[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, [email protected].
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]