From the Senate Reports Online via GPO Access
[wais.access.gpo.gov]
Calendar No. 402
104th Congress Report
SENATE
2d Session 104-267
_______________________________________________________________________
NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1997
REPORT
[to accompany s. 1745]
on
AUTHORIZING APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 1997 FOR MILITARY ACTIVITIES
OF THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, FOR MILITARY CONSTRUCTION, AND FOR
DEFENSE ACTIVITIES OF THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY, TO PRESCRIBE PERSONNEL
STRENGTHS FOR SUCH FISCAL YEAR FOR THE ARMED FORCES, AND FOR OTHER
PURPOSES
together with
ADDITIONAL VIEWS
__________
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
UNITED STATES SENATE
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
May 13, 1996.--Ordered to be printed
NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1997
Calendar No. 402
104th Congress Report
SENATE
2d Session 104-267
_______________________________________________________________________
NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION
ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1997
REPORT
[to accompany s. 1745]
on
AUTHORIZING APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 1997 FOR MILITARY ACTIVITIES
OF THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, FOR MILITARY CONSTRUCTION, AND FOR
DEFENSE ACTIVITIES OF THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY, TO PRESCRIBE PERSONNEL
STRENGTHS FOR SUCH FISCAL YEAR FOR THE ARMED FORCES, AND FOR OTHER
PURPOSES
together with
ADDITIONAL VIEWS
__________
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
UNITED STATES SENATE
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
May 13, 1996.--Ordered to be printed
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
(104th Congress, 2d Session)
STROM THURMOND, South Carolina,
Chairman
SAM NUNN, Georgia JOHN W. WARNER, Virginia
J. JAMES EXON, Nebraska WILLIAM S. COHEN, Maine
CARL LEVIN, Michigan JOHN McCAIN, Arizona
EDWARD M. KENNEDY, Massachusetts TRENT LOTT, Mississippi
JEFF BINGAMAN, New Mexico DAN COATS, Indiana
JOHN GLENN, Ohio BOB SMITH, New Hampshire
ROBERT C. BYRD, West Virginia DIRK KEMPTHORNE, Idaho
CHARLES S. ROBB, Virginia KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas
JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma
RICHARD H. BRYAN, Nevada RICK SANTORUM, Pennsylvania
Les Brownlee, Staff Director
Arnold L. Punaro, Staff Director
for the Minority
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Purpose of the bill.............................................. 1
Committee overview and recommendations........................... 2
Explanation of funding summary................................... 4
Division A--Department of Defense Authorization
Title I--Procurement............................................. 11
Subtitle A--Authorization of Appropriations.................. 12
Section 107. Chemical demilitarization program........... 12
Chemical Demilitarization Program.................... 12
Subtitle B--Army Programs.................................... 13
Section 112. Army assistance for chemical
demilitarization citizens advisory commissions......... 24
Other Army Programs.......................................... 24
Army aircraft............................................ 24
C-XX medium range aircraft........................... 24
AH-64 Apache modifications........................... 24
CH-47 modifications.................................. 24
AH-64D attack helicopter............................. 25
OH-58D Kiowa Warrior................................. 25
Aircraft survivability equipment..................... 25
Army missile............................................. 25
Javelin medium anti-tank weapon...................... 25
Multiple Launch Rocket System rocket................. 26
Multiple Launch Rocket System (MLRS) launcher........ 26
Army Tactical Missile System (ATACMS)................ 26
Patriot modifications................................ 27
Stinger missile modifications........................ 27
Avenger modifications................................ 27
TOW modifications.................................... 27
Dragon missile....................................... 28
Weapons and tracked combat vehicles...................... 28
Bradley fighting vehicle............................. 28
Field artillery ammunition support vehicle (FAASV)... 28
Carrier modifications (M113)......................... 28
M109A6 Paladin....................................... 29
Field artillery ammunition supply vehicle (FAASV)
product improvement program (PIP) to fleet......... 29
Improved Recovery Vehicle............................ 29
M1 Abrams tank (modifications)....................... 29
Small arms programs.................................. 30
Army ammunition.......................................... 30
Procurement of ammunition--Army...................... 30
Armament retooling and manufacturing support (ARMS).. 31
Other army procurement................................... 31
High mobility multipurpose wheeled vehicle (HMMWV)... 31
Family of Medium Tactical Vehicles (FMTV)............ 31
Family of heavy tactical vehicles (FHTV)............. 32
Enhanced position location reporting system (EPLRS).. 32
SINCGARS family...................................... 32
Army communications.................................. 32
All source analysis system (ASAS).................... 33
Forward area air defense (FAAD) ground based sensor.. 33
Night vision devices................................. 33
Advanced field artillery tactical data system
(AFATDS)........................................... 34
Total distribution system............................ 34
Standard integrated command post system.............. 34
Inland petroleum distribution system................. 34
Construction equipment, items less than $2.0 million. 35
Base level communications equipment.................. 35
Subtitle C--Navy Programs.................................... 36
Section 121. EA-6B aircraft reactive jammer program...... 53
Section 122. Penguin missile program..................... 55
Section 123. Nuclear attack submarine programs........... 56
Section 124. Arleigh Burke class destroyer program....... 57
Other Navy Programs.......................................... 59
Navy aircraft............................................ 59
AV-8B remanufacture.................................. 59
F/A-18C/D............................................ 59
MV-22................................................ 59
Flight simulators.................................... 60
Restoration of E-2C procurement...................... 60
Airborne self-protection jammer (ASPJ)............... 60
Helicopter crash attenuating seats................... 61
Vertical replenishment helicopter replacement program 61
P-3 intelligence support............................. 61
P-3C anti-surface warfare improvement program........ 62
Navy weapons............................................. 63
Tomahawk land attack missile......................... 63
Standard missile procurement......................... 64
Navy and Marine Corps ammunition......................... 64
Procurement of ammunition--Marine Corps.............. 64
Navy shipbuilding and conversion......................... 64
Seawolf submarine.................................... 64
LPD-17 class amphibious ships........................ 65
Oceanographic survey ship............................ 66
SWATH oceanographic research ship.................... 66
Other Navy procurement................................... 66
WSN-7 inertial navigation system..................... 66
Mine warfare......................................... 67
AN/BPS-16 submarine navigation radar................. 68
Surface ship torpedo defense......................... 68
Shipboard integrated communications system........... 69
Challenge Athena..................................... 69
Global broadcast..................................... 70
Rolling air frame missile launcher for LSD-52........ 71
Afloat planning system............................... 71
NULKA decoy development.............................. 72
Elevated causeway (modular).......................... 72
Oceanographic equipment.............................. 73
Marine Corps Procurement................................. 73
Marine Corps Javelin missile......................... 73
AN/TPQ-36 Firefinder radar........................... 73
Joint task force deployable communications support... 74
Intelligence upgrades................................ 74
Telecommunications infrastructure.................... 74
Marine Corps combat operations centers............... 75
Marine Corps common end user computer equipment...... 75
Mobility enhancements................................ 75
Multiple integrated laser engagement system.......... 75
Combat vehicle appended trainer (CVAT)............... 76
Subtitle D--Air Force Programs............................... 77
Section 131. Multiyear contracting authority for the C-17
aircraft program....................................... 88
Other Air Force Programs..................................... 88
Air Force aircraft....................................... 88
B-2.................................................. 88
F-16................................................. 88
C-17 airlift aircraft................................ 89
WC-130J acquisition.................................. 89
Joint primary aircraft training system (JPATS)....... 90
Joint Surveillance Target Attack Radar System
(JSTARS)........................................... 91
B-1B bomb modules.................................... 91
SR-71................................................ 91
AWACS re-engining.................................... 92
Satellite communications terminals................... 92
RC-135 re-engining................................... 92
Rivet Joint technology transfer...................... 92
KC-135 simulators.................................... 93
Aircraft budget exhibits............................. 93
Air Force missile........................................ 93
Precision guided munitions........................... 93
Space boosters....................................... 94
Air Force ammunition..................................... 94
Procurement of ammunition--Air Force................. 94
Other Air Force procurement.............................. 95
60K Loader........................................... 95
Joint force air component commander situational
awareness system................................... 95
Defense-Wide Programs........................................ 96
Defense-wide............................................. 101
Common automatic recovery system..................... 101
C-130 aircraft modifications......................... 101
Advanced SEAL delivery system........................ 101
Special mission radio system......................... 102
SCAMPI communications system......................... 102
Briefcase multi-mission advanced tactical terminal... 102
Procurement of ammunition--Special Operations........ 102
Other items of interest.................................. 103
Individual body armor................................ 103
Procurement of recycled ammunition................... 103
C-130 remanufacture prototyping...................... 104
Predator UAV leasing................................. 104
National Guard and Reserve procurement reports....... 105
Title II--Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation............ 107
Subtitle A--Authorization of Appropriations.................. 111
Section 203. Defense nuclear agency...................... 111
Subtitle B--Program Requirements, Restrictions, and
Limitations................................................ 113
Section 211. Space launch modernization.................. 113
Section 212. Department of Defense Space Architect....... 113
Section 213. Space-based infrared system program......... 113
Section 214. Research for advanced submarine technology.. 114
Section 215. Clementine 2 micro-satellite development
program................................................ 115
Section 217. (Includes Sections 216 and 217) Defense
airborne reconnaissance program........................ 115
Section 218. Cost analysis of F-22 aircraft program...... 118
Section 219. F-22 aircraft program....................... 119
Section 220. Nonlethal weapons and technologies programs. 120
Section 221. Counterproliferation support program........ 122
Section 222. Federally funded research and development
centers and university-affiliated research centers..... 125
Subtitle C--Ballistic Missile Defense........................ 125
Section 231. United States compliance policy regarding
development, testing, and deployment of theater missile
defense systems........................................ 125
Section 232. Prohibition on use of funds to implement an
international agreement concerning theater missile
defense systems........................................ 127
Section 233. Conversion of ABM Treaty to multilateral
treaty................................................. 127
Section 234. Funding for upper tier theater missile
defense systems........................................ 127
Section 235. Elimination of requirements for certain
items to be included in the annual report on the
ballistic missile defense program...................... 128
Subtitle D--Other Matters.................................... 128
Section 241. Live-fire survivability testing of F-22
aircraft............................................... 128
Section 242. Live-fire survivability testing of V-22
aircraft............................................... 128
Subtitle E--National Oceanographic Partnership............... 128
Section 252. Matters relating to oceanographic
partnership............................................ 128
Additional Matters........................................... 131
Army..................................................... 131
Basic research programs.............................. 137
High modulus polyacrylonitrile (PAN) carbon fiber.... 137
Hardened materials................................... 137
Liquid propellant technology......................... 137
Military engineering technology...................... 138
Wave net technology.................................. 138
Nautilus/Tactical High Energy Laser Program.......... 138
Missile and rocket advanced technology............... 138
Land mine detection technologies..................... 139
Battle Integration Center............................ 139
Next tank research and development................... 139
Night vision systems advanced development............ 140
Combat service support control system (CSSC)......... 140
Comanche helicopter.................................. 140
Javelin medium anti-tank weapon...................... 141
Heavy assault bridge................................. 141
Air defense command, control, & intelligence (C2I)... 141
Brilliant Anti-armor Technology (BAT) submunition.... 142
Longbow development/night vision systems............. 142
High Energy Laser Systems Test Facility.............. 142
Combat vehicle improvement program................... 143
Improved Cargo Helicopter............................ 143
Force XXI digitization............................... 143
Air Defense Alerting Device (ADAD)................... 144
Missile/air defense product improvement program...... 144
Other missile product improvement programs........... 144
Force XXI initiatives................................ 145
Navy..................................................... 146
Continuous wave superconducting radio frequency free
electron laser..................................... 152
Power electronic building blocks..................... 152
Materials, electronics and computer technology....... 152
Undersea weapons technology.......................... 152
Navy affordability initiative........................ 153
Project M............................................ 153
Environmentally compliant torpedo fuel............... 153
Integrated combat weapons system..................... 154
Research for advanced submarine technology........... 154
Submarine towed array processing software............ 157
Aircraft carrier research and development............ 157
Navy surface combatant............................... 158
Intercooled recuperated gas turbine engine........... 158
Advanced amphibious assault vehicle.................. 159
Lightweight 155MM howitzer program................... 159
``Smart Base'' technology demonstration.............. 159
Cooperative engagement capability.................... 160
Naval surface fire support........................... 160
Strike missile evaluation............................ 161
Light airborne multi-purpose system helicopter
program............................................ 162
Joint maritime command information system/Navy
tactical command system-afloat..................... 162
Smart Ship initiative................................ 163
Arsenal Ship......................................... 163
AQS-20 airborne minehunting sonar.................... 165
Airborne mine detection systems...................... 165
Multi-purpose processor.............................. 167
Seawolf shock test................................... 167
Infrared search and track............................ 168
Evolved sea sparrow missile.......................... 168
Quick reaction combat capability..................... 168
Fixed distributed system-1........................... 169
RDT&E science and technology management.............. 169
Sea Dragon initiative................................ 169
Nuclear powered ballistic missile submarine security. 169
Joint tactical combat training system................ 170
CINCs'' technology initiative........................ 170
Medium tactical vehicle remanufacturing.............. 170
GEOSAT follow-on..................................... 170
Manufacturing technology (MANTECH)................... 171
Acquisition center of excellence..................... 172
Air Force................................................ 173
Carbon/carbon nosetips............................... 179
Ejection seat development............................ 179
Thermally stable jet fuels........................... 179
High frequency active auroral research program....... 180
Airborne laser program............................... 180
National Polar-Orbiting Operational Environmental
Satellite System................................... 180
Joint Advanced Strike Technology Program............. 181
Hardened and deeply buried target technology
demonstration...................................... 181
B-1 bomber virtual umbilical device.................. 181
B-1B upgrades........................................ 181
Variable Stability In-Flight Simulator Test Aircraft
(VISTA)............................................ 182
Milstar automated communication management system.... 182
Global Positioning System............................ 182
Minuteman third stage upgrade........................ 182
Minuteman safety enhanced reentry vehicle............ 183
Rocket System Launch Program......................... 183
Data links........................................... 183
Theater Battle Management Core Systems (TBMCS)....... 184
Blade repair program................................. 184
Defense-Wide............................................. 185
Defense experimental program to stimulate competitive
research (DEPSCoR)................................. 190
Small low-cost interceptor device.................... 190
Hard carbon-based coatings........................... 190
High temperature superconductivity................... 190
Diamond substrates................................... 191
Joint Department of Defense-Department of Energy
munitions.......................................... 191
Cruise missile defense funding....................... 191
Large millimeter wave telescope...................... 192
Crown royal.......................................... 193
Thermophotovoltaics.................................. 193
Generic logistics R&D technology demonstrations...... 193
Rapid acquisition of manufactured parts (RAMP)....... 193
Integrated weapons system database................... 193
High performance computing modernization............. 194
Defense dual-use applications program................ 194
Non-acoustic antisubmarine warfare................... 195
Fuel cells........................................... 196
Commercial technology insertion program.............. 196
Ballistic missile defense funding and programmatic
guidance........................................... 196
Data review and analysis monitoring aid.............. 203
Advanced SEAL delivery system........................ 203
M4A1 Carbine INOD, Special Operations Command........ 204
AC-130 aircraft enhancements, Special Operations
Command............................................ 204
Other Items of Interest...................................... 204
Battle group airborne anti-submarine warfare............. 204
FFG-7 modernization...................................... 205
Integrated ship control systems.......................... 205
CV-22.................................................... 207
Parametric airborne dipping sonar........................ 208
National automotive center............................... 208
National Solar Observatory............................... 209
United States-Japan management training.................. 209
Totally integrated munitions enterprise (TIME)........... 209
Strategic deterrent development capability............... 210
Post-boost propulsion for strategic delivery systems..... 210
Chemical-biological defense program...................... 210
Title III--Operation and Maintenance............................. 215
Subtitle A--Authorization of Appropriations.................. 245
Section 304. Transfer from National Defense Stockpile
Transaction Fund....................................... 245
Section 305. Civil Air Patrol............................ 245
Section 306. SR-71 contingency reconnaissance force...... 245
Subtitle B--Program Requirements, Restrictions, and
Limitations................................................ 245
Section 311. Funding for second and third maritime
prepositioning ships out of National Defense Sealift
Fund................................................... 249
Section 312. National Defense Sealift Fund............... 249
Section 313. Nonlethal weapons capabilities.............. 249
Section 314. Restriction on Coast Guard funding.......... 249
Subtitle C--Depot-Level Activities........................... 249
(Sections 321-330--Department of Defense depot
maintenance and repair services)....................... 249
Subtitle D--Environmental Provisions......................... 254
Section 341. Establishment of separate environmental
restoration transfer accounts for each military
department............................................. 254
Section 342. Defense contractors covered by requirement
for reports on contractor reimbursement costs for
response actions....................................... 254
Section 343. Repeal of redundant notification and
consultation requirements regarding remedial
investigations and feasibility studies at certain
installations to be closed under the base closure laws. 255
Section 344. Payment of certain stipulated civil
penalties.............................................. 255
Section 345. Authority to withhold listing of Federal
facilities on National Priorities List................. 256
Section 346. Authority to transfer contaminated Federal
property before completion of required remedial actions 257
Section 347. Clarification of meaning of uncontaminated
property for purposes of transfer by the United States. 258
Section 348. Shipboard solid waste control............... 258
Section 349. Cooperative agreements for the management of
cultural resources on military installations........... 260
Section 350. Report on withdrawal of public lands at El
Centro Naval Air Facility, California.................. 260
Section 351. Use of hunting and fishing permit fees
collected at closed military reservations.............. 260
Subtitle E--Other Matters.................................... 260
Section 361. Firefighting and security-guard functions at
facilities leased by the Government.................... 260
Section 362. Authorized use of recruiting funds.......... 261
Section 363. Noncompetitive procurement of brand-name
commercial items for resale in commissary stores....... 261
Section 364. Administration of midshipmen's store and
other Naval Academy support activities as
nonappropriated fund instrumentalities................. 261
Section 365. Assistance to committees involved in
inauguration of the President.......................... 261
Section 366. Department of Defense support for sporting
events................................................. 262
Section 367. Renovation of building for Defense Finance
and Accounting Service Center, Fort Benjamin Harrison,
Indiana................................................ 262
Additional Matters of Interest............................... 263
Army..................................................... 263
Army strategic mobility.............................. 263
Ammunition management................................ 263
End Item Materiel Management Program................. 263
Power Projection C4I................................. 264
Navy..................................................... 264
Intermediate maintenance............................. 264
Ship depot maintenance............................... 264
Active and reserve component P-3 squadrons........... 264
Marine Corps............................................. 265
Personnel support equipment.......................... 265
Corrosion prevention and control..................... 265
Ammunition rework.................................... 265
Joint task force headquarters deployable
communications support............................. 265
Commandant's warfighting laboratory.................. 266
Air Force................................................ 266
AWACS Extend Sentry.................................. 266
Air Force depot maintenance.......................... 266
Defense-Wide............................................. 266
Homeless support initiative.......................... 266
Federal Energy Management Program.................... 267
Office of the Secretary of Defense................... 267
Civilian personnel levels............................ 267
Real property maintenance............................ 267
Operation and maintenance, Special Operations Command 268
Other items of interest.................................. 268
United States Army marksmanship units................ 268
Quality of Life and the Military Traffic Management
Command's Re-engineering Personal Property
Initiative Pilot Program........................... 269
Aquifer study at Fallon Naval Air Station............ 270
Exclusion of uncontaminated parcels from the national
priorities list.................................... 270
Kaho'olawe cleanup................................... 271
Proposed reduction of the current permissible
exposure level for manganese....................... 271
Defense Commissary Agency designation as a
Performance Based Organization..................... 272
Electronic warfare squadrons......................... 272
Revolving funds.......................................... 273
Reliability, Maintainability and Sustainability
Program (RM&S)..................................... 273
Advance billing in Defense Business Operating Fund... 273
National defense features............................ 273
National defense reserve fleet....................... 274
Maritime training ship............................... 275
Title IV--Military Personnel Authorizations...................... 277
Subtitle A--Active Forces.................................... 277
Section 401. End strengths for active forces............. 277
Section 402. Temporary flexibility relating to permanent
end strength levels.................................... 278
Section 403. Authorized strengths for commissioned
officers in grades O-4, O-5, and O-6................... 278
Section 404. Extension of requirement for recommendations
regarding appointments to joint 4-star officer
positions.............................................. 278
Section 405. Increase in authorized number of general
officers on active duty in the Marine Corps............ 279
Subtitle B--Reserve Forces...................................
Section 411. End strengths for Selected Reserve.......... 279
Section 412. End strengths for Reserves on active duty in
support of the reserves................................ 280
Subtitle C--Authorization of Appropriations.................. 280
Section 421. Authorization of appropriations for military
personnel.............................................. 280
Title V--Military Personnel Policy............................... 283
Subtitle A--Officer Personnel Policy......................... 283
Section 501. Extension of authority for temporary
promotions for certain Navy lieutenants with critical
skills................................................. 283
Section 502. Exception to baccalaureate degree
requirement for appointment in the Naval Reserve in
grades above O-2....................................... 283
Section 503. Time for award of degrees by unaccredited
educational institutions for graduates to be considered
educationally qualified for appointment as reserve
officers in grade O-3.................................. 283
Section 504. Chief Warrant Officer promotions............ 283
Section 505. Frequency of periodic report on promotion
rates of officers currently or formerly serving in
joint duty assignments................................. 284
Subtitle B--Matters Relating to Reserve Components........... 284
Section 511. Clarification of definition of active status 284
Section 512. Amendments to Reserve Officer Personnel
Management Act provisions.............................. 284
Section 513. Repeal of requirement for physical
examinations of members of National Guard called into
federal service........................................ 284
Section 514. Authority for a Reserve on active duty to
waive retirement sanctuary............................. 284
Section 515. Retirement of Reserves disabled by injury or
disease incurred or aggravated during overnight stay
between inactive duty training periods................. 285
Section 516. Reserve credit for participation in the
Health Professions Scholarship and Financial Assistance
Program................................................ 285
Section 517. Report on guard and reserve force structure. 285
Subtitle C--Officer Education Programs....................... 285
Section 521. Increased age limit on appointment as a
cadet or midshipman in the Senior Reserve Officers'
Training Corps and the service academies............... 285
Section 522. Demonstration project for instruction and
support of Army ROTC units by members of the Army
Reserve and National Guard............................. 286
Subtitle D--Other Matters.................................... 286
Section 531. Retirement at grade to which selected for
promotion when a physical disability is found at any
physical examination................................... 286
Section 532. Limitations on recall of retired members to
active duty............................................ 286
Section 533. Disability coverage for officers granted
excess leave for educational purposes.................. 286
Section 534. Uniform policy regarding retention of
members who are permanently nonworldwide assignable.... 287
Section 535. Authority to extend period for enlistment in
regular component under the delayed entry program...... 287
Section 536. Career service reenlistments for members
with at least 10 years of service...................... 287
Section 537. Revisions to missing persons authorities.... 287
Section 538. Inapplicability of Soldiers' and Sailors'
Civil Relief Act of 1940 to the period of limitations
for filing claims for corrections of military records.. 288
Section 539. Medal of honor for certain African-American
soldiers who served in World War II.................... 288
Subtitle E--Commissioned Corps of the Public Health Service.. 288
Section 561. Applicability to Public Health Service of
prohibition on crediting cadet or midshipmen service at
the service academies.................................. 288
Section 562. Exception to grade limitations for Public
Health Service officers assigned to the Department of
Defense................................................ 289
Subtitle F--Defense Economic Adjustment, Diversification,
Conversion, and Stabilization.............................. 289
Section 571. Authority to expand law enforcement
placement program to include firefighters.............. 289
Section 572. Troops-to-teachers program improvements
(Also refer to Section 1122)........................... 289
Subtitle G--Armed Forces Retirement Home..................... 289
Section 582. Acceptance of uncompensated services........ 290
Section 583. Disposal of real property................... 290
Section 584. Matters concerning personnel................ 290
Section 585. Fees for residents.......................... 291
Section 586. Authorization of appropriations............. 291
Other items of interest...................................... 292
Legislative fellows from the Department of Defense....... 292
Relocation assistance programs........................... 293
Review of opportunities for ordering individual reserves
to active duty with their consent...................... 293
Title VI--Compensation and Other Personnel Benefits.............. 295
Subtitle A--Pay and Allowances............................... 295
Section 601. Military pay raise for fiscal year 1997..... 295
Section 602. Rate of cadet and midshipman pay............ 295
Section 603. Pay of senior noncommissioned officers while
hospitalized........................................... 295
Section 604. Basic allowance for quarters for members
assigned to sea duty................................... 296
Section 605. Uniform applicability of discretion to deny
an election not to occupy government quarters.......... 296
Section 606. Family separation allowance for members
separated by military orders from spouses who are
members................................................ 296
Section 607. Waiver of time limitations for claim for pay
and allowances......................................... 296
Subtitle B--Bonuses and Special and Incentive Pays........... 297
Section 611. Extension of certain bonuses for reserve
forces................................................. 297
Section 612. Extension of certain bonuses and special pay
for nurse officer candidates, registered nurses, and
nurse anesthetists..................................... 297
Section 613. Extension of authority relating to payment
of other bonuses and special pays...................... 297
Section 614. Increased special pay for dental officers of
the armed forces....................................... 297
Section 615. Retention special pay for Public Health
Service optometrists................................... 297
Section 616. Special pay for nonphysician health care
providers in the Public Health Service................. 298
Section 617. Foreign language proficiency pay for Public
Health Service and National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration officers................................ 298
Subtitle C--Travel and Transportation Allowances............. 298
Section 621. Round trip travel allowances for shipping
motor vehicles at government expense................... 298
Section 622. Option to store instead of transport a
privately-owned vehicle at the expense of the United
States................................................. 298
Section 623. Deferral of travel with travel and
transportation allowances in connection with leave
between consecutive overseas tours..................... 298
Section 624. Funding for transportation of household
effects of Public Health Service officers.............. 299
Subtitle D--Retired Pay, Survivor Benefits, and Related
Matters.................................................... 299
Section 631. Effective date for military retiree cost-of-
living adjustment for Fiscal Year 1998................. 299
Section 632. Allotment of retired or retainer pay........ 299
Section 633. Cost-of-living increases in SBP
contributions to be effective concurrently with payment
of related retired pay cost-of-living increases........ 299
Section 634. Annuities for certain military surviving
spouses................................................ 299
Section 635. Adjusted annual income limitation applicable
to eligibility for income supplement for certain widows
of members of the uniformed services................... 299
Subtitle E--Other Matters.................................... 300
Section 641. Reimbursement for adoption expenses incurred
in adoptions through private placements................ 300
Section 642. Waiver of recoupment of amounts withheld for
tax purposes from certain separation pay received by
involuntarily separated members and former members of
the armed forces....................................... 300
Other Items of Interest.................................. 300
Foreign Language Proficiency Pay Qualification....... 300
Special Duty Assignment Pay, Army Special Operations
personnel.......................................... 301
Title VII--Health Care Provisions................................ 303
Section 701. Implementation of requirement for Selected
Reserve dental insurance plan.......................... 303
Section 702. Dental insurance plan for military retirees
and certain dependents................................. 303
Section 703. Uniform Composite Health Care System
software............................................... 303
Section 704. Clarification of applicability of CHAMPUS
payment rules to private CHAMPUS providers for care
provided to enrollees in health care plans of uniformed
services treatment facilities.......................... 304
Section 705. Enhancement of third party collection and
secondary payer authorities under CHAMPUS.............. 304
Section 706. Codification of authority to credit CHAMPUS
collections to program accounts........................ 304
Section 707. Comptroller General review of health care
activities of the Department of Defense relating to
Persian Gulf Illnesses................................. 304
Other Items of Interest.................................. 305
Portability and reciprocity for TRICARE Prime
enrollees across regions........................... 305
Continuation of support for telemedicine initiatives. 306
Study of the extension of the Federal Employees
Health Benefits Program (FEHBP) option to military
retirees........................................... 306
Centers for Prisoners of War Studies................. 306
Dental readiness..................................... 307
Title VIII--Acquisition Policy, Acquisition Management, and
Related Matters................................................
Section 801. Procurement technical assistance programs... 309
Section 802. Extension of pilot mentor-protege program... 309
Section 803. Modification of authority to carry out
certain prototype projects............................. 309
Section 804. Revisions to the program for the assessment
of the national defense technology and industrial base. 309
Section 805. Procurements to be made from small arms
industrial base firms.................................. 310
Section 806. Exception to prohibition on procurement of
foreign goods.......................................... 310
Section 807. Treatment of Department of Defense cable
television franchise agreements........................ 310
Section 808. Remedies for reprisals against contractor
employee whistleblowers................................ 311
Section 809. Implementation of information technology
management reform...................................... 311
Other Items of Interest.................................. 312
Procurement goals for small business concerns owned
by women........................................... 312
Economy Act transfer regulatory implementation....... 313
Research projects: transactions other than contracts
and grants......................................... 313
Title IX--Department of Defense Organization and Management...... 315
Subtitle A--General Matters.................................. 315
Section 901. Repeal of reorganization of the Office of
the Secretary of Defense............................... 315
Section 902. Codification of requirements relating to
continued operation of the Uniformed Services
University of the Health Sciences...................... 315
Section 903. Codification of requirement for United
States Army Reserve Command............................ 316
Section 904. Transfer of authority to control
transportation systems in time of war.................. 316
Section 905. Executive oversight of defense human
intelligence personnel................................. 316
Section 906. Coordination of defense intelligence
programs and activities................................ 316
Section 907. Redesignation of Office of Naval Records and
History Fund and correction of related references...... 316
Subtitle B--National Imagery and Mapping Agency.............. 317
(Sections 911-934--Matters relating to National Imagery
and Mapping)........................................... 317
Title X--General Provisions...................................... 321
Subtitle A--Financial Matters................................ 321
Section 1003. Authorization of prior emergency
supplemental appropriations for fiscal year 1996....... 321
Section 1004. Use of funds transferred to the Coast Guard 321
Section 1005. Use of military-to-military contacts funds
for professional military education and training....... 321
Section 1006. Payment of certain expenses relating to
humanitarian and civic assistance...................... 321
Section 1007. Prohibition on expenditure of Department of
Defense funds by officials outside the department...... 322
Section 1008. Prohibition on use of funds for Office of
Naval Intelligence representation or related activities 322
Section 1009. Reimbursement of Department of Defense for
costs of disaster assistance provided outside the
United States.......................................... 322
Section 1010. Fisher House Trust Fund for the Navy....... 322
Section 1011. Designation and liability of disbursing and
certifying officials for the Coast Guard............... 323
Section 1012. Authority to suspend or terminate
collection actions against deceased members of the
Coast Guard............................................ 323
Section 1013. Check cashing and exchange transactions
with credit unions outside the United States........... 323
Subtitle B--Naval Vessels and Shipyards...................... 323
Section 1021. Authority to transfer naval vessels........ 323
Section 1022. Transfer of certain obsolete tugboats of
the Navy............................................... 324
Section 1023. Repeal of requirement for continuous
applicability of contracts for phased maintenance of AE
class ships............................................ 324
Section 1024. Contract options for LMSR vessels.......... 324
Subtitle C--Counter-Drug Activities..........................
(Sections 1031-1033--Drug interdiction and counterdrug
activities)............................................ 325
Subtitle D--Matters Relating to Foreign Countries............ 328
Section 1041. Agreements for exchange of defense
personnel between the United States and foreign
countries.............................................. 328
Section 1042. Authority for reciprocal exchange of
personnel between the United States and foreign
countries for flight training.......................... 329
Section 1043. Extension of counterproliferation
authorities............................................ 329
Subtitle E--Miscellaneous Reporting Requirements............. 329
Section 1051. Annual report on emerging operational
concepts............................................... 329
Section 1052. Annual joint warfighting science and
technology plan........................................ 329
Section 1053. Report on military readiness requirements
of the Armed Forces.................................... 330
Subtitle F--Other Matters.................................... 331
Section 1061. Uniform Code of Military Justice amendments 331
Section 1062. Limitation on retirement or dismantlement
of strategic nuclear delivery systems.................. 331
Section 1063. Correction of references to Department of
Defense organizations.................................. 332
Section 1064. Authority of certain members of the Armed
Forces to perform notarial or consular acts............ 332
Section 1065. Training of members of the uniformed
services at non-Government facilities.................. 332
Section 1066. Third-party liability to United States for
tortious infliction of injury or disease on members of
the uniformed services................................. 332
Section 1067. Display of State flags at installations and
facilities of the Department of Defense................ 332
Section 1068. George C Marshall European Center for
Strategic Security Studies............................. 333
Section 1069. Authority to award to civilian participants
in the defense of Pearl Harbor the congressional medal
previously authorized only for military participants in
the defense of Pearl Harbor............................ 333
Section 1070. Michael O'Callaghan Federal Hospital, Las
Vegas, Nevada.......................................... 333
Section 1071. Naming of building at the Uniformed
Services University of the Health Sciences............. 333
Other items of interest...................................... 333
Support for the Young Marines program................ 333
Support services at the Port of Haifa................ 334
U.S.-Asian military-to-military dialogue............. 334
Implementation of arms control agreements............ 335
Title XI--Department of Defense Civilian Personnel............... 337
Subtitle A--Personnel Management, Pay and, Allowances........ 337
Section 1101. Scope of requirement for conversion of
military positions to civilian positions............... 337
Section 1102. Retention of civilian employee positions at
military training bases transferred to National Guard.. 337
Section 1103. Clarification of limitation on furnishing
clothing or paying a uniform allowance to enlisted
National Guard technicians............................. 337
Section 1104. Travel expenses and health care for
civilian employees of the Department of Defense abroad. 337
Section 1105. Travel, transportation, and relocation
allowances for certain former nonappropriated fund
employees.............................................. 337
Section 1106. Employment and salary practices applicable
to Department of Defense overseas teachers............. 338
Section 1107. Employment and compensation of civilian
faculty members at certain Department of Defense
schools................................................ 338
Section 1108. Reimbursement of Department of Defense
domestic dependent school board members for certain
expenses............................................... 338
Section 1109. Extension of authority for civilian
employees of Department of Defense to participate
voluntarily in reductions in force..................... 338
Section 1110. Compensatory time off for overtime work
performed by wage-board employees...................... 338
Section 1111. Liquidation of restored annual leave that
remains unused upon transfer of employee from
installation being closed or realigned................. 338
Section 1112. Waiver of requirement for repayment of
voluntary separation incentive pay by former Department
of Defense employees reemployed by the Government
without pay............................................ 339
Section 1113. Federal holiday observance rules for
Department of Defense employees........................ 339
Section 1114. Revision of certain travel management
authorities............................................ 339
Subtitle B--Defense Economic Adjustment, Diversification,
Conversion, and Stabilization.............................. 339
Section 1121. Pilot programs for defense employees
converted to contractor employees due to privatization
at closed military installations....................... 339
Section 1122. Troops-to-teachers program improvements
applied to civilian personnel. (Refer to Section 572).. 341
Other Items of Interest.................................. 341
Flexible, compressed and alternative schedules....... 341
Authority to conduct civilian personnel demonstration
projects........................................... 341
Title XII--Federal Charter for the Fleet Reserve Association..... 343
(Sections 1201-1216--Matters relating to the Federal
Charter for the Fleet Reserve Association)............. 343
Division B--Military Construction Authorizations
Title XXV--North Atlantic Treaty Organization Security Investment
Program........................................................ 375
Section 2503. Redesignation of North Atlantic Treaty
Organization Infrastructure program........................ 375
Title XXVIII--General Provisions................................. 377
Subtitle A--Military Construction Program and Military Family
Housing Changes............................................ 377
Section 2801. Increase in certain thresholds for
unspecified minor construction projects................ 377
Section 2802. Clarification of authority to improve
military family housing................................ 377
Section 2803. Authority to grant easements for rights-of-
way.................................................... 377
Subtitle B--Defense Base Closure and Realignment............. 377
Section 2811. Restoration of authority under 1988 base
closure law to transfer property and facilities to
other entities in the Department of Defense............ 377
Section 2812. Disposition of proceeds from disposal of
commissary stores and nonappropriated fund
instrumentalities at installations being closed or
realigned.............................................. 378
Section 2813. Agreements for services at installations
after closure.......................................... 378
Subtitle C--Land Conveyances................................. 378
Section 2821. Transfer of lands, Arlington National
Cemetery, Arlington, Virginia.......................... 378
Section 2822. Land transfer, Potomac Annex, District of
Columbia............................................... 379
Section 2823. Land conveyance, Army Reserve Center,
Montpelier, Vermont.................................... 379
Section 2824. Land conveyance, former Naval Reserve
Facility, Lewes, Delaware.............................. 379
Section 2825. Land conveyance, Radar Bomb Scoring Site,
Belle Fourche, South Dakota............................ 379
Section 2826. Conveyance of primate research complex,
Holloman Air Force Base, New Mexico.................... 380
Section 2827. Demonstration project for installation and
operation of electric power distribution system at
Youngstown Air Reserve Station, Ohio................... 380
Other Items of Interest.................................. 381
Improvements to military family housing units, Army.. 381
Planning and design, Army............................ 381
Report on the Fort Lawton Joint Armed Forces Reserve
Center, Seattle, Washington........................ 381
Improvements to military family housing units, Navy.. 381
Planning and design, Navy............................ 381
Improvements to military family housing units, Air
Force.............................................. 381
Planning and design, Air Force Family Housing
Construction....................................... 382
Availability of funds for credit to Defense Military
Unaccompanied Housing Improvement Fund............. 382
Naval Air Station Sigonella.......................... 382
Report on the implementation of the Hawaiian Home
Lands Recovery Act................................. 382
Planning and design, Guard and Reserve forces
facilities......................................... 383
Division C--Department of Energy National Security Authorizations
and Other Authorizations
Title XXXI--Department of Energy National Security Programs...... 385
Subtitle A--National Security Programs Authorizations........ 403
Section 3101. Weapons activities......................... 403
Section 3102. Environmental restoration and waste
management............................................. 404
Section 3103. Other defense activities................... 405
Section 3104. Defense nuclear waste disposal............. 407
Subtitle C--Program Authorizations, Restrictions, and
Limitations................................................ 407
Section 3131. Tritium production......................... 407
Section 3132. Modernization and consolidation of tritium
recycling facilities................................... 408
Section 3133. Modification of requirements for
manufacturing infrastructure for refabrication and
certification of nuclear weapons stockpile............. 408
Section 3134. Limitation on use of funds for certain
research and development purposes...................... 408
Section 3135. Accelerated schedule for isolating high-
level nuclear waste at the Defense Waste Processing
Facility, Savannah River Site.......................... 409
Section 3136. Processing of high-level nuclear waste and
spent nuclear fuel rods................................ 409
Section 3137. Fellowship program for development of
skills critical to Department of Energy nuclear weapons
complex................................................ 410
Subtitle D--Other Matters.................................... 410
Section 3151. Requirement for annual five-year budget for
the national security programs of the Department of
Energy................................................. 410
Section 3152. Requirements for Department of Energy
weapons activities budgets for fiscal years after
fiscal year 1997....................................... 411
Section 3153. Repeal of requirement relating to
accounting procedures for Department of Energy funds... 411
Section 3154. Plans for activities to process nuclear
materials and clean up nuclear waste at the Savannah
River Site............................................. 411
Section 3155. Update of report on nuclear test readiness
postures............................................... 412
Section 3156. Reports on critical difficulties at nuclear
weapons laboratories and nuclear weapons production
plants................................................. 412
Section 3157. Extension of applicability of notice-and-
wait requirement regarding proposed cooperation
agreements............................................. 413
Section 3158. Redesignation of Defense Environmental
Restoration and Waste Management Program as Defense
Nuclear Waste Management Program....................... 413
Section 3159. Commission on Maintaining United States
Nuclear Weapons Expertise.............................. 413
Section 3160. Sense of Senate regarding reliability and
safety of remaining nuclear forces..................... 413
Other items of interest.................................. 414
Department of Energy work force reduction plan........... 414
Accelerating radioactive waste cleanup................... 415
Title XXXII--Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board............. 417
Section 3201. Authorization.............................. 417
Title XXXIII--National Defense Stockpile.........................
Section 3301. Authorized uses of stockpile funds......... 419
Title XXXIV--Naval Petroleum Reserves............................ 421
Title XXXV--Panama Canal Commission.............................. 423
Legislative Requirements..................................... 425
Departmental Recommendations................................. 425
Committee Action............................................. 425
Fiscal Data.................................................. 426
Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate.................... 428
Regulatory Impact............................................ 428
Changes in Existing Law...................................... 428
Additional views of Senator William S. Cohen................. 429
Additional views of Senator John McCain...................... 433
Additional views of Senator Bob Smith........................ 438
Additional views of Senator Carl Levin....................... 440
Additional views of Senator Edward M. Kennedy................ 448
Additional views of Senator John Glenn....................... 450
Additional views of Senator Joseph I. Lieberman.............. 454
104th Congress Report
SENATE
2d Session 104-267
_______________________________________________________________________
AUTHORIZING APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 1996 FOR MILITARY ACTIVITIES
OF THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, FOR MILITARY CONSTRUCTION, AND FOR
DEFENSE ACTIVITIES OF THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY, TO PRESCRIBE PERSONNEL
STRENGTHS FOR SUCH FISCAL YEAR FOR THE ARMED FORCES, AND FOR OTHER
PURPOSES
_______
May 13, 1996.--Ordered to be printed
_______________________________________________________________________
Mr. Thurmond, from the Committee on Armed Services, submitted the
following
R E P O R T
together with
ADDITIONAL VIEWS
[To accompany S. 1745]
The Committee on Armed Services reports favorably an
original bill to authorize appropriations during the fiscal
year 1997 for military activities of the Department of Defense,
for military construction, and for defense activities of the
Department of Energy, to prescribe personnel strengths for such
fiscal year for the armed forces, and for other purposes, and,
recommends that the bill do pass.
PURPOSE OF THE BILL
This bill would:
(1) authorize appropriations for (a) procurement, (b)
research, development, test and evaluation, (c)
operation and maintenance and the revolving and
management funds of the Department of Defense for
fiscal year 1997;
(2) authorize the personnel end strength for each
military active duty component of the armed forces for
fiscal year 1997;
(3) authorize the personnel end strengths for the
Selected Reserve of each of the reserve components of
the armed forces for fiscal year 1997;
(4) authorize the annual average military training
student loads for the active and reserve components of
the armed forces for fiscal year 1997;
(5) impose certain reporting requirements;
(6) impose certain limitations with regard to
specific procurement and RDT&E actions and manpower
strengths; provide certain additional legislative
authority, and make certain changes to existing law;
(7) authorize appropriations for military
construction programs of the Department of Defense for
fiscal year 1997; and
(8) authorize appropriations for national security
programs of the Department of Energy for fiscal year
1997.
Committee overview and recommendations
As the committee continued to carry out its legislative
responsibilities for the 104th Congress pursuant to the
Senate's rules and constitutional powers, the Chairman and the
Members established priorities to guide the committee through
the authorization process for fiscal year 1997.
National security is the federal government's first
obligation to its citizens. With this in mind, the committee's
top priority was to guarantee our national security and the
status of the United States as the world's preeminent military
power. Accordingly, the committee approved provisions which
provide for: an appropriate balance between near-term readiness
and long-term readiness through investments in modernization,
infrastructure and research; sufficient end-strengths at all
grade levels and policies supporting the recruitment and
retention of high quality personnel; fielding of the type and
quantity of weapons systems and equipment needed to fight and
win decisively with minimal risk to our troops; and ensuring an
adequate, safe and reliable nuclear weapons capability.
In order to improve the operation of the Department of
Defense (DOD), as well as to adhere to the expected committee
budget allocation, the committee sought to eliminate defense
spending that does not contribute directly to the national
security of the United States. Such efforts included reducing
DOD overhead and emphasizing successful demonstrations prior to
full-scale procurements. Savings were also realized by
accelerating programs, where appropriate, and by limiting new
program starts. Fiscal and national security concerns also
support the committee's ongoing effort to evaluate U.S.
involvement in non-traditional military operations, and its
impact on combat readiness, programming and budgeting,
personnel retention and our national interests.
As with last year, the committee worked to protect the
quality-of-life of our military personnel and their families.
Quality-of-life initiatives included provisions designed to
provide equitable pay and benefits to military personnel,
including a 3.0 percent pay raise to protect against inflation,
and the restoration of appropriate levels of funding for the
construction and maintenance of troop billets and military
family housing.
The committee also remained acutely concerned about
military readiness. In particular, the committee ensured that
U.S. armed forces remain the preeminent military force in the
world by funding a more robust, progressive modernization
effort aimed at providing the capabilities needed for future
requirements. The committee also directed efforts toward
enhancing the utilization and effectiveness of reserve
component forces; reducing the backlog in maintenance and
repair of equipment; providing funds for an appropriate
quantity and quality of training; enhancing infrastructure and
base operations programs; encouraging efforts by the services
to develop new operational capabilities based on emerging
technologies; and supporting efforts maintaining adequate
stocks of supplies, repair parts, fuel and ammunition.
Finally, and importantly, the committee sought to
accelerate development and deployment of missile defense
systems to protect U.S. and allied forces against the growing
threat of cruise and ballistic missiles. Accordingly, this bill
supports expeditious deployment of land- and sea-based theater
missile defense systems. The committee also makes clear that
the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty of 1972 does not apply
to the theater missile defense systems envisioned by the
committee.
The committee was disappointed by the administration's
budget request of $254.3 billion for defense spending in fiscal
year 1997. The administration's fiscal year 1997 budget request
was $18.6 billion less in real terms than the level enacted for
fiscal year 1996. Even after the committee added $12.9 billion
in additional authorization, the total authorized amount for
defense spending in fiscal year 1997 is $5.6 billion less in
real terms than defense spending in fiscal year 1996.
The committee has continually expressed its concerns about
the effects of decreasing levels of defense spending on our
armed forces. In real terms, the fiscal year 1997 defense
budget will be at its lowest level since 1950. History has
demonstrated that superpower status cannot be sustained
cheaply. Nor can it be sustained by budget requests which do
not provide for adequate modernization of our forces. The
administration's representations regarding future increases in
funding for modernization have been contradicted by its actual
budget requests; consequently, the administration's commitment
to modernization is met with increasing skepticism in the
Congress as well as by senior military leaders.
Decreases in defense spending are occurring at the same
time our military personnel are being asked to do more and
more. If defense funding levels do not increase, the committee
fears the increased operational and personnel tempos, coupled
with deteriorating readiness, may result in an exodus of high
quality, trained personnel and, ultimately, a military crises.
One aspect of the administration's budget request that the
committee found encouraging was that it included, for the first
time, a request for funds for ongoing contingency operations.
During the past three months, the committee worked in its
traditional bipartisan manner, placing the national security
interests of the United States and the safety of the American
people above other considerations. The National Defense
Authorization Bill for 1997 reflects a bipartisan approach to
these priorities, and provides a clear basis and direction for
U.S. national security policies and programs into the 21st
century.
Explanation of funding summary
The administration's budget request for the national
defense function of the federal budget for fiscal year 1997 was
$254.3 billion, of which $184.9 billion was for programs which
require specific funding authorization.
The committee's authorization recommendation is
substantially larger ($267.3 billion in budget authority) than
the amount requested. The primary reason for this difference is
that the committee authorized an additional $7.7 billion in
procurement and $3.7 billion in Research and Development.
The following table summarizes both the direct
authorizations and equivalent budget authority levels for
fiscal year 1997 defense programs. The columns relating to the
authorization request do not include funding for the following
items: military personnel funding; military construction
authorizations provided in prior years; and other small
portions of the defense budget that are not within the
jurisdiction of this committee or which do not require an
annual authorization. As explained above, funding for military
personnel is included in the amounts authorized by the
committee, but not in the total funding requested for
authorization.
Funding for all programs in the national defense function
is reflected in the columns relating to the budget authority
request and the total budget authority implication of the
authorizations in this bill. The committee recommends funding
for national defense programs totalling $267.3 billion in
budget authority, which is consistent with the fiscal year 1996
Budget Resolution, an increase of $12.9 billion above the
President's budget request.
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
DIVISION A--DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AUTHORIZATIONS
TITLE I--PROCUREMENT
The committee noted concerns over declining defense
procurement budgets in the report to accompany S.1026 (S. Rept.
104-112), and registered concern over the impact of deficient
procurement levels on long-term readiness. In hearings last
year, senior military leaders repeatedly expressed concerns
about the effects of sharply reduced procurement funding on
future modernization. Optimistically, they noted the
administration's plan to increase procurement modestly to $43.5
billion in fiscal year 1997.
However, when the budget request was announced for fiscal
year 1997, the decline in procurement spending continued. In
hearings on the fiscal year 1997 budget request witnesses
warned of the future effects of cutting modernization.
The committee views with concern the Department of
Defense's continuing trend of promising a better future while
reducing current resources. Since 1993, the administration has
forecast increased funds for procurement for the next year,
only to have the amount actually requested for procurement
decline again when the budget is submitted.
Admiral William Owens, then Vice Chairman of the Joint
Chiefs of Staff, when testifying on overall defense
procurement, described the situation as a ``crisis,'' and said,
``We've got to stop promising ourselves and start doing
something . . . .'' Senior military leaders willingly provided
detailed listings of equipment and resources needed by their
services, but not included in the administration request.
It is not hard to see why the uniformed services have to
resort to making up ``wish lists'' to equip their services: the
administration budget does not provide the resources to equip
the forces it says are needed. The defense budget is in its
twelfth straight year of decline. The procurement budget is at
its lowest level since 1950 with procurement accounts declining
72 percent since 1985. Armed Services Committee hearings have
confirmed a shared concern by the service secretaries and
chiefs that recapitalization of our forces has continued to be
projected further into the future with each succeeding budget
since 1993. However, when the committee acts to provide modest
modernization increases over the administration's ever
declining requests, concerns are expressed about additions for
which the Pentagon did not ask. Nothing could be farther from
reality; senior military leaders have repeatedly asked for
additional resources and the committee has included them in its
recommendation.
Last year the committee gave priority to buying basics,
investing to achieve savings, and investing in the future. This
year the committee has again adhered to this strategy. The
committee's emphasis on acquiring equipment in economic lots
and on efficient schedules is evident throughout this report.
Last year's authorization and appropriation bills were
repeatedly criticized for making additions not asked for by the
Pentagon. While the Department of Defense has not requested
additions to its own request, uniformed military leaders have.
Through testimony and in written requests, senior military
leaders have requested a variety of equipment and programs that
were left out of the budget request.
The committee recognizes its critical role in the Senate's
responsibilities under the Constitution set out in Article I,
Section Eight, ``to raise and support Armies, provide and
maintain a Navy, and make the rules for the government and
regulation of land and naval forces.'' The committee notes the
propriety of the Congress's decisions on appropriate force
structure, equipment, and policies for the armed services.
To provide for the common defense and national security,
the committee urges the Department to provide consistent
planning and budgeting for future defense requirements, so as
to deter possible adversaries and assure allies that the
administration and the Congress are both committed to providing
the resources necessary for America's strength, both now and in
the future.
Explanation of tables
The tables in this title display items requested by the
administration for fiscal year 1997 for which the committee
either increased or decreased the requested amounts. As in the
past, the administration may not exceed the amounts approved by
the committee (as set forth in the tables or if unchanged from
the administration request, as set forth in the Department of
Defense's budget justification documents) without a
reprogramming action in accordance with established procedures.
SUBTITLE A--AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS
Section 107. Chemical demilitarization program.
The budget request included $931.4 million for the chemical
agents and munitions destruction program for operation and
maintenance ($477.9 million), procurement ($273.6 million),
research and development ($48.3 million) and military
construction ($131.6 million).
The committee recommends an increase of $3.0 million to the
budget request for research and development to expedite and
accelerate the development and fielding of critical advanced
sensors that are part of the Army's mobile munitions assessment
system.
SUBTITLE B--ARMY PROGRAMS
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
Section 112. Army assistance for chemical demilitarization citizens
advisory commissions.
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 172 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 1993 to make it consistent with the reassignment of
program management. Currently, Section 172 of the Act directs
the Secretary of the Army to provide a representative from the
Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Installations,
Logistics, and Environment) to meet periodically with citizen
commissions to hear their concerns regarding the Army chemical
agents and munitions disposal program. Responsibility for this
program was reassigned last year to the Office of the Assistant
Secretary of the Army (Research, Development and Acquisition).
OTHER ARMY PROGRAMS
Army Aircraft
C-XX medium range aircraft
Last year the committee recommended an increase of $23.0
million for competitive procurement by the Army of four new
production C-XX turbofan aircraft, now designated UC-35A. The
committee has learned that the contract for the first two
aircraft was awarded in January of 1996 and that this contract
was funded by fiscal year 1995 funds. The Army has identified
the UC-35A as its highest priority fixed-wing program due to
the operational efficiencies derived from its modern design.
The committee also notes the savings achieved through the
competitive procurement of this aircraft.
Understanding the Army's requirement for a total of 35
aircraft, the committee recommends an increase of $35.0 million
for competitive procurement by the Army of eight production UC-
35A turbofan aircraft.
AH-64 Apache modifications
The budget request included $43.2 million to procure 30 of
the originally planned 38 upgrades to the Apache system. The
committee is concerned about potential program delays for the
Apache Longbow and remains committed to fielding this vital
system on schedule. The committee recommends an increase of
$75.0 million to restore the previous upgrade schedule.
CH-47 modifications
The budget request included $7.8 million to procure safety
and operational modifications for the CH-47 helicopter fleet.
The committee remains concerned about the heavy lift capability
for the Army and the ability of an aging fleet to perform this
critical mission. Over time, modifications to the existing CH-
47 airframe have added significant weight to the aircraft,
requiring an upgrade to the current engine configuration. It is
expected that the proposed T55-L-714 engine will increase
payload capability by up to 3900 pounds and greatly reduce
operation and maintenance costs over the life cycle of the new
engine. The committee recommends an increase of $52.3 million
to begin the upgrade process for the fleet.
AH-64D attack helicopter
The budget request included $373.9 million to procure
Longbow systems for the AH-64D Apache helicopter and associated
equipment. The committee notes the Army budget does not meet
outstanding requirements for Apache Longbow systems and
recommends an increase of $130.0 million to procure an
additional six new aircraft with training devices. The
committee directs the Army to consider future force
requirements and budget the resources necessary to procure
additional aircraft as soon as possible.
The committee is also concerned that only one Longbow crew
trainer will be procured through the current fiscal year 1997
budget. Recognizing the complex nature of the Longbow system,
it is imperative that organizations fielding this system have
access to these important training devices to ensure they are
capable of training the operators who must maintain these
critical systems.
The committee recommends an increase of $130.0 million to
procure six Longbow aircraft and an additional $53.0 million to
procure five training devices for two institutional training
facilities.
OH-58D Kiowa Warrior
The budget request included $9.1 million to complete
fielding of previously procured Kiowa Warrior systems. The
committee notes that budget decrements from fiscal year 1994
through fiscal year 1996 have left the Army unable to complete
the retrofit of 16 Kiowa Warrior helicopters and believes it
important that these final airframes be retrofitted and
returned to the field. Even with the completion of this
retrofit requirement, the Army will still be short of the
number of Kiowa Warrior systems needed to fill essential
warfighter requirements. The committee, therefore, recommends
$38.4 million to complete outstanding retrofit requirements and
an additional $120.0 million to procure an additional 15
aircraft, for a total of $167.5 million.
Aircraft survivability equipment
The budget request included $4.8 million to support
aircraft survivability enhancements. The committee supports
Army efforts to provide crew warning devices that alert pilots
when they have been illuminated by threat defense systems;
these devices reduce aircrew vulnerability in a hostile
environment. The committee recommends the following increases:
(1) $11.0 million to procure the AV/AVR-2A(V) laser
detecting sets needed to protect the attack aviation
fleet;
(2) $10.0 million to begin integrating radar
deception and jamming devices on Army aircraft in
fiscal year 1997; and
(3) $13.0 million to accelerate procurement of
installation kits for the advanced threat infrared
countermeasure for installation on the Longbow Apache
production line.
Army Missile
Javelin medium anti-tank weapon
The budget request included $162.1 million to procure 1,020
Javelin missiles. The committee is concerned about the recent
termination of the armored gun system (AS), the retirement of
the M551 Sheridan in fiscal year 1997, and the impact that
these decisions might have on early-entry forces. The
committee, therefore, supports the Army's proposal to
accelerate Javelin fielding to the 82nd Airborne Division in
order to provide these forces with an effective anti-armor
capability.
The committee also recognizes the importance of cost
savings and supports Army efforts to maximize the benefits of
multi-year contracting for the Javelin system, and supports
procurement funding to support achievement of an economic order
quantity (EOQ).
The committee recommends an increase of $5.7 million for
accelerated production and fielding of command launch units and
$34.0 million in procurement funding for EOQ for a total of
$201.8 million.
Multiple Launch Rocket System rocket
The budget request included $24.4 million to procure 852
extended range rockets. The committee is concerned about the
production dip in fiscal year 1997 and believes sufficient
funding should be provided to maintain production stability.
The committee recommends an additional $17.0 million in fiscal
year 1997 in order to maintain a stable production rate and
procure additional rockets.
Multiple Launch Rocket System (MLRS) launcher
The budget request included $38.0 million for program
support to fielded launchers. The committee supports the effort
to apply lessons learned from Operation Desert Storm and notes
an Army Science Board study that recommended the addition of
one MLRS firing battery of launchers for each heavy division.
The committee believes that this restructuring should begin as
soon as possible and recommends an increase of $110.0 million
to initiate this process in 1997 and procure four batteries of
the six required. The Army is directed to provide resources for
the remaining batteries in the fiscal year 1998 budget.
The committee continues to support Army National Guard
(ARNG) efforts to convert artillery battalions to MLRS
configuration and understands that an additional $37.0 million
would refurbish four additional batteries of launchers (36)
which could be used to support ARNG modernization.
Army Tactical Missile System (ATACMS)
The budget request included $92.8 million to procure 97
missiles with spares. The committee supports the Army effort to
begin a multiyear procurement for the Block 1A version of the
missile in fiscal year 1998 if funding for economic order
quantity (EOQ) can be obtained. The multiyear contract would
reduce program costs by $63.0 million with a corresponding
reduction of $100,000 per missile (10 percent) for those
missiles procured in fiscal year 1998 and beyond.
The committee recommends an increase of $69.0 million for
EOQ procurement in fiscal year 1997 for a total of $161.8
million.
Patriot modifications
The budget request included $11.5 million to support
fielding of anticipated materiel changes to the Patriot weapon
system. The committee recognizes critical lessons learned
during recent technology demonstrations that highlighted the
benefits of digitizing the maintenance portion of battlefield
operations. Future Patriot development activities provide the
opportunity to develop and insert hardware that would support
the fielding of an integrated diagnostic support system (IDSS).
The committee is encouraged to note that insertion of IDSS into
future Patriot modifications could result in $8.5 million in
annual savings and would greatly reduce the need for an
intermediate level of maintenance.
The committee recommends an increase of $12.0 million for
IDSS development and hardware procurement for a total of $23.5
million.
Stinger missile modifications
The budget request included $16.9 million for missile
hardware and software modifications. The committee notes that
while the Block I retrofit program is fully funded, the
modification pace does not provide an economic production rate
that could reduce retrofit costs by $2,200 per unit. The
committee also understands that there is an outstanding
requirement to modify computer chip modules in gripstocks and
circuit cards in fielded missiles in order to capitalize on
improvements in accuracy and performance.
The committee recommends an increase of $7.0 million to
increase the production rate to an economic level and $15.8
million to support production and installation of new modules
in Force Package 1 and 2 platforms for a total of $39.7
million.
Avenger modifications
The budget request included no funding for Avenger
modifications in fiscal year 1997. The committee notes that in
fiscal year 1998, the Army will begin funding a slew-to-cue
(STC) modification to the Avenger system that will increase the
overall system effectiveness by 55 percent and will make the
system more survivable. By investing in the STC modification in
fiscal year 1997, the Department of Defense will save
approximately $9.0 million in overall funding.
The committee recommends an increase of $29.0 million for
fiscal year 1997.
TOW modifications
The budget request included no funding for tube launched,
optically tracked, wire guided (TOW) missile modifications in
fiscal year 1997. The committee notes that a low-rate initial
production decision is scheduled for June, 1996 for the
improved target acquisition system (ITAS) associated with the
TOW system. Correspondingly, an acceleration of the ITAS buy
with procurement funds in fiscal year 1997 could result in
approximately $4.0 million in inflation savings for this
activity.
The committee also recognizes and supports the requirement
to maintain a continuous source of training missiles and
believes that by using a modification of out-of-production
missiles in lieu of procuring new training rounds, the
Department of Defense can save precious resources.
The committee recommends an additional $26.0 million to
accelerate the ITAS buy (for 45 ITAS units), and an additional
$7.0 million to procure and install modification kits to
support training activities, for a total of $33.0 million.
Dragon missile
The budget request included $3.2 million to support
fabrication and application of safety circuits in Dragon
missiles. The Army budget only supports the modification of
3,722 Dragon training missiles. The committee is very concerned
about soldier safety and the ability of National Guard forces
to deploy with viable organic weapon systems. Additionally, the
committee understands that significant work has been
accomplished to date towards increasing system lethality. The
committee understands that development work can be completed
for a modest investment this fiscal year and supports that
effort. The committee, therefore, recommends an increase of
$25.0 million for a total of $28.2 million to complete required
modifications.
Weapons and Tracked Combat Vehicles
Bradley Fighting Vehicle
The budget request included $134.4 million for the Bradley
base sustainment program. The committee notes the budget
request supports the procurement of the first low-rate initial
production models of the A3 version of the Bradley Fighting
Vehicle (BFV). Recognizing the enhanced capabilities of the A3
model as well as the benefit of achieving the low rate initial
production requirement faster, the committee recommends an
increase of $57.2 million to procure an additional 18 vehicles.
The committee also recommends an increase of $35.5 million
to complete a buy of reactive armor tiles for BFV in sufficient
quantity to outfit a brigade combat team and to establish a
domestic production capability.
The committee, therefore, recommends a total of $227.1
million for the BFV.
Field artillery ammunition support vehicle (FAASV)
The budget request included $34.4 million to procure FAASV
systems. The committee believes it is important to support the
fielding of complete Paladin artillery systems to the National
Guard and, therefore, understands the requirement to procure an
additional 36 FAASV systems to be available to support National
Guard modernization fielding activities. The committee
recommends an increase of $50.8 million to procure 36 FAASV
systems that would be available to support fielding of two
complete battalion sets to the Army National Guard.
Carrier modifications (M113)
The budget request included $23.0 million to continue
modernization of the M113 armored personnel carrier family of
vehicles. The committee continues to support steady funding for
this critical upgrade program and recommends an increase of
$20.0 million.
M109A6 Paladin
The budget request included $75.0 million for M109A6
Paladin systems. The committee is aware of Army studies that
conclude the artillery mission is well-suited for Army National
Guard units and continues to be concerned with the rate of
modernization of National Guard artillery battalions. The
committee, therefore, recommends an increase of $61.2 million
to procure 36 additional Paladin systems that would be
available for Army National Guard requirements.
Field artillery ammunition supply vehicle (FAASV) product improvement
program (PIP) to fleet
The budget request included $4.7 million to modify FAASV
systems with upgraded equipment. One element of the modernized
Paladin/FAASV system that has not been funded is the vehicle
intercom system for FAASV. The committee understands that an
enhanced digital intercom system modification has been made on
the Paladin production line with no corresponding modification
for FAASV production efforts. This has resulted in incompatible
headset connectors between the Paladin system and the
associated FAASV vehicle. The committee recommends an increase
of $2.0 million to begin the process of providing for
commonality between these two systems.
Improved Recovery Vehicle
The budget request included $28.6 million to procure 12
M88A1E1 Hercules recovery vehicles. The committee understands
the importance of procuring these vehicles as soon as possible
because the older M88A1 lacks necessary horsepower and braking
to safely support recovery of the Abrams main battle tank.
Additionally, current procurement rates do not provide for the
best economic quantity order which would be realized at 36 per
year and would achieve savings of 15 percent per vehicle. The
committee recommends an increase of $50.1 million to provide
resources necessary to procure 36 vehicles in fiscal year 1997
and an additional $1.0 million for associated spares and repair
parts.
M1 Abrams tank (modifications)
The budget request included $50.2 million to procure
modification kits for the M1 Abrams tank to improve lethality,
survivability, and safety. The committee is concerned about
operation and maintenance costs for the Abrams fleet and has
noted the successful application of external auxiliary power
units (EAPU) in reducing the requirement for main engine idling
during defensive operations. Demand for the EAPU by soldiers in
Bosnia is a significant endorsement for this modification.
Additionally, the committee notes progress toward
correcting an established Operation Desert Storm deficiency
with the air filtration system on the Abrams. Recognizing the
enhancement made by installing the pulse-jet air system (PJAS)
to the combat capability of a unit, the committee supports an
acceleration of procurement for these devices.
The committee recommends an increase of $28.5 million to
procure 1,000 EAPU's and 100 additional PJAS systems for a
total of $78.7 million. The Army is encouraged to ensure future
year funding is provided to complete the modifications required
for the Abrams fleet.
Small arms programs
In fiscal year 1994, the committee expressed concerns with
the overall status of the small arms industrial base. At that
time, the committee directed the Secretary of the Army to
establish a panel, under the auspices of the Army Science
Board, to develop a viable plan to preserve critical elements
of the small arms industrial base. The panel identified several
ways to preserve this base at minimal cost and recommended
production of modest quantities of selected arms. In fiscal
years 1995 and 1996, the committee again stated its support for
the thrust of the panel's recommendations and provided
additional funding to support small arms procurement. It has
become evident that as procurement funding continues to decline
for small arms, the Army must look to other recommendations
made by the panel if the small arms base is to remain viable.
Thus, the committee directs the Secretary of the Army to review
the original recommendations of the panel and take immediate
steps to implement those actions that support sustainment of
this critical production base. The committee also recommends
increases for fiscal year 1997 for the following programs:
$20.0 million to begin procurement of the M240 medium machine
gun; $0.9 million to maintain an economical production rate of
the M4 carbine; $1.0 million to maintain a stable production
rate for the M16 assault rifle and approximately 2,000
additional weapons; $1.0 million to maintain a stable
production rate and approximately 384 additional M249 squad
automatic weapons; $28.9 million to meet Army requirements and
maintain stable production rate for the MK19 automatic grenade
launcher.
Army Ammunition
The committee is concerned with the inadequate funding for
ammunition that was contained in the President's budget
request. Ammunition is an important contributor to military
readiness, for training and in anticipation of conflict. The
committee recommends the following adjustments to the budget
request for Army ammunition procurement:
Item:
Small Arms: $ millions
5.56 mm............................................... 1.3
7.62 mm............................................... 2.1
9 mm.................................................. 3.0
20 mm................................................. 0.3
25 mm................................................. 50.0
30 mm................................................. 15.0
Mortar:
60 mm HE, M720........................................ 12.5
60 mm Illum, M721/M767................................ 7.0
Tank:
120 mm APFSDS-T M829A2................................ 12.0
120 mm HEAT-MP-T M830A1............................... 45.0
120 mm TP-T M831/M831A1............................... 2.4
120 mm TPCSDS-T M865.................................. 3.2
Artillery:
Proj Arty 155MM HE M795............................... 55.0
Proj Arty 155MM SADARM M898........................... 33.5
Other:
Selectable Lightweight Attack Munitions............... 3.0
Production Base:
Armament Retooling & Manufacturing Spt................ 58.0
--------------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total............................................... 303.3
Armament retooling and manufacturing support (ARMS)
The committee authorizes $58.0 million for the continued
operation of the Armament Retooling and Manufacturing Support
(ARMS) program. The committee expects these funds to be
utilized in the most effective manner to ensure preservation of
those facilities most likely to be required to fulfill the
military's needs to support the national military strategy.
Accordingly, the committee directs the Army to prioritize
facility reutilization and provide the committee with a report
addressing the Army's efforts to preserve ammunition facilities
in the most efficient manner by January 1, 1997. The report
should also address the amount of cost savings that have been
achieved to date by those facilities receiving ARMS funding.
Other Army Procurement
High mobility multipurpose wheeled vehicle (HMMWV)
The budget request included $96.785 million to procure
1,126 HMMWV's. This number reflects a significant reduction
from previous years, despite the fact that there remains a
valid requirement for these vehicles. The committee understands
that the minimum sustaining rate to maintain a viable supply of
required vehicles is not achieved by the current budget
request.
Additionally, the committee is concerned about the number
of up-armored HMMWV's (UAHMMWV) being produced. In light of
lessons learned in Bosnia and recognizing the importance of
force protection, the committee believes that more UAHMMWV's
should be procured. In order to meet the needs of the military
services and maintain industrial production capacity at a
minimum level, the committee recommends an increase of $41.0
million to support the production base, a total of 2,350
vehicles, and an additional $25.0 million to procure an
additional 233 UAHMMWV's, a total procurement of 360 in fiscal
year 1997.
Family of medium tactical vehicles (FMTV)
The budget request included $233.1 million to procure 1,603
trucks based on a common chassis but varied by payload and
mission. The committee is pleased to see the Army placing
necessary resources to meet the requirements for the medium
truck fleet. Despite the increase in truck procurement, there
is still a shortfall in funding for required tarp and bow kits
to support the initial fielding of the FMTV system. The
committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million to procure the
kits necessary to support the fielding plan.
Family of heavy tactical vehicles (FHTV)
The budget request included $163.3 million to procure
vehicles necessary to support modern and highly mobile combat
units. The committee recognizes that equipment, over time, has
become heavier and mobility continues to be a key to success on
the battlefield. While the Army has placed more resources into
improving capabilities in the heavy lift area, it still is a
function that needs improvement. The committee recommends
increases in the family of heavy tactical vehicles budget line
for the following components of the heavy vehicle fleet: $40.0
million for 80 additional heavy equipment transporters that are
necessary for the activation of new transportation units; $50.0
million to buy 167 palletized load systems which can be used to
support three truck units in the Army National Guard; and $33.0
million for 126 heavy expanded mobility tactical trucks to meet
all Force Package 1 requirements.
Enhanced position location reporting system (EPLRS)
The budget request included $50.5 million to procure this
critical battlefield system. The EPLRS provides real-time data
distribution and serves to enhance situational awareness. The
committee believes that EPLRS enhances combat power and reduces
risk. The committee recommends an increase of $20.0 million to
procure 485 additional EPLRS units with installation kits, for
a total procurement in fiscal year 1997 of 1285 systems.
SINCGARS family
The budget request included $297.5 million to procure
25,616 ground radios, 593 airborne radios, and 13,405 data
transfer devices. The committee is pleased to note the funding
request was raised to complete the accelerated buyout of single
channel ground and airborne radio system (SINCGARS) radios. The
committee understands that some prior year funding has been
withdrawn by the Department of Defense due to internal budget
decisions. These reductions have had an adverse impact on the
fielding schedule. The committee believes the original schedule
should be maintained and is encouraged to note that an
investment of an additional $30.0 million would procure
approximately 4,500 radios and save $10.0 million.
Also of interest to the committee is the outstanding
requirement to upgrade existing aircraft platforms with
modification kits required to install new radios.
The committee therefore recommends the following increases:
$30.0 million to procure an additional 4,500 ground-based
radios and $13.3 million to procure the kits for installing
SINCGARS in aircraft and complete required modifications.
These increases result in a total of $340.8 million for
fiscal year 1997.
Army communications
The Army continues to modernize the area common user system
(ACUS) and to transition to the warfighter information network
(WIN) to capitalize on advances made in information technology.
WIN is the number one command, control, communications, and
computer item being addressed in the Army Program Objective
Memorandum (POM) for fiscal years 1998-2004, and has received
funding increases in recent years. The committee understands
that a shortfall exists to continue this work in fiscal year
1997 and believes it is important to continue this work. The
committee recommends an increase of $40.0 million to develop
tactical communications systems further and transition to the
WIN modernization effort.
All source analysis system (ASAS)
The budget request included $12.3 million to replace
selected, aging Block 1 workstations and to support
digitization efforts. The committee recognizes the value to
force capabilities by fielding ASAS workstations to tactical
echelons below division level. The committee recommends an
increase of $9.7 million to field workstations to maneuver
brigade and battalion warfighters.
The committee has also noted with great interest the work
completed by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency
(DARPA) in developing the first operational prototype of an
intelligence fusion system known as the integrated battlespace
intelligence server, or IBIS. This meritorious work would
support Army efforts associated with ASAS. The committee
directs that this work be integrated into the Army effort and
recommends an increase of $2.0 million for PE 604321A to
support technological transfer requirements.
Forward area air defense (FAAD) ground based sensor
The budget request included $51.2 million to procure 16 key
radar-based sensors for forward deployed Army units. The
forward area air defense sensor serves to acquire targets and
alert forces of the proximity of fixed wing aircraft, rotary
wing aircraft, unmanned aerial vehicles and cruise missiles.
The committee is aware that the current production rate is at
an uneconomical level and prevents this key force protection
device from reaching the field as soon as required. As a
result, the committee recommends an increase of $29.2 million
to allow the program to procure a total of 36 systems with a
per unit saving of $900,000.
Night vision devices
The committee is encouraged by the increased attention
given this critical area. The budget request for fiscal year
1997 included $111.9 million to continue developing and
fielding critical night vision devices that will allow the Army
to ``own the night'' and to field systems to core contingency
operations forces. The committee is convinced that these
devices will increase battlefield effectiveness and lethality,
reduce the risk to our soldiers, and supports an aggressive
fielding effort. Therefore, the committee recommends the
following increases: $50.0 million to fill the requirement for
approximately 1,000 thermal weapon sights (TWS) for Special
Operations Forces (SOF); $50.0 million to procure approximately
7,500 night vision goggles (NVG) for critical combat units in
the SOF and other light units; $9.1 million for aiming lights,
including $4.1 million to procure 19,260 AN/PAQ-4B&4C aiming
lights to fill the modified infantry basis of issue plan and
upgrade existing lights, and $5.0 million to procure 5,100 AN/
PEQ-2 illuminator/aiming lights for the Army and 2,500 devices
for the Marine Corps; and $25.0 million for initial spares and
facilitization of total package fielding for these devices.
The committee encourages the Army to continue research and
development in this area to ensure the force is well equipped
to fight and win at night.
Advanced field artillery tactical data system (AFATDS)
The budget request included $31.6 million to continue
fielding of the AFATDS system to high priority units. The
committee has been advised that the successful use of this
equipment has resulted in a new requirement to field the
battlefield coordination element (BCE) at each corps
headquarters. The BCE will provide an interface capability at
echelons above corps that gives commanders the capability to
orchestrate the deep battle and interface with the fighting
corps/division. The committee recommends an increase of $3.5
million to procure the equipment necessary to ensure that the
fielding of active Army units is completed by fiscal year 2002,
as originally scheduled.
Total distribution system
The budget request included $19.7 million to field
equipment supporting Army logistical requirements to
distribute, track, and account for supplies and equipment in
peace and in war. The committee supports the timely fielding of
this equipment and notes the corresponding increase in
efficiency and cost savings in managing inventory. This program
will enhance logistics operations and should be fielded
throughout the Army as soon as practicable. The committee
recommends an increase of $6.0 million to procure the necessary
equipment to support fielding requirements.
Standard integrated command post system
The budget request included $26.3 million to procure tents,
shelters and kits for command post systems. However, the
committee understands that there is a significant shortfall in
procuring necessary shelters to house command and control
systems that are being fielded. Recognizing the importance of
fielding modernized systems as soon as possible, it is clear
that this shortfall must be addressed. The committee,
therefore, recommends an increase of $12.7 million to buy the
shelters required through fiscal year 1997 and to ensure that
fieldings can occur on schedule.
Inland petroleum distribution system
The committee recognizes the importance of improving
capabilities of Army logistical systems to support deployment
requirements. The committee believes the inland petroleum
distribution system will provide a vital resource to a deployed
force and recommends an increase of $60.0 million to procure
the equipment required for this system.
Construction equipment, items less than $2.0 million
The committee continues to support efforts to modernize the
equipment associated with engineer organizations to allow these
units to perform critical engineer support functions. One of
the less glamorous areas that frequently falls short in the
prioritization process is heavy equipment. The committee notes
an outstanding Army requirement for 20-ton dump trucks and
recommends an increase of $60.0 million to procure 300
vehicles.
Base level communications equipment
The committee is concerned to note that base communications
facilities have not received the modernization resources
required to support existing requirements. The committee
recommends an increase of $27.0 million to begin modernization
of base level communications equipment.
SUBTITLE C--NAVY PROGRAMS
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
Section--121. EA-6B aircraft reactive jammer program.
The committee last year recommended an addition to the
budget request of $216.0 million to ensure the Department of
Defense (DOD) had the resources to update badly outdated and
increasingly important electronic warfare aircraft. The
committee's recommendation would have dealt with immediate
needs and would have begun a modest program to provide low cost
reactive jamming capability.
The committee understands the Department has initiated
various projects to halt the deterioration of some of the
aircraft and return others to service. However, the Department
has informed the committee of its intention to delay
development of new receivers or a reactive jamming capability
until fiscal year 1999. In view of the resources applied by the
Congress to this program in the fiscal year 1996 budget, the
committee finds such an approach difficult to understand.
In the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
1996, the conferees noted the inconsistent nature of the Navy's
actions regarding tactical electronic warfare (EW) in recent
years and voiced deep concern with the Navy's vacillating
commitment and support for meaningful upgrades for the EA-6B
aircraft. In the statement of managers accompanying the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996 (H.
Rept. 104-450), the conferees directed the Secretary of the
Navy to:
(1) initiate the EA-6B modifications identified in
the report; and
(2) provide the congressional defense committees
with:
(a) a program and budget plan for completing
the directed modifications;
(b) the Joint Tactical Airborne EW Study
(JTAEWS).
The conferees prohibited the Department from obligating
more than 75 percent of the procurement funds for F/A-18
aircraft until the Department complied with this guidance.
EA-6B aircraft reactive jammer program
Although funds were authorized and appropriated for fiscal
year 1996 to initiate a reactive jammer program for the EA-6B,
the Department of Defense chose not to initiate such a program,
and elected instead to program funds for such an effort from
fiscal year 1999 to fiscal year 2001.
The committee finds these actions of ignoring congressional
direction and refusing to start a modest reactive jamming
program unacceptable. The EA-6B is currently using obsolete
receivers with technology from the 1960s. The EA-6B is
scheduled to be the only airborne standoff jamming capability
within DOD. Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of
$55.0 million in PE 060427N to begin at once a program to
develop and field a reactive jamming capability in the EA-6B.
It appears to the committee that the Department of the Navy
intends to abide by the letter, but not the spirit of the law,
particularly regarding reactive jamming capability. The
committee received the report required by the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996 simultaneous with the
deadline for obligating the funds for the F/A-18 program. This
action leads the committee to believe that the language dealing
with this and other important programs will have to be more
detailed and explicit. Therefore, the committee feels compelled
to recommend a provision that would require the Secretary to:
(1) certify obligation of funds for a reactive jamming program;
and (2) submit a plan for a complete program to the
congressional defense committees before obligation of any funds
for other recommended increases the EA-6B program. The
provision would also provide that all additional funds listed
below be transferred to the Air Force for upgrading and
operating EF-111 aircraft, if such certification is not made by
June 1, 1997.
The committee notes that the General Accounting Office
published a recent report, ``Combat Air Power--Funding Priority
for Suppression of Enemy Air Defenses May Be Too Low'' (GAO-
NSIAD-96-128). That report concludes, ``DoD's planned actions
in the next few years will have a negative impact on SEAD
[suppression of enemy air defenses] and may need to be reversed
in the future, at much greater expense and effort.'' The report
further suggests that, ``DoD, prior to retiring the F-4G and
the EF-111, reassess the relative funding priority of SEAD and
other elements of combat air power based on their war-fighting
and peacetime contributions''. The committee agrees that the
Secretary of Defense should postpone the retirement of the EF-
111 until the Department reassesses these funding priorities.
Band 9/10 ECM transmitters
Last year, the committee recommended an increase to begin
procurement of a robust band 9/10 capability upgrade for the
EA-6B fleet. The band 9/10 jammer has been identified as among
the most immediate of available upgrades. The committee
understands that the Navy could acquire up to 49 additional
band 9/10 jammers by exercising options on an existing
contract. Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of
$40.0 million to acquire as many band 9/10 jammer pods as can
be secured by exercising existing options.
USQ-113 communications jammer
The committee recommends an addition of $11.0 million to
acquire an additional 24 units of the USQ-113 communications
jammer.
Universal exciter upgrade
In order to operate the EA-6B weapon system effectively in
the modern electronic warfare battlefield, the Navy should
incorporate sophisticated waveform generators in the aircraft.
Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $10.0
million in PE 060427N to perform laboratory and field tests to
develop the required techniques.
Overhead connectivity
EA-6B flight crews are using laptop computers to obtain and
process data necessary to conduct operational missions. The
committee understands that this approach has been successful in
increasing operators' situational awareness to date. The
committee encourages innovative approaches to problem solving
and the use of prototype units. Accordingly, the committee
recommends an increase of $22.0 million to extend the
connectivity capability to more fleet assets.
A summary of recommended increases and their references is
provided below:
AIRBORNE ELECTRONIC WARFARE FUNDING
[Dollars in millions]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Budget Request Change Total Reference
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Procurement:
Band 9/10........................ ....................... 40.0 $40.0 APN line 19
OSIP 19-79
USQ-113.......................... ....................... 11.0 11.0 APN line 19
OSIP 32-85
Overhead connectivity............ ....................... 22.0 22.0 APN line 19
OSIP 32-85
Research & Development:
Reactive jamming initiative...... ....................... 55.0 55.0 RDT&E, Navy
PE 060427N
Universal exciter upgrade........ ....................... 10.0 10.0 RDT&E, Navy
PE 060427N
---------------------------
Total.......................... ....................... ........ $138.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 122. Penguin missile program.
The budget request contained no funding for the procurement
of Penguin anti-ship missiles for carriage aboard battle group
helicopters.
The SH-60B and SH-60F helicopters that operate from the
fleet's ships were built to conduct antisubmarine warfare.
Operation Desert Storm and contingency operations have
identified the need to equip these helicopters with an
antisurface capability that would permit them to conduct a
stand-off engagement of enemy ships. To address this
operational shortfall, the Navy signed, in 1990, a multi-year
contract with options to purchase up to a quantity of 193
Penguin missiles. The basic contract and three of five options
were exercised to purchase 101 missiles, leaving a shortfall of
92. The remaining two options were not exercised because of
affordability constraints in a period of declining resources.
Exercise firings since procurement was terminated have raised
the current shortfall to 106 missiles.
The committee has been informed that the contractor has
recently offered the Navy an opportunity to satisfy its
outstanding requirement through a multi-year procurement at
about 55 percent of the unit cost of the initial procurement.
To take full advantage of an opportunity to meet an
outstanding requirement for air to surface missiles at a far
more affordable price, the committee recommends a provision
that would permit the Navy to enter into a contract for multi-
year procurement of not more than 106 Penguin missiles, in
accordance with section 2306b of title 10, United States Code.
The total amount that could be expended would be limited to
$84.8 million.
Section 123. Nuclear attack submarine programs.
The budget request included $296.2 million of advance
construction and procurement funding for a fiscal year 1998
nuclear attack submarine and $699.1 million for procurement of
the third Seawolf class submarine, SSN-23. It included no
advance construction and procurement funding for the
procurement of a second nuclear attack submarine in fiscal year
1999, as called for in the National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 1996 and the Navy's six year shipbuilding plan,
submitted in conjunction with the budget request.
In fiscal year 1996, Congress authorized and appropriated
$100.0 million for advance construction and procurement of a
nuclear attack submarine in fiscal year 1999. This funding was
in consonance with a plan for competition for the future
procurement of nuclear attack submarines that was contained in
the Senate bill S. 1026 (S. Rept. 104-112). During the ensuing
fiscal year 1996 conference with the House National Security
Committee, administration representatives expressed support for
the Senate's plan for future competition. However, the budget
request did not contain the funding necessary to implement it.
This omission has raised serious concerns in the committee's
mind about the commitment of the administration to its
previously expressed support for competitive procurement of
future nuclear attack submarines.
While full implementation of the report, Report on Nuclear
Attack Submarine Procurement and Submarine Technology,
submitted by the Secretary of Defense on March 26, 1996, will
clearly be the subject of future interaction between the
Department and Congress, it is the committee's view that the
administration made an unambiguous commitment last year to
construction of a nuclear attack submarine at Newport News
Shipbuilding in fiscal year 1999. The funding proposed in the
budget request would imply otherwise. The committee's
recommendation regarding the future procurement of nuclear
attack submarines is designed to clarify the situation.
For future procurement of nuclear attack submarines, the
committee recommends a provision that would:
(1) authorize $804.1 million for continued construction of
SSN-23 to satisfy the budget request of $699.1 million and also
accelerate the last increment of $105.0 million for SSN-23 from
fiscal year 1998 to fiscal year 1997;
(2) authorize $296.2 million for long-lead and advance
construction and procurement of a nuclear attack submarine that
would be built at Electric Boat, commencing in fiscal year
1998;
(3) authorize $701.0 million for advance construction and
procurement for a nuclear attack submarine that would be built
at Newport News Shipbuilding, commencing in fiscal year 1999 to
satisfy all known long-lead requirements for this submarine;
(4) stipulate that the obligation and expenditure of fiscal
year 1997 funds for the fiscal year 1998 and 1999 submarines
shall be in accordance with a memorandum of agreement among the
Department of the Navy, Newport News Shipbuilding, and Electric
Boat, dated April 5, 1996, relating to design data transfer,
design improvements, integrated process teams, updated design
data base, and other research and development initiatives
related to the design of these submarines;
(5) direct that the Secretary of the Navy may enter into
contracts with Electric Boat for the fiscal year 1998 submarine
only if he also enters into contracts with Newport News
Shipbuilding for the fiscal year 1999 submarine;
(6) limit the amount of funds authorized in fiscal year
1997 that can be obligated or expended on SSN-23, the fiscal
year 1998 submarine, or the fiscal year 1999 submarine to a
total of not more than $100.0 million until the Secretary of
Defense makes written certification to Congress of his
intention to comply with the plan for future competition for
procurement of nuclear attack submarines pursuant to the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996; and
(7) limit the amount of funds authorized in fiscal year
1997 that can be obligated or expended on SSN-23, the fiscal
year 1998 submarine, or the fiscal year 1999 submarine to a
total of $100.0 million until the Under Secretary of Defense
for Acquisition and Technology submits a report in writing to
Congress detailing:
(a) his oversight activities as of the date of such
report and his future plans for development and
improvement of the Department of the Navy's nuclear
attack submarine program;
(b) the implementation of, and activities under, the
advanced submarine technology program required to be
established by the Director of the Defense Advanced
Research Projects Agency (DARPA) by section 131(i) of
the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
1996; and
(c) a description of all research, development, test
and evaluation programs, and other projects within the
Department of Defense that are designed to or could, in
the opinion of the Under Secretary, contribute to the
development and demonstration of advanced submarine
technologies that could lead to a more affordable, more
capable submarine, and include a discussion of plans
for the future involvement of the two shipyards that
are responsible for the construction of nuclear attack
submarines.
Authorization, in fiscal year 1997, of the funding levels
contained in the committee's recommended provision will permit
the Navy to order components for the fiscal year 1998 and 1999
submarines in economic quantities and facilitate the transfer
of design information from Electric Boat to Newport News
Shipbuilding. According to the Navy, the new design-build
process being used by the Navy and Electric Boat for the new
attack submarine will accelerate completion of its detailed
design to a level never achieved for other classes when the
contract for the lead submarine, the fiscal year 1998 boat, is
awarded. Timely advance procurement and construction funding at
the level recommended for the fiscal year 1999 submarine should
eliminate much of the schedule and cost risk that could have
been expected for a first follow-ship under previous design
practice.
Section 124. Arleigh Burke class destroyer program.
The budget request includes $3,384.1 million for the
procurement of four Arleigh Burke class destroyers and advance
procurement for future destroyers of this class.
During hearings associated with the budget request, the
committee has learned that the Navy's request for Arleigh Burke
class destroyers was developed in an effort to comply with a
provision in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 1996 that authorized six Arleigh Burke class destroyers
and authorized the Secretary of the Navy to enter into
contracts for three of these ships in fiscal year 1996 and
three of them in fiscal year 1997. The funding amount included
in the fiscal year 1997 budget request is predicated on
reprogramming $104.0 million in fiscal year 1996 to permit the
Navy to exercise a contract option for a third ship in fiscal
year 1996. The balance of funds needed for this third ship was
contained in the fiscal year 1997 budget request. The fiscal
year 1997 request also includes full funding for an additional
three destroyers. By pursuing this acquisition strategy, the
Navy has testified that it can save about $280.0 million on the
acquisition of a total of six destroyers in the two fiscal
years, 1996 and 1997.
Although the Navy has testified that it is both cost
effective and necessary from an industrial base perspective to
maintain two building shipyards for production of Arleigh Burke
class destroyers, the committee has also learned that resource
constraints in the Navy's future years defense programs have
limited the planned procurement to only two in fiscal year
1998. This quantity would make it extremely difficult to
maintain the existing industrial base and would also greatly
increase the unit cost of the two fiscal year 1998 destroyers.
Appearing before the committee's seapower subcommittee on
March 21, 1996, the Department of the Navy's senior acquisition
executive testified that the most cost effective method of
procuring additional Arleigh Burke class destroyers during the
period fiscal year 1998 to fiscal year 2001 would be by the
authorization of 12 ships over the four year period. Such an
authorization would permit him to negotiate contracts and
contract options that would sustain the industrial base and
generate savings of about $1.0 billion for the procurement of
these 12 ships.
As a result of information gathered during its hearings,
the committee recommends:
(1) authorization of the budget request for Arleigh
Burke class destroyers;
(2) authorization of $750.0 million above the budget
request for advance procurement of Arleigh Burke class
destroyers in fiscal year 1998 to permit the Navy to
plan for and acquire three destroyers in fiscal year
1998;
(3) a provision that would authorize 12 Arleigh Burke
class destroyers from fiscal year 1998 to fiscal year
2001 to provide a stable procurement program that would
allow the Navy to acquire these ships at a substantial
cost savings; and
(4) the Secretary of the Navy continue the contract
award strategy that he has used in recent years to
provide stability and planning continuity for the
Arleigh Burke class industrial base.
OTHER NAVY PROGRAMS
Navy Aircraft
AV-8B remanufacture
The budget request contained $304.9 million for the
remanufacture of 10 AV-8B Harrier aircraft into the Harrier II
Plus configuration and for advance procurement for future
remanufactures. The planned procurement of 12 remanufactured
Harrier aircraft in fiscal year 1997, which was reflected in
last year's budget request, was reduced to 10 because of
resource constraints. The Harrier II Plus configuration
provides day/night/adverse weather improvements to the AV-8B
aircraft. Last year the committee recommended the addition of
funds to double the administration's request for four such
remanufactures in order to procure them at a more cost
effective rate.
The committee notes that the same logic that applied last
year is equally relevant in fiscal year 1997. A more aggressive
near-term buy of remanufactured AV-8B Harrier II's will result
in both long-term savings and improved near-term capability.
Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $68.0
million to procure an additional two aircraft and the necessary
integrated logistics support for the AV-8B program that the
future years defense program presently defers to fiscal years
1999 and 2000.
F/A-18C/D
The committee understands that the overall inventory
objective for the F/A-18C in the Navy's ten active airwings is
a minimum of 436 aircraft. However, although the Navy had
previously programmed for sufficient numbers of aircraft for
its force structure needs, recent Department of Defense budgets
have not included the originally programmed quantities.
Realizing the increased combat capabilities of the F-18C
over the earlier models, and the need to have modern, capable
carrier-based strike aircraft, the committee recommends an
increase of $234.0 million for six F/A-18C aircraft, their
ancillary equipment, and logistics support.
MV-22
The budget request for the MV-22 Osprey tilt rotor aircraft
was $558.7 million to procure four aircraft and associated
support equipment.
While the operational requirements document requires the
MV-22 program to achieve a fiscal year 1999 initial operating
capability (IOC), the budget request only supports an IOC in
fiscal year 2001. The committee understands that an increase of
$302.0 million for MV-22 procurement would accelerate the
acquisition of two aircraft from fiscal year 2021 to fiscal
year 1997. The program manager believes that this action would
result in a cost saving of $32.0 million from fiscal year 1998
through fiscal 2001. The committee has further been informed
that there are no technical or programmatic impediments to
making an acceleration.
The committee is well aware of the funding history for
development of the MV-22 in recent fiscal years. It is clear
that the program has represented a large block of money that
has frequently been used as a source for minor reprogrammings
and adjustments to meet new requirements in the Department of
Defense. The committee has concluded that these actions have
left virtually no margin to the program manager to deal with
the normal minor problems that emerge during transition of a
major program from the late stages of development into
production. A modest increment of additional funding in fiscal
year 1997 could well prevent disruptive delays during the first
years of low-rate, initial production.
Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $232.0
million for V-22 procurement to acquire an additional two MV-22
aircraft and $70.0 million for long lead funding to support
production in fiscal year 1998 of 12 aircraft. Additionally,
the committee recommends an increase of $20.0 million in PE
64262N for risk mitigation during the first year of low-rate
production.
Flight simulators
The committee supports the maximum use of flight simulators
that provide required training while eliminating costs
associated with range and ammunition usage. The committee
recommends an increase of $60.0 million to procure or upgrade
simulators for three systems, as well as to support relocation
of fielded systems to collocate them with using units, as
follows:
System Millions
V-22.............................................................. $49.0
AV-8B............................................................. 10.0
CH-53D............................................................ 1.0
Restoration of E-2C procurement
The E-2C aircraft is a carrier-based aircraft designed for
early warning, interceptor and strike control, as well as other
missions. The Navy resumed production in fiscal year 1995, with
the intent of purchasing four aircraft per year for a total of
36 aircraft. That planned acquisition rate of E-2Cs has been
reduced from four aircraft to two in the budget request for
fiscal year 1997. The committee understands that procuring two
more E-2C aircraft, which are already in production at the
previously programmed rate, would lead to a savings of $13.2
million per aircraft. Accordingly, the committee recommends an
increase of $139.0 million to acquire a total of four E-2C
aircraft in fiscal year 1997.
Airborne self-protection jammer (ASPJ)
The budget request did not include funding to modify F/A-
18C/Ds with the AN/ALQ-165, or airborne self-protection jammer
(ASPJ), although the ASPJ has performed capably in Bosnia
operations. Realizing that the ASPJ system is available at
reasonable costs and that the integrated defensive electronic
countermeasures (IDECM) system has just begun development, the
committee recommends an increase of $50.0 million to buy 36
ASPJ systems, including aircraft interface units (racks),
spares and additional integrated logistic support for three
deployed F/A-18C/D squadrons.
Helicopter crash attenuating seats
Section 136 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 1996 directed the initiation of a program to
provide crash attenuating troop seats for H-53 helicopters,
using commercially developed, energy absorbing seats. As a
result of congressional direction, the Department of Defense
initiated efforts to define the requirements for a competition
for procuring such sets as non-developmental items (NDI).
The committee has been informed that the necessary program
definition has been completed and the program is nearing
release of the standards needed to begin a full and open
competition to procure such seats. The committee understands
the program has defined an option to procure 2,400 seats
through competitive bids.
The committee is gratified at the Department's progress in
launching this important safety initiative. However, the
program has evolved out of phase with the budget process, and,
accordingly, was not included in the budget request.
The committee recommends an increase of $14.0 million for
the competitive procurement of crash attenuating seats for the
H-53 helicopter. Should the recommended increase be more than
needed for this procurement, the committee directs the
Secretary to apply such funds to the definition of needs for
other helicopters.
Vertical replenishment helicopter replacement program
The committee understands that the Navy has an urgent
requirement to replace its obsolete and costly CH-46 vertical
replenishment (VERTREP) helicopter fleet with either a new
helicopter or a derivative of an existing helicopter. The
committee is also aware that:
(1) based on recent studies, efficiencies could be
gained within Naval aviation from the use of a common
helicopter airframe; and
(2) Navy planning for modernizing its VERTREP
helicopter fleet has progressed to a point that a start
in fiscal year 1997 is possible.
The committee has also been informed of an agreement that
has been reached between the Army and the Navy to support
initiation of the Navy's VERTREP helicopter replacement program
through:
(1) the use of engineering change proposals; and
(2) the use of an airframe that would be provided by
the Army and a main/tail rotor system that would be
provided by the Navy.
When possible, the committee has supported efforts by the
services to accelerate programs to achieve efficiencies in
procurement and operations. In support of such an initiative,
the committee recommends increasing funding by $10.0 million
above the budget request to initiate a VERTREP helicopter
replacement program in fiscal year 1997.
P-3 intelligence support
The budget request included $17.6 million within the P-3
aircraft modifications line to procure non-developmental,
commercial off-the-shelf (COTS), roll-on/roll-off signals
intelligence (SIGINT) sensors for use aboard P-3C aircraft.
While budget documentation provides little information on this
concept, it appears that the Navy intends to incorporate this
capability as an adjunct to its P-3 anti-surface warfare (ASUW)
improvement program (AIP).
The committee is concerned that the Navy has not developed
an operational concept for employing the SIGINT capability that
it proposes to add to the P-3C aircraft. Nor is it clear that
the Navy's proposal relates well to the capability already
provided by its existing fleet of EP-3 aircraft. It would
appear that the Navy is attempting to expand the scope of the
P-3 AIP without first providing a sound rationale for doing so.
Important questions that should be answered to address the
committee's initial concerns would be:
(1) to what degree would P-3C aircraft equipped with
such a COTS SIGINT package be interoperable with other
SIGINT platforms?
(2) are sufficient specially trained personnel
available to support both existing SIGINT systems and
this one as well?
The committee recommends against approving the procurement
of COTS SIGINT sensors in fiscal year 1997, and that the budget
request for P-3 modifications be reduced by $17.6 million.
P-3C anti-surface warfare improvement program
The P-3C anti-surface warfare improvement program (AIP) was
begun in fiscal year 1994 to provide a commercial off-the-shelf
(COTS)/non-developmental item (NDI) upgrade to the Navy's
existing fleet of P-3C aircraft to improve its capability to
conduct anti-surface warfare (ASUW), over the horizon (OTH)
targeting, and command and control interface with other command
centers and fleet units. Prior review of this program by the
committee has shown that the P-3C AIP gives the aircraft a much
better capability to execute littoral warfare missions at a
reasonable price.
Unfortunately, while the nation's operational commanders-
in-chief (CINCs) have given the P-3C AIP program strong
support, the Navy has consistently short-changed its resources.
To meet an operational requirement that calls for the
procurement of 68 kits between fiscal year 1996 and fiscal year
2001 at an economical procurement rate of 12 kits per year, the
Navy has budgeted resources for only one kit in fiscal year
1997. In fiscal year 1996 the Navy budgeted for only seven.
It appears to the committee that the Navy has come,
increasingly, to look to Congress to sustain the P-3C AIP. This
was the case in fiscal year 1996 when Congress added five kits.
Fiscal year 1997 reflects the same behavior to a much greater
degree.
The committee recommends an increase of $87.0 million for
the procurement of 11 additional P-3C AIP kits in fiscal year
1997. Procurement funding at this level would reduce the unit
cost of the kits procured by at least 70 percent and satisfy
CINC requirements.
Aside from the merits of the P-3C AIP, the Navy should
understand that a principal reason the committee has
recommended this increase is to give the Navy an opportunity to
evaluate the priority of the P-3C AIP, negotiate with the CINCs
as to their requirements, and determine whether it will
continue to pursue the P-3C AIP in the future. Budget requests
at the rate of one kit per year make no sense to the committee.
While the committee believes that the P-3C AIP has merit,
there are many other programs in the requirements queue eager
to claim resources. Consequently, the committee wants to make
it clear that the committee does not intend to take on the P-3C
AIP as a permanent future entitlement.
If the Navy chooses not to request 12 P-3C AIP kits in its
fiscal year 1998 budget request, the committee directs the
Secretary of the Navy to submit a report, to accompany the
budget request, that:
(1) identifies the requirements for the P-3C AIP that
the CINCs have provided to the Navy;
(2) discusses any changes to those requirements that
may have occurred in conjunction with preparation of
the fiscal year 1998 budget request;
(3) provides the Navy's plan, as reflected in the
fiscal year 1998 future years defense program, of how
the Navy intends to satisfy the CINC requirements; and
(4) provides explicit rationale for any disparity
between the Navy plan and the CINC requirements.
Navy Weapons
Tomahawk land attack missile
In both Iraq and Bosnia, the Tomahawk land attack missile
(TLAM), once considered primarily a strategic weapons system,
has been increasingly used in a tactical role. Tactical use has
increased the demand for this missile at a time when budget
reductions have reduced procurement below previously planned
levels and left a required five year recertification of
existing Block IIC missiles unfunded. As a consequence of these
deferred certifications, operational commanders have been
forced to rely on the practice of crossdecking missiles from
returning ships to those that are preparing to deploy. The
budget request would procure 120 Block IIIC missiles, contains
no funding for remanufacture of existing Block IIC missiles to
the Block IIIC configuration, and recertifies only 23 percent
of the missiles with maintenance due dates in fiscal years 1996
and 1997. Recertification funding at this level would be
inadequate to permit operational commanders to satisfy their
deployment loadout requirements after fiscal year 1996.
The committee has also learned that an effort made by
Congress last year to accelerate development of the Tomahawk
Block IV missile would be thwarted by a substantial reduction
in program funding that was made during development of the
fiscal year 1997 budget request. Funds needed to continue the
effort were diverted to fund ongoing contingency operations.
The committee recommends an increase of $111.8 million
above the budget request for the TLAM program. Of this amount,
$32.0 million would be for the procurement of new Block IIIC
missiles, $14.4 million for remanufacture of Block IIC missiles
to the Block IIIC configuration, $40.6 million for the
recertification of existing Block IIC missiles, and $29.0
million would be for continued development of the Tomahawk
Block IV missile in PE 24229N.
Standard missile procurement
The committee has learned that additional procurement
funding for the Navy's Standard missile would resolve valid
Navy inventory requirements, produce production efficiencies
that would lower missile unit cost, and increase overall
stability in the program. The program has been subject to
considerable disruption by reprogramming of its fiscal year
1996 funds.
The committee recommends an increase of $40.0 million above
the budget request for the procurement of additional SM2 Block
IV missiles to help rationalize the Standard missile production
base and support ballistic missile defense development options.
Navy and Marine Corps Ammunition
The committee is concerned with the inadequate funding for
ammunition that was contained in the President's budget
request. Ammunition is an important contributor to military
readiness, for training and in anticipation of conflict. The
committee recommends the following adjustments to the budget
request for Marine Corps ammunition procurement:
Item Millions
155 mm CHG. Prop. Red Bag......................................... $24.0
155 mm D864, Base Bleed........................................... 45.0
Fuze, ET, XM762................................................... 29.0
-----------------------------------------------------------------
________________________________________________
Total....................................................... 98.0
Navy Shipbuilding and Conversion
Seawolf submarine
Congress has authorized and appropriated funds for the
procurement of three Seawolf class submarines. The National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996 imposed a cost
cap on the total procurement cost associated with these three
submarines. The committee has been informed by the Department
of the Navy that its current cost projections for the
procurement of the SSN-21, the fiscal year 1989 authorized
ship, SSN-22, the fiscal year 1991 authorized ship, and SSN-23,
the fiscal year 1996 authorized ship, are very close to the
cost cap. The committee has also been advised by the Department
of the Navy that $278.0 million of class detail design costs
were never included under the cost cap for the three
submarines. These costs had been allocated to now canceled
portions of the Seawolf program and were, mistakenly, not
included when the cost cap amount was calculated and agreed to
between Congress and the Department of the Navy. As a result,
these class detail design costs were not treated by Congress or
the Department of the Navy as obligations or expenditures for
purposes of establishing the cost cap for procurement of SSN-
21, SSN-22, and SSN-23.
The committee directs the Navy to continue to include these
procurement costs, and all other Seawolf related costs, in
reports that it provides to Congress on the total cost of the
Seawolf program. The committee will not look favorably on any
additional procurement costs that may emerge and be
characterized as not having been included in the cost cap.
LPD-17 class amphibious ships
The budget request contained no funding for procurement of
an LPD-17 class amphibious ship.
The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996
authorized and appropriated $938.5 million for procurement of
the lead ship of the LPD-17 class. Under the future years
defense program, the Navy will request authorization for the
next ship of this class in fiscal year 1998.
Because of the emphasis that the committee has placed on
reducing pressure on the shipbuilding account by accelerating
the procurement of ships in the future years defense program,
the committee considered accelerating the LPD-17 class. There
is a clear requirement for timely procurement of 12 LPD-17
class ships to join the Navy's 12 amphibious ready groups
(ARGs) and resolve current shortfalls in the Navy's ability to
provide the 2.5 MEB amphibious lift called for in the Bottom-Up
Review.
Tempering acceleration of the LPD-17 class, however, was
the committee's knowledge of a long established Navy practice
for the construction of a new class of ships. This practice,
based on a considerable amount of hard won experience, provides
for a single gap year between the authorization of the lead
ship of a class and authorization of the second ship of the
class. This gap year provides the shipbuilder and the Navy with
an opportunity to execute a sufficient amount of the detail
design of the lead ship to considerably reduce the risk of
schedule slippage and cost growth for the follow-ships. The
committee reviewed the production history of a number of ship
construction programs over the last twenty years and found that
92 percent of the programs that were pursued without a gap year
between lead ship and first follow-ship produced schedule
slippage, in several cases in excess of two years, and
consequential cost growth in the first follow-ship. In a number
of instances, this schedule slippage propagated into subsequent
follow-ships as well.
During a hearing on shipbuilding, held in conjunction with
the committee's review of the budget request, the Navy
expressed some optimism that, with a contract award late in
fiscal year 1997, it would be able to avoid the pitfalls that
had plagued earlier programs. In evaluating this testimony,
however, the committee is also aware that the contract award
date for the lead LPD-17 ship has now slipped until late into
fiscal year 1996, and may slip more. Consequently, it would
appear that the rationale upon which the Navy's testimony was
based is no longer valid.
Given past experience with attempts to accelerate a new
class of ships before sufficient design work has been completed
and the additional consideration that the contract award for
LPD-17 will not occur until late in fiscal year 1996, the
committee concludes that it would not be prudent to accelerate
authorization of the first follow-ship into fiscal year 1997.
However, the committee does recommend an increase of $8.0
million in PE 64311N to allow the Navy to pursue a reduced
manning initiative for the LPD-17 class. Since contract award
for the lead ship may still occur in fiscal year 1997, pursuit
of this initiative must begin as early as possible in order for
its results to be incorporated in the detail design of the
ship.
Oceanographic survey ship
The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996
authorized and appropriated $15.6 million of advance
procurement for an oceanographic survey ship, TAGS-64. The
budget request did not contain the additional increment needed
to fully fund this ship. The future years defense program would
not procure this ship until fiscal year 1999. Procurement of
this ship, to satisfy a well documented requirement, through an
existing contract option, would result in substantial cost
savings. Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase to
the budget request of $54.4 million to complete procurement of
TAGS-64.
SWATH oceanographic research ship
The Navy has well-documented requirements, approaching 240
ship-years of backlog, for additional oceanographic survey
work, particularly in the littoral areas of the world. A
substantial percentage of these requirements cannot be
satisfied by the Navy fleet of seven survey ships that are
either in service or under construction. Even if the Navy were
to build additional ships for its own use, the Oceanographer of
the Navy does not have sufficient operating funds programmed to
pay for all of the additional survey work needed to eliminate
his backlog.
The committee has reviewed the matter and concluded that
the Navy could pursue another approach to getting additional
survey work performed. The committee has learned that there are
currently five oceanographic research ships that are owned by
the Navy and operated by a civilian university or research
institute under the supervision of the Chief of Naval Research.
One of these oceanographic research ships will soon be retired
due to obsolescence. The committee believes that, when this
ship is replaced, the Navy and the recipient could enter into
an agreement whereby the Navy would provide the university or
research institute a vessel, and the university or research
institute would schedule and pay for some portion of its year's
research work to support Navy oceanographic survey
requirements. Such an arrangement could modernize an important
capability and also reduce future demand for Navy operation and
maintenance funding to pay for ship survey operations.
The committee recommends an increase to the budget request
of $45.0 million to provide the additional funding needed to
build a small water plane area, twin-hulled (SWATH)
oceanographic vessel based on the TAGOS-23 class of
surveillance ships. The committee directs the Navy to negotiate
a time sharing agreement with the university or institute that
will operate it, whereby a certain portion of the ship's annual
operating time would be dedicated to meeting the Navy's needs.
The Navy should report to the congressional defense committees
on its progress in achieving this agreement by December 15,
1997.
Other Navy Procurement
WSN-7 inertial navigation system
The budget request included $11.7 million for procurement
of the WSN-7 ring laser inertial navigation system.
The WSN-7 is a passive shipboard navigation system capable
of worldwide operations without the need for external position
reference information over the course of a 14 day reset
interval. The Navy is procuring the WSN-7 as a common system to
replace three different inertial navigation systems currently
installed on aircraft carriers, surface combatants, and
submarines. Accelerated procurement of this highly reliable,
easily maintained system could provide substantial maintenance
savings.
The committee recommends an increase of $10.0 million above
the budget request for the procurement of additional WSN-7
navigation sets. It is estimated that this investment could
save $28.7 million in maintenance cost avoidance during the
period of the future years defense program from fiscal year
1997 to fiscal year 2001.
Mine warfare
During hearings associated with the fiscal year 1997 budget
request the committee explored progress made by the Navy in
correcting deficiencies in its mine countermeasures (MCM)
capabilities that were revealed during Operation Desert Storm.
Mines present an inexpensive and challenging deterrent to
amphibious operations in the littoral areas where the
Department of the Navy has concentrated its strategic focus
since the end of the Cold War. Studies conducted after
Operation Desert Storm demonstrated that the Navy's historical
approach to allocating resources for MCM has been cyclical.
While greater priority has occasionally been given for short
periods to this mission when mines prevented execution of an
amphibious operation as they did in both Korea and Operation
Desert Storm, emphasis has soon waned and funding has been
reduced to subsistence levels.
To some degree, this pattern has repeated itself in the
recent past. After Operation Desert Storm, Department of the
Navy and congressional interest caused MCM resources to
increase. The committee has learned, however, that funding for
mine warfare and MCM represents only about one percent of the
Department's budget request, resulting in an amount that
corresponds to historical, subsistence level norms. The amount
available to the resource sponsor directly responsible for mine
warfare and MCM on the Chief of Naval Operations staff is even
less, at only about 0.6 percent.
This return to historical norms has caused many exploratory
programs that were initiated with the increased resources
allocated after Operation Desert Storm to become starved for
lack of funding. Further, a substantial portion of the funding
associated with MCM during recent fiscal years has had to be
used to address maintenance and reliability problems associated
with existing systems or systems coming into service, rather
than for improving capabilities.
The committee also learned that, during the past year, the
mine warfare resource sponsor has devoted considerable effort
to developing a campaign plan that identifies ``all the money
being spent in the name of mine warfare'' and establishes an
integrated, prioritized effort to resolve mine warfare
shortfalls. This plan, if executed, would address maintenance
shortfalls, modernize existing systems, and address capability
gaps, in that order. However, because of the timing associated
with the development of this plan relative to the Department's
budgeting cycle, virtually all of the highest priority items in
the campaign plan are not funded in the fiscal year 1997 budget
request.
In summary, the committee has concluded that, while the
Navy has improved its operational capabilities within the
constraints imposed by existing equipment and resource
allocation, much remains to be done to satisfy mission
requirements that would be essential elements of a successful
amphibious assault. Accordingly the committee recommends an
increase in funding of $64.0 million to accelerate several of
the Navy's highest priority MCM programs. Specific
authorizations in priority order would be:
Item Funding (millions)
SQQ-32/SLQ-48 Spares.......................................... $6.3
Integrated Combat Weapons System (ICWS)....................... 17.8
AQS-14A Console Upgrade Procurement........................... 5.7
Very Shallow Water MCM Unit Outfitting........................ 1.5
MCM Battle Space Profiler (BSP)............................... 1.7
Air MCM C4I Upgrades.......................................... 7.8
EOD C4I Product Improvement................................... 1.0
MK-105 Sled Upgrades.......................................... 21.2
EOD Full Face Mask............................................ 1.0
The committee also recommends an increase of $4.0 million
in PE 63782N for completion of the science and technology
demonstration program for the beach zone array subsystem of the
explosive neutralization program. This subsystem has shown
strong promise in the early stages of its development to
provide an important contribution toward meeting the full
operational requirement for MCM forces to conduct in-stride
mine clearance of amphibious assault beach lanes.
AN/BPS-16 submarine navigation radar
There is no funding in the budget request for the
procurement of AN/BPS-16 submarine radar navigation sets or
mast assemblies.
The Navy has been procuring a commercial off-the-shelf
(COTS) variant of the AN/BPS-16 radar navigation set and its
associated mast assembly for installation on new construction
submarines and on SSN-688 class submarines that will remain in
service in the fleet. Procurement of the COTS variant has
resulted in a 40 percent savings over a comparable system built
to military specifications. The AN/BPS-16 replaces an existing
radar system that has proven unreliable in service and is labor
intensive to maintain. Procurement of additional AN/BPS-16
radar sets in fiscal year 1997 will avoid a production break
and associated start up costs for the procurement of additional
radar sets currently included in the future years defense
program.
The committee recommends an increase of $16.9 million for
the procurement of additional AN/BPS-16 radar sets. This amount
would be sufficient to satisfy the inventory objective for
radar sets and radar mast assemblies for SSN-688 class
submarines.
Surface ship torpedo defense
The budget request contains no funding for the procurement
of surface ship torpedo defense (SSTD) kits. These kits include
a torpedo alertment processor (TAP), which provides torpedo
alert, a launcher, and a launched expendable acoustic device
(LEAD) designed to decoy enemy torpedoes. Both TAP and LEAD are
based on low cost, low maintenance, commercial off-the-shelf
(COTS) technology. Procurement of SSTD kits is an ongoing
program that was funded in fiscal year 1996 and includes future
years defense program funding in fiscal year 1998 and beyond.
Funding for the program in fiscal year 1997 was eliminated
during preparation of the budget request to meet other urgent
readiness requirements.
The committee recommends an increase of $12.5 million above
the budget request for the procurement of additional SSTD kits
for installation on amphibious ships, combat logistic force
ships, and an aircraft carrier.
Shipboard integrated communications system
In fiscal year 1996, Congress appropriated $6.3 million to
procure a modern interior communications (IC) system for Navy
aircraft carriers that can provide seamless interior and
exterior connectivity for fleet units. In last year's report to
accompany S. 1026 (S. Rept. 104-112), the committee dealt at
some length with the apparent stagnation in Navy programs whose
stated objective is to provide such a system. Virtually all
Navy ships are still forced to rely on technology that was
developed during World War II. In the committee's recent
experience, the Navy has pursued the development of one poorly
conceived alternative after another, producing nothing, while
commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) non-developmental systems that
are already available languish unused.
In response to committee direction (S. Rept. 104-112) to
prepare a report on its plan to replace obsolete IC technology,
the Navy produced a cursory response that continues to focus on
its need to define a baseline system architecture that could be
used to procure a COTS system at some undetermined point in the
future. This is essentially the same response that the Navy
provided two years ago when the committee first raised the
question in a less formal way. The Navy report gives the
committee no confidence that the Navy is giving priority to
acquisition of an existing system rather than trying to re-
invent what is already available.
The committee recommends an increase of $4.5 million above
the budget request, specifically for the competitive
procurement of an existing integrated communications system
that can be installed aboard aircraft carriers and other fleet
units without delay. The committee also strongly encourages the
Department of the Navy's senior acquisition executive to
personally review the Navy's interior communications program
and to report his findings, in more detail than is contained in
the report he submitted in response to S. Rept. 104-112, no
later than January 31, 1997.
Challenge Athena
The budget request included no funding for the Chief of
Naval Operation's special project Challenge Athena. This budget
decision was made despite a series of favorable reports by the
Navy's operational commanders on the very significant
contributions that Challenge Athena had made to the success of
their operational deployments.
As noted in its report to accompany the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996 (S. Rept 104-112), the
committee has followed the progress of several commercial
satellite communications (SATCOM) technologies to evaluate how
this technology could be best utilized to reduce the load on
existing military systems and come closer to the goal of
providing near real-time information to the warfighter. One
such program, Challenge Athena, offers the technology to
provide a communications data rate of greater than 1.554 Mbps.
This data rate permits transmission of near real-time imagery
for precision targeting and strike, video teleconferencing,
telemedicine, and nearly transparent inter-theater
communications.
The committee has concluded that the additional
capabilities provided by Challenge Athena are of sufficient
priority that additional funding is warranted and recommends an
increase of $41.7 million above the budget request for
Challenge Athena, $14.7 million for procurement and $27.0
million for operation of the system.
Global broadcast
The budget request included $113.2 million for launch
services for UHF follow-on (UFO) satellites 8, 9, and 10. These
satellites will support UHF, EHF, and global broadcast service
(GBS) communications. However, the budget request did not
contain funding for the ground and sea-based equipment needed
to implement the GBS capability.
The committee has noted a tendency of defense acquisition
to focus on procurement of major intelligence gathering and
production systems and sophisticated weapons systems while not
giving comparable attention to the communications and data
links needed to support them. Given the fact that modern
warfighting systems are inherently dependent on the
transmission of vast amounts of data to realize their full
potential, a lack of emphasis on the data links and
communications pipelines that feed them is short-sighted. Under
present conditions, for example, the existing network of
military communications satellites is under great pressure from
the growing demands of the nation's warfighters for detailed
imagery, intelligence, and tactical information.
A program to address these information demands emerged last
year. It would involve the use of satellite direct broadcast
technology. This technology is inherent in the design of
commercial satellites and can be incorporated as an add-on
package to military satellites, such as the UFO series.
Suitably equipped commercial and military satellites will be
capable of providing high capacity, one-way broadcast
transmissions to very small terminals. For the military this
capability has become known as the GBS.
Because of its need to provide a wide-band communications
capability to ships that are space constrained and widely
distributed world-wide, the Navy has been particularly active
in seeking to benefit from GBS. The Navy has identified two
near-term phases that would first make use of commercial
satellites to provide GBS support, then incorporate the
capability into its UFO satellite series beginning in fiscal
year 1998. However, the transition from concept to a concrete
program has progressed at a more rapid pace than the Department
of Defense's planning, programming, and budgeting cycle. As a
consequence, while the space segment of GBS has received some
measure of funding in the fiscal year 1997 budget request, the
ground and afloat segment received none. Additional funding in
fiscal year 1997 will ensure that GBS can be included in UFO
satellites 8, 9, and 10. It would also procure a sufficient
number of ship and shore terminals to provide GBS through the
use of commercial satellites to a large cross section of the
fleet and the Navy's ashore commanders even sooner.
To ensure that the diverse requirements of the Navy's GBS
program progress in a complementary manner, the committee
recommends an increase of $50.5 million above the budget
request as follows:
(1) $39.0 million for the procurement and
installation of shipboard GBS satellite terminals;
(2) $7.0 million for the procurement and installation
of shore GBS satellite terminals; and
(3) $4.5 million to provide for launch services for
UFO satellites 8, 9, and 10.
Rolling air frame missile launcher for LSD-52
In fiscal year 1996, Congress authorized and appropriated
$20.0 million to install the ship self-defense system (SSDS) MK
1 and the rolling airframe missile (RAM) system in LSD-52, an
amphibious ship that is now under construction. The committee
has learned that $20.0 million would be insufficient to cover
both the hardware procurement and ship installation costs.
Consequently, the Navy was unable to purchase one of the two
RAM launchers needed for a complete equipment suite.
Procurement of this launcher in fiscal year 1997, in
conjunction with the six launchers already included in the
budget request, will lower its unit cost.
The committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million above
the budget request for the procurement of one RAM launcher for
LSD-52.
Afloat planning system
The budget request contains $1.1 million for the afloat
planning system (APS). This amount would be for the
installation of systems purchased in prior years.
The APS is being procured for installation in the Navy's
aircraft carriers and for rapid deployment, when required, to
meet the strike planning needs of a joint task force commander.
It complements the planning of Tomahawk land attack missile
(TLAM) missions by shore-based cruise missile support
activities by giving an afloat or deployed commander the
ability to modify existing, pre-planned missions or plan new
ones. The committee has learned that a diversion of funds from
this program in fiscal year 1996 and lack of funding in fiscal
year 1997 threaten to severely disrupt the production line,
increasing unit costs dramatically and delaying the
introduction of a capability that the Navy states will
significantly improve its warfighting capability.
The committee recommends an increase of $23.0 million above
the budget request for the procurement and installation of
additional APS suites. Information provided to the committee by
the Navy indicates that this level of funding would be
sufficient for the Navy to satisfy its full requirement for APS
suites and also procure them in a most cost effective manner.
NULKA decoy development
The budget request contains $4.4 million for continued
development of the NULKA active countermeasures decoy. It also
contains $12.0 million to procure NULKA decoys, launch
subsystems, and training systems.
The committee has learned that a modest amount of
additional development funding would permit modification of the
NULKA decoy to accommodate advanced friendly radars that will
soon enter fleet service. An additional increment of
procurement funding would permit the purchase of sufficient
systems to outfit one deploying battle group and preclude the
need for crossdecking of rounds.
The committee recommends an increase of $4.0 million in PE
64755N to improve the performance of the NULKA decoy in the
presence of friendly emitters and to counter modern threat
missiles. The committee also recommends an increase of $9.0
million for procurement of additional NULKA rounds and launch
subsystems and for production improvements.
Elevated causeway (modular)
The budget request included no funding for expanding an
existing elevated causeway (modular) (ELCAS(M)) prototype from
a length of 2,000 feet to the 3,000 feet needed to satisfy
logistics-over-the-shore (LOTS) operational requirements.
The committee has learned that expeditionary logistics
support of the Marine Corps or a joint service force may often
require assault follow-on echelon or other LOTS off-load in a
variety of unimproved, adverse beach environments or degraded
ports. The ELCAS(M), which the Navy could rapidly install,
provides an elevated pier that overcomes high surf conditions,
shallow beach gradients, and other hydrographic conditions that
inhibit direct shoreside cargo discharge. The Navy has included
funding for completion of two ELCAS(M) systems in the future
years defense program. However, the Navy would not complete the
current ELCAS(M) system until fiscal year 1999 because of
budget constraints.
Our armed services have had difficulties in conducting LOTS
operations in recent contingency operations, due in large part
to challenges that the ELCAS(M) system is designed to overcome.
The committee has concluded that acceleration of this program,
to provide at least one fully operational system, is warranted.
Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $6.7
million above the budget request to expand the existing
prototype system to a full 3,000 foot operational length, and
also to acquire the ancillary support and installation
equipment, such as lighting, piling, and safety lines,
necessary to make it fully operational.
The committee also understands that the Navy has an
operational requirement for an amphibious cargo beaching
lighter (or barge) that can operate in sea state 3 (SS3). To
meet this requirement, the Navy must be able to assemble
floating pontoons into larger sections in sea states reaching
and exceeding SS3. The Navy designed the ELCAS(M) system to be
able to operate sections of the system as a lighter in sea
states up to SS3. However, the current design for the ELCAS(M)
connector system does not allow the Navy to join the sections
into larger units in sea states this high.
The Navy budget includes a program to develop and field a
system to meet the amphibious cargo beaching lighter
requirement that would not begin procurement until fiscal year
2001. The committee understands that the contractor building
the ELCAS(M) system has also developed a connector system that
could be operated under SS3 conditions. The committee believes
that the Navy should evaluate the potential of using this new
connector system in conjunction with the current ELCAS(M)
sections to meet the amphibious cargo beaching lighter
requirement. The committee directs the Navy to provide a report
to the congressional defense committees on its analysis of this
alternative with its submission of the fiscal year 1998 budget
request.
Oceanographic equipment
During its review of the fiscal year 1997 budget request,
the committee determined that investment funding for
oceanographic equipment was reduced significantly in both
fiscal year 1996 and in the budget request. Naval oceanography
employs equipment such as fathometers, global positioning
satellite (GPS) receivers, recording equipment, and side-scan
sonars to conduct ocean surveys. These are sensitive units that
are used in the Navy's survey vessels or incorporated into
travel packs for use by Navy oceanographers onboard foreign
ships. They can be easily affected or damaged by rough handling
or extended exposure to a marine environment. Replacement on a
regular basis is necessary. It would appear that funding in
fiscal year 1996 and in the budget request is not sufficient to
maintain an adequate replacement program
The committee recommends an increase of $6.0 million above
the budget request to provide additional funding for
procurement of oceanographic survey equipment.
Marine Corps Procurement
Marine Corps Javelin missile
The budget request included $28.2 million to begin
procurement of the Javelin missile and its associated command
launch unit (CLU) for the Marine Corps. This amount, when
combined with the amount budgeted for Javelin procurement for
the Army, would be insufficient to purchase Javelin missiles at
an economic order quantity that would allow them to be procured
at a cost effective rate.
The committee understands the need to field the Javelin
missile as soon as possible and recommends an increase of $20.0
million to accelerate production, provide an additional 59
missiles and 16 CLUs for the Marine Corps, and procure missiles
for the Army and Marine Corps at a cost effective rate.
AN/TPQ-36 Firefinder radar
The budget request included $30.4 million to procure
upgrades to the Marine Corps AN/TPQ-36 Firefinder radar, which
is designed to support counter-battery operations.
The Army and the Marine Corps participate jointly in the
AN/TPQ-36 Firefinder radar program with the Army as lead
service. The Army has developed upgrades to the radar. The
budget request contained funding to incorporate those upgrades
into the Marine Corps radars.
The committee has been informed that, due to length of
service and resultant system modifications, the existing Marine
Corps AN/TPQ-36 radars are not standardized. The budget request
did not include sufficient funding to standardize the antenna
group of these radars when system upgrades are introduced.
The committee recommends an increase of $3.8 million to
ensure standardization of Marine Corps AN/TPQ-36 radars after
system upgrades have been completed.
Joint task force deployable communications support
The committee supports Marine Corps efforts to enhance its
communications support capabilities. The committee recognizes
the outstanding requirement for a deployable satellite
communications system and recommends an increase of $1.7
million to procure this system for the Marine Corps joint task
force headquarters.
Intelligence upgrades
The committee is concerned about the modernization of
Marine intelligence support capabilities and notes outstanding
requirements in two separate areas: tactical photography and
communications intelligence dissemination.
The tactical photography (TACPHOTO) camera system is a
state-of-the-art imagery collection device that greatly
enhances the real time tactical intelligence products needed by
Marine Corps field commanders. The committee recommends an
increase of $11.2 million to accelerate the initial operational
capability date for this system by one year and to procure all
509 TACPHOTO systems required.
The committee also recommends an increase of $3.4 million
to procure three team portable communication intelligence
systems (TPCS), which will meet the acquisition objective and
provide the Marine air ground task force (MAGTF) commander with
a vital intelligence tool.
Telecommunications infrastructure
The budget request contained no funding to upgrade the
communications network at the Marine Corps base at Camp
Pendleton.
The committee supports ongoing efforts to upgrade existing
telecommunications infrastructure at Marine Corps
installations. The budget contains funding to support such
infrastructure upgrades, but falls short of providing the
resources necessary to upgrade Camp Pendleton. Establishing a
high speed fiber optic backbone and switching systems at Camp
Pendleton would meet existing base requirements and facilitate
future expansion to meet new requirements.
The committee recommends an increase of $18.8 million to
provide a more efficient, state-of-the-art telecommunications
infrastructure at Camp Pendleton.
Marine Corps combat operations centers
The Marine Corps has seven deployable combat operations
centers (COC) and six fixed command centers (CC). These centers
have been baselined with a common configuration, but require
additional equipment to provide full interoperability with
comparable command centers in the other services.
The committee recommends an increase of $7.4 million above
the budget request to upgrade the capability of the Marine
Corps COCs and CCs in order to make them fully interoperable
with the other services, and to provide the additional data
capacity now required by Marine Corps operational units.
Marine Corps common end user computer equipment
The budget request contained no funding for Marine Corps
common end user computer equipment (CEUCE).
The Marine Corps CEUCE program procures stand-alone
computer work stations to support supply, maintenance,
logistics, training, and administrative functions. Additional
funding in fiscal year 1997 would permit the Marine Corps to
satisfy its inventory objective for this equipment and afford
all Marine Corps units the ability to deploy with the same
equipment that they use in garrison. The current need to rely
on leased or sub-custodied equipment or to perform a function
manually would be eliminated.
The committee recommends an increase of $9.8 million above
the budget for the procurement of additional Marine Corps
CEUCE.
Mobility enhancements
The budget request included $1.3 million to procure 20
M870A2 lowbed trailers and an additional $1.5 million to
procure 261 International Standard Organization (ISO) beds for
transporting fuel and water for the Marine Corps. The committee
supports efforts to improve the mobility of heavy equipment and
recommends an increase of $28.3 million for Marine Corps
mobility equipment. Of this total:
(1) $5.5 million would be for procurement of
additional M870A2 lowbed trailers; and
(2) $22.8 million would be for procurement of ISO
beds to buy out the program.
Multiple integrated laser engagement system
The budget request contained no funding for procurement of
the multiple integrated laser engagement system (MILES) for the
Marine Corps.
The committee is aware of the benefits of employing
training devices such as MILES to provide realistic force-on-
force training. The committee understands that the Marine Corps
intends to begin procurement of MILES in fiscal year 1998 and
complete the procurement of 10 reinforced battalion sets by
fiscal year 2001. A savings of $7.8 million could be realized
if the program were accelerated to fiscal year 1997 and
procurement completed in one year.
The committee recommends an increase of $49.0 million to
complete procurement of MILES and provide an important training
aid to the Marine Corps as soon as possible.
Combat vehicle appended trainer (CVAT)
The committee is concerned that the Marine Corps has not
funded the development of new, state-of-the-art, full crew
mission simulators for armored vehicle systems. These devices
have proven their utility over time and greatly reduce training
costs. The committee recommends an increase of $9.2 million to
make engineering changes to existing Army systems to meet
unique Marine Corps requirements.
SUBTITLE D--AIR FORCE PROGRAMS
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
Section 131. Multiyear contracting authority for the C-17 aircraft
program.
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
the Secretary of the Air Force to enter into one or more
multiyear contracts for the procurement of not more than a
total of 80 C-17 aircraft. This provision is identical in
content to a free standing bill (S. 1710) previously reported
out by the committee.
OTHER AIR FORCE PROGRAMS
Air Force Aircraft
B-2
In the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
1996 the Senate Conferees recommended that an increased
authorization of $493.0 million for the B-2 be used for
components, upgrades, and modifications that would be valuable
for the existing fleet of B-2 bombers.
Additionally, the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 1995 allowed the relaxation of program caps on the
program to allow for any future decision for further production
of the B-2. Subsequently, the Department decided to apply the
additional funds to refurbishing AV-1, the initial B-2 test air
vehicle. The committee notes that the two year effort to
refurbish the AV-1 and place it into operational status
preserves the option of building additional B-2 bombers without
the requirement for additional funds until the refurbishment
effort is completed.
Additionally, the committee is aware of controversy
surrounding the Heavy Bomber Study required by the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal year 1995. Consequently,
the committee intends to closely monitor the progress and
structure of the follow-on study of requirements, which has
been appended to the Joint Staff's Deep Attack Weapons Mix
Study (DAWMS) to ensure objectivity and that the methodology
used is analytically sound, includes no pre-determined
conclusions regarding the B-2. To ensure the objectivity,
clarity and relevance of the analysis, the committee directs
that the regional Commanders in Chief review and comment on the
study both for its conclusions with respect to their
operational responsibilities, and for the objectivity and
soundness of the analysis.
F-16
The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996
provided for an increase of $159.4 million to acquire six F-16s
for the Air Force. The additional aircraft were intended to
preserve the Air Force's twenty wing force structure in the
years to come by acquiring the aircraft now, while the
production line is still active.
The committee notes that the Air Force has budgeted some of
its limited procurement resources to acquire four new F-16s in
the fiscal year 1997 budget request. While the Air Force had a
goal of acquiring six of these aircraft in fiscal year 1997,
there are insufficient funds available for the full buy.
Realizing that the Air Force has itself made the decision to
devote scarce resources to F-16 investments, the committee is
persuaded to recommend an increase of $107.4 million ($97.4
million for procurement and $10.0 million for advanced
procurement) for the acquisition of eight F-16s in fiscal year
1997.
C-17 airlift aircraft
The budget request contained $2,142.8 million for
procurement of eight C-17 airlift aircraft in fiscal year 1997,
and for advance procurement of additional C-17 aircraft in the
future. The committee later learned of an offer from the C-17's
manufacturer to provide substantial savings in the program to
buy an additional 80 aircraft (120 total) if awarded a seven
year multi-year contract. Subsequently, the committee held a
hearing on the issue to clarify and define the offer and its
implications.
The committee reported out a bill, Multiyear Contracting
Authority for the C-17 Aircraft Program (S. 1710), to authorize
a seven year multi-year procurement of C-17s after the
Department of Defense made a strong case in the hearing for
such authority.
During that process, an analysis by the Congressional
Budget Office (CBO) was reviewed that indicated further program
savings were possible if the seven year program were
accelerated into six years. This could be done by acquiring the
last five C-17 aircraft, now planned for production in fiscal
year 2003, over the next three years. CBO estimated the total
program savings that would accrue from such an acceleration to
be $300.0 million.
The committee is persuaded by the CBO analysis to authorize
an increase of $194.0 million for one additional C-17 aircraft
in fiscal year 1997, $49.0 million for advance procurement for
an additional two C-17 aircraft in fiscal 1998, and $6.0
million for initial spares.
WC-130J acquisition
The Air Force has informed the committee that the remaining
service life of their theater airlift C-130's currently in
service is not yet critical, since the first such aircraft will
not reach the end of its projected service life until shortly
after the turn of the century. However, specialized mission
versions of the C-130, such as weather reconnaissance aircraft,
could benefit from near-term modernization. Additionally, the
committee understands that the Air Force, by conducting
training at C-130 operational units as was done for
introduction of the C-17 airlifter, will not need to procure a
quantity of C-130J aircraft specifically dedicated to the
transition to this newer model.
The committee also understands that the Air Force failed to
budget for necessary spare parts when the C-130J aircraft
authorized last year were procured. Consequently, to ensure
proper logistic support of both active and reserve C-130J
aircraft, additional funding is necessary in fiscal year 1997.
Based on the above information, the committee recommends a
total increase of $204.5 million above the budget request for
procurement and conversion of C-130J aircraft, and to procure
the support needed for these aircraft and for C-130J aircraft
procured in prior years. Of this total:
(1) $142.2 million would be for procurement of three
C-130J aircraft in addition to the budget request
quantity of four;
(2) $21.0 million would be for conversion of seven of
these aircraft to the WC-130J configuration and to
provide the specialized support that they will need for
weather reconnaissance; and
(3) $41.3 million for logistic support of C-130J
aircraft.
To avoid a future mismatch between procurement and support,
which occurred in fiscal year 1996 and would have occurred this
year without committee intervention, the committee directs the
Secretary of the Air Force to create a consolidated support
funding line for C-130J's for inclusion in future budget
requests. The committee also directs the Secretary of the Air
Force to budget for necessary logistic support in future budget
requests for C-130J aircraft.
Joint Primary Aircraft Training System (JPATS)
The committee recognizes that the JPATS program has been
subjected to a number of delays in executing the program. Last
year the committee recognized the opportunity to buy the
program more efficiently. Based on projected contract prices,
the Air Force determined that the fiscal year 1996 budget
request would support purchasing eight aircraft, five more than
had been requested in the budget. Rather than authorizing a
smaller amount to purchase three aircraft, the Congress decided
to authorize and appropriate the requested amount to purchase
additional aircraft.
The Department of Defense instead decided to reduce funds
available for JPATS and contract for only three aircraft in
fiscal year 1996. The Air Force has estimated that accelerating
the program to finish it in fiscal year 2004, rather than in
fiscal year 2009, could yield an estimated savings of $151.0
million in acquisition costs and $89.0 million in operating
costs. The committee is disappointed that the Department chose
not to avail itself of the opportunity to achieve greater
efficiencies in this program.
The committee understands that $40.5 million is unobligated
and available in the Air Force's fiscal year 1995 Aircraft
Procurement account for JPATS aircraft. The terms of the JPATS
contract permit the government to add or subtract up to three
aircraft in any year, while maintaining the current contract
prices. Internal Air Force rules would prohibit the JPATS
program from using these funds to buy additional aircraft when
added to funds from later fiscal years. The committee believes
that the Air Force should make an exception to its own rule in
this situation. Accordingly, the committee directs the
Secretary of the Air Force to ensure those prior year funds are
applied to the purchase of additional JPATS aircraft. The Air
Force has testified that using these funds would allow the
service to buy three more aircraft in both fiscal years 1996
and 1997. Such an action would be in keeping with the
committee's initiatives to acquire equipment at more efficient
rates to provide overall program savings.
The committee understands that the Air Force has
inadvertently made an incorrect allocation in the budget
request. The requested amounts and the corrected requirements
are displayed in the table below:
TRAINING AIRCRAFT FUNDING REQUIREMENTS
[Dollars in millions]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Request Requirement Change
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Procurement--JPATS..................... $67.1 $69.1 +$2.0
================================
Research and Development:
Specialized undergraduate pilot
training.......................... 84.3 82.3 -2.0
JPATS.............................. 67.1 55.3 -9.2
T-38............................... 19.8 27.0 +7.2
--------------------------------
Total............................ 151.4 151.4 0.0
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Therefore, the committee recommends $69.1 million for
JPATS procurement, and $82.3 million for specialized
undergraduate pilot training research and development,
including $55.3 million for the JPATS program and $27.0 million
for the T-38 program.
Joint Surveillance Target Attack Radar System (JSTARS)
The budget request contained $417.8 million for the
procurement of two E-8C aircraft, and $111.1 million for
advanced procurement for two E-8Cs in fiscal year 1998, and
$30.2 million for initial spares. Trainers and support
equipment were included in the procurement. Funding in the
amount of $207.3 million for follow on development and testing
was also requested in PE 64770F.
The Chief of Staff of the Air Force has testified that
accelerating the procurement of the JSTARS aircraft is the top
unfunded priority of the Air Force. The committee understands
that accelerating delivery of one JSTARS aircraft will provide
significant cost savings/avoidance.
The JSTARS effectiveness has been proven during Operation
Desert Shield/Desert Storm, and also recently in Bosnia. The
battlefield awareness provided by the JSTARS to combat
commanders is critical to rapid reaction and operational
success. Consequently, the committee is convinced that
acceleration of one JSTARS aircraft from fiscal year 2005 to
2001 is a cost-effective way to acquire effective operational
capability. The committee recommends an increase of $240.0
million for the procurement of one aircraft, including an
additional $30.0 million for initial spares.
B-1B bomb modules
The committee understands that there is an Air Combat
Command analysis that validates a continuing need for
conventional bomb modules (CBM) in the cluster bomb unit (CBU)
configuration. In view of the evolving conventional role for
the B-1B, the committee recommends an increase of $56.5 million
to procure 34 conventional bomb modules to equip two squadrons
of B-1B's. This enhanced capability will increase B-1B strike
capability by enabling the B-1B to more fully employ
conventional weapons.
SR-71
The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996
provided $5.0 million for costs associated with the
refurbishment of SR-71 aircraft. The budget request for fiscal
year 1997 did not include funding for SR-71 modifications. The
committee understands that a prudent modification program can
be incorporated into the SR-71 to improve its effectiveness as
a hedge until unmanned aerial vehicles become widely available.
Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $9.0
million for ELINT system reinstallation, clip in kits,
navigation/GPS, and an on board processor and data link study.
AWACS re-engining
The budget request did not include funds for the re-
engining of E-3 AWACS aircraft. The E-3 has been tasked
worldwide, and considering the aircraft's importance in near-
term and long-range operational plans, the committee is
persuaded of the need to invest in longevity and sustainability
of the aircraft through a re-engining program. Because of the
extensive operational use of AWACS, a re-engining would be a
cost-effective alternative because of the rapid payback in
operating costs, as well as increased capability.
Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $109.0
million to initiate a program to re-engine E-3 AWACS aircraft,
and the committee expects the Secretary of the Air Force to
budget for the out year requirements for the program in the
fiscal year 1998 Program Objective Memorandum and beyond.
Satellite communications terminals
The Joint Chiefs of Staff have mandated that ultra-high
frequency (UHF) satellite communications users implement the
demand assigned multiple access (DAMA) capability for all
users. The Air Force is procuring DAMA ground terminals but has
not requested funding for airborne terminals in the budget
request. Without these airborne terminals, aircraft will not be
able to effectively communicate with other platforms.
Accordingly, the committee recommends $21.2 million in aircraft
procurement funding to begin procuring these UHF airborne DAMA
terminals. The committee understands that additional funds will
be required in the out years to complete this effort and
directs the Air Force to include sufficient funding in future
years budget requests.
RC-135 re-engining
Last year the committee recommended an increase of $79.5
million for re-engining RC-135 aircraft. Providing modern,
efficient engines for these heavily used aircraft allowed for a
rapid recapture of the investment involved, while avoiding the
costs of supporting out of production engines. The committee
understands that the Air Force is programming resources for
continuation beyond fiscal year 1998 to complete the entire
fleet of aircraft.
Under the assumption that the Air Force will program the
required funding to complete the program past fiscal year 1997,
the committee recommends an increase of $145.2 million to
procure engine kits for six aircraft.
Rivet Joint technology transfer
The committee recommends an increase of $20.0 million to
the budget request for defense airborne reconnaissance program
(DARP) to migrate medium wave infrared acquisition technology
from the Cobra Ball program to the Rivet Joint RC-135 tactical
reconnaissance fleet. The committee understands that the Air
Force is reordering priorities to fund the Rivet Joint
technology transfer program in fiscal years 1998 and 1999.
Funds authorized in fiscal year 1997 would allow the Air Force
to maintain a schedule to field upgraded systems that would
enhance theater missile defense surveillance activities
beginning in 1997.
KC-135 simulators
The Air Force is currently funding a three phase program to
upgrade C-5, KC-10, and KC-135 simulators. If the program were
accelerated to attain completion in fiscal year 2001, which is
five years early, the Air Force would save from $33.0 million
to $52.0 million per year, depending on the amount of simulator
training done in lieu of flight training.
Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $63.0
million for fiscal year 1997 to allow the Air Force to acquire
the remaining nine visual training systems.
Aircraft budget exhibits
The committee is aware of the efforts of the Joint Chiefs
of Staff (JCS) to bring some order to the terminology for
aircraft inventory management. The committee believes that this
standardization is long overdue. The previous service-unique
accounting schemes led to much confusion. The committee also
believes that information on the total overall aircraft
inventories would be a useful addition to the budget
documentation. Such displays would provide detail by the
appropriate total active inventory and total inactive inventory
categories, as compared to the total inventory requirements
approved by the JCS.
The committee believes that such changes could ultimately
result in streamlining the budget review process, both for the
administration and the Congress. These changes could reduce the
amount of time that is now wasted in reviewing the budget by
people at all levels manually collating data from different
sources, including asking (and answering) questions seeking to
clarify factual data.
The committee directs the Under Secretary of Defense
(Comptroller) to implement new aircraft budget exhibits that
display the following information for each aircraft type for
the period of the Future Years Defense Program:
(1) total overall aircraft inventory;
(2) active aircraft inventory, including primary
aircraft inventory (with appropriate subcategories for
mission aircraft, training aircraft, dedicated test
aircraft, and others), backup aircraft inventory, and
attrition/reconstitution reserve;
(3) inactive aircraft inventory, including bailments,
drones, foreign military sales or other transfers,
leases, loans, maintenance training, reclamation, and
storage; and
(4) the JCS approved inventory requirements.
Air Force Missile
Precision guided munitions
Two years ago, the committee directed the Department of
Defense (DOD) to conduct a Heavy Bomber Study to define the
future needs for long range bombers. The Heavy Bomber Study
strongly endorsed the need for adding precision guided
munitions (PGMs) to the inventory. The conclusions from the
Heavy Bomber Study, however, provided little insight into the
best mix of weapons and capabilities that would be required to
support stated military requirements.
Last year, the committee noted the need for DOD to develop
a long-term cohesive, joint PGM program. Section 261 of the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996
directed DOD to develop such a plan. The Department has
informed the committee that the analysis necessary to develop
this plan will not be complete until later this year. The
committee believes that DOD should not wait for another whole
year to begin providing additional PGM capability beyond that
supported in the budget request.
Accordingly, while awaiting this analysis and the
Department's recommendations based on this analysis, the
committee recommends an increase of $187.2 million as detailed
below:
PRECISION GUIDED MUNITIONS INITIATIVE
[Dollars in millions]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Request-- SASC Rec-- Change--
------------------------------------------------ Ref
($) Qty ($) Qty ($) Qty
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Procurement:
AGM-142.......................... -- -- 39.0 54 39.0 54 MPAF line 2.
CALCM............................ -- -- 15.0 100 15.0 100 MPAF line 12.
AGM-130.......................... -- -- 40.0 100 40.0 100 MPAF line 8.
SFW.............................. 131.1 400 152.7 500 21.6 100 MPAF line 48.
Hard Target Smart Fuze........... -- -- 2.0 -- 2.0 -- MPAF 59a.
AMRAAM (AF)...................... 116.3 133 139.8 200 23.5 67 MPAF line 7.
AMRAAM (USN)..................... 36.1 37 58.1 100 22.0 63 WPN line 6.
Research and Development:
SFW P\3\I........................ -- -- 19.1 -- 19.1 -- RDAF line 142, PE 27320F.
Hard Target Smart Fuze........... -- -- 5.0 -- 5.0 -- RDAF line 81, PE 604604F.
--------
Total.......................... ...... ...... ...... ...... 187.2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Space boosters
The budget request included $489.6 million in Missile
Procurement, Air Force, for space boosters. The committee
understands that a portion of the request may not be needed as
a result of funding received from the National Aeronautics and
Space Administration. The budget request also appears to
contain a larger amount of advance procurement than required.
Therefore, the committee recommends a reduction of $40.8
million.
Air Force Ammunition
The committee is concerned with the inadequate funding for
ammunition that was contained in the President's budget
request. Ammunition is an important contributor to military
readiness, for training and in anticipation of conflict. The
committee recommends the following adjustments to the budget
request for Air Force ammunition procurement:
Item Millions
Sensor Fuzed Weapon............................................... $21.6
Hard Target Smart Fuze............................................ 2.0
-----------------------------------------------------------------
________________________________________________
Total....................................................... 23.6
Other Air Force Procurement
60K Loader
Strategic airlift remains an area of interest and concern
to the committee. While the success of the C-17 has been
gratifying, the difference between the retirement rate of C-
141s and fielding of C-17s has created a gap in capabilities.
Additional ground handling equipment, such as the 60K loader,
can partially make up shortfalls in lift capacity. The
committee understands that accelerated acquisition of 60K
loaders through an additional 20 loaders in fiscal year 1997
could reduce Future Years Defense Plan (FYDP) costs of these
loaders by $27.4 million.
Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $23.1
million to acquire a total of 57 of the new 60K loaders, with
the understanding that the Department of Defense has programmed
sufficient funds in the outyears to complete the planned
acquisition of 60K loaders.
Joint force air component commander situational awareness system
The committee understands the need for a situational
awareness tool to provide joint force commanders with an
integrated display from multiple sources focused on dominant
battlespace awareness. The joint force air component commander
(JFACC) situational awareness system (JSAS) technology
demonstration provides this interim capability and will aid in
the definition of user requirements for future situational
awareness systems. Therefore, the committee recommends a net
increase of $9.5 million in fiscal year 1997 for this effort
($6.3 million in Other Procurement, Air Force, and $3.2 million
in Operation and Maintenance, Air Force).
DEFENSE-WIDE PROGRAMS
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
Defense-Wide Procurement
Common automatic recovery system
The committee is encouraged by the actions taken by the
Department of the Navy and the Joint Program Office to meet the
integration and fielding requirements of the common automatic
recovery system (CARS) into the Pioneer unmanned aerial vehicle
(UAV) system and with the planned initiatives to field CARS in
all UAVs. The committee believes that this low cost system will
reduce mishaps and improve operational effectiveness.
Accordingly, the committee directs the integration of CARS into
both the tactical unmanned aerial vehicle (TUAV) and the
Predator systems as soon as practicable and recommends an
increase of $8.0 million in Procurement, Defense-Wide, Line 7
(DARP).
C-130 aircraft modifications
The U.S. Special Operations Command (USSOCOM) has an
ongoing program to incrementally modify its special mission
aircraft to incorporate mature technology and preserve their
capability to counter evolving threats. The committee has
learned that additional funding in fiscal year 1997 would make
possible improvements to USSOCOM's AC-130U gunships and the MC-
130H Combat Talon II aircraft that would upgrade display
generation units, suppress the infrared signature of aircraft
engines, and improve sustainment for certain weapon systems.
Funding for these improvements could not be accommodated within
the budget request because of resource constraints.
The committee recommends an increase of $23.8 million for
survivability and sustainment improvements to the USSOCOM's
fleet of AC-130U Gunships and the MC-130H Combat Talon II
aircraft.
Advanced SEAL delivery system
The budget request contains no procurement funding for the
advanced SEAL delivery system (ASDS) for the special operations
forces.
The committee has learned that a changing interpretation of
administrative procedures between preparation of the fiscal
year 1996 and fiscal year 1997 budget requests caused $4.4
million of advance procurement funding for the ASDS to be
deleted from the fiscal year 1997 budget request at the last
minute. In fact, initial printed budget justification materials
that the committee received from the Department of Defense
still included this advance procurement in their tabular
displays. The consequence of this cut in funding would be a one
year delay in fielding the ASDS system.
To restore the ASDS program to its original schedule, the
committee recommends an increase of $4.4 million over the
budget request for the procurement of long-lead steel and
integrated control and display consoles needed for fabrication
of the first production ASDS. The U.S. Special Operations
Command estimates that acceleration of this funding from fiscal
year 1998 to fiscal year 1997 will avoid costs of about $10.0
million.
Special mission radio system
The U.S. Special Operations Command (USSOCOM) has a program
to procure a special mission radio system (SMRS). SMRS is
needed to satisfy long-range communications requirements of the
special forces. The operational requirements document for SMRS
was approved in May 1995, and the program is included in the
future years defense program. The committee has been informed
by USSOCOM that accelerated procurement could save $11.3
million through avoidance of future costs.
The committee recommends an addition of $9.4 million for
procurement of the SMRS.
SCAMPI communications system
The budget request contained no funding for procurement of
the SCAMPI communications system for the U.S. Special
Operations Command (USSOCOM). Additional funding in fiscal year
1997 would enable USSOCOM to procure the equipment necessary to
relocate and modernize three principal SCAMPI hubs to
accommodate bandwidth requirements.
The committee recommends an increase of $3.7 million to
complete hub relocation for USSOCOM's SCAMPI communications
system.
Briefcase multi-mission advanced tactical terminal
The U.S. Special Operations Command (USSOCOM) has been
engaged in an ongoing program to develop and procure the
briefcase multimission advanced tactical terminal (BMATT). This
program responds to a validated requirement for BMATT that is
contained in an October 1995 joint operational requirements
document. Procurement for BMATT is included in the future years
defense program. The Special Operations Command has informed
the committee that accelerated procurement of this proven,
operationally effective system will save $0.5 million and
enable the special forces to access, in near-real time,
intelligence information that is very important for mission
planning and execution.
The committee recommends an addition of $4.5 million to
accelerate the procurement of BMATT.
Procurement of ammunition--Special Operations
The committee is concerned with the inadequate funding for
ammunition that was contained in the President's budget
request. Ammunition is an important contributor to military
readiness, for training and in anticipation of conflict. The
committee recommends the following adjustments to the budget
request for Special Operations Forces ammunition procurement:
Item Millions
Selectable Lightweight Attack Munitions........................... $5.0
Time Delay Firing Device.......................................... 8.0
-----------------------------------------------------------------
________________________________________________
Total....................................................... 13.0
Other Items of Interest
Individual body armor
The committee is aware that current funding constraints
prevent the U.S. Special Operations Command (USSOCOM) from
procuring and issuing a set of individual body armor to each
member of special forces units that should use such equipment.
Special forces members who deploy for operational missions are
required to draw body armor from common stocks and turn it in
upon return. The rationale for this system appears to be that:
(1) it would be too expensive to issue an individual
set of body armor to each person; and
(2) more advanced equipment cannot be procured
because of the cost to replace all equipment at the
same time.
The committee has been informed that USSOCOM's current
system for management of individual body armor is unpopular
among special forces units because SEALs and other individuals
are often compelled to use equipment that is heavily soiled
from having been worn next to the body by other personnel for
long periods of time under demanding circumstances. The
committee understands that there is a different system for
similar equipment in conventional units, where troops, such as
infantrymen, are issued a helmet upon being assigned to the
unit for their exclusive use while assigned. Upon completion of
a tour of duty with their unit, infantrymen clean their helmets
and turn them in for reissue. The committee would support a
similar system for individual body armor for special forces.
The committee also notes that the current system appears
shortsighted and counterproductive, because the wear and tear
from repeated readjustment of the equipment to fit numerous
individuals is likely to be greater than if the equipment were
used by one person. Also, contrary to USSOCOM's apparent
procurement assumption, the committee finds no compelling
reason why all individual body armor must be replaced at the
same time for special forces personnel. It would seem that
advanced equipment could be procured annually, at a rate
sufficient to replace older equipment as it wears out.
The committee has learned that the estimated cost of
furnishing appropriate special forces with a set of individual
body armor is approximately $3.0 million. However, this
estimate lacks sufficient precision to merit a specific
recommendation by the committee in fiscal year 1997 to
implement such a program. Consequently, the committee directs
the Commander-in-Chief, U.S. Special Operations Command to
report to the congressional defense committees, not later than
March 3, 1997, on the advisability of changing the current
system and the associated costs of implementing any proposed
changes.
Procurement of recycled ammunition
Until this year, military specifications have required that
ammunition purchased by the military be manufactured entirely
from new components. This requirement effectively precluded the
use of recycled ammunition. While the committee believes that
such a prohibition may be appropriate for ammunition which is
intended to be used for war, it appears to be unnecessary for
training ammunition.
The committee is aware that there exists in the United
States large inventories of small caliber ammunition, most of
which is considered unsuitable for use in wartime or even
training. Because this ammunition cannot be used for either
purpose it is slated for destruction at considerable cost to
the Department.
Recently, it has been demonstrated that unserviceable
ammunition can be recycled, resulting in ammunition which is
serviceable for training purposes. This could be done at half
the cost of procuring new ammunition. This development, coupled
with legislative relief from the military specifications
requirement, has presented the Department of Defense with the
opportunity to substantially reduce the overall cost of
training ammunition. The Marine Corps has taken the lead in
this effort and is currently exploring the procurement of
several different types of recycled training ammunition. The
committee endorses this practical and innovative approach to
providing the resources necessary to training at reduced costs
and encourages a broader exploration of such practices.
The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to provide
to the congressional defense committees by January 31, 1997 a
report outlining current ammunition recycling programs in which
the Department is exploring or participating, the financial
implications of these programs, any safety concerns regarding
recycled ammunition, and the reliability of such ammunition.
C-130 remanufacture prototyping
The committee is aware of a proposal to remanufacture aging
C-130 aircraft. A prototyping program to design, develop, and
produce renewed C-130 aircraft could demonstrate the
feasibility of such an approach. Remanufacturing could yield
significant improvement in affordability for the Department in
modernizing its C-130 fleets throughout the Department of
Defense, in both the active and reserve forces of each of the
services. A validated remanufacturing process would provide
maximum flexibility for the Department in determining its
overall C-130 modernization plans.
Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense
to provide a report no later than March 1, 1997 on the net
benefits of pursuing such a program of definition and
demonstration of C-130 remanufacture. The report should
address, at a minimum: a listing of the C-130 fleets of each
service; each service's requirements for C-130s; the
Department's present long-range modernization plan for C-130s
for both active and reserve forces; and present plans for
disposal of replaced C-130s.
Predator UAV leasing
The committee is aware of the successful results of the
Predator UAV advanced concept technology demonstration (ACTD)
program, and the role the Predator has played during the crisis
in Bosnia. The Joint Requirements Oversight Council (JROC) has
established a requirement for 16 Predator systems, but fewer
than three systems are now available in the inventory.
As a way of providing commanders in the field with
additional Predator systems in the most timely fashion, the
committee believes that the Department of Defense should
consider the option of leasing a small number of Predator
systems. Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of
Defense to report to the congressional defense committees by
November 1, 1996 on the feasibility, desirability, cost-
effectiveness, and net benefits of proceeding with near-term,
full service leasing of the Predator UAV system.
National Guard and Reserve procurement reports
With the demise of the Air Force's follow-on tactical
reconnaissance program several years ago, the Air Force found
itself relying only on RF-4C aircraft to provide manned
tactical reconnaissance capability. When the Air Force Chief of
Staff decided to retire all remaining RF-4s, the Air Force
decided to use fiscal year 1994 funds authorized and
appropriated for the Air National Guard to provide an interim
capability on F-16 aircraft. This involved starting a new
program to buy a non-developmental system carried in a pod.
Both the statement of managers accompanying the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1994 (H. Rept. 103-
357) and the conference report accompanying the Department of
Defense Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 1994 (H. Rept. 103-
339) required the Department of Defense to report to Congress
on how the funds provided in miscellaneous equipment categories
would be spent. The list provided by the Assistant Secretary of
Defense for Reserve Affairs specified how the $50.0 million for
the Air National Guard would be spent. That list identified no
funding for F-16 pods. The only funding related to F-16s was an
item for ``220E aircraft engine upgrades.''
The committee is unable to find any indication that the
Department notified the congressional defense committees before
diverting these funds for a new start program. The committee
has supported providing the Air Force with a continuing manned
reconnaissance capability. However, the committee takes a very
dim view of having a service not use normal procedures for
notifying the Congress of such funding shifts that involve
starting a new program that was neither included in the budget
nor approved by the Congress. The committee insists that the
Department follow normal reprogramming and notification
procedures for funds authorized and appropriated for National
Guard and Reserve procurement programs.
TITLE II--RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION
The committee recommends investments in research and
development to address mission needs and to ensure that
military systems embody the most advanced technologies.
Appropriate subcommittees of the full committee conducted
hearings and reviewed information on various research and
development program requests including: national and theater
missile defense programs; Army general purpose programs; new
ships and related ship programs; tactical and strategic
aircraft and associated systems; counterproliferation programs;
command, control and communications programs; science and
technology programs; and service efforts to support emerging
operational concepts. The committee's research and development
priorities were to focus on improving battlefield capabilities
to assure continuing U.S. military superiority and to achieve
future savings.
Explanation of tables
The tables in this title display items requested by the
administration for fiscal year 1997 and the committee's actions
in regard to the requested amounts. As in the past, the
administration may not exceed the amounts approved by the
committee (as set forth in the tables or, if unchanged from the
administration request, as set forth in the Department of
Defense's budget justification documents) without a
reprogramming action in accordance with established procedures.
Technology and future military operations
On May 5, 1995, the Subcommittee on Acquisition and
Technology received testimony from Admiral William Owens, Vice
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and Mr. Andrew Marshall,
Director of Net Assessment in the Department of Defense on the
emerging outlines of a revolution in military affairs. This
fundamental change to the nature of military operations derives
from the potential applications of new technologies, especially
information technologies, geopolitical changes begun with the
end of the Cold War, and organizational changes in the
Department of Defense accelerated with the passage of the
Goldwater-Nichols reforms in 1986. One working definition of a
revolution in military affairs was provided by Dr. Andrew
Krepinevich, Director of the Center for Strategic and Budgetary
Assessments, during the hearing as follows:
A military revolution occurs when the application of
new technologies to military systems combines with
innovative operational concepts and organizational
adaptation to alter fundamentally the character of
conflict by producing a discontinuous leap in the
combat potential and effectiveness of armed forces.
During the hearing, Admiral Owens pointed to a number of
critical factors that are necessary for potentially
revolutionary military capabilities to emerge over the next 20
to 30 years. Admiral Owens recommended focusing technology on
creating a ``system of systems'' for dominance of the
battlefield on an ever-larger scale rather than on improving
existing capabilities. Key components of the system of systems
approach are information technologies for surveillance and
communication as well as precision weapons technologies.
Another key element in the quest to achieve revolutionary
capabilities is the need to drive this transformation from the
top down in a joint warfighting context either through the
Joint Requirements Oversight Council (JROC) or the Joint Chiefs
of Staff. An additional factor often overlooked, but which is
exceedingly important, is the creation of a climate within each
of the military services which actively fosters bold,
innovative thinking about warfighting concepts within the
officer corps. The service academies and the war colleges will
play a central role in developing or impeding this environment.
Mr. Marshall, Dr. Krepinevich, and Dr. Daniel Goure (Deputy
Director, Political-Military Studies, Center for Strategic and
International Studies) raised a number of issues with regard to
the so-called revolution in military affairs and the manner in
which the concepts underlying future warfare are being
developed and supported in the Department of Defense. During
the hearing, there was disagreement over the pace at which a
military revolution may be possible or whether, as Dr. Goure
asserted, such a revolution must involve a much greater
redefinition of the meaning of power in the international order
than is currently under discussion in the Department of
Defense. Both witnesses raised concerns about the likelihood
that the focus on more traditional operational concepts in the
Bottom-Up Review strategic blueprint is driving budget
decisions that would sacrifice the development of long-term
revolutionary capabilities by funding the near-term
requirements embodied in the two-MRC scenario.
On March 15, 1996, the Subcommittee on Acquisition and
Technology continued exploring the impact of emerging,
potentially revolutionary concepts of future warfare by
receiving testimony from representatives of the military
services on their current efforts to develop these concepts and
to integrate them into their technology investment programs for
fiscal year 1997 and beyond. The services have all embarked on
efforts to define and support emerging operational concepts.
The Army has a relatively mature program through its Force XXI
process. The Marine Corps, with personal and strong support
from the Commandant, General Krulak, has developed an
aggressive five-year plan for concept development and
experimentation in the Commandant's Warfighting Laboratory as
part of its Sea Dragon process. The Navy, through the CNO-
sponsored Vision 2020 process, is just beginning to focus on
operational concepts that will influence the Navy Science and
Technology budget in future years. The Air Force is beginning
to assess the impact of the Air Force Science Board
recommendations in the New World Vistas study, as well as
recommendations in a number of other studies, on its Science
and Technology investment strategy. In each of the service
programs, several common technology themes predominate,
however, that are consistent with the concepts under review in
the discussion about the potential for a revolution in military
affairs. They include: information dominance, precision
targeting and delivery, and increased maneuver. Testimony
during the hearing also made clear the need for continuing
acquisition reform to decrease cycle times for introducing new
technologies into the services and for increasing access to
technologies being rapidly developed and deployed by the
commercial sector.
Major areas of concern
The committee is pleased that each of the services has
embarked on a sustained process for developing emerging
operational concepts that flow out of current discussions about
the impending revolution in military affairs. There are
numerous issues that must be addressed in the near term,
however, to ensure that emerging operational concepts result in
adequately leveraged technologies to guarantee battlefield
dominance through the first half of the 21st century.
Jointness
The committee is aware that the Chairman of the Joint
Chiefs of Staff is about to complete Joint Vision 2010, a
document that has the potential to provide a joint guidance
overlay for the service efforts to define new operational
concepts. To date, however, as each of the services undertakes
to define new operational concepts, it is not clear that there
is any process above the service level to ensure the necessary
coordination and focus of a joint vision. Each of the services
appears to be planning new approaches to warfare without
involving the other services directly in the process. Each of
the services appears to be following different assumptions
concerning the threat environment, technology applications, and
the future of military power in the emerging international
order. There are several programs at the level of the JROC and
the Joint Chiefs of Staff to ensure that the joint warfighting
requirements in the nearer term are reflected in the
programming and budgeting decisions through the Chairman's
Program Assessment and the Chairman's Program Recommendations
to the Defense Planning Guidance. What is lacking is a process
to ensure that the emerging long-term visions of each of the
services will be melded into an affordable, coordinated series
of operational concepts that will drive the Joint Warfighting
Science and Technology Plan developed in the Office of the
Director of Defense Research and Engineering.
Affordability
The committee is also concerned that affordability issues
and present and future defense budget realities are not being
considered appropriately in the services'' attempts to develop
concepts of future warfare. One witness noted in testimony
before the Acquisition and Technology Subcommittee that, ``The
greatest challenge we face in this new world order is the
constrained budget environment in which we operate.'' The
problem is particularly acute for the Army and the Marine
Corps, which are being called upon to carry out a greater
number of missions in an expanding spectrum of operations with
less operational and investment funding.
Each of the services programs to define and exploit new
operational capabilities focuses to a great extent on deploying
new and expensive technologies within many of the traditional
roles and missions of the services. It is doubtful whether
future defense budgets will support the deployment of such new
technological capabilities on the scale proposed by current
analyses without a greater focus on affordability initiatives.
Too much effort may be expended chasing unachievable
operational capabilities, while more revolutionary approaches
to joint operations, radical transformations in roles and
missions, and fundamental reorganizations remain undeveloped in
the service processes.
Incremental versus revolutionary approaches
New technology advances offer a very significant temptation
to forego pursuit of longer-term, but less certain,
revolutionary capabilities in favor of substantial improvements
in existing operational capabilities. Each of the service
witnesses at the Acquisition and Technology Subcommittee
hearing on March 15, 1996 admitted the difficulty of balancing
evolutionary and revolutionary approaches to future warfare.
Increasing operational demands on the military to support
peacekeeping and other non-traditional missions combined with a
constrained budget environment serve to strengthen pressures to
devote analysis and resources to extend capabilities to meet
current operational shortfalls rather than forging
revolutionary capabilities. A more aggressive top-down approach
across traditional roles and missions is needed to ensure that
a potential revolution in military capabilities is not
foreclosed by a focus on dramatic but ultimately incremental
enhancements to performance of existing platforms and
organizations.
Out of phase processes
As the testimony presented at the March 15 Acquisition and
Technology Subcommittee revealed, the services are all at very
different stages of a process to come to grips with emerging
operational concepts. The Army's Force XXI process is the most
mature with many of the technology priorities reflected in the
research and development and procurement portions of the
administration's budget request for fiscal year 1997. The
Marine Corps has also vigorously pursued efforts to carry out
its Sea Dragon program with minimal resources. The Navy and Air
Force, on the other hand, are both at a relatively early stage
in their respective processes with the likelihood that the
earliest impact of the current analyses and wargames will not
be seen until the fiscal year 1998 Science and Technology
budget requests for those services are submitted. This lack of
coordination across the services may significantly impede the
development of the revolutionary military capabilities that cut
across traditional roles and missions.
Initiatives for future operational capabilities
Investment in technology is only one, albeit important,
pillar in the development of revolutionary capabilities. The
committee has noted several shortfalls, however, in the fiscal
year 1997 request for technology base programs and the
associated authority in law for the use of such funds. The
committee has recommended a number of initiatives to address
these concerns and to ensure that sufficient funding in the
Research, Development, Test and Evaluation account is available
to support continuous effort by the services to pursue
revolutionary operational capabilities.
Affordability
The committee has recommended $80.0 million in increases to
programs supporting near- and long-term affordability of
systems. These recommendations, which are described in more
detail below, include increases in funding for manufacturing
technology programs in the services, focused affordability
initiatives in the Navy, and a number of programs designed to
reduce the cost of advanced materials and advanced electronic
technologies.
Development of advanced operational concepts
The committee has recommended an increase of $100.0 million
for Force XXI initiatives to accelerate the acquisition of
promising technologies for rapid field testing in the Army's
various experiments and demonstration programs under Force XXI
for potential follow-on acquisition under the Warfighting Rapid
Acquisition Program. The committee has also recommended an
increase of $40.0 million for the support and acceleration of
the Marine Corps Sea Dragon technology supporting experiments
conducted by the Commandant's Warfighting Laboratory.
Additionally, the committee has recommended a provision that
would extend to the military services the authority currently
available to the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency to
use other transactions for prototyping experiments under
section 845 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 1994.
Jointness and connectivity
In order to promote a greater degree of jointness in the
efforts of each of the services to develop emerging operational
concepts, the committee has recommended a provision that would
require the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff in his role
as Chairman of the Joint Requirements Oversight Council to
review and annually report to Congress on the current service
efforts in this area and to describe the methods by which these
efforts are being coordinated above the service level. The
committee has also recommended a provision that would require
the Secretary of Defense to submit to Congress the annual Joint
Warfighting Science and Technology Plan to ensure that the
technology priorities being identified as a result of current
experiments and wargames in the services are adequately
supported in the request for defense science and technology
funding.
SUBTITLE A--AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS
Section 203. Defense Nuclear Agency.
The budget request included $314.3 million for the Defense
Nuclear Agency (DNA) for operation and maintenance ($85.1
million), procurement ($7.9 million) and research and
development ($221.3 million). The committee recommends an
increase of $15.0 million to the DNA budget request. The
committee directs that the funds be used: to increase the
frequency of nuclear weapons incident field training exercises
($3.0 million for operations and maintenance); to leverage DNA
capabilities developed to combat nuclear threats during the
Cold War by establishing a counter terrorism technology support
program; and to establish a nuclear weapon delivery sustainment
program which, in conjunction with the military services, will
provide affordable technologies, manufacturing processes, and
test and evaluation techniques to maintain nuclear delivery
systems over their anticipated extended life cycles ($12.0
million).
Maintaining critical skills necessary to sustain U.S. nuclear strategic
forces
As noted during hearings this year and in previous years,
the committee remains concerned with the ability of the (DOD)
to maintain the core competencies of expertise necessary to
sustain its nuclear force, in the absence of nuclear testing,
in the foreseeable future. The committee recommends that DOD
take additional steps to sustain this expertise within the
military services and civilian personnel in the Department.
The President has directed that the future safety and
reliability of the nuclear force be maintained through the
Stockpile Stewardship and Management Program of the Department
of Energy. The safety, security, and reliability of the all
nuclear weapons systems, to include the delivery system and
related command and control and other associated subsystems, is
the responsibility of the Department of Defense. In order for
DOD to ensure the safety and reliability of its nuclear forces,
its military and civilian personnel must maintain their nuclear
expertise and core competencies.
In order to retain core competencies and critical
scientific and engineering skills of the military services and
civilian personnel, it is the committee's understanding that
DOD and DOE will archive data, manufacturing processes and test
procedures. In the absence of underground nuclear testing, the
archival of data is important; however, it cannot assure future
nuclear expertise. The committee believes that more immediate
action by the Department is needed to retain core competencies
and to pass on this knowledge base and critical skills to
future nuclear defense-oriented scientists, engineers and
weapons systems developers.
The committee understands that DNA, the national
laboratories and the military service laboratories have
initiated efforts to work together through an alliance to
sustain the scientific and engineering skills necessary to
maintain our nuclear forces. The committee appreciates the
efforts of DNA, Sandia National Laboratories, Los Alamos
National Laboratory, Lawrence Livermore Laboratory and Phillips
Laboratory to respond to the critical requirement to maintain
core competencies.
The Department shall report to the committee by October 1,
1996 on potential initiatives to retain core competencies that
would involve developing key science and technology programs.
The report should also identify potential opportunities for
conducting cooperative training and education programs between
educational institutions, industry, and the Defense Nuclear
Weapons School, the national laboratories and the military
services. Lastly, the report should identify potential career
paths for entry-level engineers and scientists and the funding
necessary to sustain a program of this nature.
SUBTITLE B--PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS, RESTRICTIONS, AND LIMITATIONS
Section 211. Space launch modernization.
The committee supports the Department of Defense's Evolved
Expendable Launch Vehicle (EELV) program because of the
potential for significant near-term reductions in launch cost
and improvements in responsiveness. However, the committee
believes that the Department should also begin planning for how
it would use a reusable launch vehicle (RLV). Well before we
have an operational RLV, the Department of Defense (DOD) will
have to rethink its technological and operational approaches to
the use of space for meeting communications, reconnaissance,
and other military requirements. Therefore, the committee
recommends an increase of $25.0 million in PE 63401F to begin
the necessary technical and operational developments that will
be required for the Department to fully utilize RLV systems
once they become operational. The committee notes that the
Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Space has expressed
serious interest in coordinating the efforts within the
Department of Defense and between the Department of Defense and
the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) on RLV
development and planning. The committee applauds this
initiative.
The committee recommends a provision that would not permit
the use of DOD funds for RLV in an amount in excess of that
dedicated to the program by NASA. The provision also prohibits
the obligation of funds authorized for EELV in fiscal year 1997
until the Secretary of Defense certifies that the DOD plans to
obligate the funds authorized for RLV in a manner consistent
with this Act.
Section 212. Department of Defense Space Architect.
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of Defense to include the kinetic energy tactical
anti-satellite (ASAT) program in the space control architecture
that will be developed by the Department's new Space Architect.
The provision would prohibit the use of fiscal year 1997
defense funds to support the Space Architect until the
Secretary certifies that he will include the ASAT program in
the space control architecture and that he has obligated fiscal
year 1996 funds and will obligate fiscal year 1997 funds
appropriated for the kinetic energy ASAT, consistent with
congressional guidance.
Section 213. Space-based infrared system program.
Section 216 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 1996 (Public Law 104-106) requires the Secretary of
Defense to prepare and submit to Congress a new program
baseline for the Space-Based Infrared System (SBIRS) program,
including an accelerated schedule for development and
deployment of the Space and Missile Tracking System (SMTS). The
committee has been disappointed by the Department's delay in
responding to this statutory guidance and reluctance to
obligate funds appropriated for SMTS in fiscal year 1996. Due
to this lack of responsiveness, the committee recommends a
provision that would provide for the conditional transfer of
SMTS back to the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization (BMDO),
where the program had previously resided.
The committee is aware, however, that the Department of the
Air Force and the Office of the Secretary of Defense have
instituted a process that will purportedly bring the Department
of Defense into compliance with section 216 (Public Law 104-
106). Based on assurances to this effect, the committee has
decided to condition the transfer of the SMTS program. If,
within 30 days after enactment of this Act, the Secretary of
Defense certifies to Congress that the requirements of section
216 (Public Law 104-106) have been carried out, then the
requirement to transfer SMTS to BMDO shall cease to be
effective.
The committee notes that the Air Force has informed the
committee that the program baseline required by section 216
(Public Law 104-106) is achievable at a reasonable level of
risk. The committee has been in regular contact with the Air
Force to review in detail draft schedules for the new program
baseline. The committee also notes that its desire to foster
greater competition in the SMTS program has been endorsed by
the Office of the Secretary of Defense and the Air Force. The
committee has been informed by senior Department of Defense
officials that the Department's decision to recommend
rescission of $51.0 million of the fiscal year 1996 SMTS
appropriation was a mistake based on incomplete information,
and that the Department is eager to obligate such funds for the
purpose for which they were originally authorized and
appropriated. Finally, the committee notes that both the Air
Force and the Office of the Secretary of Defense unofficially
recommended an increase of $134.0 million in fiscal year 1997
to enhance competition in the SMTS program and to preserve the
option of accelerating the SMTS schedule, consistent with
section 216 (Public Law 104-106).
The committee recommends sufficient funding in fiscal year
1997 for the overall SBIRS program to implement the program
baseline established in section 216(a) of P.L. 104-106. Since
the budget request is deficient for both the space segment high
and the space segment low (SMTS), the committee recommends an
increase of $134.0 million in PE 63441F to support SMTS
acceleration, and an increase of $19.1 million in PE 64441F to
restore SBIRS high to the baseline program previously approved
by the committee and to preclude a slip in fielding one or both
of the overseas relay ground stations supporting the 1999
Defense Support Program consolidation.
Section 214. Research for advanced submarine technology.
The committee recommends a provision that would repeal
section 132 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 1996. Additional discussion of the rationale for
this provision may be found in the section of this report
dealing with national defense features.
Section 215. Clementine 2 micro-satellite development program.
In fiscal year 1996, the Air Force Space Command, in
conjunction with the Air Force Phillips Laboratory, initiated a
Clementine 2 micro-satellite program as a follow-on to the
highly successful Clementine 1 mission. The Clementine 2
program will develop, test, and flight-validate a variety of
miniaturized spacecraft technologies with applications to a
wide number of military and intelligence space programs. By
using near-earth asteroids as sensor demonstration targets, the
mission will also provide benefits to the civil science
community. Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of
$50.0 million in PE 63401F to continue this effort under the
control of the Space Warfare Center, with execution by the
Clementine team (Phillips Laboratory, the Naval Research
Laboratory, and the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory).
The committee also recommends a provision that would
prohibit the use of funds authorized in this Act for the Global
Positioning System Block IIF satellite system until the
Secretary of Defense certifies to Congress that: (1) funds
appropriated for fiscal year 1996 for the Clementine 2 micro-
satellite program have been obligated; and (2) the Secretary
has made available for obligation funds appropriated for fiscal
year 1997 for the Clementine 2 micro-satellite program.
Section 217. Defense airborne reconnaissance program.
The budget request for unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs)
included $438.6 million for research and development for a
variety of reconnaissance programs within the defense airborne
reconnaissance program (DARP) as listed below:
DARP RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
[Dollars in millions]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Program Purpose Amount Change
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tactical UAV (TUAV)......................... Provide warfighters with day/night aerial $64.6 -12.8
reconnaissance to support combat operations.
Endurance UAV (EUAV)........................ Provide wide area reconnaissance support with 176.4 ........
the following UAV systems: ``Predator'' (Tier
II) medium altitude endurance (MAE); ``Global
Hawk'' (Tier II+) conventional, high altitude
endurance (CONV HAE); and ``Dark Star'' (Tier
III-) low observable, high altitude endurance
(LO HAE).
Manned Reconnaissance Program............... Support the entire range of users from 28.3 +42.7
tactical to National Command Authority.
Distributed Common Ground System............ Provide a system capable of receiving and 55.3 ........
processing data from multiple airborne
platforms.
Airborne Reconnaissance Program (ARP)....... Respond to evolving threats by funding and 114.0 -6.5
coordinating other advanced airborne
reconnaissance technologies.
-------------------
Total................................. .............................................. 438.6 +23.4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unmanned Aerial Vehicles
Tactical Unmanned Aerial Vehicle Program
The committee applauds the attempts by the Department of
Defense to rationalize programs for meeting the requirements of
users at the tactical level. The committee believes that the
Department has offered a reasonable plan to move toward a set
of systems to meet requirements in the long-term. However, the
committee remains concerned about the pressure to proliferate
systems to meet particular niche markets. This makes the
tactical UAV development program all the more important.
The Department has proposed to manage the tactical UAV
program as an advanced concept technology demonstration (ACTD).
This proposal differs from previous ACTDs, however, in that the
budget supports an immediate transition into production of the
candidate system that wins the tactical UAV competition.
The committee understands that a request for proposals
(RFP) has been released, and contract award is expected within
one month of this report. The restructuring of the program and
the creation of an ACTD has resulted in an excess of unexpended
funds from fiscal year 1995 and fiscal year 1996; accordingly,
the committee recommends a reduction of $12.8 million and
encourages the Department to reprogram any remaining funds
within the DARP.
The committee notes the success achieved in the Predator
ACTD, which has achieved many operational successes in Bosnia.
The Predator program is the first ACTD that will ``graduate''
from development status into production. There has been
sufficient time to operationally test the Predator before we
committed resources in the Future Years Defense Program (FYDP)
to any major production program. This is in stark contrast to
the Hunter UAV program, where production began much too soon.
In a rush to production and deployment, the Department now owns
multiple Hunter systems that will be stored for potential
future use.
This presents both a problem and an opportunity. We will be
saddled with a one-of-a-kind system and storage costs.
Nevertheless, having the Hunter systems available (and the
Pioneer and Predator UAV systems) means that we do not need to
rush to production of the tactical UAV. Therefore, the
committee directs the Department of Defense not to enter into
any limited production for tactical UAVs beyond the number
required to conduct the core ACTD program.
Dark Star UAV
The committee is encouraged that the Dark Star UAV has
finally achieved first flight. Unfortunately, achieving this
milestone was delayed by more than six months from the date
estimated by the contractors last year, and the aircraft
crashed on its second flight. This is in direct contrast to the
pleas that the program was ahead of schedule and could use
additional funds in fiscal year 1996 for additional air
vehicles. The committee understands that this delay was caused
by deficiencies in the avionics system, resulting from software
problems. A problem with software has been an all too common
problem in other programs and has frequently been a harbinger
of even bigger problems later. The committee believes that
achieving theater-level support promised by the Dark Star is
too important to have this program burdened by the problems
deriving from too much production with too little progress in
the air. While the specific causes of a recent Dark Star crash
are as yet unknown, the committee views with concern the
headlong rush to accelerate the program.
Therefore, the committee recommends a provision to direct
the Department of Defense to refrain from awarding contracts
for additional air vehicles beyond the original ACTD proposal,
or any other work related to additional air vehicles, as a
hedge against further program surprises.
Predator
The Predator UAV, formerly known as the Tier II, has
enjoyed significant success in Bosnia operations. The committee
understands the Department is interested in procuring a
substantial number of Predator systems for future fielding. The
Predator was itself an ACTD, as is the Dark Star. Full scale
acquisition of Predators will be a benchmark for ACTDs, since
no other ACTDs have gone to full production. ACTDs are designed
for limited scale demonstrations, rather than as acquisition
programs, and are hence free from various acquisition
regulations.
The committee is gratified by the Predator's successes, and
interested in a comparison of Predator's capabilities versus
those of the Tier III- . The committee has frequently noted
concern over the number of UAV types and apparent mission
overlap between the various programs. Specifically, could the
Predator be a substitute for the Tier III- if the Dark Star
endured further program setbacks? If Predator can successfully
transition to production, it may be a near-term solution while
other UAVs are in development. Conversely, if the Predator does
not have sufficient capability for future missions, the
resources devoted to Predator acquisition might be better used
for the developing Dark Star program. Accordingly, the
committee recommends a provision to direct the Defense Airborne
Reconnaissance Office (DARO) to withhold Predator acquisition
until 60 days after submitting a report that compares the
capabilities and costs of the two programs and makes
recommendations for the future of the two programs should
funding for only one program be available.
Manned Reconnaissance Upgrades
While there have been strides made in UAV's and there are
promising developmental programs in progress for sensor
integration, the committee notes the gap between fielded UAV's
and required capabilities. In order to ensure continuing
reconnaissance capacity, the committee recommends close
attention be paid to U-2 capabilities, payloads and training
now.
SIGINT payloads
Last year the committee recognized the need for incremental
upgrades to the SIGINT capabilities of the U-2. Noting the
development of the joint airborne SIGINT architecture (JASA) as
an important initiative for future intelligence gathering, the
committee also acknowledges the need to remain capable in the
near-term, while awaiting JASA development.
The committee is aware that the DARO has listed U-2
recapitalization, specifically procurement of two additional
Senior Glass payloads, as their top unfunded priority.
Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $32.7
million to procure and integrate two additional Senior Glass
payloads. Also, the committee is aware of an initiative within
the DARO to reprogram excess funds from the cancelled Hunter
UAV program which contains additional Senior Glass payloads for
the U-2. The committee expects to receive such a request in the
near future.
Senior Year electro-optical reconnaissance system (SYERS)
The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996
recommended an increase in the DARO budget for U-2 sensor
upgrades, including the SYERS.
The SYERS provides the U-2 with its only operational real-
time imaging system. Following the Gulf War, the DARO initiated
a program to enhance SYERS capabilities to provide wide area
coverage, geolocation ability, multi-spectral imaging
capability, and simultaneous operation with other sensor
packages. However, the program has not been funded to
completion, leaving a final package upgrade, the U-2000
program, unfunded. Accordingly, the committee recommends an
increase of $10.0 million to repackage the SYERS sensor for
simultaneous operation with other sensors, and to begin the
effort to add geolocation and broad area coverage, and multi
spectral capabilities.
U-2 simulator
The committee appreciates the fact that U-2 operational
tempo is demanding of both equipment and crews, leaving little
opportunity for training new crews or ensuring proficiency in
all aspects of operations. The unique nature of the U-2's
aerodynamics demands precise flying that can only be perfected
through practice. The lack of training time available for the
aircraft, as well as the advances now available in simulation
at modest cost, combine to suggest the need for simulator
training for U-2 crews. The committee is persuaded that
training costs could be reduced and safety enhanced through the
use of simulation. The committee encourages the Air Force to
begin a program to acquire a motion-based flight simulator for
U-2 flight crews, and directs the Secretary of the Air Force to
report to the congressional defense committees on the
feasibility of U-2 simulation, to include the funding required,
realistic completion date, and a net benefit analysis of
acquiring a U-2 flight simulator.
Airborne Reconnaissance Program (ARP)
Common data link
The common data link is an effort to define and implement
an interoperable command, control, and communications
capability. The committee understands that the program has not
been able to execute fully in fiscal year 1996, and accordingly
recommends a reduction of $6.5 million in the program.
Section 218. Cost analysis of F-22 aircraft program.
The committee notes that F-22 production costs, as reported
in the selected acquisition report (SAR), have not changed
fundamentally since Milestone II in June 1991. It is unclear
how F-22 costs could remain the same despite significant
changes in the aircraft's weight, material mix, and avionics
during these crucial development years.
Accordingly, the committee was concerned to learn that the
Department intends to move funding for the four pre-production
aircraft from the procurement account to research and
development, since this change could further delay a new
independent life-cycle cost estimate for the F-22 program. The
last independent cost estimate occurred at Milestone II in
1991, the last time there were major cost changes to the
program.
Neither the Congress nor the Secretary of Defense should
have to wait another two to three years, or a total of seven to
eight years to review F-22 costs. The committee notes the Air
Force leadership appears to share this concern since it has
commissioned an F-22 ``cost scrub'' due in the fall of 1996.
While the committee is pleased that the service has decided to
review the F-22's costs, the Secretary and the Congress would
benefit from the completion of an independent cost analysis of
the program. Accordingly, the committee recommends a provision
that directs the Office of the Secretary of Defense Cost
Analysis Improvement Group (OSD CAIG) to review the program and
prepare its own independent estimate of the program, and to
report the results of this estimate to the congressional
defense committees no later than March 30, 1997, with no more
than 92 percent of the funds recommended in fiscal year 1997
for the F-22 program to be spent until the analysis is
delivered.
Section 219. F-22 aircraft program.
The budget request included $2,003.0 million for
engineering and manufacturing development (EMD) of the F-22.
The committee has repeatedly noted its concerns with
concurrency, that is, overlap of production and testing, in the
F-22 program. One source of that concern was a Defense Science
Board report on concurrency and risk in the F-22 program, dated
April 1995, which was prepared in response to committee
direction contained in the committee report to accompany S.
2182 (S. Rept. 103-282). The report's summary conclusions were:
(1) The program is very ambitious technically.
(2) For each risk area there are significant
achievements that should be demonstrated before release
of funding for Lot 2 (12 aircraft) Contract Award.
(3) The engine and passive surveillance avionics are
the highest risk areas.
(4) In the event of inadequate progress, the program
can be slipped by staying at the 4 aircraft per year
rate.
(5) Stretching the program in this way may reduce
risk but can create cost, manpower and obsolescence
problems.
(6) There is no risk-concurrency reason to introduce
such a stretch at this time.
The committee held a hearing again this year on tactical
aviation forces modernization and reviewed the F-22 EMD
program. During this year's hearings, the Air Force witness
testified that he was ``comfortable'' with the level of
concurrency and that he felt the level of risk in the program
is acceptable. The witness indicated that the F-22 is an
``event driven program that insures that key criteria are met
as a prerequisite to production decisions.'' This concept has
been described as ``event-based.'' Under this approach, the
program moves to new steps in research and development or low-
rate production contracts only after having demonstrated
specific progress in achieving definite objectives (called
``exit criteria''). In other words, the program is ``promoted''
based on demonstrated performance.
During the hearing on tactical aviation, the committee
agreed with this approach, but noted that at the Critical
Design Review when the F-22 exceeded weight limits, the action
taken was to ``make a degradation in the envelope and thereby
allow the increase in weight.''
The committee is concerned that the Department intends to
buy 76 aircraft prior to Milestone III, which substantially
exceeds the reporting threshold of 10 percent of total program
procurement (44, or 10 percent of 442 total aircraft in the
program). The committee notes subsection 2400(a) of the Federal
Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994, which requires that the
Secretary of Defense Report on how many items will be procured
under low-rate initial production (LRIP) for a system. The Act
requires that the Secretary report on his reasons for buying
more than 10 percent of the total program under LRIP, if he
decides at the Milestone II decision point to do so. That
report must be included in the first selected acquisition
report (SAR) after having made the decision.
The committee is aware that the F-22 program is in the
early stages of EMD, and many event-based decisions are yet to
come. Not wanting to make arbitrary cuts in the program or
disturb the balance between research and production, which
could create cost, manpower and obsolescence problems, the
committee believes the Department should provide additional
reports to Congress outside the normal budget cycle. Therefore
the committee recommends a provision, directing the Under
Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Technology to report
on upcoming event-based decisions and their criteria, and the
outcomes of those decisions with explanations of the decisions
made.
Section 220. Nonlethal weapons and technologies programs.
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
$15.0 million for a joint service research and development
program for non-lethal weapons technologies capabilities to be
administered by the executive agent. Additionally, the
committee recommends authorization of $3.0 million in the
operation and maintenance account for the Marine Corps and $2.0
million in the operation and maintenance account for the Army
to fulfill immediate procurement needs for non-lethal weapons
to correct inventory deficiencies.
The committee also recommends a provision that would limit
the use of funds authorized in program element 605130D (foreign
comparative testing) and program element 603790D (NATO research
and development) until funds authorized for the non-lethal
weapons program element authorized in the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996, and funds authorized
for fiscal year 1997, are released to the executive agent of
the program. Lastly, the committee is aware that the budget
request for fiscal year 1996 also includes funds in the budget
request for the Department and separate defense agencies in
program elements 603220E and 602715H for research and
development of non-lethal weapons technologies. The committee
requests that research and development efforts funded by these
program elements be coordinated with the executive agent for
the non-lethal weapons technology program.
Since 1990, the role of U.S. military forces in
peacekeeping and operations other than war has increased
dramatically. Examples of operations where U.S. military forces
have been deployed include evacuation operations in politically
unstable areas, disaster relief, humanitarian assistance in
response to internal political upheavals, and peace enforcement
and peacekeeping. These deployments, in varied and non-
traditional missions, have placed our military forces in
potentially dangerous noncombat situations involving civilians
and terrorists. The fielding of non-lethal capabilities in
Somalia and Haiti, while modest in scope, provided U.S.
military forces with increased flexibility in the force
continuum, where previously the only options available were
either to do nothing or to use deadly force. It is likely that
U.S. military forces will continue to be confronted by
unorthodox military challenges in the future, and the committee
strongly believes that non-lethal capabilities are necessary to
manage, contain, and defuse certain volatile and low intensity
situations.
The committee sought to ensure that the military services
possess the technologies, systems and munitions necessary to
perform peacekeeping missions and operations other than war by
authorizing $41.0 million in fiscal year 1995. In fiscal year
1996, the Congress directed the Department to centralize
funding for non-lethal weapons and technologies, and to assign
management of the program to an executive agent, preferably a
user of the technologies, such as a military service. This
executive agent would be in a position to identify and
prioritize service requirements for non-lethal research and
development efforts based on operational experience and needs.
In recent testimony before the committee, the Department
announced that the Commandant of the Marine Corps, along with
the Director of the Commandant's War Fighting Laboratory, had
been designated as the executive agent for the Department's
non-lethal weapons program. As outlined to the committee, the
Marine Corps will coordinate activities of the services,
defense agencies and the U.S. Special Operations Command, but
would exercise direct control only over the Marine Corps
activities. According to DOD, all budgetary oversight and
direction for research, development, and procurement of non-
lethal weapons technologies would remain the responsibility of
the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition. The committee
is deeply concerned by the Department's decision not to comply
with direction provided last year.
Additionally, the committee has learned that $37.2 million
authorized last year for the non-lethal weapons technologies
program has been withheld from the executive agent by the
Department. The committee directs the Department to comply with
section 219 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 1996 and release funds authorized for the non-
lethal weapons technologies to the executive agent for
implementation of the program.
Finally, the committee understands that the military
services have identified the need for additional funding in
fiscal year 1996 to reduce development risk in a number of
areas such as kinetics, entanglements and acoustics.
Additionally, the committee has learned that the military
services have identified $26.0 million in shortfalls in the
current non-lethal weapons inventory. The committee recommends
that the Department seek to reprogram $26.0 million from funds
authorized in fiscal year 1996 for research and development of
non-lethal weapons to be used for the procurement of non-lethal
weapons to meet inventory deficits.
Section 221. Counterproliferation support program.
The fiscal year 1997 budget request included $93.7 million
for the Counterproliferation Support Program to accelerate the
development and deployment of essential military
counterproliferation technologies and capabilities in the
Department of Defense (DOD) and the military services. The
committee recommends an increase of $75.0 million to the budget
request for the continuation of the Army's tactical
antisatellite (ASAT) technologies program.
Proliferation of Space Technology
The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996
included $30.0 million for the Army's tactical antisatellite
technologies program. The committee is concerned with the
Department's decision to include the funds authorized and
appropriated for the Army's tactical antisatellite technologies
program on the rescission list. The Commander in Chief of Space
Command has testified before the committee of the importance of
space and the inherent advantage of controlling this
operational medium for the military. General Ashy testified
that, ``the use of space and control of this space medium are
essential to today's military operations.'' The committee
understands that the Army's Space and Strategic Defense Command
did not agree with the decision to rescind the funds authorized
for the tactical ASAT program because it believes that the
kinetic energy technology will prove to be a vital capability
for the future and may have applicability to other programs.
In order to avoid significant delays and increased costs in
developing this capability, the Congress directed the
Department to build on the Army's tactical antisatellite
technology program. However, the Department's decision to
include the funds authorized for this program in a rescission
package may have caused the program to be delayed by a year,
and potentially increased the cost of the program.
The committee directs DOD to release the funds authorized
for this program and comply with section 218 of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996.
Underground and Deep Underground Structures
In the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
1996, the Congress recommended that $1.5 million be made
available from the counterproliferation support program for the
exploration of a ``deep digger'' concept for hard target
characterization. The committee believes that the Department
must continue to focus its research and development efforts
aggressively on programs to detect and discriminately attack
and destroy underground facilities. The ``deep digger'' concept
could possibly address a critical gap in our armed forces'
capabilities. The committee understands that only a small
portion of funds has been released to conduct a feasibility
study for theoretical validation of the program. Deep digger
has the potential for use in a variety of missions because it
could be delivered either by ground forces or by aircraft. The
committee directs the Department to release the remainder of
fiscal year 1996 funds and recommends that $3.0 million of the
funds authorized for the counterproliferation support program
in fiscal year 1996 be made available for the continuation of
the proof of principle concept and for the design and testing
of a prototype.
Chemical and Biological Detection
The committee recommends that the Department continue to
place increased emphasis in this area. The potential use of
biological agents continues to be a powerful threat to national
security. The committee continues to believe that bolder
research and development efforts are needed and strongly
recommends that the program manager for the chemical and
biological defense program, as well as the program manager for
the counterproliferation support program, take a more proactive
position on working closely with universities and industry, and
the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), to take
advantage of technologies that show potential for biological
detection. In particular, the committee endorses efforts
undertaken by DARPA to conduct research on unique means of
detecting biological agents, such as upconverting phosphors.
The committee supports the Department's efforts to support
programs that improve our ability to detect and identify
chemical agent production and storage facilities. The committee
understands that $7.9 million from funds authorized in fiscal
year 1996 for the counterproliferation support program were
used to support an effort known as SAFEGUARD that employs
ultra-spectral imaging to detect trace amounts of chemical
agent. The committee recommends that the Department provide a
similar level of support for this program in fiscal year 1997.
With regard to chemical and biological research conducted
by DARPA, the committee directs DARPA to consult and coordinate
more closely with the executive agent for the chemical-
biological defense program. Likewise, the committee emphasizes
its concern that both the chemical-biological defense program
and the counterproliferation support program work closely with
DARPA to leverage all existing technologies and capabilities to
their fullest extent.
Emergency preparedness and response
The administration has placed a high priority on preventing
and combating the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.
In particular, considerable concern has arisen regarding the
potential terrorist use of chemical or biological agents as a
result of the nerve agent attack last year in Japan. Following
the end of the Cold War, the committee expressed its concerns
about these potential threats through a number of legislative
provisions. In fiscal year 1994, the committee included a
provision expressing its concerns and directing that the
President direct the Departments of Defense and Energy, and
other appropriate federal agencies, to report to Congress on
their plans and programs to respond to the potential use of
chemical, biological, nuclear or radiological agents or weapons
against civilian populations. Recently, administration
witnesses have testified to the Congress that there is a
coordinated effort within the government to manage the
consequences of the terrorist use of weapons of mass
destruction (WMD) against the United States. Despite these
assurances, the committee remains concerned that interagency
conflicts are impacting the government's ability to assess the
threat, identify the available capabilities and develop and
implement procedures for responding to these threats. The
committee understands that the President signed a Presidential
Decision Directive in June 1995, outlining the interagency
process and directing lead agency responsibilities to support
the requirements of responding to the terrorist use of weapons
of mass destruction both here in the United States and
overseas. Further, the committee understands that the directive
includes a requirement for coordination of crisis response and
consequence management, with DOD providing response assistance
to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) for crisis
response and providing support to the Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA) for consequence management.
The committee believes that greater efforts are necessary
to prevent the terrorist use of WMD, and in particular, the use
of chemical or biological agents against the United States, and
to prepare the necessary response. Despite the June 1995
presidential directive, the committee is not sure that a
coherent plan exists to establish the lines of authority
between the various federal agencies and departments, as well
as the state and local authorities, to prepare properly for
this threat.
The committee recommends authorization of $5.0 million, in
defense-wide operations and maintenance, for a comprehensive
assessment to address the responsibilities and potential
contributions of each federal agency and department.
The committee directs the Department to comply with section
379 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
1996, to report to the committee on the Department's plans and
programs to respond to the terrorist use of chemical,
biological, radiological or nuclear weapons and agents.
Mission planning and analysis
The proliferation of weapons of mass destruction will
remain an enduring national security concern and challenge for
the longterm. To address this challenge, the committee believes
that U.S. Strategic Command (USSTRATCOM) mission planning
analysis must be a permanent element of U.S. defense
capabilities. The committee recommends that $4.0 million from
funds authorized for the Air Force operation and maintenance
account be made available for USSTRATCOM mission planning and
analysis. The committee further recommends that USSTRATCOM
mission planning and analysis be included as an element of the
future years defense program beginning in fiscal year 1998.
Joint DOD/FBI training program
The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1995
included authority and funding for a training program to be
carried out jointly by DOD and the FBI to assist law
enforcement agencies in Central Europe, the Baltic countries
and the former Soviet Union, and to improve their efforts to
deter the possible proliferation and acquisition of weapons of
mass destruction. The committee is disturbed by the lack of
progress in this area by the Department, and concerned about
the Department's reluctance to carry out direction provided by
Congress, which could possibly prevent the proliferation of
weapons of mass destruction. The committee understands that
only a small portion of the funds have been used to establish a
joint DOD/FBI working relationship to date. The committee
believes that both DOD and the FBI have had more than enough
time to work out the formal interagency working relationship
and directs the Department to provide the report required by
section 1504(e)(B)(3)(B) of the National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 1995.
Transfer authority
The committee recommends a provision that would allow the
Department of Defense to transfer up to $50.0 million from
fiscal year 1997 defense-wide research and development accounts
for counterproliferation support activities that are determined
by the Counterproliferation Review Committee to be necessary
and in the national security interests.
Section 222. Federally funded research and development centers and
university-affiliated research centers.
The committee has a continuing interest in the efforts by
the Department of Defense to more effectively manage the work
being conducted for the Department by the federally-funded
Research and Development Centers (FFRDC's) and the University-
affiliated Research Centers (UARC's). The committee recommends
a provision that would impose a combined ceiling on the funding
that may be provided to both categories of institutions in
fiscal year 1997 at the same level as that imposed for fiscal
year 1996. The committee directs that the Secretary of Defense
allocate the ceiling between the two categories of institutions
on the same basis as the allocation for fiscal year 1996. The
committee continues to believe that a high priority should be
placed on ensuring robust support for the work of the FFRDC's
conducting studies and analyses in the portion of the funding
ceiling allocated to the FFRDC's.
SUBTITLE C--BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE
Section 231. United States compliance policy regarding development,
testing, and deployment of theater missile defense systems.
For the last 24 years, since the ABM Treaty entered into
force, the United States has lived with a broad set of legal
obligations regarding the development, testing, and deployment
of theater missile defense (TMD) systems and other non-anti-
ballistic missile (ABM) systems. Under article VI(a) of the ABM
Treaty, the United States undertakes ``not to give missiles,
launchers, or radars, other than ABM interceptor missiles, ABM
launchers, or ABM radars, capabilities to counter strategic
ballistic missiles or their elements in flight trajectory, and
not to test them in an ABM mode.'' Pursuant to these
obligations, the United States has promulgated a unilateral
compliance policy and specific compliance standards by which
all non-ABM systems are evaluated for treaty compliance. There
has never been any doubt that this unilateral activity is a
sovereign right and obligation.
As strategic and technological circumstances have changed,
so have U.S. compliance standards. For at least five years, it
has been clear that the United States must again update its
compliance standards to accommodate new strategic and
technological circumstances. On this point there has been very
little disagreement, virtually none between Congress and the
Executive Branch. There has also been basic agreement on what
the new standard should be. The debate has been over the form
that this new compliance standard should assume and whether the
United States must also assume new obligations under the ABM
Treaty regarding TMD systems. The administration has attempted
to codify the new compliance standard in what amounts to a new
treaty, while Russia has attempted to impose new TMD-related
restrictions regarding basic ABM treaty obligations. Both of
these approaches depart dramatically from past practice and are
legally unnecessary.
The committee believes that the United States must
unilaterally update its own internal compliance standards, as
has been done in the past. This would not entail a new
interpretation of the treaty or a change in our basic legal
obligations under the treaty. For purposes of article VI(a) the
United States simply needs to provide a current definition of a
``strategic ballistic missile'' and establish criteria for
judging whether non-ABM systems have been given capabilities to
counter such missiles or have been tested against them. This
standard exists today and has existed since the administration
officially proposed it at the Standing Consultative Commission
in November 1993.
The committee recommends a provision that would codify this
so-called ``demonstrated capabilities'' standard. Such a
codification would clarify U.S. compliance policy for the
Department of Defense and other interested parties. It would
add a large measure of stability to critical U.S. TMD systems,
including the Theater High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) system
and the Navy Upper Tier system. Specifically, the new standard
would state that until a TMD system is tested against a
ballistic missile that exceeds a range of 3,500 kilometers or a
velocity of 5 kilometers per second it will not be judged to
have been given capabilities to counter a strategic ballistic
missile or to have been tested in an ABM mode. In practical
terms, this means that the United States would never be able to
gain any confidence that its TMD systems possessed
operationally relevant ABM capabilities. The compliance policy
language recommended by the committee is identical to sense of
Congress language contained in section 235 of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996 (Public Law 104-
106), which itself was derived from the administration's own
expressed position.
Section 232. Prohibition on use of funds to implement an international
agreement concerning theater missile defense systems.
Section 235 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 1996 (Public Law 104-106) prohibited the use of
fiscal year 1996 funds by the Department of Defense to
implement a so-called theater missile defense (TMD) demarcation
agreement unless such agreement was consistent with the so-
called ``demonstrated capabilities'' standard, was approved in
a statute, or was approved through the treaty-making powers
under the Constitution. This means that any agreement would
have to be approved by a majority of both Houses of Congress,
by a two-thirds vote in the Senate, or be consistent with a
pre-approved standard. Unfortunately, subsequent to enactment
of Public Law 104-106, Congress was informed that the ``pre-
approved'' approach would likely be employed even for an
agreement, or elements of an agreement, that has been viewed by
Congress as beyond the pre-approved definition.
Accordingly, the committee recommends a provision modeled
on section 235 (Public Law 104-106) that would prohibit the use
of funds appropriated or otherwise made available to the
Department of Defense to implement any TMD demarcation
agreement unless approved in statute or pursuant to the treaty
making power under the Constitution.
Section 233. Conversion of ABM Treaty to multilateral treaty.
The committee is aware that the Executive Branch is engaged
in negotiations to change the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM)
Treaty from a bilateral treaty between the United States and
the Soviet Union to a multilateral treaty that includes several
of the independent states of the former Soviet Union. The
committee believes that such a change would constitute a
substantive change requiring Senate advice and consent.
Therefore, the committee recommends a provision that would
specify that the United States shall not be bound by any
international agreement entered into by the President that
would add one or more countries as signatories to the ABM
Treaty or would otherwise convert the treaty from a bilateral
treaty to a multilateral treaty, unless the agreement is
entered pursuant to the treaty making power under the
Constitution.
Section 234. Funding for upper tier theater missile defense systems.
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
funds for the Theater High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) system
and the Navy Upper Tier theater missile defense (TMD) system.
The provision would also prohibit the use of funds during
fiscal year 1997 by the Undersecretary of Defense for
Acquisition and Technology for official representation
activities until the Secretary of Defense certifies to Congress
that: (1) fiscal year 1997 funds for THAAD and Navy Upper Tier
have been made available for obligation; and (2) the Navy Upper
Tier system has been included in the core TMD program.
Section 235. Elimination of requirements for certain items to be
included in the annual report on the ballistic missile defense
program.
Section 224(b) of the National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Years 1990 and 1991 established a reporting
requirement for the Strategic Defense Initiative. With the
changed focus of this program, several of the reporting
requirements are no longer valid. Therefore, the committee
recommends a provision that would update the requirement for
the annual ballistic missile defense report to Congress.
SUBTITLE D--OTHER MATTERS
Section 241. Live-fire survivability testing of F-22 aircraft.
Section 254 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 1995 directed the Secretary of Defense to request
the National Research Council (NRC) to study the desirability
of waiving live fire tests for the F-22. Subsequently, the NRC
recommended a waiver of the requirement for full-up, full-scale
live fire tests for the F-22, saying that such tests would be
impractical and would offer low benefits for the costs.
Accordingly, the committee recommends a provision to authorize
a retroactive waiver for full-up, full-scale live fire tests
for the F-22 program.
Section 242. Live-fire survivability testing of V-22 aircraft.
Section 2366 of title 10, United States Code, requires
realistic survivability testing of systems before they proceed
beyond low-rate initial production. Such testing may be waived
by the Secretary of Defense if a certification is made to
Congress that the tests would be unreasonably expensive and
impractical.
The V-22 proceeded beyond low-rate initial production
before enactment of the legislation requiring live fire
testing. Accordingly, the committee recommends a provision to
allow the Secretary of Defense retroactive waiver authority for
the V-22 program, and also requires alternative survivability
test requirements.
SUBTITLE E--NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PARTNERSHIP
Section 252. National Oceanographic Partnership Program.
The committee believes that a strong national oceanography
program is essential not only for long-term national security,
but for other areas of national interest as well. For several
years the committee has expressed concern that a window of
opportunity currently exists to obtain access to littoral
waters previously closed for oceanographic survey during the
Cold War.
The committee remains concerned that instead of taking
advantage of this situation, the nation's oceanographic
capabilities are being reduced rather than increased. While the
basic science budget of the federal government has increased
over the last 14 years, the percentage of the budget devoted to
ocean research has declined steadily over the same period.
The committee's concern for the relative importance of
oceanographic survey and research is based on the value of this
information to the warfighter. Oceanographic survey data is
essential for successful littoral operations, whether in
support of amphibious landings, submarine operations in shallow
littoral regions or in application of data on currents, water
temperature or bottom characteristics which affect sound
propagation in such areas. In addition, many advanced weapon
systems in use today require accurate and timely environmental
data to strike military targets effectively. In each instance,
oceanographic survey and research data contribute directly to
the successful conduct of these military operations. By staying
on the leading edge of oceanography and leveraging national
oceanography programs, naval forces can better use the ocean
environment to military advantage.
The committee recommends a provision to establish a
National Oceanographic Partnership program for the purpose of
leveraging all U.S. oceanographic efforts in the Navy, in
industry and in academia to benefit national security. The
committee finds that it is important that the components of the
oceanography community within the United States, including the
Navy, industry and academia maintain a close working
relationship to meet our national goals and provide new
capabilities. The program therefore provides for the
establishment of a National Ocean Research Leadership Council,
chaired by the Secretary of the Navy or his designee and
composed of representatives of federal agencies, industry and
academia, to coordinate national oceanography programs,
partnerships and facilities. In order to revitalize the current
oceanography program and capitalize on past investments in
infrastructure and equipment, the committee also recommends an
increase of $13.0 million in the Navy's Oceanographic and
Atmospheric Technology program (PE 62435N) for support of the
National Oceanography Partnership Act to be allocated as
follows:
$0.5 million for the establishment and operation of
the National Ocean Research Leadership Council;
$5.0 million for the conduct of a partnership program
among the Navy, university research groups and other
federal data users in support of the goals outlined in
the program. Such partnerships shall be established
using merit-based competitive procedures and shall
require cost-sharing by non-federal participants on at
least a one-for-one basis.
$2.0 million for the creation of a Federal Ocean Data
and Remote Sensing Center to ensure a centralized
database for all sensor information (classified and
unclassified) for ocean analysis and modeling by
federal agencies and federally-sponsored researchers.
Site selection shall be determined by the council using
merit-based competitive procedures.
$2.0 million for the establishment of a National
Littoral Warfighting Laboratory to coordinate Navy
modeling and oceanographic analysis in support of
unique and emerging littoral warfare requirements. Site
selection shall be determined by the council using all
applicable merit-based competitive procedures.
$1.0 million for the continued operation in fiscal
year 1997 of the government-industry MEDEA Ocean Panel.
$2.5 million for the establishment and support of
education and training programs in support of military
and civilian oceanography education with at-sea
training and experience on Navy and university
oceanographic survey and research ships. Participation
in such programs shall be determined using a merit-
based selection process.
ADDITIONAL MATTERS
Army
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
Basic research programs
The committee notes the efforts of the Secretary of Defense
to maintain level funding for the basic research programs in
the Department of Defense and the services. The committee also
notes the increases in the administration budget for similar
activities conducted by the civilian agencies. The committee
supports robust funding for this important component of the
Department of Defense science and technology program but is
concerned that reductions in the applied research and advanced
technology development programs may have the effect of causing
an imbalance in the defense technology base programs.
Therefore, the committee recommends the following reductions in
the basic research accounts without prejudice to fund
shortfalls in applied research and advanced technology
development programs:
PE 61102A -$15.0 million
PE 61153N -$10.0 million
PE 61102F -$ 8.0 million
PE 61103D -$10.0 million.
High modulus polyacrylonitrile (PAN) carbon fiber
Polyacrylonitrile (PAN) carbon fiber is a critical
composite material used in the Theater High-Altitude Area
Defense (THAAD) missile component. In order to complete a
multi-year program to develop at least two domestic sources for
this material, the committee recommends an increase of $8.0
million in PE 62105A to complete this effort in fiscal year
1997. The committee directs that all applicable competitive
procedures be used in the award of any contracts or other
agreements under this program, and that cost sharing
requirements for non-federal participants be utilized where
appropriate.
Hardened materials
The committee recommends an increase of $4.0 million in the
Army's Materials Technology program (PE 62105A) for the
continued development of hardened materials to be used on high
performance missile systems. This technology has the potential
to reduce significantly the weight and cost of missiles and to
allow for the development of advanced integrated missile
structures. The committee directs that all applicable
competitive procedures be used in the award of contracts or
other agreements under this program, and that cost sharing
requirements for non-federal participants be utilized where
appropriate.
Liquid propellant technology
Until March 1996, the Army had pursued liquid propellant
(LP) gun technology as the only technology approach for the
Crusader program. At that time, the Army shifted its efforts to
solid propellant technology. Congress recognized that the LP
gun had strong potential as a ``leap ahead'' technology which
Secretary Perry testified is crucial to the Department's
modernization efforts, but also recognized that LP technology
was a higher risk approach and, therefore, insisted on the
backup solid propellant program. Now, Congress agrees with the
Army that LP technology should be a backup to solid propellant
because of the potential for this leap ahead technology if
further work can resolve outstanding technical issues outlined
by the Army Science Board review of the liquid propellant
technology program. The committee recommends an increase of
$20.0 million in PE 62624A for a program to address material
compatibility, ignition, and ballistic control issues, and to
provide operational models validated by actual testing of the
liquid propellant gun.
Military engineering technology
Funding for cold regions research has declined
significantly in the past four years as a result of reductions
in the overall Army research and development program. In light
of the current needs of the Army for research into construction
and civil engineering to support recent and unplanned
operations in cold climates and winter conditions in Bosnia and
elsewhere, the committee recommends an increase of $1.0 million
to accelerate activities in applied research in project AT42 of
the Army's military engineering technology program (PE 62784A).
Wave net technology
The committee continues to support the Army's efforts to
enhance command, control, and communications for the digital
battlefield by applying emerging technologies. The committee
understands that, in connection with evaluating various
technologies to enhance its battlefield digitization efforts,
the Army may be interested in examining wave net technology
which has the potential to reduce costs, increase bandwidth
utilization, and provide increased command and control
capability. The committee recommends an increase of $4.0
million to PE 63006A for continued development and testing of
wave net technology for possible application to the Army's
digitization initiatives.
Nautilus/Tactical High Energy Laser Program
The committee continues to support the joint Army-Israeli
Ministry of Defense Nautilus testing program to assess the
potential of high energy lasers to meet tactical threats. The
highlight of the test series was the intercept in February of
an operational short range rocket. This success has paved the
way for a Tactical High Energy Laser (THEL) Rapid Acquisition
Demonstrator Program. The Army has identified this program as a
potential shortfall in the fiscal year 1997 budget request. The
committee, therefore, recommends an increase of $50.0 million
to a new program element to support the Nautilus/Tactical High
Energy Laser Program and the associated design verification
testing. The committee understands that the government of
Israel is prepared to devote significant resources to this
effort and the committee urges the administration to seek a
rapid conclusion of a memorandum of agreement (MOA) on the THEL
program with Israel. The committee fully expects that
additional funding to implement such an MOA will be included in
future Army budget requests.
Missile and rocket advanced technology
The budget request included $90.0 million to develop
missile technologies. The committee is encouraged by
developments associated with the extended range (ER) Multiple
Launch Rocket System (MLRS) and looks forward to the program
beginning engineering and manufacturing development in fiscal
year 1998. The committee recommends an additional $10.0 million
in fiscal year 1997 in PE 603313A to support completion of a
thorough risk reduction program for guidance package
integration and believes that this will ensure that Army
artillery deficiencies will be addressed with production of the
new ER rocket system.
Land mine detection technologies
The committee supports the budget request for $15.2 million
to continue vital research in land mine detection technologies.
The recent deployment to Bosnia highlighted the need for a
system or systems that will detect and classify land mines
quickly, accurately, and effectively.
Although various DOD agencies have spent considerable
resources to develop and demonstrate vehicular detection
systems, no single system or technology has been found adequate
for mission requirements. The DOD effort has been diffused by
allowing several agencies and the services to conduct
essentially independent research and development without
coordinating, cooperating, or sharing results with other
agencies.
The decisions to form the Army Countermine Task Force and
the Bosnia Technology Integration Cell are positive steps to
move the focus of effort toward practical applications. Task
force efforts have shown that the most promising systems are
those which integrate multiple detection technologies
simultaneously. These systems also have the capability to mark
mine locations accurately in real time, electronically archive
data, and transmit the data to remote sites.
The committee recommends an increase of $12.1 million in PE
603606A to accelerate the demonstration and deployment of a
prototype vehicular mounted mine detection system (VMMD) that
incorporates the capabilities described above. Funds should be
used to deploy systems incorporating proven or otherwise
demonstrated state-of-the-art technologies.
The committee also recommends an increase of $4.0 million
in PE 603606A to continue development of navigation aids and
improvements to permit detection systems to operate at convoy
speeds and display data in real time.
Battle Integration Center
The committee is aware of the importance of the missile
defense Battle Integration Center (BIC) in accomplishing the
integration of the Army's theater missile defense program. The
BIC has been a critical participant in numerous exercises and
experiments in fiscal year 1996 and has supported combat
material developers with a synthetic battlefield environment.
The committee recommends an increase of $27.0 million in PE
63308A to continue this important capability.
Next tank research and development
The committee notes the Army's plan to upgrade 998 M1 tanks
to the M1A2 configuration. Under the current schedule, the Army
will complete this program in fiscal year 2002. These upgrades,
when added to new production and earlier systems, will result
in a total inventory of 1,079 M1A2 tanks.
The Army has been struggling with a decision on the
modernization of tank forces beyond fielding tank number 1,079.
The committee understands that the Army's approach to
modernizing armored systems, particularly as it relates to
tanks, has been evolving since the restructuring of the armored
systems modernization (ASM) program several years ago. Now it
appears that the approach has evolved to one of doing very
little to prepare for the end of the current program.
The committee believes that there are many questions
surrounding what the program for tank number 1,080 should be,
or whether there should be any tank number 1,080 at all. The
committee notes that the Army has been pursuing a number of
developmental efforts that could contribute to upgrading the
armored force and could be candidate systems for tank number
1,080. However, unless the Army conducts the proper planning
and investigations now, it could be faced with a range of
unpalatable choices, including suboptimization or inefficient
catch up programs.
Therefore, the committee recommends an additional $12.0
million to establish a new program element to: conduct a
requirements analysis to establish a basis for deciding what
system or mix of systems supports the best operational concept
for defeating the evolving threat; develop conceptual
approaches for integrating emerging technologies into a set of
improvements that could be fielded in a new tank or in an
upgraded main battle tank program; develop a set of
requirements for the concepts selected by this analysis; and
begin virtual prototyping activities that could lead to
fielding a revolutionary main battle tank system within 20
years.
Night vision systems advanced development
The committee encourages the increased attention being
placed on this critical area. The budget request for fiscal
year 1997 included $2.8 million to continue work toward
developing critical night vision devices that will ensure the
Army ``owns the night.'' The committee recommends an increase
of $2.0 million in PE 603774A for research and $15.0 million
for engineering, for a total of $19.8 million.
Combat service support control system (CSSC)
The budget request included $13.1 million to develop the
combat service support node of the Army tactical command and
control system (ATCCS). The committee understands that the
development effort for the link to brigade and below weapon
system platforms has not been funded and this is a critical,
although unresourced, requirement for the Task Force XXI
experiment. The committee recommends an increase of $3.3
million in PE 603805A to develop this critical link to ensure
commanders have a near real-time link to logistical, medical,
and personnel information.
Comanche helicopter
The budget request included $288.6 million for continued
research and development work associated with the RAH-66
Comanche helicopter. The committee actively supports the
Comanche program and was encouraged to note the successful
completion of the first flight. The committee continues to be
concerned about the funding profile for the Comanche system as
it is currently based on minimum funding levels that, while
executable, create both near-and long-term inefficiencies.
Related to the Comanche program milestones is concern about the
age of the current scout and attack helicopter fleet, the
associated high operation and maintenance costs, and decreasing
overall system effectiveness. Clearly, the Army needs to pursue
Comanche aggressively and make every effort to accelerate the
initial operating capability date for this program. The
committee recommends an increase of $100.0 million in PE
604223A to maintain a funding level consistent with that of
fiscal year 1996 and to posture the program for early
deployment options.
Javelin medium anti-tank weapon
The budget request included $1.6 million to continue
developmental work for the Javelin missile system. The
committee recommends an increase of $4.5 million in PE 604611A
to further develop the alternate main charge warhead, start
baseline integration tests, and evaluate the missile design to
optimize warhead performance.
Heavy assault bridge
The budget request included $35.4 million to conduct
developmental work necessary to support engineer requirements
for the heavy assault bridge. The committee is encouraged by
efforts to develop and field this item, and notes that
additional early design work would reduce per unit costs by
approximately $250,000 and further reduce operation and
maintenance costs by five to ten percent. The committee
believes that further work should be done to assess new
bridging materials to make future bridges stronger and lighter.
The committee directs the Army to evaluate potential new
bridging materials and technologies and report to the
congressional defense committees, no later than March 1, 1997,
on the findings of this evaluation and make recommendations on
how new materials might be incorporated in future bridging
systems. The committee supports Army efforts to reduce program
costs and recommends an increase of $12.3 million in PE 604649A
to design heavy assault bridge-unique line replaceable units
and software integration requirements.
Air defense command, control, & intelligence (C2I)
The budget request included $20.5 million to begin fielding
a new air defense tactical operations center for air defense
artillery brigade headquarters. This new C2I center would
provide current software and communications equipment and begin
retiring the AN/TSQ-73 that utilizes 1960's technology.
Air and missile defense continues to be a major concern
both to this committee and to the Department of Defense and it
is imperative that new C2I systems be developed to support
fielding of new air and missile defense systems.
The committee notes the successful development and use of a
state-of-the-art Force Projection Tactical Operation Center
(FPTOC) that effectively integrates theater missile defense
activities and provides a deploying theater level (contingency)
commander with a vital tool to protect a deployed force.
Successful use of the FPTOC in exercises such as Roving Sands,
Bright Star, and Internal Look has proven the utility of this
new missile defense command, control and intelligence concept
at both theater and joint task force levels.
The committee believes that the Army, as the developer of
this element, has underfunded this promising concept and should
review service priorities and provide a baseline level of
funding to maintain and further develop the capabilities of
this system. Force protection is a battlefield imperative that
must be a focal point while making key resourcing decisions.
The committee, therefore, recommends an increase of $46.0
million for PE 604741 to field the new brigade tactical
operations center to each of the five air defense brigades and
replace the aging AN/TSQ-73 system. The committee also
recommends an increase of $15.8 million to develop a second
FPTOC system, providing the ability to support two separate
deployments at the same time and to provide for necessary
technical enhancements to both systems.
Brilliant Anti-armor Technology (BAT) submunition
The budget request included $180.4 million to continue
equipment materiel development of the BAT system. The committee
is concerned that recent funding decrements to this program
from within the Department of Defense, coupled with initial
technical problems, have put the program in the position of
delaying initiation of the Army Tactical Missile System
(ATACMS) Block II flight test program. In light of recent
successful tests for the BAT submunition, it is imperative that
the schedule be maintained and costly delays to both the BAT
program as well as the Block II missile program be avoided. The
committee recommends an increase of $9.8 million in PE 604768A
to complete scheduled engineering and manufacturing development
activities on time.
Longbow development/night vision systems
The committee is concerned about the current state-of-the-
art night vision system currently fielded on the Apache
helicopter system in light of developing technologies that
would greatly enhance the warfighting abilities of this
aircraft and crew. The committee believes it important for the
Army to develop and field the second generation forward
looking, Infrared capability for all Apache systems. Benefits
of the new technology include increased situational awareness,
improved pilot cues for decision making, and reduced cockpit
workload, reduced stress and fatigue. The committee believes
the Army should begin work immediately to develop this
capability and recommends the following increases for the
program elements: $2.0 million for PE 603774A NV Sys Adv Dev;
$5.0 million for PE 604710A Apache A Kit EMD; $5.0 million for
PE 604816A Apache B Kit EMD.
High Energy Laser Systems Test Facility
The committee continues to support the operation of the
High Energy Laser Systems Test Facility (HELSTF) as the central
test facility to support the nation's high energy laser
development. The committee is disappointed with the $2.9
million request for HELSTF (PE 65605A), which would be
insufficient to support Army plans to restructure the facility.
This facility supports the Mid-Infrared Advanced Chemical Laser
(MIRACL) program and test programs such as Nautilus, Tactical
High Energy Laser (THEL) and the Air Force Airborne Laser. The
committee reiterates the view that it does not make sense to
shut down the MIRACL when prior legislative constraints on
testing the laser against objects in space have finally been
lifted. The committee also notes that the Air Force Science
Board's New World Vistas study has recently recommended a
ground-based directed energy approach to space control. The
committee recommends an increase of $21.7 million for the
continued operation and upgrade of the facility.
Combat vehicle improvement program
The budget request included $197.8 million to support
development efforts for a wide variety of combat vehicle
systems. The committee supports these efforts and notes the
progress made in developing the High Performance Crew Station
Information System for the M1 Abrams tank. The committee
recommends an increase of $10.0 million to accelerate important
work on display technology and place this capability in the
hands of the warfighter as soon as possible.
Improved cargo helicopter
The Army's heavy lift CH-47D Chinook helicopter fleet will
begin to reach the end of its programmed life around the turn
of the century. It is clear to the committee that a renewed
effort is necessary to develop a more comprehensive improvement
of the Chinook helicopter to support operations until a
replacement system is fielded in the year 2020. The committee
recognizes that the original Chinook helicopters will soon be
40 years old and believes that a remanufacturing program must
be started soon. This will ensure an Improved Cargo Helicopter
(ICH) is fielded in time to preclude degradation in heavy lift
capabilities as operation and maintenance costs will otherwise
become a heavy burden on constrained resources. The committee,
therefore, recommends an increase of $22.7 million to support
technology demonstrations and risk reduction efforts for
programmatic development of the ICH program.
Force XXI digitization
The committee continues to support Army efforts to digitize
the future battlefield and awaits the results of the brigade
task force experiment early next year. The committee
understands that additional funding is required to support
further development of message/information protocols and to
complete procurement of applique equipment. The committee
recommends an increase of $24.0 million to ensure a successful
evaluation of Force XXI technologies.
Air defense alerting device (ADAD)
The committee notes progress made to evaluate the Air
Defense Alerting Device (ADAD) on potential applications to
support passive target acquisition support for forward deployed
forces. Testing activities at both Fort Greely, Alaska and Fort
Bliss, Texas will assess the value added and utility of the
ADAD system to air defense teams, characterize performance of
the sensor in different environments, and determine the
capabilities of the device against the target set of concern to
the Army. The committee supports the robust test schedule and
expects the Army to report the results in fiscal year 1997.
Missile/air defense product improvement program
The committee recommended an additional $35.0 million to
the fiscal year 1996 budget request to address the cruise
missile threat and develop alternatives based on potential
modifications to PAC-1 Patriot missiles. The committee
recognizes that the cruise missile threat is growing and
requires the immediate attention of developmental efforts to
ensure that Army forces are protected. The committee recommends
an increase of $40.0 million in PE 23801A for fiscal year 1997
to complete this analysis and provide the results to the Army
for consideration.
The committee also supports Army efforts to evaluate the
Starstreak missile alongside the Stinger missile as potential
candidates for the air-to-air missile system required for the
Apache helicopter. Noted is the outstanding funding requirement
for $15.0 million in PE 23801A to support completion of the
Army effort to conduct a robust test of both missiles, along
with a corresponding cost-effectiveness analysis addressing the
full integration of each system on the Apache helicopter.
The committee, therefore, recommends an increase of $40.0
million to support Patriot cruise missile seeker development
and an additional $15.0 million to complete evaluation of the
Starstreak missile.
Other missile product improvement programs
The committee supports Department of Defense efforts to
ensure that missiles are insensitive to bullet and fragment
impacts and endorses efforts to promote crew survivability. The
committee understands that developmental work is necessary to
provide an insensitive rocket motor for the laser Hellfire
missile. Also, there is an outstanding funding requirement for
$4.5 million to complete this effort.
The committee also notes that additional work is required
to complete an effort that began last year to certify and test
the Hydra-70 missile for use on the Apache attack helicopter.
This key effort will determine the best solution for the
missile requirement established for these attack aircraft.
The committee recommends an increase of $4.5 million to
develop and qualify an insensitive rocket motor as well as to
support minor software improvements for the Hellfire missile
and an additional $9.0 million to complete the evaluation of
the Hydra-70 missile, for a total increase of $13.5 million.
Force XXI initiatives
The Army has made great progress in developing its vision
for the 21st century. The committee supports the Army's effort
to establish a viable process by which this vision can evolve
over time as technology changes.
Recent testimony and demonstrations by the Army clearly
establish the success of the work that has been accomplished in
only a few short years. The committee strongly supports the
Army effort to establish a mechanism by which new technologies
can be acquired, tested, and evaluated for future applications
through the Force XXI Initiatives process. The current
acquisition system is slow, and while acquisition reform
initiatives are underway, this process cannot keep pace with
the rate of change associated with new technologies.
The committee, therefore, recommends $100.0 million for a
new program element, to be established by the Army, to support
the Force XXI Initiatives process that will allow the Army to
conduct a timely evaluation of new equipment and technology.
The Army is expected to subject programs with promising
preliminary results to normal reviews and evaluations required
by law, prior to transitioning into production any program
tested with these funds. The committee directs the Army to
report quarterly on the obligation of funds provided for the
Force XXI Initiatives program, and more frequently if there are
significant successes or failures in this experimentation
program. The committee expects the Army to budget for necessary
resources in future year activities.
Navy
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
Continuous wave superconducting radio frequency free electron laser
The committee recommends an increase of $9.0 million in PE
62111N for the continuation of the continuous wave
superconducting radio frequency free electron laser program
within the Office of the Secretary of the Navy. The committee
understands that there will be significant cost sharing between
the Commonwealth of Virginia and the private sector in this
effort. The committee encourages the Department of Energy to
build on the Navy project to meet the needs of material
scientists in universities and industry.
Power electronic building blocks
The committee recommends an increase of $6.0 million in PE
62121N to continue the development of the power electronics
building block technology for the rapid switching and control
of high power electrical systems. The committee urges that the
increase be used for development of virtual prototyping tools
that can be used to visualize and evaluate the performance of
new reconfigurable ship electric power systems that can survive
battle damage and component failures. The committee directs
that all applicable competitive procedures be used in the award
of any contracts or other agreements under this program, and
that cost sharing requirements for non-federal participants be
utilized where applicable.
Materials, electronics and computer technology
The committee is aware of the Navy's efforts to address
materials development in support of aviation platform
affordability, supportability, and mission performance. A
primary concern that should be addressed by the recently
established materials competency center is the qualification of
new materials, new processes, and second sources. The committee
recommends an increase of $5.0 million in PE 62234N to address
new materials processes such as resin transfer molding and the
establishment of second sources for carbon fibers and prepreg
systems. The committee directs that all applicable competitive
procedures be used in the award of any contracts or other
agreements under the program and that cost sharing requirements
for non-federal participants be utilized where appropriate.
Undersea weapons technology
The committee is concerned that recent budget trends have
slowed research activities devoted to countering emerging
undersea threats from quiet submarines and modern torpedoes
increasingly available in the world market. The committee
recommends an increase of $6.0 million in the Navy's Undersea
Weapons Technology program (PE 62633N) for the acceleration of
technology leading to the development of a quick reaction anti-
submarine/anti-torpedo weapon for close-range engagements and
for the protection of surface ships and submarines from torpedo
attack. The committee directs that all applicable competitive
procedures be used in the award of any contracts or other
agreements under this program, and that cost sharing
requirements for non-federal participants be utilized where
appropriate.
Navy affordability initiative
The committee commends the Navy for undertaking tangible
efforts to address affordability concerns in its science and
technology program. To accelerate this initiative further as
part of a broader affordability thrust, the committee
recommends an increase of $10.0 million in the Navy Air Systems
and Weapons Technology program (PE 63217N) to support
affordability technologies prioritized under the Navy's new
affordability criteria. The committee expects that any
necessary follow-on funding for the initiatives undertaken with
the increase provided by the committee will be included in the
Navy budget request for fiscal year 1998.
Project M
The budget request contained no funding for Project M, a
technology program for the active control of machinery
platforms.
In fiscal year 1996, Congress authorized and appropriated
$7.0 million in PE 63569E to continue the transfer of Project M
technology from the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency
to the Navy. The program has been focused on the demonstration
of active control of machinery raft structural dynamics and
magnetic levitation using rafts that represent future submarine
engine room structures. The research has been significant
because it has showed that large scale implementation of active
control for complex structures is possible. Additional funding
in fiscal year 1997 would permit realistic testing of high
fidelity quarter scale physical models that will provide
quantitative performance data and other critical information
that can be used to define the scope of applications for this
technology in future submarine or surface ship designs. There
is also potential for the expanded use of this technology in a
broad spectrum of other military, space, and commercial
applications where quieting of systems and subsystems is
important.
The committee recommends an increase of $8.0 million above
the budget request in PE 63508N for the continued development
of Project M. The committee also directs that the Secretary of
the Navy submit a report, no later than March 1, 1997, that
provides a detailed assessment of:
(1) the current status of the Project M program;
(2) the Secretary's plans for continued development
of the Project M technology;
(3) future milestones for the maturing of the
technology;
(4) the Navy's plan for incorporating Project M
technology into the design of its next generation of
nuclear attack submarine; and
(5) funding included in the future years defense
program to satisfy this plan.
Environmentally compliant torpedo fuel
The budget request contained $2.8 million for project R2267
in PE 63747N. This project develops and demonstrates advanced
undersea weapons component prototypes for insertion into
current undersea weapons to upgrade their capabilities. At
present, the project is focused on the development of a
simulation based design and an iterative build-test-build
process. Specific efforts for fiscal year 1997 would address an
environmentally compliant fuel alternative to the OTTO fuel
currently used in undersea weapons, advanced broadband homing
system techniques, and algorithms to make U.S. undersea weapons
countermeasure resistant. Additional funding in fiscal year
1997 could accelerate the environmentally compliant fuel
alternative by up to two years.
To accelerate the environmentally compliant fuel
alternative by up to two years, the committee recommends an
increase of $5.0 million above the budget request in PE 63747N.
Integrated combat weapons system
The budget request contained no funding for an initiative
to resolve operational shortcomings and unnecessarily high
maintenance costs associated with the current version of the
integrated combat weapons system (ICWS) that is installed on
Navy mine countermeasures (MCM) ships.
The committee has learned that the Navy has included
funding in its future years defense program in fiscal year 1998
to upgrade the ICWS to a Block I configuration, making maximum
use of commercial off-the-shelf technology. This upgrade will
improve the reliability and maintainability of the ICWS and
help to address one of the Navy's most critical operational
shortcomings, its MCM capability, in a cost-effective manner.
The committee recommends an increase of $12.0 million above
the budget request in PE 63502N to accelerate the ICWS Block I
program from fiscal year 1998 to fiscal year 1997.
Research for advanced submarine technology
As directed in the National Defense Authorization Act for
fiscal year 1996, the Secretary of Defense submitted a report
to Congress on March 26, 1966 on the subject of nuclear attack
submarine procurement and submarine technology. The report
indicates that, historically, submarine technology development,
maturation, and transition have been performed on a cyclical
basis. A technology cycle has begun as a complement to the
requirement to design a new class of submarine. Funding for
technology development has then been dramatically increased to
mature new technologies for inclusion in the new class design.
However, as this surge of funding has occurred, a promising
technology that could not mature in time for inclusion in the
new design was set aside and given little or no funding
support. Once a firm set of new technologies for the new design
has been determined, funding for advanced submarine technology
has fallen precipitously to subsistence levels and generally
remained there during serial submarine production.
This cyclical approach was generally successful when there
was continuity or overlap of multiple submarine class designs
or design upgrades, following each other in a steady
progression. Blocks of technology were generally available when
the time for a new design arrived. However, a logical
consequence of the decrease in the number of new classes being
designed and in the submarine building rate during the past few
years has been that some promising and potentially leap-ahead
technologies have lain fallow for years; acknowledged, but not
pursued.
The Secretary's report concludes that the transition from
the high production rate of submarines that occurred during the
Cold War to the currently projected low production rate,
coupled with an exponential increase in the rate of technology
turnover, necessitates a different approach to submarine
technology development and transition. The report recommends
changing from an approach that is cyclical in nature to an
active, steady state approach.
An independent submarine technology assessment panel,
convened by the Secretary of the Navy to assist the Secretary
of Defense in preparing his report, reviewed all promising
submarine technologies, including foreign technology. The
recommendations of this panel contributed greatly to the final
form of the Secretary of Defense's report. In particular, the
panel highlighted the discontinuous nature and low risk bias of
submarine technology development that has occurred in the past
because of its spiky focus on class designs. The panel pointed
out that the subsistence level of core funding available
between the new acquisition platform spikes has generally been
insufficient to allow revolutionary options to be pursued. The
panel's report also observes that:
(1) the flow of information between members of the
technical community and within the requirements and
acquisition communities of the Department of the Navy
is at best inconsistent and sometimes nonexistent;
(2) shipyards are more involved in design activities
than in the past, but are not involved, as the
aerospace industry is, in all aspects of technology
planning and development, which inhibits early
consideration of the intricacies of submarine
construction in the integration of technology; and
(3) funding and organizational constraints have led
to a limited and inconsistent use of world class test
facilities and risk reduction activities to evaluate
potential technologies and develop them for inclusion
in future submarine modifications or new designs.
The submarine technology assessment panel made several
recommendations that are also included in the Secretary of
Defense's report:
(1) proceed with the New Attack Submarine but commit
to continuous evolution;
(2) define a single product manager for all attack
submarines, who is responsible for acquisition, life
cycle support and technology maturation/insertion;
(3) establish a significant, stable, and continuing
R&D program, under the single product manager, that
supports and matures major advances, reflects
technology base opportunities, and responds to future
missions;
(4) address the maturation of technologies associated
with hydrodynamics, alternative sail designs, advanced
arrays, electric drive, external weapons, and active
controls and mounts; and
(5) ensure that the technology base community
understands the performance need identified by the
product manager, involves the shipyards as performers
of technology development, performs utility analysis
before pursuing evolutionary improvements, and has the
courage to pursue potentially revolutionary
technologies.
The committee believes that the Secretary's report makes a
very good case for changing the way the Department of the Navy
organizes itself to pursue advanced submarine technology and
funds that effort. However, preliminary discussions with the
Department have revealed little enthusiasm on the Department's
part for change. The committee understands that resistance to
change is not unusual in a large bureaucracy. Recent experience
with the time it took, at least three years, for the Department
to come to grips with the need to reduce its infrastructure to
accommodate the reality of declining budgets is a case in
point. Consequently, the committee has concluded that it will
be necessary to encourage the Department to focus on
implementation of the recommendations included in the Secretary
of Defense's report to derive any lasting benefit from it.
Because the committee senses a desire by other elements in
Congress to take a more directive approach towards this
organizational issue, the committee strongly recommends that
the Secretary of the Navy and other senior leaders in the
Department take it up as a matter of priority.
Based on the findings of the Secretary of Defense's report
and the Department of the Navy's independent submarine
technology assessment panel, the committee has concluded that a
different approach to funding for advanced submarine technology
research is warranted. Accordingly, the committee recommends an
increase of $100.0 million above the budget request for the
pursuit of advanced submarine technology at a moderate level of
investment, $60.0 million for PE 63561N, and $40.0 million for
PE 63504N. The Navy is directed to use these funds to carry out
the high priority development efforts identified in the
Secretary of Defense's report to Congress, emphasizing advanced
hydrodynamic and hydroacoustic research, using advanced
modeling that is validated, when appropriate, by the use of
large scale models before insertion into the final design.
The committee emphasizes that this recommended funding
increase is for the purpose of developing advanced technologies
that can be incrementally incorporated into the design of the
next generation of nuclear attack submarine, now commonly
referred to as the New SSN or New Attack Submarine, as they
mature. Older designs, such as the SSN-688 class or Seawolf
class, may ultimately benefit from such research, but the
committee would strongly object to any effort on the part of
the Navy to use this recommended increase to resolve funding
shortfalls in existing programs or to pursue new ones whose
sole purpose is to improve the combat systems or sensors of
these older designs.
To provide an opportunity for continuing interaction with
the Navy on advanced submarine technology, the committee also
directs that the Secretary of the Navy deliver to the
congressional defense committees as early as possible, but no
later than February 15, 1997, a plan that addresses in detail:
(1) the immediate organizational changes that he has
put in place to provide for a robust and continuing
submarine technology program, including a far more
effective and equitable involvement of industry and the
shipyards that are involved in submarine design or
construction;
(2) additional organizational changes he contemplates
for the future, and his timeline for implementing them;
and
(3) how funds authorized in fiscal year 1997 will be
expended, what specific funding profile is required to
pursue his plan at a moderate level of investment in
the future, and what promising technologies will be
pursued with such future funding.
Submarine towed array processing software
The Navy has informed the committee of preliminary
technical analysis that indicates that significant gains in
towed array performance are possible through improved signal
processing. While this research is being sponsored as a
submarine technology initiative, its objective, developing
algorithms and associated software that could be hosted on any
open architecture system, could benefit a broad spectrum of
related antisubmarine warfare (ASW) programs.
The committee recommends an increase of $8.0 million in PE
63504N to improve the overall performance of both sonar and
combat control systems by the improvement of their ASW acoustic
processing.
Aircraft carrier research and development
The Navy's future years defense program currently plans to
request authorization for an aircraft carrier, CVN-77, in
fiscal year 2002. The Navy has described CVN-77 as a
transitional carrier that would be nuclear powered but would
incorporate design improvements that could lead to a more
revolutionary design for the carrier-after-next, CV(X). CV(X)
would follow CVN-77 by about four years.
The design service life of aircraft carriers will permit
these two ships to remain active until well into the second
half of the next century. The Navy has testified to its strong
desire to incorporate evolutionary technologies into CVN-77 and
far more dramatic advances into CV(X). Incorporating such
improvements into the baseline design would eliminate the need
for expensive future modifications. However, the budget request
includes only $6.0 million to pursue these technologies.
While the committee has not yet reviewed the development
program for aircraft carrier technology in the same detail as
its evaluation of the Navy's submarine technology program,
discussed elsewhere in this report, it would appear that the
Navy has not allocated sufficient resources to mature promising
technologies in sufficient time for their incorporation into
the design of either CVN-77 or CV(X). It would further appear
that the same organizational problems that have inhibited the
development of submarine technology are also present for this
program.
To ensure that promising technologies, such as an advance
aircraft launch system, advanced armor concepts, integrated
topside design, advanced computing plant architecture, internal
and external command and control architecture, and modeling and
simulation tool development, are pursued in sufficient time for
inclusion in the base design of CVN-77, if possible, and CV(X),
the committee recommends an increase of $52.0 million above the
budget request in PE 63512N.
Navy surface combatant
The Navy is developing a new generation of surface
combatant (SC-21) that would enter procurement after the turn
of the century as a replacement for the DDG-51 class destroyer.
However, the competition for scarce resources associated with
preparation of the budget request has reduced funding for the
SC-21 program to subsistence levels. Additional funding in
fiscal year 1997 would permit the Navy to provide focus for the
SC-21 program and accomplish a number of important objectives
that would lead to its orderly development, such as:
(1) accelerate reduced manning engineering analysis
with industry and fleet input;
(2) conduct ship mission and task functional
analysis;
(3) accelerate critical technology transition by
industry;
(4) facilitate early industry participation in Navy
led integrated process teams; and
(5) provide earlier automated documentation to
support program requirements and acquisition reform.
The committee recommends an increase of $25.0 million in PE
63564N to increase funding for the SC-21 program to a level
that could provide for an orderly development and transition to
procurement after the turn of the century.
Intercooled recuperated gas turbine engine
The budget request contained $34.1 million in PE 63573N for
continued development of the intercooled recuperated (ICR) gas
turbine engine.
In order to improve production efficiencies and support the
testing program, the committee has supported a plan to develop
a test facility for the ICR engine at the Navy's land-based
test site. This facility would be used to conduct the second
500 hour engine test for the ICR engine. Such testing would
reduce program risk and allow an earlier start of production
testing to support a planned decision in January 1997 on when
to introduce the ICR engine into new construction DDG-51 class
destroyers. No funding for this initiative was included in the
budget request.
Additionally, no funding has been included in the budget
request for at-sea testing of the ICR engine. At-sea testing of
the LM-2500 gas turbine, currently in widespread use as a main
propulsion gas turbine, provided valuable lessons learned when
gas turbine technology was first introduced into the fleet over
twenty years ago. It is to be expected that similar benefits
would be derived from similar testing of the ICR engine.
The committee recommends an increase of $19.0 million to
the budget request in PE 63573N for the ICR engine. Of this
amount:
(1) $12.5 million would be to establish an ICR test
facility at the Navy's existing land-based test site;
and
(2) $6.5 million would be for at-sea testing of the
ICR engine.
Advanced amphibious assault vehicle
The committee supports the accelerated development of the
advanced amphibious assault vehicle (AAAV) as one of the Marine
Corps'' highest priority programs. The AAAV will be critical to
future ship-to-shore operations from the stand-off distances
envisioned by the Department of the Navy's doctrine for
operational maneuver from the sea. It will greatly enhance the
maneuver capabilities of deploying Marines by providing them
with much greater flexibility as to the time and place of an
amphibious assault and for subsequent maneuver ashore.
The committee recommends an increase of $20.0 million in PE
63611M to procure an additional prototype for testing and
evaluation, to accelerate testing activities now scheduled for
fiscal years 1998 and 1999, and to preserve the option to enter
production a year earlier than currently planned.
Lightweight 155MM howitzer program
The committee notes the joint effort of the Marine Corps
and the Army to develop a lightweight 155mm howitzer for light
forces. The committee has been supportive of ongoing
developments for current and future self-propelled howitzer
systems and desires that these technologies also be applied to
the lightweight howitzer.
The committee recommends an increase of $4.0 million in PE
63635M to incorporate new technologies into the Marine Corps
lightweight 155mm howitzer and its associated training devices.
``Smart Base'' technology demonstration
The committee agrees with the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs
of Staff's program assessment concerning the Multi-Technology
Automated Reader Card (MARC), providing total visibility during
war or contingency operations, as well as providing
efficiencies in peacetime services and training. The committee
believes that the use of leading edge commercial technologies
like the MARC or ``smart card'' to reduce infrastructure costs
is beneficial to the nation, and enables better use of the
limited resources to support national security. Full
exploitation of state-of-the-art technology would provide
significant benefits and efficiencies associated with
installation overhead management costs. A ``Smart Base''
technology demonstration would capitalize on such technologies
and allow information exchange with federal agencies, and state
and local governments, as well as with the commercial sector.
The committee believes a ``Smart Base'' technology
demonstration should be conducted simultaneously at an
industrial site to determine usefulness with regard to ship
operations and maintenance, and at an operational base to
provide base business applications including security, travel,
education, medical, personnel, finance and food services. This
technology demonstration should be integrated into the civilian
sector where appropriate. Site selection shall be limited to
one industrial activity and one operational activity. Each
selection should use merit-based competitive procedures and be
predicated on size and scope to confine the demonstration to a
manageable and measurable model.
In executing the program, the committee instructs the
Department of the Navy to minimize costs by seeking cost
sharing partnerships with other federal agencies, and state and
local governments, as well as commercial activities. The
committee recommends an increase of $25.0 million to the Navy's
Environmental Quality and Logistics program (PE 63712N) for
this ``Smart Base'' technology demonstration.
Cooperative engagement capability
The budget request contained $164.5 million in PE 63755N
and $9.9 million in PE 24152N for continued development of the
Navy's cooperative engagement capability (CEC).
CEC is designed to enhance the warfighting capabilities of
ships and aircraft by combining the data derived from various
sensors into a single common representation that is available
with the same positional accuracy to all participating ships.
The Navy reports that a challenging cruise missile defense
exercise, which relied heavily on CEC position information, was
held earlier this year in Hawaii. The exercise involved over-
the-horizon detection, tracking, and engagement of a variety of
difficult targets. The Navy currently projects that initial
operational capability of the system will be achieved by
September 1996. During testimony at this year's defense posture
hearing, the Secretary of Defense singled out CEC as a program
of high priority that he chose to accelerate because of its
great potential for linking units from more than one service
together and greatly increasing their warfighting ability.
Despite relatively robust funding for CEC in this year's
budget request, it contains no funding to pursue joint service
integration efforts that were begun last year. Successful
consummation of these efforts, in consonance with the Navy's
baseline program, could greatly leverage the capability of the
services to conduct joint operations and provide ballistic
missile defense. Another area not addressed by the budget
request, an issue raised in committee hearings this year, is
reported interference between CEC and other data links
currently in use in the fleet.
The committee recommends an increase of $63.0 million above
the budget request for CEC in PE 63755N to permit continued
pursuit of a number of promising efforts, including CEC
integration with AWACS and national sensors, and to accelerate
development of an airborne capability for the system. Of this
amount, $8.0 million would be available to address the issue of
CEC interference with other fleet data links, particularly the
link installed on the SH-60B. The committee also directs that
the Secretary of the Navy prepare a detailed report, for
submission no later than March 15, 1997, on issues that
surfaced during committee hearings this year:
(1) progress made in resolving the issue of spectrum
interference as a result of the reallocation under
title VI of the Omnibus Reconciliation Act of 1993 of
the spectrum in which CEC operates; and
(2) steps that the Secretary has taken to address and
resolve harmful interference between CEC and other
fleet weapons systems and data links.
Naval surface fire support
The budget request included $42.2 million for gun weapons
system technology. Of this amount, $20.2 million is for the
continued development of a 5-inch extended range guided
munition (ERGM) round. The Navy is developing this round to
address a gap in its ability to provide accurate naval surface
fire support (NSFS) during an amphibious assault at the ranges
dictated by current requirements. Of the $20.2 million, no
funds have been budgeted for risk mitigation in the development
of a GPS/INS guidance unit for the projectile, the component
judged to have the greatest technical risk.
The committee has learned that a modest increment of
additional funding for risk mitigation in fiscal year 1997
could have very high leverage in successfully completing
development of the GPS/INS guidance unit on schedule.
Consequently, the committee recommends an increase of $3.0
million above the budget request in PE 63795N for risk
mitigation in development of the 5-inch ERGM. Consistent with
direction provided in the National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 1996, the committee also recommends an increase
of $0.4 million above the budget request to support the
retention of two Iowa class battleships on the naval register
in an inactive status until the Navy is able to replace their
potential NSFS capability.
Strike missile evaluation
As discussed elsewhere in this report, the Navy is pursuing
the development of an arsenal ship as a means of providing
flexible response and early massive firepower in the event of a
crisis. To fully realize the capabilities that the Navy
envisions for the arsenal ship, the Navy must pursue parallel
development of a long range strike missile that is capable of
hard target penetration. There are at least two potential
candidates for this mission, a sea-based variant of the Army's
ATACMs missile and a Standard strike missile variant. The Navy
has previously conducted an at-sea test of the ATACMs missile
variant but not of the Standard missile variant.
There are additional uses that the Navy might be able to
make of older variants of the Standard missile if they could be
proven satisfactory for those purposes. Examples include use as
a ballistic missile defense target and as a supersonic sea
skimming missile. If it proves feasible to use its existing
inventory of older Standard missiles in such roles with only
limited modifications, the Navy could make very cost effective
use of this inventory and take advantage of a logistics support
infrastructure that is already in place.
The Navy has informed the committee that additional funding
in fiscal year 1997 could be used to conduct a complete
Standard missile variant demonstration. This demonstration
would not only test a variant for the joint land attack
mission, but also as a theater ballistic missile target and a
supersonic sea skimming missile variant.
The committee recommends an increase of $24.0 million above
the budget request in PE 63795N to evaluate the potential of
the Standard missile to satisfy multiple mission requirements,
including a specially configured long range strike variant that
could be employed by the arsenal ship, when developed, or other
Navy surface combatants equipped with a vertical launch
capability.
Light airborne multi-purpose system helicopter program
The Navy has embarked on a program to convert its existing
fleet of light airborne multi-purpose system (LAMPS)
helicopters from the SH-60B configuration to the SH-60R
configuration. It is planned that other Navy H-60 series
helicopters, such as the HH-60, a search and rescue variant,
and the SH-60F, an ASW variant with a dipping sonar, will also
eventually be converted to the SH-60R configuration. However,
the Navy's helicopter master plan, under which these
conversions are included, has been in a constant state of flux
for at least the past two years and, in the committee's
opinion, has lacked the focus needed to properly compete for
resources as the defense budget, particularly the acquisition
portion, has declined in recent years.
The committee has learned that the LAMPS SH-60B to SH-60R
development program is seriously short of resources. Since
fiscal year 1995, it has gone through requirements
restructuring, contractual rebaselining, efforts at cost
reduction through acquisition reform initiatives, contractor
investment, and an increasing contractor inventory of accrued
cost that has not been paid. While the Navy and contractor team
has maintained technical progress towards the planned fiscal
year 2001 initial operational capability (IOC) date, the
funding level contained in the fiscal year 1997 budget request
would be insufficient to sustain this effort. Since the program
was originally structured to permit conversion to the SH-60R
configuration to occur during scheduled depot maintenance or
service life extension overhauls, the delay in program
development that would result from the fiscal year 1997 budget
request would likely also cause a substantial increase in
conversion costs and might render the program unaffordable.
The committee recommends an increase of $6.8 million in PE
64212N to restore funds that were removed from the SH-60R
development program during preparation of the fiscal year 1997
budget request. This additional funding will support a critical
design review in fiscal year 1997 and maintain the program's
progress toward a fiscal year 2001 IOC. The committee also
recommends an increase of $10.0 million for the procurement of
additional SH-60B upgrade kits to replace funds that were
removed from the program to pay for F-14 digital flight control
improvements.
Joint maritime command information system/Navy tactical command system-
afloat
The budget request included $43.7 million for development
and procurement associated with the Navy tactical command
system afloat (NTCS-A) and the joint maritime command
information system (JMCIS).
NTCS-A is the primary command, control, and intelligence
(C2I) system in the fleet. It is installed in over 240 ships
and is fielded on a series of commercial off-the-shelf (COTS)
based tactical computers. It also forms the architectural basis
for the Joint Chiefs of Staff's global command and control
system (GCCS). NTCS-A provides a common standard in order to
integrate individual subsystems into a common operating
environment, the JMCIS. New, user-specific software
applications for individual weapons and communications systems
must be developed with an interface that is compliant with
NTCS-A. The Navy has also embarked on a major effort to ensure
that legacy systems that are not presently compliant with NTCS-
A are adapted to it as quickly as possible. While the Navy
considers this effort of great importance to its ability to
realize the full fighting potential of its fleet units,
competing demands for resources in a constrained budget
environment have slowed the development of NTCS-A/JMCIS.
The committee recommends an increase of $23.0 million above
the budget request to field the following additional
capabilities for JMCIS/NTCS-A:
(1) development of integrated two-way Link 16
processing capability in JMCIS software;
(2) incorporation of the Air Force's contingency
theater automated planning system (CTAPS) into JMCIS;
(3) upgrading to permit data exchange between the
joint surveillance target attack radar system (JSTARS)
and the Navy's afloat planning system (APS);
(4) fielding of the afloat automated sanitization
system, commonly known as Radiant Mercury; and
(5) development of the tools and architecture to
allow users to selectively request, filter, and process
supporting databases without being overwhelmed by
unneeded data.
Of the amount recommended, $19.5 million would be for
research and development in PE 64231N and $3.5 million would be
for procurement.
Smart Ship initiative
The budget request included no funding for the Navy's Smart
Ship initiative. This initiative, developed too late for
inclusion in the budget request, will be managed at fleet level
and is designed to demonstrate that crew workload for a surface
combatant ship can be reduced via technology and changes to
existing policies and procedures. The lessons derived from it
are expected to have a direct, cost saving impact on the
designs for future ships, such as the arsenal ship and the
Navy's next generation of surface combatant, the SC-21. It may
also produce modification proposals that could be cost
effectively incorporated into existing fleet units to lower
operating and support costs.
The committee has concluded that Smart Ship has
considerable potential for reducing the operating costs of the
Navy's fleet units with no loss in operational effectiveness.
If Smart Ship's objectives are realized, it could also assist
the Navy in making more future resources available for
recapitalization.
The committee recommends an increase of $31.3 million above
the budget request to accelerate the Smart Ship initiative. Of
this amount, $21.9 million would be for PE 64307N. The balance
of $9.4 million would be added to the Navy's operating account.
Arsenal Ship
The Navy budget request contained $25.0 million for
development of an arsenal ship.
During the past year, the Department of the Navy has
developed a new concept for an arsenal ship. Key elements of
the concept include:
(1) providing approximately 500 vertical launch
system (VLS) cells, with the capability to launch Navy
and joint weapons to support the land campaign;
(2) integrating the combat system with cooperative
engagement capability to provide for off-board control
of weapons;
(3) incorporating the flexibility to include ship
design features for survivability and self defense at a
later date;
(4) minimizing ownership costs; and
(5) limiting crew size to no more than 50.
The arsenal ship concept could satisfy the basic joint
naval requirements to provide the theater commander with: (1)
massive firepower, (2) long-range strike, and (3) flexible
targeting of that firepower. The arsenal ship program may also
support theater air defense by providing hundreds of VLS cells
for air defense missiles.
The Navy has testified that it will emphasize simplicity of
design for the arsenal ship. In an innovative approach to
exploring the arsenal ship concept, the Navy has signed a
memorandum of agreement (MOA) with the Defense Advanced
Research Projects Agency (DARPA) for conducting a joint
development program. The objective of the MOA is to:
(1) produce an operational demonstrator that could be
converted to a fleet asset at a future date;
(2) incorporate cost as an independent variable;
(3) share the cost of the first demonstrator between
the Navy and DARPA;
(4) spend no more than $520.0 million on the first
demonstrator;
(5) use exclusively off-the-shelf systems; and
(6) create a joint arsenal ship advanced technology
demonstrator office to manage the effort.
The committee explored this arsenal ship concept for the
first time at a hearing on March 12, 1996. Based on its initial
review, the committee believes that the concept shows promise
for providing both flexible response and early massive
firepower in the event of a crisis.
The committee understands that the program is in the
earliest of conceptual stages. However, there are a number of
questions that must be addressed concerning integration of the
arsenal ship with other existing and developmental weapons
systems, and concerning other possible missions that have
evolved since the memorandum of agreement was signed. Relevant
matters for resolution as development proceeds include:
(1) how will the arsenal ship system and its
operational employment concept satisfy the basic
objectives of providing accurate, long-range strike and
flexible targeting?
(2) does the Navy have, or is it planning to develop,
the right kinds of weapons systems that would provide
an effective anti-armor capability at ranges consistent
with long range strike?
(3) has the Navy identified what modifications to
existing vertical launchers may be necessary to
accommodate the Army tactical missile system (ATACMS)?
(4) how will the Navy integrate the arsenal ship into
existing or planned surveillance and targeting systems,
such as JSTARs, to tap into sensor-to-shooter links
that provide accurate real-time targeting for long-
range weapons?
(5) to what extent might the arsenal ship system be
able to provide a shore fire support capability, a
potential additional mission that is not mentioned in
the developmental objectives of the MOA?
(6) what self-defense systems might be necessary to
meet the operational objectives set for the ship? and
(7) what is the view of the Joint Requirements
Oversight Council (JROC) regarding the need for
additional sea-based, long-range, precision surface
fire support in the form of an arsenal ship?
Based on its initial evaluation, the committee supports the
Navy's concept for an arsenal ship. However, the committee
believes that the questions listed above are all valid and must
be addressed as part of the development program. The arsenal
ship concept should be developed as a weapons system, not just
as a ship.
Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $147.0
million in PE 64310N to accelerate development of the arsenal
ship weapons system and to accelerate finding answers to the
questions that would allow the Navy to develop a system, not
just a ship. The committee expects the Navy to address this
matter in the preparation of its fiscal year 1998 budget and be
prepared to discuss its various developmental and resource
implications before the request is submitted.
AQS-20 airborne minehunting sonar
The Navy has been developing a new airborne minehunting
sonar, the AQS-20. Because of funding constraints, the Navy has
been forced to reduce previously planned funding for the
program in this year's budget request. This reduction will
delay production of the system by one or perhaps two years.
As the committee learned during hearings this year, there
are still many mine countermeasures (MCM) requirements that
remain unmet. Funding emphasis for MCM that occurred in the
wake of Operation Desert Storm has returned to historical
subsistence level norms. Yet, effective MCM capabilities that
extend from deep water to the landing beach, and across it,
remain essential elements of a successful amphibious assault.
The AQS-20 minehunting sonar system, which will be towed by an
MH-53E helicopter, has been designed to double the coverage
rate of the existing AQS-14 and have a much better ability to
detect bottom mines. When combined with improvements in
position accuracy available from GPS, the AQS-20 has the
potential to make airborne mine countermeasures an extremely
effective MCM system.
The committee recommends an increase of $6.0 million above
the budget request in PE 64373N to procure additional test
articles in preparation for operational testing of the AQS-20
sonar.
Airborne mine detection systems
In testimony on its mine warfare programs this year, the
Navy emphasized a long-term objective of providing an organic
mine countermeasures (MCM) capability to the active fleet that
will permit it to respond immediately to mine threats until
specialized MCM units can arrive on the scene. However,
progress in fielding specific systems to satisfy this objective
remains slow. The committee is particularly concerned with the
Navy's lack of progress in developing an organic capability,
within its aircraft carrier battle groups (CVBGs) and
amphibious ready groups (ARGs), to conduct minehunting by use
of an airborne laser mine detection system (ALMDS). The ALMDS
program is developing a light detection and ranging (LIDAR)
sensor for use by fleet aircraft to detect and classify shallow
water moored and floating contact mines.
The committee is aware of existing systems that could be
candidates for a solution to the ALMDS requirement,
specifically Magic Lantern and ATD-111. Although a limited
contingency capability composed of three Magic Lantern systems
that are resident in the Navy Reserve SH-2G helicopters
currently exists, the committee believes that such a capability
should also be resident in its active CVBGs and ARGs.
Accordingly, the Committee directs the Navy to conduct a
competitive evaluation field test, during fiscal year 1997, of
the two candidate technologies represented by Magic Lantern and
ATD-111, for the purpose of identifying a single system that
can be procured and integrated into active duty Navy fleet
aircraft to provide them with an organic MCM capability. This
assessment should include a quantitative determination of each
system's performance with respect to detection and
classification of moored and floating mines, area coverage,
false alarm rates, potential for multi-mission capability,
system availability, and capability for integration and
carriage aboard the SH-60 series active fleet helicopters. The
committee further directs that this competitive evaluation be
conducted as soon as practicable, but no later than July 1,
1997. The Secretary of the Navy shall report results to the
congressional defense committees no later than August 1, 1997.
To support this competitive evaluation for an ALMDS system,
the committee recommends an increase of $10.0 million in PE
64373N to prepare these two systems for the competition, to
conduct the competitive assessment, and to prepare the required
report. Of this amount:
(1) $3.0 million would be available to prepare ATD-
111 for the competition;
(2) $5.0 million would be available to prepare Magic
Lantern for the competition; and
(3) $2.0 million would be available to organize and
conduct the competition, analyze data, and prepare the
required report.
Upon completion of this assessment, the Navy shall develop
a plan to procure a sufficient number of the winning systems to
provide the active Navy forces with a satisfactory contingency
ALMDS capability. To begin this procurement, the committee
recommends an increase of $25.0 million above the budget
request. The Secretary of the Navy is directed to submit this
plan to the congressional defense committees in conjunction
with the fiscal year 1998 budget request and to include funding
in the fiscal year 1998 budget request to continue execution of
the plan.
Multi-purpose processor
In designing its next generation of nuclear attack
submarine (New SSN) the Navy has shifted its emphasis from the
design of a combat system to the design of a fully open
architecture command, control, communications and intelligence
(C3I) system based on commercial electronics. This approach
will integrate the functions of the combat system, previously
based on closed architecture, proprietary designs, with those
of other sensors and communications equipment that formerly
stood apart. The Navy's approach will permit the system to
evolve more easily and rapidly incorporate new technology as it
develops.
The committee has been informed that, as part of its effort
to establish an open architecture C3I design for the New SSN,
the Navy has developed a multi-purpose processor (MPP) based on
commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) technology through a small
business innovative research program (SBIR). The Navy has also
informed the committee that the technology provided by the MPP
permits investments in complex software to be easily
transported to other programs. Inherent in the MPP's design is
a capability to rapidly introduce COTS technology to other
fleet systems that contain military specification equipment
that performs a comparable function. MPP removes the
requirement for highly specialized or proprietary processors
and replaces them with a processor that is adaptable across a
wide range of applications with relatively low risk. As an
example, the Navy has chosen to use the MPP as an integral part
of an effort to insert COTS technology into acoustic processing
on its SSN-688 class submarines.
The committee recommends an increase of $15.2 million in PE
64558N to mature MPP transportable software technology for use
in research and development programs, and to improve the
performance of Navy towed and hull mounted arrays.
Seawolf shock test
The first Seawolf submarine, SSN-21, is in the final stages
of construction and is scheduled for delivery to the Navy in
late fiscal year 1996. The budget request contains $2.5 million
for shock testing of Seawolf components and an additional $43.2
million for shock testing of SSN-21.
The committee has learned that the Navy has come to the
conclusion that additional testing of Seawolf components,
particularly for the very complex weapons delivery system,
would establish very useful benchmark data for predicting the
ability of these components to resist battle damage.
The committee recommends an increase of $26.0 million in PE
64561N to provide for shock testing of Seawolf components not
covered by the budget request as follows:
(1) $20.0 million for shock testing of the Seawolf
weapons delivery system and other important components;
(2) $4.0 million for modeling and analysis to allow
components to be analyzed for shock test hardness; and
(3) $2.0 million to complete the shock testing and
qualification of Seawolf components that are tested
using methods other than submersible test vehicles.
Infrared search and track
The budget request included $3.9 million for the continued
development of the infrared search and track (IRST) weapons
system.
IRST is a program designed to develop a passive shipboard
infrared sensor that continuously scans the horizon and
automatically detects and tracks sea-skimming anti-ship cruise
missiles. It has potential to be a valuable complement to
various active radars that experience difficulty maintaining a
solid track on sea-skimming targets. Subsistence level funding,
at the level implied by the budget request, would force the
IRST program to pursue a two phase approach that would produce
a substantial delay in completing development of the system.
To eliminate a substantial portion of the delays in the
IRST program that the budget request would produce, the
committee recommends an increase of $8.0 million above the
budget request in PE 64755N.
Evolved seasparrow missile
The budget request contains $39.5 million for continued
development of the evolved seasparrow missile (ESSM).
The ESSM is being developed to incorporate missile
kinematic and ordnance improvements to the RIM-7P missile to
provide ships with the capability to counter modern supersonic
maneuvering anti-ship cruise missiles. The committee has
learned that additional funding within the baseline program
could help to ensure earlier fleet introduction for both Aegis
and non-Aegis ships, thus avoiding the need for separate and
expensive product improvement and backfit programs.
The committee recommends an increase of $8.0 million above
the budget request in PE 64755N to:
(1) modify the safe and arming device of the RIM-7P
to ensure safe separation from the firing ship;
(2) additional simulation capability that will better
reflect the improved missile design and the
environmental conditions that the missile will
encounter within its flight envelope; and
(3) an S-band link to support the missile's
employment by Aegis ships.
Quick reaction combat capability
The budget request included $29.5 million for continued
development of the quick reaction combat capability (QRCC) for
ship self defense.
The recent introduction of the ship self-defense system
(SSDS) and the advanced combat direction system (ACDS) Block 1,
when combined with the capability that the cooperative
engagement capability (CEC) will provide when its development
is complete, give great promise for equipping the fleet with a
much better capability to defend itself against advanced cruise
missiles. The Navy is concurrently developing the QRCC to fully
integrate the employment of these systems.
The committee has been informed that additional funding for
QRCC in fiscal year 1997 will provide engineering analysis
needed to unify SSDS, ACDS, and CEC into a lower cost equipment
set and accelerate its fleet introduction. Long-term savings in
equipment procurement and maintenance costs and reduced shore-
based infrastructure appear likely as a consequence.
The committee recommends an increase of $17.0 million above
the budget request in PE 64755N to:
(1) accelerate engineering of the LHD amphibious
assault ship self-defense system;
(2) integrate ACDS with CEC; and
(3) improve tracking equipment at the Navy's Wallops
Island engineering test site and aboard its self-
defense test ship.
Fixed distributed system-1
The budget request contained no funding for improving the
capabilities of the Navy's fixed distributed system-1 (FDS-1),
a modern surveillance system that can detect even the most
modern threat submarines. The committee has learned that
additional enhancements in this system could significantly
improve its surveillance coverage.
The committee recommends an increase of $202.0 million
above the budget request in PE 64784N to complete enhancements
to FDS-1.
RDT&E science and technology management
The committee recommends a transfer of $2.5 million from PE
63217N to PE 65861N to support continuing efforts in the Office
of Naval Research to integrate the Navy's science and
technology programs.
Sea Dragon initiative
As noted elsewhere in the report, the committee supports
the various efforts of the services to develop emerging
operational concepts made possible by new technologies and the
requirement to perform a broader spectrum of operations in the
post-Cold War era. Responses by the Marine Corps Commandant to
questions during a hearing before the Acquisition and
Technology Subcommittee suggest that current efforts in the
Marine Corps to develop new operational concepts are not being
adequately funded in the budget request. As part of a broader
effort to support the development of advanced operational
capabilities by the services, the committee recommends an
increase of $40.0 million in the Marine Corps Program-wide
Support program (PE 65873M) for technology supporting
experiments in the first advanced warfighting experiment, known
as Hunter Warrior, being conducted by the Commandant's
Warfighting Laboratory. This increase is also intended to
support technology enhancements for follow-on limited objective
experiments in fiscal year 1997. The committee intends to base
future support of the Marine Corps Sea Dragon process on the
demonstrated ability of the Marine Corps to adequately budget
for the rapid fielding of new technologies supported by the
results of the Sea Dragon experiments.
Nuclear powered ballistic missile submarine security
The budget request included $14.0 million for the Navy's
nuclear powered ballistic missile submarine (SSBN) security
program. The purpose of this funding is to develop all relevant
technologies, on a continuing basis, to ensure the long-term
survivability of the present fleet ballistic missile submarine
force.
There are a number of promising technologies that would not
be addressed at the level of funding in the budget request. The
committee recommends an increase of $5.5 million in PE 11224N
to explore several promising technologies such as forward
scatter barrier, low frequency active sonar, radar detection,
and light detection and ranging (LIDAR) buoy detection.
Joint tactical combat training system
The Navy and the Air Force are developing the joint
tactical combat training system (JTCTS) to provide proficiency
training, tactics development, and readiness assessment for
Navy fleet and Air Force operational units. The system will
provide realistic training environments for joint air and sea-
based forces. The system is also tied to a Department of
Defense modeling and simulation initiative that is being
pursued to reduce the cost of training department-wide.
The committee has learned that funding for the JTCTS in the
budget request is unbalanced with respect to its development
timeline and milestone dates. Accordingly, the committee
recommends an increase of $5.0 million in PE 64735F and $9.0
million in PE 24571N to restore balance to the JTCTS
development effort.
CINCs' technology initiative
The committee continues to support efforts by the services
and defense agencies to transition rapidly selected
technologies from the defense research and development
establishment into the hands of the services for use in
military operations. The committee recommends an increase of
$10.0 million in the Navy Science Assistance program (PE
25658N) for the continuation of the Commander in Chiefs'
technology initiative established by Congress last year. The
committee expects that funding in future years for this
initiative will be included in the Navy budget request.
Medium tactical vehicle remanufacturing
The committee continues to support the medium tactical
vehicle remanufacturing (MTVR) program needed to enhance aging
cargo trucks to meet Marine Corps mobility requirements. The
current program supports two contractors through the
engineering and manufacturing development (EMD) phase. The
committee understands that, if a third contractor could remain
in the competition for the MTVR through the completion of EMD,
significant savings could result when the program enters its
procurement phase.
The committee recommends an additional $3.0 million in PE
26624M to retain a third contractor during the EMD phase of the
MTVR program.
GEOSAT follow-on
The Navy has been conducting a research and development
effort for a space-borne sensor to determine wind speed and
direction. The Navy has budgeted funds for a wind speed and
direction sensor that was intended to take advantage of the
opportunity to launch on the Defense Meteorological Satellite
Program (DMSP) Block VI spacecraft in the fiscal year 2000-2004
time frame. Now that DMSP Block VI has been merged with the
National Polar-orbiting Operational Environmental Satellite
System (NPOESS), the committee recommends that the Navy meet
its requirements for both radar altimetry and wind data by
building a second GEOSAT Follow-On (GFO-2) that would also
include a new wind sensor payload in fiscal years 2001-2002.
The committee recommends an increase of $20.0 million in PE
35160N to begin this effort.
Manufacturing technology (MANTECH)
The committee is disappointed at the continued underfunding
of the manufacturing technology programs of the services and
the Department of Defense. This underfunding persists despite
recent policies and congressional approaches that should have
resulted in greater support for these programs in the budget
request for fiscal year 1997. The Department of Defense has
announced a policy of making the affordability of future
systems a key priority in the programming for research and
development efforts. In the National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 1996 and the Department of Defense
Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 1996, there was virtually no
directed funding in the increases provided for these programs
by Congress, allowing the Department of Defense and the
services greater flexibility in funding priority requirements
under this program.
There is a growing consensus that affordability of current
and future platforms and subsystems will be an essential factor
if the United States is to deploy sufficient quantities of the
most technologically-advanced weapons systems in the 21st
century. The committee commends the Navy for its aggressive
attempt to tie the activities of its manufacturing centers of
excellence with the needs of the systems program managers. As
part of a broader thrust to address current and future
affordability concerns, the committee recommends the following
general increases in the services manufacturing technology
programs:
$30.0 million in PE 78011N
$20.0 million in PE 78011F
The committee expects that managers of manufacturing
technology programs will pursue aggressively the requirement in
section 2525 of title 10, United States Code, regarding
costsharing on 25 percent of such programs. The committee urges
that the process for establishing cost sharing in such programs
be the subject of formal rule-making procedures in the
Department of Defense.
The committee notes that whereas there has been
considerable focus on four of five MANTECH thrust areas
(composites, metals, electronics, and advanced industrial
practices), there has been less focus on the fifth thrust area,
manufacturing and engineering systems (M&ES). This lack of
focus exists despite the fact that improvements in the M&ES
area could significantly reduce manufacturing costs and cycle
times.
The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to review
the current and planned MANTECH programs in the services and
the Office of the Secretary of Defense to determine whether
there is an identifiable shortfall in the M&ES component of the
MANTECH program. The committee directs the Secretary to
consider different approaches for addressing any perceived
program shortfalls, including the establishment, on a
competitive cost shared basis, of a Manufacturing Systems
Center of Excellence. The committee directs the Secretary to
provide by November 1, 1996 a report to the defense
congressional committees on the findings of the review and on
any plan to address the program shortfalls identified in the
review.
Acquisition center of excellence
As noted elsewhere in this report, recent approaches to
acquisition streamlining have revealed the importance of
continuous reform if the services are to achieve the capability
of deploying new technology broadly and in an affordable
manner. Congress has enacted two major pieces of acquisition
reform legislation since 1994, but a prerequisite for success
is the ability of the services and the Department of Defense to
change the traditional procurement culture internally. In order
to support efforts by the services to reform the acquisition
culture, the committee recommends an increase of $8.0 million
for the establishment of an acquisition center of excellence in
the Navy. The committee expects that the Navy will provide
follow-on funding for this effort in fiscal year 1998 and
beyond as part of the budget requested for each fiscal year.
The committee directs the Secretary of the Navy to submit to
the congressional defense committees, no later than June 15,
1997, a report on progress made toward establishing the center
as well as toward the development of performance measures for
judging the effectiveness of the center in acting as an agent
of reform of the acquisition process in the Navy and elsewhere
in the Department of Defense.
Air Force
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
Carbon/carbon nosetips
The committee is aware of current efforts by the Air Force
to develop carbon/carbon thermal protection materials for
reentry vehicles, as well as aircraft, spacecraft, and missile
applications. The committee recommends that of the amounts
requested for the Air Force Materials program (PE 62102F), $1.5
million be used for reentry vehicles material development. The
committee directs that all applicable competitive procedures be
used in the award of any contracts or other agreements under
this program and that cost-sharing requirements for non-federal
participants be utilized where appropriate.
Ejection seat development
The committee has taken a strong interest in improving the
capability of ejection seats in our military aircraft. The
committee noted in its report on the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1995 (S. Rest. 103-282) that
new technologies, including some deriving from the ballistic
missile defense programs, could have promise for automatically
varying the explosive forces acting on ejecting pilots. Such
technologies show promise for reducing the incidence of
serious, career-ending injuries.
The Air Force submitted a report that indicates that
designers could use new seat propulsion technology in
controlling:
(1) acceleration forces for both large and small
aircrew, limiting these forces to non-injurious levels;
and
(2) seat instability generated by having to eject in
situations other than slower, level flight.
The report further identified a three phased approach to
improving survivability of our aircrews. The first phase would
consist of making changes to improve aircraft accommodations
and to make modest increases in ejection seat safety. The
second phase would involve making more extensive changes to
reduce ejection risk more substantially. The third phase would
seek to expand greatly the safe ejection envelope at high and
low speeds, and in situations when the aircraft is at adverse
attitudes or operating in out-of-control flight.
The Air Force budget request included $18.0 million in PE
060231F for crew systems and personnel protection technology.
The Navy budget request included $11.1 million in PE 060426N
for aircrew systems development. The committee is disappointed
that the Air Force and the Navy have not taken a more forceful
approach in implementing the phased approach identified in the
Air Force report. The committee, therefore, recommends an
additional $10.0 million for accelerating the program phases
for ejection seat upgrades as identified in the Air Force
report, with the additional funds evenly divided between the
two service programs.
Thermally stable jet fuels
The committee recommends an increase of $3.0 million in PE
62203F for the acceleration of a program to develop thermally
stable jet fuels using chemicals derived from coal.
High frequency active auroral research program
The committee recommends an increase of $15.0 million for
the high frequency active auroral research program, $7.5
million in PE 62601F and $7.5 million in PE 63160D.
Airborne laser program
The budget request included $56.8 million in PE 63319F for
the Airborne Laser (ABL) program. Although the committee agrees
to authorize the full budget request for ABL, it has serious
reservations and concerns related to this program. The Air
Force currently plans to spend $682.6 million in the future
years defense program (fiscal years 1997-2001) on an ABL
demonstration and validation (Dem/Val) program. The committee
does not believe that the Air Force has adequately demonstrated
the feasibility of the necessary technology to justify
beginning such a significant investment. The committee is also
not convinced that the ABL concept of operations will allow the
system to be cost and operationally effective. Under any
serious threat scenario, the ABL aircraft will be required to
stand off approximately 90 kilometers from the forward edge of
the battle area. Yet the ABL will have a range well below 500
kilometers (in most cases against most threats probably less
than 300 kilometers). This means that the ABL will have very
little capability against short-range missiles and longer-range
missiles launched from significant distances behind the forward
edge of the battle area. Moreover, the 747-400F aircraft that
the Air Force plans to use as the ABL platform will be an
extremely vulnerable and lucrative target for enemy air defense
systems.
The committee notes that the Air Force is planning to
acquire a 747-400F aircraft as the ABL test platform through
multi-year incremental funding. The committee views this
acquisition as inconsistent with the Department of Defense's
policy on incremental funding. The committee will not support
incremental funding of a 747-400F aircraft while the Department
opposes incremental funding of other major platforms, such as
ships.
Notwithstanding the reservations expressed above, the
committee does support a robust technology development and risk
reduction effort for ABL. The committee strongly supports the
development of directed energy systems for ballistic and cruise
missile defense applications. Nonetheless, the committee
remains skeptical about making a commitment to a significant
ABL Dem/Val program at this time. This skepticism has been
heightened by the fact that the Department of Defense's recent
BMD Program Update Review recommended significant reductions in
other key theater missile defense programs. The committee does
not understand how the administration can justify a $2.0
billion reduction in the Theater High Altitude Area Defense
system, for which we have a critical near-term requirement, and
at the same time dedicate approximately $700.0 million for a
system that may not work or make operational sense.
National Polar-Orbiting Operational Environmental Satellite System
The National Polar-Orbiting Operational Environmental
Satellite System (NPOESS) is a joint weather satellite
development program involving the Department of Defense, the
Department of Commerce, and the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration. The budget request included $34.0 million for
NPOESS. Since the development program has recently been
stretched-out by three years, the committee recommends a
reduction of $15.0 million to PE 63434F.
Joint Advanced Strike Technology Program
Last year the Joint Advanced Strike Technology (JAST)
Program Office rebaselined its development profile, deferring
$137.0 million of fiscal year 1996 funding. The committee notes
that the deferred funds are included in the budget request of
$544.3 million, and the committee further notes the program is
now structured to produce the Joint Strike Fighter.
The committee is persuaded that the benefits of engine
competition will outweigh any near-term investment.
Accordingly, the committee directs that remaining competition
funds be rebaselined to guarantee integration into the
preferred weapons system concept at the earliest practical
point.
Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $13.0
million to the $15.0 million in the budget request for the
alternate engine to accelerate the profile leading to a
demonstrator engine, and integration of the competitive engine
in the selected weapons systems concepts.
Hardened and deeply buried target technology demonstration
The committee understands that the Air Force Air Combat
Command and the U.S. Strategic Command have submitted mission
need statements for capabilities to defeat hardened and deeply
buried targets, and that these were validated by the Joint
Chiefs of Staff and approved by the Defense Acquisition Board
for acquisition phase 0 efforts. The committee also understands
that the Air Force Space Command has submitted an advanced
technology concept demonstration proposal to develop a
capability to defeat hardened and deeply buried targets. The
committee endorses this effort and recommends an increase of
$19.1 million in PE 63851F.
B-1B bomber virtual umbilical device
The committee supports the bomber virtual umbilical device
(BVUD) program, which will provide B-1 bombers with an
effective interim capability to deliver precision guided
munitions. The committee recommends an increase of $25.0
million in PE 64226F for 600 BVUD tail kits for 500 pound bombs
and the outfitting of two additional B-1 bombers with BVUD
global positioning system equipment.
B-1B upgrades
The committee recommended significant increases in B-1B
enhancements last year in response to the Heavy Bomber Study
that recommended investment in precision guided munitions. The
B-1B is undergoing a Conventional Munitions Upgrade Program
(CMUP) to ready the aircraft for Precision Guided Munitions
(PGM) now in development. The committee understands that an
earlier start to the Electronics Countermeasures (ECM) portion
of the CMUP could reduce risk to the schedule as well as speed
up operational capability by nearly two years while reducing
work required in later years.
Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $10.0
million for the Defensive System Upgrade Program (PE 604226F),
an element of the ECM upgrades, to provide for an accelerated
start for the initiative while maintaining the overall
program's balance between development and PGM availability.
Variable Stability In-Flight Simulator Test Aircraft (VISTA)
Because of limited resources, the budget request did not
include funds for the VISTA project in fiscal year 1997, thus
canceling an ongoing project to add thrust vectoring capability
to this unique F-16D aircraft. Acknowledging the importance of
manned flight experiments with variable stability aircraft, the
committee recommends an additional $1.4 million to complete and
test Phase I of this technologically advanced program.
Milstar automated communication management system
The budget request included $700.3 million for the Milstar
satellite communications system. The committee recommends an
increase of $20.0 million in PE 64479F for the automated
communication management system (ACMS), which will perform
essential network planning and management of Milstar
communications resources for a wide range of users. The Army's
tactical terminal field operators and planners, in particular,
will benefit from an ability to directly task the satellite
constellation, move antennas, and change network
configurations. ACMS will enable all users to fully utilize the
flexibility and responsiveness of the Milstar system.
Global Positioning System
The committee supports the Global Positioning System (GPS)
and the Air Force's acquisition strategy for the Block IIF
satellite. Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of
$7.1 million in PE 64480F to sustain the development and
support a production rate of three Block IIF satellites per
year, which will be required to maintain a full 24-satellite
constellation.
Section 279 of the National Defense Authorization Act of
1996 (Public Law 104-106) established a requirement for the
Department of Defense to prepare and present to Congress a plan
for dealing with GPS jamming and denial. The committee remains
strongly interested in quickly resolving GPS vulnerabilities
related to use in battlefield jamming environments, and the
growing potential for GPS exploitation by adversaries.
Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $5.0
million in PE 35164F to accelerate activities necessary to
ensure effective use of high-precision GPS signals by United
States forces, and the means to deny access to those signals by
hostile forces.
Minuteman third stage upgrade
Air Force studies have identified the need to include
Minuteman stage 3 flight control systems in the Propulsion
Replacement Program (PRP). Flight control systems could be
evaluated in planned PRP altitude chamber tests. Flight testing
could be accomplished in conjunction with planned Rocket System
Launch Program flights. Therefore, the committee recommends an
increase of $10.3 million in PE 64851F to develop and build
seven flight test stage 3 flight control systems.
Minuteman safety enhanced reentry vehicle
The Minuteman guidance replacement program (GRP) currently
preserves the option of incorporating the Mark-21 safety
enhanced reentry vehicle on Minuteman III if Peacekeeper
intercontinental ballistic missiles are retired. But no
hardware or software prototyping has been accomplished to date
for this purpose as part of the GRP. There are several reasons
why this work should be performed now rather than in the
future. Integrating this effort with current design and
development work in GRP will save money and provide greater
confidence in the system. Existing contracts could be used to
perform all necessary tasks. This would preclude the cost and
risk of reopening the guidance set after the GRP is concluded
to make these changes. Given these factors, the committee
recommends an increase of $13.7 million in PE 64851F to perform
hardware and software prototyping and testing associated with
incorporation of the Mark-21 reentry vehicle on the Minuteman
III system.
Rocket System Launch Program
Systems to defeat hardened and deeply buried targets share
many of the same technical challenges faced by kinetic energy
boost-phase missile defense systems. Both require technologies
for high speed in-atmosphere vehicles, precise guidance, plasma
attenuation, and advanced vehicle antennas and materials.
Several programs address these technologies in coordinated
efforts but lack experimental flight testing capabilities.
Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $25.1
million in PE 65860F to fund two atmospheric interceptor
technology, plasma attenuation, and materials demonstration
flights coordinated by the Air Force Ballistic Missile
Technology Program and flown by the Rocket System Launch
Program.
Data links
Last year, the committee applauded the Air Force's decision
to equip its air superiority fighters (F-15Cs) with the data
link called ``Link-16.'' Nevertheless, the committee does not
believe that the budget invests heavily enough in proliferating
this important capability to other parts of the Air Force. The
committee believes that the added situational awareness
resulting from sharing data among various platforms has real
potential for making our forces more effective warfighters.
The committee believes that the Air Force should accelerate
its plan to install Link-16 on F-16, F-15E, and RC-135
aircraft, complete installation in the modular air operation
centers, and expand Link-16 capability to the B-1 fleet.
Therefore, the committee recommends an additional $65.9 million
for the Air Force as follows:
DATA LINK INITIATIVE
[Dollars in millions]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Request Recommended Change Ref
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Procurement................................... 114.2 124.4 10.2
---------------------------------
DARP...................................... 66.2 74.2 +8.0 APAF line 59
RC-135 Rivet Joint Mods............... ........ ........... +8.0 ...............................
Theater battle management................. 48.0 50.2 +2.2 OPAF line 56
=================================
Research and Development...................... 506.2 561.9 55.7 ...............................
---------------------------------
B-1....................................... 220.9 233.9 +13.0 RDAF line 63
F-16...................................... 142.2 155.9 +13.7 RDAF line 131
F-15E..................................... 143.1 172.1 +29.0 RDAF line 132
==========
Total increase.......................... ........ ........... +65.9 ...............................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Theater Battle Management Core Systems (TBMCS)
The committee is aware of an Air Force requirement to
continue an initiative begun last year to provide an automated,
integrated system to plan and execute air campaigns, known as
the TBMCS. The system provides the Joint Force Air Component
Commander (JFACC) the ability to generate air tasking orders
with more capability and precision than are now available.
Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $5.0
million to PE 207438F to support a 1998 completion date of
version 1.0 of the TBMCS.
Blade repair program
The committee recommends an increase of $4.5 million in PE
78026F to extend the current modeling under the Air Force Blade
Repair Program to the Propulsion Directorate at the Oklahoma
Air Logistics Center. The committee directs that all applicable
competitive procedures be used in the award of any contracts or
other agreements under the program and that cost sharing
requirements for non-federal participants be utilized where
appropriate.
Defense-Wide
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
Defense experimental program to stimulate competitive research
(DEPSCoR)
The committee recommends continuation of the DEPSCoR
program to strengthen infrastructure, enhance research, and
develop human resources to assist the universities in the
states designated under the National Science Foundation EPSCoR
program to become more competitive for federal research and
training grants. The committee recommends that, of the funds
requested in PE 61003D, $20.0 million shall be used for these
purposes.
The committee notes the progress made by the Department of
Defense to better coordinate its activities under the DEPSCoR
program with the National Science Foundation, the Office of
Science and Technology Policy, and the state-based EPSCoR
committees. Coordination with the state-based EPSCoR committees
is an essential element for the ultimate success of this
program. The committee urges the Department of Defense to give
significant weight to the recommendations of the state
committees and to the likely impact an award under the DEPSCoR
program will have on the overall EPSCoR program of
participating states.
Small low-cost interceptor device
The small low-cost interceptor device (SLID) program began
in 1992 for a point defense, self-protection system mounted on
combat vehicles and helicopters. The committee notes the
potential of this program for a limited area defense against
artillery and mortars. The committee recommends an increase of
$3.0 million in PE 62702E for the manufacture and testing of 10
additional projectiles for the limited area defense capability.
Hard carbon-based coatings
The committee is aware of recent developments in new, very
hard carbon-based coatings that have potential applications for
sensors operating in harsh environments and other opto-
electronic applications. The committee recommends an increase
of $3.0 million in PE 62712E for the development of Pulsed
Laser Deposition to create carbon-based coatings for critical
applications. The committee directs that all applicable
competitive procedures be used in the award of contracts or
other agreements under this program and that cost-sharing
requirements for non-federal participants be utilized where
appropriate.
High temperature superconductivity
The committee continues to support efforts to advance high
temperature superconductivity (HTS) technology, including wire
technologies affordable for applications in weapon systems. In
order to support continuation of these efforts within the
Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), the
committee recommends an increase of $8.0 million in PE 62712E.
The committee urges DARPA to take aggressive action under its
HTS program to support efforts by the services to develop this
technology for near-term applications and notes the potential
of HTS wire technologies for a variety of military
applications. The committee directs that all applicable
competitive procedures be used in the award of any contracts or
other agreements under this program and that cost-sharing
requirements for non-federal participants be utilized where
appropriate.
Diamond substrates
The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) has
an ongoing program to address issues in the manufacture of
industrial diamond materials for use in thermal management in
integrated circuits. With the growth of on-chip integration of
transistors, developers and producers are facing serious
limitations because of the need to dissipate ever-increasing
thermal energy. Diamond has the highest thermal conductivity of
any known material, combined with high electrical resistance,
making it a leading material for addressing this problem.
Successful reduction in the cost of producing diamond
substrates using the chemical vapor deposition (CVD) process
could result in significant increases in power and decreases in
size and weight of military electronics. Therefore, the
committee recommends an increase of $4.0 million to PE 62712E
to accelerate the program.
The committee directs that all applicable competitive
procedures be used in the award of any contracts or other
agreements under this program and that cost sharing
requirements for non-federal participants be utilized where
appropriate. The committee believes that investments in fiscal
year 1997 should bring diamond substrate production to such a
low cost, as industry begins adopting the new technology for
commercial purposes, that further Department of Defense
investments should no longer be needed.
Joint Department of Defense-Department of Energy munitions
The budget request included $16.2 million for the joint
Departments of Defense and Energy (DOD and DOE) munitions
technology development program. The committee recommends a $5.0
million increase to the budget request for projects approved by
the joint technology advisory committee. This program leverages
DOE-supported work at the three DOE weapons laboratories, such
as increasing DOE investment in stockpile management related
technologies.
Cruise missile defense funding
Section 274 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 1996 (Public Law 104-106) directs the Secretary of
Defense to strengthen and coordinate the Department's cruise
missile defense programs and activities. Public Law 104-106
also provides significant increases in funding for this effort.
For fiscal year 1997, the committee recommends a
continuation of this effort and a net increase of $170.0
million for this purpose. None of these funds may be obligated,
however, until the committee receives the implementation plan
specified in section 274 (Public Law 104-106). For fiscal year
1997, the committee recommends four programmatic initiatives.
First, to enhance the ability of United States forces to
detect rapidly the launch of cruise missiles across the breadth
and width of the battlefield, the committee recommends an
increase in funding to transition surveillance technology
developed by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency
(DARPA) to aerostats and the Airborne Warning Command and
Control System (AWACS). To begin a program to modify four-to-
five AWACS aircraft by fiscal year 2000, the committee
recommends an increase of $30.0 million in PE 63226E and $30.0
million in PE 27417F. Since Aerostats are not as far along in
the development cycle and require that DARPA's technologies
undergo more significant modifications to be hosted on them,
the committee recommends a measured risk reduction effort prior
to a development program.
The committee notes that the Department of Defense is
considering upgrades to the E-2C aircraft in a manner similar
to AWACS to support the Navy. Given the challenge associated
with accommodating such a sensor on the E-2C, the committee
directs the Secretary of Defense to provide Congress a report
on the technical, engineering, operational, and programmatic
issues associated with this effort. The report should include
an analysis of alternative solutions based on the same criteria
used to evaluate the E-2C. The report should recommend a
solution that has an acceptable degree of risk in terms of
cost, schedule, and performance. The report should be provided
to Congress not later than March 1, 1997.
The committee also urges DARPA, in collaboration with the
Air Force, to evaluate innovative airborne sensor platforms
that could offer significant gains in power-aperture at
airplane altitudes and speeds, including flying-wing designs.
The second initiative supported by the committee would
ensure that we have adequate fire control and identification
once cruise missiles are detected. The committee believes that
improvements to the Joint Surveillance Target Attack Radar
System (JSTARS) are promising. These improvements will allow
JSTARS to identify and track cruise missiles with sufficient
accuracy to vector air-to-air and surface-to-air missiles,
among other capabilities. The committee recommends an increase
of $40.0 million for this effort ($20.0 million in PE 63226E
and $20.0 million in PE 64770F). This effort should produce
four to five upgraded aircraft by fiscal year 2003. The
additional funds should be equally divided between efforts to
insert DARPA's sensor technology and efforts to add synthetic
aperture radar technology for imaging and geolocation.
The third initiative supported by the committee would
ensure that our inventory of air-to-air and surface-to-air
missiles are capable of intercepting cruise missiles. The
committee recommends an increase of $30.0 million ($10.0 in PE
63746N, $10.0 million in PE 63009A, and $10.0 million in PE
27163F) to address this issue. The committee also recommends an
increase of $40.0 million in PE 23801A to complete the
development of the Patriot anti-cruise missile program, which
was started in fiscal year 1996.
Large millimeter wave telescope
As the committee noted last year, the large millimeter wave
telescope (LMT) design project has significant potential for
advancing the state of the art for radio telescopes through the
use of intelligent structures. The design could greatly improve
capabilities for acquisition and recognition of targets in
space, as well as demonstrate the feasibility of long range
directed energy devices. The committee recommends an increase
of $3.0 million for the continuation of the LMT program in the
Advanced Space Technology Project within the Defense Advanced
Research Project Agency's Experimental Evaluation of Major
Technologies program (PE 63226E). The committee directs that
cost sharing requirements for non-federal participants be
utilized under the program where appropriate.
Crown Royal
The committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million in PE
63226E for the continuation of the Crown Royal program.
Thermophotovoltaics
The thermophotovoltaics program (TPV) is a collaborative
program between the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency
(DARPA) and NASA to demonstrate and develop a passive power
generator powered by liquid and gaseous fuels. TPV has
potential for a number of military applications including power
generation in unmanned underwater vehicles. The committee
recommends an increase of $10.0 million in PE 63226E to
continue the program in fiscal year 1997. The committee directs
that all applicable competitive procedures be used in the award
of any contracts or other agreements under this program and
that cost sharing requirements for non-federal participants be
utilized where appropriate.
Generic logistics R&D technology demonstrations
The committee recommends an increase of $2.0 million in PE
63712S to accelerate the current government-industry metal
casting program conducted by the Defense Logistics Agency. The
committee directs that all applicable competitive procedures be
used in the award of any contract or other agreement under the
program and that cost-sharing requirements for non-federal
participants be utilized where appropriate.
Rapid acquisition of manufactured parts (RAMP)
The committee continues to support efforts to develop and
deploy technologies under the RAMP program. The committee
recommends an increase of $10.0 million to the CALS initiative
program (PE 63736D) to continue the research and development
portion of the RAMP program in fiscal year 1997. The committee
expects that funds required in future years to continue
research and development under this program will be included in
future budget requests submitted by the administration. The
committee directs that all applicable competitive procedures be
used in the award of contracts or other agreements under the
program and that cost-sharing requirements for non-federal
participants be utilized where appropriate.
Integrated weapons system database
The committee recommends an increase of $4.0 million in PE
63736D for the Integrated Weapons System Database for
continuation of the Integrated Data Environment (IDE) program,
a subset of the Continuous Acquisition and Life-cycle Support
Activities (CALS).
High performance computing modernization
The committee recommends an increase of $25.0 million in PE
63755D to sustain the operations of supercomputing centers
which were purchased with DOD funds and which can play an
integral role in helping the Department meet its supercomputing
capability and capacity requirements. The Air Force Phillips
Laboratory and Air Force Space Command rely on one such center
to provide image processing and simulation capabilities.
Another such center provides key support to the Ballistic
Missile Defense Organization and the Navy.
Defense dual-use applications program
The committee has for many years supported the concept of
leveraging the nation's commercial research and development
investments (now approaching $100 billion per year) to meet the
military services' needs for dual-use technologies. The
committee notes that retired General Al Gray, former Commandant
of the Marine Corps, recently headed a study of the Pentagon's
dual-use research efforts. His panel concluded that dual-use
research has great potential to provide military users with
needed warfighting capabilities more rapidly and at lower cost.
But the panel also concluded that additional steps needed to be
taken to embed the dual-use approach into the military
services' core science and technology base programs. To achieve
this, they recommended that the Secretary of Defense issue a
policy directive that would codify dual-use strategy in defense
acquisition, establish policy oversight through a senior dual-
use board, and establish a joint dual-use implementation
office. Whatever the approach used by the Secretary of Defense,
the committee agrees with the Gray Panel that the fundamental
problem the Pentagon faces is to instill the dual-use approach
as the normal business approach within the services' research
programs. The committee hopes that the panel's recommendations
will be given serious consideration by the Secretary and that
those recommendations or a similar approach will be adopted.
However, the committee is concerned that the substantial
request for a new dual-use applications program (PE 63805E)
will, in fact, serve as a disincentive for the services to fund
such research internally. At a time when the 6.2 and 6.3
accounts of the services are funded in the budget request for
fiscal year 1997 significantly below the level needed to
support validated requirements, the natural tendency in the
services is to regard dual-use research as Defense Advanced
Projects Agency's (DARPA) responsibility. The committee is
willing to support the program at a $100.0 million level, a
decrease of $150.0 million from the request, as a transition
step toward instilling these efforts in the services' science
and technology bases. To facilitate that transition, the
committee expects the program will be carried out through a
management process that will involve the services to a much
greater degree in the selection and execution of projects than
was the case in the early stages of the Technology Reinvestment
Project. To facilitate the transition further, the committee
has elsewhere attempted to resolve problems that have impeded
greater use by the services of flexible cooperative agreements
and other transactions in pursuing dual-use research projects
with commercial firms. The Gray panel strongly supported
expanded use of these authorities to broaden the Pentagon's
research base.
Non-acoustic antisubmarine warfare
The Department of Defense (DOD) is pursuing a number of
projects that attempt to develop better submarine detection.
Most research has historically focused on acoustics. The DOD
has been exploring various other means of submarine detection.
These efforts are consolidated under non-acoustic antisubmarine
warfare (NAASW) programs. The committee has had a continuing
interest in these NAASW programs. The budget request included
$24.0 million in PE 63714D for supporting the DOD NAASW
program.
The committee's review of the budget request indicates that
the DOD has delayed important work that would lead to further
development of scattering theories and improved understanding
of microwave radiometry. The committee understands that this
has been the result of various general reductions to the
research and development accounts and funding shifts to meet
other emergent requirements. The committee believes that the
NAASW efforts funded in this program merit higher priority than
the DOD has apparently accorded them in executing the fiscal
year 1996 budget and developing the fiscal year 1997 budget
request.
The committee is also not impressed with the response of
the DOD to direction given in the statement of managers to
accompany the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 1996 (Public Law 104-106) to conduct a comparative
evaluation of a light detection and ranging (LIDAR) system,
ATD-111, against other comparable approaches. The DOD intends
to test the ATD-111 system this fiscal year. However, the DOD
would then conduct testing on another LIDAR system, April
Showers, in fiscal year 1998, after having spent two more years
developing that system. The DOD proposes to then compare those
two sets of test results. The committee finds this proposal
unacceptable. The DOD has failed to make a persuasive case that
we should test one system now, spend a significant amount to
develop a competitor, and then compare ATD-111 testing results
before additional development on April Showers has occurred
with April Showers testing results after such work.
Therefore, the committee directs that:
(1) a competitive evaluation be conducted in fiscal
year 1997 between ATD-111 and the April Showers sensor;
and
(2) the results of the evaluation be provided to the
congressional defense committees no later than
September 30, 1997.
To fund this competitive evaluation, and to continue the
work on scattering theory, microwave radiometry, and on the
joint U.S.-UK radar ocean imaging investigations, the committee
recommends an additional $10.0 million in PE 63714D for the DOD
NAASW program. The committee further directs that, of the
amounts authorized and appropriated in PE 65104D for technical
studies, support, and analysis for fiscal year 1997, not more
than $5.0 million may be obligated or expended until the Under
Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Technology certifies
to the congressional defense committees that he intends to
comply with the committee's direction with respect to a
competitive evaluation between ATD-111 and April Showers.
Fuel cells
For several years Congress has provided funding for a
cooperative fuel cell development program between the
Department of Defense and the Department of Energy. The
committee supports these ongoing programs but serious concerns
remain that the programs have expanded and lengthened beyond
their original scope. The committee also continues to be
concerned that these programs do not have substantial cost
sharing provisions despite their obvious dual-use nature. The
committee is awaiting the report from the Department of Defense
and the Department of Energy on these programs required on page
174 of Senate Report 104-112, and will consider further support
of fuel cell programs based on the information contained in the
report. The committee recommends an increase of $4.3 million in
PE 63226E for the completion of the 2 MW carbonate-based fuel
cell program and an increase of $8.0 million in PE 63851D to
complete the development of the climate change fuel cell.
Commercial technology insertion program
The committee recommends a decrease in the funding request
of $24.0 million for the Commercial Technology Insertion
Program (PE 63752D) without prejudice to fund higher priority
programs. The committee believes that a level of $24.8 million
is more appropriate for such a new start program. The committee
believes that greater use of commercial technology by the
military services in the future is essential if future systems
are to be affordable and incorporate the latest technologies.
The committee commends the Department for embarking on this
program but is concerned that the program focuses only on
adaptation of selected commercial technologies for specific
applications without addressing the systemic barriers that
exist in the defense R&D community between the military users
and the commercial technology developers. Rather than trying to
address certain specific opportunities for the insertion of
commercial technologies, the program should have as its primary
goal developing a process to ensure that commercial
technologies are routinely incorporated into defense systems
and that such applications are funded through the normal
acquisition programming and budgeting processes. The committee
urges the Department of Defense to reorient the program in this
manner and to incorporate a plan to ``sunset'' the effort as
the current systemic problems are successfully addressed.
Ballistic missile defense funding and programmatic guidance
The fiscal year 1997 budget request for the Ballistic
Missile Defense Organization (BMDO) was $2.8 billion, including
research, development, test, and evaluation (RDT&E),
procurement, and military construction. The committee notes
with concern that the budget request is over $200.0 million
less than the administration's own recommendation of one year
ago, and approximately $700.0 million less than the level
authorized for fiscal year 1996. This continuing trend of
sharply cutting funding for ballistic missile defense (BMD)
programs has now jeopardized critical theater missile defense
(TMD) programs, just as national missile defense (NMD) and
advanced technology programs were previously undermined by the
administration's BMD funding cuts. The committee finds these
actions at odds with the administration's own stated position
that TMD is a high priority.
The committee is also concerned by the administration's
apparent willingness to disregard legal requirements to
accelerate several TMD programs. Section 234 of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996 (Public Law 104-
106) establishes clear objectives for development and
deployment of a core TMD program--consisting of the Patriot
PAC-3 system, the Navy Lower Tier system, the Theater High
Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) system, and the Navy Upper Tier
system. The Department of Defense's budget request and BMD
program satisfy only one of the seven key milestones mandated
by section 234, even though these milestones were derived
directly from the Department's own fiscal year 1996 proposal
and information provided to the committee by the Department of
Defense.
In order to satisfy the requirements established in section
234 (Public Law 104-106), to the maximum extent possible, and
to correct other deficiencies in the budget request regarding
BMD programs, the committee recommends a total BMDO
authorization of $3.6 billion, an increase of $855.9 million.
As a point of comparison, the committee notes that the
administration's Bottom-Up Review of September 1993 recommended
a BMDO budget of $3.4 billion for fiscal year 1997,
approximately $600.0 million more than the administration has
requested.
The committee's recommended funding allocations for BMDO in
fiscal year 1997 are summarized in the following table.
Additional programmatic and funding guidance are also provided
below.
BMDO FUNDING ALLOCATION
[In millions of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Program Request Change Recommendation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Support Technology............ 226.3 +150.0 376.3
THAAD......................... 481.8 +140.0 621.8
Hawk*......................... 19.4 19.4
TMD-BM/C3*.................... 19.3 19.3
Navy Lower Tier**............. 310.7 310.7
Navy Upper Tier............... 58.2 +246.0 304.2
Corps SAM..................... 56.2 -10.8 45.4
BPI........................... +24.3 24.3
NMD........................... 508.4 +300.0 808.4
Joint TMD***.................. 521.5 +6.4 527.9
PAC-3**....................... 596.9 596.9
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BMDO Total................ 2,798.7 +855.9 3,654.6
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Procurement only.
**Procurement and RDT&E.
***RDT&E and Military Construction.
Support technology
The budget request for BMDO's support technology programs
(PE 62173C/63173C) was $226.3 million. The committee notes that
the Director of BMDO has testified repeatedly in recent years
regarding the shortfall in BMDO's advanced technology
investment. The committee supports the Director's desire to
increase the level of investment in advanced BMD technology
and, therefore, recommends a net increase of $150.0 million for
support technology.
The committee supports BMDO's efforts in the area of wide
bandgap electronics that are funded in the Innovative Science
and Technology program (project 1651). The committee recommends
an increase of $10.0 million in PE 62173C to facilitate a wide
bandgap electronics program specifically targeting gallium
nitride and silicon carbide as the major semiconductor
technologies to be developed. The program should be affiliated
with an academic institution involving a research and
development facility for material growth, material
characterization (including material surface behavior), and
wide bandgap semiconductor device development.
In testimony before the committee this year, the Director
of BMDO specified several basic technology projects that
require additional funding. Based on BMDO's stated priorities,
the committee recommends an increase of $30.0 million in PE
63173C for advanced radar transmit/receive modules, advanced
interceptor satellite communications, and advanced image
processing.
Although the committee recommended the termination of
BMDO's kinetic boost-phase intercept (BPI) program in fiscal
year 1996, the committee continues to strongly support BMDO's
development of the Atmospheric Interceptor Technology (AIT)
program. The AIT program is designed to develop advanced kill
vehicle technologies for future hypersonic hit-to-kill
interceptors, and for applications as potential product
improvements to a wide range of TMD programs, including THAAD,
Navy Upper Tier, Patriot PAC-3, and Corps SAM. The budget
request includes only $7.4 million for the AIT program as part
of the Applied Interceptor Materials and Systems Technology
program (project 1270). This level of funding is inadequate to
support any significant degree of progress. Therefore, the
committee recommends an increase of $40.0 million in PE 63173C
to support the AIT program.
The committee continues to support development of the
Space-Based Laser (SBL) program. SBL offers the potential for a
high leverage system to deal with ballistic missiles of
virtually all ranges. The SBL appears to be by far the most
effective boost-phase intercept system being developed by the
Department of Defense. In testimony before the committee on
March 25, 1996, the Director of BMDO characterized SBL as ``the
next real quantum jump'' in active BMD development. Given the
importance of this program and its high potential payoff, the
committee is disappointed that the budget request contained
only $30.0 million for SBL. The committee recommends an
increase of $70.0 million in PE 63173C to continue the SBL
effort. The committee believes that the Air Force should begin
to take a much more active role in developing the SBL program.
Specifically, the committee believes that the Air Force Space
and Missile Systems Center should play a key role in designing
a demonstrator spacecraft and providing detailed cost estimates
for completion of such a demonstration program.
Theater high altitude area defense system
The budget request included $481.8 million to complete
THAAD demonstration and validation (Dem/Val) and to begin
engineering and manufacturing development (EMD). The committee
continues to support the development, production, and fielding
of THAAD as a matter of highest priority. To reflect the
priority attached to the THAAD program by Congress, the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996
mandated in section 234 that the system achieve a first unit
equipped (FUE) not later than fiscal year 2000.
Despite this clear congressional direction, the Department
of Defense has proposed a restructuring of the THAAD program as
part of its BMD Program Update Review that is inconsistent with
the law and congressional intent. There are two important
aspects of this proposed restructuring. First, the Department
proposed streamlining the planned EMD phase for THAAD by
proceeding with production of the so-called user operational
evaluation system (UOES) configuration. Subsequent improvements
to enhance overall THAAD system robustness would be pursued in
the future as warranted by threat developments. The committee
supports this particular recommendation, which is consistent
with the programmatic guidance it provided to the Department
last year. Aside from yielding significant savings by
simplifying the EMD phase of the program, this action could
also be used to facilitate earlier fielding of the THAAD
system.
The committee strongly disagrees with the second element of
the Department's proposed restructuring of the THAAD program.
This involves delaying the initiation of low-rate initial
production (LRIP), and hence achievement of the FUE until
fiscal year 2004, at the earliest. This proposal to delay LRIP
reflects the administration's budgetary priorities, not
military or technical considerations. The committee rejects
this prioritization. If adopted, the administration's
recommendation would mean that THAAD would be fielded 12 or
more years after the program was initiated on a virtual
``crash'' basis to address the inadequacies in U.S. TMD
capabilities that were illustrated during Operation Desert
Storm. Furthermore, after fielding the UOES system in fiscal
year 1998, there would be a four year delay before beginning
LRIP, which would almost certainly lead to a shutdown of the
production facility. This not only stretches the development
phase of a system that would otherwise be ready for production,
but shutting down the production facility is untenable from an
industrial base perspective. For these reasons, the committee
believes that the proposed delay is unacceptable.
The committee remains committed to fielding the THAAD
system as quickly as technically feasible. Therefore, the
committee directs the Secretary of Defense to structure the
THAAD program to begin LRIP in fiscal year 1999 and to adjust
the future years defense program accordingly. The committee
recommends an increase of $75.0 million in PE 63861C and an
increase of $65.0 million in PE 64861C, an overall increase of
$140.0 million for the THAAD program.
The committee also attaches importance to the UOES system,
which will be delivered to the United States Army in fiscal
year 1998. This system will provide valuable opportunities for
training and testing. Most importantly, it will provide some
limited operational capability in the event of a crisis. The
committee questions the adequacy of a UOES capability based on
40 interceptor missiles. This would provide for just one load-
out of missiles for each of the four THAAD UOES launchers. Once
these missiles are used for testing purposes, or launched
during a crisis, no reloads would be available. In this regard,
the committee notes that 36 Patriot missiles were expended on
the first day of combat during Operation Desert Storm.
Accordingly, the committee believes that a total of 80 missiles
is more appropriate, and directs the Secretary of Defense to
include funding to acquire these additional 40 UOES missiles in
the fiscal year 1998 budget request.
The administration's proposed program for THAAD does not
include funding for a second EMD radar until very late in the
program. The committee believes that there are many compelling
reasons to fund this radar earlier. Specifically, a second EMD
radar would reduce overall THAAD system development and
production risk. The first EMD radar will be used primarily for
flight testing at the Kwajalein test range. A second radar
would be able to support operational ground testing, and could
serve as a back-up asset in the event of unforeseen problems
during the test program or to support testing activities at two
locations (e.g., White Sands missile test range and Kwajalein).
Procuring this second EMD radar beginning with long-lead
funding in fiscal year 1997 would avoid disruption to the
production line and hence would be more cost effective.
Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to
proceed with acquisition of a second EMD radar in fiscal year
1997 and provides $65.0 million in long-lead funding for this
purpose.
The committee has been concerned by the operational
limitations of testing the THAAD system at the White Sands
range. Numerous delays have already been imposed on the program
due to these limitations. Therefore, the committee directs the
Secretary of Defense to transition to flight testing at the
Kwajalein range at the earliest practical opportunity. The
committee is also concerned about the fact that the EMD request
for proposal (RFP) has still not been finally issued. The
committee directs the Secretary of Defense to issue the EMD RFP
as soon as possible.
Navy upper tier (theater wide)
The budget request included $58.2 million for continued
development of the Navy Upper Tier (Theater Wide) TMD system.
This is a significant reduction from the $200.4 million
authorized and appropriated in fiscal year 1996, and reflects
the low priority that the administration attaches to this
program. The committee does not support the Department's
recommendation to delay the development and deployment of the
Navy Upper Tier system and strenuously objects to the
Department's disregard of requirements set forth in the law.
The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996
mandates that the Navy Upper Tier system become the fourth
``core'' TMD system and establishes accelerated milestones for
this program. Specifically, a UOES capability was to be
achieved in fiscal year 1999 and a FUE by fiscal year 2001.
Under the administration's proposed program, these milestones
would be delayed well into the next century. There is no
technical reason why a Navy Upper Tier capability cannot be
fielded on a much more aggressive schedule than proposed by the
administration.
The committee continues to support the Navy Upper Tier
system as a matter of priority. Sea-based upper tier TMD
capability provides an important complement to ground-based
systems, and each has unique attributes. Sea-based upper tier
systems can provide initial protection to facilitate the
insertion of ground forces, including ground-based TMD systems,
which in turn provide the firepower needed for sustained
operations. A sea-based upper tier system would also offer the
possibility of defending large areas where it may not be
possible to insert ground-based TMD assets. Deployed together,
ground-based and sea-based TMD can provide very robust
protection through multiple engagement opportunities. The
committee believes that both systems are essential.
The Statement of Managers (H. Rest. 104-450) accompanying
the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996
required the Director of BMDO to provide a report to the
congressional defense committees by March 1, 1996, detailing
the Department's plan for Navy Upper Tier, including options to
reduce risk. Although the Department recently recommended that
several kill vehicle options be considered, the budget request
does not support an aggressive effort to identify and develop
the most effective options for the Navy Upper Tier mission.
Accordingly, the committee recommends a net increase in PE
63868C of $246.0 million to support an accelerated Navy Upper
Tier effort and to thoroughly evaluate the Lightweight
Exoatmospheric Projectile (LEAP) and a modified version of the
THAAD kill vehicles.
For the modified THAAD kill vehicle, the committee directs
BMDO to begin funding the key modifications required to support
the Navy Upper Tier mission, including a solid divert and
attitude control system and AEGIS weapon system/vertical launch
system integration activities. The committee recommends the use
of $50.0 million to support this effort in fiscal year 1997
from the overall amount authorized for the Navy Upper Tier
program.
The committee believes that the Navy, in conjunction with
BMDO, should assess the potential that development of a new
second stage motor for the Standard Missile could have for a
range of missile defense and other applications. The committee
believes that a new second stage motor could provide improved
performance for sea-based BMD and could also support enhanced
deep and fast strike missile options for the Naval Surface Fire
Support mission. A new second stage could simplify integration
issues associated with kill vehicle options for Navy Upper Tier
and other BMD missions, thereby reducing the cost and
complexity of the kill vehicle development program. In
addition, such a new second stage could support future growth
options for sea-based BMD. Accordingly, the committee
recommends the use of $25.0 million of the funds authorized for
Navy Upper Tier to initiate this second stage motor development
effort.
Corps Sam/medium extended air defense system
The budget request included $56.2 million for the Corps
surface-to-air missile (SAM)/Medium Extended Air Defense System
(MEADS) program. Because of remaining concerns about the long-
term viability and cost of this program, especially in light of
the questionable European commitment to the program, the
committee recommends two actions. First, the committee
recommends a reduction of $10.8 million in PE 63869C. The
committee notes that the General Accounting Office has reviewed
the Corps SAM budget request and concluded that such a
reduction is in order. Second, the committee directs that none
of the funds authorized for Corps SAM/MEADS for fiscal year
1997 be obligated until: (1) the MEADS Memorandum of
Understanding (MOU) is signed by all parties; (2) the Secretary
of Defense certifies to Congress that, pursuant to the MOU, the
U.S. share of the costs for the MEADS program will not exceed
50 percent; and (3) the Secretary submits to the congressional
defense committees the report on options associated with the
use of existing systems, technologies, and program management
mechanisms to satisfy the Corps SAM requirement specified in
the Statement of Managers accompanying the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996.
United States-Israel Boost Phase Intercept Program
In the Statement of Managers accompanying the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal year 1996, the conferees
endorsed a cooperative program between the United States and
Israel to develop a kinetic energy boost-phase intercept
program based on an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV). The
committee maintains its strong support for this concept. The
budget request included $9.3 million in the Joint TMD program
element (PE 63872C) to continue this effort. The committee
recommends that these funds be transferred to the BPI program
element (PE 63870C) and that this amount be increased by $15.0
million for a total authorization of $24.3 million.
The committee believes that the first step of this U.S.-
Israel BPI program should be a joint technology risk mitigation
effort, aimed at reducing technological uncertainties and
developing, to the extent possible, a common set of user
requirements. If this proves successful, it can be followed by
an advanced technology demonstration to validate the technical
feasibility of the concept and the major system elements. This
would enable the United States and Israel to evaluate the
potential for a joint acquisition program or one in which both
countries continue to collaborate on separate but mutually
reinforcing efforts.
National Missile Defense
The budget request included $508.4 million for National
Missile Defense (NMD) to support the administration's so-called
deployment readiness program known as ``3+3''. Based on
information received from the Department of Defense, the
committee does not believe that the administration's proposed
budget and program plan for NMD are adequate even to meet the
stated purpose of its ``deployment readiness'' program. As
acknowledged by the Director of BMDO in congressional
testimony, the planned test program for the exoatmospheric kill
vehicle (EKV) is inadequate to support a deployment decision
within the framework of the ``3+3'' program. The
administration's proposed NMD program consists of just five EKV
flights: two in fiscal year 1997; two in fiscal year 1998; and
one in fiscal year 1999. Under this plan, an NMD deployment
decision supposedly could be made at the end of fiscal year
1999; however, such a decision would be based on a single
integrated interceptor test. Furthermore, the test booster
would not represent an operational configuration.
To support a lower risk and more robust NMD program, the
committee believes that additional EKV flight tests are
required. Specifically, the committee directs the Secretary of
Defense to restructure the EKV program to support two flight
tests in fiscal year 1997, three in fiscal year 1998, and four
in fiscal year 1999. This requires the acquisition of
additional kill vehicle and test booster hardware.
Additionally, the committee directs the Secretary to upgrade
the Payload Launch Vehicle (PLV) system to provide a more
representative velocity regime and test environment for NMD
system tests. To accomplish these objectives, and to ensure
that other aspects of the NMD program are able to support an
initial operational capability (IOC) in fiscal year 2003 (which
the administration's proposal supposedly protects), the
committee recommends an increase of $300.0 million in PE
63871C. The committee recommends the use of $50.0 million to
begin upgrading the PLV and whatever funds are necessary to
support the EKV flight profile specified above.
Joint theater missile defense
The budget request included $521.5 million in BMDO's Joint
TMD program element (formerly known as Other TMD). The
committee recommends a net increase of $6.4 million in PE
63872C, including the following adjustments: (1) a transfer of
$9.3 million to the BPI program element for the U.S.-Israel
Joint BPI program; (2) an increase of $3.7 million for the
Arrow Deployability Project (ADP), for a total authorization of
$35.0 million to fully fund the U.S. share of the program
envisioned in the recently completed Memorandum of Agreement
between the United States and Israel; (3) an increase of $7.0
million for the Army's Advanced Research Center (ARC), for a
total authorization of $15.0 million; and (4) an increase of
$5.0 million for BMDO to ensure that the Navy's Cooperative
Engagement Capability is compatible with all of BMDO's core TMD
programs.
Data review and analysis monitoring aid
The committee recommends an increase of $3.0 million for
Defense Support Activities (PE 605798S) specifically for
continuation of the Data Review and Analysis Monitoring Aid
(DRAMA) program, which is designed to reduce duplication in the
supply system.
Advanced SEAL delivery system
The committee has learned that additional development
funding in fiscal year 1997 could provide a significant
improvement in the acoustic characteristics of the advanced
SEAL delivery system (ASDS) before procurement begins.
The committee recommends an increase of $2.8 million above
the budget request in PE 116404BB to provide quieter pumps and
motors for the base design of the ASDS.
M4A1 Carbine INOD, special operations command
The Special Operations Command is developing the integrated
night/day observation/fire device (INOD) for the M4A1 carbine.
The INOD will enable special forces to use a single rifle sight
for both night and day operations. Such a capability would be
particularly useful for special forces, who must currently
carry two sights and frequently cannot boresight and zero a
sight during operations without compromising their position.
The committee recommends an increase of $1.9 million in PE
1160404BB to accelerate completion of engineering analysis and
initiate engineering design for the INOD for the M4A1 carbine.
AC-130 aircraft enhancements, special operations command
The committee recommends an increase of $5.8 million in PE
1160404BB for enhancements to the AC-130 aircraft. These
enhancements would upgrade AC-130 lethality and the accuracy of
weapons systems for use in special operations.
OTHER ITEMS OF INTEREST
Battle group airborne anti-submarine warfare
The committee has become concerned with the Navy's slow
progress in planning for and funding organic battle group
airborne anti-submarine warfare (ASW) systems suitable for
countering the existing and projected littoral ASW threat. The
committee recognizes the Navy's difficulty in modernizing
existing systems within budgetary constraints. However,
programs that provide a solid conceptual plan, supported by
adequate resources, should be in place to meet the evolving
littoral ASW threat.
The committee believes that the Navy's overall plan for
modernizing its H-60 series helicopters has not met these
criteria. The broad concept, to convert existing H-60 variants
into a multi-mission SH-60R helicopter and introduce it by
fiscal year 2001 as a complement to introduction of DDG-51
Flight IIA destroyers into the fleet, appears sound. However,
the mix of aircraft to be converted and the funding programmed
to implement this concept have remained in an almost continuous
state of flux for the past two years. For example, in reviewing
the Navy's integrated helicopter plan for fiscal year 1997, the
committee has noted a change in the Navy's previous decision to
convert aircraft carrier based SH-60F ASW helicopters to HH-60H
combat/utility helicopters. Instead the new plan would convert
these SH-60F helicopters to the SH-60R configuration. Some
would be converted in the near-term to fill surface combatant
requirements, but the balance of the SH-60Fs would not undergo
conversion until after fiscal year 2006.
Last year, the Navy's fiscal year 1996 helicopter plan
would not have converted some 60 SH-60Fs to the SH-60R
configuration. The statement of managers accompanying the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996
directed the Secretary of the Navy to evaluate the cost
effectiveness of a modernization program for the dipping sonars
installed on these helicopters. Since the fiscal year 1997 plan
now calls for conversion of these 60 helicopters to the SH-60R
configuration, implying eventual installation of the airborne
low frequency dipping sonar (ALFS), a different set of
assumptions applies, and different questions have emerged.
Although the 60 SH-60F helicopters are now to be converted
to the SH-60R, most of these conversions will not occur for at
least 10 to 15 years. The committee remains concerned about
whether the dipping sonars presently installed on these carrier
based SH-60F helicopters are now, or will remain, suitable for
the littoral ASW operations envisioned by the Navy's strategic
concept ``Forward * * * From the Sea'' during this 15 year
period.
To help resolve its uncertainty, the committee directs the
Secretary of the Navy to develop a plan, containing decision
options, that would ensure that its carrier based SH-60F
helicopters not scheduled for conversion to the SH-60R in the
near-term, which will be the helicopters that will remain
responsible for inner-zone battle group ASW, are equipped with
a dipping sonar, including possible modifications to the
presently installed sonar, that is suitable, and will remain
suitable, for littoral ASW operations. The Secretary is
directed to submit this plan no later than March 1, 1997.
FFG-7 modernization
The Navy now plans to retain more of its FFG-7s in active
and reserve status than had been previously planned. Heavy
operational demands have caused the Navy to reverse an earlier
decision to retire most of the FFG-7 class of ships. While the
Navy has not made a final decision on the total number that
will be retained, it is likely that the Navy will retain a
portion of them in active service until at least 2010.
The committee appreciates the Navy's rationale in retaining
these FFG-7s in service. However, it would now appear prudent
to evaluate the ability of these ships to deal with evolving
threats during their remaining service life. Factors for
consideration include:
(1) the FFG-7 class has several different
configurations, some have an updated anti-air warfare
(AAW) system, while others have a more capable anti-
submarine warfare (ASW) weapons system;
(2) the FFG-7 class was originally developed as a
design-to-cost, open ocean, anti-submarine escort, and
was not optimized for near land operations or
countering advanced sea-skimming cruise missiles; and
(3) several groups have approached the committee
during its review of the fiscal year 1997 budget
request, asserting that relatively inexpensive off-the-
shelf upgrades are available that will provide the FFG-
7 class with the capabilities needed to counter modern
threats.
The committee wants the Navy to clarify its intentions for
modernizing the FFG-7 class. Therefore, the committee directs
the Secretary of the Navy to prepare a report on options for
modernizing the FFG-7 class and submit that report with the
fiscal year 1998 budget request. The report should include, but
need not be limited to, answers to the following questions:
(1) what are the threats that will likely be
encountered in operational situations where the FFG-7s
might be employed?
(2) what priority does the Navy place on modernizing
the FFG-7 class to deal with these threats?
(3) what are the alternatives for buying off-the-
shelf upgrade packages that could defeat these threats?
(4) would buying off-the-shelf upgrade packages be
cost effective relative to potential developmental
programs? and
(5) what would be a reasonable funding and
installation program to procure and install either off-
the-shelf packages or upgrade packages deriving from a
development program?
Integrated ship control systems
During its review of the fiscal year 1997 budget request,
the committee has determined that the Navy is pursuing a number
of initiatives that are designed to provide automated and
integrated control of ship systems for bridge, engineering, and
damage control systems. Examples include following:
(1) the standard monitoring and control system (SMCS)
that is part of the advanced surface machinery program;
(2) the engineering control system equipment (ECSE)
upgrade program for DD-963, DDG-993, and CG-47 class
ships that is being pursued by the PMS-400 division of
the Naval Sea Systems Command;
(3) the Navy initiative called ``Smart Ship,'' a
program to help reduce crew size that includes using a
variant of a commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) integrated
ship control system; and
(4) programs to develop integrated ship control
systems for new ship classes, such as the LPD-17 class
and the next generation of surface combatant, the SC-
21, that appear to have similar objectives as the other
independent programs.
It would appear, based on information provided by the Navy,
that there are areas where these programs aim to achieve
different objectives. However, it would also appear that there
are areas of overlap that the Navy should reconcile. The
committee believes that the Navy should be trying to field
shipboard configurations that have as much commonality as is
reasonable. The questions that the Navy needs to analyze is how
much commonality is achievable and cost effective. For example,
the committee was informed by representatives of the Director
of Space and Electronic Warfare (N6) of the Chief of Naval
Operations staff that the N6 organization is developing a
common configuration for local area networks (LANs) to be
installed on existing and future Navy ships. These LANs will
provide the backbone for an open architecture integration of
combat, logistics, personnel, communications, bridge, and
engineering control systems. Yet, similar briefings on
individual programs such as SMCS, Smart Ship, and SC-21
indicate that these programs may be pursuing independent LAN
development efforts that may not be consistent with the N6
program.
Of additional note, the committee has received various
contractor proposals that offer COTS systems to meet some of
the Navy's requirements for an automated ship control system.
These proposals would preempt the ongoing Navy ship control
programs. The committee is convinced that neither:
(1) the Navy's approach on several fronts is the best
approach;
(2) the other COTS proposals would be able to satisfy
the full range of Navy requirements; nor
(3) any of these alternatives presents the more cost
effective alternative.
Committee efforts to resolve these concerns during its
consideration of the budget request have not produced a
satisfactory answer.
It may be that the rapid progress of commercial technology
has outstripped the ability of the Navy's acquisition system to
develop and field comparable ship control systems. However, the
committee needs to have more information before it can adopt a
course of action.
Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of the
Navy to evaluate the various integrated ship control systems
currently under development by the Navy and those available as
COTS alternatives. He should report his findings and
recommendations for both new construction and backfit programs
by February 15, 1997. The report should provide decision
options based on life cycle cost estimates, and should address
questions such as:
(1) how best to address the reported obsolescence and
high maintenance costs of existing ship control
systems;
(2) how well could COTS systems address the full
range of Navy requirements;
(3) what lessons may be learned from planned
employment of a COTS system as part of the Navy's Smart
Ship initiative;
(4) how does the Navy plan to incorporate a common
open architecture backbone into its ships for use by
integrated ship control and other systems;
(5) what is the extent to which different approaches
on subsets of existing ships may be more cost effective
than a universal backfit approach;
(6) what is the requirement and cost and schedule
impact associated with an apparent need to adopt a new
architecture for the SMCS program because its existing
developmental architecture has already become
obsolescent;
(7) what are the benefits of pursuing a functional
standard, rather than a hardware standard, to provide
for common ship control configurations; and
(8) to what extent do any of the alternatives rely on
a proprietary design that would limit the Navy's
ability to take advantage of the rapid pace of
technological advance and competitive nature inherent
in the commercial market?
CV-22
The committee is aware of an agreement between the
Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Research, Development and
Acquisition (RDA) and the U.S. Special Operations Command
(USSOCOM) Acquisition Executive of the structure, schedule and
content of the engineering and manufacturing development of the
Special Operations Forces variant of the V-22, known as the CV-
22. The agreement supports USSOCOM mission requirements within
the $550.0 million (then year) cap established by the Navy and
is predicated upon the remanufacture of an MV-22 aircraft for
CV-22 test and evaluation, rather the purchase of a new V-22.
The configuration represents compliance with all key
performance parameters and most of the threshold requirements
defined in the joint operational requirements document (JORD).
The committee further understands that an additional $10.0
million will be provided by the Navy to ensure the program
meets its initial operating capability (IOC) on time with
agreed-on capabilities.
The use of a remanufactured MV-22 flight test article
represents an innovative, cost-effective solution to the
problem of living within the program's resources. It also
represents a challenge for the program office to complete the
CV-22 program with the agreed-on capabilities on or before the
required IOC. Accordingly, the committee expects the joint
program office to release aircraft number nine back to the
contractor for remanufacture by August 1, 1999. Should
additional testing for the MV-22 program be necessary, the
committee directs the program manager to develop and implement
the necessary options to complete MV-22 testing without the use
of aircraft number nine after August 1, 1999.
Parametric airborne dipping sonar
The committee is disappointed with the Navy's delay in
carrying out research and development on the parametric
airborne dipping sonar for which $4.5 million was authorized
and appropriated for fiscal year 1996. As the committee noted
in its report last year, this technology has potential for
improving weapon systems performance in applications such as
dipping sonars installed in helicopters. The committee directs
the Navy to execute the program in accordance with
congressional direction in fiscal year 1996.
National automotive center
The committee commends the Army for its efforts, through
the National Automotive Center, to extend the life of its
wheeled vehicle fleet through the adaptation of commercially
developed automotive technologies. As a result of this
initiative, the Army is modernizing its wheeled vehicles at a
modest cost.
It is the committee's desire that all services have the
benefit of the technologies identified and adapted to military
vehicles by the National Automotive Center. Therefore, the
Secretary of Defense shall designate the Army's National
Automotive Center as the Department's executive agent for
commercial automotive technology collaboration. The committee
further directs that the Director, National Automotive Center
shall report directly to the Assistant Secretary of the Army
for Research, Development and Acquisition. A charter
incorporating these guidelines shall be submitted to the
congressional defense committees by October 1, 1996, and be
executed by the Secretary of Defense or his designated agent by
November 1, 1996.
The committee commends the National Automotive Center for
its efforts to identify commercial technologies to apply to
military vehicles, and to reduce the cost of developing,
producing and operating military vehicle systems. By requiring
cost sharing and collaborating with industry, the Center is
able to leverage the substantial investment and expertise of
commercial industry and academia.
The committee is aware of a proposal to expand this work to
develop advanced engine technologies (particularly four-stroke
direct injection diesel engines) and to create a framework for
collaborative vehicle design and development with industry.
Such efforts could lead to improved design on a cost shared
basis. The committee urges the Secretary of Defense to review
the available funding for this effort and to consider a
reprogramming request for additional funds if he deems it
appropriate.
National Solar Observatory
The National Solar Observatory (NSO), formerly known as the
Sacramento Peak Observatory, is internationally recognized as
the world's best site for studying the sun. NSO scientists
carry out frontier research in solar physics. On a practical
level, however, its scientists work to understand and predict
the occurrences and effects of solar flares and other bursts of
radiation. Understanding solar activity is increasingly vital
for global communications, military surveillance, and
navigation.
The Air Force supports NSO operations through its Science
and Technology program in the amount of $650,000 that is
transferred to the National Science Foundation, which operates
the NSO. The committee supports the continuation of this annual
contribution for the support of the National Solar Observatory.
United States-Japan management training
The committee has been impressed by the degree to which the
United States-Japan management training program has achieved
its primary objective of preparing young American scientists,
engineers and managers for positions in American industry and
government from which they can exploit their knowledge of
Japanese research and development institutions. This program,
initiated by the committee in 1991, is run by the Air Force
Office of Scientific Research (AFOSR). In fiscal year 1996,
AFOSR was only able to fund the program at $2.0 million from
its own resources after several years in which the Defense
Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) had provided AFOSR
$10.0 million per year for the program. The committee believes
that a larger investment in this program may be warranted. The
Secretary of the Air Force, at her discretion, may apply funds
in PE 61102F, or the Secretary of Defense, at his discretion,
may apply funds in PE 61103D, to continue the program at a
total level of up to $10.0 million. The committee notes that
cost sharing from non-federal sources is a statutory selection
criterion in the program and that historically the program has
leveraged significant non-federal funding. The committee
directs AFSOR to ensure that cost sharing from non-federal
sources should match AFOSR funds to the maximum extent
practicable in future grant awards.
Totally integrated munitions enterprise (TIME)
The committee notes that the Department of Defense, in
cooperation with the Department of Energy's Lawrence Livermore
and Los Alamos National Defense Laboratories, is preparing to
initiate the Totally Integrated Munitions Enterprise (TIME)
project in support of U.S. conventional munitions production.
The committee believes the TIME project could reduce the time
required to develop, manufacture, and procure advanced
munitions systems while improving their overall cost
effectiveness. The program has the potential to reduce overhead
and infrastructure costs in the management of U.S. munitions
production.
Strategic deterrent development capability
The committee recognizes the Department of Defense's
progress in identifying and establishing programs to protect
the key sectors of the strategic deterrent force industrial
base. The Department has funded programs to preserve critical
strategic deterrent development activities in the areas of
reentry vehicles and precision long-range inertial guidance
systems. The committee strongly supports this process,
especially with regard to technology applications and
components that may be required to maintain and replace
existing strategic forces. In several of these areas no other
commercial or governmental market exists.
The committee is concerned, however, that certain critical
technologies, materials, or processes may still be excluded
from this process. Therefore, the committee directs the
Secretary of Defense to submit a plan to Congress, not later
than March 15, 1997, for the preservation of all elements
necessary for development of the next generation of strategic
deterrent forces. The plan should include technology
applications and selective component development, as well as
the practice of the systems engineering and integration
disciplines required to develop and to maintain a responsive
strategic deterrent system development capability.
Post-boost propulsion for strategic delivery systems
The Air Force is beginning the third year of research and
development investment in its Minuteman post-boost system. This
investment is necessary to ensure the continuing readiness and
effectiveness of United States strategic ballistic missile
forces. Both the Air Force and the Navy rely on the same down-
sized corporate pool of specialists who have unique
capabilities and qualifications derived from twenty-five years
of direct experience with the data and tests to assure
reliability and affordability. Under present and foreseeable
circumstances, the committee endorses retention of a
consolidated corporate pool and recommends that the Department
of Defense continue to support the post-boost system
infrastructure at budgeted or increased levels.
Chemical-biological defense program
The committee recommends authorization of the budget
request of $505.6 million for the Department of Defense
chemical-biological defense program for research and
development ($296.8 million) and procurement ($208.2 million).
The committee is disturbed with the findings in a March
1996 Government Accounting Office (GAO) report on chemical and
biological defense, and wishes to express its general and
growing unhappiness with the Department's management and
oversight of the chemical-biological defense program. According
to the President's 1996 National Security Strategy, a key part
of United States strategy is to stem the proliferation of
weapons of mass destruction and to develop effective
capabilities to deal with these threats. U.S. national security
strategy requires that U.S. military forces be prepared to
respond, in the United States as well as abroad, to the danger
posed by weapons of mass destruction.
Since 1990, the Congress has expressed concern about the
conduct of the chemical and biological defense program and the
readiness of the U.S. military forces to operate in a
chemically or biologically contaminated environment. In 1993,
concerned that the overall defense budget was declining and
wanting to ensure that requirements for an effective chemical
and biological defense program not be ignored, the Congress
took steps to strengthen the chemical and biological defense
program. To meet the potential threat of the proliferation of
chemical and biological agents, the Congress directed the
Secretary of Defense to fund the chemical and biological
defense program in a DOD budget account. This DOD chemical and
biological defense program was to be assigned to a single
office in the Office of the Secretary, and reflect a
coordinated and integrated chemical and biological defense
program for the military departments, with the Army as the
executive agent.
Despite the increased attention since the Gulf War by the
Department and the Congress to the potential threat of the use
of chemical or biological agents against U.S. military forces,
the committee is disturbed with the findings of a March 1996
Government Accounting Office (GAO) report on DOD's chemical and
biological defense program.
The GAO report notes improvement in the readiness of U.S.
military forces to operate in a chemical or biological
environment. However, the report also identifies continued
deficiencies in the areas of: chemical-biological defense
training; inadequacy of the biological vaccine stockpile;
development and implementation of a DOD immunization policy;
and adequacy of training and equipment for medical personnel.
In testimony before the Congress on the fiscal year 1997
budget request, the Secretary of Defense, the Chairman of the
Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Commanders in Chief of our
regional commands highlighted the chemical and biological
threat as a priority. However, despite the high priority and
emphasis placed on combating this threat, the committee is
disturbed with the GAO findings that chemical and biological
training and preparedness have been assigned a lower priority
by the Commanders in Chief. Additionally, the committee is
disturbed that DOD has been unable to make a decision with
regard to the development and implementation of a DOD
immunization policy. As a result of lessons learned from the
Gulf War, it is essential that a decision be made on the
vaccines to be stockpiled and on an immunization policy. In the
event of a crisis, it is imperative that forces deployed to a
high threat area receive the necessary medical protection to
protect them against biological agents. In that same regard, it
is essential that medical personnel assigned to deploy with the
forces have the necessary training and equipment to treat
casualties in a chemically or biologically contaminated area.
For the past three years, the Congress has increased
funding for the chemical and biological defense program above
the President's request. For example, in fiscal year 1996, the
Congress authorized a $24.0 million increase to augment and
accelerate research and development in medical and non-medical
chemical and biological defense, and an increase in the
military service operations and maintenance accounts of $50.0
million for chemical defense training and chemical medical
defense training.
The committee directs the Deputy Secretary of Defense to
review and report back prior to the conclusion of the House and
Senate conference on the fiscal year 1997 defense authorization
bill on steps the Department has taken to correct the
deficiencies highlighted by the GAO report, and on the use of
the increased funding provided to the Department in the fiscal
year 1996 for the chemical and biological defense program and
on the use of the operations and maintenance funds for
increased chemical defenses training, as well as the use of
these funds for the procurement of chemical-biological defense
equipment.
Biological and medical defense technologies
As noted elsewhere in the report, the committee recommends
that the Department continue to place increased research and
development efforts in the area of biological detection. Those
efforts should include working with the national laboratories,
universities and, where appropriate, industry. Additionally,
the committee believes that the Department needs to increase
research and development in the area of biological medical
technologies. Detection of biological agents and physical
protection of our military forces are essential. These two
elements should not be relied upon as a sole means of defense.
A third element which is essential in the defense of our
military services against biological agents are vaccines,
toxoids, antitoxins and antibodies. It is critical that our
biological defense include medical technologies. The committee
believes that increased emphasis is necessary in the area of
prophylaxis and specific therapies to protect against potential
biological pathogens which would be used offensively against
our military forces.
In the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year
1996 the committee highlighted concerns about the progress in
bio-technology that could lead to the development of new
biological warfare agents and requested the Department to
report to Congress by March 1, 1996 (which was extended by 45
days) on the national security threats posed by these new
advances in bio-technology and genetic engineering. To date,
the committee has not received this report. The committee
directs the Department to submit the report expeditiously so
that consideration may be given to its findings during the
conference on the defense authorization bill between the House
and Senate.
Additionally, the committee intends to review possible
benefits of increasing the chemical-biological defense program
for the conduct of research and development on human monoclonal
antibodies as medical defenses against biological agents. The
committee recommends that the Department report to the
committee on the utility and possible benefits of this medical
technology program in reducing the threat of the use of
biological agent. This report should include input by the
Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA).
Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA)
The committee directs the Defense Advanced Research
Projects Agency (DARPA) to consult and coordinate their
chemical and biological research and development programs more
closely with the Department's executive agent for the chemical-
biological defense program. In addition to leveraging existing
technologies, it is important that the capabilities of all
contributing agencies be utilized to their fullest extent.
TITLE III--OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
The President's budget request included $88,859.7 million
for operation and maintenance of the armed forces and component
agencies of the Department of Defense in fiscal year 1997.
The committee recommends authorization of $89,025.8 million
for the operation and maintenance (O&M) accounts for fiscal
year 1997, an increase of $166.1 million from the President's
budget request. The recommended amount authorized for the O&M
accounts includes, to the extent provided in an appropriations
act, transfer of $150.0 million from the National Defense
Stockpile Transaction Fund.
The committee recommends authorization of $2,215.9 million
for the revolving and management funds.
The O&M accounts include approximately 36 percent of the
total Department of Defense budget. Expenditures from these
accounts pay the costs for:
--day-to-day operations of our military forces in the
United States and around the world;
--all individual and unit training for military
members, including joint exercises;
--maintenance and support of the weapons, vehicles
and equipment in the military services;
--purchase and distribution of spare parts and
supplies to support military operations; and
--support, maintenance, and repair of buildings and
bases throughout the Department of Defense.
The funding in these accounts has a direct impact on the
combat readiness of U.S. military forces. While insufficient
O&M funds would lead to problems with short-term or current
readiness, excessive and unnecessary O&M expenditures for low
priority or non-defense programs also serve to restrict the
availability of funds for modernization programs. Modernization
is nearly synonymous with long-term or future readiness. The
quality of overall readiness essentially depends upon a careful
balance of funding between both current and future readiness.
This year the full committee received testimony on
readiness issues from the Secretary of Defense and the Chairman
of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the service secretaries and the
service chiefs, and the unified commanders-in-chief. The
Subcommittee on Readiness received testimony on readiness
issues from the four service chiefs, the Assistant Secretary of
Defense for Reserve Affairs, the chiefs of the reserve
components, the Deputy Secretary of Defense, and other senior
military representatives.
The primary readiness concern expressed by these witnesses
was the inadequate funding that was provided by the President's
budget request in the long-term readiness or modernization
accounts. Although current readiness is not robust, future
readiness is in far more serious jeopardy.
The committee believes future readiness deficiencies must
be addressed now or our armed forces will be ill-equipped for
the potential military conflicts of the next century. However,
current readiness must also be maintained in order to ensure
that the myriad of contingency operations in which today's
military forces are engaged are performed with minimum
casualties and without exposure to unnecessary risk.
The committee approves of the Department's decision to
budget for the known costs of ongoing operations for the first
time this year. This will help to ensure that necessary
training will not be canceled due to a lack of funds available
in the fourth quarter because of the unbudgeted costs of these
operations.
The committee recommends a reduction in O&M funding for
low-priority and non-defense programs and that funds made
available from these reductions be authorized for higher-
priority readiness programs. This planning consideration
required the committee to make some difficult decisions;
however, the continuing decline in defense budgets have made
such decisions necessary.
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
SUBTITLE A--AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS
Section 304. Transfer from National Defense Stockpile Transaction Fund.
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
the Secretary of Defense, to the extent provided in
appropriations acts, to transfer $150.0 million from the
National Defense Stockpile Transaction Fund to the operations
and maintenance accounts.
Section 305. Civil Air Patrol.
The committee is concerned that an inordinant amount of the
funds provided by the Department of Defense to the Civil Air
Patrol is used for administration and overhead expenses instead
of the important search and rescue missions for which it is
intended. Therefore, the committee recommends a provision which
would require that at least 25 percent of the funds provided to
the Civil Air Patrol Corporation shall be available only for
the costs of search and rescue missions.
Section 306. SR-71 contingency reconnaissance force.
The committee is pleased that the Department of Defense has
been able to reactivate the SR-71 aircraft for substantially
less than the original estimate. The Deputy Secretary of
Defense has informed Congress that the Department will modify
the SR-71 aircraft in fiscal year 1996 as directed by Congress.
However, since the Department views the SR-71 as an
intelligence program, the Department interpreted language in
the Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996 as
prohibiting expenditures from within operation and maintenance
accounts to operate the aircraft. Therefore, the committee has
included a provision that clarifies the intent of the Defense
authorization committees, the committees of jurisdiction, with
regard to operating and supporting this important capability.
SUBTITLE B--PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS, RESTRICTIONS, AND LIMITATIONS
Section 311. Funding for second and third maritime propositioning ships
out of National Defense Sealift Fund.
The budget request contained no funding for enhancement of
the Marine Corps maritime prepositioning force (MPF).
The Marine Corps MPF consists of three squadrons of forward
deployed maritime prepositioned ships (MPS). Each of these
squadrons carries sufficient equipment, supplies, and
sustainment for a brigade-sized force of 17,300 Marine Corps
and Navy personnel. The MPF enhancement (MPF(E)) program, begun
as the result of a committee recommendation in fiscal year
1995, will provide one additional ship for each MPS squadron.
This additional ship will allow each squadron to carry extra
materiel, including an expeditionary airfield, a fleet
hospital, a Navy mobile construction battalion equipment set,
Marine Corps command element equipment, and additional
sustainment supplies. Having this extra equipment will provide
our warfighting commanders with much greater flexibility when
they choose to employ Marine Corps units.
Congress had previously appropriated $110.0 million for
acquisition of the first MPF(E) ship. Last year, the committee
expressed concern about the slow progress the Navy had made in
procuring this ship. The Navy has now developed an acquisition
strategy that would cause the winning bidder of a current
solicitation to acquire the ship, manage the contract for its
conversion, and operate and maintain the ship for five years.
Contract award for acquisition of the first ship is now
scheduled to occur in the fourth quarter of fiscal year 1996.
As originally conceived by the committee, the MPF(E)
program was intended to satisfy very specific Marine Corps
threshold requirements at an affordable price. Prior to making
its recommendation to Congress in fiscal year 1995, the
committee discussed its concept thoroughly with the Marine
Corps to ensure that it would meet Marine Corps needs. The
MPF(E) program that was incorporated into the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1995 was the result of those
discussions.
In fiscal year 1996, the committee expressed its continuing
support for the program by recommending authorization of an
additional $110.0 million for the purchase and conversion of a
second ship. However, while the statement of managers that
accompanied the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 1996 (Public Law 104-106) expressed the House and Senate
Conferee's strong support for the purchase and conversion of an
additional ship for the MPF(E) program, a ship was not
authorized because sufficient funds were not available.
This year, based on proposals that new construction might
be a better option for the MPF(E) program, the committee
reviewed its original decision to recommend purchase and
conversion of an existing ship, vice new construction. As
previously discussed, the Navy is well along with contract
award for the first ship and, in briefings to the committee
this year, expressed confidence that it would be able to
acquire the ship for the appropriated amount.
The committee also asked about the historical costs of the
original MPS ships, which were acquired in the mid-1980s. The
Navy reported that, although some of these ships were converted
and some were built new, the end cost of the conversions and
the new construction ships was roughly the same. The cost of
these original MPS ships in today's dollars would likely exceed
$200.0 million, and perhaps be closer to $250.0 million.
When the committee pointed out the apparent disparity
between the $110.0 million appropriated for the first MPF(E)
ship and the end-cost of the original MPS ships in fiscal year
1997 dollars, the Navy provided amplifying information that
showed that the conversions done for the MPS ships in the mid-
1980s had been far more extensive than the work that would be
required to satisfy the threshold requirements of the MPF(E)
program. In particular, the mid-1980s MPS conversions involved
cutting the converted ships in half and inserting another hull
section, a ``plug,'' to give them greater capacity for cargo
and fuel than is necessary for the MPF(E) ships. The complexity
of the original MPS conversions, roughly comparable to the work
being done on the five large, medium-speed roll-on/roll-off
(LMSR) ships that are now under conversion to carry Army
prepositioned equipment, added considerably to their conversion
cost. The Navy then contrasted the scope of the conversions for
the mid-1980s MPS ships with the much more limited work that
will be needed for the MPF(E) ships to satisfy their threshold
military requirements. Specifically, none of the proposals
currently under consideration for the MPF(E) program involves
insertion of a new hull section.
The committee also investigated assertions that the life
cycle cost of a new construction ship might be lower than the
purchase and conversion program sponsored by the committee. A
lower life cycle cost might well imply greater cost
effectiveness for a new construction ship.
The likely new construction candidate for the MPF(E)
program would be a variant of the Army LMSR's that are
currently under construction at two shipyards. The committee
made a determination about the probability of lower life cycle
costs for new construction ships based on the following
information:
(1) when queried by the committee, the Navy reported
that the average estimated cost at completion for the
17 LMSR's currently under contract will exceed $300.0
million per ship;
(2) Navy representatives indicated that the design of
the Army LMSR's would have to be altered because the
MPF(E) ships need a different relative allocation of
container capacity versus vehicle space;
(3) the Army LMSR's are in series production, so it
is highly unlikely, considering the non-recurring
design effort that would be needed for an MPF(E)
variant, that a small buy of three MPF(E) ships could
achieve an average unit cost any less than that for the
Army's LMSR's, even if they were built at the same
yards that are building the LMSR's;
(4) given the approximately three-to-one differential
in acquisition cost derived from Navy cost estimates,
there does not appear to be a reasonable set of
assumptions that would cause the committee to conclude
that the life cycle costs of a new construction variant
for the MPF(E) program would be lower than those
associated with the purchase and conversion program
already in progress; and
(5) disruption of the Army's LMSR program, to satisfy
near-term requirements for the MPF(E) program, would
inevitably delay the Army's LMSR program even more.
Such delays would increase the cost of the ships now
under construction.
As with most military programs, the MPF(E) ships have a
threshold requirement that they must satisfy and an objective
requirement that would be desirable. The Navy appears
confident, based on proposals that had been submitted by
several potential contractors, that its plans for conversion of
the first MPF(E) ship can be completed within the $110.0
million originally appropriated. The committee interviewed
Marine Corps and Navy leaders to determine whether the
threshold requirements that this ship must meet or exceed are
adequate to the mission requirements for the ship. The
committee also discussed the current state of the strategic
sealift program with the Commander-in-Chief, U.S.
Transportation Command. The responses of these senior leaders
were as follows:
(1) they consider the Marine Corps requirement for
the capability that the MPF(E) program will provide is
urgent;
(2) the program of purchase and conversion currently
being pursued by the Navy will meet the Marine Corps
threshold requirements for MPF(E);
(3) they continue to support the program for purchase
and conversion that the committee has sponsored for the
past two years;
(4) they have no desire to wait until MPF(E) program
ships could be added at the end of the Army's LMSR
program;
(5) they have no desire to disrupt the Army's ongoing
LMSR procurement program by having MPF(E) ships
inserted into the middle of the program; and
(6) the Commander-in-Chief, U.S. Transportation
Command has informed the committee that:
(a) the Army's LMSR program is already two
years behind schedule;
(b) this delay perpetuates a serious
shortfall in strategic sealift until at least
fiscal year 2001; and
(c)further disruption of the program would
have a serious impact on the nation's ability
to provide sufficient surge sealift to meet the
demands of two nearly simultaneous major
regional conflicts.
As a result of its re-examination of the MPF(E) program, in
conjunction with its review of the fiscal year 1997 budget
request, the committee makes the following recommendations:
(1) continued strong support for the purchase and
conversion of existing ships that can meet the Marine
Corps' threshold requirements for the MPF(E) program;
(2) the need to field an adequate MPF(E) capability,
one that satisfies the program's threshold requirement,
at the earliest possible date;
(3) support for the consideration of new construction
ships as an option for satisfying the MPF(E)
requirement, provided they are cost competitive, do not
delay the Army's strategic sealift program, and do not
delay the MPF(E) program; and
(4) a provision that would authorize the purchase and
conversion, or construction if competitive based on
price and timeliness, of two additional ships for the
MPF(E) program, and an increase of $240.0 million above
the budget request in the National Defense Sealift Fund
to acquire them and to include an allowance for
inflation that has occurred since fiscal year 1995.
Based on the assertions and arguments presented to date,
the committee has no reason to conclude that a new construction
option for MPF(E) will be cost effective compared to the
ongoing program of purchase and conversion, when evaluated
against the threshold requirements identified by the Marine
Corps. However, the committee remains open to additional facts.
The acquisition of two ships additional MPF(E) ships would
satisfy the force structure requirements of the program. If the
committee's recommendation prevails, the Navy would be able to
negotiate favorable contract options that would permit the Navy
to procure and convert the two additional ships less
expensively by avoiding the cost of a second stand-alone
competition.
Section 312. National Defense Sealift Fund.
The committee recommends a provision that would make
certain amendments to section 2218 of title 10, United States
Code. Section 2218 deals with the national defense sealift fund
(NDSF). A thorough discussion of the rationale for this
provision may be found elsewhere in this report in the section
dealing with the national defense reserve fleet.
Section 313. Nonlethal weapons capabilities.
The committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million to the
operations and maintenance accounts for the military services,
$3.0 million for the Marine Corps and $2.0 million for the
Army, to fulfill immediate procurement needs for nonlethal
technologies.
Section 314. Restriction on Coast Guard funding.
The committee notes that funds provided to federal agencies
from the 054 budget account are supposed to be used for
national security activities. This year the administration
requested $119.0 million in this account to support the
operations of the Coast Guard. The committee is concerned that
these are not national security operations and that this is a
direct subsidy to the Department of Transportation using funds
that are intended for the Department of Defense; a violation of
the Senate rule on fire walls between the Defense budget and
the budgets of civilian agencies. Therefore, the committee
recommends a provision which will prevent the payment of funds
to the Coast Guard out of funds authorized to be appropriated
in the 054 budget account. This reduction was used to fund an
increase in the Department of Defense's drug interdiction and
counter narcotics activities account in order to fund important
counter narcotics initiatives.
SUBTITLE C--DEPOT-LEVEL ACTIVITIES
Sections 321 through 330
Department of Defense depot maintenance and repair services
The Department of Defense (DOD) annually expends
approximately $13.0 billion for the maintenance and repair of
military equipment. This includes the repair, rebuilding, and
major overhaul of weapons systems, parts, assemblies, and
subassemblies. It also includes limited manufacture of parts,
technical support, modifications, testing, and reclamation as
well as software maintenance. Current law (10 U.S.C. 2466)
requires that each military service perform at least 60 percent
of its annual depot maintenance in depots owned and operated by
the Department of Defense. A separate provision of current law
(10 U.S.C. 2469) requires a competition before the Department
moves any work with an annual value in excess of $3.0 million
from one public depot to another, or to a private contractor.
The administration has requested that these provisions be
repealed in order to provide the Department of Defense with
greater flexibility to manage its depot maintenance workload in
a more efficient manner. Some individuals have pointed to
section 2466 of title 10, United States Code, commonly referred
to as the 60/40 rule, as a particularly restrictive and
arbitrary law which significantly restricts the Department's
ability to manage its operations efficiently. However, others
argue that this provision is necessary in order to ensure that
the Department of Defense retains the capability to effectively
maintain and repair vital weapons systems.
Section 311 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 1996 directed the Secretary of Defense to provide
the Congress with a report outlining the depot policy which the
Department would use, absent the restrictions referenced above,
in managing its depot maintenance activities. Congress
indicated that if the policy were acceptable, it would repeal
sections 2466 and 2469.
On April 4, 1996, the Department issued the required depot
policy report. This report did not recommend any specific
legislative proposals to implement the new depot maintenance
policies. However, subsequent to the issue of the report the
administration did propose legislation that would grant DOD
blanket authority to contract out ``commercial and industrial
type supplies and services'' including, but not limited to,
depot maintenance, ``notwithstanding any provision of title 10,
United States Code, or any statute authorizing appropriations
for, or making appropriations for, the Department of Defense.''
On April 17, 1996, the Subcommittee on Readiness held a
hearing on the Department's proposed depot policy with Deputy
Secretary of Defense John White, General Henry Viccellio,
Commander of the Air Force Materiel Command, and witnesses from
the General Accounting Office.
Based on its review of the DOD depot policy report, the DOD
legislative proposal, and the testimony presented by the
Department at this hearing, the Committee concluded, with great
disappointment, that the Department did not meet the
requirements that the Congress laid out in last year's National
Defense Authorization Act.
The committee believes the Department's proposed depot
policy was not well thought out in gener