U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

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

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

i 

99–650 2017

[H.A.S.C. No. 114–106] 

HEARING 

ON

NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT 

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2017 

AND

OVERSIGHT OF PREVIOUSLY AUTHORIZED 

PROGRAMS 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON TACTICAL AIR 

AND LAND FORCES HEARING 

ON

GROUND FORCE MODERNIZATION 

BUDGET REQUEST 

HEARING HELD 

MARCH 2, 2016 
(II) 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON TACTICAL AIR AND LAND FORCES 

MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio, Chairman 

FRANK A. LOBIONDO, New Jersey 

JOHN FLEMING, Louisiana 

CHRISTOPHER P. GIBSON, New York 

PAUL COOK, California, Vice Chair 

BRAD R. WENSTRUP, Ohio 

JACKIE WALORSKI, Indiana 

SAM GRAVES, Missouri 

MARTHA MCSALLY, Arizona 

STEPHEN KNIGHT, California 

THOMAS MACARTHUR, New Jersey 

WALTER B. JONES, North Carolina 

JOE WILSON, South Carolina 

LORETTA SANCHEZ, California 

NIKI TSONGAS, Massachusetts 

HENRY C. ‘‘HANK’’ JOHNSON, JR., Georgia 

TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois 

MARC A. VEASEY, Texas 

TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota 

DONALD NORCROSS, New Jersey 

RUBEN GALLEGO, Arizona 

MARK TAKAI, Hawaii 

GWEN GRAHAM, Florida 

SETH MOULTON, Massachusetts 

JESSE TOLLESON, Professional Staff Member 

DOUG BUSH, Professional Staff Member 

NEVE SCHADLER, Clerk 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

WITNESSES 

Walsh, LtGen Robert S., USMC, Commanding General, Marine Corps Combat 

Development Command, Deputy Commandant, Combat Development and 

Integration; BGen Joseph Shrader, USMC, Commanding General, Marine 

Corps Systems Command; and William E. Taylor, Program Executive Officer Land Systems, U.S. Marine Corps ............................................................... 3 

Williamson, LTG Michael E., USA, Military Deputy to the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Acquisition, Logistics and Technology); and LTG John 

M. Murray, USA, Deputy Chief of Staff, G–8 .................................................... 1 

APPENDIX 

PREPARED STATEMENTS: 

Tsongas, Hon. Niki, a Representative from Massachusetts, Subcommittee 

on Tactical Air and Land Forces ................................................................. 33 

Turner, Hon. Michael R., a Representative from Ohio, Chairman, Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land Forces ............................................... 31 

Walsh, LtGen Robert S., joint with BGen Joseph Shrader and William 

E. Taylor ........................................................................................................ 48 

Williamson, LTG Michael E., joint with LTG John M. Murray ................... 34 

DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD: 

Cover letter and list of U.S. Marine Corps unfunded priorities ................... 61 

WITNESS RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS ASKED DURING THE HEARING: 

Mr. MacArthur .................................................................................................. 68 

Ms. McSally ....................................................................................................... 67 

Mr. Takai .......................................................................................................... 67 

Mr. Turner ........................................................................................................ 67 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS POST HEARING: 

Mr. Cook ............................................................................................................ 78 

Mr. Gibson ......................................................................................................... 75 

Mr. Turner ........................................................................................................ 71 

Mrs. Walorski ................................................................................................... 80 

(1) 

GROUND FORCE MODERNIZATION BUDGET REQUEST 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON TACTICAL AIR AND LAND FORCES, Washington, DC, Wednesday, March 2, 2016. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 1:02 p.m., in room 

2212, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Michael R. Turner 

(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. 

Mr. TURNER. We will come to order. 

General Williamson, General Murray, General Walsh, General 

Shrader, Mr. William Taylor, we have agreed that we are all going 

to put our statements into the record so we can go directly to you. 

I understand that we are going to be having—are the votes called 

or they have been? 

Not yet. So it is our hope that we can get through all of the opening statements and perhaps a few questions before we have to adjourn for votes. 

I believe we are turning to General Williamson first. 

[The prepared statements of Mr. Turner and Ms. Tsongas can be 

found in the Appendix beginning on page 31.] 

STATEMENT OF LTG MICHAEL E. WILLIAMSON, USA, MILITARY 

DEPUTY TO THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE ARMY (ACQUISITION, LOGISTICS AND TECHNOLOGY); AND LTG JOHN 

M. MURRAY, USA, DEPUTY CHIEF OF STAFF, G–8 

General WILLIAMSON. Chairman Turner, Ranking Member Tsongas, and distinguished members of the Subcommittee on Tactical 

Air and Land Forces, thank you for the invitation to discuss the 

Army’s fiscal year 2017 ground force modernization programs, and 

for this opportunity to appear with our Navy and Marine Corps 

counterparts. 

We are proud to work with them in a number of critical areas, 

including the Joint Light Tactical Vehicle [JLTV] program. With 

me today is Lieutenant General Mike Murray, the Army Deputy 

Chief of Staff, G–8. Mr. Chairman, I thank you for making our 

written statement a part of the record for today’s hearing. 

Mr. Chairman, the Army’s number one priority is readiness. This 

means that we can no longer equip and sustain the entire force 

with the most modern equipment. This is a fact based on our current fiscal situation. Still the Army will focus its investments on 

supporting elements of readiness, which include key modernization 

programs. Equipping is and will always remain a critical component of readiness. 

Our equipment modernization strategy is focused on five capability areas. First, aviation, which I know we will not discuss today, 
2 

but remains a priority for the Army. Second, a robust network. 

That network has to be protected against cyberattacks. 

Key investments in this area include the Warfighter Information 

Network-Tactical [WIN–T] that provides us with networking on the 

move; assured position, navigation, and timing for trusted information while operating in conditions that may impede or deny access 

to the Global Positioning System; communication security; and offensive and defensive cyber operations to protect our networks in 

cyberspace. 

Third, integrated air and missile defense to defeat a large portfolio of threats that range from small UAVs [unmanned aerial vehicles], cruise missiles, ballistic missiles, mortars, and even threat 

aircraft. Key investments in this area include air and missile defense battle command systems, an indirect fire protection capability, and modernization of the Patriot system. 

Fourth, our combat vehicle modernization provides future Army 

maneuver forces with increased mobility, survivability, and lethality. Specifically, the Army is investing in a ground mobility vehicle, 

mobile protective firepower, Stryker lethality upgrades, and the armored multi-purpose vehicle. 

We are also incrementally modifying and modernizing existing 

systems to increase capabilities and to extend service life with improvements to the Abrams, the Bradley, and the Paladin systems. 

Finally, the Army will continue to address emerging threats by 

investing in mature technologies with the greatest potential for future use. These areas include the Modular Active Protection System, electronic warfare, and combat vehicle prototyping. 

We continue to protect our science and technology [S&T] funding 

so that the next generation of breakthrough technologies can be 

rapidly applied to our existing or our new equipment designs. 

While other services man equipment, the Army equips soldiers. 

Even with our modernization budget being at historic lows, our 

equipping mission remains essential. We cannot put our soldiers at 

risk by not providing them with the right equipment at the right 

time and the right place to accomplish their assigned missions. 

Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of this subcommittee, 

we greatly appreciate and thank you for your steadfast and strong 

support to the outstanding men and women of the United States 

Army, our Army civilians, and our Army families. 

This concludes my opening remarks, Mr. Chairman. We look forward to your questions. 

[The joint prepared statement of General Williamson and General Murray can be found in the Appendix on page 34.] 

Mr. TURNER. Thank you. 

General Walsh. 
3 

STATEMENT OF LTGEN ROBERT S. WALSH, USMC, COMMANDING GENERAL, MARINE CORPS COMBAT DEVELOPMENT COMMAND, DEPUTY COMMANDANT, COMBAT DEVELOPMENT AND INTEGRATION; BGEN JOSEPH SHRADER, 

USMC, COMMANDING GENERAL, MARINE CORPS SYSTEMS 

COMMAND; AND WILLIAM E. TAYLOR, PROGRAM EXECUTIVE 

OFFICER LAND SYSTEMS, U.S. MARINE CORPS 

General WALSH. Thank you, Chairman Turner and Ranking 

Member Sanchez—I don’t think she is here—and distinguished 

members of the subcommittee, for the opportunity to testify today 

before you on the Marine Corps ground modernization portfolio. 

Joining me today is Brigadier General Joe Shrader, Commander 

of Marine Corps System Command, and also Mr. Bill Taylor, our 

program executive officer for Marine Corps Land Systems Command. I would also like to recognize our Army counterparts, Lieutenant Generals Williamson and Murray, who I work very closely 

with. 

It is essential to comment on our shared commitment on our programs together, and I would also like to comment on our reinvigoration of our Marine Corps Board, which I think will help the subcommittee in the future to ensure that our two services remain 

closely aligned on our programs. 

The Marine Corps faces a challenging future operating environment with the Army in which peer and near-peer adversaries approach parity with some key capabilities. Anti-access and area denial capabilities will proliferate, becoming cheaper, more lethal, 

and harder to target. Hybrid adversaries with masked signatures 

will fight in distributed fashion in densely populated urban littorals. 

The U.S. satellite-based capabilities may be degraded or denied. 

Cyber threats will target the digital networks that are essential to 

the way we currently fight. And adversaries will leverage advanced 

commercial off-the-shelf technologies to out-cycle our acquisition 

process. 

Information warfare will exploit global communications and social media, and we will face all of these challenges in an era of reduced manpower and fiscal austerity. 

Our ground vehicle modernization strategy is to sequentially 

modernize priority capabilities, reduce equipment inventories wherever possible, and judicially sustain remaining equipment. The future security environment requires a robust capability to operate 

from the sea and maneuver ashore to the positions of advantage. 

The Amphibious Combat Vehicle program enables us to do so. It 

is the Marine Corps highest ground modernization priority and 

consists of two increments. 

This program when coupled with improvements to our existing 

fleet of assault amphibians, generates a complementary capability, 

set of capabilities, to meet the general support lift capability and 

capacity requirements of our ground combat element. 

The second highest priority within our portfolio remains replacement of our HMMWV [high mobility multipurpose wheeled vehicle] 

fleet that is most at risk, those trucks that perform a combat function and are typically exposed to enemy fires. 
4 

In partnership with the Army, the Marine Corps has sequenced 

in the JLTV program to ensure affordability of the entire ground 

combat tactical vehicle portfolio, while replacing 5,500 units of the 

legacy HMMWV fleet with the modern tactical trucks prior to fielding the first increment of our Amphibious Combat Vehicle. These 

core Marine Corps modernization efforts have been designed in a 

manner to ensure their affordability. 

Finally, the Ground/Air Task Oriented Radar that combines five 

current programs will enhance our ability to command and control 

across the Marine air-ground task force. This solution allows us to 

support an air defense, air surveillance, counter-targeting, counterfire, air traffic control missions through simple software swaps on 

a single piece of hardware, a much more expeditionary solution 

than numerous radar solutions we currently have. 

It will increase our sensing and sharing effectiveness across the 

range of military operations, supporting missions in high-end conflict, hybrid warfare, and low-intensity conflict, and thus enabling 

the command and control of our forces. 

Thank you again for this opportunity. And I look forward to your 

questions. 

[The joint prepared statement of General Walsh, General 

Shrader, and Mr. Taylor can be found in the Appendix on page 48.] 

Mr. TURNER. Thank you both. We have been informed, by the 

way, that votes will not be occurring so we are going to be able to 

slow our pace down a bit. 

As you are all aware, the budget debate is gripping Capitol Hill 

currently. The budget proposed by the President that was expected 

to come in concert with our 2-year budget deal, was expected to 

have a number of 574 as the base number. 

It has fallen $18 billion short of that, and Congress is dutifully working to restore that $18 billion in the base budget number. 

However, it is my understanding that DOD [Department of Defense] has already been proceeding along the lines of the President’s proposed budget, which is, of course, includes the $18 billion 

shortfall. 

It is my understanding, General Murray, as a result of our meeting yesterday that the Army’s share of that shortfall was approximately $3.1 billion. Could you please provide the subcommittee 

with more details as to which programs and capabilities were impacted by this reduced budget request? Since Congress is diligently 

working to put those dollars back it would aid us in our ability to 

understand what is at risk. 

General MURRAY. Yes, sir. Thank you. So we went back and did 

some homework based upon our conversation yesterday, and it is 

actually closer to $3.4 billion. And the easiest way to explain that 

because as you build a program and we got the BBA [Bipartisan 

Budget Act] about the early November timeframe, we were weeks 

away from dropping the 2017 budget to OSD [Office of the Secretary of Defense]. So we had a very short time to work on it. But it is $3.4 billion and that is based upon what we said we 

needed to meet the requirements we have been given versus what 

we got under the BBA 2015 agreement for 2017. It covers a lot of 

categories. It covers military personnel account, which is a very 

small amount. It covers operations and maintenance, training. It 
5 

covers research and development and acquisition [RDA] accounts, 

and it covers facilities accounts. 

Specific to your question, within the RDA account it was about $570,000—I am sorry, $570 million and it was primarily where we 

took that cut was in aircraft modernization. 

So we went back and took Apaches, took a cut in Apache modernization. We took a cut in Black Hawk modernization, and we 

took a small cut in CH–47 modernization. Kept everything in compliance with the multiyear contracts, but basically brought aircraft 

modernization production to the floor to account for that cut. But 

$3.4 [billion] is really the answer to your question, sir. 

Mr. TURNER. Thank you. That helps us again in the debate and 

advocacy to try to restore those dollars with an understanding of 

what is at risk. 

General Murray, I also understand that the Army wants to redirect funding within ERI [European Reassurance Initiative] from 

operation and maintenance to procurement in order to begin the 

modernization of Abrams tanks and Bradley fighting vehicles to 

better deter against threats from Russian aggression. Can you 

please explain this plan and do you require any specific authorities 

from the Armed Services Committee? 

General MURRAY. Sir, we are going to work with Congress, obviously, and it is a reprogramming action of the dollars that were 

given to us for the European Reassurance Initiative. Once again, 

we came up with a plan and this was a late-breaking in the program development last year. We came up with a plan to put unmodernized equipment as part of the equipment bill in Europe with 

the prepositioned stocks. 

We went back and looked at that plan after we had some more 

time to do it and decided that we would be better off putting modernized equipment. So the original plan was to take unmodernized 

equipment, bring it to 1020 standards, and then send it over as the 

first installment of what will eventually become a division minus 

set in terms of prepositioned stocks. 

In order to make modern equipment, we now have a plan to use 

what is already over there in the European activity set, bring that 

back to APS, the Army Prepositioned Stocks, use brigades to rotate 

into Europe on a heel-to-toe rotation, which we have the funding 

for in the ERI OCO [Overseas Contingency Operations] account, 

and then take the equipment we were going to send and use that 

to go to the next generation of tank and Bradley. So the Abrams 

A–3 and the Bradley V–4 to kind of jump-start that production. 

So it is about $250 [million], $245 million we just need to reprogram RDA OMA [Operations and Maintenance, Army], just change 

that over. So it is not an ask for more money than what is already 

in there. It is just a reprogramming action, and we would appreciate the help with that. 

Mr. TURNER. For my last question, General Williamson, I am assuming the Army’s planning to start an APS [Active Protection 

Systems] test and evaluation program that would integrate technologically mature systems on Abrams, Bradleys, and Strykers. 

Could you please provide us with an update on this program and 

comments on its schedule? And is this program fully funded in fiscal year 2017? 
6 

General WILLIAMSON. Sir, thank you for the question. So the Active Protection System program, we are actually taking a dual 

path. So we have an established program that is called the Modular Active Protection System [MAPS]. It really gives us an approach that allows us to look at a soft kill looking at obscurance, 

looking at electronics in order to defeat threat missiles targeted at 

our systems. And then it continues to graduate into the hard kill, 

that is kinetic, being able to shoot down missiles fired at our equipment. 

The intent of the MAPS program, though, is to develop a very 

modular system that we can apply to the wide range of combat vehicles that we have in store. That is a 5-year program, sir, which 

we started last year from an S&T standpoint. And so it will be a 

couple of years before we are comfortable with that system being 

able to be applied to our combat vehicles. 

So in the interim, the second part of our strategy is to look at 

existing active protection systems, both domestically produced and 

even those that our allies have. We are now bringing those in this 

year and characterizing those on our systems to understand the 

performance, understand the integration effort, so that we can 

have a capability a lot quicker than the 5-year timeframe. So our 

goal is to have capability within 2 years. 

Mr. TURNER. Excellent. Well, I think the members of the committee are all well aware that Israel has already in Israel deployed 

systems that are at least a good starting point for our discussion. 

We look forward to your evaluation—— 

General WILLIAMSON. Yes, sir. 

Mr. TURNER [continuing]. Of those systems. 

Ms. Tsongas. 

Ms. TSONGAS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you all for 

being here. As I have served on the Armed Services Committee it 

has been my experience that absent oversight from Congress the 

services neglect to design and field equipment with specific requirements for women. 

We have seen some progress in the area of body armor, important progress. We know that in the area of shoes that are issued 

to our service men and women there hasn’t been a lot of thought 

about, you know, what a woman’s foot might need in these challenging—given the demands on what she needs to to. 

And so I think with the Department of Defense having recently 

opened all combat-related positions to women in the military that 

meet the required standards, a move that I certainly support, I 

would really like to ask that in the area of the newly opened positions which include infantry positions previously closed to women, 

how are the Army and Marines adapting their infantry equipment 

requirements to account for these changes in policy? 

For example, will the next generation of soldier or marine protective equipment, like body armor, be provided in a range of sizes, 

shapes, and configurations to account for more women in infantry 

units? 

General WILLIAMSON. So ma’am, let me start from an Army perspective. So this is one of the things we have made considerable 

progress in in terms of our uniforms and also in our protective 

equipment. So I would start by telling you that we have added 
7 

eight additional sizes based on a better understanding of the stature. And so there is a level of complexity here that it is not just 

being smaller. It is proportions. And so that is why there are so 

many additional sizes. 

And as anybody who has worn a piece of body armor knows that 

it is inconvenient enough without being able to appropriately size 

it. And so in the design of our new protective equipment we have 

worked very hard as you look at both the torso, the hard armor 

protection, the extremities with the soft armor and the sizing so 

that we can fit both women and smaller male soldiers appropriately. 

Ms. TSONGAS. General Walsh. 

General MURRAY. Ma’am, if I could just real quickly to add to 

what General Williamson has said? I am sorry. So you mentioned 

infantry specifically, which is near and dear to my heart, but so it 

is not only the body armor that they are wearing. It is also the 

equipment they are carrying in terms of—and it is not a gender 

thing but it is lightening of the load. 

So I mean, there is a very conscientious effort and we are making some pretty good progress on lightening the launch unit for the 

Javelin, on lightening tripods for the machine guns, on lightening 

the machine guns themselves. 

And then something that I am very excited about we have been 

talking about for a long time, we are making some pretty good 

progress on is a, basically a robot that follows the squad that could 

take anywhere from 3 to 1,200 pounds off of an infantry squad, be 

it whatever gender it is and carries the load for them and then remote. And so they are not carrying all that equipment. And also 

gives them the ability to lessen the load on batteries as well because it serves as a battery charger. 

So there are efforts. You know, like I said, it is not gender-specific, but there are efforts going on in a lot of different areas to try 

to lighten the load we are asking our soldiers to carry. 

Ms. TSONGAS. Well, we have certainly seen a lot of evidence that 

the load of the body armor even, while it was very protective, 

caused long-term damage and costs that we are going to be dealing 

with for many years to come. So the effort to lighten the load is 

important across all areas of the equipment. 

General WALSH. Congresswoman, very close to what General 

Murray and General Williamson said on our part is start off with 

the lightening the load piece. It is a huge piece that we are looking 

at with the amount of technology, as you are aware of, that we are 

putting on our marines to be able to operate in a distributed manner. The weight increases so we have been very focused on continuing to try to lighten that load. 

And just as we talked about robotic capabilities, we are looking 

at we just did a limited objective experiment where we looked at 

taking infantry company and how they would use infantry transportation vehicles, small vehicles, ACV [Amphibious Combat Vehicle] type that would be able to carry some of the loads with them 

to be able to lighten that load so they are able to be more mobile 

in a foot-mobile, because the Marine Corps is a very foot-mobile organization and we have to travel that way. 
8 

As far as the female piece of it specifically, we are continuing to 

look at our policies and the gear that we have got. We originally 

had a policy where we had the gear we were buying for our protection systems was based on a low end of 5 percent of the Marines, 

Marines gender neutral to 95 percent. That was the percentage 

that we were buying the gear to. 

Well, since then we have looked at that and right now I have got 

a policy change that I have got to change our requirements document to take that down to 2 percent of the lowest of the females 

and take that all the way up to 98 percent of the males because 

we were finding it was when we were at that 5 percent of buying 

gear just for 5 percent of the total Marine Corps that a lot of the 

females were falling below that and the gear wasn’t fitting them 

accordingly. 

Just as General Williamson said too, we also have looked at the 

size of the gear and we have added another short version of our 

vests, which carry a lot of our armor protection. 

Ms. TSONGAS. And how are you all doing in fielding the new body 

armor that has been developed for women, especially the Army, but 

I am also curious to hear from you, General Walsh. 

General MURRAY. Yes, ma’am. So the procurement objective, and 

we may not get there, is about 72,000 sets and 5,500 have been 

fielded. And we field to deploying soldiers male or female so it becomes a cascade. So as female soldiers and male soldiers deploy, 

the form-fitted, you know, new really IOTV [Improved Outer Tactical Vest], the vest, is fielded, so 5,500 fielded. 

The acquisition objective was somewhere around 7,200, but as 

you know, on the body armor it is very short acquisition cycles because we want to take advantage of the newest technology as it becomes available. 

General WALSH. I will just start by saying that we have added 

about 3,800 of those protective vests. And I will just turn it over 

to General Shrader for any details he would like to add. 

General SHRADER. Congresswoman, thank you for the question. 

So General Walsh talked about we dropped below the 5 percent 

down into the 2 percent. What led us there was an anthropometric 

fit study that we did. 

We started a number of years ago and the timing of it it was fortuitous that it ended along with this decision that was made. Led 

us to look at those extra-small sizes, the stature sizes and led us 

to purchase, like General Walsh said, the 3,800 extra sizes or extra 

sets that were down in that 2 percentile range, extra-small sizes. 

So we are fielding those now. 

I would also mention that we are looking at how the load-bearing 

system integrates onto the smaller stature as well. What are the 

second- and third-order effects with regard to injuries and those 

types of issues? 

So we have an organization within my command called the Marine Expeditionary Rifle Squad, or MERS, that exists in a place 

called Gruntworks where we have an exercise physiologist on staff 

that examines all of this data that we pull from the schoolhouses 

to look at the injuries that may be occurring and see how that can 

inform how we change any of our body armor and any of our loadbearing systems. 
9 

We just fielded a new pack in the Marine Corps and we are now 

looking at how does it ride on the body? Does it need to ride higher 

on smaller stature marines instead of on the hips, and those types 

of issues. So we are full steam ahead, ma’am, looking at those 

smaller sets. 

Ms. TSONGAS. Well, one of the more alarming things I learned 

after you all first began to develop—the Army first began to develop body armor for women, was I learned that in the previous 

armor that they were wearing, the male version, that often it compromised a woman’s ability to lift her arm appropriately to fire or 

whatever she needed to do. 

So there are real risks to not moving ahead in that very expeditious way, especially given the opening of all these combat positions to women. So I thank you. 

I yield back. 

Mr. TURNER. Excellent question. Thank you. 

Mr. LoBiondo. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. Thank you for being here and for all that you do. 

General Murray, in the battle space whether air, land, or sea, it 

is always the tangible items that are given the most interest from 

the Department of Defense, Congress, and the general public because they are the things that we can reach out and touch and 

physically see. 

However sometimes it is the invisible items, mainly C4ISR [command, control, communications, computers, intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance] capabilities and resiliency that determine success in the modern battle space. So along those lines can 

you update the committee on the tactical radio programs, specifically HMS [Handheld, Manpack, and Small-Form Fit], and what 

the Army is doing to move this program along as expeditiously as 

possible? 

General MURRAY. Sir, I will kind of cover it very broadly and 

then General Williamson has got much more depth into it, and I 

will pass it over to General Williamson. 

And so I mean there is within our network, which General 

Williamson has said was, you know, the number two priority in 

terms of the 2017 budget. And the overall umbrella would be our 

WIN–T program. There are several layers we are talking about. 

The HMS manpack radio is absolutely a key component within 

what we are trying to do in terms of pushing command or on-themove capability down to multiple echelons as well as connecting 

lower and upper mid-tier echelons of command. 

So connecting companies up to battalion, to brigade and then 

that on-the-move capability. And basically HMS is a critical capability within that, and then General Williamson will pick it up 

from there. 

General WILLIAMSON. So sir, really appreciate the question. The 

radio program is something that I have been invested in for a number of years. So I am happy to report that the HMS handheld 

radio, so we just had a contract award on the 26th of February. 

And the reason I am pleased with that is that there were multiple 

vendors who are now qualified, which means that we will have 

competition that will allow us to get the best price for the taxpayer 

and give the best capability to soldiers. 
10 

And so when we talk about the HMS program it really represents two pieces. One, a manpack radio that is two channels that 

allows us to have satellite communications as well as direct line of 

sight. That program we have fielded roughly about 5,000 of those 

radios and we are going in now for a lighter version. 

This gets to Ms. Tsongas’ question is how do we lighten the load? 

So one of the things that we are doing with that radio is how do 

we make that smaller and increase range? 

The radio contract that we just awarded last week will be for a 

smaller handheld radio that is used at the squad level. And we believe that will go through a series of tests with the three vendors 

and we will down-select. I can’t tell you today whether that is one 

or two. My goal is always to maintain competition. So I think both 

programs are moving forward very steadily, sir. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. Okay. Thank you very much. 

I yield back. 

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Cook. 

Mr. COOK. Sleeping on the switch here. I had a couple of questions on standardization of ammo. When I am thinking about the 

Stryker and I am thinking about the Bradley and I am thinking 

about the LAV [Light Armored Vehicle] and, you know, I am not 

as smart as anybody in this room here. I am just a dumb grunt. 

But why do we have, you know, 25 mm for one and 30 [mm] for 

the other? 

I am a big fan of the Stryker. I like going up to the 30 mm. But 

I have also heard some rumors that some of the troops—I have got 

Fort Irwin—that they are grumbling a little bit about the 25 mm, 

and even in the Marine Corps. Whether it is capable to standardize 

that equipment or whether we have to retool all those vehicles? 

If you could kind of comment on that because I am going to ask 

the same question about why the Marine Corps has its own 5.56 

and the Army has its own 5.56. 

And when we go into these budget wars where we are supposed 

to have our act together in terms of efficiency and effectiveness and 

we are trying to make the argument, and you have got a lot of people here that are, you know, quite frankly, hawks. And we are 

going to be fighting other people that are going to want to cut your 

budgets. These are answers that I think are imperative to some of 

the discussions that we have. 

So is that too much of a grenade? 

General MURRAY. No, sir. So I mean, you are absolutely correct. 

So the 30 mm is the current weapons system. It is not done yet 

as you know. We are still upgrading the Strykers, 81 per BCT [brigade combat team] starting with the regiment in Germany. And 

the 25, I know of, and General Williamson can talk in more detail, 

I know of no plans to try to go back in and reengineer the Bradley 

for a 30 mm. 

A lot of that may be the integration piece of it is just too difficult 

and as spending a lot of time in a Bradley myself, I personally 

think the 25 with the right ammo is a very effective weapon system. 

The 30 and Bradleys normally are around tanks so I mean that 

was part of the discussion in terms of 30 mm versus a smaller gun 

for the Strykers. Strykers are not necessarily throw—so there is a 
11 

lot that went into it, but—and I will turn it over to General 

Williamson—but 30 on the Stryker, 25 on the Bradley is where we 

intend to stay. 

General WILLIAMSON. So sir, just two points. So I do appreciate 

the concern about multiple weapons systems and then the associated tail that comes with multiple variations of ammunition. But 

the start point is the investment that would be required to go back 

and touch all of the 25 mms, which is a very capable weapon system. That is a significant investment. 

I have spent time with our ammunition and our ballistics folks, 

and I would tell you that the 30 mm that gets added to the Stryker 

gives it an incredible capability. I mean, and part of the motivation 

there is it is on two fronts. So one, it gives you a capability to be 

able to address lightly armored, lightly skinned vehicles, but that 

weapon also gives you a tremendous capability in engaging enemy 

in the open and at range. 

And so we believe it adds a tremendous amount of capability to 

that Stryker force, especially as you look at our desire to provide 

additional capabilities starting in Europe. And that is the direction 

that we have headed. There will be a separate decision that will 

be made by the leadership of the Army that talks about how far 

you go with that Stryker lethality package and the 30 mm. 

General WALSH. Congressman, I think the first thing I would say 

is whenever we can, our intent is to buy with the Army in the same 

program. So everything going forward that is what we try to look 

at, and I will look forward to trying to answer that 5.56 question 

later when you bring that forward. 

On the LAV specifically, as we look at our priorities between we 

have got first priority really is affordability on the ACV and the 

JLTV, trying to get those programs forward. Trying to give more 

firepower to our LAV program along with keeping them around 

longer, we focused really on their obsolescence and keeping them 

going from an obsolescence standpoint, but also the LAV anti-tank 

program. That is really our focus right now has been to up-gun 

them with this new anti-tank capability. 

I think the same thing that General Murray had said it to try 

to up-gun and take an older vehicle like this at this point in time 

we are trying to bring in new programs and try to bring in a higher 

caliber capability in. It is just not an affordability standpoint to 

where we can afford to go right now. 

Mr. COOK. I yield back. 

Mr. TURNER. Turn to our next questions. I want to just read the 

list so people know where they are on the list currently for asking 

questions. We have got Mr. Takai, MacArthur, Graham, Gibson, 

Walz, McSally, Moulton, Walorski, and then Duckworth. That is 

the current order. 

Mr. Takai. 

Mr. TAKAI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Aloha, generals. I am concerned about the cycle we go through in upgrading and modernizing the technologies that our warfighters employ in combat on the 

ground. As you know, we have found ourselves in situations in the 

past where we had deployed troops without the proper equipment 

because of our modernization cycles that have been underfunded. 
12 

Today I want to ask about a couple of programs, mainly on the 

ground system acquisition and communication. First General 

Williamson, it appears the Army has issued an unfinanced requirement list which seeks 16 additional M88A2 improved recovery vehicles. Will these be the older A1 vehicles that are improved to create 

the A2 versions? And how many M88A1 Hercules, the older variant, will remain in the Army’s inventory after completion of the 

current program funding? 

General WILLIAMSON. So sir, I will have to come back and tell 

you what the total number is, but the answer to your first question 

is that it is an upgrade to the existing 88s. 

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

page 67.] 

Mr. TAKAI. Okay. Yes, please get back to us on the other question. 

And then General Walsh, the Networking-on-the-Move [NOTM] 

system is a transformational command and control capability for 

all elements of the Marine air-ground task force. The LOC [line of 

credit] was received in October 2014 requiring an increase in approved acquisition objective from 56 to 140 NOTM systems. Where 

is the program office at with contracting production of these remaining systems? 

General WALSH. Thank you, Congressman. I will start off by giving you a broad overview of where we are at on the NOTM program and then I will turn it over to General Shrader to finish the 

question on exactly where we are at. 

What I would say is the Network-on-the-Move program is really, 

as you look at the modern battlefield, is really trying to connect our 

capabilities. So if we have been in Iraq and Afghanistan in very immovable forward operating bases, combat outposts, we have been 

in the same location in the same area for a long time. 

We are operating on there and we have got our command operations center there. And we have been able to bring that technology 

and really have a lot of situational battle space awareness of what 

is going on in that area. 

On the future battlefield, operating in a distributed manner, 

when we have to push our forces out they are more on the move 

and have to be able to distribute it more, the ability to share, 

sense, and share that information and enable our forces to operate 

as a command post on the move. And that basically is what our 

Network-on-the-Move capability is doing. 

So as we are going through this program we started off with our 

ground combat vehicle program, have now moved it into our ITV 

[internally transportable vehicle] or smaller vehicle program, and 

now what we are also seeing it is we have got the urgent needs 

requests from our special purpose MAGTFs [Marine air-ground 

task forces] that are forward requesting the same type of vehicle 

that would tie into the aircraft that are deploying. 

So we have changed the program to also add the addition of a 

Network-on-the-Move airborne into the Network-on-the-Move 

ground program that we have, so the ability to connect, mesh-net 

that capability from the aircraft down to the ground commanders. 

And the specific requirement came out of the special purpose 

MAGTF was when they are en route for long hours on a mission 
13 

they want to be able to have the battlefield awareness like a moving jump CP [command post] would have when they get on the 

ground. So we have increased the program to also take that into 

consideration. 

So the program is changing like that because technology is 

changing so rapidly, of using that Network-on-the-Move program to 

be able to bring more capabilities into it to give more added capabilities as technology continues to spin up. And with that, I will 

turn it over to General Shrader. 

Mr. TAKAI. I had another question, so if you could, General, just 

answer the question regarding the where we are in terms of contracting? 

General SHRADER. Sir, to be honest with you, specifically where 

we are in the contracting I will have to come back to you. I do 

know that the 140 systems is fully funded. Right now the issue 

that we are really getting at with NOTM is that that capability is 

really key to where the Marine Corps is trying to go with regard 

to distributed operations in the command and control mode. 

The big thing we are getting at in NOTM is the size, weight, and 

power issues. We are trying to shrink the size and that weight and 

the amount of power that it draws on that system. But I will, if 

I could, sir, come back to you exactly where we are with the contracting and fully funding on the program. 

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

page 68.] 

Mr. TAKAI. Okay. Thank you. I have run out of time, so Mr. 

Chair, I yield back. 

Mr. TURNER. Okay. 

Mr. MacArthur. 

Mr. MACARTHUR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I wanted to talk 

about unfunded priorities for a few moments. And just clarify before I get specific, did you base your unfunded requirements list on 

PB [President’s budget] 2017 or on the full $574 billion? 

General MURRAY. Sir, we based it on the budget that we submitted. So part of that was the difference between what we built 

the POM [program objective memorandum] against and what we 

got in terms of the BBA, so part of that was to backfill the BBA 

cut, if that makes sense to you? That was a big piece of it. 

Mr. MACARTHUR. I want to make sure I understand that. So was 

based on the lower—— 

General MURRAY. Oh, yes, sir. 

Mr. MACARTHUR [continuing]. The lower number? 

General MURRAY. Yes, sir. 

General WALSH. And I would just reiterate exactly the same 

thing is we were working off originally what we thought we would 

have originally. And when the BBA came in, some things had to 

get pushed out, and as, you know, the pressure of the budget we 

had to lower, you know. The BBA helped us with 2 years of funding that gave us stability and predictability in our time period. 

But the reduction of that pressure, budget pressure, ended up 

pushing some things that we couldn’t fit into the budget numbers 

that we had. So the unfunded list takes into account those things 

that we originally would have bought, but now we are unable to 

buy. 
14 

Mr. MACARTHUR. So I would like to get a sense of the top two 

or three, four, the most important things that got left off? 

General MURRAY. Yes, sir. I will start. So the first one would be 

what was reduced in the 2017 budget over what we said we needed, so it is the restoration of the BBA cut we took in 2017. The second one would probably be increased readiness. 

As you know, the theme in this year’s budget for the Army is 

near-term readiness. It is about a 5 percent increase in readiness, 

so buy back more readiness in terms of home station training, flying hours, some training ammunition. 

And then probably number three would be we started to explore 

the recommendations based on the National Commission on the 

Future Army. There was 63 recommendations they made, and some 

of those are fairly expensive if we go with those recommendations. 

Mr. MACARTHUR. General Walsh. 

General WALSH. You know, I am looking at our list and I don’t 

know if we have had a chance to really prioritize the list as far as 

what I would look at. I know we certainly have aircraft items that 

we have got in there, specific aircraft capabilities. Some of our information warfare capabilities that we have got and some of our 

UAS [unmanned aircraft systems] capabilities is what I would say. 

But I will have to get back to you on a prioritization of it. It is 

more of a list that we have got blocked off by procurement areas 

without really prioritizing it. So I will have to get back with you 

on an answer on that. 

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

page 68.] 

Mr. MACARTHUR. We throw around very large numbers with these budgets. Whether it is $18 billion more or less, these are very 

big numbers. And yet they make a difference. Clearly they make 

a difference. You mentioned readiness, training, air time, things of 

that sort. Does that translate in a tangible way in your mind to increased risk to the men and women we put in harm’s way? 

General MURRAY. In terms of the lack of that funding? 

Mr. MACARTHUR. Yes. 

General MURRAY. Absolutely. So I mean, and General Milley and 

General Allen since has testified and the Acting Secretary of the 

Army, the Honorable Patrick Murphy, that this budget, I mean, we 

are doubling down on near-term readiness. And it is based upon 

what is going on in the world today. It is current threats. It is 

emerging threats and it is the potential. And you can argue whether that potential is increasing or stays the same that we are going 

to send America’s sons and daughters into harm’s way in the near 

future. 

And so it is going after the near-term readiness because the one 

thing none of us can afford to do is get up in the morning and look 

ourselves in the mirror and say we could have prepared them better when they go. So that is why we were very focused at the expense of everything else in the Army’s budget on making sure that 

we are ready, as ready as we can be as quickly as we can be. And 

so that is where the risk is. 

Mr. MACARTHUR. And so just to be really clear, we are not talking about maybe-so readiness. We are not talking about being 

ready for what might happen that we can’t foresee, something 
15 

around the corner. We are talking about near-term readiness to 

face threats already upon us is tangibly compromised by these differences between the full $574 billion and the, in your case, the 

$3.4 billion reduction because of this $18 billion cut. Is that correct? 

General MURRAY. Yes, sir. 

General WALSH. If I could add from the Marine Corps side on 

that is is that that balance we have been having to work with between, you know, a forward presence force that we are with the 

United States Navy and that balance of readiness because we are 

forward all the time along with the marines and soldiers we have 

got deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan, that has been a constant 

that we have been focusing very heavily on the readiness side at 

the expense of modernization. 

I think if I look at the numbers between the last since 2003 to 

2016 to now, our investments for readiness has remained the same. 

Where our continually modernization or modernization accounts or 

investments accounts have gone down from about 17 percent average over that time to about 10 percent now. 

Mr. MACARTHUR. Thank you. I am out of time but I appreciate 

it. 

And Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Mr. TURNER. Ms. Graham. 

Ms. GRAHAM. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Congressman MacArthur just took my question, but that is okay. It was a 

great answer, appreciate the information. So I will ask a different 

question. Thank you, gentlemen, first of all, for being here very 

much. 

As a new member of this committee, we spend a lot of time focused on the challenges we face in the Middle East, which has a 

unique topography. And I am sure you are training for that type 

of a potential conflict environment. 

What would happen if something sprung up in a different part 

of the world? Would there be an opportunity—would the training 

that is going on now be in any way an additional challenge to, say, 

a jungle environment or something that wasn’t like the Middle 

East? And what would we need to do to pivot to a different battlefield? Thank you. 

General MURRAY. Yes, ma’am. Thank you for that. And so it is 

not really a budget question or a modernization question, but just 

based upon 33 years of doing this, it is really, you know, where you 

are and what the geography looks like, the conditions that you 

fight in is really what we would call conditions. 

So we train to a common standard for specific tasks, and those 

are really applicable no matter where you employ those, both individually and collectively. Would the jungle versus the desert versus 

the Arctic have an impact? Yes. We would have to account for that. 

But, you know, how we perform a certain task doesn’t necessarily 

change and the standards we perform that task to doesn’t change. 

It is the conditions that really change, if that answers your question. 

General WILLIAMSON. I just wanted to add a modernization piece 

to that, and it really gets to some of the questions that we have 
16 

had in the past regarding the time it takes and the investment it 

takes in modernization. 

And so what we don’t have the luxury of is building systems that 

are very specific to a particular environment. And that is why we 

design systems that have multiple uses and can operate in cold 

weather regions as well as in the jungle. 

And to do that and to make sure that you have the reliability 

that that weapon system needs to give you in a cold weather, as 

well as a hot weather region, requires us to make an investment 

on the engineering side and on the testing side to ensure that we 

don’t put a solider in harm’s way because we have placed them in 

an environment where the effects of the geography, of the weather, 

all of those factors can put them at risk. 

General WALSH. Yes, Congressman, I think, you know, we have 

been focused very much on the Middle East for good reason for a 

long time, but we are changing that. There is obviously from the 

administration with the rebalance to the Pacific, we have taken a 

lot of our forces out of the Pacific region, which we did a lot of jungle training when we were in there. And we have got four full battalions back there. We have really kind of regenerated that force. 

Today as we speak we have got 1,900 marines up north of the 

Arctic Circle, up in an exercise called Cold Response with our 

NATO [North Atlantic Treaty Organization] allies and working 

with the Norwegians. We are looking at our cold weather gear and 

we are relearning our cold weather capabilities that we have not 

had since really the Cold War and really used significantly. General Shrader is looking very closely at what gear we still need to 

reconstitute to be able to be where we are capable in those areas. 

Right now the Commandant has got me responsible for a program called Marine Corps Force 2025. And we are looking at this 

future operating environment which is looked at not just what we 

have been looking at with counterinsurgency, counterterrorism operations in the Middle East, but how will we fight in the future 

against this hybrid threat, against a high-end near-peer competitor 

that we see both from the capabilities that Russia and China proliferate and how we will operate in that environment? 

So right now, we are going through a detailed look at our force 

unit by unit and see how are we structured from a capability 

standpoint. Do we have the right formations and do we have the 

right capabilities to go with that? But it is certainly this operating 

environment today is forcing us to look at things completely different than we have in the last 15 years. 

General SHRADER. Yes, ma’am. I would just say just exactly what 

Lieutenant General Williamson said. You know, when it comes to 

a system, designing it and testing it for the full spectrum across 

all the environments. That is really what takes a lot of time. You 

know, we will have a system specifically designed to do one thing, 

but then when we put it through the environmental-type testing is 

what really will sometimes make us go back and have to redesign 

it. So yes, ma’am. 

Ms. GRAHAM. Well, I thank you and I have 17, 16, 15 seconds 

left. So I want to put in a shameless plug. I have a wonderful company in my district that is developing improved batteries. You 

know, we are all tethered to our units today. And I look forward 
17 

to working with you all and talking about the benefits that these 

batteries will bring. And I think you may have already had some 

discussions, but I look forward to the future opportunities. Thank 

you and my time is now out. 

So thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Gibson. 

Mr. GIBSON. Well, thanks, Mr. Chairman, and gentlemen, thank 

you for your service, your leadership, the sacrifices of your families. 

And the question I have is going to be for both the Army and the 

Marine Corps. And as a premise for that, myself, the chairman, 

Sergeant Major, Congressman Walz and others here on the committee, we have introduced a bill to stop the drawdown for the land 

forces. 

We know that this is a very serious bill because it has consequences. It has impacts all the way across the budget. But it is 

our judgment that, you know, given the assumptions that were in 

place when decisions were made on the sizing of the land forces, 

we think there has been significant change and much more risk 

today such that the risk to deterrence, the risk to fighting and winning the war, and the risk to families in terms of the dwell time 

and impacts are such that we feel the need to come forward with 

the bill. 

My question to the witnesses today has to do with impacts on 

modernization. So the staff we are in the process of collecting information as to what the price tag would be for that because the leaders of both the Army and the Marine Corps have been very clear 

that while concurring with risk assessments it is paramount that 

we not hollow out the force so that we have the resources necessary 

to not only man the force but to equip it, to modernize it and to 

still make the investments across the full spectrum, family readiness, and also R&D. 

So I throw it over to the panel in terms of what that means in 

as much specificity as you can give today, but then of course for 

the record if you want to follow that up because we are going 

through this in great detail here in the committee. 

General MURRAY. So Congressman Gibson, thank you for that 

question, and you took away my line. So both General Milley and 

General Allen have talked about this specific issue and I think 

what both of them said, and you have alluded to it all along, that 

is an increase in end strength without an increase in topline would 

just make the problems we have right now even worse in terms of 

how do you balance structure versus readiness versus modernization? 

And I really think it talks about, you know, if this were to come 

to pass as to what type of formations would be built with that increase in terms of a modernization bill. So until we get a little bit 

further down the road and if it happens, you know, what specifically are we talking about? I could come back to you with a lot 

greater detail in terms of what it would take to equip and modernize those additional formations if that gets a little bit at your 

question. 

General WALSH. Congressman Gibson, thank you also for that 

question. I think looking back, you know, when the Marine Corps 

was downsizing from 202,000 and we were on that slope down try-
18 

ing to figure out what was a good number for us, I think we came 

up with a number of about 186 at that time. And we ended up with 

182, which we are probably at about 183 right now on that slope 

down to 182. 

As we looked at that is what are the trades as you start to come 

down? And just as General Murray said, you start, you know, balancing readiness, force structure, modernization. So I think as we 

look at that, deployment-to-dwell is one of those things. What are 

we being challenged to do with right now? And our OPTEMPO [operation tempo] certainly has not changed a lot. I mean, we are a 

very busy force, a very busy Marine Corps. 

So from a structure standpoint you can only push the troops so 

hard, so any increase in strength I think it certainly, like you 

talked about, is going to have to have some cost to it, some increase 

in resources. So it can’t just be an end strength add. We have got 

to be able to have the resource. 

So to going back to that Marine Corps Force 2025 that we are 

in the middle of doing right now is the assumption right now that 

we are going at is we maintain the 182,000 number structure. And 

how do we gain in added capabilities that we need within that 

structure? So the trades we are looking at in there as we drill down 

right now, things such as, you know, information warfare, as quickly as that is moving the technology in that area with cyber electronic warfare, information operations, more command and control 

capabilities. 

All those come at a cost and a lot of those marines that come in 

that area that are signals intelligence, electronic warfare capability, and our communications and computer capabilities, those 

are more senior marines. So we are trying the process of trying to 

grow a more senior force in a lot of ways and try to retain more 

seniors. That also comes with a cost. 

So I think it, just like General Murray said, we would have to 

get back to you. We are right in the middle of this, really, this drilldown in it and what we need in the future force. The goal where 

we are at right now is if we had to maintain at 182, knowing what 

adds we would have to get, what capabilities we would have, knowing that we are going to have to take risk and try to determine 

where the risk would come in that area. 

So as we go through this and we start moving towards a Quadrennial Defense Review position, we are going to already have kind 

of in our mind what are things we need to have to be a more modern force? We are then going to have to determine is do we have 

to take risk from other areas to be that more modern force? Or 

would there be a topline add increase in force structure, like you 

suggest, and what would be the bill that would go with it? 

Mr. GIBSON. And Chairman, if I could just close here. I had a 

chance to talk to the Commandant last week about this and for situational awareness it is 184 is the number in the bill. And I know 

that the Marine Corps right now is struggling with and even looking at some what I would consider uncomfortable questions as to 

what would have to be decremented to meet some of the priorities. 

So I think the 184 is probably a good number for the Marine Corps, 

better than the 182, but knowing that we have to get this overarching cost filtered into that. 
19 

General WALSH. And if I could just follow up? And I know the 

Commandant testified to this also that, you know, as we look at 

that he is looking at even within our formation such as our infantry battalions. 

Mr. GIBSON. Right. 

General WALSH. So if you take an infantry battalion that has 950 

marines today, a very formidable fighting force, but know that we 

don’t have the 21st century-type capabilities that we need in the 

future to fight on that modern battlefield against near-peer threats 

and hybrid competitors. So if you are going to have to do a zero 

sum trade in there you are going to have to take away some of your 

infantry firepower capabilities that you have got right now to bring 

in—— 

Mr. GIBSON. And that concerned me. 

General WALSH [continuing]. To bring in some of those other 

ones. 

Mr. GIBSON. Right. Thanks so much. I yield back. 

Mr. TURNER. Ms. Duckworth. 

Ms. DUCKWORTH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. General Williamson, I would like to talk a little bit about the tactical wheeled vehicle fleet and the Army’s plans on divesting 26,000 HMMWVs in fiscal year 2016, but then also in terms of the shortage that I see we 

are having with shortage of heavy equipment prime movers. That 

was something that was brought up in the National Commission on 

the Future of the Army’s report. 

I am just going to read from it. It says, ‘‘There seems to be some 

commanders indicated to the Commission that tactical wheeled vehicle shortages in their units are creating significant risks. And 

these shortages are most pronounced in heavy equipment prime 

movers.’’ Giving an anecdotal story even that we have had to rely 

on our European allies to transport our tanks in support of the European Reassurance Initiative. 

So we are facing readiness issues in tactical wheeled mobility. 

What is the rationale for such a large HMMWV divestiture? And 

where in the fleet are you accepting the most risk? Is it HMMWVs, 

medium lift, heavy lift? 

General WILLIAMSON. So, ma’am, I am going to ask General Murray to talk the bigger modernization strategy, and then I would 

like to come back to talk to you about a specific set of tactical vehicles. 

Ms. DUCKWORTH. Okay. 

General MURRAY. So, ma’am, and I will address this with the European HETs [heavy equipment transporters] first. So it is not a 

numbers issue for the HETs in Europe. It is the restrictions on the 

road networks in Europe. So the European HETs have more axles, 

distributes the weight differently than U.S. HETs, and so it becomes a weight issue. And that is specifically with the move into 

Eastern Europe with the European activity set of equipment is 

where we first discovered that. 

Ms. DUCKWORTH. Okay. Fair enough. 

General MURRAY. On the National Commission report, ma’am, 

and I am very familiar with that because we are working that 

within the G–8. And I can’t remember the specific number of that 

recommendation, but I believe the Commission asked us to come 
20 

back and do a study on that and then come back to Congress and 

report out, which we will absolutely do. 

Our numbers don’t necessarily agree with the Commission’s report. It is for both the light, the medium, and the heavy we are 

showing excess wheeled vehicles. So we have got some work to do 

to figure out where the disconnect between what the Commission 

is—it might have been as simple as they went to a unit and that 

unit just hadn’t fielded yet or the distribution wasn’t right within 

that post, camp, or station. 

We have got some work to do to figure out where the disconnect 

is, and we are looking at that right now. And we are very happy 

to come back and as the report asks for to kind of lay out for you 

and others where we see ourselves in terms of wheeled vehicles in 

all three categories. 

Ms. DUCKWORTH. Okay. Well, before we go back to General Williamson, could you address a little bit the HMMWV modernization 

in the Guard, in the Guard and Reserve? Congress provided $523 

million for that. 

My understanding is that the HMMWV will remain in the fleet 

until at least 2035. So could you tell us what the status of the 

funds are and what the Army’s strategy is for obligating that 

money? And how does Army plan on using that money to address 

the HMMWV modernization shortfalls in the Guard and Reserve? 

And then back to General Williamson, or whoever wants to answer 

that. 

General WILLIAMSON. So, ma’am, let me talk to HMMWVs specifically. So what I would say, with the help of Congress we have 

had the opportunity to really do two things in the HMMWV fleet. 

One, we have been able to do a recap, so as you look at the existing 

set of up-armored HMMWVs, there was an issue with weight, you 

know, when you looked at the suspension, when you added all of 

that armor. 

So that money allowed us to go back in and do an upgrade to 

the suspensions, the powertrain, in order to bring those vehicles 

up. So that is part one. Part two is that it also allowed us to procure a number of ambulances, a significant number of ambulances 

for the Reserve and the National Guard. So as I look at 2016, 2017 

and 2018, that funding has given us a great ability to upgrade over 

400 vehicles in the Reserve and about 1,000 in the National Guard. 

That program is on track. And the only other comment I would 

make, ma’am, is that it has also been a great example of the public 

partnership that we have had with with industry and with our organic industrial base. And so being able to tear them down in an 

organic facility and then be able to have them built back up with 

our vendors has given us some true cost efficiency. And we have 

done a great job getting those capabilities back out to the force. 

Ms. DUCKWORTH. Thank you. 

I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. TURNER. Ms. McSally. 

Ms. MCSALLY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, gentlemen. 

I do want to follow up just to clarify on the question about the female PPE [personal protective equipment], just in case any Neanderthals try and seize what you said to use it for unintended purposes, the lightening of the load that you all talked about has noth-
21 

ing to do with women being in your units, right? These are efforts 

that have been ongoing because it is in our best interests to have 

the lightest load possible for our soldiers and marines? 

General WILLIAMSON. Absolutely, ma’am. And so we approach 

the soldier protection system from the level that we always want 

to find ways to improve its capability, but also lighten the load, 

whether you are talking about the protective vest or whether you 

are talking about the helmet. It has nothing to do with whether 

you are a male or a female. We can’t burden our soldiers with more 

weight. 

Ms. MCSALLY. So we all agree that a lighter load on any soldier 

regardless of your gender is going to make him a better warfighting 

capability. So this is a great effort having nothing to do with women’s integration. 

General WILLIAMSON. Yes, ma’am. 

Ms. MCSALLY. And you agree, General Walsh? 

General WALSH. Yes, Congresswoman, same thing. I mean, we 

are looking at the same things. It is how do we lighten it for all 

the marines? So if you are a 100-pound 5-foot artillery person out 

there and you have got to lift artillery shells or charges up and get 

them up into the cannon or up onto the truck that is going to move 

them, it is the same thing whether it is a male or a female. It is 

the standards we have and how can we help them to lighten those 

capabilities in all MOSes [military occupational specialties]? It is 

not just the infantry MOS. It is how do we make it easier for them? 

Ms. MCSALLY. Great. And similarly, obviously, you can both 

agree that having equipment and PPE that fits you as an individual regardless of your gender, you could be a 120-pound guy 

that is short who is also serving, that it is best to have everybody 

fit their equipment in order for them to be the best fighting force. 

Correct? 

General MURRAY. Yes, ma’am. 

Ms. MCSALLY. All right. I just wanted to make sure. 

General WALSH. I think it has forced us to look at that real hard. 

Ms. MCSALLY. On the record, so Neanderthals alert there. Okay. 

My next question is about the capabilities that we are talking 

about with the JAGM [joint] air-to-ground missile. It is an incremental approach in the budget with the dual-mode seeker being 

the one that is focused on in fiscal year 2017, whereas the tri-mode 

seeker, you know, provides obviously greater capabilities. 

So just wanted to get some thoughts on whether there is, you 

know, an opportunity or what your thoughts are on maybe accelerating the increment to modernization or just your input on that? 

General WILLIAMSON. So, ma’am, the only comment I would 

make is that we have looked at the JAGM capability both from a 

funding, but also from an engineering effort. And so we are very 

comfortable that programmatically the timeline that we have used 

is really about addressing risk. And I think I would be concerned 

programmatically about trying to accelerate it too much at this 

point. We will monitor it. 

Ms. MCSALLY. Okay. 

General WILLIAMSON. And I can provide additional details as required. But right now we are very comfortable with the JAGM approach. 
22 

Ms. MCSALLY. And just focusing on Increment 1 then, the dualmode seeker right now? 

General WILLIAMSON. That is correct. Yes. 

Ms. MCSALLY. Okay. Thank you. Next question, I don’t have your 

unfunded list. I just want to follow up on Congressman MacArthur 

and just clarify, do either the Army or the Marines, do you have 

anything related to counter-IED [improvised explosive device] technology on your unfunded list? Or have you asked or received everything in the President’s budget that you need related to counterIED? 

General MURRAY. Ma’am, I don’t have all the details of the UFR 

[unfunded requirement list]. I will have to come back to you. 

Ms. MCSALLY. Okay. 

General MURRAY. And I can’t recall off the top of my head whether we do or not. So I will take that for a do up. 

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

page 67.] 

Ms. MCSALLY. Okay. Thanks. In the past we have had some discussions here about counter-IED funding versus other types of 

funding, which we all agree we should probably be able to do both 

for supporting our troops. So just want to make sure we are clear 

that there is no unfunded request there. 

Can we also follow back up on WIN–T? Is everything that is in 

the President’s budget request what you would recommend or is 

there anything related to WIN–T acceleration or additional funding 

on your unfunded request list? 

General WILLIAMSON. So, ma’am, as you know, on the WIN–T 

program we just recently last year received a production decision 

that allowed us to go into full-rate production. What the Army has 

done though, and this is not related to the technology associated 

with the WIN–T, but what we have done with the program is 

spaced it so that we have the ability to field the system to units 

in a priority order. I am very comfortable where we are at with the 

WIN–T program right now. 

Ms. MCSALLY. Okay. 

General WILLIAMSON. I am not tracking a desire to accelerate 

that at this point, but I will go back and look at it. 

Ms. MCSALLY. Okay. Great. Thank you. And last question is the 

[National Commission on the] Future of the Army talked about a 

gap in electronic warfare [EW] capability for the Army. Do you 

have any comments related to the EW capabilities that could be addressed or accelerated? 

General WILLIAMSON. I do, ma’am. So it is one of the areas as 

we talked about in our opening statement. Electronic warfare is 

one of those areas that we are concerned with from it is an effect 

on our ability to operate. And the concern that I would have, 

ma’am, is that as you look at the access to technologies. So our current adversaries and our potential adversaries have the ability to 

draw from the Internet, from the available technology that is out 

there and develop counters—— 

Ms. MCSALLY. Right. 

General WILLIAMSON [continuing]. To some of our very important 

systems. It is critical for us to make an investment in EW and electronic warfare. 
23 

Ms. MCSALLY. Okay. Great. I am out of time, but I appreciate 

following up on that maybe with you later. 

General WILLIAMSON. Yes, ma’am. 

Ms. MCSALLY. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. TURNER. Thank you. Let us begin our second round of questions. 

General Walsh, in the beginning of the questioning I asked General Murray to respond to the issue of the budget debate that is 

ongoing. As you are aware, there is an expectation that the 2-year 

budget deal had a floor base budget amount of 574. The President’s 

budget request came in $18 billion under that. Congress has continued to have a debate about replacing that $18 billion taking us 

back to 574. 

General Murray and the Army had given us numbers indicating that their portion of that $18 billion, if it is restored, was $3.1 billion. And I understand in response to your questions to Mr. MacArthur on the unfunded requirements list that you have not yet 

prioritized. Have you yet determined what your portion of the $18 

billion shortfall will be? 

General WALSH. Specifically the $18 billion no, I would have to 

get back with you an answer on what we figured out. We have got 

our unfunded list and what that priority and how much we have 

on that, but I don’t think it is tied exactly to the $18 billion. 

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

page 67.] 

Mr. TURNER. But as when my questioning to—— 

General WALSH. Right. 

Mr. TURNER [continuing]. General Murray obviously it would be helpful because as we go to restore the $18 billion, being able to 

understand to what extent that restores a portion of your budget 

and what the priorities would be on the unfunded requirement list 

it gives us an ability to evaluate the benefit of being able to restore 

those funds. Thank you, General. 

Turning to Ms. Tsongas. 

Ms. TSONGAS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I wanted to ask a question about the soldier protection system. The 2017 budget request 

shows a significant research and development increase from about 

$5 million to $16 million, not a lot in the context of everything else 

you fund, but for this system, important. And it is for continued 

work on Increment 2 of the next generation soldier protection system. 

Some of the planned work cited in the budget materials refers to 

work on integrating communications, continuing to reduce weight, 

which we have heard in general is an effort that you are paying 

a lot of attention to, and possible integration of other advanced 

technologies into this system in the future. 

The Army’s Natick Soldier System Center has been doing work 

for some time on future technologies. And while it is not in my district, I am aware of it and have visited there several times and 

have seen the extraordinary research that is taking place there. 

And some of those future technologies would include communications, health monitoring. At one point I learned about injecting sensors so you could detect an injury and send some material to it to 

help stop the bleeding. Excuse me for my throat. In other areas it 
24 

could be miniaturized. So can you provide some details? And I will 

drink some water. Sorry. 

General WILLIAMSON. Ma’am, I will. So let me talk to the funding and the acceleration piece. So it goes back to your point about 

the nature of this integrated system. You have to start with the integration. 

So five key components, right, the hard armor that protects the 

torso, the vest, all of those things associated with the torso, the extremities, the helmet, which will be lighter and also include upgrades to the blast detection as well as hearing protection. And 

then this integrated sensor system that you talked about, and I 

want to talk about that a little more. And then the eye protection. 

And so although we are looking at these systems simultaneously, 

the way the funding was allocated it was going to take us starting 

in 2016 for the torso, but it wasn’t until 2019 that we were going 

to get to the integrated sensor suite that you saw at Picatinny. It 

is a really important component because what that will allow you 

to do is not only measure things like heart rate, but it will also 

give you feedback on things like hydration. So when you put a load 

on a soldier and they are operating in a combat environment, how 

do we have the mechanisms to monitor? 

In order to do that you also have to tie in the network communications systems. And so we start with this notion of integration, 

but how do we also—if you are going to add those five different 

components together, how do you make sure that you are continuing to lighten the load? The goal for the entire system is to 

make it 10 percent to 15 percent less weight than what the soldier 

carries today even with adding those capabilities. 

But the last piece I would like to talk about is the eye protection. 

So one of the more impressive things that they are doing is building transitional eyewear that allows a soldier to move from a dark 

environment into the light and back and forth without the disorientation that occurs because of that change in environment 

while adding about 10 percent more fragmentation blast protection. 

And so it is all of those components that make this system and 

soldier protection so important. So the additional funding helps to 

get us there sooner. 

General MURRAY. Yes. I would just add that as a soldier that has 

carried two pairs of glasses for the last 15 years, been in—I was 

going to say that doesn’t sound like much, but that is a huge deal 

to not have to worry about transitioning, physical transitioning eye 

protection. The actual lenses do it for you. 

Ms. TSONGAS. I have seen some of the plastics engineering that 

is going into that lens and it is pretty remarkable. And I am curious how the Marine Corps is working with—are you working across 

services? Are you part of this process? 

General SHRADER. Yes, ma’am. We are. And so I can tell you I 

have been working body armor systems, protective systems for the 

last 10 years within the Marine Corps Systems Command, and on 

a number of systems collaborating with the Army. For example, the 

enhanced combat helmet that we developed and now we are in the 

final stages of fielding the first 77,000 of those. We worked with 

the Army on that, and they are also fielding that helmet. So we are 

working with them. 
25 

We have formal forums that we meet quarterly with the Army 

and then informally. My program offices and their program offices 

probably a weekly basis if not more, and then monthly also. So yes, 

ma’am, we are working with them. 

Ms. TSONGAS. I don’t want to keep you all, but I would encourage 

you, and I assume you are thinking about different climates because it is not only weight. I don’t know what the temperature 

issues will be. And that you will also be mindful of women making 

their way, ever more women making their way into serving and to 

not leave that to an afterthought. 

Thank you all. 

Mr. TURNER. Thank you. We appreciate your presentations 

today, and we will be adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 2:14 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

A P P E N D I X 

MARCH 2, 2016 

PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD 

MARCH 2, 2016 

(31) 
32 
33 
34 
35 
36 
37 
38 
39 
40 
41 
42 
43 
44 
45 
46 
47 
48 
49 
50 
51 
52 
53 
54 
55 
56 
57 
58 
DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD 

MARCH 2, 2016 

(61) 
62 

Note: The unfunded priority list was divided into two parts, in order to be more readable. 
63 

WITNESS RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS ASKED DURING 

THE HEARING 

MARCH 2, 2016 

(67) 

RESPONSE TO QUESTION SUBMITTED BY MR. TURNER 

General WALSH. We cannot determine what portion of the $18B additional topline 

would have been allocated to the Marine Corps; however, attached is a prioritized 

list of our unfunded requirements in FY17, totaling $2.7B. This list, together with 

the President’s Budget request, would provide adequate funding to cover our requirements in FY17. [See page 23.] 

[The list referred to can be found in the Appendix beginning on page 61.] 

RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MS. McSALLY 

General MURRAY. No, the Army does not have any Counter-Improvised Explosive 

Device (C–IED) technologies on the unfunded requirements list. The Army understands the critical need for Counter-IED capabilities and continues to program funding to support this effort. The Army is funding the recapitalization of Route Clearance and Explosive Ordnance Disposal vehicles (Buffalo, Husky and Medium Mine 

Protected Vehicle Type I), the procurement/recapitalization of Counter-IED Enablers 

(Rollers, Debris Blowers, Wire Neutralization Systems and Vehicle Optics Sensor 

System) and the development of new Counter-IED capabilities (Route Clearance Interrogation System) and Husky Mounted Detection System in the Fiscal Year 2017 

(FY17) President’s Budget Submission. 

The Army continues to utilize Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) Other Procurement, Army (OPA) funding for the recapitalization of repurposed Mine Resistant Ambush Protected vehicles into Program of Record Medium Mine Protected Vehicles Type II to round out the Route Clearance formations and expects to request 

OCO OPA funding through FY19 to complete this effort. Additionally, the Army has 

fully procured Counter Radio-Controlled Improvised Explosive Devices and continues to fund Research, Development, Testing, and Evaluation to maintain relevancy and keep pace with the ever-changing threat. The Army is also funding the 

Double-V Hull for the Stryker vehicle to mitigate underbelly IED blasts and will 

complete the fielding of the third Stryker Brigade Combat Team (SBCT) in FY17 

and the fourth and final SBCT in FY20. [See page 22.] 

General WALSH. Yes, our Unfunded Priorities List (UPL) does have Counter Improvised Explosive Device items included. Attached you will find a letter from the 

Commandant of the Marine Corps to Chairman Thornberry and the Marine Corps’ 

Unfunded Priorities List, organized by priority. You will note that items 54 and 55 

comprise Explosive Ordnance Disposal Mission Equipment. This consists of both 

procurement and operations & maintenance funding. That equipment will include: 

• Video Fiber Optic Scopes—a lightweight safety compliant means of searching/ 

identifying devices and components. 

• MD82 Firing Device—a lightweight firing device with multiple means of initiation. 

• AN/PVS–31 with Enhanced Clip-on Thermal Imager—a removal system for 

thermally controlled explosives. 

• Kukri & Saber Detonator Diagnostic Kits 

• Grid Aim Kit—an enhancement to our x-ray kit. 

• AN/PDX–2 Kits—high fidelity capability upgrades and additional systems for 

Marine Special Operations Command. 

[See page 22.] 

RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. TAKAI 

General WILLIAMSON. M88A2 Heavy Equipment Recovery Combat Utility Lift and 

Evacuation System (HERCULES) 

Base funding for Fiscal Year 2017 (FY17) provides for procurement of 22 M88A2 

HERCULES. With these 22 in FY17, the Army will have procured 839 of its 933 

Authorized Acquisition Objective (AAO). To maintain a minimum sustaining rate on 

the production line and continue procurement to the AAO, the Army submitted a 
68 

UFR for 16 additional M88A2s in FY17. The Army converts M88A1s vehicles to the 

M88A2 configurations. 

At completion of the current funding (Fiscal Year 2016), the Army will have 353 

M88A1s remaining in the inventory. After achieving the M88A2 AAO of 933, the 

Army plans to retain 237 M88A1s for operational use across the Army. In addition, 

we have several hundred M88A1s, in varying conditions, at Anniston Army Depot 

that will be excess to Army needs and subsequently available for Foreign Military 

Sales. [See page 12.] 

General SHRADER. Currently 132 of 140 are funded. Funding for the other 8 has 

been reallocated to meet Type 1 encryption requirement. Type 1 Encryption is to 

protect and ensure the safe transmission and receipt of classified data; including full 

motion video from ISR platforms. NOTM has NIPR and SIPR capability. 

There is no prime contractor. SSC LANT is our integrator and they will assemble 

the NOTMs through FY20 per the following execution profile, which totals 69 across 

the FYs. This plus the 63 we have already bought gives us the aforementioned total 

of 132. 

FY17: 23 FY18: 9 FY19: 20 FY20: 17 

The remaining 8 will cost $12M. We will work to have the delta addressed in future POM cycles and also continue to pursue cost reductions that enable us to reduce that delta. [See page 13.] 

RESPONSE TO QUESTION SUBMITTED BY MR. MacARTHUR 

General MURRAY and General WALSH. Attached you will find a letter from the 

Commandant of the Marine Corps to Chairman Thornberry and the Marine Corps’ 

Unfunded Priority List, organized by priority. [See page 14.] 

[The information referred to can be found in the Appendix beginning on page 61.] 
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS POST HEARING 

MARCH 2, 2016 

(71) 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. TURNER 

Mr. TURNER. Please provide the subcommittee with an update on the Army’s expedited non-developmental item vehicle active protection system program, to include 

its schedule. And, is this program fully funded in FY17? 

General WILLIAMSON. On February 18, 2016, the Army Acquisition Executive approved an Acquisition Decision Memorandum authorizing expedited experimentation 

and characterization of non-developmental items (NDI) Active Protective Systems 

(APS) on the M1 Abrams, M2 Bradley, and the Stryker Family of Vehicles to assess 

maturity, performance, and integration risks. This expedited installation and characterization effort will inform a future decision to fully integrate onto Abrams, Bradley, and Stryker platforms. To date, NDI APS vendors have been selected for the 

M1 Abrams and Stryker. Selection of the NDI APS for Bradley is expected by April 

30, 2016. Following receipt of hardware, the installation and characterization effort 

is expected to take approximately 12 months per platform. 

Abrams currently has Fiscal Year 2016 (FY16) program funding and execution authority to begin the effort. An Above Threshold Reprogramming (ATR) action for 

Bradley and Stryker is being initiated to request execution authority as a new start, 

and reprogramming FY16 Research, Development, Test and Evaluation (RDT&E) 

funds in the amounts of $11.0 million (M) for Bradley and $16.8M for Stryker. In 

the FY17 President’s Budget, Abrams requested $15.3M, Bradley requested $15.3M, 

and Stryker requested $14.4M. Additionally, the Chief of Staff of the Army has submitted an Unfunded Requirement request that includes $10M (RDT&E) and $80M 

(Wheeled and Tracked Combat Vehicles) for Abrams. The receipt of the requested 

FY16 and FY17 funding will fully fund the expedited APS NDI effort to complete 

installation and characterization for Abrams, Bradley, and Stryker. 

Mr. TURNER. How did the Department’s reinterpretation of the BBA 2015 impact 

your modernization strategies in FY17? 

General WILLIAMSON. To fund our Army at $1.4 billion less than the Fiscal Year 

2016 (FY16) enacted level of $126.5 billion, the Army preserved current readiness 

levels, but assumed risk in long-term modernization and sustainment. As a result, 

we reduced investments in procurement by purchasing lower quantities than previously planned. To reduce risk, the Chief of Staff of the Army’s FY17 unfunded requirements (UFR of $7.5 billion) includes $3.1 billion to address several of the programs impacted by the funding reduction. The $3.1 billion in modernization UFRs, 

as well as all of the remaining UFRs, should come as an additive increase to the 

Army’s topline and should not displace funding that is part of the President’s budget. 

Mr. TURNER. What are your top unfunded requirements in fiscal year 2017 for 

ground force modernization? 

General WILLIAMSON. The top unfunded modernization programs are a subset of 

the Chief of Staff of the Army’s Fiscal Year 2017 unfunded requirements (UFRs). 

These programs are the AH–64 Apache Block IIIB New Build, AH–64 Apache Block 

IIIB Advanced Procurement, Light Utility Helicopter, Vehicle Protection System and 

War Reserve Ammunition for a total of $616 million. 

Providing funding for the top modernization UFRs would greatly enhance the 

readiness and modernization of the nation’s land forces. However, the $616 million 

in UFRs, as well as all of the remaining UFRs, should come as an additive increase 

to the Army’s topline and should not displace funding that is part of the President’s 

budget. 

Mr. TURNER. How will the acquisition authorities in the NDAA FY16 assist the 

Army with providing modernized equipment to soldiers in a more timely manner? 

General WILLIAMSON. The Army is reinvigorating command centric Army Requirements Oversight Council as a venue for National Defense Authorization Act requirements. We are aligning modernization efforts with current Soldier needs by balancing modernization requirements against current resourcing. The Army will expand experimentation and prototyping, improve sustainment, and develop a Rapid 

Capability Office. 
72 

Mr. TURNER. Would you consider body armor to be a defensive weapon system 

that requires continued technology development? If so, then why is body armor managed and procured like a commodity? 

General WILLIAMSON. The Army will continue to invest in improvements for body 

armor through research and development of advanced ballistic fibers, improved ceramics, and integration optimization to continue reducing weight and meeting 

emerging threats. Body armor is managed similar to cold weather clothing, body 

armor is like types of products which vary in ranges of sizes, and the supply, and 

issuing mechanism. Like a commodity due to being expendable, individual equipment much like cold weather clothing. 

Mr. TURNER. Now that virtually all combat roles are available for women, what 

are your commands doing to design and develop PPE and OCIE for female combatants? 

General WILLIAMSON. The Army has undertaken many initiatives to provide properly fitting uniforms and OCIE and PPE to female Soldiers. Such initiatives include 

providing a better fitting Army Combat Uniform-Female, Army Physical Fitness 

Uniform, and Flame Resistant Environmental Ensemble Undergarments. The Army 

also provides Soldiers with a Tactical Assault Panel for their Modular Lightweight 

Load-carrying Equipment (MOLLE) that enables each Soldier to adjust the straps, 

enabling the MOLLE to fit all ranges of the Soldier population. Regarding PPE, the 

Female-Improved Outer Tactical Vest (F–IOTV) is a variant of the Generation 3 

IOTV that provides female Soldiers with a better fit, allowing them to perform their 

missions more effectively. The F–IOTV provides the same unsurpassed ballistic protection of existing Army body armor, while providing eight additional sizes in conjunction with other modifications designed to provide a better fit. Similarly, the new 

Soldier Protection System Torso and Extremity Protection (TEP) subsystem will account for a wide population including small statured Soldiers, both male and female. 

TEP features include smaller shoulder width, adjustable cummerbund, and a shorter length. The TEP ballistic combat shirt will also encompass female specific sizing 

and will mitigate compatibility issues with hair buns in comparison to the legacy 

yoke and collar. 

Mr. TURNER. Could you please comment on how the Army plans to implement 

warhead technology on small guided rocket munitions that are capable of neutralizing a wider spectrum of targets such as light and up armored vehicles, bunkers, 

and structures? 

General WILLIAMSON. Research into precursor warheads for larger anti-tank munitions suggests their suitability for penetrating warheads for small guided munitions. A feasibility study of a small diameter penetrator coupled with a followthrough grenade also indicated suitability against personnel in urban structures, 

bunkers, and medium armor. This feasibility study served as the basis for long term 

plans for a new warhead for the Modular Missile Technologies (MMT) 70-mm diameter guided munition and Army Science and Technology efforts to demonstrate 

a modular open systems architecture for guided missiles that support light weight, 

rapidly-tailorable product line approaches aimed at scalability of size and effects for 

affordable precision multi-role missiles. 

Mr. TURNER. Please walk us through some of the next generation cluster munition 

programs currently in development that will be in compliance with current DOD 

policy, and when do you expect these compliant systems to begin production and 

fielding? 

General WILLIAMSON. Army Science and Technology (S&T) is investing in both 

Applied Research and Advanced Development to demonstrate three potential Cluster Munition (CM) Replacement technologies: Munition for Armored Combat Engagement (MACE), Proximity Initiated Submunition (PRAXIS), and Dual-Purpose 

Improved Conventional Munition—Enhanced Lethality (DPICM–XL). These Cluster 

Munition alternatives will be compliant with signed DoD CM Policy and the Convention on Cluster Munition, commonly referred to as the ‘‘Oslo Treaty.’’ 

MACE is a unitary round which will exploit superior fragmentation spray angle 

and penetrator design geared towards well located, point targets. PRAXIS is geared 

to poorly located, large area targets, and consists of four full-bore submunitions designed to fit within the M483A1 DPICM projectile payload volume. DPICM–XL, like 

PRAXIS, is geared to poorly located, large area targets, and consists of 63 submunitions also designed to fit within the M483A1 DPICM projectile payload volume. 

Army S&T plans to demonstrate all three technologies in the fourth quarter of 

Fiscal Year 2019. 

Mr. TURNER. From FY13–FY16, Congress has provided the Army approximately 

$520.0 million in additional funding to address HMMWV recapitalization and modernization requirements for the Guard and Reserve. What is the status of these 
73 

funds, and how is the Army using these funds to address HMMWV modernization 

shortfalls in the Guard and Reserve? 

General WILLIAMSON. The $360 million in Congressional funding provided between fiscal year 2013 (FY13)–FY15 procured 455 Ambulances for the Army National Guard (ARNG) and 155 Ambulances for the United States Army Reserve 

(USAR), modernized and/or recapitalized 1,083 Up-Armored High Mobility Multipurpose Wheeled Vehicle (HMMWV) (Up Armored HMMWV (UAH)) Troop Carriers, 

and converted 126 UAH Armament Carriers to UAH Tube-launched Opticallytracked Wire-guided missile variants. The $160 million in Congressional funding 

provided in FY16 will be used to buy 517 HMMWV Ambulances ($140 million for 

452 Ambulances for the ARNG; and $20 million for 65 Ambulances for the USAR. 

Mr. TURNER. What is your current acquisition strategy for the Ground Mobility 

Vehicle (GMV) program, and are there ways to expedite the procurement and fielding of this vehicle to infantry brigade combat teams? 

General WILLIAMSON. The current acquisition strategy for the GMV is for the program to enter in at Milestone C in Fiscal Year 2017 (FY17). Full and Open Competition will be utilized to select the vendor to produce the GMV. The current plan to 

fulfill requirements is by using a commercial off-the-shelf or non-developmental item 

vehicle. The current procurement quantity is 150 vehicles, plus two additional vehicles for destructive testing. First Unit Equipped will be in FY19. This schedule already makes use of a streamlined process to bring this capability to the Soldier as 

soon as possible. 

Mr. TURNER. Please provide the subcommittee with more details as to which programs and capabilities were impacted by DOD’s reduced topline budget request for 

fiscal year 2017? 

General WALSH. Attached is a prioritized list of our unfunded requirements in FY17, totaling $2.7B. This list, together with the President’s Budget request, would 

provide adequate funding to cover our requirements in FY17. 

[The list referred to can be found in the Appendix beginning on page 61.] 

Mr. TURNER. Would you consider body armor to be a defensive weapon system 

that requires continued technology development? If so, then why is body armor managed and procured like a commodity? 

General WALSH. Yes, and we do in fact design and procure our Ballistic Protections Systems (BPS) as a system. We fully understand and realize the importance 

of ensuring that the various pieces of equipment integrate well together to ensure 

both effective protection and the mobility and agility of our Marines on the battlefield. In fact we have developed several means for evaluating the various components of the system to ensure that we continue to enhance our mobility. For example the Marine Corps Load Effects Assessment Program (MCLEAP) requires Marines to maneuver obstacles similar to those encountered in an operational environment to ensure that any new equipment or modification to equipment does not negatively impact mobility. These systems are managed and purchased as a commodity 

to allow flexibility both in the incremental improvements of the system and because 

of the semi-consumable nature of the equipment. 

Mr. TURNER. Now that virtually all combat roles are available for women, what 

are your commands doing to design and develop PPE and OCIE for female combatants? 

General WALSH. The Marine Corps is fully committed to the importance of ensuring that all of our Marines, regardless of gender and occupational specialty have effective Ballistic Protection Systems (BPS), Personal Protective Equipment (PPE), 

and Organizational Clothing & Individual Equipment. 

The Marine Corps continuously works to improve current clothing, protection and 

equipment capabilities to decrease size, weight and bulk while improving design and 

fit in order to provide increased protection and mobility. This work is informed by 

government and industry efforts to develop materials that will help achieve these 

goals. These efforts also inform our path towards future capabilities that seek to 

move beyond incremental improvements to true next generation systems that incorporate novel designs and materials. In addition to seeking to reduce size, weight and 

bulk of materials, the systems approach looks to find efficiencies through better integration of components and design of all the capabilities together. We keep the 

Army and other services apprised of our near term efforts, while working together 

jointly towards future capabilities. 

In order to inform our actions on this matter, the Marine Corps conducted a 

Smart Adaptation Study, which provided us anthropometric data on the various 

statures of our Marines. Based on the Smart Adaptation Study recommendations, 

the Marines Corps will expand its fit requirement range from the 2nd percentile 

smallest female to the 98th percentile largest male in order to properly fit as much 

of our service population as possible. Where feasible, we will procure the additional 
74 

sizing of current capabilities to meet the new requirement and will ensure compliance of all future individual clothing, equipment and protection. Additional efforts 

include an initiative to procure a smaller adjustable pack frame sized to better fit 

the range of Marines under the current requirement of 5th percentile female to 95th 

percentile male population. 

Mr. TURNER. How did the Department’s reinterpretation of the BBA 2015 impact 

your modernization strategies in FY17? 

General WALSH. The ongoing fiscal uncertainty facing the nation, including reductions associated with the 2015 BBA, have required us to take some risk in our modernization accounts (procurement, research and development, and infrastructure investments) in order to protect the near-term readiness of our deployed and next-todeploy forces. The attached list of FY17 unfunded requirements, ranked by priority, 

reflects some of this risk. It includes several MILCON projects, procurement of airframes, and procurement of aviation and ground equipment, either to buy back BBA 

reductions or to enhance programs that have suffered under the ongoing fiscal constraints. 

Mr. TURNER. Please provide the subcommittee with more details as to which programs and capabilities were impacted by DOD’s reduced topline budget request for 

fiscal year 2017? 

General MURRAY. The Army’s Fiscal Year 2017 (FY17) request is $1.4 billion less than FY16 enacted $126.5 billion. To fund our Army at $1.4 billion less than the 

FY16 base funding level, we preserved current readiness levels, reduced investments in procurement by purchasing lower quantities than previously planned, assumed risk in long-term modernization and sustainment, and reduced funding in facilities sustainment and military construction accounts. 

Mr. TURNER. Current DOD policy requires that the failure rate of cluster munitions must be 1 percent or less after 2018. It’s my understanding that cluster munitions are a military necessity. What impacts will this policy enactment have on current cluster munition inventories and programs? 

General MURRAY. The policy inhibits our ability to employ effective indirect fires, 

in support of ground forces, operating in many likely threat contingencies in the European and Pacific Command areas of operation. Indirect fires are essential to neutralize or destroy massed armored combat formations, deny them terrain or degrade 

their ability to maneuver. 

When the policy is enacted, the Army will lose 100 percent of its unguided Multiple Launch Rocket System (MLRS) munitions, 12 percent of its Guided MLRS 

(GMLRS) munitions, 58 percent of its Army Tactical Missiles System (ATACMS), 

and 51 percent of its lethal cannon munitions. 

To mitigate the impact of the policy, the Army is pursuing a variety of options in the near-term (FY17 to FY21). These options include, but are not limited to $1.3 

billion for the GMLRS-Alternative Warhead and $118 million for applied research 

and advanced development for cluster munition replacement technology and the development of a low cost tactical extended range missile to replace our aging 

ATACMS. 

Mr. TURNER. The budget request contained $3.4 billion for the European Reassurance Initiative (ERI). Of the total request, $2.8 billion is directed towards the Army, 

and out of this amount almost $1.0 billion is for Army procurement. What major 

end-items do you plan to procure and field with this funding? 

General MURRAY. The major end-items included are: 14 modernized M1 Abrams 

Tanks; 14 M2 Bradleys; 12 Paladin Integrated Management; more than 600 various 

medium tactical vehicles, such as cargo trucks, tractor trailers, palletized load system, wreckers, Heavy Expanded Mobility Tactical Trucks; and 14 Assault Bridge 

Systems. These procurements begin to fill the Armored Brigade Combat Team 

equipment set supporting the European Command Commander’s request for Army 

Prepositioned Stock to deter aggression in the region. 

Mr. TURNER. What are your top unfunded requirements in FY17 for ground force 

modernization? 

General SHRADER. The following are the Marine Corps top unfunded ground modernization priorities: 1. Special Purpose MAGTF En-route C4 Urgent Universal 

Need Statement 2. Enhanced Combat Helmet 3. Lightweight 155 Chrome Tubes 4. 

Communication Emitter Sensing and Attack Systems II 5. Rifle Combat Optic Modernization 6. Guided Multiple Launch Rocket System—Alternate Warhead munition 

for HIMARS 7. Broadband Meshable Data Link 8. Composite Tracking NetworkCommon Block Array-Antenna 9. Internal Appointment Modules for Rigid Shelters 

10. Target Handoff System 11. Rapid Response Kit Terminals 12. Nano/Vertical 

Takeoff and Landing Small Unmanned Aircraft Systems 13. RQ–21 Blackjack Technology Insertion Program for Savings BLK III 

Mr. TURNER. Do the Marines plan to upgrade their M1A1 tanks? If not, why? 
75 

Mr. TAYLOR. The Marine Corps has chosen to selectively modify the M1A1 vice 

pursuing the M1A2, primarily due to affordability and the increased weight of the 

M1A2. USMC M1A1s have the improved Abrams suspension, 2nd Gen Forward 

Looking Infrared (FLIR) and the Stabilized Commander’s Weapons Station. Currently the Abrams Integrated Display and Targeting Systems (AIDATS) is in development and will achieve MS C/LRIP in June 2016; Slew-to-Cue (STC) for the Stabilized Commander’s Weapon Station (SCWS) begins production in March 2016; 

Generation IV Ammunition Racks are in the middle of fielding; the Ammunition 

Data Link (ADL) has begun fielding and will achieve IOC in March 2016; Firepower 

Enhancement Program (FEP) modernization and obsolescence mitigation will begin 

in 1st Qtr FY17. Research and development of survivability upgrades to include examination of armor alternatives, 3rd Generation FLIR and a Service Life Extension 

Program are being planned for in the future. All of these efforts are coordinated 

with US Army PM Abrams. 

Mr. TURNER. The Army is currently funding a lethality program for their Stryker 

Combat vehicles. What are the Marine Corps plans to pursue a similar program as 

part of their LAV modification acquisition strategy? 

Mr. TAYLOR. The Marine Corps maintains close coordination with U.S. Army programs to improve the lethality of its Stryker Infantry Carrier Vehicle (ICV). Our 

Light Armored Reconnaissance formations are equipped with the LAV–25 and supporting mission role variants (MRV). Unlike the Striker ICV, which is equipped 

with a heavy machine gun or automatic grenade launcher in a remote weapons station (RWS), the LAV–25 is equipped with the M242 25mm automatic cannon in a 

manned turret. 

The Marine Corps is currently upgrading its M242 systems to the enhanced configuration mounted in the Army’s Bradley Fighting Vehicle. This upgrade will enable LAV–25 crews to fire depleted uranium (DU) ammunition. The capability of firing DU combined with fire control system improvements constitute a significant increase in LAV–25 lethality and serve to further extend the effectiveness of the system well into the 2020’s. 

LAV–25s do not fight alone, but rather as part of a family of vehicles; MRVs enable critical supporting capabilities. The LAV-Antitank (LAV–AT) provides heavy 

anti-armor and anti-material fires. LAR formation lethality is being further improved by the fielding of a modern TOW missile launcher mounted in an RWS on 

the LAV–AT. The upgraded LAV–AT will be capable of firing advance generation 

anti-armor and anti-materiel TOW munitions. These improved systems are in production and will begin fielding in 2017. 

Additionally, our LAV-Command & Control (LAV–C2) systems were upgraded 

with modern C2 suites in the last decade and are currently undergoing hardware 

and software technical refresh. The LAV–C2 carries a fire support team capable of 

coordinating and directing surface and air delivered fires as well as directing the 

organic fires delivered by LAV-Mortar MRVs. 

As the Army fields improved lethality systems in its SBCT and ABCT formations, 

normalizing new weapons and ground ammunition types, the Marine Corps will continue to closely monitor their progress, exploit joint opportunities to improve our capabilities, and work to ensure the continued operational effectiveness of our LAV 

equipped formations. 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. GIBSON 

Mr. GIBSON. I am concerned with maintaining sustainable readiness at our arsenals. Watervliet Arsenal is just outside of my district and the key to maintaining 

the critical skills needed to support sustained readiness of our cannon and mortar 

production capability is through adequate workload. Unfortunately, the minimum 

sustaining rate at Watervliet is 323,000 direct labor hours annually while the projected FY16 workload will provide only 185,000 direct labor hours. While Army Materiel Command has been very proactive in utilizing congressionally mandated Arsenal Sustainment funding to provide multi-year cannon workload, continued budget 

uncertainty and defense spending drawdowns undermine the ability for Watervliet 

to establish firm baselines. I welcome your remarks on this issue and any thoughts 

on what more can be done in order to maintain this critical capability within our 

industrial base, given the current budget environment. Additionally, I ask that you 

comment on your perception of the added risk taken on by underutilizing our arsenals and therefore dropping drastically below the direct labor hours needed to maintain critical skills. 

General WILLIAMSON and General MURRAY. The Army is dedicated to sustaining 

Organic Industrial Base core logistics capabilities which maintain and generate 
76 

combat power for the Joint Force Commanders. The Army continues to work with 

the Office of the Secretary of Defense to provide to Soldiers processes that support 

critical manufacturing capabilities for Army arsenals and to improve our capabilities 

to meet joint readiness requirements. These improvements will result in strengthening the workload levels to sustain these capabilities. 

The Army is attempting to close this gap by qualifying the arsenals as second 

manufacturing facilities which will support new equipment production. An example 

would include a partnership between Army Materiel Command (AMC) and the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) to establish the arsenals as a DLA source of supply 

for Army-related parts managed by DLA. 

The Materiel Enterprise Capabilities Database was developed to enable new and 

current customers quick access to information regarding the OIB equipment, facilities, capacities, and skills available to satisfy customer manufacturing or repair requirements and perform make-or-buy analysis. This capability is a statutory requirement under the authority of Title 10 U.S. Code 4532, it also allows work with 

AMC regarding the OIB requirements. 

With the support of AMC, Watervliet Arsenal is able to pursue workload outside 

of Department of Defense. This includes Public-Private Partnerships (in which the 

Arsenal works as a subcontractor to a commercial company under Title 10 U.S. 

Code 2474), Federal Agencies (under Title 10 U.S. Code 2470) and Foreign Military 

Sales. 

If the Army receives the funding requested for Fiscal Year 2017 (FY17), about 1.4 

million (M) Direct Labor Hours (DLHs) will be executed across the arsenals. We estimate that the arsenals require ∼3M DLH to effectively support equipment readiness, control costs, and maintain essential skill sets. 

Workload at Watervliet Arsenal peaked at 442 thousand DLH in 2009. For FY17, 

the Army projects 200K DLH, which brings us below our average peacetime workload of 225K DLH. If critical manufacturing capabilities within the OIB are not 

maintained, there exists a degree of risk exists to the Nation. The Army is at risk 

to lose capabilities to manufacture unique, hard to produce items and those items 

not profitable in private industry production. Private industry may most likely not 

have the same ability to rapidly react and surge during 

Mr. GIBSON. I am concerned with maintaining sustainable readiness at our arsenals. Watervliet Arsenal is just outside of my district and the key to maintaining 

the critical skills needed to support sustained readiness of our cannon and mortar 

production capability is through adequate workload. Unfortunately, the minimum 

sustaining rate at Watervliet is 323,000 direct labor hours annually while the projected FY16 workload will provide only 185,000 direct labor hours. While Army Materiel Command has been very proactive in utilizing congressionally mandated Arsenal Sustainment funding to provide multi-year cannon workload, continued budget 

uncertainty and defense spending drawdowns undermine the ability for Watervliet 

to establish firm baselines. I welcome your remarks on this issue and any thoughts 

on what more can be done in order to maintain this critical capability within our 

industrial base, given the current budget environment. Additionally, I ask that you 

comment on your perception of the added risk taken on by underutilizing our arsenals and therefore dropping drastically below the direct labor hours needed to maintain critical skills. 

General WALSH, General SHRADER, and Mr. TAYLOR. We share your concern for 

the continued viability of Watervliet Arsenal and the risk associated with a reduction in work levels. As the question noted, Army funding of the multi-year cannon 

workload is a key element for sustaining the Arsenal’s readiness. In addition, Foreign Military Sales (FMS) also offers a potential source of work demand. For example, our Light Armored Vehicle FMS program for Saudi Arabia is using Betne Labs 

at Watervliet for mortar tube and breech fatigue testing. This is a 24-month, approximately $4 million effort. The Marine Corps Armor and Fire Support Systems 

Program also utilizes Watervliet for the M1A1 M256 Cannon. The workload is mainly through our Enterprise Logistics Management Program and when evacuation criteria is met on the M256 cannon. 

Watervliet does represent a critical core capability. We are sensitive to the current 

utilization trends experienced by the Arsenal. When opportunities have presented 

themselves to use Watervliet, such as our Ammunition Data Link modification to 

the M1A1 Tank, we directed the work to Watervliet even though it could have been 

completed elsewhere. Unfortunately, a further reduction to throughput may occur 

as the Marine Corps completes our reset requirements for the M1A1. 

A decrease in capability from Watervliet would also impact Marine Corps infantry 

weapon systems. Specifically, we depend on the Arsenal to produce our gunner protective kits (turret protection for HMMWV’s, MRAP’s and JLTV’s) as well as M253 

81mm mortar cannons as the government’s primary cannon producer. If capability 
77 

is lost at Watervliet we do not know of an alternative source with the ability to 

produce steel mortar tubes at this time. Our partner and supported Program Executive Officer (PEO) Mr. Taylor also shares the congressman’s thoughts and concerns 

about the importance of Watervliet Arsenal, as they are a key supplier to the Marine Corps, manufacturing the cannon assembly for the M777A2 Lightweight 

155mm Howitzer. The PEO’s program management office for this weapon, located 

at Picatinny Arsenal, New Jersey has purchased more than 1,000 cannon assemblies plus spares for the Marine Corps, Army, and partner nations. Watervliet is 

currently working on a $7.3M modification for the M777 Spindle, a critical component for the cannon assembly. The program office has requested pricing from 

Watervliet for an additional 145 cannon assemblies to support a foreign military 

sale with India for the M777A2. The Letter of Offer and Acceptance is currently 

with the Indian Government and the program office is anticipating final signature 

later this year. Additionally, to address wear issues identified with the newest artillery charges the program office has submitted an unfunded request for FY17 to purchase approximately 114 of Watervliet’s new M777 chrome cannon tubes which have 

just successfully completed testing. We look forward to a continued partnership with 

Watervliet and the work they do for our military. 

Mr. GIBSON. Is modernization of equipment, technology and infrastructure a replacement for force structure and does the current force structure allow for a modernized force that is capable of meeting major modern conventional threats, such as 

Russia, China, North Korea, and Iran? Additionally, to clarify, in the modern era 

is it appropriate to no longer size the United States Land Forces ‘‘to conduct largescale, prolonged stability operations’’ as mentioned in the 2012 Defense Strategic 

Guidance, and instead rely solely on modernization and readiness to achieve and 

maintain peace, assure our allies and partners, and respond decisively to global 

threats and crises? 

General WALSH. Both modernization and force structure are important. Without 

adequate modernization, we will be outpaced by our adversaries and placed a position of disadvantage on the battlefield. However, while increased capability as a result of modernization provides many advantages, there is no replacement for the 

world wide coverage and dwell rate that force structure provides. In fact, we are 

currently conducting a Commandant of the Marine Corps directed study of our force, 

termed Marine Corps Force 2025 to evaluate exactly what force structure the Marine Corps needs to fulfill its mission for the Nation in the future. I look forward 

to discussing that initiative with you in more detail. 

While the Marine Corps is postured to conduct operations across the range of military operations, our highest priority modernization efforts are those associated with 

our core competencies: amphibious forcible entry and crisis response. These core 

competencies require continued development of our capabilities for surface and air 

ship-to-shore movement, command and control from a seabase, operational reach, 

and Marine Expeditionary Units, Marine Expeditionary Brigades, and Special Purpose Marine Air-Ground Task Forces. Our high priority modernization programs 

have been protected at the expense of both lower priority modernization and infrastructure maintenance or development. Moreover, fiscal constraints and rapidly 

changing technology and our current acquisition processes prevent necessary and 

timely investment in critical capabilities such as: intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance, cyber, electronic warfare, and information warfare. In the end, we must 

maintain the warfighting capacity to ensure that our combined arms Marine Expeditionary Forces are trained and equipped to meet an uncertain future. 

Furthermore, a return to BCA-level spending/full sequestration would further exacerbate institutional readiness imbalances. More tradeoffs would be made in acquisitions of needed equipment, essential training, living and work spaces, family support centers, and end strength to protect the Marine Corps’ performance of its statutory obligations. Sequestration impacts on key modernization programs will have 

catastrophic effects on achieving desired capabilities to defeat emerging threats and 

will place an unacceptable burden on legacy programs such as the AAV (40 + years 

old) and the HMMWV (out of productions since 2012). 

Mr. GIBSON. Is modernization of equipment, technology and infrastructure a replacement for force structure and does the current force structure allow for a modernized force that is capable of meeting major modern conventional threats, such as 

Russia, China, North Korea, and Iran? Additionally, to clarify, in the modern era 

is it appropriate to no longer size the United States Land Forces ‘‘to conduct largescale, prolonged stability operations’’ as mentioned in the 2012 Defense Strategic 

Guidance, and instead rely solely on modernization and readiness to achieve and 

maintain peace, assure our allies and partners, and respond decisively to global 

threats and crises? 
78 

General MURRAY. No, modernization is not a replacement for force structure. The 

Army requires both capacity (force structure) and capability (modernization) in the 

correct balance to meet current strategic guidance, maintain a technological edge 

over adversaries, and prepare for future threats. Reduced funding has forced the 

Army to reduce manpower to prevent a hollow force and the 980,000 force is the 

minimally adequate force required to meet modern conventional threats, but with 

significant military risk. In the modern era, we can no longer substitute mass for 

modernization. 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. COOK 

Mr. COOK. Why do the Army and the Marine Corps use two separate types of 

5.56mm ammunition. What service specific requirement makes both types essential? 

How much would we save by only procuring one type? 

General WALSH. The Marine Corps is fully integrated with the US Army and 

agrees on the value in procuring a common 5.56mm ammunition. We are committed 

to working with our Army partners on this issue. 

The Special Operations Command (SOCOM) and US Army have each developed 

an enhanced round that is ‘‘blind to barriers’’ and has better accuracy and terminal 

ballistics than the current M855 round. The Army’s M855A1 Enhanced Performance 

Round (EPR) and SOCOM’s MK318 Mod 1 Special Operations Science and Technology (SOST) round both provide improved performance over the current M855 

5.56 mm round in a lead free form factor. 

Due to concerns with increased wear and degradation of weapons performance 

with the sustained use of M855A1, the Army (with USMC participation) began a 

series of tests in July 2014 to determine root cause of increased degradation of the 

weapons being used. Through these tests, the USMC determined that the Mk318 

Mod 1 ammunition is more reliable and does not cause undue wear on our weapons, 

as a result the Marine Corps chose to procure this round as an interim solution for 

improved performance during contingency operations. 

Results of the most recent testing lend credibility to the premise that the increased pressure associated with the M855A1 ammunition is reducing the reliability 

and longevity of weapons systems, especially in the M4 series of weapons. Weapons 

reliability issues (e.g., gas ring erosion and breakage, bolt locking lug cracks, and 

barrel erosion) have increased along with a drop in accuracy due to barrel erosion. 

Marine Corps Systems Command asked Aberdeen Test Center to conduct additional reliability and durability testing on our M16A4, M4, M4A1, and M27 rifles 

with both MK318 Mod 0 and M855A1 ammunition. The purpose is to provide for 

side by side comparison of the effects the two ammunition types have on our weapons. The testing procedures for USMC weapons will be identical to the Army’s continued testing of M855A1 through their M4A1 and will, at times, occur simultaneously. The test of Marine Corps weapons and the test of Army weapons are separate evolutions; the test data will, however, be shared between services. Representatives from Marine Corps Systems Command and the Marine Corps Operational Test 

and Evaluation Activity will witness the Army’s testing. The Army intends to begin 

testing in March and to be complete by the end of the 1st Qtr FY 17. An interim 

test report is expected at the beginning of 1st Qtr FY17 with the final test report 

expected by the end of the 2nd Qtr. 

There is National Defense Authorization Act language that requires a federally 

funded research and development center to conduct a study on the use of different 

types of enhanced 5.56mm ammunition. The OSD study is ongoing and is expected 

to be completed in 3rd Quarter, FY16. Within 150 days of the enactment of the Act, 

OSD will submit a report on the following: 

• An explanation of the reasons for the Army and the Marine Corps to use in 

combat two different types of enhanced 5.56mm ammunition. 

• An explanation of the appropriateness, effectiveness, and suitability issues that 

may arise from the use of such different types of ammunition. 

• An explanation of any additional costs that have resulted from the use of such 

different types of ammunition. 

• Cost of additional magazines 

• Testing 

• Early destruction of weapons 

• New gages needed for M855A1 

• An explanation of any future plans of the Army or the Marine Corps to eventually transition to using in combat one standard type of enhanced 5.56mm ammunition. 
79 

Specific figures on overall savings as a result of procuring a single type of ammunition are not yet available, because that contract would have to be negotiated for 

a full joint service purchase, although the increased volume would likely generate 

savings. It should be noted that the business case remains only one part of the overall analysis. The variables of greatest importance remain achieving common ammunition to facilitate training and operational interoperability between the two services 

with a round that provides both acceptable reliability and improved performance. 

Mr. COOK. Why are we not considering 30mm cannons for Bradleys and LAVs the 

way we intend to place them on Strykers. Does the Bradley have sufficient lethality 

on its own to defeat its peer adversaries? 

General WALSH. The Marine Corps maintains close coordination with U.S. Army 

programs to improve the lethality of its Stryker Infantry Carrier Vehicle (ICV). Our 

Light Armored Reconnaissance formations are equipped with the LAV–25 and supporting mission role variants (MRV). Unlike the Striker ICV, which is equipped 

with a heavy machine gun or automatic grenade launcher in a remote weapons station (RWS), the LAV–25 is equipped with the M242 25mm automatic cannon in a 

manned turret. 

The Marine Corps is currently upgrading its M242 systems to the enhanced configuration mounted in the Army’s Bradley Fighting Vehicle. This upgrade will enable LAV–25 crews to fire depleted uranium (DU) ammunition. The capability of firing DU combined with fire control system improvements constitute a significant increase in LAV–25 lethality and serve to further extend the effectiveness of the system well into the 2020’s. Due to the swimming requirements and overall weight of 

the vehicle to include the weight a full upload of 30mm ammunition the Marine 

Corps feels that the DU upgrade to the 25mm cannon is the most balanced and effective means to increase lethality. 

Further, LAV–25s do not fight alone, but rather as part of a family of vehicles; 

MRVs enable critical supporting capabilities. The LAV-Antitank (LAV–AT) provides 

heavy anti-armor and anti-material fires. LAR formation lethality is being further 

improved by the fielding of a modern TOW missile launcher mounted in an RWS 

on the LAV–AT. The upgraded LAV–AT will be capable of firing advance generation 

anti-armor and anti-materiel TOW munitions. These improved systems are in production and will begin fielding in 2017. 

Additionally, our LAV-Command & Control (LAV–C2) systems were upgraded 

with modern C2 suites in the last decade and are currently undergoing hardware 

and software technical refresh. The LAV–C2 carries a fire support team capable of 

coordinating and directing surface and air delivered fires as well as directing the 

organic fires delivered by LAV-Mortar MRVs. 

As the Army fields improved lethality systems in its SBCT and ABCT formations, 

normalizing new weapons and ground ammunition types, the Marine Corps will continue to closely monitor their progress, exploit joint opportunities to improve our capabilities, and work to ensure the continued operational effectiveness of our LAV 

equipped formations. 

Mr. COOK. Why do the Army and the Marine Corps use two separate types of 

5.56mm ammunition. What service specific requirement makes both types essential? 

How much would we save by only procuring one type? 

General MURRAY. The Army uses the M855A1 Enhanced Performance Round 

(EPR) while the USMC continues to use the M855 Ball round for training and the 

5.56mm Mk318 (also known as Special Operations Science and Technology (SOST)) 

round for war reserve. The Army initiated development of the M855A1 5.56mm EPR 

to address inconsistent performance of the M855 Ball while removing lead from the 

projectile. The resulting general purpose M855A1 EPR provides consistent probability of incapacitation, improved behind-barrier effects and a higher probability of 

hit; thereby ensuring the Warfighter retains a tactical advantage. US Air Force, US 

Coast Guard, as well as contingents within USSOCOM are using the M855A1 EPR. 

The Army has offered the M855A1 EPR to all Services, including the USMC, 

USSOCOM, and JSOC. The Army has provided and shared supporting test reports, 

including those from qualification, live fire test evaluation, and weapons reliability, 

as well as the overwhelmingly positive feedback on the performance of EPR in combat reports. In accordance with Section 163 of the 2016 National Defense Authorization Act, the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) has contracted with a Federally Funded Research and Development Center to conduct a study regarding the use 

of different types of enhanced 5.56mm ammunition by the Army and the Marine 

Corps. 

Mr. COOK. Why are we not considering 30mm cannons for Bradleys and LAVs the 

way we intend to place them on Strykers. Does the Bradley have sufficient lethality 

on its own to defeat its peer adversaries? 
80 

General MURRAY. The Army does not have a requirement to increase the armament on the Bradley Fighting Vehicle (BFV). The BFV can defeat peer adversaries 

and main battle tanks through the use of the 25mm and Tube-launched Opticallytracked Wire-guided missile systems. 

Mr. COOK. I understand that the Army’s Tank Automotive Research, Development 

and Engineering Center (TARDEC) recognizes Active Blast Mitigation as a valuable 

technology to enhance occupant survivability during IED events, and that TARDEC 

recently identified an active underbody threat protection solution, ABDS Sentinel, 

as having achieved TRL–6. Has the Army identified key contemporary platforms for 

an integration demonstration of this blast mitigation technology? What plans does 

the Army currently have to pursue this integration and demonstration work on contemporary vehicles? How does active blast mitigation technology fit into the Army’s 

future modernization efforts? 

General MURRAY. Based on limited testing, the incorporation of active blast mitigation technology, such as ABDSTM, could reduce occupant injuries, reduce the 

forces and damage to other vehicle technologies, and may avoid costly retrofits to 

the legacy vehicle fleet when upgrading to meet increasing blast threats. The technology could also be utilized to reduce the integration burden on other blast mitigating components such as energy absorbing seating systems and sensitive electronics. 

While the Army is encouraged by the promising results of this limited testing, the 

technology has not yet reached a sufficient maturity level to develop specific plans 

for procurement. Additional research and testing is still required to incorporate this 

technology into Army ground vehicles. Moreover, the effort did not evaluate additional requirements for engineering and integration activities that might be necessary to enable incorporation on various vehicles, including the conditions necessary to account for the higher weight and design differences of ground combat vehicles. It is important that the Army has a clear understanding of system procurement, integration, and sustainment costs to inform any acquisition decision. 

While the Army has no funding for this technology within the Fiscal Year Defense 

Programming for 2017–2021, we will continue to evaluate the technology’s cost and 

maturity should a warfighter requirement arise to drive insertion into a vehicle program in the future. 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MRS. WALORSKI 

Mrs. WALORSKI. Given the growing operational demand in multiple theaters for 

U.S. electronic warfare capability, does this necessitate additional electronic warfare 

countermeasure purchases beyond the amount requested in the President’s budget? 

General WILLIAMSON. Electronic Warfare countermeasure purchases to date meet 

current Army-validated requirements in both quantity and capability. However, the 

Chief of Staff of the Army has also asked for $2.6 million within the Army unfunded 

requirement list to address emerging requirements for the Multifunction Electronic 

Warfare systems and an Electronic Attack capability. These capabilities are essential to future Electronic Warfare capabilities in any theater. 

Mrs. WALORSKI. Congress has expressed keen interest in empowering the services 

to streamline the requirements and budget process to further the rapid acquisition 

of electronic warfare capability. How great of a role does industry competition play 

in maintaining our technological edge in electronic warfare? 

General WILLIAMSON. For enduring capabilities that are not constrained by time 

a competitive industrial base plays a vital role in maintaining our technological edge 

in many areas, including electronic warfare. There is a robust industrial base to 

support rapid acquisition to select and acquire the most relevant capabilities to 

meet immediate warfighting needs for electronic warfare. Competition encourages 

and drives industry to be more creative, innovative, and cost effective. It promotes 

economic growth and the chances for industry to achieve more by seeking breakthrough technological advances and future opportunities and investments. It is this 

enduring competitive environment that will best support the rapid acquisition process when the need arises. 

Rapid acquisition also means meeting the warfighter’s requirements and being 

available in the quantities and time needed. For critical and urgent warfighting 

needs, an expeditious non-competitive process is often best suited to deliver these 

time-sensitive capabilities to the warfighter. In order to achieve its purpose, rapid 

acquisition means quickly acquiring a capability that already exists, since there is 

little to no time for development. Title 10 U.S.C. 2304(c) authorizes, under certain 

conditions, contracting without providing for full and open competition. The sole 

source justification for the rapid acquisition of electronic warfare capabilities would 
81 

be ‘‘unusual and compelling urgency.’’ That applies when a delay in award would 

result in serious injury, financial or other, to the government (Federal Acquisition 

Regulations 6.302–2). 

Mrs. WALORSKI. General Williamson, the Army’s Combat Vehicle Modernization 

Strategy identified that the Army will not start a new Bradley replacement program 

until FY29 with likely fielding in the mid-late 2030s. a. What is the Army’s plan 

to address Bradley modernization for the next 10–20 years? b. Does the Army have 

any intention of modernizing the Bradley beyond the Engineering Change Proposals 

identified in the budget exhibits? 

General WILLIAMSON. The Army plans to address the Bradley program for the 

next 10–20 years through a combination of current Engineering Change Proposal 

(ECP) efforts and a robust modernization effort in the early 2020s. 

Current Bradley efforts include ECP1 (in production and fielding now), ECP2 (entering government test now), and ECP2b scheduled for development contract award 

in the fourth quarter of Fiscal Year 2016 (FY16). ECP1 and ECP2 will address the 

size, weight, and power (SWAP) challenges created during Operation Iraqi Freedom. 

They will allow the Bradley to recover lost mobility performance and provide the 

capability to host the future Army Network. ECP2 will achieve First Unit Equipped 

(FUE) in FY20. ECP2b, in conjunction with Abrams, is integrating the 3rd Generation Forward Looking Infrared sensors as well as other lethality, hit avoidance, and 

situational awareness capabilities. ECP2b will achieve FUE in FY25. 

Beyond the current ECPs, the Army anticipates a decision in the FY22 timeframe 

to determine whether to pursue additional ECP upgrades to the Bradley, and/or 

begin development of a Future Fighting Vehicle. 

Mrs. WALORSKI. During the Iraq War, the Army adapted to the growing threat 

of Improvised Explosive Devices (IED’s) with a massive up-armoring program for 

tactical vehicles like the HMMWV. There were also new vehicle designs like the various forms of the MRAP (Mine Resistant Ambush Protected) Vehicle. The HMMWV 

vehicle, while extremely capable, the frame and components were not originally designed to carry armor, and the addition of 2000 pounds of armor to the HMMWV 

created other issues, such as reducing service life, performance, and efficiency. Likewise, MRAPs are even heavier, and can have limited mobility and deploy-ability due 

to their weight and size. I understand the Army has done some testing with new 

materials and technology like Metal Matrix Composites to reduce the weight of components, while seeking to extend service life and reduce fuel consumption. I understand that some of the components tested have reduced component weight by nearly 

50% while improving performance and extending the service life by three to four 

times that of steel components. 

a. Could you comment on the importance of this type of technology and is developing high performance light weighting technologies a priority for the Army? b. In 

what areas do you believe this could add the most value? c. What benefits would 

be gained if you could reduce the empty weight of a vehicle like an FMTV or JLTV 

by several hundred pounds, if there was no degradation to performance or protection 

systems? 

General WILLIAMSON. The development of light weighting technologies is important to the U.S. Army, but one that must be balanced with mission capability and 

affordability. In October 2014, the U.S. Army Science and Technology community 

investigated and identified a set of processes, tools, technologies, and materials for 

vehicle light-weighting and published the Lightweight Combat Vehicle Science and 

Technology Campaign (LCVSTC). The LCVSTC focused primarily on technologies 

that would enable material substitution approaches without changes in doctrine. 

Specifically, Metal Matrix Composite technologies are an important research area 

for the Army as they could provide significant weight reduction, longer life, and improved performance of components as well as allow for, in certain conditions, an increased payload. 

Assessing the value of applying a material substitution (e.g. a Metal Matrix Composite) on an existing or future military platform would require a detailed engineering analysis of the specific platform—taking a system-level perspective to examine 

the weight reduction potential in all subsystems and components across an entire 

platform. Absent such a system level analysis, attempts to achieve light weighting 

may be sub-optimized in terms of lifecycle cost, performance, and overall weight savings. Currently Aluminum Metal Matrix Composites have shown to be most useful 

in the area of brake drum technologies. This technology offers lower operating temperatures compared to cast iron brake drums as well as decreased wear on the drum 

itself, reducing the life cycle cost by providing for longer lasting brake drums/shoes. 

Quantifying the full range of operational benefits of weight reduction is complex and 

is an area of on-going research at the Tank Automotive Research, Development and 

Engineering Center. Beyond the direct effect of increasing payload capacity for a 
82 

tactical vehicle second order benefits of light weighting are expected to be realized 

in operational energy effectiveness, air transportability/expeditionary operations, 

route access, reliability, and operation and maintenance costs. 

Mrs. WALORSKI. Over the past several budgets, the Army has requested funds in 

the Bradley modernization budget line for conversion of M3A3 Bradley Calvary 

fighting vehicles into M2A2 Bradley Infantry fighting vehicles. There is no request 

for this work in the FY17 budget. 

a. Wouldn’t continuing this conversion program lend itself to the objectives the 

Army is supporting in the European Reassurance Initiative? 

General WILLIAMSON and General MURRAY. The funding provided through Fiscal 

Year 2016 allowed the Army to mitigate the risk to the Bradley industrial base, 

leaving an acceptable six to eight month gap before Bradley Engineering Change 

Proposal 2 production starts. The remaining M3 Bradleys will be converted to an 

M2 variant through a future, more cost effective, conversion program that will be 

applied in field locations. This conversion effort is not part of the European Reassurance Initiative. This effort converts Calvary versions of the Bradley into Infantry 

fighting versions by removing some of the ammunition storage capacity and increasing the seating capacity. 

Æ