$30 to $35 million for the Marine STOVL version. While these costs are based on a program plan for over 3,000 aircraft and annual rates of 158 and 170 per year, what would DoD project for JSF unit costs if annual rates were reduced to 100 or less aircraft per year? CBO. The Department of Defense, namely the JSF program manager-is in the best position to determine the sensitivity of the JSF cost goals to production rates. CBO's estimates for the JSF assume that aircraft producers will build and equip facilities that are sized to the planned production rates. DoD's experience is that producers usually build facilities that are sized to planned rates that never materialize. That phenomenon occurs for several reasons, including optimism about the availability of future funding and about future aircraft prices. CBO has not attempted to estimate the cost burden if future plans prove to be as unrealistic as past plans. Prices could be higher than CBO's estimates for the JSF if DoD equips facilities to produce more planes than it orders. Higher prices could drive the Department of Defense to purchase fewer planes overall and, as a result, force struc ture. Mr. WELDON. The F-22 program has provided unclassified comparisons of F-22 vs F-15 capability to avoid SAM and other air defense systems radar. Given that the F/A-18E/F and Joint Strike Fighter must also operate in opposing force airspace, please provide for the record, an unclassified comparision of stealth capability of the F-22, F/A-18E/F, and JSF, to penetrate SAM systems and other air defense systems? CBO. This question would be better addressed to DoD, which has the information to respond to it. ARMY MODERNIZATION HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON NATIONAL The subcommittees met jointly, pursuant to notice, at 2:03 p.m., in room 2118, Rayburn House Office Building, the Honorable Curt Weldon (chairman of the Subcommittee on Military Research and Development) presiding. OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. CURT WELDON, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM PENNSYLVANIA, CHAIRMAN, MILITARY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT SUBCOMMMITTEE Mr. WELDON. The subcommittee will come to order. Today's hearing will consider the Army's modernization budget request. It is a real pleasure for me to cochair today's hearing with my good friend and colleague, Duncan Hunter, and members of both the Research and Development [R&D] and Procurement Subcommittees. He and I have established a practice of sharing the jurisdiction of our subcommittees, so that we can better understand both the Research and Development [R&D] and the actual procurement process. It's worked extremely well as we alternate the chairmanships so that both of our subcommittee members, which make up actually the bulk of the full committee have a full appreciation as to the decisions that we're making. We both share a common concern for the decline in defense spending over the last years, and we've said that publicly on numerous occasions. Although the Army's entire modernization budget once again appears sadly underfunded, I will focus on the Army's R&D funding which has decreased from $4.9 billion in fiscal year 1997 to $4.5 billion in fiscal year 1998. This represents only, and I highlight this issue, 13 percent of the Department of Defense's $35.9 billion R&D request for 1998. I find that somewhat appalling, and we're obviously going to address that issue during our hearing today. In comparison, the Army's R&D request continues to be dwarfed by those of the other services, with the Navy at $7.9 billion, and the Air Force's request of $14 billion. Again, this year modernization budgets continue to be sacrificed as bill payers for shortfalls in the service's personnel and readiness accounts. The administration's budget submission to Congress continues to delay funding for modernization until the turn of the century. This at a time when the Army is attempting a leap ahead in technology to meet the threats of the 21st century. Last month, 30 members of both the R&D and Procurement Subcommittees received extensive classified briefings from Central Intelligence Agency analysts-5 hours, in fact-regarding a multitude of present and future threats, to include proliferation of weapons systems around the world that pose threats to several of the Army's current and future systems. Of note, the analysts highlighted the near-term vulnerability of U.S. armor, and the lack of concerted research and development for improved armor for ground vehicles, a topic I hope to address today. Today, the Army has brought a few items to illustrate the fruits of some of its science and technology efforts as a background on which we may want to focus some of our discussions. As Dr. Anita Jones indicated in her testimony the week before last, the Department's science and technology efforts require steady and consistent funding now, with some modest growth in future years from this point forward, if we are to maintain a technology edge over our adversaries in the next century. Mr. Secretary, we welcome you and thank you for coming to testify today, and you and General Guenther, since this will be your last appearance before our subcommittee, we'd like to extend our personal thanks and best wishes on behalf of a grateful Nation for the outstanding work that you have done. And I understand it's also the last appearance of General Hite, so I guess this is a special day when we have three such distinguished individuals who have given so much of themselves for their country come before us. And as I said earlier, a grateful Nation says thank you to each of you for a job well done. Before I turn the floor over to you, Mr. Secretary, I want to call on Duncan Hunter, the chairman of the Procurement Subcommittee for any remarks he may have, followed by Mr. Pickett and Mr. Skelton, the ranking Democrats on the R&D and Procurement Subcommittees respectively. [The prepared statement of Mr. Weldon can be found in the appendix on page 416.] Mr. Hunter. STATEMENT OF HON. DUNCAN HUNTER, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM CALIFORNIA, CHAIRMAN, MILITARY PROCUREMENT SUBCOMMITTEE Mr. HUNTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And it has been a pleasure to work with Curt Weldon and the Readiness-I mean, the R&D Subcommittee and the Readiness Subcommittee, I might add. So I didn't want to miss you, Herb. It has been not only a pleasure, but I think it has been very worthwhile, because our programs do meld and they do integrate from R&D to procurement, and that's the way, I think, to overview the programs. Let me also congratulate General Guenther and Secretary Decker and General Hite on your careers and your service to the country. And General Guenther, you come from New Jersey, and Mr. Decker, California, at least as of recently, and General Hite the hills of Tennessee. And, I think one of the great things about coming to this town is we all come from somewhere, we all have somewhere to go when we leave this place. Sometimes it's more fun to go than it is to come. But I want to thank you because the security of this country in this very important area of national security depends on having honest brokers like yourselves to not only advocate positions, but also to be credible and candid and honest when you appear before the oversight committees, and you have always done that. And we have had some differences of opinion, but we have always done it on the facts, and I wish we had a bigger budget to work with this year. We don't. Sometimes it takes-the smaller the budgets get, the better the people have to be who are leading those particular programs. Thank you for what you have done for the country. Last week General Reimer, the Chief of Staff of the Army, stated that the continued delay of the Army's modernization would have a major impact on readiness. And I believe he stated that while he thinks in the near term we are right on the edge, certainly that we have a very serious concern about equipment, and our soldiers are going to have to cross the threshold of the 21st century very quickly, and if we further defer modernization, that's going to accrue to their detriment. That was the essence of what he said, that at some point, although we're putting our money theoretically into operational readiness today, and we're deferring modernization to do that, at some point modernization is deferred to the point where your equipment is so old that you for practical purposes have affected readiness. I might also say you've affected, I think, the quality of life of our soldiers. You know, we have a more difficult time meeting our recruiting goals now. And soldiers have a lot of different things they are concerned about, quality of life for their families is very important. But also having good equipment is important. When you send a pilot out with an aircraft, whether it's fixed wing or rotor, that's older than he is, he or she is, then that has, I think, an effect on that soldier's morale. And we are getting to the point where we are going to have older and older pieces of equipment manned by people who are facing a tougher and tougher and more technologically oriented adversary. And because of that, we're going to have to move into this modernization period, take charge of this bow wave that we've talked about, and pay for it, and go ahead and move through it, and buy what we have to buy for our soldiers. So, I look forward to your testimony today. Again we have a major, major challenge, and it's good to be here with the R&D Subcommittee to see what you've got to present to us. You've got some good-looking equipment, I can see, some commemorative items to give to the respective Congressmen. [Laughter.] Mr. HUNTER. Nice to be with you. And Mr. Chairman, thank you. [The prepared statement of Mr. Hunter can be found in the appendix on page 418.] Mr. WELDON. Thank you, Mr. Hunter. Mr. Pickett. |