    [House Hearing, 111 Congress]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                             [H.A.S.C. No. 111-123]

                                    HEARING
                                       ON
                       NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT
                              FOR FISCAL YEAR 2011
                                      AND
                  OVERSIGHT OF PREVIOUSLY AUTHORIZED PROGRAMS

                                   BEFORE THE

                          COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES

                            HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                         ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS

                                 SECOND SESSION

                                   __________

                             FULL COMMITTEE HEARING

                                       ON

              BUDGET REQUEST FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE

                                   __________

                                  HEARING HELD

                               FEBRUARY 23, 2010

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TONGRESS.#13

                      U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
    58-102                    WASHINGTON : 2010
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
    For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office,
    http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center, U.S. Government Printing Office. Phone 202�09512�091800, or 866�09512�091800 (toll-free). E-mail, gpo@custhelp.com.

                       HOUSE COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
                         One Hundred Eleventh Congress

                        IKE SKELTON, Missouri, Chairman
    JOHN SPRATT, South Carolina          HOWARD P. ``BUCK'' McKEON,
    SOLOMON P. ORTIZ, Texas                  California
    GENE TAYLOR, Mississippi             ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland
    NEIL ABERCROMBIE, Hawaii             MAC THORNBERRY, Texas
    SILVESTRE REYES, Texas               WALTER B. JONES, North Carolina
    VIC SNYDER, Arkansas                 W. TODD AKIN, Missouri
    ADAM SMITH, Washington               J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia
    LORETTA SANCHEZ, California          JEFF MILLER, Florida
    MIKE McINTYRE, North Carolina        JOE WILSON, South Carolina
    ROBERT A. BRADY, Pennsylvania        FRANK A. LoBIONDO, New Jersey
    ROBERT ANDREWS, New Jersey           ROB BISHOP, Utah
    SUSAN A. DAVIS, California           MICHAEL TURNER, Ohio
    JAMES R. LANGEVIN, Rhode Island      JOHN KLINE, Minnesota
    RICK LARSEN, Washington              MIKE ROGERS, Alabama
    JIM COOPER, Tennessee                TRENT FRANKS, Arizona
    JIM MARSHALL, Georgia                BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania
    MADELEINE Z. BORDALLO, Guam          CATHY McMORRIS RODGERS, Washington
    BRAD ELLSWORTH, Indiana              K. MICHAEL CONAWAY, Texas
    PATRICK J. MURPHY, Pennsylvania      DOUG LAMBORN, Colorado
    HANK JOHNSON, Georgia                ROB WITTMAN, Virginia
    CAROL SHEA-PORTER, New Hampshire     MARY FALLIN, Oklahoma
    JOE COURTNEY, Connecticut            DUNCAN HUNTER, California
    DAVID LOEBSACK, Iowa                 JOHN C. FLEMING, Louisiana
    JOE SESTAK, Pennsylvania             MIKE COFFMAN, Colorado
    GABRIELLE GIFFORDS, Arizona          THOMAS J. ROONEY, Florida
    NIKI TSONGAS, Massachusetts          TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania
    GLENN NYE, Virginia
    CHELLIE PINGREE, Maine
    LARRY KISSELL, North Carolina
    MARTIN HEINRICH, New Mexico
    FRANK M. KRATOVIL, Jr., Maryland
    ERIC J.J. MASSA, New York
    BOBBY BRIGHT, Alabama
    SCOTT MURPHY, New York
    WILLIAM L. OWENS, New York
    DAN BOREN, Oklahoma
                        Erin C. Conaton, Staff Director
                     Mike Casey, Professional Staff Member
                    Lynn Williams, Professional Staff Member
                        Caterina Dutto, Staff Assistant

                                C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------

                         CHRONOLOGICAL LIST OF HEARINGS
                                      2010

                                                                       Page

    Hearing:

    Tuesday, February 23, 2010, Fiscal Year 2011 National Defense
      Authorization Act--Budget Request from the Department of the
      Air Force......................................................     1

    Appendix:

    Tuesday, February 23, 2010.......................................    45
                                  ----------

                           TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 23, 2010
      FISCAL YEAR 2011 NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT--BUDGET REQUEST
                      FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE
                  STATEMENTS PRESENTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS

    McKeon, Hon. Howard P. ``Buck,'' a Representative from
      California, Ranking Member, Committee on Armed Services........     2
    Skelton, Hon. Ike, a Representative from Missouri, Chairman,
      Committee on Armed Services....................................     1

                                   WITNESSES

    Donley, Hon. Michael B., Secretary of the Air Force..............     4
    Schwartz, Gen. Norton A., USAF, Chief of Staff, U.S. Air Force...     5

                                    APPENDIX

    Prepared Statements:

        Skelton, Hon. Ike............................................    49
        Donley, Hon. Michael B., joint with Gen. Norton A. Schwartz..    51

    Documents Submitted for the Record:

        [There were no Documents submitted.]

    Witness Responses to Questions Asked During the Hearing:

        Mr. Bishop...................................................    73
        Mr. Conaway..................................................    74
        Mrs. Davis...................................................    73
        Mr. Lamborn..................................................    74
        Mr. Langevin.................................................    73
        Mr. LoBiondo.................................................    73

    Questions Submitted by Members Post Hearing:

        Mr. Bishop...................................................    81
        Ms. Bordallo.................................................    84
        Mr. Bright...................................................    87
        Mr. Lamborn..................................................    85
        Mrs. McMorris Rodgers........................................    83
        Mr. Miller...................................................    77
        Mr. Turner...................................................    82
        Mr. Wilson...................................................    80

      FISCAL YEAR 2011 NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT--BUDGET REQUEST
                      FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE

                                  ----------

                              House of Representatives,
                                   Committee on Armed Services,
                            Washington, DC, Tuesday, February 23, 2010.
        The committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:05 a.m., in room
    2118, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Ike Skelton (chairman
    of the committee) presiding.

     OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. IKE SKELTON, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM
            MISSOURI, CHAIRMAN, COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES

        The Chairman. Good morning. Today the House Armed Services
    Committee meets to receive testimony on the fiscal year 2011
    budget request of the United States Air Force. Our witnesses
    today are the Honorable Michael Donley, Secretary of the Air
    Force, and General Norton Schwartz, Chief of Staff of the Air
    Force.
        Thank you both for appearing. And let me take this
    opportunity also to thank those you lead: the Active Duty,
    Reserves, the Air Guard personnel as well as the Air Force
    civilians.
        Every day, the Air Force flies in excess of 200 sorties a
    day in Iraq and Afghanistan, totaling over 570,000 sorties
    since September 11, 2001.
        In addition, about 29,000 personnel are currently deployed
    to Iraq and Afghanistan, including over 4,000 serving on the
    Joint Expeditionary Task billets; that is, in nontraditional
    billets often outside the wire.
        This continues to be an exceptionally busy Air Force and
    one that is contributing greatly to the current joint fight,
    and we are proud of them. To support this level of activity,
    the Administration has requested a $5.3 billion increase over
    last year's base budget level. This would support a 1.4 percent
    across-the-board military and civilian pay raise and support
    the Air Force's continued focus on providing support to
    military families.
        As someone who has often commented that if Mama ain't
    happy, no one is happy, I strongly approve of the continued
    emphasis on personnel and family issues.
        Nonetheless, there are aspects of this budget request that
    cause me concern. For starters, I see we are back to square one
    on building a new bomber. Two years ago, Secretary Gates gave
    his blessing for the Air Force to begin a new, well-thought-out
    bomb program. As I understand the direction now is to
    reconsider where to go with this program, going back to first
    principles. I find this somewhat confusing as these issues were
    recently studied in-depth over a five-year period, and I hope
    that our witnesses today will explain to us why redoing this
    study is a good use of our taxpayer dollars.
        Our national security will continue to require bombing
    capability, and the smart design engineering workforce, a
    national treasure, frankly, in my opinion, should not be lost.
        I also want to discuss the F-136 alternate engine issue. We
    have long funded the development of an alternate engine for the
    Joint Strike Fighter [JSF] as an insurance policy for our
    national security. Twenty-five years from now, the F-35 will
    comprise 95 percent of all U.S. fighter aircraft. It seems to
    me that relying simply on one engine means accepting a
    potential single source of failure. The Secretary of Defense
    promised us, starting February 1, that he would provide us the
    analysis on this year's decision. We have still not received
    this analysis. We do remain deeply concerned about receiving it
    quickly. I would hope that you would see to that.
        I also have questions about the status of the F-35 program
    more generally. This is a critical program for us, as well as
    for our allies. The three recent reviews of the F-35 program
    have challenged the current development schedule, cost
    increases of the F-135 engine, the future production schedule
    given us. I would ask our witnesses to help us understand how
    we can stay on target for our 2013 initial operating capability
    and, in the absence of full testing, why the Air Force wants to
    buy 23 in 2011, an increase from 13 in 2010.
        Now, I might say there are many other issues that I hope we
    can get into during our questioning, including our strike
    fighter force structure requirements, cyberattacks, and defense
    future plans for light attack aircraft, to name a few. In
    addition I will say I am pleased that the OSD [Office of the
    Secretary of Defense] and the Air Force will soon be issuing
    the final request for proposal for our next tanker. We hope we
    can get that behind us. We must get a new tanker contract award
    and start replacing current planes just as soon as possible.
        I turn to my good friend the ranking gentleman from
    California, Mr. McKeon.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Skelton can be found in the
    Appendix on page 49.]

     STATEMENT OF HON. HOWARD P. ``BUCK'' MCKEON, A REPRESENTATIVE
      FROM CALIFORNIA, RANKING MEMBER, COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES

        Mr. McKeon. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Secretary Donley, General Schwartz, it is good to have you
    with us here today. We appreciate all you do, and we are truly
    grateful that we have men with your leadership ability sitting
    where you are.
        Gentlemen, I want to take a minute to applaud both of you
    for your remarks at the recent Institute for Foreign Policy
    Analysis [IFPA] conference. General Schwartz, at that event you
    acknowledged that the Air Force has had a short-term and
    somewhat narrow, focused, fix-it sort of perspective. I agree
    with you on that point, and I also agree that it is not good
    for the long-term health of the institution.
        Secretary Donley, I believe you were also on the right
    track when you said that the Air Force needs to remain vigilant
    in tying your work to the National Security Strategy, the QDR
    [Quadrennial Defense Review], and the larger national security
    community. I would caveat that by saying that your efforts will
    only prove successful if the National Security Strategy and the
    QDR provide appropriate guidance.
        As you all know, we recently had Secretary Gates, Admiral
    Mullen and Secretary Flournoy before this committee, and many
    of our members, Republican and Democrat alike, expressed
    concern that the 2010 QDR and the fiscal year 2011 budget are
    overly focused on the short-term and fail to adequately address
    strategic risks.
        I strongly believe that if we are to be successful in
    providing for a military that is ready and capable of
    responding to a broad array of challenges, we must take care
    that we don't shape our forces for the counterinsurgency
    battles of Iraq and Afghanistan at the expense of conventional
    defense capabilities. We can only address both of these
    challenges to our national security with clear strategic
    guidance and commitment of appropriate resources. I am very
    concerned that the QDR and the 2011 budget request provide
    neither.
        The near-term focus of the QDR is very alarming when you
    consider the impact to the Air Force. Decisions to reduce
    fighter force structure, space systems, and missile defense
    capabilities cannot be easily undone. We can't feasibly restart
    production of the F-22s, and we can't field new satellites or
    missile defense systems the way we surged MRAPs [mine resistant
    ambush protected vehicles].
        I would also like to take a moment to express my continued
    opposition to this year's proposed retirement of 250 F-15s, F-
    16s, and A-10s. I recently visited with General Roger Brady,
    the commander of the U.S. Air Forces in Europe. He is very
    concerned about the impact of these force reductions on our
    ability to engage and build partnerships with our friends and
    allies in Europe. In his words, our basing and force structure
    is not aligned with our foreign policy. He strongly believes
    that if we take those fighters out of Europe, they will only be
    back to fight the war that they were there to deter. I would
    argue that the same holds true in the Pacific theater. As aptly
    noted in your IFPA remarks, Secretary Donley, ``Presence is
    essential to successful engagement.'' Our capabilities must be
    sufficiently robust and flexible to support a broad range of
    engagement needs.
        I also look forward to your addressing directly the
    President's State of the Union call to repeal Don't Ask, Don't
    Tell. Before the President or special interests force a change
    in the policy or law, Congress deserves to see from the
    services concrete in-depth evidence that such a change would
    improve wartime military readiness in any measurable
    significant way. Many of us on this committee have serious
    concerns with putting our men and women in uniform through such
    a divisive debate while they are fighting two wars. Since
    today's hearing focus limits the amount of time we can spend
    discussing Don't Ask, Don't Tell, I have echoed Mrs. Davis'
    request for you to appear at the Military Personnel
    Subcommittee hearing on this issue March 3. I would hope that
    we could work that out.
        Gentlemen, I look forward to our discussion today and
    hearing more from you on your vision and strategic goals. I
    believe the Air Force is at a critical juncture, one that will
    prove to be historic. We must be wise in the path that we
    choose. And I yield back.
        The Chairman. I thank my friend from California.
        Mr. Secretary, the floor is yours.

    STATEMENT OF HON. MICHAEL B. DONLEY, SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE

        Secretary Donley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Mr. McKeon,
    members of the committee, it is indeed a pleasure to be here
    today representing almost 680,000 Active Duty, Guard and
    Reserves, and Air Force civilians.
        I am also honored to be here with my partner, General
    Norton Schwartz, who is a phenomenal teammate and a tireless
    public servant.
        Today I am pleased to report that America's Air Force
    continues to make progress in strengthening our contributions
    as part of the joint team and the excellence that is the
    hallmark of our service. We are requesting $150.0 billion in
    our baseline budget and almost $21.0 billion in the overseas
    contingency operations [OCO] supplemental appropriation to
    support this work.
        In the past year in planning for the future, we have
    focused on balancing our resources and risk among four priority
    objectives outlined by Secretary Gates in the recently released
    QDR.
        First, we must prevail in today's wars. Your Air Force
    understands the gravity of the situation in Afghanistan, and as
    we continue to responsibly draw down the forces in Iraq, we are
    committed to rapidly fielding needed capabilities for the joint
    team, such as surging ISR [intelligence, surveillance, and
    reconnaissance] assets into theater and maximizing air mobility
    to accelerate the flow of forces into Afghanistan.
        Secondly, we must prevent and deter conflict across the
    spectrum of warfare. As we await the results of the Nuclear
    Posture Review [NPR] in the new START [Strategic Arms
    Reductions] Treaty, we continue concentrating on the safety,
    security, and sustainment of two legs of the Nation's nuclear
    arsenal. Last year, we stood up Air Force Global Strike
    Command. We have now realigned our ICBM [intercontinental
    ballistic missile] and bomber wings under the control of a
    single commander. We also stood up the Nuclear Weapons Center
    to consolidate the management of all our nuclear weapons'
    sustainment activities. And to increase our engagement across
    the world, we are building partner capacity in Afghanistan and
    Iraq, developing the training framework that emphasizes light
    attack and mobility that can benefit other nations.
        Third, we need to be prepared to defeat adversaries and
    succeed in a wide range of conflicts. We need to ensure that we
    are providing the right capabilities with our strategic airlift
    and ISR platforms and ensure our space-based assets continue to
    deliver needed capabilities for the future.
        In addition, the last two decades of sustained operations
    has strained our weapons systems. We continue to determine
    which aircraft we will modernize and sustain and which we must
    retire and recapitalize. One of our primary efforts includes
    retiring and recapitalizing many of our legacy fighters and
    tankers, replacing them with F-35s and KC-Xs. These decisions
    require tough choices as well as the ability to quickly field
    systems that meet warfighter needs at an affordable price.
    Because acquisition underpins this effort, we are continuing to
    work to recapture excellence in this area. In the past year we
    have made great strides in reforming our internal processes. We
    have added more program executive officers and are growing our
    acquisition workforce by several thousand professionals over
    the over next five years.
        Finally, we must preserve and enhance the all-volunteer
    force. Airmen are our most valuable resource, and they have
    performed superbly in every mission and deployment they have
    undertaken. With the understanding that their families serve
    alongside them, in July of 2009, General Schwartz and I and
    Chief Master Sergeant Jim Roy began a year-long focus on our
    men and women and their families. This Year of the Air Force
    Family recognizes their sacrifices, and it looks to determine
    how we can better support, develop, house, and educate them. We
    are determining which programs are performing well and where we
    can do better.
        It is important to note that each of those areas prevailing
    today, preventing and deterring conflict, preparing for
    tomorrow, preserving the force, are continuing efforts. We know
    that each will require sustained commitment, and we are now
    developing and implementing proactive plans for future success.
        As I noted last year and would reaffirm again, the
    stewardship of the United States Air Force is a responsibility
    that General Schwartz and I take very seriously. We are very
    grateful for the committee's continued support in this journey.
    And we look forward to discussing our proposed program and
    budget.
        Thank you very much.
        The Chairman. Thank you Mr. Secretary.
        General Schwartz, please.
        [The joint prepared statement of Secretary Donley and
    General Schwartz can be found in the Appendix on page 51.]

      STATEMENT OF GEN. NORTON A. SCHWARTZ, USAF, CHIEF OF STAFF,
                             U.S. AIR FORCE

        General Schwartz. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member McKeon,
    members of the committee, I am proud to be here today
    representing your Air Force with Secretary Donley.
        Let me begin by reaffirming that the United States Air
    Force is fully committed to effective stewardship of the
    resources that are placed in our trust.
        Guided by integrity, service, and excellence, our core
    values, America's airmen are serving courageously every day
    with precision and reliability on behalf of the American
    people. This budget request supports these airmen in our
    continuing efforts to rebalance the force, make difficult
    decisions on what and how we buy, and sustain our needed
    contributions to the joint team.
        Secretary Donley and I have established five priorities
    shortly after our taking office to ensure our entire force was
    focused on the right objectives. Most of our initial effort
    focused on renewing our commitment to long-established
    standards of excellence. I am pleased to report to you today
    that our committed and talented airmen broadly understood our
    intent and delivered in meaningful fashion. Although these
    initial priorities were not designed to change from year to
    year, our progress with the nuclear enterprise is such that we
    can now shift our efforts to sustain the progress that we have
    made. Thus, our first priority is to continue to strengthen
    excellence in the nuclear enterprise. The rigor of our nuclear
    surety inspections demonstrates a new commitment to the highest
    levels of performance, but we must and we will do even more to
    ensure 100 percent precision and reliability in our nuclear
    operations and logistics 100 percent of the time.
        For our second priority, to partner with our joint and
    coalition team to win today's fight, Secretary Donley mentioned
    several of the ways in which our airmen are providing critical
    air and space power for the joint and coalition team. Your
    airmen are also performing admirably wherever and whenever our
    joint teammates require, including providing battlefield
    medical support and evacuation, ordnance disposal, convoy
    security and much, much more.
        Our third priority remains to develop and care for our
    airmen and their families. As the Secretary indicated, we
    initiated the Year of the Family shortly after our testimony
    last year in recognition of the vital role that our families
    fulfill in mission accomplishment. Although their sacrifice is
    perhaps less conspicuous, contributions--their contributions--
    are no less substantial.
        Modernizing our inventories, organizations, and training,
    our fourth priority, is among the most difficult tasks that our
    service has undertaken in these last 18 months. In order to
    achieve the balance that Secretary Gates envisioned for our
    force, we were compelled to action and to decision. The budget
    reflects a continuation of that effort. We set forth on a plan
    last year to accelerate the retirement of some of our older
    fighter aircraft. This year we will not be retiring any
    additional fighters, but we are shifting away from some of our
    oldest and least capable C-130s and C-5s.
        Modernizing where we can and recapitalizing when we must
    will allow us to recapitalize our force scenarios where simple
    modernization is no longer cost-effective. KC-X is one such
    example. Awarding a new aerial refueling aircraft contract
    remains our top acquisition priority, and we hope to deliver an
    RFP within days to get the program underway. A similar
    imperative is the F-35. And I want to underscore Secretary
    Donley's comments by noting that this weapons system will be
    the workhorse driving much of our Air Force and the joint force
    forward.
        Long-Range Strike is the last program that I number among
    our top initiatives. The Air Force fully supports the
    development of a family of systems, providing both penetrating
    and standoff capabilities for the next two to three decades as
    described in the QDR.
        Recapturing acquisition excellence, our final priority, is
    only now beginning to pay dividends with our acquisition
    improvement plan at the heart of the reform effort. While
    promising initial successes must continue for a number of years
    before we can declare victory on this front, we are fully aware
    that we must bring every bit of capability and value that we
    can from the systems that we procure, and this will continue to
    require a sustained focus on acquisition excellence.
        Mr. Chairman, the Air Force will continue to provide our
    best military advice and stewardship, delivering global
    vigilance, reach, and power for the Nation. Thank you for your
    continuing support of the United States Air Force and that of
    the committee, and particularly for our airmen and their
    families. I look forward to your questions, sir.
        [The joint prepared statement of General Schwartz and
    Secretary Donley can be found in the Appendix on page 51.]
        The Chairman. General, thank you very much. We are
    especially proud of what you have done, both you gentlemen, as
    well as the many young men and young women that wear the blue,
    and we hope that you will transmit our appreciation to them.
        In the past, I have asked how many non-Army, non-Marine
    personnel are deployed doing Army type of work in Iraq and
    Afghanistan. Can you enlighten us as to that number today from
    the Air Force?
        General Schwartz. Sir, the number is about 4,700.
        The Chairman. That is down considerably, is it not?
        General Schwartz. As Iraq has subsided in terms of
    strength, so too have our joint expeditionary taskings, sir.
        The Chairman. How goes the recruiting for the Air Force?
        General Schwartz. Sir, we have met our numbers, both
    recruiting and retention, with the singular exception of the
    medical specialty, and thus far this year we have----
        The Chairman. And when you say ``medical specialty,'' are
    you talking about doctors, nurses?
        General Schwartz. Yes, sir.
        The Chairman. The whole gamut?
        General Schwartz. Yes, particularly on the officer side.
    And that is why we have in the budget request this year about
    $135.0 million in requests for incentives and for bonuses with
    respect to making it more attractive for medical professionals
    to come on Active Duty and to remain on Active Duty.
        The Chairman. The F-35, as I mentioned in my opening
    statement, has continued to be a source of questions for me. It
    seems like every year the program is slipping and slipping,
    although you are asking for 23 this coming year. Where is this
    program? Why aren't we ahead of the game on this?
        Secretary Donley. Well, sir, this program has had lots of
    scrutiny. It is the Department of Defense's largest program.
    Within the Air Force, it is our largest single program and by
    itself accounts for 15 or 16 percent of all our investment
    dollars, not our total budget but our investment dollars. And
    we have had a close eye on this program, especially over the
    last couple of years, with independent cost estimates set in
    motion by Dr. Carter, Secretary Gates, and their predecessors,
    so the program is getting great scrutiny. We have identified
    potential slips from independent estimates done at the end of
    2008, and you may recall that the Secretary made an adjustment
    in the F-35 program last year to add about a little over $400.0
    million to development. And so we had a close eye on this last
    year, and we also set in motion new and independent estimates
    to be undertaken at the end of last year. And when those were
    done, those independent estimates showed that we had not
    regained ground that had been projected to be regained, and we
    needed to recognize a slip in the program, and that is the
    source, really, of the restructuring that has been proposed in
    this budget.
        The Chairman. This committee last year successfully wrote a
    bill regarding acquisition reform, and what we wrote actually
    pretty much was what came out of conference with the Senate. Is
    that making any difference with the F-35 program?
        Secretary Donley. I think it has made a difference to the
    extent that the Department has made a strategic decision to
    accept the independent cost estimates that were reported to us
    at the end of the year, so we had to make a significant
    adjustment in the program as a result of that. So we have taken
    onboard what we think are probably the more realistic
    estimates. And I think that is a reflection of the same kind of
    emphasis that the committee put in its bill.
        The Chairman. I hope we can finally say, ``Let's get on
    with it.''
        Secretary Donley. Well, sir, this does represent a slip in
    the program. It will cost us more money to get where we need to
    go, but this is the right thing to do. This program had lots of
    concurrency built in between development and production, and
    the independent estimates showed us that that level of
    concurrency just got to an unsustainable level. So we have
    knocked down the production ramp. We have added dollars back
    into development to complete that work. We have taken other
    risk-reduction measures, consistent I think with the philosophy
    that the committee presented last year, and we are all about
    getting this program on track as quickly as possible. There is
    no diminution of the importance of this program or the emphasis
    that we are putting on its success going forward.
        The Chairman. One last question. As you know, there is a
    major Cyber Command that is in the offing. You have within the
    Air Force, do you not, a Cyber Command? This is my last
    question; then I will ask Mr. McKeon to carry on. But would you
    very briefly describe the Air Force Cyber Command and how it is
    working, please?
        General Schwartz. Sir, we stood up the 24th Air Force, a
    numbered Air Force whose focus is the cyber mission. And there
    are two major components of that cyber mission based in San
    Antonio, along with other cyber activities that are in the
    area: The major mission will be to defend the Net--our Nets are
    no longer administrative entities, they in fact are operational
    and command-and-control entities--and secondly, to employ cyber
    in a way that reinforces the Air Force mission. So it is an Air
    Force-focused activity.
        It will be the component command, the Air Force component
    command to the unified or subunified Cyber Command when it is
    established. And it is led by a two-star general officer of
    some reputation.
        The Chairman. I thank you, gentlemen. Mr. McKeon.
        Mr. McKeon. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you again
    for being here. In your personal and professional opinion, do
    you believe the current law prohibiting service by openly gay
    and lesbian personnel should be repealed?
        General Schwartz. Congressman McKeon, in this instance, my
    personal opinion is my professional opinion. The President has
    clearly articulated his intent, and should the law change, the
    Air Force will implement statute and policy faithfully.
    Nonetheless, I am concerned that there is little current
    scholarship on this issue and little current and reliable
    survey data of our airmen and their families. Secretary Gates'
    study effort is therefore essential in my view to thoroughly
    understanding and properly evaluating the associated facts and
    circumstances, the potential implications, the potential
    complications.
        I have two strong convictions on this, sir. One is that
    this is not the time to perturb the force, that is at the
    moment stretched by demands in Iraq and Afghanistan and
    elsewhere, without careful deliberation. And two, should the
    law change, our standards of conduct will continue to apply to
    all airmen.
        Mr. McKeon. Thank you. Secretary Donley, what capabilities
    should the Air Force provide the Nation in the next two to
    three decades?
        Secretary Donley. Sir, I think we are on track to provide a
    full spectrum of Air Force-related capabilities that will be
    needed by the joint warfighter going forward. In the past
    couple of years, the Air Force has identified 12 core functions
    that are essential to the full scope of our responsibilities as
    your Air Force, and they range from mobility to space to cyber
    to ISR to command and control, precision attack, and several
    others. And our task going forward is to balance our
    investments and all those capabilities to ensure that we have
    provided the joint warfighters the maximum capability out of
    the resources made available to our Air Force. So I think we
    are on track to do that.
        We need to make adjustments along the way. We are not
    building the Air Force that was planned to be built 10 years
    ago. We are a different Air Force today. We will be a different
    Air Force in the future. We need to be--we will probably be a
    smaller fighter force structure, for example, but that will be
    a fifth-generation fighter force structure. So we need to get
    to the F-35 and get up that production ramp as soon as we can.
        We are going to have a modern tanker capability that will
    be more capable than the current KC-135 fleet. We are building
    command and control satellites that have much more bandwidths
    and offer much more throughput and security for the joint
    warfighter in command and control in ISR and other areas. So
    just the things that we do for the joint warfighter
    constitute--and all we do is for the joint warfighter, but our
    critical and enabling capabilities, for example, command and
    control, ISR, mobility, which all the joint community uses, is
    over 30 percent, it is over 34 percent of our resources, goes
    into that work. We need to get on with a long-range strike
    capability to replace the legacy bombers that we are operating
    today and to get ahead, stay ahead of evolving threats in that
    area. So these are examples of a full range of capabilities
    that we will need going forward.
        Mr. McKeon. Thank you. I have been concerned in the time
    that I have been in Congress. I have seen us cut the B-2 from
    130 down to 21, and now the F-22s from 750 down to 187. I
    remember a discussion I had with Chairman Dellums 16 years ago:
    ``What would be the next bomber?'' And he said, ``Well, we will
    come up with some new one.'' Well, in the last year's budget,
    we cut the work that was being done on the next generation
    long-range bomber, and now it looks like we are starting over
    from scratch. And I am wondering if we might have a 10- to 20-
    year lag somewhere in there in our capabilities.
        So you said we are doing the best we can within the budget,
    the resources that are made available to the Air Force. In your
    view, does the President's budget request put us on track to
    get the capabilities? Could we use more top-line money?
        Secretary Donley. I think Secretary Gates has addressed
    this pretty effectively. We do have some growth in the defense
    budget. And there is modest growth depending on how you define
    ``inflation'' at this point in fiscal year 2011. Compared to
    the rest of the Federal Government, the national security
    community is getting the attention that it needs this year.
    Over the longer term, it would be best for our--my personnel
    professional view--it would be best for our national security
    community to have modest growth but sustained growth over time.
    Modest but sustained.
        In this business we are the victims, as you appreciate,
    sir, of boom-and-bust cycles. And over the long term, it is
    best to have some modest sustained growth that we can count on
    and that we can plan on for the future.
        Mr. McKeon. I know in the budget it says we have a one
    percent growth this year in the proposed budget, but when you
    look at the numbers--and I look at all the numbers--it doesn't
    look like we have a one percent. And I am not sure that one
    percent is a growth, so I do think that as our major
    responsibility is funding the defense of our Nation. I think
    that that is something that we definitely need to focus on, and
    I think we do need to have more top-line money.
        General Schwartz, as I noted in my opening remarks, I am
    very concerned about the force structure changes we are seeing
    in the Air Force. It is clear that you are taking a risk in an
    attempt to balance requirements with resources. It is important
    that this committee understand your calculus. Can you please
    quantify the level of risk you are taking in each of the
    service core functions, both in the near-term and the out-
    years?
        General Schwartz. Congressman, I would characterize that as
    moderate, as moderate risk. That is true with respect to the
    reductions in fighter force structure, which will allow us to
    generate not only some additional resources for missions that
    are in their ascendancy right now, such as intelligence,
    surveillance and reconnaissance, but very importantly--and this
    is not well understood--generate the manpower in a fixed
    manpower pool to man these ascended missions.
        On the airlift side, we now have or will soon have the
    official Mobility Capability and Requirement Study 16, 2016,
    and it is clear that we have some excess capability on the big
    airplane airlift side. And we are proposing in the 2011 program
    to reduce 17 C-5s. I appeal to the committee for your serious
    consideration of those proposals. I understand the angst, but
    the reality is that we need to move forward. And part of moving
    forward to next-generation platforms is not hanging on too long
    to legacy force structure. Part of retooling ourselves to be
    more relevant to the joint team is growing in some areas,
    shrinking modestly in others, which we consider to be a
    moderate risk, sir.
        Mr. McKeon. Looking in the future what would be your
    biggest concern?
        General Schwartz. I think the biggest concern--there are
    two parts to this. One is human capital. If I lose sleep at
    night, it is concern over our ability to recruit and retain the
    kind of people that America needs to do this work, and that is
    a continuing issue. And as you suggested earlier, certainly
    families are a major part of that.
        The second piece is that we have sufficient resources to
    sustain the existing inventory of machines and assets. And as
    you are aware, we have made that clear that we are currently
    sitting, in the base budget, at 62 percent of our sustainment
    requirement, with the overseas contingency supplemental that
    would bring it up to 84. That is lower than I would like to be,
    but again we have worked hard to try to manage risk across the
    entire proposal. But those are the two areas, human capital and
    weapons systems sustainment, that give me the most concern.
        Mr. McKeon. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman. Thank you Mr. McKeon. We are now under the
    five-minute rule. Mr. Ortiz.
        Mr. Ortiz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Secretary and
    General, thank you, good to see both of you and thank you for
    joining us today. And let me say that we are proud of the
    service that you render to our country. As we ramp our efforts
    in Afghanistan, the use of airmen to augment certain bombing
    requirements is not expected to go down and most certainly will
    increase in the coming months. And we are seeing how this war
    is advancing in Afghanistan.
        What impact does the augmented mission have on the Air
    Force, specifically on dwell time and training for other Air
    Force missions? And how do the readiness rates for deployment
    units compare to those in stateside? And what impact are those
    readiness rates having on your ability to train airmen when
    they are deployed?
        I was just wondering, I can remember the days when you
    joined the Air Force, you were Air Force. Or if you joined the
    Navy, you were Navy. But now they get a certain training in the
    Air Force or the Navy, but now you are seeing some of these Air
    Force and Navy people getting to do some of the groundwork as
    well. I was also worried about the training, if they are
    getting comparable training, but what is this doing to you and
    what are you doing to improve that? What impact is it having?
    Thank you.
        General Schwartz. Congressman, I will answer at several
    levels. The reality is the country is at war. And if there is a
    demand, if there is a need for us to serve a wartime function,
    we will do so. And I must say, sir, that I don't apologize for
    that here, or with our people, when we talk about this. The
    obligation that we have is to ensure that those folks who are
    doing nontraditional missions are properly trained. And I think
    that we have--we fulfill that obligation properly.
        The numbers, as indicated earlier, have subsided in terms
    of the overall number of troops doing expeditionary taskings.
    Although we will plus-up in Afghanistan about 2,000 people,
    and, along with the 30,000 folks that will surge through the
    late summer of this year, some of those will be nontraditional
    tasks.
        The key thing for us is that as the Army grows its pool to
    its final end-state, and likewise the Marines, we need to make
    sure that this does not become a habit, that as they establish
    their combat support and combat service support in greater
    numbers, that that relieves the Air Force and the Navy of these
    augmentation taskings.
        Last part about readiness. Typically, sir, our deployed
    units are more ready than are the garrison units. This is not a
    surprise. We devote our resources, spares, certainly dollars
    and attention, to those units that are in the area of
    operations. We do our best to maintain readiness in the rear.
    There is impact, I can't deny that. We are not as ready across
    the board on all of our missions as we would be were this a
    peacetime setting. But the truth is that we are prepared to do
    the missions that we are on call to do now. We are training our
    youngsters both in traditional and nontraditional skills to
    execute as part of the joint team, and I think the evidence
    is--you have seen it yourself--is they are performing in quite
    a remarkable way.
        Mr. Ortiz. And I just have one last question.
        My concern has been intelligence gathering. And I am just
    wondering--and I realize we are at war, and it is horrible. But
    what efforts--are you getting the right intelligence now? And I
    know it is not easy, especially to get human intelligence in
    that part of the world. Can you give us an idea as to what we
    are trying to do? And maybe you can't say it in here, but maybe
    you can at least elaborate on the intelligence gathering.
        General Schwartz. We have, I think, expanded our capacity
    to gather intelligence in a variety of ways, and perhaps the
    most visible way from the Air Force point of view is our
    remotely piloted aircraft. Our teammates on the ground,
    including our battlefield airmen, won't go around a corner or
    through a window or a door without the situation awareness that
    our remotely piloted aircraft provide from above. That is
    intelligence. That is real-time intelligence.
        What you speak of in terms of understanding the terrain and
    the culture and so on and so forth, vital as well. That is more
    applicable, arguably, to the ground forces perhaps than it is
    to the Air Force, but we have found that our needs for intel
    support to the current fight are adequately filled.
        The Chairman. I thank the gentleman. Mr. Bartlett.
        Mr. Bartlett. Thank you both for your service. Earlier this
    month, the Department of Defense [DOD] submitted a response to
    the congressionally-mandated aircraft investment plan, the Air
    Force inheriting the direct support mission. Can you explain to
    the committee how this new mission fits into your plan? The
    reason I ask is that I have not seen it referenced
    specifically, and I noted that the Joint Cargo Aircraft [JCA]
    isn't referenced either as an asset of the Air Force, and yet
    the report identifies a target for procuring 63 more C-130Js by
    2020.
        A second question. In an environment such as Afghanistan,
    can the current fleet of C-130s meet the Army's need for direct
    support?
        General Schwartz. Congressman Bartlett, we ran a test
    program for direct support in Iraq, which concluded in
    December, for the Army division brigade that was there with two
    C-130 aircraft. They were dedicated to that and we ran this
    test and it was completed successfully. That is demonstrating
    that we have the command and control, the orientation, and the
    capacity to provide direct support should that be what the
    joint force commander requires. We did it in Iraq because
    General McChrystal did not want to run the test at the time in
    Afghanistan.
        So we have a concept of employment, a concept of operations
    for direct support. It will include the C-27 aircraft clearly,
    the purchase of which is 38 aircraft. And in this case, it
    demonstrated that the C-130 can do that mission as well. And
    what we will do is use the platform that is optimal for the
    particular requirement, whether it is a C-27 or C-130, and if
    there is a need to provide direct support to ground units,
    ground formations, the United States Air Force is prepared to
    do that.
        Mr. Bartlett. Isn't it true that we are currently spending
    about $8.0 million a month to lease 22 planes, T-35s,
    Metroliners, Colossus? The Sherpas can't do the job in
    Afghanistan? Due to runway length and width limitations, the C-
    130s can't even land. I know that the Joint Cargo Aircraft was
    not a program enthusiastically supported by the Air Force. They
    have little interest in it. It was primarily of interest to the
    Army for reasons that I am having trouble understanding. This
    whole program was given to the Air Force, and they stated they
    didn't want the program. And now I am concerned that since it
    is primarily of interest to the Army, and we obviously can't
    meet our direct support needs because we are leasing all these
    planes, and I don't even see this referenced in the report, you
    can understand my concerns sir.
        General Schwartz. I think the Army was intently interested
    in this because they weren't sure their Air Force would be
    there with them when they needed direct support. That is a
    change. We have demonstrated to our Army brothers and sisters
    as well as others that we will be there. We can do this. We
    will do this if this is the task. And we will do it with a mix
    of platforms, in this case, 27s and 130s.
        But I should mention something, sir. Yes, there are some
    aircraft that are leased, and not by the Air Force but that are
    leased in Afghanistan. But the thing that we have done to
    minimize the need for that is air drop. Our air drop
    requirements have increased sevenfold, and that is how we are
    supporting outlying areas in Afghanistan now, is to do
    precision air drop of supplies: 50 percent is food, 35 percent
    is fuel, some 10 percent is building barrier materiel and such.
    That is the other aspect of this which is truly direct support
    that perhaps isn't seen as such, the air drop.
        Mr. Bartlett. Sir, are you comfortable with the Air Force's
    responsibility for the Joint Cargo Aircraft, whose primary
    interest in it is supporting the Army? Are you comfortable with
    that relationship?
        General Schwartz. Sir, I think not only am I comfortable,
    but I believe General Casey likewise is comfortable. And this
    is a matter of trust. And if you were to ask Ray Odierno today
    about how the test went in Iraq, I think he would tell you that
    we changed people's minds. We are going to do this mission to
    the standard that our teammates expect, sir.
        Mr. Bartlett. This is a good test of jointness. I trust it
    is going as well that you indicate to us that it is going.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman. I thank the gentleman.
        Dr. Snyder.
        Dr. Snyder. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for being
    here, gentlemen.
        Two quick questions and then a third one. First of all,
    General Schwartz, we tried to give you some looser language to
    help you with the retirement of E models. I am not one of those
    who thought having old, non-flying hardware sitting on a tarmac
    somewhere is helpful to the Air Force. Has that helped you? Do
    you need additional language with regard to old E models?
        General Schwartz. It has, sir. And I would again encourage
    the committee to allow us some latitude in managing the fleets.
    And this will be particularly true in 2011 with respect to C-
    130s as well as C-5s.
        Dr. Snyder. Any specific language that you think would be
    helpful, particularly with regard to the 130, I would be
    interested in seeing.
        Are you satisfied, General Schwartz, that with regard to C-
    130s that the Aviation Modernization Program is on track, where
    you want to be? I know you had six or eight months of
    discussion, but it seems to be back on track. Is that your
    view?
        General Schwartz. For 221 aircraft, I won't kid you, we
    made a proposal not to pursue the Aviation Modernization
    Program for all the C-130s. The Department did accept that
    proposal, so 221 aircraft is fully funded.
        Dr. Snyder. I do want to make a comment. I know, Secretary
    Donley, that your Under Secretary is not with you. She is
    actually here in spirit. Erin is roaming around here somewhere,
    our staff director. I know that Senator Shelby has put a hold
    on her and apparently two other DOD nominations. My own view is
    she has a job here. We love her. We will treat her well. I
    would encourage you all to do what is in the best interest of
    the military and the Air Force and not succumb to any parochial
    threat just to get a nomination through. I think it is shameful
    that is going on. You don't need to make a comment on that,
    Secretary Donley, and you probably would be wise not to.
        I want to get to a specific question with regard to Don't
    Ask, Don't Tell with a little different thought, and this is
    from a legal aspect of things. Secretary Donley, General
    Schwartz, has your legal team kept you up to speed on the fact
    that there is now a split of authority between the circuit
    court of appeals with regard to--it started with an Air Force
    case in the Ninth Circuit, the Witt case. Are you aware that we
    have different standards now in the different circuits of the
    country?
        Secretary Donley. Yes.
        Dr. Snyder. It seems to me that it is going to be a
    problem. Mr. McKeon began his comments--he questioned you,
    General Schwartz, by saying--your opinion about having openly
    gay or lesbian folks serving in the military. Under the
    language of the Witt case in the Ninth Circuit, which includes
    Oregon, Washington, California, and Idaho--and I have talked to
    some of the highest legal authorities within the military and
    the Air Force--you will have openly gay and lesbian members
    serving in the Air Force and the military in the Ninth Circuit.
    It is very clear from the language of that opinion and the
    analysis that has been done by military lawyers that because
    the opinion requires a factual analysis of each case, there
    will be people you will not be able to make the case are
    disruptive to good order and discipline.
        My question, and perhaps more in the spirit of a comment,
    is I don't see how--we have put you in a very difficult
    position. I don't see how it is workable that you can have
    somebody at some point, three months, six months, maybe right
    now, that the leadership at a base has concluded there is
    nothing--we can't make a factual case that this person should
    be out of the military, but if we have them fly to Nashville or
    to Little Rock and they are in a different circuit--because we
    have the First Circuit case, the Cook case, saying, no, we
    defer to the military--that they can be kept there. I don't see
    how that is workable.
        Now, the suggestion I want to make is, and I haven't seen
    this written up, it may well be that as we are going through
    whatever transition we are in, that the military may want to
    consider making the venue for all these cases within the Ninth
    Circuit. Otherwise you are going to have a very difficult
    situation for the military leadership and for individual
    commanders who are trying to enforce this policy. And because
    the Ninth Circuit based their opinion on the Constitution,
    there is no legislative language that the Congress can pass and
    say, well, we are going to correct that language. This is a
    Constitutional right that came out of the Lawrence case out of
    Texas.
        So I don't think you have to respond to that if you don't
    want to, other than do you agree with me that you have a very
    difficult situation since you are going to have two legal
    treatments of perhaps the same person if they got moved from
    state to state?
        Secretary Donley. I will just say that the legal community
    is aware of the differences between the two circuits and is
    assessing all that very carefully.
        Dr. Snyder. I think it is an example where you are
    inheriting this problem. It is a Congressional problem and a
    Constitutional problem. Thank you.
        The Chairman. Thank the gentleman. Very quickly, before we
    call Mr. Thornberry. In last year's defense bill, we required a
    report on the C-27J basing strategy. What is the status of that
    required report?
        Secretary Donley. Sir, I believe the report is on track. I
    don't think there are any--not off the top of my head in terms
    of when the report will be available to the committee, but we
    are proceeding with developing basing criteria for the
    remainder of the JCA fleet that has not yet been built out and
    that has not been already designated to particular locations. I
    believe we have 24 aircraft whose bed-downs have already been
    announced, and we have 12 aircraft remaining, some yet to be
    built, that we need to find bases for. So we have a deliberate
    process underway to make those decisions going forward.
        The Chairman. Thank you very much. Mr. Thornberry.
        Mr. Thornberry. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        General Schwartz, I want to ask about some kind of longer
    term trends that are affecting the traditional missions of the
    Air Force. One hears sometimes that with the increase in
    unmanned systems that we have too much pilot training
    capability and that the Air Force needs to shed some of that as
    we move towards more UAVs [Unmanned Aerial Vehicles] and
    whatnot. On the other hand, one also hears that flying training
    ranges are becoming more precious as time goes on, that we have
    closed or eliminated pilot training in the past and come to
    regret it and had to reconstitute it in the past.
        I was just wondering how you see this capacity the Air
    Force has for pilot training and whether that should go up, go
    down, stay the same, what is the trend there?
        General Schwartz. First of all, Congressman, the notion
    that you have remotely piloted aircraft, your comment sort of
    implies that there is no or little training involved in
    qualifying those aviators. That certainly is not the case. Now
    we have run test cases, our so-called beta classes, to confirm
    whether they needed to be a full-up undergraduate pilot
    training and credentialed individual. And the evidence from the
    first two classes that are currently out at Creech is probably
    not. But there are adjustments that we need to make in the
    curriculum.
        That is why we did the test, to assure that we--where we
    need to do more, where perhaps we did too much. But there will
    still be a substantial requirement for manned cockpits in our
    Air Force, certainly for the next 25 years, perhaps 50 years.
    And I do not see a need, or I do not see a trend which would
    suggest that we will reduce our undergraduate pilot training
    output.
        Mr. Thornberry. On somewhat of a connected note, the
    information the staff has given us says that we currently have
    6,800 Unmanned Aerial Vehicles. Most of them are the very small
    sorts of things. The Air Force has 600, it says, of the larger
    kind. But there has also been discussion before that somebody
    has got to be the traffic cop here as far as the acquisition
    and also the use of at least a portion of these UAVs. And the
    suggestion has been made that that is an appropriate role for
    the Air Force, but obviously you get pushback from other
    services. What is your view on this?
        General Schwartz. I think we respond to what the joint team
    requires. And I must tell you that I don't personally have a
    lot of time for theological debates over who should do what.
    The question is what is pragmatic, what is the least cost, the
    most effective way to perform a joint mission? And in most
    cases, this can be done through partnering.
        However, I will give you an example of what the Navy and
    the Air Force are doing with respect to Global Hawk. We are
    going to use the same depot. We are going to use the same
    ground control station. We are going to use the same training
    pipeline. So here is an example where Global Hawk for the Navy
    has a unique maritime application. There are certain things
    that we have both in the intelligence and communications area
    on the Air Force side. We will do those things that make sense
    to again minimize cost and maximize effectiveness. But I do not
    think that we should overly focus on ownership. That doesn't
    take us to the right place.
        Mr. Thornberry. Is there something that needs to happen in
    the system to encourage those sorts of working relationships?
        General Schwartz. Not having too much money.
        Mr. Thornberry. Okay, thank you.
        I yield back.
        The Chairman. I thank the gentleman. Mr. Smith.
        Mr. Smith. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Thank you, gentlemen, for being here and testifying and for
    your work on behalf of our country.
        I want to ask about the alternate engine for F-35, which is
    going to be a major bone of contention, apparently, between the
    DOD and Congress. I am newly now the chairman of the Air and
    Land Subcommittee. And, obviously, I have dealt with this issue
    before, but it has become vastly more important and more in my
    purview.
        I am just frankly puzzled, having poured over a lot of
    documents in the last few weeks. I am puzzled about the DOD
    position on this. I am puzzled that they have the position they
    have, and I am really puzzled that there would be a veto threat
    issued by the Secretary of Defense over this issue. You are
    well aware of the history. I won't walk through it in great
    detail except to say for 10 years, I guess for 11 years
    inconclusive, DOD supported this program, funded it, and moved
    it forward. Then for the last four years, we in Congress have
    continued it after DOD backed off of it.
        But if you are going to get to the point where basically 95
    percent of the Air Force's fighter attack airplanes are F-35s,
    history shows us that relying on one engine puts you in a very,
    very bad spot.
        We have put 14 to 15 years into developing the alternative.
    It certainly is having no more problems than the main engine in
    its development. I am wondering if you can articulate for me
    the argument for why DOD is so adamantly opposed to that.
        One final point, the cost is debatable at this point given
    all of the money that we have put into it. I think the most
    objective way to look at it is it is pretty much a wash what it
    would cost to build it versus the benefits of competition.
    Worst case scenario, maybe it is an extra billion or so on top
    of this program, all of that for the major battle we are
    looking at, we have asked Secretary Gates, and to this point, I
    have not gotten a satisfactory answer that articulates why, why
    is that your position.
        I should ask, first of all, if it is your position.
    Certainly it is the DOD's position. Could you give this
    committee some indication of what on earth the argument is for
    why you are so adamantly opposed to doing this?
        Secretary Donley. A couple of issues, Mr. Smith.
        First of all, we do support the Secretary's view that the
    Department should not be pursuing the second engine. I will say
    up front, this has been one of the most difficult issues that
    we have wrestled with. So we have looked at the analysis on
    this from all sides for many, many months. And in some respects
    it can be regarded as a close call.
        I think I would summarize it this way: It is a close enough
    call that we cannot see right now the benefits of a
    considerable, what we think is still a considerable remaining
    investment that would have to be made in a second engine, the
    logistics tail that goes with it, all of the preproduction
    work, the remaining development which may be understated in
    some quarters, the firm costs that are associated with those
    activities against the soft savings that might be out there in
    the future. We are just--it just looks too cloudy to us, and
    that is the basic rationale that I think we have come down on.
        We did receive in the Air Force the letter that you all
    sent to Secretary Gates on this subject. So the Department is
    gathering up all of the data and the analysis that we have had
    in front of us the last several months, and we are putting that
    back in a communication that will come back to the committee on
    that subject very soon.
        I would only add one other item on this. When we have
    challenges in the F-35 program and in making sure that program
    is adequately funded going forward, this is another rock on top
    of the F-35 program, an additional item.
        Mr. Smith. Two quick points.
        I don't think the savings are particularly soft. The DOD
    has made a very strong case in many other programs about the
    benefits of competition and the way it can motivate a
    contractor, without question.
        Second, just to be in a position, and we learned this with
    the F-15, if you have one engine and something goes wrong with
    that engine, you shut down the whole operation and 95 percent
    of our fleet is grounded because of one engine, that seems like
    a pretty compelling argument to me.
        My last point, I would love to see the analysis that you
    are relying on. That is another frustration for us. We have
    heard a lot about this analysis. The only report we have seen
    out there is a 2008 report that comes down on the other side of
    this. If you have some independent study, some analysis, we
    would love to see it.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman. I thank the gentleman.
        Mr. Jones.
        Mr. Jones. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much.
        Gentlemen, thank you for being with us.
        Mr. Secretary, I listened to your comments, and this is
    going to lead to my question, I believe this is what you said
    from my notes: ``Must prevail in war; prepare to defeat
    adversaries present and future.''
        I look at this country which in so much financial trouble,
    and I realize that is why this budget situation is the way it
    is and that is not your doing but it is what you have
    inherited. And I look at the fact that we owe the Chinese. The
    Chinese maybe own America. I don't know which now. I have the
    pleasure of having Seymour Johnson Air Force base in my
    district, and we are proud of the Marines and Air Force in our
    district.
        I have occasion over the last few years to ask for
    briefings, not classified. But I am very interested in the
    fact, as one of my colleagues said earlier, we have a
    Constitutional responsibility that we have a strong military.
    This brings me to my question: The Chinese, I have been told,
    this was not from those meetings, I have read it, I think, that
    the Chinese are putting the largest percentage of their GDP
    [Gross Domestic Product] into military investments, especially
    Air Force and Navy. It is my understanding that the Chinese are
    buying one of the most sophisticated fighters being made by
    Russia. I think it is the SU series.
        At what point would you say to this committee, you or
    General Schwartz, that we are in a critical situation of losing
    our supremacy? That the Chinese are at a point where if we
    don't acknowledge and make major investments, that their
    fighter force, not because of our manpower but because of our
    equipment, they will surpass what we have?
        Secretary Donley. Sir, we do track the developments of the
    Chinese military and other militaries around the world. I do
    think we have the appropriate balance in our current program to
    cover both near-term and long-term threats.
        As I indicated, just as one example, the F-35 is the
    largest program in the Department of Defense. The United States
    is, I think, well-positioned on fifth generation fighter
    capabilities in comparison to other militaries around the
    world.
        Are we the only ones that know something about low
    observable technologies? No, we are not the only ones. Are
    there other countries developing these technologies? Yes, there
    are. But I think, I am fairly confident in terms of where we
    stand technology-wise and fifth generation capabilities, and
    that is only one example of longer term, general force
    improvements that we are making that I think should help us
    address potential future threats.
        We still have the bulk of our resources in the Department
    of Defense, though we have much developed and much improved
    capabilities at the lower end of the conflict spectrum which
    you saw in Iraq, and you are seeing today in Afghanistan.
        Mr. Jones. Mr. Secretary, I have about a minute left so let
    me interrupt. I want to ask General Schwartz, as we are sitting
    here today, if the budget situation continues and you are told
    you cannot have a one percent modest growth, five to ten years
    down the road, knowing what the Chinese are spending in their
    Air Force and what they are buying as it relates to their
    fighters, will we be in a situation, General Schwartz, where we
    are in a situation where we might not be where we need to be?
        General Schwartz. It is my professional opinion, as we
    stated earlier, a sustained modest growth profile for the
    Department is essential, certainly with respect to that case
    and others. Clearly, the Department will need to be resourced
    to modernize and to recapitalize in order to have the right
    kind of force structure.
        My only caution to you, sir, is I don't think we should
    look at binary sort of trades. In other words, fighter versus
    fighters, necessarily. I think one needs to look at this in a
    more holistic fashion.
        Mr. Jones. Thank you, sir. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman. Thank you. The gentlelady from California,
    Mrs. Davis.
        Mrs. Davis. General, you expressed concern in talking about
    recruiting and retention, that we are certain that we are able
    to recruit the most capable individuals, both men and women, to
    support the mission. And yet we know in this economy that our
    budget managers have reduced costs of recruiting and also that
    bonuses have been reduced. Are you able to reprogram that
    quickly if you find that there is a need to change that
    manpower strength in some specific areas? You mentioned
    particularly among medical professionals; but overall, how can
    we do that? We would love to see the economy improve, but it is
    in some ways helping the services.
        General Schwartz. Ma'am, we have about $685.0 million in
    bonuses and retention incentives in the program for 2011. That
    is a substantial amount of money, to be sure. We are fairly
    agile in applying it to where it will produce the best effect.
        It is always difficult to reduce incentives and reduce
    bonuses, but we have to do that in order to be scrupulous about
    this. And so we review this on a continuing basis. If we see
    adverse trends developing, we either take it below threshold or
    come back up to you and ask for reprogramming authority to
    address the need.
        Mrs. Davis. Mr. Secretary, is there any one area that gives
    you the greatest concern? You mentioned the medical profession.
        Secretary Donley. As General Schwartz alluded to, we have a
    number of stressed career fields: contracting, explosive
    ordnance disposal, our terminal air controllers, specialized
    career fields that we do have to watch very carefully.
        I would say, as you alluded to, ma'am, the economy has
    actually been good for the military in the short-term and our
    immediate challenge actually is that we are carrying probably
    more airmen than we thought we would be carrying at this time
    last year. So we are actually over strength and are trying to
    manage that down in moderate numbers in the months ahead. But
    we may need to come back with a reprogramming to increase
    funding for military personnel because we are actually carrying
    a few more airmen than we thought that we would be.
        Mrs. Davis. Thank you. You mentioned the year of the family
    and how important that is. And yet there is a program that has
    been applauded out in the communities, certainly amongst
    spouses, ``My Career Advancement Account,'' which NPR [National
    Public Radio] reported today that they basically put a hold, a
    freeze on that scholarship program. I don't know if that is
    something that you have been apprised of. I think what is
    interesting to me is they have stopped it while they are doing
    an assessment whereas I think there are other programs that we
    have where we don't necessarily do that. It may be very
    appropriate to do the assessment, but I don't know if it is
    appropriate to freeze the program for those people who were
    anticipating that they could benefit from it. If that is not
    something that you are familiar with, I hope you can take a
    look at it. Any comment?
        General Schwartz. Ma'am, it is as has been reported. If you
    will allow us to take that for the record, we will get back to
    you.
        [The information referred to can be found in the Appendix
    beginning on page 73.]
        Mrs. Davis. Thank you.
        On Don't Ask, Don't Tell that has been brought up several
    times this morning, and I do know that we have a hearing on
    March 3. The purpose of that is to examine the implementation
    process. That is, is the sense that is really where we want to
    try to enlist the help and the support of the services to try
    and help us better understand that process. Is that your
    understanding, that it is more about an implementation process
    than necessarily a debate on the issue itself? And how do you
    anticipate, what help and support would you be giving to try
    and make available the kinds of discussions that certainly will
    need to be ensuing within the Air Force, as well as the other
    services?
        General Schwartz. Ma'am, I don't know what the purpose of
    the hearing is. I don't want to insert myself into that. That
    is clearly your reign. What I can assure you is that I
    personally will participate in the Secretary of Defense's study
    effort thoroughly.
        Mrs. Davis. Can I just ask, is this the kind of deliberate
    discussion that you think is appropriate?
        General Schwartz. Yes, ma'am.
        Mrs. Davis. Thank you.
        The Chairman. Thank you. Mr. Wilson from South Carolina.
        Mr. Wilson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, General and
    Secretary for being here today. I particularly appreciate the
    Air Force. My dad served in the Flying Tigers. I am the son of
    an Air Force veteran. I am a veteran myself, Army National
    Guard, and I have four sons serving in the military. But I am
    particularly grateful that I have a nephew who is serving in
    Iraq with the Air Force. So thank you from our family for your
    service.
        There have been many rumors associated with the noise
    impact of F-35 operations on local base communities. Mr.
    Secretary, I have been advised that the noise of the F-35 is in
    the same neighborhood as the aircraft that it replaces, such as
    the F-16, 18, and F-15E. With regard to the Joint Strike
    Fighter [JSF] program, how will encroachment and increased
    noise associated with the fighters impact the decision to base
    these aviation assets? This doesn't apply to you, but I am
    particularly interested in F-35s being located at Buford Marine
    Air Station and the joint air base at McIntyre in South
    Carolina.
        Secretary Donley. Sir, noise has been an issue. But I think
    the more refined analysis represents the Department's latest
    work on this is that the noise levels from F-35 are only
    slightly above the current aircraft. That is my understanding
    at this point.
        Mr. Wilson. And I do appreciate the sound of freedom. I
    have North Airfield in the district that I represent, and the
    people of that community really enjoy when you do your touch
    and gos.
        Secretary Donley, provisions of the fiscal year 2010
    defense authorization bill prohibit the Department of Defense
    from retiring C-5A aircraft until 90 days after the Department
    conducts an operational assessment of the modification of the
    C-5A to the reliability enhancement and reengining program
    configuration, as well as providing a number of certifications
    concerning cost benefits and the risk of the C-5A retirement.
    Will the operational assessment required by law be completed
    and will you provide the required certifications to Congress in
    time for us to reconsider the retirement restrictions in our
    markup of this year's defense authorization bill which is
    currently scheduled for May?
        General Schwartz. The OT&E, Operational Test and Evaluation
    on the C-5 reengining program is complete. The report will be
    available on or about the 15th of March. We intend to offer the
    appropriate certifications through the Secretary's office that
    indicates that it is a viable, effective program and one that
    should allow us, as we spoke of earlier, to begin to act on
    retiring legacy A model aircraft that will not be modified.
        Mr. Wilson. I had the privilege of growing up near
    Charleston Air Force base. I remember when the first C-5A
    landed, and Chairman Mendel Rivers, Mr. Chairman, was there to
    welcome the aircraft.
        General Schwartz, the engine competitions for F-16 saved
    money, improved engine performance, reliability, and contractor
    responsiveness. Today the F-16 program continues to operate
    with two engines. Why wouldn't a similar program be applicable
    to the F-35?
        General Schwartz. Because we are 20 years, 30 years later
    in technological progress on engine design and production.
    Fundamentally, and just to, again, round out Secretary Donley's
    answer earlier, there are a couple of issues with respect to
    alternate engine that I just offer for your consideration. One
    is if this result, if having more engines results in less F-
    35s, that is not a good scenario for the Air Force or the
    Department of Defense.
        Secondly, the reality is that the F-22 and the F/A-18E/F
    are single-engine airplanes, and there is no dispute about
    that. It is because we collectively in the defense community, I
    think, have become comfortable with the reliability and so on
    of those respective engines, one of which is the predecessor to
    the F-35.
        Lastly, a concern that I have is the reality is the
    alternate engine is not for anybody else but the Air Force. The
    Navy is not going to operate an alternate engine aboard ship.
    Our European partners are not going to operate two engines. You
    are talking about focusing this on your Air Force, which is
    problematic in my view.
        Mr. Wilson. Thank you very much.
        The Chairman. Thank you. Mr. Marshall.
        Mr. Marshall. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You caught me by
    surprise.
        Thank you both for your service and your leadership. I
    think you do a great job for our Air Force.
        I was having dinner with former Under Secretary Ray DuBois
    a week or two ago, and he brought up the tanker and asked,
    ``Why don't we move forward with taking two bids, producing two
    tankers, do small, relatively small quantities of the two, they
    come online faster, and then we would see which one we liked
    the most and could make decisions concerning future buys based
    on that?'' Could you quickly respond to Secretary DuBois's
    thought?
        Secretary Donley. We have addressed this over a couple of
    years now. The Department's conclusion is that this would be an
    expensive way to proceed. We would rather not have a split buy
    or dual buy in this circumstance. We do plan to award,
    currently our plan is to award the RFP [Request for Proposals]
    to the best offer after the evaluation is done.
        One concern with that approach which I will lay on the
    table is that the Department's estimates are that we will be
    probably buying 15 airplanes for over a decade actually to get
    to 179 aircraft from this buy. If we go forward with two lines,
    the minimum economic order for each line would probably be
    about 12 aircraft. It would be very inefficient to do that, and
    it would bump the annual buy from 15 to 24 aircraft and that is
    a big bump in our budget and it takes a big lump of dollars
    that we would have focused on other Air Force programs, puts it
    on the tanker. I understand the operational and sort of the
    business advantage of buying more, faster and get them cheaper,
    et cetera, but we have to manage this procurement in the
    context of all other things that the Air Force is doing and
    getting up to 24 airplanes each year for a number of years is a
    hard thing for us to do.
        Mr. Marshall. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
        The alternate engine, again, we are talking about split
    buy, basically, and I don't think it is arguable there are
    significant risk avoidance advantages to doing that in the long
    run. History has shown us that the question is cost. The 2007
    cost analysis improvement group estimated that there would be a
    $1.2 billion in cost on a present value basis, and $2.2 billion
    in savings on a then-year basis. What that typically means is,
    as you would expect, the costs are up front, the savings are
    toward the rear.
        That was done in 2007. We have spent more money, and that
    is current costs we have incurred. My assumption is, as we said
    in the letter, a good chance is that both those numbers are now
    positive based on the assumptions made by that 2007 study. It
    seems to me the only way that can change is if somebody changes
    the assumptions. So it would be very helpful to the committee
    if whenever you get your materials to us, you would say the
    2007 group was making this assumption or that assumption, we
    have changed that assumption and that's why we come up with
    different numbers because that is the only way that the numbers
    really change unless you conclude that they just made a math
    mistake. And that would be very helpful to us. We really are
    troubled by this threat of a veto over a program that we think
    benefits in the long-run national security and net, based on
    the evidence we have, is a savings to go ahead and do it, as
    opposed to a cost.
        Finally, Chief, in your response to Mr. McKeon on Don't
    Ask, Don't Tell, you said it is probably not something we
    should be considering now given our OPTEMPO [operational
    tempo]. I agree with that view. And you said assuming we do
    consider it and we make some changes, and your last statement
    was something to the effect that one standard of combat will
    continue to apply to all airmen. Could you please elaborate
    what you meant by that?
        General Schwartz. Sir, I was just indicating that our
    standard of conduct will apply to all airmen. That is what I
    would expect, and I think that is what you should expect. So we
    will expect performance. Should the law change, we will expect
    performance and conduct consistent with our standards, and we
    will handle it accordingly.
        Mr. Marshall. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman. I thank the gentleman. Mr. Bishop.
        Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Gentlemen, I have good and bad. Let me do the good first.
    General, we spoke on the phone a while ago about the extended
    use lease problems at Falcon Hill and you said you would fix
    it. I want to thank you for doing that. You did. You
    orchestrated a situation where the people went out there, they
    saw those particular problems for moving forward, and I just
    want to thank you very much for following through on that
    issue. I think it is very positive. And just keep the JAG
    [Judge Advocate General's] attorneys away from the issue in the
    future.
        Now for the negative part, and it deals with the warm line
    sustainment program. Minuteman III now has to be maintained to
    2030. It is our only program of record. I noticed in the budget
    for fiscal year 2011, you have $44.0 million for the Minuteman
    III warm line, of which $5.0 million is dedicated to
    unspecified government costs and overhead, so you have $39
    million to buy three motor sets.
        Next year in the 2012, it is down to $34 million, and in
    the 2013 budget, there is nothing. I put that in contrast. I am
    not sure you can actually build three motor sets with that
    amount of money. But the Navy, for example, has 12 motor sets a
    year that they do to keep their warm line going for their D-5,
    and the industry has simply said they need six as a minimum to
    maintain it.
        Now last year when your superiors cancelled KEI [Kinetic
    Energy Interceptor] and stopped the ground base and had no
    followup on ICBM [intercontinental ballistic missile], it made
    a major dent in the industrial base. And obviously AFMC [Air
    Force Materiel Command] has simply said there is no in-house
    capability to sustain these, so I have three questions. The
    first one is, quite frankly, how did you come up with three
    booster motors as the adequate element to sustain the military
    base? Is this simply another budget-driven exercise that does
    not face the reality coming from the industry?
        Number two, you sent over a Defense Department report to
    Congress on the solid-rocket motor industrial base in June of
    last year. I appreciate it. It was a good report. But it said
    delays in NASA's [National Aeronautics and Space
    Administration] Ares program would have a significant negative
    impact on the industrial base, specifically materiel suppliers
    for the military.
        Now, in light of the decision to cancel Ares totally, if
    delay was bad, I am thinking canceling would have to be bad/
    bad. In light of that decision, are you going to rethink your
    program as to what you are putting in for the solid-rocket
    motor industrial base and the funding levels that would be
    there?
        And finally, my third one is why doesn't the Air Force
    simply commit to a long-range Minuteman III sustainment program
    in the out-years, and isn't such a commitment now even more
    necessary, especially with what may happen in the space
    exploration program as well?
        Secretary Donley. Mr. Bishop, what I would like to do is
    take the details of your question-for-the-record and so we can
    get back on each point. But I will say that we recognize the
    decisions made on Ares and on the constellation program in
    general in NASA, and we have a challenge on the solid-rocket
    motor industrial base and on the booster industrial base,
    period.
        So we recognize not just the Minuteman challenge going
    forward, but a broader industrial base issue which we are going
    to have to wrestle with this year. So we do not, right now,
    have a long-term solution to that right now in hand.
        [The information referred to can be found in the Appendix
    beginning on page 73.]
        Mr. Bishop. I appreciate that. I think that is the
    substance to all three of those questions that were there. But
    obviously, three motor sets, I don't think, fits the need and
    especially with the budget that is declining to nothing over
    the next three years, that is not a long-range solution.
        I would appreciate if you would rethink those and get back
    with me later. Thank you for your time and for being here.
        By the way, Hill doesn't have a problem with sound
    encroachments for the F-35.
        The Chairman. Thank you. Mr. Courtney, please.
        Mr. Courtney. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Thank you both your testimony this morning.
        I want to start off with aftermath of the F-22 decision
    last year which was regarding spare engines. It is my
    understanding that the Air Force has a formula for calculating
    how many spare engines would be needed for any program, and we
    are at a point where it appears there are more spares needed
    for the F-22 than available. And given the fact that this
    production line is coming to an end date, obviously there would
    be extra costs for restarting if we had to go that route. Can
    you comment on that?
        General Schwartz. We currently have 54 spare engines in
    inventory, for a requirement of 54 that will grow to 65 as we
    round out production, and our intent is to go to 65. So there
    will be an additional 11 or so engines procured for the spare
    inventory.
        Mr. Courtney. Thank you.
        I want to again go back to the alternate engine discussion
    which has been going on. General, again, you made the point,
    which I think is sometimes overlooked, that sole source engines
    is not some unprecedented deviation from past practice. The F/
    A-18 is an example which you cited. We build Sikorsky
    helicopters in Connecticut, and thousands have been built
    without a hitch. So I guess in terms of going forward with the
    sole engine with the F-35, do you feel confident where we are
    right now with the engine that has been awarded that you will
    be able to control costs and provide again an adequate system
    for the needs?
        General Schwartz. Based on what I know now and the analysis
    that I have seen to date, I think it is a manageable risk given
    the other demands we have, and again, my primary concern that
    we don't get engine production out in front of airplane
    production.
        Mr. Courtney. Really, that is at some point in a tight
    budget the trade-off that we are going to be stuck with in
    terms of what the choices are that are involved. Secretary
    Gates again reiterated recommendation of a veto if we do not
    adopt cancellation of the alternate engine program. I think the
    flip side of that is we have to take from some other parts of
    your budget or the defense budget to continue going down that
    path. I look forward to your response to the letter which has
    been requested.
        Real quick on the C-27 program which the Air and National
    Guard in Connecticut is certainly watching closely. I wonder if
    you can indicate whether the Air Force remains committed to the
    full buy of 38 C-27s over the next 5 years?
        General Schwartz. Yes, we are, sir, to 38.
        Mr. Courtney. Previous statements have said that the 38
    would be looked upon as a floor and not the ceiling for the
    program. Is that still the general thinking?
        General Schwartz. At the moment, we are not looking at
    going above 38. That was the assessment through this program
    build. So I think 38 is probably a good, comfortable number for
    all of us.
        Mr. Courtney. Thank you. I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman. Thank you. Mr. Turner.
        Mr. Turner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Gentlemen, thank you for being here and thank you for your
    service.
        I have three quick comments, and then a question about
    AFIT, the Air Force Institute of Technology, and then I would
    like to get your thoughts on the Airborne Laser [ABL].
        The first three comments, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base
    is in my district. I will be submitting to you a question for
    the record concerning the 445th airlift wing. There had been a
    previous commitment that had been made to the base concerning
    the issue of the C-5s and the C-17s. I will be looking for you
    to reaffirm that earlier commitment that has been made to the
    base, and we will be sending it in your direction.
        General Schwartz. May I say one thing, sir.
        One thing that Secretary Donley and I have tried hard to do
    is not make promises we can't keep. So we might not respond
    immediately to that. If we say yes, we mean yes.
        Mr. Turner. I appreciate that. Actually, I am looking for
    you to keep a promise that has been made, and I hope to have
    your evaluation and review of that promise.
        With respect to NASIC [National Air and Space Intelligence
    Center], we spoke about the correspondence that I sent to you.
    I am very concerned that there is a pending issue that could
    diminish our intelligence capability, and I look forward to
    your response there.
        Also with respect to the civilian conversion from
    contractor personnel issue that is ongoing in the Air Force, I
    am continuing to hear a number of complaints over the process
    of activities that appear to be inappropriate. We tried to
    address this in the committee with some report language in the
    last National Defense Authorization Act [NDAA].
        I will be getting back to you with some specifics as we
    prepare for the next NDAA, and I would like to hear your
    thoughts on how other communities may be experiencing this.
        My two questions, we had a hearing here about the nuclear
    enterprise and the changes and concerns that we have there. We
    continue to look at issues such as cyber and computer science
    issues. The Air Force Institute of Technology [AFIT], as you
    know, happens to excel in the issue of nuclear enterprise and
    also cyber and war-gaming and computer science programs. I
    would be interested in your thoughts on the issue of how you
    see the Air Force Institute of Technology, AFIT, may be able to
    play a greater role as you look to your needs in that area.
        The second is the Airborne Laser. We recently had a success
    I think we should all celebrate with respect to the February 11
    test of the Airborne Laser test bed with the missile shoot-
    down. The air force research labs played a key role in the
    early technology development. This test which has been many
    years in the making demonstrated the viability of directed
    energy [DE] technology and the potential capability of an
    Airborne Laser missile defense system.
        Now we all know that funding for the Airborne Laser Test
    Bed has sharply declined with the Obama Administration's shift
    in missile defense policy. I hope this successful test renews
    interest in directed energy technology. With increased DOD
    investment, there is great potential for further innovation,
    technology maturation, and development of a concrete strategy
    that transitions Airborne Laser Test Bed capabilities from the
    lab to the field. I would love your thoughts and your talk
    about the Air Force and its success here and the potential for
    future applications in our national defense. This is one that
    has taken much criticism but had quite a great success. I am
    looking forward to your thoughts there.
        General Schwartz. I will talk about ABL. It was an
    achievement. It was a magnificent technical achievement. But
    the reality, Congressman Turner, is this does not reflect
    something that is operationally viable.
        Mr. Turner. My question is about the next level of
    innovation. Obviously, this is an accomplishment. It is not can
    we replicate this over and over again. We are looking for some
    vision from the Air Force.
        General Schwartz. And that is in the area of solid-state,
    not chemical-based lasers. That is the queen of the realm, sir.
        Secretary Donley. Just to amplify, the Air Force does have
    a directed energy program. It was pretty well-funded. I was
    briefed on it just a month ago. To foot-stomp this point, the
    Airborne Laser has been a tremendously successful program, but
    it is very expensive and it is not necessarily representative
    of the future of the technology. We are looking for lots of
    potential directed energy applications. So one of our tasks
    going forward is to figure out where the directed energy
    program is going at a strategic level, both in terms of the
    technology and the mission sets against which we intend to put
    resources. But we have a robust DE program in the Air Force.
    It's a good one.
        Mr. Turner. And AFIT, your thoughts on AFIT?
        Secretary Donley. Just quickly, AFIT is getting a lot of
    our attention in the growth of our acquisition workforce. The
    chief and I were briefed on the status of the improvements in
    our acquisition Air Force, the growth of the civilian and a
    little bit on the military side, just a couple of days ago. So
    we have increased the numbers of seats and courses available to
    that acquisition workforce that are sponsored by and taught
    through the AFIT system. So it is an important part of the
    fabric of our research and research community.
        The Chairman. Before I call on Ms. Giffords, you have on
    page 17 of the prepared remarks the retirement of 17 C-5As.
    What is the status of that, and what is your request this year?
        General Schwartz. Sir, what we will do is provide the
    required certifications of tests on the C-5M, the reengined
    aircraft that is required. The Secretary of Defense also needs
    to make certifications that he believes it is acceptable to
    retire legacy A model aircraft. When that occurs, we intend to
    execute the 90-day waiting period and begin retirement of those
    aircraft.
        The Chairman. Do you have sufficient C-17s as we speak?
        General Schwartz. As you are aware, we are above the
    required number of aircraft by at least 20, probably more. And
    so it is our view to get down to the proper level, we are in
    good shape in that regard.
        The Chairman. Thank you.
        Ms. Giffords.
        Ms. Giffords. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Good morning Secretary Donley and General Schwartz, and I
    am pleased to have you before us today.
        Normally in the past when given this opportunity, I have
    chosen to spend some time talking about the fighter gap issue
    and what that means to our strategic readiness. But instead, I
    would like to talk about some of the scoping hearings that are
    coming before us in southern Arizona. As you know, the 152nd
    International Fighter Wing has been put on the list as a
    potential site to host the new Joint Strike Fighter, the F-35.
    And we are willing and ready to accept as many as three
    training squadrons in Tucson. I am very excited about the
    prospect of having the F-35 in southern Arizona, but my
    constituents still have numerous questions specifically
    addressing noise levels and flight patterns. I was hoping to
    talk a little bit about that today.
        On February 2, I sent both of you a letter asking for a
    copy of some studies that were conducted at Edwards Air Force
    base to gauge the noise levels of the F-35, and I also asked
    for eight specific data sets that I believe must be released to
    the communities being considered around the country, not just
    in Arizona, these communities that are being considered as F-35
    basing locations before any final decisions are made.
        I received back two sets of charts that I believe are
    conclusive, and I would like to put them up on the screen now.
    We have the first one. It is labeled ``Measured Worst Case
    Aircraft Sounds Levels at 50 Feet.'' I was hoping you could
    explain what this chart indicates both for aircraft at military
    power and at full afterburner?
        General Schwartz. Ma'am, having not reviewed that chart, I
    would prefer to offer you a considered response rather than one
    off the cuff.
        Ms. Giffords. Okay.
        The second chart I was provided with is entitled Predicted
    Sound Levels at 1,000 Foot Level Flight, and I was hoping that
    we could also get some feedback which indicates for aircraft
    flying at minimum power and then at military power what this is
    going to mean for communities?
        General Schwartz. Again, ma'am, I am disappointed if you
    didn't get a narrative to go along with these charts. If we
    didn't we failed you and allow us to remedy that situation.
        Ms. Giffords. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. What we really need
    to do is get this data out to the communities and make sure our
    communities understand how these numbers compare to other real
    world factors. For example, according to the National
    Institutes of Health [NIH], a lawn mower creates about 90
    decibels and an ambulance siren creates 120 decibels, and so we
    need to make sure that the communities understand fully what
    the F-35 means to them. And again, I think also, particularly
    those of us in southern Arizona that have experience what the
    F-16 and the block 60 F-16s that have flown out of southern
    Arizona, and also the A-10 and we host Operation Snowbird as
    well at Davis Monmouth Air Force base, these are the noises
    that the community has experience with.
        We are looking forward to the opportunity of having the F-
    35 in southern Arizona, but as these hearings come before us,
    we want to make sure that the community, and rightfully so, has
    full access to the correct information. So thank you for your
    consideration. I look forward to hearing back from you.
        The Chairman. I thank the gentlelady.
        Mr. Rogers.
        Mr. Rogers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank both
    of our witnesses for being here today.
        As a backdrop, I am very unhappy with Secretary Gates and
    his decision to not to go forward with the Air Force's
    selection of the tanker that Northrop Grumman and EADS came up
    with and you selected after a full, fair, and open competition.
    I think he did a disservice to the warfighter, and particularly
    to the Air Force who picked the tanker that they wanted. Having
    said that, some of my colleagues don't have a dog in that
    fight, but I do since it was going to be built in Alabama. I
    want to talk a little about where we are with that.
        My recollection from the testimony here with the GAO
    [Government Accountability Office] of the protested areas of
    discontent by Boeing, only six merited GAO acknowledging those
    could have made a difference in the selection, but they
    couldn't say that they did. Rather than going back and just
    remedying those six areas, tightening the language, I
    understand from what I have seen, the initial RFP for comment,
    and it completely is one-sided in my view, which is why I am
    very happy with what Senator Shelby is doing in the other
    Chamber.
        I understand there is the public comment period, and you
    are ready to come forward, do you see dramatic changes in the
    RFP from the one being offered for public comment? Because from
    what I understand, Northrop is not even going to bid if that is
    the case.
        Secretary Donley. Sir, we will be prepared actually
    tomorrow to roll out the RFP. I believe you have been invited,
    if you have not heard already, to a series of briefings
    tomorrow that are planned. The Deputy Secretary and Dr. Carter,
    the Under Secretary and myself, will be over here briefing
    Members on that. So I think I would withhold comment on KC-X
    today and let that be tomorrow's issue, if that is okay.
        Mr. Rogers. Do you think in your opinion, I am not asking
    for Secretary Gates' opinion, I am not really interested in his
    opinion, in your opinion, will this be a fair and open
    competition? Will the RFP, will it solicit competition?
        Secretary Donley. Absolutely. We believe both offerors have
    a chance to win the competition. We want a competition, and we
    disagree with the view that the draft RFP has been slanted in
    any particular direction. We do take issue with that.
        Mr. Rogers. If that is the case, why would you deviate from
    the initial RFP which was bid and you selected the airplane or
    the tanker you wanted, why would you change any more than just
    those areas of disagreement where the GAO acknowledged there
    was meritorious dispute?
        Secretary Donley. I believe the overall message from the
    GAO assessment was that yes, there were specific areas that
    they took issue with. But overall, I think the message was that
    there was too much imprecision and too much subjectivity that
    could not be conveyed to the offerors in terms of how the
    decisions and how the evaluation would be made.
        So we took away from that the need to tighten up our
    description of what the required capabilities were and how the
    evaluation would be conducted and to lock down those details,
    to be as open and transparent and as clear as we possibly could
    be. And that is the source really of the draft that has been on
    the street.
        Mr. Rogers. Well, my concern is the tightening down of that
    language has basically guaranteed Boeing to get this plane.
        Secretary Donley. We do take issue with that, sir, but I
    understand your view.
        Mr. Rogers. You made the reference earlier in response to
    my colleague from Georgia's question about the dual
    procurement. I understand you are operating on the assumption
    that the dual procurement would be more expensive. If it could
    be proven that it would not, would that be an avenue that you
    would pursue?
        Secretary Donley. Sir, I think we have analyzed this from
    several different sides over the last year. We are always open
    to suggestions and constructive comment on how we do our work.
    We think that we have addressed this and concluded that that
    would not be an effective and efficient way to proceed.
        Mr. Rogers. Thank you very much for your responses. Thank
    you, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman. Thank you very much. Mr. Kissell.
        Mr. Kissell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you,
    gentlemen, for being here today.
        General, going to a narrow scope here, I am from North
    Carolina, and we had put language in the last Defense
    Authorization Act that you were supposed to get back to this
    committee within a certain amount of time discussing Pope Air
    Force base and its relationship with Fort Bragg. The growth at
    Fort Bragg, there will be 34 flag officers on base. FORSCOM
    [U.S. Army Forces Command], the 18th Corps, their missions
    require the ability to get to places in a hurry, requiring an
    immense amount of planning. The language is along the lines, is
    there sufficient Air Force officer level to be able to
    communicate and be able to present the position of the Air
    Force effectively with all of the other officers that are
    there, and that report is due March 1. So we are looking
    forward to that information, sir.
        Mr. Secretary, one of the things that has come out of the
    discussion today, and nothing new in that regard, is concern
    about deployment of the F-35. You mentioned level of
    concurrency as a level of concern that has delayed the program.
    I wonder if you can elaborate on some examples of this issue
    and how it has affected the deployment of the F-35?
        Secretary Donley. Well, the issue, sir, is not uncommon to
    any other aircraft or major production program of any kind. So
    once the production line has been facilitized and begins to
    build up to produce test assets, it is inefficient to stop the
    line while you wait for the results of the test because the
    test can take a year, the test can take two years, and if you
    do not support the production line with continued aircraft
    production, it goes cold and then you have to pay the cost of
    starting it up again. So this is a situation common to just
    about every production program of consequence that you might
    think of.
        In the case of the F-35, there was a lot of concurrency
    built in so development was intended to extend for a particular
    period of time while we started production. I think what has
    happened in this case is that concurrency was just
    unsustainable. The test program has been delayed, and the view
    was we just need to have more hours on the test program before
    we get to significant ramps in production. We are not
    eliminating concurrency in the restructured program.
        The proposal that you have in front of you is for 22
    production aircraft in fiscal year 2011. We think that is
    prudent. It has been shaved from last year's estimate of what
    we thought we were going to ask you for in 2011, so we have cut
    down that ramp but we do need to proceed with production, but
    we are adding money back into development program, to speed up,
    to add test aircraft to get further down the test program
    before we begin to ramp up production at truly significant
    levels.
        Mr. Kissell. Beyond the engine, is there one or two areas
    of this development that are proportionately more challenging
    than others?
        Secretary Donley. Just a couple of points. This is the
    biggest and most complex procurement program the Department has
    ever undertaken. So we have the carrier variant and we have the
    short takeoff and landing variant, and the conventional all
    being developed at the same time. And we have our international
    partners and their needs completely integrated into the program
    from the very beginning.
        So we have truly a complex, very complex joint program and
    international program. So it has been a big challenge. Again
    with very advanced technology. So it is a huge and complex
    program. We should not lose sight of that.
        Mr. Kissell. The proportion that you just mentioned of this
    program, how important it is that obviously brings about so
    much of the need to get it going, and I am just wondering what
    kind of time frame are we looking at to have deployable,
    meaningful numbers of planes in the air?
        General Schwartz. For the Air Force, I can only speak for
    the Air Force, that will be late in calendar year 2015. We will
    have training aircraft in advance of that.
        Mr. Kissell. Thank you, sir.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman. Mr. Lamborn.
        Mr. Lamborn. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Our Nation's dependence on and demand for space assets have
    grown exponentially. At the same time our potential adversaries
    demonstrate capabilities that make our space assets
    increasingly vulnerable. One example of this was China's
    shootdown of its own satellite in January of 2007. With these
    factors in mind, our demand for and dependence on space and our
    adversaries' asymmetric means to deny those capabilities, in
    view of that, why does the current budget cut the resourcing
    for operational response of space by 24 percent? And this
    follows a huge reduction in the previous fiscal year which
    equals a 2-year cut of 59 percent? Operational response of
    space is intended to be responsive to a joint force commander's
    battlefield needs and surge capability and can also serve to
    replenish our space capabilities given natural events or
    attack.
        So to repeat, how, when demand is growing and our threats
    are expanding, can we justify a cut this year of 24 percent to
    this program?
        Secretary Donley. Sir, I would like to confirm the numbers
    for the record with you. But ORS [Operationally Responsive
    Space] remains a priority program for us. We are spending about
    nine percent of our Air Force resources on space.
        That is only exceeded by the mobility and the global
    precision strike missionaries. Mobility really reflects the KC-
    X investments we are making and the size of our mobility
    forces. The global precision attack represents the F-35, which
    is our biggest, among others, but it is our biggest program.
    But behind that we have a whole slew of space programs that are
    very important to our Air Force and to our joint warfighter. We
    do have priority funding on our ORS right now to get a
    capability that is in place by the end of this calendar year.
        So let me circle back with you on the details of ORS
    funding.
        [The information referred to can be found in the Appendix
    beginning on page 74.]
        Mr. Lamborn. General, do you have anything to add on that?
        General Schwartz. Just two things. One is the ORS is one
    approach to providing resilience in space. Another approach, of
    course, is being able to discern whether our platforms on orbit
    are at risk, are being threatened; and if they are, by whom.
    And this is the other part of it, the space situational
    awareness initiatives which are appropriately funded, because
    it is my personal view that you cannot deter if you cannot
    attribute.
        Mr. Lamborn. Mr. Secretary, I am glad to hear that you are
    saying this remains a priority, because when I look at the
    numbers, 2009 it was 228 million, 2010 was 124, and then the
    projected budget for 2011 is 94. So from 228 to 94 causes me
    concern.
        Changing gears here, General, two years ago the Air Force
    predicted fighter and attack aircraft shortfalls beginning in
    fiscal year 2017 and rising to an 800 aircraft shortfall by
    2024. Is the Air Force still predicting shortfalls in its
    fighter and attack aircraft inventory?
        General Schwartz. Certainly not at that level, and there
    are a couple of reasons for that. One is that the total number
    of aircraft that are required is somewhat less than what was
    the top line several years back; 2,200 is now 2,024. Secondly,
    that initial analysis was done based on a F-35 production rate
    of 48 aircraft vice 80, and we do believe that once we break
    out of the development phase for the F-35 that we will make 80,
    and we will be trying to even push that higher. And a third
    aspect of this is that we have looked, and, as the Secretary
    suggested, that one thing that was not considered then was the
    ability to make modest renovations on aircraft to extend their
    service life until the F-35 becomes available in numbers.
        Mr. Lamborn. You are able to keep going, although I can't.
        The Chairman. You can complete the answer.
        General Schwartz. And so the point is, sir, that at most, a
    so-called deficit is less than 200 aircraft, and again this is
    in my view within the realm of the manageable, depending on
    what we do to renovate existing airplanes.
        The Chairman. I thank the gentleman. Mr. Heinrich.
        Mr. Heinrich. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Gentlemen, thank you for being here today. I want to start
    off just by thanking Representative Lamborn and reiterating his
    concern over the ORS program. I think it is a game changer for
    us in many ways in terms of doing more with less. And I am not
    sure that the cuts in that program are going to serve us over
    the long run in terms of reducing or increasing our ability to
    do more with less financial resources.
        Changing gears, I know that we all know there have been
    some serious incidents in the past, particularly 2006 and 2007,
    regarding the mishandling of nuclear weapons materials. And I
    remember back in 2008, the Schlesinger task force found that
    there had been an ``unambiguous, dramatic, and unacceptable
    decline in the Air Force's commitment to perform the nuclear
    mission.'' Since then you have made the reinvigoration of the
    Air Force nuclear enterprise your highest priority, and I want
    to commend you on those efforts. They are much appreciated.
    There are obviously still some challenges, but absolute
    perfection is the standard that you have articulated on
    numerous occasions when dealing with these high-value assets.
        I want to ask you, can you please describe what steps are
    being taken to address the remaining deficiencies? And are
    there enough resources being allocated to Air Force nuclear
    security to meet the standards for perfection in maintenance
    and in storage?
        General Schwartz. Yes, they are. Some of the initial things
    we implemented were organizational; that is, standing up of a
    Nuclear Weapons Center, as you are well aware, standing up a
    Global Strike Command, moving the nuclear missiles and nuclear-
    capable bombers into the same organization rather than
    distribute it around our Air Force. These were all important
    initiatives. But in the end, this is also an issue about human
    capital. This is an issue of culture in which we, as
    Schlesinger indicated, had lost the edge. And this is not a
    short-term undertaking. This is recreating that culture of
    excellence, that non-acceptance of deviations in this
    particular area. And we continue to work on that.
        Our inspection results, as you are aware, have--and by the
    way, just to give you a quick insight, in 2005 through 2007, we
    had zero no-notice evaluations. And in the following year,
    2008, we had three. In 2009 we had eight, and this year so
    far--and we are only a couple months in--we have eight so far
    this year. It gives you a sense that we are doing this no
    notice more frequently and more invasively--not to make life
    hard for our kids, that is not it at all--but to ensure that we
    discover where we are not up to par. We kidded ourselves
    before. We can no longer do that.
        So part of it is institutional, sir. Part of it is culture.
    And we are working both angles. The cultural piece is longer-
    term.
        Mr. Heinrich. But you feel that the resources are adequate
    to support that change in culture?
        General Schwartz. Indeed.
        Mr. Heinrich. Great. Wonderful.
        I also want to thank my colleague Mr. Turner from Ohio for
    bringing up the recent successful demonstration, the ABL
    project. I was hoping maybe you could articulate just a little
    more where you see directed energy going within the Air Force
    over the foreseeable future.
        General Schwartz. The Secretary may choose to elaborate,
    but my view is that the sweet spot on this is solid-state,
    something which isn't as big, isn't as heavy, doesn't require
    exotic chemicals to operate, and ideally can be miniaturized so
    that it can operate in a variety of aircraft, both large and
    small. That is the path that we need to proceed on. I have some
    indication from our SMART [System Metric and Reporting Tool]
    folks that this is within the realm of the technological
    possibilities.
        Secretary Donley. Just to elaborate a little bit further,
    part of the additional focus in this directed energy program
    will be where to put the mission emphasis on developing this
    kind of capability, at the tactical level or at the strategic
    missile level, for example. And there are some trade-offs to be
    made in that in terms of range and power.
        But just to come back to where we started, there is no
    question that the ABL program has made important strides for us
    and has done some groundbreaking work in acquisition, pointing
    and tracking, all kinds of scientific research that will
    support our program going forward. But whether or not the
    existing ABL program, as it exists today, is the right vehicle
    to take this research forward, is a separate question.
        Mr. Heinrich. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman. Mr. Coffman.
        Mr. Coffman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        A couple questions on the ISR assets. A recent GAO report
    indicates that the Air Force only has the capability to process
    one-half of the Predator signals intelligence collected. What
    are the Air Force plans to correct this shortfall?
        General Schwartz. Sir, I would dispute the GAO
    characterization a bit. However, an example is we intend to add
    702, roughly 700 linguists to our processing enterprise in
    order to address the difficulties they suggested that we have.
    But at a higher level, I think it is important to appreciate
    that what we have been doing recently really is solving our
    problems with people power. We can't continue to do this. We
    have added 4,700 folks to the ground processes system for video
    and signals. And we are continuing to grow the take. The real
    secret here is automated processing, and that is the path that
    we will have to go in order to do this well, not unlike the NSA
    [National Security Agency] model.
        Mr. Coffman. General Schwartz, is lack of UAV data
    encryption and the possibility of terrorist and insurgent
    interception of the video or data signal an issue to the United
    States Air Force?
        General Schwartz. I think it is a modest issue, if that.
    The reality is that we made a conscious decision to provide
    full-motion, real-time video to our folks on the ground, to our
    troopers on the ground. That was the priority, to give them
    situation awareness. The argument that others can see that
    video and make tactical use of it I think is a stretch.
    Nonetheless, we are encrypting that capability that will begin
    in 2011 and it will be completed by 2014.
        But what I would not want to do is to withdraw the value of
    that video from our Army and Marine Corps brothers and sisters
    on the ground because we have sort of, I think, excessive
    concern about others being able to see the take.
        Mr. Coffman. My final question is on your personnel system
    and your promotion system and an effort, I guess related to
    recruiting and retention. I think you have got a lot of great
    folks, and they want to make careers out of the United States
    Air Force. You have an up-and-out promotion system that seems
    to be a relic of the past, in a way. And I only say that
    because--what do they say--sometimes I think that the new 52 is
    the old 42 in terms of age.
        And I am wondering, have you thought about lengthening up
    those times for when an airmen or an officer comes up before
    the promotion board? It seems that the process is pretty fast
    right now, that we are focused on this 20-year window for a
    career--and where we have people that certainly want to stay in
    longer than that, that are capable of doing their job but may
    not be competitive given the highly competitive environment of
    your organization right now.
        General Schwartz. Well, we currently have 1,600 more
    officers than our end strength permits, so we are keeping some
    on board perhaps longer than we should. I think that for a
    vital, physically active, aggressive force, which is what you
    want your Air Force to be, I think that the notion that you
    either compete or you move on, I think there is still merit in
    that basic philosophy.
        We do make exceptions, sir. And that is actually fairly
    common in those situations, or where someone is not promoted
    and they are continued in some cases to 24 years, in some cases
    to 28 years, depending on their specialty and the need. I think
    that should still be the primary factor of consideration: the
    need.
        Mr. Coffman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
        The Chairman. Thank you. Mr. Langevin.
        Mr. Langevin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Gentlemen, thank you
    very much for your appearance today and for your service to the
    country.
        I recently took over as--and had the privilege of chairing
    the Strategic Forces Subcommittee for the Armed Services
    Committee. And I know that obviously, as you are well aware,
    the Air Force has primary jurisdiction over, or at least
    control over personnel and equipment, including national
    programs involving your jurisdictions.
        I would like to go back to some of the questions that my
    colleagues have already brought up.
        Let's turn first back to ORS. Can you please describe the
    programs and the capabilities the Department is funding in the
    fiscal year 2011 request to improve spatial situational
    awareness, space control, and counterspace programs, first of
    all, and more specifically also how all these activities reduce
    the vulnerability of our space assets? And beyond that, can you
    also elaborate a little further on how have military
    operational plans and contingency plans changed to reflect the
    possibility that those satellites may be unavailable during
    times of crisis or war?
        Secretary Donley. Sir, a couple of points. We do have a
    space-based surveillance system that is funded in this program.
    We do have a Joint Space Mission Operations Center space
    management system that we intend to install at 14th Air Force
    headquarters to improve space situational awareness,
    modernizing that situational awareness to provide us a better
    sense of what is happening in space, who is up there, and the
    precise location and characteristics of their satellites, for
    example, in their operations. Very important initiatives for us
    going forward.
        Mr. Langevin. General, you had a comment?
        General Schwartz. I would just extend on that. Part of this
    is knowing what the inventory of objects is above. Part of this
    is again being able to identify phenomenology that might be
    natural or it might be manmade and being able to differentiate
    between the two. Space-based surveillance systems should help
    us do that, the first launch of which is going to occur this
    year.
        I think that the key thing about this is that we need to be
    able--we need to drive toward a capability which will not only
    warn us of interference in whatever form it may take--physical,
    electronic, RF [radio frequency], so on--but attribute that,
    definitively to a source. When that occurs, then one can take
    action to protect your assets through any number of means.
        Mr. Langevin. Can you address more specifically about
    redundancy about how the military operations plan and
    contingency plans change to reflect the possibility that these
    capabilities may not----
        General Schwartz. I will give you an example--well, there
    are two. One is that we actually have war games where we have
    considered a day without space; in other words, intellectually
    trying to make sure that we understand what the puts and takes
    are, and what are the consequences of losing. Let's say you did
    not have GPS [Global Positioning System], or it was jammed; are
    our air crews prepared to operate in a GPS degraded
    environment? And that is something that we are training to in
    larger measure. In other words, taking those things that we
    perhaps in the not-too-distant past have taken for granted, but
    understand that an adversary might degrade them, and can we
    fight through that degradation?
        Mr. Langevin. Let me, if I could, also turn to the Space
    Posture Review [SPR]. It appears that the Congressionally-
    mandated Space Posture Review performed in partnership with the
    Director of National Intelligence [DNI] isn't going to be
    completed until the summer. Can you tell us anything about how
    the war performed thus far on that review and the QDR
    [Quadrennial Defense Review] have influenced modernization
    investment plans for national security space programs? That is
    one.
        And finally, before my time runs out, nuclear enterprise. I
    would like you to give a specific--could you provide
    information on inspections of our nuclear arsenal? I understand
    there were two failures recently. So on those two, as much time
    as the Chairman will allow. Then, if you can't finish it, for
    the record.
        Secretary Donley. Just quickly on the SPR, I do expect that
    Congress will see the results of that this summer. To put a
    very broad summary on it, you will see I think some emphasis--
    while we have a lot of details to work through and some
    important policy decisions for senior leadership to make, I do
    think you will see more emphasis on striking the right balance
    between government and commercial use of space assets and how
    we leverage the work that is done in the commercial sector. For
    example, hosting payloads--commercial DOD-related payloads on
    commercial satellites is one aspect of that. And it also gets
    to the redundancy issues that you discussed before.
        Just a couple of words: Space is getting more congested and
    space is getting more contested I think are a couple of themes
    that you will hear in that review.
        [The information referred to can be found in the Appendix
    beginning on page 73.]
        General Schwartz. Mr. Chairman, 10 seconds. Kirtland did
    earn unsatisfactory grades in inspections but, interestingly,
    recently the 377th Wing, also at Kirtland, retested to
    satisfactory. So again this is a process that we are in, sir.
        The Chairman. I thank the gentleman. Mr. Franks.
        Mr. Franks. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank both
    of you. Every time we have Armed Forces come before us I
    usually try to express gratitude to them. And, General
    Schwartz, I want to tell you that I think you are a credit to
    the Air Force and to this country. People like us up here talk
    about freedom all the time, and people like yourselves have
    carried it on your back your whole life. I am very grateful to
    you. That is just a little commercial there.
        General Schwartz. There are 332,000, plus 70,000 Reserve
    and 100,000 Guards, sir.
        Mr. Franks. And God bless every one of them. I bet every
    one would echo what I just said about you, sir.
        Secretary Donley, I know it is a challenging thing to be in
    your chair, so my first question is related to the resources
    needs of the Air Force, and so I ask you a two-part question.
    Number one, do you think you have the adequate latitude to
    speak with complete candor about the resource needs of the Air
    Force, and do you think that we are resourcing the Air Force
    adequately?
        Secretary Donley. Sir, I think given the national
    constraints in front of us, the DOD constraints in front of us,
    the Air Force is funded adequately to meet the needs it has
    today. The Department of Defense and the Department of the Air
    Force have challenges in the future in recapitalizing our
    forces, and I have been very up front with audiences of all
    types and with our leadership in making the case that the Air
    Force cannot afford to do as much we think needs to be done on
    the schedule that we would like to do it. We don't have all the
    resources; we don't have all the programs in place. The
    programs in place that we do have are too expensive and they
    take too long to build, and we perpetuate that by not having
    the resources to put up front to make them go faster or to buy
    them more efficiently. And the tanker is a good example of
    that, where our buy is going to be extended for quite a while,
    in part because we don't have all the resources we would like
    to do aviation, modernization, space modernization, build the
    cyber capabilities we need, build all the ISR, do all of those
    things that we would like to do as fast as we would like to do
    them. So we are--not unlike previous leadership or those that
    will follow us, we have to make those tough choices.
        General Schwartz. If I may, may I just amplify that we have
    had an opportunity to engage directly with the Secretary of
    Defense on Long-Range Strike, for example. Certainly I have a
    routine opportunity to engage with the Chairman on these
    matters. Neither of us are too timid, and we have venues to
    present, sir.
        Mr. Franks. I appreciate that. Actually you have made some
    of the points that I was going to follow up with, to a degree,
    and I am grateful I didn't have to pull any teeth or anything
    and I appreciate that.
        But I would follow up this way. Under the current plan, the
    Air Force is probably going to fly most of its KC-135 tanker
    fleet, much of it built in the Eisenhower Administration, into
    the 2020s and maybe into the 2030s, and will probably do the
    same thing with the remaining B-52s that we have.
        We are capping production of the C-17 when the C-5 has a
    mission-capable rate hovering around 50-60 percent. And we have
    essentially canceled the F-22 program, capping production of
    187 aircraft, and I guess this is just as the Chinese and the
    Russians are gaining their own fifth-generation fighter
    capability. And it will take years--as I don't have to tell
    you, I am trying to make some of the case here for you, Mr.
    Secretary--and billions of dollars to reconstruct and
    reconstitute that production capability if you or your
    successor belatedly finds out that 187 aircraft was not enough.
    And it seems to me, of course, it would be better to dissuade a
    potential adversary with overwhelming capability early on than
    having to respond to something where a perceived weakness was
    provocative.
        I guess I would say here at the end that the Air Force
    fleet is around 24 years, the average age of it, and that is
    probably double what it should be. And I just want you to know
    that there are a lot of us, and I hope you will join with us,
    that we want to try to make sure that the Air Force is
    adequately resourced, because there is nothing that any of us
    do that is more important than providing not only for security
    needs of this country but to hope that that liberty that we
    have can cast across the world. So help us to make that case.
    And I think you have done somewhat today. Thank you, sir.
        The Chairman. Thank the gentleman. Gentleman from
    Mississippi, Mr. Taylor.
        Mr. Taylor. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you, Mr.
    Secretary and General Schwartz, for being with us for a very
    long time today and for your service to our Nation.
        A couple of things. Number one, a recent maritime
    publication spoke about the Stryker brigade being moved from
    the West Coast to Diego Garcia by ship and then flown the rest
    of the way, which saves us a substantial amount of money, half
    the way.
        I am just curious, what efforts are being made to find a
    port with an adjacent airfield or nearby airfield, closer than
    Diego Garcia, should the Afghan conflict drag on longer than
    any one of us want to. That would be a very smart thing for us
    to be looking into.
        Second thing is I know that the Air Force is in the process
    of moving from Manta, Ecuador to probably a place called
    Polancaro, Colombia. As someone who likes to think of himself
    as pretty good at pinching a nickel until it bleeds, I am
    disturbed that we spent a lot of money, first in Panama, only
    to leave it behind. Then in Manta Ecuador, only to leave it
    behind.
        What kind of arrangements are we making with the Colombian
    Government that, should we make substantial investments there,
    that we are there more than a decade and that we are not asked
    to leave, as we were in Ecuador? Again, you have done an
    excellent job of outlining your budget woes. That same dollar
    that was wasted in Manta could have gone towards building F-35s
    or replacement tankers.
        And so rather than continuing to make the same mistakes,
    what steps are we taking in Colombia that we don't make the
    same mistakes that we made in Ecuador?
        General Schwartz. Sir, I think we got ten years of use out
    of Manta, so that was a reasonable return on investment. But I
    take your point.
        Mr. Taylor. But, General, I remember, about the second year
    into this, the base commander at Manta telling me he felt like
    a second-class citizen on his own base. And I knew right then
    we had problems. So what steps are we going to take that we
    don't keep making the same mistakes?
        General Schwartz. I think the key thing is to have trusted
    allies and long-term allies and stable allies, because these
    relationships depend on sovereign nations. And to the extent
    that we can cultivate long-term stable relationships with
    nations in our hemisphere and elsewhere, that is the sweet spot
    on this. I think that is likely in the case of Colombia, even
    if there is a change in leadership there. There are obviously
    other nations where that continues to be true.
        There are occasions I think where we will have to go places
    that are expedient. I don't think we can dismiss that. But your
    point to invest in those who are long-term friends is one that
    certainly we agree with, and I think there is a consensus in
    the Department on that.
        Mr. Taylor. What efforts, if any, are we making to find a
    port with a nearby airfield that is closer to Afghanistan?
    Again, I am told the burden cost of fuel, of getting 1 gallon
    of fuel into Afghanistan is $400. I realize we have to do
    everything we can for the warfighter, but the taxpayers are
    telling us there is only so much money out there. So what are
    we doing to work on that cost?
        General Schwartz. That is really in General McNabb's lane.
    But there are a couple of locations, one immediately outside
    the Gulf and one inside the Gulf, where that transload
    operation that you referred to at Diego is viable, and that is
    working. I prefer to go offline with you to identify the
    specific location, but that is certainly what McNabb has in
    store and General Petraeus has in store.
        Mr. Taylor. Lastly, General, any evidence--the book Charlie
    Wilson's War is out there, the movie Charlie Wilson's War is
    out there. Obviously, the game changer there was the
    introduction of the Stinger missile. We are not the only people
    who make that type of missile. Any evidence of some sort of
    game-changing event, given our heavy dependence on air resupply
    in Afghanistan, with regard to surface-to-air vessels?
        General Schwartz. Not yet.
        Mr. Taylor. Again, thank you for your service and thank you
    for being here today.
        The Chairman. Mr. LoBiondo.
        Mr. LoBiondo. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Gentlemen, thank you
    for your service and for being here today.
        I would like to talk about an issue that I have brought up
    on numerous occasions for a couple of years now, the serious
    concerns that I have about the fighter gap issue and how it
    will negatively impact this Nation's national and homeland
    defense, particularly as it pertains to the Air National Guard.
        As you know, beginning in 2015, 80 percent of the Air
    National Guard fighter fleet begins to run out of flying hours.
    Without aircraft, the Air National Guard will be unable to
    continue to perform the air sovereignty alert mission and
    unable to support the Air Force in overseas operations, which I
    think it has done magnificently up to this point. Many units
    will lose their flying missions altogether and will probably
    lose some very highly skilled pilots and technicians who simply
    will not be able to be replaced.
        My question is that while Congress is still waiting for the
    plan on how the force structure and capability gaps will be
    filled since the retirement of 254 legacy fighter aircraft was
    announced last May--we all know about the delays in the F-35--
    we repeatedly asked the question, and when will the underlying
    analysis be provided to this committee? And can you talk about
    why the delay in getting these answers?
        And the second question is, while we are on the topic of
    reports due to Congress, when can we expect to see the report
    on the 4.5-generation fighter gap procurement required by last
    year's defense authorization bill, which we have heard nothing
    at all on?
        General Schwartz. Congressman, with respect to the report
    on the fighter restructure, that will be delivered, as it was
    required by statute, not later than the first of April, and it
    will be delivered sooner than that.
        With respect to the 4.5, sir, I have to take that for the
    record to confirm the delivery, but when I reviewed this last,
    we were on time based on the expectations. So, Mr. Secretary.
        [The information referred to can be found in the Appendix
    beginning on page 73.]
        Secretary Donley. Sir, I believe we owe you about three,
    maybe four, reports related to fighter force structure which we
    are tying up as part of our report on April 1. So we are
    bringing several pieces of this together back to you.
        Mr. LoBiondo. I appreciate that. I know we have been
    talking about it for a long time, and there is an increasing
    degree of frustration on at least the part of some of us and
    how we understand this bathtub fighter gap--choose the
    terminology you would like--will be filled. And for those of us
    who have a particular interest in the Air National Guard, this
    is a very serious concern, because as the clock ticks we get to
    a point where we think there is something that can be done now
    in the interim if the problem is identified and we can all
    agree on a consensus solution. But at a certain point in time,
    we run into a serious problem making it up, and we don't want
    to see things go dark when we could have made a decision at a
    point in time not to have that happen.
        Secretary Donley. Sir, I think that chief has been to
    earlier address this issue with respect to what this so-called
    bathtub looks like. This is a different problem, a much smaller
    problem than it was a couple of years ago. The requirements
    have changed. The perception of what is required to do this
    work has been adjusted in the last few years.
        Having said that, we know we have aging platforms. Going
    forward, it is our intent to look at whether or not we need
    service life extensions for F-16s sometime later in this
    decade. And we are working through those issues right now.
        But it is not our intent to invest in new so-called 4.5-
    generation aircraft. We think there is probably--if we need to
    do slips, that is probably a better deal for the taxpayer going
    forward. And so that is how we are addressing that.
        We do not see right now a threat to the air sovereignty
    mission right out in front of us. This is a mission our Air
    Force is doing every day, about 18 sites, about 40 aircraft, at
    any given time, so we think this is covered.
        Mr. LoBiondo. Thank you sir.
        The Chairman. Mr. Conaway, please.
        Mr. Conaway. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Gentlemen, thank you
    for being here.
        The issue I would like to talk about doesn't have anywhere
    near the glamour or romance of second engines on F-35s or F-22s
    or those kinds of things. But I am the only CPA [Certified
    Public Accountant] on the committee. And the Air Force, the
    Department of the Air Force, cannot produce financial
    statements today that are auditable and would pass and have a
    clean audit. The ability to make good management decisions--and
    those structures reach across every single one of those
    procurement issues, soup to nuts. And so that won't happen
    unless I can get the Secretary of the Air Force and the Chief
    of Staff of the Air Force to look me in the eye and say, among
    all the other nine zillion first priorities that you have, that
    you are committed to working with the Business Transformation
    Office and others to get us to a point that that can happen.
    There are benefits separate and apart just from that. But to
    encapsulate just the drill, let's just call them the audited
    financial statements.
        So can you give me your thoughts on where that fits in the
    pecking order of things you guys think are important?
        Secretary Donley. Sir, I had the privilege of serving as
    the assistant secretary for financial management when this
    issue first started in about, roughly, 1990. This is a long-
    term effort, and it continues to take longer than we would
    like. But the Department is focused on this problem. It is
    getting attention.
        The current assistant secretary for financial management is
    working on this issue with the DOD comptroller and the BTA
    [Business Transformation Agency] office. We have a number of
    modernized systems that are required to be in place to make
    this work--in personnel, logistics--and they all need to be
    interconnected. And we have not succeeded in fielding those
    large systems. We have not been successful. So we need to
    continue working it, and we know it is a challenge. We are
    committed to working the problem.
        Mr. Conaway. I don't discount how hard it is. I do know how
    hard it is, but it is not impossible. And the value can't be
    overstated. You have no clue what you are spending on all these
    legacy systems and all the workarounds that the folks behind
    you scramble. As soon as General Schwartz asks a particular
    question, somebody, somewhere, goes into panic mode because the
    system they are working with is not the best. I acknowledge it
    is hard. But if the voters in District 11 let me keep coming up
    here, I am going to continue to hammer away at this, because I
    don't want to overstate it.
        Secretary Donley. Don't stop.
        Mr. Conaway. From your lips to the voters' ears in Texas.
        C-5s. I have asked this question of your predecessor,
    General Schwartz. If you ran a major airline who had planes
    that won't fly, do you think they would go through all these
    hoops, the section 137, 138 requirements, and 90 days' notice
    and all this. For the record, I don't have any C-5s in my
    district, or C-17s, but can you give us some sort of a sense of
    what it costs year in and year out to maintain planes that you
    say you don't need, so that we can meet some requirement of the
    NDAA that is driven in no small part by the needs of the
    particular districts?
        [The information referred to can be found in the Appendix
    beginning on page 74.]
        General Schwartz. It is in the multiple millions of dollars
    per platform.
        Mr. Conaway. Annually?
        General Schwartz. Yes. But, again, I would just ask you to
    think that it is not just the money. There are maintenance
    personnel devoted to the aircraft. There are crews devoted to
    the aircraft that, you know, that are not as well utilized as
    they might otherwise be in another part of our Air Force or a
    similar mission in a different airplane. The bottom line is,
    this is a fleet management issue and we appeal to you to allow
    us as much latitude as you can to work out the legacy machines
    and to bring on the new.
        Mr. Conaway. I understand my colleagues who have those
    aircraft in their districts that are not capable of being able
    to pitch this issue. But those of us that don't need to know
    the hard dollars and soft dollars and just the ideas as to what
    it does to your Air Force and our Air Force to force you to do
    things that good management wouldn't do in any other spectrum
    of flying airplanes, help us to understand the costs that that
    is; because we can then say, all right, if F-35 engine costs X,
    and we are spending 20 times this over a number of years, what
    could we have otherwise spent that money on? And you can pick a
    variety of alternative uses for dollars in a scarce
    environment.
        Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I yield back with three
    seconds left.
        The Chairman. Thank the gentleman. Mr. Platts.
        Mr. Platts. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And Secretary, General
    Schwartz, I appreciate your patience here. And as the most
    junior member of the committee I think I get to be the wrap-up
    here.
        I want to first associate my comments with Congressman
    Conaway and the issue of financials. I had the privilege of
    chairing the Subcommittee on Financial Management and Oversight
    for four years, and getting to that bedrock and auditing your
    internal controls so that you can get after what the
    Congressman talked about is so important. By doing it you will
    ultimately be able to do better in providing your personnel
    what they need because of the dollars you are going to save.
        I apologize for not being here at the beginning of the
    hearing. I have two other committees I serve on that were
    meeting at the same time.
        I understand, General Schwartz, in response to Congressman
    McKeon on the Don't Ask, Don't Tell, that your statement was,
    given the OPTEMPO that we are currently experiencing, that this
    would not be a good time to go forward with that policy.
        One followup question, you may have addressed. Is that
    based on more of a general assessment of your almost 37 years
    of courageous and heroic service to our Nation, or a specific
    solicitation from your senior NCOs [noncommissioned officers],
    your captains, your majors who are out there on the front line
    and how this policy would impact them given the tempo we are
    experiencing?
        General Schwartz. It is the former and not yet the latter.
    But we need to have real information in order to do due
    diligence here, sir. And a reality is that we do not have
    either that valid, statistically sound survey data or the kind
    of scholarship that one needs to sort of assess this properly.
    So, in my view this is not a good time because of the demands
    on the force. But the Secretary of Defense's approach to have
    that study group produce this decision, actionable
    information----
        Mr. Platts. So we have that concrete data. I share that
    assessment that we need to really know, bottom line, how is it
    going to work if we go forward and what consequences there
    could be.
        A followup. Congressman Coffman asked about the UAV issue
    and the 50 percent of what we are gathering not being able to
    be actually assessed. I appreciate your answer on the 700
    additional linguists and the technology needs.
        Can you give a time frame both on the 700 personnel that
    you are committing and what you expect the time frame to be to
    get to more of the technological investment that will diminish
    the need for the personnel?
        General Schwartz. I think it is within, you know, it is
    within the program period. So it is within the next four or
    five years we will deliver all of those airmen into those
    billets. And the technology is there, that is my sense, to
    process video-shoot. We have seen it repeated for us at the
    games that we are watching here over the last few days at the
    Olympics. So we know that it is there. We just need to go get
    it and move out. So the personnel will plus-up over the next
    couple of years. And I believe the technology is available now,
    and likewise we will deliver over that period.
        Mr. Platts. And my hope is that that remains a priority,
    given how certain we are the impact it has to those soldiers,
    marines on the ground, and being able to be successful and safe
    in their mission. So I appreciate that effort.
        And, again, to both of you, I appreciate your service to
    our Nation. And General Schwartz especially, with close to 37
    years in uniform, we are blessed by you and all who wear the
    uniform, and your staff and all of our branches.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
        The Chairman. I thank the gentleman. Mr. Secretary,
    General, we thank you for your excellent testimony this
    morning, and we will be using it undoubtedly when we put
    together our national defense bill. Thank you.
        [Whereupon, at 12:50 p.m., the committee was adjourned.]
    ?

    =======================================================================

                                A P P E N D I X

                               February 23, 2010

    =======================================================================

    ?

    =======================================================================

                  PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

                               February 23, 2010

    =======================================================================

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8102.001

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8102.002

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8102.003

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8102.004

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8102.005

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8102.006

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8102.007

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8102.008

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8102.009

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8102.010

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8102.011

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8102.012

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8102.013

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8102.014

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8102.015

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8102.016

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8102.017

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8102.018

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8102.019

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8102.020

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8102.021

    ?

    =======================================================================

                  WITNESS RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS ASKED DURING

                                  THE HEARING

                               February 23, 2010

    =======================================================================

                 RESPONSE TO QUESTION SUBMITTED BY MR. LOBIONDO

        General Schwartz. The report on procurement of ``4.5 Generation
    Aircraft'' will be delivered on or about 1 April. [See page 40.]
                                     ______

                  RESPONSE TO QUESTION SUBMITTED BY MR. BISHOP

        Secretary Donley. The current SRM Warm Line effort sustains skills
    required to reproduce 1960's-era technology SRMs. In our FY11 budget
    documentation, we estimated we would be able to purchase three boosters
    with the $39.2M available. This is a conservative estimate and the
    actual number of boosters we can purchase will be based on price
    negotiations with the ATK.
        In addition to the SRM Warm Line, the AF's Evolved Expendable
    Launch Vehicle (EELV) program utilizes and contributes to the SRM
    industrial base through its use of solid rocket strap-on motors. The
    EELV Delta IV solid rocket motor is the GEM-60, produced by ATK. The
    EELV program is currently working through the inventory of existing
    motors. The next expected lot buy will be in 2012.
        The EELV Atlas V uses solid rocket motors produced by Aerojet.
    Aerojet delivers between 5-7 motors per year. The next lot buy will be
    in 2013.
        The AF has committed to a long-range Minuteman III (MM III)
    sustainment program to extend the life of the weapon system through
    2030. The 526th ICBM Systems Group's ICBM roadmap addresses both near-
    term and long-term issues to meet weapon system operational
    requirements. This roadmap highlights both critical test/support
    equipment replacement requirements and numerous other weapon system
    components that need to be replaced due to wear and obsolescence. The
    most time-critical test and support equipment replacement efforts are
    currently underway. Other top-priority near-term needs are addressed in
    the FY11 PB.
        The AF continues to view MM III sustainment as a top priority. The
    AF is evaluating options that would support an industrial base that can
    stand ready to resolve issues with the current fleet and also prepare
    to integrate modern technology for next-generation systems. [See page
    25.]
                                     ______

                  RESPONSE TO QUESTION SUBMITTED BY MRS. DAVIS

        General Schwartz. The My Career Advancement Accounts (MyCAA)
    program is administered and monitored by the Office of the Secretary of
    Defense/Military Community and Family Policy (OSD/MC&FP) rather than
    the individual Services. The Air Force spouse employment point of
    contact was notified on 16 February by an OSD/MC&FP staff member of the
    ``pause'' in MyCAA operations. We were advised the reason for the pause
    was for a review of software applications, financial assistance
    documents and of the overall program.
        Air Force provided notification to all installation Airman & Family
    Readiness Centers immediately so they could field any questions from
    spouses and up-channel concerns that are subsequently being passed
    along to OSD/MC&FP. Air Force spouses are also being directed to other
    sources of financial assistance for education and training such as the
    Air Force Aid Society funded Spouse Tuition Assistance Program for
    those stationed overseas, the Hap Arnold Grants for stateside spouses
    and the Spouse Employment Program which can provide entry-level job
    training with a goal of finding immediate viable employment. [See page
    20.]
                                     ______

                 RESPONSE TO QUESTION SUBMITTED BY MR. LANGEVIN

        Secretary Donley. Prior to the 23 Feb, 2010 hearing, two Air Force
    bases (involving three units) received unsatisfactory ratings on a
    nuclear surety inspection. Details of those inspections follow:
        1) 2nd Bomb Wing (2BW), Barksdale AFB, LA
        Dates of inspection: 6 - 13 Jan, 2010
        Overall rating: Unsatisfactory (Re-inspected to Satisfactory, on-
    the-spot)
        Reason(s) for failure: (Non-systemic) Munitions handling trailer
    and aircraft were improperly grounded. More specifically, the aircraft
    and munitions trailer were grounded to separate ground points.
    Inspection team ruled this critical deficiency violated a ``warning''
    in the maintenance Technical Order.
        Corrective action(s): Load crew chief, and 2 crew members
    decertified by Wing Weapons Manager. Prior to inspection team
    departure, a re-inspection of the aircraft loading technical operation
    was accomplished with a different team and the load team performed in a
    flawless manner.
        Note: On-the-spot Re-inspection policy. When a unit is rated
    Unsatisfactory for a condition which can be corrected immediately, the
    Nuclear Weapons Technical Inspection Chief Inspector may, at his or her
    discretion, and with the concurrence of the commander of the inspected
    unit or support unit, make an on-the-spot re-inspection and include the
    results in the original report. (Technical Order 11N- 25-1, DOD Nuclear
    Weapons Technical Inspection System)
        2) 341st Missile Wing (341 MW) and 16th Munitions Sq (16 MUNS),
    Malmstrom AFB, MT (represents two MAJCOM inspection teams inspecting
    two separate units at the same location)
        Dates of inspection: 2-10 Feb, 2010
        Overall rating: Unsatisfactory
        Reason(s) for failure:
        (341 MW, AF Global Strike Command) (Systemic) Inspection did not
    reveal an unreliable weapon or an unsafe/insecure environment; however,
    the nature, severity, and number of deficiencies documented resulted in
    an unsatisfactory rating. Concerns were raised in areas of security,
    personnel reliability program, and logistics movement (i.e. transport).
        (16 MUNS, AF Materiel Command) (Systemic) Maintenance Team Chief
    failed to accomplish a step in the Technical Order. Inspection team
    ruled this a critical deficiency which could result in an unknown/
    unreliable weapon condition.
        Corrective action(s): Unit given time to put into place corrective
    actions. In accordance with DOD and AF Inspection policy, the MAJCOM
    inspection teams will conduct a re-inspection of deficient area(s) NLT
    90 days from termination of the original inspection. (Technical Order
    11N- 25-1, DOD Nuclear Weapons Technical Inspection System, and Air
    Force Instruction 90-201, Inspector General Activities)
        Note: Multi-MAJCOM inspection. Due to the integrated AFGSC and AFMC
    mission at Malmstrom AFB, this NSI was conducted as a Multi-MAJCOM NSI
    in accordance with a memorandum of understanding between AFGSC/IG and
    AFMC/IG. Each MAJCOM/IG inspected applicable areas and produced a
    separate inspection report. [See page 37.]
                                     ______

                 RESPONSE TO QUESTION SUBMITTED BY MR. CONAWAY

        General Schwartz. In the case of the C-5As, the FY09 Operations and
    Support cost of a C-5A was $13.5M per aircraft, totaling $297M per
    year, to continue to operate the excess aircraft. In addition, the
    Maintenance and Operations manpower devoted to these excess aircraft
    can't be utilized on other aircraft. [See page 42.]
                                     ______

                 RESPONSE TO QUESTION SUBMITTED BY MR. LAMBORN

        Secretary Donley. There was approximately a $30M reduction in ORS
    funding from the FY10 President's Budget (PB) to the FY11 PB for two
    reasons. First, the FY10 funding line contains approximately $18M for
    launch vehicle expenditures, which are not required in FY11. Second,
    the original FY10 request was increased by $12M for congressional adds
    (Micro-Satellite Serial Manufacturing, LEONIDAS, Rapid Small Satellite
    Development Test Facilities and Space Sensor Data Link Technology);
    these adds were not carried over into the FY11 budget. [See page 32.]
    ?

    =======================================================================

                  QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS POST HEARING

                               February 23, 2010

    =======================================================================

                       QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. MILLER

        Mr. Miller. On March 26, 2008, then Secretary of the Air Force Mike
    Wynne issued a memorandum to the force indicating that the Air Force
    should endorse a ``beyond goals'' approach to small business
    contracting. The term referred to the Air Force's Small Business
    Programs office initiative to do just that. Is this initiative still in
    effect and do you support the desire of the former Secretary to
    increase small business participation, specifically for companies with
    less than 1500 employees, throughout the Air Force?
        Secretary Donley. Yes--the Air Force Small Business Programs office
    supports efforts to increase small business participation, specifically
    for companies with less than 1,500 employees. The Air Force Small
    Business Programs office supports the ``beyond goals'' strategy and has
    developed an extensive outreach program to increase awareness and
    understanding of the impact small businesses have on the Air Force
    mission.
        ``Beyond goals'' is a strategy to bring the innovation, agility and
    efficiency of small businesses to the mission of the Air Force: To fly,
    fight and win . . . in air, space, and cyberspace. Beyond goals
    considers numerical percentage goals and contracts as tools or a means
    to an end--but not the end itself.
        The Air Force Small Business community members are not advocates
    for small businesses--we are advocates for the mission, met with small
    business solutions.
        Mr. Miller. Do you believe the Air Force should actively look to do
    business with emerging small businesses?
        Secretary Donley. The Air Force feels that we should actively look
    to do business with emerging small businesses. Small businesses bring
    innovation, agility and efficiency to the Air Force mission. Emerging
    small businesses are important to the future of a healthy industrial
    base and an integral part of the Air Force mission. Small Businesses
    also have a proven track record to deliver solutions to the Air Force
    rapidly and effectively.
        The Air Force Small Business Programs office has initiatives that
    highlight small business opportunities to support the mission. The Air
    Force Mentor-Protege Program assists small businesses (Proteges)
    competing for contract awards by partnering them with large companies
    (Mentors) under individual agreements. Also the Small Business
    Innovation Research (SBIR) program encourages small business
    participation in Federal research and development in technology with
    both government and commercial applications.
        Mr. Miller. Secretary Donley: Last year, the Secretary of Defense
    canceled the CSAR-X program stating that the Department was conducting
    a review of DOD-wide assets that could conduct the CSAR-X mission. What
    is the status of this review? Does the Air Force plan on restarting the
    CSAR-X program?
        Secretary Donley. Following cancellation of the CSAR-X program, the
    Air Force supported the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) and
    the Joint Staff in their review of rotary wing support to the CSAR
    mission. As a result of that review, OSD analysis supported the Air
    Force as having a vital role in Joint CSAR.
        The current plans for replacing the HH-60G fleet involve two
    efforts, HH-60G Operational Loss Replacement (OLR) and HH-60
    Recapitalization. HH-60G OLR is the Air Force's plan to replace HH-60G
    Pave Hawks lost in combat and other operational missions to sustain the
    current HH-60 fleet strength. HH-60 Recapitalization will be a long-
    term recapitalization effort to replace the entire fleet.
        The Air Force is working with OSD and Joint Staff to finalize
    requirements and an acquisition strategy that supports an HH-60
    recapitalization program to replace the fleet of aging HH-60Gs. Initial
    program funding is contained in the FY11 President's Budget. A Request
    for Information has been released to obtain industry's ability to
    provide the Air Force with a CSAR platform. The Air Force will procure
    a CSAR platform that meets warfighter requirements.
        Mr. Miller. In regard to the KC-X, you've both mentioned in various
    settings that the Air Force will move forward with a tanker selection
    regardless of the number of proposals it may receive. We've learned in
    the past that sole source contracts cost the American taxpayers a great
    deal of money while at the same time reducing and even impeding the
    military's critical need for flexibility. Are we repeating past
    mistakes by pressing forward with a one tanker option which will
    inevitably lead to sole sourcing?
        Secretary Donley and General Schwartz. The USAF is currently in an
    open competition and plans to let the process run its course. The
    planned date for proposal submission is 10 May 2010. If only one
    proposal is received, the USAF will evaluate whether the proposal meets
    all mandatory requirements and will exercise a clause in the Request
    for Proposal that requires the offeror to provide certified cost and
    pricing data (see FAR 15.406-2). The certified cost or pricing data
    will be audited by the Defense Contract Auditing Agency and used by the
    USAF in negotiating contract price. Finally, the USAF retains the
    option to not award the contract if a satisfactory agreement cannot be
    reached in the best interest of both the warfighter and the taxpayer.
    The Department clearly prefers competition because it delivers weapon
    systems at a lower cost for the warfighter and taxpayer.
        Mr. Miller. The Department seems to be dead set on a sole sourced
    tanker replacement. Do you think one single company will be able to
    provide a production rate fast enough to replace the current aging
    tanker fleet in a timely manner? How can we be sure that a sole source
    company doesn't charge us unnecessary amounts of money for speed of
    production? If we need a tanker now, why not have two companies? Would
    that not decrease the amount of time it will take to replace the fleet?
    In addition, the longer it takes to replace the fleet, the longer we
    will need to sustain the current fleet which as I understand, is
    becoming more and more expensive.
        Secretary Donley and General Schwartz. At this time, two companies
    have expressed an intent to bid for the KC-X contract. The KC-X
    contract will allow the USAF to order up to 18 aircraft per year in
    full rate production, with a target quantity of 15 aircraft per year.
    This is a reasonable production rate for a single company and meets
    USAF tanker recapitalization requirements. If the USAF receives only
    one KC-X proposal, and if it meets the RFP requirements, we will then
    obtain certified cost and pricing data to negotiate and award a fair
    and reasonable contract for the American taxpayers. The USAF considered
    all options per Congressional direction, but ruled out dual award
    approaches based on budget affordability and fleet concerns including
    increased training, operations, maintenance, and support costs. The
    Department and the USAF are committed to awarding to a single company
    through a competitive strategy for a commercial derivative tanker as
    that strategy provides the best value for the warfighter and taxpayer.
        Mr. Miller. In regard to in-sourcing, what criteria have been
    established for determining which functions should be in-sourced? What
    steps does the Air Force have in place to assist contractor employees
    whose functions may be in-sourced?
        Secretary Donley and General Schwartz. In-sourcing guidance issued
    by the Deputy Secretary of Defense on 28 May 2009 outlines a systematic
    approach that helps ensure in-sourcing decisions are fiscally informed
    and analytically based. If contract workload is found to be inherently
    governmental, experiencing contract administration problems, providing
    unauthorized personal services, or otherwise exempt from contracting
    under DOD Instruction 1100.22, Guidance for Determining Workforce Mix,
    the function must be in-sourced regardless of cost. However, if the
    contract does not fit one of the mentioned criteria, a cost analysis is
    required to determine the most cost-effective means of performing the
    work.
        The Air Force must adhere to the legal requirements of Merit
    Systems Principles that call for open and fair competition. To single
    out contractors for special assistance programs may be considered
    inconsistent with Merit Systems Principles. The Air Force has
    implemented a number of enhancements that serve to streamline the
    recruitment process, including the development of an Enterprise
    Recruitment Function at the Air Force Personnel Center (AFPC) to
    address enterprise-wide recruitment needs with a strategic focus; use
    of social networking sites (e.g., Twitter) to augment recruiting to
    meet our most critical needs; creation of an Air Force Civil Service
    Career Portal that is more applicant-friendly, resulting in larger
    pools of well-qualified candidates; and data mining using commercial
    recruitment websites to steer applicants to Air Force vacancy
    announcements. More robust and improved recruitment processes will
    benefit all applicants, including those contractor employees whose
    functions may be in-sourced.
        Mr. Miller. Over the years DOD has defined potentially hostile
    nations' military capabilities in comparison to our own in terms of
    ``peers'' vs. ``near-peers''. For example, in regard to a blue water
    Navy or air dominance Air Force, the Department has maintained that the
    United States currently has no ``near-peers.'' With the advent of cyber
    warfare and the multitude of recent examples of cyber attacks, do you
    think it's reasonable to say that the United States does indeed have
    ``peers''? I mean, at this point anyone, state actor or not, with
    internet connectivity and skilled in cyber operations has the ability
    to be a ``peer'' of the United States. With that in mind, do you think
    the Department should be moving toward creating a combatant command as
    opposed to a sub-unified command?
        Secretary Donley and General Schwartz. With low costs of entry and
    global interconnectivity, the U.S. does have ``peers'' and ``near-
    peers'' in the cyber domain. As a Service, the mission of the United
    States Air Force is to organize, train, equip, and provide forces to
    Joint Combatant Commands. The Department of Defense has determined that
    a sub-unified command is the best command structure for the Cyberspace
    mission. The Air Force is committed to providing support for cyber
    operations as a component of any joint command arrangement.
        Mr. Miller. General Schwartz: The F100 and F110 engine competitions
    in the 1980s and early 1990s for the F-16 saved money, and improved
    engine performance, reliability and contractor responsiveness. Today,
    the Air Force continues to execute the F-16 program with two engines.
    Why wouldn't a similar program be applicable for the F-35? With fewer
    fighters today, and even fewer in the future, do you believe that the
    Air Force is taking significant risks by not including a program to
    develop and procure a competitive, alternate engine for the F-35?
        General Schwartz. The Air Force supports Secretary Gates'
    conclusion to not pursue a competitive engine. While engine
    performance, reliability, and contractor responsiveness did improve
    during the F100 and F110 engine competition, there is no evidence that
    this was a direct result of competition. Historical experience shows
    that any costs and/or benefits arising from competition are highly
    unpredictable and also depend heavily on the strategic behavior of the
    companies involved. Maintaining two engine suppliers would result in
    increased development, production, and support costs in the near term.
    The Air Force maintains that the risks involved with a single engine
    supplier are acceptable, and savings associated with competition, which
    may be realized in the future, will not sufficiently offset the upfront
    development costs when competing against existing Department
    priorities. Recent experience with engine development for the F-22 and
    F/A-18E/F indicates that sole source risks are acceptable, especially
    considering the Pratt & Whitney engine continues to meet or exceed the
    stringent performance requirements associated with the F-35 propulsion
    system.
        Mr. Miller. What is the current Air Force policy, directive or
    regulation governing the conversion of non-acquisition contractor
    personnel to government positions?
        General Schwartz. The following are the policies, directives and
    regulations governing the conversion of non-acquisition contractor
    personnel to government positions:
        1. In-sourcing Contracted Services--Implementation Guidance from
    OUSD (P&R) dated 28 May 2009, outlines a systematic approach to
    identifying and evaluating potential in-sourcing candidates. These
    guidelines ensure in-sourcing decisions are fiscally informed and
    analytically based.
        2. Guidance and Documenting Civilian In-sourcing Positions from
    OUSD (P&R) dated 31 December 2009, provides guidance on tracking DOD
    civilian personnel actions associated with in-sourcing.
        3. Directive-Type Memorandum (DTM) 09-007, ``Estimating and
    Comparing the Full Costs of Civilian and Military Manpower and Contract
    Support'' from OSD (CAPE) dated 29 January 2010, establishes a DOD-wide
    cost estimating methodology in support of workforce decisions to
    include in-sourcing.
        Mr. Miller. Is the Air Force policy different than that of other
    services? If so, why?
        General Schwartz. No, the Air Force in-sourcing procedures comply
    with the same OSD policy guidance that applies to all Service
    components. Due to the organizational differences between the Air Force
    and the other Service components, the Air Force has taken a more
    decentralized approach to in-sourcing. The Air Force relies heavily on
    the Major Commands to review their contract inventories, identify
    candidates, conduct business case analyses, and implement the resulting
    decisions. The Air Force maintains centralized control by issuing
    policy, validating business cases, and monitoring the conversion
    process.
        Mr. Miller. Has the Air Force conducted an analysis of non-
    acquisition contractor conversions as they relate to the service's
    small business participation requirements?
        General Schwartz. The Air Force has not conducted an analysis of
    non-acquisition contractor conversions and the impact on small business
    goals. However, the Air Force does place strong emphasis on ensuring
    that we meet or exceed the federally mandated goals, and has instituted
    a ``Beyond Goals'' strategy to help ensure small businesses are
    provided maximum practicable opportunity to compete for Air Force
    requirements.
                                     ______

                       QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. WILSON

        Mr. Wilson. With regard to the Joint Strike Fighter program, how
    will encroachment and increased noise associated with the fighters
    impact the decision to base these aviation assets?
        Secretary Donley. With the announcement of the candidate basing
    locations, the formal environmental impact analysis process and
    development of environmental impacts statements (EISs) have begun. The
    EISs will analyze potential impacts of the alternative basing locations
    for both Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) training and operational basing
    candidate locations.
        At this point in time, we cannot specifically state how
    encroachment and noise may impact the Air Force's final basing
    decision. Through the EISs, a full spectrum of issues will be
    evaluated, to include consideration of JSF noise and encroachment
    related impacts. When released, Congress, regulatory agencies, and
    local communities will be provided the opportunity to review and
    comment on these EISs through an iterative review process.
        After the draft EIS review, all comments provided to the Air Force
    will be considered and made a part of a Final EIS. This final EIS will
    support the Air Force's operational and training basing decisions,
    which will be reflected in a signed Air Force Record of Decision (ROD).
        Air Force JSF basing decisions become final when the ROD is signed
    and issued. The Air Force expects to announce the F-35 EIS preferred
    alternatives in late Spring/Summer of 2010, release a draft EIS in late
    summer 2010, and issues its ROD in early 2011.
        Mr. Wilson. On February 3, Secretary Gates told this committee that
    a business case analysis had been conducted with regards to the
    alternate engine for the F-35. Are you aware of any business case
    analysis? If so, does the Air Force agree with the Secretary of
    Defense's position not to develop and procure a competitive engine for
    the F-35? Lastly, would you be able to share any insights to this
    committee when we may be able to see the aforementioned business case
    analysis?
        Secretary Donley. The Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation (CAPE)
    office performed a Cost/Benefit analysis in FY2007. Both the original
    study and the recent FY2010 ``Quick Update'' were provided to the HASC
    on February 23, 2010.
        The Air Force supports Secretary Gates' conclusion to not pursue a
    competitive engine. Maintaining two engine suppliers will result in
    increased development, production, and support costs in the near term.
    The Air Force maintains that the risks involved with a single engine
    supplier are acceptable, and savings associated with competition, which
    may be realized in the future, will not sufficiently offset the upfront
    development costs when competing against existing Department
    priorities. Recent experience with engine development for the F-22 and
    F/A-18E/F indicates that sole source risks are modest and acceptable,
    especially considering the Pratt & Whitney engine continues to meet or
    exceed the stringent performance requirements associated with the F-35
    propulsion system.
        Mr. Wilson. The engine competitions for the F-16 saved money,
    improved engine performance, reliability, and contractor
    responsiveness. Today, the F-16 program continues to operate with two
    engines. Why wouldn't a similar program be applicable to the F-35?
        General Schwartz. The Air Force supports Secretary Gates'
    conclusion to not pursue a competitive engine. While engine
    performance, reliability, and contractor responsiveness did improve
    during the F100 and F110 engine competition, there is no evidence that
    this was a direct result of competition. Historical experience shows
    that any costs and/or benefits arising from competition are highly
    unpredictable and also depend heavily on the strategic behavior of the
    companies involved. Maintaining two engine suppliers will result in
    increased development, production, and support costs in the near term.
    The Air Force maintains that the risks involved with a single engine
    supplier are acceptable, and savings associated with competition, which
    may be realized in the future, will not sufficiently offset the upfront
    development costs when competing against existing Department
    priorities. Recent experience with engine development for the F-22 and
    F/A-18E/F indicates that sole source risks are acceptable, especially
    considering the Pratt & Whitney engine continues to meet or exceed the
    stringent performance requirements associated with the F-35 propulsion
    system.
        Mr. Wilson. The Air Force will need to submit reports required by
    Sections 137 and 138 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
    FY2010 before it can retire the 17 C-5As planned for FY2011. When will
    this committee be provided these reports?
        General Schwartz. The report is being drafted at this time and is
    expected to be delivered by early July 2010.
                                     ______

                       QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. BISHOP

        Mr. Bishop. The proposed FY11 budget only allows for $44.2 million
    for Minuteman III warm line, of which $5 million is for unspecified
    government costs or overhead, leaving only about $39 million in this
    funding line which budget documents state are to produce only 3 motor
    sets. By contrast, the Navy funds a warm line effort for the D-5
    missile which produces 12 motor sets a year. How did the Air Force
    determine that only 3 booster motors for Minuteman III annually was
    adequate to sustain a viable warm line effort for the MM III weapons
    system through 2030?
        Secretary Donley. The number of booster motors identified in the
    Air Force budget documents is a conservative estimate. The final number
    will likely be more than three; but will not be defined until the
    contract negotiations are completed. Additionally, the Air Force is
    reevaluating the overall Solid Rocket Motor (SRM) Warm Line concept in
    order to help sustain the SRM industrial base production skills. Unlike
    the Navy, there is currently no anticipated Air Force requirement to
    replace operational MM III missile motors. An interagency task force,
    that includes representation from DOD (the Office of the Secretary of
    Defense, Army, Navy, Air Force and Missile Defense Agency) and NASA,
    has been formed to offer solid rocket motor industrial base sustainment
    recommendations to the Secretary of Defense for a subsequent report to
    Congress. The interim report to Congress is expected to be delivered in
    June 2010.
        Mr. Bishop. The proposed FY11 budget only allows for $44.2 million
    for Minuteman III warm line, of which $5 million is for unspecified
    government costs or overhead, leaving only about $39 million in this
    funding line which budget documents state are to produce only 3 motor
    sets. By contrast, the Navy funds a warm line effort for the D-5
    missile which produces 12 motor sets a year. Wasn't the number of
    missile motor sets being placed at only 3 in FY11 by the Air Force
    based primarily upon budget considerations, and not actual program or
    industry requirements?
        Secretary Donley. The number of booster motors identified in the
    Air Force budget documents is a conservative estimate. The final number
    will likely be more than three; but will not be defined until the
    contract negotiations are completed. Unlike the Navy, there is
    currently no anticipated Air Force requirement to replace operational
    MM III missile motors. An interagency task force, that includes
    representation from DOD (the Office of the Secretary of Defense, Army,
    Navy, Air Force and Missile Defense Agency) and NASA, has been formed
    to offer solid rocket motor industrial base sustainment recommendations
    to the Secretary of Defense for a subsequent report to Congress. The
    interim report to Congress is expected to be delivered in June 2010.
        Mr. Bishop. The proposed FY11 budget only allows for $44.2 million
    for Minuteman III warm line, of which $5 million is for unspecified
    government costs or overhead, leaving only about $39 million in this
    funding line which budget documents state are to produce only 3 motor
    sets. By contrast, the Navy funds a warm line effort for the D-5
    missile which produces 12 motor sets a year. Was the private Solid
    Rocket Motor (SRM) industrial base consulted by the Air Force about the
    minimum number of MM III motor sets required annually to maintain a
    viable warm line during formulation of the FY11 budget recommendation,
    and if so, what was their response to the Air Force?
        Secretary Donley. Industry was consulted during the FY11 budget
    formulation process. Initially industry stated the need for 12 per year
    and then revised the number to six motor sets per year to maintain a
    fully qualified and certified workforce to produce MM III booster sets.
        The number of booster motors identified in the Air Force budget
    documents is a conservative estimate. The final number will likely be
    more than three; but will not be defined until the contract
    negotiations are completed. Unlike the Navy, there is currently no
    anticipated Air Force requirement to replace operational MM III missile
    motors. An interagency task force, that includes representation from
    DOD (the Office of the Secretary of Defense, Army, Navy, Air Force and
    Missile Defense Agency) and NASA, has been formed to offer solid rocket
    motor industrial base sustainment recommendations to the Secretary of
    Defense for a subsequent report to Congress. The interim report to
    Congress is expected to be delivered in June 2010.
        Mr. Bishop. The proposed FY11 budget only allows for $44.2 million
    for Minuteman III warm line, of which $5 million is for unspecified
    government costs or overhead, leaving only about $39 million in this
    funding line which budget documents state are to produce only 3 motor
    sets. By contrast, the Navy funds a warm line effort for the D-5
    missile which produces 12 motor sets a year. What is the Air Force
    contingency plan for ensuring a viable MM III weapons system through
    2030 (the program of record) if the private SRM industrial base
    capability for the MM III is shuttered and its contract obligations
    with the Air Force are not renewed?
        Secretary Donley. If the current MM III Solid Rocket Motor
    production capability is allowed to lapse, any requirement for follow-
    on MM III SRM production would include the time and costs required to
    reinstate a MM III SRM production capability. The Air Force, in
    coordination with industry, has determined what those costs and
    timelines would be and would include these factors in long-range
    planning efforts. Unlike the Navy, there is currently no anticipated
    Air Force requirement to replace operational MM III missile motors. An
    interagency task force, that includes representation from DOD (the
    Office of the Secretary of Defense, Army, Navy, Air Force and Missile
    Defense Agency) and NASA, has been formed to offer solid rocket motor
    industrial base sustainment recommendations to the Secretary of Defense
    for a subsequent report to Congress. The interim report to Congress is
    expected to be delivered in June 2010.
        Mr. Bishop. The proposed FY11 budget only allows for $44.2 million
    for Minuteman III warm line, of which $5 million is for unspecified
    government costs or overhead, leaving only about $39 million in this
    funding line which budget documents state are to produce only 3 motor
    sets. By contrast, the Navy funds a warm line effort for the D-5
    missile which produces 12 motor sets a year. A Department of Defense
    Report to Congress on the Solid Rocket Motor Industrial Base, dated
    June 2009, at page 47 stated that ``Delays in the NASA Ares program
    could have a significant negative impact on the large SRM (Solid Rocket
    Motor) prime contractor industrial base and on some of the SRM subtier
    base, specifically material suppliers.'' In light of NASA's FY11 more
    drastic budget recommendation to completely cancel the Constellation
    program, along with the Ares 1 and Ares 5 boosters, should not the
    above-referenced study be revised and updated?
        Secretary Donley. Per direction in the National Defense
    Authorization Act for FY2010, the Secretary of Defense is to
    ``establish a plan to sustain the solid rocket motor industrial base,
    including the ability to maintain and sustain currently deployed
    strategic and missile defense systems and to maintain an intellectual
    and engineering capacity to support next generation motors, as
    needed.'' An interagency task force, that includes representation from
    DOD (the Office of the Secretary of Defense, Army, Navy, Air Force and
    Missile Defense Agency) and NASA, has been formed to offer solid rocket
    motor industrial base sustainment recommendations to the Secretary of
    Defense for a subsequent report to Congress. The interim report to
    Congress is expected to be delivered in June 2010.
        Mr. Bishop. The proposed FY11 budget only allows for $44.2 million
    for Minuteman III warm line, of which $5 million is for unspecified
    government costs or overhead, leaving only about $39 million in this
    funding line which budget documents state are to produce only 3 motor
    sets. By contrast, the Navy funds a warm line effort for the D-5
    missile which produces 12 motor sets a year. What are the impediments
    preventing the Air Force from committing to a long-term Minuteman III
    sustainment program in the out-years, and isn't such a commitment more
    important than ever to sustain this vital strategic industrial base?
        Secretary Donley. The AF is fully committed to sustaining the MM
    III weapon system through 2030 and has budgeted over $1.3B of
    investments through the FYDP (FY10-FY15) to achieve that objective.
    Unlike the Navy, there is currently no anticipated Air Force
    requirement to replace operational MM III missile motors. An
    interagency task force, that includes representation from DOD (the
    Office of the Secretary of Defense, Army, Navy, Air Force and Missile
    Defense Agency) and NASA, has been formed to offer solid rocket motor
    industrial base sustainment recommendations to the Secretary of Defense
    for a subsequent report to Congress. The interim report to Congress is
    expected to be delivered in June 2010.
                                     ______

                       QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. TURNER

        Mr. Turner. The Pentagon put out a directive for the services to
    expand the acquisition corps by thousands of personnel. The Air Force
    appears to have aggressively executed this increase in acquisition
    professionals. Many organizations are converting contractor employees
    to government civilians. According to some observers, there may be a
    perception that some individuals are ``being coerced'' and pressured
    into leaving their contractor employers and switching to the civil
    service as government employees. Has the AF developed a plan for the
    conversion of transitioning contractor to government personnel? If
    policies have been codified, have procedures been developed on how to
    address contractors' concerns of hiring away their personnel to Air
    Force civilian positions?
        Secretary Donley. The Air Force has an overarching plan for
    transitioning certain functions or services currently performed by
    contractors to DOD civilian or military performance, or a combination
    thereof. The Air Force plan does not include specific policies or
    procedures to address contractor concerns regarding the hiring of
    contractor personnel.
        We acquire talent through open, fair, and competitive hiring
    processes, consistent with Merit Systems Principles. Because the Air
    Force has positioned itself as an employer of choice, engaged in a wide
    range of functions that represent desirable and meaningful work among
    jobseekers, we receive applications from a broad range of applicants,
    including employees of contractor companies. We are required to
    consider all applicants who meet the eligibility and qualification
    requirements for the positions we are seeking to fill, without regard
    to the organizations that employ them.
        We view our contractors as valued partners and greatly appreciate
    the talent and skill they bring to the mission. We respect the work
    relationship these companies have with their employees.
        Mr. Turner. During the hearing, I mentioned I would be submitting a
    letter (attached) in which the Air Force Chief of Staff assured Mr.
    Hobson and the community that ``If the Air Force receives funding to
    procure additional C-17s beyond the current 180, it is our intent to
    place C-17s at Wright-Patterson AFB to ensure a follow-on mission for
    the 445th Airlift Wing.'' Can you reaffirm the Air Force commitment to
    ensuring the continuation of the important mobility mission by
    eventually placing C-17s at the 445k Airlift Wing?
        General Schwartz. The review and evaluation of additional C-17
    basing candidates is nearing completion. Once complete, the Air Force
    will make the appropriate Congressional notifications and
    announcements.
                                     ______

                  QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MRS. MCMORRIS RODGERS

        Mrs. McMorris Rodgers. As a Member who represents a KC-135 Air
    Refueling Tanker base, I see first hand the impacts the delayed tanker
    acquisition has on a community. The KC-135 represents a central piece
    of war plans to support the United States and its allies around the
    world. Like many, I want to see the new KC-X at the ramps at Fairchild
    Air Force Base sooner than later. I understand that we will finally be
    seeing the RFP come out this week. What type of timelines can we look
    forward to for this project?
        General Schwartz. The Air Force released the RFP on 24 February
    2010 with proposals due to the government on 10 May 2010. Contract
    award is planned for the fall of FY2010. After an approximately four-
    year Engineering and Manufacturing Development phase, the USAF
    estimates the first seven production KC-X aircraft will be delivered in
    2015. Final decisions regarding the basing of KC-X are part of a
    separate process that will take place at a later date.
        Mrs. McMorris Rodgers. I proudly represent Fairchild Air Force Base
    and saw the surge of the operations tempo that has continued to be
    maintained at high levels. We are deploying our Airmen more frequently.
    The opts temp for our tanker crews right now is to deploy every 90
    days. We also have Airmen participating in Joint Expeditionary Taskings
    in support of other services. Over the years, the Air Force end
    strengths have been reduced significantly. Are you confident that a
    mere .15% person increase in the Air Force is sufficient to support the
    overall missions now and in the foreseeable future?
        General Schwartz. We believe the Air Force's proposed 332,200 AD
    end strength in the FY11 budget achieves the right balance between
    providing capabilities for today's commitments and posturing for future
    challenges, i.e. increasing demands for Intelligence, Surveillance &
    Reconnaissance operational capabilities; enhancing cyberspace,
    irregular warfare, command and control capabilities to win today's
    Joint fight; recapturing Acquisition Excellence; continuing to
    strengthen the Nuclear Enterprise; and developing and caring for our
    Airmen and their families.
        Mrs. McMorris Rodgers. As you both know, one of every ten Americans
    are out of work. We know that it is critical to focus our attention on
    creating new jobs in the United States. The KC-X tanker competition
    pits an American made airplane against a plane whose major assemblies
    will be manufactured in Europe. It seems we have a choice: creating
    tens of thousands of jobs here in the United States or sending those
    jobs overseas. When the President spoke of creating conditions
    necessary for business to expand and hire more workers, I think we all
    assumed he was referring to U.S. workers and U.S. jobs. If that is the
    case, why is this Administration considering sending the tens of
    thousands of tanker manufacturing jobs to Europe?
        General Schwartz. The USAF KC-X tanker solicitation is a full and
    open competition in the best interest of both the warfighter and
    taxpayer. Discussion of a KC-X contract award to any company is
    premature at this time. The Department will ensure the tanker
    solicitation remains wholly compliant with the current state of law,
    including the Buy America Act.
        Mrs. McMorris Rodgers. Wouldn't you agree that spouses relying on
    the Military Spouse Career Advancement Account (MyCAA) program to
    further their academic goals should have been notified prior to the
    temporary stay in order to make the necessary arrangements with their
    school.
        General Schwartz. The MyCAA program is administered, and monitored
    by OSD rather than the Services. It is not an Air Force controlled
    program. When the Air Force was unexpectedly notified on 16 February by
    staff from OSD(MC&FP) of a ``pause'' in the MyCAA spouse tuition
    assistance program, we provided notification to all installation Airman
    & Family Readiness Centers immediately. Air Force spouses were informed
    of other sources of financial assistance for education and training
    such as the Air Force Aid Society Spouse Tuition Assistance Program for
    those stationed overseas, the Hap Arnold Grants for stateside spouses
    and the Spouse Employment Program which can provide entry-level job
    training with a goal of finding immediate viable employment. We expect
    further guidance from OSD regarding program operations for spouses that
    are currently enrolled, as well as the long-term status of the program.
                                     ______

                      QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MS. BORDALLO

        Ms. Bordallo. My question is regarding the military humanitarian
    mission in Haiti. Can you comment as to whether or not the C-27, Joint
    Cargo Aircraft, have been used for the Haiti Humanitarian Relief
    Operations and in what capacity? If the aircraft has not been utilized,
    can you explain why this tactical asset has not been used to disperse
    needed supplies to regions outside the epicenter of Port-au-Prince?
    Additionally, I understand the total buy for the C-27 program is 38
    aircraft but that is the floor and not the ceiling. To that extent, and
    given the change in program leadership, what steps have been taken to
    work with the Army to develop a strategy on how to replace the Sherpa
    aircraft and to give missions to those units that have the Sherpa or
    who were previously slated to receive the C-27 aircraft in the Army?
        General Schwartz. No Air Force C-27Js were used in Haiti relief
    operations. As of today, the Department of Defense has taken ownership
    of three aircraft. These aircraft are undergoing testing and
    development. The first operational deployment for the C-27J has not yet
    been finalized. The Air Force does not currently plan to increase the
    number of C-27Js beyond the current 38 program of record.
        The Air Force intent is to support the Direct Support mission
    utilizing our entire airlift fleet, as required, to best meet Army
    demand. The Air Force is not actively engaged with the Army in
    determining the way forward for the C-23 fleet or for Army National
    Guard units affected by the transfer of the Direct Support mission to
    the Air Force.
        Ms. Bordallo. The recent QDR requires the Air Force to conduct a
    study on the Long Range Strike program and field a new long range
    strike bomber by 2018. However Secretary Gates stated in his recent
    testimony before the HASC that a new bomber might well be more than 15
    years away. Can you explain what the Air Force is doing to ensure we
    execute an efficient and timely study in order to move forward with the
    fielding of a New Bomber. Additionally, when can we expect the study to
    be completed. Finally, when do you foresee procurement of the new
    generation bomber taking place?
        General Schwartz. The Secretary of Defense (SECDEF) delayed the
    development of an Air Force follow-on bomber, which was directed in the
    2006 Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR), until the Department of Defense
    could better understand the need, requirement, and technology
    associated with the weapon system. Based upon the need for additional
    analysis, the SECDEF chartered a subsequent study to examine a broad
    array of long-range strike issues and options, including: the
    appropriate mix of long range strike capabilities, upgrades to legacy
    bombers, manned and unmanned force structure numbers, stand-off and
    penetrating platform ratio, stand-off cruise missile requirements,
    Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance (ISR) demands and
    conventional Prompt Global Strike needs. The results of the study are
    scheduled to be completed in the fall of 2010. This study will inform
    subsequent Departmental decisions on new bomber procurement.
        Ms. Bordallo. Our current strategic focus is on counter-insurgency
    operations that rely on precision strikes from aircraft on a daily
    basis, which require less of a bomb payload. In a major regional
    conflict on the order of a Desert Storm or Allied Force or the initial
    phases of Iraqi Freedom we dropped a significant payload every day. Do
    you believe we have seen our last major regional conflict? If not, In
    your opinion, will we need the ability to do that in the future?
    Although the QDR tries to strike a balance across the spectrum of
    warfare, I'm deeply concerned that we're too focused on the current
    counter insurgency conflict we're fighting and not looking enough at
    the ways we can deter future regional conflicts that require a stealthy
    long range strike capability. Isn't a next generation bomber needed to
    better address our deterrence capability in future conflicts?
        General Schwartz. The Air Force must be fully prepared to respond
    to our Combatant Commanders in support of operations that span the full
    spectrum of conflict from counter-insurgency to large scale
    conventional campaigns while still maintaining a credible nuclear
    deterrence posture. A long-range strike aircraft is one element of our
    future strike capability which also strengthens our strategic
    deterrence posture. While investments in our legacy bombers sustain our
    nuclear deterrence operations and conventional global precision attack
    capabilities into the future, the Air Force has also programmed
    research and development funds to accelerate development of an enhanced
    long-range strike capability to counter the anti-access and area denial
    strategies of our adversaries.
                                     ______

                       QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. LAMBORN

        Mr. Lamborn. In your testimony, you stated that you would verify my
    numbers and get back to me on the funding for Operationally Responsive
    Space (ORS). The funding from FY09 to FY11 has undergone a 59% cut with
    the cut from FY10 to FY11 being 24% (FY09-228.5 million; FY10-124.3
    million; FY11-94.0 million). This trend does not indicate that it is a
    top priority as you implied when speaking about the space budget in
    general. My question pertains directly to ORS and how in an era of ever
    increasing demand and looming enemy threat that we reduce a program by
    59% that is intended to provide Joint Force Commanders with surge space
    capacity and the ability to replenish should our enemies attack our
    space assets. Please provide specifics on ORS initiatives and explain
    the specific cuts in funding.
        Secretary Donley. The Operationally Responsive Space (ORS)
    initiatives include completing and launching ORS-1, and continuing the
    critical payload, bus, launch, range, and command and control enablers
    necessary to make ORS successful. These enablers include the Modular
    Space Vehicle (MSV) and the Rapid Response Space Works (RRSW). The MSV
    effort supports the design and development of mission kits (modular
    payloads and buses) and the RRSW procurement develops the facilities,
    capability, and Concept of Operations for rapid assembly, integration,
    and testing of tailored ORS systems.
        The budget has been relatively stable for ORS funding. It is
    approximately $100M per fiscal year from FY09 to FY11 with some
    exceptions for launch vehicle expenditures, ORS-1 and congressional
    adds. The FY09 funding is $135M higher than FY11 due to three reasons.
    The Air Force reprogrammed $39M into ORS when ORS-1 was initiated as an
    urgent need in FY09. The FY09 funding line contains $9M for TacSat
    launch vehicle expenditures while FY11 doesn't require any TacSat
    launch vehicle funding. Additionally, the original FY09 request was
    increased by $87M for congressional adds (Infrared Sensor Payload
    Development, Micro-Satellite Serial Manufacturing, LEONIDAS, Chip Scale
    Atomic Clock, and Missile Range Safety Technology).
        The ORS funding in FY10 is approximately $30M higher than FY11 due
    primarily to the FY10 funding line containing $18M for TacSat launch
    vehicle expenditures, while FY11 doesn't require any TacSat launch
    vehicle funding. Additionally, the original FY10 request was increased
    by $12M for congressional adds (Micro-Satellite Serial Manufacturing,
    LEONIDAS, Rapid Small Satellite Development Test Facilities and Space
    Sensor Data Link Technology).
        Mr. Lamborn. In your testimony, you stated that the requirement for
    fighters had changed from 2200 to 2024. What specific factors drove
    this lower number? Is the lower number based on the near term (5-year)
    or the longer (15-20 year) look?
        General Schwartz. The lower number of approximately 2000 Total
    Active Inventory (TAI) reflects the most current Air Force assessment
    of the required fighter force structure to meet National Defense
    Strategy objectives through the mid 2020's. The change in the fighter
    force structure shortfall was caused by three factors. First, the Air
    Force elected to accept a moderate level of warfighting risk. Second
    the F-35 planned procurement rate was increased from 48 to 80 aircraft
    per year, bringing 5th generation to the field sooner. Third, the
    approach to fighter service life computations was refined.
        Mr. Lamborn. In your testimony, you stated that the initial fighter
    gap numbers were based on a yearly production rate of 48 for the F-35,
    but now you anticipate a production rate of 80. With the program
    continuing to sup to the right, what specific change has moved us from
    the 48 number to 80? Why were we not looking at 80 to start with? If
    the program continues to slip will we see a continuous rise in these
    production estimates to mask the fighter gap? When will slips become so
    critical that we cannot simply up annual production to close the
    fighter gap and what specific other actions are you taking to minimize
    risk should the annual number of 80 prove unattainable?
        General Schwartz. A yearly production rate of 48 F-35A was
    programmed in the FY08 PB based on to fiscal considerations. Production
    was increased from 48 to 80 F-35A aircraft per year in the FY11 PB
    commensurate with an Independent Manufacturing Review Team (IMRT)
    review confirming the feasibility of increasing the production ramp-up
    to 80 F-35A a year.
        The Air Force is also closely monitoring fighter capability and
    capacity shortfalls; conducting full scale fatigue tests (FSFT) on the
    F-15C, and starting a FSFT on the F-16 Block 50 in FY11. These tests
    will increase the accuracy of determining the remaining service life of
    these aircraft, continue to inform service life extension programs
    (SLEP), and define when needed SLEP entails maintaining operational
    viability through capability and structural upgrades. This option for
    the F-16 Block 40-52 aircraft provides essentially the same capability
    as new ``4.5 Generation'' fighters at 10 to 15 percent of the cost.
    SLEP programs for current fighters and aggressive F-35 program
    management will be essential to maintain fighter capability and will be
    reviewed as part of the FY12 budget process.
        Mr. Lamborn. In your testimony, you stated that the initial fighter
    gap numbers were based on a yearly production rate of 48 for the F-35,
    but now you anticipate a production rate of 80. You also mentioned that
    given these new numbers, a ceiling lowering from 2200 to 2024 aircraft
    and 48/yr growing to 80/yr, that the total fighter gap would only be
    200 aircraft which was ``within the realm of the manageable depending
    on what we do to renovate existing airplanes.'' What are your specific
    plans for renovating existing airplanes? Which aircraft are designated
    to receive service life extensions or other modernizations to help make
    sure that the fighter remains in the realm of the manageable? Is the
    money for these upgrades in the existing President's Budget proposal?
    If so, how much by aircraft/upgrade?
        General Schwartz. The AF will continue to modernize and sustain
    legacy fighter aircraft as part of an active force management plan.
    Modernization plans include upgrades to Active Electronically Scanned
    Array (AESA) radars, integration of advanced weapons, development of
    infrared search and track capability, and digital data links to support
    communications and navigation. Specifically for individual platforms:
        A-10 modernization programs include Precision Engagement which
    integrates smart weapons and advanced targeting pods; adds color
    displays, moving map, and Hands-on Throttle and Stick (HOTAS); improves
    mission effectiveness through rapid target acquisition and
    identification. Installations will complete in FY11 at a total program
    cost of $388M. Digital Data Link adds Situational Awareness Data Link
    radios across fleet. These installations will complete in FY10 at a
    total program cost of $55.1M. Mode S/5 will meet international Air
    Traffic Management standards and provide enhanced Identification Friend
    or Foe (IFF) capability. These installations will complete in FY13 at a
    total program cost of $40.1M. Extended Duration Covert Infrared
    Countermeasures System which automates identification of infrared
    surface-to-air threats and dispensing of countermeasures are funded
    within the FY11 OCO, with installations completing in FY12 at a total
    program cost of $63.7M.
        A-10 life extension programs include Service Life Extension Program
    (SLEP) which is scheduled after 8,000 flying hours and provides
    detailed structural evaluation and repair. It also includes Scheduled
    Structural Inspection (SSI) which follows SLEP at 2,000 flying-hour
    intervals as well as the Wing Replacement Program (WRP) that replaces
    233 thin-skin wings with redesigned thick-skin wing incorporating a
    number of structural improvements. Thin-skin wings will be replaced
    during SLEP/SSI, starting in 4th Qtr FY10 with installations (funded
    with Operation and Maintenance dollars) complete in FY16 at a total
    program cost of $1.2B.
        F-16 modernization programs include integration of new precision
    weapons, advanced targeting pods, and improved avionics. It is included
    in the FY11 PB request at $84.5M (RDT&E). $31.7M for Falcon STAR (APAF)
    to bring life-limiting components to the planned service life of 8,000
    equivalent flight hours and $20M (RDT&E) to initiate a full scale
    fatigue test to scope the additional modifications required to extend
    the life of the newer F-16s (Blocks 40-52) beyond their design life of
    8,000 equivalent flight hours. Funding to complete the full scale
    fatigue test and to do other F-16 upgrades will be addressed in future
    budgets.
        The F-15 has funded upgrade programs to address both operational
    effectiveness and sustainment. Both F-15C/D and F-15E have existing
    programs that will replace legacy mechanically-scanned radars with
    Active Electronically Scanned Array (AESA) radars. AESA radars provide
    a significant improvement in reliability and maintainability while
    giving the aircraft a radar that has greater power, range and
    versatility. Also, both F-15C/D and F-15E are receiving an upgraded
    computer to allow the aircraft to use the full capabilities of the new
    radars. All four of these programs will extend past the Fiscal Year
    Defense Plan (FYDP), but the estimated costs are: F-15C/D AESA radar
    $1.5B, F-15C/D computer $180M, F-15E AESA radar $2.5B, and F-15E
    computer $165M.
        Other modernization upgrades include a new Infrared Search and
    Track (IRST) sensor, under development, for the F-15C/D to provide
    target tracking and engagement data to supplement the radar for an
    estimated $400M; satellite communications for both F-15 C/D and F-15E
    for an estimated $65M and $60M, respectively. Also new solid state data
    recorders are replacing old magnetic tape recorders for approximately
    $56M.
        Sustainment upgrades are critical, especially given the extended
    service life expected of the F-15. Each aircraft undergoes Programmed
    Depot Maintenance in which the aircraft are periodically fully
    inspected for wear-related damage. Additionally, the Air Force has just
    started a full scale teardown, and a full scale fatigue test of the F-
    15C. These tests will provide data needed to plan the sustainment of
    the aircraft in the future. The F-15E is scheduled to start these
    efforts as soon as they are completed on the F-15C/D.
        Mr. Lamborn. In your testimony regarding Operational Responsive
    Space (ORS), you stated that another approach to space resilience is
    ``being able to discern whether our platforms on orbit are at risk or
    are being threatened.'' I am glad to see these Space Situational
    Awareness initiatives have received a plus up in funding, but at the
    same time our defensive and offensive programs to respond to these
    threats, our space control programs, received a 40% decrease from FY10
    funding (206.1 million down to 124.0 million). My concern is that we
    will know we are being attacked, but due to these cuts, we will be
    unable to react. Were the cuts in the space control budget primarily to
    offensive or defensive capabilities? Which programs were cut and what
    was the reasoning behind the cuts?
        General Schwartz. The space domain is becoming more congested and
    contested, which is why it is increasingly important to focus on
    developing a more capable Space Situational Awareness (SSA) capability
    with decision support tools, the foundation for all space control
    activities. These SSA and decision support capabilities will allow us
    to evaluate threats and take appropriate actions. Space control
    capabilities are a valuable element of our space portfolio. The
    reduction in funding from $92.1M in FY10 to $65.9M in FY11 was planned
    primarily due to the Rapid Attack Identification and Reporting System
    transitioning from development to the sustainment/enhancement phase and
    the Counter Communications System conducting a pre-planned product
    improvement incremental improvement vice a new development effort.
        Mr. Lamborn. The Army's procurement request includes $506.31
    million to buy 26 MQ-1 Predator UAVs. I understand the vital role UAVs
    play in the current fight and our national defense. I also know that
    the U.S. Army currently fields and flies many smaller UAVs, but the
    United States Air Force has been the DOD lead in Predator operations.
    Was the Air Force consulted in the Army's Predator procurement plan?
    Will these Predators offset the number of CAPs the Air Force has been
    tasked to produce (50 in FY10 and 65 by FY11)?
        General Schwartz. The Air Force was generally aware of the Army's
    plan to procure the MQ-1 to address their organic Service needs, but
    was not ``consulted'' directly. The Air Force program will not be
    offset by the Army procurement. The Air Force has been tasked and is on
    track to provide 50 MQ-1/9 CAPs by the end of FY11 and 65 by the end of
    FY13.
                                     ______

                       QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. BRIGHT

        Mr. Bright. Secretary Donley: Several years ago, the Air Force
    established the Application Software Assurance Center of Excellence
    (ASACoE) at Maxwell AFB--Gunter Annex in Montgomery, Alabama. I have
    toured the facility and been briefed on the Center's activities. I
    greatly value the work they are doing to provide application-level
    security to protect us from cyber attacks. As such, I have several
    questions related to the Center's mission, operation and funding. 1)
    Can you explain the goals and objectives of the Center and how you plan
    to achieve those goals and objectives? 2) My understanding is that a
    major focus of the Center's mission has been to develop application-
    level security best practices that can be put in place Air Force-wide.
    Does this remain a primary focus? 3) What progress has been made
    towards reaching this objective? 4) As the Center has been in operation
    since 2007, can you tell me what are some of the more significant
    findings that have come from the work at the Center? 5) Can you also
    explain how the Center will be aligned within the structure of the new
    Cyber Security Command that was recently stood up? 6) What is the long
    term plan for providing manpower and funding to complete the Center's
    mission? 7) Also with respect to funding, could you tell me how much
    funding is included in the FY2011 President's Budget to operate the
    Center and conduct the evaluations? 8) Moreover, at this funding level,
    how many applications will you be able to evaluate? 9) Finally, if you
    had additional resources, would you be able to move faster in
    evaluating the applications?
        Secretary Donley. 1) The Application Software Assurance Center of
    Excellence (ASACoE) was established to help promote and assess software
    assurance (SwA) in the Air Force. The goals and objectives of ASACoE
    are to: partner with application development program offices to
    identify SwA issues and mitigations; foster SwA knowledge; support SwA
    as part of certification and accreditation; establish a framework to
    support the acquisition and development of assured software products
    and assist governing bodies with developing SwA policy. ASACoE has been
    evolving to achieve these goals and objectives over the last 2 years.
    Our current model utilizes SwA training and education, automated SwA
    tools and licensing, on-site SwA assessments, and follow-on support.
        2) Yes, the primary objective of the ASACoE remains to improve upon
    the assurance of combat and mission support applications and their
    underlying data.
        3) To date, ASACoE has partnered with over 120 separate program
    management offices (PMOs) providing SwA training and evaluation for
    over 500 applications. This resulted in identifying approx 3.5 million
    software vulnerabilities and gave the PMOs the training and tools
    needed to fix those current vulnerabilities and prevent future
    vulnerabilities.
        4) ASACoE focused on the most vulnerable systems and applications,
    which are web-based. Additionally, the ASACoE has, aided with the
    security of our more secure, critical systems, such as the embedded
    systems of our weapons arsenal and classified systems of our strategic
    and intelligence forces. The ASACoE found every application assessed
    has software vulnerabilities, with 99% of the applications assessed
    having what we categorize as critical vulnerabilities. A critical
    vulnerability is one that would allow a potential hacker to gain
    elevated access to the application and/or its data. The top three
    vulnerabilities found in Air Force applications are: cross-site
    scripting, SQL injection, and trust boundary violation (excessive
    privilege). The data suggests that the Department of Defense must focus
    on securing the work of the net (applications and data structures) in
    addition to the network itself. Our ASACoE effort was listed as an OSD
    best practice in the ``Report on Trusted Defense Systems'' prepared by
    USD(AT&L) and ASD(NII)/DOD CIO submitted to Congress in September 2009.
        5) Currently the ASACoE continues to be aligned under Air Force
    Materiel Command. Any future re-alignment has not been determined.
        6) Currently, the Air Force is evaluating the best way to provide
    SwA. This includes evaluating the most cost effective and qualitative
    way to ensure that SwA is performed on all existing and future
    applications. This includes evaluating whether to centrally perform SwA
    evaluation or require it to be performed by each application owner and
    developer.
        7) There is currently no FY2011 funding identified. ASACoE has been
    operating from unfunded requests. There are currently efforts being
    made to secure funding for ASACoE if it is the most cost effective and
    qualitative solution for SwA.
        8) No FY2011 funding is identified. The Air Force is evaluating the
    best way to provide SwA.
        9) The ASACoE is conducting market research to develop a
    streamlined concept of operations that would allow the Air Force to
    assess the approximately 3,000-5,000 web applications in existence
    today. In this revised concept, the team is reviewing the use/
    development of a web-based portal to upload source code to allow the
    completion of a rapid triage assessment for these applications within a
    10-16 month period. This could allow expansion to potentially enhance
    quick scan capabilities, improve prioritization for services, and
    improve the training curriculum.