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

                            [H.A.S.C. No. 114-103]

                                     HEARING

                                       ON

                       NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT

                              FOR FISCAL YEAR 2017

                                       AND

                  OVERSIGHT OF PREVIOUSLY AUTHORIZED PROGRAMS

                                   BEFORE THE

                          COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES

                            HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                        ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 SECOND SESSION

                                   __________

             SUBCOMMITTEE ON SEAPOWER AND PROJECTION FORCES HEARING

                                       ON

                          AIR FORCE PROJECTION FORCES

            AVIATION PROGRAMS AND CAPABILITIES FOR FISCAL YEAR 2017

                                   __________

                                  HEARING HELD
                                 MARCH 1, 2016

    [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                   ___________

                         U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
    99-647                       WASHINGTON : 2016

    _______________________________________________________________________________________
    For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office,
    http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center,
    U.S. Government Publishing Office. Phone 202-512-1800, or 866-512-1800 (toll-free).
    E-mail, gpo@custhelp.com.

                 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

    Courtney, Hon. Joe, a Representative from Connecticut, Ranking
      Member, Subcommittee on Seapower and Projection Forces.........     3
    Forbes, Hon. J. Randy, a Representative from Virginia, Chairman,
      Subcommittee on Seapower and Projection Forces.................     1

                                   WITNESSES

    Bunch, Lt Gen Arnold W. Jr., USAF, Military Deputy, Office of the
      Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Acquisition...........     4
    Holmes, Lt Gen James M. ``Mike,'' USAF, Deputy Chief of Staff for
      Strategic Plans and Requirements, Headquarters U.S. Air Force..     5

                                    APPENDIX

    Prepared Statements:

        Courtney, Hon. Joe...........................................    29
        Forbes, Hon. J. Randy........................................    27
        Holmes, Lt Gen James M. ``Mike,'' joint with Lt Gen Arnold W.
          Bunch, Jr..................................................    31

    Documents Submitted for the Record:

        [There were no Documents submitted.]

    Witness Responses to Questions Asked During the Hearing:

        Mr. Bridenstine..............................................    53
        Mrs. Hartzler................................................    53

    Questions Submitted by Members Post Hearing:

        [There were no Questions submitted post hearing.]

      AIR FORCE PROJECTION FORCES AVIATION PROGRAMS AND CAPABILITIES FOR
                                FISCAL YEAR 2017

                                  ----------

                      House of Representatives,
                           Committee on Armed Services,
                Subcommittee on Seapower and Projection Forces,
                                Washington, DC, Tuesday, March 1, 2016.
        The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 1:03 p.m., in
    room 2212, 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. Today, the subcommittee
    convenes to receive testimony on the fiscal year 2017 Air Force
    budget request, regarding bomber, tanker, and airlift
    acquisition programs. The distinguished panel of Air Force
    leaders testifying before us are Lieutenant General Mike
    Holmes, Air Force Deputy Chief of Staff for Strategic Plans and
    Requirements, and Lieutenant General Arnold W. Bunch, Jr.,
    United States Air Force Military Deputy, Office of the
    Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Acquisition.
        Gentlemen, we thank you both for your service to our
    country and for taking the time to be with us today. The fiscal
    year 2017 budget request for Air Force projection forces is a
    good step forward to support our national defense.
        I am pleased to see continued investment in recapitalizing
    the aging bomber and air refueling fleets with the critically
    needed Long Range Strike Bomber [LRS-B], recently designated
    the B-21, and the KC-46A tanker.
        The budget also takes some steps to modernize the legacy C-
    130H tactical airlift fleet. That said, I continue to be
    concerned about the ability of our military to properly provide
    for our Nation's defense at the proposed fiscal year 2017
    budget levels.
        As I and many of the members of this subcommittee indicated
    in a letter to the chairman of the Budget Committee, this
    year's budget request reduced investment in critical force
    structure and modernization programs by approximately $18
    billion.
        Specifically, I am concerned about the implications of
    delaying the incremental replacement of the C-130H fleet and
    the proposed reduction of 27 C-130s. The Air Force has
    previously assessed that there is moderate risk with reduced C-
    130 force structure, and another reduction further places our
    national security at even greater risk.
        It seems to me that the budget request will result in a
    tactical airlift fleet that is smaller and older, a dangerous
    combination. The Air Force budget rollout indicated ``the Air
    Force is one of the smallest, busiest, and oldest and least
    ready fleets in our history.''
        It is my firm conviction, in light of the higher-end
    threats posed by China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea, that the
    Air Force have the resources it needs to fully support--and if
    possible accelerate--critical recapitalization programs; to
    include purchasing additional aircraft with each dollar saved,
    if the war fighting requirements demand it.
        With regards to bombers, last week the Air Force designated
    the Long Range Strike Bomber as the B-21 bomber. I fully
    support this critical program and am pleased to see that we
    are, once again, moving forward on this new platform, which
    will be needed for projecting power over long distances and
    into denied environments.
        With regard to tankers, I am pleased to see that the KC-46A
    program appears to be on track after overcoming some initial
    setbacks and is continuing to execute a highly compressed test
    and certification schedule that has little room for error. I
    look forward to hearing your thoughts on this program, and
    whether or not the first 18 aircraft will be delivered in time
    to meet the August 2017 contract deadline.
        Lastly, I am concerned that this budget fails to provide
    the resources needed to procure the avionics upgrades needed to
    ensure that the entire fleet of tankers, airlifters, and
    bombers are able to cooperate safely in compliance with the FAA
    [Federal Aviation Administration] mandated next-generation air
    traffic management standards by January 1, 2020.
        The civilian aviation sector is rapidly moving toward
    compliance, and I am concerned that our military aircraft could
    be shut out of the airspace they need for transit and training.
        In sum, while I am pleased that the Air Force fiscal year
    2017 budget request makes up some lost ground over last year, I
    am concerned that the proposed budget forces the Air Force and
    its sister services to make false choices between capability,
    capacity, and safety, when the undeniable reality is that our
    military needs all of the above.
        I firmly believe that what this subcommittee and the rest
    of Congress does about national defense and military readiness
    will be a defining issue. I firmly believe that we need a
    strong Air Force, equipped with the most capable aircraft that
    enable our men and women to carry out their missions
    effectively and safely.
        To do this, we need leadership in national security. We
    need an unambiguous declaration that our national security is
    our preeminent responsibility.
        Once again, I want to thank our witnesses for participating
    in our hearing this afternoon. And I look forward to discussing
    these important topics.
        And, with that, I turn to my good friend and colleague, the
    ranking member of the subcommittee, Joe Courtney.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Forbes can be found in the
    Appendix on page 27.]

         STATEMENT OF HON. JOE COURTNEY, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM
       CONNECTICUT, RANKING MEMBER, SUBCOMMITTEE ON SEAPOWER AND
                           PROJECTION FORCES

        Mr. Courtney. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for
    holding this hearing on the 2017 Air Force budget request for
    projection forces program, under the jurisdiction of our
    subcommittee. And thank you, as well, to our distinguished
    witnesses that are here today.
        The tankers, bombers, and airlift programs that fall under
    the projection forces side of our panel's oversight serve as
    the backbone of our Nation's ability to conduct operations and
    preserve our Nation's interests around the world.
        As we know all too well, however, they all share the common
    enemy of age. The tankers and bombers in service today are
    largely legacy aircraft that, in most cases, are much older
    than the airmen and women who fly them.
        As we have heard repeatedly in our hearings over the last
    year, the need to modernize and recapitalize these aircraft and
    their capabilities is increasingly critical. Rapidly improving
    A2/AD [anti-access/area denial] capabilities, long-range
    weapons, and sensing technologies make upgrading and replacing
    our legacy fleets that much more important.
        In order to meet these challenges, we must make the right
    investments today to ensure that we stay ahead of these trends.
    In my view, the 2017 budget we are considering here today makes
    important investments toward this goal and, on the whole, moves
    us in the right direction.
        Most notably, the budget continues to reflect the high
    strategic priority placed on two critical recapitalization
    programs, the KC-46A Pegasus tanker and the newly designated B-
    21 Long Range Strike Bomber.
        Both programs have recently seen important milestones in
    their progress. For example, a KC-46A successfully conducted an
    in-flight refueling of an F/A-18 Hornet last month, making the
    aircraft's first use of the tanker's hose and drogue system.
        And the B-21 bomber recently saw the restart of the
    program, following the conclusion of a protest of the contract
    award. Together, these developments show continued progress
    toward rebuilding the essential backbone of our force
    projection capabilities. And I look forward to an update on the
    status of these two efforts.
        An ongoing area of concern for me is the modernization of
    our C-130H fleet. The ``Flying Yankees'' of the 103d Airlift
    Wing in Connecticut have largely completed their transition to
    their new C-130H flying mission.
        This mission, which ends several years of uncertainty about
    losing their A-10 mission in BRAC [Base Realignment and
    Closure] 2005, provides a sustainable and relevant role for our
    State and an important mobility capability for our Nation.
        Until last year, Congress and the Air Force had struggled
    to move forward on a clear plan to modernize our C-130Hs.
    Working with Air Force officials that are here, General Holmes,
    in particular, we included language in the 2016 NDAA [National
    Defense Authorization Act] to allow the service to move forward
    with a two-part modernization program to meet near-term FAA and
    international airspace mandates that go into effect in 2020 and
    then focus on the longer-term upgrades, to ensure the viability
    of the fleet well into the future.
        I am pleased that the budget accelerates both modernization
    efforts, known as AMP 1 [Avionics Modernization Program] and
    AMP 2, for the C-130H fleet. It is my understanding that,
    through this budget, the Air Force intends to have most, if not
    all, of the fleet airspace compliant by the 2020 deadline.
        Further, the budget outlines a plan to install 42 Increment
    2 upgrades by 2021 and to the rest of the fleet by 2028. I look
    forward to hearing from the witnesses about ways in which the
    Air Force, with the support of Congress, can continue to
    accelerate Increment 2 to meet the enduring need for these
    workhorses of our Nation's airlift.
        Finally, over the last year, Congress has made meaningful
    and bipartisan progress in limiting the impact of sequestration
    and the Budget Control Act [BCA]. While partially limiting the
    across-the-board cuts in 2016 and 2017 was important, the fact
    remains that our Air Force, like the military at large, remains
    handcuffed by sequestration in 2018 and beyond.
        Ever since passage of the Bipartisan Budget Act [BBA] last
    fall, several world events have further demonstrated just how
    important it is for all of us on this committee and our
    colleagues to work on both sides of the aisle in Congress to
    come together to make the compromises needed to protect our
    security and support the needs of our Nation.
        I look forward to hearing from our witnesses and our
    colleagues on the subcommittee.
        And, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Courtney can be found in the
    Appendix on page 29.]
        Mr. Forbes. Thank you, Mr. Courtney.
        And as we indicated at the beginning, we are delighted to
    have both of you here, and we are looking forward to your
    testimony. General Bunch, it is my understanding that you are
    going to go first. So we are looking forward to your remarks.
    And just so both of you know, we are going to put your written
    statement in the record in its entirety. So feel free to
    reference it any way that you may feel appropriate to do.

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

        General Bunch. Thank you, Chairman Forbes, Ranking Member
    Courtney, and other distinguished members for this opportunity
    to address the subcommittee. I greatly appreciate the work you
    do and the support you provide the warfighter in the United
    States Air Force.
        General Holmes and I did prepare a joint statement, and you
    have submitted it. I will not go through that here. I will make
    a few opening remarks, and then I will turn it over to General
    Holmes.
        We are here to discuss the fiscal year 2017 budget we
    submitted and some of the tough choices we made, as we
    finalized the budget. While the members of our Air Force are
    razor sharp, dependable, and ready as ever, we cannot say the
    same for many of our mainstay weapons systems.
        The United States Air Force has, essentially, been in a
    wartime posture since 1991. This rate of deployment and
    constant readiness, spanning a quarter century, has taken its
    toll. You have heard the phrases used to describe our aircraft
    so many times that they almost become cliches.
        Twenty-one aircraft fleets that would qualify for antique
    license plates in the State of Virginia, many pilots flying
    aircraft older than they are, and, in some cases, third-
    generation pilots flying the same aircraft as their grandfather
    flew.
        In order to maintain an edge against our adversaries, as
    well as to reverse the trend of the increasing budget drain of
    operations and sustainment cost for these aging platforms, the
    Air Force must modernize.
        The Air Force has several competing choices, as we continue
    to modernize and recapitalize our aging fleets, while ensuring
    an appropriate level of readiness to support today's conflicts.
    It is imperative we get this balance right to ensure we not
    only win today's fight, but also stand ready to address
    tomorrow's threats.
        Our bomber, tanker, and mobility fleets are the lynchpins
    of the Air Force's ability to provide global reach and global
    power in support of the national military strategy and the
    combatant commanders.
        Two of our top priority recapitalization efforts, B-21 and
    KC-46A, provide vital future modernized capabilities. We must
    keep these programs, as well as other modernization efforts, on
    track to deliver these capabilities. And we must execute all of
    these efforts in the most cost-effective manner possible, given
    the budget constraints we live within.
        Again, I thank you for this opportunity to testify before
    the subcommittee, and I look forward to answering your
    questions. I will stop at this point and allow General Holmes
    to provide his comments.
        [The joint prepared statement of General Bunch and General
    Holmes can be found in the Appendix on page 31.]
        Mr. Forbes. General Holmes, we welcome your remarks.

      STATEMENT OF LT GEN JAMES M. ``MIKE'' HOLMES, USAF, DEPUTY
         CHIEF OF STAFF FOR STRATEGIC PLANS AND REQUIREMENTS,
                      HEADQUARTERS U.S. AIR FORCE

        General Holmes. Thank you, Chairman Forbes, Ranking Member
    Courtney, ladies and gentlemen of the committee, and thank you
    for your continued support of the United States Air Force, our
    airmen, and their families.
        My good friend, General Bunch, and I grew up about 45
    minutes apart. And the people of east Tennessee are either very
    proud or very surprised to see us here in front of you today.
        [Laughter.]
        General Holmes. So thanks for giving us the opportunity.
        Mr. Forbes. I am sure they are very proud.
        General Holmes. So thanks for your continued support. To
    begin the discussion of our 2017 President's budget, it is
    important to frame the environment in which our decisions were
    made. Today's demand for Air Force capabilities continues to
    grow, as airmen provide America with unmatched global
    vigilance, global reach, and global power.
        Airmen are engaged defending U.S. interests around the
    globe. Every day, approximately 200,000 airmen directly support
    combatant commander requirements in response to growing
    challenges created by an increasingly aggressive Russia, an
    increasingly capable China, an unpredictable North Korea, and
    the malign influence of Iran, all in addition to the ever-
    present counterterrorism mission in the Middle East and around
    the world.
        While our forces have been heavily engaged in deterring or
    addressing these operational challenges, our adversaries have
    taken the opportunity to invest in and advance their own
    capabilities.
        For the first time in decades, our adversaries are closing
    in on our capability advantages. Our efforts to address these
    increasing challenges have been stymied by reduced and
    unpredictable budgets.
        The limited resources available, since the Budget Control
    Act of 2011, have hampered our ability to balance readiness,
    capability, and capacity. The 2017 President's budget trades
    modernization in the Air Force, particularly F-35 production
    rate and fourth-generation fighter modifications, but also some
    C-130J procurement, to sustain the capacity necessary to meet
    the combatant commanders' urgent needs for air, space, and
    cyber forces and begin recovering readiness levels after 25
    years of continuous combat.
        And while we are very grateful for the additional resources
    the Bipartisan Budget Act provides compared to Budget Control
    Act caps, we continue to face difficult choices between
    capacity, readiness, and modernization.
        This President's budget works to make every BBA dollar
    count, by aligning our force structure with Defense Strategic
    Guidance and making down payments on the Air Force's 30-year
    strategy, ensuring a credible nuclear deterrent and beginning
    the recapitalization of our aging nuclear force structure,
    advancing space and cyber capabilities, maintaining the
    conventional force capacity required to support current
    operations, increasing our end strength to begin addressing key
    personnel shortfalls, and investing in the research and
    development required to regain our capability advantage in the
    future.
        We continue to fund our top three procurement programs, the
    B-21, the KC-46A tanker, and the F-35 fifth-generation fighter,
    although, as I said, we were unable to procure F-35s at
    previously planned rates.
        Together, our nuclear and conventional bombers, in concert
    with our tanker and mobility aircraft, ensure the global reach
    and global power required to provide effective deterrents. But
    both our bomber and mobility fleets are aging, as General Bunch
    said.
        And, in fact, the average age of the B-52 strategic bomber
    and the KC-135 tanker make them both about as old as I am. And
    my staff pointed out that I qualified for AARP [American
    Association of Retired Persons] membership several years ago.
        To that end, this budget funds nearly $20 billion across
    the FYDP [Future Years Defense Program] for procurement and
    $4.2 billion across the FYDP in research, development, and
    technology for our mobility force.
        To support our bomber force, it funds $2.3 billion across
    the FYDP for procurement, and $16.2 billion across the FYDP in
    research, development, and technology, with most of that $16.2
    billion going into the B-21 program in its early years.
        We will continue to invest in and recapitalize these
    important aircraft. However, we need your support in the form
    of stable and predictable budgets, if we are going to build the
    Air Force that ensures the joint force can continue to deter,
    deny, and decisively defeat any enemy that threatens the United
    States or our national interests.
        Any return to sequestration-level funding will force us to
    chase short-term requirements at the expense of long-term
    strategic planning, modernization, and readiness. And our
    budget problems will only get worse between now and the end of
    this 5-year plan.
        As Deputy Secretary of Defense Work said this week, the
    Department will need about $18 billion a year between 2021 and
    2035 for nuclear modernization. And that comes at the same time
    as a huge bow wave of spending required to recapitalize our
    conventional ships and aircraft.
        We look forward to working with you in the years to come to
    find a solution to that shortfall. We thank you for your kind
    attention and continued support of our Air Force. And, along
    with General Bunch, I look forward to your questions.
        [The joint prepared statement of General Holmes and General
    Bunch can be found in the Appendix on page 31.]
        Mr. Forbes. General Holmes, thank you.
        And, General Bunch, we appreciate your testimony, as well.
        We had the Navy testify and present their 2017 budget to us
    just a short while ago. And we asked them a question we are
    going to ask you both now. Is this a budget whereby you looked
    at the threats around the globe and said this is the budget we
    need to defend and protect the United States from those
    threats, or is this a budget where you looked at the dollars
    you had been allocated and said, this is the best resources or
    the best utilization of the dollars we have been allocated?
        The Navy answered that it was the latter. If we pose that
    question to you, what would your response be to that?
        General Holmes. Thank you, Chairman Forbes. I would say our
    budget was driven by strategy, but it is budget constrained. We
    had to make hard choices within the programs that our strategy
    would drive.
        We balanced capacity, capability, and readiness, but, as I
    spoke, we traded capability to maintain the capacity required
    for today's threats and to try to move out to regain the
    readiness that we have given up in 25 years of combat. So it is
    based on strategy, but it is certainly influenced by the budget
    limits.
        Mr. Forbes. Outside experts, General Holmes, have said that
    the Air Force needs to buy 170 to 200 new bombers, whereas the
    Air Force says it is planning to purchase only 100 of the next-
    generation B-21 stealth aircraft.
        What risk does the Nation bear if Congress supports the
    current program of record? Is 100 Long Range Strike Bombers a
    COCOM [combatant command] requirement, needed to fulfill
    operational plans, or is it a budget-driven affordable number?
        General Holmes. Thank you, Chairman Forbes. You know, our
    current bomber fleet is just over 150 bombers of the 3 types,
    of which 96 of those are combat coded. Historically, as the Air
    Force has looked over the last decade or so at what our numbers
    should be for the bomber force, we usually end up with a number
    of between 150 and 200.
        And, last week, General Rand spoke of needing somewhere
    between 170 and 200 bombers total in the fleet. The fleet size
    of 100 B-21s is appropriate and ensures sustained high-end
    conventional operations, while also supporting the nuclear
    triad.
        And it is underpinned by extensive analysis and
    conversations with the COCOMs to make sure that the B-21 fleet
    will have sufficient numbers to provide the weapons and sensors
    at range, which are the hard part for us in anti-access and
    area denial environments.
        You have to have enough airplanes to be able to keep enough
    forward to be able to make a difference. And we think 100 is
    the right number there. But we also know that our future fleet
    will be composed of B-21s and some portion of our legacy fleet
    for quite a while to come. And we will have time to readdress
    exactly what that right number is, whether it would be
    additional B-21s or whether it would be some other platform at
    the end of that buy. Thank you.
        Mr. Forbes. So, based on your earlier response that this
    budget was budget constrained, your response would be that this
    100 number is not based upon budget restraints, but rather it
    is driven by strategy and our COCOM requirements?
        General Holmes. Yes, sir. I believe this number is. But to
    serve the country well into the future, we also need an
    appropriate fleet size that won't fiscally overcommit the Air
    Force within all the other requirements that we have to meet.
        So the 100 was our requirement. And, again, we will have to
    take a look at it in the years to come and see if that
    requirement changes.
        Mr. Forbes. Okay. For both of you gentlemen, DOD
    [Department of Defense] released a report in June 2015
    entitled, ``Plan for Modernization or Replacement of Digital
    Avionic Equipment.'' The report shows that the Air Force,
    unlike the Navy and the Army, has not made the investments
    needed to ensure its aircraft meet the FAA January 1, 2020,
    ADS-B [Automatic Dependent Surveillance--Broadcast] mandate.
        Why is this the case? And how does the Air Force intend to
    operate after January 1, 2020? If FAA does not provide a waiver
    to their mandate, what are the fiscal and operational
    implications for expediting compliance?
        General Holmes. Thanks, again, Mr. Chairman. So, if you
    look at the Air Force budget since 2012, right after the
    passage of the BCA, if you compare our budget to the 2012
    President's budget, we have lost about $70 billion in buying
    power. If you compare it to the enacted 2012 budget and the
    totals that were predicted at that point, we have lost about
    $40 billion in buying power.
        So when we had to find a place to absorb that $40 billion,
    we looked at this bill. The total bill for the Department is
    estimated at about $5.6 billion to equip all DOD aircraft with
    the required equipment.
        The Air Force's portion of that bill is approximately $4.4
    billion, so the lion's share of that bill. And, right now, we
    are about $1.2 billion difference in between what we need to
    accomplish the mandate and what we have committed in our
    budget.
        We have prioritized the airplanes that will be in the
    densest airspace first. So we prioritized our efforts in our
    mobility aircraft, and we won't make 100 percent of that
    requirement by 2020, but with your help, we were able to get to
    the C-130Hs. And we will work through those airplanes at the
    front end of the package.
        Some of our airplanes, there may not be a cost-affordable
    solution to implement it, things like the F-22. And we will
    have to accept some risk in being able to use the most crowded
    part of national or international airspace.
        But the DOD made clear, when the FAA passed the rule, that
    we would need some kind of accommodation. And, although the FAA
    didn't apply a specific DOD waiver, the rule does provide for
    procedures for an aircraft that doesn't meet the ADS-B Out
    performance requirements to obtain an authorized deviation to
    operate in that airspace.
        So we will be able to operate. We will be able to go where
    the Nation needs us to go. But we will be accepting some risk
    and delays, or in extra fuel in some of the densest airspace.
        Mr. Forbes. Does the Department of Defense need a waiver?
        General Holmes. We have begun to work that process with the
    FAA. The first waiver we provided was for the F-22, and we
    expect that we will need, at least, some kind of memorandum of
    agreement with the FAA prior to 2020.
        Mr. Forbes. And, again, if you would explain for the
    subcommittee exactly what happens if you don't get that waiver?
    And, for the planes that are not compliant, what would they
    have to do? What would that mean?
        General Holmes. So if there is primary radar in that area,
    Mr. Chairman, my understanding is that the FAA will have the
    ability to work to bring our airplanes through that area. As
    the FAA shifts to new technology to monitor, there may be be
    some areas that don't have primary radar. And, in those cases,
    controllers, based on their workload, will make adjustments to
    sequence us through.
        As we work through our C-130 upgrade plan, we were,
    fortunately, able to accelerate Increment 1 to where we will
    get all of those C-130Hs upgraded. And, as we work through the
    rest of our fleets, we will prioritize the ones that are in the
    busiest traffic areas in the United States that would face the
    most limitation.
        But we currently have parts of our fleet that don't meet
    all of the FAA requirements to operate in portions of the
    airspace. For example, our fighter fleet, the F-15 that I last
    flew, you can't get above a certain altitude in FAA airspace.
    You can't file a flight plan above it, but controllers will
    work you above it.
        And, so, we accept some delay, and we accept some higher
    fuel cost to be able to move airplanes. But we will be able to
    move the airplanes where we need to go to serve the country,
    but with some delay and with some higher fuel costs, if we have
    to drive around an area to get where we need to go.
        Mr. Forbes. My last question, the administration has
    proposed to reduce the overall inventory of C-130s by another
    27 aircraft and has proposed to delay the planned
    recapitalization of the C-130 fleet. Previously, the Air Force
    indicated that they had moderate risk in tactical airlift
    capacity.
        In my estimation, the budget request will make our tactical
    airlift fleet smaller and older. Can you provide an assessment
    of how the Air Force intends to support, with tactical airlift,
    if Congress adopts the budget proposals? Could you, General,
    hit your mic?
        General Holmes. I apologize. Thank you.
        Mr. Forbes. We all do that.
        General Holmes. Well, thank you, sir, for your patience. In
    2016, we brought a plan forward that would reduce our C-130
    fleet down to a combined size of 300. It takes place over time,
    about eight airplanes a year, as we work through this plan.
        The mission capabilities assessment study that was
    conducted by the Department says that we need 248 C-130s to
    meet the warfighting need. And, then, they estimated somewhere
    between 20 and 70 aircraft above that. So that would be
    somewhere between about 270 or 320.
        We believe the position of 300 is a good position in that
    risk. And they estimated those extra requirements would be
    required to do support for civil authorities or other things
    required outside of the war plans, in a worst-case scenario.
        We estimate that that 300 is a good balance in risk, if you
    compare it to the risk that we are taking in other fleets and
    across the other parts of the Air Force. And we think a fleet
    of 275 strategic airlifters built into 479 tankers and 300
    tactical airlifters will ensure that we will be able to meet
    the Nation's mobility needs by making use of that entire fleet.
        Mr. Forbes. Thank you. Mr. Courtney is recognized for any
    questions he may have.
        Mr. Courtney. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And, again, just at
    the outset, General Holmes, I just want to again publicly thank
    you for working with the committee last year as we have an,
    obviously, high degree of member interest, in terms of this
    issue of avionics modernization. And your intervention and, you
    know, just common sense really helped us get to a good
    resolution. So, thank you for that.
        And just to maybe get a quick update on the record, again,
    you have been pretty positive about your confidence level that
    we are going to hit that 2020 requirement. I mean, is there a
    contracting process that is begun? You know, is there enough
    funds in the budget, in terms of, you know, what you are
    projecting to accomplish that goal?
        General Bunch. We don't see, at this time, sir, we don't
    see anything that would preclude us from making that date.
    Increment 1 is fully funded for the 172 aircraft, and we are
    tracking that. We see no roadblocks to making that date, at
    this time.
        Mr. Courtney. That is good news. And, with regards to
    Increment 2, again, it looks like the budget that was submitted
    this year, you moved up the compliance to 2028, which, last
    year, I think we were out in the 2030s or 2040s or something,
    so. So, obviously, that is positive movement.
        So what factors, you know, are informing the current
    installation profile for Increment 2? Is that rate dictated by
    industrial-based concerns, or is it funding related?
        General Bunch. Sir, we have laid in to get all of them by
    the mandate. And, so, we think we have met the requirements,
    and now we are building a plan for which tails we are going to
    go first. And we are looking at that in a holistic look, as to
    the age of the fleet and how we go forward.
        General Holmes. And, if I could, Ranking Member Courtney, I
    would add that, as you look at how fast you are able to
    complete those Increment 2 kits, one of the considerations is
    how many airplanes can you take out of use at a time?
        And, so, we think we have built it at a rate that we can
    manage that risk, by taking the airplanes out of use to be able
    to do that lengthier Increment 2 modification, against our need
    to get it done as fast as we can.
        And, so, we think that schedule is about the right balance
    of risk between delaying the modernization and making sure that
    we have enough airplanes available out of that total fleet of
    300 to meet the requirement.
        Mr. Courtney. Great. Then, can I just have one other
    question, which is about, again, the C-130s, which is the issue
    of propulsion and propeller upgrades for the C-130s. You know,
    Congress, obviously, has shown a pretty clear and continued
    interest in C-130H engine and prop [propulsion/propeller]
    upgrades that have provided increased efficiency.
        What efforts is the Air Force making to program funding to
    ensure that the entire fleet receives those types of
    improvements?
        General Bunch. So, right now, sir, and thank you for the
    question, what the Air Force is doing is we have started an
    operational assessment. And we are doing that operational
    utility evaluation of the three propulsion modernization
    efforts that we had started. We had done each of those
    incrementally or individually, but we hadn't done those
    synchronized together in one thing.
        So, we are now doing an operation or evaluation with the
    Air National Guard and the Air Force Reserve Test Center at
    Tucson. That will complete in July of 2017. And we get through
    that, we look at the criteria and how it is scored out. Then we
    will make a determination of whether we continue to fill that
    across the fleet or how we would go forward.
        Mr. Forbes. The gentlelady from Missouri, Mrs. Hartzler, is
    recognized for 5 minutes.
        Mrs. Hartzler. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I
    would have to say, General, that the citizens of Tennessee, no
    doubt, are very proud of both of you. So quite an
    accomplishment. Appreciate what you do.
        I wanted to follow up, actually, on what the ranking member
    was questioning about the propellers and the engines. Can you,
    just going forward, tell us about how fuel efficiency would be
    impacted by the investment in propeller and engine
    modernizations?
        General Bunch. Ma'am, I do not have a number in front of
    me. I know that is one of the factors that we will weigh out in
    the operational evaluation, will be to determine how much fuel
    savings there are, so that we could do the cost capability
    analysis, but I do not have a number on me. I will take that
    for the record.
        [The information referred to can be found in the Appendix
    on page 53.]
        Mrs. Hartzler. Okay. Great. But that is very important, and
    we would be interested to see what your evaluation comes up
    with in July. As far as the LRS-B program, can you explain the
    $3.5 billion reduction across the FYDP for the program?
        General Bunch. Yes, ma'am. The way the program was set up,
    we had estimated our costs by using a program office estimate.
    And we had done that up until the point that we got an
    independent cost estimate by an outside agency from the Air
    Force Cost--the AFCAA [Air Force Cost Analysis Agency] .
        And we also had one done by CAPE [Office of Cost Assessment
    and Program Evaluation] in OSD [Office of the Secretary of
    Defense]. And the result of that was the new independent cost
    assessment that we funded to. It was lower than the program
    office estimate. And the difference across the FYDP was over $3
    billion.
        And then we redistributed those dollars out to address
    other Air Force priorities, ma'am. That is how the number came.
        Mrs. Hartzler. Well, it is refreshing to see that the price
    comes in lower than we originally expected. That sounds good.
    And is the C-130H AMP Increment 1 and 2 fully funded to ensure
    the long-term viability of tactical airlift?
        General Bunch. Yes, ma'am.
        Mrs. Hartzler. Good. All right. Air Force rollup briefing
    states that the fiscal year 2017 funding gap delays the
    incremental replacement of the C-130H fleet. So can you
    elaborate on the impact of this delay, and please explain the
    risk associated with this budget request?
        General Holmes. Yes, ma'am. If you will allow me, I will
    answer that part. So we had eight C-130s in last year's program
    that were beyond the multi-year buy. And this program that we
    have brought forward this year eliminates those eight C-130s.
        And so we would stop at the end of our program multi-year
    buy. We will do the AMP Inc [Increment] 1 and Inc 2 upgrade to
    the remaining C-130Hs, and we believe that will give us a fleet
    of 300 aircraft that are safe, that are compliant, and that are
    modernized to support them through their life
        In a different budget positon, you know, we would love to
    be able to recapitalize some of the older C-130Hs. At the
    budget level that we are at now, we can't fit it into the
    program. But we believe we will provide 300 again, safe,
    compliant, and modernized airplanes.
        Mrs. Hartzler. And the last question. We appreciate the
    amount of money that is put in this budget for the defense
    management system of the B-2. Could you kind of explain this
    system and how important it is that we get this fully funded?
        General Bunch. Yes, ma'am. It is very vital for the B-2 to
    continue to have the ability to operate in an anti-access/area
    denial environment. And it modernizes it to protect that
    aircraft as the threat has advanced, which it is, because the
    world has watched as airpower has dominated for many years now.
        And they have changed the threats to get us to further out,
    and they have advanced. And this is just another step in the
    game to improve the defensive management system so that we can
    continue operating in an anti-access/area denial environment.
        Mrs. Hartzler. Well, we appreciate your support of that and
    all the platforms that our men and women in the Air Force need.
    So, thank you.
        I yield back.
        Mr. Forbes. And, General, can I just make sure we have
    corrected, or that you have an opportunity to correct if
    necessary. You said the program was fully funded. It is my
    understanding that the AMP 1 program is partially funded and
    the AMP 2 program is not funded through the FYDP. Am I
    incorrect on that?
        General Holmes. Sir, I believe that the AMP Inc 1 is
    completely funded, at last in 2017 and out. We may have to come
    back and talk about moving some 2016 dollars, but I believe Inc
    1 is completely funded.
        Inc 2 is funded within this FYDP. And in the 20-year plan
    that I am responsible to build for the Air Force, we have the
    money laid out beyond the FYDP to get us through that 2028
    date, which is outside of this FYDP.
        Mr. Forbes. The gentlelady from Guam is recognized for 5
    minutes.
        Ms. Bordallo. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and thank
    you for calling this hearing.
        General Holmes and General Bunch, thank you very much for
    your service to our country. I guess either one of you might be
    able to answer this. I asked this question at a previous
    hearing, but I will repeat it again.
        First, I would like to voice my appreciation for the Air
    Force's diligent work in moving forward with the acquisition
    process of the Long Range Strike Bomber. The capabilities that
    this platform will provide are extremely, extremely necessary
    to maintain the defense of our Nation and our allies.
        So, General Bunch, I will begin with you. There has been
    recent criticism from one of our Senators against the Air
    Force's proposed use of cost-plus during the early stages of
    the acquisition program for the Long Range Strike Bomber.
        Now, can you please explain why the Air Force prefers a
    blended, cost-plus, fixed-price approach for this program and
    what advantages, General, it provides, in this instance, over
    the traditional acquisition method?
        General Bunch. Well, thank you, ma'am. That is a topic of
    interest, and I am glad that I get the opportunity to try to
    address it. Let me start with, there is no one-size-fits-all
    when it comes to deciding what kind of a contract you want to
    use on an acquisition program. There are various factors that
    are weighed out.
        On this one, we carefully considered the full spectrum of
    contract options before a decision was made by the Milestone
    Decision Authority to go forward with a cost-plus for the
    engineering, manufacturing, and development.
        In reality, over 70% of the program, as it is laid out
    today, is actually on a fixed-price type contract. It is only
    the part that is in the EMD [engineering and manufacturing
    development] phase, is the only part, right now, that is in a
    cost-plus environment, but the vast majority of it is in a
    fixed price.
        The key factors that went into the decision to go forward
    with a cost-plus contract were the risk involved. And when
    there is technical risk and you don't really--you have never
    built something before, there is a risk that is out there, and
    a cost-plus environment is more frequently used in that case
        In this case, we had mature technologies to meet the
    requirement, and that was good. But now we have to integrate
    all of those mature technologies together, which carries risk,
    and we have to build a never-before-built, low-observable,
    penetrating bomber and integrate those on it. Those are the
    main technical risk areas that we have focused on.
        The other one that you focus on and that we consider is,
    can the contractor who is doing this kind of work absorb a loss
    if one were to occur. The example many point to right know is
    the KC-46 program.
        The KC-46 program is gone beyond what the Air Force cap, in
    the expenses, but Boeing continues to do that and continue that
    work, because they have a commercial line that they can utilize
    and they can continue to get benefits from. And the other piece
    they can do is they can get foreign military sales.
        Commercialization of a Long Range Strike Bomber and foreign
    military sales are not two things that we are looking at. So
    the ability of any contractor that took this contract to be
    able to absorb that and not sell it out, that wouldn't be
    feasible.
        And there are many examples that you can go back and look
    at where we have tried to do fixed-price development programs
    on new and emerging technologies, and many of those cases have
    not been very successful. But that is the reason we went down
    that path.
        We realize that one of the big concerns that people have
    with this strategy is the need to control cost growth, and that
    is a focus area that we have had from the very beginning of the
    program.
        We have used mature technologies, so we are not worried
    about developing additional. It is not--you are not developing
    a system along with the platform, you are just developing the
    platform. So we have limited some of the risk there. We have an
    independent cost assessment. It was done outside the program
    office, and we funded that independent cost assessment, in
    accordance with the law.
        And then, the other one we have on this program are stable
    requirements. Stable requirements and requirements control and
    funding with a good cost assessment from the beginning, studies
    have shown are the two main ways to control, two of the major
    ways to control, cost growth. So we are stable on our
    requirements and we feel like we are in a good position for
    starting the program.
        The other piece that we have implemented here is, our
    requirements control officer for the program is our chief. He
    has made it crystal clear the requirements are the requirements
    and no one else is going to change those. So we have a tight
    control on those, as well.
        The final thing I would say we have done to control cost
    growth is that we have structured the contract with an
    incentive structure that incentivizes the contractor in the way
    we want. If they do not control cost and they do not control
    schedule, they will, in the end, not get any fee. So we have
    structured it in a manner to control those cost growths, and we
    know this is going to be a topic of more discussion, ma'am.
        Ms. Bordallo. Well, thank you very much, General. It
    answers my question.
        And I yield back.
        Mr. Forbes. The gentlelady from Indiana is recognized for 5
    minutes.
        Mrs. Walorski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you,
    gentlemen, for being here.
        General Bunch, I have a question. What is your assessment
    of whether Boeing will meet its contractual obligations to
    deliver 18 KC-46As by August of 2017?
        General Bunch. So, ma'am, we are still cautiously
    optimistic. Boeing still assesses that they can meet it. They
    are committed to that date. They have put additional resources
    to make that date, but we have no schedule margin. And if I am
    asked why I am cautiously optimistic, we are still early in a
    test program that we talked about.
        We have been successful with meeting our milestone C
    criteria for an F-16, for the F-18, which was discussed, and
    also with the KC-46 receiving gas as a refueler. So we have
    made progress, but we still have a lot of progress to go,
    ma'am.
        Mrs. Walorski. I appreciate it. And then, also, I represent
    Grissom Air Reserve in Indiana, where many of those KC-135s are
    still successfully flying, thanks to an incredible work of the
    airmen and airwomen there. So I appreciate your remarks earlier
    on how old some of these aircraft are.
        I am concerned, though, about the program delays impact on
    the amount of time those aircraft will need to stay flying. Can
    you provide your outlook on the program more broadly?
        General Bunch. On the KC-46 program, ma'am?
        Mrs. Walorski. On the KC-135s and the KC-46 program.
        General Bunch. For the KC-135s, ma'am, we do have
    investment money laid in. We are finishing up the Block 45
    upgrade, which is to improve their maintainability and their
    reliability into more modernized cockpits. And we are counting
    on those being in the inventory for quite some time.
        We have also done the FAA-mandated things, or will have
    that done by 2020 so that we meet that requirement and they
    will be able to continue to operate. So on the 135 front, we
    are continuing to take an older generation of aircraft, older
    than myself, and continue to keep it flying and viable through
    investment, smart engineering, and teamwork with all parties
    involved.
        On the KC-46, we are a little behind on when we were going
    to do some of the initial fielding. We have delayed about 6
    months. The first two bases that we were going to field the
    aircraft at, that has been delayed because the test program was
    delayed.
        And we have not been able to get the spec verification
    reviewed and accomplished, and it corresponds to that. The
    aircraft are still being built, so they can continue to make
    the RAA [required assets available] date. And they are on track
    to do that, but until we can get enough of the test data and
    verify the performance, we can't accept those aircraft, and we
    can't put them out to the field.
        So, the program is progressing. We have been delayed on the
    test program, and that is one we are watching very closely.
        Mrs. Walorski. I appreciate it.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
        Mr. Forbes. The gentlelady from Florida, Ms. Graham, is
    recognized for 5 minutes.
        Ms. Graham. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good to see you both
    again. I had, actually, a different question, but something you
    just said just sparked--first of all, you are young. Very, very
    young. In terms of maintaining this aircraft, these aircraft,
    what is the maintenance, what is the process for maintenance
    that you follow?
        One of the things that concern me, I represent Tyndall. And
    when I went to visit Tyndall one time, I had someone pull me
    aside and say, the challenges that they faced. And I am sorry
    if this question has already been asked, if I walked in--the
    challenges they face with just getting a part, in order to fly
    the F-22. What challenges, if any, do you all face with the
    maintenance of the, let me use, the Air Force projection
    forces? Thank you.
        General Bunch. Yes, ma'am. So, we face challenges on the
    older aircraft. There is no doubt about it. We are constantly
    fighting diminishing manufacturing sources and parts
    obsolescence. It is one that the program offices actually
    track, so they can determine where they can get parts.
        There are certain ways that we will work together, and, in
    many of our efforts, we will identify where the trends are. And
    we will make investments in those from a supportability phase,
    so that we can modernize those components, as time goes
    forward.
        So it is a risk that we run on all the older fleets. What
    we also find is that we don't know what we don't know
    sometimes. Sometimes, we will find things as we go into depot
    maintenance.
        Sometimes we will find things out on the frontline that we
    didn't predict, simply because of the age of the fleet and how
    they have matured through the use and the extensive use that we
    have with the platforms.
        Ms. Graham. When you need a part, where do you go to get
    that part?
        General Bunch. The Air Force Sustainment Center, ma'am,
    runs our supply, and we also work with DLA [Defense Logistics
    Agency]. And they work through various sources to find those.
    Some parts for some of our fleet, we actually go to the
    boneyard, in some cases, and we will pull parts off of aircraft
    that have been retired for certain of the older aspects.
        But the Air Force Sustainment Center is part of Air Force
    Materiel Command. They run our supply chain, and they are the
    ones that have to find out the ways to go get the parts and
    track those down so that we can keep the fleet flying.
        Ms. Graham. Great. Thank you. Now I am going to go to the
    question I was originally going to ask. The chairman has been
    so wonderful to provide us an opportunity to learn about what
    is the emphasis behind the budget requests that are in the new
    budget.
        And I know there is different pressures that are on the
    military. Preaching to the choir, right? It is a Southern
    saying. But in your opinion, which decisions stand out as
    something that you, from a budgetary restriction, as opposed to
    what we need to be focusing on, which is making sure we are
    making decisions in the best interest of our strategic needs?
        General Holmes. So, thank you, ma'am, and as we work to
    balance capability, capacity, and readiness, which is how we
    think that the way we provide forces to the combatant
    commanders, in this budget, at this level, we made choices to
    give up some future capability in order to minimize the risk
    now for the current fight that we are in.
        So the particular items in this budget I would highlight
    would be the reduction in F-35s from our planned buy. And we
    were five short from where we had planned to be last year at
    this time. We are not able to fund all, what we call, fourth-
    generation mods, the modifications to our older fighter fleet
    that is required to keep them viable, as they fly longer into
    their service life, and then, also, make them useful in the
    increased threat environment.
        So we want to upgrade radars. We want to upgrade the radar
    warning receivers. We want to add new computers to,
    particularly, the F-15 and the F-16. And we will get after
    those, but not at the rate that we would like to.
        The chairman mentioned, we are reducing the C-130
    recapitalization program. So the choices we made reduce our
    capability for the future, in order to provide capacity and
    readiness for today's fight.
        Ms. Graham. Thank you very much. And I appreciate your
    answers.
        And I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Forbes. The gentleman from Oklahoma is recognized for 5
    minutes.
        Mr. Bridenstine. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. General Bunch, I
    just want to thank you for your commitment in the President's
    budget request for AMP 1 and AMP 2. I wanted to ask, is AMP 1
    multiple contracts or a single contract covering all of AMP 1?
        General Bunch. So it depends on which exact phase we are
    talking about, sir. So the answer, I hate to say, it depends.
        Mr. Bridenstine. Okay.
        General Bunch. We are using small business for the
    integration piece of this, and then we are going to be
    competing the installations. And that will be something that
    small businesses and a variety of other organizations will be
    able to compete for. It is a mix.
        Mr. Bridenstine. So would the small business, that would be
    a sole-source kind of set-aside?
        General Bunch. I don't know if we do the set-aside on that,
    sir. I will take that for the record and get back to you
    exactly how we set that up. But I was informed it is a small
    business doing the integration.
        [The information referred to can be found in the Appendix
    on page 53.]
        Mr. Bridenstine. So can you share with us when you plan to
    award AMP 1? You can get back----
        General Bunch. Give me one second, sir. Let me see if I got
    it on this chart, here. I do not.
        Mr. Bridenstine. Okay.
        General Bunch. So I will take it for the record.
        [The information referred to can be found in the Appendix
    on page 53.]
        Mr. Bridenstine. Okay. That is good. And then, can you
    share if it will cover non-recurring engineering and
    installation, or both? Both, or one or the other, for AMP 1?
        General Bunch. So we fully funded the AMP 1 program to do
    everything we need to do, put it in the field.
        Mr. Bridenstine. Okay.
        General Bunch. And to meet the FAA mandate.
        Mr. Bridenstine. Okay. And for AMP 2, is the Air Force
    going to use non-developmental COTS, commercial-off-the-shelf,
    for AMP 2, or----
        General Bunch. AMP 2, we are still building the strategy,
    but we have done that in Increment 1, sir. And we look for
    those type of activities to try to reduce our cost and to keep
    a viable supply chain and be able to do that in the most cost-
    effective and efficient manner that we can.
        Mr. Bridenstine. Okay. And I know this is not really the
    topic of this hearing, but since I had you here, thought I
    would ask you a question that might be a little off topic. But
    I asked General Welsh about it yesterday, and I was hoping to
    maybe get some more clarity. And that was on the Combat Rescue
    Helicopter.
        We have had reports that the Combat Rescue Helicopter is
    not going to be fielded for Guard units any earlier than 2027,
    which is 6 years after full-rate production begins. And I was
    wondering if there was justification for not fielding the
    Combat Rescue Helicopter concurrently in the Guard and in the
    Active Component?
        General Holmes. So in this case, Congressman, I will say,
    let me take that for the record for you and see. And come back
    and see if we have made a base-by-base plan yet. I am not aware
    that we have made a base-by-base plan yet, but I will come back
    to you and let you know.
        [The information referred to can be found in the Appendix
    on page 53.]
        Mr. Bridenstine. Okay. Thank you, guys.
        I will yield back.
        Mr. Forbes. The gentleman from Washington, Mr. Larsen, is
    recognized for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Larsen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would have questions
    on the K-46, but other than you all, the folks, good men and
    women on the line at Boeing, and me, we are all probably living
    and breathing it every day. And I know what I need to know on
    the 46. So I won't ask any more questions about that.
        I do have a question, just one, Mr. Chairman, on subject
    matter in your testimony on the B-52 and the length of time we
    are expecting it to, as a platform, to stick around, and
    combining that with all the discussion we have on A2/AD
    environments.
        And, so, if you could talk a little bit, maybe more clearly
    or any more details, specific detail about the B-52's role in
    the future in an A2/AD environment and from standoff and what
    we expect to be able to invest in it?
        General Holmes. Thank you, Congressman. I will start and
    see if Arnie has anything to add.
        Mr. Larsen. Yes.
        General Holmes. You know, we think we can fly the B-52
    through about 2050. And we think that we will probably need to.
    We need a mix in penetrating and standoff platforms in our
    bomber fleet.
        And the B-52, for all the talk we do about its age, is an
    amazing platform. It has held up and met the test of time. It
    is a testament to the airmen, both civilian and uniformed, that
    keep it working in the depot.
        We are committing money to upgrade their radar, in the B-
    52, to make sure it will continue to be useful to us. We are
    adding a tac [tactical] data link, so it can communicate
    forward with the other forces that are out there.
        We are going to do a crypto modernization program in this
    budget, and we funded upgrading the simulator to where crews
    can practice air refueling in that simulator, instead of having
    to spend money to go out and fly, to do that requirement and do
    it more often.
        So, again, to come back, we think we will need a mix of
    both standoff and penetrating platforms. And, particularly, for
    the long-range scenarios out in the vast reaches of the
    Pacific, the B-52 is going to continue to be valuable for us
    for quite a while.
        Mr. Larsen. Thanks, General.
        General Bunch. And I will add one item. The other one we
    are doing is, we are doing an internal weapon bay upgrade to
    allow it to carry J-series weapons, so that it can have more
    capability even than it does at this time.
        It has the ability to carry those externally, but we are
    incorporating that into the internal bay, so that it will have
    more capacity and capability than it even has today. And I am a
    lover of the B-52. That is the first operational plane I flew,
    many days ago. So I am happy to see it moving forward.
        Mr. Larsen. So just a followup, can you talk any more
    specifically about, with regards to those upgrades, about
    standoff weapons that become more of a----
        General Bunch. Well, any of the J-series weapons that the
    aircraft can carry will have to go through the certification to
    ensure that it will clear the weapons bay and everything. But
    JDAMs [Joint Direct Attack Munitions] or other weapons that we
    would normally carry externally, we will be able to carry
    internally. So it is the ones it is already certified to carry.
    It just gives it more capacity to be able to carry them
    internal as well as external.
        Mr. Larsen. Yes. Thanks.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Forbes. Gentleman, thank you. We just have a couple
    more questions. Then we are going to let you put anything you
    want on the record to clarify what you have said.
        Mr. Larsen was talking about the KC-46A, and you have heard
    that you feel that that time period will be met to deliver 18
    of those by August of 2017. What happens if they are not?
        General Bunch. If Boeing is unable to make that contractual
    date, then we will go into discussions with them for
    consideration. And, by consideration, I mean things that we,
    the Air Force, may want that we do not have in the contract
    today, that we would negotiate with them what we would get for
    any of the delays that occurred.
        Mr. Forbes. Okay. And when you negotiate with them, what is
    the leverage? Obviously, they will say they don't want to give
    anything. What is the leverage to determine how that is
    resolved?
        General Bunch. Sir, we have used consideration already in a
    lot of different areas. It is the teamwork and the discussion
    about how we are going forward. So----
        Mr. Forbes. And it seems to work?
        General Bunch [continuing]. We have successfully done this
    before.
        Mr. Forbes. Good. The last question, and this is not
    directed to you two. This is something we are going to start
    for the committee, as a whole, based on some information we
    were given at a retreat that the Armed Services Committee had
    last week.
        The written statements that you have both submitted to us,
    as I mentioned, are going to be put in the record. Did you have
    to submit those written statements to anyone for approval prior
    to coming here today?
        General Bunch. We did.
        Mr. Forbes. Who do you have to submit them to?
        General Bunch. We submit them to OMB [Office of Management
    and Budget] for review. They do a policy review, and then it
    goes to OMB.
        Mr. Forbes. Were any changes made between the original
    statements that you submitted and the statement that was
    ultimately submitted to the record?
        General Bunch. I am not aware of any changes that were
    made----
        General Holmes. I am not aware of any, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Forbes. Were you given any instructions as to what you
    could not say to this committee?
        General Bunch. No, sir.
        Mr. Forbes. And, General Holmes, same for you. And, again,
    this is not directed to you two. We are going to start doing it
    to everybody who testifies before our committee. The final
    thing that I would ask you is this.
        In your individual best professional military judgment,
    following up on something that Ms. Graham asked you, if you
    were submitting this budget, and if your sole priority was
    doing what was in the best interest of the national security of
    this country, both today and over the next 5 years, and you
    were not constrained by the budget numbers you currently have,
    what changes would you make?
        General Holmes. So, Mr. Chairman, thank you for that
    question. As, you know, almost 35 years in the Air Force, my
    experience is that I think there are two main things that an
    independent Air Force provides for a nation.
        The first is its portion of a safe, secure, reliable
    nuclear deterrent. And our Air Force provides what we call
    three of the four legs of the triad. You know, we provide the
    air leg, the ground leg, plus the command and control leg, in
    most of that.
        And I believe this budget makes the right investments for
    this FYDP, in that nuclear, but we are going to have problems
    again beginning in 2021, primarily for the Navy, and in 2022
    for the Air Force, on how we afford that, along with our
    conventional forces.
        On the conventional side, the next thing that an
    independent Air Force does for a nation, is it provides freedom
    of action in the air that makes all joint force operations
    possible, by controlling the air and space.
        And I believe that that is the area that we have given up
    the most of our capability advantage over the last 20 years,
    over potential adversaries, is in that air superiority mission
    that provides freedom of maneuver for the joint force.
        And I believe our Nation is going to have to make a
    continued investment there to regain that capability, or we put
    all the capabilities of the joint force at risk.
        Mr. Forbes. And how would you have changed that in the
    budget to accomplish that goal?
        General Holmes. So, in this budget, Mr. Chairman, I would
    say our options are pretty limited. We made a national decision
    to curtail the F-22 program. I think it is too late to reverse
    that decision. We are down to 120 combat-coded F-22s.
        And our F-15C fleet, we know in the last year we have
    learned that they are going to require major structural
    modification to continue to fly. And, so, we will put some
    money into the longeron part of that.
        There is two parts, to make the story short, longerons that
    we can replace in depot, and then fuselage bulkheads that will
    be cost prohibitive to do. So we have invested in this FYDP
    things we needed to do to keep the F-22's edge, but we need to
    move, I think, as fast as we can, as a nation, into some
    follow-on for the F-15, first, and for the F-22, eventually.
        We are finishing up a study we call ``Air Superiority
    2030,'' that we have briefed out the first version to our chief
    of staff yesterday. And we think that will provide a roadmap
    for us that we can come back and talk to you next year about
    where we should invest, to make sure that we guarantee that
    edge that our Nation depends on.
        Mr. Forbes. General Bunch, again, in your best professional
    military judgment, is there anything you would have changed in
    this budget, if you were looking strictly at the national
    security interest of the country, and you weren't constrained
    by the budget numbers you were given?
        General Bunch. Chairman Forbes, thank you for that
    question, sir. I agree with ``Mobile's'' [General Holmes]
    assessment of the triad. We have made the right investments
    now. That is one that is coming from an acquisition
    perspective, that the costs beyond this FYDP that we, as a
    nation, are going to have to decide what we are going to do.
        So that is one that we are going to need everybody's
    attention on. So we will just lay that out there, but I believe
    we made the right investments during this FYDP in those areas.
    The other one I will go back to is one of the things that
    General Holmes talked about was the cost of some of the legacy
    fighters and some of the inventory. The quicker we get the F-35
    in the field, the better off we are going to be in those areas.
    And that is one that would help us.
        I am happy with the support we have gotten on the Long
    Range Strike Bomber and that modernization roadmap. The big
    programs are all going, are all getting great support from all
    parties. But it is some of the F-35 and some of those decisions
    that will drive impacts to the legacy fleet that we need to
    watch out for.
        Mr. Forbes. Mr. Courtney and I appreciate you being here.
    We would like to extend to you now an opportunity for any
    comments that either of you would like to put on the record,
    clarification of anything you have said, things we have left
    out, whatever you think might be important for this record.
        General Holmes, we will recognize you first, and then
    General Bunch.
        General Holmes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and, again,
    Ranking Member Courtney. We are appreciative of the chance just
    to come and talk in front of you. We are appreciative of your
    leadership.
        Ranking Member Courtney, you talked about the Air Force
    working to get a solution to the C-130Hs. That would not have
    been possible without the leadership of you, Chairman Forbes,
    and you, Ranking Member Courtney.
        We look forward to continuing to work with you. I don't
    have any corrections. For the record, we have some questions
    that we will take to respond to you and to the members. And we
    thank you for the opportunity to be here.
        Mr. Forbes. General Bunch.
        General Bunch. And, Mr. Chairman and Congressman Courtney,
    thank you very much, for allowing and for your support. We
    greatly appreciate it, and we appreciate the questions today. I
    am glad we got the chance to talk about the B-21, and the way
    we are going forward, and the KC-46. Those are highlights for
    us, as an Air Force, as we move forward to modernize and
    recapitalize.
        And I have nothing that I believe I need to correct for the
    record. And we do have some actions or questions that we will
    take back to answer. And we appreciate your continued support.
        Mr. Forbes. For that, we thank you both for being here, for
    your service, again, to the country. And with that, Mr.
    Courtney, we are adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 2:03 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]

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

                                A P P E N D I X

                                 March 1, 2016

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

                  PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

                                 March 1, 2016

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

        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

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

                  WITNESS RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS ASKED DURING

                                  THE HEARING

                                 March 1, 2016

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

                RESPONSE TO QUESTION SUBMITTED BY MRS. HARTZLER

        General Bunch. A 2011 Air Mobility Command Business Case Analysis
    states that engine cell testing has shown the T-56 3.5 engine
    modification to conservatively yield an overall 7.9 percent improvement
    to the fuel consumption rate. The Air Force has not conducted a fuel
    savings analysis for the eight-bladed propeller upgrade. The Air Force
    plans to conduct an Operational Utility Evaluation (OUE) to test the T-
    56 3.5 engine modification in combination with the eight-bladed
    propellers and the Electronic Propeller Control System (EPCS) from
    January 2017 to July 2017. The OUE's data and final test report will
    support a fielding recommendation based on operational effectiveness,
    suitability, and affordability of these propulsion system upgrades.
    [See page 12.]
                                     ______

              RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. BRIDENSTINE
        General Bunch. The C-130H AMP Increment 1 Acquisition Strategy
    separates design, integration, and kit production from kit
    installation. Design, integration, and kit production, specifically for
    the Automatic Dependent Surveillance--Broadcast (ADS-B) Out and
    Enhanced Mode S elements of Increment 1, will be competitively awarded
    as a Small Business Set-Aside. Kit installations will be competitively
    awarded through the Air Force Sustainment Center Contract Field Team
    (CFT) contract, which offers lower costs. CFT contractors have proven
    track records for similar C-130 modifications and have demonstrated
    flexibility to meet schedule requirements. The scope of the
    installation effort is anticipated to be within the CFT contract
    vehicle's Small Business Set-Aside pool, and all efforts will be made
    to competitively award the installation to a small business on the CFT
    contract.   [See page 17.]
        General Bunch. The Air Force plans to award the design,
    integration, and kit production, specifically for the Automatic
    Dependent Surveillance--Broadcast (ADS-B) Out and Enhanced Mode S
    elements of Increment 1 in the second quarter of fiscal year 2017. The
    Request for Proposal was formally released to industry on 7 Mar 2016.
    [See page 18.]
        General Holmes. The contractual bed down sequence was determined to
    capitalize on the two issues described below. In order to get the most
    accurate costs, the delivery locations were written into the Firm Fixed
    Price contract.
        First, the throughput of HH-60W conversion and initial aircrew
    training is largely dependent on active duty manpower at the Kirtland
    AFB training unit. Earlier transition of ARC units would limit the
    available pool of active duty instructors eligible for rotation through
    Kirtland AFB, stifling the production of HH-60W crewmembers and extend
    unit conversion timelines. In addition, the ARC units require higher
    crew ratios to support the same number of helicopters. Thus training
    the Active Duty first will provide the fastest throughput of ready HH-
    60Ws.
        Second, the current plan will maximize HH-60W availability for
    deployment based on established dwell standards. Earlier transition of
    ARC units will prematurely limit the rate that HH-60W assets can be
    tasked from a redline dwell rate of 1:1 to 1:4, forcing aging active
    duty HH-60G assets to fulfill more contingency taskings into the late
    2020s.
        The United States Air Force remains committed to the CRH program
    and plans to have the entire fleet fielded by FY29.   [See page 18.]

                                      [all]