Senate Armed Services Subcommittee on Airland (Sullivan): Hearings to examine Army force modernization in review of the Defense Authorization Request for Fiscal Year 2027 and the Future Years Defense Program.

The subcommittee meets today to discuss the Army's modernization efforts with a focus on the fiscal year '27 president's budget submission. I wanna thank our witnesses, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army for Acquisition, Logistics, and Technology, Mr. Jesse Tullarson, and Acting Commander of the Army's Transformation and Training Command, Lieutenant General Miles Brown, for being here. Thank you both for your service and for being with us today. The goal of Army modernization is pretty straightforward. To ensure American soldiers have the most capable, survivable, and lethal equipment possible to deter conflict and, if necessary, to win on the battlefield.

The character of war is changing rapidly, as we all know. We're watching it in real time. Recent conflicts have demonstrated the growing importance of unmanned systems, electronic warfare, long-range precision fires, integrated air and missile defense, and resilient communications networks. [FOREIGN LANGUAGE] At the same time, China continues to be the pacing challenge for the Department of War, while Russia, Iran, North Korea, and violent extremist organizations continue to threaten U.S. interests and global stability. But the Army faces another challenge as it modernizes, and that's adapting fast enough to keep pace with technological change.

The battlefield is evolving in days or months. Rather than decades. The Army must balance affordability, sustainment, mobility, and survivability while ensuring new capabilities can be fielded rapidly and of course at scale. Modernization cannot simply focus on developing exquisite systems, it must also prioritize production capacity, operational relevance, and the ability to integrate emerging technologies into formations quickly. Quickly.

I believe Army leadership recognizes reality and are moving the Army in the right direction. The Army's emphasis on transformation and contact experimentation with new formations and integration of unmanned systems and counter-UAS capabilities reflects an understanding that future wars will demand adaptability at every echelon. I might say current and future wars. Exercises like Project Convergence continue to demonstrate the value of joint integration data sharing, and human-machine teaming across the battlefield. I look forward to hearing from General Brown about transformation and training command lessons learned and how those lessons are informing requirements acquisitions and operational concepts.

The Army has also made difficult but necessary modernization decisions over the past 2 years. The service continues to refine its portfolio to focus on capabilities that are survivable, scalable, and relevant for the times. Efforts to modernize combat vehicles, improve long-range fires, expand air and missile defense capacity, strengthen the industrial base, and rapidly field counter-drone technologies are critical to maintaining overmatch. I would ask Mr. Tillerson and our witnesses to discuss how the Army is prioritizing modernization investments and ensuring programs deliver capability to soldiers faster. Same time, we must recognize that modernization requires sustained and predictable funding.

I guess that's kind of our job, right? The Army continues to face growing operational demands around the world while modernizing for future conflict. Investments in munitions production, air and missile defense, counter-UAS systems, contested logistics, and next-generation networks will all be essential to readiness and deterrence. Thank you. This committee will continue working to ensure the Army has the resources necessary to meet those challenges.

I thank you for appearing today and look forward to hearing your testimony. And now, give some time to General Kelly, to Secretary. Got promoted. Senator. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I join you in welcoming our witnesses and thank both of you for appearing before the subcommittee today. And look forward to hearing your testimony. I also wanna recognize the service members around the world who find themselves in harm's way as we meet today. While this is a modernization hearing, today's discussion is also relevant to all of them. I understand the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Acquisition, Logistics, and Technology, Brent Ingraham, is in Europe finalizing some agreements with— Thank you.

Foreign partners, and that's a reminder that our allies and our partners matter. Mr. Tollison, we appreciate you testifying in his absence, and General Brown, thank you for being here. Last October, Army Transformation and Training Command, or T2COM, was established to integrate force generation, force development, and force design under a single command to better posture the Army to, and this is a quote, ensure readiness, and the speed of relevance, unquote. General Dave Hodne was nominated and confirmed as its first commander because he was the right officer to take on the challenge of merging multiple organizations into a unified headquarters. Then in April, Secretary Hegseth removed General Hodne.

At the same time, he fired the Army Chief of Staff. Yes, sir. General Randy George, both for no demonstrated reason. So I want to acknowledge the work and professionalism of the T2COM leaders, despite the complete and unnecessary disruption. General Brown, your experience in Army's, in the Army Futures Command and Army Combat Capabilities Development Command positions you well to continue the challenging task of establishing T2COM.

So thank you for being here today, and I look forward to hearing an update on how T2COM is enhancing the Army's ability to modernize. The Army is in the middle of a major modernization cycle, and what I want to understand is how the Army plans to manage all of these modernization programs to get capabilities into the hands of the soldiers more quickly. Thank you, sir. Because, as I think we all recognize, speed matters. Our adversaries, they move quickly.

Technology is changing rapidly, and the Army has to be able to identify, develop, test, and then field new capabilities at a pace that keeps up with the threats that we face. In particular, I'm interested in hearing how the Army's 6 capability portfolios under the portfolio acquisition executives are contributing to the accelerated delivery of warfighting technology. The Army's budget prioritizes major ground combat formations with significant investment in next-generation tanks and ground combat vehicles. Ground forces remain the military component capable of seizing and holding terrain. But that's not guaranteed.

The battlefield is changing, and I want to better understand how the Army is modernizing its concept of operations in an era of ubiquitous drone technology. The Army's also looking at fires more holistically, offensive and defensive, and recognizing the criticality of layered systems. Operations in Ukraine and Iran validate both the importance of the exquisite systems, but also the importance of the complementary lower-cost munitions. And I'm interested in how the Army is going to build a layered kinetic and non-kinetic capability that protects maneuver forces and contributes to the joint fight. The Army's also making significant investments in critical enablers, including next-generation command and control, next-generation aviation and logistics capabilities for contested and also maritime environments.

As the Army increasingly experiments on the edge to field these new technologies, I look forward to learning how it is ensuring rigorous test and evaluation standards. And at the same time, modernization of enduring capabilities that will remain in formations for years to come must be part of the Army strategy. [FOREIGN LANGUAGE] And I hope our witnesses will provide an update on Secretary Driscoll's Right to Integrate initiative, focused on accelerating data sharing on the battlefield. Our witnesses face the challenge of balancing support for ongoing operations, sustaining readiness, and modernization, while preserving the technological edge critical to our military success. And I look forward to the discussion.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Senator Kelly. Again, thanks to both of you for being here. Mr. Tolson, it's my understanding you have an opening statement. This would be a good time to share it.

Then let me just also thank you for stepping in the gap like this. Appreciate that. You're recognized. Chairman Cramer, Ranking Member Kelly, and distinguished members of the subcommittee. Good afternoon, and thank you for allowing me to sub in for my boss today.

I appreciate the opportunity to discuss the Army's fiscal year 2027 modernization request and our ongoing acquisition reform efforts. I'm pleased to appear with Lieutenant General Brown, the acting commanding general of Transformation and Training Command. He and his team have been essential partners in aligning requirements experimentation, acquisition, training, and sustainment. I ask that our written statements today be entered into the record.

The Army's request is designed to turn continuous transformation into battlefield advantage. Recent conflicts have reinforced that technology cycles are accelerating, production capacity matters, and the Army must be able to integrate new capabilities faster than our adversaries. First, we are changing how the Army identifies, prioritizes, and delivers capability. The standup of Transformation and Training Command and the establishment of portfolio acquisition executives are central to that effort. T2COM, connects transformation, experimentation, requirements, and training, while PAEs are designed to provide portfolio-level accountability and the decision space to make informed trades across cost, schedule, performance, and risk.

Together, T2COM and ASALT are integrating requirements, resources, acquisition, test, sustainment, and training earlier and more deliberately. Consistent with the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2026, we are making the necessary changes to ensure full compliance with congressional direction and public law. First and foremost, all portfolio acquisition executives will be acquisition professionals, who report directly to the Army Acquisition Executive, providing clear accountability and unity of effort across their portfolios. We are also applying lessons learned from the PAE Pathfinders as we implement the broader department's acquisition transformation strategy. Second, the Army is acting to expand and accelerate critical munitions production.

Recent operational demands clearly demonstrate the need for resilient production capacity and affordable, scalable, competitive options. Our approach includes expanding the supplier base, addressing long-lead materials, modernizing production capacity through long-term, multi-year procurements, and fielding lower-cost munitions. Thank you. We are also using commercial solutions openings, public-private partnerships, and enhanced use leases to strengthen the organic industrial base, onshore critical supply chains, and accelerate advanced manufacturing. Our objective is an industrial base that can sustain current demand and surge when required.

Third, the request prioritizes the capabilities soldiers need to fight and win and are fully resourced in this request. Those capabilities include next generation command and control, or NGC2, offensive and defensive fires, including long-range precision fires and counter small UAS systems, the MV-75 multi-mission aircraft, and advanced ground combat vehicle platforms, such as the XM30 and the M1E3. Thank you. These are not standalone platforms, but are being managed as a part of a portfolio. They must operate as an integrated network and be continuously upgraded as threats and technology evolve.

We will use commercial solutions where they meet the requirement, while also retaining purpose-built capabilities where decisive overmatch demands them. We appreciate Congress's partnership in all of these endeavors and look forward to continued collaboration in the future. Finally, acquisition reform must give the Army the right to integrate and the right to repair our equipment. We are expanding the use of commercial technology, modular open systems, shorter development cycles, and using more flexible contracting approaches. We also need appropriate access to interfaces, tech data, software, and tools necessary to integrate, update, repair, and sustain our systems.

Operation Jailbreak is bringing technical experts, operational units, acquisition professionals, and industry together to break down barriers between systems and help accelerate integration. This approach fully respects legitimate intellectual property while ensuring the Army can adapt capabilities at the pace of conflict.

We are also taking concrete steps to guarantee the Army has the right to repair and maintain its own equipment to ensure operational readiness. While we are doing everything we can on our own to secure our right to repair, We are also fully committed to working with Congress to make sure that there are no gaps in our statutory authorities and that we have all the tools needed to fully protect readiness. The Army appreciates the subcommittee's partnership and continued support for our soldiers, civilians, and families. Thank you again for the opportunity to appear before you today, and I look forward to your questions. Thank you, Mr. Tillerson.

General Brown, you're recognized, but again, thank you for the time in my conference room. It was enlightening, and I look forward to your testimony.

Thank you very much. Chairman Kramer, Ranking Member Kelly, distinguished members of the subcommittee, good afternoon. I'm honored to be here with Mr. Tollefson and have appreciated the close relationship with Honorable Ingraham and the ASALT team. Thank you for the opportunity to testify about the Army's fiscal year '27 budget request and how it supports the Army's comprehensive approach to transformation. United States Army Transformation and Training Command is 8 months old.

It enables the U.S. Army to defeat all adversaries and adapt to the ever-changing character of war. There is the Army that fights, and we are the headquarters that builds the Army that fights. [FOREIGN LANGUAGE] We are the assembly line, and for the first time, a single command owns that whole assembly line. To that end, the T2COM headquarters is a flat, transparent, and truly 21st century organization. We're built on deliverables and datasets.

Our subordinates are rewarded for integrating directly with each other and applying rigor to complex problems. Our number one deliverable is to get better equipment to soldiers and combat formations faster. We do that with a minimum viable bureaucracy that enables and integrates force generation, force development, and force design across 3 major subordinate commands. United States Army Recruiting Command, responsible for the entire force generation pipeline, from first handshake to first unit of assignment. They have already surpassed their FY26 recruiting goals, and we're leaning forward for FY27 targets.

United States Army Combat—. Combat. Or Combined Arms Command, responsible for developing the force through Army University, Combat Training Centers, and our centers of excellence. Combined Arms Command took lessons already from ongoing conflicts in Ukraine and the Middle East, and has immediately included them in our programs of instruction and training scenarios at our Combat Training Centers right now. United States Army Futures and Concepts Command is responsible for developing, designing the force, including experimentation, developing requirements, all of our Army labs, and our concepts of employment.

In accordance with Title 10, U.S. Code 1304, which grants responsibility for the development of capability requirements to the Chief Staff of the Army, Futures and Concepts Command has eliminated redundancy and reduced the number of requirements-generating organizations from 46 to 9. In a matter of weeks, We've worked with CENTCOM and JIATA 401 to move cutting-edge capability, like counter-UAS tech, the Bullfrog, and then other elements like LUCAS or PRISM to support Operation EPIC FURY, all possible because of an emphasis on moving better equipment faster. As we bring capability forward, T2COM works in close partnership with AASOC. In short, we are a family. There is no daylight between us.

We are also committed to independent, thorough tests and evaluation integrated with both experimentation and capability development. Thank you again for your support to our soldiers and civilians and to the Army writ large. I look forward to your questions. Thank you, General, thank you for that statement.

Mr. Tolson, you brought up Operation Jailbreak and General Brown General, you and I talked a little bit about it earlier today.

Maybe, because you recently had the first hackathon, right? And give me a sense of who all participated in that and maybe what the lessons learned are from that. And I can start with you, General, and then you can— you, Mr. Talison. Yes, sir, so I appreciate the question. Operation Jailbreak was an opportunity for us to take all of, I think it was 80 vendors, We came in, 78 of the 80 we were able to jailbreak or get access to their APIs, and what that does is that allows us to integrate at the source.

It's basically a modular open systems architecture exercise, and so we built a systems integration laboratory in the Mission Training Complex there at Fort Carson, Colorado, and what that does now is we have a list of 78 vendors that have been identified as broken so they have access and companies know they can work with these companies. And what that does is that allows companies to build capability together and teams of teams as opposed to having a monopoly or a bespoke type of technology. Mr. Talison. Yes, you know, sir, I think what we're really trying to prove out too is what General Brown was talking about in terms of MOSA. Everybody talks about it, it's just we've kind of yet to been able to truly operationalize it.

And what drove Operation Jailbreak and the SAC-a-thon that we were doing was really what we were seeing in EPIC Fury, you know, as far as being able to integrate quickly across our legacy fleet. So we picked a use case and it was gonna be counter-UAS and IAMD. So we moved all those systems over to Fort Carson. We had great participation from industry, had all the engineers there, um, and it was successful in that we were able to actually break this capability. And now we have essentially what is an API marketplace to where those APIs are now gonna be available.

Now, we're still capturing what the lessons learned are. Mm-hmm. And that'll be what we're gonna be calling Jailbreak 1.5, and we'll be able to report that back to you because what we want to do is operationalize it. And what I mean by that is, Now we need to deploy it. And, you know, our first step was to deploy it over to CENTCOM to make sure that everybody understands how you do a jailbreak and integrate together and share that type of IP that you're, that's gonna be required.

Mm-hmm. I think the expectation the Secretary has is that we're gonna continue forward doing these exercises as resources become available. I think our next step would be to go overseas and do something with our foreign partners. So more to follow on that, sir, but that's where we landed. Great stuff.

Just out of curiosity, how did the vendors, how welcoming were they to the invitation? Obviously, I mean, you had a lot of them, but you know, this is a little bit of a culture clash, paradigm shift, Were they pretty open to it, or what was your sense? Sir, they were extremely open to it, and I think what helped was that we had top-down leadership, you know, just making calls and telling them how important that this is to the warfighter. Everybody participated, everybody came wanting to solve the problem, you know, there were, I don't think anybody actually was objecting to what we were trying to do. So we had great cooperation.

I think a lot will be in the details as what the next steps are as to how we try to scale that, because I do think there's probably going to be areas where we're likely going to have to negotiate, I think, with some of those vendors as far as how open and accessible those IPs are going to be— those IPIs are going to be and what we could put on that marketplace. Thank you. But overall, great support from industry. Senator, if I could jump in. Please.

What I thought was very interesting is how many of them thought that it would be really easy. So they looked at it and said, of course, like, I don't have anything blocking you from accessing until you get in that systems integration laboratory and you start to work through that and you realize that actually there are attack surfaces that are there are firewalls and they can't get through. Great, well, thank you. I've got more questions, but later, but I'll turn it over to Senator Kelly. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

So armies need munitions, they need troops. In Iran, there were in excess of 10,000 or 12,000 strikes conducted, and then counterstrikes that we had to defend against, so I think it's fair to say we expended the force, the joint force, expended a significant number of munitions, and a number of munitions that are requested in the next budget are requested through the reconciliation process rather than the regular appropriations process for the Army. Thank you. So what is the Army's plan to procure these munitions that we have to replace and rebuild these stockpiles in the event that a reconciliation agreement is not reached?

Senator Kelly, thanks for the question. That's a great question. You'll see that our missile procurement Army budget, about 82% of the munitions that are requested are gonna be in the reconciliation mandatory bucket.

We fully support reconciliation. You know, obviously, we really need that to pass so we can continue to expand our munitions production capacity and build out and restockpile. Mr. Tostin, was the thought to put it in there to increase the likelihood that a reconciliation process is successful because these are critical items?

Sir, I personally can't answer that question. That determination was made above my pay grade. And—. What I can tell you though, sir, is that we are looking at options here in case reconciliation does not go through. It is a concern.

And I think we owe you more detail on what that plan B would be. I think what we would have to do is it would essentially, we would, We would work to get to the rate that we needed to get to that was requested in as part of reconciliation, whether that be through renegotiation with the contractor or just reprogramming funding to—. I think that would be a good idea to have a contingency plan because, you know, we need to restock these munitions. And then General Brown, how is the Army's efforts in identifying and incorporating some low-cost, long-range munitions that'll be complementary to current systems? Yes, sir, thanks for the question.

I'm actually pretty excited about where we are with, you know, low-cost cruise missile, and then you also talk about low-cost containerized munitions. What we've done is we've maintained the pace that we have with our current contracts and our current capabilities. At the same time, we've done really a sequel to think about what can we bring in. There is a lot of private money in defense right now. There's a lot of capability.

What we've really started over the last 2 years is working the use cases, because when companies get ready to spend their internal research and development dollars, We've gotta make sure we give them the right use cases and vignettes. Some of these companies are putting, you know, hundreds of millions of dollars into IRAD to be able to get after these capabilities. We're talking depth, magazine depth that we've gotta work on. That's a part of our formations in the future. So it's not just containerized munitions, but it's low-cost cruise missiles that could complement the programs that we already have, the programs of record.

We see this as a must-do. This is part of the innovation ecosystem that we have to foster. I was in an underground drone manufacturing facility where some of their drones now have ranges, this is in Ukraine, have ranges in excess of 800 kilometers. I think now, that was a year, that was about 15 months ago, and I think now they, even in excess of 1,000 kilometers, and they're pushing them out. Those things are basically cruise missiles at this point.

I mean, they're much slower, right? They're subsonic. And they, especially over the last few days, you could see in open source the ability to hit and effectively hit refineries and do significant damage is increasing. We need to learn—. Thank you.

From that and incorporate that into our acquisition process to build out, maybe not have them on the shelf right now, but to build the capacity to build them. Senator, one thing just to add on that, I think that there's a capability for us to recompete some of the capabilities that we already have planned. An example is PRISM Increment 4. We're doing just that in that space. Very good, thank you.

Might go down that path a little more in a bit. Senator Blumenthal. [FOREIGN LANGUAGE] that is so impressive. And I think we should have them on the shelf, not just the capacity, because they are the— probably the most cost-effective recent development in warfare and very much the future of warfare, not only obviously aerial drones, but what Ukraine has done with undersea drones in the Black Sea, also enormously important. I want to just pursue the question that Senator Kelly raised about the reconciliation package.

You know, this is your job.

What, what is your plan B?

Sir, I think on the munitions space, I think we're still looking at that. So I think if reconciliation— I think our position right now is that we are fully supportive of reconciliation passing, and that would be our priority. I understand that, but viewing the difficulties that attended passage of the last reconciliation package and some of the public statements made by Republican senators about the prospects for the next possible reconciliation package. I think it's going to be an uphill battle. Sir, I fully acknowledge that, and I think we're not— we are certainly not blind to that fact.

So we are looking at contingencies. I think for us it would be— we know we have to ramp up the rate, especially for things like PAC-3 and the Precision Strike Missile. So I think for us it would be going back in, potentially trying to renegotiate with the vendors, or then looking at ways that we could then self-finance what that demand would be. It may not be the full amount that the Munitions Acceleration Council would be requiring, but we would look to at least inject those lines with additional funding that we would have available to us.

One of the takeaways of my most recent trip to Ukraine was the importance of air defense, PAC-3 interceptors. Do we have stockpiles of air defense munitions sufficient to meet the needs of Ukraine given what has been expended in Iran, in the Iran War?

Sir, I would have to defer to OSW or to OSD on that question. I think as far as the Joint Staff, as far as looking at what our overall inventories are in that capacity, I will tell you that we are taking all the necessary steps to ramp up PAC-3 production. You know, we have a strategic framework that is in place We certainly appreciate the committee authorizing multiyear procurement authority last year in the FY26 budget request for a 7-year deal. We are also looking at a low-cost interceptor program to where we're trying to shave off cost out of a PAC-3-like type capability, which we're really excited about. We're gonna have an industry day here, I think June 23rd, And, you know, we've already got about 90 industry partners that are looking to participate.

And the way we're gonna do that is really compete the components and essentially make it more like a prize challenge to where we find the right components that are low cost, and then we would potentially bring in a third party to manufacture that low-cost interceptor, all of which to supplement our current stockpile of things like PAC-3, PAC-3 CRI, the whole family. So you're developing new sources, new manufacturers for air defense? Yes, sir, we are. Senator, if I could jump in here, we also, when we do these components, we do this in multiple other types of programs. We're trying to get after commercial supply chains.

So many of our supply chains have been built only for defense, We did that for anti-tamper and other reasons. What we're finding now is we have the ability to use commercial supply chains to be able to get after some of these, and that really reduces the cost, sometimes by over 300 or 400%. Well, I would just suggest that whether it's Ukraine or Europe or our own servicemen and women, air defense is gonna be a part of the drone technology challenge because we need to be able to defend against the drones and missiles in the way that Ukraine is trying to do. I think there'll be an escalation in Ukraine as Putin grows more desperate, um, and, um, I think as a matter of— [SPEAKING RUSSIAN] simple humanitarian, not to mention military consideration, we should really meet that need as quickly as possible. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Excellent, thank you, Senator Blumenthal. Senator Peters. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, gentlemen, thank you for being here today. Secretary Tillerson, Army leadership has spoken to me positively about the Infantry Squad Vehicle Heavy Program, and its unique capabilities. As the Army shifts to mobile brigade combat teams, units will need these vehicles that can carry both the power and the equipment required to provide command and control systems on the move, but despite this critical need, the Army is still working to accelerate the ISV Heavy program, so my question for you, sir, is how is the Army accelerating the fielding timeline for the ISV Heavy, and what are the barriers that are standing in the way of accelerating this program?

It seems to be a critical program, a tremendous asset. We need to get it in the field as quickly as possible. I appreciate the question, Senator Peters. The ISV Heavy is certainly a top priority for us. We are looking to accelerate, and I, I do believe we are.

I think one of the things that's allowing us to accelerate is the fact that we have established PAs and we have portfolios now. We're working closely with our requirements community, and that's allowing us actually to move out quickly with the competition that we're gonna hold for the ISV Heavy. I believe it's gonna be in fourth quarter of this year, actually, is when we're gonna start to release the RFP. I'll get you the details on the full schedule, but we're, we're very excited about that program. We think there's gonna be some really good competition.

Thank you. Mm-hmm. In that space. We have an authorized objective of about just north of 600 vehicles right now. And really what the ISV Heavy is gonna be designed to do is it kind of fits that kind of niche requirement there between an ISV and then say a JLTV, and it's really gonna be focused on the power generation part of that.

One of the things that we do have a critical capability gap on right now is power generation at that mobile, brigade combat team level. I would tell you though right now, sir, I don't think there's any barriers that are in place right now for us to move very quickly here. General? Yes, sir, just the requirements, the requirements are there, so the requirements, you know, the thing that's great about the ISV is the ISV itself was the threshold. When we talk about threshold and objective values with requirements, the ISV Heavy met met another objective and went into another place that where, you know, the folks brought us this and said, hey, you didn't ask for this, but you knew you could have this, and so what it did was it caused us to be able to go back and look at our requirements and make sure that we find a place for that.

The capability that Jesse's talking about, it really helps us in terms of the power situation, and the other part to Senator Blumenthal's question about air defense, we have now, when we built the PAEs for Pathfinder, We built a PAE for protection, and mobility is a form of protection. Absolutely. And so it allows us to be way more survivable. Great, well that's good to hear. Secretary, the Army has accelerated the development timeline for the M1E3 Abrams tank, as I'm sure you're aware, aiming to field a variant within, I understand, 24 to 30 months instead of the 2030 that was originally planned.

General George has also reportedly indicated that the Army intends to field 4 M1E3 Abrams prototypes in 2026 for testing, with the 1st Cavalry Division receiving those prototypes, I believe, this fall. So my question for you, what is the status of the M1E3 acceleration effort, and does the Army have additional updates on the current delivery of the prototypes and whether they'll still be delivered this fall, as was previously indicated? Are you still on that timeline? [FOREIGN LANGUAGE] Senator, we are still on that timeline. We're very excited about this program.

Everything is moving forward. We have the funding behind it. So right now, it's just a matter of getting the vehicles delivered and then just fielded to that division, and so we can start capturing feedback and then moving forward with a very aggressive schedule for the M1E3. Great. General?

Senator, the only thing I would mention is, The thing that's great about the M1E3 is this, we're not just bolting on another piece of kit to the next generation. We went through, the M1E3 represents a reset. It's lighter, it's more mobile, it has a vehicle protection system built in, it's more protected, and it's a lot more lethal, and we can use it as a base kit because it'll have drive-by-wire technology in it, so I could put, I could make it autonomous or semi-autonomous. Right, right. Secretary, as you know too, the fiscal year '27 budget request includes $547 million for the XM30, the replacement for the Bradley infantry vehicle.

This funding allows for the production of 19 of these XM30s, indicating a transition from prototyping to now operational fielding. So given its critical importance, how are you ensuring that the XM30 program stays on track in terms of engineering development and planned fielding timelines and cost growth? Senator, I think right now the XM-30 is on schedule. It is meeting cost. I think it's the way we've run this program from the start.

This is before I got to my position, but we probably have more information about the XM-30 than we ever have, just based on the digital designs that each of the final two— each of the final two OEMs were able to provide, we feel confident that we'll stay on schedule. I think the biggest question for us is just going forward, making sure that we sufficiently resource the effort. Okay, very good, General? Sir, I've been a part of it for 5 years, I'm pretty excited about it, and the thing that's great is both the XM30 and the M1E3 represent that reset to be able to build, they'll be the base piece of our close combat formations on the heavy side. Great.

Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Yeah, thank you, Senator. A couple of things that have come up that I kind of want to reconcile. I think we talked a little bit about this, General, in my office, but you both referred to the acquisition contracting, sending demand signals that attracts capital, 5-year, for example, or multiyear contracts, but also the need for speed in terms of transformation itself, the innovating itself.

How do you see reconciling, you know, the long-term contract on the one hand, and on the other hand, making sure that what's being produced is relevant for the moment? Maybe start with you, General, then go to Mr. Tollefson. Yes, sir. I think as we partner with, uh, because we, uh, not only does T2Com do the requirements side, but we also manage all the science and technology, and so as we discover opportunities and we discover technology, we're constantly in connection. And I don't think that that's always probably been our strong suit.

Mm-hmm. It may be something that we kind of protected. Most of our labs now are a lot less about building the watch themselves as about reporting out on the watches that are, you know, that are at the jewelry store. And I think what we see now is there's capability in so many different places, but we have to make sure that we let ASALT know, and we're talking that all the time, not only do we have to maintain programs of record, but we have to be able to recompete whenever new technology matures, and then we have to build formations that can accept that technology. Mr. Tillerson.

You know, I would just echo those comments, sir. I think a part of this is just by the way that we've structured the PAEs, you know, in that we have the situation where the acquisition, Core, the material developer is really nested with the requirements developer, and then we have the enablers that are sucked in underneath. So what we've been able to do is we also established sort of a standalone organization called the Pathway to Innovative Technology, and that's where we're trying to operationalize the acquisition piece of this, to where we're forward deploying people. That's acquisition at the tactical edge, you know, to where we're tied in not only to, say, VC companies that are coming up with emerging disruptive tech, but also getting close to each one of those divisions who have their own innovation labs, and then having that connectivity going back to the actual PAEs to where there could be a transition plan that could happen quickly. And getting back to my earlier comment about having us nested so closely together within the PAEs, that really allows us to look at—.

Thank you. The capability from a holistic standpoint, so we're looking at it from a dot mil PFP position, is instead of just one innovative disruptive technology, how does it fit into the formation, how does it fight, what do soldiers really need, what's the problem that we're trying to solve? Yeah. So we're doing that all up front, and then with the PAEs being empowered, we can do capability trade councils where we go in and we really look at that requirement and we figure out exactly, does this meet the problem? Or do we need to revise the requirement just within the boundaries that have been set?

So I think, I think the structure that was mandated by the NDAA has really set the conditions well for us to move forward to make sure that whatever innovative capability that we start focusing on, it will stay relevant. Thank you. Hey sir, if I could just add one other thing to tie in what Jessie said. Senator Kelly asked about low-cost munitions and things like that. Just recently in the last 60 days, we've identified that there's an opportunity with Discovery, and we made a requirements change within a week.

Wow. Those are usually things that are 9 months, we have Council of Colonels, General Officer Steering Committee, we made a requirements change in a week., and that's because we're all wearing the same patch. Excellent. One of you referenced earlier, maybe it was you, General, I can't remember, but one of you talked about international partners, and you sort of glanced over it as sort of the next phase perhaps, or a next opportunity. Could you elaborate a little bit on that?

I mean, I have some pretty strong feelings myself about the lost opportunities of the synergies of more allied partners in the mix early, but just be interested in your take on that. Maybe start with you, Secretary. Sir, I would say that we're laser-focused on FMS and bringing in more security cooperation and co-production, code development, interoperability, especially with our NATO partners and with our Indo-Pacific partners. So what we're also trying to do We're running a pretty significant FMS reform effort that's ongoing right now, in terms of trying to fast-track things. We do have a pilot that's in place where we're gonna create a UAS, counter-UAS marketplace where we will have foreign partners as part of that marketplace.

So one of the things that we've been talking about for the next jailbreak would be to do something that would be with our partners, o conus. We're still working out the development on that, I would say nothing is definitized yet, but we do acknowledge that we've got to bring in the partners here, 'cause interoperability, any conflict that we get into is gonna be a joint fight. General, did you wanna add to that while there's only two of us here, or? Yes, sir, just real quickly, we mentioned earlier today, when we do requirements, we think about a few things. Number one, we think about what are the formations, not just what are the platforms, but what are the formations that are gonna fight?

And then what are those formations for? And then where are they gonna fight and who are they gonna fight with? And when we do that, then we actually get what the real requirement is. Appreciate that. Senator Kelly.

Mr. Tillerson, would you regard the Ukrainians as one of those partners?

Sir, I would say yes. So do you think it would be helpful for them in their conflict with Russia to be able to do some of the co-production you talked about, specifically the PAC-3 round for the Patriot?

Sir, I think we'd have to work out the details and understand how the— how that would actually work and function, and we can get them out of country just depending on what that conflict would be, but I think, you know, from our foxhole inside the Army, I think we would be open to discussing that. And is your sense that they would have, they seem to be capable to do very technical things, do you think that they would have the capacity to do that at this point? You know, sir, I would have to defer to my SAGU team that's overseas right now there to get more of an assessment as to whether or not they could actually have the capability ability to produce, say, an exquisite air defense munition like, like Patriot, um, or like PAC-3. Um, however, seeing how they've been able to adapt and bring out things like UAS and launch effects, I, I would imagine that they could do it. Okay, I think that would be a good thing to, to look into.

Um, and then General Brown, you mentioned the vehicle protection system that's built into the M1E3, so without going into too much detail, my understanding is that this is an integrated counter-UAS capability, at least part of it, and it's not based on any broad-based counter-UAS architecture outside, like it's, it's organic to the tank. Yes. And then if you could clarify that, and then the other question is, is there a similar system within the XM-30? Yes, sir, there is a similar system. So the capability is a vehicle, there's a base kit, but then you can put different capabilities inside.

It's not just for counter-UAS, you know, it still is protecting against other direct fire, so it should be, it could be a UAS, it could be,, you know, some other type of munition. So what we're looking at is things like obscuration. We're looking at just simple things, how it could knock down something that's coming at it, how it could shoot maybe an automatic machine gun that shoots just like the Phalanx gun on a ship that we used for our SeaRAM over— it's the same principle, but what it does is we're trying— we gotta have that that brain on the inside that says don't shoot all of your capabilities at the first thing that comes, you have to be discretionary and make sure that you're using the right tool for the right job. Is it the same system for—. It's similar, yes sir, because of where the crew is and where the soldiers are, obviously XM30's gonna be carrying soldiers to be able to dismount, whereas the, the M1E3 wouldn't have that many, so that's really the difference.

There'll be a little bit more on the XM30, but it'll have a different lean on the M1E3. Okay, and then, and also for you, General, how is the Army incorporating autonomous ground vehicles into this effort? The Ukrainians, you know, had some success in especially medevac autonomous ground vehicles. They also had some that had, I don't know, a 30 or 50 caliber machine gun on it that they were able to capture some enemy troops. Are we looking at those systems as well, or are we, I think we talked a little bit the other day about the M1E3.

M1E3. Maybe you alluded to, or maybe it wasn't the M1E3, but just some autonomous ground systems, if you can comment there. Yes, sir, last fall we did an X-Tech event where we actually brought out, we went through and did 600, we had 600 industry partners that put in, we picked 40, and then we did a competition, we got down to 20, and those 20 are out with 1st Brigade, 1st Cav at Fort Hood right now going through and actually using their autonomous systems inside that brigade, so we're learning from that. With the Pathway for Innovative Technology, we've begun to start transitioning some of those capabilities. We can give you a full rundown on that.

Yeah, what are the autonomous ground systems, what are the missions for those? Yes, sir, so breaching, you know, we always start off with what are the things that we don't want soldiers to be doing, we don't want to trade blood for first contact, so breaching minefields, if we're talking about doing reconnaissance, doing security in some cases, doing obscuration, doing chemical biological testing. These are the types of things we want our autonomous systems to be able to do, as well as we want to thicken the formations that we have. So it's not about replacing one for one, it's just like CCA and some of the other services, we want to actually thicken those formations so that we have autonomous and semi-autonomous systems in the formations, and we actually learned this as working with the Ukrainians. That's where we got the start.

And did you have clearing a minefield in there as well? Yes, sir, breaching, yes, sir. All right, thank you.

I hesitate to go longer because we have been called to vote, but I do wanna just maybe one more line of question from me at least. With regard to the actual production, the bottleneck challenge, I mean the industrial base challenge, besides the demand signals and the process, the PAs, what's your biggest concern about the bottleneck of production? And part of what sparks this question for me is, in fact, not long before I came down here, I saw the story, saw a couple of people on one of the business channels, I don't remember, it's pretty much all I watch are the business channels, Talking about this new partnership between Lockheed Martin and General Motors Defense and sort of taking the best of both and combining it into this new partnership. What do you see as the potential bottlenecks or challenges going forward with the capability of producing, particularly munitions?

You know, sir, I would say it's really the supply chain, but you gotta look at it almost like from like the ground up. I mean, truly from the dirt up. So the thick of it is, I think for us it's the precursor materials that would go into advanced energetics. You know, it's making sure that we have got the onshore capability for some of those precursor materials, and then moving up into, you know, kind of more of the larger end item components, things like solid rocket motors, things like seekers, all of that, I think we are taking a whole-of-department approach to try to build that out and then qualify and then expand that. So some of it's the qualification process, identifying who those second sources should be.

It's working with the OEMs to go out and qualify those additional sources. It is looking at, can we bring in, you know, newer advanced manufacturing technology? And not even, you know, really advanced manufacturing technology, just more modern manufacturing technology, right? As far as looking at how do you manufacture this particular all-up round? Is there a better way of doing it?

And that's where you look at guys like GM or Ford or, you know, or say SpaceX, you know, or guys like Hadrian, you know, that really know how to build things and capture some of those techniques and making sure that our OEMs that are the producers of these all-up rounds, that they are actually maximizing that and they're putting in the right capital investment to build out that type of capability. But I would say, you know, it's the precursor materials, it's energetics, and then it's some of the major end item components, seekers for one. Well, and let me then just go a step further, going back to the discussion about international partners and those synergies, and you mentioned, you said onshoring, but is there a friendshoring opportunity that we might be missing that we could be more engaged with? I think we're looking at that closely, sir. I don't think that's off the table at all.

I think friendshoring is something that we are looking at just from a global demand perspective and looking at MOUs and who, you know, just for example, for things like the GMLRS program and then PRISM, we've teamed with Australia, you know, so we're really looking at that hard. General? Hey, sir, can I just add, I think it's important too to incentivize economically, not just industry, but to incentivize us as service, you know, when we program, we don't program for a second qualification process, Sure. So if we decide that we want to be able to do that because we see an opportunity, that's an unfunded requirement. And so having the incentive to, hey, if you find a qualification opportunity for propellant or for something else, if there could be access for funds for us to be able to use that, that gets us into the 21st century when it comes to manufacturing.

Well, we're really good at perverse incentives, so thank you for that. Great suggestion. Senator Kelly, do you have more you want? Yeah, I just want to submit for the record a question on next generation command and control because I know we have the vote and also PAE structure rollout to get some information on how that's been going. So we'll leave them here and maybe you can get back to us.

All right. With that, thank you, gentlemen, for your testimony, for your service, for Mr. Chairman, thank you for the extra time, and we look forward to continuing the discussion. We're adjourned. Thank you.