[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.