[Senate Hearing 111-]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2010
----------
THURSDAY, JUNE 4, 2009
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met at 10:30 a.m., in room SD-138, Dirksen
Senate Office Building, Hon. Daniel K. Inouye (chairman)
presiding.
Present: Senators Inouye, Dorgan, Murray, Cochran, Bond,
Shelby, and Bennett.
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE
Office of the Secretary
STATEMENTS OF:
HON. MICHAEL B. DONLEY, SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE
GENERAL NORTON A. SCHWARTZ, CHIEF OF STAFF, UNITED STATES AIR
FORCE
OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN DANIEL K. INOUYE
Chairman Inouye. This morning, the subcommittee convenes to
hear testimony from the Air Force on its budget request for
fiscal year 2010, and I am pleased to welcome the Secretary of
the Air Force, the Honorable Michael Donley, and the Chief of
Staff of the Air Force, General Norton Schwartz.
Gentlemen, welcome. And I realize this is your first time
here, but I can assure you that we are looking forward to
working with you in the coming years because we believe that
the Air Force is a very important part not just of the defense
community, but of the United States.
So let me begin by commending you both for the measures
taken to strengthen stewardship of the Air Force's nuclear
arsenal. The fiscal year 2010 budget includes several key
improvements, including an increase in personnel for the
nuclear mission and the establishment of the Global Strike
Command. Your leadership has been essential, and we look
forward to continued progress.
For fiscal year 2010, the Air Force is requesting $160.5
billion in the base budget and $16 billion in the overseas
contingency operations budget. This budget submission is
notable in a number of ways.
First, it funds a more robust active duty end strength
level of 331,000 personnel rather than continuing the drawdown
that we have witnessed up until now. It is important to
stabilize the Air Force manpower levels, especially now when
mission demands are increasing.
More personnel will help to meet the needs of irregular
warfare, aerial surveillance support, cyberspace and
acquisition excellence, and in restoring the nuclear
enterprise. The subcommittee will be interested in how the Air
Force plans to allocate personnel across these critical
missions.
It is noteworthy that this budget supports the continued
emphasis on irregular warfare and building up the intelligence,
surveillance, and reconnaissance assets needed in today's
fight. It will increase the Predator and the Reaper unmanned
aerial vehicle (UAV) coverage to 43 combat air patrols. The
budget also supports the training and operation of the MC-12
Liberty ISR aircraft. The Air Force has made great strides in
improving its posture in this mission area.
Third, this budget reflects the hard and controversial
decisions that the Department is making on future investments.
In this request, the F-22 Raptor, the C-17 airlifter, and the
transformational communications satellite programs are
terminated. The joint cargo aircraft program is reduced from 78
to 38 aircraft and is no longer a joint program with the Army.
The request restructures the combat air forces and retires
249 fighter aircraft. The subcommittee will be interested in
understanding both the risks and benefits of these choices.
Gentlemen, I remain concerned about the aging aircraft
fleet, especially the tanker fleet. The average aircraft age is
now over 24 years. The average age of the KC-135 fleet is close
to 50 years. The tanker aircraft must be replaced, and I have
several questions on this program and many others today.
And I look forward to hearing your testimony this morning.
Your full statements will be made part of the record, but
first, I would like to turn it over to the vice chairman of
this subcommittee, Senator Cochran of Mississippi, for any
opening remarks he may wish to make.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR THAD COCHRAN
Senator Cochran. Mr. Chairman, it is a pleasure to work
with you on this important subcommittee and to join you in
welcoming our distinguished witnesses before the subcommittee
today.
The Air Force is playing a unique and important role in the
defense of our Nation. We respect all of you who are involved
in that. We thank you for your dedicated service and bringing
to the challenge the expertise and results of the training and
experience you have had in the defense of our Nation.
The aircraft and forces of the Air Force have been
protecting our Nation's interests in a very remarkable and
praiseworthy way. We especially appreciate the dangers that are
faced in Iraq, Afghanistan, and other areas around the world
where the Air Force is playing a very important and active role
in helping ensure that our Nation's policies succeed in those
areas.
We look forward to hearing your testimony to help us
determine how best to allocate the resources that are available
to this subcommittee for the Air Force in carrying out your
missions.
Thank you very much.
Chairman Inouye. Thank you very much.
Senator Bond.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR CHRISTOPHER S. BOND
Senator Bond. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
And I join with the chairman in congratulating you on the
good work you are doing to restore the reliability and
assurance of our Nation's nuclear mission, and we welcome
Secretary Donley. We thank both of you for your distinguished
service.
Gentlemen, as you know, we have had discussions about
concerns over the tactical fighter's air shortfalls and, as the
chair mentioned, 24 years age on the Air Force fleet. Last
year, before the Airland Subcommittee of SASC, the Air Force
testified it was facing a shortfall of 800 plus aircraft Air
Force wide. And the Air National Guard testified that over the
next 8 to 9 years, Air Guard is facing a fighter shortfall that
will result in 80 percent of the aircraft used to defend the
skies of the United States, the Air Sovereignty Alert mission,
being retired.
And it is clear from what the Government Accountability
Office (GAO) has told us that accelerating the Joint Strike
Fighter (JSF) will not prevent the fighter gap. In March of
this year, GAO concluded it would cost $33 billion to
accelerate the JSF program and said, ``Accelerating procurement
in a cost reimbursement contract environment, where
uncertainties in contract performance do not permit costs to be
estimated with sufficient accuracy to use any type of fixed-
price contract, places very significant financial risk on the
Government.''
My view, now is not the time to be placing significant
financial risk on the Government, and it is never time to place
the country at a security risk. But it is my view that is what
the present budget is proposing.
I know a lot of people will talk about the Quadrennial
Defense Review (QDR), but as in years past, we have seen that.
We have got the T-shirt. I know that it will be an attempt to
justify the budget reductions by saying we don't need as many
fighters. It is a massive budget drill. But none of that
analysis--I will review that when it comes out--will be
available in time for this budget session.
So I remain convinced and we will discuss whether it is
time to rethink the plan. JSF is too big to fail. So we are not
going to let it go, but is it time to look at an 85 percent
solution at one-half to two-thirds of the cost, giving the Air
Force the proven platforms that will bridge us to the time, if
and when, the JSF can complete its mission?
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Inouye. Thank you.
Senator Shelby.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR RICHARD C. SHELBY
Senator Shelby. And I just want to say welcome to Secretary
Donley and General Schwartz, and I look forward to their
testimony. And of course, I have some questions, especially, as
the chairman mentioned, in dealing with the tanker competition.
And also, Mr. Secretary, with the UAVs and so forth. We will
get into that after your testimony.
Thank you.
Chairman Inouye. Mr. Secretary?
SUMMARY STATEMENT OF HON. MICHAEL B. DONLEY
Mr. Donley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Senator Cochran,
members of the subcommittee.
It is, indeed, a privilege to be with you today to testify
on the fiscal year 2010 budget and Air Force's future plans.
It has been almost a year since General Schwartz and I took
on these roles, and I will tell you that it has been both a
pleasure and a privilege to work with General Schwartz in this
effort. He has been an outstanding partner and wingman in our
work together over the last year.
In recent months, Secretary Gates and Admiral Mullen led a
constructive dialogue about necessary changes in our national
defense priorities and areas of emphasis. Our discussions
emphasized taking care of our most important asset, which is
our people; rebalancing our capabilities to fight and win the
current and most likely conflicts in front of us, while also
hedging against other risks and contingencies; and reforming
how and what we buy.
We have contributed our analysis and judgment to these
discussions throughout. With OSD and our sister services and
interagency partners, we have undertaken several strategic
reviews of the Air Force in the last year.
AIR FORCE STRATEGIC PRIORITIES
Last fall, we refined the Air Force mission statement,
articulated our five strategic priorities, and refined the core
functions of the Air Force to more clearly articulate our role
in the defense and national security establishment. We also
made progress in areas that required focused attention in the
near term, such as strengthening the Air Force's nuclear
enterprise, preparing to stand up our cyber numbered air force,
articulating our strategy for irregular warfare and
counterinsurgency operations, consolidating our approach in the
Air Force for global partnerships, and advancing stewardship of
our energy program.
Our reviews were guided by the concept of strategic
balance, which has several meanings for us. As Secretary Gates
and Admiral Mullen have described, balance means prevailing in
today's fight while also being able to respond across the
spectrum of conflict to emerging hybrid threats.
Balance also means allocating investment across our 12
diverse, but complementary core functions, and balance also
means organizing training and equipping across the Air Force
components--active, Guard, Reserve, and our civilian workforce
as well.
AIR FORCE PERSONNEL
Our budget proposal recognizes that our people are the
heart and soul of America's Air Force, and without them, our
organizations and equipment would simply grind to a halt. In
fiscal year 2010, we are reversing previously planned
reductions in Air Force active duty end strength with
commensurate adjustments in the Reserve components as well. We
will also grow our civilian cadre, with focused attention on
the acquisition workforce.
At the same time, we will continue to reshape our skill
sets, with particular emphasis on stressed career fields and
missions that need our attention now, such as intelligence,
surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR); acquisition;
maintenance; cyber operations; and nuclear matters.
For fiscal year 2010, we are also driving more balance into
our force structure. In theater, the demand for ISR and special
operations capabilities continues to increase. So we will
increase unmanned aerial system combat air patrols, as the
chairman mentioned, from 34 today to 43 by the end of fiscal
year 2010, as well as increase our special operations forces
end strength by about 550 personnel.
AIR FORCE COMBAT CAPABILITY
We also took a broader strategic look at the total combat
Air Force capability, and there is a general view in the
Department's leadership that the United States has enough
tactical air capability. With that in mind, we determined that
this was a prudent opportunity to accelerate the retirement of
older aircraft, as we have done in this budget.
As a result, we will reshape the portfolio of the fighter
force by retiring about 250 of our oldest tactical fighters. We
will complete the production of the F-22 fighter at 187
aircraft and continue our planned modernization of the F-22
going forward. And we are readying another fifth generation
fighter, the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, to become the workhorse
of our new fighter fleet in the future.
We will ensure balance for joint airlift needs by
completing the C-17 production, subject to continued
congressional action in that area, continuing to modernize our
C-5s, reinitiating the C-130J production line, and
transitioning the C-27J program office from the Army to the Air
Force.
In particular, the Department made a judgment that the 316
strategic airlift tails in the program of record is adequate to
meet our needs. We also conducted a business case analysis that
identified alternatives to improve our current strategic
airlift fleet at less cost than simply buying more C-17s. We
know that is an issue with Congress, and we look forward to
further discussions with you on that subject.
Our plan is to enhance the stability and remove risk in our
military satellite communications (SATCOM) programs by
extending our advanced extremely high frequency (AEHF) and
wideband global SATCOM (WGS) inventories and continuing our
partnerships with commercial providers.
While AEHF does not give us all the capabilities projected
for the transformational satellite (TSAT) program, additional
AEHF and WGS satellites provide additional SATCOM capability
until we can gain confidence about the affordability and the
requirements for TSAT-like capabilities in the future.
AIR FORCE ACQUISITION
We have also placed additional emphasis on Air Force
acquisition. We recently published an acquisition improvement
plan to focus our efforts in several key areas. First,
revitalizing the Air Force acquisition workforce. Second,
improving our requirements generation process. Third,
instilling more budget and financial discipline in our work.
Fourth, improving Air Force major system source selections in
the Air Force. And last, establishing clear lines of authority
and accountability within our acquisition organizations.
We will continue to work on these issues going forward with
Secretary Gates and Dr. Carter.
Over the coming months, we will, of course, participate in
several major reviews underway in the Department--the QDR, the
nuclear and space posture reviews. And from these analyses, we
will better understand the needs, the requirements, and
available technologies for long-range strike, as well as our
requirements and potential joint solutions for personnel
recovery.
PREPARED STATEMENT
Mr. Chairman, stewardship of the United States Air Force is
a responsibility that we take very seriously, and we know this
subcommittee does as well. We thank you for your support for
our airmen and for our national security in general, and we
look forward to the continued support of this subcommittee and
working with you in the future.
Thank you.
Chairman Inouye. I thank you very much, Mr. Secretary.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of the Honorable Michael B. Donley and General
Norton A. Schwartz
The 2009 Air Force Posture Statement articulates our vision of an
Air Force ready to fulfill the commitments of today and face the
challenges of tomorrow through strong stewardship, continued precision
and reliability, and dedication to persistent Global Vigilance, Reach
and Power for the Nation.
INTRODUCTION
Today, the United States faces a spectrum of challenges to our
national security and global interests. As an integral member of the
Joint team, America's Air Force provides the critical capabilities of
Global Vigilance, Global Reach, and Global Power. The U.S. Air Force is
``All In'' today's Joint fight. At the same time, our investments in
new capabilities will ensure we are ready for tomorrow's challenges.
The mission of the U.S. Air Force is to ``fly, fight, and win . . . in
air, space and cyberspace''--as an integral member of the Joint team
that ensures our Nation's freedom and security.
A BALANCED APPROACH
Today's uncertain international security environment requires a
balance-driven approach to prevail in today's operations, and prepare
for tomorrow's challenges by identifying and investing in new
capabilities and force structure. This balanced approach postures the
Air Force to provide an array of capabilities to Combatant Commanders
across the spectrum of conflict--from building partnership capacity to
ensuring the readiness of strategic deterrence forces.
AIR FORCE CORE FUNCTIONS
Our Air Force's foremost responsibility is to organize, train, and
equip Airmen to meet the needs of our national leadership and Combatant
Commanders. Our fiscal year 2010 budget proposal reflects a commitment
to the 12 Air Force Core Functions, which provide the framework for
investment and training.
Air Force Core Functions
Nuclear Deterrence Operations
Air Superiority
Space Superiority
Cyberspace Superiority
Global Precision Attack
Rapid Global Mobility
Special Operations
Global Integrated ISR
Command and Control
Personnel Recovery
Building Partnerships
Agile Combat Support
The Air Force fiscal year 2010 budget proposal reflects a
commitment to our Core Functions that will be informed by numerous
reviews of the overall defense-planning construct. Through the
Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR), the Nuclear Posture Review (NPR), the
Space Posture Review (SPR) and internal mid-term reviews, we will
continue to sharpen and institutionalize our Core Functions. These
capabilities, combined with the extraordinary commitment and dedication
of our Airmen, provide our Nation with truly exceptional air, space,
and cyber power.
NUCLEAR DETERRENCE OPERATIONS
For more than 60 years, the Air Force has proudly served as
stewards of a large portion of our Nation's nuclear arsenal. We
operate, maintain and secure these nuclear forces to deter potential
adversaries and to prevail if deterrence fails. Recent incidents and
assessments have highlighted performance shortfalls, and we are
diligently working to ensure the safety, security, and reliability
demanded for this vital capability.
Our fiscal year 2010 budget proposal addresses many of the
recommendations provided by the various assessments of the Air Force
nuclear enterprise. Our overall investment in nuclear deterrence
operations in fiscal year 2010 is $4.9 billion, which includes
increasing nuclear related personnel by 2,500 and adding a fourth B-52
squadron. The fiscal year 2010 budget proposal places additional
emphasis on nuclear weapons security, committing $72 million to
strengthen the physical integrity of our Weapon Storage Areas.
Through a back-to-basics approach, the Air Force is re-emphasizing
accountability, compliance, and precision in the nuclear enterprise. We
are reorganizing our nuclear forces in a manner that reduces
fragmentation of authority and establishes clear chains of supervision
for nuclear sustainment, surety and operations. These changes include:
(1) consolidating all nuclear sustainment matters under the Air Force
Nuclear Weapons Center; (2) establishing a new Air Staff nuclear
directorate responsible for policy oversight and integration of our
nuclear enterprise activities; and (3) standing up Air Force Global
Strike Command, which is already operating in a provisional status at
an interim location. Global Strike Command will consolidate Air Force
Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles and nuclear-capable bombers under a
single command, and is on track to activate later this year.
AIR SUPERIORITY AND GLOBAL PRECISION ATTACK
Air Superiority and Global Precision Attack remain the foundations
of our ability to deliver Global Power. In fiscal year 2010, we are
investing $21 billion into these Core Functions.
New and unprecedented challenges to our Nation's Air Superiority
continue to emerge, and threaten to remove the technological advantage
enjoyed by our Air Force. Our adversaries continue to invest in highly
capable surface-to-air missile technology, which threatens even our
most advanced combat aircraft. Likewise, emerging adversaries may now
pose a significant air threat by leveraging inexpensive technology to
modify existing airframes with improved radars, sensors, jammers, and
weapons.
To meet these challenges and assure freedom of movement for the
Joint team, the Air Force continues to invest in weapons and platforms
for Global Precision Attack. The Joint Air Surface Standoff Missile--
Extended Range, will enable our aircrews to attack targets precisely
while negating or avoiding surface threats. Similarly, the Laser Joint
Direct Attack Munition will enhance our capability to strike moving or
static targets efficiently and precisely.
The F-22 and F-35 are key components of the Air Force's future Air
Superiority and Global Precision Attack Core Functions. Given their
low-observable characteristics and ability to fuse information from
multiple sensors--key components of their 5th Generation designs--these
aircraft are far more survivable and lethal than our current 4th
Generation force. While the F-35 is optimal for Global Precision
Attack, it also serves as a complementary capability to the F-22, which
is optimal for Air Superiority. Together, they form the backbone of a
fighter force that will ensure the United States maintains a decisive
edge in an increasingly lethal threat environment. We support the
current investment strategy that ends F-22 production at 187 aircraft.
The Air Force will invest $4.1 billion in fiscal year 2010 to procure
10 F-35s as part of the Department of Defense's strategy to ramp up
production. By accelerating the procurement ramp, we can lower unit
procurement costs while also making the platform more cost competitive
for our Coalition partners.
Our fiscal year 2010 budget proposal accelerates the integration of
our Guard and Reserve components into new and emerging mission sets,
including unmanned aerial systems, F-22 and F-35 missions. By
considering Air National Guard and Air Force Reserve Command for
inclusion in emerging mission areas and basing strategies, we
capitalize on the experience and unique skill sets that our Air Reserve
Components contribute to the Total Force.
We are also modernizing our existing bomber force to increase its
effectiveness and survivability against emerging threats, while meeting
the requirements of today's Joint Force Commanders. We have fielded a
state-of-the-art infrared, electro-optical targeting pod on the B-1 to
provide an additional, persistent sensor on the battlefield to self-
target weapons, or provide real-time streaming video to ground forces.
We are also modernizing our B-2 fleet by improving the radar,
integrating the Link-16 data link and adding extremely high frequency
satellite communication capabilities for nuclear command and control.
In addition, investments in low observable maintenance improvements
will decrease sustainment costs and reduce aircraft downtime. In
accordance with the Secretary of Defense's budget guidance, we will not
pursue the development of the Next Generation Bomber until we have a
better understanding of the requirements, technologies, and concept of
operations for this capability--all of which are expected to be
addressed in the QDR.
Restructuring Our Combat Air Forces
This year, the Department of Defense provided guidance for the
military to eliminate excessive overmatch in our tactical fighter force
and consider alternatives in our capabilities. Acting on this guidance,
the Air Force examined emerging, advanced threats and then analyzed our
Combat Air Forces' capabilities against them. Our intent was to ensure
the proper mix of platforms that meet requirements while minimizing
excess inventory and deriving the most capability from our limited
resources.
After a comprehensive review of alternatives, the Air Force saw an
opportunity to reshape our aging fighter force via an accelerated
retirement of our oldest legacy fighters. The review weighed the
benefits of retiring aircraft nearing their expected service life,
against near-term risk. The analysis also considered the ``game-
changing'' capabilities of low observable platforms like the B-2, F-22,
and F-35 that possess the ability to access areas defended by advanced
surface-to-air missile systems.
Once the size and scope of the reduction was determined, the Air
Force presented its implementation plan to the Combatant Commanders,
Joint Staff and the Office of the Secretary of Defense. Accelerating
the retirement of roughly 250 legacy F-15s, F-16s, and A-10s enables us
to redistribute over $3.5 billion in the next 6 years to modernize our
Combat Air Forces into a smaller, but more capable force--one that is
balanced across our Active and Reserve Components and meets our
commitments at home and abroad. This restructuring also facilitates the
movement of approximately 4,000 manpower positions that will be
realigned to support growth in priority missions such as manned and
unmanned aerial surveillance systems, ISR support, and the nuclear
enterprise.
Our current fleet of legacy and 5th Generation aircraft represent
our readiness to fulfill today's commitments, while our fiscal year
2010 budget proposal invests in a future force mix to meet tomorrow's
challenges.
RAPID GLOBAL MOBILITY
Global Reach ensures our Joint team can deploy, maneuver and
sustain large forces on a global scale. In Iraq and Afghanistan, Air
Force air mobility assets are central to sustaining the Joint and
Coalition team. On any given day, Air Force C-5s deliver life-saving
Mine Resistant Ambush Protected vehicles into theater; C-17s airdrop
critical supplies to forward-based ground forces via the revolutionary
GPS-aided Joint Precision Airdrop System; and C-130s provide tactical
airlift to move theater-based personnel and equipment. Highly skilled
aeromedical transport teams swiftly evacuate combat casualties,
ensuring our wounded warriors receive the best possible medical care.
And Air Force air refueling aircraft continue to play a vital, daily
role in extending the range and persistence of almost all other
aircraft of the Joint force. The fiscal year 2010 budget proposal
reflects our commitment to sustaining and modernizing these critical
national capabilities.
Replacing the aging KC-135 fleet remains the Air Force's top
acquisition priority. The fiscal year 2010 budget proposal supports the
release of a request for proposal in summer 2009 with a contract award
early in fiscal year 2010.
The fiscal year 2010 budget proposal continues efforts for
modernization and includes funding to begin the shut down of the C-17
production with a fleet of 205 aircraft. Modernization of our C-5 fleet
continues through the Avionics Modernization Program and Reliability
Enhancement and Re-engining Programs, and during fiscal year 2010 we
will continue recapitalizing our intra-theater airlift capability by
re-initiating the C-130J production line following one year procurement
gap and procuring three C-130J aircraft for $394 million.
The Air Force will also begin procuring C-27J in fiscal year 2010
to provide mission-critical/time-sensitive airlift in direct support of
our Joint partners. The fiscal year 2010 budget proposal procures 8 C-
27Js, as the first step toward a total procurement of 38 C-27Js. The
Air Force continues to work closely with the U.S. Army to accept full
management of the Joint Cargo Aircraft (JCA) program and the direct
support airlift mission.
SPECIAL OPERATIONS
Air Force special operations capabilities are playing an
increasingly vital role in supporting U.S. Special Operations Command
(USSOCOM) and geographical Combatant Commanders. We are also responding
to significant growth in the requirements for Irregular Warfare (IW)
capabilities with major investments in special operations airlift,
close air support and Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance
(ISR).
Our fiscal year 2010 budget proposal reflects the Air Force's
commitment to special operations capabilities, and includes $862.6
million for the procurement of 4 MC-130Js and 5 CV-22s. AFSOC will
expand its special operations ISR force structure by activating a
squadron of MQ-9 Reapers, in addition to the already operational MQ-1
Predator squadron. Additionally, we are recapitalizing our MC-130E/P
fleet with newer, more capable MC-130Js for low-level air refueling,
infiltration, exfiltration and resupply of special operations forces.
At the same time, we will convert 8 MC-130Ws to AC-130 gunships, and
procure additional CV-22s.
GLOBAL INTEGRATED ISR
Operations in Iraq and Afghanistan have highlighted the increasing
need for timely, fused data from all available sources. To meet this
need, we are greatly expanding our airborne ISR force structure of
manned and unmanned ISR assets. In fiscal year 2009, we will field the
MC-12W to provide increased full-motion video and signals intelligence.
Additionally, our fiscal year 2010 budget proposal continues major
investments in unmanned aircraft, transitioning from the MQ-1 Predator
to the MQ-9 Reaper, with $489 million for 24 additional MQ-9s to
increase our total UAS combat air patrols from 34 CAPs today to our
goal of 50 CAPs by the end of fiscal year 2011. We are also investing
$84 million to integrate the Wide Area Airborne Surveillance (WAAS)
onto existing and new MQ-9s, providing 12 times the number of streaming
video spots per aircraft. Our fiscal year 2010 budget proposal also
contains funding for five RQ-4 Global Hawk UAVs, which provide
persistent ISR from high-altitude orbits. We are also balancing our ISR
personnel requirements by re-examining our training programs for
intelligence professionals, creating new duty specialty codes, and
establishing trial programs to develop ISR operators.
COMMAND AND CONTROL
The Air Force has established Air and Space Operations Centers
(AOCs) aligned with each geographical Combatant Commander to integrate
air, space, cyber, and missile defense capabilities into Joint
operations. We have also improved our Tactical Air Control System
(TACS) to account for increasingly distributed air-ground operations in
Iraq and Afghanistan. Our restructured Air Liaison Officer program
offers these Airmen a viable career path. We are also training
additional terminal air controllers and equipping them with
increasingly capable, portable and flexible air strike control systems
like Remote Operated Video Receiver (ROVER) version 5.
SPACE SUPERIORITY
America's ability to operate effectively across the spectrum of
conflict rests heavily on our space capabilities. Recognizing this
importance, our fiscal year 2010 budget proposal includes $4.4 billion
for procurement of space and related support systems.
The Joint force depends upon space capabilities provided by the Air
Force, which fall into five key areas: Early Warning; Space Situational
Awareness; Military Satellite Communications; Positioning, Navigation
and Timing; and Weather capabilities. We will field several new
satellites, including the Global Positioning System Block IIF, Advanced
Extremely High Frequency (AEHF), Space Based Surveillance System
(SBSS), and the Space Based Infrared System--Geostationary (SBIRS-
Geo)--recapitalization programs that are important to both the United
States and its Allies. The fiscal year 2010 budget proposal
discontinues the Transformational Satellite (TSAT) program and supports
procurement of additional AEHF and Wideband Global SATCOM (WGS)
satellites.
CYBERSPACE SUPERIORITY
Operating within the cyber domain has become an increasingly
critical requirement for our networked force. In order to develop and
institutionalize cyberspace capabilities, and to better integrate them
into the Joint cyberspace structure, we are consolidating many Air
Force cyberspace operations into a new 24th Air Force under Air Force
Space Command. The Air Force is firmly committed to developing the
necessary capabilities to defend the cyber domain, and our fiscal year
2010 budget proposal includes $2.3 billion to grow this important Core
Function.
PERSONNEL RECOVERY
Personnel Recovery (PR) remains an imperative, fulfilling our
promise to never leave an American behind. Air Force PR forces are
fully engaged in Iraq and Afghanistan, accomplishing crucial missions
that include command and control, intelligence, CSAR, convoy support,
hostage recovery, and reintegration.
The fiscal year 2010 budget proposal terminates the current CSAR-X
program to allow for additional discussion on platform requirements and
quantities across the Joint force. We will continue to sustain our HH-
60 helicopter fleet, while exploring Joint solutions to ensure
sufficient PR capabilities in the coming years. We are continuing to
extend our current capabilities by recapitalizing our HC-130P/N fleet
with newer, more capable HC-130Js to provide low-level air refueling,
infiltration, exfiltration, and resupply of CSAR forces. In fiscal year
2010, we will invest $605 million to procure an additional five HC-
130Js.
BUILDING PARTNERSHIPS
The Air Force continues to seek opportunities to develop our
partnerships around the world, and to enhance our long-term
capabilities through security cooperation. For example, in the Central
Command AOR, deployed Airmen are working with our Afghan and Iraqi
partners to build a new Afghan National Army Air Corps and the Iraqi
Air Force. We are also working to further partnerships with more
established allies, with programs like the Joint Strike Fighter, where
our allies have committed $4.5 billion in research and development
funding. Australia's commitment to fund a communications satellite in
the WGS constellation is another example of the value and synergy of
lasting partnerships.
In the recently released Global Partnership Strategy, we outlined a
path to cultivate these key partnerships, nurturing the global
relations, fortifying our geographic access, safety and security around
the world. The strategy seeks to develop partners who are able to
defend their respective territories while ensuring the interoperability
and integration necessary for Coalition operations.
AGILE COMBAT SUPPORT
Underpinning the work of all Air Force Core Functions are the
capabilities included in Agile Combat Support. As part of our fiscal
year 2010 budget proposal initiatives, Agile Combat Support accounts
for efforts affecting our entire Air Force, from the development and
training of our Airmen to revitalizing our processes in the acquisition
enterprise. Agile Combat Support reflects a large portion of the Air
Force budget proposal, totaling approximately $42 billion.
Developing and Caring for Airmen and Their Families
The Air Force remains committed to recruiting and retaining the
world's highest quality force, while meeting the needs of their
families. Our fiscal year 2010 budget proposal enables us to recruit,
train, educate, and retain the right number and mix of personnel, and
to provide Quality of Service worthy of our Airmen's commitment to
serve in the Armed Forces of the United States and supports an end
strength of 331,700 active duty personnel.
Sharpening Our Skills
Our fiscal year 2010 budget proposal enables us to train Airmen to
fulfill both our Core Functions and the Combatant Commander's
requirements. These changes span the vast array of skill sets, from
improving language and cultural instruction to accelerated training for
network operators. In fiscal year 2010, we will also enhance
foundational training received by all enlisted personnel entering the
Air Force by constructing a $32 million state-of-the-art training
facility at Lackland Air Force Base.
Quality of Service
The Air Force leadership is committed not only to the quality of
life of our Airmen and families, but also to their Quality of Service--
ensuring each Airman is able to perform consistently meaningful work
and make a daily impact on the Air Force mission.
We also understand the burdens placed on the families of our
Airmen. To meet the needs of our Airmen and their families, our fiscal
year 2010 budget proposal funds a range of needed Quality of Life
initiatives, including expanded legal assistance, advanced educational
opportunities and new family housing. For example, our fiscal year 2010
budget proposal invests $20 million to build two new Child Development
Centers, as well as $66 million to improve and modernize military
family housing overseas. The Air Force is also continuing to execute
its Family Housing Master Plan, which synchronizes the military
construction, operations and maintenance, and privatization efforts
necessary to improve our family housing. By fiscal year 2010, we will
have all the funds necessary to award the privatization and MILCON
projects needed to eliminate all of our inadequate homes, both in the
United States and abroad--with all projects scheduled to be completed
by fiscal year 2015. To this end, we are on track to award contracts to
privatize 100 percent of Military Family Housing in the CONUS, Hawaii,
Alaska, and Guam by the end of fiscal year 2010. For Airmen concerned
about foreclosure, we provide assistance at the Airmen and Family
Readiness Center at each Air Force installation. Additionally, we are
working with the Department of Defense as it expands the Homeowners
Assistance Program to wounded warriors/civilians, surviving spouses,
and eligible military members affected by permanent changes of station.
Shaping the Force
America's Air Force draws its strength from its outstanding Airmen,
with over 660,000 members of our Regular, Reserve, Guard, and Civilian
personnel dedicated to the mission of the Air Force. In accordance with
the Secretary of Defense's guidance, we will halt active duty manpower
reductions at 331,700 for fiscal year 2010. We will also make
commensurate adjustments in the Reserve Components, with 69,500 Airmen
in the Air Force Reserve and 106,700 Airmen in the Air National Guard.
We will also grow our Civilian cadre to 179,152, which includes 4,200
contractor-to-civilian conversions.
Retaining quality Airmen with critical skill sets remains a top
priority. For fiscal year 2010, we have proposed $641.4 million for
retention bonuses and recruiting, which includes a $88.3 million
increase for recruiting and retaining health professionals. In
addition, we will retrain Airmen to fill undermanned career fields to
balance and shape our force in accordance with emerging requirements.
Further efforts to shape our force will also include diversity
initiatives designed to leverage the unique qualities of all Airmen to
achieve mission excellence.
Warrior Care
As part of our commitment to Airmen, we, in collaboration with the
rest of the Department of Defense, are strengthening our focus on
wounded warrior care. The importance of ensuring that our wounded
warriors receive the service and support they need throughout the
recovery process cannot be overstated. Through specific budget proposal
items, such as increased funding to bolster the size of our Recovery
Care Coordinators cadre, our wounded care programs will continue to
provide our Airmen the best medical and professional support possible.
Other advances in wounded warrior care are also underway including
work with Interagency and local partners to create the necessary
support networks to ensure success in continued military service or in
the transition to civilian life. We are also reinforcing our commitment
to our Air Force wounded warrior families through support programs
specifically designed to help allay their burdens and honor their
sacrifices.
Recapturing Acquisition Excellence
To most effectively meet the demands of our warfighters, the Air
Force has made Recapturing Acquisition Excellence a top priority. We
recognize the profound importance of this capability, which enables us
to acquire and recapitalize platforms that provide Global Vigilance,
Reach, and Power. As stewards of the taxpayer's resources, the Air
Force will solidify an Acquisition system that delivers the right
capabilities to the warfighter in the field--on-time and within budget.
To accomplish this we have published an Acquisition Improvement
Plan (AIP) that outlines the steps we will take to improve Air Force
Acquisition, informed by a series of internal and external reviews.
This plan focuses on five initiatives that: revitalize the Air Force
acquisition workforce; improve the requirements generation process;
instill budget and financial discipline; improve Air Force major
systems source selection; and establish clear lines of authority and
accountability within acquisition organizations.
Through this plan, the Air Force will focus on better developing
our acquisition workforce to ensure that it is appropriately sized to
perform essential, inherently governmental functions and flexible
enough to meet continuously evolving demands. We will also work to
develop requirements that meet the users' needs while, at the same
time, ensuring that they can be incorporated into effective acquisition
strategies that maximize competition and allow for a fair and open
source selection process.
Our reviews also emphasized that establishing adequate and stable
budgets continues to be critical for program success. Therefore, the
AIP emphasizes realistic budgeting based on comprehensive program cost
estimates. Once budget baselines are established, achieving program
stability and cost control will be given the same priority as technical
performance and schedule.
We also found some weaknesses in our procedures for large system
acquisition source selections and shortages in the skill sets required
to conduct major source selections. So we are going back to the basics;
building processes to ensure that our personnel have the experience and
training required to conduct source selections and, where necessary,
revising our processes and policies and increasing our use of multi-
functional independent review teams (MIRTs). We are also reassessing
our Program Executive Officer (PEO) and wing/group/squadron
organizations to determine if they are properly structured, and
identifying specific actions that could be taken to improve them.
READINESS AND RESOURCING
In the past year, we have continued to see stresses on our Air
Force, both in our people and in our platforms. The Air force has
conducted nearly 61,000 sorties in Operation Iraqi Freedom and over
37,000 sorties supporting Operation Enduring Freedom, delivering over 2
million passengers and 700,000 tons of cargo. In doing so, Airmen
averaged nearly 265 sorties per day. Tens of thousands of America's
Airmen are deployed to locations across the globe, including 63
locations in the Middle East. To support the efforts of our Airmen and
provide for the recruiting and retention of the highest quality Air
Force, our fiscal year 2010 budget proposal includes $28.6 billion in
Military Personnel funding. It provides for an across the board 2.9
percent pay increase, a Basic Allowance for Housing increase of 5.6
percent--resulting in zero out-of-pocket housing expenses for our
Airmen--and a Basic Allowance for Subsistence increase of 5 percent.
Additionally it halts the end strength drawdown which allows for
rebalancing of the total force to cover new and emerging missions and
stabilizes the active component end strength at 331,700; Reserve
Component end strength at 69,500 Airmen and Air National Guard end
strength at 106,700 Airmen. It also funds recruiting and retention
bonuses targeted at critical wartime skills, including key specialties
such as command and control, public affairs, contracting, pararescue,
security forces, civil engineering, explosive ordnance disposal, and
special investigations.
This high operations tempo requires focused attention on readiness.
We use aircraft availability as our enterprise-level metric for
monitoring fleet health, and the fiscal year 2010 budget proposal
provides $43.4 billion in Operations and Maintenance funding, a $1.3
billion increase over our fiscal year 2009 appropriation, to mitigate
the stresses of continuous combat operations on our aircraft. The
fiscal year 2010 Operations and Maintenance appropriation funds pay and
benefits for 179,000 civilian personnel, including 4,200 contractor to
civilian conversions, an increase of 200 civilian acquisition
professionals and a 2 percent pay raise. It fully funds 1.4 million
flying hours, produces 1,200 pilots and sustains over 5,400 aircraft
while accelerating the retirement of roughly 250 aged aircraft,
producing a smaller, more capable fighting force.
Our aging air and space fleet requires focused attention. For
example, we have grounded our F-15, F-16, A-10, C-130, and T-6 fleets
for limited periods during the past 2 years. The skill and
determination of our maintainers have ensured that we return aircraft
to service as quickly as possible, but 2 percent of the fleet remains
grounded and many aircraft fly restricted profiles. To ensure stable
aircraft availability and mission capable rates, we continue to
integrate Fleet Viability Boards into our normal life-cycle sustainment
processes and strengthen centralized asset management.
Additionally, in fiscal year 2010 O&M funds will be used to rebuild
the nuclear infrastructure by fortifying operations, developing people
and sustaining 76 B-52s for global strike capability. The AF is also
increasing MQ-1 and MQ-9 ISR capability to 43 unmanned Command Air
Patrols. The O&M budget request honors the AF commitment to our Airmen
and their families by increasing child care availability and special
programs for children of deployed parents, providing for both legal
assistance and advanced educational opportunities. Dollars are also
committed to dormitory initiatives, unaccompanied housing, active
Warfighter/Family Support Centers and Fitness Centers while still
providing for the operating expenses of 83 major installations
including two space lift ranges.
Our $19.4 billion fiscal year 2010 Budget proposal for Research,
Development, Test and Evaluation (RDT&E) is an increase of $600 million
from fiscal year 2009. This request funds requirements for next
generation weapons and platforms by maturing technologies essential to
equipping our Nation to defeat near-term and forecasted threats. We
continue to develop and invest in future systems such as the KC-X
Tanker program, F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, and the next enhancement of
the Global Positioning System. Science and technology efforts advance
propulsion, space-based airborne and ground sensors, directed energy,
and command and control for both air and space. Modernizing our current
fleet initiatives will provide upgrades to legacy fighters, bombers,
strategic radar, and mobility requirements. Systems and technologies
designed to improve space situational awareness are also critical
elements of this Budget Request. Additionally we are rebalancing the
portfolio towards procurement of proven and multi-role platforms.
We are committed to supporting today's warfighter while building
tomorrow's weapon systems capability. The fiscal year 2010 procurement
budget request provides $21.7 billion to deliver immediate and future
capabilities through investments made across four specific procurement
appropriations: aircraft, missiles, ammunition, and other. The fiscal
year 2010 Budget Request supports the Irregular Warfare Mission by
increasing ISR platforms while modifying the existing fleet, provides
joint warfighter support funding and balances investment in advanced
aircraft platforms and legacy aircraft modifications. These funds will
allow for the acquisition and modification of manned and unmanned
aircraft, missiles, munitions, vehicles, electronic and
telecommunications equipment, satellites and launch vehicles, and
support equipment.
Funding critical infrastructure projects while meeting the needs of
the Air Family are critical to our mission. The $2.4 billion budget
request for military construction, military family housing and base
realignment and closure supports a $300 million increase in military
construction from fiscal year 2009. Projects will be focused on
supporting the rebalance of AF and DOD priorities. Additionally the
budget request continues our emphasis on providing quality housing for
Airmen and their families. Finally, the AF is on target to deliver 17
BRAC 2005 projects on time while continuing the environmental clean-up
of legacy BRAC locations.
To ensure proper stewardship of our resourcing, we have designated
a Deputy, Chief Management Officer (DCMO) in line with the Department
of Defense Strategic Management Plan. The DCMO is responsible for
continuing our momentum in refining internal processes for reducing
workloads or eliminating unnecessary work. Through a culture of
continuous improvement, we are further improving warfighter
effectiveness through integrated processes and systems, process
improvement, and technology investments aligned with our priorities.
SUMMARY
We believe the Air Force's total proposed fiscal year 2010 budget
of $160.5 billion--which includes $115.6 billion for Air Force managed
programs, $28.9 billion in other funded programs such as the National
Foreign Intelligence, Special Operation Forces, and the Defense Health
Programs, and $16 billion in Overseas Contingency Operations provides
the balance necessary to ensure support of today's commitments, while
posturing the Air Force for success against tomorrow's challenges.
Chairman Inouye. Now may I call upon General Schwartz?
SUMMARY STATEMENT OF GENERAL NORTON A. SCHWARTZ
General Schwartz. Mr. Chairman, Senator Cochran, and other
members of the subcommittee, I am proud to be here with
Secretary Donley, representing your Air Force.
AIR FORCE CORE VALUES
The United States Air Force is committed to effective
stewardship of the resources the American people place in our
trust, a commitment founded on our core values of integrity
first, service before self, and excellence in all we do. Guided
by our core values, American airmen are all-in, working
courageously every day with precision and reliability.
I recently had a chance to take a trip and visit with some
of our airmen performing at several locations around the world,
and they are providing game-changing capabilities for the
combatant commanders in the air and on the ground.
Last year, American airmen conducted 61,000 sorties in
Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF), some 37,000 sorties in Operation
Enduring Freedom (OEF), and that is about 265 sorties a day.
Airmen also serve in convoys and in coalition operations
centers and deliver 2 million passengers and some 700,000 tons
of cargo in the United States Central Command (USCENTCOM) area
of responsibility.
And dedicated airmen directly support USCENTCOM operations
from right here in the United States by providing command and
control of unmanned aerial systems, while our nuclear
operations professionals support the umbrella of deterrence for
the Nation and our allies across the globe. And our space
professionals are providing truly amazing capabilities, ranging
from early warning to precise global positioning navigation and
timing.
BALANCING AIR FORCE PRIORITIES TO MEET CHALLENGES
Through Secretary Donley's guidance and his leadership, we
have set the course to provide even greater capabilities for
America and to balance our priorities across and to meet the
spectrum of challenges. The top priority is to reinvigorate the
nuclear enterprise as outlined in our nuclear roadmap.
We are fielding capabilities that allow us to innovate
partnerships with joint and coalition teammates to win today's
fight by expanding intelligence, surveillance, and
reconnaissance with the procurement of 24 MQ-9 Reaper unmanned
aerial systems.
And at the same time, we will continue to support our most
precious asset, our people. We are focused on providing
programs that develop and care for our airmen and their
families with world-class quality of service and honor our
commitments that we all have made to our wounded warriors.
Part of ensuring support for our airmen means providing the
tools they need to do their jobs effectively. Therefore, we are
modernizing our air and space inventories, organizations, and
training with the right, if difficult, choices.
In addition to the programs that Secretary Donley just
mentioned, we are committed to providing a robust air refueling
capability. We also intend to increase efficiency by retiring
aging aircraft, and we will complete production of the F-22 at
187 aircraft and the C-17 at 205 aircraft, subject to
congressional approval.
In recent testimony, Admiral Mullen stated that we are what
we buy. Following his lead, we intend to maintain stewardship
of America's resources for our warfighters in the field and our
taxpayers at home by recapturing acquisition excellence and
fielding the right capabilities for our Nation on time and
within budget.
Mr. Chairman, with our core values guiding us, the Air
Force will continue to provide the best military advice and
stewardship, delivering global vigilance, reach, and power for
America.
Thank you for your continued support of the United States
Air Force, and particularly for our airmen and their families.
Sir, I look forward to your questions.
Chairman Inouye. I thank you very much.
As both of you are well aware, this subcommittee has been
deeply involved in recent weeks in what we call the
supplemental appropriations process. It seems likely that this
week, we will close the shop and sign the bill. And hopefully,
we will have this matter sent to the White House.
In all likelihood, this measure will include eight
additional C-17s. It will have five additional C-130s and
several other items. But I will leave those matters up to my
colleagues who are experts in this area. But I would like to
touch upon other items that may not be touched upon by my
colleagues.
IRREGULAR WARFARE
Secretary Gates has been speaking of irregular warfare as
being just as important as traditional warfare. And in your
proposal, you have requested funds to build this capability to
carry out your mission in this irregular warfare.
For the record, because many of my colleagues who are not
on this subcommittee may not be familiar with what irregular
warfare is all about, can you tell us what it is? And second,
how you hope to build up the capability to involve yourself in
this? General?
General Schwartz. Mr. Chairman, irregular warfare is--I
would describe it as something different than the traditional
confrontation of major maneuver units on the battlefield.
It is a distributed battle. It involves high concentrations
of civilian populations. It involves having to exert governance
and control in the battlespace in a way that might not
typically be the case in more conventional employment of our
forces. And significantly, I think it requires a level of
precision that perhaps is, again, not as needed in sort of
traditional force-on-force engagements.
Now our basic approach to this is, again, not just for the
Air Force, but rather recognition that this kind of employment
requires a joint team that is very well integrated and can
employ forces across the spectrum.
So that includes, for us, things all the way from lift and
transportation to strike, very precision strike, and just as
importantly as intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance
capability because that is--intelligence is a key factor in
success in this domain. And likewise, a whole range of skills
that are required to build partner capacity.
So, for example, while the traditional aspect of training
others depend on aircrew skills, it is much, much broader than
that now and includes how do you run an airfield? How do you
operate a safety shop? How do you maintain a runway? How do you
maintain a budget?
These are things that are necessary for nascent air forces
to achieve a capability to serve their nations well and
effectively. And typically, they are not as sophisticated as we
are and certainly don't have the benefit of the resources that
you all put at our disposal.
And so, it means in terms of equipage perhaps having things
that allow us to train others on that is something that they
might be able to employ. It is not so sophisticated it can't be
maintained or so sophisticated that perhaps it is beyond the
natural ability of a growing, maturing Air Force.
I guess I would finally conclude, sir, by indicating that
this is an area that requires skills that, as I was growing up,
were not sufficiently appreciated--language and the capacity to
interact with other cultures and appreciate that how we sit,
how we present ourselves, how we interact with elders matters a
lot in terms of our ultimate success. That is how I would
capture it for you, sir.
Chairman Inouye. Mr. Secretary, do you have anything to add
to that?
EFFECTIVE USE OF FORCES ACROSS THE SPECTRUM OF CONFLICT
Mr. Donley. I think the chief has captured it very well. I
would also add I think, as we have approached our role in
helping to train the emerging Afghan and Iraqi air forces, we
are learning some good lessons along the way.
I think the Secretary's challenge to us is not just to
improve our irregular warfare (IW) capability in specialized
areas that we are all familiar with in the special operations
forces (SOF). And we have additional resources put against our
SOF forces, additional investments that are well understood by
the subcommittee. The CV-22 is coming online, MC-130s. These
kinds of capabilities will continue to be improved.
But what the Secretary is asking us to do is to think about
how to use our general purpose forces more effectively in the
irregular warfare part of the conflict spectrum. He has not
asked us to fundamentally overhaul the capabilities of the
United States Air Force or the other services, which are
required to meet the full range of potential contingencies
across the conflict spectrum, all the way from irregular, all
the way up through high-intensity operations. And of course, we
have the nuclear deterrent mission as well in the Air Force.
He is asking us to figure out ways to use the bulk of our
forces, which are deployed across this conflict spectrum,
figure out ways to be able to tailor those capabilities more
effectively for IW work. So, as the chief has, I think, laid
out pretty well, our issues are focused on how do we use our
education and training system and our support for other nations
to build up their capabilities more effectively?
And we are seeing that come through in a couple of
different areas. One is, for example, the JCA, the C-27, which
our Department has been working on. That mission, as you know,
is transferring from the Army to the Air Force.
But a light mobility aircraft such as this is of interest
and is of use potentially to partners like Iraq and Afghanistan
that may or may not have a C-130 kind of capability. Or if they
do, it will be fairly circumscribed. They certainly won't be in
the C-17 business, for example.
So we think having a capability like this in the United
States Air Force makes us better teachers for potential
partners who are not going to be buying JSFs or C-17s, the
high-end capabilities that we will produce. So we see that in
mobility, in the C-27. We see it also in the intelligence,
surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) platforms, in the MC-12
capability that we are building that might, in the future, have
some applicability.
That small, twin-engine airframe has applicability for
partners who cannot afford and will not be in the unmanned
aerial systems business and will not have thousands of
personnel in their intelligence, surveillance, and
reconnaissance systems. But, yes, they may be able to operate
that MC-12-like capability going forward to give them an ISR
capability.
TRAINING AIRCRAFT
And the third area is in our trainers, which, consistent
with past practice, are often able to evolve from a training
aircraft to a light attack aircraft, and there are different
options for how to do this.
So certainly in our T-6 trainer programs, there are
opportunities going forward to make T-6 and/or Super Tucano or
propeller-driven airplanes of this class into light attack
aircraft that could be utilized by partners again who are not
going to be able to and do not have a need to operate at that
higher end of the conflict spectrum. They can't afford to do
that.
So having these capabilities inside our force structure we
think will help us be better teachers and better partners and
help us build up the security capabilities of partners facing
counterterrorist operations, counterinsurgency operations whom
we have an interest in building up to be not only better
partners for us internationally, but to be good regional
partners and able to take care of their own neighborhoods.
I apologize for the lengthy answer, but this is a good
question.
24TH AIR FORCE MISSION
Chairman Inouye. Well, the Secretary said, it is just as
important as traditional warfare. Your 24th Air Force is going
to be a focal point for cyber warfare. Can you tell us what you
have in mind to carry out this mission, Mr. Secretary?
Mr. Donley. Well, sir, I will let the chief discuss it in
more detail, but in general, we have information operation
wings and network warfare wings and network operations
capabilities that are responsible for taking care of Air Force
networks, for defending them against cyber threats, which are
growing and are at increasing risk. And so, we are growing this
capability in the Air Force.
We made a decision last fall to put those capabilities
under a numbered Air Force, which is our operational level
inside the Air Force, to more effectively manage and oversee
this work.
Chairman Inouye. General?
General Schwartz. Mr. Chairman, just to emphasize, the
thrust here is on two basic themes within what really is
emerging as a contested domain. And that is, one, as the
Secretary mentioned, to defend ourselves, to defend our nets
because, increasingly, these networks are not just
administrative conveniences, but they are, in fact, the way
that we bring the integration of the magnitude of all of our
capabilities to bear and command and control them in real time.
So defending our nets is vital to our combat capability,
and that is a major function for the 24th Air Force. As well,
there are more offensive kinds of capabilities here. For
example, one can envision that it might be prudent to disable
an integrated air defense array that we might want to penetrate
by use of cyber rather than kinetic means, or some mix of the
two. And advancing our capabilities in this regard will also be
within the portfolio of the 24th Air Force.
I would conclude, sir, by indicating that, as you know, the
President announced a cyber initiative last week. As part of
that, there will likely be an organizational realignment within
the Department of Defense. And the 24th will be the Air Force
contribution to that larger enterprise for the entire
Department.
Chairman Inouye. Thank you.
Senator Cochran.
AIR FORCE NONTRADITIONAL SUPPORT TO ARMY AND COALITION FORCES
Senator Cochran. Mr. Chairman, thank you.
General Schwartz, I understand that the Air Force has
established as one of its top priorities greater support for
the Army and coalition forces overseas in nontraditional Air
Force missions on the ground. Could you give us some examples
of this activity and the impact that that may be having in
terms of your overall end strength?
Is it going to require you to reorganize or ask for more
authority from the Congress to continue to carry out this
mission?
General Schwartz. Sir, the proposal, which is embedded
within this fiscal year 2010 program proposal at 331,700 active
duty end strength, is where we need to be, and I don't see us
climbing much higher than that, if at all.
With regard to the so-called nontraditional tasks, our
sense is and the leadership of our Air Force acknowledges,
recognizes the country is at war, and that there are needs at
this time that need to be fulfilled. They are requirements that
the joint team needs to have accomplished.
And if your Air Force can do this, if we can make a
contribution, that is what we are going to do. We will do
whatever is required, wherever it is needed, for however long
it is needed, provided that our youngsters are properly
trained. That is our obligation.
And so, sir, we have folks that are doing convoy duty in
Iraq. I visited with some at Arifjan a couple of months ago,
and believe me, these folks do not see what they are doing as
peripheral or not worthy. They know very well how important the
work they are doing is.
And that is true whether it is medics or transportation
folks or security forces operating outside the fence, whatever
the discipline. It is needed. It is part of the joint effort,
and our Air Force is proud to do it, sir.
Senator Cochran. Well, I compliment you for the initiative
and showing flexibility of responding to something that is
clearly needed and in our national interest. And we hope we
will be able to provide the resources that you need to carry
out these important activities.
HIRING OF GOVERNMENT CIVILIANS TO REPLACE CONTRACTORS
Secretary Donley, I understand the Air Force intends to
reduce its reliance on contracted workers by hiring several
thousand Government civilians to replace contractors. Has the
Air Force identified what positions or functions it intends to
resource from within your organization, and what savings, if
any, do you anticipate through this initiative?
Mr. Donley. Sir, this is a DOD wide initiative, and a very
important one. I believe there is a strong consensus in the
Department and I believe also here in Congress that the
reliance of the Department on contractors to do some work that
was previously done within the Government has probably run its
course, and the pendulum is starting to swing back the other
way.
We are much more sensitized at this point to the need to
bring back into the organic Government capability some of those
functions that have been contracted out. And our target for
fiscal year 2010, as I recall it, is about 4,000 of these
conversions.
Almost about 2,000, about one-half of that is targeted for
us on our acquisition workforce and growing our acquisition
workforce in some critical areas that need reinforcement--
contracting, systems engineering, and cost estimating. These
are examples of capabilities we plan to beef up by relying less
on contractor support and bringing those capabilities in-house.
Senator Cochran. As you know, we have a very large training
facility on the Mississippi gulf coast at Keesler Air Force
Base and very proud of the role that they have played over the
years in our national defense. They are currently hosting the
81st Training Wing. I think it is the largest technical
training unit and is a so-called ``center of excellence'' for
computer and electronics training.
Anyway, I am going to put in the record some facts and
figures that I understand are currently reflected in the hiring
and the activities there. But they are being tasked now with
developing infrastructure capacity to potentially host a new
mission, the undergraduate cyber training mission for the Air
Force.
COMMUNICATIONS AND ELECTRONICS CENTER OF EXCELLENCE
I wonder, General, if you have taken a role in this or have
any information that you can give us about this possibility of
a new center of excellence for electronics and computer-related
training at Keesler?
General Schwartz. Sir, as you know, Keesler Air Force Base
has been for decades the center of excellence for training our
entry-level communications and electronics specialists. And a
natural extension of that could very well be the training of
the workforce that 24th Air Force will employ in this
increasingly digital and cyber era.
That decision has not been formally taken where that
element will go, but clearly, Keesler Air Force Base is a very
strong candidate, and we will have a range of courses from
entry level on the cyber side to, obviously, what we call 5 and
7 level courses, increasingly more demanding courses, so that
our people have the breadth and background required to do this
work.
That is an important piece of the 24th, too. My focus
naturally was on operations, but you have to make sure that the
workforce has the skills necessary to do this. And that is the
task that we are focused on, sir.
Senator Cochran. Well, thank you very much. And thank you
for your excellent leadership in the roles that you have. We
appreciate it.
Chairman Inouye. Thank you.
Senator Bond.
NEXT GENERATION FIGHTER AIRCRAFT
Senator Bond. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
As I mentioned earlier, General Schwartz, I have some very
real concerns about the intermediate term plans and, to be
honest, what I see as a lack of intermediate plans.
I said that right now we have available proven platforms
that have about an 85 percent solution. They are not fifth
generation, but they are 4.8, 4.9, and you, yourself, mentioned
the ability of externalities to enable some of those fourth
generations to do things that one would have expected we could
only achieve with the fifth generation. We won't go into that
here, but we have discussed that previously.
And so, I am asking if you and the Secretary would be
willing to take a look at the outstanding shortfall in the Air
National Guard and the Air Sovereignty Alert mission, as well
as the other needs in the Air Force? To determine whether there
are fourth-plus generations of planes that will be needed that
are affordable and that will be available unless and until the
JSF or the F-35 is able to get online, which, at this point,
having only completed, as I understand, 2 percent of its flight
tests, may be some time.
General Schwartz. Senator, as we have exchanged in the
past, there is nothing off the table. I certainly am willing to
revisit the formula and our positions that we have developed,
as new information comes in. It would be foolish to do
otherwise. And in fact, we met as recently as yesterday on this
issue with Lieutenant General Harry (Bud) Wyatt from the Air
National Guard and others.
Senator Bond. I understand. I am well aware of that, well
aware of those discussions. I am not going to bring out the
chart or anything like that because I know the discussions.
General Schwartz. Right. Yes, sir. But I think that is what
I would like to do, it is still my view that the high
confidence path for us is to make the leap to the F-35. That
is--it will populate the preponderance of our force as we go
forward.
And the vital thing here is that in order for the F-35 to
do the work that is required not just for us, but for the
Marine Corps, for the Navy, and importantly, international
partners, the F-35 needs to be produced at rates which will
help us manage our fleet aging issue that you mentioned, not
less than 80 and probably higher, maybe as high as 110 a year.
And the other not insignificant benefit is to keep the
average unit cost down for F-35 so that it can compete
internationally.
Senator Bond. As we know, it is already--our international
partners have already made the decision. The other broader
question that needs to be considered is the aircraft industrial
base.
Earlier this week, Secretary Mabus said they need to
maintain a competitive shipbuilding base. Right now, we know we
have gone from five or six primary aircraft producers down to
two. And this budget annihilates one of those two. If this
budget were carried out, we would be down to one.
And quite frankly, I ask you to look at the performance,
the timeliness, the performance and the cost to see whether you
would be comfortable going down to one, and I think there is a
very good argument not to go down to one. And I just ask you to
look at that.
General Schwartz. You have my commitment to do so, sir.
NEXT-GENERATION BOMBER
Senator Bond. Next-generation bomber is part of that.
Actually, the next-generation bomber and the sixth generation
fighter have to be competed. They have to bring in these
others, and the next-generation bomber was designed to force
our adversaries to invest in their own defensive weapons.
Current bombers are having increasing access challenges.
The warfighters analysis of alternatives completed in 2006 said
that they were very comfortable with the NGB. The Center for
Strategic and Budgetary Analysis replied to a question on NGB
saying we have studied the NGB issue to death. The need, the
requirement, and the technology are in hand and reasonably well
understand.
And I believe Secretary Gates last week said, ``My personal
view is that we probably do need a follow-on bomber.''
I would ask you, Mr. Secretary and General, whether it is
time to be moving forward, looking at the industrial base as
well as the need for the NGB?
Mr. Donley. Well, Senator, I think there is pretty good
consensus that our national defense capabilities need to
include more long-range strike and that we need to start
modernizing that part of our force structure.
My sense is that the Secretary's decision in this regard
earlier this year was based on the fact that we did not quite
have all of the parameters of this capability locked down. I
will let the chief talk to those in more detail.
So we made a decision to cancel the program that we had
laid in. I do think we will need to return to this issue in the
QDR. I do think there needs to be a good, thorough discussion
about the attributes of the long-range strike capability we
need. Its relationship to the Nuclear Posture Review is going
to be very important. Obviously, that had not played out yet
earlier this year.
So I think the Secretary, as he has indicated, will be open
to further discussion.
RETIRING OBSOLESCENT AIRCRAFT
Senator Bond. Well, we will look forward to discussing that
with you. I won't take up the time of my colleagues here.
One final question. You are talking about the C-5. General
Schwartz, you mentioned retiring obsolescent aircraft. I know
you are constrained by congressional mandate not to retire
those C-5s, some of which, not all of which, may be a very
uneconomical way. Modernization isn't going to cut the mustard.
Should we be revisiting that to give the Air Force more
flexibility to save costs by retiring inefficient, outmoded
aircraft that will not meet the current needs so you can put it
into other areas?
General Schwartz. Senator Bond, too much aluminum is almost
as bad as not enough. And as the Secretary indicated earlier,
316 tails is about the sweet spot right now. And if it is the
decision to have the Air Force take on additional C-17s, it
makes sense to begin to alter the fleet mix in a way that
maintains that top line. So, yes, retiring older, less reliable
C-5As certainly makes sense in the context if we go above 205
C-17s.
And sir, if I may take one minute perhaps of your privilege
just to address the bomber briefly, your earlier question? This
is important. Long-range strike is an essential capability for
the Nation.
As the Secretary indicated, we weren't quite together with
the Secretary of Defense on how we define this thing. What is
the range? What is the payload? Is it supersonic? Is it
subsonic? Is it manned? Is it unmanned? Is it nuclear, non-
nuclear? Is it low observable, very low observable? These are
the parameters we need to get together with the Secretary on.
There is an unfunded request that we have come forward with
that addresses this to keep a concept development activity
going so that we can answer these questions, as well as to keep
certain technology efforts underway that apply regardless of
how we define the platform. These are antennas, low observable
antennas. These are data links. These are radars. Stuff like
that.
Senator Bond. These have application to others across the
fleet, not just long strike?
General Schwartz. They do. Yes, sir. Thank you, sir.
Senator Bond. Thank you very much.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Inouye. Thank you.
Senator Shelby.
Senator Shelby. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
TANKER ACQUISITION
It has been my long-held belief that our military should
procure the most capable tanker possible for our airmen using a
fair, open, and transparent acquisition process. In separate
discussions with both Defense Secretary Robert Gates and
Acquisition Chief Dr. Ashton Carter, they assured me that this
would be the case. Do you both agree?
Mr. Donley. We do, sir.
Senator Shelby. Okay. This process, I believe, should also
utilize a best value method that does not contain an option
based purely on lowest cost. I will closely follow, as this
subcommittee will, the procurement process to ensure that our
men and women in uniform receive the best equipment possible.
Secretary Donley, the Air Force tanker competition is
scheduled to begin later this summer with the release of the
request for proposal. There has been some discussion that a
lowest price technically acceptable process could be utilized
in the competition. I have concerns with this acquisition
method because it clearly would not reach everyone's stated
objective, that is, that the Air Force procures the best tanker
for our warfighters.
Mr. Secretary, is it your belief that our pilots should fly
the best, most capable tanker possible and not just the
cheapest?
Mr. Donley. Sir, we always--we always balance capability
and cost----
Senator Shelby. Right.
Mr. Donley [continuing]. In our acquisition process.
Senator Shelby. You have got to balance it.
Mr. Donley. We will continue to do that going forward. We
are working on the acquisition strategy for KC-X right now at
the senior levels in the Department, and we are committed to
sharing with the Congress the results of our work when the
Secretary has made a decision exactly how to proceed.
Senator Shelby. General Schwartz, I know there has been
some concerns about protecting, and should be, about the
industrial base as the tanker competition moves forward. We are
all concerned about jobs in the United States.
I believe any assertion that the Northrop Grumman tanker
program steals jobs from American aerospace workers and sends
them overseas is factually incorrect. By assembling the
Northrop tanker in a new aircraft assembly and militarization
facility, this proposal would create almost 50,000 new jobs in
50 States and comply with all current procurement laws in the
Buy American Act.
Do you agree that given the vast quantity of jobs that
would be created in selecting either Northrop Grumman or Boeing
as the winner, it would have a positive impact on our Nation's
industrial base? Either one.
General Schwartz. Senator, as you are well aware, my role
is to define requirements----
Senator Shelby. That is right.
General Schwartz [continuing]. And so on. Clearly, as
others have suggested, what we want is to get the best possible
airplane as quickly as we possibly can. And so, I, frankly, am
agnostic about how this exactly gets done, provided we get on
with it. And that is what I certainly have offered my
Secretary, as well as the Secretary of Defense, is my best
advice.
Senator Shelby. Thank you.
UNMANNED AERIAL VEHICLES
Mr. Secretary, if I could do a little transition to the
UAVs. I know you are working with the Army and the other
services to develop a UAV acquisition roadmap. While I
understand the benefits for the services to work together on
this vital issue--I think it is important to do so--I have
stated the importance of the Army retaining tactical control of
their UAVs.
Do you feel that you can continue to work together with the
Army, Navy, and Marine Corps to allow them continued control of
the tactical assets that are so critically important to our
troops on the ground and commanders in the field, especially as
we move forward through the QDR?
Mr. Donley. Senator, these are very important capabilities
that are being developed for our defense establishment. I will
let the chief address the operational piece of this, but let me
just say at the DOD level, we do cross-level and look very
carefully at production capacity and how that is spread across
different platforms, Predators versus Reapers, and other
classes of UAVs.
And that is well balanced at the DOD level in terms of who
is investing how much where to get the best balance across the
services when we put together the budget.
Senator Shelby. General Schwartz, do you have any comment?
General Schwartz. Yes, sir. Senator Shelby, what General
George Casey, the Army Chief of Staff, and I want is what works
best, and whatever the division of labor is, is a very
pragmatic call. And there is no emphasis within the Air Force
of trying to assert ownership. This is a question of how one
can best employ the fleet.
Now the reality is, is that, for example, unmanned systems,
you have to take account for them in the airspace. You don't
want airplanes running together, so on and so forth. If you
have an air defense situation, you have got to know who is
friendly and who is not. So there is a need for a level of
coordination that must continue, regardless of who is operating
the platform.
Senator Shelby. Absolutely.
General Schwartz. But the bottom line is that you should
have little concern about whether the Army and the Air Force
can collaborate on this. We can, and we are.
Senator Shelby. And the marines and Navy, too?
General Schwartz. Of course. Yes, sir.
Senator Shelby. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Inouye. Thank you.
Senator Dorgan.
Senator Dorgan. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much.
I have been at a markup of the Energy Committee. So I am
sorry I have been delayed.
General Schwartz and Secretary Donley, welcome.
I want to ask about the UAV and UAS issues. My
understanding is that you plan to go from 34 Predator/Reaper
combat air patrols to about 50 by the end of 2011. Have you
decided where you might assign additional units of personnel to
operate that many additional combat air patrol units?
General Schwartz. Senator, we have not done specific
assignment of those assets, which will be coming on down the
road. Those which are coming on in fiscal year 2010, we have a
much firmer idea. Those beyond are not quite as firm at this
time.
C-27 JOINT CARGO AIRCRAFT
Senator Dorgan. All right. What is the status of the C-27
joint cargo aircraft program?
General Schwartz. Sir, let me start big on that, if I may,
and then get small. At the strategic level, what this is is a
question about who will do the direct support mission for the
ground forces in the United States Army in particular? The Air
Force traditionally does general support very well. As the
Secretary of Defense has commented, it is sort of like running
an airline, and you do it to both accomplish the tasks
assigned, but to do it as efficiently as possible.
On the other hand, there is a different model which is a
direct support model, which means that certain assets are
dedicated to certain commanders or maneuver units, maybe not
quite as efficient, but improves the reliability of that
service to that particular organization or commander.
And what General George Casey, the Chief of Staff of the
Army, and I have agreed is that the United States Air Force, if
the decision is that the C-27 should migrate to the United
States Air Force, we will do the direct support mission of the
United States Army the way they think it needs to be done. And
that is a commitment.
Now with respect to the program, the Secretary of Defense
made a decision. It is not an instantaneous change. The Army is
currently in charge of the program, has a program office. We
have Air Force people assigned there. We will increase that
number of Air Force people assigned or attached. And so, there
will be a migration of the program management responsibility
over about a year's time from the Army to the Air Force.
And a significant mark on the wall is the deployment of
four aircraft to United States Central Command later in fiscal
year 2010. That is driving us in terms of how we make the
transition to make sure that we have got aircrews and
maintainers and so on who can operate these aircraft forward.
Frankly, it might be a mix of Army and Air Force for that
first deployment. That is not a problem, I don't think. But
ultimately, we will incorporate the C-27 mission into the Air
Force and provide the capabilities to the Army that they need
and want.
RECRUITMENT AND RETENTION
Senator Dorgan. What kind of experience are you having with
recruitment and retention?
General Schwartz. Senator, we actually are in pretty good
shape. Arguably, the economy is an asset in this regard in
terms of recruiting, and retention has been good. In the
noncommissioned officer (NCO) ranks, there is a little bit of
softness, not something to be alarmed about. But a little bit
of softness in the middle-grade NCOs, and we are watching that
carefully.
In both officer and NCO recruitment and retention, we have
difficulty in the medical career fields. There is keen
competition for medical professionals, nurses, physicians, and
so on. And that is an area where we have increased bonuses up
to I think $88 million in the 2010 program in order to try to
compete better to bring medical professionals into our Air
Force.
B-52 SQUADRON AT MINOT AIR FORCE BASE, NORTH DAKOTA
Senator Dorgan. Just two other questions, if I still have
time? What is your status with respect to standing up the new
B-52 squadron at Minot Air Force Base?
General Schwartz. On track, sir. And that is part of our
nuclear roadmap to do that, and it is on schedule, on track.
AIR FORCE ACTIVITY IN USCENTCOM AREA OF RESPONSIBILITY
Senator Dorgan. And could you just give the subcommittee a
general description of the Air Force presence and activities in
the war theaters of Iraq and Afghanistan so we get a sense of
assets and personnel and so on?
General Schwartz. Yes, sir. Of the 38,000 roughly folks
that we have deployed overseas, about 30,000 of those personnel
are in Iraq and Afghanistan or in the adjacent spaces. Of that,
about 8,000 are Reservists, 5,000 Air National Guard, 3,000 Air
Force Reserve. And they are performing a range of missions,
certainly from lift to strike to intelligence, surveillance,
and reconnaissance.
We run the hospitals at both Bagram Air Base and Balad Air
Base on behalf of the joint team. We have, as I mentioned
earlier, some of our youngsters performing convoy duties from
Kuwait into Iraq, security forces, engineers, the whole array.
It is a significant commitment.
We will grow in Afghanistan from about 5,000 today to maybe
6,500 total Air Force personnel as the numbers increase in
theater. It is a significant commitment and one we do proudly.
Senator Dorgan. Well, let me thank you, Secretary Donley,
and you, General Schwartz, for your willingness to be always
available to us. And I would like to send you some additional
questions on the C-27 and the combat air patrol future. So I
will submit those questions.
And again, let me thank both of you for the work you do. I
am very pleased.
Chairman Inouye. Thank you very much.
Senator Bennett.
Senator Bennett. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
HILL AIR FORCE BASE AND ICBM SOLID ROCKET INDUSTRIAL BASE
And I want to say to our two witnesses thank you for coming
to Utah and for the experience you had. I hope the weather was
good enough for you and the hospitality, et cetera. We
appreciated your being there. They were there for the Air Force
Association meetings last week.
I trust I can be forgiven for being a little parochial and
discuss some of the issues relating to Hill Air Force Base and
also the intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) solid rocket
industrial base. On that latter issue, let me thank you for the
news that I have received that the Air Force is going to
maintain the solid rocket motor industrial base that supports
the Minuteman III. What is the status of your request to
reprogram fiscal 2009 funds?
Mr. Donley. Yes, sir. We do intend to request reprogramming
just to beef up this program. The Department is looking at the
reprogramming right now, awaiting first the results of the
overseas contingency operations (OCO) work that the chairman
referred to earlier. So once we have seen the results of the
OCO, then the Department will proceed with its reprogramming
work.
Senator Bennett. Do you have any idea how many solid rocket
motors you are planning to buy?
Mr. Donley. Off the top of my head, I do not have that
information. But we will get you that for the record.
Senator Bennett. Okay. Thank you. Thank you very much.
[The information follows:]
The intent of the warm line is to exercise industry's
Minuteman III-unique solid rocket motor production
capabilities. Identifying a specific number of solid rocket
motors is not an accurate measure of the ability to maintain
this industrial base. Our fiscal year 2010 effort will initiate
a low-rate production of the Minuteman solid rocket motors
which will maintain design-unique material availability, sub-
tier material supplier viability, touch labor currency, and
design engineering personnel continuity unique to the Minuteman
weapon system. In addition, our fiscal year 2010 effort will
maintain systems engineering assessment capability and utilize
independent verification of production processes. However, the
actual production quantities are unknown until the contract is
finalized.
F-16 REDUCTIONS AT HILL AIR FORCE BASE, UTAH
Senator Bennett. Now I want to talk about what appears to
be something of a donut hole on the fighter situation.
Naturally, we are disappointed to learn that Hill is going to
lose one of its three F-16 fighter squadrons as a part of the
restructuring, and I understand the restructuring has to go
forward and that there are logical reasons for it. But as I
look at the locations where the F-16s are going to be removed
around the country, they seem to be focused primarily in bases
in the intermountain and southwest regions, and that will be
geographically the area where you will see most of the F-16s
withdrawn. And yet the Utah Test and Training Range (UTTR) is
most accessible to those regions, and it seems to me that it
would make most sense to take the aircraft away from something
that is farther away from the Utah Test and Training Range.
I know Senator Cochran is very proud of the training range
in Mississippi, but UTTR is the biggest land-based training
range we have and, I think, a major, major asset to the Air
Force. So has any thought been given to the fact that it might
make more sense to keep the airplanes closer to the training
range and take the reductions perhaps someplace else?
General Schwartz. Senator Bennett, we have given thought to
an array of considerations. The model of aircraft, their age,
the proximity to training opportunities, the arrangements
related to total force initiatives, and so on and so forth at
various locations. Just to give you a sense, the rough
reductions were predominantly in the training area. Air Combat
Command took substantially less reductions than did our Air
Education and Training Command.
The bottom line is that we have looked at that. It is true
that Hill Air Force Base is a candidate to lose 24 F-16s. That
is--from a people point of view, sir, that is 591 spaces. We
know that is not trivial.
But we have looked at this as a package. And yes, Tucson
will lose some airplanes, largely training platforms. Hill Air
Force Base will take some down. There are roughly--the split is
some overseas, some in Europe, some in the Pacific, a number
here in the continental United States.
But I think the key thing here is that we have done this
from a fleet management point of view, from a construct which
suggests that if we do this now, it will allow us to leap to F-
35 more rapidly and that we need to look to the future and less
to the past.
Senator Bennett. All right. That brings up the donut hole I
am talking about because you are going to combine the 388th and
the 419th, merge them as a prototype for further efforts to mix
active and Reserve fighters, and that is an effort that has
seen good results so far.
But the impact on the depot is that they are going to see
not just the 500 people you are talking about, but you are
going to see a significant drop in depot work. And it is fine
to say, well, the F-35 will come in at some particular point,
but if that particular point is stretched out, you then lose--
we are back to the question of manufacturing base. Only in this
case, it is maintenance base. You lose the expertise that is
there that could be maintained if there were some way to deal
with the question of the F-16s.
F-35 BASING
Now it has been over 1\1/2\ years, the other side of the
donut hole, stretching it out, that I have been told that Hill
would be one of the first Air Force bases to receive an
operational F-35 squadron. And now I understand that there is
some backing away from that commitment, at least on the timing.
So do you still say that Hill is going to receive one of
the first two operational F-35 squadrons? And if so, can you
give me some hope that it will come sooner rather than later so
that the donut hole can be filled with work?
General Schwartz. Senator, I can't. I can't tell you it
will be the first. We haven't made that decision yet. And one
thing that the Secretary and I have tried very hard to do is
not to make promises we can't keep. And so, I am being
straight.
Senator Bennett. Sure. Obviously, we prefer that.
General Schwartz. Understood, sir. I think, just to give
you a sense of what is at play here, there are multiple demands
on the new system, as you can well imagine. There are--our
commander in the Pacific Air Forces and certainly Admiral
Keating at United States Pacific Command (USPACOM) has levied a
demand signal for modernization in the Pacific with regard to
potential threats on the Asia-Pacific rim.
Likewise, General John Craddock and the United States
European Command has indicated that because the allies will
gain F-35s in Europe, there will be a need for us to have F-35
presence or we will be out of sync with our allies on the
European continent. And likewise, we know very well that we
have needs--donut holes, if you will--in the United States.
So there are a lot of moving parts on this. The bottom line
is that, and I am not saying anything that I don't think
anybody believes, Hill Air Force Base is a great place to fly
airplanes. And that is well known, and that certainly will be
factored into basing decisions as we sort of integrate all of
these demand signals.
Senator Bennett. Well, I thank you for that. And it is not
just a great place to fly airplanes. It is a great place to
repair airplanes. And my concern is that if we see the
workforce on the repair side, on the depot side drop down
because of the action with respect to the F-16 and then a delay
in bringing in the F-35, we wake up to discover that the
capacity that we have always identified with Hill suddenly
isn't there. Well, not suddenly isn't there, but isn't there.
So I would ask you to take a look at that and say is there
any way we can kind of nudge both of these, that is, nudge the
F-16 in one way to close that end of the donut hole and nudge
the F-35 in the other way to close that end of the donut hole?
Yes, it is parochial on my part, but I also think it makes
sense for the Air Force's capability to service the F-35 when
the time comes.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Inouye. Thank you very much.
Senator Murray.
Senator Murray. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much for
having this hearing.
General Schwartz, Secretary Donley, thank you to both of
you. It is good to see you again. Let me just start by saying
thank you to all the work you and the men and women serving in
the Air Force do today to successfully perform the very
critical missions that they are doing to safeguard our country.
TANKER COMPETITION AND INDUSTRIAL BASE
It is really important to me that our airmen have
everything they need to fight our wars overseas, both today and
in the future. So I am going to start my questions today with a
shocker. What can you tell me about tankers?
But before I do that, let me just frame that question about
the upcoming tanker competition from the standpoint of our
domestic industrial base. Mr. Chairman, I am very worried about
our domestic industrial base. I am worried about its long-term
ability to provide our military forces with what they need to
accomplish their national security missions.
During last year's KC-X competition, everybody had real
high hopes that it was going to be the best and brightest
example of how the acquisition process could function and
provide for the needs of our warfighters. Here we are today
without a much-needed replacement of our aging fleet of
refueling tankers.
Now I applaud the work of Chairman Levin and Senator
McCain. They have championed efforts here to move acquisition
reform through Congress. As part of that, I included a
provision that requires DOD to report on the effects that
canceling an acquisition program would have on our Nation's
industrial base.
I have talked with both Secretary Gates and Secretary
Carter about this issue. I want to make sure that we maintain a
domestic industrial base that can respond to the ongoing need
of our warfighters.
This is of particular concern to me as a Senator from a
State that represents really the entire spectrum of
constituencies on this issue. One end of the scale, we have end
users who are the servicemembers at many military facilities in
Washington State. We have two outstanding Air Force bases,
Fairchild and McChord, who rely on the goods and services this
industry produces. At the other end, we have the hard-working
men and women of the industry, including the smallest supplier
companies to the major manufacturers that tirelessly work to
support our servicemembers.
So how we move forward with this acquisition is very
important to me and to everyone I represent. General Schwartz,
so I would like to ask you today how you are taking into
account the health and longevity of our domestic industrial
base as you tackle acquisition reform in the Air Force?
General Schwartz. Ma'am, the basic approach, the mandate
for doing this is clear to our Air Force. The way it has
traditionally been done, and I, frankly, think it is
appropriate, is that industrial base considerations are
typically not considered within specific source selection
activity on specific programs.
The acquisition technology and the logistics organization
in OSD has the role to do that at particular milestones in the
acquisition process. So they have the more global perspective,
if you will, not just whether it is a tanker or a fighter or a
lift platform or a satellite, but rather, the broader
implications for industrial base.
And so, again, not completely in my lane, but the way that
is currently being done makes sense to me. And it is clear that
the civilian leadership understands the mandate.
Senator Murray. Secretary Donley, do you want to add
anything?
Mr. Donley. No question that the Department has an interest
in tracking how industrial base issues get affected by
Departmental-level decisions and making sure those are taken
into account as we go forward.
Senator Murray. We have to think about the future while we
are thinking about today.
Well, let me talk about the timeframe for the tanker
competition. Secretary Gates said that he needed a full team in
place before this competition could be restarted. Now,
Secretary Donley and General Schwartz, you are here.
Secretaries Lynn and Carter, they have been confirmed and are
in place. I have been told that we are going to begin work on
this competition process this summer.
TIMING OF TANKER REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL
That is a couple weeks away from now. Can you provide an
update on the timing for the request for proposal (RFP) and how
this process will follow that?
Mr. Donley. Ma'am, we have been working on this issue for a
couple of months now fairly intensively with Deputy Secretary
Lynn, Secretary Carter, and other members of the acquisition
team, and we are in the process of carrying forward the results
of that work to the Secretary for his consideration. And we
still do hope to get an RFP out this summer on the street.
Senator Murray. Hope to is not a definite timeframe.
Mr. Donley. No, this is our intent. And we have pledged,
Secretary Gates has and I would certainly echo it, that when we
have completed the results of our internal work and we are
ready to go out, we will be briefing the Congress on the way
forward.
Senator Murray. Okay. So we are still in the timeframe of
summer?
Mr. Donley. Yes, ma'am.
Senator Murray. Can you tell me what measures are being
taken to prevent the claims of an unfair evaluation or scales
being tipped to one side or the other?
Mr. Donley. Well, we are committed from the get-go to a
fair and open competition. There is no doubt of that.
We have taken measures inside the Air Force to strengthen
our source selection process. We have, since the events of last
summer, increased our focused training on lessons learned from
the two protests that were sustained last year, the KC-X and
the CSAR-X, to get those lessons learned into our source
selection process.
With respect to the KC-X program in particular, we have put
a few more senior people into that program office. We have
moved contract approval authority up to the Secretary of the
Air Force level, and we are undertaking other measures to
strengthen the KC-X team and our source selection process as we
lead into this RFP process going forward.
Senator Murray. Well, this is a difficult process, and all
of us want the best aircraft as soon as possible. But I think I
share with everyone on this subcommittee, we want to make sure
that this is a fair and transparent competition. We are really
urging you to make sure that that is very clear.
We want it to be good for the warfighter and good for the
taxpayer, which leads me to the question of whether a dual buy
is a viable option?
Mr. Donley. Well, we share the Secretary's view that a dual
buy would be more expensive for the taxpayer in at least three
dimensions. It would require the development of two airplanes
instead of one. We would end up with two logistics and two sort
of depot infrastructure processes in support of that effort
instead of one. And in the near term especially, we are
concerned about the impact on the Air Force's budget and the
Department of Defense's budget generally by going to a dual
track approach.
Our program has been structured around a buy of about 15
airplanes per year. To accommodate a dual award strategy, where
you are buying airplanes from two providers, probably the
minimum order quantity for each is 12 aircraft. So that means
instead of buying 15 per year, we would need to be buying about
24 per year.
Senator Murray. And we do not have the budget capacity for
that?
Mr. Donley. Well, this would eat significantly into our
procurement program going forward. It potentially would almost
double the tanker piece of the Air Force's procurement program
within the FYDP going forward.
Senator Murray. Which means other things would be left off
the table?
Mr. Donley. At the same time, we are trying to ramp up JSF,
et cetera. So this is a concern to us, and this is basically
the reason why we think the dual award would not make sense.
FAIRCHILD AIR FORCE BASE, WASHINGTON--AERIAL REFUELING MISSION
Senator Murray. Okay. I appreciate that, and I want this
tanker competition done. You, of course, know I am hoping one
plane company wins it. Just as high on the list for me is
making sure that we protect our taxpayers in this process. So I
appreciate your answer to that question.
Beyond the tanker competition, you are simultaneously
working on tanker beddown. So I want to talk about Fairchild
Air Force Base in my home State and how it is uniquely
positioned to support the KC-X beddown.
We have two air wings who have a very proud refueling
history there. I have seen them in action. They are incredible.
We have a large runway and a strategic location for the
execution of global reach mission, which is important.
I recently met with the wing commander at Fairchild, and we
talked about the excellent relationship that Fairchild has with
the Spokane community, as well as some of the challenges that
they have faced of late. I am sure you are aware that last
winter one of Fairchild's key training facilities had its roof
collapse during a major snowstorm there. Even though its runway
is the right size, it is due as well for some very important
maintenance and continued upkeep so it is ready for KC-X.
Can you confirm for me that we are doing everything we can
to make sure that Fairchild is ready for the KC-X when the time
comes?
General Schwartz. Again, ma'am, I don't want to suggest
that, again, promises--not a promise. But certainly Fairchild
Air Force Base is an obvious candidate for early beddown. There
are others in the country, too, and we will see sort of what
the production rate allows us to do. But Fairchild Air Force
Base certainly is in the long-term plan.
FUTURE OF 36TH RESCUE FLIGHT--FAIRCHILD AIR FORCE BASE, WASHINGTON
Senator Murray. Okay. Well, I stand ready to help you do
whatever we need to do there to make sure we are ready for that
as well.
In addition to supporting the refueling mission, Fairchild
is also home to the 36th Rescue Flight. They are very
important. They support the 336th Training Group and Air Force
Survival School. We know that these helicopters evacuate and
help locate students who become lost during their survival
training. They are very important.
It also supports civilian search and rescue operations.
They have actually saved about 600 people during recent
missions in a variety of States, not only mine, but Idaho,
Oregon, and Montana. They are just extraordinary. Their
crewmembers are unbelievable, and everybody just is amazed at
their capability. So, first of all, my thanks to them.
But I wanted to make sure that you all were committed to
work with us on the future of that 36th Rescue Flight. This is
so that we can maintain that very critical training in
emergency rescue operations that they have.
General Schwartz. Yes, ma'am. And I would also indicate
that that is related to the decision to discontinue the CSAR-X
program. And the Secretary made a call on that particular
program, but clearly, the mission remains important for the
Department of Defense, and that unit is part of that tapestry.
Senator Murray. Okay. Well, they are very important to us.
I know they are important to you, and I will work with you to
make sure we have what we need within the budget process on
that.
So thank you very much.
And thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Inouye. Thank you very much.
Senator Shelby, do you have any questions?
Senator Shelby. I have no further questions.
Chairman Inouye. Then Mr. Secretary, General Schwartz, I
would like to thank both of you for your testimony today.
ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS
I will be submitting questions on the tanker fleet. I am
concerned personally because of the age factor. And I will also
inquire into your thoughts further on dual purchase because I
have received a report suggesting that there may be massive
savings if you had two sources, but I will leave it up to you.
I am also asking questions on the possibility of developing
an export version of the F-22. I have had inquiries from our
friends and allies abroad indicating strong interest in
acquiring such aircraft.
And so, with that, I would like to thank you once again.
[The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but
were submitted to the Department for response subsequent to the
hearing:]
Questions Submitted to Hon. Michael B. Donley
Questions Submitted by Chairman Daniel K. Inouye
TANKER CONTRACT AWARD
Question. Secretary Donley, will the tanker replacement program
request for proposals go out to industry this summer? Is the Department
on track to make a contract award for the tanker replacement in early
fiscal year 2010?
Answer. We expect to release the draft request for proposal in late
September 2009, with a planned contract award in summer 2010.
Question. Secretary Donley, why is the Department confident that
the upcoming tanker contract award will not result in a protest to the
Government Accountability Office? What is the Department's plan if
another protest is lodged and upheld?
Answer. Protests are the prerogative of industry afforded by law.
The Air Force cannot guarantee that the losing bidder will not file a
protest with the Government Accountability Office. However, the Air
Force has worked closely with the Office of the Secretary of Defense to
ensure that the source selection strategy we implement will withstand
outside scrutiny. If a protest is lodged and upheld, the Air Force will
take the Government Accountability Office recommendation into
consideration, and evaluate the next steps to recapitalize our tanker
fleet.
TANKER DUAL BUY STRATEGY
Question. Secretary Donley, what are the pros and cons of the
Department of Defense awarding a split buy of tankers between the two
industry competitors? What are the costs associated with this
acquisition strategy for the full tanker replacement program?
Answer. The pros and cons of the Department of Defense awarding a
split buy of tankers are as follows:
Pros:
--Will likely expand U.S. wide-body aircraft manufacturer industrial
base; and
--Lowers risk of protest.
Cons:
--Doubles development cost from approximately $3.5 billion to $7
billion;
--To produce the minimum Economic Order Quantity of 12 aircraft per
year per competitor would increase average annual production
costs from approximately $3.6 billion per year to $6.2 billion
per year;
--Magnifies training, operations, logistics, and support costs by
introducing two new and different airframes at the same time;
and
--Would result in a significantly increased cost per aircraft if we
pursued a split buy at the current funding level, due to
production inefficiencies.
Note: If additional production funds were available to support the
procurement of 24 aircraft per year, there would be a faster
recapitalization of our tanker fleet; but, we could achieve at least
equal benefit from buying 24 aircraft per year from a single offeror
OSD (AT&L) estimates the costs associated with a dual award
strategy for the whole KC-X program would be between $11-$14 billion
(Net Present Value).
STRUCTURAL REPAIRS OF KC-135 TANKERS
Question. Secretary Donley, based on the current tanker replacement
program, it will take over 30 years to recapitalize the KC-135 fleet.
Can you elaborate on the cost of the structural repairs that will
need to be done on the KC-135 fleet during the acquisition of the
replacement tankers? Can these costs be avoided if the fleet is
replaced sooner?
Answer.
Discussion of Approach
Skin replacements are the major structural repairs that occur on
the KC-135 over and above the existing Programmed Depot Maintenance
(PDM) scheduled maintenance. To date, these skin replacements have been
manageable. Replacements in PDM have been limited, and there is a
reasonable amount of rework that can be accomplished before most of the
structures require replacement. However, the lack of a methodology
accounting for the interaction of corrosion with fatigue generates
uncertainty in our ability to accurately predict structure degradation.
The following assumptions were made to determine the cost and
schedule for replacing the skins:
--The dates we have forecast for replacement were selected to gain
the most benefit from the work that will be accomplished,
therefore the initiation date was schedule and not technically
driven.
--To minimize the impact to aircraft availability, it was assumed
that no more than 12 aircraft would be down at any one time,
and the tasks were grouped to be accomplished concurrently.
--Each estimate uses current year (fiscal year 2009) dollars and is
per aircraft; then year dollars will be more.
The information below can be compared with the proposed adjusted
schedule for the KC-X. For example, the crown and center wing (wing
box) upper skins (see below) would not require replacement until fiscal
year 2026. Acquisition of KC-X would eliminate the requirement to
modify 230 of the KC-135 aircraft.
Aft Body Skins
Replacement of these skins is already programmed to be done as part
of PDM fiscal year 2012-fiscal year 2017.
Estimated cost per airplane: $0.3 million.
Schedule: Fiscal year 2012-fiscal year 2017, 416 aircraft.
Estimated total cost: $124.8 million.
Maximum aircraft down: N/A--concurrent with PDM.
Upper Wing and Horizontal Stabilizer Skins
These would be done concurrently, separate from PDM, in a speed
line, and include replacement of substructure components that are
important to continued use of the aircraft and accessible when the
skins are removed.
Estimated cost per airplane: $6.7 million.
Schedule: Fiscal year 2016-fiscal year 2034, 416 aircraft.
Estimated total cost: $2.8 billion.
Maximum aircraft down: 12 (at any one time).
Crown and Center Wing (wing box) Upper Skins
This replacement is planned further in the future since recent
experience has not indicated significant problems with corrosion or
cracking. They are planned to be done concurrently in a speed line and
separate from PDM. We have accounted for planned retirements in this
increment.
Estimated cost per airplane: $4.6 million.
Schedule: Fiscal year 2026-fiscal year 2034, 230 aircraft.
Estimated total cost: $1.1 billion.
Maximum aircraft down: 12 (at any one time).
Due to the materials and the assembly techniques used when the KC-
135 aircraft was originally procured, occurrences of corrosion and
stress corrosion cracking will continue to be a primary area of
concern. These materials are susceptible to corrosion or stress
corrosion cracking. Corrosion is aggravated by the assembly techniques
that did not use modern methods of corrosion prevention during
assembly. Continued inspections, repairs, and preventive maintenance
are required to ensure a viable fleet.
Can these costs be avoided if the fleet is replaced sooner? Yes, as
indicated in the answers above, some of the costs could be avoided,
depending on timing of KC-X replacement and retirement schedule for the
KC-135.
END STRENGTH
Question. Secretary Donley, we understand that the Air Force will
be allocating personnel to new or growing mission areas such as cyber
security, the nuclear enterprise, intelligence, surveillance and
reconnaissance and other air support activities.
What tradeoffs are you considering that will enable the Air Force
to dedicate more people to these missions?
Answer. In the fiscal year 2010 President's budget, we source these
new and emerging missions primarily through the proposed Combat Air
Forces (CAF) restructuring plan. This effort accelerates the retirement
of approximately 250 of our oldest fighters, funding a smaller but more
capable, flexible, and lethal force, and redistributing manpower to
emerging high priority missions.
Implementation of the CAF restructure allows the Air Force to
realign approximately 4,000 manpower authorizations to emerging and
priority missions such as manned and unmanned surveillance operations
and nuclear deterrence operations. This restructure is a major step,
and was proposed only after a careful assessment of the current threat
environment and our current capabilities. In addition to being a
significant investment in bridge capabilities to our fifth generation-
enabled capability, this action shifts manpower to capabilities needed
now for operations across the entire spectrum of conflict.
Question. Secretary Donley, how do you see the roles and missions
of the Air National Guard and Air Force Reserve changing in the future?
Answer. As the Air Force moves forward, we must capitalize on the
tremendous talent the Air National Guard and Air Force Reserve
contribute to the Total Force, as both a strategic and operational
resource. It is critical to build on the success of Total Force
Integration to drive even greater gains in effectiveness and
efficiency, and expanding integration initiatives across the force
maximizes our capabilities across the spectrum of conflict--from
building partnerships and irregular warfare to conventional operations
and strategic deterrence. The Air Force will need to expand
associations, both classic and active, as part of our broad effort to
modernize our organizations into a more capable Air Force. This
expansion also includes examining new mission areas, such as unmanned
aerial systems, space and cyber, for Air Reserve component units as
appropriate.
C-17 PROGRAM
Question. Secretary Donley, there are some critics of the
Department's plan to terminate production of the C-17 strategic airlift
aircraft in fiscal year 2010. The next mobility capabilities and
requirements study which will inform a decision has not been completed
and C-17 is the only warm production line we have for strategic lift
aircraft.
What are your views about the adequacy of planned strategic
airlift?
Answer. The Air Force's planned fleet of 324 strategic airlift
aircraft (213 C-17s, 52 C-5Ms and 59 C-5As) is more than sufficient to
meet the current National Military Strategy. The C-5 RERP Nunn-McCurdy
review of the 2005 Mobility Capabilities Study established a strategic
airlift capability requirement of 33.95 million ton-miles per day, and
the Air Force's strategic airlift program of record meets this
requirement. The ongoing Mobility Capabilities and Requirements Study
2016, expected in December 2009, will help establish the future
strategic airlift requirement.
AIR FORCE NUCLEAR ENTERPRISE
Question. Last fall, the Air Force published a strategic plan on
``Reinvigorating the Air Force Nuclear Enterprise.''
Secretary Donley, please walk us through the Air Force's plan to
restore credibility in delivering secure and reliable nuclear
deterrence capabilities to the American people.
Answer. The Air Force has undertaken major efforts to reinvigorate
our Nuclear Enterprise, to include a major step by activating a new
major air command, Air Force Global Strike Command (AFGSC), at
Barksdale AFB, Louisiana. The AFGSC organizational construct clearly
aligns nuclear missile and nuclear capable bomber units under a single
command and demonstrates a visible commitment to the nuclear deterrence
mission. AFGSC will now foster a robust strategic deterrence enterprise
and standardized self-assessment culture.
Additionally, we realigned and consolidated nuclear sustainment
under the Nuclear Weapons Center in Air Force Materiel Command. The
Nuclear Weapons Center is now the focal point for nuclear weapons life
cycle management and positive inventory control for nuclear weapons
related material.
The Air Force has also established a new directorate on the Air
Staff responsible for Strategic Deterrence and Nuclear Integration
under the leadership of a major general. These actions represent the
largest reorganization the Air Force has undertaken since the early
1990s, and provides the leadership and focus necessary to accomplish
this critical mission with the precision and reliability it demands in
today's environment and into the future.
In addition to this significant reorganization effort we have also
instituted changes to the Air Force corporate process by adding the
Nuclear Panel for specific focus on nuclear issues and charged the
Under Secretary of the Air Force to be responsible for broad nuclear
policy and oversight. We also founded the Nuclear Issues Resolution and
Integration Board and the Nuclear Oversight Board. These boards meet
quarterly to ensure Air Force senior leaders involvement and
notification on recent events occurring in the nuclear enterprise. The
Nuclear Oversight Board is made up of major command commanders with
equity in the enterprise and chaired by General Schwartz and me.
We have also examined our inspection and self-assessment culture
across the nuclear enterprise and have made improvements there as well.
The Air Force Inspection Agency will have oversight of every nuclear-
related inspection. Inspection teams will consist of approximately 20
``core'' team members who have undergone a standardized training and
certification process to ensure consistent rigor. We have implemented a
root cause analysis methodology to determine why mistakes were made and
if they are a symptom of a larger problem.
Finally, we have undertaken initiatives to deliberately develop
leaders in the nuclear enterprise. We have reviewed every Air Force
professional military education course from basic training to senior
developmental education to ensure every Airman knows and understands
the United States' policy and strategy for nuclear weapons.
Additionally, we have established a process to track nuclear experience
and developed new courses to prepare leaders to fill key nuclear
billets. These processes will help ensure we place the right person,
with the right skill set, in the right job, and at the right time.
Question. Secretary Donley, how do you plan to rebuild the Air
Force's culture and institutions so that each Airman understands the
importance of the nuclear deterrence mission?
Answer. The Air Force has conducted a review of the curriculum in
every professional military education course from basic training
through senior development education to ensure Airman are taught Air
Force nuclear policy and strategy at key points throughout their
careers.
We have also refocused our nuclear inspection mindset. Instead of
inspection teams identifying errors and the units simply fixing
identified problems, we now do an extensive root cause analysis to
determine why the mistake occurred, and if it is the symptom of a
larger problem. This encourages our organizations to take a look at
their entire processes to find ways to improve instead of just fixing
what is broken. This new process strengthens self-assessment
capabilities and instills a ``culture of excellence'' mentality.
JOINT CARGO AIRCRAFT
Question. Secretary Donley, the Joint Cargo Aircraft program is now
an Air Force responsibility rather than a joint Army-Air Force program.
In addition, the validated requirement of 78 aircraft appears to have
dropped to 38 aircraft.
Why has the Air Force assumed responsibility for this program and
what has changed to reduce the requirement?
Answer. The transfer of Army Time Sensitive/Mission Critical
airlift support to the Air Force intends to capitalize on efficiencies
gained by operating the tactical airlift fleet under a single service.
The Department of Defense is now engaged in an overall look to leverage
existing intra-theater airlift capability to maximize effectiveness and
minimize expenditure of taxpayer dollars. The changes reflected in the
fiscal year 2010 President's budget request balance the C-27J
capabilities with the existing capabilities in the Department. The Air
Force will continue to evaluate the entire intra-theater fleet as
mission needs develop.
FIGHTERS IN THE AIR NATIONAL GUARD
Question. Secretary Donley, the Committee recently received
testimony from the Air National Guard alerting us to the fact that 80
percent of their F-16 fighter inventory will face retirement beginning
in 2017. Retiring these aircraft will almost eliminate the fighter
aircraft that the Air National Guard has dedicated to the Combat
Aviation and Air Sovereignty Alert missions.
What steps are you taking to ensure that the Air National Guard is
properly equipped for its important homeland security mission over the
United States?
Answer. Homeland Defense is the Department of Defense's first
priority and we are committed to the Operation NOBLE EAGLE mission
through the long term. Recapitalization of the fighter and tanker fleet
will require many years, and within the available funding, we will
maximize the life of existing aircraft.
We continue shaping our force structure to meet the threat with the
best mix of capabilities. To do this, we are acting swiftly to remedy
our potential capability gaps, based on accurate service life and fleet
health projections over the next 5-15 years. The Quadrennial Defense
Review will also take a close look at Homeland Defense requirements and
provide us further insight on the force structure required to meet our
Nation's air defense needs.
Question. Secretary Donley, is the Air Force looking at new
missions for the Air National Guard? Are additional association
relationships with active Air Force units planned?
Answer. The Air Force continues to examine opportunities for
integration with the Air National Guard and all existing and emerging
mission areas are considered for Total Force Integration initiatives.
Currently, there are additional fighter associations planned for the
Air National Guard. The Air Force recognizes the significant
contributions that experienced Air National Guard Airmen bring to Total
Force Integration associations and expects those benefits to continue
in legacy and next generation missions.
Question. Secretary Donley, if delays in the F-35 Joint Strike
Fighter program keep the Air Force from filling the empty fighter spots
in the Air National Guard with the new aircraft, will you consider
buying 4th generation F-15s and F-16s, which provide improved
capability over the aircraft being flown today?
Answer. The United States Air Force has invested heavily in the F-
35 program, and we are closely tracking developments in order to ensure
that it stays on track. The Chief of Staff of the Air Force, General
Schwartz, has stated on many occasions that the key to the Air Force's
fighter recapitalization is the F-35, and any initiatives to procure
fighter weapons systems other than the F-35 would require buying fewer
F-35s. Subsequently, delays in F-35 procurement would also cause an
increase in cost and further delay the F-35 for the Air Force, Navy,
and Marine Corps.
After the Quadrennial Defense Review is completed, we expect to
have a more accurate picture of what the Nation's and Air Force's
requirement will be for fighter force structure. If there is going to
be a gap in capabilities, this could be addressed by extending the
service life of the F-15s and F-16s. We are currently conducting
fatigue testing on the F-15 and F-16 fleets to provide a scope and
focus on the structural modifications that might be necessary. Once
these structural tests are complete, we will have a sense of whether or
not we will need a Service Life Extension Program. Beyond this, we have
no plans to procure additional 4th generation F-15s and F-16s.
INTELLIGENCE, SURVEILLANCE AND RECONNAISSANCE
Question. Secretary Donley, what is the status of discussions to
bring the C-12 programs together, possibly under the Air Force, and
avoid duplicative efforts in areas such as sensor development and
training programs? What are the disadvantages of a joint approach here?
Answer. The C-12 class of aircraft is made up of over 26 different
aircraft variations, and the numerous sensor configurations easily
triple the number of overall configurations in separate Services.
Consolidation of these converted civilian platforms under one program
would be extremely challenging and time-consuming. A few discussions
have occurred with regard to merging the C-12 class aircraft under one
Service; however, to satisfy urgent warfighter needs, the Air Force's
focus has been on producing, modifying, and fielding aircraft as
rapidly as possible. Due to the numerous variations and capabilities of
currently fielded C-12 systems, separate management is the most rapid
way forward for today's needs. To determine the full range of
advantages and disadvantages for a common future platform, further
discussion and in-depth analysis will be required.
EXPORT VERSION OF THE F-22
Question. Secretary Donley, I believe the Department should
consider an export program for the F-22 Raptor fighter aircraft. Under
the rules for such a program, the costs for developing an export
variant is borne by the interested nation, not the United States. This
would enable us to provide advanced fighter capabilities to our close
friends and allies.
Secretary Donley, what is your view of an export program for an F-
22 variant?
Answer. The Obey amendment to the fiscal year 1998 Defense
Appropriations Act, reenacted annually in every subsequent
appropriations act, prohibits foreign military sales of the F-22A
Raptor. However, I believe the F-35 is the aircraft of the future, for
both the United States military and our partner nations. It would be
very expensive for Japan, Australia, or other nations to buy an export
model of the F-22, and this funding is potentially better spent on
collectively developing the F-35 and the interoperability that enables
us to work together in future joint and coalition operations around the
world.
Question. Secretary Donley, could you give the Committee a rough
order of magnitude estimate on the cost and schedule to develop an
export version of the F-22?
Answer. The rough order of magnitude cost and schedule estimate to
develop an export version of the F-22 is estimated at $2.3 billion for
non-recurring development and manufacturing, with the first delivery of
an operational aircraft 6.5 years from the Engineering Manufacturing
and Development contract.
These figures came from a recent study which was reported to SAC-D
staff and Senator Inouye in May 2009. The study also identified an
additional cost estimate of $9.3 billion for the production of 40
aircraft, resulting in a total estimated cost of $11.6 billion (average
aircraft cost of $290 million). A Letter of Agreement signed in early
2010 would result in the first operational aircraft delivery no sooner
than 2017.
The cost and schedule estimates above only include the air vehicle
(aircraft, engines, and avionics). The study did not include recurring
or non-recurring costs for support and training systems, initial
spares, base stand-up, interim contractor support, U.S. government
program offices, foreign military sales surcharges or production
shutdown.
Question. Secretary Donley, do you think the availability of an
export version of the F-22 would change the international market for
the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter?
Answer. Introducing the F-22 into the export market as another
available fifth generation fighter would have a pronounced effect in
reducing international interest in acquiring the F-35. Reduced foreign
sales of the F-35 would cause an attendant increase in unit cost to the
United States--Air Force, Navy, and Marine Corps--and would have the
same effect on those international partners dependant on the F-35 for
their future airpower capabilities; potentially decreasing
international sales, resulting in even greater unit cost increase.
The benefit of interoperability to the U.S. warfighter is another
major concern. The Air Force will maintain a small fleet of F-22s,
while acquiring F-35s. The Air Force, Navy, and Marine Corps will have
much greater interoperability with partner air forces employing the F-
35 than with the F-22.
Finally, non-recurring engineering costs associated with hardware
and software re-design to produce an exportable version will be
substantial--well over $2 billion. The result would be an airframe
different in many respects from the Air Force F-22, complicating the
training of international pilots and adversely affecting
interoperability even beyond considerations of fleet size.
Additionally, Air Force personnel and technical resources required to
develop and oversee such a program would detract from resources needed
to properly manage our own acquisition programs.
THE CYBER COMMAND
Question. Secretary Donley, the 24th Air Force, which will stand-up
this year at Lackland Air Force Base, Texas, is the Air Force's focal
organization for dealing with cyber operations and network warfare. The
mission is new and success will depend on developing a highly skilled
workforce drawn from a number of Air Force career fields.
What are your plans for identifying and managing the cyber warrior
career force?
Answer. The Air Force is committed to establishing dedicated
officer, enlisted and civilian career fields to meet the emerging
demand and address recruiting, training and retention challenges. Air
Force Space Command, as the lead command for cyber, and the Air Staff
are collaborating to identify personnel and positions that are
performing or will perform cyber duties. So far, the enlisted Network
Warfare Operations (1B4) and officer Cyber Operations (17D) career
fields were approved on April 15, 2008, to be established not later
than October 2010. No date has been established for civilian career
field solutions, as we are still in the early stages of investigation
and development.
Question. Secretary Donley, since the cyber field is relatively
new, this is an opportunity to optimize a DOD-wide approach to training
and operations.
How is the Air Force working with the other Services to develop
joint training, joint certifications or shared facilities?
Answer. Joint cyber training standards and certification remain a
work in progress. The Office of the Secretary of Defense and Joint
Staff are leading the Department of Defense effort in collaboration
with the Services, U.S. Strategic Command, and Joint Forces Command.
The Air Staff and Air Force Space Command, as lead command for cyber
operations, are heading Air Force efforts. Current Joint and Service
efforts focus on enhancing existing training programs to further mature
and professionalize the force. A robust cyber training enterprise has
emerged, composed of Service, Joint, academic and commercial solutions.
This initial effort should be complete by spring 2010.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Robert C. Byrd
C-5 AIRCRAFT
Question. Mr. Secretary, I believe premature repeal of Section 132
of the fiscal year 2004 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) that
pertains to the retirement of C-5A strategic lift aircraft language
could result in the U.S. Air Force's (USAF) making uninformed force
structure decisions, just as the Army and Marine Corps are growing in
size and lift requirements. Section 132 was enacted to ensure the USAF
does not prematurely retire C-5A aircraft without having the objective
data from the C-5 Reliability Enhancement and Re-Engining Program
(RERP) Operational Test and Evaluation (OT&E) and a report submitted to
the Congressional defense committees.
Should Section 132 be repealed and will the USAF undertake a
thorough review of the C-5 OT&E data, which is expected to be available
this year, prior to issuing any decisions to retire any C-5 aircraft?
Answer. The United States Air Force will fully consider all
information at its disposal, to include the IDA study, prior to making
any programmatic decisions.
Question. Mr. Secretary, the fiscal year 2008 NDAA-directed
Institute for Defense Analysis (IDA) Study on Size and Mix of Airlift
Force (February 2009) affirmed the value of C-5s and their
modernization programs. IDA considered 36 alternative mixes and sizes
and compared them against the current program of record (316 strategic
airlifters). The study found; ``that retiring C-5As to release funds to
buy and operate more C-17s is not cost-effective''. Additionally,
``virtually all the C-5s and C-17s have lifetimes beyond 2040''.
Will the IDA study's overall conclusion that C-5A RERP is
preferable to additional C-17s be fully considered by the USAF prior to
moving forward with any plans to retire any C-5A aircraft?
Answer. The United States Air Force fully considers all information
at its disposal prior to any programmatic decisions and will fully
consider the IDA study if there is a proposal to retire C-5A aircraft.
Question. Mr. Secretary, I do not support repeal of Section 132 of
the fiscal year 2004 NDAA. I believe the Office of the Secretary of
Defense and the Congress should consider all objective data in support
of future fact-based force structure decisions. It is my hope that
Section 132 be allowed to expire in the February/March 2010 timeframe
following submission, and proper consideration of the C-5 RERP OT&E
report to Congress.
Should Section 132 be repealed and a decision made to prematurely
retire a portion of, or the entire, C-5A fleet, what would be the
impact on the 167th Airlift Wing of the West Virginia Air National
Guard, which was just officially designated as a fully operational C-5A
unit on April 1, 2009?
Answer. Repeal of Section 132 of the fiscal year 2004 National
Defense Authorization Act would provide the Air Force maximum
flexibility in managing its strategic airlift fleet. We value the
information that reports such as the Reliability Enhancement and Re-
engining Program Operational Test and Evaluation provide and weigh them
accordingly in our analysis. In addition, we are awaiting the Mobility
Capabilities and Requirement Study 2016 final report, expected in late
2009, to make an updated, fact-based analysis of our strategic airlift
fleet. Any future decision to alter the force structure will be based
on a detailed evaluation of factors.
Question. Mr. Secretary, at a February 21, 2007, Senate
Appropriations Defense Subcommittee hearing on the USAF's fiscal year
2008 budget request, I asked your predecessor, Secretary Wynne to
respond to comments made by then-USAF Chief of Staff General Moseley
that the USAF would like to retire 25-30 of the worst performing C-5
aircraft. My specific question was, ``Under what timeline is the USAF
planning to act and to inform Congress and the impacted bases of such
retirements?'' His response was: ``If relieved of legislative
restrictions, the USAF would be able to effectively manage the mix of
various aircraft fleets. Preliminary options under review include
replacing retiring strategic airlift aircraft with newer C-17s or
backfilling with newer C-5Bs from within the USAF. No new units are
anticipated. Likewise, closures of existing units are not planned. The
USAF will be open and transparent with regard to basing plans.
If relieved of legislative restrictions regarding the C-5A aircraft
in the near future, do you and General Schwartz intend to replace
retiring strategic airlift aircraft with newer C-17s or backfill with
newer C-5Bs from within the USAF? You may be assured that I will be
following up with you in this regard in the near future.
Answer. The United States Air Force will fully consider all
information at its disposal, to include the IDA study, prior to making
any programmatic decisions.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Byron L. Dorgan
JOINT CARGO AIRCRAFT
Question. C-27 Joint Cargo Aircraft (JCA): the Defense Department
recently realigned executive agency of the C-27 Joint Cargo Aircraft
(JCA) from the U.S. Army to the U.S. Air Force. Concurrent with this
action, the total planned procurement of the C-27 aircraft was reduced
from 78 to 38. Originally, the Air Force was to procure and assign 24
aircraft to the Air National Guard. Now the plan is for the Air Force
to operate all 38 JCAs.
What is the Air Force plan for basing these aircraft?
Answer. Given recent Department of Defense decisions regarding the
JCA program, the Air Force is working with the National Guard Bureau
and the Army to determine how to best meet domestic requirements and
the strong demand for direct support airlift in overseas contingency
operations. Similarly, the Air Force is working closely with the
National Guard Bureau and the Air National Guard to determine the
basing plans for the C-27J. Final basing decisions for this system are
still pending.
Question. When and how many C-27 aircraft will be assigned to the
119th Air Guard Wing in Fargo, ND?
Answer. Given recent Department of Defense decisions regarding the
JCA program, the Air Force is working with the National Guard Bureau
and the Army to determine how to best meet domestic requirements and
the strong demand for direct support airlift in overseas contingency
operations. Similarly, the Air Force is working closely with the
National Guard Bureau and the Air National Guard to determine the
basing plans for the C-27J. Final basing decisions for this system are
still pending.
NEXT GENERATION BOMBER
Question. Next Generation Bomber (NGB): in the fiscal year 2010
budget, the Air Force is no longer funding continued development of a
new long range strike aircraft, the Next Generation Bomber (NGB).
Previous Air Force budget submissions indicated a need to obtain an
initial capability by the year 2018.
Explain why the Air Force cancelled the NGB program and outline its
plans for addressing this need and fulfilling the requirement for a new
long range strike platform.
Answer. The decision to cancel the Next Generation Bomber was
directed by the Secretary of Defense in the fiscal year 2010
President's budget submission. The Air Force supports the Quadrennial
Defense Review and Nuclear Posture Review to assess future strategic
requirements.
Question. If the Service is not continuing the new NGB, what steps
are being taken to modernize and keep our legacy bomber fleet healthy
and viable until a follow-on bomber is fielded?
Answer. The Air Force plans to maintain the current bomber force
(B-1s, B-2s, and B-52s) and continue with planned sustainment and
modernization programs. The B-1 has five sustainment programs to
prevent grounding and one developmental program, which adds data link
capability. The B-2 also has robust sustainment and modernization
programs. These programs have been in previous budget requests and
continue in the fiscal year 2010 President's budget request.
______
Question Submitted by Senator Thad Cochran
REDUCTIONS TO CONTRACTOR WORKFORCE
Question. Secretary Donley, will efforts to reduce your reliance on
contractors and hire additional civilian government workers mean an end
to ``Public-Private'' competitions conducted under the Office of
Management and Budget A-76 Circular process?
Answer. The Air Force views in-sourcing as one of many efficiency
tools that comprise our overall human capital strategy. We do not view
it as necessarily being mutually exclusive from reasoned and strategic
application of public-private competitions. Presently, the Air Force
has no new public-private competitions identified for the remainder of
this fiscal year due to the moratorium established by the fiscal year
2009 Omnibus Appropriations Act.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison
ADDITIONAL F-22 PURCHASES
Question. Does the Air Force plan to purchase additional F-22
aircraft to fill the gap if and when F-22 attrition occurs?
Answer. The Air Force does not plan to purchase additional F-22s.
The fiscal year 2010 President's budget request completes the F-22
program of record at 187 aircraft and the last aircraft will be
delivered in March 2012. No further procurement is planned or
programmed beyond the program of record. Air Force fleet management
actions will ensure the long-term viability and combat capability of
the F-22.
F-35 TECHNICAL TRAINING
Question. F-35 technical training is currently conducted in several
locations. Follow-on technical training for F-15s, F-16s, and A-10s
(Air Force legacy platforms that the F-35 is set to replace) is
completed at four additional locations. I believe that there are many
benefits to consolidate training at a valued Air Force installation
such as Sheppard Air Force Base in Wichita Falls, Texas. This may
include reduced costs, experience with allied and international
training, expertise and core competencies in fifth-generation fighter
technical training, strong positive community support, and reduced
permanent change of station and temporary duty moves for our airmen and
women.
Please share your thoughts on consolidation of F-35 technical
training as well as possible timelines for this to become a reality.
Answer. All F-35 maintenance technicians will receive their initial
skills training at Sheppard Air Force Base, Texas. Crew chief, avionics
and armament specialists will receive follow-on specialized F-35
training at Eglin Air Force Base, Florida. This arrangement will
provide our Airmen with the skills needed.
Beginning in 2013, F-35 maintenance technicians will complete basic
military training at Lackland Air Force Base, Texas and then proceed to
Sheppard Air Force Base, Texas for maintenance fundamentals training.
Thereafter, crew chief, avionics and armament specialists will receive
F-35-unique apprentice training at Eglin Air Force Base, Florida. All
other Air Force F-35 maintenance technicians will receive initial
skills training at Sheppard Air Force Base and F-35-unique hands-on
training at a field training detachment at their first operational
base.
SUPPORT TO STATES--POTENTIAL MOBILITY CAPABILITY GAP
Question. Currently The Texas National Guard Sherpa (C-23) are
scheduled to deploy to support overseas operations. The extreme demands
of intra-theater cargo airlift will pose significant stress on an
already aging airframe.
How does the Air Force plan to provide adequate replacement support
to the States to sustain high maintenance and potential replacement of
aircraft attrition if the anticipated and validated C-27 Joint Cargo
Aircraft program is not moved forward?
Answer. In accordance with Chapter 1011 of Title 10, the National
Guard Bureau is the channel of communication between the States and the
Air Force on all matters pertaining to the National Guard. In
stationing and allocating Air National Guard capabilities across the
States, the National Guard Bureau has historically endeavored to
disperse capabilities geographically in such as way as to facilitate
access by States when needed. This practice is expected to continue.
Given recent Department of Defense decisions regarding the JCA
program, the Air Force is working with the National Guard Bureau and
the Army to determine how to best meet domestic requirements and the
strong demand for direct support airlift in overseas contingency
operations. Similarly, the Air Force is working closely with the
National Guard Bureau and Air National Guard to determine the basing
plans for the C-27J. Final basing decisions for this system are still
pending.
JOINT CARGO AIRCRAFT
Question. The Joint Cargo Aircraft (JCA) mission was validated at
the Joint Capabilities Integration Development Systems (JCIDS) process
and approved by the Joint Requirements Oversight Council. The 2009
Quadrennial Roles and Missions Review report found that Service
Capabilities were appropriately assigned.
What new information has over-ridden the extensive validation of
this thoroughly vetted program?
Answer. The adjustments made to the fiscal year 2010 President's
budget request will maximize the robust capabilities resident in our
current airlift fleet and ensure all intra-theater requirements are
met. The transfer of Army Time Sensitive/Mission Critical airlift
support is intended to capitalize on efficiencies gained by operating
the tactical airlift fleet under a single Service. The Department of
Defense is now engaged in an overall look to leverage existing intra-
theater airlift capability as we look to maximize effectiveness and
minimize expenditure of taxpayer dollars.
While the requirement for Joint Cargo Aircraft capability remains,
the Air Force will, whenever possible, apply existing capability to
fill a requirement before procuring additional hardware. Determining
the extent to which we can apply our current fleet to this mission area
is the task at hand and the Mobility Capability Requirements Study 2016
will help resolve this question.
TEST AND EVALUATION SUPPORT
Question. The new Administration's budget request cuts PE 0605807F
almost $50 million when compared to the fiscal year 2009 budget and by
almost $60 million compared to the first fiscal year 2010 budget
request submitted in January. A portion of the cut is just that, a cut.
The second element of the cut is based upon the assertion that there
will be a savings realized when 750 contractor positions are converted
to civil service solutions.
What analysis has been done to identify what the workforce mix of
contractor and civil service should be?
Answer. The Service components received Office of the Secretary of
Defense-directed contractor to Department of Defense civilian
conversion targets which begin in fiscal year 2010. While currently
there is no analysis, the Air Force is in the process of identifying
specific in-sourcing candidates to comply with the requirement.
CONTRACTOR TO CIVILIAN CONVERSIONS
Question. The new Administration's budget request cuts PE 0605807F
almost $50 million when compared to the fiscal year 2009 budget and by
almost $60 million compared to the first fiscal year 2010 budget
request submitted in Jan. A portion of the cut is just that, a cut. The
second element of the cut is based upon the assertion that there will
be a savings realized when 750 contractor positions are converted to
civil service solutions.
What analysis has been done showing the savings that will result
from the conversion of contractor positions to civil services
positions? Did the analysis include fully burdened costs of civil
service positions similar to costs clearly visible for contractor
support (i.e., overhead, G&A, material & handling, etc.)?
Answer. The Service components received Office of the Secretary of
Defense-directed contractor to Department of Defense civilian
conversion targets which begin in fiscal year 2010. The associated
funding reductions were based on the Office of the Secretary of
Defense's estimate of 40 percent savings. While currently there is no
analysis, the Air Force is in the process of identifying specific in-
sourcing candidates to satisfy the requirement.
Question. What is the hiring ramp-up schedule for achieving the
contractor to civil service conversions? What analysis has been done to
verify that OPM and AF offices can achieve the ramp-up schedule?
Answer. The Service components received Office of the Secretary of
Defense-directed contractor to Department of Defense civilian
conversion targets which begin in fiscal year 2010. The associated
funding reductions were based on the Office of the Secretary of
Defense's estimate of 40 percent savings.
Question. What assessments of disruption to programs (operational
readiness perspective) have been completed?
Answer. The Service components received Office of the Secretary of
Defense-directed contractor to Department of Defense civilian
conversion targets which begin in fiscal year 2010. The associated
funding reductions were based on the Office of the Secretary of
Defense's estimate of 40 percent savings.
MAJOR RANGE AND TEST FACILITY
Question. Defense Test Resource Management Center (DTRMC) is
required by law to do an independent scrub of Major Range & Test
Facility Base (MRTFB) budgets of the Services. That was accomplished
when the fiscal year 2010 President's budget request was delivered to
Congress in January of this year which exceeded the current funding
level by $60 million. No such assessment has been, nor is intended, for
the new Administration's budget.
What is the Department's plan to avoid circumventing the law and
Congress?
Answer. The Defense Test Resource Management Center has issued an
addendum to its previous certification of the fiscal year 2010
President's budget request. This addendum addresses the new
Administration's budget request.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Robert F. Bennett
MINUTEMAN III
Question. I deeply appreciate the news I received that the Air
Force is going to maintain the solid rocket motor industrial base that
supports the Minuteman III land-based portion of our nation's strategic
missile defense and nuclear deterrence. Only the prompt transfer of
funds will prevent further disruptions in production and provide a
desirable continuity of employment for the highly sought after
engineers and workers of the solid rocket industrial base.
What is the status of the Air Force's request to the Department of
Defense to reprogram fiscal year 2009 funds?
Answer. As part of Department of Defense's fiscal year 2009 Omnibus
Reprogramming request, the Air Force has submitted a new start request
to initiate an ICBM solid rocket motor warm line. Once new start
authority is granted by the Congressional Defense Committees and
propulsion replacement program contract close-out finalization is
completed, the Air Force intends to internally reprogram available
funding from within the Minuteman squadrons program element to fund
initial warm line activities as a bridge to fiscal year 2010. The
fiscal year 2010 President's budget request includes $43 million for
the ICBM solid rocket motor warm line.
Question. How many solid rocket motors is the Air Force planning to
buy? If this is not an accurate measure of the ability to maintain a
warm line, please explain the rationale that is driving the budget
numbers we have seen.
Answer. The number of solid rocket motors is not an accurate
measure of the ability to maintain an industrial base. We believe the
ability to maintain the industrial base is captured in the fiscal year
2010 effort which is structured to maintain design-unique material
availability; sub-tier material supplier viability; touch labor
currency; and design engineering personnel continuity unique to the
Minuteman weapon system. In addition, the fiscal year 2010 effort is
designed to maintain systems engineering assessment capability and
utilize independent verification of production processes.
Actual production quantities will not be known until the contract
is finalized.
FORCE RESTRUCTURING
Question. I was disappointed to learn that Hill will lose one of
its three F-16 fighter squadrons as a part of the recently announced
force-wide restructuring. However, upon reviewing the list of locations
from which the Air Force plans to remove F-16s, I noticed bases in the
intermountain and southwest regions appear to bear the brunt of F-16
force reductions. I find this puzzling due to the tremendous training
opportunities afforded by ranges in these regions.
If the Air Force is seeking cost reductions, is it not more
efficient to station aircraft near the ranges, like the Utah Test and
Training Range, which affords the most effective training environments?
Answer. Proximity to training ranges is one of many criteria the
Air Force uses to make basing decisions. The Combat Air Forces fighter
force restructuring plan will provide the United States with a smaller,
but more flexible, capable, and lethal force as we bridge to our
ultimate goal of a 5th generation-enabled force. As we developed this
plan over the last year, we focused on balancing planned force
reductions across active duty, Guard, and Reserve components, as well
as overseas and U.S. locations. We carefully analyzed the missions
across our units in all the Air Force components to achieve the force
mix that made the most strategic sense. The changes in this plan were
closely coordinated with our Air National Guard and Air Force Reserve
partners, as well as our major commands and affected regional combatant
commanders.
Question. I also wanted to ask about the confusing signals I've
received regarding the restructuring that could take place at Hill.
Under the total force integration concept, the 388th and 419th fighter
wings were merged together as a prototype for further efforts to mix
active and reserve fighters, an effort that has seen great results so
far. Despite this the restructuring calls for one full squadron of F-
16s to be removed from that combined wing.
Can you explain to me how the Air Force came to this decision, and
what you have determined are the real impacts on the total force
integration program?
Answer. The fiscal year 2010 Combat Air Forces fighter force
restructuring plan offers the Air Force an opportunity to reap
significant savings in funds and manpower by accelerating the
retirement of approximately 250 of our oldest fighters, reinvest in
critical modifications to our combat forces fleet, procure preferred
air-to-air and air-to-ground munitions and critical Air Force and Joint
enabling technologies, and redistribute manpower to national priority
missions.
These actions will provide the United States with a smaller, but
more flexible, capable, and lethal force as a capability-based bridge
from our legacy-dominated force to our ultimate goal of a 5th
generation-enabled force. The proposed Hill Air Force Base, Utah
changes are part of a global resource allocation process that makes
strategic sense.
As we developed this plan over the last year, we were successful in
balancing planned force reductions across our active duty, Guard, and
Reserve components, as well as in the States and overseas locations. We
carefully analyzed the missions across our units in all the Air Force
components to achieve the force mix that made the most strategic sense.
The changes in this plan were closely coordinated with our Air National
Guard and Air Force Reserve partners, as well as our major commands and
affected regional combatant commanders.
The partnership between the active duty and Air Force Reserve
components at Hill Air Force Base, Utah was one of the first Total
Force Integration (TFI) initiatives. The classic association with the
Air Force Reserve regarding F-16s at Hill Air Force Base, Utah has a
proven record of success and it has yielded valuable lessons learned
for other TFI associations. This association with the Air Force Reserve
at Hill Air Force Base will continue to meet the needs of the combatant
commanders during and after any force structure changes. The Air Force
will continue to assess the impact of force structure changes on
associate units in order to maintain an efficient and effective combat
air force.
F-35 SQUADRON AT HILL AFB
Question. It has been over a year and half since I was informed
that Hill is to be one of the first two Air Forces Bases in the
continental United States to receive an operational F-35 squadron. Now,
I understand that Hill is only ``on track'' to receive the F-35. Why is
the Air Force stepping back from the commitment it made?
Is Hill going to receive one of the first two operational F-35
squadrons in the continental United States?
Answer. A corporate, across the Air Force, review was not used in
developing the previous ``roadmap.'' To ensure the Air Force did not
considered all potential basing opportunities to support basing, I
directed the current ``Enterprise-Wide Look'' (EWL), which will include
Hill Air Force Base, Utah. The basing process prior to Fall 2008 was
de-centrally executed by our major commands. Basing decisions are now
at the Headquarters Air Force level. Bringing the basing decision to
this level improves the decision making process to meet corporate Air
Force requirements and the EWL planning process will assist in defining
a measured, transparent and repeatable process; allowing for a
narrowing of the list of potential F-35 basing locations. Upon
completion of its internal review, the Air Force will release the
results of the EWL and its content consistent with requests for
information from the public. It would be premature at this time to
presuppose the results of the EWL, but we expect to finalize the
initial candidate list for the first increment of operational bases by
October 2009.
F-35 SOFTWARE WORKLOAD
Question. I understand 22 percent of the depot maintenance for the
F-35 is software. Hill's Software Maintenance Group is ranked as one of
the top software engineering corporations in the world with a Level 5
Carnegie Mellon Software Capability Maturity rating. The additions to
Hill's Software Center will be completed shortly.
How is Hill's performance rated in the competition for the F-35
software workload?
Answer. The F-35 depot source of repair decision process for
software is not complete, and we are several years away from any
selection process involving the organic depots. There are ongoing
discussions between the F-35 Program Office, the Services, and the
prime contractor on the most cost effective method to transition
software maintenance from the developing contractors to organic depots.
Specifics for the timing of depot activation are dependent on
completion of software development, results of flight test, and the
maturation of software through the end of the system development and
demonstration program. The F-35 Program Office will perform a study
during 2011 on the activation costs associated with standing up organic
software capability through the Future Years Defense Program. The depot
source of repair decision for F-35 software is currently scheduled to
be completed by the end of 2014.
______
Questions Submitted to General Norton A. Schwartz
Questions Submitted by Chairman Daniel K. Inouye
AGE AND HEALTH OF TANKER FLEET
Question. General Schwartz, I am concerned about the aging Air
Force tanker fleet and the health and age of the KC-135 tankers by the
time they are replaced.
Can you update the Committee on the status of the Air Force tanker
fleet, including the age of the fleet and any current safety and flight
concerns?
Answer. The Air Force tanker force structure includes 415 KC-135 R
and T models, and 59 KC-10A aircraft with average fleet ages of 48
years and 24 years, respectively. Upon retirement of the last KC-135
planned for 2040, this tanker will have reached 80 years of service.
The KC-10 will have achieved 60 years of service upon its planned
retirement. Investment programs for both airframes focus on safety of
flight and obsolescence issues. The KC-135 aircraft has six ongoing
fleet-wide modification programs:
--Control Column Actuated Brake.--Modification preventing an unsafe
stabilizer trim wheel runaway condition--fleet modification
complete in fiscal year 2010.
--VOR/ILS Antennae Replacement.--Replaces the obsolescent antennae
used for navigation and precision instrument landing systems--
this is an fiscal year 2010 New Start program.
--Block 45 Upgrade.--Cockpit avionics modernization replacing
obsolescent Autopilot, Flight Director, Radar Altimeter, and
Engine Instruments--contract award late fiscal year 2009.
--Global Air Traffic Management.--Updates and replaces Communication
Navigation Surveillance/Air Traffic Management (CNS/ATM)
equipment to meet restricted airspace requirements worldwide;
modification complete in fiscal year 2011.
--Enhanced Surveillance.--Replaces APX-110 transponder with APX-119,
providing enhanced aircraft tracking and Identify Friend or Foe
Mode 5 capability (complete by fiscal year 2010).
--Mode 5.--DOD-mandated upgrade to the IFF system used for aircraft
identification in Air Defense Operations (fiscal year 2010 to
fiscal year 2012).
The KC-10, a commercial derivative of the McDonnell Douglas DC-10-
30 delivered in 1981, provides both strategic air refueling and airlift
for deployment, employment, redeployment and Joint/Combined support
operations. In its current configuration, the KC-10 does not meet
future Federal Aviation Administration/International Civil Aviation
Organization (ICAO) CNS/ATM requirements for 2015 airspace
restrictions. To mitigate operational risk, two modification programs
exist for the KC-10:
--CNS/ATM Modification.--Addresses near-term issues required to keep
aircraft operational within 2015 air traffic mandates/
restrictions.
--Boom Control Unit Replacement.--Replaces unsustainable Boom Control
Unit (complete 2012).
END STRENGTH
Question. General Schwartz, how do you see Air Force missions
changing as operations draw down in Iraq and increase in Afghanistan?
Answer. The Air Force will continue to provide critical air, space
and cyberspace capabilities to the warfighter in both Joint Operating
Areas--Iraq and Afghanistan. Continued improvement in Iraqi security
will permit the Air Force to move from a ``combat'' posture toward one
more aligned with ``advise and assist,'' to include shifting focus
toward training the Iraqi Air Force.
In Afghanistan, the Air Force continues to provide unique
capabilities to the Commander International Security Assistance Force
and U.S. Forces Afghanistan. Since January 2009, the Air Force has
increased its efforts in airlift, intelligence, surveillance and
reconnaissance, space support, electronic warfare, close air support,
engineering and logistics to improve the security environment in
preparation for the Afghanistan national elections. In addition, the
U.S. Air Force component of U.S. Central Command will increase its
theater engagement efforts across the area of responsibility as a long-
term and enduring measure to enhance regional security and stability.
IRREGULAR WARFARE
Question. General Schwartz, Secretary Gates has made it clear that
irregular warfare is of equal strategic importance as the more
traditional methods of warfare.
Can you tell us how the Air Force plans to build its irregular
warfare capability and how these initiatives are reflected in the Air
Force's fiscal year 2010 budget request?
Answer. The Air Force recognizes the important need to rebalance
our forces with additional irregular warfare capabilities, and we have
prioritized investments to continue growing these capabilities.
Operations in Iraq and Afghanistan have also increased the requirement
for low-density/high-demand personnel and platforms, and we expect this
high demand to continue as we prosecute counterterrorism and irregular
warfare missions. As such, we have invested additional resources in our
Airmen and force structure to ensure that we are able to meet the
Combatant Commander's needs, both today and in the future.
Specifically, for the fiscal year 2010 President's budget request:
--The Air Force gained the Direct Support airlift mission from the
U.S. Army. The Service will use 38 C-27J aircraft to support
the Time Sensitive/Mission Critical cargo requirements of the
U.S. Army to support irregular warfare operations. These
aircraft are well suited for the small fields often associated
with irregular warfare type missions.
--The Air Force will support USSOCOM's equipping of 8 MC-130Ws with
Precision Strike packages to augment the current AC-130 fleet.
This will provide more aircraft for armed overwatch of ground
forces engaging in dispersed irregular warfare operations.
--The Air Force will also establish in fiscal year 2010 a formal air
advisor training unit at a base that is yet to be determined to
build our international partners' ability to train partner Air
Forces.
--The Air Force will be adding an additional 52 (fiscal year 2010)/
437 (FYDP) Joint Terminal Attack Controllers and Tactical Air
Control Party personnel in support of Army Modularity and their
growth to 45 Active Duty Brigade Combat Teams. To ensure that
training requirements will be met, the Air Force has also
invested in 42 Joint Tactical Controller Training Rehearsal
Systems that provide high-fidelity simulator training.
--The Air Force will also be providing dedicated liaison support
aligned at the Army Division level by growing from six to
eleven Air Support Operations Centers (ASOCs). These ASOCs will
add 51 (fiscal year 2010)/201 (FYDP) personnel and five
communications, vehicle, and battlefield equipment packages
that will ultimately allow the Air Force and Army airspace
control elements to merge into one joint organization.
--Additional air liaison manpower (21 fiscal year 2010/91 FYDP) will
be added at the Army division and corps level to bolster Air
Force leadership and expertise of key enablers in intelligence,
surveillance, and reconnaissance; air mobility; space; and
electronic warfare.
--The irregular campaigns we are waging in Iraq and Afghanistan are
ISR driven. For the foreseeable future we expect this
insatiable demand for ISR to continue, but in an effort to meet
this demand, the Air Force has surged unmanned aerial systems
(UASs) into the fight achieving 36 combat air patrols orbiting
24 hours a day, 365 days a year. The Air Force has also
increased investment to expand to a total of 50 UAS combat air
patrols by fiscal year 2011. We are also adding manpower, as
the number of personnel that operate and maintain these
systems, and process, exploit, and disseminate the intelligence
they gather has dramatically increased.
FIFTH GENERATION AIRCRAFT
Question. General Schwartz, the Air Force has gained a great deal
of experience in building fifth generation aircraft. The F-22 aircraft
still has a substantial maintenance burden to sustain its stealth
characteristics.
Will the F-35 have a more sustainable stealth profile, or will we
be facing the time-consuming maintenance issues that the F-22 demands?
Answer. The F-35 Program is applying low observable maintainability
lessons learned across the spectrum, centered on designed-in
maintainability (materials, design, repair), assessment and
verification, and training. The low observable coating material for the
F-35 is different than that of the F-22, and the techniques required to
repair the F-35 coatings are different than those required for the F-
22. With the lessons learned from the F-22 program, we expect the F-35
low observable coatings to be easier to maintain and support.
JOINT CARGO AIRCRAFT
Question. General Schwartz, we recently heard that the Air National
Guard was expecting to receive about 48 of these aircraft with more
going to Army Guard units.
With a buy of just 38 aircraft, what is the basing plan?
Answer. The fiscal year 2010 President's budget request provides
funding for 8 C-27J aircraft for the Air Force to perform direct
support missions. The Office of the Secretary of Defense, Joint Staff,
National Guard Bureau, Army, and Air Force are working to develop a
joint implementation plan which will include basing recommendations.
The first 6 locations for 24 aircraft have been previously
announced. They are Martin State, MD; Mansfield, OH; Bradley, CT;
Battle Creek, MI; Fargo, ND, and Meridian, MS. Each location will
receive four aircraft.
The remaining 14 aircraft will be based in accordance with the Air
Force Strategic Basing Process. The National Guard Bureau, the lead
agency, will present the C-27J basing criteria to the Strategic Basing/
Executive Steering Group in October 2009. The recommended criteria will
then be presented to the Secretary and Chief of Staff for final
approval.
FIGHTERS IN THE AIR NATIONAL GUARD
Question. General Schwartz, the Air Force is focusing its fighter
acquisition on fifth generation, or low observable, aircraft. Is
stealth required for the Air Sovereignty mission?
Answer. Homeland Defense is the Department of Defense's first
priority and we are committed to the Operation NOBLE EAGLE mission
through the long term. Stealth technology is not required to protect
aircraft fulfilling this mission under any currently projected threat
scenario. However, these Operation NOBLE EAGLE fighter aircraft are not
dedicated solely to air defense and should be capable to support the
full spectrum of combat operations.
INTELLIGENCE, SURVEILLANCE AND RECONNAISSANCE
Question. General Schwartz, the Army and the Air Force have
invested in C-12 airplanes to provide full motion video and other
capabilities to our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Do you believe that greater efficiencies could be gained through
common management of these programs, and if so, what might those be?
Answer. Multiple Service acquisition entities have been tasked to
develop and field unique, quick reaction capabilities to meet the
increasing and urgent need for full motion video (FMV) in current
overseas contingency operations. In response to this urgent need, the
Air Force has already fielded 8 MC-12W Project Liberty aircraft that
incorporate a combination of sensors (to include FMV) and are proving
their worth in combat on each mission. The Air Force will continue this
effort to provide a total of 37 Project Liberty aircraft. At this time,
potential increased efficiencies of C-12 class aircraft management may
not be possible due the wide variety and combination of C-12 aircraft
in separate Services. These aircraft have varying sensor combinations
assembled under quick reaction timelines required by the warfighter.
Additionally, numerous aircrew manning and training requirements may
preclude potential efficiencies gained through a common approach at
this time.
Question. General Schwartz, we have recently been informed that
there are delays in delivering some of the Project Liberty aircraft.
What do these delays mean for fielding the capability, and do you
have a plan in place to fix the problems?
Answer. The Secretary of Defense tasked the Air Force to get him a
70 percent solution to the fight as rapidly as possible. The Air Force
delivered an 80 percent solution to the warfighters in less than 9
months and is now following up with an aggressive plan to add the
remaining 20 percent through a quick reaction block upgrade program.
The initial scope of this development effort was estimated at 8 months;
actual results were a 7 month delivery date for aircraft numbers 1-7.
We are now implementing lessons learned from the modification of
aircraft tails numbers 1-7 to improve the modification process for the
remaining deliveries. These include opening additional integration and
kit production lines on a 24/7 schedule and improvements to the
manufacturing and quality control processes. The first Phase II
aircraft (tail #8) has been successfully tested in all aspects of
mission performance and is the baseline for tails numbers 9-37.
Lessons-learned from the development of tail #8 have been applied to
the production line for aircraft numbers 9-37 to prevent any further
delivery and deployment delays similar to the ones already experienced.
No delays in the remaining aircraft deliveries are anticipated.
EXPORT VERSION OF THE F-22
Question. Secretary Donley, I believe the Department should
consider an export program for the F-22 Raptor fighter aircraft. Under
the rules for such a program, the costs for developing an export
variant is borne by the interested nation, not the United States. This
would enable us to provide advanced fighter capabilities to our close
friends and allies.
General Schwartz, how could the export of F-22 to U.S. allies in
the Pacific Rim region affect our international relationships there?
Would this be beneficial?
Answer. Due to legal restrictions on discussing F-22 exports, and
the overriding technology transfer issues involved, the Air Force does
not have a well vetted position on this subject. However, I believe the
export of F-22 aircraft to partner air forces would likely have a net
negative effect on U.S. international relationships in the Pacific.
An F-22 export program can be expected to shift focus away from F-
35 exports, likely driving undesirable price and schedule changes to
the F-35 program. For instance, the manufacturer would divert
engineering and management resources away from the F-35 to developing
an F-22 export variant. Any perturbations in our close allies' F-35
programs, induced by a mid-course U.S. Government policy modification,
could tend to disrupt our current stable relationships.
Finally, the exorbitant costs (well over $2 billion) associated
with development of an export variant could well become a point of
contention with our partners. The resulting airframe, likely different
in many respects from the Air Force F-22 because of technology transfer
issues, would also reduce interoperability and lessen partner
satisfaction. Although F-22 export could also provide another avenue
for security assistance activities, the size of the Air Force F-22
inventory, unlike the F-15 and F-16, will prevent its development into
a robust instrument of security cooperation. In contrast, the planned
F-35 fleet size translates into much greater security cooperation
opportunities which F-22 purchasers would forego. For these reasons, I
believe F-22 export would likely have an overall negative effect.
IRREGULAR WARFARE
Question. General Schwartz, in this time of fiscal challenge, how
will the Air Force ensure it maintains its existing conventional
superiority while investing in these new capabilities? Where do you
envision trade-offs?
Answer. The fiscal year 2010 President's budget request reflects
tough, thoughtful decisions aimed at properly resourcing capabilities
that enable ongoing operations, while maintaining our superiority in
conventional capabilities. We have taken aggressive measures to balance
our portion of the fiscal year 2010 President's budget request in a
fiscally-constrained environment, amidst the challenges of continuing
high operations tempo and rising operating costs. To meet the demands
of an uncertain and dynamic international security environment, the
fiscal year 2010 President's budget request reflects strategic balance
across these diverse mission sets and functions.
Question. General Schwartz, if these new initiatives are
implemented, how will you ensure that they complement, and do not
unnecessarily duplicate, the capabilities of existing Air Force Special
Operations Command air advisory units?
Answer. The Air Force strives to be a good steward of taxpayer
dollars. Changes in doctrine, organization, training, materiel,
leadership and education, personnel, and facilities are evaluated
before a material solution is funded. For example, the establishment of
the Air Advisor Schoolhouse is a foundational step towards expanding
the Building Partner Capacity and Security Force Assistance structure
resident in the general purpose forces of our Air Force. They will
definitely complement the Aviation Foreign Internal Defense roles of AF
Special Operations Squadron units, primarily the 6th Special Operations
Squadron. The 6th Special Operations Squadron is considered the ``gold
standard'' for aviation advising, and the time, talent, and treasure
invested in this capability result in a graduate-level capability with
expertise focused at regions around the globe. However, the demand
signal for advising partner nations in aviation far exceeds what
Special Operations Squadron units can support. But just as important, a
large percentage of these engagement efforts do not require the
graduate-level of expertise that a Special Operations Squadron
provides. By developing tiered levels of expertise within the general
purpose forces, we can work with ambassadors and country teams for a
tailored engagement approach that complements Special Operations
Squadron activities.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Thad Cochran
JOINT CARGO AIRCRAFT
Question. General Schwartz, you may know that the 186th Air
Refueling Wing currently flies KC-135 tanker aircraft out of Key Field
in Meridian, MS. Due to a 2005 Base Realignment and Closure decision,
all of their aircraft will be reassigned and they are scheduled to be
replaced with Joint Cargo Aircraft. Given this direct impact on my
State, you are probably not surprised when I tell you that I have been
watching the Joint Cargo Aircraft program over the last few years. With
this budget, the Department of Defense announced its decision to
transfer the Joint Cargo Aircraft mission from the Army to the Air
Force.
Is it the Department's intent that only the Air Force operates the
Joint Cargo Aircraft? If so, can you explain to the committee what
steps you are taking to ensure the Army's logistics requirements will
be meant in a timely manner?
Answer. While the C-27J has been transferred exclusively to the Air
Force, aircraft manning and basing are still being worked. As for
ensuring we meet the Army's logistical needs, the Air Force, in
conjunction with the Army, is rapidly developing a Concept of
Employment (CONEMP) for the Time-Sensitive/Mission Critical (TS/MC)
Direct Support airlift mission closely mirroring the Army's current
operational construct. In addition, 25 percent of the crew force in the
initial C-27J deployment in 2010 will consist of Army personnel to
ensure an experienced core cadre to facilitate initial Air Force
operations. Close coordination with the Army throughout the program
transfer and into the first deployment of the C-27J in the fall of 2010
will be the cornerstone to ensuring mission success.
F-15 RADAR UPGRADES
Question. General Schwartz, I noticed funding for five additional
Active Electronically Scanned Array radars for F-15C aircraft is number
eight on your Unfunded Priority List. I understand this type of radar
is being used on a number of other fighters as well and that it
significantly enhances the capability of these aircraft in detecting
and engaging enemy threats.
General Schwartz, could you elaborate on the importance of the
Active Electronically Scanned Array radar system and also tell us about
the need for these five additional systems?
Answer. Active Electronically Scanned Array radar on the remaining
long-term F-15 C/Ds in the Air Force inventory adds significant
capability ensuring their viability and utility. Among the advantages
are significantly improved performance against cruise missiles; a near
doubling of improvement in target acquisition and combat identification
range; a baseline capability for digital radio frequency memory
protection; the ability to detect and track multiple targets, and
connectivity with on-board and off-board sensors.
We will also obtain a smaller deployment footprint (nine to one
pallets) and greatly improve the meantime between failures.
Question. If funded, would these systems be installed on Active
Duty or Air National Guard F-15C aircraft?
Answer. Eighteen APG-63v3 Active Electronically Scanned Array
(AESA) radars have already been funded by the Congress for the Air
National Guard. The first 14 radars will be installed in the first
quarter of calendar year 2010. The remaining four radars are being
procured. Only long-term F-15s (Golden Eagles) are slated for APG-63v3
AESA installation. The five AESA radars noted above for active duty F-
15s will be installed at the same time as the ANG radars.
SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS
Chairman Inouye. And this subcommittee will meet next
Tuesday, June 9 at 10:30 a.m. At that time, we will receive
testimony from the Secretary of Defense, the Honorable Robert
Gates, and from the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff,
Admiral Michael Mullen.
And with that, we would like to thank the men and women of
the Air Force for their service to our country. Thank you very
much, sir.
General Schwartz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your
support.
[Whereupon, at 12 noon, Thursday, June 4, the subcommittee
was recessed, to reconvene at 10:30 a.m., Tuesday, June 9.]