    [House Hearing, 114 Congress]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                             [H.A.S.C. No. 114-113]

                                    HEARING

                                       ON

                       NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT

                              FOR FISCAL YEAR 2017

                                      AND

                  OVERSIGHT OF PREVIOUSLY AUTHORIZED PROGRAMS

                                   BEFORE THE

                          COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES

                            HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                        ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 SECOND SESSION

                                   __________

              SUBCOMMITTEE ON TACTICAL AIR AND LAND FORCES HEARING

                                       ON

                      FISCAL YEAR 2017 ARMY AND AIR FORCE

                       ROTORCRAFT MODERNIZATION PROGRAMS

                                   __________

                                  HEARING HELD
                                 MARCH 16, 2016

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                 _________

                    U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

     20-065                   WASHINGTON : 2017
    ____________________________________________________________________
     For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing 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 20402-001

                  SUBCOMMITTEE ON TACTICAL AIR AND LAND FORCES

                       MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio, Chairman

    FRANK A. LoBIONDO, New Jersey        LORETTA SANCHEZ, California
    JOHN FLEMING, Louisiana              NIKI TSONGAS, Massachusetts
    CHRISTOPHER P. GIBSON, New York      HENRY C. ``HANK'' JOHNSON, Jr.,
    PAUL COOK, California, Vice Chair        Georgia
    BRAD R. WENSTRUP, Ohio               TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois
    JACKIE WALORSKI, Indiana             MARC A. VEASEY, Texas
    SAM GRAVES, Missouri                 TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota
    MARTHA McSALLY, Arizona              DONALD NORCROSS, New Jersey
    STEPHEN KNIGHT, California           RUBEN GALLEGO, Arizona
    THOMAS MacARTHUR, New Jersey         MARK TAKAI, Hawaii
    WALTER B. JONES, North Carolina      GWEN GRAHAM, Florida
    JOE WILSON, South Carolina           SETH MOULTON, Massachusetts
                    John Sullivan, Professional Staff Member
                      Doug Bush, Professional Staff Member
                              Neve Schadler, Clerk

                                C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------
                                                                       Page

                  STATEMENTS PRESENTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS

    Sanchez, Hon. Loretta, a Representative from California, Ranking
      Member, Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land Forces...........     2
    Turner, Hon. Michael R., a Representative from Ohio, Chairman,
      Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land Forces...................     1

                                   WITNESSES

    Bunch, Lt Gen Arnold W., USAF, Military Deputy, Office of the
      Assistant Secretary of the Air Force (Acquisition); and Lt Gen
      James M. ``Mike'' Holmes, USAF, Deputy Chief of Staff for
      Strategic Plans and Requirements...............................     5
    Williamson, LTG Michael E., USA, Military Deputy to the Assistant
      Secretary of the Army (Acquisition, Logistics and Technology);
      and MG Michael D. Lundy, USA, Commander, Army Aviation Center
      of Excellence..................................................     3

                                    APPENDIX

    Prepared Statements:

        Bunch, Lt Gen Arnold W., joint with Lt Gen James M. ``Mike''
          Holmes.....................................................    38
        Turner, Hon. Michael R.......................................    25
        Williamson, LTG Michael E., joint with MG Michael D. Lundy...    27

    Documents Submitted for the Record:

        [There were no Documents submitted.]

    Witness Responses to Questions Asked During the Hearing:

        [There were no Questions submitted during the hearing.]

    Questions Submitted by Members Post Hearing:

        Mr. Brady....................................................    59
        Mr. Gibson...................................................    59
        Mr. Turner...................................................    55

     FISCAL YEAR 2017 ARMY AND AIR FORCE ROTORCRAFT MODERNIZATION PROGRAMS

                                  ----------

                      House of Representatives,
                           Committee on Armed Services,
                  Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land Forces,
                             Washington, DC, Wednesday, March 16, 2016.
        The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 3:36 p.m., in
    room 2118, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Michael R.
    Turner (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.

     OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MICHAEL R. TURNER, A REPRESENTATIVE
      FROM OHIO, CHAIRMAN, SUBCOMMITTEE ON TACTICAL AIR AND LAND
                                 FORCES

        Mr. Turner. The hearing will come to order. The
    subcommittee convenes to review the current posture of Army and
    Air Force rotorcraft modernization programs and receive
    testimony on the fiscal year 2017 budget request.
        I am pleased to welcome our distinguished panel of
    witnesses. Lieutenant General Michael E. Williamson, Military
    Deputy to the Assistant Secretary of the Army, Acquisition,
    Logistics and Technology. Major General Michael D. Lundy,
    Commander, Army Aviation Center of Excellence. Lieutenant
    General Arnold W. Bunch, Jr., Military Deputy, Office of the
    Assistant Secretary of the Air Force, Acquisition. Lieutenant
    General James M. ``Mike'' Holmes, Deputy Chief of Staff for
    Strategic Plans and Requirements.
        Gentlemen, thank you for being with us today, and thank you
    for your service.
        Our witnesses today will provide testimony on the fiscal
    and programmatic challenges currently facing Army and Air Force
    rotorcraft modernization. Because of the fiscal realities and
    increased missions, the military services have been forced to
    prioritize near-term readiness at the expense and assumed risk
    of modernization programs, and rotorcraft modernization has
    been particularly impacted in the fiscal year 2017.
        We know the proposed budget request for fiscal year 2017
    does not follow the balanced budget agreement, BBA, of 2015.
    While our near-peer adversaries continue to invest in more
    modern capabilities and continue to close the technology gap,
    this budget request cuts force structure and modernization
    programs from the Department's base programs.
        For example, the Army states in their written statement
    that, quote--``though aviation modernization is a priority, FY
    2017 will reflect over $2 billion in reduced funding when
    compared to fiscal year 2016. This has caused the Army to
    decelerate fleet modernization by procuring fewer UH-60 Black
    Hawks, AH-64 Apaches, and CH-47 Chinooks in FY 2017,'' end
    quote.
        I can assure you, this committee is working to reverse this
    dangerous trend in rotorcraft modernization and is working to
    provide the necessary funding to help mitigate some of these
    current challenges. For fiscal year 2017, this subcommittee
    will continue to support the need for fielding most modernized
    rotorcraft available for both the Active and Reserve
    Components.
        Two critical issues this committee has been concerned about
    for many years is in regards to accelerating aircraft
    survivability equipment and degraded visual environment
    capability onto current rotorcraft programs. We expect to hear
    today about how the Army and Air Force are addressing these
    critical needs in a timely manner.
        We are also interested in hearing the Army's position on
    the recent recommendations put forward by the National
    Commission on the Future of the Army, relating to the Army's
    aviation restructuring initiative, ARI, and get a better
    understanding of the costs associated with implementing these
    recommendations.
        I would also like to hear about the Air Force's plans to
    replace the legacy helicopters that are used by the Air Force
    in providing security in the ICBM [intercontinental ballistic
    missile] fields in Montana, North Dakota, Wyoming, and several
    other States.
        The commander of U.S. STRATCOM [Strategic Command] has
    stated, as has the Secretary of the Air Force, that it is not
    possible to mitigate the alert requirement without replacing
    these helicopters, so I look forward to hearing about your
    plans to address this urgent issue.
        I would like to now recognize my good friend from
    California, the ranking member of the subcommittee, Ms. Loretta
    Sanchez, for any comments that she would like to make.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Turner can be found in the
    Appendix on page 25.]

       STATEMENT OF HON. LORETTA SANCHEZ, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM
     CALIFORNIA, RANKING MEMBER, SUBCOMMITTEE ON TACTICAL AIR AND
                              LAND FORCES

        Ms. Sanchez. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to all
    the generals for being before us to talk about what is
    incredibly important, the Army and Air Force helicopter
    programs. And it comes at an important time before the Armed
    Services Committee because, as you know, we are trying to make
    decisions about the DOD [Department of Defense] budget for
    2017. As I said this morning in full committee, it comes with
    some very hard choices because we cannot choose everything, we
    cannot do everything.
        If we are going to augment what the President's budget or
    change the President's budget that came over, then we have to
    ask ourselves, well, do we need it, how are we going to pay for
    it. It would be nice to pretend that we can fund everything.
    Unfortunately, that is not the case.
        Given that context, the budget request from Army and Air
    Force helicopter programs has shown us that choices were made,
    what a true choice really looks like. For both services there
    simply wasn't enough funding to continue building new
    helicopters, start new programs for the future, and also
    upgrade the helicopters that we have in service right now.
        Both services had to make the tough choices and the budget
    request does reflect that. For example, in order to keep AH-64
    Apache production on track, the Army was forced to dramatically
    cut back the Black Hawk production compared to last year. The
    reduction in Black Hawk helicopters is, for me, a little bit
    troubling, of course as you know, because we were looking to
    the National Guard units, including those in California, to
    eliminate the old A model helicopters that they now have.
        These helicopters in California, it hits right home because
    they are the ones that we use to fight the fires that we have
    seen in California and other natural disasters. The Army was
    planning to get rid of all the old Black Hawk helicopters and
    replace them by 2013, and in last year's bill we asked for ways
    in which to accelerate that program.
        So the cuts in fiscal year 2017 appear to be moving us in
    the opposite direction. And as concerning as those cuts are,
    they actually could get worse if the Army is required to keep a
    large number of Apache helicopters in the National Guard, as
    was proposed by the National Commission on the Future of the
    Army. Keeping those Apaches in the Guard may make sense, but it
    comes at a much higher price tag.
        The Army also had to cut back on the Chinook and on the
    Lakota helicopter production, both of which are successful
    programs that are otherwise doing just fine. But again, Mr.
    Chairman, when we look at it, real choices were made.
        On the Air Force side we also see limited funding leading
    to some very difficult decisions. The Air Force is trying to
    keep its combat search and rescue helicopter program on track,
    but to do that it had to slow its plan to replace aging UH-1
    helicopters that are currently used in ICBM field tests you had
    mentioned earlier.
        In terms of future investments, it is good to see that both
    services managed to protect research and development efforts,
    like the future vertical lift programs, the improved turbine
    engine program, and critical new aircraft defensive equipment
    investments.
        You have made some hard choices, so I am interested in
    trying to figure out how you came about that, why, and what it
    really means to us. And with that I will yield back.
        And thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Turner. Thank you. And without objection, all
    witnesses' statements will be included in the hearing record.
    And we only have two opening statements here today, General
    Williamson followed by General Bunch. General Williamson.

    STATEMENT OF LTG MICHAEL E. WILLIAMSON, USA, MILITARY DEPUTY TO
    THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE ARMY (ACQUISITION, LOGISTICS AND
      TECHNOLOGY); AND MG MICHAEL D. LUNDY, USA, COMMANDER, ARMY
                     AVIATION CENTER OF EXCELLENCE

        General Williamson. Chairman Turner, Ranking Member
    Sanchez, and distinguished members of the Subcommittee on
    Tactical Air and Land Forces, thank you for the invitation to
    discuss the Army's fiscal year 2017 rotorcraft modernization
    programs. And for the opportunity to appear with our Air Force
    counterpart, Lieutenant General Bunch.
        With me today is Major General Mike Lundy, the Commander of
    the Army Aviation Center of Excellence. Mr. Chairman, thank you
    for making our written statement a part of the record for
    today's hearing.
        Mr. Chairman, aviation is the Army's largest portfolio of
    programs, and the one most impacted by our current budget
    environment. The high level of operational demands, combined
    with the fiscal challenges, contributed to a substantial
    reduction in Army aviation funding. As you mentioned in your
    opening statement, a $2 billion reduction from fiscal year 2016
    to fiscal year 2017, and an additional $531 million reduction
    as a result of the fiscal year 2015 Bipartisan Budget Act. The
    immediate result is the procurement of fewer Black Hawks,
    Apaches, and Chinooks.
        The Army presented the aviation restructuring initiative,
    also known as ARI, as part of our fiscal year 2015 budget plan.
    By reinvesting the savings and the cost avoidance garnered by
    ARI, Army aviation was able to continue to field its most
    modernized aircraft while developing and fielding the right
    disruptive technologies to improve mobility, lethality,
    survivability, and mission command.
        The Army is currently reviewing and assessing the recently
    released report from the National Commission on the Future of
    the Army [NCFA], which contains a number of recommendations in
    addition to what we have done on ARI for which resourcing and
    modernization may need to be adjusted.
        Still, we are moving forward with our rotorcraft
    modernization effort, including identifying, addressing known
    capability gaps, but at a much slower pace. The fiscal year
    2017 funding request breaks down as follows.
        In science and technology [S&T], the Army supports several
    critical efforts to enable the next generation of rotary-wing
    capability, including advanced threat detection system,
    degraded visual environment mitigation, and joint multi-role
    technology demonstrator, which will inform affordable
    requirements and reduce the risk associated with the future
    vertical lift program.
        With regard to new systems, the fixed-wing utility
    aircraft, a replacement for the C-12 and the C-26 platforms, is
    projected to be selected and begin fielding in fiscal year
    2018. In the area of modernization we are focused on improving
    the Apache, Black Hawk, and Chinook helicopter fleets, as well
    as saving money for the American taxpayer by pursuing a
    multiyear contract in fiscal year 2017 for the Apache.
        We will award the ninth multiyear contract for Black Hawk,
    and complete the second 5-year multiyear contract for Chinook
    in fiscal year 2017. In addition, we are continuing to
    modernize our unmanned aircraft systems fleet, comprised of
    small, the Raven and the Puma, medium, the Shadow, and the
    large, the Gray Eagle components.
        In the area of reset and sustainment, we are focused on
    returning Army equipment to the required level of combat
    capability so that we will be prepared for the next fight or
    the next contingency.
        We are also divesting the aging TH-67 training helicopters,
    as well as the OH-58 Alpha and Charlie Kiowa, and the Kiowa
    Warriors, and we are also doing everything possible to reduce
    the number of UH-60 Alpha Black Hawks in our fleet.
        Other key investments in fiscal year 2017 include the
    improved turbine engine program for Apache and Black Hawk, to
    meet worldwide operational requirements for high-altitude and
    hot conditions, the joint air-to-ground missile, the next
    generation of aviation-launch missiles, and in the area of
    aircraft survivability equipment, acceleration of the common
    infrared countermeasure system.
        Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of this
    subcommittee, we are grateful for your strong and steadfast
    support for America's soldiers, for our soldier aviators, as
    well as our Army civilians and their families.
        This concludes my opening remarks, Mr. Chairman, and we
    look forward to your questions.
        [The joint prepared statement of General Williamson and
    General Lundy can be found in the Appendix on page 27.]
        Mr. Turner. General Bunch.

      STATEMENT OF LT GEN ARNOLD W. BUNCH, USAF, MILITARY DEPUTY,
          OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE
       (ACQUISITION); AND LT GEN JAMES M. ``MIKE'' HOLMES, USAF,
       DEPUTY CHIEF OF STAFF FOR STRATEGIC PLANS AND REQUIREMENTS

        General Bunch. Thank you, Chairman Turner, Ranking Member
    Sanchez, and other distinguished members, for the opportunity
    to address the subcommittee. We greatly appreciate the work you
    do and the support you provide our airmen and their families.
    It is a privilege to be here, and General Holmes and I look
    forward to answering your questions.
        General Holmes and I prepared a joint written statement and
    we have submitted that for the record. I will not go through
    that statement and read it here. I will just make a few opening
    remarks for both of us and then will be ready to answer your
    questions.
        We are happy to be here with the Army, as our collaboration
    on science and technology efforts, development and procurements
    is critical. They are great teammates and we must continue that
    teamwork to be successful. We are here to discuss the fiscal
    year 2017 budget that we have submitted and some of the tough
    choices we made as we finalize that budget.
        Air Force rotary-wing assets are critical to the Air
    Force's ability to accomplish our mission and provide worldwide
    support to combatant commanders. Our rotary-wing fleet has been
    and continues to be heavily engaged. They have conducted
    operations across the spectrum, and we are committed to
    modernizing and recapitalizing our fleet as we balance
    readiness and modernization in this budget environment.
        Although fiscal constraints may have required us to
    reassess the timing of some rotary-wing modernization efforts,
    the fiscal year 2017 PB [President's budget] reflects the Air
    Force's commitment to sustaining, modernizing, and
    recapitalizing our rotorcraft fleet.
        Our efforts are focused on modernizing and/or
    recapitalizing to address our most critical needs. The limited
    resources available since the Budget Control Act of 2011 have
    hampered our ability to balance readiness, capability, and
    capacity. And while we are grateful for the additional
    resources the Bipartisan Budget Act provides, we need your
    support in the form of stable and predictable budgets for the
    future. Your help in this area will be greatly appreciated.
        We look forward to working closely with the committee to
    ensure the Air Force retains the ability to deliver rotorcraft
    airpower for America when and where needed. Again, we thank you
    for this opportunity to testify before the subcommittee and we
    look forward to answering your questions, sir.
        [The joint prepared statement of General Bunch and General
    Holmes can be found in the Appendix on page 38.]
        Mr. Turner. Thank you. General Williamson and General
    Bunch, aircraft survivability equipment, and degraded visual
    environment technology of course are two areas of concern, as I
    stated in my opening statement. General Williamson, you spoke
    of this issue also.
        We have held several classified threat briefings, and I
    understand there is a sense of urgency for improving and
    fielding this technology on current platforms, and we certainly
    are aware of the amounts for each that are in the budget
    request.
        But if you would, to the extent that you can in an
    unclassified environment, please explain to the subcommittee
    your current acquisition strategies for ASE [aircraft
    survivability equipment] and DVE [degraded visual environment]
    technology, and what can we do to help accelerate them.
    Starting with General Williamson and then General Bunch.
        General Williamson. Sir, thanks for the question. I would
    also like to start by thanking you and this committee for your
    not only focus but your support of funding in fiscal year 2015
    and fiscal year 2016, with your understanding of the
    criticality and the importance of this issue.
        So my immediate response is to tell you that we have taken
    a two-tier approach to how we approach this. So the first is we
    have existing programs of record, and I will talk a little bit
    about those. But there is also this understanding that there
    are immediate needs that have to be addressed, and it starts
    with the threat.
        So, sir, as you and I have talked about in the past, so the
    threat today, our potential enemies have more and more access
    to technologies, so the threat comes on a number of vectors,
    whether it is MANPADS [man-portable air-defense systems] that
    have advanced in technology, or it is a cyber threat, or
    whether it is things like position location. We have to address
    all of those when you look at aircraft survivability.
        So as you know, we have current programs that look at
    common infrared countermeasures, advanced radar detection, and
    laser detection programs. But those programs we have invested
    in. It will give us a modular solution as we look at our entire
    aircraft fleet. But we also have to deal with the immediate
    threat, and so we have worked with our joint partners to
    identify immediate solutions that we can give to deploying
    aircraft so that they can have a countermeasure against the
    threat.
        I would like to also offer that General Lundy might have a
    couple of thoughts.
        General Lundy. And, sir, I want to reiterate my thanks for
    the committee's support because, you know, this is a clear and
    present threat today, and it is also--there is a long-term
    issue that we have here. And so as we look at our current
    strategy, I think we are on the right path. We have a joint
    solution that Congress has helped fund and accelerate, and we
    are moving that as fast as technology will allow to allow us to
    put it on capabilities that are currently deployed today.
        We have also been able to accelerate our current program of
    record and bring it forward sooner about 3 years, which is
    great. And then we have a huge S&T effort that is focused on
    the next generation of survivability capabilities, and that is
    really where us and the Air Force, frankly the Navy and the
    Marines, are working very closely together with our SOCOM
    [Special Operations Command] partners on a number of S&T
    efforts that will help us build capabilities for the future
    that will get ahead of this threat as opposed to reactionary.
        I think that is the key. We can't do what we did in Iraq. I
    mean, there was not a lot of threat there, but we waited until
    the threat appeared before we reacted to it. We need to be
    ahead of this.
        I think that is my key concern as the aviation branch
    chief, is how do we get ahead of the threat. That is going to
    take consistent S&T work, consistent funding. And your
    committee and the Congress have been very helpful with being
    able to do that and give us a stable way ahead.
        Mr. Turner. Mr. Bunch.
        General Bunch. Sir, thank you for the question. As you
    know, first off we are great partners with Army and there is no
    way we can do this without the S&T efforts. We think that is
    critical in how we go forward in the future in that investment.
    We all share the benefits of that and we look forward to
    continuing that partnership.
        On the aircraft that are in the field, we do have systems
    already to counter many of the threats that we regularly update
    on MODS [modifications], and put software and new hardware in
    to keep it. But the threat has evolved and it has changed. We
    are taking steps to change what we have on the CV-22 with a
    limited number right now. We are going to see how that
    performs. And we are also doing that on the HH-60.
        What we are focused on are countermeasures dispensing
    capabilities and active infrared countermeasure systems in
    response to things that I will not go into a whole lot more
    detail. We have active programs in both of those. We are going
    to field on limited numbers of those platforms, and then we
    will field those on the remainder of the platforms in the
    future.
        General Williamson. Sir, I just wanted to highlight another
    point, and that goes back to something that General Lundy said
    about the ability to get ahead of the threat. So you and I had
    a conversation about cyber as an example, and so what concerns
    me is people who think about it being a point solution, this is
    something that, as the enemy learns, they will adapt. And so it
    is really important for us to have programs that not only deal
    with the current threat, but are also projecting out. I think
    that is critical for us as we move forward.
        Mr. Turner. Thank you for the responses.
        General Williamson and General Lundy, as I mentioned in my
    opening statement, I would like to see comment on the status of
    the Army's aviation restructuring initiative, or ARI, and hear
    your views on the recommendation put forward by the National
    Commission on the Future of the Army regarding ARI.
        In addition to this I would like to get a better
    understanding of the unfunded requirements associated with ARI
    and the Commission's recommendation. Given that we are
    operating under constrained budgets and that Army aviation has
    already been reduced in the President's budget request, if the
    Army were to adopt the Commission's recommendations, what would
    be your most pressing requirements in fiscal year 2017, and
    what are your must-haves?
        General Lundy. Sir, as you well know, the report from the
    National Commission came with over 60 recommendations without
    resources. So certainly many of those recommendations, as the
    Chief has testified to, are absolutely--they are great ideas
    but the resources are the challenge we have to look at.
        Currently they are being assessed by the Chief of Staff of
    the Army, the Secretary of the Army, on the decisions they are
    going to make as we go forward.
        If we were to look at the specific aviation recommendations
    that are in there to retain an 11th CAB [combat aviation
    brigade] in Korea, as well as the four AH-64 battalions, our
    assessment right now is that is about a $2.4 billion bill that
    would come back into the Army, would require, you know, a
    Department of Defense solution or additional funding from
    Congress.
        With that $2.4 billion, there are lots of options on how we
    would go about doing that, but certainly if it came back into
    the aviation portfolio, it would have a huge impact, which is
    one of the reasons why really we did ARI. And as I testified
    last year on ARI, if we had the resources, we wouldn't be doing
    ARI.
        So again, we are kind of back at square one in some
    respects. But I know the Army is going to take a serious look
    at that. I know the Chief has been very actively involved in
    that, and we will see he will make some decisions here shortly.
    And then we will make a determination on, you know, whether we
    resource that internally or not.
        If we were to execute, there would be some immediate
    demands obviously for long-lead purchases, for AH-64s, as well
    as training aircraft for the training base. If we were to add
    the 11th CAB and the four AH-64 battalions, that would increase
    our demand in the training base, so we would need more LUH
    [light utility helicopters], and we would also have to add AH-
    64s to the inventory. That would be probably the two most
    pressing needs that I would see if we were to do those.
        Mr. Turner. On my last question. I would like General Bunch
    and Holmes, if you would, to respond to the issue concerning
    STRATCOM and Secretary James' concern that we might not meet
    the alert requirement while replacing legacy rotorcraft.
        Is it correct that, aside from the fact that we have the
    security of nuclear weapons in the United States, we are also
    talking about the expense of mitigations, including mitigations
    in place to meet the convoy escort mission, including
    additional defenders, as well as a potential request for forces
    to provide Army National Guard Black Hawks at all ICBM wings?
        How much does all this cost? Does the Air Force expect new
    helicopters? What would you be able to save? What are your
    thoughts on that topic?
        General Holmes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. So over the last
    couple of years as we have done a review of our entire nuclear
    enterprise, one of the areas we looked at is this mission that
    supports the security of nuclear weapons on the missile fields.
        As you pointed out in your opening statement, sir, we have
    been doing it with the legacy helicopter, the UH-1, for several
    years and our update program has been delayed by the budget
    turmoil with the Budget Control Act and the decrease in buying
    power that happened there.
        In the short term we have taken some mitigation steps, and
    General Robin Rand, our four-star commander of Air Force Global
    Strike Command, has been personally involved in doing some
    things to support really both our ability to meet both of those
    missions better on the missile field, both the convoy escort
    and then the response mission.
        The mitigations include things like having forward area
    refueling points that give you more time on station, that allow
    you to go for a further range and stay out there more, and some
    other things I won't go into for security reasons.
        We are looking at the full range of mitigations to address
    that until we can field the new helicopter, and we recognize
    Admiral Haney's view that it is critical that we move forward
    now. We agree. One of the things that the BBA was able to do
    for us was to give us a little bit of that buying power back
    that we can apply to a new helicopter program.
        We have the money laid out in this FYDP [Future Years
    Defense Program] to be able to do that. And then to accomplish
    it, you know, General Bunch and our AQ [acquisition] guys are
    working on strategy for what is the fastest and best way to
    make sure we get the right helicopter out there into the
    missile fields, in the shortest timeline that we can.
        General Bunch. Sir, I think it is important to start off
    with the UH-1 end is just one part of a multilayered defense of
    our nuclear resources, and our nuclear deterrent force remains
    safe, secure, effective, and ready if needed.
        We have taken steps, as General Holmes relayed, to mitigate
    the things, but there are still areas that we can't address the
    full requirement. The Secretary of the Air Force has directed
    us to lean forward and consider more aggressive steps to see
    how we can go faster.
        We have requested the requirements, notes, and urgencies
    from Admiral Haney and others. Those notes--those memos, I
    shouldn't say notes, are going to come in with the urgency of
    that requirement and we are going to lay that out to see if we
    have enough information there to be able to do an Economy Act
    determination and findings, and make that determination to go
    forward.
        We should be making that decision within the next month to
    start those actions, to see if we want to go forward and do
    that in a more timely manner. And the other piece we have to
    remember in this, it is not just getting iron on the ramp. It
    is everything else that goes with it that we are trying to
    focus on as well.
        So we are leaning forward. We think we will have an answer
    within the next month or so, on whether we are going to go that
    direction.
        Mr. Turner. Just to underscore, we have no margin of error
    here, so we look forward to your recommendations and success.
        Congresswoman Sanchez.
        Ms. Sanchez. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to go back to
    the question that you--or the subject matter that we are
    talking about here because the budget request shows a clear
    path to finally getting at the requirement with the competition
    that would pick a winner in fiscal year 2018 and deliver--start
    delivering the helicopters in 2020. Am I correct? That is the
    way I read it, at least when I took a look.
        General Bunch. Ma'am, that is correct, and when we would
    have the competition resolved, who the winner of that, may
    determine exactly when do we get to the field. That is all part
    of the acquisition strategy we are developing at this time,
    ma'am.
        Ms. Sanchez. So I know that the Air Force has been
    pressured by some Members of Congress to skip the competition
    and to give it as a sole-source contract to one company. So I
    understand that could speed up the program a bit, but it
    doesn't appear to me to meet any of the normal tests for a
    noncompetitive contract award.
        In this case it seems to me like that contract could be
    close to about a billion dollars of work. So my questions are,
    how many potential competitors does the Air Force think it
    might get if this was done on a competitive program?
        And as far as the requirement goes, has the Joint Staff
    approved this as urgent need, and how do you define that urgent
    need? Is it something like what we saw for our troops who were
    in Afghanistan and Iraq?
        And if the Air Force does go to a sole-source contract,
    what would be the justification, and how big a sole-source
    contract are we talking about?
        General Bunch. Okay, Ma'am, let me step through those, and
    if I miss one I will let you re-attack me on the ones that I
    may have missed as you went through that.
        Ms. Sanchez. I was trying to figure out how to make a
    billion dollars competitive.
        General Bunch. I understand. First off, we have not made a
    determination that we are going to go this way. We still have
    to get the requirement documents in to outline to us the
    urgency before we would make that decision. That decision has
    not been made. That is something we will do over the next few
    weeks to a month.
        The number that we are talking about to try to do this
    would be focused solely on the helicopters that would be needed
    to support the nuclear mission, and right now that number is
    41. That number is being reviewed by General Holmes and his
    team, but right now that number is 41 that we would look to do
    that. Economy Act, the D&F [determination and findings], if we
    determine the urgency is there.
        Ms. Sanchez. Forty-one?
        General Bunch. Forty-one helicopters. We would not do it
    for the remainder of the fleet. It would only be focused on
    those, ma'am, that----
        Ms. Sanchez. Given the ballpark of 41 helicopters, how big
    a wallet do I have to go to shop for 41 helicopters?
        General Bunch. It would be in the $800, $900 million dollar
    range, ma'am.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
         Lieutenant General Bunch specified post hearing: The cost
    to procure 41 HH-60 helicopters using the Economy Act is $1.4B.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Right now as we get our market research, ma'am, to set this
    up for a competition, we think there are about five folks who
    have expressed interest as we have done our market research and
    we get ready to set up the competition as we build our
    acquisition strategy.
        So that is part of the determination we are weighing out
    is, how urgent is the requirement, what is that requirement,
    and is there a need--is the urgency of the requirement, does it
    merit us using the Economy Act D&F and delaying, or wait for
    the competition. That is the decision we have to make.
        Ms. Sanchez. Okay. So you are saying that there is a
    possibility I would have to go to people and say, sure, we did
    a sole-source contract for $900 million?
        General Bunch. That is what we are going to look at, ma'am.
        Ms. Sanchez. I hope you look at it carefully and figure out
    a way to make a competitive process of it rather than just
    handing out contracts like that.
        General Bunch. Yes, ma'am.
        Ms. Sanchez. Let's go back to, and I hate to be provincial,
    but I am going to go back to my California helicopters for a
    moment, Mr. Chairman.
        Having enough Black Hawk helicopters for the National Guard
    I think is crucial. So how would the loss of 36 new helicopters
    over 2 years affect the Army's plans to upgrade all the
    National Guard existing helicopters by 2023, General?
        General Williamson. So, ma'am, I will start from a
    programmatic impact and then operationally I will ask General
    Lundy to step in. So as you well know, we only produce N number
    of helicopters a year, so the loss of 36, and having to add
    that back in programmatically would be significant.
        Ms. Sanchez. What does that mean, programmatically? I hope,
    Major General, you are going to----
        General Lundy. Yes, ma'am. So as we look at California, and
    I will talk about----
        Ms. Sanchez. I don't want to be so provincial. California
    is a big State, however. I will say that. We need those
    helicopters because that is one of the ways we cover some of
    the ground we have.
        General Lundy. We will talk about kind of this total
    aviation force, what the impacts are. With respect to
    California, so we have one A model Black Hawk left in
    California to modernize, and it is going to get modernized in
    June. So we will have California fully modernized with L models
    by June.
        We have about 600, about 550 A model Black Hawks across the
    National Guard and the Active Components. It is about an even
    split between the two. We are still on track right now to
    finish modernizing the Guard in 2023, and we will modernize the
    Active Component in 2025. So we are a couple of years behind on
    finishing up all the Active Component Black Hawks.
        If we were to go in and enact some of the National
    Commission recommendations, that is really what is going to
    impact our ability to finish modernization as fast as we think
    we can. And that potentially could--some of the options might
    be that we slip some of that modernizing both the Guard and the
    Active Component in Black Hawks to the right 2 or 3 years. So
    that is some of the decisions we are going to have to make, as
    the Chief and Secretary of the Army consider the National
    Commission recommendations.
        But right now we are still on track. Even though we are
    buying less Mike model Black Hawks this year, we are still on
    track with the Victor model program, which is going to be the
    recapping of L models into a new fully integrated glass
    cockpit. That is going to be our newest Black Hawk.
        So I am comfortable right now that we are still on track
    for 2023 for the Guard and 2025 to 2026 for the Active
    Component.
        Ms. Sanchez. So going back to that ARI, if you were saying
    that it was about a $2.4 billion request or suggestion, or
    whatever we want to call it at this point, how much of that
    would be in 2017, and for what programs?
        General Lundy. On that, none of it is in 2017 because the
    decision has not been made for the National Commission
    recommendation. I know we have asked for--to set conditions for
    that if we make that decision. I know we have asked for some
    additional advance procurement on, you know, AH-64s that would
    help us set the conditions for that decision.
        But we are not using any--we have not adjusted our budget
    at all this year in 2017 to accommodate for the National
    Commission recommendations.
        Ms. Sanchez. So if we adjusted the Army and let's say you
    took the ARI suggestion and it started to be covered in fiscal
    year 2018 and beyond, what gets cut? I mean, aside from the 2-
    or 3-year push that you talked about with respect to the Black
    Hawk, what do we have to give up that we think right now we are
    going to get?
        General Lundy. There are a lot of options, and we are going
    to present all those options to the Chief. I mean, if it is
    internal to the aviation portfolio, there will certainly be a
    further slowing down of modernization. So, you know, pushing
    modernization efforts farther to the right, dependent upon
    which--where he wanted to take risk at, and which aircraft, and
    which capabilities would dictate that.
        Or if it became an all, a total Army solution or a solution
    at the Department level, or if we receive additional funding.
    So it is kind of hard to say what exactly would be impacted,
    but if it comes back into the portfolio, $2.4 billion is a huge
    hit in the portfolio over the FYDP, so it would be very
    significant.
        Ms. Sanchez. Well, I think I am going to have a lot more
    questions on that for the record. I don't want to take up
    everybody's time, but that is a big issue here. So thank you
    very much.
        Mr. Turner. Dr. Wenstrup.
        Dr. Wenstrup. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        General Lundy, can you tell me a little bit about using
    guided rockets in combat, and the effectiveness between
    unguided and guided and implementation of either?
        General Lundy. Yes, sir. You know, the guided rockets have
    recently really proven to be very effective. We are modifying
    our lethality strategy to bring more guided rocket capability
    in. A guided rocket is less expensive than some of our
    missiles, and for certain targets they are appropriate. So we
    get a better cost curve, I guess you would say. And it allows
    us to service different kinds of targets. So guided rockets are
    definitely a part of our strategy.
        We are reducing the amount of unguided rockets that we
    previously shot for mostly suppression because of the lethality
    and improvements in the guided rocket field. So we certainly
    see a path ahead. We have a current program of record, it is a
    Navy program of record that we are using called APKWS [Advanced
    Precision Kill Weapon System].
        We have an S&T effort right now with our S&T team, AMRDEC
    [Aviation and Missile Research, Development, and Engineering
    Center], that is the modular missile system. It is a modular,
    can be a guided rocket, can be a missile, can be air-to-air. It
    is a modular capability or it can be a drop glide that we can
    drop off of unmanned systems. That is our future program of
    record that we are going to transition to. It has got good
    stable funding right now, so I am confident we will continue
    down that path. But that is currently how we are using guided
    rockets in our portfolio.
        Dr. Wenstrup. In our current engagements, say in Iraq and
    Afghanistan, do rules of engagement come into play as far as
    which one you can use?
        General Lundy. Guided rockets are definitely what we want
    to use, precision capabilities, when we have tight rules of
    engagement and you have potential for collateral damage. And a
    guided rocket has less collateral damage potentially than some
    of our missiles, some of our larger weapons, so they have got
    less blast and they are more accurate. So those are certainly
    the kind of munitions that we want to use in and around urban
    areas or areas where we are concerned about collateral damage,
    so, yes, sir.
        Dr. Wenstrup. Thank you, General.
        I yield back.
        General Lundy. Thank you, sir.
        Mr. Turner. Mr. Veasey.
        Mr. Veasey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I wanted to ask you about the divesting of the Kiowa
    Warriors, particularly to General Williamson or General Lundy.
    Do you feel that the Army will be able to fulfill some of the
    missions that may be foreseeable in the future?
        Like for instance trying to prevent the spread of terrorism
    in sub-Saharan Africa by divesting of a helicopter that is very
    proven when it comes to reconnaissance and scouting in a
    terrain where you will need it to do just that? And it can
    probably perform that capability better than the helicopter
    that we are keeping. Can you kind of just touch on that a
    little bit?
        General Lundy. Well, sir, I would tell you, we have done
    some pretty extensive study. I am a Kiowa Warrior aviator, been
    flying them my entire life. I have flown every model and
    version of them, and unfortunately as the branch chief I am the
    one that is taking them out of the inventory.
        It is a great aircraft. It has tremendous capabilities and
    has proven itself in combat. I have got lots of combat time in
    58s. I have also got time in Apaches and I have seen what
    Apaches can do with unmanned systems.
        Currently right now the AH-64 can meet a broader range of
    missions, especially teamed with unmanned systems. But we still
    have a requirement for a scout, and we are pursuing a scout
    requirement as we move forward.
        Again, it is much like all of the other tough decisions
    that we have to make. We have a budget, and I certainly would
    like to be buying a scout tomorrow, but we are looking at a
    strategy on how we can proceed forward within the budget
    constraints that we have.
        But there is definitely a viable mission there. The
    requirement is still viable, but we have a viable solution to
    bridge that gap until we can get to, and we see it probably
    coming with future vertical lift. That family of systems is
    when we will see a scout aircraft come back into the inventory.
        Industry is doing a lot of work right now. There is a lot
    of IRAD [independent research and development] that we are very
    interested in, so it may be able to come earlier, if there is
    something we can procure commercially off-the-shelf and the
    budget suggests a little bit. So there are a lot of options
    that we are exploring. But the mission is still viable, the
    requirement is still viable.
        Mr. Veasey. Okay. Thank you.
        Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
        Mr. Turner. Mrs. Walorski.
        Mrs. Walorski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Gentlemen, thanks for being here. General Williamson, good
    to see you again.
        General Lundy, I had a follow-up question to Representative
    Wenstrup on the issue of guided rockets and not guided rockets.
    My follow-up question quickly was, can you just comment on how
    the Army plans to implement enhanced warhead technology that is
    capable of neutralizing a wider spectrum of targets, such as
    light and up-armored vehicles, bunkers, and structures?
        And I have another question.
        General Lundy. Yes, ma'am. We have a couple of initiatives
    going on right now. As a matter of fact, we were just doing
    some test shots this week, where we are developing some
    particular fusing capabilities that allow for delayed reaction
    so they perform better against bunkers.
        We have also tested some of the other commercial systems
    that are out there, and as a part of our lethality strategy we
    are not only looking to improve the warheads that we have on
    our rockets, but we are also looking at improving our missile
    performance because there are some advanced targets that are
    out there now and some of our great power competitors that we
    have got to be able to deal with in the future.
        So certainly looking at improved warheads is a part of our
    lethality strategy, and the Vice Chief of Staff of the Army 2
    weeks ago approved our way ahead on that. So we do have a
    pretty solid path moving forward.
        Mrs. Walorski. Thanks. I appreciate it. I just, General,
    have another follow-up question. Chairman Turner alluded to
    this, that regarding the ever-present friction of modernizing
    the existing inventory while preparing for the future, not
    denying that our aircraft and soldiers who fly and maintain
    have done exceptionally well over the past 15 years of nearly
    constant deployments, but we have to continue looking to the
    future.
        So I am concerned that this year's budget forces Army
    aviation to the bill payer for too many other programs that
    does not adequately prioritize future Army aviation programs.
        Where are we assuming the most risk in terms of modernizing
    our fleet of Army aviation?
        General Lundy. Yes, ma'am, I think as the Chief has looked
    at readiness as being the number one priority, and I absolutely
    agree with that because readiness for the aviation force is not
    just buying platforms. It really is to make sure that our
    aircrews are trained and ready to go out there and fight.
        And we have for the last, you know, 12 to 14 years we have
    been fighting a different kind of fight than we potentially are
    going to fight in the future. And it has been very team
    centered for us. As we move into potentially facing more
    advanced threats that are out there at the higher end of
    combat, we have got to be able to fight collectively at the
    company, troop, battalion, squadron, brigade level. This is not
    something we have been doing for 14, 15 years.
        So as we look at taking some of this risk, I think it was
    very evident why we needed to do it, is to make sure--the thing
    that is most important, the combat power that we have when--we
    equip soldiers, and those soldiers have to be able to fight.
    They are the weapon system. So I think the trades that we have
    had to make are important trades, to get after training and
    leader development, while still maintaining very important
    modernization capabilities.
        With respect to that, where I think we have the most risk
    again, is just the pace that we are modernizing. And I mean,
    that is always our great challenge is aviation is very
    expensive. And I mean, we are the most expensive part of the
    Army's portfolio.
        So as we look at, you know, we can only really afford to
    field two battalions of AH-64Bs a year, a couple of battalions
    of UH-60s. So that brings capability very slowly into the
    force.
        So when you look across our 23 brigades, across the total
    aviation force, only 2 of them are fully modernized with all of
    their battalions, all of their equipment, and we are slowly
    modernizing each one of those. And they are all in various
    states. We have some that are modernized on Apaches, but not
    Black Hawks.
        It is the pace, I think as we are, you know, we are taking
    the most risk. But again, I think we have to focus very heavily
    on the readiness piece, and I think it is important for us to
    take that risk, to make sure that our crews can fly and fight,
    first and foremost.
        Mrs. Walorski. I appreciate that.
        General Lundy. Yes, ma'am.
        General Williamson. So, ma'am, I would just like to add to
    that, the pace. So this goes back to this notion of the agility
    that the Chief looks for. So when you take that pace, and if
    you use the example that General Lundy just used, if you are
    only doing 2 to 3 units a year, and you have 23, it becomes
    simple math. It will take me 10 years before I have everyone at
    the same capability.
        And so now you are not only forced to talk about what unit
    I send, but also understand what capability they have against
    the threat for that region or that environment. And so pace
    becomes very important. And we are having the discussion
    focused on aviation today, but we are making those kinds of
    choices within all of our portfolios, and we have stretched out
    modernization.
        And so as we are incorporating what was the technology of
    the day, that year, I now have to figure out how to introduce
    the next technology or deal with the next threat. So every time
    we expand this, we make it complicated.
        And then it also adds the factor associated with
    interoperability, and so we have to make sure that we are
    always interoperable backwards because it is taking me so long
    to field those systems.
        Mrs. Walorski. I appreciate it. Thank you, gentlemen.
        And I yield back. Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Turner. Ms. Graham.
        Ms. Graham. Don't worry, I can think on my feet. Thank you,
    Mr. Chairman. I appreciate it. Thank you, gentlemen.
        Have we talked about the future vertical lift program in
    our discussion here? If you all would discuss where we are with
    that right now, I would appreciate it. Thank you.
        General Lundy. Yes, ma'am. Future vertical lift is a joint
    program. The Army has the lead for the joint force, but I will
    tell you that we are working very closely with all of our joint
    partners. We are going through a milestone decision, or an MDD
    [materiel development decision], this year, so it is on track.
        We have the joint multi-role tech demonstrator, which is
    the S&T effort that supports it, and it is going to start
    flying in 2017, and there's two competitors that are flying
    those vehicles. That is going to help inform our requirements.
    So the program is on track.
        But we are looking really as we, from a timing perspective,
    we will start seeing kind of low-rate production on the
    aircraft, the first capability set that we bring in in the late
    2020s, early 2030s. And we will see really going to full
    operational capability in the early 2030s. That is when we will
    see the first units fielded.
        Ms. Graham. Is that jointly with the Air Force? Are you all
    pursuing that as well?
        General Bunch. We are teamed with them, ma'am, and we are
    watching them. We are collaborating.
        Ms. Graham. Okay. And this is to allow this one hovercraft
    to do--perform multiple responsibilities? What is the objective
    of----
        General Lundy. Well, really, when you look at future
    vertical lift, it is going to give us better speed,
    significantly better speed, significantly better range,
    significantly better maneuverability in the objective area,
    which improves survivability, improves our operational reach,
    strategic reach, ability to self-deploy. So those are the
    capabilities that it is going to bring.
        But there will not just be one aircraft type. There are
    five different capability sets that we look at for the
    different missions. We have a light variant, which will do
    things like scouting and some of the special operation
    missions. We have a lower end, medium variant which the Navy is
    very interested in. It is going to do anti-submarine work,
    things like that.
        The Marine Corps and us are very interested in kind of the
    middle assault variant, which will be a multi-role aircraft
    that can do things the Marines want to do and things we will
    want to do. And then there are some heavier variants out there
    that will replace our cargo aircraft.
        So there is a number of variants, but really the intent is
    to go into a family of vehicles that have a common
    architecture, that have common cockpits, things like that. They
    may not look exactly the same behind the cockpit, but there
    will be a lot of commonality to reduce costs, and also reduce
    training costs. That is kind of the broad overview of the
    program.
        Ms. Graham. So it is sort of like the F-35 approach, one
    sort of base aircraft and then make it different for----
        General Lundy. It will be somewhat different from the F-35
    approach. There will be some very different variants because
    just of the size differentials. Now inside those different
    capability sets there will be some multi-roles. So like
    capability set 3, which is what the Army is calling the assault
    variant. What the Marine Corps is looking at is their assault
    and attack variant. That would be a common airframe, will look
    the same, but is going to have different mission equipment
    package on it.
        But then when you go down on the lower end, the smaller
    aircraft, what SOCOM ends up needing may be different than our
    scout variant. We are still looking through those, and we will
    see what industry is able to produce and what the technology
    shows us.
        But we are going to get as much commonality as we can, but
    we are also not going to sub-optimize an aircraft to try to do
    a bunch of missions and end up with, you know, some missions
    not done very well and other missions done very well. So we are
    looking very closely at that and doing commonality in other
    areas that will give us the savings.
        Ms. Graham. General Williamson, did you have anything?
        General Williamson. Yes, ma'am. I just want to make sure
    that we are clear in terms of so at the component level you
    might see things like a common engine across a couple of the
    different variants, so it is not about making the same
    platform. It is about looking for where there are areas that we
    can share across the joint force. Some of that could be some of
    the avionics. Some of it is in taking advantage of technologies
    and using those on each of the platforms. But it is not about
    building one single platform.
        Ms. Graham. Well, thank you. I appreciate you all's
    answers, as always. Thank you so much.
        I yield back any time I might have left. Thank you, Mr.
    Chairman.
        Mr. Turner. The last question series, Mr. Gibson.
        Mr. Gibson. Thanks, Mr. Chairman, and appreciate the
    panelists. Thank you for your leadership, your service, and the
    sacrifices you have rendered, and your families.
        So I am late coming here, so if these questions have
    already been asked, I apologize, but I do have two. The first
    has to do with the Commission's recommendation for the four
    Apache battalions. I am interested to know the perspective of
    the Army on that recommendation. And also how do we balance
    that with of course the need for the modernization of the UH-
    60, both Active and Reserve Component? So that is really the
    first question on the Commission, the Apaches and UH-60s.
        And the second one may be a little bit out of your current
    set of responsibilities. But in your best military judgment I
    am interested, as professional aviators how do you perceive the
    European Reassurance Initiative from the vantage point of
    aviation? What concerns, challenges, and anything you would
    recommend for us to know about?
        I think it is a very important initiative and I just want
    to make sure that we are taking into consideration, and if the
    Air Force wants to take a shot at that one too, that would be
    great. We will start with the Army.
        General Lundy. Well, sir, good seeing you again. I did talk
    earlier about the NCFA recommendations and where we are at on
    the AH-64s. As I talked last year with respect to ARI, you
    know, if we had the right funding, I would want to have kept
    all that force structure.
        I think, you know, the Chief is looking at that, the
    Secretary of the Army are looking right now. We are providing
    recommendations and analysis for them. I think they are going
    to make some decisions on where the Army is going to go with
    respect to the National Commission in the upcoming months.
        If decisions are made--I mean, right now the assessment is
    about $2.4 billion just for the decision to keep the 11th CAB
    and the four 18-ship AH-64 battalions in the National Guard. So
    that is the bill that we are facing out there. Then there will
    be a part of the recommendations that we make on how we pay
    that bill. If it comes out of the aviation portfolio, it is
    going to have significant impacts, as I discussed last year on
    why we had to go to ARI.
        Obviously if it goes up to the Army level, it is going to
    have impacts on other Army programs, and we are already
    scrambling right now for money. So there will be a significant
    bill with it, and a significant impact somewhere.
        Mr. Gibson. Can I just get a clarification. The $2.4 B
    [billion], is that over 10 years, or what is that?
        General Lundy. It depends on how we approach it. It is
    really going to be over kind of the FYDP is about the way it is
    going to work out. And that will put the appropriate amount of
    AH-64s that we need. It will be able to re-cap those 64s
    because were going to have to add to the top line of AH-64, or
    add to the acquisition objective.
        It will also put some training aircraft back into Fort
    Rucker that we will need because we will have more units to
    train, so we got to increase the training base. And that is
    really only on the equipping side of the house. There is also
    an OMA [Operations and Maintenance, Army] bill that is about we
    think probably a little bit less than $200 million a year, I
    think is what the latest number is.
        So that really would be over about a 5- to 6-year period.
    But again, it could be spread out as well, but depending upon
    how we approach the strategy.
        With respect to the European initiative, I was over in
    Europe in January looking at what Army aviation is doing there.
    I'll tell you, a lot of challenges in the theater. Currently
    Army aviation, we have got a battalion task force over there on
    rotational. They have a company that is currently in Romania.
    They have got one up in Latvia. There is 600 miles difference
    between where their company is and where their battalion
    headquarters is, so it presents some real challenges.
        Is a great opportunity for a young captain, I will tell
    you, truly exercising mission command, and representing our
    Nation very well. I mean, frankly, is pretty impressive. So,
    one, they are doing a great job. But it is a tough mission. It
    is a very challenging mission. It is tough to sustain.
        I know General Hodges has expressed concerns about not
    having adequate aviation over there, and certainly the Army is
    looking at that, and there has been a request that has come up
    through the Joint Staff for additional aviation over there.
        Looking at the distances, the number of countries that they
    operate in, there is definitely a requirement. There is
    definitely a demand for increased Army aviation, and I think
    the rotational concept is a great concept for us to do that. It
    builds proficiency in our force, and I think that is the
    direction we are headed. And look forward to going back and
    visiting more aviation over there in Europe.
        General Holmes. Congressman Gibson, thanks for that
    question. For us, the European Reassurance Initiative does
    three main things. It funds the F-15C squadron at Lakenheath
    that had been planned to be brought home, and that is the EUCOM
    [European Command] commander's only air-to-air resource and his
    only air-to-air training tool that he can use to train with our
    European allies and reassure them.
        It funds exercises and training for us to bring stateside
    units over to trade with our European partners there, and then
    it funds some improvements to European airfields that let us
    bring those airplanes in there. So things like arresting gear,
    and taxiway condition, and the things that make it possible for
    us to get in there.
        So it's a shot in the arm. It helps us do the things that
    we need to do in support of the EUCOM commander.
        Mr. Gibson. I agree with that assessment. Any concerns that
    you want to address on that right now as that is developing?
        General Lundy. As regards to our support to the EUCOM
    commander?
        Mr. Gibson. Yes.
        General Lundy. Well, you know, the EUCOM commander and his
    air assets are in a tough position because we use them to
    rotate and support requirements all over the world, and then he
    has got a growing requirement.
        So those units that we keep there rotate to do their share
    in the Middle East conflict, and when they are not there, they
    are the forces that you turn to things like strike targets in
    Libya or do those things on short notice.
        So I am sure he would like to do more. As we revisit that
    balance, the first step was to leave that F-15 squadron that we
    had actually planned to retire those assets, but we are able to
    keep them and keep them in the right place.
        Mr. Gibson. Okay. Very well. Thank you, gentlemen.
        Thank you.
        Mr. Turner. General, thank you for your comments. During
    these times of restraint and difficult budgets, your management
    skills are absolutely incredibly crucial, but also the
    information you provide to us so that we can continue to
    advocate for additional resources is incredibly important.
    Without your narrative and expertise, that advocacy would be
    certainly hampered. So thank you for your honesty and for your
    management skills.
        Thank you. We will be adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 4:32 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]

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

                                A P P E N D I X

                                 March 16, 2016

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

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

                  PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

                                 March 16, 2016

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

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

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

                  QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS POST HEARING

                                 March 16, 2016

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

                       QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. TURNER

        Mr. Turner. I understand the Army is divesting legacy TH-67
    training helicopters and the OH-58 Kiowa Warrior reconnaissance scout
    helicopters. What impact is this divestment having on the industrial
    base, and would you please provide more details on how you are
    considering Foreign Military Sales to help mitigate impacts?
        General Williamson. The Army tasked the Aviation and Missile
    Research, Development, and Engineering Center (AMRDEC) Industrial Base
    Group to assess the potential impact of the divestment of TH-67 and OH-
    58 with the task of analyzing the impact on the lightweight single
    engine (LSE) rotary wing industry sector. The AMRDEC analysis found no
    adverse impact to the LSE industrial base resulting from the Army's
    planned divestiture of OH-58 variants and TH-67 aircraft. The Army's
    ongoing strategy has been to support the execution of Aviation
    Restructure Initiative while minimizing cost to the United States
    taxpayer, supporting industry partners, and Building Partnership
    Capacity through Foreign Military Sales (FMS). The Army is only making
    OH-58D Kiowa Warriors available to partner nations through FMS. The
    first OH-58D FMS case was signed with Croatia for 16 aircraft in
    February, 2016. Additional FMS cases with Greece, Tunisia and Austria
    are in various stages of negotiations. Project Manager Armed Scout
    Helicopter will deliver 30 TH-67 aircraft in Fiscal Year 2016 (FY16) to
    the Regional Helicopter Training Center (RHTC) in Colombia to support
    the US Southern Command (SOUTHCOM) and Department of Justice (DOJ)
    counter-narcotics mission. An additional 30 TH-67 aircraft are
    scheduled for delivery in FY17, bringing the total quantity to 60 TH-
    67s. The Army will continue to explore FMS opportunities for both OH-
    58D and TH-67 aircraft to mitigate impacts on the lightweight single
    engine industrial base.
        Mr. Turner. The National Commission on the Future of the Army
    recommended that the Army retain four Apache battalions in the National
    Guard. What's the Army's position on the Commission's recommendation?
        General Williamson. The Army's position on the National
    Commission's recommendation to retain four battalions of Apaches with
    18 aircraft in each battalion will be provided to Congress as part of
    the Army's initial assessment of the National Commission's
    recommendations. The National Commission also recommended retention of
    an 11th Combat Aviation Brigade (CAB) in the Regular Army, as well as
    the forward stationing of a CAB in Korea. The Army's initial assessment
    will address these aviation-related recommendations from a holistic
    perspective.
        Mr. Turner. In light of the three recent aircraft accidents in Army
    Aviation, what do you believe is leading to these incidents and is
    there a technology solution to help prevent them from occurring in the
    future? If so, what we can do to help accelerate the development and
    integration of this technology on existing platforms?
        General Williamson. Human error remains the primary cause of Army
    Aviation mishaps. Between March 2014 and March 2016, materiel failure
    was the primary cause in 3 (11 percent) of 27 Class A Army Aviation
    flight accidents and 22 (81.5 percent) were the result of human error.
    Additionally, one was the result of a weather phenomenon and another
    remains under investigation at this time. Historically, 80 percent of
    aviation accidents are caused by human error. The CSA directed a
    Holistic Review of Army Aviation. Among other topics, this team is
    examining aviation training strategy, funding, execution and
    assessment. Programmed technology solutions will help mitigate risk of
    future aviation accidents. Degraded Visual Environment (DVE) conditions
    account for roughly 25 percent of rotary wing mishaps. The Army is
    addressing this challenge by investing in technological solutions--such
    as the Brownout Rotorcraft Enhancement System (BORES) and modernization
    of flight controls and symbology--that will enable Army Aviation to
    operate in all environmental conditions. The Army is addressing
    insufficient aircraft power at high altitudes, high temperatures, and
    high payloads through the Improved Turbine Engine Program (ITEP), which
    will provide greater lift and capability to existing aircraft. The
    President's FY17 budget request includes $80.5 million for DVE programs
    and $126 million for ITEP. Both DVE and ITEP are projected to be
    integrated into planned Future Vertical Lift capability sets.
        Mr. Turner. What are your current acquisition strategies for
    aircraft survivability equipment? How can we help accelerate them?
        General Williamson. The rapid proliferation of advanced threat
    technologies increases the risk to the fleet. The Army requires an
    Aircraft Survivability Equipment (ASE) suite to defeat these emerging
    threats.
        The Army's acquisition strategy includes a number of modernization
    and development ASE programs to address infrared, radar, laser, and
    hostile ground fire threats. The most critical priority is the
    development of a comprehensive ASE package to detect, declare, and
    defeat a wide range of emerging infrared man-portable air-defense
    system (MANPADS) threats. The Army's MANPADS threat strategy is divided
    into three temporal phases: (1) near-term (or now), (2) mid-term
    (Fiscal Year 2016-2023), and (3) long-term (Fiscal Year 2023 and
    beyond).
        a. In the near-term, the Army is updating the fielded Common
    Missile Warning System (CMWS) and Advanced Threat Infrared
    Countermeasure (ATIRCM) software algorithms to address these associated
    emerging threats. The Army is also working with other services to
    identify improved flare countermeasures. These enhancements will be
    integrated on all ASE-equipped Army aircraft.
        b. In the mid-term, the Army is developing the Common Infrared
    Countermeasures (CIRCM) program, for initial fielding in FY19. However,
    the Army is initially leveraging the Navy's Large Aircraft Infrared
    Countermeasure (DoN LAIRCM) for installation on a limited quantity of
    Apache, Blackhawk and Chinook helicopters deploying by FY17. For the
    subsequent deployment, the Army will modify the DoN LAIRCM detect
    sensor, and combined with a CIRCM Quick Reaction Capability (QRC), will
    provide a reduced size, weight, and power system. To accelerate the
    CIRCM QRC, the Army has submitted a request to reprogram $41.3 million
    to procure CIRCM QRC for the initial deployment aircraft addressed
    above. These funds are required by June 2016.
        c. The long-term strategy is a fleet-wide solution that accelerates
    development and fielding of an advanced missile warning system and
    continues the fielding of CIRCM. These two programs will replace CMWS
    and ATIRCM.
        Separate from the strategy to address the MANPADS threat, the Army
    is developing a Modernized Radar Warning Receiver (MRWR) to address
    radar-based threats.
        Mr. Turner. What are the operational impacts of slowing aviation
    modernization programs on the readiness of the force and the aviation
    modernization strategy?
        General Williamson. The operational impacts of slowing
    modernization programs are delayed divestment of less effective
    equipment and delayed fielding of advanced aircraft and capabilities to
    the operational force. The rate at which we field new capabilities has
    short and long term effects on the operational force and the aviation
    modernization strategy. As fielding timelines increase, the
    effectiveness of the new capability decreases. Specifically, divestment
    of the UH-60A from the ARNG would be delayed by 2 years from Fiscal
    Year 2023 (FY23) to FY25. UH-60M modernization in the Army would be
    delayed by 2 years from FY28 to FY30. Also, four key modifications to
    the CH-47F would be delayed by 5 years: cargo platform health
    environment; adjustable pitch change link; engine improvement; and
    simulation obsolescence.
        Mr. Turner. Please comment on the effectiveness of small guided
    rockets used by rotorcraft in combat and the role this technology will
    play in future combat operations.
        General Williamson. Small guided rockets, such as the Advanced
    Precision Kill Weapon System (APKWS II) in use by the U.S. Army, are
    effective against light skinned vehicles and troops in the open.
    Recently, the APKWS has proven extremely effective in engagements in
    current theaters of operation. These weapons provide the Army's Apache
    aircraft with a precision strike capability larger than the 30mm
    cannon, yet smaller and less expensive than the Hellfire missile. It
    also increases stowed kills--the number of precision weapons the Apache
    can carry without increasing platform payload weight. In the future,
    the Army will continue to develop technologies for small guided
    munitions that will provide greater lethality with increased efficiency
    by allowing Army aviators to employ the most appropriate munitions
    against a range of threats.
        Mr. Turner. Please comment on the Army's plan to implement warhead
    technology on small guided munitions used by rotorcraft that are
    capable of neutralizing a wider spectrum of targets such as light and
    up-armored vehicles, bunkers, and structures.
        General Williamson. The Army will field scalable and tailorable
    Aviation munitions and their associated equipment to improve precision
    and lethality. Currently, the Army is employing the Advanced Precision
    Kill Weapon System (APKWS), in support of a current operational need.
    To further enhance this capability, the Army is exploring the
    feasibility of expanding guided rocket capability through warhead
    modernization and ensuring capabilities are integrated on current
    manned and unmanned platforms.
        Additionally, research into precursor warheads for larger anti-tank
    munitions suggests their suitability for penetrating warheads for small
    guided munitions. A feasibility study of a small diameter penetrator
    coupled with a follow-through grenade also indicated suitability
    against personnel in urban structures, bunkers, and medium armor.
        Mr. Turner. What can the Congress do to accelerate the procurement
    of ICBM support helicopters in fiscal year 2017?
        General Bunch. The Air Force is refining the acquisition strategy
    for the UH-1N Replacement program. Until the program content, timing,
    and costs are finalized, we request that Congress support the fiscal
    year 2017 President's Budget request as submitted.
        Mr. Turner. We've recently read that the commander of Air Force
    Special Operations Command has indicated that three more CV-22s are
    required for attrition reserve aircraft. Does the Air Force plan to
    address this requirement in the Future Years Defense Program?
        General Bunch. Any future Air Force decision to procure additional
    CV-22 aircraft would be driven by a validated user requirement and
    subsequently added to future budgets. However, the Air Force CV-22
    fleet size requirement and program of record remains set at 50
    aircraft, with no additional requirements to increase that number at
    this time.
        Mr. Turner. What can the Congress do to accelerate the procurement
    of ICBM support helicopters in fiscal year 2017?
        General Holmes. The Air Force is refining the acquisition strategy
    for the UH-1N Replacement program. Until the program content, timing,
    and costs are finalized, we request that Congress support the fiscal
    year 2017 President's Budget request as submitted.
        Mr. Turner. We've recently read that the commander of Air Force
    Special Operations Command has indicated that three more CV-22s are
    required for attrition reserve aircraft. Does the Air Force plan to
    address this requirement in the Future Years Defense Program?
        General Holmes. Any future Air Force decision to procure additional
    CV-22 aircraft would be driven by a validated user requirement and
    subsequently added to future budgets. However, the Air Force CV-22
    fleet size requirement and program of record remains set at 50
    aircraft, with no additional requirements to increase that number at
    this time.
        Mr. Turner. I understand the Army is divesting legacy TH-67
    training helicopters and the OH-58 Kiowa Warrior reconnaissance scout
    helicopters. What impact is this divestment having on the industrial
    base, and would you please provide more details on how you are
    considering Foreign Military Sales to help mitigate impacts?
        General Lundy. The Army tasked the Aviation and Missile Research,
    Development, and Engineering Center (AMRDEC) Industrial Base Group to
    assess the potential impact of the divestment of TH-67 and OH-58 with
    the task of analyzing the impact on the lightweight single engine (LSE)
    rotary wing industry sector. The AMRDEC analysis found no adverse
    impact to the LSE industrial base resulting from the Army's planned
    divestiture of OH-58 variants and TH-67 aircraft. The Army's ongoing
    strategy has been to support the execution of Aviation Restructure
    Initiative while minimizing cost to the United States taxpayer,
    supporting industry partners, and Building Partnership Capacity through
    Foreign Military Sales (FMS). The Army is only making OH-58D Kiowa
    Warriors available to partner nations through FMS. The first OH-58D FMS
    case was signed with Croatia for 16 aircraft in February, 2016.
    Additional FMS cases with Greece, Tunisia and Austria are in various
    stages of negotiations. Project Manager Armed Scout Helicopter will
    deliver 30 TH-67 aircraft in Fiscal Year 2016 (FY16) to the Regional
    Helicopter Training Center (RHTC) in Colombia to support the US
    Southern Command (SOUTHCOM) and Department of Justice (DOJ) counter-
    narcotics mission. An additional 30 TH-67 aircraft are scheduled for
    delivery in FY17, bringing the total quantity to 60 TH-67s. The Army
    will continue to explore FMS opportunities for both OH-58D and TH-67
    aircraft to mitigate impacts on the lightweight single engine
    industrial base.
        Mr. Turner. The National Commission on the Future of the Army
    recommended that the Army retain four Apache battalions in the National
    Guard. What's the Army's position on the Commission's recommendation?
        General Lundy. The Army's position on the National Commission's
    recommendation to retain four battalions of Apaches with 18 aircraft in
    each battalion will be provided to Congress as part of the Army's
    initial assessment of the National Commission's recommendations. The
    National Commission also recommended retention of an 11th Combat
    Aviation Brigade (CAB) in the Regular Army, as well as the forward
    stationing of a CAB in Korea. The Army's initial assessment will
    address these aviation-related recommendations from a holistic
    perspective.
        Mr. Turner. In light of the three recent aircraft accidents in Army
    Aviation, what do you believe is leading to these incidents and is
    there a technology solution to help prevent them from occurring in the
    future? If so, what we can do to help accelerate the development and
    integration of this technology on existing platforms?
        General Lundy. Human error remains the primary cause of Army
    Aviation mishaps. Between March 2014 and March 2016, materiel failure
    was the primary cause in 3 (11 percent) of 27 Class A Army Aviation
    flight accidents and 22 (81.5 percent) were the result of human error.
    Additionally, one was the result of a weather phenomenon and another
    remains under investigation at this time. Historically, 80 percent of
    aviation accidents are caused by human error. The CSA directed a
    Holistic Review of Army Aviation. Among other topics, this team is
    examining aviation training strategy, funding, execution and
    assessment. Programmed technology solutions will help mitigate risk of
    future aviation accidents. Degraded Visual Environment (DVE) conditions
    account for roughly 25 percent of rotary wing mishaps. The Army is
    addressing this challenge by investing in technological solutions--such
    as the Brownout Rotorcraft Enhancement System (BORES) and modernization
    of flight controls and symbology--that will enable Army Aviation to
    operate in all environmental conditions. The Army is addressing
    insufficient aircraft power at high altitudes, high temperatures, and
    high payloads through the Improved Turbine Engine Program (ITEP), which
    will provide greater lift and capability to existing aircraft. The
    President's FY17 budget request includes $80.5 million for DVE programs
    and $126 million for ITEP. Both DVE and ITEP are projected to be
    integrated into planned Future Vertical Lift capability sets.
        Mr. Turner. What are your current acquisition strategies for
    aircraft survivability equipment? How can we help accelerate them?
        General Lundy. The rapid proliferation of advanced threat
    technologies increases the risk to the fleet. The Army requires an
    Aircraft Survivability Equipment (ASE) suite to defeat these emerging
    threats.
        The Army's acquisition strategy includes a number of modernization
    and development ASE programs to address infrared, radar, laser, and
    hostile ground fire threats. The most critical priority is the
    development of a comprehensive ASE package to detect, declare, and
    defeat a wide range of emerging infrared man-portable air-defense
    system (MANPADS) threats. The Army's MANPADS threat strategy is divided
    into three temporal phases: (1) near-term (or now), (2) mid-term
    (Fiscal Year 2016-2023), and (3) long-term (Fiscal Year 2023 and
    beyond).
        a. In the near-term, the Army is updating the fielded Common
    Missile Warning System (CMWS) and Advanced Threat Infrared
    Countermeasure (ATIRCM) software algorithms to address these associated
    emerging threats. The Army is also working with other services to
    identify improved flare countermeasures. These enhancements will be
    integrated on all ASE-equipped Army aircraft.
        b. In the mid-term, the Army is developing the Common Infrared
    Countermeasures (CIRCM) program, for initial fielding in FY19. However,
    the Army is initially leveraging the Navy's Large Aircraft Infrared
    Countermeasure (DoN LAIRCM) for installation on a limited quantity of
    Apache, Blackhawk and Chinook helicopters deploying by FY17. For the
    subsequent deployment, the Army will modify the DoN LAIRCM detect
    sensor, and combined with a CIRCM Quick Reaction Capability (QRC), will
    provide a reduced size, weight, and power system. To accelerate the
    CIRCM QRC, the Army has submitted a request to reprogram $41.3 million
    to procure CIRCM QRC for the initial deployment aircraft addressed
    above. These funds are required by June 2016.
        c. The long-term strategy is a fleet-wide solution that accelerates
    development and fielding of an advanced missile warning system and
    continues the fielding of CIRCM. These two programs will replace CMWS
    and ATIRCM.
        Separate from the strategy to address the MANPADS threat, the Army
    is developing a Modernized Radar Warning Receiver (MRWR) to address
    radar-based threats.
        Mr. Turner. What are the operational impacts of slowing aviation
    modernization programs on the readiness of the force and the aviation
    modernization strategy?
        General Lundy. The operational impacts of slowing modernization
    programs are delayed divestment of less effective equipment and delayed
    fielding of advanced aircraft and capabilities to the operational
    force. The rate at which we field new capabilities has short and long
    term effects on the operational force and the aviation modernization
    strategy. As fielding timelines increase, the effectiveness of the new
    capability decreases. Specifically, divestment of the UH-60A from the
    ARNG would be delayed by 2 years from Fiscal Year 2023 (FY23) to FY25.
    UH-60M modernization in the Army would be delayed by 2 years from FY28
    to FY30. Also, four key modifications to the CH-47F would be delayed by
    5 years: cargo platform health environment; adjustable pitch change
    link; engine improvement; and simulation obsolescence.
        Mr. Turner. Please comment on the effectiveness of small guided
    rockets used by rotorcraft in combat and the role this technology will
    play in future combat operations.
        General Lundy. Small guided rockets, such as the Advanced Precision
    Kill Weapon System (APKWS II) in use by the U.S. Army, are effective
    against light skinned vehicles and troops in the open. Recently, the
    APKWS has proven extremely effective in engagements in current theaters
    of operation. These weapons provide the Army's Apache aircraft with a
    precision strike capability larger than the 30mm cannon, yet smaller
    and less expensive than the Hellfire missile. It also increases stowed
    kills--the number of precision weapons the Apache can carry without
    increasing platform payload weight. In the future, the Army will
    continue to develop technologies for small guided munitions that will
    provide greater lethality with increased efficiency by allowing Army
    aviators to employ the most appropriate munitions against a range of
    threats.
        Mr. Turner. Please comment on the Army's plan to implement warhead
    technology on small guided munitions used by rotorcraft that are
    capable of neutralizing a wider spectrum of targets such as light and
    up-armored vehicles, bunkers, and structures.
        General Lundy. The Army will field scalable and tailorable Aviation
    munitions and their associated equipment to improve precision and
    lethality. Currently, the Army is employing the Advanced Precision Kill
    Weapon System (APKWS), in support of a current operational need. To
    further enhance this capability, the Army is exploring the feasibility
    of expanding guided rocket capability through warhead modernization and
    ensuring capabilities are integrated on current manned and unmanned
    platforms.
        Additionally, research into precursor warheads for larger anti-tank
    munitions suggests their suitability for penetrating warheads for small
    guided munitions. A feasibility study of a small diameter penetrator
    coupled with a follow-through grenade also indicated suitability
    against personnel in urban structures, bunkers, and medium armor.
                                     ______

                       QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. GIBSON
        Mr. Gibson. I am aware that there are American companies currently
    researching commercial technologies that combine three-dimensional (3-
    D) visualization using camera, thermal and satellite imagery, recording
    and networking capabilities into a single cockpit platform to
    facilitate mission planning and execution. My understanding is that
    this technology already exists within the SOF aviation community. Is
    the plan to also purchase this technology to incorporate into the
    conventional Army aviation community and where does the R&D priority
    for this technology fall within the overall Army R&D efforts?
        General Lundy. There is no plan for the Army to incorporate 3D
    visualization into the cockpit of the current Army helicopter fleet.
        The Army is pursuing development and demonstration of technologies
    for displays and cueing to enhance pilot situational awareness, both in
    normal operations and Degraded Visual Environments. The Army is aware
    of commercial research in the area of 3-D visualization and will
    continue to monitor the progress of this technology for possible
    insertion into the efforts mentioned above.
                                     ______

                        QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. BRADY
        Mr. Brady. DARPA has embarked on the development and flight
    demonstration of the Aerial Reconfigurable Embedded System (ARES) VTOL
    UAS. The objective of this demonstration is the flight validation of a
    modular and affordable VTOL UAS with a small footprint that can provide
    multi-mission support to small units conducting distributed and
    expeditionary operations. We understand the Army Aviation is exploring
    the benefits of evolving its current fixed wing ISR UAS capabilities
    toward a more forward deployed embedded VTOL capability. And that US
    Army's CASCOM has also identified autonomous aerial resupply as a top
    priority in the future force. Is a multi-mission VTOL UAS with multi-
    role capability across broad range of military operations and
    environments of interest to the Army? Is the DARPA ARES flight
    demonstration relevant to informing development of these requirements,
    and does the Army have plans to fund further development and
    demonstration of such capabilities in the future.
        General Lundy. Yes, a multi-mission Vertical Take Off and Landing
    (VTOL) Unmanned Aerial System (UAS) is of interest to the Army. The
    Army is currently coordinating a ``Family of UAS'' requirements
    document which addresses a VTOL UAS with multi-role capability. The
    desired capabilities would effectively correct the current overreliance
    on runways, shortfalls in survivability, and operations in Global
    Positioning System-denied environments. The document will also require
    the materiel solution to work with modular payloads to address current
    gaps in unmanned Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance and
    logistics resupply
        The DARPA ARES flight demonstration is also relevant to informing
    development of VTOL UAS requirements. The Army does have plans to fund
    development and demonstration of like capabilities in the future. The
    Army's Aviation Center of Excellence, in particular, is interested in
    multi-mission VTOL UAS. We believe this innovative technology has
    potential applications providing the Army, the Marine Corps, and other
    Services an unmanned vertical lift capability. Technology such as ARES
    also has the potential for a runway-independent UAS and to serve a
    broad range of mission requirements for tactical Army formations.