[Senate Hearing 112-]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2013
----------
WEDNESDAY, MARCH 14, 2012
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met at 10:30 a.m., in room SD-192, Dirksen
Senate Office Building, Hon. Daniel K. Inouye (chairman)
presiding.
Present: Senators Inouye, Feinstein, Johnson, Cochran,
Hutchison, Alexander, Murkowski, and Coats.
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Department of the Air Force
Office of the Secretary
STATEMENT OF HON. MICHAEL B. DONLEY, SECRETARY
opening statement of chairman daniel k. inouye
Chairman Inouye. The subcommittee meets this morning to
receive testimony on the fiscal year 2013 budget request for
the United States Air Force. I am pleased to welcome the
Secretary of the Air Force, Michael B. Donley, and the Chief of
Staff of the Air Force, Norton Schwartz. Gentlemen, thank you
for being here with us to today and for sharing your
perspectives.
The Air Force's fiscal year 2013 base budget request is
$110 billion, about $5 billion less than last year's enacted
base budget. The Air Force is also requesting $12 billion for
overseas contingency operations, which is a decrease of $2
billion from last year's enacted amount.
To aid in the Governmentwide deficit reduction efforts, the
Air Force laid in significant fiscal reductions and realigned
resources to correspond with newly developed strategic
guidance. Obviously taking risk in certain mission areas was
unavoidable, so in the fiscal year 2013 budget the Air Force
requests divestiture of aircraft, decreases in end-strength,
and delays to some modernization efforts.
In fiscal year 2013 alone, the Air Force plans to retire
227 aircraft by reducing fighter squadrons, less capable
mobility aircraft, and older tanker refueling aircraft.
Additionally, the Air Force proposes to retire some of its
intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance aircraft to
include the Global Hawk Block 30 unmanned aircraft and an
economically unrepairable Joint Surveillance Target Attack
Radar System aircraft. I know there is great consternation
across the Senate regarding loss of mission assets and, in
particular, changes to the Guard and Reserve forces. I hope to
hear from you on how you plan to mitigate these losses with new
mission assets to ensure our Guard and Reserve forces maintain
high-readiness levels.
In line with these aircraft reductions are decreases in
manpower. The Air Force will reduce to the smallest force since
its establishment in 1947. By the end of fiscal year 2013, the
Air Force will reduce military forces to 501,000. I look
forward to hearing how you plan to achieve this end-strength
reduction without causing undue hardship on those airmen who
have served our country so dutifully.
In the fiscal year 2013 request, the Air Force protects
high-priority modernization programs such as the KC-46
refueling tanker, the Joint Strike Fighter, the Long Range
Bomber, and critical space assets. Unfortunately, there are
many other modernization programs that you propose to terminate
or restructure. I hope you will explain how you determined the
appropriate risk levels for these programs.
Gentlemen, there is no doubt that we are entering another
period of decreased defense spending similar to what we
experienced at the end of previous wars. I look to your
expertise and vision to ensure our Air Force remains the most
effective Air Force in the world. I believe this is the fourth
time the two of you have testified together in front of this
subcommittee. I sincerely thank you for your service to our
Nation and for your continued unity and professionalism during
this difficult fiscal environment. We are also deeply grateful
for the dedication and sacrifices made daily by the men and
women in our Air Force. I look forward to working with you to
ensure that the fiscal year 2013 appropriations bill reflects
the most optimal balance between resources and risk to best
meet the needs of the United States Air Force.
Your full statements will be included in the record. I now
turn to the Vice Chairman, Senator Cochran, for his opening
statement.
statement of senator thad cochran
Senator Cochran. Mr. Chairman, I join you with pleasure in
welcoming the Secretary and the Chairman to the hearing and all
of you who are attending this very important review of the
budget request for the Department of the Air Force for the next
fiscal year.
We thank you for your service to the country and your
dedication to your role in helping protect the security
interests of our great country.
Thank you.
Chairman Inouye. Thank you very much. And may I now call
upon the Secretary, Michael Donley.
Mr. Donley. Mr. Chairman, Vice Chairman Cochran, members of
the subcommittee, it is a pleasure to be here today
representing more than 690,000 Active Duty, Reserve, Guard, and
civilian airmen. I'm also honored to be here today with my
teammate, who is now the dean of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and
certainly one of America's finest public servants, General
Norty Schwartz.
General Schwartz and I are joined today by Lieutenant
General Charlie Stenner, the Chief of the Air Force Reserve,
and Lieutenant General Bud Wyatt, who is the Director of the
Air National Guard.
For fiscal year 2013, the U.S. Air Force is requesting
$110.1 billion in our baseline budget and $11.5 billion in the
overseas contingency operations supplemental appropriation to
support our work. This budget request represents the
culmination of many hard decisions taken to align our fiscal
year 2013 budget submission with the new strategic guidance and
with the cuts required by the Budget Control Act over the next
10 years.
Finding the proper balance between force structure
readiness and modernization is our guiding principle. In short,
we determined that the Air Force's best course of action is to
trade size for quality. We will become smaller in order to
protect a high-quality and ready force, one that will continue
to modernize and grow more capable in the future.
The capabilities resident in the Air Force missions set are
fundamental to the priorities outlined in the new strategic
guidance. And in assessing how to adjust Air Force programs and
budgets in the future, we've taken care to protect the
distinctive capabilities we bring to the table--control of air,
space, and cyberspace; global intelligence, surveillance, and
reconnaissance (ISR); rapid global mobility; and global
strike--all enabled by effective command and control.
The Air Force and our joint interagency and coalition
teammates and partners rely on these capabilities, and though
we will be smaller, we intend to be a superb force at any size,
maintaining the agility and flexibility that is inherent in our
air power capabilities, and ready to engage a full range of
contingencies and threats.
This budget protects the Air Force's top priorities. We
protect the size of the bomber force. We are ramping up our
remotely piloted aircraft force to a total of 65 combat air
patrols with the ability to surge to 85. We protect our special
operations forces' capabilities, largely protect our space
programs, and protect our cyber capabilities.
But, as we get smaller, it is not possible to protect
everything. Our proposed force structure changes include the
reduction of 286 aircraft over the future year's defense plan
(FYDP), including 123 fighters, 133 mobility aircraft, and 30
ISR platforms.
Many of these changes correspond to adjustments in the
overall size of the Armed Forces, especially the Army and
Marine Corps ground forces, which is the case for the proposed
reduction in A-10s.
Our smaller force structure has also led us to favor
divesting smaller niche fleets, such as the C-27J, and
emphasizing multirole capabilities that will provide
operational flexibility across the spectrum of conflict
demonstrated by our C-130s and by our choices in fighter force
structure, which include a smaller A-10 fleet and plans for the
F-16 service life extension.
We also emphasize common configurations, which can be seen
in adjustments to the C-5 fleet and C-17 fleet and in ongoing
efforts to seek common configuration within the F-22 and F-15C
fleets.
Because force structure changes have a ripple effect on
manpower needs, our budget proposal calls for a reduction of
9,900 Air Force military personnel. By component, this amounts
to reductions of 3,900 in Active Duty, 5,100 in Air National
Guard, and 900 Air Force Reserve personnel.
Fighter mobility and other force structure changes have
been strategy driven, based on change requirements, and
consistent with that strategy, especially where Air National
Guard units are affected. We've proposed to re-mission units
where feasible. We've carefully balanced our Active and Reserve
component changes to make sure that we can meet the demanding
operational tempos, including both surge and rotational
requirements that are part of the current and projected
strategic environment.
As our force gets smaller, all of our components get
smaller together and will become even more closely integrated.
We remain fully committed to our total force capability and
have proposed several initiatives to strengthen integration of
effort, including increasing the number of active Reserve
component associations from 100 to 115 units.
Our intention is to protect readiness at any level, because
if we're going to be smaller, we have to be prepared. To that
end, we put funds in critical areas such as flying hours and
weapon systems sustainment. We also support the Air National
Guard readiness reset, which balances manpower across the
States from lower-demand units to new high-demand ISR missions
and increases readiness in 39 units. We're committed to
ensuring that our military forces do not go hollow, and
readiness bears close watching as we move forward.
Modernization, Mr. Chairman, is our most significant
concern, especially as our fleets age and new technologies
drive new investment needs. In this year's budget proposal, we
slow modernization as we protect programs that are critical to
future capabilities. We also restructure or terminate some
major programs to protect key priorities.
Protected modernization priorities include the long-range
strike bomber, the new KC-46 refueling tanker, and key space
programs, such as the space-based infrared and extremely high-
frequency satellites, follow-on global positioning system
capabilities, and advanced ISR.
We remain fully committed to the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter,
which is the future of the fighter force, but we reduce the
rate of procurement for a few years, because in our judgment,
Lockheed Martin is not ready to ramp up to full-rate
production. Due to recent delays in the F-35 program, we also
proceed with an F-16 service life extension program.
Among the programs slated for termination are the Global
Hawk RQ-4 Block 30 aircraft, because, among other reasons, we
couldn't justify the cost to improve the Block 30 sensors to
achieve capability that already exists in the U-2, and the
Defense Weather Satellite System, a termination initiated by
the Congress, but one we can accept for now, because that
program is early to need.
As noted earlier, we decided to divest the C-27J, but we
have a good alternative to this aircraft, with the multirole
capable C-130, which has demonstrated its ability to provide
the direct support mission in Iraq and Afghanistan. We remain
committed to providing this support to the Army.
In other cases, we eliminated programs that were judged to
be nonessential in the current budget environment, such as the
light mobility aircraft and the light attack and armed
reconnaissance aircraft. Through more disciplined use of
resources, the Air Force continues to ring savings out of
overhead, squeeze discretionary spending, and find more
efficient ways of doing business.
In fiscal year 2012, we committed to $33.3 billion in
efficiencies across the FYDP. In this year's budget, we
identified about $3.4 billion in efficiencies and another $3.2
billion in programmatic adjustments to add on top of that
original $33.3 billion.
In keeping with our enduring obligation to take care of our
people, we will keep faith with airmen and their families.
Doing right by our servicemembers is key to our ability to
recruit and to retain a high-quality force. Nevertheless, the
impact of increasing personnel costs continues to be a serious
concern. Therefore, we support the military compensation
program reforms in the President's budget, which include a
modest pay raise, proposals to control healthcare cost growth,
and calls for a commission to recommend reforms in retired pay.
We must continue to seek and develop reforms to ensure the
long-term sustainability of the benefits our men and women in
uniform have earned.
Mr. Chairman, identifying $487 billion in Defense cuts to
comply with the current requirements of the Budget Control Act
has been difficult. Our Air Force will get smaller, but we are
confident we can build and sustain a quality force that is
ready for the contingencies ahead and will improve in
capability over time.
However, further cuts, through sequestration or other
means, will put at risk our ability to execute the new
strategy. To get this far, we made tough decisions to align,
structure, and balance our forces in a way that can meet the
new strategic guidance. If substantially more reductions are
imposed on Department of Defense (DOD), we will have to revisit
the new strategy. We cannot afford the risk of a hollow force.
prepared statement
General Schwartz and I feel deeply that our leadership team
has inherited the finest Air Force in the world. It is our
obligation to keep it that way, so that our Joint and coalition
partners know they can count on the United States Air Force to
deliver the capabilities that we need to meet the security
challenges ahead, and so that our future airmen remain
confident, as we are today, that they are serving in the
world's finest Air Force. Mr. Chairman, that is our obligation
going forward, and we are going to meet that obligation.
We certainly remain grateful for the continued support and
service of this subcommittee, and we look forward to discussing
our proposed budget.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of the Honorable Michael B. Donley
introduction
Since the first clash of battle, warriors have relied on breaking
through the lines to achieve victory. However, once the airplane was
used over the battlefields of World War I, the battle itself was
forever revolutionized. In the 65 years since the establishment of the
United States Air Force as a separate service, its technological,
strategic, and tactical innovations have been elemental in shaping the
way the United States engages in war, deters aggression, and maintains
peace. Because America's airmen characteristically view defense
challenges differently, our Air Force has pioneered advancements that
have been essential in ensuring our Nation's security while reducing
the overall casualty counts inflicted by war. As the Department of
Defense (DOD) faces fiscal pressures and an evolving strategic
environment, America will continue to depend on the Air Force to
contribute innovative strategies and systems to conduct our most
important military missions.
During the past decade, the United States has engaged in a
prolonged war aimed at disrupting, dismantling, and defeating al Qaeda
and its network. A major part of this effort involved long-term and
large-scale presence on the ground. The withdrawal of combat forces
from Iraq and the drawdown in Afghanistan signal the beginning of a new
chapter for America in which we will rely more heavily on airpower to
complement innovative, lower-cost, lighter footprint approaches around
the world. As the Nation sustains its global presence with a renewed
emphasis on the Asia-Pacific region, in addition to continued focus on
the Middle East, we must maintain the best military in the world--a
force capable of deterring conflict, a force capable of projecting
power, and a force capable of winning wars. We will preserve the
capability and expertise in irregular warfare that we developed over
the past decade, and we will invest in fielding appropriate amounts of
new and existing military capabilities in order to meet the national
security challenges of today and the future.
Despite new challenges and fiscal stress, America is and will
unquestionably remain the global leader. The strategic choices embodied
in the proposed fiscal year 2013 budget reflect 21st century defense
priorities and will enable your Air Force to play a critical role in
sustaining that leadership. As the DOD's recently released strategic
guidance articulates, the Joint Force of the future must be smaller and
leaner but agile, flexible, ready, and technologically advanced. The
Air Force will leverage the innovative ability and technological acumen
of its airmen as we conduct the military missions that protect our core
national interests:
--defeating al Qaeda and its affiliates and succeeding in current
conflicts;
--deterring and defeating aggression, including those seeking to deny
our power projection;
--countering weapons of mass destruction;
--operating effectively in cyberspace and across all domains;
--maintaining a safe and effective nuclear deterrent; and
--protecting the homeland.
Air Force contributions to Total Joint Force effectiveness make us
indispensable in carrying out these missions and overcoming existing
and emerging threats in this strategic environment.
strategic environment
After 10 years of sustained large-scale overseas operations, major
changes in the strategic environment required a reshaping of defense
strategy and priorities. Over the last several months, the Air Force,
together with our joint partners, has reassessed our future military
strategy and posture to determine how the Air Force will best
contribute to achieving U.S. security objectives, including freedom of
action in the global commons.
The major factors and trends of the strategic environment
identified in the 2010 Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) continue to
affect the security environment and inform its trajectory. The rise of
new powers, the growing influence of nonstate actors, the proliferation
of weapons of mass destruction (WMD), the proliferation of conventional
arms, and the transfer of other destructive enabling technologies are
all trends that still require focused attention when considering how
the Air Force will execute America's national security strategy.
Since the release of the QDR, however, we have witnessed events
that further inform our strategy. The Arab Awakening in the Middle East
and North Africa has brought about regime changes in some nations in
the region and challenged the stability and security of others. The
global economic crisis has made some nations reluctant to support
international cooperative military efforts as they have shifted their
focus towards domestic issues. The economic crisis continues to
contribute to the economic and political shift toward the Asia-Pacific
region, although we will continue to place a premium on U.S. and allied
military presence in--and support for--partner nations in and around
the Middle East. The demise of Osama bin Laden and other senior al
Qaeda leaders has led to deterioration in the organization's leadership
and impaired its strategic coherence, although the threat of extremism
remains. We are also transitioning out of the post-cold war world where
our military could easily gain access to the battlefield and operate
major systems unimpeded. Today, adversaries are developing ways to
prevent our access to the battlefield and deny our freedom of action
once there.
As a result of these factors, DOD undertook a comprehensive
strategic review and recently released new strategic guidance,
``Sustaining U.S. Global Leadership: Priorities for 21st Century
Defense''. The new guidance notes the importance of recalibrating Joint
Force capabilities and investments to succeed in the following key
military missions:
--counterterrorism and irregular warfare;
--deter and defeat aggression;
--project power despite anti-access/area denial (A2/AD) challenges;
--counter weapons of mass destruction;
--operate effectively in cyberspace and space;
--maintain a secure and effective nuclear deterrent;
--defend the homeland and provide support to civil authorities;
--provide a stabilizing presence;
--conduct stability and counterinsurgency operations; and
--conduct humanitarian, disaster relief, and other operations.
In determining development of the force required to meet these
missions, the Secretary of Defense has directed that we maintain a
broad portfolio of capabilities that, in the aggregate, offer
versatility across this range of missions. Other factors that are
important to the implementation of the new strategy include
understanding which investments must be made now and those that can be
deferred, maintaining a ready and capable force, reducing ``the cost of
doing business'', examining how the strategy will influence existing
campaign and contingency plans so that more limited resources are
better tuned to their requirements, determining the proper Active and
Reserve component mix, retaining and building on key advances in
networked warfare on which the Joint Force has become truly
interdependent, and maintaining the industrial base and investment in
promising science and technology.
Airpower--the ability to project military power or influence
through the control and exploitation of air, space, and cyberspace to
achieve strategic, operational, or tactical objectives--has been a
necessary component of successful U.S. military operations for many
decades, and a reasonable assessment of the strategic environment
suggests an even greater role for those capabilities. Since the end of
the cold war, the Air Force's contributions to national security have
evolved with the times. We have become not only more effective, but
also increasingly intertwined with the successful operation of the
Joint Force. We have now reached a point where no other service
operates independently of the Air Force; we are a necessary catalyst
for effective U.S. and Coalition military operations. As we realign our
resources to support the new strategic guidance, the capabilities that
underpin these contributions on which the Joint Force depends will be
protected.
realignment to the new defense strategic guidance
The Air Force has made the hard choices to closely align with the
new strategic guidance by trading size for quality. We will be a
smaller, but superb, force that maintains the agility, flexibility, and
readiness to engage a full range of contingencies and threats.
New Concepts
One way in which the Air Force is posturing itself for the future
in light of the strategic guidance is through our pursuit of the Air-
Sea Battle (ASB) concept in partnership with our sister services. The
rise of near peer capabilities--such as fifth-generation fighters, air
defense systems, and ballistic missiles--evince emerging A2/AD threats.
The ASB concept will guide the services as they work together to
maintain a continued U.S. advantage against the global proliferation of
advanced military technologies and A2/AD capabilities. ASB will
leverage military and technological capabilities and is guiding us to
develop a more permanent and better-institutionalized relationship
between the Military Departments that will ultimately shape our service
organizations, inform our operational concepts, and guide our materiel
acquisitions.
Enduring Air Force Contributions
The Air Force will also continue to bring four enduring and
distinctive contributions to the Nation's military portfolio to support
the new strategic guidance:
--air and space control;
--global intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR);
--global mobility; and
--global strike.
These four core contributions--plus our ability to command and
control air, space, and cyberspace systems--will sustain our Nation's
military advantage as the Joint Force becomes smaller and as we face
emerging A2/AD threats.
Air and Space Control
From the World War II Pacific island-hopping campaign to the
success of liberation forces in Libya, control of the air has been and
remains an essential precondition for successful land and maritime
operations. Today, control of the air and space, along with assured
access to cyberspace, allows U.S. and Coalition forces to take
advantage of unique capabilities in mobility, strike, and ISR and
permits surface forces freedom of action without the threat of
adversarial attack from above. Whether friendly naval forces are
helping to secure vital lines of communication and transit, marines are
conducting amphibious operations, special operations forces are
executing counterterrorism missions, or ground forces are engaged in
combined-arms maneuvers, these operations all fundamentally depend on
the Air Force to provide mission-essential control of air and space. In
the coming decade, our ability to assert control in all domains will be
increasingly at risk as sophisticated military technology proliferates.
The new strategic guidance demands that we forge ahead and maintain the
air and space power advantages that will enable our entire Joint Force
to deter and defeat aggression, operate effectively in space and
cyberspace, defend the homeland, and conduct stability operations.
Global ISR
Combat experience over the last decade has shown how important ISR
capabilities are to the counterterrorism and irregular warfare missions
and has also made it increasingly clear that these capabilities will be
required in contested environments in future conflicts and as we take
an active approach to countering extremist threats. Through a mix of
aircraft and satellite sensors and corresponding architecture for
exploitation and dissemination, Air Force ISR affords U.S. leaders an
unparalleled decisionmaking advantage on which commanders rely--from
supporting national strategic decisionmaking to successful outcomes in
life-and-death tactical situations. Moreover, airmen provide expert
processing and exploitation of staggering volumes of raw data and
timely dissemination of usable intelligence. In the past 10 years, Air
Force ISR contributions have been ascendant, particularly from our
space-enabled remotely piloted systems. But power projection in the
future strategic environment will require extending today's ISR
capability into contested battle spaces. This demands significant and
sustained attention to modernization of our ISR capabilities.
Global Mobility
The capability to get friendly forces to the fight and to extend
the range of airborne strike platforms is a unique Air Force
contribution that not only enhances joint effectiveness, but also
embodies the Nation's global reach and power. The military's ability to
deter and defeat aggression, project power, provide a stabilizing
presence, conduct stability operations, and conduct humanitarian and
other relief operations depends on the airlift and in-flight aerial
refueling that the Air Force provides. We ensure that joint and
coalition assets get to the fight and remain in the fight, posing a
potent threat to adversaries and a persuasive presence to allies. Our
airlift fleet transports massive amounts of humanitarian-relief
supplies and wartime materiel to distant locations around the world in
impressively short-time periods. Furthermore, in-flight aerial
refueling is the linchpin to power projection at intercontinental
distances. Global mobility also provides for persistent pressure and
over-watch once we arrive, as demonstrated last year in the skies over
Libya.
Global Strike
Finally, the Air Force's ability to conduct global strike--to hold
any target on the globe at risk--will be of growing importance in the
coming decade. Our conventional precision strike forces compose a
significant portion of the Nation's deterrent capability, providing
national leaders with a range of crisis response and escalation control
options. Our nuclear deterrent forces provide two-thirds of the
Nation's nuclear triad, competently forming the foundation of global
stability and underwriting our national security and that of our
allies. However, increasingly sophisticated air defenses and long-range
missile threats require a focused modernization effort exemplified by
the long-range strike family of systems. A key element of this effort
is the long-range strike bomber (LRS-B) which will strengthen both
conventional and nuclear deterrence well into the future.
Collectively, these capabilities, and the Air Force's ability to
command and control the air, space, and cyber systems, provide the
Nation with the global vigilance, global reach, and global power
necessary to implement the new strategic guidance.
adapting to constrained resources
Although the contributions that the Air Force provides to the Joint
Force have increased in relevance over time, there has not been a
corresponding proportional increase in resources. The Air Force has
entered this era of fiscal austerity with significantly fewer uniformed
personnel, with older equipment, and with a smaller budget share than
any military Department in one-half a century. The Air Force has been
continuously engaged in combat for more than two decades and has taken
on a range of new missions. Yet over that same time period, our
aircraft inventory and end strength declined. Since 2001, we have
reduced our inventory by more than 500 aircraft and have added new
missions, while end strength has come down by thousands of airmen,
leaving us next year with the smallest force since our inception in
1947. Meanwhile, the average age of Air Force aircraft has risen
dramatically:
--fighters stand at 22 years;
--bombers, 35 years; and
--tankers, 47 years.
Reduced manpower, full-scale operations, and reduced training
opportunities have pushed our readiness to the edge. The budget
increases that have occurred in the last decade were primarily consumed
by operational expenses, not procurement. There is a compelling need to
invest in next-generation, high-impact systems so that the Air Force
can continue to provide the capabilities on which our Nation relies.
The failure to make the proper investments now will imperil the
effectiveness of the future force and our ability to execute the new
strategic guidance for decades to come.
We are mindful, however, of the current fiscal situation and
recognize that we must contribute to Governmentwide deficit reduction
as a national security imperative. Our ability to make proper
investments to modernize and sustain the capabilities of the Air Force
is directly tied to the economic health of the United States. In
addition, as respectful stewards of the American taxpayer's dollars,
the Air Force is committed to achieving audit readiness and meeting
Secretary Panetta's accelerated goal to achieve auditability of the
Statement of Budgetary Resources by 2014. Over the last year, the Air
Force has made real progress, receiving clean audit opinions on two
important components of our budget and accounting processes from
independent public accounting firms. In the coming year, the Air Force
expects to have independent auditors examine the audit readiness of our
military equipment inventories, our base-level funds distribution
process, and our civilian pay process.
The Air Force fiscal year 2013 budget request reflects aggressive
prioritization of limited resources, heavily informed by the new
strategic guidance, with regard to both capability and capacity of our
forces--that is, both what capabilities we should buy and how much of
them. The budget brings together strategic guidance with fiscal
constraint. Its guiding principle was balance. To retain critical core
Air Force capabilities and the ability to rapidly respond to mission
demands, the Air Force balanced risk across all mission areas.
Although we will be smaller and leaner, we will not sacrifice
readiness. Selected reductions in force structure and modernization
programs were based on careful assessments reflecting the requirements
to address potential future conflict scenarios and to emphasize the
Middle East and Asia-Pacific regions. Force and program development
choices were also influenced by the need to protect our ability to
regenerate capabilities to meet future, unforeseen demands. Our budget
request seeks to leverage strong relationships with allies and
partners, including the development of new partners. Finally, the
fiscal year 2013 budget request honors and protects the high-quality
and battle-tested professionals of the All-Volunteer Force.
Force Structure
The fiscal reality and strategic direction mean that the Air Force
will continue the long-term trend of accepting a smaller force to
ensure high quality. In planning for a smaller force, our decisions
favored retention of multirole platforms over those with more narrowly
focused capabilities--for example, F-16s over A-10s and F-15Cs, and C-
130s over C-27s. Where feasible, we sought to divest smaller fleets
with niche capabilities and stressed common configurations for key
platforms in order to maximize operational flexibility and minimize
sustainment costs.
Aircraft
In meeting the force sizing requirements of the new strategic
guidance and to remain within the constraints of the Budget Control
Act, the Air Force made the difficult choice of divesting 227 aircraft
from our combat and combat support aircraft fleets in the fiscal year
2013 budget request. Total divestitures rise to more than 280 aircraft
over the fiscal year 2013-2017 future years defense plan (FYDP) period.
These divestitures will result in $8.7 billion in savings across the
Active and Reserve components.
In order to balance current and future requirements in the Combat
Air Forces (CAF), we are reducing the total number of combat-coded
fighter squadrons from 60 to 54 (31 Active squadrons and 23 Reserve
component squadrons). As part of a broader strategy to reshape the Air
Force into a smaller, yet capable force, we divested 21 F-16 Block 30
aircraft in the Reserve component and 102 A-10s (20 Active and 82
Reserve component) from the total aircraft inventory. In making these
difficult choices, we considered several factors:
--the relative operational value of weapon systems to counter capable
adversaries in denied environments;
--fleet management principles, such as retiring older aircraft first
and prioritizing multi-role aircraft; and
--operational flexibility, forward-basing, and host-nation
commitments.
The allocation of reductions between the Active and Reserve
components took into consideration the Air Force's surge requirements
as directed by the new strategic guidance, the expected future
deployment tempo, the need to increase means to accumulate fighter
pilot experience, and the imperative to ensure that the Reserve
component remains relevant and engaged in both enduring and evolving
missions.
In the Mobility Air Forces (MAF), we sized the fleet to a total of
275 strategic airlifters--52 C-5Ms and 223 C-17s.
We will seek legislative approval to retire 27 C-5As across fiscal
year 2013-2016, going below the fiscal year 2012 National Defense
Authorization Act (NDAA) strategic airlift floor of 301 aircraft. This
will avert higher sustainment costs for aircraft with substantially
less reliability than the C-17 or C-5M. For our intra-theater airlift,
the fleet was sized to meet the airlift requirements of the new
strategy, including our direct support requirements of ground forces.
We will retire 65 C-130Hs across fiscal year 2013-2017 and are
divesting the C-27J fleet. After these retirements, we will maintain a
fleet of 318 C-130s (134 C-130Js and 184 C-130Hs). Our air refueling
fleet is being reduced to 453 tankers after retiring 20 KC-135s. The
development and procurement of the KC-46A is on-track for initial
delivery in fiscal year 2016 with the strategic basing process
underway.
In our ISR aircraft fleet, we plan to divest all 18 RQ-4 Global
Hawk Block 30 aircraft and retain the U-2S Dragon Lady program. Due to
the reduction in high altitude ISR combat air patrol (CAP)
requirements, the need for RQ-4 upgrades to meet current U-2 sensor
operational performance levels, and the high-operational costs of the
RQ-4, continued investment into the U-2 is both the fiscally and
operationally responsible choice. Transferring the MC-12W Liberty from
the Active component to the Air National Guard (ANG) reflects the
assessment that the ANG is the appropriate place for long-term,
scalable support of medium-altitude ISR. The Active component will
retain association with the ANG units. The MC-12W will also perform the
mission of the divested RC-26 fleet. Finally, we will retire one E-8C
Joint Surveillance Target Attack Radar System (JSTARS) aircraft that is
damaged beyond economical repair.
Air Force leaders recognize that proposals to retire aircraft are
often contentious and that the Congress has at times written
legislation blocking or delaying proposed retirements. We are committed
to faithfully executing the law; however, we urge the congressional
defense committees and the Congress as a whole to be especially
cautious about proposals to block or delay aircraft retirements that do
not provide the additional human and financial resources needed to
operate and maintain those airframes. Retaining large numbers of under-
resourced aircraft in the fleet in today's fiscally constrained
environment will significantly increase the risk of a hollow force.
After the intense efforts to find efficiencies over the past few years,
the Air Force has only a limited ability to reallocate resources and
personnel to uncovered operations without creating major disruption in
other critical activities.
End Strength
In correlation to the reductions in our aircraft force structure,
we are also adjusting our end strength numbers. Since 2004, our Active,
Guard, and Reserve end strength has decreased by more than 48,000
personnel. By the end of fiscal year 2013, end strength will be reduced
a further 9,900 from 510,900 to 501,000. This will result in a
reduction in Active Duty military end strength from 332,800 to 328,900,
Reserve military end strength will decrease by 900 to 70,500, and ANG
military end strength will decrease by 5,100 to 101,600. Although the
reductions in aircraft and personnel carry risk, we are committed to
managing that risk and ensuring successful execution of the new
strategic guidance.
Reserve Component
The Air Force has enjoyed great success in leveraging our Total
Force Enterprise to present our enduring core capabilities to the Joint
warfighter. The ANG and Air Force Reserve are integrated into all major
Air Force mission areas, train to the same high standards as the Active
component, and are invaluable partners in helping us meet our many and
varied commitments. This will not change--we will rely on our Air
Reserve Component (ARC) as both a strategic and operational reserve. A
strategic reserve can be employed to mobilize significant numbers of
airmen in the event of a significant national crisis while an
operational reserve will still be used to augment day-to-day
operations.
Maintaining the appropriate mix of forces between the Active and
Reserve components is critical to sustaining Air Force capabilities for
forward presence, rapid response, and high-rate rotational demands
within a smaller overall force. Over the years, we have adjusted the
mix between Active and Reserve components to ensure we maintained a
ready and sustainable force and could meet our surge and rotational
requirements. The Air Force has successfully met the demand of
increased operations tempo through a combination of volunteerism,
selective mobilization, and the establishment of Classic, Active, and
ARC associations to better manage high-activity rates. However, two
decades of military end strength and force structure reductions in our
Active component have shifted the ratio of Active to Reserve component
forces. In 1990, the Reserve component represented 25 percent of total
force end strength; today that percentage is at 35 percent. Reserve
component aircraft ownership also increased from approximately 23
percent to 28 percent over the same period.
The total Air Force leadership carefully considered the ratio
between the Active and Reserve components for the proposed force
structure reductions in the 2013 budget request. The expected
deployment tempo, and the need to increase pilot seasoning drove the
allocation of reductions between components. The proper ratio between
components must be achieved to maintain acceptable operations tempo
levels within each component and to preserve the ability of a smaller
Air Force to meet continued overseas presence demands, and the rapid
deployment and rotational force requirements of the strategic guidance.
While the Air Force Reserve and ANG are significantly affected by
the proposed 2013 Air Force budget request, they remain essential
elements of our total force. Due to the magnitude of the budget
decline, our programmed reductions are wide-ranging, directly impacting
more than 60 installations. Thirty-three States will be directly
impacted, but all 54 States and territories will be affected in some
way by the proposed aircraft and manpower reductions. Although some
squadrons will actually grow larger, it is unlikely that there will be
a 100-percent backfill of personnel or alternative mission for every
location. Without the total force re-missioning actions we are
proposing, these reductions would have significantly affected 24 units
and left eight installations without an Air Force presence.
In close coordination with our ANG and Air Force Reserve leaders,
we have developed a detailed plan that will mitigate the impact by
realigning missions to restore 14 of the 24 units. Nine of the
remaining ten units have existing missions, or the mission will
transfer from the ANG to the Air Force Reserve. Our plan also maintains
an Air Force presence on seven of the eight affected installations.
This plan will allow us to preserve an appropriate Active to Reserve
component force mix ratio and minimizes the possibility of uncovered
missions. The aircraft force structure changes also presented an
opportunity for the ANG to realign manpower to ensure proper mission
resourcing while simultaneously bolstering ANG readiness. The fiscal
year 2013 adjustments in strategy, force structure, and resources
allowed us to realign manpower within the ANG to properly source its
growing MC-12W and MQ-1/9 missions.
After the proposed force reductions and mitigations, Reserve
component end strength will make up 33 percent of total force military
personnel, a reduction of 2 percent from the fiscal year 2012 numbers.
Within the CAF, the Reserve component will have 38 percent of total
aircraft which is 4 percent lower than fiscal year 2012. For the MAF,
the Reserve component shares shifts from 51 percent to 46 percent. In
order to maintain capability, the Air Force intends to grow the number
of total force Integration associations from 100 to 115. This will
enable the seasoning of our Active Duty personnel while improving the
combat capacity of our Reserve component.
Readiness
Readiness is comprised of complementary components, such as flying
hours, weapon system sustainment, and facilities and installations. A
good readiness posture depends on health in all of these key areas. In
spite of aircraft divestments and reduction in personnel, we are
committed to executing the Defense strategy and will ensure America's
Air Force remains ready to perform its mission every day. High
operations tempo has had some detrimental effects on our overall
readiness, particularly in the context of aging weapons systems and
stress on our personnel.
Since September 11, 2001, the Air Force has flown more than 455,000
sorties in support of Operations Iraqi Freedom and New Dawn and more
than 350,000 sorties in support of Operation Enduring Freedom. In 2011,
our airmen averaged approximately 400 sorties every day, with December
17, 2011, marking the first day in 20 years that the Air Force did not
fly an air tasking sortie in Iraq. Maintaining our ability to be ready
across the full spectrum of operations has been challenging in recent
years, especially for the CAF and certain limited-supply/high-demand
units. We will continue to revise our readiness tracking systems to
provide increasingly accurate assessments and mitigate readiness
shortfalls. Preserving readiness and avoiding a hollow force was a non-
negotiable priority for the Air Force and DOD in developing the fiscal
year 2013 budget.
Weapons System Sustainment
During previous budget cycles, the overall Air Force weapons system
sustainment (WSS) requirement increased each year due to sustainment
strategy, the complexity of new aircraft, operations tempo, force
structure changes, and growth in depot work packages for legacy
aircraft. In fiscal year 2013, although the Air Force is retiring some
combat, mobility, and ISR force structure, our overall weapon system
sustainment requirements continue to increase. These cost increases,
along with a reduction in the Service's overseas contingency operations
(OCO) request, resulted in a slight decrease in the percentage of
weapons systems sustainment requirements funded from fiscal year 2012
to fiscal year 2013.
Including the OCO request, WSS is funded at 79 percent of
requirement in the fiscal year 2013 budget.
We maintained our readiness capability in the portfolio areas most
directly affecting readiness such as aircraft, engines, and missiles,
while taking some risk in areas that are less readiness related in the
short term such as technical orders, sustaining engineering, and
software. Additionally, the Air Force continues to conduct requirements
reviews and streamline organizations and processes to reduce
maintenance and material costs, develop depot efficiencies, and manage
weapon system requirements growth. The goal of these efforts is to
sustain fiscal year 2012 weapon system sustainment performance levels
for fiscal year 2013.
Facility Sustainment, Restoration, and Modernization
The sustainment portion of facilities sustainment, restoration, and
modernization (FSRM) was funded more than 80 percent of the Office of
the Secretary of Defense (OSD) facility sustainment model. Due to
current fiscal realities the revised strategic guidance, the Air Force
is also taking a deliberate pause in its military construction (MILCON)
program, resulting in a nearly $900 million reduction from fiscal year
2012 enacted levels. To manage the risk associated with these actions
we continue civil engineering transformation to employ an enterprise-
wide, centralized, asset management approach to installation resourcing
which maximizes each facility dollar.
Flying Hour Program
The emphasis on readiness in the new strategic guidance reinforced
Air Force focus on the importance of maintaining our flying hour
program (FHP). The fiscal year 2013 budget removes flying hours where
associated with the retirement of some of our oldest aircraft and
divestiture of single-role mission weapon systems. In the remainder of
the FHP, however, levels are consistent with fiscal year 2012 levels to
prevent further erosion of readiness. The fiscal year 2013 baseline FHP
remains optimized as we continue to fly a significant portion of our
hours in the Central Command (CENTCOM) area of responsibility (AOR),
but still poses a measured risk to our full-spectrum training and
readiness levels, especially with our tactical fighters. As operations
in the CENTCOM AOR decrease, these OCO hours will migrate back to our
baseline program to ensure peacetime FHP requirements are met. We are
also committed to a long-term effort to increase our live, virtual, and
constructive operational training (LVC-OT) capability and capacity by
funding improvements in our LVC-OT devices (e.g., simulators and
virtual trainers) and networks.
Although the Air Force has no single rollup metric to measure FHP
requirements, we are working toward a set of metrics that clearly
articulate the training requirements needed to support desired
readiness levels. Our challenge is that the diversity of our missions
does not lend itself to yardsticks like ``hours per crewmember per
month''. The Air Force operates a wide variety of aircraft--including
multirole aircraft--that require differing training requirements in
amount and type for each aircrew member. In addition, we have critical
space and cyber units that involve no aircraft at all. As we develop
FHP metrics, we will dovetail our efforts with the work being done at
the Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation (CAPE) office at the OSD to
study the relationship between Defense funding and military readiness
and mature necessary metrics and assessment tools.
Even though the Air Force will be smaller in capacity, we will
remain highly capable and lethal, as well as ready, agile, and
deployable.
Modernization
Looking ahead, the Air Force faces two primary strategic
challenges. In the face of declining budgets, we must still provide the
essential force structure and capabilities on which the Joint Force
depends. Historical and projected uses of U.S. military forces and our
inability to accurately predict the future, make the complete
divestment of the capability to conduct any 1 of the 12 Air Force Core
Functions imprudent. Yet, the new strategic guidance also requires
continuing modernization of our aging force to address the
proliferation of modern threats. Finding the right balance requires a
long-range plan that begins with a strategic vision. Implementing
across the board cuts will not produce the envisioned Joint Force of
2020.
Accordingly, we carefully scrutinized all our weapons systems and
capabilities to determine which require investment today and those that
can be deferred. We then made the tough choices to maximize our
military effectiveness in a constrained resource environment. Combat
and combat support aircraft force structure reductions, coupled with
reduced development and procurement of preferred munitions and other
key modernization programs, were essential to achieving the Air Force
fiscal year 2013 budget targets.
In fiscal year 2013, we have programmed $35.8 billion for
modernization, approximately 33 percent of the Air Force total
obligation authority. We are slowing the pace and scope of
modernization while protecting programs critical to future warfighter
needs. Focused investment in high-priority programs such as the F-35
Joint Strike Fighter, LRS-B, KC-46A refueling tanker, service-life
extension of the F-16, space-based infrared and advanced extremely
high-frequency satellites, space situational awareness capabilities,
and our space launch capability is critical to the Department's overall
strategy. Access and continued freedom of maneuver within cyberspace is
an essential requirement for our networked force, therefore the
development of offensive and defensive cyber capabilities remains a top
Air Force priority. Additionally, in coordination with the Navy, the
Air Force will fund modern radars, precision munitions, and other
priorities to support the ASB concept and ensure worldwide power
projection despite increasing A2/AD challenges.
To continue funding these high-priority investments, we made the
hard choices to terminate or restructure programs with unaffordable
cost growth or technical challenges such as the RQ-4 Block 30, B-2
extremely high-frequency radio improvements, and the Family of Advanced
Beyond Line of Sight Terminals (FAB-7). We eliminated expensive
programs, such as the C-130 Avionics Modernization Program, the C-27J
program, and Defense Weather Satellite System, which have more
affordable alternatives that still accomplish the mission. Likewise, we
discontinued or deferred programs that are simply beyond our reach in
the current fiscal environment, such as the common vertical lift
support platform, light mobility aircraft, and light attack and armed
reconnaissance aircraft. The fiscal year 2013 budget also accepts
significant near-term risk in MILCON for current mission facilities,
limiting ourselves to projects required to support new aircraft bed
downs and emerging missions.
Underpinning the Air Force's ability to leverage and field these
crucial technologies is America's aerospace research and development
infrastructure--a national asset that must be protected to ensure
future U.S. advantages in technology and civil aerospace. Therefore,
the Air Force's budget protects science and technology funding as a
share of our total resources.
More Disciplined Use of Defense Dollars
In June 2010, the Secretary of Defense challenged the Services to
increase funding for mission activities by identifying efficiencies in
overhead, support, and other less mission-essential areas in an effort
to identify $100 billion in DOD savings for reinvestment. Our fiscal
year 2013 budget continues to depend on successfully managing and
delivering the $33.3 billion in Air Force efficiencies from fiscal year
2012 to fiscal year 2016 associated with the fiscal year 2012
President's budget submission. We are actively managing and reporting
on these, as well as the Air Force portion of DOD-wide efficiencies. In
light of the current budget constraints, the Air Force continues to
seek out opportunities for additional efficiencies.
The fiscal year 2013 budget request includes additional savings of
$6.6 billion over the next 5 years from our more disciplined use of DOD
dollars. This represents $3.4 billion in new efficiency efforts as well
as $3.2 billion in programmatic adjustments. These reductions continue
to focus on overhead cost reductions and spending constraints
consistent with Executive Order 13589, ``Promoting Efficient
Spending'', and an Office of Management and Budget (OMB) memorandum,
dated November 7, 2011, to reduce contract spending for management
support services. Areas in which we are seeking major efficiencies and
spending reductions in this budget submission include information
technology, service contracts, travel, and inventory.
We are identifying and eliminating duplicate information technology
applications across our business and mission system areas. Policies and
better spending controls will be placed within modernization and legacy
systems sustainment areas. We have committed to save $100 million in
fiscal year 2013 and $1.1 billion across the future years defense plan
(FYDP) in this area. We continue to put downward pressure on service
support contract spending and are committing to an additional $200
million reduction in fiscal year 2013 and $1 billion across the FYDP.
These efforts are consistent with Secretary of Defense-directed
efficiencies across the DOD and OMB guidance to reduce contract
spending by 15 percent by the end of fiscal year 2012 from a fiscal
year 2010 baseline. Executive Order 13589 also directs reductions in
travel across Departments. The Air Force budget for travel has steadily
declined from actual spending of $984 million in fiscal year 2010 to a
budgeted-level of $810 million in fiscal year 2012. Between Air Force
budget reductions and DOD-directed travel reductions, the fiscal year
2013 President's budget reflects an additional $116 million travel
savings in fiscal year 2013 and $583 million across the FYDP. Finally,
a bottom-up review of base-level inventory is planned, with the intent
of identifying consumable and repairable items that are excess,
including Government Purchase Card-procured excess inventory. We
estimate $45 million savings in fiscal year 2013 and $225 million
across the FYDP.
Taking Care of Our People
Regardless of any strategy realignment or future mission
commitment, the hallmark of our success as an Air Force has always
been, and will remain, our people. Our mission effectiveness depends
first and foremost on the readiness and dedication of our airmen.
Nearly two decades of sustained combat, humanitarian, and stability
operations have imposed extraordinary demands on our force. As we look
to the future of reduced funding and fewer manpower positions, we are
working hard to continue meeting the needs of a 21st century force. The
Nation owes a debt of gratitude for the sacrifices made by our airmen
and their families.
Despite the difficult budgetary environment, we are committed to
our Air Force community. Therefore, quality-of-service programs must
continue as one of our highest priorities. We are sustaining cost-
effective services and programs to maintain balanced, healthy, and
resilient airmen and families so that they are equipped to meet the
demands of high operations tempo and persistent conflict. As our force
changes, we must adapt our programs and services to ensure we meet the
needs of today's airmen and their families. Developing our airmen will
be a key focus as we continue efforts to reduce the ``cost of doing
business'' and develop lighter-footprint approaches to achieving
security objectives. We will do this by developing expertise in foreign
language, regional, and cultural skills while also ensuring our
educational programs focus on current and anticipated mission
requirements.
Even as Air Force end strength continues to be reduced,
requirements for some career fields--like special operations, ISR, and
cyber--continue to grow. We will continue to size and shape the force
through a series of voluntary and involuntary programs designed to
retain the highest-quality airmen with the right skills and
capabilities. As we take steps to reduce our end strength, we will
offer support programs to help separating airmen translate their
military skills to the civilian workforce and facilitate the transition
in a way that capitalizes on the tremendous experience in technical
fields and leadership that they accrue while serving.
Although retention is at a record high, we must sustain accessions
for the long term and utilize a series of recruiting and retention
bonuses to ensure the right balance of skills exist across the spectrum
of the force. Enlistment bonuses are the most effective, responsive,
and measurable tool for meeting requirements growth in emerging
missions, while retention bonuses encourage airmen to remain in, or
retrain into, career fields with high-operational demands.
We recognize the unique demands of military service and want to
ensure that our airmen are compensated in a way that honors that
service. Accordingly, the President has announced a 1.7-percent
increase in basic military pay for fiscal year 2013. The costs of
military pay, allowances, and healthcare have risen significantly in
the last decade. These costs have nearly doubled DOD-wide since fiscal
year 2001 while the number of full-time military personnel, including
activated Reserves, has increased only 8 percent. As budgets decrease,
we must find ways to achieve savings in this area to prevent overly
large cuts in forces, readiness, and modernization. As part of a DOD-
wide effort, we are looking at a gamut of proposals, including
healthcare initiatives and retirement system changes, to meet deficit
reduction targets and slow cost growth. Proposed healthcare changes
will focus on working-age retirees and the retirement commission will
address potential future changes, with the current force grandfathered
into the current system. The Defense budget includes a number of
proposals to control healthcare cost growth in fiscal year 2013 and for
the longer term. The recommendations included in the budget reflect the
proper balance and the right priorities.
We must go forward with balanced set of reductions in the military
budget that not only implements the strategic guidance but also does
our part to alleviate the Nation's economic difficulties. Any solutions
to this problem will be deliberate, will recognize that the All-
Volunteer Force is the core of our military, and will not break faith
with the airmen and families who serve our Nation.
With this as a backdrop, the Air Force has approached its
investment strategy in a way that seeks to apply our resources to the
people, programs, and systems that will best contribute to the new DOD
strategic guidance.
air force core functions
The Air Force core functions provide a framework for balancing
investments across Air Force capabilities and our enduring
contributions as we align our resources to the new defense strategic
guidance. However, none of these core functions should be viewed in
isolation. There is inherent interdependence among these capabilities
within the Air Force, the Joint Force, and in some cases, throughout
the United States Government. The Air Force's budget request of $110.1
billion reflects the difficult choices that had to be made as a result
of Air Force fiscal limitations, while still providing an appropriate
balance of investment across our core functions in a way that best
supports key DOD military missions. Additional detailed information
about each core function, including specific investment figures, can be
found in the Budget Overview Book and in the detailed budget
justification documents provided to the Congress.
Air Superiority
U.S. forces must be able to deter and defeat adversaries in
multiple conflicts and across all domains. In particular, even when
U.S. forces are committed to a large-scale operation in one region,
they must also be capable of denying the objectives of--or imposing
unacceptable costs on--an opportunistic aggressor in a second region.
Securing the high ground is a critical prerequisite for any military
operation to ensure freedom of action for the Joint Force and the
Nation. In making operational plans, American ground forces assume they
will be able to operate with minimal threat of attack from enemy
aircraft or missile systems. For nearly six decades, Air Force
investments, expertise, and sacrifice in achieving air superiority have
ensured that condition. The last time any American ground forces were
killed by an enemy air strike was April 15, 1953.
But while the United States has enjoyed this control of the air for
the last 60 years, there is no guarantee of air superiority in the
future. Airspace control remains vitally important in all operating
environments to ensure the advantages of rapid global mobility, ISR,
and precision strike are broadly available to the combatant commander.
Fast-growing, near-peer capabilities are beginning to erode the legacy
fighter fleet's ability to control the air. Likewise, emerging
adversaries are developing significant air threats by both leveraging
inexpensive technology to modify existing airframes with improved
radars, sensors, jammers and weapons, and pursuing fifth-generation
aircraft. Simultaneously, current operations are pressing our legacy
systems into new roles. As a result, the legacy fighter fleet is
accumulating flying hours both faster and differently than anticipated
when they were purchased decades ago.
Given these realities, the Air Force's fiscal year 2013 budget
request includes $8.3 billion for initiatives to address current and
future air superiority needs. We continue incremental modernization of
the F-22 fleet, including Increment 3.2A, a software-only upgrade
adding new electronic protection (EP) and combat identification
techniques. The fiscal year 2013 budget request includes approximately
$140.1 million for Increment 3.2B, which includes the integration of
AIM-120D and AIM-9X capabilities, data link improvements, and faster,
more accurate target mapping. We are continuing the F-15 active
electronically scanned array (AESA) radar modernization program,
funding the F-15 Advanced Display Core Processor (ADCP), and funding
the development and procurement of an Eagle Passive/Active Warning and
Survivability System (EPAWSS). We are also investing in fourth-
generation radar upgrades to ensure their continued viability,
sustaining the development and procurement of preferred air-to-air
munitions and select electronic warfare enhancements, and resourcing
critical readiness enablers, including training capabilities and
modernized range equipment.
As part of our Airspace Control Alert mission, the Air Force,
working closely with U.S. Northern Command, reduced full-time ANG
requirements at two sites while maintaining overall surveillance and
intercept coverage.
Global Precision Attack
A critical component of the broader mission to deter and defeat
aggression is the Air Force's ability to hold any target at risk across
the air, land, and sea domains through global precision attack. Global
precision attack forces perform traditional strike and customized ISR
roles to support Joint and coalition ground forces every day. However,
as A2/AD capabilities proliferate, our fourth-generation fighter and
legacy bomber capability to penetrate contested airspace is
increasingly challenged.
The A2/AD threat environment prescribes the type of assets that can
employ and survive in-theater. While the Air Force provides the
majority of these assets, success in this hazardous environment will
require a combined approach across a broad range of assets and
employment tools. Even then, these will only provide localized and
temporary air dominance to achieve desired effects. Simultaneously,
ongoing contingency operations in a permissive, irregular warfare
environment at the lower end of the combat spectrum require adapted
capabilities, including longer aircraft dwell times and increasing use
of our platforms in unique intelligence gathering roles. Our fiscal
year 2013 budget request of $15.5 billion applies resources that will
help the Air Force best meet threats in evolving A2/AD environments.
To enhance our global strike ability, we are prioritizing
investment in fifth-generation aircraft while sustaining legacy
platforms as a bridge to the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, the centerpiece
of our future precision attack capability. In addition to complementing
the F-22's world-class air superiority capabilities, the F-35A is
designed to penetrate air defenses and deliver a wide range of
precision munitions. This modern, fifth-generation aircraft brings the
added benefit of increased allied interoperability and cost-sharing
between services and partner nations. The fiscal year 2013 budget
includes approximately $5 billion for continued development and the
procurement of 19 F-35A conventional take-off and landing (CTOL)
aircraft, spares, and support equipment. In fiscal year 2013, we
deferred 98 CTOLs from the F-35A program.
As we move toward fifth-generation recapitalization, we are funding
fourth-generation fighter modernization to ensure a capable global
attack fleet. Reserve component recapitalization will begin based on F-
35 production rates, basing decisions, the F-16 Service Life Extension
Program (SLEP), and Combat Avionics Programmed Extension Suite (CAPES).
The Air Force will continue to plan and program for approximately 350
F-16 service life extensions and capability upgrades over the FYDP to
ensure a viable F-16 combat capability across the total force and to
mitigate the effects of F-35 procurement rate adjustments on the total
fighter force capacity during completion of system development and low
rate initial production.
In our fiscal year 2013 submission, we accepted risk by retiring
102 A-10s and 21 F-16s. Although the A-10 remains essential for
combined arms and stability operations, we chose to retire more A-10s
because other multirole platforms provide more utility across the range
of the potential missions. We are retaining enough A-10s to meet the
direction of the new strategic guidance to maintain readiness and
capability while avoiding a hollow force.
We are modernizing conventional bombers to sustain capability while
investing in the Long-Range Strike Family of Systems. The bomber fleet
was retained at its current size because we recognized the importance
of long-range strike in the current and future security environments.
The Air Force is enhancing long-range strike capabilities by upgrading
the B-2 fleet with an improved Defensive Management System (DMS) and a
new survivable communication system, and is increasing conventional
precision guided weapon capacity within the B-52 fleet. We are
investing $191.4 million in modernizing the B-1 to prevent obsolescence
and diminishing manufacturing sources issues and to help sustain the B-
1 to its approximate 2040 service life. In addition to aircraft
modernization, we are upgrading our B-1 training and simulator systems
to match aircraft configuration and ensure continued sustainability.
Procuring a new penetrating bomber is critical to maintaining our
long-range strike capability in the face of evolving A2/AD
environments. The new long-range, penetrating, and nuclear-capable
bomber (LRS-B), which will be capable of both manned and unmanned
operations, will be designed and built using proven technologies, and
will leverage existing systems to provide sufficient capability. It
will also permit growth to improve the system as technology matures and
threats evolve. We must ensure that the new bomber is operationally
capable before the current aging B-52 and B-1 bomber fleets are
retired. LRS-B is fully funded at $291.7 million in the fiscal year
2013 budget.
Global Integrated ISR
Global integrated ISR includes conducting and synchronizing
surveillance and reconnaissance across all domains--air, space, and
cyber. These ISR capabilities produce essential intelligence to achieve
decision superiority through planning, collecting, processing,
analyzing, and rapidly disseminating critical information to national-
and theater-level decisionmakers across the spectrum of worldwide
military operations. Air Force ISR growth and improvement over the last
decade has been unprecedented. Because of the dynamic nature of the
operating environment, the Air Force conducted an extensive review of
the entire Air Force ISR enterprise in 2011 to inform future planning
and programming decisions. Even as the United States plans to reduce
our military presence in CENTCOM AOR, combatant commands will continue
to use our ISR capabilities to combat global terrorism, provide global
and localized situational awareness, and support future contingencies.
Recognizing the need for continued and improved ISR capabilities,
and based on the 2011 ISR review, the Air Force is investing $7.1
billion in this core function in fiscal year 2013. We are continuously
improving the current suite of capabilities and will field the MQ-9
Reaper to meet delivery of 65 remotely piloted aircraft (RPA) combat
air patrols (CAPs) by May 2014. We are actively managing our
procurement rate of MQ-9s to efficiently increase RPA fleet size while
allowing for necessary aircrew training. We are extending operations
for the U-2 Dragon Lady manned aircraft, in lieu of investing more
heavily in the RQ-4 Block 30 Global Hawk fleet. Despite early
predictions, the savings anticipated by the use of Global Hawks have
not come to fruition, and we will not invest in new technology at any
cost. Divesting the RQ-4 Block 30 fleet and extending the U-2 will save
the Air Force $815 million in fiscal year 2013 and $2.5 billion across
the FYDP. Sustaining the U-2 fleet will ensure affordable and sustained
high-altitude ISR for the combatant commanders and joint warfighters.
We will maintain investment in the MC-12 Liberty as we transfer it
to the ANG, but we will establish active unit associations to meet
combat air patrol and surge requirements. The MC-12 will also perform
the mission carried out by the RC-26 as we divest 11 of those aircraft
from the ANG. In the ANG, six RPA units have been or are currently
being established, and an additional five units will stand-up in fiscal
year 2013. An ANG ISR group with two squadrons will be established to
conduct ISR in cyberspace and to conduct digital network intelligence
and cyber target development.
We are developing a more balanced and survivable mix of airborne
platforms to enable continued operations in permissive environments and
to enable operations in A2/AD environments. We are exploring innovative
ways to leverage space and cyberspace capabilities as part of the
overall mix of ISR capabilities and partner with joint, coalition, and
interagency partners, including the use of Air-Sea Battle as a
framework to develop required capabilities for the joint fight. We are
investing $163 million in fiscal year 2013 in our ground processing
enterprise, the Distributed Common Ground System, and will continue
migration to a service-oriented architecture to handle the increasing
quantities of ISR data that is integrated and delivered from emerging
sensors and platforms operating in all domains. We will also improve
our ability to move information securely and reliably over information
pathways. Finally, we are improving analyst capability through improved
training, automation and visualization tools while we deliberately plan
for future operations using a refined capability planning and analysis
framework.
Cyberspace Superiority
Access and continued freedom of maneuver within cyberspace is an
essential requirement for our networked force. Today's modern forces
require access to reliable communications and information networks to
operate effectively at a high operations tempo. Air Force and DOD
networks face a continuous barrage of assaults from individual hackers,
organized insurgents, State-sponsored actors, and all level of threats
in between. Our adversaries are also realizing gains from
electronically linking their combat capabilities. This is creating new
warfighting challenges that the Joint Force must be prepared to
address. As we work to ensure our freedom of movement in cyberspace, we
will also work with service, joint, and interagency partners on
additional and further-reaching cyberspace initiatives.
We are using a cyber strategy which not only improves the Air
Force's ability to operate in cyberspace, but also mitigates constantly
increasing infrastructure costs. This approach focuses on near-term
FYDP investments to automate network defense and operations which
increase both combat capacity and effectiveness. This effort, led by
24th Air Force, under Air Force Space Command, includes continued
development of the Single Integrated Network Environment which provides
a seamless information flow among air, space, and terrestrial network
environments, and most importantly, mission assurance to the
warfighter.
Our fiscal year 2013 budget request for cyberspace superiority is
$4 billion. With these funds, we are expanding our ability to rapidly
acquire network defense tools, such as Host Based Security System, a
flexible, commercial-off-the-shelf (COTS)-based application to monitor,
detect, and counter cyber-threats to the Air Force Enterprise. We are
also investing in advanced technologies to monitor and secure both
classified and unclassified networks. We have made considerable
progress in our efforts to meet the emerging challenges and threats in
cyberspace by fielding a total force of more than 45,000 trained and
certified professionals equipped to ensure continuity of operations in
cyberspace. The establishment of an additional ANG network warfare
squadron (NWS) will enhance the Maryland ANG 175th NWS as they actively
conduct cyber defense to protect networks and systems. The Air Force
Reserve will also stand up an Active Association Network Warfare
Squadron with the 33rd Network Warfare Squadron at Lackland AFB, Texas.
To keep with the rapid pace of technology, the Air Force is
developing Joint standardization and acquisition strategies to enable
quick delivery of cyber capabilities to address constantly evolving and
more technologically advanced cyber threats and to improve intelligence
capabilities in cyberspace. The Air Force is spending $27.3 million on
the Air Force Wideband Enterprise Terminal, leveraging Army procurement
efforts for significant quantity savings, joint standardization,
interoperability, and enabling wideband global satellite communication
(SATCOM) Ka-band utilization, resulting in greater bandwidth for
deployed warfighters. The Air Force continues efforts toward the Single
Air Force Network, which increases Air Force network situational
awareness and improves information sharing and transport capabilities.
For future budget requests, the Air Force is working with DOD to define
near- and long-term solutions to deliver warfighting communication
capabilities, such as Family of Advanced Beyond Line of Sight Terminals
(FAB-T) and upgrading the Air Force's wideband enterprise terminals to
provide joint standardization and greater bandwidth.
Space Superiority
America's ability to operate effectively across the spectrum of
conflict also rests heavily on Air Force space capabilities. Airmen
provide critical space capabilities that enhance the DOD's ability to
navigate accurately, see clearly, communicate confidently, strike
precisely, and operate assuredly. General purpose forces, the
intelligence community, and special operations forces depend on these
space capabilities to perform their missions every day, on every
continent, in the air, on the land, and at sea. In addition, space
operations help ensure access and use of the global commons, enabling a
multitude of civil and commercial activities such as cellular
communications, commercial and civil aviation, financial transactions,
agriculture and infrastructure management, law enforcement, emergency
response, and many more. Like air superiority, space-based missions can
easily be taken for granted.
The Air Force has maintained its record of successful space
launches, began on-orbit testing of the first advanced extremely high-
frequency military communications satellite, and launched the first
Space Based Infrared System geosynchronous satellite. Our ability to
deliver space capabilities is currently without equal. As we become a
smaller, leaner force in accordance with the new defense strategic
guidance, the leveraging and multiplying effects that space provides
will become increasingly important. Improving space situational
awareness will be key to protecting the unique advantage space
provides.
Rapid technology advancements and the long-lead time for
integrating and fielding new space technology results in an ongoing
need to plan, design, and implement space advancements. We must procure
our space systems at the lowest-cost possible while providing assured
access to space. Our innovative acquisition strategy for the Efficient
Space Procurement (ESP) \1\ of complex space systems is designed to
identify efficiencies and use those resources to provide enduring
capability and help provide stability to the space industrial base. We
are again requesting advance appropriations to fully fund the
satellites being procured under ESP. While we are modernizing and
sustaining many of our satellite constellations, funding constraints
have slowed our ability to field some space capabilities as rapidly as
is prudent. Therefore, as we continue to sustain our current level of
support to the warfighter, the current fiscal environment demands that
we explore alternate paths to provide resilient solutions. As we
incorporate the tenets of the new National Space Policy and National
Security Space Strategy, we are actively developing architectures that
take into consideration the advantages of leveraging international
partnerships and commercial space capabilities. One example being
tested is a commercially hosted infrared payload (CHIRP) launched from
Guiana Space Center, Kourou, French Guiana, which begins to explore the
utility of a dedicated payload for missile warning hosted on a
commercial communications satellite.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Previously known as Evolutionary Acquisition for Space
Efficiency (EASE).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With the $9.6 billion in funds for space programs in the fiscal
year 2013 budget request, the Air Force is recapitalizing many space
capabilities, fielding new satellite communications systems, replacing
legacy early missile warning systems, improving space control
capabilities, and upgrading position, navigation and timing
capabilities with the launch of Global Positioning System (GPS) IIF
satellites and the acquisition of GPS III satellites. Consistent with
the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) and Department of
Defense Appropriations Act, the Air Force is canceling the Defense
Weather Satellite System, saving $518.8 million in fiscal year 2013 and
$2.38 billion more than the FYDP. The Defense Meteorological Satellite
Program (DMSP) will continue to fulfill this critical requirement as
the Air Force determines the most prudent way forward.
Nuclear Deterrence Operations
Credible nuclear capabilities are required to deter potential
adversaries from attacking our vital interests and to assure our allies
of our commitments. Although the threat of global nuclear war has
become remote since the end of the cold war, the prospect of nuclear
terrorism has increased. Proliferation of nuclear weapons, especially
among regional power aspirants, is on the rise. Advanced air defenses
increasingly threaten the survivability of current bombers. Area denial
and ballistic missile threats reduce our basing options and challenge
the responsiveness and survivability of long-range strike. As a result,
the United States must shape its deterrent forces to maintain stability
among existing nuclear powers, to strengthen regional deterrence, and
to reassure U.S. allies and partners.
The Air Force is responsible for 2 of the 3 legs of the nuclear
triad and continuing to strengthen the Air Force nuclear enterprise
remains a top Air Force priority. Air Force investment in our bombers
and intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) systems reflects our
commitment to the nuclear deterrence mission well into the future. Our
request of $5.1 billion for this core function in fiscal year 2013
increases sustainment for the Minuteman III ICBM through 2030 with fuze
component replenishment and replacement programs, as well as new
transporter erectors. We are also enhancing long-range strike
capabilities by upgrading the B-2s with an improved Defensive
Management System (DMS) and a new survivable communication system.
These investments will ensure the Air Force maintains the capability to
operate and sustain safe, secure, and effective nuclear forces to deter
adversaries, hold any target at risk, and respond appropriately if
deterrence fails. In particular, the responsiveness of the ICBM leg and
the flexibility of the bomber leg are valued attributes of the nuclear
force. We are committed to a future force that will have the
flexibility and resiliency to adapt to changes in the geopolitical
environment or cope with potential problems in the nuclear stockpile.
The New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty requires the United States
to reduce warheads and delivery capacity by 2018. Our fiscal year 2013
budget request includes $20.1 million to fund treaty preparatory
actions that began in fiscal year 2012 and additional actions necessary
to accomplish the treaty-required reductions by 2018. While final force
structure decisions have not yet been made, we are continuing to
develop detailed plans, working with the Department of Defense and U.S.
Strategic Command, for executing force reduction decisions which retain
the attributes of the Triad needed for 21st century deterrence.
Rapid Global Mobility
The Air Force provides unparalleled in-flight refueling and cargo
carrying capacity in support of worldwide operations. Mobility forces
provide vital deployment and sustainment capability for Joint and
coalition forces by delivering essential equipment, personnel, and
materiel for missions ranging from major combat operations to
humanitarian relief operations. Achieving unprecedented survival rates,
our highly skilled aeromedical transport teams swiftly evacuate combat
casualties, ensuring our wounded warriors receive the best possible
medical care. A unique Air Force contribution, rapid global mobility
must be maintained on a scale to support DOD force structure and
national strategic objectives.
On any given day, the Air Force fleet of C-17s and C-5s deliver
critical personnel and cargo, provide airdrop of time-critical
supplies, food, and ammunition, and enable rapid movement of personnel
and equipment. Air Force air refueling aircraft will continue to play a
vital, daily role in extending the range and persistence of almost all
other Joint Force aircraft. The Air Force remains committed to fully
funding the acquisition of the new KC-46A tanker with $1.8 billion in
research, development, testing, and evaluation (RDT&E) in fiscal year
2013, while also resourcing critical modernization programs for the KC-
10 and KC-135 fleets. This will ensure our Nation retains a tanker
fleet able to provide crucial air refueling capacity for decades to
come. The retirement of 20 KC-135s is consistent with our analysis of
warfighting scenarios based on the strategic guidance and will results
in savings of $22.5 million in fiscal year 2013. As part of our energy
efficiency initiatives, we plan to begin upgrading 93 KC-135 engines in
fiscal year 2013 and 100 more each year through the FYDP. We anticipate
overall savings in fuel and maintenance of $1.5 billion from this $278
million investment.
In addition, with our fiscal year 2013 budget request of $15.9
billion in rapid global mobility funds, the Air Force will continue to
modernize its inter-theater airlift fleet of C-17s and C-5s. To move
toward a common fleet configuration, the Air Force is investing $138.2
million in fiscal year 2013 for the Global Reach Improvement Program
(GRIP). The GRIP brings the multiple variants of C-17 to a standard
configuration, designated the C-17A, that will provide efficiencies in
operations and weapon system sustainment. We also plan to transfer
eight C-17s from the Active component to the ANG in fiscal year 2013,
and an additional eight in fiscal year 2015. We are modernizing the
most capable C-5 airframes while retiring the final 27 of the oldest
model, the C-5A. On the remaining 52 C-5s, the Air Force is investing
$1.3 billion in modernization in fiscal year 2013 to improve capability
and reliability, including $1.23 billion on the Reliability Enhancement
and Re-engining Program. We currently have seven operational C-5Ms. The
retirement of the last C-5A by fiscal year 2016 is timed to match the
completion of the last C-5M upgrade.
Because the strategic guidance reduced the overall requirement for
intra-theater airlift, we are retiring C-130H aircraft (39 in fiscal
year 2013 and a total of 65 more than the FYDP). These older aircraft
would require costly modification or modernization to remain viable. We
will maintain the necessary intra-theater airlift capability and
capacity by completing the recapitalization of older C-130E/H aircraft
with the C-130J. The remaining legacy C-130H aircraft are being
modernized to reduce sustainment costs and ensure global airspace
access.
Finally, after rigorous mission analysis, we determined the mission
performed by the C-27J fleet could be performed by the C-130 fleet
which is fully capable of meeting direct ground support and homeland
defense requirements.\2\ The fiscal constraints that demand we become a
smaller Air Force also support the decision to retain aircraft that
have multiple role capabilities, like the C-130. Therefore, all 21 C-
27Js in the current fleet will be retired, and we are canceling
procurement of 17 additional aircraft. Without question, the Air
Force's commitment to support time-sensitive, mission-critical direct
airlift support to the Army is unaltered by the divestment of the C-
27J.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Six of the seven ANG units that are affected by the divestment
of the C-27J fleet are being backfilled with MC-12W Liberty, ISR/cyber,
MQ-9, or C-130 units.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Command and Control
Command and control (C2) of our forces has never been more vital or
more difficult than in the highly complex 21st century military
operations that depend on close Joint and coalition coordination. C2 is
the key operational function that ties all the others together to
achieve our military objectives, enabling commanders to integrate
operations in multiple theaters at multiple levels through planning,
coordinating, tasking, executing, monitoring and assessing air, space,
and cyberspace operations across the range of military operations. No
longer in a cold war technological environment, the Air Force is
transforming its C2 to an Internet protocol-based net-centric war
fighting capability. To do so, the Air Force must sustain, modify, and
enhance current C2 systems, and develop deployable, scalable, and
modular systems that are interoperable with joint, interagency, and
coalition partners.
The Air Force is focusing its attention to modernization efforts to
operate in A2/AD environments with our fourth- and fifth-generation
weapon systems. In doing so, the Air Force will continue to use a
balanced approach across the C2 portfolio by investing in sustaining
legacy platforms while modernizing our C2 aircraft fleet and ground
operating nodes only as needed to sustain our capability. Our fiscal
year 2013 budget request of $5.8 billion for C2 includes $200 million
to support secure and reliable strategic level communications through
the E-4 National Airborne Operations Center (NAOC). We are also
spending $22.7 million to begin fielding a cockpit modernization
development program to sustain the capability of the existing Airborne
Warning and Control System (AWACS) platform and we will continue to
modernize and sustain the Theater Air Control System Command and
Control Centers (CRC). The modernization of the Air Operations Center
(AOC) will move this weapon system to an enterprise system which can
accept rapid application upgrades and enable future warfighting
concepts.
To reduce unnecessary cost, the Air Force will retire one JSTARS
aircraft that is beyond economical repair, saving the Air Force $13
million in fiscal year 2013 and $91 million more than the FYDP. The
JSTARS re-engining system development and demonstration (SDD) flight
test program completed in January 2012; however, because the fiscal
year 2012 NDAA reduced re-engining funding, full completion of the re-
engining SDD is under review. The JSTARS re-engining program is not
funded in fiscal year 2013. We also terminated our portion of the Army-
managed Joint Tactical Radio System (JTRS) small airborne radio program
that was over cost and behind schedule and will instead leverage
industry-developed hardware, while continuing the development of the
required radio waveforms. The termination of this program and the
associated nonrecurring engineering will save $294 million in fiscal
year 2013 and $3.2 billion more than the FYDP.
Special Operations
Success in counterterrorism and irregular warfare missions requires
the ability to conduct operations in hostile, denied, or politically
sensitive environments, using other than conventional forces. Air Force
special operations capabilities continue to play a vital role in
supporting U.S. Special Operations Command and geographic combatant
commanders. U.S. special operations forces (SOF) depend on a balanced
force of air, sea, and land capabilities; Air Commandos bring
specialized expertise for infiltration and exfiltration and the kinetic
and nonkinetic application of airpower that are essential to joint
special operations capabilities.
Our investments in SOF must strike a balance between winning
today's fight and building the Joint SOF of the future, including the
ability to act unilaterally when necessary. Despite the challenging
fiscal environment, with our budget request of $1.2 billion, the Air
Force was able to sustain nearly all of the SOF aviation improvements
realized over the past several years. The programmed buy of 50 CV-22
Ospreys will complete in fiscal year 2014, and the procurement of MC-
130Js for the recapitalization of 37 MC-130E/Ps will also complete in
fiscal year 2014. MC-130H/W recapitalization will begin in fiscal year
2015, a year earlier than scheduled in the fiscal year 2012 President's
budget, which ensures a continued, more capable SOF mobility fleet. The
Air Force is modernizing our SOF precision strike capability by
procuring AC-130Js, on a one-for-one basis, to recapitalize our legacy
AC-130Hs. We are also ensuring our battlefield airmen continue to
receive first-class equipment and training by adding funds to
operations and maintenance accounts.
Personnel Recovery
The Air Force remains committed to modernizing crucial combat
search and rescue (CSAR) capabilities. The additional use of personnel
recovery (PR) forces for medical and casualty evacuation, humanitarian
assistance, disaster response, and civil search and rescue operations
has steadily risen since the early 1990s. This increase in usage has
taken its toll on the aircraft and significantly affected availability.
Currently, Air Force PR forces are fully engaged in the CENTCOM and
Africa Command AORs, accomplishing lifesaving medical and casualty
evacuation missions. They are also supporting domestic civil land and
maritime search and rescue, humanitarian assistance/disaster relief,
and mass casualty evacuation missions. The dynamic geopolitical
environment suggests that the continued need for PR forces to conduct
nonpermissive CSAR in contingency operations and permissive
humanitarian assistance, disaster response, and civil search and rescue
operations will remain.
To ensure the Air Force is able to provide this vital core function
in the future, we are recapitalizing our fixed wing aircraft,
replenishing our rotary wing aircraft through the Operational Loss
Replacement (OLR) program, and replacing aging rotary wing aircraft
through the Combat Rescue Helicopter (CRH) program. The $1.4 billion
fiscal year 2013 budget request for PR includes $152.2 million for the
HC-130J and $183.8 million for the OLR and CRH programs. The fiscal
year 2013 RDT&E funding for the CRH was reprogrammed to support the
acquisition of two test aircraft. The program remains on track to
produce a replacement for the HH-60G through a full and open
competition, with initial operational capability planned for fiscal
year 2018. The Air Force also continues to fund the HH-60G and HC-130
sustainment programs while continuing to invest in the Guardian Angel
program that provides first-class equipment and training for the rescue
force.
Building Partnerships
Building the capacity of partner governments and their security
forces is a key element in our national security strategy. The
establishment of strong, foundational aviation enterprises in our
partner nations enables successful, sustainable security within their
own borders while contributing to regional stability. Successful
partnerships ensure interoperability, integration and interdependence
between air forces, allowing for effective combined and coalition
operational employment. These partnerships also provide partner nations
with the capability and capacity to resolve their own national security
challenges, thereby reducing the potential demand for a large U.S.
response or support.
The necessity for partnering is evident every day in Afghanistan
where United States and coalition air forces provide flexible and
efficient airpower support to International Security Assistance Force
operations. In both Iraq and Afghanistan, airmen are building the
capabilities and capacities of the Iraqi and Afghanistan air forces so
that they can successfully employ airpower in their own right. In
addition, the success of the Libya operations last year can be partly
attributed to years of engagement that led to improved interoperability
and highly capable and equipped partner nations.
These international engagements require airmen to perform their
duties effectively and achieve influence in culturally complex
environments around the globe. Fielding the Joint Strike Fighter and
other platforms will help further our partnerships with more
established allies. The U.S. role in the 12-nation Strategic Airlift
Consortium enables a unique fully operational force of three C-17s to
meet the airlift requirements of our European allies. The fiscal year
2013 budget request of approximately $300 million in this core function
continues to fully resource the Strategic Airlift Consortium effort at
Papa AB, Hungary. The Air Force also committed to field a new aviation
detachment in Poland.
Due to fiscal constraints, the Air Force terminated the Light
Attack Armed Reconnaissance and the Light Mobility Aircraft programs;
however, the Air Force believes this requirement can be substantially
met with innovative application of ANG State Partnership Programs and
Mobility Support Advisory Squadrons. We are working with partner
nations to build and sustain ISR capacity and help them effectively
counter threats within their borders. We are also pursuing
international agreements to increase partner satellite communication,
space situational awareness, and global positioning, navigation, and
timing capabilities.
The Air Force also recognizes that it cannot build effective
international partnerships without effective U.S. Government
interagency partnerships. To that end, we are a strong supporter of
State-Defense exchanges and other programs that provide interagency
familiarity and training.
Agile Combat Support
Underpinning our capacity to perform the missions in these core
functions is the ability to create, protect, and sustain air and space
forces across the full-spectrum of military operations--from the
training, education, and development of our airmen to excellence in
acquisition. The fiscal year 2013 budget request includes $31 billion
for agile combat support.
We will continue to support our airmen and their families through
quality of life and support services such as child care and youth
programs and initiatives, medical services and rehabilitation for
wounded warriors, improvements to dining facilities, food delivery,
fitness centers, and lodging. We are partnering with local communities,
where feasible, to provide the highest-quality support, and we are
changing the way that we provide services so that airmen and their
families are more able to easily access and receive the support they
need. To ensure we continuously focus on and improve readiness and
build a more agile and capable force, we have strengthened technical
and professional development by enhancing technical training,
professional military education, and language and culture programs.
The Air Force is committed to sustaining excellence with a smaller
force. We remain attentive to force management efforts and continue to
size and shape the force to meet congressionally mandated military end
strength. A series of voluntary and involuntary force management
efforts have been successful in reducing Active Duty end strength.
Force management programs in fiscal year 2012 include voluntary and
involuntary programs which lessen the need for involuntary actions in
fiscal year 2013. We are posturing accessions for the long term and
ensuring the right balance of skills exists to meet operational
requirements. The Air Force will meet its OSD-directed civilian end
strength target for fiscal year 2012. The Force Management Program is
not a quick fix, but a tailored, multiyear effort to manage the force
along the 30-year continuum of service.
We are improving acquisition processes, recently completing
implementation of the Acquisition Improvement Plan (AIP). We have also
institutionalized the ``Better Buying Power'' (BBP) initiatives
promulgated by the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition,
Technology and Logistics and are expanding those improvements through
our Acquisition Continuous Process Improvement 2.0 (CPI 2.0) effort.
The major elements of the CPI 2.0 Initiative--process simplification,
requirements, realizing the value proposition, and workforce
improvement--will build upon the BBP initiatives and continue our
momentum in improving our acquisition workforce skills.
We are ensuring the Air Force continues to have war-winning
technology through the careful and proactive management of our science,
technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) workforce and improving
our means to attract and recruit future innovators for the Air Force.
Properly funding our science and technology laboratories enables them
to continue discovering, developing, and demonstrating high-payoff
innovations to address the changing strategic environment and sustain
air, space, and cyberspace superiority. Therefore, the Air Force's
budget protects science and technology funding as a share of our total
resources.
Science and technology investments are also a key toward enhancing
our energy security and meeting our energy goals. The Air Force is
requesting more than $530 million for aviation, infrastructure, and
RDT&E energy initiatives in fiscal year 2013 to reduce energy demand,
improve energy efficiency, diversify supply, and increase mission
effectiveness. A focus of these initiatives is to improve our energy
security by diversifying our drop-in and renewable sources of energy
and increasing our access to reliable and uninterrupted energy
supplies. We are investing more than $300 million in energy RDT&E,
which includes $214 million for the fiscal year 2013 Adaptive Engine
Technology Development (AETD) Initiative. This initiative will build
upon the Adaptive Versatile Engine Technology (ADVENT) effort to reduce
energy consumption and improve efficiency and reliability of future and
legacy aircraft.
We are continuing to support an important aspect of our readiness
posture through weapons system sustainment, the requirements for which
have grown due to the complexity of new aircraft, operations tempo
increases, force structure changes, and growth in depot work packages
for legacy aircraft. We are mitigating overall WSS growth through
efficiency efforts and requirements reviews. WSS funding through
overseas contingency operations (OCO) requests remains critical while
we continue to be engaged in these global operations. For fiscal year
2013, we are seeking $11.6 billion in WSS (including OCO). We are
committed to retaining three strong organic depots. In fiscal year
2012, we are investing approximately $290 million in new technologies
and infrastructure in all of our depots. Although we may have a short-
term challenge to meet the title 10, section 2466 Depot 50/50 Rule
requirements due to force structure changes, we have a robust plan in
place to perform organic repair for future weapon systems like the KC-
46A.
As noted earlier, Air Force continues to emphasize the importance
of maintaining readiness in support of our FHP. The Air Force's $44.3
billion fiscal year 2013 operations and maintenance request supports
1.17 million flying hours for new pilot production, pilot development,
maintenance of basic flying skills, as well as training of crews to
support combatant commander priorities.
Facility sustainment, restoration and modernization, and MILCON are
essential tools for providing mission capability to our warfighters.
The $441 million in MILCON funding, a $900 million decrease from fiscal
year 2012 enacted levels, represents a conscious decision to take a
deliberate pause in MILCON investment. During this pause, we will
maintain funding levels for facility sustainment at $1.4 billion and
restoration and modernization at $718.1 million. We will continue to
fund the most critical construction priorities of our combatant
commanders and the Air Force, including projects aligned with weapon
system deliveries--supporting beddowns for the F-22, F-35, HC-130J/C-
130H, and MQ-9. In addition, our investment funds some much-needed
support to our airmen, with $42 million in dormitory recapitalization.
conclusion
Given the continuing complexity and uncertainty in the strategic
environment, and a more constrained fiscal environment, DOD and Air
Force resources are appropriately targeted to promote agile, flexible,
and cost-effective forces, and to mitigate strategic risks. The fiscal
year 2013 Air Force budget request reflects the extremely difficult
choices that had to be made that will allow the Air Force to provide
the necessary capability, capacity, and versatility required to prevail
in today's and tomorrow's wars, prevent and deter conflict, and prepare
to defeat adversaries and succeed across the range of potential
military operations--all the while preserving and enhancing the All-
Volunteer Force. Additional reductions would put at risk our capability
to execute the new strategic guidance.
We are confident in our airmen and their families. They are the
best in the world, and we rely on them to meet any challenge, overcome
any obstacle, and defeat any enemy--as long as they are given adequate
resources. As they have time and again, our airmen innovators will find
new and better ways to approach future military challenges across the
spectrum of domains and against nascent threats. We are committed to
excellence and we will deliver with your help. We ask that you support
the Air Force budget request of $110.1 billion for fiscal year 2013.
Chairman Inouye. Thank you very much.
General Schwartz.
STATEMENT OF GENERAL NORTON A. SCHWARTZ, CHIEF OF STAFF
General Schwartz. Mr. Chairman, thank you. Vice Chairman,
members of the subcommittee, just a brief addendum to the
Secretary's comments, if you would allow me, on military
compensation.
I would appeal to the subcommittee, Sir, to carefully
consider those initiatives in our budget proposal that begin to
tackle escalating personnel costs: compensation, healthcare,
and retirement. Among all the other challenges facing us, the
reality of fewer members of the Armed Forces costing
increasingly more to recruit, train, and retain for promising
careers, I think, is the monumental Defense issue of our time.
Our inability to address this issue properly will place
other areas of the budget, including force structure and
modernization, under yet more pressure, forcing out needed
military capability, at a time when we already are right sized
for the likely missions ahead.
Sir, we look forward to your questions.
Chairman Inouye. Thank you very much. If I may, Secretary
Donley, your budget request proposes to terminate or
restructure a significant number of programs and force
structure which were funded in the fiscal year 2012. Now, can
you provide this subcommittee some assurance that the Air Force
is not ramping down its activities until we act on the fiscal
year 2013 Defense bills?
Mr. Donley. Yes, Sir, I can. Our guiding principle is that
we will not take any irreversible actions before the Congress
has had a chance to review and approve, or adjust, the
proposals made in the President's budget. There is a different
situation with respect to each program. We have some programs,
such as the Global Hawk, for example, Block 30 capability, that
has already been fielded. Some aircraft are in procurement, and
then there were dollars appropriated for additional procurement
beyond that.
So, at appropriate points in contracts, we are taking
pauses to slow down but are taking no irreversible decisions.
The one exception to that that I mentioned in my statement is
the Defense Weather Satellite System, which the Congress
actually terminated in fiscal year 2012. So, we have taken
steps to terminate that program.
Chairman Inouye. In your fiscal year 2013 budget request,
you're cutting down the size of the Air Force personnel by
9,900. Now, it will take place in this fiscal year 2013. What
force-shaping tools are you using to make these reductions?
Mr. Donley. Sir, we appreciate the support of the Congress
in the last year to provide additional force-shaping tools for
the Air Force and for the rest of the uniform services to
adjust, as required, the size of our forces. We have been very
aggressive in the last couple of years to get down the size of
the Air Force. Our Active Duty has been over strength, at one
point, by up to 5,000 or 6,000 personnel. So, we've taken
aggressive action in the last 2 years to get down to authorized
levels.
We will await the outcome of the congressional
deliberations, but at this point we are hopeful that we can
avoid potentially adverse force-shaping methods going into
fiscal years 2013 and 2014. We're still not sure, but I think
we're well-positioned, given the actions we've taken in the
last couple of years.
Chairman Inouye. General Schwartz, do you have anything to
add?
General Schwartz. Sir, I would just reiterate that at the
moment it appears we will not have to use involuntary measures,
that the voluntary incentives that are available, including
those recently approved, will serve the purpose.
Chairman Inouye. Mr. Secretary, General Schwartz, I have
several other questions, but because of the legislative
schedule, I'd like to submit them for your consideration. May I
now recognize the Vice Chairman.
Senator Cochran. Mr. Chairman, my question is a follow-on
to your first question. It seems that the Air Force may be
getting ahead of the Congress here on making decisions to shut
down operations of one kind or another, in anticipation of cuts
that will be approved in the budget, but which have not yet
been debated or reviewed carefully so that it will be ready to
make any announcements.
Are any of these decisions that you've been making to shut
down operations, like at Meridian, Mississippi, and other
places, final decisions, or when do you consider that to become
a final decision?
Mr. Donley. Well, certainly, we need congressional action
on the fiscal year 2013 to confirm a way forward in these force
structure adjustments. At the same time, we'll be frank with
the subcommittee that many of our force structure adjustments
are frontloaded to fiscal year 2013. So, we do need to continue
the planning that would allow us to implement our proposals,
should you approve them. So, we will need to go forward with
planning, but, again, the Congress has the final say on next
steps.
Senator Cochran. So, I understand from that that operations
are not going to be affected in the foreseeable future, or
during this next fiscal year, necessarily, unless the Congress
approves it. Is that what I understand you to say now?
Mr. Donley. That's correct. The operation of the Global
Hawk Block 30, the operation of the C-27s that have been
delivered, those, for example, continue.
Senator Cochran. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Inouye. Thank you.
Senator Alexander.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR LAMAR ALEXANDER
Senator Alexander. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Secretary
and General Schwartz, thank you for being here.
General Schwartz, we met a couple of years ago, and we
talked about the C-17s, and how to get them to Memphis and
replace the aging C-5As. You're now on a path to do that,
according to your proposal. As I understand it, the C-17s will
be relocated in fiscal year 2013. What's the exact timeline for
getting the C-17s to Memphis?
General Schwartz. I would like to get you the exact
timeline for the record, if I may, but I think that is a
reflection of a larger effort that's under way to reshape the
airlift force by retiring, in terms of the big aircraft, the 27
remaining C-5As and repopulating with C-17s and/or the re-
engined C-5s across the fleet.
[The information follows:]
When the fiscal year 2013 President's budget was being developed,
the Air Force determined that the Tennessee Air National Guard's 164th
Airlift Wing at Memphis would convert from C-5As to C-17As, completing
an action initiated during the fiscal year 2012 President's budget
request. Memphis receives the first four C-17A aircraft in fiscal year
2013, with the remaining four aircraft arriving in fiscal year 2014.
The schedule was planned around the transition between missions,
accounting for C-5As retirements to make room for C-17As, as well as
allowing for the retraining of aircrew and maintenance personnel. C-5As
are planned to complete retirements from Memphis by the end of fiscal
year 2014.
Air Mobility Command will work closely with the Air National Guard
to ensure the most effective plan is implemented, adjusting the arrival
plan accordingly based on the specific details of the C-5A retirement
schedule and progress of C-17A training for Memphis personnel.
Senator Alexander. Well, you have come to a conclusion that
I certainly support, in recognition of the unusually good
facilities you have in Memphis, and the same kind of conditions
that the FedEx super hub, and the world runway, and others
have. It makes a lot of sense to do that. And I'd be interested
in any further detail about the timeline for that action.
Let me ask you a couple of questions, and then I'll stop,
so other Senators can have their time. I want to ask you about
the Arnold Engineering Development Center in Tullahoma,
Tennessee. You've announced a restructuring of the Air Force
Materiel Command. You're going to reduce the number of them.
You're going to save some money doing that, eliminate civilian
positions, and the Arnold Center, as a part of that
restructuring, will be renamed. It will be reported to the Air
Force Test Center at Edwards Air Force Base in California. All
of which seems to me, again, to make a lot of sense, in terms
of the demands that you have to reduce the size of what you're
doing.
I wanted to express my support for your decision. Even
though I know it's a difficult one, it ought to help the
testing mission, and I believe it makes good sense. So, I know
that sometimes as you go through these restructurings, you get
expressions of lack of support. I want to give you one of
support. And I want to ask you what you can tell me about the
timeline for implementing the Air Force Materiel Command
realignment plan. In other words, when do you expect Arnold to
start reporting to Edwards Air Force Base in California?
General Schwartz. Sir, that is a fiscal year 2013
initiative, and so it would happen during the fiscal year, and
we've got phased approaches. As you know, we're taking 10
direct reports to the Air Force Materiel Command Commander down
to 5, and that will be done in a phased basis, and it will also
include the transitions of supervision, in some cases, from,
for example, two stars to one star to address the reduction in
general officer manning that we've been mandated to undertake.
So, once again, Sir, with your permission, we'll give you
the exact timeline with respect to the test center
specifically, but it's a fiscal year 2013 undertaking.
[The information follows:]
The timeline for implementing the Air Force Materiel Command
realignment comprises a transition period from early June 2012 through
September 30, 2012. During this transition period the command will
begin to shift to a new framework and refine processes necessary to
operate in the new construct. This transition period is necessary to
work through the many required changes in order to successfully meet
the initial operating capability objectives. Initial operating
capability includes completion of organizational alignment, new
processes established, and personnel in place to support the new
structure. Full implementation execution will commence on October 1,
2012 (fiscal year 2013) with completion of stand-up activities of the
new Air Force Materiel Command five center organization. The re-
designation of the Arnold Engineering Development Center to the Arnold
Engineering Development Complex is planned to occur coincident with
leadership change in the July timeframe. Full alignment to the Air
Force Test Center (re-designated from Air Force Flight Test Center)
will be complete by October 1, 2012.
Senator Alexander. Thank you. Thank you, gentlemen. One
last question. I was talking with Colonel Brewer, who's the
base commander at Arnold. Looking way down the road, he
reminded me that the facilities of the base are 50 years old.
And I know at a time of less money and restructuring that it's
tempting not to spend money on long-term planning for
maintenance and modernizing, but we all know, as I'm sure you
do, that there has to be a long-term plan to ensure that
critical testing facilities such as that are at a very high
level with cutting-edge technologies.
What plans have you undertaken to make sure that the
testing facility there remains capable of its mission over the
long-term.
General Schwartz. Sir, as you know, there's a number of
unique facilities at Tullahoma.
Senator Alexander. Yes.
General Schwartz. Including the high-speed test tunnels,
and so on, and so forth. And among other things, we have
invested in energy initiatives at Tullahoma in order to reduce
the costs of operation there and to have a more efficient
footprint.
As you are aware, many of these test facilities are very
energy intensive, and one of those major efforts under way is
not only to make them modern in terms of their test capacity,
but importantly, how we manage the energy consumption at that
installation.
Senator Alexander. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you,
General.
Chairman Inouye. Thank you, Senator Alexander.
Senator Coats.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR DANIEL COATS
Senator Coats. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Mr. Secretary
and General, thank you for your testimony.
As I understand it, the downsizing of certain assets is the
consequence of the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD)
decision to basically scale back to be able to engage in one
full-time combat operation with a sort of a hold on a second
rather than the two full-effort strategy that we've been under.
And that has had an effect, I believe, on your decision,
relative to the A-10s, apparently.
But setting that strategy aside for another day, I want to
ask a question about the A-10s. As you know, the 122nd Fighter
Wing in Fort Wayne, is home to those A-10s. And under the plan,
that would be switched to an ISR platform in the future.
I know that the Guard has submitted a counterproposal,
which meets your goals. They even said, look, we understand
these cutbacks are necessary, reductions are necessary, and so
forth, but that counterproposal provided, I think it was based
on the premise that when those A-10s are not in combat, they
have to be deployed not overseas, but to some base, whether
it's Active, or Reserve, or Guard. And in so doing, when
they're not deployed, there's significant cost savings for
that, and I think the 122nd has demonstrated that pretty
effectively; less than one-third of the cost, if it's based on
an active base.
My question is: Have you been able to review that proposal?
Have you come to a conclusion on it? If so, what is that
conclusion, and what's the justification for it?
Mr. Donley. So, as you alluded to, Senator, the Council of
Governors approached the Secretary of Defense and asked if he
would be open to suggestions for how to adjust the fiscal year
2013 President's budget. The Secretary indicated he would
entertain suggestions. The Council of Governors did table a
proposal almost 2 weeks ago, and that has been under review.
We've met three times with the empowered adjutant generals
that the Council of the Governors have directed to work with
us, General Wyatt, and also the Chief of the National Guard
Bureau, General McKinley. The Chief and I have met now, as I
said, three times. This work is ongoing, and we've not yet
reached a conclusion, but we recognize the need to do so in
time to meet the appropriate congressional markups that are in
front of us in the next couple of months.
Senator Coats. Well, I very much appreciate it when you do
reach a conclusion that we be informed about that. Obviously,
it affects what has been, I think, rated over, and over, and
over a very cost-effective unit, the 122nd at Fort Wayne.
Again, we're not chaining ourself to the fence here and saying
you can't touch this for any reason, whatsoever. We understand
the need to make these reductions, but if there is a means by
which makes sense, help you meet your goals, and save the
funds, we certainly would like to have you give that very, very
serious consideration.
General, anything you might want to add to that?
General Schwartz. Sir, we are doing just exactly that, and
we'll be bringing the conclusions of our work to the attention
of the more senior people in the department within days.
Senator Coats. Good. Well, I've always tried to be
supportive, whether it's base closings or anything else, in
terms of the most cost-effective efficient military, and would
be happy to work with you on that. And I thank you very much
for your response.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Inouye. Thank you, Senator Coats.
Senator Johnson.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR TIM JOHNSON
Senator Johnson. Secretary Donley, General Schwartz, thank
you, and welcome, for being here today.
Secretary, the Air National Guard is a cost-effective force
of experienced airmen. Given our difficult fiscal situation,
why does the budget request propose disproportionate cuts in
aircraft and manpower for the Air National Guard?
Mr. Donley. Sir, the adjustments in our manpower were
driven by adjustments in the force structure itself, and the
fighter force structure, and in the mobility force structure.
Those changes were prompted by the adjustments and strategic
guidance that we received that asked us to reorient
geographically toward, certainly, the sustaining missions in
the Middle East, but also look more carefully at Pacific
priorities, going forward, and recognizing that the overall
size of the ground forces are going down.
So, the force structure adjustments that we proposed were
connected to those strategic judgments and the direction from
the department that we could take additional risk in the
fighter force structure. And as we looked at the fighter force
structure and the mobility force structure as well, the key
issues for us were how to develop on a total force basis the
right balance between Active and Reserve component
capabilities. Not just to husband reserve capabilities, as a
strategic reserve back in the United States, but on a total
force basis, how to integrate the Reserve components and the
Active forces with the ongoing commitments of the United States
Air Force 24/7, 365, and also to be able to meet surge and
sustaining requirements. And this is what brought a closer
attention to the Active and Reserve balance.
The size of our Air Force now is so small, as a result of
the proposals that we're making here, we will be the size of
the Air Force in 1947, when this Air Force was first created,
on the Active-Duty side. So, as we go forward together, our
Reserve and Active components have to be more closely
integrated, and we can't get either side of this out of balance
going forward.
I'd ask the Chief to add to this.
General Schwartz. The only thing I would add to the
Secretary's comments is one of the principle considerations was
what will the activity level be for deployment requirements
that's both rotational and potential surge contingency
requirements. And with a smaller force, you have to assure that
you can spread that activity level properly across the entire
inventory, and that suggested that we needed to get the balance
so that the Active Duty would not be more busy than what we
call a deploy-to-dwell ratio of 1 to 2. In other words, 6
months deployed, 1 year home, and for the Reserves, not less
than 1 to 4, ideally 1 to 5. And the reason is, if we overuse
any of these components, especially when the economy turns up,
we will end up in a situation where Active Duty will not stay
with us, and on the Guard and Reserve side, perhaps employers,
and family members, and so on will see the activity level on
the Guard side as too active-duty like. And so, this was trying
to get the mix right, so that we could maintain the anticipated
activity level without overusing either of the components, Sir.
Senator Johnson. General Schwartz, we look forward to
hosting you at Ellsworth Air Force Base in May to celebrate the
70th anniversary of the base. Ellsworth has a proud history and
will continue to play an important role for the Air Force.
Looking to the future, is the Air Force close to issuing
the record of decision on the Powder River Training Complex?
General Schwartz. Yes, Sir, we are. We got numerous
comments from all interested parties on the environmental
impact statement, some of which were not favorable. So, we took
a brief pause to digest those comments and make sure that the
requirements that we had were appropriate and justified. We
have concluded that work, so the record of decision is
imminent, and we will publish that in the appropriate fashion,
Sir.
Senator Johnson. Thank you.
C-130 MOVE FROM FORT WORTH
Chairman Inouye. Thank you very much.
Senator Hutchison.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON
Senator Hutchison. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you,
Mr. Secretary and General Schwartz.
Many of us were stunned about the plan that you have to
remove eight of the C-130s from the Fort Worth Joint Base, from
the 136th Airlift Wing, and to move those to Great Falls,
Montana. That 136th has been crucial for the evacuation of
victims of hurricanes and storms. In fact, all five Governors
of States on the gulf coast sent a letter to the President,
strongly asking that this relocation not occur. They said,
``Losing the C-130s takes away a powerful airlift asset for
saving the lives of Gulf Coast State citizens.''
Now, these are Governors who have relied heavily on the
136th Airlift Wing in response to Hurricanes Gustav and Ike, in
2008, Dean in 2007, and Hurricanes Katrina, Rita, and Wilma in
2005. In fact, the 136th has flown 423 sorties in response to
storms, have safely evacuated more than 3,000 victims, and
delivered 939 tons of emergency aid. So, there will be no Guard
C-130s on the entire gulf coast, which we know is one of the
key places where hurricanes certainly hit, but we also have
tornado alley in that area.
In addition to that, General Schwartz, the Air Force has
requested a $3 million earmark in fiscal year 2013 for
operations and maintenance to fund a temporary shelter for
these C-130s in Montana. The Air Force has also requested $20
million in military construction funding for fiscal year 2014
for conversion of facilities from F-15 to C-130s. The DOD said
in the request that the C-130s cannot fit inside the current
hangar and perform maintenance, thus negatively impacting the
C-130 mission.
Until this proposed project is completed, the lack of a
fuel cell control facility will also cause maintenance delays,
forcing fuel cell work to be done on the ramp in harsh winter
conditions. You responded, General Schwartz, to Congresswoman
Kay Granger in a March 6 hearing that the Air Force has not yet
completed all the work on this.
I'm hoping you're going to say today that it is still being
assessed and possibly for a rethinking of this kind of a
transfer, when these have been so vital to an area that is,
really, the area of the country that has the most disasters and
emergency needs, and this 136th is specifically trained to be
the immediate response for these Governors that use the Wing.
So, my question is: Are you reconsidering, and if not, why
not?
General Schwartz. The short answer is yes, we are. In fact,
part of the Council of Governors' proposal was an adjustment to
our original recommendations. So, as the Secretary indicated,
it certainly is under consideration.
I would only offer this context, though. While it is true
that there are no Air National Guard C-130s in the gulf
region----
Senator Hutchison. There are Reserves.
General Schwartz [continuing]. There are numerous other C-
130s.
Senator Hutchison. Yes.
General Schwartz. Both Active Duty and Reserve. And that
the fiscal year 2012 National Defense Authorization Act enables
the Active Duty now to provide support to civil authority much
like the interstate compacts that exist, you know, between the
States for title 32 application of the Air National Guard.
Nonetheless, the short answer to your question is yes, it
certainly is under consideration, and for some of the reasons
you mentioned, and others as well.
Senator Hutchison. Did you have a comment, Mr. Secretary?
Mr. Donley. I just wanted to reinforce that yes, we are
looking at this in the context of the Council of Governors'
proposal, but to reiterate, as we go forward, and the military
becomes stronger, we need to think about the most efficient use
of our Armed Forces across components. And we know this has
been an issue for the Guard. But in the gulf region, we have
Active, Guard, and Reserve airlift. We have about 100 either C-
130-like or helicopter-like capabilities that are available.
And we have done the analysis on support to hurricanes and
tropical storms on the gulf coast. And the numbers show that
the Active Duty actually ends up flying in support of the
States, and the Federal disaster support planes have flown
fully one-half or more of those kinds of missions. So, we are,
as a total Air Force, available to support the Governors'
needs, when there is a natural disaster.
Senator Hutchison. Well, let me just say that I do think
that the guard is the immediate call, that is, all of the
training with the Governors is guard, and they have been very
successful, and immediate. They give the immediate response.
And second, as the former chairman and ranking member, with
my colleague, Senator Feinstein, of the Military Construction
Committee, I know that when you have facilities, and then you
talk about moving, and constructing all new facilities, really,
because they're not prepared for it, and then you have the
operations and maintenance increase, I just would hope you'd
look at the efficiencies there, where you've got the support at
the joint base, also a part of the policies of the DOD to have
joint bases that are more efficient. It's a Navy lead base, but
Air Force has both fighter wings, as you know, a fighter wing,
as well as the C-130.
So, I'm just saying it's hard for me to see an efficiency
argument here, when if it ain't broke, don't fix it sort of
attitude. So I'm hoping you will reconsider, for whatever
reasons that are the right reasons, and keep this very vital
asset where it's performed so well. Thank you very much.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Inouye. Thank you.
Senator Feinstein.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR DIANNE FEINSTEIN
Senator Feinstein. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. If I
may, gentlemen, I'd like to follow-up on Senator Hutchison's
question, because it also affects Fresno, California, and the
144th. It's my understanding that F-16s are being replaced with
F-15s. Is that transfer on course, General?
General Schwartz. It is, Ma'am.
Senator Feinstein. And will the 144th remain?
General Schwartz. It will, with the new F-15 equipage.
Senator Feinstein. So, in terms of Fresno, which is a
community that is very upset about it, it will be a
substitution, and as far as the community is concerned, there
will be a continuation.
F-16 TO F-15 CONVERSION AT FRESNO
General Schwartz. The Air Sovereignty Mission, which the
wing has performed from Fresno, will continue, except with F-
15s vice F-16s, which, frankly, are a better fit for that
particular mission.
Senator Feinstein. Well, that is your department, and if
you say so, I'm certainly not one to contest that. As long as
that feature remains in place, that's excellent.
Secretary Donley, I wanted to ask you, on page 19, in your
written testimony, and I'm sorry, I missed your oral testimony,
you make this statement, ``The Air Force must procure our space
systems at the lowest cost possible, while providing assured
access to space.'' That's a direct quote. I'm very concerned
that this is not the case, that with the United Launch Alliance
(ULA) contract, details of which are apparently not put out,
that there is no competitive bidding, and that there is a
company, a California company, that could competitively bid,
come 2014, and reduce the per-unit cost per ULA booster core
from $420 million to $60 million, over a contract term;
therefore, saving literally billions of dollars.
The rockets are all produced in this country, rather than
one-half of the rockets being produced outside the country,
from the joint venture between the two big aerospace companies.
I have felt this way in the Energy and Water Development
Subcommittee. I chair that subcommittee, and we've had this
problem with small nuclear reactors being limited, just the two
big ones for licensing help. I see the same thing happening
here. Instead of being able to open the process for
competition, the big companies are chosen, and it's a long
contract. And I understand they tell you, well, if we don't
have the long lead, the price will go up. But then you have a
company, relatively new, have done a lot of testing, has other
contracts, would like to participate, and cannot.
Could you respond to that?
EVOLVED EXPENDABLE LAUNCH VEHICLE COMPETITION
Mr. Donley. Absolutely, Senator. I think we have a good
site picture here for space launch. We have been concerned
about the cost of the Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle (EELV)
program and ULA's performance. We believe we've been paying
more than we need to for space launch.
The flipside is that we've had a string of successful
launches, and we have repaired some of the previous problems
and issues we had with assured access to space, and lost
payloads a few years back. So, this has been a long, very
focused effort to develop assured access, and to increase the
reliability and sustain the reliability of space launch.
Now, we're at a point where we've achieved that with the
EELV, but we'd like to get a better price for that work. So,
we've had a should-cost study completed and other studies under
way for some period of time, to better understand the cost
basis of the EELV contract, and to renegotiate that contract
going forward. And we are in the process of doing that. We will
have an acquisition strategy ready later this spring that
provides more flexibility for the government, and we think
better savings for the taxpayer.
[The information follows:]
The Air Force plans to release a request for proposal that will
help properly inform the Government decision on the quantity and length
of the first phase; and then award a contract based on analysis of the
most advantageous approach to the Government. The Air Force has not
determined a final quantity or duration for the contract starting in
fiscal year 2013. The Air Force believes it is essential to have more
fidelity in the Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle (EELV) pricing
strategy before making a long-term contractual agreement. In order to
validate the most advantageous production rate and commitment period,
and to use maximum leverage in negotiations, the government will
require the contractor to propose a range of fixed prices for various
rate and commitment options. The decision on the specific contractual
commitment will be balanced among price, operational requirements,
budget realities (including all fiscal law constraints), and potential
for competition. Requirements above the contract commitment will be met
through a full-and-open competition among all certified providers.
While United Launch Alliance is currently the only responsible source
certified to launch EELV class payloads, research indicates there are
potential new entrants; however, the earliest timeframe to meet all
EELV-class launch requirements appears to be fiscal year 2016-2017.
In order to facilitate the certification of potential New Entrants,
the Air Force has identified two opportunities that providers may bid
on--the Deep Space Climate Observatory mission (currently scheduled for
late fiscal year 2014) and the Space Test Program-2 mission (currently
scheduled for late fiscal year 2015), which were funded by the Congress
in fiscal year 2012. These EELV-class missions have a higher risk
tolerance and will provide an opportunity for potential New Entrants to
prove their capability for certification.
When the phase I block buy expires, assuming new entrants are
certified, we will have a full and open competition for launch services
for the second Phase.
Mr. Donley. At the same time we're working on the EELV side
we've been working with National Aeronautics and Space
Administration (NASA) and the National Reconnaissance Office
(NRO) to develop a joint process through which new entrants
into the space launch business gets certified by having
opportunities to fly DOD payloads or other Government payloads
of perhaps lower risk or lesser value, in order to prove out
the reliability of their systems.
And so, we agreed at the end of last year on new entrant
certification criteria. We have a process for doing that. In
fiscal year 2012, we will go out on contract for two payloads
that are being set aside for the new entrants, and so that work
will continue through this spring. But, our objective is to get
the cost of EELV down, and to bring in new competitors into
space launch that will help to continue to provide more
competition in this area.
Senator Feinstein. Well, I thank you for that answer. I
just need time to analyze exactly what it means. Let me just go
to basics. You know what I'm talking about. Will SpaceX be able
to compete?
Mr. Donley. I believe we've addressed the issues raised by
the new entrants, including SpaceX, in the work that we've done
over the last year. So, I think there is an open path, and I
believe SpaceX and the other new entrants understand the
opportunities available, and what they will need to do to be
certified for EELV class launches in the future, so we can
bring competition into this work.
Senator Feinstein. And when would that competition begin?
When would the first year be when a new company can compete?
Mr. Donley. Well, the initial work this year is to identify
less-risk, lower-value payloads for these new entrants to
demonstrate their launch capabilities. And that will happen
this year. Those launches, I believe, are scheduled for 2014
and 2015. So, this has to play out over a few years.
Senator Feinstein. Okay.
Mr. Donley. That work is under way.
Senator Feinstein. Let me ask you specifically. In 2014 and
2015, will there be an open competition?
Mr. Donley. Let me get back to you on the record for that,
because we do not have a predictable path for exactly when the
new entrants will be certified. And we have not yet completed
the acquisition strategy for EELV, going forward. Although,
it's our intent to build into that acquisition strategy the
flexibility for the Government to determine at what point
competition comes in.
Senator Feinstein. Right.
Mr. Donley. So, there's some unknowns here.
Senator Feinstein. Well, I really appreciate that, Mr.
Secretary. And what I'm told is, and this may be wrong, that
they're under the impression they cannot compete for the rest
of the decade. That's tragic, because it could be, I'm not
saying it would be, but it could be a savings of many billion
dollars, if they're competitive.
Mr. Donley. So we'll continue to look.
Senator Feinstein. All right. I appreciate that. General,
would you like to make a comment?
General Schwartz. Just quickly, Ma'am. And the Secretary is
the real expert here, but two important points. There are two
payloads that the new entrants will have an opportunity to fly.
That's the Discover mission and the Space Test Program II
payload.
The bottom line here, from my point-of-view, is I don't
want to put a $1.5 or $2 billion satellite atop a rocket for
the first flight. I think it's important for us to manage risk.
We would do the same thing on the air-breathing side. So, this
needs to be done in a deliberate way, where the new entrants
demonstrate the reliability of their platform so we can get
that $2 billion satellite into orbit.
Senator Feinstein. I think I understand. I'm trying to
understand. Again, my interest is a competition, where
everybody can compete, and the Government can hopefully save
some money. So, Mr. Secretary, I appreciate your comments, and
I trust we can stay in communication, and you'll let me know.
Mr. Donley. Absolutely.
Senator Feinstein. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
EIELSON AIR FORCE BASE
Chairman Inouye. Thank you.
Senator Murkowski.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR LISA MURKOWSKI
Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Secretary, General, thank you for being with us. Your
leadership greatly appreciated. And General, I thank you for
your recent visit to the interior of Alaska. As we discussed
with community leaders, the proposal to move the F-16 aggressor
squadron from Eielson Air Force Base (AFB), we know that we've
kind of seen this movie before, that this was suggested back in
the 2005 base realignment and closure (BRAC), a great deal of
discussion, ultimately, that the decision was made not to move
that aggressor squadron. Now, the proposal is before us again.
I know that you have seen the chart there that demonstrates
Alaska's geographic position in the world. In fact, I think you
probably had that in your office when you were in Alaska, so I
don't need to speak to that. But, I still have a very difficult
time understanding a proposal that would somehow possibly
decrease our presence in Alaska, when the administration says
that we're going to focus our attention on the Asia and the
Pacific.
And I continue to press for the answer from the Air Force
as to its intentions with Eielson AFB to continue that
installation as a fully functioning base that allows the 168th
Air Refueling Wing to fully conduct its critical refueling
mission as part of the administration's Asia-Pacific focus. I
guess I would like to hear that assurance that Eielson AFB will
continue in that very, very significant role, and would ask a
series of questions then, in terms of what we might anticipate
with the site survey, going forward.
General Schwartz, I have sent a letter asking that with
this site survey that will be conducted, I understand now in
April that the team include a general officer and also a
provision to consult with the Alaska National Guard, since the
plans there at Eielson AFB will significantly impact this 24-
hour, 365-day-a-year refueling mission with the Guard.
So, I'm wondering where we are on that request with the
site survey coming forward, and again, a reaffirmation of that
very critical role that Eielson AFB has historically played for
the Air Force.
General Schwartz. Yes, Ma'am. Clearly, the intent is to
support in its entirety the 168th mission and not just the
168th. But there are other activities at Eielson AFB, the
Arctic Training School, and so on, and so forth, that will
continue, and will not be diminished by the relocation of the
F-16s or the associated reduction of base operating support
that's tied to that relocation.
I can't commit today to a flag officer for the survey, but
clearly, the interaction will include the Guard and all other
stakeholders that have an interest, obviously, in Eielson AFB.
And, Ma'am, as you know, not only is Eielson AFB the home
for the 168th, it is the access point for the range area just
to the west, and so on. And that will continue to be the case.
And 23 million gallons of jet aviation fuel stored there is a
significant asset that clearly is in the back of our mind
continuously, especially with the new emphasis and the strategy
on the Asia-Pacific.
Senator Murkowski. Well, let me ask you about the cost
savings. And again, I remind all that we've looked at this once
and determined that the cost savings were simply not going to
be there.
The proposal to move the squadron from Eielson AFB down to
Elmendorf Air Force Base is one that I think is somewhat
problematic. We've got, currently, at Joint Base Elmendorf-
Richardson (JBER), about 400 soldiers that are already in
temporary barracks. So, by relocating significant number of
airmen and their families down into that area, I want to know
whether or not we have determined what the cost to house these
new airmen at JBER would be, how and when we would fund that,
because as you indicated when you were in Alaska, this proposal
would move forward next summer.
What level of analysis has been conducted to date with
regards to the accommodations at JBER? Not only with the
housing, but the additional infrastructure that may be
required.
General Schwartz. As you know, Ma'am, we did not do a site
survey, and that's the purpose of the undertaking that will go
off, I think it starts the 6th of April, specifically. But the
key thing here is that, as you're well aware, there used to be
three flying squadrons at Elmendorf AFB, and there are two now.
And in looking at the tabletop level, at the facilities on
Elmendorf AFB, the conclusion was that both for maintenance and
ops, and base support, that it was possible to reabsorb a third
squadron and to do that efficiently. With regard to military
family housing and/or dormitory space, that is a specific
output from the survey team on the ground, and clearly, they
will give us very precise insights in that regard.
JOINT BASE ELMENDORF ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
Senator Murkowski. Would moving the F-16s from Eielson AFB
to JBER require either an environmental analysis or an
environmental impact statement (EIS)? And if so, do we have any
handle on what that cost might be? And then, again, how we deal
with the funding and the timing again of all of this, if the
Air Force is to move forward with the proposal as it is on the
table now.
General Schwartz. Given that the most current environmental
impact for Elmendorf AFB was addressed at the three-squadron
level, the presumption was that it would not require a follow-
on study. That, again, is another output from the survey team
to confirm that that is, in fact, the case. And so, again, this
2-week effort coming up next month is important in lots of
dimensions.
Senator Murkowski. Well, I would certainly concur with
that. And again, I would repeat my request, that you consider
sending a general officer as part of that site survey. I think
we recognize that it's not just looking at the ledger, the
balance sheet there, from a cost analysis, it is incorporating
so many of those intangibles that I think is important. The
strategic asset that we have up north, sometimes that doesn't
necessarily fit into those neat boxes, as you do a cost benefit
analysis. And having that level of oversight, I think, would
allow for greater comfort with the process, and, hopefully, a
greater transparency with that. So, I would hope that you would
consider this. We're looking at it, again, with a great deal of
anxiety for the interior, but we need to know that we can work
with you on that.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I know that my time is expired,
and we've got a vote, I understand. So, thank you. And thank
you, gentlemen.
ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS
Chairman Inouye. Thank you very much. Mr. Secretary and
General Schwartz, on behalf of the subcommittee, I thank you
very much for your service to our Nation and for your
testimony, and we look forward to working with you in the
coming months.
[The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but
were submitted to the Department for response subsequent to the
hearing:]
Questions Submitted to Secretary Michael B. Donley and
General Norton A. Schwartz
Questions Submitted by Senator Tom Harkin
Question. What cost-benefit analysis was done by the Air Force to
determine the savings achieved by closing or reassigning Air National
Guard and Air Force Reserve units versus Active-Duty Air Force units? I
understand that different types of units have different fixed costs, so
if this question needs to be narrowed down, what is the difference in
cost, over the course of a 5-year cycle, of different types of F-16
wings?
Answer. While cost savings are part of the decisionmaking process,
the most important factor is the Air Force's ability to provide the
capabilities required by the new Defense Strategic Guidance,
``Sustaining U.S. Global Leadership: Priorities for 21st Century
Defense''. This new strategy directs the services to build a leaner,
more flexible, and technologically advanced force. As a result, the Air
Force is rebalancing our Total Force to match the capability and
capacity requirements of the new guidance. The proposed Reserve
component force structure reductions were determined using a deliberate
and collaborative process which leveraged careful analytical review of
warfighting scenarios consistent with the new strategic guidance. Two
decades of military end strength and force structure reductions in our
Active-Duty component have changed the Active and Reserve component
mix, and achieving the appropriate Active and Reserve component mix is
critical to sustaining Air Force capabilities for forward presence and
rapid response, as well as meeting high-rate rotational demands with a
smaller force. Therefore, the Air Force did not believe a cost-benefit
analysis between the Active and Reserve components for the different
types of F-16 wings is warranted.
However, the component mix had to be determined based on the
``availability rate'' of the two components. As I had recently stated
to the Air Force Reserve Senior Leaders Conference, ``We place an
enormous value on the experience provided by the Reserve component, but
we don't want to shift the warfighting burden to a part-time force.
This isn't what [the Reserve component] signed up for . . . as we plan
our Total Force mix, we keep the components' contributions and
commitments in mind and look to size our Active, Guard, and Reserve
forces so they can meet their respective roles. If our Active component
is too small to meet its demands, then we put our Guard and Reserve
forces in the position of breaking other commitments to employers,
communities, and families. Alternatively, if our Active component is
too large, then we would not be taking advantage of the benefits that
our Guard and Reserve forces have to offer.''
Question. When conducting a cost-benefit analysis of the costs of
an Active-Duty Air Force wing versus an Air National Guard or Air
Reserve wing, do you consider costs that may not be reflected in
personnel or operations and maintenance costs? For instance, are the
costs of maintaining on-base housing for Active-Duty units included in
this analysis? Are the costs of maintaining Department of Defense
schools for children of airmen to attend included? Are the long-term
costs of retirement and TRICARE-for-life benefits included?
Answer. When determining the costs of operating a wing, regardless
of component, the Air Force accounts for costs outside of personnel and
operations and maintenance. For instance, the costs of facility
sustainment, restoration, and modernization are included in any
analysis. Base operations support costs are also considered. These
costs include communications infrastructure support and maintenance,
ground fuels and transportation shipping, contract services, and
utilities. With regard to housing, the Air Force evaluates the cost of
operating and maintaining on-base units and Basic Allowance for Housing
for members not using on-base units. Medical and retirement costs are
part of our personnel costs.
Question. What is the annual cost to man, operate and maintain of
each United States Air Forces in Europe (USAFE) installation? Can you
compare that to a comparable number of Air Combat Command (ACC) and Air
National Guard (ANG) installations?
Answer. The Air Force compared three bases from ACC (Seymour
Johnson, North Carolina; Shaw, South Carolina; and Moody, Georgia),
USAFE (Aviano, Italy; Lakenheath, United Kingdom; and Mildenhall,
United Kingdom) and the ANG (Burlington, Vermont; Jacksonville,
Florida; and Birmingham, Alabama) and used annual operation and
maintenance obligations from fiscal year 2011, excluding overseas
contingency operations funding. Military personnel data has also been
included for fiscal year 2011. Using this methodology, the below table
is provided:
[Dollars in millions]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year Aircraft
Command Base 2011 PAA
------------------------------------------------------------------------
USAFE........................ Lakenheath..... 439.6 70
ACC.......................... Moody.......... 427.0 64
ACC.......................... Seymour Johnson 414.0 87
ACC.......................... Shaw........... 371.4 72
USAFE........................ Aviano......... 366.5 42
USAFE........................ Mildenhall..... 245.0 15
ANG.......................... Jacksonville... 89.3 19
ANG.......................... Birmingham..... 73.8 8
ANG.......................... Burlington..... 72.6 18
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Air Force cautions this kind of comparison does not include the
differences in missions, location, population, mix of officers,
enlisted, and civilians, host-nation support, and other variables that
make such a comparison misleading as to the value of each installation
to the fight. Additionally, it is important to note that costs for
USAFE's geographically separated units and smaller units are
consolidated into the financial reporting of their owning main
operating bases.
The permanent, forward basing of aircraft in Europe represents a
key element of our Nation's defense strategic guidance. It avoids the
costs and disruption of units by implementing a constant rotation of
aircraft and personnel from the continental United States.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Dianne Feinstein
global hawk
Question. Last June, the then Under Secretary of Defense for
Acquisition, Technology and Logistics, Ashton Carter certified to the
Congress that the Global Hawk was ``essential to the National
security''; and ``that there are no alternatives to the program which
will provide acceptable capability to meet the joint military
requirement at less cost''. And yet in February of this year, the Air
Force decided to cancel the program and retire the existing aircraft
despite an investment of $4 billion. Additionally, my staff was
informed through Mr. Randall Walden, Director for Information Dominance
Programs (Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for
Acquisition) that you would like to invest another $1.1 billion to
upgrade U-2 aircraft to keep them flying through 2040.
Secretary Donley and General Schwartz, how do you explain what has
changed to cancel this program?
Answer. Following the Nunn-McCurdy certification in June 2011, a
reduced requirement where the U-2 is sufficient and a reduced budget
where the Department could no longer afford to keep investing in RQ-4
Global Hawk Block 30 drove the divestiture decision resulting in a
savings of $3.8 billion.
In September 2011, the Department of Defense (DOD) Joint
Requirements Oversight Council reviewed recent adjustments in military
strategy and determined that conventional high-altitude intelligence,
surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) requirements could be reduced.
The Air Force further determined the U-2, which remains viable until at
least 2040, was sufficient to meet the reduced requirements. Continued
increased investment in RQ-4 would be required to field a comparable
capability to U-2 and was determined to be unaffordable.
Continued, increased investment in RQ-4 was not warranted given a
significant reduction in the Department's budget and an alternative
system, the U-2, is still operationally viable at considerably lower
total cost over the Future Years Defense Plan (FYDP). Although $3.8
billion was saved with the decision to divest Global Hawk Block 30,
$1.3 billion (vice $1.1 billion) was needed to continue to operate and
sustain the U-2 throughout the FYDP. The net savings to the taxpayer is
$2.5 billion.
When the U-2 is employed at its normal operational distance, U-2
operating costs are comparable to RQ-4 costs. The latest actual costs
per flying hour data shows that both platforms are operating at $32,000
per hour.
Question. The Global Hawk is a multi-imagery aircraft that carries
Electro Optical/Infra-red (EO/IR), and radar system at all times.
However, the U-2 is a single imagery aircraft that cannot carry both
EO/IR and radar sensors at the same time. This seems in conflict with
your statement regarding the Air Force decision to favor retention of
multirole platforms over those with more narrowly focused capabilities.
Do you think the specialized U-2 is the answer to meet our
Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance requirements for the
next 3\1/2\ decades?
If you do, how much additional money is required to upgrade and
sustain these aircraft? How much confidence do you have that an
aircraft first introduced in 1955 and previously scheduled for
retirement in 2015 will be able to outperform the Global Hawk?
Answer. Although an imagery intelligence (IMINT) and signals
intelligence (SIGINT) sensor cannot be carried simultaneously on a
single aircraft, the U-2 system is able to perform both missions and is
considered multirole. In fact, the U-2 is able to currently outperform
the Block 30 Enhanced Integrated Sensor Suite in image quality at
range.
It is true that the U-2 was first introduced in 1955, but the
``newest'' U-2s were brought into service in 1989 and $1.7 billion of
investments have been made to modernize the system. The U-2 fleet in
its current state has been certified to 75,000 flight hours (2040 and
beyond at current utilization rates). In addition to the new engines in
1994-1998, the entire fleet has completed new power distribution
(wiring), 21st century glass cockpit, and modern avionics processor
upgrades. The U-2s are currently on a 4,000-hour programmed depot
maintenance cycle included in the budgeted operating costs.
The divesture of Global Hawk Block 30 saved $3.8 billion across the
FYDP. Of that savings, $1.3 billion was put back into the U-2 program
to enable continuation of operations throughout the FYDP. The net
savings to the taxpayer is $2.5 billion from the divesture of Global
Hawk Block 30 and addition of sustainment costs for the U-2.
Question. Given the Air Force is recommending terminating the
Global Hawk program what confidence do you have that the Block 40 will
not be canceled next?
Answer. There is no plan to cancel the Block 40 program. The fiscal
year 2013 President's budget request funds the Block 40/MP-RTIP program
($161.9 million research, development, testing, and evaluation (RDT&E)
and $20.9 million Procurement). The Air Force purchased a total of 11
Block 40 aircraft through fiscal year 2011 with delivery of the last
two aircraft in fiscal year 2014.
Question. The Congress appropriated $322 million for three Block 30
Global Hawks in fiscal year 2012. What are your intentions with this
funding? When the fiscal year 2012 Department of Defense appropriations
bill was signed into law, did you anticipate you would not need these
aircraft?
Answer. Pending congressional direction for fiscal year 2013, the
Air Force does not plan to spend the fiscal year 2012 funding for three
additional Block 30 aircraft. The Air Force will continue to work
closely with the committees to determine the best way forward and will
take no presumptive actions until given direction. When the
Consolidated Appropriations Act for 2012 (to include the Department of
Defense) was signed into law on December 23, 2011, the decision on
whether the fiscal year 2012 funded aircraft were required was being
reconsidered at lower management levels, but a final decision had not
been reached.
Question. What is your assessment of the performance of the Global
Hawk in combat operations in Libya, Afghanistan, and Iraq and
humanitarian missions in Japan and Haiti?
Answer. In Libya, the Global Hawk provided EO/IR and synthetic
aperture radar and was used in an ISR role with dynamic responsiveness
due to its enhanced duration/dwell time and the ability to fill gaps
between other ISR collects. Overall, the Global Hawk was successful in
Operation Odyssey Dawn. Assessment details can be made available at a
higher security classification.
In the U.S. Central Command theater, the Global Hawk continues to
support the combatant command with both theater and tactical ISR. To
date, RQ-4 has flown more than 50,000 combat hours, in support of U.S.
Central Command operations.
In humanitarian/disaster relief missions, the Global Hawk leveraged
its range and endurance as an ISR first-responder. Following the Haiti
earthquake, the Global Hawk executed a response mission in 12 hours,
effectively providing initial situational awareness, highlighting
earthquake damage, status of critical infrastructure, and food/aid drop
zones and indicators of mass population migrations. Eight missions were
flown, satisfying 2,621 targets.
In Japan, the Global Hawk capitalized on its range and endurance to
be overhead in 21 hours. Imagery products were provided to the
Secretary of State within 40 minutes of request. In addition to
infrastructure damage assessment, supply route analysis, and real-time
monitoring of evacuation support, the Global Hawk collection focused on
the Fukushima nuclear power plant. Because it is a remotely piloted
aircraft, Japan allowed U.S. Pacific Command to use the Global Hawk
within the 20 kilometer nuclear engagement zone. Infrared imagery taken
directly over the top of the reactors allowed engineers to frequently
monitor core temperature levels. In 21 missions and 300 on-station
hours, the Global Hawk collected more than 3,000 images.
Question. Secretary Donley and General Schwartz, in your testimony
you state that ``There is a compelling need to invest in next-
generation, high-impact systems so that the Air Force can continue to
provide the capabilities on which our Nation relies. The failure to
make the proper investments now will imperil the effectiveness of the
future force and our ability to execute the new strategic guidance for
decades to come''.
Secretary Donley, can you tell me how many times you forward
deployed the U-2 in the past 6 years? How much effort was involved?
Answer. The U-2 has been forward deployed in support of operations
in Southwest Asia for the past 22 years, and in the Pacific theater for
more than 40 years. With the exception of a brief deployment in support
of disaster relief operations in Haiti, there have been no additional
forward deployments within the past 6 years. The mechanics of
establishing our forward deployed location in Southwest Asia proved
routine as it was similar to other forward deployed operations around
the world prior to our involvement in that theater, though the initial
scale of operations dwarfed that of any previous U-2 deployment.
Question. If the U-2 is to be continued in lieu of the Global Hawk
Block 30, how will the U-2, locked down on the Korean Peninsula,
contribute to future operations?
Answer. The U-2 is not locked down on the Korean Peninsula. We are
developing a plan to move the U-2 to an alternate location which would
allow the same collection for U.S. Forces Korea and pick up additional
missions in the area of responsibility.
The Air Force retains the ability to deploy U-2 detachments to
crisis areas as it has done since the aircraft's inception.
Question. Secretary Donley, given the new defense strategy doesn't
it seem prudent that we work with STRATCOM, and the Joint Functional
Component Command for ISR (JFCC-ISR) to develop an ISR architecture to
determine the appropriate ISR force sizing as it pertains to that
specific mission set (primarily anti-access/area denial) before we
start making decisions on where to invest our ISR capabilities or
investing in extending the life of the U-2?
Answer. The Joint Requirements Oversight Counsel decision to reduce
the high-altitude ISR Global Hawk-equivalent orbit requirement was
informed by Joint Staff analysis in the context of the entire ISR
portfolio and the emerging Defense Strategic Guidance. Internal Air
Force deliberations included reviews of JFCC-ISR assessments of U-2 and
Global Hawk employment in anti-access/anti-denial scenarios, and
ongoing analysis efforts have validated the course of action taken. In
sum, multiple independent analytical efforts at various levels within
the Department of Defense have examined the ISR force structure from a
broad portfolio view in light of emerging strategic guidance and
ultimately supported the divestiture decision.
mc-12
Question. Last year, Senator Barbara Boxer and I wrote letters to
Secretary Leon E. Panetta and the Chair and Ranking Members of the
Senate and House Armed Services Committee opposing a provision in the
Senate Fiscal Year 2012 Defense Authorization bill which would have
transferred the MC-12 Liberty reconnaissance aircraft from the Air
Force to the Army. This past December, Senator Boxer and I received a
response from the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence Michael
Vickers that stated that after a thorough review of current and future
ISR requirements and recent discussions with the Secretaries of the Air
Force and Army, Secretary Panetta concluded that the Air Force would
retain the MC-12 Liberty aircraft. However, only 3 months later, in its
fiscal year 2013 budget request, the Air Force announced it plans to
move the MC-12 aircraft to the Air National Guard (ANG) and disperse
them to four different bases.
What is the justification for moving these aircraft to the ANG?
When was this decision made? Was it made after the letter from Under
Secretary Vickers?
Answer. The President's and Department of Defense's (DOD) 2012
Strategic Guidance states the military will defend U.S. territory from
direct attack by state and non-state actors and come to the assistance
of domestic civil authorities in the event such defense fails or in
case of natural disasters, in addition to title 10 overseas military
operations. This guidance provided the framework the Air Force used to
conduct an extensive review of the manned medium-altitude ISR
requirements, to include defense support to civil authorities. Due to
investment costs to upgrade the RC-26 fleet (11 aircraft), originally
fielded in the ANG for domestic operations and then adapted for use in
title 10 operations, the ANG and Air Force collectively determined to
divest the RC-26 fleet and transfer the MC-12W Liberty to the ANG to
maintain flexibility across the range of manned, medium-altitude ISR
requirements.
The decision to transition the MC-12W to the ANG was captured in
the fiscal year 2013-2017 Alternate Program Objective Memorandum signed
by Secretary Donley and General Schwartz and released to the Secretary
of Defense on August 3, 2011. We are not aware of any specific letter
from Under Secretary Vickers in regard to the MC-12W. However, Deputy
Secretary of Defense Carter released a letter to the Chairman and
Ranking Members of the Armed Services and Appropriation Committees on
November 21, 2011, and references a discussion Under Secretary Vickers
and Admiral James A. Winnefeld had with Senate Armed Services Committee
(SASC) staffers. These officials told the SASC staffers that the
Secretaries of the Air Force and Army believed that the Air Force was
the right place for the MC-12Ws to reside.
Question. Given we have already established the aircraft, support
equipment, and personnel at Beale this past year would you agree that
it is fiscally more responsible to retain this capability at Beale and
not incur the additional costs associated with relocating these
aircraft and equipment to other various bases?
Answer. Once the MC-12W transitions, the aircraft returning from
overseas will be reassigned to four ANG units, but the current MC-12W
training unit will remain at Beale AFB, California. Since the ANG is
the DOD's primary provider of domestic operations capabilities,
retaining all of the MC-12W aircraft at Beale would not provide the ANG
the ability to quickly respond to civil authorities' requests
throughout the continental United States.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Herb Kohl
Question. What is the definition used by the Air Force for a
``retired member'' as it appears in title 10 of the United States Code?
Answer. To our knowledge, the term ``retired member'' is not per se
defined in title 10, United States Code or any Air Force instruction.
The term has specific meaning depending on the context within which it
is used. Generally speaking, when the Air Force refers to a ``retired
member,'' it is referring to either a regular commissioned officer or
enlisted member who is retired for years of service (10 U.S.C. 8911,
8914) or mandatory age (example: 10 U.S.C. 1251), or to a member in one
of the categories that make up the Air Force Retired Reserve. Air Force
Instruction 36-3209 defines members whose transfer to the Retired
Reserve is automatic as:
--Reserve officers who are retired for service under 10 U.S.C. 8911,
20 years or more: Regular or Reserve commissioned officers;
--Members retired for disability under title 10, chapter 61,
Retirement or Separation for Disability; and
--Reserve enlisted members who are retired for service under 10
U.S.C. 8914, 20 to 30 years: enlisted members.
Other members who will be transferred to the Retired Reserve upon
completion of an AF Form 131 (Application for Transfer to the Retired
Reserve) include:
--Reserve members who meet eligibility requirements of 10 U.S.C.
12731 except for attainment of age 60;
--Reserve members who have completed a total of 20 years of honorable
service in the Armed Forces;
--Reserve members who have completed 10 or more years of active
Federal commissioned service in the Armed Forces;
--Reserve members on Extended Active Duty (EAD) who have been found
physically disqualified and placed on the Temporary Disability
Retirement List (TDRL) or Permanent Disability Retired List
(PDRL) as a result of a service connected disability; and
--Reserve members not on EAD who have been found physically
disqualified are discharged, retained or transferred to the
Retired Reserve if they apply and meet the requirements
outlined in 10 U.S.C. 12731.
Question. How many members of the Air Force Retired Reserve have
been recalled by the Air Force to Active Duty under 10 U.S.C. 688a?
Answer. Eighty-two Retired Reserve officers were recalled and
voluntarily returned to Active Duty under 10 U.S.C. 688a via the
Retired Rated Officer Recall Program. Sixty-two of these officers are
still on active duty serving out their recall contract as of March 29,
2012. Twenty have completed their contracts and returned to retired
status.
Question. Of those recalled to Active Duty under 10 U.S.C. 688a,
how many are currently on the Inactive Status List established by 10
U.S.C. 12735?
Answer. There are currently three members who have completed their
Active-Duty tours under 688a and are now assigned to the Retired
Reserve awaiting pay at age 60 under 10 U.S.C. 12735. Additionally, two
other members recalled to active duty are in the process of
transferring back to the Retired Reserve. Once those two members have
been processed, it will bring the total to five.
Question. Does the Air Force have a policy to activate members of
the Air Force Retired Reserve in a manner that allows the member to be
eligible for early retirement credit authorized by section 647 of
Public Law 110-181?
Answer. The Air Force has a policy to activate members of an Air
Force Reserve component, with the consent of the member, in a manner
that allows the member to be eligible for early retirement credit
authorized by section 647 of Public Law 110-181. The Voluntary Limited
Period Call to Extended Active Duty activates members of the Reserve
components for extended active duty under title 10, U.S.C., section
12301(d) which is qualifying active-duty service authorized by section
647 of Public Law 110-181.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Tim Johnson
Question. Secretary Donley, several years ago the Air Force created
the Alternative Fuels Certification Office (AFCO) to certify
alternative fuels for use in military aircraft. To date, that office
has tested and certified fuels that convert coal, natural gas, or
biomass into jet fuel. AFCO followed up that work by testing and
certifying hydrotreated renewable jet fuel, which is derived from bio-
oils and fats. These tests confirmed that these alternative fuels had
performance characteristics virtually identical to JP-8 petroleum fuel
and these fuels were certified across all your aircraft platforms.
The third variety of fuels AFCO has begun to investigate is
alcohol-to-jet (ATJ) fuels. ATJ fuels hold tremendous promise. They can
promote our national and energy security, be produced in Rural America,
and they are almost always cleaner than traditional fuels. The Air
Force should develop its capability to use these fuels to the fullest
extent possible, and I urge you to continue this work and fully test
these promising ATJ fuels. What are the Air Force's intentions to
complete ATJ fuels testing?
Answer. The Air Force is focused on increasing and diversifying its
energy supplies to improve our energy security. Part of this includes
the testing and certification of alternative aviation fuels, such as a
50/50 blend of traditional JP-8 and ATJ fuel. The Air Force established
a two-phase approach for ATJ evaluation. During the first phase, which
is currently underway, the Air Force purchased test quantities of ATJ
fuel, and conducted feasibility demonstrations and initial evaluations.
Phase 2 is fleet-wide certification to fly unrestricted operations
using an ATJ fuel blend. Based on the results of phase 1, as well as
funding availability, the Air Force will determine whether to move
forward with phase 2.
Question. I'm pleased that this year's budget request maintains the
current B-1 fleet. Having recently completed its 10,000th combat
mission, there's no question that this is a valuable aircraft and
essential to the Air Force's mission. Can you discuss the Air Force's
plans across the future years defense plan (FYDP) and beyond to keep
the B-1 fleet relevant and strong even in a time of tighter budgets?
Answer. There are currently five ongoing efforts to address
obsolescence and diminishing manufacturing sources (DMS) issues for the
B-1. The Radar Reliability and Maintainability Improvement Program
(RMIP) replaces two high-failure rate line replaceable units within the
B-1 radar subsystem and is expected to yield a 60-percent improvement
in system reliability. The Inertial Navigation System Replacement
(INSR) upgrades the B-1's primary navigation system to improve
maintainability, supportability, and navigation performance. The Gyro
Stabilization System Replacement (GSSR) replaces high-maintenance,
high-cost, and high-failure rate components within the B-1's secondary
navigation system for improved reliability and maintainability. The
Vertical Situation Display Upgrade (VSDU) is a safety-critical
modification that addresses DMS issues by replacing obsolete primary
flight instruments with multifunction displays and adds a second
display at each pilot station for enhanced situational awareness.
Central Integrated Test System (CITS) upgrades the current on-board
fault diagnostic and isolation system through increased memory and
improved user interface to address maintainability and capacity
limitations.
Additionally, one major capability program is ongoing to ensure
that the B-1 remains relevant into the future. The Fully Integrated
Data Link (FIDL) provides both Link 16 line-of-sight and Joint Range
Extension beyond-line-of-sight data link capability to improve combat
situation awareness and command and control connectivity, replaces rear
cockpit legacy displays with multi-function displays, and provides the
Ethernet backbone necessary to integrate FIDL, VSDU, and CITS
throughout the cockpit. FIDL, VSDU, and CITS are all part of an
Integrated Battle Station production contract enabling concurrent
procurement and installation of all three upgrades to reduce
installation costs, aircraft downtime, and keep fielded aircraft
configurations to a minimum for aircrew training, maintenance, and
operational deployment efficiencies.
In addition to the aforementioned ongoing modernization efforts,
the fiscal year 2013 President's budget request includes funding for
two additional efforts that address further aircraft and simulator
obsolescence concerns. The Self Contained Standby Attitude Indicator
will replace the current standby attitude indicator, which is
experiencing a significant spike in maintenance actions and reduced
mean time between failures, with the new standby instrument providing
attitude, airspeed, and altitude indications. The Simulator Digital
Control Loading will replace the current analog control loading system
responsible for matching simulator stick forces to the aircraft with a
digital system, improving sustainability and keeping B-1 aircrew
training devices operational.
B-1 modernization funding includes $47.4 million for research,
development, testing, and evaluation (RDT&E) and $704.4 million for
procurement across the FYDP. The Air Force estimates an additional
$256.6 million is required to fully fund the current programs of record
beyond fiscal year 2017 to completion. It is premature at this time to
speculate on further B-1 modernization beyond the previously described
upgrades, all of which continue through the fielding of the 60th
Integrated Battle Station aircraft in 2020. However, the Air Force will
consider additional B-1 program investments, beyond those already
programmed within the FYDP, as part of the complete Air Force
portfolio, within total obligation authority limits, to ensure that the
B-1 fleet remains viable to support combatant commander requirements
into the future.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Thad Cochran
light attack support procurement
Question. Secretary Donley, please provide the subcommittee with an
update on the Light Attack Support (LAS) procurement. What specific
issues have you found? When will a final report be available?
Answer. The LAS contract was originally awarded on December 22,
2011, to Sierra Nevada Corporation (SNC), but was terminated by the Air
Force on March 2, 2012, as part of the Air Force's corrective action in
response to the suit filed by Hawker Beechcraft Defense Corporation
(HBDC) in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims. The Air Force Service
Acquisition Executive was not satisfied with the documentation
supporting the original LAS source selection, prompting termination of
the contract with the SNC. Additionally, the Commander of Air Force
Materiel Command ordered a Commander-Directed Investigation (CDI) into
the LAS contract process on February 27, 2012. Part 1 of the CDI is
complete focusing solely on the execution of the source selection
processes and procedures in the original LAS contract. However, release
of the CDI report would compromise the integrity of the ongoing source
selection process due to the source selection sensitive information
contained in the report.
After studying the circumstances prompting the corrective action
and facts from the subsequent CDI, the Air Force decided to issue an
amendment to the LAS request for proposal (RFP) to both offerors. Air
Force officials met with both original offerors, SNC and HBDC,
individually, to review the amended RFP changes line-by-line on April
17, 2012. Both were provided the opportunity to submit comments on the
draft RFP amendment, after which the Air Force released the final
amended RFP on May 4, 2012. While the decision process will be event-
driven, the Air Force targets a source selection decision in early
calendar year 2013. This would allow first aircraft delivery to
Afghanistan in the third quarter of 2014.
Question. Secretary Donley, is it Air Force's intention that LAS
aircraft comply with U.S. weapons, communications, and anthropometric
standards in order for U.S. Military Personnel and partners to work
seamlessly?
Answer. The LAS program is funded by Afghan Security Forces funds
and provides a light attack capability for Afghanistan. This program is
specifically for Afghanistan and no plan currently exists to extend the
platform beyond Afghanistan. There is a requirement within the Afghan
LAS program for U.S. forces to partner with the Afghan Air Force to
train and advise them on the system. Although there are advantages to
U.S. forces being familiar with the LAS platform, this is not an
absolute requirement. The Air Force will leverage experienced Air Force
instructor pilots, maintainers and logisticians capable of quickly
learning the LAS system and then training and advising their Afghan
counterparts.
Question. Secretary Donley, can you please describe what
interaction, if any, has occurred between the U.S. Air Force and the
U.S. State Department on the LAS procurement? While I understand you
can only speak on behalf of the Air Force, can you please assure this
subcommittee that the LAS procurement and the Brazilian FX-2 fighter
competition are being handled as completely separate matters?
Answer. The Air Force has maintained the appropriate level of
coordination with Department of State on this matter. The Air Force
Foreign Policy Advisor's office has responded to all DOS inquiries and
provided coordination with the DOS Political-Military Bureau.
Additionally, following termination of the LAS contract, the Air Force
Public Affairs (PA) office coordinated with the DOS PA office to assist
in answering questions from the Government of Brazil.
As for the Brazilian FX-2 fighter competition, there is no
connection between the U.S. Government's advocacy for the F/A-18 sale
and the LAS contract. The programs are not associated in any manner.
c-27j versus c-130 operational costs
Question. General Schwartz, the Air Force plans to terminate the C-
27 program and put already purchased aircraft in storage or find
another home for them. As an alternative, the Air Force plans to use C-
130 cargo aircraft to provide direct support to Army units. It's my
understanding the C-27 is already operating cargo missions for our
ground forces in Afghanistan and that these missions reduce stress on
Chinook helicopters which are much more expensive to operate per hour
than either a C-27 or C-130. In addition, these C-27 missions may
reduce the need for ground convoys which are not only dangerous but
costly. Considering the flying hour cost of operating a C-130 can be
more than double the cost of a C-27, what is the total cost of the Air
Force's proposal and what assurances can you give us that the
Department has conducted the proper business case analysis that takes
these costs and risks into account?
Answer. The Air Force's decision to terminate the C-27J program and
divest the current fleet of 21 aircraft is based on a number of
factors--not simply the cost to operate one platform versus another.
The predominant consideration in our analysis was the reduction in
overall intra-theater airlift demand and resulting force structure
requirements attendant to the Department's January 2012 revised
strategic planning guidance. While our analysis did include a life-
cycle cost comparison between the C-27J and various C-130 variants, the
operating costs of these platforms were not dominant elements in our
decision calculus. We elected to divest the C-27J fleet in favor of
keeping more operationally capable C-130 aircraft that can support the
full realm of intra-theater airlift requirements, including Army time
sensitive/mission critical direct support, rather than keeping a
relatively small fleet of ``niche'' C-27J aircraft that are suited for
the Army direct support role, and not the full spectrum of conflict.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Lamar Alexander
Question. The greatest threat facing the Arnold Engineering
Development Center is that the facilities at the base are 50 years old
and they are reaching the breaking point.
Although facilities are funded through Military Construction, which
is not this subcommittee's jurisdiction, the fiscal year 2013 budget
request for Air Force military construction is only $388 million, down
from more than $1.2 billion in fiscal year 2012. The Air Force must
develop a long-term plan to ensure critical testing facilities, like
Arnold Engineering Development Center in Tennessee, can continue to
operate. The fiscal year 2013 budget request is inadequate to meet
infrastructure needs at many facilities, including Arnold.
Secretary Donley, what specific plan does the Air Force have to
ensure that Arnold can continue to provide the Air Force with testing
facilities capable of developing new cutting-edge technologies to
support future missions without adequate funding?
Answer. Each year, the Air Force prioritizes their most urgent
military construction requirements for inclusion in the Air Force's
military construction portion of the President's Budget. With budget
constraints, we can only fund the most urgent projects; however, the
Air Force is committed to sustaining, maintaining, and modernizing our
physical plants to include facilities at Arnold Engineering Development
Center. The Air Force did include two military construction projects
for $26.8 million at Arnold Engineering Development Center in the
Future Years Defense Program with the fiscal year 2013 President's
budget submission. Although the Air Force did reduce our military
construction budget request for fiscal year 2013, our goal is to return
to historical military construction program funding levels in fiscal
year 2014 to support the National Military Strategy.
[Dollars in millions]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Title Cost
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Power distribution modernization........................... 13.2
ADAL test cell delivery bay................................ 13.6
------------
Total................................................ 26.8
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The two projects noted in the table above are in the fiscal year
2013 President's budget FYDP.
In addition, we have provided fiscal year 2012 funds for the
following projects:
--AEDC Propulsion Wind Tunnel #1 Transformer--$2.1 million;
--AEDC (National Full-Scale Aerodynamics Complex) 40X Crane
Refurbishment--$875,000;
--AEDC Cooling Tower--$400,000; and
--AEDC Critical Steam System Supplies--$466,000.
Question. The USAF has stated publicly that given the downsizing of
its fleet, it will be required more than ever to utilize technology to
maintain fleet readiness. Fuel leaks on aircraft are known to severely
impact the mission capability of aircraft operations. When an aircraft
does go out of service for fuel leaks, the downtime is an unknown,
until it is finally successfully repaired (days, weeks, sometimes
months). The USAF has investigated, evaluated, and approved
technologies and systems that will reduce the cost and downtime of
aircraft fuel leak repairs.
Given these thorough evaluations, does the Air Force have a plan
for implementing such systems across the Air Force maintenance
enterprise? And, if not, can you please describe what impediments you
face for leveraging such a cost saving approach?
Answer. Our program offices address sustainment challenges in many
ways. A significant effort required for supporting each weapon system
is the life-cycle management plan (LCMP). The LCMP fulfills the Federal
Acquisition Regulation (FAR), Defense FAR Supplement, and Air Force FAR
Supplement requirements of the acquisition plan and Department of
Defense Instruction 5000.02 requirements for the acquisition strategy.
The plans address long-range capability and sustainment efforts.
Sustainment efforts often consider pacing ``not mission capable''
maintenance and ``not mission capable'' supply issues. Recently
recurring fuel leaks in KC-135 aircraft drove root cause analysis that
identified the existing aircraft fuel bladders had outlived the repair
processes. New bladders were ordered and the fuel leaks were reduced.
Weapon systems are reviewed at recurring intervals during which
operators, depot managers, and program managers identify and analyze
system indicators affecting aircraft availability. High maintenance and
supply drivers are identified and plans are developed to correct or
prevent recurrence. Often new technology solutions provide the best and
fastest resolution. Our prime vendors identify numerous new product and
tooling solutions, but our repair centers, program offices, and flying
units often discover new technology through vendor demonstration. Of
course, we follow strict acquisition governance, contracting law, and
technical validation to ensure the safety of our systems. This is
especially critical for technology that may apply to multiple weapons
systems.
Additionally, the Air Force Research Laboratory is involved with
new technology identification and validation. Successful programs and
products are shared across our major commands to improve repair
capabilities.
Question. C-17s provide the most advanced strategic airlift
capability, and it makes sense to locate these aircraft in Memphis
which has the best cargo facilities and aviation infrastructure in the
world.
General Schwartz, the Air Force announced plans to relocate C-17s
to Memphis. Since Memphis already has all of the facilities in place to
support the C-17 mission, what is the exact timeline for getting C-17s
to Memphis?
Answer. During the development of the fiscal year 2013 President's
budget submission, the Air Force determined the Tennessee Air National
Guard's 164th Airlift Wing at Memphis would convert from C-5As to C-
17As, completing an action initiated in fiscal year 2012. Under the
current plan, Memphis would receive the first four C-17A aircraft in
fiscal year 2013, with the remaining four aircraft arriving in fiscal
year 2014. The schedule was planned around the transition between
missions, accounting for C-5A retirements to make room for the C-17As,
as well as allow for retraining of aircrew and maintenance personnel.
Memphis C-5A retirement is planned to complete by the end of fiscal
year 2014.
Air Mobility Command will work closely with the Air National Guard
to ensure the most effective plan is implemented, adjusting the arrival
plan accordingly based on the specific details of the C-5A retirement
schedule and progress of C-17A training for Memphis personnel.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Lisa Murkowski
Question. General Schwartz, you have repeatedly told me that the
relocation of the 18th Aggressor Squadron to Joint Base Elmendorf-
Richardson (JBER) should not be interpreted as the first step in a
process that will lead to closure of the base. Would you state for the
record:
--whether this remains the case; and
--what the Air Force's intentions are for the future of Eielson Air
Force Base (AFB)?
Answer. Relocating the 18th Aggressor Squadron to JBER is not a
precursor to closing Eielson AFB. Eielson remains a valuable strategic
asset for both homeland defense as well as for power projection into
the Pacific theater. As such, it will remain the 168th Air Refueling
Wing's Air National Guard (ANG) home in Alaska and the Red Flag-Alaska
exercises will remain at Eielson AFB, Alaska. If the Congress
authorizes the requested base realignment and closure (BRAC) rounds in
2013 and 2015, the Air Force's proposed force structure changes do not
pre-suppose what will happen to a particular installation during the
BRAC analysis. The Department of Defense (DOD) will consider all
installations equally with military value as the primary consideration.
Question. Secretary Donley and General Schwartz, would you state
for the record how you expect that Eielson AFB will contribute to Air
Force operational objectives and U.S. national security in the coming
years, with particular emphasis on how the continued operation of
Eielson AFB supports the United States presence in the Asia/Pacific
region?
Answer. Eielson AFB will continue to support key national and Air
Force priorities in the years ahead, to include Operation Noble Eagle,
North American Aerospace Defense Command contingency plans, support to
U.S. Pacific Command, and exercise support in the Joint Pacific Alaska
Range Complex. The new strategic guidance puts increased emphasis on
the Pacific Command area of responsibility, including our training and
exercise efforts.
Question. It is counterintuitive to believe that the Air Force will
achieve cost savings or efficiencies by maintaining Eielson AFB in a
warm status given the relatively high cost of maintaining a warm base
in a cold place, as was demonstrated to the 2005 BRAC Commission.
Intuitively it would seem to make more sense to spread the fixed costs
of operating Eielson AFB among a higher level of year-round activities.
Is there a flaw in this logic? Has the Air Force considered the
alternative of achieving efficiencies by relocating activities
presently conducted in the lower 48 or abroad to Eielson AFB?
Answer. During the development of the fiscal year 2013 Air Force
budget request, we were required to make a number of difficult
decisions to adjust to both our new strategic priorities and to fiscal
realities. The transfer of the 18th Aggressor Squadron from Eielson AFB
to JBER in fiscal year 2013 garners manpower and efficiency savings by
consolidating operations/maintenance supervision overhead and base
support functions.
To assign new units to an installation in the future, we will
utilize the Air Force Strategic Basing process, which uses criteria-
based analysis, and the application of military judgment, linking
mission, and combatant commander requirements to installation
attributes to identify locations that are best suited to support any
given mission. The results of this analysis will be used to inform the
basing decisions made by the Secretary and Chief of Staff of the Air
Force. Eielson AFB will be considered in future basing actions as
defined by the respective basing criteria.
Question. The Air Force has a plan to relocate the 18th Aggressor
Squadron in 2013 and reduce the scale of year-round operations at
Eielson AFB in subsequent years while maintaining year-round operations
of the 168th Refueling Squadron and other tenants, including the Joint
Mobility Center. Would you estimate with specificity how much money the
Air Force intends to save if this plan is implemented and how these
savings will be achieved, e.g., how much would be saved by reduction of
personnel, reduction of utility costs, closure and/or demolition of
base facilities, deferred maintenance, et cetera?
WHAT ARE THE ESTIMATED COST SAVINGS IN FISCAL YEARS 2013, 2014, 2015,
2016, AND 2017?
[Dollars in millions]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year:
2013................................................... 3.5
2014................................................... 6.9
2015................................................... 34.3
2016................................................... 61.8
2017................................................... 63
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The chart above was provided to Senator Mark Begich and shared with
his colleagues on the Alaska congressional delegation and depicts the
savings that the Air Force expects to realize through implementation of
its plan for Eielson AFB. It does not, however, explain specifically
how these numbers will be achieved or what data sources the Air Force
relied upon in making this prediction.
Answer. The transfer of the 18th Aggressor Squadron from Eielson
AFB to JBER in fiscal year 2013 garners manpower and efficiency savings
by consolidating operations/maintenance supervision overhead and base
support functions. Estimated cost savings are $3.5 million for fiscal
year 2013 and $169.5 million across the future years defense program.
The estimates are based primarily on eliminating manpower
authorizations the U.S. Pacific Air Forces Command analysis determined
were no longer needed at Eielson AFB once the 18th Aggressor Squadron
relocates. However, sufficient capability will remain in-place at
Eielson AFB to support the 168th Air Refueling Wing, exercises, and our
Joint partners at Fort Wainwright. Headquarters U.S. Pacific Air Forces
Command's Eielson/Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson Site Activation Task
Force will determine other savings from the proposed relocation. The
Air Staff is currently validating the results from the Site Activation
Task Force Report dated May 31, 2012.
Question. As you know the 2005 BRAC Commission evaluated a scenario
under which all aircraft other than the KC-135 tankers assigned to the
168th Refueling Squadron would be removed from Eielson AFB and
questioned the Air Force's conclusion that significant cost savings and
efficiencies will be achieved from attempting to maintain a warm base
in a cold place. Have you satisfied yourself that the 2005 BRAC
Commission's economic analysis was wrong? Have you taken steps to
independently ensure that the Air Force staff assumptions are valid and
have not been biased by a desire to refight and win a battle that was
lost before the 2005 BRAC Commission?
Answer. The Air Force stands by its original BRAC recommendation to
move the Aggressors, but agrees with the Commission's recommendation to
ensure access to adequate range space. Our current proposal recognizes
the value of retaining an Aggressor training capability in Alaska to
support F-22 Raptor training, Red Flag-Alaska, and to leverage the
Joint Pacific Alaska Range Complex. In addition, the F-16 Aggressor
move to JBER will co-locate them with the F-22 Raptors, one of the
Aggressors' training partners and capitalizes on the benefit of 3rd
Wing facilities that once supported F-15 Eagles.
Overall, BRAC 2005 fell short of the Air Force's goal to reduce
overhead and operational costs by reducing excess installation
capacity. Today, 7 years later and 500 aircraft fewer, the Air Force
continues to maintain large amounts of excess infrastructure. These are
dollars we need in other areas.
We are aware there are other savings opportunities and we will rely
on the Site Activation Task Force to determine those additional
savings. We have taken steps to ensure independent review of our
assumptions underlying the Air Force's proposed force structure changes
by having the Office of Secretary of Defense's Directorate of Cost
Assessment and Program Evaluation review and vet our plan.
Question. Please describe in detail the process by which the
recommendations pertaining to Eielson AFB were formulated, including
timeframes and participants, and the key recommendation and decision
documents through which these recommendations were performed and
approved. In answering this question, please describe in detail how the
``tabletop'' exercise was carried out. Did the tabletop participants
rely to any extent on the data that the Air Force utilized to justify
its decision to place Eielson AFB on the 2005 BRAC list? What other
data was considered and how recently was it compiled?
Answer. The Air Force has taken a deliberate approach to
streamlining operations at Eielson AFB. From approximately September
2010 to February 2011, Headquarters Pacific Air Forces studied the
feasibility of the proposal to move the 18th Aggressors Squadron to
JBER, Alaska.
In early 2012, Headquarters Air Force conducted an analysis of
potential courses of action to determine if a reduction in personnel at
Eielson AFB was a feasible method of achieving efficiencies in a
resource-constrained environment while preserving valuable missions.
Although the majority of facilities will remain open and functional to
provide rapid operational capability to operational plans and tenant
units, the analysis demonstrated the Air Force can reduce manpower
substantially while maintaining support to tenant units and future
exercises.
Once the Secretary of the Air Force and Chief of Staff of the Air
Force approved the relocation of the 18th Aggressor Squadron to JBER as
part of the fiscal year 2013 President's budget request, Pacific Air
Forces formed survey teams that are aggressively moving forward to
finalize all manpower and facility needs to maintain support to the
168th Air Refueling Wing and other operational requirements.
The Air Force believes it fully complied with the BRAC statutes
(title 10, section 2687) for realigning the 18th Aggressor Squadron to
JBER. Actions occurring at Eielson AFB, are force structure changes and
do not portend base closure.
Question. Would the Air Force have any objection to opening its
files pertaining to the future of Eielson AFB so that the Alaska
congressional delegation and experts engaged by the State of Alaska and
the Fairbanks North Star Borough could fully understand and analyze the
Air Force's analysis and assumptions? If the Air Force is prohibited by
law from doing so, please state which laws so provide. If the Air Force
believes that it is imprudent to do so in order to protect its
deliberative processes or other considerations please explain why
transparency considerations should not override these concerns.
Answer. The Air Force is not precluded by law from sharing its
analysis or assumptions associated with force structure changes at
Eielson AFB. We shared our plans, including our analysis and
assumptions, for Eielson AFB in our April 25, 2012, briefing to the
Alaska delegation. We would like to reiterate that our action does not
close Eielson AFB and the Air Force remains committed to supporting the
base with DOD's strategic shift to the U.S. Pacific Command (PACOM). We
intend to maintain Eielson AFB for its strategic importance as an
enroute/staging base for PACOM requirements.
As mission demands evolve and resource constraints emerge, the Air
Force will continue to stay engaged with our congressional partners to
provide the most effective and efficient air, space, and cyberspace
power for the Nation. We look forward to working with you during this
challenging fiscal environment.
Question. I remain unclear about whether the Air Force has any
justification to relocate the 18th Aggressor Squadron to JBER separate
and apart from its long-term plans to reduce the level of year-round
operations at Eielson AFB.
What is the justification for relocating the 18th Aggressor
Squadron in fiscal year 2013, as opposed to fiscal year 2014 or fiscal
year 2015?
Answer. As we looked out at the entire Air Force, it was clear that
we needed to take an enterprise-wide approach to cut back on overhead
expenses. Eielson AFB hosts the only wing that has a single operational
squadron in the active-duty Air Force. Maintaining an entire wing
overhead structure over a single active-duty squadron was an
inefficient use of very tight resources. In addition, having the 18th
Aggressor Squadron collocate with its primary customer, the 3rd Wing's
F-22s stationed at JBER, is the most efficient operational laydown.
With this background, the Air Force plans to move the 18th
Aggressor Squadron, relocating its aircraft and 542 military personnel
to JBER in fiscal year 2013. This will save the personnel costs
associated with the 81 Military positions in wing overhead and improve
its operational interactions with its customers. The fiscal year 2013
President's budget request also adds 43 Base Operations Support (BOS)
military positions required to support the aggressors at JBER. With the
lone active-duty flying operation removed, the Air Force plans to right
size active-duty personnel for the enduring missions at Eielson AFB,
significantly reducing manpower costs over the future years defense
plan (FYDP). In order to ensure sufficient timing for planning, the Air
Force plans to hold off right-sizing the manpower footprint until
fiscal year 2015. We project manpower savings alone, starting in fiscal
year 2013, building to approximately $62 million per year beyond fiscal
year 2016 for a total savings of $169.5 million over the FYDP. We
expect further savings to be detailed as we refine the BOS portion of
the plan.
To finalize the exact detailed planning associated with moving the
18th Aggressor Squadron, the Air Force is currently conducting a
focused Site Activation Task Force (SATAF). This SATAF will
specifically detail actions needed to move the Aggressors in fiscal
year 2013. They will complete all necessary detailed planning and
capture any incidental costs associated with bedding down the
Aggressors at JBER. They will also determine the JBER unit assignment
and timeline for the additional BOS personnel associated with moving
the Aggressors to JBER. Although detailed direct and indirect costs and
savings with relocating the 18th Aggressors to JBER across the FYDP are
not available at this time, we believe that the personnel costs savings
of the entire program will exceed other costs. If we project that
savings will not be realized, or result in affordability, feasibility
and executability issues, the Air Force is committed to re-evaluate the
proposal. Assessing the local economic impact of the movement of the
18th Aggressor Squadron is outside the purview of the SATAF. The SATAF
plans for public release of report for moving the 18th Aggressor
Squadron on or about May 31, 2012.
The Air Force plan to remove active-duty BOS personnel at Eielson
AFB in fiscal year 2015 does not affect the BOS for the ANG facilities
or the remaining active-duty activities at Eielson AFB. In spring 2014,
the Air Force will conduct an additional SATAF to get the precise
detail associated with the reduction of Eielson BOS personnel. The Air
Force will ensure adequate BOS manning for both exercise and ANG's
168th Air Refueling Wing requirements. The Air Force has planned
sufficient Air Traffic Control Tower manning at Eielson AFB to provide
flexible support throughout the week to meet operational mission
requirements. Base maintenance and support will be accomplished through
a combination of contract (local hire) and in-house military workforce.
The 354th Logistic Readiness Squadron will continue to operate and
maintain the Joint Mobility Center. Eielson AFB will also maintain an
increment of War Reserve Material to support PACOM's operational plans.
This SATAF will help determine how best to beddown the remaining
personnel on Eielson in the most efficient manner, utilizing common use
infrastructure, dormitories, and Red Flag facilities.
Question. The Air Force has provided a powerpoint presentation
detailing the role of the ``site survey'' or ``Site Activation Task
Force'' team. The powerpoint would lead me to conclude that the role of
the SATAF team is to determine how to carry out the relocation of the
18th Aggressor Squadron and other decisions that have already been made
about Eielson AFB rather than determine whether the assumptions made
about Eielson AFB in the tabletop exercise are valid. I was led to
believe in Air Force briefings that the Site Survey team would generate
information that might address the question of ``whether'' given the
limitations of the tabletop exercise not just the question of ``how.''
Which is the case? Is it within the realm of possibility that the Air
Force will reconsider its plans for Eielson AFB following submission
the Site Survey team's report? Does the Air Force intend to brief the
Alaska congressional delegation on the outcome of the Site Survey and
provide copies of the team's report for review? If not, why not? Who
has or will the site survey team consult with in Alaska and within
other services and DOD? Please detail specifically how the Air Force
has coordinated with NORTHCOM in recommending these moves, given
Eielson's role in homeland defense and homeland security.
Answer. The SATAF is focusing on finalizing the movement of the
18th Aggressor Squadron to JBER. The SATAF team will out brief the
Pacific Air Forces' Commander who can provide an out brief to other
parties, as required.
Combatant commanders (COCOM) are afforded the opportunity to review
the Services' Program Objective Memorandums (POM) after the Services
submit their POM positions to the Office of the Secretary of Defense.
The 18th Aggressor Squadron's aircraft are training-coded and
doctrinally, it is the responsibility of the Air Force to align its
forces in the best possible manner to ensure adequately trained forces
to fulfill COCOM requirements. During the Fall Program Budget Review,
U.S. Northern Command reviewed the Air Force's POM position and did not
express any concerns with the Air Force's Eielson AFB position for
these training-coded aircraft.
The proposal to retain the 168th Air Refueling Wing at Eielson AFB
and maintain the base and runway operating capability while moving the
training-coded F-16s to JBER is directly tied to the strategic
importance of this base and this location. The robust training
capability for Red Flag-Alaska exercises will remain at Eielson AFB and
is a testament to the quality and capacity for world-class training and
readiness emphasis which is of particular importance to the Pacific
theater. While the training-coded Aggressor F-16s are slated to
relocate to JBER, they will still participate in, and support, these
large force, Joint and combined exercises the same way the combat-coded
units at Elmendorf AFB have done for years. The current training and
readiness focus of effort will remain under the current proposal.
Question. It has been suggested for some time that the 168th Air
Refueling Wing would be able to meet a greater percentage of mission
requirements if additional tankers were assigned and an active
association were created. Is the Air Force considering this proposal
and what are the prospects for its approval?
Answer. Pacific Air Force and the ANG have conducted several
meetings on the stand-up of a classic association at Eielson AFB. The
results determined that there was insufficient tanker aircraft and
manpower to stand-up an association, but more importantly, the commands
determined that there was sufficient resources in-place to meet
combatant commander operational and training requirements. However,
associations are a valuable Total Force tool the Air Force uses to meet
national security needs. Proposals for new Total Force Integration
(TFI) associations can be submitted by the National Guard Bureau and
all the Air Force Major Commands. Once submitted, each proposal
undergoes a set of reviews before being presented for decision. Each
proposal is reviewed for legal sufficiency, strength of business case
and resourcing/funding availability before being presented for final
Air Force decision. Additionally, this TFI review process is integrated
with the Air Force Strategic Basing process to ensure all location-
related aspects are consistent with that process. Throughout both the
TFI and Strategic Basing processes, there is full Active component and
Reserve component engagement.
Question. Given JBER's role in the Pacific I was surprised to learn
that its C-130 lift capacity would be reduced. What is the
justification for reducing the C-130 lift at JBER and how does this
relate to the strategic emphasis on Asia and the Pacific? Was this
reduction coordinated with Alaska's Adjutant General?
Answer. Defense Strategic Guidance reduced the overall requirement
for intra-theater airlift. Using scenarios consistent with the revised
Defense Strategic Guidance, Air Force analysis determined that excess
capacity exists in the Air Force intra-theater airlift fleet. The Air
Force's C-130 retirements allow taxpayers to avoid an additional $533
million in aircraft sustainment bills while still being able to meet
Pacific Theater requirements.
The Air Force retains a fleet of 318 C-130 aircraft (134 C-130J,
184 C-130H) to meet the new strategy within fiscal constraints, and the
service is maintaining an 8 Primary Aircraft Assigned (PAA) unit at
JBER to meet worldwide requirements including Asia and the Pacific. The
Air Force decision to reduce Elmendorf by 4 PAA standardizes the unit's
aircraft numbers with most other ANG C-130 locations across the
country, which affords a higher level of uniformity/predictability in
training, manpower needs, and mission execution.
The National Guard Bureau represents ANG/State/adjutant general
interests during Air Force budget deliberations, and they participated
throughout the development of the fiscal year 2013 President's budget
request. Although ANG aircraft are being divested, the Alaska ANG is
not losing any manpower due to this reduction in C-130 aircraft.
Question. How will the Air Force ensure Eielson AFB remains a fully
functioning base that allows the 168th Air Refueling Wing to fully
conduct its 24-hour-per-day, 7-day-per-week, 365-day-per-year, no-fail
refueling mission in support of the administration's Asia-Pacific
focus?
Answer. Headquarters Pacific Air Forces (PACAF) addressed the 168th
Air Refueling Wing continuous operations requirement by developing a
manpower baseline for base support that included the 168th Air
Refueling Wing operations, Red Flag support, Distant Frontier and
Northern Edge exercises, and potential diverts off the range into
Eielson AFB. This manpower baseline provides Eielson AFB the
flexibility to meet requirements beyond 8 a.m.-5 p.m. local as needed.
PACAF's preliminary plan is for Eielson AFB base support units,
including base operations and air traffic control, to be a detachment
of JBER which relies on them for support as needed.
Question. The movement of the Aggressor Squadron would include the
relocation of a significant number of airmen and their families, but
about 400 soldiers at JBER are already in temporary barracks. You have
indicated the Air Force's plan for housing new airmen at JBER, its
cost, and when it would be funded is not yet known. You've similarly
indicated that whether JBER has the infrastructure necessary to house
and maintain the F-16s and support functions, its cost and when it
would be funded is not yet known. Please provide me with this
information as soon as it is available.
Answer. Because of the Air Force's Force Structure realignment,
U.S. Pacific Air Forces Command conducted a SATAF at Eielson AFB from
April 11th to April 13th and at JBER from April 16th to April 18th.
This SATAF will determine the requirements, such as dormitories and F-
16 support functions, to adequately bed down the relocated Aggressor
Squadron. Once the housing and infrastructure requirements are refined
as a part of the SATAF process, and the costs determined, we will
forward that information to you, along with a timeline.
Question. You have said the assumption is that neither an
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) nor an Environmental Assessment
(EA) will be needed to move the F-16s to JBER. Since the move would
involve more planes at a base that already flies multiple types of
aircraft in a crowded more personnel being stationed at JBER, please
provide me with the Air Force's final opinion on this matter as soon as
it is available, as well as an estimate on how much any EA or EIS would
cost and the timeline for such a review.
Answer. The most recent National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
document prepared for JBER does not cover adding an additional fighter
squadron from Eielson AFB. A new NEPA analysis will be required to
support Air Force proposal to add an additional fighter squadron to
Eielson AFB and any related alternatives culminating in final decision.
Headquarters PACAF is working to define the scope of work,
schedule, and rough cost estimate for an environmental analysis. PACAF
will also conduct a SATAF survey in April 2012. No aircraft movements
will take place until the SATAF findings are properly documented, all
NEPA requirements are completed, and the Congress completes action on
the fiscal year 2013 President's budget. The Air Force goal is to
complete environmental assessments within 6 months of study initiation
and environmental impact statements within 12 months of initiation.
Question. Hundreds of military personnel from around the globe
visit Alaska every summer for training. Those troops are housed at
Eielson AFB, JBER, university campuses, and even in Kodiak. Where would
they be housed if Eielson AFB became an 8-5 base? What will foreign
militaries that train in Alaska do if the Aggressor Squadron is moved
and Eielson AFB becomes an 8-5 base? Please also detail the Air Force's
plans to support Clear Air Force Station if Eielson AFB becomes an 8/5,
Monday through Friday base.
Answer. The Air Force addressed continuous operation at Eielson AFB
by developing a manpower baseline for base support that includes 168th
Air Refueling Wing operations, Red Flag support, and Distant Frontier
and Northern Edge exercises. This manpower baseline provides Eielson
AFB the flexibility to meet requirements necessary to support the full
range of assigned missions. The housing of participants for various
exercises continues as in the past utilizing Eielson AFB, JBER and
surrounding areas to accommodate the participants. The Aggressor
squadron is moving from Eielson AFB to JBER to gain efficiencies and
cost savings, but the Aggressors will still support exercises at Joint
Pacific Alaska Range Complex.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Lindsey Graham
Question. Secretary Donley, as you know, the Common Vertical Lift
Support Platform (CVLSP) program was terminated in the President's
fiscal year 2013 budget. This platform was to be the replacement for
the Air Force UH-1N ``Hueys'' that suffer from shortfalls in lift
capability, speed survivability, maintainability, night/adverse weather
capability, and avionics/human factors. The Air Force has stated
repeatedly that an urgent operational need has existed since 1996 and
that, as late as last year, was considering invoking the Economy Act of
1932 to justify a sole source buy to replace the Hueys. Please explain
to me the rationale and justification for terminating the CVLSP.
Further, please explain what it's going to cost the taxpayer to
continue to fly and maintain 40-year-old helicopters that no longer
satisfy the current operational requirements for this mission.
Without the acquisition resources available to satisfy this
``urgent and compelling'' need, has the Air Force considered any more
affordable alternatives such as leasing aircraft to accomplish this
mission?
Answer. The Air Force is taking an acquisition pause to explore
more cost effective strategies to meet the nuclear security and
continuity of government missions. We are considering all alternatives
to address these mission requirements, and no decisions have been made
at this time.
Question. Does the Air Force still believe that it needs the same
size and similarly equipped aircraft to do such dissimilar missions as
nuclear weapon convoy escort and intercontinental ballistic missiles
(ICBM) emergency security response in adverse weather conditions and
the much more benign mission of passenger transport in the National
Capital Region provided by the 1st Helicopter Squadron at Andrews Air
Force Base, Maryland?
Answer. Yes. The Air Force still believes one common helicopter to
support the nuclear security and National Capital Region missions is
the best option. Though the missions are different, the resultant
payload, survivability, situational requirements, and capabilities
required to accomplish those missions are very similar and allow us to
use a common platform. In addition, a common helicopter between the two
missions results in long-term savings and flexibility from an
operational and sustainment perspective.
Question. The fiscal year 2012 Department of Defense (DOD) budget
included $52.8 million in funding for CVLSP, and no money in fiscal
year 2013. We now understand CVLSP will not go forward, and the USAF
has instead decided to take used United States Marine Corps (USMC) UH-
1N's destined for the boneyard and use the CVLSP funding to recondition
these aircraft which are just as unable to meet the requirements as the
current United States Air Force (USAF) UN-1N's. Isn't that strategy
throwing good money after bad, and wouldn't it be a better use of the
$52.8 million CVLSP funding to introduce an aircraft that CAN meet the
requirements of the mission, even if it is in limited quantities for
now?
Answer. The Air Force and DOD have not finalized any plans for
using the $52.8 million of fiscal year 2012 CVLSP aircraft procurement
funding. There are no plans to use any of the fiscal year 2012 CVLSP
funding to recondition the Marine Corps UH-1Ns. Regardless of what the
Air Force and DOD decide, the Congress would have to approve the
reprogramming of funds.
The Air Force still has a requirement to address mission capability
gaps and replace the UH-1N fleet. We are looking at more cost-effective
strategies to meet the nuclear security and continuity of government
missions. In the near term, taking ownership of up to 22 Marine Corps
UH-1Ns aircraft is a low-cost option to mitigate some mission
capability gaps, and provide attrition reserve aircraft and spares for
our current UH-1N fleet. Air Force Global Strike Command and Air Force
Materiel Command are developing a UH-1N roadmap to determine the best
options for the use of these aircraft. Any expenses required to ready
the aircraft for Air Force use will be addressed in future budgets.
Question. General Schwartz, the Air Force announced plans to cut 86
active-duty airmen from the McEntire Joint National Guard Base in South
Carolina. At the same time, the Air Force is creating two associations
by adding 164 active-duty airmen each to two Air Force Reserve F-16
wings, one in Texas and the other in Florida. My understanding,
however, is that these Reserve units are less tasked than McEntire
(e.g., neither maintain an air alert commitment). Further, the McEntire
active association has proven highly efficient, cost effective, and is
about to deploy 18 F-16s to Afghanistan. Why would the Air Force weaken
the McEntire active association but at the same time spend additional
active-duty resources for less capability at reserve air wings? Does
this move make fiscal sense at a time when the Air Force's budget, like
that of the other services, is shrinking?
Answer. Active duty manpower movements at McIntire Air National
Guard Base, as well as at Air Force Reserve Command locations in
Florida and Texas, were part of a larger reallocation of Active Duty F-
16 operation and maintenance manpower across the Total Force. This
reallocation was initiated at the request of the Air National Guard
(ANG) resulting in the addition of four new F-16 Guard locations with
an increase of 37 assigned active-duty billets. Because resources are
reallocated within existing active-duty end strength, no additional
cost is incurred. In addition, this action also enables the Air Force
to convert backup aircraft inventory aircraft at six ANG locations into
primary aircraft inventory, with the net result being an increase of 18
primary aircraft inventory at ANG locations. Finally, the reallocation
of F-16 active associations increases the number of locations at which
inexperienced Active Duty F-16 pilots and maintainers can be seasoned
while working with more experienced ANG counterparts. From a Total
Force perspective, this reallocation of Active Duty F-16 manpower
improves overall capabilities at no additional cost.
Question. On March 5, 2012, Defense News reported that the Air
Force plans to reduce the number of F-35 bases from 40 to the low 30s.
Since 1991, the ANG has proven its efficiency in utilizing F-16s and F-
15s for Air Expeditionary Forces in Iraq and Afghanistan. The ANG
currently fulfills 100 percent of the CONUS Air Sovereignty Alert
mission at substantially lesser costs than the Active component. I
believe the same would hold true were the ANG equipped with F-35s. The
Air Force's projected cuts to the ANG in fiscal year 2013 concern me,
and I remain equally as concerned that the planned reductions in F-35
bases will disproportionately impact the ANG. What assurances can you
give me that the reduction in F-35 bases will not disproportionately
impact ANG units?
Answer. The Air Force uses an iterative, continually informed
process for fielding weapon systems intended to optimize mission sets
and requirements of the total force to meet combatant commander
requirements. The Air Force is committed to fielding the F-35A
Lightning II aircraft in the Reserve component, as evidenced by the
designation of Burlington Air Guard Station, Vermont as the preferred
alternative for the first operational unit in the Reserve component,
and fully supports further Reserve component fielding in the future.
The combination of a collaborative and fully operational total force
enterprise process, an open and transparent strategic basing process,
and effective linkages with the planning, programming, budgeting, and
execution process will provide avenues to balance the Active component
and Reserve component while prioritizing combatant commander
requirements. The Air Force is dedicated to using these processes, with
full Reserve component participation, to refine concepts of concurrent
and proportional, or balanced, fielding and to ensure fielding of the
F-35A in the most effective and efficient manner.
Question. What criteria do you plan to use to determine which bases
will lose F-35s?
Answer. There are currently no plans to remove F-35s from any
existing beddown locations. The Air Force will use its strategic basing
process to identify which bases receive the F-35A aircraft. Currently,
the Air Force has only identified the preferred and reasonable
alternatives for the Formal Training Unit, one Active component
operational unit, and one Reserve component operational unit. Criteria
used to determine which bases will receive F-35A aircraft included
mission, capacity, environmental, and cost categories. Mission included
weather and airspace components; capacity included facilities, runway,
and ramp components; environmental considered air quality and
encroachment; and cost included the area construction cost factor.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Daniel Coats
Question. General Schwartz, I am concerned about the Air Force's
failure to fulfill its obligation to acquire the F117 Engine technical
data, and the impact this will have as the Air Force pursues Supply
Chain Management services.
What is the Air Force justification for not acquiring the technical
data rights to the F117 engine, particularly when it is paying an
approximately 50-percent premium to the commercial variant, which
includes tech data? Does the Air Force have a plan to acquire such data
rights?
Answer. Yes, the Air Force is currently working on acquiring
technical data rights to the F117 engine. Under the procurement or
sustainment contracts, the Air Force has never purchased data rights
for the F117 engine because:
--under the C-17 contract, Boeing acquired the engines from Pratt &
Whitney (P&W) as a commercial item; and
--under the Air Force contract to acquire engines, the Air Force used
a commercial contract.
P&W paid for the development of these engines. Also, the C-17
sustainment program included Contractor Logistics Support for life;
therefore, there was no need to acquire data rights. Since then, the
Air Force has decided to break out the engine technical overhaul,
supply chain management and systems engineering from the C-17 support.
As a result, the Air Force is currently working two separate contract
actions to acquire licensed use of P&W's technical manual, and to
acquire the data rights for the System Engineering and Supply Chain
Management processes for the F117 engine. In December 2011, P&W agreed
to a General Terms Agreement release of their technical manual for
basic F117 repairs, and the Air Force will further pursue Government
Purpose Rights for historical supply chain management and systems
engineering to enhance future competition.
Question. General Schwartz, options exist to lower aircraft
sustainment costs. For example, the commercial industry has embraced
FAA-approved Parts Manufacturing Approval (PMA) parts and Designated
Engineering Representative (DER) repairs, but the military has been
slow to follow.
Why doesn't the Air Force embrace such commercial best practices?
Is the Air Force considering using these practices as it contracts for
Supply Chain Management services for the C-17s F117 engines?
Answer. The Air Force has embraced commercial best practices. The
Air Force has recently increased the ability of commercial and
competitive practices to reduce future F117 engine costs for supply
chain management (SCM) services. Through discussions with P&W (the
original equipment manufacturer (OEM) for the F117), in December 2011
the Air Force secured access to the OEM repair manuals via license
agreement. This repair manual license agreement can be used for SCM
competition and for non OEM parts approval.
The OEM does not have to approve repaired parts; any approved
repair facility with access to the OEM's repair manuals can overhaul
and repair F117 engines without subsequent approval through the OEM.
This will continue to increase competition and decrease the reliance on
OEM parts which can be used on the F117. This aligns with the
commercial industry repair practices.
The Air Force has released a draft performance work statement for a
new competitive contract that takes advantage of commercial repairs and
non OEM parts approvals. The Air Force's goal is to leverage Federal
Aviation Administration's (FAA) PMA and DER approval results as much
possible. This may accelerate the approval of non-OEM parts. However,
FAA PMA approval is not sufficient for the F117 due to the F117's
unique military mission. The FAA approves parts and repairs for only
commercial application; therefore, the military must retain
configuration control of the F117 engine.
SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS
Chairman Inouye. The Defense Subcommittee will reconvene on
Wednesday, March 21, 2012, at 10:30 a.m., to hear from the
United States Army.
The subcommittee stands in recess.
[Whereupon, at 11:33 a.m., Wednesday, March 14, the
subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene subject to the call of
the Chair.]