U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

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

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

i 

80–771 2013

[H.A.S.C. No. 113–42] 

HEARING 

ON

NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT 

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2014 

AND

OVERSIGHT OF PREVIOUSLY AUTHORIZED 

PROGRAMS 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON TACTICAL AIR 

AND LAND FORCES HEARING 

ON

FISCAL YEAR 2014 

ARMY MODERNIZATION PROGRAMS 

HEARING HELD 

APRIL 26, 2013 
(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 

JON RUNYAN, New Jersey 

MARTHA ROBY, Alabama 

PAUL COOK, California 

JIM BRIDENSTINE, Oklahoma 

BRAD R. WENSTRUP, Ohio 

JACKIE WALORSKI, Indiana 

MAC THORNBERRY, Texas 

WALTER B. JONES, North Carolina 

ROB BISHOP, Utah 

LORETTA SANCHEZ, California 

MIKE MCINTYRE, North Carolina 

JIM COOPER, Tennessee 

JOHN GARAMENDI, California 

RON BARBER, Arizona 

DANIEL B. MAFFEI, New York 

JOAQUIN CASTRO, Texas 

TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois 

WILLIAM L. ENYART, Illinois 

PETE P. GALLEGO, Texas 

MARC A. VEASEY, Texas 

JOHN WASON, Professional Staff Member 

DOUG BUSH, Professional Staff Member 

JULIE HERBERT, Clerk 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

CHRONOLOGICAL LIST OF HEARINGS 

2013 

Page 

HEARING: 

Friday, April 26, 2013, Fiscal Year 2014 Army Modernization Programs .......... 1 

APPENDIX: 

Friday, April 26, 2013 ............................................................................................. 25 

FRIDAY, APRIL 26, 2013 

FISCAL YEAR 2014 ARMY MODERNIZATION PROGRAMS 

STATEMENTS PRESENTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS 

Sanchez, Hon. Loretta, a Representative from California, Ranking Member, 

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

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

WITNESSES 

Barclay, LTG James O., III, USA, Deputy Chief of Staff, G–8, U.S. Army ........ 3 

Phillips, LTG William N., USA, Military Deputy to the Assistant Secretary 

of the Army (Acquisition, Logistics, and Technology), U.S. Army ................... 5 

APPENDIX 

PREPARED STATEMENTS: 

Barclay, LTG James O., III ............................................................................. 29 

Phillips, LTG William N. ................................................................................. 37 

DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD: 

[There were no Documents submitted.] 

WITNESS RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS ASKED DURING THE HEARING: 

Mr. Barber ......................................................................................................... 51 

Mr. McIntyre ..................................................................................................... 51 

Ms. Sanchez ...................................................................................................... 51 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS POST HEARING: 

Ms. Duckworth .................................................................................................. 55 

Mr. LoBiondo .................................................................................................... 55 

Mrs. Roby .......................................................................................................... 56 

Mrs. Walorski ................................................................................................... 57 

(1) 

FISCAL YEAR 2014 ARMY MODERNIZATION PROGRAMS 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON TACTICAL AIR AND LAND FORCES, Washington, DC, Friday, April 26, 2013. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:30 a.m., in room 

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

(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. 

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

TACTICAL AIR AND LAND FORCES 

Mr. TURNER. The Tactical Air and Land Forces Subcommittee 

meets today in open session to receive testimony on fiscal year 

2014 Army modernization programs. 

Before we get started on today’s hearing, I just want to take the 

opportunity to thank the ranking member and all of the members 

of the subcommittee for their attendance and participation. In the 

hearings we have held to date we have had very good participation 

even though today is the last day before recess. So there are lots 

of conflicts on the Hill as everyone is trying to get additional meetings in. We have had just great support from the members of the 

subcommittee. 

Members have been actively engaged on these important issues, 

as was demonstrated by the multiple rounds of questions that we 

have had at our hearings. Also members who are not able to attend 

today because of the multiple conflicts that are happening on Capitol Hill will have the ability to submit questions for the record. 

At one of our hearings we learned about the challenges of reducing the weight burden of critical equipment that our soldiers and 

marines currently have to carry into combat, and Ms. Sanchez and 

Ms. Tsongas raised some concerns about providing body armor specifically designed for women. During this hearing we learned that 

the Army was making positive progress in this area and this is one 

of the many issues that I believe we will discuss in our subcommittee mark. 

Turning to today’s hearings, I know that the Army faces a number of significant modernization challenges based on the current 

budget environment. I was recently asked during a visit to a production facility in Arizona, ‘‘How does the Army choose between resetting its current equipment and modernizing for the future?’’ The 

answer, of course, is that we have to do both. The challenge based 

on threats and capabilities gaps is how do you prioritize and go forward with a balanced approach. 
2 

I have two short comments about the Abrams tank program and 

the Ground Combat Vehicle. Regarding Abrams, I know that the 

Army believes that the foreign military sales, FMS, alone is enough 

to keep the tank upkeep line viable until 2018. Congress over the 

last few years has taken the position that no funding for the upgraded line was an unacceptable level of risk to assume and that 

the Abrams upgrade line should include both FMS and minimum 

level of U.S.-based workload. I hope that you will work with Congress to sustain this unique and critical capability, and I look forward to further discussing this issue with you over the course of 

the next couple of months. 

The Ground Combat Vehicle is one of the Army’s top modernization programs. The program, which is just beginning development, 

will eventually replace the Bradley Fighting Vehicle. I think most 

of us on the subcommittee support the Army’s need to modernize. 

Our oversight challenge is to ensure that the Army is executing an 

acquisition strategy that minimizes the risk to the Government and 

in turn to the taxpayer. I understand that the Army’s recent plan 

is to down-select to one contractor at the beginning of the engineering, manufacturing and development phase, EMD, instead of funding two contractors all the way through EMD. 

My concern is that one of the many lessons learned that has 

been reported by the Government Accountability Office is the issue 

of programs entering the EMD phase too early without enough 

knowledge can cause significant difficulty. Knowledge is defined by 

the combination of technology maturity and a thorough understanding of requirements and realistic cost estimates. In this case 

we need to ensure that the Army has enough knowledge before 

they downselect to one contractor in order to minimize the cost, 

schedule and performance risk to the Government and the taxpayer. 

Before we begin, I would like to turn to my good friend and colleague, Loretta Sanchez, for any comments she would like to make. 

STATEMENT OF HON. LORETTA SANCHEZ, A REPRESENTATIVE 

FROM CALIFORNIA, RANKING MEMBER, SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

TACTICAL AIR AND LAND FORCES 

Ms. SANCHEZ. Thank you, Chairman Turner. You went to Arizona without me? Okay. 

Welcome, gentlemen, and thank you for being before us today. 

The hearing today is for the fiscal year 2014 Army budget request 

for equipment, research, development, and procurement. After 

many years of additional billions of dollars of procurement funding 

through supplemental appropriations, the Army now faces the difficult task of doing modernization with very little OCO [Overseas 

Contingency Operations] funding and declining baseline budgets. I 

know it is a difficult thing to do, and I don’t want to beat a dead 

horse, but there have been several Army programs one after the 

other that have been canceled due to cost overruns and changing 

requirements or shifting priorities. I think we all understand that. 

So I think it is just difficult to have a lot of confidence in what 

is going on with the forward-looking programs that we have within 

the Army. I don’t think it is completely the Army’s fault. I know 

that years with different administrations, different Army leaders, 
3 

different visions, I know that before 9/11 the Army’s focus was on 

rapid deployment and getting lighter to move faster, and then the 

realities of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq pushed the Army to 

add armor, more weight, to have more platforms in order to make 

them more survivable against IEDs [Improvised Explosive Devices] 

and other threats. And due to advances in technology, the Army 

has faced dilemmas similar to the one it now faces. So one would 

ask how does the Army proceed? 

I think it is a really soul-searching sort of, what does the next 

battle look like? What is the next war going to be? And I think that 

one of the things that we can do is to think of the Army’s intention 

to focus modernization on the individual soldier such as the improved body armor. I think that is a good starting point. And I 

think no matter what kinds of wars are fought, troops will need excellent communications and intelligence. So the Army’s effort to 

build a battlefield Internet down to the individual soldier I think 

is also a good idea. 

One thing that the Army brings to the fight that no other service 

can is its huge fleet of helicopters. Again, regardless of the type of 

wars that we are going to be engaged in, I think we can say there 

is going to need to be a continued emphasis to have that. 

But I am less comfortable with where the Army is heading in 

some of its other modernization plans. The Ground Combat Vehicle, as Mr. Turner suggested, is a very ambitious program. It could 

also prove to be very expensive. So I think we are definitely going 

to drill down on that, not only today but as we move and see it for 

the future. 

So I am anxious to hear what you have to say and I will submit 

the rest of my comments for the record, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. TURNER. Thank you. I would like to welcome our witnesses, 

Lieutenant General James Barclay, Deputy Chief of Staff for the 

Army, G–8, and Lieutenant General William Phillips, Military 

Deputy to the Assistant Secretary of the Army, Acquisition, Logistics, and Technology. 

Gentlemen, thank you for your service. We look forward to your 

message today. 

General Barclay. 

STATEMENT OF LTG JAMES O. BARCLAY III, USA, DEPUTY 

CHIEF OF STAFF, G–8, U.S. ARMY 

General BARCLAY. Chairman Turner, Ranking Member Sanchez, 

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

want to thank you for this opportunity to discuss the Army’s fiscal 

year 2014 President’s budget request as it pertains to our modernization. On behalf of Secretary McHugh and General Odierno, 

I would also like to take this opportunity to thank you for your 

support and demonstrated commitment to our Army during the 

past decade of war. 

As we all know, we have challenges ahead and our number one 

priority remains supporting our warfighters in Afghanistan. We 

owe these brave soldiers nothing less. But I do want to emphasize 

that we need your support now more than ever because we are entering an incredibly turbulent time for equipping our units. 
4 

Over the next 3 years we will continue to deploy and redeploy 

units to combat in Afghanistan and other locations. We are also 

going to start to retrograde of theater equipment that is in Afghanistan. We also have to keep Korea ready to fight and reestablish 

our global and regional response forces. At the same time we are 

also resetting the equipment that we are bringing home from a decade-plus of war. And all the while this, we have to remain prepared 

for the defense support to civil authorities and other homeland defense priorities, and we all have to do this with substantially less 

money than we had planned due to sequestration and other budget 

reductions. Failure to get this right will impact the equipment 

readiness of our units for years to come. 

Throughout our history we have drawn down our Army after 

every war. What is different this time is that we are drawing down 

our Army before the war is over. The previous drawdowns have resulted in a less-than-ready and hollow force. Unfortunately, if we 

proceed with the full effects of sequestration we will once again 

have a less-than-ready and hollow force. 

The effects on our equipment modernization will be dramatic because in the near term we cannot reduce force structure nor can 

we reduce the cost of the war quick enough to pay the Army’s 

share of sequestration. Therefore, equipment modernization and 

readiness will be reduced twice, once for the proportional share and 

then again to pay for the continuing war costs and to meet other 

bills. 

Sequestration will result in delays to every one of our modernization programs, to include the Ground Combat Vehicle, the network, 

our helicopters, and the Joint Light Tactical Vehicle, in most cases 

increasing the cost. It will also create an inability to reset our 

equipment employed in years of war resulting in a significant delay 

in equipment readiness of six divisions. All of these effects are in 

addition to the changes that we have already made in the fiscal 

year 2014 President’s budget request that we are going to talk 

about today. 

In the coming months the Administration will present to Congress the fiscal year 2014 overseas contingency operations funding 

request. While this request is not yet final, I want to thank the 

Congress for your previous support, providing us with the necessary funding to equip our young men and women going to war 

and for supporting the reset of their equipment upon return. 

I would like to point out that the costs of war do not go down 

immediately as our soldiers return. In fact, we will need your support for funding the reset and replacement of our equipment for 3 

years beyond 2014. Failure to do this would have a catastrophic effect to unit readiness. We are all aware of the strains on the Federal Treasury and the desire to reduce war funds as soon as our 

soldiers return home. I would ask that you support our future requests for the critical reset of our equipment. 

In March of this year Secretary McHugh and General Odierno 

published their Army Equipment Modernization Strategy. This 

strategy focuses on our efforts on supporting our soldiers and small 

unit formations while maintaining our advantages to deter and defeat potential adversaries. We do this by identifying achievable requirements, applying best practices in acquisition and sustainment 
5 

and seeking incremental improvements, all while harnessing network enabled capabilities to solve near-term needs, and we are 

doing this while investing in military unique revolutionary and evolutionary technologies to solve future needs. 

The key to this strategy is procuring equipment that is versatile 

and tailorable yet cost-effective and affordable. The centerpiece of 

our equipment modernization program is the soldier and the squad. 

Our investment plan provides our small units with a range of 

equipment, including individual and crew-served weapons, nextgeneration optics and night vision devices, body armor and advanced individual protection equipment providing lethality and 

force protection to the soldier and squad. 

In order to provide our soldiers with unparalleled advantage, we 

intend to enhance our equipment with incremental improvement by 

integrating technologies and applications that empower, protect, 

and unburden soldiers and formations by improving our network in 

order to enable decisionmaking across the joint force, all the while 

improving our vehicle fleet capabilities by increasing lethality and 

mobility while optimizing survivability and sustainability, and improving our aviation platforms with digitization and additional procurement of unmanned aviation systems. 

In conclusion, I have been the G–8 of the Army for almost a year 

now, and it is truly an honor for me to be here before you today 

representing the great men and women of our Army. Every day in 

peace and war our soldiers, along with our airmen, sailors, marines, and Coast Guard personnel defend our Nation and all that 

it stands for. The state of our Nation’s finances as well as the financial struggles of our citizens is also on our minds. We know 

they are struggling financially, yet they steadfastly provide our soldiers with the resources we need and we are grateful. 

Our commitment to you is that we spend each and every dollar 

wisely and only ask for that which we truly need. The Secretary 

and Chief have made this perfectly clear in their equipment modernization strategy as they have challenged us to be both cost-effective and affordable. 

I look forward to answering your questions today and working 

with you in the future. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of General Barclay can be found in the 

Appendix on page 29.] 

Mr. TURNER. General Phillips. 

STATEMENT OF LTG WILLIAM N. PHILLIPS, USA, MILITARY 

DEPUTY TO THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE ARMY (ACQUISITION, LOGISTICS, AND TECHNOLOGY), U.S. ARMY 

General PHILLIPS. Good morning, Chairman Turner, Ranking 

Member Sanchez, and distinguished members of the subcommittee. 

Thank you for this opportunity to testify on the Army’s modernization and acquisition programs for fiscal year 2014. I respectfully request that my written statement be made part of the record for today’s hearing. 

On behalf of our Army, I thank you for the steadfast support to 

provide our courageous men and women in uniform the world-class 

weapons and systems and equipment. Our soldiers are the best 
6 

equipped in the world, thanks to your extraordinary commitment 

to our Army. 

Up front I would also like to extend my sincere appreciation for 

your support of a number of critical acquisition efforts, to include 

the award of multiyear contracts. This action alone will save taxpayers over $2 billion on the Chinook and Black Hawk helicopter 

programs. 

Our Army and Army acquisitions face unprecedented fiscal and 

budget challenges. Sequestration is having a devastating effect on 

Army modernization. To best meet the fiscal challenges we face, 

the Army is focused on driving affordability and cost-effectiveness 

in every decision we make on every program. 

We remain committed to our modernization strategy which begins with the soldier, the most effective weapon on the battlefield. 

The soldier and squad are the foundation of our Army and the centerpiece of our modernization program. We will equip our squads 

for tactical overmatch in all situations, we will connect soldiers to 

the network, and we will provide vehicles with improved mobility, 

lethality, and survivability, like Ground Combat Vehicle and Joint 

Light Tactical Vehicle. 

We will provide the soldier and the squad with a range of equipment, including individual and crew-served weapons, next-generation optics, and night vision devices, and the world’s best body 

armor. Our squad formations’ tactical superiority will be enabled 

by a suite of small unit systems, including unmanned aerial systems, ground-based robots, counter-IED devices and the latest surveillance systems. We will connect the soldier to the Army’s network to create a greater situational awareness and overwhelming 

synergy. 

Our combat and tactical wheeled vehicle fleets are being developed to connect this more capable squad with the network. Our future vehicle fleets, again like Ground Combat Vehicle, will also provide increased lethality and mobility to squads while optimizing 

survivability through the use of armor packages that can be scaled 

to meet mission requirements. 

Our modernization efforts are designed to prepare the entire 

force for a complex and uncertain battlefield by putting a squad 

with precise information and overmatch capability in the right 

place at the right time to execute the mission. 

For Army aviation we will continue to successfully modify and 

upgrade and remanufacture existing platforms to extend the life of 

our aircraft and keep our air crews safe. We will continue to invest 

in science and technology at the same time to ensure the future 

fleet. 

Mr. Chairman, I would like to briefly address the defense industrial base that you mentioned this morning. The upcoming end of 

combat operations and the changing fiscal environment are 

prompting the Army’s commercial and organic industrial base to 

adjust to a new reality of reduced requirements and constrained resources. Of great concern to the Army are the likely long-term impacts, to include the loss of critical skills, the loss of suppliers at 

all tiers, and an increase in the number of single point failures in 

the supply chain. The Army is aggressively evaluating how best to 

identify and preserve critical industrial-based capabilities. 
7 

Mr. Chairman, the Army continues to prioritize sound program 

acquisition management that drives affordable and executable requirements and achievable acquisition strategies. We have taken 

specific steps to avert the leading cause of past cancellations. 

In addition, the Army has fully embraced the Department of Defense better buying power initiatives to address cost and schedule 

risk in programs and achieve better value for the taxpayer. In 2012 

alone we achieved $370 million in ‘‘should cost’’ savings across 300 

programs. During my 3 years in this position, we have made significant improvements to our acquisition system. 

In closing, Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the subcommittee, these are challenging and difficult times. I thank you 

again for your steadfast support of our outstanding soldiers, civilians, and the families of the United States Army, and we welcome 

the dialogue that we will continue with you over our modernization 

programs. Thank you, sir and ma’am, and I look forward to your 

questions. 

[The prepared statement of General Phillips can be found in the 

Appendix on page 37.] 

Mr. TURNER. Gentleman, thank you so much for your comments 

and specifically your comments that relate to the effects of sequestration. As you know, the Department of Defense having been restrained from planning for sequestration I think has inhibited congressional action to set aside sequestration because, since we 

weren’t able to tell the public or even inform the rest of Congress 

what the effects of that even some of us foresaw, it made it very 

difficult. So the message now is very important, and I appreciate 

your including that. 

Before I go to my first question, I want to recognize General Barclay for a moment. Many times when we are here at a hearing we 

ask for people’s professional judgment, being unaware of the personal aspects of their insight. I had General Barclay and General 

Phillips in my office and I was very pleased to learn from General 

Barclay that he has one son who serves in the Army currently and 

another who has previously served. General Barclay’s son, Captain 

Joe Barclay, was seriously wounded by an improvised explosive device in 2006 while serving in Afghanistan and he is currently medically retired. We appreciate his service and dedication. And you 

have another son, Chief Warrant Officer Bill Barclay, who is flying 

Black Hawk helicopters and will be returning from Afghanistan 

very soon. 

I think it is important to recognize and acknowledge both your 

service and the service of your family because so many times when 

we get the professional opinion of those who testify before us, we 

know that it comes not only with just an insight and commitment 

to those in their command, but also their country and their family 

that they are dedicated to. So thank you for that service. 

General BARCLAY. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. TURNER. General Barclay, I also want to recognize you as an 

Army aviator and former Commandant of the Army Aviation Center at Fort Rucker. So I know that the subject matter of my question goes right to the background of your experience. 

The Kiowa helicopter is in desperate need for enhancements in 

order to make it a safer helicopter to fly. Original the Army’s plan 
8 

was to replace this helicopter with the Comanche helicopter, but 

that program was canceled. Then the plan was to replace the 

Kiowa with the armed reconnaissance helicopter, but that program 

was terminated. Unfortunately, as a result of these terminated programs, very little was done in regards to upgrading the Kiowa. 

I understand that currently the Army is in the process of deciding whether they should conduct a comprehensive system life extension program or proceed with a full and open competition based 

on existing helicopter platforms that would have to be modified, 

called the Armed Aerial Scout Program. I believe that regardless 

of the decision that the Army makes, we need to ensure that we 

are making the Kiowa a safer aircraft to fly until a replacement is 

available. 

General, would you please tell us what the Army’s plans are to 

continue to upgrade the Kiowa until a replacement platform can be 

fielded and then provide an update on the current status of the 

AAS [Armed Aerial Scout] program? 

General BARCLAY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You are correct, 

the Army is looking at the modernization and replacement of the 

current Kiowa Warrior. We are currently going through the process 

and hopefully by the late summer, mid-to-late summer, based on 

some of the outcomes of the fiscal guidance we get we will make 

a determination on the way ahead for an Armed Aerial Scout or 

whether there will be a service life extension program. 

Those are the two options. But those are not currently what we 

still have to do with the current fleet, because either one of those 

we would not be able to get any of those into the field until the 

mid-to-late twenties, so we have to do something with the current 

fleet. 

We currently have what is called the Cockpit and Sensor Upgrade Program, the CASUP program, and that is an obsolescence 

and safety enhancements to the current fleet in order to allow it 

to continue to do the mission that it has within the Army until 

we—regardless of the decision whether we do an Armed Aerial 

Scout or a service life extension program on the current fleet. That 

is our bridge to get us to that point in the future, sir. 

Mr. TURNER. I appreciate your comment on having a need now, 

because we all know that this is an issue that we are very concerned of, those who operate that craft and the issue of safety. 

General Phillips, I am very concerned about the Joint Systems 

Manufacturing Center in Lima, Ohio, and the BAE facility in York, 

Pennsylvania. As you know, there has been a zeroing out of the 

Ground Combat Vehicle and the Armored Multi-Purpose Vehicle 

programs with perhaps an overreliance on foreign military sales. I 

am very concerned that the assumption that these facilities can remain viable specifically of course relying on the foreign military 

sales is such that may need congressional action. 

The last 2 years Congress has put funding back in because of a 

lack of belief that foreign military sales alone were sufficient or 

that these facilities could be turned on and off like a light switch. 

Just send everybody home and they will come back with the same 

level of skills and commitment. 

We don’t see in your budget any alternative plan. How is it that 

you think that the industrial base will be able to operate just on 
9 

foreign military sales? What is your backup plan if that is not the 

case? And do you also agree that these facilities cannot be abandoned and then turned back on again to their high level of manufacturing expertise? 

General PHILLIPS. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate your question. The 

industrial base is very important to our Army. The JSMC [Joint 

Systems Manufacturing Center] Lima, Ohio, facility is also critically important, and it is not the Army’s intent to shut down Lima, 

because it is critical to the industrial base. Having said that, the 

Army actually has more M1A2 [Abrams] tanks than it—it is buying 

more than it actually needs at this point. 

If you look back to the fiscal year 2012 budget that we received, 

we still have 67 tanks that are being built and that production of 

those tanks will extend through December of 2014. In the last 

budget that we received from Congress was another $181 million 

also with the potential for between 20 to 24 tanks that also would 

go into Lima as well. That takes us at about two to three per 

month out to about the middle of June, June 16, maybe toward the 

end of June 16. 

When you couple that with foreign military sales, and I am talking about firm commitments we have from numerous nations, there 

are three nations in particular that have about 373 vehicles that 

will be produced at JSMC. And that is going to take production 

well into 2016 and potentially beyond. Those are three countries 

with firm commitments, either foreign military sales or through direct commercial sales of other vehicles, such as Israel and Emir. 

Beyond that, there is another 466 vehicles beyond 2016 that would 

potentially take production into 2017, 2018, maybe beyond. 

We are also working the ECP [Engineering Change Proposal] upgrade for the Abrams tank, and the ECP upgrade will start about 

2018 in terms of putting production back into JSMC. 

So, sir, to wrap up my comments, we are very concerned about 

the industrial base. We are studying it. We are doing a deep dive 

with our PEOs [Program Executive Officers] and with A.T. 

Kearney, and we are committed to make sure we have the right 

level of workload within JSMC to keep it viable now and in the 

future. 

Mr. TURNER. General, I just want to point out that the vehicles 

that you are talking about that there is funding for, we funded. 

They were not requested by the DOD [Department of Defense]. If 

they had not been funded by Congress, this facility would be at 

risk. If you continue to not fund something you are in essence shutting it down. And these are not facilities that can be reconstituted. 

They are Government-owned, contractor-operated. I mean the Government owns them. When we have responsibility for the industrial 

base there should be an understanding that our budgeting, our request for vehicles and transitions to new vehicles, should include 

making sure that that asset continues to be viable and operate. 

We are going to continue to look at that. But as you cite, oh, we 

are doing fine, you are only doing fine because we intervened. We 

want you to continue to do fine, and we have very serious concerns 

that your projections are such that, again, if you don’t fund it, it 

will shut down. And then we lose that capability. We don’t have 

other facilities that have that capability. Again, they are Govern-
10 

ment-owned so there is an inherent responsibility I think on the 

Government’s side. 

General PHILLIPS. Congressman, could I comment quickly. It is 

not the Army’s intent to shut down JSMC. We are fully aware of 

what capability it has. 

Mr. TURNER. Do you acknowledge though that but for Congressional funding that facility would be greatly at risk? 

General PHILLIPS. Sir, I agree that it would be at risk, but with 

the foreign military sales that come into the facility, it certainly 

provides workload into 2016 and potentially beyond. 

Mr. TURNER. One of the things that we are going to be looking 

at to is a greater understanding from DOD as to its responsibility 

to manage its inventory acquisition so we don’t have these spikes 

and peaks putting these facilities at risk that we own. I know we 

can work directly with you. I know you have a commitment to it, 

and I appreciate that. 

I turn to my ranking member. 

Ms. SANCHEZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Gentlemen, in fiscal year 2013 the Army asked to receive $350 

million to procure new JTRS [Joint Tactical Radio System] Radios. 

This is about the JTRS. The fiscal year 2014 budget includes about 

$400 million more for new JTRS Radios. The Army’s plans for buying these radios have changed quite a bit over the last few years. 

In general the Army has moved away from more competition conducted more often with the hope of encouraging innovation and 

driving down the cost. 

I think that it is a good idea overall, but I am very concerned 

that the Army is almost a full year late in providing a report to 

Congress on exactly what the plans are to proceed with the various 

parts of JTRS. Specifically, last year the Army was tasked with 

providing this report by the end of July 2012, but we still haven’t 

gotten that report. As I mentioned, the Army is asking for another 

$400 million for this. 

So why should this committee authorize any of this funding 

when you are a year late on a report that we asked for? 

General PHILLIPS. Ma’am, I will take that on and then ask for 

General Barclay to join me as well. But we will get the report to 

you. In the interim, I know that my boss, Ms. Shyu, sent a series 

of updates to Congress on where we stood with the JTRS program. 

Just a slight bit of history, OSD [Office of the Secretary of Defense] managed the program for many years. The Army took the 

program over about 4 years ago. And as we looked at the program 

and where it stood as we brought it into the Army and looked at 

the management of the program and what the official program of 

record was doing, we learned that commercial industry in many 

cases had actually passed the Army up in terms of capability meeting many of our requirements. So we purposely went after those 

programs that we thought we needed to cancel or terminate, and 

we did that in the case of the Ground Mobile Radio and also the 

Airborne Maritime/Fixed Station Radio. We canceled both of those 

programs and we are going forward with a strategy that we have 

reported to Congress in a number of letters that we are going to 

execute a full and open competition, because we know that indus-
11 

try can produce these radios, they can do it cheaper, better, faster 

than we could have done under the official program of record. 

Our intent this year is to issue three requests for proposals for 

three different types of radios within the JTRS family of radios 

under full and open competition so we can deliver them faster than 

what we would have done under the official program of record. 

One other comment, too. The JTRS Radios are absolutely critical 

to our network and our network capability. They are the ones, 

ma’am, as you offered in your opening comments that connect the 

soldier. They go down to the soldier level through the Rifleman 

Radio connected up to the platoon and company through other series of JTRS Radio, all the way back to the battalion and brigade 

and then it gets back into higher levels of Army echelon from 

there. It is absolutely critical that we get those radios and we field 

them as a part of our overall network strategy which is most important for the Army. 

General BARCLAY. Ma’am, I would just add that, as General Phillips has said and I made this in my opening remarks, that the soldier and squad are the centerpiece of our modernization strategy 

and it is critical that as we look at that and the mission command 

and the network, and he has already stated it, it includes the Nett 

Warrior, the Rifleman Radio, the Manpack Radio, the Joint Battle 

Command Platform, and then the backbone of the tactical network, 

which is WIN–T [Warfighter Information Network–Tactical]. All of 

that has to be linked, because that then gives the soldier and the 

squad the power they need with the equipment they have and the 

vehicles and survivability and mobility to do the missions that we 

think we are going to have. So it is a critical part of our strategy 

in the future for the Army. 

General PHILLIPS. Ma’am, if I could add, I didn’t answer your 

question completely and I apologize. We will get you the report. 

The reason we haven’t got it to you is we are working the AMF 

[Airborne/Maritime/Fixed] strategy I mentioned earlier. The acquisition strategy is going forward to the defense acquisition executive 

and we will get that to you as soon as we get the acquisition strategy approved by Mr. Kendall at OSD. 

Ms. SANCHEZ. Okay. Well, I have several things to say about 

this. First of all, I have worked both as a consultant on the outside 

and as a Government person on the inside, so when we talk about 

a competition, there are always ways to narrow the people who can 

go after a contract. If we are going to take the time to do a full 

and complete competition, and I don’t have a dog in this fight, I 

don’t have any of these companies, but they are around on the Hill 

and they are talking to everybody, I just want to make sure that 

we get a good piece of equipment probably coming out of the commercial sector, as we have learned, for a good price. And I want 

to make sure that the type of competition you do allows us to get 

as good a piece of equipment that we need for as reasonable a price 

as possible. I also don’t like it when people undersell what they 

make. Companies are in the business to make a profit. 

So I will just say that we have been watching this for a while. 

The fact that this report has not been turned in honestly makes me 

pretty angry because you can tell me, well, things are fluid and 

things are changing and everything, but, you know, if I ran my 
12 

campaign like that, things change all day long, I would never get 

elected. So you must have a plan. You must have a plan. 

General PHILLIPS. Ma’am, we do. 

Ms. SANCHEZ. You are the Army. You should have a plan. And 

we oversee that. So I would like to see it sooner rather than later. 

General PHILLIPS. Ma’am, we will bring the plan. It includes full 

and open competition. One thing, we are learning a lot from industry. We do an industry day for every RFP [Request for Proposal] 

that we put forward, and industry is coming and sharing. Probably 

many of the things they are sharing with you they are sharing with 

us. The one comment that we have heard from them is that NSA 

[National Security Agency] certification for these radios is critical. 

So we work with industry and we are going to refine our proposals 

to allow more time for industry to get that certification. That is one 

of their concerns. 

Your comment is well taken, because we learn a lot from competition. We also drive down costs. On the average for these radios 

we will get them cheaper than 20, 25 percent, maybe more, than 

what the original program of record could have done. So there is 

a lot of goodness in the strategy we have. We owe you the report, 

ma’am. We will get that to you. 

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

page 51.] 

Ms. SANCHEZ. Thank you. I have one other question, Mr. Chairman, if you don’t mind. 

In the fiscal year 2014 budget the Army has asked for $608 million for 42 Apache attack helicopters. However, the committee has 

been given some information that concerns me. To be exact, it appears that the Army has been paying for some Apache helicopters 

that are missing their transmissions and that can’t fly. 

Specifically as of today I am told that there are seven Apache 

helicopters that the Army has already paid more than $8 million 

for that are sitting under tarps at the factory waiting for a new 

transmission to get installed. The information given to this committee says that this apparent disconnect between building the aircraft and having enough transmissions won’t be fixed until September of 2014. 

So I have several questions. Could you please explain why the 

Army would take delivery of a helicopter and pay for a helicopter 

that can’t fly? Why not just tell the contractor no, we aren’t signing 

for any incomplete helicopters and make them wait to get paid 

until the entire helicopter is finished? And who made this decision 

to pay for incomplete helicopters? 

General PHILLIPS. Ma’am, first of all, the Army did not make 

that decision in isolation. We worked closely with our counterparts 

in OSD to come to that conclusion that the right strategy for the 

Army was to accept the aircraft. Let me go back also, there is an 

article—— 

Ms. SANCHEZ. So who are your counterparts at OSD and who 

from the Army procurement? Who? I would like names. You don’t 

have to name them today, but we would like a list. 

General PHILLIPS. Ma’am, we will provide that to you. But the 

Army acquisition executive and the defense acquisition executive. 
13 

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

page 51.] 

General PHILLIPS. But most importantly, that article is inaccurate, the article that I saw a couple of days ago that talked about 

the transmission. The Army is accepting aircraft that come off the 

production line with full equipment inside those aircraft. Part of 

the reason we are taking this strategy is we are allowing Boeing 

to take assets from other transmissions as a rotatable pool to get 

the aircraft into flight test. When you get them into flight test it 

takes about 20 days. I used to do flight test at Boeing-Philly on 

Chinook aircraft and you do a full-up inspection, inside-outside the 

aircraft, and then a series of test flights to get the aircraft 

accepted. 

Every aircraft that we accept from Boeing has transmissions, has 

full equipment, full mission equipment packages when we accept 

the aircraft. We allow Boeing in some cases to take that transmission out and put it back into the production line as we work 

with Northstar, who is the manufacturer of the transmission, to get 

as many of those transmissions as we can to Boeing so we can limit 

the number of aircraft that on the ramp. 

Seven is about right. The other day I heard that there were six 

aircraft that were still on the ramp. By the way, we will be well 

in December of 2013. We could have more aircraft accepted in this 

manner beyond December 2013, but it depends on one thing. We 

are accepting these aircraft and getting transmissions into them as 

quickly as possible in order to get the first unit equipped. That unit 

is on the rotation schedule to go into Afghanistan. We want as 

many aircraft available for that unit as quickly as possible so they 

can train and get ready. 

The other reason that we made this is very important as well 

and it gets back into the industrial base question. When you look 

at the Apache supply chain, there are 41 States and over 300 manufacturers that provide parts to Boeing. Boeing is simply a place 

where they build the aircraft. All of the other parts come from 

other parts of the Nation and around the world. If we shut down 

the production line with Boeing it would impact supply operations 

in 41 States and over 300 companies and it would also cost us more 

money. So the best decision for the Army and for OSD and for the 

Apache fleet itself is to accept a complete aircraft and then allow 

Boeing to takes though transmissions back in. 

The last comment I would have is we withhold about $900,000 

from Boeing. In doing this, it costs the Government nothing, it 

costs the Army nothing in terms of the strategy we have in place, 

but it does allow us to get the max number of aircraft to that unit 

so they can train and deploy in combat and it sustains the critical 

industrial base. 

Mr. TURNER. Jon Runyan. 

Mr. RUNYAN. Thank you, Chairman, and gentlemen. Again, 

thank you for your service and thanks for being here today. 

Not only sitting on this committee but chairing the Veteran’s Affairs Subcommittee on Disabilities and Memorial Affairs and in my 

past career in the NFL [National Football League], obviously TBI 

[Traumatic Brain Injury] is something near and dear to my heart. 

As a matter of fact I received an email from a former teammate 
14 

of mine in his mid-forties and has ALS [Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis] to the point where he barely communicate with another 

human being at this point. 

My question probably is directed more to General Phillips. From 

a material solutions perspective what is the DOD doing to try to 

mitigate exposure to TBI? 

General PHILLIPS. Go ahead. 

General BARCLAY. Sir, I will let Bill add some to it. I just wanted 

to add from our modernization and how we are looking strategy to 

that. We have made great efforts to make sure as we have learned 

over the last 10–11 years of war the impacts of what TBI does to 

our force. And it is not just at the incident and point of impact, it 

is long-reaching. It is something that you have got to ensure that 

you not only address immediately, but also have a plan for the future to do that. 

So within our strategy we have got several different initiatives 

that we are looking at. We are doing the helmet sensors inside 

which record data for blast effects. We are also equipping vehicles 

with sensors inside the vehicle which gives the pressure, over-pressure and concussion effects on soldiers that go through one of those 

incidents. 

That data then, it helps us not only with future vehicle changes, 

but it also helps us with the medical side of then tracking those 

soldiers. For instance, that helps record the number where a soldier may have had one, two, maybe it is his third incident. And 

then that helps us look at how we are going to treat them in the 

future and it will look at the medical aspects of what we need to 

do to take care of our force and our soldiers. 

Then another initiative, and I am sure you are aware of this, the 

Army is teaming with the NFL now because they have the same 

issues we have with TBI, and it is very important that we leverage 

what they are doing and they can leverage what we are doing as 

we try to move forward, because as I said, this is not just an event 

that happens 1 day and 1 or 2 days later you are over it. It is 

something that could affect you for the rest of your life. So it is 

very important for the Army, and as we move forward we are 

teaming with the NFL to try to get at this. 

General PHILLIPS. Sir, I would just add that I am a big NFL fan. 

I was watching the NFL draft last night on ESPN and it was good 

to see that the NFL recognizes our wounded warriors, and we have 

teamed very effectively, as General Barclay just said, with the NFL 

on this. 

I would just add one thing. We have a JTAPIC, is what we call 

it, a Joint Trauma Analysis for Prevention in Combat. It works 

under our Medical Command. That data that comes back that Jim 

just described is analyzed by that team and then we try to figure 

out better ways to improve our equipment to try to prevent trauma, a greater trauma. So it is something that we are very serious 

about in doing the right things for our soldiers. 

Mr. RUNYAN. Thank you both for that, because I think prevention there, as we see our health care costs grow exponentially, the 

more we can prevent through research, and I know we are probably 

a long way off from figuring it really out, because whether you are 
15 

talking ALS, Alzheimer’s dementia, they all trace back to TBI at 

some point. So thank you all for that. 

I yield back, Chairman. 

Mr. TURNER. Thank you. To give everyone an understanding of 

the order, we have Duckworth, Wenstrup, Garamendi and then 

Gibson. That is probably just enough time to finish the people who 

are currently in their seats before votes if we stick to the 5 minutes. So we will go to Duckworth next. 

Ms. DUCKWORTH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Gentleman, thank 

you so much for being here this morning. 

Over the course of the last several weeks the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of the Army, and the Chief have all testified 

in front of this committee as to their commitment to maintaining 

the National Guard and Reserves as an operational force. In looking at your modernization strategies, I just want to throw down as 

an example the Black Hawk helicopter. Can either one of you 

speak to your plans for modernization of ‘‘Alpha’’ model [UH–60A] 

Black Hawk helicopters in the Guard and Reserve fleets, mostly 

the Guard? 

General BARCLAY. Yes, ma’am, thank you for that question. As 

you know, and you stated that the Secretary and Chief have made 

a commitment, and it is not just about COMPO 1 [Active Component], COMPO 2 [National Guard], COMPO 3 [U.S. Army Reserve], 

it is about a total Army and a total force. We are committed, especially on the aviation side, not only with the Black Hawks, and I 

know as a Black Hawk pilot, I am a Black Hawk pilot—— 

Ms. DUCKWORTH. Air assault. Just an example. It is what I 

know, so it is what I am focusing on. All the other systems as well. 

General BARCLAY. It is critical to all of us. I mean the 47s [CH– 

47 Chinook], the new 47s, the new ‘‘Mike’’ model Black Hawks 

[UH–60M], the new ‘‘Echo’’ model [AH–64E Apache]. And I tell 

you, you know, the first Mike model battalion was a Guard battalion, so we are committed to doing that. But as we look at the 

fielding across Black Hawks, Chinooks, and Apaches, all of those 

fielding schedules are going to slow down. 

Now, it is intermixed among all three COMPOs as we are doing 

that fielding. We are not pushing to the Active because we understand the importance and the past 10 years has taught us that we 

have to rely on the National Guard and Reserves, especially in the 

aviation community where half of our aviation fleet is in the Reserve Component. 

Ms. DUCKWORTH. I am sorry to interrupt, but since we have a 

limited amount of time before votes. What is the mix? Say over the 

next 3 years, how much of the Active say Alpha model Black Hawk 

inventory or any Black Hawk inventory is being upgraded vis-a`-vis 

the Alpha model inventory in the Guard and Reserve? My understand is that you are pushing the Guard and Reserve modernization to 2025, is that correct? 

General BARCLAY. We are pushing all to 2025, not just the Guard 

and Reserve. Because of sequestration, all models are being extended out to 2025, 2026. Some will get pushed into 2030. Some 

of the Apaches will be even into the thirties. So all of those are getting pushed. Chinooks not as far because we are closer on filling 

that. 
16 

Just for example, I will tell you in the Reserve, in fiscal year 

2014 to fiscal year 2015 there is another battalion set going from 

142 to 172, 172 to 211 and 16. So we are looking about a battalion’s 

worth every fiscal year in the Guard or Reserve moving. And on 

the Active side they are going at the same pace. We go from 507 

to 542. So the numbers are equal. So we are not putting more into 

the Active Component. It is an equal spread. 

Our concern though is, as you have mentioned, it is going to affect all COMPOs, the effects of sequestration and the fiscal constraints, because we are going to have to extend all these programs 

out to the right. 

Ms. DUCKWORTH. So let’s build on that. I want to commend the 

Army for establishing a firm requirement for the Improved Turbine 

Engine Program and for the successful completion of the material 

development decision. I think that what you have done to develop 

and integrate the engine provides a heck of a lot more engine 

power, I think 50 percent more power, a lot more fuel savings, and 

it is really a significant combat multiplier and good for cost savings 

as well. 

Can you please explain the benefits that this engine as an example looking out into the future will bring to the current and nextgeneration aircraft, especially in support of the air-sea doctrine and 

the pivot to the Asia-Pacific region? 

General BARCLAY. Yes, ma’am, we are committed to the new 

ITEP [Improved Turbine Engine Program] engine. As you mentioned, it is going to get us somewhere between a 20- to 30-percent 

fuel savings, which is huge when you look at the burn rate that the 

platforms, rotor wing platforms do. But it also brings us close to 

a 40-percent decrease in sustainment costs. So when you combine 

the fuel savings and the sustainment costs to the added power that 

you get, that we have been flying airplanes, the one you flew, very 

underpowered because we kept adding on to them, this now brings 

the power back. 

The goal is to put the ITEP engine into the current Apache and 

Black Hawk fleet and it will bring them back to their full capabilities. But also it is linked to the future and the future vertical lift 

medium because that is an engine that can take us to that next 

level as we are looking into the late thirties-early forties of the next 

variants that are going to possibly come in and replace our aging 

lift and attack platform. 

So we see that as a bridging gap, but again it is the close in savings we will get with the energy savings and sustainment savings 

that are very important to us. 

Ms. DUCKWORTH. Well, I actually flew the oldest flying Black 

Hawk in the Army inventory, a 1976 model, fourth off the production line. It is still in Kuwait flying today. So I understand the 

long-term lifespan of the aircraft. 

In the military equipment there is some great equipment. I just 

want to make sure that as we modernize, we are keeping an emphasis in doing it across the force in order to maintain the operational force in the Guard and Reserve. 

Thank you, gentlemen. 

Mr. TURNER. Thank you. 

Dr. Wenstrup. 
17 

Dr. WENSTRUP. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you gentlemen 

for being here today. 

A little question on the personal protection. We had conversations about lightening the load. I just wondered if you could bring 

me up-to-date on where we are with some of the modernization as 

far as personal protection equipment. I know that when I deployed, 

midway through the tour we got new SAPI [Small Arms Protective 

Insert] plates because they were newer and better and lighter, and 

I just wondered where we are with that. And maybe in relation to 

Mr. Runyan’s question too about TBI, have we made changes within the helmet recently? 

General PHILLIPS. Sir, that is a great question. I will take that 

and ask General Barclay to add his comments. But we have made 

tremendous strides in personal protective equipment, and probably 

the greatest stride has been in body armor. We have made to date 

about 16 improvements to body armor, the last one being female 

body armor that I will talk about in a second. But we have made 

significant improvements to enhance protection, at the same time 

trying to reduce the load that is on the soldiers that are out there 

that are wearing this equipment, and tied that into sensors that 

soldiers now have in their helmets, the Advanced Combat Helmet. 

We are gaining a lot of knowledge on how to improve helmets. We 

are working with the Marine Corps on an enhanced combat helmet. 

It is under development still, but we think it is going to be a few 

ounces lighter and go beyond what we have today, which is 9 millimeter protection within an Advanced Combat Helmet. It will increase that level of protection at the same or lower weight. Also we 

think it is going to protect more importantly against trauma, trauma to the head. So we are working those pieces very hard. 

One thing that we have done is pelvic protection. We have 

bought about 250 outer garments and inner garments that soldiers 

wear today, especially down south in Kandahar where the fighting 

is mostly on the ground, and in RC–East [Regional Command– 

East] as well. But we have had tremendous stories from soldiers 

that have worn the pelvic protection system on how it has saved 

their lives. 

I got some information from an EOD [Explosive Ordnance Disposal] sergeant recently who was wearing it and it probably saved 

his life. He thinks it did. He lost part of his legs, but it saved it 

from going up into his renal artery where he probably would have 

bled out. It is important that we continue to improve protection. 

If I can mention female body armor for a second, we have really 

made great strides. We have given 17 of those sets to the 101st and 

3rd ID [Infantry Division] soldiers. Many of them are in combat operations today. It is one of the world’s best body armor. 

I want to quote Second Lieutenant Chelsie Adams from 3rd ID, 

and I quote her. ‘‘It is awesome. I have actually got full mobility. 

I am not sure if it is a late birthday present or a pre-Christmas 

present, but it is the best gift ever.’’ So we are going to work hard 

for Chelsie Adams and for all our soldiers to improve body armor. 

I just met Julie Herbert, who is a part of this committee, this 

morning. We had Army Day here yesterday on the Hill and she actually put on and was wearing the female body armor, but before 

that she put the male body armor on. And the comments that she 
18 

just gave us about how it allows you freedom of motion and action 

is exactly what we are doing for our female soldiers. 

So, sir, thank you for supporting our program with protective 

equipment. 

Dr. WENSTRUP. Thank you. I yield back. 

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Garamendi. 

Mr. GARAMENDI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Generals, thank 

you for your service and for the testimony today. 

I have been focusing on ISR [Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance] and the priorities that you laid out are directly related to the ISR systems. It seems to me as though there is a lack 

of coordination across the various departments, with the Air Force 

abandoning some pieces of equipment that appear to be necessary 

for some of the things you are doing. So my concern here is the integration of these systems, if your priority is to provide these 

networkings, the squad communications systems and the like, and 

how does it all work together, and are you in communication with 

the Air Force with its UAVs [Unmanned Aerial Vehicle] or manned 

and satellites and all of that. Are we coordinated? 

General BARCLAY. Sir, we are coordinated, but, again, there is 

two separate missions. The Army UAVs, UASs [Unmanned Aircraft 

System], again, those are at the operational tactical level and we 

are focused at the division commanders’ assets which are the Gray 

Eagles. You have the Shadow assets which are the brigade commanders and the tank commanders can use that. And then down 

at the company battalion we have the handheld launched Raven. 

And we look at it from a reconnaissance, surveillance, target acquisition, and they are also linked into our network architecture, 

which has all the ISRs. So while they are out there doing it, they 

are doing several different missions, but our main focus is reconnaissance, surveillance, target acquisition. 

In the Air Force again they have made some decisions on some 

of their other platforms, and I won’t question them on that. But, 

again, our perspective on how we look at integrating those, it is 

very important to us that we do that. 

We also, because of our manned-unmanned, we are working very 

hard now with a manned-unmanned teaming to where we have 

both control and hand-offs with our rotor wing platforms in the 

Apache and Kiowa Warrior where they can control a hand-off. They 

can even do firing. You can fire off a UAV directed by a manned 

platform. But it is that manned-unmanned teaming where we are 

seeing great synergy and it brings a lot to the operational and tactical commander. 

Mr. GARAMENDI. How dependent are you on the Air Force assets? 

General BARCLAY. Sir, these are all Army assets ourselves. At 

the higher level where you are doing the intelligence aspect of that, 

we are in a joint environment. And if we deploy in, that division 

commander comes in with his Gray Eagle assets, if those Gray 

Eagle assets are not in a direct fight, they are available to be used 

by the joint, so the Air Force could use ours just like we can use 

theirs. So, yes, we are integrated, and it is a joint fight. But, again 

is the priorities of missions, how you allocate those. And if they are 

in the theater, they are available. 
19 

Mr. GARAMENDI. I am not at all sure that they are integrated. 

The Air Force is shutting down some of its platforms, some of the 

Global Hawks [RQ–4 surveillance unmanned aerial vehicle]. 

General BARCLAY. Sir, from an Army perspective, ours are integrated. They are available to be used in the theater they are in by 

the commanders based on the priorities set by the commanders, 

from an Army’s perspective. I can’t answer to the Air Force’s perspective on the decisions they are making, sir. 

Mr. GARAMENDI. Well, their decisions may be of utmost importance to you if you are depending upon those particular pieces of 

equipment to provide ISR; for example, the Global Hawks or the 

satellites and the U–2s [‘‘Dragon Lady’’ reconnaissance aircraft] or 

whatever the other assets are. I am concerned about that because 

the Air Force is shutting down some of those systems that have 

been critical for the Army’s operations. So I am going to pursue 

this a little further. 

One other question, General Phillips. In answer to the chairman’s question about tanks, you said there are more tanks than 

you need. Could you expand on that? 

General PHILLIPS. Sir, very quickly, the Army has already met 

or will by June of 2013 have met what we call the Army Acquisition Executive for tanks. And we have done great work at JSMC 

to deliver the Army’s tanks. The average age is 3 to 4 years. So 

the Army really has the two best tanks in the world, the M1A2 

SEP [System Enhancement Package] and the M1A1 AIM [Abrams 

Integrated Management] tank, both just absolutely world class. We 

have met our full commitment to the Army’s requirements. That 

was the reason for my comment, sir, in June of this year I should 

have stated. 

Mr. GARAMENDI. Thank you. I yield back. 

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Gibson. 

Mr. GIBSON. Thank you very much. Appreciate it, Chairman, and 

the gentlemen for their leadership and family sacrifices. 

My question has to do with the individual carbine. I have read 

the report. I see where we are with that. I guess what I am looking 

for is assurances that our noncommissioned officers are engaged in 

this process. This was such an emotional issue for—as an infantry 

leader for many years, and I am looking for your assurances that 

we are getting their input on this and then when the ultimate decision is made that there will be a commitment to match ‘‘ammo’’ 

[ammunition] whatever individual carbine that we design. 

General PHILLIPS. Sir, I can assure you that our soldiers are absolutely involved in the process, and through our PEO Soldier and 

our PM [Project Manager] within that organization who is running 

this, they are making sure that they have a holistic review of all 

the potential weapons that could be the next individual carbine, 

but we take that competition very seriously. The Army is still considering the way forward with the individual carbine as we look 

and analyze what industry could potentially provide. So, sir, there 

is more to come on the final decision. 

Mr. GIBSON. And I appreciate that, and you know, given how 

emotional this topic can be, you know, I appreciate your deliberative nature and the way you are approaching this and how engaged 
20 

it is, and how important it is to get our enlisted personnel involved 

in this. 

And then do you care to comment at all about—and it may very 

well be outside purview, but just the match ammunition that would 

go with whatever decision you make. 

General PHILLIPS. Sir, I am not exactly sure what you mean by 

that, but I could add this comment that we have the M855A1, essentially a brand-new 556 [5.56mm] ammunition that we currently 

use, is in the fight today in Afghanistan. It provides incredible increased lethality over the normal 855 round, and the amount of 

lethality that it provides gets it very close to a 762 [7.62mm ammunition] in terms of capability. 

Since the early days of the Iraq war when you used to hear about 

through and throughs and they would pull the trigger and someone 

would fall down or not fall down, they would keep coming, with 

this round that essentially stops that. When you hit someone with 

this round, they essentially go down, and the feedback we get from 

our soldiers time and time again in combat that are using this new 

round is exactly that. It is providing great lethality for our soldiers 

and our squads on the ground, sir. 

Mr. GIBSON. I thank you for that, and I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. TURNER. Thank you. 

Mr. Barber. 

Mr. BARBER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you both, 

Generals, for being here this morning. I grew up in an Air Force 

family, but in fact last 7 years I have had an opportunity to work 

closely with our men and women in the Army down at Fort 

Huachuca, an incredible facility as I think you probably know, 

where we do a lot of the UAF [United States Air Force] training, 

and Congressman Garamendi asked a question that I also am concerned about, and that is whether the United States Air Force is 

really the responsible party, if you will, for both acquiring, managing and making available UAS or UAVs, how is that going to fit 

in to your strategy to make sure that our combat commanders have 

what they need? For example, you know, the UAS that is the Global Hawk is a very valuable tool at a high altitude and low as well. 

As we go forward and we downsize and get out of Afghanistan and 

we have to maintain this capability, how do we make sure that the 

branches are talking to each other or collaborating to make sure 

that we have the capability going forward for our ground troops, 

the men and women that you are responsible for? 

General PHILLIPS. Sir, I will take the first part of that and ask 

General Barclay to weigh in as well. 

The Army owns really four key UAVs. I will add a fifth one to 

it as well, but the Gray Eagle, which is critical for an ISR capability plus an attack capability as well. The Shadow UAV, the 

Hunter UAV, the Raven UAV, and we have actually brought some 

Pumas made by AeroVironment as well. They make the Raven also 

that are going downrange. The Army owns all of those UAVs, and 

we operate them as a part of the joint force. And we work, as General Barclay said earlier, with the joint force, with OSD in various 

forums to make sure that we have an integrated strategy going 

forward. 
21 

The decision for Global Hawk that the Air Force may make is 

simply an Air Force decision. We may have some level of equities 

in those decisions, but at the end of the day it is the Air Force, and 

I would just state that they would have to answer to what they are 

trying to do with that system in particular. 

General BARCLAY. Sir, as I stated, the UASs are a critical part 

of our operational aspect of how we are going to fight in the future. 

It is also how we fight today. We have the first manned/unmanned 

teaming unit, aviation unit with 101st in theater in Afghanistan, 

where we are teaming the Shadows with the Apache. I mean, they 

are doing that now, working out the tactics, techniques and procedures on how we are going to do that in the future. 

So again, all these platforms are very important to how we see 

us operating in any theater or any environment, but again, they 

are divisional organic assets that belong to that division commander, brigade commander and battalion commander. You know, 

they are not—their first priority is because it is part of their organic table of organization and equipment that belongs to that unit 

for them to use in the fight. So it is a very important aspect of our 

fight in the future. 

Mr. BARBER. And obviously it has been a great asset in the current wars that we have been fighting. I want to speak specifically, 

though, to Gray Eagle, which I acknowledge has been an incredibly 

useful tool for combat commanders. I observed that in the acquisition plans you have reduced by four the number of Gray Eagles 

that you are going to be acquiring. Can you say why that is the 

case, unless I misunderstood the plan? 

General PHILLIPS. Sir, I will start that. I am not sure what you 

are referring to in terms of the number of four reductions. We will 

do our research on that and get back to you, but I would like to 

talk to the value of the Gray Eagle. We bought 100 systems to 

date. Of those 100 systems, 20 of those are operating in combat 

today and doing a tremendous job in terms of intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance, and attack in support of Army forces, and 

not just Army, but joint forces on the ground. Gray Eagle is absolutely critical. You may know that we just passed an initial operational test and evaluation with Gray Eagle. It is the first UAS— 

in all of OSD, the first UAS to have been defined as effective and 

suitable. And so we are very proud of what this aircraft is doing. 

We are looking forward to a full-rate production decision. A milestone is coming up, and we are going to continue to procure them 

and outfit them within all 10 divisions. General Barclay just said 

that is a key divisional asset that will be with our forces. 

Mr. BARBER. Just in the time I have left, just let me clarify what 

I meant to say in regards to the Gray Eagle. It is a reduction over 

what you purchased last year, and as I think about—obviously we 

are winding down, but these aircraft, like any asset, have wear and 

tear, so going forward, is that really what you think you need to 

make sure we are ready for any contingency? 

General PHILLIPS. Sir, what I would just state that what we need 

is a full contingent of Gray Eagles that would outfit our 10 divisions with maybe some spare assets available as necessary. But the 

reduction, I don’t know, I have to research this. Some of that reduction might be due to sequestration. 
22 

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

page 51.] 

General PHILLIPS. I will give you an example with Apache aircraft. We were going to buy 48 this year. Now we are down to 42. 

As we look at the impacts of sequester on every modernization program, and it impacts every one, some to a lesser extent, some more, 

some of those buys are going to have to be scaled back because of 

the impact of sequestration. 

Mr. TURNER. Gentlemen, you need to conclude, please. 

Mr. BARBER. Thank you, gentlemen. I yield back. I have exceeded 

my time. 

Mr. TURNER. Thank you. Mrs. Roby. 

Mrs. ROBY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And it is a pleasure to be 

here with you today, and thank you for coming. And I just on behalf of my family, I want to thank you both for your service and 

sacrifice, but that of your families as well, so we appreciate all that 

you do. 

General Barclay, I haven’t—I came right after you, but I know 

Fort Rucker is near and dear to your heart and I, you know, appreciate all of the focus on Army aviation and how important it is for 

what we are doing now and what we are going to be doing in the 

future, and your successors there have helped me understand the 

challenges, and I know even now today with the sequester that you 

were just talking about, it even presents greater challenges on 

what the future vertical lift program might look like. 

But from what I have learned, and this is for both of you, what 

I have learned in my course of spending time down at Rucker and 

seeing, you know, these challenges firsthand, we have an opportunity with the future vertical lift program to potentially replace 

about 90 percent of our medium lift. Am I right about that? 

General BARCLAY. Yes, ma’am. It is close. Somewhere between 

the 75 and 80 percent, you know, but with the Apaches and the 

Black Hawks, that is really—— 

Mrs. ROBY. Right. 

General BARCLAY. That medium variant, both attack and lift. 

Mrs. ROBY. And so what I keep hearing is that that needs to be 

refocused. We have other challenges with other aircraft that may 

be close to the end of their life, but if we are going to really hone 

in and focus on the future of Army aviation and what it looks like, 

then we need to be investing those dollars now. And I know you 

all touched on those with some of the other comments that Ms. 

Duckworth had, so I don’t want to repeat, but I just—I want to 

really know the Army’s commitment to the future vertical lift because of how high that percentage is. 

General BARCLAY. Ma’am, we are committed to future vertical 

lift. As you know, it is a joint program. It is not just an Army program, so it has all the other Services’ buy-in, too. So this is a joint 

program. It is important, as you mentioned, it will replace about 

70—between 75, 80 percent of our fleet in the future. 

The timeline, though, is in the out years. Again, we are currently 

fielding new Echo model Apaches. We are fielding new Mike model 

Black Hawks, and as we look to the future and have a chance to 

look at technology and develop and get something, which is truly 

a leap ahead, not just a little bit of added power or a little bit more 
23 

endurance but truly a leap ahead on how we plan on operating, we 

are looking somewhere probably in the mid to late ’30s before that 

would come on board, and that then is tied to our current modernization plan because with aviation, you know, we look out really, we are looking somewhere between 40 and 50 years out because 

you look at the lifespan and then you have to look at your fleets 

as you are sequenced in, so it is a strategy that is stretched out 

long term. But to answer the bottom question, we are committed 

to the future vertical lift. 

Mrs. ROBY. And I am glad to hear you say that. I think our challenge here in the House of Representatives and on this committee, 

is to convince our colleagues about the importance of these dollars 

today because of the link of the amount of time that it takes to develop this. And when you are dealing with all of these fiscal restraints, including the sequester and the heavy hit to our military, 

we have got a challenge on our end related to convincing our colleagues about how important this is. 

General PHILLIPS. Ma’am, if I could just add. As Congresswoman 

Duckworth just said, we have a material development decision already made. We have an approved requirements document for future vertical lift. It is a joint program. We are going forward for 

a milestone A decision. We have significant science and technology 

funds invested in the future of vertical lift. The Army is committed 

to future vertical lift, as General Barclay just stated. 

Mrs. ROBY. Well, I hope we all can stay committed to that because of the importance. Again, thank you both for being here and 

thank you for your service, and I yield back. 

Mr. TURNER. Excellent points. 

Turning to Mr. McIntyre. 

Mr. MCINTYRE. Thank you. Thank you, gentlemen, for your service. I have a very specific question I want some help in understanding, and I think the committee will benefit from. The Abrams 

tank power train has been identified by the Army as one of the 

critical upgrades required to extend the life of the Abrams tank to 

2045. 

Two years ago, the Secretary of the Army testified that 60 percent of the maintenance cost for the Abrams tank is related to the 

engine and transmission and that improving the power train, in 

improving it, the Army would achieve 17-percent improvement in 

fuel efficiency. In fiscal year 2012, this committee supported a 

$47.8 million reprogramming request from the Army that adopted 

commercial-based improvements to insert a new dual centrifugal 

compressor that would be integrated within the existing total integrated engine revitalization program. This committee understands 

that this upgrade will provide the Army $1.6 billion in maintenance and fuel savings as well as drive additional workload into 

Anniston Army Depot. 

What is the funding status of this program in the fiscal year 

2013 enacted budget and in the fiscal year 2014 proposed Administration’s budget? 

General PHILLIPS. Sir, I don’t know the answer to that. We will 

have to get back with you with specifics. What I would add is that 

the ECP program that we have for Abrams is critically important 

to the Army, and it is really buying back space, weight and power 
24 

and cooling. So I am confident that that is a part of the enhancements that we will make to Abrams where we want to put that 

work back into not only Anniston but JSMC Lima, Ohio, as well 

in around the 2018/2019 timeframe. I will get you specifics. We will 

get you specifics on that in particular. 

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

page 51.] 

General BARCLAY. Sir, again, it is included in the engineering 

change proposals and incremental improvements. I just don’t have 

the dollars amounts in front of me by own individual programs, but 

we will take that for the record and get it back to you, sir. 

Mr. MCINTYRE. That would be great. It would be for the 2013 enacted budget and the 2014 proposed budget. So we will see where 

that is and make sure we are getting those savings. 

Thank you. Thank you, Gentlemen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. TURNER. Gentlemen, thank you so much. I appreciate your 

work with the committee so that we can both understand the 

issues that we have before us and also help us in formulating, as 

we move forward, on the subcommittee’s mark. 

Thank you again. We will be adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:45 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 
A P P E N D I X 

APRIL 26, 2013 

PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD 

APRIL 26, 2013 

(29) 
30 
31 
32 
33 
34 
35 
36 
37 
38 
39 
40 
41 
42 
43 
44 
45 
46 
47 
48 
WITNESS RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS ASKED DURING 

THE HEARING 

APRIL 26, 2013 

(51) 

RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MS. SANCHEZ 

General BARCLAY and General PHILLIPS. The Army’s strategy for acquiring Joint 

Tactical Radio System (JTRS) Handheld, Manpack and Small Form Fit (HMS) radios under full and open competition has taken time to properly develop and coordinate within the Department of the Army and Department of Defense, as well as 

with industry partners. However, I can affirm the Army’s commitment to compete 

the procurement of these critical radios among all possible vendors. 

The Army is currently coordinating the technical radio acquisition strategy with 

the Under Secretary of Defense (Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics). Upon approval of the acquisition strategy, the Army will submit written certification to the 

congressional defense committees that the acquisition strategy for full rate production of the JTRS HMS radios includes full and open competition in accordance with 

National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012. [See page 12.] 

General BARCLAY and General PHILLIPS. The Defense Acquisition Board (DAB) review held in August 2012 was briefed on the Northstar bankruptcy and resulting 

transmission delay issue. This DAB was chaired by Ms. Katrina McFarland and attended by the principal staff members supporting the Under Secretary of Defense 

for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics. The decision to work with the prime and 

subcontractors to use a rotatable pool and a payment withhold was made within the 

Project Management and Program Executive Officer leadership with Assistant Secretary of the Army, Acquisitions, Logistics and Technology concurrence, to preclude 

a production disruption and a significant cost increase for U.S. and foreign Apache 

procurements. The Army, in coordination with OSD, made the right decision to sustain this important industrial base capability consisting of over 300 industry partners and thousands of workers. [See page 12.] 

RESPONSE TO QUESTION SUBMITTED BY MR. BARBER 

General BARCLAY and General PHILLIPS. The Army had requested 19 aircraft and 

associated ground support equipment in the Fiscal Year 2013 (FY13) President’s 

Budget (PB) request. The Appropriations Act funded the 15 aircraft and associated 

ground support equipment. The FY14 President’s Budget requests 15 aircraft and 

associated support equipment. With the late appropriation, the Army did not have 

an opportunity to modify the PB14 request to adjust for the loss of four aircraft and 

associated ground support equipment from the FY13 Appropriation. During the 

budget briefings to the Professional Staff Members, the Army requested committee 

support to permit the Army to purchase four additional aircraft with FY14 funding 

by shifting some other requirements into FY15. The House Armed Services Committee has supported that request. These adjustments will allow us to complete our 

purchase of 152 aircraft and associated ground support equipment that supports the 

Chief of Staff, Army’s equipping strategy. [See page 21.] 

RESPONSE TO QUESTION SUBMITTED BY MR. MCINTYRE 

General BARCLAY and General PHILLIPS. The Fiscal Year (FY) 2011 reprogramming request of $47.8 million to start an Abrams tank Fuel Efficiency Improvement 

(FEI) effort was supported by the House Armed Services Committee. However, the 

request was never implemented because it was denied by the Senate Armed Services Committee as a new start. 

Current Status of the Abrams FEI: The Abrams FEI is not currently an approved 

or funded program. 

The Product Manager for Abrams is actively supporting an Army Capabilities Integration Center (ARCIC)-led cost/benefit analysis (CBA) for a more fuel-efficient 

Abrams power train. The alternatives currently being considered are Transmission 

FEI only; Full Turbine Power Train (engine and transmission) FEI; General Dynamics Land System diesel power train (for potential Ground Combat Vehicle [GCV] 

commonality); BAE Hybrid Electric Diesel (for potential GCV commonality); L3 1790 
52 

Diesel; and the Common Aviation Turbine program. The CBA is expected to be completed in the Fourth Quarter of FY 2013. 

The Army is keenly aware of the benefits of an Abrams FEI effort and will review 

opportunities to pursue an executable FEI program once the ARCIC CBA is 

complete. [See page 23.] 
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS POST HEARING 

APRIL 26, 2013 

(55) 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. LOBIONDO 

Mr. LOBIONDO. An article was published last week stating the Army is accepting 

incomplete Apaches off the Boeing production line. How can this be reasonable? Can 

you comment on this situation and if this is not the case, provide an update on 

where the Apache program sits with production? 

General PHILLIPS. I am familiar with the article you mentioned. The article was not accurate. It is true, however, that the Army withholds approximately $900,000 

per aircraft from Boeing and allows them to remove the improved drive system (the 

transmission) to support subsequent production. Boeing pays for all the extra labor 

and the storage costs of the aircraft. This process is a temporary one that supports 

the recovery of drive system supply caused by the Northstar bankruptcy in June 

2012, after several years of financial difficulties. Northstar is Boeing’s supplier of 

the improved E-model drive system and owns the process methods for manufacturing split face gears, which is a critical technology that has never been employed 

in any prior aircraft. We believe that it is in the best interest of the Army to work 

with Boeing and Northstar during this recovery period. Had the Army not developed 

this temporary adjustment to the final delivery process, the AH–64E production line 

would have stopped last year. This work-stoppage would have far reaching impacts 

on other suppliers, impacting the industrial base across 41 states, resulting in ∼400 

layoffs within Boeing alone and an estimated 20 percent workforce reduction across 

the entire Apache supply base. This would have had a significant impact to the cost 

of future U.S. and foreign Apache procurements and would have resulted in production impacts to Boeing, Lockheed Martin, Longbow Limited and Northrop Grumman. It is important to note that we do not accept incomplete Apaches. Each AH– 

64E Apache that comes off the Boeing production line is entirely complete and goes 

through a series of tests in accordance with the government Acceptance Test Procedures (ATP). The Army only accepts aircraft that have successfully completed all of 

the ATP. The Army is meeting all AH–64E fielding requirements and met First 

Unit Equipped within the program threshold in May 2013. 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MS. DUCKWORTH 

Ms. DUCKWORTH. Recognizing the importance of an Operational Reserve force, can 

you speak to how you will implement concurrent modernization of Guard and Reserve equipment inventories at the same rate as Active Duty? 

General BARCLAY and General PHILLIPS. In accordance with Department of Defense Directive 1200.17 Managing the Reserve Components as an Operational Force, 

the Army ensures both the Army National Guard (ARNG) and United States Army 

Reserve (USAR) forces meet operational readiness requirements as identified by the 

President and the Secretary of Defense. Army leadership recognizes that the reserve 

components play a critical role in meeting Army force requirements and that the 

reserve components are an essential part of the Total Force; as such, the reserve 

components are modernized in accordance with the Army’s modernization strategy. 

The pace and scope of equipment modernization for the Army is defined by the 

Army Equipment Modernization Strategy, and equipment programming priorities 

are addressed by the Army as a total force, factoring in overall equipment age, 

interoperability, and employment needs, regardless of component. The Army ensures reserve component equipping requirements are addressed in all equipment 

distribution and modernization plans. 

Over the past ten years as a result of following the Army Equipping Strategy, the 

reserve components have attained near parity for equipment on hand (EOH) and 

equipment modernization levels as the active component (AC). The EOH levels for 

individual components as of December 2012 are: the AC 91 percent, ARNG 89 percent, and the USAR 86 percent. The modernization levels for the individual components are the AC 72 percent, ARNG 71 percent, and the USAR 65 percent. 

Ms. DUCKWORTH. I would like to commend the Army for establishing a firm requirement for the Improved Turbine Engine Program (ITEP) and for successful completion of the Material Development Decision. Developing and integrating an engine 

that provides a 50-percent increase in engine power and a 25-percent fuel savings 
56 

is a significant combat multiplier. The additional benefits of longer useful life, improved maintainability and reduced costs for the Army’s current and next-generation vertical lift aircraft is a significant endeavor. Can you please explain the benefits this engine will bring to the current and next generation fleet of helicopters in 

support of Air Sea doctrine and the pivot to Asia Pacific region? 

Value/Operational Benefits: With a declining defense budget, particularly in the 

Research & Development accounts, I am concerned we are mortgaging the Army’s 

future requirements and capabilities to address short-term needs. The Improved 

Turbine Engine Program (ITEP) seems like one program where the investment is 

leveraged to address the both current Black Hawk and Apache helicopter requirements and the next-generation Future Vertical Lift helicopter. Can you please explain the value the ITEP engine brings to meet current and future operational 

requirements? 

General BARCLAY and General PHILLIPS. The Improved Turbine Engine Program 

(ITEP) engine provides a 3000 shaft horsepower (shp) turbo shaft to improve lift, 

increase range, minimize fuel consumption, and decrease maintenance costs for 

Black Hawk and Apache rotary-wing aviation platforms. The goals of the Science 

and Technology project are: 1) a 25-percent reduction in Specific Fuel Consumption 

at 3000 shp; 2) a 65-percent improvement in shp to weight (shp/wt); 3) a 20-percent 

improvement in design life; and 4) a 35-percent reduction in production and maintenance cost. Traditionally, aircraft gain 77 pounds a year in weight, and the current 

fleet is expected to operate until 2060. The ITEP engine ensures that the aircraft 

maintain current flight capability and achieve improved performance in high/hot operations. The largest operational impact is that aircraft equipped with an ITEP engine will be able to operate where the altitude is over 6,000 feet and the temperature is above 95 degrees, while retaining a 500 feet per minute vertical climb 

capability. 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MRS. ROBY 

Mrs. ROBY. The Army is already planning a force structure drawdown to meet 

budget reduction targets. General Odierno recently testified that he anticipates the 

Army may need to reduce its numbers by another 100K soldiers if sequestration is 

not avoided. As you bring troops and equipment back from theatre, you have a 

unique opportunity to shape force structure in a way that best meets mission requirements, but also leverages assets that can reduce the burden on your O&M 

budgets. 

Will your Aviation Modernization plan include a fleet mix analysis the gives 

weight to fleet structure that maximizes efficiency and budgetary impacts? 

General BARCLAY and General PHILLIPS. Our Aviation Modernization Plan will 

continue to provide for a fleet mix that balances current and future approved aviation force structure requirements with available resources to provide needed capabilities and maximize efficiency. 

Mrs. ROBY. The Abrams Tank power train has been identified by the Army as one 

of the critical upgrades required to extend the life of the Abrams tank to 2045. Two 

years ago, the Secretary of the Army testified that 60% of the maintenance costs 

for the Abrams tank is related to the engine and transmission and that improving 

the power train, the Army would achieve 17% improvement in fuel efficiency. In Fiscal Year 2012, this committee supported a $47.8 million reprogramming request 

from the Department of Army that adopted commercial-based improvements to insert a new dual centrifugal compressor that would be integrated within the existing 

Total Integrated Engine Revitalization program. The committee understands this 

upgrade will provide the Army $1.6 billion in maintenance and fuel savings as well 

as drive additional workload into Anniston Army depot. 

What is the funding status of this program in the FY 2013 enacted budget and 

the FY 2014 proposed President’s budget? 

General BARCLAY and General PHILLIPS. The FY 2011 reprogramming request of 

$47.8 million to start an Abrams tank Fuel Efficiency Improvement (FEI) effort was 

supported by the House Armed Services Committee. However, the request was 

never implemented because it was denied by the Senate Armed Services Committee 

as a new start. 

Current Status of the Abrams FEI: The Abrams FEI is not currently an approved 

or funded program. 

The Product Manager for Abrams is actively supporting an Army Capabilities Integration Center (ARCIC)-led cost/benefit analysis (CBA) for a more fuel-efficient 

Abrams power train. The alternatives currently being considered are Transmission 

FEI only; Full Turbine Power Train (engine and transmission) FEI; General Dynam-
57 

ics Land System diesel power train (for potential Ground Combat Vehicle [GCV] 

commonality); BAE Hybrid Electric Diesel (for potential GCV commonality); L3 1790 

Diesel; and the Common Aviation Turbine program. The CBA is expected to be completed in the Fourth Quarter of FY 2013. 

The Army is keenly aware of the benefits of an Abrams FEI effort and will review 

opportunities to pursue an executable FEI program once the ARCIC CBA is 

complete. 

QUESTION SUBMITTED BY MRS. WALORSKI 

Mrs. WALORSKI. The Abrams Tank power train has been identified by the Army 

as one of the critical upgrades required to extend the life of the Abrams tank to 

2045. Two years ago, the Secretary of the Army testified that 60% of the maintenance costs for the Abrams tank is related to the engine and transmission and that 

improving the power train, the Army would achieve 17% improvement in fuel efficiency. In Fiscal Year 2012, this committee supported a $47.8 million reprogramming request from the Department of Army that adopted commercial-based improvements to insert a new dual centrifugal compressor that would be integrated 

within the existing Total Integrated Engine Revitalization program. The committee 

understands this upgrade will provide the Army $1.6 billion in maintenance and 

fuel savings as well as drive additional workload into Anniston Army depot. What 

is the funding status of this program in the FY 2013 enacted budget and the FY 

2014 proposed President’s budget? 

General PHILLIPS. The FY 2011 reprogramming request of $47.8 million to start 

an Abrams tank Fuel Efficiency Improvement (FEI) effort was supported by the 

House Armed Services Committee. However, the request was never implemented because it was denied by the Senate Armed Services Committee as a new start. 

Current Status of the Abrams FEI: The Abrams FEI is not currently an approved 

or funded program. 

The Product Manager for Abrams is actively supporting an Army Capabilities Integration Center (ARCIC)-led cost/benefit analysis (CBA) for a more fuel-efficient 

Abrams power train. The alternatives currently being considered are Transmission 

FEI only; Full Turbine Power Train (engine and transmission) FEI; General Dynamics Land System diesel power train (for potential Ground Combat Vehicle [GCV] 

commonality); BAE Hybrid Electric Diesel (for potential GCV commonality); L3 1790 

Diesel; and the Common Aviation Turbine program. The CBA is expected to be completed in the Fourth Quarter of FY 2013. 

The Army is keenly aware of the benefits of an Abrams FEI effort and will review 

opportunities to pursue an executable FEI program once the ARCIC CBA is 

complete. 

Æ