Table Of Content

' DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS FOR 1997 HEARINGS BEFORE A SUBCOMMITTEE OP THE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS 1^^/ HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ONE HUNDRED FOURTH CONGRESS SECOND SESSION SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL SECURITY C. W. BILL YOUNG, Florida, Chairman JOSEPH M. McDADE, Pennsylvania JOHN P. MURTHA, Pennsylvania JERRY LEWIS, California NORMAN D. DICKS, Washington JO&SKEEN, New Mexico CHARLES WILSON, Texas DAVID L. HOBSON, Ohio W. G. (BILL) HEFNER, North CaroUna HENRY BONILLA, Texas MARTIN OLAV SABO, Minnesota GEORGE R. NETHERCUTT, Jr., Washington ERNEST J. ISTOOK, Jr., Oklahoma NOTE:UnderCommitteeRules,Mr.Livingston,asChairmanoftheFullCommittee,andMr.Obey,asRanking MinorityMemberoftheFullCommittee,areauthorizedtositasMembersofallSubcommittees. Kevin M. Roper, John G. Plashal, David F. Kilian, AliciaJones, Juliet Pacquing, Greg- ory J. Walters, Patricl\ Ryan, Doug Gregory, Paul W. Juola, Tina Jonas, and Steven D.Ndcon,StaffAssistants;StacyA.Trimble,AdministrativeAide PART 4 Page Army Acquisition Programs 1 Navy and Marine Corps Acquisition Programs Ill Air Force Acquisition Programs 267 Research, Development, Test and Evaulation, Defense- Wide: Ballistic Missile Defense Organization 385 Printed for the use of the Committee WIT sêssS^'wfS^ 'ôôîi^.. OMEfjrs 0£pr DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS FOR 1997 HEARINGS BEFORE A SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ONE HUNDRED FOURTH CONGRESS SECOND SESSION SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL SECURITY C. W. BELL YOUNG, Florida, Chairman JOSEPH M. McDADE, Pennsylvania JOHN P. MURTHA, Pennsylvania JERRY LEWIS, California NORMAN D. DICKS, Washington JOE SKEEN, New Mexico CHARLES WILSON, Texas DAVID L. HOBSON, Ohio W. G. (BILL) HEFNER, North CaroUna HENRY BONILLA, Texas MARTIN OLAV SABO, Minnesota GEORGE R. NETHERCUTT, Jr., Washington ERNEST J. ISTOOK, Jr., Oklahoma NOTE:UnderCommitteeRules,Mr.Livingston,asChairmanoftheFullCommittee,andMr.Obey,asRanking MinorityMemberoftheFullCommittee,areauthorizedtositasMembersofallSubcommittees. Kevin M. Roper, John G. Plashal, David F. Kilian, Alicia Jones, Juliet Pacquing, Greg- ory J. Walters, Patricia Ryan, Doug Gregory, Paul W. Juola, Tina Jonas, and Steven D. Ndcon,StaffAssistants; StacyA. Tkoabue,AdministrativeAide PART 4 Page Army Acquisition Programs 1 Navy and Marine Corps Acquisition Programs Ill Air Force Acquisition Programs 267 Research, Development, Test and Evaulation, Defense- Wide: Ballistic Missile Defense Organization 385 Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 68-323 WASHINGTON 2002 : COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS BOB LIVINGSTON, Louisiana, Chairman JOSEPH M. McDADE, Pennsylvania DAVID R. OBEY, Wisconsin JOHN T. MYERS, Indiana SIDNEY R. YATES, Illinois C. W. BILL YOUNG, Florida LOUIS STOKES, Ohio RALPH REGULA, Ohio TOM BEVILL, Alabama JERRY LEWIS, California JOHN P. MURTHA, Pennsylvania JOHN EDWARD PORTER, Illinois CHARLES WILSON, Texas HAROLD ROGERS, Kentucky NORMAN D. DICKS, Washington JOE SKEEN, New Mexico MARTIN OLAV SABO, Minnesota FRANK R. WOLF, Virginia JULL\N C. DIXON, California TOM Delay, Texas VIC FAZIO, California JIM KOLBE, Arizona W. G. (BILL) HEFNER, North Carolina BARBARA F. VUCANOVICH, Nevada STENY H. HOYER, Maryland JIM LIGHTFOOT, Iowa RICHARD J. DURBEN, Illinois RON PACKARD, California RONALD D. COLEMAN, Texas SONNY CALLAHAN, Alabama 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 NANCY PELOSI, California HENRY BONILLA, Texas PETER J. VISCLOSKY, Indiana JOE KNOLLENBERG, Michigan THOMAS M. FOGLIETTA, Pennsylvania DAN MILLER, Florida ESTEBAN EDWARD TORRES, California JAY DICKEY, Arkansas NITA M. LOWEY, New York JACK KINGSTON, Georgia RAY THORNTON, Arkansas FRANK RIGGS, Califomis JOSE E. SERRANO, New York MIKE PARKER, Mississippi RODNEY P. FRELINGHUYSEN, New Jersey ROGER F. WICKER, Mississippi MICHAEL P. FORBES, New York GEORGE R. NETHERCUTT, Jr., Washington JIM BUNN, Oregon MARK W. NEUMANN, Wisconsin James W. Dyer, Clerk and StaffDirector DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS FOR 1997 Thursday, March 28, 1996. ARMYACQUISITION PROGRAMS WITNESSES HON. GILBERT F. DECKER, ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE ARMY, RE- SEARCH, DEVELOPMENTANDACQUISITION LIEUTENANT GENERAL RONALD V. HITE, MILITARY DEPUTY TO THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE ARMY FOR RESEARCH, DEVELOP- MENTANDACQUISITION LIEUTENANT GENERAL OTTO GUENTHER, DIRECTOR OF INFORMA- J. TION SYSTEMS FOR COMMAND, CONTROL, COMMUNICATIONS AND COMPUTERS MAJOR GENERAL EDWARD G. ANDERSON HI, ASSISTANT DEPUTY CHIEF OF STAFF FOR OPERATIONS AND PLANS FOR FORCE DEVEL- OPMENT Introduction Mr. Young. The Committee will come to order. This afternoon the Committee will conduct a hearing on Army acquisition programs. We are pleased to welcome Mr. Gilbert F. Decker, Lieutenant General Ron Hite, and Major General Edward Anderson. It is a pleasure to have you here today. Mr. Decker, General Hite and General Anderson testified before our Committee last year. The Army's fiscal year 1997 budget request is $10.6 billion for modernization and long-term research and development. The Army's fiscal year 1997 budget request is $1.7 billion, or 13 percent less, than the fiscal year 1996 amount. The reduction in the Army modernization account has been made in order to maintain near- term readiness. The declining acquisition budget has forced the Army to defer or terminate many modernization programs, such as the Comanche and Armored Gun System. Additionally, rather than procure new systems, the Army funds less expensive upgrade programs, such as the Abrams tank. Based on the fiscal year 1997 President's budget, for the immediate future, our soldiers will be flying 40 year old cargo helicopters, driving 30 year old trucks, and using war reserve ammunition for training. We agree with the concerns ofthe Joint Chiefs ofStaffthat modernization accounts are not adequately funded. The fiscal year 1997 President's request will not field critical modernization capabilities until well into the next century, thus creating severe long-term readiness deficiencies. (1) The Committee is concerned about the state of the Army modernization programs, and we hope to address the following areas this afternoon. First, will the lack of modernization funding result in an Army that does not have the equipment, in both quantity and quality, to meet operational requirements? Second, are we procuring items in such low quantities and stretching out development programs for so long that we are increasing the cost of Army programs and making it even more dif- ficult to buy the equipment needed to support Army missions? Would additional funds allow the Army to procure items at a better price and field systems currently in development faster? Third, do the long-term costs associated with maintaining and operating old weapon systems exceed the cost of developing and fielding new systems? Can we save money by accelerating the re- tirement of older systems and fielding modern weapons systems which require less manpower to operate and maintain? And finally, how does the Army's modernization program maintain critical capabilities in the defense industry? Gentleman, as in the past we welcome your statements today. We look forward to working with you to provide the Army with whatever is needed to accomplish the mission and to give the soldiers protection. Your statements in full will be placed in the record, and we would ask that you present your statement in any way that you like. We are looking forward to seeing some of the show and tell things you brought for us today. Mr. Murtha. Mr. Murtha. No, thank you. Mr. Young. We are ready to proceed. Who will start? Summary Statement of Mr. Decker Mr. Decker. I sincerely want to thank you, Mr. Chairman and other Members of the Committee, for the opportunity to testify on the Army Research, Development and Acquisition Budget for fiscal year 1997 and other aspects of the Army modernization program. I am serious; we sincerely appreciate this opportunity. I think it is fair to say that you folks wouldn't be on this Committee if you didn't have an abiding concern and interest in national security, and we are here to be as candid and to aid you in any way we can through testimony and questions. We appreciate your help and guidance from last year and your generous support ofArmy modernization from last year. General Hite and I have prepared a detailed written statement for the record. Copies have been provided to you, and I offer that statement officially for the record at this time. America's Army is the premier land force in the world. We clearly continue to see an increasing role for land forces. In the 40 years between 1950 and 1989, the Army participated in 10 deplojanents, not counting forward-deployed forces, 10 deployments across the entire spectrum ofpeace and combat. In the 6 years since 1990, post Wall coming down, we have participated in 25 deployments across the spectrum of peace and combat. Our soldiers are prepared to go anywhere at any time to up- hold the Nation's interests. I think we are again proving this with the soldiers serving in Bosnia. The Army soldiers on the ground have been and seem to continue to be the force of choice for what we face. ARMY MODERNIZATION AND FORCE XXI Again this year, fiscal year 1997, the Army was faced with tough budget choices as we worked to balance readiness ofcurrent forces, quality of life in support of current forces, and modernization needs. I am sure you realize, as well as we do, that severely con- strained modernization resources have extended fielding times, have delayed modernization of the total force, have delayed deploy- ing a next generation of systems, and from a business standpoint, have resulted in some inefficient programs. So, given this environment, where are we going in the future? We have set in motion a series of initiatives to arrive at the 21st Century with the requisite capabilities, and overall, including modernization; this is FORCE XXI. It is a process and a product designed to look at both the operational and institutional Army, its tactics, doctrine, and procedures, and in particular, at leveraging information technologies to enhance the capabilities of the quality force we have today. FORCE XXI is America's evolving Army ofthe 21st Century, and it is a process of continuous learning and transformation. Overall, the Army has been at this for five years, and we have had a very focused effort over the last three. I believe our Army war fighting experiments are starting to show increased effectiveness with these new concepts. We clearly recognize that today's modernization be- comes tomorrow's readiness. To help ourselves, we are trying to take aggressive actions to re- duce our infrastructure cost. We are looking for efficiencies across the entire Army. These efforts have the personal interest and are being personally led by the Chiefand the Vice Chief, and with your help and that leadership, I think we can continue to reform the acquisition process, from the program manager in the field, all the way to my office. We have to make significant portions of savings from these initiatives. We believe we are, and we are programming them into future modernization accounts. The Army today is the eighth largest Army in the world, based on the data we have. Thank God, it is the first best. It is the first best due to quality people, superb training, and best technology ca- pability and technology overmatch. I think it must remain that way. We cannot afford to become the eighth largest and the eighth best. WEAPON SYSTEMS AND SYSTEMS UPGRADES Today, our soldiers have the best war fighting equipment in the world. There is a lot oflife left in many ofour platforms. These systems were world class when fielded and they still are, so our near- term strategy is to leverage previous investments through technology insertion and upgrades. In addition, this year's budget continues to fund a limited but critical number of new weapon systems both in development and in procurement that complement our technology upgrade programs. Examples of those systems are the Sense and Destroy Armor or SADARM Munition—program, the Army Tactical Missile System, Brilliant Anti-Tank BAT Armor program, the Crusader Advanced Field Artillery system, the Javelin missile, the critical appliques for Brigade 21 to digitize the battlefield, and Comanche, our number one development program. Sir, we are striving to make the most efficient use of the dollars given us to modernize the Army. — SOLDIER ENHANCEMENT PROGAM LAND WARRIOR This concludes my opening remarks. Ifyou would permit me, before we start the question and answer portion of the hearing, I would like to present a short video on today's Army and its modernization program. I believe it will give you a glimpse of what we are doing with th—e appropriations you have provided. [Clerk's note. The Committee proceeded to view a video.] Mr. Decker. As you see from the video, there is stress on the importance of the individual soldier. We believe that is becoming increasingly important. We have been reasonably well funded and are continuing to work hard to improve the technology for the individual soldier. I think we are succeeding and would like to present a short demonstration for you of the 21st Century soldier we are working on. General Hite. Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee this is a great American soldier. Private John Taylor, who is on his way to the 75th Rangers at Fort Benning. He has been a part of the Army his entire life. His father is a retired noncommissioned officer. He is wearing today the Army's first integrated soldier system, modular, tailorable to each mission and this is the first time we have been able to link the individual soldier with the digitized battlefield. Let me explain some of the aspects of his equipment starting with his helmet. It is 15 percent lighter than the current helmet, gives the same protection. He has a flip-down eyepiece which is connected to his computer system which enables him to be a forward artillery observer utilizing a laser on his weapon system auto- matically to receive preformatted messages, to—send messages, to navigate utilizing a Global Positioning System GPS and receive other types of information that our soldiers in the past would have had to receive verbally. He also, for the first time, can speak to other members in his squad by talking into his microphone. He is wearing a vest which also provides the same level ofprotection that we have in the older vests, but is 15 percent lighter. By putting a ceramic plate in the vest, we can give the soldiers protection from kinetic energy rounds. You can see the system has been designed with the wires and the antennas for the computers and the radios inside the backpack. It also has a device like you have on some ofyour cars which can adjust the comfort level ofthe pack. When a soldier is carrying 75 pounds, it enables him to adjust it to get the right placement for the right kind of weight. This is a squad leader version, which enables him not only to talk to individual members of his squad but also to his platoon sergeant and platoon leader. The antenna for the GPS and other radio is built into the packpack for ease of maintenance and also increased survivability. We have two radios utilizing small credit-card-sized commercial items right off the shelf We have a 486 computer in the backpack which allows him to receive a heads-up display and the information that is processed through that heads-up display. It operates on two batteries giving him 24 hours ofoperation. The batteries have an integral tester that can tell the soldier if the batteries are getting weak; the system is modular. He can carry up to 55 pounds on his back with the pack. The pack is fully config- ured, with his sustaining packs on the sides, his assault; in the middle pack and another pack for his personal items; so depending on the mission, he can pull these off and slide individual compo- nents onto the system. He has a modular weapon. This is a M16A2 rifle with four rails on it, which enable him to configure this weapon system to the mission he is going to go on. He can have a thermal sight, a day camera, a laser range finder, and other items on the system that he can put on and utilize to see through the heads-up display, day or night. Explain how you use your weapon. Private Taylor. Technology that represents the requirements for the Land Warrior system; I am wearing a helmet with equal protection to a Kevlar helmet, but at a 15 percent reduction in weight. I can view digital map information and troop locations with a daylight video camera. I can send and receive messages. This is the modular weapon system designed to mount various types of weapons and sights. Today it is equipped with a daylight camera, thermal weapon sight, and range finder. What you see now is the daylight camera. The daylight camera was designed to allow the soldier to send a still video picture back to the commander. This is the thermal weapon sight. The thermal weapon sight was designed to allow the soldier to engage targets day or night in any weather condition. The range of this is compatible with the max- imum range ofthe weapon. As the General said, it is mission tailorable so you can mount other weapons and sights. If everything did fail, I could still fire my weapon effectively, still complete my mission, and take care of my troops. This enhances the soldier's fighting capabilities and allows the soldier to be better equipped and provides less casualties to the unit. Mr. Dicks. Have you trained using that rifle? Private Taylor. The first early operational experiment will be this November, so I haven't trained with all this equipment yet. This is in prototype form. Mr. Dicks. Where is this prototype being developed? Private Taylor. The Hughes Aircraft Company is developing the prototype, sir. It is a Motorola team. Mr. Decker. We have a Program Manager, Colonel Meadows. He is managing the program on behalfofthe Army. General Anderson. What you see is what technology can do for us. We need to find out what it can do for the soldier, and we are doing that as part of the Task Force XXI experiment that is going to be conducted at Fort Hood in the Army advanced warfighting experiment. It is absolutely critical to know ifthis stuff really works. We don't know yet, but we are going to find out. Mr. Dicks. This will be November of 1996? General ANDERSON. Yes, sir. They will start in November of 1996. The exercise at the National Training Center, the NTC, will be conducted in the February-March time frame with a full-up brigade. We will have a light battalion that will be equipped with this equipment, as well as, a whole brigade that will be totally modern- ized. General HiTE. As new technology comes on in the next 2 to 3 years, we can insert that technology into the system, ifwe have designed it to accept that technology. One ofthe things, with this systems mounted, you can take this weapon and stick it around the corner and fire without exposing your head. This system improves the soldier's lethality and survivability and how comfortable he is when you are slogging through the mud and the rain. Mr. Dicks. The Marine Corps up here is having a little problem with it. Mr. MURTHA. Keep in mind the confusion and noise of combat. I just ca—n't imagine that with all the jostling and falling down and running we tried just a simple experiment with the earphones. It was impossible to use them. It looks to me like you are going to have the Second Lieutenant back looking at the picture rather than out in front of the troops. I am all for new technology but I will tell you, from my experience, it is going to be awful hard to adapt this to the real situation, as far as I can see. I know we want to experiment and it might work well on the parade ground but General Hite. We have had the Marines testing this in terms of the prototype, running it through obstacle courses and they are giving it good marks. I tested the earpiece when I was a Second Lieu- tenant. We have come a long way since those days. General Anderson. In the old process, we would have just bought that stuff. By experimenting, we are going to find out ex- actly what you said, and if it doesn't work, we are not going to buy it. Mr. Hefner. Is that a new weapon or is that an existing weapon that you put this equipment on? General HiTE. That is an M-16. We put four rails on it. Mr. Hefner. The prototype is the stuff Mr. Decker. The electronics and things. General Hite. This is night sight. We put rails on it. The day camera is a prototype. Mr. Young. When Private Taylor puts on that prototype, if he has it in the inventory, that is his weapon; if he puts it around the comer so that he could see without being detected, what does he see and where; through the eyepiece? Private Taylor. Everything that you have been able to see on the screen is what I see on the eyepiece, the thermal weapon sight. The computer and you can see the daylight vision camera and whatever sights are made available by the system, sir. General GuENTHER. It is designed to be interfaceable with our standard combat net radio so that he can push that picture back