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


                                     
 
                         [H.A.S.C. No. 117-39]

                                HEARING

                                   ON

                   NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT

                          FOR FISCAL YEAR 2022

                                  AND

              OVERSIGHT OF PREVIOUSLY AUTHORIZED PROGRAMS

                               BEFORE THE

                      COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES

                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                    ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS

                             FIRST SESSION

                               __________

          SUBCOMMITTEE ON TACTICAL AIR AND LAND FORCES HEARING

                                   ON

                       FISCAL YEAR 2022 ARMY AND

           MARINE CORPS GROUND SYSTEMS MODERNIZATION PROGRAMS

                               __________

                              HEARING HELD
                              JUNE 7, 2021


                                     
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]





                           ______

             U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE 
45-619              WASHINGTON : 2021 
 
                                     
  


              SUBCOMMITTEE ON TACTICAL AIR AND LAND FORCES

                 DONALD NORCROSS, New Jersey, Chairman

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

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

                              ----------                              
                                                                   Page

              STATEMENTS PRESENTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS

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, Douglas R., Acting Assistant Secretary of the Army for 
  Acquisition, Logistics and Technology, Department of the Army..     3
Murray, GEN John M., USA, Commanding General, Army Futures 
  Command........................................................     5
Stefany, Frederick J., Acting Assistant Secretary of the Navy for 
  Research, Development and Acquisition, Department of the Navy; 
  accompanied by LtGen Eric M. Smith, USMC, Commanding General, 
  U.S. Marine Corps Combat Development Command, and Deputy 
  Commandant for Combat Development and Integration..............     7

                                APPENDIX

Prepared Statements:

    Bush, Douglas R., joint with GEN John M. Murray..............    39
    Norcross, Hon. Donald........................................    37
    Stefany, Frederick J., joint with LtGen Eric M. Smith........    55

Documents Submitted for the Record:

    [There were no Documents submitted.]

Witness Responses to Questions Asked During the Hearing:

    Ms. Sherrill.................................................    69

Questions Submitted by Members Post Hearing:

    Mr. Brown....................................................    76
    Dr. DesJarlais...............................................    73
    Mr. Turner...................................................    73
    
  FISCAL YEAR 2022 ARMY AND MARINE CORPS GROUND SYSTEMS MODERNIZATION 
                                PROGRAMS

                              ----------                              

                  House of Representatives,
                       Committee on Armed Services,
              Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land Forces,
                              Washington, DC, Monday, June 7, 2021.
    The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 3:00 p.m., via 
Webex, Hon. Donald Norcross (chairman of the subcommittee) 
presiding.

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

    Mr. Norcross. The hearing will come to order. The Tactical 
Air and Land Forces Subcommittee meets today to review the Army 
and Marine Corps ground modernization program for fiscal year 
2022 budget request. Excuse me.
    I would like to thank our witnesses for being with us today 
and for the work done to put in together this year's budget 
request to Congress.
    Following a year of unprecedented challenges, the committee 
is eager to hear details from today's witnesses on how the 
service budget request will satisfy the equipment requirements 
in the Army and Marine Corps both today and into the future.
    The subcommittee will closely examine the choices made for 
modernization, as well as how those choices are preserved and 
reduce risk in our defense industrial base.
    Certainly this year, COVID pandemic has elevated our 
concerns for the successful management of the risk in the 
industrial base. I am grateful to both Army, Navy, Marine 
Corps, and senior leadership for their openness with this.
    I also want to add for those men and women working 
throughout the Nation at the depots, at the factories, during 
the pandemic, we really appreciate what you have done, and it 
is incredibly important to our country.
    We are going to look at the following impacts on both the 
military and civilian fronts, supporting their management 
through this pandemic, and now look forward to restoring the 
workforce to a safe, efficient operation.
    The goal for both services is always to achieve a modern 
ground force that can match or exceed our peer and near-peer 
potential adversaries. Services must realistically assess their 
requirement and make those tradeoffs at an acceptable risk 
between investment priorities, current and future capabilities, 
and the industrial base security and stability.
    Across the past three budget cycles, Army and Marine Corps 
have made significant changes and tough choices with respect to 
their plans to develop, produce, and field future capabilities. 
An essential matter of congressional oversight, we must have 
the confidence that the Army and Marine Corps modernization 
strategies are realistic, achievable, and affordable.
    We understand that the services' budget request and 
modernization plans, that many of the high-priority development 
programs will soon enter low-rate initial production, complete 
operational testing, and, if testing successfully, start full-
rate production.
    The number of systems entering these phases at this time 
creates a bow wave of new procurement funding that if not 
budgeted means that the modernization strategy is not 
achievable.
    Today we will ask each of the witnesses to state for the 
record that given the 2022 budget request and the assumed or 
planned funding levels over the next 5 years, all priority 
ground modernization programs are affordable and achievable.
    The distinguished Army, Navy, and Marine Corps leaders 
before the subcommittee today, as well as being qualified, they 
are going to have to explain their modernization budget 
requests.
    I would like to welcome Mr. Doug Bush, Acting Assistant 
Secretary of the Army for Acquisition, Logistics and 
Technology; General John Murray, Commanding General, Army 
Futures Command; Mr. ``Jay'' Stefany, Acting Assistant 
Secretary of the Navy for Research, Development and 
Acquisition; and Lieutenant General Eric Smith, Commanding 
General, Marine Corps Combat Development Command and the Deputy 
Commandant for Combat Development and Integration.
    We look forward to your testimony and discussing these 
topics. But before we begin, I would like to turn to our 
ranking member from the great State of Missouri, Mrs. Hartzler, 
for any comments she has.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Norcross can be found in the 
Appendix on page 37.]

    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 would first like to thank our witnesses for being with us 
today and for the hard work that you put in this year's budget 
request to Congress. We have a lot to cover today, and I look 
forward to having a healthy discussion with our distinguished 
panel of witnesses, some of whom have testified before us on 
these topics just over a year ago.
    And what a year it has been, full of extraordinary 
challenges, uncertainty, and transitions for everyone, none 
more so than for our military and its supporting industrial 
base.
    And now the President's fiscal year 2022 budget request 
asks the Department of Defense and the industrial bases which 
support it, to do even more with less. I, like many of my 
colleagues, am deeply concerned about the proposed top line and 
that it does not adequately resource the 2018 National Defense 
Strategy and further places military leadership in an untenable 
position of having to make impossible choices between near-term 
operational readiness, the sustainment of enduring 
capabilities, and long-term modernization priorities.
    Today is an opportunity for our witnesses to address these 
concerns. As we discuss the future modernization of the Army 
and Marine Corps ground programs, I expect the witnesses to 
identify what risk the Army and Marine Corps are accepting in 
the short-term in order to keep planned modernization programs 
affordable and on course to meet the mid- to long-term defense 
requirements of creating a more lethal, resilient, and agile 
force, able to compete, deter, and win against future threats 
from both peer competitors and rogue actors.
    I commend our military leaders for their dedication and 
hard work to continuously reassess modernization investment 
priorities and reallocate already limited resources to fund the 
development and procurement of essential defense requirements 
and capabilities necessary to build a more lethal defense 
force.
    The Army, in particular, has terminated or reduced 310 
existing programs in the last 3 years, including the 
elimination or delay of 37 programs in fiscal year 2022 alone 
to meet this end state.
    I am interested in the Army and Marine Corps assessment of 
how a flat top line and the resulting imposition of cuts and 
decreases to lower priority programs and investment accounts 
affect the health and stability of the industrial base.
    Cutting plans and funding for development and procurement 
programs creates vendor uncertainty, workforce disruptions, and 
a lack of predictability over time. Doing so also increases 
unit cost and risks the loss of industrial capacity, 
capability, and resilience when minimum sustaining rates are 
not met.
    Finally, I want to stress the importance of jointness 
between the Army and the Marine Corps. I would like our 
witnesses to discuss how they are continuing to communicate and 
coordinate on critical modernization programs that could 
address similar operational requirements such as body armor, 
long-range precision fires, and next-generation small arms 
weapons.
    I thank the chairman for organizing this important and 
timely hearing, and I yield back.
    Mr. Norcross. Thank you.
    Next, we understand that each Army witness will provide 
short opening remarks, starting with Mr. Bush, followed by 
General Murray; then Mr. Stefany will provide their perspective 
from the Marine Corps.
    Without objection, each of the witnesses' prepared 
statements will be included in the hearing record.
    So ordered.
    Mr. Bush, welcome and please start.

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

    Mr. Bush. Thank you, sir. Chairman Norcross, Ranking Member 
Hartzler, distinguished members of the House Armed Services 
Committee on Tactical Air and Land Forces, good afternoon. 
Thank you for the invitation to appear before you to discuss 
the Army's ground modernization program and the resources 
requested in the President's budget for fiscal year 2022.
    I am pleased to be joined today by my teammate, General 
Mike Murray, as well as our Navy and Marine Corps counterparts. 
We appreciate your making our written statement part of the 
record for today's hearing.
    Mr. Chairman, Army Acquisition, Logistics and Technology, 
and Army Futures Command's shared mission is to make sure that 
the Army continues to achieve overmatch against all potential 
adversaries, ensuring that our Army can fulfill its mandate to 
compete successfully, deter, and if necessary, fight and win 
our Nation's wars as part of the joint force. We support the 
Army's transformation through modernization in order to meet 
future challenges.
    Even during a global pandemic, this past year has been one 
of dramatic change, rapid innovation, shared challenges, and 
significant progress with an unprecedented unity of efforts 
across the Army modernization enterprise.
    I would like to next answer the committee's specific 
questions provided in the invitation we received to testify.
    First, the committee asked us to provide, quote, major plan 
changes to the modernization and equipping strategy and an 
explanation of any new modernization--major new modernization 
initiatives between fiscal year 2021 and fiscal year 2022.
    The answer to those questions is that, first, the Army has 
no major planned changes and, second, that there are no new 
major modernization initiatives.
    Second, the committee asked us to provide justification 
for, quote, unfunded priorities, major equipment shortfalls, or 
unacceptable risk. With regard to unfunded priorities, I would 
refer members to the Army Chief of Staff's unfunded priorities 
list.
    In addition, I am not aware of any major equipment 
shortfalls or unacceptable risks in my area of responsibility.
    Finally, the committee asked for a, quote, assessment of 
risks associated with major program terminations or reductions 
between fiscal year 2021 and fiscal year 2022.
    My assessment is that the small number of programs 
terminated or cancelled and the larger number of program 
reductions do not create unmanageable risks.
    Overall, I think the fiscal year 2022 budget request for 
Army modernization reflects continuity and the Army's continued 
commitment to its high-priority modernization programs.
    While members will find that adjustments were made to some 
programs, I believe that the fiscal year 2022 budget request of 
$34.1 billion for Army research, development, and acquisition, 
reflects careful choices and supports continued progress on the 
Army's top modernization priorities.
    Army modernization also includes a commitment to reform. We 
are grateful to you and your colleagues on the committee for 
reform initiatives that have been instrumental to our efforts 
to streamline and gain efficiencies in the acquisition process 
and accelerate the delivery of capability to soldiers.
    This includes our use of middle-tier acquisition authority 
for rapid prototyping to accelerate select efforts linked to 
our modernization priorities, including the extended-range 
cannon artillery, integrated visual augmentation system, and 
next-generation squad weapon, among others.
    We have also used other transactional authority, or OTAs, 
to help us streamline acquisition research initiatives, 
prototype projects, and follow-on production efforts. In both 
of these areas, you have my commitment that the Army will use 
these authorities conservatively and only when needed to 
accomplish Army modernization objectives.
    You also have my commitment to ensure that appropriate 
internal Army oversight measures are in place to monitor the 
use of these authorities.
    Let me close by saying the realization of our modernization 
efforts is highly dependent on what is in the Army's fiscal 
year 2022 budget request. Investments in this budget request 
complement and reinforce Army modernization efforts that you 
have so steadfastly supported.
    The key is predictable, adequate, timely, and sustained 
funding to ensure the United States Army is the best equipped 
land force in the world. I sincerely appreciate your time 
today, and I look forward to your questions. Thank you.
    [The joint prepared statement of Mr. Bush and General 
Murray can be found in the Appendix on page 39.]
    Mr. Norcross. General Murray.

STATEMENT OF GEN JOHN M. MURRAY, USA, COMMANDING GENERAL, ARMY 
                        FUTURES COMMAND

    General Murray. Chairman Norcross, Ranking Member Hartzler, 
and distinguished members of the Tactical Air and Land 
Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to testify about 
Army ground modernization programs on behalf of the soldiers 
and civilians of Army Futures Command.
    These men and women are working hard each and every day to 
modernize our Army. And it is an honor to join Mr. Doug Bush as 
well as Mr. Stefany and Lieutenant General Smith here today, 
and I would just note that the partnership between AFC [Army 
Futures Command] and ASA(ALT) [Assistant Secretary of the Army 
for Acquisition, Logistics and Technology] was strong in the 
past, and it remains strong under Mr. Bush's dedicated 
leadership.
    The Army is in the midst of a transformational change. This 
change is necessary to maintain our global competitive edge and 
to deter future conflict, and to fight and win if called upon 
as part of the joint force.
    The Army is transforming how we fight, what we fight with, 
how we organize, how we do business, and who we are. Budget 
convergence, the Army's campaign of learning and 
experimentation, is informing all of these aspects of 
transformation, and I would like to say a word about each of 
them in turn.
    First, we are transforming how we fight. The Army's current 
concept is Multi-Domain Operations, our contribution to the 
developing joint warfighting concept. Right now the Army's 
Training and Doctrine Command is in the process of 
transitioning Multi-Domain Operations, the concept, into the 
next Army doctrine.
    At the same time, Army Futures Command's Future Studies 
Program is bringing together our concept writers, intelligence 
professionals, and S&T [science and technology] experts with 
leading thinkers from academia, industry, and other communities 
to build our next concept.
    Second, we are transforming what we fight with. Our 
materiel modernization includes the ``31+4'' signature efforts 
based upon our 6 consistent modernization priorities. Our 
fiscal year 2022 request includes $11.3 billion to support 
these signature efforts.
    Thirty-one of these efforts are led by powerful teams 
comprised of our cross-functional teams, program executive 
offices, and program managers, and four of these efforts are 
led by the Army's Rapid Capabilities and Critical Technologies 
Office.
    Twenty-two of these capabilities are projected to be ready 
to begin fielding over the next 4 years.
    Third, we are transforming how we organize. The multi-
domain task force will enable convergence, the integration of 
effects across all domains for joint force commanders to create 
multiple dilemmas for our adversaries.
    Security Force Assistance Brigades foster close 
partnerships with host-nation ground forces in critical 
locations. They give us a strong foundation in competition and 
a head start in crisis and conflict.
    Fourth, we are transforming how we do business. Soldier-
centered design puts technology and prototypes in the hands of 
soldiers from the operational force early, so we can learn. 
Learning early changes how we generate requirements and how we 
partner with both traditional and nontraditional industry.
    Our Army Applications Lab is spearheading effective ways to 
work with nontraditional innovators, leveraging existing 
authorities to make it easier for them to work with the Army.
    Fifth, we are transforming who we are. We are exploring how 
to best find, train, utilize, and keep the tech talent we know 
we will need for a future fight.
    Our Artificial Intelligence Integration Center works with 
Carnegie Mellon University to offer data science courses, to 
grow software designers and engineers and to foster a more 
technology-savvy workforce. Our software factory takes soldiers 
from any career field with the right aptitude and grows them 
into skilled coders.
    We are in the process of transforming almost every aspect 
of our Army. There are, however, two key things we are holding 
on to--that would be our purpose and our most precious 
resource, our soldiers.
    Our fiscal year 2022 request builds on the consistent 
priorities and strong momentum of our fiscal year 2021 request. 
Stable and consistent funding from Congress supports our 
ability to serve our Nation, 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, and thank you for having me here today. It is an 
honor to lead and represent the soldiers, civilians, and 
families of Army Futures Command, and I very much look forward 
to your questions. Thank you.
    Mr. Norcross. Thank you, General.
    Mr. Stefany, you are recognized.

 STATEMENT OF FREDERICK J. STEFANY, ACTING ASSISTANT SECRETARY 
    OF THE NAVY FOR RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT AND ACQUISITION, 
  DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY; ACCOMPANIED BY LTGEN ERIC M. SMITH, 
USMC, COMMANDING GENERAL, U.S. MARINE CORPS COMBAT DEVELOPMENT 
   COMMAND, AND DEPUTY COMMANDANT FOR COMBAT DEVELOPMENT AND 
                          INTEGRATION

    Mr. Stefany. Yes, sir, Chairman. As you mentioned, we have 
a single statement for General Smith and myself.
    Chairman Norcross, Ranking Member Hartzler, distinguished 
members of the subcommittee, on behalf of myself and Lieutenant 
General Eric Smith, the Deputy Commandant for Combat 
Development and Integration, thank you for the opportunity to 
appear before you today to address the Department of Navy's 
fiscal year 2022 budget request for Marine Corps ground 
modernization programs. We are pleased to testify alongside our 
Department of the Army colleagues.
    Marines traditionally serve as soldiers of the sea, 
capabilities that are closely aligned to those of our Army 
brethren. We continue to collaborate and are supporting 
interconnected programs as the Department of the Navy 
integrates with the joint force across our ground modernization 
portfolio.
    The Marine Corps is transforming warfighting capabilities 
to provide an organized, trained, and equipped force, postured 
for competition and to respond to crisis in a contested 
maritime space.
    As we focus on the pending threat presented by our 
strategic competitors, we thank Congress and this subcommittee 
for your leadership and your support.
    The President's fiscal year 2022 budget request for Marine 
Corps ground modernization takes a full step out of the 
Commandant's Planning Guidance and Force Design 2030 Strategic 
Initiative.
    The budget supports the vision for distributed maritime 
operations and focuses on capabilities our forward-deployed 
forces need to deter conflict with an emphasis on long-range 
precision fires, resilient communication, and training.
    Ground modernization programs referenced in our written 
statement are affordable, executable, and on schedule. The 
fiscal year 2022 request prioritizes investments that maximize 
naval contributions to the joint force, while reducing risk in 
programs of record and accelerating capability delivery to 
Marines in the field.
    The request represents the deliberate and informed 
development of a modernized, integrated, all-domain naval force 
for the future that requires us to think differently, move 
faster, and prioritize every dollar to meet an uncertain and 
complex environment. The Marine Corps ground modernization 
portfolio aims to do just that.
    The lieutenant general and I look forward to your 
questions. Thank you, sir.
    [The joint prepared statement of Mr. Stefany and General 
Smith can be found in the Appendix on page 55.]
    Mr. Norcross. Thank you. I appreciate it. I just want to 
drop back as the foundation for the hearing that I had asked 
the question for the record, that given the 2020 request, the 
planned funding levels over the next 5 years, all the priority 
ground modernization programs are affordable and achievable. 
Mr. Bush, would you agree with that statement?
    Mr. Bush. Sir, I would, with an important caveat, that the 
administration has only presented the fiscal year 2022 numbers 
at this point.
    Mr. Norcross. Absolutely. General Murray, would you concur?
    General Murray. I concur with Mr. Bush's caveat, sir.
    Mr. Norcross. Thank you. Thank you and Mr. Stefany for 
addressing that.
    General Smith, would you agree with that?
    General Smith. Mr. Chairman, I do, in concert with 
Secretary Stefany, yes, sir.
    Mr. Norcross. Terrific. Thank you. You know, 3 years of 
night court, the constant review, reallocation of money, this 
is a major shift. Mrs. Hartzler talked about the industrial 
base and uncertainty, so the risk in each of these can be 
significant.
    But one of the items I want to touch base on now is with 
the reorganization of the Army related to research, 
development, and acquisition, financial management of programs 
as we see the erosion of civilian responsibility and authority 
for control and oversight.
    Mr. Bush, what is your assessment of the status and the 
plans for change, if any, regarding the distribution of 
responsibilities and authority for oversight of the Army 
modernization and the relationship between acquisition 
community and Army Futures Command?
    Mr. Bush. Mr. Chairman, the law is crystal clear in this 
regard, if you look at title 10, with regard to how 
responsibility is allocated to civilians for acquisition and 
research and development.
    That being said, the Army does have flexibility within the 
law to task, organize, and assign responsibilities across the 
Army and the Army staff. So I am comfortable with the law and 
the way it works, and the Army will follow the law, and I see 
no current issues in that regard.
    The teamwork is necessary to make everything happen, so the 
Army modernization cannot be accomplished by my organization 
alone, nor by General Murray's or anybody else's. But right 
now, I am comfortable with what the law says, sir.
    Mr. Norcross. So you have that independent authority 
necessary to approve, modify, prohibit, reverse actions, 
everything you need to research and development to acquisition 
recommendations, decision or action, is it inconsistent or 
contrary? Do you feel you have that authority and control?
    Mr. Bush. I do, sir, if necessary, derived from the 
Secretary of the Army's ultimate authority with regard to such 
matters.
    Mr. Norcross. Terrific. Certainly a lot of discussion has 
been going on. It just didn't start this year.
    This is for General Murray and then you, Mr. Bush. 
Subcommittees pay particular attention and are generally 
supportive of the Army's ambitious modernization strategy. I 
talked about that just a moment ago.
    But the consideration and technical achievability, the 
risks, the affordability in the 2022 budget request for 
research, development, and acquisition is an 11 percent 
decrease as compared to last year's enacted amount.
    This does not inspire confidence in the stability of your 
programs, given the evidence of a likely procurement bow wave. 
We talked about that a few minutes ago. When expensive systems 
are in development, they rarely get cheaper, and obviously that 
up ramp is one of our biggest concerns.
    Understanding the Army's modernization strategy was 
perhaps--and some have suggested--never realistically 
affordable, and that your plans are unachievable without 
additional funding from your current and likely top lines.
    We talked about reallocation of dollars, but there has been 
suggestion that you are not going to be able to do that just 
with the allocations, that you are going to need a plus-up. How 
are you going to deal with the flat lines this year, perhaps 
future, in achieving those goals that are your number one 
priorities.
    Mr. Bush. Mr. Chairman, I will start, and I would like 
General Murray to also fill in here given his many years of 
experience. I would first point out that the Army's overall 
budget is $173 billion. The portion we are here to testify 
about today is $34 billion, or only about 20 percent of that.
    So, in the future, Army leaders do have an ability to, if 
they chose to, allocate additional resources to this area of 
the Army's budget that would affect the affordability 
calculations you mentioned, sir.
    The second thing I would point out there is, other things 
can change, and that is, the Army does have dials it can turn 
regarding the pace of acquiring new systems. The force 
structure of the Army could change, which would result in 
changes to what we are required to produce. And other factors.
    So, at this point, sir, fiscal year 2022, the Army was able 
to maintain sufficient funding for its highest priorities to 
keep them on their current paths. That is obviously not a 
hundred percent guarantee of success in the future.
    But the fiscal year 2022 request, sir, I thought was 
balanced appropriately. In future years, decisions will be made 
at the appropriate time.
    General Murray. And I would just add, Mr. Chairman, that in 
addition to what Mr. Bush has said already, is, we go through a 
process in front of the 5-year defense FYDP [Future Years 
Defense Program] bill--we call it a SPAR [strategic portfolio 
analysis and review]--where we sit down and look at exactly 
what you are talking about, even outside of the FYDP, the 5-
year defense plan, to ensure that we begin to look at resources 
in the outyears to make sure that we can afford to do exactly 
what you are talking about.
    And I mentioned upfront, 22 in the next 4 years, but some 
of these won't deliver and really go into full-rate production 
until late 2020s and even early 2030s, some of the programs. 
And so I do think that we take a hard look at that every year. 
The affordability piece of it is a discussion Mr. Bush and I 
have every year, with everybody that puts this plan together.
    But I would just remind you that this is more than 
modernization for the Army. We call this a transformational 
change, which General McConville describes as once every 40 
years. And, you know, the risk of not following through on the 
transformation we have started is our soldiers are going to 
have the same equipment they have today 20 years from now. And 
I do think that will put them at a serious disadvantage on that 
future battlefield.
    Mr. Norcross. So from what I hear, the suggestion that was 
made recently that plans for this production fielding is not 
achievable without additional funding, based on what you told 
me, you both disagree with that. Is that correct?
    General Murray. I will speak first, sir. I do disagree with 
that.
    Mr. Norcross. Very good.
    Mr. Bush.
    Mr. Bush. Yes, sir, I also disagree.
    There is always choices to be made within an entity as 
large as the Army in regards to the priority efforts. So it is 
up to the judgment of leaders to make those calls.
    General Murray. And I would just add, sir, with risk.
    Mr. Norcross. Informed risk. You do that every day, and 
that is certainly one of the challenges. Thank you.
    I now recognize Mrs. Hartzler, our ranking member.
    Mrs. Hartzler. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Bush, I would like to start with you. I am deeply 
concerned about the budget request for the procurement of Army 
ammunition, and specifically the small- and medium-caliber 
request account. The fiscal year 2022 President's budget 
request reflects severe reductions in the budget request for 
the 5.56 millimeter, the 7.62 millimeter, and the .50 caliber 
ammunition.
    The reductions from the fiscal year 2021 enacted levels 
equate to reductions of 26 percent, 28 percent, and 49 percent 
respectively for an overall reduction of approximately 30 
percent in the small arms ammunition account.
    This is concerning to me because last year's fiscal year 
2022 FYDP reflected an increase for each of those accounts, and 
so we are not only not increasing them, but we have severe 
reductions. I am concerned that these severe reductions will 
affect the overall readiness of our ground forces and severely 
handicap their ability to train and to fight.
    Additionally, the severity of these reductions will have an 
impact on the ability to sustain a workforce at the Lake City 
ammunition plant, the location of where the Army plans to build 
the 6.8 millimeter ammunition for the next-generation squad 
weapon.
    With these proposed cuts, the Army is risking losing an 
experienced workforce which could take 9 months to years to 
restore, and the projection from the current contractor is that 
500 to 700 employees would lose their jobs. And many of these 
employees are not only constituents of mine, but they have 
worked there for years and have this training and this 
capability that just can't be easily replaced or the spigot 
turned back on in 9 months.
    So, Mr. Bush, why is the Army requesting such a large 
reduction from what was previously planned for small arms 
ammunition, and what solutions are being considered within the 
Pentagon to mitigate the risk to the health and resilience of 
America's critical defense industrial support base?
    Mr. Bush. Yes, ma'am. Thank you for the question. So I 
would start with--and I will let General Murray add on the 
requirements side here--the Army every year makes adjustments 
to its ammunition production in order to achieve stocks 
required for both training and overseas contingencies and war 
plans. So year-to-year fluctuations do occur.
    Those reductions that you noted do reflect a movement of 
funds away from those things to protect other things in the 
budget so they are part of that judgment call that was made.
    I am not familiar, I apologize, with the specific potential 
workforce effects you are citing. I am happy to meet with you 
and your staff to discuss those to learn more about. I have not 
heard any numbers along those lines, ma'am, but I would be 
happy to learn more and work with you on how those are 
calculated or what the possible options might be to mitigate.
    If you wouldn't mind, I would like General Murray to answer 
the requirements part if that is okay.
    General Murray. Yes, ma'am, and thank you, Mr. Bush. Ma'am, 
that is part of what the chairman mentioned earlier in terms of 
the decrease in RDA [research, development, and acquisition] 
and procurement accounts. So $4.2 billion, as we looked at that 
decrease across the board, where could we accept risk--what we 
consider to be an acceptable risk in order to account for that 
decrease in the RDA and procurement--and the procurement 
accounts, or the RDA accounts.
    And so, when we worked with the operational community here 
inside the Pentagon and then with Forces Command who does the 
training, as we looked across the board, we thought that was an 
acceptable level of risk given the stocks we currently have on 
hand and what is projected in terms of requirements for those 
calibers of ammunition.
    Mrs. Hartzler. Okay. So let's talk about the next squad 
weapon. So the subcommittee understands the next-generation 
squad weapon is evaluating three candidate rifles and three 
candidate 6.8 millimeter bullet technologies to replace the M4 
carbine and its 5.56 millimeter round in close combat 
[inaudible].
    So can you give us a status of the next-generation squad 
weapon program and under what circumstances and when will the 
Army consider retirement of all 5.56 millimeter rifles and 
carbines and provide soldiers the 6.8 millimeter rifles?
    Mr. Bush. Ma'am, I can take the first part of that on the 
programmatics. I will let General Murray talk about 
requirements. So, as you know, this is a program that is using 
new authorities from Congress. We are in the middle of rapid 
prototyping right now with, as you mentioned, more than one 
vendor.
    We are looking to make a rapid fielding decision early in 
the first quarter of fiscal year 2022, down to one, at which 
point we would proceed into rapid fielding and initial 
production. That includes selecting the ammunition to go along 
with the weapon.
    So, ma'am, as you know right now, that requirement is not 
for the entire Army. So I will let General Murray talk about 
the future of 5.56.
    General Murray. Yes, ma'am. And it is actually, as you 
know, two different weapons. So rifle and an automatic rifle 
with a common cartridge. And, as you mentioned, ma'am, right 
now we are programming for the close-combat force, plus some 
additionals in terms of Special Operations Command. The number 
is somewhere around 120,000 we are talking about right now, 
with a combination of the two.
    And then we have not considered yet whether we will replace 
the M4 and the M16, the M4 carbine and the M16, which fires the 
5.56 millimeter ammunition you spoke of. That is a future 
decision to be made, very much dependent upon what we find with 
the prototyping effort we have going on right now.
    Mrs. Hartzler. Okay. Very good.
    Mr. Bush, please describe the plan and timeline to 
establish the 6.8 millimeter ammunition manufacturing at Lake 
City Army Ammunition Plant to support the fielding of and 
training with the new rifle as well as [inaudible].
    Mr. Bush. Yes, ma'am. So----
    Mrs. Hartzler. Please describe--yeah, the plan and the 
timeline for the production of 6.8 ammunition there at Lake 
City.
    Mr. Bush. Yes, ma'am. So fiscal year 2022 request includes 
funding for preliminary work necessary to support whatever 
ammunition type is selected for production at Lake City in the 
future. So that is my understanding, is that all that 
preliminary work is properly funded and fully funded in fiscal 
year 2022.
    What would follow is a transition over a number of years 
from initially contractor-produced ammunition to capability at 
Lake City to produce everything the Army needs for that new 
type of ammunition. It would take place over, I believe it is 3 
to 4 years before it is completely transitioned because of the 
requirements for a new facility.
    Mrs. Hartzler. Uh-huh. Okay. Very good. And before we 
change subjects, I do appreciate your offer to meet with me and 
my staff about this issue and how to mitigate it and to learn 
more because obviously this is real concerning to us here in 
Missouri. So----
    Mr. Bush. Yes, ma'am.
    Mrs. Hartzler [continuing]. Thank you, yes.
    If I could talk a little bit--shift to combat vehicle 
programs, Lieutenant General Smith, I am pleased to see the 
Marine Corps fiscal year 2022 request continues procurement 
plans for the purchase of 92 amphibious combat vehicles [ACVs] 
for Marine Corps replacement for the aging amphibious assault 
vehicle, which I recently had a chance to see the new one.
    As the Marine Corps primary armored infantry carrier for 
ship-to-shore assault and armored operations inland, please 
provide the status of the Marine Corps progress for the 
development and fielding of the ACV.
    General Smith. Yes, ma'am, thank you for that. Ma'am, the 
amphibious combat vehicle is on track; it is on schedule for 
performance and for cost. So the folks up at BAE up in York, 
Pennsylvania, kind of fought their way through COVID.
    They worked with the Italian Government--IVECO [Industrial 
Vehicles Corporation] was the original manufacturer--to make 
sure that that program stayed viable through COVID. We are on 
track for the production numbers that we anticipated seeing.
    We produced the first two platoons of those vehicles. One 
platoon carries an entire company. It is a little bit of Marine 
math, but a platoon carries a company. And so we have 
prioritized our Marine expeditionary units who are always out 
there deployed on board our naval amphibious ships.
    So the first two of those platoons are out. They are out in 
California and our desert training base at Twentynine Palms. 
Their readiness is good.
    The training shift first to the second platoon, changing 
from tracked vehicles to wheeled vehicles required a little bit 
of adjustment for our drivers. They made that change and met 
their objectives for the initial operating testing 
capabilities. But we did declare initial operating capability 
[inaudible] on schedule, on performance, and on budget, and 
scheduled to meet our needs in the most rapid way possible to 
replace the amphibious assault vehicle, which, as you said, is 
aging, and that is what we owe the Marines.
    I don't know if that answers your question, ma'am. I would 
like to get into----
    Mrs. Hartzler. Yes.
    General Smith [continuing]. If it doesn't.
    Mrs. Hartzler. No. That sounds like good news to me. It is 
nice when you hear that it is on cost, and it is on schedule 
production-wise, and certainly it is needed after some of the--
the accident and what has happened with some of the other 
vehicles. So we are glad to see that.
    General Murray, I would like to ask you, the next-
generation combat vehicle is one of the Army's top six 
modernization priorities, and the Army has used resources freed 
up by program terminations and reductions to fund efforts to 
develop a next-generation combat vehicle.
    Central to this effort has been development of the 
Optionally Manned Fighting Vehicle [OMFV], a program intended 
to replace the B2 Bradley Infantry Fighting Vehicle.
    Can you provide an update on the Army's modified strategy 
and current plans for the Optionally Manned Fighting Vehicle, 
and how did these plans and last year's cancellation of the 
solicitation for the OMFV affect plans for further upgrades and 
fielding of the Bradley Infantry Fighting Vehicle?
    General Murray. Yes, ma'am. And so for OMFV, the Optionally 
Manned Fighting Vehicle, as you probably know, we started off 
with an entirely different approach when we approached it from 
a--and I will say this--requirements standpoint. An entirely 
different approach is we didn't start with the requirement.
    We started with a list of characteristics that we went out 
to industry, and it was really intended with characteristics 
and not requirements to allow industry to be creative and take 
advantage of the innovative thought and processes that go on 
inside of industry.
    So we put out an RFP [request for proposal]. We had a 
number of vendors come back and express interest, and we also 
started not with bending metal. We started with a digital 
design as our first phase. We are getting [inaudible] where we 
will down-select to up to five vendors based upon those digital 
designs, and then we will take it a step further and work with 
those five vendors.
    And we are a number of years out before we will ask any of 
whoever it is that we end up selecting to actually bend metal 
and produce a vehicle. So we are trying to take advantage of 
commercial best practices in terms of digital twinning and 
digital design to include putting soldiers against these 
digital designs for a virtual soldier touchpoint to make sure 
we understand what is most important to our soldiers as we 
progress forward.
    Right now we believe we are on track. My conversations with 
industry is, they are receptive of this approach, and then we 
will see as this program progresses.
    In terms of the M2 Bradley, you know, that is our infantry 
fighting vehicle for today and for the near-term future. So we 
do have plans for the Bradley--what we call the A4, the most 
recent version of the Bradley. We will most likely not produce 
A4s across the Army because we won't need to by the time we get 
to the Optionally Manned Fighting Vehicle.
    But the sustainment of the Bradley fighting vehicle, there 
are funds against that. The upgrade of the Bradley fighting 
vehicle for both the A3 version and the A4 version, there are 
funds against that to make sure that our soldiers have the 
capability they will need until we are able to deliver the 
Optionally Manned Fighting Vehicles.
    Mrs. Hartzler. Very good. Thank you for the update.
    I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Norcross. Thank you.
    Mr. Carbajal, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Carbajal. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    General Smith and General Murray, the Army and Marine Corps 
are resourcing initiatives to improve the form, fit, and 
function of personal protective equipment [PPE] to better 
accommodate female soldiers and Marines.
    Can you update our subcommittee on the status of these 
efforts to improve PPE for female service members? Does the 
budget provide you enough funds to properly study and then 
procure this PPE?
    General Murray. Sir, I will go first. The answer to your 
last question is, absolutely. So as you know, the Army has been 
working on--and, you know, we called it female body armor, but 
what I prefer to say is body armor that is better produced and 
cut for our female soldiers, so things like--to accommodate 
different sizes, we have vastly expanded the types of sizes we 
are offering.
    And I would argue it is not only just for our females, but 
it is also our smaller statured male soldiers as well. We have 
made some special accommodations for female-specific gear in 
terms of undergarments for the body armor, different cuts of 
what we call the plate carrier, or the IBA [interceptor multi-
threat body armor system], where the plates go into.
    We are making modifications to the plates themselves to 
enable not only our female soldiers but all soldiers to become 
better marksmen in terms of the--we call it a shooter's cut. We 
have done more research on lighter weight materials and seeing 
some significant improvements in the ability to have light 
weight for all our soldiers, not only the body armor itself but 
the helmet as well, and keep the same levels of protection.
    So the research and development up at Natick is almost 
continuous, and then as we make those breakthroughs, we roll 
that out into production to continually improve our protection 
for our soldiers.
    General Smith. Mr. Carbajal, it is Eric Smith for the 
Marine Corps. What I would say, sir, is that our first and 
foremost piece is we are interested in Marines' comfort, but 
what I am committed to is their protection. So what we have 
done is we have changed the number of sizes that we have.
    Instead of the old-timey small, medium, and large, we have 
made extra small, extra small short, extra small long, extra 
small et cetera, and that includes right now, going from the 
normal 5th percentile to 95th percentile--that is how we fit 
most things--to the 2nd to 98th percentile.
    I mean, we can cover anybody between the 2nd and 98th 
percentile. That currently leaves approximately 200 individual 
Marines, most of whom are female, below, in that 1 to 2 percent 
for smallest stature, and actually about 3,000 Marines, mostly 
male, in the bigger than 98. They are extremely tall, et 
cetera.
    So, in the case of females, in particular, it is about 200 
who do not have body armor that fits them, what we determined 
to be, appropriately. So we have to custom-work that before 
they would go into a combat zone. That is not the case we have 
now. There is no one deployed with ill-fitting body armor, but 
we do have 200 Marines who we cannot outfit properly without 
going to a customized version.
    So, like General Murray, we are absolutely in lockstep with 
the Army in looking for the best, lightest, body armor that 
protects, adjusting the cuts in shoulders, deltoids, et cetera, 
so it best fits the individual Marine.
    We do have the money to do it. We have what we need. There 
is a--the Holy Grail, if you will, sir, is conformal body 
armor, when you start bending plates to make it perfectly fit a 
body. That is not in the scale, in the realm of possible now, 
sir. When it becomes the industry standard, that is great. That 
will take care of a hundred percent, but that doesn't exist 
now, sir.
    So we default to protection; comfort comes second. And, 
again, we are about 200 Marines fall below what we are able to 
outfit without going custom.
    Does that answer your question, sir?
    Mr. Carbajal. Yes, it does. Thank you very much.
    General Smith, my colleagues and I would like assurances 
that the Marine Corps is taking the necessary steps to prevent 
any future tragic assault amphibious vehicle accidents like the 
one that occurred off of the California coast in 2020.
    What safety upgrades are being applied to the AAVs 
[amphibious assault vehicles] throughout the fleet, and how 
will be the ACV be safer and more effective?
    General Smith. Yes, sir. First, sir, anytime we bring that 
mishap up, the first thing we owe--I owe--is personal 
condolences, which aren't enough and don't do anything to bring 
back our dead sailor and our eight dead Marines. Nothing I can 
say today will fix that, and the mishap was 100 percent 
preventable and also 100 percent inexcusable on every level.
    What we have done, sir, for the AAV that still does exist 
until the amphibious combat vehicle can replace it, we have 
inspected all of our vehicles for their watertight seals, and 
nothing gets into the water without that inspection. There is a 
pretty robust checklist for everything from training to the 
actual seals on the vehicle to make sure that those vehicles 
that do enter the water, with safety boats for training, are 
completely viable and safe.
    The ACV is a completely--the amphib combat vehicle is a 
different design, sir. It does not hold water like the AAV. The 
ACV, sir, does not work off of a thing called the plenum, where 
water is purposely brought in to cool the engine. There is a 
very small engine compartment that lets about 20 gallons or so 
of water in there to cool it.
    It has a completely different hull form that has fewer 
penetration points so that water cannot get in and accumulate, 
fewer entry points. It runs off of a completely different 
design than the, you know, 50-year-old AAV, the amphibious 
assault vehicle.
    So the design is completely different, sir, and we do not 
and will not see those kind of incidents with the amphib combat 
vehicle----
    Mr. Carbajal. Thank you, General. I am out of time. I have 
a couple more questions, but they will be submitted for the 
record. Thank you very much.
    Back to you, I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Norcross. Thank you.
    Mr. Wittman, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Wittman. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to 
thank our witnesses today.
    General Smith, I would like to start with you. We know that 
it has been a lot of focus on the changing nature of what the 
Marine Corps is going to be faced with, and we know that you 
have to be able to reach out and place at risk our adversaries 
at long distances.
    And one of those elements in the Commandant's Planning 
Guidance is about ground-based anti-ship missiles, and I want 
to refer to testimony not just from the Commandant in his 
Planning Guidance but also in March of 2021, the former 
INDOPACOM [United States Indo-Pacific Command] commander, 
Admiral Phil Davidson, emphasized this, and I want to use his 
words.
    He said this, he said the expansion of ground-based fires 
enables the maneuver of our maritime and air forces because 
what you get is the requirement for much more intense search 
for offensive capability out of our adversaries. They also have 
to look for intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance in 
their networks. If we want to make our adversaries work harder 
to find our stuff and defend against it, that is what 
deterrence is about. It is about imposing costs.
    And as I look at Admiral Davidson's words and I ponder 
them, as well as the Commandant's Planning Guidance, I find 
myself in complete agreement, which is why, last year, 
Congressman Gallagher and myself worked to correct the 
appropriators' mistake that unfortunately found itself in 
cutting funding in half for the ground-based anti-ship 
missiles.
    And, unfortunately, the cuts stood in the final 
appropriations bill. I just don't think the appropriators 
understood the critical nature of that and why it was needed.
    In the PB [President's budget] 2022 request, the Marine 
Corps is also seeking funding for $102 million for 10 
production representative models and also to make sure those 
models are operationally tested as part of the ground-based 
anti-ship missile capability.
    I want to get you to elaborate on why this anti-ship 
missile capability is so critically important for the Marine 
Corps, especially as you are looking to distribute your 
operations, to create lethality in different areas, to raise 
the level of uncertainty for our adversaries.
    I want to make sure we understand, you know, why this is 
important in the Marine Corps force design strategy, and why it 
is the foundation of what you are doing going ahead in the 
Indo-Pacific.
    General Smith. Thank you, Mr. Wittman. I will be brief. 
Sir, that ground-based anti-ship missile, which is the Naval 
Strike Missile, the same one fired out of an LCS [littoral 
combat ship], out of Navy systems, it fits on the back of a 
joint light tactical vehicle which has been robotized. Highly 
mobile, internally transportable in our C-130s, moveable via 
the future light amphibious warship and all of our current 
surface connectors.
    That small Marine unit we would refer to as an 
expeditionary advance base operation, perhaps 75 Marines, that 
is carrying up to, let's say, 18 of these missiles, highly 
mobile, can, in fact, place at risk an adversary naval force, 
reaching out--in the unclassified setting, sir--in excess of a 
hundred miles against a ship--we have successfully tested this 
at Point Mugu--at a range of right around a hundred miles, 
again, for the purposes of this open hearing. That missile 
allows us to hold forces, enemy forces, at risk and to open sea 
lanes in support of distributed maritime operations for our 
fleet commanders.
    When we have this and when the adversary has to respect a 
force of only 75 Marines, they have to, to your point and 
Admiral Davidson's point, and Admiral Aquilino, the current 
commander's point, it causes the adversary to spread out their 
information--or intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance 
network and look at everything, because when everything is a 
threat, that is how you enable fleet maneuver. Because now they 
are worried about everything, things that were too small to 
worry about, now that small thing has some lethality that can 
bring down a vessel, by the way, that cost $2 billion at the 
expense of a $1.7 million missile. Does that answer your 
question, sir?
    Mr. Wittman. Yes, sir, General Smith. I appreciate that. 
That is great. That is incredibly important, as we go forward, 
to make sure that is properly resourced.
    I want to go now to Mr. Bush and Mr. Stefany. As you know, 
the First District of Virginia has a tremendous number of 
Active Duty military stationed in bases in every branch of the 
service, including the Coast Guard, and we also have an 
extraordinary group of civilians that work with companies that 
support our members of the military.
    There is a tremendous amount of innovation and creation out 
there, and what I hear constantly is the high level of 
frustration, and that it is too hard to do business with the 
Department of Defense. They get into the SBIR [Small Business 
Innovation Research] process and the Small Business Technology 
Transfer, or the STTR programs.
    The problem is, is they can do the research and 
development, so they can do the phase 1 and phase 2, but it is 
very hard for them to graduate, to actually scale up, to take 
what they have developed in concept and actually grow their 
businesses.
    And one of two things happen. Either they get capped 
because if they grow larger, they actually get penalized; they 
can't do business. Or they finally give in and one of the big 
primes purchases them, and then that innovation and technology 
never makes its way into the hands of our warfighter because 
the primaries buy it up and then shelve it. So they are 
essentially pushing back against competition.
    I want to know, you know, what is DOD doing to actively 
discourage this in order to help. I hear a lot of words about, 
``Oh, yeah, yeah, we are looking at those companies,'' but I 
see very little in terms of real numbers.
    I want to know what you are doing internally to fix this 
systemic acquisitions issue and what you are doing to try to 
get these businesses that work very hard to grow and that take 
very innovative and creative ideas and actually get them to the 
point where we can field them.
    That is what I believe the future is going to be, and 
unfortunately what happens right now is they either fade away 
or they get vacuumed up by the primes. Mr. Bush or Mr. Stefany.
    Mr. Stefany. Okay. Yes, sir, I will take this one first, 
Representative Wittman. So, yes, you are describing what I 
guess we would describe often as the valley of death in the 
research and development world----
    Mr. Wittman. Yes.
    Mr. Stefany [continuing]. Where a small company or even a 
midsize company will have a great idea, we get it going, and 
then it doesn't get pulled into a major acquisition program 
with the big prime. So very, very aware of the problem, and as 
far as what we are doing about it, well, we have a number of--
our Office of Naval Research has, we call it integrated naval 
prototyping program that is specifically built to cross that, 
to take promising ideas that actually have matured to what you 
would say maybe a SBIR level 2, and get them across and pull 
them into an experimentation or an actual prototyping, a rapid 
prototyping event attached to a major program.
    And so we could show you that alignment, where we are 
trying to actually take those and map them directly to programs 
of record so that you can actually see those alignments.
    Mr. Wittman. Very good.
    Mr. Stefany. And in the past, it has been like we just kind 
of waited for industry to do it, and now we are trying to 
actively map them across.
    Mr. Wittman. Very good.
    Mr. Norcross. The gentleman's time has expired. We are 
going to have another round here.
    Mr. Wittman. Okay. Thank you.
    Mr. Norcross. Mr. Brown, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Brown. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I want to 
thank our witnesses for being here today.
    My first question is for General Murray. Good afternoon. I 
had an opportunity recently to meet with your colleague, 
General Potter, the Army G-2, and it is my understanding that 
the G-2 leads the ISR [Intelligence, Surveillance, and 
Reconnaissance] Task Force, charged with ensuring that ISR 
concerns and capabilities are integrated into and support the 
CFTs [cross-functional teams] as required.
    Can you just describe to the committee the process by which 
the ISR Task Force interacts with the CFTs and how any ISR 
requirements or modernization priorities are being addressed by 
Army Futures Command? Thank you.
    General Murray. Thank you, Congressman Brown. It is good to 
see you again. So, much like logistics, ISR is a part of every 
one of the cross-functional teams. And if you looked at the way 
we look at requirements, things like TITAN [Tactical 
Intelligence Targeting Access Node], which is an intel 
[intelligence] system, is very, very high on our list as we 
look at our future requirements. The ISR Task Force is a key 
contributor of things like Project Convergence back in the one 
we did last fall, the one we will do, again, this fall and the 
one we will do in 2022. The ability to--if you remember, 
Project Convergence 20 was all about sensor-to-shooter look and 
the ISR Task Force provides us the sensors through either 
organic means, national means, other service means, but that 
all revolves around the ISR Task Force.
    The ISR Task Force is also intimately involved with the 
Artificial Intelligence Task Force at Carnegie Mellon as we 
begin to look at the algorithms that we are developing to 
really refine that sensing and do some of the automated--the 
PED [processing, exploitation, and dissemination] work, the 
processing of the information that comes off the sensors. 
General Potter and I have conversations probably at least 
weekly, if not more, in terms of the integration of the sensing 
part of it that ISR provides.
    So, short of being another cross-functional team, ISR Task 
Force and the superstars they have got on that task force are 
in daily conversations, not only at AFC headquarters but really 
across all of the cross-functional teams that are highlighted 
and key parts of all the experimentation we do, most recently 
EDGE 21 [Experimental Demonstration Gateway Exercise 2021] at 
Dugway Proving Ground.
    Mr. Brown. Thank you. For General Smith and also for you, 
General Murray, picking up where I think Representative Wittman 
was in terms of presenting, you know, multiple lethalities and 
challenges to our adversaries. I always get a little concerned 
when I hear, you know, one service suggesting that another 
service's modernization priorities are not necessarily well 
conceived or that they're duplicative.
    The Army has as the top modernization priority long-range 
precision fires, and General Smith, you just talked about with 
Representative Wittman, the value, the importance of the 
ground-based anti-ship missile. Air Force certainly has a role 
to play as well. I mean, they provide a long-range air-to-
ground, air-to-air fire. Can you just talk a little bit about 
how the Joint Requirements Oversight Council is involved in 
ensuring that these modernization priorities with the different 
services are kind of aligned with one another or in sync with 
one another, not at odds with one another but, in fact, 
complement each other when we think about the joint warfighter 
operating concept?
    We will start with General Smith, and then we will go over 
to General Murray, please.
    General Smith. Congressman, good to see you, sir. The JROC, 
Joint Requirements Oversight Council, does, in fact, sir, 
conform program to records. So underneath the leadership of 
General Hyten, our Vice Chairman, you must pass requirements 
through the JROC. So all of the things that we seek in terms of 
long-range precision fires and I am in literally, sir, in 
weekly contact with Lieutenant General Richardson who is the 
deputy down for General Murray, literally weekly, sir, on our 
long-range precision fire efforts together. We are 
appropriately overlapped, but not duplicative. We each have a 
role to play. We are certainly very light and mobile and have X 
range. The Army is much more long range. They bring more heft 
to the fight. Both of those are characteristics that the joint 
force commander has asked for.
    So, again, sir, we both seek long-range precision fires 
that we can employ within our maneuver space and within our 
units, but they are certainly not duplicative, sir. They are 
complementary, and the JROC does oversee that. And I will stop 
there, sir, and pass to General Murray.
    General Murray. And, Chairman, I think we are out of time. 
You want me to answer that?
    Mr. Norcross. You can finish the answer.
    General Murray. Right. And I would just echo General 
Smith's comments. And we do do, between the Army and the Marine 
Corps and really if you look at Project Convergence across all 
five of the services to now include the Space Force, it is 
weekly synchronization meetings. I echo his comments on the 
JROC's role. And then the other thing I would say, Congressman, 
it is all in support of the joint warfighting concept, and as 
that emerges, I think you will see the complementary nature of 
that, and I appreciate you using that word and our ability to 
provide multiple dilemmas from the land, from the sea, from the 
air is critical to present those multiple dilemmas to any 
potential adversary and not allow them to focus on one 
particular thing.
    And I would just say in closing is we always have and 
always will fight as a joint force, and we will all make 
contributions to that fight.
    Mr. Brown. Thank you, gentlemen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Norcross. You got it.
    Mr. Bacon, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Bacon. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    And I appreciate the panel today. Thanks for your 
leadership in our Army/Marines. We are grateful to you. Mr. 
Bush, you have touched on this, but I am getting some mixed 
signals, or maybe I am just not understanding, so let me just 
clarify. We know we have a need to modernize our tactical 
wheeled vehicles and maintain a rate of production that 
sustains the industry's future capacity. It appears to me from 
the research I was doing that the Army cut this budget area and 
shifted funds to other areas. So we are concerned about how 
this will weaken a fragile domestic industrial base.
    Can you--do you see this as a risk? Are we covering the 
need? I would like to get your perspective. Thank you.
    Mr. Bush. Sir, you are correct in identifying that funds 
were shifted from some elements of that portfolio to protect 
other things, yes, sir. So the Army's judgment is that at this 
time it is an acceptable risk, but there are no such thing as 
no risk, especially when you make changes year on year. Sir, at 
this time we don't see an existential risk to that industrial 
base across the United States, but that doesn't mean there is 
going to be any effect at all from the shift of resources.
    Mr. Bacon. Is it true that we have shifted resources in 
many of the recent budgets? Is that correct?
    Mr. Bush. Sir, I can't speak in detail about previous 
budgets, but if you look across the tactical wheeled vehicle 
fleet, year to year, there are changes there, and sometimes 
things are moved from there to other higher priorities.
    Mr. Bacon. What is a concern to us on the committee that we 
be able to preserve this industrial capacity. If we get too 
weak and fragile, we won't be able to recover, and we don't 
want to rely on overseas sources. So we may come back to that. 
We may have to look at that in the NDAA [National Defense 
Authorization Act], for the one we are working on.
    General Smith, I would like to ask you about the Ground/Air 
Task Oriented Radar, or the G/ATOR, and how it is being 
developed and its current status. The U.S. Marine Corps is 
seeking a plus-up of about $301 million for eight more G/ATORs. 
General, how will the Marines integrate this system into the 
Marine littoral regiment? And are the current tactical wheeled 
vehicles, are they built to accommodate the G/ATOR, or is it 
easy to integrate? Thank you.
    General Smith. Sure. Thanks for the question. The G/ATOR 
radar is our radar of the future. It is called the TPS-80. We 
are seeking to accelerate a success story. Like the ACV, it is 
on schedule, on cost, and it is actually exceeding performance 
parameters. We fully populated one of the radars at a test 
facility in Baltimore and what it achieved would exceed the 
classification level of this committee and most of the spaces 
within the House.
    We would have to go to a different compartment to talk 
about it. So it is a real success story. It is internally 
transportable by our KC-130Js, which is the key for us, sir. 
And what it does is it gathers and passes data to the joint 
force. Under General Murray's leadership and that of Lieutenant 
General Jim Richardson for Project Convergence 21, we will take 
one of our G/ATOR radars out to Project Convergence at the Yuma 
Proving Ground this fall, and it will gather and pass data to 
the joint force, to the Navy, to the Army. It is a phenomenal 
collector even in a passive mode. So we are trying to 
accelerate the success and finish the buy early to save dollars 
and get that proven asset into the hands of the warfighters. We 
took it to Australia last year, had an exercise called Talisman 
Sabre, performed extremely well, and it is on performance, 
schedule, and cost. And it is, again, highly mobile, sir, and 
highly useful in the Indo-Pacific or other theaters because of 
its lightness and mobility and the wheeled vehicles that move 
it are part of our inventory, sir, and it is mobile on the 
ground with our current ground vehicle--or ground vehicle 
strategy enable that ability, sir.
    Mr. Bacon. Thank you. Shifting gears to both General Murray 
and General Smith--and I know my time's running short. I see a 
need for long-range surface-to-surface precision fires, 
especially when your opponents or potential adversaries have 
them. I also see a problem in the Pacific where there is lack 
of operating areas.
    Does this not concern you when we have very limited 
operating areas whereas China can hide them anywhere in its 
country? Won't this be a challenge for us for putting a lot of 
resources in this weapons system? And I know I don't have much 
time left. So I have got 10 seconds. Thank you.
    General Smith. Very quickly. So, obviously, sir, there is 
two pieces. For us the best place that you can operate from is 
the naval vessel, but I would offer, sir, that these long-range 
precision fires assets, we do have a lot of friends in the 
region. In all candor, China does not. We have a lot of friends 
there. And we do always seek diplomatic efforts to gain access. 
If--and I won't [inaudible], but these long-range fires 
capabilities that the Army seeks in very long range and we seek 
in a short or medium range to complement each other, if an 
existential threat to [inaudible] derives, sir, we each carry 
the capability--I will not speak for the Army, but I have seen 
them in action. I worked for them in Iraq. We have the ability 
to seize for a short period of time and hold pieces of ground 
in order to conduct operations even when not, quote, approved. 
That is why we do raids, airfield seizures, et cetera. So, 
while not the first option, sir, it is a capability that the 
Marine Corps retains. And I would pass to General Murray.
    Mr. Bacon. I will yield my time back. I really appreciate 
your-all's insights.
    And, Mr. Chairman, thank you for indulging me an extra 
minute.
    Mr. Norcross. Absolutely.
    Ms. Sherrill, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
    Ms. Sherrill. Thank you.
    Mr. Bush and General Murray, as we switch to the 6.8 
millimeter round and leave behind the NATO [North Atlantic 
Treaty Organization] standard 5.56 millimeter ammunition, I 
just have a couple questions about interoperability. So what 
can you tell us about whether our NATO allies would support a 
planned NATO-wide adoption of the 6.8 millimeter round?
    General Murray. Good afternoon, ma'am. Right now, we are 
not having those conversations, to my knowledge, with NATO 
because we have not yet made the decision to go away from 5.56 
millimeter. And so the 6.8 would initially go to the close-
combat forces, which is around 120,000, leaving yet the rest of 
the 1.1 million people in the United States Army across all 
three COMPOs [components] with 5.56 and the M4 carbine/M16. 
That is a future decision based upon what we see out of the 6.8 
developmental work that we are doing right now.
    Ms. Sherrill. Great. Thank you. And then I wanted to move 
into some of the discussion about land mines. So, as you know, 
the use of land mines in warfare is quite controversial. There 
is an international mine ban treaty against anti-personnel 
mines of which the U.S. is not a member, but historically many 
U.S. commanders are against the use of land mines due to the 
risks they present to mobility and the fear of killing their 
own forces, according to a GAO [Government Accountability 
Office] study. Just some questions about the inclusion of land 
mine procurement in the fiscal year 2022 budget.
    Mr. Bush or General Murray, how much of the procurement is 
focused on anti-personnel land mines?
    Mr. Bush. Ma'am, I believe very little. The programs we 
have, to my knowledge, are focused more on anti-vehicles.
    Ms. Sherrill. So did the U.S. use any anti-personnel land 
mines in recent conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan?
    Mr. Bush. Ma'am, again, I am not aware. I would have to get 
that one for you for the record, if we actually used those 
systems in conflicts.
    Ms. Sherrill. Do you know when the last time the U.S. used 
mines in conflict? And I am happy to submit that for the 
record.
    General Murray. We are probably going to take that one for 
the record. I don't want to give you a wrong answer. My 
experience, which is almost 5 years between Iraq and 
Afghanistan, we were not using anti-personnel mines, but that--
that is 5 years out of the last 20. So we probably better take 
that for the record.
    [The information referred to can be found in the Appendix 
on page 69.]
    Ms. Sherrill. I will submit it for the record. Thanks.
    So I know you mentioned that you had the money that you 
needed for female body armor, small stature body armor, but it 
is on the list of unfunded priorities provided by the committee 
staff. It lists female or small stature body armor as unfunded, 
and so when was the last time women or small stature soldiers 
used this body armor in conflict? I assumed they have been 
using this in recent conflict. We have had the female body 
armor and the small stature body armor, from your testimony?
    Mr. Bush. Yes, ma'am. It has been a transition. The latest 
efforts is what General Murray was describing very well 
regarding the multiple sizes, and it is--with regard to the 
unfunded item, that is over and above what is in the budget, 
and I believe the unfunded list refers to that as an 
opportunity to accelerate fielding. So there is funding for 
some. It is not zero in the base budget. That money in the UFR 
[unfunded request] list, my reading of it was, it would 
accelerate the pace of fielding.
    Ms. Sherrill. And then--so it just seems like this female 
body armor, small stature body armor, is a critical funding 
piece, having been in the military myself with gear that didn't 
fit, not being able to fly over water during specifically cold 
months because my dry suit didn't fit, you know, this seems 
like a pretty critical piece of gear. And, I guess, as I am 
looking at the transition to great power competition against 
near-peers, why are we looking at land mines as an imperative?
    General Murray. Well, ma'am, so land mines are used 
primarily to shape terrain. And so both, from an anti-vehicle, 
anti-personnel standpoint, I am going back in history how I 
grew up in the Army. It is really a terrain-shaping munition. 
The investment we are doing right now in terms of land mines 
are policy compliant--although, we are not a signatory--policy 
compliant munitions so we have that ability to shape terrain in 
the future. And why do you want to shape terrain is to narrow 
options for your opponent.
    Ms. Sherrill. And I can submit my final question for the 
record because I am running out of time, but I am curious about 
if you foresee use of land mines in any sort of conflict with 
China in the future? And I can take that for the record.
    Thank you.
    Mr. Norcross. Thank you.
    Mr. Jackson, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
    Dr. Jackson. Thank you, Chairman Norcross, Ranking Member 
Hartzler, and thank you to the witnesses for being here today. 
The first thing I want to say is something that many of my 
colleagues, including ranking member, have already said. The 
budget cut to the Department of Defense being proposed by this 
administration, in my mind, is somewhat unacceptable in the 
situation we are in right now. I support cutting waste and 
finding ways to save money. However, decreasing the top line 
for the Department of Defense is, in my mind, a shortsighted 
and political move at best.
    The Army was one of the hardest hit by this year's budget 
request with the 2 percent decrease in proposed funding from 
last year's enacted level. However, cuts for the Army won't be 
just starting in fiscal year 2022. We know this. Over the last 
3 years, the Army has terminated 310 existing programs, and in 
the fiscal year 2022 request, the Army proposed to cut or delay 
an additional 37. These cuts include armored vehicles, 
intelligence workstations, and individual weapon sites. I 
maintain a belief that if a program is not working as we would 
like it to, we should stop funding it. However, I am not in 
favor of cutting programs that are beneficial or potentially 
beneficial to the warfighter.
    The Army claims that the fiscal year 2022 request maintains 
the modernization focus and the momentum that was begun in 2018 
with the establishment of the Army Futures Command. The Army 
also has said that this year's request will not slow our 
efforts of building a force by 2028 that is more modern and 
relevant to peer competition in conflict. I strongly support 
the mission of the Army Futures Command and cross-functional 
teams. However, I am confused how we have nearly 350 different 
programs that can be cut, yet the Army is telling us that there 
will be minimal impact.
    General Murray, I will direct my question to you. I would 
like you to provide some clarity on this, if you can. How do we 
have nearly 350 programs that could be cut, yet removing these 
programs have no impact on ongoing modernization and lethality 
efforts? And why would we even have had those programs in place 
to start with if they weren't worth the investment that we have 
put in this so far?
    General Murray. Thank you, sir, for that question. And I 
actually think it is probably a mischaracterization to say they 
weren't important to begin with. So you mentioned some armored 
vehicles that some would call legacy, but are really going to 
be enduring systems. And so, as we looked at how we could 
protect the Army's highest priorities, the 31+4 signature 
systems and to make sure that we are ready for that--that 
multi-domain ready force in 2028 and then even beyond that into 
2035 as we look at production is where can we take some what we 
consider to be and our Army simulators consider to be 
acceptable risk to make sure that we can maintain the 
transformation that we began in 2018. And I said this earlier, 
it is much more than just modernization; it is how do you go 
through this transformational change and really begin to take 
advantage of the technologies that, in some cases, are already 
here to make sure that we are ready for that future warfight.
    So it is not that any of those programs weren't valuable to 
us. It is not that any of those programs were misconceived when 
we started them. It is just areas that we could go to to take 
some level of acceptable risk to make sure that our highest 
priorities get funded first.
    Dr. Jackson. Yes, sir. Thank you. I just want to ask one 
more question, too, and you may or may not be able to answer 
this. But I understand the future cost savings may exist, but I 
just want to be clear: Do you know how much money--how much 
money has been invested already in the 37 programs that are 
proposed to be delayed or cut in fiscal year 2022? How much 
money have we already put into those programs? Any idea?
    Mr. Bush. Sir, I can work on getting you that number. It is 
a little easier to understand the small number of terminations. 
Some programs that were slightly reduced, for example, the 
Abrams tank. The lifetime government investment of that is 
going to be in the many, many, many billions. But, sir, I can 
work with you and your staff to narrow down exactly the numbers 
you are looking for and get those for you.
    General Murray. Sir, I would also answer, if I could. So 
some of the terminations were terminations inside of our 
equipping phase. Some of these were transitions to sustainment. 
So the program is just there. It is just transitioning into the 
sustainment phase in its life cycle.
    Dr. Jackson. Okay. That is great. Yeah, I would like to get 
more information on that. I think you guys are doing a 
wonderful job. I just want to be able to make sure that I can 
explain to my constituents what we are doing with the money, 
especially when it comes to the defense budget. I am really, 
you know, a strong defender of our DOD budget, and I want to 
make sure that I can explain to people when we are getting rid 
of programs, why we are doing it, and, you know, that the money 
wasn't wasted, and so on and so forth.
    So I appreciate your time and those answers.
    And, with that, I will yield back. Thank you.
    Mr. Norcross. Thank you. Is Mr. Horsford on? I didn't see 
him.
    If not, Mr. Green, you are recognized.
    Dr. Green. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Today, we face--and I 
want to thank our witnesses for being here. I, too, want to 
echo what my colleague Congressman Jackson said. Today, we face 
unique threats. We are all talking about the great power 
competition, large-scale ground operations, the switch from 
fighting a war on terror to, you know, great power competition.
    The Chinese military has increased its defense spending 
sixfold since 2000. President Biden saw fit this time to slash 
our defense budget by over $4 billion in real dollars, and as, 
you know, Congressman Jackson said, the Army seems to be 
bearing the brunt of that. They have got the largest Army/Navy 
in the world--and this is China, of course--and they work to 
significantly modernize their weapons systems to gain a 
superiority.
    Russia is more than just posturing toward Eastern Europe, 
and, of course, China is repeatedly violating Taiwanese air 
space. There are new affiliates from al-Qaida and ISIS [Islamic 
State of Iraq and Syria], and the Biden administration is 
seeking to uproot the progress of the previous administration. 
Despite the bipartisan National Defense Strategy Commission 
recommending a 3 to 5 percent increase in defense spending 
above the rate of inflation, President Biden is proposing to 
add trillions of dollars to deficit spending, raising non-
defense 16 percent in the face of cutting $4 billion from DOD 
in real dollars.
    The moment we fail to maintain vigilance is the moment when 
a belligerent power will seize the opportunity to tip the 
balance of power. And I just needed to say that and express my 
frustration with those real dollar cuts. In terms of my 
questions, I was curious as I listened to you, both the Marine 
Corps and the Army, describe research into body armor. Are you 
guys both separately doing research projects on body armor and 
fit to Marines and U.S. Army personnel?
    General Murray. I would describe it as collaborative 
research, Congressman. And so we do our research up at Natick 
in Massachusetts, and then, across all of our research and 
development portfolios, it is actually very collaborative. So 
the researchers, the senior researchers, from all three of the 
services, in this case, represented--Marine Corps represented 
by the Navy--actually sit down on a quarterly basis, and we 
share our research results so that each one of us understands 
what everybody else is working on, where we can take advantage 
of each other's research.
    Dr. Green. So you all are actively--you have two programs 
going, and then you just share information; is that how it 
works?
    General Murray. I can talk to the Army program. I really 
can't speak to the Marine Corps program, sir.
    General Smith. I will. For the Marine Corps, we are in 
follow of the Army. So our folks are absolutely at the table 
with the Army. So we use that same research, sir, and we then 
take the plate, for example, and we put it into a plate carrier 
that best fits, you know, a Marine who's doing amphibious ops. 
But the bulk of it, sir, the plate, that thing that protects 
you, we are absolutely together.
    So that is a--the SAPI [small arms protective insert] 
plate, sir, that is [inaudible] for all of us.
    Dr. Green. So the technology on the materials for stopping 
the enemy round or shrapnel or whatever is a joint thing, and 
then you and the Marine Corps take that plate and fit it into a 
piece of equipment that works for a soldier or a Marine when he 
goes over into the water, right, on a ship?
    General Smith. 100 percent correct.
    Dr. Green. As he is coming to shore. Okay. I just wanted to 
make sure. It sounded as if we had two unique programs going in 
your testimony, and that really concerned me, just like I think 
it was someone else--actually, someone across the aisle was 
talking about duplicity. That is a big concern for us, how 
those taxpayer dollars are used to make sure we are not being 
duplicitous there. I, too, am very interested, and this is 
probably a question best for Army Futures, General Murray.
    The industrial base, can you kind of let us know how they 
are involved in Army Futures Command? And when I got out of the 
Army and started my healthcare company, I realized probably the 
biggest challenge was scale and growing my company. And so it 
seems to me that if those--the industrial base guys are at the 
tip of the innovation spear, it might speed the process and if 
you could explain kind of how you all are doing that, if you 
are doing that, and what advantage you are getting from it if 
you do?
    General Murray. And, sir, I will start that, and then I 
will let Mr. Bush comment as well. So--and just a small 
example, and it is not only the large primes, but it is also 
the smaller businesses as you mentioned as you start up your 
business. So, for instance, we--here later this month, we will 
have what we call a CEO [chief executive officer] roundtable, 
and it really--what I have kind of stumbled on is describing 
what problems we are trying to solve to our industry partners 
is a key thing to do upfront. And so they understand what is 
important to us, they understand the problems we are trying to 
solve, which allows them to invest their dollars to do the 
research they need to do to address those future problems.
    So we will do that again this fall--later this month. Last 
fall, we had well over 400 industry partners on the net as we 
described the problems we were trying to solve through Project 
Convergence. So I do think it is that continuous, constant 
dialogue, whether it is a large prime or a small business, to 
understand the problems that we are dealing with is the most 
important conversation upfront.
    Dr. Green. To put that into perspective, I took my company 
from $180k in revenue to $600 million in revenue, so I 
understand the challenge. It is not, you know, on the scale of 
the United States military, but that is--you got to put the 
innovator at the tip of the spear, as well as the guy who is 
going to manufacture that thing. I think your idea here with 
the CEOs is amazing.
    It would be great if I could--I don't know if you all would 
allow us to come in and be a fly on the wall, but that would--I 
would learn a lot from that if you would allow it.
    General Murray. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Bush. Happy to do that, sir.
    Mr. Norcross. Thank you. The gentleman's time has expired.
    We are going to do a lightning round here. And [inaudible] 
expect everybody to get through it.
    General, there were several questions about the long-range 
precision fire and the fact that several of the services are 
doing that, and we heard the commentary by some folks in the 
Air Force about being expensive. Have you or Department of 
Defense or other services done a comparative analysis, the cost 
per engagement between the different services and their long-
range fire, to give us a sense of cost, efficiency?
    Obviously, they are not all doing exactly the same thing. 
Do you know any studies that have been involved on these 
systems?
    General Murray. Chairman, I can't speak for DOD, and I 
obviously can't speak for the other services. I will tell you 
that, within the Army, about a year ago, I have an organization 
within Army Futures Command that does analysis for me, is we 
began to look at the cost, if you will, and really the right 
mix of long-range fires capabilities. We called them at that 
point strategic fires, but the longer range fires within the 
Army portfolio and what we are looking at. And that did 
consider, from an operational effectiveness primarily, what the 
right mix would be, and there are costs associated with that 
within the Army's long-range fires portfolio.
    General Smith. Mr. Chairman, on the Marine Corps side, we 
have the Marine Corps Warfighting Laboratory. We have also done 
our own operations analysis division to look at a cost 
imposition strategy. And what we seek is the reverse of, with 
no offense for those of us that fought in Iraq and Afghanistan, 
where we would fire a multi-hundred-thousand dollar Hellfire 
missile at a $4,000 pickup truck which happened to have a 
machine gun in the back of it, that is a cost imposition 
problem.
    We are now talking about a low million dollar missile 
against an almost $2 billion ship. So we did do cost analysis 
on what it takes to incapacitate or to sink a vessel, and the 
cost differential is significant between what we are investing 
and what the enemy would have to do to both protect the ship in 
terms of active and passive measures and the actual cost of 
when we succeed versus when they succeed.
    Mr. Norcross. So your analysis was within the Corps itself 
and not in comparison to the other services. Is that correct?
    General Smith. Sir, that is correct; although, the joint 
warfighting concept and then, obviously, I wouldn't speak for 
OSD [Office of the Secretary of Defense] Cost Assessment [and] 
Program Evaluation or the Joint Staff, but they certainly 
oversee how much each of the services is investing in and 
looking at a portfolio of long-range systems all driven by the 
joint force commanders' need for, much like a golf bag, seven 
irons and drivers both look like clubs, but they are certainly 
not the same. But you will require them all in a relatively 
difficult maritime environment such as the Indo-Pacific.
    Mr. Norcross. And the fact that there is differences in how 
you apply them and certainly the cost, it is a factor because 
that goes hand in glove with risk, as we heard earlier. Some 
programs are not making it.
    Mrs. Hartzler, are you still on?
    Mrs. Hartzler. Yes, sir.
    The administration presents a very dramatic shift in 
funding in the President's budget for submission without any 
details on the Future Years Defense Plans, the FYDP. 
Additionally, the Army identified $4.4 billion worth of 
unfunded requirements to go along with this dramatic shift in 
spending priorities. This places Congress at a disadvantage 
because we can't see the impacts of supporting or disagreeing 
with these dramatic shifts or these unfunded requirements 
across the FYDP.
    The insights that comes from the FYDP are essential to 
ensuring that Congress and this committee can execute our 
constitutional oversight requirement. So when will the Army 
deliver a FYDP, and what should our expectations be of fiscal 
year 2023 and beyond? And, thirdly, will there be further 
program restructures, or has the Army completed most of its 
adjustments with the President's budget of 2022?
    Mr. Bush. Ma'am, the current plan, as I understand it, is 
for the budget--fiscal year 2023 budget that is delivered early 
next year would have the full FYDP picture for Congress to 
consider. There are, I think, year to year always going to be 
program adjustments, ma'am. So I would say that is undecided at 
this point, but every year we have to look--General Murray and 
I co-chair one element of the Army's internal budget reviews 
and there are always move-arounds to try to make sure that high 
priority things are funded as best possible. So a work in 
progress, ma'am.
    Mrs. Hartzler. All right. So you are saying we won't see a 
FYDP for this year?
    Mr. Bush. No, ma'am.
    Mrs. Hartzler. Okay. Thank you.
    I yield back.
    Mr. Norcross. All right. We now--Ms. Sherrill, you are 
recognized.
    I skipped Mr. Wittman. Forgive me.
    Mr. Wittman. Okay.
    Mr. Norcross. All right. Lightning round. Go for it.
    Mr. Wittman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to go back to 
Mr. Bush and follow up on a question I asked that Mr. Stefany 
answered about what are you all doing to address our small- and 
medium-sized companies that are falling into this valley of 
death when it comes to their efforts to seek and maintain the 
innovative and creative business they want to do with the 
Department of Defense?
    Mr. Bush. Thank you, sir. So I think I will answer two 
ways, and then I would like General Murray, actually, to add 
on, something that is good innovation that is happening at 
Futures Command with regard to SBIR.
    The first thing, sir, it is incumbent upon the government 
and the Army to do a better job when communicating with 
companies about what if there is another side of the valley, so 
to speak, when they bring them in to do work. So that is an 
expectation job on our part that we need to do better so the 
companies aren't investing their own dollars in something that 
may not have a path to actually being fielded.
    So, within the Army, that requires connecting 
experimentation or smaller efforts in SBIR to actual programs 
of record, and there are some good things going on in that 
area. One thing I will offer, sir, two countervailing pressures 
we have that we are trying to mitigate balance in this area. 
One is ensuring that defense companies we are working with have 
cybersecurity that is adequate to protect government secrets. 
That is a challenge for all companies. It is also a challenge 
for small businesses who don't have the resources that some of 
the big companies do.
    Another thing I would mention is the supply chain risk. So, 
again, this is government work to make sure that the companies 
we are doing business with, if we are actually going to enter 
into some kind of production arrangement, source materials and 
supplies from companies in places we trust. So, sir, it is a 
balancing act. I can't say we are doing it perfectly right now, 
but we are working to balance those risks. And if you wouldn't 
mind, I will let General Murray talk about something in 
Futures.
    Mr. Wittman. Yes, sir.
    General Murray. The Army Applications Lab in Austin, Texas, 
with us is--and to be honest, we struggled for a long time. But 
we may have stumbled onto a way of using SBIR dollars. And so 
we have gotten the process down to less than 30 days to award a 
contract of SBIR and in the past it was upwards of 200 days, 
and we have done that primarily by simplifying the process for 
them, and it is not, actually, simplifying the process; it is 
almost like providing a Sherpa service to help small companies 
that are not familiar with the way the U.S. Government does 
business to help them through the process. I think the most 
important thing we found is, and Mr. Bush mentioned this, is 
starting with a problem upfront with somebody on the other side 
that wants to pull them across that valley of death is a key to 
getting these programs across that valley of death. So, working 
with our program managers, our program executive officers, 
finding something that will actually solve a problem that they 
are interested in solving, the problem that they have, and then 
in getting them involved from the very, very beginning to help 
us with this program has been key and instrumental.
    Mr. Wittman. Thanks, General. I want to jump in to 
something else real quick with you and General Smith.
    As we know, the whole issue of optionally manned systems, 
unmanned systems, ROGUE [Remotely Operated Ground Unit for 
Expeditionary] Fires, or, as my grandson would call it, 
``rogoo'' fires, the whole effort is, how do we take base 
technology, the technology that control things like the 
operations of the systems, the controls of the systems, all 
those things are common across those different platforms? What 
are each of your service branches doing to look at where we can 
learn from common technologies that are either developed on the 
private side or that have been developed by another service 
branch to use those as we spin up these unmanned or optionally 
manned systems quickly?
    General Murray. And quickly so my counterpart in the Marine 
Corps has time, sir. So there is an autonomy kernel [Remote 
Technology Kernel] that we developed at the Ground Vehicles 
Systems Support Center in Warren, Michigan, that is the same 
technology, the same algorithms that we are using in our 
leader/follower technology. So, one, seven or eight trucks 
followed by--and it is government IP [intellectual property], 
government developed, and I will let General Smith take over 
because it is also the same technology they are using in one of 
their programs.
    General Smith. Thank you, General Murray. Congressman, that 
is exactly correct. The same leader/follower technology that is 
in use by the ROGUE Fires vehicle, it is the industry standard, 
if you will. We have a naval unmanned campaign framework signed 
by the SECNAV [Secretary of the Navy], led by Mr. Stefany and 
General Kilby and myself, to move forward collectively/jointly 
on making sure that the technologies that do exist are used by 
all. I would note, sir, that, for example, Google cars have 
hundreds of thousands of miles on them. We are a long way from 
that. And with that steady R&D [research and development] 
funding, we will gain the miles and the hours on both surface-
borne vessels and on ground vehicles, but the challenges we 
face in that austere environment where it is not a puddle, it 
is a 15-foot-deep hole built by a bomb crater, that technology 
is not yet there, sir, and only a kind of a steady R&D funding 
will allow us to get Google car, if you will, to a tactical 
level for that young soldier, young Marine to be able to 
operate a vehicle in really horrible austere conditions that, 
as you know, sir, will come to us when war is visited upon us.
    Mr. Wittman. Very good.
    Mr. Chairman, I yield back. Thank you.
    Mr. Norcross. You have got it.
    Ms. Sherrill, are you still on?
    And I think we are up to Mr. Jackson. You can wrap it up.
    Dr. Jackson. I have got all my questions answered. I 
appreciate it, though. Thank you.
    Mr. Norcross. Terrific. I want to take an opportunity to 
thank the witnesses for their service and certainly their 
testimony today, but I would like to offer up for any closing 
remarks you might have.
    Mr. Bush, let's start with you.
    Mr. Bush. No closing remarks, sir. Just thank you to the 
members for the time and for considering the Army's requests, 
and I stand ready to meet with members at any time if they have 
questions and work through anything they need so they have all 
the information we had when making our judgments.
    Mr. Norcross. Thank you.
    General Murray.
    General Murray. Nothing more to add, sir, other than thank 
you for your time today.
    Mr. Norcross. Terrific.
    And so, Mr. Stefany.
    Mr. Stefany. Besides thanking you for your time, I did want 
to follow up a little bit on the industrial base part and the 
mention of how they performed in COVID and how authorities like 
you have given us to improve cash flow and make [inaudible] in 
producing for our sailors and Marines during this past year 
[inaudible] on the production front.
    Mr. Norcross. Thank you.
    General Smith.
    General Smith. Mr. Chairman, not that you need it, but I 
honestly and personally do appreciate the courtesy that always 
comes with this particular subcommittee. It is always a 
privilege to speak to you, and I really do appreciate the 
courtesy that comes from you, sir, from Ranking Member 
Hartzler, and your members. It is kind of nice to have. Thank 
you, sir.
    Mr. Norcross. You got it. Vicky, do you have anything?
    Mrs. Hartzler. No. Just appreciate everybody's service and 
the information we received. Look forward to keep working with 
everybody.
    Mr. Norcross. Then we are adjourned. Thank you.
    [Whereupon, at 4:41 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]



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




                            A P P E N D I X

                              June 7, 2021

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

      



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


              PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

                              June 7, 2021

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

      
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
      
   
      
=======================================================================


              WITNESS RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS ASKED DURING

                              THE HEARING

                              June 7, 2021

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

      

            RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MS. SHERRILL

    Mr. Bush and General Murray. First, the Army is requesting no funds 
for anti-personnel land mines in the Fiscal Year 2022 President's 
Budget Request. Upon additional research, we found there were no 
documented employments of anti-personnel mines in Iraq during Operation 
Iraqi Freedom or subsequent Iraqi campaigns. However, the U.S. State 
Department reported the operational employment of a single anti-
personnel munition in Afghanistan in 2002 by U.S. military forces.   
[See page 23.]

?

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


              QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS POST HEARING

                              June 7, 2021

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

      

                   QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. TURNER

    Mr. Turner. The Army identified an Unfunded Requirement of $149.5M 
for PIM that when coupled with the FY22 PBR would procure up to 36 sets 
of equipment but that is still only half of the Full Rate Production 
(FRP) volume specified in the DOD approved Acquisition Program Baseline 
(APB) of 60 sets per year. This lower volume will still cause 
significant unit cost growth and workforce downsizing.
    What is the impact on fielding to soldiers and the industrial base 
by moving away from the current volumes of 44-48 sets per year?
    What analysis did the Army use to determine the UFR funding amount?
    Mr. Bush and General Murray. A Field Artillery Battalion consists 
of 18 Paladin Integrated Management (PIM) vehicle sets. Due to contract 
and production lead times, Fiscal Year 2022 (FY22) funding supports 
unit fieldings in FY25. The reduction in FY22 funding to 25 sets would 
not impact the number of units fielded in FY25. However, if production 
is sustained at a lower rate than 48 per year beyond FY22, unit 
fieldings could be impacted in FY26 and beyond. We do not anticipate an 
impact to the industrial base. Regarding the amount of funding included 
in the Army Chief of Staff's Unfunded Requirements (UFR) list, the 
Army's analysis accounts for the total vehicle manufacturing funding, 
which includes the Government Furnished Equipment portion ($326.3 
million (M)) of the base funding ($446.4M). When combined with the UFR 
($149.5M) intended for vehicle manufacturing, the program receives 
approximately 17 percent more buying power. This reduces the 
manufacturing unit cost from $13.1M to $11.2M. At the $11.2M unit cost, 
the Army can afford 18 additional sets (increases total from 25 sets to 
43 sets) with the UFR funds allocated for manufacturing.
    Mr. Turner. The Army Program Manager in charge of the Extended 
Range Cannon Artillery Program recently briefed during an on-line 
Conference. He identified a 2-part acquisition strategy for the 
program. This included a competition to build and assemble kits for 
ERCA and a separate competition to integrate those kits onto a M109A7 
Paladin Integrated Management (PIM) chassis.
    Does this dual competition create a delay in moving the program 
from the initial operational test in FY23 to an operational/deployable 
unit by FY25 as previously briefed to this Committee?
    I would like a committee briefing on the acquisition strategy.
    Mr. Bush and General Murray. The Extended Range Cannon (ERCA) is a 
Middle Tier of Acquisition (MTA) Rapid Prototyping (RP) program that is 
on schedule to issue 18 prototypes at the end of Fiscal Year 2023 
(FY23) for a one-year operational assessment throughout FY24. There is 
no delay; the ERCA program is on schedule to transition from MTA Rapid 
Prototyping into a Program of Record. The formal Initial Operational 
Test and Evaluation for the ERCA Program of Record remains unchanged, 
scheduled for FY25. The Army is available to brief the acquisition 
strategy at your convenience.
                                 ______
                                 
                 QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY DR. DESJARLAIS
    Dr. DesJarlais. In developing the JLTV recompete strategy did you 
consider any alternative strategies besides the ``build to print'' 
winner take-all construct; such as pursuing a second source or split 
buy approach or requiring digital designs and digital engineering 
combined with the use of advanced manufacturing as part of the 
competition's evaluation criteria, and if not, why not? In your opinion 
how important will technology insertions and future capability growth 
be for JLTV in the future given evolving threat environments?
    Mr. Bush. Yes. The Army conducted market research and considered 
multiple strategies that focused on how much industry would be asked to 
invest, the capabilities, risk and the life cycle cost implications of 
these decisions. The Joint Light Tactical Vehicle (JLTV) acquisition 
strategy was selected to leverage an already capable platform; how to 
manage Government rights to the Technical Data Package; and through 
focused design upgrades and competition, bring new capabilities to the 
Soldiers and Marines. The JLTV follow-on contract is based upon a new 
A2 variant of the family of vehicles, which includes several technology 
insertions in the areas of powertrain, electrical architecture, noise 
reduction, and stowage improvements. The pending competition also 
includes significant incentives for competitors to propose additional 
technology enhancements in the areas of fuel efficiency, corrosion, 
upgraded vehicle architecture, and driver assist capabilities, while 
keeping the cost of the JLTV affordable. These technology advances on a 
proven system, that currently has growth and modularity capability in 
weight, power and available kits, make the JLTV the optimal platform 
for the light tactical vehicle mission in a Multi-Domain Operational 
environment.
    Dr. DesJarlais. I'm concerned that the Army's current approach for 
the JLTV recompete without any changes to the current draft request for 
proposals you may only get one bid that being from the incumbent. If 
this proves to be the case would the Army go forward in awarding the 
contract, or would this require a restructure of the JLTV recompete 
strategy?
    Mr. Bush. The Army believes that it has a strategy that has 
welcomed and encouraged competition throughout the Request for Proposal 
(RFP) development process. Potential offerors have been provided JLTV 
lease vehicles and multiple drafts of the RFP to ensure a thorough 
understanding of the design of the vehicle and the structure of the 
competition. These offerors have provided feedback to the process over 
the last 18 months and have indicated their intent to propose. If the 
Army only receives one proposal, we will move forward reviewing that 
proposal in accordance with the criteria in sections L&M of the RFP, 
ensuring the reasonabilty of the proposal and an award based on the 
merits of that proposal.
    Dr. DesJarlais. Could you update the subcommittee on the status of 
the electric light reconnaissance vehicle (eLRV) prototyping effort. Is 
the program fully funded in the FY22 budget request, if not, why not?
    Mr. Bush and General Murray. The prototyping effort for the 
electric light reconnaissance vehicle (eLRV) continues to move forward. 
Necessary requirements documents were not finalized and approved in 
time to be incorporated into the President's Fiscal Year 2022 budget 
request, so the Chief of Staff, Army, included it in his FY22 unfunded 
requirements list. If FY22 funding becomes available, the program is 
postured to move out smartly. In the absence of additional funding, the 
program will continue to compete within the Department for funding
    Dr. DesJarlais. How committed is the Army and Marine Corps in 
pursuing electrification of it's combat and tactical vehicle fleets, 
and going beyond establishing new start vehicle efforts, are there any 
efforts underway to begin modifying current enduring vehicle platforms?
    Mr. Bush. See General Murray response.
    Dr. DesJarlais. I'm aware of the fact the ISV original equipment 
manufacturer has developed an all-electric military concept 
demonstrator vehicle based on the ISV platform in just 12 weeks. What 
are your thoughts on the potential or possibility to grow the ISV into 
a family of vehicles with different configurations, to include electric 
powertrains?
    Mr. Bush. The ISV was developed to motorize the Infantry Brigade 
Combat Teams (IBCTs) under strict Key Performance Parameters (KPPs) and 
Key System Attributes (KSAs) to allow for maximum transportability by 
rotary aircraft and mobility across the operational mission profile. 
The growth of the ISV into other mission roles and configurations would 
require identifying the capability gaps and formalizing requirements. 
The speed of GM Defense to integrate a commercially available Electric 
Powertrain architecture in the ISV continues to support the commercial 
readiness to meet validated requirements like the Electric Light 
Reconnaissance Vehicle, or ``eLRV.''
    Dr. DesJarlais. How committed is the Army and Marine Corps in 
pursuing electrification of it's combat and tactical vehicle fleets, 
and going beyond establishing new start vehicle efforts, are there any 
efforts underway to begin modifying current enduring vehicle platforms?
    General Murray. The Army is committed to pursuing electrification 
of current and future platforms where it is technologically feasible, 
operationally sound, and fiscally affordable. Two emerging capabilities 
are serving as our foundation for learning where vehicle 
electrification is most appropriate across our fleets.
      Tactical and Combat Vehicle-Electrification (TaCV-E). 
Requirements documents are still in development, but we expect the 
TaCV-E to inform a pathway for electrification, as well as integration 
of artificial intelligence and machine learning onto the light and 
medium tactical wheeled vehicle (TWV) fleets by 2035 and the heavy TWV 
fleet and combat vehicles in the 2036-2050 timeframe.
      Electric Light Reconnaissance Vehicle (eLRV). We expect 
the eLRV to facilitate rapid prototyping of a non-developmental light 
tactical vehicle, leveraging industry's efforts and investments. The 
eLRV will be either hybrid or fully electric, seat six Soldiers, and 
operate across the mission profile of a mounted scout squad within the 
Cavalry Squadron of an Infantry Brigade Combat Team. Market surveys for 
eLRV were released to industry in both November 2020 and April of 2021, 
culminating in a vehicle electrification demonstration and Soldier 
touch point at Fort Benning, Georgia, on 10-14 May 2021, with 
participation of more than six vendors and a pathway to fielding in 
FY26/27.
      Both the TaCV-E and eLRV programs have joint interest 
within DOD. The Army is also developing the requirements documents for 
a Common Tactical Truck (CTT) to rapidly prototype a heavy tactical 
vehicle that integrates commercial industry's best practices and 
leverages advanced technologies related to electrification, safety, and 
autonomy.
    Army science and technology (S&T) organizations are developing 
technologies to enable the electrification of the ground vehicle fleet, 
with emphasis on improved energy supply and storage, energy efficient 
technologies, power management, and improved power transmission and 
distribution. Current Army S&T programs are investing in power dense 
technologies, efficient power architecture and alternative power 
sources (including Advanced Lithium-ion Batteries, Fuel Cells, Diesel 
Electric Power Generators, Integrated Starter Generators, and Wide-
Bandgap Power Electronics), more efficient power and thermal 
management, anti-idle capabilities, and lighter-weight energyefficient 
components. Programs that support these efforts include Platform 
Electrification for Mobility (PEM), Enhanced E-Vetronics Technology, 
Advanced Mobility Experimental Prototype (AMEP), and Basic Research. 
Recent achievements include the demonstration of a Tactical Vehicle 
Electrification Kit that included high voltage power electronics, 
advanced Lithium-ion batteries, and an anti-idle capability that will 
transfer to the Joint Light Tactical Vehicle (JLTV) program, and the 
demonstration of a combat vehicle powertrain that includes an advanced 
combat engine, integrated starter-generator, high-speed transmission, 
and advanced batteries for improved mobility, power, and efficiency.
    The Army Rapid Capabilities and Critical Technologies Office 
(RCCTO) is developing a hybrid diesel/electric prototype for the 
Bradley Infantry Fighting Vehicle. Designed to be a surrogate for other 
tactical vehicles, its goals are to improve fuel efficiency and 
operational endurance, reduce the thermal and acoustic signature, and 
provide additional onboard power. The first two prototypes will be 
delivered in 3QFY22. RCCTO has also initiated development of hybrid 
electric prototypes of both the High Mobility Multipurpose Wheeled 
Vehicle (HMMWV) and JLTV.
    To unify future investments, the Army is developing an overarching 
Army Ground Vehicle Alternative Energy Strategy that will largely focus 
on the pursuit of vehicle electrification and demand reduction (fuel/
maintenance) to be published in 3QFY22
    Dr. DesJarlais. I'm aware of the fact the ISV original equipment 
manufacturer has developed an all-electric military concept 
demonstrator vehicle based on the ISV platform in just 12 weeks. What 
are your thoughts on the potential or possibility to grow the ISV into 
a family of vehicles with different configurations, to include electric 
powertrains?
    General Murray. [No answer was available at the time of printing.]
    Dr. DesJarlais. How committed is the Army and Marine Corps in 
pursuing electrification of it's combat and tactical vehicle fleets, 
and going beyond establishing new start vehicle efforts, are there any 
efforts underway to begin modifying current enduring vehicle platforms?
    Mr. Stefany. The Marine Corps is actively studying and evaluating 
electrification of its combat and tactical vehicle fleets to improve 
energy performance and increase the lethality and effectiveness of its 
combat formations.
    As battery technology matures and becomes increasing energy dense, 
new options will become available for ground combat and tactical 
vehicles. An electric JLTV is not currently supportable as the required 
battery load is too heavy and too large for the JLTV's payload and 
cargo capacity. Recent studies indicate that a series hybrid fleet 
would perform significantly better than the internal combustion engine 
baseline and is a logical intermediate step to full electrification for 
combat and tactical vehicle systems that have to negotiate battlefield 
terrain and ford up to sixty inches of salt water.
    The Marine Corps is working closely with the U.S. Army and 
supporting their research. A Marine Corps Medium Tactical Vehicle 
Replacement (MTVR) will be part of a Ground Vehicle Support Center 
science and technology electrification project.
    Additionally, the Marine Corps is in coordination with the Office 
of Naval Research to develop an MTVR electrification research project 
conducted in conjunction with industry.
    Dr. DesJarlais. How does the JLTV factor into the Commandant's 
redesign effort in becoming more expeditionary?
    General Smith. The Joint Light Tactical Vehicle (JLTV) is the 
Marine Corps' replacement for the legacy High Mobility Multi-Wheeled 
Vehicle (HMMWV) and an integral component of its ground combat and 
tactical vehicle portfolio. The JLTV provides scalable protection, high 
mobility, the capability to ford up to sixty inches of water, and 
increased networked capacity on a versatile, reliable, and efficient 
platform. In addition to utility and general purpose functions, the 
JLTV is the base platform and prime mover for forty other capabilities 
ranging from heavy weapons and precision fires to communication systems 
and air defense. By building off of the JLTV platform, the Marine Corps 
is able to leverage commonality and reduce supply chain and sustainment 
challenges.
    The JLTV was designed from inception to meet Marine Corps 
expeditionary mission profile requirements and be transportable by 
naval and organic connectors. It can be internally transported by the 
KC-130J, externally lifted by the CH-53K, and fits on Navy amphibious 
ships and connectors. Additionally, the Marine Corps is using the JLTV 
chassis as the basis for the Remotely Operated Ground Unit for 
Expeditionary Fires (ROGUE-Fires), which is an unmanned system to 
transport and launch ground based anti-ship missiles.
    The Marine Corps will have fielded approximately 2,100 vehicles by 
the end of Fiscal Year 2021. The program is on budget and on schedule, 
and the Marine Corps is requesting funds to procure 636 vehicles in 
Fiscal Year 2022.
    Dr. DesJarlais. How committed is the Army and Marine Corps in 
pursuing electrification of it's combat and tactical vehicle fleets, 
and going beyond establishing new start vehicle efforts, are there any 
efforts underway to begin modifying current enduring vehicle platforms?
    General Smith. The Marine Corps is actively studying and evaluating 
electrification of its combat and tactical vehicle fleets to improve 
energy performance and increase the lethality and effectiveness of its 
combat formations.
    As battery technology matures and becomes increasing energy dense, 
new options will become available for ground combat and tactical 
vehicles. An electric JLTV is not currently supportable as the required 
battery load is too heavy and too large for the JLTV's payload and 
cargo capacity. Recent studies indicate that a series hybrid fleet 
would perform significantly better than the internal combustion engine 
baseline and is a logical intermediate step to full electrification for 
combat and tactical vehicle systems that have to negotiate battlefield 
terrain and ford up to sixty inches of salt water.
    The Marine Corps is working closely with the U.S. Army and 
supporting their research. A Marine Corps Medium Tactical Vehicle 
Replacement (MTVR) will be part of a Ground Vehicle Support Center 
science and technology electrification project.
    Additionally, the Marine Corps is in coordination with the Office 
of Naval Research to develop an MTVR electrification research project 
conducted in conjunction with industry.
                                 ______
                                 
                    QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. BROWN
    Mr. Brown. In regards to the acquisition strategy for the Joint 
Light Tactical Vehicle, how is the Army ensuring competition in this 
phase of the selection process? How will the Army maintain technology 
insertions and future capability growth within the build-to-print 
strategy?
    Mr. Bush. Competition has been a bedrock of the JLTV program since 
its inception. The JLTV Follow-On Contract strategy has been designed 
with that foundational element in mind. The program conducted market 
research, engaged directly with potential offerors, and provided lease 
JLTV vehicles as a means to ensure a fair and balanced competition. The 
JLTV Follow-On Contract is based upon a new A2 variant of the family of 
vehicles, which includes several technology insertions in the areas of 
powertrain, electrical architecture, noise reduction, and stowage 
improvements. The pending competition also includes significant 
incentives for competitors to propose additional technology 
enhancements in the areas of fuel efficiency, corrosion, upgrade the 
vehicle architecture, and driver assist capabilities, while keeping the 
cost of the JLTV affordable.
    Mr. Brown. What is the status of the electric light reconnaissance 
vehicle (eLRV) prototyping effort and what are the planned funding 
levels, both in FY2022 and throughout the typical FYDP timeline? Is 
this technology under consideration for application to other tactical 
vehicle platforms?
    Mr. Bush. The eLRV requirement was not developed and approved in 
time to be included in the President's FY22 budget request. However, in 
anticipation of funding, the Army has conducted several efforts to 
inform the requirement and the program. The Army has issued two market 
surveys and supported an Industry Day at Fort Benning, Georgia, that 
included ten vendors, and resulting in four follow-on, in-person 
demonstrations due to address proprietary concerns. The current draft 
acquisition strategy projects costs of about $6M in year one, $10M in 
year two, and $10M in year three. The eLRV has the potential to serve 
as the foundation of the Army's development of electric platforms, 
battlefield power recharge, and development of green technologies. The 
eLRV campaign of learning will enable the Army to scale technologies 
developed under the program, as well as inform other Army and DOD 
efforts
    Mr. Brown. The Army and contractor have highlighted significant 
investments made for the Armored Multi-Purpose Vehicle (AMPV) to 
include the first ever use of robotic welding on combat vehicles. What 
is the planned rate for Full Rate Production? What is the planned 
program of record through FY2026? Will the program plan meet the 
recapitalization and modernization requirements of the force?
    Mr. Bush. The AMPV Full-Rate Production decision is scheduled for 
1st Quarter, Fiscal Year 2023 (FY23) to support an Army Authorized 
Objective of 2,897 vehicles, and the Army anticipates synchronizing 
production and fielding consistent with other Armored Brigade Combat 
Team (ABCT) combat vehicle platforms starting in FY23. The AMPV program 
meets the Army's modernization requirements by replacing the M113 
Family of Vehicles in ABCTs.
    Mr. Brown. In regards to the acquisition strategy for the Joint 
Light Tactical Vehicle, how do the current requirements map to the 
Commandants redesign effort to become more expeditionary?
    General Smith. The Joint Light Tactical Vehicle (JLTV) is the 
Marine Corps' replacement for the legacy High Mobility Multi-Wheeled 
Vehicle (HMMWV) and an integral component of its ground combat and 
tactical vehicle portfolio. The JLTV provides scalable protection, high 
mobility, the capability to ford up to sixty inches of water, and 
increased networked capacity on a versatile, reliable, and efficient 
platform. In addition to utility and general purpose functions, the 
JLTV is the base platform and prime mover for forty other capabilities 
ranging from heavy weapons and precision fires to communication systems 
and air defense. By building off of the JLTV platform, the Marine Corps 
is able to leverage commonality and reduce supply chain and sustainment 
challenges.
    The JLTV was designed from inception to meet Marine Corps 
expeditionary mission profile requirements and be transportable by 
naval and organic connectors. It can be internally transported by the 
KC-130J, externally lifted by the CH-53K, and fits on Navy amphibious 
ships and connectors. Additionally, the Marine Corps is using the JLTV 
chassis as the basis for the Remotely Operated Ground Unit for 
Expeditionary Fires (ROGUE-Fires), which is an unmanned system to 
transport and launch ground based anti-ship missiles.
    The Marine Corps will have fielded approximately 2,100 vehicles by 
the end of Fiscal Year 2021. The program is on budget and on schedule, 
and the Marine Corps is requesting funds to procure 636 vehicles in 
Fiscal Year 2022.