[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.