Page 1       TOP OF DOC

[H.A.S.C. No. 106–11]







FEBRUARY 11, 1999

 Page 2       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC


    Mr. HUNTER. I understand from your testimony that you did not have any indication or warning that your aircraft was being lased on the night (afternoon) of the incident during which you were injured. Am I correct to assume your aircraft was not outfitted with any laser detection/warning system?

    Lieutenant DALY. Yes, that is correct. The Canadian, CH–124 ''Sea King'' helicopter was not so equipped.

    Mr. HUNTER. I understand from you that you were not provided protective goggles for the mission during which you were injured, nor did you have any reason to believe you would be subject to a laser attack on that mission. Do you think an alarm from a laser detection device that the helicopter was being lased would have given you warning that there was something unusual was occurring during your mission? In addition, even without protective goggles, would a laser detection device have given you a better opportunity to avert your eyes or fly clear of Kapitan Man?

    Lieutenant DALY. Yes, provided the receiver was omnidirectional. Yes, although it may not have been early enough to completely avoid all possibility of exposure, due to the high repition rate of the laser that is suspected of being used against us. In our particular case, based on the physical evidence it is believed that a repetitively pulsed Neodymium-Yttrium Aluminum Garnet Crystal (Nd-YAG) laser with a repetition rate of 20-30 pulses/second may have been used.
 Page 3       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    Mr. HUNTER. Do you see laser warning as an important complement to protective devices, especially in environments like your incident off the coast of Washington state where you were not anticipating an attack?

    Lieutenant DALY. Yes, because of the speed at which the damaging effects can be transmitted and fact that those targeted have virtually no other indication of being lazed, I believe it is imperative to have some type of early detection/warning system available to all aircrews regardless of the operational environment. These devices have already been used twice (to my knowledge) in the not too distant past—the Kapitan Man and in Bosnia—in which the four victims have suffered injurious effects, which have had career-ending implications. Because loopholes are being exploited in the current treaty which bans the use of lasers, our service men and women will continue to be susceptible to this emerging threat. Further, because not all laser devices actually leave detectable lesions and the burden of proof of an attack lies with the victim, a device that can record the detection of a laser will prove critical in post flight analysis.

    Mr. HUNTER. For each of the four areas covered in the hearing—laser eye protection, chemical-biological defense equipment, body armor, and combat identification—how would you rate your service's capability to protect your representative soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines both today and at the end of the Future Years Defense Plan?

        a. No capability exists

        b. Limited quantity of equipment exists to support achieving the capability.
 Page 4       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

        c. Adequate quantity of equipment exists to support achieving the capability.

    Lt. General MARTIN. Today the air force has a limited Laser Eye Protection (LEP) capability and a limited amount of equipment to provide our airmen chemical-biological agent protection. The Air Force is using, on a limited bases, FV–9 LEP spectacles in United States Air Forces Europe and Pacific Air Forces to protect against threats and hazards in the invisible light spectrum. At the end of the Future Years Defense Plan (FYDP) the Air Force will have an adequate LEP capability and an adequate quantity of equipment to provide our airmen chemical-biological agent protection.

    Today, in the Air-to-Air mission area, the Air Force has an adequate ability to protect our troops from fratricide. Mark XII Identification Friend or Foe (IFF) transponders are widely fielded on U.S. military aircraft and have a proven record for reducing fratricide. The Air Force also has established procedures to prevent the fratricide of friends and neutrals not equipped with compatible equipment. The lack of a positive friendly identification is never sufficient to declare someone an enemy.

    At the end of the FYDP, in the Air-to-Air mission area, the Air Force will have an adequate ability to protect our troops from fratricide. Mark XII IFF systems and Air Force procedures will still be in place to prevent fratricide. Also by this time, many Air Force aircraft will have Link 16 and Situational Awareness Data Link (SADL) systems to provide a redundant cooperative capability using a feature called Precise Participant Location Identification (PPLI). Additionally, some noncooperative technologies are maturing; fielding will begin by the end of the FYDP.
 Page 5       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    Today, in the Air-to-Surface mission area, the Air Force has a limited ability to protect our troops from fratricide. Our primary means of preventing fratricide of ground troops is based on tactics and procedures, such as our use of Forward Air Controllers (FACs). The Air Force has fielded some systems like the Improved Data Modem (IDM) which enable FACs to pass digitized target coordinates to our aircraft and reduce the potential for error. For example, the IDM is installed on F–16 Block 50s and by FY01 will be installed in all F–16 Block 40 aircraft.

    At the end of the FYDP, in the Air-to-Ground mission area the Air Force will have a limited capability to protect our troops from fratricide. Our primary means of preventing fratricide of ground troops will still be based on tactics and procedures such as our use of Forward Air Controllers (FACs). We will also have an improved capability to identify friendly ground forces using data links. As an example, SADL on the F–16 Block 25/30/32 aircraft will tie directly into the Army's Enhanced Position Location Reporting Systems (EPLRS) network, and the link16/Variable Message Format gateway currently under development will be designed to allow the Air Force and Army to connect their respective digital networks when fielded.

Body Armor

    Mr. HUNTER. In regards to body armor, how would you rate your services capability to protect your soldiers both today and at the end of the Future Years Defense Plan (FYDP)?

 Page 6       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    General KERN. Limited quantities of Body Armor exist to support defeating the small arms threat to our soldiers. The standard issued body armor for Army soldiers is the Personnel Armor System for Ground Troops (PASGT). This system is only intended to reduce the number of serious and lethal wounds caused by fragments from grenades, mortars and shells. The Army has identified an urgent need for body armor that protects soldiers from the small arms threat. As a result, the Army has developed and procured 4000 sets of the Interim Small Arms Protective Overvest (ISAPO). The ISAPO overvests are worn with the PASGT vest and provide protection to the areas covered by the ISAPO plates against small arms fire up to and including the 7.62 millimeter rounds. These 4000 sets of ISAPO are held in Army contingency stocks for units identified to respond to a crisis and will face a small arms threat.

    Realizing the need for one system to defeat the small arms threat, the Army will begin fielding in fiscal year 2000(FY00) the Interceptor Modular body Armor system. The Interceptor Modular body Armor is a joint program with Army and the Marine Corps and will replace the PASGT vest. The system is capable of withstanding multiple hits from 7.62 millimeter rounds and has attachable throat and groin plates for increased protection. In FY99 the Army will procure 4000 set of Interceptor Modular Body Armor for delivery in FY00. The 4000 set will replace the 4000 set of ISAPO in the aforementioned Army contingency stocks. Although the Army will begin procuring Interceptor Modular Body Armor in FY99, we will have limited quantities of body armor capable of defeating the small arms threat until FY08.

    Mr. HUNTER. If the answer to question 1 is either ''a'' or ''b'' is the technology the pacing factor in achieving the capability or is available funding the pacing factor?

 Page 7       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    General KERN. Funding constraints during the FYDP and the Interceptor Modular Body Armor contractor's inability to produce large volumes of body armor in a short period of time are both pacing factors.

    The current U.S. Army Operations and Maintenance Funding programmed to procure body Armor:

Table 1

    Mr. HUNTER. If any answer to question #2 was lack of available funding, please identify any shortfalls by program in the FY00 budget request and over the remaining five years in the FYDP.

    General KERN. There are no funding shortfalls in the FY00 Presidents Budget. The gradual increase of funding during the FYDP will allow for an orderly transition to full rate production.

    Mr. HUNTER. Are your body armor programs fully funded? If not, why?

    General KERN. The Army's Body Armor program is not fully funded; however we will procure enough interceptor Body Armor to provide for all of the Army's light infantry units to include the National Guard and Reserves Roundout and Enhanced Infantry Brigades. The Army will not field the system to its mechanized and armored units due to funding constraints.

    Mr. HUNTER. Are the Army and Marines working together on body Armor improvements? If not why? Has either service checked with the Special Operations Command on its SPEAR body armor load carriage system?
 Page 8       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    General KERN. The Army and Marine Corps are working together on Body Armor. The Interceptor Modular Body Armor that the Army will start fielding in fiscal year 2000 is designed and developed to incorporate both Army and Marine requirements. The Army did check with the Special operation Command on its SPEAR armor load carriage system. The SPEAR program requirements were vastly different than those of the Army. The Army program office that is developing the new Interceptor Modular Body Armor for the Army and Marine Corps also developed the SPEAR body armor.

Laser Eye Protection

    Mr. HUNTER. In regards to laser eye protection, how would you rate your services capability to protect your soldiers both today and at the end of the Future Years Defense Plan?

    Lt. General MARTIN. Technology is the pacing factor in achieving Laser Eye Protection (LEP), chemical-biological defense, and fratricide protection.

    Technology is not mature enough to produce operationally suitable LEP devices for threats and hazards in the visible light spectrum. Currently, visible-spectrum LEP devices based on dye technology are too dark for night time operations.

    Biological agent detection has been very troublesome for years. The Joint Program Office Biological Defense has made considerable progress in developing a biological agent detection capability. Another area where technology has been a limiting factor is agents and techniques for performing fixed site decontamination.
 Page 9       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    Within the Air-to-Ground mission area, where our fratricide protection capability is currently limited, technology has been the main pacing factor due to the quantity and variety of ground targets which must be identified. Over the Future Years Defense Plan technology will continue to be a pacing factor. However, within the Future Years Defense Plan the Air Force is demonstrating maturing noncooperative Air-to-Ground technologies which could be fielded in the near to mid-term if successful. For example, one such technology is the Enhanced Recognition and Sensing LADAR (ERASER) which uses a laser to illuminate the target and takes a short-wave infrared high-resolution snapshot image which can be displayed to the pilot on a Multi-Function Display and potentially be used in an Automatic Target Recognition (ATR) program. The Air Force is also a joint sponsor of the Link16/Variable Message Format Advanced Concept Technology Demonstration to connect the ground and air data link networks on the battlefield. To capitalize on new combat identification technologies as they mature, the Air Force has increased its planned budget for combat identification by $35 million across the Future Years Defense Plan.

    Technology has been the main factor pacing the Air Force's ability to improve Air-to-Ground combat identification. Technology will continue to pace Air-to-Ground combat identification in the future. However, new technologies, such as the Enhanced Recognition and Sensing LADAR (ERASER) and High Range Resolution (HRR) Radar, are maturing which could eventually contribute significantly to our combat identification capabilities. As a result, the Air Force increased its budget by $35M across the Future Years Defense Plan to demonstrate these new technologies and assess their potential for cost effectively contributing to combat identification. As these technologies are demonstrated to be cost effective contributors to combat identification, the Air Force will address identifying funds for fielding of these capabilities.

 Page 10       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    General KERN. Today I would rate the Army's capability to protect our soldiers from lasers at C. Adequate quantity of equipment exists to achieve the capability. We have developed and fielded both 2 and 3 notch laser spectacles and visors. A notch is defined as a frequency, within the electro-magnetic spectrum, at which the spectacle or visor absorbs energy. By absorbing the energy, the spectacle or visor protects the soldier's eyes. The notch correlates directly to threat laser frequencies. Hence a two-notch spectacle will protect against two laser frequencies and a three-notch filter against three discrete laser frequencies. Today, our fielded spectacles and visors provide protection against those frequencies used by virtually all threat systems currently employed.

    At the end of the FYDP I would rate the capability between ''a'' and ''b''. The current two- and three-notch protection will provide protection against most threat systems, but is inadequate to protect against the developing threat. We are participating in a program with the Air Force to develop a 7-notch visor. This program is known as the Joint Advanced Laser Eye Protection (JALEP) program and is in the Engineering, Manufacturing and Development (EMD) acquisition phase.

    Technology is not the pacing factor in acquiring this capability. EMD will be completed in FY99, and the visor will be capable of providing protection against the foreseeable threats. Due to competing priorities, we have not funded production.

    The current U.S. Army requirements are as follows:

Table 2

    General KERN. In the area of chemical-biological defense, we currently have a limited capability to provide support to the soldier. By the end of the FYDP, we expect that although the capability will have improved significantly, there will not be a full complement of equipment available to support overall required operational capabilities.
 Page 11       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    In the Area of chemical-biological defense, technology is the pacing factor in achieving the desired capability in both the short and near-term, particularly in the areas of biological detection and decontamination. It is imperative that funding be continued beyond the FYDP at a sustained or even at an accelerated level to assure that technologies maturing during the FYDP are procured at an adequate quantitative level to meet Service requirements.

Laser Warning/Protection

    Mr. HUNTER. Please describe how your laser detection sets operate for aviators. Why is the program unfunded in 2000?

    General KERN. The AN/AVR–2A(V) Laser Detection Set consists of four laser detectors and one electronic controller. The laser detectors are mounted as necessary to provide 360 degree warning coverage around the aircraft. Laser energy aimed at the aircraft will be detected, analyzed and then cued to the pilot. Our detectors are extremely sensitive, but also have excellent false signal rejection capability. The laser energy is analyzed to determine if it is a range finder or designator. This can be determined by the coherence of the laser energy. Cueing to the pilot is provided visually on a cockpit display and aurally through a voice or tone warning system integrated into the cockpit communication system.

    The Army production contract for 990 AN/AVR–2A(V) systems will be completed in September of 2000. The Army recognizes the need for this system, however competing requirements do not allow funding in the current budget.
 Page 12       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    The fiscal year 1998(FY98) Congressional plus-up funds of $7.2 million are being used to install A-kits on AH-64 A/D aircraft as well as retrofit the existing 990 systems. The retrofit includes modifications to eliminate moisture intrusion of the sensor housing, and cracking of the mounting flanges.

    Mr. HUNTER. For the Air Force: Why did the Air Force Chief of Staff recently direct an accelerated laser eye protection capability by FY00? What specifically is being done? Is the effort adequately funded? For other witnesses: Has there been similar guidance given to each of the other services? If not, is there a reason?

    General KERN. The Army has not seen the need to accelerate fielding of enhanced laser eye protection capability. The fielded 2 and 3 notch filters are sufficient for the current laser threat. The Army is concerned with future laser threats, and is participating with the Air Force in the development of the 7 notch laser visors and spectacles. Due to the predicted rate at which the laser threat will evolve, the Army has chosen to prioritized other requirements for production funding.


    Mr. HUNTER. Why aren't your services procuring the Joint Army/Navy Advanced Laser Eye Protection Visor?

    Lt. General MARTIN. The Air Force has determined that the current Joint Army/Navy Advanced Laser Eye Protection (LEP) Visor does not meet all Air Force requirements. Specifically, the Air Force LEP requirements include full field-of-view protection, Night Vision Goggle compatibility, and low life-cycle cost. These requirements cannot be met with the current Joint Army/Navy Advanced LEP Visor. The Air Force requirements are best met through the use of LEP spectacles. However, the Air Force will continue to assess the reflective technology used in the Joint Army/Navy Advanced LEP Visor during our LEP development program to determine if it will meet some of the Air Force requirements.
 Page 13       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    Mr. HUNTER. Why did the AF Chief of Staff recently direct an accelerated laser eye protection capability by FY 2000? What specifically is being done? Is the effort adequately funded?

    Lt. General MARTIN. The AF Chief of Staff responded to a request from the Commander, United States Air Forces Europe, to accelerate the Laser eye Protection program. Recent incidents in Bosnia support wartime concerns. To protect aircrews from eye damage due to laser devices, the Air Force will conduct operational suitability, flight certification, and qualification testing of LEP spectacles fabricated using dielectric stack technology to address invisible threats. The FY99 and FY00 portion of the accelerated LEP effort will be funded from within the Air Force. This effort is adequately funded based on the current pace of the technology development.

    Mr. HUNTER. Do you have similar laser detection sets for your aviators? If not, Why?

    Lt. General MARTIN. Yes. The AN/AVR–2A Laser Detection Set is being installed on the CV–22. In addition, the Air Force is upgrading the AN/AAR–47 Missile Warning System sensor with a laser warning capability for the Air Force Special Operations Command MH–53J aircraft. There are no operation requirements to install the AN/AVR–2A, upgraded AN/AAR–47 sensor, or a similar laser detection capability in other aircraft.

Chem-Bio Defense Equipment

 Page 14       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Mr. HUNTER. Why is only 50% of the Air Force fleet equipped with the Aircrew/Eye/Respiratory Protection system? Why has is not been integrated with your positive pressure breathing suits, such that fighter pilots don't have to choose between gravity-induced loss of consciousness protection and chemi-bio protection?

    Lt. General MARTIN. Presently, 50% of the Air Force fleet is Aircrew Eye/Respiratory Protection (AERP) capable. Of the three components that make up the AERP system—man-side equipment, protective clothing, and aircraft installed equipment—the last is the pacing item due to the scheduling of aircraft modifications while considering operational commitments, maintenance schedules, and depot workload.

    The majority of the aircraft remaining to be modified are F–16s. F–16 installations begin in May 1999, with 100–125 installations per month to complete the fleet by 2000. At that time, 90% of Air Force aircraft will be AERP capable.

    With respect to gravity-induced loss of consciousness (G–LOC), two years ago the Air Force initiated a limited effort to integrate AERP with COMBAT EDGE systems. COMBAT EDGE provides our aircrews with an increase of 2 to 3 Gs of resistance to G–LOC over former G suit capability. Integrating AERP with COMBAT EDGE was more technically difficult at the time than planned and was discontinued. The Joint Service Aviation Mask (JSAM) development effort set to begin in FY00 will provide both Chemical-Biological protection and the added G–LOC resistance.

    Mr. HUNTER. What is the status of the M45 mask? The Joint Service General Purpose Mask? The Joint Service Aviation Mask?
 Page 15       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    General KERN. The M45 mask is currently in production. The M45 fielding begins in June 1999 and continues until fiscal year 2001 (FY01). The M45 mask will be used by all Army aircrew members, except AH–64 helicopter pilots, in the conduct of aviation missions in a chemical-biological environment. The M45 is also used by the Joint Special Operations Command and in the Land and Air Warrior Programs. Chemical-biological protection will be provided without the use of a motor blower while maintaining compatibility with aircraft sighting systems and night vision devices. The FY99 procurement program is the last year of a multiyear contract to meet this requirement.

    The Joint Service General Purpose Mask (JSGPM) begin full-scale development in FY99. The JSGPM provides a common next generation mask for all services ground personnel replacing five different masks across the Services. The JSGPM will reduce mission degradation while remaining compatible with future equipment and soldier systems. The mask will be virtually maintenance free. Unit costs may be low enough to allow for disposal after contamination. A development contract is scheduled for award in FY99. Research and Development efforts will continue through FY04 with initial production scheduled in FY05.

    The Joint Service Aviation Mask (JSAM) is a technology effort to develop a protective mask system for all Service aviation requirements. The JSAM will be a lightweight, modular design chemical-biological protective mask to provide chemical-biological protection for all aircrew. It will be integrated or compatible with anti-G protection for aircrew in high performance aircraft. It will also be compatible with existing chemical-biological ensembles, provide flame and thermal protection, and reduce heat stress imposed by existing chemical-biological protective masks. JSAM will be compatible with existing aircrew life support equipment. Development effort will be initiated in FY00 with a development contract scheduled for award in 2nd Quarter FY00.
 Page 16       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    Lt. General MARTIN. The Army is lead for the M45 mask and the Joint Service General Purpose Mask (JSGPM), and in keeping with our Joint Service agreement on Chemical-Biological (CB) Research, Development, and Acquisition, they will report status on those programs.

    The Joint Service Aviation Mask (JSAM) is a technology effort to develop a protective mask system for all Service aviation requirements. The JSAM will be a lightweight, modular design mask to provide CB protection for all aircrew. It will be integrated or compatible with anti-G protection for aircrew in high performance aircraft. It will be compatible with existing CB ensembles, provide flame and thermal protection, and reduce heat stress imposed by existing CB protective masks. JSAM will be compatible with existing aircrew life support equipment. The development effort will be initiated in FY00 with a development contract scheduled award in the 2nd Quarter FY00. The development effort will continue through FY02 with production scheduled to begin in FY03.

    Mr. HUNTER. What role does the Defense Threat Reduction Agency perform in chem-bio defense? How does each service interact with this agency?

    Lt. General MARTIN. The Defense Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA) exercises program execution responsibilities, including technical and analytical support for coordination and integration of the entire Chemical-Biological Defense Program (CBDP). DTRA serves on the Office of the Secretary of Defense, Nuclear Biological and Chemical (OSD NBC) Executive Steering Committee, which provides direct oversight over the Joint NBC Defense Board (JNBCDB). The steering committee also includes members from DDR&E and DATSD(CP/CBD). DTRA also provides program analysis, science and technology assessments, technical assessments, budget/financial analysis and other support to OSD leadership. Further, DTRA provides funds distribution support, previously provided by the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization.
 Page 17       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    The Air Force interacts with DTRA through its participation in the functions of the Joint Service Material and Integration Groups, and the JNBCDB.

    General KERN. Under the defense Reform Initiative, some of the responsibilities of the Assistant to the Secretary of Defense for Nuclear, Chemical, Biological Matters (ATSD(NCB)) and the Deputy Assistant to the Secretary of Defense for Chemical Biological Matters & Counterproliferation (DATSD(CB&CP)), have been delegated to the defense Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA). These program execution responsibilities include technical and analytical support for coordination and integration of the entire Chemical Biological Defense Program (CBDP). The Deputy Assistant to the Secretary of Defense for Counterproliferation/Chemical Biological Defense (DATSD (CP/CBD)) retains its Public Law 103–160 designation as the OSD focal point/single agent role for all OSD CBD issues.

    The establishment of DTRA has not impacted the Army's Executive Agent role for the Joint Nuclear Biological Chemical (NBC) Defense Program, nor has it changed the very structured and disciplined system established to execute the Army's role as defined in the Joint Service Agreement and mandated by Public Law. Through the Joint NBC Defense Board and its supporting Joint organizations—the Joint Service Materiel Group (JSMG) and the Joint Service Integration Group (JSIG)—and applicable participation from all Service staffs, Joint requirements are evaluated and approved, the Joint NBC Defense Program Objectives Memorandum are coordinated and integrated, and President's Budgets are developed and submitted.

    DTRA exercises execution management over the Chemical Biological Defense Program and provides program analysis, Science and Technology (S&T) assessments, technical assessments, budget/financial analysis and other support to OSD leadership. DTRA also provides the funds distribution support (Comptroller functions) to the Joint NBC Defense Program as has been previously performed by the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization (BMDO).
 Page 18       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    The Army, as the Executive Agent for the CBDP, in conjunction with the Joint organizations established in the CBDP management structure, maintains a day-to-day working relationship with DTRA—exactly the same relationship that was established when the missions/functions were a part of the Office of the Secretary of defense.

Joint Service Combat Identification Office Function

    Mr. HUNTER. How does the Joint Service Combat Identification Office function? Are there service-unique requirements for combat identification equipment?

    General KERN. The Joint Service Combat Identification Office (JCIDO) was established to provide action officer level coordination on all Department of Defense (DOD) combat identification (CID) issues, programs, requirements, and technologies. The JCIDO charter requires that the JCIDO establish extensive coordination between the Services' requirements organizations and program offices, develop an executable Joint CID Master Plan consisting of cooperative and non-cooperative CID technology roadmaps, and evaluate programs to support recommendations regarding Joint or Service unique designation and to determine correlation with approved master plans. Oversight of the JCIDO was orginally by a General Officer Steering Committee for combat Identification, but has since been transferred to the Office of the J–8, Office, of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. We are a signatory to the original Memorandum of Agreement that established the JCIDO and fully support JCIDO's mission and activities. In accordance with the JCIDO charter, we provided an officer as the JCIDO Director for eighteen months during 1995 and 1996, and continue to participate fully in JCIDO-led working groups and committees. Overall, we believe that combat identification solutions must provide joint interoperability, and that the JCIDO has been helpful in furthering that goal.
 Page 19       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    Concerning the question of whether or not there are service-unique requirements for combat identification, I would answer yes. Combat identification from the DOD perspective encompasses four mission areas: air-to-air, air-to-surface, surface-to-air, and surface-to-surface. There is no one solution that meets the requirements of all four mission areas or all Services. Even though the Army has requirements that cut across all of the mission areas, we are focusing primarily on surface-to-surface, which includes combat identification for our ground combat vehicles as well as helicopters. We have found that the surface-to-surface environment tends to require different approaches that the other mission areas. Again, we believe that combat identification solutions must provide joint interoperability across all mission areas.

    Lt. General MARTIN. The Joint Combat Identification Office (JCIDO) is responsible for tracking all Service combat identification efforts, reports to the Joint Requirements Oversight Council (JROC) Review Board (JRB) and through them makes recommendations to the JROC on material solutions and changes to Tactics, Techniques and Procedures for combat identification. The JCIDO consists of one full time representative from each of the four Services and is headed by a Director who reports to the Force Structure, Resources and Assessment Directorate (J–8) of the Joint Staff. The JCIDO Director's position rotates among the Services and is currently held by United States Navy Captain Terence Blake.

    In accordance with the 1992 JROC-approved Combat Identification Mission Need Statement, the Air Force shares with the other Services the requirement to identify friends, foes, and neutrals on the battlefield to reduce fratricide and increase mission effectiveness. The Services are in the process of drafting a Capstone Requirements Document for Combat Identification. However, the application of combat identification technologies to specific platforms and the capability required of those technologies can be unique by Service and platform. Combat identification technologies appropriate to the F–22 or Joint Strike Fighter may not be appropriate to an M1A1. The capabilities required of combat identification technologies, such as the range at which identification should be accomplished, will vary according to the capabilities of the weapon system into which they are integrated.
 Page 20       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    Most importantly, there is no single programmatic or technological solution to combat identification. Improving our ability to identify friends, foes and neutrals will require a combination of doctrine, tactics, techniques, and procedures; and a family of on-board and off-board, cooperative and noncooperative, sensors fused and interconnected via data links. Collectively, this system-of-systems across the Services must gather and share the information necessary to accurately characterize every hostile, neutral, and friendly entity in the battlespace.

Status of Army's Battlefield Combat Identification System (BCIS) and Combat Identification for the Dismounted Soldier (CIDDS) Programs

    Mr. HUNTER. What is the status of the Army's Battlefield Combat Identification System (BCIS) and the Combat Identification for the Dismounted Soldier (CIDDS) programs?

    General KERN. The BCIS program is nearing completion of Engineering and Manufacturing development, and we plan to make a decision for entry into the Low Rate Initial Production (LRIP) in June of this year. We are budgeted for 4.876 million dollars in fiscal year 1999 for BCIS procurement, and immediately following the LRIP decision, we will be placing those funds under contract to establish the production line and build 10 BCIS systems for government production testing. Our fiscal year 2000 budget request for BCIS procurement totals 13.454 million dollars (including 7.568 million dollars under the Other Procurement, Army 2(OPA2), Appropriation and 5.886 million dollars under several host platform appropriations). Fiscal year 2000 funds will buy 80 systems to begin equipping our First Digitized Division at Fort Hood, Texas with BCIS.
 Page 21       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    The CIDDS program entered Engineering and Manufacturing Development (EMD) in 1997 under accelerated acquisition and was scheduled to begin LRIP in fiscal year 2000. We care currently anticipating a schedule slip of approximately seven months for completion of EMD, which will delay initiation of LRIP to fiscal year 2001. During our critical design review this past December, we determined that while the prototype design met most of what we wanted, some additional design work is needed to address concerns we have about overall system weight and the design and location of helmet subsystem electronics. Additionally, we determined that by making some additional engineering investment up front we could lower the system's total life cycle cost. I must also add that we have experienced some contractor cost increases in the CIDDS EMD contract not associated with the design changes we want to make. We have sufficient funding to cover the additional costs in fiscal year 1999. To accommodate remaining fiscal year 2000 EMD requirements, we request transfer of 9.486 million dollars from OPA2, Combat Identification/Aiming Light (CIDD) (BA 0515) to RDTE Program Element 0604817A, Project D902, Dismounted Soldier CID, during the Committee mark-ups.

    We greatly appreciate the support Congress has provided for both of these critical programs over the years.

How CIDDS and Silmas Plus Differ

    Mr. HUNTER. How do Combat Identification for the Dismounted Soldier (CIDDS) and Soldier Integrated Multi-function Laser System (Simlas Plus) differ?

    General KERN. CIDDS and Simlas Plus are both lightweight, laser interrogate, radio frequency reply, question and answer combat identification systems designed to enable friendly dismounted soldiers to identify (ID) each other on the battlefield. The systems send a laser interrogation signal from one soldier to another soldier and, if the soldier receiving the interrogation is a friend, a radio frequency transponder replies with a friend signal.
 Page 22       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    CIDDS is in Engineering and Manufacturing Development and scheduled to enter Low Rate Initial Production in fiscal year 2001. CIDDS is designed to be used in two interoperable configurations: Stand-alone and land Warrior. Stand-alone CIDDS includes a helmet subsystem and a weapon subsystem. The CIDDS weapon subsystem includes three laser: a compact, eye-safe CIDDS laser interrogator; a near infrared laser pointer for aiming the soldier's weapon at night using night vision goggles; and a laser Engagement Simulation (MILES)/MILES 2000 equipment. The helmet subsystem includes CIDDS and MILES integrated laser detectors, an electronic processor unit to process CIDDS interrogations and MILES hits, and an omnidirectional radio frequency responder with conformal antennas to transmit friendly responses. The power supply is a commercially available, lithium battery. CIDDS Land Warrior uses the same weapon subsystem as Stand-alone CIDDS and leverages the Land Warrior laser detectors, computer, soldier radio, and power supply. CIDDS operating range is 1100 meters under clear weather conditions and exceeds the soldier's target acquisition capability under degraded atmospheric conditions.

    Simlas Plus is a prototype system developed under the Army's Advanced Concept and Technology II (ACT II) program to demonstrate the viability of using a laser interrogation, radio frequency reply type system for soldier-to-soldier ID.

    Simlas Plus is a modification of a Swiss Army training device that functions similar to our MILES. It includes an infrared laser on the soldier's weapon for interrogation, disk-like laser detectors on the soldier for detection of the interrogations, and a small radio frequency transponder to transmit the reply to the shooter. Under the ACT II Program, we contracted with a Swiss firm to build and deliver 40 sets of Simlas Plus to our Dismounted Battlespace Battle Laboratory (DBBL) at Fort Benning, Georgia, which experimented with the items in fiscal year 1996 and 1997.
 Page 23       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    Data from the DBBL experiments were used in refining operational requirements and developing an Operational Requirements Document (ORD) for a dismounted soldier combat identification capability. Even though considered successful, the ACT II experiments did not test Simlas Plus under all battlefield conditions or to the operational requirements that emerged in the ORD. The ORD specified key requirements beyond the scope of the ACT II program; for example, interoperability with MILES/MILES 2000, interoperability between the CIDDS stand-alone version and the integrated Land Warrior version, minimizing soldier detectability, and performance in battlefield obscurants.

    We orginally considered SIMLAS Plus as a candidate for off-the-shelf procurement, but the version delivered under the ACT II program for experimentation by the DBBL did not meet the ORD requirements well enough to justify such procurement. The Simlas Plus contractor team proposed significant design modifications to meet those requirements, but a Source Selection Board comprised of technical and operational experts representing the operational user and the technical communities concluded that these modifications were high risk.

Combat Identification

    Mr. HUNTER. Your statement indicates that the greatest contributor to combat ID shortfalls is data links. Please explain why this is so.

    Lt. General MARTIN. Data links have been identified as the greatest immediate contributor to improving combat identification capabilities because they allow the Air Force to efficiently distribute and use the identification information already available on-board platforms such as AWACs and Rivet Joint. Exercises, such as the All Service Combat Identification Evaluation Team (ASCIET) exercise, have shown that Link 16 significantly contributes to combat identification by improving our ability to distribute vital identification information to the warfighter in a timely manner. However, combat identification is a capability and not a single acquisition program. As the Air Force fields Link 16 the primary remaining deficiency will be the ability to noncooperatively identify targets. Noncooperative identification technologies like the Enhanced Recognition and Sensing LADAR and High Range Resolution radar have repeatedly been shown to significantly increase combat effectiveness while also reducing fratricide. Therefore, these technologies are the major focus of current combat identification development efforts within the Air Force.
 Page 24       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    Mr. HUNTER. What emphasis is being placed on noncooperative identification technology? Are all the Services participating in research programs or just the Air Force?

    Lt. General MARTIN. The Air Force is placing major emphasis on the maturation of noncooperative identification technologies. Today, a lack of a friendly indication alone is never sufficient to engage a target, therefore noncooperative technologies are essential to gaining a robust combat identification capability which will both reduce fratricide and increase combat effectiveness. Within the Air Forces' Combat Identification Program Element, fully 85% of the funds within the Future Years Defense Plan are allocated for noncooperative identification technologies. Other Services are also participating in various combat identification research programs, however the Air Force has been in the lead in several key technology efforts including High Range Resolution Radar (HRR) and Enhanced Recognition and Sensing LADAR (ERASER). As the Air Force continues to develop these new combat identification technologies we are keeping the other Services apprised of our progress.

    General KERN. The Army is developing and evaluating non-cooperative identification technology to improve the target acquisition capability of ground and air platforms. Non-cooperative identification technologies promise to speed target acquisition timelines and reduce misidentification. We also envision that this technology could potentially have a future role in our Patriot Anti Tactical Missile-3 (PAC–3) system and have included in the Operational Requirements Document (ORD) a requirement that the system be capable of accepting non-cooperative target identification information from external sources.

 Page 25       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
Data Links

    Mr. HUNTER. Are data links not similarly important to your service?

    General KERN. Yes, we believe that data links are a very important part of the Army's overall combat identification solution. As you know, the Army currently uses the Mark XII Identification Friend or Foe (IFF) equipment on its helicopters and surface-to-air missile systems for target identification. In the future, we envision having Link 16 interoperable with our helicopters. Also, we envision having Link 16 organic to our Forward Area Air Defense (FADD) and Patriot systems, and a Link 16 gateway to provide the air picture to our Force XXI Battle Command Brigade and Below (FBCB2) system.