Unconventional Threats United States. Congress. House. Committee on Armed.

Department of Defense transformation : hearing before the Terrorism, Unconventional Threats and Capabilities Subcommittee of the Committee on Armed Services, House of Representatives, One Hundred Eighth Congress, second session, hearing held February 26, 2004 online

. (page 1 of 13)
Font size
QR-code for this ebook

[H.A.S.C. No. 108-47]



Y 4.AR 5/2 A:
2003-2004/47

Department of Defense Transform

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
TRANSFORMATION



HEARING

BEFORE THE



TERRORISM, UNCONVENTIONAL THREATS AND
CAPABILITIES SUBCOMMITTEE

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION



HEARING HELD
FEBRUARY 26, 2004



SUPERINT^NOlNT OTOQCUMENTS



JUN 3 20



BOSTON PUBLIC L^hr
GOVERftl^ENT DOCUMENTS DEPT




U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
WASHINGTON : 2005



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) 512-2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402-0001



[H.A.S.C. No. 108-47]



Y 4.AR 5/2 A:
2003-2004/47

Department of Defense Transform

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
TRANSFORMATION



HEARING

BEFORE THE

TERRORISM, UNCONVENTIONAL THREATS AND
CAPABILITIES SUBCOMMITTEE

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION



HEARING HELD
FEBRUARY 26, 2004



SUPERINTENDENT OF DOCUMENTS

DEPOSiTORY



JUN 3 20d



BOSTON PUBLIC LIBRARY
GOVERNMENT DOCUMENTS OEPT




U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
WASHINGTON : 2005



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) 512-2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402-0001



TERRORISM, UNCONVENTIONAL THREATS AND CAPABILITIES
SUBCOMMITTEE



JIM SAXTON,



JOE WILSON, South Carolina

FRANK A. LoBIONDO, New Jersey

JOHN KLINE, Minnesota

JEFF MILLER, Florida

ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland

MAC THORNBERRY, Texas

JIM GIBBONS, Nevada

ROBIN HAYES, North Carolina

JO ANN DAVIS, Virginia

W. TODD AKIN, Missouri

JOEL HEFLEY, Colorado



New Jersey, Chairman

MARTY MEEHAN, Massachusetts
JIM TURNER, Texas
ADAM SMITH, Washington
MIKE McINTYRE, North CaroUna
GIRO D. RODRIGUEZ, Texas
BARON P. HILL, Indiana
SUSAN A. DAVIS, California
JAMES R. LANGEVIN, Rhode Island
RICK LARSEN, Washington
JIM COOPER, Tennessee



Thomas Hawley, Professional Staff Member
Jean Reed, Professional Staff Member
Uyen Dinh, Professional Staff Member

William Natter, Professional Staff Member
Curtis Flood, Staff Assistant



(U)



CONTENTS



CHRONOLOGICAL LIST OF HEARINGS
2004

Page

Hearing:

Thursday, February 26, 2004, Department of Defense Transformation 1

Appendix:

Thursday, February 26, 2004 53



THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 26, 2004
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE TRANSFORMATION

STATEMENTS PRESENTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS

Meehan, Hon. Martin T., a Representative from Massachusetts, Ranking
Member, Terrorism, Unconventional Threats and CapabiUties Subcommit-
tee 3

Saxton, Hon. Jim, a Representative from New Jersey, Chairman, Terrorism,
Unconventional Threats and Capabilities Subcommittee 1

WITNESSES

Cebrowski, Vice Adm. Arthur, United States Navy, Retired, Director of the

Office of Force Transformation in the Office of the Secretary of Defense 4

Cosgriff, Rear Adm. Kevin, United States Navy, Director of Warfare Integra-
tion 10

Curran, Maj. Gen. John, United States Army, Director of Futures Center,
United States Army Training and Doctrine Command 8

Hanlon, Lt. Gen. Edward, Jr., United States Marine Corps, Deputy Com-
mander of Combat Develoment 11

McNabb, Lt. Gen. Duncan, United States Air Force, Deputy Chief of Staff
for Plans and Programs 13

Warner, Lt. Gen. Robert, Deputy Director of the United States Joint Forces

Command 7

APPENDIX

Prepared Statements:

Cebrowski, Vice Adm. Arthur 60

Cosgriff, Rear Adm. Kevin 82

Curran, Maj. Gen. John 72

Hanlon, Lt. Gen. Edward, Jr 106

McNabb, Lt. Gen. Duncan 95

Saxton, Hon. Jim 57

Wagner, Lt. Gen. Robert 121

Documents Submitted for the Record:
[There were no Documents submitted.]

Questions and Answers Submitted for the Record:
[There were no Questions submitted.]



(Ill)



DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE TRANSFORMATION



House of Representatives,
Committee on Armed Services,
Terrorism, Unconventional Threats and Capabilities

Subcommittee,
Washington, DC, Thursday, February 26, 2004.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 1 p.m., in room 2212,
Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Jim Saxton (chairman of the
subcommittee) presiding.

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JIM SAXTON, A REPRESENTA-
TIVE FROM NEW JERSEY, CHAIRMAN, TERRORISM, UNCON-
VENTIONAL THREATS AND CAPABILITIES SUBCOMMITTEE

Mr. Saxton. Good morning — or good afternoon, rather. Mr. Coo-
per and I are the vanguard here, I guess. I think, Jim, probably
a lot of members have anticipated the vote that is going to be com-
ing in a few minutes. But we are going to get started anyway.

The subject of transformation is perhaps one of — I guess I do not
want to overstate this, but let me just overstate it anjrway — it is
probably the most important subject that we have dealt with on
this committee in the many years that I have been a member of
the committee. Because it is reconfiguring the way we provide our
national security. And nothing that I can think of is much more im-
portant than that.

And so, to get ready, Mr. Cooper and I and others have been
doing a lot of reading. We have shared in several books that talk
about the need for transformation and the process and where cer-
tain authors think we ought to end up. We have done a fair
amount of travel, both domestic and international.

And the purpose of those opportunities to travel was always to
see where we are and get people's notions about where we ought
to be. And so today is another learning opportunity for us, learning
about transformation, but more importantly, learning how we can
help you get to where we collectively think we ought to be.

So today, the subcommittee meets to receive testimony from our
witnesses who represent the Department of Defense, the military
services and Joint Forces Command. The subcommittee is inter-
ested in the many programs and initiatives aimed at transforming
the nation's military and the department at large.

On September 23, 1999, President Bush announced at the Cita-
del Military College in South Carolina that he would make military
transformation a central theme if he were elected president. He
stated that the real goal is to move beyond the marginal improve-
ments, to replace existing programs with new technologies and

(1)



strategies and use this window of opportunity to skip a generation
of technology.

His election and the events of September 11th, 2001 served as
catalysts for some of the very changes that had been endorsed for
several years past by both outside observers and experts within the
military establishments.

Each service has approached transformation with its own vision.
And priority is being assigned to those initiatives organized to sup-
port interoperability and joint operations.

Congress has an interest in transformation efforts because cur-
rent choices will shape defense programs and influence budgets for
years to come. A great deal of attention is being given to trans-
formation so to understand its necessity, purpose, speed and
breadth of effort. For those watching, what are the metrics upon
which one can measure transformation and how does one describe
it?

While I believe that transformation is the right strategy to pur-
sue, I would like to understand how the various service proposals
are indeed transformational. Further, the subcommittee must un-
derstand how the new concepts and equipment will be funded and
tested under stress conditions. These concerns are particularly im-
portant for information technology systems and survivability of
new manned platforms, whether air or ground.

In short, with major changes being proposed, Congress must
keep a keen eye on the process, the funding and the experiments
that will be conducted to evaluate new doctrine, equipment and
operational concepts. This is too important to take on faith.

While the concepts may still be fuzzy, we are spending real
money and real soldiers will risk their lives with these systems in
the future. For example, the Army's Future Combat System seems
clearly transformational.

But will the network prove to be too fragile, as some have al-
leged? And will the platform be survivable?

I know these questions are important to the Army leaders as
well. With regard to these questions and similar queries in the ef-
forts of the Navy, Marine Corps and Air Force, I am gratified to
know that the Department of Defense science and technology com-
munity, from DARPA to the service labs, are all working diligently
on various aspects of these issues and making great progress.

At this point, I would defer to a member of the minority who
may like to make a statement.

Okay, we are all set. Let me just redirect this question to Mr.
Meehan because I know that he has an opening statement because
I can see it from here. [Laughter.]

And as soon as he is comfortable, we will hear from my friend
and partner from Massachusetts.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Saxton can be found in the Ap-
pendix on page 57.]



STATEMENT OF HON. MARTIN T. MEEHAN, A REPRESENTA-
TIVE FROM MASSACHUSETTS, RANKING MEMBER, TERROR-
ISM, UNCONVENTIONAL THREATS AND CAPABILITIES SUB-
COMMITTEE

Mr. Meehan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I apologize for being
late. I actually went to the wrong room. But I join you in welcom-
ing the panelists.

Transformation has become the buzz word in the Defense De-
partment. And Secretary Rumsfeld, since assuming command at
the Pentagon, ever since he has been talking about the effort to
transform the military establishment.

But within this effort, many misunderstandings abound. Some
view transformation as reorganization. Others look at the promise
of technological wizardry as the ultimate holy grail of military met-
amorphosis.

Simply put, transformation is a combination of all of these
things. Effective and sustained transformation is both revolution-
ary, evolutionary. It combines the technological advancement with
the doctrine and organizational shifts and relies upon persistent
experimentation, as long as the lessons learned are both keenly ob-
served and used to refine tactics, techniques and procedures.

With Hanscom Air Force Base in my district, I am most familiar
with and applaud recent Air Force efforts at transformation. But
I am also interested in the specifics of other efforts to change and
adapt to the many threats facing our nation. I hope that today's
hearing and testimony will help all of us in that endeavor to push
the DOD in the direction of transformation.

And Mr. Chairman, again I thank you for the opportunity to sub-
mit an opening statement.

Mr. Saxton. Thank you, Marty.

We have one panel today, composed of six witnesses. I want to
welcome our witnesses.

And I would also like to introduce them here: Vice Admiral Ar-
thur K. Cebrowski, United States Navy, Retired — the admiral is di-
rector of the Office of Force Transformation in the Office of the Sec-
retary of Defense; Lieutenant General Robert W. Wagner, deputy
director of the United States Joint Forces Command; Major Gen-
eral John M. Curran, United States Army, director of Futures Cen-
ter, United States Army Training and Doctrine Command; Rear
Admiral Kevin J. Cosgriff, United States Navy, director of warfare
integration; Lieutenant General Edward Hanlon, United States
Marine Corps, deputy commander of combat development; and
Lieutenant General Duncan J. McNabb, United States Air Force,
deputy chief of staff for plans and programs. Gentlemen, thank you
all very much for being here. We appreciate your participation.

At the outset, I would ask unanimous consent that each of your
statements be included in the record and that you try to summa-
rize them. And I would also like to ask unanimous consent that the
articles, exhibits and extraneous and tabular material referred to
be included in the record; also, without objection.

Admiral Cebrowski, the floor is yours, sir.



STATEMENT OF VICE ADM. ARTHUR CEBROWSKI, UNITED
STATES NAVY, RETIRED, DIRECTOR OF THE OFFICE OF
FORCE TRANSFORMATION IN THE OFFICE OF THE SEC-
RETARY OF DEFENSE

Admiral CEBROWSKI. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. It is
a pleasure to be here. And I think most of all, thank you for your
interest in this important subject.

Historically, members have played a vital role in advancing the
capabilities of the military. And this is a time when perhaps that
interest and encouragement is most needed and most helpful. So
I look forward to this very much.

First, I would like to make a very short comment about my office
and what it does and what our goals are. The Office of Force
Transformation is meant to be a catalyst for transformation in the
department. Our focus, as the name implies, is on transformation
of the force, as opposed to the management of defense.

We are a think and do tank. We do things like studies. But we
also focus on specific activities to help advance transformation
within the force.

We have basically five goals to make force transformation indeed
a part of the DOD corporate strategy and our national defense
strategy. Of course, we have had great help from the President and
the secretary in doing that.

That is a top-down approach. From the bottom up, our effort is
to change the force and its culture through the introduction of ex-
perimental articles, prototypes and creating an experience on the
part of the forces at large.

Since we are moving into the information age, we need to find
a theory of war that is appropriate to the information age. We be-
lieve we have that. And we are working toward its implementation.

In the new age, there will be new decision rules and new metrics.
The job is to find those and get them promulgated about the force,
so people start working toward those.

And of course, what we would like to do is to discover or create
or cause to be created whole new capabilities.

We are the only office in the Office of the Secretary of Defense
which is dedicated solely to the subject of transformation. We focus
on the areas where the rest of the department, in our judgment,
is not likely to focus. We have a very broad mandate.

In general, we go where the institution is not likely to go if left
to their own devices. So in that regard, we are by design not at all
duplicative of other elements of the department.

Because where we find such things, we simply move to another
area of interest. Because if the institution is already pursuing
these areas, they do not need me to reinforce that.

In that area, we also do what is called concept technology pair-
ing. There are several institutions or parts of the governments
which will pursue technologies.

Others will pursue operational concepts. And our technique is to
focus on operational concept pairing to achieve a result.

And we have a broad mandate, largely unconstrained, and that
is that we can work outside of the normal course. Bound, of course,
by law and morality, but other than that, the entire military do-
main is our operating domain.



And so with that then, the services I am sure are going to talk
about what they are doing, as you have asked them to do. And I
am sure that will be quite good.

So what I would like to do is just spend a few minutes talking
about those things which potentially get in their way to accom-
plishing transformation, what we call the barriers to trans-
formation. And we categorize them in four parts.

The first of those parts is process barriers. And a lot of work has
been done. This is mostly the area of management of defense.

And a lot of work has been done to reduce those. The secretary
has stated that he would like to shorten all DOD processes by 50
percent, for example, to speed the time of introduction of new capa-
bilities and simply to get our work done. To the extent that our
processes are onerous, then they do inhibit.

The Congress, of course, can help in this. For example, recently
the Congress teamed with the department in the passing of the Na-
tional Security Personnel System Act, which indeed is quite help-
ful. So that is just an example.

The second area is physical barriers. And when we look at how
the force actually operates, we define physical barriers into two
parts. One is the speed and movement of information and the other
is the speed and movement of things, of mass.

If we look at the — and we have — looked at the department's
transformation road maps, we find a very robust effort in address-
ing the speed of information. A very, very great deal of work has
been done there.

But the speed of information somehow has to be matched — or not
matched, but coupled — with the speed of things. For example, we
talk about moving to the non-contiguous battle space, the non-lin-
ear battlefield, if you will. The entry fee to get there is to be
networked.

The forces are pursuing that and doing a good job of that. How-
ever, you also have to have the mobility systems that will allow you
to take advantage of this information structure, so that you can, in
fact, achieve this new model for warfare.

The barriers to entry for new mobility systems is very, very high.
These things are costly. They tend to take a long time to develop.

But if we are going to achieve this non-linear battle space, we
have to be able to surmount those barriers. The encouragement
from Members of Congress to, in fact, do that I think would be in-
deed quite helpful.

And in here, I am talking about such things as vertical lift,
heavy vertical lift, somewhat lighter vertical lift capabilities, the
ability to blend inter-theater and intra-theater lift, both air and
sea, lift to support operational maneuver from the sea, to support
operational maneuver from strategic distances. These will be new
things.

This has always been an area of great advantage for the nation.
And to sustain that advantage, we are going to have to overcome
those physical barriers.

The third barrier is fiscal or financial barriers here. And we put
these in two interrelated areas. One is the willingness and ability
to devolve or devalue older capabilities because the old must fund
the new eventually and move on.



6

This requires courage. And it is quite appropriate that the Con-
gress encourage us in those difficult areas.

To the extent that we do not deal with devolution strategies, we
essentially then hold on to our past, become captives to it. And we
then thereby undermine our future.

There has always been a role of Congress for this. I recall that
the transition for the Navy from sail to steam took 84 years. And
the Congress played a significant role in encouraging that transi-
tion, or else I am sure it would have been longer.

Under that same category is the relationship between discre-
tionary and non-discretionary funding. And again, to a certain ex-
tent, it is what one perceives to be discretionary or non-discre-
tionary. There may be a role for the Congress to help open discre-
tionary space in this to allow for more transformation.

And the last barrier and the one that often gets the most press
are cultural barriers. The great transformation gurus point to cul-
tural change as the most difficult, taking the longest.

But this is a part of the story which is truly good news because
we have identified that by taking the temperature of cultural
change vvdthin the department, we have identified that culture is
a function of leadership, culture being the sum of the attitudes, val-
ues and beliefs of the leaders. And the department is blessed with
a great deal of leaders.

That is highly prized. It is taught in the professional schools.

And so we see the results of this vary robustly. And some studies
have been done to help us take the temperature of the cultural
change.

But this again is an area where leadership, as I said, can be ex-
ercised and be very fruitful. The members are indeed leaders. And
consequently, your continued and strong encouragement in these
efforts of transformation, I think, will go a long way to maintaining
and indeed increasing the momentum that we have developed so
far.

With that, I will stop.

[The prepared statement of Admiral Cebrowski can be found in
the Appendix on page 60.]

Mr. Saxton. Thank you very much, Admiral. That is a very time-
ly statement and a great place to stop because the bells and whis-
tles that you have been hearing buzzing here in the background
are telling us that we have probably six or seven minutes to get
to the floor to vote.

There is another vote that will follow this one. So we will likely
be back here in 15 or 20 minutes.

Thank you.

[Recess.]

Mr. Saxton. Admiral, when you were talking about the difficulty
in making changes in institutions, it reminded me of this sub-
committee because the effort to create this subcommittee started in
1987. And we stood it up on January 1, 2003. [Laughter.]

So institutions do not always do things quickly. And I remember
reading somewhere, I think it may have been in McGregor's book
or maybe it was in talking to Doug McGregor, about how we got
carriers in the Navy.



It seemed that some folks thought that carriers would be a good
idea. But all the admirals wanted battleships. And so we could not
get carriers.

So Congress passed a law, according to the story, mandating that
aviators be put in charge of carriers in the Navy. And so we got
carriers.

So sometimes, there are tricky ways that we need to move to get
things done. But anyway, okay, we are going to continue our hear-
ing now. The next witness is Lieutenant General Robert W. Wag-
ner.

STATEMENT OF LT. GEN. ROBERT WAGNER, DEPUTY
DIRECTOR OF THE UNITED STATES JOINT FORCES COMMAND

General Wagner. Thank you.

Mr. Chairman, distinguished members of the committee, as the
deputy commander of U.S. Joint Forces Command, I am honored
to testify on the role of the ongoing process of transforming our
Armed Forces.

With your permission, I will make a few short opening remarks
and then be ready to take your questions.

Our armed forces fight as a joint force. United States Joint
Forces Command deploys fully functional joint task forces, with the
enabling capabilities to conduct coherently joint operations.

We advance the joint capabilities of these forces through leading
concept development and experimentation, identifying joint re-
quirements and conducting joint training. Simply stated, we supply
the joint force for the combatant commanders' use.

We see a significant shift in the way our forces prepare for and
conduct military operations. Traditionally, we divided the battle-
field into service sectors.

In those sectors, we conducted service-centric operations, where
we deconflicted operations across the service boundaries to ensure
non-interference. Services alone were responsible for organizing,
training, equipping and operating their service forces.

Now let me describe to you how we see the future from an infor-
mation age perspective. The warfighters conduct operations in an
integrated battle space, not on a sectored battlefield. Our coher-
ently joint force is knowledge centric, fully networked and designed
to conduct effects-based operations.

We apply joint effects when and where we choose, rather than
matching personnel and equipment, as dictated by geography and
boundary. We deliver pervasive joint precision fighters and fighter
support throughout the breadth and depth of the battle space.

Future capabilities to include combat identification, blue force
tracking and the future network force will leverage information
dominance and decision superiority to achieve the asymmetric at-
tributes of overmatching power, which are: knowledge, speed, preci-
sion and mobility.

To define and deliver these capabilities. Joint Forces Command
has established close collaborative partnerships with the combatant
commands, the services, the defense agencies, the interagency com-
munity and our close allies, to include NATO. We are grateful for
the close working relationship we have with Admiral Cebrowski



8

and the Secretary of Defense's Office of Force Transformation and
with our service partners here today.

With their help and the great support and encouragement from
Congress, we have developed and adapted a dynamic trans-
formation process that is comprehensive and capabilities based,
that integrates the lessons we have learned in real time, that uses
a rigorous joint experimentation campaign to advance joint
warfighting and that produces joint concepts to drive one joint ac-


1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13