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 

80–755 2013

[H.A.S.C. No. 113–26] 

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

EQUIPPING THE INDIVIDUAL SOLDIER 

AND MARINE: CURRENT AND FUTURE 

YEAR ACQUISITION AND MODERNIZATION 

STRATEGIES AND THE FISCAL YEAR 

2014 BUDGET REQUEST 

HEARING HELD 

APRIL 11, 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 

JESSE TOLLESON, 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: 

Thursday, April 11, 2013, Equipping the Individual Soldier and Marine: Current and Future Year Acquisition and Modernization Strategies and the 

Fiscal Year 2014 Budget Request ....................................................................... 1 

APPENDIX: 

Thursday, April 11, 2013 ........................................................................................ 29 

THURSDAY, APRIL 11, 2013 

EQUIPPING THE INDIVIDUAL SOLDIER AND MARINE: CURRENT AND 

FUTURE YEAR ACQUISITION AND MODERNIZATION STRATEGIES 

AND THE FISCAL YEAR 2014 BUDGET REQUEST 

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 

Ostrowski, BG Paul A., USA, Program Executive Officer, Soldier, U.S. Army; 

and Peter B. Bechtel, G–3/5/7, Director, Capabilities Integration, 

Prioritization and Analysis, U.S. Department of the Army ............................. 3 

Smith, BGen Eric M., USMC, Director, Capabilities Development Directorate, 

Combat Development and Integration, U.S. Marine Corps; and BGen Frank 

L. Kelley, USMC, Commander, Marine Corps Systems Command, U.S. 

Marine Corps ........................................................................................................ 4 

APPENDIX 

PREPARED STATEMENTS: 

Ostrowski, BG Paul A., joint with Peter B. Bechtel ...................................... 33 

Smith, BGen Eric M., joint with BGen Frank L. Kelley ............................... 49 

DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD: 

[There were no Documents submitted.] 

WITNESS RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS ASKED DURING THE HEARING: 

Mr. Castro ......................................................................................................... 63 

Ms. Tsongas ...................................................................................................... 63 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS POST HEARING: 

Ms. Duckworth .................................................................................................. 83 

Mr. Enyart ........................................................................................................ 70 

Mr. Jones ........................................................................................................... 67 

Mr. LoBiondo .................................................................................................... 69 

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

(1) 

EQUIPPING THE INDIVIDUAL SOLDIER AND MARINE: 

CURRENT AND FUTURE YEAR ACQUISITION AND MODERNIZATION STRATEGIES AND THE FISCAL YEAR 2014 

BUDGET REQUEST 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON TACTICAL AIR AND LAND FORCES, 

Washington, DC, Thursday, April 11, 2013. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 3:30 p.m., in room 

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

(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. 

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

TACTICAL AIR AND LAND FORCES 

Mr. TURNER. I call to order the hearing of the Tactical Air and 

Land Forces Subcommittee. The Tactical Air and Land Forces Subcommittee meets today in open session to receive testimony on individual soldier and marine equipment programs in the fiscal year 

2014 budget request. Today we will continue the subcommittee’s 

oversight on the many challenges facing individual warfighter 

equipment, to include industrial-based sustainment, advances in 

weight reduction and equipment specifically tailored for the female 

warfighter. 

This committee and this subcommittee in particular has always 

stressed the importance of individual warfighter equipment and 

has done so in a bipartisan manner through hearings and legislation. In bipartisan fashion we have worked with the Department 

and industry to eliminate critical equipment shortages post–9/11. 

We have drafted legislation reflecting the critical need for weight 

reduction for individual gear and have tried to improve the acquisition process in order to better incentivize industry. 

I want to thank our former subcommittee chairman, ranking 

member, and other subcommittee members for their actions in this 

matter. 

The past decade saw a significant increase in funding and 

prioritization for individual warfighter equipment, primarily 

through overseas contingency operations funding. Industrial bases 

were expanded and sustained at high capacities in order to meet 

evolving threats and high-priority demands from troops operating 

in Afghanistan and Iraq. This helped to incentivize innovation from 

industry and helped to mature technology for programs like body 

armor, protective clothing, and night vision equipment. Many lessons were learned regarding what worked and what did not. 
2 

I commend the improvements that have been made as well as 

the increased level in investment from prior years. However, considering the present fiscal realities, I remain concerned that the future priorities and levels of investment for individual equipment be 

sustained. We still have soldiers and marines carrying almost 150 

pounds of gear on their back, depending upon the mission. Despite 

our better judgment, we are entering into a period of transition, 

the so-called peace dividend, and what happens to be a prolonged 

period of reduced defense budgets. What happens to individual 

warfighter equipment investment when the OCO [Overseas Contingency Operations] budgets go away and there is no longer a sense 

of urgency to address warfighter demand for lightweight gear? 

We have a panel of witnesses here today who are prepared to address long-term modernization sustainment and integration strategies for individual equipment programs, current efforts to lighten 

the soldier and marine combat load, and ways to incentivize industry to continue to invest in innovation. 

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

may want to make. 

STATEMENT OF HON. LORETTA SANCHEZ, A REPRESENTATIVE 

FROM CALIFORNIA, RANKING MEMBER, SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

TACTICAL AIR AND LAND FORCES 

Ms. SANCHEZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you all. I 

know I said hello to some of you, but I notice that you have 

brought a lot of people to answer our questions today, so I appreciate that. Thank you all for your service to our country. 

We are really here today to try to figure out how we move forward now that we are out of Iraq and coming out of Afghanistan, 

and in particular with respect to the individual soldier or marine 

or seaman or airman, et cetera, and women, by the way, you know, 

what it is going to look like in the future. And we know the more 

technology we have, the more information we have, the more we 

want them to be so well equipped that sometimes they are carrying 

150 pounds along with them. 

So the answer is how can we use the new technologies, the new 

breakthroughs and ensure they are being used in the equipment 

that our men and women want and need and how do we do that 

in a time also of budget constraints. And as the chairman said, we 

threw a lot of money at this and we tried to fix the problem during 

the war, and then what typically happens is that you, especially in 

a tough time with no conventional-type or big war going on, you 

tend to downsize on equipment or not make the innovation that 

you need in equipment and try to concentrate on the larger systems or what have you. 

So we want to make sure that we don’t do that, in particular because the way some of this equipment or most of this equipment 

has been bought over this decade has been through no line item, 

but really in contingency accounts. So we are here to try to figure 

out and get some answers as to what we need to do. 

I am going to have some questions for you with respect to the 

rifle competition and how that is going. I am interested in equipment for women now that we are going to be opening up more 
3 

MOSs [Military Occupational Specialties] for women in the military 

at large. And I am also interested in how we are going to keep innovation coming into the circle as we move forward and we don’t 

really have the type of procurement or monies that we have had 

in the last decade. 

So those are my concerns and I am sure that we will have a good 

discussion today. So I welcome you. And thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And I also want to thank the members who have shown up for the 

subcommittee hearing. I appreciate it also. Thank you. 

Mr. TURNER. Thank you, Congresswoman Sanchez. 

We want to welcome then our witnesses. We have Brigadier General Paul A. Ostrowski, Program Executive Officer, Soldier; Mr. 

Peter B. Bechtel, Director, Capabilities Integration, Prioritization 

and Analysis; Brigadier General Frank L. Kelley, Commander, Marine Corps Systems Command; and Brigadier General Eric M. 

Smith, Director, Capabilities Development Directorate. 

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

with us here today. We are going to proceed with your testimony 

and then go into questions. 

Without objection, we ask that all witnesses’ prepared statements be included in the hearing record and we also ask unanimous consent that non-committee members, if any, do come to attendance, we have some that RSVPed that they will be here, the 

non-committee members be allowed to participate in today’s hearing for all subcommittee members after they have had their opportunity to ask questions, and if there is no objection, the non-committee members will be recognized at the appropriate time for 

questions also. 

With that, General Ostrowski. 

STATEMENT OF BG PAUL A. OSTROWSKI, USA, PROGRAM EXECUTIVE OFFICER SOLDIER, U.S. ARMY; AND PETER B. 

BECHTEL, G–3/5/7, DIRECTOR, CAPABILITIES INTEGRATION, 

PRIORITIZATION AND ANALYSIS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE 

ARMY 

General OSTROWSKI. Chairman Turner, Representative Sanchez, 

distinguished members of the Subcommittee on Tactical Air and 

Land Forces, on behalf of myself and Mr. Pete Bechtel, we thank 

you for this opportunity to discuss the fiscal year 2014 budget request for equipping the individual soldier and marine. It is our 

privilege to represent senior Army leaders and America’s soldiers. 

It is our privilege also to appear before this subcommittee with the 

fellow warfighters of the United States Marine Corps. We thank 

you, Mr. Chairman, and all subcommittee members, for your sound 

advice and strong support of the Army as we strive to ensure that 

our soldiers are well trained and well equipped to undertake any 

mission in any environment. 

The lethality, safety, and security of soldiers remain the Army’s 

highest priorities. We have without question the best-equipped, 

most technologically advanced fighting force in the world, but there 

are still challenges that we must meet. Today’s all-volunteer, combat-seasoned soldier has steadily borne the brunt of increased 

equipment load, necessitating considerable attention to modernization efforts aimed at lightening that burden while maintaining a 
4 

decisive edge over any potential adversary. This is an important 

element of our modernization plan. 

Our senior leaders continue an open dialogue with industry. 

Now, perhaps more than ever, it is clear that we must work together to identify appropriate courses of action to minimize negative impacts on our plans, programs and industry partners. We 

must continue to meet our contingency requirements while carefully balancing readiness and modernization. 

We thank you again for your strong support of our soldiers and 

the Army. We are part of a joint force, constantly working to enhance the safety and security for our warfighters. Your wisdom and 

guidance is deeply appreciated as we work to ensure that our soldiers have the right equipment for the right operations at the right 

time to successfully accomplish their missions and return home 

safely. 

We look forward to your questions. 

[The joint prepared statement of General Ostrowski and Mr. 

Bechtel can be found in the Appendix on page 33.] 

Mr. TURNER. Thank you. 

General Smith. 

STATEMENT OF BGEN ERIC M. SMITH, USMC, DIRECTOR, CAPABILITIES DEVELOPMENT DIRECTORATE, COMBAT DEVELOPMENT AND INTEGRATION, U.S. MARINE CORPS; AND BGEN 

FRANK L. KELLEY, USMC, COMMANDER, MARINE CORPS SYSTEMS COMMAND, U.S. MARINE CORPS 

General SMITH. Chairman Turner, Ranking Member Sanchez, 

and distinguished members, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today on behalf of your marines and their families. 

This committee is vitally important to the Marine Corps because 

it focuses on the individual rifleman, the heart and soul of the Marine Corps. 

Brigadier General Kelley and I have prepared one written statement for the Marine Corps which has been delivered and I will 

offer a few brief opening statements for us both. I will keep these 

comments extremely short so that Brigadier General Kelley and I 

might use the maximum possible time to answer the important 

questions which you may ask. I would also thank very much our 

brothers in the Army for their support of all that we have done. 

Having deployed twice to Iraq and once to Afghanistan, I can 

personally attest to the positive impact which you and your due 

diligence and hard work have had on the lives of the marines and 

sailors of our Corps and their families. Your willingness to provide 

support for us, to obtain the equipment we needed, meant that 

more warriors returned home to their families than otherwise 

might have been possible. I offer you this information not as a 

platitude but as an honest assessment from one marine back to his 

teammates who provided him with lifesaving support while in theater. I guarantee you that the marines who are forward-deployed 

at this very moment echo my sentiments. 

We look forward to answering your questions, and, again, thank 

you for allowing us to appear here before you today. 

[The joint prepared statement of General Smith and General 

Kelley can be found in the Appendix on page 49.] 
5 

Mr. TURNER. Thank you, gentlemen, for appearing before the 

committee and for the information provided. 

This is one of those issues where sometimes it is a funding issue, 

sometimes it is a specific equipment issue, sometimes it is a process issue that affects our ability to get to the warfighter exactly 

what is needed for their performance. And I am going to ask you 

one of those process-procedure questions. 

We are very concerned about the issue of body armor components 

and the fact of the extensive weight that our service members are 

experiencing both as we know it is having impacts on their bodies 

and on injuries, but also we know that it affects agility in the field. 

So in 2010 Congress mandated that the DOD [Department of Defense] establish a procurement line item for body armor components, again a process action, because Congress believed that there 

would be a better opportunity to get lighter equipment working in 

partnership with industry than the process that was currently 

going forward. 

However, DOD has failed to comply with this requirement. DOD 

has indicated that body armor is considered to be an expendable 

item and that creating a procurement line for expendable items 

would add inefficiencies in managing procurement quantities due 

to varying procurement quantity requirements. Its duty is exclusively using operations and maintenance accounts almost entirely 

funded with overseas contingency funds to fund warfighter equipment. Industry is unable to see and forecast procurement levels 

across the Future Years Defense Plan. As a result, they cannot create business cases that support internal investment. Congress had 

stepped in trying to affect that process so that perhaps we could 

get both the same level of protection, but yet equipment that more 

meets the needs of the mobile warfighter. 

DOD has stated that these inefficiencies would be created by establishing procurement line items for individual warfighters. I am 

concerned and want to know what your position is as to the opportunity to more effectively work with industry. We understand that 

DOD has said by using O&M [Operations and Maintenance] funding that they cite flexibility in acquisition, but we now have a situation where we have so substantially acquired what is almost a 

body protection system or systems for warfighters that perhaps it 

is time that we elevate it in the procurement process so that we 

can more technically affect the outcome. 

I would love your thoughts, if anyone would like to comment. 

General OSTROWSKI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will start off. 

As you know, we are on record as a department that body armor 

would fall under the operations and maintenance accounts based 

on the flexibility that you cited. The letter from the Under Secretary of Defense to you and others clearly cited that. I think the 

key here, sir, is the flexibility piece that it offers and it has offered 

us some. 

A case in point. Just recently we came upon a new threat in Afghanistan to our dismounted patrols, and those were dismounted 

IEDs, improvised explosive devices. When we had money in a line 

in the O&M account we were able to quickly move that money to 

create a counter to that called our protective overgarment and undergarment system which we have fielded up to 66,000 sets of and 
6 

are currently saving lives in Afghanistan. That flexibility was really highlighted with respect to that particular procurement. 

With respect to the industry and not having visibility over our 

programs if it was hidden underneath an O&M line, we have a 

very open dialogue with industry, and going forward with the soldier protection system, which is the next generation of protection 

systems for all of our soldiers, we have maintained very tight contact with industry to include industry days, where we had over 100 

vendors come in and we discussed our requirements and where we 

were going with respect to that. 

We are currently funded well in DPEO [Deputy Program Executive Office] to create a capability of our soldier protection system 

and I know that there is a lot of push to move that line into the 

procurement side. I would just say that from our perspective, the 

flexibility is key, because with respect to personal protection, our 

ability to shift is adamantly important across the force. 

Mr. TURNER. Thank you for giving that answer, because my followup question obviously, I understand the flexibility in the aspect 

of quantity and I understand the flexibility in the aspect of acquiring existing items or systems, but I think everyone is concerned 

about the development process, how do we get beyond just you 

being a purchaser but also then that partner with development. Because I think everyone shares, I know you share the same concern, 

that what you currently have is going to have to evolve to the next 

generation, the next level, so that we can ensure that, A, we don’t 

have injuries, but also with the aspect of agility, it is less safe for 

the soldier in the field when they have a greater weight for them 

to be able to move. 

General OSTROWSKI. Yes, sir. The one thing that the Department 

did do was ensure that we established a research and development 

line for our personal protection equipment, and that is the area 

that we invest, that is an investment account within the research 

and development line, and that is very open for visibility with respect to industry, our industry partners and so forth. That is where 

we go and chase—— 

Mr. TURNER. How did that line fare in this budget? 

General OSTROWSKI. Sir, that line, I don’t have the exact number 

on it. I will tell you, sir, that within my research and development 

lines that I have within Soldier and the budget is approximately 

$185 million, which is above last year’s request and last year’s 

funding amount. 

Mr. TURNER. Thank you. With that, I will turn to my ranking 

member. 

Ms. SANCHEZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I outlined the areas 

that I had a concern for you when I began, so let me just go 

through this first with Mr. Bechtel. 

I feel that the Army is starting to say that individual equipment 

is good enough. I mean by that we had this problem before when 

we entered the war in Iraq and some people had better body armor 

than others and we lost lives. It cost us lives. So I am concerned 

that the Army is underestimating the performance costs and the 

long-term costs of the innovation with respect to weight. 

I mean, I consider myself someone who goes out and exercises 

every day and I know what weight does, and I am concerned that 
7 

we are overloading soldiers. I am concerned that there is some 

skeletal information coming out that maybe they have too much on 

them. I know we had this, for example, on my police—when I look 

at our police, our law enforcement, local law enforcement, something like 40 percent of back injuries, and there is a lot of them 

throughout all the agencies, are due to too much weight on the 

belt, too much weight, et cetera, on the soldier, or in that particular case the policeman. 

So my questions are, one, is there a DOD investment strategy for 

new materials that will provide improvements to warfighter equipment? How are we going to gauge that? How are we going to do 

that? And can you provide a couple of examples of the most recent 

new products that have significantly reduced the load on the soldier? 

Mr. BECHTEL. Well, Congresswoman, you are exactly right. We 

certainly take care and have prioritized the mobility of our soldiers, 

both in terms of operational needs and in the long-term impacts 

from a manpower, personnel, and integration approach. It starts 

early on in the combat developer in labs. It proceeds forward all 

the way through tests, and ultimately during downrange forward 

operational assessments and so forth. So you are spot-on in terms 

of having impact on the soldier with predominately weight. 

There is obviously the balance between protection, ballistic protection in most cases and otherwise, and the weight and the mobility aspect. We consider that very carefully, and General 

Ostrowski’s comments on some of that with weight reduction for 

the body armor goes to that, working with industry and redefining 

the development document requirements to demand threshold 10- 

percent reduction in weight and moving on to an objective of 15- 

percent reduction. 

Some recent examples of success stories goes to some of the network, and network, of course, is one of our five big priority areas 

for our soldiers’ portfolio, and reducing the network and the battery 

weight as we go forward. So the various innovations of using commercial off-the-shelf and of capitalizing on what soldiers are more 

comfortable and familiar with, while also moving to conform battery and other soldier systems to reduce weight and the deployable 

net-zero type systems has been one important innovation that we 

have examined. 

The other area is in the protective mobility realm using robotics 

specifically, soldier carried and transportable, as well as self-transportable systems that will help protect the cognitive and the physical stamina of the soldiers when they are operating as part of a 

squad as a system. 

Ms. SANCHEZ. Generals, if you could also speak to what types of 

innovation or what you are doing about the size with respect for 

example if we are going to have women marines or soldiers in the 

combat area. 

General OSTROWSKI. Yes, ma’am. First of all, I would like to just 

cite out a couple of other examples in addition to what Mr. Bechtel 

just answered. Our current improved outer tactical vest weighs 31 

pounds. The soldier plate carrier, which we are now using in Afghanistan, dropped that weight to 24 pounds, so an incremental 

improvement right there in itself. 
8 

The female body armor, ma’am, is our latest invention that we 

were able to create with our industry partners and our Natick lab. 

What we were able to accomplish is a weight reduction from 31 

pounds in the improved outer tactical vest down to 25 pounds for 

our female body armor. We currently have 19 sets of that female 

body armor in theater, we have it in eight sizes and we are going 

to field 600 sets in the months of August and September to the 

next forces deploying as part of the rapid fielding initiative. 

Ms. SANCHEZ. 600 female sets? 

General OSTROWSKI. 600 female sets. Yes, ma’am. 

Ms. SANCHEZ. In eight different sizes. 

General OSTROWSKI. Yes, ma’am. That is exactly correct. And 

going forward we will always field female body armor to our deploying forces from this point forward. August will be our first lot 

of those, and from now on every soldier, every female soldier deploying in the theater, will be given female body armor. 

Ms. SANCHEZ. Thank you, General. 

General SMITH. Ma’am, thanks for the opportunity to answer on 

this question. We are following closely what the Army is doing with 

regard to female body armor. Our position is that for us protection 

is paramount and that we wish to have both protection and comfort, but we won’t sacrifice any protection for any marine, be it 

male or female, in order just to gain some comfort. 

Our plate carrier, which is what we are currently using in Afghanistan, is in and of itself inherently scalable. It has got a shoulder strap system that is very lightweight that allows almost any 

torso size to fit that carrier to the body in the best possible means. 

That is what we are doing in order to lighten the load. 

We absolutely echo and applaud your comments about injuries to 

shoulders, knees, backs, necks, ankles, hips. You name it, we are 

also experiencing and seeing that firsthand. So everything that we 

are doing when we work with industry is to let them know through 

industry days, through modern-day marine expos, that we need to 

lighten the weight. We need to reduce the weight of the material 

which carries the plate, the plate being the heart and soul of a protective system, because that is truly what is stopping the enemy 

threat, is the plate. We are doing that on a daily basis as we work 

back and forth with industry. 

I would simply say before I pass it to General Kelley is that we 

do walk somewhat of a fine line in that if the requirement is for 

the protection and then we also establish a specific requirement for 

the weight, we could find a difficulty in having a system that protects, such as the plate, but then causes a problem when we say 

well, it is protected but it didn’t meet the weight requirement. And 

we will be in an endless do loop of pursuing the perfect—the goldplated standard. 

Ms. SANCHEZ. General, do you have any comments on that? 

General KELLEY. I can’t really improve too much on what you 

have already heard, ma’am, but I would like to say one organization that we have at Marine Corps Systems Command, and even 

though it is at Marine Corps Systems Command we share this data 

with the Army and to be perfectly honest any of the other Services 

that would want to get their hands on it, and that is our Marine 

Expeditionary Rifle Squad. They have a program called MC–LEAP 
9 

[Marine Corps Load Effects Assessment Program], and the Marine 

Expeditionary Rifle Squad essentially focuses on the marine in our 

case, and we look at both male and female marines when we take 

a look at the MC–LEAP program, which takes a look at everything 

that this marine is going to wear and then puts them through a 

fairly grueling obstacle course and then evaluates what has happened to them during that evolution. And we look at everything, 

like how did they feel, how did they feel when they started, how 

did they feel when they ended, what was their heart rate, did they 

feel an impact on certain parts of their body. 

Just to let you know that that was sort of tucked away in an individual weapons systems program, and we felt that it was so important that we actually elevated that policy to our systems engineer, our systems engineer of the Marine Corps, a guy by the name 

of Jim Smerchansky, and that Marine Expeditionary Rifle Squad 

approach is applied to everything that we do at Marine Corps Systems Command, based on the individual marine. 

Ms. SANCHEZ. Lastly, I am the only one on this side, Mr. Chairman, so I hope you will indulge me with this, just a quick question. 

I mean, you guys are going to get a lot of time. 

When I worked with the law enforcement I remember we did bulletproof vests and we had a program, we had a grant program from 

Homeland Department which I shepherded through because I also 

sit on Homeland, and one of the things that was interesting was 

at that time that my officers were using protection that was over 

5 years old and after 5 years, because of sweat and sun and weather and using it and everything, it wasn’t effective. 

So my question to you, in the types of battle situations and everything where our people are wearing this, what kind of a shelf 

life does the equipment you are using have, and doesn’t that sort 

of harken to this should be a line item where we are consistently 

understanding that we have got to be replacing this stuff and buying this stuff versus just loose out there? 

General OSTROWSKI. Yes, ma’am, you are exactly correct. It must 

be properly surveilled and it must be properly bought so that we 

do not have a situation where the body armor becomes ineffective. 

Ms. SANCHEZ. How long, if someone is using it out there, does 

it last? 

General OSTROWSKI. Yes, ma’am. It depends on the individual 

soldier, quite honestly, because of the fact that an individual soldier will put the body armor through its paces. 

Ms. SANCHEZ. Right. 

General OSTROWSKI. What we do to ensure that the body armor, 

the plates are up to standard, is prior to ever soldier deploying, we 

have a non-destructive test, it is basically an X-ray, and we X-ray 

those plates. Halfway through the tour of the soldier in theater we 

X-ray those plates yet again. And then again when they return 

back to CONUS [Continental United States] we X-ray them yet 

again. 

So what we do is we ensure that they go into theater with a body 

armor that is complete and is sound, and we continue to surveil 

that through the process of being in the fight. This process works 

very, very well and is well established. But however, we do need 

to continue to buy body armor because it does wear out over time 
10 

in terms of storage, and that was recently exposed with respect to 

the SOCOM [Special Operations Command] plates that had a separating of the materials over time. 

Ms. SANCHEZ. Great. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have some 

other questions, but considering you have so many people on your 

side, I will let them ask for a while. How is that? 

Mr. TURNER. Great. I appreciate that. What we have in order is 

Mr. Cook, Dr. Wenstrup, Mr. Runyan, Mr. Gibson, Mrs. Roby, Mrs. 

Walorski, and Mr. Castro. 

We are beginning with Mr. Cook. 

Mr. COOK. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, gentleman. I just 

want to ask a couple of questions about the testing of this. Part of 

my questions are, I don’t know, maybe I should have read S.L.A. 

Marshall’s—or reread those books one more time about the mobility of a soldier, or, if I could paraphrase, a marine, and how are 

you going to test this, whatever you come up with. Right away I 

am thinking of Fort Irwin or MCAGCC [Marine Corps Air Ground 

Combat Center Twentynine Palms] out there where it is 120 degrees. And whatever you come up with I want to make sure that 

those soldiers and marines can move around with that equipment. 

Twenty-five pounds is a lot. And then depending upon what kind 

of gear you are going to have, what is going to be on it, grenades 

and all this stuff, and I can go on and on and on, but it weighs 

that individual down. 

There was a guy by the name of Al Gray at a conference 100 

years ago, before you were probably born. Al Gray talked about, 

hey, it is very easy to make decisions. We were talking about cold 

weather gear, which at the time the Marine Corps had gear that 

was pre–World War II. And he said it is very easy to make decisions in Natick when it is 70 degrees in the laboratory, but if you 

don’t really test this in the field environment under different combat situations, you are going to be in for a surprise. And my surprise was 13 May, 1967, with the M16 rifle, which was going to be 

the great, great savior. And I won’t even describe the horror show 

of Bravo Company, 1st Battalion, 1st Marines. Why? Because it 

was not ready. And we went over there, and, oh, yeah, you got to 

keep the weapon clean. You get on a helicopter, the prop wash, and 

you get out. You land, you get in a firefight and, guess what? One 

round, you have a failure to extract, and it is back to the Revolutionary War where you have to take a cleaning rod and punch it 

out to get that weapon working. A lot of marines died, unfortunately, probably some soldiers died, because it wasn’t tested for 

battlefield conditions. 

So my question basically is I just want to make sure on whatever 

equipment we have, that we exhaust all the scenarios and everything, including what areas you are going to be fighting, how far 

they are going to be able to go, whether they can go on a 10-kilometer, 20-kilometer hump, because I tell you, it is going to affect 

you. And those weights you are talking about, you know, my back 

is—by the way, the flak jacket probably saved my life because I 

was stupid enough to trip a booby-trap and 2nd lieutenants should 

not be walking point, and that is another story in itself. But it actually worked. And all I am saying is that I hope we could do that. 

I really think that it is imperative that we have the best equip-
11 

ment, offer the best protection for the scenario that they are going 

to be in. And this might have to change. 

So the problem I had with the military, once you are committed, 

you know, that is going to be on the shelf for how many years? We 

have got to have that flexibility, because certain situations change 

and based upon the field data we might have to change the whole 

scenario. So if you could comment on that. 

General SMITH. Sir, thanks for that question. We share a similar 

fear in General Gray and a similar situation of being out where we 

maybe should not be and being injured in the fight. 

I can tell you, sir, that what we do, and General Kelley has some 

specifics on part of the testing that we do, but as an infantry battalion and regimental commander, I often had to provide my forces 

here in CONUS to test and evaluate the equipment that was being 

proposed in its early fielding before we went to full-rate production, 

so I would give a platoon or a squad or a company to test that. And 

as you know, sir, lance corporals are not very shy about telling you 

if something does or does not work before we start spending real 

money on that. 

Mr. COOK. Thank God. 

General SMITH. Yes, sir. So we do test this, and as we always 

say, in every climate and place. We will send it to Camp Lejeune, 

we will send it to the desert at Twentynine Palms, attempting to 

test and see how this thing does in everything from cold conditions 

to sandy conditions, and we let the users use it and provide us 

feedback as opposed to this is what you are getting, we are going 

to let you tweak it now. We ask them up front, does this work for 

you, can you fight with this? 

I will tell you, sir, that because of the work, again, not a platitude, but of this particular committee, we are able to produce 

things and field them in combat that work, because my weapon 

worked every single time as did every single marine that I had, 

both at regiment and battalion. I had multiple marines shot in the 

SAPI [Small Arms Protective Insert] plate, get up and walk home. 

So there is a tremendous amount of confidence by the youngsters 

that are out there operating with this gear now because they or 

somebody they know got to run it through the wringer out at the 

mud at Camp Pendleton. 

General KELLEY. Just to echo about General Gray, in his vast career a lot of people don’t know that General Gray at one time was 

the commanding general of the Marine Corps Research and Development Command, MCRDC, which is the legacy command of where 

I am, and General Gray lets me know frequently how we are doing. 

So far I think we are doing okay, because I still have a job. 

Sir, one point that you bring up about the M16, there is a great 

book out there, I don’t know if you have had a chance to read it, 

The Great Rifle Controversy [The Great Rifle Controversy: Search 

for the Ultimate Infantry Weapon from World War II Through Vietnam and Beyond]. It talks about the first days of how we developed 

rifles. And I had a chance to read that book, and one thing that 

it taught me is that the rifle, the ammo, and the soldier or the marine behind it, it is a whole system and we need to approach it 

from a systems perspective. So that is why using soldiers or using 

marines of all shapes, sizes, and genders is absolutely critical. 
12 

I cut my teeth on my first non-fleet tour up in China Lake, sir, 

learning how to do operational tests out in VX–5 [Air Development 

Squadron FIVE], loved it, and it is one of those things that shapes 

your career. So like Eric and Paul and Pete, I share your concern 

about testing as well. I am sure we will get a chance today to probably talk about ECH [Enhanced Combat Helmet], and that is an 

area where testing has proven itself to be invaluable for that. I will 

save my comments on ECH later. 

Mr. TURNER. Dr. Wenstrup. 

Dr. WENSTRUP. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I served a year in Iraq 

’05–’06 as a surgeon in a combat support hospital so I base my 

questions and my comments on my experiences there, as you might 

imagine, and I will say that there were many, many lives saved by 

the individual body armor that soldiers and marines were wearing, 

and I was very pleased to say an 89-percent survivability rate is 

unheard of in war. 

I wonder, do we keep track of lives saved by the armor that we 

implement, and at the same time look at times when maybe the 

armor fell below expectations and we had a loss? 

General SMITH. Sir, I can’t answer your question specifically that 

we do in fact track every single marine or soldier who was struck 

in a SAPI plate by enemy projectile and survived or did not survive. I can’t answer that. I can tell you that the survival rate that 

you are talking about is very, very typical. In fights in and around 

Fallujah, a great witness one day is a guy named Captain Dana 

Covey, and the marines all knew that if you hit Captain Covey’s 

table there at the Bravo surgical hospital you were going to survive. All you had to have was something better than an agonal 

pulse and you would survive. The marines actually talk about that. 

Young lance corporals know that if you make it there, you are 

good. They do have tremendous amount of confidence in the gear 

that they are carrying and they have been issued. 

As goes back to earlier questions, the weight of it though is a 

concern, and we will continue to try to reduce that weight, because 

that does have longer term effects. Usually what we are dealing 

with is a youngster who is trying to get into the fight as opposed 

to get out of the fight. That is who we are, that is who we recruit, 

that is who comes to us. 

So we also check to make sure those plates are uncracked, that 

they are in optimum shape. We have to be very, very careful on 

how we do that, because we all learn how to play with pain very 

early on and that is kind of who we are as a force, so we do have 

to kind of ensure that we are providing a true supervision to make 

sure that the marines that go into the fight not only have the perfect gear, but having to reissue that gear would not prevent him 

from going into the fight. 

Dr. WENSTRUP. I have to say that I was impressed about 6 

months into our tour that we received new armor, that we got new 

plates because there was a newer and better version. It made you 

feel that someone is looking out for you and constantly trying to 

improve things. So I applaud that. 

One of the concerns that I had at the time, and I haven’t seen 

it since that time, was when we had the mismatch of uniforms and 

where you were wearing an old BDU [Battle Dress Uniform] vest 
13 

with the ACU [Army Combat Uniform] or something like that. And 

we went through a period where there was a very good sniper in 

the area and my concern was it was such a definitive outline for 

a sniper to see the differentiation between where the armor ended 

and where flesh began. I haven’t seen that since, and I hope that 

that is a standard that we will never see that again, because I do 

feel that was an unintended consequence, but it is certainly something that took place. Maybe you can verify my trust that that is 

the situation today. 

General OSTROWSKI. Sir, I can certainly verify that, both in our 

current uniform and operational clothing, individual equipment, 

our body armor that we wear that now. And going forward in the 

Army should we decide to undertake a new uniform for the Army, 

the body armor, the organizational clothing, individual equipment 

will match the family of uniforms very closely. 

Dr. WENSTRUP. Thank you. I yield back my time. 

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Runyan. 

Mr. RUNYAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I don’t want to make it 

a statement, but if there is a question in it, it is actually for Mr. 

Bechtel. Obviously with being a member of this subcommittee, I 

chair the Veterans’ Affairs Subcommittee on Disability Assistance 

and Memorial Affairs, and as we go through this process I wanted 

to ask Mr. Bechtel, talking about priority and analysis from a holistic place where we sit dealing with the taxpayers’ money from 

both aspects, not only from the HASC [House Armed Services Committee] aspect, also with dealing with these broken soldiers and 

marines at the end of the day. At the end of the day it is costing 

the taxpayer money if we don’t have the lightest or we are not 

pushing the technology hard enough because we are afraid of 

spending the money there but we are spending it down the road. 

Is there any of that analysis that goes into thinking about those 

future things? I know for myself I played 14 years in the NFL [National Football League]. I feel it every day. It is that beating you 

put on your body, and it doesn’t catch up to you. And I am not even 

40 yet and I feel it every day. But you are going to have a lot of 

those same things coming down the road. Is there any of that analysis that takes place? 

Mr. BECHTEL. There is, Congressman. As we discussed before, 

that is a very important part of the requirements, the testing, the 

procurement, and then postfielding analysis as well. We have 

talked a lot about body armor and you clearly understand the 

tradeoff between protection, ballistic and otherwise, and the weight 

for mobility purposes, as well as near-term health and long-term 

health on the skeletal, the muscular, et cetera. The same for the 

helmet and other systems and so forth. 

We are taking a hard look at ways to improve the mobility of the 

soldier and the squad as a system in terms of use of robotics, use 

of vehicle support, changing our doctrine and our concepts, not just 

the materiel aspect, in terms of how we will provide just-in-time logistics to the tactical edge and so forth. 

I would highlight, sir, some other areas of innovation as well 

though. Vehicular suspension as well as protection goes to that 

point; the development now of the T–11 parachute for airborne 

troopers to help arrest the rate of descent and to accommodate the 
14 

heavier soldier now with an under-chute weight approaching 300 

pounds, given the previous conversations about how much weight 

our troopers are carrying. So we are taking that innovative approach across a lot of systems to take care of our soldiers for the 

near-term operational mission need, but as important the longterm health and quality of life, sir. 

Mr. RUNYAN. Do you see a change that would actually come from 

your medical reports of injuries, have you seen changes in that 

through the enhancement of the parachute suspension, lighter 

armor and all that? Do you have hard numbers that show that? 

Mr. BECHTEL. May I yield to the Program Executive Officer? 

Mr. RUNYAN. Yes. 

General OSTROWSKI. Sir, I would be happy to answer that question. In fact we do. It has decreased the rate of injury by over half 

with respect to our Rangers currently that are using the T–11 

parachute. The 82nd Airborne was just recently issued the parachute and we don’t have any numbers from them yet, but over half 

of the injuries have been avoided within our Rangers. 

Mr. RYAN. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and 

I yield back. 

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Gibson. 

Mr. GIBSON. Well, thanks, Mr. Chairman, and I thank the panelists for being here and also for your service, for the sacrifice of your 

families, and also to our senior enlisted who play such a critical 

role in this area and so many others, really everything. 

My questions, at least the first couple, are going to probably 

press the envelope because today we are talking about acquisition 

and modernization. I am going to be asking about science and technology and some research and development. So if we just hit the 

limits of that, just say so. 

But on the issue of soldier load, one of the things I learned when 

I got back home, we have the College of Nanoscale right there in 

Albany and just learning just the amazing possibilities there and 

with coatings and composites, the possibility of that impacting positively the soldier load and the efficacy of the protection. I am just 

interested to know from both the Army and the Marine Corps’ perspective where you are in that research. Thanks. 

General OSTROWSKI. Sir, I can point out one example that we 

have a nanotechnology facility at Picatinny in New Jersey. That facility has done a lot of work with superheating of nanotechnology, 

nanoparticles, if you will, within different composites. I recently 

visited their facility and what I was able to see at this current time 

with respect to the state of the art of the technology, they are able 

to create a 6-inch disc, plate if you will, again, not the size of a 

body armor plate but a 6-inch size, literally half to a third of the 

weight of what you would think it would be. When you pick that 

disc up it is that light. It is clearly leap-ahead technology with respect to both penetration capabilities, as a penetrator, and hopefully also as a defeater of rounds coming towards us. So that is one 

area that we are focusing on as a leap-ahead kind of capability. 

In terms of the science and technology realm elsewhere, again, 

for the last 11 years at war we did exactly the right thing by providing what was available now and getting it out there quickly to 

our soldiers. We now have an opportunity to take a step back and 
15 

determine what really makes sense going forward to address all of 

these issues, to include soldier load. Do we create a scalable 

tailorable system; i.e. the soldier protection system, and the Marine 

Corps has got an opportunity just like it that we are coordinating 

with them on, that makes it such that a commander can determine 

exactly what level of protection that soldier will wear for any given 

engagement. Give him options. As a material developer, that is our 

job. 

In addition we have to look at state-of-the-art science and technology efforts to get away from soldier load by new and innovative 

approaches. One was mentioned already, robotics. Quite honestly, 

the other one is guaranteed 24/7 aerial resupply. We have the ability to use our current precision-guided parachutes that we have, 

except that the guidance systems are very bulky. If we can cut the 

weight of those down or make them disposable we could allow soldiers to train with them constantly. And when they believe in their 

resupply they will carry less. We all know that a pound off a soldier incrementally that we take off of him is not a pound off. They 

will simply replace it with something else because they don’t know 

if they will ever get resupplied. If we can guarantee them resupply 

and train with it to the point where they believe in it, we might 

absolutely fix this problem long-term. 

General SMITH. I will be very brief so General Kelley can talk 

perhaps about the Office of Naval Research. But General Ostrowski 

and I actually talked about this just a couple of days ago, that his 

last comment is exactly correct. When you can provide—most of 

what a marine is out there carrying is chow, water, ammunition. 

When there is an absolute guaranteed concept that he is comfortable with that he is going to be resupplied, they are going to 

cut a lot of weight. A gallon of water, once you include the container, is seven pounds, no matter who is carrying it. So once we 

can that out of a marine’s pack,that is going to be a tremendous 

benefit. 

As was stated, it is Boyle’s Law of the Grunt, the amount of stuff 

carried will expand to fill the pack provided. And you have to be 

careful of that, because when we live in a harsh, light, lethal, and 

austere environment, and that is kind of our bailiwick, you don’t 

necessarily know when the next time you are going to have an opportunity for a certain class of supply. So fixing the logistics piece, 

I won’t say fixing, enhancing the logistics piece does in fact go a 

long way toward lightening the load of the individual rifleman. 

General KELLEY. So, sir, Eric is absolutely right in pointing to 

the Office of Naval Research as our essentially science and technology lead within the Department of the Navy, serving both the 

Navy and the Marine Corps. Also part of our acquisition system on 

the requirement side and thus the material developer as Paul alluded to, we have the Marine Corps Warfighting Lab that will go 

out and actually experiment not only with technology, discrete 

technological solutions, but also concepts of operations, to include 

every element of the MAGTF [Marine Air-Ground Task Force]. 

One of the things we are finding out is that the more mature logistics environment, the weight of what our marines are carrying 

actually goes down, and that was something that I don’t that would 

have been intuitive right from the get-go. Keeping our eyes wide 
16 

open, looking for nontraditional sources of information to help us 

solve that problem is something that is really important. 

Going to academia is also very important. And also, although I 

know it is tough for industry, I think we do need to invigorate industry’s discretionary IR&D [Independent Research and Development] funds so that they can also come up with some solutions, 

things we may not be thinking about on the military side. 

Mr. GIBSON. Thank you, Chairman. My time has expired. 

Mr. TURNER. Next we have Mrs. Roby. Following Mrs. Roby it 

will be Mr. Castro, Mr. McIntyre, and Ms. Tsongas. 

Mrs. ROBY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I too want to thank 

each of you for your service to our country and the sacrifice that 

not only you make, but your families as well. So thank you from 

my family to yours. 

General Ostrowski, as you may know, this committee included 

language in the Fiscal Year 2013 NDAA [National Defense Authorization Act] which directed the Army and the Marine Corps to determine the feasibility of developing a soldier wearable universal 

controller that could control multiple small unmanned aircraft systems, unmanned ground vehicles, et cetera, and I understand the 

Army and the Marine Corps have been working with various stakeholders, to include Fort Rucker, which is out in the Second District, 

is part of this development. So I just wanted to know if you could 

provide the status of the capability development document for the 

unmanned systems. 

General OSTROWSKI. Yes, ma’am, we do have a capability development document that is going through the process of staffing in 

the Army. We believe that there is a lot of goodness with respect 

to having a universal controlling capability. It speaks to the same 

thing that we are doing with the Nett Warrior program on behalf 

of PEO Soldier where one device does multiple things. I will defer 

to Pete Bechtel with respect to the exact status of where that particular thing is. 

But I will also tell you this, ma’am. We have a requirement to 

come back to this committee and give an update very shortly, and 

Pete will talk to that as well. Pete. 

Mr. BECHTEL. Thank you, General. 

Congresswoman, you are right. We are looking at that. We do 

have the requirement and we recognize the NDAA language to 

come back to this committee and others with a report on the 

progress. We have absorbed the universal controller requirement 

into the combat development document for the common robotic system individual, or CRSI system. Moreover, there was a limited test 

conducted in October of last year at Fort Benning, Georgia, with 

controls demonstrated for both an unmanned ground system and 

an unmanned aerial system, and we look forward coming back to 

this committee and discussing that with you. 

Mrs. ROBY. We will look forward to that as well. Generals Kelley 

and Smith, and I will defer to either one of you who may best answer this, but in your written statement you mentioned that the 

Marine Corps established the Squad Integration Facility, also 

known as Gruntworks. And I understand the intent of Gruntworks 

is to emulate the Skunk Works® [Lockheed Martin Advanced Development Programs] projects, but I wanted to see if you could 
17 

elaborate about the organization and some of the projects that they 

may be working on. 

General SMITH. I will be very brief and then pass to General 

Kelley. Gruntworks is a phenomenal facility that is relatively, not 

relatively, it is extremely low-cost, it is actually run by a guy that 

I went to the basics school with 26 years ago. Its intent is to be 

a forward thinker and to integrate every single thing that we are 

looking at. 

What we are trying to prevent, it’s a cost-avoidance mechanism 

in many ways. If I’m about to buy a new piece of body armor, for 

example, but if it does not properly position a marine in the seat 

of a HMMWV [High-Mobility Multipurpose Wheeled Vehicle], for 

example, or a JLTV [Joint Light Tactical Vehicle], then I have no 

business buying that. So before we start down that path, we are 

going to check to make sure that that system that we are about 

to put on a marine’s back allows that marine to use everything 

else. Body armor which does not allow a marine to get a proper 

sight alignment and sight picture on a battle rifle has no place for 

us. 

So that is the intent of Gruntworks, and I have to tell you that 

it is a phenomenal facility. It is right down the road here in 

Quantico. And it is open to all. We would have love to have you 

come down there, it is an open invitation. And I would pass over 

to General Kelley for a couple more details about how they are 

much like Skunk Works. 

Mrs. ROBY. Thank you. 

General KELLEY. Thank you, ma’am. I had a chance to describe 

the Marine Expeditionary Rifle Squad organization that exists at 

Marine Corps Systems Command. Gruntworks is part of that. The 

marine that Eric is talking about is probably one of our greatest 

thinkers, a guy by the name of Mark Richter. And he essentially 

has built that organization, MERS, Marine Expeditionary Rifle 

Squad, and the Gruntworks right from ground zero, and it is probably one of the greatest thinking elements of Marine Corps Systems Command. I wish I could take credit for all of the things they 

are doing. 

I can’t really improve on what Eric talked about in terms of all 

the things that MERS and Gruntworks is doing. One of the things 

we had a chance to describe was putting marines in their gear and 

then running an obstacle course and then evaluating the effects on 

their body and then being able to evaluate their potential for further performance. One of the other unintended benefits of MERS 

is the fact that it has also drawn attention not only from the other 

Services, but also from our coalition partners. Great Britain and 

Australia are very enthusiastic about what Gruntworks has done 

and they are setting up organizations very similar to that in their 

own countries. Again, all that information that comes out of things 

like Gruntworks and MERS are the types of things that we share 

across the two Services. 

Mrs. ROBY. Thank you so much. My time has expired. 

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Castro. 

Mr. CASTRO. Thank you, Chairman, and thank you gentlemen, 

both for your service to the country and for your testimony here 

today. 
18 

My question has to do with the involvement of the soldiers in 

making adjustments to equipment and to gear. What is the feedback loop, the channel of communications between the everyday 

soldiers and the folks who are making decisions about what kind 

of equipment and gear they are going to be using? 

General OSTROWSKI. Sir, we have numerous venues to allow 

those opportunities to occur. One of our most highly publicized is 

the Network Integration Evaluation at White Sands and Fort Bliss. 

It is there that we have the opportunity to have soldiers running 

through all of the operational venues that we have in our Army focusing on the network, but branching out well beyond that to include vehicles and other things. 

In addition, as part of our normal acquisition process we do have 

operational testing events where our soldiers have the opportunity 

to use the equipment in an operational setting environment, and 

that testing is controlled in a manner such that we can get that 

feedback on a continual basis. 

But even prior to that one of the things that we are doing now 

is ensuring that our soldiers within PEO Soldier, within my organization, that our soldiers are part of our source selection and evaluation boards and that we have soldier touch points as a particular 

item is being developed to ensure that the soldiers are giving input 

as to whether or not we are on the right track with that. That is 

a continual process that we are doing now and I think it is the 

right way to go. 

General SMITH. Sir, when we build a requirement for any piece 

of equipment, the first thing that happens is, we call him a CIO, 

a capabilities integration officer, those that work for me, go out to 

the operating forces, 1st Marine Division, 2nd Marine Division, 3rd 

Marine Division, 1st Marine Aircraft Wing, what have you, and we 

sit down with the operating forces, those who are going to use that 

equipment, and we say what it is that you need this thing to do? 

How much can it possibly weigh? And they get input from the 

ground up before we actually set the requirement, what is the most 

you can weigh? 

Then, as General Ostrowski said, we also do operational test and 

evaluation, which we spoke about a little bit earlier, that those 

same individuals who gave us the initial requirement are the ones 

who get to test that, whenever possible. But lance corporals are basically interchangeable; East Coast or West Coast, they will speak 

their piece and speak their mind to you. So we get that input from 

the ground up and then we let those same individuals go out and 

test that equipment. And that ensures they are getting what they 

need. 

I will say that sometimes they don’t get what they want, and 

that is a very distinct difference, but we are in the business of providing marines what they need, not necessarily what they want, in 

that this is the piece of equipment that is going to best perform, 

best protect you, and we attempt to have a standard across the 

service so that we don’t have to go inspect 14 different types of 

body armor, what have you. 

Mr. CASTRO. And then—go ahead, General. 

General KELLEY. Sir, I was just going to say feedback loop is absolutely the right term. And I don’t care who you are, if you are 
19 

a general officer or a PFC [private first class], you had better be 

prepared for the answer because it may not be what you want to 

hear, just like what Eric said. 

I think one of the things that is important, trade shows are very 

important venues for our young marines to get a chance to interact 

with industry. And it is remarkable. As a general officer I get a 

chance to follow them around and hear their interaction. There are 

some phenomenal ideas out there. 

We have things within the Marine Corps called OAGs, I am sure 

that Paul has the same thing. They are operational advisory 

groups. That is absolutely direct feedback from folks that just came 

from theater. Even on the base where General Smith and I live 

there is a base newspaper called The Century. There is typically an 

advertisement in there on a Web site where folks from the fleet can 

send in their feedback direct to Eric and his boss, General Mills. 

All it takes is participation. 

Mr. CASTRO. Sure. Then I have less than a minute left on my 

time, but perhaps for the record you all might submit an answer 

to this. But the Nation has just spent more or less 10 years at war 

with two wars, with significant boots on the ground, and my question is essentially with respect to equipment and gear and the 

issues that we have discussed today what the most valuable lessons have been that we have gleaned from our experience in Afghanistan and Iraq? 

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

page 63.] 

Mr. BECHTEL. Congressman, may I attempt a quick answer at 

that? 

Mr. CASTRO. Sure. 

Mr. BECHTEL. We have relied, to your previous point, on soldier 

innovation, commander needs on the ground to use rapid fueling 

initiatives, most notably through our rapid equipping force to rapidly get and meet the operational needs. Moreover, we have had 

our Army Test and Evaluation Command conduct some 22 forward 

operational assessments where soldiers are quite an important part 

of that. That helps inform not only program record, moving nonstandard equipment into sustainment to keep for the long haul, but 

it also helps inform our soldier enhancement program, an important legislative innovation that keeps us moving forward, keeps a 

soldier the centerpiece for modernization. 

Mr. CASTRO. Thank you. 

Mr. TURNER. Mr. McIntyre. 

Mr. MCINTYRE. Thank you very much. Thank you, gentleman, for 

your service and your patience late in this afternoon. I have two 

or three quick questions I will try to ask and see if you can give 

straightforward answers on. 

One is a recent GAO [Government Accountability Office] study 

highlights the challenges that we faced with respect to combat uniforms and camouflage. This study made many recommendations 

that the Services largely concurred with. Can you provide us an update on the camouflage program and associated combat uniform 

programs? And in that if you can tell us is there a requirement to 

continue to improve the combat clothing worn by our warfighters, 

both the base uniform and the flame-resistant variant. 
20 

General OSTROWSKI. Yes, sir. We have got to the point of the end 

of testing with respect to the phase 4 camouflage program within 

the Army and what we have learned is that a family of uniforms, 

and by ‘‘family’’ I mean a uniform that is specific to the desert, one 

that is specific to a woodland environment, and one that can be 

used in the transitional between the two, outperform a single pattern universal camouflage pattern if you will each and every time. 

We have learned that. 

Today at 1530 we will bring in the test results of over 120,000 

data points gathered in a uniform test that is unequaled with respect to Department of Defense, and we are bringing those results 

to the Chief of Staff of the Army for his guidance going forward. 

I will tell you, sir, that we also for every soldier deployed forward, we provide them with fire-retardant uniforms. Every single 

soldier. The cost of a fire-retardant uniform is over twice that of 

a regular uniform that we wear back here from the CONUS perspective, but each and every soldier moving forward, going forward, 

wears a fire-retardant uniform. 

Mr. MCINTYRE. Thank you. I understand the Army will announce 

a new camouflage program. When you talked about the three 

variants, this is the actual program you are talking about and how 

the results are. How are these uniform programs dealt with in the 

budget? Do you have what you need in the budget? 

General OSTROWSKI. Yes, sir. We have base funding, operations 

and maintenance funding for the camouflage program within our 

current budgets going forward to include fiscal year 2014. 

Mr. MCINTYRE. Okay. And would you like to inject anything from 

the Marine Corps, General? 

General SMITH. Sir, just that the camouflage utility uniform, we 

have a desert and a woodland pattern as well. We are very, very 

comfortable with it. With regard to the ability to adjust, I believe 

you asked to certain environments, a good example of both our 

ability and our need to remain flexible, our Commandant was recently out in the Pacific speaking to marines up in the northern 

training area on Okinawa. They had been out there for about 3 

weeks, a very, very wet tropical clime, and they said, sir, these uniforms are not drying out. It has not been a problem for the past 

10 years, having to worry about them being dried out. And the 

Commandant said we got to fix that. So he has asked General 

Kelley and some of his crew to come up with a uniform that finds 

the right balance between flame retardancy, durability, but the 

ability to dry quickly, so that as we rebalance in the Pacific we 

don’t have marines who are suffering through wet utilities that 

may stay wet for days on end. 

Mr. MCINTYRE. And what is the sustainment requirement for 

these uniforms with regard to the future and how long do you 

think the typical uniform worn back here as opposed to the flame 

retardant for those forward deployed will last? 

General OSTROWSKI. Sir, typically we see a uniform in the theater go about 120 days before it needs to be replaced. Obviously, 

depending on what the soldier is doing in CONUS, back here in the 

United States, it depends on how long the durability, the lifespan 

of that particular uniform is. But forward, about 120 days is what 

we are getting on average. 
21 

Mr. MCINTYRE. How about in the marines? 

General SMITH. Sir, we send the marines currently into Afghanistan with FROG [Flame Resistant Organizational Gear] gear, 

flame resistant outer garment. We will send them in, and a combination of about four sets will last that marine for 7 months. One 

or two of those sets may come back in a usable manner. But 7 

months deployment, he is going to go through a good three sets 

while he is in theater. And they are very operational, but because 

of the flame retardancy they do not have the same durability. But 

that was a wise trade I think for us in those environments. 

Mr. MCINTYRE. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. TURNER. Next we go to Ms. Tsongas, and then after that for 

a round two. We will have a limited round 2, which will be Ms. 

Sanchez and Mrs. Roby. 

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

no longer on this subcommittee, it was my on honor to serve on it 

for several years. So thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member Sanchez, for allowing me to participate today. It was a hearing 

when I was on this committee I looked forward to because of all 

the tremendous work you do just to make sure we are equipping 

our soldiers in the best possible way given the many challenges 

they confront. 

Last year the House included language in the National Defense 

Authorization Act encouraging the continued development of body 

armor systems designed for women, and as noted in your testimony, General Ostrowski, the Army has led the way on this effort. 

I have been briefed on the new improved outer tactical vest several 

times. I have actually had an opportunity to try it on and I think 

the improvements are tremendous. I have to say at the most recent 

briefing among the many changes to make it easier to wear, the 

thing that impressed me, well, that I took the greatest concern 

from was that prior to the adjustments it was very difficult for a 

woman who was wearing the standard issue vest to raise her arm 

properly in order to properly fire a rifle. So beyond the comfort 

issues and just being able to better distribute the weight and all 

of that, it is critically important as women, who now comprise 15 

percent of the military and with the combat exclusion now moving 

forward, that women are adequately protected to do the task at 

hand. So I commend you for your work. 

I would also like to commend PEO Soldier and Natick Soldier 

System Center for their work on developing this system. Natick is 

based in my native Massachusetts and has been described by some 

as the crown jewel of the Army, a sentiment which I share. It certainly has led the way on body armor and other crucial lifesaving 

equipment for our service members, such as fireproof uniforms designed to protect our soldiers from IED blasts in Afghanistan. 

I think the other issue that we worry about is the weight of body 

armor, and I am glad to learn from your testimony that efforts are 

ongoing to reduce the weight by 10 percent by the fourth quarter 

of fiscal year 2014. I have heard from both the RAND Corporation 

and representatives from Natick that this is about all that is possible in the short term, and I would like to thank you all for your 

effort. But we know we have a lot more work to do. The tremendous weight that our soldiers bear, the muscular-skeletal injuries 
22 

that it causes, the impact on deployability are things we have to 

continue to wrestle with. These are costs we are going to bear for 

decades to come if we don’t get a better handle on it. 

Several new materials are on the horizon for body armor such as 

carbon nanotubes which you alluded to which could eventually lead 

to significant weight reductions of hard armor systems. But the 

RAND Arroyo Center found in their study last year on lightening 

body armor that it would take years of sustained research and development funding to achieve the breakthroughs that we need. 

My question is, do you have a strategy to achieve breakthroughs 

with new materials for body armor? Can you commit to us here 

that robust funding for these vital systems will continue even as 

we draw down from Afghanistan? 

General OSTROWSKI. Yes, ma’am. Earlier when the chairman 

asked what my funding line was with respect to body armor and 

personnel protective equipment, I told him that my overall line was 

$185 million across the board of the portfolio of PEO Soldier. 

Specifically though with respect to personal protection equipment on the research and development line, we have $23.75 million in 

the fiscal year 2014 budget request going before the Congress. This 

is in addition to the science and technology funding that I don’t 

have the visibility over that is going into labs such as Natick for 

their efforts with leap-ahead technology in terms of personal protection equipment. 

Ms. TSONGAS. I don’t really have enough time, but for the record 

I would be curious as to your thoughts on whether or not we should 

establish an executive agent for body armor, for the record. Thank 

you. 

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

page 63.] 

General OSTROWSKI. I think that there is a lot of goodness with 

respect to the ability for the different Services to have the flexibility within their mission sets. For instance, the United States 

Special Operations Command has very specific requirements based 

on their mission sets for body armor and personal protection equipment. The Marine Corps operates very much on the land but also 

at sea and they have very specific requirements with respect to 

their body armor, although we share plates and other capabilities, 

helmets included. So I think that the flexibility that the Services 

have is one that we would want to try to continue as we go forward. 

Ms. TSONGAS. I have run out of time. Thank you. 

Mr. TURNER. Very good. We will turn to our second round beginning with Ms. Sanchez. 

Ms. SANCHEZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. A quick question. Well, 

actually this one is not so quick. This is for the Army. This is the 

rifle competition. So you are dual-tracking it now. I want to know 

where you are with looking for the second part, the second track, 

looking for a new carbine. And the reason is, I have been looking 

at this for a while. 

In 1995 we started the Objective Individual Combat Weapon pro- gram. After 10 years and $50 million we canceled that in 2005. 

Then we were stop again, start again, stop again, start again. This 

M4 replacement issue has been going on and on. In 2009 we had 
23 

the study from the Center for Naval Analyses where they surveyed 

our troops coming back from Iraq and 20 percent of them said they 

had a complete and total jam of their rifle. 

The reason I bring this up is because over time when I talk to 

troops, and we identified the armor early on, we identified the 

MRAP [Mine Resistant Ambush Protected] vehicle issue going on. 

And this is another one of those issues that when I talk to our military who have gone to Iraq or Afghanistan, the number one issue 

they talk about is the jamming of their rifle. 

In 2010 the Army did a study at Aberdeen ATC. They tested four 

rifles, the M4, the SCAR [Special Operations Forces Combat Assault Rifle], the HK416, and the XM8. It tested in particular with 

respect to the dust chamber reliability; i.e., how does our weapon 

jam, and the M4 was 800 percent less reliable than the HK416, 

and nobody disputed those facts. 

So my question is, what are we doing about this? What are we 

doing to take a look at a more reliable weapon for our soldier? 

General OSTROWSKI. Yes, ma’am. The M4 was first introduced as 

early as 1990 within our Army and since then we have made over 

92 separate adjustments and modifications to that weapon system 

to improve accuracy, reliability, and so forth. Each one of these 

changes has brought about a much better weapons system than we 

ever had before. 

The original requirement for the M4 was a mean rounds between 

stoppages of 600 rounds. Our recent testing—and that is basically 

three basic loads. So 7 magazines times 3 of those, 3 of those loads, 

210 rounds, so basically 600 rounds would be 3 basic loads of ammunition before you got a single failure. Our recent testing in 2010 

with the same weapon and the same ammunition, the M855 ammunition, revealed 3,592 rounds between stoppages. That is a 6 

times increase over the original requirement of 600 rounds between 

stoppages. So the weapons that we carried back in 2001, 2003, and 

2004 are not the same M4s that we are carrying today in terms of 

reliability because of all the improvements that we made on that 

weapons system. 

We also went out to industry and we asked industry through a 

source selection called the Individual Carbine program to determine whether or not industry could provide us with a weapons system that was as accurate, as reliable, and was compatible with our 

current optics and also had a life-cycle cost that was within a 

boundary that we have established now for the M4. And that competition is ongoing. It has completed phase 2 testing with respect 

to the Individual Carbine program and the source selection authority has been given all of the testing material with respect to deciding whether or not any of the weapons goes forward into phase 3 

of the competition. 

Ms. SANCHEZ. So does that mean you are going to have a competition? You are having a competition? Where exactly is that competition? I ask because you mentioned that, and I understand that 

we had this rifle even in the 1980s. I get that. And I understand 

that you make changes to it. And I have no problem with Colt, by 

the way. I don’t have a dog in this fight. 

My fight is to make sure that to the extent possible we have 

something that really, really works well on all fronts for our sol-
24 

diers. And when they are telling me, when you have a study that 

says 20 percent of them said their weapons completely and totally 

jammed on them, and you have your own study out of the Army 

that says that there is a more reliable weapon out there, maybe, 

then I think we need to make sure that we are really checking this 

and having this competition move forward. And the fact that this 

has been going on since 1995 tells me that there is a lot of politics 

in this. I don’t have a gun manufacturer in my district. I just want 

the right thing. So are you or are you not truly competing this? 

General OSTROWSKI. Yes, ma’am, we are absolutely competing it. 

The competition began with phase 1 in October of 2011 and we 

have been testing the weapons system through a phase 1 process, 

which was to look at whether or not the weapons that were offered 

by vendors were compatible with our optics and so forth, whether 

they were within the length and the weight standards that we established for the competition. And then we moved on to a phase 2, 

and phase 2 was to test the accuracy of the weapon, the dispersion, 

if you will, of the rounds as they go downrange, and also to test 

the reliability of the weapons through some environmentals as well 

as just temperate. And that data has been the data that we have 

now compiled and is before the source selection authority to determine whether or not go into a phase 3. The source selection authority can take as many as three weapons forward into phase 3, as 

long as they passed all of the requirements necessary in phase 2. 

Ms. SANCHEZ. And what is the timeline on that, just so I can 

keep my eye on it, because this isn’t going to go away. 

General OSTROWSKI. No, ma’am. If the source selection authority 

decides to move forward with a phase 3 it will run from the time 

now as the decision is imminent until the fourth quarter of this 

year, this fiscal year. 

Ms. SANCHEZ. The fourth quarter? 

General OSTROWSKI. Yes, ma’am. At that point, if there is a winner of the competition, then that will go before the Secretary of the 

Army in a cost-benefit analysis and a side-by-side comparison with 

the M4. The accuracy will be compared side-by-side, the reliability 

will be compared side-by-side, the cost, life-cycle cost side-by-side, 

as well as the compatibility side-by-side. 

Ms. SANCHEZ. Great. Thank you for that answer. Thank you for 

your indulgence, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. TURNER. We have Mrs. Roby and then Mr. Cook and that 

will end our round two. Mrs. Roby. 

Mrs. ROBY. Thank you, and I will be very brief. I have one question for Generals Kelley and Smith, and as I begin I am going to 

defer to each of you to determine who is best to answer. But last 

year General Amos identified expeditionary energy as one of the six 

pillars of modernization in the Marine Corps and I understand that 

there have been numerous advances since that time. 

Would you update us on that program? Where has it been implemented and whether the Marine Corps is achieving any discernible 

efficiencies in power consumption? 

General SMITH. Ma’am, thanks for the opportunity to answer 

that. There is sometimes confusion when we say expeditionary energy in what we are talking about. What we are talking about as 
25 

infantrymen is the ability for a young lance corporal to carry less 

gear, less weight. 

So when I was forward-deployed in Afghanistan in places like 

Sangin we had spaces and greens, a couple of systems that are 

solar based, to bring in power so we didn’t have to fly in or drive 

in or carry extra batteries. So we used that. Less fuel for a generator because it is now solar-powered. 

Expeditionary energy is all about taking a load off of the young 

19-year-old lance corporal who is out there carrying a rifle and a 

full pack. So we are going to continue to do that. We have used it 

to great effect in Afghanistan and we really have no intention of 

turning back the clock here. We are going to proceed forward and 

push as much as we can toward expeditionary energy so we can 

further reduce the weight. 

Every battery you save or every gallon of fuel, it is not about the 

gallon of fuel, it is about the combat logistics patrol that would 

have otherwise had to drive out to that base to provide that fuel. 

Many of our causalities come from our logistics marines who are 

taking fuel and water and ammunition, et cetera, out to those forward warfighters. 

So that is what we are doing. We have used it to great effect in 

Afghanistan and intend to continue. I will yield over to General 

Kelley. 

General KELLEY. So, ma’am, last year we had a chance to talk 

to you about the weight of batteries that were saved say on a 3- 

week patrol, and that was on the order of about 700 pounds. That 

was probably the best metric that we had at that point. That is 

pretty significant. 

I also think that General Smith brought up a really good point 

about the confidence that young marines get in these systems to 

help save power and not have to rely on resupply. One of the biggest things that we have done since last year, having testified here 

as well, and that has really changed the culture of what it means 

to be expeditionary and energy-conscious. 

So we have the things like spaces and greens that are now part 

of the kit as folks deploy. But we have also looked to other drains 

on energy, shelter liners, LED [Light-emitting Diode] lights versus 

the conventional lights that we have had in the past. General 

Smith brought up a good point about water. We are now getting 

ready to deploy individual water purification tools for our marines 

to go and take care of their own water needs. So we are looking 

at everything right now, ma’am. 

Mrs. ROBY. Thank you very much. 

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

Mr. TURNER. Thank you. Mr. Cook will have the last question. 

Mr. COOK. Thank you very much, and thank you. I know it has 

been a long afternoon and I should have thought of this question 

earlier. By the way, that means no more Halazone tablets, I guess, 

for the infantry. My age is showing. 

I was on the Foreign Affairs Committee and we were talking 

about terrorism. We were talking about Syria and the subject came 

up about sarin and VX [nerve agent]. And then as I was listening 

about equipment and clothing, and right away I thought MOPP 4 

[Mission Oriented Protective Posture Level 4: all chemical protec-
26 

tion worn]. Where are we in terms of MOPP 4 conditions, God forbid, if we have to go in that environment? Because as you know, 

anybody who has been in that it doesn’t take long before you are 

ready to pass out. So if anyone could address that, and that is the 

only question. 

Once again, I want to thank you all for your great service and 

for your patience this afternoon. I know it has been a great hearing. 

Mr. BECHTEL. Congressman, thank you. I will take a first attempt, if I may. I am glad you brought that up because the Army 

is looking hard at the mission of combating weapons of mass destruction very broadly both in terms of our CONOPS [concept of operations] and our operations for sensitive site exploitation, for active and passive defense, decontamination abroad, but even more 

important here in the homeland. 

The personal protective equipment as part of that goes right to 

the center of that. And we are working through challenges of compatibility, for instance, with the M53 migration to the M50 joint 

protective mask with SCBA [self-contained breathing apparatus] 

gear and other sort of commercial and commercial-off-the-shelf 

equipment to help us aid in defense of civil authorities here at 

home, first responders and so forth. That will be the same condition, sir, as if we have to go into contested hot zones or warm zones 

overseas. 

So our Maneuver Support Center of Excellence at Fort Leonard 

Wood and the CBRN [Chemical, Biological, Radiological, and Nuclear] School in particular are looking through those as part of the 

joint community to ensure we have both compatibility, but the 

most modern systems, negative plus positive over pressure conditions and so forth. So we are looking hard at that. 

General SMITH. Sir, we are very fortunate in that we have got 

a unit called CBIRF, the Chemical, Biological Incident Response 

Force located very close to here, and that unit, that is what they 

do. So they are constantly using the gear that is provided, the 

suits, the masks, et cetera. 

I will say, sir, as you know, anyone who references Halazone tablets is okay with me, and we can probably speak very candidly that 

there is no easy way to operate in a contaminated environment. We 

can mitigate as much as we can, but the real issue is why not to 

have it in the first place, or, two, to remove the forces as quickly 

as possible or rotate them with others. There is no easy way to operate in that environment, especially carrying the loads that we are 

still going to have to carry because it is still a combat environment. 

We do have a pretty high confidence level in the gear that we 

have. It is jointly held gear. It is very effective. And, again, our 

good fortune to have CBIRF within the Marine Corps is that we 

get a near daily assessment of the gear that is currently out there 

and fielded and so we have a pretty good feel for when it may fall 

below the standards, and right now we are pretty comfortable with 

where we are, sir. 

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Cook, thank you. 

Gentlemen, I want to thank you for your participation. You had 

a wide range of questions today and we appreciate both your expertise and dedication. This is an issue that I think goes to the heart 
27 

of what everyone wants to make certain we are doing right thing. 

General Kelley, I appreciated your further elaboration on the issue 

of how do we have to look at these in part as systems so that we 

can try to have some greater advance. And General Ostrowski, I 

appreciate your acknowledging the research and development fund 

that in fact Congress was very active in establishing that hopefully 

can be a bridge to where we are going to find a balance to get both 

the effectiveness that you have obtained in protecting our men and 

women in uniform, but also with some increased performance. 

So, gentlemen, thank you for your participation today. 

[Whereupon, at 4:50 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

A P P E N D I X 

APRIL 11, 2013 

PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD 

APRIL 11, 2013 

(33) 
34 
35 
36 
37 
38 
39 
40 
41 
42 
43 
44 
45 
46 
47 
48 
49 
50 
51 
52 
53 
54 
55 
56 
57 
58 
59 
60 
WITNESS RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS ASKED DURING 

THE HEARING 

APRIL 11, 2013 

(63) 

RESPONSES TO QUESTION SUBMITTED BY MR. CASTRO 

General OSTROWSKI and Mr. BECHTEL. We have relied, to your previous point, on 

soldier innovation, commander needs on the ground to use rapid fueling initiatives, 

most notably through our rapid equipping force to rapidly get and meet the operational needs. Moreover, we have had our Army Test and Evaluation Command conduct some forward operational assessments where soldiers are quite an important 

part of that. That helps inform not only program record, moving nonstandard equipment into sustainment to keep for the long haul, but it also helps inform our soldier 

enhancement program, an important legislative innovation that keeps us moving 

forward, keeps a soldier the centerpiece for modernization. [See page 19.] 

General SMITH and General KELLEY. Since combat operations began in Afghanistan and Iraq, the Marine Corps has managed more than seven hundred requests 

for mission-critical capabilities through our ‘‘Urgent Needs Process’’. Each of these 

requests represents a case in which our combat experience has proven the need for 

an essential warfighting capability that our deliberate process did not fully anticipate. Through the Urgent Needs Process, we’ve been able to learn valuable lessons 

for the future and begin adapting our forces while in combat, without waiting for 

the next budget’s planning cycle to begin. 

Looking back across all of our Urgent Needs, a few trends become clear. First, 

all elements of our future force must be capable of maneuvering across the entire 

battlespace in an environment threatened by what we now call Improvised Explosive Devices (IEDs). This includes our combat service and combat service support 

units, as well as our ground combat units, and requires a wide variety of capabilities to both detect and defeat these devices. Second, and closely related, we’ve 

learned that we need expanded capabilities for Persistent Intelligence, Surveillance, 

and Reconnaissance (P–ISR)—the ability to see what’s happening in the battlespace 

across extended periods of time, and then to share that information with every element of the force, down to the very lowest tactical level. These capabilities will continue to require advancements in both our sensor technologies and in the availability of the electronic ‘‘pipes’’ that allow us to share data. Finally, we’ve learned 

that future combat is likely to demand more widespread use of precision weapons, 

launched from both surface and air, which allow us to target only our adversaries, 

reducing collateral damage and therefore accelerating the speed at which our rules 

of engagement allow us to strike the enemy. 

Taken together, these lessons show us that the nature of warfare hasn’t really 

changed: we still need to be able to see, shoot, move, and communicate. The tools 

with which we accomplish those tasks are changing rapidly, however, and the Marine Corps will continue to aggressively learn from our combat experiences to ensure 

that tomorrow’s Marines are equipped to fight and win, wherever our Nation sends 

us. [See page 19.] 

RESPONSES TO QUESTION SUBMITTED BY MS. TSONGAS 

General OSTROWSKI and Mr. BECHTEL. I think that there are a lot of positives 

with respect to the ability for the different services to have the flexibility within 

their mission sets. For instance, the United States Special Operations Command 

has very specific requirements based on their mission sets for body armor and personal protection equipment. The Marine Corps operates very much on land, but also 

at sea and they have very specific requirements with respect to their body armor, 

although we share plates and other capabilities, helmets included. So, I think that 

the flexibility that the services have is one that we would want to try to maintain 

as we go forward. [See page 22.] 

General SMITH and General KELLEY. When it comes to requirements, the Marine 

Corps and the Army collaborate wherever their mission profiles converge. The Marine Corps is a light infantry force that primarily operates dismounted and its units 

are not tied to any specific mobility platform. This drove such features as the quick 

release and the differences in cut of the Improved Modular Tactical Vest (IMTV) 
64 

and Plate Carrier (PC) as compared to the Army’s Improved Outer Tactical Vest 

(IOTV) and plate carrier. The Army and Marine Corps need the flexibility to develop 

body armor systems that meet specific requirements associated with their distinct 

mission profiles. 

The Marine Corps and the Army share the same ballistic specification. The fit and 

form reflect the different service needs and desires from body armor systems. The 

Army and Marine Corps Body Armor Program Offices [PM SPE (Special Purpose 

Equipment) and PdM (Product Manager) ICE (Individual Combat Equipment)] work 

closely to coordinate their efforts on research, body armor specifications, design improvements and weight reductions. Our combined efforts seek to reduce duplication 

of research and invest in the most promising technologies. All our advances in body 

armor and efforts are shared during our regular Cross Service Warfighter Equipment Board meeting. 

An example of a mission success of sharing and coordination is the Enhanced 

Combat Helmet (ECH) helmet. This effort started with an Army R&D effort which 

the Marine Corps used as the foundation for initiation of the ECH program. The 

close coordination and involvement of the Army in the program with funding and 

engineering expertise has been critical to the ECH’s progress to date. Additionally, 

both the Army and Marine Corps are pursuing improved ballistic protection systems. The Army’s Soldier Protection System Capabilities Development Document 

(CDD) will be the overarching document for ballistic protection requirements that 

will be reflected in individual Capability Production Documents (CPDs). The Army 

intends to start fielding the Scalable Protection System (SPS) in FY15, and is primarily focused on weight reduction. The Marine Corps will take a longer approach 

that will allow technology to mature to the level necessary to achieve our goals in 

protection, integration, and mobility, which we view as being equal in importance 

in a true next generation system. Additional Key Performance Parameters (KPPs) 

will be emphasized by defining mobility parameters using the Marine Corps Load 

Effects Assessment Program (MCLEAP), and integration parameters by the Integrated Product Team (IPT) within the Modular Scalable Protection System (MSPS) 

IPT (which is chartered). [See page 22.] 
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS POST HEARING 

APRIL 11, 2013 

(67) 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. JONES 

Mr. JONES. The Soldier Protection System (SPS) is a clear step forward in terms 

of integrating the systems worn and carried by our warfighters and balancing capabilities like protection and mobility while reducing weight. I commend this effort, 

but I am concerned that it may not go far enough. We’re told that uncertainties regarding procurement volumes, intellectual property ownership, and R&D timelines 

have caused would-be industry competitors not to participate in this program. While 

many programs have collapsed because they have unrealistic requirements and 

schedules and some like JSF are constructed to be ‘‘too big to fail,’’ I am concerned 

SPS may have the opposite problem . . . meaning it could be too small to succeed. 

We need this program to succeed and bring as much weight reduction and capability 

to the warfighter as possible. The threshold weight reduction for SPS is 10%? Could 

greater reductions be achieved? What percentage of the total force do you plan to 

field this system to? How was the percentage determined? How was the long-term 

viability of the industrial base considered when constructing the program? What is 

your view of current participation and competition emerging from the industrial 

base for this program? What can be done to ensure it succeeds? 

General OSTROWSKI and Mr. BECHTEL. [The information was not available at the 

time of printing.] 

Mr. JONES. The MSPS is the USMC’s version of SPS. We understand this takes 

a slightly different approach focusing on mobility and not weight reduction. Since 

the USMC is a smaller force, obviously this program may have an even harder time 

attracting industry investment than SPS? Would a joint program yield more industry participation and competition? How different are USMC requirements from the 

Army’s? What percentage of the total Corps will get this system? How was that percentage determined? At this stage of the program, do you have a view of potential 

participation and competition that will emerge? Can you describe how you are collaborating with the other Services and with Industry to get the desired innovation 

and production results? 

General OSTROWSKI and Mr. BECHTEL. This question is best answered by the Marine Corps. 

Mr. JONES. The Soldier Protection System (SPS) is a clear step forward in terms 

of integrating the systems worn and carried by our warfighters and balancing capabilities like protection and mobility while reducing weight. I commend this effort, 

but I am concerned that it may not go far enough. We’re told that uncertainties regarding procurement volumes, intellectual property ownership, and R&D timelines 

have caused would-be industry competitors not to participate in this program. While 

many programs have collapsed because they have unrealistic requirements and 

schedules and some like JSF are constructed to be ‘‘too big to fail,’’ I am concerned 

SPS may have the opposite problem . . . meaning it could be too small to succeed. 

We need this program to succeed and bring as much weight reduction and capability 

to the warfighter as possible. The threshold weight reduction for SPS is 10%? Could 

greater reductions be achieved? What percentage of the total force do you plan to 

field this system to? How was the percentage determined? How was the long-term 

viability of the industrial base considered when constructing the program? What is 

your view of current participation and competition emerging from the industrial 

base for this program? What can be done to ensure it succeeds? 

General SMITH and General KELLEY. [The information was not available at the 

time of printing.] 

Mr. JONES. The MSPS is the USMC’s version of SPS. We understand this takes 

a slightly different approach focusing on mobility and not weight reduction. Since 

the USMC is a smaller force, obviously this program may have an even harder time 

attracting industry investment than SPS? Would a joint program yield more industry participation and competition? How different are USMC requirements from the 

Army’s? What percentage of the total Corps will get this system? How was that percentage determined? At this stage of the program, do you have a view of potential 

participation and competition that will emerge? Can you describe how you are collaborating with the other Services and with Industry to get the desired innovation 

and production results? 
68 

General SMITH and General KELLEY. The Modular Scalable Protection System 

(MSPS) is the Marine Corps initial effort to develop a fully integrated system of ballistic protective equipment for the individual Marine. The MSPS includes protection 

for the head, eyes, hearing, torso, pelvic region, and extremities and will be developed with a balanced emphasis on protection, integration, and mobility. We want 

to develop protections systems that are equal to or greater than our current capability but at reduced weight. Moreover, with the MSPS we seek to improve the 

ergonomics of the elements within the MSPS to improve load carriage, flexibility, 

and bulk over current systems. We are also looking at novel approaches to integrate 

load bearing capabilities (packs and pouches) and power/data management for the 

individual Marine. 

The focus on returning mobility to the individual Marine will incorporate the Marine Corps Load Effects Assessment Program (MCLEAP) as a means to baseline our 

current systems, provide a mobility metric for the MSPS requirement, and measure 

improvements in mobility provided by prototypes for the MSPS. 

The Modular Scalable Vest (MSV) is the torso armor component of the MSPS and 

is currently under development. The focus of the MSV program is to provide increased protection levels with no weight costs while enhancing Marine mobility and 

combat effectiveness through smart load management and integration capabilities. 

The MSV will provide the capability to scale protection levels in a single system, 

a load distribution and carriage capability, and inherent integration capabilities 

with the USMC Pack System. The MSV will utilize both a lighter weight soft armor, 

which offers 10–15% weight reductions over current soft armor, and the Enhanced 

Capability Small Arms Protective Inserts (EC SAPIs), which provide increased ballistic protection at current Enhanced Small Arm Protective Inserts (ESAPIs) weight. 

Both of these improvements were developed in coordination with the Army and will 

be resident within their future systems as well. We plan to begin fielding the EC 

SAPIs in Fiscal Year (FY) 2014 and the MSC in FY2016. 

Would a joint program yield more industry participation and competition? 

There is significant collaboration between the Army and the Marine Corps now 

and also significant participation and competition across the segment of industry interested in these capabilities with no conclusive evidence that a Joint program 

would influence greater competition or yield increased support to the warfighters in 

each of the Services. The response to the Marine Corps’ effort to develop concept 

demonstrators for the MSV has been enthusiastic and promising. Recently, there 

has been increased interest on the part of the Army in the Marine Corps approach 

to the MSPS as a whole and the MSV specifically and plans are being made to test 

Army and Marine Corps concepts side-by-side. Additional interest on the part of industry is sure to result. 

How different are USMC requirements from the Army’s? 

The Army and Marine Corps use the same ESAPI plates for hard armor protection and the same soft armor materials for torso and pelvic protection. The main 

difference between the Army and Marine Corps pursuit of next-gen personal protection systems is in the design and cut of our soft armor. 

The Army’s Soldier Protection System Capabilities Development Document (CDD) 

emphasizes weight reduction as the primary means to return mobility to the individual soldier. However, the Army’s CDD does not include mobility as a desired attribute and while improved integration is an Army goal, it falls subordinate to protection and weight reduction. In addition, the Army intends to begin fielding their 

Soldier Protection System (SPS) in FY 2015. 

The Marine Corps intends to take a longer approach to permit technology and design to mature to the level we believe necessary to achieve our combined goals in 

protection, integration, and mobility, which we consider of equal importance in our 

pursuit of a next generation system. The balance between protection and weight reduction are being emphasized by defining mobility parameters and requirements 

using the MCLEAP. 

What percentage of the total Corps will get this system? How was that percentage 

determined? 

Our initial acquisition objectives are intended to support forward deployed forces 

and forces preparing to deploy, approximately 38% of the total force, with the MSV 

and other components of MSPS as they are developed. This strategy is driven by 

the desire to equip our warfighters with the most up to date and capable protection 

systems while conscientiously shepherding our limited resources. Limiting fielding 

to deployers optimizes development and design of these new systems by directly incorporating user feedback into follow on configurations. This approach prevents costly and multiple fieldings of incrementally improved protection systems across the 

force until a final, optimized configuration is achieved. For the majority of the 

Corps, currently issued protection systems will be sustained and improved periodi-
69 

cally through insertions of lighter soft and hard armor as technology and resources 

allow. 

At this stage of the program, do you have a view of potential participation and 

competition that will emerge? 

Using a government intermediary, industry is now actively participating in the 

first round of designs for the Modular Scalable Vest (MSV1). Based on the high interest and participation of industry, multiple industry partners are interested and 

capable of participating in and competing for the MSPS program. 

Can you describe how you are collaborating with the other Services and with Industry to get the desired innovation and production results? 

The Marine Corps intends to use the same plate armor protection and the same 

soft armor materials for torso and pelvic protection as the other Services. We also 

intend to maintain our relationship and cooperation with the Naval and Army Research Labs and as the MSPS program progresses, we anticipate additional industry 

partners will participate—especially as other MSPS components are developed and 

incorporated into the Marine Corps system-of-systems approach to individual ballistic protection. 

The Marine Corps and Army will continue to collaborate in the development of 

requirements and materiel solutions for modular, scalable ballistic protection systems to include a head borne system, torso protection, pelvic protection, and extremity protection. Utilizing Small Business Innovation Research grants, Office of Naval 

Research, and Natick Soldier Research Development and Engineering Center, these 

efforts include the pursuit of improved soft and hard armor solutions that provide 

increased protection at equal or lighter weight. The Army and Marine Corps Body 

Armor Program Offices (PM Soldier Protection Equipment and PdM Infantry Combat Equipment) work closely to coordinate their efforts on research, body armor 

specifications, design improvements and weight reductions. Our combined efforts 

seek to reduce duplication of research and invest in the most promising technologies. All of our advances in body armor and efforts are shared during our regular Cross Service Warfighter Equipment Board meeting. An example of a mission 

success of the sharing and coordination is the Enhanced Combat Helmet (ECH). 

This effort started with an Army research and development effort, which the Marine 

Corps then used to start the ECH program. The close coordination and involvement 

of the Army in the program with funding and engineering expertise has been critical 

to the ECH’s progress to date. 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. LOBIONDO 

Mr. LOBIONDO. What programs and/or policies have the military departments 

and/or DLA put in place to sustain and stabilize the domestic industrial base for 

warfighter equipment? How are these programs and/or policies being communicated 

to industry and to what effect? Are there any preliminary findings from the ongoing 

studies on the body armor, clothing, and textiles industrial base? 

General OSTROWSKI and Mr. BECHTEL. The Army works closely with the Defense 

Logistics Agency (DLA) with regard to forecasting yearly sustainment requirements. 

The Army forecasts its sustainment requirements through the Tank Automotive 

Command Logistic Support Office, which is co-located with DLA Troop Support in 

Philadelphia. The Army defers to DLA for specifics regarding any preliminary findings from the ongoing body armor, clothing, and textile industrial base studies. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. What programs and/or policies have the military departments 

and/or DLA put in place to sustain and stabilize the domestic industrial base for 

warfighter equipment? How are these programs and/or policies being communicated 

to industry and to what effect? Are there any preliminary findings from the ongoing 

studies on the body armor, clothing, and textiles industrial base? 

General SMITH and General KELLEY. The Marine Corps acquires equipment in response to a funded and validated requirement. A way that the Marine Corps contributes to sustaining the domestic industrial base for warfighter equipment is complying with the Berry Amendment. All equipment we procure that contains materials covered by the Berry Amendment, mostly textiles, are from domestic sources. 

The Marine Corps, specifically Combat Development and Integration (CD&I), develops warfighter equipment requirements based on roles and missions laid out in Title 

10. These requirements are validated by Marine Corps and DOD leadership, and are 

communicated to industry via Marine Corps Systems Command (MCSC) through 

Requests for Proposals and Requests for Information. 

The Marine Corps also actively engages and communicates our programmatic and 

technical priorities, needs and future plans in a number of forums. We participate 

in events ranging from broad to small platforms. Broad platforms include events 
70 

like the annual Modern Day Marine Exposition and the biennial Advanced Planning 

Briefing to Industry during which the acquisition and funding plans are provided 

to industry. The more finite efforts include venues such as ‘‘Industry Days,’’ where 

many individual Marine Corps ground programs offices meet with industry throughout the year, giving them an opportunity to meet with our acquisition professionals 

on potential solutions. In addition, the Marine Corps recognizes the potential capabilities, innovations, and technology solutions that small businesses can offer. MCSC 

Office of Small Business Programs (OSBP) is involved in small business and industry outreach events on a weekly basis. MCSC’s OSBP participates in local and national small business outreach events, performing business matchmaking at many 

of those events, to match the capabilities of small businesses with MCSC and Program Manager Officer Land Systems requirements. Such events provide great 

venues for industry to stay abreast of opportunities with the Marine Corps acquisition community and for the Marine Corps to learn from industry about potential solutions. At present, we are not aware of any studies sponsored by the Marine Corps 

related to the industrial base regarding body armor, clothing and textiles. 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. ENYART 

Mr. ENYART. General, how do you incentivize industry to produce better equipment if the award decisions are made on price alone? 

General OSTROWSKI. The Army typically awards contracts where the basis for 

award is Best Value to the Government and not necessarily lowest price. Many different criteria are taken into account during the source selection process in addition 

to cost/price. These include criteria such as delivery schedule, past contractor performance, and technical performance. 

Mr. ENYART. Is there a DOD investment strategy for new materials that will provide step change improvements to warfighter equipment? 

General OSTROWSKI and Mr. BECHTEL. Advances in materials science have the potential to impact all Army platforms. As such, the Fiscal Year 2014 (FY14) basic 

research investment in materials science is $182 million, or 43 percent of the Army’s 

total FY14 basic research funding. The Army invests in biotechnology, nanotechnology, and Army specific domains of materials science including high deformation 

rates in structural and protection materials, energetic materials, electronics, and 

power and energy. Examples include investments in Textile Composite Armor, 

which provides a framework for successful design of lightweight textile armor of the 

future. This research is unparalleled outside of the Army and its payoffs include 

transparent armor lenses that can be integrated into eye protection systems. Investments are also being made into insensitive munitions and energetic materials for 

next generation small arms weapons that give unprecedented firepower to the Soldier (e.g., a 40mm with energetic power greater than a 155mm) and environmentally benign materials. Additionally, the Army is investing in the capability to 

design, optimize, and fabricate lightweight protection material systems that exhibit 

revolutionary performance by manipulating matter all the way back to the atomic 

scale. This is a ‘‘grand challenge’’ that pushes the existing high-performance material envelope. Payoffs from this research include protection materials with 33 percent savings in weight of current systems and batteries with triple the energy density that can provide 30 percent longer life-times at a reduced cost (20–30 percent). 

Mr. ENYART. Can you provide a couple of examples of the most recent new products that have significantly reduced the soldier’s load? On average how often will 

weight-saving technology refreshes occur across the portfolio of items the soldier 

wears and carries? What are the risks to achieving these improvements? Are they 

being developed with overseas contingency operations funds? 

General OSTROWSKI and Mr. BECHTEL. The Army is incorporating weight-saving 

technology that can meet current protection requirements into current personal protective equipment (PPE) and other Soldier equipment as rapidly as possible. The 

Army has leveraged new material construction and design approaches to reduce the 

weight of the Improved Outer Tactical Vest (IOTV) and Soldier Plate Carrier System (SPCS). The current Generation III IOTV, which weighs 31 pounds (lbs) (with 

plates) for a size medium, is four percent lighter than the previous IOTV variant. 

These same approaches are being applied to the SPCS, which weighs 23 lbs (with 

plates) for size medium, in order to reduce the weight by three percent. The latest 

specification for the Advanced Combat Helmet (ACH), which currently weighs 3.06 

lbs for a medium, being procured by Defense Logistics Agency Troop Support for 

sustainment, requires a weight reduction of eight percent. The Lightweight ACH, 

which will also be procured by the Defense Logistics Agency Troop Support weighs 

2.8 lbs for a size medium. By leveraging technology, we were able to achieve weight 
71 

savings of 6.5 lbs in the Nett Warrior program as compared to its predecessor, the 

Land Warrior. As new technology is available, we will continuously strive to reduce 

weight even further to lessen the burden on our Soldiers. Because of our rigorous 

test protocols for all PPE, the risks to achieving these improvements are significantly reduced. Our base budget includes Research, Development, Test and Evaluation funding for PPE. 

Mr. ENYART. Mr. Bechtel, when you meet with industry, and I assume that you 

do since you were selected as the Army’s witness for this hearing, how do you answer their concerns about insight into future requirements both in performance and 

quantity? Is this an area in which the Army can improve? 

Mr. BECHTEL. This is an area where the Army continues to improve as we refine 

our requirements and acquisition processes. We balance the requirement for competition against the value of providing Industrial Partners better planning information. The Army holds discussions with industry focusing on operational requirements, potential future capability gaps, and resulting needs in many forums, such 

as Industry Days to exchange information regarding current and upcoming initiatives. The Army must ensure a competitive environment; therefore the release of information to industry is governed by statute and regulation. Materiel quantity discussions actually take place during the acquisition phase when the Army provides 

Requests for Proposals. An example of information sharing is the development of the 

Deployer Equipment Bundle (DEB) concept. It is currently being reviewed by Army 

Staff and would provide for modernized equipment and uniforms to support approximately 70,000 Soldiers’ (or about 15 Brigade Combat Teams with enablers) contingency deployment related needs. The DEB concept is based on the two most prevalent scenarios currently addressed in planning and will provide useful start points 

for discussions about quantity. 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. TURNER 

Mr. TURNER. Regarding the Army’s Soldier Protection System (SPS): What percentage of the total force do you plan to field SPS to? What is your view of current 

participation and competition emerging from the industrial base for this program? 

What can be done to ensure SPS succeeds? 

General OSTROWSKI. [The information was not available at the time of printing.] 

Mr. TURNER. What is the status of the phase 4 camouflage uniform evaluation? 

General OSTROWSKI. The Army recently completed a very comprehensive Phase IV 

Camouflage study, which was the most extensive uniform camouflage study ever undertaken—underpinned by science with extensive Soldier involvement. The Army 

designed a scientifically rigorous evaluation program, studying the performance of 

camouflage in a wide variety of terrains, vegetation and times of day. Initial decisions and recommendations have been provided to senior Army leaders, and the 

Army is now waiting on a final decision announcement and guidance from our Army 

leadership regarding the scope and timelines of potential changes. 

Mr. TURNER. In an effort to modernize an item in sustainment, the Army put forward a new purchase description for the Army Combat Helmet in late 2011 that 

takes advantage of new material technology to significantly reduce the weight of 

this most critical piece of protective equipment. The Defense Logistics Agency was 

directed to acquire the lighter weight ACH variant. Eighteen months since contracting action began on this lightweight ACH, still no helmets have been procured 

and fielded. 

Why does there appear to be so much trouble completing a relatively minor technology refresh of the ACH that reduces weight from the warfighters head to prevent 

neck and spine injuries and increase mobility and combat effectiveness? Is this program representative of what can be expected if new technology becomes available 

for items that are in sustainment? What should be done to reform this process to 

make it more flexible and agile? 

General OSTROWSKI. The Army is able to leverage improvements in technology by 

updating requirements in the product performance of these specifications. The Army 

updated the Army Combat Helmet (ACH) performance specification to realize an 

eight percent weight reduction. This performance specification was incorporated into 

the Defense Logistics Agency Troop Support’s contracting action for the current 

ACH Solicitation. This contracting action experienced delays due to a mandated update to ballistic testing requirements by the Director of Operational Test and Evaluation, which resulted in a protest by one of the vendors as well as an audit of the 

new ACH test protocol undertaken by the Department of Defense Inspector General. 

These delays were unforeseen and are not representative of new contracting actions 

in regards to advancements in technology. 
72 

Mr. TURNER. Does the Army plan to pursue a new handgun and does a validated 

requirement exist for a new handgun? 

General OSTROWSKI. The currently fielded M9 has been used successfully across 

the full array of mission areas and battlefield conditions. No formal complaints or 

requests for replacements have been submitted via the Operational Needs process. 

Going forward, the Army has examined potential improvements to handgun or sidearm capability. The Army’s intent is to address past assessments that the current 

M9 pistol’s operational effectiveness does not fully meet Soldiers expectations. Lessons learned from the last 10–11 years of combat operations identified areas to 

begin to improve, to include stopping power; reliability; lack of integrated rails to 

allow for mounting of lights, lasers and other handgun enablers; lack of suppressors 

to mitigate muzzle flash and noise; and lack of low light sights to facilitate target 

engagement. The Army will balance these needs versus the wear out of its existing 

handgun systems, and thoroughly assess a full cost-benefit analysis before making 

its final decision. 

Mr. TURNER. I understand the procurement of the Army Lightweight Advanced 

Combat Helmet, which was originally bid out as a ‘‘lowest price, technically acceptable’’ (LPTA) solicitation was sent to a reverse auction. What benefits are achieved 

from using reverse auctions for critical safety items and personal protection equipment? What are your concerns regarding the use of LPTA and reverse auctions for 

critical safety items and personal protection equipment? 

General OSTROWSKI. Reverse Auction is a pricing tool and takes the place of a 

‘‘Final Proposal Revision’’ request. The utilization of this pricing tool allows for the 

purchase of critical safety items and personal protective equipment at the lowest 

price available. While a contract may be awarded to the lowest priced offeror whose 

proposal has been reviewed and considered to be acceptable, the selected manufacturer(s) will always be required to meet all performance requirements listed in the 

performance specification and contract. PEO Soldier is comfortable with a mixture 

of Best Value and Lowest Price, Technically Acceptable contract strategies based on 

the preliminary developmental efforts that occur prior to every production contract 

award, ensuring that all protective items consistently meet a high standard of performance. 

Mr. TURNER. I am concerned about the requirements for issuance uniforms. I understand that the Department of Defense does not have a universal standard for 

when a soldier, sailor, airman, or marine must be issued fire-retardant clothing. For 

example, Army mounted combat crewmen are issued multiple layers of fire-retardant uniforms including base layers, combat uniforms, and cold weather outer layers. 

Please explain how the Army determines who is issued what versions and components of flame-resistant uniforms and the process by which this decision is made 

to include the decisionmaker? What is the sustainment requirement for these uniforms and how is it budgeted? 

General OSTROWSKI. Fire-resistant (FR) Army combat uniforms (FRACU) are provided to deployed Soldiers based on 2008 Army Requirements and Resourcing Board 

(AR2B) guidance. FR uniforms such as the Army Aircrew Combat Uniform (A2CU), 

Improved Combat Vehicle Crewman Coverall (iCVC), and Fuel Handler Coveralls 

are provided to Soldiers in select corresponding MOSs through either deployment 

related equipping efforts like Rapid Fielding Initiative (RFI) events or Army Clothing Bag or Central Issue Facility (CIF) issue for Military Occupational Specialty 

(MOS) related non-deployment garrison and training use. Soldiers performing in an 

MOS authorized position requiring FR clothing (e.g., aviators, combat vehicle crewmembers, fuel handlers, etc.) receive sustainment through the Operations and Maintenance (O&M) Base funded CIF for non-deployment activities. Deployment 

sustainment is provided through the Overseas Contingency Operations funded Army 

Direct Ordering program or theater CIF’s. There are no FRACUs in the sustainment 

base (for all other non-deployed Soldiers). 

Mr. TURNER. A recent GAO study highlights the difficulties the military services 

have experienced with respect to combat uniforms and camouflage with multiple 

variants across the Services, different and ineffective patterns, different FR materials, a lack of coordination within and across the Services, etc. This study made 

many recommendations that the Services largely concurred with. 

Please provide an update on the camouflage program and associated combat uniform programs. Is there a requirement for continuing to improve the combat clothing worn by our warfighters, both the base uniform and the flame-resistant variant? 

General OSTROWSKI. The Army recently completed a very comprehensive Phase IV 

Camouflage study which was the most extensive uniform camouflage study ever undertaken—underpinned by science with extensive Soldier involvement. The Army 

designed a scientifically rigorous evaluation program, studying the performance of 

camouflage in a wide variety of terrains, vegetation and times of day. Initial deci-
73 

sions and recommendations have been provided to senior Army leaders, and the 

Army is now waiting on a final decision announcement and guidance from our Army 

leadership regarding the scope and timelines of potential changes. As far as interservice uniform coordination or issues, those decisions fall within the Office of the 

Secretary of Defense’s purview. The Army continuously seeks improvements to the 

combat clothing worn by our warfighters. Our combat and materiel developers routinely assess capabilities desired, using periodic survey and lessons learned feedback 

from Soldiers and unit leaders, and evolving technological improvements to ensure 

the uniforms worn by our Soldiers in combat and in garrison are meeting the 

Army’s needs. 

Mr. TURNER. Are you aware that the average age of the top 5 most often employed 

U.S. small arms are on average around 30 years old? How are you modernizing the 

family of small arms? 

General OSTROWSKI. For the past two decades, the Army has continuously modernized our fleet of small arms, with improvements based both on technological opportunities and Soldier feedback. Since its adoption in the early 1990s, the M4 carbine has been one of the premier small arms weapons in the world. Based on feedback from the field, the Army has undertaken a multi-phased product improvement 

program to upgrade the Army’s M4s to the M4A1 Special Forces’ version carbine. 

The M4A1 provides a full auto capability, a consistent trigger pull, and has a greater capacity to maintain accuracy and zero while withstanding the heat produced by 

high volumes of fire. 

The M320 Grenade Launcher, fielded to the Army in 2009, is the replacement to 

the M203 series grenade launchers, introduced in the early 1970s. As a modular 

system, the M320 attaches under the barrel of the M16 rifle or M4 carbine and can 

also convert to a stand-alone weapon. Additionally, the M320 improves on the M203 

with an available integral day/night sighting system and improved safety features. 

The Army also identified a need to upgrade its sniper weapons to extend range 

and address accuracy shortcomings of the M24, M110 Semi Automatic Sniper System, and M107 Long Range Sniper Rifle. This led to the XM2010 Enhanced Sniper 

Rifle which utilizes .300 Winchester Magnum ammunition to engage targets accurately out to 1,200 meters. 

Several other examples of modernization efforts include: the MK19 40mm Grenade Machine Gun, adopted by the Army in 1986, upgraded with an adjustable 

sight bracket to allow compatibility with various optical sights, and a Modification 

Kit for increased weapon reliability; the M2 .50 Caliber Heavy Barrel Machine Gun, 

which is being converted to the M2A1 configuration to allow for rapid barrel change 

at the Operator level without the need for setting the headspace and timing, which 

significantly increases Soldier safety; and, the M240 7.62mm machine gun family, 

which has received 16 major improvements since 1998, to include the M240L, which 

provides the same capability at a weight savings of over seven pounds; and, last, 

the M249 5.56mm Squad Automatic Weapon has received 25 major improvements 

since 1987. 

Mr. TURNER. To the extent possible what programs and/or policies has the Army 

put in place to sustain and stabilize the domestic industrial base for individual 

warfighter equipment? How have these programs and/or policies been communicated 

to industry and to what effect? 

General OSTROWSKI. The Army works closely with the Defense Logistics Agency 

(DLA) with regard to forecasting yearly sustainment requirements. The Army forecasts its sustainment requirements through the Tank Automotive Command Logistic Support Office, which is co-located with DLA Troop Support in Philadelphia. The 

Army defers to DLA for specifics regarding any preliminary findings from the ongoing body armor, clothing, and textile industrial base studies. 

Mr. TURNER. One of the great successes of equipment in the last decade has been 

developing rapid fielding initiatives that leverage commercial-off-the-shelf products 

such as ballistic eyewear—items that have saved the sight and reduced the number 

of eye injuries to our deployed forces. I understand items like this are purchased 

using overseas contingency funds feeding operations and maintenance accounts. As 

this funding goes away, how is the military going to ensure that soldiers, sailors, 

airmen, and marines are equipped with critical, relatively low-cost items, such as 

ballistic eyewear? What process is being used to determine what soldiers get 

‘‘deployer bundles’’ or rapid fielding items going forward? 

General OSTROWSKI. The Army’s intent is to not lose sight of the significant 

progress we’ve made over the last 10–11 years in rapidly fielding and equipping our 

Soldiers and unit leaders. We have learned to value Soldier’s innovative ideas and 

have developed processes to address operational commanders’ needs on the ground 

through Rapid Fielding Initiatives (RFI) and most notably through our Rapid Equipping Force (REF). Each has been extremely successful over the last ten years of con-
74 

flict; RFI using Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) funding to provide critical 

individual Soldier and unit equipment—like ballistic eyewear—to deploying forces, 

and REF providing timely solutions—like RAVEN and PUMA Unmanned Aerial 

Systems—to warfighters and anticipating future requirements in collaboration with 

operational commanders and acquisition materiel developers. The Army’s Soldier 

Enhancement Program (SEP), required by Congress since 1989, is the Army’s existing, baseline funded program designed to rapidly assess innovative equipment designated for Soldiers. SEP items showing great promise to the Army at large are 

then used to inform further combat and materiel development. In the future the 

Army will maintain rapid equipping capabilities in some form and, though the 

structure and size of such organizations are still to be determined, this type of innovative approach to Soldier problem solving will still be a priority. Additionally, the 

Army staff is considering several options to define the long term requirements to 

support our Soldiers with the right equipment needed to accomplish the mission assigned in support of a Combatant Commander, including equipping concepts designed to ensure the latest operational uniforms, clothing and individual equipment 

are bundled and immediately available for fielding to Soldiers in synch with deployments to contingency operations. 

Mr. TURNER. It has been almost 4 years (July 28, 2009) since the Government Accountability Office issued a report on Army and Marine Corps Ground Combat Helmet Pads. In the report, the GAO states that the ‘‘Army and Marine Corps are 

aware of the use of unapproved (helmet) pads and have taken steps to rectify this 

practice.’’ 

With Traumatic Brain Injury as perhaps the signature injury of the wars in Iraq 

and Afghanistan, can you tell me if soldiers and marines are still using unapproved 

helmet pads? If so, what steps are you now taking to rectify this practice? 

General OSTROWSKI and Mr. BECHTEL. Helmets issued to Soldiers, whether they 

are new or previously used helmets, are issued with new and approved pad systems. 

The Army has taken multiple steps to ensure the use and wear of authorized helmet 

pads only. These steps have included the publishing of an Army-wide, All Army Activities Message in April 2009 on the Unauthorized Procurement of Ballistic Protection, Body Armor, and other safety items. The message specifically included a reference to the purchase of helmet pads from unauthorized sources. The Army also 

published a Ground Precautionary Action Message in February 2012, cautioning 

Soldiers against unauthorized liner systems in their helmets. Recently, Tank Automotive Command Life Cycle Management Command Safety of Use Message 13–013 

was published, which contained a reference to the use or purchase of helmet pads 

from unauthorized sources. Also, the Advanced Combat Helmet Operator’s Manual 

directs Soldiers to use only authorized pads and provides instructions to Soldiers to 

inspect for helmet pad serviceability. 

Mr. TURNER. As evidenced by some of the recent and well-publicized training accidents in our military, it is clear that our service members need the best protective 

equipment during training as well as in theater. Specific to head protection for reducing Traumatic Brain Injury, what checks are in place within the Army and Marine Corps to make sure that our warfighters are receiving standard issue headgear, 

to include authorized pad systems, both in training and in theater? 

General OSTROWSKI and Mr. BECHTEL. Helmets issued to Soldiers, whether they 

are new or used helmets, are issued with new and approved pad systems. The Army 

has, and continues to provide, guidance to Soldier leadership through Army wide, 

All Army Activity (ALARACT) Messages, Ground Precautionary Action (GPA) Messages, and Safety of Use Messages (SOUM) to ensure identification and removal of 

unauthorized personal protective equipment (PPE) from the Army inventory. An 

ALARACT Message, issued in April 2009 on the Unauthorized Procurement of Ballistic Protection, Body Armor, and other Safety Items, was issued specifically including a reference to the prohibition of purchasing helmet pads from unauthorized 

sources. The Army published a GPA Message in February of 2012 cautioning Soldiers against unauthorized liner systems in their helmets. Recently, the Tank Automotive Command Life Cycle Management Command published a Safety Of Use 

Message that directed Soldiers not to use or purchase helmet pads from unauthorized sources. Also, the Advanced Combat Helmet Operator’s Manual directs Soldiers 

to use only authorized pads and provides instructions to Soldiers to inspect helmet 

pads for serviceability. 

Mr. TURNER. What are the Army and Marine Corps plans for female-specific 

equipment (to include clothing, individual equipment, and body armor) development? To what degree do these plans depend on sustainment funding and/or new 

program funding? 
75 

General OSTROWSKI and Mr. BECHTEL. The Army developed eight additional sizes 

to the Generation III Improved Outer Tactical Vest (IOTV) to accommodate female 

specific physiological measurements. These new IOTV sizes are designated Female 

IOTVs (FIOTV). There are currently 17 FIOTVs being worn by Soldiers assigned to 

Female Engagement Teams throughout Afghanistan. The FIOTV is on schedule to 

begin full rate production in the summer of 2013 and PEO Soldier is anticipating 

fielding 600 FIOTVs for one Brigade Combat Team in late August 2013. The FIOTV 

will be available to the female Soldier population deploying to Afghanistan in late 

Fourth Quarter, Fiscal Year 2013 (FY13). The FIOTV will require sustainment with 

Army G4 sustainment dollars starting in FY14. The Soldier Protection System— 

Torso Protection (TP) subsystem will seek to replace the current Concealable Body 

Armor, Soldier Plate Carrier System, and IOTV with one modular system. The TP 

will adopt the female specific sizing that contributed to the FIOTV. Successful development is dependent on Research and Development funding. 

In addition, the Universal Camouflage Pattern Army Combat Uniform Alternate 

(ACU–A) with Permethrin provides females and smaller statured male Soldiers with 

a better fitting Army Combat Uniform (ACU). The ACU–A is also produced in 

smaller and shorter length sizes than the current ACU. The ACU–A will soon be 

available for Soldiers to purchase at Army Military Clothing Store (AMCS), online 

from AMCS, and online from Kentucky Logistics Operation Center. The ACU–A is 

funded through the Military Personnel Account for the Clothing Bag. Fielding to 

Soldiers began May 2013. 

Finally, the Physical Fitness Uniform (PFU), currently pending approval by the 

Chief of Staff of Army, is also being sized to better fit female Soldiers. Female PFU 

uniforms are being tested in a Soldier user evaluation. This alternate style should 

better accommodate female Soldiers. Fielding to Soldiers is expected to begin in the 

first quarter, FY15. The PFU is funded through the Military Personnel Account for 

the Clothing Bag. 

Mr. TURNER. What are the Army and Marine Corps plans to enhance communications with industry in the coming fiscal year? 

General OSTROWSKI and Mr. BECHTEL. PEO Soldier maintains a continuous dialogue with our industry partners and meets on an ongoing basis with vendors to 

discuss both broad and specific issues with regard to our programs. In addition, we 

routinely hold Industry Days to exchange information with the industrial base on 

current and upcoming initiatives. We use tools such as the Federal Business Opportunities website to post Requests for Information and draft Requests for Proposals 

on pending requirements to gain industry feedback. 

For the remainder of this fiscal year and in Fiscal Year 2014 (FY14), we have several Industry Days planned. On June 27, 2013, Project Manager Soldier Weapons 

will hold a Small Arms Fire Control Industry Day at Picatinny Arsenal, New Jersey. 

The focus will be to provide our industry partners with current information for materiel solutions to address current capability gaps. This forum will also allow industry representatives to keep the Government apprised of technology developments. 

The Cross Service Warfighter Equipment Board, on which PEO Soldier is represented, is working with our sister services and the Defense Logistics Agency Troop 

Support to conduct a multi-day Advanced Planning Briefing to Industry in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania in the Fourth Quarter FY13 to review new requirements for the 

upcoming fiscal year. From October 15 -17, 2013, Project Manager Soldier Sensors 

and Lasers will conduct Precision Fires Industry Days at Fort Belvoir, Virginia to 

enhance communications with our industry partners in that market sector. And finally, Project Manager Soldier Sensors and Lasers will also conduct two Industry 

Days for the Family of Weapon Sights—Crew Served (FWS–CS); one during the Second Quarter FY14 and one during the Fourth Quarter FY14. These Industry Days 

will focus on programmatic updates, draft technical documentation, and one-on-one 

sessions with potential vendors. 

Mr. TURNER. Is there a DOD investment strategy for new materials that will provide step change improvements to warfighter equipment? 

General OSTROWSKI and Mr. BECHTEL. Advances in materials science have the potential to impact all Army platforms. As such, the Fiscal Year 2014 (FY14) basic 

research investment in materials science is $182 million, or 43 percent of the Army’s 

total FY14 basic research funding. The Army invests in biotechnology, nanotechnology, and Army specific domains of materials science including high deformation 

rates in structural and protection materials, energetic materials, electronics, and 

power and energy. Examples include investments in Textile Composite Armor which 

provides a framework for successful design of lightweight textile armor of the future. This research is unparalleled outside of the Army and its payoffs include 

transparent armor lenses that can be integrated into eye protection systems. Investments are also being made into insensitive munitions and energetic materials for 
76 

next generation small arms weapons that give unprecedented firepower to the Soldier (e.g. a 40mm with energetic power greater than a 155mm) and environmentally 

benign materials. Additionally, the Army is investing in the capability to design, optimize, and fabricate light weight protection material systems that exhibit revolutionary performance by manipulating matter all the way back to the atomic scale. 

This is a ‘‘grand challenge’’ that pushes the existing high-performance material envelope. Payoffs from this research include protection materials with 33 percent savings in weight of current systems and batteries with triple the energy density that 

can provide 30 percent longer life-times at a reduced cost (20–30 percent). 

Mr. TURNER. Please provide a couple of examples of the most recent new products 

that have significantly reduced the soldier’s load? On average how often will weightsaving technology refreshes occur across the portfolio of items the soldier wears and 

carries. What are the risks to achieving these improvements? Are they being developed with overseas contingency operations funds? 

General OSTROWSKI and Mr. BECHTEL. The Army is incorporating weight saving 

technology that can meet current protection requirements into current personal protective equipment (PPE) and other Soldier equipment as rapidly as possible. The 

Army has leveraged new material construction and design approaches to reduce the 

weight of the Improved Outer Tactical Vest (IOTV) and Soldier Plate Carrier System (SPCS). The current Generation III IOTV, which weighs 31 pounds (lbs) (with 

plates) for a size medium, is four percent lighter than the previous IOTV variant. 

These same approaches are being applied to the SPCS, which weighs 23 lbs (with 

plates) for size medium, in order to reduce the weight by three percent. The latest 

specification for the Advanced Combat Helmet (ACH), which currently weighs 3.06 

lbs for a medium, being procured by Defense Logistics Agency Troop Support for 

sustainment, requires a weight reduction of eight percent. The Lightweight ACH, 

which will also be procured by the Defense Logistics Agency Troop Support weighs 

2.8 lbs for a size medium. By leveraging technology, we were able to achieve weight 

savings of 6.5 lbs in the Nett Warrior program as compared to its predecessor, the 

Land Warrior. As new technology is available, we will continuously strive to reduce 

weight even further to lessen the burden on our Soldiers. Because of our rigorous 

test protocols for all PPE, the risks to achieving these improvements are significantly reduced. Our base budget includes Research, Development, Test and Evaluation funding for PPE. 

Mr. TURNER. I understand that the Army has undertaken a detailed sizing study 

to update the sizing tariff for clothing and equipment—basically determining the 

size of men and women in the Army with the objective of ensuring that equipment 

fits everyone. 

Mr. Bechtel, can you tell me the process that the Army went through to ensure 

that individual equipment, especially for dismounted soldiers, is available in sizes 

that fit men and women? Have you changed any requirements in order to field 

women in the infantry equipment that fits? 

Mr. BECHTEL. The Army’s Assistant Secretary of the Army for Acquisition, Logistics, and Technology materiel developers pursue individual Soldier uniform and 

equipment form, fit, and function optimization as part of their routine product improvement efforts. Very good examples of recent improvements include sizing and 

fit updates to the Army’s Improved Outer Tactical Vest (IOTV) and Army Combat 

Uniform (ACU), resulting in additional female specific IOTV sizes and an ACU-Alternate (ACU–A) uniform which fits the female body better and provides a better 

fit for some small-statured male Soldiers. The Headquarters, Department of the 

Army Deputy Chief of Staff, Logistics G–4 led Army Uniform Board (AUB) also routinely reviews specific male/female uniform related issues for dress and non-combat 

uniforms. The Army continuously evaluates Soldier equipment requirements. Based 

on those evaluations, no changes to any specific Soldier protection requirement is 

necessary in order to address the expanding role of women in combat. The Army 

does not differentiate the critical protection needs of our Soldiers whether they are 

male or female. As a result, the Key Performance Parameters and Key System Attributes that identify the critical requirements for materiel solutions are no different 

for body armor, uniforms, and individual Soldier equipment with regard to men and 

women. 

Mr. TURNER. Does the Army currently have a validated requirement for lighterweight body armor systems? 

Mr. BECHTEL. Yes, based on validated Operational Need Statements the Army developed and approved a Soldier Plate Carrier System (SPCS) directed requirement 

in 2009, and a Concealable Body Armor (CBA) directed requirement in 2012. These 

interim solutions provide a lighter weight alternative body armor capability specifically to for Soldiers conducting dismounted operations and training and mentoring 
77 

of Afghan National Security Forces, respectively, in Operation Enduring Freedom 

(OEF). The Army continues to strive for lighter weight capabilities, including body 

armor systems. However, the key performance parameters addressing Soldier protection will always be pre-eminent. The current Army requirement for an improved 

lighter weight body armor system is defined in the Soldier Protection System (SPS) 

Capability Development Document (CDD), approved in February 2013. This requirement will be used to develop the next generation of body armor, as well as other 

areas of personal protective equipment to include head protection. The SPS CDD 

specifically calls out the need for lighter weight armor, with objective weight reductions of 5–15% for soft armor, hard armor, and helmets. The SPS CDD also identifies a modular and tailorable capability, which facilitates reducing weight further 

through the ability to tailor body armor based on mission and threat. The Army recognizes the tradeoff between weight and Soldier protection, and continues to strive 

for lighter weight materiel solutions without sacrificing our protection standards. 

Mr. TURNER. Does the Army G3 and requirement community take into account 

the long-term consequences and costs to the entire Government when developing requirements? Are you satisfied that the Army requirements community knows what 

is the art of the possible? 

Mr. BECHTEL. Yes, we do assess the long term health consequences and potential 

retirement related costs to the government as a very important part of the requirements development process. For instance, proponents and combat developers recognize the amount of equipment in and weight of a Soldiers load can significantly impact the Soldier’s long term health. A specific example to help assess, capture, and 

address this is the Army’s use of the concept of manpower and personnel integration, what we call MANPRINT. The Army also pursues experimentation, testing, 

analysis, and surveys to assist in the collection of data necessary to substantiate 

performance and effectiveness in the requirements development process. In the area 

of body armor and other protection element, we fully recognize the tradeoffs between protection, ballistics, and weight, and the impact they have on the Soldier, 

not only from a mobility aspect, but also on the near-term and long-term health 

skeletal and muscular systems. 

Regarding the art of the possible, yes the Army continues to take hard looks at 

ways to improve our operational forces. For instance, in the areas of Soldier mobility 

and the squad as a system, the requirements community habitually examines 

changing our doctrine and concepts, the use of robotics, and vehicle support (i.e., improved suspension systems) to push the envelope and provide a tactical edge. An 

example of an improved technological capability being pursued is can be found in 

work being done with nanotechnology and the superheating of different composites. 

State of the art nanotechnology is able to create a small armor plate, not the size 

of the current body armor plate, but a six-inch plate that is very light with the capability to potentially prevent against small arms munitions penetration. So we’re pursuing innovative approaches across a lot of systems to take care of our Soldiers— 

not only for the near-term operational mission need, but just as important, the longterm health and quality of life for our Soldiers. 

Mr. TURNER. Does the Marine Corps currently have a validated requirement for 

lighter-weight body armor systems? 

General SMITH. The primary requirement for body armor systems is based on levels of protection required. There are validated and specific weight requirements for 

these systems. The Army’s Soldier Protection System Capabilities Development Document (CDD) will be the overarching document for ballistic protection requirements 

that will be reflected in individual Capability Production Documents (CPDs). The 

Army intends to start fielding the Scalable Protection System (SPS) in FY15, and 

is primarily focused on weight reduction. The Marine Corps will take a longer approach that will allow technology to mature to the level necessary to achieve our 

goals in protection, integration, and mobility, which we view as being equal in importance in a true next generation system. Additional Key Performance Parameters 

(KPPs) will be emphasized by defining mobility parameters using the Marine Corps 

Load Effects Assessment Program (MCLEAP), and integration parameters by the 

IPT within the Modular Scalable Protection System (MSPS) IPT (which is chartered). The Marine Corps is continually evaluating the potential for weight reduction with the stipulation that new developments maintain the same levels of protection of current personal protective equipment. 

The Marine Corps has consistently challenged industry during our various industry meetings and conferences to provide the same protection level at 20% decrease 

in weight. The Marine Corps has partnered with industry, government and academia through the Office of Naval Research and the Naval Research Lab to develop 

new technologies and materials that will reduce the weight of body armor or in-
78 

crease capability at the same or lighter weight. Presently, we are engaged in several 

Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) projects through Marine Corps Systems 

Command and have funded white papers submitted in response to the Natick Soldier Research and Development and Engineering Center Broad Agency Announcement. The Marine Corps also coordinates its efforts closely with the Army to prevent duplication of effort and increase joint exploration of promising technologies. 

These combined efforts drive the development of lighter weight body armor technologies and designs. 

Examples of efforts include research into new vest designs and materials, Lightweight ESAPI and objective weight ECSAPI, flexible armor, eyewear, helmets (Helmet Electronics and Display System—Upgradeable Protection Army Technology Objective (HEaDS–UP ATO)) and protective undergarments. In addition, the MSPS 

aims to integrate the attributes of current armor protective levels with a lighter 

weight, load distribution system that will also enable greater range of motion and 

less stress on Marines. 

Mr. TURNER. It has been almost 4 years (July 28, 2009) since the Government Accountability Office issued a report on Army and Marine Corps Ground Combat Helmet Pads. In the report, the GAO states that the ‘‘Army and Marine Corps are 

aware of the use of unapproved (helmet) pads and have taken steps to rectify this 

practice.’’ 

With Traumatic Brain Injury as perhaps the signature injury of the wars in Iraq 

and Afghanistan, can you tell me if soldiers and marines are still using unapproved 

helmet pads? If so, what steps are you now taking to rectify this practice? 

General SMITH and General KELLEY. Team Wendy pads are used in the present 

Lightweight Helmet and will be used in the Enhanced Combat Helmet. The Team 

Wendy pads were proven to be superior in a 2006 Blunt trauma study when compared to all the leading pad systems. 

The Army is leading an effort to find alternative pad systems. The Marine Corps 

is following this program and is committed to adopting the same system if it proves 

to be more effective than the current Team Wendy pad system. This effort has been 

coordinated through the Cross Service Warfighter Equipment Board (CSWEB). 

Mr. TURNER. As evidenced by some of the recent and well-publicized training accidents in our military, it is clear that our service members need the best protective 

equipment during training as well as in theater. Specific to head protection for reducing Traumatic Brain Injury, what checks are in place within the Army and Marine Corps to make sure that our warfighters are receiving standard issue headgear, 

to include authorized pad systems, both in training and in theater? 

General SMITH and General KELLEY. Team Wendy pads are used in the present 

Lightweight Helmet and will be used in the Enhanced Combat Helmet. The Team 

Wendy pads were proven to be superior in a 2006 Blunt trauma study when compared to all the leading pad systems. 

A Marine Administration Message released in April 2007 establishes that it is 

Marine Corps policy, for Marines and Sailors assigned to both USMC and Joint command, to be issued Marine Corps approved PPE, which includes the Lightweight 

Helmet. It further clarifies that Marines and Sailors may not use commercial PPE 

in lieu of government tested, approved and issued PPE. The language is clear that 

enforcement of this policy is a Commander responsibility. 

Mr. TURNER. What are the Army and Marine Corps plans to enhance communications with industry in the coming fiscal year? 

General SMITH and General KELLEY. The Marine Corps works closely with the industrial base to field innovative solutions to identified requirements keeping costeffectiveness and sustainability in mind during this prolonged period of fiscal austerity. We do this by actively engaging and communicating our programmatic and 

technical priorities, needs and future plans with industry in a number of forums. 

At the ground level, Marine Corps Systems Command (MCSC) established the Industry Interface Council (IIC). The IIC is comprised of Command representatives 

and industry who meet on a regular basis that provides an effective feedback between MCSC and industry on ways to continue to better serve and communicate 

with each other. A result from the IIC was the launch of the Marine Corps Advanced Planning Briefing to Industry (APBI). 

Additionally, the Marine Corps participates in many events, large and small, in 

an effort to communicate with industry. The larger events include the annual Modern Day Marine Exposition that includes the Marine Corps Report to Industry and 

the biennial Advanced Planning Briefing to Industry. During these events, Marine 

Corps General Officers highlight the needs and way ahead of the Corps by providing 

industry with our acquisition and funding plans. Smaller events include ‘‘Industry 

Days’’ where many individual Marine Corps ground programs offices meet with in-
79 

dustry throughout the year, giving businesses an opportunity to inform our acquisition professionals with potential solutions that could better equip our warfighters. 

As we continue to recognize the potential capabilities, innovations, and technology 

solutions that small businesses can offer, MCSC’s Office of Small Business Programs (OSBP) is involved in small business and industry outreach events on a 

weekly basis. MCSC’s OSBP participates in local and national small business outreach events, where the MCSC OSBP matches the capabilities of small businesses 

with MCSC and Program Manager Officer Land Systems requirements. 

Such events provide great venues for industry to stay abreast of opportunities 

with the Marine Corps acquisition community and for the Marine Corps to learn 

about potential solutions. 

Mr. TURNER. I am concerned about the requirements for issuance uniforms. I understand that the Department of Defense does not have a universal standard for 

when a soldier, sailor, airman, or marine must be issued fire-retardant clothing. 

Please explain how the Marine Corps determines who is issued what versions and 

components of flame-resistant uniforms and the process by which this decision is 

made to include the decisionmaker? What is the sustainment requirement for these 

uniforms and how is it budgeted? 

General SMITH and General KELLEY. The Marine Corps currently uses the same 

textile solution for its flame resistant uniforms as the other services—the ‘‘Defender 

M’’ produced by Tencate. All four Services continue to work closely and share in research and development and information on advancements in textiles that may result in better flame resistant protection coupled with lighter weight and improved 

durability. 

The Marine Corps provides all of its forward deployed Marines with Flame Resistant Organizational Gear (FROG) which consists of outer and under garments, 

gloves, and head, face, and neck protection. 

The decision to wear FROG is retained by the Combatant Commander but is often 

delegated down to the Battalion Command level. A commander’s decision for his 

Marines to wear or to not wear FROG is commonly based on a careful consideration 

of the threat, environment, mission and other operational factors/conditions. 

The sustainment requirement for FROG is the ability to support Marines forward 

deployed to Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF) and with the Marine Expeditionary 

Units (MEU). Sustainment is currently supported through a combination of Overseas Contingency Operations and programmed Operations and Maintenance Marine 

Corps (OMMC) funds. 

Mr. TURNER. A recent GAO study highlights the difficulties the military services 

have experienced with respect to combat uniforms and camouflage with multiple 

variants across the Services, different and ineffective patterns, different FR materials, a lack of coordination within and across the Services, etc. This study made 

many recommendations that the Services largely concurred with. 

Please provide an update on the camouflage program and associated combat uniform programs? Is there a requirement for continuing to improve the combat clothing worn by our warfighters, both the base uniform and the flame-resistant variant? 

General SMITH and General KELLEY. The Marine Corps believes that every Service member deserves the opportunity to wear an effective camouflage uniform commensurate with their assigned mission and normal operating area. The Marine 

Corps supports camouflage uniforms that reduce visual detection and enhance performance. 

All of the Services, including DLA, work closely with U.S. Army Natick Soldier 

Research, Development and Engineering Command (NSRDEC) and mutually benefits from the incremental advancements and technology leaps impacting the development of individual combat clothing and PPE. 

When it comes to requirements, the Marine Corps and the Army collaborate wherever their mission profiles converge. In the case of the uniform, the Marine Corps 

has looked at the places we think we would be most likely employed, and we’ve created a uniform for that. 

We are not aware of any effort to develop a singular uniform. While we collaborate in many areas, in regard to the combat uniform, the Army and the Marine 

Corps selected different solutions. A distinct mission profile is the distinguishing 

factor that precludes development of a singular uniform. 

Mr. TURNER. What are the Army and Marine Corps plans for female-specific 

equipment (to include clothing, individual equipment, and body armor) development? To what degree do these plans depend on sustainment funding and/or new 

program funding? 

General SMITH and General KELLEY. The Marine Corps realizes that the differences in female anatomy are not necessarily compatible with current armor designs. We also have found that challenges remain in retaining ballistic performance 
80 

with curved plate geometries. Tests have shown conformal ceramic armor doesn’t 

meet ballistic performance standards. 

For the past three years, the Marine Corps has monitored and actively supported 

the U.S. Army’s effort to develop female specific body armor. The U.S. Army developed new prototype body armor for female soldiers based on the Improved Outer 

Tactical Vest (IOTV), which is being evaluated for fit and sizing. The U.S. Army has 

designated the IOTV as their replacement for the Outer Tactical Vest (OTV). The 

OTV was previously issued and shared with the Marine Corps. We have since replaced the OTV with the Plate Carrier (PC). We will address the interim and long 

term solution to enhance the fit, form, and comfort of the Marine Corps Family of 

Body Armor (FBA) to best provide ballistic protection capability across the range of 

Marine stature and gender spectrum. The Marine Corps will conduct a comprehensive survey fit of torso, pelvic, and helmet ballistic protection systems during FY13. 

The survey seeks to obtain a better understanding of issues specific to smaller stature and female demographic, and comprehensive data on fit, sizing, and comfort 

which will be incorporated into the design of the next generation fully integrated, 

Modular Scalable Protective System (MSPS). We will continue to monitor the U.S. 

Army in their efforts to develop solutions to address notable issues with sizing and 

comfort levels of body armor for female soldiers. 

We do not have a funding line for female body armor as all of our armor is incorporated into the Family of Ballistic Protective Systems. We are working with the 

Army as noted above on improvements to our current systems. We additionally have 

different sizing than the Army which improves the fit of the current systems with 

smaller stature Marines. 

Mr. TURNER. Please provide a couple of examples of the most recent new products 

that have significantly reduced the soldier’s load? On average how often will weightsaving technology refreshes occur across the portfolio of items the soldier wears and 

carries. What are the risks to achieving these improvements? Are they being developed with overseas contingency operations funds? 

General SMITH and General KELLEY. Our goal is to give Marines the equipment 

and confidence to accomplish his or her mission successfully. To do this, we constantly seek the balance between effectiveness and weight of the equipment and the 

speed, endurance and survivability of the warfighter. The Marine Corps’ continues 

to look at ways to make advancements in reducing the Marine’s combat load. 

For example, the introduction of the Infantry Automatic Rifle reduced the load of 

the three heaviest-burdened Marines in the rifle squad, the Automatic Riflemen. 

There is an eight-pound difference in unloaded weapons and a 14-pound difference 

in loaded weapons when compared to the M249 (Squad Automatic Weapon). This 

weapon significantly enhances the mobility of the Marines with the greatest quantity of automatic firepower in the squad and provides interoperability of ammunition 

sources throughout all the squad members by eliminating linked ammunition required by the M249. These systems were developed and procured with base budget 

not OCO funding. 

Additionally, we are aggressively improving the energy effectiveness of our Marine’s equipment as another aspect of lightening the load. On the individual Marine, 

over a dozen batteries in six different configurations are used at any given time. 

The Marine Corps is fielding, in OEF, the next generation of solar-powered alternative energy solution, SPACE and GREENS, to recharge batteries and power 

laptops, radios, and other Platoon through Battalion level equipment in order to reduce the need for generators and fuel resupply convoys. Centralizing, standardizing, 

and reliably distributing power has the potential to reduce the reliance upon the 

multiple types of batteries that are currently used in systems and carried in significant quantity as spares. Initial SPACES and GREENS efforts received some OCO 

funding. 

Mr. TURNER. The MSPS is the USMC’s version of the Army’s Soldier Protection 

System (SPS). I understand the MSPS takes a slightly different approach focusing 

on mobility and not weight reduction. 

Would a joint program yield more industry participation and competition? How 

different are USMC requirements from the Army’s? What percentage of the total 

Corps will get this system? How was that percentage determined? 

General KELLEY. The Modular Scalable Protection System (MSPS) is the Marine 

Corps initial effort to develop a fully integrated system of ballistic protective equipment for the individual Marine. The MSPS includes protection for the head, eyes, 

hearing, torso, pelvic region, and extremities and will be developed with a balanced 

emphasis on protection, integration, and mobility. We want to develop protections 

systems that our equal to or greater than our current capability but at reduced 

weight. Moreover, with the MSPS we seek to improve the ergonomics of the ele-
81 

ments within the MSPS to improve load carriage, flexibility, and bulk over current 

systems. We are also looking at novel approached to integrate load bearing capabilities (packs and pouches) and power/data management for the individual Marine. 

The focus on returning mobility to the individual Marine will incorporate the Marine Corps Load Effects Assessment Program (MCLEAP) as a means to baseline our 

current systems, provide a mobility metric for the MSPS requirement, and measure 

improvements in mobility provided by prototypes for the MSPS. 

The Modular Scalable Vest (MSV) is the torso armor component of the MSPS and 

is currently under development. The focus of the MSV program is to provide increased protection levels with no weight costs while enhancing Marine mobility and 

combat effectiveness through smart load management and integration capabilities. 

The MSV will provide the capability to scale protection levels in a single system, 

a load distribution and carriage capability, and inherent integration capabilities 

with the USMC Pack System. The MSV will utilize both a lighter weight soft armor, 

which offers 10–15% weight reductions over current soft armor, and the Enhanced 

Capability Small Arms Protective Inserts (EC SAPIs), which provide increased ballistic protection at current Enhanced Small Arm Protective Inserts (ESAPIs) weight. 

Both of these improvements were developed in coordination with the Army and will 

be resident within their future systems as well. We plan to begin fielding the EC 

SAPIs in Fiscal Year (FY) 2014 and the MSC in FY2016. 

Would a joint program yield more industry participation and competition? 

There is significant collaboration between the Army and the Marine Corps now 

and also significant participation and competition across the segment of industry interested in these capabilities with no conclusive evidence that a Joint program 

would influence greater competition or yield increased support to the Warfighters 

in each of the Services. The response to the Marine Corps’ effort to develop concept 

demonstrators for the MSV has been enthusiastic and promising. Recently, there 

has been increased interest on the part of the Army in the Marine Corps approach 

to the MSPS as a whole and the MSV specifically and plans are being made to test 

Army and Marine Corps concepts side-by-side. Additional interest on the part of industry is sure to result. 

How different are USMC requirements from the Army’s? 

The Army and Marine Corps use the same ESAPI plates for hard armor protection and the same soft armor materials for torso and pelvic protection. The main 

difference between the Army and Marine Corps pursuit of next-gen personal protection systems is in the design and cut of our soft armor. 

The Army’s Soldier Protection System Capabilities Development Document (CDD) 

emphasizes weight reduction as the primary means to return mobility to the individual soldier. However, the Army’s CDD does not include mobility as a desired attribute and while improved integration is an Army goal, it falls subordinate to protection and weight reduction. In addition, the Army intends to begin fielding their 

Soldier Protection System (SPS) in FY 2015. 

The Marine Corps intends to take a longer approach to permit technology and design to mature to the level we believe necessary to achieve our combined goals in 

protection, integration, and mobility, which we consider of equal in importance in 

our pursuit of a next generation system. The balance between protection and weight 

reduction are being emphasized by defining mobility parameters and requirements 

using the MCLEAP. 

What percentage of the total Corps will get this system? How was that percentage 

determined? 

Our initial acquisition objectives are intended to support forward deployed forces 

and forces preparing to deploy, approximately 38% of the total force, with the MSV 

and other components of MSPS as they are developed. This strategy is driven by 

the desire to equip our warfighters with the most up to date and capable protection 

systems while conscientiously shepherding our limited resources. Limiting fielding 

to deployers optimizes development and design of these new systems by directly incorporating user feedback into follow on configurations. This approach prevents costly and multiple fielding of incrementally improved protection systems across the 

force until a final, optimized configuration is achieved. For the majority of the 

Corps, currently issued protection systems will be sustained and improved periodically through insertions of lighter soft and hard armor as technology and resources 

allow. 

Mr. TURNER. What is the current status of the enhanced combat helmet? Why is 

it taking so long to procure this helmet? 

General KELLEY. To date, the Enhanced Combat Helmet (ECH) successfully completed the First Article Test III, and it is undergoing full up system level testing 

which is anticipated to be completed in May 2013. Upon successful completion of 
82 

final testing requirements, the program office anticipates to award a delivery order 

during fourth quarter fiscal year 2013. 

The delay in procuring the ECH is a result of qualitative test failures with the 

vendor’s second and third production lines due to an Engineering Change Proposal. 

Through root cause analysis, the contractor identified the issue and applied course 

correction. 

Mr. TURNER. In 2010, Congress mandated DOD to establish a procurement line 

item for body armor components. DOD has failed to comply with this requirement. 

DOD has indicated that body armor is considered to be an ‘‘expendable item’’ and 

that creating a procurement line for expendable items would add inefficiencies in 

managing procurement quantities due to varying procurement quantity requirements. 

In your opinion, how would you categorize body armor? Do you consider body 

armor to be an ‘‘expendable’’ article, similar to a T-shirt? DOD notes that inefficiencies would be created by establishing a procurement line item. Do you agree with 

this statement? If yes, then please provide more details into what types of inefficiencies would be created. Recognizing that one of the benefits of using O&M funding 

is flexibility, and that flexibility was required during the rampup for OIF/OEF, 

should DOD reassess whether a procurement line item would be appropriate for future buys now that current conflicts are drawing down? 

General KELLEY. Yes, we consider body armor to be a consumable item because 

of its short life cycle. In comparison, the way that body armor is used and replenished is similar to that of unit issued clothing which is funded with OMMC. Further, body armor is not generally repairable. If it is damaged, body armor is disposed and a replacement is provided. 

Body armor is a consumable item with a unit cost less than the expense/investment threshold, therefore appropriately funded with O&M. We believe this is the 

most responsive way to not only replace damaged gear but to also respond to changing requirements. 

Mr. TURNER. Are you aware that the average age of the top 5 most often employed 

U.S. small arms are on average around 30 years old? How are you modernizing the 

family of small arms? 

General KELLEY. Although the original versions of some of our small arms entered 

the inventory nearly 50 years ago, current versions are significantly modified or 

newly produced to provide enhanced target detection, identification, accuracy, dependability, and lethality. The examples below highlight the life cycle product improvements and modernization across much of our inventory. 

5.56mm M16A4 Service Rifle—The first version, M16A1, entered the service in 

1964. The current version was fielded in 2003 and features a heavier barrel, 3 round 

burst vice full auto setting, and MIL–STD–1913 accessory rails to mount target acquisition and designator devices to include the Rifle Combat Optic, a 4 power magnification optic issued with every weapon. These improvements, coupled with significant improvements in ammunition, have increased target detection, weapons accuracy, range, penetration, and dependability. 

5.56mm M4 Carbine—The M4 was fielded in 2003 with similar features to the 

M16A4 (3 round burst vice full auto setting, and MIL–STD–1913 accessory rails to 

mount target acquisition and designator devices to include the Rifle Combat Optic, 

a 4-power magnification optic issued with every weapon). The M4 is the designated 

weapon for all Officers and Staff Non-Commissioned Officers up to the rank of lieutenant colonel. 

5.56mm M27 Infantry Automatic Rifle—Fielding of the M27 Infantry Automatic 

Rifle (IAR) concluded in April, 2013. The IAR replaced the M249 Squad Automatic 

Weapon (SAW) within the Marine Rifle Squad. The M27 features a full auto firing 

setting, free floating barrel, and 4.5-power magnification optic, and is half the 

weight of the M249. The reduced weight of the IAR increases the automatic rifleman’s maneuverability and displacement speed, allowing him to keep pace with the 

rest of the fire team, while the increased accuracy coupled with the full auto capability maintains the lethal capabilities of the Marine rifle squad. 

7.62mm M40A5 Sniper Rifle—The M40 Sniper Rifle was initially fielded in 1966, 

with successors fielded in 1970 (M40A1); 2001 (M40A3); and 2009 (M40A5). Improvements within M40A5 include a fiberglass stock, 3x to 15x power variable scope, 

forward accessory rail to facilitate mounting the in-line night vision as well as other 

devices (target designators, range finders), and a weapons signature suppressor. 

M240B Medium Machinegun—In 2006, the M240B replaced the M240G medium 

machine which had been in our inventory since 1997. The main improvements to 

the M240B include the MIL–STD–1913 accessory rails to mount target acquisition 

and designator devices to include the Machine Gun Day Optic (a 6-power magnification optic issued with every weapon), a hydraulic buffer w/in the butt stock to re-
83 

duce recoil, and enhancements to the gas regulator. Combined, the improvements 

in the M240B enhance target acquisition, weapons accuracy, and weapon service 

life. 

M2 .50cal Heavy Machinegun—The M2 Heavy Barrel Machine Gun has been in 

the inventory since 1933 and remains largely unchanged. However, in conjunction 

with the Army, the Marine Corps is in the process of upgrading the M2 to the 

M2A1. Improvements within the M2A1 .50 cal enhance safety and survivability and 

include a quick change barrel, fixed headspace and timing, and a new flash suppressor that reduces night weapon’s signature by 95%. 

MK19 40mm Grenade Launching Machinegun—The MK19 entered the Marine 

Corps inventory in the mid-1980s and remains unchanged. There are currently no 

plans to replace or modify this weapon system. 

M9 9mm Pistol—The M9 pistol was initially fielded in 1985 and remains in service with no replacement planned. However, the Marine Corps is monitoring the 

Joint Modular Handgun System effort under the lead of the Army, and will determine its future participation based on operational needs. 

In addition to the Corps’ ongoing efforts to modernize its small arms and small 

caliber ammunition inventories, we also actively participate in the Joint Services 

Small Arms Synchronization Team (JSSAST). The JSSAST is a Joint body organized to openly exchange information, generate small arms requirements and pursue the technologies necessary to produce the next generation of small arms in the 

2025 and beyond timeframe. 

Mr. TURNER. To the extent possible what programs and/or policies has the Marine 

Corps put in place to sustain and stabilize the domestic industrial base for individual warfighter equipment? How have these programs and/or policies been communicated to industry and to what effect? 

General KELLEY. The Marine Corps procures equipment in response to a funded 

and validated requirement, not in any specific effort to sustain the industrial base 

in any industry. A way that the Marine Corps contributes to sustaining the domestic industrial base for warfighter equipment is complying with the Berry Amendment. All equipment we procure that contains materials covered by the Berry 

Amendment, mostly textiles, are from domestic sources. The Marine Corps, specifically Combat Development and Integration (CD&I), develops warfighter equipment 

requirements based on roles and missions laid out in Title 10. These requirements 

are validated by Marine Corps and DOD leadership, and are communicated to industry via Marine Corps Systems Command (MCSC) through Requests for Proposals 

and Requests for Information. 

The Marine Corps also actively engages and communicates our programmatic and 

technical priorities, needs and future plans in a number of forums. We participate 

in events ranging from broad to small platforms. Broad platforms include events 

like the annual Modern Day Marine Exposition and the biennial Advanced Planning 

Briefing to Industry during which the acquisition and funding plans are provided 

to industry. The more finite efforts include venues such as ‘‘Industry Days’’ where 

many individual Marine Corps ground programs offices meet with industry throughout the year, giving them an opportunity to meet with our acquisition professionals 

on potential solutions. In addition, the Marine Corps recognizes the potential capabilities, innovations, and technology solutions that small businesses can offer. MCSC 

Office of Small Business Programs (OSBP) is involved in small business and industry outreach events on a weekly basis. MCSC’s OSBP participates in local and national small business outreach events, performing business matchmaking at many 

of those events, to match the capabilities of small businesses with MCSC and Program Manager Officer Land Systems requirements. 

Such events provide great venues for industry to stay abreast of opportunities 

with the Marine Corps acquisition community and for the Marine Corps to learn 

from industry about potential solutions. 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MS. DUCKWORTH 

Ms. DUCKWORTH. Hearing damage and hearing loss are two of the leading injuries 

among warfighters and veterans. In 2011, the VA spent over $1 billion on disability 

payments to veterans suffering from hearing loss. As hearing loss has grown to be 

the most common service-connected disability resulting from OEF and OIF, that 

number is expected to exceed $2 billion in 2014. A recent GAO report even stated 

that ‘‘well before retirement, such [hearing] damage can reduce servicemembers’ 

ability to communicate and affect the quality of their professional and personal 

lives. Moreover, it can create additional costs to the government and taxpayers by 

decreasing troop readiness and increasing the need for medical services and dis-
84 

ability compensation.’’ The same report said, ‘‘while [servicemembers] were generally aware that they were required to wear double protection, each was wearing 

single protection and many cited comfort as a reason for their non-compliance. At 

other locations we visited, servicemembers cited the impact of hearing protection on 

communication.’’ Last year the defense authorization contained language recognizing the measures take by the U.S. Army Special Operations Command to provide 

communications equipment with simultaneous, inner-aural hearing protection. What 

has the U.S. Naval Special Warfare Command done to provide the same preventative equipment? Do other components have plans to take the same measures to provide enhanced hearing protection and communications for deployed service members? 

General OSTROWSKI and Mr. BECHTEL. This question is best answered by the 

Navy. 

Ms. DUCKWORTH. Hearing damage and hearing loss are two of the leading injuries 

among warfighters and veterans. In 2011, the VA spent over $1 billion on disability 

payments to veterans suffering from hearing loss. As hearing loss has grown to be 

the most common service-connected disability resulting from OEF and OIF, that 

number is expected to exceed $2 billion in 2014. A recent GAO report even stated 

that ‘‘well before retirement, such [hearing] damage can reduce servicemembers’ 

ability to communicate and affect the quality of their professional and personal 

lives. Moreover, it can create additional costs to the government and taxpayers by 

decreasing troop readiness and increasing the need for medical services and disability compensation.’’ The same report said, ‘‘while [servicemembers] were generally aware that they were required to wear double protection, each was wearing 

single protection and many cited comfort as a reason for their non-compliance. At 

other locations we visited, servicemembers cited the impact of hearing protection on 

communication.’’ Last year the defense authorization contained language recognizing the measures take by the U.S. Army Special Operations Command to provide 

communications equipment with simultaneous, inner-aural hearing protection. What 

has the U.S. Naval Special Warfare Command done to provide the same preventative equipment? Do other components have plans to take the same measures to provide enhanced hearing protection and communications for deployed service members? 

General SMITH and General KELLEY. [The information was not available at the 

time of printing.] 

Æ