on Military Airlift Command aircraft. We think that there are reasons to do that. We do not control that troop movement program, but I would say to you that the system of chartering for the mass transportation of all military service personnel goes back into the fifties. It was a policy that was established that this method would be used.

I would also say to you that in the use of charters we did not feel that we had a means or a voice to express concerns that we might have observed or the unit commander might have observed about either the crew or the aircraft. We raised this with the Department of Defense. We think that a mechanism now has been established to do that through the Department of Defense.

I would also say to you that certain efforts were made by the FAA-Federal Aviation Administration, who do air-worthiness certifications of all charter aircraft, to beef up the review of inspections. The Military Airlift Command has also aided by assigning special people to check out charters. In certain instances there will be inspections when charter aircraft lands at a military base.

So there is a very significant concern in the Department of Defense about this. We in the Army share the concerns that you mention and have requested, as I said, for future airlifts to and from the Sinai to be on Military Airlift Command aircraft.

I do not know what the ultimate resolution of that will be.

CHARTERED AIRCRAFT

Mr. YOUNG. Regarding the use of chartered airplanes-I understand why we made use of chartered airlines, but I wonder if you would give us the official reason why that is done rather than using military airlift aircraft all the time?

Secretary MARSH. I think the basic thing, and I think I should probably defer to General Wickham to add to one dimension of this, I would say is that basically MAC-Military Airlift Command has been structured to lift equipment. The idea is that MAC would take certain types of equipment and because of the large number of passenger aviation assets that exists in the civilian market, either regularly scheduled commercial airlines or in the charter fleets, that we could work out an arrangement through the CRAF, the Civilian Reserve Air Fleet, by in effect partially subsidizing construction of aircraft or providing them business, to have a large pool of civilian aviation to handle our passenger load.

I do not think that MAC has the capability to carry all the people that we move and as a result of that you have a tremendous reliance on charters to move 95 percent of our people, including dependents.

General Wickham might want to add military reasons and background.

General WICKHAM. It was a national security decision made over 30 years ago to rely on the substantial passenger lift capability of civilian industry. Supporting them so that they might strengthen the floors and widen the doors for cargo purposes, we can make use of civilian lift.

We have air fleet arrangements with NATO allies, NATO CRAF and the Korean Government has made available certain Korean

airliners as a CRAF from that area. It is an essential ingredient in terms of our ability to go to war.

MAC, therefore, with congressional support, continued to emphasize heavy cargo. The types of things that civilian aircraft wouldn't move on a routine basis. MAC does not have much passenger capability. As a matter of fact, the use of contract carriers leads to, providing we get quality contract carriers, a much better quality flight, because you have flight attendents, better seats and all that. You don't have that on MAC airlift.

Mr. YOUNG. What you have reported is exactly the way I understood our reason for using and trying to maintain the CRAF fleet, especially for emergency mobilization, and to have that fleet available to augment the MAC fleet. As the customer, I assume that this transportation is paid for from your budget.

Secretary MARSH. That is right.

Mr. YOUNG. Have you ever done a comparison to determine whether or not you could actually fly them cheaper by using a military aircraft?

General WICKHAM. It is more expensive.

Secretary MARSH. We pay for that after they are picked and selected by others. There is another dimension to your question, Mr. Young, of which I think we have to be cognizant. Once you choose the charter route, you enter the competitive market. The Congress has adopted legislation on competition in contracting. Once you move into competition you are moving to the low bidder. That raises a lot of other questions.

Mr. YOUNG. I understand that and I don't disagree with what you are saying. It is unfortunate that this tragedy happened and that it called it to our attention. In view of the tragedy and despite what you just told me, you have asked that future flights in and out of the Sinai be done by military aircraft, so you must have a little more confidence in that military aircraft than you do the charter flight.

There is some reason why you asked for military transportation for the balance of the Sinai traffic.

Secretary MARSH. I think there are several considerations. I would say to you that several other participants in the multinational force organization do use military aircraft.

POLYGRAPH EXAMINERS

Mr. YOUNG. Let me change the subject. As you know, this committee strongly supported the use of polygraphs in the Defense Department for the purpose of national security and there is no question that one reason we can't increase the number of polygraphs is the fact that we don't have enough examiners that are properly trained.

The DOD trains polygraph examiners at the military police school at Fort McClellan and in order to provide the Department with more examiners, our committee directed the Army to use $1,666,000 to train more examiners and purchase more examining equipment.

Has this direction been carried out by the Army?

Secretary MARSH. It has. There are certain renovations that have to occur in the facilities. I think they are going to double up on certain classrooms and have double shifts in order to continue training while the renovation is occurring. They have to replace some of the equipment. As I recall it is over $400,000 worth of equipment that had to be replaced. That is being done. The school is being, I believe, redesignated as a defense school in which the Army operates as executive agent.

So the money is being used and the expansion is occurring, sir. Mr. YOUNG. Can you tell me how many examiners are currently in the school at Fort McClellan?

Secretary MARSH. I can get that for you-instructors or students? Mr. YOUNG. Students.

Secretary MARSH. I can get that for you because they are in the process of ramping up. I can't tell you precisely what it is now, but it is more than have been there in the past.

[The information follows:]

The expansion of the polygraph examiner training course provides the DOD Polygraph Institute the capability to train 36 students per class, three times a year (108 students).

The current class has 26 students and graduates 15 April 1986. The remaining classes for fiscal year 1986 will have 36 students and begin 11 May 1986 and 27 August 1986.

Mr. YOUNG. So you have already begun the expansion program and it is underway?

Secretary MARSH. Yes.

Mr. YOUNG. I would like to submit additional questions on this subject for the record.

[CLERK'S NOTE.-Questions submitted by Mr. Young and the answers thereto follow:]

QUESTION. How many examiners are expected to complete their training in fiscal year 1986?

Secretary MARSH. The DOD Polygraph Institute offers three basic polygraph examiner training courses and two polygraph examiner advance courses (professional courses) each fiscal year.

The basic polygraph examiner training course will graduate 98 examiners in fiscal year 1986. This will be up to 108 examiners in fiscal year 1987.

The polygraph examiner advance course will graduate 27 examiners in fiscal year 1986. This will be up to 36 students in fiscal year 1987.

QUESTION. What are the funding and training plans for fiscal year 1987?

Secretary MARSH. The Army is the executive agent for the DOD Polygraph Institute and has responsibility for programming funds and conducting training for DOD polygraph examiners.

The cost of operating the Institute for fiscal year 1987 will be $384K. Costs include personnel (Army only) and operational costs. The instructors are provided by the Services and National Security Agency on a fair share basis. Their salaries are programmed by the Service or National Security Agency and total $427K. Total FY 87 cost is $811K.

FY 87 instructor support from the Services will be Army-8, Navy-4, Air Force-4, Marine Corp-1, and National Security Agency-2.

In FY 87 the Institute plans to train 108 students in the basic polygraph examiners course and 36 students in the advance polygraph examiners course.

In FY 87 non-DOD agencies (FBI, Secret Service, Postal Inspectors, etc.) will continue to use the Institute as their primary training facility for polygraph examiners. Currently, non-DOD agencies make up approximately 40-45 percent of the students.

In FY 87 the Services will continue to expand their polygraph programs to respond to the need for more counterintelligence polygraph screening consistent with restrictions in the FY 86 Defense Authorization Act. Priority will be given to DOD students, when necessary, over non-DOD students.

In FY 87 95 percent design will be completed on the $1.7M MCA project for the new Institute building. The MCA project is part of the Army FY 88 MCA program. This project can be executed in FY 87 if monies are made available.

[CLERK'S NOTE.-End of questions submitted by Mr. Young.] Mr. DICKS. Congressman Wilson.

Mr. WILSON. Good morning, Mr. Secretary.

Along the line of questioning that our colleague from Florida had, as a former naval person and as somebody familiar that all the security leaks seem to come from the Navy and not from the Army, I congratulate you on that. I received some balm to my humiliation at the football game.

General WICKHAM. Wait until next year.

AQUILA REMOTELY PILOTED VEHICLE

Mr. WILSON. Either of you can answer this question. I am curious-I understand that the most recent test for the Aquila has been extremely successful and I wonder if you would comment on that, either one of you.

Secretary MARSH. I defer to General Wickham.

General WICKHAM. The Aquila has been successful. I would like to show, with the Chairman's permission, about a minute and 50 second TV tape showing the results of the recent testing against moving tanks. The first segment shows the Aquila being caught in the net. Next, it is lasing tanks and the Copperhead comes right in on the laser designator. That is a stationary tank.

[Tape shown.]

General WICKHAM. These are remotely controlled vehicles, obviously. It kind of spoils your day if they aren't.

There is another one. They hit four out of four moving vehicles. You can see the laser designation-there it is. Something went wrong with that tank and it went off the road, but the Copperhead designated by the Aquila still hit it.

Mr. WILSON. What range are we at?

General WICKHAM. The lasing range is about three to five kilometers. The Copperhead artillery round can be fired about 16,000 meters.

Mr. WILSON. General, would you explain to the committee briefly what the Aquila is?

General WICKHAM. Basically it is a remotely piloted vehicle that is relatively small, about half the size of this table. It has jam-proof secure communications. It can lase. It can see day and night. It can get eight-digit coordinates of the targets at which it is looking. It can fly 45 kilometers and then return to be retrieved in a net. Therefore, it can be reflown again and again.

The Army is committed to procuring nine batteries of Aquilas as part of the family of unmanned aerial vehicles.

Mr. WILSON. How many in a battery?

General WICKHAM. We are talking 13 air vehicles and 5 control stations with data links in a battery.

Mr. WILSON. I believe that is the only pilot-less aircraft that the Army has developed?

General WICKHAM. The Congress has asked us to look at nondevelopmental initiatives like the Israeli's MASTIF and others, but none of those systems have anywhere near the capability of the Aquila.

Mr. WILSON. What is in the budget this year for the Aquila, buying the nine batteries?

General WICKHAM. No, that procurement is over a period of

years.

Mr. WILSON. Is there a hardware purchase this year or is it still R&D?

General WICKHAM. There is a hardware procurement. We are procuring five air vehicles and two ground support stations that go with it. There is a procurement fund line of $118 million in 1987.

BRADLEY FIGHTING VEHICLE

Mr. WILSON. Thank you, General. I appreciate that. We do work on that at Austin.

Mr. Chairman, has anybody asked about the infantry fighting vehicle armor problem? I wonder if you would comment on that.

General WICKHAM. I think I need to set the record straight on the Bradley Fighting Vehicle. It is totally unrelated to the DIVAD— Division Air Defense gun-type of problem. DIVAD never passed its tests in terms of the requirement. Bradley has passed its tests in terms of the requirement. What we are doing now is product improving it to reduce its vulnerability. The product improvements that we plan are a simple spall liner made of Kevlar material to be put inside the vehicle to reduce fragments from bursting into the vehicle and putting explosive armor on the outside of the vehicle to set off shape charges.

All modern armies, the Russians and the Germans included, are putting reactive armor on their infantry fighting vehicles.

There have been some questions by people who haven't seen the vehicle about how we plan to use that vehicle and whether it makes any difference in employment because of its vulnerability to, we see now, overmatched systems. We still plan to use that vehicle to carry infantry. We plan to use that vehicle as a base of fire for maneuvering infantry that may have been dismounted. It is not a tank and was never intended to be a tank.

59-248 0-86-4