[House Hearing, 113 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]
[H.A.S.C. No. 113-26]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
HEARING
ON
NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT
FOR FISCAL YEAR 2014
AND
OVERSIGHT OF PREVIOUSLY AUTHORIZED PROGRAMS
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
SUBCOMMITTEE ON TACTICAL AIR AND LAND FORCES HEARING
ON
EQUIPPING THE INDIVIDUAL SOLDIER
AND MARINE: CURRENT AND FUTURE
YEAR ACQUISITION AND MODERNIZATION
STRATEGIES AND THE FISCAL YEAR
2014 BUDGET REQUEST
__________
HEARING HELD
APRIL 11, 2013
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
80-755 WASHINGTON : 2013
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; DC
area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC
20402-0001
SUBCOMMITTEE ON TACTICAL AIR AND LAND FORCES
MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio, Chairman
FRANK A. LoBIONDO, New Jersey LORETTA SANCHEZ, California
JOHN FLEMING, Louisiana MIKE McINTYRE, North Carolina
CHRISTOPHER P. GIBSON, New York JIM COOPER, Tennessee
JON RUNYAN, New Jersey JOHN GARAMENDI, California
MARTHA ROBY, Alabama RON BARBER, Arizona
PAUL COOK, California DANIEL B. MAFFEI, New York
JIM BRIDENSTINE, Oklahoma JOAQUIN CASTRO, Texas
BRAD R. WENSTRUP, Ohio TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois
JACKIE WALORSKI, Indiana WILLIAM L. ENYART, Illinois
MAC THORNBERRY, Texas PETE P. GALLEGO, Texas
WALTER B. JONES, North Carolina MARC A. VEASEY, Texas
ROB BISHOP, Utah
Jesse Tolleson, Professional Staff Member
Doug Bush, Professional Staff Member
Julie Herbert, Clerk
C O N T E N T S
----------
CHRONOLOGICAL LIST OF HEARINGS
2013
Page
Hearing:
Thursday, April 11, 2013, Equipping the Individual Soldier and
Marine: Current and Future Year Acquisition and Modernization
Strategies and the Fiscal Year 2014 Budget Request............. 1
Appendix:
Thursday, April 11, 2013......................................... 29
----------
THURSDAY, APRIL 11, 2013
EQUIPPING THE INDIVIDUAL SOLDIER AND MARINE: CURRENT AND FUTURE YEAR
ACQUISITION AND MODERNIZATION STRATEGIES AND THE FISCAL YEAR 2014
BUDGET REQUEST
STATEMENTS PRESENTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS
Sanchez, Hon. Loretta, a Representative from California, Ranking
Member, Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land Forces........... 2
Turner, Hon. Michael R., a Representative from Ohio, Chairman,
Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land Forces................... 1
WITNESSES
Ostrowski, BG Paul A., USA, Program Executive Officer, Soldier,
U.S. Army; and Peter B. Bechtel, G-3/5/7, Director,
Capabilities Integration, Prioritization and Analysis, U.S.
Department of the Army......................................... 3
Smith, BGen Eric M., USMC, Director, Capabilities Development
Directorate, Combat Development and Integration, U.S. Marine
Corps; and BGen Frank L. Kelley, USMC, Commander, Marine Corps
Systems Command, U.S. Marine Corps............................. 4
APPENDIX
Prepared Statements:
Ostrowski, BG Paul A., joint with Peter B. Bechtel........... 33
Smith, BGen Eric M., joint with BGen Frank L. Kelley......... 49
Documents Submitted for the Record:
[There were no Documents submitted.]
Witness Responses to Questions Asked During the Hearing:
Mr. Castro................................................... 63
Ms. Tsongas.................................................. 63
Questions Submitted by Members Post Hearing:
Ms. Duckworth................................................ 83
Mr. Enyart................................................... 70
Mr. Jones.................................................... 67
Mr. LoBiondo................................................. 69
Mr. Turner................................................... 71
EQUIPPING THE INDIVIDUAL SOLDIER AND MARINE: CURRENT AND FUTURE YEAR
ACQUISITION AND MODERNIZATION STRATEGIES AND THE FISCAL YEAR 2014
BUDGET REQUEST
----------
House of Representatives,
Committee on Armed Services,
Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land Forces,
Washington, DC, Thursday, April 11, 2013.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 3:30 p.m., in
room 2118, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Michael R.
Turner (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MICHAEL R. TURNER, A REPRESENTATIVE
FROM OHIO, CHAIRMAN, SUBCOMMITTEE ON TACTICAL AIR AND LAND
FORCES
Mr. Turner. I call to order the hearing of the Tactical Air
and Land Forces Subcommittee. The Tactical Air and Land Forces
Subcommittee meets today in open session to receive testimony
on individual soldier and marine equipment programs in the
fiscal year 2014 budget request. Today we will continue the
subcommittee's oversight on the many challenges facing
individual warfighter equipment, to include industrial-based
sustainment, advances in weight reduction and equipment
specifically tailored for the female warfighter.
This committee and this subcommittee in particular has
always stressed the importance of individual warfighter
equipment and has done so in a bipartisan manner through
hearings and legislation. In bipartisan fashion we have worked
with the Department and industry to eliminate critical
equipment shortages post-9/11. We have drafted legislation
reflecting the critical need for weight reduction for
individual gear and have tried to improve the acquisition
process in order to better incentivize industry.
I want to thank our former subcommittee chairman, ranking
member, and other subcommittee members for their actions in
this matter.
The past decade saw a significant increase in funding and
prioritization for individual warfighter equipment, primarily
through overseas contingency operations funding. Industrial
bases were expanded and sustained at high capacities in order
to meet evolving threats and high-priority demands from troops
operating in Afghanistan and Iraq. This helped to incentivize
innovation from industry and helped to mature technology for
programs like body armor, protective clothing, and night vision
equipment. Many lessons were learned regarding what worked and
what did not.
I commend the improvements that have been made as well as
the increased level in investment from prior years. However,
considering the present fiscal realities, I remain concerned
that the future priorities and levels of investment for
individual equipment be sustained. We still have soldiers and
marines carrying almost 150 pounds of gear on their back,
depending upon the mission. Despite our better judgment, we are
entering into a period of transition, the so-called peace
dividend, and what happens to be a prolonged period of reduced
defense budgets. What happens to individual warfighter
equipment investment when the OCO [Overseas Contingency
Operations] budgets go away and there is no longer a sense of
urgency to address warfighter demand for lightweight gear?
We have a panel of witnesses here today who are prepared to
address long-term modernization sustainment and integration
strategies for individual equipment programs, current efforts
to lighten the soldier and marine combat load, and ways to
incentivize industry to continue to invest in innovation.
Before we begin, I would like to turn to my good friend and
colleague from California, Ms. Loretta Sanchez, for any
comments she may want to make.
STATEMENT OF HON. LORETTA SANCHEZ, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM
CALIFORNIA, RANKING MEMBER, SUBCOMMITTEE ON TACTICAL AIR AND
LAND FORCES
Ms. Sanchez. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you all. I
know I said hello to some of you, but I notice that you have
brought a lot of people to answer our questions today, so I
appreciate that. Thank you all for your service to our country.
We are really here today to try to figure out how we move
forward now that we are out of Iraq and coming out of
Afghanistan, and in particular with respect to the individual
soldier or marine or seaman or airman, et cetera, and women, by
the way, you know, what it is going to look like in the future.
And we know the more technology we have, the more information
we have, the more we want them to be so well equipped that
sometimes they are carrying 150 pounds along with them.
So the answer is how can we use the new technologies, the
new breakthroughs and ensure they are being used in the
equipment that our men and women want and need and how do we do
that in a time also of budget constraints. And as the chairman
said, we threw a lot of money at this and we tried to fix the
problem during the war, and then what typically happens is that
you, especially in a tough time with no conventional-type or
big war going on, you tend to downsize on equipment or not make
the innovation that you need in equipment and try to
concentrate on the larger systems or what have you.
So we want to make sure that we don't do that, in
particular because the way some of this equipment or most of
this equipment has been bought over this decade has been
through no line item, but really in contingency accounts. So we
are here to try to figure out and get some answers as to what
we need to do.
I am going to have some questions for you with respect to
the rifle competition and how that is going. I am interested in
equipment for women now that we are going to be opening up more
MOSs [Military Occupational Specialties] for women in the
military at large. And I am also interested in how we are going
to keep innovation coming into the circle as we move forward
and we don't really have the type of procurement or monies that
we have had in the last decade.
So those are my concerns and I am sure that we will have a
good discussion today. So I welcome you. And thank you, Mr.
Chairman. And I also want to thank the members who have shown
up for the subcommittee hearing. I appreciate it also. Thank
you.
Mr. Turner. Thank you, Congresswoman Sanchez.
We want to welcome then our witnesses. We have Brigadier
General Paul A. Ostrowski, Program Executive Officer, Soldier;
Mr. Peter B. Bechtel, Director, Capabilities Integration,
Prioritization and Analysis; Brigadier General Frank L. Kelley,
Commander, Marine Corps Systems Command; and Brigadier General
Eric M. Smith, Director, Capabilities Development Directorate.
Gentlemen, thank you for your service and thank you for
being with us here today. We are going to proceed with your
testimony and then go into questions.
Without objection, we ask that all witnesses' prepared
statements be included in the hearing record and we also ask
unanimous consent that non-committee members, if any, do come
to attendance, we have some that RSVPed that they will be here,
the non-committee members be allowed to participate in today's
hearing for all subcommittee members after they have had their
opportunity to ask questions, and if there is no objection, the
non-committee members will be recognized at the appropriate
time for questions also.
With that, General Ostrowski.
STATEMENT OF BG PAUL A. OSTROWSKI, USA, PROGRAM EXECUTIVE
OFFICER SOLDIER, U.S. ARMY; AND PETER B. BECHTEL, G-3/5/7,
DIRECTOR, CAPABILITIES INTEGRATION, PRIORITIZATION AND
ANALYSIS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
General Ostrowski. Chairman Turner, Representative Sanchez,
distinguished members of the Subcommittee on Tactical Air and
Land Forces, on behalf of myself and Mr. Pete Bechtel, we thank
you for this opportunity to discuss the fiscal year 2014 budget
request for equipping the individual soldier and marine. It is
our privilege to represent senior Army leaders and America's
soldiers. It is our privilege also to appear before this
subcommittee with the fellow warfighters of the United States
Marine Corps. We thank you, Mr. Chairman, and all subcommittee
members, for your sound advice and strong support of the Army
as we strive to ensure that our soldiers are well trained and
well equipped to undertake any mission in any environment.
The lethality, safety, and security of soldiers remain the
Army's highest priorities. We have without question the best-
equipped, most technologically advanced fighting force in the
world, but there are still challenges that we must meet.
Today's all-volunteer, combat-seasoned soldier has steadily
borne the brunt of increased equipment load, necessitating
considerable attention to modernization efforts aimed at
lightening that burden while maintaining a decisive edge over
any potential adversary. This is an important element of our
modernization plan.
Our senior leaders continue an open dialogue with industry.
Now, perhaps more than ever, it is clear that we must work
together to identify appropriate courses of action to minimize
negative impacts on our plans, programs and industry partners.
We must continue to meet our contingency requirements while
carefully balancing readiness and modernization.
We thank you again for your strong support of our soldiers
and the Army. We are part of a joint force, constantly working
to enhance the safety and security for our warfighters. Your
wisdom and guidance is deeply appreciated as we work to ensure
that our soldiers have the right equipment for the right
operations at the right time to successfully accomplish their
missions and return home safely.
We look forward to your questions.
[The joint prepared statement of General Ostrowski and Mr.
Bechtel can be found in the Appendix on page 33.]
Mr. Turner. Thank you.
General Smith.
STATEMENT OF BGEN ERIC M. SMITH, USMC, DIRECTOR, CAPABILITIES
DEVELOPMENT DIRECTORATE, COMBAT DEVELOPMENT AND INTEGRATION,
U.S. MARINE CORPS; AND BGEN FRANK L. KELLEY, USMC, COMMANDER,
MARINE CORPS SYSTEMS COMMAND, U.S. MARINE CORPS
General Smith. Chairman Turner, Ranking Member Sanchez, and
distinguished members, thank you for the opportunity to appear
before you today on behalf of your marines and their families.
This committee is vitally important to the Marine Corps because
it focuses on the individual rifleman, the heart and soul of
the Marine Corps.
Brigadier General Kelley and I have prepared one written
statement for the Marine Corps which has been delivered and I
will offer a few brief opening statements for us both. I will
keep these comments extremely short so that Brigadier General
Kelley and I might use the maximum possible time to answer the
important questions which you may ask. I would also thank very
much our brothers in the Army for their support of all that we
have done.
Having deployed twice to Iraq and once to Afghanistan, I
can personally attest to the positive impact which you and your
due diligence and hard work have had on the lives of the
marines and sailors of our Corps and their families. Your
willingness to provide support for us, to obtain the equipment
we needed, meant that more warriors returned home to their
families than otherwise might have been possible. I offer you
this information not as a platitude but as an honest assessment
from one marine back to his teammates who provided him with
lifesaving support while in theater. I guarantee you that the
marines who are forward-deployed at this very moment echo my
sentiments.
We look forward to answering your questions, and, again,
thank you for allowing us to appear here before you today.
[The joint prepared statement of General Smith and General
Kelley can be found in the Appendix on page 49.]
Mr. Turner. Thank you, gentlemen, for appearing before the
committee and for the information provided.
This is one of those issues where sometimes it is a funding
issue, sometimes it is a specific equipment issue, sometimes it
is a process issue that affects our ability to get to the
warfighter exactly what is needed for their performance. And I
am going to ask you one of those process-procedure questions.
We are very concerned about the issue of body armor
components and the fact of the extensive weight that our
service members are experiencing both as we know it is having
impacts on their bodies and on injuries, but also we know that
it affects agility in the field. So in 2010 Congress mandated
that the DOD [Department of Defense] establish a procurement
line item for body armor components, again a process action,
because Congress believed that there would be a better
opportunity to get lighter equipment working in partnership
with industry than the process that was currently going
forward.
However, DOD has failed to comply with this requirement.
DOD has indicated that body armor is considered to be an
expendable item and that creating a procurement line for
expendable items would add inefficiencies in managing
procurement quantities due to varying procurement quantity
requirements. Its duty is exclusively using operations and
maintenance accounts almost entirely funded with overseas
contingency funds to fund warfighter equipment. Industry is
unable to see and forecast procurement levels across the Future
Years Defense Plan. As a result, they cannot create business
cases that support internal investment. Congress had stepped in
trying to affect that process so that perhaps we could get both
the same level of protection, but yet equipment that more meets
the needs of the mobile warfighter.
DOD has stated that these inefficiencies would be created
by establishing procurement line items for individual
warfighters. I am concerned and want to know what your position
is as to the opportunity to more effectively work with
industry. We understand that DOD has said by using O&M
[Operations and Maintenance] funding that they cite flexibility
in acquisition, but we now have a situation where we have so
substantially acquired what is almost a body protection system
or systems for warfighters that perhaps it is time that we
elevate it in the procurement process so that we can more
technically affect the outcome.
I would love your thoughts, if anyone would like to
comment.
General Ostrowski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will start
off. As you know, we are on record as a department that body
armor would fall under the operations and maintenance accounts
based on the flexibility that you cited. The letter from the
Under Secretary of Defense to you and others clearly cited
that. I think the key here, sir, is the flexibility piece that
it offers and it has offered us some.
A case in point. Just recently we came upon a new threat in
Afghanistan to our dismounted patrols, and those were
dismounted IEDs, improvised explosive devices. When we had
money in a line in the O&M account we were able to quickly move
that money to create a counter to that called our protective
overgarment and undergarment system which we have fielded up to
66,000 sets of and are currently saving lives in Afghanistan.
That flexibility was really highlighted with respect to that
particular procurement.
With respect to the industry and not having visibility over
our programs if it was hidden underneath an O&M line, we have a
very open dialogue with industry, and going forward with the
soldier protection system, which is the next generation of
protection systems for all of our soldiers, we have maintained
very tight contact with industry to include industry days,
where we had over 100 vendors come in and we discussed our
requirements and where we were going with respect to that.
We are currently funded well in DPEO [Deputy Program
Executive Office] to create a capability of our soldier
protection system and I know that there is a lot of push to
move that line into the procurement side. I would just say that
from our perspective, the flexibility is key, because with
respect to personal protection, our ability to shift is
adamantly important across the force.
Mr. Turner. Thank you for giving that answer, because my
followup question obviously, I understand the flexibility in
the aspect of quantity and I understand the flexibility in the
aspect of acquiring existing items or systems, but I think
everyone is concerned about the development process, how do we
get beyond just you being a purchaser but also then that
partner with development. Because I think everyone shares, I
know you share the same concern, that what you currently have
is going to have to evolve to the next generation, the next
level, so that we can ensure that, A, we don't have injuries,
but also with the aspect of agility, it is less safe for the
soldier in the field when they have a greater weight for them
to be able to move.
General Ostrowski. Yes, sir. The one thing that the
Department did do was ensure that we established a research and
development line for our personal protection equipment, and
that is the area that we invest, that is an investment account
within the research and development line, and that is very open
for visibility with respect to industry, our industry partners
and so forth. That is where we go and chase----
Mr. Turner. How did that line fare in this budget?
General Ostrowski. Sir, that line, I don't have the exact
number on it. I will tell you, sir, that within my research and
development lines that I have within Soldier and the budget is
approximately $185 million, which is above last year's request
and last year's funding amount.
Mr. Turner. Thank you. With that, I will turn to my ranking
member.
Ms. Sanchez. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I outlined the areas
that I had a concern for you when I began, so let me just go
through this first with Mr. Bechtel.
I feel that the Army is starting to say that individual
equipment is good enough. I mean by that we had this problem
before when we entered the war in Iraq and some people had
better body armor than others and we lost lives. It cost us
lives. So I am concerned that the Army is underestimating the
performance costs and the long-term costs of the innovation
with respect to weight.
I mean, I consider myself someone who goes out and
exercises every day and I know what weight does, and I am
concerned that we are overloading soldiers. I am concerned that
there is some skeletal information coming out that maybe they
have too much on them. I know we had this, for example, on my
police--when I look at our police, our law enforcement, local
law enforcement, something like 40 percent of back injuries,
and there is a lot of them throughout all the agencies, are due
to too much weight on the belt, too much weight, et cetera, on
the soldier, or in that particular case the policeman.
So my questions are, one, is there a DOD investment
strategy for new materials that will provide improvements to
warfighter equipment? How are we going to gauge that? How are
we going to do that? And can you provide a couple of examples
of the most recent new products that have significantly reduced
the load on the soldier?
Mr. Bechtel. Well, Congresswoman, you are exactly right. We
certainly take care and have prioritized the mobility of our
soldiers, both in terms of operational needs and in the long-
term impacts from a manpower, personnel, and integration
approach. It starts early on in the combat developer in labs.
It proceeds forward all the way through tests, and ultimately
during downrange forward operational assessments and so forth.
So you are spot-on in terms of having impact on the soldier
with predominately weight.
There is obviously the balance between protection,
ballistic protection in most cases and otherwise, and the
weight and the mobility aspect. We consider that very
carefully, and General Ostrowski's comments on some of that
with weight reduction for the body armor goes to that, working
with industry and redefining the development document
requirements to demand threshold 10-percent reduction in weight
and moving on to an objective of 15-percent reduction.
Some recent examples of success stories goes to some of the
network, and network, of course, is one of our five big
priority areas for our soldiers' portfolio, and reducing the
network and the battery weight as we go forward. So the various
innovations of using commercial off-the-shelf and of
capitalizing on what soldiers are more comfortable and familiar
with, while also moving to conform battery and other soldier
systems to reduce weight and the deployable net-zero type
systems has been one important innovation that we have
examined.
The other area is in the protective mobility realm using
robotics specifically, soldier carried and transportable, as
well as self-transportable systems that will help protect the
cognitive and the physical stamina of the soldiers when they
are operating as part of a squad as a system.
Ms. Sanchez. Generals, if you could also speak to what
types of innovation or what you are doing about the size with
respect for example if we are going to have women marines or
soldiers in the combat area.
General Ostrowski. Yes, ma'am. First of all, I would like
to just cite out a couple of other examples in addition to what
Mr. Bechtel just answered. Our current improved outer tactical
vest weighs 31 pounds. The soldier plate carrier, which we are
now using in Afghanistan, dropped that weight to 24 pounds, so
an incremental improvement right there in itself.
The female body armor, ma'am, is our latest invention that
we were able to create with our industry partners and our
Natick lab. What we were able to accomplish is a weight
reduction from 31 pounds in the improved outer tactical vest
down to 25 pounds for our female body armor. We currently have
19 sets of that female body armor in theater, we have it in
eight sizes and we are going to field 600 sets in the months of
August and September to the next forces deploying as part of
the rapid fielding initiative.
Ms. Sanchez. 600 female sets?
General Ostrowski. 600 female sets. Yes, ma'am.
Ms. Sanchez. In eight different sizes.
General Ostrowski. Yes, ma'am. That is exactly correct. And
going forward we will always field female body armor to our
deploying forces from this point forward. August will be our
first lot of those, and from now on every soldier, every female
soldier deploying in the theater, will be given female body
armor.
Ms. Sanchez. Thank you, General.
General Smith. Ma'am, thanks for the opportunity to answer
on this question. We are following closely what the Army is
doing with regard to female body armor. Our position is that
for us protection is paramount and that we wish to have both
protection and comfort, but we won't sacrifice any protection
for any marine, be it male or female, in order just to gain
some comfort.
Our plate carrier, which is what we are currently using in
Afghanistan, is in and of itself inherently scalable. It has
got a shoulder strap system that is very lightweight that
allows almost any torso size to fit that carrier to the body in
the best possible means. That is what we are doing in order to
lighten the load.
We absolutely echo and applaud your comments about injuries
to shoulders, knees, backs, necks, ankles, hips. You name it,
we are also experiencing and seeing that firsthand. So
everything that we are doing when we work with industry is to
let them know through industry days, through modern-day marine
expos, that we need to lighten the weight. We need to reduce
the weight of the material which carries the plate, the plate
being the heart and soul of a protective system, because that
is truly what is stopping the enemy threat, is the plate. We
are doing that on a daily basis as we work back and forth with
industry.
I would simply say before I pass it to General Kelley is
that we do walk somewhat of a fine line in that if the
requirement is for the protection and then we also establish a
specific requirement for the weight, we could find a difficulty
in having a system that protects, such as the plate, but then
causes a problem when we say well, it is protected but it
didn't meet the weight requirement. And we will be in an
endless do loop of pursuing the perfect--the gold-plated
standard.
Ms. Sanchez. General, do you have any comments on that?
General Kelley. I can't really improve too much on what you
have already heard, ma'am, but I would like to say one
organization that we have at Marine Corps Systems Command, and
even though it is at Marine Corps Systems Command we share this
data with the Army and to be perfectly honest any of the other
Services that would want to get their hands on it, and that is
our Marine Expeditionary Rifle Squad. They have a program
called MC-LEAP [Marine Corps Load Effects Assessment Program],
and the Marine Expeditionary Rifle Squad essentially focuses on
the marine in our case, and we look at both male and female
marines when we take a look at the MC-LEAP program, which takes
a look at everything that this marine is going to wear and then
puts them through a fairly grueling obstacle course and then
evaluates what has happened to them during that evolution. And
we look at everything, like how did they feel, how did they
feel when they started, how did they feel when they ended, what
was their heart rate, did they feel an impact on certain parts
of their body.
Just to let you know that that was sort of tucked away in
an individual weapons systems program, and we felt that it was
so important that we actually elevated that policy to our
systems engineer, our systems engineer of the Marine Corps, a
guy by the name of Jim Smerchansky, and that Marine
Expeditionary Rifle Squad approach is applied to everything
that we do at Marine Corps Systems Command, based on the
individual marine.
Ms. Sanchez. Lastly, I am the only one on this side, Mr.
Chairman, so I hope you will indulge me with this, just a quick
question. I mean, you guys are going to get a lot of time.
When I worked with the law enforcement I remember we did
bulletproof vests and we had a program, we had a grant program
from Homeland Department which I shepherded through because I
also sit on Homeland, and one of the things that was
interesting was at that time that my officers were using
protection that was over 5 years old and after 5 years, because
of sweat and sun and weather and using it and everything, it
wasn't effective.
So my question to you, in the types of battle situations
and everything where our people are wearing this, what kind of
a shelf life does the equipment you are using have, and doesn't
that sort of harken to this should be a line item where we are
consistently understanding that we have got to be replacing
this stuff and buying this stuff versus just loose out there?
General Ostrowski. Yes, ma'am, you are exactly correct. It
must be properly surveilled and it must be properly bought so
that we do not have a situation where the body armor becomes
ineffective.
Ms. Sanchez. How long, if someone is using it out there,
does it last?
General Ostrowski. Yes, ma'am. It depends on the individual
soldier, quite honestly, because of the fact that an individual
soldier will put the body armor through its paces.
Ms. Sanchez. Right.
General Ostrowski. What we do to ensure that the body
armor, the plates are up to standard, is prior to ever soldier
deploying, we have a non-destructive test, it is basically an
X-ray, and we X-ray those plates. Halfway through the tour of
the soldier in theater we X-ray those plates yet again. And
then again when they return back to CONUS [Continental United
States] we X-ray them yet again.
So what we do is we ensure that they go into theater with a
body armor that is complete and is sound, and we continue to
surveil that through the process of being in the fight. This
process works very, very well and is well established. But
however, we do need to continue to buy body armor because it
does wear out over time in terms of storage, and that was
recently exposed with respect to the SOCOM [Special Operations
Command] plates that had a separating of the materials over
time.
Ms. Sanchez. Great. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have some
other questions, but considering you have so many people on
your side, I will let them ask for a while. How is that?
Mr. Turner. Great. I appreciate that. What we have in order
is Mr. Cook, Dr. Wenstrup, Mr. Runyan, Mr. Gibson, Mrs. Roby,
Mrs. Walorski, and Mr. Castro.
We are beginning with Mr. Cook.
Mr. Cook. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, gentleman. I
just want to ask a couple of questions about the testing of
this. Part of my questions are, I don't know, maybe I should
have read S.L.A. Marshall's--or reread those books one more
time about the mobility of a soldier, or, if I could
paraphrase, a marine, and how are you going to test this,
whatever you come up with. Right away I am thinking of Fort
Irwin or MCAGCC [Marine Corps Air Ground Combat Center
Twentynine Palms] out there where it is 120 degrees. And
whatever you come up with I want to make sure that those
soldiers and marines can move around with that equipment.
Twenty-five pounds is a lot. And then depending upon what kind
of gear you are going to have, what is going to be on it,
grenades and all this stuff, and I can go on and on and on, but
it weighs that individual down.
There was a guy by the name of Al Gray at a conference 100
years ago, before you were probably born. Al Gray talked about,
hey, it is very easy to make decisions. We were talking about
cold weather gear, which at the time the Marine Corps had gear
that was pre-World War II. And he said it is very easy to make
decisions in Natick when it is 70 degrees in the laboratory,
but if you don't really test this in the field environment
under different combat situations, you are going to be in for a
surprise. And my surprise was 13 May, 1967, with the M16 rifle,
which was going to be the great, great savior. And I won't even
describe the horror show of Bravo Company, 1st Battalion, 1st
Marines. Why? Because it was not ready. And we went over there,
and, oh, yeah, you got to keep the weapon clean. You get on a
helicopter, the prop wash, and you get out. You land, you get
in a firefight and, guess what? One round, you have a failure
to extract, and it is back to the Revolutionary War where you
have to take a cleaning rod and punch it out to get that weapon
working. A lot of marines died, unfortunately, probably some
soldiers died, because it wasn't tested for battlefield
conditions.
So my question basically is I just want to make sure on
whatever equipment we have, that we exhaust all the scenarios
and everything, including what areas you are going to be
fighting, how far they are going to be able to go, whether they
can go on a 10-kilometer, 20-kilometer hump, because I tell
you, it is going to affect you. And those weights you are
talking about, you know, my back is--by the way, the flak
jacket probably saved my life because I was stupid enough to
trip a booby-trap and 2nd lieutenants should not be walking
point, and that is another story in itself. But it actually
worked. And all I am saying is that I hope we could do that. I
really think that it is imperative that we have the best
equipment, offer the best protection for the scenario that they
are going to be in. And this might have to change.
So the problem I had with the military, once you are
committed, you know, that is going to be on the shelf for how
many years? We have got to have that flexibility, because
certain situations change and based upon the field data we
might have to change the whole scenario. So if you could
comment on that.
General Smith. Sir, thanks for that question. We share a
similar fear in General Gray and a similar situation of being
out where we maybe should not be and being injured in the
fight.
I can tell you, sir, that what we do, and General Kelley
has some specifics on part of the testing that we do, but as an
infantry battalion and regimental commander, I often had to
provide my forces here in CONUS to test and evaluate the
equipment that was being proposed in its early fielding before
we went to full-rate production, so I would give a platoon or a
squad or a company to test that. And as you know, sir, lance
corporals are not very shy about telling you if something does
or does not work before we start spending real money on that.
Mr. Cook. Thank God.
General Smith. Yes, sir. So we do test this, and as we
always say, in every climate and place. We will send it to Camp
Lejeune, we will send it to the desert at Twentynine Palms,
attempting to test and see how this thing does in everything
from cold conditions to sandy conditions, and we let the users
use it and provide us feedback as opposed to this is what you
are getting, we are going to let you tweak it now. We ask them
up front, does this work for you, can you fight with this?
I will tell you, sir, that because of the work, again, not
a platitude, but of this particular committee, we are able to
produce things and field them in combat that work, because my
weapon worked every single time as did every single marine that
I had, both at regiment and battalion. I had multiple marines
shot in the SAPI [Small Arms Protective Insert] plate, get up
and walk home. So there is a tremendous amount of confidence by
the youngsters that are out there operating with this gear now
because they or somebody they know got to run it through the
wringer out at the mud at Camp Pendleton.
General Kelley. Just to echo about General Gray, in his
vast career a lot of people don't know that General Gray at one
time was the commanding general of the Marine Corps Research
and Development Command, MCRDC, which is the legacy command of
where I am, and General Gray lets me know frequently how we are
doing. So far I think we are doing okay, because I still have a
job.
Sir, one point that you bring up about the M16, there is a
great book out there, I don't know if you have had a chance to
read it, The Great Rifle Controversy [The Great Rifle
Controversy: Search for the Ultimate Infantry Weapon from World
War II Through Vietnam and Beyond]. It talks about the first
days of how we developed rifles. And I had a chance to read
that book, and one thing that it taught me is that the rifle,
the ammo, and the soldier or the marine behind it, it is a
whole system and we need to approach it from a systems
perspective. So that is why using soldiers or using marines of
all shapes, sizes, and genders is absolutely critical.
I cut my teeth on my first non-fleet tour up in China Lake,
sir, learning how to do operational tests out in VX-5 [Air
Development Squadron FIVE], loved it, and it is one of those
things that shapes your career. So like Eric and Paul and Pete,
I share your concern about testing as well. I am sure we will
get a chance today to probably talk about ECH [Enhanced Combat
Helmet], and that is an area where testing has proven itself to
be invaluable for that. I will save my comments on ECH later.
Mr. Turner. Dr. Wenstrup.
Dr. Wenstrup. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I served a year in Iraq
'05-'06 as a surgeon in a combat support hospital so I base my
questions and my comments on my experiences there, as you might
imagine, and I will say that there were many, many lives saved
by the individual body armor that soldiers and marines were
wearing, and I was very pleased to say an 89-percent
survivability rate is unheard of in war.
I wonder, do we keep track of lives saved by the armor that
we implement, and at the same time look at times when maybe the
armor fell below expectations and we had a loss?
General Smith. Sir, I can't answer your question
specifically that we do in fact track every single marine or
soldier who was struck in a SAPI plate by enemy projectile and
survived or did not survive. I can't answer that. I can tell
you that the survival rate that you are talking about is very,
very typical. In fights in and around Fallujah, a great witness
one day is a guy named Captain Dana Covey, and the marines all
knew that if you hit Captain Covey's table there at the Bravo
surgical hospital you were going to survive. All you had to
have was something better than an agonal pulse and you would
survive. The marines actually talk about that. Young lance
corporals know that if you make it there, you are good. They do
have tremendous amount of confidence in the gear that they are
carrying and they have been issued.
As goes back to earlier questions, the weight of it though
is a concern, and we will continue to try to reduce that
weight, because that does have longer term effects. Usually
what we are dealing with is a youngster who is trying to get
into the fight as opposed to get out of the fight. That is who
we are, that is who we recruit, that is who comes to us.
So we also check to make sure those plates are uncracked,
that they are in optimum shape. We have to be very, very
careful on how we do that, because we all learn how to play
with pain very early on and that is kind of who we are as a
force, so we do have to kind of ensure that we are providing a
true supervision to make sure that the marines that go into the
fight not only have the perfect gear, but having to reissue
that gear would not prevent him from going into the fight.
Dr. Wenstrup. I have to say that I was impressed about 6
months into our tour that we received new armor, that we got
new plates because there was a newer and better version. It
made you feel that someone is looking out for you and
constantly trying to improve things. So I applaud that.
One of the concerns that I had at the time, and I haven't
seen it since that time, was when we had the mismatch of
uniforms and where you were wearing an old BDU [Battle Dress
Uniform] vest with the ACU [Army Combat Uniform] or something
like that. And we went through a period where there was a very
good sniper in the area and my concern was it was such a
definitive outline for a sniper to see the differentiation
between where the armor ended and where flesh began. I haven't
seen that since, and I hope that that is a standard that we
will never see that again, because I do feel that was an
unintended consequence, but it is certainly something that took
place. Maybe you can verify my trust that that is the situation
today.
General Ostrowski. Sir, I can certainly verify that, both
in our current uniform and operational clothing, individual
equipment, our body armor that we wear that now. And going
forward in the Army should we decide to undertake a new uniform
for the Army, the body armor, the organizational clothing,
individual equipment will match the family of uniforms very
closely.
Dr. Wenstrup. Thank you. I yield back my time.
Mr. Turner. Mr. Runyan.
Mr. Runyan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I don't want to make
it a statement, but if there is a question in it, it is
actually for Mr. Bechtel. Obviously with being a member of this
subcommittee, I chair the Veterans' Affairs Subcommittee on
Disability Assistance and Memorial Affairs, and as we go
through this process I wanted to ask Mr. Bechtel, talking about
priority and analysis from a holistic place where we sit
dealing with the taxpayers' money from both aspects, not only
from the HASC [House Armed Services Committee] aspect, also
with dealing with these broken soldiers and marines at the end
of the day. At the end of the day it is costing the taxpayer
money if we don't have the lightest or we are not pushing the
technology hard enough because we are afraid of spending the
money there but we are spending it down the road.
Is there any of that analysis that goes into thinking about
those future things? I know for myself I played 14 years in the
NFL [National Football League]. I feel it every day. It is that
beating you put on your body, and it doesn't catch up to you.
And I am not even 40 yet and I feel it every day. But you are
going to have a lot of those same things coming down the road.
Is there any of that analysis that takes place?
Mr. Bechtel. There is, Congressman. As we discussed before,
that is a very important part of the requirements, the testing,
the procurement, and then postfielding analysis as well. We
have talked a lot about body armor and you clearly understand
the tradeoff between protection, ballistic and otherwise, and
the weight for mobility purposes, as well as near-term health
and long-term health on the skeletal, the muscular, et cetera.
The same for the helmet and other systems and so forth.
We are taking a hard look at ways to improve the mobility
of the soldier and the squad as a system in terms of use of
robotics, use of vehicle support, changing our doctrine and our
concepts, not just the materiel aspect, in terms of how we will
provide just-in-time logistics to the tactical edge and so
forth.
I would highlight, sir, some other areas of innovation as
well though. Vehicular suspension as well as protection goes to
that point; the development now of the T-11 parachute for
airborne troopers to help arrest the rate of descent and to
accommodate the heavier soldier now with an under-chute weight
approaching 300 pounds, given the previous conversations about
how much weight our troopers are carrying. So we are taking
that innovative approach across a lot of systems to take care
of our soldiers for the near-term operational mission need, but
as important the long-term health and quality of life, sir.
Mr. Runyan. Do you see a change that would actually come
from your medical reports of injuries, have you seen changes in
that through the enhancement of the parachute suspension,
lighter armor and all that? Do you have hard numbers that show
that?
Mr. Bechtel. May I yield to the Program Executive Officer?
Mr. Runyan. Yes.
General Ostrowski. Sir, I would be happy to answer that
question. In fact we do. It has decreased the rate of injury by
over half with respect to our Rangers currently that are using
the T-11 parachute. The 82nd Airborne was just recently issued
the parachute and we don't have any numbers from them yet, but
over half of the injuries have been avoided within our Rangers.
Mr. Ryan. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and
I yield back.
Mr. Turner. Mr. Gibson.
Mr. Gibson. Well, thanks, Mr. Chairman, and I thank the
panelists for being here and also for your service, for the
sacrifice of your families, and also to our senior enlisted who
play such a critical role in this area and so many others,
really everything.
My questions, at least the first couple, are going to
probably press the envelope because today we are talking about
acquisition and modernization. I am going to be asking about
science and technology and some research and development. So if
we just hit the limits of that, just say so.
But on the issue of soldier load, one of the things I
learned when I got back home, we have the College of Nanoscale
right there in Albany and just learning just the amazing
possibilities there and with coatings and composites, the
possibility of that impacting positively the soldier load and
the efficacy of the protection. I am just interested to know
from both the Army and the Marine Corps' perspective where you
are in that research. Thanks.
General Ostrowski. Sir, I can point out one example that we
have a nanotechnology facility at Picatinny in New Jersey. That
facility has done a lot of work with superheating of
nanotechnology, nanoparticles, if you will, within different
composites. I recently visited their facility and what I was
able to see at this current time with respect to the state of
the art of the technology, they are able to create a 6-inch
disc, plate if you will, again, not the size of a body armor
plate but a 6-inch size, literally half to a third of the
weight of what you would think it would be. When you pick that
disc up it is that light. It is clearly leap-ahead technology
with respect to both penetration capabilities, as a penetrator,
and hopefully also as a defeater of rounds coming towards us.
So that is one area that we are focusing on as a leap-ahead
kind of capability.
In terms of the science and technology realm elsewhere,
again, for the last 11 years at war we did exactly the right
thing by providing what was available now and getting it out
there quickly to our soldiers. We now have an opportunity to
take a step back and determine what really makes sense going
forward to address all of these issues, to include soldier
load. Do we create a scalable tailorable system; i.e. the
soldier protection system, and the Marine Corps has got an
opportunity just like it that we are coordinating with them on,
that makes it such that a commander can determine exactly what
level of protection that soldier will wear for any given
engagement. Give him options. As a material developer, that is
our job.
In addition we have to look at state-of-the-art science and
technology efforts to get away from soldier load by new and
innovative approaches. One was mentioned already, robotics.
Quite honestly, the other one is guaranteed 24/7 aerial
resupply. We have the ability to use our current precision-
guided parachutes that we have, except that the guidance
systems are very bulky. If we can cut the weight of those down
or make them disposable we could allow soldiers to train with
them constantly. And when they believe in their resupply they
will carry less. We all know that a pound off a soldier
incrementally that we take off of him is not a pound off. They
will simply replace it with something else because they don't
know if they will ever get resupplied. If we can guarantee them
resupply and train with it to the point where they believe in
it, we might absolutely fix this problem long-term.
General Smith. I will be very brief so General Kelley can
talk perhaps about the Office of Naval Research. But General
Ostrowski and I actually talked about this just a couple of
days ago, that his last comment is exactly correct. When you
can provide--most of what a marine is out there carrying is
chow, water, ammunition. When there is an absolute guaranteed
concept that he is comfortable with that he is going to be
resupplied, they are going to cut a lot of weight. A gallon of
water, once you include the container, is seven pounds, no
matter who is carrying it. So once we can that out of a
marine's pack,that is going to be a tremendous benefit.
As was stated, it is Boyle's Law of the Grunt, the amount
of stuff carried will expand to fill the pack provided. And you
have to be careful of that, because when we live in a harsh,
light, lethal, and austere environment, and that is kind of our
bailiwick, you don't necessarily know when the next time you
are going to have an opportunity for a certain class of supply.
So fixing the logistics piece, I won't say fixing, enhancing
the logistics piece does in fact go a long way toward
lightening the load of the individual rifleman.
General Kelley. So, sir, Eric is absolutely right in
pointing to the Office of Naval Research as our essentially
science and technology lead within the Department of the Navy,
serving both the Navy and the Marine Corps. Also part of our
acquisition system on the requirement side and thus the
material developer as Paul alluded to, we have the Marine Corps
Warfighting Lab that will go out and actually experiment not
only with technology, discrete technological solutions, but
also concepts of operations, to include every element of the
MAGTF [Marine Air-Ground Task Force].
One of the things we are finding out is that the more
mature logistics environment, the weight of what our marines
are carrying actually goes down, and that was something that I
don't that would have been intuitive right from the get-go.
Keeping our eyes wide open, looking for nontraditional sources
of information to help us solve that problem is something that
is really important.
Going to academia is also very important. And also,
although I know it is tough for industry, I think we do need to
invigorate industry's discretionary IR&D [Independent Research
and Development] funds so that they can also come up with some
solutions, things we may not be thinking about on the military
side.
Mr. Gibson. Thank you, Chairman. My time has expired.
Mr. Turner. Next we have Mrs. Roby. Following Mrs. Roby it
will be Mr. Castro, Mr. McIntyre, and Ms. Tsongas.
Mrs. Roby. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I too want to thank
each of you for your service to our country and the sacrifice
that not only you make, but your families as well. So thank you
from my family to yours.
General Ostrowski, as you may know, this committee included
language in the Fiscal Year 2013 NDAA [National Defense
Authorization Act] which directed the Army and the Marine Corps
to determine the feasibility of developing a soldier wearable
universal controller that could control multiple small unmanned
aircraft systems, unmanned ground vehicles, et cetera, and I
understand the Army and the Marine Corps have been working with
various stakeholders, to include Fort Rucker, which is out in
the Second District, is part of this development. So I just
wanted to know if you could provide the status of the
capability development document for the unmanned systems.
General Ostrowski. Yes, ma'am, we do have a capability
development document that is going through the process of
staffing in the Army. We believe that there is a lot of
goodness with respect to having a universal controlling
capability. It speaks to the same thing that we are doing with
the Nett Warrior program on behalf of PEO Soldier where one
device does multiple things. I will defer to Pete Bechtel with
respect to the exact status of where that particular thing is.
But I will also tell you this, ma'am. We have a requirement
to come back to this committee and give an update very shortly,
and Pete will talk to that as well. Pete.
Mr. Bechtel. Thank you, General.
Congresswoman, you are right. We are looking at that. We do
have the requirement and we recognize the NDAA language to come
back to this committee and others with a report on the
progress. We have absorbed the universal controller requirement
into the combat development document for the common robotic
system individual, or CRSI system. Moreover, there was a
limited test conducted in October of last year at Fort Benning,
Georgia, with controls demonstrated for both an unmanned ground
system and an unmanned aerial system, and we look forward
coming back to this committee and discussing that with you.
Mrs. Roby. We will look forward to that as well. Generals
Kelley and Smith, and I will defer to either one of you who may
best answer this, but in your written statement you mentioned
that the Marine Corps established the Squad Integration
Facility, also known as Gruntworks. And I understand the intent
of Gruntworks is to emulate the Skunk Works [Lockheed Martin
Advanced Development Programs] projects, but I wanted to see if
you could elaborate about the organization and some of the
projects that they may be working on.
General Smith. I will be very brief and then pass to
General Kelley. Gruntworks is a phenomenal facility that is
relatively, not relatively, it is extremely low-cost, it is
actually run by a guy that I went to the basics school with 26
years ago. Its intent is to be a forward thinker and to
integrate every single thing that we are looking at.
What we are trying to prevent, it's a cost-avoidance
mechanism in many ways. If I'm about to buy a new piece of body
armor, for example, but if it does not properly position a
marine in the seat of a HMMWV [High-Mobility Multipurpose
Wheeled Vehicle], for example, or a JLTV [Joint Light Tactical
Vehicle], then I have no business buying that. So before we
start down that path, we are going to check to make sure that
that system that we are about to put on a marine's back allows
that marine to use everything else. Body armor which does not
allow a marine to get a proper sight alignment and sight
picture on a battle rifle has no place for us.
So that is the intent of Gruntworks, and I have to tell you
that it is a phenomenal facility. It is right down the road
here in Quantico. And it is open to all. We would have love to
have you come down there, it is an open invitation. And I would
pass over to General Kelley for a couple more details about how
they are much like Skunk Works.
Mrs. Roby. Thank you.
General Kelley. Thank you, ma'am. I had a chance to
describe the Marine Expeditionary Rifle Squad organization that
exists at Marine Corps Systems Command. Gruntworks is part of
that. The marine that Eric is talking about is probably one of
our greatest thinkers, a guy by the name of Mark Richter. And
he essentially has built that organization, MERS, Marine
Expeditionary Rifle Squad, and the Gruntworks right from ground
zero, and it is probably one of the greatest thinking elements
of Marine Corps Systems Command. I wish I could take credit for
all of the things they are doing.
I can't really improve on what Eric talked about in terms
of all the things that MERS and Gruntworks is doing. One of the
things we had a chance to describe was putting marines in their
gear and then running an obstacle course and then evaluating
the effects on their body and then being able to evaluate their
potential for further performance. One of the other unintended
benefits of MERS is the fact that it has also drawn attention
not only from the other Services, but also from our coalition
partners. Great Britain and Australia are very enthusiastic
about what Gruntworks has done and they are setting up
organizations very similar to that in their own countries.
Again, all that information that comes out of things like
Gruntworks and MERS are the types of things that we share
across the two Services.
Mrs. Roby. Thank you so much. My time has expired.
Mr. Turner. Mr. Castro.
Mr. Castro. Thank you, Chairman, and thank you gentlemen,
both for your service to the country and for your testimony
here today.
My question has to do with the involvement of the soldiers
in making adjustments to equipment and to gear. What is the
feedback loop, the channel of communications between the
everyday soldiers and the folks who are making decisions about
what kind of equipment and gear they are going to be using?
General Ostrowski. Sir, we have numerous venues to allow
those opportunities to occur. One of our most highly publicized
is the Network Integration Evaluation at White Sands and Fort
Bliss. It is there that we have the opportunity to have
soldiers running through all of the operational venues that we
have in our Army focusing on the network, but branching out
well beyond that to include vehicles and other things.
In addition, as part of our normal acquisition process we
do have operational testing events where our soldiers have the
opportunity to use the equipment in an operational setting
environment, and that testing is controlled in a manner such
that we can get that feedback on a continual basis.
But even prior to that one of the things that we are doing
now is ensuring that our soldiers within PEO Soldier, within my
organization, that our soldiers are part of our source
selection and evaluation boards and that we have soldier touch
points as a particular item is being developed to ensure that
the soldiers are giving input as to whether or not we are on
the right track with that. That is a continual process that we
are doing now and I think it is the right way to go.
General Smith. Sir, when we build a requirement for any
piece of equipment, the first thing that happens is, we call
him a CIO, a capabilities integration officer, those that work
for me, go out to the operating forces, 1st Marine Division,
2nd Marine Division, 3rd Marine Division, 1st Marine Aircraft
Wing, what have you, and we sit down with the operating forces,
those who are going to use that equipment, and we say what it
is that you need this thing to do? How much can it possibly
weigh? And they get input from the ground up before we actually
set the requirement, what is the most you can weigh?
Then, as General Ostrowski said, we also do operational
test and evaluation, which we spoke about a little bit earlier,
that those same individuals who gave us the initial requirement
are the ones who get to test that, whenever possible. But lance
corporals are basically interchangeable; East Coast or West
Coast, they will speak their piece and speak their mind to you.
So we get that input from the ground up and then we let those
same individuals go out and test that equipment. And that
ensures they are getting what they need.
I will say that sometimes they don't get what they want,
and that is a very distinct difference, but we are in the
business of providing marines what they need, not necessarily
what they want, in that this is the piece of equipment that is
going to best perform, best protect you, and we attempt to have
a standard across the service so that we don't have to go
inspect 14 different types of body armor, what have you.
Mr. Castro. And then--go ahead, General.
General Kelley. Sir, I was just going to say feedback loop
is absolutely the right term. And I don't care who you are, if
you are a general officer or a PFC [private first class], you
had better be prepared for the answer because it may not be
what you want to hear, just like what Eric said.
I think one of the things that is important, trade shows
are very important venues for our young marines to get a chance
to interact with industry. And it is remarkable. As a general
officer I get a chance to follow them around and hear their
interaction. There are some phenomenal ideas out there.
We have things within the Marine Corps called OAGs, I am
sure that Paul has the same thing. They are operational
advisory groups. That is absolutely direct feedback from folks
that just came from theater. Even on the base where General
Smith and I live there is a base newspaper called The Century.
There is typically an advertisement in there on a Web site
where folks from the fleet can send in their feedback direct to
Eric and his boss, General Mills. All it takes is
participation.
Mr. Castro. Sure. Then I have less than a minute left on my
time, but perhaps for the record you all might submit an answer
to this. But the Nation has just spent more or less 10 years at
war with two wars, with significant boots on the ground, and my
question is essentially with respect to equipment and gear and
the issues that we have discussed today what the most valuable
lessons have been that we have gleaned from our experience in
Afghanistan and Iraq?
[The information referred to can be found in the Appendix
on page 63.]
Mr. Bechtel. Congressman, may I attempt a quick answer at
that?
Mr. Castro. Sure.
Mr. Bechtel. We have relied, to your previous point, on
soldier innovation, commander needs on the ground to use rapid
fueling initiatives, most notably through our rapid equipping
force to rapidly get and meet the operational needs. Moreover,
we have had our Army Test and Evaluation Command conduct some
22 forward operational assessments where soldiers are quite an
important part of that. That helps inform not only program
record, moving nonstandard equipment into sustainment to keep
for the long haul, but it also helps inform our soldier
enhancement program, an important legislative innovation that
keeps us moving forward, keeps a soldier the centerpiece for
modernization.
Mr. Castro. Thank you.
Mr. Turner. Mr. McIntyre.
Mr. McIntyre. Thank you very much. Thank you, gentleman,
for your service and your patience late in this afternoon. I
have two or three quick questions I will try to ask and see if
you can give straightforward answers on.
One is a recent GAO [Government Accountability Office]
study highlights the challenges that we faced with respect to
combat uniforms and camouflage. This study made many
recommendations that the Services largely concurred with. Can
you provide us an update on the camouflage program and
associated combat uniform programs? And in that if you can tell
us is there a requirement to continue to improve the combat
clothing worn by our warfighters, both the base uniform and the
flame-resistant variant.
General Ostrowski. Yes, sir. We have got to the point of
the end of testing with respect to the phase 4 camouflage
program within the Army and what we have learned is that a
family of uniforms, and by ``family'' I mean a uniform that is
specific to the desert, one that is specific to a woodland
environment, and one that can be used in the transitional
between the two, outperform a single pattern universal
camouflage pattern if you will each and every time. We have
learned that.
Today at 1530 we will bring in the test results of over
120,000 data points gathered in a uniform test that is
unequaled with respect to Department of Defense, and we are
bringing those results to the Chief of Staff of the Army for
his guidance going forward.
I will tell you, sir, that we also for every soldier
deployed forward, we provide them with fire-retardant uniforms.
Every single soldier. The cost of a fire-retardant uniform is
over twice that of a regular uniform that we wear back here
from the CONUS perspective, but each and every soldier moving
forward, going forward, wears a fire-retardant uniform.
Mr. McIntyre. Thank you. I understand the Army will
announce a new camouflage program. When you talked about the
three variants, this is the actual program you are talking
about and how the results are. How are these uniform programs
dealt with in the budget? Do you have what you need in the
budget?
General Ostrowski. Yes, sir. We have base funding,
operations and maintenance funding for the camouflage program
within our current budgets going forward to include fiscal year
2014.
Mr. McIntyre. Okay. And would you like to inject anything
from the Marine Corps, General?
General Smith. Sir, just that the camouflage utility
uniform, we have a desert and a woodland pattern as well. We
are very, very comfortable with it. With regard to the ability
to adjust, I believe you asked to certain environments, a good
example of both our ability and our need to remain flexible,
our Commandant was recently out in the Pacific speaking to
marines up in the northern training area on Okinawa. They had
been out there for about 3 weeks, a very, very wet tropical
clime, and they said, sir, these uniforms are not drying out.
It has not been a problem for the past 10 years, having to
worry about them being dried out. And the Commandant said we
got to fix that. So he has asked General Kelley and some of his
crew to come up with a uniform that finds the right balance
between flame retardancy, durability, but the ability to dry
quickly, so that as we rebalance in the Pacific we don't have
marines who are suffering through wet utilities that may stay
wet for days on end.
Mr. McIntyre. And what is the sustainment requirement for
these uniforms with regard to the future and how long do you
think the typical uniform worn back here as opposed to the
flame retardant for those forward deployed will last?
General Ostrowski. Sir, typically we see a uniform in the
theater go about 120 days before it needs to be replaced.
Obviously, depending on what the soldier is doing in CONUS,
back here in the United States, it depends on how long the
durability, the lifespan of that particular uniform is. But
forward, about 120 days is what we are getting on average.
Mr. McIntyre. How about in the marines?
General Smith. Sir, we send the marines currently into
Afghanistan with FROG [Flame Resistant Organizational Gear]
gear, flame resistant outer garment. We will send them in, and
a combination of about four sets will last that marine for 7
months. One or two of those sets may come back in a usable
manner. But 7 months deployment, he is going to go through a
good three sets while he is in theater. And they are very
operational, but because of the flame retardancy they do not
have the same durability. But that was a wise trade I think for
us in those environments.
Mr. McIntyre. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Turner. Next we go to Ms. Tsongas, and then after that
for a round two. We will have a limited round 2, which will be
Ms. Sanchez and Mrs. Roby.
Ms. Tsongas. Thank you, Mr. Chairman Turner. Although I am
no longer on this subcommittee, it was my on honor to serve on
it for several years. So thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking
Member Sanchez, for allowing me to participate today. It was a
hearing when I was on this committee I looked forward to
because of all the tremendous work you do just to make sure we
are equipping our soldiers in the best possible way given the
many challenges they confront.
Last year the House included language in the National
Defense Authorization Act encouraging the continued development
of body armor systems designed for women, and as noted in your
testimony, General Ostrowski, the Army has led the way on this
effort. I have been briefed on the new improved outer tactical
vest several times. I have actually had an opportunity to try
it on and I think the improvements are tremendous. I have to
say at the most recent briefing among the many changes to make
it easier to wear, the thing that impressed me, well, that I
took the greatest concern from was that prior to the
adjustments it was very difficult for a woman who was wearing
the standard issue vest to raise her arm properly in order to
properly fire a rifle. So beyond the comfort issues and just
being able to better distribute the weight and all of that, it
is critically important as women, who now comprise 15 percent
of the military and with the combat exclusion now moving
forward, that women are adequately protected to do the task at
hand. So I commend you for your work.
I would also like to commend PEO Soldier and Natick Soldier
System Center for their work on developing this system. Natick
is based in my native Massachusetts and has been described by
some as the crown jewel of the Army, a sentiment which I share.
It certainly has led the way on body armor and other crucial
lifesaving equipment for our service members, such as fireproof
uniforms designed to protect our soldiers from IED blasts in
Afghanistan.
I think the other issue that we worry about is the weight
of body armor, and I am glad to learn from your testimony that
efforts are ongoing to reduce the weight by 10 percent by the
fourth quarter of fiscal year 2014. I have heard from both the
RAND Corporation and representatives from Natick that this is
about all that is possible in the short term, and I would like
to thank you all for your effort. But we know we have a lot
more work to do. The tremendous weight that our soldiers bear,
the muscular-skeletal injuries that it causes, the impact on
deployability are things we have to continue to wrestle with.
These are costs we are going to bear for decades to come if we
don't get a better handle on it.
Several new materials are on the horizon for body armor
such as carbon nanotubes which you alluded to which could
eventually lead to significant weight reductions of hard armor
systems. But the RAND Arroyo Center found in their study last
year on lightening body armor that it would take years of
sustained research and development funding to achieve the
breakthroughs that we need.
My question is, do you have a strategy to achieve
breakthroughs with new materials for body armor? Can you commit
to us here that robust funding for these vital systems will
continue even as we draw down from Afghanistan?
General Ostrowski. Yes, ma'am. Earlier when the chairman
asked what my funding line was with respect to body armor and
personnel protective equipment, I told him that my overall line
was $185 million across the board of the portfolio of PEO
Soldier.
Specifically though with respect to personal protection
equipment on the research and development line, we have $23.75
million in the fiscal year 2014 budget request going before the
Congress. This is in addition to the science and technology
funding that I don't have the visibility over that is going
into labs such as Natick for their efforts with leap-ahead
technology in terms of personal protection equipment.
Ms. Tsongas. I don't really have enough time, but for the
record I would be curious as to your thoughts on whether or not
we should establish an executive agent for body armor, for the
record. Thank you.
[The information referred to can be found in the Appendix
on page 63.]
General Ostrowski. I think that there is a lot of goodness
with respect to the ability for the different Services to have
the flexibility within their mission sets. For instance, the
United States Special Operations Command has very specific
requirements based on their mission sets for body armor and
personal protection equipment. The Marine Corps operates very
much on the land but also at sea and they have very specific
requirements with respect to their body armor, although we
share plates and other capabilities, helmets included. So I
think that the flexibility that the Services have is one that
we would want to try to continue as we go forward.
Ms. Tsongas. I have run out of time. Thank you.
Mr. Turner. Very good. We will turn to our second round
beginning with Ms. Sanchez.
Ms. Sanchez. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. A quick question.
Well, actually this one is not so quick. This is for the Army.
This is the rifle competition. So you are dual-tracking it now.
I want to know where you are with looking for the second part,
the second track, looking for a new carbine. And the reason is,
I have been looking at this for a while.
In 1995 we started the Objective Individual Combat Weapon
program. After 10 years and $50 million we canceled that in
2005. Then we were stop again, start again, stop again, start
again. This M4 replacement issue has been going on and on. In
2009 we had the study from the Center for Naval Analyses where
they surveyed our troops coming back from Iraq and 20 percent
of them said they had a complete and total jam of their rifle.
The reason I bring this up is because over time when I talk
to troops, and we identified the armor early on, we identified
the MRAP [Mine Resistant Ambush Protected] vehicle issue going
on. And this is another one of those issues that when I talk to
our military who have gone to Iraq or Afghanistan, the number
one issue they talk about is the jamming of their rifle.
In 2010 the Army did a study at Aberdeen ATC. They tested
four rifles, the M4, the SCAR [Special Operations Forces Combat
Assault Rifle], the HK416, and the XM8. It tested in particular
with respect to the dust chamber reliability; i.e., how does
our weapon jam, and the M4 was 800 percent less reliable than
the HK416, and nobody disputed those facts.
So my question is, what are we doing about this? What are
we doing to take a look at a more reliable weapon for our
soldier?
General Ostrowski. Yes, ma'am. The M4 was first introduced
as early as 1990 within our Army and since then we have made
over 92 separate adjustments and modifications to that weapon
system to improve accuracy, reliability, and so forth. Each one
of these changes has brought about a much better weapons system
than we ever had before.
The original requirement for the M4 was a mean rounds
between stoppages of 600 rounds. Our recent testing--and that
is basically three basic loads. So 7 magazines times 3 of
those, 3 of those loads, 210 rounds, so basically 600 rounds
would be 3 basic loads of ammunition before you got a single
failure. Our recent testing in 2010 with the same weapon and
the same ammunition, the M855 ammunition, revealed 3,592 rounds
between stoppages. That is a 6 times increase over the original
requirement of 600 rounds between stoppages. So the weapons
that we carried back in 2001, 2003, and 2004 are not the same
M4s that we are carrying today in terms of reliability because
of all the improvements that we made on that weapons system.
We also went out to industry and we asked industry through
a source selection called the Individual Carbine program to
determine whether or not industry could provide us with a
weapons system that was as accurate, as reliable, and was
compatible with our current optics and also had a life-cycle
cost that was within a boundary that we have established now
for the M4. And that competition is ongoing. It has completed
phase 2 testing with respect to the Individual Carbine program
and the source selection authority has been given all of the
testing material with respect to deciding whether or not any of
the weapons goes forward into phase 3 of the competition.
Ms. Sanchez. So does that mean you are going to have a
competition? You are having a competition? Where exactly is
that competition? I ask because you mentioned that, and I
understand that we had this rifle even in the 1980s. I get
that. And I understand that you make changes to it. And I have
no problem with Colt, by the way. I don't have a dog in this
fight.
My fight is to make sure that to the extent possible we
have something that really, really works well on all fronts for
our soldiers. And when they are telling me, when you have a
study that says 20 percent of them said their weapons
completely and totally jammed on them, and you have your own
study out of the Army that says that there is a more reliable
weapon out there, maybe, then I think we need to make sure that
we are really checking this and having this competition move
forward. And the fact that this has been going on since 1995
tells me that there is a lot of politics in this. I don't have
a gun manufacturer in my district. I just want the right thing.
So are you or are you not truly competing this?
General Ostrowski. Yes, ma'am, we are absolutely competing
it. The competition began with phase 1 in October of 2011 and
we have been testing the weapons system through a phase 1
process, which was to look at whether or not the weapons that
were offered by vendors were compatible with our optics and so
forth, whether they were within the length and the weight
standards that we established for the competition. And then we
moved on to a phase 2, and phase 2 was to test the accuracy of
the weapon, the dispersion, if you will, of the rounds as they
go downrange, and also to test the reliability of the weapons
through some environmentals as well as just temperate. And that
data has been the data that we have now compiled and is before
the source selection authority to determine whether or not go
into a phase 3. The source selection authority can take as many
as three weapons forward into phase 3, as long as they passed
all of the requirements necessary in phase 2.
Ms. Sanchez. And what is the timeline on that, just so I
can keep my eye on it, because this isn't going to go away.
General Ostrowski. No, ma'am. If the source selection
authority decides to move forward with a phase 3 it will run
from the time now as the decision is imminent until the fourth
quarter of this year, this fiscal year.
Ms. Sanchez. The fourth quarter?
General Ostrowski. Yes, ma'am. At that point, if there is a
winner of the competition, then that will go before the
Secretary of the Army in a cost-benefit analysis and a side-by-
side comparison with the M4. The accuracy will be compared
side-by-side, the reliability will be compared side-by-side,
the cost, life-cycle cost side-by-side, as well as the
compatibility side-by-side.
Ms. Sanchez. Great. Thank you for that answer. Thank you
for your indulgence, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Turner. We have Mrs. Roby and then Mr. Cook and that
will end our round two. Mrs. Roby.
Mrs. Roby. Thank you, and I will be very brief. I have one
question for Generals Kelley and Smith, and as I begin I am
going to defer to each of you to determine who is best to
answer. But last year General Amos identified expeditionary
energy as one of the six pillars of modernization in the Marine
Corps and I understand that there have been numerous advances
since that time.
Would you update us on that program? Where has it been
implemented and whether the Marine Corps is achieving any
discernible efficiencies in power consumption?
General Smith. Ma'am, thanks for the opportunity to answer
that. There is sometimes confusion when we say expeditionary
energy in what we are talking about. What we are talking about
as infantrymen is the ability for a young lance corporal to
carry less gear, less weight.
So when I was forward-deployed in Afghanistan in places
like Sangin we had spaces and greens, a couple of systems that
are solar based, to bring in power so we didn't have to fly in
or drive in or carry extra batteries. So we used that. Less
fuel for a generator because it is now solar-powered.
Expeditionary energy is all about taking a load off of the
young 19-year-old lance corporal who is out there carrying a
rifle and a full pack. So we are going to continue to do that.
We have used it to great effect in Afghanistan and we really
have no intention of turning back the clock here. We are going
to proceed forward and push as much as we can toward
expeditionary energy so we can further reduce the weight.
Every battery you save or every gallon of fuel, it is not
about the gallon of fuel, it is about the combat logistics
patrol that would have otherwise had to drive out to that base
to provide that fuel. Many of our causalities come from our
logistics marines who are taking fuel and water and ammunition,
et cetera, out to those forward warfighters.
So that is what we are doing. We have used it to great
effect in Afghanistan and intend to continue. I will yield over
to General Kelley.
General Kelley. So, ma'am, last year we had a chance to
talk to you about the weight of batteries that were saved say
on a 3-week patrol, and that was on the order of about 700
pounds. That was probably the best metric that we had at that
point. That is pretty significant.
I also think that General Smith brought up a really good
point about the confidence that young marines get in these
systems to help save power and not have to rely on resupply.
One of the biggest things that we have done since last year,
having testified here as well, and that has really changed the
culture of what it means to be expeditionary and energy-
conscious.
So we have the things like spaces and greens that are now
part of the kit as folks deploy. But we have also looked to
other drains on energy, shelter liners, LED [Light-emitting
Diode] lights versus the conventional lights that we have had
in the past. General Smith brought up a good point about water.
We are now getting ready to deploy individual water
purification tools for our marines to go and take care of their
own water needs. So we are looking at everything right now,
ma'am.
Mrs. Roby. Thank you very much.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back.
Mr. Turner. Thank you. Mr. Cook will have the last
question.
Mr. Cook. Thank you very much, and thank you. I know it has
been a long afternoon and I should have thought of this
question earlier. By the way, that means no more Halazone
tablets, I guess, for the infantry. My age is showing.
I was on the Foreign Affairs Committee and we were talking
about terrorism. We were talking about Syria and the subject
came up about sarin and VX [nerve agent]. And then as I was
listening about equipment and clothing, and right away I
thought MOPP 4 [Mission Oriented Protective Posture Level 4:
all chemical protection worn]. Where are we in terms of MOPP 4
conditions, God forbid, if we have to go in that environment?
Because as you know, anybody who has been in that it doesn't
take long before you are ready to pass out. So if anyone could
address that, and that is the only question.
Once again, I want to thank you all for your great service
and for your patience this afternoon. I know it has been a
great hearing.
Mr. Bechtel. Congressman, thank you. I will take a first
attempt, if I may. I am glad you brought that up because the
Army is looking hard at the mission of combating weapons of
mass destruction very broadly both in terms of our CONOPS
[concept of operations] and our operations for sensitive site
exploitation, for active and passive defense, decontamination
abroad, but even more important here in the homeland.
The personal protective equipment as part of that goes
right to the center of that. And we are working through
challenges of compatibility, for instance, with the M53
migration to the M50 joint protective mask with SCBA [self-
contained breathing apparatus] gear and other sort of
commercial and commercial-off-the-shelf equipment to help us
aid in defense of civil authorities here at home, first
responders and so forth. That will be the same condition, sir,
as if we have to go into contested hot zones or warm zones
overseas.
So our Maneuver Support Center of Excellence at Fort
Leonard Wood and the CBRN [Chemical, Biological, Radiological,
and Nuclear] School in particular are looking through those as
part of the joint community to ensure we have both
compatibility, but the most modern systems, negative plus
positive over pressure conditions and so forth. So we are
looking hard at that.
General Smith. Sir, we are very fortunate in that we have
got a unit called CBIRF, the Chemical, Biological Incident
Response Force located very close to here, and that unit, that
is what they do. So they are constantly using the gear that is
provided, the suits, the masks, et cetera.
I will say, sir, as you know, anyone who references
Halazone tablets is okay with me, and we can probably speak
very candidly that there is no easy way to operate in a
contaminated environment. We can mitigate as much as we can,
but the real issue is why not to have it in the first place,
or, two, to remove the forces as quickly as possible or rotate
them with others. There is no easy way to operate in that
environment, especially carrying the loads that we are still
going to have to carry because it is still a combat
environment.
We do have a pretty high confidence level in the gear that
we have. It is jointly held gear. It is very effective. And,
again, our good fortune to have CBIRF within the Marine Corps
is that we get a near daily assessment of the gear that is
currently out there and fielded and so we have a pretty good
feel for when it may fall below the standards, and right now we
are pretty comfortable with where we are, sir.
Mr. Turner. Mr. Cook, thank you.
Gentlemen, I want to thank you for your participation. You
had a wide range of questions today and we appreciate both your
expertise and dedication. This is an issue that I think goes to
the heart of what everyone wants to make certain we are doing
right thing. General Kelley, I appreciated your further
elaboration on the issue of how do we have to look at these in
part as systems so that we can try to have some greater
advance. And General Ostrowski, I appreciate your acknowledging
the research and development fund that in fact Congress was
very active in establishing that hopefully can be a bridge to
where we are going to find a balance to get both the
effectiveness that you have obtained in protecting our men and
women in uniform, but also with some increased performance.
So, gentlemen, thank you for your participation today.
[Whereupon, at 4:50 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
=======================================================================
A P P E N D I X
April 11, 2013
=======================================================================
=======================================================================
PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD
April 11, 2013
=======================================================================
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80755.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80755.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80755.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80755.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80755.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80755.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80755.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80755.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80755.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80755.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80755.011
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80755.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80755.013
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80755.014
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80755.015
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80755.016
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80755.017
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80755.018
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80755.019
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80755.020
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80755.021
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80755.022
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80755.023
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80755.024
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80755.025
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80755.026
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80755.027
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80755.028
?
=======================================================================
WITNESS RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS ASKED DURING
THE HEARING
April 11, 2013
=======================================================================
RESPONSES TO QUESTION SUBMITTED BY MR. CASTRO
General Ostrowski and Mr. Bechtel. We have relied, to your previous
point, on soldier innovation, commander needs on the ground to use
rapid fueling initiatives, most notably through our rapid equipping
force to rapidly get and meet the operational needs. Moreover, we have
had our Army Test and Evaluation Command conduct some forward
operational assessments where soldiers are quite an important part of
that. That helps inform not only program record, moving nonstandard
equipment into sustainment to keep for the long haul, but it also helps
inform our soldier enhancement program, an important legislative
innovation that keeps us moving forward, keeps a soldier the
centerpiece for modernization. [See page 19.]
General Smith and General Kelley. Since combat operations began in
Afghanistan and Iraq, the Marine Corps has managed more than seven
hundred requests for mission-critical capabilities through our ``Urgent
Needs Process''. Each of these requests represents a case in which our
combat experience has proven the need for an essential warfighting
capability that our deliberate process did not fully anticipate.
Through the Urgent Needs Process, we've been able to learn valuable
lessons for the future and begin adapting our forces while in combat,
without waiting for the next budget's planning cycle to begin.
Looking back across all of our Urgent Needs, a few trends become
clear. First, all elements of our future force must be capable of
maneuvering across the entire battlespace in an environment threatened
by what we now call Improvised Explosive Devices (IEDs). This includes
our combat service and combat service support units, as well as our
ground combat units, and requires a wide variety of capabilities to
both detect and defeat these devices. Second, and closely related,
we've learned that we need expanded capabilities for Persistent
Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance (P-ISR)--the ability to
see what's happening in the battlespace across extended periods of
time, and then to share that information with every element of the
force, down to the very lowest tactical level. These capabilities will
continue to require advancements in both our sensor technologies and in
the availability of the electronic ``pipes'' that allow us to share
data. Finally, we've learned that future combat is likely to demand
more widespread use of precision weapons, launched from both surface
and air, which allow us to target only our adversaries, reducing
collateral damage and therefore accelerating the speed at which our
rules of engagement allow us to strike the enemy.
Taken together, these lessons show us that the nature of warfare
hasn't really changed: we still need to be able to see, shoot, move,
and communicate. The tools with which we accomplish those tasks are
changing rapidly, however, and the Marine Corps will continue to
aggressively learn from our combat experiences to ensure that
tomorrow's Marines are equipped to fight and win, wherever our Nation
sends us. [See page 19.]
______
RESPONSES TO QUESTION SUBMITTED BY MS. TSONGAS
General Ostrowski and Mr. Bechtel. I think that there are a lot of
positives with respect to the ability for the different services to
have the flexibility within their mission sets. For instance, the
United States Special Operations Command has very specific requirements
based on their mission sets for body armor and personal protection
equipment. The Marine Corps operates very much on land, but also at sea
and they have very specific requirements with respect to their body
armor, although we share plates and other capabilities, helmets
included. So, I think that the flexibility that the services have is
one that we would want to try to maintain as we go forward. [See page
22.]
General Smith and General Kelley. When it comes to requirements,
the Marine Corps and the Army collaborate wherever their mission
profiles converge. The Marine Corps is a light infantry force that
primarily operates dismounted and its units are not tied to any
specific mobility platform. This drove such features as the quick
release and the differences in cut of the Improved Modular Tactical
Vest (IMTV) and Plate Carrier (PC) as compared to the Army's Improved
Outer Tactical Vest (IOTV) and plate carrier. The Army and Marine Corps
need the flexibility to develop body armor systems that meet specific
requirements associated with their distinct mission profiles.
The Marine Corps and the Army share the same ballistic
specification. The fit and form reflect the different service needs and
desires from body armor systems. The Army and Marine Corps Body Armor
Program Offices [PM SPE (Special Purpose Equipment) and PdM (Product
Manager) ICE (Individual Combat Equipment)] work closely to coordinate
their efforts on research, body armor specifications, design
improvements and weight reductions. Our combined efforts seek to reduce
duplication of research and invest in the most promising technologies.
All our advances in body armor and efforts are shared during our
regular Cross Service Warfighter Equipment Board meeting.
An example of a mission success of sharing and coordination is the
Enhanced Combat Helmet (ECH) helmet. This effort started with an Army
R&D effort which the Marine Corps used as the foundation for initiation
of the ECH program. The close coordination and involvement of the Army
in the program with funding and engineering expertise has been critical
to the ECH's progress to date. Additionally, both the Army and Marine
Corps are pursuing improved ballistic protection systems. The Army's
Soldier Protection System Capabilities Development Document (CDD) will
be the overarching document for ballistic protection requirements that
will be reflected in individual Capability Production Documents (CPDs).
The Army intends to start fielding the Scalable Protection System (SPS)
in FY15, and is primarily focused on weight reduction. The Marine Corps
will take a longer approach that will allow technology to mature to the
level necessary to achieve our goals in protection, integration, and
mobility, which we view as being equal in importance in a true next
generation system. Additional Key Performance Parameters (KPPs) will be
emphasized by defining mobility parameters using the Marine Corps Load
Effects Assessment Program (MCLEAP), and integration parameters by the
Integrated Product Team (IPT) within the Modular Scalable Protection
System (MSPS) IPT (which is chartered). [See page 22.]
?
=======================================================================
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS POST HEARING
April 11, 2013
=======================================================================
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. JONES
Mr. Jones. The Soldier Protection System (SPS) is a clear step
forward in terms of integrating the systems worn and carried by our
warfighters and balancing capabilities like protection and mobility
while reducing weight. I commend this effort, but I am concerned that
it may not go far enough. We're told that uncertainties regarding
procurement volumes, intellectual property ownership, and R&D timelines
have caused would-be industry competitors not to participate in this
program. While many programs have collapsed because they have
unrealistic requirements and schedules and some like JSF are
constructed to be ``too big to fail,'' I am concerned SPS may have the
opposite problem . . . meaning it could be too small to succeed. We
need this program to succeed and bring as much weight reduction and
capability to the warfighter as possible. The threshold weight
reduction for SPS is 10%? Could greater reductions be achieved? What
percentage of the total force do you plan to field this system to? How
was the percentage determined? How was the long-term viability of the
industrial base considered when constructing the program? What is your
view of current participation and competition emerging from the
industrial base for this program? What can be done to ensure it
succeeds?
General Ostrowski and Mr. Bechtel. [The information was not
available at the time of printing.]
Mr. Jones. The MSPS is the USMC's version of SPS. We understand
this takes a slightly different approach focusing on mobility and not
weight reduction. Since the USMC is a smaller force, obviously this
program may have an even harder time attracting industry investment
than SPS? Would a joint program yield more industry participation and
competition? How different are USMC requirements from the Army's? What
percentage of the total Corps will get this system? How was that
percentage determined? At this stage of the program, do you have a view
of potential participation and competition that will emerge? Can you
describe how you are collaborating with the other Services and with
Industry to get the desired innovation and production results?
General Ostrowski and Mr. Bechtel. This question is best answered
by the Marine Corps.
Mr. Jones. The Soldier Protection System (SPS) is a clear step
forward in terms of integrating the systems worn and carried by our
warfighters and balancing capabilities like protection and mobility
while reducing weight. I commend this effort, but I am concerned that
it may not go far enough. We're told that uncertainties regarding
procurement volumes, intellectual property ownership, and R&D timelines
have caused would-be industry competitors not to participate in this
program. While many programs have collapsed because they have
unrealistic requirements and schedules and some like JSF are
constructed to be ``too big to fail,'' I am concerned SPS may have the
opposite problem . . . meaning it could be too small to succeed. We
need this program to succeed and bring as much weight reduction and
capability to the warfighter as possible. The threshold weight
reduction for SPS is 10%? Could greater reductions be achieved? What
percentage of the total force do you plan to field this system to? How
was the percentage determined? How was the long-term viability of the
industrial base considered when constructing the program? What is your
view of current participation and competition emerging from the
industrial base for this program? What can be done to ensure it
succeeds?
General Smith and General Kelley. [The information was not
available at the time of printing.]
Mr. Jones. The MSPS is the USMC's version of SPS. We understand
this takes a slightly different approach focusing on mobility and not
weight reduction. Since the USMC is a smaller force, obviously this
program may have an even harder time attracting industry investment
than SPS? Would a joint program yield more industry participation and
competition? How different are USMC requirements from the Army's? What
percentage of the total Corps will get this system? How was that
percentage determined? At this stage of the program, do you have a view
of potential participation and competition that will emerge? Can you
describe how you are collaborating with the other Services and with
Industry to get the desired innovation and production results?
General Smith and General Kelley. The Modular Scalable Protection
System (MSPS) is the Marine Corps initial effort to develop a fully
integrated system of ballistic protective equipment for the individual
Marine. The MSPS includes protection for the head, eyes, hearing,
torso, pelvic region, and extremities and will be developed with a
balanced emphasis on protection, integration, and mobility. We want to
develop protections systems that are equal to or greater than our
current capability but at reduced weight. Moreover, with the MSPS we
seek to improve the ergonomics of the elements within the MSPS to
improve load carriage, flexibility, and bulk over current systems. We
are also looking at novel approaches to integrate load bearing
capabilities (packs and pouches) and power/data management for the
individual Marine.
The focus on returning mobility to the individual Marine will
incorporate the Marine Corps Load Effects Assessment Program (MCLEAP)
as a means to baseline our current systems, provide a mobility metric
for the MSPS requirement, and measure improvements in mobility provided
by prototypes for the MSPS.
The Modular Scalable Vest (MSV) is the torso armor component of the
MSPS and is currently under development. The focus of the MSV program
is to provide increased protection levels with no weight costs while
enhancing Marine mobility and combat effectiveness through smart load
management and integration capabilities. The MSV will provide the
capability to scale protection levels in a single system, a load
distribution and carriage capability, and inherent integration
capabilities with the USMC Pack System. The MSV will utilize both a
lighter weight soft armor, which offers 10-15% weight reductions over
current soft armor, and the Enhanced Capability Small Arms Protective
Inserts (EC SAPIs), which provide increased ballistic protection at
current Enhanced Small Arm Protective Inserts (ESAPIs) weight. Both of
these improvements were developed in coordination with the Army and
will be resident within their future systems as well. We plan to begin
fielding the EC SAPIs in Fiscal Year (FY) 2014 and the MSC in FY2016.
Would a joint program yield more industry participation and
competition?
There is significant collaboration between the Army and the Marine
Corps now and also significant participation and competition across the
segment of industry interested in these capabilities with no conclusive
evidence that a Joint program would influence greater competition or
yield increased support to the warfighters in each of the Services. The
response to the Marine Corps' effort to develop concept demonstrators
for the MSV has been enthusiastic and promising. Recently, there has
been increased interest on the part of the Army in the Marine Corps
approach to the MSPS as a whole and the MSV specifically and plans are
being made to test Army and Marine Corps concepts side-by-side.
Additional interest on the part of industry is sure to result.
How different are USMC requirements from the Army's?
The Army and Marine Corps use the same ESAPI plates for hard armor
protection and the same soft armor materials for torso and pelvic
protection. The main difference between the Army and Marine Corps
pursuit of next-gen personal protection systems is in the design and
cut of our soft armor.
The Army's Soldier Protection System Capabilities Development
Document (CDD) emphasizes weight reduction as the primary means to
return mobility to the individual soldier. However, the Army's CDD does
not include mobility as a desired attribute and while improved
integration is an Army goal, it falls subordinate to protection and
weight reduction. In addition, the Army intends to begin fielding their
Soldier Protection System (SPS) in FY 2015.
The Marine Corps intends to take a longer approach to permit
technology and design to mature to the level we believe necessary to
achieve our combined goals in protection, integration, and mobility,
which we consider of equal importance in our pursuit of a next
generation system. The balance between protection and weight reduction
are being emphasized by defining mobility parameters and requirements
using the MCLEAP.
What percentage of the total Corps will get this system? How was
that percentage determined?
Our initial acquisition objectives are intended to support forward
deployed forces and forces preparing to deploy, approximately 38% of
the total force, with the MSV and other components of MSPS as they are
developed. This strategy is driven by the desire to equip our
warfighters with the most up to date and capable protection systems
while conscientiously shepherding our limited resources. Limiting
fielding to deployers optimizes development and design of these new
systems by directly incorporating user feedback into follow on
configurations. This approach prevents costly and multiple fieldings of
incrementally improved protection systems across the force until a
final, optimized configuration is achieved. For the majority of the
Corps, currently issued protection systems will be sustained and
improved periodically through insertions of lighter soft and hard armor
as technology and resources allow.
At this stage of the program, do you have a view of potential
participation and competition that will emerge?
Using a government intermediary, industry is now actively
participating in the first round of designs for the Modular Scalable
Vest (MSV1). Based on the high interest and participation of industry,
multiple industry partners are interested and capable of participating
in and competing for the MSPS program.
Can you describe how you are collaborating with the other Services
and with Industry to get the desired innovation and production results?
The Marine Corps intends to use the same plate armor protection and
the same soft armor materials for torso and pelvic protection as the
other Services. We also intend to maintain our relationship and
cooperation with the Naval and Army Research Labs and as the MSPS
program progresses, we anticipate additional industry partners will
participate--especially as other MSPS components are developed and
incorporated into the Marine Corps system-of-systems approach to
individual ballistic protection.
The Marine Corps and Army will continue to collaborate in the
development of requirements and materiel solutions for modular,
scalable ballistic protection systems to include a head borne system,
torso protection, pelvic protection, and extremity protection.
Utilizing Small Business Innovation Research grants, Office of Naval
Research, and Natick Soldier Research Development and Engineering
Center, these efforts include the pursuit of improved soft and hard
armor solutions that provide increased protection at equal or lighter
weight. The Army and Marine Corps Body Armor Program Offices (PM
Soldier Protection Equipment and PdM Infantry Combat Equipment) work
closely to coordinate their efforts on research, body armor
specifications, design improvements and weight reductions. Our combined
efforts seek to reduce duplication of research and invest in the most
promising technologies. All of our advances in body armor and efforts
are shared during our regular Cross Service Warfighter Equipment Board
meeting. An example of a mission success of the sharing and
coordination is the Enhanced Combat Helmet (ECH). This effort started
with an Army research and development effort, which the Marine Corps
then used to start the ECH program. The close coordination and
involvement of the Army in the program with funding and engineering
expertise has been critical to the ECH's progress to date.
______
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. LOBIONDO
Mr. LoBiondo. What programs and/or policies have the military
departments and/or DLA put in place to sustain and stabilize the
domestic industrial base for warfighter equipment? How are these
programs and/or policies being communicated to industry and to what
effect? Are there any preliminary findings from the ongoing studies on
the body armor, clothing, and textiles industrial base?
General Ostrowski and Mr. Bechtel. The Army works closely with the
Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) with regard to forecasting yearly
sustainment requirements. The Army forecasts its sustainment
requirements through the Tank Automotive Command Logistic Support
Office, which is co-located with DLA Troop Support in Philadelphia. The
Army defers to DLA for specifics regarding any preliminary findings
from the ongoing body armor, clothing, and textile industrial base
studies.
Mr. LoBiondo. What programs and/or policies have the military
departments and/or DLA put in place to sustain and stabilize the
domestic industrial base for warfighter equipment? How are these
programs and/or policies being communicated to industry and to what
effect? Are there any preliminary findings from the ongoing studies on
the body armor, clothing, and textiles industrial base?
General Smith and General Kelley. The Marine Corps acquires
equipment in response to a funded and validated requirement. A way that
the Marine Corps contributes to sustaining the domestic industrial base
for warfighter equipment is complying with the Berry Amendment. All
equipment we procure that contains materials covered by the Berry
Amendment, mostly textiles, are from domestic sources. The Marine
Corps, specifically Combat Development and Integration (CD&I), develops
warfighter equipment requirements based on roles and missions laid out
in Title 10. These requirements are validated by Marine Corps and DOD
leadership, and are communicated to industry via Marine Corps Systems
Command (MCSC) through Requests for Proposals and Requests for
Information.
The Marine Corps also actively engages and communicates our
programmatic and technical priorities, needs and future plans in a
number of forums. We participate in events ranging from broad to small
platforms. Broad platforms include events like the annual Modern Day
Marine Exposition and the biennial Advanced Planning Briefing to
Industry during which the acquisition and funding plans are provided to
industry. The more finite efforts include venues such as ``Industry
Days,'' where many individual Marine Corps ground programs offices meet
with industry throughout the year, giving them an opportunity to meet
with our acquisition professionals on potential solutions. In addition,
the Marine Corps recognizes the potential capabilities, innovations,
and technology solutions that small businesses can offer. MCSC Office
of Small Business Programs (OSBP) is involved in small business and
industry outreach events on a weekly basis. MCSC's OSBP participates in
local and national small business outreach events, performing business
matchmaking at many of those events, to match the capabilities of small
businesses with MCSC and Program Manager Officer Land Systems
requirements. Such events provide great venues for industry to stay
abreast of opportunities with the Marine Corps acquisition community
and for the Marine Corps to learn from industry about potential
solutions. At present, we are not aware of any studies sponsored by the
Marine Corps related to the industrial base regarding body armor,
clothing and textiles.
______
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. ENYART
Mr. Enyart. General, how do you incentivize industry to produce
better equipment if the award decisions are made on price alone?
General Ostrowski. The Army typically awards contracts where the
basis for award is Best Value to the Government and not necessarily
lowest price. Many different criteria are taken into account during the
source selection process in addition to cost/price. These include
criteria such as delivery schedule, past contractor performance, and
technical performance.
Mr. Enyart. Is there a DOD investment strategy for new materials
that will provide step change improvements to warfighter equipment?
General Ostrowski and Mr. Bechtel. Advances in materials science
have the potential to impact all Army platforms. As such, the Fiscal
Year 2014 (FY14) basic research investment in materials science is $182
million, or 43 percent of the Army's total FY14 basic research funding.
The Army invests in biotechnology, nanotechnology, and Army specific
domains of materials science including high deformation rates in
structural and protection materials, energetic materials, electronics,
and power and energy. Examples include investments in Textile Composite
Armor, which provides a framework for successful design of lightweight
textile armor of the future. This research is unparalleled outside of
the Army and its payoffs include transparent armor lenses that can be
integrated into eye protection systems. Investments are also being made
into insensitive munitions and energetic materials for next generation
small arms weapons that give unprecedented firepower to the Soldier
(e.g., a 40mm with energetic power greater than a 155mm) and
environmentally benign materials. Additionally, the Army is investing
in the capability to design, optimize, and fabricate lightweight
protection material systems that exhibit revolutionary performance by
manipulating matter all the way back to the atomic scale. This is a
``grand challenge'' that pushes the existing high-performance material
envelope. Payoffs from this research include protection materials with
33 percent savings in weight of current systems and batteries with
triple the energy density that can provide 30 percent longer life-times
at a reduced cost (20-30 percent).
Mr. Enyart. Can you provide a couple of examples of the most recent
new products that have significantly reduced the soldier's load? On
average how often will weight-saving technology refreshes occur across
the portfolio of items the soldier wears and carries? What are the
risks to achieving these improvements? Are they being developed with
overseas contingency operations funds?
General Ostrowski and Mr. Bechtel. The Army is incorporating
weight-saving technology that can meet current protection requirements
into current personal protective equipment (PPE) and other Soldier
equipment as rapidly as possible. The Army has leveraged new material
construction and design approaches to reduce the weight of the Improved
Outer Tactical Vest (IOTV) and Soldier Plate Carrier System (SPCS). The
current Generation III IOTV, which weighs 31 pounds (lbs) (with plates)
for a size medium, is four percent lighter than the previous IOTV
variant. These same approaches are being applied to the SPCS, which
weighs 23 lbs (with plates) for size medium, in order to reduce the
weight by three percent. The latest specification for the Advanced
Combat Helmet (ACH), which currently weighs 3.06 lbs for a medium,
being procured by Defense Logistics Agency Troop Support for
sustainment, requires a weight reduction of eight percent. The
Lightweight ACH, which will also be procured by the Defense Logistics
Agency Troop Support weighs 2.8 lbs for a size medium. By leveraging
technology, we were able to achieve weight savings of 6.5 lbs in the
Nett Warrior program as compared to its predecessor, the Land Warrior.
As new technology is available, we will continuously strive to reduce
weight even further to lessen the burden on our Soldiers. Because of
our rigorous test protocols for all PPE, the risks to achieving these
improvements are significantly reduced. Our base budget includes
Research, Development, Test and Evaluation funding for PPE.
Mr. Enyart. Mr. Bechtel, when you meet with industry, and I assume
that you do since you were selected as the Army's witness for this
hearing, how do you answer their concerns about insight into future
requirements both in performance and quantity? Is this an area in which
the Army can improve?
Mr. Bechtel. This is an area where the Army continues to improve as
we refine our requirements and acquisition processes. We balance the
requirement for competition against the value of providing Industrial
Partners better planning information. The Army holds discussions with
industry focusing on operational requirements, potential future
capability gaps, and resulting needs in many forums, such as Industry
Days to exchange information regarding current and upcoming
initiatives. The Army must ensure a competitive environment; therefore
the release of information to industry is governed by statute and
regulation. Materiel quantity discussions actually take place during
the acquisition phase when the Army provides Requests for Proposals. An
example of information sharing is the development of the Deployer
Equipment Bundle (DEB) concept. It is currently being reviewed by Army
Staff and would provide for modernized equipment and uniforms to
support approximately 70,000 Soldiers' (or about 15 Brigade Combat
Teams with enablers) contingency deployment related needs. The DEB
concept is based on the two most prevalent scenarios currently
addressed in planning and will provide useful start points for
discussions about quantity.
______
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. TURNER
Mr. Turner. Regarding the Army's Soldier Protection System (SPS):
What percentage of the total force do you plan to field SPS to? What is
your view of current participation and competition emerging from the
industrial base for this program? What can be done to ensure SPS
succeeds?
General Ostrowski. [The information was not available at the time
of printing.]
Mr. Turner. What is the status of the phase 4 camouflage uniform
evaluation?
General Ostrowski. The Army recently completed a very comprehensive
Phase IV Camouflage study, which was the most extensive uniform
camouflage study ever undertaken--underpinned by science with extensive
Soldier involvement. The Army designed a scientifically rigorous
evaluation program, studying the performance of camouflage in a wide
variety of terrains, vegetation and times of day. Initial decisions and
recommendations have been provided to senior Army leaders, and the Army
is now waiting on a final decision announcement and guidance from our
Army leadership regarding the scope and timelines of potential changes.
Mr. Turner. In an effort to modernize an item in sustainment, the
Army put forward a new purchase description for the Army Combat Helmet
in late 2011 that takes advantage of new material technology to
significantly reduce the weight of this most critical piece of
protective equipment. The Defense Logistics Agency was directed to
acquire the lighter weight ACH variant. Eighteen months since
contracting action began on this lightweight ACH, still no helmets have
been procured and fielded.
Why does there appear to be so much trouble completing a relatively
minor technology refresh of the ACH that reduces weight from the
warfighters head to prevent neck and spine injuries and increase
mobility and combat effectiveness? Is this program representative of
what can be expected if new technology becomes available for items that
are in sustainment? What should be done to reform this process to make
it more flexible and agile?
General Ostrowski. The Army is able to leverage improvements in
technology by updating requirements in the product performance of these
specifications. The Army updated the Army Combat Helmet (ACH)
performance specification to realize an eight percent weight reduction.
This performance specification was incorporated into the Defense
Logistics Agency Troop Support's contracting action for the current ACH
Solicitation. This contracting action experienced delays due to a
mandated update to ballistic testing requirements by the Director of
Operational Test and Evaluation, which resulted in a protest by one of
the vendors as well as an audit of the new ACH test protocol undertaken
by the Department of Defense Inspector General. These delays were
unforeseen and are not representative of new contracting actions in
regards to advancements in technology.
Mr. Turner. Does the Army plan to pursue a new handgun and does a
validated requirement exist for a new handgun?
General Ostrowski. The currently fielded M9 has been used
successfully across the full array of mission areas and battlefield
conditions. No formal complaints or requests for replacements have been
submitted via the Operational Needs process. Going forward, the Army
has examined potential improvements to handgun or sidearm capability.
The Army's intent is to address past assessments that the current M9
pistol's operational effectiveness does not fully meet Soldiers
expectations. Lessons learned from the last 10-11 years of combat
operations identified areas to begin to improve, to include stopping
power; reliability; lack of integrated rails to allow for mounting of
lights, lasers and other handgun enablers; lack of suppressors to
mitigate muzzle flash and noise; and lack of low light sights to
facilitate target engagement. The Army will balance these needs versus
the wear out of its existing handgun systems, and thoroughly assess a
full cost-benefit analysis before making its final decision.
Mr. Turner. I understand the procurement of the Army Lightweight
Advanced Combat Helmet, which was originally bid out as a ``lowest
price, technically acceptable'' (LPTA) solicitation was sent to a
reverse auction. What benefits are achieved from using reverse auctions
for critical safety items and personal protection equipment? What are
your concerns regarding the use of LPTA and reverse auctions for
critical safety items and personal protection equipment?
General Ostrowski. Reverse Auction is a pricing tool and takes the
place of a ``Final Proposal Revision'' request. The utilization of this
pricing tool allows for the purchase of critical safety items and
personal protective equipment at the lowest price available. While a
contract may be awarded to the lowest priced offeror whose proposal has
been reviewed and considered to be acceptable, the selected
manufacturer(s) will always be required to meet all performance
requirements listed in the performance specification and contract. PEO
Soldier is comfortable with a mixture of Best Value and Lowest Price,
Technically Acceptable contract strategies based on the preliminary
developmental efforts that occur prior to every production contract
award, ensuring that all protective items consistently meet a high
standard of performance.
Mr. Turner. I am concerned about the requirements for issuance
uniforms. I understand that the Department of Defense does not have a
universal standard for when a soldier, sailor, airman, or marine must
be issued fire-retardant clothing. For example, Army mounted combat
crewmen are issued multiple layers of fire-retardant uniforms including
base layers, combat uniforms, and cold weather outer layers.
Please explain how the Army determines who is issued what versions
and components of flame-resistant uniforms and the process by which
this decision is made to include the decisionmaker? What is the
sustainment requirement for these uniforms and how is it budgeted?
General Ostrowski. Fire-resistant (FR) Army combat uniforms (FRACU)
are provided to deployed Soldiers based on 2008 Army Requirements and
Resourcing Board (AR2B) guidance. FR uniforms such as the Army Aircrew
Combat Uniform (A2CU), Improved Combat Vehicle Crewman Coverall (iCVC),
and Fuel Handler Coveralls are provided to Soldiers in select
corresponding MOSs through either deployment related equipping efforts
like Rapid Fielding Initiative (RFI) events or Army Clothing Bag or
Central Issue Facility (CIF) issue for Military Occupational Specialty
(MOS) related non-deployment garrison and training use. Soldiers
performing in an MOS authorized position requiring FR clothing (e.g.,
aviators, combat vehicle crewmembers, fuel handlers, etc.) receive
sustainment through the Operations and Maintenance (O&M) Base funded
CIF for non-deployment activities. Deployment sustainment is provided
through the Overseas Contingency Operations funded Army Direct Ordering
program or theater CIF's. There are no FRACUs in the sustainment base
(for all other non-deployed Soldiers).
Mr. Turner. A recent GAO study highlights the difficulties the
military services have experienced with respect to combat uniforms and
camouflage with multiple variants across the Services, different and
ineffective patterns, different FR materials, a lack of coordination
within and across the Services, etc. This study made many
recommendations that the Services largely concurred with.
Please provide an update on the camouflage program and associated
combat uniform programs. Is there a requirement for continuing to
improve the combat clothing worn by our warfighters, both the base
uniform and the flame-resistant variant?
General Ostrowski. The Army recently completed a very comprehensive
Phase IV Camouflage study which was the most extensive uniform
camouflage study ever undertaken--underpinned by science with extensive
Soldier involvement. The Army designed a scientifically rigorous
evaluation program, studying the performance of camouflage in a wide
variety of terrains, vegetation and times of day. Initial decisions and
recommendations have been provided to senior Army leaders, and the Army
is now waiting on a final decision announcement and guidance from our
Army leadership regarding the scope and timelines of potential changes.
As far as inter-service uniform coordination or issues, those decisions
fall within the Office of the Secretary of Defense's purview. The Army
continuously seeks improvements to the combat clothing worn by our
warfighters. Our combat and materiel developers routinely assess
capabilities desired, using periodic survey and lessons learned
feedback from Soldiers and unit leaders, and evolving technological
improvements to ensure the uniforms worn by our Soldiers in combat and
in garrison are meeting the Army's needs.
Mr. Turner. Are you aware that the average age of the top 5 most
often employed U.S. small arms are on average around 30 years old? How
are you modernizing the family of small arms?
General Ostrowski. For the past two decades, the Army has
continuously modernized our fleet of small arms, with improvements
based both on technological opportunities and Soldier feedback. Since
its adoption in the early 1990s, the M4 carbine has been one of the
premier small arms weapons in the world. Based on feedback from the
field, the Army has undertaken a multi-phased product improvement
program to upgrade the Army's M4s to the M4A1 Special Forces' version
carbine. The M4A1 provides a full auto capability, a consistent trigger
pull, and has a greater capacity to maintain accuracy and zero while
withstanding the heat produced by high volumes of fire.
The M320 Grenade Launcher, fielded to the Army in 2009, is the
replacement to the M203 series grenade launchers, introduced in the
early 1970s. As a modular system, the M320 attaches under the barrel of
the M16 rifle or M4 carbine and can also convert to a stand-alone
weapon. Additionally, the M320 improves on the M203 with an available
integral day/night sighting system and improved safety features.
The Army also identified a need to upgrade its sniper weapons to
extend range and address accuracy shortcomings of the M24, M110 Semi
Automatic Sniper System, and M107 Long Range Sniper Rifle. This led to
the XM2010 Enhanced Sniper Rifle which utilizes .300 Winchester Magnum
ammunition to engage targets accurately out to 1,200 meters.
Several other examples of modernization efforts include: the MK19
40mm Grenade Machine Gun, adopted by the Army in 1986, upgraded with an
adjustable sight bracket to allow compatibility with various optical
sights, and a Modification Kit for increased weapon reliability; the M2
.50 Caliber Heavy Barrel Machine Gun, which is being converted to the
M2A1 configuration to allow for rapid barrel change at the Operator
level without the need for setting the headspace and timing, which
significantly increases Soldier safety; and, the M240 7.62mm machine
gun family, which has received 16 major improvements since 1998, to
include the M240L, which provides the same capability at a weight
savings of over seven pounds; and, last, the M249 5.56mm Squad
Automatic Weapon has received 25 major improvements since 1987.
Mr. Turner. To the extent possible what programs and/or policies
has the Army put in place to sustain and stabilize the domestic
industrial base for individual warfighter equipment? How have these
programs and/or policies been communicated to industry and to what
effect?
General Ostrowski. The Army works closely with the Defense
Logistics Agency (DLA) with regard to forecasting yearly sustainment
requirements. The Army forecasts its sustainment requirements through
the Tank Automotive Command Logistic Support Office, which is co-
located with DLA Troop Support in Philadelphia. The Army defers to DLA
for specifics regarding any preliminary findings from the ongoing body
armor, clothing, and textile industrial base studies.
Mr. Turner. One of the great successes of equipment in the last
decade has been developing rapid fielding initiatives that leverage
commercial-off-the-shelf products such as ballistic eyewear--items that
have saved the sight and reduced the number of eye injuries to our
deployed forces. I understand items like this are purchased using
overseas contingency funds feeding operations and maintenance accounts.
As this funding goes away, how is the military going to ensure that
soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines are equipped with critical,
relatively low-cost items, such as ballistic eyewear? What process is
being used to determine what soldiers get ``deployer bundles'' or rapid
fielding items going forward?
General Ostrowski. The Army's intent is to not lose sight of the
significant progress we've made over the last 10-11 years in rapidly
fielding and equipping our Soldiers and unit leaders. We have learned
to value Soldier's innovative ideas and have developed processes to
address operational commanders' needs on the ground through Rapid
Fielding Initiatives (RFI) and most notably through our Rapid Equipping
Force (REF). Each has been extremely successful over the last ten years
of conflict; RFI using Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) funding to
provide critical individual Soldier and unit equipment--like ballistic
eyewear--to deploying forces, and REF providing timely solutions--like
RAVEN and PUMA Unmanned Aerial Systems--to warfighters and anticipating
future requirements in collaboration with operational commanders and
acquisition materiel developers. The Army's Soldier Enhancement Program
(SEP), required by Congress since 1989, is the Army's existing,
baseline funded program designed to rapidly assess innovative equipment
designated for Soldiers. SEP items showing great promise to the Army at
large are then used to inform further combat and materiel development.
In the future the Army will maintain rapid equipping capabilities in
some form and, though the structure and size of such organizations are
still to be determined, this type of innovative approach to Soldier
problem solving will still be a priority. Additionally, the Army staff
is considering several options to define the long term requirements to
support our Soldiers with the right equipment needed to accomplish the
mission assigned in support of a Combatant Commander, including
equipping concepts designed to ensure the latest operational uniforms,
clothing and individual equipment are bundled and immediately available
for fielding to Soldiers in synch with deployments to contingency
operations.
Mr. Turner. It has been almost 4 years (July 28, 2009) since the
Government Accountability Office issued a report on Army and Marine
Corps Ground Combat Helmet Pads. In the report, the GAO states that the
``Army and Marine Corps are aware of the use of unapproved (helmet)
pads and have taken steps to rectify this practice.''
With Traumatic Brain Injury as perhaps the signature injury of the
wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, can you tell me if soldiers and marines
are still using unapproved helmet pads? If so, what steps are you now
taking to rectify this practice?
General Ostrowski and Mr. Bechtel. Helmets issued to Soldiers,
whether they are new or previously used helmets, are issued with new
and approved pad systems. The Army has taken multiple steps to ensure
the use and wear of authorized helmet pads only. These steps have
included the publishing of an Army-wide, All Army Activities Message in
April 2009 on the Unauthorized Procurement of Ballistic Protection,
Body Armor, and other safety items. The message specifically included a
reference to the purchase of helmet pads from unauthorized sources. The
Army also published a Ground Precautionary Action Message in February
2012, cautioning Soldiers against unauthorized liner systems in their
helmets. Recently, Tank Automotive Command Life Cycle Management
Command Safety of Use Message 13-013 was published, which contained a
reference to the use or purchase of helmet pads from unauthorized
sources. Also, the Advanced Combat Helmet Operator's Manual directs
Soldiers to use only authorized pads and provides instructions to
Soldiers to inspect for helmet pad serviceability.
Mr. Turner. As evidenced by some of the recent and well-publicized
training accidents in our military, it is clear that our service
members need the best protective equipment during training as well as
in theater. Specific to head protection for reducing Traumatic Brain
Injury, what checks are in place within the Army and Marine Corps to
make sure that our warfighters are receiving standard issue headgear,
to include authorized pad systems, both in training and in theater?
General Ostrowski and Mr. Bechtel. Helmets issued to Soldiers,
whether they are new or used helmets, are issued with new and approved
pad systems. The Army has, and continues to provide, guidance to
Soldier leadership through Army wide, All Army Activity (ALARACT)
Messages, Ground Precautionary Action (GPA) Messages, and Safety of Use
Messages (SOUM) to ensure identification and removal of unauthorized
personal protective equipment (PPE) from the Army inventory. An ALARACT
Message, issued in April 2009 on the Unauthorized Procurement of
Ballistic Protection, Body Armor, and other Safety Items, was issued
specifically including a reference to the prohibition of purchasing
helmet pads from unauthorized sources. The Army published a GPA Message
in February of 2012 cautioning Soldiers against unauthorized liner
systems in their helmets. Recently, the Tank Automotive Command Life
Cycle Management Command published a Safety Of Use Message that
directed Soldiers not to use or purchase helmet pads from unauthorized
sources. Also, the Advanced Combat Helmet Operator's Manual directs
Soldiers to use only authorized pads and provides instructions to
Soldiers to inspect helmet pads for serviceability.
Mr. Turner. What are the Army and Marine Corps plans for female-
specific equipment (to include clothing, individual equipment, and body
armor) development? To what degree do these plans depend on sustainment
funding and/or new program funding?
General Ostrowski and Mr. Bechtel. The Army developed eight
additional sizes to the Generation III Improved Outer Tactical Vest
(IOTV) to accommodate female specific physiological measurements. These
new IOTV sizes are designated Female IOTVs (FIOTV). There are currently
17 FIOTVs being worn by Soldiers assigned to Female Engagement Teams
throughout Afghanistan. The FIOTV is on schedule to begin full rate
production in the summer of 2013 and PEO Soldier is anticipating
fielding 600 FIOTVs for one Brigade Combat Team in late August 2013.
The FIOTV will be available to the female Soldier population deploying
to Afghanistan in late Fourth Quarter, Fiscal Year 2013 (FY13). The
FIOTV will require sustainment with Army G4 sustainment dollars
starting in FY14. The Soldier Protection System--Torso Protection (TP)
subsystem will seek to replace the current Concealable Body Armor,
Soldier Plate Carrier System, and IOTV with one modular system. The TP
will adopt the female specific sizing that contributed to the FIOTV.
Successful development is dependent on Research and Development
funding.
In addition, the Universal Camouflage Pattern Army Combat Uniform
Alternate (ACU-A) with Permethrin provides females and smaller statured
male Soldiers with a better fitting Army Combat Uniform (ACU). The ACU-
A is also produced in smaller and shorter length sizes than the current
ACU. The ACU-A will soon be available for Soldiers to purchase at Army
Military Clothing Store (AMCS), online from AMCS, and online from
Kentucky Logistics Operation Center. The ACU-A is funded through the
Military Personnel Account for the Clothing Bag. Fielding to Soldiers
began May 2013.
Finally, the Physical Fitness Uniform (PFU), currently pending
approval by the Chief of Staff of Army, is also being sized to better
fit female Soldiers. Female PFU uniforms are being tested in a Soldier
user evaluation. This alternate style should better accommodate female
Soldiers. Fielding to Soldiers is expected to begin in the first
quarter, FY15. The PFU is funded through the Military Personnel Account
for the Clothing Bag.
Mr. Turner. What are the Army and Marine Corps plans to enhance
communications with industry in the coming fiscal year?
General Ostrowski and Mr. Bechtel. PEO Soldier maintains a
continuous dialogue with our industry partners and meets on an ongoing
basis with vendors to discuss both broad and specific issues with
regard to our programs. In addition, we routinely hold Industry Days to
exchange information with the industrial base on current and upcoming
initiatives. We use tools such as the Federal Business Opportunities
website to post Requests for Information and draft Requests for
Proposals on pending requirements to gain industry feedback.
For the remainder of this fiscal year and in Fiscal Year 2014
(FY14), we have several Industry Days planned. On June 27, 2013,
Project Manager Soldier Weapons will hold a Small Arms Fire Control
Industry Day at Picatinny Arsenal, New Jersey. The focus will be to
provide our industry partners with current information for materiel
solutions to address current capability gaps. This forum will also
allow industry representatives to keep the Government apprised of
technology developments. The Cross Service Warfighter Equipment Board,
on which PEO Soldier is represented, is working with our sister
services and the Defense Logistics Agency Troop Support to conduct a
multi-day Advanced Planning Briefing to Industry in Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania in the Fourth Quarter FY13 to review new requirements for
the upcoming fiscal year. From October 15 -17, 2013, Project Manager
Soldier Sensors and Lasers will conduct Precision Fires Industry Days
at Fort Belvoir, Virginia to enhance communications with our industry
partners in that market sector. And finally, Project Manager Soldier
Sensors and Lasers will also conduct two Industry Days for the Family
of Weapon Sights--Crew Served (FWS-CS); one during the Second Quarter
FY14 and one during the Fourth Quarter FY14. These Industry Days will
focus on programmatic updates, draft technical documentation, and one-
on-one sessions with potential vendors.
Mr. Turner. Is there a DOD investment strategy for new materials
that will provide step change improvements to warfighter equipment?
General Ostrowski and Mr. Bechtel. Advances in materials science
have the potential to impact all Army platforms. As such, the Fiscal
Year 2014 (FY14) basic research investment in materials science is $182
million, or 43 percent of the Army's total FY14 basic research funding.
The Army invests in biotechnology, nanotechnology, and Army specific
domains of materials science including high deformation rates in
structural and protection materials, energetic materials, electronics,
and power and energy. Examples include investments in Textile Composite
Armor which provides a framework for successful design of lightweight
textile armor of the future. This research is unparalleled outside of
the Army and its payoffs include transparent armor lenses that can be
integrated into eye protection systems. Investments are also being made
into insensitive munitions and energetic materials for next generation
small arms weapons that give unprecedented firepower to the Soldier
(e.g. a 40mm with energetic power greater than a 155mm) and
environmentally benign materials. Additionally, the Army is investing
in the capability to design, optimize, and fabricate light weight
protection material systems that exhibit revolutionary performance by
manipulating matter all the way back to the atomic scale. This is a
``grand challenge'' that pushes the existing high-performance material
envelope. Payoffs from this research include protection materials with
33 percent savings in weight of current systems and batteries with
triple the energy density that can provide 30 percent longer life-times
at a reduced cost (20-30 percent).
Mr. Turner. Please provide a couple of examples of the most recent
new products that have significantly reduced the soldier's load? On
average how often will weight-saving technology refreshes occur across
the portfolio of items the soldier wears and carries. What are the
risks to achieving these improvements? Are they being developed with
overseas contingency operations funds?
General Ostrowski and Mr. Bechtel. The Army is incorporating weight
saving technology that can meet current protection requirements into
current personal protective equipment (PPE) and other Soldier equipment
as rapidly as possible. The Army has leveraged new material
construction and design approaches to reduce the weight of the Improved
Outer Tactical Vest (IOTV) and Soldier Plate Carrier System (SPCS). The
current Generation III IOTV, which weighs 31 pounds (lbs) (with plates)
for a size medium, is four percent lighter than the previous IOTV
variant. These same approaches are being applied to the SPCS, which
weighs 23 lbs (with plates) for size medium, in order to reduce the
weight by three percent. The latest specification for the Advanced
Combat Helmet (ACH), which currently weighs 3.06 lbs for a medium,
being procured by Defense Logistics Agency Troop Support for
sustainment, requires a weight reduction of eight percent. The
Lightweight ACH, which will also be procured by the Defense Logistics
Agency Troop Support weighs 2.8 lbs for a size medium. By leveraging
technology, we were able to achieve weight savings of 6.5 lbs in the
Nett Warrior program as compared to its predecessor, the Land Warrior.
As new technology is available, we will continuously strive to reduce
weight even further to lessen the burden on our Soldiers. Because of
our rigorous test protocols for all PPE, the risks to achieving these
improvements are significantly reduced. Our base budget includes
Research, Development, Test and Evaluation funding for PPE.
Mr. Turner. I understand that the Army has undertaken a detailed
sizing study to update the sizing tariff for clothing and equipment--
basically determining the size of men and women in the Army with the
objective of ensuring that equipment fits everyone.
Mr. Bechtel, can you tell me the process that the Army went through
to ensure that individual equipment, especially for dismounted
soldiers, is available in sizes that fit men and women? Have you
changed any requirements in order to field women in the infantry
equipment that fits?
Mr. Bechtel. The Army's Assistant Secretary of the Army for
Acquisition, Logistics, and Technology materiel developers pursue
individual Soldier uniform and equipment form, fit, and function
optimization as part of their routine product improvement efforts. Very
good examples of recent improvements include sizing and fit updates to
the Army's Improved Outer Tactical Vest (IOTV) and Army Combat Uniform
(ACU), resulting in additional female specific IOTV sizes and an ACU-
Alternate (ACU-A) uniform which fits the female body better and
provides a better fit for some small-statured male Soldiers. The
Headquarters, Department of the Army Deputy Chief of Staff, Logistics
G-4 led Army Uniform Board (AUB) also routinely reviews specific male/
female uniform related issues for dress and non-combat uniforms. The
Army continuously evaluates Soldier equipment requirements. Based on
those evaluations, no changes to any specific Soldier protection
requirement is necessary in order to address the expanding role of
women in combat. The Army does not differentiate the critical
protection needs of our Soldiers whether they are male or female. As a
result, the Key Performance Parameters and Key System Attributes that
identify the critical requirements for materiel solutions are no
different for body armor, uniforms, and individual Soldier equipment
with regard to men and women.
Mr. Turner. Does the Army currently have a validated requirement
for lighter-weight body armor systems?
Mr. Bechtel. Yes, based on validated Operational Need Statements
the Army developed and approved a Soldier Plate Carrier System (SPCS)
directed requirement in 2009, and a Concealable Body Armor (CBA)
directed requirement in 2012. These interim solutions provide a lighter
weight alternative body armor capability specifically to for Soldiers
conducting dismounted operations and training and mentoring of Afghan
National Security Forces, respectively, in Operation Enduring Freedom
(OEF). The Army continues to strive for lighter weight capabilities,
including body armor systems. However, the key performance parameters
addressing Soldier protection will always be pre-eminent. The current
Army requirement for an improved lighter weight body armor system is
defined in the Soldier Protection System (SPS) Capability Development
Document (CDD), approved in February 2013. This requirement will be
used to develop the next generation of body armor, as well as other
areas of personal protective equipment to include head protection. The
SPS CDD specifically calls out the need for lighter weight armor, with
objective weight reductions of 5-15% for soft armor, hard armor, and
helmets. The SPS CDD also identifies a modular and tailorable
capability, which facilitates reducing weight further through the
ability to tailor body armor based on mission and threat. The Army
recognizes the tradeoff between weight and Soldier protection, and
continues to strive for lighter weight materiel solutions without
sacrificing our protection standards.
Mr. Turner. Does the Army G3 and requirement community take into
account the long-term consequences and costs to the entire Government
when developing requirements? Are you satisfied that the Army
requirements community knows what is the art of the possible?
Mr. Bechtel. Yes, we do assess the long term health consequences
and potential retirement related costs to the government as a very
important part of the requirements development process. For instance,
proponents and combat developers recognize the amount of equipment in
and weight of a Soldiers load can significantly impact the Soldier's
long term health. A specific example to help assess, capture, and
address this is the Army's use of the concept of manpower and personnel
integration, what we call MANPRINT. The Army also pursues
experimentation, testing, analysis, and surveys to assist in the
collection of data necessary to substantiate performance and
effectiveness in the requirements development process. In the area of
body armor and other protection element, we fully recognize the
tradeoffs between protection, ballistics, and weight, and the impact
they have on the Soldier, not only from a mobility aspect, but also on
the near-term and long-term health skeletal and muscular systems.
Regarding the art of the possible, yes the Army continues to take
hard looks at ways to improve our operational forces. For instance, in
the areas of Soldier mobility and the squad as a system, the
requirements community habitually examines changing our doctrine and
concepts, the use of robotics, and vehicle support (i.e., improved
suspension systems) to push the envelope and provide a tactical edge.
An example of an improved technological capability being pursued is can
be found in work being done with nanotechnology and the superheating of
different composites. State of the art nanotechnology is able to create
a small armor plate, not the size of the current body armor plate, but
a six-inch plate that is very light with the capability to potentially
prevent against small arms munitions penetration. So we're pursuing
innovative approaches across a lot of systems to take care of our
Soldiers--not only for the near-term operational mission need, but just
as important, the long-term health and quality of life for our
Soldiers.
Mr. Turner. Does the Marine Corps currently have a validated
requirement for lighter-weight body armor systems?
General Smith. The primary requirement for body armor systems is
based on levels of protection required. There are validated and
specific weight requirements for these systems. The Army's Soldier
Protection System Capabilities Development Document (CDD) will be the
overarching document for ballistic protection requirements that will be
reflected in individual Capability Production Documents (CPDs). The
Army intends to start fielding the Scalable Protection System (SPS) in
FY15, and is primarily focused on weight reduction. The Marine Corps
will take a longer approach that will allow technology to mature to the
level necessary to achieve our goals in protection, integration, and
mobility, which we view as being equal in importance in a true next
generation system. Additional Key Performance Parameters (KPPs) will be
emphasized by defining mobility parameters using the Marine Corps Load
Effects Assessment Program (MCLEAP), and integration parameters by the
IPT within the Modular Scalable Protection System (MSPS) IPT (which is
chartered). The Marine Corps is continually evaluating the potential
for weight reduction with the stipulation that new developments
maintain the same levels of protection of current personal protective
equipment.
The Marine Corps has consistently challenged industry during our
various industry meetings and conferences to provide the same
protection level at 20% decrease in weight. The Marine Corps has
partnered with industry, government and academia through the Office of
Naval Research and the Naval Research Lab to develop new technologies
and materials that will reduce the weight of body armor or increase
capability at the same or lighter weight. Presently, we are engaged in
several Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) projects through
Marine Corps Systems Command and have funded white papers submitted in
response to the Natick Soldier Research and Development and Engineering
Center Broad Agency Announcement. The Marine Corps also coordinates its
efforts closely with the Army to prevent duplication of effort and
increase joint exploration of promising technologies. These combined
efforts drive the development of lighter weight body armor technologies
and designs.
Examples of efforts include research into new vest designs and
materials, Lightweight ESAPI and objective weight ECSAPI, flexible
armor, eyewear, helmets (Helmet Electronics and Display System--
Upgradeable Protection Army Technology Objective (HEaDS-UP ATO)) and
protective undergarments. In addition, the MSPS aims to integrate the
attributes of current armor protective levels with a lighter weight,
load distribution system that will also enable greater range of motion
and less stress on Marines.
Mr. Turner. It has been almost 4 years (July 28, 2009) since the
Government Accountability Office issued a report on Army and Marine
Corps Ground Combat Helmet Pads. In the report, the GAO states that the
``Army and Marine Corps are aware of the use of unapproved (helmet)
pads and have taken steps to rectify this practice.''
With Traumatic Brain Injury as perhaps the signature injury of the
wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, can you tell me if soldiers and marines
are still using unapproved helmet pads? If so, what steps are you now
taking to rectify this practice?
General Smith and General Kelley. Team Wendy pads are used in the
present Lightweight Helmet and will be used in the Enhanced Combat
Helmet. The Team Wendy pads were proven to be superior in a 2006 Blunt
trauma study when compared to all the leading pad systems.
The Army is leading an effort to find alternative pad systems. The
Marine Corps is following this program and is committed to adopting the
same system if it proves to be more effective than the current Team
Wendy pad system. This effort has been coordinated through the Cross
Service Warfighter Equipment Board (CSWEB).
Mr. Turner. As evidenced by some of the recent and well-publicized
training accidents in our military, it is clear that our service
members need the best protective equipment during training as well as
in theater. Specific to head protection for reducing Traumatic Brain
Injury, what checks are in place within the Army and Marine Corps to
make sure that our warfighters are receiving standard issue headgear,
to include authorized pad systems, both in training and in theater?
General Smith and General Kelley. Team Wendy pads are used in the
present Lightweight Helmet and will be used in the Enhanced Combat
Helmet. The Team Wendy pads were proven to be superior in a 2006 Blunt
trauma study when compared to all the leading pad systems.
A Marine Administration Message released in April 2007 establishes
that it is Marine Corps policy, for Marines and Sailors assigned to
both USMC and Joint command, to be issued Marine Corps approved PPE,
which includes the Lightweight Helmet. It further clarifies that
Marines and Sailors may not use commercial PPE in lieu of government
tested, approved and issued PPE. The language is clear that enforcement
of this policy is a Commander responsibility.
Mr. Turner. What are the Army and Marine Corps plans to enhance
communications with industry in the coming fiscal year?
General Smith and General Kelley. The Marine Corps works closely
with the industrial base to field innovative solutions to identified
requirements keeping cost-effectiveness and sustainability in mind
during this prolonged period of fiscal austerity. We do this by
actively engaging and communicating our programmatic and technical
priorities, needs and future plans with industry in a number of forums.
At the ground level, Marine Corps Systems Command (MCSC)
established the Industry Interface Council (IIC). The IIC is comprised
of Command representatives and industry who meet on a regular basis
that provides an effective feedback between MCSC and industry on ways
to continue to better serve and communicate with each other. A result
from the IIC was the launch of the Marine Corps Advanced Planning
Briefing to Industry (APBI).
Additionally, the Marine Corps participates in many events, large
and small, in an effort to communicate with industry. The larger events
include the annual Modern Day Marine Exposition that includes the
Marine Corps Report to Industry and the biennial Advanced Planning
Briefing to Industry. During these events, Marine Corps General
Officers highlight the needs and way ahead of the Corps by providing
industry with our acquisition and funding plans. Smaller events include
``Industry Days'' where many individual Marine Corps ground programs
offices meet with industry throughout the year, giving businesses an
opportunity to inform our acquisition professionals with potential
solutions that could better equip our warfighters. As we continue to
recognize the potential capabilities, innovations, and technology
solutions that small businesses can offer, MCSC's Office of Small
Business Programs (OSBP) is involved in small business and industry
outreach events on a weekly basis. MCSC's OSBP participates in local
and national small business outreach events, where the MCSC OSBP
matches the capabilities of small businesses with MCSC and Program
Manager Officer Land Systems requirements.
Such events provide great venues for industry to stay abreast of
opportunities with the Marine Corps acquisition community and for the
Marine Corps to learn about potential solutions.
Mr. Turner. I am concerned about the requirements for issuance
uniforms. I understand that the Department of Defense does not have a
universal standard for when a soldier, sailor, airman, or marine must
be issued fire-retardant clothing.
Please explain how the Marine Corps determines who is issued what
versions and components of flame-resistant uniforms and the process by
which this decision is made to include the decisionmaker? What is the
sustainment requirement for these uniforms and how is it budgeted?
General Smith and General Kelley. The Marine Corps currently uses
the same textile solution for its flame resistant uniforms as the other
services--the ``Defender M'' produced by Tencate. All four Services
continue to work closely and share in research and development and
information on advancements in textiles that may result in better flame
resistant protection coupled with lighter weight and improved
durability.
The Marine Corps provides all of its forward deployed Marines with
Flame Resistant Organizational Gear (FROG) which consists of outer and
under garments, gloves, and head, face, and neck protection.
The decision to wear FROG is retained by the Combatant Commander
but is often delegated down to the Battalion Command level. A
commander's decision for his Marines to wear or to not wear FROG is
commonly based on a careful consideration of the threat, environment,
mission and other operational factors/conditions.
The sustainment requirement for FROG is the ability to support
Marines forward deployed to Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF) and with
the Marine Expeditionary Units (MEU). Sustainment is currently
supported through a combination of Overseas Contingency Operations and
programmed Operations and Maintenance Marine Corps (OMMC) funds.
Mr. Turner. A recent GAO study highlights the difficulties the
military services have experienced with respect to combat uniforms and
camouflage with multiple variants across the Services, different and
ineffective patterns, different FR materials, a lack of coordination
within and across the Services, etc. This study made many
recommendations that the Services largely concurred with.
Please provide an update on the camouflage program and associated
combat uniform programs? Is there a requirement for continuing to
improve the combat clothing worn by our warfighters, both the base
uniform and the flame-resistant variant?
General Smith and General Kelley. The Marine Corps believes that
every Service member deserves the opportunity to wear an effective
camouflage uniform commensurate with their assigned mission and normal
operating area. The Marine Corps supports camouflage uniforms that
reduce visual detection and enhance performance.
All of the Services, including DLA, work closely with U.S. Army
Natick Soldier Research, Development and Engineering Command (NSRDEC)
and mutually benefits from the incremental advancements and technology
leaps impacting the development of individual combat clothing and PPE.
When it comes to requirements, the Marine Corps and the Army
collaborate wherever their mission profiles converge. In the case of
the uniform, the Marine Corps has looked at the places we think we
would be most likely employed, and we've created a uniform for that.
We are not aware of any effort to develop a singular uniform. While
we collaborate in many areas, in regard to the combat uniform, the Army
and the Marine Corps selected different solutions. A distinct mission
profile is the distinguishing factor that precludes development of a
singular uniform.
Mr. Turner. What are the Army and Marine Corps plans for female-
specific equipment (to include clothing, individual equipment, and body
armor) development? To what degree do these plans depend on sustainment
funding and/or new program funding?
General Smith and General Kelley. The Marine Corps realizes that
the differences in female anatomy are not necessarily compatible with
current armor designs. We also have found that challenges remain in
retaining ballistic performance with curved plate geometries. Tests
have shown conformal ceramic armor doesn't meet ballistic performance
standards.
For the past three years, the Marine Corps has monitored and
actively supported the U.S. Army's effort to develop female specific
body armor. The U.S. Army developed new prototype body armor for female
soldiers based on the Improved Outer Tactical Vest (IOTV), which is
being evaluated for fit and sizing. The U.S. Army has designated the
IOTV as their replacement for the Outer Tactical Vest (OTV). The OTV
was previously issued and shared with the Marine Corps. We have since
replaced the OTV with the Plate Carrier (PC). We will address the
interim and long term solution to enhance the fit, form, and comfort of
the Marine Corps Family of Body Armor (FBA) to best provide ballistic
protection capability across the range of Marine stature and gender
spectrum. The Marine Corps will conduct a comprehensive survey fit of
torso, pelvic, and helmet ballistic protection systems during FY13. The
survey seeks to obtain a better understanding of issues specific to
smaller stature and female demographic, and comprehensive data on fit,
sizing, and comfort which will be incorporated into the design of the
next generation fully integrated, Modular Scalable Protective System
(MSPS). We will continue to monitor the U.S. Army in their efforts to
develop solutions to address notable issues with sizing and comfort
levels of body armor for female soldiers.
We do not have a funding line for female body armor as all of our
armor is incorporated into the Family of Ballistic Protective Systems.
We are working with the Army as noted above on improvements to our
current systems. We additionally have different sizing than the Army
which improves the fit of the current systems with smaller stature
Marines.
Mr. Turner. Please provide a couple of examples of the most recent
new products that have significantly reduced the soldier's load? On
average how often will weight-saving technology refreshes occur across
the portfolio of items the soldier wears and carries. What are the
risks to achieving these improvements? Are they being developed with
overseas contingency operations funds?
General Smith and General Kelley. Our goal is to give Marines the
equipment and confidence to accomplish his or her mission successfully.
To do this, we constantly seek the balance between effectiveness and
weight of the equipment and the speed, endurance and survivability of
the warfighter. The Marine Corps' continues to look at ways to make
advancements in reducing the Marine's combat load.
For example, the introduction of the Infantry Automatic Rifle
reduced the load of the three heaviest-burdened Marines in the rifle
squad, the Automatic Riflemen. There is an eight-pound difference in
unloaded weapons and a 14-pound difference in loaded weapons when
compared to the M249 (Squad Automatic Weapon). This weapon
significantly enhances the mobility of the Marines with the greatest
quantity of automatic firepower in the squad and provides
interoperability of ammunition sources throughout all the squad members
by eliminating linked ammunition required by the M249. These systems
were developed and procured with base budget not OCO funding.
Additionally, we are aggressively improving the energy
effectiveness of our Marine's equipment as another aspect of lightening
the load. On the individual Marine, over a dozen batteries in six
different configurations are used at any given time. The Marine Corps
is fielding, in OEF, the next generation of solar-powered alternative
energy solution, SPACE and GREENS, to recharge batteries and power
laptops, radios, and other Platoon through Battalion level equipment in
order to reduce the need for generators and fuel resupply convoys.
Centralizing, standardizing, and reliably distributing power has the
potential to reduce the reliance upon the multiple types of batteries
that are currently used in systems and carried in significant quantity
as spares. Initial SPACES and GREENS efforts received some OCO funding.
Mr. Turner. The MSPS is the USMC's version of the Army's Soldier
Protection System (SPS). I understand the MSPS takes a slightly
different approach focusing on mobility and not weight reduction.
Would a joint program yield more industry participation and
competition? How different are USMC requirements from the Army's? What
percentage of the total Corps will get this system? How was that
percentage determined?
General Kelley. The Modular Scalable Protection System (MSPS) is
the Marine Corps initial effort to develop a fully integrated system of
ballistic protective equipment for the individual Marine. The MSPS
includes protection for the head, eyes, hearing, torso, pelvic region,
and extremities and will be developed with a balanced emphasis on
protection, integration, and mobility. We want to develop protections
systems that our equal to or greater than our current capability but at
reduced weight. Moreover, with the MSPS we seek to improve the
ergonomics of the elements within the MSPS to improve load carriage,
flexibility, and bulk over current systems. We are also looking at
novel approached to integrate load bearing capabilities (packs and
pouches) and power/data management for the individual Marine.
The focus on returning mobility to the individual Marine will
incorporate the Marine Corps Load Effects Assessment Program (MCLEAP)
as a means to baseline our current systems, provide a mobility metric
for the MSPS requirement, and measure improvements in mobility provided
by prototypes for the MSPS.
The Modular Scalable Vest (MSV) is the torso armor component of the
MSPS and is currently under development. The focus of the MSV program
is to provide increased protection levels with no weight costs while
enhancing Marine mobility and combat effectiveness through smart load
management and integration capabilities. The MSV will provide the
capability to scale protection levels in a single system, a load
distribution and carriage capability, and inherent integration
capabilities with the USMC Pack System. The MSV will utilize both a
lighter weight soft armor, which offers 10-15% weight reductions over
current soft armor, and the Enhanced Capability Small Arms Protective
Inserts (EC SAPIs), which provide increased ballistic protection at
current Enhanced Small Arm Protective Inserts (ESAPIs) weight. Both of
these improvements were developed in coordination with the Army and
will be resident within their future systems as well. We plan to begin
fielding the EC SAPIs in Fiscal Year (FY) 2014 and the MSC in FY2016.
Would a joint program yield more industry participation and
competition?
There is significant collaboration between the Army and the Marine
Corps now and also significant participation and competition across the
segment of industry interested in these capabilities with no conclusive
evidence that a Joint program would influence greater competition or
yield increased support to the Warfighters in each of the Services. The
response to the Marine Corps' effort to develop concept demonstrators
for the MSV has been enthusiastic and promising. Recently, there has
been increased interest on the part of the Army in the Marine Corps
approach to the MSPS as a whole and the MSV specifically and plans are
being made to test Army and Marine Corps concepts side-by-side.
Additional interest on the part of industry is sure to result.
How different are USMC requirements from the Army's?
The Army and Marine Corps use the same ESAPI plates for hard armor
protection and the same soft armor materials for torso and pelvic
protection. The main difference between the Army and Marine Corps
pursuit of next-gen personal protection systems is in the design and
cut of our soft armor.
The Army's Soldier Protection System Capabilities Development
Document (CDD) emphasizes weight reduction as the primary means to
return mobility to the individual soldier. However, the Army's CDD does
not include mobility as a desired attribute and while improved
integration is an Army goal, it falls subordinate to protection and
weight reduction. In addition, the Army intends to begin fielding their
Soldier Protection System (SPS) in FY 2015.
The Marine Corps intends to take a longer approach to permit
technology and design to mature to the level we believe necessary to
achieve our combined goals in protection, integration, and mobility,
which we consider of equal in importance in our pursuit of a next
generation system. The balance between protection and weight reduction
are being emphasized by defining mobility parameters and requirements
using the MCLEAP.
What percentage of the total Corps will get this system? How was
that percentage determined?
Our initial acquisition objectives are intended to support forward
deployed forces and forces preparing to deploy, approximately 38% of
the total force, with the MSV and other components of MSPS as they are
developed. This strategy is driven by the desire to equip our
warfighters with the most up to date and capable protection systems
while conscientiously shepherding our limited resources. Limiting
fielding to deployers optimizes development and design of these new
systems by directly incorporating user feedback into follow on
configurations. This approach prevents costly and multiple fielding of
incrementally improved protection systems across the force until a
final, optimized configuration is achieved. For the majority of the
Corps, currently issued protection systems will be sustained and
improved periodically through insertions of lighter soft and hard armor
as technology and resources allow.
Mr. Turner. What is the current status of the enhanced combat
helmet? Why is it taking so long to procure this helmet?
General Kelley. To date, the Enhanced Combat Helmet (ECH)
successfully completed the First Article Test III, and it is undergoing
full up system level testing which is anticipated to be completed in
May 2013. Upon successful completion of final testing requirements, the
program office anticipates to award a delivery order during fourth
quarter fiscal year 2013.
The delay in procuring the ECH is a result of qualitative test
failures with the vendor's second and third production lines due to an
Engineering Change Proposal. Through root cause analysis, the
contractor identified the issue and applied course correction.
Mr. Turner. In 2010, Congress mandated DOD to establish a
procurement line item for body armor components. DOD has failed to
comply with this requirement. DOD has indicated that body armor is
considered to be an ``expendable item'' and that creating a procurement
line for expendable items would add inefficiencies in managing
procurement quantities due to varying procurement quantity
requirements.
In your opinion, how would you categorize body armor? Do you
consider body armor to be an ``expendable'' article, similar to a T-
shirt? DOD notes that inefficiencies would be created by establishing a
procurement line item. Do you agree with this statement? If yes, then
please provide more details into what types of inefficiencies would be
created. Recognizing that one of the benefits of using O&M funding is
flexibility, and that flexibility was required during the rampup for
OIF/OEF, should DOD reassess whether a procurement line item would be
appropriate for future buys now that current conflicts are drawing
down?
General Kelley. Yes, we consider body armor to be a consumable item
because of its short life cycle. In comparison, the way that body armor
is used and replenished is similar to that of unit issued clothing
which is funded with OMMC. Further, body armor is not generally
repairable. If it is damaged, body armor is disposed and a replacement
is provided.
Body armor is a consumable item with a unit cost less than the
expense/investment threshold, therefore appropriately funded with O&M.
We believe this is the most responsive way to not only replace damaged
gear but to also respond to changing requirements.
Mr. Turner. Are you aware that the average age of the top 5 most
often employed U.S. small arms are on average around 30 years old? How
are you modernizing the family of small arms?
General Kelley. Although the original versions of some of our small
arms entered the inventory nearly 50 years ago, current versions are
significantly modified or newly produced to provide enhanced target
detection, identification, accuracy, dependability, and lethality. The
examples below highlight the life cycle product improvements and
modernization across much of our inventory.
5.56mm M16A4 Service Rifle--The first version, M16A1, entered the
service in 1964. The current version was fielded in 2003 and features a
heavier barrel, 3 round burst vice full auto setting, and MIL-STD-1913
accessory rails to mount target acquisition and designator devices to
include the Rifle Combat Optic, a 4 power magnification optic issued
with every weapon. These improvements, coupled with significant
improvements in ammunition, have increased target detection, weapons
accuracy, range, penetration, and dependability.
5.56mm M4 Carbine--The M4 was fielded in 2003 with similar features
to the M16A4 (3 round burst vice full auto setting, and MIL-STD-1913
accessory rails to mount target acquisition and designator devices to
include the Rifle Combat Optic, a 4-power magnification optic issued
with every weapon). The M4 is the designated weapon for all Officers
and Staff Non-Commissioned Officers up to the rank of lieutenant
colonel.
5.56mm M27 Infantry Automatic Rifle--Fielding of the M27 Infantry
Automatic Rifle (IAR) concluded in April, 2013. The IAR replaced the
M249 Squad Automatic Weapon (SAW) within the Marine Rifle Squad. The
M27 features a full auto firing setting, free floating barrel, and 4.5-
power magnification optic, and is half the weight of the M249. The
reduced weight of the IAR increases the automatic rifleman's
maneuverability and displacement speed, allowing him to keep pace with
the rest of the fire team, while the increased accuracy coupled with
the full auto capability maintains the lethal capabilities of the
Marine rifle squad.
7.62mm M40A5 Sniper Rifle--The M40 Sniper Rifle was initially
fielded in 1966, with successors fielded in 1970 (M40A1); 2001 (M40A3);
and 2009 (M40A5). Improvements within M40A5 include a fiberglass stock,
3x to 15x power variable scope, forward accessory rail to facilitate
mounting the in-line night vision as well as other devices (target
designators, range finders), and a weapons signature suppressor.
M240B Medium Machinegun--In 2006, the M240B replaced the M240G
medium machine which had been in our inventory since 1997. The main
improvements to the M240B include the MIL-STD-1913 accessory rails to
mount target acquisition and designator devices to include the Machine
Gun Day Optic (a 6-power magnification optic issued with every weapon),
a hydraulic buffer w/in the butt stock to reduce recoil, and
enhancements to the gas regulator. Combined, the improvements in the
M240B enhance target acquisition, weapons accuracy, and weapon service
life.
M2 .50cal Heavy Machinegun--The M2 Heavy Barrel Machine Gun has
been in the inventory since 1933 and remains largely unchanged.
However, in conjunction with the Army, the Marine Corps is in the
process of upgrading the M2 to the M2A1. Improvements within the M2A1
.50 cal enhance safety and survivability and include a quick change
barrel, fixed headspace and timing, and a new flash suppressor that
reduces night weapon's signature by 95%.
MK19 40mm Grenade Launching Machinegun--The MK19 entered the Marine
Corps inventory in the mid-1980s and remains unchanged. There are
currently no plans to replace or modify this weapon system.
M9 9mm Pistol--The M9 pistol was initially fielded in 1985 and
remains in service with no replacement planned. However, the Marine
Corps is monitoring the Joint Modular Handgun System effort under the
lead of the Army, and will determine its future participation based on
operational needs.
In addition to the Corps' ongoing efforts to modernize its small
arms and small caliber ammunition inventories, we also actively
participate in the Joint Services Small Arms Synchronization Team
(JSSAST). The JSSAST is a Joint body organized to openly exchange
information, generate small arms requirements and pursue the
technologies necessary to produce the next generation of small arms in
the 2025 and beyond timeframe.
Mr. Turner. To the extent possible what programs and/or policies
has the Marine Corps put in place to sustain and stabilize the domestic
industrial base for individual warfighter equipment? How have these
programs and/or policies been communicated to industry and to what
effect?
General Kelley. The Marine Corps procures equipment in response to
a funded and validated requirement, not in any specific effort to
sustain the industrial base in any industry. A way that the Marine
Corps contributes to sustaining the domestic industrial base for
warfighter equipment is complying with the Berry Amendment. All
equipment we procure that contains materials covered by the Berry
Amendment, mostly textiles, are from domestic sources. The Marine
Corps, specifically Combat Development and Integration (CD&I), develops
warfighter equipment requirements based on roles and missions laid out
in Title 10. These requirements are validated by Marine Corps and DOD
leadership, and are communicated to industry via Marine Corps Systems
Command (MCSC) through Requests for Proposals and Requests for
Information.
The Marine Corps also actively engages and communicates our
programmatic and technical priorities, needs and future plans in a
number of forums. We participate in events ranging from broad to small
platforms. Broad platforms include events like the annual Modern Day
Marine Exposition and the biennial Advanced Planning Briefing to
Industry during which the acquisition and funding plans are provided to
industry. The more finite efforts include venues such as ``Industry
Days'' where many individual Marine Corps ground programs offices meet
with industry throughout the year, giving them an opportunity to meet
with our acquisition professionals on potential solutions. In addition,
the Marine Corps recognizes the potential capabilities, innovations,
and technology solutions that small businesses can offer. MCSC Office
of Small Business Programs (OSBP) is involved in small business and
industry outreach events on a weekly basis. MCSC's OSBP participates in
local and national small business outreach events, performing business
matchmaking at many of those events, to match the capabilities of small
businesses with MCSC and Program Manager Officer Land Systems
requirements.
Such events provide great venues for industry to stay abreast of
opportunities with the Marine Corps acquisition community and for the
Marine Corps to learn from industry about potential solutions.
______
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MS. DUCKWORTH
Ms. Duckworth. Hearing damage and hearing loss are two of the
leading injuries among warfighters and veterans. In 2011, the VA spent
over $1 billion on disability payments to veterans suffering from
hearing loss. As hearing loss has grown to be the most common service-
connected disability resulting from OEF and OIF, that number is
expected to exceed $2 billion in 2014. A recent GAO report even stated
that ``well before retirement, such [hearing] damage can reduce
servicemembers' ability to communicate and affect the quality of their
professional and personal lives. Moreover, it can create additional
costs to the government and taxpayers by decreasing troop readiness and
increasing the need for medical services and disability compensation.''
The same report said, ``while [servicemembers] were generally aware
that they were required to wear double protection, each was wearing
single protection and many cited comfort as a reason for their non-
compliance. At other locations we visited, servicemembers cited the
impact of hearing protection on communication.'' Last year the defense
authorization contained language recognizing the measures take by the
U.S. Army Special Operations Command to provide communications
equipment with simultaneous, inner-aural hearing protection. What has
the U.S. Naval Special Warfare Command done to provide the same
preventative equipment? Do other components have plans to take the same
measures to provide enhanced hearing protection and communications for
deployed service members?
General Ostrowski and Mr. Bechtel. This question is best answered
by the Navy.
Ms. Duckworth. Hearing damage and hearing loss are two of the
leading injuries among warfighters and veterans. In 2011, the VA spent
over $1 billion on disability payments to veterans suffering from
hearing loss. As hearing loss has grown to be the most common service-
connected disability resulting from OEF and OIF, that number is
expected to exceed $2 billion in 2014. A recent GAO report even stated
that ``well before retirement, such [hearing] damage can reduce
servicemembers' ability to communicate and affect the quality of their
professional and personal lives. Moreover, it can create additional
costs to the government and taxpayers by decreasing troop readiness and
increasing the need for medical services and disability compensation.''
The same report said, ``while [servicemembers] were generally aware
that they were required to wear double protection, each was wearing
single protection and many cited comfort as a reason for their non-
compliance. At other locations we visited, servicemembers cited the
impact of hearing protection on communication.'' Last year the defense
authorization contained language recognizing the measures take by the
U.S. Army Special Operations Command to provide communications
equipment with simultaneous, inner-aural hearing protection. What has
the U.S. Naval Special Warfare Command done to provide the same
preventative equipment? Do other components have plans to take the same
measures to provide enhanced hearing protection and communications for
deployed service members?
General Smith and General Kelley. [The information was not
available at the time of printing.]
|
NEWSLETTER
|
|
Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list
|
|
|
