On the recordSeptember 5, 1995
The committee staff has reviewed the Army's Crusader program and LP development in detail. LP development is receiving intensive management by both the contractor and the Army. I understand the Senator's concern that the House position legislating performance goals and decision schedules might exceed the oversight needs of this program. I do believe, however, that we should maintain adequate congressional oversight over both LP and unicharge development as it affects this important Army program. I would point out that the Army is just completing the first year of an 8 rac{1}{2} year development program for the Crusader. We are pushing the limits of technology in an entirely new area with the research and development of liquid propellant for Crusader. I believe that the potential advantages of LP justify the risks associated with its development. We will continue to watch this program carefully. We expect that the development of LP will be successful and that the Crusader will be produced and fielded on schedule. If, on the other hand, the technology challenges are too difficult, and LP simply doesn't work, then we won't buy it. However, in the meantime, I believe we should allow the Army's developmental efforts to proceed.
Source
govinfo.gov




