U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center,

U.S. Government Printing Office. Phone 202–512–1800, or 866–512–1800 (toll-free). E-mail, gpo@custhelp.com.

i 

65–594 2011

[H.A.S.C. No. 112–27] 

SOLDIER AND MARINE EQUIPMENT FOR 

DISMOUNTED OPERATIONS 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON TACTICAL 

AIR AND LAND FORCES 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

HEARING HELD 

MARCH 17, 2011 
(II) 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON TACTICAL AIR AND LAND FORCES 

ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland, Chairman 

FRANK A. LOBIONDO, New Jersey 

JOHN C. FLEMING, M.D., Louisiana 

TOM ROONEY, Florida 

TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania 

VICKY HARTZLER, Missouri 

JON RUNYAN, New Jersey 

MARTHA ROBY, Alabama 

WALTER B. JONES, North Carolina 

W. TODD AKIN, Missouri 

JOE WILSON, South Carolina 

MICHAEL TURNER, Ohio 

BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania 

DOUG LAMBORN, Colorado 

SILVESTRE REYES, Texas 

MIKE MCINTYRE, North Carolina 

JIM COOPER, Tennessee 

GABRIELLE GIFFORDS, Arizona 

NIKI TSONGAS, Massachusetts 

LARRY KISSELL, North Carolina 

MARTIN HEINRICH, New Mexico 

BILL OWENS, New York 

JOHN R. GARAMENDI, California 

MARK S. CRITZ, Pennsylvania 

KATHY CASTOR, Florida 

JESSE TOLLESON, Professional Staff Member 

DOUG BUSH, Professional Staff Member 

SCOTT BOUSUM, Staff Assistant 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

CHRONOLOGICAL LIST OF HEARINGS 

2011 

Page 

HEARING: 

Thursday, March 17, 2011, Soldier and Marine Equipment for Dismounted 

Operations ............................................................................................................ 1 

APPENDIX: 

Thursday, March 17, 2011 ...................................................................................... 33 

THURSDAY, MARCH 17, 2011 

SOLDIER AND MARINE EQUIPMENT FOR DISMOUNTED OPERATIONS 

STATEMENTS PRESENTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS 

Bartlett, Hon. Roscoe G., a Representative from Maryland, Chairman, Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land Forces ...................................................... 1 

McIntyre, Hon. Mike, a Representative from North Carolina, Subcommittee 

on Tactical Air and Land Forces ......................................................................... 3 

WITNESSES 

Fuller, BG (P) Peter N., USA, Program Executive Officer, Soldier and Commanding General, Soldier Systems Center, U.S. Army .................................... 5 

Kelley, Brig. Gen. Frank L., USMC, Commander, Marine Corps Systems 

Command, U.S. Marine Corps; and Brig. Gen. Daniel J. O’Donohue, USMC, 

Director, Capabilities Development Directorate, Combat Development & 

Integration, U.S. Marine Corps .......................................................................... 9 

Markowitz, David M., Director, Capabilities Integration, Prioritization, and 

Analysis, U.S. Army ............................................................................................. 4 

APPENDIX 

PREPARED STATEMENTS: 

Bartlett, Hon. Roscoe G. .................................................................................. 37 

Kelley, Brig. Gen. Frank L., joint with Brig. Gen. Daniel J. O’Donohue .... 61 

Markowitz, David M., joint with BG (P) Peter N. Fuller .............................. 42 

McIntyre, Hon. Mike ........................................................................................ 40 

DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD: 

DOD Memorandum Regarding Acquisition Category (ACAT) II Designation for the Individual Carbine Capability (IC) and Designation of 

Milestone Decision Authority (MDA) .......................................................... 83 

WITNESS RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS ASKED DURING THE HEARING: 

Mr. McIntyre ..................................................................................................... 87 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS POST HEARING: 

Mr. Bartlett ....................................................................................................... 91 

Mr. Critz ............................................................................................................ 106 

Mrs. Roby .......................................................................................................... 104 

Mr. Wilson ......................................................................................................... 105 

(1) 

SOLDIER AND MARINE EQUIPMENT FOR DISMOUNTED 

OPERATIONS 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON SEAPOWER AND PROJECTION FORCES, Washington, DC, Thursday, March 17, 2011. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:34 a.m., in room 

2118, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Roscoe G. Bartlett 

(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM MARYLAND, CHAIRMAN, SUBCOMMITTEE ON TACTICAL AIR AND LAND FORCES 

Mr. BARTLETT. The Tactical Air and Land Forces Subcommittee 

meets today to receive testimony on Army and Marine Corps modernization programs for equipping the dismounted soldier and marine. 

The hearing today will provide the subcommittee with a better 

understanding of the holistic approach the Army and Marine Corps 

are using to effectively develop, coordinate on, and procure equipment used by the individual soldier and marine. 

As I mentioned in my opening statement during last week’s hearing on Army modernization programs, I believe the number one 

modernization priority is always the individual soldier and marine, 

and those programs should always be adequately resourced. 

I want to stress those same points today. There is no doubt that 

the equipment, body armor, and processes that our soldiers and 

marines have and use today are saving lives and has greatly improved during this past decade. I commend the witnesses before us 

today for the effort and hard work they have done in this area. 

I have often wondered, though, if we would have taken just five 

percent of what was spent on the now-terminated Future Combat 

Systems program and applied it to lessening the weight of what 

our soldiers carry, where would we be today? 

We can certainly appreciate the daunting task that our witnesses 

face in managing these programs. In the case of the Army, the 

PEO [Program Executive Office] Soldier manages approximately 

477 products and programs that are considered individual soldier 

equipment. However, according to Department of Defense criteria, 

none of these programs or products are considered to be a major 

defense acquisition program. 

This committee will always support continuing to enhance the individual soldier and marine’s capability and protection. However, 

the price we often pay is even more weight, which could impact individual performance. 
2 

Individual riflemen commonly carry in excess of 100 pounds of 

gear on all dismounted missions; some much more than that. Excessive equipment weight is a consistent complaint that we hear 

about when we talk to our deployed soldiers and marines. They 

say, make it lighter. Not surprisingly, we are also seeing an alarming number of muscular-skeletal noncombat injuries in our military 

hospitals that are placing more and more soldiers and marines in 

nondeployable status. 

It seems that for every good idea in weight reduction, there is a 

good idea for something new to hang on the soldiers, not to mention the problem of power, primarily batteries. In fact, some have 

used the analogy of a Christmas tree, where the soldier is the tree, 

and we keep hanging more and more gear on the soldier. 

From fiscal year 2011 through 2016, the Army has programmed over $2 billion for its Nett Warrior program; an ensemble program 

that consists of several components that are integrated into the 

network and will provide improved situational awareness and better understanding of the battlefield to the dismounted soldier. The 

Army expects this to translate into soldiers being at the right place 

at the right time with the right equipment, making them more effective, more lethal, and more survivable. However, this system 

adds at least 12 pounds to the soldier’s combat carrying load and 

requires at least two batteries per day. Does this added capability 

warrant the additional weight? 

So the question we hope to answer today is: How do we lighten 

the soldier and marine combat load, while also continuing to maximize the combat effectiveness and capability? 

We also expect to receive updates on the Army and Marine Corps 

body armor program, to include test and evaluation processes; current weight reduction initiatives; and the new joint Enhanced Combat Helmet, the ECH program. 

I understand the ECH is expected to significantly improve the 

ballistic protection capability from the current fielded helmet. I 

want to emphasize that ballistic protection is only one aspect that 

needs to be addressed regarding helmet capabilities. The other aspect, and just as significant, is protection from blast and blunt 

trauma, the primary cause of traumatic brain injury, which continues to be the most prevalent injury from operations in Iraq and 

Afghanistan. So we look forward to hearing today how the ECH 

will provide better protection from TBI [traumatic brain injury]. 

This hearing will also provide the opportunity to receive updates 

on the Army and Marine Corps small arms acquisition strategies 

to include the M4 carbine. I understand the Army is preparing to 

conduct a full and open competition for a new individual carbine 

that could potentially replace the existing M4 carbine. Among other 

things, we expect to learn the details of this competition. 

In the end, everything touches the individual soldier and marine 

and consequently impacts them. We must continue to provide them 

with the best possible equipment available. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Bartlett can be found in the Appendix on page 37.] 

Mr. BARTLETT. Before we begin, I would like to turn to my good 

friend and colleague from Texas, Silvestre Reyes, for opening remarks he may wish to make. 
3 

Mr. REYES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And thank you, gentlemen, for being here this morning. 

Mr. Chairman, I was at our border conference, and so I asked my 

good friend Mr. McIntyre to do the opening statement. He did a lot 

of preparation, so I feel bad taking it at this time. So, without objection, can I recognize him to make our opening statement? 

Mr. BARTLETT. Thank you for yielding your time to Mr. McIntyre 

for your opening statement. 

STATEMENT OF HON. MIKE MCINTYRE, A REPRESENTATIVE 

FROM NORTH CAROLINA, SUBCOMMITTEE ON TACTICAL AIR 

AND LAND FORCES 

Mr. MCINTYRE. Thank you, Mr. Reyes. 

First, I would like to thank our witnesses today for your service 

to our country. All of you, I know, have been directly involved in 

making sure that our soldiers and marines have the very best 

equipment, and firsthand, of course, know the very serious responsibility that that carries. 

Let me say, representing a congressional district that sits between Fort Bragg and Camp Lejeune, I also understand the great 

need to make sure that those men and women have everything 

that they need to serve our country. 

Thank you, Chairman Bartlett, for having a hearing focused on 

this very important concept and the concern that we have on how 

best we equip our men and women in uniform. 

The war in Afghanistan is often fought, we know, by small 

groups of soldiers and marines in very tough terrain, and they 

often fight outnumbered, so maximizing the capability for each one 

of them is essential. It is also the right thing to do, to make sure 

that none of our folks that are serving us, who have trained so well 

to defend and protect our country, should ever be without the proper equipment, but also be able to function with that equipment in 

a practical way that lets them be able to perform to the very best 

of their duty that they have sworn to do. 

Just as we want our tanks and our other vehicles to have a clear 

overmatch capability, we also want our individual soldiers and marines to have a big advantage, not to see a fair fight, but to see 

an overwhelming opportunity to overcome anything that may come 

their way. How we do that without giving the troops more and 

more equipment that weighs them down, quite literally, we know 

is a difficult challenge. 

The weapons, ammunition, the water, the food and the other 

items that a soldier and marine must carry in combat add up very 

quickly. Add to that the difficult terrain and weather conditions, 

especially in Afghanistan, and we know the task of figuring out the 

right balance becomes even tougher between what is necessary to 

carry into battle, yet what also can be lightened in some way or 

compacted in another way to make it more easily accessible and 

less strenuous when they are there to do their job. 

Of the many issues the Army and Marines are trying to deal 

with, two seem to stand out: First, providing protective body armor 

without making the load on a soldier or marine too heavy to be effective; secondly, how can we lighten that load of our own weapons, 

ammunition, and other gear without lessening the ability for an 
4 

overwhelming amount of firepower, or being able to carry out whatever other duty of combat may be required. If we can solve these 

two key issues, we will go a long way toward making our troops 

more effective than they already are. 

I look forward to learning more about the progress the Army and 

Marine Corps are making in this area. Thanks to you, and especially also thanks to those who are out serving even now. God bless 

you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Mr. Reyes. I yield back. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. McIntyre can be found in the Appendix on page 40.] 

Mr. BARTLETT. Thank you very much. 

We would like to welcome our witnesses. By the way, while listening to the testimony, you might look up on the screen. There 

you see the items that our soldiers carry. The lower left is the gunner, who carries 144 pounds. If you look down that list of things 

he carries, there is not one thing that I don’t think he needs to 

have, which adds up to 144 pounds. Clearly not everybody is a 

Hulk Hogan. We can’t all carry 144 pounds. We have got to do 

something to lessen that load. 

Our witnesses today are: Dr. David M. Markowitz, Director, Capabilities Integration, Prioritization, and Analysis, U.S. Army; 

Brigadier General Peter N. Fuller, Program Executive Officer, 

Soldier and Commanding General, Soldier Systems Center, U.S. 

Army. 

General Fuller, I understand this is probably your last appearance before our subcommittee, that you will be going to Afghanistan. Sir, you leave some really big shoes to fill. Your successor is 

going to have a real challenge keeping up. Thank you so much for 

what you have done for the soldier. 

Brigadier General Frank L. Kelley, Commander, Marine Corps 

Systems Command, U.S. Marine Corps; 

Brigadier General Daniel J. O’Donohue, Director, Capabilities 

Development Directorate, Combat Development and Integration, 

U.S. Marine Corps. 

We will proceed with the panel’s testimony and then go into 

questions. Without objection, all witnesses’ prepared statements 

will be included in the general record. 

Gentlemen, thank you for your service, and thank you for being 

with us today. 

Dr. Markowitz, would you please begin? 

STATEMENT OF DAVID M. MARKOWITZ, DIRECTOR, CAPABILITIES INTEGRATION, PRIORITIZATION, AND ANALYSIS, U.S. 

ARMY 

Mr. MARKOWITZ. Sir, thank you. 

Chairman Bartlett, Ranking Member Reyes, and distinguished 

members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you to discuss soldier requirements. My name is David 

Markowitz, and I am the Director of Capabilities Integration within the Army G3. The directorate is responsible for the review, validation and approval of material capabilities. 

Let me briefly overview trends in soldier requirements as theater 

has transitioned from urban mounted operations in Iraq to the 
5 

more dispersed, dismounted operations in Afghanistan. I will highlight five individual soldier capability areas. 

One, lethality. Broadly, soldiers in theater have been requesting 

lighter weapons that can effectively engage the enemy at the longer 

ranges seen in Afghanistan. Solutions across weapons, ammo, optics and soldier training. 

Two, protection. The Army continues to provide threat-based, 

customized ensembles of soldier body armor and protective equipment. Our initiative seeks to maintain the proper balance between 

enhancing protection while continuing to lighten the soldier’s load. 

Three, network. Dismounted and dispersed operations are placing increasing demand on getting the network down to the individual soldier. The network provides not only communications, but 

situational awareness, access to intelligence and support; everything our soldiers expect in the cellphone age. 

Four, intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance. In the counterinsurgency fight, it is imperative that forces are able to attain and 

use actionable intelligence at the lowest levels. We are fielding a 

wide range of capabilities from hand-held biometrics devices, signals intelligence, and unmanned vehicles such as Raven, a soldierportable air vehicle. 

Five, and finally, counter-IED [Improvised Explosive Device] 

electronic warfare. We are increasingly providing the soldier, individual soldier, counter-IED and electronic warfare devices, such as 

explosive analyzers and manned portable jamming equipment. 

These are capabilities we had not normally associated with the individual soldier. 

Sir, as you said in your opening comments, our greatest challenge is balancing these new, promising capabilities and soldier 

load. 

Thank you for your continued support to our soldiers. I look forward to further discussing these issues and answering your questions. Thank you. 

[The joint prepared statement of Mr. Markowitz and General 

Fuller can be found in the Appendix on page 42.] 

Mr. BARTLETT. Thank you very much. 

General Fuller. 

STATEMENT OF BG (P) PETER N. FULLER, USA, PROGRAM EXECUTIVE OFFICER, SOLDIER AND COMMANDING GENERAL, 

SOLDIER SYSTEMS CENTER, U.S. ARMY 

General FULLER. Thank you. Chairman Bartlett, Ranking Member Reyes, distinguished members of the subcommittee, on behalf 

of the Army, I, too, want to thank you for giving me the opportunity to appear before you so I can discuss what we are doing to 

support our soldiers. 

I also want to thank you for your continued support to the Army 

and to specifically PEO Soldier. You say I have big shoes to follow, 

or people are going to follow with big shoes, or however you said 

it, sir. But I didn’t do this. It is the team that did it; the soldiers 

that did it. I just represent them, and I appreciate that. 

Specifically with PEO Soldier, we have been striving to ensure 

that our soldiers are lethal, survivable and can operate in any envi-
6 

ronment, as you said. The well-being of our soldiers is our number 

one priority, as I know it is your priority. 

Less than two months ago, Staff Sergeant Giunta stood before 

you to receive the Congressional Medal of Honor for his selfless actions on October 25, 2007, while operating with his squad in Afghanistan. Prior to Sergeant Giunta’s deployment, PEO Soldier 

team fielded Sergeant Giunta and his unit with equipment. I submit to you that Sergeant Giunta was able to stand before you on 

that day in January because of our combined efforts to do what he 

needed and to provide what he needed to fight in Afghanistan. 

In November of 2006, Sergeant Giunta and his fellow soldiers received numerous pieces of equipment to ensure that they were lethal, survivable, and could operate in the environments of Afghanistan. Their gear include the M4 carbine, 40-millimeter grenade 

launchers, rifle optics to enhance their lethality, the Army Combat 

Helmet, the Outer Tactical Vest, which is our soft body armor, that 

had the Enhanced Small Arms Protective Inserts—there are hard 

plates inside—as well as ballistic eyewear. We provided this to 

them to enhance their survivability. 

They also received the PVS–14 Night Vision Device. Our climbing gear, cold weather gear, and a lot of other items were provided 

to them to ensure they could operate in Afghanistan. 

If Sergeant Giunta were to deploy today to Afghanistan, I believe 

that he would barely recognize some of the equipment we are now 

providing to our deploying soldiers. 

At this time I would like to introduce Staff Sergeant Will Corp. 

If Sergeant Giunta were to deploy to Afghanistan, he would be outfitted in the same kit that Sergeant Corp has. 

Just to let you know who Sergeant Corp is, he comes from Oklahoma. He enlisted in the Army in 1998 as a military police officer. 

Sergeant Corp is also a wounded warrior. While serving in Afghanistan—excuse me, in Iraq in 2006, in June of 2006, he was hit with 

an IED and had an amputation of his lower right leg. He then went 

to the Warrior Transition Unit, and then he came to support us at 

PEO Soldier. He allows us to have this feedback as to what do we 

need to do to ensure that our soldiers have feedback into the process to ensure we provide them the right kit. 

Ranking Member Reyes, he came from the 978th MP Unit out of 

Fort Bliss, Texas. I just wanted you to also know that. 

Let me just walk through what our soldiers are getting now 

when they go to Afghanistan. They still deploy with the M4, which 

Sergeant Corp has, but now they have our new 855A1 ammunition. 

It is an enhanced lethality round, optimized specifically to the M4. 

We have lighter body armor in our Improved Outer Tactical Vest. 

We didn’t make him wear all the equipment, but the vest is setting 

on the ground right next to him. It weighs 3 pounds less than what 

Sergeant Corp and also Sergeant Giunta would have deployed 

with. It has better fit, better load carrying, so the weight that the 

soldiers are wearing that you see on that slide is bettered distributed across their body. In addition—— 

Mr. BARTLETT. I would like to note, he is a very strong young 

man. He picked that up as if it were light. Please, after the hearing 

go down and pick it up if you are here. It is not light. 

Thank you. 
7 

General FULLER. Sir, we also have deployed now a light body 

armor plate carrier. It is 15 pounds lighter, and Sergeant Corp is 

wearing that. It just gives them the hard ballistic protection without all that additional weight. This lighter system was developed 

based on input we received from soldiers such as Sergeant Giunta 

and such as Sergeant Corp. The plate carrier allows our field commanders to better tailor their package and their protection to their 

specific mission. 

Soldiers going to Afghanistan now also deploy with a fire-resistant combat uniform and combat shirts, and they are pretreated 

with insect repellant. And they are also in a new camouflage pattern, which we call OCP, Operation Enduring Freedom camouflage 

pattern, which you see in this color. 

They also deploy with two pairs of mountain boots, and these 

boots are lighter than our previous combat boots. Even our machine gun is now lighter. It is 9 pounds lighter. Just to name a few 

items. 

Many of these items where improvements were made because of 

soldiers like Sergeant Giunta and also Sergeant Corp providing us 

feedback as to what needed to be improved so they can conduct 

their missions. Soldier feedback is essential, and one of the reasons 

that this PEO is the only PEO with a command sergeant major. 

And Sergeant Corp, please, take a seat. We don’t want you to 

stand the whole time here. Sorry. 

The command sergeant major is very important inside our PEO 

because he allows us to maintain contact with soldiers in the field, 

listening to what works, what doesn’t work, and what they really 

need to perform their mission. 

An example via the NCO [non-commissioned officer] channels 

that we have just received is that our soldiers want better groin 

protection against IED effects while operating in the dismounted 

mode. We are working through the requirements process with Dr. 

Markowitz and others; but at the same time we are rapidly providing several potential solutions to a number of our soldiers in Afghanistan for their evaluation. 

Although we believe we are providing soldiers with greatly improved kit, it does come with the added weight, as both you and 

Mr. McIntyre talked about. The weight in Afghanistan environment impacts both their physical and cognitive abilities. Regardless, we are continuing to strive to give our soldiers that decisive 

edge to ensure they are dominant on the battlefield. 

To this end, we have deployed a new weapon in limited numbers. 

It is the XM25. It is a counter defilade target engagement system. 

The XM25 is a capability that breaks parity during direct-fire engagements, and our soldiers are calling it ‘‘The Punisher.’’ With 

The Punisher, the enemy can no longer shoot at our soldiers and 

hide behind a wall or something to protect themselves from our 

counterfire. But again, it weighs 18 pounds. 

We are also trying to find new technologies to provide our soldiers with the same protection at a reduced weight. We know that 

Sergeant Giunta’s body armor worked as intended because it 

stopped enemy bullets twice, allowing him to continue his mission. 

But when you think about it, what we have done with our ballistic 

armor is we have taken something similar to your grandmother’s 
8 

china, wrapped it in Kevlar. And if you want more protection, we 

give you more china and more Kevlar, resulting in increased protection, but at a greater weight. 

To find a new lightweight technology, we now have two research 

and development lines dedicated in our fiscal year 2012 so we can 

focus specifically on soldier protection items. This will allow us that 

increased focus with these new lines. 

We believe that our soldiers in the operating environment benefit 

from knowing where are they, where are their friends, and where 

is the enemy. We have this capability, and it was very clear that 

when Sergeant Giunta was operating in October 2007, he would 

have liked this capability. He was trying to find his best friend Sergeant Brennan during the battle, and he had to look several places 

before he was able to determine that the Taliban was trying to separate Private Brennan—excuse me, Sergeant Brennan from his 

unit and trying to capture him. If Sergeant Giunta had this capability on that day, he would have known immediately not only 

where Sergeant Brennan was, but also where was the enemy. 

We have this capability today in limited quantities in Afghanistan. We call it Land Warrior. It provides unprecedented tactical 

awareness, as well as significant improvements in the soldiers’ 

lethality, survivability and sustainability for our dismounted soldiers. They can see their location, the location of the enemy, and 

exchange critical data with other friendly ground forces and also 

our Air Force. It allows our soldiers to have that decisive advantage. 

The next increment is called Nett Warrior, as you articulated. 

However, Land Warrior weighs 15 pounds; Nett Warrior weighs 12 

pounds. We still have not reduced the load of our soldier by taking 

12 pounds off them as we provided them this new capability. We 

are challenged to maintain this new high-tech capability when all 

soldiers want something like this on the battlefield, but we understand that Nett Warrior allows us to have that essential step along 

the path of getting our dismounted soldiers into the network. It is 

allowing us to facilitate the technology, the security and capability 

trades that will be necessary to get our dismounted soldiers at a 

lightweight capability. We are going to also look at the commercial 

industry and try to leverage their technologies. 

I once heard someone mention that we had many ‘‘centers of excellence’’ within the Army and the Department of Defense. Within 

PEO Soldier, we are striving to better communicate and collaborate 

across these centers of excellence, something that is critically important, because when one realizes at the end everything, as you 

said, touches or involves our soldier. 

The Army has made great strides, but we are not resting on our 

laurels, and I challenge this committee and I challenge our nation 

to stay focused on our soldiers and their equipment as future difficult fiscal decisions are debated and implemented. 

The centerpiece of the Army is its soldiers. My basic branch in 

the Army was armor, and I always thought that the tank and its 

other combat vehicles was the primary purpose of the Army. I soon 

realized when I was riding around in those tanks with my crew 

that the purpose of the Army and the strength of the Army is the 

soldier, not the big-ticket platforms. So I ask you to remember the 
9 

soldier is not an accessory on these big-ticket platforms. The soldier 

is the purpose of those platforms. 

Chairman Bartlett, Representative Reyes, distinguished members of the subcommittee, I want to take a moment to thank you 

on behalf of the men and women in uniform for all of your strong 

support to the Army, and also the strong support that you have 

provided to PEO Soldier. It has been an honor to serve with such 

professional soldiers, and it has been an honor for me to represent 

them in appearing before you. 

And as you said, this could be my last time I appear before you 

in my position as PEO Soldier. I soon will be wearing the exact 

same equipment that Sergeant Corp has that we field to the soldiers. I have complete confidence in its ability to make sure that 

I am lethal, survivable, and can operate in the Afghanistan environment. As you said, I am deploying to Afghanistan in the summer to work on General Petraeus’ staff. 

It is with my sincere thanks that I commend you and your professional staff on your unwavering support to the soldier. I thank 

you again, and I look forward to your questions. 

[The joint prepared statement of General Fuller and Mr. 

Markowitz can be found in the Appendix on page 42.] 

Mr. BARTLETT. Thank you very much, sir. 

General Kelley. 

STATEMENT OF BRIG. GEN. FRANK L. KELLEY, USMC, COMMANDER, MARINE CORPS SYSTEMS COMMAND, U.S. MARINE 

CORPS; AND BRIG. GEN. DANIEL J. O’DONOHUE, USMC, DIRECTOR, CAPABILITIES DEVELOPMENT DIRECTORATE, 

COMBAT DEVELOPMENT & INTEGRATION, U.S. MARINE 

CORPS 

General KELLEY. Chairman Bartlett, Ranking Member Reyes, 

and distinguished members of the subcommittee, thank you for this 

opportunity to discuss the capabilities we have developed and are 

pursing to ensure our marines are effective, survivable and expeditionary on the battlefield. 

Our job is to develop capability, provide equipment, and integrate 

this throughout and beyond the MAGTF [Marine Air Ground Task 

Force]. We do that from the perspective that your Marine Corps is 

a strategically mobile, middleweight force, optimized for forward 

presence, and rapid-crisis response. 

Our priorities are our Commandant’s priorities. We will continue 

to provide the best trained and equipped marines in Afghanistan. 

We will rebalance our corps and posture it for the future. We will 

educate and train our marines to succeed in an increasingly complex environment, and we will keep faith with our marines, our 

sailors, and our families. 

Our job is accomplished by orienting on the individual marine, 

the focal point of our corps. Our goal is to give that marine the 

equipment and confidence to accomplish his or her mission successfully. A marine’s mission is not achieved as an individual, but as 

an integrated unit. The United States Marine Corps is America’s 

expeditionary force in readiness, task-organized as a Marine AirGround Task Force. The expeditionary ethos drives the way we organize our forces, train, develop, and equip. 
10 

To be a middleweight expeditionary force, our equipment must be 

lightweight, scalable and integrated. Our effort in lightening the 

MAGTF is an intentional, deliberate, disciplined and measured response aimed at reducing the size, weight and energy required by 

the individual rifleman. 

Our Commandant has recently stated that we have captured 

overhead efficiencies and savings by focusing on the following efforts: buying smarter through acquiring more intelligently; working 

closely and collaboratively with our Army counterparts; and 

streamlining our own operations. 

A tremendous example in our quest to be more efficient and effective is captured in the way that we use and produce energy. 

Your Marine Corps is committed to finding ways to be more energy 

efficient. And since 2009, we have aggressively pursued efficient 

energy capabilities that will make marines self-sufficient, increase 

our combat effectiveness, and protect lives. 

One program in particular that has contributed to lightening the 

load of the combat marine is the Solar-Powered Alternative Energy 

Solution, or SPAES. On the individual marine, over a dozen batteries in six different configurations are used at any given time. 

Centralizing power, standardizing that power, and reliably distributing that power has the potential to reduce the reliance upon multiple types of batteries that are currently used in systems and carried in significant quantities as spares, not to mention the environmental impacts in waste regarding disposal. 

Solar panels have been fielded to squads as a reusable energy 

source for rechargeable batteries. 3rd Battalion, 5th Marines, 

under the command of Lieutenant Colonel Jason Morris, is currently deployed to Operation Enduring Freedom and is using 

SPAES. We have received feedback from theater that patrols are 

leaving the FOBs [Forward Operating Bases] and patrol bases for 

2- to 3-week periods, currently 3–5, using SPAES with the benefit 

of carrying fewer batteries. Typically, a platoon leaving the FOB 

for that period of time would be required to carry a 2- to 3-week 

supply of batteries. Through the employment of SPAES, that requirement has been reduced to 2 to 3 days. 

Lightening the load is a total Marine effort. It is on the mind of 

every marine and civilian in our corps, an imperative issued by our 

Commandant. We actively seek and listen and take input and advice from deployed marines in the field, from marines participating 

in exercises or attending our schoolhouses. We even take information and guidance from marines who are awaiting a haircut at the 

Quantico barbershop. 

A few weeks ago I overheard two marines discussing helmets 

while they were waiting for their haircut. It was a professional and 

informed discussion. Later I received this from Sergeant Paul 

Downs, who now works at MCIA [Marine Corps Intelligence Activity] on our base at Quantico, and he summarized our conversation 

as follows, and he felt compelled to just send me the e-mail straight 

out. 

He wrote: Sir, in my experience with the MICH/ACH [Modular 

Integrated Communications Helmet/Advanced Combat Helmet] helmet, when compared with current PASGT [Personnel Armor System for Ground Troops], it excels in multiple areas. One of the big-
11 

gest issues of the PASGT is how it integrates with current body 

armor. While in the prone position, during squat or buddy rushes, 

the PASGT, because of its bulky size, shoves forward over the eyes 

and takes away precious seconds of suppressive fire to fix. The 

MICH/ACH does not have this problem. Also, the MICH/ACH is 

lighter and uses a more comfortable suspension system. 

In my experience of leading marines, the number one reason that 

they remove their helmets is discomfort. The MICH/ACH helmet 

solves these issues. 

I believe Sergeant Downs would agree that we are on the right 

path, and we will continue to help marines travel lighter and move 

faster through a reduction in size and the amount of equipment 

and dependence on bulk supplies. 

We rely on men like Sergeant Downs to thank and inform critically. 

Your invitation asked us to help you better understand marine 

equipment for dismounted operations. To do that, I briefly mentioned some efforts and options on our equipment. And I have also 

refreshed your insight into how we are organized for mission success and the priorities of our Commandant. 

I would like you to know before all else, though, before we see 

the marine as a system, before we look at the equipment, we see 

the marine. We never lose sight of the individual marine. I have 

often visited the fifth deck of the Naval Medical Facility out at Bethesda, most recently on March 4. I get a chance to talk to the marines while I am there, and we talk about where they are from, 

how they landed in the hospital bed. We talk about what is next, 

and we talk about the gear that saved their life. Mothers, fathers, 

wives and the marines themselves thank us. 

Our work is enduring and far from over. And with your continued support, we will continue to protect our marines. Thank you. 

[The joint prepared statement of General Kelley and General 

O’Donohue can be found in the Appendix on page 61.] 

Mr. BARTLETT. Thank you very much. 

General O’Donohue. 

General O’DONOHUE. Mr. Chairman, we just have one statement 

for the Marines. I am prepared to answer questions as we go, sir. 

Mr. BARTLETT. Thank you all very much for your service and for 

your statements. As is generally my policy, I will reserve my comments and questions until after all of the other members of the 

subcommittee have had an opportunity to make their comments 

and ask their questions. 

I turn now to my friend and colleague, the ranking member, Mr. 

Reyes. 

Mr. REYES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you, gentlemen, for being here. 

And, Sergeant Corp, thank you for your service and sacrifice you 

have made and your family has made on our behalf. I hope you feel 

free to take that off, because I am a little warm, and I am just 

wearing a civilian coat here. So please don’t hesitate to take that 

off. 

I have one question which may be basic, and there is probably 

good reason for this, but in Afghanistan—I just came back about 

a month ago—in Afghanistan, the Army standard individual weap-
12 

on is the M4 carbine. The Marines, in contrast, use the M16A4. 

And I was wondering why don’t we standardize the weapons? Why 

can’t both services use the same type of weapon? Are there individual requirements that favor one over the other based on the 

services? I will wait for your answer there. 

General FULLER. Sir, the Army also has M16A4s in its inventory. 

It has basically 600,000 M16s in the inventory and about 500,000 

M4s. The M4s were brought into the field because our soldiers, especially in a close-combat fight, saw that they needed a shorter 

weapon. 

If you see what Sergeant Corp has, that is an M4. It gives you 

an adjustable butt stock. It has a five-inch shorter barrel than the 

M16. So it is more optimized for coming out of a vehicle or operating in a vehicle with a shorter weapon so you can better engage, 

and also while you are in dismounted operations. 

We work very closely with the Marines, and I will let General 

Kelley talk about that piece of it. But we work very closely with 

the Marines. As we look at our new individual carbine competition, 

we are sharing all of that information with the Marine Corps and 

with General Kelley’s team. So we both have the same kind of 

weapon, the same types of weapons, and we just have more of them 

from the perspective that we have more infantry, and that is where 

our primary M4s are going, into our infantry formations. 

General O’DONOHUE. Sir, the primary weapon, service weapon, 

for the Marine Corps is the M16A4. We also have a combination 

of M4s to fit the mission profiles briefed by General Fuller. 

We have a different mission profile than the Army, which results 

in a different combination of equipment and requirements for both 

the dismounted marine and also for vehicles. We put a premium 

on range, marksmanship, and dismounted operations. We also use 

and employ the M4 for close combat and for missions and for marines who have the confines of vehicles. 

Again, our focus is on the infantryman, and we design the vehicles around the infantrymen, and that includes the M16A4 for the 

advantages of range and accuracy. 

Mr. REYES. Thank you. 

That brings me to the second part of my question, and that is that for fiscal year 2012, the Army is requesting $8.5 million to 

begin a competition for a new individual carbine. At the same time, 

the Army has requested $35 million to buy new M4 carbines and 

an additional $41.8 million to upgrade the M4s that you already 

have in inventory. 

To me, it seems unusual in that—at least I have not heard—and 

in talking to the soldiers and marines, there don’t appear to be any 

problems with the current weapons. Is this just a modernization effort by the Army, and perhaps the Marines as well, in putting out 

for competition—is it the next generation that will replace the M4, 

or can you explain that to us? 

General FULLER. Yes, sir, I can. Currently we have, as I said, 

500,000 M4s in our inventory. There is an ability to improve that 

capability, and we call it the M4A1. It gives you a heavier barrel. 

A heavier barrel to the field means you can increase your sustained 

rate of fire, and you won’t have any type of issues associated with 

the barrel overheating. 
13 

When you receive an M4A1 carbine, you also receive the fully 

automatic mode. So now soldiers can engage not only with a shortround burst, but a fully automatic, so they can pull the trigger, as 

you are probably aware. We have not had that in our weapons. 

So we are taking our fleet of 500,000 M4s, and we are going to 

upgrade 140,000 of them to this M4A1 configuration, which is 

where you see the funding associated. We want to continue to improve the M4, not necessarily associated with a complaint or a 

challenge that the field is having, but we want to continue to refresh that technology. Is there a better way to provide them the 

way the weapon operates? Can we provide them a different operating system so the barrel, the bolt, the firing mechanism, we give 

them ambidextrous, because we don’t have ambidextrous controls 

right now. So that is what you see. 

We have made 63 improvements to the M4 since it was first was 

fielded into the force in 1991, and this is just another iteration of 

improvements. While we improve those 500,000 M4s, we want to 

see through a full and open competition is there something better 

available for our soldiers? And that is what this competition will 

be doing for our individual carbine. 

At the end of that competition, we are going to evaluate the products that are available against our M4 and make a business case 

decision within the Army, is there something better? And is it substantially better and worth the investment to make an investment 

into a new, modern, or a different carbine, which we call the individual carbine? 

So I hope that explains it. We want to improve our current fleet 

while at the same time looking at is there something else also 

available. 

Mr. REYES. General Kelley or General O’Donohue? 

General KELLEY. I will just echo what General O’Donohue said, 

that the M16A4 remains our primary weapon. But we have also enjoyed a close working relationship with the Army. It has been very 

open in terms of what they are pursuing. And at this particular 

time, on the acquisition side of the house, sir, we are monitoring 

what the Army is doing with the M4. 

General O’DONOHUE. Sir, just to follow up on that, on the requirement side, again, with the M16A4 as seen in the context of 

we build the Marine Corps on the rifle squad, so to look at a weapon, to compare the Army’s M4 with the M16A4 and service rifle to 

service rifle would be a better comparison than what we are looking at, the M4. 

Also in the context of the rifle squad, we have the Infantry Automatic Rifle that is just being fielded. It is a significant decrease in 

weight both in the weapon itself and the ammunition. It replaces 

accuracy for volume in terms of suppression. 

So if you look at the balance within the squad and the mix between the Infantry Automatic Rifle, the M16A4 and the carbine, 

which we use for more specialized purposes, that is how we derive 

the mix. So, again, we are monitoring the M4, but we have a different mix of weapons which give a different context and calculus 

to how we view the carbine. 

Mr. REYES. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 
14 

Mr. BARTLETT. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Wilson. 

Mr. WILSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I want to thank all of you for being here today. I am particularly 

grateful. I represent Fort Jackson, Parris Island, so I am very 

grateful. Also, I have four sons in the military, and, Sergeant, my 

oldest two sons served in Iraq, and so we appreciate your service. 

And then I, too, served for 31 years in Army National Guard, and 

I appreciate your diagram of uniforms, because this is me. I was 

at the National Training Center in 2001, and so I recognize this 

equipment. Of course, many people would recognize it now in a museum. 

But the point is that you all really are providing the best equipment for the people protecting our country and our freedoms. We 

want the best equipment, and I appreciate you expediting as new 

innovations come about. This is just so helpful. 

Back on the carbine, which obviously is of interest to all of us, 

and I want to join with my longtime friend Congressman Reyes on 

this, and that is with the future of the M4, has there been an analysis of alternatives as you are initiating the competition, General 

Fuller? 

General FULLER. Sir, actually there would be two parts. If Dr. 

Markowitz would answer the first part, then I will follow up. 

Mr. MARKOWITZ. Sir, my office was responsible for considering 

the need for analysis of alternatives and actually wrote a waiver 

request to Dr. O’Neill, the acquisition executive within the Army. 

I did that really based upon two important considerations. One was 

the Army’s Training and Doctrine Command had just completed a 

very comprehensive capabilities-based assessment looking at overall small arms. It provided much of the spadework you would normally associate with an analysis of alternatives, identifying what 

was the need of the actual carbine itself, its key performance parameters and key system attributes, as well as the desired need. 

Additionally, working closely with our acquisition brethren, we 

looked at what is the additional information needed to complete 

this type of assessment. Most of the additional information we 

needed really had to come from industry and more detailed testing 

of what was available out there. 

It was then my call to make a choice of did I want to have an 

analysis of alternatives without that industrial information, or 

waive this initial assessment, start the acquisition process, and do 

a more detailed assessment of what was out there and, with that 

more informed information, make the decision. 

So my recommendation to the acquisition executive was to waive 

the formal AOA [analysis of alternatives] and really do in some 

ways a more comprehensive analysis based upon actual information from what is truly available from industry. 

I will leave it to General Fuller to explain how the acquisition 

process will complement and get that type of information we need 

for an intelligent decision. 

General FULLER. Representative Wilson, you are asking why 

didn’t we do an AOA up front, and as Dr. Markowitz said, we are 

going to be doing this AOA, but we are going to be calling it a business case analysis. Let us take real products that are provided 
15 

through this full and open competition through an evaluation process. At the end we have real information, and we take that and we 

then do the business case analysis, which is really your analysis of 

alternatives to our M4A1 and M4 capability. The M4A1 will go 

through that exact same evaluation process so we ensure that we 

have sufficient data on exactly what is the capability that we have, 

and is this better, and why is it better. 

So we are defining exactly what our criteria is for this business 

case analysis so we know what good is and what is better and how 

are we going to do this evaluation. This evaluation will be done at 

the end of the competition. It will provide you that AOA analysis. 

I think it is a prudent way to really provide our soldiers and our 

other stakeholders, like yourselves, as to why we made an informed 

decision as to did we buy another new weapon, or did we not, and 

here is why. 

Mr. WILSON. This is encouraging, but I also want to verify that 

it is not going to be just based on the lowest bidder. It should be 

a combination of quality, cost with lifecycle included and manufacturing capability. Does that fit into what you are doing? 

General FULLER. Yes, sir. Absolutely. As a matter of fact, when 

we go through the evaluation process of our individual carbine competition, it is a multiphased effort. It is production capacity. It is 

whether or not we receive our government purpose rights so we can 

then take that government purpose rights and allow other vendors 

to come forward and build that if we want to increase our rates of 

production. It is the evaluation of the life cycle costs, the 

sustainment costs, how well it maintains accuracy. There are a lot 

of different elements associated with that. 

Mr. WILSON. And final question. Is this included in the fiscal 

year 2012 budget as to the proposal request? Does the continuing 

resolution have any effect, Dr. Markowitz or General Fuller? 

General FULLER. Sir, the continuing resolution does not have an 

impact currently on our M4 or our individual carbine efforts because we had a funding line previously. So this is not a new start, 

which would have impacted it. But it could impact us in the future 

if we continue in this manner, but it currently does not. 

Mr. WILSON. Would it be included in fiscal year 2012? 

General FULLER. Yes, sir. It will be included in fiscal year 2012 

and also fiscal year 2013. The competition will run through 2013, 

with a decision made in fiscal year 2013. 

Mr. WILSON. Thank you very much. 

Mr. BARTLETT. Thank you. 

Mr. McIntyre. 

Mr. MCINTYRE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

General Kelley, the Enhanced Combat Helmet, I know you state 

on page 8 of your testimony, and I quote, ‘‘is an example of the Marine Corps’ efforts to provide greater protection at approximately 

the same or less weight as the currently fielded lightweight helmet.’’ And then over on page nine you state that ‘‘the ECH is a collaborative effort between the Army, Navy and Marine Corps, with 

the Marine Corps acting as the program manager lead.’’ 

Could you tell me what is the schedule for the Enhanced Combat 

Helmet and when you expect to begin fielding this helmet specifically in Afghanistan? 
16 

General KELLEY. Sir, December 23 of 2010, sir, we gave the program manager for the ECH the Milestone C decision authority to 

go—to produce helmets for first article test. The first article test 

started in February. It will end in about 2 weeks, sir. Then we are 

anticipating fielding most probably in the first quarter of 2012, sir. 

Mr. MCINTYRE. Is that pretty much following on schedule? 

General KELLEY. What we have been noticing in first article tests 

most recently, sir, is some different performance than what we 

have noticed in DT [Developmental Testing]. We believe now that 

we have identified the root cause of the ECH helmet problem that 

we are seeing in the first article test right now. It occurs during 

the curing and paint process. 

Normally when that helmet is developed, it will set on the shelf, 

and it will gas off. It will release air essentially and some water 

vapor, and then it will go through the curing process. That was as 

the process was originally intended from manufacturing. 

In order to accelerate that process, bring the helmets, make them 

available more quickly, they increased the temperature at an earlier stage. So what we are noticing, that is changing the matrix, 

so to speak. We believe that we have identified what the problem 

is here. 

What that might do for us, sir, is that we will evaluate the data 

in the next two weeks. We will probably need to do some additional 

testing. That might add about 45 to 60 days. That will probably 

start in the June timeframe. We are preparing to see what that 

will do as we cross the fiscal year. But we still believe that because 

our folks have been able to identify—and, by the way, we have 

been working with the Army on this. I think we all agree that we 

have identified the root cause and have a way ahead. So I would 

say the first quarter of fiscal year 2012 looks reasonable. 

Mr. MCINTYRE. I would ask both of you to just to simply answer 

yes or no, and if the answer is no, why. Is the wearing of body 

armor ever optional in theater? 

General FULLER. Sir, I believe it is no, but I will get that—I don’t 

manage what happens downrange. We can get this officially for you 

on the record. I believe it is no. We give them options, and they 

can scale their body armor, but I don’t believe they are not allowed 

to not wear body armor in the combat zone. We will get that for 

the record. 

[The information referred to can be found in the Appendix on 

page 87.] 

Mr. MCINTYRE. If you would in the next 10 business days. 

General, in the Marine Corps, is it ever optional? 

General O’DONOHUE. Sir, for commanders, lieutenant colonel and 

above, they have the option to modify the protective posture of the 

marines according to mission terrain, weather, and the like. It is 

not optional to the marine, but the commander will look at the mission profile. In fact, our aim throughout this is to give the most options to the commander so he can tailor his protection according to 

mission where mobility gives more survivability. That would be a 

case where he might want to scale down from the full modular tactical vest to a plate carrier, would be one example, sir. 

Mr. MCINTYRE. The last part of my question: Are there adequate 

inventories of body armor available for training and combat oper-
17 

ations in the Army and in the Marine Corps? If each of you would 

answer are there adequate inventories or not? 

General FULLER. Within the Army, yes, sir. When we have our 

soldiers training prior to deployment, we provide them the body 

armor that they would be wearing in Iraq or Afghanistan, wherever their deployment is, and we also give them the hard ballistic 

plates. So they wear the full complement, get used to it, loaded the 

way that they are going to be wearing it when they deploy. 

Because I talked about the grandmother’s china wrapped in 

Kevlar, we ensure that that ballistic plate is still going to provide 

you the desired protection, and you haven’t cracked it during your 

training. And we X-ray the plates prior to the soldier’s deployment. 

We also X-ray them midtour during their operations. So we are 

constantly checking the inventory of our plates to ensure that the 

soldiers have high-quality body armor, and they have high confidence in it. But the objective is give them the capability—we have 

sufficient capability—before they deploy so they can train with it. 

Mr. MCINTYRE. Thank you. 

General. 

General KELLEY. The answer is, yes, sir. I can’t improve on anything that General Fuller set out, but I also want to say that we 

give the marines the gear that they need to exercise that option, 

the armor protective levels that Brigadier General O’Donohue discussed. 

We also work with the Army in terms of monitoring each other’s 

inventory just to make sure that in case if there is ever a shortage, 

that we would be able to support each other. But we go through 

the same process in terms of issuing and also checking the gear 

when a marine comes out of theater. 

Mr. MCINTYRE. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

General FULLER. And, sir, they are the exact same plates between the Army and the Marine Corps and the Air Force. So we 

all have the exact same plates. 

Mr. BARTLETT. Thank you very much. 

You heard the bells go off. We will recess for some votes when 

we have about 5 minutes remaining. There will be time for at least 

one more series of questions. 

As required by the rules of our committee, those who were 

present at gavel fall will be recognized for questions in order of seniority, rotating between Democrat and Republican. For those who 

appeared in committee after gavel fall, they are recognized in the 

order of the time of their appearance at the committee, which 

means that Ms. Tsongas is our next questioner. 

Ms. TSONGAS. Thank you. You know, I grew up in the Air Force, 

and one of the things I learned was to be on time. Occasionally it 

falls to our benefit. 

I want to thank you all for being here today. 

General Fuller, it is a great pleasure to see you. I am sad to 

learn that this will probably be your last testimony, but I know you 

will serve General Petraeus in Afghanistan very, very well. I look 

forward to seeing you there and hope for your safe return. 

I would like to engage just in a little bit of pride of place. General Fuller, you and I took a tour of Natick, the Soldiers System 
18 

Center in Natick. It is not in my district, but not too far, and near 

the birthplace of our Nation’s Army. I greatly enjoyed our visit 

there and learning about the research that has been conducted at 

this one-of-a-kind facility that treats the soldier as a system. 

Massachusetts is also home to some of the most significant defense technology companies and as a cluster in the country. My district in particular has some remarkably innovative companies that 

do a lot of work around protecting the soldier, and much of it is 

making its way into all of the advances that we see here. 

But the issue of body armor and its weight remains a great one. 

I was a new Member of Congress when I first came to this committee and heard testimony on the challenge of body armor weight. 

I asked a young soldier, who I believe, General Fuller, you had 

with you, if he was ever tempted to take off his body armor, and 

he replied, ‘‘Yes, indeed.’’ So the commanders do have flexibility in 

the field, and I am sure that they are challenged often by those 

men and women they are overseeing to take it off. 

But the issue of oversight has been a great one, and in the language in the fiscal year 2007 Defense Authorization Act, the President established a separate, dedicated budget line item for body 

armor, to improve research, development and procurement of it. 

And it was a great step in ensuring that the Defense Department 

focuses on this issue and allows us to provide better oversight. 

I have two questions, and if we can’t get to a full answer, maybe 

on return. 

The Army is now approximately 14 percent female. How are your 

efforts, which I know you are working on with the Air Force, to research and develop more comfortable body armor for women progressing? 

I will get to my second question if there is time. 

General FULLER. Yes, ma’am. As you said, one size does not fit 

all within the Army. Fourteen percent of our force is women. We 

are, on the uniform side, actually developing a female-cut uniform. 

We are going through the evaluations of that right now. 

On the body armor, what we have done when I talk about our 

new, Improved Outer Tactical Vest, we are in the second generation of it. It actually gives you more adjustments for our smallerstature individuals in the military, such as women that might 

sometimes be of smaller stature. So we recognize that we need to 

do something, so that we have done it with the soft body armor 

having better adjustments for women, so when you adjust it, your 

side plates, for example, don’t come all of the way around to the 

front by the time you have got the adjustment correct on your side. 

In terms of the hard plates, we are looking at the technology, but 

there is still difficulties trying to get a more conformal hard-plate 

body armor available. The physics associated with trying to have 

the body armor work in a complex shape is just a bridge too far 

right now. We are working it, we are researching it. We are looking 

at is there a better way that we could interface. Can we provide 

some undergarment to our women that allows them to better interface the body armor to their body size and types? We are working 

through that also. 

It is a challenge. One size can’t fit all, we recognize that, but we 

don’t have an answer at this time other than our soft body armor, 
19 

which now has better adjustments, and our female uniforms, which 

are in evaluation right now. 

Ms. TSONGAS. Are you collecting any data around the impact of 

just sort of the current, sort of standard body armor and its capacity to protect women versus—and the need, sort of undergirding 

the need to move ahead on developing body armor that is adaptive 

to women, better suited to their body types? 

General FULLER. Ma’am, we don’t collect specifically data on 

women. We collect data on all of our soldiers to include the women. 

So I would say we don’t have any specific data associated, but we 

can subcategorize that. I can provide for the record any data that 

we have concerning the collection of information. 

But we recognize that it is a challenge. We are looking at it. As 

I said, we haven’t figured out how to conform the hard-plate armor 

and provide that ballistic protection that the soldiers require, regardless of whether they are man or woman. But we are looking 

at that action. 

Ms. TSONGAS. Well, I would suggest that you collect women-specific data just simply to drive the urgency of the need to focus on 

research and development in this area. 

I don’t know if I have a time for another question or if we need 

to go vote. 

Mr. BARTLETT. We will do a second round of questions. Thank 

you very much for your questions. 

Mr. Runyan, we have 6 minutes and 51 seconds remaining. 

Mr. RUNYAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I thank everybody for coming out and answering some questions. 

My background personally is very athletic, and I have some, as 

we all—we have concerns of weight and being mobile. My experience is, and I think in my past career in the NFL [National Football League], we have stripped all of the pads off. And I think a 

lot of soldiers would agree with that that it is easier to move without all of that on there. 

Where is the threshold; do you know? When we weigh these soldiers down, when do these injuries set in, the arthritic knees, the 

backs? That is something I have experienced in my past life, and 

I am just curious if there is that data out there. 

General FULLER. Sir, I understand what you are talking about, 

and as you just identified, there are a lot of different sizes of individuals. You or I might be able to carry more weight for a longer 

period of time, but it might have a more residual effect on us. 

We are looking at this information. I would say we are really trying to do a better job of systems engineering at the individual soldier level. We recognize we do great jobs when we do systems engineering on platforms, and we have treated the soldier, as Representative Bartlett said, as a Christmas tree, and we just hang 

things on our soldiers. We recognize we can’t do that. We have to 

do a better job of doing the system engineering, understanding 

what are the physiological challenges associated with adding more 

kit, regardless of its capability, and the impact it will have on our 

soldiers’ ability. 

As you recognize, once you start getting tired, your cognitive 

scale sometimes starts to become diminished at the same time, and 

that is not what you really want in a combat environment. So we 
20 

don’t have specific information other than we are now thinking 

about this more holistically. What do we need to do to provide capability to the individual soldier, and what is that weight doing to 

that individual soldier, and understand the physiology associated 

with that. 

At the same time, as we heard General O’Donohue talk about, 

we are looking at how do we start thinking of a unit instead of just 

an individual soldier. When I talk about Sergeant Giunta, Sergeant 

Giunta was not operating as an individual. He was in a squad inside a fire team inside a platoon. We are looking at small tactical 

units. Can we distribute some of this capability across a unit? 

What are the risks and the advantages so we don’t weigh down everybody with the same exact capability, but distribute capability 

across the unit? 

Mr. RUNYAN. Thank you, because also relating to that, and relating to wear and tear and also injuries leading to that, it becomes 

a fiscal problem in the end if you have to rehab soldiers, or they 

are being disabled or being taken out of service. It is really something I think we really do have to address. I appreciate your answer on the last question. 

I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. BARTLETT. Thank you. We will recess now for the vote and 

be back as soon as we can. Thank you. 

[Recess.] 

Mr. BARTLETT. Our subcommittee will reconvene. Mr. Critz. 

Mr. CRITZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, gentlemen, for 

your testimony today. 

I guess there is, I think, congratulations in order. When will it 

be official you will be Major General? 

General FULLER. I hope it would be very soon, but it looks like 

June or July time period. 

Mr. CRITZ. Well, congratulations. 

My questions revolve around the sniper, counter sniper. Looking 

back through some information from years past, then Major General Petraeus was talking about sniper detection as a sufficient deficiency in 2003. Then Vice Chief of Staff of the Army Cody made 

counter sniper a priority in the spring of 2006. 

So my question is, Dr. Markowitz, has the Army approved the requirement for soldier wearable sniper detection devices yet? 

Mr. MARKOWITZ. Sir, that is a good question. 

Mr. CRITZ. Sounds like a no. 

Mr. MARKOWITZ. No, no. We are still exploring it is the short answer, and let me give some, if I can, a little bit of background. 

Mr. CRITZ. It was brought up in 2003. It is now 2011. 

Mr. MARKOWITZ. Sir, the counter sniper, when it was initially 

brought up, was very broad counter sniper concerns. We immediately started to do some TTP, or tactics, techniques, procedures 

changes and soldier training on our counter sniper, both avoidance 

and how to minimize the effects. 

Very shortly after introduction of the TTP change, counter sniper 

casualties went dramatically down in Iraq. At the same time we 

started to field counter sniper technologies across the board, both 

providing vehicle-borne counter sniper gunshot detection systems 

that could identify where we put more remote mounted weapons 
21 

systems so soldiers wouldn’t be exposed. We have expanded into 

areas like mannequins and decoys, various forms of deception devices, with several lessons learned across the piece. Those that 

have generally succeeded we have kept, including vehicle-mounted 

gunshot detection. We started to field a fixed site gunshot detection. That is very valuable. In fact, the Pentagon has just had that 

series of systems put around the boomerang projects. Individual 

gunshot detection has always been an area that has been the highest challenge, for a few reasons. One is it is weight for the soldier, 

which we have had some of the discussion today as one of our 

greatest challenge areas. 

Mr. CRITZ. Right. 

Mr. MARKOWITZ. Battery usage for its reliability throughout extended mission has been an issue we need to do. We fielded a system a year and a half ago. We had an ATEC assessment of it, 

Army Test and Evaluation Center, forward operating assessment. 

Overall, the feedback was negative of this initial version in that it 

had a lot of false positive rate for identification. When a fire occurred and soldiers went prone, they lost direction about where the 

shots had come from. 

We initiated then a new operational needs statement, because we 

are interested in getting this technology developed and out in the 

field. That next generation has gone through the competition. 

Maybe General Fuller can talk about the status of the acquisition. 

In terms of the requirement, we are really looking forward to seeing how this next generation performs in Afghanistan. We want to 

make sure that we balance the weight and the capability systems 

well so that we don’t ask for something that is too impossible to 

do or impose too much of a weight load on the soldier or battery 

load. So we will have to see how this next generation performs in 

Afghanistan. We are refining the requirement to our delivery systems so we can field it across the Army. Once we get that information, then we will start forward with a more deliberate requirement. But we are not stopping in terms of getting capability to our 

soldiers in the field. 

Mr. CRITZ. The reason I bring it up, too, is that the Army put 

a request in the fiscal year 2009 emergency supplemental, and that 

was funded at—I am trying to think—13,500 detection devices 

were awarded a contract in 2010, but it was based on an fiscal year 

2009 emergency supplemental of $50 million that was appropriated 

in June of 2009. So I guess the contract took 13–15 months to get 

awarded on a fiscal year 2009 emergency supplemental request? I 

am trying to get to where it took so long to get, one, from when 

a need was identified to where we are under contract as of October 

of 2010? 

General FULLER. Yes, soldiers do want a dismountable or a gunshot detection system that they can wear when they are dismounted. We have that capability. When you talk about the fiscal 

year 2009 funding, we went through the rapid equipment force and 

bought a small number right off the shelf of this capability and got 

it immediately into the field. Then we wanted to do a full and open 

competition to allow other vendors to come forward. That did take 

longer than we wanted. We did get through full and open competition with that capability. The production will be available starting 
22 

in May of this year, and we will then start fielding it to our soldiers. 

Did it take longer than we wanted? Yes. The process to go 

through full and open just took longer. But we did get initial capability, and that is what Dr. Markowitz said. The initial capability 

didn’t work as well, so we then spiraled in these improvements into 

the full and open competition. So we believe what we were going 

to be fielding starting in May will provide the capability that the 

soldiers really want. 

We are also trying to take that same capability and tie it into 

that Land Warrior-Nett Warrior capability so that not only do I 

know that someone is shooting at me, but I can push that information to others so maybe they can engage. But it has taken longer 

than we wanted, sir. 

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

Mr. BARTLETT. Thank you very much. I now yield to Mrs. Roby. 

Mrs. ROBY. Thank you very much. Thank you for being here 

today to answer our questions. I very much appreciate it. 

We are currently fielding the plate carriers for soldiers and marines in Afghanistan which are considerably lighter than regular 

body armor. What is the long-term plan for fielding plate carriers, 

meaning do you plan to pair plate the Army and the Marine Corps? 

General FULLER. Ma’am, the plate carrier, what we did was try 

to provide that commander with the capability tailored to their 

mission. So they have their full-up individual IOTV [Improved 

Outer Tactical Vest], individual outer tactical vest, that allows 

them to have full-up protection capability. They can then take off 

some of the components. We have protection up on the shoulders, 

for example, around the neck and in the groin area. They can take 

that off. It allows them to save about three- to-five pounds, depending on the size. 

We gave them the plate carrier. The plate carrier just holds that 

hard ballistic armor plate front, back and sides. It gives that commander that flexibility. We are only providing it to our infantry 

units that are actually operating forward that need to operate outside of a forward operating base in or at altitude. So when you are 

starting to talk about reduction in the IED threat, because a plate 

carrier doesn’t give you that soft armor protection you would need 

during and IED threat. 

So we are not planning on fielding the plate carrier to all of the 

Army. We are fielding it to our infantry units, and infantry units 

specifically going into Afghanistan to give that commander that 

flexibility. 

I have the ability to wear my full-up IOTV when I am in an environment that could be both rifle shot or IED, or I could wear my 

plate carrier so I could just have rifle shot protection, recognizing 

that my IED threat is low. 

We are trying to give them that flexibility because of the weight. 

General KELLEY. Currently we are fielding the modular tactical 

vest and the scalable plate carrier. The modular tactical vest, inventory objective there is about 108,000, ma’am, and about 64,000 

for the scalable plate carrier. 

In the Marine Corps, we plan on migrating to our improved modular tactical vest, which is the IMTV, and that will be paired with 
23 

just the plate carrier. Inventory objective for both of those is 

108,000. 

We had a chance to discuss a little bit earlier about options in 

the field for commanders, lieutenant colonels, and above in order 

to determine what protection level they determine for their particular force. So the IMTV, the improved modular tactical vest, 

paired with the plate carrier, gives our commanders out in the field 

that option. 

I think it is kind of interesting that what happens, a lot of times 

we want to compare the modular tactical vest to the improved modular tactical vest. What we are really asking our guys to do out in 

the field is decide do I want my marines wearing the improved 

modular tactical vest or that plate carrier, and that is where you 

will see the delta in terms of weight. 

We have done a lot of work also with our program manager for 

marine expeditionary rifle squad in terms of helping design the 

vests themselves in terms of proper fit, how much weight that they 

will carry, how it integrates with the weapons systems and radios 

that they will carry. So in the end for us, ma’am, it is the IMTV 

and the PC, the plate carrier. 

Mrs. ROBY. Thank you so much. 

General FULLER. Just as a point of reference, you heard me talk 

about a plate carrier and individual tactical vest and you are hearing General Kelley talk about IMTV and all these other acronyms. 

The same ballistic capability. Different names, just like we have 

different uniforms on, but the same capability, same ballistic protection regardless of what it is called between the two services. 

Mrs. ROBY. Thank you for making that clear. 

Mr. Chairman, I yield back. Thank you. 

Mr. BARTLETT. Thank you. There should be time for a second 

round of questions. I just want to make a couple of comments now 

and then ask a question or two, and then we will have a second 

round of questions, and then I will have some final questions, if 

there is not interest in a third round, to close the hearing. 

Several days ago another panel was before us, and we noted that 

the military does two things that we are frequently not involved in, 

that the Congress is not involved in. They decide to develop a new 

weapons program and they develop the requirements for that and 

the characteristics of that, and then they come to the Congress and 

say we would like you to fund that. And then for programs that 

don’t go well, they come to us and tell us we think that this program needs to be aborted and we would like your consent to do 

that. Hardly ask our consent. We are just going to abort it and we 

are telling you we are doing that. 

We asked that panel, could we be a part of the process? This 

should not be a semi-adversarial relationship between the Congress 

and the Pentagon, we would like to be involved in that process. 

What one of them told us, gee, this is an executive responsibility 

and you shouldn’t really be involved in the process. So I took out 

my Constitution and I went to Section 1, which defines the responsibilities of the Congress, and Article I, Section 8 says: The Congress shall have power to raise and support armies, to provide and 

maintain a navy, to make rules for the government and regulation 

of the land and naval forces, to provide for organizing and arming. 
24 

I think arming refers to all of these platforms; doesn’t it? The Constitution says that is our responsibility. And disciplining the military and the authority of training the military according to discipline prescribed by the Congress. 

And then I went to Section 2 of the Constitution, which describes 

the powers of the executive, and I looked for all of those parts of 

Section 2 that relate to the military, and I found one. It says the 

President shall be the Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy 

of the United States and of the militia of the several states when 

called into the actual service of the United States. 

So if we went strictly by the Constitution, the Congress ought to 

have responsibility for almost everything that the Pentagon now 

claims is the province of the executive and we have no responsibility for that. 

The compromise, we would like to be in on the process. We have 

a very capable staff here. Some of our Members have a background. 

We have engineers. I am a scientist and an old farm boy. Because 

I was a farm boy and I was born in 1926 and lived through the 

Great Depression, we learned to make do. So when I got my doctorate in human physiology and I went to work for the Navy, I saw 

opportunities to make do with some of the skills that I developed 

in getting my doctorate and I ended up being awarded 20 patents, 

19 of them military patents. 

So I am pleading for an opportunity for us to work with you in 

developing these systems, and we would like to be in on the process. We hope that you will work with us. 

Let me just ask a question or two, and then we will have a second round of questions. I will come back. 

I hope that every time I recognize one of the members they will 

ask a question that I was going to ask so I don’t need to ask any 

questions at the end. Several have been asked, but not all of them. 

I would like to ask a couple of questions about body armor. 

How can we achieve better protection with less weight and how 

do you incentivize industry to do that? Ms. Tsongas has asked most 

of that first series of questions I had, but there is one part of it 

that hasn’t been asked. How do we incentivize industry to be more 

creative and innovative in this area? 

General FULLER. Sir, that is a good question. I think in part of 

your first discussion, I think there is always going to be dynamic 

tension between the executive, industry, and the Congress because 

we all have to operate together. When you are talking about trying 

to improve our body armor, we are trying to have our research and 

development arm look at new technologies, which we don’t see anything that is game changing or within the near term that is going 

to change our ability to provide increased protection and lighter 

weight. So I think the next area we need to look at is what is our 

requirement and is it a validated requirement. What are we using 

as our means to validate that the product is what it needs to do. 

We just went through a review of our body armor holistically, 

from head to toe, and we are going through that requirements generation process, and that potentially could allow us to provide a 

lighter plate to our soldiers. 

We have technically overbuilt our plates right now. We overbuilt 

them because of our testing process. We said we wanted, the way 
25 

I say it is, we wanted to ensure that you can go in the ring with 

Mike Tyson. And if you could take two hits from Mike Tyson, then 

when Fuller climbed into the ring, you knew you would be able to 

survive those rounds. 

That is the same thing we did with our body armor. We used a 

round that is not on any battlefield in the world, and we set that 

bar for a reason. Now we are trying to evaluate that bar because 

that bar causes us to have increased weight. Do you we want to 

adjust the bar? That is one way. If the technology can’t get us 

there, can we adjust the bar and understand why we are adjusting 

it. So we are going through that review right now. 

Having these research and development lines I think will assist 

us in keeping industry interested in pushing IR&D, their independent research and development, to try to find new technologies 

also. But we are looking at this. We are trying to find is there a 

new technology, is there another way to build the plate. We want 

to incentivize the contractors with our research and development 

line in fiscal year 2012 to have them come forward and say, We 

would like to have a 20-percent weight savings in the plate; can 

you achieve that and how would you do that. 

Again, our end state is every soldier is protected regardless of 

where they are in the world, and we want to ensure that we don’t 

ever reduce the capability of the plates from what it has to actually 

stop. But as I said, did we put the bar too high for the process that 

we used initially. 

Mr. BARTLETT. Thank you. You mentioned a separate line. We 

are very pleased with that. We have been arguing for that for several years now. The armor used to be a part of clothing. It isn’t 

clothing, but in order to get adequate focus on it we needed a separate line, and we are really pleased with that. 

Two more really quick questions and then we will go to a second 

round. Please provide justification for using only government laboratory for all first article and lot acceptance tests for body armor 

components? Aren’t there civilian labs out there that can do just 

as good a job? 

General FULLER. Yes, sir. As you are aware, from the PEO Soldier perspective, we used to use predominantly commercial labs to 

do all our testing. PEO Soldier is about volume and velocity. Last 

year, we fielded 230,000 soldiers in the Army with that kit that 

Sergeant Corp is wearing, and that equaled to 17.8 million pieces 

of kit total. So it is about volume and velocity. 

When we saw the threat change in Iraq specifically, we went 

from our SAPI [Small Arms Protective Insert] to our ESAPI [Enhanced Small Arms Protective Inserts] plates, our small arms protective inserts to our enhanced small arms protective insert plates. 

We needed immediately to buy two million of these plates, or two 

million sets of these plates. So what happened was we get the industry involved on building, and then we were going to commercial 

labs to do the testing. 

We want to ensure that we maintain that high level of fidelity 

on our testing processes. Through your actions in the Hill, Department of Defense Test and Evaluation—excuse me—the Director of 

Operational Test and Evaluation, DOT&E, now has oversight of all 

of our testing operations. 
26 

The second thing we wanted to do was bring our testing in-house 

to ensure that we can maintain that pedigree from the time we 

produce that product, the time we test it to the time we field it 

through that nondestructive testing process we call the X-rays. So 

we wanted to bring it in-house. So we brought in our hard body 

armor testing, we brought in our soft body armor testing, and we 

are bringing in our ballistic eyewear, our helmet testing and also 

even fire-resistant capability. 

But I am getting out of the testing business. I don’t want to be 

working with the independent contractors that are doing this testing. I want to go to the Army Test and Evaluation Command and 

say, here is the capability, I need this tested, and then they can 

subcontract, which is what they will be doing to these private labs. 

They provide the oversight, they provide the support, they validate 

the product. I then am a customer to the testing lab. 

So it is a fine balance when we are talking about that testing capability within the Army. If we have overcapacity, then we have an 

inefficiency from a financial perspective because people are waiting 

for someone to come. We don’t want Maytag repairmen at our test 

organizations. 

So we want to figure out what should be their overall capability 

and when we have these surges, if we needed new capability, we 

need to buy a lot of it and then have a lot of testing going on, they 

go out and subcontract and they certify the subcontract labs, which 

is what they have done. So they have done that on the hard plate 

side, they have done that on the soft armor side, and they have 

done it on the ballistic eyewear. 

So we actually have a lot of testing ongoing at commercial labs 

even though it is now under the Army Test and Evaluation Command. 

Mr. BARTLETT. Thank you, sir I am happy we still have competition. It makes everything better and cheaper. And thank you for 

sharing that. One other really quick question. We hear a lot of 

complaints regarding the current pad suspension system being too 

hard and that it lacks durability. Are you receiving similar complaints and what types of internal pad suspension systems will be 

used in the Enhanced Combat Helmet? 

General FULLER. Sir, from our perspective, we have 1.1 million 

soldiers, and there is a lot of different head sizes. We are finding 

two things are going on. One, we actually are a high-tech Army. 

When we are talking about that body armor, I flippantly say it is 

your grandmother’s china wrapped in Kevlar. It is high-tech. You 

need to care for it like it is high-tech. That is why we have the Xray machines. 

When we put a helmet on your head that gives you great ballistic 

and blast and blunt trauma protection. It is actually high-tech. You 

need to have it fitted to you. You just can’t say, I think this is your 

head size, go ahead and wear it. When you wear it and you don’t 

have it fitted to your head appropriately, or you don’t wear all the 

pads that we provide to you, you end up saying well, the helmet 

doesn’t fit me, and I think I need a new set of pads. 

We are constantly getting feedback from the soldiers. We are trying to reinforce to them, understand how to wear the kit, understand the environment in which you think you want a softer pad 
27 

will also potentially create or exacerbate a blast effect which can 

potentially give you TBI or mild traumatic brain injury. We have 

to balance all this. We don’t know if you are going to be operating 

in a warm environment one day and in high altitudes the next day. 

So the pads have to be able to respond to all those environments. 

As we go through our Enhanced Combat Helmet with the Marine 

Corps, and our Army combat helmet, we are looking at a new pad 

solicitation. All vendors again, full and open competition, come forward, is there a better pad available than what we currently believe we have. Many people say we are buying a cheap pad. It is 

not a cheap pad. We don’t go for the lowest bidder, we go for the 

best protection in that helmet to ensure that you give them that 

blast, blunt, and ballistic protection. 

Mr. BARTLETT. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Critz. 

Mr. CRITZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Could someone provide the committee with some of the operational feedback you are receiving regarding the operation of the 

M4 in Iraq and Afghanistan? 

General FULLER. Sir, we do post combat surveys on every brigade 

combat team that comes out of either Operation New Dawn or Operation Enduring Freedom, so Iraq and Afghanistan. We correlate 

all of that information. We ask them about all of the equipment 

they have, to include their M4s. High response on the M4s. 

We, I believe, lost the system perspective when we talk about the 

M4 and its capability. When we fielded the M4, we used the exact 

same ammunition that had been developed for the M16. We forgot 

the system perspective, as Dr. Markowitz talked about in his opening comments. We are trying to provide that soldier the lethality 

package, it is a combination of the optics, the ammunition, the 

training, the weapon and the interface to the soldier. So you have 

to combine all of this together. 

But we didn’t think about the ammo when we gave them a carbine that actually has a shorter barrel. So some of the effects that 

we potentially saw, you saw a greater flash because the bullet, although it is not thinking, thought that it had an additional 5 

inches to burn. So you have a flash at the end. General Petraeus 

actually did a byline, a personal request. He wanted flash suppressors for the forces in Afghanistan. I immediately responded and got 

flash suppressors. I contend we actually needed to give them better 

ammunition, which is now our new 855A1 ammunition. It is optimized to the M4, but it doesn’t negate the fact that the marines 

are still using the M16A4. It doesn’t have any impact, it is just optimized to the M4. So the burn in that bullet exiting the barrel is 

when the burn completes so you don’t have a big flash coming out 

the end. When you don’t have that flash, you have clean burn. 

When you recycle the weapon, we use that same gas to recycle the 

weapon. If the gas is dirty, you potentially could see an increase 

in dirty operating system inside your weapon which could potentially cause a jam. So you have to clean it more frequently. 

Now we have the ability to give you a weapon, optimize the performance of that weapon with the ammunition, which gives you 

better performance in terms of the performance of the bullet, it 

gives you better performance in terms of performance of the weap-
28 

on, and the soldiers are saying that they were concerned. We call 

it green ammunition. It gets the lead out of the ammunition. They 

thought it was going to be like fat-free and not work well. The soldiers are saying it works very well. It does exactly what they want 

it to do. We believe we will see any issues anybody ever had with 

cleaning their weapon or flash on their weapon will be mitigated 

from a systems engineering perspective. 

Mr. CRITZ. Good. Just one quick question. Much of the debate 

and much of the testimony up to this point has been sort of the 

alarm that the military has, all branches and the Pentagon, with 

the CR [Continuing Resolution], what it does to what you are planning and industry. I was looking at your soldier modernization efforts, the Army’s modernization efforts for 2011–2015, and I see the 

50 cal, 50 percent lighter, helmet sensors, combat glove, mountain 

combat boot, water treatment. Now these are in your fiscal year 

2011. What is the impact of the CR on these programs, not even 

looking at fiscal year 2012 out to 2015? 

General FULLER. A great example, sir. When you talk about that 

lightweight 50 cal, we call it the XM806, 50 caliber machine gun 

designed to be able to take all of that heavy recoil. Our contractor 

has come up with a concept that is still in development that says 

we can give you half the weight of that 50 caliber machine gun, 

same capability, same ammunition but at half the weight. We have 

to delay that program for a year based on the continuing resolution. 

A lot of our other items, when we look at the mountain combat 

boots, for example, Operation Enduring Freedom, camouflage pattern, is the cash flow is different when we are in a continuing resolution. So it might not have an impact on an actual program, but 

it has impact on how the cash is flowing. And the way that cash 

is flowing, we talk about small vendors building uniforms, for example, and so we have these ripple effects. So it is creating a challenge within PEO Soldier, the way the cash is flowing due to the 

continuing resolution. 

Mr. CRITZ. We are just as frustrated as you are, and I want to 

let you know that all of us on this panel are working very hard to 

move this forward. 

But thank you, and I yield back. 

Mr. BARTLETT. Thank you very much. Mr. Runyan. 

Mr. RUNYAN. Just one quick question, Mr. Chairman. 

You talked about temperature relating to the equipment. Have 

you addressed body temperatures and fatigue relating to the soldier? 

General FULLER. Yes, sir, we have. As a matter fact, Sergeant 

Corp is wearing today our Army combat shirt. Before you would 

have worn your Army combat uniform, which would have a blouse 

on top. Then you put your body armor on top, and when you put 

your body armor on top, you would find that it would retain all 

that heat in a hot environment. Or just because you are now carrying all of that weight, as we were talking about earlier, so you 

are generating a lot more heat yourself. 

We have an Army combat shirt which has moisture wicking material here in the center underneath where you have your body 

armor, and we have both weights, winter weight and a summer 
29 

weight depending on where you are and what the environment is. 

At the same time, we still want to give them that protection and 

the protection we are talking about on the shirt is fire resistance. 

So it is a fire resistant shirt, doing system engineering interfacing 

to ensure that there is no exposure of material that could potentially allow you to be burned if you were in an event that had some 

flash fire. So that is how we are trying to mitigate some of that. 

Another item he has on is the camel back or the water hydration 

system. Having the ability to carry water on you and be able to 

drink it very easily by just having a tube system keeps you hydrated. So we are again thinking of the soldier as a system, trying 

to think through what does a soldier actually need. They need to 

keep them cool sometimes and warm sometimes, and when they 

are getting hot from all of the weight they are potentially carrying, 

how do you mitigate that by wicking the moisture away. 

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

Mr. BARTLETT. Thank you. 

As a senior member of the Science Committee, I have now been 

twice to the South Pole. I sometimes use this as an example of how 

you kind of get in a rut and keep doing the same thing even though 

it may not make much sense. At the South Pole, the sun shines 

continuously for six months without a cloud in the sky. That is a 

real desert. They have two inches of precipitation a year, and the 

wind blows incessantly, sometimes 100 miles an hour. It is blowing 

24–7 year around. Guess where we get our energy from at the 

South Pole? We fly diesel in on an airplane to run a diesel generator. It shows how you can get stuck in a rut. Obviously, what we 

need to be doing at the South Pole is solar in the summertime 

down there, and wind all of the time down there. 

I think we kind of got stuck in that same rut with our soldier. 

If the soldier needs something, of course he carries it because is 

what soldiers have always done. So if he needs more, he simply 

carries more. I am very pleased to note that the 4th Brigade of the 

101st Airborne is thinking outside the box. They now have employed six donkeys to serve as pack animals to help them carry this 

gear. Through the centuries, men have found other options than 

putting it on their back. 

The American Indian, who hadn’t invented the wheel, did find 

that if he cut down a sapling and put his teepee on the sapling, 

it was easier to get it to the next site than it was to carry it on 

his back. When we discovered the wheel, we found it was easier to 

put the load on a wheeled vehicle and then pull that rather than 

carry it on our back. 

And I wondered if you had really been thinking outside the box— 

if you want a pack animal, I would suggest that a neutered male 

goat would do a really great job. They are really tough animals. If 

you bottle-feed them, they will follow you around like your pet dog 

all the rest of their life. If you are looking for something to carry 

things for you, you couldn’t do better. By the way, there are a lot 

of goats over there, and they survive very easily in that environment. 

I would also like to suggest, and again this is because I am a 

farm boy and see some opportunities to make do. I would like to 

at least look at why don’t we provide the soldier with the means 
30 

of having that with him other than carrying it on his back. And 

I am not sure what that would be, but I would sure like to look 

at things to address that problem. 

There was a comment made here about please walk through the 

Army and Marine Corps requirements board process? How often do 

you meet? What have been the major results of your meetings? 

What it is describing there are all the things that the Constitution 

says Congress ought to be doing. Now I know that the Congress 

through the years has perhaps unintentionally relinquished most of 

their constitutional authority to the executive and the courts, and 

we ought to be about trying to get some of that back. But at least 

at a minimum, couldn’t we be involved in that process so that we 

understand when you come before us in a hearing how you got 

there, so we are a little more enlightened and can be more helpful 

to you; would that be okay? 

Mr. MARKOWITZ. Sir, I am not an expert in the Constitution, but 

in terms of the requirements process, we have been looking to how 

to reform it. And particularly in light of the Weapons Systems Reforms Act, which has placed increased emphasis on analysis of alternatives and cost-benefit analysis and trade assessments. I know 

even for the ground combat vehicle, Congress has asked for all of 

the information that had been done for that analysis of alternatives 

submitted to Congress, and we are now in the process of doing 

that. 

In some ways the request would be if you look at how we do that 

Weapon Systems Reform Act and how to integrate what has been 

asked of the Department of Defense and what we are now trying 

to comply to with your request so that we have kind of an efficiency 

for how we do these kind of cross-leveling or cross-assessments. 

People in my office will get a request from some Member of Congress for our analysis of alternatives and the background for why 

a certain requirement is the way it is. And we gladly try to share 

that information. But it is haphazard. It depends upon the system 

and the congressional interest at the time. I would ask that if we 

look at it, we just combine what is now done in terms of acquisition 

reform with this request. If it goes forward, how to streamline 

those two efforts, sir. 

Mr. BARTLETT. I am sure that you have a very mature, meticulous, detailed process for making these very important decisions. 

You have outside consultants, technical consultants, that advise 

you. You look at the technologies and ascertain how far you can go 

with these technologies. You are making these decisions. You do 

board gaming, which really identifies deficiencies that you need to 

address. I am just appealing that we would like to be a part of that 

process. Traditionally Congress has not been a part of that process, 

but I think that we should have been. The Constitution says we 

should be a part of that process. 

By the way, I am very pleased that you see your exercise in the 

M4 as determining whether or not there is something better, that 

you are not determined you are going to have a new weapon, you 

want to see if in fact this new weapon is enough better than improving what we have got. As the old farmer says: Will the juice 

be worth the squeezing? And there are lot of things in the military 

where you need to apply that old farm principle to it. 
31 

Well, I have a lot more questions I could ask, but your time is 

very valuable. So if it is okay with you—Mr. Runyan, do have an 

additional comment or question. 

Mr. RUNYAN. No, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. BARTLETT. Okay. If it is okay with you, we will submit the 

remainder of my questions for the record where you can do a better 

job of answering rather than on the spur of the moment here. 

Thank you very much for your service. 

General Fuller, thank you for your service. The shoes that have 

to be filled are both figurative and literally really big shoes. Your 

successor has a real challenge, sir. Thank you for your service. I 

thank all of you very much for your service to our country. 

The subcommittee is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:35 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

A P P E N D I X 

MARCH 17, 2011 

PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD 

MARCH 17, 2011 

(37) 
38 
39 
40 
41 
42 
43 
44 
45 
46 
47 
48 
49 
50 
51 
52 
53 
54 
55 
56 
57 
58 
59 
60 
61 
62 
63 
64 
65 
66 
67 
68 
69 
70 
71 
72 
73 
74 
75 
76 
77 
78 
79 

DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD 

MARCH 17, 2011 

(83) 

WITNESS RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS ASKED DURING 

THE HEARING 

MARCH 17, 2011 

(87) 

RESPONSE TO QUESTION SUBMITTED BY MR. MCINTYRE 

General FULLER. There is no Department of the Army policy mandating the wear 

of body armor. Decisions regarding body armor are left to Commanders at the appropriate level based on sound tactical and operational requirements. When making 

decisions regarding body armor, the overriding concern of Commanders is the welfare of Soldiers. [See page 16.] 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS POST HEARING 

MARCH 17, 2011 

(91) 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. BARTLETT 

Mr. BARTLETT. Does the Army and Marine Corps currently have a validated requirement for lighter-weight body armor systems? What are your current requirements for body armor? 

Mr. MARKOWITZ. The Army does not currently have a validated requirement for 

a lighter-weight body armor system. The Army’s currently validated requirement for 

body armor systems is the Modular Body Armor Operational Requirement Document validated in 1999. The overall body armor system has been updated via directed requirements several times in the last ten years based on operational needs, 

technology improvements, and materiel improvements to various components of the 

body armor system. Each of these modifications sought increases in Soldier protection level. Only the directed requirement for the Soldier Plate Carrier System was 

focused on lightening the weight. The body armor requirement was last reviewed 

by the US Army Training and Doctrine Command (TRADOC) as part of a holistic 

body armor requirement review directed by Headquarters Department of the Army 

(HQDA) G–3/5/7 in June 2010. TRADOC completed its review in December 2010 

and is currently updating the body armor requirement to include weight reduction 

while retaining the same ballistic properties. TRADOC will submit the requirement 

to HQDA for staffing by the end of 4th Quarter, Fiscal Year 2011. The Army’s current requirements for body armor are all found in Department of the Army directed 

requirements, to include the following: 966,000 Improved Outer Tactical Vests 

(IOTV); 966,000 sets of Enhanced Small Arms Protective Inserts (ESAPI); 160,000 

sets of X–Small Arms Ballistic Inserts (XSAPI) and 160,000 sets of X–Side Ballistic 

Inserts (XSBI); and 85,000 Soldier Plate Carrier Systems (SPCS). 

I will defer to the United States Marine Corps regarding the status of any United 

States Marine Corp validated requirement for lighter-weight body armor systems. 

Mr. BARTLETT. Does the Army and Marine Corps currently have a validated requirement for a new handgun system? Are you currently reviewing such a requirement? 

Mr. MARKOWITZ. No, the Army does not have a validated requirement for a new 

handgun system. 

Yes, the Army reviewed the Air Force Modular Hand Gun Capability Production 

Document (CPD) and placed it in a deferred status. The US Army Training and Doctrine Command (TRADOC) must provide analytical documentation to substantiate 

any proposed requirement for a new hand gun, before the Army will consider adopting or making changes to the CPD. 

Mr. BARTLETT. Please walk us through the Army and Marine Corps Requirements 

Board process? How often do you meet? What have been the major results of your 

meetings? Are joint requirements generated during these meetings? 

Mr. MARKOWITZ and General FULLER. The Army Marine Corps board (AMCB) 

meets approximately 8–10 times per year to discuss ongoing issues and efforts in 

order to improve interoperability among the two land component Services. As directed by the AMCB charter, the AMCB process begins with issue identification. 

AMCB stakeholders will develop a limited set of high level focused issues emerging 

from the previous Program Objective Memorandum (POM) cycle, OSD Program Review, Army Marine Corps Warfighter Staff Talks or as a result of new internal/external initiatives. Once the issue is ready for presentation, the AMCB follows a 

three-step review process: 1) First, a Council of Colonels reviews and refines the 

issue for senior leader presentation; 2) a 1–2 Star AMCB convenes to ensure the 

issue is sufficiently developed and merits 3–Star consideration; and 3) the 3–Star 

AMCB convenes to consider issues, analyze courses of action, and recommendations. 

3–Star AMCB endorsed recommendations may be forwarded to the Chief of Staff of 

the Army and Commandant of the Marine Corps for consideration and potential implementation and may impact key programming or operational decisions. 

Over the last twelve months the AMCB has reviewed several topics to improve 

interoperability between the two land components. Examples of these topics include: 

1) small arms requirements, 2) agreement on service small arms ammunition requirements, 3) continued discussion on body armor and helmet requirements and 4) 

refining the Joint Light Tactical Vehicle requirements. While Joint requirements 
92 

are not generated at the Army Marine Corps Board, it provides a forum for collaboration and discussion on Service and or Joint requirements. 

Mr. BARTLETT. What impact is the continuing resolution (CR) having on equipping 

and modernization strategies for dismounted soldiers and marines? 

Mr. MARKOWITZ and General FULLER. The Continuing Resolution’s (CR’s) greatest 

impact to programs is the inability to execute according to plan. The Army has consolidated a priority list of anomalies for waiver in anticipation of a 12 month CR. 

a. Lack of Fiscal Year 2011 (FY11) funding will cripple the M26 12–Gauge Modular Accessory Shotgun System program momentum and cause dedicated teams to 

disband due to lack of support funding and potentially eliminate the Government 

source of supply. 

b. The Nett Warrior program will not meet Milestone C scheduled in March 2011 

and capability fielding will slip for one year (FY13 to FY14). 

c. The Counter Defilade Target Engagement FY11 program is unable to award 

contracts with funding limited to the FY10 funding levels. This will cause the program schedule to slip to the right by a year, will increase contract costs, and jeopardize production funding in the future. 

d. The Mounted Soldier System production contracts cannot be awarded in FY11 

and capability fielding will slip from FY13 to FY14. Delay in reprogramming will 

result in inability to fund: 

(1) Engineering support to support program Milestones (on-going Government design efforts, hardware build to support Government testing, support contract award, 

etc.,). 

(2) Award contract for hardware delivery for testing. 

(3) Conduct of Developmental Test/Limited User Test. 

Creates a $270K Support Unfunded Requirements (UFR) for the Lightweight .50 

Caliber Machine Gun (XM806) in 1st Quarter of FY12 and creates an overall Production Cost increase (UFR) of approximately $6.3M to achieve the Army Acquisition Objective (27,273). 

Mr. BARTLETT. In your opinion do we need to shift the program investment focus 

from the platform to the person? How can we help you to accelerate the innovation 

process for individual equipment? 

Mr. MARKOWITZ and General FULLER. Although I cannot speak for the Army overall, I believe we have balanced our investments between platforms and individual 

items to provide today’s Soldier with the needed capabilities. 

Mr. BARTLETT. How are you effectively managing the power consumption problem 

for the individual soldier and marine? 

Mr. MARKOWITZ and General FULLER. The Army continually strives to optimize 

size, weight, and power for Soldier worn/carried systems down to the lowest levels 

allowed by current technology, while still meeting military requirements. 

In an effort to manage the variety of power consumers worn/carried by the Soldier, we are investigating a Soldier worn integrated power solution that will reduce 

the quantity and different types of batteries required by the Soldier. Instead of the 

Soldier carrying a 72 hour supply of multiple battery types, he will be able to power 

his equipment from centralized power sources integrated onto the body armor, 

weapon, and helmet. 

Mr. BARTLETT. Do you consider body armor to be a consumable and in the same 

category as articles of clothing? If yes, then why? Please elaborate on your response. 

Mr. MARKOWITZ and General FULLER. Body Armor is classified as a Type II Clothing and Textile expendable, but recoverable. As such, the funding to procure Body 

Armor, clothing and other protective gear is typically included in the Operations 

and Maintenance (O&M) appropriations along with other expendables and is treated 

as a purchase expense. Currently, the O&M appropriation provides flexibility to 

make adjustments to quantities to support the number of Soldiers deploying to theater. 

Although the Project Manager is moving towards more rigorous life cycle management of the fleet of Soldier protective equipment, the current Body Armor requirement is nearly met, therefore, funding with O&M is appropriate for sustainment. 

However, Congressional language is in place directing the establishment of a dedicated procurement and Research, Development, Test and Evaluation line for Body 

Armor. 

Mr. BARTLETT. Raising the level of protection. I view this as critical because of 

the relatively modest R&D investment DOD makes in body armor and other protective equipment. Because the contracts require the destruction of an entire lot when 

there is a lot failure and prohibits rework industry has an enormous incentive to 

ensure each lot passes therefore I understand they are adding redundancy and 

weight to their designs. Can you tell me do you have a requirement for lighterweight body armor plates and when and by whom was the composite body armor 
93 

requirement last reviewed and validated? Also, is it true that the contracting strategy employed by DOD has selects winners based on the lowest cost for a qualified 

product with no incentive for lighter weight or higher levels of protection and if so 

is this the best method for purchasing the best body armor at the lowest weight? 

General FULLER. No, the Army does not currently have a requirement for lighterweight Body Armor plates. The current requirement for Body Armor, the Modular 

Body Armor Operational Requirement Document, was validated in 1999, however, 

the overall Body Armor System has been updated via directed requirements several 

times in the last ten years based on operational needs, technology improvements, 

and materiel improvements to various components of the Body Armor System. The 

Body Armor requirement was last reviewed by the U.S. Army Training and Doctrine 

Command (TRADOC) as part of a holistic Body Armor requirement review directed 

by the Headquarters, Department of the Army (HQDA) G–3/5/7 in June 2010. 

TRADOC completed its review in December 2010 and indicated it will complete an 

update to the current Body Armor requirement and provide it to HQDA for staffing 

by the end of 4th Quarter of Fiscal Year 2011. 

Regarding the contract strategy, the Army awards new contracts based on the 

Best Value to the Government considering technical, schedule, past performance, 

and price. During the solicitation phase, vendors have the opportunity to present 

lighter-weight Body Armor solutions, but must meet the Army’s Body Armor specifications. Once the contracts are awarded, the Contracting Officer can consider all 

of the same or even additional factors in the award of follow-on delivery orders to 

qualified contractors. 

Mr. BARTLETT. In terms of body armor acquisition, how can we achieve better protection with less weight and how do you incentivize industry? 

General FULLER. The Body Armor industrial base has hit a technical ‘‘wall’’ to 

achieve a lighter more flexible Body Armor solution. No new advances in lighter ballistic materials are expected for the next five years given the current levels of Government and industry Research and Development investments. The only option to 

provide Soldiers with relief from the weight of Body Armor at this time is to make 

tradeoffs between two aspects: Removing components of ballistic protection and the 

area of coverage (i.e., Side Plates). Commanders must balance the level of Soldier 

protection with the increased mobility gained from lighter Body Armor. Reducing 

area of coverage presents increased risk of injury to unprotected areas of the Soldier, however, it provides the Soldier greater mobility, which may result in greater 

survivability in some terrains or combat situations. 

The Army will continue to work with both Government and industry partners to 

quickly assess and if possible adopt new technologies. The Army is aggressively 

using the Small Business Innovation Research Program to promote the role of small 

business in support of new Body Armor initiatives. A new requirement is in process 

for the next generation of Soldier protection, and it is expected to be approved at 

the end of Fiscal Year 2012. The focus of the new requirement will be to develop 

a personal protective system that is lighter weight and tailorable to mission requirements. 

Mr. BARTLETT. The Army and Marine Corps have formal and informal Tactics, 

Techniques and Procedures for doing about everything. Often the best, most effective way of doing something in the Army and Marine Corps is figured out by the 

soldiers and marines in the field and later is adopted by the military and taught 

in the school house. What lessons have been learned thus far from operations in Afghanistan about dismounted, backpack operations in rugged and high altitude terrain? What if anything been done to improve the physical fitness of soldiers and marines to enable them to endure the weight of the pack? 

General FULLER. Lessons learned regarding dismounted, backpack operations in 

Afghanistan fall into three categories. The primary and most critical lesson learned 

is the need for lighter equipment. The Army continues to assess options in this 

arena and is constantly evaluating operational needs to support the warfighter. Second, is the role leadership plays in correctly determining load requirements based 

on the mission, weather and terrain. Many of these lessons learned and best practices have been codified into a Small Unit Operations in Afghanistan Handbook published to assist Soldiers and small-unit leaders in preparing for the difficulties and 

challenges they will face when deployed in unique geographic areas including rugged and high altitude terrain. It is incumbent upon leaders to correctly evaluate 

mission requirements and tailor as needed, special equipment to meet the task. 

Third, is the need to train to the conditions of the anticipated environment. Training 

conducted on a similar terrain for up to 45 days prior to deployment will substantially reduce the time requirement for acclimation to the operational theater. The 

unit mission and mission-essential task list (METL) drive the specificity of physical 

readiness training. Unit commanders who identify foot marching under fighting or 
94 

approach march load, as a METL requirement, incorporate progressive foot marching and total body muscular strength training, along with environmental considerations; such as altitude/temperature, as they prepare for full spectrum operations. 

Physical fitness is not the key determinant to Soldier performance in rugged high 

altitude terrains, however, it plays such a critical role in training for and executing 

all areas of theater operations that the Army implemented a new physical readiness 

training doctrine in August 2010. This new system of training was adapted to address new and emerging physical fitness requirements based on feedback from Soldiers operating in theater. Recently updated, the physical readiness training doctrine links concepts found in Field Manual 3–0, Full Spectrum Operations, and applies the principles of training specified in Field Manual 7–0, Training for Full Spectrum Operations. The key outcome of this linkage is the integration of physical 

readiness training to ARFORGEN and Warrior Tasks and Battle Drills. The new 

physical training doctrine provides for a balanced training program that better prepares Soldiers for task performance and provides injury control by recommending 

exercise intensity, exercise volume, and training and recovery within progressive 

training schedules. Conducting operations in rugged and high altitude and urban 

environments underscores the importance of trunk stability, total body muscular 

strength training, progressive load carriage, and the overall importance of posture 

and body mechanics on foot marching and load carriage. This new doctrine is a tool 

for Commanders to use to create a high performance physical training program, because ultimately it is the Commander who carries the responsibility for preparing 

their Soldiers for the physical challenges of the operational environment. 

Mr. BARTLETT. Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI) continues to be the most prevalent 

injury from Iraq and Afghanistan. How are PEO Soldier and Marine Corps Systems 

Command helping to mitigate these injuries? 

General FULLER. Program Executive Office Soldier’s effort to mitigate or protect 

Soldiers from the effects of blast, ballistic and blunt impact events on the brain is 

focused in two areas; accurately measuring the blast, blunt impact and overpressure 

caused by Improvised Explosive Devices so that a correlation can be made to the 

actual brain injury and the development of an improved helmet pad suspension system. 

The U.S. Army is developing and testing a second generation Helmet Sensor. The 

small lightweight helmet-mounted sensor will record and store linear and rotational 

accelerations and over-pressures that occur when Soldiers are exposed to high energy induced blast impulses and impacts. The data collected from the sensor will 

be used to support Medical Research and Materiel Command development of an objective exposure monitor/head injury screening tool. 

Additionally, the Army is executing an effort to improve the Army Combat Helmet 

(ACH) pad suspension system by increasing blunt impact protection, stability and 

Soldier comfort. The current suspension system provides blunt impact protection of 

a maximum 150 g’s at 10 feet per second (fps). The objective, currently in testing 

under a Small Business Innovation Research contract, is to improve blunt impact 

protection to a maximum of 150 g’s at 14.1 fps. This translates to a 100 percent 

increase over the current capability. The new suspension system will be compatible 

with the ACH and Enhanced Combat Helmet. The Army intends to issue a Helmet 

Pad Request for Proposal for the improved impact protection standard in 4th Quarter of Fiscal Year 2011 (4QFY11) and plans for production and fielding by 2QFY12. 

Mr. BARTLETT. What is the prevalence of injuries that can be attributed to the 

weight of the load that soldiers and marines must carry? 

General FULLER. I am not aware of any current studies that demonstrate a direct 

cause and effect relationship between load carry weight and musculoskeletal injury. 

Additionally no studies exist that quantify an actual number of injuries directly related to the weight of a load that a Soldier must carry during deployment. Most injuries are overuse/chronic in nature and are, thus, difficult to link to specific activities such as load carry. The U.S. Army Research Institute of Environmental Medicine is conducting survey studies to determine the potential association of load carriage and injuries during deployment. Additionally, the U.S. Army Public Health 

Command (Provisional) is working to include medical coding for cause of injury as 

a mandatory input into the electronic health record. This would require providers 

to code a cause of injury when one can be determined. 

Mr. BARTLETT. Are the type of injuries that are caused by heavy loads generally 

the sort that heal fairly quickly or are we facing large numbers of long term rehabilitation and permanent disability? 

General FULLER. It is difficult to draw any scientifically valid conclusions about 

long-term effects and rehabilitation requirements as a result from load carry. We 

do not currently have long-term data linking heavy load carriages to chronic musculoskeletal complaints amongst Soldiers nor to disability. The U.S. Army Research 
95 

Institute of Environmental Medicine (USAREIM) and U.S. Army Public Health 

Command (Provisional) published an article in Military Medicine in 2004 on the 

topic of Soldier Load Carriage. In that article, the authors listed the most common 

injuries associated with load carry marches for a 20 km max effort march and a 5- 

day 161 km march. Acute musculoskeletal injuries associated with these marches 

included back pain, foot pain, sprains/strains, knee pain, and stress fractures. 

USAREIM is currently studying the re-occurrence rate of low back pain in deployments. 

Mr. BARTLETT. How many marines, and how many soldiers are currently in a nondeployable status due to injuries that can be linked to the weight of the individuals 

basic load. 

General FULLER. There are no current data that directly link a Soldier’s 

deployability status to basic load weight. Although musculoskeletal injuries are the 

leading reason for a unit to place a Soldier in a non-deployable status, the cause 

of these injuries is not presently captured. 

Mr. BARTLETT. Does the Army and Marine Corps plan to procure a new handgun? 

Is a new handgun a high priority for the Army and Marine Corps? 

General FULLER. The Army has not decided to procure a new handgun, nor has 

it adopted or validated any requirements documentation to support buying a new 

handgun. Because of funding lead time, the Army is executing planning activities 

for funding in case the Army leadership determines there is a need to pursue a new 

hand gun. 

Because the Army has not decided to procure a new handgun, the question on priority cannot be addressed. A cost benefit analysis and usage analysis is required to 

inform the decision to buy more M9s, and/or replace it with a new hand gun. 

Mr. BARTLETT. Please provide the committee with some of the operational feedback you are receiving regarding the performance of the M4 in Iraq and Afghanistan? 

General FULLER. The Army continuously and actively solicits Soldier feedback on 

systems and equipment utilized in their deployments. Recently, 358 Soldiers from 

an Infantry Brigade Combat Team returning from Afghanistan participated in a 

feedback session and overall, relayed that they are satisfied with the combat effectiveness of their weapons. Of the 358 surveyed, 322 Soldiers engaged enemy targets 

with a weapon system. Of those 322 Soldiers who engaged enemy targets, 276 Soldiers reported having experience with the M4 or the M4 with rail adaptor system 

(known as the M4 Modular Weapon System) and found it to be effective in combat. 

Mr. BARTLETT. We are hearing of complaints regarding the current pad suspension system being too hard and that it has a propensity to fall apart. What types 

of internal pad suspension systems will be used in the enhanced combat helmet? 

Are you hearing similar complaints regarding the performance of these pad suspension systems? 

General FULLER. Based on three separate feedback sessions conducted in March 

2009, March 2010 and January 2011 with returning units who served in Operation 

Enduring Freedom and Operation New Dawn feedback shows that the Army Combat Helmet (ACH) pad was rated very effective. There were comments from Soldiers 

on the pad suspension system, but the trend does not indicate a major problem with 

the issued helmet pad suspension system. Regarding the Enhanced Combat Helmet 

(ECH), the Army intends to use the helmet pad suspension system that is currently 

being issued for the ACH. 

At the same time, however, the Army is executing an effort to improve the ACH 

pad suspension system by increasing blunt impact protection, stability and Soldier 

comfort. The current suspension system provides blunt impact protection of a maximum 150 g’s at 10 feet per second (fps). The objective, currently in testing under 

a Small Business Innovation Research contract, is to improve blunt impact protection to a maximum of 150 g’s at 14.1 fps. This translates to a 100 percent increase 

over the current capability. The new suspension system will be compatible with the 

ACH and ECH. The Army intends to issue a Helmet Pad Request for Proposal for 

the improved impact protection standard in 4th Quarter of Fiscal Year 2011 

(4QFY11) and plans for production and fielding by 2QFY12. 

Mr. BARTLETT. I understand the Army is going to initiate a best value, full and 

open competition for a new carbine this year to potentially replace its current inventory of 500,000 M4 carbines. If I understand this program correctly, a new carbine 

will be procured if a candidate weapon can outperform the Army’s current carbine, 

the M4. This committee has always strongly supported full and open competition. 

a) Given the magnitude and scope of this program why did you choose not to conduct a comprehensive analysis of alternatives before initiating the program? 

b) Is the Individual Carbine envisioned to be a non-developmental weapon or a 

weapon that will be tested and developed? 
96 

c) Will the Individual Carbine be a jointly developed program with the Marine 

Corps? 

General FULLER. a) The Army waived the regulatory requirement for an Analysis 

of Alternatives (AoA) on 10 December 2010. It was determined that an AoA would 

not produce relevant information in support of the program since the Key Performance Parameters and Key Systems Attributes were baselined on the current M4 

Carbine capability as directed by the Army Requirements Oversight Council. Before 

a Full Rate Production decision is made within the Individual Carbine (IC) program, 

the Army will conduct an analysis to determine whether the IC or the existing 

M4A1 Carbine provides the best value for the Army. This analysis will use actual 

data collected during Test and Evaluation of the IC candidates. 

b) The Individual Carbine will be a non-developmental weapon. 

c) Although the United States Marine Corps actively participated in the development of the Individual Carbine Capability Development Document, there are no 

plans for the Individual Carbine to be a jointly developed program with the Marine 

Corps at this time. 

Mr. BARTLETT. I understand that the Army had an estimated 267,000 night vision 

goggles (NVGs) in inventory in 2003, and now has approximately 681,000 NVGs in 

its inventory in 2011. The large increase in procured systems occurred in response 

to evolving requirements associated with Operation Enduring Freedom and then 

Operation Iraqi Freedom. As you know, industrial base capacity had to be expanded 

to meet these increased requirements, since there exists only a limited number of 

companies capable of producing this technology. Given the constrained budget environment what concerns do you have about the ability to maintain NVG production 

capacity and technological capability? What planning, review, and assessment are 

you undertaking to better understand these challenges in order to sustain this critical industrial base? What are your respective services’ research & development and 

procurement budgets for NVGs in the FY 12 budget request, as well as within the 

future years defense program? 

General FULLER. Night vision systems afford our Warfighters unmatched situational awareness, yielding improved survivability and lethality in all operational environments. Based on the volume of systems already procured, the Army does foresee a significant reduction in production quantities for most current night vision 

technologies. Army production deliveries are on schedule to complete in 4th Quarter 

of Fiscal Year 2012 (4QFY12). Current estimates indicate that FY13–FY17 Image 

Intensifier Tube sustainment quantities are less than 50 percent of peak production 

and less than pre-facilitization quantities beyond FY17. Other night vision technologies are also experiencing completion of the Department of Defense (DOD) requirements and reduction in demand. These changes in demand level raise the following concerns: 

a. Potential cost increase due to lower sustainment volume. 

b. Potential workforce reductions and industrial base consolidation due to reduced 

need–thus impacting competition. 

c. Potential shift of industrial focus to lower performance Night Vision Goggle Systems designed for Commercial and Foreign Military Sales, increasing industrial viability and market share. This shift of focus may result in reduced capability and/ 

or willingness to meet DOD’s higher performance requirements. 

d. Decreased ability for industry to respond to DOD urgent requirements based 

on loss of expertise and hi-performance production capability. 

In FY12 there is a $9.8 million dollar request in Research, Development, Test and 

Evaluation for Soldier night vision devices. This development effort will support 

completion of product qualification testing on the current Enhanced Night Vision 

Goggle (ENVG). It will also support integration, testing, and evaluation of technologies to further enhance night vision and provide interoperability with other systems such as the Thermal Weapons Sight and Nett Warrior. In addition, the FY12 

budget request includes $117.4M in procurement for ENVG. This will be used for 

the continued procurement of ENVG. 

Mr. BARTLETT. How much weight do the Land Warrior and Nett Warrior components add to the load the individual soldier must carry? In your opinon, is this additional weight offset by the additional capability provided? What is the objective 

weight for this technology? 

General FULLER. Deployed LW systems weigh between 11.6 pounds (lbs) and 9.6 

lbs for a 12 hour mission, with improvements stemming from refining the essential 

configuration over time. The three Nett Warrior pre-production prototypes as tested 

in the Limited User Test from September to November 2010 weigh ∼12.5 lbs for a 

24 hour mission, all less than the threshold weight of 14 lbs. The current objective 

weight is 10 lbs. 
97 

The wearable LW/NW system key advantage is fightability. The increase in situational awareness allowing for faster and more accurate decisions in the tactical fight 

clearly offsets the system weight, as demonstrated in the following vignette. A 

squad led by Staff Sgt. Sam Lee scrambled out in pursuit of a high-value target in 

a nearby building. But the last-minute change meant the house didn’t sit in the direction they expected. ‘‘At that point,’’ Lee said, ‘‘I’d normally have to stop, literally 

take out a compass, and orient myself,’’ perhaps leaving the target precious seconds 

to escape, or worse, giving enemy crosshairs time to settle on his troops. Instead, 

without stopping, he flipped down an eyepiece and viewed a computer screen with 

an overhead GPS image of the area. With the target location plotted in advance, the 

team moved rapidly through the darkness. 

‘‘We moved in and took the building with no delay at all,’’ Lee said. 

Staff Sgt Lee was able to lead his squad to the right place, at the right time, with 

the right equipment making them more effective, more lethal and more survivable 

in the execution of their combat mission. 

Mr. BARTLETT. Who determined the Nett Warrior requirement? Were operators involved in the development? 

General FULLER. The Ground Soldier System Increment I—Nett Warrior system 

requirement evolved directly from earlier developmental testing and in-theater operational use of the precursor Land Warrior (LW) system. The Army’s combat developers within US Army Training and Doctrine Command (TRADOC) at the U.S. 

Army Maneuver Center of Excellence (MCoE), Fort Benning, Georgia, utilized all 

preceding developmental and operational lessons learned to develop and document 

the current Nett Warrior requirement in the Ground Soldier System Increment I— 

Nett Warrior Capability Development Document which was Army and Joint Staff 

approved in October 2010. 

Yes, operational elements were specifically involved in the development of the 

Nett Warrior requirement. Dismounted Soldiers within small units (from squad to 

company and battalion level) have deployed to both Operation Iraqi Freedom and 

Operation Enduring Freedom with the precursor Land Warrior (LW) System, and 

their lessons learned and operational insights were applied to the requirements definition within the existing Ground Soldier System Increment I—Nett Warrior system. 

Mr. BARTLETT. Are there ways to accelerate the XM25 program? What are the 

constraints to increasing production? 

General FULLER. The current profile reflects Army prioritization. However, the 

XM25 program can be accelerated with additional funding for the current Engineering and Manufacturing Design Phase and the facilitation of production lines in Fiscal Year 2012 (FY12) and FY13. The primary constraint to increasing production is 

the lack of existing production lines/facilities. 

Mr. BARTLETT. What is the current status of X–SAPI and XSBI and what is the 

long term acquisition plan for these programs? 

General FULLER. The Army’s Procurement Objective is 160,000 sets of X Small 

Arms Protective Inserts (XSAPI) including procurement of 160,000 sets of X Side 

Ballistic Inserts (XSBI) to support Operation New Dawn and potential future requirements. The Army has accepted 119,934 sets of XSAPI plates to date and delivered 97,500 sets to theater. Initial XSAPI fielding to Iraq is complete. A total of five 

contracts were awarded for the production of 160,000 sets of XSBIs in September 

2010—one contractor was terminated after failing the First Article Test. Initial production deliveries were received in March 2011 and deliveries should be completed 

in the 1st Quarter of Fiscal Year 2012. Once the Army Procurement Objective is 

met, the Defense Logistics Agency will provide sustainment for the XSAPI and the 

XSBI. 

Mr. BARTLETT. The Committee understands that the Army and Marine Corps 

have funded efforts to develop Lightweight Small Arms Technologies to include a 

machine gun, rifle, and both case-less and cased telescoped ammunition. The Committee also understands that development efforts have proven successful, with estimated weight reduction of 40% on the lightweight machine gun from the current 

M249 and more than 40% on the cased telescoped ammunition from the current ammunition. What plans does the Army and Marine Corps have for transitioning this 

promising technology from research and development into production so that the 

dismounted soldier can benefit from the weight reduction without losing any 

lethality? 

General KELLEY. The Marine Corps, in partnership with the Office of Naval Research (ONR), the Joint Service Small Arms Program (JSSAP) Office and U.S. Army 

Research and Development Command (RDECOM), is pursuing Lightweight Small 

Arms Technology (LSAT) in the form of case-less and case-telescoped 5.56mm ammunition with the potential to provide 40% to 50% weight savings over current 
98 

brass cased 5.56mm ammunition. If successful, this technology may be applied to 

other calibers of ammunition. The new lightweight ammunition is not compatible 

with existing weapons and will require a significant investment for the development 

and fielding of new small arms that are compatible with case-less or case-telescoped 

ammunition. Prototype weapons have been built to demonstrate the case-telescoped 

capability, but there are engineering challenges associated with firing the case-less 

ammunition and the firing mechanism is currently in pre-prototype development. 

Additionally, the Marine Corps is engaged with the Joint Service development of the 

Joint Small Arms Modernization Initial Capabilities Document (ICD) that will be 

the foundation requirement for enhanced small arms weapons, optics, enablers and 

ammunition in the 2015–2025 timeframe. 

Mr. BARTLETT. In terms of body armor acquisition, how can we achieve better protection with less weight and how do you incentivize industry? 

General KELLEY. The Marine Corps has partnered with industry, government and 

academia through the Office of Naval Research and the Naval Research Lab to develop new technologies and materials that will reduce the weight of body armor or 

increase capability at the same or lighter weight. 

The Marine Corps also coordinates its efforts closely with the Army to prevent duplication of effort and increase joint exploration of promising technologies. These 

combined efforts target the development of lighter-weight body armor technologies 

and designs. 

The Marine Corps recognizes the potential innovations that small-size companies 

can offer and is actively engaged with these businesses through Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) projects. For example, the Next Generation Helmet System is a Marine Corps SBIR effort, with Army support, which is looking at novel 

helmet system designs, shell shapes, and suspension and retention systems that will 

provide an optimized solution to protect against a myriad of operational threats 

(blast, ballistic, and blunt impact) while improving user comfort. Additionally, we 

are supporting an Alternative Lightweight Solution SBIR effort to determine the 

feasibility for Enhanced Small Arms Protective Insert performance at reduced 

weights. 

We communicate with industry in a number of forums. Every two years we hold 

an Advanced Planning Brief to Industry, where all of those who do business with 

the United States Marine Corps, including academia and government labs attend. 

At this event, we brief the Marine Corps’ acquisition and funding plans. In addition, 

we co-host the Modern Day Marine Exposition. At this event, we highlight the needs 

and way ahead of the Marine Corps to industry. 

Mr. BARTLETT. The Army and Marine Corps have formal and informal Tactics, 

Techniques and Procedures for doing about everything. Often the best, most effective way of doing something in the Army and Marine Corps is figured out by the 

soldiers and marines in the field and later is adopted by the military and taught 

in the school house. What lessons have been learned thus far from operations in Afghanistan about dismounted, backpack operations in rugged and high altitude terrain? What if anything been done to improve the physical fitness of soldiers and marines to enable them to endure the weight of the pack? 

General KELLEY. Survey data collected from Marines returning from theater reflect that Marines are not using their large backpacks as often during combat operations. Presently, squads carry their large backpacks when conducting observation 

post missions because these missions require a longer duration away from logistical 

support. Due to the logistical support structure maturing in Afghanistan, the use 

of the large backpack to sustain forces for daily operations has dropped significantly. 

Most dismounted Marines only carry a smaller assault pack when on routine missions and have access to regular resupply. 

Feedback from Marines in Afghanistan indicates that our current large backpack 

is complex and does not integrate well with issued body armor. The feedback also 

indicates that the daypack was too small to carry the additional ammunition and 

supplies Marines need to conduct routine missions. Consequently, we have developed and plan to field a new large backpack that is less complex and has a larger 

day pack. This new pack, the USMC Pack, is a modified design based on the Army 

developed Airborne Pack. The USMC Pack features load lifting shoulder straps, an 

external composite frame that integrates better with body armor and provides for 

more versatility when getting in and out of vehicles. 

As America’s expeditionary force in readiness, an essential part of the Marine 

Corps culture is to train and condition our Marines for combat. Recent combat operations have reaffirmed that our best investment as a service is in our people. Some 

of the environmental challenges of combat operations reinforce the need to ensure 

that our Marines are as well prepared physically as we can possibly make them. 

In November 2006 we published our Functional Fitness Concept which describes a 
99 

new approach to physical training that resulted in a major changes in the way Marines view exercise and how units build training programs to prepare their people 

for combat. This approach focuses on preparing Marines for the physical challenges 

of combat operations and preventing injury. 

Our fitness program is integrated into a multi-tiered approach ranging from our 

physical fitness standards to pre-deployment training. One way we measure a Marine’s readiness in a combat operational environment is through the Combat Fitness 

Test (CFT). The CFT is designed to keep Marines ready for the physical rigors of 

the contemporary combat environment. The CFT was implemented on October 1, 

2009. 

In addition, Marine units scheduled to deploy to mountainous areas complete individual and unit training at the Marine Corps Mountain Warfare Training Center 

located in the Sierra Nevada Mountains. We are mindful that Marine units get specific missions, and as a result they are provided conditioning based on their mission 

profile. 

Mr. BARTLETT. Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI) continues to be the most prevalent 

injury from Iraq and Afghanistan. How are PEO Soldier and Marine Corps Systems 

Command helping to mitigate these injuries? 

General KELLEY. We are trying to mitigate the effects of Traumatic Brain Injury 

through our Suspension Material and Retention Technology-Test and Evaluation 

(SMART–TE) efforts. SMART–TE is developing improved testing methods to evaluate blunt trauma as well as other factors such as comfort and retention. As part 

of this effort, the Marine Corps, in collaboration with the Army, is testing the latest 

in suspension systems in order to evaluate the various commercial pads and retention systems with the goal of ultimately providing greater protection from blunt 

trauma for our Marines and Soldiers. 

Additionally, the Next Generation Helmet System is a Marine Corps Small Business Innovation Research effort, with Army support, that is reviewing novel helmet 

system designs, shell shapes, and suspension and retention systems that will provide an upgraded solution to protect against a myriad of operational threats (blast, 

ballistic, and blunt impact) while improving user comfort. 

Mr. BARTLETT. What is the prevalence of injuries that can be attributed to the 

weight of the load that soldiers and marines must carry? 

General KELLEY. Available data indicates that a large percentage of non-battle injuries are due to musculoskeletal injuries (approximately 30%). Weight load may 

well play a role in some of these injuries, but its exact contribution is not certain 

as data elements to perform an appropriate analysis have not been systemically collected. Going forward, the Marine Corps, in collaboration with the Naval Health Research Center, is currently evaluating what data elements are essential to better 

answer this question. The Marine Corps recognizes that musculoskeletal conditions 

and injuries are significant risks to the combat effectiveness of the force and is addressing the possible contributing factors, to include lightening the load efforts, 

through a strong resiliency program that addresses medical as well as non-medical 

interventions to improve the health and well-being of Marines. 

Mr. BARTLETT. Are the type of injuries that are caused by heavy loads generally 

the sort that heal fairly quickly or are we facing large numbers of long term rehabilitation and permanent disability? 

General KELLEY. Most musculoskeletal injuries are of a temporary nature and 

heal allowing service members to return to full duty. Acute sprains, strains, and 

stress fractures are injuries that heal fairly quickly and theoretically could be linked 

to heavy loads. Only 20% of outpatient musculoskeletal and injury visits result in 

duty limitations. The Marine Corps has not noted a significant change in referral 

patterns to the Physical Evaluation Board that would imply that large numbers of 

combat load injuries are causing permanent disability. Current research and expert 

panels are looking into risk factors, causes, prevention strategies, and rehabilitation 

practices for musculoskeletal conditions to determine the most effective way to minimize the occurrence and effect of these conditions on the health and well-being of 

Marines. 

Mr. BARTLETT. How many marines, and how many soldiers are currently in a nondeployable status due to injuries that can be linked to the weight of the individuals 

basic load. 

General KELLEY. At this time, available data does not establish a clear link between non-deployable status and injuries that can be attributed to the weight of the 

individual’s basic load. Marine Corps Systems Command has conducted post deployment surveys with select infantry battalions specifically asking about weight-related 

injuries that has not found any specific combat load weight issues. Specific studies 

are underway at the Naval Health Research Center to better understand the effect 
100 

of the combat load on Marines as well as further delineation of the causes of musculoskeletal conditions and injuries. 

Mr. BARTLETT. Does the Army and Marine Corps plan to procure a new handgun? 

Is a new handgun a high priority for the Army and Marine Corps? 

General KELLEY. The Marine Corps has no immediate plans to procure a new 

handgun for general use. We participated with the other Services in the development and validation of an Air Force-led Modular Handgun System requirement. We 

are conducting a capability assessment that will inform future investment decisions 

for a new handgun capability. 

Mr. BARTLETT. Please provide the committee with some of the operational feedback you are receiving regarding the performance of the M4 in Iraq and Afghanistan? 

General KELLEY. The Modular Weapon System M4 carbine variant is selectively 

fielded to Marines requiring shorter weapons to include officers up to the rank of 

lieutenant colonel and staff non-commissioned officers. The weapon system has received good reviews from Marines deployed to both Iraq and Afghanistan. 

Most of the Marines in the Light Armored Reconnaissance Battalion in Afghanistan reported that they were satisfied with the M4 rifle and associated optics. For 

longer range engagements, one scout leader wanted some of his scouts to carry M– 

16s vice the M4 and at least one of the squad automatic weapons in each section 

to be the long-barreled version. 

Marines from 2d Battalion, 24th Marines reported on their first 100 days of Operation Iraqi Freedom in June 2008 that the M4 is much better suited for the kinetic 

fight. It is also of great use for a mostly mobile company due to constantly getting 

in and out of vehicles. Additionally, it reduces the weight each Marine has to carry, 

even though it is just by a little. These Marines asked the Marine Corps to issue 

the M4 Rifle to all infantrymen. 

Additional comments from battalion level operations in Afghanistan between 

2004–2007: The M–4 carbine is a reliable weapon, and its size, weight, easy cleaning, and maintenance are all advantages for foot mobile infantry under harsh conditions. In military operations in urban terrain (MOUT) environments, and with a 

force that is largely vehicle-borne, this weapon has proved its worth. It is a great 

weapon for close quarter battle, with its retractable stock and shorter barrel, and 

makes convoys much more responsive to ambushes, improvised explosive devices 

(IEDs), or other threats, while not sacrificing much in the way of range or accuracy. 

The M–4 should be issued to all drivers, radio operators, staff members, staff noncommissioned officers, officers, and combat service support Marines. 

The following is taken from 1st Battalion, 6th Marines OIF from September 2006– 

May 2007. In survey responses, 52% of the respondents stated that they carried an 

M–16 (A2/4) as their primary weapon and 17% stated they carried an M4. Of those 

that carried an M16 (A2/4), 19% stated they would prefer to be armed with the M– 

16 and 71% preferred to be armed with an M4. Of those armed with the M4, 98% 

stated they preferred to be armed with the M4 and none preferred to be armed with 

the M–16. Comments on the M–4 in interviews included the following: 

‘‘The M–4 was awesome. The way we operate out of vehicles, with as much gear 

as we carry, we are much more effective with a shorter, lighter weapon that is more 

maneuverable. The long range shooting is being picked up by having designated 

marksmen.’’ 

‘‘The M–4 is a very, very good weapon in close quarter combat. I understand the 

Marine Corps is moving to get M–4s to the leaders, but I think the Marines who 

are actually going into the small rooms will benefit from them also.’’ 

In a survey of over 1300 Marines on individual and unit equipment conducted in 

November and December 2006: 

- 96% preferred the M4 carbine over the M9/9A1 service pistol as their primary 

weapon. 

- Given a choice between the two weapons, 82% preferred the M4 carbine over 

the M16A4 service rifle as their primary weapon. 

Mr. BARTLETT. We are hearing of complaints regarding the current pad suspension system being too hard and that it has a propensity to fall apart. What types 

of internal pad suspension systems will be used in the enhanced combat helmet? 

Are you hearing similar complaints regarding the performance of these pad suspension systems? 

General KELLEY. The Team Wendy pads, presently used in the Lightweight Helmet, will be used in the Enhanced Combat Helmet. The Team Wendy pad is proven 

to be superior in blunt trauma performance testing and is in compliance with the 

Javits-Wagner-O’Day Act (41 U.S.C.46–48c) as a National Institute for the Blind/ 

National Institute for the Severely Handicapped procurement list item. While the 

Marine Corps System Command has received no official Product Quality Deficiency 
101 

Reports, as of this time, the Marine Corps is participating with the Army to evaluate new suspension systems (pad systems) and retention systems (chin straps) to 

ensure that we optimize these systems to address both blunt trauma protection and 

user comfort. 

Mr. BARTLETT. Do the Marine Corps plan to participate in the Army’s new individual carbine program? If not, then why not? Will the Individual Carbine be a 

jointly developed program with the Marine Corps? 

General KELLEY. Yes. Marine Corps combat developers actively participated in the 

Joint Integrated Product Team that developed Individual Carbine (IC) requirements 

and will closely monitor IC progress. Marine Corps Systems Command will also participate in the source selection team for the Individual Carbine. In parallel with the 

IC effort, we are developing requirements and acquisition plans to improve our current M16A4 rifle and M4 carbine with significant product improvements. Future decisions to procure the IC will be based on its achieved relative capability increase 

over our current weapons. 

We are also closely aligned with U.S. Army planned improvements to the M4, 

which include ambidextrous selector switch, heavy barrel, improved trigger assembly, improved bolt/bolt carrier assembly, and a free floating rail system. These improvements are designed to enhance performance, reliability, and sustainability of 

the M4. The initial development of these upgrades is accounted for in our current 

budget. 

Mr. BARTLETT. Do the Marine Corps plan to participate in the Army’s XM25 program? Will the Marine Corps procure limited systems to operationally test and 

evaluate? 

General KELLEY. Marine Corps combat developers are engaged with their U.S. 

Army counterparts and closely monitor Counter Defilade Target Engagement 

(CDTE) XM–25 development. The CDTE capability demonstrated substantial promise during the U.S. Army’s recent Forward Operational Assessment (FOA) in Eastern and Southern Afghanistan, and we remain very interested in the capability. As 

the CDTE progresses beyond Milestone B, we will assess system capabilities and examine affordability options. The results of future U.S. Army operational assessments at the battalion level will certainly inform our decisions regarding this capability. 

Mr. BARTLETT. The Army’s Nett Warrior program is not a joint program. Are the 

Marines pursuing a similar program? If so, can you please provide details on that 

program. What is the Marine Corps’s opinion of Nett Warrior and were Marines involved in any of the limited field user testing of the legacy Land Warrior system 

as well as the current Nett Warrior, Increment 1 configuration? 

General KELLEY. The Marine Corps has been involved with both the Land Warrior and Nett Warrior Increment 1 programs from the beginning, participating as 

a member on the Source Selection Evaluation Boards for each. Involvement with 

Land Warrior included membership in Integrated Product Teams, participation in 

design reviews, observing trials, and utilizing Land Warrior in a Marine user evaluation at Camp Lejeune, NC. 

We have had similar involvement with Nett Warrior Increment 1 to include the 

procurement of 15 Nett Warrior systems on the Army contract in order to allow the 

Marine Corps to conduct user evaluations and capability analysis independently. 

The Marine Corps is currently a participant in the Joint Battle Command Platform (JBC–P) program which provides a similar capability to Nett Warrior Increment 1, but in a handheld form factor. Based on the Marine preference to pursue 

a handheld device, we are working with the US Army to develop the JBC–P 

handheld as the program of record to provide for a small unit situational awareness 

capability. The Army Program Manager for Nett Warrior is also the hardware Program Manager for JBC–P, and their intent is to use JBC–P as part of the technology insertions for Nett Warrior in the future. 

Future decisions to procure the full Nett Warrior will be dependent on the outcome of evaluations and assessments against Marine Corps mission requirements. 

Mr. BARTLETT. a) Please walk us through the Army and Marine Corps Requirements Board process? 

b) How often do you meet? 

c) What have been the major results of your meetings? 

d) Are joint requirements generated during these meetings? 

General KELLEY and General O’DONOHUE. a) Congressman, what I believe you are 

referring to as the Army and Marine Corps Requirements Board is really just called 

the Army Marine Corps Board or AMCB for short. 

There are 4 steps to topics coming before the AMCB. They are: 

1. Issue Identification: Topics are high level Army/USMC focused issues (e.g., concepts, capabilities/requirements, programs). These issues come from the previous 
102 

POM cycle, OSD Program Review, or as a result of new internal/external initiatives. 

This list is ever changing as emergent topics arise. 

2. Issue Development: The AMCB will assign issues to responsible Subject Matter 

Expert (SME) teams and provide guidance concerning scope, timing and desired output. These teams will then develop assessments incorporating capabilities, service 

approved requirements and cost. 

3. Issue Review. AMCB issue briefings will use a two-step review process. A Council of Colonels review will convene at least three weeks prior to convening the 

AMCB to refine the issue briefing, then a Flag review (one/two star level) will convene two weeks prior to ensure the issue is sufficiently developed and merits threestar consideration. 

4. Issue Resolution: SME team leaders will brief developed issues, analyzed 

Courses of Actions, and recommendations to the AMCB. The AMCB often will give 

guidance to the SME’s as to recommended Courses of Action. Unresolved issues may 

be presented to the CSA and CMC for further adjudication and final resolution. 

Although in recent years topics have been coming into the AMCB to note where 

divergence exists between the two services. These briefs were to make leadership 

aware of why divergence between the services existed and to explain its cause and 

necessity. 

b) Approximately 8–10 times a year 

c) I would say some of the major results of AMCB’s have been: 

In the past 4 years: 

1. Agreement on Mine Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP) vehicle requirements 

and subsequently the MATV requirements. 

2. Agreement on the Joint High Speed Vessel (JHSV) requirements. 

3. Continued collaboration on body armor and helmet requirements. 

4. Continued collaboration on small arm requirements. 

5. Convergence on Service ammunition requirements. 

Currently: 

1. Defining of the Joint Light Tactical Vehicle (JLTV) requirements. 

2. Continuation of refining Command and Control/Situational Awareness (C2/SA) 

requirements and solutions. 

d) No, joint requirements are not generated by the board. While Joint requirements are not generated at the Army Marine Corps Board, the forum serves as a 

tool for collaborating and discussing Service and or Joint requirements that impact 

both land components. 

Mr. BARTLETT. What impact is the continuing resolution (CR) having on equipping 

and modernization strategies for dismounted soldiers and marines? 

General KELLEY and General O’DONOHUE. Now that the FY11 appropriations bill 

has passed, we do not anticipate any difficulty with our equipping or modernization 

strategies for the remainder of the fiscal year. 

Mr. BARTLETT. In your opinion do we need to shift the program investment focus 

from the platform to the person? How can we help you to accelerate the innovation 

process for individual equipment? 

General KELLEY and General O’DONOHUE. The Marine Corps’ focus is to equip 

Marines to perform the missions and tasks required of them. Investing in equipment without consideration of the impact on a Marine’s ability to accomplish required tasks can lead to overburdened Marines and reduced mission-effectiveness. 

To help make mission-informed equipping investment decision, we have established a Marine Expeditionary Rifle Squad (MERS) integration facility called 

Gruntworks. Gruntworks characterizes how components of a Marine’s equipment influence combat performance in terms of weight, bulk and flexibility and seeks to better integrate fielded equipment and soon to be fielded equipment on the individual 

Marine in a more ergonomic way. This effort also provides a metric for mobility in 

various equipment configurations for the evaluation of future systems. 

The MERS Program Manager does not procure equipment, but works instead with 

all of the Program Managers within Marine Corps Systems Command to ensure individual items are integrated into an effective combat fighting capability with a balanced redundancy within the squad. MERS is unique in that its performance 

metrics are not cost, schedule and performance, but rather the effectiveness of the 

Marine squad, user acceptance of the equipment provided and the increase in mobility of Marines in combat. 

In the future, the Marine Corps plans to pursue a fully integrated infantry system 

of equipment that will be driven by an overarching requirement. Such a requirement will drive integration of capabilities more effectively at the requirements level 

instead of trying to engineer it during material development. The Marine Expeditionary Rifle Squad Capabilities Development Document will define a requirements 

‘‘box’’ in which all capabilities necessary for the Marine Rifle Squad and individual 
103 

infantryman must fit. This requirement will define parameters for size, weight, 

power, interfaces, and integration as well as set goals for weight reduction from current capabilities. The first increment of this capability will seek to better integrate 

the capabilities being fielded now or in the near future; the second increment will 

leverage emerging technologies to define attributes for the baseline load bearing, 

protection, and power systems and will require that all additional capabilities be 

fully integrated with those baseline systems. This will reduce or eliminate the need 

for additional capabilities to have their own power, cabling, and carrying pouches, 

thereby reducing the bulk and weight of the requisite combat load. The Army is taking a similar approach, and the requirements and acquisition communities in both 

services are sharing their ideas to collaborate where their interests coincide. 

Congress can best support the innovation process for individual equipment 

through continued funding of science and technology research and development efforts that pursue innovative materials that provide equal or greater capability at 

reduced weight and support a shift in emphasis to a systems approach vice the development of separate, stand alone capabilities. 

Mr. BARTLETT. How are you effectively managing the power consumption problem 

for the individual soldier and marine? 

General KELLEY and General O’DONOHUE. There are multiple efforts taking place 

to address effective management of power consumption at the individual Marine 

level. One such effort is the Solar Power Adaptors for Communications Equipment 

(SPACES). Solar power adaptors not only solve power consumption issues by offering rechargeable power to the Marine on the move, but also contribute to lightening 

the load of the warfighter by reducing the amount of batteries carried by the Marine. This innovative equipment has been fielded to squads as a reusable energy 

source for rechargeable batteries. As we work towards centralizing power, standardizing power and reliably distributing power, the potential to reduce the reliance 

upon the multiple types of batteries that are currently used in systems and carried 

in large quantity as spares is significant. 

On 13 August 2009, the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) declared energy 

a top priority for the USMC. On 1 October 2009, the CMC created the USMC Expeditionary Energy Office (E2O) with the mission to ‘‘analyze, develop, and direct the 

Marine Corps’ energy strategy in order to optimize expeditionary capabilities across 

all warfighting functions.’’ 

Additionally, the Marine Corps is the transition sponsor for a Squad Electric 

Power program, a Science and Technology initiative currently underway with the 

Office of Naval Research. This initiative began in 2011. It will address a future integrated power approach that notionally utilizes a central power source for all Marineworn power consumers (tactical radios, intercom, global positioning system, optics), 

with the goal of weight reduction and energy reduction. 

The Marine Corps will continue to work with all other Services, and Department 

of Defense agencies in standardization of power sources, with the goal of reducing 

unique batteries and other power sources that are logistically difficult to support. 

Mr. BARTLETT. Do you consider body armor to be a consumable and in the same 

category as articles of clothing? If yes, then why? Please elaborate on your response. 

General KELLEY and General O’DONOHUE. Yes, we consider body armor to be a 

consumable item because of its short life cycle. 

In comparison, the way that body armor is used and replenished is similar to that 

of unit issued clothing. Further, body armor is not generally repairable. If it is damaged, body armor is disposed and a replacement is provided. Additionally, treating 

body armor as a consumable allows the Marine Corps to procure new technologies 

to meet changing enemy threats. 

Mr. BARTLETT. Does the Army and Marine Corps currently have a validated requirement for lighter-weight body armor systems? What are your current requirements for body armor? 

General O’DONOHUE. Yes. The overarching requirement for body armor in the Marine Corps is the Family of Body Armor Operational Requirements Document (FBA 

ORD). This requirement resulted in the fielding of the Outer Tactical Vest (OTV) 

and contains the protection requirements for all subsequent body armor systems, as 

well as the Enhanced Small Arms Protection Inserts (ESAPI) and side plates. 

The Urgent Statement of Need for the Outer Tactical Vest Enhancement resulted 

in fielding of the Modular Tactical Vest (MTV), which provided improved features 

and fit over the OTV. The Improved Modular Tactical Vest (IMTV) will replace the 

MTV in the next fiscal year. The IMTV provides a seven percent reduction in weight 

and improves fit and ease of use. 

The Urgent Statement of Need for an ESAPI Carrier resulted in fielding of the 

Scalable Plate Carrier (SPC), which provides somewhat reduced protection against 

shrapnel while maintaining protection against direct fire in exchange for weight 
104 

savings and increased mobility. The Statement of Need for the Plate Carrier provides for the replacement of the SPC with improvements such as more commonality 

with the IMTV and better fit while maintaining the savings in weight and mobility. 

We plan to field this capable later this year. 

Even with the advancements made in the fielding of subsequent body armor systems, the objective protection and mobility goals for the Family of Body Armor ORD 

have yet to be achieved. We are currently involved in the Army’s effort to develop 

a requirement to replace the current multiple body armor systems with a single, 

modular solution that incorporates the latest materials for soft and plate armor protection to bring us closer to achieving the protection and mobility both Services desire. We intend to rapidly procure new body armor systems as technology matures 

to meet both protection and overall mission requirements. 

Mr. BARTLETT. Does the Army and Marine Corps currently have a validated requirement for a new handgun system? Are you currently reviewing such a requirement? 

General O’DONOHUE. Yes. We participated with the other Services in the development and validation of an Air Force-led Modular Handgun System requirement. We 

are conducting a capability assessment that will inform future investment decisions 

for a new handgun capability. 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MRS. ROBY 

Mrs. ROBY. At what stage in the acquisition process is improved groin protection 

against a dismounted IED threat and what methods are being considered to further 

protect our Servicemembers? 

Mr. MARKOWITZ. Current efforts being conducted for improved groin protection are 

not part of a formal acquisition process. They are being done in response to a 10 

Liner request from a brigade in OEF that requested that the Army Rapid Equipping 

Force field multiple pelvic protection solutions to a battalion-sized unit for a 90 day 

evaluation. The Army currently provides Soldiers with a groin protector that connects vertically to the bottom front of the Improved Outer Tactical Vest and is interchangeable with the Soldier Plate Carrier System. 

PEO Soldier is working with the Rapid Equipping Force to field a number of improved groin protection designs for the evaluation described above. These include 

the United Kingdom (UK) Army’s Tier 1 silk boxer shorts that will go to a U.S. 

Army unit in June 2011. These shorts are designed to prevent debris from blast 

events to become embedded into soft tissue thus mitigating infection. PEO Soldier 

worked with several DOD agencies to quickly assess a number of commercial offthe-shelf protection products which could mitigate injuries from dirt and small fragments that are blown into the pelvic area during an IED event. The ballistic performance of these products was assessed at Army and Navy test facilities. 

Concurrently, PEO Soldier conducted a Soldier evaluation of a variety of those 

same protection products at the Maneuver Battle Laboratory, Fort Benning, GA, in 

order to obtain feedback on wearability and comfort. Both male and female Soldiers 

participated in the evaluation. The results of the Battle Lab evaluation, and the 

Safety Confirmation Testing, will be used to down select to multiple configurations 

which will be fielded to OEF in July 2011 

In addition to the efforts described above to support the 10 Liner, the Natick Soldier Research Development & Engineering Center began evaluating multiple ways 

to provide a meaningful level of protection for both males and females. Efforts focus 

on how this area of the body can be armored (i.e., protective undergarments, external overgarments, etc.). In addition, researchers will look at the effect that these 

garments have on Soldier mobility, comfort, thermal load, hygiene, etc. 

Mrs. ROBY. I understand that the Army had an estimated 267,000 night vision 

goggles (NVGs) in the inventory in 2003, and now has approximately 681,000 NVGs 

in its inventory in 2011. The large increase in procured systems occurred in response to evolving requirements associated with Operation Enduring Freedom and 

the Operation Iraqi Freedom. As you know, industrial base capacity had to be expanded to meet these increased requirements, since only a limited number of companies exist capable of producing this technology. Given the constrained budget environment, what concerns do you have about the ability to maintain NVG production capacity and technological capability? What are your respective services’ research & development and procurement budgets for NVGs in the FY 12 budget request, as well as within the future years defense program? 

General FULLER. Night vision systems afford our Warfighters unmatched situational awareness, yielding improved survivability and lethality in all operational environments. Based on the volume of systems already procured, the Army does fore-
105 

see a significant reduction in production quantities for most current night vision 

technologies. Army production deliveries are on schedule to complete in 4th Quarter 

of Fiscal Year 2012 (4QFY12). Current estimates indicate that FY13–FY17 Image 

Intensifier Tube sustainment quantities are less than 50 percent of peak production 

and less than pre-facilitization quantities beyond FY17. Other night vision technologies are also experiencing completion of the Department of Defense (DOD) requirements and reduction in demand. These changes in demand level raise the following concerns: 

a. Potential cost increase due to lower sustainment volume. 

b. Potential workforce reductions and industrial base consolidation due to reduced 

need–thus impacting competition. 

c. Potential shift of industrial focus to lower performance Night Vision Goggle Systems designed for Commercial and Foreign Military Sales, increasing industrial viability and market share. This shift of focus may result in reduced capability and/ 

or willingness to meet DOD’s higher performance requirements. 

d. Decreased ability for industry to respond to DOD urgent requirements based 

on loss of expertise and hi-performance production capability. 

In FY12 there is a $9.8 million dollar request in Research, Development, Test and 

Evaluation for Soldier night vision devices. This development effort will support 

completion of product qualification testing on the current Enhanced Night Vision 

Goggle (ENVG). It will also support integration, testing, and evaluation of technologies to further enhance night vision and provide interoperability with other systems such as the Thermal Weapons Sight and Nett Warrior. In addition, the FY12 

budget request includes $117.4M in procurement for ENVG. This will be used for 

the continued procurement of ENVG. 

Mrs. ROBY. What improvements are being made in the area of power supply for 

the dismounted Servicemembers’ individual equipment worn on the battlefield? 

General FULLER. The Army is investigating a variety of expeditionary power alternatives that provide the squad with man-portable power that will allow the Soldier 

to power his equipment or charge his batteries in the most austere operating environments. These potential solutions include, but are not limited to, Soldier portable 

fuel cells (methanol, propane), renewable energy systems (solar, wind, hydro, and 

energy harvesters), multi-fuel generators, and universal battery chargers. Innovation in battery chargers has made it possible for the Squad to carry fewer chargers 

for the variety of batteries being carried by the Warfighter. 

With funding, these expeditionary power solutions will allow for extended mission 

duration while reducing the unit logistics requirement. 

Mrs. ROBY. What is the path forward to making the NettWarrior a joint program? 

General O’DONOHUE. The Marine Corps has been involved with both the Land 

Warrior and Nett Warrior Increment 1 programs from the beginning, participating 

as a member on the Source Selection Evaluation Boards for each. Involvement with 

Land Warrior included membership in Integrated Product Teams, participation in 

design reviews, observing trials, and utilizing Land Warrior in a Marine user evaluation at Camp Lejeune, NC. 

We have had similar involvement with Nett Warrior Increment 1 to include the 

procurement of 15 Nett Warrior systems on the Army contract in order to allow the 

Marine Corps to conduct user evaluations and capability analysis independently. 

The Marine Corps concept has been to leverage capabilities from the Nett Warrior 

system that will provide a relevant capability to the Marine Corps. This collaboration in testing and evaluation provides the knowledge for informed decisions on 

which capabilities to leverage without the complexity of a joint acquisition program. 

The Marine Corps is currently a participant in the Joint Battle Command Platform (JBC–P) program which provides a similar capability to Nett Warrior Increment 1, but in a handheld form factor. Based on the Marine preference to pursue 

a handheld device, we are working with the US Army to develop the JBC–P 

handheld as the program of record to provide for a small unit situational awareness 

capability. The Army Program Manager for Nett Warrior is also the hardware Program Manager for JBC–P, and their intent is to use JBC–P as part of the technology insertions for Nett Warrior in the future. 

Future decisions to procure the full Nett Warrior will be dependent on the outcome of evaluations and assessments against Marine Corps mission requirements. 

QUESTION SUBMITTED BY MR. WILSON 

Mr. WILSON. In the hearing on March 17, you alluded to the fact an Analysis of 

Alternatives should have been performed prior to the announcement of an individual carbine competition. However, you chose to request a waiver, which was ap-
106 

proved by the Secretary of the Army. In the interest of seeing how these conclusions 

were drawn, will you please provide me and the Committee with the waiver justification, as well as any other information you submitted that the Secretary’s decision was based upon? 

General FULLER. The Army waived an Analysis of Alternatives (AoA). It was determined that an AoA would not produce relevant information in support of the program, since the Key Performance Parameters and Key Systems Attributes were 

baselined on the current M4 Carbine, as directed by the Army Requirements Oversight Council. In addition, an extensive Capabilities-Based Assessment on small 

arms requirements and gaps had just been completed in 2008. In 2009, the Under 

Secretary of Defense (Acquisition, Technology and Logistics) completed a Joint Assessment Team for small arms. All the Services participated in the assessment. This 

team concluded that with a multitude of potential materiel solutions available, product improvement programs and performance-based competitions are appropriate to 

address the alternatives. In order to determine the most prudent path forward, the 

Army will conduct a Business Case Analysis using actual data collected during the 

Test and Evaluation of the Individual Carbine candidate at the conclusion of the 

Commercial-off-the-Shelf competition. Attached is the request and approval for the 

waiver of the AoA for the Individual Carbine. [The attachment can be found on page 

83.] 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. CRITZ 

Mr. CRITZ. Has the Army approved the requirement for the Soldier Wearable 

Acoustic Targeting System (SWATS)? If not why not? 

Mr. MARKOWITZ. The Army has approved a directed requirement for 14,900 

SWATS for use in Operation Enduring Freedom to evaluate the system’s performance. The Individual Gunshot Detection (IGD) Capability Production Document 

(CPD) has not been approved at this time due the pending assessment of production 

line representative systems. The IGD CPD, currently in staffing is on deferred status. As agreed at the last 1–2 star AROC on Soldier Systems, IGD CPD would be 

deferred until the next generation of the system is evaluated in theater to inform 

CPD development. Poor performance of the earlier system raised questions on CPD 

key performance parameters and system attributes. A deliberate hold on staffing 

will remain in effect until the completion and HQDA review of an ATEC assessment 

of the next generation of Soldier Wearable Acoustic Targeting Systems (SWATS) 

currently headed to theater under the directed requirement. 

Mr. CRITZ. Why has it taken so long to approve the requirement for SWATS considering the fact the VCSA made counter sniper a priority in early 2006? 

Mr. MARKOWITZ. Development of the capability was initially slow due to assessed 

low Technology Readiness Levels (TRL) during a Proof of Concept in 2004 and poor 

performance of the first systems fielded. The Army signed a directed requirement 

in September 2009 which has enabled the procurement and fielding of 14,900 Soldier Wearable Acoustic Targeting System (SWATS) to meet field requirements. 

Fielding of these systems began in March 2011 and New Equipment Training (NET) 

is currently taking place. A capability production document (CPD) is in deferred status until such time as an assessment of production quality representative systems 

can be completed by the Army Test and Evaluation Command (ATEC). 

Mr. CRITZ. What is the Acquisition Objective and Basis of Issue Plan for the Soldier Wearable Acoustic Targeting System (SWATS)? 

Mr. MARKOWITZ. SWATS is the name of a particular individual gunshot detection 

solution. The actual program name is the Individual Gunshot Detection (IGD). 

Based on the draft IGD Capability Production Document, the projected Army Acquisition Objective for the IGD is 15,736. 
107 

Below is the BOIP for the IGD. 

Brigade 

Combat 

Team (BCT) 

Type 

Sensors per BCT 

Army Force Generation Fiscal Year 

2013–2015 

TOTAL 

Infantry 

BCT/Ranger 

600 11 6,600 

Stryker BCT 600 4 2,400 

Heavy BCT 400 6 2,400 

CAB/SF 542 8 4,336 

Total 29 15,736 

Mr. CRITZ. Why did it take the Army until October, 2010 to award the contract 

for the majority of Soldier Wearable Acoustic Targeting System (SWATS) considering the funds were appropriated at the Army’s request in the emergency supplemental in June, 2009? 

General FULLER. Soldier Wearable Acoustic Targeting System (SWATS) is the 

name of a particular individual gunshot detection solution. The actual program 

name is the Individual Gunshot Detection (IGD). The Army G–3 approved a directed 

requirement in lieu of the IGD Capability Production Document (still in draft) after 

the Infantry Army Requirements Oversight Council met on 24 September 2009. This 

directed requirement gave the Army the authority to enter into contracts for the 

IGD capability. On 20 January 2010, the U.S. Army Research, Development and Engineering Command Contracting Center, Aberdeen Proving Grounds, Maryland, 

issued the IGD solicitation (W91CRB10T0027). This solicitation sought offerors with 

mature technology that would satisfy the IGD threshold technical criteria and the 

ability to provide production quantities. Project Manager Soldier Sensors and Laser’s IGD contract acquisition strategy consisted of a Full and Open Competition, 

to include an operational evaluation, with an award based on the best value analysis of all offerors’ systems. From March to July 2010, the Army Test and Evaluation Command conducted an Operational Evaluation of three IGD systems, which 

met the threshold criteria. After contracting activities and source selection, a production contract award was made on 29 October 2010 for 10,000 to 13,000 IGD systems. Initial fielding in Operation Enduring Freedom began on 29 March 2011. 

Mr. CRITZ. Based on your experiences as PEO Soldier, do you have any recommendations on how this committee can provide additional flexibilities to make 

the acquisition process more responsive to our soldiers in combat? 

General FULLER. At this time we believe we have the flexibilities within the existing process to accomplish our mission in a responsive manner. However, the Secretary of the Army has chartered a broad review of the acquisition process and 

those recommendations will help inform prudent reforms to the system. 

Æ