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

                             [H.A.S.C. No. 114-51]

                         USAF BOMBER FORCE STRUCTURE--
                            CURRENT REQUIREMENTS AND
                                 FUTURE VISION

                                   __________

                                    HEARING

                                   BEFORE THE

                 SUBCOMMITTEE ON SEAPOWER AND PROJECTION FORCES

                                     OF THE

                          COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
                            HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                        ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION

                                   __________

                                  HEARING HELD

                               SEPTEMBER 29, 2015

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                _________

                  U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
      97-193 PDF            WASHINGTON : 2016
    _________________________________________________________________________________
    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 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
                            Katherine Rember, 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

    Bunch, Lt Gen Arnold W., USAF, Military Deputy, Office of the
      Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Acquisition, U.S. Air
      Force..........................................................     3
    Rand, Gen Robin, USAF, Commander, Air Force Global Strike Command     2
    Walden, Randall G., Director, Air Force Rapid Capabilities
      Office, Office of the Administrative Assistant to the Secretary
      of the Air Force...............................................     4

                                    APPENDIX

    Prepared Statements:

        Bunch, Lt Gen Arnold W., joint with Randall G. Walden........    36
        Courtney, Hon. Joe, a Representative from Connecticut,
          Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Seapower and Projection
          Forces.....................................................    25
        Forbes, Hon. J. Randy........................................    23
        Rand, Gen Robin..............................................    27

    Documents Submitted for the Record:

        Two charts titled Air Force Availability, Bombers............    51

    Witness Responses to Questions Asked During the Hearing:

        [There were no Questions submitted during the hearing.]

    Questions Submitted by Members Post Hearing:

        Ms. Bordallo.................................................    55
        Mr. Forbes...................................................    55

      USAF BOMBER FORCE STRUCTURE--CURRENT REQUIREMENTS AND FUTURE VISION

                                  ----------

                      House of Representatives,
                           Committee on Armed Services,
                Subcommittee on Seapower and Projection Forces,
                           Washington, DC, Tuesday, September 29, 2015.
        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. Good afternoon. And today the subcommittee is
    going to meet to discuss the future of Air Force long-range
    strike--current requirements and future vision. We thank you
    all for being here.
        We know that we are going to have some votes that are going
    to come up relatively soon, so Mr. Courtney and I have both
    agreed that we are going to submit our opening statements for
    the record to save that amount of time and go right to our
    testimony from our witnesses.
        So let me thank you, all three, for being here and all of
    your staff for the hard work that they continually do.
        Before we start, I need to just get a motion on the record.
    I ask unanimous consent that non-subcommittee members be
    allowed to participate in today's hearing after all
    subcommittee members have had an opportunity to ask questions.
    Is there an objection?
        Seeing none, the members will be recognized at the
    appropriate time for 5 minutes, the non-subcommittee members.
        And, with that, we are delighted to have with us General
    Robin Rand, the Commander of the Air Force Global Strike
    Command; Lieutenant General Arnold W. Bunch, Jr., the Military
    Deputy to the Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for
    Acquisition; and Mr. Randall G. Walden, Director of the Air
    Force Rapid Capabilities Office.
        So, gentlemen, thank you all for being here.
        Mr. Courtney, do you have any comments you would like to
    make?
        Mr. Courtney says no.
        So, with that, General, are you going to start off, or how
    are we going to proceed?
        General Rand. Sir, that is great. I would be happy to.
        Mr. Forbes. Okay. Then we thank you, and the floor is
    yours.
        [The prepared statements of Mr. Forbes and Mr. Courtney can
    be found in the Appendix beginning on page 23.]

    STATEMENT OF GEN ROBIN RAND, USAF, COMMANDER, AIR FORCE GLOBAL
                             STRIKE COMMAND

        General Rand. Thank you.
        Chairman Forbes, Ranking Member Courtney, distinguished
    members of the committee, thank you very much for allowing me
    to appear before you to represent the men and women of Air
    Force Global Strike Command.
        First, let me say that our airmen of the Air Force Global
    Strike Command are doing a fantastic job providing effective
    nuclear and conventional global strike forces for our combatant
    commanders and our Nation. A key to our success will be our
    ability to modernize, sustain, and recapitalize our bomber
    forces.
        In addition to our ICBM [intercontinental ballistic
    missile] forces, Air Force Global Strike is currently
    responsible for the B-52 and the B-2 bombers. As you know, the
    B-52 serves as the Nation's most versatile and diverse weapons
    system in the command by providing precise and timely long-
    range strike capabilities. Meanwhile, the B-2 can penetrate an
    adversary's most advanced integrated air defense system to
    strike heavily defended targets.
        And I am happy to report that in 2 days Air Force Global
    Strike Command will assume responsibility for the B-1 Lancer
    mission and the airmen who operate, maintain, and support this
    proven warhorse. The B-1s have been actively engaged in the
    Southwest Asia theater, flying over 14,000 combat missions
    since September 11, 2001. We look forward to incorporating this
    important platform in the Air Force Global Strike Command so we
    can learn from their recent experience and share best practices
    across our forces.
        However, modernization and sustainment can take us only so
    far, so we look forward. And with the LRS-B [Long-Range Strike
    Bomber], that future looks promising. The LRS-B will extend
    American air dominance against next-generation capabilities in
    an anti-access environment by its long range, significant
    payload, and survivability.
        Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you again for the opportunity
    to appear before the committee to discuss Air Force Global
    Strike Command and our bomber force structure. And I look
    forward to your questions.
        And, sir, with your permission, I would like to have my
    written testimony entered into the record.
        [The prepared statement of General Rand can be found in the
    Appendix on page 27.]
        Mr. Forbes. Without objection, all of the written testimony
    of our witnesses will be made part of the record today.
        So thank you, General, and----
        General Rand. Yes, sir. Thank you.
        Mr. Forbes [continuing]. Thank you for your service to our
    country.
        General Bunch.

      STATEMENT OF LT GEN ARNOLD W. BUNCH, USAF, MILITARY DEPUTY,
        OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE FOR
                      ACQUISITION, U.S. AIR FORCE

        General Bunch. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Courtney, and
    the rest of the distinguished ladies and gentlemen of the
    committee, thank you for this opportunity. And thank you for
    your support of the United States Air Force, and thank you for
    your service. We look forward to discussing with this
    subcommittee the modernization of the current bomber fleet and
    our efforts to bring the Long-Range Strike Bomber into our Air
    Force inventory.
        As I begin, because the Long-Range Strike Bomber is a
    classified program and is in source selection, there will be
    matters that we will not be able to discuss today. Source
    selection specifics, detailed design or capability information,
    and anything deemed classified or that could potentially
    jeopardize the integrity of the ongoing source selection will
    not be discussed. Thank you in advance for your understanding.
        As the military deputy to the Air Force's service
    acquisition executive, I would like to highlight that the Long-
    Range Strike Bomber is the foundation of the Air Force's future
    long-range strike capability.
        As we develop this advanced Long-Range Strike Bomber
    capability, we are and will continue to modernize the legacy
    bomber fleets--the B-1, the B-2, and B-52--to ensure they
    remain viable platforms, providing critical warfighting
    capabilities to the combatant commanders in support of the
    national military strategy far into the future. It is crucial
    that we continue the modernization of our current platforms
    until such time as we have sufficient numbers of Long-Range
    Strike Bomber aircraft in the inventory.
        The Air Force has invested heavily in a number of advanced
    capabilities over the past 30 years as we have pushed to keep a
    technology advantage across the spectrum of conflict. We are
    capitalizing on those investments to enable the development and
    fielding of the Long-Range Strike Bomber to be executed with
    reasonable risk and at an affordable cost. In short, the Long-
    Range Strike Bomber program is leveraging our technological
    achievements and lessons learned to reduce risks and achieve
    affordability.
        And when we discuss affordability, we are not simply
    focused on developing and procuring the Long-Range Strike
    Bomber. Our focus throughout the program has been on the
    lifecycle cost of the platform. It is not enough to simply
    acquire them; we must also be able to afford to operate and
    sustain them.
        Additionally, we have built in an appropriate level of
    adaptability through design margin and open systems. The threat
    and the state of technology are not stationary. The steps we
    have taken to build in margin and open systems up front will
    allow us to address the evolving threat and embrace
    technological advancements.
        As we establish the initial capability, we have, are, and
    will continue to carefully balance the art of the possible with
    the art of the practical. We are and will continue to keep a
    watchful eye towards the future and adapt the platform to meet
    emerging and evolving threats. This balance has been at the
    forefront of the program from the very beginning and remains a
    cornerstone of the strategy today.
        The Long-Range Strike Bomber is crucial to our ability to
    execute the national military strategy in the future and ensure
    national command authorities have viable military options in
    the face of a technologically advanced adversary.
        I would now like to turn this over to Mr. Randy Walden to
    speak about the Long-Range Strike Bomber program, given his
    perspective as the program executive officer.
        Thank you, again, Mr. Chairman, for this opportunity to
    address you and the committee today, and I look forward to your
    questions.
        [The joint prepared statement of General Bunch and Mr.
    Walden can be found in the Appendix on page 36.]
        Mr. Forbes. General, thank you.
        Mr. Walden, it is good to see you here, and thank you. The
    floor is yours.

       STATEMENT OF RANDALL G. WALDEN, DIRECTOR, AIR FORCE RAPID
    CAPABILITIES OFFICE, OFFICE OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT TO
                     THE SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE

        Mr. Walden. Thank you, sir. It is good to be back, and good
    to see you.
        Mr. Chairman, Representative Courtney, and members of the
    subcommittee, I would like to thank you for the opportunity to
    address the subcommittee on the Long-Range Strike Bomber
    program, the future leg of the Air Force's long-range strike
    capability. As the program's executive officer, I would like to
    highlight some of the things the Air Force has done to ensure
    the success of the LRS-B program.
        From the very start, we have had Secretary of Defense
    guidance on the fundamental capabilities required for the
    Nation, and our Chief of Staff continues to serve as the
    requirements owner.
        Additionally, the program office and the user personnel
    have been working side by side in the same office since the
    very beginning of the program. This unique teaming has helped
    define the trade space and formed the right requirements for
    the program and capability. We drastically slashed the
    bureaucracy normally involved in getting a program to stable
    requirements--a key component in allowing us to snap the chalk
    line on the requirements early in the program planning.
        From an acquisition oversight standpoint, the program is
    important enough to this Nation where the program manager and
    his team continue to work directly with Air Force and DOD
    [Department of Defense] acquisition senior leaders at the
    highest level to set and execute the program strategy from day
    one.
        Overall, the LRS-B will provide a key capability to the
    joint fight. Often we start new programs and overreach when it
    comes to the number of new capabilities and, quote, ``bleeding-
    edge technology'' that must come together in development. Early
    on, we recognized that LRS-B is a part of a larger family of
    systems, and we put only mature capabilities on LRS-B as
    opposed to every-good-idea technology. In short, it does not
    have to be everything for everyone.
        More succinctly, we have a family of systems in the joint
    arena that serves as the centerpiece for the joint warfighting
    capability. As such, we have crafted the LRS-B program strategy
    and capability to complement those capabilities while keeping
    affordability at the forefront.
        Finally, the Long-Range Strike Bomber program will be built
    as a capability for today with an eye on tomorrow, both from a
    threat and evolving technology perspective. The Open Mission
    Systems [OMS] approach that General Bunch brought up not only
    introduces evolving capability with greater ease and lower
    integration cost, it serves as the catalyst for greater
    competition throughout the life of the LRS-B program. This, in
    turn, presents a greater value for our Air Force and our
    Nation.
        It is an honor to serve alongside our great airmen and this
    great Nation. Thank you for the opportunity to be with you here
    today, and I look forward to addressing your questions. Thank
    you, sir.
        [The joint prepared statement of Mr. Walden and General
    Bunch can be found in the Appendix on page 36.]
        Mr. Forbes. Mr. Walden, thank you so much for being here.
        And, General Rand, two questions for you, one a little more
    difficult than the other one. But the first one, I thought it
    would be good for our record if you could take just a moment
    and tell us what Global Strike Command does, you know, under
    your authority.
        And then the second part of that is, according to the
    Quarterly Readiness Report--and we are going to have a slide up
    here in just a moment--bomber force aircraft availability is
    around 50 percent.
        Can you explain to the committee what the contributing
    factors to this low level of readiness are and what your plan
    is to regain higher levels of readiness and when we can expect
    that?
        [The slides referred to can be found in the Appendix
    beginning on page 51.]
        General Rand. Yes, sir. Thank you.
        The first thing, the Global Strike Command started in 2009,
    and it was an effort to, again, refocus our attention back on
    nuclear deterrence in the nuclear enterprise.
        And so, when Strategic Air Command was put to rest back in
    1990, we made a decision then to put our bombers in Air Combat
    Command; we put our missiles, our ICBM missiles, in Space
    Command; we put our air refueling tankers in Air Mobility
    Command.
        And, in 2009, we brought back Air Force Global Strike
    Command. And we are responsible for the bombers now--I told you
    the B-1 has become part of that--so all our bombers,
    conventional and nuclear, Global Strike, and our ICBM,
    intercontinental ballistic missiles, are now in Global Strike
    Command. And so we work--our top priority is to support Admiral
    Haney and Strategic Command at Offutt and his priorities.
        So I think that is a thumbnail sketch of what Global Strike
    Command does.
        The other thing, sir, that I will tell you, our refocus is
    to help to, I think, reinvigorate the nuclear command and
    control communications that are an integral part of providing
    nuclear command and control for the President and our senior
    leaders. And Global Strike will be the lead for the Air Force
    on those systems that support nuclear command and control, and
    so that will be an increasingly top priority for this command.
        The question you asked about aircraft availability, if I
    can make a distinction between aircraft availability and
    mission capable rate.
        In aircraft availability, it is all the planes in a weapons
    system, whether they are on the flight line or they are in some
    type of depot status. And that is important to note. It is all
    the planes, those that are--the maintainers and the flyers have
    access to and those that are out of our pocket for whatever
    reason.
        Mission capable rate is the planes that are on station
    that, actually, you have your availability to. And those rates
    are different. Our mission capable rates are decent and
    comparable with most of the other weapons systems that we have.
        But aircraft availability, as you said, languishes a little
    bit. And part of the major reason for that is our relatively
    small fleet size that we have of our three bombers. Sir, we
    have 159 total bombers. Break that down to 76 B-52s, we have 63
    B-1s, and we have 20 B-2s. At any time--and, oh, by the way,
    the newest of the three bombers is the B-2, and it is 25 years
    old.
        So, at any time, there is going to be a number of your
    aircraft that are in heavy maintenance depot status. And when
    you take those away, and then you are doing modifications, a 50
    percent aircraft available rate is what--you know, is the
    result of that small number. In the B-2 example, we have about
    11 or 12 airplanes at any time that we really can have our
    hands on.
        Some of the steps that we are taking, sir, to work this
    will be--long range will be the LRS-B, because that will help
    our numbers and we will have a larger number of airplanes. The
    other thing that we are working with is, some of these
    modernization and recapitalization efforts are directly looking
    to be more efficient and to address some of the challenges that
    we have with obsolete weapons systems platforms--the radar, the
    avionics. And by modernizing these, we are going to be able to
    have a much higher mean time between failures, if you will.
        And so those are the steps that we are taking. And I am
    working those right now, and I will be able to address some of
    those later on, if you would like, in the hearing, what are
    some of the modernization efforts that are currently underway
    in all three platforms. And I have a laundry list of things
    that I can share with you, if you would like.
        Mr. Forbes. General Bunch, the committee has been expecting
    an announcement on the new long-range strike aircraft for over
    6 months. The delay already resulted in a $460 million
    reduction from the program in the fiscal year 2016 President's
    budget.
        Can you explain the continued delay for the down-select
    announcement? And when can the committee expect reasonably that
    that decision is going to be made?
        General Bunch. Yes, sir. So this is a case, sir, where we
    need to go slow to go fast.
        We have a fair, deliberate, disciplined, and impartial
    process anytime that we do a competition. And we have been
    transparent in working with industry and trying to get this
    thoroughly done and documented so that we can make that
    decision.
        It is coming soon. That is about as good as I can give you.
    The way we are approaching this: it is not schedule-driven. It
    is fact- and decision-point-driven based on the information we
    have and the review that we have of the proposals.
        We are being very thorough. I am very proud of the team. I
    believe when this comes out it will be a very good news story
    for how our acquisition workforce has done this, despite the
    fact that it has taken us longer to get here.
        And then, as the announcement approaches, sir, we will
    inform committee leadership just prior to when we make the
    announcement so everyone is aware.
        Mr. Forbes. Do we have any idea whether that is going to be
    2 months, 10 years? What do we think?
        General Bunch. Sir, my hope is it is within the next couple
    of months. But we have details that we still have to work
    through to make sure we are doing it fair and make sure we are
    going through the process so that--we have to get the start
    right. If we get the start right, we set the program up for
    success the rest of the way. That is the part we are so focused
    on, is trying to get that right, right now, sir.
        Mr. Forbes. Okay.
        Mr. Walden, one more question I need to get on the record.
    The Air Force misstated the 10-year cost for research,
    procurement, and support of its long-range bomber in its annual
    report to Congress. Last year, the Air Force estimated the cost
    of the Long-Range Strike Bomber at $33.1 billion from fiscal
    year 2015 through fiscal year 2016. This year, it reported the
    fiscal year 2016 through fiscal year 2026 cost is $58.4
    billion. Air Force stated both were incorrect and posited that
    $41.7 billion is the real number.
        How confident are you that we have the cost in control for
    this platform now?
        Mr. Walden. Sir, very confident. The program office has
    estimated over the handful of years, and fiscal year 2015 was
    the start of that. And that program office estimate was at
    $41.4 billion, and fiscal year 2016 was at $41.7 billion. So
    the overall cost estimating of the program has been very
    stable, and I am very confident in the ability for us to do
    that estimating.
        On top of that, we have been working closely with the non-
    advocate folks within the Air Force, as well as OSD [Office of
    Secretary of Defense], on doing independent cost estimates. And
    that is the foundation of that overall estimate.
        For the air portion, General Bunch has been working closely
    with the Air Staff to get to the process and the air story, and
    he is probably best suited to answer that question.
        General Bunch. So, Mr. Chairman, that is a regrettable
    error, that we submitted inaccurate information to Congress in
    a report. We take that very seriously. We know the importance
    of providing decision makers accurate information.
        And, as a result of that, Secretary James ordered a review
    of the process that we have within the Air Force and to do a
    thorough review of our processes and how those databases and
    how those information were collected.
        It was both a process and a human error. We have counseled
    the individuals who were involved in the creation of the
    report. We have put new business guidelines in place for how we
    use the databases and how the program office estimates are
    rolled into those databases for how business is done in the
    future and what we provide. And we have also established new
    processes to ensure that those numbers are reviewed by
    additional parties that have an interest in that to minimize
    the possibility that we will provide again inaccurate
    information.
        And, again, a regrettable error, one that we are not happy
    about. We take it very seriously, and we understand the
    critical importance of providing the proper information to
    Congress.
        Mr. Forbes. Thank you.
        And, as we talked about earlier, they have called some
    votes at this particular point in time. We are going to have to
    take a recess in just a minute and come back.
        But, Mr. Courtney, did you want to start some of your
    questions? Or would you rather wait and get them all in when we
    come back? Go ahead.
        We will let Mr. Courtney begin----
        Mr. Courtney. Great.
        Mr. Forbes [continuing]. And then we will take a recess and
    come back afterwards.
        Mr. Courtney. So thank you to the witnesses for being here
    and your outstanding testimony.
        General Rand, you just mentioned briefly in your opening
    remarks the 14,000 missions that have been flown in Southwest
    Asia.
        I was wondering, just for the sake of members who, you
    know, maybe aren't as familiar with the type of missions that
    the long-range bomber provides in terms of, you know, support
    for ground forces or whatever, what would be the harm or, you
    know, what impact would it be if we didn't have that capability
    and just had to rely on other fixed-wing types of planes that
    the Air Force flies?
        Because, obviously, there is a big investment we are
    looking at here, and I think it is important to establish, you
    know, what is the value here----
        General Rand. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Courtney [continuing]. That we are really talking
    about, very specifically.
        General Rand. Absolutely.
        The three bombers, as you mentioned, two of the three are
    nuclear- and conventional-capable. The B-1 is conventional
    only. But, in general, the purpose of long-range strike with a
    bomber is to be able to hold any target in the planet at risk,
    not in weeks or months, but in hours. And that is the beauty of
    what a long-range bomber can do.
        We don't have to be as concerned with some of the basing
    options that you would have to be. We can go a long way with a
    decent payload, and we can--and hold targets at risk. We also
    are recallable. We also are flexible in their surge capability.
        So long-range strike gives combatant commanders and our
    senior leaders in this Nation great flexibility to make sure
    that we are able to, when necessary, deter and, equally
    important, to assure many of our partner nations that we are
    there with them.
        Some recent examples, if I may, sir. The B-1s right now are
    fighting and have been fighting over the skies of Afghanistan,
    Iraq, and Syria for the last 12, 13 years, nonstop, 24/7, doing
    a remarkable job at a low threat, not much of an anti-access
    environment, and working very closely with our Army, Navy,
    Marines, and the airmen on the ground who are engaged in ground
    combat. And they have done that very successfully.
        They also have the capability to go long ranges. And a
    recent example of that was March of 2011 when they took off
    from Ellsworth in a driving snowstorm and flew nonstop to Libya
    and were able to do some very, very serious damage to the
    Libyan regime at the time; as well as exactly what the B-2s did
    in 2011 against Qadhafi.
        Most recently, in North Korea, when there was a flare-up
    back in August, we had our six B-52s that have been on a
    continuous bomber presence at Guam for the last decade nonstop.
    And we were in the middle of a swap-out; six were going in to
    replace the six that were there. And the PACOM [Pacific
    Command] commander immediately contacted the Joint Staff and
    Air Force Global Strike and said, ``Could we leave those six
    additional B-52s longer? We really like the presence.''
        In addition, the B-52s and B-2s two years ago flew a
    nonstop trip from their bases to the Republic of Korea,
    released training ordnances on one of the ranges, and flew back
    nonstop.
        I think that gives a perspective on how we can hold enemies
    at risk in, again, hours versus weeks. Did I answer your
    question?
        Mr. Courtney. Yes. Thank you.
        General Rand. Thank you, sir.
        Mr. Forbes. Members, we are going to take a recess till
    after the votes. We will come back, we will pick up with Mr.
    Courtney's questions, and then move on to the other questions
    we have.
        Gentlemen, again, we apologize, but thank you for your
    patience.
        And, with that, we stand in recess.
        [Recess.]
        Mr. Forbes. We thank you for your patience in allowing us
    to get through those votes.
        And when we left, Mr. Courtney was in the process of asking
    some of his questions, so we yield the floor once again to Mr.
    Courtney for any questions he might have.
        Mr. Courtney. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        And thank you, General, for your answers.
        And so one other question. Our subcommittee actually has
    been dealing a lot with the Air National Guard modernization in
    terms of trying to comply with the 2020 international, you
    know, flight restrictions that are going into effect. And I was
    just sort of wondering if you could talk about that, whether
    that is an issue. I mean, obviously, these are old planes which
    long predate some of these new rules going into effect.
        And is that something that you have already started to
    change, in terms of the avionics? Or is that something that,
    sort of, is still out there in the future?
        General Bunch. So, sir, I will take the first stab at that.
        I think one of the ones you are talking about there is the
    130 modernization, C-130 modernization, and the AMP [Avionics
    Modernization Program] program.
        And where we are at on the AMP program is that we have
    reinvigorated and revived it. We have built a roadmap ahead
    that is funded through the Air Force, through the FYDP [Future
    Years Defense Program]. It is focused on three main areas. The
    first area is focused on safety. The second--and obsolescence.
    The second area is focused on compliance with those mandates
    that you have talked about. And the last of those is focused on
    modernization.
        The program that we have laid out, the Guard, Reserve, and
    the Active are all on board. And we have a program that----
        Mr. Courtney. And I apologize. So I guess my question is,
    is this something that the bomber fleet has to deal with, as
    well?
        General Bunch. There are certain things that we have to
    look at in a roadmap for what we do with our IFF, information
    friend or foe, activities. Those are all laid in to what we are
    looking at for the plan, sir. We don't see a roadblock there
    for what we are trying to do.
        Mr. Courtney. Thank you.
        Mr. Forbes. The gentlelady from Missouri is recognized for
    5 minutes.
        Mrs. Hartzler. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        And thank you, gentlemen.
        And it was so nice to meet you, General Rand, the other
    night at the Evening Tattoo, the celebration of the birthday of
    the Air Force. I highly recommend that to any member of HASC
    [House Armed Services Committee] and certainly was very proud
    to get to be a part of that and proud of the Air Force. And, of
    course, we are so proud of what is going on in Whiteman [Air
    Force Base] and appreciate your support of that.
        Just wanted to--you were talking about parts
    sustainability. And this has been, of course, a huge issue ever
    since I have been in office with the B-2, with only having 20.
    And I know that there have been many gains made in that, but we
    still have a ways to go there.
        And this is just, kind of, outside the box. I was reading
    in your testimony about the difficulty in trying to keep
    manufacturers and others interested in carrying out those
    contracts. I was just reading last week, being a part of this
    subcommittee, some information the chairman and others provided
    about the Navy and how they are integrating 3D parts building
    in their naval vessels to help address some of their things.
        I recently toured the National Security Campus in Kansas
    City. That is a pretty amazing place. And they were showing me
    the 3D parts development and manufacturing that they are doing
    there and how it is producing lighter, cheaper, faster parts.
        So I was just wondering, are you aware if this has been
    tried any in the B-2, as we look at manufacturers that are
    dropping out from being willing to--you know, maybe having our
    own production in certain parts?
        General Bunch. So, ma'am, I will--we are looking and the
    Air Force Sustainment Center does look at adaptive
    manufacturing or 3D manufacturing, and we have not found a lot
    of applicability to what we are trying to do----
        Mrs. Hartzler. Okay.
        General Bunch [continuing]. At this particular moment.
        You do raise a very good point that I think is important as
    we look at the Long-Range Strike Bomber. One of the issues we
    have had with the B-2 fleet is the small size of the fleet and
    trying to get people to bid when you are trying to build parts
    for those things.
        And I think we have come out and said we need 100 of the
    Long-Range Strike Bombers. That is the position that we bid on
    with. And as we have tried to do competitions to get people to
    bid on 20, it is often hard to do when manufacturing companies
    want to bid on hundreds or thousands.
        We believe keeping the right Long-Range Strike Bomber fleet
    size will make that more easily competed and more sustainable
    in the longer term, ma'am.
        Mrs. Hartzler. Absolutely. And I support that. I think most
    of us understand the mistake that was made in dropping down
    those numbers to only 20. So I am hopeful we will be able to
    carry out those larger numbers.
        Are there ever incentives paid to those companies, I mean,
    to get--you know, to stay in business, to keep those parts?
        General Bunch. We do those. Sometimes we will do life-of-
    aircraft buys. So we will go look at certain components, and we
    will figure out how many we think we will go through through
    the life of the platform. And we may even buy larger quantities
    and put them back on the shelf so that we can do it.
        Another area that we are looking at in the B-2 to try to
    improve the parts flow is we are trying to bring some things in
    organic.
        And the other one that we talked about earlier and we have
    referenced is the Open Mission Systems.
        Mrs. Hartzler. Right.
        General Bunch. As we move to more Open Mission Systems--and
    that is a focus area that we have across our inventory. As we
    move to the more Open Mission Systems, that will allow us, even
    at the some of those subcomponent levels, to be able to compete
    additional--more than we can today.
        So we think there are some avenues we are doing where we
    try to do it organically within our workforce. We are also
    trying to open it up to more competition as we go to more Open
    Mission Systems. And sometimes, ma'am, we get to the point we
    have to do a life-of-the-platform buy. We estimate what the
    economic service life of the aircraft is, and we will buy the
    number of parts we think we will run through for the life of
    the program.
        That is the efforts that we have, ma'am, on----
        Mrs. Hartzler. I appreciate you, General Bunch, for sharing
    that.
        I want to switch gears real quickly, but, as you know,
    reportedly, China and Russia are developing new radars or
    defense systems that--other capabilities--to counter our
    stealthy aircraft. And, certainly, that is a concern.
        So how do you see the Air Force maintaining this ability to
    penetrate A2/AD [anti-access/area denial] environments to
    perform long-range strike operations as anti-stealth
    technologies mature over time?
        General Bunch. So, ma'am, the adaptability that we built
    in, with the Open Mission Systems and the innovative design
    that we have envisioned and the requirements we put in place
    for the Long-Range Strike Bomber, we have the adaptability we
    need with the Open Mission System.
        So if we run into it--and we realize the enemy is going to
    evolve, and they are going to try to get--they watch us, and
    they are adapting to address what we are trying to do.
        So the Open Mission System allows us, as that changes, we
    can add in new capabilities that are not in the platform today,
    or we can replace the capabilities or the subsystems that we
    have in the aircraft today with more advanced ones to try to--
    to ensure--not try to--to ensure that we have the ability to
    address those future threats.
        Mrs. Hartzler. Great. Thank you.
        I yield back.
        Mr. Forbes. The gentlelady from Florida, Ms. Graham, is
    recognized for 5 minutes.
        Ms. Graham. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        And thank you very much for being here today.
        As we discuss and we have been discussing in quite a few
    hearings the challenges we face with our aging fleets, is there
    a way to possibly consider the weapons themselves and using
    technology to modernize the weapons systems that could
    potentially help with this challenge that we face?
        General Bunch. So, ma'am, we are looking at the longer term
    for what we are doing with our weapons inventories.
        One of the programs that is in--not even officially--it is
    one we have talked about but it has not fully been formed as a
    program--is a long-range standoff weapon [LRSO]. That is to
    replace our air-launched cruise missiles. The air-launched
    cruise missiles were weapons systems that were bought and
    procured in the 1980s with a 10-year life expectancy that we
    have done service-life extension programs for multiple years.
    Now what we are focused on is how do we replace that, because
    we are not going to be able to extend them much longer. So we
    are initiating a program to allow us to be able to hold targets
    at risk in that manner.
        That is one thing, but it is not fully capable of doing
    what we need the Long-Range Strike Bomber to do, which is to
    penetrate and hold all those targets at risk and give our
    national command authorities the flexibility to execute
    military options if needed.
        Ms. Graham. General Rand, did you have anything to add?
        General Rand. Yes, ma'am. The LRSO is one example, but
    another would be on the B-52. It is carrying all the newest and
    latest and greatest weapons that we have now, and, in fact, it
    is currently undergoing an upgrade and modification to an
    internal weapons bay. It is called the 1760 Integrated Weapons
    Bay Upgrade. That is going to allow to carry internally our
    most modern weapons that we have--our JASSM [Joint Air-to-
    Surface Standoff Missile], our JDAM [Joint Direct Attack
    Munition]. That will help carry a larger payload and also
    reduce the drag from having it externally hanging on the
    airplane.
        So those are some of the very things that we are
    modernizing. Even though it is a 60-year weapons frame, we are
    putting the best weapons that we have on it, and it is capable
    of carrying it.
        Ms. Graham. Well, thank you.
        And I just want to thank all of you. And I am so proud to
    represent Tyndall Air Force Base and a small little piece of
    Eglin, as well, in north Florida. And thank you very much for
    what you all do to serve our country.
        And, Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
        General Rand. You are welcome. Thank you.
        Mr. Forbes. The gentlelady yields back the balance of her
    time.
        The gentlelady from Hawaii is recognized for 5 minutes.
        Ms. Gabbard. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
        I wonder if you can speak to how the LRS-B acquisition
    program, as you see it, differs from other programs that we
    have seen in the past that have experienced really massive cost
    overruns. And what have you learned from the past that will
    prevent that from occurring with this?
        Mr. Walden. So two big things up front: one, stable
    requirements; and then the mature technology out there.
        The most important thing now is to be able to integrate
    that technology that would be the highest risk to the overall
    program, and I think we have that pretty much under control.
        The overall program's engineering and manufacturing
    development program would buy down that risk. For the past 4
    years, we have been working closely with the offerors,
    contractors, and industry on buying down that risk and
    investing heavily and making sure that we are not putting any
    immature technology in there and adding more risk than we need
    or cost to the overall program.
        General Bunch. Ma'am, can I add to that just one item? I
    think there are a couple of other things that, through ``Better
    Buying Power'' and ``Bending the Cost Curve,'' those are
    initiatives within the OSD and within the Air Force that plays
    into this. And one of those is our open and transparent
    relationship with our industry partners.
        We have had a very open discussion with them about what the
    requirements are, how we were going to grade, what was going to
    be looked at in the source selection. And I believe that
    openness and sharing of information has allowed them to fully
    understand what we are trying to do, what risks we are willing
    to take, and has allowed them to give us ideas as to where we
    are taking risks and be a better informed buyer.
        So I think that one is another one, ma'am, that sets us up
    a little differently on this one.
        The other one that I would say is, as the technologies
    mature, we are structuring the contract so that we have
    incentives in place to keep the costs from going too high, to
    the point that we will limit the amount of profit if it goes
    too high.
        And when we go into the production, one of the things we
    are doing different on this program that we have not done on
    other programs, we are going to get a firm, fixed price for
    production for the first five sets to get us up to one-fifth of
    the inventory. And we have not done that on any development
    program we have done in quite some time, where it is a brand
    new aircraft that is coming out. That is a strategy that we
    have done to ensure we lock in the prices and we make sure we
    have a firm way to control the costs as we go forward.
        I think those are a couple of other things we have done a
    little differently on this program, ma'am.
        Ms. Gabbard. Yeah.
        You spoke of maturing technology, and I think one of the
    issues that is most often brought up when we look at not only
    our capabilities but the capabilities of those in the
    environments around us is the increasing A2/AD environments.
        Can you speak to how you see these long-range strike
    operations developing and how they could be carried out in the
    future in order to penetrate those environments?
        General Rand. Yes, ma'am.
        The family of systems is what we refer to with the Long-
    Range Strike Bomber. And I would just--if you would look at
    what we currently have today in terms of electronic warfare,
    electronic attack, suppression of anti-air defenses, our way to
    combat, you know, cyber and communication concerns, I would
    think that, when we are fielding the LRS-B, those grandsons of
    what current systems we have today will be an integral part of
    the LRS-B.
        And it will be a combined effort, so the LRS-B won't be
    going it alone. And that is the beauty of being able to parlay
    the technologies that we have and that we are already advancing
    in these families of systems that we have. And that is a very,
    very important part.
        And then the weapons that the LRS-B will also carry, it is
    very incumbent that it has a standoff capability. And that is
    why I think when Mr. Walden talked about the long-range
    standoff, LRSO, why that is such an important part--or General
    Bunch did--why it is so important that we modernize and
    recapitalize on that capability.
        Mr. Walden. Just to add to that, in the early days, I
    mentioned about the technology development. We did look at what
    the threat was doing, with an eye on the technology we would
    want to put on the platform not only in the near future but
    into the far future. General Bunch kind of touched on the
    ability first to try to modernize and keep up with the changing
    threat. That is what we are talking about.
        Ms. Gabbard. Yeah.
        Mr. Walden. So hopefully that helped.
        Ms. Gabbard. Great. Thank you.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
        Mr. Forbes. That concludes all of our subcommittee members
    who had questions. And based on the motion we had at the
    beginning of the hearing, we now recognize Mr. Fleming for 5
    minutes for any questions he might have.
        Dr. Fleming. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for allowing me to
    sit in on subcommittee, even though you did make me sit at the
    kids' table. That is okay.
        Mr. Forbes. We were putting you up front.
        Dr. Fleming. Oh, I see. I get that. I get that. Thanks.
        Well, let's see, General Rand, great to see you. Welcome,
    again, to Barksdale Air Force Base, Bossier City-Shreveport,
    that is in my district. That is where we have the headquarters
    of Air Force Global Strike Command. And we are excited about
    having you, and you are going to be a great addition to our
    community.
        I did have some questions for you regarding the Long-Range
    Strike Bomber. Regarding that mission, what are the factors
    that drive the total bomber requirement? And how many bombers
    will the Air Force need to meet combatant commander needs once
    the LRS-B procurement is complete?
        General Rand. Yes, sir. That is a fair question, and it is
    one that we haven't firmed up yet.
        We currently have 159 bombers, of which 96 are combat-
    coded. I certainly can't imagine a situation where we could
    ever be less than that, in my humble opinion.
        As we get the LRS-B in production and we procure them and
    start fielding them, that we will have to have a very healthy
    discussion of the requirements. What is the end state for then,
    they will be, the four bombers that we will have?
        It would be premature to have that discussion right now,
    but I think that going in with the 100 as a requirement and
    knowing that several of the other bombers will be augmenting
    our LRS-B for quite a long time, our LRS-B for a significant
    time, we are going to be in that 159 range.
        Dr. Fleming. All right. Great. Thank you.
        General Rand. Yes, sir.
        Dr. Fleming. Assuming a full LRS-B procurement of that 80
    to 100 that you are referring to, can you discuss the value of
    B-52 modernization--specifically, re-engineering, new radar,
    beyond-line-of-sight communications, regional data link
    systems, et cetera?
        General Rand. Absolutely, I can, sir. Thank you for that
    opportunity.
        The B-52 still does things that are unique to that weapon
    system. It is the only system we have in our Air Force that do
    some of the things it does. And, as I mentioned earlier, it has
    the nuclear and conventional capability--very important to us.
    It has a long-range standoff capability--very important to us.
    It has an enormous payload, great range. The airplane is an
    amazing workhorse despite being 60 years old. So it is
    incumbent to me that we modernize and continue to modernize the
    B-52 because we are going to be relying on its service for many
    years to come.
        And some of the things we are doing as we speak are the
    Combat Network Communications Technology. That is going to
    really help the situational awareness of the aircrews, the
    ability to do a lot better management of how things are coming
    into the cockpit, moving map, machine-to-machine technology, if
    you will.
        I mentioned already, earlier, about our 1760 Integrated
    Weapons Bay Upgrade. That is very important to us because we
    will be able to carry a larger payload, and we will be able to
    go farther because we will reduce the drag by not having the
    external weapons on board.
        Dr. Fleming. Right.
        General Rand. I am very interested, and I am going to work
    with my counterparts here and certainly the Air Staff to have
    good discussions in procuring Link 16 for the B-52. It is
    currently the only combat airplane that we don't have that is
    on the network of Link 16. And that is really important for
    other--Navy, our joint partners, and our Air Force to be able
    to see where the B-52s are and for them to see where other
    assets are.
        I mentioned earlier to you, sir, the importance that I
    think--we have a 1980s radar that still has 1960s technology
    that we are using. And as we address the A2/AD environment,
    radar is still very important to be able to, that last place
    where we are at, to give that last guidance to the weapons. And
    so I would like to do what we can to procure a new radar.
        And, finally, I would like to have some good discussions
    with the Air Staff on the possibility of re-engining the B-52
    to reduce the fuel requirements efficiency, increase our
    range--we can go higher, we can go farther--reduce the tanker
    requirements. There are many benefits of a possible re-
    engining. But that would be premature. It also has a
    considerable----
        Dr. Fleming. Right.
        General Rand [continuing]. Cost that goes with it.
        Dr. Fleming. So it is going to be a good while before we
    get the Long-Range Strike Bomber off the assembly line. There
    are a lot of opportunities to enhance and improve what we
    already have in our fleet and our inventory, to kind of bridge
    that gap.
        General Rand. Sir, you are spot-on; 2025 was what we are
    hopeful for IOC, the initial operation capability, of LRS-B. It
    will take several years to procure whatever buy we end up with.
    We are easily talking, the B-52, into the 2040s is, I think, a
    more than viable platform for us.
        So any moneys that we invest today, we will get our return
    on this. This won't be something that we won't be using in 5
    years from now.
        Dr. Fleming. Right. Thank you.
        And I----
        General Bunch. Can I add?
        Dr. Fleming. If the chairman will allow----
        General Bunch. We need to do that. We talked about the B-
    52. We also need to do that on the B-1 and the B-2. We have to
    keep all of those relevant so that we have our options open as
    we get beyond and we get the Long-Range Strike Bomber on board
    so that we can decide how we need to shape our force to face
    that challenge that may be out there in the future.
        General Rand. And that is a great point. Right now, in all
    three bombers, there are fiscal year 2016 dollars that we are
    aggressively using to make modifications and modernization on
    every one of our platforms. And I would be happy to share the
    B-1 and the B-2 initiatives we have, as well.
        Dr. Fleming. Great. Great. Thank you.
        And I yield.
        Mr. Forbes. Thank you, Mr. Fleming.
        And as we said at the outset, also, we want to give you any
    opportunity you need to take a few minutes. If there is
    something that we didn't include in the transcript that you
    think is important to get in there or something that was
    mischaracterized or you might want to change now, this is your
    time to do it.
        And we will start with you, General Rand.
        General Rand. Sir, I will just foot-stomp what I said
    earlier. I think it is incumbent upon us to realize that the
    long-range strike capability is something that our Nation
    absolutely has to have. To do that, we have to be able to
    modernize our current bomber fleet and we have to acquire a new
    LRS-B, and I think we are on the path to doing that.
        I think it is critical that we are able to hold our enemies
    at bay and keep them at risk anywhere at any time. And I
    appreciate the support that you are providing us to be able to,
    one, advocate and, two, endorse, and be our cheerleaders as we
    go down this road. Because while some of these bombers are
    mature, they are very capable, and our Nation needs them.
        So thank you.
        Mr. Forbes. General, thank you.
        General Bunch.
        General Bunch. Sir, I just want to talk one more moment
    about the section 1047 error that we, the Air Force, made as we
    submitted our report. Again, that is a regrettable error, and
    we understand fully the importance of providing accurate
    information to Congress.
        I want to stress to everybody that the program office
    estimates had absolutely and--nothing with the Long-Range
    Strike Bomber had anything to do with that error. The error was
    a process and a human error. Secretary James took it very
    seriously, and we have counseled the individuals, and we have
    changed our processes to minimize it.
        I just want to make sure we characterize it had nothing to
    do with what the LRS-B program office had done. They provided
    all the information, and it was internal to the Air Staff that
    the error occurred.
        I want to follow along with General Rand and stress that
    the Long-Range Strike Bomber is crucial to the Air Force's
    ability to execute the national military strategy in the
    future, and particularly in an anti-access/area denial role. We
    need this capability in the field so that we can continue to
    give the national command authorities options to prosecute
    targets and continue to serve as a world power and execute our
    mission.
        Thank you, sir.
        Mr. Forbes. General, thank you.
        And, Mr. Walden, we will give you cleanup.
        Mr. Walden. Yes, sir. Thanks.
        One, I think the team, the LRS-B team, has worked very hard
    to get to where we are today. We believe we are ready to
    execute the program. The source selection is almost over. We
    are ready to make that down-select and move on with building
    the next-generation bomber, a Long-Range Strike Bomber, for the
    Nation.
        So we look forward to working with you in the future. Thank
    you, sir.
        Mr. Forbes. Thank you.
        And, once again, as we said at the outset, we just
    appreciate all three of you being here, but also all of your
    staffs. We know how hard your staffs work to get you the
    information and to help you do what you do. And to all the men
    and women who serve under you, we thank you for their efforts.
        And, with that, Ms. Graham, if you have nothing else, then
    we are adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 4:56 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]

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

                                A P P E N D I X

                               September 29, 2015

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

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

                  PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

                               September 29, 2015

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

     [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

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

                       DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

                               September 29, 2015

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

    --------------------

     [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

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

                  QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS POST HEARING

                               September 29, 2015

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

                       QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. FORBES

        Mr. Forbes. Will B-1, B-2 and B-52 bombers be fully airspace
    compliant by the 202 mandate? If not, how many and of which type will
    not be compliant? Furthermore, what steps will be taken to mitigate the
    impact of noncompliance?
        General Rand. Due to fiscal constraints within the Nuclear
    Deterrence Operations portfolio, current projections indicate that no
    AFGSC bomber will meet the FAA's mandate of 2020 for ADS-B compliance.
    Partial solutions have been funded for each airframe, however all still
    require additional funding for programs and integration for complete
    ADS-B compliance.
        We are currently working within the Air Force corporate process to
    fund these programs and will continue work to develop a solution and
    aircraft installation.
        While we do not yet know what the FAA's decision will be with
    regard to approval to fly in certain airspace, it is likely we will
    have to submit waivers for flight approval which would impact aircrew
    training and readiness. At a minimum, we expect increased routing
    around high density airspace that would drive increases to average
    sortie durations on training missions. We are unable to speculate the
    impact to contingency missions.
                                     ______

                      QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MS. BORDALLO
        Ms. Bordallo. The LRS-B is expected to be far more than just a
    bomber. It will link sensors and shooters across the battlespace while
    being a vital node in the combat cloud. How are we changing our concept
    of operations to ensure we take advantage of these capabilities? How
    are we implementing lessons learned from current conflicts regarding
    battlespace awareness and sensor fusion?
        General Rand. There are over three decades of lessons learned and
    operational experience that will inform the initial baseline of
    operations for LRS-B when it fields. Additionally, its operational and
    tactical employment will evolve as the system matures. LRS-B is one
    part of a ``family of systems'' portfolio including Intelligence,
    Surveillance, and Reconnaissance (ISR); electronic warfare; prompt
    strike; communications; and weapons effects. LRS-B's long range,
    significant payload, and survivability will contribute to the
    capability to hold future targets at risk; this will enable the
    nation's ability to maintain dominance over evolving threats by
    adversaries employing advanced anti-access and area denial (A2AD)
    strategies.
        Ms. Bordallo. Does the Air Force have plans to re-engine the B-52
    to reduce the maintenance requirements and increase fuel efficiency?
    Have you performed a cost-benefit analysis of a re-engining compared to
    any alternatives?
        General Rand and General Bunch. The Air Force does not currently
    have a requirement to re-engine the B-52; however, we are exploring the
    potential to reduce B-52 engine maintenance and increase efficiency by
    conducting a re-engine cost-benefit analysis (CBA). Of note, the
    existing TF-33 engines are supportable through the projected service
    life of the aircraft. In support of the CBA, the AF released a Request
    For Information in Dec 14 to determine the benefits of existing engines
    in the commercial market place--there were five respondents. The CBA is
    still under development and, after review, is expected to be complete
    by 2Q FY16. Any plans to re-engine the B-52 will be informed by the
    outcome of the cost-benefit analysis, which will then enable us to make
    decisions on the best way ahead.
        Ms. Bordallo. How are we developing the long-term strategy for
    procuring and sustaining the LRS-B while including planned upgrades
    over the life of the system?
        General Bunch. In order to make sure that this was done right from
    the beginning, the program office team worked very successfully in
    lock-step with Air Combat Command (ACC) and Air Force Global Strike
    Command (AFGSC) establishing the operational needs and requirements.
    The APUC of $550 million, in base year 2010 dollars, is a key
    requirement for the program and drove the requirements and technology
    trades of the design. In May of 2013 General Welsh approved the program
    requirements. Over the past three years the program office has worked
    closely with industry to ensure designs and requirements remained
    stable. We have completed Preliminary Design Reviews and Manufacturing
    Readiness Reviews which demonstrate the program is at the highest level
    of technology maturity seen on a new aircraft development at this
    stage. The platform design is at subsystem level and there is a very
    high fidelity for the structure, electronics, hydraulics, engines, air
    data systems, and the low-observable technology.
        Maintainability has been a key focus area. Numerous placement
    reviews have been accomplished to ensure components are accessible and
    access allows streamlined diagnostic testing. Additionally, the LRS-B
    is being designed to have an open architecture. The Air Force Open
    Mission Systems (OMS) standards establish an open architecture, provide
    streamlined processes for systems integration and encourage
    competition. The program has built-in an appropriate level of
    adaptability through design margin and open systems, allowing for
    affordable upgrades as technology advances and threats evolve. OMS
    sustains competition throughout the aircraft design and life cycle, and
    enables long-term affordability while enhancing supportability.