    [House Hearing, 115 Congress]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                            [H.A.S.C. No. 115-50]

                                    HEARING

                                       ON

                       NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT

                              FOR FISCAL YEAR 2018

                                      AND

                  OVERSIGHT OF PREVIOUSLY AUTHORIZED PROGRAMS

                                   BEFORE THE

                          COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES

                            HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                         ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION

                                   __________

             SUBCOMMITTEE ON SEAPOWER AND PROJECTION FORCES HEARING

                                       ON

                       DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE FISCAL

                          YEAR 2018 BUDGET REQUEST FOR

                         SEAPOWER AND PROJECTION FORCES

                                   __________

                                  HEARING HELD
                                  MAY 25, 2017

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                      ______

                             U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

    25-872                         WASHINGTON : 2018

                 SUBCOMMITTEE ON SEAPOWER AND PROJECTION FORCES

                     ROBERT J. WITTMAN, Virginia, Chairman

    K. MICHAEL CONAWAY, Texas            JOE COURTNEY, Connecticut
    VICKY HARTZLER, Missouri             SUSAN A. DAVIS, California
    BRADLEY BYRNE, Alabama, Vice Chair   JAMES R. LANGEVIN, Rhode Island
    SCOTT DesJARLAIS, Tennessee          MADELEINE Z. BORDALLO, Guam
    MIKE GALLAGHER, Wisconsin            JOHN GARAMENDI, California
    DUNCAN HUNTER, California            DONALD NORCROSS, New Jersey
    PAUL COOK, California                SETH MOULTON, Massachusetts
    JIM BRIDENSTINE, Oklahoma            COLLEEN HANABUSA, Hawaii
    STEPHEN KNIGHT, California           A. DONALD McEACHIN, Virginia
    RALPH LEE ABRAHAM, Louisiana
                    Bruce Johnson, Professional Staff Member
                  Phil MacNaughton, Professional Staff Member
                              Jodi Brignola, Clerk

                                C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------
                                                                       Page

                  STATEMENTS PRESENTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS

    Courtney, Hon. Joe, a Representative from Connecticut, Ranking
      Member, Subcommittee on Seapower and Projection Forces.........     3
    Wittman, Hon. Robert J., 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, U.S.
      Air Force; Lt Gen Jerry D. Harris, USAF, Deputy Chief of Staff
      for Strategic Plans and Requirements, U.S. Air Force; and Maj
      Gen Scott A. Vander Hamm, USAF, Assistant Deputy Chief of Staff
      for Operations, U.S. Air Force.................................     4

                                    APPENDIX

    Prepared Statements:

        Bunch, Lt Gen Arnold W., Jr., joint with Lt Gen Jerry D.
          Harris and Maj Gen Scott A. Vander Hamm....................    29
        Wittman, Hon. Robert J.......................................    27

    Documents Submitted for the Record:

        [There were no Documents submitted.]

    Witness Responses to Questions Asked During the Hearing:

        Mr. Courtney.................................................    53

    Questions Submitted by Members Post Hearing:

        Ms. Bordallo.................................................    57

        DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE FISCAL YEAR 2018 BUDGET REQUEST FOR
                         SEAPOWER AND PROJECTION FORCES

                                  ----------

                      House of Representatives,
                           Committee on Armed Services,
                Subcommittee on Seapower and Projection Forces,
                                Washington, DC, Thursday, May 25, 2017.
        The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 8:02 a.m., in
    room 2212, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Robert J.
    Wittman (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.

     OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ROBERT J. WITTMAN, A REPRESENTATIVE
         FROM VIRGINIA, CHAIRMAN, SUBCOMMITTEE ON SEAPOWER AND
                           PROJECTION FORCES

        Mr. Wittman. We will call to order the Subcommittee on
    Seapower and Projection Forces.
        And I want to thank all of the witnesses for joining us
    today.
        And thank you, for the members joining us for an early
    morning start.
        So today the subcommittee convenes to receive testimony on
    the fiscal year 2018 Air Force budget request regarding bomber,
    tanker, and airlift acquisition programs. The distinguished
    panel of Air Force leaders testifying before us today are:
    Lieutenant General Arnold W. Bunch, Jr., U.S. Air Force
    Military Deputy, Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Air
    Force for Acquisition; Lieutenant General Jerry D. Harris,
    United States Air Force Deputy Chief of Staff for Strategic
    Plans and Requirements; and Major General Scott A. Vander Hamm,
    United States Air Force Assistant Deputy Chief of Staff for
    Operations.
        Gentlemen, thank you for being with us today.
        The fiscal year 2018 budget request for projection forces
    continues to modernize and recapitalize critical Air Force
    weapon systems. I am pleased to see significantly increased
    investment in the B-21 long-range strike bomber and steady
    investment in procuring KC-46A tankers. The budget also
    continues to take solid steps to modernize the legacy Guard and
    Reserve C-130H tactical airlift fleet and recapitalize the
    high-visibility Presidential aircraft.
        That said, I continue to be concerned about the ability of
    our military to properly provide for our Nation's defense given
    the damage that sequestration may have had on our fiscal year
    2018 budget deliberations. Throughout the year in this past
    year in testimony to Congress, the Air Force senior leadership
    indicated the Air Force is one of the busiest, smallest,
    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 we provide the Air Force
    the resources it needs to fully support and, if possible,
    accelerate critical recapitalization programs.
        With regard to bombers, I fully support the critical B-21
    bomber program and am pleased to see that we are moving forward
    on this new platform, which is needed for projecting power over
    long distances and into denied environments. I look forward to
    assessing in better detail the classified portion of the B-21
    program to ensure progress on design and to assess proposed
    risk mitigation strategies.
        With regard to tankers, I am concerned that the KC-46A
    program continues to suffer delays. Even after overcoming
    initial setbacks, it is now facing a highly compressed test and
    certification schedule that has almost zero 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 adjusted October 2018 contract deadline.
        With regard to recapitalizing the Presidential aircraft, I
    want to ensure that the President has the capability to carry
    out the requirements of the office and that the American
    people, whose taxes fund these aircraft, do not have to pay one
    dime more than necessary.
        Lastly, I am concerned that this budget fails to provide
    the necessary resources to procure needed avionics upgrades.
    These upgrades will ensure that the entire fleet of tankers,
    airlifters, and bombers are able to operate safely in
    compliance with the FAA [Federal Aviation Administration]-
    mandated next-gen [generation] air traffic management standards
    by January 1, 2020. The civilian aviation sector is rapidly
    moving towards compliance, and I am concerned that our military
    aircraft could be shut out of airspace they need for transit
    and training.
        While I am pleased that the Air Force's fiscal year 2018
    budget request makes up some lost ground over last year, I am
    concerned that the proposed budget directs the Air Force 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.
        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.
        Obviously my clock is different than yours. The hearing is
    this morning.
        With that, I turn to my good friend and colleague, the
    ranking member of the subcommittee, Joe Courtney.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Wittman 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, and thank you for
    holding this hearing on the 2018 Air Force budget request for
    the projection forces programs within our jurisdiction.
        And thank you, to all the witnesses, again for being 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 bring and sustain the
    power that preserves our Nation's interests around the world.
    As we know all too well, however, these important aircraft all
    share the common enemy of age.
        The tankers and bombers in service today are largely legacy
    aircraft. These aircraft in most cases are much older than the
    airmen and women who fly and service them.
        That is why it will be critical that we ensure that the
    2018 budget properly invests in the refueling, mobility,
    maritime patrol, and long-range strike programs under our
    purview. Among other things, the budget continues to reflect
    the high strategic priority placed on two critical
    recapitalization programs: the KC-46A Pegasus tanker and the B-
    21 long-range strike bomber. Both of these programs are vital
    to ensuring that our Nation can continue to support operations
    around the world and respond when needed.
        Another continued area of concern for me and this
    subcommittee is the modernization of our C-130H fleet. Back
    home in Connecticut the Flying Yankees of the 103rd Airlift
    Wing have largely completed their transition to the new C-130H
    flying mission. Half of their aircraft recently deployed
    overseas on their first combat mission, which was a capstone to
    years of effort to stand the unit up stemming from the 2005
    BRAC [base realignment and closure].
        As we all well know, the C-130H fleet is an aging one in
    need of modernization. This panel led the efforts in the 2015
    NDAA [National Defense Authorization Act] to unlock the
    avionics modernization program needed to upgrade these aircraft
    with the assistance, again, of some of the witnesses here this
    morning, to meet international airspace restrictions by 2020.
        A second phase of the program is focused on additional
    cockpit and technology upgrades. We have heard testimony about
    the progress made on both of these increments of the avionics
    modernization program and would appreciate any updates on how
    the 2018 budget supports these efforts.
        Along these lines, Congress has invested substantial
    resources into other C-130H modernization initiatives, such as
    upgraded engines and propellers. It is my understanding that
    funding provided in 2016 and 2017 is currently on hold pending
    the results of operational testing being conducted right now.
    Given the strong interest that we have in ensuring that the C-
    130H remains relevant into the future, I would appreciate an
    update on this testing and the way ahead.
        Finally, over the last year Congress has made meaningful
    and bipartisan progress in limiting the impact of sequestration
    and Budget Control Act. While mitigating the across-the-board
    cuts in 2016 and 2017 with the 2-year budget deal was
    important, the fact remains that our Air Force, like the
    military at large, remains handcuffed by sequestration in 2018
    and beyond because that 2-year deal obviously has expired.
        World events will continue to further demonstrate just how
    important it is for all of us on this committee and colleagues
    on both sides of our aisle 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, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back.
        Mr. Wittman. Thank you, Mr. Courtney.
        Major General Vander Hamm, Lieutenant General Bunch,
    Lieutenant General Harris, I understand that you all are going
    to be providing a single combined statement so I will turn it
    over to you for presentation of that statement.

       STATEMENT OF LT GEN ARNOLD W. BUNCH, JR., USAF, MILITARY
    DEPUTY, OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE FOR
      ACQUISITION, U.S. AIR FORCE; LT GEN JERRY D. HARRIS, USAF,
      DEPUTY CHIEF OF STAFF FOR STRATEGIC PLANS AND REQUIREMENTS,
        U.S. AIR FORCE; AND MAJ GEN SCOTT A. VANDER HAMM, USAF,
     ASSISTANT DEPUTY CHIEF OF STAFF FOR OPERATIONS, U.S. AIR FORCE

        General Bunch. Thank you, Chairman Wittman, Ranking Member
    Courtney, and other distinguished members of this subcommittee,
    for the opportunity to appear before you today. We appreciate
    your service and the support this subcommittee provides the
    United States Air Force, our airmen, and their families.
        You have already introduced who we are at here. My
    colleagues and I previous to this jointly prepared and
    submitted a written statement, and I ask that that be entered
    into the record, sir.
        Mr. Wittman. So moved.
        General Bunch. We will not go through that statement.
    However, I will provide the brief opening remarks on behalf of
    the group.
        For the past 70 years, from the evolution of the jet
    aircraft to the advent of the ICBM [intercontinental ballistic
    missile], satellite-guided bombs, remotely piloted aircraft,
    and many other accomplishments, your Air Force has been
    breaking barriers as a member of the finest joint warfighting
    team on the planet.
        For the last 27 of those 70 years we have been in
    continuous combat. During this period we employed airpower in
    ways never envisioned and delivered unparalleled support to
    combatant commanders, sister services, allies, and coalition
    partners.
        While providing this unmatched operational capability,
    budget realities have taken a toll on our ability to provide
    for the future joint force. These many years of combat have
    taught us much--most importantly that the demand for airpower
    has grown in every mission, in every domain, and in every
    location.
        The world has watched your Air Force operate and the world
    has adapted. Our adversaries have adapted their capabilities to
    strike at areas we depend on to execute our missions, adapted
    their defenses to reduce our ability to employ our forces, and
    adopted many of our tactics and techniques, all of which reduce
    our ability to employ forces.
        Today we face a world of ever-improving adversaries,
    increasing threats, and a persistent war against violent
    extremism. This changing environment of increasing demands and
    commitments, along with a limited pool of resources to address
    issues and the threat of Budget Control Act and sequestration,
    makes our mission of providing unmatched Global Vigilance,
    Global Reach, and Global Power ever more challenging.
        The result of these changes is a marked decrease in our
    technological advantage on the battlefield. Where I once as a
    research laboratory commander would have said that we had a
    decided advantage across all fronts, today, if asked, I will
    refrain that we lead in some technological areas--we retain our
    lead in some technological areas; however, in other areas
    potential adversaries are nipping at our heels or are shoulder
    to shoulder with us.
        To address the shrinking technology gap we must continue to
    invest in S&T [science and technology] and modernize our forces
    to ensure our most valued treasure, America's sons and
    daughters, have a decisive advantage when we send them into
    harm's way. We do not want to fight a fair fight.
        The fiscal year 2018 budget we submitted is the best
    balance of our readiness and modernization we could achieve
    within the fiscal constraints we face. We take this balanced
    approach seriously as we must be ready for today while
    simultaneously preparing for tomorrow's challenges.
        The budget request you received continues our emphasis on
    recovering readiness, filling critical gaps, and improving
    lethality. The budget invests heavily in our airmen, our most
    valuable resource; readiness; nuclear deterrence operations;
    space and cyber capabilities; combat air forces; and
    infrastructure. It supports the end strength growth we need to
    start to address combatant commanders' requirements while also
    focusing on pilot production.
        We continue to maintain and modernize the nuclear
    enterprise while also prioritizing the resiliency, future
    capabilities, and modernization of space capabilities to
    operate in increasingly contested domains.
        The budget also supports research, development, and
    fielding of game-changing technologies. As a department, we had
    to make tough choices in balancing capability, capacity, and
    readiness while focusing on modernizing the weapon systems.
    These decisions were not made easily or taken lightly,
    highlighting that unfulfilled requirements still remain.
        As you are aware, the budgetary needs of the Air Force
    exceed projected top-line funding, as demand for our Air Force
    capabilities currently far exceeds our supply. Uncertainty
    looms over the department as sequestration and Budget Control
    Act [BCA] caps return with this next year's budget.
        Budget stability remains vital, and relief of BCA limits is
    necessary for the Air Force to realize its long-term strategy
    and meet today's and tomorrow's demands. If the law does not
    change or we get relief, it would lead to a repeat of the
    negative consequences of sequestration seen in fiscal year
    2013. We request your engagement and assistance to ensure that
    we do not go down that path.
        General Harris, General Vander Hamm, and I look forward to
    answering questions from the committee this morning. Again,
    thank you for your continued support of the greatest Air Force
    on the planet.
        [The joint prepared statement of General Bunch, General
    Harris, and General Vander Hamm can be found in the Appendix on
    page 29.]
        Mr. Wittman. Lieutenant General Bunch, thank you for your
    opening statement.
        We will now go to Mr. Courtney.
        Mr. Courtney. Mr. Chairman, I will yield to the members on
    my side who were earlier than I was. They deserve it.
        Mr. Wittman. No problem. And we will go to Mr. Garamendi.
        The gentleman yields to the lady from Guam, Ms. Bordallo.
        Ms. Bordallo. I thank my colleague for being such a
    gentleman. And thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you, to our
    witnesses, for being here today.
        As you know, I am a strong supporter of modernizing our
    bomber force, which is a key component to both deterrence and
    engaging in current conflicts. And I am committed to ensuring
    that funding for the new long-range strike, the B-21 Raider,
    stays on track and that we continue to make critical
    investments in our high-demand, low-volume fleet. Long-range
    strike is a key component of national strategy, and B-21 will
    ensure that capability is present in the future.
        Last Sunday, gentlemen, we saw North Korea launch its
    second missile test in a week. It is clear that our deterrent
    capabilities are as important as ever as we continue to see
    threats proliferate across the globe.
        We also saw the importance of that deterrent capability
    last year, when all three bomber variants were deployed to
    Andersen Air Force Base on Guam--the first time they had been
    deployed together in the Pacific.
        I have a question for General Vander Hamm. As best you can
    in an unclassified setting, could you comment on how a system
    like the B-21 will improve the deterrent posture of our forces,
    particularly as it relates to the Pacific theater?
        General Vander Hamm. Ma'am, thank you for the opportunity
    to be here and testify.
        And first I would like to say thank you to each of you for
    the support that you give to our airmen total force and their
    civilians that live in your districts. Those that are serving
    downrange, it goes a long way to know that their families are
    being taken care of, so thanks for your support.
        To your question on the B-21 and its relevance to
    deterrence in the future, having myself flown all three bombers
    and had the chance to command all three bombers, the deterrent
    capability of long-range strike, which gives the most flexible
    arm of our deterrent triad, you know, the subs [submarines] for
    survivability, for responsiveness in the ICBMs, but that
    flexibility you get in the bomber force allows you to lift and
    shift capabilities around the world.
        Currently you have a continuous bomber presence in the
    Pacific AOR [area of responsibility] and on the island that you
    represent. That presence sends a message--not only a deterrent
    message, but it sends an assurance message that our umbrella
    extends to our partners in the region.
        The commitment to the B-21 is a commitment to the long-
    range viability of that capability for now into the future. And
    as Air Force Global Strike Command works on its roadmap of the
    bomber force into the future, the B-21 is the big part of that,
    which is why we say we are looking for at least 100.
        So as they work through the exact number of bombers that we
    need, the lion's share of that will be the B-21 Raider. And its
    ability to message not only conventionally but with a nuclear
    deterrent sends a message into the mind of our adversary that
    today may not be the day that I want to mess with the United
    States.
        Ms. Bordallo. Thank you. Thank you, General. I guess this
    question would go to you, too.
        Now the Air Force leadership has indicated the intent to
    keep the B-52 in the inventory beyond 2050. It has also
    acknowledged that new engines would provide a 95 percent
    reduction in engine maintenance, virtually eliminating engine
    overhauls and reducing fuel consumption by 30 percent.
        Does the Air Force have a plan to re-engine the B-52 to
    take advantage of benefits that would afford in terms of future
    cost avoidance and operational benefits?
        General Bunch. So, ma'am, I will take that one----
        Ms. Bordallo. I am sorry.
        General Bunch [continuing]. If you don't mind.
        So we are--do realize that the engines we have on the B-52
    are not going to last through the life of the program. We are
    either going to have to do a service life extension program or
    we will have to procure new engines.
        We are looking at all of those options right now. We have
    some money in the 2018 budget to do some of those initial
    analyses and look at all those alternatives.
        And you are correct, ma'am, it is not just fuel savings; it
    is tanker savings, it is operational implications, it is
    manpower savings by not having to use as many maintainers on
    the flight line to be able to maintain those older engines, as
    well as what you talked about with the time it stays on the
    wing and the operational viability.
        Another factor that we will weigh into this are the
    diminishing manufacturing sources and the obsolescence that we
    face on many of the components that reside on the B-52 engine,
    such as constant speed drives and generators, and that we need
    to assess all of those to ensure that we have the growth
    potential for any power demands and we can maintain the mission
    capability rate.
        The Air Force is actively engaged in that. I got an update
    on it just last week on where we are at in the progress, and we
    are discussing with all the appropriate--and looking at all the
    alternatives for how we could or would fund that.
        Ms. Bordallo. Thank you very much, General. And, Mr.
    Chairman, I yield back.
        Mr. Wittman. Thank you so much, Ms. Bordallo.
        We will now go to Mrs. Hartzler.
        Mrs. Hartzler. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And it is good to
    see all of you. Appreciate all that you do for our Air Force,
    and especially good to see General Vander Hamm, who was
    commander of Whiteman Air Force Base when I was first elected.
        So I appreciate your long support for the Air Force and
    appreciate my co-chair of the Long-Range Strike Caucus,
    Madeleine--Madam Bordallo, and her questions about B-21. I kind
    of want to follow up on that.
        A very important program, and as your witness testimony
    states, the Air Force remains committed to a fleet size of 100
    B-21s, but I have heard different numbers from other people
    feeling like we need even more; and certainly, you know, even a
    range of some are advocating for up to 150. And as we have seen
    what happened certainly with the B-2 years ago, I have concerns
    that we are, you know, not going to end up with the amount that
    we truly need.
        So given the significant shortfall that we have in the
    bomber inventory and--do you believe that 100 is adequate? And
    should we be shooting for 150, or what is your perspective on
    that number?
        General Bunch. What we have briefed thus far is that we
    need at least 100, so we are not ruling out the fact that as we
    do more analysis we may need more. What we have looked at so
    far based on our extensive analysis looking at the campaign
    plans and looking at all the plans that are out there, we need
    at least 100 to be able to meet all those demands as well as
    meet the training requirements that we have.
        Those are all items that we will continue as we move
    forward, ma'am, to look at.
        Mrs. Hartzler. Okay. I will be watching that very closely,
    and happy to work with you to try to keep that number as high
    as we need. We need to provide what we need and not just what
    we can afford.
        And along with that, if we fund the B-21 at less than $2
    billion in fiscal year 2018, how would the development phase be
    impacted and would there be significant delays to the overall
    program?
        General Bunch. So, ma'am, we remain fully committed to the
    program. It is one of our top three priorities and we have
    fully funded it, in accordance with the Weapon Systems
    Acquisition Reform Act passed by the Congress, to the service
    cost position that was established by the independent cost
    estimate.
        So we remain and we are committed to putting in the money
    we need to execute the program. We need all the dollars that we
    have asked for to go into the program to stay on track so that
    we can deliver this vital capability that our Nation needs and
    continue to execute the program on the schedule that we are on.
        Mrs. Hartzler. Right. We look forward to that being filled
    in mid-2020s, so that will be here before we know it and we
    have gotta keep this--keep moving.
        I wanted to switch to the C-130. I think Ranking Member
    Courtney mentioned that, as well. Of course, Missouri has
    Rosecrans and we also have C-130s there. And they visited with
    me a couple times about the avionics.
        And I know you are planning to upgrade the cockpit avionics
    and displays of the older Air National Guard and Air Force
    Reserve C-130H aircraft, but there is concern among commercial
    vendors that the Air Force will overly rely on solutions that
    favor military specifications at the expense of commercial off-
    the-shelf solutions that are already proven successful in the
    civilian world of aviation.
        So how would you address this concern while ensuring that
    the Air Force is running a process that encourages and does not
    limit competition?
        General Bunch. So, ma'am, I will answer it in two phases.
        I think everyone understands that our focus for the C-130
    fleet is making sure we are focused on safety, and then
    compliance, and then modernization. Those are the three main,
    and then a limited recapitalization in certain areas. Those are
    really our four-pronged approach for how I want to address
    this.
        The compliance is the AMP Inc-1 [Avionics Modernization
    Program Increment-1]. That is to meet the FAA mandates. We have
    fully funded that.
        We have recently awarded a contract to get that program
    started, and we are committed to getting all that done on the
    130H fleet so that we meet the 2020 mandates. That is in our
    budget; that is what we are driving to, and we are committed to
    that.
        We are using and looking at using commercial solutions in
    that, as well. That was part of the market research we did
    before we went on contract to make sure that we were not overly
    driving a solution that drove military things and capitalize on
    what commerciality we can.
        We are continuing to go through the work on AMP Inc-2. We
    have delayed some of the initial steps as we get the
    acquisition started, but we did that because we had a robust
    dialogue with the industry so that we could understand what
    commerciality we could apply to the program and not change the
    end date. So our goal was: save money, drive the commerciality,
    and still meet the end date that we have committed to you and
    is in our budget that we are going to do.
        So we are very focused on driving the solution. There will
    be areas that we have already researched where the military
    specifications can be met by commercial applications. There may
    be areas that we won't be able to do that, but we are actively
    researching that to ensure that we are taking as much of the
    benefit from commerciality as we can.
        Mrs. Hartzler. That is great. Thank you very much.
        Mr. Wittman. Thank you, Mrs. Hartzler.
        We will now go to Mr. Garamendi.
        Mr. Garamendi. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Generals, thank you
    so very much for your service.
        And, as you probably know, I represent both Travis and
    Beale. Those Air Force bases have almost all that you do except
    the C-130s. They also have some other platforms. Thank you for
    the support that you have given to both bases. The Beale now
    has the KC-135s unit will be there.
        Of the many investments that you have been making, the C-5M
    recently traveled from Travis to Japan without stopping in
    Alaska, saving some 14 hours and a whole lot of fuel and time.
    Well done, gentlemen. I suspect that the continued upgrade and
    the availability of the C-5Ms will play out all across the
    world in similar fashion.
        There are, however, some ongoing questions out there, so
    let's get to them.
        The KC-46. I don't think we have had an updated status
    report, although I know it is on all of our minds.
        General Bunch.
        General Bunch. So, sir, that is a great question and I
    thank you for the opportunity to talk about it.
        We are--still remain committed to the KC-46 program. We got
    all of the money and we have got everything lined in. We
    continue to team with Boeing.
        We are making steady but slower progress than we had
    anticipated. We are running into areas of--where we are being
    delayed through our airworthiness certification through the FAA
    process and delays in our test program.
        We are at this time going through a schedule risk
    assessment with Boeing as a joint effort. Ms. Costello and I
    will get an update on that next week and then we will be coming
    forward to let everyone know exactly where that is at.
        Right now Boeing remains committed to the RAA [required
    assets available] date that we set last year that we were going
    to. Our assessment right now shows that we are a little bit
    behind that schedule and that we continue to work with Boeing
    to try to pull that back.
        Boeing remains a very good partner in that they are
    applying resources and trying to do what they can to make that
    schedule. We continue to support their efforts by making sure
    we provide all the resources we need to execute that program,
    but right now there have been delays in the testing and we are
    monitoring that, and as soon as we get the schedule risk
    assessment we will come back and give everyone an update on
    where we are at on the program.
        Mr. Garamendi. If appropriate, can you describe what the
    specific delays are?
        General Bunch. So, sir, we are not executing the test
    program in the--at the pace that we had anticipated, and as we
    modify the--one of the things for getting FAA certification, as
    components are modified they have to be reviewed and approved
    by that process through the FAA. That has not gone at the pace
    that we would expect, and if you don't get that done then some
    of your testing that you would want to do are blocked--the test
    points you would want to do are blocked, so those are all
    aspects of what we are balancing out right now to try and get
    the program on track.
        Mr. Garamendi. Some of us on this committee also are on the
    Transportation and Infrastructure Subcommittee and the FAA is a
    problem there. Is the FAA part of this problem?
        General Bunch. We are partnering with the FAA, sir, and we
    have been partnering with the FAA on this program for an
    extensive period of time. We continue our dialogue and
    communication with them. I am not in a position that I would
    say that the FAA is a problem.
        Mr. Garamendi. I note the look on your colleagues' faces.
        General Bunch. No sir.
        Mr. Garamendi. We will let it go at that.
        All right. The buyback of the C-5As--I understand that
    there will be a couple of--or maybe more than a couple of the
    C-5As that are off the line that will be bought back in this
    budget. Is that correct?
        General Harris. Yes, sir, if I may address that. When we
    look at what the C-5 is capable of we have 12 C-5Ms in BAI
    [backup-aircraft inventory]. We put eight of them there in the
    2015 budget that we were hoping to bring back.
        And basically these are airplanes that have been flying,
    they are just not manned appropriately in the units' ops and
    maintenance to take care of them. So we are going to buy back
    two a year for 4 years if we are able to have a predictable
    budget to get the fleet back to a higher quality.
        Mr. Garamendi. And just a final quick question: The large
    aircraft countermeasure program, is it online? The troops in my
    area always want to make sure that they have the best
    protection possible.
        General Bunch. Okay, sir, you are asking about LAIRCM
    [Large Aircraft Infrared Countermeasures]. I apologize. I often
    use the--I hate to do it, but I will use the acronym. But my
    understanding is the programs that we are working on with the
    LAIRCM program, I have not gotten any updates that we are
    running behind any of the schedules we have committed to the
    warfighter.
        Mr. Garamendi. Thank you. Yield back.
        Mr. Wittman. Thank you, Mr. Garamendi.
        We will now go to Mr. Byrne.
        Mr. Byrne. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Gentlemen, I want to go back to the KC-46A because I still
    have some questions. I didn't hear a date specific, and it may
    be that you don't have a date specific, but could you tell us
    if you do have a date specific? And if so, what is it?
        General Bunch. Sir, I would be--sir, I would not want to
    give you a date till I get the schedule risk assessment that we
    are working with Boeing and we have that dialogue. But then
    again, in light of how we have done all of our communication on
    the KC-46, I think we have been very transparent with all the
    committees on that program. As soon as we get that worked out
    we will come forward and we will brief everyone on where we are
    at.
        Mr. Byrne. I expected that was going to be your answer,
    that you are just not in a position to give it to us yet----
        General Bunch. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Byrne [continuing]. But I wanted to make sure we
    confirmed that today. And you are going to give that to us next
    week?
        General Bunch. Sir, I wouldn't say I am going to give it to
    you next week. What I would say is Ms.--I said next week--Ms.
    Costello and I will get a update the week of the--first week
    of--full week of June, and then once we get that update and we
    round it up to make sure that our senior leaders know what we
    are doing, we will make sure that we come over and explain to
    everyone where we are at.
        Mr. Byrne. As I recall, the award of this contract for
    Boeing, there was a competition and it was originally awarded
    to Airbus USA and then there was a challenge to that and there
    was a rebidding of it and Boeing came in with basically a--this
    is a new design. This plane didn't exist.
        General Bunch. Sir, I would say it is different--it is a
    variant off of their 767 line that they already had up and
    running is how I would couch it. It is a tanker, but it--a lot
    of the components are similar to what they were doing on their
    commercial 767 line.
        Mr. Byrne. Do we have U.S. aircraft that are being refueled
    by some of our NATO [North Atlantic Treaty Organization] allies
    using the Airbus tanker?
        General Vander Hamm. Probably--if you look at the
    Australians, the Australians have an Airbus tanker.
        Mr. Byrne. So are----
        General Bunch. So, sir, let me--I will take that for the
    record to make sure that I give you an accurate answer. I know
    that there are other aircraft that we have gone through some
    certifications with and we have partnered as the U.S.
    government, because of our expertise in the area of air
    refueling, we have actually utilized some of our test personnel
    with expertise in those areas to go help countries get
    certified to do missions to support our efforts around the
    world.
        But I do not have a specific answer that I would feel
    comfortable giving you until I go do some research, but we will
    take that for the record to get you an accurate answer.
        Mr. Byrne. Thank you. And I didn't expect you to be able to
    give me a direct answer on that if you didn't have actual
    information, but I would love to know that.
        General Bunch. We will give you that information, sir.
        [The information referred to was not available at the time
    of printing.]
        Mr. Byrne. That is all I have. I yield back.
        Mr. Wittman. Thank you, Mr. Byrne.
        We will now go to Ms. Hanabusa.
        Ms. Hanabusa. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning, to all
    of you.
        I wish that we could take these subjects in isolation and
    other branches of our service in isolation, but we can't. Like
    those of us who are on Strategic Forces [Subcommittee] at 10
    o'clock this morning will begin Fiscal Year 2018 Priorities of
    the Nuclear Forces and Atomic Energy Defense Activities, which
    is, according to your testimony, you--Air Force basically
    operates two-thirds of the triad. And, of course this all
    relates back to that wonderful thing called the triad.
        So I guess my question is this: If you are going to assist
    us in understanding your relevance and your importance and your
    continued need for the support in the fiscal year 2018 to
    operate two-thirds of the triad--and as you know, there has
    always been a discussion as to whether or not the triad is very
    relevant in the upcoming challenges that we have. Some have
    said that when you have China, Russia, and North Korea as your
    major--as our major threats in the area of nuclear that each
    one of those components does not necessarily fit the triad. The
    triad is an, I guess, agreed-to reaction to the Cold War and it
    was the answer to Russia.
        So having said that--and you are in Seapower; that is the
    committee we are in. And of course you have the issue of the
    nuclear submarines that we are dealing with, as well.
        Explain to me as best as you can why the priority should be
    as you have stated, which is, as you represent two-thirds of
    the triad, that we should be 100 percent behind supporting like
    100 B-21 bombers versus maybe another 2 Columbia-class subs.
    And it is because it--we don't have an unlimited supply of
    money, so we have got to--we are the ones who are going to end
    up balancing this.
        And my problem is if we talk to you all in isolation you
    all make great arguments. However, that is not the way the
    world exists.
        So explain to me why we should support what you want even
    at the cost of other platforms.
        Who wants to take that?
        General Harris. Ma'am, I would be happy to start with that.
        Ms. Hanabusa. Thank you.
        General Harris. Because it is a long journey that you have
    asked to--for us to go down this road. I think all of the
    services support all three legs of the triad. Each one brings a
    different piece.
        As we talked about, the subs that you support through the
    Seapower are that force that is hard to get to while the oceans
    are still opaque.
        Our bomber force brings to us a flexibility and our ability
    to message, and that is very important in a deterrent role. But
    as you know, we also use those bombers in our conventional
    effort, so that is one of the few legs that gets multiple use
    on a regular basis that lives in both camps or is dual-role.
        And then our--the throw weight, the big firepower is our
    land-based ICBMs, so that will be our GBSD [ground-based
    strategic deterrence] effort. And that is our least expensive,
    although it seems to get the worst press when it comes to if we
    go to a dyad wouldn't it just be bombers and submarines. And I
    would think that would be an awful choice for us to make as a
    Nation.
        We need each one of these because, as you said, the threat
    is different from China than North Korea, than Russia, and each
    one of these has a strength against those different threats. We
    do need all three.
        Ms. Hanabusa. I understand that. My question, though, is we
    have a limited amount of money and we have to make the
    decision, so what is your best pitch that if it were down to
    whatever monies we have and we are not going to do everything,
    why is it that the Air Force component--primarily the big-
    ticket item is B-21s--why is that the best way for us to go if
    we have to choose among two?
        General Bunch. So, ma'am, I will jump in, and I want to
    remind everybody we are going through a Nuclear Posture Review
    [NPR] so I don't want to get in front of our Secretary of
    Defense. I need to allow him the flexibility to listen to all
    aspects and go review this to make sure we come back.
        So what I will tell you about the B-21 is it--that makes it
    of value to us as the United States Air Force--and I would
    actually say we provide more than two-thirds of the triad when
    you consider the national command, control, communication
    network that we control about 75 percent of for the United
    States. So I would actually say we carry more weight than the
    two-thirds, but that is--who is counting?
        But on the B-21, it provides an unmatched flexibility to be
    able to reach out and touch anyone in the message. You can
    recall the bombers. You can send a message with a deterrent.
        So there is an unbelievable amount of messaging that can be
    done with that platform. You can do both the conventional and
    the nuclear mission once we get it certified for the nuke
    mission, which will occur 2 years after IOC [initial
    operational capability].
        So that is the reason for the B-21: that flexibility, the
    ability to recall, the ability to reach out and touch anyone.
    That is what that platform brings.
        Ms. Hanabusa. Thank you. I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Wittman. Thank you, Ms. Hanabusa.
        We will now go to Mr. Gallagher.
        Mr. Gallagher. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Thank you all for being with us here today. It is always
    a--budget time is always a good time to review the kind of
    force we want to buy.
        I would like to follow up on that as well as the line of
    questioning that Mrs. Hartzler posed earlier about the B-21,
    which I think is especially important given our experience in
    buying the B-2, where we kept cutting planned procurement
    numbers until we ended up with what I believe to be a wildly
    insufficient number of exorbitantly priced aircraft.
        And in recent years I have seen highly varying accounts of
    how many B-21s we actually need to buy, with at one point the
    Air Force listing a range of 80 to 100. That is a variance of
    20 percent, which seems rather large given the bomber's
    importance to the force of the future. And as I understand that
    and as you have said today, we have settled on this 100 number,
    correct?
        General Bunch. At least 100.
        Mr. Gallagher. At least 100----
        General Bunch. Want to make sure I am real clear there: at
    least 100.
        Mr. Gallagher. Okay, well to that point, I mean, how did
    you--can you just give us sort of the logic, the strategic
    logic that allowed you to arrive at the 100 or the at-least-100
    number?
        General Bunch. So we base ``at least 100'' on analysis that
    we have done of all the ops [operations] plans and we looked at
    all of what we want the aircraft to do as well as the mission
    set that we would need for the training. So it is not just 100
    to go do missions; it is at least 100 to do all the training,
    to do the depot maintenance.
        So it is not just a number that we would immediately
    employ. So there are a lot of components that lead into that,
    but we based that off looking at our ops plans, doing analysis,
    running scenarios, and coming up with a number that we believe.
        So we believe it has been scrutinized by a lot of the
    department and we are comfortable that that is a minimum number
    that we need to be able to execute the Nation's missions that
    it has given us.
        Mr. Gallagher. So short of a change in those missions, we
    should consider 100 the floor for the----
        General Bunch. That is what we believe, sir.
        Mr. Gallagher. But then you have these alternative studies,
    like the AFA [Air Force Association] study led by retired
    Lieutenant General Mike Moeller, which concluded that the Air
    Force needed substantially more than 100. And his analysis was
    driven by a historical examination of past air campaigns in
    scenarios involving North Korea, Iran, and Russia.
        And in an unclassified report he found that we would need
    roughly 60 bombers for a North Korea scenario and 103 bombers
    for an Iran scenario. Moreover, he found a conflict with Russia
    could call for as many as 258 bombers, if I am getting that
    correct.
        And given that a two-war standard has traditionally been a
    critical measurement of our status as a superpower, it seems to
    me that the right number of bombers should be north of 160 in
    order to factor in Korea and Iran contingencies. And certainly
    Lieutenant General Moeller agrees and calls for as many as 200
    B-21s.
        So, I mean, I guess how would you respond to those outside
    analyses that sort of project far above the 100 floor?
        General Harris. Well, thank you. If I may add onto General
    Bunch's question then, sir, those numbers aren't incorrect.
    When we look at some of these efforts that are put out there,
    we do agree that probably 165 bombers is what we need to have,
    so there are numbers that support that depending on the
    scenarios.
        But in addition to the NPR that is ongoing, we also have a
    National Military Strategy. It is an internal look that the OSD
    [Office of the Secretary of Defense] is doing through the
    Secretary of Defense, and we don't want to get in front of
    that.
        So our approach to it is it is an early decision. We know
    we are going to need at least 100; we will possibly need more
    than that. But as was brought up earlier, these aren't
    inexpensive weapon systems across----
        Mr. Gallagher. Sure.
        General Harris [continuing]. This entire effort, so we
    don't want to throw down a number that may change in several
    months. So we would rather sit back, say 100 min [minimum] at
    this point----
        Mr. Gallagher. Sure.
        General Harris [continuing]. And then move on and so--until
    we get guidance from the Secretary.
        Mr. Gallagher. So your next decision point is you are going
    to wait for the National Military Strategy, analyze that, and
    come up with an updated requirement?
        General Harris. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Gallagher. Okay. And sort of to take a turn in a
    different direction, I have never been on Air Force One and so
    this question is probably the closest I will ever get,
    particularly if you follow my Twitter feed in recent days. The
    Air Force One plans on recapitalizing with two--and the
    chairman mentioned this--two 747-200 Presidential aircraft,
    which will be over 30 years old by the time they are replaced
    in the mid-2020s, and we are moving towards the two 747-800
    aircraft. The estimated cost, I believe, is $3.5 billion.
        So just kind of following up on what the chairman
    mentioned, I mean, how can we assure the American people, at a
    time when there is a lot of scrutiny around the President's
    travel, that these tax dollars are being properly used to
    provide what--the office of the President what is required, but
    at the lowest possible cost to the taxpayer?
        General Bunch. So, sir, I will answer that one. So it is
    important and we need to make sure that we can provide a
    platform that the President can execute the duties of his
    office regardless of the situation that we find our Nation in.
    That is one that we need to remember as we look at what that
    platform is going to provide and what that platform is going to
    do.
        We do understand the need to control cost. We understand
    that. That is an undertaking that we are going after.
        Right now we have a $172 million contract with Boeing on
    risk reduction. Part of that risk reduction is looking at the
    cost capability analysis and doing trades with what we can and
    can't do and letting us be smart buyers.
        The other thing that we have done is we have worked with
    the White House Military Office and the Air Force and we have
    now agreed on a set of requirements that we plan to hold firm,
    which is one of the reasons we have been able to keep the costs
    under control on the KC-46. So we will continue to hold firm
    with those requirements that we have now agreed to and
    established as the min needed to execute that mission.
        We have two other contract actions we are doing right now.
    One of those will be the procurement of the two aircraft. The
    next one we will do to get to a preliminary design review as
    quickly as possible.
        And then what we will do is use all of our acquisition
    authorities to get the max [maximum], and I would ask for max
    flexibility as we use those acquisition authorities so that we
    can go get a contract to get this done and meet the IOC.
        We plan on being substantive participants in some of the
    source selections that Boeing will do. That will be the prime;
    they will do some of the subcomponents; they will be doing the
    competition for those, but we will be substantive participants
    in that. And we realize we have to efficiently and effectively
    acquire these systems because it is American taxpayer dollars
    that we are worried about.
        Mr. Gallagher. Thank you, gentlemen. Appreciate you being
    with us here today. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield.
        Mr. Wittman. Thank you, Mr. Gallagher.
        And we will now go to Mr. Courtney.
        Mr. Courtney. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, to the tardy member
    here.
        And again, thank you for the great testimony and great
    questions from my colleagues on the panel, particularly Mrs.
    Hartzler, you know, covered the C-130 issues nicely, which I
    did intend to focus on.
        So really only have one question, which is on the B-52
    modernization. Again, obviously this is a big piece of your
    planning in the future, and it has been a multiyear process
    that you have been involved in.
        And that is why when the budget came over it actually
    reduced by roughly $60 million the modernization efforts that
    have been built into the prior administration's--the Obama
    administration's funding for B-52 modernization. I was just
    wondering if you could explain, you know, that alteration.
        General Bunch. I do not have any of my program managers on
    the acquisition side coming to me right now and telling me they
    can't execute the programs that we have got laid in for the
    bombers. So without knowing exactly--with--I mean, if you look
    at what we are doing, we are doing the 1760 weapons bay
    upgrade; we are doing--finishing up the CONECT [Combat Network
    Communications Technology] program to give it more modern
    displays and to be able to connect and have it beyond-line-of-
    sight; we are starting the radar modernization effort; we are
    doing our investigations into the re-engining.
        We have got a whole lot of programs that are going on right
    now to modernize and keep that platform viable and flyable and
    able to meet the demands of tomorrow. My take on that would be
    that all we have done is change it for the fact of life of
    where we are at in the programs.
        I am not aware of any program that we have stopped or any
    program that I have hindered by the ability that we have put in
    for the budget.
        Mr. Courtney. So again, that number that--the new number is
    adequate?
        General Bunch. That is my belief, sir. And I will go back
    and do an investigation, and if it is different than that I
    will personally get back to you and your staff and let you know
    that.
        [The information referred to can be found in the Appendix
    on page 53.]
        Mr. Courtney. Great. Thank you. Yield back.
        Mr. Wittman. Thank you, Mr. Courtney.
        Lieutenant General Harris and Bunch, I wanted to talk a
    little more about the Presidential aircraft program. The
    President's budget request for fiscal year 2018 has a dollar
    amount of $434 million that are requested. The request reported
    last year was $625 million, so it was a $191 million reduction.
        First of all, is that something that the Air Force is in
    agreement with? Is it something that the Air Force requested?
    And can you tell me where that 30 percent reduction leaves us
    in first of all making sure we deliver those aircraft on time
    and making sure, too, that we are on track with cost reductions
    on construction of the aircraft?
        So any delays, obviously, that happened there, especially
    with Boeing, can have financial impacts, so I want to kind of
    get your perspective on where we are with that.
        General Bunch. Yes, sir. Thank you for that question.
        We are fine with the budget that is put in. Its rephased
    dollars align with our acquisition strategy that we are going
    for and we are not anticipating any changes to the dates that
    we have predicted for when we would deliver.
        Mr. Wittman. Very good. And you are still continuing on
    track with cost projections on the aircraft? I know we have had
    some discussions about mechanisms to use to make sure that we
    get the best price possible but also provide the Air Force some
    flexibility for the Air Force also to be able to get the best
    price possible.
        General Bunch. So, sir, we understand the critical nature
    of making sure that we control the cost on this program. We are
    very focused on that. I think you can see the level of
    attention the Air Force put on that by designating one of our
    most experienced PEOs [program executive officers], Major
    General Duke Richardson, putting him solely in charge of that
    after his great run of executing the KC-46 program and keeping
    that program on track. So I believe that shows to the committee
    and everyone our commitment to making sure that program is
    executed properly.
        What we would ask is that we are allowed to work with you
    if we decide on language we want to try to put for how we would
    want to structure what we are limiting ourselves to from a
    contracting perspective or a cost perspective so that we all
    understand the ramifications of those things, and we are doing
    it in a collaboration because we need flexibility to use all
    the acquisition authorities that we have while still
    understanding that this is a critical program to the committee
    and to the American public that we need to make sure we are
    executing properly.
        Mr. Wittman. And we are absolutely committed to that. I had
    a great meeting the other day with Lieutenant General
    Richardson and his efforts to make sure that the cost controls
    are placed on that program and that we have all of the
    different viewpoints necessary both with Boeing, the Air Force,
    Congress, and the administration to make sure we get the best
    price possible for the taxpayers, as I spoke about.
        Lieutenant General Bunch, I wanted to also try to develop a
    little bit better understanding of the Air Force's efforts with
    the Compass Call mission equipment. As you know, you all have
    appointed L3 as the lead systems integrator and empowered them
    to make aircraft procurement decisions in order to re-host the
    Compass Call mission equipment.
        And I wanted to get your perspective on why the Air Force
    is moving in this direction for critical mission components,
    and if you can give me an example about how you have used this
    mechanism using private entities in the past versus it being
    done within the Air Force or at least within a government
    entity, within the Air Force Secretary's office. Give me your
    perspective on how the decision making took place there and why
    you believe that L3 is going to be able to perform and make the
    critical decisions necessary on this critical program.
        General Bunch. So, Chairman Wittman, that is a great
    question and I will let everybody know that it is in the media
    this morning that Boeing did file a protest last week that is
    now playing out. We will let the GAO [Government Accountability
    Office] work that.
        We, the Air Force, remain committed to the acquisition
    strategy that we have brought forward to address this critical
    need, so we will stay pretty--I won't go into devil in the
    details; I won't go into a ton of that. But I will give you an
    overarching what we were trying to do.
        And last year in the 2016 congressional language we were
    told to go look at--do analysis of alternatives, look at a
    variety of different options for what we would do for the EC-
    130H fleet. After looking at all those, the most cost-effective
    and the most efficient and the most timely--timely being one of
    the critical components of what we are trying to do--came back
    with the approach of designating a systems integrator.
        We do not use the ``lead'' part of that. There are specific
    acquisition things that are tied to being a lead system
    integrator. This is a systems integrator, sir, just to make
    sure that I am real clear on the words that I am trying to use.
        And we picked that because the L3 has been--played that
    role as the systems integrator as we have modernized these
    aircraft for the last 15 years. They are the ones that are very
    familiar with the mission equipment that is on there.
        That mission equipment is highly classified to be able to
    execute the electronic warfare mission that we asked that
    platform to do. They have all the tooling; they have all the
    existing knowledge; and they have the modeling and all the
    information to do that work.
        This is a, for the preponderance of this, a non-
    developmental effort, meaning that we have had a robust and
    extensive program of modernizing the mission equipment to be
    able to meet the demands of the EC-130H mission over the years,
    and most of that will be simply cross-decked over and the--so
    they have the knowledge, having done that work, having
    installed that mission equipment.
        And then the last item that would be there is the short
    timeline. Our analysis showed that we could do it through this
    means and do it quicker than we could any other way, getting a
    critical need to address something out in the future--a threat
    that is evolving that if we need more details we can go to a
    different classification level and we will be happy to brief
    anybody on that.
        Mr. Wittman. Very good. Want to get to the decision-making
    element here, and it seems like what you are saying is that
    there is some advantage, then, gained by using a private entity
    like L3, based on their experience and outcomes as it relates
    to decision making within this critical realm as to integrating
    systems on this--on the application of Compass Call. Is that
    correct?
        General Bunch. There are advantages of that. And what I
    want to make sure, sir, and I apologize I left this part out:
    We are not stepping out of this and just watching the process
    play out.
        What we are doing is we will thoroughly review their
    aircraft selection decision to ensure that it was
    comprehensive, impartial, and compliant with all the applicable
    statutes and regulation. So we are not, as I said earlier on
    the PAR [Presidential Aircraft Recapitalization], we are going
    to be substantive partners. We will allow the system integrator
    to come in and give us a report of what they have done and we
    will analyze and scrutinize that and ask what questions we need
    to make sure that we are--that it was fair and there--it was
    equitable and we made that decision.
        The other piece that we will do on this is all of the
    routine things that we do in acquisition where we ensure that
    it is cost compliant, fair and reasonable with DCMA [Defense
    Contract Management Agency], DCAA [Defense Contract Audit
    Agency]. All those things will be done in this program, as
    well.
        Mr. Wittman. Very good. You had spoken about L3 being
    systems integrator, not lead systems integrator. I just want to
    make sure; there seems to be some disagreement there within the
    Air Force.
        On January 31st of this year Lisa Disbrow, who is the
    acting secretary, wrote a letter to Senator Murray and she
    stated, ``Extensive analysis determined this lead systems
    integrator approach is the most efficient, expedient, and cost-
    effective means to re-host the Compass Call capability into
    non-developmental commercial derivative aircraft.'' So it seems
    that the secretary there is denoting this as a lead systems
    integrator, so I just want to make sure that we are straight in
    how you determine and say that L3 would not be the lead systems
    integrator.
        General Bunch. So, sir, I will go back. I think I have
    submitted a subsequent letter that said it would be a systems
    integrator. I may not have that exactly right. But what I will
    do is go back and we will work through that to make sure that
    the position we are taking is clear to the committee and what
    we are trying to do.
        Mr. Wittman. Got you. Very good. Yes, I am just looking at
    your letter of 1st of February. You also refer to L3 as a lead
    systems----
        General Bunch. And I misspoke, sir, and I will go back and
    clarify what we are doing, but it is a systems integrator role
    is what we are asking L3 to do, and I apologize for any
    confusion.
        Mr. Wittman. And I don't mean to be picking on this, but I
    do think it is critical as far as the role that the government
    and the Air Force is going to take in decision making here. And
    if you are looking at that there is an advantage to L3 as a
    systems integrator versus a lead systems integrator and where
    the decision making is going to take place and what role the
    Air Force will play or what it won't play I think is really
    something important for us to understand because this is a
    very, very critical system that we want to make sure gets
    integrated properly.
        General Bunch. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Wittman. And to make sure that we clearly define the
    Air Force's role and L3's role I believe is critical. So there
    does seem to be some dichotomy there, so I just want to make
    sure that we are all clear on this.
        General Bunch. So we will continue the dialogue on that,
    the thought process through that with L3 having been the system
    integrator for the last 15 years, they are the ones who know
    what the cross-deck requirements would be better than anyone
    else. That was the driver--that and the other factors, the time
    and all the other factors that I--sensitivity of the--of the
    equipment--mission equipment and the mission. Those were the
    drivers that led to the selection of them as the systems
    integrator.
        Mr. Wittman. Well, that is good to know because that was
    behind my question of what advantage you gain. You talk about
    them having base knowledge; you talk about them having dealt
    with these systems before. The key is, you know, where is the
    definition in role between the Air Force and L3 to make sure we
    get it right so we stay on time, we stay on performance, we
    make sure that the integration of these systems gets done
    properly.
        General Bunch. Yes, sir. And we are committed to making
    sure it is. And as I said, we are going to be actively involved
    and watching that and we will get reports, analyze all those
    things to make sure it works.
        One of the big drivers, as I said, sir--and I apologize for
    going over again--the timing of this is really critical to make
    sure we see--we are ready for the evolving threat, to make sure
    we can execute the mission.
        Mr. Wittman. I couldn't agree more. I think timing this
    here is critical to make sure there are no hiccups about what--
    who is going to perform certain roles, because when there is we
    know that also elongates timeframes and can complicate things,
    so that would be great.
        If you would follow up with us, too, to redefine what you
    have stated to us today, I think that would be----
        General Bunch. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Wittman [continuing]. Very helpful to us.
        General Bunch. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Wittman. Very good. Are there any other questions from
    committee members for our panelists?
        If not, gentlemen, thank you so much for your leadership.
    Thank you for coming before us today and shining some light on
    these critical issues for the Air Force, and we continue to
    look forward to working with you as we go down these roles and
    making sure that these assets get delivered on time and on
    budget.
        And with that, we are adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 9:00 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]

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

                                A P P E N D I X

                                  May 25, 2017

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

                  PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

                                  May 25, 2017

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

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

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

                  WITNESS RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS ASKED DURING

                                  THE HEARING

                                  May 25, 2017

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

                 RESPONSE TO QUESTION SUBMITTED BY MR. COURTNEY

        General Bunch. The FY18 President's Budget adequately supports
    ongoing B-52 modernization efforts. FY18 RDT&E and Procurement requests
    for B-52 decreased $52M from FY17 President's Budget request due to
    revised program estimates and schedule revisions.
        B-52 Modernization assures viability to perform current/future
    wartime missions by sustaining and modernizing the fleet to ensure
    relevance, lethality and survivability. The FY18 PB request continues
    B-52 modernization and addresses issues required to maintain nuclear
    and conventional credibility.   [See page 17.]

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

                  QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS POST HEARING

                                  May 25, 2017

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

                      QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MS. BORDALLO

        Ms. Bordallo. Directed energy offers a deep magazine and an
    affordable way to engage threats. Can you address how the Air Force is
    working with the other services to ensure synergy is achieved in
    program development? The Navy has a directed energy system deployed on
    the USS Ponce, is the Air Force working with the Navy to build on their
    operational findings? Describe the ways the Air Force is potentially
    fielding directed energy? Are there plans to work this capability into
    our current integrated air defenses?
        General Bunch. The Air Force has developed a Directed Energy Weapon
    (DEW) Flight Plan to identify activities required across the doctrine,
    organization, training, materiel, leadership, personnel, facilities,
    and policy spectrum to transition DEW technologies from the Science and
    Technology (S&T) portfolio to operationally deployed Air Force weapon
    systems in a deliberate manner to minimize cost and maximize efficacy.
        Signed by the Secretary of the Air Force and the Air Force Chief of
    Staff in May 2017, the DEW Flight Plan identifies the revolutionary
    opportunities provided by DEW technologies. The Air Force DEW Flight
    Plan also charts a course that enables the Air Force to explore and
    exploit the opportunities DEWs offer to accomplish future missions in
    support of national military objectives. It provides guidance for a
    range of coordinated follow-on activities across the Air Force
    enterprise, including an experimentation campaign focused on
    operationalizing DEWs. The plan builds a transition path from
    technology development to a fielded weapon system, and provides
    feedback to the S&T, acquisition, and operational communities on
    efforts needed to support transition. To ensure directed energy
    technologies transition from opportunity to full potential, the Air
    Force must maintain a preeminent posture in the development of those
    technologies while also exploring a variety of new operational concepts
    and strategic military effects that address emerging U.S. military
    vulnerabilities and opportunities.
        One of the principal ways that DEW synergy is maintained across the
    services is the Joint Directed Energy Transition Office, formerly the
    High Energy Laser Joint Technology Office, through its cross service
    technology efforts, Strategic Planning meeting, and Annual Review
    meeting. There are also many relevant presentations and sidebars at the
    various Directed Energy Professional Society meetings. The DEW subgroup
    of the Government-only Weapons Community of Interest is also a valuable
    resource. All of these provide opportunities for both senior officials
    and program managers to discuss matters regarding DEW technologies.
        The Air Force supplied some beam control technology to the Navy
    laser system on the USS Ponce and we will follow their effects and
    system reliability data. There are vast differences in the
    vulnerability of Service targets, which range from close-in rubber
    boats, drones, artillery, rockets, and missiles, to long range cruise
    missiles, aircraft, and air-to-air missiles. The Joint Directed Energy
    Transition Office maintains the principal effects data base for the
    Services.
        The Air Force is looking at several DEW applications with different
    fielding opportunities. One application is aircraft self-protection
    using lasers. This is one of our more challenging applications, as it
    requires significant progress in size, weight, power need and power on
    target, especially in modern fighters. Another application is airbase
    defense. The Army has a ground-based integrated Air Defense mission,
    for which the Air Force and Army are working a joint S&T effort in
    ground-based beam control. The Air Force is also looking at airborne
    directed energy capabilities to support this application, especially in
    remote locations. In addition, as part of the execution of the DEW
    Flight Plan, the Air Force recently issued a Capability Request for
    Information to assist in determining possible candidate systems for an
    upcoming FY18 directed energy counter-unmanned aircraft systems
    experiment. A third Air Force application is using high power
    microwaves to defeat electronic systems. The Air Force demonstrated
    this capability in 2013 from a cruise missile; the Air Force and the
    Navy now have a joint effort to demonstrate an advanced capability in a
    more appropriate platform.

                                      [all]