protect our force. We have always been sensitive to our soldiers, their health and our ability to avoid casualties. We have to win the battlefield information war. This is a new construct for us. We used to call it C3I. We have to keep our commanders smart and give them the right information to act at the right time while, at the same time, we keep the enemy dumb. There can be a number of different ways of doing that, but that is the bottom line. We have to conduct precision strikes throughout the battle or we used to think in terms of precision strikes deep, now we need to be able to do them laterally in support of the maneuver battle and deep at the same time in order to take out the enemy reinforce- ment capabilities. Finally, you have to dominate the maneuver battle, win the close combat with tanks, artillery and infantry. We must destroy the enemy's Army, take his land and force him to try and come back and take it from us. So those are the five capabilities that we have to have. Let me explain some of the programs that are associated with each capability. I will talk to them in detail. First, projecting the force and sustaining it. We want to make our light forces more lethal and our heavy forces more deployable. Systems like the Javelin anti-tank missile system are key here. It has been a successful R&D program, is scheduled to enter Initial Operational Test and Evaluation this fall and begin Low Rate Ini- tial Production next year. It is leap-ahead technology in a small package, much less weight than Dragon and its night sight, with twice the range and better night and adverse weather capability, man-portable and can be fired from enclosed bunkers. Javelin is a giant step forward for our light forces and their ability to engage tanks. The Armored Gun System fits here. Light weight, air droppable, it provides a protected direct fire system for the lighter forces. Comanche plays here because it is designed for the light forces. It is self-deployable. You can get it to Europe, the Middle East and Africa without using airlift. Once there, it provides capability for reconnaissance and attack that we have never had before and can be projected early and rapidly without a large infrastructure and sustainment tail. In sustaining the force, we want to increase reliability and decrease the tail on everything we develop in the future. Our Palle- tized Load System is not an R&D program, but is very important because it saved us in truck drivers and mechanics alone, 2,800 spaces in our deployable forces that we don't have to put into support now. Getting into protecting the force, first comes to mind Patriot, PAC-3, and its ability to engage tactical ballistic missiles. We are upgrading the PAC-2 capability that we deployed to the desert and will increase its footprint substantially over what we have now with PAC-2. That is being worked with SDIO. Medical research and development falls under protecting the force because we need to protect our troops from illness. That is a big area ofresearch and development. Winning the information war is key because we can get the big- gest advantage for our smaller forces of the future by making sure that all commanders have a shared view of the battlefield. They will be able to better S3nichronize their forces, concentrating fire support, drop the shells and the tanks and maneuver forces that go with them at the right time. A lot of this depends on accurate high-speed intelligence gather- ing systems and command and control systems, but it also depends on our ability to take out the enemy command and control system. Our longer-range Army Tactical Missile System is a key component in this area because it lets us strike deep at the enemy's command and control facilities. For precision strike, one of our key elements is the Advanced Field Artillery System. It is in the concept development phase and will allow precision strikes throughout the battlefield as will the ATACMS and the Tri-Service Standoff Attack Missile with anti- tank, antiarmor submunitions on it. Dominating the maneuver battle is where the tanks with the M1A2 upgrades, the Bradley fighting vehicles with its upgrade program starting in 1994 and the Longbow Apache come to the fore. All are key elements in our ability to dominate the maneuver battle. The Armored Gun System and lighter systems will do it for light forces as the M1A2 and the Bradleys will do it for the heavy forces. UPGRADING EXISTING SYSTEMS One way we expect to implement some of these things in a R&D period of our significantly reduced budget is by upgrading existing systems and not by buying new systems. Winning the battlefield information war and dominating the maneuver battle are key areas where we intend to upgrade several systems as much in parallel as possible. One thing we want to do here is to try to get compatible data modems on the Apache Longbow, on the Bradley and on the tank in sufficient time so that we can operate together. Here you would have an Apache Longbow or a Comanche that would see a picture of the battlefield and be able to transmit it directly to the tank or Bradley and back into the artillery fire support system so that every element of that team will know where the enemy is, who he is, and where the friendly forces are. SYNCHRONIZE THE BATTLE That lets us synchronize the battle so the commander can make sure that all forces are operating against the same enemy, by knowing where the friendly forces are. It will reduce the potential for friendly fire casualties. We demonstrated this concept two weeks ago at Fort Knox. We had a Kiowa Warrior helicopter that scouted the battlefield out front in a simulated exercise, located targets and passed those targets directly to tanks and to Bradleys equipped with the intra-ve- hicular information system. The location of the targets showed up on the display screen and went into the artillery fire control system. Throughout the exercise, the location of the friendly forces showed up as a different icon in each maneuver unit so they were constantly updating the location of the friendly forces that were fighting together. Everybody in that battle was able to see where the enemy targets were and knew where the enemy and friendly forces were. It showed great potential for speeding up the pace of battle and let- ting us build on technologies we have already. We will pursue that in all the upgrade programs as we move into the future. FISCAL YEAR 1994 ACQUISITION PROGRAMS I mentioned that fiscal year 1994 is not a place-holding budget for us. In adjusting the FY94 budget for the President's plans and getting it here, we took heavy hits on our R&D and procurement We accounts. tried to do those in such a way that it did not fore- close any options for us and yet it took realization of the tough times to come and stay within the purview of our modernization plan. In other words, we did not take out any one ofthe five categories or hit one harder than the other. We kept a balanced program there. That was not easy to do because our procurement program is down 48 percent from what we planned on in fiscal year 1989. The R&D account has held fairly steady, but is now beginning to show a downturn. One of the problems that we have in the research and development account is we have a lot of overhead and facilities. In preparing for the fiscal year 1994 budget, we looked at reducing overhead and preserving as many dollars as possible for R&D programs. We had to make tough decisions on facilities. For example, we elected to begin shutting down the high energy laser test facility at White Sands in 1994. There was $20 million overhead there and we did not see that we were going to get the bene- fits from that in the near term compared to other R&D efforts that we had going. Tough choices, but when all was said and done, we protected the Army priorities. We are going to keep our primary programs of Comanche, Ad- vanced Field Artillery System, Javelin, Armored Gun Systems, M1A2, Apache and Bradley upgrades, and the Command and Con- trol Vehicle. If we focus on those systems, we will be able to main- tain the technology advantages that we have demonstrated in the past and that we want to build on in the future. We must continue to own the night, to strike freely with smart submunitions and with great precision. We want to have a shared view of the battlefield so we can get all forces in the battle at the same time where the commander feels they are needed, and we want to take out the enemy's eyes and ears. That is a quick overview of how we got to where we are in our fiscal year 1994 budget submission. Mr. Chairman, we will be pleased to answer any of your questions. Mr. MuRTHA. thank you, General. [The statement and charts ofGeneral Forster follow:] RECORD VERSION STATEMENT BY LIEUTENANT GENERAL WILLIAM H. FORSTER MILITARY DEPUTY TO THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE ARMY FOR RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT AND ACQUISITION BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON DEFENSE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES FIRST SESSION, 103rd CONGRESS UNITED STATES ARMY RDT&E, FISCAL YEAR 1994 28 APRIL 1993 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNTIL RELEASED BY THE HOUSE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE