[House Hearing, 118 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]


                                     
                                     
                         [H.A.S.C. No. 118-32] 
                         
                         

                                HEARING

                                   ON

                   NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT

                          FOR FISCAL YEAR 2024

                                  AND

                  OVERSIGHT OF PREVIOUSLY AUTHORIZED 
                                PROGRAMS 

                               BEFORE THE

                      COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES

                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                    ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS

                             FIRST SESSION
                               __________

                     SUBCOMMITTEE ON TACTICAL AIR 
                       AND LAND FORCES HEARING 

                                   ON

                        FISCAL YEAR 2024 ARMY  
                        MODERNIZATION PROGRAMS
                               __________

                              HEARING HELD
                             APRIL 26, 2023




                                     
              [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                     
  


                                ______ 
                                
                   U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE 

52-421                     WASHINGTON : 2024 














              SUBCOMMITTEE ON TACTICAL AIR AND LAND FORCES

                 ROBERT J. WITTMAN, Virginia, Chairman

MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio              DONALD NORCROSS, New Jersey
DOUG LAMBORN, Colorado               JOE COURTNEY, Connecticut
SAM GRAVES, Missouri                 RUBEN GALLEGO, Arizona
DON BACON, Nebraska                  SALUD O. CARBAJAL, California
LISA C. McCLAIN, Michigan            MIKIE SHERRILL, New Jersey
PAT FALLON, Texas                    PATRICK RYAN, New York
CARLOS A. GIMENEZ, Florida           JEFF JACKSON, North Carolina
NICK LaLOTA, New York                STEVEN HORSFORD, Nevada
RICHARD McCORMICK, Georgia

               Michael Kirlin, Professional Staff Member
               James Vallario, Professional Staff Member
                    Payson Ruhl, Research Assistant 
                    
                    
                    
                    
                    
                    
                    
                    
                    
                    
                    
                    
                    
                    
                    
                            C O N T E N T S

                              ----------                              
                                                                   Page

              STATEMENTS PRESENTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS

Norcross, Hon. Donald, a Representative from New Jersey, Ranking 
  Member, Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land Forces...........     3
Wittman, Hon. Robert J., a Representative from Virginia, 
  Chairman, Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land Forces.........     1

                               WITNESSES

Bush, Hon. Douglas R., Assistant Secretary of the Army for 
  Acquisition, Logistics, and Technology, and Army Acquisition 
  Executive......................................................     5
Peterson, LTG Erik C., USA, Deputy Chief of Staff of the Army, G-
  8..............................................................     7
Rainey, GEN James E., USA, Commanding General, Army Futures 
  Command........................................................     4

                                APPENDIX

Prepared Statements:

    Bush, Hon. Douglas R., joint with GEN James E. Rainey and LTG 
      Erik C. Peterson...........................................    37
    Wittman, Hon. Robert J.......................................    35

Documents Submitted for the Record:

    [There were no Documents submitted.]

Witness Responses to Questions Asked During the Hearing:

    [There were no Questions submitted during the hearing.]

Questions Submitted by Members Post Hearing:

    Mrs. McClain.................................................    59
    Dr. McCormick................................................    61
    Mr. Turner...................................................    59
 
             FISCAL YEAR 2024 ARMY MODERNIZATION PROGRAMS

                              ----------                              

                  House of Representatives,
                       Committee on Armed Services,
              Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land Forces,
                         Washington, DC, Wednesday, April 26, 2023.
    The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 2:31 p.m., in 
room 2118, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Robert J. 
Wittman (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.

 OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ROBERT J. WITTMAN, A REPRESENTATIVE 
FROM VIRGINIA, CHAIRMAN, SUBCOMMITTEE ON TACTICAL AIR AND LAND 
                             FORCES

    Mr. Wittman. I'm going to call to order the Armed Services 
Committee Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land Forces. I want 
to thank our witnesses today for coming in to testify on the 
Army's modernization strategy for fiscal year 2024.
    The Army has been particularly harmed by the President's 
budget request for fiscal year 2024 and force structure and 
force modernization have served as the bill payer for the 
President's domestic priorities.
    With essentially a flat budget from last year, inflation 
will provide a 5 percent reduction in real procurement for the 
Army. For example, fiscal year 2024 budget requests for brigade 
equipping has been particularly limited for Army, including a 
60 percent reduction in Abrams tanks and a 50 percent reduction 
in Stryker and Paladin howitzers.
    While I look forward to discussions with our witnesses 
today, I am convinced that Congress will need to step in and 
once again reverse this dangerous trajectory offered by the 
administration.
    I am also concerned about the lack of INDOPACOM [U.S. Indo-
Pacific Command] prioritization by the budget request. RAND 
[Corporation] recently completed a report that indicated 
``large-scale maneuver forces may be relevant for the Middle 
East, Eastern Europe, and Korean Peninsula but are difficult to 
envision for a China-specific contingency.'' RAND was 
particularly concerned and critical of reductions in logistics 
connectors, ISR [intelligence, surveillance, and 
reconnaissance] capabilities, and communications networks. RAND 
further questioned Army's long range precision fires and Army's 
ability to use this capability effectively in theater.
    I share many of these concerns with the Department's 
ability to respond to Chinese provocation and the Army's 
ability to adequately support the joint force, and I look 
forward to shaping an Army that is relevant to the INDOPACOM 
area.
    As we work to enhance the Army's lethality and relevance to 
contend with the challenges we face today, every dollar must go 
further and deliver superior value. This requires evaluating 
programs for technology maturation and feasibility.
    Another Army modernization priority has been an Integrated 
Visual Augmentation System, or IVAS. Previous iterations of 
IVAS have left the majority of soldiers reporting at least one 
symptom of physical impairment to include disorientation, 
dizziness, eye strain, heads and motion sickness, nausea, neck 
strain, and tunnel vision.
    We have already spent $1.5 billion on this program. In 
April of 2022, the DOD [Department of Defense] Inspector 
General completed an audit citing concerns that this program 
could result in wasting up to $21.9 billion in taxpayer funds 
to field a system that soldiers may not want to use or if it is 
used as intended, could cause problems.
    I am particularly concerned about a product that would cost 
over $60,000 per soldier and think that the IVAS system needs 
to be carefully scrutinized to ensure that soldier lethality is 
enhanced and that Army's limited budget is maximized.
    I also want to discuss Army's arbitrary climate strategy 
and the almost $200 million proposed in the budget request for 
tactical vehicles. When Army decided to publish their climate 
strategy that would require fully electric tactical vehicles by 
2050, I was particularly troubled.
    I support investments that provide a reasonable return on 
taxpayers' investments and innovations that increase soldier 
lethality. Unfortunately, the budget request appears to be yet 
another Presidentially driven investment strategy that may 
ultimately reduce soldier lethality and degrade our national 
security in the near term.
    But all is not bad. For example, I am supportive of the 
administration's budget request for conventional munitions. It 
is a bold request to address the particularly decrepit state of 
munitions industrial base and meet the long-term munitions 
objectives for our partners and allies. Still, we must continue 
to ask the hard questions. For example, the weapons accounts 
have been historically rife with boom/bust spending sprees to 
address critical munitions shortfalls. My fear is that a 500 
percent increase in 155-millimeter howitzer rounds may not be 
sustainable and that a longer term plan to restore production 
may be a better strategy.
    Additionally, Ukraine has also taught us that the timeframe 
for conflict has been particularly undervalued. Rosy 
projections have reduced conflict timelines that limit critical 
munitions requirements were particularly misguided.
    The total Army's munitions requirement needs to be 
significantly overhauled to ensure the Army is able to respond 
tonight to worldwide military provocation.
    There is much to discuss in this hearing. And I look 
forward to the testimony of our witnesses. I now yield to my 
friend, the ranking member from New Jersey, Mr. Norcross.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Wittman can be found in the 
Appendix on page 35.]

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

    Mr. Norcross. Thank you, Chairman. I appreciate it and 
certainly to our witnesses for being here today at the 
subcommittee meeting today for the Army redsearch development 
acquisition programs. It is certainly one of the more important 
hearings that we have.
    And we just came from votes so it is not reflective of our 
colleagues not being here. They will be here shortly.
    Anyway, this year is critically important given the 
challenges that we are reading in the newspaper every day and 
certainly experience. The leadership of our international 
support for Ukraine against the Russian invasion just 
highlights so many of the issues we will be addressing.
    So this afternoon, we have two big objectives. First, we 
understand how the Army's budget request for fiscal [year] 2024 
will satisfy their equipment modernization requirement for 
today and obviously into the future.
    Second, we want to ensure Congress and the American people 
have a clear picture of the Army's success over the last year 
in managing the organization, production, transportation, and 
delivery of billions of dollars' worth of materiel and support 
for Ukraine.
    The Army investment and the management of weapons systems, 
equipment, munitions, industrial base risk must now find a way 
to satisfy the urgency of today's challenges and prepare for 
the future.
    We will get into the issue of how that determination is 
made because we, as a country, are not running short. We, as a 
world, are running short trying to do Ukraine. We are not going 
to give away things that we potentially need. And that is a 
balance that we have been talking about since the very 
beginning, managing the munitions industrial base. It was over 
4 years ago that this subcommittee noted with the concern of 
the unacceptable risk, capability, and capacity, and safety of 
the Nation's organic ammunition industrial base.
    We first pressed the Army to develop and deliver an 
industrial base master plan to ensure identification of its 
highest priority. So then working closely with the Army in each 
of the last [inaudible] years, we have found additional 
resources to accelerate the modernization of the facilities and 
certainly improve safety.
    One of the first things that happened were some of the 
explosions from years ago where people were seriously injured 
and in some cases killed. We all got a wake-up call on that and 
started that which I believe was incredibly important. And 
thanks to the Army's willingness with this subcommittee, today 
we are better prepared to deal with the industrial base 
challenges and for the support of Ukraine.
    Today's goal is to better understand how Congress can 
continue to help achieve the modernization objectives and at 
the same time provide support for Ukrainian requirements. We 
must help manage risk at acceptable levels between investment 
priorities, current and future capabilities, and the industrial 
base.
    Certainly, when we look at the 155s [155-millimeter 
munitions] and the investment that is already made because so 
much of the equipment that we are talking about in this area is 
not sitting on the shelf at the Home Depot. This has to be 
ordered, specialized, and made. So starting 4 years ago, and 
certainly what has happened over the last year, has made an 
incredibly bad situation much worse and headed in the right 
direction. But we certainly are looking forward to the 
testimony. And, Chairman, I yield back.
    Mr. Wittman. Very good. Thank you, Mr. Norcross. We will 
now go to our witnesses. We will begin with General Rainey, 
then to Mr. Bush, and then to Lieutenant General Peterson.

       STATEMENT OF GEN JAMES E. RAINEY, USA, COMMANDING  
                 GENERAL, ARMY FUTURES COMMAND 

    General Rainey. Chairman Wittman, Ranking Member Norcross--
--
    Mr. Wittman. General Rainey, if you could pull the 
microphone to you that would be great.
    General Rainey. Chairman Wittman, Ranking Member, Norcross, 
distinguished members of the subcommittee, good afternoon. 
Thank you for the opportunity to testify about how the Army's 
fiscal year 2024 budget request supports the Army's 
comprehensive approach to modernization as we deliver Army 2030 
and design Army 2040.
    Army Futures Command [AFC] is accountable for transforming 
the Army to ensure war winning future readiness. And 
modernization is an essential part of that. I am honored to be 
here with my teammates, the Honorable Mr. Doug Bush and 
Lieutenant General Erik Peterson.
    I believe that Army modernization is on track. I believe 
there are four key reasons for that. The first is very strong 
teamwork. AFC works in close partnership with ASA(ALT) 
[Assistant Secretary of the Army for Acquisition, Logistics, 
and Technology]. Mr. Bush and I have a very positive and 
professional working relationship and that extends across our 
organizations. We work together from idea to putting new 
equipment and weapons into soldiers' hands.
    Our teamwork also includes integrating efforts across the 
whole Army: TRADOC [U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command], 
FORSCOM [U.S. Army Forces Command], Army Materiel Command, and 
the Army Service Component commanders out in our critical 
theaters. Because we don't fight as an Army but as part of the 
joint force, we also integrate closely with our sister 
services.
    The second factor is consistency. For the last 5 years, the 
Army has remained committed to the same six modernization 
priorities. These six priorities complement and support 
Secretary Wormuth's six operational imperatives for Army 2030.
    Third is organization. Five years ago, to pursue the six 
priorities, the Army created eight cross-functional teams, one 
of the unquestioned success stories of AFC so far. The Army is 
capitalizing on the success of our CFTs by adding a new one, a 
CFT for contested logistics, to get after one of the biggest 
warfighting challenges we face.
    And fourth is our commitment to continuous learning. 
Project Convergence is not a one-time event. It is the Army's 
campaign of persistent experimentation. Project Convergence 
includes linked learning events throughout the year that inform 
each other. For example, Balikatan, an annual bilateral 
exercise is underway now in the Philippines,and the 
Experimental Demonstration Gateway Event, known as EDGE, is 
scheduled to take place next month at Yuma Proving Ground.
    All of these things work together to deliver the speed, 
range, and convergence our Army needs as part of the joint 
force to ensure overmatch against our adversaries. Materiel 
modernization is absolutely an essential part of transforming 
our Army to ensure war winning future readiness.
    Transformation turns materiel modernization into true 
warfighting capability and lethality. It makes sure that we are 
the dominant land force in the world now, in 2030, in 2040, and 
at every point in between.
    Transformation means thinking in terms of formations, not 
just platforms. It means modernizing our equipment along with 
all the other elements of DOTMLPF--doctrine, organizations, 
training, [materiel], leader development, [personnel], and 
facility. And transformation means thinking further out in the 
future to 2040 and beyond.
    Defining the future operating environment, developing 
future concepts, and experimenting aggressively, we need to 
approach 2040 with a sense of urgency now over the next 18 to 
24 months. Transforming the Army to ensure war winning future 
readiness and doing that persistently and urgently is the best 
guarantee that our successful materiel modernization efforts 
will produce lethal formations that will deter our enemies and, 
if required, dominate the land domain in conflict.
    Thank you for your support to the soldiers and civilians of 
our organizations and the Army. I look forward to your 
questions.
    Mr. Wittman. Thank you, General Rainey. We will now go to 
The Honorable Doug Bush.

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

    Mr. Bush. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Wittman, 
Ranking Member Norcross, distinguished members of the Armed 
Services Committee, Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land 
Forces, good afternoon. Thank you for the invitation to appear 
before you to discuss the Army modernization program and 
resources requested in the President's budget for fiscal year 
2024.
    I am pleased to be joined today by my teammates, General 
James Rainey from Army Futures Command, and Lieutenant General 
Erik Peterson, Army Deputy Chief of Staff, G-8. We appreciate 
you making our joint written statement part of the record for 
today's hearing.
    With your support, the Army's fiscal year 2024 budget 
request gives us the opportunity to maintain critical momentum 
across the board. The Army's budget request puts us on a 
sustainable path to equip today's soldiers with modern 
equipment while we invest in the technologies and systems 
necessary to build the Army of 2030.
    It represents our sustained commitment to our key 
modernization portfolios: long range precision fires, next 
generation combat vehicles, future vertical lift, the network, 
air and missile defense, and soldier lethality. It also 
continues modernization and procurement of our enduring 
platforms and equipment that will remain in the force for years 
to come.
    However, no budget can be built without balancing risks, 
and this one is no different. I do believe that this budget 
reflects a thoughtful and balanced approach between developing 
future capabilities and modernizing our enduring systems. But 
at the end of the day, Members of Congress will decide if we 
struck the appropriate balance, and I welcome that dialogue.
    Before turning to General Peterson, I would like to 
emphasize a few key points that I believe are of interest to 
this committee.
    First, I can say with confidence that this year's budget 
request fully recognizes the Army's role in the Pacific. It 
supports requirements in the Indo-Pacific theater by 
prioritizing investments in long range precision fires, air and 
missile defense, and sensing capabilities.
    And if you look at the Future Years Defense Program that 
accompanied the 2024 request, you will see important 
procurement investment dollars in the network, long range 
fires, air amd missile defense, and deep sensing. And that 
transition to procurement out of R&D [research and development] 
is particularly significant because without procurement, we 
don't actually end up with anything soldiers can actually go to 
war with.
    So that transition is a big deal for the Army. And I 
believe we are on the front edge of that, and it is highly 
relevant to the Pacific.
    Second, I would like to provide an update on the Army's 
efforts to expand critical munitions production, including 
opportunities to further expand capacity and reduce production 
timelines.
    As part of the Army's role in the overall government 
response to Ukraine, we are using the generous funding provided 
by Congress and every authority at our disposal, including 
those provided in the fiscal year 2023 NDAA [National Defense 
Authorization Act] while working closely with our industry 
partners to dramatically increase production rates across the 
board.
    We have a generational opportunity in my view working with 
Congress to improve the quality and modernization of our 
organic industrial base.
    Through your support, production rates in key areas such as 
munitions replenishment are on the rise. And we are also able 
to address critical obsolescence issues with regard to our 
machinery and weaknesses in the precision munitions industrial 
base downstream.
    Third, I would like to quickly highlight something I 
believe the Army is doing right, especially our efforts to 
adapt experimentation and testing to support concept 
development and accelerate our modernization efforts.
    As we addressed in our written statement, the Army is 
modernizing our business practices by embracing industry best 
practices such as soldier-centered design and rigorous 
experimentation. General Rainey elaborated in his statement on 
the great work AFC is doing in this regard.
    Fourth, I would like to address concerns I have heard from 
some members about how the Army is managing risk in modernizing 
enduring capabilities while prioritizing future programs.
    As members are aware, in order to protect the Army's 
highest priority programs, the Army has adjusted funding in 
some areas, specifically the pace of our modernization of our 
armored brigade combat teams. However, in doing so the Army 
sought to ensure we didn't go so low on any system that we put 
the industrial base at risk to a degree that forecloses the 
ability of the Army to ramp back up if the Army's needs change.
    In short, we sought to ensure we did not close up options 
for Army leaders or Congress to address our plans in the future 
if that is what they judge is the right thing to do. That's a 
careful balance to strike. I acknowledge we don't always get it 
exactly right. I look forward to working with all members on 
their views of where the Army landed on this issue.
    A final issue I briefly mention is the Army is fully 
utilizing the new acquisition authorities provided by Congress 
in recent years to make the Army's acquisition system move much 
more quickly than in the past. This has resulted in truly 
pushing the envelope on some programs due to the urgency of the 
need. That means pushing the envelope on technology as we do 
so.
    Shifting to an acquisition culture that accepts more risk 
will lead to situations where programs encounter delays and 
challenges as we try to develop new complicated technologies 
and bring them to the Army. However, I think that risk is most 
of the time worthwhile. And shifting this culture from one of 
caution to one of urgency and adaptability and speed is an 
absolutely essential shift in my view to ensuring the 
acquisition system can do its part of modernizing the Army.
    And I look forward to discussing where we have had 
challenges but also a lot of successes. And I look forward to 
your support. Thank you for the time today.
    [The joint prepared statement of Mr. Bush, General Rainey, 
and General Peterson can be found in the Appendix on page 37.]
    Mr. Wittman. Thank you so much. We will now go to 
Lieutenant General Peterson.

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

    General Peterson. Good afternoon, Chairman Wittman, Ranking 
Member Norcross, distinguished members of the subcommittee. 
Thank you for the opportunity to appear and testify regarding 
the Army's fiscal year 2024 modernization efforts. And thanks 
as well to all of the committee members for your enduring 
support of our soldiers, their families, and our civilians as 
they play a vital role in our Nation's defense, a role that 
they have played faithfully for 248 years nearly.
    Our modernization investment request for fiscal year 2024 
reflects our multiyear effort to accelerate and focus 
modernization and place relevant transformational capabilities 
in the hands of our soldiers. Our Army is progressing through 
the most significant transformation in almost half a century, 
bringing to bear new capabilities that support the 2022 
National Defense Strategy of integrated deterrence and 
campaigning to gain military advantage.
    Our investments provide tangible advantage over the 
Nation's near-peer adversaries. They contribute directly to the 
joint force's ability to deter aggression and our ability when 
called upon to fight and win decisively.
    As we modernize, we are setting the Army on a sustainable 
strategic path that balances and prioritizes the generational 
investments that we are making. To that end, we remain 
committed to our modernization priorities. And that commitment 
combined with several years of ruthless prioritization, 
continuous reassessment, and your sustained support promises to 
place these vital capabilities in the hands of our soldiers 
with unprecedented speed.
    We continue to accelerate our modernization efforts through 
teamwork, engaged senior leadership, process refinement, and 
the authorities and resources you provide our Army. Our 
progress thus far is not without risk. We must modernize 
responsibly, maintaining readiness now while transforming at a 
pace informed by available resources.
    Several years of ruthless prioritization, eliminating, 
reducing, and deferring lower priority and less necessary 
modernization efforts as well as divesting of legacy capability 
affords virtually no further flexibility in our fiscal top 
line.
    We have made the easy choices, the difficult choices, and 
the hard choices over the past several years. We are now down 
to the excruciating choices. As such, we ask for your continued 
support and as always, for timely resourcing to maintain 
momentum in the face of ever-growing threats.
    In closing, I would like to offer one very brief additional 
thanks, and that is to your staff, professional and personal, 
who facilitate the engagement necessary to advance our shared 
commitment to the defense of our Nation. And, again, thank you 
for the opportunity to appear, and I look forward to your 
questions.
    Mr. Wittman. Lieutenant General Peterson, thank you so 
much. Thanks for your observations and your comments. They are 
very important and very thoughtful. And we will absolutely make 
sure that they are addressed in the things that we go over in 
today's committee hearing.
    Secretary Bush, let me begin with you. The Army has 
proposed what is essentially a flat budget request for fiscal 
year 2023. If you factor in where we are with inflation, 
actually the budget request would overall shrink the Army. And 
the Army's modernization effort has clearly been reduced 
because of that. And I would argue readiness is being impacted 
as we look at efforts that affect Abrams, Bradley Fighting 
Vehicles, Paladins, those things are particularly acute, 
especially as we look at demands that come to us from efforts 
in Afghanistan--excuse me, efforts in Ukraine.
    The biggest challenge that I think the Army faces is in the 
face of modernization, how do you make sure you are also in the 
realm of being able to carry on regular operations that 
maintain readiness at the same time looking at existing 
platforms that you have to replace or that you have to put 
through service life extensions or depot maintenance, whatever 
the case may be, and then replace them at the same time, 
looking at where the Army needs to be.
    What do you think is the long-term impact of the current 
state of the budget as it is before Congress? The impact on 
combatant commanders, the impact on the demand signal that 
comes to the Army, especially as it is challenged in areas that 
aren't your conventional combined arms efforts, like you'd see 
in Europe. I mean, what you see in China--in the INDOPACOM and 
what you would see in relation to China is very, very 
different. So give me your perspective on how this budget 
affects that.
    Mr. Bush. Yes, sir. So I could offer a few thoughts and 
context. And I believe General Rainey could actually offer some 
really insightful views on how the Army balances this.
    So the first thing I would offer as a point of context is 
the Army's overall budget is $185 billion. That is our request. 
You know, of that, what we are talking about today, procurement 
and R&D is only 21 percent. So a tool every Army Secretary and 
Chief has is balancing those needs against the other needs of 
the Army.
    What we sought in fiscal year 2024 was to present a budget 
that retained future decision space. So we were able to 
maintain all of our acquisition priority modernization programs 
on track with regard to--and in some cases did make adjustments 
because the programs were at different places while also 
maintaining, as I said, healthy enough production lines to 
ensure we haven't closed off options for you or them. But 
that's always a difficult balance there.
    So I think fiscal year 2024 is very solid. You know, over 
time, as I mentioned, the Army has to shift to procurement of 
these new systems. That will be a challenge potentially. In the 
out-years, it is one we wrestle with every year and that is a 
longstanding challenge. However, I think the best thing we are 
doing now is setting the stage for success.
    So if I can compete for more resources in the Army's 
budget, for example, we have set the stage for having programs 
that are ready to go, and success stories and investable, you 
know, by senior Army leaders. And that is my main job, sir.
    General Rainey. Thank you, Mr. Bush. Thank you, Chairman. 
As you know, people, readiness, and modernization are the three 
major efforts that the Army's leadership, the Secretary, and 
Chief, are challenged with every time we build a budget. And 
they are all hopelessly interrelated and interdependent.
    I personally like to think about modernization more 
accurately as future readiness. I mean, it is current readiness 
versus future readiness today versus tomorrow. But I would like 
to talk about people. The single biggest asymmetric advantage 
the United States Army has, and I would offer the joint force, 
is the quality of people we have. So sustaining the All-
Volunteer Force, making sure we have the world-class NCO 
[noncommissioned officer] corps that we have in the Army that 
nobody can buy in the world and everybody wants, developing the 
young men and women that command our formations to be the 
leaders that are capable of doing the things they can do.
    And that takes training. It takes education. And it takes 
aggressive training at the National Training Center, Joint 
Readiness Training Center, and throughout the world. But when 
we do it right, we are building leaders during training, and we 
are modernizing the Army to be the best Army in the world at 
any point along that continuum.
    Mr. Wittman. Thanks. That is, you know, I think a very 
important part of the Army force structure is the men and women 
that serve. I think you are spot on with that.
    One of the things though, I think, aside from that value, 
that asset that the Army has, is some challenges that I think 
are pretty significant. And that is, you know, the Army having 
a significant role in the pivot to the INDOPACOM.
    We know the Army has struggled with that. I know in talking 
to General Flynn trying to create the opportunity for the Army 
to have that impact in the INDOPACOM, I think we need the Army 
there. I think where the Army is today is not where it needs to 
be.
    I was really astounded several years ago, the Army was 
going down the path of divesting in watercraft. We all know the 
INDOPACOM is about logistics. We all know, too, the Army is 
struggling with lines of communication, communication efforts 
itself, logistics in the INDOPACOM. We sure know that TRANSCOM 
[U.S. Transportation Command] is going to be really challenged 
when it comes to sealift in that area. I think being able to do 
those to be able to be effective there, you are going to have 
to have those connectors. That is going to be, I think, a big, 
big challenge.
    We know that large-scale maneuver forces are applicable in 
Europe. They are not going to be applicable in the INDOPACOM. 
The question is is how can you be light, fast, and 
maneuverable? I know General Flynn is struggling to try to 
figure out how do you do that. It becomes more difficult if you 
don't have connectors, intra-theater connectors, to be able to 
do that.
    I know that Secretary Bush has been working on long range 
precision fires trying to take existing systems and modernize 
those, you know, make sure the Army can be forward in the 
second island chain. All those things, I think, are good.
    The question though, General Rainey, is how do we do that 
at the speed of relevance. As the Army is modernizing, the 
scenario in the European theater or for that matter in CENTCOM 
[U.S. Central Command] and EUCOM [U.S. European Command] is 
very different than the INDOPACOM. Give me your sense about how 
do we get the Army where it needs to be at the speed of 
relevance?
    We can talk about all those things that happen outside the 
FYDP [Future Years Defense Program]. Listen, all of our dreams 
come true outside the FYDP. The question is is what do we do in 
months, not in years? Because Xi Jinping has been pretty 
specific about what they intend to do in that theater. So give 
me your perspective on that.
    General Rainey. Thank you, Chairman. So working left to 
right immediately, the efforts that General Flynn is doing pre-
conflict, aggressive exercising, working with partners to 
establish forward presence. You've got to fight to get into 
position, to deter, and if, you know, deterrence doesn't work 
you have got to be in position so that you don't have to start 
from, you know, start from the West Coast, right?
    So I think General Flynn is doing a phenomenal job of 
pursuing that. And, again, not a modernization thing, but in 
the training and readiness portfolio. I know the Chief and 
Secretary are looking to fully support him and could follow up 
with that or myself or the G-3.
    So, one, win the pre-conflict conflict by aggressively 
building the partnerships and relationships that we need to get 
into position to deter. Anything we put into theater, the 
LIMFAC [limiting factor] is we have to be able to protect that, 
sir. So, you know, that is a challenge with China. Anything we 
put forward has to be survivable. So the efforts we are 
pursuing on aggressively pursuing air and missile defense 
capabilities. Working with the joint force and partners to make 
sure that we can all talk. Project Convergence in a really 
aggressive experimentation that is really getting after how do 
we link offensive and defensive fires because the way we 
pursued those as two separate things is not going to work 
against the Chinese. And those are things we are going after 
aggressively.
    If I may, the INDOPACOM is our priority in the Army. Our 
Secretary has made that clear in enabling the joint force to 
fight. I do not believe personally that there is such a thing 
as an air and maritime theater. There are only joint theaters. 
We fight as a joint force. And some have domains [that] matter 
more at different points in time. So we take very serious 
enabling the joint force.
    We have robust C2, command and control, capabilities, both 
with General Flynn as the CFLCC [Coalition Forces Land 
Component Commander] and then all of our JTF [joint task 
force], all of our corps commanders are working towards being 
capable of JTF command of joint forces. The entire sustainment 
enterprise is a title 10 Army responsibility. We have to 
protect ourself.
    But one thing I think sometimes is not as well understood, 
not by you, obviously, but by some folks, is that we are going 
to have to control land, right, not as the main effort and, you 
know, not a big giant multi-corps land war maybe. But we 
absolutely are going to have to take land and control it, 
whether it is to help the Navy do what they need to do when 
they come to the shore, to position the Air Force to guard and 
secure the command and ammo storage. So we are going to have to 
be able to control land and protect it.
    And if the enemy wants to defend that land then the ability 
to take that from them is something the Army absolutely has to 
be able to do. And to your question on long range fires--I'm 
sorry for the length, but------
    Mr. Wittman. That's okay.
    General Rainey [continuing]. I am a little passionate about 
this--the long range precision fires from the land, as another 
tool for Admiral Aquilino and the commander, not in place of or 
competing with others, but that presents the Chinese with a 
real problem, right? Land forces are more agile. They can move 
faster, they are harder to find. They are more redundant. And 
presenting the Chinese with multiple dilemmas in long range 
fires I think is absolutely essential. And I think it is one of 
the things the Army is really making progress on so thank you.
    Mr. Wittman. Well, listen, thank you. I think your efforts, 
too, on multi-domain task forces and to make sure that they 
have full range of operational capability, structure, and then 
making sure that we exercise them so that we are ready at a 
moment's notice.
    The concepts are great. The key is is how do we make sure 
they are properly resourced and exercised so that they are 
operationally proficient.
    General Rainey. Sure.
    Mr. Wittman. Again thank you. We are going to go now to Mr. 
Norcross.
    Mr. Norcross. Thank you, Chairman. I know we have a 
scheduling issue so I want to defer to Ms. Sherrill for her 
comments.
    Ms. Sherrill. Thank you so much and good afternoon. Thank 
you all for being here today. I want to thank you for your 
service too and commitment to keeping our Nation and our troops 
safe and as the Army continues on its modernization path, your 
work to create a more lethal and survivable force.
    The U.S. energetics enterprise provides the Army and the 
joint force with critical explosive, propellant, and 
pyrotechnic materials for a wide range of military systems. 
Energetic materials remain the most important element in the 
lethality of military weapon systems. Since the 1920s, 
Picatinny Arsenal has been at the forefront of explosive 
formulations and energetic materials development.
    Mr. Bush and General Rainey, as the Army seeks to modernize 
its weapon systems and increase lethality, what specifically is 
the Army doing to prioritize energetic material procurement?
    Mr. Bush. So, ma'am, on the procurement side, I can tell 
you that right now we are learning as part of our munitions 
industrial ramp-up, you know, where the gaps are and where, you 
know, the single points of failure are in our current domestic 
energetics industry, and there are many.
    So what we are doing is trying to build more, both 
domestically as part of our efforts to ensure we don't have one 
place in the country where one building is a problem and then 
we are out of luck, but also looking at allies.
    So it is, I think, a picture where we need help in both. We 
absolutely have more capability here. And we are committed to 
doing that and then sustaining it for the future, but also 
working with allies who have much to contribute there. Even if 
we are leading, they can help, in some cases, Canada, in 
particular.
    Ms. Sherrill. And as a service, what expertise does the 
Army specifically bring to efforts to develop more lethal and 
longer range energetics?
    Mr. Bush. So, ma'am, as you mentioned, the expertise in the 
Army really resides at the workforce of Picatinny. That is our 
people with decades of experience doing this. And not just 
knowing the science but knowing how to adapt the science to 
military use in the Army, which is not always the same thing.
    So I think there is the academic world and then there is 
the applied science world that Picatinny is excellent at. I did 
look at the budget numbers coming over. I think in the 6.2 and 
6.3 lines for long range precision fires, I believe we do have 
a good increase this year over last year. That is because of 
how important that is. I expect that to continue as that 
remains our number one modernization priority, ma'am.
    Ms. Sherrill. And so what opportunities in that field does 
the Army see to leap ahead in the energetics field. And what 
support can Congress provide to achieve those goals beyond what 
you were just talking about with increases?
    Mr. Bush. Yes, ma'am. I would offer two things to consider. 
One is kind of foundational R&D to get new formulations. So we 
took a brief earlier this year. And I consulted with some folks 
from Picatinny about one particular explosive mixture, an 
energetic mixture for rocket motors, for example, where they 
are doing some work to find a way to adapt it and make it safe 
to use. That kind of research is the 6.1, 6.2 type research to 
just get to new formulations that are safer, better, easier to 
produce even more environmentally friendly to make.
    The second thing, ma'am, is manufacturing technology. So I 
think what our industrial build-up has revealed is that we are 
very good at doing it kind of the traditional way. We need 
better manufacturing technology to make munitions but also the 
components of munitions like energetics. We need machinery that 
is more flexible. We need machinery that is safer. And we need 
to harness American ingenuity to find better ways to do this so 
when another conflict comes, we can ramp up faster than this 
time.
    Ms. Sherrill. And is that manufacturing know-how that is on 
the civilian side and you just need to purchase it for our 
military or is this something that you think needs to be 
invented to do what you need to do?
    Mr. Bush. Yes, ma'am. I think it is both. So I think there 
is, for example, on advanced, you know, automated 
manufacturing, there is a lot of amazing work going on there in 
the private sector when you go to modern manufacturing 
facilities you see it. You can see the difference.
    However, we do have some very specialized things that like 
only we care about and make. There are even some types of 
steel, for example, that we are the only user of because most 
people when they make steel don't design it to explode well. We 
do. So there are some military specific things that really need 
to be led by the government while also leveraging private 
sector, ma'am.
    Ms. Sherrill. I'm running out of time, but thank you so 
much, and I yield back.
    Mr. Wittman. We will now go to Mr. McCormick. And thank 
goodness that the chairman is not required to say rotary wing 
aircraft today. Thank you.
    Dr. McCormick. And there are no Marines here today, so I 
didn't bring my crayons either. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good 
afternoon to all of you today, to our distinguished panel. We 
really appreciate you being here today.
    I appreciate you coming to testify on how we can ensure 
maximum capability of lethality for our ground pounders and 
providing them with the resources and systems needed to meet 
present and future battlefield challenges.
    Despite my own biases, I'm always impressed with the Army's 
ability to adapt, improvise, and overcome in the face of 
emerging threats and the changes in the character of warfare. 
Even if your mission briefs are extensively long for my taste, 
I have always enjoyed my time cross-training with the Army. And 
I mean that sincerely. I spent some with the 10th Mountain and 
101st. And actually was just with them in Poland recently also 
so that was kind of a treat.
    Honorable Mr. Bush, I am intrigued by the coming 
implementation of the next generation squad automatic weapon. I 
understand it has a 6.8 millimeter round, which I am a little 
bit concerned that NATO [North Atlantic Treaty Organization] 
isn't going to be compatible with that. And I hope we grow that 
presence in NATO allies and other allies around the world just 
because it is an effective killing machine, and I think it will 
do well.
    With that said, I was a little surprised that we didn't 
have similar funding for the M4 carbine mod [modernization] 
program for the Army's fiscal year 2024 budget request just 
knowing that it helps with the grouping and the lethality of 
that weapon system, which is going to be around for about 
another 15 years really by my estimates anyways. I was just 
hoping we could work together to make that happen in the future 
and if you see a need for the Army.
    Mr. Bush. So, sir, if I could start and defer to General 
Rainey to talk about just how we envision a mix of weapons. 
From an acquisition standpoint, yes, the next generation squad 
weapon, it is one of our first efforts, actually, where we went 
from rapid prototyping to rapid fielding. We did it 
dramatically faster than we have done some past firearms 
programs. From an acquisition standpoint it is quite 
innovative.
    That being said, your point is well taken, sir. It is not 
for the entire Army, but it is for a very good reason we are 
developing it. And if I could turn to General Rainey to talk 
about our overall plan.
    Dr. McCormick. If you wouldn't mind addressing the M4 
carbine mod specifically, that would be great. Thanks.
    General Rainey. Thank you, Congressman. Thank you, Mr. 
Bush. The M4 carbine is also an awesome weapon system that has 
served us well and is part of our enduring category of 
equipment going forward and as you said, will be with us for a 
long time. So continuing to improve the M4 is something that is 
in the best interest of everybody and would be one of our 
objectives.
    The next gen squad weapon system, if I could offer at your 
convenience, Congressman, to come over in a classified and show 
you the reason that we believe that that is a requirement. But 
we don't take adding in a new caliber round lightly. And we've 
done the wraparound thinking about training and facilities, 
ranges, training ammo, and do that very deliberately. And I 
would like the opportunity to follow up with you if you are 
interested.
    Dr. McCormick. Absolutely. And I hope we will address the 
mods on the M4 carbine as well because I think that is 
important----
    General Rainey. Sure.
    Dr. McCormick [continuing]. To have that, once again, 
dialed in so we can have the best weapon system moving forward 
for the next decade or so.
    General Rainey. Yes, sir. Absolutely.
    Dr. McCormick. Fantastic. Also I wanted to address the, I 
am going to call it, the 917A3 Heavy Dump Truck--which I will 
now refer to just as the heavy dump truck because that is a lot 
of words--one of the workhorses of the Georgia National Guard, 
I know, and of the Army, but seems to be severely underfunded 
and undermanaged. I mean, we have, I think, by my estimates 436 
heavy dump trucks, which leaves it about 686 short of what we 
requested, which means we have less than half of what we really 
want moving forward.
    I'm just wondering how we are going to address that need 
going forward in our budget request and how we are going to 
sustain our future fleets?
    General Peterson. Thank you for that, Congressman. We do 
have a modernization pathway for our heavy dump trucks. We are 
proceeding at a measured pace, procuring 36 in our current 
budget request with a projection to continue with that pace in 
2025 where we will reevaluate our precise direction and our 
trajectory from that point.
    We still have a full fleet of M917A1s and A2s. We do know 
and acknowledge that the fleet age is becoming a point of 
interest to us. And our current focus is to fill the shortage 
of 145 dump trucks across all components of our Army, which 
this current budget request does complete for us. And then we 
will in the future President's budget address a sustainable 
modernization pathway once we have reached our full AAO 
[approved acquisition objective].
    Dr. McCormick. I will look forward to working with you on 
that both in the committee and subcommittee. Thank you. And 
with that I yield. I am over time.
    Mr. Wittman. Mr. Norcross.
    Mr. Norcross. Thank you. The industrial base is a challenge 
that is not a surprise to any of us. The article today of the 
private sector in defense is having an extreme difficult time 
getting the personnel. So we talk about critical materials from 
trusted partners. Quite frankly, in addition to machinery, 
trying to develop a workforce is something that does not happen 
overnight, and it is in critical decline in terms of those 
being able to take the job.
    So I want to back up a little bit and, Mr. Bush, talk 
together how the last few years we looked at an industrial base 
that quite frankly, when it started, surprised me. There were a 
couple noted accidents that really prompted a number of us--Ms. 
Hartzler when she was our ranking member--to take a deeper 
look. And I think you went on several of those with us.
    And quite frankly, if you have ever seen the show on 
Discovery, ``Mysteries of the Abandoned,'' you looked at our 
ammo plants, and those are the ones that are abandoned because 
they used to build these things by hand, row after row. And 
here we are, half a century later. And we have narrowed down 
those old facilities into quite frankly just a few old 
facilities that we started.
    So several years ago, we started talking about the critical 
materials, where are they coming from, where are the trusted 
partners, and those charts that we can change. One of the major 
issues is not every material can be stockpiled in the same way 
for the same length of time. It becomes obviously critical and 
complicated. The one thing that we did discuss is China is 
probably not the best place to be and so we started to make 
those changes.
    So the report came out on what that modernization would 
look like. We started investing a couple years in plussing up, 
as you know, Mr. Bush. Here we are going into the third year, 
and we know how difficult it is.
    The one thing that I want to stress is where we started. We 
need to get munitions. We cannot sacrifice the safety of 
employees. That is one of our highest priorities. But one thing 
we can do is where employees are having hands-on in these very 
dangerous departments is have machines built. They don't make 
them overnight, and they are not sitting out there.
    So, Mr. Bush, when you look at what we have done, what is 
planned to be done, where is the most critical area that you 
see given not only when the plan was made but now with the 
added layer of Ukraine and what they are demanding?
    Mr. Bush. Sir, so first of all thank you for this 
committee's work on that issue. We had a plan to modernize and 
then we were positioned for additional help and then certainly 
it better--much better positioned us for the production ramp-up 
we are undergoing right now because we had that plan ready to 
go and members were able to, through the supplementals, provide 
significant additional funds to go much faster than we 
originally hoped to.
    I'd divide the projects into two things, sir. One are the 
true modernization efforts where we are trying to take that old 
machinery and use modern practices. I think Radford has 
probably one of the best examples where you see the 1940s 
buildings doing nitrocellulose work, and we have the brand-new 
facility, funded to fundamentally change how we do that to just 
a modern chemical manufacturing activity. We have projects like 
that across the board where we are making kind of a dramatic 
change in how we do things.
    I think what we are finding though is just as important is 
what I would call kind of the infrastructure of these places. 
So the less glamorous projects, if you want to call them that, 
but things like the electricity systems; the roads; the 
civilian support structure so workers have, for example, better 
facilities while they are at work. All of that is necessary. I 
shouldn't leave out security as well; so investments in 
cybersecurity and just basic plant security because we still 
have single points of failure, and we have to protect them.
    So, sir, I think I am more optimistic than I was a year ago 
about this partly because of the additional funds the 
supplementals provided. And I think there is always more work 
to do. But I believe that we are now in a good position to 
execute those plans several years faster. I mean, my goal is to 
kind of make a 15-year plan a 10-year plan, or less. And we are 
on track to do that now, sir, with your support.
    Mr. Norcross. Could you touch base on the critical 
materials from trusted partners, that report, and how far, to 
the degree we can discuss------
    Mr. Bush. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Norcross [continuing]. We have gone?
    Mr. Bush. Yes, sir. So I think we are working to end--
actually, this was really great work that was done by my 
predecessor. We had a good idea of what those supply chains 
were. So we had visibility. We weren't relying on contractors 
[inaudible]; we knew.
    We now have efforts underway to get all the countries of 
concern off of those charts. So that is our goal. You know, 
working with allies, we might pay a little more in some cases, 
but the security issue is more important in my view. And I am 
willing to work with members to secure those resources. So, 
sir, I think as long we have access to kind of the free world, 
we have ways to get those materials from countries that we can 
count on.
    Mr. Norcross. Thank you. Just one last quick question, and 
this has to do with the Humvee safety upgrades. Unfortunately, 
we saw reports on one of the widely watched news programs of 
the Humvee turnovers, the deaths of those young people. For the 
last 2 years, we put significant money into that. The question 
is, what are the numbers looking like for those that have been 
repaired? Is it doing what we would hoped it to do, which is 
save lives and still operate?
    Mr. Bush. Yes, sir. So I think I do have some numbers. So 
we have so far--and first of all, the fleet we are talking 
about, assuming JLTV [Joint Light Tactical Vehicle] plays out, 
is about 55,000 to 57,000 Humvees that would remain in the Army 
over time based on current structure.
    We have 6,815 kits procured; 5,000 have been installed. We 
do, though, have a big contract award coming that will procure 
an additional 53,000 kits using the 2022 and 2023 additional 
funding that Congress provided. We right now have a broad 
installation plan. So Red River Army Depot is our number one 
place that happens.
    Mr. Norcross. Right.
    Mr. Bush. To increase the rate there, which is about 700 
kits a month, we would potentially need to add another shift, 
but we are looking at options for potentially doing that. We 
also have 10 CONUS [continental United States] locations where 
we do the work kind of around the Army so not everything has to 
come back.
    Same issue there. The long pole in the tent is actually 
hiring a workforce to have additional shifts to go faster. So, 
sir, between that upgrade program, which is now, unlike last 
year, funded in the budget at about $50 million a year so we 
have a solid baseline, and that's out through the FYDP, we are 
also, of course, still buying new Humvees. We are going to get 
about 700 more because of we have sent to Ukraine, that adds. 
And then also JLTV production, of course. Those three legs of 
the stool, retrofit kits, new Humvees, JLTV, are how we are 
trying to get at the safety issue you rightly pointed out, sir.
    Mr. Norcross. So I appreciate that. So the ones that have 
been retroed [retrofitted], has it prevented those deaths? Has 
it brought it down, the bottom line?
    Mr. Bush. So, sir, I was looking at the safety stats. And I 
don't believe I can--it is hard to prove a negative. You know, 
an accident that is avoided you don't learn about because it 
wasn't an accident. But I think we do know that that 
technology, which is used in the private--you know, public 
sector as well, is just modern brake technology. I am sure it 
has avoided accidents. No question.
    Mr. Norcross. Thank you. I yield back.
    Mr. Fallon [presiding]. Thank you. And that was a great 
question. I now recognize myself for 5 minutes. for questions. 
And just if we could piggyback and continue that because I 
happen to represent Red River Army Depot, which does a lot of 
this work. And from what I was told by them and the 
manufacturer of the kits, we are doing about 500 to 700 a month 
right now. But they have the capabilities of doing 1,200. And 
if we fully funded them, which we plan to do in this NDAA, that 
with the Army's cooperation, they said that we can retrofit 
everything within 4 years.
    And that is what we are really talking about, what my 
colleague Mr. Norcross was mentioning, is we want to save 
lives. And this is a bipartisan effort. It is not 
controversial, and we want to give you the money. And we just 
need some cooperation. Because quite frankly, with all due 
respect, Mr. Secretary, there has been some dragging of feet 
within the Army, and we are trying to--and please feel free if 
you differ with me, to educate me on that. But that is what we 
have been hearing. And I just want to make sure we do 
everything we can to expedite.
    Mr. Bush. Yes, sir. And I noted your exchange with the 
Secretary and Chief on this, and I did some research to make 
sure I was ready. So I believe the big thing coming is, of 
course, the execution of a very large contract for the 
additional 53,000 kits that will get that kit production line 
up to even a faster rate than it is now. That will give us the 
kits to install.
    Second, when I went and talked to our folks at Red River, 
as I mentioned to the ranking member, one way to increase our 
rate is war workforce. So, sir, we are exploring that. That 
would be a second shift, essentially, both Red River------
    Mr. Fallon. They are ready to work at Red River. Every time 
I go there, they tell me, we are ready.
    Mr. Bush. And, sir, of course, Red River does a lot of 
other great things for the Army. So it is a balance, you know, 
Tank Automotive Command overseas the day to day between this 
workload and other workload. I can commit to you, sir, I will 
do a deep dive on how they are currently approaching that 
balance and see where there are opportunities for this 
workforce increase or just workload shift, perhaps taking 
people off things and putting them on this. And I can commit to 
you to come back with what I find when I go and look, sir.
    But I think the urgency is there. And I certainly--I don't 
believe there is any intentional foot dragging, but I know 
members find this an urgent issue. So I take your concerns very 
seriously, sir.
    Mr. Fallon. Oh, thank you. And if we can, too, shift gears 
a little bit to the JLTV. I think we are going to transition 
fully by 2050, is that the goal right now?
    Mr. Bush. Yes, sir. I think that is the goal.
    Mr. Fallon. And can we just visit with, or visit on, 
rather, the depot plans for the JLTV?
    Mr. Bush. So, sir, I think, you know, since Red River is 
our Center of Excellence, you know, in depot world for doing 
wheeled vehicles, I think, over time, there will eventually 
need to be a depot workload there for JLTV since it will be our 
major thing in the fleet.
    But, again, sir, I apologize, I don't have--you know, I am 
reluctant to say too much, but I could come back to you with 
the very latest we have working with my AMC [Army Materiel 
Command] partners and General Hamilton to get you an outlook.
    Mr. Fallon. And thank you. I appreciate that. You know, and 
as technology--I am particularly interested in development of 
directed energy [DE] weapons because I think that really is the 
future moving forward. We never want to fight, you know, 
yesterday's wars today. We want to fight tomorrow's wars 
tomorrow.
    As dramatic as it sounds, you know, it is not a hypothetic 
capability anymore. It exists today. And even better if this 
works, there are, you know, demonstrated technologies that 
successfully shoot down drones and mortars and things of that 
nature. So my question for the witnesses, the Secretary, and if 
the generals want to pop in, is how are we moving forward with 
this technology and pushing it through the valley of death, and 
can we expect these platforms to become programs of record and 
field the technologies?
    Mr. Bush. Yes, sir. So I'll start and then I think my 
colleagues could chime on the potential advantages. There are 
many. So we are doing good work. So the Rapid Capabilities 
Technology Office has been leading us on directed energy and 
that is everything from a 20-kilowatt laser on a very light 
vehicle to a 50-kilowatt laser on a Stryker, and you may have 
seen pictures of that, to a potentially as powerful as 300-
kilowatt laser on a larger platform. So we are really trying to 
push and see on all fronts where it makes the most sense.
    I will say, sir, the R&D is promising. As you noted, this 
is now not hypothetical. You can have lasers and other DE, we 
do have other DE like high-powered microwave, that can do 
useful military things.
    I think right now, sir, our challenge is working to get the 
cost down on manufacturing at scale because, you know, getting 
the technology work is phase one, but everything in the Army is 
at large scale. And there is probably manufacturing technology 
work we need to do with our industry partners to get these 
things to where the Army can afford them en masse because that 
is how we need them.
    But, sir, we are further along on this. You know, I came to 
work on this committee in 2007. You now, it was talked about 
then, but we never had anything real. This is real stuff now.
    Mr. Fallon. Yeah.
    Mr. Bush. We just have to find a way to make it affordable 
and then get it into production. But the potential benefits are 
many. And if I could have General Rainey talk about what some 
of those might be if that is useful, sir.
    Mr. Fallon. Thank you.
    General Rainey. Thank you, Congressman. And absolutely 
agree that it is doable, and it is essential. I mentioned 
earlier the challenges with contested logistics. The ability to 
pre-position things is a potential solution, a partial 
solution, but our current limitation is the ability to protect 
something that we put forward, you know, within range of the 
Chinese. So that coupled with the magazine depth. So even if 
you had a kinetic solution, it is only going to be as good as 
you have rounds for it. So directed energy, very effective; 
going to help with protection and contested logistics.
    The current efforts we need to continue to make progress on 
are mobility, being able to--you know, if we build this as a 
critical part of our capability, we have to be able to maneuver 
with it. So directed energy M-SHORAD [Maneuver-Short Range Air 
Defense] on Strykers, it's going to actually be mobile and can 
go with our forces, is very high payoff in terms of potential.
    And then there is also a power generation so that they 
currently are consuming the cost that Mr. Bush mentioned is a 
limitation. The other one is the large amount of power it takes 
to generate those. So we need to continue to make progress.
    But absolutely agree it is going to be essential and not, 
you know, in make believe future but as soon as we can deliver 
it.
    Mr. Fallon. Well, thank you, General, and thank you, Mr. 
Secretary. Thank you. The Chair now recognizes Mr. Ryan for his 
5 minutes.
    Mr. Ryan. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you all for being 
here. General Rainey, just on a brief personal note. I proudly 
served 3rd Brigade 4th ID [Infantry Division], I think, just 
before you took command, sir. So appreciate your service then, 
and I am proud to see you with four stars on your shoulders 
now. Thank you. And thank you to all of you.
    I just wanted to follow up on some of the points you made, 
Mr. Bush. Particularly appreciate and commend changing 
acquisition culture that increases the risk appetite given the 
urgency that we are facing.
    I think along with that is this idea of quickly recognizing 
when things aren't succeeding, creating mechanisms to do that 
in a transparent and rapid way and then figuring out what and 
how to divest. So this is a broad question, but if you could 
each talk about, particularly given the, I agree, General, the 
importance of the Army role in INDOPACOM, with that in mind, 
what divestitures would you identify as sort of priorities?
    Mr. Bush. So, sir, if I could answer kind of the 
acquisition part of that question. I think actually the new 
authorities Congress gave us, for example, rapid prototyping 
and rapid fielding, and we have done this with IVAS actually, 
as an example. We got to a hard test. It did not work as well 
as we thought. But because of those authorities, we were able 
to, in a matter of months, restructure the program and head off 
in a new direction that will actually, we hope now, achieve 
what the Army was trying to do.
    That willingness to accept risk and then that willingness 
to work with Congress, as long as we are transparent, on 
ability to change directions, you know, quickly, is essential. 
And that, I believe, is one of the goals of that acquisition 
reform. And while I am disappointed that it didn't work the 
first time, I think if we get it right, it will prove a success 
for using that type of flexible approach to acquisition than 
the old way, sir.
    Mr. Ryan. I appreciate that. Secondly, sort of a separate 
question, but all related, of course, I want to dive in--you 
talked a bit in your remarks but also the prepared testimony 
about Project Convergence. And I've heard sort of different 
delineations and articulations of what this is. I have heard it 
discussed in relation to JADC2 [Joint All-Domain Command and 
Control] and the role in that development. But then in your 
prepared testimony also talked about sort of a broader 
articulation of what Project Convergence is, which I am 
encouraged by.
    The question is why are we not--why is the Army not 
executing in 2023 given the urgency of the fight, given the 
importance of convergence and, you know, just helping me to 
understand how you all think about that? Maybe starting with 
you, General Rainey.
    General Rainey. Thank you, Congressman. And thank you for 
that question. We absolutely are doing Project Convergence in 
2023. So that one report thing was not accurate.
    Mr. Ryan. Okay.
    General Rainey. But more importantly, Project Convergence 
is an Army-hosted, joint persistent experimentation campaign. 
So it started as a one-time thing we did inside the Army, then 
we did it with our joint partners, then we did a big large 
experiment with joint partners and were integrating more of our 
coalition and allied partners.
    What we learned, though, is we can't wait every 12 to 18 
months, you know, the speed of war, the sense of urgency. So we 
have switched to a persistent experimentation where every 
single month, at least once a month if not more we are looking 
at ongoing exercises that are already funded. I prefer to do 
them in theater if we can because it is harder and the learning 
is richer than what we do in controlled environment.
    For example, Balikatan is General Flynn's major exercise 
going on right now in the Philippines. We have AFC teammates 
integrated into that and are watching them experiment with 
stuff while they do that.
    Next month, EDGE is our single biggest Army aviation 
experiment we do out in Yuma, Arizona. So we will consistently 
and persistently experiment. And then when the timing is right, 
we will spiral up for a capstone event. The next one of those 
is planned for February and March of 2024.
    Mr. Ryan. Got it.
    General Rainey. We will bring the joint force together. So 
it is persistent, consistent, spiral up as required because you 
are right. We absolutely have to learn better and faster than 
our enemies.
    Mr. Ryan. I appreciate that. That helps clarify. It didn't 
make sense when I heard it that way. And offline, if we could 
follow up, or my team with your staff, sir, on just 
understanding what some of those focus areas are to the degree 
in whatever setting we can, that would be greatly appreciated.
    General Rainey. Absolutely, Congressman. In fact, General 
McKean, my deputy, is briefing PSMs [professional staff 
members] this Friday.
    Mr. Ryan. Okay.
    General Rainey. And I would personally love the opportunity 
to follow up with you.
    Mr. Ryan. Great. Thank you all. And I will stay on time and 
yield back.
    Mr. Fallon. Thank you. And we are going to stay on your 
side of the aisle and recognize Mr. Jackson from North 
Carolina.
    Mr. Jackson. Secretary Bush, just a quick question about 
the next generation squad weapon. I think our soldiers have 
been told for a really long time--I have been in for 20 years; 
for as long as I have been in--that there is a new rifle coming 
just around the corner. And every once in a while, the Army 
Times will do an article about, hey, look at this new rifle. We 
think this is what it is going to look like. Twenty years of 
this.
    Now, what I gather from you, is this time is for real. But 
if you could just tell me so that I can relay back to a lot of 
these folks, a lot of these 11 Bravos [infantrymen], is this--
what is your level of confidence that a new rifle will actually 
be fielded within whatever timeframe?
    Mr. Bush. Yes, sir. So I think--I take your point. You 
know, I was here working for Congress for many of those years 
and saw the same several attempts. I think I--you know, I 
wouldn't say cautiously optimistic. I am optimistic that we 
have got it this time, sir. So I think we found a way to do it 
much faster. We didn't ask for too much.
    I think we ended up with a design that will provide with, 
you know, the right balance. It is difficult designing a new 
weapon with a new caliber. It is a tradeoff between in this 
case weight. It is a heavier round. It is a 6.8-millimeter. But 
we want capability that the general could get into that we 
can't get with 556 right now.
    Sir, I think we are absolutely on track. And I think the 
budget numbers reflect just how many we are going to start 
buying and then delivering.
    I would point out we are going through production 
qualification tests. So this is production weapons coming from 
SIG [SIG Sauer] that we are going to test to make sure they 
have addressed a few issues that we found in earlier testing. 
And, sir, so those decision points will lead us to then hitting 
our, you know, foot on the floor on actually going to full-rate 
production.
    General Peterson. Congressman, if I may add, for our 2024 
budget request, we have requested over $500 million for this 
specific program that includes the RDT&E [research, 
development, test, and evaluation] to continue the developments 
Mr. Bush spoke about, procurement, and the ammunition to yield 
resources to provide us with nearly 20,000 of those weapons. 
And that is a mix of the rifle and the automatic rifle. So we 
are moving out on this pending that production qualification.
    Mr. Jackson. Now, with respect to the number that you just 
gave me, General, you said 500. In this form, it is 322. Does 
this not include some of things you just mentioned?
    General Peterson. It may not include the ammunition 
required for it.
    Mr. Jackson. I am for providing ammunition as well. I just 
want to go on record.
    General Peterson. Yes. It is the total package, a complete 
capability in the hands of our soldiers. The RDT&E you need to 
continue [to] advance, the rifles themselves, and the 
ammunition to match that, and that is the $522 million 
investment.
    Mr. Jackson. Okay. So then Secretary Bush, what I hear you 
saying in making the optimistic case is where we are at right 
now is in final stages of design that you have seen lots of 
green lights with respect to design. No red flags yet. A couple 
of tweaks yet to be made. Upon those tweaks being made and 
finalization of the design process, General, you are telling me 
that funding appears to be there to enter production.
    Mr. Bush. Yes, sir. So I think we are further along than 
design. I mean, so one reason this program I am optimistic 
about is the extensive prototyping and testing with soldiers we 
did before we picked one. So there were three vendors. We did a 
lot of testing, more than we would normally do at that point 
with soldiers to make sure, you know, the weapon can work, but 
if soldiers, it doesn't work for them doing that mission, it is 
not worth getting. We did a lot of homework up front on this to 
try to get at that.
    So on both fronts, sir, military utility and 
appropriateness and technology risk, I believe we are in a good 
situation.
    Mr. Jackson. All right. Now here is my follow-up question. 
Let's say a new rifle comes out. It is great. Infantry loves 
it. Everyone else is going to want it. Everyone else is going 
to want it. Are you prepared to say no to every other, every 
other soldier who is going to want this. Or are you going to be 
back here the next year saying as it turns out, we need an 
extra $3 billion because everybody wants this?
    General Rainey. Thank you, Congressman. I don't know that I 
am the person to say how many we would buy, but I have seen 
this weapon. I have fired it. It is a dramatic improvement. We 
need to start fielding it to the part of our force that is most 
likely to make contact with the enemy and move as rapidly as we 
receive funding to do.
    Mr. Bush. Sir, I would say that going beyond our current 
procurement plans for the infantry force is a pending decision. 
It is certainly possible, but the Army has not--and it wouldn't 
be an acquisition decision. It is really a requirements 
decision and resourcing, sir. We haven't made that decision 
yet.
    Mr. Jackson. With my last 10 seconds, was this primarily--
the restriction to infantry--was this primarily a fiscal 
decision? Was that the primary motivation for the restriction?
    General Rainey. Yes. As far as the requirement for the part 
of the Army we refer to as the close combat force, this is a 
little more complicated weapon. The training is worth it. But 
it takes more training. It is heavier. So it is not necessarily 
the weapon for the entire total Army, 1.2 million people.
    As I mentioned earlier, we believe the M4 is an enduring 
weapon system. So, I don't believe this is a weapon for every 
single person in the Army. So I think the acquisition objective 
was calibrated based on the close combat force.
    Mr. Wittman [presiding]. Very good. Thanks so much. We will 
now go to Mr. Horsford.
    Mr. Horsford. Thank you, Chairman Wittman, and to Ranking 
Member Norcross. As we have heard in this committee during the 
last couple of months, success in Indo-Pacific theater will 
require our soldiers to maneuver semiautonomously on a fluid, 
complex battlefield. And I was glad to see the Army shift 
towards network modernization to allow our soldiers to 
communicate more easily, ward off jamming, and converging 
disparate networks.
    My question is, can you please describe how the Army is 
adopting hardware and software that streamlines network 
initialization and management while also increasing 
capabilities, please?
    Mr. Bush. Sir, so I can talk about high level what we are 
trying to do. And you have kind of described it in your 
question is we--first of all, out network plan, when you go 
above kind of the tactical radio, is highly dependent on 
commercial technology, which I think is good because that is 
where there is so much innovation in that network space using 
just commercial R&D and taking advantage of it, including in 
network management, sir.
    I would point out two aspects of that. First of all is 
seeing the network, so there are investments underway to make 
sure we actually just understand our own network and also see 
the electronic warfare environment it is living in. But then 
also network management tools. A lot of this is software just 
so we can give our, you know, great signal officers and 
enlisted people the ability to manage the network.
    I would add that the Army always wants more, you know, 
bandwidth. And we always find a way to rapidly fill it and kind 
of jam ourselves. So I think prioritizing how we are using the 
network is just as important as building the machine, sir.
    Mr. Horsford. Thank you. As a result of Ukraine security 
assistance, Army has placed $1.49 billion in 155-millimeter 
artillery munition contracts to backfill these munitions. At 
the same time, we are hearing the continuing issues with the 
industrial base not being able to meet our needs from munitions 
to tanks.
    How is the Army assuring that we are meeting our 155-
millimeter artillery munitions requirements and how can 
Congress assist in those efforts? And, Secretary Bush, how 
would you describe the fragility of the tank industrial base 
today and the importance of funding a brigade of tanks each 
year?
    Mr. Bush. So, sir, on the first one I think, you know, 
thanks to Congress and the supplemental funding received last 
year, we are now in the midst of rapidly executing our plan to 
at a minimum increase by fivefold the number of shells per 
month we are able to produce. And it is not just the shells. It 
is the charges that go with it. It is the fuse. It is the 
primer. It is the full package of what we provide.
    We are already up from originally 14,000 month to 24,000 a 
month now. And we have a steady path to get there next year to 
even much higher levels. So I think that is underway, sir. And 
I think what we have found as we have done that is it hasn't 
been fragility per se, but simply capacity. So the long pole in 
the tent of that effort is the machine tools, the actual just 
factory machine tools necessary to shape steel and fill it 
safely with explosives.
    Those machines take a long time to make. They are not 
readily available. You have to order them. It takes about a 
year, and then you have to get them into, you know, production.
    Lessons from that could be for the future: How much of that 
machinery do we want to buy in advance? How much do we retain 
in perhaps, you know, a warm state versus a full running? 
Because, sir, if we have to do this again in the future, we 
need to use this opportunity to identify what the hard points 
are and position ourselves better for the next time around.
    Mr. Horsford. Thank you. And my final comments. In your 
opening statement, you noted that what we are seeing in Ukraine 
validates your six modernization initiatives, notably the long 
range precision fires, air and missile defense, next generation 
combat vehicle, and the network. Can you expand on how the 
lessons learned from this conflict regarding survivability of 
some of these platforms are being considered when making 
decisions regarding investing and modernizing?
    Mr. Bush. So, sir, if I could briefly start and answer your 
previous question. I apologize for failing to answer. On the 
tank production side, I think right now we have a very healthy 
production activity in the Army for tanks. That is not just 
U.S. Army orders. That is also because of foreign military 
sales that have been quite robust. And we now have large orders 
from Poland coming in plus Romania. And we hope more.
    So, sir, I think the issue with tank production is how do 
we, you know, what are the challenges to sustaining that over 
time and making sure that if we have to go down, we don't go 
down too far to where we are hurting the industrial base. I am 
happy to work with you and others on the committee, sir, on the 
details on that. If I could turn to General Rainey, on Ukraine 
lessons learned, if that is okay, sir.
    General Rainey. Thank you, Congressman, for that. So heavy 
forces, tanks, Bradleys, Paladins, are absolutely essential; 
and I feel strongly will remain relevant going forward. And 
they are part of our enduring capabilities. And we need to 
continue to iterate to improve them.
    Ukraine is demonstrating a challenge with small UAS 
[unmanned aircraft systems] vehicle protective system. We have 
requirements for those both to upgrade our current vehicles and 
are designing those into the requirements for new vehicles like 
OMFV [Optionally Manned Fighting Vehicle] and RCVs [Robotic 
Combat Vehicles] for example.
    So if you are going to fight someone who has tanks, and 
there are a lot of our enemies in the world have a lot of 
tanks, you have to have armored forces.
    The lethality of the modern battlefield is going up 
exponentially, the violence, the killing. And if you are 
fighting an enemy, especially somebody who relies heavily on 
fires, like both of our primary threats do, you have to have 
protection to be able to keep your soldiers alive as they 
maneuver.
    And the last thing from Ukraine, you will notice there is a 
dramatic increase and reliance on urban warfare. And for the 
Army to enter into an urban area, there is an absolute 
essential requirement to have heavy formations to do that.
    Mr. Horsford. Thank you for the courtesy of the additional 
time for the response, and I appreciate your service.
    Mr. Wittman. Thank you, Mr. Horsford. We will now go to Mr. 
Norcross.
    Mr. Norcross. Thank you, Chairman. General Rainey, Army 
Futures Command recently decided to establish a cross-
functional team for contested logistics. I am all in. And it 
also reminds me of when we brought this up when Futures Command 
was stood up.
    So what has changed since the creation of Futures Command 
and the creation of the original cross-functional teams and 
where we are now? What made us recognize at this point that 
logistics should now enter into this, the contested?
    General Rainey. Thank you, Ranking Member. It is not that 
we just all of a sudden realized that is important. Going all 
the way back 5 years ago to the large-scale combat operations 
study and gaps that we identified, we identified contested 
logistics as one of those.
    One of the unqualified successes of AFC, you know, my 
predecessors, is the idea of these cross-functional teams to 
stand up a group, clearly identify a problem statement, pick 
three to five things, you know, clearly define the portfolio 
and then amass talent, you know, pile talented humans from the 
different relevant organizations on it.
    So the contested logistics CFT was an opportunity to 
capitalize on a good practice on something that we realized was 
a critical requirement. And candidly, we need to be going 
faster and better. And I could talk about the kind of things we 
think that new CFT is going to do if that is interesting to 
you, sir.
    Mr. Norcross. So, I didn't mean to suggest you didn't 
realize it. But trying for 5 years, when was that decision made 
that we have to step this up and actually deliver it? Or is it 
a process of time?
    General Rainey. I don't know prior to my taking command. 
The Secretary asked me when I took command of AFC to do a 
review of the CFTs and make recommendations. Working closely 
with General Daly, the prior AMC commander and now General 
Hamilton, the commander, this was the number one thing I 
thought was an opportunity to go faster by manning a CFT for 
it, putting it at Huntsville, co-located with the great AMC 
enterprise. And I have high expectations about the speed with 
which we can pursue some of the gaps that we are going after.
    Mr. Norcross. So that leads me to the next question. What 
is on the horizon? What is a likely candidate?
    General Rainey. For that CFT, sir, or for others?
    Mr. Norcross. Future, others.
    General Rainey. I don't want to get ahead, but I could 
think of things like deep sensing, for example. We have a task 
force that is working diligently on that, would be one. I think 
there are opportunities as the merger of offensive and 
defensive fires is becoming pretty clear. As I said earlier, we 
are not going to be able to have radars and shooters for 
defense and radars and shooters for offense. And I think there 
will be an opportunity there.
    Another one that I believe is a clear opportunity for us to 
go faster would be human-machine integration. How we take--not 
replace humans with robots, but how do we offload risk from our 
men and women onto machines, right, not trade blood for first 
contact? Optimize machines to do that, but more importantly 
optimize our humans for the things that they are uniquely 
qualified. So those are some things I would like to go faster, 
but it would be premature to talk about potential CFTs. But I 
would be glad to follow up with you, sir.
    Mr. Norcross. Of course, the Futures Command, this is 
exactly some of the areas that we were hoping for.
    General Rainey. Sure.
    Mr. Norcross. So with that, Chairman, I will yield back.
    Mr. Wittman. Thank you, Mr. Norcross. General Rainey, I do 
want to ask you and Secretary Bush where we are today with the 
fragility of our industrial base as it relates to munitions, 
the significant demand that we see from Ukraine, the assistance 
that we are getting from our friends and allies.
    And how do we address the issues going forward with 
challenges now with shortage of training rounds for 155, 
artillery batteries for GMLRS [Guided Multiple Launch Rocket 
System], making sure that we have not only that in the short 
term but making sure we don't get back on the roller coaster 
ride again, making sure that we don't look at it and go, gosh, 
we have to massively increase production. And we have now 
produced all of these munitions and then all of a sudden go, 
oh, that's all we need and then you ask the industrial base to 
just disappear.
    So we end on this roller coaster ride, instead of saying, 
listen, how do we ramp up and how do we maintain this level of 
production so we don't find ourselves in these situations where 
we have magazine depth that is precipitously low and then we 
are, you know, looking around the world for munitions.
    And then, too, we are looking at ways to make sure we 
modernize, that is another way to address production elements. 
You know, we have Stingers, which in the day, incredibly 
effective, even today. But we see there are a lot of other 
platforms out there that have greater range and greater 
lethality. And, you know, we need to restock the current 
weapons magazines.
    But the question is, you know, how do we go forward in 
modernizing that and not having to reinvent the wheel, not go 
through the years and years it takes to write new requirements 
and go through programs of record and then 6 or 7 years down 
the road go, oh, miraculously now we have a new surface-to-air, 
shoulder-fired anti-aircraft missile.
    So how do we address that from getting back into where we 
have been before, and that is this fits and starts with the 
industrial base? And how do we use this opportunity to use what 
we have learned in the past to get on a very steady track in 
building weapons magazine depth and modernizing platforms that 
now seems to me like a great opportunity to do that?
    Mr. Bush. Sir, I can start. So I think there are--we are 
learning lessons from this that I certainly would be happy to 
share some of the emerging ones.
    First of all, there are tools we have that we are applying. 
So, for example, multiyear contracts; they stabilize funding in 
the budget, meaning at least in the Pentagon, members could 
change it, but in the Pentagon, it holds that funding in place, 
which is a crucial issue because industry can see that. They 
can make investments against it. They have a guaranteed revenue 
stream essentially, and they can do good things in private 
capital markets to make their businesses better. So that is 
number one, sir.
    And we are going to execute two in 2023, using the 
authority provided by this committee for artillery shells and 
charges. And then we have two more coming if we get approps 
[appropriations] language for PAC-3 [missile] and GMLRS. And we 
are already looking at opportunities in fiscal year 2025. That 
is number one, sir.
    The second one is as we modernize--as we do this production 
ramp-up, we are also modernizing. So one of our lessons learned 
is that we need better, more modern manufacturing technology 
because the newer tech is more flexible. It scales better. It 
is safer. It has less people so it is just all those thing that 
make it capable of, for example, if--I wouldn't say a trough, 
but production will probably--someday wars end--go down some.
    Hopefully, the new better manufacturing tech allows us to 
affordably retain capacity so it is there when we need to ramp 
it up.
    Sir, a third thing is better coordination with allies. So 
we have learned who's got what from this drill, not just 
stockpiles but also manufacturing capability. There is clearly 
renewed interest in Europe in particular in finally investing 
in this because, well, we are the arsenal of democracy.
    Those countries want their own sovereign capability, and I 
think that is great. But it has to be coordinated so we aren't 
stepping on each other, taking from each other's sources or 
making different things that aren't compatible. And a 
[inaudible] plan, I think, the Under Secretary for Acquisition, 
he is in Europe actually this week and doing that kind of 
thing. That needs to continue.
    My final thought, sir, is we expend a lot of effort in the 
Department of Defense doing, you know, war plans for how would 
we fight a conflict. I believe an equal amount of effort is 
necessary--and this would be a department-wide effort, not just 
the Army--to do that kind of planning for mobilization. So, to 
borrow a term from a friend I heard him use was a mobilization 
OPLAN [operations plan], to use the Department's slang, because 
I think planning in advance for what a 2- or 3-year conflict 
might look like with an advanced enemy is something that we 
need to do. We can't wish the problem away.
    So that is a few thoughts, sir.
    Mr. Wittman. Great. General Rainey, any additional 
thoughts?
    General Rainey. Thank you, Chairman. So big picture, major 
operational lesson learned for me from watching what is 
happening in Ukraine is when we in the Army pursue capability, 
adding capabilities, we need to pay more attention and factor 
heavily in capacity as a problem.
    So something might be the best capability, but if you don't 
factor in your ability to sustain that, you are going to miss. 
I'm not saying we weren't doing that, but going forward the 
capability and capacity and even if you have both of those, you 
still have to get it to end up in the right position.
    The things we were able to do for the Ukrainians because of 
7th ATC [Army Training Command] and the APS [Army Prepositioned 
Stock] and the different things that we had in Europe, the 
relationships, we need to get after getting that same 
capability established in INDOPACOM.
    More specifically, and it may be worth a follow-up, is the 
total Army munition requirement is a very elaborate detailed 
process the Army just completed. Hasn't gone up--outside the 
Army yet. But the Army just went through that at the Chief and 
Secretary's direction to account for the new National Defense 
Strategy and what we are learning in Ukraine. Because 
ultimately you are never going to have enough ammo; you are not 
going to have all you want.
    But you have got to manage risk. And you can't manage risk 
unless you clearly understand what a clear-eyed requirement is. 
And I think that that is a really quality piece of work that 
we'd be glad to follow up with you.
    Mr. Wittman. I think that is incredibly important. 
Secretary Bush, I appreciate your perspective, too, on the 
mobilization aspects of where we go with a strategy that leads 
back to making sure, too, that magazine depth, modernization 
weapon systems are all part of that.
    Just as Ms. Sherrill said and Ranking Member Norcross said, 
there are two elements that are integrated as part of that 
modernization of energetics. You know, as we have emphasized 
through the years, precision, which is exactly what we should 
be doing. At the same time, our adversaries were also 
emphasizing range and lethality. And with modern energetics, we 
can get back into the business of precision and range and 
lethality.
    And I think that needs to an important part of the entire 
planning process as we modernize existing weapons platforms. We 
don't have to build something new, but if you can take 
modernized energetics and do that.
    Just as Ranking Member Norcross said, too, the efforts of 
manufacturing these energetics is a dangerous process. When I 
was a student at Virginia Tech, I remember vividly a couple 
times a year, Radford Arsenal would go boom. And unfortunately, 
some people didn't go home for dinner that night because of 
that. And that was one of those places where you just said, 
hey, that is an inherent risk. It shouldn't be.
    There are modernized processes today where you no longer 
batch mix the chemicals to make energetics, propellants, or 
explosives. And they use it in the pharmaceutical industry. It 
is called continuous flow where you take the chemicals and you 
can very much control them at smaller volumes so as you combine 
them and heat them and cool them, smaller volumes reduce the 
risk. That technology is directly applicable to what should be 
happening in energetics production.
    And if we had the proper sort of research in that realm, I 
think we could do that and do that safely, making sure we can 
do it at a volume. Because remember, you can do that 24 hours a 
day, continuous flow, take those chemicals, feed them in there, 
combine them, heat them, and cool them. So we ought to be doing 
research there. Our adversaries are.
    Russia at the height of conflict with Ukraine is publishing 
papers on modernized energetics. You know, if they are doing 
that in the face of this conflict, we can certainly do that. So 
I think this all has to be part of a comprehensive effort on 
building magazine depth, modernizing weapons, looking at 
existing platforms. It may be we don't have to reinvent the 
wheel. We just have to modernize the propellants and the 
explosives in those platforms.
    I think that is a great opportunity for us. And we can do 
that at the speed of relevance. So I would encourage the Army 
to look at that. But it also needs to be a DOD-wide enterprise. 
I think there needs to be a single place where we say what are 
we going to do with energetics and how do we put some money 
into advanced manufacturing. We talk about advanced 
manufacturing for semiconductors and other things, you know, we 
can do the same for energetics.
    So with that, Mr. Norcross, any additional questions?
    Mr. Norcross. We are good.
    Mr. Wittman. Okay. Very good. I have railed enough. So 
anyway, gentlemen, thank you so much for joining us. Thanks so 
much for your leadership. We look forward to continuing to work 
with you as we face the challenges ahead. I feel very confident 
that the Army is up for the challenge.
    We need to be a partner with you to make sure that you have 
what is necessary. You know, as much as we want to, we will do 
our best to leap the building in a single bound, and we will 
get most of the way to the top. And whatever we don't get to, 
we will make sure we continue on that path. So thank you all 
again.
    And with that our subcommittee is adjourned.
    [Whereupon, at 4:02 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]







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







                            A P P E N D I X

                             April 26, 2023 
                             

                             
                             
                             
                             
                             

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

      








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







              PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

                             April 26, 2023







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

      

      
    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] 
    
    

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







              QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS POST HEARING

                             April 26, 2023






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

      

                   QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. TURNER

    Mr. Turner. Secretary Bush, welcome back. It is always great to see 
you. As you know very well, the Lima Tank Plant has been of particular 
interest to me during my long tenure on this committee. While just 
north of my congressional district, it is our only tank plant and has a 
unique mission and a specialized workforce. Over the years, you and I 
have worked together to keep that plant open and functional. Today, it 
is playing a critical role in the effort to arm Ukraine as it continues 
to fend off Russia's invasion. The administration announced in January 
that it would send Abrams tanks to Ukraine, which followed two batches 
of tank deals with our allies in Poland. Ukrainian troops will begin 
training on ``trainer'' tanks at the end of May. Meanwhile, 31 M1A1 
battle tanks are being refurbished at the Lima plant and those will go 
directly to the frontlines when they are ready. Can you talk a little 
bit about the importance of the Lima Tank Plant and what we can do to 
increase capacity and production as demand increases?
    Mr. Bush. The Army is continuing organic industrial base 
investments in locations like the Joint Systems Manufacturing Center in 
Lima, OH; Rock Island Arsenal, IL; and Watervliet Arsenal, NY to ensure 
the Army can meet future projected demand for Abrams tanks. Further, 
continuous, consistent, and accurately projected demand is critical to 
suppliers and producers' participation in the market and their ability 
to plan and facilitize appropriately. The Army regularly shares its 
demand projections for domestic and Foreign Military Sales (FMS) tank 
requirements with industry to support their planning and investment 
strategies. Continued support from Congress for Abrams tank production 
requirements and rapid approval of FMS requests is the most effective 
method to ensure consistent and reliable demand signals. Reducing 
fragility in the domestic supply base may also be achieved with further 
Defense Production Act Title III resourcing, specific to the tank 
industrial base, and focused on reducing risk associated with long-lead 
materials like wiring harnesses, connectors, titanium plate, castings, 
and forgings.
    Mr. Turner. As you recall, in the FY23 NDAA Congress provided DOD 
with wide ranging multiyear procurement authority to provide industry 
with more predictability for building industrial capacity in support of 
Ukraine. Do you anticipate the Army using multiyear procurement 
authority for tanks? What about artillery?
    Mr. Bush, General Rainey, and General Peterson. As of now, the Army 
does not foresee pursuing a multiyear contract for Abrams tanks. 
However, I would not entirely rule it out in the future. The critical 
issue needed to pursue one would be sufficiently high, and sustained, 
production levels across both Army and FMS production. While I fully 
expect Abrams tank production to continue, the rate is subject to 
change based on other Army modernization efforts. As for Artillery, the 
Army does plan to pursue multiyear procurement for both the M1128 High 
Explosive 155mm artillery projectile and Modular Artillery Charge 
System (MACS) programs.
                                 ______
                                 
                  QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MRS. McCLAIN 
                  
    Mrs. McClain. With currently deployed systems' designs dating back 
to 2005--nearly 20 years old--updates are badly needed. The Army is on 
track for a FY27 contract award with aircraft being delivered in the 
FY28 timeframe This modernization effort could be informed by the 
current acquisitions of similar systems by both the USMC's Long Range 
Long Endurance (LR/LE) program and SOCOM's Expeditionary Organic 
Tactical Airborne ISR Capability Set. Encouraging the Army to leverage 
these investments as much as possible could help accelerate the Army's 
program shaving off years of development and significantly reducing 
costs. Waiting 5 years to begin developing a new platform from scratch 
when fully capable or easily adaptable solutions exist today, just 
doesn't make sense.
    Secretary Bush, how is the Army leveraging significant investments 
in unmanned long-range reconnaissance capabilities by SOCOM and the 
USMC in its approach to acquiring a new long-range unmanned platform? 
Would doing so possibly help accelerate the program?
    Mr. Bush. The Army remains in close contact with other Services and 
U.S. Special Operations Command communities to collaborate and jointly 
advance Uncrewed Aircraft System (UAS) capabilities across the 
Department of Defense. Where possible, the Army should take advantage 
of successful efforts by other services and commands. In addition, 
there is a great amount of innovation in partner nations in this 
technology area that we could also leverage. The Army's Long-Range 
Reconnaissance UAS program is on track to begin in fiscal year 2024, 
pending a requirement update and acquisition decision.
    Mrs. McClain. Background on IVAS: The Integrated Visual 
Augmentation System (IVAS) is a single platform featuring a day/night, 
all-weather fighting goggle and a mixed reality heads-up display that 
integrates next-generation situational awareness tools and high-
resolution simulations to provide Soldiers with improved mobility and 
lethality in combat environments. IVAS improves Soldier mission 
planning, decision-making and targeting through its sensing, mapping, 
and computing capabilities and will change the way Soldiers fight, 
rehearse, and train.
    General McConville recently spoke about the Integrated Visual 
Augmentation System (IVAS) and said that he felt the technology would 
``transform the way our leaders and soldiers can operate on the 
battlefield.'' We note that your budget request for ``night vision 
devices'' includes funding both for IVAS and a legacy device called 
``ENVG-B.''
    How is IVAS different than ENVG-B?
    Why do you believe the Army needs IVAS?
    How will IVAS make the Army more capable, today and into the 
future?
    Mr. Bush, General Rainey, and General Peterson. The Enhanced Night 
Vision Goggle--Binocular (ENVG-B) is an analog, tubed Night Vision 
Device (NVD) which provides Soldiers with fused low-light and thermal 
imaging. ENVG-B does possess limited augmented reality capabilities for 
situational awareness only when paired with a Nett Warrior device. 
Integrated Visual Augmentation System (IVAS) is a fully digital 
situational awareness platform capable of operating in areas and ways 
that analog NVD technology is incapable. For example, in addition to 
providing Soldiers with fused low-light and thermal imaging, with fully 
augmented reality capability, IVAS provides virtual training, mission 
planning, land navigation, and utilization of Artificial Intelligence 
via a Tactical Cloud Package. Further, the Army has demonstrated IVAS' 
ability to control small Uncrewed Aircraft Systems and access to their 
feeds, as well as wirelessly linking into Stryker's onboard network and 
accessing vehicle-mounted cameras to enable on-board Soldiers to 
virtually see through the hull. Lastly, IVAS' Software Development Kit 
will allow the Army to continue expanding IVAS' capabilities with 
additional on-board applications, including third-party developed 
applications, to aid in maintaining the system's relevance on the 
battlefield.
    Current operational forces require new capabilities to fight, 
rehearse, and train in all conditions with current and evolving 
weapons, Army and Joint Network, and intelligent sensors during Multi-
Domain Operations (MDO) across the range of military operations. IVAS 
provides our Soldiers increased lethality today, while its digital 
architecture allows for rapid capability growth for the 2040 fight with 
adversaries that have matched our digital progress.
    Our Close Combat Force (CCF) deserve the most mature sensory 
augmentation and situational awareness sensors. IVAS give the CCF a 
fully digital device providing a combination of a conformal day/night 
see-through heads-up display (HUD), high resolution thermal, color and 
low-light sensors with a wider field of view, and Synthetic Training 
Environment (STE) capability that Soldiers will use to fight, rehearse, 
and train. It is primarily for night but can be used within day use 
cases unlike Night Vision Googles provided today. It allows for 
increased lethality, mobility, and situational awareness, to achieve 
decisive overmatch against our current and future adversaries. Its 
extensibility with ground and aerial platforms and tactical compute 
capabilities provide data and sensor sharing at the tactical edge. IVAS 
digital platform allows for leap ahead technology growth in 
coordination with the rapid pace of industry.
    Mrs. McClain. With currently deployed systems' designs dating back 
to 2005--nearly 20 years old--updates are badly needed. The Army is on 
track for a FY27 contract award with aircraft being delivered in the 
FY28 timeframe This modernization effort could be informed by the 
current acquisitions of similar systems by both the USMC's Long Range 
Long Endurance (LR/LE) program and SOCOM's Expeditionary Organic 
Tactical Airborne ISR Capability Set. Encouraging the Army to leverage 
these investments as much as possible could help accelerate the Army's 
program shaving off years of development and significantly reducing 
costs. Waiting 5 years to begin developing a new platform from scratch 
when fully capable or easily adaptable solutions exist today, just 
doesn't make sense.
    Lieutenant General Peterson, has the spiral development approach, 
like the one used Future Tactical Unmanned Aircraft System (FTUAS) 
saved money? Could modifying existing modern sister service or 
commercial designs save resources?
    General Peterson. The Future Tactical Unmanned Aircraft System 
(FTUAS) program is presently in its final development phase and is 
being competed among five vendors. These vendors are experts in the 
Uncrewed Aircraft Systems sector. The vendors are competing their 
commercial and military designs to meet FTUAS requirements. The Army 
will down-select to a single vendor and award a single production 
contract to the winning vendor in fiscal year 2024. The Army engages 
closely with other services and commands in all of our developmental 
efforts, and their outcomes and findings are considered and where 
applicable incorporated or adopted.
                                 ______
                                 
                  QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY DR. McCORMICK 
                  
    Dr. McCormick. Regarding the effects of whole body vibration (WBV) 
helicopter pilots endure and associated negative health outcomes, what 
are current Army efforts, either independent or as a part of the Joint 
Safety Council, that study and or address the physiological effects of 
WBV, accommodate 21st century pilots of varying stature and size, and 
provide an ergonomic seat that optimizes pilot performance?
    Mr. Bush. The U.S. Army Aeromedical Research Laboratory at Fort 
Novosel, AL has an active Army funded research program examining the 
effects of whole body vibration (WBV) on the health and performance of 
current and future Army Aviators. Current WBV research includes: 1) a 
study of male and female volunteers under WBV, encumbered with 
additional head-supported mass (e.g., night vision goggles), while 
varying seat recline angles; and 2) a collaborative effort with the 
U.S. Navy involving research into the effects of vibration, crash 
injury, and head-supported mass on aircrew health and seating system 
performance. This research will lead to improved seating systems that 
attenuate WBV and mitigate health and performance concerns for 
helicopter flight crews. Future research, planned as part of the Army's 
Future Vertical Lift (FVL) modernization program, will assess potential 
short- and long-term WBV hazards to FVL aviators, including the 
expected range of anthropometric extremes (e.g., stature and size).
    Dr. McCormick. How does the government intend to induce commercial 
industry to build, test, and maintain the software necessary to close 
operational concepts on a release schedule which meets the OMFV 
fielding timeline? Does the Program Office intend to validate 
operational concepts on surrogate platforms prior to platform 
production?
    Mr. Bush. The Optionally Manned Fighting Vehicle (OMFV) program 
office directed all software development and digital engineering 
activities throughout design, test, production, and sustainment be 
conducted in a government cloud-based modern software development 
environment using commercially available software development tools. 
The Army will integrate this software development environment with OMFV 
hardware architectures so the software can be iteratively tested on 
virtual machines to emulate the as-designed or as-built hardware 
architecture. OMFV directed software deliveries on a 6-week ``Sprint'' 
cycle and has enlisted the Army Test & Evaluation Center to support 
evaluation of the software and ensure architectural compliance with 
program operational, technical, and cyber security requirements. These 
verification activities will happen at the pace of software development 
and design during OMFV Phases 3 and 4. Validation of the initial full-
systems software will occur as part of operational test events during 
Phases 4 and 5. Once the Army downselects to a single vendor for Phase 
5, validation of any new software will occur in an Army maintained 
Hardware-in-the-Loop capability emulating the entire hardware and 
software architectures.
    Dr. McCormick. Ground autonomy has historically received a very 
small amount of funding relative to drone autonomy. What is the Army's 
plan to accelerate funding for ground autonomy in line with drone 
funding? Additionally, I am concerned that technology spends too much 
time in R&D and doesn't transition to programs of record. Can the Army 
follow the Marine Corps lead and simply put out procurements for 
technology to encourage faster fielding of tech?
    Mr. Bush. The Army is appropriately funded for its ground autonomy 
efforts. There are no immediate plans to accelerate funding for ground 
autonomy capabilities, although this issue is under discussion inside 
the Army. There are few legacy platforms that can incorporate 
autonomous operation without first being equipped with requisite 
robotic enabling technologies. It is more complex than a simple 
installation of a new component or procurement of autonomous or robotic 
enabling technologies. The Army continues to assess where autonomy is 
best suited and develop requirements for emerging capability. Until we 
have those requirements well defined, we are limited in what we can 
procure and field.
    Dr. McCormick. The Army's Ground Vehicle Systems Center is 
developing its own autonomy software, known as the Robotic Technology 
Kernel, which may be integrated onto the OMFV and RCV program. 
Meanwhile the commercial market has made significant strides utilizing 
commercial best practices and invested billions to scale its own 
autonomy software. How does the Army's autonomy software compare in 
effectiveness with commercial software, and how can we ensure the Army 
is keeping up pace and not replicating robust commercial investments?
    General Rainey. Over the past 40 years, the Army has partnered with 
industry to develop and acquire software solutions to advance the 
ground autonomy mission and to take advantage of commercial industry 
investments in this space. The Army has developed strong ties with 
industry in ground autonomy and regularly engages with external 
partners to assess commercially available solutions that may meet Army 
program requirements.
    The U.S. Army Combat Capabilities Development Command's Ground 
Vehicle Systems Center uses the most current software practices for its 
Continuous Integration and Continuous Deployment (CI/CD) pipeline.
    A key enabler of ground vehicle robotics and autonomy includes the 
Robotic Technology Kernel (RTK), which is the Army's library of modular 
software packages, developed through multiple industry partnerships. 
RTK can be used as common ground autonomy software across multiple 
platforms. The Army has partnered with industry to develop autonomy 
modules through a Modular Open Systems Architecture (MOSA) approach. 
The MOSA-based, common approach to ground autonomy software allows the 
Army collaborate with a wide range of industry-leading partners while 
controlling current and future costs. This approach also ensures that 
the Army is keeping pace with the rapidly evolving requirements and 
threats in support of Army mission.
    Dr. McCormick. A lesson from the war in Ukraine is that our near-
peer adversaries will attempt to exploit vulnerabilities in electronic 
systems. In the case of Starlink, SpaceX was able to modify and 
redeploy new software rapidly to address the threat. In the case of 
ground or air vehicles to be fielded by the Army, if there were to be a 
vulnerability that was discovered and exploited by the enemy, how do 
you plan to rapidly update a fleet of potentially hundreds of vehicles 
quickly, perhaps over-the-air (OTA)? Further, do you plan to leverage 
commercial software technology to enable a software-defined platform 
architecture that could enable these rapid updates? The Army is pushing 
an extensive modular system architecture effort, but will these realize 
an actual software-defined capability?
    General Rainey. It has been our expectation that adversaries will 
attempt to exploit vulnerabilities in any of our electronic systems, so 
deployed systems are hardened to eliminate vulnerabilities and 
architectures are built to avoid single points of failure. However, 
should an exploitation occur, the current fleet of ground and air 
platforms does not have the ability to update platform software over 
the air (OTA), and would require field support or maintenance at the 
depot.
    Many of the communications systems, however, can already be updated 
OTA. For instance, Satellite Communication modems in our tactical force 
can be updated from the hubs into which they connect, and the handheld 
systems carried by many key leaders (i.e., Nett Warrior) can be updated 
OTA. Additionally, the forthcoming systems built on containerized 
architecture (e.g., Mounted Mission Command Software, Joint Targeting 
Integrated Command and Coordination Suite, etc.) will support remote 
updates.
    Continued adoption of open systems like Modular Open Systems 
Approach (MOSA) and Program Executive Office Ground Combat Systems (PEO 
GCS) Common Infrastructure Architecture (GCIA), as well as commercial 
technologies like Developer Security Operations, or ``DevSecOps,'' 
pipelines and containerization technologies, does support proliferation 
of systems with OTA update capabilities, particularly in cases where 
requirements for such are explicit.
    Dr. McCormick. As the Army invests in the next generation of combat 
vehicles, we must also modernize enduring platforms like the Bradley 
and the Stryker with greater capability to increase effectiveness, 
lethality, and survivability. Commercially available automobiles have 
much greater autonomous capability and situational awareness than these 
systems. How can the Army leverage commercial innovation to upgrade 
enduring platforms with greater autonomy?
    General Peterson. The Army is looking at and leveraging commercial 
advancements in autonomous capability and is applying it on next 
generation combat systems and some legacy tactical vehicles systems. At 
the current state of technology, the legacy combat vehicle platforms 
(like Bradley and Stryker) are not inherently ready to accept 
technologies in support of autonomous operations as they cannot 
incorporate autonomous operation without first being equipped with 
robotic enabling technologies (i.e., Advance Driver/Operator Assist 
Systems (ADAS) or Drive by Wire capability). This would require a 
significant automotive modernization effort and currently most of the 
legacy ground systems do not have the requirements nor funding to 
support this type of modernization effort.

                                  [all]