[House Hearing, 114 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.A.S.C. No. 114-138]
NEXT GENERATION AIRSPACE CONTROL--
ENSURING AIR FORCE COMPLIANCE
BY JANUARY 1, 2020
__________
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON SEAPOWER AND PROJECTION FORCES
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
HEARING HELD
SEPTEMBER 14, 2016
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
22-456 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 20402-0001
SUBCOMMITTEE ON SEAPOWER AND PROJECTION FORCES
J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia, Chairman
K. MICHAEL CONAWAY, Texas JOE COURTNEY, Connecticut
BRADLEY BYRNE, Alabama JAMES R. LANGEVIN, Rhode Island
ROBERT J. WITTMAN, Virginia RICK LARSEN, Washington
DUNCAN HUNTER, California, Vice MADELEINE Z. BORDALLO, Guam
Chair HENRY C. ``HANK'' JOHNSON, Jr.,
VICKY HARTZLER, Missouri Georgia
PAUL COOK, California SCOTT H. PETERS, California
JIM BRIDENSTINE, Oklahoma TULSI GABBARD, Hawaii
JACKIE WALORSKI, Indiana GWEN GRAHAM, Florida
RYAN K. ZINKE, Montana SETH MOULTON, Massachusetts
STEPHEN KNIGHT, California
STEVE RUSSELL, Oklahoma
Bruce Johnson, Professional Staff Member
Phil MacNaughton, Professional Staff Member
Jodi Brignola, Clerk
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
STATEMENTS PRESENTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS
Forbes, Hon. J. Randy, a Representative from Virginia, Chairman,
Subcommittee on Seapower and Projection Forces................. 1
WITNESSES
Fay, Maj Gen Timothy, USAF, Director, Strategic Plans, Office of
the Deputy Chief of Staff for Strategic Plans and Requirements,
Headquarters U.S. Air Force.................................... 2
Fortney, Maj Gen Michael E., USAF, Vice Commander, Air Force
Global Strike Command.......................................... 4
Nahom, Brig Gen David, USAF, Deputy Director, Plans and Programs,
Headquarters Air Combat Command................................ 5
Thomas, Brig Gen Jon, USAF, Director of Strategic Plans,
Requirements and Programs, Headquarters Air Mobility Command... 6
APPENDIX
Prepared Statements:
Courtney, Hon. Joe, a Representative from Connecticut,
Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Seapower and Projection
Forces..................................................... 31
Fay, Maj Gen Timothy, joint with Brig Gen Jon Thomas, Maj Gen
Michael E. Fortney, and Brig Gen David Nahom............... 33
Forbes, Hon. J. Randy........................................ 29
Documents Submitted for the Record:
[There were no Documents submitted.]
Witness Responses to Questions Asked During the Hearing:
Mr. Bridenstine.............................................. 51
Mr. Conaway.................................................. 51
Mrs. Hartzler................................................ 52
Mr. Hunter................................................... 51
Questions Submitted by Members Post Hearing:
Mr. Larsen................................................... 55
Mr. Zinke.................................................... 55
NEXT GENERATION AIRSPACE CONTROL--ENSURING AIR FORCE COMPLIANCE BY
JANUARY 1, 2020
----------
House of Representatives,
Committee on Armed Services,
Subcommittee on Seapower and Projection Forces,
Washington, DC, Wednesday, September 14, 2016.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 3:30 p.m., in
room 2118, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. J. Randy Forbes
(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. J. RANDY FORBES, A REPRESENTATIVE
FROM VIRGINIA, CHAIRMAN, SUBCOMMITTEE ON SEAPOWER AND
PROJECTION FORCES
Mr. Forbes. We are going to go ahead and get started. I am
always a little concerned when the witnesses outnumber our
panel. But you guys be easy on me. And today, the subcommittee
convenes to receive testimony on the Next Generation Airspace
Control--Ensuring Air Force Compliance by January 1, 2020. The
distinguished panel of Air Force leaders testifying before us
are Major General Timothy Fay, Director, Strategic Plans and
Requirements, Headquarters Air Force Pentagon; Major General
Michael E. Fortney, Vice Commander, Air Force Global Strike
Command; Brigadier General David Nahom, Deputy Director, Plans
and Programs, Headquarters Air Combat Command; and Brigadier
General Jon Thomas, Director of Strategic Plans, Requirements,
and Programs, Headquarters Air Mobility Command.
Gentlemen, thank you for being with us today. And as we
mentioned, the most important thing we do today is compile a
record so that we can utilize it for both our markups, drafting
our bill, and also for explanation and discussions with other
policymakers here in Congress.
This past weekend, on the 15th anniversary of 9/11, we were
reminded of how difficult it is to manage our Nation's
airspace, and how critically important it is for us to maintain
situational awareness of what is airborne, where it is, and
where it is going. To address those challenges, the Federal
Aviation Administration [FAA] is carrying out the most
ambitious reform of our air traffic control system since the
1960s. The Next Generation Air Transportation Management
System, often referred to as ``NextGen,'' represents a shift
from decades-old systems to new digital and satellite-based
technologies, as well as new procedures. It should make air
travel safer and more efficient, and give our air traffic
controllers, including military air defense operators, greater
situational awareness.
In order to ensure that aircraft comply with this new
system, the FAA has issued a wide-ranging airspace control
mandate that will take effect on January 1, 2020. This mandate
requires most civilian and military aircraft that operate over
the United States to upgrade their avionics with the Automatic
Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast (ADS-B) Out system. In
essence, ADS-B Out is a transponder that will automatically
broadcast an aircraft's location and flight information to
controllers on the ground, and also to pilots in the air. It is
a critical component of the U.S. NextGen system and the larger
global air traffic management system.
In a 2015 DOD [Department of Defense] report to Congress,
the Secretary of Defense indicated that according to current
plans and timelines, the Army, Navy, and Marine Corps should
have ADS-B Out systems and be fully compliant with the FAA
mandate by 2020. The report highlighted significant shortfalls
in Air Force compliance, however. Indeed, we have heard that up
to 30 percent of the Air Force's aircraft, to include KC-10s,
B-1s, B-2s, F-16s, F-15s, and F-22s, will not be fully
compliant in a little over 3 years.
According to an FAA Advisory Circular dated 21 September
2012, non-compliant aircraft will be heavily restricted as to
where they can fly. I am therefore concerned that the inability
of the Air Force to meet FAA requirements will have a
significant adverse impact on the Air Force's training and
readiness, and ultimately undermine the ability of a large
portion of the Air Force's combat aircraft to execute their
wartime missions.
I would, first of all, like to understand whether the Air
Force intends to comply with the FAA airspace limitations and
what risk Air Force intends to take in 2020. I would also like
to understand the challenges the Air Force faces in ensuring
that all of its aircraft are compliant, whether it is a
shortage of resources, aircraft depot throughput limitations,
engineering integration issues, or the availability of
commercial off-the-shelf solutions.
Finally, I am interested in your thoughts as to what can
this committee do to help ensure that our entire Air Force can
fly, fight, and win after January 2020.
Mr. Courtney has just joined us. And, Mr. Courtney, do you
have any opening--okay.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Forbes can be found in the
Appendix on page 29.]
Mr. Forbes. With that, General Fay, I believe you are going
to start us off. Gentlemen, we look forward to your comments.
As I have mentioned to you before we got here, if you have any
written comments you would like to put, we will put those in
the record, and look forward to any opening remarks that you
might have. General Fay.
STATEMENT OF MAJ GEN TIMOTHY FAY, USAF, DIRECTOR, STRATEGIC
PLANS, OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY CHIEF OF STAFF FOR STRATEGIC PLANS
AND REQUIREMENTS, HEADQUARTERS U.S. AIR FORCE
General Fay. And Chairman Forbes, Ranking Member Courtney,
and distinguished members of the subcommittee, we would like to
request that the written statement be----
Mr. Forbes. Without objection, all written statements will
be made part of the record.
[The joint prepared statement of General Fay, General
Fortney, General Nahom, and General Thomas can be found in the
Appendix on page 33.]
General Fay. On behalf of Lieutenant General Holmes, Deputy
Chief of Strategic Plans and Requirements, Headquarters United
States Air Force, I would like to thank you for the opportunity
to testify before the subcommittee. I am joined today on my
left Major Michael Fortney, Vice Commander of Global Strike
Command; to his left, Brigadier General David Nahom, Deputy
Director, Plans and Programs at Headquarters Air Combat
Command; and at the far end of the table, Brigadier General Jon
``Ty'' Thomas, Director of Strategic Plans, Requirements, and
Programs, Headquarters Air Mobility Command.
As you know, a top priority of our Air Force is to balance
readiness with future modernization. And in a time of fiscal
austerity, we are committed to making every dollar count while
conducting combat and combat support operations around the
globe. As such, our Nation's Air Force must focus on safety,
compliance, and aircraft modernization in order to maintain our
national security now and into the future. The United States
Air Force, like other aircraft operators, faces the Federal
Aviation Administration's January 1, 2020, mandate to use
Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast, ADS-B Out, in the
significant portion of the National Airspace System. Similar
standards will be instituted in Europe, creating significant
pressure for installation by June 7, 2020. As an Air Force, our
ability to project combat power and maintain global reach
around the world depends on access to this airspace. While
deviations or unconditional clearances might be granted on a
case-by-case basis, these airspace restrictions may prevent the
United States Air Force from enjoying the same ready access to
airspace.
Not meeting these airspace requirements will not diminish
our combat capability, but could diminish our ability to
operate globally with efficiency and freedom. With your help
and support, we have made significant progress and have added
as much money as we believe is possible to accelerate ADS-B Out
compliance without taking away from combat capability, or
driving other bills to the taxpayer. We have been working
closely with the FAA on mitigation options, and will continue
to work to minimize any adverse impact. In order to avoid the
loss of airspace access, the Air Force is taking all necessary
steps to ensure compliance with the ADS-B Out mandate. While
the Air Force plans to have a fully compliant fleet, some
aircraft will remain without ADS-B Out, and will not be
modified by the 2020 mandate. This is a result of taking
calculated risk to maintain fiscal responsibility.
Due to the differences among existing platforms, avionics
architectures, and new equipment, a systems engineering
approach must be employed to determine the most cost-effective
solution to meet the ADS-B Out requirements. The Air Force
recognizes the potential operational impact and risk to our
overall readiness by not equipping our aircraft, and is
addressing solutions to mitigate this risk to the maximum
extent possible.
As an enterprise, the Air Force takes airspace compliance
very seriously. To this point, the entire Air Force corporate
structure takes responsibility for managing taxpayer dollars to
effectively balance compliance requirements with the much-
needed modernization of our aircraft. As such, compliance
efforts have been a significant priority in our programming
guidance, and this is reflected in the fact that compliance
efforts are underway across the vast majority of our fleet. As
you are aware, there is no one-size-fits-all technical solution
to ADS-B Out. Applying more money or attempting to further
accelerate our compliance efforts may only induce further risk
across the fleet. The development of emerging technologies
needed to support both compliance and modernization efforts in
a fiscal responsibly way is the driver for the Air Force to
maintain its current prioritization efforts.
Where we can use this committee's help is by supporting our
current and future exemption needs with the FAA. The Air Force
has been working with the FAA on exemptions from the mandate,
or procedural accommodations from air traffic control for those
aircraft that will not be equipped by the current deadline.
This will allow us to efficiently accommodate several other
mandates by synergizing modernization efforts. We are
encouraged that provisions in the rule exist for accommodating
non-ADS-B-equipped aircraft, and also encouraged to see the
FAA's exemption to the Airlines for America through the use of
secondary surveillance radars in the post-ADS-B Out
environment.
In sum, the Air Force remains committed to safety,
compliance, and modernization, and continues to evaluate all
methods to ensure compliance in its fleet in order to meet
current and future Next Generation Air Transportation System
requirements. While aircraft compliance and modernization
efforts remain ongoing, our goal is to minimize cost and
maximize operational capabilities. As we look towards the
future, the Air Force continues to work with our partners in
the FAA, Eurocontrol [The European Organisation for the Safety
of Air Navigation], NATO [North Atlantic Treaty Organization],
and other nations around the globe to ensure we are able to
accomplish our mission.
To provide a broader picture of where we stand across the
fleet, I will turn it over to Major General Mike Fortney to
discuss the way ahead for Global Strike Command.
Mr. Forbes. General Fortney.
STATEMENT OF MAJ GEN MICHAEL E. FORTNEY, USAF, VICE COMMANDER,
AIR FORCE GLOBAL STRIKE COMMAND
General Fortney. Chairman Forbes, Ranking Member Courtney,
distinguished members, I would also like to add my thanks for
inviting us here today. I am proud to represent the 31,000
members of Air Force Global Strike Command here. And as you
know, as General Fay has already discussed, and you did as
well, Mr. Chairman, ADS-B Out is the core of the FAA's NextGen
air transportation system, and a major safety upgrade to the
National Airspace System. All flying aircraft, specified
airspace, and mandated to comply by 1 January of 2020. ADS-B is
essential to our aircrafts' ability to operate freely, and to
comply with international civil aviation organization
obligations under the communication, navigation, and
surveillance and air traffic management plan. And we take that
seriously. Unfortunately, due to higher priorities required to
revitalize the nuclear enterprise, Air Force Global Strike
Command has been unable to fund this program in the past. With
funding expected in fiscal year 2018, however, Global Strike
Command platforms will begin testing ADS-B upgrades in fiscal
year 2019 and 2020, but no operational bombers will be
compliant by that time.
With this anticipated funding, only two B-1 aircraft and
two B-2 test--and one B-2 test aircraft will be ADS-B-modified
prior to 1 January 2020. The remainder of the B-1 and B-2
fleets will be fully compliant by fiscal years 2023 and 2024,
respectively. Similarly, the plan for the B-52 incudes
combining ADS-B and military-required GPS [Global Positioning
System] code upgrades into a single modification. This
combination is required because the B-52 needs a new GPS
receiver in order to achieve ADS-B-mandated accuracies. With
fiscal year 2018 funding, only two B-2--or B-52 test aircraft
will be modified prior to the mandate. The remainder of the
fleet will be compliant by fiscal year 2024.
Finally, all 38 of the non-Global Strike assigned UH-1 Huey
helicopters will have ADS-B installed by the required January
2020 mandate. ADS-B will not be installed in the 24 Global
Strike assigned UH-1-N Huey helicopters, because these
platforms will not be operating in the airspace required by
ADS-B.
So in summary, higher nuclear enterprise priorities over
the last several years, coupled with previous year funding
constraints, have placed us in a situation where bombers will
have restricted access to airspace starting in 2020. Without
FAA accommodations to provide exemptions or waivers, our
aircraft may be prohibited from flying in Class A, B, and C
airspace and flights above 10,000 feet until compliance. The
operational impacts of this would include restricted airspace
access, suboptimal routings, delayed missions, and, of course,
increased fuel consumption.
Mr. Chairman and subcommittee members, I want to thank you,
again, for your dedication and support for the United States
Air Force and our Nation, and for the opportunity to appear
here today. Thank you.
Mr. Forbes. General Nahom.
STATEMENT OF BRIG GEN DAVID NAHOM, USAF, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, PLANS
AND PROGRAMS, HEADQUARTERS AIR COMBAT COMMAND
General Nahom. Chairman Forbes, Ranking Member Courtney,
distinguished members of the subcommittee, it is a distinct
pleasure to be here this afternoon. Thank you for the
opportunity to discuss Air Combat Command's [ACC] effort to
comply with the Federal Aviation Automatic Dependent
Surveillance-Broadcast Out mandate. As Assistant Director for
Headquarters Air Combat Command's Plans, Programs, and
Requirement Directorate, I am responsible for the efficient
aligning of fleet modernization with prioritized Combat Air
Force requirements in a fiscally constrained environment.
This requires us to make tough priority choices and
efficiently plan modernization several years in advance of
actually delivering capability. Midstream adjustments to these
commitments are often costly and put program warfighting
capabilities at risk. ACC considers integrating ADS-B Out
capability an important part of our modernization efforts. The
majority of our platforms are scheduled to meet the mandate.
Recently, we accomplished a deep dive on opportunities to
accelerate ADS-B and determine if we could do so on a few of
the platforms--if we could do so. We noted on a few of the
platforms, most noticeably the AWACS [Boeing E-3 Sentry], there
could be room for acceleration.
We also determined that even with additional funding, the
F-15, F-16 Block 30, those are the earlier F-16s, a majority of
them in the Reserve Component, F-22, F-35, MQ-9 cannot meet the
mandate timeline without severely impacting our ability to
field vital warfighting capability and field some critical
flight safety items and modifications. However, we are postured
to begin ADS-B integration on most of these platforms before or
shortly after the mandated date. Breaking current modernization
pursuits midstream to accelerate ADS-B would severely disrupt
critical efforts, such as Link 16 receive, combat ID, helmet-
mounted queuing systems, sensor enhancements on the F-22, anti-
icing, automated takeoff and landing on the MQ-9, and a
critical common operational flight program for the F-15 C and E
programs.
Additionally, such action could cause inefficient execution
of already committed programs translating to poor use of
limited funds, generating potential risk to programs given the
maturity of several enabling technologies. Unequipped platforms
will begin fielding with ADS-B as soon as fiscal year 2021.
However, full compliance of all CAF [Combat Air Forces]
platforms, primarily the F-22 and MQ-9, will go out beyond
2025. ACC looks forward to continuing to work with the FAA and
our lead service organization to provide greater air traffic
management efficiency and to ensure that Combat Air Forces
maintain the ability to defend our Nation. I welcome any
questions from the chairman or the members.
Mr. Forbes. General, thank you. General Thomas.
STATEMENT OF BRIG GEN JON THOMAS, USAF, DIRECTOR OF STRATEGIC
PLANS, REQUIREMENTS AND PROGRAMS, HEADQUARTERS AIR MOBILITY
COMMAND
General Thomas. Chairman Forbes, Ranking Member Courtney,
distinguished members of the subcommittee, I also thank you for
the opportunity on behalf of General Everhart, the Commander of
Air Mobility Command, to testify before this subcommittee.
Modernization of our Air Force, and, specifically, our
mobility fleet, is key to our national security. As we look
towards 2020 and the ADS-B Out mandate, it is a challenge our
mobility fleets are ready to meet to ensure that we continue to
provide unrivaled global reach for America. Our ability to
project combat power anywhere on the globe depends on airspace
access. And not meeting the ADS-B Out mandate threatens that
access. We plan to have a fully compliant mobility fleet, and
the vast majority of our mobility aircraft will be modified by
the 2020 mandate. To put more meat on the bone for our
discussion, I will take a moment and briefly discuss the status
of compliance by mission type. Due to our mission requirements
and the need to frequently transit saturated international
airspace, modernizing our airlift aircraft is our highest
priority. Currently, our airlift fleet is projected to be 49
percent compliant with ADS-B Out mandates per the fiscal year
2017 PB [President's budget] submission.
However, our intent is to raise compliance to above 90
percent by partnering with the acquisition community to
separate ADS-B Out from other modifications. Through this
focused effort we have a road map to ensure our 223 C-17s and
300 C-130s are fully compliant by the mandate. Modification of
our 52 C-5s will require more time as we sequence ADS-B Out
components into other planned modernization programs upon which
the ADS-B Out capability will rely. For any aircraft that will
not meet the mandate, we will request an exemption. We estimate
our entire airlift fleet will be compliant by the end of 2020.
For our tanker fleet, as this committee is aware, we are at the
beginning of a recapitalization effort that starts with the
acquisition of the KC-46. All 179 aircraft will be compliant
when delivered. The entire KC-135 fleet is also projected to be
compliant by the mandate.
For the KC-10, as we look forward, the eventual divestment
of this airframe, we must balance completing necessary
modifications and upgrades such as ADS-B Out and safeguarding
taxpayer dollars. Our plan ensures a portion of KC-10s'
complete modification prior to January 2020, and we will
request exemptions for the remaining non-compliant aircraft
which remain in service for shorter time periods after the 2020
mandate.
Finally, our operational support and executive airlift
fleet composed of C-21s, C-32s, C-37s, C-40s, and VC-25As,
better known as Air Force One, are all commercial derivative
aircraft, and we will capitalize on ADS-B Out modernization
efforts within industry to expedite compliance of these
aircraft. We plan to have all of these aircraft compliant by
the mandate. I am happy to address any questions you have on
any of these platforms. And as my counterparts here, truly
appreciate the support you and this subcommittee have given to
our Air Force and to the Air Mobility Command. Thank you for
allowing me to discuss Air Mobility with you today. And I look
forward to your questions.
Mr. Forbes. Thank you, General Thomas.
General Fay, you used a phrase when you looked at what we
were trying to do to be in compliance. It said calculated risk.
And one of the phrases that bother this committee as much as
anything is we hear over and over again people coming from the
Pentagon and saying: Well, this is acceptable risk, or this is
calculated risk. And we normally kind of sweep that under the
rug. But what we always want to find out is what is that risk?
So can you tell us and tell the committee what is the risk if
we are not compliant by 2020?
General Fay. Well, Chairman Forbes, the way I would
characterize how the Air Force is managing the risk as we
approach 2020 is, first and foremost, we are working very hard.
And I think you have heard that from all of the generals here
today, that we are working hard to achieve compliance to the
maximum extent possible. That is step one in managing the risk.
And we very accelerated, if you will, our progress to meet--to
make the maximum amount of the fleet compliant by the deadline.
Now, while we are doing that, we are working very carefully
to balance in that risk calculus a number of factors. First and
foremost is the operational availability of aircraft to meet
the needs of the current security environment. For instance,
the Air Force looks across its entire fleet, and we don't have
the ability to sit a large portion of our fleet down and take
the aircraft apart and do a large portion of our fleet at the
same time because of the current demands on the Air Force, and
potential demands on the Air Force required by warfighting
commanders and operational plans or unforeseen contingents.
Second, I would say we are managing our risk by taking a
broad holistic look at all of our warfighting and safety-of-
flight compliance items. And we are looking also economically
at that equation, if you will, of all the modifications and
upgrades required. And we are trying to combine as many of
those as possible to make that a very efficient process. So,
for instance, we don't have to take the same airplane, sit it
down, take it apart, put it together, and then 6 months later,
have to it sit down and take it apart again for another
modification. We are trying to do it just once to be as
efficient as possible. The third thing I would say that we are
working to balance as we approach 2020, along with the others,
is maximizing the capability of our suppliers without
overwhelming them. And also, if you will, our industrial base,
our ability to do actually the physical maintenance and the
requirements, the changes to the aircraft. We just have so many
places and folks that are able to do that. So those are the
three things I say that we are working to--when we talk about
risk manage, that we are talking about balancing.
Now, sir, to the second part of your question, what is the
potential impact, just to clarify, the potential impact is not
on the warfighting capability of the United States Air Force.
If we have to go to war, this is--ADS-B is a civil aviation
peacetime-of-flight, if you will, requirement to help air
traffic control manage for safety in flight and efficiency in a
civil-aviation-type environment.
So this isn't a warfighting issue we are talking about risk
managing. What we are talking about risk managing is, if you
will, the day-to-day operations in the civil-aviation-type
environment. It is possible if some of the exemptions and
mitigations we are working with the FAA are not--if we are not
able to get to them, that we will be required to fly longer
routes, lower altitudes. And so that impacts our ability, if
you will, to do some training and to do some peacetime-type
missions. And that will result certainly in higher fuel
consumption when we have to fly longer, further, and lower.
Mr. Forbes. So it won't impact us in our combat operations,
but it could impact us on our training and readiness?
General Fay. Yes, sir. It certainly could impact us on our
training and readiness.
Mr. Forbes. And, General Fortney, you mentioned something
that I would just like for you to explain a little bit. You
said that the reason we were--part of the reason we were here
is because we had other priorities, nuclear priorities, and we
had other funding shortfalls. This rule came out on September
21, 2012. If we had other priorities and we needed more money,
did the Air Force ever request that from this subcommittee or
from Congress? Because I don't recall anything from September
21, 2012, when the Air Force ever came in and said we need
these dollars. And I didn't see anything since the Air Force
hasn't sent us unfunded mandate list where it was listed there.
General Fortney. Yes, Mr. Chairman. That is, of course, a
good question. And I can't honestly answer whether we have
requested anything since 2012 on. What I can speak to are the
priorities over the last 2 or 3 years that we have been forced
to prioritize above this.
Mr. Forbes. But have there been any requests from the Air
Force for additional dollars that they would need?
General Fortney. For this specific program----
Mr. Forbes. And the only reason I say that is you guys are
doing a wonderful job. We want to pat you on the back. But it
really frustrates us when we kind of reach in like the usual--
at the end of a Casablanca movie where they say round up the
usual suspects. And when we fail on something, we have pleaded
with the Air Force, we pleaded with the services over the last
several years, tell us what you need. And the Air Force
consistently has come in, they don't even give us an unfunded
mandates list, and then they come in now and say: Well, we
couldn't do this because we had funding shortfalls, or because
we had other priorities. And we all scratch our heads and say:
Why didn't you tell us that 2 years ago, 4 years ago, 6 years
ago? Because it has been a long time since September 21 [2012].
So I am not pointing a finger at you. I am just saying we
probably shouldn't use that phraseology if the Air Force didn't
come in and ask for something. If they came in and asked for
more dollars, fine. But if they didn't ask for dollars, I don't
think it is fair to come in and say: We're here because we had
other priorities and we put our money somewhere else. The Air
Force could have come in and asked us, and I think all of us
would have reached in and tried to get those dollars to do it.
My last question is this: This is also, General Fay, for
you. You know, given that both the civilian and military
aviation sectors are impacted by FAA mandate, there are
commercial off-the-shelf solutions available to the Air Force
to enable compliance. The committee has heard concerns of a
number of these small business regarding requirements, General
Thomas just talked about using some of those, and industry
opportunities. The industry has been concerned that they aren't
doing it. I am not saying they are. I just ask you a question:
What is the Air Force doing to leverage small business
commercial off-the-shelf solutions to meet the mandate, and can
any of you give us any specific examples of that?
General Fay. Yes, Mr. Chairman. And I am going to defer to
General Thomas here because he can give one specific example.
But what I will say is clearly Air Force works on all of its
programs to fully comply with the Federal Acquisition
Regulations, and all laws and policies applicable there. And I
think we have actually got a pretty good news story and a good
example that General Thomas will share.
Mr. Forbes. Good. General.
General Thomas. Thank you, sir. Still in source selection,
but C-130 Avionics Modernization Program Increment 1, which is
the increment that ensures compliance with the ADS-B Out
mandate, is a small business set-aside. So once that source
selection is complete, you should see it go to a small business
that has an opportunity to compete in this environment.
Mr. Forbes. Mr. Courtney.
Mr. Courtney. Great. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I
apologize for being a little bit late. And thank you to all of
you for your testimony. Again, just quickly, General Thomas, it
was good to hear your update regarding the airlift. Again, in
Connecticut, we are sort of following this like a box score
with the C-130s up there. And it seems like things are really
on track. And I guess I am--excuse me, General Fay, you know,
for some of us who are maybe not as well-versed in this, I
mean, it does seem like there is sort of an uneven sort of
story here in terms of, you know, where--the percentage of
compliance in terms of one sector versus another. And, you
know, I guess it is--so it is 2016; 2020 is way off. I mean, we
clearly know we have got a problem here, an issue. I mean,
isn't there some way to emulate, you know, we are sort of ahead
of the curve as opposed to behind the curve to get things sort
of moving more smartly together?
General Fay. Ranking Member Courtney, appreciate the
question. I think the way I would respond is to say that I
think that we, as an Air Force, are--we believe we are moving
on it as fast as we can. And that, frankly, we couldn't put a
lot more money at this problem and be able to go any faster
just based on those things I talked about, operational
availability, the industrial base being able to respond.
Another very big part of this is the Air Force fleet is
composed of a wide range of aircraft with very different
technical, if you will, backbones and engineering, if you will,
requirements.
So very big difference between what I can do with a C-5
aircraft, which is very large, has great cooling and a lot of
power available to do things, and doesn't have to penetrate
enemy airspace, so it doesn't have any special requirements in
that area versus a tactical aircraft, an F-22 or an F-35 or an
F-15, for instance, as an example, that is much smaller, has a
lot less, if you will, ability to have things placed in the
aircraft just because it is small. A lot more technical, if you
will, integration on those aircraft with a crew of one, and the
way we have those systems built.
So I would say yes, we know that it is uneven across the
Air Force fleet. If you take a look at our Air Mobility Command
fleet, nature of the aircraft, nature of their mission, we have
been able to rapidly respond, and the technical nature of those
airplanes get to over 90 percent compliance anticipated by
2020. Some of our more highly specialized aircraft that require
that integration, that require, you know, software and hardware
solutions that can't be necessarily off-the-shelf, because some
of our security requirements and some of our technical
requirements in those very tactical aircraft, that is a much
different challenge for us. So it will be a little bit uneven,
Ranking Member Courtney, as we proceed forward. But again, we
think that we are moving about as fast as we can in all of our
fleets.
Mr. Courtney. Okay. And so, I mean, given sort of the logic
of your answer, you know, which is very logical, I mean, is the
time now to start engaging with FAA to sort of explain to them
what the sort of special challenges, you know, different pieces
of the fleet have so that you don't have any big surprises and
don't run into the issues that the chairman, you know, asked
you about?
General Fay. Sir, the time is now, and we are engaged, is
the good news story on that. And one of the things that I would
just like to highlight is our appreciation of the great work
with our FAA teammates as we work on this. So specifically,
what we are doing with our FAA teammates to potentially
mitigate some of the impact on the aircraft that are not
equipped when we reach 2020, is we are working on--with them
based on a rule that they put actually into this regulation
after discussions with the Department of Defense, we are
working with them on a memorandum of agreement for an exemption
for the national defense mission requirements.
We have got great open progress that is moving forward. As
I was sharing earlier with the chairman before we came in, I
think we are on version nine of that memorandum of agreement.
And so that has been good collaboration moving back and forth.
We are very hopeful that we will have something in place before
the deadline. And we anticipate that at this time.
Mr. Courtney. So I am sure this subcommittee would want to
help with that process if there is a way that you feel we
could. And I guess the last question I would have is just to
bring up the dreaded two-letter word, CR [continuing
resolution]. I mean, obviously we are on the cusp of some
probable CR of some length. I just sort of wonder if you could
kind of tease out, you know, how that impacts, you know, the
timeline and implementation that we are talking about here this
afternoon.
General Fay. And, sir, what I would say is for the Air
Force in general, kind of the general theme for us is stability
in long-term budgeting is absolutely welcome. And I think it is
something our chief has probably echoed in testimony
previously. So when we talk about any of our long-term planning
and new starts and those sorts of challenges we have, anything
that disrupts that long-term stability is something that is
detrimental. We anticipate, and I think we could probably give
you some specific examples, that a long-term CR could have
potential negative impact on our ability to execute this plan
as we currently envision it.
Mr. Courtney. Great. Well, hopefully we won't have to ask
you for that, but we may. So, anyway, thank you to all of you
for your testimony, and I yield back.
Mr. Forbes. And before we go to the gentleman from
California, General, would you mind just clarifying for Mr.
Courtney the difference between the waiver we are seeking for
the FAA in the United States versus your international
concerns, which we probably aren't as favorable in getting
those waivers.
General Fay. And, Mr. Chairman, certainly. The FAA is a
current ongoing effort. In the rules that the FAA wrote,
actually specifically considered that there would be discussion
with the Department of Defense and other departments like the
Department of Homeland Security on exemptions for national
security requirements. Now, we are also working with some of
our international partners that also have--that we have
challenges with in this area, because they are doing the same
thing. Specifically in Europe, their mandate occurs slightly
after ours does. It occurs in June of 2020. So about 6 months
later than the U.S. mandate goes into effect. We are currently
working with the Eurocontrol, which is the agency like our FAA
that we are going to have to work this with. We are also
working with our NATO allies on this issue. I can't, at this
point in time, say how that will turn out, because obviously
that is going to be an international negotiation that we are
going to have to work through those processes. But we hope to
have a similar outcome, that we are able to work some sort of
an exemption or, and a mitigation so that we can work on that.
And so we are working that actively. But again, we can't be, as
the chairman mentioned, we can't be as specific, because that
is, obviously, a little bit more difficult.
Mr. Forbes. The gentleman from California, Mr. Knight, is
recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Knight. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Sir, just a couple basic
questions. The other services, are they similar situation with
their aircraft?
General Fay. Congressman, actually the other services, I
can't speak for them. But I think that you have seen the 2015
report we sent over to Congress on some of this from the
Department of Defense. They have done well and applaud them on
that. What I can do is kind of, you know, explain to you a
little bit some of the difference between the Air Force and
some of the considerations that--as we have that discussion
between, you know, why things are a little bit different.
Things that, you know, we kind of look at in the Air Force as
kind of our fleet size and age, our mix of aircraft types, our
operational tempo and some of our immediate warfighting
requirements that drive us to some of our maintenance
scheduling. Certainly, some of our system design and
complexity, our industrial base, our supplier base, and our
maintenance operations, all those things vary by service to one
degree or another. So those are factors I would say that
probably impact some of the differences between the services.
Mr. Knight. Certainly. And I would expect the Air Force has
way more aircraft, and it is a daunting goal here. My second
question is about new aircraft. So when we are purchasing new
F-35s, or if we are purchasing other new fighters, might be F-
18s or other new aircraft, are they ready to go, or do we have
to update them when they come back here?
General Fay. Sir, I defer to General Nahom.
General Nahom. Sir, General Nahom from the Air Combat
Command. The new aircraft--many are coming off the line
compliant. An example would be the combat rescue helicopter
replacement, the HH-60 Whiskey, as well as the EC-130 cross-
deck will come off the line compliant. F-35 is a little
different case. It is part of a block upgrade, the Block 4
upgrade. So that will be--it will miss the mandate, but it is
scheduled in and it is part of the planned program and upgrade
of the F-35s. They are all a little bit different for the new
airplanes. But for the most part, it will come off the assembly
line compliant.
Mr. Knight. Okay. So if the F-35 is in a new block upgrade,
is part of the upgrade this to make sure it is compliant? Is
this part of the block upgrade?
General Nahom. Yes, sir, it is part of Block 4 upgrade to
the F-35.
Mr. Knight. Okay. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Forbes. The distinguished lady from Florida, Ms.
Graham, is recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. Graham. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And, Majors, if you
will just humor me for 1 second, I want to take this
opportunity, because I don't know if I will have another one,
Mr. Chairman, to personally thank you for your service to this
committee and to the Armed Services Committee. I serve on five
subcommittees. And I don't want to disparage any of the other
chairs because they are all wonderful. But I want to personally
thank you, as a new Member of Congress, someone that desired to
learn a lot and be a part of the process, you have allowed me
that opportunity. And it has been an honor to serve on a
committee that you chair. And, both personally as well as
professionally I want to thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Gentlemen, a question about--and this is only because in
the segue that I want to learn every day. Curious, How does the
interaction between defense aircraft and civilian aircraft, how
does that work in terms of the air traffic control and having
different planes with different objectives in the air? How does
that work with the FAA? I am curious.
General Fay. Well, ma'am, I think in a very general sense,
I would say that more or less the same rules apply. Safety of
flight rules apply. We are held to the same standards, if you
will, and requirements in regulations. Now that said, there is
clearly exemptions for military-type operations. For instance,
when we are operating in the military operating area, we
separate ourselves from the vast majority of civilian traffic
because we are doing tactical maneuvers, or high-speed
maneuvers, or specialized maneuvers.
So we have worked with the FAA over the years, and I would
say we have got a well-understood process to separate military
activity that is, if you will, high performance from civil
aviation, you know. And that is either physically or
procedurally. And a lot of that is physically. We just go
places like over the ocean, and some of the experts here from
the commands can talk to you about how we do restricted
airspace and closed airspace in military operating areas. And
some of it is just flat-out procedural. But when we are
interacting in, I would say, the national airspace in general,
and if there is anybody else who has a better perspective than
I do on this, we essentially comply with the very same mandates
and the very same requirements for safety of flight.
Ms. Graham. Does anyone else have anything to add?
General Nahom. Ma'am, speaking from the Air Combat Command,
essentially the fighter side, just like General Fay said, if we
are going to be something different than operating like a
civilian aircraft, then we are in restricted airspace, sterile
airspace, and then we can do such things like turn off our
squawks or even turn off our lights at night for NVG [night
vision goggle] training, those things. But when we are
operating in the air route structure, we use--we follow exactly
the same rules and we follow exact same procedures and the air
traffic controllers can see us just like they can see an
airliner, and they can have safe separation to make sure safety
is complied with.
Ms. Graham. Is there anything different--I had the honor--I
represent Tyndall [Air Force Base] at Panama City, Florida. I
had the honor of going up in a T-38 on a training mission with
F-22s. Okay. I have now tapped out my acronyms for--and at one
point, we were--the training mission was actually taking off--
landing and taking off quickly, so if there was a mission that
needed to go out quickly. I am assuming that there are special
rules the FAA follows when they are going through training
missions such as that that are unique to a defense operation?
General Nahom. Ma'am, it would work, again, essentially the
same way. Now, when you are actually in the airfield like
Tyndall operating at that airfield, you are in the Class Delta
[D] airspace which the air traffic controller controls in, and
in a military airfield like that, we may control it a little
differently, because there is no civilian air traffic within
that. But for the most part, once you get outside that 5-mile
ring of the air traffic controller's purview, then you work the
same way as a civilian aircraft until you got into the sterile
airspace of a military operating area, or a restricted airspace
over the water.
Ms. Graham. Okay. I think since I am almost out of time, I
appreciate you all being here very much, and I will yield back
the balance of my time.
Mr. Forbes. The young lady yields back the balance of her
time. And we now recognize the gentleman from California, Mr.
Hunter, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Hunter. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just asked a pilot
over here a question, it was probably a really simple question,
really simple answer. ADS-B Out is just a transmitter, right,
that shoots to the--you have ground systems and you have a
Global Positioning System, global navigation satellites. So it
shoots out like every second your direction, your speed, that
is--and your identification, right?
And so you are telling me--so for a Cessna, and I only know
this because I am on the Transportation Committee, for--because
the general aviation committee, or community got up in arms
because it is going to cost like $5,000 per $40,000-aircraft or
something if you have a little Cessna or Piper or something. I
don't know airplanes at all. Why is it so expensive? I mean,
that is my question. If you are just transmitting, can you
explain why it is--because are you setting it up for ADS-B In
as well so you are setting up everything for later when you
have to have that and including ADS-B Out in that, or what
makes it so much more expensive?
General Fortney. Yes, sir. As General Fay spoke about in
his opening remarks, it is really--to me it is the integration
of several things at the same time. Some of them are a little
easier because the aircraft is a little more advanced. It might
be something as simple as a circuit card replacement in an
aircraft to make it ADS-B compliant. I mean, other cases like
in the bomber fleet, we are combining this upgrade with another
upgrade or another upgrade that has to take place at the same
time to facilitate ADS-B.
Mr. Hunter. Now, explain that, though. Because, I mean,
what I picture is, I picture some kind of a transmitter and you
plug it in.
General Fortney. Yes, sir, I can give you an example with a
B-52, for instance. The B-52 is not what we call M-code [next
generation military code] compliant right now. It is a higher
speed, more accurate, more jam-resistant form of GPS. And all
military aircraft are being converted over to M-code. To be
ADS-B compliant, you have to have M-code as well. And so taking
those two capabilities, merging them together into the same
program is what we are doing trying to get synergy, so when you
take the aircraft off the line to do an upgrade, you only have
to do it once. I don't know if that answers your question, sir.
Mr. Hunter. Sure. It does. But you are still saying your
average cost is $2.5 million per aircraft?
General Fortney. I am not----
Mr. Hunter. Even when you piggyback on other upgrades and
other systems where you are taking apart the stuff anyway?
General Fay. So, sir, we can take that one for the record.
[The information referred to can be found in the Appendix
on page 51.]
General Fay. But what I can tell you is the cost per
aircraft varies widely by fleet. And as I was discussing a
little bit earlier, for some of our larger aircraft, some of
those, if you will, commercial-like solutions are great
solutions, and it is very cheap to do. Some of the jets just
require software. So virtually free. Now, some of the aircraft,
for instance, I will take some of our higher technology
aircraft, essentially they are electronic aircraft, unlike a
Cessna or, if you will, a small commercial aircraft. So these
electronic aircraft essentially have--they are a computer with
data moving on, if you will, wires or fiber. And so now when
you start talking about I have to take position information
from this electronic, if you will, infrastructure within the
aircraft, integrating anything on that now is touching the
entire aircraft, if you will.
And so it has to be, if you will, integrated into that
entire aircraft so that position, that information that is
coming from the GPS and the navigation system and being
broadcast is able to safely be integrated into that aircraft,
and that is where you start getting into some fairly
significant expenses when you are having to, if you will, take
apart complex electronic systems and put it into the middle of
a complex electronic system. And General Nahom probably can
give some good examples of that from fighter perspective.
Mr. Hunter. That is all right. I understand. I mean, in
this one case, it sounds like we should go for the lowest cost
technically acceptable thing that there is, because it is just
transmitting. But thank you. That is a great translation of
this. I appreciate it. And I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Forbes. The gentleman from Texas, Mr. Conaway, is
recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Conaway. Well, thank you. And I guess, I am not sure, I
guess because you have so many different airplanes and
aircraft, every one of them has got an exquisite solution to
it, but you fly 11 737s or C-40s. The cost for that, is that
the same cost as Southwest would pay to fix all of theirs? It
would be the same fix, right?
General Thomas. Sir, for that fleet we are leveraging the
commercial solutions that are being put out there. So, for
example, our aircraft will be modified at some of the same
depots that commercial aircraft get their modifications at. So
for that fleet, yes. I mean, there are simpler ones. The KC-
135, for example, it is going to be a software modification. So
it just depends the type of aircraft.
Mr. Conaway. Okay. So we got--I have got a list here, and I
think you guys probably gave it to us, of Air Force compliance
status by aircraft series. And it lists 223 F-35As. I am
assuming that since you have known about this since 2012, the
planning to fix the F-35 went into effect almost immediately,
so the 223 is the only group that will be retrofitted, that
delivery 224, General Nahom, will have whatever is needed,
right?
General Nahom. Yes, sir. When the Block 4 aircraft start--
begin coming off the assembly line at Fort Worth, they will be
compliant, and at that point, we will go back and retroactively
fix the Block 3.
Mr. Conaway. And given that aircraft, that is a software as
well, or are you going to have to add gear to that?
General Nahom. There actually is some hardware
modification, because there is basically a new central
processor in the newer airplanes. So that will be part of the
upgrade.
Mr. Conaway. I guess the frustration, I just don't
understand, you know, why this is so complicated because you
put new stuff on aircraft every, you know, so often anyway, but
it is frustrating, as the chairman said, that we are here with
what is going on.
Any of our Air Force bases locked out of being able to be
used as a result of this FAA rule if you don't get any kind of
waiver? Can we still fly all the Air Force bases that we have
in the United States under non-combat operations?
General Fay. Well, sir, I tell you, as we anticipate right
now, and I think we provided this in previous reports and also
in some of the written testimony, we are working very hard with
the FAA. There is mitigation, if you will, already written into
the rules. And one of the mitigations is that you file a flight
plan 1 hour before you fly. And as long as civil aviation
activity in that area and the air traffic controller permit, we
are going to be able to operate.
Mr. Conaway. Okay. So given our high-volume training bases,
Lackland--or not Lackland, but the one in Del Rio, is that--
would that be a training impact for flights that--for aircraft
that aren't compliant? Will you be able to train as often as--I
mean, I am just trying to get the impact on U.S. bases. Are
there ones where you would no longer be using those for
training because of this rule and the noncompliance?
General Fay. Sir, we don't anticipate that that is going to
be the case. But should the air traffic controller tell us for
whatever reason that there is an impact or they disallow us to
use that airspace, then we could be restricted in altitude.
They could give us, you know, routing that is a little
different.
Mr. Conaway. Is that something you are having your team
look at now in a hard analysis? Or is it just--or are we
waiting until 2017 or 2020, whenever it is, and they are going
to say: Oh, by the way, you can't use that? Surely you are
looking at that?
General Fay. No, Congressman, we are working very hard to
first accelerate everything as rapidly as we can. Second,
mitigate so--because we are pretty confident that we are not
going to be able to get the entire fleet accomplished based on
some of the factors we discussed earlier. And then third, we
are going to have to work with the local, if you will, air
traffic control as we approach 2020 to assess the impacts.
Mr. Conaway. All right. I know you can't do it today,
General Thomas, but at some point in time, I hope you are able
to tell us whatever you did to the C-40s was reasonably close,
or if not, why it wasn't the same as what Southwest can do with
their fleet. You can't do it today. I got that. But at some
point in time, that is a question somebody ought to ask is,
were you able to be as, you know, cost effective as the
Southwest guys. And if not, why not? So I yield back. Thank
you.
Mr. Forbes. If the gentleman would yield before he yields
back. Maybe, General, we would ask that you maybe submit that
for the record if you could to answer Mr. Conaway's question
and so that we can get that information if that is possible.
General Thomas. Of course, Mr. Chairman.
[The information referred to can be found in the Appendix
on page 51.]
Mr. Conaway. And let the record reflect that that is only
11 airplanes out of 1,600. So--but it is important. You know,
if you are watching the nickels and dimes, sometimes the
dollars get taken care of too.
Mr. Forbes. The gentleman from Washington, Mr. Larsen, is
recognized for 5 minutes, if he is prepared and ready to go.
Then I will come back to you. In that case, we go to the
gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Wittman, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Wittman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. General Fortney, in
looking at where compliance issues are going to be with the FAA
as of January 2020, limitations of no flight above 10,000 feet,
all Class B and C airspace restricted for non-compliant
aircraft, Gulf of Mexico area, anything above 3,000 feet out to
12 miles, all restricted with non-compliant aircraft; tell me
in that scenario, and I understand where you are looking at
trying to upgrade aircraft to provide these transmission
capabilities, what happens in the scenario of having our
aircraft across the spectrum of the Air Force as far as overall
readiness? So give me a perspective on what you can accomplish
by 2020? The what-ifs if you can't accomplish? Are there
certain priorities you place on aircraft? What happens with
overall Air Force readiness based on the scenario that the FAA
has put before you?
General Fortney. Yes, sir. Congressman, by 2020 we are only
going to have test aircraft properly configured, which means
our operational fleet, our day-to-day fleet that we use for
training, our bombers' assure and deter missions, our COCOM
[combatant command] support missions, all the training that we
do are going to be non-compliant. And you hit the nail on the
head. I mean, we fly in high altitudes. That is what we do. We
fly around the world. We have long-duration sorties. I mean,
even our CONUS, our continental United States sorties are long-
duration sorties. And so unlike the fighter counterpart where
they may only have to talk to one air traffic control center,
if we are forced to plot a course where we are going to be on a
10.5-hour mission over the United States, eventually dropping
munitions over the Utah test range, we are going to have to be
in constant communication or requesting waivers and exemptions.
And so we are going to have to work closely with the FAA as
we approach this on the ROE [rules of engagement], the rules
that we are going to use to do this. And frankly, sir, we
haven't done that yet. But yes, we know we have to do that. And
so I would just conclude with saying without accommodation from
the FAA, the 1-hour constraint will be a challenge.
Mr. Wittman. I think, too, it will be helpful for members
to have your scenario if you cannot get the FAA to consider
your situation and make any kind of accommodations as to where
you will be with training opportunities, with generating
readiness here, across the spectrum within the Air Force. It
would be good for us to know, because I do think that we have
to look at the worst-case scenario there so that if push comes
to shove, and Congress needs to get involved about the
crossover in the regulatory realm and how it affects military
readiness, we have to know, you know, what that worst-case
scenario is. So I think that would be very helpful to us is for
you to lay that out so that we could be mindful of it. Thank
you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
[No answer was available at the time of printing.]
Mr. Forbes. The gentleman yields back.
The gentleman from Washington, do you need a little more
time? The gentleman from Washington is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. Larsen. I won't need 5 minutes. I don't have a lot of
questions, because as I am the ranking member on the Aviation
Subcommittee on the Transportation Committee, so I am up to my
alligators usually in NextGen. And it is not--although not
unusual for folks flying airplanes to not be meeting mandates
and such, we are getting people to--getting the system, which
includes airlines and includes air traffic controllers, and
includes the folks at TRACON [Terminal Radar Approach Control
Facilities] and so on, we are getting everybody up to speed,
settled on key recommendations to implement or funding those
recommendations, and those are done over the next set, been
able to do that, certainly on the civilian side. So I am not
really--there may be a lot of excuses for not getting there by
2020 for the Air Force, but I am not listening to excuses on
the civilian side anymore, so I am not going to listen to
excuses on the military side anymore.
And this is just one element. ADS-B is just one element of
it. And so, I think that the message I just would like to
provide is that if you need help to get it done by the date,
just like we did with FAA, on the Aviation Subcommittee, we
went to FAA, said, we will help you. We will block and tackle
and keep people away so you can get it implemented, so the
system can get implemented, so the folks who use it can
implement the various elements of NextGen. And if you need
that, then we ought to make that same commitment to you. If you
don't need it, then there should be no arguments about whether
or not you are getting to the mandate by the timeline.
That is basically what I would offer. It can be done. It is
being done, and I believe you can do it, too.
Thanks.
Mr. Forbes. The gentleman would yield.
Mr. Larsen. I yield back.
Mr. Forbes. I know you have great expertise in this area. I
am certainly not offering a defense for these gentlemen. They
have expertise. But in conversations, I think their response
back would be, perhaps the Air Force could have done more.
Perhaps they could have set additional priorities and asked for
additional funding, but there are three major things that make
them a little more unique.
One is the demand they have for their planes, and part of
that is because we have let them have the shortfall--I mean, in
the planes that they have, that demand number is impacting
this.
Secondly, I think as General Nahom would say, that we have
an industrial base concerning that the Air Force can't overcome
right now, and we can't overcome.
And the third thing is we have some engineering concerns on
some of our planes.
Is that a fair representation of some of the roadblocks,
General Fay?
General Fay. Chairman, I think that is a fair
representation of the key--of the key challenges that the Air
Force is working to. But what I would say, and, sir, we fully
understand the importance of compliance. We are working very
hard getting into compliance, and I would say that an example
of that, I think, if you look at our budget submission, you can
see that the Air Force has committed significant resources to
get after that to the tune of a large amount of dollars.
Mr. Larsen. If I may?
Mr. Forbes. Yes, please.
Mr. Larsen. If I may? You know, it is not just compliance
for the sake of it, right? This is a set of systems that are
supposed to help us. So I just don't want to talk about merely
compliance, but compliance for a reason. And I--and we--again,
we took a model that was broken on the civilian side, at least
we have been able to clear some of the brush out so folks can
get some things done. I am just saying, if we need to clear
some brush out, we will do that, or we should commit to doing
that with the goal of gaining compliance by the timeline
because of the value of getting compliance.
General Fay. Thank you.
Mr. Forbes. Your points are very valid with that point.
And with that, we recognize the gentleman from Oklahoma for
5 minutes.
Mr. Bridenstine. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I guess the first
question is, so in the Navy, we would file DD-175s, or flight
plans. I am sure it is in the same in the Air Force. And we
would put on the form, you know, where you put your aircraft
type, we put an ``I'' after E-2 or whatever it is we were
flying, I was flying at the time. And the ``I'' would indicate
to the air traffic controllers that we were a TACAN-only
[tactical air navigation system-only] aircraft. Is there a
mitigation technique where we could actually just put that on
the flight plan and then not have to worry about calling 1 hour
in advance to all these different air traffic control agencies
and letting them know? Is that one technique we could employ?
General Fay. So, Congressman, I think that is part of
ongoing negotiations we have in the memorandum of agreement
with the FAA. But as you experienced in your flying, I think a
similar thing we would anticipate, right now we have a
restriction on some of our aircraft from flying in certain
altitude airspaces, the RVSM [reduced vertical separation
minimum], if you will, restriction. And that is exactly how we
deal with it today.
On our 175 flight plan, we make a little notation in the
remarks section. And our bombers that General Fortney talked
about is a great example of that. That remark carries across
all air traffic control as they are flying across the country.
Mr. Bridenstine. So I have flown RVSM--an aircraft that was
not RVSM compliant, and I am trying to get from Fallon, Nevada,
to Denver, and I got capped in my altitude, which in an F-18,
you burn gas fast down low and not up high. So it does create a
problem that we have to deal with as operators, as you guys are
very well aware.
When you think about, like, the range training complex,
maybe the Nevada Test and Training complex, or the Fallon Range
Training Complex, in these complexes, is there any requirement
at all to have ADS-B, anything, or we just--we own the
airspace, and we operate the way we want?
General Nahom. Sir, General Nahom from ACC, I will take
that. Within the airspaces, we will operate similar to how we
are right now. Just, like when we go into the airspaces now, we
regularly turn off our squawks. We gave the example, we turn
off our lights at night for NVG training. We do things within
that sterile airspace. Once we leave that airspace, we are back
in the air, we structurally comply with the FARs [Federal
Aviation Regulations], just like the civilian aircraft do.
Mr. Bridenstine. So how about, like, an Active Duty MOA
[military operating area]? Like if you activate an MOA, can you
operate in there without an ADS-B?
General Nahom. Right now, each--all MOAs are different,
just depending on what the rules are. We will have to look at
that on a case-by-case basis. We will take that for the record.
[The information referred to can be found in the Appendix
on page 51.]
General Nahom. But right now, depending on the MOA's rules,
many allow us to turn our squawks off, some don't. Some allow
us to do NVG training, some don't. It just will depend on the
MOA and where it is.
Mr. Bridenstine. Then a big concern would be our military
bases that are dual uses for commercial, where you are under a
Class Charlie [C] airspace. That is going to have to be
mitigated, because you are going to have a lot of traffic in a
small area, and they are all going to be ADS-B compliant except
for the military aircraft. There's got to be some mitigation
for that, correct?
General Nahom. Yes, sir.
Mr. Bridenstine. Is there a plan for that?
General Fay. Sir, that is exactly what we are going to have
to work through with the FAA. Now, what I would point out, when
we first took a look at this, that was one of the significant
questions we had is to scope, the size of, you know, the
potential issue. And I believe in the 2015 report that the
Department provided to Congress, I think some of the numbers we
saw was, at the 20th busiest, you know, report's terminals,
only 1 percent of the traffic was Department of Defense.
Mr. Bridenstine. Right.
General Fay. Now, that doesn't relieve us from working
through some of the difficult, and you can imagine and you are
familiar with those bases that are, you know, metropolitan
areas, some of those. That is what we are going to have to work
very carefully with the FAA to work through those.
Mr. Bridenstine. So when I was capped for RVSM challenges,
if I remember right, it was 280 [flight level 280] is what I
was capped at.
General Nahom. Yes, sir.
Mr. Bridenstine. Now, with ADS-B, we are talking about even
in Class Echo [E] airspace 10,000 feet and above, are we going
to have fighters that are going to be transiting at 10,000 feet
and below? And if so, then you are really burning gas fast.
That can't be the--that can't be a mitigating solution.
General Fay. Yeah. Well, worst-case scenario, that is
possible. And the worst-case scenario is that the aircraft is
unequipped. It is not one of the aircrafts we have been able to
equip by 2020, that we haven't been able to work the memorandum
of agreement with the FAA, so I am going down three or four
what-ifs here to get there.
If we are not--if we don't have an MOA, and we are not able
to work within what is currently in the rule, which is the 1-
hour file a flight plan and ATC [air traffic control] workload
permitting, sometimes they will allow us to do that. So there
is--we walk down a far road, but the worst-case scenario, to be
clear, is we will not be able to operate those airspace with
aircraft that are not equipped.
Mr. Bridenstine. Okay. Last question, and I am out of time,
so I will have to take it for the record, General Thomas. If
you can give me an update, and you can do it in writing, where
we are with Amp 1 and Amp 2 for the C-130 program, I would
appreciate it very much. Thank you, guys.
[The information referred to can be found in the Appendix
on page 51.]
Mr. Forbes. Thank you.
And the gentlelady from Missouri is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mrs. Hartzler. Thank you. Thank you, gentlemen. So I have
Whiteman Air Force Base, home of the B-2 bomber, in my
district, very proud of that. But concerned that, the report I
have here, that only one test aircraft will be compliant by
there, the remainder by fiscal year 2024 and the cost estimate
is $84 million. So there is only 20 aircraft. Where are you at
on addressing this concern? It seems like this would be a good
place to start in getting these 20 done, because I can't even
anticipate a B-2 flying below 10,000 feet.
General Fortney. Yes, ma'am. That is a great question.
As you probably know, the B-2 was our threshold aircraft
for the M-code upgrade, which is a facilitator to be able to
convert to ADS-B. I mean, it was a threshold aircraft. We are--
the reason it is taking a little longer, as we discussed
earlier, we are bundling certain capability upgrades at the
same time so that we don't have to break those jets open again.
As you know, you are way familiar with, ma'am, the low
fleet dynamics, number of fleet means taking one B-2 offline is
a significant bill for the country to pay. And so we are
bundling the IFF [identification, friend or foe] upgrade, a
Mode 5 upgrade, at the same time we are doing this. It takes
the aircraft down once, allows depot to go in and break it open
just once and make both modifications. So having already done
the M-code mod [modification] to facilitate that upgrade, this
will allow us to gain the synergy of the programs.
Yes, it is expensive. You are correct in your numbers. It
is an $84 million project. But, again, that includes both
efforts at the same time.
Mrs. Hartzler. Do you have funding in the NDAA [National
Defense Authorization Act] this year for this?
General Fortney. No, ma'am. This is fiscal year 2018. It is
in our 2018 POM [program objective memorandum] submission.
Mrs. Hartzler. When you open it up, how long does it take
to do this?
General Fortney. I do not know the answer to that. I can
take that for the record, ma'am.
[The information referred to can be found in the Appendix
on page 52.]
Mrs. Hartzler. Okay. Well, this is really concerning,
obviously. And so I wanted to talk about the foreign allies,
because, globally, a growing number of countries also are
requiring this system to operate in a controlled airspace. So
can you give me a succinct summary of where other parts of the
world are on this and other militaries?
Are they fully upgraded and we are not? Or how would that
look like as we fly around the world?
General Fay. Ma'am, I can't speak for the other militaries,
and so we can probably take that for the record as well to
assess where they are on it.
[The information referred to can be found in the Appendix
on page 52.]
General Fay. But as far as global operations are concerned,
the primary driver for us would be in the European theater,
specifically Eurocontrol. Their ADS-B Out mandate is shortly
after ours in June of 2020. So we are working much like we are
working with the FAA, we are working with the Eurocontrol and
with our NATO allies to see what we can do to see through
these. Two other places in the Pacific that I am aware of right
now that are ADS-B Out required are Australia, and, I believe,
Singapore. We have--in every nation is a little different, so
we are having to deal with these kind of as we work through
with those different nations. But so far, we have been able to
do that, and we are continuing to work with them to sort that
out.
Mrs. Hartzler. Okay. Just another question that comes to
mind, and it is referenced here in the report, is just the
basic security of the system. When you are increasing the
amount of satellite base, modern digital technologies, all of
that is great. My husband is a small plane pilot, and you know,
avionics, that is great, all this stuff. But with concerns with
cyber, with hacking, with what China is doing, do you have any
concerns with retrofitting all of our fleet to this new system?
Do you feel confident that they will be able to have the
safeguards in there that somebody can't shoot down a satellite,
and we are in big trouble?
General Fay. So, ma'am, we do have concerns. Among them are
operational security is--I am sure this committee can imagine,
sometimes we have, as we are doing operations, concerns about
how much information we share with certain entities. And, also,
we certainly share other concerns, but I think we have to go to
a higher security level to have that discussion.
Mrs. Hartzler. Yeah. Okay. Very good.
Well, thank you very much. I yield back.
Mr. Forbes. Gentlemen, thank you for being here.
At the beginning I told you we were going to give you an
opportunity for any closing statements. Here is our dilemma.
They have just called votes. We have 12 votes, which means you
would have to wait here an hour or so to do that. You are
welcome to do it.
Number two, you could submit any clarifications for the
record; or, number three, you could say, we don't have anything
else we want to do.
General, I am going to let you speak for everybody on what
you would like to do. We are here at your disposal now.
General Fay. Mr. Chairman, I may be wrong, but I strongly
suspect a vote on number three would highly successful----
Mr. Forbes. I thought that might be what you wanted.
So with that, let me just thank you for your service to our
country. Thank you for taking the time to be here with us.
And with that, we are adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 4:40 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
?
=======================================================================
A P P E N D I X
September 14, 2016
=======================================================================
PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD
September 14, 2016
=======================================================================
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
=======================================================================
WITNESS RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS ASKED DURING
THE HEARING
September 14, 2016
=======================================================================
RESPONSE TO QUESTION SUBMITTED BY MR. HUNTER
General Fortney. The cost per aircraft to upgrade to ADS-B out/Mode
5 varies widely by fleet. For example, in AFGSC, the B-52 costs $1.25M
each, the B-1 costs $1M each, the B-2 costs $4M each, and the UH-1N
costs $.2M each. Those costs include research, development, testing,
engineering, procurement of parts and installations. Military aircraft
require rigorous integration and testing of installed equipment to
ensure security of classified components and safety of weapons systems,
increasing the total costs. Also, the cost typically is lower in civil
aircraft since they have commercial off the shelf equipment available.
This allows for economies of scale in the thousands versus a bomber
aircraft in the low hundreds. [See page 15.]
______
RESPONSE TO QUESTION SUBMITTED BY MR. CONAWAY
General Thomas. The C-40B/C fleet is leveraging the commercial
airline solution to the maximum extent possible, considering the
military unique equipment required to support the mission of the
aircraft. We are utilizing the existing commercial aircraft antennas
and interfaces for the installation of Automatic Dependent
Surveillance-Broadcast (ADS-B) Out capability. For example, we are
installing new commercial multimode receivers in order to leverage the
airline parts pool support for this component. However, due to the
requirement to install military Identification Friend or Foe (FF) Mode
5 concurrently with ADS-B Out, we must also utilize the APX-119
transponder with offers both military and civilian capabilities. This
difference in equipment causes the C-40B/C ADS-B Out modification to be
unique compared to the commercial airline B-737 fleet, and as a result,
a direct cost comparison with commercial B-737 variants is not
possible. [See page 17.]
______
RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. BRIDENSTINE
General Nahom. The FAA, as the owner of the NAS, will determine
where and when DOD aircraft will be authorized to operate without ADS-
B. While we believe the FAA will authorize non-ADS-B operations in
Restricted Areas because non-participating aircraft are not authorized
to enter, we must also ensure non-ADS-B operations in MOAs and Warning
Areas, when activated, are authorized in order to allow continued
readiness training to protect the nation and meet our obligations to
combatant commanders.
While MOAs and Warning Areas do not prohibit non-participating
aircraft to enter, they do restrict IFR operations while active. These
are the current operating procedures for Special Use Airspace (SUA) and
would allow continued readiness training without negative impacts.
Lastly, we would advocate an agreement with the FAA to develop
stereo routes (including altitudes) between military bases and SUA for
non-ADS-B DOD aircraft in order to avoid the increased risk to flight
safety by requiring the high performance military aircraft to operate
below 10,000 feet.
We believe this is a prudent operational approach until all DOD
aircraft become ADS-B compliant in accordance with the current equipage
schedule. [See page 20.]
General Thomas. AMC and the C-130H Program Office are already in
the process of completing portions of C-130H AMP Increment 1. Of the
components of Increment 1, the Cockpit Voice Recorder and 8.33 kHz
radios will be installed via unit-level Time Compliance Technical Order
(TCTO) upgrades that should complete in FY17 and FY18, respectively.
The Enhanced Mode S (EHS) upgrade is combined with ADS-B Out and is on
track to complete by 1 January, 2020. The last element of AMP Increment
1 is currently in source selection. The Request for Proposal was issued
in Mar 2016 and proposals were received in Apr 2016. This source
selection is a designated small business set-aside program. The
evaluation is proceeding on schedule and we anticipate contract award
by Apr 2017.
The C-130H AMP Increment 2 program is conducting Market Research to
determine what solutions are available from industry and are assessing
those against the specified operational requirements defined by Air
Mobility Command for the C-130H fleet. In addition, the program office
is developing the acquisition documents necessary for release of the
Request for Proposal (RFP). The program remains on track to deliver a
full Increment 2 modification to the C-130H fleet by 2028, and we will
seek opportunities to accelerate that schedule where possible based on
market research and responses to the RFP. [See page 21.]
______
RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MRS. HARTZLER
General Fay. As the Air Force reach is global, we fly to more
international locations more frequently than other military. As such we
monitor and assess operational impacts from ADS-B requirements
implemented around the globe and work to ensure interoperability with
our allied partners and global air navigation service providers through
participation in NATO groups, as well as representation in U.S.
positions and delegations to ICAO. In Europe there is no requirement
for certain types of aircraft to equip with ADS-B Out so our fighter-
type aircraft will not need to install ADS-B out to fly in Europe. In
addition to Australia and Singapore, Vietnam, Hong Kong and Taiwan also
have ADS-B requirements in effect, currently at enroute altitudes
29,000 ft. and above. As we move forward with our aircraft fleet
equipage, our planning for transit requirements through foreign
territorial airspace includes development of databases to identify the
specific aircraft in the inventory equipped to fly in locations where
ADS-B is needed to ensure we meet our operational requirements.
I understand there is a perception that ADS-B Out will be or has
been mandated by ICAO. It is important to mention that ICAO develops
civil standards for commercial aviation. Note that the Convention on
International Civil Aviation (The Chicago Convention), which is the
international treaty regime on which ICAO is based, explicitly deals
with civil aviation, and does not apply to state aircraft (per Article
3). Also, ICAO does not mandate the use of ADS-B Out, however, the ADS-
B Out avionics is a part of ICAO's global initiative to harmonize air
traffic services into a single set of avionics for seamlessness across
States and regions. To this end, we do expect to see more nations
moving towards reliance on ADS-B Out and similar systems. [See page
22.]
General Fortney. Approximately 30 calendar days (20 man-days) for
the combined Mode5/S/ADS-B Out install for the B-2. Like all B-2
modifications, the installation for a particular aircraft will balance
aircraft availability, other modifications, and operational
requirements. [See page 22.]
=======================================================================
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS POST HEARING
September 14, 2016
=======================================================================
QUESTION SUBMITTED BY MR. LARSEN
Mr. Larsen. What specific measures can the Air Force take with
regard to the 30 percent of the fleet that will not be equipped with
ADS-B Out avionics by 2020 to ensure those aircraft can still be safely
separated from civil aircraft in the National Airspace System?
General Fay. The ADS-B Out Final Rule, effective 11 Aug 2010,
contained the following provisions intended to address procedures for
(DOD) aircraft that will not be equipped with ADS-B Out avionics by
2020:
1) The FAA will collaborate with DOD to develop Memorandums of
Agreement (MOA) to accommodate national defense mission requirements.
DOD is currently collaborating with the FAA on a draft MOA to ensure
the DOD's mission is not adversely impacted. Those non-equipped
aircraft will have sufficient navigation equipment on board to safely
operate in the airspace required for the intended operation. The task
of ensuring safe operations of aircraft remains in the hands of air
traffic controllers domestically and internationally. They will
coordinate the movements of all aircraft to keep them at safe distances
from each other and direct them appropriately to ensure that traffic
flows smoothly and safely.
2) There is a process for air traffic control (ATC) authorized
deviations from the ADS-B Out requirements described in 14 CFR
Sec. 91.225 to accommodate non equipped aircraft after Jan 2020.
Requests are to be made to the ATC facility having jurisdiction over
the concerned airspace at least one hour before the proposed operation.
The ATC facility with jurisdiction over the applicable airspace has
discretionary authority to determine whether accommodations for non-
ADS-B equipped aircraft can be made.
______
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. ZINKE
Mr. Zinke. If USAF determines that commercial NDI solutions exist
that meet the minimum requirements for the C-130H AMP Increment 2
upgrade, will USAF shorten the EMD (Engineering and Manufacturing
Development) schedule so that the Guard and Reserves can acquire this
much-needed capability faster than would be expected in a classic
MILSPEC development program? If not, why not?
General Thomas. The USAF is evaluating contract types as part of
the acquisition strategy to determine the most appropriate type for the
EMD and production efforts. While there may be commercial NDI solutions
available, it will still require a certain degree of engineering design
effort to integrate these NDI solutions to function with existing C-
130H electrical and electronic systems. The level of engineering design
may require a hybrid mix of contract types by the Air Force. The
contract mechanism used will seek to ensure best value for the
government while meeting operational requirements.
Mr. Zinke. Assuming that commercial NDI solutions are available
that meet the minimum requirements for C-130 AMP Increment 2, and that
such available solutions would already have an established cost to
manufacture and install, will USAF require a firm fixed price
acquisition strategy for the C-130H AMP2 program? If not, why not?
General Thomas. The USAF is evaluating contract types as part of
the acquisition strategy to determine the most appropriate type for the
EMD and production efforts. While there may be commercial NDI solutions
available, it will still require a certain degree of engineering design
effort to integrate these NDI solutions to function with existing C-
130H electrical and electronic systems. The level of engineering design
may require a hybrid mix of contract types by the Air Force. The
contract mechanism used will seek to ensure best value for the
government while meeting operational requirements.
[all]