everybody thank you very much for coming today the air and land forces subcommittee meets today to receive testimony of major army acquisition programs in addition the panel here from the department of defense inspector general about a recent report on body armor contracting the panel includes lieutenant general steven speaks a deputy army chief of staff and g eight general speaks thank you for the hospitality and for the  e and for your always at the being at the ready to answer and and observe and create perspective for me lieutenant general and ross thompson military deputy assistant secretary of the army for acquisition technology and logistics and i wonder do your children say that to you when you come home at night that's ours and it's something of interest to me here comes the assistant secretary of the army for acquisition technology and logistics janet s laurent from the g a o thank you very very much indeed once again the g a o meeting its standards with the reports coming in paul francis also from the g a o they put your name on there paul i think so they know who general's office very nice to see you and thank you for coming today in its fiscal year two thousand and nine budget request the army has asked for thirty five point one billion for procurement and development of new equipment and the committee expects a two thousand and nine supplemental budget request to include include billions more the charge of this subcommittee is to ensure that the requested funding is allocated in the most efficient and appropriate manner based on its judgment of the army's stated needs while the army's desire for some systems is a key issue recognizing that desire is not where this committee's responsibility to soldiers and the american people nor is it the admonition of chairman skelton to us in terms of what the  subcommittee recommends to the committee as a whole instead this subcommittee is osce taking an approach that focuses on ensuring that scarce tax dollars are not wasted on programs that are not performing as planned are being poorly managed or are simply a lower priority than other needs the army may have right now the needs of the army are many it is fighting two major wars please forgive me ladies and gentlemen if if i'm stating what seems to be the obvious to you this is in fact for the record and is the basis upon which we make our formal decisions and while many of these things may be well known to many people in the room not everybody in the country obviously has the same access but i'm sure you all know the interest is very high and to the degree and extent by virtue of these hearings that we can create interest where there should be interest so that people are better informed that's obviously our goal so again i ask your indulgence if if i'm saying things either that you've heard before a well known to you again it is fighting to the army is to say it's fighting two major wars trying to complete a comprehensive reorganization program the modularity program improve the capability of the reserve forces grow in size by seventy four thousand soldiers implement the latest brac around the base realignment around the repaired upgrade its equipment damaged in combat and fix serious readiness problems of some units now that is by any body's measure an extraordinarily deep and and and heavy challenge and while doing all that the army is expected to maintain additional ready tr for other combat missions and domestic emergency response each of these efforts even in peacetime would be a major undertaking requiring many billions of dollars the fact that the army is trying to do all these things at once during during two major wars requires a subcommittee in congress to look at the big picture not just the merits or demerits of any one particular program finding the balance the proper balance between the many needs of the army is an ongoing challenge but has perhaps never been as difficult as the situation the army now faces in the american system of government making choices and finding balance is the primary duty of elected officials president eisenhower said in one thousand nine hundred sixty one just before leaving office and i'm repeating a portion of the speech that i read into the record when we first began our deliberations with the new congress and i quote each proposal must do quoting president eisenhower each proposal must be weighed in the light of a broader consideration that is the need to maintain balance in and among national programs balance between the private and the public economy balance between cost and hope for advantage balance between the clearly necessary and the comfortably desirable balance between our essential requirements as a nation and the duties imposed by the nation upon the individual balance between actions of the moment and the national welfare of the future good judgment seeks balance and progress or lack of it eventually finds imbalance and frustration on quote and in a situation i would like to say that i that that's going to be the guiding thesis of our deliberations and in a situation like the one the army finds itself in today leaders in the army and in the congress have to have clear priorities so that informed and wise choices between many different opinions and options are possible while the congress reviews one budget year at a time choices are made in any given year they can have significant implications in the future for example by the end of the fiscal year two thousand and eight the army will have spent fifteen billion dollars on the future combat systems program a program with great potential in the future but one which has yet to develop and field pieces of operational combat equipment up to the mark initial funding for the f c s began in two thousand and three so it is reasonable to ask what else the army could have spent that fifteen billion dollars on over the past six years perhaps the army could have started to add combat brigades in two thousand and three so the troops in iraq today would not have to stay as long or go to iraq as often perhaps the army could have instead invested in more rapid upgrades and current rb equipment so the troops in combat today would have better versions of tanks and other equipment that is currently available perhaps the army could have begun years earlier the ongoing effort to provide more and better equipment to the army national guard and the army reserve my point is not to argue with what has been done where the f c s is concerned nor to argue about the efficacy of the f c s but rather the choices have consequences so it is vitally important for this subcommittee to take into account the big picture which requires looking beyond advocacy of any individual program no matter how desirable it may seem if looked at in isolation well members of the subcommittee have different priorities they all share the same goal an army that is ready and properly equipped for all the missions the nation may ask it to accomplish however divine ing what those future missions will be or what those future missions might have been in retrospect and how often they may happen is a critical first order question that must be addressed as congress reviews the army's budget request and one that is sometimes overlooked in congress's zeal to support the armed forces for example the army chief of staff for season environment and i quote of persistent conflict on quote over the next twenty years that he believes will require the u s army forces to be constantly deployed in a very large number all over the world conducting both combat missions and other tasks i want to repeat he philly's over the next twenty years there will be an environment of persistent conflict that will require constant deployment of the united states army while that is one possible future there are other possible futures as well including one w united states as a result of his experience in iraq chooses to put fewer u s troops on the ground in hostile countries worldwide not more if one assumes this different perspective on the future or any different perspective on the future than  conflict conflicts then the army's budget request may need major adjustments obviously a great deal rests upon the army and the congress getting these assumptions about the future right if the army and the congress are wrong and you notice i say the army and the congress i do not put the army in conflict with the congress here i think we have a common duty here to act in the best strategic interests and national interests of the united states if the army and the congress are wrong the nation might either spend too little or perhaps too much on the army and other armed forces or and it in the wrong places or even worse we may spend money on the wrong kinds of forces even if we spend ever more money on defense one might say that of all the military services one might say all the military services constantly overstate and worst case the potential threats to the nation not out of any effort to deceive the american people but instead  a result of the constant fight between the armed services for funding inside the pentagon's budget it's probably not too far fetched to say the we're struggling army has at the moment is in the pentagon not necessarily elsewhere in the world another view would be that the congress in effect encourages leaders in the military to imagine the worst case scenarios in an endless effort to reduce risk to as close to zero as possible no matter what the cost regardless of one's view on the issue having created and maintained a massive defense establishment congress must constantly remain on guard and congress is responsible to ensure that the demands of maintaining the military industrial complex as first described by president eisenhower in sixty one do not overwhelm congress's capacity to make clear judgments between what is truly necessary for our defense and what is simply desirable one example of a possible choice between what is desired versus what is truly necessary is the army's current plan to maintain field maintain field maintain and modernize for different types of army combat brigades infantry striker heavy and future combat system the cost of maintaining one fleet of vehicles is not small so it is a question of whether or not the army will be able to afford to maintain four different types of brigades three of which have different combat vehicles over the next decade or if the army chief is to believe over the next two decades given the army's many other expensive initiatives many of the most expensive elements of the army's plan maintain these four types of brigades are not even in the army's current five year budget plan for example the full cost of in funding for all the f c s benares upgrading stryker vehicles for curing the next generation m one tank and m two bradley vehicle and replacing the current wheeled vehicle fleet are simply not yet known or not yet in the budget in addition the army also has ambitious plans to continue to modernize its fleet of aircraft helicopters in unmanned aerial vehicles as well as major investments in new communications equipment all of which are set to coincide in the next decade with plans to upgrade ground combat vehicles i hope you're beginning to see w trying to take a comprehensive look here at what our actual responsibilities are in terms of the of the dollars that are going to be available and and the programs that are contemplated as supplemental budgets may decline and this is another factor that we have to take into account we're dealing with we've maybe by default congressional default especially fallen into a pattern of budgeting and supplemental budgeting which causes havoc i think in our being able to make sensible judgments about especially where weapon systems are concerned and supplemental budgets may decline over the next four years they may not expand as they've been doing to this point what if they start declining choices between these different efforts will be forced upon the army and the congress again i'm saying army and the congress because the both the pentagon and in the in the person of the of the administration regardless of the administration democrat or republican in the congress and if the supplemental budgets the kleine were mili going to be in all kinds of budget trouble i can tell you because we've gotten used to it that the supplemental budgets cover all sins of omission so it's imperative to begin to consider these issues now rather than to continue to put billions into programs that may be desirable but are not realistic or affordable given the army's many other needs in coming years we also plan today as a addendum to and i'm feeling the ceci of addressing this because we have to constantly deal with the media looking for sensation the findings from a recent department of defense inspector general report that determined there were deficiencies  some of the army contract awards for body armor and states that we cannot be given assurances that body armor prepared under these deficient contracts and that required performance specifications the army has acknowledged there were some documentation errors but maintains that all body armor has been adequately tested meets required performance specifications this represents a major disagreement between the two parties it gives me some cause for concern we need to understand the facts regarding this report as well as the required test procedures used to qualify body armor systems we can then determine a way forward it's my hope the witnesses today will clarify this issue for us and for the public when we can get it settled once and for all before we begin before we continue f participation we are very fortunate to have each of you serving our country and it's been good to get to know you and to experience your high levels of dedication lieutenant general thompson nice to see you again lieutenant general speech speaks i guess the twelve hours we spent last friday going to fort bliss wasn't enough here you are back again for for more of the same and thank you for being here and thanks for taking us out to fort bliss by the way and by the thank you for being here mr francis missing in iran and machine gun thank you for your participation we appreciate that is well i know it was short notice and i appreciate all of you taking your time to come before our committee to discuss the very important issues of d o d s procurement policy body armor it was great for you to be here given the overall national fiscal realities that the chairman mentioned the challenges of simultaneously funding the global war on terrorism and resetting our current force the question has been in the past and is still valid today how do we reduce the risk of developing complex weapons systems such as future combat system so that we can afford to provide the necessary funding without sacrificing the capability of the current force and just because we ask hard questions on the committee does not mean that we have a fundamental objection to modernization requirements we ask hard questions because it is our responsibility to provide oversight of the o t programs and ensure taxpayer dollars are spent productively today we are here to discuss many important army programs however there are at least two areas that i would like to mention in this statement the first is in regard to the d o d inspector general's report on body armor it should be no surprise to anyone that any time this committee learns about potential issues with force protection ramifications we immediately engage nothing is more important to us than the force protection of our soldiers and marines i'm not an expert and that's why our witnesses are here today but from what i have been told it appears that the army and the i had or have a difference of opinion in terms of what constitutes proper testing in accordance with the federal acquisition regulation in addition and i don't believe the army questions this the army failed to provide certain documentation it is also my understanding the army and the i g are continuing to work this issue in terms of the army providing the proper documentation here's a problem given the sensitivity of this subject why is the dialogue taking place after the final report was released i must say that i don't understand that why that needs to be a question should it have happened before the report was published i think it probably should have surely both organizations have a review process and while i know that hundreds of reports are always in play given the nature of this subject shouldn't have both organizations worked out these issues before it was published shouldn't this have happened before it found its way into the press and possibly planted out in the minds of soldiers and their families that we are not providing the best body armor which i believe we are the second area i'd like to briefly mention is in reference to the future combat system in years past the house armed services committee legislative provisions and funding reductions in regards to the future combat system were meant to provide better oversight of the program and to steer the program in the right direction for example the committee highlighted three years ago that the army had  too much survivability in order to fit the vehicle into a c one thirty aircraft consequently the army has added more survivability back into the vehicles and the current requirement is to put three on a c seventeen  addition the committee was concerned that the program entered the system's evolving phase too early with immature technologies and undefined requirements and thus directed the secretary of defense to conduct a go nogo we view the s t s program following its preliminary design review in two thousand and nine i believe this congressionally mandated review in two thousand and nine will be a critical event for the army and for the program i would like to hear assurances from both the army and the g a o witnesses that the army is setting the conditions necessary to complete this review and if they have any additional thoughts about the review we would like to hear them thank you for being here including the are the testimony on the armor will go right down the line if that's all right so that we can handle everything it wants rather than a separate out the armor because you're kind of an added starter to this and  we'll do it that way if because i think there's lots of questions in this and only a few members here at the moment and they are senior members and we were going to go in by order of seniority today anyway you know we alternate between least seniority to represent the army today's hearing as requested sir i'm a new could terminate my remarks with just a couple of key points that i'd like to make first you brilliantly summarized the challenges we face you obviously have a deep understanding of the challenges that we're key partners in a process that ensures we are accountable to the taxpayer and to you to deliver the best that we can we believe in that sense of responsible partnership that we are better and we thank them for their help i would like to also highlight the importance of the recent publication of f m three day ciro is a key hallmark in terms of the army's affirmation of the role the doctrine plays in helping us to understand the operating environment today and in the future that doctrinal role that we have to fight in today's operating environment plan for the future is never more important as we look at the modernization programs of our army and i would assure you gentlemen that we are looking very carefully at those that we are trying to balance exactly the issues that you  ated is we way investments in the current with the need to also plan responsibly for the future we also are aware of the many limits of army capability specifically i'd like to single out our responsibility to provide for the army guard army reserve those are two key components of our force that are never more important in the are today we count on them from the stance of homeland defense in the case of the army guard we kind of them is a part of our operational force we therefore have to properly outfit equip and train them we take that obligation seriously and i think you have witnessed with your support the incredible improvements we made in support sir we look forward to your questions and i will pass this off to potential thompson asking that my statement be admitted for the record without objection general thank you chairman abercrombie congressman saxton and distinguished members of the subcommittee i want to thank you for holding this hearing today because the army's acquisition programs are absolutely essential to preparing our soldiers for a future persistent conflict every day our soldiers make great sacrifices to help win this global war on terror and a fulfill our worldwide commitments i want to thank you as general speak said for your strong and steadfast support of our men and women in uniform we are meeting the equipping demands of our soldiers because of the guidance and the resources that are provided by this committee and the congress i have a longer written statement that i respectfully request be made part of the record for today's hearing without objection we are a high technology army mr chairman and we have a comprehensive strategy to modernize our all high priority programs force protection is our number one priority including the joint light tactical vehicle rotorcraft technology research and development of lightweight enhanced performance systems to include ammunition and body armor our future combat systems as we've discussed in the previous hearings and in one on one dialogue with you and your professional staff members and personal staff members is the foundation of army transformation really the cornerstone of the army's future mo and the army evaluation task force the f c s program is currently undergoing seventy five tests and each test is a precursor to the fielding of capabilities to our soldiers just yesterday on the house side and today on the senate side we've demonstrated some of those capabilities here on the hill for those members a congressman and staffers that were not able to go to fort bliss or have been out there on a codel in order to see some of those great capabilities that are being fielded soldiers today we have demonstrated the credibility of our cost estimate in f c s over time by consistently operating within the budget one of the questions that i know may come up today is a synchronization with the joint tactical radio system in the war fighter information network tactical and we'll discuss that if the questions arise but we are delivering f c s joint tactical radio system and war fighter information network tactical on a phased approach and making sure those programs are all synchronized the army's continuing to conduct our wartime operations and preparing for future commitments i really do appreciate the quote that you made from president eisenhower about balance it really is all about balance not just in modernization programs but balance between the current balance  between the current in the future chairman that concludes my opening remarks and i look forward your questions thank you very much miss st laurent chairman abercromby ranking member sachs to the members of the committee i'm pleased to be here today to discuss army equipment costs these initiatives include establishing equipping modular units expanding the size of the army resetting equipment damaged or worn beyond repair during operations and replacing prepositioned equipment my statement today based on numerous g a o studies and reports that have been published on these topics during the past few years and i'd like to focus my comments on two issues the cost of the army's plans to implement these initiatives and actions needed to improve their management with regard to cost our work shows that restructuring and rebuilding the army will require many billions of dollars for equipment and take many years to complete however the total cost of these efforts is uncertain based on our analysis of army data it appears that the cost of implementing these foreign initiatives alone is likely to cost at least one hundred ninety billion dollars from fiscal years two thousand and four to two thousand and thirteen these estimated costs include forty three billion for new equipment for m eighteen point five billion to equip six new additional brigades and additional support units about one hundred eighteen billion dollars to reset equipment and at least ten billion to replace preposition to quit meant however these cost estimates have some limitations and may change as a result of the end known length of operations in iraq and afghanistan further the army is likely to request additional funds for some initiatives beyond two thousand and thirteen several factors are contributing to the uncertainty about future equipment costs and the potential for cost to increase although the army's forty three billion dollars estimate to acquit modular units is a significant down payment it will not fully equipped modular units because it was based on some outdated assumptions and conditions and was developed in two thousand and four for example the army's estimate was developed before some modular unit designs had been finalized the army has since added requirements for force protection and other equip second the army did not fully consider requirements at the time for national guard units which had longstanding equipment shortages in which the army now wants to equip similar to active units given their important roles in supporting overseas and domestic operations third the army assumed initially that significant quantities of equipment would be returned from iraq and good enough condition to help equip modular units this is some ssion may no longer be valid as a result the army now plans request additional funds to acquit made equipment shortfalls in modular units through fiscal year two thousand and seventeen also the army's equipment reset costs have the potential to change perhaps significantly reset costs have grown from about three point three billion dollars in fiscal year two thousand and four to more than seventeen billion dollars in fiscal year two thousand and seven however the army has reported that future reset costs will depend on the amount of forces committed overseas and the amount of equipment destroyed or damaged the army has also stated it will need reset funds for at least two to three years after operation cease finally the army is estimated that it will need ten to twelve billion dollars to replace prepositioned equipment that it used to support operations and accelerate the creation of additional brigades however it's not clear whether these costs have been reflected in the eighty's funding requests today and this amount could be modified turning to management issues we've identified a need for the army to develop a more integrated plan for equipping that promotes greater transparency in its cost estimates and ensures that funding requests are based on sound plans with measurable goals realistic time frames prioritized resource needs and performance measures to gauge progress the army currently lacks aspects of such an overall plan for example we've reported that the army lacks a comprehensive plan for equipping modular units that clearly shows equipment requirements the progress made to date and how additional funding requests will help to address on their requirements in addition oversight of the army's equipment initiatives has been complicated by multiple funding requests that make it difficult obtain the full picture of army equipment needs and to track of the funds were actually used as a result of these problems it's very difficult to determine progress overall that the army is making with funds already appropriated for example despite the significant amount of funds appropriated to date our readiness work has shown that the idea is still struggling to meet the equipment needs of next to pulling units and that non deployed units continue to have a quick a significant equipment shortages to the point that senior military leaders have recently expressed concerns about ground units ability to perform other missions if required what's needed is an integrated equipment plan that will position the army first to achieve maj measurable improvements in near term readiness in addition the army needs to find a way to better identify and report on its equipping needs over the next decade so that it can balance requirements for the modular force with other longer term modernization initiatives thank you m modernization i'm going to focus my remarks on the future combat systems and i think i'll be giving you a i think a more somber assessment of s c s than the army would but i think our differences are really in more in how the army is going about it versus what they're trying to do because on what they're trying to do i think the army deserves a lot of i'm sorry mr french you just have to pull it closer ok better much i think the army deserves a lot of credit for what they're trying to do because with s e s they've decided to do what's hard and not what's easy it would have been much easier i think to embark on replacements for all the big five systems and kind of do business the way they used to but they didn't they came up with the vision on how they want to do things in the future which cut across their own cultural lines and they have the courage and the pretty candles you know how to strike an empathetic note don't you yes you are a fellow luddite start at the top of the alphabet i would prefer we did everything with parchment and quill pens how does that strike you i think i might be you don't have an i pod yet then what's that s i want to just talk a little bit about where we've come i think while much progress has been made and we can talk about requirements technology design software a lot has been done but we need to put this in the context of cost and schedule on the program has double technology is going to take about twice as long as we thought it would software code estimates depending on how you measure them are going to  double or triple vehicle weights are up by about fifty percent and i think what to me what that means is you know things haven't gone as planned and that's not to say we think they should have gone faster or smoother but i think that accurately reflects the maturity of the program we're in it's still a period of discovery yet this is our basis for predicting how the program is going to finish i think at this point about halfway through we still don't know yet if f c s is going to work and the stakes for it working are quite high i'll talk a little bit about some of the specific program challenges right now the program is maturing about forty four critical technologies at this time many of those are still not mature the army is developing an unprecedented ad hoc mobile network which i think is largely to be invented at this point it's developing several small and light combat systems whose performance depends on the success of the technology efforts and the success of the information network the army  has as the find a unit of analysis the bright brigade combat team that i think is so large they're having to make some real breakthroughs in modeling and simulation all of this is proceeding simultaneously all of these challenges  are are attempted to be met at once and within a schedule that is faster than a single system normally takes and the army is is doing this right now with the lead system integrator which is innovative for both development and now production the approach that the army has taken on this i think puts the solutions phase ahead of where the information is so that let me give you an example in two thousand and three when we had the milestone be to begin the program i think the information at that time was more like a milestone a in two thousand and nine as we approach the go no go decision i think we're looking at a decision that's more like a real milestone be even though at that point will be about sixty percent through our schedule and our cost our funding much actual demonstration is going to follow production commitments so relative the citizens i think the vellum is going to finish late but production commitments are going to start early and as tight as the army's schedule is i think your schedule that of the congress is even tighter so for example in this time in twenty ten spring of two thousand and ten you'll be just a few months after the go no go decision we will not have developed any man ground vehicle prototypes yet the man ground vehicles the prototypes are just about halfway through qualification testing and before the network demonstration that you've mandated you'll be asked to provide the first year's funding of funding produced and delivered items so that's a purpose is of the record we know what we're talking about and we say system assistance could you elaborate just a moment on that as to what we mean in relation to what you were just providing as an example certainly the system is a system of systems lites the fact that while we're buying fourteen individual systems which i think in the the old days when when we weren't luddites would have been in individual acquisition programs but s c s is being conceived in such a way that all of these systems are related to one another and integrated with a network so the f c s requires the  is a system comprised of all these individual systems but when we act and into the actual production we will be producing in the virtual vehicles and sensors and so forth in twenty thirteen makes its milestone see production decision congress will have appropriated about thirty nine billion and possibly up to forty seven billion dollars for  so if if you're thinking about waiting till that production decision i think that's going to be too late because we'll be very heavily invested to think about what you can do so i see you as really having about two years of oversight leverage looking at the program right now and i think a real key point will be next year two thousand and nine the go no go decision and i think there's two things that you'll have to look at there if i may one is the have to be a demonstration that the f c s can work as planned if there are some questions remaining significant questions and i think we need to be looking at what alternatives we may have and they may not be rivals to f c s but they're front ways of proceeding forward if s t s does show that it can deliver what it needs to deliver and i think we have to take a serious look at the remaining part of the vellum and because as i said right now only about forty percent of the schedule and money will be left in two thousand and nine yet the latter half of the velleman is often the most expensive and difficult part of an acquisition and so i think if you know our our analysis of past programs shows about two thirds of your cost growth occurs in that phase of the program and both the institute of defense analysis and the cost analysis improvement group i think  estimating that s c s will take twelve to thirteen billion more then so can do you know i'm not trying to trap uniting just who is in what institutional elements are in the  group because that's a pentagon group right well there's you know and you know general speak who constitutes the the group or what is it one institutional entities within the pentagon constitute the group the cost analysis improvement yes sure what that means inside the pentagon does that mean they have to come in a separate door i know the head of the cost analysis improve a group and he usually comes in the same door that i do but they do not is designed to provide that independent analysis and they sort of like your own g a o cost are not really matters they're focused on cost of programs are focused on look at historical programs ok looking at the content that we're trying any event their charge program s c s being a large program the program office makes an estimate of what it's going to cost and then the army and the other services have an independent cost organization that grades that paper if i can put it in that part  the caig grades the services paper so what's the reconciliation of those three views on cost and at the end of the day you know the cake being positioned at the o s d level has more of a vote and how that paper is graded ok the reason i worry that a little bit again for purposes of the record is is that this is not just a pro forma operation and there this is something that's taken seriously and so when they we need to take into account what they're saying because certainly that the secretary of defense does is that correct yes or he does as well as the defense acquisition executive who looks at the cost estimating that's done by the caig as part of his decision review  the way just for the purposes speaking of luddites of the current context i think in which it might be appropriate is because we're trying to get rid of the modern elka must food for thought yes thank you miss you are gone thank you thank you very mean here thank you very much mr chairman chairman abercrombie and distinguished members of the house armed services subcommittee on air and land forces thank you for the opportunity officials followed contracting policies the report addresses the contract documentation supporting the award of twenty eight army and twelve marine corps contracts with a total of that of more than five point two billion dollars for various body armor components during the period january two thousand and four to december two thousand and six we also review the contract documentation and information provided by the army supporting the adequacy of first article testing we did not review other testing requirements or safety issues body armor components include the outer tactical vest deltoid and exhilarate protectors that provide protection to the shoulder area small arms protective inserts that provide ballistic protection to the torso and enhanced side ballistic inserts that provide ballistic protection to the sides of the torso the federal acquisition regulation requires contracting organizations to maintain adequate contract documentation to provide a complete acquisition history this includes documentation to support acquisition planning market research source selection planning and testing and evaluation of the products first article testing is to test a first article from production and verifies that the manufacturing process has generated an acceptable item and corrects any defects in the manufacturing process  before more items are produced the marine corps awarded twelve contracts for inserts and side inserts that you've had about two hundred forty eight million the files for the twelve contracts reviewed contained a complete history of the contracts including first article test acceptance the army awarded twenty eight contracts that you'd add about five billion dollars of these twenty  contracts we had concerns on the adequacy of first article testing on thirteen contracts based on our review of the documentation for example three contracts for  fifteen inch by fifteen inch pieces of material to conduct first article testing rather than complete best as required by the purchase description another example is where a contract a deltoid protective protectors which protects the shoulder area did not contain specifications to test against however documentation showed a first article test as completed by relying on the previously mentioned tests fifteen inch by fifteen inch pieces of material for this instead of testing a protector another example where we had concerns with first article testing was on a contract for inserts where the documentation showed support from the two of twenty four required first article tests finally for site inserts and an example was where one contract these products samples instead of the contractually required thirty five units for first article tests as a result of this and other work to date on body armor we plan to initiate an audit of this estate ability and durable of the body armor used by our armed forces this concludes my oral testimony i will be happy to answer any questions that you may have thank you very much miss you go e general thompson i don't want to spring anything on you but i'm going to use the rather than take up thank you i didn't mean that in a pro forma way thank you very very grateful general thompson i think what i like to do  without holding you to specifics is i'll take my time that i would have taken to ask questions and i'd like to turn it over to you just for not so much your response or rejoinder but if you have any observations at this stage and saw you taking notes i'd like to give the opportunity to that at this point if that's alright if you'd rather not that's ok too now mr chairman i'd like to do that and i welcome that opportunity ok then why  take my time to do that and then we'll go to mr saxton all right you brought up in in your remarks at the beginning of the hearing that concerned that we're having this discussion in the public without reconciling the different view between the d o d i g report and the army i too regret that that reconciliation wasn't done prior to the report being issued to a member of congress and then point out in the press well i'd like to take credit but i think it was mr unfortunately did not occur before the report was issued there is a meeting this afternoon at the conclusion of this hearing at five thirty tonight between the undersecretary of the army and see representatives of the d o d i g and then tomorrow afternoon the secretary of the army and files i think the issue boils down to i spent about an hour and a half with the professional staff members both on the house and the senate side and a lot of personal staff members the other night explaining where we think the difference is in the interpretation of the federal acquisition regulation  the army has tested all of the body armor and all of the body armor that is issued to the soldiers in the field today has passed the rigorous test and it is the best body armor that's available in the world today and i can say that without qualification the scope of the d o d i g audit and you can see that in the audit report was on the pre solicitation and the solicitation they did not look at the post solicitation post contract so they did not look of the testing process that goes on with body armor and if i can quote here from the federal acquisition regulations because the essence of the difference of opinion comes to what constitutes a first article test and i'm going to quote from the federal  here first article means a pre production model and michelle production sample a test sample first lot pilot lot or pilot more pilot models first article testing means testing an evaluation and evaluating the first article for conformance with specified contract requirements before or in the initial stage of production we conducted the first article test or pre production test before the contract was awarded the d o d s interprets the regulation is we should have conducted after the contract award but the testing was done we offered the d o d i g the complete documentation on all the twenty eight contracts they looked at the first article testing and also the lot of acceptance testing because the testing for body armor is done by the manufacturer in yes come to the table with a qualified product we do the first article or preproduction testing before we let a contract we we test it before we buy it and then after we go into production we do a lot of acceptance tests and a lot except since tests are different in size but every manufacture of any of the components on the body armor either the vest or the deltoid protectors or the plates we cast a lot of samples and any lot that fails the ballistic testing that we put it through is rejected and there are some cases where they are rejected and if two lots are rejected in a row the manufacturer has to go back and do the complete first article testing over again so the documentation is there the contract files that they looked at were in with the contracting officer which was in the acquisition center at aberdeen proving ground maryland the rest of the contracting file which included the testing documentation was with the program executive officer and the project manager and so you know part of the difference of opinion is they look narrowly at the contracting officer file we do have the testing documentation and the contracting file in our view is the entire file it's not all physically located with the contracting officer there was errors in the file where the contracting officer should have put a statement in there that waive the first article testing because it already been done those pieces of paper were  missing that's been reconciled that was an error by the contracting organization and we don't disagree with that but the testing on the body armor was done and we've got by ems of books and i bought an example of that to show the staffers the other day where there was at least four or five binders of testing on just one contractor thank you general i hate to have to contend with you and he actually had time to prepare a good i will say that there was about almost seven hundred programs in the army every every week or so there's one or two that consumed about fifty percent of my time in the last week since that report was issue process issue as opposed to a substantive qualitative issue with regard to whether or not something was neglected to be done that was fundamental or necessary to the to the  certification of the product take it from your answer already your observations that that's not the issue and one of you want to interview one of the professional staffers the other night pointed out that maybe it would be saxton was german thank you let me just divide my questions into two areas one regarding modernization program that the army equip or require the army national guard and the army reserve as well as the the army's plan to pay back reserve component equipment that was taken and left in iraq let me start with the if the modernization program and let me begin mr jermyn by my question by saying that i think mr francis characterization of the situation was very frank and very objective and very fair this is in fact a difficult modernization program to put together and mr chairman you and i have served here together for a long time along with many other members of the committee and we have observed and helped to resource several very difficult modernization programs in fact in some cases i call them revolutionary i would call the f c s program a revolutionary program with revolutionary objectives and goals we've had other programs that have been similar in nature in terms of their difficulty when i was  congress as chairman one hundred eighty four one of the first weapon systems that i saw which was in the design program at the time was a c seventeen it was different because it provided capabilities that no other airlift or had ever provided it was said to be able to take off in three thousand feet three thousand foot runway paved or unpaved it was said to be able to do that they were developing the capability to back up on the tarmac and could configure itself without having to be pushed or towed around it was to have redundant systems in case one system suffered breakage from fire or or military activity the other system would work to provide safety for the people who were in the airplane it was a revolutionary system mr chairman you and i sat here in this room along with many of our other colleagues and watched as mcdonnell douglas had a difficult time putting that system together and engineering it and making it work properly as a matter of fact it was probably five to ten years into the development system when i first learned about it in one thousand nine hundred four and the first production model came off the line in hundred one and it was because it was as the army is doing now trying to produce something with capabilities that reach far beyond what we have now the other short example i'd like to use and this involves one of our great colleagues that you and i were very fond of curt weldon who's no longer here in one thousand nine hundred six and came to you could feel his presence right the v twenty two the twenty two was a revolutionary system it was a fixed wing aircraft that could take off vertically and fly it three hundred plus miles per hour and carry a heavy load that was a capability that we had never had before and it was difficult to put it together as a matter of fact in one thousand nine hundred six or ninety seven i can't remember  which mr weldon and i went to the pentagon to visit with secretary cheney at the time because secretary cheney favored canceling the system because it was too difficult we today have that capability in a revolutionary sense the f c s is difficult but it provides capabilities that we don't have today it's a small it will have a command vehicle that will be available to small units where where soldiers will will be inside to be able to see the enemy be able to see our own soldiers be able to direct fire over forty kilometer distance with precision precision fire munitions and just many other networks capabilities that none of our weapons systems today are fortunate enough to have and many people who are not familiar with this system as as we are because we've looked at it and studied it people don't have a clue and why should they because nobody has made this information available on to the public yet but it is a revolutionary system so let let me ask this several years ago this committee wrote language into an authorization bill as to the necessity of making decisions on how we were going to go forward at some point turned out to be two thousand and nine on a go nogo review of the program and my question is how is the army planning to conduct this successful no go no go review of this program and how is the office of the secretary of defense involved generals would you like to take a crack at that congressman saxton what i'd like to do is ask for clarification you asked us two questions one was the role of army modernization focused on s c s the other element was the discussion on reserve component equipping would you like me to take on reserve component equipping first disc to take care of that and then move on to actually i was going to ask that question second ok sir i apologize sir let me start it off the reason i'm going to start it off is my responsibility is to set the conditions for general thompson to be successful let me begin by going back  in recent history the army chief of staff and the secretary of the army has placed more time with us on the subject of army modernization than we have had probably with the army leadership over the past several years it's their personal focus we're countable to  them what they asked us to first of all do is to find an integrated modernization strategy that has four elements first continue to field the best equipment to forces in combat second to do they need to improve our existing or legacy equipment we can't let the existing first the question is what is f c s because that's very important for us all the understand first it is a system that provides a network based capability to operate we view the network as mr francis said is absolutely essential to our concept for being successful secondly it is a common platform that benefits a common platform are realized by all of us instead of stovepipe systems we now have an integrated concept where we have a seventy percent a common platform with enorm other capabilities that platform specifically designed to operate in the modern operating environment not the last decade third and fourth unmanned air and ground systems absolutely essential we separate the soldier from the thing that seeking to cause the soldier harm we've seen the benefit of robotics in all of our operating environments in both iraq and effect and a stand they've proven out as a concept and then finally the concept of bringing capability across the force and spinouts so we have an integrated approach that brings an integrated set of capabilities and you saw on friday what we're talking about the concept of a sensor in a primitive version of the network and then the ability through that network to trigger precision fires that is the illustration of what's been out one will bring to us and you saw it is its preliminary form is already taking shape at fort bliss so the next obligation i had then is to set the fiscal conditions for success the fundamental issue with s e s is we have to make it affordable so that we can bring the maturity to the program over time by a steady application of fiscal resources our plan right now says that we have an integrated strategy that provides for f c s is never more than a third of our basic research development acquisition strategy so it is a third of our overall investment program in the base budget now through fifteen we are putting the specific trajectory on that program here as we updated throughout life fifteen in our palm bill that is underway now the other element of all this stand is we have to separate that element of it from the volatility of supplemental funding and that or its concerns over funding should not address the basic trajectory of what we're doing right now in our base programs so we  set conditions where we're bringing f c s and it's complementary systems all along at the desired rates of maturity to support the development of the program is a part of our base program and that's my responsibility to resource those is the resource or the army who so just to amplify some of the things that general speak said when he was talking about the common platform he's really talking about the man ground vehicle part of s c s so you know when you look at the f c s program it is a systems of systems it's it's not just a vehicle and that's part of the misperception that's out there it's it's a different man ground vehicles it's a couple of them and aerial vehicles it's the network it's the unmanned ground vehicles and it's a lot of these the sensors that are out there so there's there's major components of s c s you specific question i think was about the two thousand and seven authorization language on section two fourteen every year since two thousand and three we've had an annual review with the defense acquisition executive in this case this year it will be mr young looking at the f c s program even though a milestone b was in two thousand and three we have an annual review at that level where we look at all aspects of the program as a matter of fact i will meet next week with general cartwright the program manager for this year's annual review to lay out the timeline of meetings with all concerned organizations inside the office secretary defense the testers the people that look at networks the people to look at man ground vehicles the people to do the costing we will do this for this year's annual review and we'll begin to set the conditions for as you pointed out the go no go decision that was put in the authorization language for the two thousand and nine review which the culminating event prior to that review is going to be the preliminary design review on the systems of systems on how all of these things are going to work together so we are working that on an annual basis we will  that for the two thousand and nine review with the office of the secretary of defense and i'm confident that just like we've done in the last couple of years we'll have our disagreements well they'll point out some things that we could have been doing better and we go back and make adjustments and we balance the risk across the program the one of the things i like to say and then what speaks answer the reserve component equipping question on the complimentary systems  there's the fourteen major systems inside of the s t s program but we looked at a number of years ago in two thousand and four defined then the fifty eight other modernization programs in the army that had to align themselves and synchronize with f c s we've increased that number and in the last year we've done a deep dive in the sixty seven of those programs that are we label as complimentary systems to make sure that operationally and technically my concern is on the technical acquisition side that those systems all work together not just work together at the end state but work together over time and we've done those deep dives and that was part of the realignment of the win t program that was done last year now broken up into fo increments we've done that deep dive with the joint tactical radio system which has had some concerns another major part of the complimentary systems have to be aligned with s t s and then are sixty five other systems that we've looked at as well thank you let me just to the second question general speaks could you you know that we are as you are very concerned about army readiness and could you explain what the army is done to increase the commitment to equipping the army national guard and the army reserve or reequipping i guess i should say and i guess i guess i would say comma can we do it faster so i appreciate the chance to to address the question of the army's commitment to properly equip the army guard in the army reserve that me recapitulate what has happened over the course of the past several years is we entered into the events of of post nine eleven what we quickly realized is that is a part of the reorganization the army in the execution of the transformation of the army in modular designs we created one standard and that is the modular t o any order documentation for a standard unit across the army applied to everybody it wasn't something that was a pride differently active guard and reserve that's important because as you know prior to the start of this decade we had a different way of approaching the organizational requirements for guard and reserve formations we believe we had more time to get them ready that they didn't need to have a full set of equipment is a part of their peacetime training requirements now we see it very differently we see common application across the total force of the modular design that's very important because now what we have is one measuring stick to use for everybody it's the same the second thing we created was an army campaign plan that essentially put the army as an entity through a phased execution of the modular transformation of the army we're set now to complete that modular transformation of the army by reorganizing our units in two thousand and thirteen that's important because it means the blueprint of success is now going to be effective universally across the army by two thousand and thirteen we're about two thirds of the way through that transformation right now is we realign units in accordance this new standard the next thing we did is develop a plan that said that the other evil practice of the past that was something we wanted to abandon was the concept of cascading equipment you know the deal which is we took the new stuff gave it to the active component and then we took the older stuff that was deemed still serviceable and useful and set it to the reserve component that was a very negative practice for a bunch of reasons we now send new equipment to whatever unit is in the transformation process or is in the army force generation process getting ready to go to war that's vital because it means all are treated equally with respect to their access to new equipment the next thing we had to do was address the legacy of the previous generations we had a disparate share of what we call holes in the yard or missing equipment in the guard and reserve so we had to do was try to make up that differential so what we're now seeing thanks to the incredible support we've achieved from this committee among others is enormous progress in terms of our overall ability to equip the guard just completed an army equipping and reuse conference this january what we do is specifically apply known distributions of items that have already been authorized and appropriated to the army which we now specific document flow to enable us to project the arrival of equipment at the unit level based upon that as we look out for the next two years we see incredible benefits accruing to our reserve component what we saw for example is that over the allowing slip in a little test question at this point we will yes or let me go ahead then and focus it what we're doing then is distributing the capabilities that the army guard and army reserve need to execute their missions and we're doing that celebrated basis at this point fifty four percent of our of our equipment is going to the active component but forty six percent is going to the reserve component over sixty percent of the trucks that we're distributing right now are going to the reserve component this year next year so what we believe is that in the next two years we'll source a ninety three percent of the equipment that went to replace the theater provided equipment that was left in theater so the idea that we've got enormous amounts of guard and reserve equipment now still over in theater will no longer be in effect because thanks to you we've been able to replace it with new equipment ninety three percent the next two years so the overall end state then is that we believe will achieve the needs we have to support  active role in force generation and homeland defense at this point right now we see the army guard at about seventy nine percent of equipment on hand against current organizational designs that is a substantial improvement over where we stood even a year or two ago jermyn medium trucks i understand that this is one of the one of the big needs and i understand that production capacity is pretty much maxed out however it might be possible to increase production but it would increase costs fairly dramatically as well as direct so this point for the next twenty four months is sixteen thousand trucks are going to the army guard we are approaching max capacity right now for medium trucks we have realigned some of our parties with available dollars to go after heavy trucks because of the fact that we are approaching max production this german thank you want to direct my question primarily to general speaks in general thompson says the mission of the president's budget request certain media reports indicate the army may be reviewing plans for major changes  in general terms the army is always looking to accelerate the benefits of capabilities to the force once they prove themselves right now we have spin out one in evaluation this summer we will make every effort to deliver it is fast as we can within existing processes to the army we're also evaluating the other capabilities that are a part of this c s at this point we do not have any definitive plans to do that but the issues that have been identified by the g a o are first and foremost in our mind that is the stability of requirements is the readiness of technology and therefore our ability to pass tough testing before anything goes to the soldier we do sure you that nothing will happen without compliance but those processes don't thompson did you want to comment on that if not let me let me do a follow up maybe you can respond to this what was the basis for terminating the land warrior program and if the demand in positive feedback for a land war exists then why not consider restoring that program so we'll do it we'll do a tag team on this one probably in my previous job as a director of army program analysis and evaluation general speaks his previous job as the head of forced development when we built the program objective memorandum for o eight thirteen we were resource constrained it gets back to the question of balance that chairman abercrombie brought up at the beginning we had so many dollars to apply to the army's investments their modernization accounts the land was a program at that time  had some negative reports from the testing and because of budget constraints we terminated that program we had enough of the individual systems to outfit one battalion stryker battalion fourth battalion second infantry  four nine infantry i'm sorry that battalion has been in iraq has used that capability very successfully the soldiers love it the commanders love it we have had the program manager for that program lieutenant colonel cummings embedded with that unit almost the whole time that they've been there we now have an operational need statement which is a statement from the operational commander that says i would like to have a brigade worth of that capability for the five to stryker brigade which is getting ready to deploy we have in the supplemental request a request for around one hundred million dollars for a brigade worth of the land warrior capability we will continue to evaluate not just the way we duction but how that system works and right now we are working as we build the program object a memorandum for ten to fifteen for the follow on the land warrior which is that the incremental capability that we will call ground soldier system so in short you've got a battalion work that we're using today we would like to be able to buy a brigade worth that continue to learn and that becomes the learning point that we springboard into the ground soldier system for the future well i'm courtesy of that little regard in the joint cargo aircraft  sir at this point as you know we have a joint effort in the marine corps us in the air force linked together we have we have moved through the submission of these six studies and at this point now we're prepared to move forward we're waiting the actual ability to obligate the money so it's my understanding right now that both the army acquisition executive and the air force acquisition executive have sent a memo to to mr young to approve the acquisition program baseline now that studies are done so i think the actual award of the dollars moving forward in that program is a minute real quickly on the remaining few seconds that i've got the total acquisition unit cost of six point six billion for development and  eight j c a is about eighty four million dollars per each new c one thirty j cost approximately sixty two million given that the j c a is one half the capability that the c one thirty j can provide why should the taxpayer pay one point four times the cost and purchase j c s the the first issue that we have is a common basis for for calculating at this point the basic cost of the year craft itself that the army and air force are procuring which is the same aircraft is about thirty three million we believe that compares with the figure for the c one thirty of the as in the mid sixty's as you say general thirty three million yes or the basic crass cost of the aircraft is thirty three the additional figure that you have accounts for other items in life cycle costing beyond the actual purchase price of the aircraft i am mr congressman such as th the training base the depo maintenance the way we sustain aircraft but it is a joint program everything that we're doing in that program is together between the army air force there is a common view of the production cost of the aircraft which is the thirty three million dollars the general thompson i'm not quite clear on the answer you gave to mr gingrey about the land warrior and the ground soldier system with regard to why it was eliminated from the  quest for this year that's my responsibility over all the let me explain what happened when we built the thirteen palm but we had a limited use test it was just under way we went informally surveyed soldiers in the field to include the command sergeant major that outfit who was here in the last couple of days demonstrating it capability the results were very lukewarm soldiers did not endorse the capability at the time he among them part of the army that will command that work just as a part of a sort of they had basic and we sent senior officers off to to talk to soldiers on the ground see what they thought the results were lukewarm we had a cash squeeze we had only limited programs we could support as we did the final planning for a thirteen that was a program that is terminated based upon two issues number one initial results in the lot number two the issue affordability we could keep the program going is general thompson covered then in execution in combat the program number one changed significantly in terms of the minor issues that soldiers were finding with in terms of the overall originally about one thousand pounds then down to twelve now down to about seven pounds overall so you weren't going ahead until you got something that you could use yes or that receive the positive endorsement from the soldiers that use it and by that time  ur two thousand and eight budget cycle had passed and of and it was terminated and therefore didn't show up in the two thousand and nine budget i want to find so then now you're looking at a supplemental budget is that correct that is correct sir now is a supplemental budget principally an equipment question yes or it is to specifically outfit one brigade combat team worth of equipment the price that we have asked for one hundred two million dollars in that context  concerned not concerned so now we're moving from ground soldier that's the ground soldier system to land warfare so what are the interchangeable knows they're not this would be the first increment what you have for example is still legacy radios for example not a not jitters don't ask that next now the words this is this a ground soldier system that this is the precursor to ground soldier systems or ok land warriors now a relic of the past say one of you or both of you described the evolutionary process as taking place with this is high tech equipment such really with high tech equipment involving soldiers so that everybody can understand how soldiers play an important role in developing the configuration of these systems yes or this is this general thompson was mentioning this is army evaluation task force kind of demonstration we were forced to take this to soldiers on their way to combat have them evaluated and then try to derive army lessons learned we didn't get the answers on the right timeline what the army will do now with army the valuation task force is moving to a process by which we cycle programs over to fort bliss to a formal evaluation is the proper way to evaluate equipment and not give it to soldiers incident to deployment soldiers get input during the developmental stage of these systems absolutely syrian and as you saw on friday soldiers are going to help us to determine for example what the basis of this you plan is the specifics of what the what we call the t t p or tactics techniques argument not just on the capabilities transformation of the whole acquisition approaches transformational and it is hard for the existing processes in the defense department and i would submit part of the difference in view between the g a o and the army is that we are embedding soldiers in this process constantly evaluating we're not doing things in the traditional way so the soldier evaluates it we make changes in a constant cycle of making improvements to this thing not that we don't have a stable acquisition baseline but we're always looking for improving the capability so that we do get it out there the soldiers accept that it works and that's really transformational in my view all right but i'm still not clear and i don't want to got him alive still not clear what it is not that's what you're asking for funding for now though yes sir it is this will be incident to the needs of war as a concept right now that is not a formal army program that has been evaluated in combat in  or stryker brigade the second entry into a division now doing is it part of the land warrior system or is it part of the or is it part of the ground soldier system so that the one battalion of land warrior was bought with f y o eight and prior year funds the brigade's worth of improved land while your capability is in the request for the two thousand is the request of the supplemental for two thousand and eight in the in the main supplemental the ground soldier system which is new to new terms you know you guys are messing yourself up with this stuff you know there's an iron rule in politics if you're explaining you're losing and people had to be able to grasp what you're talking about when you say it they don't have to know the details or they've got to figure it out yes or you know and like i said are and where you are now we're in the explanation stage and you're losing and we don't we do a poor job of naming things all right well all right now that said then multiple capabilities like you're showing the other day you've got to wearable computer you've got the network radio right now is this connected then what your lan warrior and or your ground soldier system how are they connected to the and does that have the that come in the context of the army battle command network sir across the army right now we're operating on battle command network what what you saw it's been out number one is the first preliminary elements of what will be the f c s enabled network but what we're asking for the authority to do is to continue to take legacy capabilities based upon a b c s army battle command systems put them in the hands of soldiers and take them to war we then as a part of our ten palm will go ahead and develop and bring into reality ground soldier system which will be linked with the future vision of the network which is jitters enabled and  soldier system so that's the difference right now you're dealing with the last of the old we're validating concepts we're ensuring that we've got patient law predates working yes sir they are they are working absolute that's why the soldiers like them salute ok yes sir mr raise your patience is now to be rewarded by unlimited time what about the admiral down there he's waiting his turn to ranking member saxton for agreeing to go to el paso to see firsthand the future combat system on the ground that's that's being actually utilized by by soldiers i i always think that the soldiers are the the best embassadors as as both of you saw the future combat systems we've got a chance to see both indoors sensors outdoor sensors the robot the u a b we even got to see that remote control mule that's a couple of years down the road i think it's  in yes the actual m g v you're going to see here in washington d c in june for the army brigade the first prototype and then and then in fort bliss this summer as well so we're a lot closer on on this  our soldiers in places like iraq and afghanistan mr saxon and i were together when we visited for lucia at the height in september a couple of years ago at the height of  the fighting and we were there with chairman hunter and we spoke to some of the marines that had go down the alleys and we're taking casualties that way both by i d s and also by snipers the robots and i asked them later when i went back there the robots would have been lifesavers for them and i think we saw in that  demonstration in the in the building that the robot with its i r capability can see into even those hiding places where the insurgents were taking the major the major casualties on our on our troops so i believe that the future combat systems and and just the spin out products that we were able to see and the way that it's evolving and i know you and i  discussion about the software and that's really one of the probably the only question that i last both general speaks and and general thompson to to address because we want to make sure that any questions that the chairman has is answered i was telling him that the simulator is already connected with software where the command vehicle the the officer in charge can on a small unit scale and i'll have to depend on you for the definition of small unit i know that there's at least five other vehicles that are connected to the command vehicle and he's able to direct them as he would as he will be able to later this summer with the f c s capabilities to plan the the operations and at the same time when they dismount they'll be able to count on the sensors the door sensors that will that will be force multipliers that will all be connected back to the command vehicle so that there's a there's a view of the battlefield by the officer in charge in that vehicle where he can direct the multiple vehicles the ground forces that are that have dismounted and also see the the threat that's coming out of both by by the cameras and also by the sensors so i'm i'm i'm a very  ardent supporter of of the future combat systems because i've actually seen them i've seen the soldiers using it and they have told me like they told chairman abercrombie chairman and ranking member saxton that these tools these systems will will save lives in the in the future and that's the way forward as we talk about the asymmetrical challenges that we think we're going to be facing with the global war on terrorism so again thank you both for going and i will continue to ask other members to go because i think there is no substitute for them seeing the soldiers who come from the what i call the x box three sixty generation they take to the robotics and the capability of controlling these multiple systems  anything else that may be would clear it up for the chairman so i'd be delighted to do that what we saw in the simulator for police on friday was it was very import it was about four fifths of software build  one what was significant about that is we're on the path now to a totally new way of building a battle command architecture army battle command system or a b c s which was referred to by chairman ever ground b is the way we fought the war up till now the problem is it is  of stove pipes that have been loosely linked what that means is intel fire supported maneuver for example all operate by different code in their linked in a very awkward way what it means is we don't have a universal operating picture the cop or a common operating picture is what every commander desires so that he has all staff officers synchronized what you saw on friday was the first of that synchronization albeit in a primitive fashion so now what we're doing is we're harmonizing all the elements of the staff into a common view so that the enemy the fire support the friendly situation is all brought into one picture and that has enormous application for efficiency in effectiveness in avoidance of fratricide that are very very important the issue that has been raised by the g a o is are we actually on a path to build the code to do this on the right on the right timelines to meet the requirements that's a sophisticated answer alas journal thompson to help me on that in the in the overall picture on software one of the things that the g a o points out is there is roughly ninety million lines of code in s c s the first point is s c s is a system a system so it's somewhat of an unfair comparison in our view to compare that to an individual system an individual aircraft system in this case but the equivalent source lines of code the new code that we are writing that's unique to the f c s program has actually gone down  since we started this program right now or at about sixteen point seven million lines of equivalent source lines of code most of the code that we're using in the f c s program is commercial off the shelf code or operating system  code that we are integrating with the s e s so it's not something we're we're we're starting from scratch to develop ourselves we're using what's out there already that works and making sure that we we cooperated and include it with the s develop software that's a commercial best practice and that's a key strategic point we are just about through the block one of the software built for about five point one million lines of the sixteen point seven million we've got a software block to we are managing the risk in the software build by the test process that we've got right now there's another software block of code after that and then we'll finish up and so every couple of years we put ourselves on developmental path to develop the software we cast it we test it with soldiers when it proves out we go to the next software block so i'm very confident in the the acquisition approach that we've got and that gets looked at by the experts in the d o d i g as i pointed out to congressman saxton that's part of the annual review process and will be part of the two thousand and nine review process thank you mr chairman you can follow up if you have to just just quickly and then i'm concerned as i said i i'm concerned about alchemy more than anything  one of the reasons i'm as suspicious is i am or reluctant as i am to fling myself into the internet pool is that there are two people not want used to be one they're two people i thought they were working for me it turns out they're under contract they're in my office virtually every week maybe that's not me every ten days because the equipment in my office doesn't work the computers don't work they crash the copiers don't work the fax machine doesn't work these are commercial enterprises when we were down there in fort bliss yes i was at the simulation i saw that there was a room full of computers a room full of activity going on there if i understood you correctly what you're saying is you're taking pieces of commercial off with freshly done cold or contracted code from another outfit another commercial outfit and you're bringing this all together to come up with your joint tactical radio system and your war fighter information network is that right inside of the s c s program itself we are doing what i described on using leveraging the commercially developed software that meets our  needs are you sure the reason i'm asking this is someone who's one of your contractors can and my office the other day and told me essential that we were ready to go that my my concerns about the joint radio joint tackle radio system in the warfighter information system the fact he was so adamant that he was i guess he put me in the law category he was he was condescending enough to tell me that this was already done and why i didn't understand that was a little bit beyond his imagination now is that true then that you are essentially ready that this my concerns about whether or not you've accomplished what you need to do with the jitters system in the and the win t is essentially already accomplished and you're ready to go i guess to start manufacturing soon well on the way i didn't see that at fort bliss when t program congressman was was evaluated last year and broken into four increments of capability that will be delivered over time we did the right we are right now i'm under this guy was telling me one of the one of the sub contractors that's essentially all over know you're paying him several hundred million dollars so he's quite content to take the money i'm just trying to get it straight here you know because this is serious business is this ready to go or not if you're tom you're taking commercial  embodied in existing systems from i don't know sony samsung whatever that i go down and buy it at wal mart and then you're going to put this together with with something that's supposed to protect soldiers i want software build yes we are we we have done that iterative testing we are just about finished with the block while many blocks to go for a more there are three more blocks to go and so when we need the code developed we will be not just developed but will be integrated and tested and deliver the capability or it won't get to the next phase so we're not going to go into production then before that's done correct or that's right and that's the value of what you saw out there that whatever you saw soldiers doing when you saw that picture you're being moved that was on this century three quarters of the first build will have the complete burial building meaning integrating the vehicles and the and the network exactly yes sir and so the great news about this is none of this is going anywhere until soldiers operate it and we get a chance to see it increment by increment that is a part of the issue if that's the case then wouldn't it make sense in terms of the vehicle then as i was in the bradley would it make sense and to go with a modified bradley that you also have on the drawing boards before you get to the end go ahead and start building that before you get to the infantry of fighting vehicle what we showed you out at fort bliss was the illustration of the man ground vehicle that will be the common chassis is for f c s and then what we explained is that seventy percent commonality enables us to take not just to develop the cannon you'll see this summer but then the other elements of it the infantry vehicle the reconvened hole i understand that general but you also do not have on the on the boards right now funding for an upgraded bradley so we're we're investing in continued research and development to essentially maintain the survivability in viability of the tank and bradley as we bring f c s on so the research and development you see in our current f y o nine budget does that it is not designed to take us all the way through the future i didn't say that i'm i understand general occasionally we do in fact understand where i'm asking you in the context of you know black one block and then the three blocks coming of code and all the rest of it that goes into the vehicle i saw in a drawing but i was in a bradley and barely with the equipment that you have now to start using the things that you already have and i'm trying to help you here sir and we have choice is that we need to make and what i'm asking is does it make sense to push for funding for an upgraded bradley i've called i'm saying upgraded i may not have this exactly correct and nomenclature but that would and that bradley can accommodate some of the it's a legacy vehicle i understand that but from what i understand the people who drive it are damn glad they have it i mean it's it's a good vehicle is it not is it not served honorably and well for the united states army to this point yes sir it has and all i'm saying is is that pending the day when the new vehicle comes from being a drawing to being a prototype to going to low production rate to being integrated with the let the off the shelf code which apparently is is taking on iconic proportions right now pending that do you want to stay just with the bradley you have now or would the the new and improved version of the bradley that that i understand you're ready to move on in terms of manufacture is that something you could use sort of the key element of this before i turn it over to soldiers are now using are they not actually using it they're using it right now at fort bliss to essentially validate that we can do this exactly right so good thank you mr francis i have a couple of things i'd like to ask and i'm going to go to mr sestak if you can just confirm this for me so i make sure i have my facts general lined up in fiscal year two thousand and three when the f c s program was initiated by the army the target date for fielding the first brigade for the eighteen f c s program elements was december of two thousand and sound is that right yes or no since two thousand and three the army has eliminated four i believe i got this right from your limited for the original plan eighteen system central here or two thousand and fifteen for the remaining eight yes if everything goes right to correct overall the first brigade has been delayed five years then yes or i'm not asking this question because i'm trying to go so they're trying to figure out when things get put down the line and germs the choices we've got to make now where the funding goes that's what i'm trying to get straight so again in two thousand and three the army said would feel fifteen s brigades by two thousand and twenty is it correct to have it correct that in the figures now two thousand and twenty nine i believe that's correct the production rates have been lowered and stretched provided everything goes right correct no this is important to me now the cost estimate for all development costs and the fifteen brigades five years ago was about ninety billion dollars a little over ninety billion dollars yes right now them you know believe there are enough another part of the washington group said you don't know where the money comes from you know i think it's d o t funded ok so they've contract with a with an outside agency we've had a number of dealings with them they're generally very senior analysts who been in and out of the defense industry and i and i do find them independent nonetheless they're a private entity they are ok then the other group the cost group is an internal and of the of the pentagon correct works for the office of secretary of defense and reports to him to him who expects them to give him or her a and objective report regardless of their  service affiliations previously or or extent correct ok reason i go into that for the record you've seen those that know those those two and a d s have come up with figures that are significantly higher is that correct yes if the outside figure i have is over two hundred billion yes that was the cost analysis improvement group's number do you disagree with any of those questions rather than repeat them all i'm sure you've heard them i should have asked you to listen at the same number that you wouldn't be listening general i know if there were certainly listening the first point is that the technical discussion about the change in cost has to be balanced against  change in program content understand all i'm just asking am i accurate so you sir were accurate but the inference is are not accurate and other words i see let me let me point to the issue here maybe i'm wrong inferences i'm not no sir but the issue here is when we say we went from ninety to one hundred sixty billion for example we need to account for the change in scope of the program i quite agree i understand in fact i would say again trying to look at the base is the best i can understand i know they're taking into account  inflation they think they are but i don't think they're taking into account the depression we are now entering into thanks to the great fiscal stewardship that we've had over the last seven years  so it may get even more difficult thank you to think you were inches from a clean getaway  i was struck by your if i can quote from the summary from your work although i have read the rest of it but the summary i thought was pretty trenchant and i want to again quote a couple things back to you because i want to make sure i understand the the information and you may agree with this that moving from the division concept to the brigade concepts such as is done is underway here is and is not an easy task organizationally i'm sure you agree with us very much major change in the way the army structured now we start but that means a major change in thinking and it can mean changes right down to where they put the furniture right and has personally quipping in facilities and other implications of which cost money ok you know if i have you correctly you found that the funding plan to grow the army of i seventy four thousand personnel let's suppose we can actually do that we've got to take into account bonuses and recruitment expenditures and all kinds of things so you don't need to really need to count that and i'm thinking about that  trying to figure out how much we're going to spend seventy billion dollars approximately what was was set aside was going to be asked for to grow the army by that seventy thousand and that was the initial estimate the army i believe it's revised it about seventy two billion dollars does that take into account i was unclear from from reading what you said and forgive me if you said it in there but i got to my second or third hour reading i might have missed it does that take into account the transition for modularity the seventy already taking place without the seventy four thousand the seventy billion dollar estimate is to add six additional brigades and some support units and the equipment costs associated with that are about eighteen billion the rest of the seventy billion is for person now and other costs  but the and on top of the expansion costs for adding the additional brigades the army is proceeding with its overall effort to restructure and that effort is expected to call just for the equipment alone forty three billion dollars or so and again in our estimation that forty three billion dollars estimate is somewhat understated in fact probably quite a bit understated  developed so long ago and when you look out beyond two thousand and thirteen our analysis shows that army units are going to continue to have fairly significant shortfalls in some of the key equipment items so are you saying that if they are successful if the army is successful in moving towards this acquisition of more personnel that this estimate will probably have to go up  even even without considering the expansion effort of the right for the existing brigades pride to expansion our analysis shows that it's going to cost significantly more to a quip marginal units you have an educated guess as to what that might be if you added the seventy four thousand very difficult to do because the army has not really updated its estimate at all since the two thousand and four timeframe we have requesting the  of the cost of the equipment yes we've recommended that they do that the army's perspective now is that modular equipping is just part of the overall modernization effort of the army and what they plan to do is request equipment item by item in their subsequent budget and that will help them address subsequent shortfalls but they don't have any overall estimate of what it's going to take to acquit these units and of course that has readiness  implications and what we're seeing at this point is money is flowing in towards particular immanent to buy additional equipment but we've not yet seen any significant enhancements in the reading this particular the non deployed forces is that a fair assessment general speaks you see where i'm going on which i'm trying to be helpful here my guess is is that we need to start figuring that there's more money is going to be needed in the context of moving t modularity in the context of modularity and increasing the personnel at the same time in some respects year in other words you're going to be hurt if you're successful yes or no will be more difficult for you if you're successful yes exactly right miss on the run is exactly right we have two different ways of looking right now at this challenges we're facing one is to grow the army seventy billion dollars given to the army it was a fully burdened cost it's fully resourced we have we have a plan now that not only creates six in three brigades but also creates thirteen support units at brigade size across the guard and reserve that is a substantial capability that is on the works now resourced appropriately proceeding on plan the other element then that she had then a fine as is the challenge we have of continuing the transformation of the army over time so that by two thousand and thirteen we've taken three hundred brigade sized units active guard and reserve combat all the way to service support and brought them to a new organization i agree with the general i'm sorry just because of who got the vote what but what about the money then what changed what where are you in trying to come up with another figure sir if this point what w worked very hard is the issue of holes in the yard and the holes in the yard challenges is the basic because we're moving to a level now of equipping where we want to make sure everybody has got the stuff they're supposed to have and then we'll continue the modernization issue over time so at this point what what we believe is that the they army guard is owed about nine point nine billion dollars after we've applied current plans through thirteen so the seventy goes to eighty eight sir what we have to do is we've got to apply about ten billion dollars to the army guard about two point four billion to the army reserve about ten billion dollars to a p s and about ten billion dollars to the active that comes to a total of thirty three billion dollars beyond our current program so it's a hundred billion or so this is right now in addition to our exist resource plan so what i'm saying is one hundred billion no no sir you have a use for right now a thirty three billion to fill the holes in the already got that that's in our base program in other words we're counting right now that you gave us all the money we'll you tell me the seventy billion is ok why just for seventy if you only needed thirty three no sir i'm trying to draw a distinction the seventy billion accounts for the growth of the army that delta that new capability we're bringing on six brigade combat teams and thirteen support brigades seventy billion total bird cost in our program resourced and fully funded no problem the next issue then is you've got the whole rest of the army and i outlined to you is the remaining pill that is beyond our existing program to put the right equipment in the forty eight and that's one hundred billion dollars no sir that is thirty three billion in addition to what you've already got planned see the seventy billion that you just talked about is already in the plan no where does preposition stacks come into this sir that was ten billion of the of the costs that i outlined in other words when i showed you a thirty three billion dollars shortfall i said about ten billion dollars in a p s that is not yet been resource and in our testimony we talk about a figure about one hundred ninety billion dollars for these four initiatives that amount the department in the army is probably already quested about eighty billion so that means there's still one hundred billion dollars or more of expenditure through fiscal year or requested money through fiscal year thirteen and beyond that there is likely to be significant additional requirements for equi requested by the army to support the modular force what we can do is estimate the amounts and physically as our team at this point based on the data we've seen what you agree with that that's in the ballpark billion so we should add three thirty three billion so you accommodate approximately one hundred fifty billion and you're planning yes sir so we still got to find thirty three billion ok now we're getting somewhere for not do it by thirteen so pardon me or not or not fill the army by thirteen do you suppose we'll have any other just address and unfortunately mr saxena left i would like to mention that we did afford one hundred nine days for the when we first alerted the army to this issue we met with the p l o soldier twice they provided information from their files we considered them and in fact we scrubbed our draft report results and reduced the number of issues we had from fifteen to thirteen so i just wanted to address that issue so this you think the situation  could you folks get together and continue to talk on this issue so that we frankly the army did agree with most of our recommendations and i think dialogue is all dialogue is good and short order i don't see a ask you ok could i ask you i guess it's formally here but could i ask you one new finish up your talks and what you were talking about general thompson in terms of the reviews and that you let me know what the school ultimate score is and so we can then put something else that will hopefully relieve people's anxiety other words as i said at the beginning this is something that many people know about here and are familiar with and conversant with but what happens is it gets translated in the republic to the public and to the republic and in a manner that generally comes out of our soldiers are in danger or they're not being taken care of the way they should and i don't think that's really the issue here but it becomes one unless we're able to clear it up which i would like to do and i think we can as a result of what was been said here today appreciate the work that you all do thank you all very very much i think will conclude hearing rather than hold you to this a further once again it's been very very good very very enlightening for me and i'm grateful to all of you thank