[Senate Hearing 113-465, Part 4]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 113-465, Pt. 4
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION FOR APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR
2015 AND THE FUTURE YEARS DEFENSE PROGRAM
=======================================================================
HEARINGS
before the
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
ON
S. 2410
TO AUTHORIZE APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2015 FOR MILITARY
ACTIVITIES OF THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, FOR MILITARY CONSTRUCTION, AND
FOR DEFENSE ACTIVITIES OF THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY, TO PRESCRIBE
MILITARY PERSONNEL STRENGTHS FOR SUCH FISCAL YEAR, AND FOR OTHER
PURPOSES
----------
PART 4
AIRLAND
----------
APRIL 8 AND 9, 2014
Printed for the use of the Committee on Armed Services
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION FOR APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR
2015 AND THE FUTURE YEARS DEFENSE PROGRAM--Part 4 AIRLAND
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office,
http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center, U.S. Government Publishing Office. Phone 202�09512�091800, or 866�09512�091800 (toll-free). E-mail, [email protected].
S. Hrg. 113-465, Pt. 4
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION FOR APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR
2015 AND THE FUTURE YEARS DEFENSE PROGRAM
=======================================================================
HEARINGS
before the
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
ON
S. 2410
TO AUTHORIZE APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2015 FOR MILITARY
ACTIVITIES OF THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, FOR MILITARY CONSTRUCTION, AND
FOR DEFENSE ACTIVITIES OF THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY, TO PRESCRIBE
MILITARY PERSONNEL STRENGTHS FOR SUCH FISCAL YEAR, AND FOR OTHER
PURPOSES
__________
PART 4
AIRLAND
__________
APRIL 8 AND 9, 2014
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Armed Services
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov/
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
91-189 WASHINGTON : 2015
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; DC
area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC
20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
CARL LEVIN, Michigan, Chairman
JACK REED, Rhode Island JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma
BILL NELSON, Florida JOHN McCAIN, Arizona
CLAIRE McCASKILL, Missouri JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama
MARK UDALL, Colorado SAXBY CHAMBLISS, Georgia
KAY R. HAGAN, North Carolina ROGER F. WICKER, Mississippi
JOE MANCHIN III, West Virginia KELLY AYOTTE, New Hampshire
JEANNE SHAHEEN, New Hampshire DEB FISCHER, Nebraska
KIRSTEN E. GILLIBRAND, New York LINDSEY GRAHAM, South Carolina
RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, Connecticut DAVID VITTER, Louisiana
JOE DONNELLY, Indiana ROY BLUNT, Missouri
MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii MIKE LEE, Utah
TIM KAINE, Virginia TED CRUZ, Texas
ANGUS KING, Maine
Peter K. Levine, Staff Director
John A. Bonsell, Minority Staff Director
______
Subcommittee on Airland
RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, Connecticut, Chairman
BILL NELSON, Florida ROGER F. WICKER, Mississippi
CLAIRE McCASKILL, MissourI JOHN McCAIN, Arizona
JOE MANCHIN III, West Virginia JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama
KIRSTEN E. GILLIBRAND, New York SAXBY CHAMBLISS, Georgia
JOE DONNELLY, Indiana ROY BLUNT, Missouri
(ii)
C O N T E N T S
----------
april 8, 2014
Page
Tactical Aircraft Programs....................................... 1
Bogdan, Lt. Gen. Christopher C., USAF, Program Executive Officer,
F-35 Lightning II Joint Program Office......................... 5
Davis, Lt. Gen. Charles R., USAF, Military Deputy to the
Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Acquisition........... 15
Grosklags, VADM Paul A., USN, Principal Military Deputy to the
Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Research, Development, and
Acquisition; Accompanied by LtGen Robert E. Schmidle, Jr.,
USMC, Deputy Commandant for Aviation........................... 24
Questions for the Record......................................... 52
april 9, 2014
Army Modernization............................................... 55
Campbell, GEN John F., USA, Vice Chief of Staff, U.S. Army;
Accompanied by LTG James O. Barclay III, USA, Deputy Chief of
Staff, G-8, U.S. Army; and LTG Michael E. Williamson, USA,
Military Deputy and Director, Army Acquisition Corps, Office of
the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Acquisition, Logistics,
and Technology................................................. 60
Questions for the Record......................................... 88
(iii)
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR
2015 AND THE FUTURE YEARS DEFENSE PROGRAM
----------
TUESDAY, APRIL 8, 2014
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee on Airland,
Committee on Armed Services,
Washington, DC.
TACTICAL AIRCRAFT PROGRAMS
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 3:36 p.m. in
room SR-232A, Russell Senate Office Building, Senator Richard
Blumenthal (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Committee members present: Senators Blumenthal, Donnelly,
McCain, Sessions, and Wicker.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, CHAIRMAN
Senator Blumenthal. The subcommittee will come to order.
As you can tell, this is my first subcommittee meeting. I
am very pleased to be joined by my colleague, Senator McCain,
who is pinch hitting temporarily for Senator Wicker.
I want to extend a welcome to each of our witnesses. Thank
you very much for your service. Thank you for being here today.
We are joined by Lieutenant General Christopher C. Bogdan
of the U.S. Air Force, Lieutenant General Charles R. Davis of
the U.S. Air Force, Vice Admiral Paul A. Grosklags of the U.S.
Navy, and Lieutenant General Robert E. Schmidle, Jr., of the
U.S. Marine Corps.
I want to thank each of you again for representing the men
and women of our Armed Forces so ably and for the great job
they do around the globe, in the continuing war in Afghanistan,
and elsewhere. We keep them in our thoughts and prayers, as I
know you do.
Our witnesses this afternoon face really huge challenges as
they strive to balance the need to support ongoing operations
and sustain readiness with the need to modernize and keep the
technological edge that is so critical to our military success.
These challenges, as you well know, have been made particularly
difficult by the spending caps imposed by the Budget Control
Act (BCA). Those caps which bedevil us all were modestly
relieved for fiscal year 2015 in the Bipartisan Budget Act
(BBA) that we enacted earlier this year, but they are scheduled
to resume in full blast in 2016 and beyond. These caps
seriously challenge our ability to meet our national security
needs and they have already forced military departments to make
painful tradeoffs. Unless they are modified after fiscal year
2015, they will threaten our long-term national security
interests, and no one knows those facts better than the
military leaders who are with us today.
Every year we are challenged to make decisions balancing a
number of competing demands for resources, including resources
for current operations, and investment in future modernization.
In this case, we will be assessing plans and programs regarding
the current status and future prospects for tactical aviation
programs.
We meet today to talk about the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter
(JSF) and the other aviation programs. We all know that the JSF
program is important since it has been central to the long-term
modernization plans for all the relevant Services--Air Force,
Navy, Marine Corps--for more than 15 years now. Given that
fact, any change in the cost, schedule, performance of that JSF
program sends shock waves literally through the Departmentof
Defense (DOD) and raises many questions of achieving that
balance between the demands of maintaining readiness in the
near future and those of modernizing for tomorrow. For
instance, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) has
estimated that extending the service lives of existing F-16 and
F-18 aircraft would cost about $5 billion.
So today we are going to seek a better understanding of
implementation of the corrective actions DOD identified in the
JSF program after Nunn-McCurdy certification 4 years ago and
what levels of risk remain in the development and fielding
program.
I know that a number of you have seen problems in testing
since last year, and while we are always concerned anytime we
hear about problems during research and development, I
understand that you have identified the problems and have
mapped a way ahead, a path to deal with these problems to
minimize the effect of the problems on testing and development
programs. I hope you will discuss these problems very
specifically and fully during your testimony. There have also
been some other problems. I hope you will discuss those as
well. I know you will be very frank and forthcoming with the
subcommittee, as you have been customarily.
The subcommittee has been following the Department of the
Navy's attempts to reduce the JSF shortfall to manageable
levels. Five years ago, the Department of the Navy was
estimating that we would be facing a shortfall in 2017 that
optimistically would amount of 125 tactical fighters needed to
outfit our 10 aircraft carrier air wings and 3 Marine Corps air
wings. Then 3 years ago, based on further analysis, the Navy
was estimating the maximum shortfall could be nearly twice that
large, or roughly 250 aircraft. But in the past several years,
the Navy and the Marine Corps have taken action, such as
reducing the squadron size, conducting service life extensions
on some aircraft, and reducing the time aircraft spend in
depots. That could reduce the gap to as small as 35 aircraft, I
understand. That level is an increase from the level of 18
aircraft last year. It was only marginally, as I understand,
from delaying F-35 purchases for the Navy.
Unfortunately, there has been a similar story in the Air
Force. Previous Air Force witnesses at our aviation hearings
have also projected a potential shortfall of Air Force tactical
fighters in excess of 800 aircraft by about 2025. If any of
these numbers are wrong or if I am misstating them, I hope you
will correct me.
Two years ago, the Air Force, as part of the new defense
strategy, reduced the fighter force structure. This year the
Air Force is proposing further reductions, including
eliminating the entire A-10 aircraft fleet to generate savings
of about $3.7 billion. I am not clear as to what extent this
change in demand for tactical fighters has ameliorated the
shortfall that the Air Force projected, but we hope to hear
more about that issue as well this afternoon.
There are a lot of other issues, or at least a number, that
I hope you will discuss. I know my colleagues will have
questions on those other issues.
Again, I just want to thank our witnesses for being here
today. I yield to Senator Wicker.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR ROGER F. WICKER
Senator Wicker. Thank you, Senator Blumenthal, and
congratulations on your first hearing as chair of this
distinguished subcommittee. Thank you for holding the hearing
and I thank the witnesses for their attendance today.
Also, on behalf of the Southeastern Conference, I want to
congratulate the State of Connecticut and Senator Blumenthal on
winning the NCAA basketball championship.
Senator Donnelly. Senator, there will be no congratulations
to them tonight, I will tell you that, as the Notre Dame women
take on the Connecticut women.
Senator Blumenthal. In the interest of avoiding an
altercation at this august subcommittee meeting, I am going to
refrain from reacting. [Laughter.]
But I do thank Senator Wicker for his congratulations.
Senator Wicker. I would say both women's programs are to be
commended for getting to the finals undefeated.
But back to the business at hand. We have immense
responsibilities on this subcommittee. They include
programmatic and budget oversight of most Army and Air Force
programs, as well as an oversight of our Navy and Marine Corps
tactical aviation activities.
I look forward to working with you, Mr. Chairman, to ensure
that our Armed Forces remain the best-trained, best-equipped,
and most professional fighting force in the world.
I would like to begin by saying that I continue to be
concerned about the Air Force total force plan. I remain
convinced that some elements of the total force plan, such as
its proposal to relocate C-130J aircraft from Kiesler Air Force
Base to Little Rock, are shortsighted and may adversely impact
our intra-theater airlift capability at a time when our
Services are evolving toward a more rotational deployment
model.
Similar to our subcommittee's bipartisan efforts last year,
Mr. Chairman, I look forward to working with you on initiatives
to help ensure the Air Force makes force structure decisions
based on long-term global force requirements, as well as
concrete and defensible data. These decisions should not be
based solely on self-imposed constraints.
Mr. Chairman, our military has fought four major regional
conflicts over the last 23 years: Kuwait, the former
Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, and Iraq. America's security
challenges continue to persist across the globe. I would note
that just last month on multiple occasions, Russian nuclear-
capable bombers circled our Pacific Island of Guam and were
intercepted by our F-15s based at Kadina Air Base on Okinawa.
Air power will no doubt continue to play a central role in our
national security.
Since 1953, no U.S. ground personnel have been killed in an
attack by enemy aircraft. America's superiority and dominance
in the air protects our Homeland, deters potential adversaries,
and ensures that our joint and coalition forces never have to
question if the aircraft flying above them is friend or foe.
However, our air dominance is being challenged. Both Russia
and China are currently fielding fifth generation fighters.
Like our ground forces, America's combat air assets are worn
out and spread thin after 2 decades of deferred modernization
programs and curtailed purchases of key platforms. The service
lives of many of these aircraft now extend beyond 30 years.
These extensions come at a price. Extending the lives of legacy
aircraft means increased operation and maintenance cost, as
well as decreased technical superiority.
America must continue to be able to deter and defeat any
threat, be it an asymmetric threat from a terrorist
organization or a conventional challenge from a near peer
competitor. To do so, we must be able to modernize and sustain
our military, including our tactical aircraft. We cannot
continue to kick the modernization can down the road.
Successfully modernizing means we must be cognizant of the
negative impact of the overly expensive and slow acquisition
process we currently have in place. We must find ways to
deliver new, innovative systems on time and on budget. Changing
the system will require the combined efforts of Congress, DOD,
and industry.
Specifically, DOD must first get its acquisition process in
order by defining program risks upfront, setting realistic
requirements, adequately prioritizing research and development,
and leveraging the power of competition.
Second, DOD's industry partners must submit realistic
contract proposals and be held accountable to their contractual
obligations.
Third, Congress must uphold its responsibility to provide
timely and adequate funding for key acquisition programs to
help ensure predictability and long-term affordability for DOD
and our foreign government partners.
I conclude by observing that national defense is solely a
Federal responsibility, but it requires assistance from all
levels of government and civilian industry. We need our States
to maintain business-friendly policies that will encourage the
industrial base to grow and add high-tech manufacturing jobs.
We need defense companies to meet their contractual obligations
to the taxpayers by delivering products on time and on budget.
Finally, we need better cooperation and transparency between
the executive branch, DOD, and Congress in order to ensure all
parties fully understand our national security challenges and
the means our military leaders require to meet them.
So, again, thank you to the witnesses and to the members
who are here, and thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Blumenthal. Thank you very much, Senator Wicker. I
look forward to working with you on this very important
assignment.
We will now hear from our witnesses. First, General Bogdan.
STATEMENT OF LT. GEN. CHRISTOPHER C. BOGDAN, USAF, PROGRAM
EXECUTIVE OFFICER, F-35 LIGHTNING II JOINT PROGRAM OFFICE
General Bogdan. Thank you, sir. Chairman Blumenthal,
Ranking Member Wicker, and distinguished members of the
subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to address this
subcommittee and discuss the F-35 Lightning II program.
Over the past few years, we have focused on creating and
maintaining a realistic program baseline for DOD's largest
acquisition program, and despite a turbulent past, the program
is making slow but steady progress on all fronts, to include
technical improvements and driving costs out of the program.
I believe the F-35 is headed in the right direction. I am
confident in our ability to meet the U.S. Marine Corps' initial
operating capability (IOC) and the Air Force's IOC in the
summer of 2015 and the summer of 2016, respectively, with all
the capabilities our warfighters need. We are now seeing the
benefits of the disciplined systems engineering process that we
instituted a few years ago in response to technical issues,
including improvements in our helmet, the C-model hook, fuel
dump capability, weapons capability, lightning restrictions,
and night all-weather flying. We are closely managing the F-35
onboard and offboard software, and software remains the number
one technical risk on the program. We have also fundamentally
changed the way we are developing the Autonomic Logistics
Information System (ALIS). We are also fully committed to
making the F-35 more affordable in both the cost of buying the
aircraft and the cost of operating and sustaining the aircraft.
Finally, I want to thank Congress and DOD for their support
during the past 2 years of budget instability. The program has
weathered this storm relatively intact with no changes to the
development program and our aircraft quantities were preserved
in fiscal year 2013 and fiscal year 2014, though DOD has
reduced those quantities in fiscal year 2015.
I would like to close by saying that my team is focused and
committed to doing the very best we can for the warfighters,
taxpayers, and our partners to ensure that the F-35 meets the
needs of all our Nation's defenses. To that end, my team is
rising to the challenge of managing this very large, complex
program with integrity, transparency, accountability, and
discipline. I ask that you hold me and my team accountable in
the coming years to ensure that we develop and deliver the
warfighting capability this country needs and expects.
I look forward to answering your questions.
[The prepared statement of General Bogdan follows:]
Prepared Statement by Lt. Gen. Christopher C. Bogdan, USAF
Chairman Blumenthal, Ranking Member Wicker, and distinguished
members of the subcommittee. Thank you for the opportunity to address
this subcommittee regarding the F-35 Lightning II.
The F-35 Lightning II is the Department of Defense`s (DOD) largest
acquisition program, and its importance to our national security is
immense. The F-35 will form the backbone of U.S. air combat superiority
for generations to come. It will replace the legacy tactical fighter
fleets of the Air Force, Navy, and Marine Corps with a dominant,
multirole, fifth-generation aircraft, capable of projecting U.S. power
and deterring potential adversaries. For our international partners and
Foreign Military Sales (FMS) customers who are participating in the
program, the F-35 will become a linchpin for future coalition
operations and will help to close a crucial capability gap that will
enhance the strength of our security alliances. The fiscal year 2015
budget includes $8.3 billion for continued system development, test and
procurement of 34 F-35 aircraft.
It is our duty to produce the next generation fighter jet for the
United States and our allies, understanding that we live in a resource
constrained world. The current F-35 program is focused on completing
system design and development (SDD) within the time and funding
planned, producing aircraft that are affordable and achieve mission
needs, and sustaining fielded aircraft in an effective and economical
fashion. This plan, which has been in place since 2012, is already
resulting in steady progress; however, I am pressing for faster and
stronger performance in the upcoming year. There are 59 F-35s now
deployed in operational and training squadrons at five locations and
the program has started a slow shift of focus to production and long-
term sustainment without losing the momentum we see in the development
and flight test programs. Affordability remains my number one priority.
We must use all of our energy finishing development within the time and
money we have, we must continue to drive the cost of producing F-35s
down, and we must start today to attack the long-term life cycle costs
of the F-35 weapon system.
program accomplishments in the last year
The F-35 program team achieved a number of accomplishments in 2013,
including delivery of 35 aircraft; rolling-out of the 100th jet from
the production facility in Fort Worth; completion of the Block 3
critical design review; announcing the decision to cease development of
an alternate Helmet Mounted Display System (HMDS); and resolving
lingering technical design shortfalls to include the F-35C arresting
hook, night/instrument (IMC), fuel dump, and lightning protection.
F-35s flew 3,917 sorties (including SDD and low rate initial
production (LRIP)) for a total of 6,255 hours last year, bringing the
total hours flown by F-35s to 11,873. The program completed the second
F-35B ship-trial period operations aboard the USS Wasp completing 95
vertical landings and 94 short takeoffs, with 19 night takeoffs. The
program stood up new F-35 squadrons at Edwards Air Force Base, Nellis
Air Force Base, and Eglin Air Force Base, made Marine Corps Air Station
Beaufort ready for F-35 operations, started up aircraft modification
lines at Fleet Readiness Center East and at the Ogden Air Logistics
Center, opened the first overseas F-35 final assembly and checkout
(FACO) facility in Italy, and qualified 65 pilots and trained 414
maintainers. From a business perspective, the F-35 program successfully
closed negotiations and awarded the Lockheed Martin LRIP lots 6 and 7
contracts and modified the SDD contracts. Additionally, the program
definitized the Pratt & Whitney LRIP lot 5 contract, and awarded LRIP
lot 6, and modified the SDD contract during 2013.
Although sequestration, as well as congressionally directed
reductions to the SDD program in fiscal year 2013, had the potential to
either stretch the development program out or reduce the capabilities
we can deliver to the warfighter, we were able to mitigate the impacts
to the development program and remain on our program plan. The
Bipartisan Budget Act of 2013 also allowed us to preserve the number of
jets we intend to procure in fiscal year 2014.
international partnership
The F-35 program continues to be the Department of Defense's (DOD)
largest cooperative program, with eight Partner countries participating
under Memorandums of Understanding for SDD and for production,
sustainment and follow-on development. The eight partner countries
include the United Kingdom, Italy, The Netherlands, Turkey, Canada,
Australia, Denmark, and Norway. The partners' senior acquisition
leaders met in September 2013 and are meeting again the first week of
April 2014; all expressed their continued commitment and support for
the program; however, they are all watching closely how DOD deals with
our budget cuts and the impact this has on the cost of the program.
Conversely, we are also watching our partners as nearly 45 percent of
the next 5 years of production buys are from our partners and FMS
customers.
In October 2010, Israel signed a letter of offer and acceptance to
purchase 19 F-35A aircraft for $2.75 billion, with deliveries scheduled
to begin in 2016. In June 2012, Japan signed an agreement to purchase
the first 4 of a planned acquisition of 42 F-35A aircraft for $741
million with deliveries scheduled to begin in 2016. The F-35 team
developed a proposal to support the Republic of Korea's competitive
request for proposal for acquisition of its future fighter. Selection
is expected by the end of this year and we continue to provide program
information to the Republic of Singapore.
There were many ``firsts'' during the year including the delivery
and acceptance of two Netherlands F-35A aircraft, the first Australian
and Italian aircraft under contract (LRIP 6), the first Norwegian
aircraft under contract (LRIP 7) and the first Netherlands pilot in
training.
development program performance
The F-35 development program continues to execute to the baseline
approved at the March 2012 Milestone B recertification Defense
Acquisition Board. My biggest technical concern in development is still
software. Over the past 2 years, the program has implemented
significant changes in how system software is developed, lab tested,
flight tested, measured, and controlled. These changes are showing
positive effects and I am moderately confident that the program will
successfully release the Block 2B and 3I capability as planned in 2015
and 2016, respectively. However, I see more risk to the delivery of
Block 3F, our full warfighting, capability by 2017. Block 3F is
dependent upon the timely release of Block 2B and 3I, and at present,
3F is tracking approximately 4 to 6 months late without taking steps to
mitigate that delay.
The F-35 Joint Program Office continues to exercise oversight and
management of software development, which has resulted in reduced times
to develop and integrate software, reduced errors in the software code
developed, and a marked increase in the cooperation and understanding
between the prime contractor and the program office. I have directed a
capability block plan that is an integrated roadmap that defines the
incorporation of capabilities for the F-35 program. Additionally, I
have instituted a Block Review Board which places the government in
charge of all configuration, capability, and schedule changes to
software development. We have also implemented robust systems
engineering/technical review process for all development work to
provide greater knowledge and defined decision gates to determine if
the system configuration under consideration is mature enough to
proceed to the next phase. This, coupled with improved automated tools
and processes, has resulted in an almost tenfold reduction in software
release build time, and we have seen corresponding improvements in
configuration management, test automation, and error detection and
resolution. However, we still have challenges and the prime contractor
and its subs still need to improve both the speed and quality of
software development to be able to catch up from previous software
delays.
In addition to software challenges, the three F-35 variants are
encountering the types of development problems typically experienced on
advanced state-of-the-art, high performance aircraft development
programs at this stage of maturity, such as reliability and
maintainability shortfalls, and beyond first life durability issues.
While we still have technical risks on the program, I have confidence
that the known technical issues we have will be solved and properly
integrated into the F-35 and we will be capable of dealing with any
future technical issues.
Over the past year, the program office successfully characterized
the expected performance of the Gen II HMDS to support U.S. Marine
Corps initial operational capability (IOC) and defined the technical
solutions to be incorporated into the follow-on Gen III HMDS to achieve
a fully compliant capability for the warfighter. The improved night
vision camera was evaluated in a series of risk reduction flight tests
showing significant improvements over the older camera, and we are
confident it will be able to meet the warfighter's requirements when
integrated into the Gen III helmet. Based upon a thorough technical
evaluation, of the Gen II helmet, successful incorporation of technical
improvements and a better business deal, the Department elected to end
development of the second, alternative helmet. With respect to the
better business deal, the program secured a cost guarantee made by the
Lockheed Martin/Rockwell Collins/Elbit team resulting in a reduction of
12 percent from the previous cost for the helmet system. Additionally,
deciding to down select to the Gen II and III helmet will avoid future
cost of $45 million required to completely mature the alternate helmet.
The Gen III HMDS is expected to enter formal F-35 flight test in third
quarter 2014.
The program also saw improvements with the redesigned F-35C
arresting hook system on our CF-3 aircraft. In January 2014, the F-35
team accomplished 36 for 36 successful roll-in arrestment tests at
Lakehurst, NJ. The aircraft is now at Patuxent River where it is
continuing its ship suitability testing. Thus far CF-3 accomplished 8
for 8 fly in arrestments while at Patuxent River; however, testing has
been delayed for approximately 60 days as we discovered a minor nose
gear issue. These tests are expected to lead to a certification of the
F-35C for shipboard flight trials, which are planned to commence fourth
quarter 2014.
The program has also made progress on the redesigned fuel dumping
seal and port. The F-35 employs a unique fuel dumping port on the
underside of the wings in order to maintain its stealthy signature.
Early fuel dump testing revealed that fuel was collecting within the
wing flaperon cove, which led to significant external fuel wetting and
pooling of fuel at the wing/fuselage root. We redesigned the fuel dump
port to more efficiently move fuel away from the wing surface and
designed a new and improved flaperon seal to minimize fuel collecting
in the cove. Fuel dump testing with the redesigned seal and port has
been successful and we are incorporating the new design in all three
variants.
We have also seen significant progress in our ability to fly at
night and instrument meteorological conditions (IMC). The Navy granted
clearance and conducted the first night flights on the F-35B (VMFA-121)
in December 2013. Subsequently, in January 2014, the Navy granted
night/IMC clearance for the F-35C. The Air Force also granted night/IMC
clearance for the F-35A in January 2014, although initially weather
restricted to a ceiling greater than 600 feet and visibility greater
than two nautical miles. In March 2014, the Air Force lifted the
restrictions following additional simulator evaluations, allowing the
F-35 aircraft to fly to weather minimums posted by the airfields.
All LRIP lot 6 and later aircraft will be delivered with night/IMC
capability. LRIP lot 5 aircraft require an improved landing/taxi light
prior to operating in night/IMC. LRIP lot 4 aircraft require a planned
aircraft software update as well as improved wingtip and landing/taxi
lights. All possible software updates have been accomplished, and the
lighting upgrades are in progress. LRIP lot 3 and earlier aircraft
require the Block 2B upgrade planned to begin in late 2014 to gain
night/IMC capability.
We currently have 11 F-35As, 6 F-35Bs, and 1 F-35C fleet aircraft
configured and certified for night/IMC. The remaining LRIP lots 4 and 5
fleet aircraft are either in process or awaiting the wingtip and
landing/taxi light modifications for night/IMC. The program has also
made progress on lightning protection. In 2009, fuel system simulator
testing revealed deficiencies in the on board inert gas generation
system's (OBIGGS) ability to maintain the necessary tank inerting to
protect the aircraft from lightning strikes. The program completely
redesigned the OBIGGS and performed a F-35B ground test that verified
inerting distribution in the tanks. Ground and flight tests are planned
for second quarter 2014 where we expect to evaluate fuel system
performance and prevention of nuisance alerts. A unique opportunity
occurred with the availability of the Netherlands F-35A aircraft; our
team took advantage of the aircraft to test for lightning electrical
transient stress to aircraft subsystems in the fall of 2013. The
aircraft was subjected to 865 simulated low level ``lightning
strikes,'' and we are happy to report that the aircraft received no
damage, all subsystems worked appropriately, and the aircraft's
reaction to the lightning strikes closely matched engineering models.
Aircraft that have OBIGGS inerting and subsystems that can function
with lightning electrical transients are expected to allow the removal
of the lightning flight restrictions by the beginning of 2015.
In September 2013, during F-35B full-scale durability testing we
experienced a significant bulkhead crack at 9,056 equivalent flight
hours (EFH), which is 1,056 beyond its first lifetime. In August 2013,
just after completing 9,000 EFH, a planned inspection of the F-35B full
scale durability test article verified the existence of two small
cracks along the fuselage section (FS) 496 bulkhead. The decision was
made to move forward with the testing and to inspect the bulkhead at
shorter intervals in order to observe if and how the crack would
propagate. In September 2013, strain gauge data prompted an early
inspection of the bulkhead which uncovered that the cracks had
propagated and severed the bulkhead at the lower arch. The durability
testing was stopped and a root cause investigation was conducted. The
goal of durability testing is to apply cyclic loads to the airframe to
simulate fleet usage. Durability testing is conducted early in the
development of any new aircraft to avoid costly sustainment issues
later in the life of the aircraft. We require 8,000 EFH of aircraft
service verified by testing of two lifetimes (16,000 EFH). However, to
aid in life extension assessment, we plan to test each variant up to 3
times its expected operational life (24,000 EFH). Our engineering teams
executed a joint root cause investigation to define the required
modifications to the bulkhead for incorporation into production and
retrofit of the fleet. This effort is part of the normal program
concurrency process to ensure full life capability and we budgeted for
these types of durability test findings in production via concurrency
modeling. The full-life design solution for the bulkhead has been
defined and is scheduled for production line induction not later than
LRIP lot 9 aircraft deliveries in 2017. We are also working with
Lockheed Martin to incorporate a speedier retrofit solution to be
incorporated into 10 LRIP lot 8 B-Model aircraft that are currently on
the production line.
There was no immediate airworthiness concern for fielded and test
aircraft because of the high hours accrued on this test article at the
time of discovery. It will not impact the U.S. Marine Corps ability to
meet IOC in 2015. Additionally, due to the differences between the
bulkhead forging materials of the F-35B (aluminum) and the F-35A/C
(titanium), we have yet to see the same cracking with the A and C
models at the equivalent flight hours.
Reliability and maintainability (R&M) remains an area for needed
improvement. The fleet has not performed to the R&M levels we expect at
this point in the program as fielded aircraft are well below our
projected growth curves. To address these issues I am executing a
multi-phase R&M improvement process. First, I have stood up a fully
funded rigorous R&M program that will establish R&M performance goals,
take specific actions to achieve these goals, and hold the enterprise
accountable for meeting them. We have a good amount of fleet data at
this point to include parts systems and procedures that drive up costs,
maintenance, as well as reduce readiness and aircraft availability. We
are analyzing this data to make actionable decisions, such as
redesigning parts, improving repair times, and streamlining and
improving maintenance procedures. Finally, I am accelerating aircraft
retrofits and modifications to more rapidly improve readiness and to
measure these R&M improvements.
I have also stood up a Cost War Room whose mission is to champion
affordability initiatives to reduce the operation and sustainment costs
of the fleet. This Cost War Room is comprised of representatives from
prime contractors and their suppliers, under the direction of Program
Office personnel, and is systematically looking at all the cost drivers
that make up the F-35 operations and sustainment costs with the intent
of taking specific actions that will reduce long-term costs. We are
also nearing completion of a second business case analysis and a level
of repair analysis to assist the leadership in making future
sustainment decisions as we begin to create the global sustainment
posture.
The Autonomic Logistics Information System (ALIS) provides
maintenance, operations planning, reliability, logistics, and training
information to support sustainment of F-35 aircraft. We have
fundamentally changed the manner in which we are developing and
fielding ALIS. Before, we treated ALIS as a piece of support equipment.
The enterprise now deals with ALIS as if it is a ``weapons system'' and
a critical part of the F-35 program. We have added a new systems
engineering process that includes periodic design reviews, a new
leadership structure, improved lab infrastructure and testing to
include warfighter involvement, and a more structured software delivery
plan to include metrics. We have seen some solid improvements since
these changes last year as the program has delivered better and faster
incremental fixes, including our recent software update that was
fielded in February. I have also put into place a plan for a complete
end-to-end test that includes information assurance testing to ensure
the aircraft and ALIS can operate together seamlessly with a great
level of ``cyber security.''
We have also started the design of a deployable version of ALIS to
support the warfighters. The requirements were finalized and a Critical
Design Review was held in February 2014. The first phase of deployable
ALIS will be delivered in April 2015 to support the U.S. Marine Corps
IOC, while a second version, which will include additional Air Force
requirements, is scheduled by be delivered by fourth quarter 2016.
From January 2011 to August 2012, the DOD Inspector General (IG)
conducted an audit of the F-35 ALIS. The DOD IG provided the program
with a set of recommendations, which we either concurred or partially
concurred with, and are in various stages of implementation. For
example, in the information systems security area, the employment of
U.S. Air Force systems and processes to track the certification and
accreditation posture, in addition our early engagement strategy with
Services certifying officials, continues to improve the overall
certification and accreditation process. Furthermore, the tracking of
foreign developed software, independent software test actions, and the
supplement to the System Threat Assessment Report, expected by June
2014, will help us inform ALIS specific threat actions and decisions.
Although we have not implemented the recommendation to separate ALIS as
a major automated information system program, as I previously
mentioned, the enterprise now deals with ALIS as if it is a ``weapons
system'' and a critical part of the F-35 program. I believe separating
ALIS from the air system, 3 years before the end of development
activities, will introduce significant integration, implementation, and
management risks with undesirable effects to the program budget,
schedule, and Air System performance.
In 2013, the F-35 SDD flight test program exceeded the number of
planned flights, but fell slightly behind in overall test point
accomplishments. The Integrated Test Force (ITF) achieved 1,168 test
flights of 1,153 planned, slightly exceeding the total flights in 2012.
The ITF also executed 9,032 test points, which was roughly 3.5 percent
shy of what was planned. Fiscal year 2014 is a very critical and
challenging year for flight test and we must improve test aircraft
availability and reduce the amount of refly, regression and ``growth''
test points if we are to stay on track.
Pratt & Whitney SDD F135 engines have completed a total of 29,986
operating hours, 15,963 hours on flight-test engines, and a total of
5,565 hours of flying time on all three variants of F-35 aircraft.
Pratt & Whitney is currently supporting flight test on all three
variants at three locations. During fiscal year 2013, the engine
successfully demonstrated stall-free high angle of attack operations
and successfully completed all engine air start testing.
The F135 engine did experience a significant test failure on 23
December 2013. An F-35B ground test engine suffered a failure of its
first stage fan integrally bladed rotor (IBR, also known as a
``blisk'') while doing ground accelerated mission durability testing.
This failure occurred on the highest time test engine in the F135 fleet
with 2,192 operating hours; roughly 75 percent of the engine's required
life. (By comparison, the high time SDD flight test engine has 622
flight hours and the high time operational engine has less than 250
flight hours). While the root cause of this failure is still under
investigation, safety assessments have determined that the fleet can be
safely operated by inspecting the first fan stage rotor at regular
intervals until a new rotor is installed. A cost reduction redesign of
this first stage rotor was already in progress before the test
failures; consequently, lessons learned from the root cause analysis
will be incorporated into the new redesign. We expect the production
break in of the redesign in the late 2016 timeframe, with a retrofit of
engines beginning in 2017. While the fan module that contains this IBR
can be removed and replaced in the field, replacement of the IBR itself
within the module is a depot level task.
The F-35 fleet experienced two fleet-wide groundings in January and
February 2013 due to issues with the F135 engines. The first incident
occurred in January 2013. An F-35B was forced to abort a takeoff for
what would later be understood to be an improperly crimped fueldraulic
hose in the F135 engine. The F-35B fleet was grounded for 19 days, but
was returned to flight after confirming the integrity of all similar
hoses in the engines. The program office put in place activities to
better monitor and improve the quality of the hoses being provided for
the engine, and continues to track this closely. The second incident
grounded all variants of the F-35 for approximately 7 days and resulted
from a crack discovered in the third stage engine turbine blade. The
engine in question had been flying at the highest heat and most
significant stresses of any of the jets in the test and operational
fleets, which contributed to this crack. After confirming the source of
the crack, the fleet was inspected and returned to flight. Engineering
work continues to assess the long-term implications of this turbine
blade crack on the life of the F-35 engine, and the incident continues
to be successfully managed in the fleet by monitoring the life usage of
the turbine. Through incorporation of new quality inspection criteria
during production all new engines are now being delivered with full
life third stage turbine blades.
To ensure Lockheed Martin and their suppliers keep focus on
improving key areas of risk, the Defense Acquisition Executive has
approved a plan that links improvement in the areas of software, ALIS,
and R&M to the delivery of aircraft and the future ramp up of
production. In particular, additional progress must be demonstrated
before awarding a contract for higher production rates: (1) Software
builds for block 2B, 3I, and 3F, which is essential to achieving the
desired combat capability of the F-35; (2) Reliability, which is not
growing at an acceptable rate; (3) ALIS, which requires focused
attention to meet schedule of performance metrics; and (4) Closure of
previously identified design issues through testing. Further, I have
worked with the Navy and Air Force Acquisition Executives to ensure
that the acquisition planning for LRIP lot 9 includes strong, event-
based performance criteria while incentivizing Lockheed Martin and
Pratt & Whitney to achieve the priorities I have just listed.
With regards to the dual capable aircraft (DCA), we are continuing
to execute a risk reduction strategy to prepare for DCA integration
during Block 4 Follow-on Development. Our risk reduction efforts
include developing a detailed planning schedule for B61 integration on
the aircraft, maturing the nuclear architecture design, refining the
cost estimate, nuclear certification requirements planning, and the
initial concept of operations documentation. All F-35 DCA Risk
Reduction benchmarks will be complete by Summer 2015. DCA integration
begins as part of follow-on development, comprised of Block 4A (2016-
2022) and Block 4B (2018-2024). All software development, flight test,
and nuclear certification activities will be conducted across Block 4A/
4B development, resulting in an F-35 design certification in 2024. The
Air Force will lead an operational certification process following
design certification that is expected to be completed no earlier than
2025.
production program performance
Costs for production aircraft continue to come down for each
successive lot put on contract. The average aircraft unit cost for an
LRIP lot 6 aircraft is 3.8 percent lower than LRIP lot 5 aircraft. An
LRIP lot 7 aircraft has an average unit cost approximately 4.2 percent
lower than LRIP lot 6 aircraft. I expect these trends to continue for
many future production lots. Production efficiencies as well as
economies of scale are both critical in the overall affordability of
the F-35 program. In 2013, efforts were taken to improve affordability,
with more cost sharing between the Government and contractors with
respect to cost reduction initiatives. This along with other cost
reduction initiatives and economies of scale should result in the price
of an F-35A, including an engine and profit, between $80 million and
$85 million in 2019 in 2019 dollars. The other F-35 models have
proportionally similar cost reduction goals.
In 2013, Lockheed Martin delivered 35 aircraft compared to 30
deliveries in 2012. This was despite the challenges posed by F-35B
flight operations being shut down for a month due to an issue with the
fuel-draulics hose as well as not being able to conduct any acceptance
flight operations in the month of August due to the Fort Worth Joint
Reserve Base runway being repaved. Deliveries included the last LRIP
lot 4 aircraft and 10 of 32 LRIP lot 5 aircraft.
Production has been fairly stable and predictable. As of 2 March
2014, the overall production factory performance was tracking closely
to the post Lockheed Martin stake plan with factory assembly
performance 6 days behind plan. Production flight line performance
improved from 57 days behind plan to 39 days behind plan. Efforts are
continuing to further improve production flight line performance to
ensure stable delivery of F-35s as we ramp up production. The Program
continues to see improvements in design stability, parts availability,
workforce stability, and shop floor discipline. The Joint Program
Office, in partnership with the Defense Contract Management Agency
(DCMA), continues to closely monitor progress and challenge the
contractor and supply chain for greater quality improvements.
In 2013, Lockheed Martin, DCMA and the Joint Program Office jointly
developed a corrective action plan in response to Lockheed Martin
disclosures on specialty metals non-compliance. The supplier compliance
assessment was completed in August 2013 and Lockheed Martin initiated
ongoing surveillance activities to ensure future compliance.
Significant international supplier milestones were also achieved in
2013. Final assembly and check-out (FACO) operations commenced in
Cameri, Italy at Alenia Aermacchi's co-production site in July. The
first Italian FACO produced F-35 is now in the final assembly phase. In
December 2013, Turkish Aerospace Industries, Inc. delivered its first
co-production F-35 center fuselage, which was successfully mated with a
forward fuselage component in February 2014 at the prime contractor's
Forth Worth facility.
Pratt & Whitney has delivered 134 engines and 46 lift fans to date.
For 2013, Pratt & Whitney's delivery rate was stable, increasing from 4
engines per month in 2012 to 4.3 in 2013. LRIP lot 6 engines are
currently slightly ahead of contract delivery dates. However, far too
often engine deliveries are interrupted by technical issues and
manufacturing quality escapes resulting in product holds and material
deficiencies that increase overall risk to meeting future production
goals. My production and quality teams continue to work closely with
Pratt & Whitney to resolve the systemic issues which result in these
product holds.
With another year of demonstrated improvements in production, I
have confidence in the program's ability to produce high quality F-35s
and our ability to eventually ramp up production.
concurrency
The DOD established the F-35 program in 2001 with a planned amount
of concurrency that attempted to balance cost, risk, and the need for
tactical aircraft modernization. That strategy introduced the risk that
aircraft built in early production lots would require post-delivery
modifications due to discoveries made during qualification, flight, and
ground tests, or as a result of engineering analysis. These concurrency
modifications must also ``cut in'' to the production line which can
have substantial cost and schedule effects. As we complete more and
more testing, the risks and impact of concurrency should progressively
decline. By the end of 2015, mission and vehicle qualification testing
will be near completion, second-life fatigue testing will be complete
for all variants, and flight test will have completed 80 percent of the
design loads envelope. At this future point in the development program
many of the technical risks that drive concurrency changes and costs
should be discovered.
Over the past year, the F-35 concurrency cost estimate has remained
stable at approximately 3 to 5 percent of recurring flyaway costs. The
F-35 program will continue to work with Lockheed Martin to refine their
estimates based on the known technical issues and potential technical
issues that are forecasted for the remainder of SDD. We will also
review and update the government concurrency estimate on a periodic
basis as the program progresses through the remainder of SDD.
The F-35 Joint Program Office has worked collaboratively with
Lockheed Martin to implement a joint concurrency management and
execution system. This system has successfully reduced the length of
time required to implement a change into the production line (19 months
to approximately 13 months), thereby reducing the number of aircraft
needing future modification and corresponding costs. Contract
strategies are also in place to reduce concurrency costs to the
Government. The LRIP lots 5, 6, and 7 contracts have a 50/50 cost
sharing mechanism with no fee for concurrency changes known prior to
the production contract award that will not be incorporated until after
aircraft delivery. The F-35 Joint Program Office intends to include
this same mechanism in the LRIP lot 8 contract currently being
negotiated. This cost sharing approach is intended to continue to
motivate Lockheed Martin to incorporate concurrency changes as quickly
as possible on the aircraft production line and minimize the need for
conducting retrofit activities. Eventually, the government will move to
a contracting strategy that places all risks and liability for
concurrency changes to the contractors.
operations and sustainment performance
The program continues to address the various issues arising from
operating an aircraft still in development and providing the operators
improved technical data and solutions to emerging issues. Overall, the
reliability of the weapon system is still well below our predictions
but is slowly improving and the prime contractors, Lockheed Martin and
Pratt & Whitney are gradually resolving issues with spares and repair
cycle times.
In 2013, the F-35 program continued pilot and maintenance training
for F-35A and F-35B aircraft and started pilot and maintainer training
for the F-35C with the Navy, Air Force and Marine Corps each having
their own training squadron. As of today, we have completed transition
training for 92 pilots and 1,059 maintainers. In addition, we initiated
pilot and maintainer training for another one of our international
partners, The Netherlands. In cooperation with the Joint Operational
Test Team and Air Force Air Education and Training Command, the program
successfully completed the ready for training operational utility
evaluation which found that the training system is ``sufficient to meet
the relatively low student training sortie demand of the syllabus'' for
the training of experienced pilots.
In 2014, the program will complete the ``stand up'' of Luke Air
Force Base and Marine Corps Air Station Beaufort to expand pilot
training capacity and prepare for U.S.-based pilot training for our
international partners and FMS customers. Additionally, aircraft will
transfer to Edwards Air force Base to begin preparations for Block 2B
Operational Test.
Concurrently we will focus on completing the design, procurement,
and installation of modifications to allow the U.S. Marine Corps to
achieve IOC by July 2015. We will also do this for the modifications
needed for operational testing that starts spin up in January 2015. It
is these modifications which are now on the critical path to U.S.
Marine Corps IOC and operational test (OT); any delay in these aircraft
modification programs will directly delay the start of these two
important milestones. To accelerate these modifications, the program
has activated modification lines at Marine Corps Air Stations Cherry
Point and Yuma as well as Ogden Air Logistics Complex, and has
developed a comprehensive aircraft modification program that is
performing a value stream analysis and lean process to ensure the F-35
modifications are in place for IOCs and OT testing. Additionally, we
were successful in standing up depot component repair activities at
Ogden and Warner-Robins Air Logistics Complexes over the past year.
Reducing F-35 Sustainment costs and beginning the transition to a
future global support and posture will be a key focus of 2014. We will
begin to put in place the strategy to stand up our regional sustainment
capabilities in Europe and the Pacific and continue building our CONUS
sustainment capabilities. Our phase 2 business case analysis, which is
nearly completed, will be used to inform us on what the most effective
and efficient regional sustainment construct should look like. Part of
this global posture will be the transition to performance based
contracts to achieve Service, partner, and FMS Customer readiness
requirements. These early contracts will also allow me to assess the
performance of the current interim product support integrators
(Lockheed Martin and Pratt & Whitney) to assume this role on a more
permanent basis.
The long-term sustainment costs of the program continue to be a key
focus. My team and I are committed to providing the best-value support
solution for all participants. We are undertaking a number of
integrated efforts to drive down the cost of operating and sustaining
the F-35 weapons system. In October 2013, the F-35 Joint Program Office
stood up a Cost War Room whose mission it is to improve affordability
in all aspects of the F-35 operations and sustainment costs. They are
currently working on 48 opportunities to drive down or remove costs
from the program. Linked to this Cost War Room effort is a strategy to
define the most cost effective repair enterprise for the Services and
partners. This effort is underway with a level of repair analysis on
key components to determine what the optimum repair structure should
look like.
The program has also instituted a robust R&M program that is
systematically identifying cost and time drivers while continuing to
contractually institute tighter repair turnaround times for suppliers
to drive down repair times. As an integrated element of the R&M
program, we have also stood up a readiness cell that is focusing on
analyzing program metrics to improve aircraft availability. The
readiness cell's mission is to identify opportunities to enable F-35
availability to greater than 60 percent by 2015 across all three
variants. Some of the initiatives that the readiness cell is pursuing
include: improving contracting practices to avoid gaps in line-
replaceable component repair and spares replenishment, and optimizing
maintainer processes and procedures to reduce the amount of aircraft
downtime between sorties.
The combination of our R&M program, our O&S Cost War Room, our
readiness cell, our level of repair analysis, and our business case
analysis is to produce a mutually beneficial sustainment enterprise
that operates, manages and supports the global system with relevant
metrics and incentives, while meeting warfighter-defined readiness and
cost objectives. We still have much work to do to achieve this vision
and it is one of my highest priorities.
airframe and propulsion contract actions
The program achieved a major milestone with the concurrent
definitization/award of the LRIP lot 6 and 7 airframe contracts in
September 2013. These contracts marked significant improvement in
negotiation span time when compared to previous LRIP contracts. We need
this trend to continue to ensure that our budgets, expenditures,
contracting actions, and program actions are all synchronized. The
fixed price incentive fee (FPIF) contract with Lockheed Martin for LRIP
lot 6 is valued at $4.4 billion and procures 36 aircraft (18 F-35A, 6
F-35B, and 7 F-35C for the U.S. Services plus 5 F-35A for participant
nations) and ancillary equipment. The FPIF contract with Lockheed
Martin for LRIP lot 7 is valued at $3.9 billion and procures 35
aircraft (19 F-35A, 6 F-35B, and 4 F-35C for the U.S. Services plus 5
F-35A and 1 F-35B for participant nations) and ancillary equipment. The
parties reached a fair, well-reasoned settlement that caps the
government's liability. The negotiated price of the contract and all
cost overruns are the responsibility of Lockheed Martin. In addition,
we continue to share concurrency risk with Lockheed Martin. The terms
of the contract include a ``cost-sharing/no fee'' arrangement whereby
the Government and Lockheed Martin share equally (50/50) in these
concurrency costs with no fee for the known concurrency change
retrofits.
The program definitized the LRIP lot 5 FPIF engine contract in
April 2013 at a value of $1 billion for 32 engines and spares, as well
as associated sustainment support/products. The final negotiated
modification to the LRIP lot 6 FPIF engine contract was awarded in
October 2013 bringing the total value to $1.1 billion for 36 engines
and spares. Both contracts reflect a 0/100 overrun shareline with the
contractor assuming all cost overrun risk and capping the government's
liability at the negotiated value of the contract, another first for
the engine program.
Proposal evaluation is underway for the lot 8 (fiscal year 2014)
airframe and lot 7 (fiscal year 2013) and lot 8 (fiscal year 2014)
engine procurements. We believe we can have a final contract award for
all of these procurements by the end of second quarter of calendar year
2014. By negotiating the lots 7 and 8 engine procurements together, the
program is striving to get out of the business of undefinitized
contract actions and attempting to align contracting actions with our
budget and the actual production of aircraft and engines. Today we
effectively have fixed price contracts in terms of cost overruns
because the government has zero liability for cost overruns above the
negotiated price of the aircraft and engines.
In the future, the program intends on moving towards fixed-price,
multi-year contracts for both the aircraft and the engines. The F-35
Program will ensure that these future U.S. aircraft and engine
procurements comply with section 143 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012, which provides: `` . . . [t]he
Secretary of Defense shall ensure each of the following: (1) That the
contract is a fixed-price contract. (2) That the contract requires the
contractor to assume full responsibility for costs under the contract
above the target cost specified in the contract.'' We will also ensure
that the requirements to enter multi-year procurements are met. In the
meantime, we are encouraging Lockheed Martin and Pratt & Whitney to
seek long-term agreements with their suppliers to stabilize the supply
base and reduce overall procurement costs.
An effective earned value management system (EVMS) is critical to
monitoring performance and controlling costs. In 2007, a DCMA review
found the Lockheed Martin Aeronautics (LM Aero) EVMS to be noncompliant
with EVM guidelines. Although both DCMA and LM Aero engaged in a
focused effort to bring the LM Aero EVMS into compliance, appropriate
corrections were not completed and DCMA decertified the LM Aero EVMS in
2010. LM Aero created its EVMS corrective action plan during 2012 and
DCMA re-certified the LM Aero EVMS in November 2013. In accordance with
DOD Federal Acquisition Regulations, the DCMA had imposed a 5 percent
withhold against progress payments for new F-35 contracts, starting
with LRIP lot 5 as a result of the disapproved status of LM Aero's
EVMS. Following recertification of LM Aero's EVMS, DCMA released the
withhold, which amounted to $160 million, and authorized LM Aero to
bill for the previously withheld amounts.
In October 2013, DCMA disapproved of Pratt & Whitney's EVMS used
for F135 engines after finding deficiencies in their EVMS system. This
action was expected based on Pratt & Whitney's incomplete response to
Corrective Action Requests submitted by DCMA to Pratt & Whitney earlier
in 2013 on contracts for F135 engines used in F-35 aircraft. DCMA found
16 significant deficiencies that affect four EVMS guidelines. In
accordance with the DOD Federal Acquisition Regulations, 5 percent of
each request for payment is withheld until all significant deficiencies
are corrected. As of the end of February the withhold amount totaled
$25.7 million. The F-35 Joint Program Office is working closely with
DCMA to ensure Pratt & Whitney is in compliance with corrective
actions.
2013 dot&e report
As you are most likely well aware, the Director, Operational Test
and Evaluation (DOT&E) performed an independent assessment of the F-35
Program. This was conducted with the F-35 Program Office's full
cooperation and unfettered access to information on the F-35 Program.
Although the report is factually accurate, I do not believe it tells
the full story as not enough credit is given for progress that has been
made in reducing risk on this program. There were no surprise findings
in the report, in fact, we agree and are taking action on eight of the
nine recommendations in the report. The one recommendation that the F-
35 enterprise has chosen not to pursue has to do with the fuel-draulic
shut off system. An extensive cost/benefit analysis showed that the
addition of the polyalphaolefin shut-off valve increases the F-35
survivability by less than 1 percent while adding additional
development, production, reliability, and operating costs. The
combination of stealth, data fusion, advanced sensors, advanced
countermeasures, and electronic attack greatly reduce the chances of
the aircraft being hit by enemy fire. Additionally, the F-35 Joint
Program Office does not agree with DOT&E's assessment that mission
systems software delays and Block 2B flight test growth will result in
a 13-month delay in the 2B fleet release date. Block 2B software is
currently undergoing flight test and security and verification testing
with little to no schedule delays. The program has established a
process to track and manage software capability increments and to track
execution of software builds to plan, including development,
integration, flight test, and rework.
conclusion
I believe the F-35 is headed in the right direction. The previous
PEO developed a solid program baseline and it is now my team's job to
successfully execute that plan. I believe the basic aircraft design is
sound and we can deliver on our commitments to you, the taxpayers and
warfighters. While there is still risk in the program, I have
confidence in that we now have in place a robust management and
leadership enterprise that can handle any future setbacks or
discoveries and stay on track, so long as the program remains properly
resourced.
Software development still remains our number one technical risk
and a key focus area. We also must concentrate on standing up the
global support posture, improve R&M, and drive costs out of the
program. The changes implemented by the combined government/contractor
team have improved this outlook, but more work still needs to be done.
We will need excellent performance and continued support by all
elements of the enterprise, including industry, Congress, the Services,
our partners, and my program office.
As in any complex development program there are challenges, but I
believe the enhanced capability of the F-35 will provide the backbone
of the U.S. combat air superiority for generations to come. The
technological capabilities of the aircraft are sound. The program's
leadership team is rising to the challenges of managing this complex
system with integrity, discipline, transparency and accountability. Our
progress continues at a slow but steady pace. I intend on completing
this program within the budget, schedule, and resources I have been
given. I ask that you hold me, my team, our stakeholders, and
contractors accountable over the coming years to ensure that we develop
and deliver the warfighting capability this country and our partners
need and expect.
Thank you again for this opportunity to discuss the F-35 Lightning
II Program. I look forward to answering any questions you have.
Senator Blumenthal. Thanks, General.
General Davis?
STATEMENT OF LT. GEN. CHARLES R. DAVIS, USAF, MILITARY DEPUTY
TO THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE FOR ACQUISITION
General Davis. Chairman Blumenthal, Ranking Member Wicker,
and distinguished members, thank you for this opportunity.
I will try to keep this brief. I know there are questions,
as you have already mentioned, we would like to get to.
Let me just mention the fact that I think our Chief and our
Secretary have been very clear that there are some enduring
capabilities your U.S. Air Force provides, and these are
missions they are expected to perform at any time on any given
day. That translates to what I think that the Nation's citizens
expect of the Air Force, and that means basically, in simple
terms, your Air Force has to strike anywhere in the world, at
any time, and on any target that the President directs.
We must also be able to observe critical portions of the
world any time, day or night, around the year, and sustain the
capability to do so. That also means providing the assured
launch capabilities to get those assets in orbit to be able to
do that.
It also means that the Air Force must transport or return
critical cargo, personnel, and other things anywhere around the
world at any time and sustain that capability over long periods
to be able to do any missions the Joint Force requires. We must
defend the Homeland.
We can do these missions today. We can do them tomorrow. We
can probably do them for the near future. But clearly, as we
look out into the extended future, there is serious
modernization the Air Force requires to be able to do that
based on a threat that is evolving more rapidly than at any
point I have seen in my 35-year career. What we are seeing is
it takes very little for a threat to be able to evolve quite
effectively if all it has to do is defend a coast land or
defend a fairly unique part of the geographic terrain around a
certain country. It becomes much more cost effective to defend
and to be able to project that power I just described with the
Air Force.
So that threat and its ability to change and morph quite
rapidly is what presents us the problem that melds with the
budget that you have referenced here in all of the opening
comments. The more we focus on individual systems within the
budget, the more we risk the potential of neglecting the
capabilities we are going to need for that long-term future
that I think is so vital to what the Nation expects of the Air
Force.
So while we debate the 2015 budget, I will tell you there
is some comfort--and Senator Wicker, you mentioned it in terms
of predictability, the BBA was agreed to. Our program managers
got some relief in that they had a certainty to plan to in the
fiscal year 2015 budget.
But I will tell you those same program managers now worry
what happens next because if you look at the budget that was
submitted--and we are going to debate the items here today--as
you move into 2016, the Air Force budget shows a projection of
growth of about $8 billion and then another $2 billion in 2017.
I do not think any of us really expect that will quite happen
that way. But as our program managers try to plan how they
modernize all these forces you just mentioned, that creates a
level of unpredictability that we will certainly have to work
very closely with you in great partnership to try to figure out
how we survive that planning process.
If you consider the fact that certain parts of our budget,
in addition to the things that we will talk about today, have
largely been fenced or directed in certain ways to be spent
because of bills we have to pay, and as you meld that with the
fact that I mentioned the threats evolving rapidly, then we
have a very challenging situation as we go forward.
There are no easy choices and we will debate many of those
today. There are some choices that are better than others that
will provide the enduring capabilities I think the United
States expects the Air Force to provide. We are going to talk
about those today. We will have to continue to work with you in
partnership to be able to deliver the best way to get those
capabilities.
So with that, I look forward to your questions.
[The prepared statement of General Davis follows:]
Prepared Statement by Lt. Gen. Charles R. Davis, USAF
i. introduction
Chairman Manchin, Ranking Member Wicker and distinguished members
of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to provide you with
an update on Air Force tactical aviation programs. Today our Air Force
is engaged globally, supporting the combatant commanders (CCDR)
requirements and executing our National Military Strategy (NMS).
It takes the combined efforts of all of our military Services and
the whole of government to deny, deter, and defeat an enemy, and over
the last decade this integration has tightened. Just as we depend on
our joint partners, every other Service depends on the Air Force to do
its job. Whether it is Global Positioning System (C) information to
navigate waterways, airlift to get troops to and from the fight,
manning intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) silos to deter
aggression, or reconnaissance and satellite communication to tell
forces where enemy combatants gather or hide, the Air Force provides
these capabilities, as well as many others. Here at home, our airmen
patrol the skies, ready to protect the homeland, and they are integral
to the movement of people and lifesaving supplies when disasters, like
Hurricane Sandy or the California wildfires, strike.
Over the past 35 years, the Air Force has been called upon more
than 150 times to conduct combat or humanitarian operations in more
than 50 countries around the world. As our world becomes more
interconnected, Air Force capabilities that allow America to see,
reach, and affect a situation anywhere on the globe within a matter of
hours, will become even more critical. This capability to see what is
happening and project power anywhere in the world at any time is what
Global Vigilance, Global Reach, and Global Power are all about.
ii. current environment
The magnitude of the cuts generated in fiscal year 2013 by the
Budget Control Act (BCA), or `sequestration', was difficult to absorb
in the short term. We stood down 31 Active component squadrons, to
include 3 combat-coded squadrons for more than 3 months. We initiated
civilian furloughs, putting extreme stress on the workload and personal
finances of our civilian workforce. We cut maintenance of our
facilities, in many cases by 50 percent, and delayed major maintenance
actions, including depot aircraft overhauls.
With support from Congress, the Air Force was able to realign $1.7
billion into operations accounts. This allowed us to cover our overseas
contingency operations requirements and enabled us to resume flying
operations, but these budget adjustments came at a sacrifice to future
weapon system modernization. Of the units affected by the fiscal year
2013 sequestration, only about 50 percent have returned to their pre-
sequestration combat ready proficiency levels, which was already much
less than required, and it will take years to recover from the weapon
system sustainment backlog.
Though the Balanced Budget Amendment (BBA) and the fiscal year 2014
Appropriations Act provided partial sequestration relief in fiscal year
2014, and some help for fiscal year 2015, they do not solve all of our
problems. The additional funds help us reverse our immediate near-term
readiness shortfalls and enable the Air Force to build a plan that
mostly shields our highest priorities, which includes: flying hours;
weapon system sustainment; top three investment programs; and key
readiness requirements such as radars, ranges, and airfields. However,
the tightening fiscal caps combined with the abrupt and arbitrary
nature of sequestration clearly drove the Air Force into a ``more ready
force today'' versus a ``more capable force tomorrow'' dilemma, forcing
us to sacrifice future modernization for current readiness.
During the development of the fiscal year 2015 budget submission,
the Air Force took a bold but realistic approach to support the Air
Force 2023 framework and the 2012 Defense Strategic Guidance (DSG), as
updated during deliberations on the 2014 Quadrennial Defense Review
(QDR). To do this within fiscal guidance, including the Strategic
Choices and Management Review, we had to make difficult trades among
force structure (capacity), readiness, and modernization (capability).
As a result, the Air Force established four guiding principles to steer
our strategy and budget process.
(1) We must remain ready for the full-spectrum of military
operations;
(2) When forced to cut capabilities (tooth), we must also cut the
associated support structure and overhead (tail);
(3) We will maximize the contribution of the Total Force; and
(4) Our approach will focus on the unique capabilities the Air
Force provides the joint force, especially against a full-spectrum,
high-end threat.
Moving forward, we seek to maintain a force ready for the full
range of military operations while building an Air Force capable of
executing our five core missions:
(1) air and space superiority;
(2) intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR);
(3) rapid global mobility;
(4) global strike; and
(5) command and control, all against a well-armed and well-trained
adversary in 2023 and beyond.
The fiscal year 2015 budget request attempts to develop and retain
the most critical force structure and capabilities to maintain the Air
Force's ability to rapidly respond to global demands in most missions.
We will become smaller, which will require new approaches to reducing
the rotational or current commitments in order to sustain it. This
force structure reduction is budget-driven and not a logical
consequence of transitioning out of nearly 13 years of war. In fact,
the Air Force has progressively reduced its size since September 11,
2001; for example, we had 75 combat fighter squadrons in 2001, and
today we have 55, with further cuts to 48 projected by the end of the
future years defense program (FYDP) (fiscal year 2019). In addition,
history since the 1991 Gulf War suggests the Air Force will not
experience a significant reduction in operations tempo even when
Operation Enduring Freedom combat operations end. Fighter, bomber,
command and control (C2), ISR, personnel recovery, and Special
Operation Forces (SOF) assets are likely to remain in high demand. To
compound matters, the Air Force still has not recovered the readiness
lost due to the BCA in fiscal year 2013, and readiness was unacceptably
low even before sequestration. Despite these present challenges, we
cannot afford to mortgage the future of our Air Force and the defense
of our Nation. Recapitalization is not optional--it is required to
execute our core missions against a high-end threat for decades to
come.
If we continue to be funded at the fiscal year 2015 budget top line
level, we can continue a gradual path of recovery to combat readiness
levels that enable us to meet the full range of operational missions,
begin to close the gap in munitions inventories, and protect
investments such as the new training aircraft system and the next
generation of space-based systems. Additionally, the President has
proposed an additional Opportunity, Growth, and Security Initiative
(OGSI) to accompany the fiscal year 2015 budget request. For the Air
Force, this $7 billion additional investment would enhance our
readiness posture, enable us to fund critical modernization programs,
accelerate our recapitalization efforts, and improve our installations
and bases.
A BCA-level budget would result in a very different Air Force. To
pay the sequestration-level bill, we will have to decrease F-35
quantities and sacrifice current tanker and additional ISR capacity by
divesting KC-10 and RQ-4 Block 40 fleets.All of our major investment
programs will be at risk, and our readiness recovery will be
significantly slowed due to required cuts in weapon system sustainment
and ranges, as well as reduced levels of investments in preferred
munitions. A return to BCA-level funding would result in a less ready,
less capable, less viable Air Force that is unable to fully execute the
defense strategy.
The fiscal year 2015 budget request does not enable full recovery
of warfighting capability, capacity and readiness, but we have made the
risk-informed decision to re-strike the balance, ultimately trading
some current capacity and modernization for future readiness and
recapitalization. When building the budget, there were no easy choices.
We divested fleets and cut manpower that we would have preferred to
retain. We focused on global, long-range, and multi-role capabilities,
especially those that can operate in contested environments, which
meant keeping key recapitalization programs on track.
iii. operations update
Today, the Air Force flies and fights in air, space, and
cyberspace--globally and reliably--as a valued member of our joint and
coalition teams. Approximately 218,000 Total Force airmen are
``committed in place'' supporting daily combatant command operations to
defend the Homeland, provide command and control of our nuclear forces,
operate remotely piloted aircraft, provide rapid global mobility, and
many other requirements. Over 28,000 airmen are deployed across the
globe, including more than 20,000 in the U.S. Central Command Area of
Responsibility. The Air Force is an active partner in Department of
Defense planning that will shift our emphasis from today's wars to a
broader range of challenges and opportunities. The Department of
Defense is currently reassessing the strategic guidance issued last
year, but we anticipate continued emphasis on and planning for a
rebalance to the Asia Pacific region. Our challenge is to provide those
who deploy in support of our global commitments an Air Force that is
capable, agile, flexible, ready, and technologically advanced.
During 2013, Air Force global precision attack aircraft flew over
21,000 sorties and logged 40,000 hours in support of Overseas
Contingency Operations. On the home front, Air Force fighter, air
refueling, and early warning aircraft have flown over 64,000 total
sorties supporting Operation Noble Eagle since September 11, 2001. As a
testament to the capability of our Total Force, the Air National Guard
and Air Force Reserve have flown more than 65 percent of these sorties.
However, aviation is not without risk. In fiscal year 2013, there
were 19 Class A aviation flight mishaps, including 14 destroyed
aircraft and 11 fatalities. This was a decrease in one Class A aviation
flight mishap from fiscal year 2012, and an increase in destroyed
aircraft and fatalities from the fiscal year 2012 numbers of 10
aircraft destroyed, and 9 fatalities respectively. Analysis of these
events found trends similar to previous years, with the top two mishap
factors being compliance and decisionmaking errors.
There were 33 Class B aviation flight mishaps in fiscal year 2013,
significantly higher than the 23 in fiscal year 2012. Class C aviation
flight mishaps stayed relatively consistent with 262 in fiscal year
2013, slightly below the 269 total in fiscal year 2012. Additionally,
fiscal year 2013 unmanned aerial system mishaps decreased across the
board in Class A, B, and C mishaps from fiscal year 2012. Class A
mishaps dropped from 13 to 12, Class B mishaps from 4 to 1, and Class C
from 16 to 13.
iv. force structure and modernization
Fighters
Air Force fighter force structure is dependent on both fighter
aircraft and rated manning. Three years ago, the Air Force determined
through extensive analysis that a force structure of 1,200 primary
mission aircraft and 2,000 total aircraft was required to execute the
NMS with increased operational risk. Two years ago, based on the 2012
DSG and fiscal constraints, the Air Force rebalanced our force
structure across core functions. Analysis showed the Air Force could
decrease fighter force structure by approximately 100 aircraft with
higher risk, resulting in the current fighter requirement of 1,100
primary mission aircraft and 1,900 total aircraft. The 2014 QDR Report
also advances an updated national defense strategy that embodies and
builds on the DSG priorities. The Chairman's assessment of the QDR
strategy states we will continue to need capabilities that can operate
effectively in contested environments. During the build of the fiscal
year 2015 budget, fiscal constraints drove force structure divestments
of 334 fighters, leaving a fighter force structure significantly below
the 1,900 total aircraft requirement. Fiscal pressures drove these
tough choices--balancing today's needs against tomorrow's--and
accepting near-term risk today to be ready and viable tomorrow.
The Air Force's fighter fleet is approaching 30 years old on
average--the oldest in our history. Without service life extensions and
capability upgrades, it will not be possible to manage risk. The Air
Force is pursuing programs that will modernize and extend the service
life of our remaining fleet. The F-35 is a key component in preserving
future force structure and mitigating risk. Any further delay in the F-
35 program will create a serious shortfall (mid- and far-term) in
fighter capabilities and force structure. The Air Force is very
concerned with recent budget reductions and continues to monitor how
these cuts will affect risk. Air Force modernization of legacy systems
was traded to pay for readiness and continue to fund our top three
investments. It is absolutely critical that selected fourth generation
sustainment and modernization efforts continue, the F-22 continues to
modernize, and the F-35 matures and begins full rate production (FRP)
to avoid further increases in risk.
Manning our current force is a challenge we continually work. Air
Force mission success depends on efficient management of our rated
force, the most challenging of which is fighter force structure
manning. The Air Force is currently 240 fighter pilots short of the
total manning requirement and our projections indicate this deficit
growing to approximately 500 by 2022. The shortfall evolved from force
structure reductions that cut active duty fighter squadrons and fighter
training squadrons to a number that cannot sustain billet requirements.
As a result, the Air Force is currently unable to produce and
experience the required number of fighter pilots across the total
force. The Air Force is prioritizing overall available rated manpower
to fill our operational cockpits, at significant risk to institutional
requirements. Projected impacts include reductions in air-operations
expertise during the development of war plans and a gradual erosion of
fighter pilot experience in test and training. Recent programming and
policy actions raised production and absorption capacities, but current
fiscal constraints place the implementation of these actions at risk.
However, even with these changes, the Air Force is only able to slow
the decline in fighter pilot inventory and will be incapable of meeting
our overall requirement for fighter pilot expertise for the foreseeable
future.
A-10
Beginning in fiscal year 2015, the Air Force will retire the entire
A-10 fleet of 283 aircraft, resulting in a savings of $3.7 billion
($4.2 billion including cost avoidance). The A-10 provides our Joint
Force Commanders with responsive, lethal, precise, and persistent
firepower for close air support (CAS) and combat search and rescue, and
has been a steady, stellar performer in all recent conflicts. It was a
tough decision to retire the fleet, but fiscal pressure drove us to
divest this platform, which cannot survive or operate effectively in a
highly contested environment where there are more advanced aircraft or
air defenses. As ably shown in Iraq and Afghanistan, we will rely on
other platforms to provide effective CAS, from multi-role fighters to
B-1 bombers to remotely piloted aircraft; however, these decisions do
not come without risk or impacts to the mission. One of the impacts to
using other platforms for CAS is that use of these platforms for CAS
must be balanced with their other missions, putting stress on the force
in certain scenarios. Divesting the entire fleet allowed us to harvest
savings we could then apply to efforts that allow us to be ready and
viable tomorrow.
The fiscal year 2015 budget does not fund future modernization
efforts for A-10 aircraft; however, we will continue to sustain the
aircraft and keep it operationally viable until 2019.
F-16
Our primary multi-role fighter aircraft, the F-16 comprises 50
percent of our fighter fleet. The fiscal year 2015 budget request
invests $1.04 billion across the FYDP for F-16 modernization and
service life extension to meet critical warfighter needs to 2025 and
beyond. The majority of efforts in the FYDP focus on Legacy service
life extension program (SLEP), operational flight program (OFP)
enhancement, and a new start program for upgrades to the modular
mission computer (MMC) and programmable display generator (PDG).
Legacy SLEP will extend the airframe structural service life for
300 aircraft by approximately 25 percent from the current 8,000 hours
to 10,000+ hours, adding about 8 to 10 years. The fiscal year 2015
budget request continues design and development of structural
modification kits for the Block 40-52 fleet to be responsive to the Air
Force's total fighter requirement. The fiscal year 2015 budget request
for OFP enhancement will continue the integration of new weapons,
avionics and improved targeting pods. The fiscal year 2015 new start
for the MMC and PDG upgrade will resolve processor, memory, and
bandwidth issues that will allow capability growth through future OFP
development.
The Combat Avionics Programmed Extension Suite (CAPES) program
contains four distinct pieces that provide critical new capabilities to
the F-16, including an active electronically scanned array (AESA)
radar, a center display unit, an ALQ-213 integrated electronic warfare
management system, and an integrated broadcast service (IBS) that
integrates off board threat data and blue force tracking via SATCOM.
Originally, 300 aircraft were scheduled to be upgraded with these
capabilities, but the program was unfunded in the fiscal year 2015
budget request. The modernization of fourth generation aircraft
continues to be a critical bridge with the fifth generation fleet and,
although the Air Force is continuing with selected F-16 modernization,
the lack of these specific avionic upgrades will result in F-16 Block
40-52 aircraft that will not be nearly as effective in a contested
environment and will put the Air Force at greater risk from emerging
threats.
To partially mitigate the impact of terminating CAPES, we are
upgrading the F-16's electronic attack pod. This upgrade brings the
self-protection capabilities of the aircraft in line with current and
emerging threats, thereby increasing its effectiveness in the contested
environments we expect it to encounter.
F-15 C/D
The fiscal year 2015 budget request divests the F-15C/D fleet by 51
aircraft across the FYDP. The fiscal year 2015 budget request invests
approximately $1.7 billion across the FYDP on modernization and
sustainment programs for the remaining F-15C/D fleet. We project the F-
15C/D fleet will remain viable until at least 2035, with potential for
an airframe service life extension following full-scale fatigue
testing. This test is underway and will conclude in 2014. The Air Force
manages the fleet through scheduled field and depot inspections under
an individual aircraft tracking program.
We continue to modernize our F-15C/D fleet with AESA radars, a more
capable aircraft mission computer, and a new electronic warfare self-
protection suite, the Eagle passive/active warning survivability system
(EPAWSS). This new system will be absolutely crucial to ensuring the F-
15C/D is able to operate into the future, especially in highly
contested environments. We have had to delay EPAWSS for 1 year to
remain within budget constraints. We expect these efforts to enable 179
F-15C aircraft to operate safely and effectively through at least 2035
as determined by the full-scale fatigue test.
F-15E
The fiscal year 2015 budget request invests approximately $2.2
billion across the FYDP for F-15E modernization and sustainment
programs. This request includes integrating the latest precision
weapons to hit targets accurately and reduce collateral damage, and
adding a helmet mounted cueing system for all front seat cockpits that
will reduce the F-15E's time to engage a target. Finally, we are adding
a state-of-the-art AESA radar system advancing capabilities to identify
and engage targets, a more capable aircraft mission computer, and a
slightly delayed self-protection electronic warfare system (EPAWSS). As
with the F-15C/D, the EPAWSS system will be absolutely crucial to
ensuring the F-15E is able to operate into the future in highly
contested environments. The Air Force expects the F-15E to be an
integral part of the Nation's force through at least 2035. A full-scale
fatigue test, due to be complete in 2015, will provide data regarding
the feasibility of a service life extension.
Fifth Generation Fighters
Vital elements of our Nation's defense and deterrent capability are
fifth generation fighters like the F-22A and F-35. These advanced,
state-of-the-art aircraft are absolutely essential to maintain our
current global superiority that permit air, sea, and ground forces
freedom of action. Each aircraft possess exclusive, complimentary, and
indispensable capabilities that provide synergistic effects across the
spectrum of conflict. As future adversaries modernize, our legacy
fourth generation aircraft will have limited capability to operate in a
highly contested environment. Our Air Force must continue to invest in
fifth generation weapon systems, and begin looking even further into
the future, to ensure continued dominance of American Airpower.
F-22
The F-22 Raptor is the only currently operational U.S. fighter
currently capable of operating in highly contested environments. F-22
attributes of stealth, super cruise, integrated avionics and sensors
combine to deliver the Raptor's unique operational capability. F-22
modernization is required to counter advancing threats that
specifically target F-22 capabilities. Accordingly, F-22 modernization
is consistent with the DSG to ``invest as required to ensure [the]
ability to operate effectively in [anti-access and area denial]
environments''. Focused on maintaining operational superiority against
the evolving threat, the fiscal year 2015 budget request for F-22
modernization investment includes $330.6 million in RDT&E in addition
to $331 million in procurement. Increment 3.1 is fielding now and is
scheduled to be complete in fiscal year 2017, delivering advanced air-
ground capabilities including synthetic aperture radar ground mapping,
threat geolocation, and Small Diameter Bomb (SDB) carriage. Increments
3.2A/B remain on track for fielding in 2015/2018 respectively, and will
deliver advanced electronic protection and combat identification, AIM-
120D and AIM-9X missile capability, and significantly-improved ground
threat geolocation.
The F-22 is operating safely worldwide, averaging about 26,000
flying hours a year since return to flight in September 2011. It has
been over 24 months since the last unknown-cause hypoxia-like event
occurred. Notably, the retrofit of the automatic back-up oxygen system
is on track for completion by 2015. Fielding of this system at
Elmendorf Air Force Base is complete. The remaining fleet will be
complete by mid-April 2015.
F-35
During fiscal year 2015, the Air Force will continue to manage risk
across the global precision attack portfolio by prioritizing investment
in fifth-generation aircraft while sustaining legacy platforms as a
bridge to the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. The aforementioned legacy
fighter modifications are intended to keep a viable air superiority
fleet in operation as the F-35 program works toward initial operational
capability (IOC) in 2016.
The multi-role F-35A is the centerpiece of the Air Force's future
fighter 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 across Services and
eight partner nations. The fiscal year 2015 budget request includes
$4.9 billion for continued development and procurement of 26 F-35A,
conventional take-off and landing (CTOL) aircraft. The program
continues to make steady progress in overcoming software development
delays and technical issues.
During calendar year 2013, the F-35 program team achieved a number
of significant milestones, including: award of production contracts for
aircraft low rate initial production (LRIP) Lots 6 and 7 and engine
LRIP Lot 6; commencement of flight operations at Nellis Air Force Base;
and the first live fire launch of an AIM-120 Advanced Medium Range Air-
to-Air Missile (AMRAAM) from an F-35. Additionally, the program team
completed all planned weapon separation events, the first multi-
function advanced data link 4-ship connectivity test, and successful
weapons delivery tests for the Joint Direct Attack Munition (JDAM).
Thirty-five production aircraft were delivered for the Air Force, Navy,
and Marine Corps, the program reached over 10,000 test and operational
flight hours, and nearly fifty F-35A pilots have now been trained at
Eglin Air Force Base. Further, the 61st Fighter Squadron at Luke Air
Force Base was reactivated as the first of six training squadrons at
the new pilot training center, and Hill Air Force Base and Burlington
Air Guard Station were announced as the first operational locations for
the Air Force.
In fiscal year 2014, the Air Force plans to procure 19 F-35A CTOL
aircraft. Sequestration did not affect Air Force procurement quantities
in 2014.
Affordability remains a major priority, and the F-35 program made
great strides on this front in 2013. In the negotiations concluded for
aircraft LRIP Lot 7 and engine LRIP Lot 6, costs dropped over 4 percent
and 2 percent per unit, respectively, from previous lot negotiations,
representing a decrease of approximately $5 million in unit recurring
flyaway cost for each F-35A. These trends are expected to continue for
many future production lots. Production efficiencies, as well as
economies of scale, are critical in the overall affordability of the F-
35 program. In 2013, efforts were taken to improve affordability, with
more cost sharing between the Government and Contractors with respect
to cost reduction initiatives. This along with other cost reduction
initiatives and economies of scale should result in the price of an F-
35A, including an engine and profit, between $80 million and $85
million by 2019 (TY$). In addition, the Joint Program Office (JPO) is
pursuing a number of actions to lower the long term sustainment costs
for the F-35. In partnership with prime contractors Lockheed Martin and
Pratt & Whitney, the JPO established a Cost War Room to systematically
examine the cost drivers with the intent to pursue initiatives that
will reduce the overall operations and sustainment costs of the fleet.
Linked to the Cost War Room is a strategy to define the most cost
effective repair enterprise for the Services and partners. This effort
is underway with a Level of Repair Analysis on key components to
determine the optimum repair structure. The JPO has also instituted a
robust reliability and maintainablity (R&M) program that is identifying
cost and time drivers while continuing to contractually institute
tighter repair turnaround times. As an integrated element of the R&M
program, the JPO has stood up a readiness cell that is focusing on
analyzing program metrics to improve aircraft availability. The
combination of these efforts is intended to produce a mutually
beneficial sustainment enterprise that supports the global system with
relevant metrics and incentives, while meeting warfighter-defined
readiness and cost objectives.
The progress made so far and the steps we take today are crucial in
our efforts for declaring F-35 IOC. After the 2012 program re-baseline
and Milestone B re-certification, the joint services were tasked to
provide Congress our updated IOC criteria and timeline estimates by
June 1, 2013. These IOC criteria and dates were established, and the
Air Force plans to reach IOC for the F-35A by December 2016
(threshold).
Steady progress continues to be made on the development program,
with over 50 percent of planned testing complete. The JPO has reduced
risk on the helmet mounted display system, certification of night/IMC
operations, fuel dump, and lightning protection issues. However,
software remains the number one technical risk. We expect to reach
initial warfighting capability, with Block 2B/3i software, and meet Air
Force IOC as scheduled in 2016, but there is risk in reaching full
warfighting capability with Block 3F as planned in 2017. Maturity of
the Autonomic Logistics Information System (ALIS) remains a concern.
The Air Force understands ALIS is a necessary and integral element of
the F-35 weapon system, and as such, is a top program priority. As
designed, ALIS will tie F-35 mission planning, operational flight, ops
and maintenance training, debrief, tech and flight manuals, prognostic
health management, and supply chain management into one seamless
information system. Corrective actions for ALIS deficiencies are in
work, and a maintenance release in place at Eglin Air Force Base and
Marine Corps Air Station Yuma are successfully addressing many user
concerns in an effort to improve aircraft turnaround time. Improvement
in ALIS is now tied to the projected increase in production ramp rate
beginning in 2015.
Air-to-Surface Weapons
All three mission areas (stand-off, direct attack, and penetrator
munitions) in the air-to-surface munitions inventory are short of
inventory objectives. The most critical are stand-off and penetrator
weapons. Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missile (JASSM) and SDB weapons
along with low observable platforms are force multipliers in a highly
contested environment and their shortage could increase friendly force
attrition driving a much higher level of effort enabling the attack of
other critical targets. The shortage of penetrator weapons will result
in some inability to target adversary critical capabilities and
increase risk. Direct attack munition shortages drive the use of non-
preferred munitions with decreased effectiveness and resulting in
increased time and Air Force attrition to accomplish CCDR objectives.
JASSM and JASSM-ER
JASSM and JASSM-ER (Extended Range) are currently the Nation's only
stealthy, conventional, precision, launch-and-leave, standoff missiles
capable of fighter and bomber aircraft employment. They are capable of
penetrating next generation enemy air defenses to strike high value,
hardened, fixed, or mobile targets. The JASSM (baseline) has a range
greater than 200nm while the JASSM-ER has a range greater than 500nm.
The JASSM (baseline) weapon is in FRP; the 11th and 12th production
contracts were awarded to Lockheed Martin on December 19, 2013, for a
total of 340 missiles. About 1,230 missiles have been delivered; of
these about 1,000 are in the field and about 230 at the Lockheed Martin
production facility for repair, mostly for the surface wrinkling due to
exposure to high humidity conditions. The repair is fully covered by
the warranty with no additional cost to the Air Force. A new coating
(starting at lot 8) has corrected the surface wrinkling problem. Fiscal
year 2016 is the last JASSM (baseline) buy for a total procurement of
2,054 missiles.
JASSM-ER is currently in LRIP; the third and fourth LRIP contracts
were awarded to Lockheed Martin on December 19, 2013, for a total of
100 missiles. A problem with the fuel supply motor initially delayed
the deliveries of the 30 LRIP lot 1 JASSM-ER missiles; however, the
problem was resolved and deliveries will complete in April 2014. JASSM-
ER will start FRP in fiscal year 2015. The combined JASSM production
line transitions to JASSM-ER only at the maximum and most efficient
rate of 360 missiles per year. The last JASSM-ER procurement is planned
for fiscal year 2023, for a total JASSM-ER buy of 2,846 missiles.
SDB II
The SDB II will fill the capability gap of attacking mobile targets
at standoff ranges through the weather outside of point defenses using
a multi-mode seeker and dual band weapon data link. SDB II will be a
force multiplier in the number of targets platforms can attack per
sortie while inherently limiting collateral damage. Providing a four-
fold increase in load out with its carriage system will allow the
limited number of initial combat forces to achieve operational
objectives early in conflicts, paving the way for follow-on forces. SDB
II is an Acquistion Category (ACAT) ID program with the Air Force as
the lead service in partnership with the Navy. Initial aircraft
integration of the SDB II will be on the F-15E (Air Force threshold),
F-35B & C (DoN threshold), F/A-18E/F and AC-130W.
Currently, SDB II is in engineering, manufacturing, and development
with an LRIP decision planned by the end of this fiscal year. In fiscal
year 2015, SDB II will continue developmental testing, complete live
fire testing, and conduct government confidence test shots. The fiscal
year 2015 procurement plans are to buy 246 weapons with deliveries
starting in fiscal year 2017. SDB II fielding on the F-15E is planned
for January 2017. The Air Force total planned procurement for SDB II is
12,000 weapons.
Air-to-Air Weapons
Air-to-air missile inventories are short of objectives. AIM-120
AMRAAM and the AIM-9X continue to be in short supply. These weapons
enable the joint force to achieve air superiority by providing a first-
look first-kill capability. The shortage of air-to-air missiles will
increase the number of days required to gain Air Superiority, and will
decrease the amount of time the Joint Force can maintain Air
Superiority, which may leave the combatant commander short of their
campaign objectives.
AIM-120D AMRAAM
The AIM-120 AMRAAM is the Department of Defense's premier beyond-
visual-range missile to counter existing and emerging air vehicle
threats, operating at high or low altitude with electronic attack
capabilities. AMRAAM is a key enabler for gaining air superiority and
air dominance providing F-22, F-16, F-15, F/A-18, and eventually F-35
aircraft the ability to achieve multiple kills per engagement. The
latest evolution of AMRAAM is the AIM-120D, which brings increased
range and kinematics, improved high off-boresight targeting, and an
enhanced two-way data link for improved accuracy and lethality at
range. AIM-120D is an ACAT 1C joint program, with the Air Force as lead
service in partnership with the Navy. The AIM-120D operational test
readiness review was successfully completed in May 2012 and the program
is currently in dedicated operational testing.
Operational testing is expected to be complete in this fiscal year
and fielded on F/A-18 E/F and F-15 C/D aircraft. Total procurement for
fiscal year 2015 is 200 units with increases in future procurement
quantities for both the Air Force and Navy. The program will continue
to update the AMRAAM technical data package to ensure a viable,
producible design through the expected production life of the AMRAAM
program, and to maintain a robust supplier base capable of sustaining
production for the life of the program.
Industrial Base
The Air Force has been concerned over the future of the aerospace
industrial base particularly in the segment supporting engineering
design and development of tactical aircraft for several years. For the
first time in over 50 years, there is only one tactical aircraft in
development, the F-35. When production of the F/A-18 and the F-15 ends,
there will be only one prime contractor producing tactical aircraft.
This situation presents a national challenge. Given the current
fiscal constraints, how do we provide meaningful opportunities to
develop, sustain, and advance the design, engineering, and technical
knowledge to preserve our lead in this mission area? The Air Force
continues to invest in key areas such as advanced turbine engines.
However, as with all other programs, there are no easy choices left. We
are accepting the risk that some elements of the current aerospace
industrial capacity may atrophy. These capabilities, in terms of
engineering and design teams, production workers, and facilities may
need to be reconstituted to meet future requirements.
iv. conclusion
The Air Force continues to be the world's finest across the
spectrum of conflict, but the gap is closing. A return to
sequestration-level funding would result in a less ready, less capable,
less viable Air Force that is unable to fully execute the defense
strategy. At fiscal year 2015 BBA-level funding, the Air Force has some
ability to manage risk in supporting the strategy, but significant
challenges will remain. In order to defeat advancing threats, the Air
Force must continue investments in top recapitalization and key
modernization programs, and gain and maintain full-spectrum readiness.
Our sister Services and allies expect the Air Force to provide
critical warfighting and enabling capabilities. We remain focused on
delivering global vigilance, reach, and power, through our core
missions of air and space superiority, global strike, rapid global
mobility, intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance and command and
control. We look forward to working closely together as we address the
challenges of near-term uncertainty and risk to provide the ability to
deliver combat air power for America when and where we are needed.
Senator Blumenthal. Thank you very much, General.
Admiral Grosklags?
STATEMENT OF VADM PAUL A. GROSKLAGS, USN, PRINCIPAL MILITARY
DEPUTY TO THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE NAVY FOR RESEARCH,
DEVELOPMENT, AND ACQUISITION; ACCOMPANIED BY LTGEN ROBERT E.
SCHMIDLE, JR., USMC, DEPUTY COMMANDANT FOR AVIATION
Admiral Grosklags. Chairman Blumenthal, Senator Wicker,
distinguished members of the subcommittee, thanks for the
opportunity to appear before you today to discuss our Navy and
Marine Corps aviation programs.
I think you are aware we had to make many difficult
decisions in building our fiscal year 2015 budget submission,
but what we have submitted for your consideration is a plan
which ensures sufficient capacity and capability to fight and
win, if necessary. But it is also a plan that includes
increased levels of risk.
In our fiscal year 2015 submission, we are continuing
development and procurement of fifth generation tactical
aircraft. We are fully committed to both the F-35B and the F-
35C and believe the program is on a solid path to meeting the
IOC for both our Marine Corps in 2015 and our Navy in 2019.
Unmanned aircraft systems also maintain a full measure of
our attention from already fielded unit-size aircraft such as
the Marine Corps RQ-21 Blackjack to future carrier strike group
assets such as the unmanned carrier-launched airborne
surveillance and strike (UCLASS) program.
We continue investment in our critical development programs
such as the CH-53K heavy lift helicopter, the MQ-4C maritime
surveillance aircraft, and the presidential replacement
helicopter program.
We are recapitalizing in other areas as well. Maritime
patrol with the P-8, our carrier-based early warning aircraft
with the E-2D, and virtually all of our helicopter and tilt
rotor aircraft are being replaced with H-60s, new H-1s, and V-
22s.
Finally, we are making focused investments in our currently
fielded aircraft and systems to ensure they remain relevant,
safe, and can counter the threat in the coming decade.
But as I mentioned earlier, the efforts I just described
are not without risk. Even with the spending levels supported
by the BBA, we have been forced to extend development
timelines. We have reduced procurement rates, and we have
reduced the rate at which we are modernizing both our
capability and our capacity. A transition back to the BCA
levels of spending would have significant negative impacts on
our readiness, our modernization, and our relevancy, which
ultimately results in increased risk to our deployed forces.
Mr. Chairman, we appreciate the opportunity to appear
before you today. We look forward to your questions.
[The joint prepared statement of Admiral Grosklags and
General Schmidle follows:]
Joint Prepared Statement by VADM Paul A. Grosklags, USN, and LtGen
Robert E. Schmidle, Jr., USMC
introduction
Mr. Chairman, Senator Wicker, and distinguished members of the
subcommittee, we thank you for the opportunity to appear before you
today to discuss the Department of the Navy's aviation programs. Our
testimony will provide background and rationale for the Department's
fiscal year 2015 budget request for aviation programs aligning to our
strategic priorities and budgetary goals.
The United States is a maritime nation with global
responsibilities. Our Navy and Marine Corps' persistent presence and
multi-mission capability represent U.S. power projection across the
global commons. They move at will across the world's oceans, seas, and
littorals, and they extend the effects of the sea-base deep inland.
Naval aviation provides our Nation's leaders with ``offshore options''
where needed, when needed. We enable global reach and access,
regardless of changing circumstances, and will continue to be the
Nation's preeminent option for employing deterrence through global
presence, sea control, mission flexibility and when necessary,
interdiction. We are an agile strike and amphibious power projection
force in readiness, and such agility requires that the aviation arm of
our naval strike and expeditionary forces remain strong.
There are several central themes to our 2015 Naval Aviation Budget
plan: fifth generation fighter/attack capability; persistent multi-role
intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance; supporting capabilities
such as electronic attack, maritime patrol, and vertical lift; robust
strike weapons programs; and targeted modernization of the force for
relevance and sustainability.
First, we are acquiring F-35 fifth generation fighter/attack
aircraft while maintaining sufficient TACAIR inventory capacity. Our
plan will integrate fifth generation technologies into the carrier air
wing and expeditionary forces while maintaining and modernizing the
capability of the current TACAIR fleet. The F-35B will replace Marine
Corps F/A-18 and AV-8B aircraft. The F-35C, F/A-18E/F, and EA-18G
provide complementary capabilities that enhance the versatility,
lethality, and survivability of our air wings. We have maintained our
F-35B procurement profile achieving program procurement stability in
line with the improvements in program accountability, discipline and
transparency. However, due to fiscal constraints and Navy priorities,
we were compelled to reduce F-35C procurement by 33 airframes across
the future years defense program (FYDP). The overall F-35 development
program is adequately resourced and has implemented realistic schedule
planning factors to complete system development and demonstration. The
Navy and Marine Corps are fully committed to the F-35B and F-35C
variants as we believe this aircraft is on solid path to delivering
required capabilities.
The F/A-18A-F will continue to receive capability enhancements to
sustain its lethality well into the next decade. Future avionics
upgrades will enable network-centric operations for situational
awareness and transfer of data to command-and-control nodes. To meet
the demand for persistent, multi-role intelligence, surveillance, and
reconnaissance (ISR) capability, the Navy and Marine Corps are building
a balanced portfolio of manned and unmanned aircraft focused on
missions in the maritime environment. The Unmanned Carrier Launched
Airborne Surveillance and Strike (UCLASS) system will provide a
persistent aircraft carrier-based ISR and strike capability as an
integral part of carrier air-wing operations no later than the early
part of the next decade. MQ-4C Triton will provide persistent land-
based maritime ISR and complement our P-8 Multi-Mission Maritime
Aircraft; MQ-8 Vertical Takeoff and Landing Tactical Unmanned Aerial
Vehicle (VTUAV)/Firescout will provide ISR support to our Littoral
Combat Ships (LCS); and smaller unmanned systems as the RQ-21A Small
Tactical Unmanned Aircraft System and RQ-7B Marine Corps Tactical UAS
will provide the shorter duration, line-of-sight reconnaissance
capability integral at the unit level.
The fiscal year 2015 budget request enables naval aviation to
continue recapitalization of our aging fleets of airborne early
warning, maritime patrol, and vertical lift platforms. The Department
is recapitalizing our fleet of E-2C airborne early warning aircraft
with the E-2D. E-2D integrates a new electronically-scanned radar that
provides a two-generation leap in technology with the capability to
detect and track existing and emerging air-to-air and cruise missile
threats in support of integrated air and missile defense. We have
deployed our first P-8A squadron and are on a path to replace the P-3C
by the end of the decade. Electronic attack capabilities, both carrier-
based and expeditionary, continue to mature with 11 of 16 EA-18G
squadrons fielded or in transition, while we also continue development
of the Next Generation Jammer (NGJ) to replace the legacy ALQ-99
Tactical Jamming System.
The Navy and Marine Corps are participating in Joint Future
Vertical Lift efforts to identify leverage points for future rotorcraft
investment. In fiscal year 2015, the Department continues to modernize
vertical lift capability and capacity with procurement of MH-60R/S, AH-
1Z, UH-1Y, and MV-22B, and the continued development of the CH-53K and
VXX (Presidential Helicopter replacement). The Special Purpose Marine
Air-Ground Task Force-Crisis Response (SPMAGTF-CR), designed to support
U.S. and partner security interests throughout the AFRICOM area of
responsibility (AOR), leverages these vertical lift investments. The
unparalleled speed and range of the MV-22B, together with the KC-130J,
provides the SPMAGTF-CR with the operational reach to respond to crises
throughout the AOR.
Within our fiscal year 2015 budget request, the Department
continues investment in strike weapons programs. These include the Air
Intercept Missile (AIM-9X/BLK II); Small Diameter Bomb II (SDB II); the
Joint Standoff Weapon (JSOW C-1); Tactical Tomahawk Cruise Missiles
(TACTOM/BLK IV); the Offensive Anti-Surface Weapon (OASuW); the
Advanced Anti-Radiation Guided Missile (AARGM); the joint Air-to-ground
Missile (JAGM); and the Advanced Precision Kill Weapon System (APKWS
II).
These capabilities enable our Navy and Marine Corps warfighters to
deter and dominate potential adversaries in any environment.
tactical aviation
F-35B/F-35C Lightning II
The Department of the Navy remains firmly committed to both the F-
35B short take-off and vertical landing (STOVL) variant and the F-35C
carrier variant (CV) of the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) program, as they
are essential to our Navy and Marine Corps aviation strategy and the
Nation's security. F-35 will supplant much of the Navy's aging Tactical
Aviation (TACAIR) fleet by replacing Navy and Marine Corps F/A-18A-D
Hornets and the Marine Corps AV-8B Harrier. The incorporation of F-35B
and F-35C aircraft into our naval force will provide the dominant,
multi-role, fifth-generation capabilities that are essential across the
full spectrum of combat operations to deter potential adversaries and
enable future naval aviation power projection. F-35B is scheduled to
achieve Initial Operational Capability (IOC) between July 2015 and
December 2015 while the F-35C is scheduled to achieve IOC between
August 2018 and February 2019.
The Marine Corps will leverage the F-35B/C capabilities to ensure
our TACAIR is able to provide fifth-generation capabilities in support
of our ground warriors and strike missions. The concept is one aircraft
capable of multiple missions, providing the Marine Air Ground Task
Force (MAGTF) with flexible expeditionary basing options, either afloat
or ashore, and superior technology to dominate the fight. Our
requirement for expeditionary tactical aircraft has been demonstrated
repeatedly since the inception of Marine aviation over 100 years ago.
Given the threats we will face in the future, the F-35B is clearly the
aircraft of choice to meet our expeditionary operating requirements at
sea and ashore. Similarly, in the carrier strike group (CSG), the F-
35C, F/A-18E/F, and EA-18G, operating together, provide survivable,
long-range strike capability and persistence in an anti-access/area-
denied environment. F-35C will provide the CSG commanders greater
tactical agility and strategic flexibility to counter a broad spectrum
of threats and win in operational scenarios that cannot be addressed by
currently fielded aircraft.
The Department of Defense (DOD) established the F-35 program with a
planned measure of concurrent development and production that balanced
cost, risk, and need for TACAIR modernization. Concurrency, however, is
a transient issue in which risks progressively decline through the end
of SDD. The F-35 program has worked with the prime contractor
(Lockheed-Martin) to implement a concurrency management structure and
refine the estimate of concurrency costs based on discrete test and
qualification events. As more testing is completed, concurrency risks
are progressively reduced as the design is confirmed or issues
identified requiring changes are incorporated. Earlier aircraft are
open to a greater need for changes, and as succeeding low-rate initial
production (LRIP) lots are built, their cumulative requirements for
retrofit modifications decline. Furthermore, beginning with LRIP 5,
Lockheed-Martin is contractually obligated to share in the costs
associated with concurrency. LRIP 6/7 will further reduce the
government's exposure to overruns as Lockheed-Martin is required to pay
for all cost overruns via firm fixed-price contracts.
F-35 sustainment costs remain a concern. The Navy, working in
concert with the Joint Program Office (JPO), is analyzing options, both
inside and outside of the JPOs span of control to reduce operating
cost. These include, reviewing basing options and sequencing, unit
level manpower/squadron size, and discrete sustainment requirements.
Through these combined efforts, the Department believes we will
converge on an affordable F-35 sustainment strategy that meets both the
required level of Service/Partner performance and lowers the total
life-cycle cost of the program.
The fiscal year 2015 President's budget requests $1.0 billion in
Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, Navy (RDT&E,N) to continue
the F-35 SDD program and $2.4 billion in Aircraft Procurement, Navy
(APN) for eight F-35 aircraft (six F-35B and two F-35C) with associated
aircraft hardware, modification requirements, and spares. The request
includes funding for Block 4 systems engineering and planning to
achieve follow-on capabilities for emerging and evolving threats and
additional weapons integration. Additionally, the Marine Corps is
pursuing the procurement of additional F-35s to replace the six AV-8B
Harriers that were lost due to enemy action in Afghanistan on 14
September 2012.
The Navy is aware of the challenges that remain on the F-35
program, but we believe the program continues to demonstrate increased
stability, accountability, and fiscal discipline. The F-35 is essential
to the future of Navy/Marine Corps aviation and the Department is fully
committed to the F-35B and F-35C variants of this program. The Navy
continues to closely monitor all F-35 program aspects (development,
production, and sustainment) to ensure that this capability is obtained
at the lowest cost and at the earliest date possible, to meet our
national security obligations.
F/A-18 Overview
The F/A-18 Hornet continues to meet readiness and operational
commitments. There are 26 Navy Super Hornet squadrons with 513 F/A-18E/
Fs; deliveries and squadron transitions will continue through 2016.
There are 11 Navy and 11 Marine Corps F/A-18 A-D Active component
squadrons with 618 Hornets. Super Hornets and F/A-18A-D Hornets have
conducted more than 200,000 combat missions since September 11, 2001.
F/A-18 A/B/C/D Hornet
The fiscal year 2015 President's budget requests $250.3 million in
APN to implement aircraft commonality programs to maintain relevant
capability and improve reliability and ensure structural safety of the
inventory of 618 F/A-18 Hornets of which $55.7 million is for the
service life extension program (SLEP).
The F/A-18A-D was designed for, and has achieved, a service life of
6,000 flight hours. These aircraft have performed as expected through
their design life and now service life management of this aircraft is
intended to extend this platform well beyond its designed 6,000 flight
hours. Through detailed analysis, inspections, and, as required,
structural repairs, the Navy has been successful in achieving 8,000
flight hours per aircraft and is pursuing a strategy to go as high as
10,000 flight hours on select aircraft. Continued investment in SLEP,
the high flight hour (HFH) program, program related engineering, and
program related logistics is critical for our flight hour extension
strategy and to sustain the combat relevancy of these aircraft.
In order to maintain warfighting relevancy in a changing threat
environment, we will continue to procure and install advanced systems
such as Joint Helmet-Mounted Cueing Systems (JHMCS), High Order
Language (HOL) Mission Computers, ALR-67v3, ALQ-214v5, Multi-Function
Information Distribution System (MIDS), APG-73 radar enhancements,
Advanced Targeting FLIR (ATFLIR) upgrades, and LITENING for the Marine
Corps on selected F/A-18A-D aircraft.
F/A-18 E/F Super-Hornet
The fiscal year 2015 President's budget requests $342.7 million in
APN to implement aircraft commonality programs, maintain relevant
capabilities, improve reliability, and ensure structural safety of the
Super-Hornet fleet; and $13.8 million RDT&E,N to support the F/A-18E/F
service life assessment program (SLAP).
The F/A-18E/F significantly improves the survivability and strike
capability of the carrier air wing. The Super-Hornet provides increased
combat radius and endurance, and a 25 percent increase in weapons
payload over F/A-18A-D Hornets. The production program continues to
deliver on-cost and on-schedule.
The Super-Hornet uses an incremental approach to incorporate new
technologies and capabilities, to include: digital communication system
(DCS) radio, Multi-Functional Information Distributed System (MIDS)-
Joint Tactical Radio System (JTRS), JHMCS, ATFLIR with shared real-time
video, accurate navigation (ANAV), digital memory device (DMD),
distributing targeting system (DTS), infrared search and track (IRST)
and continued advancement of the APG-79 AESA radar.
The $13.8 million RDT&E,N request supports the F/A-18E/F SLAP
requirement. Currently, the F/A-18 E/F fleet, on average, has flown
approximately 36 percent of the design life of 6,000 total flight
hours. The remaining design service-life will not be adequate to meet
future operational commitments through 2035. In 2008, the Navy
commenced a three phased F/A-18E/F SLAP to analyze actual usage versus
structural test data and determine the feasibility of extending F/A-
18E/F service life from 6,000 to 9,000 flight hours via a follow-on
SLEP. The F/A-18E/F SLAP will identify the necessary inspections and
modifications required to achieve 9,000 flight hours and increase total
arrested landings and catapults beyond currently defined life limits.
This extension is currently assessed as low risk. The service life
management plan philosophy has been applied to the F/A-18E/F fleet at
an earlier point in its lifecycle than the F/A-18A-D. This will
facilitate optimization of Fatigue Life Expended, flight hours, and
total landings, thereby better aligning aircraft service life with
fleet requirements.
AV-8B Harrier
The fiscal year 2015 President's budget requests $65.5 million in
APN funds to continue the incorporation of obsolescence replacement/
readiness management plan systems; electrical and structural changes;
upgrades to air-to-air weapon system employment and integration
components; inventory sustainment and upgrade efforts to offset
obsolescence and attrition; LITENING Pod upgrades; and F402-RR-408
engine safety and operational changes.
The fiscal year 2015 President's budget requests $25.4 million in
RDT&E,N funds to continue design, development, integration and test of
various platform improvements, to include: engine life management
program, escape systems, joint mission planning system, and block
upgrades to various mission and communication systems, navigation
equipment, weapons carriage, countermeasures, and the obsolescence
replacement/readiness management plan.
The AV-8B continues to be deployed in support of operational
contingencies. Each Marine Expeditionary Unit (MEU) deploys with
embarked AV-8Bs. The AV-8B, equipped with LITENING targeting pods and a
video downlink to remotely operated video enhanced receiver ground
stations, precision strike weapons, and beyond visual range air-to-air
radar missiles, has continued to be a proven, invaluable asset for the
MAGTF and joint commander across the spectrum of operations. During the
first half of fiscal year 2015 the AV-8B will receive the H6.1
operational flight program enabling full integration of the Generation
4 LITENING targeting pod that includes correction of software
deficiencies to smart weapon employment and targeting. During 2015, the
program will also continue work on the H6.2 operational flight program
to integrate Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) compliant RNP/RNAV
capability and correct additional software deficiencies identified
through combat operations. As an out-of-production aircraft, the AV-8B
program will continue its focus on sustainment efforts to mitigate
significant legacy inventory shortfalls, maintain airframe integrity,
achieve full FLE, and address reliability and obsolescence issues of
avionics and subsystems. The airborne variable message formal (VMF)
terminals will be installed in AV-8B to replace the current digital-
aided close air support (CAS) technology. Additional efforts include
tactical datalink and sensor improvements in support of operational
contingencies until transition to the F-35.
Operation Odyssey Dawn and Enduring Freedom, as well as current
operations in the Horn of Africa, confirm the expeditionary advantages
of STOVL capabilities by placing the Harrier as the closest multi-role
fixed-wing asset to the battlefield. Such dynamic support greatly
reduces transit times to the battlefield and enables persistent CAS
aircraft without strategic tanking assets. Airframe sustainment
initiatives, capability upgrades, and obsolescence mitigation is
essential and must be funded to ensure the AV-8B remains lethal and
relevant.
TACAIR Inventory Management
The strike fighter shortfall (SFS) associated with the fiscal year
2015 President's budget is manageable. The shortfall is currently
predicted to peak at approximately 35 aircraft in fiscal year 2023; 20
of which are Marine Corps aircraft and 15 Navy aircraft.
The Navy and Marine Corps continue to carefully monitor strike
fighter inventory requirements and projected availability. The
Department's inventory forecasting tool (IFT) projects the combined
effects of deliveries, force structure, aircraft usage rates,
structural life limits, depot turnaround time, fatigue life expenditure
(FLE), arrested and field landings, and catapult launches on the total
strike fighter aircraft inventory. The IFT will be replaced by the
naval synchronization tool (NST) no later than the end of fiscal year
2014. This transition will enable increased fidelity of aircraft
inventory projections and management.
In addition, through lean-six sigma black belt analysis of the
entire Navy F/A-18A-D inventory, the Marine Corps has created a TACAIR
2030 Roadmap that drives the IFT predicted 20 aircraft shortfall to
zero, while saving (cost avoidance) of $1.14 billion. As F-35B enters
service, it will initially replace the AV-8B, followed by the Marine
Corps F/A-18A-Ds. The last active Marine Corps F/A-18 squadron is
scheduled to transition in 2029 and the current Marine Corps F/A-18
Reserve squadron will not receive its F-35Bs until fiscal year 2030.
The Marine Corps also plans to source AV-8Bs as Strike fighters in lieu
of sourcing for F/A-18s in contingency operations.
Current IFT and Marine Corps TACAIR 2030 roadmap assumptions: The
Navy will maintain its current tactical fixed-wing force structure;
utilization rates will not increase; the delivery rate of F-35B/C
remains as planned in the fiscal year 2015 FYDP; and FA-18 A-D HFH
inspections/repair, and SLEP efforts on candidate aircraft allows fleet
readiness center (depot) inducted aircraft to reach an extended
authorized life of 9,000 hours, with a subset of those aircraft
attaining 10,000 flight hours (a by bureau number squadron mapping is
contained in the TACAIR 2030 Roadmap).
Airborne Electronic Attack/EA-6B Prowler
The fiscal year 2015 President's budget request includes $15.8
million in RDT&E,N for electronic warfare (EW) counter response; $7.8
million RDT&E,N for MAGTF EW; $34.8 million in APN for airborne
electronic attack (AEA) systems; $11.0 million in APN for all EA-6B
series aircraft; and $14.8 million APN for MAGTF EW.
Currently, there are 42 EA-6Bs in the Navy and Marine Corps. Of
these aircraft, 37 are distributed to 6 active squadrons, 1 Reserve
squadron, 2 test squadrons, and 1 Fleet Replacement Squadron, and 5
aircraft are in depot repair. The total includes 10 Navy and Marine
Corps Improved Capability (ICAP) II aircraft and 32 ICAP III aircraft.
Following the final Navy EA-6B transition to EA-18G in 2015, all
remaining ICAP III EA-6Bs will transfer to and be operated by the
Marine Corps, or be in pipeline for final disposition. Final retirement
of the EA-6B from the Department's inventory will be in 2019.
Marine aviation is on a path towards a distributed AEA system of
systems that is a critical element in achieving the MAGTF EW vision: A
composite of manned and unmanned surface, air, and space assets on a
fully collaborative network providing the MAGTF commander control of
the electromagnetic spectrum when and where desired. Included in this
plan are the ALQ-231 Intrepid Tiger II communications jammer, UAS EW
payloads, a software reprogrammable payload and an EW services
architecture to facilitate collaborative networked electronic warfare
battle management.
Intrepid Tiger II development and procurement is in response to
Marine Corps requirements for increased precision EW capability and
capacity across the MAGTF and provides EW capability directly to
tactical commanders without reliance upon the limited availability of
the low density/high demand EA-6B Prowler. The Intrepid Tiger II is
currently carried on the AV-8B, has successfully completed six
deployments in U.S. Central Command's (CENTCOM) AOR, and is currently
deployed with both the 13th and 22nd MEUs. Integration on Marine Corps
F/A-18 aircraft is scheduled to be completed in the second quarter of
fiscal year 2014 and on Marine Corps rotary-wing aircraft by the second
quarter of fiscal year 2015.
Airborne Electronic Attack/EA-18G Growler
The fiscal year 2015 President's budget request is $43.5 million in
APN for procurement of avionics peculiar ground support equipment for
the EA-18G aircraft; $18.7 million in RDT&E,N for integration of
jamming techniques optimization improvements and evolutionary software
development; and $246.9 million RDT&E,N for NGJ.
In 2009, the Navy began transition from EA-6Bs to EA-18Gs. The
first EA-18G squadron deployed in an expeditionary role in November
2010 to Iraq, and subsequently redeployed on short notice to Italy in
March 2011, in support of Operation New Dawn and Operation Unified
Protector. The EA-18G is a critical enabler in the joint force,
bringing to the fight fully netted warfare capabilities that will
provide electromagnetic spectrum dominance in an electromagnetic
maneuver warfare environment.
The first carrier-based EA-18G squadron deployed in May 2011. Three
Active component Navy expeditionary squadrons, 7 of 10 carrier based
squadrons, and 1 Reserve squadron are in, or have completed, transition
to the EA-18G. The 10 carrier based EA-18G squadrons will fulfill Navy
requirements for AEA; 6 expeditionary EA-18G squadrons will fill the
joint, high-intensity AEA capability required by the Joint Forces
Commander previously fulfilled by the Navy and Marine Corps EA-6B. The
Navy will be divested of EA-6Bs by 2015; the Marine Corps by 2019. The
inventory objective is for 138 EA-18G aircraft. Since the initial
deployment, Growlers have flown more than 2,300 combat missions, have
expended on average a service-life of approximately 6 percent of the
7,500 total flight hours per aircraft, and are meeting all operational
commitments.
The NGJ is new electronic warfare technology that is the
replacement for the 41-year-old ALQ-99, currently the only Navy and
Joint airborne tactical jamming system pod. The ALQ-99 has limited
capability to counter tactically and technically advanced threats, is
increasingly difficult and costly to maintain, and has a vanishing
industrial supplier base. Navy/DOD requires NGJ to meet current and
emerging electronic warfare threats. NGJ will have the necessary power
and digital techniques to counter increasingly advanced and
sophisticated adversary electronic warfare search, surveillance, and
targeting-radars and communications systems. NGJ will be DOD's only
comprehensive tactical AEA capability, supporting all Services and
joint/coalition partners, and will be implemented in three increments:
mid-band (Increment 1), low-band (Increment 2), and high-band
(Increment 3). NGJ is designed to provide improved capability in
support of joint and coalition air, land, and sea tactical strike
missions and is critical to the Navy's vision for the future of strike
warfare. Fiscal year 2015 funding is vital to maintain schedule,
allowing the program to transition into the technology maturation and
risk reduction (TMRR) development phase and ensure timely start of the
critical EA-18G long lead integration activities. Planned fiscal year
2015 TMMR activities include: completion of the system functional
review, development, and release of the Request for Proposal for the
engineering and manufacturing development phase, maturation of software
specification requirements, and conduct of the technology readiness
assessment demonstrations. Fiscal year 2015 constitutes the bulk of a
25-month effort to achieve technology readiness level (TRL) 6 in
support of planned Milestone B in fiscal year 2016.
E-2D Advanced Hawkeye
The fiscal year 2015 President's budget requests $193.2 million in
RDT&E,N for continuation of added capabilities to include: in-flight
refueling, tactical targeting network technology, secret internet
protocol router chat, and the advanced mid-term interoperability
improvement program; $1,046 million in APN for four full rate
production (FRP) Lot 3 aircraft (the second year of a 25 aircraft
multi-year procurement (MYP) contract covering fiscal years 2014-2018),
advance procurement for fiscal year 2016 FRP Lot 4 aircraft; and
economic ordering quantity funding for the MYP for fiscal years 2017
and 2018.
The E-2D Advanced Hawkeye (AHE) is the Navy's carrier-based
airborne early warning and battle management command and control
system. The E-2D AHE provides theater air and missile defense and is
capable of synthesizing information from multiple onboard and off-board
sensors, making complex tactical decisions and then disseminating
actionable information to Joint Forces in a distributed, open-
architecture environment.
Utilizing the newly developed AN/APY-9 mechanical/electronic scan
array radar and the cooperative engagement capability system, the E-2D
AHE works in concert with tactical aircraft and surface-combatants
equipped with the Aegis combat system to detect, track and defeat air
and cruise missile threats at extended range and provide strike group
commanders the necessary required reaction time.
The first Fleet E-2D squadron (VAW-125) has transitioned and was
designated ``safe for flight'' in January 2014. IOC is on track for the
first quarter of fiscal year 2015.
assault support aircraft
MV-22
The fiscal year 2015 President's budget requests $ 61.2 million in
RDT&E,N for continued product improvements and $1.53 billion in APN for
procurement and delivery of 19 MV-22s (Lot 19). Fiscal year 2015 will
be the third year of the follow-on V-22 MYP contract covering fiscal
years 2013-2017. The funds requested in the fiscal year 2015
President's budget request fully fund Lot 19 and procures long-lead
items for fiscal year 2016 Lot 20 MV-22 aircraft. The Marine Corps
continues to field and transition aircraft on time. The APN request
includes $135.6 million to support the ongoing operations and safety
improvement programs (OSIP), including correction of deficiencies and
readiness.
MV-22 Osprey vertical flight capabilities coupled with the speed,
range, endurance of fixed-wing transports, are enabling effective
execution of current missions that were previously unachievable on
legacy platforms. This capability is at the core of the Marine Corps'
recently fielded SPMAGTF-CR. As the MV-22 approaches the 200,000 flight
hour milestone, it is on pace to be one of the safest of any DOD
aircraft dating back to the 1960s.
The follow-on MYP, which began in fiscal year 2013, will procure at
least 93 MV-22s over 5 years and includes significant savings of
approximately $1 billion when compared to single year procurements. The
stability of the MYP supports the Marine Corps' need to retire old
aircraft and field new and improved capabilities. This stability also
benefits the supplier base and facilitates cost reductions on the part
of both the prime contractor and sub-tier suppliers.
Through introduction of the Osprey tilt-rotor capability into
combat, the service has gained valuable insight with respect to
readiness and operating costs. Since 2010, MV-22 mission capability
rates have increased 14 percent. During the same period, cost per
flight hour rates decreased 14 percent. To keep these improvements on
track, a readiness OSIP was introduced in fiscal year 2012. Fiscal year
2015 OSIP provides a necessary and stable source of crucial
modification funding as the Ospreys continue to improve readiness and
reduce operating cost.
CH-53K Heavy Lift Replacement Program
The fiscal year 2015 President's budget requests $573.2 million
RDT&E,N to continue engineering and manufacturing development of the
CH-53K. Since completing its critical design review in July 2010, the
CH-53K program commenced system capability and manufacturing process
demonstration, has nearly completed assembly of the first five test
aircraft; one Ground Test Vehicle (GTV) and four engineering
development model (EDM) aircraft. In December 2013, the program entered
developmental test. The GTV has successfully completed numerous ground
test requirements, to include the ``bare head light-off.'' The program
is currently on schedule to execute its first flight by the end of
2014. During fiscal year 2015, the program will continue to execute
developmental test flights, deliver the final EDM, and start production
of system demonstration test article aircraft which will be production
representative aircraft utilized for Operational Test.
The new-build CH-53K will fulfill land and sea based heavy-lift
requirements not resident in any of today's platforms, and contribute
directly to the increased agility, lethality, and presence of joint
task forces and MAGTFs. The CH-53K will transport 27,000 pounds of
external cargo out to a range of 110 nautical miles, nearly tripling
the CH-53E's lift capability under similar environmental conditions,
while fitting into the same shipboard footprint. The CH-53K will also
provide unparalleled lift capability under high-altitude and hot
weather conditions, greatly expanding the commander's operational
reach.
Maintainability and reliability enhancements of the CH-53K will
improve aircraft availability and operational effectiveness over the
current CH-53E with improved cost effectiveness. Additionally,
survivability and force protection enhancements will dramatically
increase protection for both aircrew and passengers, thereby broadening
the depth and breadth of heavy lift operational support to the joint
task force and MAGTF commander. Expeditionary heavy-lift capabilities
will continue to be critical to successful land and sea-based
operations in future anti-access, area-denial environments, enabling
sea-basing and the joint operating concepts of force application and
focused logistics.
The H-53E aircraft currently in service continue to meet
unprecedented operational demand but are approaching 30 years of
service and becoming ever more challenging to maintain. To keep the
``Echo'' viable until the ``Kilo'' enters service, the fiscal year 2015
President's budget requests $38.2 million in APN for both near and mid-
term enhancements. These modifications include condition based
maintenance software upgrades, T-64 engine reliability improvement
program kit installations, Critical survivability upgrade (CSU)
installations, smart multi-function color display (SMFCD) and
sustainment efforts such as Kapton wiring replacement and improved
Engine Nacelles. With the exception of the CSU and SMFCD, the same
modifications are also made to the Navy MH-53E helicopters.
attack and utility aircraft
UH-1Y//AH-1Z
The fiscal year 2015 President's budget requests $44.1 million in
RDT&E,N for continued product improvements and $859.7 million in APN
for 26 H-1 upgrade aircraft: 15 UH-1Y and 11 AH-1Z. The program is a
key modernization effort designed to resolve existing safety
deficiencies and enhance operational effectiveness of the H-1 fleet.
The 85 percent commonality between the UH-1Y and AH-1Z will
significantly reduce life-cycle costs and the logistical footprint,
while increasing the maintainability and deployability of both
aircraft. The program will provide the Marine Corps with 349 H-1
aircraft through a combination of new production and a limited quantity
of remanufactured aircraft.
The H-1 Upgrades Program is replacing the Marine Corps' UH-1N and
AH-1W helicopters with state-of-the-art UH-1Y ``Yankee'' and AH-1Z
``Zulu'' aircraft. The new aircraft are fielded with integrated glass
cockpits, world-class sensors, and advanced helmet-mounted sight and
display systems. The future growth plan includes a digitally-aided,
close air support system designed to integrate these airframes,
sensors, and weapons systems together with ground combat forces and
other capable DOD aircraft. Integration of low-cost weapons such as the
Advanced Precision Kill Weapon System II (APKWS II) has increased
lethality while reducing collateral damage.
The UH-1Y aircraft achieved IOC in August 2008 and FRP in September
2008. The ``Yankee Forward'' procurement strategy prioritized UH-1Y
production in order to replace the under-powered UH-1N fleet as quickly
as possible. The AH-1Z completed its operational evaluation (OT-II3C)
in June 2010, and received approval for FRP in November 2010. The AH-1Z
achieved IOC in February 2011. As of February 19, 2013, 126 aircraft
(89 UH-1Ys and 37 AH-1Zs) have been delivered to the Fleet Marine
Force; an additional 58 aircraft are on contract and in production. The
last 2 aircraft from Lot 7 will deliver in March/April 2014. Lot 8
deliveries are progressing on or ahead of schedule.
In December 2011, to address existing attack helicopter shortfalls,
the Marine Corps decided to pursue an all AH-1Z build new (ZBN)
procurement strategy and leave AH-1W airframes in the inventory rather
than removing them from service to begin the remanufacture process. The
transition to an all ZBN airframe strategy began with Lot 10 (fiscal
year 2013) as reflected in the current Marine Corps program of record.
The aircraft mix is 37 remanufactured AH-1Z and 152 ZBN aircraft. The
total aircraft procurement numbers remain the same at 160 UH-1Ys and
189 AH-1Zs for a total of 349 aircraft.
MH-60 (Overview)
MH-60 Seahawks have consistently met readiness and operational
commitments. There will be 38 Navy Seahawk squadrons with 275 MH-60Ss
and 251 MH-60Rs when transitions from the SH-60B, SH-60F, and HH-60H
are complete. Production and squadron transitions will continue through
2017. Over the last 12 years of combat operations, deployed ashore and
aboard our aircraft carriers, amphibious ships, and escort warships at
sea, Navy helicopters have provided vital over-watch and direct support
to our troops in combat, on the ground, and in multiple theaters of
operation and in a variety of missions including support to Special
Operations Forces, air ambulance, surface warfare, anti-submarine
warfare, mine warfare, logistics support and humanitarian assistance/
disaster relief.
MH-60R Seahawk
The fiscal year 2015 President's budget requests $1.04 billion in
APN for 29 helicopters. The production program continues to deliver on-
cost and on-schedule.
The MH-60R multi-mission helicopter provides strike group
protection and adds significant capability in coastal littorals and
regional conflicts. The MH-60R represents a significant avionics
improvement to H-60 series helicopters by enhancing primary mission
areas of undersea warfare and surface warfare which includes the fast
attack craft/fast in-shore attack craft (FAC/FIAC) threat response
capabilities. The MH-60R is the sole organic air ASW asset in the CSG
and critical to its defense. Additionally, it serves as a key
contributor to theater level ASW. The MH-60R also employs advanced
sensors and communications to provide real-time battlespace management
with a significant, passive, over-the-horizon targeting capability.
Secondary mission areas include search and rescue, vertical
replenishment, naval surface fire support, logistics support, personnel
transport and medical evacuation.
The $11.5 million RDT&E,N request supports the MH-60R Test Program
consisting of numerous system upgrades and pre-planned product
improvements, to include the digital rocket launcher with Advanced
Precision Kill Weapon System (APKWS II) and the helicopter infra-red
suppression system.
MH-60S Seahawk
The fiscal year 2015 President's budget requests $210 million in
APN for 8 helicopters to complete the production program of 275 total
helicopters. The production program continues to deliver on-cost and
on-schedule.
The MH-60S multi-mission helicopter provides strike group
protection and adds significant capability in coastal littorals and
regional conflicts. The MH-60S represents a significant avionics
improvement to H-60 series helicopters by enhancing primary mission
areas of mine warfare and surface warfare which includes the FAC/FIAC
threat response capabilities. Secondary mission areas include combat
search and rescue, support to Special Operations Forces, vertical
replenishment, logistics support, personnel transport and medical
evacuation.
The $25.9 million RDT&E,N request supports the MH-60S test program
consisting of numerous system upgrades and pre-planned product
improvements including: airborne mine countermeasures (AMCM); and armed
helicopter FAC/FIAC Defense.
Armed helo block 3A OT was completed in June 2007 and block 3B
(added Link 16 capability) OT was completed in November 2009. Test and
Evaluation (T&E) of fixed forward firing weapon (FFW) (20mm gun system)
was completed in fiscal year 2012. T&E of initial FFW unguided rocket
(UGR) capability was completed in fiscal year 2013. T&E for FFW digital
rocket launcher (DRL) with Advanced Precision Kill Weapon System and
expanded UGR capability for the FAC/FIAC threat is in work and planned
to complete in fiscal year 2015. Planned AMCM initial operational test
and evaluation (IOT&E) and follow-on operational test and evaluation
periods were changed to Operational Assessments with the final IOT&E
aligned with LCS MCM Mission Package IOT&E.
executive support aircraft
VH-3D/VH-60N Executive Helicopter Series
The VH-3D and VH-60N are safely performing the executive lift
mission worldwide. As these aircraft continue to provide seamless
vertical lift for the President and Vice President of the United
States, the Navy is working closely with HMX-1 and industry to sustain
these aircraft until a Presidential Replacement platform is fielded.
The fiscal year 2015 President's budget requests an investment of $71.3
million of APN to continue programs that will ensure the in-service
Presidential fleet remains a safe and reliable platform. Ongoing VH-60N
efforts include the cockpit upgrade program, engine upgrade program,
and a communications suite upgrade (wide band line of sight). The
continuing structural enhancement program and the obsolescence
management program applies to both VH-60N and VH-3D. The VH-3D cockpit
upgrade program, a fiscal year 2012 new start program, addresses a
number of obsolescence issues. Continued investments in the in-service
fleet will ensure continued safe and reliable execution of the
Executive Lift mission. These technology updates for legacy platforms
will be directly leveraged for the benefit of the ensuing replacement
program (VXX).
VXX Presidential Helicopter Replacement Aircraft
The fiscal year 2015 President's budget request includes $388.1
million of RDT&E,N for continuing efforts on VXX, and primarily funds
the EMD contract and government activities associated with the EMD
phase of the program.
Significant progress has been made in the past year and the program
requirements and acquisition strategy have now been approved. The
acquisition approach is based on integration of mature subsystems into
an air vehicle that is currently in production. This strategy will
enable the program to proceed directly into the EMD phase. The
Milestone B review and subsequent contract award are planned to occur
during fiscal year 2014. The first of the planned inventory of 21
aircraft could begin fielding as early as 2020.
fixed-wing aircraft
KC-130J
The fiscal year 2015 President's budget requests $92.3 million for
procurement of one KC-130J included in the second year of the multi-
service MYP request, one fuselage trainer, and continued product
improvements of $21.6 million. Targeted improvements include aircraft
survivability through advanced electronic countermeasure modernization,
and obsolescence upgrades to the Harvest HAWK ISR/weapon mission kit.
Fielded throughout our Active Force, the Marine Corps declared IOC
for the KC-130J transition in 2005; bringing increased capability,
performance and survivability with lower operating and sustainment
costs to the MAGTF. Forward deployed in support of ongoing operations
since 2005, the KC-130J continues to deliver marines, fuel and cargo
whenever and wherever needed. In 2014 the KC-130J remains in high
demand, providing tactical air-to-air refueling, assault support, close
air support and multi-sensor imagery reconnaissance (MIR) in support of
OEF, special purpose MAGTF crisis response, and deployed MEUs.
Deployed in support of OEF since fielding in 2010, the bolt-on/
bolt-off Harvest HAWK ISR/weapon mission kit for the KC-130J continues
to provide the extended MIR and CAS required by Marine forces in
Afghanistan. Five mission kits have been delivered to date, with one
more kit on contract to deliver in fiscal year 2014. Funding included
in the fiscal year 2015 budget request will be used to maintain
operational relevance of this mission system through Hellfire P4
compatibility and the addition of a full motion video transmit and
receive capability.
The Marine Corps has funded 52 of the 79 KC-130J program of record.
The 3 aircraft included in the fiscal year 2013 budget will complete
the Active component requirement of 51 aircraft. The Marine Corps will
use the Active component backup aircraft to accelerate the Reserve
component transition from the KC-130T aircraft to the more capable,
more efficient, KC-130J beginning in fiscal year 2014. The aircraft
requested in the fiscal year 2015 President's budget will continue to
increase KC-130J inventory as we strive to achieve full operational
capability (FOC) in the Reserve component. Delays in procurement would
force the Marine Corps to sustain the KC-130T aircraft longer than
planned at an increased cost.
P-8A Poseidon
The fiscal year 2015 President's budget requests $308.0 million in
RDT&E,N for integrated development and associated testing and $2.05
billion for procurement of eight FRP P-8A Poseidon aircraft which are
scheduled to begin delivery in May 2017. APN funding includes advanced
procurement for the subsequent FRP procurement lot. The P-8A Poseidon
recapitalizes the maritime patrol anti-submarine warfare (ASW), anti-
surface warfare (ASUW) and armed ISR capability currently resident in
the P-3C Orion. The P-8A combines the proven reliability of the
commercial 737 airframe with avionics that enables integration of
modern sensors and robust communications. P-8A achieved IOC when the
first fleet squadron (VP-16) deployed to the Western Pacific with six
aircraft in November 2013. As of February 2014, three Fleet squadrons
have completed transition to P-8A. All Fleet squadrons are scheduled to
complete transition by the end of fiscal year 2019. The P-8A program is
meeting all cost, schedule, and performance parameters in accordance
with the approved acquisition program baseline.
Boeing has delivered 13 aircraft (LRIP I/II) to the fleet as of
February 2014. LRIP III (11 aircraft), LRIP IV (13 aircraft), and FRP 1
(16 aircraft) are under contract, with the contract for FRP 1 (16
aircraft) signed on February 25, 2014. The fiscal year 2015 budget
proposes to procure eight P-8As. This will sustain the P-3C to P-8A
transition in the Fleet but is a reduction of eight aircraft from the
fiscal year 2014 request. In the fiscal year 2015 request, we were
compelled by fiscal constraints to lower the final P-8A inventory
objective from 117 to 109 aircraft, reducing procurement over the FYDP
by 8 aircraft. The warfighting requirement remains 117 aircraft;
however the revised inventory objective for 109 aircraft will provide
adequate capacity at acceptable levels of risk.
As fleet deliveries of the Increment 1 configuration accelerate,
integration and testing of P-8A Increment 2 capability upgrades
continues. In particular, Phase 1 of P-8A Increment 2 multi-static
active coherent ASW capability began initial flight testing in January
2014 and is on-track for IOT&E and fleet introduction in late 2014. The
2015 request also continues the prototyping and development of the more
extensive P-8A Increment 3 upgrades, which expand the P-8A evolutionary
acquisition strategy to deliver the next level of required P-8A
capability.
P-3C Orion
In fiscal year 2015, $2.8 million in APN is requested for P-3C
airframe and mission systems sustainment. Funding is for continued wing
modifications and mission systems sustainment for P-3C aircraft that
will remain in service until the end of the decade. The legacy P-3C
fleet continues to provide ASW, ASUW, and ISR support for joint and
naval operations worldwide. The P-3C is being sustained to maintain
warfighting capability and capacity until completion of P-8A transition
in fiscal year 2019.
The P-3C aircraft is well beyond the original planned fatigue life
of 7,500 hours for critical components, with an average airframe usage
of over 18,000 hours. Since February 2005, the Navy's fatigue life
management program has identified over 140 P-3 aircraft with fatigue
damage beyond acceptable risk, resulting in either temporary or
permanent grounding of each. P-3 groundings due to known material
fatigue will continue for the remainder of the P-3 program, and unknown
fatigue issues will continue to present persistent risk until P-8A
transition is complete. To date, $1.3 billion has been invested in P-3
wing sustainment, which has improved the overall structural health of
the P-3 fleet. As of February 2014, there are currently 84 P-3C mission
aircraft available.
EP-3 Aries Replacement/Sustainment
In fiscal year 2015, the President's budget request is $32.9
million in APN for EP-3 Aries replacement/sustainment. The APN request
supports the installation and sustainment of multi-intelligence
capabilities and modifications necessary to meet emergent classified
requirements. These efforts are necessary to keep the platform viable
until the EP-3 capabilities are recapitalized.
The EP-3E Aries is the Navy's premier manned maritime intelligence,
surveillance, reconnaissance, and targeting (MISR&T) platform. The
joint airborne signals intelligence (SIGINT) common configuration
includes SIGINT spiral upgrades. These upgrades, in conjunction with
Secretary of Defense and the ISR Task Force (ISR TF) surge efforts, are
fielding a robust multi-intelligence (INT) capability inside the FYDP.
Multi-INT sensors, robust communication, and data links employed by the
P-3 air vehicle help ensure effective MISR&T support to conventional
and non-conventional warfare across the current range of military
operations. Operating around the globe, the EP-3E continues to satisfy
critical joint, combatant commander, and Service airborne ISR
priorities and requirements.
The Navy is in the process of developing the MISR&T family of
systems construct to recapitalize the EP-3 MISR&T capabilities within
existing programs of record. The strategy has been further refined to
focus on modular systems and payloads required for the Navy to conduct
MISR&T on a variety of vehicles, providing combatant commanders with
scalable capability and capacity. The inclusive full-spectrum approach
will deliver increased ISR persistence by the end of fiscal year 2018
and exceed the aggregate capability and capacity of our legacy
platforms by the end of fiscal year 2020. However, as we transition
from legacy platforms like the EP-3E Aries II, fiscal constraints will
compel us to take moderate risk in some collection capabilities over
the next few years.
unmanned aircraft systems (uas)
MQ-4C Triton UAS
The fiscal year 2015 President's budget postpones the MQ-4C Triton
(formerly known as BAMS or Broad Area Maritime Surveillance) LRIP from
fiscal year 2015 to fiscal year 2016. The fiscal year 2015 President's
Budget requests $498 million in RDT&E,N to continue Triton SDD and
$37.4 million APN for procurement of long-lead materials for the first
lot of LRIP aircraft. Due to software integration delays during initial
testing, the program experienced a year-long delay to the start of
flight testing. A program replan has been completed and the program
remains executable within current funding levels. Triton will start
establishing five globally-distributed, persistent maritime ISR orbits
beginning in fiscal year 2017. MQ-4C Triton test vehicles have
completed 12 test flights as of February 25, 2014 and are on schedule
to begin developmental testing with sensors later this year. This
rigorous integrated flight test program will support Milestone C
planned for fiscal year 2016. The MQ-4C Triton is a key component of
the Navy maritime patrol reconnaissance force. Its persistent sensor
dwell, combined with networked sensors, will enable it to effectively
meet ISR requirements in support of the Navy Maritime Strategy.
The Navy currently maintains an inventory of four U.S. Air Force
Global Hawk Block 10 UAS acquired for demonstration purposes and to
perform risk reduction activities for the Triton UAS Program. These
aircraft, the Broad Area Maritime Surveillance Demonstrators (BAMS-D)
have been deployed to CENTCOM's AOR for over 5 years. BAMS-D recently
achieved over 10,000 flight hours in support of CENTCOM ISR tasking.
These demonstration assets are adequate to cover all Navy needs through
fiscal year 2016.
Unmanned Combat Air System Demonstration
The fiscal year 2015 President's budget requests $36.0 million in
RDT&E, to be combined with an fiscal year 2014 $39 million
reprogramming, to continue Navy unmanned combat air system
demonstration flight testing of this unmanned carrier-suitable air
vehicle commonly referred to as X-47B. These resources will advance
technological development and risk mitigation for the UCLASS system and
continue the autonomous aerial refueling (AAR) demonstration. The X-47B
has completed carrier qualification detachments consisting of catapult
testing, arrested landings and envelope expansion, to include testing
in off-nominal conditions and increased sea states. The latest AAR
testing period was completed in January 2014 utilizing a manned
surrogate aircraft. Carrier demonstration and AAR development and
testing activities are planned to continue throughout 2015. The
Department is working to reduce risk and align program/CVN operational
schedules to best accommodate risk mitigation and meet demonstration
objectives.
Unmanned Carrier Launched Airborne Surveillance and Strike System
The fiscal year 2015 President's budget requests $403.0 million in
RDT&E,N for UCLASS system development efforts. The major portion of
this funding will enable contract award to industry for air system
development to meet Joint Requirements Oversight Council (JROC)
direction to expedite fielding of an early operational capability. The
UCLASS system will enhance carrier air wing capability and versatility
for the Joint Forces commander through integration of a persistent and
mission flexible unmanned aircraft into the Carrier Air Wing by fiscal
year 2021. The JROC issued a new memorandum in February 2014,
reaffirming the need for rapid fielding of an affordable, adaptable
carrier-based ISR platform with precision strike capability. The UCLASS
system will provide persistent ISR with precision strike capabilities
supporting missions ranging from permissive counter-terrorism
operations, to missions in contested environments, to providing
enabling capabilities for high-end area denied operations. It will be
sustainable onboard an aircraft carrier and designed to be fully
integrated with the current carrier air wing. The UCLASS system will
have the ability to pass command and control information along with
sensor data to other aircraft, naval vessels, and ground forces. Sensor
data will be transmitted to exploitation nodes afloat and ashore.
Interfaces will be provided with existing ship and land-based command
and control systems, as well as processing, exploitation, and
dissemination systems. The UCLASS system will achieve these
capabilities through development of a carrier-suitable, semi-
autonomous, unmanned air segment; a control system and connectivity
segment; and a carrier segment. These segments will be overseen by the
Government as the lead system integrator, providing government-led
system-of-systems integration for the UCLASS Program.
MQ-8 Vertical Takeoff and Landing Unmanned Aerial Vehicle and
Associated Rapid Deployment Capability Efforts
The MQ-8 Fire Scout is an autonomous vertical takeoff and landing
tactical UAV (VTUAV) designed to operate from any suitably-equipped
air-capable ships, carry modular mission payloads, and operate using
the tactical control system and line-of-sight tactical common data
link. The fiscal year 2015 President's budget requests $47.3 million of
RDT&E,N to continue development of an endurance upgrade (MQ-8C),
integrate radar and weapons on the MQ-8C, and continue payload and LCS
integration with the MQ-8B and MQ-8C. The request for $40.7 million in
APN defers procurement of MQ-8C air vehicles to better align with LCS
deliveries, while procuring MQ-8 System ground control stations,
ancillary, training and support equipment, technical support and
logistics to outfit the ships and train the aviation detachments.
Commonality of avionics, software, and payloads between the MQ-8B and
MQ-8C has been maximized. The MQ-8B and MQ-8C air vehicles will utilize
the same ship-based ground control station and other ship ancillary
equipment.
Fire Scout was deployed to Afghanistan from May 2011 until August
2013, and amassed more than 5,100 dedicated ISR flight hours in support
of U.S. and coalition forces. Successful deployments aboard USS
Klakring, USS Simpson, USS Bradley, USS Samuel B. Roberts, USS
Haylyburton, and USS Elrod have supported Special Operations Forces
(SOF) and Navy operations since 2012. The MQ-8 Fire Scout has flown
more than 4,800 hours from frigates, performing hundreds of autonomous
ship board take-offs and landings. The Fire Scout program will continue
to support integration and testing for LCS-based mission modules.
Tactical Control System
The fiscal year 2015 President's budget requested $8.5 million in
RDT&E,N for the MQ-8 System's Tactical Control System (TCS). TCS
provides a standards compliant, open architecture, with scalable
command and control capabilities for the MQ-8 Fire Scout air system. In
fiscal year 2015, TCS will continue to transition to the Linux
operating system software to a technology refreshed ground control
station, enhance the MQ-8 system's ocean surveillance initiative for
ships automatic identification system and sensor track generation. The
Linux operating system conversion overcomes hardware obsolescence
issues with the Solaris based control stations and provides lower cost
software updates using DOD common application software. In addition,
the TCS Linux upgrade will enhance collaboration with the Navy's future
UAS Common Control System (CCS).
Small Tactical Unmanned Aircraft System RQ-21A Blackjack
The fiscal year 2015 President's budget requests $12.9 million in
RDT&E ($4.8 million Navy, $8.1 million Marine Corps) and $70.5 million
in Procurement, Marine Corps for 3 RQ-21A systems which include 15 air
vehicles that will address Marine Corps ISR capability requirements
currently supported by service contracts. This Group 3 UAS will provide
persistent ship and land-based ISR support for expeditionary tactical-
level maneuver decisions and unit level force defense and force
protection missions. Blackjack entered LRIP in 2013 and is currently
executing IOT&E.
The RQ-21's current configuration includes full motion video and
signals intelligence capability. The Marine Corps is actively pursuing
technological developments for the RQ-21 system in an effort to provide
the MAGTF and Marine Corps Forces Special Operations Command (MARSOC)
with significantly improved capabilities. Initiatives include over-the-
horizon communication and data relay ability to integrate the system
into future networked digital environments; electronic warfare and
cyber payloads to increase non-kinetic capabilities; and change
detection radar and moving target indicators to assist warfighters in
battlespace awareness and force application.
RQ-7B Shadow Marine Corps Tactical UAS
The fiscal year 2015 President's budget requests $0.9 million in
RDT&E,N for the RQ-7B Shadow to continue development efforts and
government engineering support and $2.5 million in APN to acquire new
air vehicle data processors and update engines to improve air vehicle
reliability. The more capable RQ-21 Blackjack is scheduled to perform
the preponderance of Marine Corps ISR responsibilities as divestment
from the RQ-7B Shadow continues.
strike weapons programs
Tactical Tomahawk BLK IV Cruise Missile Program
The fiscal year 2015 President's budget requests $194.3 million in
Weapons Procurement, Navy (WPN) for procurement of an additional 100
BLK IV TACTOM weapons and associated support, $ 61.5 million in OPN for
the Tomahawk support equipment, and $27.4 million in RDT&E for
capability updates of the weapon system. WPN resources will be for the
continued procurement of this versatile, combat-proven, deep-strike
weapon system in order to meet ship load-outs and combat requirements.
OPN resources will address the resolution of TTWCS obsolescence and
interoperability mandates. RDT&E will be used to initiate engineering
efforts for A2/AD navigation and communication upgrades.
Tomahawk Theater Mission Planning Center
Tomahawk Theater Mission Planning Center (TMPC) is the mission
planning and command and control segment of the Tomahawk weapon system.
Under the umbrella of TMPC, the Tomahawk command and control system
(TC2S) develops and distributes strike missions for the Tomahawk
Missile; provides for precision strike planning, execution,
coordination, control and reporting; and enables maritime component
commanders the capability to plan and/or modify conventional Tomahawk
land-attack missile missions before and in flight. TC2S optimizes all
aspects of the Tomahawk missile technology to successfully engage a
target. TC2S is a Mission Assurance Category 1 system vital to
operational readiness and mission effectiveness of deployed and
contingency forces for content and timeliness. The fiscal year 2015
President's budget requests $13.4 million in RDT&E and $40.3 million
OPN for continued TMPC system upgrades and sustainment. These planned
upgrades support integration, modernization and interoperability
efforts necessary to keep pace with missile, imagery and threat
changes, retain/enable capabilities of the Tomahawk missile and
includes providing an improved GPS denied navigation system, rewrite/
update of Tomahawk planning system's unsupported legacy software code,
and technology refreshes to reduce vulnerability to cyber-attacks.
These resources are critical for the support of over 180 TC2S
operational sites to include: cruise missile support activities,
tomahawk strike and mission planning cells (fifth, sixth, seventh
fleet), CSGs, command and control nodes, surface and subsurface firing
units and labs/training classrooms.
Offensive Anti-Surface Warfare Weapon
The fiscal year 2015 President's budget requests $203 million in
RDT&E for the continued development and technology transition of the
Defense Advanced Research Program Agency (DARPA) Long Range Anti-Ship
Missile (LRASM) in support of the air launched offensive anti-surface
warfare (OASuW)/Increment 1 program. LRASM will provide the combatant
commanders the ability to conduct anti-surface warfare operations
against high value surface combatants protected by integrated air
defense system with long-range surface-to-air-missiles and will deny
the adversary the sanctuary of maneuver. OASuW/Increment 1 program is a
Department of the Navy led joint program with a schedule to field LRASM
on the B-1B by the end of fiscal year 2018 and the F/A-18E/F by the end
of fiscal year 2019. Funding supports analysis of alternative updates
to assess fully capable OASuW/Increment 2 material solution(s) geared
to the advanced 2024 threat. Surface and air-launched material
solutions will be assessed and study results will inform investment
options in fiscal year 2016 and beyond.
Sidewinder Air-Intercept Missile
The fiscal year 2015 President's budget requests $47.3 million in
RDT&E,N and $73.9 million in WPN for this joint Navy and Air Force
program. RDT&E,N will be applied toward Sidewinder air-intercept
missile (AIM-9X) Block II developmental/operational tests and
requirements definition for Joint Staff directed insensitive munitions
requirements, redesign critical components facing obsolescence, and
continue AIM-9X/Block III development activities. WPN will be for
production of a combined 167 all-up-rounds and captive air training
missiles and missile-related hardware. The AIM-9X Block II Sidewinder
missile is the newest in the Sidewinder family and is the only short-
range infrared air-to-air missile integrated on Navy/Marine Corps/Air
Force strike-fighter aircraft. This fifth-generation weapon
incorporates high off-boresight acquisition capability and increased
seeker sensitivity through an imaging infrared focal plane array seeker
with advanced guidance processing for improved target acquisition; a
data link; and advanced thrust vectoring capability to achieve superior
maneuverability and increase the probability of intercept of adversary
aircraft.
Advanced Medium-Range Air-to-Air Missile (AIM-120)
The fiscal year 2015 President's budget requests $10.2 million in
RDT&E for continued software capability enhancements and $32.2 million
in WPN for missile-related hardware. Advanced Medium-Range Air-to-Air
Missile (AMRAAM) is a joint Air Force and Navy missile that counters
existing aircraft and cruise-missile threats. It uses advanced
electronic attack capabilities at both high and low altitudes, and can
engage from beyond visual range as well as within visual range. AMRAAM
provides an air-to-air first look, first shot, first kill capability,
while working within a networked environment in support of the Navy's
theater air and missile defense mission area. Prior missile production
delays caused by rocket-motor anomalies were corrected when the Nordic
Ammunition Group was brought on-line as an alternate source to Alliant
Technologies. We now anticipate AIM-120D production will recover for
both the Air Force and the Navy in 2014.
Small Diameter Bomb II
The fiscal year 2015 President's budget requests $71.8 million in
RDT&E for the continued development of this joint Department of the
Navy and Department of the Air Force (lead) weapon and bomb-rack
program. Small Diameter Bomb II (SDB II) provides an adverse weather,
day or night standoff capability against mobile, moving, and fixed
targets, and enables target prosecution while minimizing collateral
damage. SDB II will be integrated into the internal carriage of both
Department of the Navy variants of the Joint Strike Fighter (F-35B and
F-35C) as well as onto the Navy Super Hornet (F/A-18E/F). The Joint
Miniature Munitions Bomb Rack Unit (JMM BRU) BRU-61A/A is being
developed to meet the operational and environmental integration
requirements for internal bay carriage of the SDB II in the F-35B and
F-35C. JMM BRU entered technology development in June 2013.
Joint Standoff Weapon
The fiscal year 2015 President's budget requests $4.4 million in
RDT&E,N to complete JSOW C-1 operational testing activity and $130.8
million in WPN for production of 200 all-up rounds. The JSOW C-1
variant fills a critical gap by adding maritime moving-target
capability to the highly successful baseline JSOW C program. JSOW C-1
targeting is achieved via a two-way data-link and guidance software
improvements. JSOW C-1 is planned to achieve IOC in fiscal year 2015
after the completion of F/A-18E/F H10E Software Configuration Set
operational testing.
Advanced Anti-Radiation Guided Missile
The fiscal year 2015 President's budget requests $16.1 million of
RDT&E,N for Block 1 follow-on development and test program and $111.7
million of WPN for production of 108 all-up-rounds and captive training
missiles. The Advanced Anti-Radiation Guided Missile (AARGM)
cooperative program with Italy transforms the High-Speed Anti-Radiation
Missile (HARM) into an affordable, lethal, and flexible time-sensitive
strike weapon system for conducting destruction of enemy air defense
missions. AARGM adds multi-spectral targeting capability and targeting
geospecificity to its supersonic fly-out to destroy sophisticated enemy
air defenses and expand upon the HARM target set. IOC on the F/A-18C/D
aircraft was reached in July 2012 and forward deployed to U.S. Pacific
Command. With release of H-8 SCS, AARGM is integrated on F/A-18E/F and
EA-18G aircraft.
Advanced Precision Kill Weapon System II
The fiscal year 2015 President's budget requests $45.9 million in
PANMC, for procurement of 1,555 Advanced Precision Kill Weapon System
II (APKWS II) precision guidance kits. APKWS II provides an
unprecedented precision guidance capability to Navy unguided rocket
inventories improving accuracy and minimizing collateral damage.
Program production is on schedule to meet the needs of our warfighters
in today's theaters of operations. IOC was reached in March 2012 on the
Marine Corps' AH-1Z. The Navy is finalizing an APKWS II integration
effort on the MH-60S for an early operational capability by April 2014.
Joint Air-to-Ground Missile
The fiscal year 2015 President's budget requests $6.3 million in
RDT&E to begin a 5-year integration effort for Joint Air-to-Ground
Missile (JAGM) Increment 1 onto the Marine Corps AH-1Z to achieve an
IOC by fiscal year 2021. JAGM is a Joint Department of the Army and
Department of the Navy pre-Major Defense Acquisition Program with the
Army designated as the lead service. JAGM is a direct attack/close-air-
support missile program that will utilize advanced seeker technology
and be employed against land and maritime stationary and moving targets
in adverse weather and will replace the Hellfire and TOW II missile
systems. In November 2012, the Joint Chiefs of Staff authorized the
JAGM incremental requirements and revalidated the Department of the
Navy's AH-1Z Cobra aircraft as a threshold platform. JAGM Increment 1
is expected to achieve Milestone B certification in fiscal year 2015.
Senator Blumenthal. Thanks very much.
General Schmidle?
General Schmidle. Sir, Admiral Grosklags had the statement
from the Department of the Navy.
Senator Blumenthal. Thank you.
Let me begin with a 5-minute round of questioning, and we
will see how far we can get before the vote. We have a vote at
4:30 p.m., and then we can try to come back, if possible,
depending on how many votes we have.
On the F-35, General Bogdan, I have heard varying estimates
about how long the software has been delayed. I think you
perhaps used the number of 6 months. GAO has talked about 13
months. Could you give us your assessment, your most up-to-date
assessment, on whether it has been delayed, and if so, by how
much?
General Bogdan. Yes, sir. I would like to go through a
little terminology so I am very clear with what I am saying and
I am not misinterpreted.
We have three blocks of software on the F-35 program. The
first block of software we call the 2B capability. 2 with a B.
That is the initial capability that the Marine Corps will
declare IOC with. The date we need that software ready for the
Marine Corps is July 1, 2015. As of today, the software
development for the 2B block of airplanes is not delayed at
all.
What is more critical to the Marine Corps IOC in July 2015
is making sure that the 10 airplanes that they need to declare
IOC are modified with hardware so that they can have what we
call a production representative and a combat-capable airplane.
We have fixes on the airplane that we need to put in, changes
to the engine, changes to pieces and parts on the airplane.
That, in itself, is on the critical path to July 2015, not the
software for the initial capability.
We have a second block of software called the 3I. That
block of software is basically the same capability as the 2B
capability, but it is exportable. That will be the software
that our partners get when they first take airplanes outside of
the United States. That software also is on a defined path that
we put in place in 2011, and none of the dates that we need
that software for, to include Air Force IOC, as well as our
Italian partners and our Israeli Foreign Military Sales (FMS)
customers or the first two participants to get that software--
none of the dates for their airplanes have been delayed by the
software either.
Now, when you get to the final block of software in the F-
35, what we call the Block 3F, that is the full capability. If
we do not change anything in the way we are doing business
today and we do not get smarter or figure out a way to go
faster or do things better, I project that that software will
be 4 to 6 months late. But I have until 2018 to try and figure
out ways to bring that 4 to 6 months late back. That software
is the software that the Navy will declare IOC with in August
2018. So I will not tell you today that the Navy IOC is being
delayed because I have a lot of time to try and catch up that 4
to 6 months.
Senator Blumenthal. What do we do to get smarter and do
better?
General Bogdan. There are a number of things we have done
already that we are seeing the fruits of, sir. We have
fundamentally changed the way we are developing the software on
this airplane. I can frankly tell you that until 2011, the
contractor was in charge of all software development, and the
U.S. Government and the Department of Defense (DOD) was
watching. We are no longer watching. We are directing. As a
result of that, we have directed them to have various metrics.
We have upgraded the laboratories in Fort Worth, TX. We have
also created governance boards where we know each and every
increment of software when it gets to the airplane for flight
test, we know what it is supposed to do. We are starting to see
the fruits of that change because we are much more predictable
now. For the last year and a half, each and every increment of
software we have put in the field has been on time with the
capability we expected. So that, in and of itself, will help us
in the future bring that 4 to 6 months back.
The additional thing that we will be using is we have many
operational test airplanes that are going to be possessed by
all three Services. The operational test airplanes can also be
used to help finish the development program by doing some of
the extra testing that we need to get through. The combination
of those things leads me to believe that over time we will
bring that number back in, the 4 to 6 months.
Senator Blumenthal. Thank you.
Senator Wicker.
Senator Wicker. Thank you. I am going to defer to Senator
McCain and then Senator Sessions and save my questions for
last.
Senator Blumenthal. Senator McCain?
Senator McCain. I thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank Senator
Wicker.
So, General Bogdan, if I understand your testimony and the
answer to the chairman's question, there is a 4- to 6-month
delay in the third block of software. Is that what you are
saying?
General Bogdan. That is correct, sir. There is a risk of a
4- to 6-month delay because we have 3 or 4 years before we
actually incur that. But yes, sir.
Senator McCain. If there is a risk of it, I would think you
would know whether it is going to happen or not.
General Bogdan. If I do not do anything else, it will
happen, sir.
Senator McCain. What else can you do?
General Bogdan. We can use operational test airplanes to
help shorten the development span time. We can improve----
Senator McCain. Did we not try that before in concurrency?
General Bogdan. The fact that we have operational test
airplanes out there today, sir, while it was part of the
problem with concurrency early on, now we can use that to our
advantage.
Senator McCain. Does a 4- to 6-month delay mean an increase
in costs?
General Bogdan. It does not, sir.
Senator McCain. It does not.
General Bogdan. It does not. I have management reserve and
Lockheed Martin has management reserve and Pratt & Whitney has
management reserve to cover that delay because when we re-
baselined the program in 2010, we put a much more realistic
budget and a much more realistic schedule in place.
Senator McCain. This is the first trillion dollar system
that we have ever had. What are the lessons learned in this
imbroglio where we have gone from $233 billion in 2001 to over
$391 billion this year? What are the lessons learned here,
General?
General Bogdan. Sir, we could probably, you and I, get
together and write a book about this. But I will give you a
couple of the things from my perspective on some good lessons
learned.
The first lesson is we tend to be overly optimistic when we
start programs in terms of how much they are going to cost,
what the real risk is, and how long they are going to take. We
need to do a better job up front of being more realistic and
more honest with ourselves about how much programs are really
going to cost and what the real technical and fiscal risks are.
I do not think we did that on this program. That is one.
Two, it is very hard to run a program when you start
production before you have ever tested a single airplane
because every time you find something new in flight test, you
now have to not only go back and fix airplanes you have already
produced, but you have to cut all those fixes into the
production line. That creates a complexity that is pretty
significant and it costs some money.
Senator McCain. Has anybody ever been held responsible for
that decision that you know of?
General Bogdan. Sir, I do know one of the previous program
executive officers on this program was asked to leave the
program.
Senator McCain. Certainly Lockheed Martin has not. They
have just jacked up the cost.
General Bogdan. Sir, what I can tell you is from my
perspective, I promise you that I am doing everything I can to
hold Lockheed Martin and Pratt accountable and balancing the
risk on this program, because I think the third thing I have
learned from the program in your lessons learned, is you have
to have a balancing of risk. When we started this program, all
the risk was on the Government. Every cost overrun on this
program was going to be borne by the Government. Today, at
least, when we build airplanes--
Senator McCain. At least we ought to know the names of the
people who made this kind of cockamamie agreement to start with
because there were many of us that--you forgot the fundamental
that we adopted during the Reagan years: fly-before-you-buy.
General Bogdan. I do not disagree with you, sir.
Senator McCain. If we had adhered to that principle, we
probably would not find ourselves in the situation we are in.
I just have a short time left. General Davis, right now I
understand the A-10s are to be phased out. Is that your
understanding?
General Davis. Sir, that is.
Senator McCain. What is going to replace it?
General Davis. Sir, if you look at the systems we are using
today and have used since Iraq, the A-10s have basically failed
about 20 percent of the call for close air support (CAS)
missions. So that means we are doing it with F-16s. We are
doing it with F-15Es. We are doing it with B-1s and B-52s. We
are doing it with precision weapons that were not part of the
A-10 suite.
Senator McCain. So they are better suited for CAS
than the A-10 is. Is that correct?
General Davis. Sir, I did not say they are better suited. I
said they can do that mission based on----
Senator McCain. Depending on what kind of conflict we are
in. Right?
General Davis. It does.
Senator McCain. If we are in a more conventional conflict,
there is no aircraft or weapons system that does the job of the
A-10. Is there?
General Davis. Sir, it does its mission very well. It is
designed for one mission. It does that mission well.
Senator McCain. That one mission happens to be CAS.
General Davis. Yes, sir.
Senator McCain. I thank the chairman.
Senator Blumenthal. Thank you very much. Thank you, Senator
McCain.
Senator Donnelly.
Senator Donnelly. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
As the Air Force retires its A-10 fleet, there are several
wings around the country that will be transitioning to a new
mission, including the 122nd Fighter Wing in my home State. Can
you explain how the Air Force determined the timeline for these
conversions?
General Davis. Sir, I cannot do that, but I can take that
for you on the record. All I know is that your unit in your
State is going to be transitioning to F-16s in about the 2019
timeframe.
[The information referred to follows:]
The timeline for the A-10 fleet conversion was primarily based upon
gaining mission availability. In the case of the 122nd Fighter Wing,
the unit is scheduled to receive F-16s from Hill Air Force Base in
fiscal year 2019 as Hill transitions to the F-35.
Senator Donnelly. Also, if you could get for me what
factors are taken into account in determining when to
transition each unit and how the transition goes as to who goes
first.
General Davis. Yes, sir.
[The information referred to follows:]
There were multiple factors taken into account when determining how
and when A-10 units transition to their new missions. The primary
factors the Air Force examined were: the viability of divesting and
gaining missions; current operations tempo; operational rotational
requirements; and training availability and timeline.
Senator Donnelly. Also in regards to that, as we transition
back to F-16s, making sure we have the frontline fighters until
JSF comes into full production is critical. I was wondering if
you have a timeline showing when specific units will undergo
the Service Life Extension Program (SLEP) enhancements.
General Davis. Sir, we know basically that we are going to
upgrade 300 of the future force structure of F-16s with the
extension that will keep them viable through their lifetime. It
really depends on where those F-16s will be coming from, what
unit, and what the structure is. We can see if I can give you
an answer as to when those 18 F-16s will be going into your
unit in 2019. We will get the SLEP modifications. But I am
almost certain by then those airplanes will be SLEPed, but I
will verify that.
[The information referred to follows:]
The Air Force A-10 divestment plan, as submitted in the President's
fiscal year 2015 budget, plans to transition the 122nd at Fort Wayne,
IN (ANG) to F-16 Block 40s in 2019. The Air Force intends for these F-
16s to receive Service Life Extension Program (SLEP) modifications.
SLEP is currently planned to be installed on a total of 300 F-16
aircraft beginning in fiscal year 2018. The Air Force has not yet
completed the assessment of which specific tail numbers are the best
candidates to receive SLEP and when specific aircraft would be
modified. The install schedule will take into consideration the
operational tempo of affected units and the number of flying hours on
each aircraft. This will ensure SLEP is installed at a point in time
that results in the greatest life extension programmatically possible.
Senator Donnelly. Obviously, hopefully, the F-35 stays on
schedule, but are you confident the SLEP, as envisioned in this
year's budget in the future years defense program (FYDP), is
sufficient to maintain the F-16 fleet to maintain combat
effectiveness until the F-35s are procured in sufficient
numbers?
General Davis. Sir, I think I am. I think our Chief has
mentioned that, and I think that the money we have set aside to
keep that 300 fleet of F-16s viable--some of which will,
obviously, replace the A-10s--we will certainly keep that very
well-suited for that combat mission they are going to be
stepping into that we just discussed with Senator McCain.
Senator Donnelly. Could you also let us know how you intend
to distribute the F-35s in regard to the Active, Reserve, and
Guard? Is it going to be proportional or how will it be done?
General Davis. Sir, again, I will have to dig that one up.
We are going mission-by-mission area now. We are going through
the training bases. We are going through the first operational
units. We are looking at where the first outside the contiguous
United States base is going to be. Then we will continue to
fill out the rest of the units from that point on. I will have
to see. I imagine those decisions, to be honest with you, sir,
are yet to be made down the road, but I will see how we are
looking at balancing Guard and Reserve.
[The information referred to follows:]
The specific order and locations will be decided based on a number
of factors including wartime/combatant commander requirements,
contiguous United States/outside the contiguous United States mix,
trained operations and maintenance personnel, infrastructure, and
costs. From a process standpoint, Air Combat Command (as the Combat Air
Force lead for F-35), will propose a basing strategy for the next round
of F-35 beddowns (including Active Duty/Air National Guard/Air Force
Reserve ownership) to the Secretary of the Air Force for approval later
this year. In accordance with our Strategic Basing process, this will
begin the next round of specific basing decisions which we anticipate
to be made mid to late 2015.
Senator Donnelly. With the ultimate intention for the F-35
to take over the CAS role of A-10s, how many F-35s do you
expect to be fully operational over the next 5 years to replace
those A-10s on the retirement timeline?
General Davis. Again, sir, like I was trying to mention
there, we will go through an interim transition of what is
going to replace the A-10s. It will not be the F-35s. It will
be the F-16s. It will be the F-15Es. When the CAS mission is
called for, those will be the airplanes. As we get to the point
where we field more F-35s--and our view of when we would
declare IOC on the F-35 is around 2016--we will have over 100
airplanes fielded at that point. At that point, we believe
those airplanes will be fully capable of doing CAS missions. So
at some point, then they will start to relieve other units of
F-16s that will move on to other areas. So by the end of the
FYDP, as you talk about, we will continue to buy airplanes at
the rate of about 60 a year and gradually fill out all those
other units. But again, like I mentioned earlier, we will have
to get you the full schedule on that.
[The information referred to follows:]
Over the next 5 years, by the end of calendar year 2019, the Air
Force will have received 219 fully operational F-35A aircraft.
Senator Donnelly. One more A-10 question real quick. How
will you address the engagement time differences between the A-
10s and those aircrafts that will be filling in the interim
role?
General Davis. Sir, to be honest with you, I think the
engagement time would actually be a lot quicker because what we
have put into place--and this is why CAS is affected today
between your joint terminal air controller on the ground that
has data links to an F-16 sitting on a cap that has an advanced
targeting pod that can then pick up where the troops and
contact are occurring. They can then relay that quite
effectively between the individual on the ground and the
displays on the pilots to the precision weapons that have a lot
of capability to go in places that other weapons have not to be
even updated by data link on the way down to that point. So I
am thinking that your timeline for these troops and contacts is
probably a lot shorter today----
Senator Donnelly. You think it will be better. Okay.
I just got back from Ukraine about 2 weeks ago, and we have
seen just in the last day what has again happened in Donetsk
and in other areas. I was wondering if you are or the Air Force
is making any plans to step up aviation operations with other
North Atlantic Treaty Organization partners in the Eastern
European region, what additional plans are being made to show
some commitment to try to make sure that we show strength in
that area?
General Davis. Sir, I am going to have to let our
operations folks try to give you a better and more detailed
answer on that one. I do not have any insight on that right
now, to tell you the truth.
[The information referred to follows:]
The Air Force has increased presence in terms of bomber, fighter,
tanker, and intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance assets. In
addition, the Air Force is currently reviewing and determining the
feasibility of providing increased and/or persistent presence, which is
proposed by U.S. European Command as part of the President's recently
announced $1 billion European Reassurance Initiative.
A more detailed explanation may be provided in a classified forum.
Senator Donnelly. Okay. Does anybody on the panel have any
insight on that? [No response.]
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Blumenthal. Thanks very much, Senator Donnelly.
Senator Sessions.
Senator Sessions. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
General Bogdan, I would just like to ask a few fundamental
questions to get my head straight on these programs. If you can
work with me quickly, that would be good.
What is the current cost of each one of the aircraft?
General Bogdan. If you wanted to buy an F-35A today, sir,
it would cost you about $112 million.
Senator Sessions. How has the cost increased with reduction
or decreased and where do you see the trends on that?
General Bogdan. We have seen the price of the airplane come
down lot after lot. We believe that will continue well into the
2020s. The target we have set for ourselves and our industry
partners have set for us is in 2019, an airplane with an
engine, with profit on top of that for Lockheed and Pratt &
Whitney, in fiscal year 2019 dollars will cost between $80
million and $85 million, sir. We think we can get there. I
would not call that a stretch goal. I would call that a
realistic goal. So we think lot after lot over the next 5
years, we are going to see a continued decrease in the price of
the airplane. That is my promise to everyone in the enterprise.
I will negotiate that. We will work to do that. By 2019, we
should have an airplane that is about $80 million.
Senator Sessions. It is just not a myth that once the bugs
are out of an aircraft or ship or any major procurement and you
are buying in large numbers, the price goes down.
General Bogdan. That is a fact, sir. That is a physics fact
of acquisition.
Senator Sessions. The last 2 budgets showed that planned
production has fallen from 40 to 50 aircraft per year to 30
aircraft per year. Is that correct? The last 2 budgets, as I
have it here, projected our production would be 40 to 50
aircraft per year. Their last 2 reduced it to 30 aircraft.
Let me just ask you, what is our production rate per year
now, and is it at a level that adds cost per copy because it is
lower than otherwise had been projected?
General Bogdan. Yes. That is an interesting way to put it.
The profile over the next 4 years, just to let you know what I
believe the profile is, is next year we will buy and produce 43
airplanes. The year after that will be 57. The year after that
will be 96, and then the year after that will be 121. That is
the next 4 years.
Senator Sessions. So 121 would be cruising speed?
General Bogdan. No. Cruising speed on this program is
actually going to be in the order of about 180 airplanes a
year, sir. We will not even get there until about 2023.
But you made a very interesting point, sir, and I will try
and explain it very quickly. The price of this airplane
continues to come down as long as we continue to buy the same
number or more airplanes as we move out in years. But if you
move airplanes further out to buy, then the price does not come
down as rapidly as you would like. It is not that the price
would ever go up anymore. It just will not go down as fast as
you would have otherwise had it come down if all those
airplanes had been bought when you thought. So by pushing
airplanes to the right and not buying them, the price does not
come down as fast. It still comes down, sir.
Senator Sessions. General Davis or Admiral Grosklags, maybe
you can contribute to this, and I will let you answer. What is
the need for the F-35? How do we intend to utilize it? What is
the threat that is driving this production?
General Davis. Sir, our average fighter is 30-years-old
today, and so there is no doubt that that has to be replaced.
If you just look at what we consider to be any region around
the world, the thing that probably is most concerning is that
if we ever have to conduct operations in many regions around
the world, there are advanced integrated air defense systems
that have been sold by Russia and China to at least 10 to 12
nations today. It will probably be 20 by the end of the FYDP.
So in other words, the areas that we would go into are becoming
increasingly denied if it becomes the President's direction
that we do so.
The threat is growing. The threat is growing faster. You
have seen the Chinese have produced two versions of their own
stealth fighter in about a 3-year period.
If we are going to carry out the National Military Strategy
or the Defense Strategic Guidance, then clearly the fighters
that we have done well with in the last four wars will continue
to do well for some period of time, but their usefulness is
going to gradually degrade and it is going to become
increasingly degraded over time. We already see that with some
of our legacy weapons.
It has been the intent of the Chief, General Michael
Hostage III, and the folks in the Air Combat Command, that the
F-35 is the future for tactical air combat in the Air Force.
Its capabilities not only bring the ability to penetrate those
threats, but it brings a net enabled linkage that shares data
with the entire Joint Force. It is that alone that probably
makes this airplane more valuable than any of its capabilities
right there because of the information it can collect and
supply across everybody that is in the battle space. It is for
that reason that we think it is very important that we try to
replace as much of our fleet as we can with the F-35s.
Senator Sessions. My time is up. I will let the chairman
decide whether he wants more answers on that. He was going to
contribute to the same question, but I will let you decide
whether you want to go forward. I am satisfied.
Senator Blumenthal. Thank you.
Senator Wicker.
Senator Wicker. General Bogdan, let me just ask. I think 11
countries have agreed to purchase the F-35. Is that correct?
General Bogdan. Yes, sir. We have eight partner countries
and two for sure FMS customers in Israel and Japan. I believe
before the end of the year, we will have a signed contract with
the South Koreans. So 8 plus 3 is 11, plus our 3 Services.
Senator Wicker. That would be the United Kingdom, Turkey,
Australia, Italy, Netherlands, Canada, Norway, and Denmark, in
addition to those three that you mentioned.
General Bogdan. You have them right, sir.
Senator Wicker. Now, are you briefing, giving formal
briefings, to other countries on the F-35?
General Bogdan. When you say other countries, you mean
other than the partners?
Senator Wicker. Other than.
General Bogdan. Yes, sir. Just in February, I visited
Singapore, and I spent a week there at their annual
international air show, and they have shown significant
interest in the F-35. We sat down with them and had a
discussion about the F-35. They actually have a very small FMS
case with us now where they have paid for some information
about the F-35 so they could decide if it would meet their
requirements.
Senator Wicker. Of course, you are keeping them informed
and engaged on the program status and schedule.
General Bogdan. That is correct, sir.
Senator Wicker. However, is it also true that several
foreign partners have reduced their projected buys, namely
Canada, Italy, and Netherlands, or they are considering doing
so?
General Bogdan. Yes, sir. Let me go on record here and give
you the latest of what I know.
Canada has yet to decide if they are going to buy an F-35.
Senator Wicker. At all?
General Bogdan. At all. They initially chose the F-35 as
their replacement for their F/A-18s. Their parliament did not
believe that that process for selection was up to snuff, I
guess you would say, and they have what we call a seven-point
plan we are going through to revalidate or decide to start
another competition for their replacement for their F/A-18s.
They are still in the program, but they have yet to commit to
buying a single airplane.
Senator Wicker. What aircraft are our toughest competitors
there?
General Bogdan. I would tell you that the Super Hornet is a
great airplane. I would imagine that some of the European
airplanes, the Eurofighter and the Typhoon, would also be
potential competitors in that market for Canada.
Italy is committed to buying airplanes, but they reduced
their buy from 130 to 90 2 years ago. So they are committed to
buying 90.
Senator Wicker. Budgetary constraints there in Italy?
General Bogdan. Yes, sir.
Netherlands originally committed to buying 80 airplanes.
Now they are committed to only buying 37. Budgetary problems.
Turkey was supposed to buy their first two airplanes this
year, but have made no commitment whatsoever.
Senator Wicker. With regard to Italy, Netherlands, and
Turkey, they are not buying from anyone else.
General Bogdan. They are not.
Senator Wicker. But Canada is thinking of doing so.
General Bogdan. Correct.
Senator Wicker. Now, this goes to what Senator Sessions was
talking about. That hurts us in trying to reduce the cost each
year, does it not?
General Bogdan. It does. Anytime a partner or anyone on
this program reduces their total buy or pushes airplanes out to
buy them later, everyone else will pay the price for that
because the unit cost of the airplane will go up.
Now on the flip side of that, sir, is we do have some FMS
customers like Singapore in the future, South Korea, and
Israel, who I believe will buy more airplanes than the first 19
they have committed to. They actually help offset some of the
partners that are not buying so many airplanes. So it is a give
and take there.
Senator Wicker. Could you quantify how much one
cancellation costs us?
General Bogdan. It is hard to do it that way, sir. How
about I do it in a little more general terms, but I will give
you an answer.
Senator Wicker. That would be great.
General Bogdan. I wish I could give it to you by airplane,
but that is a very small number.
With all the movement we have seen from last year to this
year--and that includes the U.S. Services moving 37 airplanes
out, Turkey moving their buy out a year, Canada moving their
buy out a year, Netherlands reducing their buy--the price of
any one of the variants of the airplane goes up 2 percent. So
everybody else who is buying airplanes next year will pay 2
percent more because of all those plans to move airplanes out.
For an A model, that is $2 million to $3 million, if you assume
it is about a $100 million airplane.
The partnership is an interesting thing, sir. Folks will
sink and swim together.
Senator Wicker. Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, I may take another round.
Senator Blumenthal. Do you want to just continue your
questions now?
Senator Wicker. I think I will take another round because I
have to go.
Senator Blumenthal. Please do. Go ahead.
I have some additional questions. Your estimates that you
gave earlier about the reduction in costs are dependent on all
of those allied purchases going through. Are they not?
General Bogdan. Sir, what we do in the Program Office is we
look at the cost of the airplane under a best-case scenario. We
look at the cost of the airplane under what we call a worst-
case scenario, and we look at the cost of the airplane under a
most-likely scenario. In all three of those cases, the price of
the airplane year after year still goes down but does not go
down as much.
Senator Blumenthal. But you gave us an estimate earlier,
going by memory, that it would go from $112 million a copy down
to about $80 million.
General Bogdan. $80 million to $85 million. That includes
all the things we just talked about, sir.
Senator Blumenthal. The reductions in purchases by our
allies.
General Bogdan. Correct. That is the most current estimate
I have today, including all the movement of the partner
airplanes and the known FMS buys we have with Japan and Israel.
Senator Blumenthal. If I may, General, let me ask you about
a related technology issue, and I think I may know the answer
but I want to be sure we have it on the record. The Generation
(Gen) 3 helmet that I understand will not be available until
the block 3I, as you referred to it, 3I capabilities fielded in
2016. Is that still on schedule? Whatever the obstacles or
challenges were, the glitches in that helmet to make it
suitable--have those been overcome?
General Bogdan. Yes, sir. The Gen 2 helmet, which will be
available from now until 2016, is adequate to meet the Marine
Corps IOC. I defer to General Schmidle because he is the
gentleman I asked when we went and talked about if it's good
enough. He is the guy that said it is good enough. Beyond 2016,
when we get the Gen 3 helmet, I believe that from a technical
standpoint we will have a fully capable helmet that meets all
of the requirements at the end of the program for everybody.
We had a tough time over the last 2 years, but I think we
have turned the corner on that, sir.
Senator Blumenthal. General Schmidle, I think you have
commented on that helmet, the Gen 2 helmet, as being suitable
for the IOC. Is that correct?
General Schmidle. Yes, sir, we did, Mr. Chairman. From
talking to the pilots that are flying in the helmet today and
putting it through its paces, we believe that that helmet will,
in fact, be adequate to get us to the IOC.
What General Bogdan just said is, in 2016 we look forward
to getting the Gen 3 helmet which will give us the full
capability prior to the squadron's first deployment in 2017.
Senator Blumenthal. Thank you.
Admiral Grosklags, the Navy's unfunded priority list
includes $2.1 billion to buy 22 more E/A-18G electronic warfare
aircraft. But I understand that 22 additional Growlers do not
appear on the Secretary of Defense's Opportunity Growth and
Security Initiative. When we authorized and appropriated 21 E/
A-18G aircraft in the fiscal year 2014 budget, we were led to
believe that with delivery of the fiscal year 2014 aircraft, we
had met the requirement for the airborne electronic attack
(AEA). Have requirements changed since last year? If so, why?
Admiral Grosklags. Sir, we are currently looking at the
total number of aircraft that we require. Our program of
record--you are correct--is 138 aircraft, which is fulfilled by
the fiscal year 2014 procurement. As we have continued to look
at the electronic warfare environment that we see coming in the
future, growing ever more complex, ever more difficult, we
believe that an additional 22 aircraft would significantly
reduce the risk to not only the Navy but the Joint Force in
that integrated air and defense environment that General Davis
mentioned earlier.
Specifically, in 2019 when we retire all of our E/A-6Bs
across the Department of the Navy, the E/A-18 Growler will
represent the only, I will call it high-end, full spectrum AEA
capability within DOD. That provides a standoff jamming
capability that enables the rest of the Joint Force to use some
of their equipment in a more stand-in role. We can address
radars and communication systems from a greater distance with
the Growler with its combined ALQ-99 and in the follow-on next
generation jammer pod.
When we looked at this, we said if we are going to buy any
additional aircraft, we need to do it now because it is the end
of the production line if we do not procure those 22 aircraft.
The Chief of Naval Operations quite honestly said it would be a
prudent time to look at this option now rather than waiting to
the future.
We do have a couple of analyses ongoing. We have one from
the Naval Air Systems Command that was completed late last year
which shows that the ability to increase the number of aircraft
in one of our carrier air wings deployed on a carrier from five
to seven represents a significant improvement in capability in
not only defending the carrier but also supporting our strike
packages as they go forward or go over the beach. That 22
aircraft would enable us to increase 5 of our carrier air wing
squadrons from 5 aircraft, which is the current program of
record, to 7 aircraft and give us that additional capability.
Now we are going to conduct a fleet battle experiment this
summer off the east coast with one of our carriers. We are
actually going to put eight Growlers on board that carrier, fly
it through a bunch of exercises, and determine whether five or
seven or eight truly provide what we believe will be that knee
in the curve for a significant increase in capability.
Senator Blumenthal. What will you do then in coming to us
with the results of those more up-to-date analyses and the
exercises that you have planned?
Admiral Grosklags. I think after we finish the exercise
this summer we have an ongoing warfare analysis which will take
that information, combine it with what I will call the paper
analysis, and see if the two line up. Ideally they will. Then
we will have to come back to Congress and have that discussion.
Senator Blumenthal. Thank you.
I think we may have time before the vote for another round.
I do not know whether Senator Sessions might have some
additional questions. Sorry to interrupt. I just want to give
you an opportunity if you have additional questions.
Senator Sessions. Are we voting now?
Senator Blumenthal. We are voting at 4:30 p.m., and we also
have a meeting of our full committee afterwards to talk about
sequestration, which all of you have raised as a very pressing
issue. So I am not sure we will have time to come back here,
with apologies to witnesses and to members of this
subcommittee.
Senator Sessions. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will just
conclude and say there has never been a program as massive and
as international, I think, as the JSF. Would you agree, General
Bogdan?
General Bogdan. Sir, I would agree that we have built a
very big, complex program that is global in scope.
Senator Sessions. We just have to keep it on track. We made
a mistake.
Let me just ask you this. The curtailment of a number of F-
22s resulted in a disproportionately high cost per copy of that
aircraft. Did it not? That is not just a myth.
General Bogdan. That is an absolute true statement, sir.
Senator Sessions. I am not saying every single aircraft we
need to buy we have to reach that number, but we should not be
backing off that too much. It is your challenge to keep it on
track, and I believe that maybe you are getting there.
Mr. Chairman, I hope that we can keep this program on
track. It is just so massive, such an international commitment
that if we let it get away from us, we will regret it, I do
believe. Thank you for having this hearing.
Senator Blumenthal. Thank you, Senator Sessions. I join
Senator Sessions in the hope that we can stay on track. I think
members of the subcommittee--I cannot speak for all of them--
have increasing assurance about both the timing and
effectiveness of the program as we go on. I have spent a lot of
time talking to people involved, learning about the JSF, a lot
of time at Pratt & Whitney learning a lot about the engine,
which I know has been greatly enhanced as a result of the
oversight and scrutiny that you and others have given to it.
I want to thank you for your work, facing great challenges
posed by sequester and other obstacles. There is no question
that there are difficult days ahead for our modernization
objectives as we continue to develop these programs. I look
forward to working with you and the other military leadership.
I have some questions that I would like to submit for the
record. You have been very gracious in suggesting that others
may as well. We are going to keep the hearing record open until
5 p.m. on Thursday, April 10, for any additional questions that
I or other Senators may wish to submit. I am going to ask the
witnesses to respond for the record as quickly as possible so
that we can get full consideration by the Senate Armed Services
Committee as we begin the markup.
With that, thank you all very much. Thank you to all who
are attending who serve with you and to everybody under your
command.
This hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 4:37 p.m., the subcommittee adjourned.]
[Questions for the record with answers supplied follow:]
Questions Submitted by Senator Richard Blumenthal
mh-60r multi-year procurement
1. Senator Blumenthal. Admiral Grosklags, the Navy budget request
continues the planned buy of 29 MH-60R helicopters in fiscal year 2015,
but would cancel the planned buy of 29 aircraft in fiscal year 2016.
The Navy has suggested that this is in part due to the planned
retirement of the carrier USS George Washington and reducing the
planned buy of Littoral Combat Ships (LCS). However, the George
Washington's air wing only contains three to five MH-60R aircraft.
Likewise, the Navy is still pursuing a fleet of surface vessels to
replace LCS that will also, in all likelihood, need helicopters.
Moreover, the Navy's failure to execute the planned purchase of 29
aircraft in fiscal year 2016 would break the multi-year procurement
(MYP) contract for H-60 helicopters, managed by the Army. This action
would result in the U.S. Government having to pay termination charges
of at least $250 million and getting nothing in exchange for those
payments. This action would result in increased cost to the Army as
well. Can you please explain why the Navy intends to cancel the fiscal
year 2016 MYP when there are only five MH-60R aircraft in the air wing?
Admiral Grosklags. A final decision on maintaining or terminating
the MH-60R MYP contracts has been deferred to fiscal year 2016. The
proposed fiscal year 2015 budget fully funds the MYP in fiscal year
2015 with advance procurement for the 29 fiscal year 2016 MH-60R
aircraft. The MH-60R procurement decision is tied to potential force
structure reductions, most specifically that associated with the 11th
Nuclear Aircraft Carrier (CVN) and the associated 10th Carrier Air Wing
(CVW). There are 11 MH-60R aircraft in a helicopter maritime strike
(HSM) CVW squadron. Also tied to that 10th HSM CVW squadron are three
Fleet Replacement Squadron training aircraft and two pipeline (depot
maintenance) aircraft for a total of 16 aircraft directly tied to the
decision on the 11th CVN and 10th CVW.
2. Senator Blumenthal. Admiral Grosklags, how much will this cost
the Navy in termination fees and how much extra will this cost the Army
to buy their helicopters?
Admiral Grosklags. Actual costs associated with a potential early
termination of the two multi-year contracts have not yet been
determined. Costs will be calculated in accordance with the Federal
Acquisition Regulations and through negotiations with industry once
official notification of cancellation occurs. If the level of advance
procurement funding requested in the President's fiscal year 2015
budget request is approved, the official cancellation would occur as a
result of the fiscal year 2016 Appropriations and Authorizations Acts
becoming law.
3. Senator Blumenthal. Admiral Grosklags, how is this aircraft
reduction related to future or potential surface ship restructuring?
Admiral Grosklags. Any potential modifications to our MH-60R
procurement plan will be aligned with other Navy force structure
adjustments.
4. Senator Blumenthal. Admiral Grosklags, will this leave the Navy
with a capability gap either now or in the future?
Admiral Grosklags. A decision to truncate MH-60R quantities
following the fiscal year 2015 procurement would be based on matching
MH-60R quantities to overall Navy force structure requirements and
therefore would not result in any aircraft shortfalls/gaps.
marine corps strike fighter shortfall
5. Senator Blumenthal. General Schmidle, in September 2012, U.S.
Forces suffered an attack on Camp Bastion, Afghanistan, where two
marines lost their lives and six Harrier aircraft were destroyed. What
is the replacement plan for these lost aircraft?
Admiral Grosklags. The AV-8B is no longer in production, and the F-
35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) is the recognized replacement. The
replacement price for six F-35 JSFs is more costly when compared to six
AV-8Bs, however, replacing the six lost AV-8B aircraft with AV-8Bs
would require re-opening an AV-8B production line--a cost that would
far exceed the requested funding to procure new F-35 aircraft.
The AV-8B combat loss aircraft will eventually be replaced under
the current planned transition from the AV-8B to the F-35 JSF. This
transition will continue throughout the current future years defense
program and will be completed in 2030. Additionally, the Marine Corps'
fiscal year 2015 Unfunded Priorities List (UPL) submission included
$875.5 million for five F-35C combat replacement aircraft, and $141.6
million for one F-35B combat replacement aircraft.
If a plan moves forward to fund the six F-35 replacement aircraft
in fiscal year 2015, the aircraft will be low rate initial production
(LRIP) 9 aircraft and delivered from the production line in 2017 with a
Block 3I configuration--a capability commensurate with the projected
threat at the time of delivery. These aircraft would then be upgraded
to Block 3F by the fourth quarter of 2017, just months after delivery.
6. Senator Blumenthal. General Schmidle, if we authorize a
Continuing Resolution with regard to Overseas Contingency Operations
(OCO) funds, what would the effect be upon your ability to backfill
these combat losses?
Admiral Grosklags. Continuing Resolutions are short-term temporary
solutions to provide leaders with decision space to plan and manage a
budget within a fiscal year. Under the rules of a Continuing
Resolution, new starts are not permitted and therefore replacement
aircraft for combat losses not previously appropriated for would not be
funded.
7. Senator Blumenthal. General Schmidle, will you request
replacement aircraft in the OCO request for fiscal year 2015?
Admiral Grosklags. The Marine Corps OCO submission is developed in
concert with guidance from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
and the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD). Until the fiscal year
2015 OCO budget is formally submitted to Congress, the Marine Corps is
unable to confirm a request for combat loss replacement aircraft in the
fiscal year 2015 OCO submission.
The Marine Corps did submit a fiscal year 2015 UPL which included
$875.5 million for five F-35C combat replacement aircraft, and $141.6
million for one F-35B combat replacement aircraft.
8. Senator Blumenthal. General Schmidle, when will we get the
administration's OCO request?
Admiral Grosklags. The Marine Corps OCO submission is developed in
concert with guidance from OMB and OSD. The Marine Corps is working
with OSD on the fiscal year 2015 OCO request and defers to them as to
when the final product will be submitted to Congress.
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR
2015 AND THE FUTURE YEARS DEFENSE PROGRAM
----------
WEDNESDAY, APRIL 9, 2014
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee on Airland,
Committee on Armed Services,
Washington, DC.
ARMY MODERNIZATION
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:16 a.m. in
room SR-232A, Russell Senate Office Building, Senator Richard
Blumenthal (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Committee members present: Senators Blumenthal, Donnelly,
Sessions, and Wicker.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, CHAIRMAN
Senator Blumenthal. Good morning, everyone. I'm very
pleased to call this subcommittee hearing to order. Today we
are going to be hearing testimony on the Army modernization
program in review of the fiscal year 2015 budget request and
Future Years Defense Program. I look forward to a very open and
productive relationship with the Services under our
jurisdiction. I especially appreciate your being here today,
the very distinguished witnesses that we have before us, and we
certainly want to be helpful and supportive in any way that we
can be.
I'm going to put my full remarks in the record and keep
somewhat short my opening statement, just because we are here
to hear you, not to hear ourselves talk, and these issues are
very important to us, hearing you present the facts. But
clearly we want to first thank you and the remarkable men and
women under your command who have performed so ably and
courageously over more than a decade of war in Iraq and
Afghanistan. I am always awe-struck by the ability and the
bravery, sacrifice, and dedication of our Army, and we are
grateful to our leaders, as well as the men and women under
your command.
I am looking forward to hearing how Army requirements,
acquisition, and modernization strategies support the Army we
have today and will have out to 2019 and beyond; how, given
uncertainty about availability of resources and necessary
changes to the Army's size and structure, the Army will ensure
that equipment, readiness, reset, and modernization programs
are appropriately prioritized with tradeoffs and risks managed,
while at the same time are stable, achievable, and affordable.
I'd like to know from the witnesses in particular how the
Budget Control Act (BCA), the Bipartisan Budget Act (BBA),
sequestration, the pending overseas contingency operations
(OCO) request, all figure into the dangers of an unstable,
unaffordable, and unachievable modernization program. We want
to avoid those dangers. We want it to be achievable, stable,
and affordable.
Finally, how will the Army identify and manage the
inevitable and growing strategic risk to the Army's industrial
base during times of declining budgets? I'm particularly
familiar with the challenges of maintaining a sound and stable
industrial base, being from a State that is so committed to
meeting the needs of our military in production and
manufacturing.
Readiness and preparedness are very much at the forefront
of our mindset today, and I want to welcome each of you.
General John F. Campbell, USA, is the Vice Chief of Staff of
the Army and has the responsibility to assist the Secretary and
Chief of Staff of the Army with sorting through the many needs
of the Army and making tough choices that prioritize what we're
developing and producing to meet our soldiers' most important
equipment needs.
Lieutenant General James O. Barclay III, USA, is the Deputy
Chief of Staff, G-8, and the Army's principal staff officer,
responsible for matching available resources to meet the Army's
requirements for mission success.
Lieutenant General Michael E. Williamson, USA, is the
Military Deputy and Director, Army Acquisition Corps, and the
Army's principal staff officer, responsible for research,
development, and acquisition (RDA), and he has policy and
program oversight of how the Army buys and maintains current
equipment and how it buys new equipment. I think, General
Williamson, you've been in your position about 3 weeks or so.
So you're a veteran right now. You're seasoned.
Thank you, each of you, for being here today. I look
forward to a good give-and-take here.
I want to express my appreciation to Senator Wicker for his
great work on this subcommittee and being my partner in this
effort.
[The prepared statement of Senator Blumenthal follows:]
Prepared Statement by Senator Richard Blumenthal
Good morning. The Subcommittee on Airland meets today to receive
testimony on Army modernization programs in review of the fiscal year
2015 budget request and Future Years Defense Program.
After more than a decade of war in Iraq and Afghanistan I am always
impressed that the soldiers of our Army have performed with remarkable
professionalism, courage, and no small measure of sacrifice. Today's
Army is battle-tested, proven, and hardened by years of combat in the
harshest and most unforgiving conditions against a ruthless enemy.
I ask all Army leaders here with us today whenever you have a
chance to please convey our gratitude to all those people who are
serving for us. Our Nation is deeply grateful.
The subject of today's hearing, Army modernization, merits
particular attention because of the exceptionally challenging fiscal
environment and the many twists and turns taken over the last few years
to reorient, rationalize, and restructure the Army's acquisition
policies and programs.
Despite some of the often painful turmoil and, frankly, the
heartbreaking loss of time and money, in the Army's modernization
efforts over the last 15 years, the Army always finds a way to give our
soldiers the equipment they need to get the job done. This doesn't mean
we should not insist upon more stability and efficiency in Army
modernization, but it's quite remarkable how American soldiers always
accomplish the mission.
This year's hearing examines an Army modernization program
complicated by the scope of recent strategic changes, the challenges of
fiscal realities, and the natural uncertainty as our wars wind down and
our national priorities shift.
We look forward to our witnesses' testimony to address the
underlying questions of how the fiscal year 2015 budget request, linked
to likely changes to this year's request when the Overseas Contingency
Operations portion of the budget finally arrives, and, looking forward
into the near future, keeps our Army the best in the world, ready today
and tomorrow for whatever the Nation may ask it to do. We look forward
to hearing:
How Army requirements, acquisition, and modernization
strategies support the Army we have today and will have out to
2019 and beyond?
How, given the uncertainty about the availability of
resources and the necessary changes to the Army's size and
structure, will the Army ensure that equipment readiness,
reset, and modernization programs are appropriately prioritized
with tradeoffs and risks managed, while at the same time are
stable, achievable, and affordable? In this regard, the
witnesses can paint a picture for the subcommittee of how the
Budget Control Act, the Bipartisan Budget Act, sequestration,
and a pending Overseas Contingency Operations request all
figure into the dangers of an unstable, unachievable, and
unaffordable modernization program.
How will the Army identify and manage the inevitable
and growing strategic risk to the Army's industrial base during
times of declining budgets?
The Army's fiscal year 2015 modernization objective is to maintain
the technological advantage no matter where our wars are fought. The
base request, however, is $1.7 billion (almost 7 percent) less than
last year's request. The Army is accepting measured risk to accommodate
a tightening fiscal environment and manage precarious readiness
shortfalls begun and carried forward from 2 years ago. These reductions
for fiscal year 2015 are compounded by modernization reductions started
in prior years and likely further reductions under full sequestration.
Clearly, the readiness of today's soldiers is Army leadership's
most important duty. It is not a question of ``balance'' at the ground
level; units must be manned, trained, and equipped to support
operations in Afghanistan and other unforeseen contingencies. The
Nation plans for and resources the Army to be ``ready'' and therefore
it is a strategic imperative that it should always be so.
Our witnesses today will argue that the Army remains oriented on
winning today's fight and trying to prepare for an uncertain future
that is complicated by the requirements to reduce spending in the
Budget Control Act. All of this drives the Army to a new modernization
approach. We look forward to their description of how and why the
fiscal year 2015 request makes tough choices, for example, cancels the
Ground Combat Vehicle program and slows or concludes several
procurement or upgrade programs, yet remains an adequate and affordable
approach to equipping the force for today and tomorrow at acceptable
levels of risk. The Army is truly in transition during a period of
declining funding, yet must continue to equip soldiers for what we ask
them to do today--frankly the future, as is common in periods of
declining resources, is less important. But this subcommittee's
oversight responsibility is to ensure that the tradeoffs, although
necessary, are reasonable, realistic, and manage risks in an
appropriate manner relative to our defense strategy and the Army's
needs.
We have before us a distinguished panel of soldiers and Army
leaders:
General John Campbell is the Vice Chief of Staff of the Army and
has the responsibility to assist the Secretary and Chief of Staff of
the Army with sorting through the many needs of the Army and making the
tough choices that prioritize what we are developing and producing to
meet our soldiers' most important equipment needs.
Lieutenant General James Barclay is the Army's principal staff
officer responsible for matching available resources to meet the Army's
requirements for mission success and support soldiers by managing
current force needs and future force capabilities.
Lieutenant General Michael Williamson is the Army's principal staff
officer responsible for RDA. As such, he has policy and program
oversight of how the Army buys new and maintains current equipment. I
believe General Williamson has been in his position about 3 weeks or so
and I guess that makes this a bit of a ``training'' hearing for him.
Although I understand that he has already testified to our counterpart
House Armed Services subcommittee, therefore this perhaps is a
validation exercise? Good luck.
Thank you all for your many years of service to the Nation and the
Army.
Senator Blumenthal. Senator Wicker.
Senator Wicker. Thank you very much. Mr. Chairman, college
basketball season is over. The State of Connecticut is beaming
today. I want to congratulate you on the national champions for
the men's and women's programs.
Senator Blumenthal. Thank you. Thank you very much.
Senator Wicker. Amazing.
Senator Blumenthal. I still have my Huskies tie on. I think
I may wear it as long as it holds out.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR ROGER F. WICKER
Senator Wicker. Thank you very much, and thank you to our
witnesses. Thank you for your years of dedicated service.
We are here today to discuss Army modernization. Before we
talk about equipping the force, I want to talk about manning
the force. The fiscal year 2015 President's budget request
draws down total Army end strength to 450,000 Active, 335,000
National Guard, and 195,000 Reserve by the end of fiscal year
2017. If budget caps remain unchanged, the Army will be
required to cut even deeper, reducing the Active Army to
420,000, the National Guard to 315,000, and the Reserve to
185,000.
If we've learned anything about assumptions regarding
national security and ground forces, it's usually that they are
wrong. That is why it's important for us to get Army
modernization right in the current fiscal year.
The Army's fiscal year 2015 budget request for $120.5
billion represents the fifth straight year the Army has
budgeted for an amount that was lower than the previous year.
Given the fact that personnel costs are 46 percent and
operations and maintenance (O&M) costs are 35 percent of the
Army's budget, the Army's approach to the 2015 budget is to
prioritize near-term readiness. Accordingly, the Army's budget
request for investment accounts, procurement, research,
development, test, and evaluation is $20.1 billion or 17
percent of the Army's total budget.
In short, this means that the Army's modernization efforts
will continue to be vulnerable as full sequestration reemerges
in fiscal year 2016.
This subcommittee appreciates the immense planning
challenges the Army faces, given the lack of budget certainty
on Capitol Hill. The subcommittee also notes that the Army
still does not know what its OCO funding is going to be for
fiscal year 2015.
That being said, I'd like to highlight four specific issues
that are of concern, with the hope that our witnesses will
elaborate on them during the hearing. First, I have major
reservations about the Army aviation restructure initiative's
proposal to remove Apache helicopters from the National Guard.
Our National Guard Apache units, located in 10 States, have
performed superbly. I continue to believe that we've made
significant investments in the National Guard to make the Guard
a fighting force able to supplement and augment our Active-Duty
Forces in times of need. Any decision to undo these investments
must be carefully considered, given the global challenges we
face today in Europe and in Asia.
Second, the budget request for Army aircraft is $4.4
billion, a $432 million increase from 2014 enacted levels. This
includes funding for AH-64 Apache Block 3s, remanufactured and
new build CH-47 Chinooks, the utility and medical version of
the Black Hawk, and the UH-72 light utility helicopter that is
manufactured in my State of Mississippi.
While this is welcome news for the helicopter industrial
base, I can assure you this subcommittee is concerned about
sequestration's impact on multi-year procurement of the UH-70
Blackhawk and the Army's acquisition plan for an Armed Aerial
Scout helicopter. While the Army plans to use Apache
helicopters teamed with unmanned aircraft, I'm concerned about
the long-term cost and sustainment issues associated with this
proposal.
Third, with the termination of the Ground Combat Vehicle
(GCV), the Army has few programs to modernize its combat and
tactical wheeled vehicle fleet. With the exception of the
procurement of the Joint Light Tactical Wheeled Vehicle, the
Army does not have a program which provides an entirely new
platform. The Paladin Integrated Management (PIM), the Armored
Multi-Purpose Vehicle (AMPV), Stryker hull upgrades, Abrams
tank, Bradley Fighting Vehicle upgrades, and Stryker Combat
Vehicle fleets are based on existing platforms that are no
longer in production. Accordingly, I am interested in learning
about the Army's plans for vehicle modernization.
Finally, General Raymond T. Odierno, USA, the current Chief
of Staff of the Army, has testified on numerous occasions that
a fully funded Army reset program is critical to ensuring that
equipment returning from overseas missions is recovered and
restored for future Army requirements. The Army and Marine
Corps previously testified they will require OCO funding for
equipment reset for 3 years after the last piece of equipment
returns from Afghanistan. The Army must face the reality that
this may not be achievable in the current fiscal environment.
Gentlemen and Mr. Chairman, let me conclude by observing
that our Army continues to perform with remarkable courage,
professionalism, and effectiveness despite incredibly difficult
circumstances. I had the opportunity to visit West Point in
February. I encourage my colleagues to do so. During my visit,
I had lunch with and spoke with some outstanding cadets from my
home State of Mississippi. I am so proud of them. It is the
solemn duty of this subcommittee to ensure that these young
leaders have the resources to execute their mission in the
defense of our Nation.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Blumenthal. Thank you, Senator Wicker.
We'd be very pleased to hear any opening statements that
each of you may have, beginning with General Campbell. Thank
you, sir.
STATEMENT OF GEN JOHN F. CAMPBELL, USA, VICE CHIEF OF STAFF,
U.S. ARMY; ACCOMPANIED BY LTG JAMES O. BARCLAY III, USA, DEPUTY
CHIEF OF STAFF, G-8, U.S. ARMY; AND LTG MICHAEL E. WILLIAMSON,
USA, MILITARY DEPUTY AND DIRECTOR, ARMY ACQUISITION CORPS,
OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE ARMY FOR ACQUISITION,
LOGISTICS, AND TECHNOLOGY
General Campbell. Sir, thanks. I'll make the opening
statement for all three of us. We'll get through that and go to
questions and answers (Q&A), as I know you want to go there,
sir.
Chairman Blumenthal, Senator Wicker, thank you very much
for the opportunity to discuss the modernization of your U.S.
Army. We appreciate your support, your commitment to our
soldiers, our Army civilians, our families, our wounded
warriors, and our veterans.
I'd first like to take a moment to send our regards to our
brethren in arms at Fort Hood, TX, especially to the families
who have been affected by the terrible tragedy last week.
There's a memorial ceremony today. So just a shout-out to all
those at Fort Hood and our Army family that they're in our
thoughts and prayers.
Today, your Army remains globally engaged, with more than
66,000 soldiers deployed, including nearly 32,000 still in
Afghanistan, and about 85,000 forward stationed in nearly 150
different countries. The future, as you talked about, is
uncertain and recent headlines highlighting Korea, Ukraine,
Syria, all remind us that we must plan for the world as it is,
not as we wish it to be.
Over the past 3 years, the Army has absorbed several
budgetary reductions in the midst of conducting operations
overseas and at the same time rebalancing the force for a wider
array of missions called for by the defense strategy. During
this period of fiscal and strategic uncertainty, our goal has
been to maintain the proper balance between end strength,
readiness, and modernization across the total Army, all three
of our components.
We are reducing end strength as rapidly and as responsibly
as possible, while at the same time doing our best to meet our
operational requirements. Additionally, we need to concentrate
funds on rebuilding our readiness. However, to do this we must
accept greater risks in our modernization programs in the near-
term.
As a result, RDA investments have declined 39 percent since
the fiscal year 2012 budget planning cycle. Historically, the
Army's RDA accounts have averaged about 21.9 percent of our
obligation authority. For fiscal year 2015, the RDA account is
about 17.1 percent, as Senator Wicker talked about, or $20.1
billion of obligation authority.
Regardless of the austere fiscal conditions, it remains the
Army's responsibility to ensure that every soldier that is
deployed is equipped to achieve his decisive overmatch. To do
this, the Army has developed several initiatives that guide our
equipment modernization. I'd like to outline those very
quickly.
First, we are using incremental improvements to modernize
our critical systems and will build new systems only by
exception.
Second, we are divesting of older systems and niche
capabilities to decrease sustainment costs and generate
additional resources we can invest in our modernization and
readiness priorities.
Third, we are resetting much of the equipment procured for
Iraq and Afghanistan since that is what we will fight with in
the near-term contingency. To accomplish this, we do require
OCO funding for 3 years after we complete the retrograde
equipment. I just point out, this is not new. I was the
Executive Officer to retired General Peter J. Schoomaker, when
he was the Army Chief of Staff from 2003 to 2007. In about
2004, we started saying already that we would need OCO to help
us do reset. That's been a constant thing for your Army over
the last 13 or 14 years here.
We are procuring smaller quantities because the Army cannot
afford to equip and sustain the entire force with the most
advanced equipment. We are protecting science and technology
(S&T) efforts, which are the seed corn of our generation of
capabilities. We are focusing S&T investments where we are
technology makers and reducing S&T where we are technology
takers.
These guiding principles ensure the Army will maximize
every dollar towards putting the best equipment in the hands of
our soldiers. First and foremost, the soldier and squad are the
centerpiece of the Army equipment modernization. From this we
build outward by enabling them with a network and other key
equipment.
Within this year's budget request, we seek to empower and
unburden the soldier through funding for advanced weapons
capabilities, next-generation optics and night vision devices,
and advanced body armor and individual protection equipment. We
will modernize the network to improve soldiers' decisionmaking
with information and connectivity to the lowest tactical level.
Our priorities include Warfighter Information Network
Tactical (WIN-T) systems. This is a family of networked radios
and a joint battle command platform. Investments in the
network, however, are not untouched by the resource
constraints, and as a result, we will have to delay portions of
WIN-T Increment 3 and reduce our investments in some of our
tactical radio systems.
We are committed to developing and fielding the AMPV to
replace our obsolete M-113 family of vehicles and augmenting
our wheeled fleet with the Joint Light Tactical Vehicle (JLTV)
Family of Vehicles.
The PIM remains a significant priority and we will continue
funding a third brigade set of the double-V hull (DVH) Strykers
as well, while supporting incremental upgrades to existing
Strykers under DVH power and mobility.
A new Infantry Fighting Vehicle (IFV) remains a key
requirement for your Army. However, due to the significant
fiscal constraints the Army will conclude the GCV program upon
completion of the technology demonstration phase. We expect
this in June of this year. Instead, the Army will now focus its
efforts on refining concepts, requirements, and key
technologies in support of a future IFV. This will include
investment in vehicle components, subsystem prototypes, and
technology demonstrators. In the distant future we anticipate
initiating a new combat vehicle program informed by these
efforts as resources become available.
Fiscal constraints also drove the Army to reevaluate its
strategy for Army aviation. Analysis of missions, age, costs,
and available funding led to an aviation plan that restructures
the formations and balances operational capability across the
total Army to achieve a leaner, more efficient force that is
the best use of taxpayers' dollars. You can find more detail on
the aviation restructure initiative in my written testimony. To
save time now, I won't say more, but can address this topic
during the Q&A period.
In closing, we are adjusting to reduced resources, which
means we must accept greater risk in Army modernization. The
Army's ability to modernize equipment relies on sufficient,
consistent funding. While the BBA of 2013 provides greater
budget certainty for fiscal year 2014 and fiscal year 2015,
reductions in modernization accounts continue to challenge your
Army. Without Congress' intervention, sequestration-level
budget caps will return in fiscal year 2016 and impose greater
risk on Army equipment and modernization, leaving our soldiers
less prepared in an unpredictable world.
Ultimately, the Army is about people. As we downsize, we
are committed to taking care of those who have sacrificed for
our Nation over the last 12-plus years of war. Assisting our
transitioning veterans, our wounded warriors, and our Gold Star
families will remain a top priority and we will protect
programs that support their needs.
I thank you again for your steadfast and generous support
of the outstanding men and women of your U.S. Army. Please
accept my written testimony for the record. Lieutenant General
James Barclay and Lieutenant General Michael Williamson and I
look forward to your questions. I would add that Michael was
just promoted to our newest three-star last Friday. So he's
been on the job since Friday, sir. All three of us, if we
weren't before a couple of minutes ago, are great University of
Connecticut fans. It's a great day there that they can have
both the men's and women's national championships. [Laughter.]
Sir, we appreciate the opportunity here and we look forward
to your questions.
[The joint prepared statement of General Campbell, General
Barclay, and General Williamson follows:]
Joint Prepared Statement by GEN John F. Campbell, USA, LTG James O.
Barclay III, USA, and LTG Michael E. Williamson, USA
introduction
Chairman Blumenthal, Ranking Member Wicker, distinguished members
of the Subcommittee on Airland, thank you for the opportunity to
discuss the Army's fiscal year 2015 President's budget request as it
pertains to Army Modernization.
The world today continues to present our Army and our Nation with
dynamic and uncertain security challenges. It is imperative that the
Army clearly assesses the future security environment and prioritizes
investments and allocates resources accordingly. Potential adversaries
will develop disruptive technologies and increasingly destructive
weapons making it imperative that the Army continues to develop and
field overmatching capabilities. The demand for Army units will
continue to meet combatant commander requirements for the range of
military operations to Prevent, Shape, and Win in support of national
interests. Accordingly, the objective of Army equipment modernization
is to enable our soldiers to conduct that range of military operations
by developing and fielding versatile and tailorable equipment;
equipment that is affordable, sustainable, and cost-effective. We want
our Total Army to be ready and capable of conducting operations in any
location and environment while maintaining tactical and operational
overmatch with our adversaries. On behalf of our Secretary, the
Honorable John McHugh, and our Chief of Staff, General Ray Odierno, we
look forward to discussing with you the Army's fiscal year 2015
modernization budget that takes the next step towards meeting these
future challenges.
resourcing army modernization
Over the past 3 years, the Army has absorbed several budgetary
reductions in the midst of conducting operations overseas and
rebalancing the force for a wider array of missions called for by the
President's defense strategy. During this period of fiscal and
strategic uncertainty, our goal has been to maintain the proper balance
between end strength, readiness and modernization across the Total
Army. We are reducing end strength as rapidly as possible, while still
meeting our operational commitments, to concentrate remaining funds on
rebuilding readiness. However, to do this we must accept greater risk
in our modernization programs in the near-term. As a result, Research,
Development, and Acquisition (RDA) investments planned for fiscal year
2015 have declined 39 percent since the fiscal year 2012 budget
planning cycle. Historically, the Army's RDA accounts have averaged
21.9 percent of its obligation authority. For fiscal year 2015 the RDA
account is 17.1 percent, or $20.1 billion, of obligation authority.
Even under these austere fiscal conditions, it is the Army's
responsibility to ensure every Soldier deployed is equipped to achieve
decisive overmatch regardless of the situation. To do this, the Army
has developed several initiatives that guide equipment modernization
during this period of fiscal constraint. First, we use incremental
improvements to modernize existing critical systems as our primary
option, and build new systems to address key capability gaps. Second,
the Army is divesting older systems and niche capabilities to decrease
sustainment costs and re-allocate those resources for modernization and
readiness. Third, we are slowing procurement and limiting quantities
because the Army cannot afford to equip and sustain the entire force
with the most advanced equipment. Fourth, we will insert technologies
and capability improvements only as needed, leveraging commercial
investment where we are ``technology-takers'' (e.g., information
technology, fixed wing aviation) and focusing our Science and
Technology investments where we are ``technology-makers'' (e.g.,
lethality, armor). Finally, each equipment decision is scrutinized to
ensure it is both affordable within the overall budget and is cost-
effective in addressing capability gaps. The Army has established
overarching equipment objectives and budget priorities to help guide
this investment strategy for which I will provide you some specifics.
Equipment Objectives
Enhance the Soldier for Broad Joint Mission Support
The centerpiece of Army modernization continues to be the soldier
and the squad. The Army's objective is to facilitate incremental
improvements by integrating technologies and applications that empower,
protect, and unburden the soldier and smaller formations. This provides
the Soldier with the right equipment, at the right time, to accomplish
their assigned mission. The fiscal year 2015 budget supports this
priority by investing in technologies that provide the soldier and
squad with advanced warfighting capabilities. We are pursuing enhanced
weapons effects, next generation optics, night vision devices, advanced
body armor and individual protection equipment.
Enable Mission Command
The Army's objective is to facilitate overmatch through better
decisionmaking of our leaders and soldiers with real-time networked
data and connectivity across the Joint Force down to the soldier as
well as across platforms through commodity-like procurement and rapid
innovation. The fiscal year 2015 request resources enhanced mission
command capabilities and platform integration of network components
through Operational Capability Sets, and software applications for the
Common Operating Environment (COE), in concert with operations and
intelligence network convergence efforts.
Remain Prepared for Decisive Action.
The Army's objective is to facilitate fleet capabilities to
increase lethality and mobility while optimizing survivability by
managing the full suite of capabilities to enable the most stressing
joint warfights. This year's budget request continues to support the
Armored Multi-Purpose Vehicle (AMPV), Paladin Integrated Management
(PIM) program, Joint Light Tactical Vehicle (JLTV), and critical
Aviation programs.
Budget Priorities
To satisfy our equipment objectives, the Army has identified
several critical systems, discussed in detail below:
The Network
Warfighter Information Network-Tactical (WIN-T) is the Army's
deployed mobile network, providing intranet and telephone service to
command posts from Theater to Company level. It extends an Internet
Protocol (IP) based satellite and line-of-sight (LOS) communications
network throughout the tactical force supporting telephone, data and
video. Increment 2 provides initial on-the-move capability as well as a
robust LOS transmission network and greater satellite data down to
company level for maneuver brigades and division headquarters. Fiscal
year 2015 funding fields Increment 2 sets to 1 division headquarters, 1
Brigade Combat Team (BCT), and 11 Battalions. Increment 3 will improve
throughput for LOS and beyond LOS transmissions through the development
of the Highband Networking Waveform (HNW). Fiscal realities forced a
delay of the Increment 3 aerial layer. Fiscal year 2015 funding will
focus on the development of a common Network Operations tool and
completion of the HNW.
Family of Networked Tactical Radios is the Army's future family of
tactical radio systems. It provides advanced joint tactical end-to-end
networking data and voice communications to dismounted troops, ground,
and aircraft platforms. Formally known as the Joint Tactical Radio
Systems, these multi-band/multi-mode radio capabilities leverage IP-
based technologies. Fiscal year 2015 funding reduces investments in the
development and limited procurement of Mid-Tier Networking Vehicular
Radio systems, Manpack and Rifleman radios.
Joint Battle Command-Platform (JBC-P) is the next generation of
Force XXI Battle Command Brigade and Below and Blue Force Tracking and
is the foundation for achieving affordable information interoperability
and superiority on current and future battlefields. JBC-P is the
principal command and control/situational awareness system for the Army
and Marine Corps at the brigade level and below. Fiscal year 2015
funding procures JBC-P for BCTs and brigades to include replacement of
Enhanced Position Location and Reporting Systems in BCTs.
Distributed Common Ground System-Army (DCGS-A) provides integrated
Intelligence, Surveillance, Reconnaissance (ISR) Processing,
Exploitation, and Dissemination (PED) of airborne and ground sensor
platforms providing commanders, at all levels, access to the Defense
Intelligence Information Enterprise and leverages the entire ISR
community. The DCGS-A program modernizes and procures components for
fixed sites and data centers needed for the Army's ISR component of the
COE. The DCGS-A hardware and software will be integrated into select
ISR current Programs of Record systems to enable networked PED
capabilities. Although fiscal challenges have caused a reduction in the
number of software releases, fiscal year 2015 funding continues the
development and testing effort for Increment 1 software, to include
integration into the Command Post Computing Environment.
Nett Warrior is a dismounted soldier mission command system that
provides unprecedented command, control, and situational awareness
capabilities for dismounted leaders down to the squad level. The design
leverages commercial technology, while incorporating operational unit
mission needs and provides assured power in austere environments. Nett
Warrior is the foundational program to converge handheld devices onto
one technology--the Handheld Computing Environment in the COE. Fiscal
year 2015 funding procures soldier worn communications sets for
Capability Set 15 fielding.
Combat Vehicles
AMPV replaces the M113 family of vehicles at brigade and below. It
will provide required protection, mobility and networking for the
Army's critical enablers including mortars, medical evacuation, and
command and control vehicles. The fiscal year 2015 request provides for
one Engineering, Manufacturing and Development contract and program
management support.
PIM provides readily available, low risk upgrades enhancing the
responsiveness, force protection, survivability, and mobility of the
self-propelled howitzer fleet. The PIM replaces the current M109A6
Paladin and M992A2 Field Artillery Ammunition Supply Vehicle with a
more robust platform incorporating Bradley common drive train and
suspension components in a newly designed hull. The fiscal year 2015
request supports procurement of 18 low-rate initial production (LRIP)
systems, 18 self-propelled howitzers, and 18 ammunition carriers.
Light Tactical Vehicles
JLTV is the centerpiece of the Army's Tactical Wheeled Vehicle
modernization strategy. The Army will procure 49,099 JLTVs by 2041. The
JLTV family of vehicles is being designed to provide the necessary leap
in protection, performance, and payload to fill the capability gap
remaining between the High Mobility Multipurpose Wheeled Vehicle and
the Mine Resistant Ambush Protected family of vehicles. This multi-
mission vehicle will provide protected, sustained and networked
mobility for personnel and payloads across the full range of military
operations. The fiscal year 2015 funding completes limited user testing
and procures 176 vehicles for LRIP. The Army anticipates down-select to
one vendor in fiscal year 2015.
Aviation
Aviation Restructure Initiative. Following a comprehensive review
of our aviation strategy, the Army will restructure aviation formations
to achieve a leaner, more efficient and capable force that balances
operational capability and flexibility across the Total Army. The Army
National Guard will transfer all AH-64 Apache helicopters to the active
Army, where they will be teamed with Unmanned systems for Armed
Reconnaissance or continue their traditional attack role. The Active
Army will transfer 111 UH-60 Black Hawk helicopters to the Army
National Guard, which will significantly improve its capabilities for
support of civil authorities, such as disaster response. The UH-72
Lakota will replace the TH-67 helicopter fleet as the next generation
glass cockpit, dual engine training helicopter. We will transfer nearly
all Active Army UH-72 Lakota helicopters to our training base at Fort
Rucker, Alabama. With no sequestration, the Army will procure an
additional 100 UH-72 Lakotas to support the initial entry rotary wing
training requirement. Also, we will sustain the current fleet of Army
National Guard UH-72 helicopters, which perform dual-purpose state and
homeland defense missions. The Active Army's overall helicopter fleet
will decline by about 23 percent, and the Army National Guard's fleet
of helicopters will decline by 8 percent. This smaller, more efficient
force will facilitate Aviation readiness when needed.
AH-64E Apache is the Army's world class heavy attack helicopter for
the current and future force assigned to Attack Helicopter Battalions.
The AH-64E provides the capability to simultaneously conduct close
combat, mobile strike, armed reconnaissance, security and vertical
maneuver missions across the full spectrum of warfare, when required in
day, night, obscured battlefield and adverse weather conditions. AH-64E
enhancements consist of several technical insertions to include Level
IV Manned-Unmanned Teaming, Cognitive Decision Aiding, improved drive
system, composite rotor blades, new fuselage, and open system
architecture. Apache investment is also key to the Army Aviation
Restructure Initiative. AH-64 aircraft will be assigned to Armed
Reconnaissance Squadrons as part of the Manned-Unmanned teaming
capability that will provide a viable option and allows divestment of
legacy Kiowa Warrior aircraft. The fiscal year 2015 request supports
the remanufacture of 25 AH-64D aircraft to the AH-64E models, and
associated modifications to the existing AH-64D fleet.
H-60 Black Hawk aircraft comprises the Army's largest helicopter
fleet. The Black Hawk is a vital asset to fulfill lift and medical
evacuation missions in the current and future force theater operational
plans. The Black Hawk also serves a key role in the Army Aviation
Restructure Initiative by supporting maneuver commanders through air
assault, general support, command and control, and aero-medical
evacuation missions. The Black Hawk is the mainstay of the homeland
defense mission. With its day, night and adverse weather capability it
is a key component of the Army National Guard's forest fire, tornado,
hurricane, and earthquake relief missions. In addition to supporting
the Army Aviation Restructure Initiative, the fiscal year 2015 Black
Hawk funding request procures 55 UH-60M, 24 HH-60M; continues the
Improved Turbine Engine program and UH-60 Digital L efforts; and
purchases mission equipment packages.
other major changes in fiscal year 2015
The Army has carefully prioritized our efforts to ensure we
maximize every dollar toward putting the best equipment in the hands of
our soldiers. The most notable change is the conclusion of the Ground
Combat Vehicle (GCV) program. GCV will conclude at the end of the
technology development phase, expected in June 2014, and will not
continue further development. In the near-term, the Army will focus on
refining concepts, requirements and key technologies in support of a
future Infantry Fighting Vehicle (IFV) modernization program. This will
include investment in vehicle components, subsystem prototypes and
technology demonstrators to inform IFV requirements and future
strategies for developing a needed replacement for the Bradley IFV.
Over the long-term, the Army anticipates initiating a new IFV
modernization program informed by these efforts as resources become
available.
The Army will also re-scope Network Integration Evaluation (NIE).
NIE continues to provide the mechanism to evaluate and incrementally
improve the network baseline, incorporating critical Soldier feedback
into system functionality and training methods. The reduction in
funding for these biannual events will extend some timelines for
Programs of Record or divert their tests to alternative events. In
addition, accepting risk in this program will reduce opportunities to
evaluate new technologies in an operational network.
In addition, the Army will accept risk in the Integrated Air and
Missile Defense-Battle Command System (IBCS). IBCS is a network centric
system-of-systems that integrates sensors, shooters, and battle
management, command, control, communications and intelligence systems
for Army air and missile defense. The program decrements will cause a
2-year delay in fielding the initial operational capability, from
fiscal year 2016 to fiscal year 2018.
The fiscal year 2015 request will also reflect a significant
acceleration of funding for Patriot Advanced Capability, or PAC-3,
launcher upgrades for combatant commanders in fiscal year 2016 and
fiscal year 2017. Additionally, we will also continue to fund a third
brigade's set of Double V-Hull (DVH) Stryker vehicles, while supporting
an incremental upgrade to DVH Strykers for power and mobility
improvements.
Finally, the Army will not pursue the Armed Aerial Scout and will
halt the Cockpit and Sensor Upgrade Program for the Kiowa Warrior. We
will divest almost 900 legacy helicopters including the entire single
engine OH-58D Kiowa Warrior and TH-67 helicopter training fleets.
Instead, the Army will fund modernization and sustainment of our most
capable and survivable combat-proven aircraft: the AH-64 Apache, UH-60
Black Hawk, and CH-47 Chinook helicopters.
defense industrial base
As lower funding levels for the Army continue, we are concerned
about the health of the Army's commercial and organic industrial bases
and the subsequent consequences for the Army and our Nation. Shrinking
demands and corresponding budgets for new combat platforms and smaller
production rates lead to higher proportional costs. A smaller
commercial industrial base may reflect a workforce with reduced
expertise in design, development, and manufacturing. Diminished
capacity in this industrial base may decrease competitiveness and
increase response time to future requirements. The likely loss of
critical skill sets and suppliers at all tiers, and an increase in the
number of single-points failure in the supply chain is of particular
concern to the Army.
The Army continues to assess the commercial industrial base to
provide leadership with evaluations of current operations, risks, and
issues in the Army Industrial Base. We intend to address critical
impacts through planning for ongoing and future modernization efforts
within our equipment portfolios.
The Army has also conducted a comprehensive Combat Vehicle
Portfolio Industrial Base Study through A.T. Kearney, a global
management consulting firm. In response to the findings of these
assessments, the Army has:
Initiated Engineering Change Proposals, to upgrade
fielded vehicles, earlier to help fill production gaps at Joint
Manufacturing Center for the Abrams vehicle;
Slowed production deliveries of the Abrams vehicle to
distribute workload and prevent workforce furloughs;
Provided production funding to second-tier suppliers
to mitigate critical production breaks;
Developed second source suppliers for financially
fragile suppliers for Abrams and Bradley vehicles; and
Continued advocacy for Foreign Military Sales (FMS)
with defense industry.
We are equally concerned about the health of the organic industrial
base containing our depots, arsenals, and ammunition plants. The Army
is preserving needed capabilities by modernizing facilities through new
technology, training, and plant equipment. We will maintain our depots
by workloading them to preserve their core functions and capabilities
and encouraging depots to partner with commercial firms to meet future
requirements. The Army also advocates FMS, extended production in
certain programs, and investment in key suppliers on a case-by-case
basis. In terms of monitoring the health and management of the
community, the Army has initiated Joint Acquisition and Sustainment
Reviews to synchronize efforts to address issues faced by our Program
Executive Offices and our depots and arsenals. These periodic reviews
led by the Army Materiel Command and Army Acquisition Executive help
effectively manage challenges across the materiel enterprise.
closing comments
Our Total Army remains the best in the world today. It has unique
capabilities to provide regionally aligned, expeditionary, and decisive
land power, but its capacity and capability overmatch is eroding.
Adequate resources are essential to meet the President's defense
strategy and defense budget priorities. Ultimately, the ability to
modernize Army equipment relies on sufficient, consistent funding.
While the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2013 provides greater budget
certainty for fiscal year 2014 and fiscal year 2015, reductions in RDA
continue to challenge the Army's ability to deliver capabilities to our
soldiers now and in the future. Without Congress' intervention,
Sequestration level budget caps will return in fiscal year 2016 and
impose additional risk on Army equipment modernization. Those risks
include fewer mitigation options, aging fleets, eroding overmatch,
higher sustainment costs, longer timelines to re-generate and higher
costs, leaving our soldiers less prepared for future conflicts.
Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittee, I thank you again for
your steadfast and generous support of the outstanding men and women of
the U.S. Army, Army civilians, and their families. We look forward to
your questions.
Senator Blumenthal. Thank you very much, General Campbell.
The question is not how long you've been UConn fans, but how
long you will be UConn fans. But I do appreciate even your
fleeting support. [Laughter.]
I would agree with you that the greatest resource that the
Army or any of our Military Services has is its people. It is,
as you've said very powerfully, all about people. As we grow
leaner and more efficient, as you have also said, the risk is a
hollowing out, as it's often called, of our military,
particularly in attracting and recruiting and training the most
able men and women in any military force in the history of the
world, which we have right now.
My first question is, how do we avoid that hollowing out
or, more precisely, what will be the danger signs, do you
think, to you? What will be the alarm bells of a hollowing out,
both in terms of modernization of equipment and in the
recruitment of personnel?
General Campbell. Sir, thanks. I'll start off, then turn to
my colleagues here if they want to add.
But, sir, great question. The best thing that we can do is
get rid of the uncertainty. The biggest frustration for the
Chief, for the Secretary, for, I think, all the Services, is
the uncertainty on the budget. What we don't want to do is make
decisions today that we would make differently down the road if
we knew what 2016, 2017, and 2018, and where we were going to
go.
2014 and 2015, as we talked about, with your leadership, we
do appreciate the BBA and what that will bring for us. But as
you know, 2013 was a very bad year. We're going to dig
ourselves out of 2013 and part of 2014. We really do have to
focus on the short-term readiness. That's what we will do.
In 2015 for us, we actually come down a little bit based on
where the money will be spread out in 2015. Then in 2016, again
we drop off the map with sequestration, or the risk, as General
Odierno has talked about, goes much higher and we would not be
able to accomplish, we really believe, what is required of the
Defense Strategic Guidance (DSG).
Really, the signs, though, are about balance. You talked
about that, sir. You put your trust and confidence in our
senior leadership, our Secretary, our Chief, under their title
10 responsibilities to make sure that we do keep all of our
components balanced. So there are some very tough decisions
that we have to make.
A very tough one: We're all about people, but we have to
cut people. That's where we get that money to be able to put
back toward everything else. What we want to be able to do is
cut them at the right ramp and have the right personnel
policies in place so that we can take care of these great
soldiers and these families that have sacrificed so much over
the last 12 to 13 years.
We felt very comfortable prior to sequestration we can do
that. We made a very tough decision. We were going down to
490,000 by 2017 and the Chief and the Secretary took a look at
that, the impact that it had on readiness, the impact that
would drive us more out of balance, and moved that decision to
fiscal year 2015 to come down to 490,000. So these boards we're
having, that will take out some lieutenant colonels and
colonels, will select some majors and captains that have to
leave the Service involuntarily, that's to get us to 490,000.
We have to go back now and really look at what it does to us to
go from 490,000 to 450,000.
The same thing with equipment modernization. Those
decisions were based on an Army of 490,000. We're going back
now to apply all of that to an Army of 450,000 for the Active,
335,000 for the Guard, as you talked about, and 195,000 for the
Reserve.
Some of the signs that we'll see is that we'll lose that
trust and confidence in our soldiers, in the families. We could
go to 490,000 by almost natural attrition for the most part.
There are going to be some very small involuntary separations.
490,000 to 450,000, the sign there is we're going to have to
move more of those out early, and we'll just erode that trust.
We have to do that and keep everything in balance.
That's why the Chief and the Secretary look across all the
components and they can't make a decision that looks just at
the Reserve, looks at just the National Guard, or looks at just
the Active Duty. They take that horizontal cut across all.
We've run models, simulations, have really looked at this very
hard. As you talked about upfront, we can plan, but with the
uncertainty that we have on the budget, that will really be the
sign that hurts us as we move forward.
I'll defer to Jim or to Mike if they want to add to that.
General Barclay. Sir, as General Campbell has said, again
is we try to balance. There's three categories, so you can look
at different signs in those. The readiness aspect of it, you'll
start to see some of those readiness indicators that your Army
is not as ready as you're moving forward and taking some of the
actions you have to take.
Second is on the manning aspect of it. There are some key
indicators you start looking at: your reenlistment rates, the
propensity for young Americans to come into an Army that is
struggling, that doesn't have the money to train soldiers that
come in, or to equip soldiers that come in properly. So you'll
start to see some of those. Those are some indicators that you
might see.
Then on the modernization side, we're already seeing it:
the slowing down of programs, major procurement programs, and
the termination of some of those programs, for example the GCV.
Those are some of the key things that you start looking at
across the three legs as you're trying to maintain an Army
that's in balance.
Senator Blumenthal. Yes, sir, General Williamson?
General Williamson. Sir, I'd just like to add a couple of
very specific areas in terms of acquisition. One of the things
that worry me most as you look out across some of these
indicators are things like our contracting officers, our
engineers. We're in a situation now where it's almost a split
distribution. We have some older professional contracting folks
and we have the younger. The challenge that we have is that as
the older workforce chooses to retire, because we have younger
individuals who are concerned about the budget, about the
likelihood of them having positions, we may not have the
opportunity to continue to bring in talent and keep that talent
so that we have the ability to negotiate contracts, to work
through changes in the environment. So we start to see that in
terms of personnel.
On equipment, I think I would add that I grew up in times
where there were significant budget pressures, where we
invested more on repair parts and sustainment. It's not unlike
you and I keeping our 1976 or 1977 car. It's a wonderful thing;
it did great for us; but now I'm pouring more money into
keeping that sustained and I'm falling behind in terms of the
technological advances and the economic efficiencies that we
get from new platforms.
Senator Blumenthal. Thank you.
I have more questions, but I'm going to defer to Senator
Wicker, and then I'll come back with additional questions.
Senator Wicker. General Campbell, it's not desirable to go
to 450,000 by 2017, but we can do it; is that your testimony?
General Campbell. Yes, sir. The only way that we can get
back and meet the money that we will be given is take it out of
people. We have to drop our end strength across the total
force. The Chief and our Secretary have been very consistent
about how we should do that: disproportionately with the Active
Force because we grew the Active over the last 12 years for
Iraq and Afghanistan; and then take some from our Guard and
from our Reserve.
We want to do that and make sure that we take care of those
soldiers, that we do everything we can to help them transition
either from the Active to the Guard or the Reserve or back out
into civilian society. We have programs that will help us do
that.
But yes, sir, bottom line, we'll go to 490,000 by 2015 and
we're working hard to get to 450,000 by 2017. But that's going
to mean we're going to have to take out more involuntary
separations as we go forward.
Senator Wicker. That, according to General Williamson, is
going to cause recruiting problems when people thinking of
making the Army a career are looking at that going in. Also, I
believe you testified it is not good for the trust factor; is
that correct?
General Campbell. Sir, absolutely. As General Barclay said
as well, we're going to go down lower on end strength. What
American society will hear is: The Army continues to go down,
they're not going to have modern equipment, they're not going
to have money to train.
We've been working for 40-plus years on an All-Volunteer
Force. I don't see us going away from an All-Volunteer Force,
but to keep an All-Volunteer Force you have to make sure that
you provide them the best resources that our Nation can afford.
I believe our Nation can do anything it wants to do. We have to
put our mind to it and we have to make sure we prioritize
correctly.
Sir, only a couple of years ago, probably 33 percent of the
American people could even join any of our branches of Military
Service based on medical issues, obesity, on and on. Today,
that's about 22.5 percent. The population that we would draw
from continues to decrease. The propensity to serve----
Senator Wicker. 22.5 percent of age-eligible Americans?
General Campbell. Yes, sir, are even eligible to come into
any branch of Service, based on the requirements to get in,
whether it's a medical issue, a criminal record, obesity, those
types of things. Only about 22.5 percent.
Senator Wicker. In terms of American security, do you feel
comfortable at 450,000 by fiscal year 2017?
General Campbell. Sir, I think, again, both our Chief and
our Secretary and I have testified before that at 490,000 we
deal in terms of risk, risk to mission, risk to force. We have
to mitigate that and offset as we continue to come down. People
is where we have our money invested, as you talked about, 46
percent. So the only way to get down to the levels that
Congress wants us to get to based on the budget is to take it
out in people.
At 490,000, there is some risk to completing the DSG from
where we were at 570,000 just a couple years ago. At 450,000
that risk is significant. Below 450,000, what all the senior
leadership of your Army has testified is that we will not be
able to meet the DSG below 450,000. But at 450,000, it is
significant risk.
Senator Wicker. Was my statement correct at the beginning
of this hearing, that if budget caps remain unchanged, we'll be
down to 420,000 Active, 315,000 in the Guard, and 185,000 in
the Reserve? Were those figures correct?
General Campbell. Sir, those figures are correct.
Senator Wicker. I'm relieved to know they were correct,
although they're disturbing. Now what are we going to have to
do without if that doesn't change, sir?
General Campbell. We'll go back and take a look at what we
would lose between the 450,000 and 420,000 numbers. Of course,
30,000, but what you would expect us to do is where we take
that 30,000 out on the Active side. Do we take it out of
brigade combat teams? Do we take it out of enablers? Again,
there's a mix that the Chief and the Secretary provides them
some different courses of action, how we have to get to that.
There's a certain amount of your Army that we just can't go
below. The institutional force that drives the training, that
drives the day-to-day things that makes your Army run, is about
92,000. We need that 92,000. Whether you're at 420,000, you're
at 450,000, you have to keep that 92,000 just to keep your Army
going.
We'll take a hard look. We've come down in 2010 from 45
brigade combat teams and we're going to 32 brigade combat teams
on the Active side. Now brigade combat teams only make up 30
percent of your Army, but they're the pacing item. You think of
the Navy, you look at carriers. You think of the Air Force, you
think about fighter squadrons. For the Army, it's brigade
combat teams. Again, only 30 percent.
But we're going from 45 to 32, and the 32 number is for
490,000. Below 490,000, we'll probably have to cut back in the
brigade combat teams. We're continuing to take a look at that
analysis to see where that will take us, and it's probably
somewhere in the neighborhood of potentially four, but we have
some more analysis to do.
I'll defer to Jim or Mike if they want to add.
Senator Wicker. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I do think you and
I will take a second round.
Senator Blumenthal. Thank you, Senator Wicker.
I'm going to now turn to Senator Donnelly, with condolences
on a great performance by a great team, but just a little short
last night.
Senator Donnelly. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We give you last
night. We will be back.
Senator Wicker, yesterday you were giving condolences from
the Southeastern Conference (SEC)--or congratulations from the
SEC. Today, I give them from the Atlantic Coast Conference
(ACC), so you're collecting a lot these days.
To all of you, thank you so much for being here. When it
went from 33 percent to 22.5 percent, what were the biggest
changes that caused even fewer Americans to qualify?
General Campbell. Sir, I'm not the expert there, but I
would tell you a lot of it had to do with obesity. Obesity is a
big factor in the world today in our high school children. That
medical piece of it has caused a great deal not to be eligible
to come into any of your Services.
Senator Donnelly. Okay. We were talking yesterday
afternoon, a few of us, about the numbers projections in the
years ahead and sequestration, and were wondering if it was the
exact same amount at the end of the day, but some of it was
pulled forward. So instead of no increase now that you had
approximately a 1.6 percent, 1.7 percent increase, glide path
for the next 7, 8 years, would that combined with flexibility
make it easier for you to be in a position where the numbers in
the earlier years are a little bit higher and at the very back
end are a little bit lower?
General Campbell. Are you talking about budget?
Senator Donnelly. I'm talking about budget. I apologize,
yes.
General Campbell. Sir, the number one thing I said up front
was that any amount of certainty we get will help us plan. If
we have more flexibility now, it will give us more time to make
some of the tougher decisions and put some procedures in place.
I think yes, but again, certainty is what we really need to get
at. We'll take a look at that and we'll have to come back and
lay it out in terms of the risk again, as I talked about
before.
I don't know if you want to add to that, Jim.
General Barclay. Sir, I think 2015, 2014 to 2015, of
course, with the BBA that changed the numbers. Then if you look
at 2016 going into the BCA, your numbers are a little bit
different. I know Senator Sessions has talked about the
inflation rate of about 2.2 percent or 3 percent, as you're
talking about. You're looking at the 2017, 2018, and 2019. Now
that growth just keeps us en route from the Army's perspective
of flat-lined.
The other side of that is the fact that that's always
ensuring that the Army gets that percentage share of the
overall Department of Defense (DOD) budget. Senator Sessions,
in a couple of the last testimonies, talked about 496,000,
going to 497,000, 498,000, the numbers. But again, at the end
of the day, it's how much of a share do we get. Typically,
we're somewhere between about the 26 percent or 27 percent. I
will tell you that, depending on where we fall in the fiscal
guidance, it comes out sometimes we don't necessarily get that
26 percent or 27 percent, as DOD starts moving, looking across
all the Services to set their priorities.
So again, it's a complex environment you're trying to work
with.
Senator Donnelly. Let me ask you about one of the pieces of
equipment that's going to be moving along here in the very near
future. That is the JLTV. One of the companies, obviously AM
General LLC, is from my home State. But what I'm trying to find
out is when do you expect to make a final determination on who
will produce the JLTV? I know we're down to three right now.
General Williamson. Sir, the intent is in 2015. One of the
things I like about this procurement is that they've done a lot
of work, they understand the requirements, they're well-
defined, the technology is mature. So really what we're doing
now is working our way through the evaluations, the test
criteria, to get down to that down select. I think we are on
track for a 2015.
Senator Donnelly. What is your highest priority criteria in
making that selection?
General Williamson. Our criteria?
Senator Donnelly. What are some of the critical elements
that you're looking at in terms of making the selection?
General Williamson. I think there's a few that would
obviously jump out, Senator. Obviously, it's the mobility, the
survivability. But I'd also have to put a lot of emphasis on
the cost and the sustainability. One of the things that we're
looking for is how do we maintain a fleet of 49,000, if you
include the Marine Corps 54,000 initial platforms? How do we
sustain that over time at a cost that gives us all of those
things we talked about, the survivability, the mobility, but
also is cost-effective for us to operate?
Senator Donnelly. Okay. When we look at our Mine-Resistant
Ambush Protected (MRAP) vehicles that are coming back, when we
transfer something like an MRAP through the Excess Defense
Articles (EDA) program, do you see any benefits to working with
partners in the Department of State (DOS), the Department of
Commerce, and industry to foster refurbishment or sustainment
opportunities to ensure these vehicles perform well for our
allies?
They have been, they earned their keep and then some out in
the theater. I was wondering how you feel about that? I know
we're looking at keeping maybe 8,500 of them, the most capable,
the best ones, but for the other ones.
General Williamson. Absolutely, sir. Having just returned
from theater, I've engaged with not only a number of Foreign
Military Sales (FMS) cases, but a number of our allies in terms
of their desire to receive these platforms. Obviously, our goal
would be to give them something that's operational. There are
costs associated with that in terms of FMS cases.
Partnering with both our partners here in the United States
and then with our allied nations to deliver that absolutely
makes sense.
General Campbell. Sir, if I could just add to that. There's
a difference here. FMS is one way, but when you declare
something as EDAs, what that means is we cannot put any more
money toward it. If you take an MRAP in Afghanistan and say
this is EDA, then we move it over to the side and we make sure
we advertise and all these countries can understand that we
have this available. But we can't do anything to it.
Senator Donnelly. You're done with it?
General Campbell. We're done with it. We can't touch it. We
can't spend money to transport it. They have to come to
Afghanistan to get it.
Senator Donnelly. They have to figure out how to get it out
of there, too.
General Campbell. Right, the third countries that want to
come to Afghanistan to get an EDA-type vehicle. We're working
very hard with DOS and with the Office of the Secretary of
Defense (OSD) to make sure we have the right policies in place,
to make sure we do the right things to help out our coalition
forces to gain this equipment that for us is not economically
feasible to bring that back to us, or we're only keeping a
certain amount. But there are some policy things there.
General Barclay. We can give you some numbers. Really, of
about the almost 22,000 that we've bought, 8,500 sounds like a
small number, but that's just for certain portions. There's
another 1,800 to 2,000 that we're repurposing. We're a little
over 11,500 that the Active Army's going to use. We've also had
about 2,000 of those that are coded out battle losses or
unrepairable.
As you total all those numbers up, it accounts for about
16,300 or 16,400 that are accounted for. Then we have about
5,000 that move into that EDA-type category or FMS or other
government. There's about 5,000 there to play with depending on
how they fall.
Senator Donnelly. I would just like to finish up by
saying--and I've mentioned this before--I heard once or twice
folks say: Wow, how could you spend so much on MRAPs? My answer
is: How could we not? That somewhere in our country there's a
young man or woman who is back home safe and sound because of
those vehicles. For every one that is unrepairable because it
got banged up, we are grateful to that vehicle for what it did.
With that, sir, Mr. Chairman, thank you.
Senator Blumenthal. Thanks very much, Senator.
Senator Sessions.
Senator Sessions. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
General Campbell, maybe we ought to change the EDA rules if
they're not allowing you to use common sense to get the best
effect for the taxpayers and for the military. Maybe we ought
to say you can't do anything to them might not be the smartest
thing. General, that's probably correct, it may not always be
so.
Senator Sessions. General Campbell?
General Campbell. We are working with OSD and we're working
with DOS to make sure we do everything we can to provide
coalition partners with equipment. Again, as General Barclay
talked about, there's FMS, where a country will come and just
buy that, and put certain specifications on what they want on
the vehicle or not want on the vehicle, or any other type of
equipment. That's worked very closely with OSD and DOS.
But EDA is a whole other category. Again, once you declare
it EDA, you can't put any money toward it. We're working that
very hard with OSD and making sure that we can reduce that
number.
We potentially could get it some place that might be
easier. There was a big push in January and February to move
many of the vehicles to Kuwait. In Iraq we were able to drive
everything to Kuwait that we were going to get out. We don't
have that catcher's mitt in Afghanistan. We're dependent upon
multi-modal, we're dependent upon if the Ground Lines of
Communications are going to open up through Pakistan, if we're
going to go up through the Northern Distribution Network, or
we're going to pay a lot of money to put it on an aircraft to
fly it back.
We work all of those and balance that, and I think we have
the best and the brightest over in Afghanistan and they
continue to work that for us.
But again, if we declare it EDA then we can't put Army
money towards that. That is not an Army policy; that is, I
believe, by law, by statute. Any relaxation or adjustments to
that would have to come from Congress.
Senator Sessions. Just briefly, what's the status of the
Russian helicopter purchase for Afghanistan that was discussed,
briefly?
General Campbell. I'll let General Williamson talk to that.
I know he's been working that very hard on the Mi-17s. The only
thing I would say is that my discussions with General Joseph F.
Dunford, Jr., Commander of the International Security
Assistance Force and U.S. Forces Afghanistan, over there, this
is a huge priority for him, to make sure that he can provide
the Afghans with their aviation capability. People say, why do
you have to do that, or why do you use this----
Senator Sessions. I know the argument on it. I don't agree.
General Campbell. I'll let Mike talk about the specifics on
where we are, then.
Senator Sessions. Where are we on that?
General Williamson. Sir, that procurement action had
already started. They had taken delivery of six of those
aircraft. As late as this month, they've taken another three.
There are still another 20, 23 left to be delivered. We're
still on path to----
Senator Sessions. So it's still ongoing as planned?
General Williamson. It is. Sir, let me just clarify,
though, that part of that was because we have provided the
funding for the next increment of aircraft, and so it was still
on path. It was held up briefly so that we could understand the
environment. But those funds have already been provided.
Senator Sessions. If the Russians invade Kiev are we going
to still buy it?
General Williamson. Sir----
Senator Sessions. You don't need to answer. That's, I
guess, above your pay grade, and mine too maybe. Maybe it's not
above ours. We're supposed to be responsible. I'm concerned
about that.
General Campbell, you mentioned that we have 92,000 that
you need to keep the Army going strong. I would just say that
there's no business in the world that's competitive that isn't
reducing and being more efficient. If you draw down the
personnel 100,000 troops, we ought to be able to draw down the
number of people that support, the core staff that are not the
point of the spear.
I know you have to have a substantial effective group
there, but that has to be challenged also.
General Campbell. Sir, we are. I did say that, but I would
tell you there is a bottom line that we have to keep. You need
someone to keep the lights on, somebody to do X. But we are
looking at it to make sure we're doing everything most
efficiently. The Secretary of Defense announced a 20 percent
cut in all the two-star and above headquarters. Our Secretary
and Chief are going to a 25 percent cut, so we're looking hard
at headquarters to get rid of a lot of that tail.
But on the institutional side, whether you have 490,000 or
whether you have 450,000, there's a certain amount you need to
train, provide medical care to recruit, on and on. If I said
we're not downsizing at all, I was wrong. We are downsizing.
But we will come to a point where we have a bare minimum that
we have to keep.
Senator Sessions. We had 220,000 civilians on September 11,
2001. That surged to 284,000 in 2011. We're taking troop levels
down to a point below what we had in 2001. In 2001 we had
481,000 military uniformed personnel. I don't see why the
civilian personnel can't be reduced in the Army alone by the
60,000 that were added during that time.
General Campbell. Sir, we are reducing our civilians at a
proportional rate. I think that rate's about 14 percent. Today,
we're about 240,000, so we've come down about 20,000 here in
the last year or so. We'll continue to work that. Our
Department of the Army civilians will continue to come down.
Senator Sessions. I just think it may be a little more
difficult to terminate a civilian than a uniformed personnel.
Is that correct?
General Campbell. Sir, there are policies that we have to
follow, yes. It is more difficult.
Senator Sessions. You can tell a soldier goodbye,
basically. Not always.
General Campbell. No, sir, we do more than that.
Senator Sessions. I know you do. But I mean, you have more
control over the uniformed soldier.
General Campbell. Sir, we do.
Senator Sessions. I hope that that doesn't become an
impediment and that we end up taking down uniformed soldiers
more than we take down the civilians. I think it ought to be at
least proportional, and, in fact, I remember former Secretary
of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld had some heartburn, but his firm
view and goal when he took office was to get more people at the
point of the spear and less back in the headquarters. I think
that was a movement in the right direction and we have to keep
that in mind as we go forward.
I am worried that the Army is going to be hammered more
than other Services. You're drawing down a lot more in
personnel than the other Services. You were surged upward to
deal with the crisis that you faced. I think the Army did a
fabulous job. People were deployed for long periods of time.
They served heroically. We know we're going to have a drawdown,
but it needs to be done in a way that the Army isn't taking
more than its share of the reductions than other Services.
I don't know at this point where the right place to draw
that line is, but I am concerned about it and all of us in
Congress are going to have to give it their attention.
Thank you for your service. I thank you for all the work
you've done for this country.
Senator Blumenthal. Thank you, Senator Sessions. Thank you
for raising the issue of the Russian helicopters. I was going
to raise it, but I wanted to begin on a more global issue
first.
What I'm about to say and ask I hope will not be taken
personally, because I recognize that you're not the
decisionmakers in this issue. But I think I want to just
express to you as strongly and respectfully as possible the
strong sense of outrage, I think, is the word that best
characterizes my feeling, and, I think, it's a feeling of
bipartisan outrage because Senator Cornyn and I and others on
this committee have raised this issue repeatedly. I think it is
brought into the starkest and most staggering profile by the
Russians in effect thumbing their nose at us in Ukraine and our
continuing to purchase these helicopters from Rosoboronexport,
the Russian arms agency, that at the same time is selling arms
to President Assad in Syria and bankrolling the troops that are
on the border of Ukraine, having seized Crimea and now
threatening the rest of that country.
I have enormous respect for General Dunford. I have met
him. I can't say that he's a personal friend, but he is one of
our finest military leaders, one of our finest national
leaders. I have great admiration for the work that he's doing
right now in Afghanistan under the most challenging of
circumstances. I respect his view that the Afghanistan army is
accustomed to using those Russian helicopters. They know how to
fly them. They're much less sophisticated. They are, as was
once said to me, the equivalent of flying refrigerators, and
they are much easier to maintain.
But our helicopters are better, and eventually if the
Afghans are really going to defend their country, they're going
to have to use the best military equipment. Moreover, for U.S.
taxpayers to be funding those helicopters and to buy them from
the Russians, I think, is just absolutely unacceptable.
Senator Sessions. Mr. Chairman?
Senator Blumenthal. Senator Sessions, of course.
Senator Sessions. Could I just add that when we were there
maybe a year ago and this was being discussed, I pressed the
issue and found out there's not that many Afghans that have
been trained on these helicopters, very few, in fact. They have
had some training on them, but not a lot, very few.
Senator Blumenthal. Absolutely correct, Senator. My
understanding is they don't have enough pilots right now to fly
them. They don't have enough mechanics to maintain them. The
latest report, done by the Government Accountability Office, I
think sheds very serious doubts on the whole program going back
some years. I hope there will be bipartisan support for a
letter that I have drafted to be sent to Secretary of State
Kerry asking that we cease all purchases of military equipment
from Russia across the board.
Let me ask you, General Williamson, if Congress were today
or tomorrow to instruct our DOD to cease all delivery--I
recognize that there has been perhaps some payment--what would
be the loss in dollar terms to the United States?
General Williamson. Sir, I'd have to go back and check the
specific number. But I believe it would be upwards of about
$100 million.
[The information referred to follows:]
The total contract option value for the purchase of 30 Mi-17
aircraft from the Russian joint stock company Rosoboronexport is $552.2
million. The contract option was for the procurement and delivery of 30
Mi-17 aircraft for the Afghan Special Mission Wing along with initial
spares and engineering and warranty services. Nine of 30 aircraft have
been delivered and $353.4 million has been paid to date, leaving $198.8
million undisbursed.
Senator Blumenthal. $100 million already paid, or is that
in costs or fees in connection with breaking a contract?
General Williamson. I think it's a combination of all of
those.
Senator Blumenthal. I'd like to know more precisely,
because in my view, if it's simply penalties for breaking
contracts, let the Russians try to collect from us.
General Williamson. I understand, sir.
Senator Blumenthal. As much detail as you can provide. I
recognize you didn't come prepared today to answer these
detailed questions and I don't want to be unfair to you or any
of the others, any of your colleagues who are here with you
today. But this is serious business and I think as you've
sensed at this table it's a bipartisan feeling. I intend to
continue to raise it. I appreciate your cooperation.
I want to ask a few other questions about helicopters.
Fiscal year 2015 is the fourth year of a 5-year multi-year
procurement contract for the UH-60M Black Hawk helicopter. It's
the eighth time that the Army has entered into this multi-year
procurement to buy Black Hawks, a very successful program I'm
proud to say, supported by Sikorsky, which happens to be in the
State of Connecticut. We're very proud of the work done with
those Black Hawks. I put them in the same category as Senator
Donnelly did the MRAPs in saving lives and providing service.
There are indications now that the Navy is going to back
out of its share of the fiscal year 2016 part of that contract
due to force structure changes. So my question is: Is there a
plan for avoiding breaking the UH-60 multi-year procurement,
and what is the potential impact of the reduction, which I
understand is in the range of 39 Black Hawks in fiscal year
2016?
General Barclay. Sir, you're absolutely correct. Last year
the issue arose as the Navy's changing its force structure,
that they were going to back out of the Black Hawk program.
They were directed to put money in in 2014, so that will come
back up again as we look to get the last year of the multi-year
plan.
But as Senator Wicker noted, we are starting to put more
money--as we are doing the Aviation Restructure Initiative
(ARI), we're also changing our quantities and the rate that
we're buying and we're putting--we added some money into the
Black Hawk line to move some of those up to try to help as we
fielded the Black Hawks across all three components, as we move
airframes around between the three components.
But as we're going in now building this program--and it'll
come up again this fall, I'm sure--I have not been able to see
what the Navy's final plans are. We won't really get that until
the late summer, going into fall, in the fall review to
determine how many they think they will end up procuring. Then
that will drive us then to the decisions we'll have to make to
keep the multi-year program.
Multi-year programs are great, not only for the Services;
they're also great for the American taxpayers as we save a
large amount. It also gives us some certainty as we move
forward to drive those programs, which allows us then to do a
better job of modernizing our equipment. So to us, it's a
critical aspect and we're very concerned that we continue with
the multi-year program with the UH-60s.
Senator Blumenthal. What about the loss of the 39
helicopters? Will that break apart the multi-year procurement?
General Barclay. Sir, I think Michael can--I don't know the
exact numbers. We were trying to look. Waiting on what the Navy
says, because originally it was up around 58 that they were not
going to buy. We have traded some trade space in us buying some
more moving forward. As they look at changing based on the BBA
and how that timeline moves, that gave a little bit more
dollars. They have slowed their force structure, but again, we
won't see that until we go in for the fall review from the
Navy. That number could be 39, it could be less. Then we'll
have to make that determination.
Senator Blumenthal. General Williamson?
General Williamson. Sir, the only thing I would add is that
we are looking at those numbers, but as you know the value for
the multi-year for us is that it gives some planning for
industry, which allows us to normalize the flow on that line.
Understanding whether it's 39--I've heard as low as 25--allows
us to go and figure out how those costs have to be distributed
and what the workload is. Once we have more definition on that,
we'll be able to talk about the impacts.
General Campbell. Sir, a key point, though, on what General
Barclay said that I just want to highlight, is that the Army's
ARI helps this problem. It doesn't get rid of it, as you talked
about, but it helps that problem as we've restructured.
Senator Blumenthal. Thank you. Thanks, General.
I'm going to turn again to Senator Wicker. I'll have some
additional questions.
Senator Wicker. General Campbell and General Barclay, with
regard to Army ARI. The Army states it has taken an integrated
total Army approach to reducing the cost of aviation while
preserving modern capabilities and meeting the national
security demands of combatant commanders and the civil support
missions for the governors.
The Army also asserts that they included the Reserve
component throughout the process.
Walk us through--and we can begin with General Campbell--
the rationale for the ARI, including the savings, and how
involved was the Reserve component and how involved was the
Guard in this process?
General Campbell. Sir, thanks for the question. The bottom
line is funding constraints drove the Army to reevaluate Army
aviation. Today we have the very best aviation in the world,
and what we want to be able to do is continue to have the very
best aviation in the world. But based on the budget, we
couldn't do that. If we just went status quo or if we just took
cuts out of our combat aviation brigades, continued to have
seven platforms, didn't divest of the old aircraft, kept that,
we would not have the best aviation.
You would expect us to be bold and to figure out how we
could do that, and I really do believe that the aviation
restructure has done that. I'll let Jim talk more on the
details here in a second that goes into that, as he's worked
that very closely.
I will talk to you about how we discussed this with all
components. I've personally been involved with the aviation
restructure probably since last summer, at least last summer,
maybe even before that. But I know that since last summer we've
had National Guard, we've had U.S. Army Reserve and Active
components together talking about this, maybe not every day,
but several times a week, at colonel level, at one-star level,
at two-star level. I've personally been in several sessions
that all of The Adjutants General (TAG) from all the States
where we talked about it. I've personally talked to General
Frank J. Grass, ARNG, the Chief of the National Guard Bureau,
and I can't even count the number of times we've talked about
aviation restructure since last summer.
Our plan for aviation restructure is actually better today
because of the input that we have from our National Guard
aviators and the folks that were on the planning teams that
helped us work through this.
Senator Wicker. Is it fair to say TAGs are not overly
delighted?
General Campbell. Probably the 9 or 10 that have Apaches
are not overdelighted, sir. I would tell you many TAGs have
come forward and said: ``Hey, I don't use an Apache in my
State; why do I need an Apache for my State? I need more
lift,'' and this ARI does that.
But I think you're right. I think they've come back and
said, for a lot of different reasons--this is very emotional,
as the Chief talked about yesterday. We have to take the
emotion out of it and do what's best for our Nation. I really
do believe that the ARI does that, and we get rid of three old
airframes. We divest that. We go down to four.
It started out years ago where we were looking for a new
reconnaissance platform, we need an Armed Aerial Scout, there
is not one out there that will meet the requirements that we
have. The Apache, when you add the Shadow and the manned and
unmanned teaming, has proved to be the very best. So we're
going to move that and make that the reconnaissance platform
until we can afford an Armed Aerial Scout.
The light utility helicopters (LUH), sir, we need to change
how we train our aviators. We need to get them into a more
modern aircraft. The training helicopter we have at Fort Rucker
will not do that for our future. The LUH, we have it. We
already have the requirement. With your help, with Congress'
help, we'll buy more of those. We don't have to take those from
the Guard, so we think that's a good thing.
Total annual just in the operating and support costs that
we save is just over $1 billion, the cost avoid. This is over
$12 billion. I would think that our taxpayers, the American
public, want us to do something like this to make sure we have
the very best aviation force that we can afford.
I'll defer to Jim. He's been very tied into it and his
folks have been leading the discussion. But, sir, make no
doubt, this has been a consolidated effort, working with all
the components. We don't always agree and I got that, and we
will never ever get consensus with all 54 TAGs. But we've been
working it very hard, open, candid. We appreciate that ability.
But in the end, the Secretary and the Chief have to make some
very tough decisions and they have to look at this across all
the components and do what's best for our Nation.
Senator Wicker. As we toss it to General Barclay, help us
with how we get to the $12 billion in savings and what period
of time?
General Barclay. Okay, sir. As the Vice Chief has said
already, in just your operations and sustainment costs it's
$1.1 billion a year the ARI saves annually. Now, the aviation
restructure total avoid is $11.9 billion, $12 billion. There's
$3.35 billion of that for the OH-58 Delta cockpit and essential
upgrade program that we will no longer do. There's $6.96
billion for the OH-58 Delta service life extension program
(SLEP). In other words, we'd have to SLEP those aircraft as you
move them in to make them last into the 20s. There's about $191
million for the TH-67 SLEP. There is $1.43 billion for a new
training aircraft, the TH-67. As you total all that up, that's
about $11.9 billion as you're looking at those, those different
things.
Now, the Guard has come back with several different
proposals keeping different levels, 6 battalions, 4 battalions,
18 aircraft, 24 aircraft. There's been, I said, I think three
or four of those that we have taken a look at the cost
measures.
I will tell you that roughly, just if you don't move the
AH-64s out of the National Guard, the one-time cost if you're
just going back to equip your Active component, there's about
$3.65 billion to procure additional AH-64s to be able to man
and equip and keep those units.
One of the key things, sir, is we're coming down from 37
shooting battalions--that includes your Kiowa Warriors and your
Apaches--to 20 shooting battalions. That's why, as the Chief
and the Secretary have testified and the Chief yesterday
testified, it's important that we understand and do the
complementary roles that we're doing across each of the three
components, so we can meet the mission sets and operational
requirements along the timelines that we know we're going to
have to. So that was always part of the driving factor as we
look at the ARI.
Senator Wicker. TAGs get more lift under this proposal?
General Barclay. No, sir, not every TAG gets more lift
under these proposals. Again, we have an Active component
version of how you could spread those aircraft across. Again,
most of the 50 States total, 54 with the territories, some
States may lose 1 to 2 Black Hawks. Some States would gain 10
or 11 Black Hawks. One of the examples is a State that has 16
Apaches and it would give up 16 Apaches. They would get back 11
Black Hawks. So they're losing roughly a five-aircraft swing in
that State.
But again, the National Guard Bureau would have to work
those, as they do each of the States, and work those plans
about where, which States would be impacted greater than other
ones.
Senator Wicker. General Barclay, General Campbell said
we're going to use the Apache teamed with the unmanned aircraft
for reconnaissance until we can afford a new Scout helicopter.
I had information that it's more costly from an O&M perspective
than if we went ahead and acquired the new Scout helicopter. So
help us with that.
General Campbell. I'll start, Jim, and then you can add to
it.
The cost of the OH-58 is much lower than the cost of the
AH-64, but we're not going to keep the OH-58 over time. I think
really for an Armed Aerial Scout of the future as we look at
the requirement, what we would want that platform to do, what
we want to do, is continue to invest in the technology to get
the very best. We don't think there's anything out there right
now that would take us to spend that money completely on a
brand new platform when we have the AH-64 that as we've run
some tests with industry out there, that the AH-64 with the
unmanned and manned teaming--and that is very complex--that
provides the best Armed Aerial Scout today.
It's different, and it's very emotional for the Active guys
that own OH-58s. There's only one OH-58 squadron in the Guard.
For all of our OH-58 pilots, it's very emotional for them.
We'll train them in the other aircraft. But it is different
from looking out a window, flying 50 feet above, and taking a
look, versus what you can do with the optics sitting way back
with the AH-64.
But I don't think the technology is where we need it. We
want to invest in the technology, get the very best, and have
that down the road.
But I'll let you add to that, Jim.
General Barclay. Sir, the cost of an OH-58 Delta flying
hour is $2,373 per hour. The cost of an AH-64 Delta is $6,034
per hour. But with the ARI, as you take down the number of
airplanes--for example, we're removing 9 Active component OH-58
Delta squadrons, for a savings of $479 million. We're removing
1 Reserve or Guard OH-58 Delta, for a savings of $19 million.
It removes 6 AH-64 battalions for a savings of $195 million,
and it adds 3 manned Active component AH-64 squadrons for $198
million.
So yes, it's apples and oranges when you talk hour
comparison, a Kiowa to an AH-64. But when you look at the total
fleet, which is what we did with the ARI, the total end cost,
because we're coming down, of our total fleet, if you divest
yourself of 898 aircraft total either divested or transferred,
687 of those aircraft are coming out of the Active component.
212--I mean, and then 111 we're transferring Black Hawks back
to the National Guard.
So again, you have to take all these together. You can't
just compare an AH-64 flight hour to a Kiowa Warrior flight
hour and tell you it's going to cost you more. Again, it's the
total cost across the entire fleet and all three components of
where we're going to end up in the total number of aircraft we
have.
Senator Wicker. Okay. Mr. Chairman, it may be that our
staff will want to get together with these gentlemen and
understand this issue further.
Let me ask you this, General Barclay. Was the Apache
conceived as a Scout helicopter?
General Barclay. Sir, the Apache was designed as an attack-
reconnaissance. That's why they're in the attack reconnaissance
battalions. But its main purpose is as a heavy attack aircraft.
I will tell you that when we did the analysis of alternatives
back when I was the commanding general at Fort Rucker, trying
to develop the next armed reconnaissance helicopter, we looked
at five different variant model types to meet the requirement.
The Apache came out number one in meeting the capabilities and
requirements that we wanted, but it was the most expensive.
That's when we went to make some tradeoffs to go to a lesser
model.
As we now restructure because we cannot afford the total
fleet we have in the Army, much like we can't afford our total
manpower structure, we started looking back, and so with this
downsizing and coming down from an 810-Apache--originally the
acquisition objective was 810 Apaches. We're bringing that down
to 690.
So again, it's the combination of all these different
things we're doing that allows us to afford this and, yes,
provide us the capability that is greater than what we would
have.
Senator Wicker. Mr. Chairman, I'll take another round. I'll
yield to you for a few moments.
Senator Blumenthal. Thank you.
I want to shift gears from aircraft to ground vehicles, if
I may. Can you explain--and you make reference to it, General
Campbell, in your testimony the slowed production of the Abrams
tanks and Bradley Fighting Vehicles. I think in your testimony
you talk about slowed production deliveries of the Abrams
Vehicle to distribute workload and prevent workforce furloughs.
A little bit later you talk about developing a second source
supplier for--your term--``financially fragile suppliers'' for
Abrams and Bradley vehicles.
Could you elaborate a little bit on that point? Is the
slowed production the cause or the effect of the financial
fragility of those suppliers? What is the thinking behind the
slowed production.
General Campbell. I'll defer to Michael at the end, as he's
really tied into that. But I think it's a combination of both.
As the budget comes down we have to look at where we can make
adjustments. But also, we've been able to reset a lot of our
Abrams. Over the last several years, the average shelf life of
an Abrams is only 4 to 5 years now, based on where we've been,
so that's very good.
With the help of Congress, we will slow down, but we'll
also bridge a gap that was going to be out there. We've
depended upon FMS and some other things to help keep the line
open, to make sure that we continue to work the workers. It's a
very select group of engineers and workers that work on this
particular vehicle. So there was a gap out there in the 2016
time range, and with some additional monies that Congress has
provided we'll be able to bridge that gap for about 12 months.
But it is a combination of the budget plus we feel pretty
good about the number of tanks and the quality of tanks that we
have now. We just don't need as much. We're working engineering
change proposals (ECP) that takes the ones we have and
continues to make them better with some upgrades.
I'll let Michael add to that.
General Williamson. Sir, I'd just like to add that I'm not
going to characterize it as much as a slowdown as I am a
smoothing. The challenge for the industrial base is the peaks
and valleys, where there is not enough workload to keep the
skilled labor, the design engineers, the integrating engineers,
all gainfully employed and to distribute the cost of the
facility, the machinery, all of those things.
What's really important in sustaining the industrial base
is to have that workload smoothed out. We've done some things,
as the Vice Chief indicated. I look at it on three prongs: one,
there's the investment we're doing in continuing the remaining
build of Abrams; there's the ECP work that we're doing on
things like Bradleys, as an example; there's also the FMS
cases, so there's a large one that we are working with the
Saudis that will allow us to smooth that load and make sure
that we don't have production breaks where we lose that talent
and skilled labor.
But then there's another piece that talks to the
efficiencies associated with these facilities. It's both on the
organic and it's also on the industrial base. The critical
aspect of this is to make sure that there is a sufficient
workload to keep folks employed and to bring in the right
amount of talent and keep it sustained over time.
What we've done, as was indicated, is make sure that we
have the workload to support that across all of ours. It's not,
sir, just on vehicles, but we have to do the same thing on
things like ammunition. We need to make sure that we steady-
state that.
Senator Blumenthal. Let me ask you, what was the thinking
behind the cancellation of the GCV?
General Campbell. Sir, there's still a requirement for an
IFV. As I talked about in the opening statement, we can't
afford one right now, bottom line.
Senator Blumenthal. Will the technologies be used that were
developed?
General Campbell. Sir, absolutely. We will continue to
learn. We'll continue to take and spiral out technologies from
what we've already had going. Then we believe probably in the
2019 to 2020 timeframe, we'll see another IFV requirement come
up there. The requirement's there. We just have to get the
budget back up, and it's going to take us a few years to be
able to do that.
Senator Blumenthal. So it was really a cost issue more than
anything?
General Campbell. Absolutely.
Senator Blumenthal. We've talked a little bit about the
Reserve and National Guard. But in terms of going from the
concept of a strategic reserve to an operational reserve
component--and I recognize that over the last decade our
Reserve components have played an increasingly active role and
there's been increasing reliance on them--will the sacrifices
in the modernization program for our Reserves be different from
Active-Duty Forces in terms of equipment, training, and so
forth, given that we are increasingly reliant on them?
General Campbell. Let me start it and I'll turn to Jim or
Mike to add to it.
Sir, you're absolutely right, and I've served in combat
both in Iraq and Afghanistan with our National Guard, our U.S.
Army Reserve, and our Active component, and they've all
performed very well. We have moved from pre-September 11 from a
strategic reserve to an operational reserve. The Chief has
testified over and over that we want to continue with an
operational reserve.
But that means you have to be in balance. If we keep the
same end strength and we don't drop the Guard, we keep the same
force structure and we don't drop the Guard, then where do you
take that out of? It comes out of readiness. If they don't have
readiness and they have all the end strength and force
structure, you are a strategic reserve.
You have to reduce that a little bit, and we'll continue to
work that, and our National Guard will remain an operational
reserve. But they have to come down a little bit in end
strength, a little bit in force structure, and keep the
readiness up there.
On equipping, our National Guard is equipped better than
they ever have been. The percentage of their equipment that
continues to--from 2001 to now, and Jim may have the exact
numbers--is pretty phenomenal. But our challenge will be to
continue to maintain that in the environment we live in today.
But I think all of our National Guard would tell you that the
equipment they have, based on help from Congress and our
priority has been to make sure we provide them that.
Our reliance on our Reserve component is going to be
greater in the future. We're moving from about a 51 percent
Guard and U.S. Army Reserve, 49 percent Active, to about a 54
percent of the total force to about 46 percent with the Active.
There's no doubt that our reliance on our National Guard and
our U.S. Army Reserve is going to be more in the future. The
key is to make sure we have the right balance, and that's what
the Chief and the Secretary are working very hard to do.
General Barclay. Sir, the Vice Chief is absolutely correct.
Over the last 10 years, not only has the Guard, but all three
components, our equipment on hand levels have risen somewhere
between about 14 percent all the way up to 17 percent, and the
modernization levels for all three components have been raised.
For example, right now the modernization level for the Active
component is 91 percent. The Army Guard is at 86 percent and
the U.S. Army Reserve is 76 percent.
To give you a touchpoint for that, the Reserve was sitting
at about 54 percent going into this war. Everyone has made
tremendous gains, not only in the modernization, but also the
equipment on hand. For example, the equipment on hand now to
get to that 100 percent, the Active component is at 95 percent,
the Guard is at 91 percent, and the Reserve is at 87 percent.
That's one of the critical parts, as we move forward in
shaping our Army and balancing the manning and the readiness
and the modernization, is we're going to improve all three
components as we draw down on the modernization side. For
example, the ARI, the critical part of that is removing some of
those older platforms. For example, the National Guard, as we
move forward with this, we will take all the A model Black
Hawks out and they will move into Lima (UH-60L) models and Mike
(UH-60M) models. So again, that's part of our plan as we're
getting smaller, is to ensure we keep the most modern aircraft
across all three components.
Senator Blumenthal. Thank you.
Senator Wicker, if you have other questions.
Senator Wicker. I do. We're going to be submitting a number
of follow-up questions for the record.
I'm really very impressed with this panel, Mr. Chairman,
and I want to work with them to get the best result. But if I
could, I want to pivot to General Williamson. You just got back
from Afghanistan, is that correct?
General Williamson. That's correct, sir.
Senator Wicker. Where were you and how long were you there?
General Williamson. I was in Kabul, sir. I was there for
almost 8 months.
Senator Wicker. Did you spend your time principally in
Kabul?
General Williamson. Sir, I went across the region, but most
of my time was invested with resources, with the coalition. So
I spent most of my time in Kabul working for General Dunford.
Senator Wicker. This is a hearing on modernization, but Mr.
Chairman, if I might just draw on the experience that
Lieutenant General Williamson brings back from Afghanistan.
There's a debate in this town about what our presence looks
like after the end of this year. Let's say the United States
leaves a force of around 10,000 troops in Afghanistan. If that
is, in fact, the decision of the Commander in Chief, how many
total International Security Assistance Forces will remain? Can
you answer that?
General Williamson. Sir, I can't really talk to that. I'm
not trying to avoid an answer. If you'd just bear with me for a
second.
Senator Wicker. I'll sure bear with you.
General Williamson. My role there was in making sure that
the resources were available for us to support not only the
coalition fight, but helping to build the Afghan police and the
Afghan military. The only thing I would offer to you is that I
can't specifically talk to the size of the force that should
remain, but I could offer to you, though, that as I spent my
time there and what I know is that we made a significant
investment. I think you saw reflected in the last couple of
days, that there is a tremendous amount of payoff when you look
at just any metric like the election.
When you look at the reduced amount of violence, when you
look at the performance of the security force, all of those
things happened because of the investment we made. My concern--
and this is personal, sir--would be to walk away and not leave
enough structure to make sure that that's sustained over time.
Senator Wicker. That is precisely my concern, sir. The only
difference is I haven't served there in the military and you
have recently. But I think you and I both see it from the same
standpoint. We went into Afghanistan after the terrorist
attacks of September 11, and I would remind my fellow citizens
and my colleagues, we went in virtually unanimously. As I
recall, there was one dissenting vote in the House of
Representatives, where I served. To my recollection, it was
unanimous over in this body.
There seems to be a feeling out there among the American
people that somewhere along the line we made a tragic mistake
and that this somehow has become a disaster. I honestly,
General Williamson, don't feel that way. I think we have an
opportunity to turn this into a defeat if we make that decision
collectively as a body politic.
But as you've stated, we've made a great deal of sacrifice
and investment, the taxpayers have, the all-volunteer troops
that have been over there. It seems, based on the election,
based on the loya jirga being a representative cross-section of
all the tribes and ethnic groups, speaking virtually
unanimously that they would like for us to continue as a
partner and make sure this place is stable, that it just seems
to me that we have an opportunity to leave this place stable, a
place that will not be a haven for terrorists, and to walk away
with some degree of success.
Can you tell us, this calendar year--you perhaps don't know
precisely--but how many casualties have we had in the recent
past in Afghanistan?
General Williamson. Sir, I can't speak to that precisely,
but what I can tell you is that our casualty count has gone
down substantially. In fact----
Senator Wicker. American casualties?
General Williamson. American casualties. But I would like
to broaden that to talk about the coalition and the Afghans.
Again, because of the training, because of the support that
we've provided, because of the investment that we've made, the
Afghans are able to provide even more defense, even more
security. Even though their casualties are still there, I would
tell you that those numbers are substantially down from when I
arrived in the middle of last year, the early part of last
year.
So I can't talk specific numbers, but I do know that those
numbers have gone down.
Senator Wicker. Down substantially, even for the Afghans?
General Williamson. I believe so, Senator.
Senator Wicker. You've been involved in training the
police. How are we doing there?
General Williamson. Sir, my involvement in training the
police is really facilitating the trainers, those types of
things. So, again, I can't talk to the actual training aspect.
But on the effects side, there is obviously much more security.
Again, I would tell you that the metric that I go by today is
the security that was seen during the elections and leading up
to the elections.
Senator Wicker. How are we doing in training the Afghan
military?
General Williamson. Sir, I think my answer would be the
same. During the time that I was there, what I had the
opportunity to see was the Afghans planning and executing more
of their missions, and that increased over time and during
independent operations, with limited support from the
coalition. So I would offer that I think you're seeing the
effect of the training and the investment that's been made.
Senator Wicker. Thank you. I appreciate the fact that
you're not here speaking for the Department of the Army in that
respect. You're here to talk about modernization and you're
certainly not an official of the DOS. I appreciate your letting
me go a little further afield than the subject matter of this
hearing.
Mr. Chairman, thank you for letting me depart a bit from
our mission today. But I do believe that the testimony of this
distinguished American who just got back is something that we
should pay attention to. Thank you, sir.
Senator Blumenthal. Thank you very much, Senator Wicker.
I think we're near the close of our hearing today, but I do
have additional questions that we will submit for the record.
I just wanted to clarify, General Campbell. You mentioned
22.5 percent of Americans based on physical, background, and
other requirements would be eligible and that's a reduction
from, I think you said----
General Campbell. It was about 33 percent a couple of years
ago, sir. That 22.5, it's an approximate that I've seen as
we've discussed it in personnel channels. So around 3 out of 10
Americans in the 17 to 24 age group could join and now it's
less than 3, it's about 2.2. But again, sir, that's a
combination of probably criminal records, it's a combination of
obesity, it's a combination of physical issues, it's education,
on and on.
That same percentage all the Services are going after, all
the universities are going after, all the businesses are going
after. So that population continues to come down.
The good thing is, I think, is that your Army continues to
bring in the best and brightest. We have not had the issues of
recruiting. I think across all of our components here in the
last several years we've been able to provide for them, provide
them training, provide them the resources, with Congress' help.
So that's good.
But it's going to get tougher as we move forward and the
fiscal environment we live in is going to make that tougher.
Just a simple story, 2 or 3 years ago what we would provide in
incentives or special pays was much greater than we do now.
We've had to take down that to be able to provide in other
areas.
Senator Blumenthal. If I were to follow up on those numbers
to get the exact years and maybe some more precision, what
would the best way of doing it be? Should we do it through you,
your office?
General Campbell. Yes, sir, absolutely. I just saw a brief
through our G-1 folks that showed pretty much where the
percentage is, but also, even more important, I think, looks
out the next 5 to 10 years on how that's going to continue to
go down, and then what we can do to help out the American
population to provide education, whether it's Junior Reserve
Officers' Training Corps, whether it's--your Army provides more
money to education than any other organization in the world,
through Reserve Officers' Training Corps scholarships, through
Junior Reserve Officers' Training Corps in the high schools, to
provide young men and women opportunities to become better
citizens, to help them maybe add to their potential to serve in
any of our Services.
Sir, yes, you would get that information from our office.
Senator Blumenthal. Thank you.
I might just second the general point that you're making,
which is our Military Services are probably the most impactful
or one of the most impactful forces in shaping our civilian
society well beyond the readiness of defense and other services
that you provide.
I might just say, one of the most gratifying and exciting
parts of my job is to participate in nominating young men and
women for our Service Academies. That's only a very small slice
of the recruiting that's done by our military, but I can just
say that they are extraordinary young men and women. I hope
that they will continue to be interested, that our young men
and women of talent and dedication will continue to have that
sense of motivation, following the example that you three and
others who serve with you have provided to them through your
leadership by example.
I might just close by saying, I know that in your
testimony, General Campbell, you made reference to the need--
and I'm quoting here--of ``pursuing enhanced weapons effects,
next generation optics, night vision devices, advanced body
armor, individual protection equipment.'' When I first came to
this subcommittee and one of my own sons was deployed, I
learned personally about some of the deficiencies in body armor
at the time, and Deputy Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter
worked with me in seeking to expedite that kind of equipment
for our military serving in Afghanistan.
I know that the three of you--and I'm so glad that you made
reference to this aspect of it--see the job of equipping and
supporting our military through the eyes of the soldier who is
out there doing the job of combat, as you three have done in
your careers. I just want to emphasize that as much as we talk
about all this sophisticated hardware, the helicopters, and the
new technology that is developing, our greatest asset, as you
said at the outset, is our men and women in uniform, and
anything we can do to provide them with those basic kinds of
equipment, I think, I'm certainly committed to doing. I know my
colleagues, I believe my colleagues share that view as well.
So on that note, let me thank you for being here today,
each of you, and thank you for your very valuable contribution
to our consideration. Thanks so much.
The record here will remain open until 5 p.m. on Friday,
April 11, for any additional questions that Senators may wish
to submit, and we will hope for responses to our written
questions as soon as you're able to do so. Thank you very much.
The hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 10:51 a.m., the subcommittee adjourned.]
[Questions for the record with answers supplied follow:]
Questions Submitted by Senator Richard Blumenthal
improved turbine engine program
1. Senator Blumenthal. General Williamson, the Improved Turbine
Engine Program (ITEP) is intended to provide a new engine for Apache
and Black Hawk helicopters with significantly greater performance,
reliability, and fuel efficiency. The fiscal year 2015 request includes
$39.3 million for an initial Technology Maturation and Risk Reduction
contract award for initial engine design and aircraft integration trade
studies. This award, timed to follow a Milestone A decision, will be
made to a single vendor. Currently, at least two vendors have been
competing for Army funding and investing their own research money in
designing, building, and testing prototype engines. What is the status
of the development of competitive prototyping options?
General Williamson. The Aviation Applied Technology Directorate
within the U.S. Army Aviation and Missile Research Development and
Engineering Center manages the science and technology (S&T) phase of
the Advanced Affordable Turbine Engine (AATE) program. AATE is a
program established to demonstrate engine technology that could provide
sufficient power to our medium rotary wing assets in high and hot
environments while increasing engine fuel efficiency and operational
range. Two vendors each developed competitive engine prototypes during
the AATE program which demonstrated technology maturity and engine
capabilities sufficient to inform the ITEP's draft Key Performance
Parameters within the draft Capability Development Document. The
Program Office will seek competitive prototype waivers for vendors who
have already developed competitive prototypes demonstrating technology
maturity for critical technology elements.
2. Senator Blumenthal. General Williamson, cost is widely reported
as the main problem with carrying two engines through technology
development on a competitive basis. What is the incremental increase in
cost to carry a second engine through a technology development phase?
General Williamson. Based on program office estimates that included
industry responses to a series of Request For Information, the
incremental increase in cost to carry a second engine competitor
through a technology development phase will vary between competitors
and could range between $125 million to $300 million per vendor
dependent upon the vendor's design approach and demonstrated
technology. An Army cost estimate developed by the Office of the Deputy
Assistant Secretary of the Army for Cost and Economics in support of
the ITEP Analysis of Alternatives substantiates the incremental cost of
approximately $300 million per vendor.
3. Senator Blumenthal. General Williamson, one of the consistent
criticisms of the Department of Defense acquisition is the early
commitment to immature technologies that then do not progress as
expected or promised. The emphasis on competitive prototyping is
intended to mitigate this risk for the government. If the Army awards a
contract to a single vendor as early as Milestone A, upon what will you
base the decision?
General Williamson. If the Army awards a contract to a single
vendor as early as Milestone A, a best value determination will be made
based upon the proposed design approach and the substantiation of that
approach including a clear assessment of the vendor's ability to
manufacture and deliver the system technology to meet the specified
requirements. The AATE S&T program at its inception was designed to
help mitigate the risk of introducing immature technology in the ITEP
and has been successful in this regard by demonstrating technology
maturity on competitive prototype engines.
4. Senator Blumenthal. General Williamson, what must competitors
provide or demonstrate?
General Williamson. Competitors must provide their proposed design
which includes a clear assessment of a vendor's ability. Substantiation
data should include demonstrated technology maturity for attaining the
stated requirements from either an S&T program or internal research and
development efforts.
5. Senator Blumenthal. General Williamson, if the Army awards a
single contract at Milestone A, will the program provide for clear and
objective criteria that establishes an off-ramp for the incumbent and
on-ramps for potential alternatives?
General Williamson. Yes, the Army will provide for clear and
objective criteria that establishes off-ramps prior to Milestone B,
regardless of a single or multiple contract award at Milestone A. The
Army is exploring the use of a series of contract options following
significant technical reviews to ensure satisfactory progress is being
made before continuing forward as well as considering potential on-
ramps during the Technology Maturation and Risk Reduction phase and at
Milestone B should the single contractor awarded at Milestone A fail to
perform satisfactorily. By establishing successive options as on/off-
ramps, the government avoids termination costs as well as defined on-
ramp phases. All decisions will be weighed against program cost,
schedule, performance, and risk to the government.