U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

i 

25–871 2018

[H.A.S.C. No. 115–49] 

HEARING 

ON

NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT 

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2018 

AND

OVERSIGHT OF PREVIOUSLY AUTHORIZED 

PROGRAMS 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON TACTICAL AIR 

AND LAND FORCES HEARING 

ON

GROUND FORCE MODERNIZATION 

BUDGET REQUEST 

HEARING HELD 

MAY 24, 2017 
(II) 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON TACTICAL AIR AND LAND FORCES 

MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio, Chairman 

FRANK A. LOBIONDO, New Jersey 

PAUL COOK, California, Vice Chair 

SAM GRAVES, Missouri 

MARTHA MCSALLY, Arizona 

STEPHEN KNIGHT, California 

TRENT KELLY, Mississippi 

MATT GAETZ, Florida 

DON BACON, Nebraska 

JIM BANKS, Indiana 

WALTER B. JONES, North Carolina 

ROB BISHOP, Utah 

ROBERT J. WITTMAN, Virginia 

MO BROOKS, Alabama 

NIKI TSONGAS, Massachusetts 

JAMES R. LANGEVIN, Rhode Island 

JIM COOPER, Tennessee 

MARC A. VEASEY, Texas 

RUBEN GALLEGO, Arizona 

JACKY ROSEN, Nevada 

SALUD O. CARBAJAL, California 

ANTHONY G. BROWN, Maryland 

TOM O’HALLERAN, Arizona 

THOMAS R. SUOZZI, New York 

(Vacancy) 

JESSE TOLLESON, Professional Staff Member 

DOUG BUSH, Professional Staff Member 

NEVE SCHADLER, Clerk 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

STATEMENTS PRESENTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS 

Tsongas, Hon. Niki, a Representative from Massachusetts, Ranking Member, 

Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land Forces ................................................ 2 

Turner, Hon. Michael R., a Representative from Ohio, Chairman, Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land Forces .................................................................. 1 

WITNESSES 

Murray, LTG John M., USA, Deputy Chief of Staff of the Army, G–8; and 

LTG Paul A. Ostrowski, USA, Military Deputy to the Assistant Secretary 

of the Army (Acquisition, Logistics and Technology) ........................................ 4 

Thomas, LtGen Gary L., USMC, Deputy Commandant for Programs and 

Resources; and BGen Joseph Shrader, USMC, Commanding General, Marine Corps Systems Command ............................................................................ 5 

APPENDIX 

PREPARED STATEMENTS: 

Murray, LTG John M., joint with LTG Paul A. Ostrowski ........................... 23 

Thomas, LtGen Gary L., joint with BGen Joseph Shrader ........................... 34 

Turner, Hon. Michael R. .................................................................................. 21 

DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD: 

[There were no Documents submitted.] 

WITNESS RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS ASKED DURING THE HEARING: 

[There were no Questions submitted during the hearing.] 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS POST HEARING: 

Mr. Banks .......................................................................................................... 55 

Mr. Bishop ......................................................................................................... 56 

Mr. Brown ......................................................................................................... 54 

Ms. Tsongas ...................................................................................................... 53 

Mr. Turner ........................................................................................................ 53 

Mr. Wittman ..................................................................................................... 56 

(1) 

GROUND FORCE MODERNIZATION BUDGET REQUEST 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON TACTICAL AIR AND LAND FORCES, Washington, DC, Wednesday, May 24, 2017. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 3:36 p.m., in room 

2118, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Michael R. Turner 

(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MICHAEL R. TURNER, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM OHIO, CHAIRMAN, SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

TACTICAL AIR AND LAND FORCES 

Mr. TURNER. The hearing will come to order. The subcommittee 

meets today to review the Army and Marine Corps ground force 

equipment modernization budget request for fiscal year [FY] 2018. 

From our previous hearings held in March, we are aware that the 

Army and Marine Corps continue to face significant challenges in 

rebuilding full-spectrum readiness from years of deferred modernization funding. 

We are particularly interested in understanding how this budget 

request will begin the process of reversing the trend in deferred 

modernization funding. I would like to welcome our guests representing the Army and Marine Corps: Lieutenant General John 

M. Murray, Deputy Chief of Staff, G–8; Lieutenant General Paul 

A. Ostrowski, Military Deputy to the Assistant Secretary of the 

Army (Acquisition, Logistics and Technology); Lieutenant General 

Gary L. Thomas, Deputy Commandant for Programs and Resources; Brigadier General Joseph Shrader, Commanding General, 

Marine Corps Systems Command. Thank you each for your dedicated service and for being here today. 

Today the subcommittee will review the broad portfolio of ground 

force equipment modernization programs and their associated acquisition strategies. We expect to gain a better understanding of 

Army and Marine Corps modernization priorities in fiscal year 

2018 and beyond. As such, the witnesses have been asked to identify their top five modernization requirements and briefly summarize how the budget request addresses them. 

The subcommittee will be particularly interested in learning of 

any unfunded requirements the Army and Marine Corps may have 

for fiscal year 2018. Yesterday, the administration released its 

budget request for the Department of Defense [DOD] that amounts 

to a $603 billion top line. Since we just received the request, we 

are still in the early stages of reviewing the specifics of the budget 

request, which makes this hearing so timely. 
2 

As I have stated at previous hearings, I support the President’s 

commitment to rebuilding the military. However, I am concerned 

that the current budget request does not go far enough. I support 

Chairman Thornberry’s statement, ‘‘The administration’s budget 

proposal for defense is not enough to do what the President said 

he wants to do. In order to begin to repair the damage that has 

been done to readiness, and to build the capacity needed for today’s 

dangerous world, we believe that $640 billion is required for fiscal 

year 2018.’’ 

A topline budget of $603 billion for defense in fiscal year 2018 

really only represents 3 percent growth above President Obama’s 

projected budget request for fiscal year 2018 from last year. To be 

fair enough, it does appear that the Army’s modernization request 

(procurement, RTD&E [research, testing, development, and evaluation]), and the Marine Corps ground equipment procurement request do provide for some improvement over fiscal year 2017 projected levels. The problem is that due to multiple years of underfunding and reduced budgets, these relatively modest increases 

aren’t enough to actually reverse the damage that has been done. 

For example, the request provides the funding necessary to modernize about half of one [armored] brigade combat team, meaning 

that the Army is on a path to fully modernize all of their armored 

brigade teams by 2035, which is a problem. 

Finally, I continue to have concerns that we are losing our comparative advantage in ground combat overmatch against near-peer 

and peer competitors. Legacy combat vehicle platforms in some 

cases are nearing the 40-year mark in terms of service, and I am 

concerned that these vehicles are reaching limitations in terms of 

capability. 

So I am particularly interested in understanding how this budget 

request begins to address next generation combat vehicle systems. 

And I would like to recognize my good friend, Niki Tsongas. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Turner can be found in the Appendix on page 21.] 

STATEMENT OF HON. NIKI TSONGAS, A REPRESENTATIVE 

FROM MASSACHUSETTS, RANKING MEMBER, SUBCOMMITTEE ON TACTICAL AIR AND LAND FORCES 

Ms. TSONGAS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and good afternoon. 

I look forward to discussing the budget for both the Army and 

Marine Corps with our witnesses here today, and I thank you for 

being here. But first, I would like to address concerns I have with 

the approach taken by the broader Federal budget released just 

yesterday. The fiscal year 2018 President’s budget prioritizes defense spending at the expense of other national priorities, like education, infrastructure, and economic development. 

Of particular relevance to our discussion here today, the budget 

also makes deep cuts to the State Department and USAID [United 

States Agency for International Development], to international security assistance programs that provide defense equipment and 

training to our partners abroad, and to the Treasury’s office responsible for combatting terrorist financing, just to name a few. 

And these cuts are even more pronounced over a 10-year period. 
3 

Increasing defense spending at the expense of these other critical 

programs will not only make us less safe, but will undermine important investments key to our national competitiveness and our 

long-term security. With that in mind, today’s hearing is the first 

chance the subcommittee has to review the Army and Marine 

Corps fiscal year 2018 budget request. The delay in completing the 

budget does put pressure on us to get as much information today 

as possible, given the short time available before consideration of 

the 2018 NDAA [National Defense Authorization Act] next month. 

And there are a few points I would like to make. 

First, the 2018 budget request for Army and Marine Corps modernization accounts do appear to show modest growth in comparison to the final 2017 figures for both services; welcomed news given 

the services’ modernization needs, but I hope to hear today how 

you both plan on using the additional funding to both expand current programs and set the stage for the future by starting some 

new ones. 

Research, development, test, and evaluation accounts seem to 

have also grown at a modest level. I have been worried for some 

time by the rapid decline in R&D [research and development] funding, especially for the Army, which over the past few years has 

reached troublesome lows. I hope to hear more today about both 

new development programs and expanded research in the science 

and technology, or S&T, accounts. 

The second broad issue I wanted to touch on is the importance 

of keeping a focus on improving personal protective equipment, like 

body armor, helmets, and related materials. Both services continue 

to make substantial investments and field new equipment, which 

is encouraging. I think this is both the smart thing to do, but also 

the right thing to do, given the risks that members of our military 

take every day. The cost of these programs in comparison to the 

billions needed for tanks or helicopters is relatively small, but 

should be protected and expanded. 

A final point I wanted to make was about the importance of competition. A series of laws, Executive orders, and subsequent regulations make full and open competition the standard method for acquisition of equipment by the military services. That was done in 

the taxpayers’ interest to ensure fairness, reduce costs, increase 

transparency, and foster a healthy defense industrial base. 

However, we all know that the competition process usually does 

take more time than doing a sole-source award. For me, that tradeoff, a more time-consuming process, is worth it, except in cases of 

true emergency combat needs or when optimal products already 

exist in the commercial sector, situations which have prompted the 

congressional defense committees to craft needed workarounds. 

So as both services make use of the exceptions to competition 

that the law allows, I would caution that it be done thoughtfully, 

carefully, and only in the case of true urgency. The overarching 

goal should be to both achieve the benefits of competition and to 

ensure that the flexibility currently enjoyed by the military services 

is preserved. With that in mind, I look forward to today’s testimony, and I yield back. 

Mr. TURNER. Thank you. I understand that General Murray will 

provide the remarks on behalf of the Army and General Thomas 
4 

† General Murray submitted a correction of his hearing statement, changing $27.3 billion to 

$26.8 billion. 

will provide remarks on behalf of the Marine Corps. Before we 

begin, they have projected votes between 4:05 and 4:35. And then 

we are going to have an hour-long vote, and after that it is going 

to be difficult to get members back. If we give each of you 5 minutes, if you can shave off a minute or two there, we are going to 

go to 3-minute rounds of questions, and I am going to abbreviate 

mine. And I think we will get through everybody if we get to a reasonable time for the votes. 

So with that, gentlemen, please begin. General Murray. 

STATEMENT OF LTG JOHN M. MURRAY, USA, DEPUTY CHIEF 

OF STAFF OF THE ARMY, G–8; AND LTG PAUL A. OSTROWSKI, 

USA, MILITARY DEPUTY TO THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF 

THE ARMY (ACQUISITION, LOGISTICS AND TECHNOLOGY) 

General MURRAY. And I will read fast, Mr. Chairman, so thank 

you. Chairman Turner, Ranking Member Tsongas, distinguished 

members of the Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land Forces, on 

behalf of our Acting Secretary, the Honorable Robert Speer, and 

our Chief of Staff, General Mark Milley, we look forward to discussing with you the fiscal year 2018 President’s budget request for 

Army modernization. 

The fiscal year 2018 modernization budget request of $26.8 † billion represents a modest increase in modernization. Additional 

funding sustains, but it does not significantly advance our modernization efforts. Given today’s fiscal environment, our modernization strategy remains to focus our limited modernization budget on 

the equipment that will have the greatest impact against near-peer 

threats and can be in the hands of our soldiers in the near future. 

For the past 10 years, we have focused on the immediate, providing the equipment necessary for our soldiers to fight in Iraq and 

Afghanistan, along with incremental upgrades to our existing combat platforms. That strategy, driven primarily by constrained modernization resources, forced us to defer the development of new 

combat capabilities. We have now reached a point in time where 

we can no longer afford to do one or the other: improve existing 

systems or develop new ones. We must begin to do both. 

We face critical capability and capacity gaps in areas like air and 

missile defense, long-range precision fires, munitions, the mobility 

protection and lethality of our brigade combat teams, and active 

protection to name just a few. We must begin to fill these gaps if 

we are to credibly deter, and if necessary defeat a near-peer adversary. These are challenging times. In the end, the security challenges of tomorrow will be met with equipment we develop, modernize, and procure today. 

Because adversaries will continue to invest in technology to 

counter or evade U.S. strengths and exploit vulnerabilities, resource insecurity and insufficient force modernization will place the 

Army’s ability to overmatch its opponents at risk. We owe our future soldiers the equipment they will need to fight and win on a 

very complex battlefield. We urge Congress to provide fiscal stability, funding that is sufficient, consistent, long-term, balanced, and 
5 

predictable, so we can maintain our current warfighting readiness 

while simultaneously building a more modern and capable force for 

the future. 

I would like to thank you and the entire committee for your resolute support of the men and women of the United States Army, 

Army civilians, and our families, and I thank you, and I look forward to your questions. 

[The joint prepared statement of General Murray and General 

Ostrowski can be found in the Appendix on page 23.] 

Mr. TURNER. General Thomas. 

STATEMENT OF LTGEN GARY L. THOMAS, USMC, DEPUTY COMMANDANT FOR PROGRAMS AND RESOURCES; AND BGEN JOSEPH SHRADER, USMC, COMMANDING GENERAL, MARINE 

CORPS SYSTEMS COMMAND 

General THOMAS. Chairman Turner, Ranking Member Tsongas, 

and distinguished members of the subcommittee, thank you for the 

opportunity to appear before you today. I am honored to represent 

your Marines and testify on our fiscal year 2018 ground force modernization program. 

Your Marines continue to be in high demand from all our combatant commanders around the world. They are forward-deployed, 

engaged on land and sea, and ready for crisis response. As a result, 

we must constantly balance between capability and capacity, between current operations and future operations, between steady 

state and surge readiness, as well as between low-end and highend operations and training. 

Our role as America’s naval expeditionary force in readiness informs how we man, train, and equip our force. It also drives how 

we prioritize and allocate the resources we are provided by Congress. While today’s force is capable and our forward-deployed 

forces are ready to fight, we have been fiscally stretched to maintain readiness across the breadth of the force. Our fiscal year 2018 

budget request builds on the additional funding received in the fiscal year 2017 omnibus appropriation and begins the deliberate effort to fix readiness for today and tomorrow. 

Modernization is central to addressing near-term readiness and 

foundational to building the Marine Corps of the 21st century. It 

includes replacement of legacy systems with new ones, such as the 

Amphibious Combat Vehicle [ACV], Joint Light Tactical Vehicle, 

the Ground/Air Task Oriented Radar [G/ATOR], the Common Aviation Command and Control System, and the CH–53K King Stallion; five key modernization efforts supporting how we are going to 

operate, fight in the future. 

Modernization also includes changes to the structure of our tables of equipment that we continue to incorporate lessons learned 

from the battlefield into equipment sets that balance affordability 

with the need for a networked, mobile, and lethal expeditionary 

force. And it includes the insertion of technology into current capabilities, including such efforts as developing active protection systems, long-range precision fires, and unmanned aircraft system capabilities. 

The Marine Corps must begin to rebalance and modernize for the 

future, creating a fifth-generation multi-domain force with over-
6 

match that can deter and, if necessary, defeat a highly capable 

near-peer adversary. However, an unstable fiscal environment creates inefficiencies, disrupts our planning, and directly challenges 

our current and future readiness. With your help, we can begin to 

overcome these challenges and ensure that the Marine Corps is 

well postured for the 21st century. 

Again, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. 

I look forward to your questions. 

[The joint prepared statement of General Thomas and General 

Shrader can be found in the Appendix on page 34.] 

Mr. TURNER. Excellent. Thank you, gentlemen. Well, to get us 

jump-started, I am going to ask three quick questions that I believe 

you can both answer yes to, which will get us moving. And so let’s 

see if I am correct. 

Obviously, we are concerned about the pace of modernization. If 

additional funding were provided, could you accelerate armored brigade combat team modernization? General Murray. 

General MURRAY. Absolutely. 

Mr. TURNER. General Thomas. 

General THOMAS. We could accelerate key modernization programs, yes. 

Mr. TURNER. Great. Second yes question. In your professional 

opinion, are changes to the current cluster munitions policy required to address current Army requirements and emerging 

threats? General Murray. 

General MURRAY. I am not sure I completely understood the 

question, Chairman. 

Mr. TURNER. We are very concerned about the policy concerning 

cluster munitions, which is going to impact your operations, your 

ability to utilize them. In your professional opinion, does that current policy need to be changed to be able to give you, as you look 

to requirements and emerging threats. 

The second part of this—and I will just go ahead and tell you— 

is would the loss of the ability to use cluster munitions create an 

unacceptable capability gap for land component area effects, particularly in major combat operations against near-peer or nearpeer-equipped opponents? 

General MURRAY. The answer to the second one is absolutely. It 

is a critical operational capability that goes away on 1 January 

2019. The answer to the first one, Mr. Chairman, is I think we 

have to at least look at it and consider it. 

Mr. TURNER. General Thomas. 

General THOMAS. We would advocate a change. The DPICM 

[Dual-Purpose Improved Conventional Munition] capability is very 

important to our force and to replace that capability is going to 

take a lot more time and a lot more money. 

Mr. TURNER. Great, thank you. Ranking Member. And you 

should have a clock on me. 

Ms. TSONGAS. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am 

pleased that both services have ongoing efforts to improve the fit 

and function of female personal protective equipment, as the number of women serving in both the Army and Marine Corps continues to increase, and it is something we talk about often here. 
7 

But I am somewhat concerned that the two services are headed 

in different directions. My understanding is that the Marine Corps 

is making improvements aimed at making sure that marines of all 

statures are equipped with appropriately fitted plates. While that 

is important, appropriately sized plates are but one component of 

a system aimed at making sure women have equipment designed 

specifically to improve protection and range of motion. 

The female improved outer tactical vest is an important example 

of how the Army is working to ensure that women have body armor 

with the appropriate form, fit, and function. So my concern is that 

the two services, while arguably trying to do what they think is 

right, are diverging in their approaches where there may be a great 

deal to be gained by a joint effort. 

So, General Ostrowski and General Shrader, would you both talk 

about what you are doing in this area within your services and how 

it differs from the other service and why that is the case? So, General Ostrowski. 

General OSTROWSKI. Ma’am, thank you for the question. I will 

tell you that I think you are very well aware that the Army has 

not only sized body armor for our males, 11 different sizes, but also 

for our females, 11 separate sizes with respect to body armor. 

In addition to the five torso and three side plates, in terms of different sizes that we have had in the past, we have added an additional three torso plates, as well as an additional smaller side plate 

in order to address additional concerns with respect to our female 

soldiers. 

Our next-generation soldier protection system, which will consist 

of about 121,000 systems for the folks, our soldiers that are on the 

leading edge in terms of engaging with and closing with the enemy 

in a close fight, will also include sizing for women. This is important based on where we have gone in terms of the Army and females’ ability to serve within our infantry and armor forces. 

In addition, we will have eight total sizes for the soldier protection system. This sizing is based on human factors designed—that 

we have done in conjunction with the Marine Corps; and the eight 

sizes, again, fit not only our male soldiers, but are designed to fit 

our female soldiers based on the addition of the new plates, as well 

as the scalable torso protection system that we have. 

Ms. TSONGAS. We will go to General Shrader now, give you a 

quick time to respond. Maybe if you need more time, put it in the 

record later. Go ahead. 

General SHRADER. Yes, ma’am. So I think General Ostrowski 

said it exactly what we are doing too—we are working with the 

Army on our new plate carrier that we are getting ready to field. 

As far as the plates are concerned, we are buying the same plates 

as the Army. So, yes, ma’am, we are working with the Army and 

moving forward. 

Ms. TSONGAS. Well, the Army has done some wonderful things, 

so not only the outer tactical vests, but they have better designed 

female protective undergarments, ballistic combat shirts, and I 

would encourage the Marines to take a look at that full suite of 

investments. 

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Cook. 
8 

Mr. COOK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First of all, I want to 

thank the Marine Corps for inviting us to the parade a couple of 

weeks ago. I have not dried out yet. And I have got cases of immersion foot and jungle rot, which goes back 50 years ago to when I 

was in Vietnam. 

But anyway, a couple of systems which I am really impressed on, 

the Trophy system that you are looking at that, thank God that 

you are taking a look at that with the development of the T90 and 

everything like that. The Marine Corps I know is bringing on the 

new 81 Mike-Mike mortar, not new, but the munitions. Can you 

just give a quick heads-up on that, what is going on, on it? 

General THOMAS. Congressman, we are looking at the ACERM 

[Advanced Capability Extended Range Mortar] round, which gives 

you the extended range for the 81-millimeter mortar. That is in 

technical demonstration right now, but we are paying close attention to that. 

Mr. COOK. Yeah, as that goes along, I would be really interested 

in that. The other thing I wanted to address real quick—and everyone is aware of the RAND study. We are worried about long-range 

fires. The chairman talked about some of the things on that. 

We are concerned, at least I am, on HIMARS [High Mobility Artillery Rocket System], whether we have enough ammunitions, the 

systems that—you know, that unclassified portion of it, 60 hours 

to be in Tallinn or Riga, if you could just briefly, anybody, how you 

looked at that, because I know it has got everyone’s attention and 

some of your systems addressing that, because I think that is an 

important part of the budget, the way it stands right now. 

General MURRAY. Yes, sir. So, Congressman, fire structure is 

part of the growth we will experience in 2018, with what we were 

granted, in terms of the growth of the Active Component to 476 

[thousand]. We thank you. It is just not the munitions. It is also 

the HIMARS and MLRS [Multiple Launch Rocket System] to shoot 

it, correct. 

Mr. COOK. Yeah. 

General MURRAY. And then we have a program going right now 

called long-range precision fires. There is about $102 million in the 

base to take two prototypes into demonstration in 2019. In addition 

to that, we are also SLEPing, service life extension program, on our 

ATACMS [Army Tactical Missile System] missile to make sure we 

have got the inventory. And we are also working to double the 

range of the GMLRS [Guided Multiple Launch Rocket System] missile, as well. 

Mr. COOK. Great. I am rushing real quick. By the way, I was just 

out at Fort Irwin. They did a great cyber exercise. Some of these 

kids, I mean, they are right out of Star Wars. They are talking 

about some of the gear coming right off the shelf. And very, very 

impressive. 

The one thing that bothered me a little bit was the MICLIC 

[Mine Clearing Line Charge], the mine going out with—this is 50 

years ago we were doing the same thing with the C4, the det cord 

[detonation cord] that goes out there. Of course, I am looking for 

something much quicker and wondering if there is anything in the 

works. And that is my last question. I yield back after that. 
9 

General MURRAY. There is not anything in the works to replace 

that currently, sir. 

Mr. COOK. Okay, thank you. 

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Langevin. 

Mr. LANGEVIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I want to thank 

our witnesses for your testimony. And thank you all for your service to the country. 

General Ostrowski, the Army’s budget request shows $37 million 

for a leader-and-follow ground robotics effort that would allow in 

theory unmanned cargo trucks to follow a single truck driven by a 

soldier. Elsewhere in the budget request is a larger $70.8 million 

effort that is spread across seven different projects, including a 

squad multi-purpose transport, which appears to be a small cargocarrying robot, and the common robotic system, which is a man 

packable, less than 25-pound ground robot with various sensors, 

and a soldier-borne sensor, which is a very small handheld UAV 

[unmanned aerial vehicle]. 

Could you please give us some details on these efforts and how 

they all fit together? And there is rapid progress in the commercial 

world on ground robotics. What year will the Army field its next 

generation of robots like the ones described in the research and development request? For example, when would the Army field a 

cargo or intelligence collection ground robot? 

And then, finally, does the Army have any demonstrations 

planned to open up this area to commercial robot companies? 

General OSTROWSKI. Sir, the Army has got a multifaceted approach to getting after ground robotics. And the Chief is leading 

the charge. He is all about ensuring, as we all are, that soldiers 

are not put into harm’s way unnecessarily. The first of those efforts 

is the S&T effort that you talked about, Leader-Follower, which is 

in the S&T realm at the Army’s TARDEC [Tank Automotive Research, Development, and Engineering Center] location now. The 

intent is to create the capability for a leader vehicle truck that 

could be followed by other additional carrying capability that will 

go from port to a base. Again, not off-road, but along highways. 

This takes into account the ability for us to use commercial technologies that have been developed and to leverage those particular 

technologies. 

With respect to the SMET [Squad Multipurpose Equipment 

Transport] that you talked about, as well, the squad robotic capability, ability to move 1,000 pounds worth of equipment, our ability 

to do that is based on our acquisition strategy of going through 

other transactional authority to get vendors to come in to provide 

papers on how we can get after that particular capability, take that 

down-select to about 10, have them provide prototypes, and take 

those prototypes into test. And following the test, we will down-select about four. And between the period of 2019 to 2020, we will 

then place those four standard types into the field for evaluations 

on behalf of our soldiers that will lead to a decision by 2020 to 

make a call as to whether to field or not to field that particular capability. 

Mr. LANGEVIN. Okay. 

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Kelly. 
10 

Mr. KELLY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First, I am pleased to see 

the Army’s request to upgrade the Abrams tanks to the M1A2 

SEPV3 [System Enhancement Package Version 3]. And I understand the Army may attempt to accelerate additional upgrades for 

the SEPV4 configuration. That being said, the Abrams tank is now 

approaching 80 tons in gross vehicle weight. And what impact does 

this weight have and are we getting the Mike-88s to make sure 

that we can tow those things and also the things like the new JAB 

[Joint Assault] Bridge that we have been talking about since I was 

a young engineer lieutenant? You know, can our bridges, our gap 

crossing capability support these new 80 tons instead of 70? 

General MURRAY. Yes, sir, so we have got several problems. So 

you have mentioned two of them would be the heavy equipment 

transport, or HETs. So right now, we have got work going on in 

several different paths on the heavy equipment transports. We 

have got a problem in Europe we have got to fix fairly quickly, 

which is one avenue of approach we are taking, and then we are 

also starting the development what we are calling the super HET 

to account for the weight of the tank, which is actually combat 

loaded about 78 tons. So you are correct, approaching 80. 

With the bridges, we have got our engineers doing some work 

right now that it really comes down to the strength of the pins and 

the scissors as the weak point of that bridge. We can cross it right 

now, but only at caution crossing, which is basically walking speed. 

So we are working on the strength of the pins to try to save the 

bridges we have got and then increase the pins or increase the 

strength of the pins. And then you mentioned the HERCULES 

[Heavy Equipment Recovery Combat Utility Lifting Extraction System]. We also have an upgrade to the HERCULES in works. 

RTD&E is funding in 2018 and then actually going to development 

of allowing the HERCULES to do a single vehicle recovery. 

Mr. KELLY. And I just ask that you pay real close attention to 

that. And we have got to have those upgrades in time to have them 

on the battlefield. And it is not just those force multipliers, but it 

is the things like our ISR [intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance] capabilities, are we up to range? It is the range on our artillery systems and our rocket systems as compared to our nearpeers. I mean, it is a total force and you have got to bring every 

force multiplier. So I just—I ask both the Marine Corps and the 

Army to make sure that we get overmatch, because it is about rate 

of fire and standoff. And if you have got those two things, you win; 

if you don’t, you lose. So please focus on that. 

And then the other thing is, for both of you-all, on the aviation 

standpoint, I know the Army and especially the Army and the Marine Corps have our ITEP [Improved Turbine Engine Program] engines to make sure that we have got the increased capabilities for 

our rotor wing assets. Does that continue to be a top priority for 

both the Army and the Marine Corps? 

General MURRAY. It does, Congressman. 

General THOMAS. Congressman, for the Marine Corps perspective, not necessarily the ITEP, but modernization, particularly of 

our heavy lift capability, replacing the CH–53, which is rapidly 

reaching the end of its service life, with the CH–53K. 
11 

Mr. KELLY. And thank you, because that engine life and the lift 

power creates both costs, but also life-saving and safety issues. And 

with that, I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. TURNER. Thank you. Mr. Gallego. 

Mr. GALLEGO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We kind of hit on this 

earlier, but I would like to go in a little more in depth regarding 

standoff ground fire capability. It is an area where we may be deficient versus our competitors on the Russian side, especially when 

it comes to anti-armor capability. What are the Army and Marines 

doing to consider building the long-range ground fires capability? 

Please include any anti-armor or sensor fuse capabilities as part of 

that answer. 

General MURRAY. When you say long-range, I assume you are 

talking missile-delivered fires? 

Mr. GALLEGO. Missile or artillery or—— 

General MURRAY. Okay. So, Congressman, we are working LRPF 

[Long Range Precision Fires], as I mentioned before, targeting 

about 499-kilometer range on that, which is current ATACMS is 

350, limited only to 499 because of the INF [Intermediate-Range 

Nuclear Forces] treaty, and we are working to double the payload, 

so two per pod as opposed to one per pod, which is an automatic 

way of doubling your force structure. 

We are working right now with two foreign governments on the 

potential of buying sensor fused munitions to put on both the 

GMLRS and the ATACMS. And we are working with Dr. Roper 

and the SCO [Strategic Capabilities Office], really, on some cannon 

delivered munitions that would be an effective anti-armor capability. 

General THOMAS. Congressman, the way that we are getting 

after the long-range precision fire challenges, we are increasing capacity. With the growth to 185K [185,000], we are going to stand 

up an additional HIMARS battalion. In the FY 2018 request, we 

continue to purchase additional munitions, and we work very closely on the innovations that the Army is proceeding with that General Murray just described. 

Mr. GALLEGO. In the meantime, what are the plans to maintain 

and replace the capabilities affected by DOD’s cluster munitions 

policy in Europe and other key operational environments around 

the world, or at least temporarily? 

General OSTROWSKI. Congressman, the plan right now is to service life extend our ATACMS missiles from a cluster munition back 

to a unitary. We also have height-of-burst capability that we have 

also proven on that particular missile system and just recently 

tested to good effect. So that is the key thing there. 

With respect to the 155 rounds, our DPICMs, the intent there is 

to, again, use them if we can up until the point of time where we 

can’t, and then those will be discarded and demilled. We are 

demilling 155s as we speak, as they have gone beyond their shelf 

life, but the others still remain in our inventory and are ready 

should the policy change or should we need them prior to the deadline. 

Mr. GALLEGO. Lieutenant General. 

General THOMAS. We continue to procure GMLRS alternative 

warhead, as to mitigate the challenge that General Ostrowski just 
12 

described, but that is going to take a long time. We wouldn’t get 

our full requirement until the mid-2020s. 

Mr. GALLEGO. Okay. Thank you. I yield back. 

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Bacon. 

Mr. BACON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank all four of you 

for being here. It is great to see my National War College classmate there, General Thomas. I was hoping you could give me your 

feedback on this perception. As I look out in our acquisition and 

our modernization, I think that we are going to produce future systems that have overmatch in the air domain, the sea domain. I 

think I feel like I could say the same thing in the space and cyber 

domains. But I worry about our land domain. 

When I look at the future weapons systems, I see that our nearpeers are producing stuff that are at parity or in some cases exceed 

when it comes to range, rate of fire, and so forth. So is my perception right? Should we be raising the bar on what we are going to 

produce for our soldiers and marines in the ground domain? Love 

to get your feedback. 

General MURRAY. Yeah, I absolutely agree with you, Congressman. And I am—as I said the last time—I am kind of a parity type 

of guy, because it does depend on how you look at the system. And 

Army is absolutely trying to do that. And I said in my opening 

statement the last time and this time is that we are now at the 

point where it is going to be hard to upgrade our current combat 

systems to retain that parity and we have got to start looking at 

what comes next. 

The fundamental issue the Army has is when you look at our 

modernization—we have to prepare—we have to make sure soldiers 

tomorrow have the best equipment we can possibly provide them, 

and we have also got to start looking to the future. So you have 

two different efforts going on. You have got upgrading the current 

equipment and you have got now I think some RTD&E started, 

next generation combat vehicles specifically, looking at future generation vehicle. 

You know, I can do RTD&E. The problem comes in procurement. 

I can’t begin to buy a new vehicle until I finish upgrading the last 

vehicle, and when you got extended upgrade timelines, it becomes 

one ECP [engineering change proposal] or one upgrade after another. So we have got to figure out how to shorten that timeline 

so I can free up the resources to go after the procurement of the 

next generation tank, air defense system, infantry fighting vehicle. 

I mean, there’s lots of needs across the board. 

General THOMAS. Congressman, we would share the concerns 

that you articulated. The Marine Corps, a little bit different than 

the Army, we are a light general purpose force. So we look at— 

much as the Army does, we look at the entire system together, 

which is our overmatch comes by our ability to maneuver and the 

fires that we can bring to bear. That is cannon artillery. It is rockets. But it is also aviation. So that will continue to be a focus. 

I think much like the Army, we are focused on the individual 

marine and soldier in terms of equipment, and my sense is that we 

are gaining momentum in that particular area. Our vehicles are, 

you know, just very old, and we have got good programs in place 

that meets our mission needs. The issue that we have is the good 
13 

news is we are getting hot lines now. The challenges that we face 

have to do with the speed at which we are modernizing that fleet. 

Mr. BACON. I will just close my comments as I am finished with 

my time here, we want to seek overmatch for our ground domain. 

And if we don’t have it, we are going to have to work hard. So I 

would love to get your unfundeds [unfunded requirements] and see 

how we can fight harder to give you that overmatch, because parity 

isn’t good enough for our soldiers and marines. Thank you. 

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Carbajal. 

Mr. CARBAJAL. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And thank you all for 

being here today. Lieutenant General Murray, in your written testimony, you stress the importance of prioritizing science and technology efforts and gaining understanding of state-of-the-art commercial and academic research in order to field the most modern 

capabilities to the force in the 2030s. I am aware that DOD and 

individual services have a number of research partnerships with 

academic institutions and commercial entities to share expertise 

and coordinate these efforts, research efforts. 

Academic institutions, like UC [University of California] Santa 

Barbara and California Polytechnic State University San Luis 

Obispo, currently participate in Army and Air Force research partnerships through programs such as the University Affiliated Research Center and the Education Partnership Agreement program. 

These programs have helped build partnerships between academic 

institutions, services, and industry experts in an effort to engage 

in advanced research ultimately providing our personnel with the 

best technologies and capability. 

Lieutenant Generals Murray and Ostrowski, what resources can 

this committee further provide to help the Army take advantage of 

the research and technology being done in the commercial and academic sectors? And lastly, would expanding these research partnership programs with academic institutions and commercial sectors 

assist in identifying cutting-edge research and technology? 

General MURRAY. The answer to the first part of your question, 

Congressman, is I think this committee and Congress as a whole 

have made it very clear to us how important S&T funding is. And 

that is why we have not, even in declining budgets, reduced our 

S&T funding. 

So right now, out of our modernization funds, the S&T budget is 

about 10 percent of that, which is a significant chunk of what I 

have for modernization. We recently just went through the process 

where we reshuffled some S&T funding away from near-term S&T 

back into basic research, which is really what you are talking 

about, in terms of getting after requirements that reach for technology for the 2030s and beyond. And we have partnerships 

throughout this country. I can think of—I was just down in Arizona 

State. We have a partnership at Arizona State. We have partnerships all through North Carolina. The ones in California are obviously very, very important to us, given the tech base out there. 

But I can’t—and General Ostrowski may come up with something—but we understand the importance of the S&T funding for 

our future. 

General OSTROWSKI. General Murray, I would agree completely. 

And I want to thank all Members of Congress for the additional 
14 

$800 million that was placed in the 2017 budget with respect to the 

S&T portfolio. 

The use of academia, as well as commercial marketplace, is absolutely essential in getting after leading-edge technologies that are 

filling the gaps that we are encountering on a daily basis. These 

are extremely important partnerships. There is no intent whatsoever to cut them off. And the ability to expand them is only a function of money. 

Mr. CARBAJAL. Thank you very much. I yield back. 

Mr. TURNER. I want to thank our witnesses and our members for 

the fact that we have had an incredibly efficient sprint of a hearing. We are going to actually make the votes. We have Wittman 

and Rosen next. And we have—Brown, I am sorry—and how much 

time is left? There is 11:43 on the clock, so we have plenty of time. 

Mr. Wittman. 

Mr. WITTMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Gentlemen, thanks so 

much for joining us today. Thanks for your service. 

Lieutenant General Thomas, I want to go to you. For years, between sequestration and BCA [Budget Control Act], we have had 

our ability limited to really provide the necessary resources I think 

in all levels for our men and women in the United States Marine 

Corps. And I think this year’s FY 2018 budget still falls well short 

of where we need to be to make up for lost ground from years past. 

And I want to go to a particular line in this year’s budget that 

I would like to get your perspective on. The line in this year’s budget says this: It says this budget reflects hard choices that the Marines made to protect readiness largely at the cost of modernization 

and infrastructure sustainment. 

I believe that budgets need to be driven by strategy, not vice 

versa. And I am deeply concerned about there being a bill payer 

for readiness, especially when we look at infrastructure sustainment, modernization. That is like eating our seed corn. To me, that 

is deeply troubling. 

Tell me this. If you were to be given additional resources this 

year, what would the priorities of the Marine Corps be to pipeline 

those resources to areas such as modernization and infrastructure 

sustainment? 

General THOMAS. Thank you, Congressman. You know, our priorities are the Amphibious Combat Vehicle, Joint Light Tactical Vehicle, the G/ATOR radar, and then aircraft such as the CH–53K 

and MV–22, and there are others. We, again, as I alluded to, we 

have got programs in place. You know, additional funding would be 

used to accelerate those programs. 

And to your point about sacrificing modernization for near-term 

readiness, that is something that has been a challenge for us over 

the past few years. We feel that this request improves on that 

somewhat. We have increased our ground modernization program 

by about 60 percent, up to $2.4 billion, significant investment for 

us. But now it is just a matter about getting out of the old metal 

as soon as we possibly can. 

Mr. WITTMAN. Give your perspective, too. You talked a little bit 

about ACV. This year’s budget does put some additional dollars 

into ACV for test vehicles and then 26 low-rate production vehicles 
15 

for ACV. Give me your perspective about how the Marine Corps 

came to 26 vehicles as the initial low-rate production number. 

General THOMAS. This coming year, in 2018, is where down-select, you know, will occur. And so once that occurs, then we anticipate our request to increase. We are actually—the program is doing 

well. It is on a pretty tight timeline to make the IOC [initial operating capability] of 2020. So it is fully funded. We need to do downselect. And once we have done that, we can’t really accelerate IOC 

any earlier, but we can accelerate FOC [full operating capability], 

which would be funds starting next year. 

Mr. TURNER. Time is expired. Mr. Brown. 

Mr. WITTMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 

Mr. BROWN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Both of my questions go 

to the Army. I will ask both of them. You can answer it and allocate the time accordingly. One, regarding the Mobile Protected 

Firepower vehicle program, and the question is, you have got the 

Bradley fighting vehicle. Why are we going to the Mobile Protected 

Firepower [MPF] program? Is it mobility, lethality, survivability? 

Next question is on the CH–47. Army has a requirement for 14 

more of those between the CH–47 and the MH–47 variant for 

SOCOM [Special Operations Command]. You are only asking for 

six. So that is—you know, a few less than your requirement. What 

is the impact on the mission? And do you anticipate an impact on 

your vendor in terms of their ability to keep pace with what you 

will eventually need? Thank you. 

General MURRAY. Thank you, Congressman. So on the MPF, it 

is a completely different role than the Bradley plays. So it is—MPF 

is, in fact, a light tank. And we are targeting lethality between a 

105- and a 120-millimeter cannon. And it is really not to go up 

against other tanks, but it is to maintain momentum of our light 

forces that we begin to field other vehicles to our infantry brigade 

combat teams. So it is not an infantry carrier. It is, in fact, a light 

tank that is, in fact, about the same weight as a Bradley, but it 

carries a much bigger punch and a little bit more frontal armor 

protection. 

And then the CH–47, I will turn that over to General Ostrowski. 

General OSTROWSKI. Yes, sir. The multiyear that we had with 

the Chinook ends in 2017. And we are, indeed, 14 short of our authorized amount within the Army. The intent going forward is to 

move to the Block II, CH–47F Block II, which provides greater capability over the current Block I. 

However, when we do that particular venue, we know that we 

are going to be short in terms of the number of aircraft that we 

are able to buy each year. For instance, in 2018, you said yourself, 

sir, about six aircraft. Two of these are the 47F Block Is and two 

of these are the variant for SOCOM. That does not get better 

through 2020 to 2022; not until 2023 do we get back up to the point 

where we are producing the amount of aircraft from that facility 

that we have been in the past. So it is concerning. 

Again, it is a combination of a transition to a new platform in 

terms of the capability. Again, same platform, greater capability. 

And a combination of doing that and the money that we have to 

invest in that particular upgrade to the current platform that is 

putting us in this position. 
16 

We are constantly working with the vendor, as well as partner 

nations in FMS [Foreign Military Sales] sales. This particular year, 

in 2017, the reason that we were able to execute the multiyear was 

because we had help from another country that brought us up to 

the level to get to the multiyear amount. So we will continue to 

push hard for that, because, again, we are running out of the ability to help that vendor just by our own buys alone. 

Mr. BROWN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. 

Mr. TURNER. Time is expired. Gentlemen, we are looking forward 

to the unfunded requirements lists that are coming out. And I 

would ask, as a continuing obligation for this hearing, if when they 

are available, if you would each provide to us your written perspectives on those, as we might be able to evaluate them as we go forward. So assume it as a question that has been asked to you here 

to get your thoughts and input concerning the unfunded list and 

the unfunded requirements list, and we will look forward to that 

if you could provide us that as soon as possible, as those might become available. Thank you. 

[Whereupon, at 4:21 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 
A P P E N D I X 

MAY 24, 2017 

PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD 

MAY 24, 2017 

(21) 

Statement of the Honorable Michael Turner 

Chairman, Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land Forces 

Hearing: Ground Force Modernization Programs and the Fiscal Year 

2018 Budget Request 

May 24,2017 

The hearing will come to order. 

The subcommittee meets today to review the Army and Marine Corps 

ground force equipment modernization budget request for fiscal year 2018. 

From our previous hearings held in March we are aware that the Army 

and Marine Corps continue to face significant challenges in rebuilding full 

spectrum readiness from years of deferred modernization funding. 

We are particularly interested in understanding how this budget request 

will begin the process of reversing the trend in deferred modernization 

funding. 

I'd like to welcome our witnesses representing the Anny and Marine 

Corps: 

• Lieutenant General John M. Murray, Deputy Chief of Staff, G-8 

• Lieutenant General Paul A. Ostrowski, Military Deputy to the 

Assistant Secretary of the Army (Acquisition, Logistics and 

Technology) 

• Lieutenant General Gary L. Thomas, Deputy Commandant for 

Programs and Resources 

• Brigadier General Joseph Shrader, Commanding General, Marine 

Corps Systems Command 

Thank you each for your dedicated service to our Nation. 

Today the subcommittee will review a broad portfolio of ground force 

equipment modernization programs and their associated acquisition strategies. 

We expect to gain a better tmderstanding of Army and Marine Corps 

modernization priorities in fiscal year 2018 and beyond. 

As such, the witnesses have been asked to identify their top 5 

modernization requirements and briefly summarize how the budget request 

addresses them. 

The subcommittee will be particularly interested in learning of any 

unfunded requirements the Army and Marine Corps may have for fiscal year 

2018. 

Yesterday, the Administration released its budget request for the 

Department of Defense that amounts to a $603 billion top line. 
22 

Since we just received the request we are still in the early stages of 

reviewing the specifics of the budget request which makes this hearing so 

timely. 

As I've stated at previous hearings, I support the President's 

commitment to rebuilding the military. 

However, I am concerned that the current budget request does not go 

far enough. 

l support Chairman Thornberry's statement that quote: "The 

Administration's budget proposal for defense is not enough to do what the 

President said he wants to do. In order to begin to repair the damage that has 

been done to readiness and to build the capability needed for today's 

dangerous world, we believe that $640 billion is required for fiscal year 2018" 

--end of quote. 

A topline budget of$603 billion for defense in fiscal year 2018 really 

only represents 3 percent growth above President's Obama's projected budget 

request for fiscal year 2018 from last year. 

To be fair though, it appears that the Army modernization request 

(procurement and RDT &E) and the Marine Corps ground equipment 

procurement request do provide for some improvement over fiscal year 2017 

projected levels. 

The problem is that due to multiple years ofunderfunding and reduced 

budgets, these relative modest increases aren't enough to actually reverse the 

damage that has already been done. 

For example, the request provides the funding necessary to modernize 

about half of one armored brigade combat team, meaning the Army is on a 

path to fully modernize all oftheir armored brigade teams by 2035-which is 

a problem. 

Finally, I continue to have concerns that we are losing our comparative 

advantage in ground combat overmatch against near peer and peer 

competitors. 

Legacy combat vehicle platforms, in some cases are nearing the 40 year 

mark in terms of service, and I'm concerned that these vehicles are reaching 

limitations in tenns of capability. So I am particularly interested in 

understanding how this budget request begins to address next generation 

combat vehicle systems. 

I understand General Murray will provide opening remarks for the 

Army, followed by General Thomas who will provide the opening remarks 

for the Marine Corps. 

General Murray please begin. 
23 

RECORD VERSION 

STATEMENT BY 

LIEUTENANT GENERAL JOHN M. MURRAY 

DEPUTY CHIEF OF STAFF OF THE ARMY, G-8 

AND 

LIEUTENANT GENERAL PAUL A. OSTROWSKI 

MILITARY DEPUTY, ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE ARMY (ACQUISITION, 

LOGISTICS AND TECHNOLOGY) 

BEFORE THE 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON TACTICAL AIR AND LAND FORCES 

COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES 

UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FIRST SESSION, 115rH CONGRESS 

ON 

FISCAL YEAR 2018 GROUND FORCE MODERNIZATION PROGRAMS 

MAY 24,2017 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNTIL RELEASED BY THE 

COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES 
24 

INTRODUCTION 

Chairman Turner, Ranking Member Tsongas, distinguished Members of the 

Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land Forces, thank you for this opportunity to discuss 

the Fiscal Year 2018 (FY18) President's Budget request on Army Ground Force 

Modernization Programs. On behalf of our Acting Secretary, the Honorable Robert 

Speer, and our Chief of Staff, General Mark Milley, we look forward to discussing with 

you this year's budget request and the challenges the Army faces in its ability to 

modernize its forces. 

Army modernization today stands at a precipice due to a combination of strategic, 

technological, and budgetary trends that threaten to place our Army at a disadvantage 

not only against advanced adversaries, but also against a broad range of other potential 

threats and enemies. In early 2016 the National Commission on the Future of the Army 

observed that reductions in Army modernization were elevating risk to the Joint Force. 

That military risk has already manifested itself: our Army is rapidly reaching a point 

where we will be outgunned, outranged, and outdated when compared to our most 

capable potential adversaries. Congress' full, timely support for the FY18 budget 

request and sustained, long-term, predictable funding are essential for the Army to 

progress toward a more modern and capable future force. 

MODERNIZING THE FORCE 

Challenges to Army modernization have been building over the course of nearly two 

decades. Adjusting for inflation, the Army has nearly half of the funding for 

modernization and equipment that it had just 8 years ago. Declining budgets drive 

difficult choices; we have faced these choices over many budget cycles. 

The budget issue has been further complicated by 15 years of focus on 

counterinsurgency and counterterrorism as the Army addressed major effects in both 

current needs in Afghanistan and Iraq. This was the right thing to do, but it required 

2 
25 

tradeoffs. The Army, fully aware of these tradeoffs, made the right choices to support 

our Soldiers for the missions and threats we faced at that time. 

Meanwhile, our enemies have not been idle. The overmatch your Army has enjoyed for 

the last 70 years is disappearing rapidly. Our adversaries have observed the way we 

fight and have developed capabilities and tactics to counter our strengths and exploit 

our vulnerabilities. Some of these new capabilities and tactics have already been 

demonstrated in combat. 

Fiscal constraints have forced the Army to accept risk in starting new developmental 

programs in order to prioritize incremental upgrades of existing systems that can be in 

the hands of Soldier quickly. Over the last 15 years, the Army has not modernized for 

full spectrum warfare thereby risking the loss of current and future overmatch in every 

domain: land, air, maritime, space, and cyberspace. 

Our Soldiers must be able to prevail against the full range of potential threats, including 

near-peers in highly lethal combined arms maneuver; hybrid warfare; and determined, 

unconventional insurgents. This has become increasingly difficult, as our adversaries 

modernize at a rapid pace, while reduced and unpredictable funding has brought the 

Army's modernization effort to a pace that jeopardizes our overmatch. 

RESOURCING MODERNIZATION 

With respect to the budget, the Army has three main categories within the topline that it 

can adjust: Manpower, Readiness, and Capital Investment (of which Modernization is a 

part). Of these three, Readiness is our top priority. We are also committed to 

maintaining force structure. Any adjustments to these three categories are zero sum; 

there must always be a "bill payer" for every increase. Inflation and increasing 

personnel costs put increasing pressure on the Modernization portion of the budget. 

Given this set of priorities, the Fiscal Year 2018 (FY18) President's Budget request 

allocated about 55 percent of the Army's topline to manpower. This is a must-pay bill. 

Readiness will consume approximately 25 percent of our budget; as the number one 

priority, the Army will not choose to reduce this allocation. This leaves roughly 20 

percent for Capital Investment (Modernization and Military Construction). 

3 
26 

Ideally, we would always have the most modern equipment, but this would require 

unacceptable tradeoffs with manpower and readiness. We would like to do all three, but 

large Modernization investments at the wrong time could lead to a force that is too small 

or a force that we cannot afford to keep ready. Maintaining balance across manpower, 

readiness, and modernization is key to preventing a hollow force. Without consistent 

and sufficient funding, we cannot effectively plan and execute a balanced Army program. 

The Army has focused constrained resources on equipping for the near term at the 

expense of preparing for the future. The Army must be able to do both. The Army is 

sacrificing new program starts in order to prioritize incremental upgrades of existing 

systems that can be in the hands of Soldiers quickly. Given today's fiscal pressures, 

our equipment modernization strategy is structured to: 

Protect Science and Technology to field capabilities to the force in the 2030s. We will 

prioritize Science and Technology efforts to develop new military capabilities to deter 

and defeat potential adversaries in the next fight. We are implementing a strategic 

approach to modernization that includes an awareness of existing and potential gaps; 

an understanding of emerging threats; knowledge of state-of-the-art commercial, 

academic, and Government research; and an understanding of competing needs for 

limited resources. 

Sustain Incremental Upgrades. We have prioritized capabilities that have the greatest 

impact against a near-peer threat and can be in Soldiers' hands in the next 10 years. 

We are focused on improving the M1 Abrams Tank, M2 Bradley Fighting Vehicle, and 

Stryker Families of Vehicles, as well as Paladin, and the Guided Multiple Launch Rocket 

System. We are also improving the Apache, Black Hawk, and Chinook helicopter fleets, 

as well as our Unmanned Aircraft Systems. 

Take Risk in New Development. The Army is making modest developmental 

investments based on our most critical operational requirements and capability 

shortfalls. Fiscal realities have led to the delay or discontinuance of new systems. Key 

investments that remain in the next generation of ground vehicle capabilities include the 

4 
27 

Armored Multi-Purpose Vehicle and the Joint Light Tactical Vehicle, a critical program 

for the Army and the U.S. Marine Corps. 

The Army will begin new developmental programs only if required to close an extremely 

high risk gap. We will attempt to accelerate Air and Missile Defense, Long Range Fires, 

Mobile Protected Fire Power, Active Protection Systems (Air and Ground), Assured 

Positioning, Navigation, and Timing, Electronic Warfare, and Cyber offensive and 

defensive capabilities. 

Go Slow, Keep Options Open. We have, and will continue to, slow down procurement 

to keep production lines open and warm for when funding becomes available. 

Reset and Sustain. The Army is returning equipment to the required level of combat 

capability; it remains central to both regenerating and maintaining equipment near-term 

readiness for ongoing operations and potential contingencies. 

Divest. We are identifying equipment and systems that are excess, obsolete, or no 

longer required to reduce and eliminate the associated sustainment costs. For 

example, we are divesting the aging M113 armored personnel carriers from our BCT 

formations and legacy radios. Additionally, the Army's Mine Resistant Ambush 

Protected vehicles divestiture will eliminate a large portion of the fleet through Foreign 

Military Sales, distribution to other agencies, and demilitarization of older, battle-worn, 

excess vehicles. The Army also continues to divest its aging TH-67 training helicopters, 

as well as the OH-58A/C Kiowa, OH-58D Kiowa Warrior, and UH-60A Black Hawk 

fleets. 

PRIORITIZING CAPABILITY GAPS 

The Army's FY18 Budget Request represents our priorities for limited modernization 

resources, weighed against risks and critical capability gaps, in order to balance nearterm readiness requirements against long-term force development objectives. The 

critical capability gaps, identified below, are the Army's Top Five modernization priorities 

that we must pursue in order to maintain and, eventually, regain overmatch to credibly 

deter and, if necessary, defeat near-peer adversaries. 

5 
28 

Air and Missile Defense (AMD). We lack the capability and capacity to meet the AMD 

demands of the combatant commanders to cover key fixed sites and provide effective 

AMD protection of the maneuvering forces. The Army will: 

• Provide an interim Maneuver-Short Range Air Defense (M-SHORAD) capability by 

FY21 and initiate an effort to improve lethality with a 50kW high energy laser. 

• Complete service life extension and proximity fuse upgrade for all available Block I 

Stinger missiles to improve performance against unmanned aerial systems. 

• Improve Patriot's performance against advanced threats and begin a significant 

upgrade effort for the Lower Tier AMD Sensor. 

• Overhaul 72 Avengers to meet the European Restructure Initiative requirement for 

two Avenger Battalions. 

Long-range Fires. The Army lacks capability and capacity to provide immediately 

responsive, effective surface-to-surface fires at ranges beyond 40 kilometers (km) for 

Cannon Artillery, beyond 84 km for Rocket Artillery, and 300 km for missiles; this gap is 

partially due to the aging Army Tactical Missile System (ATACMS) inventory. We will: 

• Improve existing ATACMS missiles to extend service life until the new Long Range 

Precision Fires (LRPF) missile can be developed and fielded. 

• Update the Guided Multiple Launch Rocket System (GMLRS) rockets by increasing 

the range and guidance systems to increase the lethality for specific targets at 

increased ranges. 

• Develop a Cannon Delivered Area Effects munition, bridging strategy and long term 

acquisition strategy to ensure we are compliant within the cluster munition policy. 

• Develop and integrate a seeker onto select missiles to target radiating emitters 

(e.g.; radars) on high value targets. 

Munitions. The Army anticipates significant increases to ammunition requirements 

based on emerging peer and near-peer threats and increased demand in Iraq and 

Afghanistan. The Army has shortages of critical preferred munitions including Patriot, 

Hellfire, GMLRS, Precision Guidance Kits and Excalibur based on current and emerging 

requirements. We need to grow capacity in some of our Government-owned and 

6 
29 

Contractor-operated ammunition plants and to broaden commercial capacity in order to 

meet the increased requirements for preferred munitions. 

Mobility, Lethality and Protection of Brigade Combat Teams (BCTs). Our Armored, 

Infantry, and Stryker BCTs are deficient in the appropriate combination of mobility, 

lethality, and protection required to achieve overmatch during joint and combined arms 

operations. The Army will: 

• Upgrade the lethality of our Stryker Brigades with the integration of the 30mm 

cannon. We will also increase the mobility, power, and network integration of our 

Double-V Hull Strykers. 

• Pursue Mobile Protected Firepower to provide protected, long-range, direct fire 

capabilities to the Infantry BCT to ensure freedom of maneuver and action in 

close contact with the enemy. 

• Replace legacy M113s in ABCTs with AMPV which will serve five mission roles: 

General Purpose, Mortar Carrier, Mission Command, Medical Evacuation, and 

Medical Treatment variants. 

• Incrementally upgrading the M1 Abrams tank, M2 Bradley Fighting Vehicle and 

Paladin. 

• Begin prototyping the next generation combat vehicle. 

Active Protection Systems (APS)- Air and Ground. The proliferation of advanced man 

portable air defense systems significantly threaten Army Aviation in operational 

environments. On the ground, our combat vehicles lack the ability to effectively detect, 

track, divert, disrupt, neutralize, or destroy incoming missiles. The Army will: 

• Develop and field the Common Infrared Counter Measure (CIRCM) and Advanced 

Threat Detection System (ATDS) to increase the 'detect and defeat' capability 

against the evolving MANPADS threat. 

• Expedite the installation of commercially available APS systems on Armored and 

Stryker BCTs in Europe by the end of FY20. 

• Initiate the Vehicle Protection System (VPS) program in FY18 to develop an 

integrated protection capability using the Modular Active Protection System 

(MAPS) as the common controller and software. 

7 
30 

OPPORTUNITIES TO 'TURN THE TIDE' 

Given the complex range of both near and long term threats, the Army has a very short 

window to improve both capability and capacity. By design, the Army drawdown was 

deliberately designed to reverse course and expand if necessary. Additionally, Army 

modernization, during the past several years of constrained funding and austerity 

maintained its resilience by: 

• Protecting the defense industrial base by keeping production lines warm. 

• Protecting modernization options by investing in the next generation of 

incremental improvements, emphasizing low risk and cost efficient 

improvements. 

We have sustained many programs that can easily be accelerated if resources become 

available. The Army is prepared to accelerate delivery of enhanced air and missile 

defense, long range fires, armor formation upgrades, aviation fleet modernization, 

ammunition and missiles for emerging wartime requirements, lethality upgrades for 

Stryker vehicles, assured communications, Soldier lethality and protection and finally, 

electronic warfare. The Army is at an historical inflection point; we are postured to pivot 

rapidly if directed to do so. 

IN CONCLUSION 

We sincerely appreciate the opportunity to address the Fiscal Year 2018 President's 

Budget priorities and the challenges the Army faces in modernizing its force. These 

are challenging times. In the end, the security challenges of tomorrow will be met 

with the equipment we develop, modernize, and procure today. Because adversaries 

will continue to invest in technology to counter or evade U.S. strengths and exploit 

vulnerabilities, resource reductions and insufficient force modernization will place the 

Army's ability to overmatch its opponents at risk. It is critical that the Army receive 

sustained, long-term and predictable funding. 

8 
31 

We can assure you that the Army's senior leaders are working hard to address 

current challenges and the needs of the Army both now and in the future. We are 

doing so with a commitment to be good stewards of our Nation's resources while 

meeting the equipping and modernization needs of our Soldiers. 

Mr. Chairman and distinguished Members of this Subcommittee, we sincerely 

appreciate your steadfast and strong support of the outstanding men and women in 

uniform, our Army Civilians, and their Families. 

9 
32 

Lieutenant General John M. Murray 

Deputy Chief of Staff, G-8 

Lieutenant General Murray was commissioned as an Infantry officer in the U.S. Anny 

upon graduation from the Ohio State University in 1982. Throughout his career, 

Lieutenant General Murray has served in leadership positions and commanded from 

Company through Division, with various staff assignments at the highest levels of the 

Anny. 

Lieutenant General Murray has held numerous command positions. His command 

assignments include: Commanding General Joint Task Force-3; Deputy Commanding 

General Support for U.S. Forces Afghanistan; Commander Bagram Airfield; 

Commanding General 3rd Infantry Division at Fort Stewart, Georgia; Commander, 3rd 

Brigade, I'' Cavalry Division, at Fort Hood, Texas while serving in Operation !RAQI 

FREEDOM; Commander, I st Battalion, 18th Infantry, l st Infantry Division, United States 

Army Europe and Seventh Army, Germany; Commander, C Company, !-12th Infantry 

Battalion, 4th Infantry Division (Mechanized), Fort Carson, Colorado. 

Previously, he was the Director, Force Management, the Pentagon; Assistant Deputy 

Director for Joint Training, J-7, Joint Staff, Suffolk, Virginia; Director, Joint Center for 

Operational Analysis, United States Joint Forces Command, Suffolk, Virginia; Deputy 

Commanding General (Maneuver), 1st Cavalry Division, Fort Hood, Texas; Deputy 

Commanding General (Maneuver), Multi-National Division-Baghdad OPERATION 

IRAQI FREEDOM, Iraq; G-3 (Operations), III Corps, Fort Hood, Texas; Chief of Staff, III 

Corps and Fort Hood, Fort Hood, Texas; C-3, Multi-National Corps-Iraq, OPERATION 

IRAQI FREEDOM, Iraq; G-3 (Operations), 1st Infantry Division, United States Army 

Europe and Seventh Army, Germany; Chief, Space Control Protection Section, J-33, 

United States Space Command, Peterson Air Force Base, Colorado; S-3(0perations), later 

Executive Officer, 1st Battalion, 5th Cavalry, 1st Cavalry Division, Fort Hood, Texas; 

Chief, Plans, G-1, Ill Corps and Fort Hood, Fort Hood, Texas. 

Lieutenant General Murray's awards and decorations include: the Distinguished Service 

Medal w/Oak Leaf Cluster, the Defense Superior Service Medal with Oak Leaf Cluster, the 

Legion of Merit with two Oak Leaf Clusters, the Bronze Star Medal with three Oak Leaf 

Clusters, the Defense Meritorious Service Medal, the Meritorious Service Medal with two 

Oak Leaf Clusters, the Army Commendation Medal with Oak Leaf Cluster, the Joint 

Service Achievement Medal, the Anny Achievement Medal with Oak Leaf Cluster, the 

Ranger Tab, the Combat Infantryman Badge, the Expert Infantryman Badge, the 

Parachutist Badge, the Air Assault Badge, the Joint Chiefs of Staff Identification Badge 

and the Army Staff Identification Badge. 

Lieutenant General Murray hails from Kenton, Ohio. He and his wife, Jane, have three 

lovely daughters and seven grandchildren. 
33 

Lieutenant General Paul A. Ostrowski 

Principal Military Deputy to the 

Assistant Secretary of the Army (Acquisition, Logistics and Technology) and 

Director of the Army Acquisition Corps 

Lieutenant General Paul A. Ostrowski graduated from the United States Military Academy 

in 1985. He earned a Master of Science degree in National Resource Strategy from the 

National Defense University's Industrial College of the Armed Forces in 2006. He 

graduated from Joint and Combined Warfighting School at the Joint Forces Staff College 

in 2000. Additionally, he earned a Master of Science degree in Systems Acquisition 

Management at the Naval Postgraduate School in 1996. 

Lieutenant General Ostrowski has more than twenty-five years of experience in 

acquisition, operational, and Joint assignments. He currently serves as the Principal 

Military Deputy to the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Acquisition, Logistics and 

Technology (ASA (AL T)) and Director of the Army Acquisition Corps. Prior to this 

assignment, Lieutenant General Ostrowski served as the Deputy Commanding General for 

Support, Combined Security Transition Command-Afghanistan. He also served as the 

Deputy for Acquisition and Systems Management, Office of the ASA (ALT) in 

Washington, D.C., from September 2014 to March 2016. Lieutenant General Ostrowski 

was assigned as the Program Executive Officer, Program Executive Office (PEO) Soldier 

at Fort Belvoir, Virginia, from April 2012 to September 2014. Previous assignments 

include the Assistant Deputy for Acquisition and Systems Management, Office of the ASA 

(ALT); Executive Officer to the Commander, United States Special Operations Command 

(USSOCOM), MacDill Air Force Base, Florida; Director, Operational Test and 

Evaluation, as well as PEO for Special Programs, USSOCOM; and Program Manager for 

Counterproliferation, USSOCOM. He served as a Legislative Fellow, as well as Project 

Leader for the Rapid Equipping Force in both Washington, D.C., and in Iraq during 

Operation Iraqi Freedom from June 2001 to July 2003. He also served as a Company 

Grade Officer in several command and staff positions in Joint Special Operations, Special 

Forces, and Infantry assignments. 

Lieutenant General Ostrowski's awards and decorations include the Defense Superior 

Service Medal (with Oak Leaf Cluster), Legion of Merit, Bronze Star Medal, Defense 

Meritorious Service Medal (with Oak Leaf Cluster), Meritorious Service Medal (with Oak 

Leaf Cluster), Army Commendation Medal (with two Oak Leaf Clusters), Joint Service 

Achievement Medal (with Oak Leaf Cluster), Army Achievement Medal, Afghanistan 

Campaign Medal with Campaign Star, and NATO Medal. Additionally, he earned the 

Expert Infantryman Badge, Pathfinder Badge, Parachutist Badge, Air Assault Badge, 

Scuba Diver Badge, Ranger Tab, Special Forces Tab, and Army Staffidentification Badge. 
34 

STATEMENT OF 

Not public until released by the 

House Armed Services Committee 

LIEUTENANT GENERAL GARY L. THOMAS 

DEPUTY COMMANDANT, PROGRAMS AND RESOURCES 

UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS 

AND 

BRIGADIER GENERAL JOSEPH SHRADER 

COMMANDER, MARINE CORPS SYSTEMS COMMAND 

UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS 

BEFORE THE 

TACTICAL AIR AND LAND FORCES SUBCOMMITTEE 

OF THE 

HOUSE ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE 

ON 

FISCAL YEAR 2018 GROUND FORCE MODERNIZATION PROGRAMS 

Not public until released by the 

House Armed Services Committee 

24 MAY2017 
35 

Lieutenant General Gary L. Thomas, USMC 

Deputy Commandant for Programs and Resources 

Lieutenant General Gary L. Thomas is currently serving as the Deputy Commandant for 

Programs and Resources. 

A native of Austin, Texas, he graduated from the University of Texas and was commissioned in 

1984. He previously served as the Commanding General, 2d Marine Aircra1l Wing. 

Lieutenant General Thomas is a Naval Aviator and has served in several FA-18 squadrons. He 

commanded VMFA-323 during Operation IRAQI FREEDOM while embarked aboard OSS 

CONSTELLATION (CV-64). He also commanded Marine Aviation Weapons and Tactics 

Squadron One (MA WTS-1 ), and he served as the Commanding General, 2d Marine Aircraft 

Wing (Forward) in Afghanistan from February to December 2013. 

He has served as the Assistant Wing Commander for the 2d Marine Aircraft Wing, Assistant 

Deputy Commandant for Aviation, and the Marine Corps Deputy Director of Operations. 

His Joint assignments include service in the Strategic Plans Directorate (J-5) and in the Force 

Structure, Resources, Assessment Directorate (J-8). 

Lieutenant General Thomas is a graduate of the Weapons and Tactics Instructor Course, the 

Navy Fighter Weapons School, Air Command and Staff College, and the National War College. 

He holds a M.S. in National Security Strategy from National Defense University. 

2 
36 

Brigadier General Joseph Shrader, USMC 

Commander, Marine Corps Systems Command 

Brigadier General Joseph Shrader, a native of Princeton, West Virginia, enlisted in the Marine 

Corps in Janumy 1981. He served for three years with 3rd Battalion, 5th Marines as an 

infantryman and was promoted to corporal. After his enlistment, he returned to West Virginia 

where he earned an associate degree in Mechanical Engineering Technology and a Bachelor of 

Science degree in Electrical Engineering Technology from Bluefield State College. He was 

commissioned a second lieutenant through the Platoon Leaders Course commissioning program 

in 1989. 

Upon graduation from The Basic School, Brigadier General Shrader attended the Artillery 

OJTicer Basic Course in Fort Sill, Oklahoma, and then reported to 5th Battalion, 1Oth Marines 

(5/10). While assigned to 5/10, Brigadier General Shrader served as a Guns Platoon 

Commander, Battery Executive Officer and Battery Commander, and deployed to Southwest 

Asia during operations Desert Shield, Desert Stonn and Provide Comfort. 

Brigadier General Shrader reported in June 1993 to Marine Corps Recruit Depot, Parris Island, 

South Carolina, where he served as a recruit training company Series Commander, Company 

Executive Officer and Company Commander. He then attended the Field Artillery Advanced 

Officer Course in Fort Sill, and in August 1996, reported to the III Marine Expeditionmy Force 

(III MEF), Okinawa, Japan. While there, he was promoted to Major and served as Assistant 

Operations Officer, 4th Marine Regiment, and Battalion Operations Officer and Battalion 

Executive Officer with 3rd Battalion, 12th Marines. 

He then attended the Marine Corps Command and Staff College on Marine Corps Base 

Quantico, Virginia, where he earned a Master of Military Studies degree. In June 2001, he was 

transferred to Marine Corps Systems Command where he served as the Armor and Fire Support 

Targeting Team Lead. Upon promotion to Lieutenant Colonel, he was reassigned to serve as the 

Deputy Program Manager for the Expeditionary Fire Support System. 

In July 2004, Brigadier General Shrader returned to III MEF where he served as 12th Marines 

Operations Ot1icer and later that same year deployed to Sumatra, Indonesia, in support of 

Operation Unified Assistance. In May 2005, Brigadier General Shrader received orders to stand 

up 5th ANGLICO, ITT MEF. In early 2007, he deployed in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom. 

In October 2007, he relinquished command of 5th ANGLICO and was reassigned as the III MEF 

Force Fires Coordinator. 

In August 2009, he was promoted to Colonel after graduating ti·om the Industrial College of the 

Am1ed Forces at National Defense University in Washington, D.C. He was then designated 

primary military occupational specialty (8061) Acquisition Professional Officer and assigned to 

Marine Corps Systems Command. Over the next four years he served as Product Group Director 

for Combat Equipment and Support Systems, and Product Group Director and Program Manager 

for Armor and Fire Support Systems. 

In May 2013, he transferred to the Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary ofthe Navy for 

Expeditionary Programs and Logistics Management to serve as ChiefofStafi In .July 2014, 

Brigadier General Shrader took the helm as Commander of Marine Corps Systems Command. 

3 
37 

Introduction 

Chainnan Turner, Ranking Member Tsongas, and distinguished members of the 

subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to testifY on Fiscal Year 2018 Ground Force 

Modernization Programs. Your Marines continue to be in high demand from all our combatant 

commanders around the world. They're forward deployed, engaged on land and sea, and ready 

for crisis response in Africa, Europe, the Middle East, and the Pacific. As a result, we must 

constantly balance between capability and capacity, between current operations and future 

operations, between steady state and surge readiness, as well as between low end and high end 

operations and training. Our role as America's 9-1-1 force infonns how we man, train, and equip 

our force. It also drives how we prioritize and allocate the resources we are provided by 

Congress. While today's force is capable and our forward deployed forces are ready to fight, we 

have been fiscally stretched to maintain readiness across the breadth of the force in the near tenn, 

and to modernize for future readiness against the threats we will face in the future. The Marine 

Corps' Fiscal Year 2018 budget request begins to fix readiness for today and tomorrow, with 

increased support for warfighting readiness and modernization for tomorrow's tight. 

Fiscal Year 2018 Budget Request- Aligning Strategic Priorities and Budgetary Goals 

As the nation's naval expeditionary force-in-readiness, we must posture ourselves for the 

evolving operational environment characterized by complex terrain, technology proliferation, 

infonnation warfare, the battle of electro-magnetic signatures, and a contested maritime domain. 

While we engage in the current fight and maintain our forward presence in order to respond to 

crises, our adversaries have developed new capabilities which now equal, or in some cases 

exceed, our own, such as creating combined arms dilemmas using information, cyber, deception, 

unmanned intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR), and long range precision tires in 

highly advanced and lethal ways. The evolution and expansion of the information domain, 

advanced robotics, and improved weapons technologies are causing threats to emerge with 

increased speed and lethality. The actions of ever more aggressive and capable peer competitors 

are demonstrating advanced multi-domain (ground, air, sea, space and cyber) capabilities across 

the range of military operations (ROMO). Anti-access and area denial capabilities are 

proliferating, becoming cheaper, more lethal, and harder to target. Cyber threats target the 

4 
38 

digital networks that are essential to the way we currently fight. Information warfare exploits 

global communications and social media. And adversaries leverage advanced commercial on~ 

the-shelf technologies that out-cycle our acquisition process. 

In recognition of this new era, we developed the Marine Corps Operating Concept 

(MOC) which describes in broad terms how the Marine Corps will operate, fight, and win in the 

future operating environment. This concept is shaping our actions as we design and develop the 

capabilities and capacity of the future force. To this end, we conducted a bottom-up review of 

the force necessary to deter, and if necessary, defeat 21st century threats. This review, entitled 

Marine Corps Force 2025, identified critical gaps in capability and capacity that must be 

addressed in order to build a Marine Corps with the 5th Generation ground and aviation elements 

that can fight and win in this environment. Our Fiscal Year 2018 budget request of $26.3 billion 

for the base budget and an additional $12.3 billion for Marine Aviation begins the process of 

rebuilding a balanced Marine Corps for the 21st Century in a prudent and executable manner to 

resource existing modemization requirements, address existing readiness challenges and 

shortfalls in inrrastructure, aviation and ground platfonns, and address the new structure, 

materiel and training requirements for our 185K active force. With sufficient resources guided 

by strategy, the Marine Corps will be able to develop the capacity and vital wartighting 

capabilities that will allow us to pursue five critical tasks necessary to build a 5th Generation 

Marine Corps: evolve the Marine Air-Ground Task Force (MAGTF) to be able to light across all 

warlighting domains, enhance our ability to maneuver, integrate the Naval Force to light at and 

!rom the sea, operate with resilience in a contested network environment, and leverage the 

competence of the individual Marine. 

Fixing Readiness For Today and Tomorrow 

Modemization is central to addressing near-term readiness and foundational to building 

the Marine Corps of the 21st century. It includes the replacement of legacy systems with new 

ones, such as the Amphibious Combat Vehicle (ACV), Joint Light Tactical Vehicle (JLTV), 

MV-22 Osprey, CH-53K King Stallion, and Ground/ Air Task Oriented Radar (G/A TOR), key 

components of our strategy to keep pace with expected future threats and our MOC. 

Modernization includes changes to the structure of our Tables of Equipment (T/E) as we 

continue to incorporate the lessons learned on the modern battlefield into equipment sets that 

5 
39 

balance affordability with the need for a networked, mobile, and expeditionary force. And it 

includes the insertion of technological advances into current capabilities, including such efforts 

as developing active protection systems, long-range precision fires and counter-unmanned 

aircraft system (C-UAS) capabilities. Over the past decade and a half, funding constraints and 

operational demand increases have forced us to take risk in our future readiness in order to 

preserve current readiness, deterring critical future aviation and ground progran1s. Between 

Fiscal Year 2012 and Fiscal Year 2016, for example, Marine Corps spending on ground 

procurement decreased by 48 percent in its base budget. Continued sustainment of legacy 

systems cost more and more to repair and maintain, while not providing the capabilities we know 

are needed for the future operating environment. Investing in and accelerating our 

modernization programs directly correlate to improved readiness by achieving etliciencies and 

providing needed capabilities sooner. For Fiscal Year 2018, the Marine Corps has increased its 

ground procurement request to $2.4 billion, as well as aviation procurement request to $6.5 

billion. The Marine Corps is committed to recapitalizing and modernizing these key capabilities 

and others to ensure success against increasingly capable current and future threats. 

Ground Combat Tactical Vehicle Modernization 

A primary focus of our ground modernization efforts continues to be our combat and 

tactical vehicle portfolio, which accounts for approximately 50 percent of the Marine Corps 

ground modernization investment. Our Ground Combat Tactical Vehicle (GCTV) 

modernization strategy is to sequentially modernize priority capabilities, reduce equipment 

inventories wherever possible and judiciously sustain remaining equipment. The overarching 

priority within the ground portfolio is the replacement of the legacy Amphibious Assault Vehicle 

(AAV), fielded over 40 years ago, with modern armored personnel can·iers through a 

combination of complementary systems. The Amphibious Combat Vehicle (ACV) program is 

the Marine Corps' highest ground modernization priority and will use an evolutionary, 

incremental approach that consists of two increments, ACV 1.1 and ACV 1.2. Increment 1.1 will 

lield a personnel carrier; Increment 1.2 will improve personnel carrier capabilities over 

Increment 1.1 and will deliver command and control (C2), recovery, and maintenance mission 

role variants. The AA V Survivability Upgrades Program (SUP), will complement the ACV 

Program within the Amphibious Assault Echelon. The AA V SUP improves AA V capability in 

four of the ten companies, to support Marine Expeditionary Unit (MEU) deployments. When 

6 
40 

globally sourced, the four companies provide the essential capacity necessary tor the assault 

echelons of two Marine Expeditionary Brigades (MEBs). ACV Phase 1.1 modernizes two of our 

ten amphibious vehicle companies. ACV Phase 1.2 will modernize the remaining four often 

companies. This combination of a modern amphibious armored personnel carrier alongside the 

improved AA V generates a complementary set of capabilities to meet general support lift 

capability and capacity requirements of our Ground Combat Element. In parallel with these 

modernization efforts, a science and technology portfolio is being developed by the Office of 

Naval Research (ONR) to explore a range of high water speed technology approaches to provide 

tor an affordable, phased modernization oflegacy capability to enable extended range littoral 

maneuver. These efforts will develop the knowledge necessary to reach an informed decision 

point in the mid-2020s on the feasibility, at1ordability, and options lor developing a high water 

speed capability for maneuver from ship-to-shore. 

The second highest priority within the portfolio remains the replacement of the portion of 

our High Mobility Multipurpose Wheeled Vehicles (HMMWV) fleet that is most at risk; those 

tmcks that perform a combat function and are typically exposed to enemy fires. In partnership 

with the Army, the Marine Corps has sequenced the Joint Light Tactical Vehicle (JLTV) 

program to ensure affordability of the entire combat and tactical vehicle portfolio while replacing 

one third of the legacy HMMWV fleet with modern tactical trucks prior to the fielding of ACV 

1.1. These core Marine Corps modernization effotis have been designed to ensure their 

affordability. With the continued support of this committee and Congress we will maintain the 

momentum to modemize this portfolio and ensure that our Marines are equipped to answer our 

nation's calls. 

Amphibious Combat Vehicle 1.1 

Leveraging demonstrated mature technologies, ACV Phase 1.1 awarded two Engineering 

and Manufacturing Development (EMD) contracts to BAE and SAl C. Both manufacturers have 

begun delivering vehicles and we are initiating an extensive test and evaluation phase that will 

lead to a down select in Fiscal Year 2018. The Approved Acquisition Objective (AAO) of204 

vehicles will provide lift for two infantry battalions and will achieve Initial Operational 

Capability (IOC) in Fiscal Year 2020. The aggressive acquisition schedule for ACV 1.1 requires 

full funding and support from Congress. The Fiscal Year 2018 President's Budget requests 

7 
41 

$179.0 million in RDT&E for continued research and development, $167.1 million in 

procurement, and $1.3 million in operations and maintenance. 

AAV Survivability Upgrade Program (AAV SUP) 

AA V SUP is a well-defined program to increase the capability of the current vehicle by 

providing force protection upgrades to counter cun·ent and emerging threats to the underside of 

the vehicle. Specifically, the program will provide improved armor, spallliners, blast mitigating 

seats and protected fuel storage. These improved AAVs will play a key role in facilitating shipto-shore mobility until replaced via a future phase of the ACV program. A contract was awarded 

to SAIC and all EMD vehicles are currently undergoing Operational Assessment that will inform 

a Milestone C decision later this year. The AAO lor the program is 405 vehicles with IOC in 

Fiscal Year 2019. The Fiscal Year 2018 President's Budget requests $58.7 million in RDT&E 

for continued research and development, $107.7 million in procurement for Low Rate Initial 

Production (LRIP), and $2.7 million in operations and maintenance. 

Joint Light Tactical Vehicle (JLTV) 

The Marine Corps remains firmly partnered with the U.S. Army in fielding a JLTV that 

lives up to its name, while also being affordable. JLTV will deliver a modern reliable truck 

along with companion trailers, capable of performing multiple mission roles while providing 

protected, sustained, and networked mobility tor personnel and payloads across the full spectrum 

of military operations. The JLTV has effectively controlled ownership costs by maximizing 

commonality, reliability, and fuel efficiency, while achieving additional savings through 

effective competition in all stages of program execution. Oshkosh Corporation was awarded a 

production contract tor both Low Rate Initial Production (LRIP) and Full Rate Production (FRP) 

options, and those vehicles arc currently in testing at various locations. The Fiscal Year 2018 

President's Budget requests $20.7 million in RDT&E for continued research and development, 

$233.6 million in procurement, and $2.4 million in operations and maintenance. Funding for 

major activities in this budget includes continued developmental testing, validating the 

production process and continued LRIP assets. To date the Joint Program Office (JPO) has 

received nearly 250 trucks in support of the LRIP process. The approved AAO is 5,500 vehicles. 

8 
42 

Rotorcraft Modernization 

Marine Aviation is in the midst of a focused multiyear readiness recovery eftort across 

every Type/Model/Series (T/M/S) in the current legacy inventory, all while we continue to 

procure new aircraft. Aviation readiness recovery is fragile; the plan requires stable and 

predictable funding, spare parts and supply support, t1ight operations, and time. Each T/M/S 

requires attention and action in specific areas: supply, in-service repairs, maintenance, and depot 

backlog. Our modem expeditionary force will require aircraft capable of t1exible basing ashore 

or at sea in support of our Marine units. Our MV-22 Ospreys are key enablers in expanding the 

operational reach of Marines supporting Joint Force requirements The CH-53K Heavy Lift 

Replacement remains critical to maintaining the battlefield mobility our force requires, nearly 

tripling the lift capacity of the aircraft it is replacing. The Marine Corps UH-IY Venom and AHIZ Viper are also combat proven force multipliers for the Marine Air Ground Task Force. Other 

priorities outside our rotary wing aircraft include: persistent multi-role intelligence, surveillance, 

reconnaissance (!SR) such as RQ-21 A Blackjack and the MAGTF Expeditionary UAS (MUX); 

supporting capabilities such as electronic attack and vertical lift; robust strike weapons programs; 

creating manned-unmanned teaming capabilities; targeted modernization of the force for 

relevance and sustainability; and the 5th Generation F-35B and F-35C Joint Strike Fighter (.IS F) 

that will not only replace three aging platforms, but also provide transformational warfighting 

capabilities for the future. The acceleration of these key aviation modernization programs and 

others will directly enhance warfighting readiness and increase the lethality of the force. 

MV-22 Osprey 

The MV-22 is the assault support platform of choice for all Combatant Commanders 

(CCDRs). From MEUs to Special Purpose MAGTF Crisis Response (SPMAGTF-CR), the 

speed, range, and aerial refueling capability allow the Osprey to remain postured in strategic 

locations throughout the world, ready and poised to quickly support Marines Corps operations 

wherever they are required. The Fiscal Year 2018 President's Budget requests $171.4 million in 

RDT&E for continued product improvements, and $228.3 million in APN to support Operations 

and Safety Improvement Programs (OS IPs), including Correction of Deficiencies, Readiness 

improvements, Common Configuration, and Aerial Refueling. To-date, 294 of360 MV-22s 

have been delivered. The MV-22 continues to meet all Key Performance Parameters; cost and 

schedule also remain within established thresholds. Fiscal Year 2018 represents the first year of 

9 
43 

the next V-22 Multi-Year Procurement (MYP) contract, MYP III, for production aircraft, 

sustaining Fleet aircraft, improving aircraft readiness, reducing operating costs, and expanding 

the domestic and international business base. The proposed MYP Ill contract will span seven 

years (Fiscal Years 2018-2024) and buy out the remaining domestic aircraft program of record. 

MYP In continues affordable procurement, provides stability to industry, and maintains a 

production line and contractual foundation to attract future V -22 international sales/customers. 

Continuing procurement under a MYP is especially beneficial to the supplier base as it provides 

long-tenn stability and generates lower costs that may incentivize intemational V -22 customers. 

The MV-22 Osprey vertical flight capabilities, coupled with the speed, range, and 

endurance of fixed-wing transports, continue to enable effective execution of cun·ent missions 

that were previously unachievable. The MV -22 fleet continues executing at a high operational 

tempo consisting of multiple MEU deployments and two SPMAGTF-CR deployments in support 

of AFRICOM and CENTCOM. During 2016, the 15th of 18 planned active component 

squadrons achieved full operational capability (FOC), with the 16th scheduled for FOC in June 

2017. These events are significant because community capacity is beginning to catch up to 

operational demand. However, due to CCDR's extremely high V -22 demand and operational 

tempo, the mission capability (MC) rates have not improved as desired. The primary contributor 

to lower than planned MC rates is our ability to train and keep enlisted maintainers with the 

requisite qualifications needed to sustain the high demand. An equally important secondary 

contributor is multiple V -22 configurations. In an attempt to increase our overall institutional 

readiness, the Marine Corps reduced each of the SPMAGTF-CR to a .5 VMM squadron 

footprint. The goal of this plan is to allow the remain behind element the time necessary to 

develop and train their personnel for future deployments and improve the overall V-22 readiness 

and MC rates. 

Marine Aviation commissioned an Osprey Independent Readiness Review which 

identified a number of factors driving down MV-22 readiness. The major factor identified was 

the excessive number of aircraft configurations that resulted from years of concurrently 

incorporating engineering changes and reliability improvements during aircraft production. The 

"Common Configuration, Readiness and Modernization" (CC-RAM) plan will streamline the 

total number ofV-22 configurations from 77 to 3, simplify the supply system, reduce the number 

of technical manuals and improve troubleshooting and maintenance procedures. This effort will 

decrease maintenance man-hours, increase aircraft availability and reduce total operating costs 

10 
44 

by approximately $1.5 billion. The Fiscal Year 2018 OSIP provides a necessary and stable 

source of crucial modification limding as the program continues to implement these readiness 

and cost reduction initiatives. 

Along with the readiness and support initiatives, the Marine Corps is adding new 

capabilities to the MV-22 that will make it even more valuable to the CCDRs such as the 

development ofMV-22 Aerial Refueling System which will enable the MV-22 to deliver fuel to 

other airborne platforms. This capability is a critical enabler for both shore and sea-based 

operations and will extend the operational reach of deployed MAGTFs. Initial capability is 

planned to deliver by the summer of20 19. Another transformative capability for the entire 

aviation force is the continued development and integration of Digital Interoperability (DI). 

Initial DI fielded capability will consist of a suite of electronics to allow the embarked troop 

commander and aircrew to possess unprecedented situational awareness via real-time 

transmission of full motion video and other data generated by multiple air and ground platforms 

throughout the battlespace. This DI suite will also be able to collect, in real time, threat data 

gathered by existing aircraft survivability equipment and accompanying attack platforms, 

thereby shortening the kill-chain against ground and air based threats. A limited Dl objective 

experiment was conducted utilizing a deployed MEU. The results showed promise and informed 

continued development of this capability. 

CH-53K Heavy Lift Replacement Program 

The Fiscal Year 2018 President's Budget requests $341.0 million in RDT &E to continue 

the Engineering and Manufacturing Development (EMD) phase of the CH-53K program and 

$756.0 million in Aircraft Procurement, Navy (APN) for Low Rate Initial Production (LRIP) 

Aircraft (Lot 2). The CH-53K achieved Milestone C, receiving an Acquisition Decision 

Memorandum April 3, 2017, authorizing LRIP. To date, four EMD Model aircraft have 

accumulated over 450 test flight hours, completed the first 'Operational Test Assessment' ahead 

of schedule and set a U.S. Heavy Lift record with an 89.5K Maximum Gross Weight lift. During 

Fiscal Year 2018, the program will continue to execute developmental test flights, complete the 

relocation of test assets to Naval Air Station (NAS) Patuxent River, and take delivery of System 

Demonstration Test Article (SDTA) aircraft (production representative aircraft utilized for 

Operational Test). Three ofthe four SDTAs will deliver to NAS Patuxent River to supplement 

the remainder of developmental test. Marine Test and Evaluation Squadron One (VMX-1) will 

II 
45 

take delivery of the balance of aircraft at MCAS New River to execute publication and 

maintenance demonstrations prior to Operational Test & Evaluation. 

The CH-53K will provide land and sea based heavy-lift capabilities not resident in any of 

today's platfonns and contribute directly to the increased agility, lethality, and presence of joint 

task forces and MAGTFs. The CH-53K can transport 27,000 pounds of external cargo out to a 

range of ll 0 nautical miles under the most extreme operational conditions, nearly tripling the 

CH-53E's lift capability under similar environmental conditions, while fitting into the same 

shipboard footprint. The CH-53K will provide an unparalleled lift capability under high-altitude 

and hot weather conditions and greatly expand the CCDRs operational reach and flexibility. 

Compared to the CH-53E, maintenance and reliability enhancements of the CH-53K will 

improve aircraft availability and ensure cost etTective operations. Additionally, survivability and 

force protection enhancements will significantly increase protection for both aircrew and 

passengers. Expeditionary heavy-lift capabilities will continue to be critical to successful land 

and sea-based operations in future anti-access, area-denial environments, enabling sea-basing 

and the joint operating concepts of force application and focused logistics. 

As the CH-53E approaches 30 years of service, the community has accumulated over 

95,000 combat flight hours in support of various combat operations. The unprecedented 

operational demand for these aircraft (peaking at 3x the published utilization rate) caused them to 

age prematurely. The material condition of our heavy lift assault support aircraft has degraded 

sooner than expected, which makes it more challenging to maintain and underscores the 

importance of its replacement, the CH-53K King Stallion. We have instituted a fleet wide 

"reset" of the Cli-53E inventory to ensure we extract maximum utility and readiness until we 

transition to the CH-53K. 

H-I Upgrades Program 

The H-1 Upgrades Program is replacing the Marine Corps' UH-lN and AH-1W 

helicopters with state-ot:the-art UH-1 Y Venom and AH-1 Z Viper aircraft. Marine Corps 

Venom and Viper utility and attack aircraft have been critical to the success of the Marines in 

harm's way and have flown over 162,000 hours over the past decade. The Fiscal Year 2018 

President's Budget requests $79.1 million in RDT&E for continued product improvements and 

$822.2 million in APN for 22 AH-1 Z aircraft and system improvements. The H-1 program is a 

key modernization effort designed to resolve existing safety deficiencies and enhance operational 

12 
46 

effectiveness of the H-1 fleet. The 85 percent commonality between the U H-1 Y and AH-l Z will 

significantly reduce lifecycle costs and the logistical footprint, and increase the maintainability 

and deployability of both aircraft. The program will provide the Marine Corps with 349 H-1 

aircraft through a combination of new production and a limited quantity of remanufactured 

aircraft. 

The UH-IY and AH-IZ aircraft are fielded with integrated glass cockpits, world-class 

sensors, and advanced helmet-mounted sight and display systems. The future growth plan 

includes a digitally-aided, Close Air Support (CAS) system designed to integrate these airframes, 

sensors, and weapons systems together with ground combat forces and other capable DoD 

aircraft. Integration of low-cost weapons such as the Advanced Precision Kill Weapon System II 

(APKWS II) provides increased lethality with reduced collateral damage. 

The UH-1 Y aircraft achieved IOC in August 2008 and FRP in September 2008. The 

"UH-1 Y Forward" procurement strategy prioritized UH-1 Y production in order to replace the 

under-powered UH-1 N fleet as quickly as possible. The last UH-1 N was retired from service as 

of December 2014. The AH-lZ program received approval for FRP in November 2010 and 

achieved IOC in February 20 II. As of April 2017, 210 aircraft are operational within the Fleet 

Marine Force (146 UH-1 Ys and 64 AH-lZs). An additional 72 aircraft are on contract and in 

production, to include the first three of twelve Pakistan Foreign Military Sales aircraft. Lots 1-7 

(Fiscal Years 2004-2010) aircraft deliveries are complete for both the UH-lY and AH-lZ. Lots 

8, 9, and 10 (Fiscal Years 2011-2013) deliveries are complete for the UH-IY. Lot II UH-lY 

deliveries are in progress and ahead of schedule. Additionally, the Czech Republic signed a 

Letter of Request for Letter of Acceptance in April 2017 for 12 UH-1 Y s, which will be placed on 

contract in Fiscal Year-2018. 

The H-1 Upgrades program is integrating both the UH-IY and AH-IZ into the Digital 

lnteroperability environment established throughout the MAGTF. With the integration of 

Intrepid Tiger ll Electronic Warfare (IT ll EW) pod, the Marine Corps' Light Attack Helicopter 

Squadron community will be able to provide MAGTF Commanders with all six functions of 

Marine Aviation, further increasing capability and flexibility. Additionally, these aircrall will 

incorporate Software Reprogrammable Payloads (SRP), which enables utilization of diverse 

networks and waveforms, thereby enabling maneuverability within the Electro-Magnetic (EM) 

spectrum. SRP will employ systems such as Link-16, Tactical Targeting Network Technology, 

Adaptive Networking Wideband Waveform, and the Soldier Radio Waveform. 

13 
47 

Command and Control (C2) Modernization 

Critical to the success ashore of the MAGTF is our ability to coordinate and synchronize 

our distributed C2 sensors and systems. A 5th Generation Marine Corps that will dominate the 

information domain requires transfonning MAGTF C2 capabilities through a unified network 

environment that is ready, responsive and resilient, including integrating Navy and Marine Corps 

systems for naval amphibious forces to effectively command and control forces both afloat and 

ashore. The Combat Operations Center (COC) Family of Systems (FoS), for example, is 

designed to enhance C2 at all levels from the Marine Expeditionary Force (MEF) to Battalion 

echelons. We have delivered new MEF level COCs to I, ll, and III MEF. Research and 

development is ongoing for cross-domain solutions to provide the ability to manually or 

automatically access or transfer inlom1ation between two or more differing security domains. 

Enhanced C2 and digitally interoperable protected networks are modem capabilities that will 

facilitate improved battlefield awareness to and from small, dispersed tactical units. Our 

modernization priorities in this area are the Ground/Air Task Oriented Radar (G/ATOR), the 

Common Aviation Command and Control System (CAC2S) Increment I, and Networking On 

The Move (NOTM). These systems will provide modern, interoperable technologies to support 

real-time surveillance, detection and targeting and the common C2 suite to enable the effective 

employment of that and other sensors and C2 suites across the MAGTF. As warfare evolves into 

a battle of signatures and detection supporting an increasingly distributed MAGTF over greater 

geographical areas, these capabilities are vital to maximize the effectiveness of our forces. 

Ground/Air Task Oriented Radar (GIATOR) 

G/ A TOR is a highly expeditionary, medium range multi-role radar that represents the 

next generation in ground radar technology and will provide greater accuracy, detection, target 

classification, and perfonnance against new and evolving threats and enemy countermeasures. 

G/ A TOR will replace five legacy systems and will support air defense, air surveillance, counterbattery/target acquisition, and aviation radar tactical enhancements; the final evolution will also 

suppmi the Marine Corps' air traffic control mission. G/ A TOR fllock I provides air defense and 

air surveillance capability, achieved Milestone C in2014 and has received three of the six units 

which will be delivered this calendar year. G/ A TOR Block 2 provides counter-battery/target 

acquisition and is in the EMD phase of acquisition. The Fiscal Year 2018 President's Budget 

requests $54.6 million in RDT &E for the continued development of G/ A TOR Block 2, transition 

14 
48 

to Gallium Nitride (GaN) module technology, $155.8 million in procurement funding supporting 

the LRIP of three G/ATOR Block 2 systems, and $10.6 million in O&M,MC for support of the 

fielded systems. The approved AAO is 45 systems. 

Common Aviation Command and Control System (CAC2S) 

CAC2S is a critical enabler within the Marine Air Command and Control System 

(MACCS) that will fuse weapons and sensor data into a single integrated display and serve as the 

sensor and data integrator between aviation and ground combat elements. Phase I Limited 

Deployment Capability was achieved 2nd Quarter Fiscal Year 2012 and the initial fielding was 

complete during 4th Quarter Fiscal Year 2013. Phase 2 addresses the remaining Air Combat 

Element (ACE) Battle Management and C2 requirements. Phase 2 achieved a successful 

Milestone C in Fiscal Year 2015, and fielding of that system has begun with the first delivery in 

May 2017. The Fiscal Year 2018 President's Budget requests $7.3 million in RDT&E for 

continued research and development, $44.9 million in procurement funding supporting 15 

systems, and $19.8 million in O&M,MC for support ofthe fielded systems. The approved AAO 

is 50 systems. 

Networking On The Move (NOTM) 

NOTM provides the MAGTF with a robust, over the horizon/beyond line of sight digital 

command and control capability while on the move and at the halt. The Fiscal Year 2018 

President's Budget requests $11.4million in RDT&E for continued research and development, 

$111.3 million in procurement funding supporting 35 systems, and $22.9 million in O&M,MC 

for support of the fielded systems. The 35 systems consist of three variants: NOTM-Ground 

Combat Vehicle (GCV) 20 systems, NOTM-Airborne (A) 10 systems, and NOTM-Intcrnally 

Transportable Vehicle (lTV) 5 systems. The AAO for variants is: GCV - 140; A-Increment I8; A-Increment Il- 39; and lTV- 32. 

Tactical and Satellite Communications 

To improve our tactical radios, we are in the process of developing the Acquisition 

Strategy for the next generation of High Frequency radios and will look to field a modernized, 

more capable, COMSEC compliant version in Fiscal Year 2020. Across the Satellite 

Communications portfolio, several related modernization effmis are scheduled starting in the 

15 
49 

fourth quarter of Fiscal Year 2017 and concluding in Fiscal Year 2019. The Global Broadcast 

System will field multiple component systems to Marine Corps Forces Special Operations 

Command (MARSOC) in the fourth quarter of Fiscal Year 2017 and second quarter of Fiscal 

Year 2018. The Very Small Aperture Terminal program will release a modification instruction 

in July to update software for interoperability with Department of Defense (DoD) hubs. Lastly, 

Secure Mobile Anti-Jam Reliable Tactical Terminal (SMART-T) is scheduled to be procured in 

the fourth quarter of Fiscal Year 2017 and start fielding in the third quarter of Fiscal Year 2018 

the capability to reduce the number of laptops required to operate the SMART-T. We continue to 

work with industry for solutions enabling operations in a contested environment. The Fiscal 

Year 2018 President's Budget requests $83.9 million in procurement for tactical and satellite 

communications. 

Small Arms Strategy 

Small arms weapons and ammunition help to power our Marines' ability to close with 

and destroy our opponents on the battlefield. We continuously evaluate and improve Marine 

Corps small arms capabilities, when technology and funding allow, to ensure that the individual 

Marine and units throughout the MAGTF are armed with the most reliable and relevant weapons 

systems available. In the near term, through Fiscal Year 2020, we are pursuing selective ground 

modernization and prioritized sustainment of legacy capabilities. This involves an incremental 

approach to improve small am1s accuracy, lethality, ergonomics, and weight reduction. CutTen! 

funding levels impact USMC small arms in the speed with which we can implement near term 

improvements. We will improve these capabilities on a graduated scale, stmiing with the 

infantry and expanding to other combat arn1s when feasible. Long tenn, beyond Fiscal Year 

2020, we plan to make larger gains in capability through pursuit of next generation weapons with 

the other services, including our Army partners where collaborative effort is made possible when 

requirements and execution profiles coincide. EfJorts now underway are driven by the end in 

mind- improved lethality while maintaining/improving the mobility of the individual Marine, 

the Marine Rille Squad, and the MAGTF. 

16 
50 

Conclusion 

Congress and the American people have high expectations for the Marine Corps as our 

nation's naval expeditionary force in readiness. To achieve institutional readiness, sustain 

operational requirements, and be prepared for crisis and contingency response now and in the 

future, we must maintain the right balance of capability and capacity for our Marine Corps across 

our modernization, manpower and current readiness efforts. Our Fiscal Year 2018 budget 

request builds on the additional funding received in the Fiscal Year 2017 Omnibus appropriation 

and begins the deliberate effort to fix readiness both today and tomorrow, but the fiscal 

instability of the current fiscal year, Budget Control Act (BCA) caps, and the trend of repeated 

and protracted continuing resolutions continue to create inefficiencies, disrupt our planning, and 

directly challenge our current and future readiness. The Marine Corps manages uncertainty and 

risk through planning. Unstable fiscal environments prevent the deliberately planned, sustained 

effort needed to recover current readiness of our legacy equipment in the near term, and to 

modernize in the longer term. We must work to avoid a budget-driven strategy and return to a 

strategy-driven budget, informed by the strategic requirements of the current and future 

operating environments. The Marine Corps must begin to rebalance and modernize for the 

future, creating a 5th Generation multi-domain force with overmatch that can deter and if 

necessary, defeat a highly capable ncar-peer adversary. With your continued support, we can and 

will rebuild your Marine Corps for the 21st century. 

17 
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS POST HEARING 

MAY 24, 2017 

(53) 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. TURNER 

Mr. TURNER. The Vice Chief of Staff of the Army in his testimony at the February 

7th full committee hearing indicated Air and Missile Defense (AMD) as a top capability gap to address the urgent operational needs of combatant commanders and 

mitigate current threats. How does the FY18 budget request address this critical capability gap? 

General MURRAY. The Army Fiscal Year 2018 (FY18) budget request addresses 

the Air and Missile Defense (AMD) capability gap by increasing procurement of critical systems and by beginning a Service Life Extension Program (SLEP) for Stinger 

missiles. For instance, we requested funding to begin procurement of AIM9X missiles (196), begin a Service Life Extension Program for Stinger missiles (1,440), and 

continue development of the Integrated Battlefield Control System, Indirect Fire 

Protect Capability, and an improved Lower Tier AMD Sensor. In support of developing a Maneuver-Short Range Air Defense or M–SHORAD capability, the FY18 

budget request supports advancing a near term solution that considers the results 

of the recent tech demo event and initiatives in support of the M–SHORAD Family 

of Systems Analysis of Alternatives. 

Mr. TURNER. What are your major concerns with munitions? What are you doing 

to address shortfalls? 

General MURRAY. My major concerns with munitions include our inability to support multiple theater requirements while also meeting the training demand for munitions. For example, in Fiscal Year 2018 alone, the Army identified a $938 million 

shortfall in conventional munitions which range from small arms (e.g., 9mm and 

5.56mm) to crew served weapons (e.g., .50 cal) to mortar and artillery munitions. 

I am also concerned that our aging munitions industrial base cannot support increased operational requirements in an efficient, cost effective manner while ensuring the protection and safety of employees and the environment. Finally, we lack 

sufficient capacity to produce the needed quantity of precision and near precision 

munitions. To address these shortfalls, the Army is making munitions a top priority 

and is moving resources from lower priority programs to increase funding for munitions. For instance, the FY18 budget request includes 6,000 Guided Multiple Launch 

Rocket System missiles, an increase of almost 1,800 missiles over FY17’s request. 

The FY18 request also includes 998 Hellfire missiles, an increase of 840 missiles 

over FY17. However, fiscal constraints will not allow the Army to sustain the level 

of investment required to meet demand for munitions across the Future Years Defense Program. For example, we would need to invest over $600 million more per 

year to reach the maximum production rate for the Patriot Advanced Capability 

Missile Segment Enhancement missile, a key Combatant Commander required munition. The Army continues to look for opportunities to close these gaps through 

reprioritization of funds, increasing the efficiency of the munitions industrial base, 

and closely monitoring expenditures of critical munitions. 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MS. TSONGAS 

Ms. TSONGAS. What technological advances have been made, including in ensuring 

situational awareness and intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) capabilities, to mitigate operational risk and enhance force protection for soldiers in 

small tactical units? How does the Army envision using resources included in the 

FY18 budget request and across the Future Years Defense Program (FYDP) to deploy these new technologies in the field? 

General OSTROWSKI. The Army has recently made several technological advances 

to mature components and subsytems supporting small aerial and ground ISR platforms which have the capability to mitigate operational risk and enhance force protection for soldiers in small tactical units. This research included developing payload 

standards, increasing image resolutions, reducing audio signature, balancing power 

subsystems to increase distance and duration capabilities, and developing software 

algorithms which optimize performance. The Army will continue to advance these 

technologies by researching platform agnostic components and sub-system technologies which can be shared with multiple industry partners. The advanced capa-
54 

bilities planned consist of research to enable: (1) operations in GPS-denied environments, (2) environmental sensing leading to collision avoidance, and (3) autonomy 

leading to collaborative behaviors (i.e. swarming) and (4) man-machine interfaces 

which will enable more autonomous operations, with limited operator intervention. 

Longer term basic and applied research is focusing on small unit sensor systems, 

sensor data analytics, communications, mission command and positioning, and navigation and timing in Global Positioning System (GPS) denied environments. These 

will be leveraged to further advance these systems, examples include: (1) GPS alternative technologies that provide state-of-the-art performance for soldier position and 

navigation; (2) Acoustic, radio frequency (RF), and electro-optic sensors and algorithms to detect and locate weapons fire and unmanned aerial systems in complex, 

noisy environments; (3) Stand-off sensors that provide non-line-of-sight situational 

awareness of power-grid activities in real time; Related enabling science and technology research which is being leveraged by these small aerial and ground ISR platforms programs include converged hardware and software architectures, cyber capabilities to the Corps and below, to include small unit/squad, technologies for distributed, networked sensing; jam-resistant soldier-borne antennas; adaptive protocols 

for resource-based data acquisition and signal processing on sensor networks; automated analytics for detection, tracking, and classification of adversaries; and techniques to mitigate network and sensor effects from jamming, spoofing, attrition, and 

non-cooperative emitters. The Army has designated tactical situational awareness 

and mission command for small units as a high priority research objective for FY18– 

24. 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. BROWN 

Mr. BROWN. The Army has embraced a non-developmental item (NDI) approach 

to the procurement of networked communications modernization—an approach that 

Congress has encouraged and fully supports. However, the Army has made changes 

to its requirements for certain programs, and has also chosen to reevaluate its 

needs, leading to delays in the fielding of important, modernized communications 

items to the warfighter. While Congress understands the importance of evaluating 

needs, the delays in the procurement and fielding of important communications 

items is concerning. First, the delay forces our soldiers to continue to rely on outdated and potentially vulnerable capabilities. Second, it discourages industry from 

investing more of their own funds in additional capability when there is an unclear 

path to an actual acquisition and return on said investment. 

Given the ongoing studies the Army is conducting regarding its network, is it safe 

to say that changes to the current strategy will be made? When will the Army finalize and release any changes to this strategy? Additionally, are you comfortable with 

stating that changes in decisions to procurement strategies regarding tactical network modernization will not lead further delay putting tactical radios into soldiers’ 

hands, or inhibit our tactical commutations readiness capability? 

General MURRAY and General OSTROWSKI. Given the ongoing studies that the 

Army is conducting regarding the network, it is safe to say that the Army’s current 

network strategy and procurement approach will adjust to appropriately address our 

operational needs and provide opportunities for greater use of industry innovation. 

What will not change is the Army’s use of Non-Developmental network technologies 

and the full and open competitive process to support our procurement activities. Regarding adjustments in procurement strategies, as previously noted, the Army intends to continue leveraging the NDI approach with a full and open competitive 

process to support procurement of our tactical network systems. However, the methodology by which we assess/evaluate and determine the capabilities for our overall 

network requirements will shift from ‘lowest price, technical acceptable’ toward a 

‘‘best value’’ methodology. Changing to a best value acquisition strategy will allow 

for greater opportunity to maximize industry potential without binding ourselves to 

a rigid set of parameters that limit flexibility and/or innovation that have proven 

to result in program delays in the past. While no one can truly state for certain that 

all delays will be averted, the adjustments to our network strategy and a shift to 

a ‘‘best value’’ approach aim to reduce future programmatic delays, ensure greater 

flexibility for the Army, improve the use of industry innovation and provide our 

warfighter with the best operational capability available. 

Mr. BROWN. The Navy and Army both have major robotics procurements coming 

in the next 1–2 years; programs such as Man Transportable Robot Systems Increment II (MTRS Inc II), Common Robotics Systems (I), and Advanced Explosive Ordnance Disposal Robot System (AEODRS). What is the strategy for integrating these 

capabilities into the field and into the larger military context beyond how they are 
55 

being used now? Additionally, although the defense budget is going up overall, it’s 

not necessarily being allocated in a way that ensures that service men and women 

are getting the newest, most capable technology in areas such as robotics. For example, it is my understanding the Marines are looking at purchasing robots initially 

developed in 2002 to meet their Explosive Ordnance Disposal capabilities because 

of challenges in the Advanced Explosive Ordnance Disposal Robot System Program. 

I would like to hear from all the panelists on this question, but particularly from 

BG Shrader. 

General MURRAY and General OSTROWSKI. The Army’s strategy for robotic systems is to integrate new technologies into our organizations to help ensure overmatch against increasingly capable enemies. Based upon the expanding roles for 

robotic systems beyond EOD, the Army chose to build upon the Navy’s open source 

modular architecture and pursue lighter weight, lower cost, common chassis solutions using modular mission payloads to meet the needs of diverse organizations 

across the Army. This common chassis strategy provides greater efficiency for integrating these capabilities into the larger Army and reduced cost through economies 

of scale by buying thousands of similar systems rather than hundreds of multiple 

types of unique systems. The Army’s Interoperability Profile (IOP) standards enable 

the development and selective upgrade of interchangeable modular mission payloads 

to perform specific warfighter functions across multiple platforms. This approach 

specifically enables the Army to focus more on its Robotic investments where they 

have the greatest impact: Updating interchangeable mission payloads with newer, 

increasingly capable technology. For example, a MTRS Inc 2 may be configured with 

a suite of EOD payloads or a suite of CBRN sensors. The Army IOP standards are 

fully compatible with the Navy’s AEODRS standards. The Army anticipates the production of the MTRS Inc 2 in Fiscal Year 2019 and the Common Robotic SystemIndividual (CRS–I) in Fiscal Year 2021. Additionally, to ensure that Soldiers get the 

newest, most capable technology within current fiscal constraints, the Army is collaborating with our industry partners. The Defense Innovation Unit Experimental 

(DIUx) organization has facilitated the Army’s outreach to non-traditional industry 

partners on the cutting edge of technology. This approach enables the rapid delivery 

of prototype capabilities to the Warfighter using a buy-try-decide methodology 

through newly expanded Other Transaction Authority (OTA). 

Mr. BROWN. The Navy and Army both have major robotics procurements coming 

in the next 1–2 years; programs such as Man Transportable Robot Systems Increment II (MTRS Inc II), Common Robotics Systems (I), and Advanced Explosive Ordnance Disposal Robot System (AEODRS). What is the strategy for integrating these 

capabilities into the field and into the larger military context beyond how they are 

being used now? Additionally, although the defense budget is going up overall, it’s 

not necessarily being allocated in a way that ensures that service men and women 

are getting the newest, most capable technology in areas such as robotics. For example, it is my understanding the Marines are looking at purchasing robots initially 

developed in 2002 to meet their Explosive Ordnance Disposal capabilities because 

of challenges in the Advanced Explosive Ordnance Disposal Robot System Program. 

I would like to hear from all the panelists on this question, but particularly from 

BG Shrader. 

General THOMAS and General SHRADER. [The information referred to was not 

available at the time of printing.] 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. BANKS 

Mr. BANKS. LTG Murray, the Army G8 validated an operational needs statement 

(ONS) for a hydra rocket penetrating warhead for the field guided rocket system 

back in October, but still requires action on resourcing a material solution to the 

Apache helicopter war fighters. The USAF and USMC validated similar ONS and 

are in qualification programs to provide guided rockets with a penetrating warhead 

with incendiary effects that is already in the DOD inventory and in operational use 

by SOCOM. Is it not true that this capability is specifically noted in the Vice Chief 

of Staff of the Army’s (VCSA) 2016 approved munitions strategy? Considering the 

high cost of guided missile systems such as Hellfire and considering that hydra 

rockets can now be precisely guided to a target, what is the Army’s plan to provide 

this capability to the warfighter and take full advantage guided rocket technology 

that will provide more flexibility to the operational user to engage a broader spectrum of targets? 

General MURRAY. Both the Chief of Staff of the Army (CSA) and the Vice Chief 

of Staff of the Army (VCSA) continue to place special emphasis on the development, 

procurement and positioning of critical munitions requested by the Combatant Com-
56 

manders. In the case of the Operational Need Statement (ONS) for a penetrating 

warhead (M282) on an Advanced Precision Kill Weapon System (APKWS) equipped 

Hydra rocket, also known as a ‘‘guided’’ Hydra rocket, a request for the resources 

to develop, qualify and field the weapon system was recently submitted as priority 

numbers eleven and twelve on the CSA’s Fiscal Year 2018 (FY18) Unfunded Requirements list (reference numbers 0978 and 0976). The resource requirements 

identified in the UFR take advantage of other services’ integration and qualification 

efforts where applicable. In the meantime, the Army is procuring and fielding the 

APKWS guidance sections with a widely used High Explosive (HE) warhead (M151) 

in support of our Soldiers in current areas of operations. The Army plans to continue procurement of 2,000 APKWS per year beginning in FY18 leveraging an existing Navy contract. A FY18 UFR (reference number 0978) has also been submitted 

to double the number of APKWS the Army procures (from 2,081 to 4,000) that will 

take advantage of investments in the production line that will increase capacity for 

all services. For the Army, APKWS is qualified on the AH–64D/E Apache and is currently constrained to operations in the U.S. Army Central Command Area of Responsibility by an Urgent Materiel Release. Full Materiel Release, allowing unconstrained use of the weapon system, is expected in FY19. 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. BISHOP 

Mr. BISHOP. The Marine Corps has been evaluating Australian technology 

through the Foreign Comparative Testing Program for Rifle Accessory Control Units 

(RACUs) that would allow troops to manage their electronic and battle management 

systems while keeping hands-on situational awareness at all times. This technology, 

already used abroad, if implemented within the U.S. military, would allow troops 

to keep their hands on their weapon with heads-up and eyes on the target all while 

being able to manage incoming and outgoing communications with other systems. 

It is my understanding that the Marine Corps has exercised its option under the 

existing testing and evaluation contract to go to Phase 3 of testing, which includes 

additional communications management capabilities. It is also my understanding 

that the Marine Corps supports obtaining a significant number of RACU units so 

that additional demonstration can take place at the Battalion level and to investigate further this technology’s use with systems such as drones, re-supply robots, 

heads-up displays on night vision goggles, and the like. 

(1) Does the Marine Corps support additional advanced systems testing and the 

production of the RACU units during Fiscal Year 2018 and beyond to support such 

testing; and (2) What is the Marine Corps assessment to date of the benefits of this 

technology as a part of troop modernization efforts?’’ 

General SHRADER. [The information referred to was not available at the time of 

printing.] 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. WITTMAN 

Mr. WITTMAN. I am not sure how you are soliciting for a new system without a 

new authorization. I was told that the initial plan was to purchase this new system 

using Operation and Maintenance funds, now I understand that new systems should 

be purchased with Procurement funds. Please clarify your authority for the RFP and 

whether a new start is required. 

General SHRADER. [The information referred to was not available at the time of 

printing.] 

Mr. WITTMAN. The Marine Corps states that it wants a high glide canopy, which 

covers significantly more horizontal distance when jumped from the same altitude 

as the currently fielded system. Is a high glide canopy truly a requirement? If so, 

where in the Corps did this requirement originate and how was it approved? Also, 

does the Marine Corps have all of the other equipment (oxygen bottles, tandem 

parachutes, and guided cargo parachutes) required in order to employ the high glide 

canopy? 

General SHRADER. [The information referred to was not available at the time of 

printing.] 

Mr. WITTMAN. The Marine Corps has a large number of PARIS, Special Application Parachute (‘‘SAP’’) canopies that are high glide in inventory but that are seldom 

used. Why is the Corps fielding a new parachute when it already has parachutes 

with high glide canopies? 

General SHRADER. [The information referred to was not available at the time of 

printing.] 
57 

Mr. WITTMAN. When the Army purchases parachutes, it relies on the engineers 

at U.S. Army Natick Soldier Systems Center to develop a specification addressing 

the military’s unique requirements. Instead of using a military specification, it appears that the Marine Corps is using the Parachute Industry Association (‘‘PIA’’) 

specification, which is for sports parachutists jumping from relatively slow moving 

planes and without the equipment that military parachutists carry. What assurances does the Marine Corps have that the PIA specification will get the Marine 

Corps the gear they need? 

General SHRADER. [The information referred to was not available at the time of 

printing.] 

Mr. WITTMAN. I understand that the Marine Corps plans on conducting a ‘‘paper’’ 

down select and only test the parachute once first articles are received. I believe 

that testing is critically important. I would like your thoughts on why testing is 

given short shrift in this procurement. 

General SHRADER. [The information referred to was not available at the time of 

printing.] 

Mr. WITTMAN. The sports parachute industry has been unable to develop reliable 

high glide canopies. The Army has struggled with the RA–1 parachute and grounded the parachute for several months last year. The reliability challenge, I am told, 

is one of aerodynamics. High glide canopies have to be large and relatively flat. This 

geometry requires longer lines and increases the opportunity for malfunctions especially lines on top of the canopy. Why is the Marine Corps considering going from 

a very reliable system to one that because of the geometry is almost certainly less 

reliable? Do you have safety concerns? 

General SHRADER. [The information referred to was not available at the time of 

printing.] 

Æ